Luther, vol. 6 of 6
Date: 2017-05-30T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Luther; Martin; 1483-1546

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Luther, vol. 6 of 6

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Luther, vol. 6 of 6

Author: Hartmann Grisar

Editor: C. L. Dessoulavy

Translator: E. M. Lamond

Release date: May 30, 2017 [eBook #54811]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by David Garcia, Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian
Libraries)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LUTHER, VOL. 6 OF 6 ***

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:

—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected.

—The transcriber of this project created the book cover image using the title page of the original book. The image is placed in the public domain.

LUTHER

Imprimatur

Edm. Can. Surmont,

Vic. Gen.

Westmonasterii, die 12 Martii, 1917.

LUTHER

BY
HARTMANN GRISAR, S.J.
PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

AUTHORISED TRANSLATION FROM THE GERMAN BY
E. M. LAMOND

EDITED BY
LUIGI CAPPADELTA

Volume VI

LONDON
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., Ltd.
BROADWAY HOUSE 68-74 CARTER LANE, E.C.
1917

A FEW PRESS OPINIONS OF VOLUMES I-V.

“His most elaborate and systematic biography … is not merely a book to be reckoned with; it is one with which we cannot dispense, if only for its minute examination of Luther’s theological writings.”—The Athenæum (Vol. I).

“The second volume of Dr. Grisar’s ‘Life of Luther’ is fully as interesting as the first. There is the same minuteness of criticism and the same width of survey.”—The Athenæum (Vol. II).

“Its interest increases. As we see the great Reformer in the thick of his work, and the heyday of his life, the absorbing attraction of his personality takes hold of us more and more strongly. His stupendous force, his amazing vitality, his superhuman interest in life, impress themselves upon us with redoubled effect. We find him the most multiform, the most paradoxical of men.… The present volume, which is admirably translated, deals rather with the moral, social, and personal side of Luther’s career than with his theology.”—The Athenæum (Vol. III).

“Father Grisar has gained a high reputation in this country through the translation of his monumental work on the History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages, and this first instalment of his ‘Life of Luther’ bears fresh witness to his unwearied industry, wide learning, and scrupulous anxiety to be impartial in his judgments as well as absolutely accurate in matters of fact.”—Glasgow Herald.

“This ‘Life of Luther’ is bound to become standard … a model of every literary, critical, and scholarly virtue.”—The Month.

“Like its two predecessors, Volume III excels in the minute analysis not merely of Luther’s actions, but also of his writings; indeed, this feature is the outstanding merit of the author’s patient labours.”—The Irish Times.

“This third volume of Father Grisar’s monumental ‘Life’ is full of interest for the theologian. And not less for the psychologist; for here more than ever the author allows himself to probe into the mind and motives and understanding of Luther, so as to get at the significance of his development.”—The Tablet (Vol. III).

“Historical research owes a debt of gratitude to Father Grisar for the calm unbiased manner in which he marshals the facts and opinions on Luther which his deep erudition has gathered.”—The Tablet (Vol. IV).

“We have nothing but commendation for the translation.”—The Tablet (Vol. V).

“Another volume of Father Grisar’s ‘Life of Martin Luther’ … confirms the belief that it will remain the standard ‘Life,’ and rank amongst the most valuable contributions to the history of the Reformation.”—Yorkshire Post.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER XXXV. LUTHER’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SOCIETY AND EDUCATION (continued from Vol. V.) | pages 3-98
3. Elementary Schools and Higher Education.

Luther’s appeals on behalf of the schools; polemical trend of his appeals; his ideal of elementary education; study of the Bible and the classics. The decline in matters educational after the introduction of the innovations; higher education before Luther’s day; results achieved by Luther

pages 3-41

4. Benevolence and Relief of the Poor.

Organised charity in late mediæval times. Luther’s attempts to arrange for the relief of the poor; the “Poor-boxes”; Bugenhagen’s work; the sad effects of the confiscation of Church-property; and of the doctrine that good works are valueless

pages 42-65

5. Luther’s Attitude towards Worldly Callings.

Whether Luther’s claim can stand that he was the first to preach the dignity of worldly callings? His depreciation of the several classes of the nation due to his estrangement from them. Attitude towards the merchant-class. His Old-Testament ideas react on his theories about usury and interest; his views on the lawfulness of permanent investments, etc.

pages 65-98

CHAPTER XXXVI. THE DARKER SIDE OF LUTHER’S INNER LIFE. HIS AILMENTS | pages 99-186
1. Early Sufferings, Bodily and Mental.
Fits of fear, palpitations, swoons, nervousness; his temptations no mere morbid phenomena | pages 99-112
2. Psychic Problems of Luther’s Religious Development.
Temptations to despair. The shadow of pseudo-mysticism. Temptations of the flesh | pages 112-122
3. Ghosts, Delusions, Apparitions of the Devil.

The statements regarding Luther’s intercourse with the beyond and his visions of the devil. The misunderstood reference to his disputation with the devil on the Mass. His belief in possession and exorcism

pages 122-140

4. Revelation and Illusion. Morbid Trains of Thought.

His conviction that he was the recipient of a special revelation; his apparent withdrawals of this claim. His so-called “temptations” viewed by him as confirming his mission; his persuasion that the Pope is Antichrist, that his opponents are all egged on by the devil and that no man on earth can compare with him. His tendency to self-contradiction; his changeableness, his feverish polemics

pages 141-171

5. Luther’s Psychology according to Physicians and Historians.
Whether Luther’s mind was abnormal, or whether all his symptoms are to be explained by uric acid, or by degeneracy | pages 172-186
CHAPTER XXXVII. LUTHER’S LATER EMBELLISHMENT OF HIS EARLY LIFE | pages 187-236
1. Luther’s later Picture of his Convent-Life and Apostasy.

The legend about his first appearance on the field of history. His supposed excessive holiness-by-works during his monastic days

pages 187-205

2. The Reality. Luther’s Falsification of History.

Inward peace and happiness in his monastic days; his vows and their breach; some peculiarities of his humility; his feverish addiction to his work; the facts around which his later legend grew

pages 205-229

3. The Legend receives its last touch; how it was used.

Forged in the solitude of the Coburg. His characteristic passage from the “I” to the “we.” His monkish “experience” useful to him

pages 229-236

CHAPTER XXXVIII. END OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. THE CHURCH-UNSEEN AND THE VISIBLE CHURCH-BY-LAW | pages 237-340
1. From Religious Licence to Religious Constraint.

Freedom as Luther’s early watchword. Intolerance towards Catholics, in theory, and in practice. Sanguinary threats against all papists; the death-penalty pronounced against “sectarians” at home; his justification: blasphemy must be put down. The people driven to the new preaching; no freedom of conscience allowed: Luther’s intolerance imitated by his friends

pages 237-279

2. Luther as Judge.

The pigheadedness and arrogance of all the “sectarians.” None of them are sure of their cause; none of them can work miracles

pages 279-289

3. The Church-Unseen, its Origin and Early History.
Luther’s invisible Church; her marks; only the predestined are members; his shifting theory | pages 290-308
4. The Church becomes visible. Its organisation.

The Church materialises in Articles and a Ministry set up by Wittenberg with the sovereign as “emergency-bishop.” The results of State-interference

pages 309-325

5. Luther’s Tactics in Questions concerning the Church.

The Erfurt preachers at variance with the Town-Council. Luther shifts his ground in his controversies with the Catholics. How the Church, in spite of Christ’s promises, contrived to remain plunged in error for over a thousand years. Luther’s interpretation of Christ’s words “On this rock”

pages 325-340

CHAPTER XXXIX. END OF LUTHER’S LIFE | pages 341-386
1. The Flight from Wittenberg.

His depression gets the better of him and he leaves the town “for ever.” Change of air sweetens his temper and he returns and resumes his work with new ardour

pages 341-351

2. Last Troubles and Cares.

Quarrels with the Swiss and with New Believers nearer home; with the lawyers regarding clandestine marriages; the State proves a cause of vexation on account of its interference in matters which concern the preachers. Luther’s fears for the future; encroachments of human reason; the coming collapse of morals

pages 351-369

3. Luther’s Death at Eisleben (1546).
Thoughts of death. His last visit to Mansfeld, to act as arbitrator between the Counts. The versions of his last moments | pages 370-381
4. In the World of Legend.

The tale of Luther’s suicide, of the disappearance of his body, etc. Who was responsible for the habit of concocting such stories

pages 381-386

CHAPTER XL. AT THE GRAVE | pages 387-462
1. Luther’s Fame among the Friends he left behind.
Extracts from the panegyrics and early biographies; medals struck in his honour; his epitaphs | pages 387-394
2. Luther’s Memory among the Catholics. The Question of His Greatness.

Luther’s defiance of the whole world, whilst evoking their wonder, failed to secure the admiration of Catholics. Whether Luther’s undoubted strength of will makes of him a “great man.” The part played by other factors in the movement he inaugurated

pages 394-407

3. Luther’s Fate in the First Struggles for his Spiritual Heritage.
Defeat of the Schmalkalden Leaguers. Osiandric, Majorite, Adiaphoristic, Synergistic and Cryptocalvinist controversies | pages 407-423
4. Mutual Influence of the Two Camps. Growing Strength of the Catholic Church.

The Lutherans are induced to adopt the Formula of Concord as a counterblast against the Council of Trent. Catholic theology benefits by the new controversies; the Church’s religious life is deepened; progress in catechetical instruction, in matters educational, Bible-study and Church-history

pages 423-439

5. Luther as described by the Olden “Orthodox” Lutherans.
Their “mediæval” attitude. Luther the “Prophet of the Germans,” a New Elias and John the Baptist | pages 440-444
6. Luther as seen by the Pietists and Rationalists.
Each in their own way make of Luther their forerunner and breathe into him their own ideals | pages 444-448
7. The Modern Picture of Luther.

The Romanticists; liberal theologians; independent historians; the Janus-Luther, with one face looking back on the Middle Ages and the other turned to the coming world. Ritschl, E. M. Arndt. Luther the hero of Kultur? Houston S. Chamberlain’s picture of the “Political Luther.” Conclusion

pages 449-462

XLI. APPENDIX I. LUTHER’S WRITINGS AND THE EVENTS OF THE DAY, ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER | pages 465-495
XLII. APPENDIX II. ADDITIONS AND EMENDATIONS | pages 496-516
1-2. Luther’s Visit to Rome.

The Scala Santa; the General Confession; Oldecop’s account of Luther’s petition to be secularised; the outcome for the Order of Luther’s visit to Rome

pages 496-497

3. Luther’s conception of “Observance” and his conflict with his brother friars | pages 497-501
4. Attack upon the “Self-righteous” | pages 501-503
5. The collapse of the Augustinian Congregation | pages 503-504
6. The Tower Incident | pages 504-510
7. The Indulgence-Theses | page 510
8. The Temptations at the Wartburg | page 511
9. Prayer at the Wartburg | pages 511-512
10. Luther’s state during his stay at the Coburg | page 512
11. Luther’s moral character | pages 512-513
12. Luther’s views on lies | pages 513-515
13. Luther’s lack of the missionary spirit | pages 515-516
14. Notes: Pope Alexander VI “the Maraña”; from Bishop Maltitz’s letters to Bishop Fabri | page 516
General Index to the six volumes | pages 517-551

VOL. VI

SURVEY OF LUTHER’S WORK. HIS AILMENTS. HIS DEATH

LUTHER

CHAPTER XXXV (Continued)
LUTHER’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SOCIETY AND EDUCATION

3. Elementary Schools and Higher Education

Luther’s Appeals on Behalf of the Schools

In a pamphlet of 1524, on the need of establishing schools, Luther spoke some emphatic and impressive words.[1]

There could be nothing worse, he declared, than to abuse and neglect the precious souls of the little ones; even a hundred florins was not too much to pay to make a good Christian of a boy; it was the duty of the magistrates and authorities to whom the welfare of the town was confided to see to this, the parents being so often either not pious or worthy enough to perform this office, or else too unlearned or too much hampered by their business or the cares of their household. The well-being of a town was not to be gauged by its fine buildings, but rather by the learning, good sense, and honourable behaviour of the burghers; given this the other sort of prosperity would never be lacking. Luther dwells on the urgent need of studying languages and sees an act of Providence in the dispersion of the Greeks whose presence in the West had been the means of giving a fresh stimulus to the study of Greek, and even to the cultivation of other languages. Without schools and learning no men would be found qualified to rule in the ecclesiastical or even in the secular sphere; even the management of the home and the duties of women to their families and households called for some sort of instruction.[2]

Owing to their innate leaning to savagery the German people, above all others, could ill afford to dispense with the discipline of the school. All the world calls us “German beasts”; too long have we been German beasts, let us therefore now learn to use our reason.[3]

He speaks of the educational value not only of languages but of history, mathematics and the other arts, but above all of religion, which, now that the true Evangel is preached, must take root in the hearts of the young, but which could not be maintained unless care was taken to ensure a supply of future preachers.

He gives an excellent answer to the objection: “What is the good of going to school unless we are thinking of becoming parsons?” The wholesale secularisation of ecclesiastical benefices had resulted in a great falling off in the number of scholars, the parents often thinking too much of the worldly prospects of their children. Luther, however, points out that even the secular offices deserve to be filled with men of education. “How useful and called for it is, and how pleasing to God, that the man destined to govern, whether as Prince, lord, councillor or otherwise, should be learned and capable of performing his duty as becomes a Christian.”[4]

This booklet, which is of great interest for the history of the schools, was translated into Latin in the same year by Vincentius Obsopœus (Koch) and published at Hagenau, with a preface by Melanchthon.[5] It also became widely known throughout Germany, being frequently reprinted in the original tongue. As the title shows, Luther addressed himself in the work “To the Councillors of all the townships,” viz. even to the Catholic magistrates among whom he stood in disfavour. He declares that it was a question of the “salvation and happiness of the whole German land. And were I to hit upon something good, even were I myself a fool, it would be no disgrace to anyone to listen to me.”[6]

In thus calling for the founding of schools Luther was but reiterating the admonition contained in his writing “To the German Nobility.” Such exhortations were always sure to win applause, and served to recommend not only his own person but even, in the case of many, his undertaking as a whole.[7] In his rules for the administration of the poor-box at Leisnig Luther had been mindful of the claims of the schools, nor did he forget them in the other regulations he drew up later. In his sermons, too, he also dwelt repeatedly on the needs of the elementary schools; when complaining of the decay of charity he is wont to instance the straits, not only of the parsonages and the poor, but also of the schools. “Only reckon up and count on your fingers what here [at Wittenberg] and elsewhere those who bask in the Evangel give and do for it, and see whether, were it not for us who are still living, there would remain a single preacher or student.… Are there then no poor scholars who ought to be studying and exercising themselves in the Word of God?” But “hoarding and scraping” are now the rule, so that hardly a town can be found “that collects enough to keep a schoolmaster or parson.”[8]

Many wealthy towns had, however, to Luther’s great joy, taken in hand the cause of the schools. Their efforts were to prove very helpful to the new religious system.

In the same year that the above writing appeared steps were taken at Magdeburg for the promotion of education, and Cruciger, Luther’s own pupil, was summoned from Wittenberg to assume the direction. Melanchthon and Luther repaired to Eisleben in 1525, where Count Albert of Mansfeld had founded a Grammar School. In some towns the Councillors carried out Luther’s proposals, in others, where the town-council was opposed to the innovators and their schools, the burghers “set at naught the Council,” as Luther relates, and erected “schools and parsonages”; in other words, they established schools as the best means to further the new Evangel.[9] At Nuremberg Melanchthon, a zealous promoter of education, exerted himself for the foundation of a “Gymnasium” which was to serve as a model of the new humanistic schools of the Evangelicals, and which was generously provided for by the town. May 6, 1526, saw the opening of this new school. Learned masters were appointed, for instance, Melanchthon’s friend Camerarius, the poet Eobanus Hessus and the humanist Michael Roting. In 1530 Luther speaks of it in words meant to flatter the Nurembergers as “a fine, noble school,” for which the “very best men” had been selected and appointed. He even tells all Germany, that “no University, not even that of Paris itself, was ever so well provided in the way of lecturers”; it was in no small measure owing to this school that “Nuremberg now shone throughout the whole of Germany like a sun, compared with which others were but moon and stars.”[10]

Yet it was certain disagreeable happenings at Nuremberg itself which led him to write in 1530 his second booklet in favour of the schools. In the flourishing commercial city there were many wealthy burghers who refused to send their children to the “Gymnasium,” thinking that, instead of learning ancient languages, they would be more usefully occupied in acquiring other elements of knowledge more essential to the mercantile calling; by so doing they had raised a certain feeling against the new school. Many were even disposed to scoff at all book-learning and roundly declared, as Luther relates, “If my son knows how to read and reckon then he knows quite enough; we now have plenty German books,” etc.[11]

In July of the above year, Luther, in the loneliness of the Coburg, penned a sermon having for its title “That children must be kept at school.” The sermon grew into a lengthy work; Luther himself was, later on, to bewail its long-windedness.[12] This writing, taken with that of 1524, supplies the gist of Luther’s teaching with regard to the schools.

In the preface, printed before the body of the work, he dedicates the writing to the Nuremberg “syndic” or town-clerk, Lazarus Spengler, an ardent promoter of the new teaching. A town like Nuremberg, he there says, “must surely contain more men than merchants, and also others who can do more than merely reckon, or read German books. German books are principally intended for the common people to read at home; but for preaching, governing and administering justice in both ecclesiastical and temporal sphere all the arts and languages in the world are not sufficient.” Already in the preface he inveighs against those who assert that arithmetic and a knowledge of German were quite enough: These small-minded worshippers of Mammon failed to take into consideration what was essential for “ruling”; both the civil and the ecclesiastical office would suffer under such a system.[13]

In this writing his style follows his mood, being now powerful, now popular and not seldom wearisome. He dwells longest on the spiritual office, expressing his fear, that, should the lack of interest in the schools become general, and the people continue so niggardly in providing for their support, there would result such a spiritual famine with regard to the Word of God, that ten villages would be left in the charge of a single parson. Passing on to the secular office he points out how the latter upholds the “temporal, fleeting peace, life and law.… It is an excellent gift of God Who also instituted and appointed it and Who demands its preservation.” Of this office “It is the work and glory that it makes wild beasts into men and keeps them in this state.… Do you not think that if the poor birds and beasts could speak and were able to see the action of the secular rule among men they would say: Dear fellows, you are no men but gods compared with us; how secure you sit and live, enjoying all good things, whereas we are not safe from each other for a single hour as regards our life, our home or our food.”[14]

“Such rule cannot continue, but must go to rack and ruin unless the law [the Roman law and the law of the land] is maintained. And what is to maintain it? Fists and blustering cannot do so, but only brains and books; we must learn to understand the wisdom and justice of our secular rule.” Speaking of the lawyers’ office for which the young must prepare themselves, he groups under it the “chancellors, clerks, judges, advocates, notaries and all others who are concerned with the law, not to speak of the great Johnnies who sport the title of Hofrat.”[15] On the calling of the physician he only touches lightly, showing that this “useful, consoling and health-giving” profession demands the retention of the Latin schools, short of which it must fall into decay.

The following hint was a practical one: Seeing that, in Saxony alone, about 4000 men of learning were needed—what with chaplains, schoolmasters and readers—those who wished to study had good prospects of “great honours and emoluments since two Princes and three townships were all ready to fight for the services of one learned man.” He urges that assistance should be given to poor parents out of the Church property so as to enable them to send their children to school, and that the rich should make foundations for this purpose.

In this writing, as in that of 1524, he addresses himself to the secular authorities and even demands that they should compel their subjects to send their children to school in order that the supply of capable men might not fail in the future. I consider, he says, “that the authorities are bound to force those under them to see to the schooling of their children, more particularly those just spoken of [the more gifted]; for it is undoubtedly their duty to see to the upkeep of the above-mentioned offices and callings.” If in time of war they could compel their subjects to render assistance and resist the enemy, much more had they the right to coerce them in respect of the children, seeing that this was a war against the devil who wished to despoil the land and the townships of able men, so as to be able “to cheat and delude them as he pleased.”[16]

As regards the question whether all children were to be forced to go to school, in this writing Luther does not speak of any universal compulsion; only “when the authorities see a capable lad”[17] does he wish coercion to be applied to the parents. In his first writing on the schools likewise, he had not advocated universal compulsion but had merely pointed out that it was “becoming” that the authorities should interfere where the parents neglected their duty;[18] he does not say how they are to “interfere,” but merely suggests that one or two “schoolmasters” should be provided whose salary should not be grudged.

“Hence it is incorrect,” rightly remarks Kawerau, “to represent Luther as the harbinger of universal compulsory education.”[19]

Fr. Lambert of Avignon, in his ecclesiastical regulations dating from 1526, indeed sought to establish national schools throughout Hesse, but his proposals were never enforced. It was only at the beginning of the 17th century that Wolfgang Ratke (Ratichius, †1635), a pedagogue educated in the Calvinistic schools, established the principle of universal education which then was incorporated in the educational regulations of Weimar in 1619.[20] But the Thirty Years’ War put an end to these attempts, and it was only in the 18th century that the principle of compulsory State education secured general acceptance, and then, too, owing chiefly to non-Lutheran influences.

Before entering further into the details of Luther’s educational plans we must cast a glance at a factor which seems to permeate both the above writings.

Polemical Trend of Luther’s Pedagogics

If we seek to characterise both the writings just spoken of we find that they amount to an appeal called forth by the misery of those times for some provision to be made to ensure a supply of educated men for the future. Frederick Paulsen describes them, particularly the earlier one, as nothing more than a “cry for help, wrung from Luther by the sudden, general collapse of the educational system which followed on the ecclesiastical upheaval.”[21] They were not dictated so much by a love for humanistic studies as such or by the wish to further the interests of learning in Germany, as by the desire to fill the secular-government berths with able, “Christian” men, and, above all, to provide preachers and pastors for the work Luther had commenced and for the struggle against Popery. The schools themselves were unobtrusively to promote the new Evangel amongst the young and in the home. Learning, according to Luther, as a Protestant theologian expressed it, was to enter “into the service of the Evangel and further its right understanding”; “the religious standpoint alone was of any real interest to him.”[22]

Melanchthon’s attitude to the schools was more broadminded. To some extent his efforts supplied what was wanting in Luther.[23] His object was the education of the people, whereas, in Luther’s eyes, the importance of the schools chiefly lay in their being “seminaria ecclesiarum,” as he once calls them. With him their aim was too much the mere promoting of his specific theological interests, to the “preservation of the Church.”[24]

According to Luther the first and most important reason for promoting the establishment of schools, was, as he points out to the “Councillors of all the Townships,” to resist the devil, who, the better to maintain his dominion over the German lands, was bent on thwarting the schools; “if we want to prick him on a tender spot then we may best do so by seeing that the young grow up in the knowledge of God, spreading the Word of God and teaching it to others.”[25] “The other [reason] is, as St. Paul says, that we receive not the grace of God in vain, nor neglect the accepted time.” The “donkey-stables and devil-schools” kept by monks and clergy had now seen their day; but, now that the “darkness” has been dispelled by the “Word of God,” we have the “best and most learned of the youths and men, who, equipped with languages and all the arts, can prove of great assistance.” “My dear, good Germans, make use of God’s grace and His Word now you have it! For know this, the Word of God and His grace is indeed here.”[26]

In many localities preachers of the new faith were in request, moreover, many of the older clergy, who had passed over to Luther’s side, had departed this life or had been removed by the Visitors on account of their incapacity or moral shortcomings. Those who had replaced them were often men of no education whatever. The decline of learning gave rise to many difficulties. Schoolmasters were welcomed not only as simple ministers but, as we have heard Luther declare, even as the candidates best fitted for the post of superintendent.[27] How frequently people of but slight education were appointed pastors is plain from the lists of those ordained at Wittenberg from 1537 onwards; amongst these we find men of every trade: clerks, printers, weavers, cobblers, tailors, and even one peasant. Seven years later, when the handicraftsmen had disappeared, we constantly find sextons and schoolmasters being entrusted with the ministerial office.[28]

This sad state of things must be carefully kept in mind if we are to understand the ideas which chiefly inspired the above writings, and as these have not so far been sufficiently emphasised we may be permitted to make some reference to them.

“We must have men,” says Luther in his first writing, viz. that addressed to the councillors, “men to dispense to us God’s Word and the sacraments and to watch over the souls of the people. But whence are we to get them if the schools are allowed to fall to ruin and other more Christian ones are not set up?”[29] “Christendom has always need of such prophets to study and interpret the Scriptures, and, when the call comes, to conduct controversy.”[30] Similar appeals occur even more frequently in the other writing, viz. that dedicated by Luther to his friend at Nuremberg. Already in his first writing, Luther, as the ghostly counsellor of Germany “appointed” in Christ’s name, boldly faces all other teachers, telling the Catholics, that what he was seeking was merely the “happiness and salvation” of the Fatherland.[31] In the second he expressly states that it is to all the German lands that he their “prophet” is speaking: “My dear Germans, I have told you often enough that you have heard your prophet. God grant that we may obey His Word.”[32] So entirely does he identify the interests of his Church with those of the schools. Well might those many Germans who did not hold with him—and at that time Luther was an excommunicate outlaw—well might they have asked themselves with astonishment whence he had the right to address them as though he were the representative and mouthpiece of the whole of Germany. Such exhortations have, however, their root in his usual ideas of religion and in the anxiety caused by the urgent needs of the time.

At the Coburg the indifference, coldness and avarice of his followers appears to him in an even darker light than usual. He well sees that if the schools continue to be neglected as they have been hitherto the result will be a mere “pig sty,” a “hideous, savage horde of ‘Tatters’ and Turks.” Hence he fulminates against the ingratitude displayed towards the Evangel and against the stinginess which, though it had money for everything, had none to spare for the schools and the parsons; the imagery to which he has recourse leaves far behind that of the Old Testament Prophets.

Here we have the real Luther whom, as he himself admits, though in a different sense, stands revealed in this writing penned at the Coburg.[33] “Is this not enough to arouse God’s wrath?… Verily it would be no wonder were God to open wide the doors and windows of hell and rain and hail on us nothing but devils, or were He to send fire and brimstone down from heaven and plunge us all into the abyss of hell like Sodom and Gomorrha … for they were not one-tenth as wicked as Germany is now.”[34] Has then Christ, the Son of God, deserved this of us, he asks, that so many care nothing for the schools and parsonages, and “even dissuade the children from becoming ministers, that this office may speedily perish, and the blood and passion of Christ be no longer of any avail.”[35] Here again his chief reason for maintaining the schools is his anxiety: “What is otherwise to become of the ghostly office and calling.”[36] Only after he has considered this question from all sides and demonstrated that his Church’s edifice stands in need not merely of “worked stones” but also of “rubble,” i.e. both of clever men and of others less highly gifted,[37] does he come in the second place to the importance of having learned men even in the secular office.

He had begun this writing with an allusion to the devil, viz. to “the wiles of tiresome Satan against the holy Evangel”; he also concludes it in the same vein, speaking of the “tiresome devil,” who secretly plots against the schools and thereby against the salvation of both town and country.[38]

The author goes at some length into the question of languages and declares that the main reason for learning them was a religious one.

Languages enable us “to understand Holy Scripture,” he says, “this was well known to the monasteries and universities of the past, hence they had always frowned on the study of languages”; the devil was afraid that languages would make a hole “which afterwards it would not be easy for him to plug.” But the providence of God has outreached him, for, by “making over Greece to the Turks and sending the Greeks into exile, their language was spread abroad and an impetus was given even to the study of other tongues.” And now, thanks to the languages, the Gospel has been restored to its “earlier purity.” Hence, for the sake of the Bible and the Word of God, let us hark back to the languages. His excellent observations on the importance of the study of languages for those in secular authority, though perfectly honest, hold merely a secondary place. The chief use of the languages is as a weapon against the Papacy. “The dearer the Evangel is to us, the more let us hold fast to the languages!”

So anxious is he to see the future schools thoroughly “Christian,” i.e. Evangelical and all devoted to the service of his cause, that he expressly states that otherwise he “would rather that not a single boy learnt anything but remained quite dumb.” Hence the earlier “universities and monasteries” must be made an end of. Their way of teaching and living “is not the right one for the young.” “It is my earnest opinion, prayer and wish that these donkey-stables and devil-schools should either sink into the abyss or else be transformed into Christian schools. But now that God has bestowed His grace upon us so richly and provided us with so many well able to teach and bring up the young, we are actually in danger of flinging the grace of God to the winds.” “I am of opinion that Germany has never heard so much of God’s Word as now.… God’s Word is a streaming downpour, the like of which must not be expected again.”[39]

Hence the two writings differ but little from his usual polemical and hortatory works. They do not make of Luther the “father of the national schools,” as he has been erroneously termed, because, what he was after was not the real education of the masses but something rather different; still less do the booklets, with their every page reeking of the Word of God which he preached, make him the father of the modern undenominational schools.[40]

In fact, elementary schools as such have scarcely any place in these writings. What concerns him is rather the Latin grammar schools, and only as an afterthought does he passingly allude to the other schools in which children receive their first grounding.[41]

Luther’s standpoint as to the Church’s need of Grammar Schools is always the same, even when he speaks of them in the Table-Talk.

“When we are dead,” he says for instance, “where will others be found to take our place unless there are schools? For the sake of the Churches we must have Christian schools and maintain them.”[42]—“When the schools multiply, things are going well and the Church stands firm.”[43]—“By means of such cuttings and saplings is the Church sown and propagated.”—“The schools are of great advantage in that they undoubtedly preserve the Churches.”[44]

“Hence a reformation of the schools and universities is also called for,” so he writes in a memorandum,[45] immediately after having declared, that “it is necessary to have good and pious preachers; all will depend on men who must be educated in the schools and universities.”[46]

For this reason, viz. on account of the preparation they furnished, he even has a kind word for the schools of former days.

He recalls to mind, that, even in Popery “the schools supplied parsons and preachers.” “In the schools the little boys learnt at least the Our Father and the Creed and the Church was wonderfully preserved by means of the tiny schools.”[47]—Of a certain hymn he remarks, that it was “very likely written and kept by some good schoolmaster or parson. The schools were indeed the all-important factor in the Church and the ‘ecclesia’ of the parson.”[48]

Luther’s Educational Plans

When, in his exhortations, Luther so warmly advocated the study of Latin and of languages generally, he was merely keeping to the approved traditional lines. Although he values ancient languages chiefly as a means for the better understanding of Scripture, he is so prepossessed in their favour in “worldly matters” that he even praises Latin at the expense of German. He is particularly anxious that Latin works should be read; among themselves the boys were to speak Latin. Recommending the study of tongues, he says: “If we make such a mistake, which God forbid, as to give up the study of languages, we shall not only lose the Gospel but come to such straits as to be unable to read or write aright either Latin or German.” The education of earlier days had not only led men away from the Gospel owing to the neglect of languages, but “the wretched people became mere brutes, unable to read or write either Latin or German correctly, nay, had almost lost the use of their reason.” It was statements such as these which drew from Friedrich Paulsen the exclamation: “Hence Christianity and education, nay, even sound common sense itself, all depend on the knowledge of languages!”[49]

Well founded as were Luther’s demands for a Latin education, yet we find in him a notable absence of discrimination between schools and schools.

Even in the preparatory schools he was anxious to see the study of languages introduced, and that for the girls too. Boys and girls, he says, ought to be instructed “in tongues and other arts and subjects.” He was of opinion, that, in this way, it would be possible from the very first to pick out those best fitted to pursue the study of languages and to become later “schoolmasters, schoolmistresses or preachers.”[50] He even appeals to the example of olden Saints such as Agnes, Agatha and Lucy when urging that the more talented girls should receive a grounding in languages.[51] “It would undoubtedly have been quite enough had the less ambitious children been taught merely to reckon, and to read and write German.” “Luther’s action in having as many children of the people as possible taught languages … and his warfare against the use of German in the schools, whether in the towns, the villages, or the hamlets, was all very unpractical.… He had come to the conclusion that German schools, for one reason or another, were unsuited to be nurseries for the Church (‘seminaria ecclesiæ’), hence his effort to transplant into the Latin grammar schools every sapling on which he could lay hands.”[52]

The injunctions appended to Melanchthon’s Visitation rules (1538), which were sanctioned and approved of by Luther, lay such stress on the teaching of languages that the humbler schools were bound to suffer. When dealing with “the schools” their only object seems to be the “upbringing of persons fit to teach in the churches and to govern.” And this aim, moreover, is pursued onesidedly enough, for we read: “The schoolmasters are in the first place to be diligent to teach the children only Latin, not German, or Greek, or Hebrew, as some have hitherto done, thus overburdening the poor children’s minds.” The regulations then proceed to prescribe in detail the studies to be undertaken in the lowest form: “In order that the children may get hold of many Latin words, they are to be made to learn some words every evening, as was the way in the schools in former days.” After the children have learnt to spell out the handbook containing the “Alphabet, the Our Father, Creed and other prayers they are to be set to Donatus and Cato … so that they may thus learn a number of Latin words and gain a certain readiness of speech (‘copia dicendi’).” Apart from this the lowest form is to be taught only writing and “music.”

The next class was to learn grammar (needless to say Latin grammar) and to be exercised in Æsop’s Fables, the “Pedologia” of Mosellanus and the “Colloquia” of Erasmus, such of the latter being selected “as are useful for children and not improper.” “Once the children have learnt Æsop they are to be given Terence, which they must learn by heart.” There is no mention made here of any selection, this possibly being left to the teacher; in the case of Plautus, who was to follow Terence, this is expressly enjoined.—Of the religious instruction we read: Seeing it is necessary to teach the children the beginnings of a Godly, Christian life, “the schoolmaster is to catechise the whole [2nd] class, making the children recite one after the other the Our Father, the Creed and the Ten Commandments.” The schoolmaster was to “explain” these and also to instil into the children such points as were essential for living a good life, such as the “fear of God, faith and good works.” The schoolmaster was not to get the children into the habit of “abusing monks or others, as many incompetent masters do.” Finally, it was also laid down that those Psalms which exhort to the “fear of God, faith and good works” were to be learnt by heart, especially Psalms cxii., xxxiv., cxxviii., cxxv., cxvii., cxxxiii. (cxi., xxxiii., cxxvii., cxxiv., cxxvi., cxxxii.), the Gospel of St. Matthew was also to be explained and perhaps likewise the Epistles of Paul to Timothy, the 1st Epistle of John and the Book of Proverbs.

In the 3rd class, in addition to grammar, versification, dialectics and rhetoric had to be studied, the boys being exercised in Virgil and Cicero (the “Officia” and “Epistolæ familiares”). “The boys are also to be made to speak Latin and the schoolmasters themselves are as far as possible to speak nothing but Latin with them in order thus to accustom and encourage them in this practice.”[53]

In his two appeals for the schools in 1524 and 1530 Luther is less explicit in his requirements than the regulations for the Visitation. According to him, apart from the languages, it is the text of Scripture which must form the basis of all the instruction.

Holy Scripture, especially the Gospel, was to be everywhere “the chief and main object of study.” “Would to God that every town had also a school for girls where little maids might hear the Gospel for an hour a day, either in German or in Latin.… Ought not every Christian at the age of nine or ten to be acquainted with the whole of the Gospel? Young folk throughout Christendom are pining away and being pitiably ruined for want of the Gospel, in which they ought always to be instructed and exercised.”

“I would not advise anyone to send his child where Holy Scripture is not the rule. Where the Word of God is not constantly studied everything must needs be in a state of corruption.”[54]

In the event, the Bible, together with Luther’s Catechism which had to be committed to memory, and the hymn-book, became the chief manuals in the Lutheran schools. On these elements a large portion of the young generation of Germany was brought up.

For the study of languages Luther, like Melanchthon, recommended the “Disticha” ascribed to Cato and Æsop’s Fables. “It is by the special mercy of God,” he says, “that Cato’s booklet and the Fables of Æsop have been preserved in the schools.”[55] We shall describe elsewhere the efforts he himself made to expurgate the editions of Æsop which had become corrupted by additions offensive to good morals. Various Latin classics which Humanists were wont to put in the hands of the scholars he characterised in his Table-Talk as unsuitable for school use. “It would be well that the books of Juvenal, Martial, Catullus and also Virgil’s ‘Priapeia’ were weeded out of the land and the schools, banished and expelled, for they contain coarse and shameless things such as the young cannot study without grievous harm.”[56] Of the Roman writers (with the Greeks he is much less at home) he extols Cicero, Terence and Virgil as useful and improving. As a whole, however, Luther always remained “at heart a stranger to true Humanism.… Though not altogether inappreciative of elegance of style, he is far from displaying the enthusiasm of the Humanists.”[57] Although he shows himself fairly well acquainted with the writings of the three authors just mentioned, and though he owed this education to his early training, yet, in his efforts to belittle the olden schools, he complains, that “no one had taught him to read the poets and historians,” but, that, on the other hand, he had been obliged to study the “devil’s ordure and the philosophers.”[58]

It must not be overlooked that he, like the Instructions for the Visitors, recommends that Terence and other olden dramatists should be given to the young to be read, and even acted, though, as he admits, they “sometimes contain obscenities and love stories.” This advice he further emphasised in 1537 by declaring that a Protestant schoolmaster of Bautzen was in the right, when, regardless of the scandal of many, he had Terence’s “Andria” performed. Luther agreed with Melanchthon in thinking that the picture of morals given in this piece was improving for the young; also that the disclosure of the “cunning of women, particularly of light women,” was instructive; the boys would thus learn how marriages were arranged, and, after all, marriage was essential for the continuance of society: Even Holy Scripture contained some love stories. “Thus our people ought not to accuse these plays of immorality or declare that to read or act them was prohibited to a Christian.”[59]

The regulations for the Protestant schools, in following Luther in this matter, merely trod in the footsteps of the older German Humanists, who had likewise placed Terence and Plautus in the hands of their pupils. On the contrary Jakob Wimpfeling, the “Teacher of Germany,” was opposed to them and wished to see Terence banished from the schools in the interests of morality. At a later date in the Catholic Grammar schools this author was on moral grounds forbidden to the more youthful pupils, and only read in excerpts.[60]

In his suggestions on the instruction to be given in the Latin schools (for in reality it was only of these that he was thinking) Luther classes with languages and other arts and sciences “singing, music and mathematics as a whole.”[61] Greek and Hebrew no less than Latin would also be indispensable for future scholars. He further wished the authorities to establish “libraries” to further the studies; not, however, such libraries as the olden ones, containing “mad, useless, harmful, monkish books”—“donkey’s dung introduced by the devil”—“but Holy Scripture in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and German, and any other languages in which it might have been published; besides these the best and oldest commentaries in Greek, Hebrew and Latin, and furthermore such books as served for the study of languages, for instance, the poets and orators,” etc. “The most important of all were, however, the chronicles and histories … for these are of wonderful utility in enabling us to understand the course of events, for the art of governing, as also for perceiving the wonderful works of God. Oh, how many fine stories we ought to have about what has been done and enacted in the German lands, of which we, sad to say, know nothing.” In his appreciation of the study of history and of the proverbial philosophy of the people Luther was in advance of his day.

Owing to his polemics the judgment he passed on the olden libraries was very unjust; the remaining traces of them and the catalogues which have been published of those that have been dispersed show that, particularly from the early days of Humanism, the better mediæval collections of books had reached and even passed the standard Luther sets up in the matter of history and literature.

Very modest, not to say entirely inadequate, is the amount of time Luther proposes that the children should daily spend in the schools. Of the lower schools, in which Latin was already to be taught, he says, it would be enough for “the boys to go to such a school every day for an hour or two and work the rest of their time at learning a trade, or doing whatever was required of them.… A little girl, too, could easily find time to attend school for an hour daily and yet thoroughly perform her duties in the house.” Only the “pick” of the children, those, namely, who gave good promise, were to spend “more time and longer hours” in study.[62]

From all the above it is plain that there is good reason for not accepting the extravagant statement that Luther’s writings on education constitute the “charter of our national schools.” Others have extolled him as the founder of the “Gymnasium” on account of his reference in these works to the Latin schools. But even this is scarcely true, for, in them, the author either goes beyond the field covered by the Gymnasium or else fails to reach it. The Protestant pastor, Julius Boehmer, says in the popular edition of Luther’s works:[63] “It will not do to regard the work (”An die Radherrn“) as the ‘Charter of the Gymnasium,’ as has often been done, seeing that, as stated above, it is concerned with both the Universities and the lower-grade schools.”[64]

As to attendance at the Universities, of which Luther also speaks, he asks the authorities to forbid the matriculation of any but the “clever ones,” though among the masses “every fellow wanted a doctorate.”[65]

What he says of the various Faculties at the Universities is also noteworthy. With the object of reforming philosophy and the Arts course he wishes that of all the writings of Aristotle, that blind heathen master, who had hitherto led astray the Universities, only the “Logica,” “Rhetorica” and “Poetica” should be retained; “the books: ‘Physicorum,’ ‘Metaphysicæ,’ ‘De anima’ and ‘Ethicorum’ must be dropped”; curiously enough these are the very works on which Melanchthon was later on to bestow so much attention. We know how hateful Aristotle was to Luther, because, in his heathen way, he teaches nothing of grace and faith, but, on the other hand, extols the natural virtues. Luther’s impulsive and unmethodical mode of thought was also, it must be said, quite at variance with the logical mind of the Stagirite.

According to Luther “artistic education must be wholly rooted out as a work of the devil; the very most that can be tolerated is the use of those works which deal with form, but even these must not be commented on or explained.”[66]

“The physicians,” he says, “I leave to reform their own Faculty; I shall see myself to the lawyers and theologians; and, first of all, I say that it would be a good thing if the whole of Canon Law from the first syllable to the last were expunged, more particularly the Decretals. We are told sufficiently in the Bible how to conduct ourselves in all matters.” Secular law, so he goes on, has also become a “wilderness,” and accordingly he is in favour of drastic reforms. “Of sensible rulers in addition to Holy Scripture there are plenty”; national law and national usage ought certainly not to be subordinated to the Imperial common law, or the land “governed according to the whim of the individual.… Justice fetched from far afield was nothing but an oppression of the people.” Theology, according to him, must above all be Biblical, though now everything is made to consist in the study of the Book of Sentences of the schoolman, Peter Lombard, and of his commentators, the Gospel in both schools and courts of justice being left “forlorn” in the dust under the bench.[67]

He rightly commends the Disputations, sometimes termed “circulares,” held at the Universities by the students under the direction of their professor; it pleased him well that the students should bring forward their own arguments, even though they were sometimes not sound; for “stairs can only be ascended step by step.” The Disputations, in his view, also accustomed young men to “reflect more diligently on the subjects discussed.”[68]

To conclude, we may say a few words concerning the incentives he uses when urging parents to entrust their children to the schools.

Here Luther considerably oversteps the limits. In one passage, for instance, he thinks it his right to threaten the parents with the worst punishments of hell should they refuse to allow gifted children to study, in order to place them later at the service of the pure Word of God, or of the Christian rulers, as though forsooth parents and children had no right in the sight of God to choose their own profession. “Tell me what hell can be deep and hot enough for such shameful wickedness as yours?” “If you have a child who studies well, you are not free to bring him up as you please, nor to treat him as you will, but must bear in mind that you owe it to God to promote His two rules.” Should the father refuse to allow the boy to become a preacher, he says, then, so far as in him lies, he was really consigning to hell all those whom the budding preacher might have assisted; compared with such a crime against the common weal the “outbreaks of the rebellious peasants were mere child’s play.” This he says in a printed letter addressed in 1529 to the town commandant, Hans Metzsch of Wittenberg, which served as a prelude to his pamphlet “Das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle.”[69] The writing is solely dictated by Luther’s bitter annoyance at the dearth of pastors and the indifference displayed within his fold.

In this letter, as in both his works on the schools, Luther, whilst dealing with the excuses of the parents, at the same time throws some interesting sidelights on the decline in learning and its causes.

The Decline of the Schools Following in the Wake of the Innovations

In the above letter to Metzsch Luther briefly gives as follows the principal reason for the decay of learning: People were in the habit of saying, “If my son has learnt enough to gain his living then he is quite learned enough.”[70]

The contempt for learned studies was “largely due to the strongly utilitarian temper of the age.” “Owing in the first place to the flourishing state of the towns in the 13th and 14th century, and further to the influence of the great political upheaval which resulted from the discoveries and inventions of the day, a sober, practical spirit, directed solely to material gain, had been aroused throughout a wide section of the German nation. Preference was shown for the German schools where writing and reckoning were taught and which prepared children for the calling of the handicraftsman or the merchant.”[71] Against this tendency of the day Luther enters the lists particularly in his second work on the schools dedicated to the syndic of Nuremberg; at the same time he deals, not in the best of tempers, with the objections advanced by the merchant and industrial classes.[72] He speaks so harshly as almost to place in the same category those who refused to bring up their children “to art and learning” and those who turned them “into mere gluttons and sucking pigs, intent on food alone” (to Metzsch). “The world would thus become nothing but a pig-sty”; these “gruesome, noxious, poisonous parents were bent on making simple belly servers of their children,” etc.[73]

It is a question, however, whether the development of the material trend, so surprisingly rapid, with its destructive influence on study was not furthered by the religious revolution with which it coincided. Luther had sapped the respect which had obtained for the clerical life and for those callings which aimed at perfection, while at the same time, by belittling good works he loosened the inclinations of the purely natural man; by his repudiation of authority he had produced an intellectual self-sufficiency or rather self-seeking, which, in the case of many, passed into mere material egotism, though, of course, Luther’s work cannot be directly charged with the utilitarianism of the day.

What, however, made his revolt to contribute so greatly to the decline of learning was its destruction of the wealth of clergy and monks, and its confiscation of so many livings and foundations established for educational purposes. By far the greater number of students had always consisted of such as wished to obtain positions in the Church among her secular clergy, or to become priests in some monastery. The ranks of these students had been thinned of late years now that the Catholic posts no longer existed, that the foundations which formerly provided for the upkeep of students had disappeared and that an avalanche of calumny and abuse had descended on the monasteries, priests and monks.[74] In addition to this there was the fear aroused in Catholic parents and pastors by the unhappy controversies on religion, lest the young should be infected in the higher schools these being so frequently hot-beds of the modern spirit, of hypercriticism and apostasy. Then, again, there was the distrust, springing from a similar motive, felt by the Catholic authorities for the centres of learning, and their niggardliness in making provision for them, an attitude which we meet with, for instance, in Duke George of Saxony. This was encouraged in the case of the rulers by the fear of social risings, such as they had experienced in the Peasant War, and which they laid to the charge of the new ideas on religion.

Among those favourable to Lutheranism the Wittenberg professor himself awakened a distaste for the Universities by telling them they must not allow their sons to study where Holy Scripture “did not rule” and “where the Word of God was not unceasingly studied.”[75] No one ever depreciated the Universities as much as Luther, who principally because their character was still Catholic, was never tired of calling them the “gates of hell,” and places worse than Sodom and Gomorrha.[76] Nor did he stop short at the condemnation of their religious attitude. Luther’s antagonism to the whole system of philosophy, which the Universities, following the example of Aristotle and the schoolmen, had been so criminal as to admit, to the liberty they allowed to crazy human reason in spiritual matters, and to their championship of natural truth and natural morality as the basis of the life of faith, all this, when carried to its logical conclusion, necessarily brought Lutheranism into fatal conflict with the learned institutions.

As Friedrich Paulsen points out: “Luther shared all the superstitions of the peasant in their most pronounced form; the methods of natural science were strange to him and any scattering of the prevalent delusions he would have looked upon as an abomination.”[77] The latter part of the quotation certainly holds good in those cases where Luther fancied that Holy Scripture or his explanation of it was ever so slightly impugned. When, on June 4, 1539, the conversation at table turned on Copernicus and his new theory concerning the earth, of which the latter had been convinced since 1507, Luther appealed (just as later opponents of the theory were to do) to Holy Scripture, according to which “Josue bade the sun to stand still and not the earth.” The new astronomer wants to prove that the earth moves. “But that is the way nowadays: whoever wishes to seem clever, pays no attention to what others do, but must needs advance something of his own; and what he does must always be the best. The idiot is bent on upsetting the whole art of astronomy.”[78]

Luther’s condemnation of philosophy found a strong echo among the Pietists, who were an offshoot of Lutheranism, and even claimed to be its truest representatives. The loud denunciations of Aristotle were, for instance, taken up by the theologian Zierold.[79] But even from the common people who looked up to him we hear such sayings as the following: “What is the use of our learning the Latin, Greek and Hebrew tongues and other fine arts seeing we might just as well read in German the Bible and the Word of God which suffices for our salvation?” Luther was not at a loss for an answer. He says first: “Yes, I know, alas, that we Germans must always remain beasts and senseless animals.” Then he falls back on his usual plea, viz. that languages “are profitable and advantageous” for a right understanding of Scripture; he forgets that he has here to do with the common people, and that a critical or philosophical interpretation of the Bible was of small use to them. Such a thing might be profitable to those who were being trained for the ministry, though many even of the preachers themselves declared that the illumination from above sufficed, together with the reading of the Bible.[80]

Carlstadt was even opposed to the Wittenberg graduations because they promoted pride of learning and the worldly spirit instead of humble Bible faith. Melanchthon, at a time when he was still full of Luther’s early ideas, i.e. in Feb., 1521, in a work written under the pseudonym of Didymus Faventinus, attempted to vindicate against Hieronymus Emser his condemnation of the whole philosophy of the universities; physics as taught there consisted merely of monstrous terms and contradicted the teaching of the Bible; metaphysics were but an impudent attempt to storm the heavens under the leadership of the atheist Aristotle. “My complaint is against that wisdom by which you have drawn away Christians from Scripture to reason. Go on, he-goat,” he says to Emser, “and deny that the philosophy of the schools is idolatry”; your ethics is diametrically opposed to Christ; at the Universities human reason had degraded the Church to Sodomitic vices. Nothing more wicked and godless than the Universities had ever been invented; no pope, but the devil himself was their author; this even Wiclif had declared, and he could not have said anything wiser or more pious. The Jews offered young men to Moloch, a prelude to our Universities where the young are sacrificed to heathen idols.[81]

To such an extent had the darksome pseudo-mysticism which seethed in Luther’s mind laid hold for a while upon his comrade—glaringly though it contradicted the humanistic tendency found in him both earlier and later.

If we look more closely into the decline of the schools, we shall find that it came about with extraordinary rapidity, a fact which proves it to have been the result of a movement both sudden and far-reaching.

“The immediate effect of the Wittenberg preaching,” wrote in 1908 the Protestant theologian F. M. Schiele in the “Preussische Jahrbücher” of Berlin, in a strongly worded but perfectly true account of the situation, “was the collapse of the educational system which had flourished throughout Germany; the new zeal for Church reform, the growth of prosperity, the ambition in the burghers, the pride and fatherly solicitude of the sovereigns who were ever gaining strength, had resulted in the foundation on all sides of school after school, university after university. Students flocked to them in multitudes, for the prospects of future gain were good. Scholasticism provided a capable teaching staff, Humanism a brilliant one. Humanism also set up as the new ideal of education a return to the fountain-head and the reproduction of ancient civilisation by means of original effort on similar lines. Wide tracts of Germany lay like a freshly sown field, and many a harvest seemed to be ripening. Then, suddenly, before it was possible to determine whether the new crops consisted of wheat or of tares, a storm burst and destroyed all prospects of a harvest. The upheaval that followed in the wake of the Reformation, and other external causes which coincided with it, above all the reaction among the utilitarian-minded laity against the unpopular scholarship of the Humanists emptied the class rooms and lecture halls.… Now all is over with the priestlings; why then should we bind our future to a lost and despised cause?… Nor was this merely the passing result of a misapprehension of Luther’s preaching, for it endured for scores of years.”[82]

As to the common opinion among Protestants, viz. that “Luther’s reformation gave a general stimulus to the schools and to education generally,” Schiele dismisses it in a sentence: “The alleged ‘stimulus’ is seen to melt away into nothing.”[83]

Eobanus Hessus, a Humanist friendly to Luther, who lectured at Erfurt University, was so overcome with grief at sight of the decline that was making itself felt there that, in 1523, he composed an Elegy on the decay of learning entitled “Captiva” and sent it to Luther. The melancholy poem of 428 verses was printed in the same year under the title “Circular letter from the sorrowful Church to Luther.” Luther replied, praising the poem and assuring the sender that he was favourably disposed towards the humanistic studies and practices. He even speaks as though still full of the expectation of a great revival; his depression is, however, apparent from the very reasons he gives for his hopes: “I see that no important revelation of the Word of God has ever taken place without a preliminary revival and expansion of languages and erudition.” The present decline might, however, he thought, be traced to the former state of things when they did not as yet possess the “pure theology.”[84]

But Hessus had complained, and with good reason, of the evil doings of the new believers, instances of which had come under his notice at Erfurt, and which had caused many to declare sadly: “We Germans are becoming even worse barbarians than before, seeing that, in consequence of our theology, learning is now going to the wall.”[85] At Erfurt the Lutheran theology had won its way to the front amidst tumults and revolts since the day when Crotus had greeted Luther on his way to Worms with his revolutionary discourse.[86] Since then there had been endless conflicts of the preachers with the Church of Rome and amongst themselves. Some were to be met with who inveighed openly against the profane studies at the Universities, and could see no educative value in anything save in their own theology and the Word of God. Attendance at the University had declined with giant strides since the spread of Lutheranism. Whereas from May 1520 to 1521 the names of 311 students had been entered, their number fell in the following year to 120 and in 1522 to 72; five years later there were only 14.

Hessus wrote quite openly in 1523: “On the plea of the Evangel the runaway monks here in Erfurt have entirely suppressed the fine arts … our University is despised and so are we.”

His colleague, Euricius Cordus, a learned partisan of Luther, expresses himself with no less disgust concerning the state of learning and decline of morals among the students.[87] “All those who have any talent,” we read in the Academic Year-Book in 1529, “are now forsaking barren scholarship in order to betake themselves to more remunerative professions, or to trade.”[88]

As at Erfurt, so also at other Universities, a rapid diminution in the number of students took place during those years. “It has been generally remarked,” a writer who has made a special study of this subject says, “that in the German Universities in the ’twenties of the 16th century a sudden decrease in the number of matriculations becomes apparent.” He proves from statistics that at the University of Leipzig from 1521 to 1530 the number of those studying dropped from 340 to 100, at the University of Rostock from 123 to 33, at Frankfurt-on-the-Oder from 73 to 32 and, finally, at Wittenberg from 245 to 174.[89] The attendance at Heidelberg reached its lowest figure between 1521 and 1565, “this being due to the religious and social movements of the Reformation which proved an obstacle to study.” Of the German Universities generally the following holds good: “The religious and social disturbances of the Reformation brought about a complete interruption in the studies. Some of the Universities were closed down, at others the hearers dwindled down to a few.”[90]

“The Universities, Erfurt, Leipzig and the others stand deserted,” Luther himself says as early as 1530, gazing from the Coburg at the ruins, “and likewise here and there even the boys’ schools, so that it is piteous to see them, and poor Wittenberg is now doing better than any of them. The foundations and the monasteries, in my opinion, are probably also feeling the pinch.”[91] He speaks at the same time of the decline of the Grammar schools and the lower-grade schools which also to some extent shared the fate of the Universities.

In the Catholic parts of Germany the clergy schools and monastic schools suffered severely under the general calamity, as Luther had shrewdly guessed. Nor was the set-back confined to the Universities, but even the elementary schools suffered.

It was practically the universal complaint of the monasteries, so Wolfgang Mayer, the learned Cistercian Abbot of Alderspach in Bavaria, wrote in 1529, that they were unable to continue for lack of postulants; “in consequence of the Lutheran controversy the schools everywhere are standing empty and no one is willing any longer to devote himself to study. The clerical and likewise the religious state is despised by all and no one is inclined to offer himself for this life.” “Oh, God who could ever have anticipated the coming of such a time! Everything is ruined, everything is in confusion, and there is nothing but sunderings, splits and heresies everywhere!” Yet these words come from the same author, who, in 1518, in the introduction to his Annals of Alderspach, had been so enthusiastic about the state of learning in Germany and had said: “Germany is richly blessed with the gifts of Minerva and disputes the palm in the literary arena with the Italians and the Greeks.” Whereas, between the years 1460-1514 no less than eighty brethren had entered Alderspach, Mayer, in his thirty years of office as Abbot, clothed only seventeen novices with the habit of St. Bernard, and, of these, five broke their vows and left the monastery. He expresses his fear that soon his religious house will be empty and ascribes the lack of novices largely to the fate which had overtaken the schools owing to the innovations.[92]

“Throughout the whole of the German lands,” as Luther himself admits: “No one will any longer allow his children to learn or to study.”[93] At the same time contemporaries bitterly bewailed the wildness of the students who still remained at the Universities. With regard to Wittenberg itself we have grievous complaints on this score from both Luther and Melanchthon.[94]

The disorder in the teaching institutions naturally had a bad effect on the education of the people, so that Luther’s efforts on behalf of the schools may readily be understood. The ecclesiastical Visitors of the Saxon Electorate had been forced to adopt stern measures in favour of the country schools. The Elector called to mind Luther’s admonitions, that he, as the “principal guardian of the young,” had authority to compel such towns and villages as possessed the means, to maintain schools, pulpits and parsonages, just as he might compel them to furnish bridges, high roads and footpaths.… “If, moreover, they have not the means,” so Luther had said, “there are the monastic lands which most of them were bestowed for this very purpose.”[95] But in spite of the measures taken by the Elector and the urgent demands of the theologians for State aid, even in towns like Wittenberg the condition of the intermediate educational institutions was anything but satisfactory. In the case of his own sons Luther had grudgingly to acknowledge that he was “at a loss to find a suitable school.”[96] He accordingly had recourse to young theologians as tutors.

The disappointment of the Humanists was keen and their lot a bitter one. They had cherished high hopes of the dawn of a new era for classical studies in Germany. Many had rejoiced at the alliance which had at first sprung up between the Humanist movement and the religious revolution, believing it would clear the field for learning. They now felt it all the more deeply seeing that the age, being altogether taken up with arid theological controversies and the pressing practical questions of the innovations, had no longer the slightest interest in the educational ideals of antiquity. The violent changes in every department of life which the religious upheaval brought with it could not but be prejudicial to the calm intellectual labours of which the Humanists had dreamed; the prospect of Mutian’s “Beata tranquillitas” had vanished.

Mutian, at one time esteemed as the leader of the Thuringian Humanists, retired into solitude and died in the utmost poverty (1526) after the Christian faith had, as it would appear, once more awakened in him. Eminent lawyers among the Humanists, Ulrich Zasius of Freiburg and Christopher Scheurl of Nuremberg, openly detached themselves from the Wittenbergers. Scheurl, who had once waxed so enthusiastic about the light which had dawned in Saxony, now declared confidentially to Catholic friends that Wittenberg was a cesspool of errors and intellectual darkness.[97] The reaction which the recognition of Luther’s real aims produced in other Humanists, such as Willibald Pirkheimer, Crotus Rubeanus, Ottmar Luscinius and Henricus Glareanus, has already been referred to.[98] It is no less true of the Humanists favourable to the Church than of those holding Lutheran views, that German Humanism was nipped in the bud by the ecclesiastical innovations. As Paulsen says: “Luther usurped the leadership [from the Humanists] and theology [that of the Protestants] drove the fine arts from the high place they had just secured; at the very moment of their triumph the Humanists saw the fruits of victory snatched from their grasp.”[99]

The event of greatest importance for the Humanists was, however, Erasmus’s open repudiation of Luther in 1523, and his attack on that point so closely bound up with all intellectual progress, viz. Luther’s denial of free-will.

Quite independent of this attack were the many and bitter complaints which the sight of the decline of his beloved studies drew from Erasmus: “The Lutheran faction is the ruin of our learning.”[100] “We see that the study of tongues and the love of fine literature is everywhere growing cold. Luther has heaped insufferable odium on it.”[101] He regrets the downfall of the schools at Nuremberg: “All this laziness came in with the new Evangel.”[102] He wished to have nothing more to do with these Evangelicals, he declares, because, through their doing, scholarship was everywhere being ruined. “These people [the preachers] are anxious for a living and a wife, for the rest they do not care a hair.”[103]

In the above year, 1523, at the beginning of his public estrangement with Erasmus, Luther had written: “Erasmus has done what he was destined to do; he has introduced the study of languages and recalled us from godless studies (‘a sacrilegis studiis’). He will in all likelihood die like Moses, in the plains of Moab [i.e. never see the Promised Land]. He is no leader to the higher studies, i.e. to piety”; in other words, unlike Luther, he was not able to lead his followers into the land of promise, where the enslaved will rules.[104]

Luther’s use of the term “sacrilega studia” invites us to cast a glance on the state of education before his day.

Higher Education before Luther’s Day

The condition of the schools before Luther, as described in our available sources, was very different from what Luther pictured to his readers in his works.

According to Luther’s polemical writings, learning in earlier days could not but be sacrilegious because Satan “was corrupting the young” in “his own nests, the monasteries and clerical resorts”; “he, the prince of this world, gave the young his good things and delights; the devil spread out his nets, established monasteries, schools and callings, in such a way that no boy could escape him.”[105] With this fantastic view, met with only too frequently in Luther under all sorts of shapes, goes hand in hand his wholesale reprobation and belittling of the olden methods and system of education. The professors at the close of the Middle Ages were only able, according to Luther, to “train up profligates and greedy bellies, rude donkeys and blockheads; all they could teach men was to be asses and to dishonour their wives, daughters and maids.” “People studied twenty or forty years and yet at the end of it all knew neither Latin nor German.” “Those ogres and kidnappers” set up libraries, but they were filled “with the filth and ordure of their obscene and poisonous books”; “the devil’s spawn, the monks and the spectres of the Universities” when conferring doctorates decked out “great fat loutish donkeys in red and brown hoods, like a sow pranked out with gold chains and pearls.” “The pupils and professors were as mad as the books on which they lectured. A jackdaw does not hatch out doves nor can a fool beget wise offspring.”

It is in his “An die Radherrn,” the object of which was to raise the standard of education, that we find such coarse language.

What is of more importance is that Luther seems here to be seeking to conceal the decline in learning which he had brought about, and to lay the blame solely on the olden schools. If the corruption had formerly been so great then some excuse might be found for the ruin which had followed his struggle with the Church.—Such an excuse, however, does not tally with the facts.

That, on the contrary, education, not only at the Universities, but also in the Latin schools, which Luther had more particularly in view, was in a flourishing condition and full of promise before it was so rudely checked by the religious disturbances which emptied all the schools, has been fully confirmed to-day by learned research. “The increased attendance at the Universities in the course of the 15th and the commencement of the 16th century is a very rapid one,” writes Franz Eulenburg. “Hence the decline in the ’twenties of the latter century is all the more noticeable.”[106] “At the beginning of the 16th century,” says Friedrich Paulsen, “everyone of any influence or standing, strength or courage, devoted himself to the new learning: prelates, sovereigns, the townships and, above all, the young”; but, shortly after the outbreak of the ecclesiastical revolution, “everything became changed.”[107]

What had contributed principally to a salutary revival had been the sterling work of the older Humanists. Eminent and thoroughly religious men of the schools—men like Alexander Hegius and his pupils and successors Rudolf von Langen, Ludwig Dringenberg, Johannes Murmellius and, particularly, Jakob Wimpfeling, who, on account of his epoch-making pedagogic work, was called the teacher of Germany—zealously made their own the humanistic ideal of making of the classics the centre of the education of the young, and of paving the way for a new intellectual life, by means of the instruction given in the schools.[108] An attempt was made to combine classical learning with devotion to the old religion and respect for the Church. They also strove to carry out—though not always successfully—the task which was assigned to the schools by the Lateran Council held under Leo X; the aim of the teacher was to be not merely to impart grammar, rhetoric and the other sciences, but at the same time to instil into those committed to their charge the fear of God and zeal for the faith.[109] The sovereigns and the towns placed their abundant means at the disposal of the new movement and so did the Church, which at that time was still a wealthy organisation.

The number of the schools and scholars in itself proves the interest taken by the nation in the relative prosperity of its education.

To take some instances from districts with which Luther must have been fairly well acquainted: Zwickau had a flourishing Latin school which, in 1490, numbered 900 pupils divided into four classes. In 1518 instruction was given there in Greek and Hebrew, and bequests, ecclesiastical and secular, for its maintenance continued to be made. The town of Brunswick had two Latin schools and, besides, three schools belonging to religious communities. At Nuremberg, towards the close of the 15th century, there were several Latin schools controlled by four rectors and twelve assistants; a new “School of Poetry” was added in 1515 under Johann Cochlæus. Augsburg also had five Church schools at the commencement of the 16th century, and besides this private teachers with a humanistic training were engaged in teaching Latin and the fine arts. At Frankfurt-on-the-Main there were, in 1478, three foundation schools with 318 pupils; the college at Schlettstadt in Alsace numbered 900 pupils in 1517 and Geiler of Kaysersberg and Jakob Wimpfeling were both educated there. At Görlitz in Silesia, at the close of the 15th century, the number of scholars varied between 500 and 600. Emmerich on the lower Rhine had, in 1510, approximately 450 pupils in its six classes, in 1521 about 1500. Münster in Westphalia, owing to the labours of its provost, Rudolf von Langen, became the focus and centre of humanistic effort, and, subsequent to 1512, had also its pupils divided into six classes.[110]

The “Brothers of the Common Life” established their schools over the whole of Northern Germany. Their institutions, with which Luther himself had the opportunity of becoming acquainted at Magdeburg, sent out some excellent schoolmasters. The schools of these religious at Deventer, Zwolle, Liège and Louvain were famous. The school of the brothers at Liège numbered in 1521 1600 pupils, assorted into eight classes.

In the lands of the Catholic princes many important grammar-schools withstood the storms of the religious revulsion, so that Luther’s statements concerning the total downfall of education cannot be accepted as generally correct, even subsequent to the first decades of the century.

Nor were even the elementary schools neglected at the close of the Middle Ages in most parts of the German Empire. Fresh accounts of such schools, in both town and country, are constantly cropping up to-day in the local histories. Constant efforts for their improvement and multiplication were made at this time. About a hundred regulations and charters of schools either in German, or in Dutch, dating from 1400-1521 have been traced. The popular religious handbooks were zealous in advocating the education of the people.[111] Luther himself tells us it was the custom to stir up the schoolmasters to perform their duty by saying that “to neglect a scholar is as bad as to seduce a maid.”[112]

Luther’s Success

Did Luther, by means of the efforts described above, succeed in bringing about any real improvement in the schools, particularly the Latin schools? The affirmative cannot be maintained. At least it was a long time before the reform which he desiderated came, and what reform took place seems to have been the result less of Luther’s exhortations than of Melanchthon’s labours.

On the whole his hopes were disappointed. The famous saying of Erasmus: “Wherever Lutheranism prevails, there we see the downfall of learning,”[113] remained largely true throughout the 16th century, in spite of all Luther’s efforts.

Schiele says: Where Melanchthon’s school-regulations for the Saxon Electorate were enforced without alteration, Latin alone was taught, “but neither German nor Greek nor Hebrew,” that the pupils might not be overtaxed. Instruction in history and mathematics was not insisted on at all. Bugenhagen added the rudiments of Greek and mathematics. Only about twenty years after Luther’s “An die Radherrn” do we hear something of attempts being made to improve matters in the Lutheran districts. As a rule all that was done even in the large towns was to amalgamate several moribund schools and give them a new charter. “Even towns like Nuremberg and Frankfurt were unable, in spite of the greatest sacrifices, to introduce a well-ordered system into the schools. The two most eminent, practical pedagogues of the time, Camerarius and Micyllus, could not check the decline of their council schools.”[114]

Nuremberg, the highly praised home of culture, may here be taken as a case in point, because it was to the syndic of this city that Luther addressed his second writing, praising the new Protestant gymnasium which had been established there (above, p. 6). Yet, in 1530, after it had been in existence some years, this same syndic, Lazarus Spengler, sadly wrote: “Are there not any intelligent Christians who would not be highly distressed that in a few short years, not Latin only, but all other useful languages and studies have fallen into such contempt? Nobody, alas, will recognise the great misfortune which, as I fear, we shall soon suffer, and which even now looms in sight.”[115] In the Gymnasium, which he had so much at heart, instruction was given free owing to the rich foundations, nevertheless but very few pupils were found to attend it. Eobanus Hessus, who was to have lent his assistance to promoting the cause of Humanism, left the town again in 1533. When Hessus before this complained to Erasmus that he had given offence to the town by his complaints of the low standard to which the school had fallen (above, p. 32), the latter replied in 1531, that he had received his information from the learned Pirkheimer and other friends of the professors there. He had indeed written that learning seemed to be only half alive there, in fact, at its last gasp, but he had done so in order by publishing the truth to spur them on to renewed zeal. “This I know, that at Liège and Paris learning is flourishing as much as ever. Whence then comes this torpor? From the negligence of those who boast of being Evangelicals. Besides, you Nurembergers have no reason to think yourselves particularly offended by me, for such complaints are to be heard from the lips of every honest man of every town where the Evangelicals rule.”[116] Camerarius, whom Melanchthon wished to be the soul of the school, turned his back on it in 1535 on account of the hopeless state of things. J. Poliander said in 1540: In Nuremberg, that populous and well-built city, there are rich livings and famous professors, but owing to the lack of students the institution there has dwindled away. “The lecturers left it, which caused much disgrace and evil talk to the people of Nuremberg, as everybody knows.”[117] When Melanchthon stayed for a while at Nuremberg in 1552 by order of the Elector, the Gymnasium was a picture of desolation. In the school regulations issued by the magistrates the pupils were reproached with contempt of divine service, blasphemy, persistent defiance of school discipline, etc., and with being “barbarous, rude, wild, wanton, bestial and sinful.” Camerarius even wrote from Leipzig advising the town-council to break up the school.[118]

There is no doubt that in other districts where Lutheranism prevailed Latin schools were to be found where good discipline reigned and where masters and pupils alike worked with zeal; the records, however, have far more to say of the decline.

Many statements of contemporaries well acquainted with the facts speak most sadly of the then conditions. Melanchthon complained more and more that shortsighted Lutheran theologians stood in the way of the progress of the schools. Camerarius, in a letter to George Fabricius, rector of Meissen, said in 1555 that it was plain everything was conspiring for the destruction of Germany, that religion, learning, discipline and honesty were doomed. As one of the principal causes he instances “the neglect and disgust shown for that learning, which, in reality, is the glory and ornament of man.” “It is looked upon as tomfoolery and a thing fit only for children to play with.” “Education, and life in general, too, has become quite other from what we were accustomed to in our boyhood.” Of the Catholic times he speaks with enthusiasm: “What zeal at one time inspired the students and in what honour was learning held; what hardships men were ready to endure in order to acquire but a modicum of scholarship is still to-day a matter of tradition. Now, on the other hand, learned studies are so little thought of owing to civil disturbances and inward dissensions that it is only here and there that they have escaped complete destruction.”[119]

What he says is abundantly confirmed by the accounts of the failure of educational effort at Augsburg, Esslingen, Basle, Stuttgart, Tübingen, Ansbach, Heilbronn and many other towns.

The efforts made were, however, not seldom ill-advised. If it be really a fact that the Latin “Colloquia” of Erasmus, which Luther himself had condemned for its frivolity, “played a principal part in the education of the schoolboys,”[120] then, indeed, it is not surprising that the results did not reach expectations. The crude polemics against the olden Church and the theological controversies associated with the names of Luther and Melanchthon, which penetrated into the schools owing to the squabbles of the professors and preachers, also had a bad effect. Again education was hampered by being ever subordinated to the interests of a “pure faith” which was regarded as its mainstay, but which was itself ever changing its shape and doctrines.[121]

“The form of education required for future ministers,” says Schiele, “became the chief thing, and education as such was consequently obliged to take a back seat.” “At the Universities it was only theology that flourished,” the olden Hellenists died out and the young were, in many places, only permitted to attend the “orthodox” Universities. Among the Lutherans the Latin schools were soon no longer able to compete with the colleges of the Jesuits and the Calvinists. Not a single Lutheran rector or master of note is recorded in the annals of the history of education. It is true that the so-called Küster-schools spread throughout the land simultaneously with the spread of orthodoxy. But when we see how the orthodox clergy despised their catechetical duties as of secondary importance, and hastened to delegate them as far as possible to the Küster [parish-clerk], it becomes impossible for us to regard such schools as a proof of any interest in education on the part of the orthodox, rather the contrary. How otherwise can we explain, even when we take into account the unfavourable conditions of the age, that, a hundred years after Luther’s day, far fewer people were able to read his writings than at the time when he first came forward.[122]

In the elementary schools which gradually came into being the parish-clerk gave instruction in reading and writing, and, in addition, tried to teach the catechism by reciting it aloud and making the children repeat it after him. The earliest definite regulations which imposed this duty on the clerk in addition to the catechism were those issued by Duke Christopher of Würtemberg in 1559, who also devoted his attention to the founding of German schools. The latter, however, were not intended for the smaller villages, nor did they receive any support from the “poor box.” Nor did all the children attend the schools kept by the clerk. The school regulations issued by the Protestant Duke were in themselves good, but their effect was meagre.[123] In the Saxon Electorate it was only in 1580 that the parish-clerks of the villages were directed to keep a school.[124]

Finally, to come to the Protestant Universities; it was only in the latter part of the 16th century that the attendance, which, as we saw above, had fallen so low, began once more to make a better show.

In 1540 Melanchthon expressed himself as satisfied with the condition of learning which prevailed in them.[125] But among others whose opinion was less favourable we find Luther’s friend Justus Jonas, who, two years before this, in 1538, wrote, that, since the Evangel had begun to make its way through Germany, the Universities were silent as the grave.[126] The testimony of Rudolf Walther, a Swiss, who had visited many German Universities and been on terms of intimacy with eminent Protestant theologians, must also receive special attention. In 1568 he wrote—though his words may perhaps be somewhat discounted by his own theological isolation—“The German Universities are now in such a state that, to say nothing of the conceit and carelessness of the professors and the impudent immorality which prevails, they are in no way remarkable. Heidelberg, however, is praised more than the others, for the attacks which menace her on all sides do not allow this University to slumber.”[127]

Heidelberg was the chief educational centre of those who held Calvinistic views. Since 1580 the attendance at the University had notably increased owing to the influx of students from abroad. Towards the close of the century, with Wittenberg and Jena, it headed the list of the Universities of the new faith in respect of the number of matriculations. Jena, like its sister Universities of Marburg, Königsberg and Helmstädt, had been founded as a seminary of Protestant theology and at the same time of Roman law, which served to strengthen the absolutism of the princes. Since the appointment of Flacius Illyricus in 1557 it had become a stronghold of pure Lutheranism. The theological squabbles within the bosom of Protestantism, here as in the other Universities, were, however, disastrous to peace, and any healthy progress. Characteristic of the treatment meted out to the professors by Protestant statesmen of a different opinion, even when they were not summarily dismissed, is the discourse of the Saxon Chancellor, Christian Brück, to the professors of the theological Faculty at Jena in 1561: “You black, red and yellow knaves and rascals! A plague upon you all you shameless scamps and rebels! Would that you were knocked on the head, disgraced and blinded!”[128]

The University of Wittenberg now registered the largest number of students. Although on Luther’s first public appearance crowds of students had been attracted by the fame of his name, yet these decreased to such an extent that between 1523 and 1533 not a single theological degree was conferred. About 1550, however, the Faculties again numbered about 2000 students, thanks chiefly to Melanchthon. In 1598 the number is even given as exceeding 2000. Throughout the whole of the century, from the beginning of the ecclesiastical schism, a considerable percentage of students had poured in from abroad. Of the wantonness of the Wittenberg students of the various Faculties, contemporaries as well as official documents wax so eloquent that the University would seem to have enjoyed an unenviable notoriety in this respect among the Protestant educational establishments.[129] The fact that, as just mentioned, the students were largely recruited from other countries must be taken into account. Wittenberg suffered more than the other Universities from the quarrels which, according to Luther, tore to pieces Protestant theology. What was said in a sermon in 1571 on the words “Peace be with you” is peculiarly applicable to Wittenberg: “Only see what quarrelling and envy, hatred, and persecution, and expulsion there has been, and still is, among the professors at Wittenberg, Jena, Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, Königsberg and indeed all the Universities which really should be flourishing in the light of our beloved Evangel; it would indeed be a great and heavenly work of God if all the young men at these Universities did not fall into such vices, and even become utterly corrupted.”[130]

4. Benevolence and Relief of the Poor

Luther’s attitude towards poor relief, which ever since the rise of Protestantism has been the subject of extravagant eulogies, can only be put in its true light by a closer examination of the state of things before his day.[131]

At the Close of the Middle Ages

Indications of the provision made by the community for relief of the poor are found in the Capitularies of Charles the Great, indeed even in the 6th century in the canons of a Council held at Tours in 567. Corporate relief of the poor, later on carried out by means of the guilds, and the care of the needy in each particular district undertaken by unions of the parishes, were of a public and organised character. It has been justly remarked concerning the working of the mediæval institutions: “The results achieved by our insurance system were then attained by means of family support, corporations, village clubs and unions of the lords of the manors.… Such organised relief of the poor made any State relief unnecessary. The State authorities concerned themselves only negatively, viz. by prohibiting mendicancy and vagabondage.”[132] Private benevolence occupied the first place, since the very nature of Christian charity involves love of our neighbour. Its work was mainly done by means of the ecclesiastical institutions and the monasteries. Special arrangements also were made, under the direction of the Church, to meet the various needs, and such were to be found in considerable numbers both in large places and in small; all, moreover, was carried out on the lines of a careful selection of deserving cases and a wise control of expenditure.

The share taken by the Church in the whole work of charity was, generally speaking, a guarantee that the work was managed conscientiously.

Though among both monks and clergy scandalous instances of greed and self-seeking were not wanting, yet there were many who lived up to their profession and were zealous in assisting in the development of works of charity. The mendicant Orders, by the very example of the poverty prescribed by their rule, helped to combat all excessive avarice; their voluntary privations taught people how to endure the trials of poverty and they showed their gratitude for the alms bestowed on them by their labours for souls in the pulpit and in the school, and by doing their utmost to promote learning.

Every Order was exhorted by its Rule to fly idleness and to perform works of neighbourly charity.

There are plentiful sermons and works of piety dating from the close of the Middle Ages which prove how the faithful were not only urged to be charitable to the needy, but also to obey God’s command and to labour, this exhortation referring particularly to the poor themselves, who were not unnecessarily to become a burden to others. Again and again are the words of the Bible emphasised: “In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat thy bread,” and “Whoever will not work neither let him eat” (Gen. iii. 19; 2 Thes. iii. 10).

In spite of this, lack of industrial occupation, the difficulty and even sometimes the entire absence of public supervision, and, in part also, the ease with which alms were to be had, bred a large crop of beggars, who moved about from place to place and who, in late mediæval times, became a perfect plague throughout the whole of Germany. Hence all the greater towns in the 15th century and early years of the 16th issued special regulations to deal with the poor. In the matter of these laws for the regulation of charity the city-fathers acted independently, strong in the growing consciousness of their standing and duties. Lay Guardians of the Poor were appointed by the magistrates and poor-boxes were established, the management of which devolved on the municipal authorities. The Catholic Netherlands set an excellent example in this respect by utilising the old hospital regulations and, with their help, drawing up new and independent organisations. Antwerp, Brussels, Louvain, Mechlin, Ghent, Bruges, Namur and other towns already possessed a well-developed system of poor relief.

“The admirable regulations for the relief of the poor at Ypres” (1525), to which reference is so often made, “a work of social reform of the first rank” (Feuchtwanger), sprang from such institutions, and these, in turn, were by Charles V in 1531 made the basis of his new Poor Law for the whole of the Netherlands. The Ypres regulations declared, that, according to the divine command, everyone is obliged to gain his living as far as he can. All begging was strictly prohibited, charitable institutions and private almsgiving were not allowed to have their way unchecked, admission of strangers was made difficult and other salutary restrictions were enforced, yet, on the other hand, Christian charity towards those unable to earn a living was warmly welcomed and set in the right channels.[133]

In the Netherlands, Humanism, which had made great progress in Erasmus’s native land, co-operated in the measures taken, and it was here that the important “De subventione pauperum” of Juan Ludovico de Vives, a friend of Erasmus, of Pope Hadrian IV and of Sir Thomas More, and a zealous opponent of Lutheranism, was published in 1526.

In the Catholic towns of Germany, particularly in the south, it was not merely the stimulus of Humanism but still more the economic and political development which, towards the end of the Middle Ages and during the transition to modern times, led to constant fresh efforts in the domain of the public relief of the poor. The assistance of the poor was, in fact, at that time “one of the principal social questions, poor relief being identical with social politics. To provide for the sick members of the guilds, for the serf incapable of work, for the beggar in the street, for the guest in the hostel, for the poor artisan to whom the city magistrates gave a loan free of interest, for the burgher who received cheap grain from the council, all this was, to give freely, to bestow alms and to perform works well pleasing to God.”[134]

The gaping rift in the German lands and the chaotic conditions which accompanied the transition from the agrarian to the commercial system of economy were naturally not favourable to the peaceful work of alleviating poverty. It was, however, eventually to the advantage of the towns to form themselves into separate administrations, able to safeguard their own charitable institutions by means of an efficient police system. Thus the town councils took over what had been formerly to a great extent the function of the Church, but this they did without any animosity towards her. They felt themselves to be acting as beseemed “Christian authorities.” They were encouraged in this by that interference, in what had once been the domain of the Church, of the territorial princes and the cities, which had become the rule in the 15th century. The more or less extensive suzerainty in Church matters which had prevailed even previous to the religious schism in Saxony, Brandenburg and many of the Imperial cities may be called to mind. In towns such as Augsburg, Nuremberg, Strasburg and Ratisbon the overwhelming increase which had taken place in the class which lived from hand to mouth, called for the prohibitive measures against beggary and the other regulations spoken of above.

At Augsburg the town council issued orders concerning the poor-law system in 1459, 1491 and 1498. Those of 1491 and 1498 sought to regulate and prevent any overlapping in the distribution of the municipal doles, the “holy alms which are compassionately given and bestowed daily in many different parts and corners of the city”; to these were subjoined measures for enforcing strict supervision of those who received assistance and for excluding the undeserving; whoever was able to work but refused to do so was shut out, in order that the other poor people might not “be deprived of their bodily sustenance.” A third and still better set of poor-law regulations appeared in 1522. They provided for a stricter organisation of the distribution of the monies, and made the supervision of those in receipt of help easier by the keeping of registers of the poor and by house to house visitations. Beggars at the church doors were placed under special control. No breach with the ecclesiastical traditions of the past is apparent in the rules of 1522, in spite of the influence of the religious innovations in this town. From the civil standpoint, however, they, like the poor laws generally drawn up at the close of the Middle Ages, display a “thorough knowledge of the conditions and are true to a well-tried tradition of communal policy.” The principal author of this piece of legislation was Conrad Peutinger, the famous lawyer and statesman who since 1497 had been town clerk. He died greatly esteemed in 1547, after having done more to further than to check the religious innovations in his native town by his uncertain and vacillating behaviour.

From the Nuremberg mendicancy regulations Johannes Janssen quotes certain highly practical enactments which belong to the latter half of the 14th century. The so-called “meat and bread foundations,” which had been enriched by the Papal Indulgences granted to benefactors, were not available for any public beggars, but only for the genuine poor. In 1478 the town council issued a more minute mendicant ordinance. Here we read: “Almsgiving is a specially praiseworthy, virtuous work, and those who receive alms unworthily and unnecessarily lay a heavy burden of guilt on themselves.” Those allowed to beg were also obliged at least “to spin or perform some other work according to their capacity.” Beggars from foreign parts were only permitted to beg on certain fixed days in the year. Conrad Celtes, the Humanist, in his work on Nuremberg printed in 1501, boasts of the ample provision for widows and orphans made by the town, the granaries for the purpose of giving assistance and other arrangements whereby it was distinguished above all other towns; families of the better class who had met with misfortunes received yearly a secret dole to tide them over their difficult time.[135]

New regulations concerning the poor, more comprehensive than the former, appeared at Nuremberg in 1522. These deal with the actual needs and are in close touch with the maxims of government and old traditions of the Imperial cities. In them all the earlier charitable, social and police measures are codified: the restriction of begging, the management of the hospitals, the provision of work and tools, advances to artisans in difficulties, granaries for future famines, the distribution of alms, badges for privileged beggars, etc. The whole is crowned by the Bible text, so highly esteemed in the Catholic Middle Ages: “Blessed is he that hath pity on the poor and needy, for the Lord will deliver him in the evil day.” “Our salvation,” so we read when mention is made of the relief funds, “rests solely in keeping and performing the commandments of God which oblige every Christian to give such help and display such fraternal charity towards his neighbour.”[136] At Nuremberg the new teaching had already taken firm footing yet the olden Catholic conception of the meritorious character of almsgiving is nevertheless recognisable in the regulations of 1522.[137]

At Strasburg a new system, dating from 1523, for regulating the distribution of the “common alms” was established in harmony with the great traditions of the 15th century, and above all with the spirit and labours of the famous Catholic preacher Geiler of Kaysersberg (†1510). Janssen has given us a fine series of witnesses, from Geiler’s sermons and writings, of the nature at once religious and practical of his exhortations to charity.[138] Charity, he insists, must show itself not merely in the bestowal of temporal goods; it is concerned above all with the “inward and spiritual goods, the milk of sound doctrine, and instruction of the unlearned, the milk of devotion, wisdom and consolation.” He repeatedly exhorts the authorities to stricter regulations on almsgiving.

After various improvements had been introduced in the poor law at Strasburg subsequent to 1500, the magistrates—the clergy and the monasteries not having shown themselves equal to their task—issued a new enactment, though even this relied to a great extent on the help of the clergy. The regulations of Augsburg and Nuremberg were the most effectual. It was only later, after the work of Capito, Bucer and Hedio at Strasburg, that, together with the new spirit, changes crept into the traditional poor-law system of the town.

All the enactments, dating from late mediæval times prior to the religious innovations, for the poor of the other great German towns, for instance, of Ratisbon (1523), Breslau (1525) and Würzburg (1533) are of a more or less similar character. Thus, thanks to the economic pressure, there was gradually evolved, in the centres of German prosperity and commercial industry, a sober but practical and far-sighted poor-law system.[139]

It was not, indeed, so easy to get rid of the existing disorders; to achieve this a lengthy struggle backed by the regulations just established would have been necessary. Above all, the tramps and vagabonds, who delighted in idleness and adventure and who often developed dangerous proclivities, continued to be the pest of the land. The cause of this economic disorder was a deep-seated one and entirely escapes those who declare that beggary sprang solely from the idea foisted on the Church, viz. that “poverty was meritorious and begging a respectable trade.”

Luther’s Efforts. The Primary Cause of their Failure

The spread of Lutheranism had its effect on the municipal movement for the relief of the poor, nor was its influence all for the good.

In 1528 and 1529 Luther twice published an edition of the booklet “On the Roguery of the False Beggars” (“Liber vagatorum”), a work dating from the beginning of the 16th century; in his preface to it he says, that the increase in fraudulent vagrancy shows “how strong in the world is the rule of the devil”; “Princes, lords, town-magistrates and, in fact, everybody” ought to see that alms were bestowed only on the beggars and the needy in their own neighbourhood, not on “rogues and vagabonds” by whom even he himself (Luther) had often been taken in. Everywhere in both towns and villages registers should be kept of the poor, and strange beggars not allowed without a “letter or testimonial.”[140]

He was, however, not always so circumspect in his demands and principles. In a passage of his work “An den Adel” he makes a wild appeal, which in its practicability falls short of what had already been done in various parts of Germany. The only really new point in it is, that, in order to make an end of begging and poverty, the mendicant Orders should be abolished, and the Roman See deprived of their collections and revenues. Of the ordinary beggars he says, without being sufficiently acquainted with the state of the case, that they “might easily be expelled,” and that it would be an “easy matter to deal with them were we only brave and in earnest enough.” To the objection that the result of violent measures would be a still more niggardly treatment of the poor he replied in 1520: “It suffices that the poor be fairly well provided for, so that they die not of hunger or cold.” With a touch of communism he exaggerates, at the expense of the well-to-do and those who did no work, an idea in itself undoubtedly true, viz. that work is man’s portion: “It is not just that, at the expense of another’s toil, a man should go idle, wallow in riches and lead a bad life, whilst his fellow lives in destitution, as is now the perverted custom.… It was never ordained by God that anyone should live on the goods of another.”[141]

In itself it could only have a salutary effect when Luther goes on to speak, as he frequently does, against begging among the class whose duty it was to work with their hands, and when he attempts both to check their idleness and to rouse a spirit of charity towards the deserving.[142] He even regards the Bible text, “Let there be no beggar or starving person amongst you,” as universally binding on Christians. Only that he is oblivious of the necessary limitations when he exclaims: “If God commanded this even in the Old Testament how much more is it incumbent on us Christians not to let anyone beg or starve!”[143]

The latter words refer to those who are really poor but quite willing to work (a class of people which will always exist in spite of every effort); as for those who “merely eat” he demands that they be driven out of the land. This he does in a writing of 1526 addressed to military men; here he divides “all man’s work into two kinds,” viz. “agricultural work and war work.” A third kind of work, viz. the teaching office, to which he often refers elsewhere, is here passed over in silence. “As for the useless people,” he cries, “who serve neither to defend us nor to feed us, but merely eat and pass away their time in idleness, [the Emperor or the local sovereign] should either expel them from the land or make them work, as the bees do, who sting to death the drones that do not work but devour the honey of the others.”[144] His unmethodical mind failed to see to what dire consequences these hastily penned words could lead.

With the object of alleviating poverty he himself, however, lent a hand to certain charitable institutions, which, though they did not endure, have yet their place in history. Such were the poor-boxes of Wittenberg, Leisnig, Altenburg and some other townships. This institution was closely bound up with his scheme of gathering together the “believing Christians” into communities apart. These communities were not only to have their own form of divine worship and to use the ecclesiastical penalties, but were also to assist the poor by means of the common funds in a new and truly Evangelical fashion.

The olden poor-law ordinances of mediæval times had been revised at Wittenberg and embodied in the so-called “Beutelordnung.”[145] Carlstadt and the town-council, under the influence of Luther’s earlier ideas, substituted for this on Jan. 24, 1522, a new “Order for the princely town of Wittenberg”; at the same time they reorganised the common funds.[146] These regulations Luther left in force, when, on his return from the Wartburg, he annulled the rest of Carlstadt’s doings; the truth is, that they were not at variance even with his newer ideals.

In 1523 he himself promoted a similar but more highly developed institution for the relief of the poor in the little Saxon town of Leisnig on the Freiberg Mulde; this was to be in the hands of the community of true believers into which the inhabitants had formed themselves at the instigation of the zealous Lutheran, Sebastian von Kötteritz. At Altenburg also, doubtless through Luther’s doing, his friend Wenceslaus Link, the preacher in that town, made a somewhat similar attempt to establish a communal poor-box. In many other places efforts of a like nature were made under Lutheran auspices.

How far such undertakings spread throughout the Protestant congregations cannot be accurately determined. We know, however, the details of the scheme owing to our still having the rules drawn up for Leisnig.[147]

According to this the whole congregation, town-councillors, aldermen, elders and all the inhabitants generally, were to bind themselves to make a good use of their Christian freedom by the faithful keeping of the Word of God and by submitting to good discipline and just penalties. Ten coffer-masters were to be appointed over the “common fund” and these were three times a year to give an account to the “whole assembly thereto convened.” Into this fund was to be put not merely the revenue of the earlier institutions which hitherto had been most active in the relief of the poor, viz. the brotherhoods and benevolent associations, as also that of most of the guilds, and, moreover, the whole income drawn by the parish from the glebes, pious foundations, tithes, voluntary offerings, fines, bridge dues and private industrial concerns. Thus it was not merely a relief fund but practically a trust comprising all the wealth of the congregation, which chiefly consisted in the extensive Church property it had annexed. In keeping with this is the manner in which the income was to be apportioned. Only a part was devoted to the relief of the poor, i.e. to the hospital, orphanage and guest-houses. Most of the money was to go to defray the stipend of the Lutheran pastor and his clerk, to maintain the schools and the church, and to allow of advances being made to artisans free of interest; the rest was to be put by for times of scarcity. The members of the congregation were also exhorted to make contributions out of charity to their neighbour.

The scheme pleased Luther so well that he advised the printing of the rules, and himself wrote a preface to the published text in which he said, he hoped that “the example thus set would prove a success, be generally followed, and lead to a great ruin of the earlier foundations, monasteries, chapels and all other such abominations which hitherto had absorbed all the world’s wealth under a show of worship.”

Hence here once more his chief motive is a polemical one, viz. his desire to injure Popery.

He invites the authorities on this occasion to “lay hands on” such property and to apply to the common fund all that remained over after the obligations attaching to the property had been complied with, and restitution made to such heirs of the donors as demanded it on account of their poverty. In giving this advice he was anxious, as he says, to disclaim any responsibility in the event of “such property as had fallen vacant being plundered owing to the estates changing hands and each one laying hold on whatever he could seize.” “Should avarice find an entry what then can be done? It must not indeed be given up in despair. It is better that avarice should take too much in a legal way than that there should be such plundering as occurred in Bohemia. Let each one [i.e. of the heirs of the donors] examine his own conscience and see what he ought to take for his own needs and what he should leave for the common fund!”[148]

The setting up of such a “common fund” was also suggested in other Lutheran towns as a means of introducing some sort of order into the confiscation of the Church’s property. The direct object of the funds was not the relief of the poor. This was merely included as a measure for palliating and justifying the bold stroke which the innovators were about to take in secularising the whole of the Church’s vast properties.

This, however, makes some of Luther’s admonitions in his preface to the regulations for the Leisnig common fund sound somewhat strange, for instance, his injunction that everything be carried out according to the law of love. “Christian charity must here act and decide; laws and enactments cannot settle the difficulties. Indeed I write this counsel only out of Christian charity for the Christians.” Whoever refuses to accept his advice, he says at the conclusion, may go his own way; only a few would accept it, but one or two were quite enough for him. “The world must remain the world and Satan its Prince. I have done what I could and what it was my duty to do.” He was half conscious of the unpractical character of his proposals, yet any failure he was determined to attribute to the devil’s doing.

His premonition of failure was only too soon realised at Leisnig. The new scheme could not be made to work. The magistrates refused to resign the rights they claimed of disposing of the foundations and similar charitable sources of revenue or to hand over the incomings to the coffer-masters, for the latter, they argued, were representatives, not of the congregation but of the Church. Hence the fund had to go begging. Luther came to words with the town-council, but was unable to have his own way, even though he appealed to the Elector.[149] He lamented in 1524 that the example of Leisnig had been a very sad one, though, as the first of its kind,[150] it should have served as a model. Of Tileman Schnabel, an ex-Augustinian and college friend of Luther’s at Erfurt, who had been working at Leisnig as preacher and “deacon,” Luther wrote, that he would soon find himself obliged to leave if he did not wish to die of hunger. “Incidents such as these deprive the parsonages of their best managers. Maybe they want to drive them back to their old monasteries.”[151]

Thus the parochial fund of Leisnig, which some writers have extolled so highly, really never came into existence. It lives only in the directions given by Luther.

So ill were parson and schoolmaster cared for at Leisnig, in spite of all the Church property that had been sequestered, that, according to the Visitation of 1529, the preacher there had been obliged to ply a trade and gain a living by selling beer. In 1534, so the records of the Visitations of that date declare, the schoolmaster had for five years been paid no salary.

Link, the Altenburg preacher, was also unsuccessful in his efforts to carry out a similar scheme. He complained as early as 1523, in a writing entitled “Von Arbeyt und Betteln,” that this Christian undertaking had so far “not only not been furthered but had actually gone backward” in spite of all his efforts from the pulpit. He, too, addresses himself to the “rulers” and reminds them that it is their duty “to the best of their ability to provide for the poverty of the masses.”[152]

To Luther’s bitter grief and disappointment Wittenberg (see above, p. 49) also furnished anything but an encouraging example. Here the incentive to the introduction of the common fund by Carlstadt had been the resolve of the town council “to seize on the revenues of the Church, the brotherhoods and guilds and divert them into the common fund, to be employed for general purposes, and for paying the Church officials.… No less than twenty-one pious guilds were to be mulcted.”[153] Yet the Wittenberg measures were so little a success, in spite of all Luther’s efforts, that in his sermons he could not sufficiently deplore the absence of charity and prevalence of avarice and greed amongst both burghers and councillors.[154] The Beutelordnung continued indeed in existence, but merely as an administrative department of the town council.

It is not surprising therefore that Luther gave up for the while any attempt at putting into practice the Leisnig project elsewhere; his scheme for assembling the true Christians into a community had also perforce to betake itself unto the land of dreams. Only in his “Deudsche Messe” of 1526 does the old idea again force itself to the front: “Here a general collection for the poor might be made among the congregation; it should be given willingly and distributed amongst the needy after the example of St. Paul, 2 Cor. ix.… If only we had people earnestly desirous of being Christians, the manner and order would soon be settled.”[155]

Subsequent to 1526, however, Bugenhagen drafted better regulations and poor laws for Wittenberg and other Protestant towns, founded this time on a more practical basis. (See below, p. 57 f.)

Luther, nevertheless, continued to complain of the Wittenbergers. The indignation he expresses at the lack of all charitable endeavours throughout the domain of the new Evangel serves as a suitable background for these complaints.

Want of charity and of neighbourly love was the primary and most important cause of the failure of Luther’s efforts.

“Formerly, when people served the devil and outraged the Blood of Christ,” he says in 1530 in “Das man die Kinder zur Schulen halten solle” (see above, p. 6), “all purses were open and there was no end to the giving, for churches, schools and every kind of abomination; but now that it is a question of founding true schools and churches every purse is closed with iron chains and no one is able to give.” So pitiful a sight made him beg of God a happy death so that he might not live to see Germany’s punishment: “Did my conscience allow of it I would even give my help and advice so as to bring back the Pope with all his abominations to rule over us once more.”[156]

What leads him to such admissions as, that, the Christians, “under the plea of freedom are now seven times worse than they were under the Pope’s tyranny,” is, in the first place, his bitter experience of the drying up of charity, which now ceases to care even for the parsonages and churches. Under the Papacy people had been eager to build churches and to make offerings to be distributed in alms among the poor, but, now that the true religion is taught, it is a wonder how everyone has grown so cold.—Yet the people were told and admonished that it was well pleasing to God and all the angels, but even so they would not respond.—Now a pastor could not even get a hole in his roof mended to enable him to lie dry, whereas in former days people could erect churches and monasteries regardless of cost.—“Now there is not a single town ready to support a preacher and there is nothing but robbery and pilfering amongst the people and no one hinders them. Whence comes this shameful plague? ‘From the doctrine,’ say the bawlers, ‘which you teach, viz. that we must not reckon on works or place our trust in them.’ This is, however, the work of the tiresome devil who falsely attributes such things to the pure and wholesome teaching,” etc.[157]

He is so far from laying the blame on his teaching that he exclaims: What would our forefathers, who were noted for their charity, not have done “had they had the light of the Evangel which is now given to us”? Again and again he comes back to the contrast between his and older times: “Our parents and forefathers put us to shame for they gave so generously and charitably, nay even to excess, to the churches, parsonages and schools, foundations, hospitals,” etc.[158]—“Indeed had we not already the means, thanks to the charitable alms and foundations of our forefathers, the Gospel itself would long since have been wiped out by the burghers in the towns, and the nobles and peasants in the country, so that not one poor preacher would have enough to eat and drink; for we refuse to supply them, and, instead, rob and lay violent hands on what others have given and founded for the purpose.”[159]

To sum up briefly other characteristic complaints which belong here, he says: Now that in accordance with the true Evangel we are admonished “to give without seeking for honour or merit, no one can spare a farthing.”[160]—No one now will give, and, “unless we had the lands we stole from the Pope, the preachers would have but scant fare”; they even try “to snatch the morsels out of the parson’s mouth.” The way in which the “nobles and officials” now treat what was formerly Church property amounts to “a devouring of all beggars, strangers and poor widows; we may indeed bewail this, for they eat up the very marrow of the bones. Since they raise a hue and cry against the Papists let them also not forget us.… Woe to you peasants, burghers and nobles who grab everything, hoard and scrape, and pretend all the time to be good Evangelicals.”[161]

He is only too well acquainted with the evils of mendicancy and idleness, and knows that they have not diminished but rather increased. Even towards the end of his life he alludes to the “innumerable wicked rogues who pretend to be poor, needy beggars and deceive the people”; they deserve the gallows as much as the “idlers,” of whom there are “even many more” than before, who are well able to work, take service and support themselves, but prefer to ask for alms, and, “when these are not esteemed enough, to supplement them by pilfering or even by open, bare-faced stealing in the courtyards, the streets and in the very houses, so that I do not know whether there has ever been a time when robbery and thieving were so common.”[162]

Finally he recalls the enactments against begging by which the “authorities forbade foreign beggars and vagabonds and also idlers.” This brings us back to the attempts made, with the consent of the authorities in the Lutheran districts, to obviate the social evils by means similar to those adopted at Leisnig.

A Second Stumbling Block: Lack of Organisation

It was not merely lack of charity that rendered nugatory all attempts to put in force regulations such as those drafted for Leisnig, but also defects in the inner organisation of the schemes. First, to lump all sorts of monies intended for different purposes into a single fund could prove nothing but a source of confusion and diminish the amount to be devoted directly to charitable purposes; this, too, was the effect of keeping no separate account of the expenditure for the relief of the poor.

Then, again, the intermingling of secular and spiritual which the arrangement involved was very unsatisfactory. We can trace here more clearly than elsewhere the quasi-mystic idea of the congregation of true believers which retained so strong a hold on Luther’s imagination till about 1525. With singular ignorance of the ways of the world he wished to set up the common fund on a community based on faith and charity in which the universal priesthood was supposed to have abolished all distinction between the spiritual and secular authorities, nay, between the two very spheres themselves. He took for granted that Evangelical rulers would be altogether spiritual simply because they possessed the faith; faith, so he seemed to believe, would of itself do everything in the members of the congregation; under the guidance of the spirit everything would be “held in common, after the example of the Apostles,” as he says in the preface of the Leisnig regulations. But what was possible of accomplishment owing to abundance of grace in Apostolic times was an impossible dream in the 16th century. “The old ideal of an ecclesiastical commonwealth on which, according to the preface, Luther wished to construct a kind of insurance society for the relief of the poor, could not subsist for a moment in the keen atmosphere of a workaday world where men are what they are.”[163]

Hence the latest writer on social politics and the poor law, from whom the above words are taken, openly expresses his wonder at the “utopian, religio-communistic foundation on which the Wittenberg and Leisnig schemes, and those drawn up on similar lines, were based,” at the “utopian efforts” with their “absurd system of expenditure,” which, owing to their “fundamental defects and the mixing of the funds, were doomed sooner or later to fail.” This “travesty of early Christianity” tended neither to promote the moral and charitable sense of the people nor to further benevolent organisation. “Any rational policy of poor law” was, on the contrary, shut out by these early Lutheran institutions; the relief of the poor was thereby placed on an “eminently unstable basis”; the poor-boxes only served “to encourage idleness.” “Not in such a way could the modern poor-law system, based as it is on impersonal, legal principles, be called into being.”

“No system of poor law has ever had less claim to be placed at the head of a new development than this one [of Leisnig].”[164]

The years 1525 and 1526 brought the turning point in Luther’s attitude towards the question of poor relief, particularly owing to the effect of the Peasant War on his views of society and the Church.

The result of the war was to bring the new religious system into much closer touch with the sovereigns and “thus practically to give rise to a theocracy.”[165] In spite of the changes this produced, Luther’s schemes for providing for the poor continued to display some notable defects.

For all “practical purposes Luther threw over the principle of the universal priesthood which the peasants had embraced as a socio-political maxim, and, by a determined effort, cut his cause adrift from the social efforts of the day.… He worked himself up into a real hatred of the mob, of ‘Master Omnes,’ the ‘many-headed monster,’ and indeed came within an ace of the socio-political ideas of Machiavelli, who advised the rulers to treat the people so harshly that they might look upon those lords as liberal who were not extortionate.” After the abrogation of episcopal authority and canon law, of hierarchy and monasteries “there came an urgent call for the establishment of new associations with practical aims and for the construction of the skeleton of the new Christian community; we now hear no more of that ideal community of true believers which, thanks to its heartfelt faith, was to carry on the social work of preventing and alleviating poverty.”

The whole of the outward life of the Church being now under the direction of the Protestant sovereign, the system of poor relief began to assume a purely secular character, having nothing but an outward semblance of religion. The new regulations were largely the work of Bugenhagen, who was a better organiser than Luther. The many enactments he was instrumental in drafting for the North German towns embody necessary provisions for the relief of the poor.

Officials appointed by the sovereign or town-council directed, or at least supervised, the management, while the “deacons,” i.e. the ecclesiastical guardians of the fund, were obliged to find the necessary money and, generally, to bear all the odium for the meagreness and backwardness of the distribution. The members of the congregation had practically no longer any say in the matter. The parish’s share in the relief of the poor was made an end of even before it had lost the other similar rights assigned to it by Luther, such as that of promulgating measures of discipline, appointing clergy, administering the Church’s lands, etc. Just as the organisation of the Church was solely in the hands of the authorities to the complete exclusion of the congregations, so poor relief and the ecclesiastical regulations on which it was based became merely a government concern.

What Bugenhagen achieved, thanks to the ecclesiastical regulations for poor relief, for which he was directly or indirectly responsible, gave “good hopes, at least at first, of bringing the difficult social problem of those days nearer to a solution.” At any rate they were a “successful attempt to bring some order into the whole system of relief, by means of the authorities and on a scale not hitherto attempted by the Church.”[166] It is true that he, like those who were working on the same lines, e.g. Hedio, Rhegius, Hyperius, Lasco and others, often merely transplanted into a new soil the rules already in vogue in the Catholic Netherlands and the prosperous South German towns. Hedio of Strasburg, for instance, translated into German the entire work of Vives, the opponent of Lutheranism, and exploited it practically and also sought to enter into epistolary communication with Vives. The prohibition of mendicancy, the establishment of an independent poor-box apart from the rest of the Church funds, and many other points were borrowed by Bugenhagen and others from the olden Catholic regulations.

Such efforts were in many localities supplemented by the kindliness of the population and, thanks to a spirit of Christianity, were not without fruit.

As, however, everybody, Princes, nobles, townships and peasants, were stretching out greedy hands towards the now defenceless possessions of the olden Church, a certain reaction came, and the State, in the interests of order, saw fit to grant a somewhat larger share to the ecclesiastical authorities in the administration of Church property and relief funds. The Lutheran clergy and the guardians of the poor were thus allowed a certain measure of free action, provided always that what they did was done in the name of the sovereign, i.e. the principal bishop. The new institutions created by such men as Bugenhagen soon lost their public, communal or State character, and sank back to the level of ecclesiastical enterprises. Institutions of this stamp had, however, “been more numerous and better endowed in the Middle Ages and were so later in the Catholic districts.”

Owing in part to a technical defect in the Protestant regulations, dishonesty and carelessness were not excluded from the management and distribution of the poor fund, the administration falling, as a matter of course, into the hands of the lowest class of officials. Catholics had good reason for branding it as a “usury and parson’s box.”[167] The reason why, in Germany, Protestant efforts for poor relief never issued in a satisfactory socio-political system capable of relieving the poor and thus improving the condition of both Church and State, lay, not merely in the economic difficulties of the time, but, “what is more important, in the social and moral working of the new religion and new piety which Luther had established.”[168]

Influence of Luther’s Ethics. Robbery of Church Property Proves a Curse

Not only had the Peasant Rising and the reprisals taken by the rulers and the towns brought misery on the land and hardened the hearts of the princes and magistrates, not only had the means available for the relief of the poor been diminished, first by the founding of new parishes in place of the old ones, which had in many cases been supported by the monasteries and foundations, secondly, by the demands of Protestants for the restitution of many ecclesiastical benefices given by their Catholic forefathers, thirdly, by the drying up of the spring of gifts and donations, but “the common fund, which had been swelled by the shekels of the Church, had now to bear many new burdens and only what remained—which often enough was not much—was employed for charitable purposes.” In the same way, and to an even greater extent, must the Lutheran ethics be taken into account. Luther’s views on justification by faith alone destroyed “that impulse of the Middle Ages towards open-handed charity.” This was “an ethical defect of the Lutheran doctrine”; it was only owing to his “utter ignorance of the world” that Luther persisted in believing that faith would, of itself and without any “law,” beget good works and charity.[169] “It was a cause of wonder and anxiety to him throughout his life that his assumption, that faith would be the best ‘taskmaster and the strongest incentive to good works and kindliness,’ never seemed to be realised.… The most notable result of Luther’s doctrine of grace and denial of all human merit was, at least among the masses, an increase of libertinism and of the spirit of irresponsibility.”[170]

The dire effects of the new principles were also evident in the large and wealthy towns, the exemplary poor-law regulations of which we have considered above. After the innovations had made their way among them we hear little more of provisions being made against mendicancy, for the promotion of work and for the relief of poverty. Hence, as regards these corporations … the change of religion meant, according to Feuchtwanger, “a decline in the quality of their social philanthropy.” (Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 477 ff.)

From some districts, however, we have better reports of the results achieved by the relief funds. In times of worst distress good Christians were always ready to help. Much depended on the spirit of those concerned in the work. In general, however, the complaints of the preachers of the new faith, including Melanchthon, wax louder and louder.[171] They tell us that the patrimony of the poor was being carried off by the rapacity of the great or disappearing under the hands of avaricious and careless administrators, whilst new voluntary contributions were no longer forthcoming. We find no lack of those, who, like Luther’s friend Paul Eber, are given to noting the visible, palpable consequences of the wrong done to the monasteries, brotherhoods and churches.[172]

A long list of statements from respected Protestant contemporaries is given by Janssen, who concludes: “The whole system of poor relief was grievously affected by the seizure and squandering of Church goods and of innumerable charitable bequests intended not only for parochial and Church use but also for the hospitals, schools and poor-houses.”[173] The testimonies in question, the frankness of which can only be explained by the honourable desire to make an end of the crying evil, come, for instance, from Thomas Rorarius, Andreas Musculus, Johann Winistede, Erasmus Sarcerius, Ambrose Pape and the General Superintendent, Cunemann Flinsbach.[174] They tend to show that the new doctrine of faith alone had dried up the well-spring of self-sacrifice, as indeed Andreas Hyperius, the Marburg theologian, Christopher Fischer, the General Superintendent, Daniel Greser, the Superintendent, Sixtus Vischer and others state in so many words.

The incredible squandering of Church property is proved by official papers, was pilloried by the professors of the University of Rostock, also is clear from the minutes of the Visitations of Wesenberg in 1568 and of the Palatinate in 1556 which bewail “the sin against the property set aside for God and His Church.”[175] And again, “The present owners have dealt with the Church property a thousand times worse than the Papists,” they make no conscience of “selling it, mortgaging it and giving it away.” Princes belonging to the new faith also raised their voice in protest, for instance, Duke Barnim XI in 1540, Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg in 1540 and Elector Johann George, 1573. But the sovereigns were unable to restrain their rapacious nobles. “The great Lords,” the preacher Erasmus Sarcerius wrote of the Mansfeld district in 1555, “seek to appropriate to themselves the feudal rights and dues of the clergy and allow their officials and justices to take forcible action.… The revenues of the Church are spent in making roads and bridges and giving banquets, and are lent from hand to hand without hypothecary security.”[176] The Calvinist, Anton Prætorius, and many others not to mention Catholic contemporaries, speak in similar terms.

Of the falling off in the Church funds and poor-boxes in the 16th century in Hesse, in the Saxon Electorate, in Frankfurt-on-the-Main, in Hamburg and elsewhere abundant proof is met with in the official records, and this is the case even with regard to Würtemberg in the enactments of the Dukes from 1552 to 1562, though that country constituted in some respects an exception;[177] at a later date Duke Johann Frederick hazarded the opinion that the regulations regarding the fund “had fallen into oblivion.”

The growth of the proletariate, to remedy the impoverishment of which no means had as yet been discovered, was in no small measure promoted by Luther’s facilitation of marriage.

Luther himself had written, that “a boy ought to have recourse to matrimony as soon as he is twenty and a maid when she is from fifteen to eighteen years of age, and leave it to God to provide for their maintenance and that of their children.”[178] Other adherents of the new faith went even further, Eberlin of Günsburg simply declared: “As soon as a girl is fifteen, a boy eighteen, they should be given to each other in marriage.” There were others like the author of a “Predigt über Hunger- und Sterbejahre, von einem Diener am Wort” (1571), who raised strong objections against such a course. Dealing with the causes of the evident increase of “deterioration and ruin” in “lands, towns and villages,” he says, that “a by no means slight cause is the countless number of lightly contracted marriages, when people come together and beget children without knowing where they will get food for them, and so come down themselves in body and soul, and bring up their children to begging from their earliest years.” “And I cannot here approve of this sort of thing that Luther has written: A lad should marry when he is twenty, etc. [see above]. No, people should not think of marrying and the magistrates should not allow them to do so before they are sure of being able at least to provide their families with the necessaries of life, for else, as experience shows, a miserable, degenerate race is produced.”[179]

What this old writer says is borne out by modern sociologists. One of them, dealing with the 16th and 17th centuries, says: “These demands [of Luther and Eberlin] are obviously not practicable from the economic point of view, but from the ethical standpoint also they seem to us extremely doubtful. To rush into marriage without prospect of sufficient maintenance is not trusting God but tempting Him. Such marriages are extremely immoral actions and they deserve legal punishment on account of their danger to the community.” “Greater evil to the world can scarcely be caused in any way than by such marriages. Even in the most favourable cases such early marriages must have a deteriorating influence on the physical and intellectual culture of posterity.”[180]

Owing to the neglect of any proper care for the poor the plague of vagabondage continued on the increase. Luther’s zealous contemporary, Cyriacus Spangenberg, sought to counteract it by reprinting the Master’s edition of the “Liber vagatorum.” He says: “False begging and trickery has so gained the upper hand that scarcely anybody is safe from imposture.” The Superintendent, Nicholas Selnecker, again republished the writing with Luther’s preface in 1580, together with some lamentations of his own. He complains that “there are too many tramps and itinerant scholars who give themselves up to nothing but knavery,” etc.[181]

Adolf Harnack is only re-echoing the complaints of 16th century Protestants when he writes: “We may say briefly that, alas, nothing of importance was achieved, nay, we must go further: the Catholics are quite right when they assert that they, not we, lived to see a revival of charitable work in the 16th century, and, that, where Lutheranism was on the ascendant, social care of the poor was soon reduced to a worse plight than ever before.”[182] The revival in Catholic countries to which Harnack refers showed itself particularly in the 17th century in the activity of the new Orders, whereas at this time the retrograde movement was still in progress in the opposite camp. “For a long time the Protestant relief system produced only insignificant results.” It was not till the rise of Pietism and Rationalism, i.e. until the inauguration of the admirable Home Missions, that things began to improve. But Pietism and Rationalism are both far removed from the original Lutheran orthodoxy.[183]

Some Recent Excuses

It has been remarked in excuse of Luther and his want of success, that, “with merit and the hope of any reward, there also vanished the stimulus to strive after the attainment of salvation by means of works,” and that this being so, it was “not surprising” that charity—the selfless fruit of faith—was wanting in many; “for new, albeit higher moral motives, cannot at once come into play with the same facility as the older ones which they displace; there comes a time when the old motives have gone and when the new ones are operative only in the case of a few; the leaven at first only works gradually.” The history of the spread of “the higher motives of morality” not only at the outset of Christianity but at all times, shows, however, as a rule these to be most active under the Inspiration of the Divine Spirit at the time when first accepted. Nor does the comparison with the leaven in the passage quoted apply to a state of decline and decay, where, for a change to be effected, outside and entirely different elements were needed. We are told that the new motives could not at once take effect, but, where the delay extends over quite a century and a half, the blame surely cannot be laid on the shortness of the time of probation.

Again, when we hear great stress laid on the fact that Luther at least paved the way for State relief of the poor and, thus, far outstrode the mediæval Church, one is justified in asking, whether in reality State relief of the poor, with compulsory taxation, non-intervention of Christian charity, or individual effort, or without any morally elevating influence, is something altogether ideal; whether, on the other hand, voluntary charity, as practised particularly by associations, Orders or ecclesiastics, does not deserve a much higher place and take precedence of, or at least stand side by side with, the forced “charity” of the State. Even to-day Protestantism is seeking to reserve a place for voluntary charitable effort. Considerations as to the value of mere State charity would, however, carry us too far. We must refer this matter to experts.[184]

That, before Luther’s day, the authorities took a reasonable and even larger share in the relief of the poor than he himself demanded, is evident from what has been said above (p. 43 ff.).

As a matter of fact, judging by what has gone before, the assertion that the system of State relief of the poor was originated by Luther or by Protestantism calls for considerable “revision.” “The reformation,” so the sociological authority we have so frequently quoted says, “created neither the communal nor the governmental system of poor relief.”[185] This he finds borne out by the different schemes for the relief of the poor contained in the old ecclesiastical constitutions. It is true, he says, that, “according to the idea in vogue, the origin of our present Poor Law can be traced back directly” to the Reformation. Nevertheless, the changes that took place in the social care of the poor subsequent to Luther’s day, though certainly “far-reaching enough,” were “exclusively negative”;[186] owing to his exertions the Church property and that set aside for the relief of the poor was secularised, and the previous free-handed method of distribution ceased; all further growth of legislation on the subject in the prosperous and independent townships was effectually hindered; out of the mass of property that passed into alien hands only a few scraps could be spared by the secular rulers and handed over to the ministers for the benefit of the poor.

This was no State-regulation of poor relief as we now understand it. Still, the way was paved for it in so far as the props of the olden ecclesiastical system of relief had been felled and had eventually to be replaced by something new. In this sense it may be said that Luther’s work “paved the way” for the new conditions.[187]

5. Luther’s Attitude towards Worldly Callings

An attempt has been made to prove the truth of the dictum so often met with on the lips of Protestants, viz. that “Luther was the creator of those views of the world and life on which both the State and our modern civilisation rest,” by arguing, that, at least, he made an end of contempt for worldly callings and exalted the humbler as well as the higher spheres of life at the expense of the ecclesiastical and monastic. What Luther himself frequently states concerning his discovery of the dignity of the secular callings has elsewhere been placed in its true light (and the unhistoric accounts of his admirers are all in last resort based on his). This was done in the most suitable place, viz. when dealing with “Luther and Lying,” and with his spiteful caricature of the mediæval Church.[188] Still, for the sake of completeness, the claims Luther makes in this respect, and some new proofs in refutation of them, must be briefly called to mind in the present chapter. It is not unusual for his admirers to speak with a species of awe of Luther’s achievements in this respect:

“One of the most Momentous Achievements of the Reformation”

The claims Luther makes in respect of his labours on behalf of the worldly callings are even greater than his admirers would lead one to suppose. His actual words reveal their hyperbolical character, or rather untruth, by their very extravagance.

Luther we have heard say: “Such honour and glory have I by the grace of God, that, since the time of the Apostles no doctor … has confirmed and instructed the consciences of the secular estates so well and lucidly as I.”[189]—It was quite different with the “monks and priestlings”! They “damned both the laity and their calling.” These “revolutionary blasphemers” condemned “all the states of life that God instituted and ordained”; on the other hand, they extol their self-chosen and accursed state as though outside of it no one could be saved.[190]

The phantom of a Popish, monkish holiness-by-works never left him. In his Commentary on Genesis, though he holds that he has already taught the Papists more than they deserve on the right appreciation of the lower callings and labours, yet he once more informs them of his discovery, “that the work of the household and of the burgher,” such as hospitality, the training of children, the supervision of servants, “despised though they be as common and worthless,” are also well-pleasing to God. “Such things must be judged according to the Word [of God], not according to reason!… Let us therefore thank God that we, enlightened by the Word, now perceive what are really good works, viz. obedience to those in authority, respect for parents, supervision of the servants and assistance of our brethren.” “These are callings instituted by God.” “When the mother of a family provides diligently for her family, looks after the children, feeds them, washes them and rocks them in the cradle,” this calling, followed for God’s sake, is “a happy and a holy one.”[191]

Luther is never tired of claiming as his peculiar teaching that even the most humble calling—that of the maid or day-labourer—may prove a high and exalted road to heaven and that every kind of work, however insignificant, performed in that position of life to which a man is called is of great value in God’s sight when done in faith. He is fond of repeating, that a humble ploughman can lay up for himself as great a treasure in heaven by tilling his field, as the preacher or the schoolmaster, by their seemingly more exalted labours.

There is no doubt, that, by means of this doctrine, which undoubtedly is not without foundation, he consoled many of the lower classes, and brought them to a sense of their dignity as Christians. It is true that it was his polemics against monasticism and the following of the counsels of perfection which led him to make so much of the ordinary states of life and to paint them in such glowing colours. Nevertheless, we must admit that he does so with real eloquence and by means of comparisons and figures taken from daily life which could not but lend attraction to the truth and which differ widely from the dry, scholastic tone of some of his Catholic predecessors in this field.

He does not, however, really add a single fresh element to the olden teaching, or one that cannot be traced back to earlier times.

Either Luther was not aware of this, or else he conceals it from his hearers and readers. It would have been possible to confront him with a whole string of writers, ancient and mediæval, and even from the years when he himself began his work, whose writings teach the same truths, often, too, in language which leaves nothing more to be wished for on the score of impressiveness and feeling.[192] So many proofs, from reason as well as from revelation, had always been forthcoming in support of these truths that it is hard for us now to understand how the idea gained ground that Christians had forgotten them. Those who, down to the present day, repeat Luther’s assertions make too little account of this psychological riddle.

Here we shall merely add to what has already been brought forward a few further proofs from Luther’s own day.

Andreas Proles (†1503), Vicar General of the Saxon Augustinian Congregation and founder of the reformed branch which Luther himself joined on entering the monastery, reminds the working classes in one of his sermons of the honour, the duty, and the worth of work. “Since man is born to labour as the bird to fly, he must work unceasingly and never be idle.” He warmly exhorts the secular authorities to prayer, but reminds them still more emphatically of the requirements and the dignity of their calling: “The life of the mighty does not consist in parade but in ruling and discharging their duties towards their people.” He praises voluntary chastity and clerical celibacy, but also points out powerfully that the married state “is for many reasons honourable and praiseworthy in the sight of God and all Christians.”[193]

Gottschalk Hollen, the preacher of Westphalia, was also an Augustinian. In his sermons published at Hagenau in 1517 he displays the highest esteem for the worldly callings. Those classes who worked with their hands did not seem to him in the least contemptible, on the contrary the Christian could give glory to God even by the humblest work; ordinary believers frequently allowed their calling to absorb them in worldly things, but these are not evil or blameworthy. In a special sermon on work he represents such cares as a means of attaining to everlasting salvation. He insists everywhere on a man’s performing the duties of his calling and will not allow of their being neglected for the sake of prayer or of out-of-the-way practices, such as pilgrimages.[194]

Just before Luther made his public appearance two German works of piety described the dignity and the honour of the working state and at the same time insisted on the obligation of labour. They speak of the secular callings as a source of moral and religious duty and the foundation of a happy life well pleasing to God.

The “Wyhegertlin,” printed at Mayence in 1509, says: “When work is done diligently and skilfully both God and man take pleasure in it, and it is a real good work when skilful artisans contribute to God’s glory by their handicraft, by beautiful buildings and images of every kind, and soften men’s hearts so that they take pleasure in the beautiful, and regard every art and handicraft as a gift of God for the profit, comfort and edification of man.”—“For seeing that the Saints also worked and laboured, so shall the Christian learn from their example that by honourable labour he can glorify God, do good and, through God’s mercy, save his own soul.”[195]

In an “Ermanung” of 1513, which also appeared at Mayence, we read: “To work is to serve God according to His command and therefore all must work, the one with his hands, in the field, the house or the workshop, others by art and learning, others again as rulers of the people or other authorities, others by fighting in defence of their country, others again as ghostly ministers of Christ in the churches and monasteries.… Whoever stands idle is a despiser of God’s commands.”[196]

These instances must suffice. Though many others could be quoted, Protestants will, nevertheless, still be found to repeat such statements as the following: “Any appreciation of secular work as something really moral was impossible in the Catholic Church.” “The Catholic view of the Church belittled the secular callings.” “The ethical appreciation of one’s calling is a significant achievement of the reformation on which rests the present division of society.” Luther it was who “discovered the true meaning of callings … which has since become the property of the civilised world.” “The modern ethical conception of one’s calling, which is common to all Protestant nations and which all others lack, was a creation of the reformation,” etc.

Others better acquainted with the Middle Ages have argued, that, though the olden theologians expressed themselves correctly on the importance of secular callings, yet theirs was not the view of the people.—But the above passages, like those previously quoted elsewhere, do not hail from theologians quite ignorant of the world, but from sermons and popular writings. What they reflect is simply the popular ideas and practice.

That errors were made is, of course, quite true. That, at a time when the Church stood over all, the excessive and ill-advised zeal of certain of the clergy and religious did occasionally lead them to belittle unduly the secular callings may readily be admitted; what they did furnished some excuse for the Lutheran reaction.

What above all moved Luther was, however, the fact that he himself had become a layman.

To assert that even the very words “calling” or “vocation” in their modern sense were first coined by him is not in agreement with the facts of the case.

On the contrary, Luther found the German equivalents already current, otherwise he would probably not have introduced them into his translation of the Bible, as he was so anxious to adapt himself to the language in common use amongst the people so as to be perfectly understood by them.[197] It is true that Ecclus. xi. 22, in the pre-Lutheran Bible, e.g. that of Augsburg dating from 1487, was rendered: “Trust God and stay in thy place,” whereas in Luther’s—and on this emphasis has been laid—we read: “Trust in God and abide by thy calling.” All that can be said is, however, that Luther’s translation here brings out the same meaning rather better. That the word was not coined by Luther, but was common with the people, is clear from what Luther himself says incidentally when speaking of 1 Cor. vii. 20, where the word vocatio (κλῆσις) is used of the call to faith. “And you must know,” he writes, “that the word ‘calling’ does not here mean the state to which a man is called, as when we say your calling is the married state, your calling is the clerical state, etc., each one having his calling from God. It is not of such a calling that the Apostle here speaks,” etc. The expression “as we say” shows plainly that Luther is speaking of a quite familiar term which there was no need for him to invent when translating Ecclus. xi. 22. Much less did he, either then or at any time, invent the “conception of a calling.”

Luther’s Pessimism Regarding Various Callings. The Peasants

When olden writers dealt with the relation between the Gospel and the worldly callings as a rule they pointed out with holy pride, that Christianity does not merely esteem every calling very highly but embraces them all with holy charity and cherishes and fosters the various states as sons of a common father. Nothing was so attractive in the great exponents of the Gospel teaching and renovators of the Christian people—for instance in St. Francis of Assisi—as their sympathy, respect and tenderness for every class without exception. The Church’s great men knew how to discover the good in every class, to further it with the means at their disposal and indulgently to set it on its guard against its dangers. They wished to place everything lovingly at the service of the Creator.

Had Luther in reality brought back to humanity the Gospel true and undefiled, as he was so fond of saying, then he should surely have striven, in the spirit of charity and good will, to make known its supernatural social forces to all classes of men, and to become, as the Apostle says, “All things to all men.”

Now, although Luther uses powerful words to describe the dignity of the different worldly callings, on the other hand, he tends at times to depreciate whole classes, this being especially the case when he allows his disappointment to get the better of him. Nor is the contempt openly expressed here counterbalanced by any sufficient recognition of the good, such as might have mollified his hearers and made them forget the ungracious abuse he thundered from his pulpit.

He speaks bitterly of the common people, the proletariate of to-day, to which, according to him, belonged all the lower classes in the towns. Although himself of low extraction he displays very little sympathy for the people. “We must not pipe too much to the mob, for they are fond of raging.… They have no idea of self-restraint or how to exercise it, and each one’s skin conceals five tyrants.”[198] “A donkey must taste the stick and the mob must be ruled by force; of this God was well aware, hence in the hands of the authorities He placed, not a fox’s brush, but a sword.”[199]

He only too frequently accuses the artisan and merchant class, as a whole, of cheating, avarice and laziness. At Wittenberg they may possibly have been exceptionally bad, yet he does not speak sufficiently of their less blameworthy side.

For the soldiers, it is true, he has friendly words of appreciation of their calling; it was for them that he wrote in 1526 a special work, where he replied in the affirmative to the question contained in the title: “Can even men-at-arms be in a state of grace?” Yet even here he does not shrink from bringing forward charges against their calling: “A great part of the men-at-arms are the devil’s own and some of them are actually crammed with devils.… They imagine themselves fire-eaters because they swear shamefully, perpetrate atrocities, and curse and defy the God of Heaven.”[200]

Of the nobles he says in 1523, wishing to promote more frequent marriages between them and those of lower birth:[201] “Must all princes and nobles who are born princes and nobles remain for ever such? What harm is there if a prince takes a burgher’s daughter to wife and contents himself with a burgher’s modest dowry? Or, why should not a noble maid give her hand to a burgher? In the long run it will not do for the nobles always to intermarry with nobles. Although we are not all equal in the sight of the world yet before God we all are equal, all of us children of Adam, creatures of God, and one man as good as another.” These words certainly do not express any lively conviction of the importance of the existing distinctions of rank for society.

It is perfectly true, that, occasionally, Luther has words of praise and recognition for the good qualities of the “fine, pious nobles,” if only on account of those who were inclined to accept his teaching. But far more often he trounces them unmercifully because they either failed to respond or were set on thwarting him. The language in which he writes of them sometimes becomes unspeakably coarse. “They are called nobles and ‘von so-and-so.’ But merd also comes ‘von’ the nobles and might just as well boast of coming from their noble belly, though it stinks and is of no earthly use. Hence this too has a claim to nobility.” Then follows his favourite saying: “We Germans are Germans and Germans we shall remain, i.e. swine and senseless brutes.”[202]

The rulers and the great ones of the Empire were the first to win his favour. The writing “An den Adel,” the first of his so-called “reformation writings,” he addresses to the nobles in the hope of thus attaining his aims by storm. When, however, he was disappointed, and they refused to meet him half-way, he abused the princes and all the secular authorities in Germany and wrote: “God Almighty has made our princes mad”; “such men were formerly rated as knaves, now we are obliged to call them obedient, Christian princes.” To him they were “fools,” simply because they were against him and thus belonged to the multitude who “blasphemed” the Divine Majesty.[203]

After the defeat of the peasants in 1525 he supported those princes favourable to his teaching at the expense of the peasants, so that the latter were loud in their complaints of him. In this connection, looking back at the overthrow of the Peasant Revolt, he wrote to those in power: “Who opposed the peasants more vigorously by word and writing than I? … and, if it comes to boasting, I do not know who else was the first to vanquish the peasants, or to do so most effectually. But now those who did the least claim all the honour and glory of it.”[204]

After the Peasant War he was so filled with hatred of the peasant class and so conscious of their dislike for himself personally, as to be hardly able to speak of them without blame and reproach. “The peasants do not deserve,” he says, “the harvests and fruits that the earth brings forth and provides.”

Of all classes the peasants around Wittenberg incurred his displeasure most severely. “They are all going to the devil,” he says when lamenting that, “out of so many villages, only one man taught his household from the Word of God”; with the young country folk “something” could be done, but the old peasants had been utterly corrupted by the Pope; this was also the complaint of the Evangelical deacons who came in touch with them.[205]—“I am very angry with the peasants,” he wrote in 1529, “who are anxious to govern themselves and who do not appreciate their good fortune in being able to sleep in peace owing to the help and protection of the rulers. You helpless, boorish yokels and donkeys,” he says to them, “will you never learn to understand? May the lightning blast you!—You have the best of it.… You have the Mark and yet are so ungrateful as to refuse to pray for the rulers or to give them anything.”[206]

As a matter of fact, however, the great ones did not wait for the peasants to “give” anything.

They oppressed the country people and plundered them. Melanchthon wrote, particularly after 1525, of the boundless despotism of the authorities over the people on the land. Since the overthrow of the social revolution very sad changes had taken place among the agriculturists. The violent “laying of the yokels” became a general evil, and, in place of the small holdings of the peasant class—the most virile and largest portion of the nation—arose the large estates of the nobles. Not merely where the horrors of war had raged, but even elsewhere, e.g. in the north-east of Germany, the peasant found himself deprived of his rights and left defenceless in the hands of the Junkers and knights.[207] “The reformation-age made his rights to his property and his standing more parlous than before.”[208]

What Luther says of serfdom, the oppression and abuse of which had led to the Peasant Rising, is worthy of record: “Serfdom,” he says, “is not contrary to Christianity, and whoever says it is tells a lie!”[209]—“Christ does not wish to abolish serfdom. What cares He how the lords or princes rule [in secular matters]?”[210]

He makes a strict application of this in his sermons on Genesis, where he even represents serfdom as a desirable state. Luther delivered these sermons in 1524 and they were printed from notes in 1527. In his preface he declares, that he was “quite willing” they should be published because they express his “sense and mind.” He relates in one passage how Abimelech had bestowed “sheep and oxen, men-servants and maid-servants” on Abraham (xx. 14), and then goes on to say of the people made over: “They too were all personal property like other cattle, so that their owners might sell them as they liked, and it would verily be almost best that this stage of things should be revived, for nobody can control or tame the populace in any other way.” Abraham did not set free the men-servants and maid-servants given him, and yet he was accounted amongst the “pious and holy” and was “a just ruler.” He proceeds: “They [the patriarchs] might easily have abolished it so far as they were concerned, but that would not have been a good thing, for the serfs would have become too proud had they been given so many rights, and would have thought themselves equal to the patriarchs or to their children. Each one must be kept in his place, as God has ordained, sons and daughters, servants, maids, husbands, wives, etc.… If compulsion and the law of the strong arm still ruled (in the case of servants and retainers) as in the past, so that if a man dared to grumble he got a box on the ear—things would fare better; otherwise it is all of no use. If they take wives, these are impertinent people, wild and dissolute, whom no one can use or have anything to do with.”[211]

The Psychological Background. Luther’s Estrangement from Whole Classes of Society

Both in Luther’s treatment of the peasants of his day and in his whole attitude to different classes of society, we find the traces of a profound and general depression which had seized upon him and which seems to accord ill with the sense of triumph one would have expected in him at the continued progress of his work, and at the apostasy from the Roman Church. Such expressions of dissatisfaction become more frequent as years go by and serve to some extent to explain and excuse his pessimism concerning the different classes.

This feeling had its origin, apart from other causes, in the fact that Luther little by little lost touch with whole classes of the people, while to many of the new conditions he remained a stranger. He, who had held in his hands the destiny of so many, was, in fact, becoming to a great extent isolated, particularly since the actual direction of the new Church had been taken out of his hands and vested in the princes or municipal authorities.

Not only did the rift which separated him from the peasants subsequent to 1525 become ever more pronounced, but he found hostility and dislike growing between himself and other classes of society.

Under the influence of the adverse wind blowing from Wittenberg many of the Humanists had given up their at one time enthusiastic friendship and turned against him. Catholic scholars who had once been disposed to favour the reform but had been disappointed in their hopes withdrew from him in increasing numbers. In other districts which had been recently Protestantised the country clergy remained faithful to the olden Church, as we see, for instance, from a letter of Luther’s dated Sep. 19, 1539, where he speaks of “over five hundred parsons, poisonous Papists,” who had “been left unexamined and now are raising their horns in defiance”—but who, he hopes, will soon be forcibly sent about their business.[212] In his own camp, again, there were Anabaptists and other sectarians; there were also theologians who refused to fall into line and either failed to preach on faith and works as harshly as he wished, or, running to the opposite extreme like the Antinomians, went much further than he himself. In the Saxon Electorate Luther felt grievously the decease of those Councillors, like Pfeffinger and Feilitzsch, who had been well disposed towards him, whose places were now taken by “greedy Junkers and skinflints, who looked upon the ecclesiastical revolution as a good opportunity for increasing their family estates and for running riot at others’ expense.”[213] Among the princes who had apostatised from the Church he also detected to his bitter vexation an ever-growing tendency to separate themselves from Wittenberg, partly owing to the influence of Zwinglianism, partly in consequence of their independent Church regulations. Such was, for instance, the action of Berlin, where the Protestant Elector, Joachim II of Brandenburg, declared in an address to his clergy: “As little as I mean to be bound to the Roman Church, so little do I mean to be bound to the Church of Wittenberg. I do not say: ‘credo sanctam Romanam’ or ‘Wittenbergensem,’ but ‘catholicam ecclesiam,’ and my Church here at Berlin or at Cöllen is just as much a true Christian Church as that of the Wittenbergers.”[214]

In the sermon Luther preached at Wittenberg on June 18, 1531, he pours forth the vials of his wrath on the nobles and peasants of the new faith. He was then doing duty for Bugenhagen, the absent pastor, and devoting himself to preaching, though he describes himself in a letter as “old, sickly and tired of life,” and elsewhere, alluding to his many employments, says: “I am not only Luther, but Pomeranus, Vicar-General, Moses, Jethro and I know not who else besides.”[215]

In this sermon the Gospel of Dives and Lazarus recalls to his mind the fact that, in the Saxon Electorate, he and his preachers were being treated very much as Lazarus, whom the rich man left lying at his gate and who had to get his fill of the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table. “When we complain to the great, we get only kicks,” he exclaims indignantly; “our foes would gladly put a stop to the Evangel with the sword, whilst our own people would no less gladly cut off our head, like John the Baptist, only that the sword they use is want, misery and hunger.” If we preach against their wickedness they say we are trying to defy and contradict them! Let the devil defy them. They declare we want to set ourselves up against them, and to rule, and to bring them under our feet. For preaching against the rebellious peasants we are thanked by being called the Pope of Germany, as though we were playing the master. Not indeed that they mean this in earnest, but they are anxious to bring us to preach as they wish, otherwise they punish us with starvation. “The poor preachers they tread under foot, take the bread out of their mouths and abuse them most shamefully.” “This ingratitude is worse than any tyranny!” He tells them finally that their fate will be that of Dives, viz. hell-fire; then they will long in vain even for a drop of water.[216]

The world hates me, we read in another sermon, for it ever “hates the good.” “They refuse to have anything to do with the ministers [of religion], there is hardly a place where they suffer the preacher, much less support him. My opponents declare that: Did I preach the truth, the people would become pious.” This is the Anabaptists’ way of concealing their own errors. “But do not wonder,” so he consoles his hearers, for “the purer the Word, the worse almost all become; only a few become good. This is a sure sign that the doctrine is true; … for Satan, who is stung by the truth, tries to wreck it by corruption of morals.… He it is who sets himself up in defiance of it.” “But there are some few who are faithful and in earnest.” Nevertheless, the world must heap ingratitude and bitterness upon us otherwise it would not be the world. “By my preaching I have helped several, but what can I do? If you wait till the world honours you, then you wait a long time and only prepare a cross for yourself.”[217]

In a sermon on Jan. 22 of the same year he had quoted a saying current at that time about Rome, applying it to Wittenberg: “The nearer to Rome, the worse the Christians.” “For wherever the Evangel is, there it is despised.” “The Lord Himself says in to-day’s Gospel: ‘I have not found such faith as this in Israel.’ The chosen people do not believe, though some few do.… In other regions Christ may find adherents with a stronger faith than any in our principalities.” “At Court and elsewhere things go ill.… We tread the pearls under foot.” “So great is their shamelessness, ingratitude and hate that it is a sign that God is getting ready to show us something; the persecution of the Evangel in our principality is worse than ever. I am already sick of preaching (‘iam tædet me prædicatio’).” “Those who refuse the offered kingdom may go to the devil, etc.”[218] The faults of the government and the increase in the prices of necessaries drew from him bitter words in a sermon of April 23 of the same year: “There is no government, the biggest criminals (‘pessimi nebulones’) rule; this we have deserved by our sins.” “When things become cheaper then war and pestilence will come upon us.”[219]

Thus the ill will gathering within him was poured forth, as occasion offered, on the various classes indiscriminately.

It seemed to him as though little by little the whole world was becoming a hostel of which the devil was the landlord and where wickedness and lust reigned supreme—above all because it was so slow to receive his preaching.[220] Even the supreme Court of Justice of the Empire became in 1541 a “devil’s whore,”[221] because the judges and imperial authorities were against him and stood for the old order of things. It was also at this time that his pent-up anger broke out against the Jews.[222] Here it will be sufficient to give a few new quotations.

He put himself in the place of a ruler in whose lands the Jews blasphemed Christianity and exclaimed: “I would summon all the Jews and ask them,” whether they could prove their insulting assertions. “If they could, I would give them a thousand florins; if not I would have their tongues torn out by the root. In short, we ought not to suffer Jews to live amongst us, nor eat or drink with them.”[223]—“They are a shameful people,” he says on another occasion, “they swallow up everything with their usury; where they give a gentleman a thousand florins, they suck twenty thousand out of his poor underlings.”[224] The demands with which his anger against the Jews inspires him found only too strong an echo amongst his followers. “It would be well,” wrote the Lutheran preacher Jodokus Ehrhardt in 1558, after complaining of the usury of the Jews, “if in all places they were proceeded with as Father Luther advised and enjoined when, amongst other things, he wrote: ‘Let their synagogues and schools be set on fire … and let who can throw brimstone.… Refuse them safe conduct and all freedom to travel. Let all their ready money and treasures of gold and silver, etc., be taken from them,’ etc. Such faithful counsels and regulations were given by our divinely enlightened Luther.”[225]

After all that has been said it would be very rash to apply to Luther’s attitude towards the different callings and professions the words which St. Paul wrote of himself when considering humanity as a whole, i.e. of the power of God by which he had striven with endless patience and charity to bring home the Gospel to both Jew and Greek: “To the Greeks and to the barbarians, to the wise and to the foolish I am a debtor.” “I have become all things to all men in order to save all.”

The Merchant Class

The opening up of many previously unknown countries, the discovery of new trade routes, and the new industries called forth by new inventions brought about a sudden and quite unforeseen revival in trade and prosperity at the time of the religious schism. An alteration in the earlier ideas on political economy was bound to supervene. The upsetting of the mediæval notions which now could no longer hold and the uncertainty as to what to build on in future led to a deal of confusion in that period of transition.

What was chiefly needed in the case of one anxious to judge of things from their ethical and social side was experience and knowledge of the world joined with prudence and the spirit of charity. Annoyance was out of place; what was called for was a capacity to weigh matters dispassionately.

Among the Humanists there were some, who, because the new era of commerce turned men’s minds from learning, condemned it absolutely. Thus Eobanus Hessus of Nuremberg laments, that, there, people were bent on acquiring riches rather than learning; the world dreamt of nothing but saffron and pepper; he lived, as it were, among “empurpled monkeys” and would rather make his home with the peasants of his Hessian fatherland than in his present surroundings.[226]—What was Luther’s attitude towards the rising merchant class and its undertakings?

In his case it was not merely the injury done to the schools and to “Christian” posterity, and the ever growing luxury that prejudiced him against commerce, but, above all, the constant infringement of the principles of morality, which, according to him, was a necessary result of the new economic life and its traffic in wares and money. He exaggerated the moral danger and failed entirely to see the economic side of the case. We do not find in him, says Köstlin-Kawerau, “a sufficient insight into the existing conditions and problems,”[227] nevertheless he did not shrink from the harshest and most uncharitable censure.

It was his deliberate intention, so he says, “to give scandal to many more people on this point by setting up the true doctrine of Christ.” This we find in a letter he wrote after the Leipzig Disputation when putting the finishing touch to his first works on usury (1519).[228] Because no attention was paid to his “Evangelical” ideas on usury he came to the conclusion that, “now, in these days, clergy and seculars, prelates and subjects are alike bent on thwarting Christ’s life, doctrine and Gospel.”[229] Hence he must once again vindicate the Gospel. He, however, distorts the Christian idea by making into strict commands what Christ had proposed as counsels of perfection. There is reason to believe that the mistake he here makes under the plea of zeal for the principles of the Gospel is bound up not merely with his antipathy to the idea of Evangelical Counsels,[230] but also with his older, pseudo-mystic tendency and with his conception of the true Christian. We cannot help thinking of his fanciful plan of assembling apart the real Christians when we hear him in these very admonitions bewailing that “there are so few Christians”; if anyone refused to lend gratis it was “a sign of his deep unbelief,” since we are assured that by so doing “we become children of the Most High and that our reward is great. Of such a consoling promise he is not worthy who will not believe and act accordingly.”[231]

In any case it was a quite subjective and unfounded application of Holy Scripture, when, in his sermon on usury, he makes the following the chief point to be complied with:

“Christian dealings with temporal possessions,” he there says, “consist in three things, in giving for nothing, lending free of interest and lovingly allowing our belongings to be taken from us [Matt. v. 40, 42; Luke vi. 30]; for there is no merit in your buying something, inheriting it, or gaining possession of it in some other honest way, since, if this were piety, then the heathen and Turks would also be pious.”[232]

This extravagant notion of the Christian’s duties led to his rigid and untimely vindication of the mediæval prohibition of the charging of interest, of which we shall have to speak more fully later. It also led him to assail all commercial enterprise.

Greatly incensed at the action of the trading companies he set about writing his “Von Kauffshandlung und Wucher” (1524).

Here, speaking of the wholesale traders and merchants, he says: “The foreign trade that brings wares from Calicut, India and so forth, such as spices and costly fabrics of silk and cloth of gold, which serve only for display and are of no use, but merely suck the money out of our country and people, would not be allowed had we a government and real rulers.” The Old Testament patriarchs indeed bought and sold, he says, but “only cattle, wool, grain, butter, milk and such like; these are God’s gifts which He raises from the earth and distributes among men”; but the present trade means only the “throwing away of our gold and silver into foreign countries.”[233]

Traders were, according to him, in a bad case from the moral point of view: “Let no one come and ask how he may with a good conscience belong to one of these companies. There is no other counsel than this: ‘Drop it’; there is no other way. If the companies are to go on, then that will be the end of law and honesty; if law and honesty are to remain, then the companies must cease.” The companies, so he had already said, are through and through “unstable and without foundation, all rank avarice and injustice, so that they cannot even be touched with a good conscience.… They hold all the goods in their hands and do with them as they please.” They aim “at making sure of their profit in any case, which is contrary to the nature, not only of commercial wares but of all temporal goods which God wishes to be ever in danger and uncertainty. They, however, have discovered a means of securing a sure profit even on uncertain temporal goods.” A man can thus “in a short time become so rich as to be able to buy up kings and emperors”; such a thing cannot possibly be “right or godly.”[234]

As a further reason for condemning profit from trade and money transactions he points out, that such profit does not arise from the earth or from cattle.[235]

With both these arguments he is, however, on purely mediæval ground. He pays but little regard to the new economic situation, though he has a keen eye for the abuses and the injustice which undoubtedly accompanied the new commerce. Instead, however, of confining his censure to these and pointing out how things might be improved, he prefers to take his stand on an already obsolete theory—one, nevertheless, which many shared with him—and condemn unconditionally all such commercial undertakings with the violence and lack of consideration usual in him.[236]

In his remarks we often find interesting thoughts on the economic conditions; we see the remarkable range of his intellect and occasionally we may even wonder whence he had his vast store of information. It is also evident, however, that the other work with which he was overwhelmed did not leave him time to digest his matter. Often enough he is right when he stigmatises the excesses, but on the whole he goes much too far. As Frank G. Ward says: “Because he was incapable of passing a discriminating judgment on the abuses that existed he simply condemned all commerce off-hand.”[237] He was too fond of scenting evil usury everywhere. A contemporary of his, the merchant Bonaventura Furtenbach, of Nuremberg, having come across one of Luther’s writings on the subject, possibly his “Von Kauffshandlung,” remarked sarcastically: “Were I to try to write a commentary on the Gospel of Luke everyone would say, you are not qualified to do so. So it is with Luther when he treats of the interest on money; he has never studied such matters.”[238] A Hamburg merchant also made fun of Luther’s economics, and, as the Hamburg Superintendent Æpinus (Johann Hock) reported, quoted the instance of the Peripatetician Phormion, who gave Hannibal a scholastic lecture on the art of war, for which reason it is usual to dub him who tries to speak of things of which he knows nothing, a new Phormion.[239]

In his “An den Adel” Luther had shown himself more reticent, though even here he inveighs against interest and trading companies, and says: “I am not conversant with figures, but I cannot understand how, with a hundred florins, it is possible to gain twenty annually.… I leave this to the worldly wise. I, as a theologian, have only to censure the appearance of evil concerning which St. Paul says [1 Thess. v. 22] ‘from all appearance of evil refrain!’ This I know very well,” he continues, speaking from the traditional standpoint, “that it would be much more godly to pay more attention to tilling the soil and less to trade.” Yet, even in this writing, he goes so far as to say: “It is indeed high time that a bit were put in the mouth of the Fuggers and such-like companies.”[240]

More and more plainly he was, however, forced to realise that it was not within his power to check the new development of commerce; he, nevertheless, stuck by his earlier views. He was also, and to some extent justifiably, shocked at the growing luxury which had made its way into the burgher class and into the towns generally in the train of foreign trade. Instead of “staying in his place and being content with a moderate living,” “everyone wants to be a merchant and to grow rich.”[241]

“We despise the arts and languages,” he says, “but refuse to do without the foreign wares which are neither necessary nor profitable to us, but [the expenses of] which lay our very bones bare. Do we not thereby show ourselves to be true Germans, i.e. fools and beasts?”[242] God “has given us, like other nations, sufficient wool, hair, flax and everything else necessary for suitable and becoming clothing, but now men squander fortunes on silk, satin, cloth of gold and all sorts of foreign stuffs.… We could also do with less spices.” People might say he was trying to “put down the wholesale trade and commerce. But I do my duty. If things are not improved in the community, at least let whoever can amend.”[243]

“I cannot see that much in the way of good has ever come to a country through commerce.”[244]

He refused to follow the more luxurious mode of living which had become the rule in the towns as a result of trade, but insisted on leading the more simple life to which he had throughout been accustomed. For the good of the people, poverty or simplicity was on the whole more profitable than riches. “People say, and with truth, ‘It takes a strong man to bear prosperity,’ and ‘A man can endure many things but not good fortune.’ … If we have food and clothing let us esteem it enough. For the cities of the plain which God destroyed it would have been better, if, instead of abounding in wealth, everything had been of the dearest, and there had been less superfluity.”[245]—“What worse and more wanton can be conceived of than the mad mob and the yokels when they are gorged with food and have the reins in their hands.”[246]

Hence he took a “tolerable maintenance” as he expresses it, i.e. the mode of living suitable to a man’s state, as the basis of a fair wage. The question of wages must in the last instance, he thinks, depend on the question of maintenance. Luther, like Calvin, did not go any further in this matter. “Their conservative ideas saw in high wages only the demoralisation of the working classes.”[247]

Luther’s remarks on this subject “recall the words of Calvin, viz. that the people must always be kept in poverty in order that they may remain obedient.”[248]

According to his view “the price of goods was synonymous with their barter value expressed in money; money was the fixed, unchangeable standard of things; it never occurred to anyone that an alteration in the value of money might come, a mistake which led to much confusion. Again, the barter value of a commodity was its worth calculated on the cost of the material it contained and of the trouble and labour expended on its manufacture. This calculation excluded the subjective element, just as it ignored competition as a factor in the determining of prices.”[249] Thus, according to Luther, the merchant had merely to calculate “how many days he had spent in fetching and acquiring the goods, and how great had been the work and danger involved, for much labour and time ought to represent a higher and better wage”; he should in this “compare himself to the common day-labourer or working-man, see what he earns in a day, and calculate accordingly.” More than a “tolerable maintenance” was, however, to be avoided in commerce, and likewise all such profit “as might involve loss to another.”[250] It would have pleased him best had the authorities fixed the price of everything, but, owing to their untrustworthiness, this appeared to him scarcely to be hoped for. The principle: “I shall sell my goods as dear as I can,” he opposed with praiseworthy firmness; this was “to open door and window to hell.”[251] He also inveighed rightly and strongly against the artificial creation of scarcity. Here, too, we see that his ideas were simply those in vogue in the ranks from which he came.

“His economic views in many particulars display a retrograde tendency.”[252]—“In the history of economics he cannot be considered as either an original or a systematic thinker. We frequently find him adopting views which were current without seriously testing their truth or their grounds.… His exaggerations and inconsequence must be explained by the fact that he took but little interest in worldly business. His interpretation of things depended on his own point of view rather than on the actual nature of the case.”[253]

The worst of it is that his own “point of view” intruded itself far too often into his criticisms of social conditions.

Influence of Old-Testament Ideas

Excessive regard for the Old-Testament enactments helped Luther to adopt a peculiar outlook on things social and ethical.

He says in praise of the Patriarchs: “They were devout and holy men who ruled well even among the heathen; now there is nothing like it.”[254] He often harks back to the social advantages of certain portions of the Jewish law, and expressly regrets that there were no princes who had the courage to take steps to reintroduce them for the benefit of mankind.

In 1524, under the influence of his Biblical studies, he wrote to Duke Johann Frederick of Saxony, praising the institution of tithes and even of fifths: “It would be a grand thing if, according to ancient usage, a tenth of all property were annually handed over to the authorities; this would be the most Godly interest possible.… Indeed it would be desirable to do away with all other taxes and impose on the people a payment of a fifth or sixth, as Joseph did in Egypt.”[255] At the same time he is quite aware that such wishes are impracticable, seeing that, “not the Mosaic, but the Imperial law is now accepted by the world and in use.”

Partly owing to the impossibility of a return to the Old Covenant, partly out of a spirit of contradiction to the new party, he opposed the fanatics’ demand that the Mosaic law should be introduced as near as possible entire, and the Imperial, Roman law abrogated as heathenish and the Papal, Canon law as anti-Christian. Duke Johann, the Elector’s brother, was soon half won over to these fantastic ideas by the Court preacher, Wolfgang Stein, but Luther and Melanchthon succeeded in making him change his mind.[256] The necessity Luther was under of opposing the Anabaptists here produced its fruits; his struggle with the fanatics preserved him from the consequences of his own personal preference for the social regulations of the Old Covenant.

In what difficulties his Old-Testament ideas on polygamy involved him the history of the bigamy of Philip of Hesse has already shown.[257] Had such ideas concerning marriage been realised in society the revolution in the social order would indeed have been great.

Luther’s esteem for the social laws of the Old Testament finds its best expression in his sermons on Genesis, which first saw the light in 1527.

He says, for instance, of the Jewish law of restitution and general settlement of affairs, in the Jubilee Year: “It is laid down in Moses that no one can sell a field in perpetuity but only until the Jubilee Year, and when this came each one recovered possession of his field or the property he had sold, and thus the lands remained in the family. There are also some other fine laws in the Books of Moses which well might be adopted, made use of and put in force.” He even wishes that the Imperial Government would take the lead in re-enacting them “for as long as is desired, but without compulsion.”[258]

His views on interest and usury were likewise influenced by his one-sided reading of certain Old- and New-Testament statements.

Usury and Interest

On the question of the lawfulness of charging interest Luther not only laid down no “new principles” which might have been of help for the future, but, on the contrary, he paved the way for serious difficulties. He was not to be moved from the traditional, mediæval standpoint which viewed the charging of any interest whatever on loans as something prohibited. His foe, Johann Eck, on the other hand, in a Disputation at Bologna, had defended the lawfulness of moderate interest.[259]

After having repeatedly attacked by word and pen usury and the charging of any interest[260]—led thereto, as he says, by the grievous abuses in the commercial and financial system, he published in 1539 his “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher zu predigen,” whence most of what follows has been taken. As it was written towards the end of his life, we may assume it to represent the result of his experience and the final statement of his convictions.

In this writing, after a sad outburst on the increase of usury in Germany, he begins his “warnings” by urging that “the people should be told firmly and plainly concerning lending and borrowing, and that when money is lent and a charge made or more taken back than was originally made over, this is usury, and as such is condemned by every law. Hence those are usurers who charge 5, or 6, or more on the hundred on the money they lend, and should be called idolatrous ministers of avarice or Mammon, nor can they be saved unless they do penance.… To lend is to give a man my money, property or belongings so that he may use them.… Just as one neighbour lends another a dish, a can, a bed, or clothes, and in the same way money, or money’s worth, in return for which I may not take anything.”[261]

The writer of these words, like so many others who, in his day and later, still adhered to the old canonical standpoint, failed to see, that, as things then were, to lend money was to surrender to the borrower a commodity which was already bringing in some return, and that, in consequence of this, the lender had a right to demand some indemnification. As this had not generally speaking been the case in the Middle Ages, the prohibition of charging interest was then a just one. Nevertheless, within certain limits, it was slowly becoming obsolete and, as the economic situation changed for that of modern times and money became more liquid, the more general did lending at interest become.

Luther was well aware that to lend at interest was already “usual” and even “common in all classes.”[262] It was also, as a Protestant contemporary complained in 1538, twice as prevalent in the Lutheran communities than among the Catholics.[263] Still Luther insists obstinately that, “it was a very idle objection, and one that any village sexton could dispose of when people pleaded the custom of the world contrary to the Word of God, or against what was right.… It is nothing new or strange that the world should be hopeless, accursed, damned; this it had always been and would ever remain. If you obey its behests, you also will go with it into the abyss of hell.”[264]

Though in his instructions to the pastors he condemns indiscriminately, as a “thief, robber and murderer,” everyone who charges interest, still he wants his teaching to be applied above all to the “great ogres in the world, who can never charge enough per cent.” “The sacrament and absolution” were to be denied them, and “when about to die they were to be left like the heathen and not granted Christian burial” unless they had first done penance. To the “small usurer it is true my sentence may sound terrible, I mean to such as take but five or six on the hundred.”[265]

All, however, whether the percentage they charge be small or great, he advises to bring their objections to him, or to some other minister, “or to a good lawyer,”[266] so as to learn the further reasons and particulars concerning the prohibition of receiving interest. Every pastor was to preach strongly and fearlessly on its general unlawfulness in order that he may not “go to the devil” with those of his flock who charge interest.

Not that Luther was very hopeful about the results of such preaching. “The whole world is full of usurers,” he said in 1542 in the Table-Talk, and to a friend who had asked him: “Why do not the princes punish such grievous usury and extortion?” Luther answers: “Surely, the princes and kings have other things to do; they have to feast, drink and hunt, and cannot attend to this.” “Things must soon come to a head and a great and unforeseen change take place! I hope, however, that the Last Day will soon make an end of it all.”[267]

As to his grounds for condemning interest, he declares in the same conversation: “Money is an unfruitful commodity which I cannot sell in such a way as to entitle me to a profit.” He is but re-echoing the axiom “Pecunia est sterilis,” etc., maintained all too long in learned Catholic circles. Hence, as he says in 1540, “Lending neither can nor ought to be a true trade or means of livelihood; nor do I believe the Emperor thinks so either.” Besides, “it is not enough in the sight of heaven to obey the laws of the Emperor.”[268] According to him God had positively forbidden in the Old Testament the charging of any interest, as contrary to the natural law and as oppressive and unlawful usury (Ex. xxii. 25; Lev. xxv. 36; Deut. xxiii. 19, etc.). In the New Testament Christ, so Luther thinks, solemnly confirmed the prohibition when He said in St. Matthew’s gospel: “Give to him that asketh thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away” (v. 42), and in St. Luke (vi. 35) still more emphatically: “Lend, hoping for nothing.”[269]

In the Old Law, however, the charging of interest was by no means absolutely forbidden to the Jews (Deut. xxiii. 19 f.), so that it could not be regarded as a thing repugnant to the natural law, though the Mosaic Code interdicted it among the Jews themselves. As for the New-Testament passages Luther had no right to infer any prohibition from them. Our Saviour, after speaking of offering the other cheek to the smiter, of giving also our cloak to him who would take away our coat, and of other instances of the exercise of extraordinary virtue, goes on to advise our lending without hope of return. But many understood this as a counsel, not as a command. Luther indeed says that thereby they were making nought of Christ’s doctrine. He insists that all these counsels were real commands, viz. commands to be ever ready to suffer injustice and to do good; the secular authorities were there to see that human society thereby suffered no harm. The Papists, however, and the scholastics looked upon these things in a different light. “The sophists had no reason for altering our Lord’s commands and for making out that they were ‘consilia’ as they term them.”[270] “They teach that Christ did not enjoin these things on all Christians, but only on the perfect, each one being free to keep them if he desires.” In this way the Papists do away with the doctrine of Christ; they thereby condemn, destroy and get rid of good works, whilst all the time accusing us of forbidding them; “hence it is that the world has got so full of monks, tonsures and Masses.”[271]—Yet, even if we take the words of Christ, as quoted, let us say, by St. Luke, and see in them a positive command, yet they would refer only to the social and economic conditions prevailing among the Jews at the time the words were spoken. According to certain commentators, moreover, the words have no reference to the question of interest, because, so they opine, “it was a question of relinquishing all claim not merely on the interest but on the capital itself.”[272]

The Jesuit theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries as a rule were careful to instance a number of cases in which the canonical prohibition of charging even a moderate rate of interest does not apply. They thus paved the way for the abrogation of the prohibition. Of this we have an instance in Iago Lainez, who in principle was strongly averse to the charging of interest. This theologian, who later became General of the Jesuits, when a preacher at the busy commercial city of Genoa, wrote (1553-1554) an essay on usury embodying the substance of his addresses to the merchants.[273] Lainez there points out that any damage accruing to the lender from the loan, and also the temporary absence of profit on it, constitutes a sufficient ground for demanding a moderate interest.[274] He also strongly insists that the lender, in compensation for his willingness to lend, may accept from the borrower a “voluntary” premium;[275] the lender, moreover, has a perfect right to safeguard himself by stipulating for a fine (pœna conventionalis) from the borrower should repayment be delayed. All this comes under the instances of “apparent usury,” which he enumerates: “Casus qui videntur usurarii et non sunt” (cap. 10).

Luther devotes no such prudent consideration to those exceptional cases. He was more inclined by nature harshly to vindicate the principles he had embraced than to seek how best to limit them in practice. “He did not take into account loans asked for, not from necessity, but for the purpose of making profit on the borrowed money”;[276] yet, after all, this was the very point on which the question turned in the early days of economic development. He discusses the lawfulness of a voluntary premium and comes to the conclusion that it is wrong. He scoffs at the lender, as a mere hypocrite, who argues: “The borrower is very thankful for such a loan and freely and without compulsion offers me 5, 6 or even 10 florins on the hundred.” “But even an adulteress and an adulterer,” says Luther in his usual vein, “are thankful and pleased with each other; a robber, too, does an assassin a great service when he helps him to commit highway robbery.” The borrower does the lender a similar criminal service and spiritual injury, for which no premium can make compensation.[277] As regards the case where the loan is not repaid at the specified time, Luther is, of course, of opinion that any real loss to the owner must be made good by the borrower. But now, he says, “they accept reimbursement for losses which they never suffered at all,” they simply calculate the interest on a loss which they may possibly suffer from not having back the money when the time comes for buying or paying. “In its efforts to make a certainty of what is uncertain, will not usury soon be the ruin of the world!”[278]

In the Table-Talk a friend, in 1542, raised an objection: If a man trades with the money lent him and makes 15 florins yearly, he must surely pay the lender something for this. Of this Luther, however, will not hear. “No, this is merely an accidental profit, and on accidentals no rule can be based.”[279] That the profit was “accidental” was, however, simply his theory.

In spite of all this Luther did make exceptions, though, in view of his rigid theory and reading of the Bible, it is difficult to see how he could justify them.

Thus, he is willing to allow usury in those cases where the charging of interest is “in reality a sort of work of mercy to the needy, who would otherwise have nothing, and where no great injury is done to another.” Thus, when “old people, poor widows or orphans, or other necessitous folk, who have learned no other way of making a living,” were only able to support themselves by lending out their money, in such cases the “lawyers might well seek to mitigate somewhat the severity of the law.” “Should an appeal be made to the ruler,” then the proverb “Necessity knows no law” might be quoted. “It might here serve to call to mind that the Emperor Justinian had permitted such mitigated usury [he had sanctioned the taking of 4, 6 or 8 per cent], and in such a case I am ready to agree and to answer for it before God, particularly in the case of needy persons and where usury is practised out of necessity or from charity. If, however, it was wanton, avaricious, unnecessary usury, merely for the purpose of trade and profit, then I would not agree”; even the Emperor himself could not make this legitimate; for it is not the laws of the Emperor which lead us to heaven, but the observance of the laws of God.[280]

It follows from this that even the so-called “titulus legis” found no favour in his sight in the case of actual money loans, for it is of this, not of “purchasable interest,” that he speaks in the writing to the pastors. A real, honest purchase, so he there says quite truly, is no usury.[281]

A remarkable deflection from his strict principles is to be found not only in the words just quoted but also in his letter to the town council of Erfurt sent in 1525 at the time of the rising in that town and the neighbourhood. The mutineers refused among other things to continue paying interest on the sums borrowed. For this refusal Luther censures them as rebels, and also refuses to hear of their “deducting the interest from the sum total” (i.e. the capital). He here vindicates the lenders as follows: “Did I wish yearly to spend some of the total amount I should naturally keep it by me. Why should I hand it over to another as though I were a child, and allow another to trade with it? Who can dispose of his money even at Erfurt in such a way that it shall be paid out to him yearly and bit by bit? This would really be asking too much.”[282]

Luther also relaxed his principles in favour of candidates for the office of preacher. When, in 1532, the widow of Wolfgang Jörger, an Austrian Governor, offered him 500 florins for stipends for “poor youths prosecuting their studies in Holy Scripture” at Wittenberg, at the same time asking him how to place it, he unhesitatingly replied that it should be lent out at interest; “I, together with Master Philip and other good friends and Masters, have thought this best because it is to be expended on such a good, useful and necessary work.” He suggested that the money “should be handed in at the Rathaus” at Nuremberg to Lazarus Spengler, syndic of that town; if this could not be, then he would have it “invested elsewhere.” Such “good works in Christ” are, he says, unfortunately not common amongst us “but rather the contrary, so that they leave the poor ministers to starve; the nobles as well as the peasants and the burghers are all of them more inclined to plunder than to help.”[283] Thus it was his desire to help the preachers that determined his action here.

A writer, who, as a rule, is disposed to depict Luther’s social ethics in a very favourable light, remarks: “When his attention was riveted on the abuses arising from the lending of money [and the charging of interest] he could see nothing but evil in the whole thing; on the other hand, if some good purpose was to be served by the money, he regarded this as morally quite justifiable.”[284] That Luther “was not always true to his theories,” and that he is far from displaying any “striking originality” in his economic views, cannot, according to this author, be called into question.[285]

Luther on Unearned Incomes and Annuities

A great change took place in Luther’s views concerning the buying of the right to receive a yearly interest, nor was the change an unfortunate one. He was induced to abandon his earlier standpoint that such purchase was wrong and to recognise, that, within certain limits, it could be perfectly lawful.

The nature of this sort of purchase, then very common, he himself explains in his clear and popular style: “If I have a hundred florins with which I might gain five, six or more florins a year by means of my labour, I can give them to another for investment in some fertile land in order that, not I, but he, may do business with them; hence I receive from him the five florins I might have made, and thus he sells me the interest, five florins per hundred, and I am the buyer and he the seller.”[286] It was an essential point in the arrangement that the money should be employed in an undertaking in some way really fruitful or profitable to the receiver of the capital, i.e. in real estate, which he could farm, or in some other industry; the debtor gave up the usufruct to the creditor together with the interest agreed upon, but was able to regain possession of it by repayment of the debt. The creditor, according to the original arrangement, was also to take his share in the fluctuations in profit, and not arbitrarily to demand back his capital.

At first Luther included such transactions among the “fig-leaves” behind which usury was wont to shelter itself; they were merely, so he declared in 1519 in his Larger Sermon on Usury, “a pretty sham and pretence by which a man can oppress others without sin and become rich without labour or trouble.”[287] In the writing “An den Adel” he even exclaimed: “The greatest misfortune of the German nation is undoubtedly the traffic in interest.… The devil invented it and the Pope, by sanctioning it, has wrought havoc throughout the world.”[288] It is quite true that the arrangement, being in no wise unjust, had received the conditional sanction of the Church and was widely prevalent in Christendom. Many abuses and acts of oppression had, indeed, crept into it, particularly with the general spread of the practice of charging interest on money loans, but they were not a necessary result of the transaction. Luther, in those earlier days, demanded that such “transactions should be utterly condemned and prevented for the future, regardless of the opposition of the Pope and all his infamous laws [to the condemnation], and though he might have erected his pious foundations on them.… In truth, the traffic in interest is a sign and a token that the world is sold into the devil’s slavery by grievous sins.”[289] Yet Luther himself allows the practice under certain conditions in the Larger Sermon on Usury published shortly before, from which it is evident that here he is merely voicing his detestation of the abuses, and probably, too, of the “Pope and his infamous laws.”

In fact his first pronouncements against the investing of money are all largely dictated by his hostility to the existing ecclesiastical government; “that churches, monasteries, altars, this and that,” should be founded and kept going by means of interest, is what chiefly arouses his ire. In 1519 he busies himself with the demolition of the objection brought forward by Catholics, who argued: “The churches and the clergy do this and have the right to do it because such money is devoted to the service of God.”

In his Larger Sermon on Usury he gives an instance where he is ready to allow transactions at interest, viz. “where both parties require their money and therefore cannot afford to lend it for nothing but are obliged to help themselves by means of bills of exchange. Provided the ghostly law be not infringed, then a percentage of four, five or six florins may be taken.”[290] Thus he here not only falls back on the “ghostly law,” but also deviates from the line he had formerly laid down. In fact we have throughout to deal more with stormy effusions than with a ripe, systematic discussion of the subject.

Later on, his general condemnations of the buying of interest-rights become less frequent.

He even wrote in 1524 to Duke Johann Frederick of Saxony: Since the Jewish tithes cannot be re-introduced, “it would be well to regulate everywhere the purchase of interest-rights, but to do away with them altogether would not be right since they might be legalised.”[291] As a condition for justifying the transaction he requires above all that no interest should be charged without “a definitely named and stated pledge,” for to charge on a mere money pledge would be usury. “What is sterile cannot pay interest.”[292] Further the right of cancelling the contract was to remain in the hands of the receiver of the capital. The interest once agreed upon was to be paid willingly. He himself relied on the practice and once asked: “If the interest applied to churches and schools were cut off, how would the ministers and schools be maintained?”[293]

With regard to the rate of interest allowable in his opinion, he says in his sermons on Matt. xviii. (about 1537): “We would readily agree to the paying of six or even of seven or eight on the hundred.”[294] As a reason he assigns the fact that “the properties have now risen so greatly in value,” a remark to which he again comes back in 1542 in his Table-Talk in order to justify his not finding even seven per cent excessive.[295] He thus arrives eventually at the conclusion of the canonists who, for certain good and just reasons, allowed a return of from seven to eight per cent.

In his “An die Pfarherrn” he took no account of such purchases but merely declared that he would find some other occasion “of saying something about this kind of usury”; at the same time a “fair, honest purchase is no usury.”[296]

All the more strongly in this writing, the tone of which is only surpassed by the attacks on the usury of the Jews contained in his last polemics, does he storm against the evils of that usury which was stifling Germany. The pastors and preachers were to “stick to the text,” where the Gospel forbids the taking of anything in return for loans.[297] That this will bring him into conflict with the existing custom he takes for granted. In his then mood of pessimistic defiance he was anxious that the preachers should boldly hurl at all the powers that be the words of that Bible which cannot lie: where evil is so rampant “God must intervene and make an end, as He did with Sodom, with the world at the Deluge, with Babylon, with Rome and such like cities, that were utterly destroyed. This is what we Germans are asking for, nor shall we cease to rage until people shall say: Germany was, just as we now say of Rome and of Babylon.”[298]

He nevertheless gives the preachers a valuable hint as to how they were to proceed in order to retain their peace of mind and get over difficulties. Here “it seems to me better … for the sake of your own peace and tranquillity, that you should send them to the lawyers whose duty and office it is to teach and to decide on such wretched, temporal, transitory, worldly matters, particularly when they [your questioners] are disposed to haggle about the Gospel text.”[299] “For this reason, according to our preaching, usury with all its sins should be left to the lawyers, for, unless they whose duty it is to guard the dam help in defending it, the petty obstacles we can set up will not keep back the flood.” But, after all, “the world cannot go on without usury, without avarice, without pride … otherwise the world would cease to be the world nor would the devil be the devil.”[300]

The difficulties which beset Luther’s attitude on the question of interest were in part of his own creation.

“In the question of commerce and the charging of interest,” says Julius Köstlin in his “Theologie Luthers,” “he displays, for all his acumen, an unmistakable lack of insight into the true value for social life of trade—particularly of that trade on a large scale with which we are here specially concerned—in spite of all the sins and vexations which it brings with it, or into the importance of loans at interest—something very different from loans to the poor—for the furthering of work and the development of the land.”[301]

With reference to what Köstlin here says it must, however, be again pointed out that Luther’s lack of insight may be explained to some extent “by the great change which was just then coming over the economic life of Germany.” It must also be added, that, in Luther’s case, the struggle against usury was in itself a courageous and deserving work, and, that, hand in hand with it, went those warm exhortations to charity which he knew so well how to combine with Christ’s Evangelical Counsels.

In his attack on the abuses connected with usury his indignation at the mischief, and his ardent longing to help the oppressed, frequently called forth impressive and heart-stirring words. Though, in what Luther said about usury and on the economic conditions of his day, we meet much that is vague, incorrect and passionate, yet, on the other hand, we also find some excellent hints and suggestions.[302]

It is notorious that the controversy regarding the lawfulness of interest, even of 5 per cent, on money loans, went on for a long time among theologians both Catholic and Protestant. The subject was also keenly debated among the 16th-century Jesuits. No theologian, however, succeeded in proving the sinfulness of the charging of a five per cent interest under the circumstances which then obtained in Germany. Attempts to have this generally prohibited under severe penalties were rejected by eminent Catholic theologians, for instance, in a memorandum of the Law and Divinity Faculties at Ingolstadt, dated August 2, 1580, which bore the signatures of all the professors.[303] On the Protestant side the contest led to disagreeable proceedings at Ratisbon, where, in 1588, five preachers, true to Luther’s injunctions, insisted firmly on the prohibition on theological grounds. They were expelled from the town by the magistrates, though this did not end the controversy.[304]

There was naturally no question at any time of enforcing the severe measures which Luther had advocated against those who charged interest; on the contrary the social disorders of the day promoted not merely the lending at moderate interest, but even actual usury of the worst character. When even Martin Bucer showed himself disposed to admit the lawfulness of taking twelve per cent interest George Lauterbecken, the Mansfeld councillor, wrote of him in his “Regentenbuch”: “What has become of the book Dr. Luther of blessed memory addressed to the ministers on the subject of usury, exhorting them most earnestly,” etc., etc.? Nobody now dreamt, so he complains, of putting in force the penalties decreed by Luther. “Where do we see in any of our countries which claim to be Evangelical anyone refused the Sacrament of the altar or Holy Baptism on account of usury? Where, agreeably to the Canons, are they forbidden to make a will? Where do we see one of them buried on the dungheap?”[305]

CHAPTER XXXVI
THE DARKER SIDE OF LUTHER’S INNER LIFE. HIS AILMENTS

The struggles of conscience which we already had occasion to consider (vol. v., p. 319 ff.) were not the only gloomy elements in Luther’s interior life. Other things, too, must be taken into our purview if we wish to appreciate justly the more sombre side of his existence, viz. his bodily ailments and the mental sufferings to which they gave rise (e.g. paroxysms of terror and apprehension), his temptations, likewise his delusions concerning his intercourse with the other world (ghosts, diabolical apparitions, etc.), and, lastly, the revelations of which he fancied himself the recipient.

1. Early Sufferings, Bodily and Mental

It is no easy task to understand the nature of the morbid phenomena which we notice in Luther. His own statements on the subject are not only very scanty but also prove that he was himself unable to determine exactly their cause. Nevertheless, it is our duty to endeavour, with the help of what he says, to glean some notion of what was going on within him. His gloomy mental experiences are so inextricably bound up with his state of health, that, even more than his “agonies of conscience” already dealt with, they deserve to take their place on the darker background of his psychic life. Here again, duly to appreciate the state of the case, we shall have to review anew the whole of Luther’s personal history.

Fits of Fear; Palpitations; Swoons

What first claims our attention, even in the early days of Luther’s life as a monk, are the attacks of what he himself calls fears and trepidations (“terrores, pavores”). It seems fairly clear that these were largely neurotic,—physical breakdowns due to nervous worry.

According to Melanchthon, the friend in whom he chiefly confided, Luther gave these sufferings a place in the forefront of his soul’s history. The reader may remember the significant passage where Melanchthon says, that, when oppressed with gloomy thoughts of the Divine Judgments, Luther “was often suddenly overwhelmed by such fits of terror (‘subito tanti terrores’)” as made him an object of pity. These terrors he had experienced for the first time when he decided to enter the monastic life, led to this resolution by the sudden death of a dearly loved friend.[306]

We hear from Luther himself of the strange paroxysms of fear from which he suffered as a monk. On two occasions when he speaks of them his words do not seem to come under suspicion of forming part of the legend which he afterwards wove about his earlier history (see below, xxxvii.). These statements, already alluded to once, may be given more in detail here. In March, 1537, he told his friends: “When I was saying Mass [his first Mass] and had reached the Canon, such terror seized on me (ita horrui) that I should have fled had not the Prior held me back; for when I came to the words, ‘Thee, therefore, most merciful Father, we suppliantly pray and entreat,’ etc., I felt that I was speaking to God without any mediator. I longed to flee from the earth. For who can endure the Majesty of God without Christ the Mediator? In short, as a monk I experienced those terrors (horrores); I was made to experience them before I began to assail them.”[307] Incidentally it may be noted that “Christ the Mediator,” whom Luther declares he could not find in the Catholic ritual, is, as a matter of fact, invoked in the very words which follow those quoted by Luther: “Thee, therefore, most merciful Father, we suppliantly pray and entreat through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Lord to accept and bless these gifts,” etc. Evidently when Luther recorded his impressions he had forgotten these words and only remembered the groundless fear and inward commotion with which he had said his first Mass.

Something similar occurred during a procession at Erfurt, when he had to walk by the side of Staupitz, his superior, who was carrying the Blessed Sacrament. Fear and terror so mastered Luther that he was hardly able to remain. Telling Staupitz of this later in Confession, the latter encouraged him with the words: “Christ does not affright, He comforts.” The incident must have taken place after 1515, the Eisleben priory having been founded only in that year.[308]

If we go back to the very beginning of his life in the monastery we shall find that the religious scruples which assailed him at least for a while, possibly also deserve to be reckoned as morbid. We shall return below to the voice “from heaven” which drove him into the cloister.

Unspeakable fear issuing in bodily prostration was also at work in him on the occasion of the already related incident in the choir of the Erfurt convent, when he fell to the ground crying out that he was not the man possessed. Not only does Dungersheim relate it, on the strength of what he had heard from inmates of the monastery,[309] but Cochlæus also speaks of the incident, in his “Acta,” and, again, in coarse and unseemly language in the book he wrote in 1533, entitled “Von der Apostasey,” doubtless also drawing his information from the Augustinian monks: “It is notorious how Luther came to be a monk; how he collapsed in choir, bellowing like a bull when the Gospel of the man possessed was being read; how he behaved himself in the monastery,” etc.[310] We may recall, how, according to Cochlæus, his brother monks suspected Luther, owing to this attack and on account of a “certain singularity of manner,” of being either under diabolical influence or an epileptic.[311] The convulsions which accompanied the fit may have given rise to the suspicion of epilepsy, but, in reality, they cannot be regarded as sufficient proof. Epilepsy is well-nigh incurable, yet, in Luther’s case, we hear of no similar fits in later life. In later years he manifested no fear of epileptic fits, though he lived in dread of an apoplectic seizure, such as, in due course, was responsible for his death. A medical diagnosis would not fail to consider this seeming instance of epileptic convulsions in conjunction with Luther’s state of fear. For the purpose of the present work it will be sufficient to bring together for the benefit of the expert the necessary data for forming an opinion on the whole question, so far as this is possible.

From the beginning Luther seems to have regarded these “states of terror” as partaking to some extent of a mystic character.

To what a height they could sometimes attain appears from the description he embodied in his “Resolutiones” in 1518, and of which Köstlin opines that, in it Luther portrayed the culminating point to which his own fears had occasionally risen. It is indeed very probable that Luther is referring to no other than himself when he says in the opening words of this remarkable passage: “I know a man who assures me that he has frequently felt these pains.”[312] G. Kawerau also agrees with Köstlin in assuming that Luther is here speaking of himself,[313] a view which is, in fact, forced upon us by other similar passages. Walter Köhler declares: “Whether Luther intended these words to refer to himself or not, in any case they certainly depict his normal state.”[314]

Luther, after saying that, “many, even to the present day,” suffer the pangs of hell so often described in the Psalms of David, and [so Luther thinks], by Tauler, goes on to describe these pangs in words which we shall now quote in full, as hitherto only extracts have been given.[315]

“He often had to endure such pains, though in every instance they were but momentary; they were, however, so great and so hellish that no tongue can tell, no pen describe, no one who has not felt them believe what they were. When at their worst, or when they lasted for half an hour, nay, for the tenth part of an hour, he was utterly undone, and all his bones turned to ashes. At such times God and the whole of creation appears to him dreadfully wroth. There is, however, no escape, no consolation either within or without, and man is ringed by a circle of accusers. He then tearfully exclaims in the words of Holy Scripture: ‘I am cast away, O Lord, from before Thy eyes’ [Ps. xxx. 23], and does not even dare to say: ‘Lord, chastise me not in Thy wrath’ [Ps. vi. 1]. At such a time the soul, strange to tell, is unable to believe that it ever will be saved; it only feels that the punishment is not yet at an end. And yet the punishment is everlasting and may not be regarded as temporal; there remains only a naked longing for help and a dreadful groaning; where to look for help the soul does not know. It is as it were stretched out [on the cross] with Christ, so that ‘all its bones are numbered.’ There is not a nook in it that is not filled with the bitterest anguish, with terror, dread and sadness, and above all with the feeling that it is to last for ever and ever. To make use of a weaker comparison: when a ball travels along a straight line, every point of the line bears the whole weight of the ball, though it does not contain it. In the same way, when the floods of eternity pass over the soul, it feels nothing else, drinks in nothing else but everlasting pain; this, however, does not last but passes. It is the very pain of hell, is this unbearable terror, that excludes all consolation!… As to what it means, those who have experienced it must be believed.”[316]

A physical accompaniment of these fears was, in Luther’s case, the fainting fits referred to now and again subsequent to the beginning of his struggle against the Church.

On the occasion of the attack of which we are told by Ratzeberger the physician, when he was found by friends lying unconscious on the floor, he had been “overpowered by melancholy and sadness.” It is also very remarkable that when his friends had brought him to, partly by the help of music, he begged them to return frequently, that they might play to him “because he found that as soon as he heard the sound of music his ‘tentationes’ and melancholy left him.”[317] According to Kawerau the circumstances point to this incident having taken place in 1523 or 1524.[318]

On the occasion of a serious attack of illness in 1527 his swoons again caused great anxiety to those about him. This illness was preceded by a fit in Jan., 1527. Luther informs a friend that he had “suddenly been affrighted and almost killed by a rush or thickening of the blood in the region of the heart,” but had as quickly recovered. His cure was, he thinks, due to a decoction of milk-thistle,[319] then considered a very efficacious remedy. The rush of blood to the heart, of which he here had to complain, occurred at a time when Luther had nothing to say of “temptations,” but only of the many troubles and anxieties due to his labours.

The more severe bout of illness began on July 6, 1527, at the very time of, or just after, some unusually severe “temptation.”[320] Jonas prefaces his account of it by saying that Luther, “after having that morning, as he admitted, suffered from a burdensome spiritual temptation, came back partially to himself (‘utcunque ad se rediit’).” The words seem to presuppose that he had either fainted or been on the verge of fainting.[321] Having, as the same friend relates, recovered somewhat, Luther made his confession and spoke of his readiness for death. In the afternoon, however, he complained of an unendurable buzzing in his left ear which soon grew into a frightful din in his head. Bugenhagen, in his narrative, is of opinion that the cause of the mischief here emerges plainly, viz. that it was the work of the devil. A fainting fit ensued which overtook Luther at the door of his bedchamber. When laid on his bed he complained of being utterly exhausted. His body was rubbed with cloths wrung out of cold water and then warmth was applied. The patient now felt a little better, but his strength came and went. Amongst other remarks he then passed was one, that Christ is stronger than Satan. When saying this he burst into tears and sobs. Finally, after application of the remedies common at that time, he broke out into a sweat and the danger was considered to be over.

There followed, however, the days and months of dreadful spiritual “temptations” already described (vol. v., p. 333 ff.). At first the bodily weakness also persisted. Bugenhagen was obliged to take up his abode in Luther’s house for a while because the latter was in such dread of the temptations and wished to have help and comfort at hand. For a whole week Luther was unable either to read or to write.

At the end of August and again in September the fainting fits recurred.

His friends, however, were more concerned about Luther’s mental anguish than about his bodily sufferings. The latter gradually passed away, whereas the struggles of conscience continued to be very severe. On Oct. 17, Jonas wrote to Johann Lang: “He is battling amidst the waves of temptation and is hardly able to find any passage of Scripture wherewith to console himself.”[322]

In 1530 again we hear of Luther’s life being endangered by a fainting fit, though it seems to have been distinct from the above attack of illness. This also occurred after an alarming incident during which he believed he had actually seen the devil. It was followed the next day by a loud buzzing in the head. Renewed trouble in the region of the heart, accompanied by paroxysms of fear, is reported to have been experienced in 1536.[323] After this we hear no more of any such symptoms till just before Luther’s death. In the sudden attack of illness which brought his life to a close he complained chiefly of feeling a great oppression on the chest, though his heart was sound.[324]

Nervousness and other Ailments

Quite a number of Luther’s minor ills seem to have been the result of overwrought nerves due partly to his work and the excitement of his life. Here again it is difficult to judge of the symptoms; unquestionably some sort of connection exists between his nervous state and his depression and bodily fears;[325] the fainting fits are even reckoned by some as simply due to neurasthenia.

There can be no doubt that his nervousness was, to some extent inherited, to some extent due to his upbringing. His lively temper which enabled him to be so easily carried away by his fancy, to take pleasure in the most glaring of exaggerations, and bitterly to resent the faintest opposition, proves that, for all the vigour of his constitution, nerves played an important part.

Already in his monastic days his state was aggravated by mental overstrain and the haste and turmoil of his work which led him to neglect the needs of the body. His uninterrupted literary labours, his anxiety for his cause, his carelessness about his health and his irregular mode of life reduced him in those days to a mere skeleton. At Worms the wretchedness of his appearance aroused pity in many. It is true that when he returned from the Wartburg he was looking much stronger, but the years 1522-25, during which he led a lonely bachelor’s life in the Wittenberg monastery, without anyone to wait on him, and sleeping night after night on an unmade bed, brought his nervous state to such a pitch that he was never afterwards able completely to master it. On the contrary, his nervousness grew ever more pronounced, tormenting him in various ways.

So little, however, did he understand it that it was to the devil that he attributed the effects, now dubiously, now with entire conviction.

Among these effects must be included the buzzing in the head and singing in the ears, to which Luther’s letters allude for many a year. When, at the end of Jan., 1529, the violent “agonies and temptations” recurred, the buzzing in the ears again made itself felt. He writes: “For more than a week I have been ailing from dizziness and humming in the head (‘vertigo et bombus’), whether this be due to fatigue or to the malice of the devil I do not know. Pray for me that I may be strong in the faith.”[326] He also complains of this trouble in the head in the next letter, dating from early in Feb.[327] He was then unable to preach or to give lectures for nearly three weeks.[328]

He goes on to say of himself: “In addition to the buffets of the angel of Satan [the temptations] I have also suffered from giddiness and headache.”[329] It was, however, as he himself points out, no real illness: “Almost constantly is it my fate to feel ill though my body is well.”[330]

In the new kind of life he had to lead in the Castle of Coburg in 1530, when, to want of exercise, was added overwork and anxiety of mind, these neurasthenic phenomena again reappeared. He compares the noises in his head to thunder, or to a whirlwind. There was also present a tendency to fainting. At times he was unable even to look at any writing, or to bear the light owing to the weakness of his head.[331] Simultaneously the struggle with his thoughts gave him endless trouble; thus he writes: “It is the angel of Satan who buffets me so, but since I have endured death so often for Christ, I am quite ready for His sake to suffer this illness, or this Sabbath-peace of the head.”[332] “You declare,” he says laughingly in a letter to Melanchthon, “that I am pig-headed, but my pig-headedness is nothing compared with that of my head (‘caput eigensinnigissimum’); so powerfully does Satan compel me to make holiday and to waste my time.”[333] Towards the middle of August his head improved, but the tiresome buzzing frequently recurred. Luther complained later that, during this summer, he had been forced to waste half his time.[334]

When, from this time onwards, “we hear him ever saying that he feels worn-out (‘decrepitus’), weary of life and desirous of death … all this is undoubtedly closely bound up with these nerve troubles.”[335] The morning hours became for him the worst, because during them he often suffered from dizziness. After his “prandium,” between nine and ten o’clock, he was wont to feel better. As a rule he slept well.

The attacks which occurred early in 1532 must also be noted.

In Jan., so his anxious pupil Veit Dietrich writes, Luther had a foreboding of some illness impending and fancied it would come in March; in reality it came on on Jan. 22. “Very early, about four o’clock, he felt a violent buzzing in his ears followed by great weakness of the heart.” His friends were summoned at his request as he did not wish to be alone. “When, however, he had recovered and had his wits about him (‘confirmato animo’), he proceeded to storm against the Papists, who were not yet to make gay over his death.” “Were Satan able,” he says, “he would gladly kill me; at every hour he is at my heels.” “The physician declared,” so the account goes on, “after having examined the urine, that Luther stood in danger of an attack of apoplexy, which indeed he would hardly escape.” The prediction was, however, not immediately verified and the patient was once more able to leave his bed. On Feb. 9, however (if the date given in the Notes be correct),[336] after assisting at a funeral in the church of Torgau, he was again seized with such a fit of giddiness as hardly to be able to return to his lodgings. When he recovered he said: “Do not be grieved even should I die, but continue to further the Word of God after my death.… It may be we are still sinners and do not perform our duty sufficiently; if so we shall cloak it over with the forgiveness of sins.” This time again he was not able to work for a whole month.

What he at times endured from the trouble in his head we learn from a statement in the Notes of the Table-Talk made by Cordatus: “When I awake and am unable to sleep again on account of the noise in my ears, I often fancy I can hear the bells of Halle, Leipzig, Erfurt and Wittenberg, and then I think: Surely you are going to have a fit. But God frequently intervenes and gives me a short sleep afterwards.”[337]

No notable improvement took place until the middle of 1533.

The noises in the head began again in 1541. He fancied then that he could hear “the rustling of all the trees and the breaking of the waves of every sea” in his head.[338] When he wrote this he was also suffering from a discharge from the ear, which, for the time, deprived him of his hearing; so great was the pain as to force tears from him. Alluding to this he says that his friends did not often see him in tears, but that now he would gladly weep even more copiously; to God he had said: “Let there be an end either of these pains or of me myself,” but, now that the discharge had ceased, he was beginning to read and write again quite confidently.[339]

From the commencement of his struggle, however, until the end of his life his extreme nervous irritability found expression in the violence of what he said and wrote. There can be no question that, had he not been in a morbidly nervous state, he would never have given way to such outbursts of anger and brutal invective. “There was a demoniacal trait,” says a Protestant Luther biographer, “that awakened in him as soon as he met an adversary, at which even his fellow-monks had shuddered, and which carried him much further than he had at first intended.” He became the “rudest writer of his age.” In his controversy with the Swiss Sacramentarians he “was domineering and high-handed.” “His disputatiousness and tendency to pick a quarrel grew ever stronger in him after his many triumphs.”[340]—But, even among his friends and in his home, he was careless about controlling his irritation. We find him exclaiming: “I am bursting with anger and annoyance”; as we know, he excited himself almost “to death” about a nephew and threatened to have a servant-maid “drowned in the Elbe.”[341] (Cp. the passages from A. Cramer quoted below, towards the end of section 5.)

Other maladies and indispositions, of which the effects were sometimes lasting, also deserve to be alluded to. Of these the principal and worst was calculus of which we first hear in 1526 and then again in 1535, 1536 and 1545. In Feb., 1537, Luther was overtaken by so severe an attack at Schmalkalden that his end seemed near.—In 1525 he had to complain of painful hæmorrhoids, and at the beginning of 1528 similar troubles recurred. The “malum Franciæ,” on the other hand, cursorily mentioned in 1523,[342] is not heard of any more. The severe constipation from which he suffered in the Wartburg also passed away. Luther was also much subject to catarrh, which, when it lasted, caused acute mental depression. The “discharge in his left leg” which continued for a considerable while[343] during 1533 had no important after-effects.

The maladies just mentioned, to which must be added an attack of the “English Sweat,” in 1529, do not afford sufficient grounds for any diagnosis of his physical and mental state in general.[344] On the other hand, the oppression in the præcordial region and his nervous excitability are of great importance to whoever would investigate his general state of health.

The so-called Temptations no Mere Morbid Phenomena

Anyone who passes in review the startling admissions Luther makes concerning his struggles of conscience (above, vol. v., pp. 319-75), or considers the dreadful self-reproaches to which his apostasy and destruction of the olden ecclesiastical system gave rise, reproaches which lead to “death and hell,” and which he succeeded in mastering only by dint of huge effort, cannot fail to see that these mental struggles were something very different from any physical malady. Since, however, some Protestants have represented mere morbid “fearfulness” as the root-cause of the “temptations,” we must—in order not to be accused of evading any difficulties—look into the actual connection between natural timidity and the never-ending struggles of soul which Luther had to wage with himself on account of his apostasy.

Luther’s temptations, according to his own accurate and circumstantial statements, consisted chiefly of remorse of conscience and doubts about his undertaking; they made their appearance only at the commencement of his apostasy, whereas the morbid sense of fear was present in him long before. Of such a character were the “terrores” which led him to embrace monasticism, the unrest he experienced during his first zealous years of religious life, and the dread of which he was the victim while saying his first Mass and accompanying Staupitz in the procession; this morbid fear is also apparent in the monk’s awful thoughts on predestination and in his subsequent temptations to despair. Moreover, such crises, characterised by temptations and disquieting palpitations ending in fainting fits, were in every case preceded by “spiritual temptations,” and only afterwards did the physical symptoms follow. Likewise the bodily ailments occasionally disappeared, leaving behind them the temptations, though Luther seemed outwardly quite sound and able to carry on his work.[345]

Hence the “spiritual temptations” or struggles of conscience were of a character in many respects independent of this morbid state of fear.

They occur, however, on the one hand, in connection with other physical disorders, as in the case of the attack of the “English Sweat” or influenza which Luther had in 1529, and which was accompanied by severe mental struggles; on the other hand, they appear at times to excite the bodily emotion of fear and in very extreme cases undoubtedly tended to produce entire loss of sleep and appetite, cardiac disturbance and fainting fits. Luther himself once said, in 1533, that his “gloomy thoughts and temptations” were the cause of the trouble in his head and stomach;[346] in his ordinary language the temptations were, however, “buffets given him by Satan.”[347] He is fond of clothing the temptations in this Pauline figure and of depicting them as his worst trials, and only quite exceptionally does he call his purely physical sufferings “colaphi Satanæ,” they, too, coming from Satan. Now we cannot of course entirely trust Luther’s own diagnosis—otherwise we should have to reduce all his maladies to a work of evil spirits—yet his feeling that the “temptations” were on the one hand a malady in themselves and on the other a source of many other ills, should carry some weight with us.

It is also clear that, in the case of an undertaking like Luther’s, and given his antecedents, remorse of conscience was perfectly natural even had there been no ailment present. It was impossible that a once zealous monk should become faithless to his most solemn vows and, on his own authority and on alleged discoveries in the Bible, dare to overthrow the whole ecclesiastical structure of the past without in so doing experiencing grave misgivings. Add to this his violence, his “wild-beast fury” (J. von Walther), his practical contradictions and the theological mistakes which he was unable to hide. Hence we need have no scruple about admitting what is otherwise fairly evident, viz. that his ghostly combats stand apart and cannot be attributed directly to any bodily ailment.

It remains, however, true that such struggles and temptations throve exceedingly on the morbid fear which lay hidden in the depths of his soul. It must also be granted that neurasthenia sometimes gives rise to symptoms of fear similar to those experienced by Luther, as we shall hear later on from an expert in nervous diseases, whom we shall have occasion to quote (see section 5 below). Consideration for such facts oblige the layman to leave the question open as to how much of Luther’s fear is to be attributed to nervousness or to other physical drawbacks.

We do not think it desirable here to enter further into the views of the older Catholic polemics, already referred to, who looked upon Luther as possessed (as labouring under an “obsessio” or at least a “circumsessio”). The fits of terror he endured both before and after his apostasy seemed to them to prove that he was really a demoniac. As already pointed out above (vol. iv., p. 359), this field is too obscure and too beset with the danger of error to allow of our venturing upon it.[348] Quite another matter is it, however, with regard to temptations, with which, according to Holy Scripture and the constant teaching of the Church, the devil is allowed to assail men, and to discuss which in Luther’s case we will now proceed, using his own testimonies.

2. Psychic Problems of Luther’s Religious Development

From the beginning of his apostasy and public struggle we find in Luther no peace of soul and clearness of outlook; rather, he is the plaything of violent emotions. He himself complains of having to wrestle with gloomy temptations of the spirit. It is these that we now propose to investigate more narrowly. In so doing we must also examine how his nervous state reacted on these temptations, whereby we shall, maybe, discern more clearly than before the connection of Luther’s doctrine with his distress of soul.

Temptations to Despair

As to the temptations admitted by Luther to be such, we must first of all recall the involuntary thoughts of despair which occurred to him in the convent and the inclination he felt, against his will, to abandon all hope of his salvation and even to blaspheme God. Everybody in the least acquainted with the spiritual life knows that such darkening of the soul may be caused by the Spirit of Evil and often accompanies certain morbid conditions of the body. When the two, as is often the case, are united, the effects are all the more far-reaching. Now, on his own showing, this was precisely the case with the unhappy inmate of the Erfurt monastery. Luther felt himself compelled, as he says, to lay bare his temptations (the “horrendæ et terrificæ cogitationes”) to Staupitz in confession.[349] The latter comforted him by pointing out the value of such temptations as a mental discipline. Staupitz, and others too, had, however, also told him that his case was to some extent new to them and beyond their comprehension.[350] Hence, understood by none, he passed his days sunk in sadness. All to whom he applied for consolation had answered him: “I do not know.”[351] His fancy must, indeed, have strayed into strange bypaths for both Pollich, the Wittenberg professor, and Cardinal Cajetan expressed amazement at the oddness of his thoughts.

His theological system finally became the pivot around which his thoughts revolved; to it he looked for help. He had created it under the influence of other factors to which it is not here needful to refer again; particularly it had grown out of his own relaxation in the virtues of his Order and religious life.[352] His system, however, had for its aim to combat despair, overmastering concupiscence and the consciousness of sin by means of a self-imposed tranquillity. He was determined to arrive by main force at peace and certainty. Only little by little, so he wrote in 1525, had he discovered, “God leads down to hell those whom He predestines to heaven, and makes alive by slaying”; whoever had read his writings “would understand this now very well”; a man must learn to despair utterly of himself, and allow himself to be helplessly saved by the action of God, i.e. by virtue of the forgiveness won by fiducial faith.[353] How he himself was led by God down to hell he sets forth in his “Resolutiones,” in the account of his mental sufferings given above (p. 101 f.), a passage which transports the reader into the midst of the pains which Luther endured in his anxiety.

The man most deeply initiated into the darker side of Luther’s temptations and struggles was the friend of his youth, the Augustinian, Johann Lang. He, too, apparently suffered severely beneath the burden of temptations regarding predestination and the forgiveness of sins. It was in a letter to him, that, not long after the nailing up of the Wittenberg Theses, Luther penned those curious words: They would pray earnestly for one another, “that our Lord Jesus may help us to bear our temptations which no one save us two has ever been through.”[354] Shortly before this Luther had commended to the care of his friend, then prior at Erfurt, a young man, Ulrich Pinder of Nuremberg, who had opened his heart to him at Wittenberg; on this occasion he wrote that Pinder was “troubled with secret temptations of soul which hardly anyone in the monastery with the exception of yourself understands.”[355] He also alludes to the temptations peculiar to himself in that letter to Lang, in 1516, in which he describes his overwhelming labours, which “seldom leave him due time for reciting the hours or saying Mass.” On the top of his labours, he says, there were “his own temptations from the world, the flesh and the devil.”[356] To this same recipient of his confidences Luther was wont regularly to give an account of the success attending his attacks on the ancient Church and doctrine; he kindled in him a burning hatred of those Augustinians at Erfurt who were well disposed towards scholasticism and Aristotle, and forwarded him the controversial Theses for the Disputations at the Wittenberg University embodying his new doctrine of the necessity of despairing of ourselves and of mystically dying, viz. the new “Theology of the Cross.”

Some mysterious words addressed to Staupitz, in which Luther hints at his inward sufferings, find their explanation when taken in conjunction with the above. He assured Staupitz (Sep. 1, 1518) in a letter addressed to him at Salzburg, that the summons to Rome and the other threats made not the slightest impression on him: “I am enduring incomparably worse things, as you know, which make me look upon such fleeting, shortlived thunders as very insignificant.”[357] His temptations against God and His Mercy were of a vastly different character. By the words just quoted he undoubtedly meant, says Köstlin, “those personal, inward sufferings and temptations, probably bound up with physical emotions, to which Staupitz already knew him to be subject and which frequently came upon him later with renewed violence. They were temptations in which, as at an earlier date, he was plunged into anxiety concerning his personal salvation as soon as he started pondering on the hidden depths of the Divine Will.”[358]

The Shadow of Pseudo-Mysticism

In this connection it will be necessary to return to Luther’s earlier predilection for a certain kind of mysticism.[359]

As we know, at an early date he felt drawn to the writings of the mystics, for one reason, because he seemed to himself to find there his pet ideas about spiritual death and wholesome despair. Their description of the desolation of the soul and of its apparent abandonment by God appeared to him a startling echo of his own experiences. He did not, however, understand or appreciate aright the great mystics, particularly Tauler, when he read into them his own peculiar doctrine of passivity.

To a certain extent throughout his whole life he stood under the shadow of this dim, sad mysticism.

He will have it that he, like the mystics, had frequently been plunged in the abyss of the spirit, had been acquainted with death and with states weird and unearthly. He refuses to relate all he has been through and actually gives as his ground for silence the very words used by St. Paul when speaking of his own revelations: “But I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth in me, or anything he heareth from me” (2 Cor. xii. 6). When speaking thus of the mystic death he fails to distinguish between such thoughts and feelings as may have been the result solely of a morbid state of fear, or of remorse of conscience, and the severe trials through which the souls of certain great and holy men had really to pass.

It is indeed curious to note how he was led astray by a combination of fear, mysticism and temptation.

He was deluded into seeing in his own states just what he desired, viz. the proof of the truth of his own doctrine and exalted mission to proclaim it; he will not hear of this being a mere figment of his own brain. On the contrary, he is convinced that he, like the inspired Psalmist, has passed through every kind of the terrors which the latter so movingly describes. Like the Psalmist, he too must pray, “O Lord, chastise me not in thy wrath,” and like him, again, he is justified in complaining that his bones are broken and his soul troubled exceedingly (Ps. vi.). He even opines that those who have endured such things rank far above the martyrs; David, according to him, would much rather have perished by the sword than have “endured this murmuring of his soul against God which called forth God’s indignation.”[360]

There is no doubt that Johann Lang might have been able to tell us much about these gloomy aberrations of Luther’s, for he had a large share in Luther’s development.

It is worthy of note that it was to this bosom friend that Luther sent his edition of “Eyn Deutsch Theologia.”[361] “Taulerus tuus” (“Your Tauler”[362]) so he calls the German mystic when writing to his friend, and in a similar way, in a letter to Lang, he speaks of the new theology built entirely on grace and passive reliance as “our theology.” “Our theology and St. Augustine,” he says, “are progressing bravely at our University and gaining the upper hand, thanks to the working of God, whereas Aristotle is now taking a back seat.”[363] We must not be of those who, “like Erasmus, fail to give the first place to Christ and grace,” so he writes to Lang, knowing that here he would meet with a favourable response. The man who “knows and acknowledges nothing but grace alone” judges very differently from one “who attributes something to man’s free-will.”[364]

It was not long before Luther’s pseudo-mysticism translated itself into deeds. He persuades himself that he is guided in all his actions and resolutions by a sort of Divine inspiration. A singular sort of super-naturalism and self-sufficiency gleams in the words he once wrote to Lang. After reminding him of the unquestioned truth, that “man must act under God’s power and counsel and not by his own,” he goes on to explain defiantly, that, for this reason, he scorns once and for all any objections the Erfurt Augustinians might urge against the “paradoxical theses” he had sent them a little earlier, also their charge that he had shown himself hasty and precipitate: God was enough for him; of their counsel and instruction he stood in no need.[365] As though real wisdom and true mysticism did not teach us to welcome humbly the opinion of well-meaning critics, and not to trust too implicitly our own ideas, particularly in fields where one is so liable to trip. But the “Theology of the Cross,” sealed by his fears, now seemed to him above all controversy. During his temptations he had come to see its truth, and it also fell in marvellously with his changed views on the duties of a religious and with his renunciation of humility and self-denial.

At a time when mysticism and the study of Tauler still exercised a powerful influence over him he was wont in his fits of terror to revert to Tauler’s misapprehended considerations on the inward trials of the soul.

In pursuance of this idea and hinting at his own mental state he declares in his “Operationes in psalmos” (1519-21), that, according to St. Paul (Rom. v. 3 f.), tribulations work in us patience and trial and hope, and thus the love of God and justification; tribulation, however, consisted chiefly of inward anxiety, and trial called for patience and calm endurance of this anxiety; the greater the tribulation, the higher would hope rise in the soul. “Thus it is plain that the Apostle is speaking of the assurance of the heart in hope,[366] because, after anxiety cometh hope, and then a man feels that he hopes, believes and loves.” “Hence Tauler, the man of God, and also others who have experienced it, say that God is never more pleasing, more lovable, sweeter and more intimate with His sons than after they have been tried by temptation.”[367] It is quite true that Tauler said this; he also teaches that the greater the desolation by which God tries the souls of the elect, the higher the degree of mystical union to which He wishes to call them; for death is the road to life. It is quite another thing, however, whether Tauler would have approved of Luther’s application of what he wrote.

Luther also refers both to Tauler and to himself elsewhere in the “Operationes,” where he speaks of the fears of conscience regarding the judgment of God which no one can understand who had not himself experienced them; Job, David, King Ezechias and a few others had endured them; “and finally that German theologian, Johannes Tauler, often alludes to such a state of soul in his sermons.”[368] Tauler, however, when speaking of such afflictions, is thinking of those souls who seek God and are indeed united to Him in love, but who are tried and purified by the withdrawal of sensible grace, and by being made to feel a sense of separation from Him and the burden of their nature.

In his church-postils he again summons Tauler to his aid in order to depict the fears with which he was so familiar, seeking consolation, as it were, both for himself and for others. In his sermon for the 2nd Sunday in Advent (1522) he speaks of “those exalted temptations concerning death and hell, of which Tauler wrote.” Evidently speaking from experience he says: “This temptation destroys flesh and blood, nay, penetrates into the marrow of the bones and is death itself, so that no one can endure it unless marvellously borne up. Some of the patriarchs tasted this, for instance, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and Moses, but, towards the end of the world, it will become more common.” Finally, he assures his hearers, that, there were such as were “still daily tried” in this way, “of which but few people are aware; these are men who are in the agony of death, and who grapple with death”; still Christ holds out the hope that they are not destined to death and to hell; on the other hand, it is certain that the “world, which fears nothing, will have to endure, first death, and, after that, hell.”[369]

Other Ordeals

Other temptations that assailed Luther must be taken into account. Unfortunately he does not say what “new” form of temptation it was of which he wrote to Johann Lang in 1519. He says: A temptation had now befallen him which showed him “what man was, though he had fondly believed that he was already well enough aware of this before”; he felt it even more severely than the trials he had to endure before the Leipzig Disputation; he would discuss it with him only by word of mouth when Lang came to see him.[370] Is he here referring to temptations of the flesh of an unusual degree of intensity? We have already heard him bewail his temptations to ambition and hate. Moreover, in this very year he speaks of temptations against chastity in his Sermon on Marriage: It is a “shameful temptation,” he says; “I have known it well, and I imagine you too are acquainted with it; ah, I know well how it is when the devil comes and excites and inflames the flesh.… When one is on fire and the temptation comes I know well what it is; then the eye is already blind.”[371] Already before this he had had to fight against “very many temptations” of the sort, which are “wont to attend the age of youth.”[372] Later on they startled him by their waxing strength. Of the temptations of the senses (“titillatio”) to which he was exposed he had complained, for instance, in the same year (1519) in a letter to his superior Staupitz,[373] and the worldly intercourse into which he was drawn, “the social gatherings, excessive indulgence in the pleasures of the table, and general lukewarmness,” of which he speaks on the same occasion, make such temptations all the more likely in the case of a young man of a temper so lively and impressionable, especially as his lukewarmness took the shape of neglect of prayer and the means of grace, and of the help he might have derived from the exercises of the Order.

Such fleshly temptations he bewailed even more loudly when at the Wartburg. There, as we may recall, he became the plaything of evil lust (“libido”) and the “fire of his untamed flesh.” “Instead of glowing in spirit, I glow in the flesh.”[374] Admitting that he himself “prayed and groaned too little for the Church of God,” he exclaims: “Pray for me, for in this solitude I am falling into the abyss of sin!”[375] Though in bodily health and well cared for, he is “being well pounded by sins and temptations,” so he wrote to his old friend Johann Lang.

To all this was still added great trouble of conscience concerning his undertaking as a whole. When he was passionately declaring that his misgivings were from the devil and resolving never to flinch in his antagonism to the hated vow of chastity he was himself falling into the state which he himself describes: “You see how I burn within (‘quantis urgear æstibus’).” This to Melanchthon, after having explained to him the struggle waging within between his feelings and his knowledge of the Bible in the matter of the vow of chastity. He is being carried away to take action, and yet is unable, as he here admits, to prove his object by means of the text of Scripture.[376] He feels himself to be “the sport of a thousand devils” in the Wartburg on account of this and other temptations; he falls frequently, yet the right hand of God upholds him.[377] The castle is full of devils, so he wrote from within its walls, and very cunning devils to boot, who never leave him at peace but behave in such a way that he “is never alone” even when he seems to be so.[378] Hence he was writing “partly under the stress of temptation, partly in indignation.” What he was writing was his “De votis monasticis,” by means of which, as he here says, he is about “to free the young folk from the hell of celibacy.”[379]

Ten years later he still recalls the “despair and the temptation concerning God’s wrath” which had then been raging within him.[380]

His temptations at that time must have been rendered even worse by the morbid conditions then awakening in him, by the dismal, racking sense of fear that peopled his imagination with thousands of devils, and the mental confusion resulting from his state of nervous overstrain.

It would carry us too far to pursue the diabolical temptations to despair (or what he held to be such) throughout the rest of his life, and to examine their connection with his maladies. We shall only remark, that, even at a later date, when we find him the butt of severe temptations of this sort, an under-current of other trouble is frequently to be detected. The “terrors” he endured in his youthful years indeed moderated but never altogether disappear. The “spiritual sickness” of 1537 of which he speaks, when for a whole fortnight he could scarcely eat, drink or sleep, shows the degree to which these thoughts of despair and struggles of conscience could reach.

Summary

To sum up what we have said of Luther’s temptations, a distinction must be made between the temptations of the Evil One, which Luther himself regarded as such, and certain other things the real nature of which he failed to grasp. Moreover, there are those “temptations” which bore on his work and doctrines and which he wrongly regarded as temptations of the devil, whereas they were no more than the prick of conscience. All three are at times reacted on by a morbid state which he likewise failed rightly to understand, but which was made up of that predisposition to anxiety to which his nature was so prone and a kind of nervous irritability due to his struggles and over-great labours. Only those of the first and second class have any title to be regarded as temptations.

To the first class, i.e. to the temptations he felt and described as such, belongs first of all that despair which often disquieted him even in his later years; then again the temptations of the flesh of which we have also heard him speak. Though he ascribes both to the machinations of the Evil One, yet his method of fighting them was fatally mistaken. The temptations to despair he withstood by his erroneous doctrine of grace and faith alone, and, the more such thoughts torment him, the more defiantly does he stand by this doctrine. In the case of the temptations against chastity he failed to make sufficient use of the remedies of Christian penance and piety; on the contrary, under the stress of their allurements, he finally saw fit to demolish even the barrier raised by solemn vows made unto God.

The second class of temptations, which to him, however, did not seem to be such, includes all the mental aberrations we have had occasion to note during the course of his life story, particularly at the beginning of his apostasy. Here we shall only indicate the more important. It may be allowed that many of them masqueraded under specious pretexts and the appearance of good (“sub specie boni”). Thus, e.g. there was something fine and inspiring in his plans of exalting the grace of Christ at the expense of the mere works of the faithful; of giving the religious freedom of the Christian full play, regardless of unwarranted human ordinances; of improving the cut-and-dry theology of the day by a deeper and more positive study of the Bible; and of stopping the widespread decline in ecclesiastical learning and ecclesiastical life by stronghanded reforms. He allowed himself, however, to be altogether led astray in both the conception and the carrying out of these plans.

There was grave peril to himself in that sort of spiritualism, thanks to which he so frequently attributes all his doings to the direct inspiration and guidance of Almighty God; real and enlightened dependence on God is something very different; again, there was danger in his perverted interpretation of the teaching of the mystics of the past, in his exaggeration of the strength of man’s sinful concupiscence and neglect of the remedies prescribed in ages past, particularly of the practices of his own Order, also in his passionate struggles against the so-called holiness-by-works prevalent among the Augustinians, in his characteristic violence and tendency to pick a quarrel, and, above all, in the working of his inordinate self-esteem and unbounded appreciation of his own achievements as the leader of the new movement, which led him to exalt himself above all divinely appointed ecclesiastical authority.

In the above we were obliged to hark back to Luther’s earlier days, and this we shall again have to do in the following pages. The truth is, that many of the secrets of his earlier years can be explained only in the light of his later life, whilst, conversely, his youth and years of ripening manhood assist us in solving some of the riddles of later years. Hence we cannot be justly charged with repeating needlessly incidents that have already been related.

Just as the Wartburg witnessed the strongest temptations that Luther had ever to bear, so, too, it formed the stage of certain of those manifestations from the other world of which he fancied himself the recipient. Such manifestations, which lead one to wonder whether Luther suffered from hallucinations, are of frequent occurrence in his story. We shall now proceed to review them in their entirety.

3. Ghosts, Delusions, Apparitions of the Devil

In investigating the many ghostly apparitions with which Luther believed he had been favoured, our attention is perforce drawn to the Wartburg. We must, however, be careful to distinguish the authentic traditions from what has been unjustifiably added thereto. As to the explaining and interpreting of such testimonies as have a right to be regarded as historical, that will form the matter of a special study. In order that the reader may build up an opinion of his own we shall meanwhile only set on record what the sources say, the views of those concerned being given literally and unabridged. This method, essential though it be for the purposes of an unbiassed examination, has too often been set aside, recourse being had instead to mere assertions, denials and pathological explanations.

The Statements Concerning Luther’s Intercourse with the Beyond

On April 5, 1538, Luther, in the presence of his friends, spoke of the personal “annoyance” to which the devil had subjected him while at the Wartburg by means of visible manifestations. The pastor of Sublitz, then staying at Wittenberg, had complained of being pestered at his home by noisy spooks; they flung pots and pans at his head and created other disturbances. Referring to such outward manifestations of the spirit-world, Luther remarked: “I too was tormented in my time of captivity in Patmos, in the castle perched high up in the kingdom of the birds. But I withstood Satan and answered him in the words of the Bible: God is mine, Who created man and ‘set all things under his feet’ (Ps. viii. 7). If thou hast any power over them, try what thou canst do.”[381]

On another occasion he related before his friend Myconius and in the presence of Jonas and Bugenhagen, “how the devil had twice appeared at the Wartburg in the shape of a great dog and had tried to kill him.” It is Myconius who relates this, mentioning that it had been told him by Luther at Gotha in 1538,[382] “in the house of Johann Löben, the Schosser.”

Of one of these two apparitions, the physician Ratzeberger, Luther’s friend, had definite information. He, however, quotes it only as an instance of the many ghostly things which Luther had experienced there: “Because the neighbourhood was lonely many ghosts appeared to him and he was much troubled by disturbances due to noisy spooks. Among other incidents, one night, when he was going to bed, he found a huge black bull-dog lying on his bed that refused to let him get in. Luther thereupon commended himself to our Lord God, recited Ps. viii. [the same as that mentioned above], and when he came to the verse ‘Thou hast set all things under his feet’ the dog at once disappeared and Luther passed a peaceful night. Many other ghosts of a like nature visited him, all of whom he drove off by prayer, but of which he refused to speak, for he said he would never tell anyone how many spectres had tormented him.”[383]

According to the account of his pupil Mathesius, Luther often “called to mind how the devil had tormented him in mind and caused him a burning pain which sucked the very marrow out of his bones.”[384] Of visible apparitions Mathesius has, however, very little to say: “The Evil Spirit,” so we read in his account of Luther’s sayings, “most likely wished to affright me palpably, for on many nights I heard him making a noise in my Patmos, and saw him at the Coburg under the form of a star, and in my garden in the shape of a black pig. But my Christ strengthened me by His Spirit and Word so that I paid no heed to the devil’s spectre.”[385] Mathesius, in his enthusiasm, actually goes so far as to compare such things to Satan’s tempting of Christ in the wilderness.

The encounter with the great black dog in the Wartburg is related in an old edition of Luther’s Table-Talk with a curious addition, which tells how Luther, on one occasion, calmly lifted from the bed the dog, which had frequently tormented him, carried him to the window, and threw him out without the animal even barking. Luther had not been able to learn anything about it afterwards from others, but no such dog was kept in the Castle.[386]

Of the strange din by which the devil annoyed him within those walls Luther speaks more in detail in the German Table-Talk. “When I was living in Patmos … I had a sack of hazel nuts shut up in a box. On going to bed at night I undressed in my study, put out the light, went to my bedchamber and got into bed. Then the nuts began to rattle over my head, to rap very hard against the rafters of the ceiling and bump against me in bed; but I paid no attention to them. After I had got to sleep there began such a din on the stairs as though a pile of barrels was being flung down them, though I knew the stairs were protected with chains and iron bars so that no one could come up; nevertheless, the barrels kept rolling down. I got up and went to the top of the stairs to see what it was, but found the stairs closed. Then I said: ‘If it is you, so be it,’ and commended myself to our Lord Christ of Whom it is written: ‘Thou shalt set all things under his feet,’ as Ps. viii. says, and got into bed again.” All this, so the account proceeds, had been related by Luther himself at Eisenach in 1546.[387] Cordatus, however, must have heard the story of the nuts from his own lips even before this. He tells it in 1537 as one of the numerous instances of the persecution Luther had had to endure from the spooks of the Wartburg: “Then he [the devil] took the walnuts from the table and flung them up at the ceiling the whole night long.”[388]

It also happened (this supplements an incident touched upon above in vol. ii., p. 95), so Luther related on the above occasion, in 1546, that the wife of Hans Berlips, who “would much have liked to see [Luther], which was, however, not allowed,” came to the Castle. His quarters were changed and the lady was put into his room. “That night there was such an ado in the room that she fancied a thousand devils were in it.”[389] This story is not quite so well authenticated as the incidents which Luther relates as having happened to himself, for it is clear that he had it directly, or indirectly, only from this lady’s account. Her anxiety to see Luther would seem to stamp her as a somewhat eccentric person, and it may also be that she went into a room, already reputed to be haunted, quite full of the thought of ghosts and that her imagination was responsible for the rest.

Luther goes on to allude to another ghostly visitation, possibly a new one. He says: “On such occasions we must always say to the devil contemptuously: “If you are Christ’s Master, so be it!” For this is what I said at Eisenach.”[390] Nothing further is known, however, of any such occurrence having taken place at Eisenach. He may quite well have taken Eisenach as synonymous with the Wartburg.

To pass in review the other ghostly apparitions which occurred during his lifetime, we must begin with his early years.

When still a young monk at Wittenberg Luther already fancied he heard the devil making a din. “When I began to lecture on the Psalter, and, after we had sung Matins, was seated in the refectory studying and writing up my lecture, the devil came and rattled in the chimney three times, just as though someone were heaving a sack of coal down the chimney. At last, as it did not cease, I gathered up my books and went to bed.”[391] “Once, too, I heard him over my head in the monastery, but, when I noticed who it was, I paid no attention, turned over and went to sleep again.”[392]

Luther can tell some far more exciting stories of ghosts and “Poltergeists,” of which others, with whom he had come in contact in youth or manhood, had been the victims. Since, however, he seems to have had them merely on hearsay, they may be passed over. Of himself, however, he says: “I have learnt by experience that ghosts go about affrightening people, preventing them from sleeping and so making them ill.”[393]

We find also the following statement: “The devil has often had me by the hair of my head, yet was ever forced to let me go”;[394] from the context this, however, may refer to mental temptations.

He says, however, quite definitely of certain experiences he himself had gone through in the monastery: “Oh, I saw gruesome ghosts and visions.” This was probably at the time when “no one was able to comfort” him.[395] He was referring to incidents to which no definite date can be assigned, when, anxious to refute their claim to illumination by the spirits, he told the fanatics: “Ah, bah, spirits … I too have seen spirits!”

The Table-Talk relates how on one occasion Luther himself, in a strange house, was witness of a remarkable spectral visitation. He is said to have related the incident and to “have seen it with his own eyes as did also many others.”[396] A maiden, a friend of the old proctor [at the University], was lying in bed ill at Wittenberg. She had a vision; Christ appearing to her under a glorious form, whereupon she joyfully adored her visitor. A messenger was at once sent “from the college to the monastery” to fetch Luther. He came and exhorted the young woman “not to allow herself to be deceived by the devil.” She thereupon spat in the face of the apparition. “The devil then disappeared and the vision turned into a great snake which made a dash at the maiden in her bed and bit her on the ear so that the drops of blood trickled down, after which the snake was seen no more.” This story was introduced into the German Table-Talk by Aurifaber (1566).[397] The young woman was probably hysterical and was the only beholder of the vision. In all likelihood what the others saw was merely the blood, which might quite well have come from a scratch otherwise caused. The story has been quoted as a proof of the dispassionate way in which Luther regarded visions.

As a further proof of the “sobriety which he coupled with a faith so ardent and enthusiastic” Köstlin quotes the following:[398] “He himself related this tale,” the Table-Talk says [the date is uncertain but it was after he had already begun to preach the “Word”]; “he was once praying busily in his cell, and thinking of how Christ had hung on the cross, suffered and died for our sins, when suddenly a bright light shone on the wall, and, in the midst, a glorious vision of the Lord with His five wounds appeared and gazed at him, the Doctor, as though it had been Christ Himself. When the Doctor saw it he fancied at first it was something good, but soon he bethought him it must be a devilish spectre, because Christ appears to us only in His Word and in a lowly and humble form, just as He hung in shame upon the cross. Hence the Doctor adjured the vision: ‘Begone thou shameless devil! I know of no other Christ than He Who was crucified, and Who is revealed and preached in His Word,’ and soon the apparition, which was no less than the devil in person, disappeared.”[399]—This story told by his pupils must refer to some statement made by Luther, though the dramatic liveliness of its imagery may well lead us to suspect that it has been touched up. Some natural effect of light and shade might well account for the appearance which the young monk so “busy” at his prayers thought he saw.

ed., 58, p. 129.

It is hardly possible to suppress similar doubts concerning other accounts we have from his lips; his statements also refer to events which occurred long previous. At any rate, in a select circle of his pupils, the opinion certainly prevailed that Luther was tried by extraordinary other-world apparitions, and this conviction was the result of remarks dropped by him.

Greater stress must be laid on those statements of his which bear on inward experiences, where the most momentous truths were concerned and which occurred at certain crises of his life.

In Nov., 1525, he assured Gregory Casel, the Strasburg theologian, in so many words, that “he had frequently had inward experience that the body of Christ is indeed in the Sacrament; he had seen dreadful visions; also angels (‘vidisse se visiones horribiles, sæpe se angelos vidisse’), so that he had been obliged to stop saying Mass.”[400]

He spoke in this way in the course of the official negotiations with Casel, the delegate of the Protestant theologians of Strasburg. The words occur in Casel’s report of the interview published by Kolde. It is true that Luther also speaks here of the outward “Word” as the support of his doctrine, particularly on the Sacrament. “We shall,” he says, “abide quite simply by the words of Scripture—until the Spirit and the unction teach us something different.” He avers that the Strasburgers who denied the Sacrament come with their “Spirit” and wish to explain away the words of the Bible concerning the body of Christ in the Bread. This, however, is not the “light of the Spirit,” but the “light of reason”; he himself had long since learnt to reject reason in the things of God. They were not convinced of their cause as he was, otherwise they would defend their teaching publicly as he did, for he would rather the whole world were undone than be silent on God’s doctrine, because it was God’s business to watch over it.

His opponents declared they had their own inward experience. “How many inward experiences have I not had,” he replies, “at those times when my mind was idle (‘cum eram otiosus’)! All sorts of things came before my mind and everything seemed as reasonable as could be. But, by God’s grace, I addressed myself to greater and more earnest matters and began to distrust reason. I too, like them, was ‘in dangers’ [2 Cor. xi. 26], and in even greater ones. And if it is a question of piety of life, I hope that there, too, we are blameless.” Coming back once more to the spirit which the Strasburgers had set up against the Word of God, he describes in his own defence the “terrors of death he himself had been through (‘mortis horrorem expertus’)” and then speaks of the angelic visions referred to above which had disturbed him even at the Mass.[401]

He also will have it that at other times he had been consoled by angels, though he does not tell us that he had seen them. In 1532 he said to Schlaginhaufen: “God strengthened me ten years ago by His angels, in my struggles and writings.”[402]

Luther, repeatedly and in so many words, appeals to his realisation of the divine truths, and it may be assumed he imagined he felt something of the sort within him, or that he thus interpreted certain emotions. “I am resolved to acknowledge Christ as Lord. And this I have not only from Holy Scripture but also from experience. The name of Christ has often helped me when no one was able to help. Thus I have on my side the deed and the Word, experience and Scripture. God has given both abundantly. But my temptations made things sour for me.”[403]

The Table-Talk assures us that, “Dr. Martin proved it from his own experience that Jesus Christ is truly God; this he also confessed openly; for if Christ were not God then there was certainly no God at all.”[404] It was no difficult task for him to include himself in the ranks of those “who had received the first fruits of the spirit.”[405]

In addition to this, however, as will be shown below,[406] he thinks his doctrine has been borne in upon him by God through direct revelation. More than once, without any scruple, he uses the word “revelatum”; he is also fond of setting this revelation in an awesome background: it had been “strictly enjoined on him (‘interminatum’) under pain of eternal malediction” to believe in it.[407]

In fact a certain terror is the predominating factor in this gloomy region where he comes in touch with the other world. He has not merely had experience that there are roving spirits who affright men,[408] but, in a letter from the Wartburg, he insists quite generally, that, “the visions of the Saints are terrifying.” Of course, as we well know, delusions and hallucinations very often do assume a terrifying character.

Luther also asserts that “divine communications” are always accompanied by inward tortures like unto death, words which give us a glimpse into his own morbid state.[409] And yet he fully admits elsewhere the very opposite, for he is aware that God is, above all things, the consoler. “It is not Christ Who affrights us”;[410] and “it is Satan alone who wounds and terrifies.”[411] But, in practice, according to him, things work differently; there the fear from which he and others suffer comes to the fore. “We are oftentimes affrighted even when God turns to us the friendliest of glances.”[412]

This change of standpoint reminds us of another instance of the same sort. Luther’s teaching on the terrifying character of the divine action is much the same as his theological teaching that fear is the incentive to good deeds. While, as a rule, he goes much too far in seeking to rid the believer of any fear of God as the Judge, preaching an unbounded confidence and even altogether excluding fear from the work of conversion, yet, elsewhere, he emphasises most strongly this same fear, as called for and quite indispensable; this he did in his controversies with the Antinomians and, even earlier, as on the occasion of the Visitations, on account of its religious influence on the people.

No change or alteration is, however, apparent in the accounts he gives above of the cases in which he came in touch with the other world; he sticks firmly by his statement that he had experienced such things both mentally and palpably. Hence the difficulty of coming to any decision about them.

But there are further alleged experiences, also detailed at length, which have a place here, viz. the apparitions of the devil himself.

In 1530 Luther was thrown into commotion by a glimpse of the devil, under the shape of a fiery serpent, outside the walls of the Coburg. One evening in June, about nine o’clock, as his then companion Veit Dietrich relates, Luther was looking out of the window, down on the little wood surrounding the castle. “He saw,” says this witness, “a fiery, flaming serpent, which, after twisting and writhing about, dropped from the roof of the nearest tower down into the wood. He at once called me and wanted to show me the ghost (‘spectrum’) as I stood by his shoulder. But suddenly he saw it disappear. Shortly after, we both saw the apparition again. It had, however, altered its shape and now looked more like a great flaming star lying in the field, so that we were able to distinguish it plainly even though the weather was rainy.” Here the pupil undoubtedly did his best to see something. On his master, however, the firm conviction of having seen the devil made a deep impression. He had just enjoyed a short respite after a bout of ill-health. The night after the apparition he again collapsed and almost lost consciousness. On the following day he felt, so Dietrich says, “a very troublesome buzzing in the head”; the apparition leads the narrator to infer that Luther’s bodily trouble, which now recommenced in an aggravated form, had been entirely “the work of the devil.”[413] So certain was Luther of having seen the devil that he mentioned the occurrence in 1531 at one of the meetings held for the revision of his translation of the Psalms. The words of the Psalmist concerning “sagittæ” and “fulgura,” etc. (Ps. xviii. (xvii.) 15), he applies directly to his own personal experiences and to the incident in question, “Just as I saw my devil flying over the wood at the Coburg.”[414] He means by this the fading away and disappearance of the above-mentioned fiery shape; this psalm speaks of a “materia ignita,” which no doubt suggested his remarks.—Later, as Mathesius relates, he said he had seen the “evil spirit at the Coburg, in the form of a star.”[415] Kawerau terms the apparition an “optical hallucination.”[416]

By the word hallucination is understood an apparent perception of an external object not actually present. That the “apparition” at the Coburg and other similar ones already mentioned or yet to be referred to were hallucinations is quite possible though not certain. It is true that the excessive play Luther gave to his imagination, particularly at the Wartburg and, later, at the Coburg, was such that it is quite within the bounds of possibility that he fancied he saw or heard things which had no real existence. On the other hand, moreover, we know what a large share his superstition had in distorting actual facts. Hence, generally speaking, most of the ghosts or visions he is said to have seen can be explained by a mistaken interpretation of the reality, without there being any need to postulate an hallucination properly so-called. Much of what has been related might come under the heading of illusions, though, probably, not everything. To analyse them in detail is, however, impossible as the circumstances are not accurately known. Certainly no one, however much inclined to the supernatural, who is familiar with Luther and his times, will be content, as was once the case, to believe that the devil sought to interfere visibly and palpably with his person and his teaching.

As to the apparition of the devil at the Coburg in the shape of a flame, a serpent and a star, we may point out that the whole may well have been caused simply by a lantern or torch carried by somebody in that lonely neighbourhood. We might also be tempted to think of St. Elmo’s fire, except that the form of the apparition presents some difficulty.—So, too, the black dog in the Wartburg was most likely some harmless intruder. The noise of the nuts flying up against the ceiling may have been produced by the creaking of a weather-cock, or of a door or shutter in the wind [or by the rats]. Other tales again may be rhetorical inventions, simple fictions of Luther’s brain, not involving the least suggestion of any illusion or hallucination, for instance, when he speaks of the angels who appeared to him at Mass. Such an apparition was a convenient weapon to use against opponents who alleged they were under the influence of the “Spirit.” Moreover, some of these tales were told so long after the event as to leave a wide scope to the imagination.

To proceed with the accounts of the apparitions of the devil: About the reality of two of such, Luther is quite positive.

One of these took place close to his dwelling. The devil he then espied in the shape of a wild-boar in his garden under his window. “Once Martin Luther was looking out of the window,” so an account dating from 1548 tells us, “when a great black hog appeared in the garden.” He recognised it as a diabolical apparition and jeered at Satan who appeared in this guise, though he had once been a “beautiful angel.” “Thereupon the hog melted into nothing.”[417] He himself refers to this apparition in the words already recorded, in which he classes it with the work of the noisy spirits in the Wartburg and the “appearance of the star” at the Coburg.[418]

Indeed the hog and the flaming vision at the Coburg even found their way into his printed sermons. We read in the home-postils: “The devil is always about us in disguise, as I myself witnessed, taking, e.g. the form of a hog, of a burning wisp of straw, and such like”[419] (cp. above, vol. v., p. 287 ff.).

The other apparition, the one which possibly suggests most strongly an hallucination, was that which he experienced at Eisleben at the time he was trying to adjust the quarrels between the Counts of Mansfeld, i.e. just before his death. We have accounts of this from two different quarters, based on statements made by Luther; first that of Michael Cœlius, a friend who was present at his death, in the funeral oration he delivered immediately after at Eisleben on Feb. 20, and, secondly, that of Luther’s confidant, the physician Ratzeberger. The former in his address recounts for the edification of the people how Luther “during his lifetime” had suffered trials and persecutions at the hands of the devil before going to his eternal rest; hence in this world he had been “disturbed and troubled in his peace of mind” by Satan. It was true that latterly he had “enjoyed some happiness” at Eisleben, but “that had not lasted long; one evening indeed,” so Cœlius continues, “Luther had lamented with tears, that, while raising his heart to God with gladness and praying at his open window, he had seen the devil, who hindered him in all his labours, squatting on the fountain and making faces at him. But God would prove stronger than Satan, that he knew well.”[420]—Ratzeberger’s account quite agrees with this as to the circumstances; he had learnt that Luther “related the incident to Dr. Jonas and Mr. Michael Cœlius.” His information is not derived from the funeral oration just mentioned, but clearly from elsewhere. He is right in implying that it was Luther’s habit to say his night prayers at the window; he has, however, some further particulars concerning the behaviour of the devil: “It is said that when Dr. Martin Luther was saying his night prayers to God at the open window, as his custom was before going to bed, he saw Satan perched on the fountain that stood outside his dwelling, showing him his posterior and jeering at him, insinuating that all his efforts would come to nought.”[421] The first place, however, belongs to the account of Cœlius, who, by his mention of the tears Luther shed, sets vividly before the reader the commotion into which the apparition, which had occurred shortly before, had thrown him.

Excitement and trouble of mind were then pressing heavily on the aging man. His frame of mind was caused not merely by the quarrel between the “wrangling Counts” of Mansfeld with whom “no remonstrances or prayers brought any help,”[422] not merely by his usual “temptations,” but also, as Ratzeberger tells us, by the healing up of the incision in the left leg, he (Ratzeberger) had made, and which now led to bodily disorders. The disorders now made common cause with his “annoyance melancholy and grief.” The “violent mental excitement,” together with the bad effects of the healing up of the artificial wound, were, according to this physician, what “brought about his death.” Ratzeberger was not, however, then at Eisleben and we are in possession of more accurate accounts of the circumstances attending Luther’s death.

In explanation of Luther’s singular delusion regarding the jeering devil we may remark that he is fond of attributing the obstacles in the way of peace to the devil’s wrath and envy. “It seems to me that the devil is mocking us,” he writes of the difficulties on Feb. 6, “may God mock at him in return!”[423] The Eisleben councillor, Andreas Friedrich, writes to Agricola on Feb. 17 (18) of these same concerns, that Luther, when he found there was still no prospect of a settlement, had complained: “As I see, Satan turns his back on me and jeers as well.”[424] Here, curiously enough, we have exactly what occurred at the fountain. If the apparition, as is highly probable, belongs somewhat later, then we may assume that the vivid picture of the devil under this particular shape with which Luther was so familiar led finally to some sort of hallucination. His extravagant ideas of Satan generally might, in fact, have been sufficient. Everything that went against him was “Satanic,” and his only hope is that “God will make a mockery of Satan.”[425]

The account Luther gives in his Table-Talk of the two devils who, in his old age, accompanied him whenever he went to the “sleep-house” may be dealt with briefly. In this passage he is alluding in his joking way to his bodily infirmities.[426] Hence the “one or two” devils who dogged his footsteps are here described as quite familiar and ordinary companions, which is not in keeping with the idea of true apparitions; they were the nicer sort, i.e. pretty, well-mannered devils; they “attacked his head” and thus caused the malady to which he was most subject, hence in his usual style he threatens to “bid them begone into his a⸺,” in short he is here merely jesting. This forbids our taking the statement as meant in earnest though it is twice quoted in the German Table-Talk quite seriously. In the early days, immediately after Luther’s death, the statements concerning the “two devils” were, strange to say, reverently repeated by his pupils as an historic fact; in reality they were all too eager to unearth miraculous incidents in his life.

At a later period, when rationalism had made some headway, Protestant biographers of Luther as a rule preferred to say nothing about the apparitions Luther had met with, or to treat them as pious, harmless jests misinterpreted by his pupils. This, however, is not at all in accordance with historic criticism. Luther admirers of an earlier date, on the other hand, went too far in the contrary direction and showed themselves only too ready to follow their master into the other world, or to represent him as holding intercourse with it. Cyriacus Spangenberg (1528-1604), a Luther zealot, is an instance in point. In his “Theander Lutherus,” speaking of Luther “the real holy martyr,” he says: He deserved to be termed a martyr on account of the visible hostility of the devil; one or two devils had been in the habit of accompanying him in his walks in the dormitory in order to attack him, and his illnesses were caused simply by the devil. Needless to say, he does not allow the incidents mentioned above to escape him: Satan had tormented him at the Coburg in the shape of a fiery star and in the garden under that of a hog; he had tried to deceive him in his cell under the dazzling image of Christ, had affrighted him in the Wartburg by making a devilish noise with the nuts, and, finally, even in his monkish days had driven the student at a late hour from his studies by the din he made.[427]

It is a fact worthy of note that the older Protestant writers, when speaking of the apparitions Luther had, never mention any such or any revelations of a consoling character, but merely terrifying stories of devils and diabolical persecutions. This agrees with the observation already made above (p. 128 f.). It is evident that as good as nothing was known of any consoling apparitions; nor would the mild and friendly angels have been in place in the warlike picture which his friends transmitted of Luther. That he did not think himself a complete stranger to such heavenly communications has, however, been proved above, and it may be that his imagination would have had more to relate concerning this friendlier world above had he not had particular reasons for being chary about speaking of such visions.

The Disputation with the Devil on the Mass

In Spangenberg even Luther’s famous disputation with the devil on private Masses is also made to do duty among the other apparitions. He, like many others, takes it as an actual occurrence and represents it as further proof of the “real martyrdom” of his hero.[428] As, conversely, this disputation also plays a part in the works of Luther’s adversaries, it may be worth while to examine it somewhat more narrowly. It is urged that Luther admits he had been instructed by the devil regarding the falsity of the Catholic doctrine of the Mass, and, that, by thus tracing it back to the devil, he stamps with untruth an important portion of his teaching, seeing, that, from the father of lies, nothing but lies can be expected.

What then are we to believe concerning this disputation, judging from Luther’s own words which constitute our sole source? The only possible answer is, that Luther is merely making use of a rhetorical device.

It is true, that, in his “Von der Winckelmesse” (1533), Luther speaks in so elusive a way of his dispute with the devil, and of the truth he had learnt from the latter, that the incident was taken literally, not merely by Spangenberg and other of Luther’s oldest friends, but actually by Cochlæus too, and was, at a later date, made the subject of many disquisitions. Yet, if we look into the matter carefully, we shall find he speaks from the very outset not of any actual apparition of the devil, but merely of his inward promptings: “On one occasion,” so he introduces the story, “I woke up at midnight and the devil began a disputation with me in my heart,” such as he has with me “many a night.”[429] He then goes on, however, to describe the disputation as graphically as had it been a real incident.

Luther’s object with the writing in question is to fling at the Papists his arguments against private Masses under a new and striking form. He pretends that the Papists would be at a loss to answer Satan, but would be forced to despair “were he to bring forward these and other arguments against them at the hour of death.” Hence he introduces himself and shows how the devil had driven him into a corner on account of his former celebration of Mass. As for the arguments they are his usual ones. Here, put in the mouth of the devil, they are to overwhelm him with despair for his former evil wont of saying Masses. The only reason he can espy why he should not despair is that he has now repented and no longer says the Mass.

He himself alludes to the artifice; writing to a friend, he says, that by the introduction of the devil he intends to attack the Papists “with a pamphlet of a new kind”; even those friendly to the Evangel would be astonished at his new way of writing; they were, however, to be told that this was merely a challenge thrown to the Papists; that it only represented himself as driven into a corner by the devil on account of the Masses he had formerly said, in order to induce the Papists to examine their consciences and see how they could vindicate themselves with regard to the Mass.[430]—Thus, for once, the devil might well figure as an upholder of Luther’s doctrine.

In the course of the drama the devil never grows weary of proving, that, owing to the Masses Luther had said, and the idolatry he had thus practised, he had been brought to the verge of everlasting destruction. The devil’s arguments are given at great length and Luther concedes everything save that he refuses to despair. The statement that he should, so he urges, is worthy of the devil, who, in his temptations, constantly confuses the false with the true.[431] Luther, here, even introduces the devil in a quasi-comic light: “Do you hear, you great, learned man?” etc. “Yes, my dear chap, that is not the same,” etc. In a similar tone Luther then turns on the Papists who say to him: “Are you a great Doctor and yet have no answer ready for the devil?”

Certain Protestant writers, even down to our own times, have, however, insisted that, at any rate inwardly, the devil had sought to reduce Luther to despair on account of his celebration of Mass as a Catholic; that the spirit of darkness had attached so much importance to the suppression of the Gospel, that he attempted to disquiet Luther with such self-reproaches.[432] It is true Luther once says that the devil reproached him with his “misdeeds, for instance, with the sacrifice of the Mass,” and other Catholic practices of which he had formerly been guilty.[433] On other occasions, however, he quite absolves the devil of any change concerning the Mass. He says, e.g.: “The devil is such a miscreant that he does not reproach me with my great and awful crimes such as the celebration of Mass,”[434] etc. Thus he had persuaded himself quite independently of the devil that the Mass was a grievous crime. We have, in fact, in Luther’s statements concerning his inward experiences a crying instance of his changeableness. We shall return below to his self-reproach on account of his celebration of Mass (see section 4).

Possession and Exorcism

We may conclude our examination of diabolical apparitions by some statements concerning the exorcisms Luther undertook and his treatment of cases of possession.

His first followers believed he had been successful in 1545 in driving out Satan in the case of a person possessed. The testimony of two witnesses of the incident must here come under consideration, both young men who were present on the occasion, viz. Sebastian Fröschel, Deacon at Wittenberg, and Frederick Staphylus, a man of learning who afterwards abandoned Lutheranism and became Superintendent of the University of Ingolstadt.[435] The latter knows nothing of any success having attended Luther’s efforts, whereas the former boasts that such was the case, though he somewhat invalidates his testimony by saying nothing of the embarrassing situation in which Luther found himself at the close of the scene. According to both accounts the incident was more or less as follows:

A girl of eighteen from Ossitz in the neighbourhood of Meissen who was said to be possessed was brought one Tuesday to Luther, and, while at his bidding reciting the Creed, was “torn” by the devil as soon as she reached the words “and in Jesus Christ.” Luther hesitated at first to set about the work of liberation and expressed his contempt for the devil whom he “well knew.” The next day, after his sermon, he caused the “possessed” girl to be brought to him in the sacristy of the parish church of Wittenberg by the above-mentioned Fröschel.

We hear nothing of any regular examination as to whether it was a case of possession, or not rather hysteria, as seems more likely. At any rate, the unhappy girl when passing from the church through the entrance to the sacristy, was seen to “fall down and hit about her.” The door of the sacristy, where several doctors, ecclesiastics and students were gathered, was locked. Luther delivered an address on his method of driving out the devil: He did not intend to do this in the way usual in Apostolic time, in the early Church and later, viz. by a command and authoritative exorcism, but rather by “prayer and contempt”; the Popish exorcism was too ostentatious and of it the devil was not worthy; at the time when exorcism had been introduced miracles were necessary for the confirmation of the faith, but this was now no longer the case; God Himself knew well when the devil had to depart and they ought not to tempt Him by such commands, but, on the contrary, pray until their prayers were answered. Thus Luther, not unwisely, refused to perform any actual “driving out of the devil.”

The Church’s ritual for exorcism was, however, not so ostentatious as Luther pretends, and combined commands issued in a tone of authority in the name of Christ (Matt. x. 8; Mark xvi. 17) with an expression of contempt for the devil and reprobation of his evil deeds. Fröschel noted down the address in question together with everything that occurred and said later in a sermon, that Luther’s action ought to serve as a model in future cases.

In the sacristy the Creed and Our Father were recited, two passages on prayer (from John xvi. and xiv.) were also read aloud by Luther. Then he, together with the other ecclesiastics present, laid hands on the head of the girl and continued reciting prayers. When no sign appeared of the devil’s departure, Luther wished to go, but first took care to spurn the girl with his foot, the better to mark anew his disdain for the devil. The poor creature whom he had thus insulted followed him with threatening looks and gestures. This was all the more awkward since Luther was unable to escape, the key of the sacristy door having been mislaid; hence he was obliged, he the devil’s greatest and best-hated foe on earth, to remain cheek by jowl with the Evil One.

The satirical description Staphylus gives of the situation cannot be repeated here, especially as the writer seems to have added to its colour.[436] Luther was unable to jump out of the window, so he says, because it was protected with iron bars; “hence he had to remain shut up with us until the sacristan could pass in a strong hatchet to us through the bars; this was handed to me, as I was young, for me to burst open the door, which I then did.” In place of all this, Fröschel merely says of the girl, who was taken home the following day, that afterwards “on several occasions” reports came to Wittenberg to the effect that the evil spirit no longer “tormented and tore her as formerly.”

In the pulpit the Deacon immortalised the incident for his Wittenberg hearers and made it known to the whole world in his printed sermon “Vom Teuffel.”[437]

Luther himself says nothing of it, though disposed in later life to lay great stress on stories of the devil.[438] Earlier than this, in 1540, he had hastened to tell his Katey of the supposed deliverance of a girl at Arnstadt from the devil’s power through the ministrations of the Evangelical pastor there; the latter had “driven a devil out of the girl in a truly Christian manner.”[439] He does not, however, mention this incident in his published works.

On the other hand we have in the Table-Talk a full account of his treatment of a woman “possessed,” or, rather, clearly ailing from a nervous disorder. Her symptoms were regarded, as was customary at a time when so little was known of this class of maladies, as “purely the work of the devil, as something unnatural, due to fright and devil-spectres, seeing that the devil had overlaid her in the shape of a calf.” Luther, on visiting the woman thus “bodily persecuted by the devil,” again laid great stress on the need of praying that she might be rid of her guest, though this time he did not scorn the use of the formula of exorcism. “The night after, she was left in peace, but, later, the weakness returned. Finally, however, she was completely delivered from it;”[440] in other words, the malady simply took its natural course.

Another much-discussed case which occurred after the middle of the ’thirties was that of a girl at Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, a report of which came to Luther from Andreas Ebert, the Lutheran pastor there (see above, vol. iii., p. 148). In his reply to the circumstantial account of how the “possessed” girl was able to produce coins by magic Luther shows himself in so far cautious that he is anxious to have it made clear whether the story is quite true and whether the coins are real. Nevertheless, he does not hesitate to declare, that, should the incident be proved, it would be a great omen (“ostentum”), as Satan, with God’s permission, was thus setting before them a picture of the greed of money prevailing among certain of the princes. He was loath to see exorcism resorted to, “because the devil in his pride laughs at it”; all the more were they to pray for the girl and against the devil, and this, with the help of Christ, would finally spell her liberation; meanwhile, however, he expresses his readiness to make public all the facts of the case that could be proved. In his sermons he spoke of the occurrence to his hearers as a “warning.”[441]

Theodore Kirchhoff, who, in the “Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Psychiatrie,” mentions “Luther’s exorcisms of hysterical women folk,” not without bewailing his error, points out that it was in part his own fancied experience with the devil which led him to regard “similar phenomena in others as diabolical”; “his many nervous ailments,” he says, “strengthened his personal belief in the devil.” “Indeed, so far did he go in his efforts to drive out the devil that once he actually proposed that an idiot should be done to death.”[442] “Such a doctrine [on the devil’s action], backed by the authority of so great a man, took deep root.” It would be incorrect, writes Kirchhoff, to say, that Luther inaugurated a healthier view of “possession”; on the contrary his opinion is, “that, owing to Luther’s hard and fast theories, the right understanding and treatment of the insane was rendered more difficult than ever; for, if we consider the immense spread of his writings and what their influence became, it is but natural to infer that this also led to his peculiar view becoming popular.”[443] Needless to say, other circumstances also conspired to render difficult the treatment of the mentally disordered; long before Luther’s day they had been regarded by many as possessed, and as the physicians would not undertake to cure possessions, this condition was neglected by the healing art. In many instances, too, the relatives were against any cure being attempted by physicians.

4. Revelation and Illusion. Morbid Trains of Thought

One ground for considering the question of Luther’s revelations in connection with the darker side of his life lies in the gloomy and unearthly circumstances, which, according to his own account, accompanied the higher communications he received (“sub æternæ iræ maledictione”),[444] or else preceded them, inducing within his soul a profound disturbance (“ita furebam.”…), “I was terrified each time.”[445]

A further reason is the unfortunate after-effect that the supposed revelations from above had upon his mind. Outwardly, indeed, he seemed an incarnation of confidence, but, inwardly, the case was very different. Chapter xxxii. (vol. v.) of the present work will have shown how it was his new doctrines, and his overturning of the Church which accounted for his “agonies of soul,” his “pangs of hell” and “nightly combats” with the devil, or rather with his own conscience. “Why do you raise the standard of revolt against the house of the Lord?… Such thoughts upset one very much.”[446] His irritation, melancholy and pessimism were largely due to his disappointment with the results of his revelations. “They know it is God Whose Word we preach and yet they say: We shan’t listen.” “We are poor and indifferent trumpeters, but to the assembly of the heavenly spirits ours is a mighty call.” “My only remaining consolation is that the end of all cannot be far off.” “It must soon come to a head. Amen.”[447] And yet, for all that, he insisted on his divine mission so emphatically (above, vol. iii., p. 109 ff.).

The revelations which confirmed him in the idea of his mission deserve more careful examination than has hitherto been possible to us in the course of our narrative.

That Luther ever laid claim to having received his doctrine by a personal revelation from God has been several times denied in recent times by his defenders. They urge that he merely claimed to have received his doctrine from above, “in the same way that God reveals it to all true Christians”; in this and in no other sense, does he speak of his revelations, nor does he ascribe to himself any “peculiar mission.”

It is true Luther taught that the content of the faith to which every true Christian adheres had come into the world by a revelation bestowed on mankind; he also taught that the Holy Ghost lends His assistance to every man to enable him to grasp and hold fast to this revelation: “This is a wisdom such as reason has never framed, nor has the heart of man conceived it, no, not even the great ones of this world, but it is revealed from heaven by the Holy Ghost to those who believe the Gospel.”[448]—This, however, is not the question, but rather, whether he never gave out that he had reached his own fresh knowledge, and that reading of the Bible which he sets up against all the rest of Christendom, thanks to a private and particular illumination, and whether he did not base on such a revelation his claim to infallible certainty?

Luther’s Insistence on Private Revelation

Luther certainly never dreamt of making so bold and hazardous an assertion so long as a spark of hope remained in him that the Church of Rome would fall in with his doctrines. It was only gradually that the phantom of a personal revelation grew upon him, and, even later, its sway was never absolute, as we can see from our occasional glimpses into his inward struggles of conscience.

We may begin with one of his latest utterances, following it up with one of his earliest. Towards the end of his life he insisted on the suddenness with which the light streamed in upon him when he had at last penetrated into the meaning of Rom. i. 17 (in the Tower), thus setting the coping-stone on his doctrines by that of the certainty of salvation.[449] Again, at the outset of his public career, we meet with those words of which Adolf Harnack says: “Such self-reliance almost fills us with anxiety.”[450]

The words Harnack refers to are those in which Luther solemnly assures his Elector that he had “received the Evangel, not from man, but from heaven alone, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This he wrote in 1522 when on the point of quitting the Wartburg.[451]

In the same year in his “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt,” full of the spirit he had inhaled at the Wartburg, he declared that he could no longer remain without “name or title” in order that he might rightly honour and extol the “Word, office and work he had from God.” For the Father of all Mercies, out of the boundless riches of His Grace, had brought him, for all his sinfulness, “to the knowledge of His Son Jesus Christ and set him to teach others until they too saw the truth”; for this reason he had a better right to term himself an “Evangelist by the Grace of God” than the bishops had to call themselves bishops. “I am quite sure that Christ Himself, Who is the Master of my doctrine, calls and regards me as such.” Hence he will not permit even “an angel from heaven to judge or take him to task concerning his doctrine”; “since I am certain of it I am determined to be judge, not only of you, but, as St. Paul says (Gal. i. 8), even of the angels, so that whoever does not accept my doctrine cannot be saved; for it is God’s and not mine, therefore my judgment also is not mine but God’s own.”[452]

Such Wartburg enthusiasm, where all that is wanting is the actual word revelation, agrees well with his statement about the sort of ultimatum (“Interminatio”) sent him by God: “Under pain of eternal wrath it had been enjoined on him from above,” that he must preach what had been given him; he describes this species of vision as one of the greatest favours God had bestowed on his soul.[453] Nor did he scruple to make use of the word “revelation.”

The dispute he had with Cochlæus in the presence of others at Worms in 1521 shows not only that he had sufficient courage to do this but also, that, previously, from whatever cause, he had hesitated to do so. We have Cochlæus’s already quoted account of the incident in the detailed report of his encounter with Luther.[454] It is true he only published it in 1540, but it is evidently based on notes made by the narrator at the time. In reply to the admonition, not to interpret Holy Scripture “arbitrarily, and against the authority and interpretation of the Church,” Luther urged that there might be circumstances where it was permissible to oppose the decrees of the Councils, for Paul said in 1 Corinthians: “If anything be revealed to another sitting, let the first hold his peace,”[455] though, so Luther proceeded, he had no wish to lay claim to a revelation. In the event, however, as he was always harking back to this instance of revelation mentioned by the Apostle it occurred to Cochlæus to pin him down to this expression. Hence, without any beating about the bush, he asked him: “Have you then received a revelation?” Luther looked at him, hesitated a moment and then said: “Yes, it has been revealed to me, ‘Est mihi revelatum.’” His opponent at once reminded him that, before this, he had protested against being the recipient of any revelation. Luther, however, said: “I did not deny it.” Cochlæus rejoined: “But who will believe that you have had a revelation? What miracle have you worked in proof of it? By what sign will you confirm it? Would it not be possible for anyone to defend his errors in this way?” The text in question speaks of a direct revelation. It was in this sense that Luther had appealed to it before, and that Cochlæus framed his question. It is impossible to understand Luther’s answer as referring to a revelation common to all true Christians. Either Luther made no answer to Cochlæus’s last words or it was lost in the interruption of his friend Hieronymus Schurf.[456] In any case his position was a difficult one and it was simpler for him when he repeated the same assertion later in his printed writings quietly to treat all objections with contempt. At any rate he never accused the above account given by Cochlæus of being false.

Again, in 1522, Luther declares in his sermons at Wittenberg,[457] that “it was God Who had set him to work on this scheme” (the reform of the faith), and had given him the “first place” in it. “I cannot escape from God but must remain so long as it pleases God my Lord; moreover, it was to me that God first revealed that the Word must be preached and proclaimed to you.” Hence his revelation was similar to that of the prophets, for he is alluding to the prophet Jonas when he says that he could “not escape from God.”[458] The Wittenbergers, he says, ought therefore to have consulted him before rashly undertaking their own innovations under Carlstadt’s influence: “We see here that you have not the Spirit though you may have an exalted knowledge of Scripture.”[459] Hence, on the top of his knowledge of Scripture, he himself possesses the “Spirit.”

From the twelvemonth that followed Luther’s spiritual baptism at the Wartburg also date the asseverations he makes, that his doctrine was, not his, but Christ’s own,[460] and that it was “certain he had his doctrines from heaven.”[461]

“By Divine revelation,” as we learn from him not long after, “he had been summoned as an anti-pope to undo, root out and sweep away the kingdom of malediction” (the Papacy).[462] In 1527 he assures us: This doctrine “God has revealed to me by His Grace.”[463] And, at a later period, though rather more cautiously, he does not shrink from occasionally making use of the word revelation. From the pulpit in 1532 he urged opponents in his own camp to lay aside their peculiar doctrines, because, “God has enjoined and commanded one man to teach the Evangel,” i.e. himself.[464]

So familiar is this idea to him that it intrudes itself into his conversations at home. It was the “Holy Ghost” who had “given” to him his doctrine, so he told his friends and pupils in his old age.[465] At Wittenberg, according to his own words which Mathesius noted down, they possessed, thanks to him, the divine revelation. “Whoever, after my death, despises the authority of the Wittenberg school, provided it remains the same as now, is a heretic and a pervert, for in this school God has revealed His Word.” He also complains in the same passage that the sectarians within the new fold who turned against him had fallen away from the faith.[466]

At that time, i.e. during the ’forties, the idea of an inspiration grew stronger in him. He boasts that his understanding of Romans i. 17 was due to the “illumination of the Holy Ghost,” and tells how he suddenly felt himself “completely born anew,” as if he had passed “through the open portals into Paradise itself,” and how, “at once, the whole of Scripture bore another aspect.”[467]

Thus his idea of the revelation with which he had been favoured gradually assumed in his mind a more concrete shape.

According to the funeral oration delivered by his friend Jonas on Feb. 19, 1546, at Eisleben, Luther often spoke to his friends of his revelations, hinting in a vague and mysterious way at the sufferings they had entailed. Jonas tells the people in so many words, “that Martin himself had often said: ‘What I endure and have endured for the doctrine of the beloved Evangel which God has again revealed to the world, no one shall learn from me here in this world, but on That Day it will be laid open.’ Only at the Last Day will he tell us what during his life he ever kept sealed up in his heart, viz. the great victories which the Son of God won through him against sin, devil, Papists and false brethren, etc. All this he will tell us and also what sublime revelations he had when he began to preach the Evangel, so that verily we shall be amazed and praise God for them.”[468]

Hence Luther had persuaded his friends that he had been favoured with particular revelations.

From all the above it becomes clear that the revelation which Luther claimed was regarded by him throughout as a true and personal communication from above, and not merely as a knowledge acquired by reflection and prayer under the Divine assistance common to all. It was in fact only by considering the matter in this light that he was able effectually to refute the objections of outsiders and to allay to some extent the storms within him. The very character of his revolt against the Church, against the tradition of a thousand years, against the episcopate, universities, Catholic princes and Catholic instincts of the nation demanded something more than could have been afforded by a mere appeal to the revelation common to all. Of what service would it have been to him in his struggles of conscience, and when contending with the malice and jealousy of the sects, to have laid claim to a vague, general revelation?

Nevertheless, the appeals Luther makes to the revelation he had received are at times somewhat vague, as some of the passages quoted serve to prove. We shall not be far wrong if we say that he himself was often not quite clear as to what he should lay claim. His ideas, or at any rate his statements, concerning the exalted communications he had received, vary with the circumstances, being, now more definite, now somewhat misty.

Here, as in the parallel case of his belief in his mission, his assertions are at certain periods more energetic and defiant than at others (see above, vol. iii., p. 120 ff.).

However this may be, the idea of a revelation in the strict sense was no mere passing whim; it emerges at its strongest under the influence of the Wartburg spirit, and, once more, summons up all its forces towards the end of his days, when Luther seeks for comfort amid his sad experiences and for some relief in his weariness. Yet, in him, the idea of a revelation always seems a matter of the will, something which he can summon to his assistance and to which he deliberately holds fast, and which, as occasion requires, is decked out with the necessary adjuncts of angels descending from heaven, visions, spirits, inward experiences, inward menaces, or triumphs over the temptations of the devil.

Some Apparent Withdrawals

Various apparently contradictory statements, such as the reader must expect to meet with in Luther, are not, however, wanting, even concerning his revelations.

Discordant statements of the sort do not, indeed, occur in the passages, where, as in the quotations given above, he is defending his theological innovations against the authority of the Church. Often they are a mere rhetorical trick to impress his hearers with his modesty. In his sermons at Wittenberg in 1522, for instance, he declared that he was perfectly willing to submit his “feeling and understanding” to anyone to whom “more has been revealed”; by this, however, he does not mean his doctrine but merely the practical details of the introduction of the new ritual of public worship, then being discussed at Wittenberg. This is clear from the very emphasis he here lays on his teaching, thanks to which the Wittenbergers now have the “Word of God true and undefiled,” and from his description of the devil’s rage who now sees that “the sun of the true Evangel has risen.”[469]

Again, when, in his later revision of the same course of sermons, we hear him say: “You must be disciples, not of Luther, but of Christ,”[470] and: “You must not say I am Luther’s, or I am the Pope’s, for neither has died for you nor is your master, but only Christ,”[471] he has not the least intention of denying the authority of the doctrine revealed to him, on the contrary, on the same page, he has it that, “Luther’s doctrine is not his but Christ’s own”;[472] he had already said, “Even were Luther himself or an angel from heaven to teach otherwise, let it be anathema.”[473] He is simply following St. Paul’s lead[474] and pointing out to his hearers the supreme source of truth; he still remains its instrument, the “Prophet,” “Evangelist” and “Ecclesiastes by the grace of God,” favoured, like the inspired Apostle of the Gentiles, with revelations.

Nevertheless, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact, that, subsequent to 1525, Luther tended at times to be less insistent on his revelations. From strategic considerations he was careful to keep more in the background his revelations from the Spirit now that the fanatics were also claiming their own special enlightenment by the “Spirit.” His eyes were now opened to the danger inherent in such arbitrary claims to revelation, and, accordingly, he now begins to insist more on the outward “Word.”[475]

It is true, that, in Nov., 1525, in refutation of the Zwinglian theologians of Strasburg, he still appealed not merely to his visions of angels (see above, p. 127) but also to the certain light of his doctrine inspired by the Holy Ghost, and to his sense of the “Spirit.” “I see very well,” he says, “that they have no certainty, but the Spirit is certain of His cause.”[476] Even then, however, a change had begun and he preferred to appeal to Holy Scripture, which, so he argued, spoke plainly in his favour, rather than to inspirations and revelations. Hence his asseveration that this outward Word of God has much more claim to consideration than the inward Word, which can so easily be twisted to suit one’s frame of mind. He now comes unduly to depreciate the inward Word and the Spirit which formerly he had so highly vaunted, though, on the other hand, he continues to teach that the Spirit and the inward enlightening of the Word are necessary for the interpretation of Holy Scripture.

His Commentary on Isaias contains a delightful attack on the “all-too spiritual folk, who, to-day, cry Spirit, Spirit!” “Let us not look for any private revelations. It is Christ who tells us to ‘search the Scriptures’ [John v. 39]. Revelations puff us up and make us presumptuous. I have not been instructed,” so he goes on, “either by signs or by special revelations, nor have I ever begged signs of God; on the contrary I have asked Him never to let me become proud, or be led astray from the outward Word through the devil’s tricks.” He then launches out against those who pretend they have “particular revelations on the faith,” being “misled by the devil.” These words occur in the revised and enlarged Scholia on Isaias published in 1534. It may, however, be that they did not figure in Luther’s lectures on Isaias (1527-30) but were appended somewhat later.[477]

After thus apparently disowning any title to private revelation and a higher light Luther’s inevitable appeal to the certainty of his doctrine only becomes the more confident. Thanks to his temptations and death-throes, he had become so certain, that he can declare: Possessed of the “Word” as I am, I have not the least wish “that an angel should come to me, for, now, I should not believe him.”

“Nevertheless, the time might well come,” so he continues in this passage of the Table-Talk, “when I might be pleased to see one [an angel] on certain matters.” “I do not, however, admit dreams and signs, nor do I worry about them. We have in Scripture all that we require. Sad dreams come from the devil, for everything that ministers to death and dread, lies and murder is the devil’s handiwork.”[478]

It is true Luther was often plagued by terrifying dreams, and as he numbered them among his “anxieties and death-throes” what he says about them may fittingly be utilised to complete the picture of his inward state. To such an extent was the devil able to affright him, so he says, that he “broke out into a sweat in the midst of his sleep”; thus “Satan was present even when men slept; but angels too were also there.”[479] He assures us, that, in his sleep, he had witnessed even the horrors of the Last Judgment.

The “Temptations” as one of Luther’s Bulwarks

The states of terror and the temptations he underwent were to Luther so many confirmations of his doctrine. Some of his utterances on this subject ring very oddly.

To be “in deaths often” was, according to him, a sort of “apostolic gift,” shared by Peter and Paul. In order to be a doctor above suspicion, a man must have experienced the pains of death and the “melting of the bones.” In the Psalms he hears, as it were, an echo of his own state of soul. “To despair where hope itself despairs,” and “to live in unspeakable groanings,” “this no one can understand who has not tasted it.” This he said in 1520 in a Commentary on the Psalms.[480] And, later, in 1530, when engaged at the Coburg in expounding the first twenty-five psalms: “‘My heart is become like wax melting in the midst of my bowels’ [Ps. xxi. 15]. What that was no one grasps who has not felt it.”[481] “In such trouble there must needs be despair, but, if I say: ‘This I do simply and solely at God’s command,’ there comes the assurance: Hence God will take your part and comfort you. It was thus we consoled ourselves at Augsburg.”[482]

Many others who followed him were also overtaken by similar distress of mind. Struggles of conscience and gloomy depression were the fate of many who flocked to his standard (cp. above, vol. iv., pp. 218-27). Johann Mathesius, Luther’s favourite pupil, so frequently referred to above, towards the end of his life, when pastor at Joachimsthal, once declared, when brooding sadly, that the devil with his temptations was sifting him as it were in a sieve and that he was enduring the pangs of hell described by David. The very mention of a knife led him to think of suicide. He was eager to hold fast to Christ alone, but this he could not do. After the struggle had lasted two or three months his condition finally improved.[483]

Such were Luther’s temptations, of which, afterwards, he did not scruple to boast. “Often did they bring us to death’s door,” he says of the mental struggles in which his new doctrine and practice of sheltering himself behind the merits of Christ involved him. But, nevertheless, “I will hold fast to that Man alone, even though it should bring me to the grave!”[484]

Again, in 1532, we hear him making his own the words: “Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O Lord” (Ps. cxxix. 1). The prophet is not complaining of any mere “worldly temptations,” but of “that anguish of conscience, of those blows and terrors of death such as the heart feels when on the brink of despair and when it fancies itself abandoned by God; when it both sees its sin and how all its good works are condemned by God the angry Judge.… When a man is sunk in such anxiety and trouble he cannot recover unless help is bestowed on him from above.… Nearly all the great saints suffered in this way and were dragged almost to the gates of death by sin and the Law; hence David’s exclamation: ‘Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O Lord!’”—The whole trend of what he says, likewise the counsels he gives on the remedies that may bring consolation, show plainly his attachment to this dark night of the soul and his conviction that he is but treading in the footsteps of the “great Saints” and “Prophets.”[485]

At any rate there is no room for doubt that this opened out a rich field for delusion; what he says depicts a frame of mind in which hallucinations might well thrive; we shall, however, leave it to others to determine how far pathological elements intervene.

In the certainty that his cause was inspired he calmly awaits the approach of the fanatics; they can serve only to strengthen in him his sense of confidence. Of them and their “presumptuous certainty” he makes short work in a conversation noted down by Cordatus:[486] Marcus Thomae (Stübner) he requests to perform a miracle in proof of his views, warning him, however, that “My God will assuredly forbid your God to let you work a sign”; he also hurls against him the formula of exorcism: “God rebuke thee, Satan” (Zach. iii. 2).[487] Nicholas Storch and Thomas Münzer, so he assures us, openly show their presumption. A pupil of Stübner was anxious to set himself up as a teacher, but the fellow had only been able to talk fantastic rubbish to him. Of people such as these he had come across quite sixty. Campanus, again, is simply to be numbered among the biggest blasphemers. Carlstadt, who wanted to be esteemed learned, was only distinguished by his arrogant mouthing. Nowhere was there profundity or truth. “Not one of you has endured such anxieties and temptations as I.”[488] “And yet Carlstadt wanted us to bow to his teaching.… Like Christ, however, I say: ‘My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me’ (John vii. 16). I cannot betray it as the world would have me do. The malice of all these ministers of Satan only serves my cause and exercises me in indomitable firmness.”[489] Hence he derives equal benefit from the malice of his opponents within the fold and from the inward apprehensions of which Satan was the cause.

The manifold errors which had sprung from the seed of his own principles, in any other man would have elicited doubts and scruples; Luther, however, finds in them fresh support for his dominating conviction: My glorious sufferings at the devil’s hands are being multiplied and, thereby, too, the witness on behalf of my doctrine is being strengthened.

The mystical halo of the “man of suffering” certainly made a great impression on some of his young followers and admirers such as Spangenberg, Mathesius, Cordatus and Veit Dietrich. On others of his circle the effect was not so lasting.

Melanchthon, for instance, was well acquainted with Luther’s fits of mystic terror, yet how severe is the criticism he passes on Luther’s ground-dogmas, particularly after the latter’s death.

The doctrine of man’s entire unfreedom in doing what is good may serve as an instance.

This palladium of the new theology had been discovered by Luther when overwhelmed with despair; by it he sought to commit himself entirely into God’s hands and blindly and passively to await salvation from Him; this he regarded as the only way out of inward trials; no man could face the devil with his free will; he himself, so he wrote, “would not wish to have” free-will, even were it offered him (“nollem mihi dari liberum arbitrium”), in order that he might at least be safe from the devil; nay, even were there no devil, free-will would still be to him an abomination, because, with it, his “conscience would never be safe and at rest.” The words occur in the work he declared to be his very best and a lasting heirloom for posterity.[490] This particular doctrine, Melanchthon was, however, so far from regarding as a “revelation,” that he wrote in 1559: “Both during Luther’s lifetime and also later, I withstood that Stoical and Manichæan delusion which led Luther and others to write, that all works whether good or evil, in all men whether good or bad, take place of necessity. Now it is evident that this doctrine is contrary to God’s Word, subversive of all discipline and a blasphemy against God.”[491] Melanchthon did not even scruple to call upon the State to intervene and prohibit such things being said. In his Postils, dealing with the question whether heretics should be put to death, he declares: “By divine command the public authorities must proceed against idolaters and also interdict blasphemous language, as, for instance, when a man teaches that good or evil takes place of necessity and under compulsion.”[492]

He could not well have said anything more deadly against the foundation on which Luther’s whole edifice was reared.

In spite of all, Luther always stood by his pseudo-mystic idea of his having received revelations. Without it he could never have ventured to threaten as he did the secular and ecclesiastical authorities who opposed his dogmas, with “extermination” and “great revolts,” or to proclaim so confidently that they would fall, blown over by the breath of Christ’s mouth, or to prophesy that, even beyond the grave, he would be to the impenitent Papists, what, according to the prophet Osee, God threatened to be to Israel, viz. “a bear in the road and a lion in the path.”[493]

His whole process of thought was, as it were, held captive in the heavy chains of this idea.

Three Perverted Theories Dominating Luther’s Outlook

In order to enter even more deeply into Luther’s mentality three categories of ideas by which he determined his life well deserve consideration here. Only at the point we have now reached can some of his statements be judged of aright.

Among his strange ideas must be reckoned his threefold conviction, first, that he was called to be the opponent of Antichrist, secondly, that Popery was a thing of boundless and utter depravity, thirdly, that in his own personal experiences and gifts he was blessed beyond all other men. Here again we shall have to refer to many passages already quoted and also to some fresh ones of Luther’s which afford a glimpse into his perverted mode of thought and incredible prejudice.

His obstinate belief in his mission against Antichrist keeps the thought of a mortal combat ever before his mind; a decisive battle at the approaching end of all, between heaven and hell, between Christ and the dragon. This struggle, such as he viewed it, needless to say existed only in his imagination. If, according to him, the devil fights so furiously that at times Christ Himself seems on the point of succumbing, this is only because Luther’s cause does not thrive, or because Luther himself is again the butt of gloomy fears. As early as 1518, as we know, he fancied he had detected the Papal Antichrist, and could read the thoughts of Satan, who was at work behind his opponents.[494] In this idea he subsequently confirmed himself by his reading of the Old-Testament prophecies, on which, till almost the very end of his life, he was wont laboriously to base new calculations. From the dawn of his career it has been borne in on him with ever-growing clearness how Christ, using Luther as His tool, will overthrow, as though in sport, this “man of sin” of which Popery is the embodiment; at the very close of his days, when the sight of the evils rampant in Germany was causing him the utmost anxiety, he seems to hear the trump that heralds the Coming of the Judge.

Using images that suggest a positive obsession, he depicts the world as full of the traces of Antichrist and the devil his forerunner. Yet all the machinations of the old serpent avail only to strengthen the defiance with which he opposes Satan and all his myrmidons. The signs in the heavens above and on the earth below all point to him, the great, albeit unworthy, champion of God’s cause. Though Antichrist and the powers that are his backers in this world may for the time have the better of the struggle this is but the last flicker of the dying flame which, by prophecy and vision, he had been predestined to extinguish (above, vol. iii., p. 165 ff., etc.).

Hence his confidence in unveiling the action of Antichrist as portrayed in the birth of the Monk-Calf; like some seer he hastens to pen a special work for the instruction of the people in the meaning of the Calf’s anatomy.[495] His growing uncanny imagination goes on to describe, in colours more and more glaring, the abominations of that Antichrist from whom he has torn the veil. The fury of the Turk is but child’s play to the horror of the Papal Antichrist. That portion of the Table-Talk which deals with Antichrist, comprising no less than 165 sections brimful of the maddest fancies, begins with the description of Antichrist’s head. “The head is at the same time the Pope and the Turk. A living animal must have both soul and body. The spirit or soul of Antichrist is the Pope, his flesh or body the Turk”;[496] the concluding words on the subject are in the same vein: “The blood of Abel cries for vengeance on them,” viz. on the followers of the Pope-Antichrist.[497] These chapters of the Table-Talk dealing with Antichrist scarcely do credit to the human mind. We can, however, understand them, for to Luther nothing is plainer than that the “nature of his foes is utterly devilish”; all he sees is the claws, paws, horns and poison-fangs of Antichrist.[498]

Luther revealed the anti-Christian nature of the Pope, in accordance with the prophet Daniel whom he read on the principle: “Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas”; “Nevertheless we attach but little importance to our deliverance and are very ungrateful. This, however, is our consolation, viz. that the Last Day cannot now be long delayed. Daniel’s prophecy is fulfilled to the letter and paints the Papacy as plainly as though it had been written post factum.”[499]

In spite of Antichrist and “all that is mighty” the Article concerning Holy Scripture and the Cross still holds the field. And, so Luther proceeds in the Table-Talk, “I, a poor monk, had to come,” with “an unfortunate nun” [Catherine Bora who doubtless was present], and “seize upon it and hold it. Thus ‘verbum’ and ‘crux’ are the conquerors; they make us confident.”[500]

The reason why Luther longed with such ardour for the coming of the Last Day has already been shown to have been his growing pessimism and the depression resulting from the sad experiences with which he had met (above, vol. v., p. 245 ff.). In his elastic way he, however, manages, when preaching to the people, to give a rather different reason for his prediction of the fall of Antichrist and the coming of the end. In Popery, he declares, we were not allowed to speak of the Last Judgment; “how we dreaded it”; “we pictured Christ to ourselves as a Judge to Whom we had to give account. To that we came, thanks to our works.” But now it is quite otherwise. “Now on the contrary I should be glad if the Last Day were to come, because there is no greater consolation.”[501] Here he speaks as though inspired solely by the purest of intentions when he looked forward to the coming of the vanquisher of Antichrist.

The wickedness of his opponents and the weapons to be used against them constitute a second group of ideas. Here, once again, the psychological or pathological appreciation of Luther’s strange and morbid train of thought makes imperative a further investigation of certain points already discussed in other connections.

Often Luther seems unable to stem the torrent of charges and insults that streams from him as soon as adversaries appear in his field of vision. Frequently it almost looks as though some superhuman agency outside himself had opened the sluice-gates of his terrible eloquence. He is determined to rage against them “even to the very grave”; his wrath against them “refreshes his blood.” It is actually when expressing his hatred in the most incredible language that he is most sensible of the “nearness of God.” Do not his Popish foes deserve even worse than he, a mere man, is able to heap on them? Those scoundrels who “only seek a pretext for telling lies against us and misleading simple folk, though quite well aware that they are in the wrong.”[502] Their palpable obstinacy, in spite of their better judgment, was so great, so he argued, that it was only because Luther advocated it that they refused to hear of any moral reform, for instance, of the clergy marrying, etc., otherwise they would have held it “quite all right.” He does not shrink from demanding that such roguery should “be hunted down with hounds,” no less than the wickedness of these “most depraved of brothel-keepers, open adulterers, stealers of women and seducers of maidens.”[503]

The most curious thing, however, one, too, that must weigh heavily in the balance when judging of his mental state, is that, as shown elsewhere, by dint of repeating this he actually came to believe that his caricature of Catholicism was perfectly true to fact. The calumnies become part of his mental framework, the very frequency and heat of his charges blinding him to all sense of their enormity, and clouding his outlook. What is even worse is, that, even when he occasionally glimpses the truth he yet believes it lawful to deviate from it where this suits his purpose. Thus he came to formulate the dangerous theory of the lie of necessity and the useful lie which we have already described in his own words. He goes so far as to say, that the nature of his foes was utterly devilish (above, p. 155, n. 4), and, when assailing the wickedness of Popery, he considers “everything lawful for the salvation of souls” (“omnia nobis licere arbitramur”).[504] Our “tricks, lies and stumblings” may “easily be atoned for, for God’s Mercy watches over us.”[505]

On other occasions his opponents become “a pack of fools”; they deserve nothing but scorn and no heed should be paid to their objections. Even should the world write against him he will only pity them. All earlier ages and “a thousand Fathers and Councils of the Church” cannot rob him of the golden grains of truth which he alone possesses.

No sooner does he speak of the Papists and their religion, than, irresistibly, there rises up before his mind the picture of the “tonsures, cowls, frocks and bawling in the choir,” in short the so-called holiness-by-works, on which he seizes to load ridicule on all that is Popish.

This Luther is apt to do even when treating of subjects quite alien to this sort of polemics.

In his “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen” (1539) he has a lengthy dissertation on the marks of the Church; the subject being a wide one he is anxious to get on with it, yet, even so, his pen again and again wanders off into vituperation. He apostrophises himself incidentally as follows: “But how is it that I come again to speak of the infamous, filthy menials of the Pope? Let them begone, and, for ever,” etc. With these words he breaks off a wild outburst in which he had declared that the Pope and his men were persecuting the Word of God, i.e. Luther’s doctrine, “though well aware of its truth; very bad Apostles, Evangelists and Prophets must they be, like the devil and his angels.”[506]

Yet, on the very next page, the same subject crops up again. A lay figure serves to introduce it. To him Luther says: “There you come again dragging in your Pope with you, though I wanted to have no more to do with you. Well, as you insist on annoying me with your unwelcome presence I shall give you a thoroughly Lutheran reception.” He then proceeds to enlarge in “Lutheran” fashion on the fact, that the Pope “condemns the wedded life of the bishops and priests.” “If a man has seduced a hundred maidens, violated a hundred honourable widows and has besides a hundred prostitutes behind him, he is allowed to be not merely a preacher or parson but even a bishop or Pope, and though he keeps on in his evil ways he would still be tolerated in such an office.” “Are you not mad and foolish? Out on you, you rude fools and donkeys!… Truly Popes and bishops are fine fellows to be the bridegrooms of the Churches. Better suited were they to be the bridegrooms of female keepers of bawdy houses, or of the devil’s own daughter in hell! True bishops are the servants of this bride and she is their wife and mistress.” According to you “matrimony is unclean, and a merdiferous sacrament which cannot please God”; at the same time it is supposed to be right and a sacrament. “See how the devil cheats and befools you when he teaches you such twaddle!” Further on he begins anew: “To violate virgins, widows and married women, to keep many prostitutes and to commit all sorts of hidden sins, this he is free to do, and thereby becomes worthy of the priestly calling; but this is the sum total of it all: The Pope, the devil and his Church are enemies to the married state as Dan. (xi. 37) says, and are determined to abuse it in this way so that the priestly office may not thrive. This amounts to saying that the state of matrimony is adulterous, sinful, impure and abominated of God.”

Bidding farewell to Popery, Luther gives it a truly “Lutheran” send off: “So for the present let us be done with the Ass-Pope and the Pope-Ass, and all his asinine lawyers. We will now get back to our own affairs.”

This, however, he only partially succeeds in doing. After discussing the 6th and 7th mark of the Church the “spirit” once more seizes him. The caricature of Popery with which he is wont to pacify his conscience here again figures with the whole of the inevitable paraphernalia: “[Holy] water, salt, herbs, tapers, bells, images, Agnus Dei, pallia, altar, chasubles, tonsures, fingers, hands. Who can enumerate them all? Finally the monks’ cowls,” etc. A page further we again read: “Holy water, Agnus Dei, bulls, briefs, Masses and monks’ cowls.… The devil has decked himself out in them all.”

Weary as he is at the end of the lengthy work, he is still anxious to “tread under foot the Pope, as Psalm xci. [xc., verse 13] says: ‘Thou shalt walk upon the asp and the basilisk, and shalt trample under foot the lion and the dragon’; this we will do with the help and strength of the Seed of the woman that has crushed and still crushes the serpent’s head, albeit we know that he will turn and bite our heel. To the same blessed Seed of the woman be all praise and glory together with the Father and the Holy Ghost, One True God and Lord for ever and ever. Amen.”

Here, in the few pages we have selected for quotation, the whole psychological Luther-problem unrolls itself.

In the pictures his imagination conjures up, the sacrifice of the Mass—the most sacred mystery of Catholic worship—occupies a special place. It is the idolatrous abomination foretold by the prophet, or rather the idol Moasim itself (above, vol. iv., p. 524). One wonders whether he really succeeded in persuading himself that his greatest sin, a sin that cried to heaven for vengeance and deserved eternal damnation (above, p. 136; cp. vol. iv., p. 509), was his having—as a monk and at a time when he knew no better—celebrated the sacrifice of the Mass? It is true that, in the solemn profession he makes of his belief in the Sacrament (1528), when resolved to confess his faith “before God and the whole world,” he says: “These were my greatest sins, that I was such a holy monk and for over fifteen years angered, plagued and martyred my dear Master so gruesomely by my many Masses.” The words occur at the close of his “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” with the asseveration, that he would stand firm in this faith to the very end; “and were I, which God forbid, under stress of temptation or in the hour of death to say otherwise, then [what I might say] must be accounted as nought and I hereby openly proclaim it to be false and to come from the devil. So help me My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Who is blessed for ever and ever. Amen.”[507]

According to what he once remarked in 1531 (above, p. 136 f.) it was, however, not the devil who was prompting him to despair by calling up his crying sin of having said Mass. If Luther is indeed telling the truth, and if his doings as a zealous monk really seemed to him to be his worse sins, then we can only marvel at his confusion of mind having gone so far. From other admissions we should rather gather that what disquieted his conscience was more the subversion of the olden worship, the ruin of the religious life and, in fact, the whole working of the innovations. And yet, here, we have a solemn assurance that the very contrary was the case.

It is in itself a problem how he contrives to make such frightful sins of his monastic life—into which, on his own showing, he had entered in ignorance—and of the Masses which he had said all unaware of their wickedness.

But, in his polemics, such is the force with which he is swept along, that he does not pause to consider his blatant self-contradictions, or how much he is putting himself at the mercy of his opponents, or how inadequately his rhetoric and all his playing to the gallery hides the lack of valid proofs and the deficiencies of his reading of Scripture.

As for his foes, in his mind’s eye he sees them wavering and falling, blown over, as it were, by the strength of his reasoning, even when they are not overtaken and slain by the righteous judgment of God. When need arises he has ready a list of deaths, particularly of sudden ones, by which opponents had been snatched away.[508] The “blessed upheaval,” however, which is one day to carry them all off together, is, so at least his morbid fancy tells him, still delayed by his prayers.

As for himself personally, he stood under the spell of a train of thought displaying pathological symptoms, which, taken in the lump, must raise serious questions as to the nature of his changing mental state.

Being chosen by God for such great things, being not merely the “prophet of the Germans” but also destined to bring back the Gospel to the whole Christian world, Providence, in his opinion, has equipped him with qualities such as have hitherto rarely graced a man. This he does not tire of repeating, albeit he ever refers his gifts to God. He is fond of comparing himself not merely with the Popish doctors of his day but also with the most famous of bygone time. In the same way he is fond of measuring foes within the fold by the standard of his own greatness. He is thus betrayed into utterances such as one usually hears only from those affected with megalomania; this sort of thing pleases him so well, that, intent on his own higher mission, he fails to see the bad taste of certain of his exaggerations and how repulsive their tone is.[509]

God at all times has saved His Church “by means of individuals and for the sake of a few”; this Luther pointed out to his friends in 1540, instancing Adam, Abraham, Moses, Elias, Isaias, Augustine, Ambrose and others. “God also did something by means of Bernard and now again through me, the new Jeremias. And so the end draws nigh!”[510] The end, however, for which he has made everything ready, may now come quite peacefully and speedily, for he has not merely done “something,” but “everything that pertains to the knowledge of God has been restored”; “the Gospel has been revealed and the Last Day is at the door.”[511]

Fancying himself the passive tool of Divine Providence, it becomes lawful for him deliberately to scatter over the world his literary bomb-shells, exclaiming: God wills it, for, did He not, He could prevent it! He flings broadcast atrocious charges of a character to arouse men’s worst passions, and, at the same time, writes to his friends: If it is too much, God at our prayer must provide a remedy.[512] Hence it is God Who must bear the blame for everything, seeing that He works through Luther. God made him a Doctor of Holy Scripture, let Him therefore see to it.

He “throws down the keys at the door” of God when the work goes ill. Why did He will it? “I cannot stop the course of events,” he says somewhat more truly in 1525, “for matters have gone too far”; he adds, however: “I will shut my eyes and leave God to act; He will do as He pleases.”[513]

This way of thinking was nothing new in Luther, but may be traced in his earliest literary efforts, which only shows how deeply it was rooted in his mind. “In all I do I wish to be led, not by the rede and deed of man, but by the rede and deed of God!” so he said in 1517, when declining the advice of those who only wished to serve his best interests; yet, in the same letter in which these words occur, he confesses his “precipitancy, presumption and prejudice,” qualities “on account of which he was blamed by all.”[514]

Later, too, as we know, he saw in things both great and small the hand of God at work in him; all his efforts and even his very mistakes were God’s, not his. It was by God that, while yet a monk, he had been “forcibly torn from the Hours,”[515] i.e. freed from the duty of reciting the Divine Office; God had led him like a blinkered charger into the midst of the battle; it was God, again, Who had “flung him into matrimony” and Who had laid upon him, the “wonderful monk,” the burden of preaching to the great ones and the tenor of his message. “Hence you ought to believe my word absolutely … but, even to this day, people do not believe that my preaching is the Word of God.… But, on it I will stake my soul, that I preach the true and pure Word of God, and for it I am also ready to die.… If you believe it you will be saved, if you don’t you will be damned.”[516]

Seeing the tumults and disorders that had arisen through him, he cries: “It is the Lord Who does this”; “we see God’s plan in these things”; “It was God Who began it”; “in our doings we are guided by the Divine Counsel alone.”[517]

It is when in such a frame of mind that he detects those signs and wonders that witness against his foes; given the magnitude of the war he was waging whilst waiting for the coming of the Judge, these signs were no more to be wondered at than the obstinacy of his foes: “Now that the end of the world is coming the people [the Papists] storm and rage against God most gruesomely, blaspheming and condemning the Word of God, though knowing it to be indeed the Word and the Truth. And, on the top of this, are the many dreadful signs and wonders in the skies and among almost all creatures, which are a terrible menace to them.”[518]

Though quite full of the idea that his own doctrine was alone right, yet, as already shown, he went in early days so far as to grant to every man freedom of belief and the right to read Scripture according to his lights; for to him every Christian is a judge of Holy Scripture, a doctor and a tool of the Holy Ghost. The assumption underlying this, viz. that, in spite of all, the necessary unity of doctrine would be preserved, is not easy to explain. When, however, experience stepped in and disproved the assumption, Luther’s behaviour became even more inexplicable. He was by nature so disposed to ignore the claims of logic that the contradiction between his demand that all should bow to his doctrine, and such theories as that the Bible is, for all, the true and only fount of knowledge, and that no other outward ecclesiastical authority exists, never seems to have troubled him. Though he claimed to be the “liberator of minds and consciences,” he, nevertheless, called on the authorities to put down all other doctrines.[519]

The dignity of his chair at Wittenberg is exalted by him to giddy heights. “This university and town,” he said of Wittenberg, may vie with any others. “All the highest authorities of the day are at one with us, like Amsdorf, Brenz and Rhegius. Such men are our correspondents.” In comparison, the sects are simply ludicrous in their insignificance. Woe to those within the fold who dare to run counter to Luther, “like ‘Jeckel’ and ‘Grickel’; they imagine that they alone are clever and that they, like ‘Zwingel’ also, never learnt anything from us! Yet who knew anything 25 years ago? Who stood by me 21 years since, when God, against both my will and my knowledge, led me into the fray? Alas, what a misfortune is ambition!” This he said in 1540,[520] but already eight years before he had complained bitterly: “Each one wants to make himself out to be alone in knowing everything.… Everywhere we find the same Master Wiseacre, who is so clever that he can lead a horse by its tail.” Though one alone has received from God the mission of preaching the Gospel, yet “there are others, even among his pupils, who think they know ten times more about it than he.… Then, hey presto, another doctrine is set up.”[521] “Deadly harm” to Christianity is the result; nevertheless, according to Christ’s prophecy, “factions and sects” there must be; but their source is and remains the devil[522]—who, according to Luther, is the true God of this world in which indeed his finger can everywhere be seen. (See above, vol. v., p. 275 ff.)

Strange indeed is the frame of mind here presented to the observer. So much is Luther the plaything of his fancy and the feeling of the moment, that, at times he seems the victim of a sort of self-suggestion and to be following blindly the idea which happens to hold the field.

His judgment being seen to be so confused, it becomes easier to estimate at their right value certain of his ideas, particularly his conviction that he and his cause owed their preservation to a series of palpable miracles. He contrived to spread among his pupils the belief that “holy Luther” was the greatest prophet since the time of the Apostles.[523] Yet anyone who reflects how Luther could devote a special tract to proving that so everyday an occurrence as the “escape” of a nun from her convent was worthy of being deemed a great miracle for all time, can only marvel at the facility with which Luther could delude himself.[524]

Other Abnormal Lines of Thought and Behaviour

Luther’s action presents many other problems to the psychologist, for instance, in its waverings and contradictions. Strong in his belief in his Divine mission, he roundly abuses kings and princes in the vilest terms, and yet, at the same time, he teaches respect and obedience towards them and even sets himself up as a model in this respect, all according to his mood and as they happen to be favourable to him or the reverse. On the one hand, he presumes to incite the people to acts of violence, and, on the other, he preaches no less cogently the need of calmness and submission. He boasts of the courage with which he had dashed into the very jaws of Behemoth, and of his utter contempt for his foes; yet this same Luther is obsessed by the idea that his own life is threatened by poison and sorcery, just as his party is menaced by the hired assassins of the monks and Papists. While he extols the University of Wittenberg as the bulwark of theological unity, he is at the same time so distrustful of the doctrine of his friends that his intercourse with them suffers, and, to at least one of his intimates, Wittenberg becomes a “cave of the Cyclops.”

Such contradictions and many of the like combined to induce in him an abnormal state of mind. Harmony and consistency of thought and feeling was something he never knew. Hence the charge brought against him, not merely by opponents, but even by many of his own followers, viz. of being muddled, illogical and not sure of his ground.

While he is perfectly able at times to speak and write with such candour and truth that one cannot but admire the wholesome sense, and sober, witty, cheery style of his literary productions, yet their tone and character change entirely as soon as it becomes a question of his polemics or of his Evangel. Then his mind becomes overcast, his thoughts pursue one another like storm-clouds, assuming meanwhile the strangest shapes and the reader is over whelmed by a torrent of mingled abuse and paradox. His very proofs are caught up in the whirl and become so distorted that it is often impossible even to tell whether they are meant in earnest or are merely in the nature of a challenge.

According to Luther, to mention only a few of the strangest of his sayings, his doctrine of justification and the forgiveness of sins is present “in all creatures” and is confirmed by analogy.[525] The very doctrine of creation rests on the doctrine of justification as on “its foundation.”[526] “If the article of our souls’ salvation is embraced and adhered to with a firm faith, then the other articles follow naturally, for instance, that of the Trinity.”[527]

Marriage he finds stamped on the whole of nature, “even on the hardest stones.” New-born infants he assumes capable of eliciting an act of faith in baptism; simply because he could not otherwise defend against the Anabaptists the traditional infant baptism and at the same time maintain that the efficacy of the sacraments depends on faith. His doctrine of the spiritual omnipresence of the body of Christ is an absurdity involving the presence of Christ in all food; but even this is not too much for him if it enables him to defend his theory of the Supper. His imputation-theory led him to that considered utterance which has shocked so many: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still.”[528] “Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas,” was elsewhere his answer to another objection.[529]

He made no odds about declaring rhetorically, of all classes of men and all branches of religious knowledge: that, “in a word, before me no one knew anything.”[530] Of the daring eloquence he can use when expressing such ideas we have a sample in the statement: “Were the Papists, particularly those who are now bawling at me in their writings, all stamped together in the wine-press and then boiled down and distilled seven times over, not a quarter would be left capable of using their tongues to teach even one article [of the Catechism], nor from the whole of their doctrine could so much be drawn as would serve to teach a manservant how to behave in God’s sight towards his master or a maid towards her mistress.”[531] He alone, Luther, it was, who had brought to all ranks and classes throughout the world “a good conscience and order.”[532]

Finally we have the paradox apparent in his practical instructions and the curious behaviour into which his belief in his mission occasionally led him. We may recall the means to be employed for overcoming temptations, one of the mildest of which was a good drink,[533] and the measures to be taken to induce peace of soul. “Break out into abuse,” such is his advice, and that will bring inward peace.[534] If this does not work, then coarse humour will often succeed, one of those jests, for instance, where the sacred and sublime is vulgarised simply to raise a laugh. “Against the devil Luther makes use of ‘stronger buffoonery’ and dismisses him curtly, nay, often rudely.”[535] Pointless jests often spoil the force of his words. For instance, he found himself in a difficulty about the second wife whom one of Carlstadt’s followers, acting on Luther’s own principles, wished to take in addition to his ailing spouse; whilst stipulating that the man must first “feel his conscience assured and convinced by the Word of God,” and doing his best to dissuade him from taking such a step, Luther adds in a jesting tone, that it were perhaps better to let the matter take its course, as at Orlamünde (under the rule of Carlstadt and his Old-Testament ideas) they would soon be introducing circumcision and the Mosaic Law in its entirety.[536]

His instability of mind and ever-changing feeling ended by impressing a peculiar stamp on his whole mentality.

At one time he is delighted to see all things subject to the new Evangel, and extols the gigantic success of his efforts; at another he complains bitterly that the world is turning its back on the Word and deserting the little flock of true Evangelicals. Thus the world could promptly assume in his mind quite contradictory aspects. Of his alternating moods of confidence and despair he told his friends: “My moods vary quite a hundred times a day—nevertheless I stand up to the devil.”[537] Hence he was aware of his vacillations, though on the same occasion he declares that he knows right well how Holy Scripture strengthens him against them. He also feels and acknowledges his inconsistency, in being, for all his changeableness, so rigid and obstinate in his dealings with his friends. They knew his character, he said, and called it “obstinate.”[538]

Profound depression can alone account for the step he took in 1530, when, for a while, he discontinued his sermons at Wittenberg because he was sick of the indifference of his hearers to the Word of God and disgusted with their conduct. The editor of the sermons of this year, which have only recently been published, remarks justly, that “the only possible explanation of this step is a pathological one.”[539] Luther even went so far as to declare from the pulpit that he was “not going to be a swine-herd.”[540] Yet, a little after, during the journey to the Coburg, a sudden change occurred, and we find Luther making jokes and writing in a quite optimistic vein, and, no sooner had he reached his new abode, than he plunged into new literary labours. Nevertheless, whilst at the Castle, he was again a victim of intense depression, was visited by Satan’s “embassy” and even vouchsafed a glimpse of the enemy of God. On his departure from the Coburg good humour again got the better of him, as we see from his jovial letter to Baumgärtner of Oct. 4, 1530, and on reaching Wittenberg, he was soon up to his ears in work, so that he could write: “I am not only Luther, but Pomeranus, Vicar-General, Moses, Jethro and I know not who else besides.”[541] The facility with which his moods altered is again apparent when, in his last days, he left Wittenberg in disgust only to return again forthwith in the best of spirits. (See below, xxxix., 1.)

Yet in his attitude to the olden Church this same man, who otherwise shows himself so instable, knows how to display such defiant obstinacy that Protestants who look too exclusively at this side of his character have even been able to speak of his inflexible firmness. What steels him here is his ardent belief in his calling.

The idea of his vocation ever serves to help him over his difficulties. An instance of that marvellous elasticity of mind with which he seizes on his calling to pacify both himself and his friends, is to be found in an intimate conversation held after the “greatest of his temptations” in 1527, and recorded by Bugenhagen. After Luther had declared that he saw nothing to regret in his severity towards his foes he went on to speak, with tears in his eyes, of the sects that would spring up and which his friends would not be able to withstand. He proceeded to admit that “he was sorry if he had given scandal by his buffoonery and by his vituperation,[542] but that the cause could not be displeasing to the pious, for he loved mankind [this is Bugenhagen’s remark] too much and was an enemy to all hypocrisy.” “God had not ordained” that he, so Luther here declares, “should appear as a stern and austere figure. The world finds no sins (‘crimina’) wherewith to reproach me, but, because it follows its own judgment, it takes great offence at me, as I see. Possibly,” so he goes on, “God wishes to delude the blind and ungrateful world (‘mundum stultum facere’) so that it may perish in its contempt and never see what excellent gifts God has bestowed on me alone out of so many thousands, wherewith I am to minister unto those who are His friends. Thus the world, which refuses to acclaim the word of salvation which God sends through me, will find in me, according to the divine counsel, what offends it and is to it a stumbling-block. For this God is answerable; for I shall pray that I may never be to any a cause of scandal by my sins.”

“This I learnt with wondrous joy from his own lips,” adds Bugenhagen.[543] Others will, however, find Luther’s enigmatical train of thought more difficult to understand.

The above are but a few instances of an abnormal turn of mind; of the like the present work contains others in abundance. Anyone desirous of penetrating further into the folds and windings of a mind so involved should study Luther’s letters, particularly those dating from 1517 to 1522 and from 1540 to 1546. He will there find much of the same sort, which can hardly be termed either sane or reasonable; but even the passages we have quoted suffice to reveal in him an uncanny power of self-deception such as few historic characters display. Many a great genius has betrayed psychological peculiarities, indeed it seems at times to be the fate of those endowed with eminent gifts to overstep the boundaries and to venture further than the reason and reflection of thinking men can follow.[544] That Luther carried certain mental peculiarities to their utmost limit is plain from what we have seen, nor can it be right to close one’s eyes to the fact.

Luther showed the defects of a “genius” not least in his vituperation and in the other far from commendable methods he used in his polemics. It was precisely these defects which led Erasmus to question whether he was quite in his right mind. “Had a man said this in the delirium of fever, could he have uttered anything more insane?” Thus Erasmus in his “Hyperaspistes.”[545] He often speaks of his opponent’s feverish fancies. He denies that his spirit is a “sober” one, and maliciously supposes that he was drunk. In spite of his usual moderation and reticence, the scholar, when dealing with Luther’s assertions, constantly uses such words as “delirus,” “insanus,” “lymphatus,” “sine mente,” “mera insania.” On one occasion he says of the “devils, spectres, ‘lamiæ,’ ‘megæræ’ and other more than tragic words” which Luther was addicted to flinging at his foes, that such a habit was a “sign of coming madness” (“venturæ insaniæ præsagia”); elsewhere he views with misgiving the sort of compulsion (“non agere sed agi”) which urges Luther to abuse all who differ from him.[546]

In other circles, too, the opinion prevailed that Luther was suffering from some sort of mental disease. We may recall the remarks of Boniface Amerbach, who was not unkindly disposed to Luther, in sending the latter’s tract of 1534 against Erasmus, to his brother Basil (above, vol. iv., p. 183).

In Luther’s immediate surroundings we also find traces of a fear that the Master stood in some danger of losing his mind.

A thoroughgoing investigation of the matter by some unbiassed expert in mental diseases would, however, be of immeasurably greater value than the mere opinions of contemporary admirers and opponents. But the difficulty is to find an impartial expert. Protestant theologians will not easily be found ready to agree with Catholic writers regarding the process which made of a quondam monk the founder of the Protestant faith, or to see Luther’s scruples in quite the same light. Entire agreement would seem for ever excluded, owing to differences of outlook so deep-seated. If, to some, Luther appears as a “new Paul,” and as one who removed every obstacle to free religious research, then the view they take of his inward change and later spiritual life must perforce be coloured to some extent by this idea.

Nor must the fact be lost to sight that many of the apparently suspicious symptoms were, in Luther’s case, quite wilful. Thus his outbreaks of fury against Popery, the psychological origin of which we have already described (vol. iv., p. 306 ff.), are largely an outcome of the feelings of hatred he deliberately encouraged, and a reaction against his earlier and better convictions. Again, self-deception and lack of self-control, i.e. moral elements, played a great part in him. Since, however, even at the outset of his career he already displayed these moral defects, they must be carefully distinguished from his morbid states and no less from his doubts and remorse of conscience.

At the very least, however, we should give to the purely historical facts such unbiassed, broadminded recognition as that editor of the great Weimar Edition of Luther’s works (see above, p. 168), who, as we heard, spoke of the “pathological” explanation of certain acts and statements of Luther’s as the only one possible. The word “pathological,” and other similar ones, had, however, been used even earlier, and, that, even by non-Catholics, as descriptive of certain of Luther’s states, nor was the remark entirely new, that in many a great genius we find something pathological.[547]

5. Luther’s Psychology according to Physicians and Historians

It is not our intention in the following to criticise the opinions quoted; they have been collected chiefly with the object in view of providing those qualified to judge with matter on which to exercise their wits. Nevertheless, we have no intention of depriving ourselves of the right of making occasional observations. Thus Hausrath’s opinion, to be given immediately, calls for some revision, as will be clear even to the lay mind. No disturbance of Luther’s intellectual functions or mental malady amounting to actual “psychosis” can be assumed at any period of his life. This, however, is a quite different thing from admitting that his case was not entirely normal.

“The psychology of men, who, like him, are engaged in such a struggle,” rightly remarks a Protestant theologian, “is exceedingly complicated. Discrepancies are to be met with side by side, and, according to the circumstances, now one element now another comes to the fore.”[548] In Luther’s case the co-existence of bouts of illness with the unfettered use of his powers, of fundamental delusions with true though misapplied ideas, of frivolity, sensuality and temptations to despair, and, on the top of all this, the contradictory statements he himself makes about himself, i.e.—he, the only man who could have told us how the facts really stood—all these circumstances render any sure conclusion extremely difficult.

No Protestant hitherto has used terms so strong to describe Luther’s overwrought nerves as his most recent biographer, Hausrath, the Heidelberg theologian, in his first edition of his “Life of Luther.” His assertions do undoubtedly err on the side of exaggeration.[549] For instance, when he says, that, owing to his illness in the monastery Luther had more than once been in danger of sinking into “the abyss of religious melancholia.”[550] Erroneously regarding the “temptations”—in reality mere remorse of conscience—from which Luther suffered, as the outcome of his morbid bodily and mental state, he even ventures to hint expressly at the nature of the malady: “The regularity with which the attacks return during all the years spent in the monastery and after he had commenced his public career, leads us to infer a recurrent psychosis, the attacks of which became less frequent after his marriage, but never altogether ceased.”[551]

In recent times, apart from Hausrath, two other writers, both of them non-Catholics, have looked more closely into Luther’s pathology. Dr. Berkhan in an article in the “Archiv für Psychiatrie” entitled “Die nervösen Beschwerden Luthers,” and Gustav Kawerau in the study “Etwas vom kranken Luther,” printed in the “Deutsch-evangelische Blätter.” The two Protestants, Küchenmeister and Ebstein, who also dealt with Luther’s maladies,[552] failed to discuss the psychological phenomena here under consideration; what interested them was more Luther’s ordinary illnesses though, it is true, they bring forward various data which may prove of interest here; these, nevertheless, must be cautiously used, as the authors are somewhat deficient in historical criticism. Older writers who treated of Luther’s illnesses, e.g. the Protestant pastor Friedrich Siegmund Keil, Garmann, the Chemnitz physician and an anonymous writer in the “Neues Hannöversche Magazin” are even less satisfactory.

Of the two first mentioned, Kawerau supplies a careful review of those statements of Luther’s which concern his nervous maladies, not, however, carrying them back to his earliest years. He gives us the picture “of a man occupying a most responsible position, ever in friction with his surroundings” and “in a state of nervous overstrain due to too much work of body and mind.”[553] With these words he seeks to pave the way for a psychological appreciation of all that, as he says, “so often appears repulsive or regrettable in Luther, for instance, his waxing irritability, his unbridled anger, the excesses he commits by word and pen, and his sudden changes of mood.” He even opines that “the spiritual temptations may be accounted for by his all-too-great labours and anxieties, and their effect upon his constitution”;[554] his conclusion is that a fuller knowledge of Luther’s ailments “helps us to understand him aright and better to appreciate his greatness.”[555]

The other writer, Dr. Berkhan, a Brunswick physician, had, previous to Kawerau, attempted to lift the veil which shrouds the “anomalies” presented by Luther; he did not, however, properly sift his materials, nor did he consider the various symptoms in their complexus.[556] He comes to the conclusion that some of Luther’s troubles, for instance, his “hallucinations,” “must be ascribed to an affection of the nerve centres.” These “hallucinations” he attributes to “fluxions” due to overwork. Such hallucinations, according to him, were, in Luther’s case, of two kinds; some optical and some auditory. They were induced, so he thinks, not only by the permanent excitement of Luther’s life, but also by “his doubts and controversies.” What Luther terms temptations Berkhan also regards as, in the main, mere psychic depression bound up with nerve disturbance. In view of certain other symptoms he diagnoses a case of præcordial trouble.[557]

After Kawerau and Berkhan we must refer to P. J. Möbius, the Leipzig expert in mental ailments. He is known in connection with his highly original studies on Rousseau, Goethe, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche; on Luther he has not expressed his views at any great length, but, such as they are, they are drastic enough.[558]

Möbius points out[559] that “in Luther’s case the pathological element is of the utmost significance.” “Even Luther’s recent biographer, Professor Hausrath,” he writes, “spoke of ‘recurrent psychosis.’[560] According to what Kraepelin now says, it would be better to term it a mild form of maniacal depression.[561] The main point is that Luther, from his youth upwards, suffered at times from the dumps without any apparent cause, was oppressed with gloomy forebodings, sadness, fear and despair. The melancholic phases may easily be traced throughout Luther’s life; probably, too, the periods when he felt his power and gave vent to his boundless wrath should be regarded as morbid and maniacal. We may take it that, in Luther’s case, the morbid mood made the illness, and that his fantastic interpretation of certain incidents—combats with the devil, intercourse with spirits and Divine inspirations—are to be explained, not as delusions, but as the explanations he sought in the ideas then current.”

“The present writer,” continues Möbius, “does not in the least believe that Luther suffered from hallucinations. It seems always to have been a case of placing a superstitious interpretation on real phenomena. The black pig in the garden and the black dog on his bed, were, most likely, of flesh and blood. In many instances (the wrestling with the demon, and so forth) the language is simply figurative. With Luther the pathological element made history. His morbid fear led him to brood over justification; the sense of his own utter weakness convinced him that man can do nothing of his own strength and by his own works, and that the only possible course is to stretch out yearning hands and seize on Grace. In his melancholic state he fell in with the doctrine of justification by faith alone of St. Paul (who himself suffered from the same ailment [!]), and, around this centre, his theological ideas grouped themselves, and, with ‘sola fides’ as his war-cry, he proceeded to do battle with the ancient Church. Thus, from the monk’s melancholia, sprang the Reformation.”

Proceeding on similar lines, Professor Willy Hellpach, of Carlsruhe, observed in the Berlin “Tag” (“Psychologische Rundschau,” Jan. 18, 1912): “Several years ago the Jesuit scholar, Pater Grisar, published in the ‘Kölnische Volkszeitung’ an article entitled ‘Ein Grundproblem aus Luthers Seelenleben.’ Of this work Möbius said, and quite rightly, that it was the best account so far given of the pathology of Luther’s mind. That Luther’s mind was at times morbidly depressed without any reasonable cause has never been doubted by any who knew him, even when they happened to be Evangelicals. Hausrath, in his biography, had spoken of ‘recurrent psychosis’ a statement, which, it is true, he modified later on account of the storm of indignation which broke out among those queer folk who seem to look upon a gifted man’s malady as a worse blot than the greatest crime.” Hellpach points out that laymen are wrong when they imagine that “psychosis” involves “an absolute derangement of the power of thought.”

Wilhelm Ebstein, a Professor of Medicine,[562] recently, and not without reason, registered a protest against the view of those who maintain that Luther was actually out of his mind. Himself interested in the treatment of cases of gout and calculus, he comes to the conclusion that Luther’s chief sufferings were caused by uric acid and faulty digestion, the two together constituting the principal trouble, and being accompanied, as is so often the case with gout, by “neurasthenic symptoms which at times recall psychosis”;[563] his “hypochondriacal depression which passed all bounds” was entirely due to these ailments. Not only these “nervous symptoms,” but also the other ailments of which Luther had to complain, his palpitations, headaches, dizziness, sore-throat, defective hearing, impaired digestion, fainting fits, and particularly his oppression in the region of the heart and the feelings of fear which accompanied it, all these were, according to Ebstein, due more or less to gout and the other troubles resulting from the presence of uric acid.[564]

There can be no doubt that this learned physician gives us many useful observations, but he has not himself selected his historical matter and carefully tested its source. Much of it comes from Küchenmeister, whereas, at the present stage of research, a medical opinion, to carry real weight, must necessarily enter at greater length into the facts more recently brought to light. Some of Küchenmeister’s opinions have, however, been revised by Ebstein, and not without good reason.

Among those of Ebstein’s statements that must be characterised as historically untenable are the following, viz. that Luther’s hallucinations and visions occurred “almost without exception at a time when he was yet under the influence of the asceticism of the monastery, with its night-vigils, spiritual exercises and strenuous mental labours,” i.e. in his Catholic days; likewise, that, in the monastery, he had striven “most diligently to outdo the other monks in the matter of fasting, watching,” etc.; that, in later days, he had “always been able to master his morbid states, and to bid defiance to his moods of depression,” and that these latter had “in no way detracted” from his mental labours; that his method of controversy had never been a morbid one, as Küchenmeister had asserted on insufficient grounds, and that, when even Luther referred to mental sufferings and temptations, his “bodily ailments” always occupied the first place and constituted the leading factor.[565]

His theory that Luther suffered from gout is also eminently doubtful.

Of any symptoms of gout, for instance, of gouty swellings, we hear nothing from Luther[566] though he was wont to expatiate on his complaints, and though, according to Ebstein, he possessed a “rare knowledge of medical matters.”[567] Nor did Luther permanently suffer from sluggishness and constipation of the bowels; we hear of it only at Worms and at the Wartburg in 1521, and then again in 1525. To put down “his moodiness, melancholia and depression” as Ebstein terms the remorse of conscience experienced in 1528 at the time of his greatest “temptations” to an attack of piles, described by Luther in a letter to his friend Jonas on Jan. 6, 1528, is to misapprehend the facts of the case; for, actually, it was three years before this that Luther had for a while been troubled with hæmorrhoids, as is evident both from the text of the inquiry made by Jonas (“ante triennium”), and from Luther’s answer: “My illness was as follows,” etc.[568]

Moreover, Luther was not suffering from stone in 1521, and it is only in 1526 that we hear him speaking of it for the first time; after this the malady was for a long time in abeyance,[569] until, between 1537 and 1539, it once more attacked him severely; it is again referred to in 1543.

Hence we must still await a more accurate medical diagnosis to determine—if indeed this be possible—how far the history of Luther’s outward and inward troubles was dependent on uric acid.[570] Maybe, eventually, greater stress than hitherto will be laid on Luther’s heart troubles; if so, then it will become necessary to find out what the so-called “cardiogmus” was, from which, according to Melanchthon, Luther suffered severely early in 1545; for, in his friend’s opinion, it was to this that Luther’s death later on was due.[571] Ebstein himself says of the oppression in the region of the heart and the resultant anxiety[572] from which Luther suffered, until his death was ultimately brought about by “heart failure,” that it “leads us to diagnose some heart affection”; this, according to his theory, was due, in part directly to gout, in part also to the obstinate constipation which accompanied it. According to him the periodic attacks of heart-oppression suggest heart asthma or angina pectoris, which, notoriously, often co-exists with gout.

As regards Luther’s mental sufferings, Ebstein will not hear of Berkhan’s hypothesis of “fluxions”; he himself, however,—and herein lies his principal fault,—does not make sufficient account of his patient’s frequent nervous states. He thinks that Luther’s black outlook, which, according to him, resulted from gout, was not bound up directly with any sufferings.[573] As regards the “hallucinations of sight and hearing,”[574] which Luther regarded as the work of the devil, he declares, that Luther, from time to time, fell into a condition of “weakness and irritability which make the temporary disturbance of his brain-powers quite intelligible”; as to the cause of the lapses, Ebstein finds it in “the strenuous mental labour” leading to a “condition of inanition.”[575] He also allows, that, even as a monk, and in early life, Luther was a victim of moodiness.[576] He is, however, quite right when he says: “Insanity cannot be thought of, nor even epilepsy.”[577] In his admiration for Luther, he also credits him with having in his lifetime endured “more days of suffering than of well-being.” To make this statement entirely true it would, however, be necessary to include amongst the days of suffering, those when he was so paralysed by remorse of conscience as to be incapable of work. At any rate we quite admit with Ebstein that, in Luther, we have “a man, during a great part of his life, sorely tried by bodily ailments,”[578] a fact which can only make one wonder the more at the extent of his labours.

To pass now to some older Catholic writers. In 1874 Bruno Schön, of Vienna, published an essay in which he depicted Luther as mentally deranged.[579]

The author, who was chaplain to a lunatic asylum, was not merely no historian and still less an expert in mental disease, but lacked even a proper acquaintance with Luther’s life and writings. His historical groundwork he took from second-rate works, and his opinion was biassed by his conviction that Luther could not but be insane. He makes no real attempt to prove such a thing; all he does is to give us an account, clothed in psychiatric terminology, of the different forms of madness from which Luther suffered; in the first place he was afflicted with megalomania and the mania of persecution, two forms of insanity frequently found together.—But nervous irritability, anxiety, moodiness, excitability, a too high opinion of himself, perversion of judgment and even hallucinations—could such be proved in Luther’s case—all these would not entitle us to say that he was ever really insane. Nervous derangement, says Kirchhoff, is not psychosis, and people subject to hallucinations are not always insane.[580]

Long before this other Catholic writers had instanced certain peculiarities in Luther’s mental state, though they, like almost all recent writers, with the exception of Hausrath, were ignorant of one of the most remarkable elements to be taken into consideration, viz. the fits of terror to which Luther had been subject from early youth. The treatment of this matter was made all the harder by the fact that Luther’s extravagant after-accounts of his life in the monastery, and the growth of his ideas, were received with too much credulity, and that his letters, his Table-Talk and many details of his life were but little known.

Maximilian Prechtl, Abbot of Michaelfeld (†1832), though he refuses to regard Luther as insane, nevertheless calls attention to the many “phantoms of a sick brain” which he had seen; “Luther believed,” so he says, “that he often saw the devil, and that under different shapes.”[581] The learned Abbot brought out a new annotated edition of Luther’s “Against the Papacy founded by the Devil,” which he published at the time of the Reformation-Festival in 1817, in order to show the mad fury, hate and mental confusion to which its author had fallen a victim. Luther’s writing betrays, so he opines, “no common fury but the insane passion of the man, then almost at death’s door.”[582] Too great stress must not be laid on some of the opinions he here advances, which overstep the limits he himself had traced and appear to credit Luther with insanity. Prechtl spoke out more strongly in his “Rejoinder” to the attacks made on his remarks. He emphasises “the incontrovertible proofs” to be found in Luther “of a troubled fancy,” and asserts that “he was not always in his right mind.”

Somewhat earlier, in 1810, the Catholic layman Friedrich von Kerz, who continued Stolberg’s “Geschichte der Religion Christi,” published a book “Über den Geist und die Folgen der Reformation” in which he comes to a far too unfavourable opinion of Luther’s mental state, which he seeks to bolster up by statements incapable of historical proof. In a nutshell, what he tentatively advances is, that, “owing to the shock following the death of a friend struck down at his side, Luther had lost his reason”; “the symptoms of a twisted mind soon became apparent.” “Luther not seldom appears in the light of an inexplicable moral enigma, so that we are led, not indeed willingly, to wonder whether a certain recurrent mental aberration and periodic madness was not in reality the first and perhaps the only source of his vocation as a Reformer, of all his public acts and of the greater part of his reforms.”[583]

As against Kerz, Schön and even Prechtl, we must urge that we have no proof that Luther was actually the slave of his morbid fancies, or mentally diseased; no such proof to support the hypothesis of insanity is adduced by any of the writers named. Of the temporary clouding of the mind they make no mention.

As for the kind of megalomania met with in Luther, when he insists on his being the mouthpiece of revelation, this is not the sort usual in the case of the mentally deranged, when the patient appears to be held captive under the spell of his delusion. Luther often wavered in his statements regarding his special revelation, indeed sometimes went so far as to deny it; in other words he was open to doubt. Moreover, at the very times when he clung (or professed to cling) to it with the greatest self-complacency, he was suffering from severe attacks of depression, whereas it is not usual for megalomania and depression to exist side by side. As for the periodic fits of insanity suggested by Hausrath his moods alternated too rapidly. His morbid ideas do not constitute a paranoic system of madness, and still less is it possible to attribute everything to mere hypochondriacal lunacy.

The theory of Luther’s not being a free agent is excluded not only by his doubts and remorse of conscience, but also by the bitter determination with which at the very beginning he persuades himself of his ideas, insists upon them later when doubts arise, and finally surrenders himself to their spell by systematic self-deception. Such behaviour does not accord with that of a man who is not free. It must also be noted that the morbid symptoms of which Schön speaks, in whatever light they be regarded, do not occur simultaneously; some disappear while others become more marked as time goes on. This, however, also makes it difficult and wellnigh impossible to discover what were the components which originally went to make up Luther’s mentality before it had been seared by the errors and inward commotion of his later passionate life. Above all a fact repeatedly pointed out already must not be overlooked, viz. that, throughout, wilful giving way to passion, lack of self-control and too high an opinion of himself, united with self-deception played a great part with him, particularly in those outbreaks of fury against Pope and Papists in which one might be tempted to see the work of a maniac. In view of Luther’s aptitude to pass rapidly from craven fear to humorous self-confidence it would be necessary in order to prove his insanity, to show clearly as far as possible—a demonstration which has not yet been attempted—that periods of depression or fear really alternated with periods of exaltation, and what the duration of these periods was.

We cannot too much impress on those who may be inclined to assume that, at least at times, Luther was not in his right mind the huge and truly astounding powers of work displayed by the man. Only comparatively seldom do we hear of his being disinclined to labour or incapable of work, and almost always the reason is clear. Even were the advocates of intermittent insanity ready to allow the existence of lengthy lucid intervals still so extraordinary a power for work would prevent our agreeing with them any more than with Schön, Möbius, Hausrath and the older authors referred to above.

As to the question of the possibility of such a disability having been inherited either from his father or his mother—a matter into which modern psychiaters are always anxious to inquire: Here, again, we find nothing to support the theory of mental derangement. Hans Luther, his father, was a stern, rude man of violent temper, and his wife, Margaret, would also appear to have been a harsh woman, without any joy in life and displaying small traces of the more winning traits of affection. Neither of the pair did much to sweeten the lad’s hard boyhood and youth. This certainly explains to some extent the thread of depression and pessimism which runs side by side with the lively and more cheerful one in the monk and university professor. Of greater importance to the question in hand is the irritability and violence of temper which showed itself in his father. If the latter really committed manslaughter in a fit of anger, as seems probable, and as has also been admitted by Protestant scholars,[584] then the son’s irritability, and his startling tendency to break out into foaming rage against his opponents, may doubtless be traced back in part to the effects of heredity. In 1906 the fact came to light that another Hans Luther, besides Martin’s father, resided at Mansfeld, and the latter, according to the records of the law-courts, would appear to have borne a bad character and to have been frequently punished for brawling and for being too ready with his knife. If the latter, as the name would imply, was a relative of Martin’s we have here one more argument to prove that the family was exceptionally irritable.[585]

Luther’s nervous irritability ought, indeed, to be made more account of than it has hitherto been.

Addendum. Some Medical Opinions on Nervous Degeneration, and Abnormal Ideas.

What was said above about Luther’s “nervousness” (p. 105 ff) may here be supplemented by some quotations from August Cramer, the expert psychiater, now of Berlin. It is true that what we shall quote is not intended to refer to Luther, yet what he says may serve to explain certain of Luther’s symptoms, and, possibly, to show that some which were put down to mental derangement may have been due rather to a form of neurasthenia.[586]

“Even perfectly normal children are sometimes inclined in their growing period to display great variations of temper, and to be violent and changeable in their affections about the age of puberty. This, however, is far more noticeable in the case of people of a strongly developed nervous temperament. Groundless outbreaks of anger, marked pathological absence of mind and entire inability to concentrate their thoughts are often the result. Fits of oppression and anxiety are not unknown; headaches are fairly frequent and the patients seem at times not to be masters of themselves. They also tend to swing from an exaggerated idea of their own importance to a despondent lack of self-confidence. In their bents and friendships they are very fickle.” Hence we have here already in a very marked degree that instability which von Magnan has pointed out as characteristic of degenerates.

In later life, too, such highly strung temperaments are often, at least in the worse cases, predisposed to sudden changes of views, and to fly to extremes, their varying moods tend at times to become periodic, they are over-sensitive, are frequently unable to bear alcohol, their sexual inclinations are abnormal and they are often addicted from an early age to masturbation.… Thus the predominant characteristic of the degenerate is lack of constancy (p. 175).

Of “nervosity” where it is combined with fear the same author says: “The change of mood is often entirely without cause and is by no means of a regular type, though instances of a periodic character are occasionally to be met with.… We meet, for example, persons whom we cannot possibly describe as ill, who at times are exceptionally capable, lively and good-tempered, and yet at other times give the impression of being downhearted, self-centred and scarcely able to get through their daily tasks.”

“Apart from those who are habitually depressed, there are others who suffer from time to time, without any outward cause, from slight fits of depression, mostly accompanied by more or less severe fits of anxiety. Looking more carefully into these various types, we shall find that they belong almost exclusively to strongly marked nervous temperaments.… In bad cases the periodic changes of mood may become stronger and stronger, and lead eventually between the fortieth and sixtieth year to actual ‘folie circulaire.’ Anxiety is, of course, common to all nervous people, but in many cases it plays the prominent part.… Often the patients complain of all kinds of accompanying symptoms, not seldom of palpitations, weakness in the legs, headaches, attacks of dizziness, and, particularly, of the paralysing effects of their vague dreads. When this anxiety overtakes them they become unable to work as usual, and their spirit of enterprise is checked” (p. 207 ff.).

As to how far what Cramer says is applicable to Luther’s mental states may here be left open. The same holds good of what we shall quote below from C. Wernicke and H. Friedmann. What the former says of “autochthonous” ideas may conceivably be applicable to Luther’s conviction of the private revelations he had received and of which he speaks so strongly above (p. 142 ff.) as even to suggest actual auditory hallucination; that there was no real hallucination seems more likely for the reason that Luther elsewhere is disposed to regard the incidents as of an inward character and is not quite so wholly under their sway as would have been the case had they been strictly speaking hallucinatory.

As to “exalted ideas,” of which both speak, they put us in mind of some of Luther’s ideas concerning his own person, position, achievements and persecutions (cp. our summary in vol. iv., pp. 329-41).

It must, however, be noted that “exalted ideas” can be present in a mind otherwise perfectly sound, and that, consequently, even if Luther had such ideas it would not prove him to have been mentally deranged; the same holds good of “autochthonous” ideas, which, occurring singly, are no warrant of insanity.

Again, even should Luther’s idea of his revelations turn out to be originally “autochthonous,” yet the reception he accorded it, the interpretation he placed on it and the use he made of it seem, as we have already set forth, to have been both deliberate and responsible. This is confirmed by the circumstance that, in time, his keen sense of such impressions waned under the objections brought against them, and that his insistence on the “revelations” and his interpretation of them no longer found quite the same vigorous expression as before. Nevertheless, we repeat it once more: It is for experts to pass a definite judgment, but, in order to do so fairly, they must not submit to the microscope merely one class of Luther’s mental manifestations, but consider him as a whole, as monk no less than as Reformer, and examine his mentality on all its sides.

Writing of certain kinds of abnormal ideas, viz. those which he calls “autochthonous,” Carl Wernicke says:[587] “The patient becomes aware of ideas springing up in his mind that are alien to him and not his own, i.e. which have not arisen along the normal ideas and on the ordinary lines of association.” Speaking of those actually suffering from mental derangement, Wernicke again alludes to this class: “Objective observers, who are quite conscious of the alien character of the autochthonous ideas and attach no fundamental importance to them, are only to be found as the exception among those who are really mentally unsound. Almost always the ideas are conceived as ‘ready-made,’ as ‘forced upon the mind,’ as ‘inspired,’ or as ‘derived,’ but, from whom, depends entirely on the individuality of the patient and on the nature of the autochthonous idea (which is not uninfluenced by the former). Pious thoughts are inspired by God, evil thoughts by the devil; more enlightened people have recourse to material remedies and put their case in the hands of a doctor.”

Of the so-called “exalted ideas” Wernicke says: “These are sharply defined from autochthonous ideas by the fact that they are in no way regarded by the patient himself as alien intruders into his consciousness: on the contrary, he sees in them the stamp of his innermost self, and fancies that, in vindicating them, he is in reality asserting his own personality.”

“One has to determine in each individual case whether the idea is truly morbid and ‘exalted,’ or does not come within normal bounds.”[588] On the next page he declares: “That almost any incident may give rise to an ‘exalted idea,’ that the nature of the emotion may be of the most varied character, and that ideas exist, which, though in themselves normal, are nevertheless able so to determine the individual’s action as to impress on it a morbid stamp.”

H. Friedmann[589] says of the same class of ideas: “According to its origin the ‘exalted’ idea … may find a place in the mental process without any apparent cause. A strong emotion may, so to speak, fling itself on a single idea, and, without any actual derangement of the mind, allow it, and it alone, to assume a morbid supremacy.” A few pages further we read:[590] “Hence, as a matter of fact, in the case of the ‘exalted’ idea, we have not an isolated monomaniacal affection but a general disturbance of the emotions and judgment. The result, likewise, is not an idée fixe as in the case of mania, but merely a strong belief.”

CHAPTER XXXVII
LUTHER’S LATER EMBELLISHMENT OF HIS EARLY LIFE

In later life, looking back on his past, Luther was in the habit of depicting certain of its principal phases in a way which is at variance with the facts, and which even Protestants in recent times have characterised, as “a picture in which he becomes a myth unto himself.”[591]

It will be no matter for surprise to the dispassionate observer that the memory of the vows Luther had broken and the thought of his early days in the monastery—which presented so striking a contrast with his later life—were subject-matters of warped and distorted images. Particularly is this true of his monastic years which he insists on depicting as one long night of sadness and despair.

Not merely in the fictions in which he came to shroud the more fervent days of his life as a monk, but also in his explanations of the various stages of his apostasy, Luther affords us fresh data for the psychological study of his personality, and thus the present chapter may serve to supplement the previous one. Only after having studied the legend he wove around himself and compared it with the truth as otherwise known, will it be possible to arrive at a considered judgment concerning Luther’s mental states.

1. Luther’s later Picture of his Convent Life and Apostasy

What Luther says of his life as a monk is what will chiefly interest us, but, before proceeding to consider his words and the strange problems they present, we must first refer to the legendary traits comprised in his statements on the first period of his struggle; how false they are to the facts will be clearly perceived by whoever has read the detailed accounts already given.

The Legend about his First Public Appearance

“Not only have the dates been altered,” says Hausrath, of Luther’s later statements concerning his first public appearance, “but even the facts. No sooner does the elderly man begin to tell his tale than the past becomes as soft wax in his hands. The same words are placed on the lips, now of this, now of that, friend or foe. The opponents of his riper years are depicted as his persecutors even in his youth. Albert of Mayence had never acted otherwise towards him than as a liar and deceiver. Even previous to the Worms visit he had sought to annul his safe-conduct.… Of Tetzel he now asserts, that, unless Duke Frederick had pleaded for him to the Emperor Max, he would have been put in a sack and drowned in the Inn on account of his dissolute life.… The same holds good of the [equally untrue] statement that Tetzel had sold indulgences for sins yet to be committed.… It is also an exaggeration of his old age when Luther asserts that, in his youth, the Bible had been a closed book to all.… To the old Reformer almost everything in the monastery appears in the blackest of hues.”[592]

“The reason of my journey to Rome,” he declares, “was to make a confession from the days of my boyhood and to become pious.”[593] “But at Rome I came across the most unlearned of men.”[594]—God “led me, all unwittingly, into the game [his struggle].”[595] “I behaved with moderation, yet I brought the greatest ruin on them all.”[596] “I thought I was doing the Pope a service yet I was condemned.”[597]—“One, and that not the least of my joys and consolations, is, that I never put myself out of the Papacy. For I held fast to the Scarlet Woman and served the murderess in all things most humbly. But she would have none of me, banished me and drove me from her.”[598] “I only inveighed against abuses and against the godless collectors of alms and [indulgence] commissioners from whom even Canon Law itself protects the Pope. The Pope wanted to defend them contrary to his own laws; this annoyed me. Had he thrown them over I should in all likelihood have held my tongue, but the hour had rung for his downfall; hence there was nothing to be done for him, for when God intends to bring about a man’s fall He blinds and hardens him.”[599] “I was utterly dead to the world until God thought the time had come; then Junker Tetzel stung me with his indulgences, and Dr. Staupitz spurred me on against the Pope.”[600] “Silvester [Prierias] thereupon entered the lists and sought to overwhelm me with the thunders of the following syllogism: Whoever raises doubts against any word or deed of the Roman Church is a heretic; Martin Luther doubts, etc. With that the ball began.”[601]

Generally speaking, however, Luther prefers to trace the whole of his quarrel with the Church back to Tetzel and to his righteous censure of the abuse of indulgences. He seems to have completely forgotten the deep theological chasm that separated him from the Church even before his quarrel with Tetzel. His theological attitude at that time, the starting-point of his whole undertaking, has disappeared from his purview; he has forgotten his burning desire to win the day for his own doctrines against free-will, against the value of works, against justification as taught by Catholic tradition, and for his denial of God’s Will that all men should be saved. His early antagonism to the theological schools and to Canon Law as a whole has lapsed into oblivion.[602]

In the preface to the 1545 edition of his Latin works Luther asserts, as a fact, that he had been estranged from the Church only through the indulgence controversy.

He had, so we there read, taken his vocation as a monk quite in earnest; he “feared and dreaded the Day of Judgment and yet had longed with all his heart to be saved.… It was not my fault that I became involved in this warfare, as I call God Himself to witness.”

In order to make the “beginning of the business” plain to all he goes on to relate to the whole world, how, as a young Doctor in 1517, relying on the Pope’s approval, he had raised his voice in protest against the “shamelessness” of the indulgence-preachers; how, when his small outcry passed unheeded, he had published the indulgence-theses and, then, in the “Resolutions,” “for the Pope’s own sake,” had advocated works of neighbourly charity as preferable to indulgences. Here was the cause of all the world’s hostility! His teaching was alleged “to have disturbed the course of the heavenly spheres and to be setting the world in flames. I was delated to the Pope and then summoned to Rome; the whole might of Popery was up in arms against poor me.”

He records his trial at Augsburg, the intervention of Miltitz and the Leipzig Disputation, but records it in a way all his own. At that date he already knew almost the entire Bible by heart and “had already reached the beginning of the knowledge and faith of Christ, to wit, that we are saved and justified, not by works, but by faith in Christ, and that the Pope is not the head of the Church by right Divine; but I failed to see the inevitable consequence of all this, viz. that the Pope must needs be of the devil.” Like the “blameless monk” that he was, his only trouble in life was his keen anxiety as to whether God was gracious to him and whether he could “rest assured that he had conciliated Him by the satisfaction he had made.” The words of the Bible on the justice of God had angered him because he had erroneously taken this to mean His punitive justice instead of the justice whereby God makes us just. Then, when he was setting about his second Commentary on the Psalms (1518-19), amidst the greatest excitement of conscience (“furebam ita sæva et perturbata conscientia”) the light from above had dawned on him which brought him to a complete understanding of the Divine justice whereby we are justified. Paul’s words concerning the just man who lives by faith (Rom. i. 17) had then, and only then, become clear to him (through his discovery of the assurance of salvation).

After referring to the Diet of Worms he again reverts to his pet subject, viz. the indulgence-controversy: “The affair of the controversy regarding indulgences dragged on till 1520-21; then followed the question of the Sacrament and that of the Anabaptists.”

This is how Luther wrote—confusing the events and suppressing the principal point—when, towards the end of his life, he penned for posterity a record of what had occurred. Otto Scheel, in a compilation of the texts bearing on Luther’s development prior to 1519, rightly places this later account, together with the other statements made by him in old age, under the heading: “second and third rate authorities.”[603] What, however, are we to think when the considered narrative, written by a man of such eminence, of events in which he was the chief actor, has to be relegated to the category of second-rate and even third-rate authorities?[604]

To enumerate some other misrepresentations not connected with his monkish days: Luther assures us that sundry opponents of his “had blasphemed themselves to death”; men who had the most peaceful of deathbeds he alleges to have died tortured by remorse of conscience and railing at God. He boasts aloud that it was the Papists who made a “good theologian” of him, since, “at the devil’s instigation,” they had so battered, distressed and frightened him out of his wits, that he necessarily came to obtain a more profound knowledge.[605] Boldly and exultingly he points to the many “miracles” whereby the Evangel had been proved.[606] He says of the Diets, that the Papists always succeeded in wriggling out of a hole by dint of lies, so that they looked quite white and “without ever a stain.”[607] Of his own writings he says, that he “would gladly have seen all his books unwritten and consigned to the fire.”[608] This in 1533, and again in 1539.[609] Before this, however, he had declared he would not forswear any of his writings, “not for all the riches of the world,” and that, at least as a good work wrought by God, they must have some worth.[610]

In such wise does the picture he gives of his life vary according to his moods. He does not hesitate to sacrifice the sacred rights of truth when this seems to the advantage of his polemics (see above, vol. iv., p. 80 ff.), and, owing to the peculiar constitution of his mind, the fiction he so often repeats becomes eventually stamped as a reality to which he himself accords credence.

The Legend about his Years of Monkish Piety

We may now turn to Luther’s fictions regarding his monkish days, prefacing our remarks with the words of Luther’s Protestant biographer, Adolf Hausrath. “The picture of his youth is forced to tally more and more with the convictions of his older years. What he now looks upon as pernicious, he declares he had found in those days to be so by his own experience.… The oftener he holds up to his listening guests the warning picture of the monk sunk in the abyss of Popery, the more gloomy and starless does the night appear to him in which he once had lived.”[611]

That the use hitherto made of Luther’s statements concerning his convent life calls for correction has already been admitted by several Protestant students of reformation history. As early as 1874 Maurenbrecher protested strongly against the too great reliance placed on Luther’s own later statements, which, however, at that time, constituted almost the only authority for his early history. “How wrong it is to accept on faith and repeat anew Luther’s tradition is quite obvious. Whoever wishes to relate Luther’s early history must first of all be quite clear in his mind as to this characteristic of the material on which he has to work.… The history of Luther’s youth is still virgin soil awaiting the labours of the critic.”[612] The objections recently brought forward by Catholics have drawn from W. Friedensburg the admission that we have unreliable, and, “in part, misleading statements of Luther’s concerning himself.”[613] G. Kawerau also at least goes so far as to admit that the historian of Luther at the present day “is inevitably confronted by a number of new questions.”[614] The publication of Luther’s Commentary on Romans of 1515-16 finally proved how necessary it is to regard the theology of his early years as the chief authority for the history of his development. Hence, in the account of his youth given above in vol. i., we took this Commentary as our basis.

A preliminary sketch of the picture he handed down in his later sayings is given us by Luther himself in the following:

God had caused him to become a monk, he says, “not without good reasons, viz. that, taught by experience, he might be able to write against the Papacy,” after having himself most rigidly (“rigidissime”) abided by its rules.[615]—“This goes on until one grows quite weary”; “now my other preaching has come: ‘Christ says: Take this from me: You are not pious, I have done it all for you, your sins are forgiven you.’”[616] According to the “Popish teaching,” however, one cannot be sure “whether he is in a state of grace”; hence, when in the cloister, though I was such a “pious monk,” I always said sorrowfully to myself: “I know not whether God is well pleased or not. Thus I and all of us were swallowed up in unbelief.”[617]

Hence churches and convents are nothing but “dens of murderers” because they “pervert and destroy doctrine and prayer.” “Indeed no monk or priestling can do otherwise, as I know, and have myself experienced”; “I never knew in the least how I stood with God”; “I was never able to pray aright.”[618] This holiness-by-works of Popery, in which I was steeped, was nothing but “idolatry and godless worship.”[619]

“Learn,” he says, thus unwittingly laying bare the aim of his fiction, “learn from my example.” “The more I scourged myself, the more was I troubled by remorse of conscience.”[620] “We did not then know what original sin was; unbelief we did not regard as sin.”[621] Their “unbelief,” however, consisted in that we Papists fancied “that we had to add our own works” (to the merits of Christ).[622] “Hence, for all my fervour, I lost the twenty years I spent in the cloister.”[623] But I did not want to “stick fast and die in sin and in this false doctrine”;[624] for such a pupil of the law must in the end say to himself “that it is impossible for him to keep the Law”; indeed he cannot but come to say: “would there were no God.”[625]

Roughly, this is the tone of the testimony he gives of himself. It is not our intention here simply to spurn it, but to examine whether there is any call to accept it unconditionally—simply because it comes from Luther’s lips—and whether it comprises a certain quota of truth.[626]

First, it must be noted that he represents himself as a sort of fanatical martyr of penance. He assures us: Even the heroic works of mortification I undertook brought me no peace in Popery: “Ergo,” etc. He here opens an entirely new page in his past. He tells his friends, for instance: “I nearly killed myself by fasting, for often, for three days on end, I did not take a bite or a sip. I was in the most bitter earnest and, indeed, I crucified our Lord Christ in very truth; I was not one of those who merely looked on, but I actually lent a hand in dragging Him along and nailing Him. May God forgive me! … for this is true: The more pious the monk the worse rogue he is.”[627]

“I myself,” he says in his Commentary on Genesis, “was such an one [a pious monk]. I nearly brought about my death by fasting, abstinence and penance in work and clothing; my body became dreadfully emaciated and was quite worn out.”[628]

The menace of death is also alluded to in a sermon of 1537: “For more than twenty years I was a pious monk,” “I said Mass daily and so weakened my body by prayer and fasting that I could not have lived long had I continued in this way.”[629] Elsewhere he says that he had allowed himself only two more years of life, and that, not he alone, but all his brethren were ripe for death: “In Popery in times bygone we howled for everlasting life; for the sake of the kingdom of heaven we treated ourselves very harshly, nay, put our bodies to death, not indeed with sword or weapon, but, by fasting and maceration of the body we begged and besought day and night. I myself—had I not been set free by the consolation of Christ in the Evangel—could not have lived two years more, so greatly did I torment myself and flee God’s wrath. There was no lack of sighs, tears and lamentations, but it all availed us nothing.”[630]

“Why did I endure such hardships in the cloister? Why did I torment my body by fasting, vigils and cold? I strove to arrive at the certainty that thereby my sins were forgiven.”[631] The martyrdom he endured from the cold alone was agonising enough: “For twenty years I myself was a monk and tormented myself with praying, fasting, watching and shivering, the cold by itself making me heartily desirous of death.”[632]

Besides his penances another main feature of his later picture is his extraordinary, albeit misguided, piety and virtue.

It is not enough for Luther to say that he had been a pious monk, “an earnest monk,” who “would not have taken a farthing without the Prior’s permission,” and who “prayed diligently day and night”;[633] he will have, that “if ever a monk got to heaven by monkery then I should have got there; of this all my brother monks will bear me witness.”[634]

He had been more diligent in his monastic exercises of piety than any of the Papists who took the field against him.[635]

Nay, “he had been one of the very best.”[636] He “confessed daily” [Is this a reference to the Confession made in the Mass?] and “tried hard” to find peace, but did not succeed.[637] Daily, he tells us, he “said Mass and imposed on himself the severest hardships,” in order, “by his own works, to attain to righteousness.”[638] It was because the devil had remarked his righteousness, that he tempted him when engaged in prayer in his cell by appearing to him in the shape of Christ, as already narrated.[639] God, however, tried him by temptations just as He tries those of the elect through whom He intends to do great things for the salvation of mankind.[640] He, like the other cloistral Saints, had been so penetrated with his sanctity, that, after Mass, he “did not thank God for the Sacrament but rather God had to thank him.”[641] He fancied himself in “the angel-choirs,” but had all the while been “among the devils.”[642] Cloistral life was indeed “a latrine and the devil’s own sweet Empire.”[643]

Other characteristic lines of the picture are, first, the dreadful way in which his mind was torn by doubts concerning his own salvation, doubts arising simply from his works of piety, and, secondly, his speedy deliverance from such sufferings and attainment of peace and tranquillity as soon as he had discovered the Evangel of faith. He cannot find colours sombre enough in which to paint his former state of misery, which is also the inevitable experience of all pious Papists.

“In the convent I had no thought of goods, wealth or wife, but my soul shuddered and quaked at the thought of how to make God gracious to me, for I had fallen away from the faith and my one idea was that I had angered God and had to soothe Him once more by my good works.”[644] “As a young Master at Erfurt I always went about oppressed with sadness.”[645] But, after his discovery he had felt himself “born anew,” as though “through an open door he had passed into Paradise.” The words Justice of God suddenly became “very sweet” to him and the Bible doctrine in question a “very gate of heaven.” “Holy Scripture now appeared to me in quite a new light.”[646]

He had, indeed, studied the Bible diligently in his early monkish years, but he had, nevertheless, been greatly tempted and plagued by the “real difficulties”; his confessors had not understood him. “I said to myself: No one but you suffers from this temptation.” And he had become “like a corpse,” so that his comrades asked him why he was “so mournful and downhearted.”[647]

Particularly the doctrine of penance had, he says, so borne him down that “it was hardly possible for him, at the price of great toil and thanks to God’s grace, to come to that hearing that gives joy [Ps. 1. 10].” For “if you have to wait until you have the requisite contrition then you will never come to that hearing of joy, as, in the cloister, I often found to my cost; for I clung to this doctrine of contrition, but the more I strove after rue, the more I smarted and the more did the bite of conscience eat into me. The absolution and other consolations given me by my confessors I was unable to take because I thought: Who knows if such consolations are to be trusted.”[648] On one occasion, however, the master of novices strengthened and encouraged him amidst his tears by asking him: Have you forgotten that the Lord Himself commanded us to hope?[649]

Nevertheless, according to the strange description given by Luther in a sermon in 1531, his keen anxiety about his confessions lasted until after his ordination. “I, Martin Luther,” so he told the people, “when I went up to the altar after confession and contrition felt myself so weighed down by fear that I had to beckon to me another priest. After the Mass, again, I was no more reassured than before.” His trouble—which was possibly caused, or at any rate heightened, by the spirit of obstinacy and scepticism he describes—was, however (and it is on this that he lays stress), common to all Papists whose consciences could never be at rest. “They became its victims chiefly at the hour of death. How much did we dread the Last Judgment!… That was our reward for our works.”[650] The truth is, that, on his own showing, he scarcely knew what inward contrition was, and that he remained too much a stranger to the motive of holy fear.[651]

To the period subsequent to his ordination must be assigned assurances such as the following, the tone of which becomes more and more crude the older he grows. “From that time [of his first Mass] I said Mass with great horror, and thank God that He has delivered me from it.”[652] “When I looked on [a figure of] Christ I fancied I was looking at the devil. That is why we say: O, Mary, pray for us to thy beloved Son and appease His wrath.” If I follow the principles of the monks and Papists, then “I lose Christ my Healer and Consoler and make Him into the taskmaster and hangman of my poor soul.”[653]

“As long as I remained a Papist I should have blushed with shame to speak of Christ; Jesus is a womanish name; we preferred to speak of Aristotle or Bonaventure.”[654] He also says: “Often have I trembled at the name of Jesus; when I saw Him on the cross it was like a thunderbolt and when His Name was mentioned I would rather have heard the devil invoked, for I raved that I had to go on doing good works until I had thereby made Christ friendly and gracious to me.”[655]

They used to say: “Scourge yourself until you have yourself blotted out your sin. Such is the Pope’s doctrine and belief.”[656] Thus, in the monastery, I had “long since lost Christ and His baptism. I was of all men the most wretched, day and night there was nothing but howling and despair which no one was able to calm. Thus I was bathed and baptised in my monkery and went through the real sweating sickness. Praise be to God that I did not sweat myself to death.”[657]

Those Protestants who take Luther’s statements too readily, without probing them to the bottom and eliminating the rhetorical and fabulous element, are apt to urge that Luther’s descriptions of the monastic state show that nothing but mental derangement could result from such a life.

Dr. Kirchhoff, a medical man, basing his remarks on Luther’s accounts, is inclined to assume the existence of some severe temperamental malady. He even goes so far as to say that, at any rate, countless numbers of monks lost their reason. “In the course of time,” he adds, Luther “acquired a greater power of resisting the temptations, and, possibly, in his quieter after-life the physical causes may have diminished; it would appear that the accompanying conditions disquieted him greatly.”[658]

The fact is that Protestant authors as a rule fight shy of undertaking any criticism of Luther’s account of himself. They accord it far too ready credence and usually see in it a capital pretext for attacking the olden Church.

If Luther is to be taken literally and is right in his generalisations, then we should have to go even further than such writers and argue that, one and all, those who sought to be pious in the religious life were mad, or at least on the verge of insanity; the Church, by her doctrine of works, of satisfaction and of man’s co-operation with Grace, infects all who address themselves zealously to the performance of good works with the poison of a subtle insanity.

We need waste no further words here on the falsehood of Luther’s objections against the Catholic doctrine of works.[659]

We may pass over the countless clear and authentic proofs furnished by Luther’s elders and contemporaries, and even by Luther himself previous to his apostasy, which place the Catholic doctrine on works in a very different light. The Church, in point of fact, always refused to hear of works done solely by man’s strength being efficacious for salvation, and regarded only those works performed by the aid of God’s supernatural Grace as of any value—and that through the merits of Christ—whether for the purpose of preparing for justification or for winning an everlasting reward; she always recognised faith, hope and charity as conditions for forgiveness and justification, and as the threefold spring whereby good works are rendered fruitful.

There can be no question that Luther’s picture of his holiness-by-works in Popery is meant to include all his earnest brother monks and their mistaken way of life, and the doctrine and religious practices of Popery as such. The fiction serves a twofold purpose. On the one hand, as its author gives us to understand quite openly, it was his excuse for having shaken off the yoke of the religious life, on the other, it was to be used as a weapon against the olden doctrine of the importance of works for personal salvation. To be true to history, one must judge of his account of his Catholic life from these two standpoints. How extremely unreliable it is will then be more apparent. The following observations on the contrast his account presents with historical truth, particularly with the well-authenticated incidents of his development, and even with the elements of truth which he introduces into the legend, will place the grave shortcomings of the latter in an even clearer light.

Since Luther would have us believe that God caused him to become a monk, in order that, taught by his own experience, he might write against the Papacy,[660] no sooner does he begin to speak of himself than he includes in the same condemnation his brother monks and all those Christians who were zealous in the practice of works.

Under the Pope’s yoke he and all other Papists had been made to feel to their “great and heavy detriment” what it spelt when one tried to become pious by means of works. We grew more and more despondent concerning sin and death.… For the more they do the worse their state becomes.[661] “Thus I, and all those in the convent, were bondsmen and captives of Satan.”[662]—“We hoped to find salvation through our frock.”[663]—With us all it was “rank idolatry,” for I did not believe in Christ, etc.[664]—Because we endured so many “sufferings of heart and conscience and performed so many works,” no one must now come and seek to excuse Popery.[665]—“We fled from Christ as from the very devil, for we were taught that each one would be placed before the judgment seat of Christ with his works”[666]—a teaching which is, indeed, almost word for word that of St. Paul (2 Cor. v. 10).

Remembering the other utterances in which he makes all Papists share in his alleged experiences, for instance, in his “unbelief,” we soon perceive how unreliable are all such statements of his concerning the history of his personal development. The whole is seen to be primarily but a new form of controversy and self-vindication; only by dint of cautious criticism can we extract from it certain traits which possibly serve to illustrate the course of his mental growth in the monastery.

Again, several details of the picture—quite apart from the obvious effort to burden the olden Church with a monstrous system of holiness-by-works—warn us to be sceptical. First of all there is the customary rhetoric and playing to the gallery. The palpable exaggeration it contains, its references to the howling by day and by night, to the scourgings, to the tortures of hunger and cold, to the endless prayers and watchings, and to the ravings of the woebegone searchers after peace, do not prepossess us in favour of the truth of the account. Luther, in so much of what he says on the point, has shown us how little he is to be taken seriously, that one cannot but wonder how his statements, even when exaggerated to the verge of the ludicrous, can ever have been regarded in the light of real authorities.

He is not telling the truth when he assures us that, as Doctor of Divinity, he had never rightly understood the Ten Commandments, and that many other famous doctors had not known “whether there were nine, or ten, or eleven of them; much less did we know anything of the Gospel or of Christ.”[667] After outward works, indeed, we ran, but “what God has commanded, that we omitted … for the Papists trouble themselves about neither the Commandments nor the promises of God.”[668] In choir the community daily chanted Psalm li. (l.), in which joy in the Lord is extolled, but “there was not one who understood what joy to the pious is a firm trust in God’s Mercy.”[669]

We have, for instance, his remarkable saying, that he had looked upon it as a deadly sin for a monk ever to come out of his cell without his scapular, even though otherwise fully dressed. Yet no reasonable man acquainted with the religious life, however observant he might be, would have been capable of such fears. Luther declares that he had seen a sin in every infringement of the rule of his Order; yet the Rule was never intended to bind under pain of sin, as indeed was expressly stated. He asserts that he had believed, that, had he made but a slight mistake or omission in the Mass, he “would be lost”; yet no educated priest ever believed such a thing, or thought that small faults amounted to mortal sins.

As an instance of the Papal tyranny over consciences he was wont to tell in his old age how he had tortured himself on the Saturday by reciting the whole of the Breviary that he had omitted to say during the week owing to his other occupations. “This is how we poor folk were plagued by the Pope’s decretals; of this our young people know nothing.” His account[670] of these repetitions varies considerably in the telling. He expects us to believe he was not aware of the fact, familiar to every beginner in theology, that the recitation of the Hours and the Breviary is imposed as an obligation for the day, which expires as soon as the day is over, so that its omission cannot be afterwards made good by repetition. From his account it would on the contrary appear that the “Pope’s decrees” had imposed such subsequent making good. Even should he really, in his earlier days when he first began to neglect the Breviary, have occasionally repeated the task subsequently, yet it is too bad of him to make it part of the monkish legend and an instance of how “we poor fellows were tormented.”[671]

“It is an astonishing and dreadful thing,” he proceeds, “that men should have been so mad!” Those who live in the religious life and according to man-made ordinances “do not deserve to be called men nor even swine”;[672] a “hateful and accursed life” was it, with “all their filth!”[673]

The young monk too—could we trust Luther’s account—must have been seriously wanting in discretion where mortification was concerned, and a like indiscretion was evinced by all others who took the religious vocation in earnest. But the extravagant asceticism such as Luther would have us believe he practised, and the theological assumption underlying it, viz. that salvation depends on bodily mortification, are quite against the older teaching in vogue in his time. We may quote a few instances of the teaching to the contrary.

Thomas Aquinas declares: “Abstinence from food and drink in itself does not promote salvation,” according to Rom. xiv. 17, where we read: “The kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink.” He recognises only the medicinal value of fasting and abstinence, and points out that by such practices “concupiscence is kept in check”; hence he deduces the necessity of discretion (“ad modicum”) and warns people against the “vain glory” and other faults which may result from these practices. Not by such works, nor by any works whatsoever, is a man saved and justified, but “man’s salvation and justice,” so he teaches, “consist mainly in inward acts of faith, of hope and of charity, and not in outward ones.… Man may scorn all measure where faith, hope and charity are concerned, but, in outward acts, he must make use of the measure of discretion.”[674]

But perhaps the best ascetical writer to refer to in this connection is John Gerson of Paris, who was so much read in the monasteries and with whom Luther was well acquainted. He assigns to outward works, particularly to severe acts of penance, the place they had, even from the earliest times, held in the Church. He bids Religious care above all for inward virtue, which they are to regard as the main thing, for self-denial and for obedience out of love of God. He appeals to the Fathers and warns his readers that “indiscreet abstinence may more easily lead to a bad end than even over-feeding.” Discretion could not be better practised than in humility and obedience, by forsaking one’s own notions and submitting to the advice of the expert; such obedience was never more in place than in a Religious.[675]

These are but two notable witnesses taken from the endless tale of those whose testimony is at variance with the charges implied in Luther’s legend, that the monks were regardless of discretion where penance was concerned.

That Luther is guilty of self-contradiction in attributing to the Catholic teachers and monks of his day such mistaken views and practices and the doctrine of holiness-by-works generally is fairly obvious.

If the young monk really “kept the Rule,” then his extravagant penances for the purpose of gaining a gracious God can have had no existence outside his brain; the Rule prohibited all exaggeration in fasting and maceration, wilful loss of sleep and senseless exposure to cold. The Augustinian Rule, devised expressly as it was, to be not too severe in view of the exacting labours involved by preaching and the care of souls, had been further mitigated on the side of its penitential exercises by Staupitz’s new constitutions in 1504.[676] It was true the prior might sanction something beyond what the Rule enjoined, but it is scarcely credible that a beginner like Luther should have been allowed to exceed to such an extent the limit of what was adapted to all. His bodily powers were already sufficiently taxed by his studies, the more so since he threw himself into them with such impetuous ardour. It is all the less likely that any such special permission was given him, seeing that, as we know, Staupitz had, in consideration of his studies, dispensed the young monk from the performance of the humbler duties of the monastery.

If what has been said holds good of the years spent at Erfurt, much less can there be any question of his having indulged in excessive rigour during his Wittenberg period. Here Luther began at an early date to inveigh against what he thought was excessive strictness on the part of his brother monks, against their observance and against all so-called holiness-by-works. In his sermons and writings of that time we have an echo of his vexation at the too great stress laid on works;[677] but such a frame of mind, which was by no means of entirely new growth, surely betrays laxity rather than over-great zeal. The doctrine of the all-sufficiency of faith alone and of Christ’s Grace was already coming to the front.

Yet he continued—even after he had set up his new doctrine and completely broken with the Church—to recommend works of penance and mortification, declaring that they were necessary to withstand sinful concupiscence; nor does he even forget, agreeably with the Catholic view, to insist on the need of “discretion.” He also knows quite well what is the true purpose of works of penance in spite of all he was to say later in his subsequent caricature of the Catholic doctrine and practice. We hear him, for instance, saying in a sermon of 1519, when speaking of the fight to be waged against concupiscence: “For this purpose are watching, fasting, maceration of the body and similar works; everything is directed towards this end, nay, the whole of Scripture but teaches us how this grievous malady may be alleviated and healed.”[678] And, in his Sermon on Good Works (1520), he says: Works of penance “were instituted to damp and deaden our fleshly lusts and wantonness”; yet it is not lawful for one to “be one’s own murderer.”[679] All this militates against his own tale, that, in the convent, discretion had never been preached, and that, thanks to the trashy holiness-by-works, he had been on the highroad to self-destruction. The Sermon in question was preached some five years before the end of those “twenty years” during which, to use his later words, he had been his own “murderer” through his excessive and misguided penances.

It may, however, be, that, for a short while, e.g. in the time of his first fervour as a novice, he may have failed now and then by excess of zeal in being moderate in his exercise of penance. This would also have been the time, when, tormented by scruples, he was ever in need of a confessor. To a man in such a state of unrest, penance, however, even when practised with discretion, may easily become a source of fresh confusion and error, and, when undertaken on blind impulse and used to excess, such a one tends to find excuses for himself for disregarding the prohibition both of the Rule and of his spiritual director.

It is interesting to note the varying period during which Luther, according to his later sayings, was addicted to these excessive penances and to holiness-by-works. We already know that it was only gradually that he broke away from his calling, and that he had in reality long been estranged from it when he laid aside the Augustinian habit.

According to one dictum of his, he had been a strict and right pious monk for fifteen years, i.e. from 1505-20, during which time he had never been able “to do enough” to make God gracious to him.[680] Again, elsewhere, he assures us that the period of misery during which he sought justification through his works had lasted “almost fifteen years.”[681] On another occasion, however, he makes it twenty years (i.e. up to 1525): “The twenty years I spent in the convent are lost and gone; I entered the cloister for the good and salvation of my soul and for the health of my body, and I fondly believed … that it was God’s Will that I should abide by the Rule.”[682] What a contrast this alleged lengthy period of fifteen or even twenty years during which he kept the Rule presents to the reality must be sufficiently clear to anyone who remembers the dates of the events in his early history. To make matters worse, in one passage[683] he actually goes so far as apparently to make the period even longer during which he had “been a pious monk,” and had almost brought about his death by fasting, thus bringing us down to 1526 or 1527 if the reading in the text be correct. It certainly makes a very curious impression on one who bears in mind the dates to see Luther, the excommunicate, after his furious attack on religious vows and the laws of the Church, and after his marriage, still depicted as an over-zealous and pious monk, whose fasting is even bringing his life into jeopardy. But if Luther was so careless about his dates does not this carelessness lead one to wonder whether the rest of the statements he makes in conjunction with them are one whit more trustworthy?

“For over thirty years,” he says in a sermon of 1537, “I knew nothing but this confusion [between Law and Gospel] and was unable to believe that Christ was gracious to me, but rather sought to attain to justification before God by means of the merits of the Saints.”[684] This statement is again as strange as his previous ones, always assuming that the account of the sermon in question, which Aurifaber bases on three separate reports, is reliable. In this passage he is speaking not of the years he spent in the convent but of the whole time during which he was a member of the Popish Church. If this be calculated from his birth it brings us down to about 1515, i.e. to about the date of his Commentary on Romans where the new doctrine of how to find a Gracious God is first mooted. But what then of the other account he gives of himself, according to which, for more than ten years subsequent to 1515, his soul remained immersed in the bitter struggle after holiness-by-works? If, on the other hand, we reckon the thirty years from the first awakening of the religious instinct in his boyhood and youth, i.e. from about 1490 or 1495, we should come down to 1520 or 1525 and find ourselves face to face with the still more perplexing question as to how the darkness concerning the Law could have subsisted together with the light of his new discovery.

Luther’s versatile pen is fond of depicting the quiet, retiring monk of those days. As early as 1519 he wrote to Erasmus that it had always been his ardent wish “to live hidden away in some corner, ignored alike by the heavens and the sun, so conscious was he of his ignorance and inability to converse with learned men.”[685] These words in their stricter sense cannot, however, be taken as applicable to the period when they were written but rather to the first years of his life as a monk.

The historical features of his earlier life in the monastery deserve, however, to be examined more carefully in order better to understand the legend.

2. The Reality. Luther’s Falsification of History

The legend of Luther’s abiding misery during his life as a monk previous to his change of belief contradicts the monk’s own utterances during that period.

Monastic Days of Peace and Happiness. The Vows and their Breach

The fact is, that, for all his sufferings and frequent temptations, Luther for a long while felt himself perfectly at ease in monasticism. In the fulness of his Catholic convictions he extolled the goodness of God, who, in His loving-kindness, had bestowed such spiritual blessings on him. In 1507 he wrote that he could never be thankful enough “for the goodness of God towards him, Who of His boundless mercy had raised him, an unworthy sinner, to the dignity of the priesthood.”[686] The elderly friend to whom he thus opened his heart was the same Johannes Braun, Vicar of the Marienstift at Eisenach, to whom he again gave an account of his welfare in 1509. To him he then wrote: “God is God; man is often, in fact nearly always, wrong in his judgments. God is our God, and will guide us sweetly through everlasting ages.”[687]—The inward joy which he found in the monastery gave him strength to bear his father’s displeasure. He not only pointed out to him that it was “a peaceful and heavenly life,”[688] but he even tried so to paint the happy life he led in his cell as to induce his friend and teacher Usingen to become an Augustinian too.[689] We may also recall his praise of his “preceptor” (i.e. novice master), whom he speaks of as a “dear old man” and “a true Christian under the damned frock.” He repeats some of his beautiful, witty sayings and was always grateful to him for his having lent him a copy, made by his own hand, of a work by St. Athanasius.[690] The exhortations addressed to him by Staupitz when he was worried by doubts and fears, for instance his excellent allusion to the wounds of Christ,[691] found an echo in Luther’s soul, and, in spite of his trouble of mind, brought him back to the true ideal of asceticism. We also know how he praised Usingen, his friend at Erfurt, as the “best paraclete and comforter,” and wrote to a despondent monk, that his words were helpful to troubled souls, provided always that they laid aside all self-will.[692]

Hence, for a considerable part of his life in the monastery, Luther was not entirely deprived of consolations; apart from the darker side of his life, on which his legend dwells too exclusively, there was also a brighter side, and this is true particularly of his earlier years.

The effort to attain to perfection by the observance of poverty, chastity and obedience was at first so attractive to Luther, that, for a while, as we have already pointed out, he really allowed it to cost him something. Some years later, when he had already begun to paint in stronger hues his virtues as a monk, he said, perhaps not exaggerating: “It was no joke or child’s play with me in Popery.” His zealous observance was, however, confined to his first stay at Erfurt. A brother monk of his whom Flacius Illyricus chanced to meet in that town in 1543 also bore witness to Luther’s piety there as a monk. The “old Papist,” then still a faithful Augustinian, had told him, writes Flacius, how he had spent forty years in the Erfurt monastery where Luther had lived eight years, and that he could not but confess that Luther had led a holy life, had been most punctilious about the Rule and had studied diligently. To Flacius this was a new proof of the “mark of holiness” in the new Church.[693]

Nor are statements on the part of the young monk wanting which prove, in contradiction with the legend he invented later, that his theoretical grasp of the religious life was still correct even at a time when he had already ceased to pay any great attention to the Rule.[694]

Even as late as 1519, i.e. but two years before he wrote his book against monastic vows, he still saw in these vows a salutary institution. In a sermon he advised whoever desired “by much practice” to keep the grace of baptism and make ready for a happy death “to bind himself to chastity or join some religious Order,”[695] the Evangelical Counsels still appeared to him, according to statements he made in that same year, “a means for the easier keeping of the commandments.”[696]

It was only after this that he began to think of tampering with the celibacy of the priesthood, and that only in the hope of winning many helpers in his work of apostasy. A little later he attacked with equal success the sacred obligations freely assumed by the monks. Yet we find nothing about the legend in his writings and letters of this time, though it would have been of great service to him. Everything, in fact, followed a much simpler and more normal course than the legend would have us imagine: The spirit of the world and inordinate self-love, no less than his newly unearthed doctrine, were what led to the breaking of his vows.

Many of his brother monks had already begun to give an example of marrying when, in the Wartburg (in Sep., 1521), while busy on his work against monastic vows he put to Melanchthon this curious question: “How is it with me? Am I already free and no more a monk? Do you imagine that you can foist a wife on me as I did on you? Is this to be your revenge on me? Do you want to play the Demea [the allusion is to Terence] and give me, Mitio, Sostrata to wife? I shall, however, keep my eyes open and you will not succeed.”[697] Melanchthon was, of course, neither a priest nor a monk. Luther, who was both, was even then undoubtedly breaking away at heart from his vows. This he did on the pretext—untenable though it must have appeared even to him—that his profession had been vitiated by being contrary to the Gospel, because his intention had been to “save his soul and find justification through his vows instead of through faith.” “Such a vow,” he says, “could not possibly be taken in the spirit of the Gospel, or, if it was, it was sheer delusion.” Still, for the time being, he only sanctioned the marriage of other monks who were to be his future helpers; as for himself he was loath to give the Papists “who were jawing” him the pleasure of his marriage. He also denied in a public sermon that it was his intention to marry, though he felt how hard it was not to “end in the flesh.” All these are well-known statements into which we have already gone in detail, which militate against Luther’s later legend of the holy monk, who tormented himself so grievously solely for the highest aims.

When, nevertheless, yielding to the force of circumstances, he took as his wife a nun who had herself been eighteen years in the convent, his action and the double sacrilege it involved plunged him into new inward commotion. His statements at that time throw a strange light on the step he had taken. By dint of every effort he seeks to justify the humiliating step both to himself and to others.

In his excitement he depicts himself as in the very jaws of death and Satan. Fear of the rebellious peasants now so wroth with him, and self-reproach on account of the marriage blamed by so many even among his friends, inflamed his mind to such a degree that his statements, now pessimistic, now defiant, now humorous, now reeking with pseudo-mysticism, furnish a picture of chaos. The six grounds he alleges for his marriage only prove that none of them was really esteemed by him sufficient; for, that it was necessary for him to take pity on the forsaken nun, that the Will of God and of his own father was so plain, and that he was obliged to launch defiance at the devils, the priestlings and the peasants by his marriage, all this had in reality as little weight with him as his other pleas, such as, that the Catholics looked on married life as unevangelical, and that it was his duty to confirm the Evangel by his marriage even in the eyes of his Evangelical critics.[698] To many of his friends his marriage seemed at least to have the advantage of shutting the mouths of those who calumniated him. He himself, however, preferred to say, that he had had recourse to matrimony “to honour God and shame the devil.”[699]

When once Luther had entered upon his new state of life all remaining scruples regarding his vows had necessarily to be driven away.

As was his wont he tried to reassure himself by going to extremes. “The most successful combats with the devil,” so he tells us, are waged “at night at Katey’s side”; her “embraces” help him to quell the foe within.[700] He declares even more strongly than before, that marriage is in fact a matter of downright necessity for man; he fails to think of the thousands who cannot marry but whose honour is nevertheless untarnished; he asserts that “whoever will not marry must needs be a fornicator or adulterer,” and that only by a “great miracle of God” is it possible for a man here and there to remain chaste outside the wedded state; more and more he insists, as he had already done even before, that “nothing rings more hatefully in his ear than the words monk and nun.”[701] He seizes greedily on every tale that redounds to the discredit of the monasteries, even on the silly story of the devils dressed as spectral monks who had crossed the Rhine at Spires in order to thwart him at the Diet.

In all this we can but discern a morbid reaction against the disquieting memory of his former state of life, not, as the legend asserts, peace of mind and assurance of having won a “Gracious God,” thanks to his change of religion. The reaction was throughout attended by remorse of conscience.

These struggles of soul in order to find a Gracious God, which lasted, as he himself says (above, vol. v., pp. 334 f.; 350 f.), even down to his later years, constitute a striking refutation from his own lips, of the legend of the wonderful change which came over him in the monastery.

On the other hand, the story of his long-drawn devotion to the monastic practice of good works is no less at variance with the facts. On the contrary, no sooner did Luther begin his official career as a monk at Wittenberg, than he showed signs of his aversion to works; the trend of his teaching was never in favour of strictness and penance, which, as he declared, could only fill the heart with pride. (Above, vol. i., pp. 67 ff., 117 ff.) At a later date, however, he sought to base this teaching on his own “inner experiences” and with these the legend supplied him (above, vol. iv., p. 404, n. 2).

Some Doubtful Virtues

It is worth while to examine here rather more narrowly than was possible when giving the history of his youth, the zeal for virtue and the self-sacrificing industry for which, according to the legend, the youthful monk was so conspicuous. What in our first volume was omitted for the sake of brevity may here find a place in order to throw a clearer light on his development. Two traits are of especial importance: first humility as the crown of all virtue, on account of the piety Luther ascribes to himself, and, secondly, the exact character of his restless, feverish industry.

Luther’s humility presents some rather remarkable features. In the documents we still possess of his we indeed find terms of self-depreciation of the most extravagant kind. But his humility and forced self-annihilation contrast strangely with his intense belief in his own spiritual powers and the way in which he exalts himself above all authorities, even the highest.

This comes out most strongly at the time when, as a young professor at Wittenberg, Luther first dipped into the writings of the mystics. The latter, so one would have thought, ought rather to have led him to a deeper appreciation and realisation of the life of perfection and humility.

He extols the books of certain mystics as a remedy for all the maladies of the soul and as the well-spring of all knowledge. To the Provost of Leitzkau, who had asked for his prayers, he expressed his humility in the language of the mystics: “I confess to you that daily my life draws nigh to hell (Ps. lxxxvii. 4) because daily I become more wicked and wretched.”[702] At the same time he exhorts another friend in words already quoted, taken from the obscure and suspicious “Theologia Deutsch,” “to taste and see how bitter is everything that is ourselves” in comparison with the possession of Christ.[703] “I am not worthy that anyone should remember me,” so he writes to the same, “and I am most thankful to those who think worst of me.”[704]

Yet mystical effusions are intermingled with charges against the opponents of his new philosophy and theology which are by no means remarkable for humility. “For nothing do my fingers itch so much,” he wrote about this time,[705] “as to tear off the mask from that clown Aristotle.” The words here uttered by the monk, as yet scarcely more than a pupil himself, refer to a scholar to whom even the greatest have ever looked up, and, who, up till then, had worthily represented at the Universities the wisdom of the ancients. The young man declares, that “he would willingly call him a devil, did he not know that he had had a body.” Luther also has a low opinion of all the Universities of his day: “They condemn and burn the good books,” he exclaims, “while fabricating and framing bad ones.”[706]

Self-confidence had been kindled in the monk’s breast by a conviction of future greatness. He speaks several times of this inkling he had whilst yet a secular student at the Erfurt University; when ailing from some illness of which we have no detailed account, the father of one of his friends cheered him with certain words which sank deeply into his memory: “My dear Bachelor, don’t lose heart, you will live to be a great man yet.” In 1532 Luther related to his pupil Veit Dietrich this utterance which he still treasured in his memory.[707] How strong an impression such lightly spoken words could make on his too susceptible mind is evident from a letter of 1530 where he speaks of his vivid recollection of another man, who, when Luther was consoling him on the death of his son, had said to him: “Martin, you may be sure that some day you will be a great man.” Since, on the same occasion, he goes on to refer to the remark made by Staupitz, viz. that he was called to do great things, and declares that this prediction had been verified, it becomes even clearer that this idea had taken root and thriven in his mind even from early years.[708] But how does all this harmonise with the humility of the true religious, and with the pious self-forgetfulness of the mystic? There can be no doubt that it is more in accordance with the quarrelsomeness and exclusiveness, the hot temper and lack of consideration for others to which the testimonies already recorded have repeatedly borne witness. (Above, vol. i., passim.)

There is a document in existence, on which so far but little attention has been bestowed, which is characteristic of his language at one time. Its tone of exaggeration makes it worthy to rank side by side with the mystical passage quoted above, in which Luther professes to have himself experienced the pangs of hell which were the earthly lot of chosen souls.[709] Owing to its psychological value this witness to his humility must not be passed over.

Luther had received from Christopher Scheurl of Nuremberg, a learned lawyer and humanist, a letter dated Jan. 2, 1517, in which this warm partisan and admirer of the Augustinians, who was also a personal friend of Staupitz after a few words in praise of his virtue and learning, of which Staupitz had told him, expressed the wish to enter into friendly correspondence with him.[710] The greater part of Scheurl’s letter is devoted to praising Staupitz, rather than Luther. Yet the young man was utterly dumbfounded even by the meagre praise the letter contained. His answer to it was in an extravagant vein, the writer seemingly striving to express his overwhelming sense of humility in the face of such all-too-great praise.[711]

The letter of one so learned and yet so condescending, so Luther begins, while greatly rejoicing him had distressed him not a little. He rejoiced at his eulogies of Staupitz, in whom he simply extolled Christ. “But how could you sadden me more than by seeking my friendship and decking me out in such empty titles of honour? I cannot allow you to become my friend, for my friendship would bring you, not honour but rather harm, if so be that the proverb is true: ‘Friends hold all in common.’ If what is mine becomes yours then you will receive only sin, unwisdom and shame, for these alone can I call mine; but such things surely do not merit the titles you give them.” Scheurl, indeed, would say, so he goes on in the same pathetic style, that it was only Christ he admired in him; but Christ cannot dwell together with sin and folly; hence he must be mindful of his own honour and not fall so low (‘degeneres’) as to become the friend of Luther. Even the Father-Vicar Staupitz praises him (Luther) too much. He made him afraid and put him in peril by persisting in saying: “I bless Christ in you and cannot but believe Him present with you now.” Such a belief was, however, hard, and the more eulogies and friends, the greater the danger in which the soul stood (then follow three superfluous quotations from Scripture). The greater the favour bestowed by men the less does God bestow His. “For God wills to be either the only friend or else no friend at all. To make matters worse, if a man humbles himself and seeks to fly praise and favour, then praise and favour always come, to our peril and confusion. Oh, far more wholesome,” he cries, “are hatred and disgrace than all praise and love.” The danger of praise he elucidates by a comparison with the cunning of the harlot mentioned in Proverbs vii. He is writing all this to Scheurl, not by any means to express contempt for his good-will but out of real anxiety for his own soul. Scheurl was only doing what every pious Christian must do who does not despise others but only himself; and this, too, he himself would also do.

And, as though he had not yet said enough of his love of humility, the writer makes a fresh start in order to explain and prove what he has said. Not on account of learning, ability and piety does a true Christian honour his fellow-men; such a thing had better be left to the heathen and to the poets of to-day; the true Christian loved the helpless, the poor, the foolish, the sinful and the wretched. This he proves first from Ps. xli., then from the teaching of Christ and from His words: “For that which is high to men is an abomination before God” (Luke xvi. 15). “Do not make of me such an abomination,” so he goes on, “do not plunge me into such misery if you would be my friend. But, from so doing you will be furthest if you forbear from praising me either before me or before others. If, however, you are of opinion that Christ is to be extolled in me, then use His Name and not mine. Why should the cause of Christ be besmirched by my name and robbed of its own name? To everything should be given its right name; are we then to praise what is Christ’s without using His Name? Behold,” so he breaks off at last very aptly, “here you have your ‘friend’ and his flood of words; have patience friendly reader”—words which may apply to the modern reader of this effusion no less than to its first addressee. It cannot well be gainsaid that something strange lay in this kind of humility. It would be difficult to find an exact parallel to such language in the epistles of the humanists of that day, and still less in the correspondence of truly pious souls. What may, however, help us to form our opinion is the fact that, in the letters written immediately after the above, we again find the young professor condemning wholesale everything that did not quite agree with his own way of thinking.

The passion, precipitancy and exaggeration which inspired him during his monkish days is the other characteristic which here calls for consideration. His fiery and unbridled zeal was of such a character as to constitute a very questionable virtue in a monk.

We may recall what has already been said of the youthful Luther’s passionate and unmeasured abuse, even in public, of the “Little Saints” and “detractors” in his Order, for instance at the Chapter of the Order held at Gotha in 1515. Bitter exaggerations are met with even in his first lectures. In the controversy with the Observantines he goes so far as to make the bold assertion, that it was just the good works of his zealous brother monks that were sinful, though they in their blindness refused to believe it.[712] In his Commentary on the Psalms in 1513-15 he even goes so far as to denounce as “rebellion and disobedience” their vindication of strict observance in the Order.[713] His imagination makes him fancy that they are guided by a light kindled specially for them by “the devil.”[714] Such is his ardour when thundering against the abuses in the Order that he forgets to make the needful distinctions, and actually, in the presence of the young Augustinians who were his pupils, attacks the very foundations of their Mendicant Order. Yet elsewhere, in the narrowest spirit of party prejudice, he inveighs against worthy scholars who happened to belong to other Orders, for instance, against Wimpfeling, on whom he heaps angry invective.[715] The slightest provocation was enough to rouse his ire.

Soon his passion began to vent itself on the Church outside. In his lectures on the Psalms he laments that Christianity was hardly to be found anywhere, such were the abuses; he can but weep over the evil; all pious men were, according to him, full of sorrow that the Incarnation and Passion of Christ had come to be so completely forgotten. We know how the young religious, from the abyss of his inexperience, declared in the most general terms, as though he had been familiar with all classes and all lands, that the desecration of what was most sacred in the Church had gone so far that they had sunk below even the Turk; “owing to the unchastity, pomp and pride of her priests, the Church was suffering in her property, in the administration of her sacraments and of the Word of God, in her judicial authority and finally in her government,” etc., “the Sanctuary was, so to speak, being hewn down with axes,” churchmen doing spiritually what the Turk was doing both spiritually and materially; in vain was the Word of God preached “seeing that every entrance was closed to it.”

Holy men, of real zeal, had always been able to discern the good side by side with the bad. But the youthful Luther sees on every side, and everywhere nothing but false teaching (“scatet totus orbis,” etc.), nay, a very “deluge of filthy doctrines.”[716] To be made a bishop is to him tantamount to branding oneself a “Sodomite”; so full of vice is the episcopate that those wearers of the mitre were the best who had no sin on their conscience beyond avarice.[717] As for the men of learning, they rank far below Tauler, and, thanks to their narrowness, had made the age “one of iron, nay, of clay.”[718] When setting faith and grace against the alleged heathenism of the scholars he goes so far as to say, that his man is he “who outside of grace knows nothing.”[719] As early as 1515 he thinks himself qualified to attack the authorities and the highest circles because “his teaching-office lent him apostolic power to say and to reveal what was being done amiss.”[720]

Why, we may, however, ask, did not the reformer of the Church begin with himself, seeing that, in the lectures on the Psalms just mentioned, he already laments the coldness of his own religious life?[721] Even then he felt temptations pressing upon him; already in consequence of his manifold and distracting labours he had lapsed into a state in which prayer became distasteful to him, and of which he writes to an intimate friend in 1523: “In body I am fairly well but I am so much taken up with outward business that the spirit is almost extinguished and rarely takes thought for itself.”[722] These words and other earlier admissions (above, vol. i., p. 275 ff.) throw a strange light on the legend according to which he had wrestled in prayer by day and by night.

Even in his devotion to his studies and in his manner of writing on learned subjects his natural extravagance stands revealed. His love for study was all passion; his mode of thought and expression was simply grotesque. It was the young monk’s passion for learning which led him on the occasion of his visit to Rome to petition the Pope to be allowed for a term of several years to absent himself from home and devote himself in the garb of a secular priest to his studies at the Universities. At Wittenberg we find him in the refectory pen in hand in the silent watches of the night when all the other monks had gone to rest, and, in his excited state, he fancies he hears the devil making an uproar. Though, according to his admission of Oct. 26, 1516, he was so busy and overwhelmed with literary work, as “rarely to have time to recite the Hours or to say Mass,”[723] yet he still had time enough to inveigh against the “sophists of all the Universities” as he had, even then, begun to term the professors of his day. He professed his readiness, were it necessary, to find time to go to Erfurt in order to defend in a public disputation there the Theses set up at Wittenberg in his name by his pupil Franz Günther; the Erfurt Augustinians were not to denounce these propositions as “paradoxical, or actually cacodoxical,” “for they are merely orthodox.” “I wait with eagerness and interest to see what they will put forward against these our paradoxes.”[724] In April, 1517, when Carlstadt caused some commotion by publishing his erroneous views on nature and grace in 152 theses, Luther called them in one of his letters the paradoxes of an Augustine, excelling the doctrine in vogue as much as Christ excels Cicero; there were some who declared these propositions to be paradoxical rather than orthodox, but this was “shameless insolence” on the part of men who had studied and understood neither Augustine nor Paul; “to those who understand, however, the theses ring both pleasantly and beautifully, indeed to me they seem to have an excellent sound.”[725]

His restless style and love of emphasis is characteristic of his own inner restlessness and excitement. He himself was quite aware of the source of this disquiet, at least so far as it was the result of a moral failing. In 1516 he lays his finger deliberately on his besetting fault when he admits to a friend, that the “root of all our unrest is nowhere else to be found than in our belief in our own wisdom”; “I have been taught by my own experience! Oh, with how much misery has this evil eye [belief in my own wisdom] plagued me even to this very day!”[726]

And yet he takes for one of his guiding principles the curious idea that the opposition of so many confirmed the truth of what he said. His work on the Penitential Psalms, so he wrote to his friend Lang on March 1, 1517, would “then please him best if it displeased all.”[727] And, two years later, he said to Erasmus, when speaking of the system he followed in this respect: “I am wont to see in what is displeasing to many, the gifts of a Gracious God as against those of an Angry God”; hence, so he assures him, the hostility under which Erasmus himself was suffering, was, for him, a proof of his real excellence.[728]

His burning enthusiasm at the time when he thought he had discovered the sense of the passage: “The just man lives by faith,” has already been described elsewhere.[729] This and other incidents just touched upon recall those morbid sides of his character referred to in the previous chapter.

As we might expect, during the first years of his great public struggle his restlessness was even more noticeable than before. The predominance of the imagination has hardly ever been so fatally displayed by any other man, though, of course, it is not every man whose life is thrown amid times so stirring. “Because,” so he wrote in 1541, recalling his audacity in publishing the Indulgence-Theses and the fame it brought him, “all the Bishops and Doctors kept silence [concerning the abuse of indulgences] and no one was willing to bell the cat.… Luther was vaunted as a doctor, and as the only man who was ready to interfere. Which fame was not at all to my taste.”[730] This latter assertion he is fond of making to others, but his letters of that time show how greatly the charm of notoriety contributed to unbridle his stormy energy. It was his opponents’ defiance which first opened the flood-gates of his passionate eloquence. At the very outset he warns people that contradiction will only make his spirit more furious and lead him to have recourse to even stronger measures; elsewhere he has it: “The more they rage, the further I shall go!”[731]

We may recall his reference to the “gorgeous uproar,” and the passages where he assures his friends: “I am carried away and know not by what spirit,”[732] and “God carries me away, I am not master of myself.”[733]

In the light of his pathological fervour the contradictions in which he involves himself become more intelligible, for instance, what he wrote to Pope Leo X in his letter of May, 1518,[734] which so glaringly contrasted with his other words and deeds. His unrest and love of exaggeration caused him to overlook this and the many other contradictions both with himself and with what he had previously written.

The picture of the monk which we have been compelled to draw differs widely from the legendary one of the pious young man shut up in the cloister, who, according to Luther’s account at a later date, led a fanatical life of penance and, because he saw Popish piety to be all too inadequate, “sought to find a Gracious God.”

Luther’s Alterations of the Facts

It was not altogether arbitrarily that Luther painted the picture of the monk forced by his trouble of mind to forsake Popery. Rather he followed, possibly to some extent unconsciously, the lines of actual history, though altering them to suit his purpose.

He retained intact not a few memories of his youth, which, under the stress of his bitterness and violence, and with the help of a lively imagination unfettered by any regard for the laws of truth, it was no difficult task to transform. Among these memories belong those of his time of fervour during his Noviciate and early days as a priest. They it was which evidently formed the groundwork of his later statements that he had been throughout an eminently pious monk. Then again, among the remarkable traits which made their appearance somewhat later, the two elements just described have a place in his legend, viz. his extravagant self-conscious humility and his fiery zeal. In his later controversies he is disposed to represent this strange sort of humility as real humility and as a sign of genuine piety. The pious, humble monk hidden in a corner had all unwittingly grown into a great prophet of the truth. In the same way the ardour of those years which he never afterwards forgot, was transformed in his fancy into a fanatical hungering and thirsting after Popish holiness-by-works, in discipline and fasting, watching, cold and prayer.

In addition to these there were memories of the transition period of religious scruples, of temptations to doubts about predestination, of his passing paroxysms of terror, gloom and inherited timidity. These elements must be considered separately.

Scrupulosity, with the doubts and nervousness it brings in its train, probably only troubled him for a short time during the first period of his life in the cloister. The admonitions of his novice-master, given above (p. 206), may refer to some such passing condition through which the young man went, and which indeed is by no means uncommon in the spiritual life. The profound impression made by these first inward experiences seems to have remained with him down to his old age; indeed it is the rule that the struggles of one’s younger days leave the deepest impression on both heart and memory. His quondam scruples and groundless fear of sin, eked out by his ideas of the virtues of a religious, probably served as the background for the picture of the young monk “sunk” in Popish holiness-by-works and yet so profoundly troubled at heart.

But all this would not suffice to explain the legend of his mental unrest, of his sense of being forsaken by God, of his howling, etc.

What promoted this portion of the legend was the recollection of those persistent temptations to despair which arose from his ideas on predestination during the time of his mystical aberrations.

The dreadful sense of being predestined by God to hell had for many years stirred the poor monk’s soul to its lowest depths, even long before he had thought out his new doctrine. It is no matter for surprise, if, later, carried away by his polemics, he made the utmost use in his legend of his former states of fear the better to depict the utter misery of the monk bent on securing salvation by the practice of good works. The doctrine of faith alone which he had discovered and the new Evangelical freedom were, of course, supposed to have delivered him from all trouble of mind, and thus it was immaterial to him later to what causes his fears and sadness were assigned.

Yet his supposed new theological discoveries became for him, according to the testimony of the Commentary on Romans, in many respects a new source of fear and terror. The doctrine of the Divine imputation or acceptation did not sink into his mind without from its very nature causing far-reaching and abiding fears. His then anxieties, which, as a matter of fact, were in striking contrast with his later assertion of his sudden discovery of a Gracious God, together with the mystical aberrations in which he sought in vain for consolation, doubtless furnished another element for the legend of the terrors he had endured throughout his life as a monk.

We need only refer to the passage in the Commentary where he declares: Our so-called good works are not good, but God merely reckons (“reputat”) them as good. “Whoever thinks thus is ever in fear (‘semper pavidus’), and is ever awaiting God’s imputation; hence he cannot be proud and contentious like the proud self-righteous, who trust in their good works.”[735]

What is curious, however, is that, here and elsewhere in the Commentary, the so-called self-righteous, both in the cloister and the world, appear to be quite “confident” and devoid of fear; they at least fancy they may enjoy peace; hence, as depicted in the Commentary, they are certainly not the howling and anxious spirits of whom the later legend speaks. On the contrary it is Luther alone who is sunk in sadness, and whose melancholy pessimism presents a strange contrast to all the rest. His mysticism also veils a deep abyss.

Almost on the same page the pessimistic mystic speaks of that resignation to hell which has a place in his new system of theology. “Because we have sin within us we must flee happiness and take on what is repugnant, and that, not merely in words and hypocritically; we must resign ourselves to it with full consent, must desire to be lost and damned. What a man does to him whom he hates, that we must do to ourselves. Whoever hates, wishes his foe to be undone, killed and damned, not merely seemingly but in reality. When we thus, with all our heart, destroy and persecute ourselves, when we give ourselves over to hell for the sake of God and His Justice, then indeed we have already satisfied His Justice and He will deliver us.”[736] It can hardly be considered normal that a monk should wish to live—among brethren, who rejoiced in the promises of Christ and in the Church’s means of grace—the life of a lonely mystic sunk in the depths of an abyss, where “a man does not strive after heaven but is perfectly ready never to be saved, but rather to be damned, and where, after having been reconciled by grace, a man fears, not God’s punishments, but simply to offend Him.”[737]

Luther’s recollections of the mental ailments he went through as a monk also undoubtedly had their effect on the legend. We know that Luther never rightly understood the nature of these ailments and that he regarded his fits of terror, his nervousness and his gloom as anything but what they really were. It would appear that, in his old age, he simply lumped all his sad experiences together as typical of the sort of poison which Popery and Monkery, owing to their false doctrines, offered to their adepts. Nothing seemed to him to show better from what horrors he had snatched mankind. Whether involuntary self-deception played a part here, or whether, by dint of constant repetition, he came to believe in the truth of his tale, who can now venture to say? In any case his spirit of bitterness led him to make of his own sufferings a sort of spectre of terror common to all, who, like himself, had raved that they were zealously serving God whether in the monastery or in Popery at large. Even “great Saints” had, according to him, lived amidst the “devil’s factions and errors, under Rules and in monasteries and institutions,” but had finally “cut themselves loose and been saved by faith in Jesus Christ.”[738]

He completely shuts his eyes to the fact that both his fears concerning predestination and his morbid states of terror accompanied by fainting fits recurred in his case even in later life, and, that, after his apostasy he had in addition to suffer from remorse of conscience on account of his doings against the Church. Nor does he seem to see that he himself betrays the falsity of what he says of the general depression to which all monks were subject when he relates above, that he alone had gone about in the monastery labouring under such oppression and that no one had understood him or been able to console him (above, p. 113); hence, according to this, his brother monks cannot have suffered from the terrors he afterwards attributed to them.

The Monkish Nightmare

The strange “terrors” under which he was labouring when he first knocked at the gate of the Augustinian convent at Erfurt were, according to Melanchthon’s definite assurance already quoted, closely bound up with his habitual states of fear. They were extraordinary states of mental perturbation (“terrores”) and can only be explained when looked at in the light of his other mental troubles.[739] Of the incidents that impelled him to enter the convent[740] Luther himself says in a passage which has also been quoted above, that (on the occasion of his first Mass) he had tried to reassure his father Hans by pointing out that he had been called “by terrors from heaven” (“de coelo terrores”); to which his father had harshly replied: “Oh, that it may not have been a delusion and a diabolical vision” (“illusio et præstigium”).[741] The happenings immediately previous to his entering the monastery are of a rather mysterious character. The inmates of the Erfurt convent declared at that time in consequence of what they had gathered from Luther, that he, like “another Paul, had been miraculously converted by Christ.”[742] Oldecop, who began his studies at Wittenberg in 1514, speaks in his Chronicle of “strange fears and spectres” on account of which Luther had taken the habit.[743] Still more remarkable is the report based on the account of Luther’s intimate friend Jonas, and dating from 1538. He says: When Luther, as a student, was returning to Erfurt after having been to Gotha to buy some books “there came a dreadful apparition from heaven which he then interpreted as signifying that he was to become a monk.”[744] If these statements were correct it would appear as though we have here already an instance of hallucination worthy of being classed with the “sights and visions” elsewhere mentioned. Even his earliest monastic days would assume a suspiciously pathological character if, even then, he was convinced of having been the recipient of heavenly messages. It must, however, remain doubtful whether Jonas’s report means exactly what it seems to mean and whether his sources are to be relied upon.

The possibility of his having been the victim of hallucination at such an early date also raises the question whether his later abnormal states can be explained by heredity or his upbringing.

By their “harsh treatment,” so Luther says on one occasion, his parents had “driven him into the monastery”; here we have an entirely new version of the motives of his choice of the religious life; he adds that, though they meant well by him, yet he had known nothing but faintheartedness and despondency.[745] Poverty still further darkened his early youth. It is quite possible that the young monk may have suffered for some considerable time from feelings of timidity and depression as a result of his education and mode of life. The natural timidity which was apparent during a part of his youth may also have contributed its quota to the rise of the legend of the monk who was ever sad. But all this does not explain as well as an hereditary malady would the terrors or seeming hallucinations. Unfortunately the question of heredity is still quite obscure, though the highly irritable temper of his father referred to above (p. 182) may have some bearing on it. Luther, however, says very little about his parents and even less of his manner of bidding good-bye to the world.

The statements he makes, whether in jest or in earnest, concerning his vow to enter a religious Order, differ widely.

He declares he made the vow to God in honour of St. Anne, but that God had “taken it in the Hebrew meaning,” Anne signifying grace, and had understood that Luther wished to become a monk “under grace and not under the Law,” in fact not a monk at all.[746] Very likely it is no jest, however, when he adds that, “he had soon regretted his vow, the more so since many sought to dissuade him from entering the convent”; he had, nevertheless, persisted, in spite of the objections of his father and, after that, he had had no further thought of quitting the convent, “until God deemed the time had come” (to thrust him out of it).[747]

On another occasion he assures us he had entered the convent only “because he despaired of himself.”[748] And again: “God let me become a monk,” “though I entered forcibly and contrary to my father’s wishes”;[749] for I had “to learn to know the Pope’s trickery.”[750] As a rule, however, he leaves God out of the matter. He had taken the vow only “under compulsion,” so he says in self-defence; he had not become a monk “gladly and willingly”; he did not then know that a father had to be obeyed, or that vows rested only on “the commandments of men, on hypocrisy and superstition,”[751] but, during his life in the cloister, the suspicion of his father, who had now been reconciled with him, about the possibility of its having all been a diabolical delusion had sunk deeply into his mind; in his father’s words he had perforce to recognise the Voice of God.[752]

Again, the legend makes out the monk, in the time of his first fervour, to have looked more like a corpse than a man; yet, so far as we can judge, it was only after he had begun his public struggle, i.e. subsequent to 1517, that he began to show signs of physical exhaustion and emaciation, and this, too, was only owing to the way in which he went to work. On the other hand, on March 17, 1509, i.e. nearly four years after his entry into the religious life, when about to quit Erfurt, he wrote, that, “as to himself, by God’s grace, all was going well.” The expression he uses seems to imply that, not merely his spiritual, but also his bodily, state was satisfactory.[753]

In his legend Luther speaks repeatedly of certain morbid states from which he had suffered and which he duly uses to lash the Popish conception of holiness. They are too closely bound up with other facts in his mental life to be set aside as simple inventions, though it must also be added that they contain an element of uncertainty.

In the case of people who have been brought up as Christians but who suffer from certain nervous disorders, particularly when their temperament is of the melancholy variety, a notable aversion for sacred objects may occasionally be observed. “Many such patients cannot bear the sight of a cross, cannot listen to prayers, stop their ears at the ringing of the Angelus, cannot mention the word ‘sacrament,’ but use some circumlocution instead.” “Among perfectly normal people we do not meet with this sort of thing, still it is nothing extraordinary.”[754]

Now, oddly enough, we find Luther, in 1532, telling the people quite seriously in his sermons on Matt. v.-vii., that, as a novice, he had not been able to endure the sight of the crucifix. “When I saw a picture or statue of Christ hanging on the Cross, etc., I was so affrighted that I averted my eyes.”[755] And, again, in the same sermons: “When I looked at Him on the Cross He seemed to me like a flash of lightning.” He also adds that he “had often been affrighted at the name of Jesus.”[756] “The Last Day,” he says in a sermon of 1534, he could not bear to hear spoken of, and “my hair stood on end when I thought of it.”[757] These statements are doubtless exaggerations, but Luther has others even stronger: He would “rather have heard the devil spoken of than Christ”; he would rather have seen “the devil than the Crucified”; “rather have heard of the devils in hell than of the Last Day.” It may be queried whether the above were simply inventions designed to vilify the monastic life and the faith in which he had grown up. Nevertheless, whoever calls to mind the “terrors” Luther experienced at his first Mass and in the procession with Staupitz, whoever keeps before him the part played by Luther’s “fears” even at a later date,[758] will certainly not think it beyond the bounds of possibility that, at times, he should have shuddered at the sight of the cross or at the mention of Christ or of the Last Judgment.

To all this, his bodily condition may have contributed, yet, in his legend, Luther makes of these doubtless morbid states of his the inevitable result of the holiness-by-works practised in the convent and taught by Catholic doctrine. It was because they had known Christ only as the Judge, Who must be placated by works, that he had so dreaded the Crucifix and the very mention of the Judgment. He says that he could not but tremble at the sight of the Crucifix, because, like the rest of the Papists, he had been taught to think that “I must go on performing good works until I have thereby made Christ my friend and gracious toward me.”[759] For this reason alone he had “so often shrunk back affrighted at the name of Jesus” and at the “Cross” as at a “flash of lightning,” because he, like all the rest, had lost his faith; “I had fallen away from the faith and had no other thought than that I had angered God Whom I must once more propitiate by my works.” “But praise and thanks be to God that now we have His Word once more, which leads us to Christ and depicts Him as our Righteousness”; our heart need no longer “tremble and quake.”[760]

After assuring us that he was often unable to gaze upon the Cross, he also at once proceeds to make capital out of this against the olden Church: “For,” so he continues, “my mind was poisoned by this Popish doctrine,” a doctrine according to which “Christ, our Healer, had been turned into a devil.”[761]

Nor does he hesitate to make out that the sight of the Saviour was likewise terrifying to all the zealous and earnest “saints-by-works” in the religious life and Popery generally.[762] In another passage he speaks of the dreadful emotion all felt at the mention of the coming Judgment and the Last Day: “And so we were all sunk in the filth of our own holiness and fancied that, by our life and works, we could pacify the Divine Judgment”; formerly they used to start “if anyone spoke of death or of the life to come”; but, since the light of the Evangel has risen, it is otherwise.

It is true that the way in which Luther here allows his prejudice to exploit these terrifying experiences may raise doubts as to whether they had ever actually existed even in his own case, or whether he did not rather invent them with the object of afterwards ascribing them to all. At the same time it is easier to believe in their existence than to credit him with having deliberately evolved them out of his own fancy.

The utmost caution must indeed be exercised in accepting his assertions on this subject. We cannot sufficiently express our amazement at the credulity with which Luther’s rhetorical statements about his life in the convent have often been accepted, for instance even by Köstlin. The fact is, that the ground on which Luther’s later account rests, the elements that he introduces into his transformation of the facts, and above all the bitter and aggressive spirit which directs and permeates everything, have not been adequately recognised and thus the mythological nature of his fiction has remained undetected. Otherwise it would surely have been impossible to assert, that, just as Paul had been through the mill of the Law, so Luther also had been through that of the religious life, in order, by virtue of his experience, to discover the supreme truth.

Various traits in the picture he drew, which, owing to its difficulties, has puzzled many people, may, as we have seen, be explained by his misapprehension or misinterpretation of the phenomena of his own morbid, melancholy mind. Other moral factors have, however, also to be taken into account.

As already pointed out, his depression of mind, due primarily to physical causes, became so pronounced owing to his refusal to submit to proper direction.

His dissatisfaction was increased by his growing impatience with the religious life, by remorse of conscience arising from his tepidity and worldliness, and by his growing antipathy to his vocation.

It may be said, that, had the convent been wisely governed, Luther would never have been admitted to profession but have been quietly dismissed while yet a novice. Both for his superiors and for himself this would have been the better course. A morbid temperament such as his, whatever may have been its cause, was not suited for the religious life, even apart from the obstacles in Luther’s character. The monotony and the penances of the monastic life, the self-discipline and obedience; also the annoyances with which he had to put up from his brother monks, whose habits and upbringing were not his, must necessarily have aggravated his case, particularly as he refused to submit to guidance. His superiors should have foreseen that this brother would be a source of endless difficulties. Instead of this, Staupitz, the vicar, clung to his favourite. He even gave him to understand that he would make of him a great scholar and an ornament of the Order. Had he remained in the world, in a different and freer sphere of action, Luther might possibly have succeeded in shaking off his ailments and the resultant depression. But, in the convent, particularly as he went his own way, he became the victim of ideas and imaginations which promoted the growth of his doctrine and helped to pave the way for his apostasy. Nevertheless, his morbid states could not annul the vows he had taken in the Order, hence his leaving and his breach of the vows cannot be excused on the ground of his illness, though the latter may help to explain his step.

From all the above it is plain how unwarrantable is the assumption that to set aside Luther’s legend is to shut one’s eyes to the severe inward struggles through which he went previous to making his great decision.

There can be no doubt that, previous to his unhappy change of religion, the monk had to wage a hard fight with himself. He was striving against his conscience, and, by overcoming it, he consciously and deliberately incurred the guilt of his apostasy. “A frightful struggle of soul,”[763] may, and indeed must, be assumed, though a very different one from that usually pictured by Protestants and by Luther himself. It would indeed be “stupid” (to use the words of a Protestant biographer of Luther) to seek to “obliterate from history” the deep-down inward struggle which, “maybe, lasted longer than we think.” It is, however, gratifying to find that the same author admits that, as a monk in the Erfurt priory, Luther “found some inward contentment,” in other words, that the legend is false in this particular; he also grants that, at least “in this or that statement,” Luther, in his later accounts, has been guilty of “exaggeration”; that his “development” did not proceed quite on the lines he fancied later, at least that the “change was not quite so sudden,” and, finally, that “physical overstrain” had something to do with his struggles.[764]

3. The Legend receives its last touch; how it was used

It is only after 1530 that we find Luther’s legend of his monkish life fully developed. Before this we see only the first hints of the tale.

It cannot be argued that, till then, he had been silent on his inward experiences as a monk, or that the MSS. of the Table-Talk only commence subsequent to 1530. That, even before this, he had frequently spoken of his earlier spiritual experiences is evident from the passages already quoted, and might be proved by many others; moreover the absence of any recorded Table-Talk is a detail, since the latter is far from being our sole source in the present question.

We are justified in assuming that the idea matured in 1530, during his stay at the Castle of Coburg where he had to wage so severe a struggle with himself. Amid the trials he endured during his days of retirement at the Wartburg he had found time to pen his violent attack on monastic vows; so also, it was in the quiet of the Coburg, amidst the ghostly conflicts and delusions, that he wove the caricature of his own monkish life into the web of his history. At the very time when Luther was at the Coburg the burning question of German monasticism was being debated at the Diet of Augsburg; the Catholic Estates hoped that recognition might again be won for it from the Protestants, or that it might at least secure toleration in the districts where allegiance was divided. It was also at the Coburg that Luther penned many of the furious passages of his “Warning to the Clergy forgathered at Augsburg.”

He there says: “For the monks I know not how to plead. For I am well aware you would rather they were all of them given over to the devil, please God, whether they take wives or not.”[765] In these words he erroneously takes for granted that all ecclesiastics shared his own hatred for the monks. He boasts in this writing that he “had destroyed the monks by his teaching”;[766] he trusts that “the Bishops will not allow such bugs and lice to be stuck again on their fur cappas.”[767] The reason why his doctrine had destroyed the monks was, because it had revealed how they were merely “intent upon works.” “For what else could come of it? If a conscience is intent on its works and builds on them, then it is stablished on loose sand which is ever slipping and sliding away; it must ever be seeking for works, for one and then for another and ever more and more, until at last even the dead are clothed in monks’ cowls the better to reach heaven.”[768] The last words are a caricature, a misrepresentation of a pious custom by which no one ever dreamt infallibly to win heaven. The “loose sand” is, however, a favourite expression with him when speaking of his teaching on works. It is the same teaching that he wants to bring before the eyes of all by means of his fiction. How, at that time, his thoughts were harking back to his former life in the convent is plain from a letter of consolation he then wrote to his “tempted” pupil Weller. He tells him that he himself had also had his sadnesses and temptations, but that what he had suffered as a monk had in the end proved a schooling for his present high calling.[769]

Had he really been the butt of such “temptations” as the legend depicts and contrived so successfully to vanquish them by his doctrine on justification, then we might expect to find some trace of this in his first writings subsequent to his change of outlook. Now, in the Commentary on Romans we have a vivid document bearing on his change of opinions, yet, full as it is of information about the author, we may seek in vain for the legend. On the contrary it breathes a high esteem for the religious state.[770] In the “Resolutions” to the Indulgence-Theses likewise, Luther speaks of the phases through which he had passed and of the mystical sufferings he had endured.[771] Yet here again the features of the legend are wanting. Is it not somewhat remarkable that an author usually so candid and talkative as Luther should have kept silence about those experiences of which, just at that time, i.e. at the beginning of his public struggle, he must have been so full?

Nor is the legend to be found in Luther’s writings dating from between 1520 and 1530. All the passages quoted above date from a later period.

Had the tale it tells been based on history he would surely have made capital out of it during this long spell of controversy with the monks and Papists. Thus, in his violent “De votis monasticis” of 1521, he as yet has nothing to say of his supposed so pious life, of his excessive penance, misguided holiness-by-works, and the despair he endured in the convent, though, in the Preface, he alludes to his own life as a monk. Nor, again, in his “De servo arbitrio” of 1525, does he as yet put forward the actual legend. It is true that here, when explaining his doctrine of Predestination, he refers to the fears from which as a monk he had suffered regarding his election, fear which arose from his doubts as to the fate decreed for him by God from all eternity. As it is also here that he for the first time airs his theory that his doctrine of absolute predestination and his dogma of justification were alone able to give peace,[772] this would seem to have been the place to give an account of his own life in the monastery and its attendant circumstances. But the legend was not as yet ready. We have merely a hint of what is to come: The Catholic doctrine that heaven may be won by works spells the end of all peace; “this is proved by the experience of all the holy-by-works, and this, to my cost, I also learnt by the experience of many years.”[773] About his heroic works of penance, his vigils, fastings, extraordinary piety, and the sudden and gratifying change, he has not a word to say.

Heralds of the legend are certain statements met with in a sermon of 1528 where he describes himself as having been a “very pious monk,” who was, however, wanting in constancy and like a “shaking reed,” not being firmly rooted in Christ;[774] again at the end of his “Vom Abendmal Bekentnis” he declares his “greatest sins” were his having “been such a holy monk and having plagued God for more than fifteen years with so many masses.”[775] In the latter writing he at least admits that “many great saints had lived in the monasteries”;[776] he even thinks that “it would indeed be a fine thing if the monasteries and foundations were retained, to the end that young folk might there be taught God’s Word, the Scriptures and how to live a Christian life,” in short as educational establishments for both boys and girls. “But, to seek in them the road to salvation, that is the devil’s own doctrine and belief.”[777]

Finally, in the sermons on John vi.-viii. which he began in 1530 after his return from the Coburg to Wittenberg and continued till 1532 we have the legend more or less complete: He had been a monk and had kept the nightly watches (i.e. had chanted the usual matins), had “fasted and prayed, scourged his body and tormented it”; he had been one of the pious and earnest monks who took their life seriously, “who, like me, were at some pains and examined and plagued themselves, and wanted to attain to what Christ is in order to be saved. But what did they gain thereby?”[778] At the same time he begins to enlarge in the most incredible way on the beliefs and habits of the Papists with regard to their own merits and the merits of Christ. All had held their tongues concerning the Saviour, so he says, and he emphasises his statement by adding: “I myself, I should have blushed to say that Christ was the Saviour.” Thus in a sermon of Dec., 1530.[779]

In the period that follows, what he says of his piety, and especially of his works of penance, grows more and more emphatic. The argument at the back of his mind is this: “If even so mortified, penitent, and holy a monk as he could find no peace in Popery but only black despair, must not then all admit that he was in the right in protesting against both the Church and her vows?”

So strictly had he kept his Rule, that, if ever monk got to heaven, it should have been he; he had plagued himself to death with watching, prayer, study and other labour.[780] This was the time when he “sought to be a holy monk and to be reckoned among the most pious.”[781] “If ever a monk was earnest then it was I.… I was at the utmost pains to keep the ordinances” (of the Fathers).

He “had been one of the best”[782] and was “wholly given over” to “fasting, watching and prayer”;[783] “I nearly killed myself with fasting, watching and cold … so mad and foolish was I.”[784] By fasting, sleeplessness, hard work and coarse clothing “my body was dreadfully broken and worn out.”[785]

In short, he had “sunk deeper into the quagmire [of mortification, obedience to the Church and monastic piety] than many an other”; so much so that “it had been hard and bitter” to him to cut himself adrift from the ordinances of the Pope; “God knows how hard I found it!”[786]

As he himself gradually came to believe in his extraordinary “holiness-by-works” it may be that his thoughts dwelt too exclusively to his earlier days as a monk, i.e. on those passed at Erfurt, during which he certainly was more zealous than in later years, though never such a fanatic as he afterwards makes out. He may also have compared his life as a monk with the small efforts after virtue he made subsequent to his public apostasy, and the contrast may have led him to make too much of his piety in the convent. The contrast, indeed, often troubled him, and we find him seeking for grounds to excuse his later lukewarmness in prayer, so different from his earlier fervour.[787] This also helps us to explain the line of thought followed in the legend.

The true character of the legend becomes clearer when Luther begins to exploit it in his polemics. He depicts himself as a sort of “caricature of the monastic saint,”[788] and then complains: This damnable life could not but keep me ever in a state of fear, and yet the Popish Church recommends and sanctions it; the more zealous I grew the further I withdrew from Christ—nay, brought even my baptism into danger! He had never been able to “find comfort in it,” nay, he had been compelled to “lose” it, to “lend a hand in denying it.” “This is the upshot and reward of their doctrine of works.”[789] He even goes so far as to say that the Papists “truly and indeed made nought of the baptism” of Christ, for which reason “their doctrine is as baneful as that of the Anabaptists”; they “make of us Jews or Turks, as though we had never been baptised.”

Luther’s persistent and obtrusive exploitation of his legend in his controversies must not be lost to sight.

In his new-found zeal he not only as a rule passes too confidently from the I (I did so and so) to the we, or they, the better to clap the blame attaching to himself on the monks in general, the Pope and all the Papists, and then to conclude with the praise of the new Evangel, but—and this reveals even more plainly the origin of the invention,—he also follows the reverse order, speaking first of the New Evangel, then of the senseless martyrdom endured by all the monks with their works, and, lastly, of his own personal experiences, as though they had been necessarily implied in his earlier premisses.

I cruelly disciplined my body, he says, and goes on: “They plagued and tormented themselves”; for all that, “did they find Christ? Christ says: ‘You shall die in your sins.’ To this they came.” “The Pope, too, labours and seeks,” to find what Christ is; “but never will he find it.” All this leads to the conclusion: “But now God has given His Grace, so that every town and thorp has the Gospel.”[790]

Above we heard him speak of the “quagmire” in which he was sunk; in the same connection he remarks: “We wore out the body with fasting,” etc., “and some even went crazy through it.” Then follows the inference: “And, at last, we lost our very souls.” For, to our “great and notable injury,” we were made to feel “in our anxious and troubled conscience” what it means “to try to become pious by works and so to redeem ourselves from sin.” “We would gladly have had a cheerful conscience,” but “it was all of no use, and we naturally became more and more downhearted about sin and death, so that no folk more unhappy are to be found on earth than the priestlings, monks and nuns who are wrapped up in their works.” “The more they do, the worse things fare with them.” But, since my doctrine has come into the world, people have unlearnt their faintheartedness: “We run to the Man Who is called Christ and say: Yes indeed, we must take it from the Man without any merit whatsoever [on our part].… He gives me freely that for which formerly I had to pay a high price. He gives me, without any works or merit, that for which formerly I had to stake body, strength and health.”[791]

His supposed experiences as a monk are even made to do service in his interpretation of Holy Scripture. In order to understand the Scriptures, so he argues, deep inward experience is called for. This he maintained when withstanding the fanatics and their system of illuminism. Here he actually carries back the beginning of his own experience to his convent days.

Already in the convent, so he declares, he had been compelled to bow to the idol of scepticism, because he, and all the rest, knew nothing of any real faith in the Gospel. Far less had he learned to pray Evangelically.

“That Christ was a mystery, as St. Paul says, I looked upon formerly, when I had to submit to being called a Doctor of Holy Scripture, as a lying statement which I very well understood. But now that, praise be to God, I have once more become a poor student of Holy Writ, and that, the longer I live, the less I know of it, I begin to see the marvel of such sayings, and find by experience that they must necessarily remain mysteries.… Our experience must bear witness to this, how amply, fully and clearly we now possess this same Word of Christ.”[792] But, by the Pope, it was “gruesomely murdered.”[793]

Of the Saints of their Order the monks made their God, and of their miracles they made their Gospel. “For know you this, that I, Dr. Martin Luther, who am now living and write this, was also one of the crowd who were forced to believe and worship such things [lying fables]. And had anyone been so bold as to doubt one whit of it, or to raise a finger against it, he would have gone to the stake or to some other evil end.”[794] That the latter was an exaggeration and the merest invention Luther was perfectly well aware.

He also speaks untruthfully of the manner of prayer in the convent. That he himself, when once he had fallen away from his vocation, no longer prayed in a right spirit is very likely. He, however, says: “I and all the others had not the right conception” (of prayer); it was no true “raising of the heart to God because we fled from God (‘fugiebamus Deum’).… We only prayed ‘conditionally’ and ‘hypothetically,’ not ‘categorically.’” This he said in 1537, admitting, however, with regard to his own then family prayers, that they “were not so fervent, because he was always forced to protest,” i.e. to pour out his anger against the Papists; but, “in the congregation as a whole, it comes from the heart and also serves its purpose.”[795]

His wilful misrepresentation of the truth becomes more pronounced, when, in the exploitation of the legend, he seeks to moderate the monks’ practices of penance and mortification—with the help of Terence and Aristotle.

In his Commentary on Genesis he complains: “The religious life of the monk is so crooked that no exception (‘epikia’) is allowed, nor any moderation. Hence it is all wickedness and unrighteousness. No heed is paid to the object of the Law, or to charity.… And yet what Terence says is still true: ‘summum ius esse summam iniuriam.’ God does not wish the body to be put to death, but that it be preserved for each one’s calling and for the service of our neighbour.”[796] “Learn, therefore, that peace and charity must govern and direct all virtues and laws, as Aristotle points out in the 5th book of his Ethics.”[797]

Now, as a matter of fact, the Rule of the Hermits of St. Augustine, with which he was thoroughly conversant, enjoined consideration for the health of the individual.[798] Brother Jordan of Saxony, whose book was regarded as a standard work in the Order, insists on care being taken of the body and only permits penitential exercises “in moderation, with the superiors’ approval and without scandal to the brethren.”[799]

His falsehoods are coupled with the outbursts of fury against Catholicism into which he was so prone to fall when attempting to describe the religious life he had forsaken.

Because we endured so much “pain and such martyrdom of heart and conscience” no one must now seek to excuse the Papacy; on the contrary “we cannot blame and scold the Pope enough”; “that he should have so wasted the beautiful years of my youth, and martyred and plagued my conscience is really too bad.” Popery is the “scarlet whore of Rome, the arch-whore, the French whore, chock-full of blasphemies”; “we must thank our Lord God that He has revealed and discovered to us the Pope as the dragon with his head, belly and tail.”[800]—The monks are a “devilish crew,” and monkery a “hellish cauldron”; by day and by night Christ is to all monks a “hangman and devil”; even the best and most learned, and St. Thomas of Aquin himself, were all driven to despair and died of the ghostly poison.[801] The last words occur in the work he wrote in self-defence against Duke George of Saxony (1533), who had twitted him with having committed perjury in breaking his religious vows.

The thought of his own infidelity and his abuse of the graces of the religious life was at times quite enough in itself to fill him with fury. At any rate his whole picture of his earlier years is steeped in polemics and the spirit of hate.

CHAPTER XXXVIII
END OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. THE CHURCH-UNSEEN AND THE VISIBLE CHURCH-BY-LAW

1. From Religious Licence to Religious Constraint

Freedom as the Watchword

In the early days of his public protest against the olden Church, when Luther proclaimed the “universal priesthood of all Christians,” there could as yet be no question of any compulsion in matters of doctrine, seeing that he expressly conceded to the Christian congregations the right and power to weigh all doctrines and “to set up or send adrift their teachers and soul-herds.” Every Christian, so he wrote, who saw that a true teacher was lacking, was taught and consecrated by God as a priest and was also bound, “under pain of the loss of his soul and of incurring the Divine displeasure, to teach the Word of God.”[802] It is not necessary after all we have already said[803] to point out how impossible it is to square such far-reaching concessions to freedom with any idea of a positive body of doctrine. The concessions may, however, have appealed to him particularly because he himself was disposed to claim the utmost freedom in respect of the dogmas of Catholicism. In those days he was delighted to hear himself extolled as the champion of freedom and the right of private judgment. The interests of his party made such extravagant toleration commendable, for any attempt at compulsion in doctrinal matters, particularly at the beginning, would have lost him many friends. He was also anxious that it should be said of the new Church that it had spread of its own accord and only owing to the power of the Word.

In the sermon he preached at Erfurt in 1522 in support of the change of religion in that town he had declared, that every Christian, thanks to his kingly priesthood, was an “image of Christ” and a “cleric,” and “able to judge of all things”; to his decision, based on the Word of Christ, “the Pope and all his followers were subject”; “he judges all things and is judged of none.”[804]

Even two years later, in words proclaiming universal freedom of belief, he had dissuaded the Saxon Princes from taking violent measures against the fanatics: “Let the spirits fall upon each other and clash!” What cannot stand must in any case succumb in the fight, and only those who fight rightly are assured of the crown. “Just let them preach as they please!”[805]

In 1525 he told Carlstadt and the Sacramentarians that each one was free to follow his own conscience and to question the Sacrament or refuse to receive it.[806] This agrees with his statement of 1521: “No one must be forced into the faith, but the Gospel must be set before everyone and all be admonished to believe, yet left free to obey or not. All the Sacraments must be free to everyone.”[807]

Luther registered a formal protest against the ancient right of proceeding against heretics by means of temporal penalties, particularly that of death. “To burn heretics is against the will of the Holy Ghost,” so he declared in 1518 and again in 1520.[808] In 1520 he said: “Heretics must be overcome by argument, not by fire.”[809]

Most of what he was to say subsequently on the question of public toleration refers to the bearing of the authorities, especially towards the Anabaptists and Zwinglians. That he himself, however, and every follower of his Evangel, were bound to regard all opinions which diverged from his own as godless heresies and brand them as such, that he had never doubted from the moment he had discovered his new Evangel. In accordance with this he proceeds to demand more and more strongly of the “heretics” within the pale unconditional acceptance of all the articles of faith.[810]

What were the authorities to do faced by teachings so divergent? In 1523, in a writing indeed intended mainly for the Catholic rulers and opponents of his doctrine, Luther is decidedly quite against any interference on the part of the authorities: “To resist heretics, that is the bishops’ duty to whom this office is committed, not the princes’; for heresy can never be overborne by a strong hand.… Here God’s Word must fight.”[811] In April, 1525, in the midst of the Peasant War, in his “Ermanunge,” he enunciates, not without some thought of his personal ends, this general principle—“Yes, the authorities must not oppose what each one chooses to believe and teach, whether it be Gospel or lie; it is enough that they hinder the preaching of feud and lawlessness.”[812]

Boehmer justly points out, that Luther’s standpoint and doctrine as a whole, essentially spelt not only “unfettered freedom of teaching, but also entire freedom of worship.”

Meanwhile, however, Luther had already repeatedly urged those in power, especially his own sovereign, to do their supposed duty, and back up the new Evangel by their authority and by forbidding Catholic worship, the Mass and Catholic sermons.

In what follows we shall deal with Luther’s behaviour towards the Catholics, as distinguished from his attitude towards sectarians within his own camp.

Intolerance Towards Catholics in Theory and Practice

We should be making a serious mistake were we to judge of Luther’s tolerance towards the olden religion from his statements above on behalf of freedom. In Protestant literature, even to the present day, such a one-sided view has found a place, though it has long since been rejected by clear-sighted historians of that faith. In the course of the above narrative instances have been met with repeatedly of Luther’s intolerance in theory and practice with regard to those who thought differently. Here we shall refer concisely to various details already set on record and then draw some new facts and utterances from the abundant store bearing on the matter in hand.

It was “his duty to oppose false teachers,” Luther had written to his Elector on May 8, 1522, of the Canons of Altenburg.[813] In the same way, with much storming, he had insisted that the secular power should make an end of Catholic worship in the collegiate church of Wittenberg.

From the standpoint of his principles it is rather remarkable that, when the persecuted Canons of Wittenberg appealed to the Elector’s authority, Luther retorted: “What has the Elector to do with us in such things?”[814] and that, later, in one of his sermons, he boldly replied to their objections in law: “What care we about the Elector? He commands only in worldly matters.”[815] In making a stand against the celebration of Mass at Wittenberg he had frankly declared: “It is the duty of the authorities to resist and to punish such public blasphemy,” just as they are bound to punish the blasphemies uttered in the streets by godless men. The Elector and his Councillors were quite aware of the contradictions involved in Luther’s teaching. Hence, at the Prince’s instance, the Court pointed out to him on Nov. 24, 1524, that “he himself preached that the Word should be left to fight its own way, and that this it would do in its own good time, so God willed”; he ought himself to be the first “to practise what he taught and preached.”[816] In spite of this Luther, soon after, was successful in violently making a clean sweep of the Catholic Mass at Wittenberg.[817]

The theory that the Evangelical ruler must use force to root out Catholic worship was proclaimed by the Court chaplain Spalatin, a man “standing altogether under Luther’s influence, and who, as a rule, merely voiced his views”;[818] this he did in a letter of May 1, 1525, where he cites the prescriptions of the Mosaic law (Deut. vii.). According to this the secular authorities are bound “by the Law of God to abrogate idolatrous and blasphemous worship”; any further toleration on the part of the Elector of “idolatry” in his lands would be a great sin; on the other hand it would be a “great, consoling and Christian work” were he “to put the Christian bit in the mouth of all the clergy.” “Ah, that would indeed be a noble work!”[819] To the successor of the then Elector who died shortly after this, Spalatin wrote on Oct. 1, 1525: “Dr. Martin also says, that Your Electoral Highness ought in no way to suffer anyone to proceed any longer with the unchristian ceremonies, or to set them up again”;[820] on Jan. 10, 1526, he, together with two Altenburg preachers, backed up the petition to the Elector for the extirpation of “idolatry” by pointing to the example of the pious kings of the Jews.[821] At Altenburg and elsewhere such exhortations were crowned all too speedily with success.

“A secular ruler,” Luther himself wrote to the Elector Johann on Feb. 9, 1526, “must not permit his underlings to be led into strife and discord by contumacious preachers, for this may issue in uproar and sedition, but in each locality there must be but one kind of preaching.”[822]

On such grounds, however, Protestantism itself might just as well have been denied a hearing, seeing that it had come to disturb the peace, the “one kind of preaching” and the one faith. The princes, however, spurred on by their theologians, seized only too eagerly on this principle, using it in favour of the innovations. The Elector Johann declared as early as Feb. 31, 1526, that he had “graciously taken note of the Memorandum” and would, “for the future, conduct himself in such matters as beseemed a Christian”;[823] and he kept his word.

The intolerance shown to Catholics and their systematic oppression in Saxony stands in blatant contrast with the claim made, that Luther by his preaching had won religious freedom for the German lands. Banishment was the punishment incurred by those who chose to remain steadfast in their attachment to the Catholic faith. Thus, in 1527, it was expressly laid down in the regulations for the Saxon Visitation, that: “Whoever is suspected in the matter of the Sacraments, or of any other error in the faith” is to “be summoned and questioned, and, if necessary, witnesses against him are also to be called.” “Such an ‘inquisition’ is also to be instituted by the Visitors in the case of the laity.”[824] If they refuse to abjure their “errors” they are to be given a certain time to sell their possessions and to quit the land, with a “warning of the severe penalties” with which any ecclesiastic or layman will be visited who is again found in the country.[825] Bearing in mind the difficulty emigration presented at that time, particularly in the case of the people on the land, one can appreciate the injustice of the measure.

Luther and his followers frequently enough appealed to theological grounds in support of such measures, above all to the Old Testament enactments against blasphemers and contemners of religion. One-sidedly they simply applied to their own day and to their own controversial purposes, the exceptional regulations of the Mosaic dispensation which sought to preserve the religion of the chosen people in the midst of a heathen world. In this connection Luther appeals to Moses without the slightest hesitation though, as a rule, armed with the New Testament, he is ready enough to assail the Mosaic Law; he also set up the pious “Kings of Juda and Israel” as patterns. Wenceslaus Link did much the same when he summoned the Altenburg Town-Council to make a stand against Catholicism and abrogate the “lies and fond inventions of the idolaters”;[826] nor did Spalatin hesitate to point out to the Saxon Elector the commendation the pious rulers of the Jews had earned from God for their bloody repression of idolatry.[827]

Another ground for compulsion, to which Spalatin gives expression in a letter to the Elector, was, that: They must not forget how “many a poor man would more readily come to the Evangel, were that wretched system [of Popery and its idolatry] no longer in existence.” In other words, were Catholic worship rooted out, Catholics would more easily be won over to the Evangel.[828] It was on such a standpoint as this that the Augsburg declaration of 1530 made by the theologians of the Saxon Electorate was based. The Emperor had demanded from the Protesting Princes toleration of the Catholic worship for those of their subjects who chose to remain Catholic. The theologians thereupon expressed themselves against such an arrangement, and urged that, in this case, Lutheran proselytism would be hampered: “Were it to be said that the rulers were not to hinder it, though the preachers were to preach against it, it is clear of what [small] good would be all the teaching and preaching of the ministers.”[829]

In the Duchy of Saxony, as everybody knows, the introduction of Lutheranism was opposed by Duke George. His severity he justified by appealing to the thousand-year-old law of the one great world-wide Church, the Church of the Apostles, of the Fathers and martyrs and Œcumenical Councils and great missioners of all ages, a law, moreover, sanctioned by the Empire. When, in 1533, a number of Lutherans were banished from the Duchy[830] Luther seized upon this as a pretext for controversy. Roundly scolding the “Ducal tyrant,” he declared this sentence of banishment to be “a devilish and criminal thing.” The authority of the sovereign, so he now wrote, again contradicting himself, “only extends over life and property in secular matters.”[831] But, after George’s death in 1539 and the accession of his brother Henry, Luther’s tone changed, for Henry held Lutheran views. In a letter he sent about that time to the Elector Johann Frederick, he is angry because more than 500 of the Saxon clergy, all of them “venomous Papists,” had not yet been driven out. “For the sake of the poor souls, many thousands of whom live neglected under such parsons,” he urges the Elector to do his best “to help and promote a Visitation.”[832] He demands that Duke Henry, as the sovereign and protector of the bishopric of Meissen, should “put a damper on the blasphemous idolatry” as best he could, for “the Princes who are able to do so should at once abolish Baal and all idolatry.”[833] He also wished that the bishop of Meissen, though a Prince of the Empire, should “at once bow his head to the Evangel”; in this matter there is no need for “much disputing.”

It was but natural that such intolerance often led to scenes of brutality; such was the case in the cathedral of Meissen, where the splendid tomb of Benno, the saintly bishop of Meissen, was hewn in pieces, and the statue of the patron, which was an object of veneration to all the people, was set up headless at the church door as a laughing-stock for the Lutherans.[834]

Hand in hand with such legal coercion, which he both approved and furthered, went Luther’s declaration—which, though seeming to promote freedom, really constituted a new encroachment on the rights of conscience—viz. that: No one was to be forced to believe in his heart, but that “the people were to be driven to the sermons for the sake of the Ten Commandments, so that they might at least learn the outward works of obedience.”[835] “It would be grand,” so he told Margrave George of Brandenburg, “if your Serene Highness on the strength of your secular authority enjoined on both parsons and parishioners under pain of penalties the teaching and learning of the Catechism, in order, that, as they are Christians and wish to be called such, they may, please God, be compelled to learn and to know what a Christian ought to know, whether he believes it or not.”[836] At his instance attendance at the sermons was imposed on all people in the Saxon Electorate under pain of penalty, whatever they might think of the preaching.[837]

God Himself has abrogated “all authority and power where it is opposed to the Evangel,”[838] so, as early as 1522, ran one of the principles he used for the violent suppression of Catholic worship. Of the Catholic foundations he says in the same year: “If the preacher does not make men pious (i.e. does not preach according to Luther’s doctrine), the goods are no longer his.”[839] Violent interference with the Mass was, according to him, no revolt when it came from the established authorities.[840] “It is the duty of the sovereign, as ruler and brother Christian, to drive away the wolves,”[841] and those who do not preach the Evangel are “wolves”; it is “an urgent duty to drive away the wolf from the sheepfold.”[842] The Pope himself, however, deserves the worst fate, for he is the “werwolf who devours everything. Just as all seek to kill the werwolf, and very rightly, so is it a duty to suppress the Pope by force.”[843]

“Not only the spiritual but also the secular power must yield to the Evangel, whether cheerfully or otherwise.”[844]

Hence it follows that the salvation of his soul requires of a Christian prince the prohibition of the Popish worship.[845] If it is his duty to resist the Turk far more must he oppose the Pope: “What harm does the Turk do?” It is clear that, “as regards both body and soul the government of the Pope is ten times worse than that of the Turk.”[846]

“Whoever wishes to live amongst the burghers must keep the laws of the borough and not dishonour or abuse them, else he must pack and go.” The authorities are not to “allow themselves and their people to be forced into idolatry and falsehood.”[847] Hence “let the authorities step in and try the case and whichever party does not agree with Scripture, let him be ordered to hold his tongue.”[848] The Prince must behave like David, and hold that, as regards “God and the service of His Sovereignty everything must be equal and made to intermingle, whether it be termed spiritual or secular,” being “kneaded together into one cake.”[849] How many false teachers had David, his model, not been forced “to expel or in other ways stop their mouths.”[850]

It is not, however, enough to impose silence on them. They must—so Luther began to teach about 1530—be treated as public blasphemers and punished accordingly:[851] They “must not be suffered but must be banished as open blasphemers.” Thus must we act with those who “teach that Christ did not die for our sins but that each one must atone for them on his own; for this also is a public blasphemy against the Gospel.”[852] Hundreds of times does he charge the Catholics with thus robbing the saving death of Christ of all significance by their doctrine of good works.

These intolerant principles, which could not but lead to persecution, were made even worse by the abuse and invective which Luther publicly showered on the representatives of Catholicism. He taught the mob to call them “blasphemous ministers of the Babylonian whore,” knaves, bloodhounds, hypocrites and murderers. In the Articles of Schmalkalden which found a place among the Symbolic Books, he introduces the Pope as the “dragon” who leads astray the whole world, as the “real Antichrist” and as the “devil himself” whom it was impossible to “worship as Master or as God,” for which reason he would not suffer the Pope as “Head or Lord”; they must say to him: “May God rebuke thee, Satan!” (Zach. iii. 2).[853] Among his monstrous caricatures of the Pope he also included one depicting the “well-deserved reward of the Most Satanic Pope and his Cardinals,” as the inscription runs below. Here the Pope is seen on the gallows with three Cardinals; their tongues which have been torn out by the root are nailed to the gibbet and devils are scurrying off with their souls. The picture is embellished with the following doggerel:

“Did Pope and Card’nal here below
Their due reward receive,
Then would their tongues to gibbets cleave,
As our draughtsman’s lines do show.”[854]

Threats of Bloody Reprisals against Papists, Priestlings and Monks

At the right moment let us fall upon the Turks “and the priests and smite them dead!” Only then shall we be successful against the Turks! So runs one of Luther’s sayings in the Table-Talk.[855]

“Oh, that our Right Reverend Cardinals, Popes and Roman Legates had more kings of England to put them to death!”[856] This he wrote in 1535, after the execution of Thomas More and John Fisher by Henry VIII.

As early as 1520 he had exclaimed against Prierias: If thieves are punished by the rope, murderers by the sword and heretics by fire, why not proceed against “these noxious teachers of destruction—these Cardinals, Popes and the whole swarm of the Roman Sodom, who are ever ceaselessly destroying the Church of God—with every kind of weapon, and wash our hands in their blood?”[857]

Towards the end of his life, in 1545, he showed that he was still faithful to such views in spite of all the changes which had come over some of his other leading ideas. Let “the Pope, the Cardinals and the whole scoundrelly train of his idolatrous, Popish Holiness be seized,” so he declares in “Das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft,” and put to the death they deserve, either on the gallows to which their tongues may be nailed, or by drowning the “blasphemous knaves” in the Sea at Ostia.[858]

“It pleases me,” he wrote on Dec. 2, 1536, to King Christian of Denmark, “that Your Majesty has extirpated the bishops who never cease to persecute God’s Word and to worry the secular power; I shall do my best to explain and vindicate your action.”[859] At Wittenberg, as we see from a letter of a Wittenberg theologian, the report was current that the Danish king had “struck off the heads of six bishops.”[860] This false account “seems to have been credited by Luther.”[861] If this be so, then it seems that he was perfectly ready to justify so cruel a deed. The truth is, that, King Christian, after having had the bishops arrested (Aug. 20, 1536), released them as soon as they had promised to resign their bishoprics.

In the summer of 1540 Luther had it that the Pope and the monks were to blame for the many fires in Northern and Central Germany. “If this turns out true, then there will be nothing left for us but to take up arms in common against all the monks and shavelings; I too shall join in, for it is right to slay the miscreants like mad dogs.”[862] The worst of the lot, according to him, were the Franciscans. “If I had all the Franciscan friars in one house,” he said a few days later, “I would set fire to it, for, in the monks the good seed is gone, and only the chaff is left. To the fire with them!”[863]

No one, in the least familiar with Luther’s writings, will be so foolish as to believe that it was really his intention to kill the Catholic clergy and monks. His bloodthirsty demands were but the violent outbursts of his own deep inward intolerance. They were called forth occasionally by other alleged misdeeds of Popery, of its advocates and friends, for instance, by the burdensome taxes imposed by the Church, by her use of excommunication, and by the action taken against the Lutherans, particularly by the resolutions of the Diets for the suppression of Protestantism. Nor must we forget that the religious dissensions grew into a sort of permanent warfare and that war tends to produce effusions such as would be unthinkable in times of peace; nor was the warlike feeling a monopoly of the Lutheran side.

But who was it who was responsible for having provoked the war?

Occasional counsels to patience and endurance, to self-restraint and consideration were indeed given by Luther from time to time[864] (they have been diligently collected by his modern supporters), but, generally speaking, they are drowned in the din of his controversial invective.

What was to be expected when the people, who were already profoundly excited by the social conditions, were told: “Better were it that all bishops were put to death, and all foundations and convents rooted out than that one soul should be seduced” by Popish error.[865] “What better do they deserve than to be stamped out by a great revolt?”[866] If his reforms were rejected then it was to be wished that monasteries and foundations “were all reduced to one great heap of ashes.”[867] “A grand destruction of all the monasteries, etc., would be the best reformation!”[868] What wonder “were the Princes, the nobles and the laity to hit Pope, bishop, priest and monk on the head and drive them out of the land?”[869] The “Rhine would hardly suffice to drown” the many “bull-mongers,” Cardinals and “knaves.”[870]

The Death-Penalty Sectarians within the New Fold

In the above we have dealt with Luther’s intolerance in theory and practice towards the Catholic Church. It remains for us to look at his attitude towards the sects within his own camp.

The question, how far they were to be tolerated, or whether it would be better forcibly to suppress them was first brought home to Luther by the Anabaptist movement under Thomas Münzer. Sure of the upper hand, Luther decided, as we know, at the end of July, 1524, to advise the Saxon Princes to leave the Anabaptists in peace so far as their doctrines were concerned. “Let them preach as they please,” was his advice, for “there ‘must needs be heresies’” (1 Cor. xi. 19).[871] He explained to Lazarus Spengler of Nuremberg on Feb. 4, 1525, that the Anabaptists were not to be punished, particularly with “bodily penalties,” because, in his opinion, they were no real blasphemers, but merely “like the Turks or straying Christians.”[872] In May of the same year he showed himself disposed to universal toleration. “The authorities are not to hinder anyone from teaching and believing what he pleases”;[873] a principle which, as we have shown above (p. 239), he himself had contravened in practice as early as 1522, and was finally to set aside altogether.

As for the Anabaptists, in 1527 Luther was not yet in favour of the “putting to death” and bloody “rooting out” of these sectarians. In 1528 he even taught in his exposition of the Parable of the Good Seed and the Tares that “we are not to fight the fanatics with the sword.”[874] What made him hesitate to advise the putting to death of these heretics was, as he told his friend Wenceslaus Link of Nuremberg in 1528, the apprehension that this might lead to abuses; he feared lest, in the time to come, we might turn the sword against the best “among us.”[875] But without a doubt he approved of the Edict of the Elector Johann (Jan. 17, 1528) which proscribed the writings of the Anabaptists, Sacramentarians and fanatics throughout the land—if indeed the Edict itself may not be traced directly to Luther, as Zwingli suspected.[876] In 1528 it also seemed to him right to decree the penalty of banishment in the case of the Anabaptists.[877]

When, however, the danger had become more evident, which the Anabaptist heresy spelt both to the land-frith and the foundations of Christianity, not to speak of the Lutheran teaching, Luther adopted a sterner line of action.

His views altered in 1530. After a Mandate had been issued in the Saxon Electorate against the “secret preachers and conventicles, Anabaptists and other baneful novel teaching,” six Anabaptists were executed early in the year at Reinhardsbrunn in the duchy of Saxe-Gotha. The discussion which took place on this event gave Melanchthon occasion to declare in Feb., 1530, that, “even though the Anabaptists do not advocate anything seditious or openly blasphemous” it was, “in his opinion, the duty of the authorities to put them to death.”[878] In the spring of 1530, with the Anabaptists in his mind, Luther, in his commentary on Ps. lxxxii. dealt with the question whether the authorities “ought to forbid strange teachings or heresies and punish them, seeing that no one should or can force men into the Faith.”[879]

His detailed reply to the question which it was then impossible any longer to blink, centres round the distinction he makes of two kinds of heretics, viz. those who were seditious, and those who merely “teach the opposite of some clear article of faith.” Of the latter, i.e. the non-revolutionary, he says expressly: “These also must not be allowed but must be punished like public blasphemers.” Of those, who, though holding no office, force themselves in as preachers, and thus imperil the faith and lead to risings, he writes, that their oath of allegiance obliged the burghers not to listen to them but rather to report them either to their parson or to the authorities. If such a one will not desist “then let the authorities hand over knaves of that ilk to their proper master, to wit Master Hans” (i.e. the hangman).[880] As for those Anabaptists who preached open revolt, they had, in his opinion, by that very fact incurred the penalties of the law. At any rate it was not merely on account of their sedition that Luther wished to see the Anabaptists punished.

Another statement of his has come down to us from an outside source. Luther’s friend, Lazarus Spengler of Nuremberg, had a little before this, on March 17, 1530, sought to secure from Luther, through Veit Dietrich, some directions on how to deal with heretics. Dietrich verbally obtained from his master the desired instructions and promptly sent them to Spengler by letter.[881] They were to the effect that not merely the heretics who offend against public order were to be punished, but also those who merely do harm to religion, such as the Sacramentarians (Zwinglians) and Papists; as they are to be looked upon as blasphemers, they cannot be suffered. It is noteworthy, that, in Luther’s correspondence in 1530, in a letter from the Coburg to Justus Jonas, we find him congratulating himself on the report (a false one) of the execution of a certain heretic. On receiving the announcement that Johannes Campanus, the anti-Trinitarian, had suffered death as a heretic at Liége, Luther wrote: “I learnt this with joy” (“lætus audivi”).[882]

Early in October, 1531, agreeably with the Saxon Elector’s Mandate, a number of persons suspected of holding Anabaptist views were taken to Eisenach for punishment and were there put to the torture; it was now judged advisable to obtain a fresh memorandum from the Wittenberg theologians.

Accordingly, at the end of 1530, Melanchthon at the instance of the Electoral Court once more took the matter in hand. He drafted a memorandum on the duty of the secular authorities in the matter of religious differences, with particular reference to the Anabaptists. In it he set forth at length the grounds for a regular system of coercion by the sword. Luther, too, set his name to the document with the words: “It pleases me, Martin Luther.” In it the sectarians were reprobated as blasphemers because they reject “the public preaching office [the ministry] and teach that men can become holy without any preaching and ecclesiastical worship.” They ought to be visited with death by the public authorities whose duty it is to “befriend and uphold ecclesiastical order”; and in like manner should their adherents and those whom they have led astray be dealt with, who insist, “that our baptism and preaching is not Christian and therefore that ours is not the Church of Christ.”[883] Nevertheless, we can see from the words Luther adds after his signature that the decision, or at least its severity, aroused some misgivings in him. He says: “Though it may appear cruel to punish them by the sword, yet it is even more cruel of them to condemn the preaching office and not to teach any certain doctrine, to persecute the true doctrine, and, over and above all this, to seek to destroy the kingdoms of this world.”

It is quite true that Luther and Melanchthon had an eye on the seditious character of these sects, yet present-day Protestant theologians are not justified when they try to explain and excuse their severity on this ground. On the contrary, as we have already pointed out, the texts plainly show that they were chiefly concerned with the punishment of the sectarians’ offences against the faith. This was made the principal point, as we see in Melanchthon’s memorandum just referred to. He says, for instance: “Though many Anabaptists do not openly teach any seditious doctrines,” yet “it was both sedition and blasphemy for them to condemn the public ministry.” It was therefore the duty of the authorities, above all “on account of the second commandment of the Decalogue, to uphold the public ministry” and to take steps against them. If, to boot, they also taught seditious doctrines then it was “all the easier to judge them,” as we read in another memorandum of the Wittenberg theologians (1536) of which Melanchthon was also the draughtsman.[884]

To N. Paulus belongs the credit of having thrown light on the true state of affairs, for, even previous to the publication of his “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16 Jahrhundert” (1911) he had discussed Luther’s attitude both in his shorter writing, “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit” (1905) and in various articles in reviews. After him, the Protestant historian P. Wappler took up the same views, particularly in his “Die Stellung Kursachsens … zur Täuferbewegung” (1910). In the “Neues Archiv für sächsische Geschichte” (1911) O. A. Hecker also quite agrees in rejecting the opinion of certain recent Protestant theologians, who, as he says, “all try to exonerate Luther from any hand in the executions for heresy, though they can only do so by dint of forced interpretations, as Paulus pointed out.”[885]

Between 1530 and 1532 Luther’s intolerance comes yet more to the fore; it was indeed his way, when once he had made any view his own, to urge it in the strongest terms. Thus, at the end of 1531, he again alludes to Master Hans: “Those who force themselves in without any office or commission are not worthy of being called false prophets but are vagrants and knaves, who ought to be handed over to the tender mercies of Master Hans.”[886] “It is not allowed that each one should proceed according to his own ideas and set up his own doctrine and fancy himself a sage, and dictate to, and find fault with, others.” “This I call judging of doctrine, which is one of the greatest and most scatheful vices on earth, whence indeed all the fanatics have sprung.” The two last sentences occur in his sermons on St. Matthew’s Gospel.[887]

Still more striking is the demand he makes of Duke Albert of Prussia concerning the Zwinglians; here his zeal against these heretics seems to blind him, for his arguments recoil against himself, though apparently he does not notice it. Every Prince, he says in a psychologically remarkable passage, who does not wish “most gruesomely to burden his conscience” must cast out the Zwinglians from his land, because, by their denial of the presence of Christ in the Supper, they set up a doctrine “contrary to the traditional belief held everywhere and to the unanimous testimony of all.”

But how many doctrines had not Luther himself set up contrary to the ancient faith and to the unanimous testimony of all? It was, so he goes on, “both dangerous and terrible” to “believe anything contrary to the unanimous testimony, belief and teaching of the whole of the Holy Christian Church, which, from the beginning and for more than 1500 years, had been universally received throughout the world.” This was tantamount to “not believing in the Christian Church at all, and not merely to condemn the whole of the Holy Christian Church as a damned heretic, but also Christ Himself together with all the Apostles and Prophets, who had formulated the Article which we now recite, ‘I believe one Holy Christian Church,’ and borne such powerful witness to it.”[888]

“The worldly authorities bear the sword,” so Luther said in his Home-Postils, “with orders to prevent all scandal, so that it may not intrude and do harm. But the most dangerous and horrible scandal is where false doctrine and worship finds its way in.… For this reason the Christian authorities must be on the look-out for such scandal.… They must resist it stoutly and realise that nothing else will do save they make use of the sword and of the full extent of their power in order to preserve the doctrine pure and the worship clean and undefiled.”

“Then everything will go well.”[889]

We have also his exposition of Ps. ci. (1534), where there occurs the eulogy of David, the “scourge of heretics.”[890]

How he was in the habit of dealing with the Sacramentarians at a later date the following instance may serve to show, which at the same time reveals his coarseness and his reliance on the secular authorities. To Luther’s doctrine that Christ was bodily present, not only in the Host, but throughout the world, the Sacramentarians had rejoined: Good, then we shall partake of Him everywhere, in “spoon, plate and beer-can!”[891] To this Luther’s reply ran: See “what graceless swine we abandoned Germans for the most part are, lacking both manners and reason, who, when we hear of God, esteem it a fairy tale.… All seek to do their business into it and to wipe their back parts on it. The temporal authorities ought to punish such blasphemers.… God knows I write of such high things most unwillingly because they must needs be set before such dogs and swine.… Hearken you, you pig, dog, or fanatic, or whatever brainless donkey you may be: Though Christ’s body is everywhere, yet you will not be able to lay hold of it so easily.… Begone to your pigsty and wallow in your own muck! … there is a distinction between His Presence and your laying hold of Him; He is free and nowhere bound,” etc.—Luther himself was, however, very far from making clear what the distinction was. After much else not to the point he concludes: “Oh, how few there are, even among the highly learned, who have ever meditated so profoundly on this article concerning Christ!”[892]

The treatment of the sectarians in the Saxon Electorate was in keeping with the theories and counsels of Luther and his theologians.

Relentless measures were taken against them on account of their deviation from the faith even when no charge of sedition was forthcoming. On Jan. 15, 1532, the Elector Johann admitted the following as his guiding principle for interfering: “It is the duty of the authorities to punish such teachers and seducers, with God and with a good conscience.… For were heretics and contemners of the Word of God not punished we should be acting against the prescribed laws which we are in every way bound to observe.”[893]

As early as 1527 twelve men and one woman, who had received baptism at each other’s hands, were beheaded.[894] Similar executions took place in 1530, 1532 and 1538.[895]

In 1539 the members of the Wittenberg High Court wrote concerning three Anabaptists then in prison at Eisenach: “If they do not recant or allow themselves to be reduced to obedience, it will be right and proper that they be put to death by the sword, on account of such blasphemy and because they have allowed themselves to be baptised elsewhere.” Of any seditious teaching there was no question in these proceedings.[896]

One Anabaptist, Fritz Erbe, who had only gone astray in matters of faith, was kept in jail from 1530 to 1541, when death set him free.[897] Hans Sturm and Peter Pestel, both of Zwickau, were harmless sectarians without any seditious leanings; the first was put in prison in 1529 and died there; the latter was beheaded on June 16, 1536.[898] Hans Steinsdorf and Hans Hamster, were condemned to death in 1538 as “stubborn blasphemers.”[899] In the ’forties Duke Henry of Saxony caused an Anabaptist to be burnt as a heretic at Dresden.[900]

The Saxon lawyer, Matthias Coler (†1587), taught in his “Decisiones Germaniæ,” that, according to the laws of Saxony those were to be punished by death at the stake (“de iure saxonico cremandi veniunt”) who openly denied either the Divinity of Christ, or other important truths of faith; before being burnt they were, however, to be questioned under torture concerning their confederates in order that the land might be purged of such wicked men.[901]

In thus interfering the sovereigns were well aware that they had the warm official approval of Luther and his fellows. To this, for instance, the Elector Johann Frederick appealed in 1533 when milder measures were suggested. He referred to the memorandum which his father had obtained from the Wittenberg theologians and lawyers concerning the execution of the Anabaptists; their decision had been, “that His Highness might with a good conscience cause those charged with Anabaptism to be punished by death,” and, soon after, several of them were executed.[902] The person who had thought otherwise, and to whom this vindication was accordingly addressed, was no less a man than Landgrave Philip of Hesse.

Luther himself, too, had been obliged on various occasions to justify the severity of his opinions.

Luther’s Self-justification and Excuses

Philip of Hesse, though he treated Catholics with the utmost intolerance, refused to hear of punishing the Anabaptists with death unless indeed they were the cause of public disturbances. “We cannot find it in our conscience to put anyone to death by the sword on account of religion unless we have sufficient proof of other crimes as well.” Such was the declaration he made in 1532 to Elector Johann of Saxony, and which he emphasised in 1545 to the latter’s successor: “Were all those to be executed who are not of our faith what then should we do to the Papists, to say nothing of the Jews, who err even more greatly than the Anabaptists?”[903]

Luther was apparently far surer of his case. He is as confident, subsequent to 1530, in drawing from Scripture the principles for the treatment of the heretics as he is in defending them against the obvious objections so often brought against them.

Luther had it that the line of action for which he stood was not coercion to any definite religious practices. “Our Princes,” so he sought to reassure himself as early as 1525, “do not force people to the faith and to the Evangel but merely set a term to outward abominations.”[904]

The Elector, as was to be expected, expressed himself likewise: “Though it is not our intention to prescribe to anyone what he must hold or believe, yet, in order to guard against harmful uprisings and other disorders, we refuse to recognise or permit any sects or schisms within our Princedom.”[905]

Many a one amongst the new Doctors had begun, as a Protestant historian of Saxony points out,[906] “to claim for his conscience the same right” (as Luther), while “following other paths than Luther had trodden” (in his search after God). May not, indeed, must not, such a one, so ran the objection, follow his conscience, seeing that Luther himself tells us to consult our conscience? Yes, he may, is Luther’s reply, but, if he be truthful, then he will admit my plain interpretation of the Bible as the right one, for “I have floored and overcome all my foes on the sure groundwork of Holy Scripture.”[907]

Moreover, might not the Princes holding Popish views seize on the coercion taught by the Lutherans as a pretext for similar measures against the Lutherans in their territories?

No, replies Luther, they must not do so for they would be committing the same sin as the Kings of Israel when they “slew the true prophets”; but on account of the injustice of such slaughter, we are not to make nought of the law or refrain from stoning the false prophets. “Pious authorities will not punish anyone unless they see, hear, learn or know for certain that they are blasphemers.”[908]—Even should Kaiser Charles come and tell us, that he is convinced that “the doctrine of the Papists is true, and that he must therefore, in accordance with God’s command, use all his power to extirpate our heretical doctrines in his Empire,” we must answer, that: “We know he is not certain of this, and, in fact, cannot be certain.”[909]

But does this not come to much the same as imposing faith by some sort of compulsion?

No, is his answer. “The faith is not thereby forced on anyone, for he is free to believe what he pleases. He is only forbidden to indulge in that teaching and blaspheming whereby he seeks to rob God and Christians of their doctrine and Word, whilst all the while enjoying their protection and all temporal advantages. Let him go where there are no Christians and have things his way there.”[910]

The severity of his demands is hardly mitigated or excused by the right he gives people to leave the country. At any rate those who do not see eye to eye with him must get themselves gone, for, as he frequently remarks, whoever wishes to dwell among the burghers must not disregard the laws of the borough.[911]

“By all this, however,” so he says on another occasion, “no one is forced into the faith but the common man is merely set free from troublesome and obstinate spirits, and the knavery of the hole-and-corner preachers is checked.”[912] Thus, if the man who thinks otherwise wishes to lock up his convictions in his own breast, he is quite free to do so. Within, he may enjoy the most far-reaching freedom, since no earthly power extends to his thoughts. The reply of those concerned was, however, obvious; what right, they asked, had the new religious tribunal to prevent a man from revealing his convictions and openly living up to them, and was not the order to keep silence tantamount to a stifling of conscience and to forcing people to become hypocrites?

Hence, in the ensuing discussions, we find that Luther and his friends were ever making fresh efforts to meet the objections; in itself this was a sign of the weakness of the exclusivism adopted by the Lutherans, in spite of all they had formerly said, as soon as they had succeeded in winning the favour of the State.

“Some argue,” we read in the memorandum of the Wittenbergers published in 1536, “that the secular authorities have no concern whatever with ghostly matters. This is going much too far.… The rulers must not only protect the life and belongings of their underlings, but their highest duty is to promote the honour of God and to prevent blasphemy and idolatry,” etc.[913]

The memorandum was intended for Philip of Hesse. As Luther was aware that the Landgrave was loath to proceed to extremities with the Anabaptists, he added to the memorandum a note of his own. “Seeing that His Serene Highness the Landgrave reports that certain leaders and teachers of the Anabaptists … have not kept their promise (viz. to quit the land) Your Serene Highness may with a good conscience cause them to be punished with the sword, for this reason also, to wit, that they have not kept their oath or promise. Such is the rule. Yet Your Serene Highness, needless to say, may at all times allow justice to be tempered with mercy, according to the circumstances.”[914]

If meant in earnest the latter recommendation to mercy does the speaker credit and is the more noteworthy because, in his later years, we do not often hear him pleading for the heretics. As a rule he is all too intent on emphasising the wickedness of what he terms “blasphemy and idolatry,” i.e. of whatever was at variance with his own teaching.

But what—and this is the main objection—entitles Luther’s doctrine to be regarded as the standard of belief? This point Luther usually evaded. He says: Those heretics are to be punished “whose teaching is at variance with the public articles of the faith which are plainly grounded on Scripture and believed throughout the world by the whole of Christendom.”[915] “Such articles, common to the whole of Christendom, have already been sufficiently tested, examined, proved and determined by Scripture and by the confession of the whole of Christendom, confirmed by many miracles, sealed by the blood of the holy Martyrs, witnessed to and defended by the books of all the Doctors and are not now to become the prey of faultfinders or cavillers.”[916] A sharp answer, one very much to the point, was given by Bullinger of Zürich, who spoke of it as “truly laughable” that his opponent should suddenly appeal to the fact “of the Church having so long held this.” “If Luther’s argument, based on longstanding usage, be admitted, then is Popery quite in the right when it harps on the Church and her age. But then the whole of Luther’s own doctrine tumbles over, for his teaching is not that which the Roman Church has held for so long.”[917]—Nor is it easy to tell which points of doctrine Luther, in his elastic fashion, included among the articles “clearly founded on Scripture” and held unquestioningly by the whole of Christendom. His words occasionally presuppose that all divergent doctrines, not only those of the Sacramentarians and Anabaptists, but even those of the Papists, were to be punished by the authorities. If everyone is to be punished who teaches “that Christ has not died for our sins but that each one must himself make satisfaction for them,”[918] (a doctrine unjustly foisted on the Papists by Luther), or who “condemns the public ministry and draws the people away from it,” or who “insists that our baptism and preaching are not Christian and therefore that our Church is not the Church of Christ,”[919] etc.,—then many Catholics could not but fall victims to the sword of the authorities. How often did not Luther designate every specifically Catholic doctrine as rank “blasphemy,” and stigmatise every Catholic practice as idolatry? Blasphemy and idolatry were, however, according to him, to be rooted out by violence. Truly his words gave promise of an abundant harvest of persecution.

As a reason of his animus against heretics within his own fold Luther finally brings forward those personal considerations which are familiar to all who have followed his controversies.

His natural foes are those who in their “peculiar wisdom” “seek to teach something besides Christ and beyond our preaching.”[920] Hence he was fond of insisting that Christ was slaying the Papacy through him, and of rejecting all who “make a great pother” and “claim to know something new.” They come, and, like Carlstadt, want to “seize upon the prize and poach upon my preserves.” Had not Carlstadt come along “with the fanatics, Münzer and the Anabaptists, all would have gone well with my undertaking.”[921] These men want to “darken the sun of the Evangel” so that the world “may forget all that has hitherto been taught by us.”[922]

“They want to have nothing to do with me,” he complains of the fanatics, “and I want to have nothing to do with them. They boast that they have nothing from me, for which I heartily thank God; I have borrowed even less from them, for which, too, God be praised.”[923] The rupture with the Swiss came about because they “wished to be first.”[924]

In all these dissensions he finds many a one saying to the Christians: “I am your Pope, what care I for Dr. Martin.” And yet he alone had the right to call himself the “great Doctor” “to whom God first revealed His Word to preach.”[925]

But did not his very self-reliance finally broaden the ideas of the preacher of coercion? Did not Luther in a sermon preached at Eisleben on Feb. 7, 1546, as good as repudiate his former exclusivism?

It is true that this has been confidently asserted by Protestants, but the text of this sermon, known only through Aurifaber’s Notes, does not justify such an inference.[926] In it the preacher is not treating of the attitude of the Christian authorities towards heresy, but is only showing how the faithful and the preachers must behave, surrounded as they are by wicked folk, by Anabaptists and sectarians. The occasion for speaking of this was supplied by the Sunday Gospel of the Tares, Matt. xiii. 24-30, which grow up together with the wheat in God’s field, and which the Lord wishes to be left undisturbed until the Day of Judgment. Hence he explains how this must be understood, the local conditions probably supplying him with a particular reason for doing so, seeing that, in the County of Mansfeld, there must still have been some Catholics and that the Jews stood in favour. The greater part of the Sermon on the Tares is devoted to describing the passions and lusts which Christians must fight against in their own hearts with patience and perseverance. It is only towards the end that he speaks of the wickedness rampant in the world. He refutes the opinion of those, who “would have a Church in which there is no evil but where all are prudent and pious, and pure and holy”; thus “the Anabaptists, Münzer and such like, wish to root out and put to death everything that is not holy.” Hence “how are we to suffer the heretics and yet not to suffer them? How am I to act? If I tear up or root out the tares in one place then I spoil the wheat [according to the Parable], and the weeds will still grow up again elsewhere. Thus if I root out one heretic, yet the same devil-sown seed springs up again in ten other places.” Hence we must look to it that we do not make matters worse by violence and suppression. “Papists and Jews will ever be with us.” “You will not succeed in this world in entirely separating the heretics and false Christians from the just.” “Look to it that you remain master in your own household; see to it, you preachers, parsons and hearers [it is only to these that he is addressing himself, not to the State authorities], that heretics and seditious men, such as Münzer was, do not rule or dominate; grumble in a corner, that indeed they may do, but that they should mount the rostrum, get into the pulpit or go up to the altar, that, so far as in you lies, you must not allow.” Care must be taken that the “pulpit and the Sacrament are kept undefiled.” “By human might and power we cannot root them out, or make them different. For, in this point, they are often far superior to us, can get themselves a following, draw the masses to them, and, on the top of it all, they have on their side the prince of this world, viz. the devil.”

The main thing therefore is that the heretics “should not rule in our Churches.”

But what are we to do against the tares, against the Papists and Sophists, against Cologne, Louvain and the devil’s other thistles? Of boils it holds good: “Let them swell until they burst. So too it is in secular and domestic government: Where [whether in the Town Council or among the servants] we cannot get rid of the wicked without harm or detriment, there we must put up with them until the time is ripe.”

In this much-discussed Sermon on the Tares Luther is very far from wishing to give the authorities directions as to how to treat the sectarians. On the contrary he makes it plain that some other line of action than that described by him must be followed even by the faithful and the preachers, and much more so by the Christian authorities, whenever the heretics come out of their “corner” and try to climb into the pulpit or mount the altar. What was to be done that the pulpit and the Sacrament might remain undefiled, he had already sufficiently explained elsewhere. Naturally, a sermon on the Gospel which tells us to leave the Tares until the harvest was scarcely the place for Luther to expound his severer theories on the treatment to be meted out to unbelievers and misbelievers, so that his silence here cannot be taken as a repudiation of the measures for which he so long had stood. At the close of the next sermon, the last he was ever to preach, addressing himself to the nobility, he speaks very harshly of the Jews. “If they refuse to be converted, then, as blasphemers, they deserve that we should not suffer or endure them among us.” “You Lords ought not to tolerate but rather expel them.” This duty he bases on his usual principle: “Were I to tolerate the man who dishonours, blasphemes and curses Christ my Master, I should be making myself a partaker in the sins of others.”

His system of coercing and punishing heretics he certainly never repudiated.

Compulsory Attendance at Church

“Facts have shown,” Luther wrote to Spalatin in 1527 of the conditions in his new churches, “that men despise the Evangel and insist on being compelled by the law and the sword.”[927] He was very anxious to make attendance at the Lutheran preaching a matter of obligation.

According to his earlier statements, attendance at the preaching had been voluntary, for the matter of the sermons was to be judged by the hearers, in order that they might avoid what was harmful; his subsequent practice of driving all to the preaching made an end of this freedom, or rather duty. Through the authorities, so far as his influence went, he insisted on this principle: “Even though they do not believe they must nevertheless, for the sake of the Ten Commandments, be driven to the preaching, so that they may at least learn the outward work of obedience.” He wrote this at a time when he had already justified such coercion at Wittenberg, viz. on Aug. 26, 1529, in a letter to the “strict and steadfast” Joseph Levin Metzsch of Mila, who was shortly after appointed by the Elector to take part in the Visitation.[928] Instructions sent by Luther on the same day to Thomas Löscher, pastor of the same locality, are to the same effect (“cogendi sunt ad conciones … audiant etiam inviti”).[929] The orders of the authorities concerning public worship were represented in the Visitation Rules for the pastors (1528) as universally binding: “All secular authority is to be obeyed because the secular powers are not ordering a new worship but enforcing peace and charity.”[930] The Preface of the Smaller Catechism (1531) was on the same lines. “Although we neither can nor should force anyone into the faith, yet the masses must be held and driven to it in order that they may know what is right or wrong in those among whom they live.”[931]

In the same year Luther advised Margrave George of Brandenburg to compel the people to attend the Catechism “at the behest of the secular authority,” for, since they “are Christians and wish to be so called,” it was only fitting “they should be obliged to learn what a Christian ought to know.” The Ansbach preachers embodied this requirement in the same year in the alterations they proposed in the church-regulations.[932]

Wittenberg served as the pattern. It was to Wittenberg that Leonard Beyer addressed himself when he succeeded Luther’s friend, Nicholas Hausmann, as pastor of Zwickau. Luther answered his letter by describing the system of coercion practised in Wittenberg and the neighbourhood when people persistently neglected to attend the sermons: “With the authority and in the name of our Most Noble Prince it is our custom to affright those who disregard all piety and fail to attend the preaching, and to threaten them with banishment and the law. This is the first step. Then, if they do not amend, the pastors are enjoined by us to ply them for a month or more with instructions and representations, and, finally, in the event of their still proving contumacious, to excommunicate them, and to break off all intercourse with them as though they were heathen.” He concludes: “The words of the Bible [Matt. xviii. 17; 2 Thes. iii. 6] concerning the avoidance of heretics are quite clear.”[933]—He, however, forgets to add that neither he nor the pastors had ever been quite successful in their attempts at excommunication.

The above regulations of the authorities were to remain in force. In 1533 the Prince once more insisted that: No one is to be permitted to absent himself from the “common church-going,” everyone must be “earnestly reminded of this.”[934] In the General Articles of 1557 it was determined by the Elector August, that, whoever absented himself without permission from the sermon on Sundays and festivals, whether in the morning or afternoon, “more particularly in the villages” was to be fined, or, if he was poor, “to be punished with the pillory, either at the church or at some prison.”[935] The parsons, however, were to notify the authorities of any who contemned the preaching and the sacraments, or who obstinately persisted in their false opinion. Even the practice of auricular confession was, at a later date, made a strict law; whoever evaded confession and the Supper was liable to banishment.[936] The Saxon lawyer, Benedict Carpzov (1595-1666) in his “Iurisprudentia ecclesiastica” defended as self-evident the legal principle based on the practice of Luther’s own country: “Those, who, after repeated admonitions, maliciously absent themselves from the Supper, are to be expelled from the land; they are to be compelled to sell their goods and emigrate.”[937] The same scholarly lawyer elsewhere alludes to the Saxon custom of condemning seditious and blasphemous heretics to die at the stake.[938]

At Wittenberg strong ramparts were set up for the protection of the Lutheran doctrine and to prevent divergent opinions finding their way in.

The Statutes of the Theological Faculty, probably drawn up in 1533 by Melanchthon with Luther’s approval,[939] made it strictly incumbent on the teachers to preach the pure doctrine in accordance with the Confession of Augsburg; in the event of any difference of opinion a commission of judges was to decide; “after that the false opinion shall no longer be defended; if anyone obstinately persists in so doing, he is to be punished with such severity as to prevent him any more spreading abroad his wicked views.”[940] “The same Luther,” says Paulsen of this, “who, twelve years before, had declared that his conscience would not allow of his conceding to Christendom assembled in Council the right to determine the formula of faith, now claimed for the Wittenberg faculty—for this is what it amounts to—the unquestionable right to decide on faith. From 1535 to the day of his death Luther was without a break Dean of this Faculty.”[941]

Again, subsequent to 1535, the preachers and pastors sent out or officially recommended by Wittenberg had to take the so-called “Ordination Oath” which had been suggested by the Elector in order to exclude false preachers. The ministers to be appointed within the Electorate, and likewise those destined to take up appointments elsewhere, had to submit at Wittenberg to a searching examination on doctrine; only after passing it and taking an oath as to the future could they receive their commission. The examination is referred to in the Certificate of Ordination. Thus, in the Certificate of Heinrich Bock (who was sent to Reval in Livonia) which is dated May 17, 1540, and signed by Luther, Bugenhagen, Jonas and Melanchthon, it is set forth that he had undertaken to “preach to the people steadfastly and faithfully the pure doctrine of the Gospel which our Church confesses.” It is also stated that he adheres to the “consensus” of the “Catholic Church of Christ,” and, for this reason, is recommended to the Church of Reval.[942] A similar Certificate for the schoolmaster Johann Fischer, who had received a call to Rudolstadt “to the ministry of the Gospel,” is dated a month earlier. His doctrine, so it declares, had been found on examination to be pure and in accordance with the Catholic doctrine of the Gospel as professed by the Wittenbergers; a promise had also been received from him to teach the same faithfully to the people; for this reason “his call has been confirmed by public ordination.”[943] Fischer had received the “diaconate.”

As early as 1535 we read of the solemn ordination of a certain Johann (Golhart?), “examined by us and publicly ordained in the presence of our Church with prayers and hymns.” He was “ordained and confirmed by order of our sovereign,” having been called and chosen as “assistant minister” at Gotha by the local congregation headed by their pastor Myconius.[944]

The doctrine of the punishment of heretics was afterwards incorporated by Melanchthon in 1552, in the Wittenberg instructions composed by him and entitled: “The Examination of Ordinands.”[945]

Opinions of Protestant Historians

The above account of Luther’s intolerance is very much at variance with the Protestant view still current to some extent in erudite circles, but more particularly in popular literature. Luther, for all the harshness of his disposition, is yet regarded as having in principle advocated leniency, as having been a champion of personal religious freedom, and having only sanctioned severity towards the Anabaptists because of the danger of revolt. Below we shall, however, quote a series of statements from Protestant writers who have risen superior to such party prejudice.

Walther Köhler, in his “Reformation und Ketzerprozess” (1901), wrote:

“In Luther’s case it is impossible to speak of liberty of conscience or religious freedom.” “The death-penalty for heresy rested on the highest Lutheran authority.”[946] According to Köhler there can be no doubt that prosecution for heresy among the Protestants was practically Luther’s doing. “The views of the other reformers on the persecution and bringing to justice of heretics were merely the outgrowth of Luther’s plan, they contributed nothing fresh.”[947] The same writer is of opinion that the question, whether Luther would have approved of the execution of Servetus “must undoubtedly be answered in the affirmative.”[948] “It is certain that Luther would have agreed to the execution of Servetus; heresy as heresy is according to him deserving of death.”[949] One observation made by Köhler is significant enough, viz. “that, when the preaching of the Word proved ineffectual against the heretics,” Luther had recourse to the intervention of the secular authorities.[950]

The matter has been examined with equal frankness by P. Wappler in various studies in which he utilises new data taken from the archives.[951]

“That Luther in principle regarded the death penalty in the case of heretics as just, even where there was no harm done to the ‘regna mundi,’” says Wappler, “is plain from the advice given by him on Oct. 20, 1534, to Prince Johann of Anhalt in reply to his inquiry concerning the attitude to be adopted towards the Anabaptists at Zerbst.” “The fact is, that from the commencement of 1530 the reformers cease to make any real distinction between the two classes of heretics [the seditious ones and those who merely taught false doctrines]. Heretics who merely ‘blasphemed’ were always regarded by them, at least where they remained obdurate, as practically guilty of sedition, and, consequently, as deserving the death penalty.” “The principal part in this was played by Luther, Melanchthon being merely the draughtsman of the memoranda in which Luther’s ideas on the question of heretics were reduced to a certain system.”[952] “The many executions, even of Anabaptists who are known to have not been revolutionaries and who were put to death on the strength of the declarations of the Wittenberg theologians, refute only too plainly all attempts to deny the clear fact, viz. that Luther himself approved of the death penalty even in the case of such as were merely heretics.”[953]

Wappler, after showing how Luther’s wish was, that everyone who preached without orders should be handed over to “Master Hans,” adds: “And what he said, was undoubtedly meant in earnest; shortly before this, on Jan. 18, 1530, as Luther had doubtless learned from Melanchthon, at Reinhardsbrunn near Gotha, six such persons had been handed over to Master Hans, i.e. to the executioner, and duly executed.” Wappler regards it as futile to urge that: “Luther could not prevent executions taking place in the Saxon Electorate”; it is wrong to put the blame on Melanchthon rather than on Luther for the putting to death of heretics.[954]

Speaking of the execution of Peter Pestel at Zwickau, the same author[955] declares that it was “a sad sign of the unfortunate direction so early [1536] taken by the Lutheran reformation that its representatives should allow this man, who had neither disseminated his doctrine in his native land nor rebaptised … to die a felon’s death.” “Even contempt of the outward Word,” he says, “carelessness about going to church and contempt of Scripture—in this instance contempt for the Bible as interpreted by Luther—was now regarded as ‘rank blasphemy,’ which it was the duty of the authorities to punish as such. To such lengths had the vaunted freedom of the Gospel now gone.”[956] The introduction of the Saxon Inquisition (See above, vol. v., 593) leads him to remark: “The principle of evangelical freedom of belief and liberty of conscience, which Luther had championed barely two years earlier, was here most shamefully repudiated, particularly by this lay inquisition, and yet Luther said never a word in protest.”[957]

In 1874 W. Maurenbrecher expressed it as his opinion that “Luther’s tolerance in theory as well as in practice amounted to this: The Church and her ministers were to denounce such as went astray in the faith, whereupon it became the duty of the secular authorities to chastise them as open heretics.”[958] In 1885 L. Keller declared: “It merely displays ignorance of the actual happenings of that epoch, when many people, even to-day, take it for granted that such executions and the wholesale persecution of the Anabaptists were only on account of sedition, and that the reformers had no hand in these things.”[959] “Luther indeed demands toleration,” says K. Rieker, “but only for the Evangelicals; he demands freedom, but merely for the preaching of the Evangel.”[960] According to Adolf Harnack “one of the Reformer’s most noticeable limitations was his inability either fully to absorb the cultural elements of his time, or to recognise the right and duty of unfettered research.”[961]

In Saxony, so H. Barge, Carlstadt’s biographer, complains, “the police-force was mobilised for the defence of pure doctrine”; “and Luther played the part of prompter” to the intolerant Saxon government.[962] “Luther’s harsh, violent and impatient ways” and their “unfortunate” outcome are admitted unreservedly by P. Kalkhoff, another Luther researcher.[963] G. Lœsche calls Paulus’s studies on Strasburg a “Warning against the edifying sentimentality of Protestant make-believe.”[964] Luther “demanded freedom for himself alone and for his doctrine,” remarks E. Friedberg, “not for those doctrines, which he regarded as erroneous.”[965] Neander, the Protestant Church-historian, speaking of Luther’s views in general as given by Dietrich, says they “would justify all sorts of oppression on the part of the State, and all kinds of intellectual tyranny, and were in fact the same as those on which the Roman Emperors acted when they persecuted Christianity.”[966]

Two quotations from Catholic authors may be added. The above passage from Köhler reads curiously like the following statement of C. Ulenburg, an olden Catholic polemic; writing in 1589 he said: “When Luther saw that his disciples were gradually falling away from him and, acting on the principle of freedom of conscience, were treating him as he had previously treated the olden Church, he came to think of having recourse to coercion against such folk.”[967]

“Historically nothing is more incorrect,” wrote Döllinger in his Catholic days, “than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contrary is the truth. For themselves it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience as all men have done in every age, but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. The complete suppression and extirpation of the Catholic Church, and in fact of everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the reformers as something entirely natural.”[968]—Luther’s principles, aided by the arbitrary interference of the secular power in matters of faith, especially where Catholics were concerned, led both in his age and in the following, “to a despotism” “the like of which,” as Döllinger expresses it, “had not hitherto been known; the new system as worked out by the theologians and lawyers was even worse than the Byzantine practice.”[969]

Luther’s Spirit in his Fellows

The question concerning Melanchthon raised by Protestant historians, viz. whether it was he who converted Luther to his intolerance, or, whether, on the other hand, he himself was influenced by Luther, cannot, on the strength of the documents, be answered either affirmatively or negatively. In some respects Melanchthon struck out his own paths, in others he merely followed in Luther’s wake.[970] He was by no means loath to making use of coercion in the case of doctrines differing from his own. His able pen had the doubtful merit of expressing in fluent language what Luther thought and said in private, as we see from the Memoranda still extant. His ill-will with the Papacy and the hostile sects within the new fold, was, it is true, as a rule not so blatant as Luther’s; he was fond of displaying in his style that moderation dear to the humanist; yet we have spontaneous outbursts of his which sound a very harsh note and which doubtless were due to his old and intimate spiritual kinship with Luther.

For instance, we have the wish he expressed, that God would send King Henry VIII a “valiant murderer to make an end of him,”[971] and, again, his warm approval of Calvin’s execution of the heretic Michael Servetus in 1554 (a “pious and memorable example for all posterity”)[972]. He himself wrote about that time a special treatise in defence of the use of the sword against those who spread erroneous doctrines.[973]

With regard to Melanchthon A. Hänel says: To Protestantism “religious freedom was denied at every point.” When Melanchthon wrote to Calvin in praise of the execution of Servetus, his letter, according to Hänel, “was not, as has been imagined, dictated by the mere passion of the moment, but was the harsh consequence of a harsh doctrine.”[974] It must be admitted, remarks the Protestant theologian A. Hunzinger, “that Melanchthon was wont to lose no time in having recourse to fire and sword. This forms a dark blot on his life. Many a man fell a victim to his memorandum, who certainly had no wish to destroy the ‘regna mundi.’”[975]

In consequence of the precipitate and often brutal intervention of the authorities against real or alleged heretics Melanchthon had afterwards abundant reason to regret his appeal to the secular power. He himself, as early as Aug. 31, 1530, had foretold, “that, later, a far more insufferable tyranny would arise than had ever before been known,” viz. the tyranny due to the interference of the Princes in whose hands the power of persecution had been laid. Hence his exclamation: “If only I could revive the jurisdiction of the bishops! For I see what sort of Church we shall have if the ecclesiastical constitution is destroyed.”[976] As we know, he was anxious gradually to graft the old ecclesiastical constitution on Luther’s congregations.

Coming from Luther and fostered by Melanchthon, these intolerant ideas profoundly influenced all their friends.

Not as though there was ever any lack of opponents of the theory of coercion among the Protestants, or even in Luther’s own flock. On the contrary there were some who had the sense of justice and the courage to resist the current of intolerance coming from Wittenberg. Indeed it was the protests which Luther encountered at Nuremberg which led him to emphasise his harsh demands.

Already in 1530 Luther’s follower Lazarus Spengler wrote from Nuremberg to Veit Dietrich begging him to seek advice of Luther and to request his literary help; in the town there were some who opposed any measures of coercion against the divergent doctrines, “some of ours, who are not fanatics but are regarded as good Christians,” desire that neither the “Sacramentarians nor the Anabaptists” should be prosecuted so long as they do not “stir up revolt,” nor yet the errors prohibited of “the preachers of the godless Mass and other idolatries”; “they appeal on behalf of this to Dr. Luther’s booklet, which he some while ago addressed to Duke Frederick the Elector of Saxony against the fanatic Thomas Münzer, in which he approves this view and admits it to be quite sound.”[977]

At Augsburg (1533) the Lutheran lawyer, Conrad Hel, siding with his Catholic-minded confrères Conrad Peutinger and Johann Rehlinger[978] openly and courageously denied the Town-Councils any rights in the matter. In 1534 Christoph Ehem, a patrician of Augsburg, who also held Lutheran views, wrote a little work in which he demanded universal and unconditional toleration and invited the Council to place some “bridle and restraint” on the new preachers.[979] At that time (1536) the Lutheran preacher Johann Forster protested very strongly against Bucer, and refused to hear of the forcible suppression of Catholic worship in Cathedral churches outside the jurisdiction of the civic authorities; he appealed in this matter to Luther. Bucer just then was bent on suppressing the Catholic worship with the help of the magistrates. Forster was finally silenced by dint of “ranting, raging and shouting” and was indignantly asked: “Whether he wished to tolerate Popery and submit to such idolatry?”[980]

At Strasburg in 1528 the Protestant Town-Clerk, Peter Butz, set a brave example by openly and severely condemning in the Council the system of coercion planned by some of the preachers. Against the intolerance towards sectarians advocated by Bucer, preachers and scholars like Anton Engelbrecht, Wolfgang Schultheiss, Johann Sapidus and Jacob Ziegler were not slow to protest,[981] though they had nothing to say against the violent abolition of Catholic worship.

At Coire the preacher Johann Gantner came into conflict with Bullinger on account of the coercive measures favoured by the latter; he reproached the inhabitants of Zürich and Berne with having fallen away from the freedom of the Evangel into the Mosaic bondage. Gantner and others, in support of their protest, usually appealed against the prevailing tendency to Sebastian Franck’s “Chronica,” published at Strasburg in 1531.[982]

Sebastian Franck, the witty and learned opponent of Luther, “after Luther himself, the best and most popular German prose writer of the day,” took the line of pushing to its bitter end Luther’s subjectivism. He declared that the new preachers had made of Holy Scripture a paper idol for the benefit of their private views, and that the Lutheran Church was the invisible kingdom of Christ and as such numbered among its members men of every sect; hence he argued that what was termed false doctrine and false worship should not be interfered with.[983] As Kawerau points out, Franck found in the 16th century “not a few readers wherever dissatisfaction prevailed with the Papacy of the theologians”;[984] nevertheless, in 1531, he was expelled from Strasburg on account of his liberal views; later on, when he had taken up his residence at Ulm, Melanchthon wrote thither, in 1535, that he should be “dealt with severely” (“severe coercendum”) no less than Schwenckfeld.[985] Driven from Ulm he went to Basle in 1539, but even there the echo of the verdict of the Wittenbergers reached him; in March, 1540, the theologians assembled at Schmalkalden, condemned him and charged him with “inducing people to seek the spirit while neglecting the ‘Word’”; they themselves, they added, had broken with the Churches of the Pope because of their idolatry, but there was “no reason whatever for throwing over the ministry in our own Churches.”[986]

As we have already shown, Landgrave Philip of Hesse was likewise disposed to be less intolerant than Luther, at least with regard to the Anabaptists. Relentlessly as he refused any public toleration to the Catholic faith and banished those Catholics who persisted in their religious practices, yet, in a letter of 1532, addressed to Elector Johann of Saxony, he declared himself against the execution of the Anabaptists; the actual words have been quoted above (p. 256). In another letter, in 1545, to the Elector Johann Frederick, he also points out, that: “If this sect be punished so severely by us, then we, by our example, give our foes, the Papists, reason to treat us in the same way, for they regard us as no better than the Anabaptists.”[987]

These and similar remonstrances were unavailing to change the views which had taken root at Wittenberg.

George Major, Professor of theology at Wittenberg University, was a learned and zealous disciple of Luther’s. He, like Melanchthon, on hearing of the execution of Servetus at Geneva, declared that Calvin was to be commended for having put to death the heretic, and, at a Disputation held in 1555, expressly defended the thesis, that it was the duty of the authorities to punish contumacious heretics with death. They must “get rid of blasphemers, perjurers and wizards. Amongst the blasphemers must, however, be reckoned those who persistently defend idolatrous worship, or heresies which clearly disagree with the articles of the faith.”[988]

Luther’s code of penalties for any deviation from the Wittenberg teaching fitted in well with Bugenhagen’s natural harshness, who showed himself only too ready to make his own the words of Moses concerning the slaying of unbelievers. We may recall how, in conversation, when Luther mentioned the difficulties he had with Carlstadt, Agricola and Schenk, Bugenhagen broke in with the remark: “Sir Doctor, we ought to do what is commanded in Deuteronomy where Moses says they should be put to death.”[989] Bugenhagen, in the many places into which he brought the new faith, was relentlessly severe in enforcing against the Catholics the principles he had carried with him from Wittenberg. Very characteristic is the tone in which he reported to Luther that the Mass had been forbidden in Denmark and the monks driven out of the land as “seditionmongers” and “blasphemers.”[990] Not only had the bishops been imprisoned, but, according to the account of Peter Palladius the superintendent, some of the monks “had been hanged.”[991]

Justus Jonas began his labours at Halle in 1542 by a written invitation to the Town-Council “completely to purge the town of false doctrine and every kind of idolatrous worship”; Luther and Melanchthon had sufficiently proved in their works that this “was incumbent on Christian magistrates.” He declared that the monks still living in the town were “obstinate and impenitent idolaters,” “adders and snakes” whom he “must reduce to silence with the use of the gag”; already, throughout the whole neighbourhood, “merely at the exhortations of the preachers, the monasteries, with their Masses and idolatrous worship, had crumbled into ruins.”[992] Later, in a memorandum addressed to the Town-Council in 1546, Jonas again inveighed against the remaining handful of well-disposed and zealous monks, and called to mind how “our beloved father, Dr. Martin, in the very last sermon he preached at Halle shortly before his decease, had exhorted the Town-Council and the whole Church with all his burning, stormy earnestness to rid themselves of the crawling things.”[993] Jonas appealed to his own “conscience” and threatened to report matters to the Elector of Saxony and “his Electoral Highness’s scholars at Wittenberg.”[994] With the outbreak of the Schmalkalden war, when the Electoral troops laid waste the monasteries his hopes at last found their fulfilment. He announced on March 3, 1547, that, at Halle, the “Papistic idolatry” had now been swept away;[995] when he wrote this he did not expect the change in the position of the Catholics in the town, for which the defeat of the Elector’s troops in the following month was responsible.

We are reminded how greatly Spalatin was imbued with Luther’s exclusivism and spirit of intolerance by his words concerning the “Christian bit” which he wished placed in the mouths of all the clergy.[996] He was at great pains to press upon the sovereign that he was not to permit “unchristian ceremonies” and “idolatry.”[997]

The Elector Johann was merely giving expression to the views with which Spalatin and Luther had inspired him when he declared that, “heretics and contemners of the Word” must in every instance be punished by the authorities.[998] His successor, Johann Frederick, likewise followed obediently the “Wittenberg theologians and lawyers,” as he terms his authorities.[999] He instructed Melanchthon in 1536 to write and have printed a popular “Answer to sundry unchristian articles” against the Anabaptists, which was to be read aloud from the pulpit every third Sunday, and which insisted that the secular authorities were bound to punish “all contempt of Scripture and the outward Word” as “blatant blasphemy.”[1000]

At the Religious Conference at Worms in 1557 quite a number of respected Lutheran theologians (J. Brenz, J. Marbach, M. Diller, J. Pistorius, J. Andreæ, G. Karg, P. Eber and G. Rungius) signed a lengthy statement by Melanchthon aimed at the Anabaptists. As one of the errors of the sect is instanced their teaching that God communicates Himself without the intermediary of the ministry, of preaching or the Sacrament. Those “heads and ringleaders” of the sect who persisted in their doctrines were “to be condemned as guilty of sedition and blasphemy and put to death by the sword”; the death penalty prescribed in Leviticus for blasphemers was asserted to be a “natural law, binding, by virtue of their office, on all in authority,” hence “the judges had done the right thing” when they condemned to death the heretic Servetus at Geneva.[1001]

Johann Brenz, who helped to promote Lutheranism in Würtemberg, had, in 1528, written and published a pamphlet in which he deprecated the Anabaptists’ being put to death “merely on account of heresy” when not guilty of sedition.[1002] He was for this reason regarded by Melanchthon as “too mild.”[1003] His later writings, however, show that the intolerant spirit of Wittenberg finally seized on him too. In his treatment of Catholics—both previous to 1528, and, even more so when the olden worship had been suppressed at Schwäbisch-Halle and he had been called to Stuttgart—he was in the forefront in advising violent measures against Catholic practices. When he reorganised the Church in Würtemberg, in 1536, after the victory of Duke Ulrich, attendance at the Protestant sermons was made obligatory on the Catholics of Stuttgart under pain of a fine, or of imprisonment in the tower on bread and water.[1004] Brenz, though widely extolled as tolerant and broadminded, in his quality of spiritual adviser to Duke Christopher, stooped to the meanest and most petty regulations in order to induce the nuns who still remained faithful to their religion—many of whom were of high birth and advanced in years—to accept the new faith; they were compelled to attend the sermons and religious colloquies, deprived of their books of devotion, their correspondence was supervised, they had to entertain Protestant guests at table and to be served by Lutheran maids, etc.[1005]

The unenviable distinction of having most thoroughly assimilated Luther’s intolerant views was enjoyed by two men in close mental kinship with him, viz. Justus Menius and Johann Spangenberg.

Johann Spangenberg, an enthusiastic pupil of Luther’s, and, later, Superintendent at Eisleben, when preacher at Nordhausen declared in a tract that “fear of God’s wrath and His extreme displeasure” had rightly led the Town-Council to forbid Catholics to attend Catholic sermons, because, there, souls were “horribly murdered”; even Nabuchodonosor and Darius had set the authorities an example of how “blasphemy against religion” was to be treated.[1006]

Justus Menius, Luther’s friend, who worked as superintendent at Eisenach and Gotha, followed Luther in qualifying the Anabaptists as the emissaries of the devil, as “rebels and murderers,” who had fallen under the ban of the authorities because they did not “profess the true faith according to the Word of God” and live a “godly life.” Of the authorities who were negligent in punishing them he exclaims: “The devil rides such rulers so that they sin and do what is unrighteous.” Luther himself wrote laudatory prefaces to his works on the subject. In 1552 Menius demanded from Duke Albert of Prussia a severe prohibition against the new believers’ teaching or writing anything that was at variance with the Confession of Augsburg. When, however, his opponents secured the ear of the Court he had himself to suffer; the ruler pointed out to him that, in accordance with his own theories of the supremacy of the sovereign, it was the duty of the authorities, by virtue of their princely office, to withstand false doctrine and, consequently, he himself must either submit or go to prison; upon this Menius made his escape to Leipzig (†1558).[1007]

Urban Rhegius, appointed General Superintendent by Duke Ernest of Brunswick-Lüneburg after the Diet of Augsburg, not only defended in his writings a relentless system of compulsion whereby Catholic parents were no longer permitted even in their homes to instruct their children in the Catholic faith, but also allowed “Zwinglians and Papists to be beaten with rods and banished from the town.” The authorities he invited to appropriate the property of the clergy. The inglorious war he waged against the nuns of Lüneburg, who, in spite of every kind of persecution, stood true to their religion, has recently been brought to light, and that, thanks to Protestant research; it forms one of the blackest pages in the history of Lutheran intolerance.[1008]

A memorial of the Strasburg preachers dating from 1535 (printed in 1537) which might be termed the fullest and most complete exposition of the Royal Supremacy in church affairs drafted in that period, is the work of Wolfgang Capito, a preacher often extolled for his moderation and prudence.[1009] In it we have the picture of a Government-Church with a “Caliph” (Döllinger’s expression) at its head, who combines in himself the highest secular and spiritual authority.

Martin Bucer though differing from Luther in much else was yet at one with him in asserting that it was the duty of the secular authority to abolish “false doctrine and perverted ceremonials,” and that, as the sole authority, it was to be obeyed by “all the bishops and clergy.” Though anxious to be regarded as considerate and peaceable, he defended the prohibition against Catholic sermons issued at Augsburg by the City-Council in 1534, and even incited it to still more stringent measures against the Catholics. He advocated quite openly “the power of the authorities over consciences.”[1010] “Among us Christians,” he asks, “is injury and slaughter of souls by false worship of less importance than the ravishing of wives and daughters?”[1011] He never rested until, in 1537, with the help of such hot-heads as Wolfgang Musculus, he brought about the entire suppression of the Mass at Augsburg. At his instigation “many fine paintings, monuments and ancient works of art in the churches were wantonly torn, broken and smashed.”[1012] Whoever refused to submit and attend public worship was obliged within eight days to quit the city-boundaries. Catholic citizens were forbidden under severe penalties to attend Catholic worship elsewhere, and special guards were stationed at the gates to prevent any such attempt.[1013]

In other of the Imperial cities Bucer acted with no less violence and intolerance, for instance, at Ulm, where he supported Œcolampadius and Ambrose Blaurer in 1531, and at Strasburg where he acted in concert with Capito, Caspar Hedio, Matthæus Zell and others. Here, in 1529, after the Town-Council had prohibited Catholic worship, the Councillors were requested by the preachers to help to fill the empty churches by issuing regulations prescribing attendance at the sermons. Bucer adhered till his death (1551), as his work “De Regno Christi” (1550) proves, to the principle of the rights and duties of authorities towards the new religion.[1014]

In the above survey of those who preached religious intolerance only Luther’s own pupils and followers have been considered; the result would be even less cheering were the leaders of the other Protestant sects added to the list.

At Zürich, Zwingli’s State-Church grew up much as Luther’s did in Germany; Œcolampadius at Basle and Zwingli’s successor, Bullinger, were strong compulsionists. Calvin’s name is even more closely bound up with the idea of religious absolutism, while the task of handing down to posterity his harsh doctrine of religious compulsion was undertaken by Beza in his notorious work “De hæreticis a civili magistratu puniendis.” The annals of the Established Church of England were likewise at the outset written in blood.

The sufferings endured by the Catholics in Germany owing to the wave of intolerance which spread from Wittenberg are reflected in the countless complaints we hear at that time. Many writings still tell to-day of the injustice under which they groaned. In a “Manual of Complaint and Consolation for all oppressed Christians” we read as follows: “Oh, what a mockery it is that these tyrants and abusers of power should exclaim everywhere that their gospel is Christian freedom, that they have no wish to tyrannise over consciences when there could never have been worse tyrants than those men who do not scruple to go on unceasingly tormenting the consciences of the people, robbing them of the consolation of the holy sacraments of the religious ministrations of consecrated priests, of all their prayer-books and devotional works, and, even on their death-beds, in spite of their piteous entreaties refusing them the Holy Viaticum!”[1015] This touching complaint is made more particularly in the name of those most defenceless members of society, who were devoid of legal protection and whose very poverty made emigration impossible. “All the iniquities committed in German lands and cities are attested at the Judgment-Seat of God by the souls of thousands of consecrated nuns, who never did wrong to anyone and who asked for nothing more than permission to live and die in their ancient faith, even though their worldly goods should be taken away from them and they shut up within closed walls.”[1016]

2. Luther as Judge

It must not be overlooked that Luther’s severity towards heretics within his fold is to be set down largely to his nervous irritability arising partly out of his natural temperament, partly out of his unceasing labours, so that, if we are to be just to him, his conviction that his doctrine was the only authorised one must not be held to be entirely responsible for his behaviour. At the same time it is plain how deeply he was affected by belief in his higher mission. Thus he practically made himself a religious dictator, when, in 1542, he demanded that the Meissen nobles who had come over to him should not only ratify their new belief by doing penance, but also should “signify their approval of everything which has hitherto been done by us and shall be done in the future.”[1017]

Another point on which we must also do him justice is the service performed by him in his controversies with rivals, in the field both of theology and Scripture-exegesis, by repressing with such energy and general success the dangerous tendencies apparent in the Anabaptist heresy and the Antinomianism of Johann Agricola. In the attacks of the Antinomians on all law, even on the Decalogue, there undoubtedly lay a great danger for morality and religion. Certain of Luther’s own principles were carried to rash, nay, foolhardy, lengths by the Antinomians. Hence it was not unfortunate that Agricola found pitted against him so redoubtable an opponent as Luther who, as was his wont, interfered and nipped the evil in the bud.

The Conceit and the Obstinacy of the “Heretics”

Luther bitterly accuses of boundless presumption all the heretics within the New Faith, but particularly Agricola. The latter might even be classed with those doctors who might most fittingly be compared with Arius and treated in the same way.

“This man,” he says of Agricola, “is presumption itself. Neither with the flute nor with tears is he to be won.… I see it is my goodness that puffs him up. He says he is a guiltless Abel. He is, forsooth, being made a martyr at my hands.…” But, so Luther continues, he will be such a martyr as was Arius and Satan.[1018]

In 1542, when the conversation at table turned on the teachers of the New Faith whose opinions differed from Luther’s, a good many names were mentioned, “Those at Zürich” (Zwingli’s pupils), Carlstadt, Bucer and Capito, “Grickel and Jeckel”—some of them living and some of them already dead—all of whom were insufferably presumptuous. It was then that Bugenhagen, who was present, could not refrain from quoting the passage in the Old Testament where Moses had commanded in God’s name “That prophet shall be slain because he spoke to draw you away from the Lord your God.… If thy brother would persuade thee (to serve other gods), thou shalt presently put him to death. Let thy hand be the first upon him and afterwards the hands of all the people. With stones shall he be stoned to death: because he would have withdrawn thee from the Lord thy God. If in one of the cities thou hear that some have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, inquire carefully and diligently the truth of the thing by looking well into it, and if thou find that which is said to be certain and that this abomination hath been committed, thou shalt forthwith kill the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, and shalt destroy it and all things that are in it, even to the cattle.”[1019]

Hence it was perhaps rather lucky that the Wittenberg tribunal was presided over by the sovereign of the land, and that the sentences pronounced at Luther’s table or in the learned circles of the Theological Faculty required subsequent ratification by the authorities.

Luther’s complaints elsewhere about the pride of the heretics throw still further light on the jealousy which was at work in him (above, p. 260).

“How is it that all the insurgents say ‘I am the man?’ They want all the glory for themselves and hate and are grim with all others, just like the Pope who also wants to stand alone.”[1020] Zwingli appears to be one of the foremost among those desirous of robbing him of his due glory. “He was ambitious through and through.”[1021] On hearing that Zwingli had said that, in three years, he would have France, Spain and England “on his side and for his share,” Luther became very bitter and several times complained of Zwingli’s intention to seize upon his harvest; such words seemed to him the “boasting of a braggart.”[1022] “Œcolampadius, too, fancied himself the doctor of doctors and far above me, even before he had ever heard me.” And in the same way Carlstadt said: “As for you, Sir Doctor, I don’t care a snap! Münzer, too, preached against two Popes, the old one and the new,[1023] said I must be a Saul, and that though I had made a good beginning, the Spirit of God had left me.… Hence let all the theologians and preachers look to it and diligently beware lest they seek their glory in Holy Scripture and in God’s Word; otherwise they will have a fall.”[1024]—“Mr. Eisleben [Johann Agricola] labours under great pride and presumption; he wants to be the only one, and, with his pride and his puffed-up spirit, to surpass all others.”[1025] “They are scamps,” so he abuses them in another passage, “fain would they get at us and surpass us, as though forsooth we were blind and could not see through their tricks.”[1026]

Elsewhere in the Table-Talk we read: “My best friends,” said Dr. Martin, with a deep sigh, “seek to stamp me under foot and to trouble and besmirch the Evangel; hence I am going to hold a disputation.” “Alas, that, in my own lifetime, I should see them strutting about and seeking to rule.” It was with him as with St. Paul to whom God wished to show how much he must suffer for His Name’s sake (Acts ix. 16). Some indeed were trying to persuade him that these foes in his own household were not really against Luther, but only against Cruciger, Rörer, etc. But this was false. “For the Catechism, the Exposition of the Ten Commandments and the Confession of Augsburg are mine, not Cruciger’s or Rörer’s.”[1027]

Of those near him “Mr. Eisleben” (Agricola) seemed to him his chief rival; those abroad troubled him less; for a while Luther was obsessed by the idea that Agricola, “with his cool head, was set on securing the reins and was seeking to become a great lord.”[1028]

Of Carlstadt Luther once said, referring to the rivalry between the pair: “He persuaded himself that there was no more learned man on earth than he; what I write that he imitates and seeks to copy me.” After a profession of personal humility, Luther concludes: “And yet, by God’s Grace, I am more learned than all the Sophists and theologians of the Schools.”[1029]

Though Luther never grows weary of insisting against the heretics at home on the “public, common doctrine,” and of instancing the fell consequences of pride and obstinacy, even going so far as to predict that they will in all likelihood never be converted because founders of sects rarely retrace their steps and recant,[1030] yet he never seems to have perceived that the point of all this might equally well have been turned against himself.

The blindness of such heretics he describes in a tract of 1526 dedicated to Queen Mary of Hungary:

“Here we may all of us well be afraid, and particularly all heretics and false teachers.… Such a temper [obstinacy in sticking to one’s own opinion] penetrates like water into the inmost recesses and like oil into the very bone, and becomes our daily clothing. Then it comes about that one party curses the other, and the doctrine of one is rank poison and malediction to the other, and his own doctrine nothing but blessing and salvation; this we now see among our fanatics and Papists. Then everything is lost. The masses are not converted; a few, whom God has chosen, come right again, but the others remain under the curse and even regard it as a precious thing.… Nor have I ever read of heresiarchs being converted; they remain obdurate in their own conceit, the oil has gone into the bone … and has become part of their nature. They allow none to find fault with them and brook no opposition. This is the sin against the Holy Ghost for which there is no forgiveness.”[1031]

In the same writing he describes the heretics’ way of speaking: “The heretics give themselves up to idle talk so that one hears of nothing but their dreams.… They overflow with words; all evildoers tend to become garrulous. As a boiling pot foams and bubbles over, so they too overflow with the talk of which their heart is full.… They stand stiff upon their doctrine about which there is no lack of ranting.”[1032]

The description (which seats so well on Luther himself) proceeds: “Those are heretics and apostates who follow their own ideas rather than the common tradition of Christendom, who transgress the teaching of their fathers and separate themselves from the common ways and usages of the whole of Christendom, who, out of pure wantonness, invent new ways and methods without cause, and contrary to Holy Writ.”[1033]—“They misread the Word of God according to their whim and make it mean what they please. In short they undertake something out of the common and invent a belief of their own, regardless of God’s Word.… God must put up with their doctrine and life as being alone holy and Godly.”[1034]

Again and again he brands pride as the cause of all heresy: “This is the reason; they think much of themselves, which, indeed, is the cause and well-spring of all heresies, for, as Augustine also says, ‘Ambition is the mother of all heresies.’ Thus Zwingli and Bucer now put forward a new doctrine.… So dangerous a thing is pride in the clergy.”[1035]—“We cannot sufficiently be on our guard against this deadly vice. Vices of the body are gross, and we feel them to be such, but this vice can always deck itself out with the glory of God, as though it had God’s Word on its side. But beneath the outward veil there is nothing but vain glory.”[1036]—“Lo, here you have in brief the cause and ground of all idolatry, heresy, hypocrisy and error, what the prophets inveigh against, and what was the cause of their being put to death, and against which the whole of Scripture witnesses. It all comes from obstinacy and conceit and the ideas of natural reason which puffs itself up … and fancies it knows enough, and can find its way for itself, etc.”[1037]

Such statements of Luther’s are of supreme importance for judging of his Divine Mission. In his frame of mind it became at last an impossibility for him to realise that his hostility and intolerance towards “heretics” within his fold could redound on himself, or that he was contradicting himself in continuing to proclaim freedom, or at least in continuing to make the fullest use of it himself. In reality he was living in a world of his own, and his mental state cannot be judged of by the usual standards.

“Heretics” who cannot be sure of their Cause

Apart from the “pride of the heretics,” another idea of Luther’s deserves attention, viz. that those teachers who differed from him, in their heart of hearts, knew him to be in the right, or at least neither were nor could be quite certain of their own doctrines. Of any call in their case there could be no question; his call, however, was above doubt, seeing his certainty. Hence, in his dealings with the “sectarians” we once again find the same strange attitude, as he had exhibited towards the “Papists,” who, according to him, likewise were withstanding their own conscience and lacked any real call.

To a man so full of such fiery enthusiasm for his cause and so dominated by his imagination as Luther, it seems to have been an easy task to persuade himself ever more and more firmly, that all his opponents’ doings were against their own conscience.

The “teachers of faith,” he says, speaking of the sectarians, ought first of all “to be certain about their mission. Otherwise all is up with them. It was this [argument] that killed Œcolampadius. He could not endure the self-accusation: How if you have taught what is false?”[1038] Concerning Œcolampadius Luther professed to know that, even in his prayers, he had been doubtful of his own doctrine. But, so he argues, if a man goes so far as to pray for the spread of his doctrine he must surely first be “quite certain and not doubt thus of the Word and of his doctrine, for doubts and uncertainty have no place in theology, but a man must be certain of his case in the face of God.” Before the world, indeed, he continues, with a strange limitation of his previous assertion, “it behoves one to be humble, to proceed gently and to say: If anyone knows better, let him say so; to God’s Word I will gladly yield when I am better instructed.”[1039] Yet, in the same works, where seemingly he professes such willingness to listen to others, he himself proclaims most emphatically his great mission and its exclusive character.[1040]

All heretics, he once remarked, were disarmed by this one question: “My friend, is it the command of our Lord God [that you should teach thus]? At this, one and all are struck dumb.”[1041] Only by dint of lying are they able to boast of their inward assurance of their cause. Here we have Campanus for instance: “He boasts that he is as sure as sure can be of his cause and that it is impossible for him to be mistaken.” “But he is an accursed lump of filth whom we ought to despise and not bother our heads about writing against, for this only makes him more bold, proud and brave.… Whereupon Master Philip [Melanchthon] said: his suggestion would be that he should be strung up on the gallows, and this he had written to his lord [the Elector].”[1042]

With his own “certainty” Luther triumphantly confronts his opponents who at heart were uncertain: “Every man who speaks the Word of Christ is free to boast that his mouth is the mouth of Christ”; such a one, confiding in his certainty, may help to “tear Antichrist out of men’s hearts, so that his cause may no longer avail.”[1043]—“But, now, the articles of pure doctrine are proved [by me] from Scripture in the clearest way, and yet it carries no weight with them; never has an article of the faith been preached which has not more than once been attacked and contradicted by heretics, who, nevertheless, read the same Scriptures as we.”[1044]—“In short, ‘heretics must needs arise’ (1 Cor. xi. 19), and that cannot be stopped, for it was so even in the Apostles’ time. We are no better off than our fathers; Christ Himself was persecuted.”[1045] “No heretic allows himself to be convinced. They neither see nor hear anything, like Master Stiffel [Michael Stiefel]; he saw me not nor heard me.… It is forbidden to curse, swear, etc., far more to cause heresy.”[1046]—Then one becomes hardened against God the Holy Ghost; these fanatics “do not even doubt”—which is astonishing—“they stand firm.” He had warned the Anabaptist Marcus (Stübner), so he relates, “to beware lest he err,” to which he answered that “God Himself shall not dissuade me from this.”[1047]

In short, since Luther’s own cause is so clear and certain, those who disagree, particularly the sectarians, must simply have discarded the faith. For instance, “of Master Jeckel [Jacob Schenk] I hold that he believes nothing.”[1048] He, Luther, has “at all times taught God’s Word in all simplicity; to this I adhere, and will surrender myself a prisoner to it or else—become a Pope who believes neither in the again-rising of the dead nor in life everlasting.”[1049] Thus he sees no middle course between the most frivolous unbelief and the Word of God as he believes and interprets it. Hence, with heretics, whether among the Pope’s men or in his own flock, “he will have nothing to do outside of Scripture—unless indeed they start working miracles.”

Where are your Miracles?

The stress Luther lays on miracles as a proof of doctrine is another trait to add to the picture of his psychology. Again and again he repeated anew what he had already, in 1524, said of Münzer and some of the preachers: They must be told to corroborate their mission by signs and wonders, or else be forbidden to preach; for whenever God wills to change the order of things He always works miracles.[1050] There is something almost tragic in the courage with which he appealed to miracles in this connection, when we bear in mind his own difficulties, in accounting for their absence in his own case.[1051] Here it is enough to recall Hier. Weller’s words: “I still remember right well,” Weller writes, “how he once said that he had never thought of asking God for the gift of raising the dead, or of performing other miracles, though he did not doubt he might have obtained such of God had he wished; he had, however, preferred to be content with the rich gift of Scripture-interpretation; he further said that he had raised two persons from the dead, one of them being Philip Melanchthon and the other a God-fearing man.”[1052]

As against the sects and fanatics, Luther urges that he himself laid no claim to any extraordinary mission; as they, however, did make such a claim, they must vindicate it by miracles. “I have never preached or sought to preach unless I was asked and called for by men, for I cannot boast as they do that God has sent me from heaven without means; they run of their own accord, though no one sends them, as Jeremias writes [xxiii. 21]; for this reason they work no good.”[1053] Neither here nor elsewhere does he explicitly state by whom it is necessary to be “asked” or “called.” His account of the source whence he derives his mission also varies, being now the Wittenberg magistrates, now his Doctor’s degree, now the sovereign, now the enthusiastic hearers and readers of his word.[1054]

Such was his confidence that Luther forgot that it was by no means difficult for the “false brethren” within his camp to pick out the weak spots in his doctrine. He refused to recognise that much of their criticism was valid; on the negative side it even took the place of miracles. It was not every Catholic polemic who succeeded in demonstrating so clearly and convincingly the anomalies in Luther’s views, for instance, on the Law and Gospel, as the Antinomian, Johann Agricola.

On the other hand, Luther could well note with satisfaction the inability of the heretics to bring forward anything positive of importance. They were dwarfs compared with him. With his knowledge of the Bible it was child’s play to him to overthrow the fanatics’ often ludicrous applications of Scripture. Of Zwingli, too, it was easy for him to get the better by dint of sticking to the literal sense of Christ’s words of institution: “This is My Body.” Luther was not slow in pointing out the blemishes of the “fanatics,” their vanity and blind obedience to ambition and self-will, and the impracticability of their fantastic, and often revolutionary, theories. The very truth of his strictures, for all his lack of miracles, raised him in his own eyes, far above these clumsy teachers; this perhaps enables us to understand better the utter contempt he expresses for them.

His Anger with Lemnius and Others

One had but to praise those whom he condemned to call forth Luther’s implacable anger.

This was the experience in 1538 of the humanist, Simon Lemnius (Lemchen) of Wittenberg, a man otherwise kindly disposed to the new teaching. A humanist above all, he had won Melanchthon’s favour on account of his talent.

Lemnius had thoughtlessly dared to publish two books of epigrams in which he not only attacked with biting sarcasm certain Wittenberg personages, but actually ventured to praise Archbishop Albert of Mayence, Luther’s powerful opponent. The poet, no doubt, was anxious to curry favour with the Archbishop so as to find in him a Mæcenas; he even went so far as to extol him as the man who “had kept alive the olden faith.” The censorship for which Melanchthon as Rector of the University was then responsible, was caught napping. Lemnius was indeed arrested by the University, but he escaped and fled from Wittenberg. On Trinity Sunday, June 16th, Luther read out from the pulpit a Mandate in which he abused Archbishop Albert in disgraceful terms, and scourged as a criminal act the praise bestowed in the “shameful, shocking book of lies” on Bishop Albert, “a devil out of whom it made a saint.” In it he also declared that, “by every code of law, and no matter whither the fugitive knave had fled, his head was forfeit.”[1055] Thus Lemnius was as good as outlawed—though no Court of Justice had yet sentenced him. On July 4th Melanchthon formally expelled him from the University on account of “faithlessness, perjury and slander.”[1056] The “perjury” consisted in his having fled, in defiance of the obedience he owed to the University, so as to evade the harsh penalties he had reason to apprehend. The whole edition of the Epigrams was destroyed.

“It is the devil who hatches out such knaves,” remarked Luther, “particularly among the Papists, through whom he attacks and thwarts us.… Because we preach Christ alone he persecutes us in every way he can.” The bishops deserve to be called “lost and godless knaves and foes of God,” hence “those must not be tolerated here who praise them in verse and prose.”[1057]

When Lemnius had a second edition of the Epigrams printed at Wittenberg this also was suppressed. He had added a third book, devoted to abuse of Luther and containing the famous “Merd-Song” on Luther, who was then ailing from diarrhœa. Luther retorted with a “Merd-Song” of his own on Lemnius. His verses he read aloud to his friends and they became public property through being incorporated in Lauterbach’s notes of the Table-Talk.[1058]

Lemnius, whose career had been wrecked by Luther’s anger and revenge, then wrote an “Apologia against the unjust and lying decree” which the Wittenberg University had published against him at the instigation (“imperio et tyrannide”) of Martin Luther and Justus Jonas. He still retained his loose humanistic style after his return in 1538 to his native Switzerland, where he obtained a position as schoolmaster at Coire.

The above Apologia was printed at Cologne, it would seem in 1539, but very few copies survive owing to the energy shown in their suppression. It is only of recent years that the complete text has become generally known;[1059] till then Protestants like Schelhorn and Hausen had only ventured to give fragments of the work. In it the writer complains bitterly that Luther “has published a pamphlet against him [the mandate read aloud in the church] in which, playing both the judge and the sovereign, Luther had condemned and abused him.” “Such authority in civil matters” does this soul-herd arrogate to himself. He robs the bishops of their secular power, but he himself is a tyrant. The charges against Luther’s private life made in this work are glaring, and they come, moreover, from a man who knew his Wittenberg, but it must not be forgotten that he was now a bitter foe of Luther.[1060] He goes so far as to declare that Luther’s shameless attacks on the sovereigns, for instance on the Elector of Mayence, gave grounds for apprehending contempt of all authority and the outbreak of a war that would spell the ruin of Germany.

Meanwhile “Luther sits like a dictator at Wittenberg and rules; what he says must be taken as law.”[1061] He calls his opponent the “Wittenberg Pope” (“Papa Albiacus”), who had been faithless to his Vows.

In order rightly to appreciate, from their psychological side, Luther’s angry outbursts against the heretics in his party we must above all remember his fears of a coming collapse of theology among his following; that he foresaw something of the sort has already been shown above.[1062]

He was also keenly alive to the harm these dissensions were doing to his reputation. Nor must we forget the threatening and highly insulting behaviour of many of these heretics. Taking all things together, it is easy to understand how a temper such as his was lashed to fury when denouncing the “presumption and foolhardiness” of his foes.[1063]

“A muddled and obstinate head” sits on the neck of the fanatics’ ringleader; “his horns must be blunted.”[1064]—“Carlstadt and Zwingli behave with insolence and defiance”; “We must needs decry the fanatics as damned”; “they actually dare to pick holes in our doctrine; ah, the scoundrelly rabble do a great injury to our Evangel even in the outland and enable our foes to scoff at us.”[1065]—“Their pride and audacity will bring about their downfall.”[1066]

In truth, he says, “Carlstadt blasphemed himself to death.”[1067]—Œcolampadius saw the “curse” of God fulfilled in himself, “and withered away with fear the night after Zwingli had been struck down” (at Cappel).[1068] Zwingli himself, like the rest, was urged on merely by “his boundless ambition.”[1069]—Egranus (Johann Wildenauer) was a “proud donkey.”[1070]—Bucer is a “gossip,”[1071] “a miscreant through and through, in every case, inflection and rule of grammar; I trust him not at all, for Paul says [Titus iii. 10] ‘A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.’”[1072]—Sebastian Franck is a “wicked, venomous knave and it is a wonder to me that those at Ulm care to keep him.”[1073] “He only loved to do harm, is inconstant and boasts of the spirit; but his wife has plenty of spirit and it is she who inspirits him with her spirit.”[1074]—Schwenckfeld deserves as little as Franck to be written against. “Agricola is only puffed up with hatred and ambition.”[1075]

He “is and should be called a godless man who denies God, which is what the Sacramentarians do.”[1076]—“Of false brethren we must above all things beware.”[1077]—With such a one “there is no hope of repentance; he is bold, impudent.”[1078]—“He remains obdurate,” he says of one of these heretics, “a cunning, evil-minded scoffer”; he betrays us as “Judas betrayed Christ.”[1079]

The depth of the yawning abyss between the heretics and Luther and also the hatred they bore him on account of his treatment of them is plain from the words of Münzer and Ickelsamer already quoted.[1080]

3. The Church-Unseen, its Origin and Early History

His doctrine of the Church may in many respects be regarded as the key-stone and centre of the rest of Luther’s theology.

It is practically important in that it affords a clue to anyone desirous of ascertaining to which of the competing religious bodies he should belong. It was usually to this article on the Church that those who afterwards returned to Catholicism appealed in vindication of their step. It was also the practice of Catholic writers, in their controversies with Luther, to appeal to the doctrine of the one Church which has never erred in dogma in order to convict him more speedily of the guilt of his separation. All of them started from the old definition, according to which the Church is the visible commonwealth of the faithful, founded by Christ on Peter, the Rock, which confesses the same Christian belief and unites in the same Sacraments under the guidance of its lawful pastors, in particular of the successors of St. Peter.

Luther himself was fully aware of the supreme importance of this doctrine; he frequently enough brings his opponents on the scene “crying Church, Church!”[1081] Among the Papists, he says, they do nothing but shriek Church, Church, Church, and this is the chief obstacle to reunion.[1082] “Hence there is indeed need that we should see what the Holy Christian Church is. If it is the clergy and their mob, then the devil has won and we two, God and His Word, are the losers.”[1083] “The Pope quotes this text [John xiv. 17: ‘The spirit of truth shall remain with you’] strongly and impressively.… They have become so certain of their cause that they take their stand on it as on a wall of iron.… This we ourselves must believe and say, viz. that the Holy Ghost is with the Church which is certainly on earth and will remain.”[1084] But was Luther’s Church a visible or an invisible one?

Invisibility of Luther’s Church

Bearing in mind the religious compulsion practised by Luther, the question would seem already answered. His practice involved the existence of an outward ecclesiastical authority with outward rules, a congregation to which it was impossible to belong without submitting to the doctrine of a visible head or corporation. Of the visible nature of this Church there can be no question. It is with this tangible authority that he confronts the Anabaptists, for instance when he says: “The presumption of these fanatics is unbearable, for they altogether repudiate the authority of the Church and will have it all their own way.”[1085] The best-grounded maxims of the best teachers are despised by them, so he complains, and they only esteem the opinions they themselves have rummaged for in Scripture! “Yet great heed should be paid to the Church.”[1086]

Nevertheless, according to Luther’s own views which had not changed much since 1519, the Church is in reality invisible.

The Church is not an outward, tangible institution, with a divinely appointed spiritual government and direction, such as it had been to Catholics through all the ages; rather it is the ghostly congregation of true believers known to Christ alone, Who alone is their head, guide and teacher. Men holding “office” in the Church there must indeed be, but only in order to preach and to dispense the sacraments; any spiritual authority with full powers for legislating and guiding the faithful is non-existent.[1087] It is the “true” faith and the possession of the “right” sacraments that constitute the Church. It is accordingly clear to him that the Holy Church in which we are to believe, must be a “ghostly, not a bodily one,” “for what we believe,” so he proceeds, “is not bodily but ghostly. The outward Roman Church we can all of us see, hence she cannot be the true Church in which we believe which is a congregation or assembly of the saints in faith; but no one can see who is a saint or who has the faith.” This he said in his “Von dem Bapstum tzu Rome” (1520).[1088]

“The Church is altogether in the spirit,” so he again says in the following year, “she is altogether a spiritual thing.”[1089] “Christ,” so he says later, “works in the spirit so that it is hardly possible to smell His Church and bishops from afar, and the Holy Ghost behaves as though He were not there”; but that Church which is so close at hand “that it is possible to lay hold on her,” as is the case with the Popish Church, is only the Church of the devil.[1090] “Who will show us the Church,” he asks, “seeing that she is hidden in the spirit and is only believed in, just as we say: ‘I believe in one Holy Church.’”[1091] “The Church is believed in but she is not seen, and for the most part she is oppressed and hidden, under weakness, crosses and scandals.”[1092] In short, as a Lutheran theologian puts it, “he is speaking merely of a Holy Church or congregation whose real complement of Saints is not apparent, and which is therefore termed invisible.”[1093] Nor could he speak otherwise, for the absence of a divinely appointed hierarchy, and likewise his principle of the free examination of Scripture, could not but lead him to assume an invisible Church which lives only in the hearts of those who share the faith and the possession of the Holy Ghost.

Although, as the theologian in question points out, in Luther’s idea of the Church visible elements are not lacking, e.g. preaching and the sacraments, yet the actual congregation of Saints is visible to God alone; indeed the Church would still be there even should her only members consist of “babes in the cradle.”[1094] For instance, according to him, the Church before his day comprised very few people, and those unknown, who kept the Gospel undefiled and thus preserved the Church; some “elect souls must needs have come back, at least on their death-beds, to the true path.”[1095]—“Such persons [inspired by the Holy Ghost] there must always be on earth, even though there should only be two or three, or just the children. Of the old there are, alas, but few. Such as do not belong to this class have no right to look upon themselves as Christians; nor are they to be consoled as though they were Christians by much talk of the forgiveness of sins and the Grace of Christ.”[1096]

Thus, in so far as the visible elements were recognised by Luther, Protestants are justified in teaching that Luther’s Church-Unseen was “not a mere idea or empty phantom”; if, however, they go on to say that, according to Luther, the Church is “the living sum total of all who are united in the Spirit,” one sees at a glance that, though, mentally, we can make a class of all who come under the category of “believers,” this implies no actual relation between such, and consequently no “Church” or real though invisible society.[1097]

The Marks of the Church. Gradual Disappearance of the Old Conception of the Church

It is a matter of common knowledge that the marks or “notæ” of the Church had been the subject of many disquisitions before Luther’s day. We may now inquire whether Luther himself also admitted the existence of these “marks,” by which the true Church of Christ might be known.

Though the admission of such marks seems incompatible with his theory of the Church-Unseen, Luther repeatedly seeks to prove the truth of his own Church and the falsehood of Catholicism by this means. Especially is this the case in his “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen” (1539).

Thus he asks: How can “a poor, blundering man know where to find this holy Christian folkdom [the Church]? For we are told that it is [to be found] in this life and on this earth … where it will also remain till the end of time.”[1098] This leads him to speak of the marks of the true Church.

“First of all the holy Christian people can be told by its having the Holy Word of God.” Luther forgets to say how the latter is to be recognised, though on this all depends; for he was far from being the only one who laid claim to possessing the pure Word of God. Hence many were not slow in pointing out how useless it was on his part to say: “Where you hear or see this Word preached, believed, confessed and acted upon, have no doubt that there, assuredly, must be the true ‘ecclesia sancta catholica,’ and the Holy Christian people, even though in number they be but few.”[1099] Nor did his theological opponents think any more highly of the other marks of the true Church which he sets up in the same work. They urged that the distinguishing marks should surely be clearer than what was to be distinguished, and patent and evident even to the unlearned. Concerning the marks set up by Luther, however, there was doubt even among those who had cut themselves adrift from Catholicism.

For instance, the second mark was “the Sacrament of Baptism where it is rightly taught and believed, and administered according to Christ’s ordinance.”[1100] But, among the Zwinglians and Anabaptists, baptism, so at least they claimed, was also rightly administered according to the ordinance of Christ; and, as for the Popish Church, Luther himself admits that she had always preserved baptism in its purity. Hence, here again, we have no clear, distinctive mark.

The other marks, according to Luther’s “Von den Conciliis,” were, thirdly, “the Sacrament of the Altar where it is rightly given, believed and received according to the institution of Christ”; and, fourthly, “the keys [forgiveness through faith] of which they make public use.” “Fifthly, the Church is known outwardly by her consecrating or calling of ministers of the Church, to the offices which it is her duty to fill.” Sixthly, “by her public prayer, praise, and thanks to God.” “Seventhly, the Christian people is recognised outwardly by the sacred emblem of the holy Cross since it has to suffer misfortune and persecution, all kinds of temptation and trouble—as we learn from the Our Father—from the devil, the world and the flesh; must be inwardly in pain, foolish and affrighted, and outwardly poor, despised, weak and sick.”[1101]

Bellarmine, the sharp-witted controversialist, and other polemics even earlier, dealt with these marks and showed their inadequacy. As regards the last mark Bellarmine, not unnaturally, expressed his wonder that Luther should have spoken of it, seeing that inward suffering, sadness and apprehension are of their very nature hidden things. Luther, however, hit upon this mark because he was accustomed to regard his “temptations” as a witness to the truth of his doctrine, and was convinced that the devil was causing them solely out of hatred for the truth.[1102] He thus carried his fancied experiences[1103] into his teaching on the Church, a fresh proof that his theology was the outcome rather of his inner life than of revealed doctrine. The idea that the Church was ever to be sick, weak, foolish and despised appealed to him all the more because his Evangel had not brought forth the good moral fruits he desiderated, and because he had vainly to struggle against the dissensions within his congregations and their abuse of the freedom of the Gospel.

It was this experience of his which led him to the fantastic plan already described of forming an “assembly of earnest Christians,” i.e. a Church-apart enrolled from the true believers who would then realise the idea of a Church even to the extent of having the power of excommunicating.

The seven marks of the Church were reduced to two in the Augsburg Confession of 1530, viz. pure doctrine, and true sacraments, and it is thus that they appear in the “Symbolic Books” of Lutheranism. On the other hand, Luther makes no appeal to the marks of the Church as given in the olden so-called Nicene Creed, “though all the olden Councils had insisted that it was these marks, particularly the attribute of ‘Apostolicity,’ which distinguished the Church from the sects.”[1104]

As a matter of fact the marks on which Catholic theologians laid stress, viz. the Church’s “oneness, holiness, Catholicity” and apostolicity furnished a striking answer to the question: Where is the Church? She is Apostolic because her connection with the Apostles has never been broken; Catholic because of her universal existence throughout the world; holy in her aims and means and in the practice of Christian virtue by the generality of her followers, and also on account of the special gifts of grace which have ever brightened her path through the ages; lastly, she is one, outwardly in being alone, and also inwardly, in the unity of her faith and belief, liturgy and sacraments, and in her character as a society in which a divinely appointed spiritual authority rules which the rest obey. In the latter respect the Church, to the Catholic mind, is even a “societas perfecta,” visible, moreover, to the whole world like the “city set on a hill” (Matt. v. 12) in which the Fathers of the Church indeed always saw an image of the Church;[1105] she is as a building built upon a rock, as a flock gathered round the shepherd, both of them comparisons which we owe to the Church’s Divine Founder.

It was not without reason that Luther was averse to any appeal to the four marks of the Church just referred to. What unity had he wherewith to confront that of Catholicism under its Pope? Apostolicity, as an historical union with Christ’s Apostles was so evidently wanting in his case that he declared that the doctrine he had come to preach had died out shortly after Apostolic times. Any claim to Catholicity in the usual sense of the word was not to be thought of for a moment. The only olden marks which he does not throw over is that of holiness. He here relies on the existence of holiness in the case of a few as being sufficient for his purpose.

Nevertheless, due justice must be done to the stress he is ever disposed to lay on the holiness of the Church. He practically makes all the other marks to centre in this, for he speaks of the seven marks mentioned above as the sevenfold “sanctuary whereby the Holy Ghost sanctifies Christ’s holy nation.”[1106]

“Even though it was impossible for him,” remarks Johann Adam Möhler, “to teach that the Church was to be regarded as a living institution in which men become holy, yet he sticks fast to the idea that she ought by rights to be composed of saints.… The inner Church [called by theologians the “soul” to distinguish it from the outward “body” of the Church] is everywhere in evidence, and the fact that no one is a true citizen of the heavenly kingdom if he belongs only outwardly to the Church and has not entered into the spirit of Christ and felt within himself its vivifying power, is pointed out [by Luther] in a way which merits all praise.”[1107]

Such true believers, according to Luther’s teaching, are so much the sole representatives of the visible Church that the wicked, the unbelieving, the hypocritical Christians who only expose her to the scorn and derision of her foes, do not really belong to the Church at all.[1108] They are members of the Church merely in name, but, in reality, are not Christians at all.[1109]

It was not, however, easy for him to shake off the true feeling he had inherited from youthful days, viz. that whoever wished to be pious and pleasing to God, must become so through the true Church. “Let us therefore pray in the Church,” so we hear him say, “let us pray with the Church and for her.”[1110] According to him the Church was the ghostly Eve taken from the side of Christ, a pure virgin and one body with Christ, great and splendid in God’s sight, the chief of His works, dear to Him, precious and highly esteemed in His sight, etc.[1111] Hence we find him re-echoing the beautiful words in which Catholic mystics had been wont to extol the Church and her “soul.”

Yet there is no doubt, that, in spite of all this, Luther had explained away the Church’s very essence.

It was indeed his tendency to spiritualise, and his favourite idea that true believers must be enlightened by God directly concerning His outward “Word” that helped him thus to explain away the Church. As for any outward doctrinal establishment or institutional Church having an authority of her own, no such thing existed. Thus the Church which Luther extols as so holy turns out to be something quite intangible—water that for want of a holder runs away and is lost. Even Köstlin admits this, though in guarded words: “Certain main problems which the Reformed view of the Church must necessarily face” “were only very insufficiently grasped and discussed” by Luther and his friends. Among such questions Köstlin includes some that touch the Church’s very essence: How far is purity of doctrine necessary in order to belong to the Church; how far are the old Creeds still professed by Protestantism obligatory or binding upon preachers; where, finally, does the freedom preached by Luther precisely end?[1112] But, in spite of all the lacunæ in his doctrine of the Church, Luther bitterly insists, that, outside the Church there can be no salvation.[1113] Nor did he even admit the usual Catholic limitation, viz. that those, who through no fault of their own are ignorant of the Church, may possibly be saved if their life has been otherwise good. Luther indeed, as already shown (p. 292), is of opinion that some olden Catholics may have been saved, if, in the end, they laid hold on Christ as Luther taught;[1114] he also opines that salvation had been brought to all “worthy men of every nation” who had died before the coming of Christ, through His preaching during His visit to Limbo;[1115] yet he does not believe that it was the Will of God that all men, whether within or outside the Church, should be saved.[1116]

After having in the above examined Luther’s conception of the Church, irrespective of its mode of growth, we may now turn our attention to the genesis and historical development of this conception.

Origin and Early Outbuilding of the New Idea of the Church

A curious psychological process accompanies the growth of Luther’s idea of the Church. We know that, even long after he had fallen a victim to his theory of justification by faith alone, he had still no thought of breaking away from the Church’s communion or of questioning the conception then in vogue of the Church. It was only when the olden Church refused to come over to his new doctrine and prepared to condemn it, that he decided, after great struggles within, to cut himself adrift, and it was in order to justify this step to himself and to vindicate it to the world that he gradually formed his new views on the Church. (Cp. above, vol. i., p. 321 ff.)

Characteristically enough we find a first trace of what was to come, in his sermon on the power of the Papal Ban, which he published in Latin in 1518 and in German in the following year. Here, of course, he had to deal with the question of the effects of the threatened excommunication; in so doing he reached the false proposition, censured amongst his 41 errors in the Bull Exsurge Domine of May 16, 1520: “Excommunications are merely outward penalties and do not rob a man of the Church’s common spiritual prayers.”[1117] Not long after, according to his wont, he went a step further. Among the condemned Theses we find the paradoxical one: “Christians must be taught to love excommunication rather than to fear it.”[1118]

At Dresden on July 25, 1518, when he was found fault with on account of his Wittenberg Sermon on Excommunication (which was then probably not yet known in its entirety), he seems to have shown scant respect for the supreme authority in the Church. Emser, his then opponent, writes expressly that Luther had declared he cared nothing for the Pope’s Ban.[1119]

Some weeks later, on Sep. 1, Luther himself wrote to Staupitz, his superior, that his conscience told him he was in the right and with the truth on his side; “Christ liveth and reigneth yesterday, to-day and for ever”; he also tells him, that, in his “Resolutions,” and in his replies to Prierias he had spoken freely, and in a language that would wound the Romanists, and that he was ready, nay anxious, to give the brassy Romans an even ruder German answer in the service of Christ, the Shepherd of the people. “Have no fear; I shall continue untrammelled my study of the Word of God without any fear of the citation [to Augsburg].”[1120]

During the negotiations in the presence of Cajetan at Augsburg we can see even more clearly how Luther stood under the spell of his idea, that the only Church was a spiritual one, and that, even should he break away from ecclesiastical authority by rising against the Ban, he would still remain in this Church.

It was after his return from Augsburg, during the stormy days when he appealed “from the Pope to a General Christian Council,” i.e. in the winter of 1518, that he discovered the true “Antichrist” who reigned at Rome.[1121] This discovery deprived him of the last vestige of respect for the authority of the Church and for her head.[1122] His own inward state when he made this discovery was one of curious turmoil. In his letter to Link, of Dec. 11, 1518, we hear him speaking of his commotion of mind, of new projects just on the point of birth which would show that, so far, he had hardly made a serious beginning with the struggle; he had a “premonition” then that Antichrist described by St. Paul (2 Thes. ii. 3 ff.) was seated in Rome where he behaved even worse than the Turk.[1123] At the beginning of 1519 with bated breath he announced to his friends the impending war on all the Papal ordinances.[1124]

Thus, even previous to the Leipzig Disputation, he must have busied himself with his new idea of the Church.

It was, however, only during the Disputation that, pressed hard by Eck, he was induced to deny openly the Primacy and to proclaim his belief in an invisible Church controlled by no authority.[1125] In the Disputation on July 4 and the following days, he attacked the divine institution of the Pope’s authority, asserted that even Œcumenical Councils could err, and, on July 6, declared that the Council of Constance had actually done so in rejecting the doctrine of Hus that there is “a Holy Catholic Church which is the whole body of the elect.”

In thus cutting the idea of the Church to his own measure, Luther had reached the Husite theory of the predestined as the sole members of the Church. “Luther found in this his own view of the Church, for, according to him, on the one hand there was no need of submission to Rome, and, on the other, only the real Christians and the elect were actual members of the Church.”[1126] In the “Resolutions,” which he published at the end of August immediately after the Disputation, he adheres to the statement that even Œcumenical Councils had erred and that, even on the most important questions of the faith. Still, strange to say, he does not think there is any reason for fearing that the Church had been forsaken by the Spirit of Christ, for by the Church was to be understood neither the Pope nor a Council.[1127] Here we have the basis of his new idea of the Church.… It is combined with another idea towards which he had long been drifting, viz. of seeing in Holy Scripture the sole source of faith.[1128] In the “Resolutions” he says: “Faith does not spring from any external authority but is aroused in the heart by the Holy Ghost, though man is moved thereto by the Word and by example.”[1129] Wherever Luther’s doctrine is believed, there is the Church.[1130]

The Papal Bull of 1520 condemned among the other selected theses of Luther’s, his attack on the Primacy and the Councils, though saying nothing of his doctrine of the Church, then still in process of growth. “The Roman Pope, the successor of Peter,” so the 25th of these condemned Theses runs, “is not the Vicar of Christ set over all the Churches throughout the whole world and appointed by Christ Himself in the person of St. Peter.” And the 29th declares: “It is open to us to set aside the Councils, freely to question their actions and judge their decrees and to profess with all confidence whatever appears to be the truth whether it has been approved or reproved of any Council.”[1131]

The originator of principles so subversive to all ecclesiastical order had perforce to reassure himself by claiming freedom in the interpretation of Scripture.

Hence, for himself and all who chose to follow him, he set up in the clearest and most decided terms the personal reading of the written Word of God, above all tradition and all the pronouncements of the teaching office of the Church; in this he went much further than he had done hitherto in the questions he had raised concerning justification, grace, indulgences, etc. It is easy to understand why it was so necessary for him to claim for himself a direct enlightenment by the Spirit of God in his reading of the Bible;[1132] in no other way could he vindicate his daring in thus setting himself in opposition to a Church with a history of 1500 years. At the same time he saw that this same gift of illumination would have to be allowed to others, hence he declared that all faithful and devout readers of the Bible enjoyed a certain kind of inspiration, all according to him being directly guided by the Spirit into the truth without any outward interference of Church doctrine, though the first fruits of revelation belonged to him alone.[1133]

By thus exalting the personal element into a principle, he dealt a mortal blow at the idea of a Church to whom was committed the true interpretation of doctrine.

Before pointing out, how, in spite of the boundless liberty proclaimed by Luther, he nevertheless was anxious to retain some sort of Church in the stead of the ancient one, we may here put on record certain statements of his on the illumination of the individual by God that have not as yet been quoted; albeit difficult to understand this is of the very essence of Lutheranism and quite indispensable to the new doctrine of an invisible Church.[1134]

According to the “Resolutions” he published after the Leipzig Disputation, every man is born into the faith through the Evangel owing to the bestowal of certainty from on high without the intervention of the Church’s authority or of any doctrine outwardly binding upon him. Satan and all the heretics, so he declares, could not have forged a more dangerous opinion than that in vogue among Catholics concerning the relations between the Church’s authority and the Bible Word; needless to say Luther makes out that, in their opinion, the Pope was put above the Written Word and even above God Himself.[1135] The genuine Catholic doctrine, viz. that the Church is the guardian of the true sense of Holy Scripture and at the same time a witness to the faithful of the authenticity and inspiration of the Holy Books, is indeed poles asunder from the teaching foisted on her. Moreover, it is in these very Resolutions to the Leipzig Disputation that Luther disparages the Epistle of James, arguing that its style falls far short of the apostolic dignity and could in no way compare with that of Paul. Here the “freedom” which he exalts into a principle already begins to undermine his new foundation, viz. the Bible itself.

Not long after this, in 1520, he lays claim in his “Von dem Bapstum” and “De captivitate Babylonica,” to having been instructed solely by the Holy Ghost and out of the Bible regarding the sense of Holy Scripture.

In the “De captivitate Babylonica” he teaches: the faithful who surrender themselves to the Spirit of God and allow Him to work upon them through the “Word” (he calls them the Church), received from the same Spirit an infallible sense and an inspiration by which to judge of doctrine, a sense which is indeed not susceptible of proof yet which creates absolute certainty. The same thing held good here as in the case of the truth, of which Augustine had said, that the soul was so laid hold of and carried away by it as to be enabled by its means to judge of all things, though unable to prove the truth itself which nevertheless it was forced to acknowledge with an infallible certainty.[1136] Luther also appeals as a comparison to the evidence of certain fundamental truths of mathematics or philosophy. This would at first sight make it appear as though he excluded arbitrary freedom in the interpretation of the Bible, since the mind must necessarily bow to such logical and unquestionable truths as he instances; this is, however, not the case, and we may recall what a wide field he opened up for delusion in this matter of inspiration.[1137]

When he teaches that the perception of the truth of religion penetrates into every Christian soul as the direct result of a certainty operated by God Himself we must, in order to understand him, keep in view the other points of his teaching, above all his opinion of man’s utter incapacity to do what is good, the depravity of man’s mental powers, his lack of free-will and absolute passivity under the hand of God. Above all he needed some such theory in order to justify his attack on the olden conception of the Church and to defend his own alleged certainty.

The universal priesthood also serves him as a prop for his idea of the Church. This priesthood, with the right to judge of doctrine, such as he pictures in his “To the German Nobility” and “On the Freedom of a Christian Man,” was a logical outcome of the above doctrine of inspiration and of his own inclination to break away from the olden Church. It gave to all complete independence in spiritual and ecclesiastical matters.[1138]

The above writings were followed in 1521 by his “Ad librum Ambrosii Catharini Responsio.” Here he treats in detail of the Church, and of Christ the spiritual and invisible rock on which alone she is built (without Peter and his successors); the Church’s nature is therefore spiritual and invisible; he emphasises anew the right of all the faithful individually to disregard all teaching authority and to give ear to the voice of the Holy Ghost Who speaks inwardly through the Evangel, and thus brings forth, nourishes, educates, strengthens and preserves the true Church. In this work Luther is, however, already at greater pains to bring down the Church to the region of the visible; he points out that at least she possesses visible elements, Baptism, the Supper and the Gospel. Nevertheless, direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost still looms large in the “Responsio” as we may gather from the elucubrations embellished with Bible texts in which he declares that the Papal Antichrist had been foretold in the Word of God and his appearance and workings even described in detail.[1139]

In “Von Menschen leren tzu meyden” (1522), which is still saturated with the spirit of the Wartburg he had just left, he insists that: “Each one must simply believe that it is God’s Word because he feels in his heart that it is the truth, even should an angel from heaven or all the world preach the contrary.”—His writing of 1523, “Das eyn Christliche Versamlung odder Gemeyne Recht und Macht habe alle Lere zu urteylen,” etc., was intended to promote unfettered freedom of spirit, but, of course, only in the interests of the removal of the Popish-minded clergy, for, naturally, there could be no question of such freedom being used against Luther, or of anyone setting himself up as judge of Luther’s new doctrine. Here, and even more strongly in the “De instituendis ministris Ecclesiæ,” which he published in the same year, he starts again from the standpoint of the universal priesthood; this was inconsistent with the clerical order of the Popish Church; by it every man was qualified to decide independently on doctrine in accordance with Scripture; but whoever preached openly in the Church of God only did so as representing the others and at their request; hence no preacher was to be at the head of any congregation unless the latter wanted him, and, taught by the unction of the Holy Spirit, found his doctrine right. A Christian might also, so he continues, whether amongst other Christians or amongst those who had formerly been unbelievers, instruct his fellow-men in the Gospel merely by virtue of his Christian calling; anyone, if he detected the ordinary teacher in error, might stand up and teach without any call, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. xiv. 30) “if anything be revealed to another, let the first hold his peace.”[1140]

But how is a man to be so certain in his heart as to be able to come forward in this way? “You can then be certain of the matter if you are able to decide freely and surely and to say this is the pure and simple truth, for it I will live or die, and whoever teaches otherwise, whatsoever be his title and standing, is accursed.”[1141]

It would be a waste of words to point out that this was to deal a death-blow at the olden conception of the Church.

Startling, nay, utterly stupefying, is the sharp contrast all this presents to Luther’s later attitude already described above (pp. 241, 251, 262). There we have a rigid, coercive Church held fast in the ban of the Wittenberg doctrine, whereas here, in the days of the early development of Lutheranism, we find an exuberant wealth of individual freedom which scoffs even at the possibility of any ecclesiastical order.

Only a dreamer and hot-head like Luther could have seen in such an individualism, where each one is teacher and priest, anything else than chaos.

Luther’s expectations in those early days were strange indeed and quite incapable of realisation; not only were all delusions to be excluded but everything, as he says of the enduring of opposition, was to be done “decently and piously”! If he is really speaking in earnest, then he shows himself a hermit utterly ignorant of human nature. And yet even in the seclusion of the convent walls, the greatest enthusiast should have seen that this was not the way to form a congregation on earth of believers, or anything resembling a Church.

We can, nevertheless, easily understand, to cite Möhler in confirmation of what has been said, “how the doctrine in question could, nay, had to, arise in Luther’s mind: Since the authority of the existing Church was against him he had perforce to seek for support in the authority of God working directly in him.… He saw no other way than to appeal to an intangible, inward authorisation.”[1142]—This he then proceeded to work out into a system for the other believers. “In the fashion of the true demagogue he flatters every Christian and invests him with such perfection as any unprejudiced mind must repudiate on the most cursory glance into his own heart.”[1143]

The truth is, the doctrine put forward by Luther against the Church, i.e. that Holy Scripture is the sole judge, has no meaning except on the assumption of a certainty through direct divine illumination.

Luther was quite right in declaring Holy Scripture to be the source of the doctrine of salvation; but it was a very different thing to assert that Holy Writ is the judge which determines what is the doctrine of salvation contained therein. He only reached the latter assertion by taking for granted the direct action of God in man for imparting a knowledge of the true sense of Scripture. Hence in his statements on Holy Scripture we frequently find one thing strangely confused with the other, the outward Book with the inward knowledge of the same, so that, as Möhler puts it, “the direct transmission of its contents to the reader is assumed in a quite childish fashion.”[1144] Even Köstlin has to admit this confusion, though he does so with reserve: “In Luther,” he says, “we see in many passages an intermingling of the pure Word and pure doctrine.”[1145]

Luther’s Later Attitude Towards the Idea of the Church. Objections

Henceforward there remained deeply rooted in Luther’s mind the conviction that the individual was taught by God and that this Divine enlightenment was always leading to the adoption of his own chief articles of faith and to the promotion of the Lutheran Church.[1146]

There is no call to follow up this idea through all his various writings. We may, however, call to mind a remarkable and warlike statement with which, towards the end of his life, he sought to justify his attacks on the Pope and the ancient Church, and that, too, at a time when he must long since have been disappointed at the results of the freedom of judging which he had once allowed but had now already in many ways curtailed.

In his “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft,” he quotes the words of Christ which refer to prayer in common: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.” This leads him to conclude, strange to say, “that even two or three gathered together in Christ’s name hold all the power of St. Peter and all the Apostles.” And, at once, he proceeds in his old vein to declare that two or three, nay, even a single one, who has been enlightened by Christ, is as good a teacher as the whole Church, and, indeed, in certain cases, even takes precedence of her. “Hence it comes,” he says, “that, often, a man who believes in Christ has withstood a whole crowd … as the prophets withstood the Kings of Israel, the priests and the whole nation [to say nothing of Luther himself who had withstood the whole Church]. In short, God will not be bound as to numbers, greatness, height, power, or anything personal to man, but will only be with those who love and keep His Word even though they be no more than stable boys. What does He care for high, great and mighty lords? He alone is the greatest, highest and mightiest.”[1147] Thus he practically claims a Divine dignity for an undertaking such as his, and paints his career afresh as that of a prophet who had a right to exalt himself even over the topmost hierarchy; only that he invests all the faithful, and even the “stable boy,” with the like high calling.

But, in such a system, what place was there left for anything more than a phantom Church? Obviously the Church had to withdraw into the region of the invisible. For her again to become visible and assume the shape to be considered below, seems almost a paradox.

In view of the elasticity and vagueness of Luther’s teaching on the Church it is not surprising that his followers, to this very day, are divided as to whether, in point of fact, Luther wanted a “Church” or not.

A well-known Lutheran theologian admits in plain language that Luther left the problem of the Church unsolved; only after the Reformer’s time did certain “important problems” arise in respect of Luther’s tentative definition of the Church.[1148] Another theologian, writing in a Protestant periodical, says that Luther left behind him no “Evangelical Church.” “The Reformation,” he says, “spelt Christendom’s deliverance from the Church.… His great anticlerical bias was never repudiated by Luther.… He committed the care of the pure Evangel to the hands of the civil authorities. It ought no longer to be disputed that Luther and the Reformers were not the founders of the Evangelical Church—and that their ideal Protestantism was one minus a Church. It is only necessary to take the idea of the Church in its strict sense—not as the congregation, or the people of God, nor yet as a body of men holding the same opinions, nor as the kingdom of Christ—but as an independent complexus of regulations ordering the religious life, as a special institution to provide for the particular needs of the religious commonwealth within traditional limits.” Hence “the fact that, in our homeland, three hundred years after Luther’s time, we find the Evangelical preacherdom firmly consolidated in a body not unlike the State, and professing to be the official representative of Protestantism is one of the most astounding paradoxes in all the history of the Church.”[1149]

There is no need to go so far, nor is it really necessary to put the words evangelical “Church” or “Churches” in inverted commas, as Protestants sometimes do in order to mark the quite unusual meaning of the word Church according to Luther’s view. It is obvious that logic had no place in Luther’s ideas and aims in respect of the Church, and his subjectivism imposed on him in this matter the utmost vagueness.

Frequently we find in Catholic works on dogma extracts from Luther’s writings dating from 1519 and 1520, which, it is alleged, show his positive conviction at that time that a Church—i.e. one in the olden Catholic sense—was to be recognised. But this is a mistake. The documents containing such utterances were of a diplomatic character, and we have no right to build upon them. They do not in any way invalidate what has been said above.

One of these is Luther’s “Unterricht auff etlich Artikell,” dating from the end of Feb., 1519, i.e. from a time when he had already discovered the Roman Antichrist;[1150] the other, his “Oblatio sive Protestatio,” dating from the summer of 1520, is a tract unmistakably intended to forestall the publication of the Roman Bull.[1151] In the first work, composed at the instance of Miltitz, it is true he says in praise of the Roman Church that, in her, “St. Peter and St. Paul, 46 Popes and many hundred thousand martyrs had shed their blood,” that she was honoured by God above all others, and that, for the sake of Christian charity and unity, it was not lawful to separate from her for all her present blemishes; he will not, however, express himself regarding the “authority and supremacy of the Roman Church,” “seeing that this does not concern the salvation of souls”; Christ, on the contrary, had founded His Church on charity, meekness and oneness, and, for the sake of this oneness, the Papal commands ought to be obeyed. By this he fancies that he has proved that he “does not wish to detract from the Roman Church.”[1152]

What he says in the other writing referred to above is even less acceptable, though here too he wishes to appear “as a submissive and obedient son of the Holy Christian Churches.”[1153] The circumstance that many shortsighted persons doubtless took him at his word at this critical time of his excommunication must have served powerfully to promote the apostasy.

As to the changes to which Luther’s mode of thought was liable, we may perhaps be permitted to make a general observation before passing from the consideration of the invisible Church to that of the Church visible.

The charge brought against him of having formerly taught differently on many points from what he did at a later date, Luther lightly swept aside with the assurance that he had gone on gradually advancing in the knowledge of the truth. His defenders seek to escape the difficulty in a like way. His changeableness and inconstancy must undoubtedly weigh heavily in the balance. We must not, however, be unfair to him or argue that the fact of his having at first defended elements of Catholic doctrine which he afterwards abandoned constituted a grave self-contradiction.

Luther openly admits that it was only gradually that he came to attack the Church so bitterly.

When King Henry VIII reproached him with the contradictions apparent between his earlier and later teaching on the Papacy and the Church, Luther boldly appealed in 1522 in his “Contra Henricum regem Angliæ” to his having only gradually learnt the whole truth: “I did not yet know that the Papacy was contrary to Scripture.… God had then given me a cheerful spirit that suffered itself to be despised [by his opponents].… By dint of so doing they forced me on, so that the further I went the more lies I discovered … until it became plain from Scripture, thanks to God’s Grace, that the Papacy, episcopacy, foundations, cloisters, universities, together with all the monkery, nunnery, Masses, services were nothing but damnable sects of the devil.… Hence it came about that I had to write other books in condemnation and retractation of my earlier ones.”[1154] He will also, so he adds ironically, retract what he had previously said in his “De captivitate Babylonica,” viz. that the Papacy was the prey of a strong Nimrod, as this had scandalised the lying King of England, who was himself the robber of his country. This, in his own style, he now proposes to amend as follows: “I should have said: The Papacy is the arch-devil’s most poisonous abomination hitherto seen on earth.”[1155]

If it was a difficult matter to give an account of Luther’s invisible Church, owing to the changes which took place in his own views, even more difficult is the task of tracing the further growth of his teaching. His invisible Church becomes more and more clearly a visible Church; yet all the while it protests, that, in its nature, it is invisible.

4. The Church becomes visible. Its organisation

What was Luther’s view of the Church’s character when the time came to set up new congregations within the circle of the “Evangel”?

Theologically the question is answered in the authentic publicly accepted explanations he gave of his doctrine on the Church. Of these the oldest is comprised in the Schwabach Articles of 1529,[1156] where we read in Article XII:

There is “no doubt that there is and ever will be on earth a holy Christian Church until the end of the world, as Christ says in Matt, xxviii. 20.… This Church is nothing else than the believers in Christ, who hold, believe and teach the above-mentioned articles and provisions [of the Schwabach Confession], and who, on this account, are persecuted and tormented in the world. For where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments rightly used, there is the holy Christian Church, bound by no laws and outward pomp to place or time, persons or ceremonies.”—“Thus did the Evangelical idea of the Church,” so we read in Köstlin-Kawerau, “find expression once and for all in the fundamental confessions of Protestantism, faith in Christ being identified with faith in the said ‘articles and provisions.’”[1157]

In the “Augsburg Confession” of 1530—“which Confession,” according to Luther, “was to last till the end of the world and the Last Judgment”[1158]—we read: “The Church is the mateship of the saints (‘congregatio sanctorum’) in which the Evangel is rightly taught and the sacraments rightly dispensed.”[1159] The “Apologia” to this Confession contains the following: “The Church is not merely a commonwealth of outward things and rites like other institutions, but it is rather a society of hearts in faith and the Holy Ghost. She has, however, outward signs by which she may be known, viz. the pure doctrine of the Gospel and a dispensing of the sacraments in accordance with Christ’s Gospel.”[1160] Of “Church government” the Confession of Augsburg states: “Concerning the government of the Church we hold that no one may teach publicly or dispense the sacraments without being duly called”; this is further explained in the “Apologia”: “The Church has the command of God to appoint preachers.”[1161]

Regarding the same matter the Schmalkalden Articles of 1537-1538, which also form a part of the “Symbolic Books,” have the following: “The Churches must have power to call, choose and ordain the ministers of the Church, and such power is in fact bestowed on the Church by God … just as, in case of necessity, even a layman can absolve another and become his pastor.… The words of Peter: ‘You are a kingly priesthood’ refer only to the true Church, which, since she alone has the priesthood, must also have the power to choose and ordain ministers. To this the general usage of the Churches also bears witness.”[1162]

When the above was penned, indeed, even when Melanchthon wrote the “Confessio Augustana,” the new Church, though theoretically invisible, had long since received an established outward form. Yet its invisibility is emphasised in the Schwabach Articles which reject such outward laws as are inconsistent with the Church’s character; the Confession and Apologia also refer to the (ghostly) union of hearts in the faith, and to the assembly of the (unknown) saints.

Nevertheless the visibility, so strongly insisted on in the Schmalkalden Articles, was practically indispensable, and was also a logical result of the whole work undertaken by Luther.

First of all it was called for by the very nature of this “ministry” of those who were to preach and to dispense the sacraments in the name of the congregation; according to Luther’s teaching, the dispensing of the sacraments went hand in hand with preaching, the sacraments being efficacious only through the faith of the recipient, and the dispenser’s duty being confined to making the recipient more worthy of the inpouring of grace through the word of faith which accompanies the visible sign of the sacrament. The ministerial “office” was not conferred by a sacrament as was the case in the priestly ordination of the olden Church, but, as Luther teaches, “ordination, if understood aright, is no more than being called or ‘ordered’ to the office of parson or preacher.” Among the Papists “Baptism and Christ had been weakened and darkened” by the ordinations. “We are born priests and as such we want to be known.” “By Holy Baptism we have become the true priests of Christendom as St. Peter says: ‘You are a royal priesthood.’”[1163] Ministers (i.e. servants) of the Word was the proper title for those who performed all their functions in the name of the common priesthood of the whole people.

As soon, however, as it became a question of appointing preachers a visible Church at once appeared on the scene, though one without either Pope or hierarchy.

It may be recalled that Luther’s plan was originally to leave it to each congregation to appoint a preacher either from its own body or an outsider, who was then to act in their name and with their authority. There seemed no better way of securing control over the preacher’s doctrine. As for the ecclesiastical penalties, Luther, even in his “Deudsche Messe,” left their use to the congregation as a whole.[1164] At a later date he still clung to the idea of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the congregation. Even to absolve from sin belonged, in his opinion,—and to this he adhered to the end,—to all believers, and such absolution was as valid as had it been pronounced by God Himself (always assuming that faith had already been awakened in the penitent).[1165] On the authority of the congregation was to rest, not only the lower ministry, but also the quasi-episcopate. The scheme he sketched in 1523 in the Latin work he addressed to the Bohemians, “De instituendis ministris ecclesiæ,” has already been described.[1166]

The many abuses which arose, and indeed were bound to arise, from the independence of the congregations soon compelled him to cast about for a more reliable framework. The phantom of a community of believers united in spirit, of a “brotherhood” minus any social or constitutional cohesion and devoid of any vigorous direction, proved incapable of realisation.

Help was to be looked for only from the State.

By clinging to its solid structure the religious innovations would have a chance of avoiding the conventicle system and the danger of its congregations falling asunder. The tendency to drift towards the State was also promoted by the opposition of the fanatical Anabaptists, for this sect was a menace to order in the congregations owing to its excesses and also to the pertinacity with which, following out Luther’s own teaching, it insisted on individualism and repudiated the “office” of the ministry. Not only did Luther, after the rise of the Anabaptists, emphasise the outward rather than the inward Word, but, for the same reason, he also laid much greater stress than formerly on the “office” and on the external representation of the Church’s members—invisibly united by the faith—by duly called officials.

Thus, the Church, whose invisibility and spirituality Luther had been so fond of emphasising, became, in course of time, more and more a visible and concrete body, though remaining closely bound up with the State. Yet, even in Luther’s earlier views on the Church, certain indications pointed to the visible Church yet to come; indeed the ideas he retained from Catholic days were to prove stronger than he then anticipated.

Of a statement contained in “De servo arbitrio” (1525), a book written after the rise of the Anabaptist subjectivism, Möhler justly remarks: “This passage views the clergy as the representatives of the Church which is thus quite visible; professing the faith of the invisible Church and expressing its mind, this Church has a definite doctrinal standpoint which she advocates through her clergy, and, which, as the dictum of the Saints, she regards as true and infallible. Hence the visible Church appears as the expression and facsimile of the invisible Church.”[1167]

Already in his books against Alveld and Catharinus Luther was at pains to insist that the Church which he taught was a real community living on earth in the flesh, though not tied down to any definite place or persons.[1168] Wavering and confusion, here as elsewhere, characterise Luther’s teaching.

We can understand how his Catholic opponents, for instance Staphylus, make much of the change from the visible to the invisible Church. Staphylus dubs those who persisted in advocating her invisibility, the “Invisibiles,” such being the followers of Flacius, Schwenckfeld and Osiander, and also the Anabaptists.[1169]

It is a fact that Melanchthon, particularly in his later years, insists on the Church as an institution and on her visible nature more than Luther does. The centuriators defined the Church as “cœtus visibilis” and, after Chemnitz’s day (†1586), the Church of the Lutheran theologians is something quite visible, and is spoken of as an institution for the preservation and promotion of pure doctrine and of the means of grace which work by faith.[1170]

Nor can the Wittenberg view of the Church be taken otherwise when we see how the theologians of that town in Luther’s own time proceeded in appointing ministers and controlling and supervising their office. The preachers and pastors, after their doctrine had been found consonant with that of Wittenberg,[1171] were “entrusted with the ministry” though it is not apparent whether the authorisation came from the congregations who applied for them, or from the theological examiners, or from the sovereign and his mixed consistory. The formulas used are by no means clear, save on one point, viz. that they expressly claim for the Wittenbergers the character of a true “Catholic Church,” or at least their harmony with such a Church.

In the ordination-certificate of Heinrich Bock (above, p. 265), who received a call as pastor and Superintendent to Reval, the quondam city of the Teutonic Order in Esthland, and who had been “ordained” on April 25, 1540, by Bugenhagen, the pastor of Wittenberg, we find it stated: “His doctrine tallies with the consensus of the Catholic Church which our Church also holds, and he is free from every kind of fanaticism condemned by the Catholic Church of Christ.”[1172] Hence they claimed to be one with the universal Church throughout the world and not to form an isolated community apart; this, as we know, was Melanchthon’s favourite view. The olden hierarchy was, however, replaced by that of Wittenberg, as we read in the same certificate: “We”—the signatories, Luther, Bugenhagen, Jonas and Melanchthon—“have entrusted him with the ministry of the Church, that he may teach the Gospel and dispense the sacraments instituted by Christ,” “iuxta vocationem,” i.e. in accordance with the call of the authorities at Reval who had summoned the ordinand to govern their Church (“ad gubernationem ecclesiæ suæ”). The testimonial was the work of Melanchthon.

Other testimonials of this kind are similarly worded.

The certificate of Johann Fischer who went from Wittenberg to Rudolstadt in 1540 (above, p. 265) sets forth that “he had been called to the ministry of the Gospel by the people there, who had also borne witness to his good moral character”; they had asked that “his call might be reinforced by public ordination”; this had been conferred on him when it had been shown that he held “the pure, Catholic doctrine of the Gospel which our Church also teaches and professes,” and that he rejected all the fanatical opinions which the Catholic Church of Christ rejects.[1173] The statement embodied in the testimonial, giving the grounds on which the signatories, the pastor of Wittenberg and other “ministers of the Gospel,” undertook such an ordination is noteworthy: “We may not refuse to do our duty to the neighbouring Churches for the Nicene Council made the godly rule that ordination should be requested of the neighbouring Churches.” Of the objections that theology and Canon Law might have raised those who drafted the document seem to have no inkling.

In this case the Wittenbergers claim to be no more than a “neighbouring Church”; elsewhere they are more ambitious.

The fact is, Wittenberg was anxious to stand at the head of the visible Church.

It was at Wittenberg that Luther, as the leader of the young Church, had first preached the truth of the Gospel urged thereto “by Divine command”; on the strength of such a command he was compelled to defend himself against the Elector’s lawyers who wanted to play havoc with “his Church.”[1174]

“By divine authority we have begun to ameliorate the world.”[1175]

Foes at home twitted him with setting up an “office of the Word” by which an end was made of all freedom; they urged, that, at Wittenberg, people were trying to “breathe new life into despotism, to seat themselves in the chair and to exercise compulsion just as the Pope had done heretofore.”[1176] Luther proclaims loudly: “We, who preach the Evangel, have full powers to ordain; the Pope and the bishops can ordain no one.”[1177]—“You are a bishop,” said Luther once jokingly to a Superintendent, “just as I am Pope.”[1178] Beneath the jest there lay bitter earnest, for the authority of the “Wittenberg school” in Luther’s estimation stood high indeed; whoever “despises it, so long as the Church and school remain as they are, is a heretic and a bad man,” seeing that, in this school, God has “revealed His Word.”[1179]—Nevertheless, the Wittenberg theologians complained that this authority was not recognised, that the Church was a “spectacle of woe,” without “oneness either in doctrine or in worship”; “our princes and cities” ought to bring about unity. Moreover things are bound to grow worse, seeing that “each one wants to be his own Rabbi.”[1180] Outside Wittenberg, and even within the city walls, and that even in Luther’s time, the prediction of Duke George about the 72 sects of the Protestant Babel seemed about to be fulfilled.[1181]

Yet Luther, in setting up the Wittenberg Primacy, retained his former principles which were altogether at variance with unity and subordination. “Who holds the public office of preacher,” so he declared in 1531, is not “forbidden to judge of doctrine” (before this, as the reader may remember, every “miller’s maid” had been free to do this); but whoever has no such office may not do so, because he would be acting “of his own doctrine and spirit.”[1182]

Where is your office? Such was his question in 1525 to his opponent Carlstadt. The latter appealed to the call he had received from the congregation of Orlamünde. But of this Luther even then refuses to hear. He required from Carlstadt, in addition, the ratification of the sovereign, viz. of the Saxon Elector.

Even in those days he was most anxious to see Church discipline established and excommunication resorted to, even though this involved making the Church something visible; the disruption and confusion everywhere rampant cried aloud for regulations, laws and penalties.[1183] “Such punishment and discipline through the Ban,” so he says, “is utterly odious to the world and causes the faithful ministers much work and danger; for vice has already grown into a habit; it is no longer a sin; the ungodly have power, riches and position on their side. The greater the rascal the better his luck.”[1184] Yet, according to him it was impossible for the Church to make laws, otherwise we would again be putting up “snares for consciences” as in Popery.[1185] Laws must be made only by the sovereigns—whatever discipline was enforced against the unruly was enforced by the secular authorities. “The most the parsons did for discipline was in following out the Electoral instructions to the Visitors and denouncing offenders to the secular officials and judges.”[1186] Of the “blasphemers,” viz. those who were obstinate or opposed the New Evangel, Luther wrote in 1529 to Thomas Löscher, parson of Milau: “They must be forced to attend the preaching,” needless to say by temporal penalties; in this way they will be taught the obedience they owe as citizens and also their duty to the State, “whether they believe in the Evangel or not.… If they wish to live among the people, then they must learn the laws of the people, even though unwillingly.”[1187] Hence here and in other instructions it is no longer a question of the Church but only of the sovereigns; these, so he urged, were to be backed by the preachers. He praised the Bohemian Brethren and the Swiss for having better discipline in their Churches, he also admitted that the action of the authorities would not of itself alone be sufficient to correct grave moral disorders.[1188]

“Unless the Court gives its support to our regulations,” Melanchthon once said, the result will be mere “platonic laws.”[1189]

References such as these to the State, which was now seen to be necessary for the support of the Church when once it had become a visible body,[1190] are to be met with repeatedly by anyone who follows the history of Lutheranism in its beginnings, more particularly in the years 1525-1528. It was during this period that the union of the new Church with the State, which has been described above, was accomplished. The sovereign arrogated to himself those powers which gradually made him the supreme head of the Church and permanent “emergency-bishop.”[1191] The visibility of the Church, or rather Churches—as all claim to catholicity was abandoned save in the credal formularies—rested on the enactments of the rulers, who, not without Luther’s connivance, soon introduced the compulsory element into religion. To make use of the invisible power of the Gospel and to give advice to consciences as to moral conduct, was indeed left to the ministers of the Word. But it was the State that had to establish “the right form of worship and the right ecclesiastical organisation.”[1192]

All heretical communities from the commencement of the Church had looked to the State for help. But no heresiarch ever put himself so completely in the hands of the State in all outward matters as Luther and his fellows did where princes of their own party were concerned. “The common Christian Church” was, according to him, to retain for herself only the true faith and the sacraments which worked by faith.

When, in the State Church thus called into being, the authorities proceeded too vigorously against the preachers and treated Luther without due consideration, the latter had himself a taste of the state of servitude into which he had brought the Church. Döllinger says truly that this restriction must have been “doubly irksome to a man who had known the old episcopal, ecclesiastical rule and who now had to admit to himself that it was he who had brought about the destruction of a system which, in spite of all its defects, had dealt with Church matters in an ecclesiastical spirit, and that it was he who had paved the way for the new and quite unecclesiastical order of things.”[1193]

Not seldom do we hear Luther reproaching himself bitterly for the changes.

Among the thoughts that chiefly disturbed his conscience was, as he himself repeatedly admits, that of having rent asunder the great Church. How can you justify your revolt against the one great Church of antiquity, the heir to the promises, so the inner voices said to him as he himself relates: “The words ‘sancta ecclesia’ affright a man. They rise up and say: ‘Preach and act as you like and can, the ‘ecclesia christiana’ is still here. Here is the bark of Peter, it may be tossed about on the waves, but perish it will not!…’ What was I to do? And how was I to comfort myself?… And yet I had to do it [i.e. preach against this Church] as here [John viii. 28] the Lord Christ also does and preaches against those who in name are God’s Kingdom and God’s priesthood.”[1194]

Elsewhere he admits: “What am I doing in preaching against such [representatives of the olden Church], like a pupil against his masters? Thoughts such as these storm in upon me: Now I see that I am in the wrong; oh, that I had never begun, never preached a single word! For who is allowed to set himself up against the Church?… It is hard to persist and to preach against such a Ban.”[1195]—And yet, in his defiant spirit, he does persist: “This hits one smartly in the face, as has often happened to me … yet the One Man, my Beloved Lord and Healer Jesus Christ, is more to me than all the holiest people on earth.” Since he thinks it is His Evangel he is defending, he is able, though only at great costs, “to rise above the cry of ‘Church, Church,’” though he has to admit that, “this troubles me greatly,” and “it is truly a hard thing … to leave the Church herself and not to believe or trust her doctrine any more.”[1196]

It was no real parallel when Luther, in order to justify the State Church, appealed to the conditions in the Middle Ages where the rulers had a share in Church matters,[1197] for if then the princes had intervened in Church matters their action, at least in principle, was always subordinate to the ecclesiastical authority which kept the power in its own hands, and concerned moreover only those outward things in which the Church was thankful for their assistance: The two co-ordinate powers, the secular and the spiritual, helped one another mutually—such at least was the ideal of world-government in those days,—acting in Christian agreement in the service of God and for the general welfare of mankind. Now, however, that the olden spiritual authority had been either completely paralysed or reduced to the shadow of its former self, Luther undertook to replace it by the State, and thus the Church ceased to be any longer a co-ordinate power.

Though the Wittenberg theologians insisted that to them belonged the care of souls and this alone, still the limits between this domain and that of the State became everywhere confused when once the new system had begun to work. Owing to the friction this caused, Luther, in the course of time, came to emphasise merely the duty of the authorities to arrange by law for the establishment of “schools and pulpits,” and to “allow us divergency in preaching or morals.”[1198] Otherwise he left those in power, the high-handed nobles and officials, to do as they pleased, or, else, he lashed them ineffectually with violent and abusive language. In 1586 he declared, speaking of the marriage questions: “The peasants and the rude people who seek nothing but the freedom of the flesh, and likewise the lawyers who are always bent on thwarting our decisions, have wearied me so greatly that I have thrown aside the marriage cases and written to some that they may do as they please in the name of all the devils; let the dead bury their dead.”[1199] It was chiefly in the matter of these matrimonial cases that he came into conflict with the Court lawyers, e.g. as to the validity of the secret marriage contracts. It was in this connection that he declared that, “in his Church,” which was God’s own institution, he would retain in his own hands the decision on such matters by virtue of his ecclesiastical office. In other strong remonstrances wrung from him by the arbitrary interference of the State officials and the nobles in Church matters, he sometimes spoke so strongly of the inalienable rights of the Church that one might well think that he regarded the Church as essentially an independent institution with an organisation and spiritual authority of its own.[1200] More usually, however, he simply sighs. When the Court of Dresden interfered with his plans for the improvement of Church discipline he wrote resignedly: “Satan is still Satan. Under the Pope he pushed the Church into the world’s sphere and now, in our day, he seeks to bring the State system into the Church.”[1201]

Without reverting to the subject of the State and Established Church already dealt with (vol. v., 568 ff.) we may refer to the close connection between Luther’s theology on the Church and the development which was its outcome. His theology, from the outset, had aimed at undermining the authority of the Church, while at the same time enlarging the sphere of the secular power.

As early as 1520 in his work addressed to the German nobility he had praised the secular lords as “priests like us, equal in all things”; “they were to give free scope to the office and work which they have from God, wherever it is needed or useful.” Of the clergy, without considering their authority in ecclesiastical matters, he writes: “The priests, bishops or popes must deal with the Word of God and the sacraments, this is their work and office.”[1202]

“The direction of the outward business of the Church, i.e. what we now term Church government,” so Sehling, the Protestant Professor of Canon Law, says, “Luther in his writing to the German nobility, and ever after, attributes directly to the worldly authorities.… Nor, above all, does he claim for the Church any power of legislating. The Reformed Canon Law, so far as it was reorganised legislatively, was based entirely on the code of the State.”[1203]

Luther, in fact, recognised no other authority throughout the whole of the social order than that of the State; nowhere excepting amongst the secular authorities was there, according to him, any real power; there is on earth only one power, viz. the secular. “Worldly superiors, by virtue of their calling, maintain order and rule according to law and equity; as for the Church she has, by God’s ordinance, her common ministry of Word and Sacrament.”[1204] “The power of the Churches,” says the Schwabach Visitation Convention of 1528, “only extends to the choosing of ministers and the enforcing of the Christian Ban”; besides this they may also provide for the care of the poor; “all other power belongs either to Christ in heaven or to the secular authorities on earth.”[1205]

Nor could he well recognise any apostolic teaching authority in the “higher orders of the Church,” seeing that a “little maid of seven years” on the side of the New Faith “knows more than the Apostles, Evangelists and Prophets” on the other side; the latter are but the “devil’s apostles, evangelists and prophets.”[1206]

How he casts aside all the authority of the Church is perhaps shown most plainly in the short Theses of 1530 in his writing “Ettlich Artickelstück, so M. L. erhalten wil wider die gantze Satans Schüle uñ alle Pforten der Hellen”: “The Christian Church has no power to issue the least order concerning good works, never has done so and never will.” “The parson or bishop [i.e. the Evangelical ministers] has not the right to assert his authority everywhere for he is not the Christian Church. Such parson or bishop may exhort his Church to sanction certain fasts, prayers, holidays, etc., on account of the present needs, to be observed for a time and then be allowed to drop.”[1207]—But what the Evangelical ministers cannot do, that the secular authorities may do, for, in another passage, Luther points out expressly the binding character of the rules which the authorities might draw up, for instance regarding fasts; should the sovereign order fast-days, everyone must obey. In the same way if the German Prince-Bishops gave such an order it was to be obeyed, but only because they were Princes, not because they were bishops.[1208] During the Diet of Augsburg he refused to admit that, in future, there should be bishops having at the same time princely powers. On the other hand, however, he himself made the princes to all intents and purposes bishops.

The contradiction in which he here involves himself has been brought out very strongly by a recent historian and theologian who as a rule is on Luther’s side: “To our mind there is a glaring contradiction between Luther’s theses on the spirituality of faith and the rights of the Christian authorities. Luther never noticed this contradiction, and, all his life, stood for both simultaneously. … From the religious standpoint he advocates the principle of unlimited freedom as inherent in the nature of faith; in the secular sphere, i.e. in the domain of the State, he is unwilling to overthrow the principle shared by all [?] in his day, viz. that the authorities have a right to assist in deciding on public worship and doctrine; in the rightful domain of the worldly authorities his controversies have no right to intervene. Hence the contradiction.”[1209] “Luther, who, where the peasants are concerned, plays the part of Evangelist, refuses to tamper anywhere with the existing [?] laws of the State where it is a question of their lords.”[1210]

Here Luther’s fundamental idea of the separation between Church and world also comes into play.

The Church of his theology must necessarily be absorbed by the State, because, being a stranger to the world, it was not conversant with the conditions and, even with the best will in the world, was unable to hold its own against the visible powers. The spiritual rule, according to him, was to be as widely sundered from the secular “as the heavens are from the earth.”[1211] Thus the Church fled into a spirit realm and left the world to the tender mercies of the secular power. She thus became herself the cause of her “alienation and isolation from real life.”[1212] It naturally, indeed necessarily, followed that the sovereign set up government departments, which called themselves spiritual, but which in reality were secular and derived all their jurisdiction from him alone. Such were the consistories.

The relations between State and Church in Lutheranism may be regarded as an indirect justification of the Catholic doctrine of the Church’s nature. According to the Catholic view Christ founded the sublime structure of the Church as a free spiritual society. He willed that the saving grace he had won by His Death should be applied to the souls of men by means of a visible and independent institution, which, inspired by Him with His own ideal and holy aims and equipped with her own peculiar rights, should work for the salvation of mankind until the end of the world. Hence, the advocates of the olden Church not only set the idea of the Church in the foreground of the struggle, but they also explored, enlarged on and illumined this idea with the help of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers. Such was the work of men like Eck, Cochlæus, Johann Fabri, Bishop of Vienna, and Catharinus, and, in the same century, of Melchior Canus, Peter Canisius, Bellarmine and Stapleton. They indeed allowed the inward side of the Church—its soul as it has been called—to come into its rights, but, at the same time, they maintained with equal firmness its thoroughly visible character, above all they insisted on the hierarchy with the successor of St. Peter at its head as the holder of the threefold spiritual power—which Luther denied—of shepherd, teacher and priest. On this point there could be no yielding.

To those adherents of Luther’s who fancied they could reach union without the Church’s help and without an entire acceptance of the Catholic doctrine, Eck addressed the following: “There is no middle course and words are of no avail; whoever wishes to make himself one in faith with the Catholic Church must submit to the Pope and the Councils and believe what the Roman Church teaches; all else is wind and vapour, though one should go on disputing for a hundred years.”[1213]

What the above Catholic polemics said may be summed up as follows:—

Because the Church, according to Christ’s plan, was to be an independent and living institution, His future “kingdom” and “heavenly vineyard,” it replaced the Jewish synagogue by an even better institution. This Church was to be indestructible and the gates of hell were not to prevail against her (Matt. xvi. 18).

As a real institution the Church was marked out by the gifts bestowed on it at the outset by the Divine Founder; out of the plenitude of the power He possessed “in heaven and on earth” He created in her a real, and no mere phantom office, comprising ghostly superiors, viz. the “ministerium ecclesiasticum”; hence a twofold society arose consisting of those whose duty it is to guide and those who are guided. The latter receive from the former, i.e. from the hierarchy of priests, bishops and Pope, viz. the successor of Peter, the doctrine handed down by Christ, and preserved intact and infallible, together with Holy Scripture and its true reading. Those who have the oversight over the rest admit the faithful into the sacred company by means of visible rites, and, thanks to the obedience they receive as God’s representatives, there results “a body” of faithful united with Christ, the One True Head.

It was to this hierarchy that, according to the Catholic theologians, the solemn words of Christ were spoken: “He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me” (Luke x. 16). “Go ye and teach all nations baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost … and lo I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. xxviii. 19 f.). The “Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” are entrusted to them and they are told: “Amen I say unto you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven” (Matt. xviii. 18). They may “command” as Paul did, who journeyed from place to place and “commanded them to keep the precepts of the apostles and the ancients” (Acts xv. 41). Peter, moreover, and his successors, received the right and duty to feed “the sheep” as well as the “lambs” (John xxi. 16), besides the especial custody of the keys (Matt. xvi. 19); on him and on his God-given constancy the Church of Christ was built (Matt. xvi. 18).

The Holy Ghost “placed” the bishops “to rule the Church of God” (Acts xx. 28). Whoever “will not hear the Church” is shut out from salvation and is to be regarded “as the heathen and publican” (Matt. xviii. 17).

Nowhere in these passages, so it was pointed out, is there ever a word about the secular power having any hand in the growth of the great society of God upon earth. Nor could Christ, in view of the object to which He had founded His Church, without proving untrue to Himself, have left behind Him a helpless and unfinished work, dependent for its very life on the discretion of the secular authorities and taking its laws from the State. The Church’s four marks (above, p. 295) point to something higher.

Even did Luther wish to disregard the words of institution, he should at least, so it was urged, not shut his eyes to history; now, from the earliest historical times, the Church had always existed under the form of a society, i.e. divided into the two categories of the teachers and the taught. Even according to Protestant writers this form may be traced back at least as far as the 2nd century, and, to an unprejudiced eye, its traces will be discernible even earlier in the authentic sources, i.e. the Bible and history. None, however, was better fitted to bear witness to the earliest organisation of the Church than the Church herself, for she could do so out of the unbroken and untarnished consciousness of her existence; her testimony confirms her Divine appointment to be an independent society and a hierarchically governed institution.

Lutheranism, however, took scant notice of these Biblical and historical proofs.[1214] Its founder, at the end of his life, left it as his legacy a church, or rather churches, of a different structure. In the evening of his days, in spite of the hopeless and imperilled state of his congregations, he refused to admit any gleam of light that might have brought him back to the unwavering authority of the ancient Church which once, in the days of his crisis, he had extolled. By heavenly signs and wonders, so he had pointed out in his Commentary on Romans (1516), this Church was introduced into the world; she is the mother of those who teach; to her decision every doctrine must bow if it is not to become a heresy, “robbed of the witness of God and of that divinely authenticated authority” which “down to the present day supports the Roman Church.”[1215]

Since he had descended into the arena of controversy his attitude towards the dogma of the Church had become not so much a matter of doctrine (for the essential question was, as Köstlin aptly remarks, “very insufficiently grasped and explained by him”[1216]) as one of policy.

5. Luther’s Tactics in Questions concerning the Church

Both for Luther’s views on doctrine and for his psychology his tactics in his controversy about the nature of the Church offer matter for consideration.

Controversy, as we know, tended to accentuate his peculiarities. His talents, his gift of swift perception, his skill for vivid description, his art of exploiting every advantage to the delight of the masses were all of value to him. What he wrote when not under the stress of controversy lacked these advantages, advantages, moreover, which, for the most part, were merely superficial, and sometimes, when he was in the wrong, display a very unpleasing side.

The Erfurt Preachers in a Tight Place

In 1536 Luther took a hand in a controversy which had arisen at Erfurt as to whether the “true Church was there,” and whether his preachers, who represented the Church and were being persecuted by some of the Town Council, should leave the town.[1217]

As early as 1527 he had had occasion to complain of the Erfurt Councillors; they had not the courage “to go to the root of the matter”; they tolerated the “dissensions” in the town arising from the divergent preaching of the “Evangelicals” and the “Papists,” instead of “making all the preachers dispute together and silencing those who could not make good their cause.”[1218] Since the Convention of Hamelburg in 1530[1219] both forms of worship had been tolerated in the town. To the great vexation of Johann Lang and the other preachers the quick-witted Franciscan, Conrad Kling, an Erfurt Doctor of Theology (above, vol. v., p. 341), delivered in the Spitalkirche sermons which were so well attended that the audience overflowed even into the churchyard. Catholic citizens of standing in the town and possessed of influence over the Council, spread the report that the Lutheran preachers were intruders who had no legitimate mission or call, and had not even been validly appointed by the Council. In consequence of this, Luther, with Melanchthon and Jonas, addressed a circular letter in 1533 to his old friend Lang and the latter’s colleagues, in which he encourages them to stand firm and not to quit the town; he points out that their call, in spite of all that was alleged, had been “with the knowledge of the magistracy,” and not the result of “intrigue.”[1220] It is plain from this letter that the tables had to some extent been turned on Lang and his followers who had once behaved in so high-handed a manner at Erfurt,[1221] and that they were now tasting “want and misery” as well as contempt. In vain did the preachers attempt to shake off the authority of the Council by claiming to hold their commission from God.

Some while after, owing to the further efforts of Kling and his friends, the situation of the Lutherans became even worse; it was then that Frederick Myconius, Superintendent at Gotha, took their side and persuaded Luther to write the above memorandum of Aug. 22(?), 1536, on the True Church of Christ at Erfurt. This was signed by Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Jonas and Myconius, and may have been the latter’s work. The document is highly characteristic of Luther’s tactics in the shifty character of the proofs adduced to prove the call of the Erfurt pastors. It did not succeed in inducing the Council to grant the preachers independence or to abrogate the restrictions of which they complained, although, as Enders remarks, “it exalted the spiritual power as supreme over the secular.”[1222]

There can be no doubt, so Luther argues, that, among his followers in the town of Erfurt, there was indeed the true “Holy Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ,” for they possessed the true Word and the true Sacraments. God had indeed “sent down on the people of Erfurt the Holy Ghost, Who worked in some of them a knowledge of tongues, discernment of spirits,” etc. (1 Cor. xii. 10), in the same way He had given them Evangelists, teachers, interpreters and everything necessary for the upbringing of His Body (Eph. iv. 11 f.). He urges that the ministers of the Word were rightly appointed, though here he does not appeal as much as usual, to the supposed validity of the call by the Town Council, as the whole trouble had its source in the town magistracy. The appointment of the preachers, so he now says, was the duty of the Church rather than of the magistrates; the Town Council had given them the call only in its capacity as a “member of the Church,” for which reason their dismissal or persecution was quite unjustifiable. He also brings forward other personal, mystic grounds for the validity of their call: they were “very learned men and full of all grace”; the appointment, which they had received not only from the “people and the Church, but also from the supreme authority,” had taken place under the breath of the Spirit (“impetu quodam spiritus”) Who had sent them as reapers into the harvest; they are recognised by all the Churches abroad, even the most important, and no less do their sheep hear their voice. Hence, if some of the magistrates now refuse to recognise them, they must simply appeal to their calling “by the Holy Ghost and the Church”; the efficient cause here is, and remains, Christ, Who gives the Church her authority. Hence at all costs they must stick to their post.

The whole of the extremely involved explanation points to the reaction now taking place in his mind owing to his bitter experiences with the authorities in the question of Church government.

In this frame of mind he often makes the call depend solely on the Church, nay, on Christ Himself. If the Courts are to rule as they please, so he wrote in the midst of one of these conflicts with the authorities, the last state of things will be worse than the first. They ought to leave the Churches to the care of those to whom they have been committed and who will have to render an account to God. Hence Luther urges that the two callings be kept separate.[1223]

What is also noteworthy in the memorandum for the people of Erfurt is that, in order to defend the legal standing of the preachers, he insists on the fact of their having been recognised by their congregation, who are willing to listen to them as their shepherds. Here we have the revival of an old idea of his, viz. that the soul-herd was really appointed by the people and in their name. In his later years he tended to revert to this view, though, in reality, the people never had a say in the matter. After having, in 1542, consecrated Amsdorf as “Bishop” of Naumburg, in the ensuing controversies he referred to the will of the “Church,” i.e. of the Naumburg Lutherans. “All depends,” so he wrote, “whether the Church and the Bishop are at one, and whether the Church will listen to the Bishop and the Bishop will teach the Church. This is exemplified here.”[1224]

Controversies with the Catholics on the Question of the Church

In what Luther wrote against the Catholics we occasionally meet some fine sayings on the unfettered authority of the Church in its relations to the secular rulers,[1225] so greatly was his versatile mind governed by the spirit of opportunism.

It was from motives of expediency that, in 1529, in his “Vom Kriege widder die Türcken” he makes out Emperors and kings to be no protectors of the Church; these worldly powers are “as a rule the worst foes of Christendom and the faith.” “The Emperor’s sword has nothing to do with the faith, but only with bodily and worldly affairs.”[1226] It must be remembered that he wrote this just before the dreaded Diet of Augsburg.—Again, in 1545, in the Theses against the “Theologists of Louvain” who had requested the State to protect the Catholic faith as heretofore, Luther says: “It is not the duty of Kings and Princes to confirm right doctrine; they have themselves to bow to it and obey it as the Word of God and God Himself.”[1227]—If the “Emperor’s sword” and the “Kings and Princes” had been on his side, then his language would have been quite different. As it was, however, whenever he thought it might prove useful, he was not unwilling to come back even later to the standpoint of his writing “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt.”[1228]

When the Catholics, for instance at the Diet of Augsburg, reproached his party with having completely secularised the Church and with prohibiting Catholic worship with the help of the Princes who favoured him, his replies were eminently characteristic both of his temper and his mode of controversy.

He knew very well, so he wrote in 1530, “that the Prince’s office and the preacher’s are not one and the same, and that the Prince as such ought not to do this [i.e. prohibit the Mass].” But in this the Prince was acting, not as a Prince, but as a Christian. It is also “a different thing whether a Prince ought to preach or whether he ought to consent to the preaching. It is not the Prince, but rather Scripture, that prohibits ‘winkle-masses’”; if a Prince chose to take the side of Scripture that was his own business.[1229]

Another answer of Luther’s was to the effect that the abominations of Catholic worship which were being abolished by the secular authorities were, after all, outward things, and that the power of the sovereign without a doubt stretched over “res externæ.”[1230]

Of these attempts at justification and of his doctrine of the Church in general, Köstlin’s observations hold good: “We cannot escape the fact that, here, there is much vacillation and that Luther stands in danger of contradicting himself.” “We must admit that he had not studied deeply enough the questions arising out of the relations of the authorities to matters ecclesiastical.”[1231] “The decision [of the sovereigns] as to what constituted right doctrine was final as regards the substance of the preaching in their lands.” “A nobleman who had received orders from his sovereign, the Duke of Saxony, to expel the Evangelical preachers, was told by Luther—though what he said was undeniably at variance with other utterances—that the sovereign had no right to do this because God’s command obliged him to rule only in secular and not in spiritual concerns.” “In fact the only answer he could give to the Popish persecutors when they alleged they were forced by their office and conscience to act as they did was: ‘What is that to me?’ for it was clear enough that they were using their authority wantonly.”[1232]

But how are we to explain his apparent readiness at the time of the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 to recognise the olden Church, and the power of the bishops, and even himself to submit to them if only they would allow him and his followers freedom to preach the Evangel? The statements to this effect in his “Vermanug” of this year have been widely misunderstood through being taken apart from their setting. He does not for a moment imagine, as he has been falsely credited with doing, that it was not “his vocation to found a new Church separate from Catholicism”; neither has he any desire to remain united with his foes “in one communion under the Catholic bishops.”

Luther, as he here says, is only willing, “for the sake of peace, to allow the bishops to be princes and lords,” and this only on condition that “they help to administer the Evangel”—i.e. take his part; in that case they “would be free to appoint clerics to the parishes and pulpits.” His offer is, “that we and the preachers should teach the Evangel in your stead,” and “that you should back us by means of your episcopal powers; only your personal mode of life and your princely state would we leave to your conscience and to the judgment of God.”[1233] In the meantime, on account of the Catholic faith to which they clung, he calls them “foes of God,” speaks of their “anti-Christian bishopry,” and, because of the infringements of the law of celibacy, scourges them as the “greatest whoremongers and panders upon earth.”[1234]

In his controversies with the Catholics he often enough found himself faced by the objection, that the true Church could not be with him, because on his side all the fruits of holiness were wanting; the Church being essentially holy should needs be able to point to her good influence on morals.

Thus, for instance, a Dominican adversary had written: According to Luther the Gospel had been under the bench for the last four hundred years; but, now, surely enough, “it is under the bench even more than heretofore, for the Gospel and the whole of Scripture have never been so despised as at present owing to Luther’s teaching, who excludes all love of God and man, all concord between lords and serfs, priests and laity, men and women, rejects all good works and discipline, obscures the truth and replaces it by nothing but lies and introduces hatred and envy, unchastity, blasphemy and disobedience.”[1235]

In his replies to such arguments against the truth of his Church Luther was loath to attempt the difficult task of proving the existence of holiness in the domain of the Evangel. On the contrary, with surprising candour, he usually meets his opponents half-way as regards the facts. Thus, in his “Wider Hans Worst,” in 1541, he admits that things are just as bad as they had been in Jerusalem in the days of the prophets, “with us too there is flesh and blood, nay, the devil among the sons of Job. The peasants are savage, the burghers avaricious and the nobles grasping. We shout and storm our best, helped by the Word of God, and resist as far as we can.… Willingly we confess and frankly that we are not as holy as we should be.”[1236]

Such admissions are followed by astonishing attempts to evade the force of the objection and by coarse attacks on the immorality of the Papacy which he exaggerates beyond all measure.

The few, he declares, who are good and virtuous suffice to prove the Church’s holiness. “Some do more than their part; that they are few in number does not matter. God can help a whole nation for the sake of one man as he did by Naaman, the Syrian (4 Kings v.). In short, one’s life cannot be made a subject of debate.”—On another occasion he replies shrewdly that the mark of holiness was not nearly so safe as other marks, for distinguishing the true Church; for pious works were also practised at times by the heathen.… As regards its importance as a mark, holiness must be subordinated to the true preaching of the Word and to pure doctrine, which in the end will always bring amendment of life; whereas corrupt doctrine poisoned the whole mass, a scandalous life was damaging chiefly to the man who lived it; but corruption of doctrine had penetrated Popery through and through.[1237] “We do not laugh when wickedness is committed amongst us as they [the Papists] do in their Churches; as Solomon says (Prov. ii. 14): ‘Who are glad when they have done evil and rejoice in most wicked things,’ and also seek to defend them by fire and sword.”[1238]

We have here an instance of the tactics by which he turns on his adversaries and abuses them. In his anxiety to turn the reproach of his foes against themselves he selects by preference the celibacy of the clergy and the religious vows; nor does he attack merely the blemishes which the Church herself bewailed and countered, but the very institution itself.

In his “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen” he exclaims: “The Pope condemns the married life of the bishops and priests, this is plain enough now”; “if a man has been married twice he is declared by the Papists incapable of being promoted to the higher Orders.[1239] But if he has soiled himself by abominable behaviour he is nevertheless tolerated in these offices.”[1240] “Why,” he asks, most unjustly misrepresenting the Catholic view of the sacrament of marriage, “why do they look upon it as the lowest of the sacraments, nay, as an impure thing and a sin in which it is impossible to serve God?”[1241]

To what monstrous and repulsive images he can have recourse when painting the “whore Church” of the Papacy, the following from “Wider Hans Worst” will serve to show: You are, so he there writes in 1541 of the Catholics, “the runaway, apostate, strumpet-Church as the prophets term it”; “you whoremongers preach in your own brothels and devil’s Churches”; it is with you as though the bride of a loving bridegroom “were to allow every man to abuse her at his will. This whore—once a pure virgin and beloved bride—is now an apostate, vagrant whore, a house-whore,” etc. “You become the diligent pupils and whorelings of the Lenæ, the arch-whores, as the comedies say, till you old whores bear in your turn young whores, and so increase and multiply the Pope’s Church, which is the devil’s own, and make many of Christ’s chaste virgins who were born by baptism, arch-whores like yourselves. This, I take it, is to talk plain German, understandable to you and everybody else.”[1242]

Without following him through all he says we shall merely draw the reader’s attention to a proverb and a picture Luther here uses. The proverb runs: “The sow has been washed in the pond and now wallows again in the filth. Such are you, and such was I once.”[1243] In the picture “the Pope’s Church,” i.e. hell, is represented as a “great dragon’s head” with gaping jaws, as it is depicted in the old paintings of the Last Judgment; “there, in the midst of the flames, are the Pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, monks, emperors, kings, princes and men and women of all sorts (but no children). Verily I know not how one could better paint and describe the Church of the Pope,”[1244] etc.

After such rude abuse he comes back in the same writing to his usual apology. There was, he says, no object in alluding to the moral evils in the Lutheran Churches because of the Church being of its very nature invisible.[1245] Everything depends on the doctrine “which must be pure and undefiled, i.e. the one, dear, saving, holy Word of God without anything thrown in. But the life that ought to be ruled, cleansed and hallowed daily by such teaching is not yet altogether pure and holy because our carrion of flesh and blood still lives.” Yet “for the sake of the Word whereby he is healed and cleansed all this is overlooked, pardoned and forgiven him, and he must be termed clean.”[1246]

The Papists have a beam in their own eye, i.e. their false doctrine, but they see the mote in the eye of others “as regards the life.”[1247] If it is a question with whom the true Church is to be found he assures us: “We who teach God’s Word with such certainty are indeed weak, and, by reason of our great humility, so foolish that we do not like to boast of being God’s Churches, witnesses, ministers and preachers or that God speaks through us, though this we certainly are because without a doubt we have His Word and teach it”; it is only the Papists “who venture boldly to proclaim out of their great holiness: Here is God and we are God’s Church.”[1248]

It was not, however, bold presumption and lack of humility that led Luther’s literary opponents among the Catholics to appeal to the promises Christ had made to His Church; rather it was their conviction that these solemn assurances excluded the possibility of the Church’s having ever erred in the way Luther maintained that she had done.

The Indefectibility of the Church and Her Thousand-Year-Long Error

When the question arose, how the Church, in spite of Christ’s protection, could nevertheless have fallen into such monstrous errors,[1249] Luther was disposed to admit in his polemics that the true Church, i.e. the community of real believers, could not go astray. “The Church cannot teach lies and errors, not even in details.… How could it then be otherwise when God’s mouth is the mouth of the Church. As God cannot lie neither therefore can the Church.”[1250]

Such an immutable and reliable guide to erring men for their perfect peace of mind and sure salvation, the Catholics retorted, did Christ intend to leave in His visible Church, ruled by the successors of St. Peter.

An able Catholic work of 1528, already referred to above, emphasises the Church’s immutability in her dogma: “That preacher who does not preach in accordance with the Holy Catholic Church and the holy Fathers sins against the truth.… With due reverence we firmly believe all that is written in the approved Books of the Old and New Testament. We must not, however, so confine ourselves to this as to look upon what the Holy Church teaches apart from Scripture as human dross, seeing that Scripture itself commands us to keep the doctrine of the Church and the Fathers.” The author goes on to show his opponent Luther what services are rendered by the Church’s authority, how she preserves intact and vouches for the Canon of Scripture. It is only from the lips of the Church that we learn which books were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. “For where is it written that we must believe the Gospels of Matthew, John and the rest? But, if it is nowhere written, how is it you believe in these Gospels? How much at variance is your practice with your teaching?”[1251]

As to the infallibility of the Church Luther retorted: The invisible Church cannot err, but “that Church which we usually mean when we use the word, can and does err; the congregation of true believers cannot be assembled in one particular spot and is often to be found where least expected. Moreover, even this Church, i.e. the true believers and the saints, can sometimes go astray by allowing themselves to be drawn away from the Word.… Hence we must always regard the Church and the saints from two points of view, first according to the Spirit, and, then, according to the flesh, lest their piety and their Word savours of the flesh.”[1252] The Church teaches according to the Spirit when her “belief tallies with the Word of God and the belief of Christ Himself in heaven. To speak in this manner and meaning is right.”[1253] But “we must not build on her opinion or belief where she holds or believes anything outside of and beyond the Word of God.”[1254] It was according to the flesh that all those abominations of errors were taught which were termed “opinions of the Churches, though they were nothing of the kind but merely human conceits, invented outside of scripture and parading under the Church’s name.”[1255]

With this Luther’s reader is flung back once more into the most subjective of systems, for who is to decide whether this or that doctrine “savours of the flesh.” Each one for himself, solely according to the standard of Holy Scripture or, rather, each one as Luther dictates. But Luther’s decisions touched only the doctrines known to him; who is to decide on the questions yet to arise after his death?

He condemns the errors of the Middle Ages. Yet he is occasionally ready to praise the Mediæval Church. As we know he acknowledged that she had preserved Baptism. When the Church says that “Baptism washes away sin,” this, to Luther, does not savour of the flesh. “She also holds and believes that in [?] the bread and wine the Body and Blood of Christ are given.… Summa, in these beliefs the Church cannot err.”[1256] These, however, merely happened to be Luther’s own opinions. Infant-Baptism Luther defended against the Anabaptists without seeking help in the Bible; as for the presence of Christ in the Sacrament against the Zwinglians he indeed had the words of the Bible, yet here, too, he was only too glad to reinforce what he said by the traditions and infallible teaching office of the Church, though in so doing he was contradicting his own theory.[1257]

Luther, with characteristic disregard of logic, calls the earlier Church a “Holy place of abominations.” She was a “holy place,” for “there, even under the Pope, God maintained with might and by wonders first Holy Baptism; secondly, in the pulpits, the text of the Holy Gospel in the language of each country; thirdly, the Forgiveness of Sins and Absolution both in Confession and publicly; fourthly, the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar; … fifthly, the calling or ordination to the preaching office.… Many retained the custom of holding up the crucifix before the eyes of the dying and reminding them of the sufferings of Christ on which they must rely; finally, prayer, the Psalter, the Our Father, the Creed and the Ten Commandments, item many good hymns and canticles both in Latin and in German. Where such things survived there must undoubtedly have been a Church, and also Saints. Hence Christ was assuredly there with His Holy Spirit, upholding in them the Christian faith though everything was in a bad way, even as in the time of Elias, when the 7000 left were so weak that Elias fancied himself the only Christian still living.”[1258]

Nevertheless, this was the selfsame Church, which not only connived at the teaching of heretical abominations but actually herself taught all the depravities which Luther describes in the same writing, such as her peculiar doctrine of priestly ordination, of the validity of the secret Canon of the Mass, of the spiritual authority of the bishops, of justification, good works and satisfaction, of purgatory, saint-worship, etc.

That here he does not condemn the olden Church off-hand and fling her to the jaws of the dragon as he was wont to do is a casual inconsistency; his moderation here is to be explained by the necessity he was under then (after the Diet of Augsburg), of showing that he could claim a certain continuity with the Church of the past, and also by his desire to influence those Catholics who were still sitting on the fence and whom he would gladly have drawn over to his own side by seeming concessions, in accordance with his tactics at Augsburg.

Yet, in spite of the above concessions, the Mediæval Church remains in his eyes a “place of abominations”; her members, though validly baptised, are not members of the Church; they might indeed sit in the Church, but only as Antichrist sits in the Temple of God (2 Thess. ii. 4); her children would be saved if they died before coming to a full knowledge of the Popish Church, but if they grew up and followed her lying preaching then they would become devil’s whores;[1259] even as I myself “was stuck fast in the behind of the devil’s whore, i.e. of the Pope’s new Churches, so that it is a grief to us to have spent so much time and pains in that shameful hole. But praise and thanks be to God Who has delivered us from the Scarlet Woman!”[1260]

So low is his esteem for the authority of the tradition of the “Holy Place of abominations,” that he includes among the doubtful and fallible statements of that Doctor of the Church the famous saying of St. Augustine, that he would not believe the Gospel were it not for the Church.[1261] He urges that Augustine himself had declared, that his doctrines were to be examined, and only those to be accepted which were found correct. He prefers to harp on another passage where St. Augustine says: “The Church is begotten, fed, brought up and strengthened by the Word of God,”[1262] as though St. Augustine in speaking thus of the soul of the Church was denying her external organisation, her spiritual supremacy, and her teaching office. Luther, however, treated tradition just as he pleased; theologians had always distinguished between those traditions of the olden Doctors that had been guaranteed by the Church and those views which were merely personal to them; the latter no theologian regarded as binding, whereas the former were accepted by them with the respect befitting the witnesses. Here, once more, we see Luther’s subjective principle at work, which excludes all authoritative doctrine that comes to man from without, leaves him exposed to doubt and negation, and quite overlooks the fact that all revelation in last resort comes to the individual from without with an irresistible and authoritative claim to respect. Just as the Divine revelation vindicates its claim to acceptance by the faithful by means of proofs, so too, the teaching authority of the Church—as Luther’s Catholic opponents were not slow to point out—could show proofs that what was presented to the faithful as an article of belief might reasonably be accepted without any need of previously testing it to see whether it agreed with Holy Scripture—an examination, which, as a matter of fact, most people were not capable of undertaking.

As the polemic we quoted above argues, Protestants held Holy Scripture to be so clear that everyone could understand it without outside help. “But, if the heretics think Scripture to be so plain and clear, why do they write so many books in order to explain it? If Scripture is so clear, plain and easy to understand how is it that they are so much at variance concerning that one text: ‘This is My Body?’”[1263]

Luther now fell back on the Holy Spirit. “Without the Holy Ghost,” he says, “it is impossible to discern the abominations from the Holy Place.” But, so he was justly asked, who is to vouch for it that a man has truly the Holy Spirit? And, if, as Luther opines, the Holy Ghost points to the fruits as the means whereby He may be recognised, everything again depends on the fruits being judged according to Luther’s own moral standard. In short, in these controversies, Luther revolves in a vicious circle.

In his Table-Talk Luther’s habit of shielding himself from objections behind the strangest misrepresentations is again apparent. Such misrepresentations, occurring in his most intimate conversations, show that he was very far from merely using them in public or from motives of policy; rather they influence his whole mode of thought and feeling and were a second nature with him. We have only to turn to his conversations on the subject of the “Church,” collected in 1538 by his friend and companion Anton Lauterbach.[1264]

Here we meet with the revolting assertion that, in the Papistical Church, the Pope claimed to be the only one who had a right to interpret Scripture, and that he did this “out of his own brain”; this Church, so Luther goes on, had set up a mass of human regulations and vain observances which stifled all freedom and true religion; “the name Church was a pretext for the most abominable errors.” Further, “the true Church [i.e. mine] teaches the free forgiveness of sins, secondly, she teaches us to believe firmly, and, thirdly, to bear the cross with patience. But the false Church [the Pope’s] ascribes the forgiveness of sins to our own merits, teaches men to waver, and, finally does not carry the cross but rather persecutes others.” Besides, how can the Papists have the true Church, seeing that they are “some of them Epicureans, some of them idolaters?”—Fancy talking about the authority of the Church! Is it with this that the fanatical Anabaptists are to be vanquished? “Moreover, we know that: The true Church never at any time bore the name or title that the godless so boldly claim; she was ever nameless and is therefore believed rather than seen; for the most part she lies downtrodden and neglected; weakness, crosses and scandals are her portion. Only look at the Church under the tyranny of the Pope; the Papal Decretals are the ne plus ultra of ungodliness.”

“I am astonished,” so he ends, speaking of the Roman Primacy, “at the great blindness with which men worshipped the Pope’s lies and his boundless and utterly shameless audacity, as though Holy Scripture depended on the authority of the Roman Church whose head he claimed to be, basing his claim on the words of Christ (Matt. xvi. 18) ‘Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.’”

Luther’s Tactics in the Interpretation of the Bible

The text just quoted leads us to glance at his Biblical arguments; to conclude this chapter we shall therefore give as a sample of his exegesis on the Church a more detailed account of his exposition of the chief argument for the papal primacy, viz. Christ’s promise to Peter, using for this purpose his last book against Popery.[1265]

He would fain, so he says, “point out the Christian sense of this text” as against that read into it by the hierarchical Church; nevertheless, at his first effort he cannot rise above a coarse witticism. “For very fear,” on approaching this text “Thou art Peter,” etc., something “might easily have happened had I not had my breeches on; and I might have done something that people do not like to smell, so anxious and affrighted was I.” Why did not the Pope appeal rather to the text: “In the beginning Cod created the heavens—that is the Pope—and the earth, that is the Christian Church,” etc. This is the first answer.

The second is a perversion of the Catholic view; he accuses the Pope of deducing from the text under discussion, that he has “all power in heaven as well as on earth” and authority “over all the Churches and the Emperor to boot.” This parody of the truth Luther proceeds triumphantly to demolish as “blasphemous idolatry.”—There follows thirdly an appeal to the “Emperor, Kings, Princes and nobles” to seize upon the Papal States which the Pope has stolen by dint of “lying and trickery” and to slay as blasphemers him and his Cardinals.

He goes on to explain the Bible passage in question by proving, fourthly, against the “wicked, shameless, stiff-necked” Papists from Eph. iv. 15, and from Augustine and Cyprian, “that the whole of Christendom throughout the world has no other head set over it save only Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” The true sense of Eph. iv. 15 and the real teaching of both the Fathers in question are too well known for us to need to waste words on them here.—Fifthly, he brings forward John vi. 63: “My words are Spirit and life” and argues: “According to this the words Matt. xvi. 18 [concerning Peter and the rock] must also be Spirit and life.… The upbuilding must here mean a spiritual and living upbuilding; the rock must be a living and spiritual rock; the Church a living and spiritual assembly, nay, something that lives for all eternity.”—These facts, however, had always been admitted by Catholic commentators without causing them any apprehension as to the primacy or the visible Church.—Sixthly, he seeks to demonstrate that the Church can only be built on the rock indicated by Christ “by faith”; this, however, excludes the primacy of Peter, for “whoever believes is built upon this rock.”—Seventhly: “It is thus that St. Peter himself interprets it, 1 Peter ii. 3 ff.,”—though this is a fact only credible to one who is already of Luther’s opinion.—Eighthly, he will have it that, in the famous passage, Christ meant to say no more than: “Thou art Peter, that is a rock, for thou hast perceived and named the Right Man, viz. Christ, Who is the true Rock, as Scripture terms Him. On this rock, i.e. on Me, Christ, I will build the whole of My Christendom.”

This reading would certainly cut away the ground from under the argument of the Catholics.[1266] Nevertheless Protestant scholars have repeatedly shown themselves willing to apply Christ’s promise to the person of Peter, as ecclesiastical tradition has ever done, and to defend this as the true sense of the words. Thus the Berlin exegetist, Bernhard Weiss, writes: “By using ταύτῃ for the name (Peter), signifying a rock, any application of the words either to Jesus or to the faith or confession of Peter is shut out.… It can only be understood of his person,” etc.[1267] By Holtzmann, the Strasburg exegetist, the opposite interpretation was uncharitably described as a fruit of the “school of Protestant ex parte exegesis.”[1268]

We must, however, allow that, both here and in his treatment of the promise of the keys (Matt. xvi. 19), Luther shows himself an adept in the use of language. “To speak plain German we may say this,” so he begins one of his commentaries, and indeed he knows how to speak well and in a manner calculated to impress his hearers. Of the matter, however, we may judge from the following: “To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” this means that, should anyone refuse to believe the apostles, on him they should pass sentence and condemn him; their “office” still remains in the Church, there always being “retaining of sins for the impenitent and unbelieving, and forgiveness for the penitent and the believing”; but, quite apart from this “office,” believers have absolute power “where two or three are gathered together in the name of Christ (Matt. xviii. 20).”[1269] Here again we have Christ’s promise misconstrued, which does not refer to spiritual authority but solely to the effect of the prayer in common of two or more of the faithful.[1270]

“Hence, let the Pope and his Peter be gone,” so he concludes … even though there were a hundred thousand St. Peters, even though all the world were nothing but Popes, and even though an angel from heaven stood beside him; for we have here [Matt. xviii. 18, where the power of binding and loosing is bestowed on all the apostles] the Lord Himself, above all angels and creatures, Who says they are all to have equal power, keys and office, even where only two simple Christians are gathered together in His name. This Lord we shall not allow the Pope and all the devils to make into a fool, liar or drunkard; but we will tread the Pope under foot and tell him that he is a desperate blasphemer and idolatrous devil, who, in St. Peter’s name, has snatched the keys for himself alone which Christ gave to them all in common. “It is the Lord Himself Who says this [John xx. 21 ff.]; therefore we care nothing for the ravings of the Pope-Ass in his filthy decretals.”[1271]

CHAPTER XXXIX
END OF LUTHER’S LIFE

1. The Flight from Wittenberg

“Old age is here,” so wrote Luther in a fit of depression to his Elector on March 30, 1544, in his sixty-first year; “old age which in itself is cold and ungainly, weak and sickly. The pitcher goes to the well until one fine day it breaks; I have lived long enough, may God grant me a happy deathbed.… Methinks, too, I have already seen the best I am like to see on earth, for it looks as though evil days were coming. May God help His own! Amen.” He recommends his sovereign to seek comfort in the “Dear Word of God” and in prayer, assuring him: “These two unspeakable treasures shall never be the portion of the devil, the Turk, or of the Pope and his followers.”[1272]

About this time he had to complain of palpitations, dizziness and calculus. His will he had already drawn up on Jan. 6, 1542.[1273] In it he refused to make use of the usual legal forms, being determined to have nothing to do with the lawyers, with whom he was always at variance. He was quite aware that lawyers still insisted on the objections to the validity of the marriages of clerics and monks and the rights of inheritance of their children, as they indeed were bound to do not only by Canon Law but also by the law of the Empire.

How cheerfully he was inclined to look forward to death even the year before is apparent from a letter to Myconius, “the bishop of the Churches of Gotha and Thuringia,” who was then lying seriously ill; here he says: “I pray our Lord Jesus not to call to everlasting rest you and our followers and leave me here among the devils to be still longer tormented by them. Truly I have been long enough plagued by them and really I deserve that my turn should come before yours. Hence my prayer is: May the Lord lay your illness upon me and rid me of my earthly habitation which is so useless, worn-out and exhausted. I see right well that I am no longer good for anything.”[1274]

After his above farewell-letter to the Elector Luther’s thoughts reverted to death more frequently than before. He cast up the books he had still to write and took stock of his powers to see whether he would have time to finish them. For his energy and spirit of enterprise were by no means yet dead, though at times they seem to be paralysed. Often enough he pulls himself together in his letters sufficiently to make jokes with his friends, the better both to banish his own gloomy thoughts and to inspire the addressees with greater courage and confidence. Nevertheless, through it all, we can detect his disquiet and suffering.

“You often importune me,” so he wrote to his pupil Anton Lauterbach about the end of 1544, “for a work on ecclesiastical discipline, but you do not tell me where I am to find the leisure and health, seeing that I am a worn-out and idle old man. I am ceaselessly snowed under with letters. I have promised the young princes a sermon on drunkenness, others and myself I have promised a book on secret marriages, others again, one against the Sacramentarians; some now want me to set all else aside and write a ‘Summa’ and running gloss on the whole Bible. Thus one thing stands in the way of the other and I get through nothing. And yet I had imagined that, as one who had already done his work, I had earned the right to some leisure, and to live quietly and in peace and so pass away. But I am compelled to pursue my restless way of life. Well, I shall do what I can, and, what I can’t, I shall leave undone.… Pray for us as we do for you.”[1275]

In Jan., 1545, when he had almost completed his long and arduous work on Genesis, he sighed: “May God put an end to this moribund and sinful life as soon as this book is finished, or even before should it please Him; do you ask God this for me.… Yes, truly, pray for my happy dissolution and that I may die a good death.”[1276] “Pray for me,” he wrote to Amsdorf in May of the same year, “that I may be set free as soon as may be from my fetters and be united to Christ, but that, if my life, or rather my sickness, is to last still longer, God may bestow on me strength of body and force of soul.” He praises God that he himself and his friends, “though unworthy sinners, had been chosen for this blessed and glorious office, viz. to hear the voice of God’s Majesty in the Word of the Evangel; on this the angels and all creation wish us luck, but the Pope is dismayed and all the gates of hell shake.”[1277]

Luther’s extant letters covering the period from May to December, 1545, afford us an insight into the emotions through which he passed.

From the month of May onwards he sank deeper and deeper into a dreary state of annoyance and sadness, and, at last, at the end of July, he shook the dust of Wittenberg from his feet. In the latter half of August, after he had allowed himself to be persuaded to return, his spirits rapidly revived, and such was the reaction that his new mystical ardour knew no bounds while his exertions seem almost incredible.

To take the period in question in its chronological order: The month of May commenced with a bitter attack on Agricola, and, on the latter’s arrival at Wittenberg, he refused even to see him. “Of this monster,” he wrote on May 2, “I will hear nothing but words of condemnation; of him and his friends may I be rid for all eternity.… Satan may rage and boast as he pleases!”[1278] His annoyance, as is usual with him, is speedily transferred to Satan. That same day, plagued with a tiresome matrimonial dispute, he asked: “Is then the devil master of the world?”[1279] Shortly after he declared the Pope to be the “monster of Satan, the end of whose days was at hand.”[1280] His joy at the approaching end (“gaudeamus omnes in Domino”) is, however, not unmixed. The thought depresses him that the devil should still be active even at Halle which had recently been won over to the Evangel, and that he had there “just blessed, or rather cursed, two nuns, thereby proving how much more he fain would do.”[1281]

Annoyance at the bad treatment of his preachers also lets loose a flood of complaints. “In many places,” so he laments, “they are treated very ill so that they are minded to depart and are even compelled to take flight.”[1282] The hostility of the politicians at Court and the lawyers, was also a cause of profound grief to him.[1283]

With greater apprehension than usual he saw at the beginning of June terrifying natural portents and prayed with passionate longing for the “overthrow of all things” which he was confidently awaiting.[1284]

Already in spirit he saw the sparks of the coming conflagration which was to consume Germany for her chastisement, “before the outbreak of which may God deliver us and ours from this misery!”[1285]

In July anger at the “contempt of the Word on our side and the blasphemy of our foes,”[1286] the sad sight of the want of unity and growing number of sects in his own camp, where “each one insists on following his own ideas,”[1287] the “decline of learning” amongst his followers, where “many bellies are set only on feeding themselves,”[1288] all this combined with other experiences tended to make his depression unendurable. To be obliged to set in order the public worship spelt a positive torture to him.[1289] Even in his own household he had cause for bitter disappointment in his niece Magdalene who had insisted on making love to a man (whom she was ultimately to marry) of whom Luther did not approve, thus giving Satan an opportunity for “maliciously attacking” Luther’s good name.[1290]

Yes indeed, “Satan rules,” he said to Amsdorf, in a letter of July 9, “and all have lost their wits.”[1291] Here the cause of his vexation was the Emperor, who, so he had been told, was insisting that the Protestants should attend the Council of Trent and submit to it. It is true Luther does not give up all hope of God again making a mockery of Satan,[1292] but, in the meantime, he execrates and curses the Council.[1293] He also vents his wrath on the Emperor, Ferdinand the German King, the King of France and the Pope. And why? Because he was only too ready to give credence to a report which had reached him that they had despatched ambassadors to the Grand Turk with gifts and an offer of peace, and that, clothed in long Turkish garments, they were humbling themselves before the infidel.[1294] “Are these Christians? They are hellish idols of the devil. Yet I hope they are at the same time a glad token of the coming of the end of all things. Let them worship the Turk, but let us call upon the true God, Who will humble both them and the Turk in the Day of His Coming.”[1295]

He is still suffering from the after-effects of the excitement in which he had, as he says, penned his “book brimful of bitter wrath, against the Papal monster,” viz. his “Against the Popedom founded by the Devil.” He has not the strength left to write a sequel to it, but he tells his friend Ratzeberger: “I have not yet done justice either to myself or to the greatness of my anger; I know too that I can never do full justice to it, so great and boundless is the enormity of the Papistic monster.” In such a frame of mind he feels keenly that he is the “trump heralding the Last Judgment.”[1296]

He is conscious, however, that his trump cannot peal loud enough in the world (“parum sonamus”) owing to his state, borne down as he is by pains of body and soul. He was unable to summon up the force to write either the continuation of his work against the Pope, or even the short reply to the Swiss which he had promised Amsdorf.[1297]

The above false report of the Christian embassy to Turkey current at Wittenberg he was at once ready to accept because it was in keeping with his pessimistic outlook. The evil spirits of suspicion, distrust and the mania of persecution made his unhappy mind willing to credit everything that was unfavourable, and even embittered the life of those about him. Melanchthon in particular suffered under this mood owing to his disposition to find a modus vivendi with the Swiss, whilst all the while concealing his leanings under a prudent and timid silence.[1298]

“The wild and immoral life at Wittenberg, a town so greatly favoured by God,”[1299] and the danger this spelt to the good name of the whole of Luther’s work stung him now more keenly than ever before. Of his own remorse of conscience we hear nothing at this time; his letters even to his intimates, usually so communicative, are silent as to any temptations or inward conflicts with the devil. There is no doubt that public affairs were then weighing more heavily on him, for instance the troubles arising from the Hessian bigamy. He was now again suffering from calculus. “I would dearly like to die,” he writes, “a plague on these excruciating pains! If, however, it is the Will of God that I succumb to them, He will give me grace to endure them and to die, if not sweetly, at least bravely!”[1300]

When his physical sufferings diminished there came to his mind the recollection of how, more than a year before, early in 1544, he had determined to leave Wittenberg, of which he had sickened, in order to seek a more peaceful life elsewhere. It was only the extraordinary exertions of his friends that had then succeeded in keeping him back. Bugenhagen and the other preachers, the University and the magistrates, had besought him with tears and entreaties. On that occasion he was “incensed,” so Cruciger, his friend and pupil, says, “at some trivial matter, or rather he was full of suspicion about us all, as I believe.”[1301] Already in 1530, and again in 1539, he had declared that, owing to the annoyance given him, he would never again mount the pulpit at Wittenberg.[1302] Now, however, his chagrin was even deeper and he resolved to carry out his plan prudently and quit the town for ever.

Without acquainting even Catherine Bora of the length of his absence from the town he left Wittenberg at the end of July accompanied by his son Hans, his guest Ferdinand von Maupis, travelling with Cruciger, who was to decide a quarrel between Medler and Mohr, the two Naumburg preachers at Zeitz, on July 27. Luther also repaired to Zeitz and took part in the negotiations, but instead of returning with Cruciger to Wittenberg, he wrote a letter to Katey from Zeitz on the 28th,[1303] stating that he had no intention of returning to Wittenberg. “My heart has grown cold so that I no longer like being there; I advise you to sell the garden and courtyard, the house and stabling; then I would make over the big house [the old monastery in which Luther used to live] to my gracious Lord, and it would be best for you to settle down at Zulsdorf [i.e. on her own little property] while I am yet alive.”[1304] He hoped, he goes on, that the Elector would continue to pay him his stipend as professor, “at least during the last year of his life.”

From the letter it is plain that it was annoyance at the decline of morals in the town rather than any strained relations with his friends at Wittenberg that drove him to this sudden decision. “Let us begone out of this Sodom!” he writes and hints that, in addition to the disorders with which he was already acquainted fresh scandals had reached his ears on this journey; the “government,” i.e. the authorities, aroused his deepest indignation. “There is no one to punish or restrain, and besides this the Word of God is derided”; maybe the town “will catch the Beelzebub-dance, now that they have begun to uncover the women and girls [an allusion to the low-cut dresses] in front and behind.” “So I will wander about and rather eat the bread of charity than allow my last days to be tortured and upset by the disorderly life at Wittenberg and see all my hard work brought to nought. You may tell Dr. Pommer and Master Philip of this if you please,” he concludes, “and see whether Dr. Pommer will bid farewell to Wittenberg for me, for I can no longer contain my anger and annoyance.”

The Wittenberg notabilities were filled with consternation on hearing of what Luther had done; they could not regard it as a mere passing whim, for they knew Luther’s determination. The University made representations in writing to the Elector, begging him to intervene to prevent such a misfortune; the foes of the Evangel would rejoice at the departure of the great teacher, other professors would leave, and the result would be new dissensions.[1305] As we know, Melanchthon, by his own account, was ready “to slink away.” Luther, so the University stated, like a new Elias, was the chariot and horseman of Israel and quite indispensable; if he wished any changes made and order established this would be done even should he find “fault with the teaching of some.” The University also sent Bugenhagen and Melanchthon to talk the matter over with Luther; the town despatched its burgomaster and the Elector sent him his own medical attendant, Ratzeberger, with a friendly letter.[1306]

In the meantime Luther had left Zeitz and gone on to Merseburg, whither he had been invited by George of Anhalt, formerly canon of the chapter there. The latter had gone over to Protestantism, and, when the bishopric was sequestrated in 1541 by a secular prince—August, the brother of Duke Maurice of Saxony—was appointed “spiritual administrator” of the see. He now wanted to be formally “consecrated” by Luther as bishop of Merseburg. To this the latter readily agreed. On Aug. 2, with the assistance of Jonas, Pfeffinger and others he reiterated the ceremonial which he had once before performed on Amsdorf at Naumburg (above, vol. v., p. 194).

The festivities at Merseburg, the kindness and hospitality of which he was the recipient at Lobnitz and Leipzig, and, lastly, the change of air and surroundings brought Luther to a much better frame of mind.

The messengers from Wittenberg found him at Merseburg. After they had seen him and listened to his stern admonitions, they were delighted to receive his assurance that, after all, he would return to Wittenberg. His resolve had, in fact, been merely the result of strong excitement. Now, moreover, not only had the depression ceased of which he had so long been the victim but a notable change of mood had supervened and his confidence and courage had been restored. Such sudden changes are not without their parallel in Luther’s earlier life, as has been sufficiently shown above.

He now returned in a better temper to Leipzig, where he preached a vigorous sermon on Aug. 12, and was there entertained by Camerarius, Melanchthon’s confidant; he also “associated with his circle of friends in the best of humours.”[1307]

After his return to Wittenberg on the 16th we hear no more of his vexation, though he did not put much faith in the disciplinary measures that had been drawn up for the town, notwithstanding that they were backed by the Elector; the Court itself, so he wrote, read nothing and only scoffed at everything.[1308]

He now threw himself once more into the struggle with his theological foes. A glance at these labours and at his lectures shows him working at high pressure, while, as his letters show, he retained his sense of humour.

He set to work immediately on the 32 articles which the Louvain Faculty of Theology had published with the object of enlightening Catholics on the nature of the Protestant doctrines.

Already in Aug. he had set up his 76 theses “Against the Articles of the Theologists of Louvain.”[1309] Here he does not take his opponents seriously, but, for the most part, simply pours forth his annoyance on them and their theses, sneering at them and scourging them with coarse invective. He calls them arch-idolaters, a school of blockheads, lazy bellies and rude asses, the accursed, hellish brew of Louvain; speaks of their mad, raving conceit; they are bloodthirsty incendiaries and fratricides, a stinking cesspool, a school of obscenity and muck, are these great, gross epicurean swine of Louvain. “They come straight from hell and teach what they have seen in the Mirror of Marcolfus,[1310] i.e. the ordure of man-made laws.” “For, instead of giving the people Holy Scripture, they do nothing else but cack, spew, belch forth and fling human filth amongst them.… And thus Holy Church is to be looked upon as no better than a latrine for the scamps of Louvain wherein they, playing the lord, may void their belly when over-full, and where, moreover, they slay and lay waste. This indeed may be termed foolery and raving!”[1311] The strange elation in which Luther penned so odd-sounding a “reply” is, again, not to be explained by any ordinary psychology.

In Sep. Luther commenced a work on a larger scale against the Louvain theologians and their Paris colleagues, which, however, he was not able to finish. The fragment “Against the Donkeys in Paris and Louvain,” which exists in two drafts, shows plainly enough what sort of book it would have been had death not interrupted his work. He urges that, whoever wishes to teach theology whilst refusing to acknowledge the truths taught by him concerning the Law, sin and Grace, is as well fitted to do so as an ass is to play upon the harp, as the Papacy is to govern the Church, or as the Louvain scholars to promote the cause of learning.[1312] In this work he fancied he had recovered his olden stormy vigour. To his friend Jacob Probst he candidly admitted: “I am more angry with these Louvain quadrupeds than beseems me, an old man and so great a theologian; but I want it to be said of me that I took the field against these monsters of Satan, even though it should cost me my last breath.”[1313]

He was busy at the same time on a revised edition of his Latin “Chronology of the World,” of which the aim was to show the near advent of Christ.[1314] On Oct. 16 he finished his Latin Commentary on the Prophet Osee, and sent a copy as a gift to Mohr, the dismissed pastor of Zeitz, with a kindly letter of religious consolation and encouragement.[1315] He also despatched a lengthy circular to the printers on the capture of Duke Henry of Brunswick, the enemy of the Evangel; this letter is a monument to his aggressiveness so nearly verging on the fanatical;[1316] in this he had been strengthened by the supposed intervention of heaven on his behalf against Henry and against the Pope and the Mass.[1317]

His intimate correspondence was also steeped in the new enthusiasm which had laid hold on him. “What a joyful victory has God, Who hearkens to our prayer, given us,” so he wrote on Oct. 26 to Jonas. “Let us believe and let us pray! He is faithful to His promises!… O God, do Thou maintain our joy, or, rather, Thine Own Glory!”[1318]

The jokes we had missed for a while now once more made their appearance in his letters. In the first epistle written after his return he hastens to tell Amsdorf of Mutian’s reading of the inscription “Soli Deo gloria” (viz. “To the Sun-God be glory”) on a tower belonging to the Archbishop of Mayence; after all the “Satan of Mayence” was perhaps right, so he says, in having the inscription taken down.[1319] In another letter he cheerfully relates the old tale of the peasant who, with hands devoutly folded, said to Satan: “Thou art my Gracious Master the Devil.”[1320] He is also delighted to be able to tell the story of a Popish preacher, who, before the war, exhorting the people to pray for the Duke of Brunswick, had said: “If he is worsted then 14 parsons will be had for the price of a penny.”[1321]

His last lecture was delivered just before Christmas, 1545, when he ended his exposition of Genesis. At its close he said: “Here you have our dear Genesis; God grant that, after me, someone may do it better; I am weak and can go on no longer; pray that God may grant me a happy deathbed.”[1322] But his “weakness” was merely temporary. A little after he wrote: “Whoever must fall let him fall if he refuses to listen to the Son of God. We pray and look for the day of our deliverance and destruction of the world with its pomps and wickedness. Would that it come speedily. Amen. I have taken the field against the donkeys of Louvain and Paris, but, nevertheless, feel pretty well, considering my advanced years.”[1323]

Impelled by the ardent desire to do something for the furtherance of peace within his camp, in spite of his bodily weakness and his distaste for worldly business, he undertook at the request of Count Albert of Mansfeld to act as arbiter in the dispute between the latter and his brother and nephew concerning the royalties from the mines and certain other legal claims.

“My time is entirely taken up,” so he says, “with affairs which do not in the least interest me; I must serve the belly and the table.”[1324] Already at the beginning of October these matters had induced him, with Melanchthon and Jonas, to proceed to Mansfeld. As soon as his course of lectures was finished, viz. at Christmas, he again repaired thither, in spite of the severity of the weather, again accompanied by Melanchthon, who was inclined to grumble at being called upon to listen to the squabbles of quarrelsome people. Luther, however, as he wrote to Count Albert, wished to see the “beloved lords of his native land reconciled and on good terms” before “laying himself to rest in his coffin.”[1325] He returned to Wittenberg shortly after Christmas, owing to Melanchthon’s falling ill.

These two journeys to Mansfeld, afterwards to be followed by a third and last, have, by controversialists, wrongly been made out to have been due to Luther’s desire to escape from Wittenberg on account of his bitter experiences there.

2. Last Troubles and Cares

Theological Disruption

“The sad controversies of the last few years had made Luther recognise that a race of theological fighting-cocks, gamesters and idle rioters had arisen, and that dissensions of the worst sort might be anticipated in the future. The nation in which each one obstinately followed his own way was beyond help.… The Swiss refused to have anything to do with the German Reformation; the Bucerites held themselves aloof from both Lutherans and Swiss, the Brandenburgers wanted to belong neither to the Church of Rome nor to that of Wittenberg; at Wittenberg itself the Martinians and the Philippists (so-called after Luther and Melanchthon) were hostile to each other, and finally the Princes and magistrates all went their own way. ‘Things will fare badly when I am dead,’ such was Luther’s repeated prediction. Whether he looked at this Prince of the Church, at that Landgrave, or that other Duke Maurice, there was not one in whom he could entirely trust. More than one Mene Tekel was written on the wall, yet none perceived it save the old man at Wittenberg at whom they all shrugged their shoulders.”[1326]

Such is the description by Luther’s latest Protestant biographer of the “sad decline of the Evangelical party.”

The Zwinglians had received a severe blow from Luther in his “Kurtz Bekentnis” of Sep., 1544;[1327] but the Swiss, who were hardy and independent fellows, soon prepared a furious counter-reply.[1328] The “old man at Wittenberg” was not deceived as to the profound and irremediable breach, yet he succeeded, at least outwardly, in driving away his annoyance and cares by the use of ridicule. Early in 1546, to one of his confidants who had bewailed the new step taken by the Swiss, he wrote the following, which forms his last utterance against the Zwinglians: “If they condemn me, it is a joy to me. For by my writing I wished to do nothing else than force them to declare themselves my open foes. I have succeeded in this, hence so much the better. To adapt the words of the Psalmist: ‘Blessed is the man who hath not sat in the council of the Sacramentarians, nor stood in the way of the Zwinglians, nor sat in the chair of the men of Zürich.’”[1329] To another intimate, Amsdorf, the “Bishop” of Naumburg, who was allowed a deeper insight into his soul than others, Luther confided that one of the principal reasons of his hatred of his competitors in Switzerland and South-West Germany was that “they are proud, fanatical men, and also idlers. At the beginning of our enterprise, when I was fighting all alone in fear and dread against the fury of the Pope, they were bravely silent and waited to see how things would go. Later on they suddenly posed as victors, and as though, forsooth, they alone had done it all. So it ever is: one does the work and another seeks to enjoy his labour. Now they even go so far as to attack me, who won their freedom for them.… But they will find their judge. If I answer them at all it will be nothing more than a brief recapitulation of the sentence of condemnation irrevocably passed upon them.”[1330]—No such answer was, however, to be forthcoming.

Against Melanchthon Luther’s ardent followers, the Martinians, were, as we know, highly incensed for attempting to modify the doctrines of the Master. Melanchthon’s sufferings on this account have already been described (vol. v., p. 252 ff.). With a grudging silence Luther bore with his friend’s Zwinglian leanings on the doctrine of the Supper, and with their other differences.

Both, moreover, were surrounded by an atmosphere of theological bickerings, “where individuals, who, had it not been for these squabbles, would never have achieved notoriety, gave themselves great airs.”[1331]

We may recall how Melanchthon had even thought of leaving Saxony, where, as he wrote to Camerarius, he was bound down by undignified fetters; such was his weakness, however, that he could not bring himself to do even this. Luther’s coarseness, lack of consideration and dictatorial bearing it was that led Melanchthon to say that he who ruled at Wittenberg was not a Pericles, but a new Cleon and an unsufferable tyrant.[1332]

On the question of the veneration of the Sacrament differences at last sprung up even between Bugenhagen and Luther; the former, usually his pliant instrument, took upon himself during Luther’s absence to abolish at Wittenberg the elevation of the elements during the celebration. Apparently this was in the second half of Jan., 1542. Luther expressed his disapproval of this action and declared he would revive the rite.[1333] In 1544, when the three Princes of Anhalt were at Wittenberg and asked him whether it would be right to abolish the Elevation, he replied: “On no account; such abrogation detracts from the dignity of the Sacrament.” There is no doubt that it was his antagonism to the Zwinglians that was here the determining factor; moreover, as he admitted Christ to be present in the Sacrament during reception in the wider sense, i.e. during the liturgical action, he had no theological grounds for doing away with the elevation and adoration of the elements. In his own justification he went so far as to say: “Christ is in the bread, why then should He not be treated with the greatest respect and also be adored?”[1334]

The Lutheran preacher Wolferinus of Eisleben was in the habit of pouring back into the barrel what remained of the consecrated Wine after communion. Luther called him sharply to account, as he found that his conduct was tainted with Zwinglianism; in order to evade the difficulty he ordered that, in future, preachers and communicants should see that nothing was left over after communion.[1335]

Luther, towards the end of his life, had to taste a good deal of that “theological ire” of which Melanchthon frequently speaks, and not only from the Swiss. We need only call to mind Johann Agricola, and his “antinomian sow-theology,” as Melanchthon termed it. His inferences from Luther’s doctrine of the inability of man to fulfil the Law he never really withdrew even when he had betaken himself to Brandenburg. In the Table-Talk dating from the latest period and published by Kroker, Luther’s frequent bitter references to Agricola show the speaker was well aware that his Berlin opponent still hated and distrusted him as much as ever. After Luther’s death it became evident that Agricola “was capable of everything,” and that Luther was not so far wrong, when, on another occasion, he declared that he was not a man to be taken seriously.[1336] Agricola finally died, loaded with worldly honours, in 1566.

A more serious critic of Luther, at any rate on the question of the Sacrament, was Martin Bucer. The latter’s friendship with the Swiss and the too independent spirit in which he planned the reformation of Cologne, caused Luther great anxiety towards the end of his life. In his plan Luther, so he says, was unable to find any clear confession of faith in the Sacrament, but merely “much idle talk of its profit, fruit and dignity,” all carefully “wrapped up that no one might know what he really thought of it, just as is the way with the fanatics.” In all this talk he could “readily discern the chatterbox Bucer.”[1337] Bucer, on his side, was dissatisfied with the progress of Luther’s work in Germany. Owing to the Interim he was no longer able to remain at Strasburg and accordingly accepted a post at the English University of Cambridge and died in England in 1551.

The Controversy on Clandestine Marriages

It was, however, annoyances and disagreements of a different sort that kept Luther to the end of his days in a state of extreme indignation against the lawyers and politicians of the Court.

A letter of Luther’s to the Elector Johann Frederick dated Jan. 18, 1545, on the controversy with the Saxon lawyers about Luther’s denunciation of clandestine marriages (those entered upon without the knowledge of the parents) as illegal, carries us into the thick of these disagreements.[1338] His sovereign, he says, had ordered him to confer with the lawyers and come to an arrangement with them; Luther, however, after summoning them before him, had declared categorically that, “I had no intention of holding a disputation with them; I had a divine command to preach the 4th commandment[1339] in these matters.” Thus, in the questions under discussion, he is determined not to submit either to the secular or the canon law but only to the Divine. “Otherwise I should have to give up the Gospel and creep back into the cowl [become a monk again] in the devil’s name, by the strength and virtue of both the spiritual and the imperial law. And, besides this, your Electoral Highness would have to cut off my head, doing likewise with all those who have wedded nuns, as the Emperor Jovian commanded more than a thousand years back.” As a result of his arguments, “the lawyers of the Consistory and Courts agreed to give up and reject altogether the clandestine espousals [i.e. marriages ‘sponsalia de præsenti’].” In these words he announces his final apparent victory in this long-drawn controversy.

In the same letter he touches on the deeper side of the quarrel.

The lawyers at the High Court have always stuck to many points of “the Pope’s laws” which “we of the clergy” don’t want. “Some, too, made out [in accordance with Canon Law then still in force] that, on our death, our wives and children could not inherit our goods and wished to adjudicate them to our friends, etc.” They had paid no attention to the writings of the new theologians; and yet the latter, “few in number and insignificant maybe, have done more good in the Churches than all the Popes and jurists in a lump.” Hence the preachers had simply disregarded the lawyers, viz. in respect of the clandestine marriages; this had brought about peace. When, however, the “Consistory had been set up” (1539), the whole business had begun anew. “The jurists fancied they had found a loophole through which to raise a disturbance in my Churches with their damnable procedure, which, to-day and to all eternity, I want to have condemned and execrated in my Churches.” “Spoon-fed jurists” thrust themselves forward; but these “merry customers” are not going to make “of my Churches, for which I have to answer before God,” “such dens of murderers.”

In order to understand the victory over the lawyers of which he speaks it will be necessary to cast a glance back on the whole struggle.

As we have already pointed out in the words of a Protestant biographer of Luther the legal status of Lutheranism threatened to give rise to dire complications, while any downright abrogation of Canon Law, such as Luther wished for, was out of the question.[1340] The sober view of the situation taken by the lawyers did not deserve Luther’s offensive treatment. Moreover, under the leadership of Schurf, the lay professors of jurisprudence at the Wittenberg University had many objections to raise against Luther’s demands. They not only upheld clandestine marriages as valid, but, at the same time, defended the indissolubility of marriage, even in the case of adultery, in accordance with the laws of the olden Church; they also held that second marriages were not lawful to the clergy. Schurf likewise wanted the “Evangelical bishops” to be consecrated by papal bishops. A further cause of constant friction lay in the fact that the professors of law were obliged to base their lectures on the books of Canon Law in the absence of any others; whence it came that Luther had to listen to many disagreeable references to the questions of Church property, of the right of inheriting of the children of former monks, of the marriage of nuns, of the legal status of the monasteries, etc. Schurf was otherwise a good Lutheran and had assisted Luther with advice at the Diet of Worms. Melchior Kling, his pupil and colleague at Wittenberg, agreed with him in following the Canon Law on the question of clandestine marriages, according to which (before the Council of Trent had required for the validity of marriage, that it should be performed publicly in the presence of the parish-priest), they were regarded as valid, albeit wrong and forbidden, so that no new marriage could be entered into so long as the parties lived.

Luther hoped, by opposing such marriages, to bring about some improvement in the sad state of morals which the Visitations of 1528 and 1529 had disclosed in the Saxon Electorate. The facility with which such marriages were contracted by the Wittenberg students, and the bad effect they had on the peace of the burghers seemed to him a real blot on the New Evangel. He insisted very strongly that the consent of the parents was required as a condition for marriage; without the parents’ consent the marriages were in his eyes neither public nor valid; it was only where the parents refused their consent on insufficient grounds that he would admit that the bride had any right to enter into a real marriage contract. The decision as to whether the parents’ objections held good was, however, one on which opinions were bound to differ.

Shortly after the Visitations referred to above, in 1529, he wrote his “Von Ehesachen,” published early in 1530; in it he declared: “A secret betrothal simply constitutes no marriage whatsoever,” whilst, as a secret betrothal (i.e. invalid marriage) he regards “any betrothal which takes place without the knowledge and consent of those in authority, and who have the right and power to settle the marriage, viz. the father, mother or whoever stands in their stead.”[1341]

In 1532 he also proclaimed his views against the lawyers from the pulpit without, however, being able to alter thereby either their practice or their teaching. He lamented in 1538 the blindness of Schurf, who paid more attention to man-made laws than to God’s Word and authority.[1342]

After some new disputes he delivered a sermon on Feb. 23, 1539, in which he threatened to put on his horns. In it he called his opponents blockheads; they ought “to reverence our doctrine as the Word of God, coming from the mouth of the Holy Ghost.”[1343] He was not going to worship the Pope’s ordure for the sake of the jurists; “let them let our Church be”; but “now the lawyers are seeking to corrupt our young students of theology with their Papal filth.”[1344]

Schurf seems to have yielded so far as no longer to attempt to make his opinions public or official.

The greatest tussle, however, ensued on the establishment of the Consistories in 1539, as the lawyers who were entrusted with the matrimonial cases, treated the clandestine marriages as valid, and, in other ways, also took Schurf’s side.

Luther asserted that by countenancing the “espousals,” which were “an institution of the devil and the Pope,” the good name and the morals of Wittenberg were being undermined. “Many of the parents say that, when they send their boys to us to study, we hang wives round their necks and rob them of their children.” Not only the burghers and students but even the girls themselves “who have waxed bold” use their freedom most wantonly.[1345] In Jan., 1544, in the pulpit, he poured out his wrath in most unmeasured language, particularly on the second Sunday after the Epiphany; in his tragic delivery he said, for instance: “I, Martin Luther, preacher in this Church of Christ, take thee, secret promise and the paternal consent that follows, together with the Pope and the devil who instituted thee, I bind you all together and fling you into the abyss of hell, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.”[1346]

His anger and annoyance had been aroused by certain concrete cases.

One of Melanchthon’s sons had contracted such a marriage as he was denouncing. In his own family circle the same thing happened, probably in the case of his nephew, Fabian Kaufmann. A student, Caspar Beier, who was on intimate terms with Luther’s household, wished to marry at Wittenberg, but was prevented by the lawyers of the Consistory on account of a previous clandestine marriage which, however, he denied; he appealed from the Consistory to the sovereign, and was supported by a letter from Luther. This quarrel kindled a conflagration at Luther’s home. Cruciger, a friend of the house, was against Beier and described his cause as “none of the best”; Catherine Bora, on the other hand, the “fax domestica” as Cruciger called her,[1347] seems to have fanned the flames of Luther’s wrath, in the interests of Beier who was a relative of hers.

To a friend Luther admitted in Jan. that he “was so indignant with the lawyers as he had never before been in all his life during all the struggle on behalf of the Evangel.”[1348]

When the controversy was at its height, viz. in Jan., 1544, the Elector arranged for an interview between Luther and the Consistory. Later, in Dec., those negotiations were followed by others, in which the members of the Wittenberg High Court took part; at last Luther’s obstinacy and violence won the day: All marriages without the knowledge or approval of the parents were to be invalid until the latter consented, or the Consistory had pronounced their opposition groundless. To the Elector, who from the first had agreed with Luther’s view, the latter then addressed the letter referred to above (p. 355) where, appealing to his “Divine mission” to preach the 4th commandment, he announces his final triumph over the lawyers and their edicts.

His triumph he owed to his strong will and, also, possibly, to the fact that the Elector was on his side. The victory also affected the case of Beier, whom Luther hastened to acquaint of his freedom;[1349] it further decided to some extent, the yet more important question whether or not the lawyers were to yield to Luther in ecclesiastical matters. They accepted their humiliation with the best grace possible, but we shall not be far wrong in assuming that they were not over-pleased with Luther’s irregular and illogical handling of questions of law.

Difficulties with the State Church

The far-reaching encroachments of the secular authorities in his Church became for Luther in his later years a source of keen vexation.

Much of his Table-Talk, which turns on the lawyers, voices nothing more than his indignation at the unwarranted interference of the State in his new Church which he was powerless to prevent. Thus, according to notes made at this time by Hieronymus Besold of Nuremberg who was a guest at Luther’s table in 1545, the Master on one occasion gave free rein to his anger with the lawyers in the matter of the sequestration of Church lands: “The lawyers shriek, ‘They are Church lands.’ Give them back ‘their monasteries that they may become monks and nuns and celebrate Mass, and then they too will allow you to preach.’ [In other words their proposal was that the new faith should make its way peacefully. To this Luther’s answer is]: ‘Yes, but then where are we to get our bread and butter?’ ‘We leave that to you,’ they say. Yes, and take the devil’s thanks! We theologians have no worse enemies than the lawyers. If they are asked, ‘What is the Church?’ they reply, ‘The assembly of the Bishops, Abbots, etc. And these lands are the lands of the Church, hence they belong to the bishops.’ That is their dialectics. But we have another dialectics at the right hand of the Father and it tells us, ‘They are tyrants, wolves and robbers’ [and must accordingly be deprived of the lands]. Therefore we here condemn all lawyers, even the pious ones, for they know not what the Church is. If they search through all their books they will not discover what the Church is. Hence we are not going to take any reforms from them. Every lawyer is either a miscreant or an ignoramus (”Omnis iurista est nequista aut ignorista“).… They shall not teach us what ‘Church’ is. There is an old proverb, ‘A good lawyer makes a bad Christian,’ and it is a true one.”[1350]

It is somewhat astonishing to hear Luther in his “Table-Talk on the lawyers”[1351] declaring that it was he who had whitewashed these “bad Christians” and made them to be respected, and that consequently he also could bring them again into disrepute, in other words, that his tongue was powerful enough to do and to undo. “Do not tempt me. If you are too well off I can soon make things warm for you. If you don’t like being whitewashed, well and good, I can soon paint you black again. May the devil make you blush!”[1352]—In one of his very last letters (Feb., 1546), owing to new friction with the lawyers about the Mansfeld revenues, he overwhelms them all with the following general charges: “The lawyers have taught the whole world such a mass of artifices, deceptions and calumnies that their very language has become an utter Babel. At Babel no one could understand his neighbour, but here nobody wants to understand what the other means. Out upon you, you sycophants, sophists and plague-boils of the human race! I write in anger, whether, were I calm, I should give a better report I know not. But the wrath of God is upon our sins. The Lord will judge His people; may He be gracious to His servants. Amen. If this is all the wisdom that the jurists can show then there is really no need for them to be so proud as they all are.”[1353]

Luther’s attitude towards the lawyers is of special importance from two points of view. It shows afresh the high opinion he entertained of himself, and, at the same time, it reveals his jealousy of any outside influence.

“Before my time there was not a lawyer,” he says for instance in an earlier outburst, “who knew what it meant to be righteous. They learnt it from me. In the Gospel there is nothing about the duty of worshipping jurists. Yes, before the world I will allow them to be in the right, but, before God, they shall be beneath me. If I can judge of Moses and bring him into subjection [i.e. criticise the Law in the light of the Gospel] what then of the lawyers?… If of the two one must perish, then let the law go and let Christ remain.”[1354] He was not learned in the law, but, as the proclaimer of the Evangel, he was “the supreme law in the field of conscience (‘ego sum ius iurium in re conscientiarum’).”[1355]

“When I give an opinion and have to break my head over it and a lawyer comes along and tries to dispute it, I say: ‘Do you look after the Government and leave us in peace. You men of the law seek to oppress us, but it is written: Thou art a priest for ever’” (Ps. cx. 4).[1356]—“The justice of the jurists is heathen justice,” he says; but, after all, even the justice [righteousness] of his own school of theology fell short of the mark. “Our justice is a relative justice; but if I am not pious yet Christ is pious; we are at least able to expound the commandments of God, and do so in the course of our calling. But, even if you distil a jurist five times over, he still cannot interpret even one of the Commandments.”[1357]

The other trait that comes out in his dealings with the lawyers is his distaste for any outside interference with his Church. He looked askance at the attempts of secular authorities, statesmen and Court-lawyers to have a say in Church matters, which, strictly, should have been submitted to him alone and his preachers. Yet it was he himself who had put the Church under State control; he had invited the sovereigns and magistrates to decide on the most vital questions, doing so partly owing to the needs of the time, partly as a logical result of the new system. He himself had legalised the sequestration of the Church’s lands and had helped to set up the State Consistories. So long as the secular authorities were of his way of thinking he left them a free hand, more or less. He was, however, forced to realise more and more, particularly in the evening of his days, that their arbitrary behaviour was ruining his influence and only making worse the evils that his work had laid bare to the world.

In his last utterances he is fond of calling “Centaurs” the officials and Court personages who, according to him, were stifling the Church in her growth by their wantonness, ambition and avarice. He bewails his inability to vanquish them; they are a necessary evil. “Make a Visitation of your Churches all the same,” he told his friend Amsdorf, early in January in the last year of his life; “the Lord will be with you, and even should one or other of the Centaurs forbid you, you are excused. Let them answer for it.”[1358]

We have also other utterances which testify to his deep distrust of the secular authorities, on account of their real or imaginary encroachments.

“The Princes seize upon all the lands of the Church and leave the poor students to starve, and thus the parishes become desolate, as is already the case.”[1359]—“The Princes and the towns do little for the support of our holy religion, leave everything in the lurch and do not punish wickedness. Highly dangerous times are to come.”[1360]—“The magistrates misuse their power against the Evangel; for this they will pay dearly.”[1361]—“The politicians show that they regard our words as those of men”; in this case we had better quit “Babylon” and leave them to themselves.[1362]

“I see what is coming,” he wrote in 1541, “unless the tyranny of the Turk assists us by frightening our [lower] nobles and humbling them, they will illtreat us worse than do the Turks. Their only thought is to put the sovereigns in leading-strings and to lay the burghers and peasants in irons. The slavery of the Pope will be followed by a new enslaving of the people under the nobles.”[1363]—In the same year he says: “If the nobles go on in this way,” i.e. neglecting their duty of “protecting the pious and punishing the wicked,” there will be “an end of Germany and we shall soon be worse than even the Spaniards and Turks; but they will catch it soon.”[1364]—In 1543 he indignantly told a councillor who opposed him and his followers: “You are not lords over the parishes and the preaching office; it was not you who founded it but the Son of God, nor have you ever given anything towards it, so that you have far less right to it than the devil has to the kingdom of heaven; it is not for you to find fault with it, or to teach, nor yet to forbid the administration of punishment.… There is no shepherd-lad so humble that he will take a harsh word from a strange master; it is the minister alone who must be the butt of everyone, and put up with everything from all, while they will suffer nothing from him, not even God’s own Word.”[1365]—In 1544 he even said of his own Elector: “After all, the Court is of no use, its rule is like that of the crab and snail. It either cannot get on or else is always wanting to go back. Christ did well by His Church in not confiding its government to the Courts. Otherwise the devil would have nothing to do but to devour the souls of Christians.”[1366]—“The rulers shut their eyes,” he had written shortly before, “they leave great wantonness unpunished, and now have nothing better to do than impose one tax after another on their poor underlings. Therefore will the Lord destroy them in His wrath.”[1367]

“What then is to become of the Church if the world does not shortly come to an end? I have lived my allotted span,” so he sighed in 1542, “the devil is sick of my life and I am sick of the devil’s hate.”[1368]

He often gives vent to his wounded feelings in unseemly words. A strange mixture of glowing fanaticism and coarse jocularity flows forth like a stream of molten lava from the furnace within him.

Thus we have the famous utterances recorded above (vol. iii., p. 233 and vol. v., p. 229) called forth by the decline of his Church, the carelessness of the rulers and the remissness of the preachers.

“Our Lord God sees,” he declares, “how the dogs [the princes who were against him] soil the pavements, wet every corner and smash the basins and platters; but when He begins to visit them, His anger will be terrible.”[1369]

“To these swine,” so he wrote to Anton Lauterbach of the politicians in the Duchy of Saxony, “we will leave their muck and hell-fire to boot, if they wish. But they shall leave us our Lord, the Son of God, and the kingdom of heaven as well!… With a good conscience we regard them as reprobate servants of the devil; … be brave and cheerfully despise the devil in these devil’s sons, and devil’s progeny until they drive you away. ‘The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof’ (Ps xxiii. 1).… By your joy you will crucify them and, with them, Satan, who seeks to destroy us. To speak plain German, we shall s⸺ into his mouth. Whether he likes it or not he must submit to having his head trodden under foot, however much he may seek to snap at us with his dreadful fangs. The seed of the woman is with us, whom also we teach and confess and Whom we shall help to the mastery. Fare you well in Him and pray for me.”[1370]

The minor State-officials he also handled roughly enough. These “Junkers” take it upon them “to sing the praises of the papal filth.” “They stick to the Pope’s behind like clotted manure.” “I know better what ‘Ius canonicum’ is than you all will ever know or understand. It is donkey’s dung, and, if you want it, I will readily give you it to eat!” “If donkey’s dung be so much to your taste, go and eat it elsewhere and do not make a stench in our churches.”[1371]

The Present and the To-come

On his last birthday, which he kept on Martinmas-Eve, 1545, Luther assembled about him Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Cruciger, George Major and other guests, and to them opened his mind. According to the account left by his friend Ratzeberger he spoke of the coming dissensions: “As soon as he was gone the best of our men would fall away. I do not fear the Papists, he remarked; they are for the most part rude, ignorant asses and Epicureans; but our own brethren will injure the Evangel because they have gone forth from us but were not of us. This will do more harm to the Evangel than the Papists can.” The sad political outlook of Germany led him to add: “Our children will have to take up the spear, for things will fare ill in Germany.” Of the Catholics he said: “The Council of Trent is very angry and means mischief; hence be careful to pray diligently, for there will be great need of prayer when I am gone.” All, he exhorted “to stand fast by the Evangel.”[1372]

“For it is the command of our stern Lord [the Elector],” he says elsewhere, “that we should maintain undefiled the government of the Church, dispense aright the Word, the Absolution and the Sacraments according to the institution of Christ, and also comfort consciences.”[1373]

Towards his end, according to Ratzeberger, he frequently told the faithful at Wittenberg that, in order to fight shy of false doctrines, they must hate reason as their greatest foe. “As soon as he was dead they would preach and teach at Wittenberg a very different doctrine”; hence they must “pray diligently and learn to prove the spirits aright”; they were to keep their eyes open to see whether what was preached agreed with Holy Scripture (here again the right of judging falling on the simple faithful). But if it was “outside of and apart from God’s Word, sweet and agreeable to reason and easy of comprehension, then they were to avoid such doctrine and say: No, thou hateful reason, thou art a whore, thee I will not follow.”[1374]

In a sermon on the 2nd Sunday after the Epiphany, 1546, published three years later after Luther’s death by Stephen Tucher under the title “The last Sermon of Dr. Martin Luther of blessed memory,”[1375] Luther again speaks at length of the “heresiarchs” who had already arisen and whom more would follow; what the devil had been unable to do by means of the Kaiser and Pope, that he “would do through those who are still at one with us in doctrine”; “there will be a dreadful time. Ah, the lawyers and the wise men at Court will say: ‘You are proud, a revolt will ensue, etc., hence let us give way.’” But, in matters of faith, there must be no talk of giving way, “pride may well please us if it be not against the faith.”[1376]

The picture of reason as a mere prostitute was now once more vividly before him. He hoped to dispose of the variant doctrines of others, who, like himself, interpreted the Bible in their own fashion, simply by urging contempt for reason. The faith in his own teaching, so he declared, “in the doctrine which I have, not from them but from the Grace of God,”[1377] must be preserved by means of a deadly warfare against “reason, the devil’s bride and beautiful prostitute”; “for she is the greatest seductress the devil has. The other gross sins can be seen, but reason no one is able to judge; it goes its way and leads to fanaticism.” The evil that is inherent in the flesh had not yet been completely driven out; “I am speaking of concupiscence which is a gross sin and of which everyone is sensible.” “But what I say of concupiscence, which is a gross sin, is also to be understood of reason, for the latter dishonours and insults God in His spiritual gifts and indeed is far more whorish a sin than whoredom.”[1378] When a Christian hears a Sacramentarian fanatic putting forward his reasonable grounds he ought to say to that reason, which is speaking: “Dear me, has the devil such a learned bride?—Away to the privy with you and your bride; cease, accursed whore,” etc.[1379] Hence some restriction was to be placed on private judgment; it was to be used in moderation and only in so far as it tallied with faith (“secundum analogiam fidei”).[1380] This “faith,” however, was in many instances simply Luther’s own.

As Luther’s personality could not replace the outward rule of faith, viz. the authoritative voice of the teaching Church, his dreary prognostications were only too soon to be fulfilled. Hence in the appendix to another Wittenberg edition of Luther’s last sermon these words, as early as 1558, are represented as “the late Dr. Martin Luther’s excellent prophecies about the impending corruption and falling away of the chief teachers in our churches, particularly at Wittenberg.”[1381]

It is curious that, towards the close of his life, the Wittenberg Professor should have come again to insist so strongly on those points in his teaching for which he had fought at the outset, in spite of all the difficulties and contradictions they had been shown to involve, with the Bible, tradition and reason. He could at least claim that he had not abandoned his olden theses of the blindness of reason, of the unfreedom of the will, of the sinfulness of that concupiscence, from which none can get away, of the saving power of faith alone and the worthlessness of good works for the gaining of a heavenly reward, of the Bible as the sole source of faith and each man’s right of interpreting it, and, last, but not least, that of his own mission and call received from God Himself.

The decline of morals, now so obvious, was another phantom that haunted the evening of his days.

In the beginning of 1546 he confided to Amsdorf his anxiety regarding Meissen, Leipzig and other places where licence prevailed, together with contempt of the Gospel and its ministers. “This much is certain: Satan and his whole kingdom is terribly wroth with our Elector. To this kingdom your men of Meissen belong; they are the most dissolute folk on earth. Leipzig is pride and avarice personified, worse than any Sodom could be.… A new evil that Satan is hatching for us may be seen in the spread of the spirit of the Münster Dippers. After laying hold of the common people this spirit of revolt against all authority has also infected the great, and many Counts and Princes. May God prevent and overreach it!”[1382]

He tells “Bishop” George of Merseburg, in Feb., 1546, that “steps must be taken against the scandals into which the people are plunging head over heels, as though all law were at an end.” It seems to him that a new Deluge is coming. “Let us beware lest what Moses wrote of the days before the flood repeats itself, how ‘they took to wife whomsoever they pleased, even their own sisters and mothers and those they had carried off from their husbands.’ Instances of the sort have reached my ear privately. May God prevent such doings from becoming public as in the case of Herod and the kings of Egypt!”[1383] “The world is full of Satan and Satanic men,” so he groans even in an otherwise cheerful letter.[1384]

Up to the day of his death he was concerned for the welfare of the students at Wittenberg University. Among the 2000 young men at the University (for such was their number in Luther’s last years) there were many who were in bitter want. Luther sought to alleviate this by attacking, even in his sermons, those who were bent on fleecing the young; he not only gave readily out of his own slender means but also wrote to others asking them to be mindful of the students; of this we have an instance in a note he wrote in his later years, in which he asks certain “dear gentlemen” (possibly of the University or the magistracy) for help for a “pious and learned fellow” who would have to leave Wittenberg “for very hunger”; he declares that he himself was ready to contribute a share, though he was no longer able to afford the gifts he was daily called upon to bestow.[1385]

We know how grieved he was at the downfall of the schools and how loud his complaints were of the lawlessness of youth; how it distressed him to see the schools looked down upon though their contribution to the maintenance of the Churches was “entirely out of question.”[1386]

For his University of Wittenberg he requests the prayers of others against those who were undermining its reputation. He sees the small effect of his earnest exhortations to the students against immorality.[1387] The excellent statutes he had laid down for the town and the University were nullified by the bad example of men in high places. “Ah, how bitterly hostile the devil is to our Churches and schools.… Tyranny and sects are everywhere gaining the upper hand by dint of violence.… I believe there are many wicked knaves and spies here on the watch for us, who rejoice when scandals and dissensions arise. Hence we must watch and pray diligently. Unless God preserves us all is up. And so it looks. Pray, therefore, pray! This school [of Wittenberg] is as it were the foundation and stronghold of pure religion.”[1388] He once declared sadly that, among all the students in the town there were scarcely two from whom something might be hoped as future pastors of souls. “If out of all the young men present here two or three honest theologians grow up then we should have reason to thank God! Good theologians are indeed rare birds on this earth. Among a thousand you will seldom find two, or even one. And indeed the world no longer deserves such good teachers, nor does it want them; things will go ill when I, and you and some few others are gone.”[1389]

“The world was like this before the flood, before the destruction of Sodom, before the Babylonian captivity, before the destruction of Jerusalem—and so again it is before the fall of Germany.… Should you, however, ask what good has come of our teaching, answer me first, what good came of Lot’s preaching in Sodom?”[1390]

To divert his thoughts from these saddening cares he often turned to Æsop. It is of interest to note how highly he always prized Æsop’s Fables, not merely as a means of education for the young in the elementary schools, but even as furnishing a stimulating topic for conversation with his friends.

He is very fond of adducing morals from these fables both in his Table-Talk and in his writings.

Æsop’s tale of the fight between the wounded snake and the crab he dictated to his son Hans as a Latin exercise,[1391] and, in 1540, when a Mandate of the Kaiser aroused his suspicions owing to its kindly wording, the old man at once related to his guests the fable of the wolf who seeks to lead the sheep to a good pasture, and declared that he could easily see through this “Lycophilia.”[1392]

For a long time he had a work on hand which he was destined never to complete; he was anxious to provide a new and better edition of Æsop for the schools, which, so he hoped, should replace the, in some respects unseemly, fables of Steinhöwel’s edition then in use which had been corrupted by additions from Poggio’s Facetiæ. A series of amusing and at the same time instructive fables which he translated with this object in view is still extant. That he found time for such a work in the midst of all his other pressing labours is sufficient evidence that he had it much at heart. The Preface to his unfinished little work, which he read aloud to a friend in 1538, pointed out, that writings of this kind were intended for “children and the simple,” whose mental development he wished to keep in view, carefully excluding anything that was offensive. The collection of Fables then in circulation, “though written professedly for the young,” unfortunately contained tales with narratives of “shameful and unchaste knavery such as no chaste or pious man, let alone any youth, could hear or read without injury to himself; it was as though the book had been written in a common house of ill fame or among dissolute scamps.”[1393]

He was very determined in putting down scandals when they occurred in his own home. A young relative, who was addicted to drunkenness, he took severely to task, pointing out the good example, which in the interests of the Evangel his household was strictly bound to give; when the maidservant, Rosina, whom he had taken into his house, turned out a person of bad life, he could not sufficiently express his indignation and dismissed her from the family. A similar case also occurred at the time of his flight from Wittenberg in July, 1545; he writes to Catherine in the letter in which he tells her of his intention of not returning: “If Leck’s ‘Bachscheisse,’ our second Rosina and deceiver, has not yet been laid by the heels, do what you can that the miscreant may feel ashamed of herself.”[1394]

Catherine Bora was a good helper in matters of this sort. In fact she performed with zeal and assiduity the duties that fell to her lot in tending the aged and infirm man, and looking after the house and the small property. Amidst his many and great difficulties he often confessed that she was a comfort to him, and gratefully acknowledges her work. In his letters to her during his later years he writes in so religious a strain, and in such heartfelt language, that the reader might be forgiven for thinking that Luther had entirely succeeded in forgetting the irreligious nature of the union between a monk and a nun. “Grace and peace in the Lord,” he writes in a letter from Eisleben of Feb. 7, 1546, to his “housewife.” “Read, you dear Katey, John and the Smaller Catechism, of which you once said: All that is told in this book applies to me. For you try to care for your God just as though He were not Almighty and could not make ten Dr. Martins should the old one be drowned in the Saale, etc. Leave me in peace with your cares, I have a better guardian than even you and all the angels.”[1395]

3. Luther’s Death at Eisleben (1546)

In March, 1545, there was sent to Luther by Philip of Hesse an Italian broadside purporting to have been printed in Rome, and containing a fearsome account of Luther’s supposed death. In it “the ambassador of the King of France” announces that Luther had wished his body set up on the altar for adoration; also that before he died he had received the Body of Christ, but that the Host had hovered untouched over the grave after the funeral; a diabolical din had been heard coming from the grave, but, on opening it, it was found to be empty though it emitted a murderous stench of brimstone. Luther at once published the narrative with an half-ironical, half-indignant commentary. He sought to persuade the people that the Pope had actually wished for his death and damnation. In a poem which he prefixed to the pamphlet he tells the Pope in his usual style that: his life was indeed the Pope’s plague, but that his death would be the Pope’s death too; the Pope might choose which he liked best, the plague or death.—About the real origin of this alleged Italian production nothing is known.[1396]

In his bodily sufferings and anxiety of mind concerning the present and the future of his life’s work Luther frequently spoke of his desire for a speedy release by death. His words on this subject throw a strong light on his frame of mind.

As things are “ever growing worse,” he says, “let our Lord God take away His own. He will remove the pious and then make an end of Germany.” “I am very weary of life,” he declared, “may Our Lord come right speedily and take me away, and, above all, may He come with His Judgment Day! I will reach out my neck to Him that He may strike me down with His thunderbolt where I am. Amen.”[1397]—As early as June 11, 1539 (?), when he was wished another forty years of life, he said that, even were he offered a Paradise on earth for forty years, “I would not accept it. I would rather hire an executioner to chop off my head. So wicked is the world now! And the people are becoming real devils, so that one could wish him nothing better than a good death and then away!”[1398]

Do you know, he said on one occasion, who it is that holds back God’s arm? “I am the block that stops God’s way. When I die He will strike. No doubt we are despised; but let them gather up the leavings when they are most despised; that is my advice.”[1399]

That, “even in our own lifetime, the world should thus repay us,” seemed to him intolerable.[1400] “I hold that, for a thousand years, the world has never been so unfriendly to anyone as to me. I am also unfriendly to it, and know of nothing in life that I take pleasure in.”[1401]

Of the sudden death that confronted him he had, however, no idea. On the contrary, in 1543, when he was suffering from severe trouble in the head, he said to Catherine Bora, that he would summon his son Hans from Torgau to Wittenberg to be present at his death, which now seemed near at hand; but, he added: “I shall not die so suddenly, I shall first take to my bed and be ill; but I shall not lie there long. I have had enough of the world and it has had enough of me.… I give thanks to Thee My God that Thou hast numbered me in Thy little flock which endures persecution for the sake of Thy Word.”[1402]

Incidentally he declared: “If I die in my bed it will be to defy the Papists and put them to shame.” Why? Because they will not have been able to do me the harm “they wished, and, in fact, were in duty bound to have done me.”[1403]

The thought of death often made his hatred of the Catholics to flame up more luridly. “Only after my death will they feel what Luther really was”; should he fall a prey to his adversaries before his time, he would carry with him to the grave “a long train of bishops, priestlings and monks, for my life shall be their hangman, my death their devil.” He announces angrily, “They shall not be able to resist me,” and that, “in God’s name, he will tread the lion and the dragon under foot,” but of all this, according to him, they were to have only a taste during his lifetime; only after his death would matters be carried out in earnest.[1404]

Brooding over his own death he says of the death of the believing Christian, viz. of the man who puts his trust in the Evangel: “If a man seriously meditates in his heart on God’s Word, believes it and falls asleep and dies in it, he will pass away before he realises that death has come, and is assuredly saved by the Word in which he has thus believed and died.”[1405] These words he wrote on Feb. 7, 1546, to an Eisleben gentleman in a copy of his Home-Postils. He prefaced them with a passage from Scripture in which he himself doubtless had often sought comfort: “He that keepeth my Word shall not taste of death for ever” (John viii. 51). In one of his last lengthy notes he also seeks to make his own this believing confidence: “Christ commands us to believe in Him. Although we are not able to believe as firmly as we should yet God has patience with us.” “I hide myself under the shelter of the Son of God; Him I hold and honour as my Lord to Whom I must fly when the devil, sin or any other ill assails me. For He is my shield, extending beyond the heavens and the earth and the foster-hen under whose wings I creep from the wrath of God.” Thus he was so steeped in the delusion of faith alone that he could thus wish to die in sole reliance on the “Word of God,” thanks to which he is to escape “the devil, death, hell and sin.”[1406] We may remember that, in one of his earliest controversial sermons, where a glimpse of his new doctrine is already to be detected, he had used the simile of the foster-hen. Now, in his old age, he returns to it, the richer by the experience of a long lifetime, albeit he now sees that it is difficult, nay impossible, “to believe as firmly as we should.”

In Jan., 1546, Luther set out for the third time for Mansfeld, in order to settle the business of Count Albert of Mansfeld; only as a corpse was he to return home.

The Elector did not look with approval on Luther’s arduous labours as peacemaker, while Chancellor Brück even went so far as to characterise the Counts’ interminable lawsuits about the mines and the rest as a “pig-market.” Luther, nevertheless, set out again on Jan. 23, regardless of his already impaired health, betaking himself this time to Eisleben. He was accompanied by his three sons, their tutor and his famulus Aurifaber, the editor of the German Table-Talk. At Halle they were detained three days in the house of Jonas on account of the floating ice and the flooded state of the Saale. “We did not wish to take to the water and tempt God,” so he wrote to Catherine on Jan. 25, “for the devil bears us a grudge and also dwells in the water; and, moreover, ‘discretion is the best part of valour’; nor is there any need for us to give the Pope and his myrmidons such cause for delight.”[1407]

On the 26th Luther preached a sermon in which, with all the strength at his command, he poured forth his anger against Popery, “which had cheated and befooled the whole world.” “The Pope, the Cardinals and the lousy, scurvy, mangy monks have hoaxed and deluded us.” He proceeded to storm against the unfortunate monks who had dared to remain in a town now almost entirely won over to the innovations: “I am above measure astonished that you gentlemen of Halle can still tolerate amongst you these knaves, the crawling, lousy monks.… These wanton, verminous miscreants take pleasure only in folly.… You gentlemen ought to drive the imbecile, sorry creatures out of the town.… What we teach and preach we do not teach as our own words, discovered or invented by us, like the visions of the monks which they preach; their lies are like bulging hop-pockets or sacks of wool.”[1408]

On the 28th, after having been joined by Jonas, Luther and his companions crossed the swollen Saale. On this occasion he said to Jonas: “Dear Dr. Jonas, wouldn’t it be a fine thing were I, Dr. Martin, my three sons and you to be all drowned!” Not far from Eisleben they were overtaken by a cold wind which brought the traveller in the carriage to such a state of weakness and breathlessness that he nearly fainted. “The devil always plays me this trick,” so he consoled himself, “when I have something great on hand.”[1409]

At Eisleben he took up his abode with the town-clerk, and soon got well enough to take part in the negotiations; he visited the several families of the Counts and amused himself in his hours of leisure by looking at the young nobles and their ladies tobogganing.[1410] To Catherine he wrote jestingly on Feb. 1, that his fit near Eisleben was the work of the Jews, numbers of whom lived there (at Rissdorf); they had raised up a bitter wind against him, which “penetrated the back of the carriage and passed right through my cap into my head, and tried to turn my brain to ice. This may have brought on the fainting; now, however, thank God, I am quite well, were it not for the pretty women, etc.” (cp. above, vol. iii., p. 281). He extols the Naumburg beer, which suits him well, says that his three sons have gone on to Jena and alludes to the blow he was planning against the Mansfeld Jews, on whom Count Albert frowned and whom he was determined to abandon.[1411]

When Catherine again expressed fears about his health he replied in a joking vein on Feb. 10, giving her an account of all that her anxious thoughts had brought upon him: The fire that broke out just in front of his door had almost burnt him up, the plaster that fell from the ceiling of his room had almost killed him, “having a mind to verify your pious fears if the dear and holy angels had not been watching over me. I fear, if you don’t put your fears to rest, the earth will finally open and swallow us up.… We are, thank God, well and sound.“[1412]

In the interval, while the negotiations were still proceeding, he had dealt very rudely with the Jews in a sermon on Feb. 7, in spite of the fact that the Countess of Mansfeld, Solms’s widow, was said to be in their favour. He was displeased to see them left unmolested. “No one lifts a finger against them.” In a manuscript “exhortation against the Jews,” written at that time,[1413] he briefly sums up his wishes: “You Lords ought not to tolerate them, but rather drive them out,” at least if they refuse to become Christians. Not long before he had declared that, with his own hands, he could put a Jew to death who dared to blaspheme Christ; when writing to Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg he also praised one of his partisans, a certain provost, simply and solely for his hatred of the Jews: “The provost pleases me beyond measure because he is so strong against the Jews.”[1414]

Altogether, Luther preached four sermons at Eisleben. Twice he went to the Supper, so we are told, after having previously received “Absolution.” On the second occasion “he ordained” two priests,[1415] his friend’s account narrates, “in the apostolic way.” Every evening he assembled his friends about him, the chief being Justus Jonas and the Eisleben preacher, Michael Cœlius. In their company he showed a good temper, much as the long-drawn, tedious negotiations annoyed him. He put it down to the devil that the scheme of settlement drawn up by expert lawyers, encountered so much opposition on both sides; indeed he fancied that all the devils had gathered together at Eisleben to mock at his efforts in this dreary business. He would fain have himself played the poltergeist among the combatants, to “grease the wheels of the lazy coach” and “bring them back at last to some sense of the duty of Christian charity.”[1416] The reader will remember the apparition that Luther thought he saw in those days.[1417] At last, on Feb. 14, he was able to write to his “dear, kind housewife”: “God has shown us great mercy here, for, through their solicitors, the Lords have settled almost everything save two or three points.”[1418] These outstanding matters were satisfactorily adjusted shortly afterwards.

In the same letter Luther said: “We hope, please God, to return home this week.” Thus he scarcely expected to die yet, but still hoped to be able to get back to Wittenberg before the end came. “Here we eat and drink like lords,” so he assures his Catherine, “and are very well looked after.”[1419] On Feb. 16, at table, when the talk turned on sickness and death, Luther said: “When I get home to Wittenberg I shall at once lay myself in my coffin and give the grubs a nice fat doctor to feed on.”[1420] For all his weakness his cheerfulness had not left him.

New cares were now troubling his mind. He had learnt how the Kaiser was insisting on submission to the Council, how the religious conference at Ratisbon had been a failure, and had merely given the Imperial forces time to arm themselves for an attack on the Schmalkalden Leaguers. The coming defeat of the League at Mühlberg was already casting its shadow. “May God help His Highness our Master” (the Elector), remarked Luther; “he is in for a bad time.”[1421] His annoyance with Kaiser Charles led him to say: The “Emperor is dead against us, and now he is showing the hand he so long had concealed.”[1422]

Luther, however, was not to live to see the blow delivered which the flouted Imperial power had so long been threatening.

“During those three weeks” Luther frequently left the supper-table with the admonition to “pray for our Lord God [i.e. for His cause][1423] that it may go well with His Churches; the Council of Trent is highly wroth.”

Holy Scripture, to which he had always devoted himself with so much energy, even now engrossed him. He felt keenly its obscurity and depth. The last short note he made was on the Book of Books and the difficulty of reaching its innermost meaning. After instancing the difficulty of rightly understanding even Virgil or Cicero, it proceeds: “Let no one think he has sufficiently tasted Holy Scripture, unless, for a hundred years, he has ruled the Churches with prophets such as Elias, Eliseus, John the Baptist, Christ and the Apostles.”[1424] By this significant admission he had of course no intention of repudiating the principle, whereby in the stead of the teaching authority of the Church he had put the written Word of God as the clear and final rule for each individual. At this time, just before his death, he was less inclined than ever to retract one jot of his doctrine. Nevertheless the fact that he himself was compelled to admit in such terms the depth and the difficulty of the Bible seems scarcely to bear out his usual contention, viz. that Holy Scripture is the one and all-sufficient guide and master for all.

On Feb. 17, the first symptoms showed themselves of the attack which was to carry him off before the next dawn.[1425] During the day he was very restless; once he said: “Here at Eisleben I was baptised, how if I were to remain here?” In the evening he felt the oppression on the chest of which he had had to complain in previous illnesses; he therefore had himself rubbed down with hot flannels and, as soon as he felt better, went off to supper. During the meal he was, as usual, talkative and in good humour; he told some humorous anecdotes and also spoke of more serious things, and ate and drank heartily. He casually said that, were he to die as a man of sixty-three, he would have attained a quite respectable age, “for people do not now live to be very old. Well, we old men must live so long in order to be able to look behind the devil [i.e. learn his wickedness] and experience so much malice, faithlessness and misery in the world that we may bear witness what a wicked spirit the devil is.” With the pessimism peculiar to him he concludes: “The human race is like the sheep being led to the slaughter.”

According to Ratzeberger, the Elector’s medical adviser, who collected the latest particulars concerning Luther, the latter, on the evening of the 17th, “when about to lie down to sleep after supper,” wrote “with a piece of chalk on the wall the verse: In life, O Pope, I was thy plague, in dying I shall be thy death” (cp. above, vol. iii., p. 435). If we may trust this account, then, on this occasion Luther again used the words which had once before served him under similar circumstances at Schmalkalden. Those actually present at Eisleben make, however, no mention of this, and, in his funeral address, Jonas merely says, that these verses were Luther’s fitting “epitaph” which he had once written for himself. Cœlius also, in his panegyric on Luther, says that though dead he still survives in his books; “he will also after his death, please God, be the death of the Pope, thanks to his writings, just as he was his plague during life.” As no mention of the writing on the wall is made by either of these two, nor yet in the account of his death given by his three friends, though there was no reason for their omitting it, Ratzeberger’s account stands alone and must be taken for what it is worth.[1426]

The following is based principally on the narratives of Jonas, Cœlius and Aurifaber, though the fact that it emanates from enthusiastic friends of Luther’s has not been overlooked. Even though, as is highly probable, the three writers in question made the most of the edifying traits they were able to mention, yet this is no sufficient ground for rejecting their account as a whole. Even the short prayers which they put on Luther’s lips may not be pure inventions.

After supper Luther betook himself rather early to his sitting-room and, as his custom was, said his prayers at the open window. Another severe attack of heart oppression then came on; his friends hurried to his assistance and again tried to mend matters by rubbing him with hot cloths; he was, however, only able to get an hour’s sleep on a sofa in the room. He refused to have the doctors called in as he did not think there was any danger. For the next two or three hours, viz. till 1 a.m. he slept in his own bed in the adjoining bedroom, after telling his anxious friends and his two sons, Martin and Paul, to go to rest. Jonas, the principal witness at his death, had a couch in the same room as Luther.

About one o’clock Luther suddenly felt very unwell. “Oh, my God, how ill I feel,” he said to Jonas, and, getting out of bed, he dragged himself into the sitting-room, saying he would probably die at Eisleben after all, and repeating the prayer: “Into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” He complained of an intolerable burden on his chest. Two physicians, one a doctor and the other a master of medicine, were now summoned in haste. Before they arrived the patient seems to have suddenly collapsed; they found him on the sofa, unconscious and with no perceptible pulse. Recovering consciousness he said, all bathed in the cold sweat of death: “My God, I feel so ill and anxious, I am going,” and then, according to Jonas, he said a short prayer of thanks to God for having revealed to him His Son Jesus Christ in Whom he believed and Whom he had preached and confessed, whilst the hateful Pope and all the ungodly had blasphemed this same Christ; thereupon, all trustfully, he commended his soul to the Lord. No less than three times, according to this witness, did he repeat in Latin the familiar Bible text: “God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” This text (John iii. 16) he had, indeed, always esteemed highly, and seen in it the seal of his doctrine. He is also said to have repeated other Bible texts while medicines were being given him. Count Albert and his relatives, who had come in, also offered him various remedies. Soon after he seemed again to lose consciousness. In spite of the confessions just mentioned Jonas and Cœlius shouted once more in his ear the question, whether he remained steadfast in the faith in Christ and His doctrine which he had preached; to which they caught the reply “Yes.” That was his last word.—To all appearance his death was due to an apoplectic seizure.

All things considered, it is very odd that Luther apparently never gave a thought to his life’s partner, whom he had left at Wittenberg, and that, at least as it seems, his sons were not with him at his death. The argument from the silence of his friends on this point is not devoid of force, for it would have been so easy for them to supply what we here miss. Their silence might even be adduced in support of the substantial reliability of their narrative. The best explanation of Luther’s apparent oblivion is probably to be sought in the result of the stroke which stupefied him and blotted out the memory of those dear to him.[1427]

Towards 3 a.m., after drawing a last deep breath. Luther yielded up his soul into the hands of the Judge. This was on Feb. the 18th.

At the demand of both the physicians the apothecary of Eisleben was sent for, either immediately after death had taken place, or possibly just before, to administer a stimulant by means of a clysteral injection. The apothecary, Johann Landau by name, was a Catholic and a convert, a nephew of the convert polemic Wicel. He drew up a report of his visit which has become famous in the discussion of the question stupidly broached anew of recent years as to whether Luther committed suicide.[1428] We here give the principal passages of his very realistic narrative. He speaks of himself in the third person.

“The apothecary was awakened at the third hour after midnight.… When he arrived he said to the doctors: ‘He is quite dead, of what use can an injection be?’ Count Albert and some scholars were present. The physicians, however, replied: ‘At any rate have a try with the instrument that he may come again to himself if there be any life yet in him.’ When the apothecary inserted the nozzle he noticed some flatulency given off into the ball of the syringe.”[1429] The apothecary persevered in his efforts until the physicians saw that all was useless. “The two physicians disputed together as to the cause of death. The doctor said it was a fit of apoplexy, for the mouth was drawn down and the whole of the right side discoloured.”[1430] The master, on the other hand, thought it incredible that so holy a man could have been thus stricken down by the hand of God, and thought it was rather the result of a suffocating catarrh and that death was due to choking. After this all the other Counts arrived. Jonas, however, who was seated at the head of the bed, wept aloud and wrung his hands. When asked whether Luther had complained of any pain the evening before he replied: “Dear me, no, he was more cheerful yesterday than he had been for many a day. Oh, God Almighty, God Almighty, etc.”—by this Jonas did not mean to deny the fit of heart oppression that had occurred the previous day, since he himself reports it to the Elector; distracted by grief as he was he probably only thought of the good spirits Luther had been in that evening, and of the contrast with the dead body he now saw lying before him. Or it may be that he did not regard the heart oppression as actual “pain.”

Landau’s report continues: “In the meantime the Counts brought costly scents to be applied to the body of the deceased, for on several occasions before this he had been thought to be dead when he lay for a long time motionless and giving no sign of life, as happened to him, for instance, at Schmalkalden when he was tormented with the stone.… The apothecary vigorously rubbed his nose, mouth, forehead and left side for some time with the oils. Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt came and bent over the corpse and asked the apothecary whether any sign of life remained. The latter, however, replied that there was not the least life in him seeing that the hands, nose, forehead, cheeks and ears were already stiff and cold in death.… Jonas said: It will be best now for us to send a swift rider to the Elector and for one of us to sit down and write and tell him all that has happened.”

Jonas himself wrote this first still extant account to his sovereign “about four o’clock in the morning.”

On Feb. 20 Luther’s body was taken to Halle, and early on the 22nd to Wittenberg, where it was received at the Elster Gate—the scene of the famous burning of the Bull—by the University, the Town Council and the burghers. He was buried in the Schlosskirche. There his bones still rest in the grave as was proved by an examination made on Feb. 14, 1892.[1431]

4. In the World of Legend

Barely twenty years later a report that Luther had committed suicide went the rounds among certain of his opponents, the report being subsequently grounded on the alleged statement of a servant.

The first writer who mentions the servant is the Italian Oratorian, Thomas Bozius, in a book on the marks of the Church printed in Rome in 1591. “Luther after having supped heartily that evening and gone to bed quite content,” so he writes, “died that same night by suffocation. I hear that it has recently been discovered through the confession of a witness who was then his servant and who came over to us in late years, that Luther brought himself to a miserable end by hanging; but that all the inmates of the house who knew of the incident were bound under oath not to divulge the matter, for the honour of the Evangel as it was said.”[1432]

It was not till the beginning of the 17th century that the text of the supposed letter of Luther’s servant began to be circulated, according to which, when the latter went one morning to awaken Luther “as usual” (i.e. about 7 a.m.) he found he had committed suicide; this, however, is quite at variance with the definite accounts we have of the time of death. The supposed servant claims to have been alone when he found “our Master Martin hanging from the bedpost, miserably strangled,” whereas the notes made at the time speak of the presence of witnesses both before and after the death which, moreover, was quite a natural one. The apocryphal letter bears no writer’s name nor do we know anything of its source; it seems to have made its first public appearance at Antwerp in 1606 in the work of the Franciscan Sedulius, who probably took it in good faith. It is remarkable, that, down to 1650, as Paulus has proved, only one German writer mentions this fictitious letter, though foreign polemics were busy with it. Outside of Germany such inventions found more ready credence, particularly among the zealous and more imaginative Catholics of the Latin race, who were only too willing to seize on any tale which was to the discredit of the lives of the German foes of Catholicism.[1433]

The falsehood of the legend of Luther’s suicide was most convincingly proved by N. Paulus in his special work on the subject (1898). This scholar submitted the fable to the sharp knife of criticism with a broadminded love of truth that honours his Catholicism as much as his acumen does honour to him as a critic.

It is barely credible to us to-day what inventions grew up in the 16th century, both on the Catholic and the Protestant side, about the deaths of well-known public men who happened to be the object of animosity to one party or the other. Suicide, or murder at the hands of friend or foe, or, more frequently, dreadful maladies or sudden death under the most horrible shapes were the ordinary penalties assigned to opponents, not only by the populace but even by the more credulous type of learned writers. We must not forget that Luther himself had at hand a list of the persecutors of the Evangel, who, in his own day, had been snatched away by sudden death, and that it served him on occasion in his sermons and writings.[1434]

It is an undeniable fact that Luther did much to pave the way for such stories. His printed Table-Talk could well be taken as a model. Among the fearsome tales of death he himself related was e.g. that of Mutian the humanist, who, refusing to become a Lutheran, fell from poverty into despair and poisoned himself;[1435] of the Archbishop of Treves, Richard of Greiffenklau, who was “bodily carried off to hell by the devil”;[1436] of the Catholic preacher, Urban of Kunewalde, who, “having fallen away from the Evangel,” was “struck by a thunderbolt” in the church, and then again by a flash of lightning that passed through his body from head to foot, because he had asked heaven for a sign to prove that he was in the right,[1437] etc.[1438] “All these perished miserably,” he says, “like senseless swine. And so too it will happen with the others.”[1439]

In those days, partly owing to Luther’s influence, people were very ready to admit the devil’s intervention in the horrible death that befell their foes; the Catholic champions would all seem to have had a shocking end, could we but trust the writers in the Protestant camp.[1440]

Eck they depicted entirely possessed by the devil and “dying like a brute beast, quite out of his mind.” Of Emser (when still living) Luther himself says, that he had been killed suddenly by the “fiery darts and arrows of the devil.”[1441] Cochlæus, according to other writers, was removed from the world in an awful way. Johann Fabri it was said had died in despair, saying to those who exhorted him to have confidence: “Too late, too late.” Pighius was made out to have died by his own hand. Latomus was represented as crying out on his death-bed that he was a devil incarnate and had claws on his fingers and toes. Hofmeister, the learned Augustinian, according to the Protestant version, repeatedly said before dying: “I belong to the devil body and soul.” Of the Jesuits, even their founder, Ignatius of Loyola, had a bad death. Canisius was struck dumb in the pulpit at Worms and was carried off by the judgment of God; some were not wanting, however, who declared that he had been converted to Luther’s doctrine. Seven years before his death, it was reported of Bellarmine, the great controversialist of that day, that “he had died miserably and in despair,” carried off on the back of a fiery he-goat from hell; and “even to this very day,” so it was told during his lifetime, “Bellarmine may be heard gruesomely howling in the wind, astride his flaming, winged steed.”

Needless to say, many of the converts who turned their back on Luther and took the part of the Catholic Church “perished miserably”! “Many of these devil’s henchmen,” writes a “simple minister of the Word,” “who knowingly and of malice aforethought, as they themselves admit, deny the known truth of the Evangel, have been carried off alive by the devil, or have howled before their death like wolves and tigers, as notoriously happened in the case of that firebrand Staphylus.”[1442]

If similar tales, representing in an unfavourable light Luther’s life and death, were equally rife among the Catholics, this can be no matter for surprise if we bear in mind how greatly they were vexed by the exaggerated eulogies passed on him and his life’s work, and how much they had been stung by his polemics and furious onslaught on the Church. Whoever loved the olden Church held Luther’s very name in execration.

One such tale early current at Halle was that, when the funeral procession arrived at Wittenberg, the coffin was found empty, Luther’s corpse having vanished on the road. A number of rooks having described circles in the air about the corpse at Halle, a later tale made them out to have been devils “streaming to the funeral of their prophet.”[1443] Proof of this general foregathering of the devils was even found in the comparative calmness of those possessed, who, it was argued, had evidently been forsaken for a while by their diabolical tenants, the latter’s presence at the burial explaining their temporary departure from their usual habitats.[1444] The corpse, it was also said, gave out so evil a smell that the bearers had to leave it on the road to Wittenberg.

Other versions of these tales deserve to be mentioned. According to Johann Oldecop, the Hildesheim Dominican (†1574), who, however, is not reliable in what he had at second hand, Luther was simply found dead in his bed. According to Simon Fontaine (1558), a French writer, who also speaks of his sudden death, he had “his nun” with him that night; this is also affirmed in the works of Jérôme Bolsec and James Laing, printed in Paris, as well as in a work published at Ingolstadt. According to William Reginald, Professor at the English College of Douay (1597), Luther had been strangled in the night by Catherine Bora. The same tale was afterwards told at Münster in Westphalia by Johann Münch (1617).

Even more common were the reports, quite in accordance with the manners which Luther had fostered, that the devil had murdered him. The Polish scholar, Stanislaus Hosius, asserted this in 1558, and, later, it is mentioned, though only tentatively, by the Dutch theologian, William Lindanus and the Paris theologian Prateolus. In 1615, Robert Bellarmine, speaking in general terms, says that Luther, after an illness lasting only a few hours, “yielded up his soul to the devil”;[1445] but the “Compendium fidei” 1607 of Franz Coster (already published in Dutch in 1595) had been beforehand in particulars of Luther’s death at the devil’s hands. He tells how, according to the statement of a noble lady of Eichsfeld, Luther’s body had been found with the “neck red and out of joint,” hence it was plain that “he had been strangled by the devil.” Peter Pázmány a Magyar writer (1613) had heard that the devil had appeared in the shape of a great sheep-dog to the guests at table on the evening previous to Luther’s death, and that Luther had exclaimed: “What, so soon?” Claude de Sainctes (1575) a French theologian, finds nothing extraordinary in Luther’s horrible death, since most of the Church’s foes had been brought to a violent end by the devil as the examples of Zwingli, Carlstadt, Œcolampadius and others showed!

CHAPTER XL
AT THE GRAVE

1. Luther’s fame among the friends he left behind

The first panegyrics on Luther, the funeral orations and encomiums which were immediately printed and scattered broadcast through Germany constitute an historical phenomenon in themselves. They show orators and writers alike fascinated as it were by Luther’s overpowering personality, and they, in turn, fascinated many thousands who read them. Jonas was the first to deliver at Eisleben an address in his honour, viz. in the afternoon of Feb. 19; this was followed by another by Cœlius previous to the departure of the funeral procession on Feb. 20; whilst Bugenhagen, too, delivered one of his own on the 22nd, after the arrival of the body at the Schlosskirche. The rhetorical effusions of Jonas and Cœlius, who had been present with Luther at the end, likewise Bugenhagen’s address, and the account of Luther’s death which they published in conjunction with Aurifaber, are all crammed with incredible praises. Melanchthon, too, forgetful of all the pain he had suffered at Luther’s hand and shutting his eyes to all his weaknesses, paid his tribute of honour to Luther’s memory, first in a notice affixed at the University, then in a Latin funeral-oration which he delivered in the Schlosskirche as soon as Bugenhagen had had his say, and, again, in a short writing on his friend and master which he prefixed to the second volume of the Latin edition of Luther’s works (1546).

“Alas, gone is the chariot and horseman of Israel” (2 Kings ii. 12), so Melanchthon said in the notice of Luther’s death, which he addressed to the students,[1446] “who ruled the Church in this the old age of the world. For it was not human sagacity that discovered the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins and trust in the Son of God, but God revealed it through this man whom He raised up before our eyes.” In his funeral oration he extols the departed as one of the long line of Divine tools starting in Old Testament times, a man taught by God and exercised in severe spiritual combats, of a friendly nature, not at all passionate or quarrelsome and only inclining to be violent when such medicine was needed by the ailments of the age. “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, lovely and of good fame” according to the Apostle (Philip. iv. 8) had been exemplified in him. Now, however, he had gone to join the company of the Prophets in heaven, etc.

According to the similar address delivered by Jonas[1447] only at the end of the world would people clearly see what “splendid revelations he had had when first he began to preach the Evangel.” Luther had the “Spirit of God in rich and exalted measure,” he was “a past master in spiritual combats.” “In the hour of death he had cast all his cares on Christ.” In the spirit of Luther, who was equal to Noe in his words and preaching, Jonas prophesied, that what he had once said would be fulfilled, viz. that, after his death, “all Papists and monks would be scattered and brought low”; Luther’s death, like that of all the prophets, would have in it “a special power and efficacy to overcome the godless, stiff-necked and blinded Papists,” nay, before two years were over, they would all be overtaken by a “gruesome chastisement.”—To such an extent had Luther’s pseudo-mysticism and fanatical expectations infected his pupils. Nevertheless Luther’s admissions concerning the imperfection of his work were also taken over by his pupils. “In spite of the great and bright light of the Evangel,” so Jonas confesses in his funeral oration, “the world has reached such a pass that now among many are found not only the common sins and shortcomings but, to boot, blasphemy, disorders, defiance, or deliberate persistence in the grossest vices; yet no one is ready to acknowledge that he is a sinner.” The sermon in question was again preached by Jonas at Halle later on.

Cœlius, in his funeral oration, declared that no one before Luther had known how to call upon God, how to look up to Him in trouble, or what a man ought to do, or how he was to serve God. But “by him God has unlocked Holy Writ which formerly was a book closed and sealed.” The dear man had been a “real Elias and Jeremias; he was a new John the Baptist, preaching the great day of the Lord, or else an Apostle.”

According to Bugenhagen’s sermon,[1448] the deceased was “undoubtedly the Angel of whom it is written in the Apocalypse (xiv.): ‘And I saw an angel flying through the midst of heaven having the eternal Gospel to preach.’” Through him, “the God-sent reformer of the Church,” God the Father has “revealed” the great mystery of His Beloved Son Jesus Christ.

These eulogies, which owe their fulsomeness partly to the bad taste of the humanistic period, were strong in their effects on men’s minds; the preachers, moreover, who had been trained or appointed by Luther, were anxious thereby to strengthen their own position and to show their scorn for Popery. Even in the above addresses Luther and what he stood for is contrasted with “the oppression and tyranny of the hateful Popedom” from which the world had been delivered. (Bugenhagen.)

In many of the churches Luther’s picture was hung up with the inscription: “The Holy Dr. Martin Luther (‘Divus et sanctus,’ etc.).” Writings were published bearing such titles as “Luther, the Prophet,” “Luther, the Wonder-Worker.” All sorts of medals were struck in his honour, one with the inscription: “Propheta Germaniæ, Sanctus Domini,” others with Luther’s motto: “Pestis eram vivus,” etc.[1449] Even in his lifetime pictures appeared in reprints of his works where he was represented with a halo and with the Dove, as the symbol of the Holy Ghost, descending on him from heaven.[1450]

The most popular biography of Luther was that of Johann Mathesius, who died as pastor of Joachimsthal in Bohemia. He met with a success such as can be accounted for only by the passion in favour of Wittenberg then prevalent in Protestant Germany. The appellations so common in later years, Luther the “Wonder-Worker,” “Chosen Instrument,” “True German Prophet,” “Man full of Grace and the Holy Spirit,” are to be met with already in the “Historien” of Mathesius, delivered originally as sermons and first published in 1566. In these “stories” he has interwoven in Luther’s laurel wreath much that is untrue or doubtful, for instance, the saying attributed to Erasmus and since frequently quoted on his authority, is spurious, viz. “that, when Dr. Luther explains Scripture, on one of his pages there is more reason and common sense than in all the tomes and scrolls of Scotists, Thomists, Albertists, Nominalists and Sophists.”[1451] Mathesius wishes people “not to be forgetful of so worthy a man’s life and testimony,” yet even he gives us a glimpse into the bitter controversies now already raging among the Lutherans; he points out how “God loves the peacemakers and calls them His own dear children while He sends adrift all who delight in war and strife.” He himself had some experience of the antagonism between the progressive party and the more old-fashioned Lutherans. Indeed one of the principal reasons why he wrote the “Historien” was because “many an ungrateful fellow actually forgets this great man and his faithful industry and toil.” He already sees the “Wittenberg cisterns” defiled by “all kinds of brackish, foul, baneful, muddy and uncleanly waters.”[1452]

Though historically the tales of “the pious panegyrist,” as Maurenbrecher a Protestant calls him,[1453] cannot be said to rank very high, yet the energy with which he claims a thoroughly German character for Luther and for his own biographical work was pleasing to many. He uses the term “Prophet of the Germans” ad nauseam, even in the Preface addressed to the Wittenberg authorities; God had bestowed Luther “as a gift on us, the descendants of Japhet, and the Holy German Empire in these last days”; he, Mathesius, had a living “under the Bohemian Crown,” but as a German by birth he had “preached officially in his mother tongue” and “of set purpose, had these German sermons, to the honour of Our God and the blessed German Theology, published in German in order that some at least in Germany might be reminded what this blessed German Church in the Kingdom of Bohemia thought of the doctrines of this great German Prophet.”

By his exertions for the preservation of the Table-Talk Mathesius also sought to glorify Luther’s memory.

An influential group of panegyrists, who, like Mathesius, noted down, collected, or published Luther’s utterances, comprises Cordatus, Dietrich, Rörer, Schlaginhaufen, Lauterbach and, to pass over others, Aurifaber, Stangwald and Selnecker. Cordatus, who went as Superintendent to Stendal in 1540, compared Luther’s sayings to the oracles of Apollo.[1454] Aurifaber, one of those present at Luther’s death at Eisleben, became in 1551 Court Chaplain at Weimar and in 1566 pastor at Erfurt. In the “Colloquia,” or Table-Talk, which he caused to be printed at Eisleben in 1566, he says, in the Preface addressed to the Imperial towns of Strasburg, Augsburg, Ulm, Nuremberg, etc., that Luther was the “Venerable and highly enlightened Moses of the Germans.”

Like Aurifaber and Stangwald (1571), Selnecker (1577) took for the motto of his edition of the Table-Talk the words of Christ, “Gather up the fragments that remain,” etc. (John vi. 12); he further embellished his collection with the words:

“What, full of God’s spirit, Luther once taught

That doth his godly flock now hold fast.”[1455]

Of the Lutheran die-hards who were never weary of fighting for the true olden spirit of Luther in opposition to the Protestant critics who very soon sprang up, the most eminent were Flacius Illyricus, Justus Menius, Nicholas Amsdorf and Cyriacus Spangenberg.

Concerning the father of the latter, Johann Spangenberg, Luther, in the last days of his life, had advised and “faithfully exhorted, that he should be called as Superintendent [to Eisleben].”[1456] Full of boundless admiration for Luther his son Cyriacus wrote his “Theander Lutherus,” where he says that the latter was the “greatest prophet since the days of the Apostles” and a “real martyr,” particularly because the devil had persecuted him so greatly. In consideration of this he canonises him and speaks of him as “St. Luther.”[1457] In the preface he assures us that it was only Luther’s holy and persistent prayers that had hitherto spared Germany the perils of war which would otherwise have overtaken her. The significant and lengthy title of this remarkable work runs as follows: “Theander Lutherus; of the worthy man of God, Dr. M. Luther’s spiritual Household and Knighthood, of his office as Prophet, Apostle and Evangelist; How he was the third Elias, a new Paul, the true John, the best Theologian, the Angel of Apocalypse xiv., a faithful witness, wise pilgrim and true priest, also a good labourer in our Lord God’s vineyard, all summed up in one-and-twenty sermons.”

Flacius Illyricus, the Wittenberg Professor famous for his connection with the “Magdeburg Centuries,” made Luther’s exemplary life play its part among the “Marks of the true Religion.” He proves in the book bearing this title the advantages of Protestantism over Popery by the mark of holiness, and by the pious life of some of the New Believers so different from that of the Catholics, and, in so doing, he appeals boldly to the founder of Protestantism. Whatever was alleged against Luther was false; “the Papists have never ceased from spreading these untruths, particularly in distant lands where the true state of the case is not so well known.”[1458]

Luther’s most ardent admirer after Flacius was perhaps Nicholas Amsdorf. In the Jena edition of Luther’s works for which he was responsible Amsdorf extols him in the Introduction as a man of God, “the like of whom has not been seen on earth since St. Paul’s day,” a man whom God “had raised up by His special Grace as a chosen instrument and bestowed on the German nation”; “by the Spirit and Word of God he had been led to attack the Pope, and his services in revealing him as Antichrist must be esteemed as highly as his vigorous advocacy of the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation and Justification through Christ.” Nay “he had been specially raised up” “in order to unmask the Roman Antichrist.” But, on account of all his other doctrines too, “pious Christians ought to acknowledge with grateful hearts this great miracle which God has shown to the world and used against the Pope in these last sad times through the precious man of God Martin Luther.” Amsdorf, however, as he hints in the same Preface, found to his dismay that Protestant “cavillers” were now even more numerous than in Luther’s lifetime, who “picked from Luther’s writings only antologies and contradictions.” Some had even dared to distort his writings. He complains that the Wittenberg complete edition of Luther’s works was so unreliable that he was now compelled to undertake the present new Jena edition: “Many things in those tomes were deleted, expurgated and altered for the sake of currying favour.”[1459] The real Luther, particularly as he is seen in his denial of the need of good works, is numbered by Amsdorf among the Saints; this is clear from the title of one of Amsdorf’s works, where he places Luther on a par with the Apostle of the Gentiles.[1460]

Particularly around Luther’s tomb did veneration centre. Thus the verses of August Buchner invite his readers to visit Luther’s tomb, and proclaim it a greater thing to have seen this little resting place than even the proud Temple of Capitoline Jove.[1461]

Immediately after his death a lengthy “poem” was published at Wittenberg entitled “Epitaphium,” celebrating both the deceased and his grave:

“In mine own sweet Fatherland

I did die a death so grand.

At Wittenberg in peace I lie;

To God be praise and thanks on high.”

In it Luther tells how he had been sent by God that he might—

“Before the trump of doom unmask that devil’s child

The Antichrist, with fiendish sin defiled.”

For ever and for ever it would remain true that

“Pope and Antichrist have sprung

From the wicked devil’s dung.”[1462]

His grave was marked only by a stone let into the ground bearing on it a metal plate with his name, the date and place of his death, and his age.[1463]

On a bronze memorial tablet in the wall was described in Latin verse the dark night in which the world was plunged under the Papacy, until at last Luther “once more made known the Grace of Christ, and, moved by the Divine inspiration (‘Dei adflatu monitus’) and called by the Word of God, had caused the new light of the Evangel to illuminate the world.” Like Paul his tongue had sent forth lightnings, like John the Baptist he had shown to the world in its darkness the Saving Lamb of God, and also brought to light the Tables of Moses, the Prophet of God, in their counter-distinction from the Gospel. The altars had been purged of the Roman idols. In reward for all this he had been exalted by Christ to the stars in order that he might share in His eternal joy.[1464] Beside the monument there was placed in the following century a framed painting representing Luther in the pulpit, pointing with his finger to the Crucified, while a dragon with wide-open jaws was swallowing the Pope and his helpers. On this painting the verses given above were repeated.[1465]

The Elector Johann Frederick had another memorial tablet cast, but, owing to his defeat in the Schmalkalden War, this was taken by his sons to Weimar and later, in 1571, to Jena, where it was put up in the church of St. Michael. On it, above the life-size figure of the deceased, stands the verse: “Pestis eram vivus, moriens ero mors tua papa.” Other Latin verses at his feet state that, through him, the great fraud had been exposed whereby godless Rome had ensnared Christ’s flock. Would that Christ would help the orthodox school of Jena to vanquish the swarm of false doctrines (of the New Believers) that was springing up now, when the end of the world was so close.[1466]

2. Luther’s Memory among the Catholics. The Question of His Greatness

A faithful Catholic visiting the Schlosskirche at Wittenberg must necessarily have been assailed by thoughts much at variance with the eulogistic language of the epitaph and other expressions of Lutheran feeling. Let us suppose that one of those zealous and cultured Catholics who had been drawn by the attack on the olden religion into yet closer sympathy with it had crossed the threshold of the church—for instance a preacher such as Dr. Conrad Kling of Halle, who in the midst of trials and slanders was seeking to save the remnants of Catholicism,[1467] or a man like the historian Wolfgang Mayer,[1468] or the learned and sharp-witted Kilian Leib, Prior of Rebdorf,[1469] or one of the highly gifted women of that day, for instance, Charity Pirkheimer, the sister of the humanist and Superior of the struggling Poor Clares of Nuremberg[1470]—what would have been the impressions called forth by the building and the monument?

The building itself recalled the oneness of the divine edifice of the Church whose work it was to build up all the regenerate into one body, without dissensions or divisions, that oneness to which the Church in olden days, when barely out of the hands of the persecutor, had borne witness at the baptismal font of St. Peter’s in Rome in the impressive inscription: “One chair of Peter and one font of Baptism!”[1471] The pulpit of the Schlosskirche called to mind the commission given by the Divine Saviour to His Apostles and their successors to baptise all nations and preach that doctrine which He Himself was to preserve infallible by His Presence “all days even to the end of the world.” The altar reminded the Catholic visitor of the eucharistic Sacrament and of the unbloody sacrifice formerly offered there. The bare walls spoke of the iconoclastic storm against both the images of the Saints and any living union of the faithful on earth with the elect in heaven, while the elaborate monuments to the dead seemed to proclaim in these times of excitement the peace in which those departed men had passed away happy in the possession of the one olden faith.

This ecclesiastical unity—such would have been the thought of the Catholic—has been shattered in our unhappy age by the man whose remains are here honoured by his followers, and not in order to reform, or improve, but rather to replace the thousand-year-old heirloom of the Church by a new faith and worship.

Even Luther’s very monument re-echoed the menaces pronounced by Luther upon Catholicism when he desecrated what was most sacred for so many thousands, and laid rough hands on the one consolation of their sorrowful lives.

The fierce announcement to Popery: “My death will be your plague” fell from his lips not once but often. “Only after my death will they feel the real Luther.” “My life shall be their hangman, my death shall be their devil!”[1472] “When I die I shall become a spirit to plague the bishops, the priestlings and the godless monks so greatly that a dead Luther will spell to them more trouble than a thousand living ones.”[1473]

With the oft-repeated words: “Pestis eram vivus, moriens ero mors tua Papa,”[1474] which are also engraved on his death mask in the Luther-Halle at Wittenberg, he proclaimed that his death would do more harm to the Papacy than his life; as long as he lived the Papists would benefit to some extent from his labours, but, when he died, they would be deprived even of this. The threat, though grotesque, is quite in keeping with his belief in himself. He says that it is he alone who is still holding back the storm that is threatening to engulf all the Papists. He asks the Catholics of Germany: “How if Luther’s life were of so much value in God’s sight that, did he not live, not one of you would be sure of your life or existence here below, so that his death would be a misfortune to you all?”[1475] He even goes so far as to prophesy: “One day they will cry: Oh, that Luther were still living!”[1476] He parades before the Catholics the services he had rendered by resisting the fanatics and those who denied the Sacrament; the Catholics, so he says, would never have been able to do so much. “They are ungrateful, of this will I speak to them when I am dead. I have inveighed against them enough in the ‘Vermanũg,’ but it is all of no use.”[1477] “After my death the Papists will see all the good I have done them, and in me the saying will be fulfilled: ‘He died justified of his sin.’”[1478]

Thus in his half jesting, half serious fashion he proclaimed himself a sort of defender and pillar of the Papacy. The idea did not seem too strange to his friend Jonas to prevent him introducing it into his funeral oration on Luther: “The Papists,” he says, “Canons, priestlings, monks and nuns would in years to come wish that Dr. Luther still lived; they would gladly obey him, and, if they could, call him from the grave; but their chance is now gone.”[1479]

These great expectations and bold prophecies were as little realised as that of the impending fall of the Papacy.

On the contrary the Papacy gathered strength, renewed its youth from one decade to another and, though the apostasy also grew, yet a gradual revival of the ancient faith set in throughout the Catholic world. On the minds of the faithful Catholics there remained, however, indelibly stamped the gloomy recollection of the towering defiance with which the Wittenberg professor and his secular allies had sought to introduce an alien teaching and reform.

The inflexible will on which Luther so prided himself is the sign manual of his personality. Nothing is so characteristic of Luther as his obstinate determination which yielded to nothing, and the appalling pertinacity that ever drove him on and never allowed him to retreat.

“No one, please God, shall awe me so long as I live!”[1480] To no other principle was he more faithful throughout his life. Thus we hear him declaring:

“Good, then let us bid defiance in God’s name; whoever feels compunction let him draw back; whoever is afraid let him flee!… I have brought Holy Scripture and the Word of God to light as no other has done for a thousand years. I have done my part. Your blood be upon your own heads and not on mine.”[1481]

“When we see and feel the world’s wantonness, anger and hate, let us learn to defy it,” “to the disgust and annoyance of the world.” “This is an exalted defiance and an excellent consolation.” “Defiantly we boast: The Gospel that we preach is not ours but our Lord Christ’s.”[1482]

Luther defied not only “the world,” i.e. his ecclesiastical opponents and Catholicism generally, but also what he calls the devil, i.e. the inner voice that reproached him; he defied life and death, Emperor and princes, and, to boot, his own followers. Yet it was to him not so easy a task to defy the olden Church: “Rather than anger the Christian Church, or say one word against her, I would prefer to lose ten heads and to die ten times over. And yet do it I must.” “They tell us ‘the Christian Church is where Popery is.’ But no, Christ says, ‘My word shall prevail and you shall obey me and listen to me alone, even should you go cracked, mad and crazy over it.’”[1483]

He was highly elated at the thought that the powerful protectors of the Church had “not been able to put him down.”[1484] All their success he regards as mere “devil’s dung”;[1485] the princes, “the tyrants and men of great learning” might be incensed at the blow he had dealt them, but, so he declares, for the defence of his teaching he would have to give them “thirty blows more to induce remorse and repentance.”[1486] For “in this may God give me no patience or meekness. Here I say No, No, No, so long as I can move a finger, let it vex King, Kaiser, princes, devils and whom it may.” “In the matter of doctrine no one is great in my sight, I look upon him as a mere soap-bubble, and even less; this there is no gainsaying.” The same was to hold good of his crass writing on the “Captive Will”: “I defy not only the King [of England] and Erasmus, but also their God and all the devils, fairly and rightly to dispose of that same booklet!”[1487]

“His enemies’ anger and fury,” so he declares when in this mood, is to him “real joy and fun.” He will force himself to be of “good and cheerful heart” about their “baneful books.”[1488]

With frightful earnestness he warns the Catholic princes: “It is the truth that you will go headlong to destruction; I know that on the word will follow the deed and that you will perish.… We have this consolation that we are not affrighted, even should emperors, kings, princes, Pope and bishops fall in a heap and kingdoms lie one on the top of the other.”[1489] “What is a prince or emperor, nay the whole world compared with the Word? They are but dung.” “Papacy, Empire and Grand Turk” mean nothing to us. “Such is our defiance.”[1490]

In his scorn for those who vex him and write against him he is determined to “put out his horns”,[1491] He will be a “huntsman and be after his quarry”; “I hunt the Pope, the cardinals, bishops, canons and monks.”[1492]

Of the defiance of the “hard Saxon”[1493] not only the Papists but the Court-lawyers and the theologians in his own camp had to taste when they annoyed him. Not only did he oppose the Papists, “cheerfully and confidently” condemning them to hell and to “eat the devil’s droppings,” and rejoicing with a “good conscience” at the impending destruction of these “slaves of Satan”;[1494] but he had similar, nay even stronger words of defiance ready for the “false teachers” amongst the New Believers, to wit for the Swiss and for such as Agricola. When the latter defended himself and said, “I too have a head,” Luther retorted: “And, please God, have I not one too.” But with such “stiff-necked” heretics “God was determined to torment him so as the better to defy the Papists.”[1495]

A defiance so utterly overwhelming as Luther’s the world had never before seen. The Catholics were quite dumbfounded. Can we take it ill if they failed to admire this form of Titanic greatness. A frightful greatness (perhaps it were more accurate to say a great frightfulness) indeed lurked behind Luther. Yet a Catholic would have had to throw over all religious and moral standards before he could extol a man as great simply on account of his strength of will, determination, power of resistance, inflexibility and defiance. Men felt that, after all, what was important was the aim and the means used in pursuing it. If all that mattered was merely the inflexibility of the will, this would have spelt an “upsetting of all values” and the strong man, he who towered above his fellows owing to his physical strength and his power of bidding defiance to the world would become the ideal of the human race.

Nor would a thoughtful Catholic contemporary have been much impressed by the modern eulogies of Luther’s defiance.

“Because he feared neither hell nor the devil, he stands out for all time as the embodiment of human greatness”; “in his brave spirit there does not seem to have existed the faintest shadow of the pallid fear of man.” “In word and writing he is the greatest demagogue of all the ages”; “the sledgehammer blows of his berserker fury and wild humour rained down on every side.”

“Since his road led to the goal, it must have been the right road, hence let critics hold their tongues.”

“Such a master knew best what tone to adopt in order to sway the nation.”

“His is the wrath and fury of a hero.… Heroes and hero-fury are inseparable.”

Those who speak in this way admit that there were darker sides to his picture; they, however, insist that, in Luther we see, with “the mighty will of the hero,” “traits of the dæmonic greatness of a leader of history” “casting both light and shadows.” Luther “shook the world to its foundations.” He was a man “of mighty powers and dimensions. In the case of almost all the really great men of history, not only their virtues, but also their defects bear an heroic stamp.” These defects are simply the “reverse side of such a man’s greatness.”

It is to cherish too low an idea of greatness, not merely according to the Christian but also according to the merely natural standard, if strength of will or eventual success are alone taken into account and the aim and whole moral character of the work completely disregarded. In one sense of the word Catholics have never been unwilling to grant Luther a certain greatness, particularly as regards his astounding mental gifts and his powers of work. Döllinger was quite ready in his Catholic days to include “the son of the peasant of Möhra amongst the great, nay, among the greatest of men,” though Döllinger qualifies the admission by the words which immediately follow: “His disciples and admirers were wont to console themselves with the ‘heroic spirit’ of the man, who was so intolerant of any limitations or restrictions and who, dispensed by a kind of inspiration from the observance of the moral law, could do things, which, done by others, would have been immoral and criminal.”[1496]

There was no neutral vantage-ground from which to judge of Luther’s labours and his influence. Every thinking man did so from the ethical standpoint, and the Catholic likewise from the standpoint of his Church. It is clear that Luther must not be tested by the standard of profane greatness, but by a religious one. It would be to do him rank injustice, and he would have been the first to protest were we to consider merely the force of his character and the extent of his success, rather than his objects and his influence from the moral and religious standpoint.

He represented himself to his Catholic contemporaries as a divinely commissioned preacher; in the name of the Lord he called on them to forsake the Church of all the ages, because he had come to proclaim afresh a forgotten Gospel. Hence they were bound to examine the actual state of the case and to probe for the moral signs which the words of Christ and the Apostles had taught them to look for, and, when they found the necessary religious qualities and moral greatness wanting, who can blame them for not having gone over to him? With them it was not a question whether they might admire in him a strong man, a Hercules or “superman,” but whether they were, at his bidding, to sever the tie that had hitherto bound them to the Church, follow him blindly, and commit their eternal salvation to his guidance. Luther had never tired of urging: “No man shall quench or thwart my teaching, it must have its way as it has hitherto for it is not mine” (but God’s).[1497] “I call myself Ecclesiastes [the preacher] by the Grace of God.… I am certain that Christ Himself calls and regards me as such, that He is my master, and that He will bear me witness on the Last Day that it is not mine but His own Gospel undefiled.”[1498] It was this rôle of Evangelist that the better class of opponents felt disposed to examine.

“Because you call yourself an evangelist and proclaimer of the Gospel,” so Duke George of Saxony wrote in his reply to Luther, “it would have better beseemed you to punish with mildness whatever abuses existed therein, and to instruct the people kindly.”[1499] On the contrary, so the Duke urges, his behaviour is anything but that of an “evangelist,” what with his passionate abuse and vituperation, and his criminal breach of the public peace and religious unity: “Where peace and unity are not, there there is neither the true faith, which indeed is not to be found in you.”

It is worth while to consider what response would have been awakened in the minds of serious Catholic visitors to Luther’s grave by his startling success.

Those who to-day claim unqualified “greatness” for Luther are usually thinking of the astonishing success of his undertaking, and of his influence and that of his labours on posterity. They boast: “He tore his age from its moorings,” “he reduced to ruins what for a thousand years had been held in honour”; “he gave a new trend to civilisation.”

A man of insight could, however, explain otherwise many of these effects.

The result of Luther’s preaching was undoubtedly very great. But, in the first place, this result was not solely due to the efforts of one man but was rather the outcome of the circumstances in which that man lived, the product of divers factors in the history of the times.

His contemporaries saw full well that Luther, with his fiery temperament, had merely assumed the direction of a spirit that had long began to pervade the clergy, regular and the secular, leading them to cast aside the duties of their calling and to seek merely honours and emoluments. They were also aware of the oppressive burden of abuses the Church had to carry and of the far-reaching disorders in public life. Society was now anxious to liberate itself from the Church’s tutelage which had grown irksome. Everyone was conscious of the trend of the day towards freedom, individuality and new outlooks. Both the Empire and the olden idea of the Christian nations united as in one family were in process of dissolution owing to political and social trends quite independent of Luther’s work. His contemporaries saw with deep misgiving how Luther’s new doctrine and his innovations generally were strengthening all these elements, and setting free others of a similar nature which could not fail to help on his work. Nevertheless the elements of unrest, without which he would have been unable to achieve anything, were not of his making.[1500]

We can still judge to-day, from the writings of those who lived at that time, of the feelings, in some cases enthusiastic in others full of fear, with which they listened to the Wittenberger as he proclaimed war on all that was obsolete, or demanded in fiery language the reform of the Church, for which all were anxious.[1501] The more alluring and seductive the very word “reformation,” the more effective was the help proffered for the overthrow of the Church under the cloak of this watchword. In the field of learning there were the humanists who had fallen foul of Catholic authority and the spirit of the past; in the lower strata of society there were the peasants who aimed at bettering their position; among the burghers and in official circles hopes were entertained of an increase of authority at the expense of the bishops, now regarded with ever-increasing jealousy; finally the nobles and knights were allured by the prospect of the success of a revolt under the banner of the Evangel which would redound to the advantage of their caste. What chiefly brought Luther’s star into the ascendant was, however, the protection he obtained from the princes. Without his Elector, without the Landgrave of Hesse, without the allies of Schmalkalden, in a word, without political authority on his side, all the force of his words would have availed nothing, or at least would never have sufficed to enable him to found a new Church. The Princes who helped to spread his teaching and reformation saw the lands and privileges of the Church falling into their lap, and what was even more, the extension of their sphere of influence to the spiritual domain where, so far, the Pope and the bishops had reigned supreme.

Thus in his success those well versed in the conditions of the times recognised for the most part only the working of natural causes.

Luther, as all were aware, shortly after having been put under the Ban was wont to say that the movement he had begun was something so great and wonderful that it could not but owe its success to the manifest intervention of God. “It cannot be,” he exclaimed in 1521, “that a man should of himself be able to start such a work and carry it through.”[1502] He was fond of saying he wished no earthly means to be used for arriving at the goal. Yet, in this very statement of 1521, for instance, he refers “to the sermons and writings” by which he had “begun” to disclose the Papists’ “knavery and trickery.” His burning words indeed acted as a spark flung on the inflammable material accumulating for so long. Anyone aware of the condition of Germany and of the artifices by which the author of the gigantic apostasy sought to consolidate his position at Wittenberg by means of the Court, and at the same time to excite the fanaticism of the masses, would feel but little impressed by Luther’s appeal to the apparent simplicity of his writings and sermons, as being out of all proportion to the unexampled success he attained.

He was indeed heard to say that he attributed everything to the words and the divine power of Christ: “Look what it has done in the few years that we have taught and written such truths. How has the Papists’ cloak shrunk and become so short!… What will it be when these words of Christ have threshed with His Spirit for another two years?”[1503] These words were, however, spoken the year after the publication of those fearfully violent writings: “On the Popedom at Rome” (against Alveld), “To the German Nobility,” “On the Babylonish Captivity,” “On the Freedom of a Christian Man” and “Against the Bulls of End-Christ.” When uttered, his seductive writing “On the Monastic Vows” was already there to unbar the gates through which crowds of doubtful helpers would flock to join him.

Catholic polemics of that day, in order to demolish the objection arising from the marvellous spread of Lutheranism, set themselves to examine the relation between the new dogmas and their dissemination. Luther’s doctrine, as they frequently pointed out, was bound to secure him a large following.

In this particular it was easy enough to prove that it was not merely the “greatness” of the man which drew such crowds to him. The persistent vaunting of the universal priesthood, the right bestowed on all of judging of Scripture, the abandoning of the outward and inward Word to the feelings of the individual, the sweet preaching of a faith which “no sin could harm,” the denial of the merit of good works, the assertion that, not they, but only faith was required for salvation, and, not to speak of many other points, his contemptuous and unjust strictures on the Church and her doings, all this—human nature being what it is—could not fail for a time to help the cause of the New Evangel of freedom, and, under the conditions then prevailing, to assure it a real triumph.

This Evangel came upon Germany at a time when the Church’s life was in a state of decay, when the adequate religious instruction of the young was neglected by the Church, and when the dioceses were for the most part governed by younger sons of princely or noble houses, who were quite unfitted for their spiritual work. It is noteworthy that the defenders of the Church had very little good to say of the bishops.[1504]

Of the new preachers and promoters of Luther’s Reformation a large number was composed of apostate clergy and escaped monks and nuns whom Luther had won over. It was plain enough that it was no such “great and immortal” work as he claimed, to have attracted such people to his party thanks to theories which, while seeming to calm the conscience, really flattered the senses, for instance, by what he said on celibacy, vows and priestly ordination. “Do not seek to deny that you are a man, with flesh and blood; hence leave God to judge between the valiant angel-like heroes [those religious who were faithful to the Church] and the sickly, despised sinners [whom they upbraided as apostates].[1505]… Chastity is beyond healthy nature, let alone sinful nature.… There is no enticement so bad as these commands [of celibacy] and vows, forged by the devil himself.” Youthful religious were to be dragged out of their monasteries as quickly as possible, and priests were to learn that theirs was but a “Carnival ordination.” “Holy Orders are all jugglery and in God’s sight they have no value.”[1506]

Hence contemporaries, considering events from the standpoint just described, must needs have told themselves that Luther’s success, unexpected and astounding as it was, could not after all be laid down to the “greatness” of any one single man.[1507]

What, moreover, must have been the thoughts of the observer regarding the permanence of Luther’s work who lived to see the master’s own Lutheranism falling to pieces, according to the statements of his most zealous admirers,[1508] as soon as he was dead? Luther himself almost seemed ready to ring down the curtain on the premature termination of the great tragedy of which he could not but despair.[1509]

In the very year of Luther’s death Cochlæus passed in review the havoc wrought in the Church, embodying his observations in the work he had just finished and was to publish three years later, viz. his “De Actis et Scriptis Lutheri.”

These pages seem still to tremble with the excitement of the terrible period they describe. It is impressive to hear this voice of the Catholic spokesman coming as it were from Luther’s tomb and telling of the devastation of the storm raised by the Wittenberg professor. As Kawerau says, Cochlæus himself could point to a life “which, year after year, ever since 1521 had been devoted feverishly to the ecclesiastical debates of the day in which he was so keenly concerned and consumed in ceaseless controversy [with Lutheranism].”[1510] The grey-headed scholar, “illuminated and inspired as he was by the truest spirit of Christianity,”[1511] had once in 1533 declared: “Whatever I write now or at any time against Luther, I write for the glory of God, the service of the truth and the good of my neighbour. For I believe firmly that Luther is a malicious liar, heretic and rebel and I can find nothing but this in his books and in my own conscience.… I am not, however, bitter or hostile to Luther personally, but merely to his wickedness and vices. Were he to desist I would gladly go and fetch back so learned a man from Rome or Compostella and give him my love and my service.”[1512]

Cochlæus calls to mind first of all the course of public events in Germany. At Ratisbon, where he was staying, the Diet of 1546 was opened with great pomp by Charles V at the very time Cochlæus was penning the Preface to his work. He relates how the same Kaiser had declared at the Diet of Worms in 1521 in the edict against Luther that “his writings contain hardly anything but food for dissensions, schism, war, murder, robbery, conflagrations, and a great apostasy of the Christians.”[1513] “The times are grave and perilous,” so his warning had run: “Oh, that they may not mean the disgrace of our country!”[1514] Now, however, Cochlæus sees with grief that “Luther has brought nearly all Germany into shame and confusion.” “Our fatherland has lost all its former beauty,” he exclaims, “and its Imperial power is shattered.” He trembles at the sight of the dangers within and without.[1515]

“The mischief caused by Luther’s revolt is so great that it is out of comparison worse than the effects of even the most unhappy war. Never indeed in the whole of history have the miseries of war caused such injury to Christendom as the blows dealt us by this heresy.” In its consequences it was worse than the triumphal progress of Arianism in early Christian times. He instances the Peasant Rebellion and the frightful destruction that followed in its wake; also the machinations of political alliances, hostile alike to the Church and the State, the loosening of the common bonds that unite the Christian peoples, and the decline of the authority of the rulers, which was “attacked and dragged in the mire by Luther and thus rendered contemptible in the eyes of the masses.”[1516]

Even more loudly does he bewail the ruin of so many immortal souls; owing to Luther, countless numbers have been torn from the bosom of the Mother Church, founded by Christ, and set on the road to eternal damnation. No tears could suffice to bewail this the greatest of all misfortunes. Piety has declined everywhere and the new preaching of faith alone has lamed the practice of good works. “From every class and calling the former zeal for good works has fled.” He also ruthlessly describes the effect of Luther’s doctrines and example on Catholics. “The clergy no longer do their duty in celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass and reciting the Church’s office and Hours; to the monks and nuns their Rule is no longer as sacred as it used to be. The charity of the rich, the rulers, and the great has dried up, the people no longer flock to divine worship, their respect for the priesthood, their benevolence and pity for the poor are coming to an end. Discipline and decorum are tottering everywhere and have fared worst of all in our family life. We see about us a dissolute younger generation, which, owing to Luther’s suggestions and his constant attacks on all authority ecclesiastical and secular, has cast off all shame and restraint. On anyone admonishing them they retort with a falsely interpreted Bible text, an invention of pure wantonness, such as ‘increase and multiply,’ etc. So far have things already gone that virginity and continence have become a matter of disgrace and suspicion.” In even darker colours does he paint the sad picture of the moral decline among the Protestants: Morals are trampled under foot, reverence and fear of God have been extinguished, obedience has become a byword, boldness in sinning gains the upper hand and “freedom” of the worst kind reigns supreme.[1517]

Full of grief he comes at last to speak of the man who was responsible for all this misery. Bugenhagen had boasted of Luther’s prophecy that, if in life he had been the Papacy’s plague, in death he would be its death. But the Papacy still lives and will continue to live because Christ’s promise stands. “Luther, however, was the plague of our Germany during his lifetime … and, alive or dead, he was his own plague and destruction.”[1518]

“Woe,” so he concludes, “to his godless panegyrists who call evil good and good evil, and confuse darkness with light, and light with darkness!”[1519]

3. Luther’s Fate in the First Struggles for his Spiritual Heritage

Luther’s reputation was to suffer a sudden and tragic blow owing to the success of the Imperial arms in the War of Schmalkalden.

Hardly had the grave closed over him than, in the following year, after the battle of Mühlheim on April 24, 1547, won with the assistance of Duke Maurice of Saxony, the Kaiser’s troops entered Wittenberg. A notable change took place in the public position of Lutheranism when the vanquished Elector, Johann Frederick, was forced to resign his electoral dignity in favour of Maurice and to follow the Emperor as a captive. His abdication and the surrender of his fortresses to the Emperor was signed by him on May 19 in Luther’s own city of Wittenberg. The Landgrave of Hesse too found himself forced at Halle to submit unconditionally to the overlords of the Empire and to see Duke Henry of Brunswick released from captivity and honoured by the Emperor in the same city.

The dreaded Schmalkalden League, Luther’s shield and protection for so many years, was, so to speak, annihilated over night.

Luther’s theological friends were also made to feel the consequences. Flacius, after the taking of Wittenberg, fled for a time to Brunswick. George Major, Luther’s intimate friend and associate, also escaped, but returned later. Amsdorf was obliged to give up the bishopric of Naumburg of which he had assumed possession, hand it over to the lawful Bishop Julius von Pflug, and hasten to Magdeburg, the new stronghold of the Lutheran spirit.

It is true that Luther’s cause soon recovered, at least politically speaking, from the defeat it had suffered in the War of Schmalkalden; the wounds inflicted on it in the theological quarrels among themselves of its own representatives were, however, more deep and lasting. Here Luther’s prediction was indeed fulfilled to the letter, viz. that his pupils would be the ruin of his doctrines.

The Osiandric, Majorite, Adiaphoristic and Synergistic Controversies

The theological warfare which followed on Luther’s decease opened with the Osiandric controversy which arose from the modifications of Luther’s idea of justification introduced subsequent to 1549 by Andreas Osiander, pastor and professor of theology at Königsberg. After Osiander’s death in 1552 the struggle was carried on by the Court preacher Johann Funk who held like views. Johann Brenz also defended Osiander’s opinion, whereas Melanchthon, Flacius Illyricus, Johann Æpinus, Joachim Westphal, Joachim Mörlin and others were opposed to it. Duke Albert of Prussia was for a long time a patron of Osiander’s doctrine, but was persuaded later to alter his views, and his Court preacher Funk did likewise. The old Lutherans, however, continued the struggle against Funk and, in 1566, owing to the charges brought against him by the Estates of abusing his position and of having violently championed “heretical doctrines,” he was beheaded.[1520] Osiander, however, the author of this new “heresy,” had himself been by no means wanting in Lutheran zeal where Catholics were concerned. Already in 1549 he wrote a tract against the Interim entitled: “On the new Idol and Antichrist at Babel,” in which he lashed those who “were sneaking back to Antichrist under cover of the Interim.”

The second, or Majorite controversy broke out at Wittenberg itself, and like the ones which followed was called forth by the opposition of the Lutheran zealots to any Melanchthonian modifications of Luther’s doctrines. George Major, professor at Wittenberg, and subsequently Superintendent at Eisleben, backed by Justus Menius, Superintendent at Gotha, had the courage to declare that works were necessary for salvation, and that, without works, no one could be saved. For this he and Menius were branded as “heretics” by Flacius Illyricus, Nicholas Amsdorf, Johann Wigand, Joachim Mörlin and Alexius Prætorius. It was in the midst of this passionate wrangle, which deeply agitated the ranks of the preachers and disturbed the congregations, that Amsdorf, with a determination and defiance equal to Luther’s own went to the extremes of publishing his tract entitled “That the proposition ‘good works are harmful to salvation,’ is a sound and Christian one.”[1521] Flacius brought a writing against Major to a close with the pious wish that Christ would speedily crush the head of the serpent. Major, the confidant of Luther whom he had once despatched to attend the religious Conference at Ratisbon, was now obliged to give in; he made a shameful recantation. Menius, however, was denounced to the preachers and people as a “Papist,” and, in spite of his weak compliance, was unable to maintain his position against the inquisition put into motion by the higher powers. Although he resigned his office as Visitor and submitted patiently to a reprimand from the Court, he was obliged to leave the land; he besought the sovereign in vain for protection against his theological adversaries and freedom to communicate with the “dear gentlemen” at Wittenberg. The Town Council of Gotha was forbidden to give him a testimonial to the purity of his doctrine, and he himself, in spite of his protest that he was as much heir to Luther’s doctrine as Flacius, was summoned to take his trial before a sort of religious Synod at Eisenach in 1556, which also ousted him from his Superintendency. “He died on Aug. 11, 1558, from the effects of what he had undergone.”[1522]

In the third great controversy, the Adiaphoristic, Flacius Illyricus behaved with great violence, indeed his extreme Lutheran views were the cause of the quarrel which in itself well illustrates the pettiness and acrimony of those concerned in it. The question under dispute was whether certain “indifferent matters” (ἀδιάφορα) sanctioned in the Augsburg Interim of 1547 might be allowed in Protestant circles even though Luther during his lifetime had frowned on them. Under the Elector Maurice the theologians and Estates of the Saxon Electorate had answered in the affirmative. This answer embodied in the so-called “Leipzig Interim,” was firmly contradicted by Flacius. It is true that what was in question was not only ceremonies, images, hymns and such-like external things but also the rites of Confirmation and Extreme Unction, and, in a certain sense, the use of Penance, the celebration of a kind of Mass and the veneration of Saints. Flacius was supported by Nicholas Gallus, Johann Wigand, Nicholas Amsdorf, Joachim Westphal, Caspar Aquila, Johann Aurifaber, Anton Otto and Matthæus Judex. These poured forth a stream of angry tracts against the opposite party, the Wittenbergers, who, however, defended themselves with a will, viz. against Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, George Major, and Paul Eber, and their friends elsewhere, such as the Provost of Magdeburg and Meissen, Prince George of Anhalt, Bernard Ziegler and Johann Pfeffinger of Leipsig, Justus Menius of Gotha, etc. Even the use of lights on the altar and of surplices were to these zealots “Popish abominations” and a sign of the abandoning of all that Luther had won; they even complained, though untruly, that the Wittenberg theologians no longer declared the Pope to be Antichrist.[1523] Bugenhagen, Luther’s right hand man at Wittenberg, had to hear himself charged by Flacius, Amsdorf and Gallus with having denied and falsified Luther’s doctrines and with teaching something not far short of Popery. These Adiaphorists, wrote Amsdorf, “in the name and under the semblance of the Word of God, seek to persuade us to worship the Antichrist at Rome, the Whore of Babylon and the Beast on which she is seated (Apoc. xvii.).” Such dangerous men he brands as “belly servers” “who seek to make terms with the world.” He himself on the other hand was ready to meet the contempt of the world for the falling off in the number of Luther’s true followers, hence on the title-page of the new edition of Luther’s works, which he commenced when the quarrel was at its height (1555), he printed the consoling verses: “Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased the Father to give you a Kingdom” (Luke xii. 32), and “In the world you shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (John xvi. 33).[1524] Towards the end of the Preface he consoles those who shared his way of looking at things, and, as Luther had done before, he alludes to the near end of the world, when everything would be righted.

At the time when the private judgment Luther had preached was thus bearing fruit we hear Melanchthon groaning: “You see how many teachers are fighting against us in our own Churches; every day new foes spring up, as it were, from the blood of the Titans; gladly would I leave these regions, nay, shake off my mortal coil, to escape the fury of such men.”[1525] Melanchthon too was accused of indirectly promoting Popery. An obstinate opponent of his was that very Johann Aurifaber who had been present at Luther’s death and who subsequently published the Table-Talk. Melanchthon included him in 1556 among the “unlearned fanatics, men filled with furious hate, lickspittles at the Court who seek to curry favour with the populace,” and with whom it was impossible to come to any understanding.[1526] Aurifaber, like many others of his party, was dismissed from his post as Court preacher at Weimar, and, subsequently, when pastor at Erfurt, was excommunicated on account of his teaching, particularly on original sin. His opponents he persisted in charging with Popery.

Against any relapse into Popery the Lutherans were well guarded since 1555, by the Religious Peace of Augsburg and its principle: “Cuius regio, illius et religio.” This, however, produced no inward unity, rather the opposite. The war among the theologians on account of the “adiaphora” still went on in the Protestant camp. The hopes entertained of the Protestant Convention at Coswig (1556) suffered shipwreck owing to Melanchthon’s disinclination to come to terms. Nor did the Conference at Altenburg (1568) settle things. It was not until 1577-1580 that the formulas of Concord established a “modus vivendi” by leaving to each individual Church the decision about the “adiaphora.” Flacius himself was compelled to leave Wittenberg early in the controversy. He went to Magdeburg, but fell into disgrace on account of his tendency to insist on the Church’s independence and had to go into exile to Ratisbon, Antwerp, Frankfurt, Strasburg, wandering about from place to place until, at last, he, Luther’s most ardent champion, died in want and poverty at Frankfurt-on-the-Main (1575).

With the Synergistic controversy the name of Flacius is likewise very closely linked.

Here, however, the question on which minds were divided was a vital one. Many refused to accept Luther’s rigid doctrine that, in Justification, the Holy Ghost worked on man as on a senseless block. Johann Pfeffinger of Leipsig agreed with Melanchthon in assuming some sort of co-operation (“synergia”) of the human will. In this he had the Leipsig Interim on his side; eventually Victorinus Strigel of Jena, George Major, Paul Eber, Christian Lasius and others also embraced this view. Against them stood the zealots like Flacius and Amsdorf, the latter of whom boldly attacked Pfeffinger’s “De libertate voluntatis” and insisted on the unfreedom of the will. Certain of the theologians of Jena also distinguished themselves by their opposition to the Synergists.

Flacius Illyricus went to great extremes in his antagonism to Synergism. He asserted that man was powerless by means of free will to effect anything in the matter of his salvation because “original sin was a ‘substance’ for otherwise holiness too would not be a ‘substance’”; the soul was by nature a mirror or image of Satan; it was itself original sin, and original sin was no mere ‘accident.’ It was impossible for Luther’s doctrine to be carried to its legitimate conclusion more ruthlessly than in this theory of Flacius. “It was utter demonism, was this doctrine of the substantial bedevilment of human nature.”[1527] At this point, however, Luther’s true friends drew back: Johann Wigand and Tilman Hesshus, professors at Jena, withstood Flacius, arguing that he was a traitor to Lutheranism and that his teaching was Manichæan. Like some others Cyriacus Spangenberg, then Dean of Mansfeld, was accused of favouring Flacius and of teaching that Satan had created man, that sin was baptised, and that pregnant women bore within them young devils. As was usual in such controversies, the people took an active share in the quarrel.

When the Elector August of Saxony assumed the government of the Duchy of Saxony, Hesshus and Wigand were deprived of their offices and driven from the land. Nine Superintendents and 102 preachers lost their posts at the same time. Hesshus had already tasted exile as pastor of Magdeburg, when in 1562 the Town Council expelled him from the town with his wife and child on account of his too emphatic enforcement of the strictest Lutheranism.

Spangenberg too had to flee when the administrator of Magdeburg called in the troops against the Flacian preachers. Cruel measures were used to force the burghers to accept the doctrine professed by the governor; the bodies of relatives of the Count of Mansfeld were even exhumed and reinterred in places untainted with “substantialist error.”

Spangenberg’s fate was that of many faithful Lutherans.

Having made his escape to Thuringia disguised as a midwife he there accepted a position as pastor, but was again driven out in 1590 owing to the rigid views on original sin he had imbibed from Luther. From that time he lived by his pen until his death at Strasburg in 1604. He declared that he was suffering on behalf of the articles on sin and righteousness, but that he was determined to remain “a staunch old disciple of Luther’s.” The behaviour of the Wittenberg theologians was a source of great grief to Spangenberg: They have not only fallen away from Luther’s doctrine in ten or twelve articles, but also speak of him in the most unseemly manner: “They call Luther a ‘philauticus,’ i.e. a man who thinks highly of no one but himself, and whom nothing pleases but what he has himself said or done; item, a ‘philonisticus’ and ‘eristicus,’ a quarrelsome fellow who always insisted he was in the right, believing no good of anyone, yielding to no one, only seeking his own honour and unable to endure that anyone else should be highly thought of.” “His books [so they say] contain things that are very Manichæan, and others that resemble the old heresies.”[1528]

Nor was Spangenberg doing an injustice to the Wittenberg professors when he charged them with having thrown Luther over.

Cryptocalvinism

At the time when Flacianism was being suppressed by force, a trend of opinion known as Cryptocalvinism had the upper hand in the Saxon Electorate where it was causing grave troubles. Such was the name given to the gradual leavening of the pure Lutheran doctrine with elements derived from Calvinism. In other Protestant districts on German soil Calvinism took root openly, and either supplanted Luther’s teaching, or prevented its springing up. This was the case in the Palatinate, where the Elector Frederick III exerted his influence in favour of Calvinism with the help of the Calvinistic professors of Heidelberg Caspar Olevian and Zacharias Ursinus. The Elector himself told his son-in-law Johann Frederick of Saxony, that though for more than forty years the “pure doctrine” of the Evangel and the holy Word of God had been proclaimed, “little amendment of life had followed,” and, in “excessive eating and drinking, gambling, avarice, immorality, envy and hatred we almost outdo the Papists.”[1529] He also said that it was not merely the lack of morality in Lutheranism that prejudiced him against it, but that he had decided to introduce Calvinism into his land because he had discovered in Luther’s writings many errors and contradictions which he must remove, particularly in his views on the “bodily presence of Christ” in the Sacrament of the Altar.[1530]

The spirit of criticism which Luther had let loose in the Saxon Electorate grew among some of the Cryptocalvinists into scepticism, though they boasted of being great admirers of Luther. This scepticism was first directed against the mystery of mysteries. Luther’s own uncertainty regarding the Sacrament of the Altar, his halt mid-way, and his strange theory of the ubiquity of Christ, were in themselves a challenge. Around Melanchthon there grouped themselves at Wittenberg and Leipsig men, who, by a prudent introduction of the Calvinistic view of the Supper according to which Christ is only received spiritually, sought to question at the same time two of Luther’s pet dogmas, viz. the indwelling of Christ in the Bread at the moment of reception (Impanation) and the ubiquitous albeit spiritualised bodily presence of Christ. Hardly six years had elapsed since Luther’s death when the Hamburg preacher, Joachim Westphal, strove to set up a barrier against the threatening inroad of Cryptocalvinism in his “Farrago Opinionum de Cœna Domini”(1552). The Elector August, who assumed the reigns of government in the Saxon Electorate (1553-1586), for quite twenty years of his reign was entirely committed to Cryptocalvinism. Among the theologians and Court officials who were responsible for his attitude were, particularly, Melanchthon’s son-in-law, Caspar Peucer, Court physician to the Elector, the Court preacher Christian Schütz, Johann Stössel, Superintendent of Pirna and Privy Councillor Georg Craco, the most influential person in the government of the Saxon Electorate. A “Corpus doctrinæ Philippicum” was drawn up in 1560 from Melanchthon’s writings by these so-called “Philippists.” In 1571 a Catechism appeared, which, like the “Corpus” had the Elector’s approval. The doctrine it contained was endorsed by an assembly of theologians at Dresden in the same year, and it was intended to enforce it as the true faith throughout the land.

As might have been expected, the opposition of the “Gnesiolutherans” against these doings in the Saxon Electorate, the original home of Lutheranism, was very strong.

Protests were registered by Martin Chemnitz, the “aristarch of Brunswick” as the opposite party called him, and by the Jena theologians, as, for instance, Wigand, Hesshus, Johann Frederick Cœlestinus and Timotheus Kirchner. At Jena the new system was branded as a “fresh incursion of devilish spirit” and, in a “Warning” against the Wittenbergers, it was stated: “They want to make an end of Luther, that is to say, of his doctrine, and at the same time to appear innocent of so doing.”[1531] Similarly in the following year, 1572, a writing entitled “Von den Fallstricken” declared: “They trample Luther’s doctrine under foot, laugh at it, ridicule it and anathematise it in the most scandalous manner,” etc.[1532] The Jena divines, so they asserted, were alone in having the true unalloyed doctrine which they were anxious to keep free from all the extravagances and errors of the Pope, the Turks, blasphemers of the Sacrament, Schwenckfeldians, Servetians, Arians, Antinomians, Interimists, Adiaphorists, Synergists, Majorites, Enthusiasts, Anabaptists, Manichæans and other sects.[1533]

The divergencies were so considerable and far-reaching, and the falling away from Luther’s doctrine so great, that Aurifaber, who boasted of having closed the eyes of his immortal master and of being soaked in his spirit, prefaced as follows the collection of the Table-Talk, which he gave to the world in 1566: “His doctrine is now so despised, and, in the German lands men have become so tired, weary and sick of it, that they no longer care to hear his name mentioned, nor do they much esteem the testimony of his books. It has come about that, if one wishes to find Dr. Martin Luther’s doctrine pure and unfalsified anywhere in the German lands, one has to put on strong spectacles and look very closely; this is a dreadful thing to learn.” Aurifaber has this sole consolation, viz. that Luther, because he had foreseen this state of things, had proved himself a “true prophet.”[1534]

Another writer speaks in the following terms of the decay of Luther’s doctrines and the utter contempt for his person: The endless benefits Luther brought to Germany—of these the author enumerates eighteen—those who now profess the Evangel treat with the “most shocking and gruesome unthank,” doing so not merely by their “evil life” but by “scorning, decrying and condemning” both his benefits and his faith. People refuse any longer to follow the great teacher in his chief doctrines “about the Law and the true knowledge of sin,” “true justice,” “the distinction between Law and Gospel,” and about the holy sacraments. “This worthy sendsman of God” meets with “shameful contempt,” nay, with something worse than contempt, seeing that, “to boot, he is abused, reviled and defamed by most people,” which “is all the more hard in that not only his person but also the wholesome doctrine and divine truth revealed to us by Luther the man of God, is too often contemptuously rejected by the greater number.” The author, in his concern, also fears that as people were also bent on introducing changes in the language “in a few years not much will be left of Luther’s pure German speech.”[1535]

At the Court at Dresden, however, the opposition to the Cryptocalvinism described above gradually gathered strength. Finally the Elector August, too, was won over, partly on political, partly on theological grounds. As early as 1573 August declared: “It would not take much to make him send all the rogues to the devil,”[1536] and, on another occasion that, “for the sake of three persons he would not expose his lands to the harm wrought by the Sacramentarians.”[1537] When at last an unmistakably Calvinistic writing by Joachim Curæus on the Supper was published by a Leipzig printer, known to be well disposed to the Wittenberger party, the fury of the Elector broke loose and he declared at a meeting at Torgau “The venomous plant must now be torn up by the roots.”[1538] In his name the so-called Articles of Torgau denoting more or less a return to Luther’s doctrines were drawn up by an ecclesiastical court. All the theologians who refused to subscribe to them were to be “arrested.” On this the Leipzig theologians all signed the Articles, that they agreed in their hearts to all the things contained in Luther’s writings including his controversial writings against the Heavenly Prophets and his “Kurtz Bekentnis” on the Supper.[1539] Among the many Cryptocalvinists who submitted without any protest was Nicholas Selnecker, the editor of Luther’s Table-Talk. In matters of faith he followed the bidding of the secular authorities, and on one occasion, wrote to the Elector that “he would gladly crawl on hands and knees to Dresden only to escape the suspicion which had been cast on him.”[1540]

Among the Wittenbergers, on the other hand, four theologians refused their assent: “Luther’s books,” they said, “were not positive; sometimes he wrote one way, sometimes another; besides which there were dirty spots and objectionable things in his controversial writings.”[1541] Such was the opinion of Widebram, Pezel, Moller and, particularly, Caspar Cruciger. The latter, a personal friend of Luther’s, called the Articles of Torgau “a medley of all sorts of things which Luther himself, had he been alive, would not have signed.” His fate like that of the three others was removal from his office and banishment from the country.

Of the four former favourites at Court Stössel the Superintendent though he craved pardon was kept a prisoner until his death; the Court-preacher Schütz, in spite of his promise to hold his tongue, was shut up in prison for twelve years; the Privy Councillor Craco was flung into the filthiest dungeon of the Pleissenburg at Leipzig, tortured on the rack for four hours and died with mangled limbs on a miserable layer of straw (March 16, 1575).[1542] Finally Peucer, professor of medicine and history, who, owing to his influence, had once controlled the University, because he declared he would not “abjure the doctrine of the Sacrament that had been rooted in his heart for thirty-three years and adopt Luther’s instead,” was left pining in a damp, dirty dungeon in the Pleissenburg and was constantly harried with injunctions “to desist from his devilish errors” and “not to fancy himself wiser and more learned than His Highness the Elector and his distinguished theologians, who had also searched into and pondered over this Article [of the Sacrament].”[1543] He continued to languish in prison, after the death of his wife, Magdalene, Melanchthon’s daughter, sorrowing over his motherless children, until after wellnigh twelve years of captivity he was released at the instance of a prince. “The behaviour of the Elector and Electress and their advisers towards him gives us a glimpse into an abyss of injustice, brutality and malice made all the more revolting by the hypocritical religious cant and pretended zeal for the Church under which they were disguised. In spite of all the attempts made of old as well as later to excuse the course of the so-called cryptocalvinistic controversies, it remains—especially the case of Peucer—one of the darkest pages in the annals of the Lutheran Church and of civilisation in the 16th Century.”[1544]

But the intolerance displayed by orthodoxy in that struggle had been taught it by Luther. As has been shown already, he had urged that, whoever advocated blasphemous articles, even if not guilty of sedition, should be put to death by the authorities; the sovereign must take care that “there is but one religion in each place”; above all, such was the opinion of his friends,—the sovereign should “put a Christian bit in the mouth of all the clergy.”[1545]

The so-called formula of concord (1580)

Owing partly to the wish of the secular authorities for some clearer rule, partly to the sight of the confusion in doctrine and the bad effects of the quarrels on faith, there arose a widespread desire for greater unity based on some new and thoroughly Lutheran formulary.

The Confession of Augsburg and the Apologia were found insufficient; they contained no decisions on the countless controversies which had since sprung up. Thus it came about that “one German province and town after another attempted to satisfy its desire for unity of doctrine by means of a confession of faith of its own.… This in itself, in view of the dismemberment of Germany and the attitude of the Emperor towards the reformation, would necessarily have resulted in a splitting up of the Lutheran Church into countless sects unless some means was found of counteracting individualism and of uniting the Lutherans in one body.”[1546]

It was, however, the politicians, who, in their own interests, were the chief promoters of union.

Elector August of Saxony wishful of achieving the desired end “by means of a princely dictum” led the way in 1576 with the so-called Book of Torgau.

This work was drawn up by the theologians Jakob Andreæ, Martin Chemnitz, David Chytræus, Andreas Musculus and Wolfgang Körner. The Book of Torgau was subsequently revised by Caspar Selnecker and reissued under the title of the Book of Bergen (1577). It was hoped that it would become the theological statute-book for all the Protestant Churches; the Protestant Estates of the Empire were to accept it and it was proposed by the theologians that all the Lutheran preachers and school-teachers should be required to give their assent to it.[1547]

Selnecker supported this attempt by referring to the Council of Trent which had been successfully concluded in 1563. They ought, so he said, at last to draw up a “common body of doctrine” as an “evangelical counterblast to the damnable conciliabulum of Trent”; he adds frankly that this was essential, “in order to check the corruption of morals amongst the Evangelical people which was growing worse and worse”; at the same time he wished to see “a united front against the idolatrous Popedom and its devilish satellites the Jesuits, with all their verminous following.”[1548]

Hopes of preserving Luther’s work by means of the new Formula had risen high since Frederick, the zealous Calvinistic Elector of the Palatinate, had been called away by death in Oct., 1576; his successor, the Elector Louis held Lutheran views and was determined to make a stand for Lutheranism.

In spite, however, of the latter’s patronage, and notwithstanding the efforts of the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg, the Formula, as Louis of the Palatinate sorrowfully admitted, was not approved by even one-half of the Protestant Princes and townships. One of the strongest objectors was Landgrave William of Hesse. He did not hesitate to abuse Luther’s memory in the rudest language, and asserted that the latter had written “contradictory things.”[1549]

The Unionists, not satisfied with their partial success, published on June 25, 1580, the “Formula Concordiæ,” consisting of an “Epitome” and a “Solida declaratio.” This document occupies an important place in the history of Lutheranism.

The doctrines of original sin, unfreedom, justification, the Supper, the ubiquity of Christ and of the “communicatio idiomatum” were taken as they had been by Luther, though they are often stated with deliberate ambiguity. Thrusts at Melanchthon, not to speak of Calvin, are found more particularly in the “Declaratio.”

The permanent rift with Calvinism was as strongly emphasised, as that with the Papacy. One of the propositions taken from the Articles of Schmalkalden ran: “All Christians ought to shun the Pope and his members and followers as the kingdom of Antichrist, and execrate it as Christ has commanded.”[1550]

The cement, however, which was to bind together the antagonistic Lutheran views and schools was not very durable. The fact that “Melanchthon’s memory had been completely blotted out,”[1551] or that the Pope had been condemned afresh, did not suffice to bring people together, nor did much good come of the smoothing over, toning down and evasions to which it had been necessary to have recourse in the work in order to arrive at a written basis of outward unity. Over and above all this it became known that the Protestant Estates were at liberty to add printed prefaces of their own to the Concord, in which they might, if they chose, set forth their own theological position, and thus interpret as they liked the text of the Concord, so long as they did not interfere with the text itself.[1552] It was also known that the father of the whole scheme, Jakob Andreæ, Inspector General of the churches of Saxony, had quite openly made of the acceptance of the Formula a pure formality and had told the Nurembergers who showed signs of antipathy that all that was required was their signature, and that this would not prevent their being and remaining of the same opinion as before.[1553]

The authors of the Concord, however, displayed such mutual distrust, nay hatred of each other, as greatly to obscure even the origin of the Concord and to raise but scant hopes of its future success. Andreæ bewailed Selnecker’s “diabolical tricks”; he was very well aware that the latter would be delighted were he (Andreæ) strung up on the gallows. Selnecker, on the other hand, complained loudly of Andreæ as a dishonest, egotistical man; he accused Andreæ of calling him: “a damned rascal, a good-for-nothing scoundrel, an arch-villain and a hellish thief.”[1554] Andreæ was equally severe in his censure of the church-councillors and theologians for the part they took in the matrimonial questions: “After a theologian had dealt with marriage cases two years in the Consistory,” he said, “he would by that time be well fitted to be appointed keeper of a brothel.”[1555] We hear an echo of Luther in the coarse language his followers were in the habit of using against each other.

In spite of all this the Concord constitutes the greatest and most important step ever taken by Lutheranism to define its position. The year 1580 gave to the Lutheran Churches a certain definite status, though, among the theologians, the controversies continued to rage as before.

The Concord itself, the supposed new palladium, became a theological bone of contention. The following years were taken up with wild quarrels about the Formula of Concord. At Strasburg alone in three years the different parties hurled against each other approximately forty screeds, full of vulgar abuse, and the literary feuds had their aftermath in the streets in the shape of hand-to-hand scuffles between the students and the burghers. Even at Wittenberg the quarrels went on.

The Calvinistic Count Palatine, Johann Casimir, notorious for his bloody deeds on behalf of the French Huguenots, instructed one of his theologians, Zacharias Ursinus, to draw up the so-called “Neustadt Admonition” in which the adherents of the Concord were accused of “making an idol of Luther”; it was a mere farce when the Concord professed to subordinate his books to Holy Scripture, because in reality they were exalted into a rule of faith and treated as the standard of doctrine; all subscribers to the Augsburg Confession were wont without exception to appeal to these writings whatever their opinions were; as a matter of fact, owing to the errors, exaggerations and contradictions they contained it was possible to quote passages from Luther’s writings in support of almost anything. His controversial works, above all, had no claim to any authority, though it was to these that the followers of the Concord preferred to appeal. “Here, as his own followers must admit,” so the “Admonition” declares, “he had been carried away into excitement and passion which exceeded all bounds and had been guilty of assertions which contradicted his own earlier declarations, and which he himself had often been under pressure obliged to withdraw or modify.”[1556]

There was, however, a large party which did not make an “idol” of Luther, but openly rejected his teaching. It was in this that Aurifaber saw a fulfilment of Luther’s prophecy of the coming extinction of his doctrine among his followers. As early as 1566 he said that the master had not been wrong in his idea, that “the Word of God had seldom persisted for more than forty years in one place.” “The holy man,” he goes on, “had frequently told the theologians and his table companions that, though his teaching had thus far grown and thriven, yet it would begin to dwindle and collapse when its course was finished. And he had declared that his doctrine had stood highest and been at its best at the Diet of Augsburg, anno 1530. But that now it would go downhill.” That, as stated above, the Word of God seldom persisted in one place for more than forty years he had proved “by many examples” taken from the times of the Judges, Kings and Prophets; even the teaching of Christ had not remained pure and free from error for longer “in the land of the Jews, in Greece, Asia and elsewhere.”[1557]

4. Mutual Influence of the Two Camps. Growing Strength of the Catholic Church

One cannot but recognise in the history of the 16th century the religious influence indirectly exerted on one another by Lutheranism and Catholicism, an influence which indeed proved advantageous to both.

Luther’s Churches

To begin with the phenomena grouped around the Formula of Concord we may say, that the movement towards greater religious unity, among the Lutherans was largely stimulated by the brilliant and to Luther’s adherents quite unexpected example of Catholic unity resulting from the religious struggle and particularly from the Council of Trent. Selnecker had insisted that Protestants must endeavour to produce an “evangelical counterblast” to Catholic theology and the Council.[1558] In the case of many others too, it was the harmony and united front of the Catholics at the Council of Trent that served as an incentive to create a similar positive bond between their own Churches. Many once more mooted the question of a Protestant General Council, but others, as for instance Andreæ, pointed out how impossible this would be and what a danger it would involve of even greater dissensions. It was also of advantage to the Protestant writers on theology to have a clearly formulated statement of the Catholic doctrine set before them in the definitions of a General Council and explained in the “Roman Catechism.” Though Luther had distorted beyond recognition the Catholic doctrines he attacked, it was less possible than formerly to doubt—after so solemn a declaration—what the teaching of the despised Church was, or, with a good conscience, to deny how alien to her was the anti-Christian doctrine of which she had been accused. Catholic polemics, too, who were growing both in numbers and in strength, must necessarily have opened the eyes of many to the interior continuity, the firm foundation and the logical sequence of the Catholic propositions and, at least in the case of the learned and unprejudiced, led them to regret keenly the absence of clearness and logic on their own side. The latter holds good in particular of the untenability of the conciliatory Lutheran theology which sought to gloss over all the contradictions and which had given rise to the phantom of the Concordia.

“In the work of unifying Protestant theology,” Janssen justly writes, “no slight service was rendered by the Catholic controversialists and apologists and also and especially by the Tridentine Council and the Roman Catechism. Those who opposed to the hurly-burly and confusion of the new teaching the settled, uniform system of a theology, harmonious and consistent in all its parts, thereby made manifest to the dissentient theologians the defects and the glaring discords which Protestantism presented both in its formal and material principles. The sharply defined terminology and the wealth of speculative matter which they offered stood here also in very good stead.”[1559]

This thought also reminds us of the great store of spiritual treasure that Luther’s Churches carried away with them when they severed their connection with Mother Church. Who can question that Luther bequeathed to his Churches much of the heritage of mysteries which Christianity brought to mankind? Faith in the Holy Trinity; in the Father as Source of all being; in the Eternal Son as the Redeemer and Mediator; in the Holy Spirit as the organ of sanctity; again, in the Incarnation, in Christ and His works, miracles and Resurrection; finally a firm belief in an eternal reward, in the again-rising of every man and the everlasting life of the just; in short all the consoling articles of the Apostles’ Creed must be included amongst the treasures which Luther not only took over from the olden Church but, in his own fashion, even defended with warmth and energy against those who differed from him.[1560]

On Catholic principles we may broadmindedly admit that countless well-meaning men since Luther’s day have found in the doctrine he preached the satisfaction of their religious cravings. Very many erred and still err “in good faith” and “with no stubbornness.”[1561] But wherever there is good faith and an honest conviction of having the best, there a religious life is possible. “This the Catholic Church does not deny when she claims to be the one ark of salvation. One would think that this had been repeated often enough to make any misapprehension impossible on the part of Protestants. As to how far this result is due to the Protestant Churches and how far to the Grace of God which instils into every willing heart peace and blessing, is no open question seeing that the Grace of God alone is the foundation of a truly religious life.”[1562]

But if, on the one hand, Lutheranism owes much to the ancient Church, on the other, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the revival in the Catholic Church during the 16th century was indirectly furthered by Luther and his work.

Progress and Gains of Catholicism

There were Catholic contemporaries who pointed out that the going over to Luther of many who were members of the Church merely in name, and whose lives did not correspond with her demands, had a wholesome effect on the Church’s body. This held good of the monasteries in particular. In many places relief was felt and a revival of discipline became possible when those, who had entered the religious life from worldly motives, took their departure in order, as Luther himself lamented, to seek greater comfort in the bosom of the new Church. “God has purged His floor and separated the chaff from the wheat,” wrote the Cistercian Abbot, Wolfgang Mayer.[1563] Augustine Alveld, the Franciscan, portrayed with indignant words the evil lives of many apostate monks and declared with relief that: “Those who were of the same pack and lived among us have now, thanks be to God, all of them run away from their convents and institutions.”[1564] In lesser degree the same was true of the laity.

“Indirectly, though very much against his will, Luther helped to promote the regeneration of the Catholic Church by means of the Council of Trent.”[1565] It was his apostasy which made possible that gathering of the Bishops which hitherto external obstacles, shortsightedness, indolence and worldly aims had prevented.

Theological studies profited by the struggle with Protestantism. More attention was bestowed on the question of man’s natural and supernatural equipment; the dangers with which the excessive spread of Nominalism had threatened the doctrine of Grace were effectually circumvented, and the indispensable need of Grace for any work meritorious for heaven was more strongly emphasised. Thus, on the whole, there was a gain which we must not underrate, a new development of theological lore and a clearer formulation of dogma on threatened points similar to that which had resulted from the great controversies in Patristic times.

Under the Divine guidance the Church also more than made up for the numbers torn from her, by the rapid growth of her missions in distant parts of the world, where the voyages of discovery and the conquest of the Western Continent at the dawn of the new century gave rise to unlooked-for new opportunities; this, too, at a time when Lutheranism and the other Protestant sects were still inclined to discountenance any universality and preferred to remain strictly local and national.

Above all it is indisputable that the Catholic Church, in order to emphasise her opposition to the so-called Evangelical freedom, devoted herself ever more assiduously to promoting a true inward life of religion among the people, the lower clergy and the bishops.

Whereas—at the close of the Middle Ages and dawn of the new era—the Papacy had been too eager in the pursuit of humanistic aims, had cultivated too exclusively merely human ideals of art and learning, and at the same time had become entangled in secular business and politics and was altogether too worldly, after Luther’s terrible attack on the formalism of the Church the Popes devoted themselves more and more to the real problems of the Kingdom of God, summoned to their side better advisers in the shape of Cardinals of strict morals, and introduced disciplinary new regulations in the spirit of a St. Charles Borromeo. The charge of shallowness brought against Catholic life was not—so far as it was justified—made in vain. From the new seminaries, from the sublime and saintly figures, who, in greater numbers than ever before, set an example of heroic virtue, and from the newly founded religious Orders such as the Theatines (1524), Capuchins (1528), Somaschans (1528), Barnabites (1530) and last but not least the Jesuits (1534), a new spirit breathed through the Church’s life and revived once more the practice of prayer, self-denial and neighbourly charity.

In this connection we need have no scruple in characterising the “Spiritual Exercises” of St. Ignatius Loyola as a phenomenon typical of the increasing religiousness of the age. Many, particularly amongst the influential representatives of the Church in Germany, under the guidance of such men as Pierre Favre, Peter Canisius and Claude Jaius, found in them a new wellspring of love for the Church and her aims.[1566]

“To the Exercises, through which many of the great German nobles went,” so Pierre Favre wrote from Ratisbon, “almost all the good was due that was afterwards done in Germany.”[1567]

The struggle with the apostasy called forth everywhere an increase of intellectual activity on the part of the threatened Church. Not only was theology deepened, but all the cognate branches of learning were more sedulously cultivated. “I scarcely think,” wrote the Jesuit, Peter Canisius, to the General of his Order, speaking of religious writings, that “Our Order could undertake or carry out any work that would be more useful and more conducive to the general welfare of the Church. Fresh writings on religious questions make a great impression and are a source of immeasurable comfort to the hard-pressed Catholics at a time when the writings of the false teachers are disseminated far and wide and cannot be exterminated.”[1568] Canisius was, however, of opinion that a simple exposition of the Catholic faith was more in place than polemics; he did not wish to see too much heat and human passion in the writings: “We do not heal the sick by such medicine but only make their case worse”;[1569] as he says in a memorandum: “In Germany there are countless numbers who err in religion, but they do not err from stubbornness or bitterness; they err after the manner of Germans who by nature are generally honest, very ready to accept everything that they, born and bred in the Lutheran heresies, have learnt, partly in schools, partly in churches, partly by the writings of false teachers.”[1570]

There is a true saying of Erasmus’s often quoted by Catholics: “Just as it would be wrong to approve all that Luther writes, so, too, it would be unjust, if, out of hatred for his person, we condemned what is true or distorted what is right.”[1571] “What writer is so bad,” he asks elsewhere, “that we do not find some good in his writings?”[1572]—What there was of good in his own and Luther’s writings was not without its effect on Catholicism. Some of their censures of things Catholic were seen to be deserved, and, in the course of time, were acted upon, at least in order to give opponents less cause for fault-finding.

The following remarks of Erasmus also found an echo amongst Catholic contemporaries and bear witness to the good which came of the sad religious struggles: “Often have I pondered in my own mind, whether, perchance, it had not pleased God to send a strong physician to deal with the profound corruption of morals in our day, who should heal by cutting and searing what was incapable of remedy by means of medicines and bandages.”[1573]—“May God, Who is wont to turn evil to good, so dispose matters, that, from this strong and bitter medicine (‘ex hoc violento amaroque pharmaco’) with which Luther has purged the world, as a body sick unto death, there may come some good for the morals of Christians.”[1574]—In 1524 he even went so far as to term Luther a “necessary evil” which they must not even desire to see removed.[1575] Yet Erasmus writes severely of him and ranks him with the greatest foes of the people of God: God had chosen to use Luther as a tool just as He had used the Pharaohs, the Philistines, Nabuchodonosor and the Romans.[1576]

That Luther wielded a wholesome rod was admitted even by the Papal Legate Zacharias Ferreri in an admonition he addressed to him in 1520; with such a scourge as this God from time to time tried Christians in order to bring them to repentance. “If you are a scourge, praised be the name of the Lord, if by this wicked instrument He is leading us to a better mind, purifying and purging us!… Is it astonishing if, even through you, we are purified and cleansed? Oh, that the Almighty would pour on us ‘clean water,’ ‘sprinkle us with hyssop’ and wash us!”[1577]

Thomas Murner, the Strasburg Franciscan, a man who was wont to scourge the failings and abuses in the Church of his day in very outspoken language, frankly admitted in a reply to Luther’s book “An den Adel” that much of the Wittenberg monk’s censure might be useful to those who wanted to put a stop to immorality, and to abuses and obsolete ecclesiastical customs and statutes. He even goes so far as to say to Luther: “Where you speak the truth, there undoubtedly the Holy Spirit speaks through you, for all truth is of God.” He adds, however, “Where you do not speak the truth, there assuredly the devil speaks through you, he who is the father of lies.” Speaking of the pictures of Luther with the symbol of the dove, which even then were common, in his satirical fashion, he suggests an improvement: “They paint the Holy Spirit over your head as though He were speaking through you. Now I learn for the first time that the Holy Spirit can say silly things.… I should suggest that they paint over your head, the Holy Ghost on one side and the devil on the other, and, in the middle, the city of Prague,” (to symbolise the heresy of Hus of which he accused Luther).[1578] Anxious as Murner was to see an end of the real abuses which Luther censured, yet, in the true Catholic spirit, he left to the ecclesiastical authorities the right and duty of taking the initiative, and it was to them that he addressed his urgent exhortations.

Cochlæus is likewise unable to refrain from remarking that, in Luther’s writings, side by side with what is worthless there is much that is good, in his exposition of Holy Scripture, in his exhortations and also in his censures. For many men, and among them some of high standing, believed [at first] that he was guided by the Spirit of God and by zeal for virtue to remove the abuses of the hypocrites, to amend morals to improve the education of the clergy, and to promote in people’s hearts the love and worship of God.“[1579] Cochlæus points out how Luther had taught his followers to steep themselves in the Bible, so that they gained “so much skill and experience” that they had “no scruples in disputing about the faith and the Gospel even with magisters and doctors of Holy Scripture”; they had been much more diligent than the Catholics in learning by heart the Bible in its German dress; they were in the habit “of quoting Scripture more than the priests and monks did, for which reason they accused Catholics of being ignorant of it or not understanding it however learned they might be as theologians”; their teachers “quoted the Greek and Hebrew texts, and the variant readings, scoffed at our theologians when they were ignorant of these things and all agreed in representing Luther as the best theologian in the world.” Cochlæus also admits, that, in the field of historical criticism Luther and his party were ahead of many Catholic preachers, who, albeit in good faith, were fond of adducing “fables and tales invented by men.” He describes the zeal of the Protestant printers, which far exceeded that of the Catholics, the “diligence, care and money” lavished on the writings of their party, and “how carefully and accurately they printed their books”; apostates and escaped monks travelled far and wide through Germany, peddling Lutheran writings “like booksellers.”[1580]—It is notorious, on the other hand, that the Catholic writers were hardly able to find publishers. At Ingolstadt Cochlæus managed to preserve a Catholic printing press, which was in danger of being shut down, and established a second at Mayence whence a large number of good works issued. “Stress must be laid on the self-sacrifice with which Cochlæus, after having by dint of many privations amassed a sum of money for the publication of his own writings, devoted it to the printing of the works of one of his colleagues, being convinced that they would prove of greater benefit to the common cause than his own productions.”[1581]

In all these particulars, in the study of Holy Scripture, in the cultivation of historical and critical research among the clergy, in the use of the vernacular and of the art of printing for the instruction of the faithful, a real, though rather slow, change for the better took place. Had it not been for the misgivings felt even in the highest circles, and for a certain amount of prejudice against anything new, due to the fear of heresy, the gains doubtless would have been even greater and more quickly secured. In all this the Church owed much to Protestant example, for it was the innovators who involuntarily pointed out better methods of satisfying the spiritual needs of the new age, and a more effectual way of exerting a religious influence over the people.

Further examples of this are to be found in the sermons and in the catechism.

Clear-sighted Catholic contemporaries, like the worthy Dominican preacher and writer Johann Mensing, comparing the Bible preaching used and advocated by Luther with the empty, vapid sermons in vogue among many of the Catholic preachers were keenly conscious of what was lacking. At the close of a book written in 1532 Mensing exhorts the Catholic clergy to study Holy Writ and to make more use of it in the pulpit: “There are some now who say that Luther has driven the learned to Scripture. Would to God it were true that our well-beloved masters and brothers, the theologians, would turn their hearts wholly to Holy Scripture and leave out those other questions which serve no useful purpose. Some of them preach the laws and canons of heathen doctors and poets which are of small help to salvation, or they air their own opinions, and, where Scripture and Holy Church or the witness of the olden Doctors is not enough, reinforce them by incredible miracles, whereas, with the aid of Holy Scripture, they ought to endeavour to establish in men’s hearts the fear of God, faith, hope and charity, mildness and pity and such like.” If they learn something from the Lutherans in this then “we may hope that God has permitted Luther’s heresy for our good, it being to our profit that such heresy has arisen, and, as some declare, driven us to the Scriptures.” Mensing wonders, however, whether the dispersal of the monks, the plundering of the convents and lack of stipends for learned theologians and preachers will not make study of any kind a difficult matter for a long while to come.[1582]

In the field of catechetical instruction it was clear that Luther and his followers had given their attention very skilfully to the young, the better to imbue the rising generation with their doctrines. At the time of Luther’s first appearance, as recent research has established, in many parts of Germany there was no regular, systematic religious instruction of the young by the clergy or in the schools, but the children were left to pick up what they could in the home or from the public sermons.[1583] There were indeed regulations in force for the priests and the schools, but they were not acted upon. About the very elementary home instruction, Cochlæus had words of commendation in 1533. As they were taken to the services and the sermons, the children had, he says, “sucked in” their religion “as it were with their mothers’ milk, and this is still the case to-day amongst Catholics.”[1584] In his sermons published in 1510 Gabriel Biel asks for no more than that the parents should impart to their children a knowledge of the things essential and prepare them for their first communion.[1585]

Luther, however, as our readers know, insisted that his preachers must concern themselves directly with the children.

He enjoined on them to preach from the pulpit at set times, even daily if necessary, on the most elementary points of doctrine, and again at home in the house to the children and servants in the mornings and evenings; if they wished to make Christians of them these points would have to be recited or read to them, “and this, not merely in such a way that they learn to say the words by heart, but that they be questioned on them one by one and made to say what each means and how they understand it.”[1586] “Let no one think himself above giving such instruction to the children or look down upon it,” he wrote; “Christ, when He wished to train up men, had to become a man, hence, if we are to train up children, we must become children with them.” At Wittenberg and elsewhere from 1528 onwards four sermons a week for two weeks on end were preached on the Catechism four times a year. When, seeing the importance of the matter, Luther himself took the Catechism in hand he was so anxious to make it popular and practical, that he first published his “Smaller Catechism” (1529) in the form of sheets to hang upon the wall (this method had been used even before his day), and thus to act on the memory through the eye.

It would, however, be historically incorrect to describe Luther as the originator of the Catechism. Catholic Catechisms, even illustrated ones, had existed before Luther’s time, having been printed not only in Germany but also elsewhere. But, after the success attained by Luther’s Catechism, writers of Catholic Catechisms tried to profit by his example. The best of these Catholic works was the famous Catechism of Peter Canisius. It was first printed in Vienna in 1555 under the title “Summa doctrinæ christianæ”; eighteen years later it had already been translated into twelve different tongues.[1587] It is a work rich in thought and positive matter where almost every word is based on Holy Scripture or some utterance of the Fathers and other ecclesiastical authority. Abbreviated editions, the “Parvus Catechismus” (Viennæ, 1559), the “Institutiones” (1561), and particularly the short German one: “The Catechism or Sum of Christian Doctrine arranged in question and answer for the simple,” rendered it of greater use for the common people.[1588] “Canisius’s book,” writes a Protestant expert in pedagogics, “is a masterpiece of brevity, precision and erudition; in it one sees from beginning to end an endeavour to excel in style even the great Protestant prototype” (viz. Luther’s Catechism).[1589]

Among the secular no less than among the regular clergy work for the souls of the children continued to win new friends. St. Ignatius of Loyola esteemed the teaching of the Catechism so highly that he expressly made it a duty incumbent on all members of his Order previous to their making their profession. Lainez, his companion and successor, when staying at Trent during the Council, instructed the people and the small folk in the Catechism. The Council itself impressed on the bishops in 1563 the duty of seeing that the children in each parish received religious instruction from the priest on Sundays and holidays.[1590]

The spread of the new religion had at first been followed by a lamentable decline in the educational system by no means confined to those regions torn away from the old faith.[1591] The Protestants were the first to recover their balance, partly owing to Luther’s vigorous appeals on behalf of the schools, partly thanks to the active co-operation of Melanchthon, who had great experience in this sphere and on whom his co-religionists in consequence bestowed the title of “Præceptor Germaniæ.” The methods followed by the Lutherans were borrowed principally, as indeed was only to be expected, from the treasure-house of the humanists. Protestant effort was largely crowned with success, especially since the old Catholic endowments of the Grammar Schools, and some part of the income of the sequestrated Church properties, were applied by the sovereigns and townships to the erection and maintenance of these new educational institutions.[1592]

The Catholics indeed were angry to see that these flourishing schools were at the same time hotbeds of the New Faith. They also lamented that, owing to the sad conditions of the times, they themselves had fallen astern of the other party in the matter of education. Their best leaders exhorted them to take a lesson from their opponents and thus reconquer the position the Catholic schools had lost. “With the spread and development of the Jesuit schools a change came over the face of affairs.”[1593] Before this Archbishop Albert of Mayence had declared in 1541 that the Protestants were far ahead of Catholics in the matter of education and were drawing all the youth of Germany into their schools. In 1550 Julius Pflug, bishop of Naumburg-Zeitz, wrote to Julius III: “The Protestant schools public as well as private are in a flourishing condition; ours are crumbling into ruin; the Protestants attract men by large salaries, we do not do this.” Already in 1538 George Wicel had expressed his regret to Julius Pflug that so little was done for the schools among the Catholics as compared with the Protestants, and that already the want of men of learning was being felt.[1594]

To mention two other spheres in which Catholics received a stimulus from Luther’s example and work, we may call to mind the German translation of the Bible and the German hymns.

What was good in Luther’s translation of the Bible was very soon turned to account in Catholic circles. If Catholic writers made use of Luther’s translation in their own editions, they probably excused themselves by arguing that Luther himself was undoubtedly indebted to the Catholic translations of the past. In the same way Luther had made use of some of the old hymns of the Church, amended and popularised them and published them as his own. Catholic hymns in the German language there were already in plenty. But, after 1524, when the first Protestant hymn-books made their appearance, Catholics copied these efforts to collect and improve on the originals, and the first Catholic hymn-book brought out by Michael Vehe, Provost at Leipzig as early as 1537, contained fifty-two hymns with forty-seven tunes—though, strange to say, the old Catholic hymns were given in the new Protestant version.[1595] A much bigger hymn-book was that of Johann Leisentritt, a Dean (1567); it contained in the first edition 250 hymns and 147 tunes. In the following century hymns well known to be Protestant but of which the words were orthodox were incorporated without demur in the Catholic collections.

The Middle Ages had been too neglectful of positive studies, particularly of history and languages, both of which are of such vast importance to theology. Since the dawn of humanism, however, a good beginning had been made, and the need of meeting the demands of the new age was recognised, as, in the domain of Biblical languages, the example of Faber Stapulensis and Jodocus Clichtoveus shows.[1596] The methods of the Protestants made further progress in this field imperative.

In criticism and church-history, where much good work had been done by the Protestants, Peter Canisius was one of the first to suggest that it would be advisable to devote more pains to the study and examination of the history of the Papacy, since, as he wrote, our “people seem to be still quite asleep” and unaware of all that had been done in the opposite camp. He was anxious for books that should be in no way inferior to those of the other side, and of which “the style must be in keeping with the present method and trend of scholarship.”[1597] It is not as yet enough known generally what great success crowned the labours of Onuphrius Panvinius (1529-1568) the Augustinian Roman antiquarian and historian, who was spurred on by the labours of the Protestants, though even more by the humanist traditions of his native country. Better known is the Oratorian, Cardinal Baronius (1538-1607), whose “Ecclesiastical Annals” unquestionably laid the foundation of a new era in the writing of Church history.[1598]

Good and useful work was done by some of the Protestant scholars who edited the writings of the Fathers.

Thus Luther, for instance, encouraged Bugenhagen to edit certain works of St. Athanasius on the Trinity and himself wrote (1532) a Preface to them which is well worth reading.[1599] The Patristic labours subsequently undertaken by Catholics, even the great work of Marguérin de la Bigne,[1600] that forerunner of the French Maurists of the 17th century, had their raison d’être in the very ideas which Luther had set forth in his above-mentioned Preface to Bugenhagen’s work.

The worksomeness of the Catholic Church showed that people were beginning to understand the new era and to mould themselves to its requirements. “How can one deny,” asks Adolf Harnack, “that Catholicism, as soon as it pulled itself together for the counter-reformation … was for over a century in far closer touch with the new era than Luther’s Protestantism? Hence the many converts from Protestantism to Catholicism, particularly among learned Protestants, down to the days of Queen Christina of Sweden and even after.”[1601]

As for the ideas, however, which constituted the essence of the religious innovations the Catholic Church could not accept them short of being untrue to herself and betraying what had been committed to her custody. Whereas she gradually found a way to comply with all just demands for betterment and progress, she was nevertheless obliged relentlessly to close her ears to proposals for the subversion of her dogma and the alteration of her constitution.

She steadfastly refused to make her own the new and mistaken conception of the Church, of Bible interpretation, of faith, justification and good works. In spite of the heart-rending sight of the growing apostasy around her, she kept her eyes fixed on the promises of her Founder and remained true to her olden conception of the Church as a visible society controlled by Chief Pastors who are the vicars of Christ.

Ulrich Zasius of Freiburg in Baden, one of the greatest lawyers and humanists of the 16th century, who had for a while dallied with some of the demands of the innovators, afterwards repudiated as follows any idea of going over to their side:

“I shall remain true to the doctrines and decisions of the Church even should all the host of heaven command me otherwise.” “Such an insult I will on no account offer to the Lord of Truth as to believe He had deceived us for so many hundreds of years”—by permitting the Church to fall into error in spite of the promise that the Spirit of truth would always remain with her.

“For more than a thousand years the Church has taught us by the voice of her Doctors who all take their stand on Holy Scripture. But you twist the Gospel about as you please. Is Luther then to be set above all the Doctors of the past? Our forefathers, who also were authorities and all the wise men, would have called such a demand sheer madness.” “You, however, argue that the Spirit leads and guides you. But what sort of Spirit is it that teaches you to scold and calumniate as you do? In the Epistle of James I have read on the contrary that wisdom is peaceable and modest.”

“Give me a man who renounces all earthly things, keeps all the precepts of Christ, loves his enemies from his heart and does them good, abuses none and is cheerful in adversity. Such a man I will call worthy of the Evangel. But among the ranks of such men you can scarcely reckon Luther.”

“You are free to censure abuses, but is it right on their account to throw the whole Church into confusion? You blame the whole for the misdeeds of some of its parts; pleading the defects you attack what is good and thus unsettle everything.” He too, so he tells his opponents, was at pains to go to the sources of Faith, but he preferred the interpretation of Jerome, Augustine and Chrysostom to theirs; and, again, unable to control his indignation, he exclaims: “What incredible arrogance is this that one man should require his reading to be accounted better than that of all the Fathers of the Church, nay, of the Church herself and the whole of Christendom?”[1602]

When passions were at their height voices such as these failed to secure a hearing. The deep chasm torn open by the wanton act of one man could no longer be bridged over; the bond of religion that had hitherto united the German nation had been rudely severed.

5. Luther as described by the Olden “Orthodox” Lutherans

It is a study that will well repay us to follow through the history of Protestantism the changes that Luther’s description underwent. The awakened historical sense of the present day has already led more than one critic to undertake this task, with a crop of interesting results.[1603]

It would be a mistake to think that Luther’s memory survived anywhere among the orthodox Protestants with that freshness and distinctness which the statements of some of his old friends might lead us to expect. Of the actual personality of the man no clear picture had been transmitted. His words and deeds were commented on according to the outlook of the different schools, needless to say, always with a certain affection and admiration, but no one troubled to leave to posterity a living picture of his unique character as a whole.

Tracing the history of the Protestant representation of Luther down to the present day three periods may be distinguished, the so-called Orthodox one, the Pietistic and Freethinking one that followed, and the last hundred years. Orthodoxy, with its rigid attachment to the formularies of Faith, with the assistance of the State was for a long while able to suppress all contrary tendencies; towards the middle of the 18th century, however, the Pietists and, at the other extreme, a free-thinking party also made their appearance on the field.

Pietism was a reaction against the hard-and-fast doctrinal system of an earlier age, which, clinging desperately to Luther’s doctrine of works, tended to be neglectful of the Christian life and of the revival of morals. If Pietism rather exaggerated the moral side of religion, the so-called “Enlightenment” erred in another direction, setting out as it did to vindicate the rights of reason and, in so doing, making scant account of subordination to the truths of Divine revelation.

On the whole, Orthodoxy retained a supernaturalist view of Luther, though it was apt to assume different colours according to the leanings of the several schools.

Pietism, in its conception of his person, frankly throws over the real Luther and seeks to “vindicate his spirit against the claims of his more orthodox adherents.”

The period of the enlightenment also presents a “sadly distorted” picture of Luther; it had “not the least comprehension of his fiery spirit” and, as was its wont, was “anxious to wipe out everything too distinctive.”[1604]

“Misunderstood and disfigured ‘beyond recognition,’ Luther steps over the threshold of the new era. But here again misfortune awaits him: ‘Sectarians, Anabaptists, Pietists, Democrats, Rationalists, Orthodox’ … all these set to work to improve upon the hero until they can stamp him as their own.”[1605] Finally, “the latest phase of theological development spells a revision of the whole idea and appreciation of Luther.” In the consciousness of having far outrun Luther on the road to a purely natural religion minus any faith, people are beginning to “emphasise more strongly the fact, that he was held captive in the bonds of mediæval feelings and ideas.”[1606]

“Who really knows him?” asked Adolf Harnack in 1883, “and who can be expected to know him? People are willing enough to worship him as what they wish him to be, as the upholder of their own ideals; but in their heart of hearts, they feel that, after all, he was really quite different. His character impresses all, but his convictions are left in the background, or else are worked up into new and more serviceable coin.”[1607]

Yet all these Protestant impressions of Luther, to be examined more in detail below, however they may differ have at least this much in common, that Luther must be acclaimed as the great opponent of the authority of the olden Church.

Maybe we shall come nearest to a correct picture of Luther if we combine the modern view of his being a “mediævalist” with the olden orthodox claim that he was a Prophet of God. Luther stood partly for the old supernaturalist Christianity, partly for a new pseudo-supernaturalism; so far those who speak of his “mediævalism” are in the right. He himself, however, summed up his own character in that of the God-sent “Prophet of Germany,” and divinely appointed conqueror of Antichrist and the devil—a point which was rightly emphasised by his orthodox followers.

To go back now to the various descriptions of Luther. The Orthodox derived their idea of Luther from the oldest traditions. In these there was a breath of the supernaturalism in which Luther’s own view of himself was decked out, of the inbreathing of the Spirit, of his mysterious struggles with a power unseen, and of his divinely assured victory over the Roman Babylon.

At the present day one marvels to see how cheerfully and naïvely members of the old “orthodox” school were wont to magnify the founder of their denomination on the lines sketched out by Luther himself. All that interested them was the teacher, Luther the theologian; to them he appeared a sort of “professor of divinity of heroic dimensions.” In the century which followed his death it was the custom to exalt him “into the region of the marvellous and more-than-human.” So fond were they of “depicting his divine halo” that it became quite the usual thing to “set Luther side by side with the olden Prophets and Apostles.”

After Elias and John the Baptist, he is “the third Elias, who makes ready the way against the return of Christ to Judgment.” He is the second Noe, the second Abraham, the second Samson, the second Samuel, the second Jeremias, above all, he is the second Moses who frees the people from their bondage; the Egyptian bondage, so some one computed had come to an end in B.C. 1517 just as the Papal bondage reached its end in 1517 A.D.[1608]

Holy Scripture, so the orthodox declared, points to Luther not only where it speaks of the revelation and overthrow of Antichrist (2 Thes. ii. 8), not merely where it proclaims that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem (Zach. xiv. 8), but also in the Apocalypse of John where we are told of the angel having the eternal Gospel—flying through the midst of heaven to the mount on which is seated the Lamb with 144,000 who bear His name—“in order to preach it to them that sit upon the earth, to every nation and tribe, and tongue and people” (Rev. xiv. 6). That this angel was Luther is also plain from the fact that, if the letters of the verse quoted are reckoned by their position in the alphabet and then added together the number will be exactly the same as that of the words (in German): Martin Luther, Doctor of Holy Scripture, born at Eisleben, baptised on Martinmas-Day, viz. 819![1609] In a sermon in 1676 the flight of the angel through the midst of heaven is taken to signify the marvellously rapid spread of Luther’s Evangel, and the Gospel he preaches is termed “eternal,” because Luther’s doctrine is found even in the Fathers of the Church.[1610]

The story of Hus, the “swan,” as prophetic of the coming of Luther, was an integral part of the panegyrics even of Mathesius and Bugenhagen; it served much the same purpose as the statue of a monk with the inscription L.V.T.E.R.V.S., said to have been erected by Kaiser Frederick Barbarossa.[1611]

The recovery of Melanchthon and Myconius for whom Luther had prayed so ardently became evident miracles. The preservation of his picture in great fires was another miracle of frequent recurrence. Splinters from a beam in his house, according to Gottfried Arnold, the Pietist, in his Church-History, were deemed an efficacious cure for toothache and other ills. Arnold calls this a subtle form of idolatry. Leonard Hutter, who became professor at Wittenberg in 1596, learnedly set forth the proofs of Luther’s “being endowed with a ‘spiritus vatidicus’ enabling him to foresee many things of importance,” though his prophetic insight is chiefly confined by Hutter and others to his peculiar divine gift for the interpretation of Holy Writ, or to his proclamation of the destruction of contemners of the Evangel.[1612] Johannes Klai (or Claius), the German grammarian and a zealous Lutheran, expressed it as his opinion in 1578 that the German used by Luther was so pure and beautiful that he could have learnt it only by the special help of the Holy Ghost.[1613] Johannes Albertus Fabricius collected, chiefly in the interests of the orthodox party, the titles of the works dealing with Luther; the bare lists of the books setting forth the services he had rendered, the honourable epithets bestowed on him, his eminent qualities, his miracles and his own prophecies and those of others, occupy many pages.[1614]

Even as late as 1872 Carl Frederick Kahnis, the Lutheran theologian and professor at Leipzig, depicted Luther in his “Deutsche Reformation” with all the olden traits. Luther’s doctrines he regarded as the true norm, though it was necessary to understand and develop them. According to Kahnis the young monk’s experience with the devil in the refectory at night and again at the Wartburg, were real assaults of the Evil One on the chosen prophet of God, visible and audible marks of the hostility of Satan to the saviour of mankind, for Luther “was no slave to fancy or excited feelings.” “Maybe,” so he says rather incautiously, “no Father of the Church since the days of the Apostles ever had to feel so keenly the power of Satan.” The prophecy of the “bare-foot monk” and the auguries of the Eisenach Franciscan become matters of history, for had not Luther himself appealed to them? Even the tale of the Elector’s dream who saw the monk’s pen stretching even to Rome and blotting out everything there, rested, according to him, on “history.” As for the fallen Church of pre-Lutheran days, against which his wonderful pen worked, it sinks into the abyss of its own errors before the rising sun of Luther’s new doctrine.[1615]

6. Luther as seen by the Pietists and Rationalists

Luther, as pictured to themselves by the Pietists, differed widely from the Luther of the orthodox. To Pietists like Spener, Luther’s actual doctrine—regarded by them as contradictory and wavering—appealed far less than certain personal mystic traits of his. To them the inward struggles of soul to which Luther ascribes his transition from despair into the peace of the Gospel, his remarks on piety and the interior life, his realisation of the universal priesthood, and the breathing of the Spirit were very dear. They were less enamoured of Luther’s views on faith, the outward Word, or the State-Government of the Church. At any rate, the Pietists wove from the material at their disposal a new Luther who was practically a counterpart of themselves. They preferred to dwell on his earlier years, when Luther, as Gottfried Arnold said in 1699 in his “Kirchenhistorie,” yet lived “in the Spirit,” and before he had ended “in the flesh” as he did later. They either said nothing of his worldlier side or else openly censured it as the fruit of his backsliding and later errors.

Arnold complains bitterly that things had gone so far after Luther’s death that he was called a “Saint” and a divine man, and that he was made out to be the Angel foretold in the Apocalypse. Still he recognises in him “in a usual way,” an “apostolic mission” in so far as he had been the recipient of “a direct inspiration, stimulus or divine gift.” “At the first” he had “indeed been mightily directed, and utilised as a divine tool”; at any rate up to the time of his breach with Carlstadt he could boast of enjoying “the strength and illumination of the Spirit which gave him on particular points and in difficult cases a rule and true certainty.” Only with such limitations will the historian of Pietism accept Luther’s epitaph at Wittenberg where mention is made of the inbreathing of God’s spirit.[1616]

Whereas the orthodox Lutherans, owing to the abiding influence of Melanchthon’s humanism, allowed the study of philosophy and of the wisdom of the ancients, the Pietists at Leipzig, Giessen, Stargard and elsewhere rejected all philosophy, appealing to Luther who had spurned it as the offspring of that fool reason which ought to be done away with; Melanchthon, they urged, had corrupted the faith by the admixture of Plato and Aristotle, and, hence, had never been regarded by Luther “as a true, staunch theologian, but rather as a cunning Aristotelian dialectician.”[1617]

When other Lutherans taunted them with their separatist tendencies so much at variance with Luther’s view of the outward government of the Church by the State, the Pietists retorted by appealing in defence of their conventicle system and so-called “collegia pietatis,” to Luther’s Church-Apart of the True Believers. They quoted those passages of the “Deudsche Messe und Ordnung Gottis Diensts” (1526), where Luther lays stress on the ideal kinship of those who earnestly desire to be Christians, and characterises the services in the Church as worthless for those who “are already Christians.”[1618]

“Thus quite a struggle raged around Luther’s person.”[1619]

Books appeared on the one side with such titles as “Lutherus Antipietista” and on the other: “Luther the precursor of Spener who faithfully followed in the footsteps of the former.” Count L. von Zinzendorf, with his Pietistic leanings, claimed to be a perfect counterpart of Luther; he wished, as he said in 1749, to be “what Luther had been in part, and what, according to the logical sequence from given premises, he should and ought to have been.” “The Luther who still lives and teaches in Count von Zinzendorf,” was the title of a work by one of the latter’s followers. Things went so far that, in the controversies, it became necessary to ask: Which Luther do you mean, the earlier or the later? Nor was even this sufficient, for Consistorialrat J. A. Bengel of Württemberg (†1752) actually distinguished three Luthers: “the first and the last,” he said, “were all right, but the middle one, owing to the heat of controversy, was sometimes rather spoiled.”[1620]

Among the Protestant writers of the so-called “Enlightenment” we again find Luther under a different guise.

They disagreed with the Pietists’ renunciation both of the conclusions arrived at by reason and of worldly pleasures; in the latter respect they found in Luther a welcome advocate of enjoyment of the good things of the world. His advocacy of a cheerful addiction to earthly pleasures was summed up by them in the saying attributed to him: Who loves not women, wine and song, etc.[1621] On the other hand, by setting Luther on a rationalist plane, they blotted out his essential characteristics; they showed no comprehension for his faith though they were not disposed to minimise his labours for the amendment of religion and for the bringing of light out of darkness.

Gottfried Herder extols him, now as a church founder, now as a writer, and yet again as a great German. Luther’s doctrines seem to him of comparatively small account, but he is willing enough to depict him as a model of cheerful, “strong, free, wholesome and exalted sensibility.”[1622] He is unsparing in his criticism of Luther’s attacks on the Epistle of James and adds: “The sphere of the Spirit of God is wider than Luther’s field of vision.”[1623] In these circles critics were disposed to be bolder and more outspoken than among the orthodox and the Pietists; they also found other things to censure in Luther. Lessing condemns in the severest language his vanity and irascibility: “O God, what a terrible lesson to our pride,” he exclaims, “and how much do anger and revenge degrade even the best and holiest of men.”[1624] He nevertheless opines that Luther’s faults had been of service to him in his great task.

Those few who really perused Luther’s writings marvelled at his extravagant ideas about his divine mission and struggles with the devil, about the end of the world and Antichrist. As a general rule, however, they conveniently skipped all that Luther said against human reason and had no eye for his energetic supernaturalism and his insistence on the bare letter of Scripture.[1625]

Among those infected with the rationalism of the age, antagonism to Catholicism undoubtedly helped to shape their view of Luther. They felt their whole outlook to be at variance with that of Catholicism. Under these circumstances it was natural that Luther should be depicted first and foremost as the liberator from the Papacy; in Luther they recognised, not without some show of reason, “the opponent of all outward authority, of everything Catholic in every domain of the life of the mind”[1626]—an argument, moreover, which occasionally they turned against the Lutheran “Church” itself.

Thus was the dictator of Wittenberg, such as the Orthodox knew him, transformed into a “champion of freedom”; the rationalists made his pen the vehicle of their own ideas. Luther became the “herald of the Enlightenment.” He began what others were to carry on later. “A little longer,” so one wrote in 1797, “and the heavenly light which Luther only saw dimly as in a dream will stream in upon us in all its brightness.”[1627]

The Berlin leader of this movement, A. F. Büsching, as early as 1748, said of himself that he had seen “Luther in his true greatness and as known only to the few; how, in matters of religion, he had absolutely refused to depend on any man, but had relied simply on his own insight and convictions and what had been borne in upon him by diligent reading of the Bible.”[1628] The Halle editor of Luther’s Works, J. G. Walch, vaunted among the other services rendered by Luther that of having established freedom of conscience; in the eyes of Julius Wegscheider he was the “libertatis cogitandi assertor”; it was this which inclined even Frederick II of Prussia to respect him, though otherwise he considered him a “furious monk” and a “barbarous writer.”—Those who thus credited Luther with tolerance “had no inkling of the antithesis between this idea and the true Luther.”[1629] His wanton way of dealing with the Canon of Scripture was urged against the Orthodox in defence of a more critical treatment of Holy Writ. Lessing, referring to Luther’s whole system of Bible interpretation, wrote to J. M. Goeze, the chief pastor of St. Catherine’s church at Hamburg: “What greater authority had Luther than any other Doctor of Divinity?”[1630]

Less dangerous to Lutheranism, and in itself harmless enough, though quite characteristic of the age, was the discovery then made, that Luther was the very personification of a public benefactor and great servant of the State. The Leipzig Professor, C. H. Wieland, described him as a “scholar to whom all were indebted”; Luther, he says, “unmasked obsolete prejudices and opened up to his contemporaries in more than one direction fresh prospects of a coming enlargement of the circle of human knowledge. And this great man was a German.”[1631] From the good bourgeois point of view the fact that Luther had, as it was thought, cultivated respect for the secular authorities was a great feather in his cap. Such people readily shut their eyes to the severity with which Luther had been wont to lash the rulers, even the highest in the land, and to the fact that he had undermined the very foundations of authority. The patriotic thought that “this great man was a German” was made to cover all his failings.

This sort of patriotism gradually produced a new pattern of Luther, differing in many respects from the others. Particularly after the outbreak of the great German wars of deliverance and the burning enthusiasm for the Fatherland which they called forth many felt that they could not sufficiently extol Luther as the great German, and a typical child of his beloved country.

Gœthe repeatedly called Luther a “great man.” But what, above all, prepossessed him in his favour was, first, his “Struggle against priestcraft and the hierarchy,” and, then, his translation of the Bible. “By him we have been freed from the fetters of intellectual narrowness … and have once more the courage to stand upright on God’s earth and to realise our own divinely endowed nature.”[1632] The poet, himself a true child of his age, had no eye for the truths defended by Catholicism against Lutheranism. In a letter to Knebel dated August 22, 1817, when the centenary of Luther’s promulgation of his Theses was being celebrated far and wide, he said: “Between ourselves, the only interesting thing in the whole business [the Reformation] is Luther’s character; it is also the only thing that really impresses the masses. All the rest is worthless trumpery of which we still feel the burden to-day.” As for the usual view of Luther he characterises it as mythological.

7. The Modern Picture of Luther

In the so-called Romantic School the picture of Luther tends to become as shifty as the character of the age.

The Romanticists, like the poets they were, were anxious, as in other fields so also in respect of Luther, to make a stand against the shallowness of the “Enlightenment.”

Zacharias Werner, while still a Protestant, wrote in Luther’s honour his drama “Die Weihe der Kraft,” and, then, as a Catholic, the drama entitled “Die Weihe der Unkraft.”

Novalis, who was deeply read in Luther’s works, was of opinion that he, like Protestantism itself, was something democratic; to him Luther appeared a “hothead.” Disgusted with Lutheranism and vaguely conscious of the beauty of the past he was anxious to see the scattered faithful once more united in a new Christianity. “Luther,” so he wrote, “treated Christianity as he liked, failed to recognise its spirit and introduced another letter and another religion, viz. the sacred principle of the Bible over all.” A “fire from heaven” had indeed presided over the commencement of his career; later on, however, the source of “holy inspiration had run dry” and worldliness gained the upper hand in Luther.[1633]

The religious spirit which had animated the Romanticists and had led them to cast yearning eyes at the Middle Ages was soon extinguished by the new criticism, historical and Biblical, and by the spread of infidelity.

The latest efforts to portray Luther

Luther had now to submit to being criticised by scholars who prided themselves on being dispassionate and were not slow to pass judgment on the characteristics, whether actual or imaginary, which they seemed to discover in him. What the Göttingen Church-historian, Gottlieb Jakob Planck, representing the so-called “Pragmatic” writers had begun—much to the disgust of the then Luther devotees[1634]—was pushed forward by many other Protestants. The lengths to which independent criticism has gone of recent years is emphasised in the Göttingen theologian, Paul de Lagarde. Typical of his remarks is the following: “That great scold Luther, who could see no further than the tips of his toes, by his demagogy threw Germany into barbarism and dissension.”[1635] It was particularly with Luther’s “coarseness” and tendency to indulge in vulgar abuse that the critics were disposed to find fault. Some indeed were inclined to excuse him. Hardly any other writer, however, in seeking to exculpate Luther has used language so startling as that of Adolf Hausrath the Heidelberg scholar who, in his Life of Luther (1904), “thanks God for the barbarism of these polemics,” and goes so far as to say that, “since Luther’s road led to the goal it must have been the right one.”[1636]

Of the three comprehensive and most widely known biographies of Luther, that of Hausrath depicts Luther from the standpoint of a liberal divine. Here Luther almost ceases to be a theologian, or at any rate the theological problems amidst which Luther lived are scarcely even mentioned. On the other hand, in the biography by Theodore Kolde of Erlangen (2nd ed., 1893), the Wittenberg professor again figures as a teacher; his scholarly two-volume work is positive in tendency and regards Luther as a preacher of truth against the darkness of the Middle Ages—which, however, the author has misunderstood and fails to treat fairly. The third large modern work on Luther, also in two volumes, is by the late Julius Köstlin of Halle and Breslau; a new edition was published in 1903 with the collaboration of G. Kawerau; here the picture of Luther is a product of the so-called theology of compromise.[1637]

Wilhelm Maurenbrecher, professor of History at Bonn and Leipzig, said truly in his “Studien” (1874), that the traditional Luther “myth” the “stuff and rubbish” which the past had looked upon as true history, deserved to be cleared away. He traces back to Sleidanus the “current ‘fable convenue’” about Luther; this writer, in the work he published in 1555, which became a classic, had begun the process of “moderating and toning down the theological colours” of Luther’s picture, in such a way as to make Luther the living expression of the “already finished programme of the Protestant princes and theologians.” He lifted the author of the religious upheaval “out of his democratic, revolutionary setting” and stamped him as a “model” for theologians. Maurenbrecher, as a layman, is very frank in his opinion as to the central question of Bible-interpretation: “It is undoubtedly the right of every man at the present day to appeal to Luther’s own example, in favour of the unfettered freedom of Bible-research.”[1638]

By an objective portrayal of his characteristics, Protestant non-theologians such as Maurenbrecher have done good service, particularly as regards the more secular side of Luther’s picture. The historian Onno Klopp was still a Protestant when, in 1857, in his “Katholizismus, Protestantismus und Gewissensfreiheit in Deutschland,” albeit recognising Luther’s merits, he censured his “boundless confidence in the infallibility of his own judgment”; the “unstable character of the new Church, so dependent on the favour of princes”; also the blind, idolatrous veneration of his followers for him, especially the attitude of the “narrow-minded Elector and his advisers who were ready to take all the morbid drivel of a quarrelsome old man for the Word of God.” And these same authorities, so Onno Klopp declares, set up a new “Protestant Cæsarean Popedom” which year by year became more burdensome and oppressive.[1639] On the whole his portrait of Luther is the reverse of flattering.

Had the writings of Leopold von Ranke and Carl Adolf Menzel been as independent as Maurenbrecher’s or as broad-minded as Klopp’s, their picture of Luther would have been more true. Even to-day, in spite of the abundance of works on the Reformation period, an independent historian at home in all the profound and detailed studies which have recently appeared, is still lacking in Protestant circles; hence a living picture of Luther’s person has not yet been painted.

As for the Protestant theologians they have, as a rule, not contributed much to the portrait of Luther; what they have given us has been rather a sort of kaleidoscope of Luther’s dogma; they busy themselves more with crumbs from his history than with it as a whole. Dealing with some particular doctrine, writing or action of his they have sketched, so to speak, only one facet of his personality; with the help of this they have, nevertheless, built up a picture of the founder of Protestantism as he seemed to them. Hence even the fundamental conception of Luther’s message, i.e. that whereby it differs essentially from Catholicism has been very variously estimated.[1640]

Protestant theologians of more “positive” leanings have protested against the Rationalist views of those other theologians who hold that Luther banished dogma from his Christianity, and rediscovered Christianity “as a religion.”[1641] They declare that, not only did he not abrogate dogma but that he actually “revived and preserved” it. A religion without dogma was unthinkable to him.[1642]

It is true that these positive theologians who believe in the existence of Lutheran “dogmas” are at variance when it comes to stating clearly the actual dogmas which Luther “revived,” or in what his essential message consisted. Some insist above all on the ethical side; thanks to Luther there came a “deeper understanding for the idiosyncracies of the individual” than was the rule in mediæval Christianity.

Where such inveterate differences of opinion prevailed even the theology of conciliation was bound to fail. Reinhold Seeberg, the Berlin theologian, tried to promote some sort of settlement in his “Grundwahrheiten der christlichen Religion,” a work “framed on the lines of the olden Gospel and in the spirit of Paul and Luther which seeks to make the Christian standpoint understood in wider circles.” But his scheme met with a poor reception; the more orthodox looked at it “askance, and, on the other hand, the progressive party were only the more confirmed in their antagonism.”[1643]

Several Protestant theologians of late years have compared Luther to St. Paul. This, for instance, was also done by Walter Köhler of Zürich, a liberal theologian, who does not hesitate to reprehend in Luther whatever he finds amiss, and who also shows considerably more broad-mindedness than many others in his appreciation of the works of Catholics.

The Janus-Picture of the Mediæval and Modern Luther

Thanks to Denifle’s work Luther’s relation to the Middle Ages is now more clearly seen. The need for bestowing more attention than has hitherto been done on that side of Luther’s picture which belongs to the Middle Ages has been strongly insisted on by another liberal theologian, viz. Ernst Troeltsch of Heidelberg. In Troeltsch’s writings Luther’s features become to a great extent mediæval. His views on grace and faith, his ethics, his Churches, the stress he lays on the Word—all this, in reality, is an echo of Catholic times. All that forms the very being of Luther is mediæval and the Protestant traits are merely the wrapping.[1644] With the belief in revelation, which he still retained, he had been unable to rise above the hedge of the mediæval way of thought.

Troeltsch thus comes to the conclusion that the new era in which we live did not commence with Luther but only some two centuries ago, i.e. with the dawn of the Enlightenment. The older Protestantism, no less than Luther himself, belongs to the Middle Ages. Luther stuck fast in the Middle Ages chiefly because he clung to the belief in the “supranatural,” whereas the modern world, thanks to a mathematico-mechanical natural science, has done away with all that stands above nature.

Troeltsch also points out that Luther traces his conception of the Evangel back to Paul, and not to Jesus as the New Theology does; also that he, like the earlier Protestantism, had not completely shaken himself free of the mediæval asceticism, and that he held fast to the traditional doctrine of an original sin.

A Catholic writer has expressed himself more correctly on Luther’s false “supranaturalism,” according to which God does everything and man nothing: “The innermost kernel of his doctrinal system was more ultra-mediæval than the Middle Ages themselves.” “So far was he from desiring to make religion less unworldly or less Christian, that, according to what he was incessantly hammering into his hearers, man was to live himself ever more and more into conscience and faith, into Christ and the Gospel.”[1645]

Nevertheless the objection brought forward repeatedly of recent years against the theory of Luther’s mediævalism is also worthy of note; it is urged that, particularly in the early years of his tempestuous struggle, he threw off ideas which stamp him as thoroughly modern.

F. Loofs, for instance, says: “His leading ideas include in them a whole series of inferences which, however, he never followed up to their logical conclusion.… I may mention Luther’s dislike for all bare historical and dogmatic belief, the tendency he had caught from Erasmus to criticise even the Canon, the distinction he adumbrated between the message of salvation or ‘Word of God’ and the actual written word of Scripture.… Semler, who has been styled the father of Rationalism, in his ‘Abhandlung vom freien Gebrauch des Kanons’ has not unjustly claimed Luther as a forerunner … moreover, the services rendered by Luther to the [liberal Protestant] theology of the 19th century in many of its varied schools of thought cannot easily be overlooked.”[1646]

In these remarks there is doubtless much truth, and there are facts which go to bear out the theory that Luther indeed stands in close relations to the modern spirit. There can be no doubt that, in Luther, we find mediæval and modern features combined. What is wanting is an organic connection between the two; as explained in the foregoing volumes it was only at the expense of flagrant contradictions that he took over certain elements from the past while rejecting others; that he took one step forward towards modern infidelity and another backwards. The ancient figure of Janus with one face looking forward into the future and the other back upon the past was harmonious, at least inasmuch as the two faces were depicted as separate. In Luther, however, the two faces are one, a fact which scarcely improves his physiognomy.

From the recent studies on Luther we can now see more clearly than before that a “revision of the whole conception and appreciation of Luther” is imperative in his own household. But, in view of all the work already done, “is it not high time for us to expect an estimate of the Reformation as a whole which shall also be just to the whole Luther?” Stephan, who asks this question, answers it as follows: “We are still to-day in the midst of a new development that started more than a century since from the contrast presented by the different schools of thought.”[1647]

The “Religious” Reformer and the Hero of “Kultur”

Two other conceptions are in vogue at the present day, which are in part a reaction against the rather over-bold assertions sometimes made about Luther’s mediævalism. Some have insisted that Luther is to be taken as a “religious” teacher, without examining his actual doctrines too narrowly. To others he appears in the light of the founder of modern “Kultur,” i.e. of civilisation in its widest sense. Neither of these ideas can boast of being very clear, nor have they met with any great success.

Those who regard Luther merely as a religious teacher practically confine themselves to imputing to him the “religiousness” of modern Protestantism as the inward force which moved him; albeit, maybe, in his teaching, he did not quite come up to the modern standard. This was to all intents and purposes the view of Albert Ritschl and his school. Luther, they declared, taught first and foremost that both “piety and theology should rest on the consciousness of having in Christ a Gracious God, thanks to which consciousness we rise superior to the world with all its goods and all its duties.” With him “it was not a question of denominations but simply one of religion.” Ritschl, as another Protestant not unjustly observed, “undoubtedly fell a victim to the temptation” of “modernising” Luther.[1648] Moreover, whereas, according to Ritschl, one of Luther’s main achievements was his introduction of a new view of the Church as an institution devoid of legal jurisdiction, according to other Protestant scholars, it was “chiefly in his views regarding the Church that Luther remained under the spell of mediæval thought.”[1649] On the other hand, some few have sought to make out Luther’s religiousness to have been simply ethical. Thus Wilhelm Wundt, the philosopher, declared that Luther had taught mankind no new religion but only a new ethical system, which, however, was merely an offshoot of the Renaissance. As against this we may set the affirmation of Paul Wernle, viz. that neither Luther nor Lutheranism had a system of ethics at all.[1650]

Recently, it is true, Luther’s “religiousness” has been described by a skilful pen as consisting in an interior union with God, as something altogether “spiritual,” “personal,” as “a sentiment bringing comfort to man’s conscience.”[1651] The truth is, however, that the greatest minds, in mediæval and still more in patristic times, were also in favour of greater inwardness and were against that sort of righteousness which consists merely of words and works. This is a result borne in upon one by all the research now being conducted with so much vigour into the views prevalent in the Middle Ages and earlier.

Hence those who look upon Luther as a new preacher of religion are compelled to paint the pre-Lutheran world as absolutely heathen. Luther, “with his peasant’s pick, relentlessly attacked the vulgar polytheism of the people, the sublime polytheism of public worship and dogma, and likewise the pantheism of mysticism.” But, even if we suppose that all these dreadful things prevailed before Luther’s coming, what did he set up in their place? He induced people, so it is said, to “seek God and find Him in Jesus Christ the image of the fatherly heart of God, to fear, love and hope in God above all things, to fix our heart on God alone and there let it rest.”[1652]—But this was precisely what the olden mediæval Church had sought to do, hence, where is Luther’s peculiarity?

The state of the question to-day would almost seem to justify the words of the famous Ernst Moritz Arndt in his “Ansichten und Aussichten der teutschen Geschichte.” He wrote in 1814: “What Luther really taught and wished has hitherto been understood only by the few; his contemporaries failed to understand him, nor did he understand himself”; but “he foresaw that fiery, disembodied, formless Christianity that was to consist of nothing more than fire and spirit.” Arndt concludes with the solemn words: “But peace be with thine ashes, thou great German man, and may the earth hide thy shortcomings and Christian charity thy faults.”[1653]

The aim of other modern thinkers is to breathe new life into Luther by depicting him as the founder and the hero of modern “Kultur.” The conception of the author of Protestantism as the fount and origin of all present-day civilisation is certainly new and different from the earlier portraitures we have thus far considered. In this picture the “cultural” traits are put in so strong a light that his “religiousness” tends to vanish.

Modern civilisation is non-religious. It is perfectly true that Luther materially contributed to the expulsion of religious influences from the secular government and from public life in general; also that he intervened with a powerful hand to promote the secularisation—that had already begun—and to loosen the existing bond between the Church and the world. On the other hand, it is quite wrong to shut one’s eyes to the other powerful factors at work both before him and in his day which were also tending towards the civilisation of to-day with its estrangement from the Church and preponderance of material interests. Such a factor was the later Humanism. The whole background of the time in which he lived and the seething ferment that preceded the birth of the new world has been misunderstood. His friends indeed point to the after-effects of his undertaking as seen in the subsequent growth of education and scholarship; also to his attitude towards public morality; to the services he rendered to the German tongue; even to the benefit which, indirectly, accrued to agriculture, to the arts, to music, poetry, etc. But, even if we are disposed to allow that an improvement has taken place, it would be utterly unjust to blink the fact that many other spiritual and material influences were at work in all these spheres and were far more potent than Lutheranism. The Lutheran territories were still in a state of servitude and general backwardness when there passed over Germany a great wave of civilisation that was partly of German partly of foreign and even of Catholic growth. For the good that undoubtedly exists in modern civilisation we have to thank partly the natural sciences, which on their revival found a fertile soil even in Italy and France, partly commerce in which, however, the South of Europe was as active as any other region of the world, partly the arts, the best work being, however, cisalpine, partly the development of the State and the army, which again is certainly no indigenous product of Protestantism; hence what we now know is the result of a rivalry between varied influences and many countries. Then again all those qualities which to-day give Germany so high a place among the nations had existed in his countrymen long before Luther’s day; such were their readiness to appreciate the good in others, their openness to outside ideas, their ability to exploit foreign progress, their industry, their domesticity, their tenacity in overcoming all obstacles, and their sober outlook.

Those who make Luther the hero of “Kultur” are also apt to forget the sad ethical, social and political consequences of the schism. To these Adolf Harnack referred plainly enough in a lecture delivered in 1883: “We are well aware of what the Reformation cost us Germans and still costs us. For ages it delayed our political unity; it brought on us the Thirty Years’ War; it made it difficult for us to be just to the Church of the Middle Ages, nay, even to the Church of Antiquity—we cannot break with history without obscuring it—it brought upon us a religious schism which still hinders our growth.”[1654]

If, however, we examine those elements of the new “Kultur” which from the religious or moral standpoint are somewhat questionable (though, amongst Protestant unbelievers, writers are not wanting who are ready to justify them) we meet with many indications which lead us back to Luther. Yet, here again, on the other hand, there were other great and far-reaching causes at work which account for them, which have but little to do with Lutheranism. Such were, for instance, the English Deism which reached Germany by way of France and which helped to produce the infidelity of the Enlightenment; also the revolutionary ideas of 1789 on liberty, the Rights of Man and the lawfulness of rising in revolt, ideas to which the masses are still addicted; then again the luxury that was imported from abroad; above all the inclination of the human heart everywhere to sensuality, to egotism and to promote one’s own standing and temporal welfare even at the expense of one’s neighbour. These maladies to which human nature is prone have, by various causes, been sadly aggravated in modern times. How far Luther was responsible for some of these causes should not be difficult to determine after all that has been said above. At any rate his repudiation of authority in religious matters, his new ideas on faith and good works, and, again his whole system of subjectivism, were poor barriers against the inrush of those elements hostile to faith in God, to Christianity and to ethics, which, in modern civilisation, have a place side by side with much that is good.

Nietzsche laid it down that Luther was the first to free the German people from Christianity by teaching them to be un-Roman and to say: Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.[1655] He was anxious to make Luther the patron of his newest brand of “Kultur.” But this new, antichristian and atheistic “Kultur” is largely repudiated in Protestant circles. Many, like Walter Köhler, refuse to admit that Luther was in any sense the father of modern freethought; how could he have been, asks Köhler, since he would not sanction any freedom of conscience, and did not even understand what such a thing was?[1656]

Hence Luther makes a rather unsatisfactory “Hero of Kultur.” To depict him in this light his relations with the more favourable side of “Kultur” have to be so much exaggerated and distorted that one almost expects him, the sworn opponent of “fool reason” and champion of the “enslaved will,” to leap from his grave in protest; on the other hand, it is quite impossible to claim Luther as an advocate of that side of modern “Kultur” which is antagonistic to religion and morality. Protestant authorities have also protested against any claim being made on his behalf that he at least abolished that “Kultur which was directed by the Church”; on the contrary, so they declare, the “Kultur” for which he stood was in many respects “still tied up to the one and only Church” and was quite “mediæval in its character.”[1657] Thus, here again, a sort of dual picture, painted partly in the gay colours of the present day, partly in the sombre tints of the past.

A “Political” Luther?—Conclusion

Over and above all the previous presentations of Luther another strange portrait has recently appeared, which finds admirers among lay historians and students of political history. Here Luther’s political traits are emphasised. Houston Stewart Chamberlain, in his much-read work “Grundlagen des 19 Jahrhunderts,” insists on this view of Luther, starting from the assumption which is beyond question “that the separation from Rome for which Luther fought with such passion all his life was in itself the greatest political upheaval that could possibly occur.… However pitiful the later history of the Reformation may have been, still Luther’s deed was an undying one for this reason, that it rested on a firm political groundwork.” Chamberlain quite rightly makes much of Luther’s attempt to link his cause with that of the princes and with the German national sentiment.

“Without the princes,” says Chamberlain, “nothing could have been done. Who seriously believes that the princes who patronised the Reformation were inspired by or acted from religious enthusiasm? The fingers of one hand would be more than enough on which to reckon up those of whom such a thing holds good. Political interest and political ambition backed by the awakening of national sentiment were the determining factors.” “Even in the later wars of religion the political question was paramount.” It was his desire to win over the German statesmen that made Luther “speak so highly of the ‘German nation’ and so disrespectfully of the Papists.” That was why he wrote, for instance: “For my Germans was I born, them will I serve.” He is “more a politician than a theologian.” “Luther is, above all, a political hero.”

This portrait of the “political hero” is not one whit less one-sided than the others; above all, the author, who has no understanding for Christianity and the Church, fails also to see the so-called “religious” side in Luther. It is true that political motives often loomed so large in Luther’s case and in that of the princes who lent him their support as actually to obscure the religious side of the struggle. Luther himself, however, was anything rather than a great politician on the world’s stage. He had, in fact, to quote a Protestant historian, woefully distorted and imperfect views of the actual trend of human events, particularly of the determining personalities and active factors in the politics of that day. Never perhaps has a more childish diagnosis been given than that contained in the advice of the Wittenberg theologian to his sovereigns about their attitude towards Charles V.[1658] The circumstance that he was deficient in political sense may explain to some extent his mistakes and want of logic in this sphere, but cannot excuse the masterful tone in which he so often expresses himself on the public questions of the day. Then again there was his changeableness. Resistance to the Kaiser, which at one time he had declared unlawful, was advised by him later. After he had handed over the rights of the Church to the lawyers he turns on them and denounces them as his worst foes, who must be fought with every weapon for the sake of the independence of the preachers. In the same way, in spite of the religious freedom which he seemed at first to proclaim as a lasting principle for all future government of Church and State, we find him making his own that repellant intolerance, which, at last subsequent to 1530, led him to advocate the death-penalty for those who held “sectarian” doctrines, or any that differed from his own.

Discouraged by the failure of all these attempts to portray Luther others, at present, are inclined to deny him any mark of distinction and, in particular, any creative power, and depict him simply as the sum, or “product, of existing historical forces.” They emphasise strongly the pre-existing factors and regard him less as a mover than as one moved. This view, however, has also been stigmatised by Protestants as “Mythological.” They object that even “the masses also have a certain share in the achievements of genius,” and that genius itself is but “a child of its time.”[1659]

“The literary portraits of Luther,” says the Protestant author of “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” “are all more or less unlike the original. They are not in the strict sense of the word portraits at all but rather represent a type.… Every age has to some degree altered the traditional picture of the Reformer to make it fit its own ideals.” “The naïve way of idealising which credits the hero of history with our own ideals … is still at work even at the present day. If we cannot claim the whole Luther for ourselves, we can at least claim a bit of Luther.”

“In most of the popular Luther biographies of recent times,” the same author says, “all that is harsh and rude, violent and demagogic, rough and crude in the physiognomy of the Reformer has been obliterated.”[1660]

Adolf Harnack, also, seeks to discourage the practice of “hero painting”; he speaks unkindly of the common, “emotional pictures” of Luther as the reformer of civilisation which are fabricated somehow or other with the help of a select collection of artificial strokes. He adds: “The reformer himself would not recognise such a picture as his.” “Such a thing would be to him,” to quote an expression of Luther’s own, simply “a painted Luther.”[1661]

To get as close as possible to the real Luther and not to present a painted or fictitious one has been our constant endeavour in the present work. We venture to hope that the claims of objective history may be recognised even in a field which trenches so closely on religious convictions. There is so much that is purely historical and may be judged quite apart from denominational considerations, so much neutral ground where it is merely a question of facts. To construct an opinion of one’s own based on the incontrovertible facts is open to everyone. We trust that the new discussions that seem called for for a further sifting of facts will be undertaken in all calm and in the dispassionate temper befitting the historian. Should these volumes serve as a stimulus in this direction, the author will feel that, by this alone, he has achieved something great.

APPENDICES

XLI—APPENDIX I
LUTHER’S WRITINGS AND THE EVENTS OF THE DAY ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

[The list in the original was compiled by Peter Sinthern, S.J. We have retained it intact, save that here, as in the body of the work, we give the title of each of Luther’s German writings in the quaint spelling of the earliest “Urdruck” to which we had access. Note of the English Editor.]

As the plan of the present work, as explained in the Introduction (vol. i., pp. xxvii., xxxi.), did not allow of a strict chronological order being followed, and as, moreover, many of Luther’s writings and not a few events of the day had to be passed over in silence, the following list may be found both interesting and useful.

Reference is made in it to all Luther’s publications, even the smaller ones, and the reader is told where they may be found, either in the older Erlangen edition, or in the more recent Weimar edition, so far as the latter goes. Such a catalogue forms the best skeleton for Luther’s history. The list is based on that given by Köstlin (“Luther,”⁵ 2, p. 718 ff.), slightly enlarged, for instance by references to Luther’s correspondence (in Enders, De Wette and the Erlangen ed.), to his Disputations (as in Drews), and to his sermons. Works which do not figure in the actual list for each year but in the paragraph inset at the end, are those which, though published during the year in question, were written earlier. Some works apparently omitted in the list will be found either in the Sermons or in the Correspondence of Luther.

The bringing into conjunction of Luther’s writings with the principal events of the years in which they saw the light will be found of advantage, in that the two often mutually complete and explain each other.

Till 1516. Accession of Pope Leo X, 1513; of Kaiser Maximilian I, 1493; of Frederick, Elector of Saxony, 1486; of George, Duke of Saxony, 1500; of William IV, Duke of Bavaria, 1508; of Joachim I, Elector of Brandenburg, 1499; of Albert Archbishop of Mayence, 1514; of Scultetus, Bishop of Brandenburg, 1507.—In 1502 foundation of the University of Wittenberg. In 1503 death of Andreas Proles. Johann Lang, professor (since 1511) at Wittenberg goes (1515-16) back to Erfurt. In 1510 Eck is appointed professor at Ingolstadt; Carlstadt wins his doctorate. In 1511, Amsdorf becomes a licentiate in theology. In 1513, Spalatin is appointed Court-chaplain and secretary to the Elector Frederick. In 1513-1514, the attitude of the peasants becomes threatening. In 1515, publication of the “Epistolæ obscurorum virorum” of Crotus Rubeanus, etc.—1483, Nov. 10, Birth of Martin Luther. In 1497, he is sent to Magdeburg to the Brothers of the Common Life. In 1498, he goes to Eisenach and, in 1501, to Erfurt. 1502, he becomes a Baccalaureus. In 1505, he is made a Master and enters the cloister (July 17). In 1506, he makes his vows; his first Mass (May 2?). He begins to study theology. In 1508, he goes to Wittenberg to study; his lectures on dialectics and ethics. In 1509, he becomes a Baccalaureus biblicus (March 9); late in the year he returns to Erfurt and becomes Sententiarius. At the end of 1510 he goes to Rome and early in 1511 returns to Germany; “deserts to Staupitz” and removes again to Wittenberg. In 1512, the Cologne Chapter; beginning of his friendship with Lang and Eberbach; his doctorate (Oct. 18); he succeeds Staupitz as professor of Holy Scripture. In 1514 he takes Reuchlin’s side. In 1515 is made District-Vicar at the Chapter of Gotha; his discourse “Against the Little Saints.” His opinions become fixed whilst engaged on his Exposition of Romans (1515-1516); echoes of the new doctrine in his sermons at Christmas.

1. 1510-1511. Marginal notes to the Sentences (Bks. i.-iii.) and certain works of St. Augustine (publ. 1893). Weim. ed., 9, pp. 2 ff., 28 ff.

2. 1513-1515. First lectures on the Psalms: “Dictata super psalterium” (publ. 1743 and 1876, complete 1885). Weim. ed., 3, pp. 1(11)-652 (ps. i.-lxxxiv.); 4, pp. 1-462 (ps. lxxxv.-cl.); 9, pp. 116-121 (ps. xli.).

3. 1514-1517. Sermons on the Lessons (in Latin) preached at the monastery (publ. 1720). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 18(20)-141; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 41-214.

4. 1514-1520. Sermons (ed. Roth, 1886). Weim. ed., 4, pp. 587(590)-717; 9, pp. 203(204); cp. “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 25-232.

5. 1515-1516. Lectures on Romans (ed. Joh. Ficker, 1908).

6. 1515? “Sermo præscriptus præposito in Litzka” (publ. 1708). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 8(10)-17; “Opp. lat var.,” 1, pp. 29-41.

Sermons, cp. Nos. 3, 4, 6. Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 4-27. Erl. ed., 53, p. 1.

1516. Hermann von Wied becomes Archbishop of Cologne; Erasmus’s “Colloquia”; his first edition of the Greek New Testament with a new Latin translation; Lang as Prior of Erfurt.—Luther’s first mention of Tauler, in his “Commentary on Romans”; his mystical letters to Spenlein and Leiffer (April 8, 15); his quarrel with the Erfurt monks (June 16); his Catholic sermon on Indulgences (July 27); his sermons against the “holy-by-works” (July-Aug.); Opposition to his new theology at Wittenberg and Erfurt (Sept.); back to Augustine! (Oct. 19); Carlstadt’s Theses; Luther busy on Galatians and Titus, 1516-1517.

7. 1516-1517. “Decem præcepta Wittembergensi prædicata populo” (publ. 1518). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 394(398)-521; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, pp. 1-218.

8. (Sept.). “Quæstio de viribus et voluntate hominis sine gratia” (Theses for Barth. Bernhardi: “Initium negocii evangelici”). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 142(145)-151; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 232(235)-255.

9. (Oct. 27, 1516-1517). “In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas” (Lectures, publ. 1519). Weim. ed., 2, pp. 436(451)-618. Irmischer, 3, pp. 141-485.

10. 1st ed. of “Eyn geystlich edles Buchleynn” (the “Theologia Deutsch”), with “Vor Rede.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 152(153); Erl. ed., 63, p. 238.

Sermons, cp. Nos. 3, 4, 7. Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 28-78.

1517. Creation of 31 new Cardinals (July 1); ridicule of the German Humanists; Hutten settles in Germany; his edition of the “Donatio Constantini”; “our” Erasmus (March 1) publishes his paraphrases on the Epistles, and, later, on the Gospels; the old exegesis fares badly; “De planctu ecclesiæ” reprinted at Lyons; Tetzel visits Magdeburg, Halberstadt and (in Oct.) Berlin; Luther nails up his Latin Indulgence-Theses (Oct. 31).

11. “Die sieben Puszpsalm mit deutscher Auszlegung nach dem schrifftlichen Synne” (first personal work published by Luther). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 154(158)-220; Erl. ed., 37, pp. 345-442.

12. “Auslegung deutsch des Vater Unnser fuer dye einfeltigen Leyen” (publ. by Agricola, and by Luther himself in 1518, No. 31).

13. Lectures on Hebrews (still unpublished).

14. “Disputatio contra scholasticam theologiam” (Theses for Franz Günther). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 221(224)-228; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 315-321.

15. “Die zehen Gepot Gottes … mit einer kurtzen Ausslegung” (publ. 1518). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 247(250)-256; Erl. ed., 36, pp. 146-154.

16. The 95 Indulgence-Theses: “Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 229(233)-238; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 285-293.

Sermons, cp. Nos. 3, 4, 7. Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 79-137; Erl. ed., 53, p. 1 f.

1518. Philip II Landgrave of Hesse (March 31); Sickingen and his men desert the French for the Kaiser (May 16); Melanchthon goes to Wittenberg (Aug. 25).—Early in 1518 Archbishop Albert sends his report to Rome; Tetzel’s counter-theses (Jan. 18); Leo X directs the Augustinian superiors to take steps; the Heidelberg Chapter and the Disputation in Luther’s favour; Lang displaces Luther as District-Vicar; charges formulated at Rome against Luther as a spreader of heretical opinions (middle of June); he is summoned to Rome (Aug. 7); the Augsburg trial (Oct.); Papal Bull to defend the doctrine of Indulgences (Nov. 9); Luther appeals to a General Council (Nov. 28); he discovers the secret of the certainty of salvation.

17. “Eyn Sermon von dem Ablass und Gnade.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 239(243)-246; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 4-8; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 326-331.

18. “Resolutiones disputationum de indulgentiarum virtute.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 522(525)-628; 9, pp. 171-175; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 126-293.

19. “Sermo de pœnitentia.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 317(319)-324; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 331-340.

20. Theses for the Heidelberg Disputation (Leonard Beyer’s). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 350(353)-355; 9, pp. 160(161)-170; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 387-390.

21. “Asterisci Lutheri adv. Obeliscos Eckii” (publ. 1545). Weim. ed., 1, pp. 278(281)-314; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 410-456.

22. Preface to the complete ed. of “Eyn Deutsch Theologia.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 374(378)-379; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 238-240; cp. No. 10.

23. “Eyn Freiheyt dess Sermons Bepstlichen Ablass und Gnad belangend.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 380(383)-393; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 10-25.

24. “Ausslegung des 109 Psalmen.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 687(689)-710; 9, pp. 176-202; Erl. ed., 40, pp. 3-38.

25. “Ad dialogum Silvestri Prieriatis de potestate Papæ responsio.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 644(647)-686; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 6-67.

26. “Sermo de virtute excommunicationis.” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 634(638)-643; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, 2, pp. 306-313.

27. “Sermo in festo S. Michaelis in arce Wimariensi” (publ. 1556). “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 226-232.

28. “Acta Augustana.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 1(6)-26; 9, p. 205; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 354-361, 367-392.

29. “Appellatio a Caietano ad Papam.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 27(28)-33; “Opp. lat var.,” 2, pp. 398-404.

30. “Appellatio ad futurum concilium universale.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 34(36)-40; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 438-445.

31. “Auslegung deutsch des Vater Unnser fuer dye einfeltigen Leyen.” (Cp. No. 12.) Weim. ed., 2, pp. 74(80)-130; 9, pp. 122(123)-159; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 159-227; 45, pp. 204-207.

32. “Sermo de triplici iustitia.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 41(43)-47; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 322-329.

“Decem præcepta,” cp. No. 7. Brief explanation of the Ten Commandments, cp. No. 15. Sermons, Erl. ed., 16², pp. 3-33; cp. No. 4. Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 138-337; 5, p. 1; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 3-5.

1519. Death of Maximilian I, Charles V succeeds him (June 28); Ulrich becomes Duke of Würtemberg; the “Onus ecclesiæ” of B. Pirstinger of Chiemsee; death of Tetzel (Aug. 11); Capito becomes cathedral-preacher at Mayence; Zwingli at Zürich (Jan. 1); Oldecop visits Rome; Miltitz calls on Luther (Jan.); the Leipzig Disputations (June-July).

33. Preface to Prierias’s “Replica.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 48(50)-56; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 68-78.

34. “Kurtz Unterweysung wie man beichten sol.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 57(59)-65; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 245-253 (cp. No. 66).

35. “Unterricht auff etlich Artikell.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 66(69)-73; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 3-9; 24², pp. 5-11.

36. “Eyn Sermon von der Betrachtung des heyligen Leydens Christi.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 131(136)-142; Erl. ed., 11, pp. 144-152; 11², pp. 154-163.

37. Commentary on Galatians, cp. No. 9.

38. 1519-1521. Second course of Lectures on the Psalms. “Operationes in psalmos” (Ps. i.-xxii.). Weim. ed., 5, pp. 1(19)-673; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 14-16.

39. “Sermo de duplici iustitia.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 143(145)-152; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 329-339.

40. “Disputatio et excusatio adv. criminationes Eccii.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 153(158)-161; 9, pp. 206(207)-212; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 12-17.

41. “Eyn Sermon von dem Elichen Standt.” Original text, Weim. ed., 9, pp. 213-220; Erl. ed., 16, pp. 150-158; 16², pp. 50-57. Revised text, Weim. ed., 2, pp. 162(166)-171; Erl. ed., 16, pp. 158-165; 16², pp. 60-67.

42. “Eyn kurtze Form des Pater Noster zu versteen unnd zu betten.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 9(11)-19; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 21-32.

43. “Kurtze nützliche ausslegung des Vatter Unsers fürsich und hindersich.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 20(21)-22; Erl. ed., 45, p. 208-211.

44. “Eyn Sermon von dem Gepeet unnd Procession yn der Creutz Wochen.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 172(175)-179; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 290-296; 16², pp. 69-76.

45. “Eyn Sermon von dem Wucher.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 1(3)-8; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 122-127; 16², pp. 113-117.

46. “Resolutio super propositione sua (Lipsiensi) XIII de potestate Papæ.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 180(183)-240; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 296-384.

47. “Scheda adv. Hochstraten,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 384(386)-387; “Opp. lat var.,” 2, pp. 295-297.

48. “Resolutiones super propositionibus Lipsiæ disputatis.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 388(391)-435; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 228-292.

49. “Tessaradecas consolatoria pro laborantibus et oneratis.” (publ. 1520). Weim. ed., 6, pp. 99(104)-134; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 88-135.

50. “Contra malignum Ioh. Eccii iudicium.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 621(625)-654; “Opp. lat. var.,” pp. 472-514.

51. “Ad ægocerotem Emserianum additio.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 655(658)-679; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 13-45.

52. “Sermon von dem Sacrament der Puss.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 709(713)-723; Erl. ed., 53, p. 30 f.; 20, pp. 179-193; 16², pp. 35-48.

53. “Eyn Sermon von der Bereytung zum Sterben.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 680(684)-697; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 258-274; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 453-473.

54. “Ad Eccium super expurgatione Ecciana.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 698(700)-708; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 47-58.

55. “Eyn Sermon von dem heyligen hochwirdigen Sacrament der Tauffe.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 724(727)-737; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 229-244; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 398-410.

56. “Eyn Sermon von dem hochwirdigen Sacrament des heyligen waren Leychnams Christi.” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 738(742)-758; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 28-50.

57. “Scholia in librum Genesios” (publ. 1893). Weim. ed., 9, pp. 329-415.

58. “Enarrationes epistolarum et evangeliorum quas postillas vocant” (publ. 1893). Weim. ed., 9, pp. 415-676.

59. Latin Advent-postils (publ. 1521). Weim. ed., 7, pp. 458(463)-637.

Sermons, cp. No. 36, 41, 44, 52, 55-59. Letters, Enders, 1, p. 338—2, p. 289; 5, pp. 4-8; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 5-34; 56, pp. i.-vii.

1520. Suleiman II begins his career. The war in Hungary. Coronation of Charles V at Aachen (Oct. 23). Hutten offers Luther his own and Sickingen’s protection; his “Vadiscus” and “Inspicientes” (April). Münzer at Zwickau (May 17); Urban Rhegius cathedral-preacher at Augsburg; Link succeeds Staupitz as General Vicar (Aug. 28). Eck goes to Rome; the first Consistory against Luther (Jan. 9). The Stolpen decree of the Bishop of Meissen (Jan. 24). Luther’s letter to Charles V (Aug. 30); his third and last epistle to Leo X (after Oct. 13). The Bull “Exsurge” and its condemnation of 41 theses (June 15), published in Germany by Eck (in Sept.) and burnt by Luther (Dec. 10). Luther’s open attack on the freedom of the will.

60. “Eyn Sermon von dem Bann.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 61(63)-75; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 51-70.

61. “Eyn Sermon von dem Wucher.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 33(36)-60; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 89-120; 16², pp. 79-110.

62. “Erklerung … etlicher Artickel yn seynem Sermon von dem heyligen Sacrament.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 76(78)-83; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 71-77.

63. “Antwort auff die Tzedel sso unter des Officials tzu Stolpen Sigel ist aussgangen”; “Ad Schedulam inhibitionis.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 135(136)-141, 142(144)-153; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 78-84; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 138-151.

64. “Sermon von den guten Wercken.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 196(202)-276; 9, pp. 226(229)-301; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 193-290; 16², pp. 121-220.

65. “Responsio ad condemnationem doctrinalen per Lovanienses et Colonienses.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 170(174)-195; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 176-205.

66. “Confitendi ratio.” Weim. ed., 6, 154(157)-169; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 154-171 (cp. No. 34).

67. “Eyn kurcz Form der czehen Gepott. Eyn kurcz Form dess Glaubens. Eyn kurcz Form dess Vatter Unssers.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 194(204)-229; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 3-32.

68. “Von dem Bapstum tzu Rome wider dem hochberumpten Romanisten tzu Leiptzk” (i.e. Alveld). Weim. ed., 6, pp. 277(285)-324; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 86-139.

69. “Epitoma responsionis Silv. Prieratis” with preface and postface. Weim. ed., 6, pp. 325(328)-348; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 79-108.

70. “An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 381(404)-469; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 277-360.

71. “Eyn Sermon von dem newen Testament das ist von der heyligen Messe.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 349(353)-378; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 141-173.

72. “De captivitate babylonica ecclesiæ præludium.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 484(497)-573; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 16-118.

73. “Erbieten” (“Oblatio sive Protestatio”). Weim. ed., 6, pp. 478(480)-481, 482-483; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 9-11; 24², pp. 12-14; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 4-6; early draft of same, Weim. ed., 6, pp. 476-478; 9, pp. 302-304; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 12-14; 24², pp. 14-16.

74. Preface to “Adv. constitutionem de cleri cœlibatu.” Cp. Weim. ed., 7, p. 677.

75. “Von den newen Eckischenn Bullen und Lugen.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 576(579)-594; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 15-28; 24², pp. 18-31.

76. “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 12(20)-38; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 175-199.

77. “Eyn Sendbrieff an den Bapst Leo. den czehenden.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 1(3)-11; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 41-52.

78. “Epistola Lutheriana ad Leonem decimum.” “Tractatus de libertate christiana.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 39(42)-73; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 219-255.

79. “Adv. execrabilem Antichristi bullam.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 595(597)-612; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 134-153.

80. “Widder die Bullen des Endchrists.” Weim. ed., 6, pp. 613(614)-629; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 36-52; 24², pp. 39-55.

81. “Appellatio ad Concilium repetita.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 74(75)-82; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 121-131.

82. “Appellation odder Beruffung … repetirt.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 83(85)-90; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 30-35; 24², pp. 32-37.

83. “Das Magnificat verteuschet und ausgelegt” (publ. 1521). Weim. ed., 7, pp. 538-604; Erl. ed., 45, pp. 212-290.

84. “Warumb des Bapsts und seyner Jungern Bucher … vorbrant seyn.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 152-186; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 152-164; 24², pp. 154-166; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 257-270.

85. “Assertio omnium articulorum per bullam damnatorum.” (publ. 1521). Weim. ed., 7, pp. 91-151; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 156-237.

Tessaradecas (cp. No. 49). Sermons (cp. No. 58). Letters, Enders 2, p. 290-3, p. 37; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 34-53.

1521. First war between Charles V and François I (lasting till 1526). Henry VIII publishes his “Assertio.” Death of Leo X (Dec. 1). Fall of Belgrad. Bugenhagen comes to Wittenberg and Eberlin of Günzburg goes to Ulm. The Bull “Decet Rom. Pontif.” is issued (Jan. 3). The Diet of Worms; the “Gravanima”; Aleander’s discourse (Feb. 13). Luther is summoned to the Diet (March 6), his sermon at Erfurt (April 7), his condemnation by the Sorbonne (April 15), his arrival at Worms (April 16); he refuses to recant (April 18); his stay at the Wartburg (May 4, 1521-March 1, 1522); the sentence of outlawry, May 8 (May 26). Carlstadt assails clerical celibacy; the turmoil at Erfurt (July); the Mass is abolished among the Wittenberg Augustinians (Oct.). Luther busies himself with the translation of the Bible (Dec. 1521-1534); Melanchthon’s Commonplace-Book (Dec.). Luther’s secret visit to Wittenberg (Dec. 3-11). Carlstadt introduces a new rite for the Supper (Dec. 25). The Zwickau “prophets” come to Wittenberg.

86. “Grund vnd Vrsach aller Artickel … so … verdampt seindt.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 299(308)-457; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 53-150; 24², pp. 56-150.

87. “An den Bock zu Leyptzck.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 259(262)-265; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 201-205.

88. “Auff des Bocks zu Leypczick Antwort.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 266(271)-283; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 205-220.

89. “Unterricht der Beychtkinder ubir die vorpotten Bucher.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 284(290)-298; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 203-209; 24², pp. 206-213.

90. “Auff das ubirchristlich, ubirgeystlich und ubirkunstlich Buch Bocks Emssers.” Weim. ed. 7, pp. 614(621)-688; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 221-308.

91. “Ad librum Ambrosii Catharini responsio,” Weim. ed. 7, pp. 698(704)-778; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 289-394.

92. “Responsio extemporaria ad articulos ex Babylonica et Assertionibus excerptos.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 605(608)-613; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 24-30.

93. “Eyn Sermon … am Gründornstag.” Weim. ed., 7, pp. 689(692)-697; Erl. ed., 17, pp. 65-72; 16², pp. 242-249.

94. “Deutsch Auszlegũg des sieben uñ seditzigstẽ Psalmẽ.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 1(14)-35; Erl. ed., 39, pp. 179-220.

95. “Von der Beicht ob der Bapst Macht habe zu gepieten.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 129(138)-204; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 319-379.

96. Church-postils, Advent to Epiphany (publ. 1522). Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, pp. 1-728; Erl. ed., 7, 10; 7², 10².

97. “Eyn Kleyn Unterricht was man ynn den Euangeliis suchen und gewartten soll.” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, pp. 8-18; Erl. ed., 7, pp. 5-12; 7², pp. 6-13.

98. “Rationis Latomianæ confutatio.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 36(43)-128; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, pp. 395-521.

99. “Der sechs uñ dreyssigist Psalm.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 205 (210)-240; Erl. ed., 38, pp. 373-396; 39, pp. 124-136.

100. “Eyn Urteyl der Theologen tzu Paris uber die Lere Dr. Luthers. Eyn gegen Urteyl Dr. Luthers.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 255(267)-312; 9, pp. 716(717)-761; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 380-410.

101. “Evangelium von den tzehen Aussetzigen.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 336(340)-397; Erl. ed., 17, pp. 146-176; 14², pp. 42-87; 16², pp. 259-291.

102. “Themata de votis.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 313(323)-335; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 344-360; 6, p. 235.

103. “Eyn Widderspruch seynis yrthũss erczwungen durch den … Herrn H. Emser.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 241(247)-254; Erl. ed., 27, pp. 308-318.

104. “De votis monasticis” (publ. 1522). Weim. ed., 8, pp. 564(573)-669; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 238-376.

105. “De abroganda missa privata” (publ. 1522). Weim. ed., 8, pp. 398(411)-476; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 115-212.

106. “Vom Missbrauch der Messen” (publ. 1522). Weim. ed., 8, pp. 477(482)-563; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 28-141.

107. “Eyn trew Vormanung … sich zu vorhuten fur Auffruhr und Emporung.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 670(676)-688; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 43-59; 22², pp. 43-58.

108. Translation of the New Testament (publ. 1522).

The Magnificat, cp. No. 83. Latin Postils, cp. No. 59. “Assertio omnium articulorum,” cp. No. 85. Sermons, cp. Nos. 58, 96 and Weim. ed., 7, pp. 792(795)-802; 9, pp. 501-516; Erl. ed., 16², pp. 221-301. Letters, Enders, 3, pp. 38-268; 53, pp. 55-103.

1522. Hadrian VI (Pope from Jan. 9, 1522, to Sept. 14, 1523). Charles V goes to Spain, remaining there till 1529; the Diet of Nuremberg (Dec.); the Turkish question, the “Centum gravamina,” the fall of Rhodes (Dec. 25). Iconoclastic riot at Wittenberg (Jan.); the Wittenberg Augustinians abolish their rule about begging (Jan. 6); relics no longer to be exposed at the Collegiate Church (April 16). Jonas (Feb. 22) and Bugenhagen (Oct. 13) take wives. Luther returns from the Wartburg (March 1); his sermons against Carlstadt (March 9-16). Hartmuth von Cronberg’s missive; Luther returns to Erfurt (Oct.). The innovations forcibly introduced into Altenburg, Schwarzburg, Eilenburg, etc.

109. “Bulla Cœnæ Domini.” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 688(691)-720; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 165-202; 24², pp. 168-204.

110. “Acht Sermon” (Against Carlstadt). Weim. ed., 10, 3, pp. 1-64; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 203-285.

111. “Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes zu nehmen.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 1(11)-41; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 286-318.

112. “Eyn Missive an den ereñvestenn Harttmutt vonn Cronberg.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 42(53)-60; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 120-128.

113. “Von Menschen leren tzu meyden.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 61(72)-92; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 330-343.

114. “Die erst Epistel Sanct Petri gepredigt und ausgelegt” (publ. 1523). Weim. ed., 12, pp. 249(259)-399; Erl. ed., 51, pp. 325-494.

115. “Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt des Bapst und der Bischoffen.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 93(105)-158; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 142-202.

116. “Bulle des Ecclesiasten tzu Wittenbergk.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 140-144; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 380-387; 24², pp. 214-220.

117. “Epistel odder Unterricht von den Heyligen an die Kirch tzu Erffurdt.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 159(164)-168; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 139-144.

118. “Contra Henricum regem Angliæ.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 175(180)-222; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 385-448.

119. “Antwort deutsch … auff König Henrichs von Engelland Buch. Lügen thun myr nicht, Warheyt schew ich nicht.” Weim, ed., 10, 2, pp. 223(227)-262; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 344-387.

120. Latin letter to the Bohemian Estates. Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 169(172)-174; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 144-148.

121. 1522-1523. Translation of the Old Testament (Pentateuch, publ. 1523).

122. Preface to “Wesselii epistolæ.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 310(316)-317; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 495-497.

123. Preface to “Gochii fragmenta.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 327(329)-330.

124. “Vom Eelichen Leben.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 267(275)-304; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 57-87; 16², pp. 510-541.

125. “Ain Betbüchlin.” Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 331(375)-482.

The German New Testament, cp. No. 108. Church-Postils, cp. No. 96. “De votis monasticis,” cp. No. 104. “De abroganda missa privata,” cp. No. 105. Sermons, Weim. ed., 10, 3, pp. 1-435; Erl. ed., 64, pp. 263-265; 16², pp. 304-543. Letters, Enders, 3, p. 269—4, p. 52; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 103-157.

1523. Clement VII (Pope from Nov. 19, 1523, to Sept. 25, 1534). In Sweden, Gustavus Vasa (†1560). In Denmark, Frederick I (†1533). Edict of the Diet of Nuremberg (Feb. 8). The Lutherans begin to form parishes apart. The innovations introduced into Prussia. Luther has the Mass done away with at Wittenberg. Two Augustinians of Lutheran sympathies are burnt at Antwerp. Flight of Bora and the other Nimbschen nuns; Lang’s marriage. End of the German Augustinians. Luther’s illness. His interview with Carlstadt at Jena (Aug. 22). Link goes to Altenburg. The attempt to establish a new order of things at Leisnig. Luther drafts a constitution for the Churches of Bohemia.

126. “Die ander Epistel S. Petri und eyne S. Judas gepredigt und ausgelegt” (1523-1524). Weim. ed., 14, pp. 1(13)-91; Erl. ed., 52, pp. 213-287.

127. “Von Anbeten des Sacramẽts des heyligen Leychnams Christi.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 417(431)-456; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 389-421.

128. “Deuttung der czwo grewlichen Figuren, Bapstesels czu Rom und Munchkalbs zu Freyberg ynn Meysszen funden Philippus Melanchthon D. Martinus Luther.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 357(368)-385; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 2-16.

129. “Adversus armatum virum Cokleum.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 292(295)-306; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 44-60.

130. Various Sermons, etc. Weim. ed., 11, pp. 36-62.

131. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt wie weytt man yhr Gehorsam schuldig sey.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 229(245)-281; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 60-105.

132. “Eyn Bepstlich Breve widder den Luther.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 337(342)-356; Erl. ed., 64, pp. 411-420; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 466-477.

133. “In Genesim Declamationes” (publ. 1527). Weim. ed., 24; 14, pp. 94(97)-488; Erl. ed., 33, 34.

134. “Von Ordenung Gottes Dienst ynn der Gemeyne.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 31(35)-37; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 153-156.

135. “Ursach und Anttwortt das Jungkfrawen Kloster gottlich verlassen mugen.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 387(394)-400; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 34-42.

136. “Das eyn Christliche Versamlung odder Gemeyne … Macht habe alle Lere zu urteylen.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 401(408)-416; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 141-151.

137. “Das Jhesus Christus eyn geborner Jude sey.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 307(314)-336; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 46-74.

138. “Das Tauff Buchlin Verdeutscht.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 38(42)-48; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 158-166.

139. “Ordenũg eyns gemeynen Kastens.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 1(11)-30; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 106-130.

140. “Widder die Verkerer und Felscher Keyserlichs Mandats.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 58(62)-67; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 182-190.

141. “Das siebẽdt Capitel S. Pauli zu den Corinthern aussgelegt.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 88(92)-142; Erl. ed., 51, pp. 3-69.

142. 1523-1529. Latin translation of the Bible (publ. 1529).

143. Epistolary Recommendation of Johann Apel’s “Defensio pro suo coniugio.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 68(71)-72; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 500 ff.

144. Preface to the German translation of Lamprecht’s (Lambert of Avignon) “In regulam Minoritarum … Commentarii.” Weim. ed., 11, pp. 457(461); “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 498 sq.

145. Introduction to Savonarola’s “Meditatio pia.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 245(248); “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 497 sq.

146. “Eyn Brieff an die Christen ym Nidder Land.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 73(77)-80; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 180-182.

147. “Allen Christen zu Righe, Revell und Tarbthe [Dorpat].” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 143(147)-150; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 190-194.

148 Hymns: “Nu freut euch liebe Christen gmein,” “Ein newes Lied wir heben an.” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 309 f., 340 ff.

149. “De instituendis ministris ecclesiæ.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 160(169)-196; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, pp. 494-535.

150. “Eyn Sendtbrieff … an ein Christl. Gemain der Stat Essling.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 151(154)-159; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 213-217.

151. “Eyn trost Brieff an die Christen zu Augspurg.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 221(224)-227; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 223-227.

152. “An die Herrn Deutschs Ordens das sie falsche Keuscheyt meyden und zur rechten ehlichen Keuscheyt greyffen.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 228(232)-244; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 17-33.

153. “Formula missæ et communionis.” Weim. ed., 12, pp. 197(205)-220; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 1-20.

German Old Testament (1st part), cp. No. 121. Sermons on the 1st Epistle of Peter, cp. No. 114. Other sermons, Weim. ed., 11, 12; Erl. ed., 17², pp. 1-72. Letters, Enders, 4, pp. 53-272; 5, p. 8; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 158-230; 56, pp. 166 f., vii. f.

1524. Diet of Nuremberg for the execution of the Edict of Worms. Amsdorf introduces the Reformation into Magdeburg. Münzer sacks the chapel at Malderbach near Eisleben. The Peasant War (beginning in June and lasting till the following year). League of the South-German Catholic Estates entered into at Ratisbon (July 6). Joh. Walther’s “Spiritual Song-book.” Münzer’s “Well-grounded plea” in his own defence (Sept.). Erasmus’s “Diatribe” (Sept.). Catholic worship is forbidden at Altenburg. Luther throws off the Augustinian habit (Dec.).

154. “An die Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches Lands das sie christl. Schulen auffrichten und halten sollen.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 9(27)-53; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 170-199.

155. Translation of the Old Testament (2nd part, from Josue to Esther).

156. “Duæ episcopales bullæ super doctrina Lutherana et Romana.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 141(146)-154; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 63-73.

157. “Eyn Christlicher Trostbrieff an die Miltenberger.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 54(69)-78; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 117-128.

158. Preface to Bugenhagen’s “In librum psalmorum Interpretatio.” Weim. ed., 15, p. 1(8); “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 502 sq.

159. “Eyn Geschicht wie Got eyner Erbarn Kloster Jungfrawẽ ausgelffen hat.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 79(86)-94; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 103-113.

160. 1524-1526. “Prælectiones in Prophetas minores” (publ. 1526-1545). Weim. ed., 13, pp. 1-703; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 24-28.

161. “Deuteronomium Mosi cum annotationibus” (publ. 1525). Weim. ed., 14, pp. 489(497)-744; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 13, pp. 5-351.

162. “Widder das blind und toll Verdamnis.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 95(110)-140; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 76-92.

163. “Dass Elltern die Kinder zur Ehe nicht zwingen noch hyndern.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 155(163)-169; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 236-244.

164. “Zwey keyserliche uneynige und wydderwertige Gepott.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 241(254)-278; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 210-237; 24², pp. 221-247.

165. “Der Psalter deutsch.” Erl. ed., 37, pp. 107-249.

166. “Von Kauffshandlung und Wucher.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 279(293)-322; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 200-226.

167. “Eyn Sermon von dem Wucher” (2nd edition, cp. No. 61).

168. “Widder den newen Abgott und allten Teuffel der zu Meyssen sol erhaben werden.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 170(183)-198; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 239-257; 24², pp. 250-268.

169. “Zwue Sermon auff das xv. und xvi. Capitel ynn der Apostel Geschichte” (publ. 1526). Weim. ed., 15, p. 571-622; Erl. ed., 17, pp. 223-253.

170. “Eyn Brieff an die Fürsten zu Sachsen von dem auffrurischen Geyst.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 199(210)-221; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 256-268.

171. “Sendbrieff an die … Burgermeyster, Rhatt und gantze Gemeyn der Stadt Mülhausen.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 230(238)-240; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 253-255.

172. “Ain Senndbrief an den Wolgeb. Herren, Herren Barth von Staremberg.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 1(5)-7; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 202-204.

173. “Geistliches Gesangbüchlein” (with 24 hymns by Luther) Cp. Erl. ed., 56, p. 306 ff.

174. Sermons on Exodus (publ. in 1526, 1528, 1564, and, in full, in 1899). Weim. ed., 16, pp. 1-646; Erl. ed., 33, pp. 3-21 (“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 75-112); 35, pp. 1-392; 36, pp. 1-144.

175. German Old Testament (3rd and final part, without the “Apocrypha”).

176. “Von dem Grewel der Stillmesse so man den Canon nennet.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 8(22)-36; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 114-133.

177. “Der 127. Psalm ausgelegt an die Christen zu Rigen ynn Liffland.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 348(360)-379; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 130-150; 53, p. 281.

178. “Eyn Brieff an die Christen zu Straspurg widder den Schwermer Geyst.” Weim. ed., 15, pp. 380(391)-397; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 270-277.

Sermons on the 2nd Epistle of Peter and on the Epistle of Jude, cp. No. 126. Other Sermons, Weim. ed., 15, pp. 398(409)-803; Erl. ed., 17², pp. 73-115. Letters, Enders, 4, p. 273 to 5, p. 99; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 230-281.

1525. Charles V is victorious near Pavia (Feb. 24). Prussia becomes a secular principality (April 10). Luther opposes the so-called fanatics, Carlstadt and the rest. The massacre at Weinsberg (April 16). Death of the Elector Frederick (May 5). Johann succeeds him on the Saxon throne and reigns till 1532. Münzer is vanquished near Frankenhausen (May 15). The Erfurt Articles. League of the North German Catholic princes, meeting at Dessau (July 19). Link becomes preacher at Nuremberg (Aug.). The Mayence assembly (Nov.). Eck’s “Enchiridion.” Carlstadt’s humiliation. Luther’s marriage (June 13). He calls for the entire suppression of “idolatry” at Altenburg (July 20). The Reformation is violently carried through in the Saxon Electorate (Oct. 1). Interview with Schwenckfeld (Dec. 1). Nuremberg openly comes over to Luther’s side.

179. “Widder die hymelischen Propheten.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 37(62)-214; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 136-297.

180. “Von Bruder Henrico ynn Diedmar verbrand sampt dem zehenden Psalmen ausgelegt.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 215(224)-250; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 347-354; 27², pp. 400-426.

181. “Vorrede an den Leser von der Jubil Jars Bullen.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 251(255)-269; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 298-318.

182. Sermons on 1 Timothy. Weim. ed., 17, 1, pp. 102-167; Erl. ed., 51, pp. 276-324.

183. “Eyn christl. Schrift an Herrn Wolfgang Reissenbusch sich ynn den Ehelichen Stand zubegeben.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 270(275)-278; Erl. ed., 33, pp. 286-290.

184. “Ermanunge zum Fride auff die zwelff Artikel der Bawrschafft ynn Schwaben.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 279(291)-334; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 259-286; 24², pp. 271-299.

185. “Vertrag zwischen dem löblichen Bund zu Schwaben und den zweyen Hauffen der Bawrn am Bodensee und Algew.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 335(336)-343; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 2-12.

186. “Wider die mordischen und reubischen Rotten der Bawren.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 344(357)-361; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 288-294; 24², pp. 303-309.

187. “Eyn schrecklich Geschicht unnd Gericht Gottes uber Thomas Müntzer.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 362(367)-374; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 13-22.

188. “Eyn Sendebrieff von dem harten Buchlin widder die Bauren.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 375(384)-401; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 295-319; 24², pp. 310-334.

189. “Eyne Christliche Vormanung von eusserlichem Gottis Dienste unde Eyntracht an die yn Lieffland.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 412(417)-421; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 315-321.

190. Preface to Bodenstein’s “Entschuldigung D. Andres Carlstats des falschen Namens der Auffrůr.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 431(436)-438; Erl. ed., 64, pp. 404-408.

191. Preface to Carlstadt’s “Erklerung.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 446(453)-466; Erl. ed., 64, pp. 408-410.

192. “Die sieben Buss Psalmen” (revised). Weim. ed., 18, pp. 467(479)-550; Erl. ed., 37, pp. 344-442.

193. Notes to the 28 Articles of the Erfurt Council. Weim. ed., 18, pp. 531(534)-540; Erl. ed., 56, pp. xii.-xviii.; 65, pp. 239-247.

194. “Radtschlag wie in der Christlichen Gemaine ain … bestendigen Ordnung solle fürgenommen und auffgericht werden” (publ. 1526). Weim. ed., 19, pp. 436(440)-446; Erl. ed., 26², pp. 2-8.

195. “De servo arbitrio.” Weim. ed., 18, pp. 551(600)-787; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 113(116)-368.

196. Church-Postils (2nd part), Epiphany to Easter. Erl. ed., 8-11; 8²-11².

197. “Deudsche Messe und Ordnung Gottis Diensts” (publ. 1526). Weim. ed., 19, pp. 44(70)-113; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 227-244.

198. Hymn, “Jesaia dem Propheten das geschach.” Erl. ed., 56, p. 343.

199. “Epistel des Propheten Jesaia so man ynn der Christmesse lieset” (publ. 1526). Weim. ed., 19, pp. 126(131)-168; Erl. ed., 15, pp. 65-110; 15², pp. 70-116.

“Annotationes in Deuteronomiam,” cp. No. 161. Other sermons, Weim. ed., 17, 1, pp. 1-507; Erl. ed., 17², pp. 116-253. Letters, Enders, 5, pp. 100-297; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 281-357; 56, pp. 168-170, viii.-xviii.

1526. The Diet of Augsburg demands (Jan. 9) an Œcumenical Council. Luther lays it down (Feb. 9) that, in each locality there must be but one doctrine. The new worship in the Saxon Electorate. The Electorate and Hesse enter into a league (at Gotha, and, later, at Torgau, May 2). Lambert of Avignon helps Philip of Hesse to introduce the innovations. The Kaiser threatened by the League of Cognac (May 22). The Diet of Spires (Aug. 27) tempers the Edict of Worms. The Battle of Mohacs (Aug. 29). Charles V politically estranged from the Pope. The “Hyperaspistes” of Erasmus.

200. “Das Bapstum mit seinen Gliedern gemalet und beschrieben.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 1(6)-43; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 360-378.

201. Sermons (publ. in full in 1898). Weim. ed., 20, pp. 204(212)-591; Erl. ed., 17², pp. 254-267.

202. “Widder den … Radschlag der gantzen Meintzischen Pfafferey.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 252(260)-282; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 23-46.

203. “Der Prophet Jona aussgelegt.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 169(185)-251; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 325-414.

204. “Sermon von dem Sacrament des Leibs und Bluts Christi widder die Schwarmgeister.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 474(482)-523; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 329-359.

205. Two Prefaces to the Swabian “Syngramma.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 447(457)-461, 524(529)-530; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 108-185.

206. “Antwort auff ettliche Fragen Closter Gelübd belangend.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 283(287)-293; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 318-327.

207. “Der Prophet Habacuc ausgelegt.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 336(345)-435; Erl. ed., 42, pp. 3-108.

208. “Das Tauffbuchlin verdeudscht auffs new zugericht.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 531(537)-541; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 291-294.

209. “Annotationes in Ecclesiasten” (publ. 1532). Weim. ed., 20, pp. 1(7)-203; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 21, pp. 1-266.

210. “Der 112. Psalm Davids … gepredigt.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 294(297)-336; Erl. ed., 40, pp. 241-280.

211. “Vier trostliche Psalmen.… An die Königyn zu Hungern ausgelegt.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 542(552)-615; Erl. ed., 38, pp. 370-453.

212. “Der Prophet Sacharja ausgelegt” (publ. 1528). Weim. ed., 23, pp. 477(485)-664; Erl. ed., 42, pp. 109-362.

213. “Epistel aus dem Propheten Jeremia von Christus Reich” (publ. 1527). Weim. ed., 20, pp. 549-561; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 187-219.

214. “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden.” Weim. ed., 19, pp. 618(623)-662; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 264-290.

“Deudsche Messe,” cp. No. 197. Two sermons on Acts xv., xvi., cp. No. 171. Sermon on Is. ix., cp. No. 199. Lecture on Osee, cp. No. 160. Instruction on Moses, Weim. ed., 16, pp. 363-394; Erl. ed., 33, pp. 3-21. Various memoranda, cp. No. 194. Summer part of the Church-Postils (Erl. ed., 8, 9, 11-14; 9², 11²-14²). Sermons, cp. Nos. 201, 204, 210, 213. Letters, Enders, 5, p. 298 ff.; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 357-394.

1527. Second war between Charles V and François I (lasting till 1529). Henry the Eighth’s plans for a divorce. Ferdinand I is crowned at Prague as King of Bohemia (Feb. 24). Sack of Rome (May 6-14). Peace between Charles V and Clement VII (Nov.). Gustavus Vasa takes Luther’s side. The Visitation of the Saxon Electorate (lasting till 1529) and introduction of the office of Superintendent. Emser’s translation of the New Testament (Dec.). Melanchthon in his “Commonplace Book” modifies his teaching on Predestination. Luther falls ill; beginning of his worst “struggles of conscience.” Commencement of the controversy with Zwingli, etc., on the Supper. Wittenberg is invaded by the Plague.

215. “Das diese Wort Christi (Das ist mein Leib etce.) noch fest stehen widder die Schwermgeister.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 38(64)-320; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 16-150.

216. Translation of Isaias.

217. “Auff des Königs zu Engelland Lesterschrift.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 17(26)-37; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 2-14.

218. Sermons on Leviticus and Numbers (publ. 1902). Weim. ed., 25, pp. 403(411)-522.

219. Preface to “Commentarius in Apocalypsim ante centum annos editus.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 121(123)-124; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 506-508.

220. Preface to “Die Weissagungẽ Johannis Lichtenberger.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 1(7)-12; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 250-258.

221. “In Esaiam scholia ex D.M.L. prælectionibus collecta” (publ. 1532-1534). Weim. ed., 25, pp. 79(87)-401; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 22, pp. 1-296.

222. “Ob man fur dem Sterben fliehen muge.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 323(338)-386; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 318-341.

223. Lecture on the 1st Epistle of John (publ. 1708 and 1799). Weim. ed., 20, pp. 592(599)-801.

224. “Trostunge un die Christen zu Halle uber Er Georgen yhres Predigers Tod.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 390(401)-434; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 295-316.

225. “Octonarius David” (Ps. xix.). Weim. ed., 23, pp. 435(437)-442; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 93-115.

226. “Von Er Lenhard Keiser ynn Beyern umb des Evangelii Willen verbrandt.” Weim. ed., 23, pp. 443(445)-476.

227. “Ain feste Burg” (1528?). Erl. ed., 56, p. 343 f., see above, vol. v., p. 549.

228. Lecture on Titus and Philemon (publ. 1902). Weim. ed., 25, pp. 1(6)-78.

Church-Postils, Summer part and conclusion, ed. Roth, cp. Erl. ed., 15, 16; 15². Sermon on Jer. xxiii. 5-8, cp. No. 213. Sermons on Genesis, cp. No. 133. Other Sermons, Weim. ed., 23, pp. 665(682)-757; Erl. ed., 17², pp. 268-322. Letters, Enders, 1, pp. 1-172; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 395-416; 56, pp. 170-176.

1528. The Pack negotiations. Anabaptists are threatened with the death-penalty. Death of Albert Dürer (April 6) and Emser (Nov. 8). Cochlæus, Court-chaplain to Duke George. Cruciger and other friends come to Wittenberg. Letters of Hasenberg and von der Heyden. Bugenhagen’s work in Brunswick. Progress of the Visitation of the Saxon Electorate. The “catechetical sermons” at Wittenberg. Philip of Hesse’s breach of the peace and hostilities against Bamberg, Würzburg and Mayence. The Turks threaten new inroads.

229. “Unterricht der Visitatorn an die Pharhern ym Kurfurstenthum zu Sachssen,” etc. Weim. ed., 26, pp. 175(195)-240; Erl. ed., 23, pp. 3-70.

230. “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 241(261)-509; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 152-373.

231. “Ein Gesichte Bruder Clausen ynn Schweytz und seine Deutunge.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 125(130)-136; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 260-268.

232. Lecture on 1 Timothy (partly publ. 1797). Weim. ed., 26, pp. 1(4)-120.

233. “Von der Widdertauffe an zween Pfarherrn.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 137(144)-174; Erl. ed., 26, pp. 255-294; 26², pp. 282-321.

234. “De digamia episcoporum propositiones.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 510(517)-527; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 360-373.

235. New edition of the German Psalter; cp. No. 165, 289.

236. Three series of sermons on the Catechism (publ. 1899). Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 2-122.

237. “Vom Kriege widder die Türcken” (publ. 1529). Weim. ed. 30, 2, pp. 81(107)-148; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 32-80.

238. “New-Zeittung von Leyptzig.” “Ein newe Fabel Esopi newlich verdeudscht gefunden.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 534(539)-554; Erl. ed., 64, pp. 326-337.

239. “Von beider Gestalt des Sacraments.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 555(560)-618; Erl. ed., 30, pp. 374-426.

240. Week-day sermons on John xvi.-xx. (in part publ. 1530, 1557). Weim. ed., 28, pp. 31(42)-502; Erl. ed., 50, pp. 1-441.

241. Week-day sermons on Mt. xi.-xv. Weim. ed., 28, pp. 1(4)-30.

242. “Nachwort zu der Durchleuchtigen hochgebornen F. Ursulen Hertzogin zu Mönsterberg. Christliche Ursach des verlassen Klosters zu Freyberg.” Weim. ed., 26, pp. 623(628)-633; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 132-169.

Exposition of the Ten Commandments, Weim. ed., 16, pp. 394-528; Erl. ed., 36, pp. 1-144. Commentary on Zacharias, cp. No. 212. Other Sermons, Weim. ed., 27, 28, pp. 503-763. Letters, Enders, 6, p. 173-7, p. 38; Erl. ed., 53, pp. 416-452; 54, pp. 1-60; 56, pp. 176-180, xix.

1529. Peace of Barcelona (June 29). Peace of the Ladies (Cambrai, Aug. 5). Retreat of the Turks from Vienna (Oct. 14). Diet of Spires. “Protest” of the Lutheran Estates (April 19). They promise each other mutual support (April 22). Philip of Hesse and Melanchthon seek a union with the Zwinglians; the Marburg Conference (Oct. 1-4). Luther submits to the Upper German townships his so-called Schwabach Articles which are rejected by Strasburg and Ulm at the Schwabach Conference (Oct. 16). The same thing happens again at the Schmalkalden Conference (Nov. 29) and spoils all prospect of an arrangement with the South-Germans. Nuremberg alone stands true to the union.

243. “Von heimlichẽ und gestolen Brieffen.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 1(25)-48; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 2-30.

244. “Deudsch Catechismus.” Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 123-238; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 26-155.

245. “Der Kleine Catechismus für die gemeine Pfarher und Prediger.” Weim. ed., 30, 1, pp. 239-425; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 5-25.

246. “Ein Trawbüchlin für die einfeltigen Pfarherr.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 43(74)-80; Erl. ed., 23, pp. 208-213.

247. “Teütsche Letaney” and “Latina Litania correcta.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 1(29)-42; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 360-366.

248. Preface to the “Œconomia christiana” of Justus Menius. Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 49(60)-63; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 117-121; 63, pp. 277-282.

249. Translation of the Book of Wisdom.

250. Sermons on Deuteronomy (publ. 1564). Weim. ed., 28, pp. 501(509)-763; Erl. ed., 36, pp. 164-411.

251. Preface to Melanchthon’s Exposition of Colossians. Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 64(68)-69; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 492 sq.

252. Preface to Brentz’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes. Weim. ed., 26, pp. 619(621)-622; Erl. ed., 54, p. 59 f.

253. Preface to Venatorius’ “Ein kurtz Underricht den sterbenden Menschen.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 70(79)-80; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 285-287.

254. The “Wittenberg Song-book” with new hymns and a preface.

255. “Von Ehesachen” (publ. 1530). Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 198(205)-248; Erl. ed., 23, pp. 93-154.

256. Marburg Conference and Articles. Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 92(110)-171; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 88-91.

257. Articles of the Schwabach Convention. Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 81(86)-91.

258. “Eine Heer-Predigt widder den Türcken.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 149(160)-197; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 81-121.

259. Scholia to Ps. cxviii. (to Eobanus Hessus).

Latin translation of the Bible, cp. No. 142. “Vom Kriege widder die Türcken,” cp. No. 237. Sermons, cp. No. 240 and Weim. ed., 29. Letters, Enders, 7, pp. 39-212; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 60-121; 56, pp. 181, xix.-xxvii.

1530. Charles V is crowned Emperor at Bologna (Feb. 24). Death of Willibald Pirkheimer and of Luther’s father, Hans (Feb.). The “Confessio tetrapolitana” of Strasburg, Constance, Lindau and Memmingen (drawn up by Bucer and Capito). The Torgau Articles (March). Diet of Augsburg (June 20-Nov. 19). Luther at the Coburg (April 23-Oct. 4). At Torgau he begins to favour the use of armed resistance to the Emperor (Oct.). The “Confessio Augustana” (June 25), the “Confutatio” and Melanchthon’s “Apologia” (Sept.). Bucer at the Coburg (Sept. 25). The warlike league planned by the Protesting Estates at the Schmalkalden Assembly (Dec. 22). Spread of the innovations in Hungary.

260. Preface to Spengler’s “Kurczer Auszuge aus den Bebstlichen Rechten.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 215(219); Erl. ed., 63, pp. 288-290.

261. Preface to “Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcarum.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 198(205)-208; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 514-519; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 248-254.

262. New ed. of the New Testament.

263. Translation of Daniel.

264. Preface to “Der Widdertauffer Lere” of Justus Menius. Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 209(211)-214; Erl. ed., 63, pp. 290-296.

265. Lecture on the Song of Songs (publ. 1538). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 21, pp. 273-368.

266. “Vermanũg an die geistlichen versamlet auff dem Reichstag zu Augsburg.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 237(268)-356; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 330-379; 24², pp. 358-407.

267. (1530-1532). Translation of Jeremias, Ezechiel and the Lesser Prophets.

268. “Das xxxviii. und xxxix. Capitel Hesechiel vom Gog.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 220(223)-236; Erl. ed., 41, pp. 220-231.

269. Twenty-one Sermons (publ. 1702). Weim. ed., 32, pp. 1-298; Erl. ed., 17², pp. 323-472.

270. “Auff das Schreien etlicher Papisten uber die siebentzehen Artickel.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 183(186)-197; Erl. ed., 24, pp. 321-329; 24², pp. 337-344.

271. “Das schöne Confitemini” (Ps. cxviii.). Erl. ed., 41, pp. 2-19.

272. Short exposition of the first 25 Psalms (publ. 1548, and, in full, 1559). Erl. ed., 38, pp. 1-275; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 17.

273. (1530?). German version of Æsop’s Fables. Erl. ed., 64, pp. 350-361.

274. “Etliche tröstliche Vermanungen … Mit diesen Sprüchen hat sich der heilige Man … getröstet.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 697(700)-710; Erl. ed., 23, pp. 155-162.

275. Reflections of the Holy Fathers, on how a Christian must bear his cross with patience. Erl. ed., 64, pp. 298-300.

276. Glosses on the Decalogue. Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 357(358).

277. “Widderruff vom Fegefeur.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 360(367)-390; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 185-215.

278. “Ettlich Artickelstück so M.L. erhalten wil, wider die gantze Satans Schüle uñ alle Pforten der Hellen.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 413(420)-427; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 373-377; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 122-125.

279. “Predigt das man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 508(517)-588; Erl. ed., 20, pp. 1-45; 17², pp. 376-422.

280. “Brieff an den Cardinal Ertzbisschoff zu Mentz.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 391(397)-412; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 159-168.

281. “Der lxxxii. Psalm ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., 39, pp. 225-264.

282. “Von den Schlüsseln.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 428(435)-507; 30, 3, pp. 584-588; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 126-184.

283. “Der hundert und siebenzehende Psalm ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., 40, pp. 281-328.

284. “Vermanung zum Sacrament des Leibs und Bluts unsers Herrn.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 589(595)-626; Erl. ed., 23, pp. 163-207.

285. “Sendbrieff D.M.L. von Dolmetzscheñ.” Weim. ed., 30, 2, pp. 627(632)-646; Erl. ed., 65, pp. 103-123.

286. “Der hundert und eilffte Psalm ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., 40, pp. 193-240.

287. Week-day sermons on Mt. v.-vii. (publ. 1532). Weim. ed., 32, pp. 299-555; Erl. ed., 43, pp. 2-368.

288. Sermons on John vi. 26-viii. 38 (publ. 1564). Weim. ed., 33; Erl. ed., 47, pp. 227-394; 48, pp. 1-410.

“Von Ehesachen,” cp. No, 255. “Heer-Predigt widder den Türcken,” cp. No. 258. Sermons on John xvii., cp. No. 240. Letters, Enders, 7, p. 213—8, p. 334; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 122-209; 56, pp. 181-183, xxvii.-xxix.

1531. Ferdinand becomes the German King (Jan. 5). League of Schmalkalden (Feb. 27). Bavaria takes the field against Ferdinand (24 Oct.). Archbishop Albert stays at Halle (till 1540). Melanchthon prepares for the press his “Confessio Aug.” and its “Apologia.” Luther suggests to Henry VIII that bigamy would be preferable to divorce (Sept. 3). England (1531-1545) is carried into schism by Henry VIII. Zwinglian iconoclastic riots in Swabia. Zwingli slain in Battle (Oct. 11) is succeeded by Bullinger. Luther’s revision of his translation of the Psalms; his memoranda on the means of stamping out the Anabaptist movement (end of Oct.).

289. New edition of the Psalms, cp. Nos. 165, 235.

290. “Auff das vermeint Keiserlich Edict ausgangen jm 1531 Jare.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 321(331)-388, 583; Erl. ed., 25, pp. 51-88; 25², pp. 50-88.

291. “Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 252(276)-320, 392-399; Erl. ed., 25, pp. 2-50; 25², pp. 3-49; 65, p. 259 f.

292. “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen gedrückt.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 413(446)-471; Erl. ed., 25, pp. 89-109; 25², pp. 109-128.

293. “Commentarius (maior) in Epistolam ad Galatas” (publ. 1535). Weim. ed., 40, 1 (cap. i.-iv.); Irmischer, 1; 2; 3, pp. 1-120.

294. “Exemplum theologiæ et doctrinæ papisticæ.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 494(496)-509; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 21-43.

295. Psalm cxlvii. (publ. 1532). Erl. ed., pp. 152-181.

296. “Enarratio psalmi xlii.” “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 17, pp. 234-238.

Sermons, Weim. ed., 34, 1, 2; Erl. ed., 18², pp. 1-135. Letters, Enders, 8, pp. 335-9, p. 135; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 209-265; 56, p. 183.

1532. The Turkish invasion of Hungary and Austria (June); Suleiman II does not venture to attack Vienna. Elector Johann dies and is succeeded by Johann Frederick (till 1547). Calvin stays for a while in Geneva. The Nuremberg proposals for a religious truce (June 23) are rejected by the Catholic Estates at Ratisbon (July 2). Melanchthon thinks of leaving Wittenberg.

297. “Brieff von den Schleichern und Winckelpredigern.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 510(518)-527; Erl. ed., 31, pp. 214-226.

298. “An den Durchleuchtigen Hochgebornen Fürsten und Herrn Herrn Albrechten Marggraffen zu Brandenburg.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 541(547)-553; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 281-289.

299. “Enarratio psalmorum ii. et xlv.” (publ. 1533 and 1546). “Opp. lat. exeg.” 18, pp. 1-127, 129-264.

300. “Enarratio psalmi li.” (publ. 1538). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, pp. 1-154.

301. Preface to Bugenhagen’s ed. of “Athanasii libri contra idolatriam.” Weim ed., 30, 3, pp. 528(530)-532; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 523-525.

302.“Summarien uber die Psalmen und Ursachen des Dolmetschens” (publ. 1533). Erl. ed., 37, pp. 254-339.

303. Sermon on Charity (1 Jo. iv. 16-21; publ. 1533). Weim. ed., 36, pp. 416-477; Erl. ed., 19, pp. 358-412; 18², pp. 304-311.

304. Translation of the Old-Testament “Apocrypha” (publ. 1533 f.).

305. Sermon on the sum total of the Christian life (1 Tim. 1, 5 ff. publ. 1533). Weim. ed., 36, pp. 352-375; Erl. ed., 19, pp. 296-328; 18², pp. 370-304.

306. (1532-1533). “Enarratio in psalmos graduales” (publ. 1540). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, pp. 157-289; 20, pp. 1-306.

307. “Brieff an die zu Franckfort am Meyn.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, pp. 554(558)-571; Erl. ed., 26, pp. 295-313; 26², pp. 372-389.

308. (1532-1534). Home-sermons (Home-postils, ed. Veit Dietrich, 1544; ed. Rörer, 1559). Weim. ed., 36, 37; Erl. ed., 1-6; 1²-3² (after Dietrich); 4²-6² (after Rörer).

Exposition of Ps. cxlvii., cp. No. 295. Translation of the Prophets, cp. No. 267. Sermons on Mt. v.-vii., cp. No. 287. “In Esaiam prophetam scholia,” cp. No. 221. “Annotationes in Ecclesiasten,” cp. No. 209. Sermon on Numbers, vi. 22-27, cp. No. 218. Other Sermons, Weim. ed., 36; Erl. ed., 18², pp. 136-384. Letters, Enders, 9, pp. 136-258; Erl. ed., 54, pp. 266-348; 56, pp. 184 f.-187.

1533. Clement VII takes steps for the assembling of an Œcumenical Council (Jan.). The Schmalkaldeners refuse to hear of a Council (June). Henry VIII weds Anne Boleyn (Jan). Progress of Protestantism in the Duchy of Jülich-Cleves, in Anhalt-Köthen and Mecklenburg.

309. Sermons on 1 Cor. xv. (publ. 1534). Weim. ed., 36, pp. 649-697; Erl. ed., 51, pp. 71-275.

310. “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur.” Erl. ed., 31, pp. 228-269.

311. “Die kleine Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch.” Weim. ed., 31, pp. 270-307.

312. “Von der Winckelmesse und Pfaffen Weihe.” Erl. ed., 31, pp. 308-377.

313. Preface to the “Rechẽschafft des Glaubens” (of the Bohemian Brethren). Erl. ed., 63, pp. 320-323.

314. Preface to Balth. Rhaida’s reply to Wicel. Erl. ed., 63, pp. 317-319.

“Summarien,” cp. No. 302. “Brieff,” etc., cp. No. 307. Exposition of Ps. xlv., cp. 299. Sermon on 1 John iv. 16-21, cp. No. 303. Sermon on 1 Tim. i. 5 ff., cp. No. 305. Translation of Sirach, cp. No. 304. Other Sermons, Weim. ed., 37, pp. 1-248; Erl. ed., 19², pp. 1-102. Letters, Enders, 9, pp. 259-370; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 1-35; 56, pp. 185-191, xxix.-xxxv.

1534. Death of Clement VII (Sept. 25). Paul III (from Oct. 13, 1534-Nov. 10, 1549). Bull against Henry VIII (March 23). Act of Supremacy is passed by the English Parliament (Nov. 3). Ulrich of Würtemberg is reinstated by Philip of Hesse; his treaty with King Ferdinand signed at Baden (June 29). Reformation of Anhalt (March) of Würtemberg (May) of Augsburg (July) of Pomerania (Dec.). Carlstadt at Basle. Luther again attacks Erasmus, the latter’s “Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam Lutheri.” Death of Cardinal Cajetan (Aug. 9). Strasburg the centre of the Anabaptist movement. The Anabaptists’ orgies at Münster (Feb., 1534, to June 25, 1535). First edition of Calvin’s “Institutio.”

315. “Ein Brieff D. Mart. Luth. von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen.” Erl. ed., 31, pp. 378-391.

316. “Der lxv. Psalm durch D.M.L. zu Dessaw … gepredigt.” Weim. ed., 37, pp. 425-451; Erl. ed., 39, pp. 137-177.

317. “Biblia das ist die gantze Heilige Schrift.”

318. “Convocatio concilii liberi christiani” (of doubtful authenticity). Erl. ed., 31, pp. 411-416; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 370-372.

319. “Præfatio in Antonii Corvini librum de Erasmi concordia.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 526-531.

320. Preface to Urban Rhegius, “Widderlegung der Münsterischen newen … Bekentnus.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 332-336.

321. Preface to the “Newe Zeittung von Münster.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 336-341.

322. “Enarratio psalmi xc.” “Opp. lat exeg.,” 18, pp. 264-334.

323. Exposition of Psalm ci. Erl. ed., 39, pp. 266-364.

324. “Einfeltige Weise zu beten.” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 215-238.

325. “Klagschrift der Vögel an D.M. Luther über seinem Diener Wolfgang Sieberger.” Erl. ed., 64, p. 347 f.

“Scholia in Esaiam,” cp. No. 221. Sermons on 1 Cor. xv., cp. No. 309. Further Sermons, Weim. ed., 37, pp. 249-672. Letters, Enders, 9, pp. 371—10, p. 117; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 36-81; 56, pp. 191-196.

1535. Growth of the Schmalkalden League after the accession of Würtemberg. Death of Joachim I of Brandenburg (July 11). Joachim II his successor (†1571) a friend of Luther’s. Execution of Sir Thomas More. Vergerio’s interview with Luther (Nov. 7). Amended edition of Melanchthon’s Commonplace-Book. The ordination-oath introduced at Wittenberg. The Schmalkalden League is prolonged for ten years (Dec.). King Ferdinand to the Emperor on Germany’s downfall (Dec.).

326. Sermon on Infant-Baptism. Weim. ed., 37, pp. 258-293; Erl. ed., 16, pp. 43-105; 19², pp. 103-167.

327. “Etliche Spruche Doc. Martini Luther wider das Concilium Obstantiense (wolt sagen Constantiense).” Erl. ed., 31, pp. 391-411.

328. (1535-1545). “Enarrationes in Genesim” (publ. 1544). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1-11.

329. Prefaces to Anton Corvinus’s “Kurtze Ausslegung der Euangelien … der Episteln.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 348-353.

330. Letter to the preachers of Soest. Erl. ed., 65, pp. 95-102.

331. (1535-1536). Sermons. Weim. ed., 41; Erl. ed., 19², pp. 103-242.

332. Disputations, “de concilio Constantiensi” and for the promotion of Hier. Weller, and Nic. Medler. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 402-410, 377-389; Drews, pp. 1-3, 9-32.

333. Hymns: “Von Himel hoch”; “Sie ist mir lieb”; “All Ehr und Lob soll Gottes seyn.” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 348 f., 350 f.

“Comment, in epist. ad Galatas,” cp. No. 293. Sermons, cp. No. 331. Letters, Enders, 10, pp. 118-282; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 81-117; 56, pp. 196-198, xxxv. f.

1536. Third war between Charles V and François I (lasting till 1538). The Turkish peril. Denmark converted to Protestantism (Aug.). The “Consilium de emendanda ecclesia” drafted by Cardinals Pole, Contarini, Sadoleto and Caraffa. A General Council is summoned (June 2) to meet at Mantua in 1537. Death of Erasmus (July 12). Luther makes advances to Henry VIII and admits the lawfulness of his divorce. Articles are drafted to the object of inducing the King of England to make common cause with the German Reformers. The Articles are thrown over by Henry. The Wittenberg Concord (May). Luther endeavours to win over Augsburg, Ulm and the Swiss. Bucer labours for a union. Synods held by the Swiss at Basle and Bern (Sept., Nov.). Memoranda of the Wittenberg theologians regarding the Council (Aug.). Bull for the bettering of the City of Rome and the Papal Court (Sept. 23). Calvin begins his work at Geneva.

334. Disputations: “De iustificatione,” “De muliere peccatrice” and “Contra missam privatam” (Jan. 14, 21, 29). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 389-394, 398-402, 413; Drews, pp. 55-66, 66, 69-89.

335. Preface to Robert Barnes (Chaplain to Henry VIII), “De vitis pontificum.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 533-536.

336. “Præfatio in tres epistolas Hussii.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 536 sq.

337. “Der xxiii. Psalm Auff ein Abend uber Tisch nach dem Gratias ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., 39, pp. 62-122.

338. Preface and Postscript to “Joan. Nannii Viterbensis, De monarchia Papæ.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 110-121.

339. Disputations for the promotion of Jakob Schenk and Philip Moth. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 417-419; Drews, pp. 100-109.

340. “Artickel so da hetten sollen auffs Concilion zu Mantua,” etc. (publ. 1538). Erl. ed., 25, pp. 110-146; 25², pp. 169-205.

341. Disputation “De homine.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 413-416; Drews, pp. 90-96.

“Enarratio” on Joel, Amos, Obedias, cp. No. 160. Sermons. Weim. ed., 41, pp. 493-763; Erl. ed., 19², pp. 243-259. Letters, Enders, 10, p. 283—11, p. 151; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 117-167; 56, pp. 199-206, xxxvii. f.

1537. Ferdinand’s defeat in Slavonia. Paul the Third’s Bull on the Turkish question (July 14). Bugenhagen helps in the conversion of Denmark to Protestantism. Luther’s so-called Schmalkalden Articles sent by him to the Elector (Jan. 3). The Schmalkalden Meeting (Feb.). Luther is taken ill and returns home. The Princes decide to have nothing to do with the Council. They accept the Augsburg Confession and the “Apologia.” The Schmalkaldeners call on the King of France for help (March 5). Melanchthon’s “De potestate papæ.” Luther returns sound to Wittenberg (March 14). Cordatus opposes Melanchthon. The cleavage between Luther and Melanchthon is carefully veiled. On Oct. 8 the Council is summoned to meet at Vicenza on May 1, 1538. Efforts of Bucer and others to promote a Protestant Council. Luther’s spiritual indisposition.

342. Sermon on Mt. iv. 1 ff. Erl. ed., 17, pp. 7-34; 19², pp. 260-292.

343. “Die drey Symbola oder Bekentniss des Glaubens Christi jnn der Kirchen einträchtiglich gebraucht.” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 252-281.

344. (1537-1538). Exposition of John xiv.-xvi. (publ. 1538). Weim. ed., 46, pp. 1-112; Erl. ed., 49, pp. 2-391; 50, pp. 1-154.

345. Disputations of Peter Palladius and Tilemann Schnabel. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 394-397; Drews, pp. 115-160.

346. Discourse at the promotion of Peter Palladius. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 315-322.

347. “Disputatio de cœna magna (i.e. de veste nuptiali).” “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 419; Drews, pp. 163-245.

348. (1537-1539). Exposition of John i.-iv. (publ. 1565 and 1847). Weim. ed., 46, p. 538 ff.; Erl. ed., 45, pp. 291-422; 46, pp. 1-378; 47, pp. 1-226.

349. (1537-1539). Sermons on Mt. xviii. 24-xxiii. 23. Erl. ed., 44; 45, pp. 1-203.

350. “Eines aus den hohen Artikeln des Bepstlichen Glaubens genant Donatio Constantini.” Erl. ed., 25, pp. 176-201; 25², pp. 207-232.

351. “Bulla papæ Pauli” (publ. in “Zeitschr. für luth. Theol.,” 1876, p. 362 ff.).

352 Exposition of Ps. viii. (publ. 1572). Erl. ed., 39, pp. 2-60.

353. Preface to “Ein alt Christlich Concilium … zu Gangra.” Erl. ed., 64, p. 57 f.

354. “Die Lügend von S. Johanne Chrysostomo an die Heiligen Veter inn dem vermeinten Concilio zu Mantua.” Erl. ed., 25, pp. 202-218; 25², pp. 232-249.

355. Postscript to “Tres epistolæ I. Hussii.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 536 sq.

356. “Præfatio in epistolas quasdam Hussii.” Erl. ed., 65, pp. 59-83; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 538-540.

357. First disputation against the Antinomians (Dec. 18). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 420-427; Drews, pp. 249-333.

358. Hymns “Erhalt uns Herr bey deinem Wort,” “Vater unser im Himelreich.” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 354, 351 f.

359. “Conciunculæ cuidam amico præscriptæ.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 374-433.

Further Sermons, Erl. ed., 19², pp. 260-466. Letters, Enders, 11, pp. 152-320; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 167-195; 56, pp. 206-208, xxxix. f.

1538. The Truce of Nice between the Kaiser and François I (June 15). Luther in conflict with the Antinomianism of Agricola (1537-1540). His quarrels with Lemnius, Schenk and Joh. von Metzsch. His antagonism to Albert of Mayence. The assembly of the Protestants at Brunswick (April 8). The Schmalkaldeners enter into a league with Christian III of Denmark (April 9). They send missions to the Kings of France and England (Aug., Oct.). The strength of the League in Germany increases the danger of a religious war. The Kaiser (aided by his vice-chancellor Held) succeeds in inducing the Catholic princes to form the so-called Holy Alliance at Nuremberg (June 10). Calvin is banished from Geneva.

360. Revised edition of the “Unterricht,” cp. No. 229.

361. “Ratschlag eins ausschus etlicher Cardinel,” etc. Erl. ed., 25, pp. 146-174; 25², pp. 251-278.

362. “Præfatio in librum S. Hieronymi ad Evagrium de potestate papæ.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 541-544.

363. “Brieff … wider die Sabbather.” Erl. ed., 31, pp. 417-449.

364. “Der cx. Psalm Dixit Dominus gepredigt und ausgelegt.” Erl. ed., 40, pp. 39-192.

365. First answer to the “Epigrammata” of Simon Lemnius. Erl. ed., 64, p. 323 f.

366. Second disputation against the Antinomians (Jan. 12). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 427-430; Drews, pp. 336-418.

367. Third disputation against the Antinomians (Sept. 13). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 436-441; Drews, pp. 423-484.

368. “Præfatio in Confessionem Bohemorum.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 548-551.

369. “Wider den Bischoff zu Magdeburg Albrecht Cardinal.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 15-59.

370. Preface to Rhau’s “Symphoniæ.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, pp. 551-554.

371. “Frau Musica,” to Joh. Walther’s “Lob und Preis der Himlischen Kunst Musica.” Erl. ed., 56, p. 295 f.

372. Sermons. Weim. ed., 46, pp. 113-537; Erl. ed., 20², 1, pp. 1-171.

The Schmalkalden Articles, cp. No. 340. Æsop’s Fables, cp. No. 273. The Three Creeds, cp. No. 343. Exposition of Ps. li., cp. No. 300. Lecture on the Song of Songs, cp. No. 265. Sermons on John xiv.-xvi., cp. No. 344. Further Sermons, cp. Nos. 344, 348 f., 372. Letters, Enders, 11, pp. 321—12, p. 61; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 195-216; 56, pp. 208-220, xl.-xlv.

1539. Death of Duke George (April 17). Apostasy of Joachim II. The Duchy of Saxony, the Electorate of Brandenburg, and Livonia become Protestant. Memorandum of Luther and Melanchthon to Elector Johann Frederick, in favour of armed resistance. The Frankfurt meeting of the Protestants (April 19); their decision not to appeal as yet to force and to promote a simple conference rather than a Council; a new mission dispatched to England (April 29). The Protestant Visitation of the Duchy of Saxony. Luther and his friends again at work (1539-1541) revising the German Bible. The Consistories established in the Saxon Electorate. The Hessian “Order of Church-Discipline.” In England, dissolution of the Monasteries. Luther’s disputation on the “Papal Werewolf” (May 9). He sanctions the Bigamy of Philip II (Nov. 10).

373. “Wider die Antinomer.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 2-14.

374. “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen.” Erl. ed., 25, pp. 219-388; 25², pp. 281-448.

375. Sermon at Leipzig on Jo. xiv. 23 ff. (publ. 1618). Erl. ed., 20², 1, pp. 242-253.

376. Disputation on Mt. xix. 21 (Vade, vende, etc.). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 442-449; Drews, pp. 536-584.

377. Preface to Myconius’s “Wie man die einfeltigen … im Christenthumb unterrichten sol.” Erl. ed., 63, p. 364 f.

378. Preface to a work of Moibanus, on Ps. xxix. Erl. ed., 63, pp. 342-344.

379. Preface to German version of Galeatius Capella’s “De bello Mediolanensi seu rebus in Italia gestis.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 354-357.

380. Disputation on “Verbum caro factum est” (Jo. i. 14). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 458-461; Drews, pp. 487-531.

381. Revision of the German Bible.

382. “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher zu predigen.” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 282-338.

383. Preface to the 1st part of his Collected German Works. Erl. ed., 63, pp. 401-406.

384. Sermons. Erl. ed., 20², 1, pp. 172-264.

“Wider den Bischoff,” cp. No. 369. Further Sermons, cp. Nos. 348 f., 384. Letters, Enders, 12, pp. 62-334; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 217-269; 56, pp. 221 ff., xlvi.-l.

1540. Death of Duke William IV of Bavaria. The Jesuits approved by the Pope (Sept. 27); Pierre Favre in Germany. Philip II of Hesse weds his second wife in Melanchthon’s presence (March 4). Luther at the Conference of Eisenach (July 10). Melanchthon’s “miraculous” cure at Weimar; the “Confessio variata.” Meeting at Schmalkalden (March); Catholic worship not to be tolerated. Persecution of Schwenckfeld by the Lutherans. Religious conferences at Hagenau (June) and Worms (Nov. 25-Jan.). Agricola goes to Berlin to the Elector of Brandenburg (Sept.). Morone the Papal Legate complains of the apathy of the German Bishops.

385. Disputation “De divinitate et humanitate Christi” (Feb. 28). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 461-466; Drews, pp. 586-610.

386. Preface to Robert Barnes’s “Bekantnus des Glaubens … verdeudscht.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 396-400.

387. New edition of the Winter part of the Church-Postils.

388. Disputation for the promotion of Joach. Mörlin. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 411 sq.; Drews, pp. 613-636.

“An die Pfarherrn,” cp. No. 382. On the “psalmi graduales,” cp. No. 306. Sermons, Erl. ed., 20², 1, pp. 265-512. Letters, Enders-Kawerau, 12, pp. 335-400; 13, pp. 1-240; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 269-293; 56, pp. 223-227.

1541. The Turks secure their footing in Hungary. Naumburg given over to the Protestants; the Bishop-Elect, Julius von Pflug shut out from his See by the Saxon Elector (Jan.). The Archbishop of Cologne, Hermann von Wied is won over to Protestantism. Accession of Maurice of Saxony (†1553). Philip of Hesse comes to an understanding with Charles V. Jonas goes to Halle to convert it to Protestantism; Schenk at Leipzig. Death of Carlstadt (Dec. 24). Religious conferences of Worms (Jan.) and Ratisbon (April 27-May 22); Diet of Ratisbon and Ratisbon Interim. The Catholic spokesmen: Eck, Julius von Pflug and J. Gropper; the Protestant: Melanchthon, Bucer and Frederick Pistorius. Calvin in supreme power at Geneva (till 1564).

389. “Wider Hans Worst.” Erl. ed., 26, pp. 2-75; 26², pp. 21-93.

390. Preface to Ezechiel, explanation of the figure of the Temple. Erl. ed., 63, pp. 64-74.

391. Exposition of Dan. xii. Erl. ed., 41, pp. 294-324.

392. “Vermanunge zum Gebet wider den Türcken.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 75-99.

393. Preface to Urban Rhegius’s “Wider die gottlosen blutdurstigen Sauliten und Doegeten,” etc. Erl. ed., 63, pp. 366-368.

394. Hymns: “Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam,” “Was furchstu, Feind Herodes, seer.” Erl. ed., 56, p. 353 ff.

Revised edition of the German Bible, cp. No. 385. “Enarratio in Ps. xc.,” cp. No. 322. Letters (Enders), Kawerau, 13, pp. 241-395; De Wette, 5, pp. 326-420; 6, pp. 279-294; Erl. ed., 55, pp. 294-343; 56, pp. 227-232.

1542. Fourth War of Charles V with François I (lasting till 1544); Diet of Spires meets on Feb. 9 to vote supplies for the war against the Turks. The Elector and Duke of Saxony fall out over Wurzen (March); Luther’s mediation; his last will (Jan. 6). Amsdorf is “consecrated” Bishop of Naumburg (Jan. 20). A Bull dated May 22 summons the Council to assemble on Nov. 1 at Trent. The Schmalkaldeners are successful in their attack on the Duchy of Brunswick (July). Bucer goes to Bonn to the Elector Hermann von Wied (Dec.).

395. Tract against Bigamy (publ. 1749). Erl. ed., 65, pp. 206-213.

396. Disputation for the promotion of Joh. Macchabæus Scotus (Theses by Melanchthon). Drews, pp. 639-683.

397. “Exempel einen rechten Christlichen Bischoff zu weihen.” Erl. ed., 26, pp. 77-107; 26², pp. 94-128.

398. Disputation for the promotion of H. Schmedenstede. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 452-455; Drews, pp. 686-698.

399. “Von den Jüden und jren Lügen.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 100-274.

400. Preface to “Verlegung des Alcoran Bruder Richardi Prediger Ordens anno 1300.” Erl. ed., 65, pp. 190-205.

401. Preface to “Barfuser Münche Eulenspiegel und Alcoran.” Erl. ed., 63, pp. 373-376.

402. “Trost fur die Weibern welchen es ungerat gegangen ist mit Kinder geberen.” Erl. ed., 23, pp. 339-343.

403. Preface to the Hymn Book. Erl. ed., 56, pp. 299-306.

Comment. on Micheas, cp. No. 160. No sermons. Letters, De Wette, 5, pp. 421-525; 6, pp. 294-343; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 1-43, 232-238, li.-lvii.

1543. Diet of Nuremberg (Feb.). The Protestants refuse to vote supplies for the Turkish War. The Emperor is victorious in his campaign against the Duke of Cleves though the latter is supported by the Elector of Saxony and by France (Aug., Sept.). The Bishop of Münster and Osnabrück connives at the introduction of Lutheranism into his diocese. Canisius the first German Jesuit (May 8). Death of Eck (Feb. 10). Schenk in Brandenburg; The Cologne Book of Reform drafted by Melanchthon and Bucer is severely handled by Luther.

404. “Vom Schem Hamphoras.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 275-358.

405. “Von den Letzten Worten Dauids.” Erl. ed., 37, pp. 2-103.

406. Disputation for the promotion of Joh. Marbach (Feb. 16). Drews, pp. 701-707.

407. Disputation for the promotion of Fr. Bachofen and Hier. Noppus. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 466-470; Drews, pp. 730-748.

408. Disputation for the promotion of Erasmus Alber. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 473-476; Drews, pp. 750-752.

409. Lecture on Is. ix. (publ. 1546). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, pp. 303-438.

410. Hymns: “Von Himel kam der Engel Schar,” “Der du bist drey in Einigkeit.” Erl. ed., 56, pp. 357-558.

New edition of the German Bible, cp. No. 381. Church-Postils, Summer part. Sermon, Erl. ed., 20², 1, pp. 513-523. Letters, De Wette, 5, pp. 526-614, 6, pp. 343-559; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 43-72, 238-242, lvii.-lxi.

1544. Peace of Crespy between the Kaiser and France (Sept. 18). Diet at Spires (beginning in Feb.). Concessions to the Protestants. The Abschied of June 10 postpones the religious controversy to a later Diet and “A free Christian Council within the German Nation.” The Pope’s protest to the Kaiser (Aug. 24). Luther again at daggers drawn with the lawyers (on the question of secret espousals). The people of Cologne denounce their Archbishop to the Pope (Oct. 9). The theses of the Louvain theologians against Luther (Nov. 6). The Council is yet again summoned (Nov. 19, to meet on March 15, 1545) to avert the schism and the inroads of the Turks.

411. Lecture on Is. liii. (publ. 1550). “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, pp. 443-536.

412. Disputation for the promotion of Theod. Fabricius and Stanislaus Rapagelanus (Melanchthon’s Theses). Drews, pp. 756-781.

413. “Kurtz Bekentnis vom heiligen Sacrament.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 397-425.

414. Sermon at the Dedication of the Castle-church at Torgau. Erl. ed., 17, pp. 239-262; 20², 2, pp. 215-243.

415. Disputation for the promotion of George Major and Joh. Faber. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 470-473; Drews, pp. 784-830.

Home-Postils, cp. No. 308. “Enarratio in I. librum Mosis,” cp. No. 328. Sermons, Erl. ed., 20², 2, pp. 1-266. Letters, De Wette, 5, pp. 615-709; 6, pp. 359-367; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 72-122, 242-244.

1545. Diet of Worms. The Abschied hints at a religious conference and the imminent danger of a War of Religion. George, the Protestant Prince of Anhalt, is “consecrated as Evangelical Bishop” of Merseburg (Aug. 2). The “Wittenberg Reformation” (Jan.). The final edition of the German Bible. “Popery Pictured.” Luther goes in disgust to Leipzig (July, Aug.). Goes as arbiter to Mansfeld (Oct.). Duke Henry of Brunswick is taken prisoner by the Schmalkaldeners (Oct. 20). A final Bull of Dec. 4 convokes the Council to Trent for Dec. 13, where it is opened in the presence of 34 Fathers qualified to vote. The Schmalkaldeners’ meeting (Dec. 15) at Frankfurt to devise a counterblast. Death of Spalatin (Jan. 16) and of Albert of Mayence (Sept. 24).

416. “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom vom Teuffel gestifft.” Erl. ed., 26, pp. 110-228; 26², pp. 131, 251.

417. Verses to Cranach’s cuts in the “Abbildung des Bapstum.”

418. “Wellische Lügenschrifft von Doctoris Martini Luthers Todt zu Rom ausgangen.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 426-430.

419. “Bapst Trew Hadriani iiii und Alexanders iii gegen Keyser Friderichen Barbarossa geübt.” Erl. ed., 32, pp. 359-396.

420. Disputation for the promotion of Peter Hegemon (July 3). “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 476-480; Drews, pp. 833-903.

421. “Wider die xxxii Artikel der Teologisten von Löven.” Erl. ed., 65, pp. 170-178.

422. “Articuli a magistris nostris Lovaniensibus editi.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 480-492.

423. “An Kurfursten zu Sachsen und Landgraven zu Hesse von dem gefangenen H. von Brunswig.” Erl. ed., 26, pp. 229-253; 26², pp. 254-281.

424. Preface to the new edition of the “Unterricht” (No. 360).

425. Preface to the first vol. of his “Opera Latina.” “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, pp. 15-24.

German Bible, new ed., cp. No. 381. “Enarratio in Hoseam prophetam,” cp. No. 160. Sermons, Erl. ed., 20², 2, pp. 267-454. Letters, De Wette, 5, pp. 710-772; 6, pp. 368-413; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 122-147, 244, xli.-lxv.

1546. The Diet opens at Ratisbon (March 29) without the Schmalkalden Leaguers. Luther’s last journey to Mansfeld (Jan. 23). His death at Eisleben (Feb. 18) and burial at Wittenberg (Feb. 22).—Treaty between the Kaiser and King Ferdinand, and Duke William of Bavaria in view of the eventual war (June 7). The Kaiser also makes an alliance with the Pope (June 7) and comes to an agreement with Maurice of Saxony (June 19). Schärtlin as commander of the South German townships begins hostilities at Füssen (July 9). Outlawry of Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony and of Landgrave Philip of Hesse (July 20). The Schmalkalden War (ending in the Kaiser’s victory at Mühlberg, April 24, 1547).

426. Sermons. Erl. ed., 20², 2, pp. 455-574.

Letters, De Wette, 5, pp. 773-801; 6, p. 413 f.; Erl. ed., 56, pp. 147-165.

XLII—APPENDIX II
ADDITIONS AND EMENDATIONS

[In the following Appendix we have ruthlessly excised all that seemed to us merely personal and to have no direct bearing on Luther. Many of the smaller emendations have already been incorporated in their proper place in the body of this translation. Note of the English Editor.]

1-2. Luther’s Visit to Rome

The Scala Santa: According to Paul Luther, when his father “was about to say the usual preces graduales in scala Lateranensi, there suddenly came into his mind the text of Habacuc ‘the just shall live by his faith,’ whereupon he refrained from his prayer.” As we pointed out in vol. i., p. 33, it is most unlikely that Luther should, at this time, have seen this text in such a light. Moreover, as it now turns out, Luther actually did perform the usual devotions at the Scala Santa. It is to G. Buchwald (“Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch.,” 1911, p. 606 ff.) that we are indebted for a quotation from a yet unpublished sermon of Luther’s own, which shows that he conformed to the common usage and ascended the famous steps on his knees: “I climbed the stairs of Pilate, orabam quolibet gradu pater noster. Erat enim persuasio, qui sic oraret redimeret animam. Sed in fastigium veniens cogitabam: quis scit an sit verum? Non valet ista oratio, etc.”

As for the doubt expressed in the latter portion of the text, it seems at variance with Luther’s general credulity in those early days. On the other hand, it is by no means unlikely that the scepticism of the Renaissance suggested a doubt to Luther’s mind regarding this supposed trophy of Christ’s Passion.

The projected General Confession: In “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil (3, p. 169, n. 33), Luther says: “Causa profectionis meæ erat confessio, quam volebam a pueritia usque texere, et pietatem exercere. Erphordiæ talem confessionem bis habui. Sed homines indoctissimos Romæ inveni, qui me plus offendebant quam ædificabant” (cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 414). In this text it is to be noted that Luther falsely makes out the main object of his journey to Rome to have been his proposed general confession, and his progress in piety. The truth is that he went there first and foremost for the business of his Order. That the general confession was probably never made may be inferred from Luther’s use of the word “sed” in the above text (cp. vol. i., pp. 30-31).

Oldecop’s account of Luther’s petition to be secularised: (Against Kawerau, “Schriften d. Vereins f. Reformationsgesch.,” 1912). Though but little notice has hitherto been taken of Oldecop’s narrative, yet there is no solid ground for distrusting it. As we were careful to point out (vol. i., p. 36, n. 1), he was indeed wrong in saying that Luther had gone to Rome without his superiors’ authorisation, for the journey was at least authorised by the seven priories whose representative Luther was. Luther had, however, no authorisation to seek secularisation, nor was his mission countenanced by the minister-general of the Augustinians. This may have led Oldecop to suppose that his whole undertaking was unauthorised. Regarding Jacob, the Jew mentioned in Oldecop’s account, Kawerau (ib., p. 36) makes out a likely case for distinguishing him from his German homonym with whom (vol. i., p. 37, n. 1) we tentatively identified him.

The outcome for the Order of Luther’s visit to Rome: Under the title “Aus den Actis generalatus Ægidii Viterbiensis,” G. Kawerau has published in the “Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch.” (1911, p. 603 ff.) a few short extracts from a MS. in the Royal Berlin Library. One of these seems to bear on Luther’s mission from the seven priories opposed to Staupitz: “MDXI. Jan. Appellare ex legibus Germani prohibentur. Ut res germanæ ad amorem et integram obedientiam redigerentur, Fr. Joh. Germanus ad vicarium missus est.” Hence Luther’s appeal was prohibited, nor had his mission the slightest support from Ægidius of Viterbo the minister-general. That, on the contrary, he was opposed to the movement then afoot against Staupitz, is also clear from the expression he uses on March 18, 1511, viz. that “obedience to the Order and its head” must be reintroduced into the German Congregation. At any earlier date (May 1, 1510) we are told that Staupitz himself had come to Rome “[Germanicæ] congregationis colla religionis iugo subiecturus.” His visit, however, had nothing to do with the matter of the seven priories, but concerned the general discipline of the Congregation.

3. Luther’s conception of “Observance” and his conflict with his brother friars

What we said of Luther’s early antagonism to the Observantines in his Order has been very diversely appreciated by Protestant experts. Kawerau and Scheel, for instance, are of opinion that no proof is forthcoming of the continuance of the conflict between Observantines and Conventuals. On the other hand, A. Harnack, K. A. Meissinger and W. Braun hold that the persistence of the conflict has been made out and that it really formed one of the starting-points of Luther’s new conception of faith. Modesty, however, dictates a protest on our part against being considered the inventor of this explanation, for it had, even previously, been suggested by Protestant scholars (cp. vol. i., p. 200, n. 3), though they may not have used it to such purpose. Again, a word of warning must be uttered against the supposition that, for instance as late as 1515-1516, there was still in Luther’s Congregation a clear-cut division between those devoted to the “observance” and the others who inclined to “Conventualism.” Of such a schism we hear no more after the Cologne Chapter of 1512. Nevertheless, that the partisan spirit that had once led to the appeal of the seven priories still smouldered, so much at least seems obvious from those addresses and writings of Luther in which he trounces the Pharisaism of certain members of his Congregation and their attachment to their statutes, privileges and exemptions. It must not be lost to sight that the Congregation to which Luther belonged was in name and fact an “observantine” one, having been founded to promote the stricter observance of the Augustinian Rule; for this reason it was exempted from the jurisdiction of the German Provincial of the Order and placed directly under the Roman minister-general, whose representative in Germany was the Vicar.

Regarding the mediæval cleavage of several of the Orders into Observantines and Conventuals we must be on our guard against flying to the conclusion that all mere Conventuals were necessarily slack in the performance of their duties. This was by no means the case; in many localities the Franciscan Observantines, e.g. were scarcely more zealous than the Franciscan Conventuals, though the latter had at an early date mitigated their rule of poverty; much the same held good among the Dominicans, Servites and Carmelites. In the event, so far as the Augustinians are concerned, the Saxon Observantines, for all their “observance,” were among the first to fall before the storm let loose from Wittenberg, whereas the German Conventuals, under such worthy provincials as Träger and Hoffmeister, showed themselves better able to cope with the innovations. The Dominican Conventuals under a Vicar like Johann Faber also furnished several protagonists of the faith.

In view of the doubts raised in certain quarters we shall now submit to a closer scrutiny Luther’s utterances on the question of the “observance.”

On one occasion Luther complains of those who made so small account of obedience, though this virtue was the very soul of good works:

“Tales hodie esse timendum est omnes observantes et exemptos sive privilegiatos; qui quid noceant ecclesiæ nondum apparuit, licet factum sit; apparebit autem tempore suo. Quærimus autem, cur sic eximi sibi et dispensari in obedientia velint. Dicunt propter vitam regularem. Sed hæc est lux angeli Satanæ.”

Obedience is something which cannot be dispensed (non eximibilis, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 155; O. Scheel, “Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung,” 1911, p. 74 f.; above, vol. i., p. 68 f.). Truth, so Luther argues, hides its face from the unwise and the particularist:

“Sic etiam omnibus superbis contingit et pertinacibus, superstitiosis, rebellibus et inobedientibus, atque ut timeo et observantibus nostris, qui sub specie regularis vitæ incurrunt inobedientiarn et rebellionem.” (Weim. ed., 4, p. 83; above, vol. i., p. 69.)

In the former text he was speaking of “all Observantines,” here he speaks of “ours,” presumably, of the more zealous Augustinians. These “observantes” are the same opponents whom he goes on to describe as “superbi in sanctitate et observantia, qui destruunt humilitatem et obedientiam.” The real meaning here of the words “observantia” and “observare” can scarcely escape the reader, particularly when Luther couples this “observance” with disobedience to superiors. Thus he says:

“Nostris temporibus est pugna cum hypocritis et falsis fratribus, qui de bonitate fidei pugnant, quam sibi arrogant, per observantias suas iactantes suam sanctitatem.” (Ib., 4, p. 312.)

“Observantia” means of course outward practices, but there can be little doubt that the word is here used in the more exclusive sense defined in the text first quoted. Thus he denounces those who defend their own “traditiones et leges,” which “usque hodie statuere conantur”; those who busy themselves about ceremonies and the “vanitas observantiæ exterioris”; he several times repeats the “usque hodie,” as though to show that the practices he had in view were present ones. (Cp. Weim. ed., 3, p. 61.)

It must be borne in mind that Luther delivered his Lectures on the Psalms (in which most of the texts in question are found) to an audience composed in the main of young Augustinians sent by the various priories to prosecute their studies at Wittenberg. Some of these may well have brought with them some of those stricter ideas which the seven “Observantine” priories had once championed against Staupitz. To one, who, as Luther now was, was against such ideas, it was an easy matter, even though in itself wrong, to make the question one of obedience, by urging either that their exemption from the jurisdiction of the Provincial was irregular, or that Staupitz had now abandoned his one-time projects.

Luther charges the other faction, not only with disobedience, but also with pigheadedness, e.g. in refusing to conform to the usages of the other priories, and in laying such stress on their own customs and institutions.

“Nunc quam multi sunt, qui sibi spiritualissimi videntur et tamen sunt sanguinicissimi, ut sic dixerim, verissimique Idumæi. Hi scilicet qui suas professiones, suum ordinem, suos sanctos, sua instituta ita venerantur et efferunt, ut omnium aliorum vel obfuscent vel nihil ipsi curent, satis carnaliter suos patres observantes et iactantes; (such was the New Judaism of those), qui suos conventus, suum ordinem ideo laudant et ideo aliis præstare volunt ac nullo modo doceri, quia magnos et sanctos viros habuerunt, quorum titulum, nomen et habitum gestant, … O furor late regnans hodie! Ita nunc pene fit, ut quilibet conventus contemnat alterius mores acceptare adeo superbe, ut sibi dedecus putet, si ab alio, quam a se ipso doceatur aut recipiat. Hæc vera superbia est Iudæorum et hæreticorum, in quo et nos heu infelices comprehendimur. Quia cum in nullo similes patribus nostris simus, solum de nomine et gloria eorum contra invicem contendimus et superbimus.” (Ib., 3, p. 332.)

Though what Luther here says might be applied to other religious Orders, yet it seems more natural to take it as referring chiefly to what was going on in his own.

Luther’s then Conception of Cloistral Life and Religious Mendicancy: Luther spoke very plainly about that part of the Rule which enjoined mendicancy; as Conventuals no less than Observantines were bound to observe this enactment it follows that Luther’s attack was directed, not so much against the Observantines as such, as against any attempt seriously to put in practice the Evangelical Counsels. Thus, in the passage quoted above (vol. i., p. 71) he says: “O mendicantes, mendicantes, mendicantes! At excusat forte quod elemosynas propter Deum recipitis et verbum Dei ac omnia gratis rependitis. Esto sane. Vos videritis.” (Weim. ed., 3, p. 425.) Here, it is true, he is speaking of the abuses to which the system led, yet he is also annoyed that their vow of poverty should be the motive of their preaching: “Horribilis furor et cæca miseria, quod nunc nonnisi ex necessitate evangelizamus.”

Now, though these hasty words were open to a perfectly sound interpretation, yet their effect must have been to arouse a certain contempt for their calling in the minds of the young men to whom they were spoken. At any rate Luther had then not yet lost his esteem for the religious life, particularly as an incentive to humility and general Godliness. (See vol. i., p. 218 f.)

It is scarcely necessary to say that the fact that, in 1518 (at Augsburg), Staupitz released Luther “from the observance” has nothing whatever to do with the question in hand. Luther says: “me absolvit ab observantia et regula ordinis.” (Weim. ed., of the Table-Talk, 1, p. 96.) All that his superior did was to dispense him from his obligation of carrying out outwardly the rule of the Order, e.g. from dressing as a monk, etc. Even had Luther been a Conventual he could still have spoken thus of his having been absolved from the “observance.” It may be that Staupitz, for his own freedom of action, also absolved Luther from his duty of obedience to him as Vicar. Even so, however, Luther remained an Augustinian, returned to his monastery, wrote on behalf of the vows, and, long after, still continued to wear the Augustinian habit.

One notice brought to light from the Weimar archives and published by Kawerau (loc. cit., p. 68) is of interest. It deals with the practices of the severer Observantine priories (about the year 1489) with which the laxer members were later to find fault. Among their practices was that of “not speaking at meal-time but of listening to a reader, of fasting from All Hallows till Christmas (in addition to the other fasts), of singing Matins every night, of abstaining from food and drink outside of meal-time, and of holding a Chapter every Friday with public admission of shortcomings and imposition of penance.”

4. Attack upon the “Self-righteous”

In 1516 Luther presided at Bernhardi’s Disputation, “De viribus et voluntate hominis sine gratia.” (Above, vol. i., p. 310 f.) In the letter to Lang about it he says that Bernhardi had held the debate “motus oblatratorum lectionum mearum garritu.” Some opinions therein put forward had much scandalised the adherents of Gabriel Biel (“cum et mei [Gabrielistæ] vehementer hucusque mirentur”), but, at any rate, the Disputation had served its purpose (“ad obstruendum ora garrientium vel ad audiendum iudicium aliorum”). He goes on to speak of the offence his denial of the authenticity of the tract “De vera et falsa pænitentia”—hitherto ascribed to St. Augustine—had given at Wittenberg (“sane gravius offendi omnes”). Mathesius (above, vol. i., p. 304) also alludes to the opposition he encountered about this time among his brethren. At any rate a few months later Luther could triumphantly tell Lang:

“Theologia nostra et S. Augustinus prospere procedunt et regnant in nostra universitate, Deo operante.… Mire fastidiuntur lectiones sententiariæ, nec est ut quis sibi auditores sperare possit, nisi theologiam hanc … velit profiteri.”

Before this, the young Professor (at Christmas, 1515) had told his hearers, that, just as the Prophets, wise men and scribes had been persecuted, so he was being persecuted now:

“Sed state firmiter, neque moveatur ullus contradictionibus; sic enim oportet fieri. Prophetæ, Sapientes, Scribæ, dum mittuntur ad iustos, sanctos, pios, non recipiuntur ab ipsis sed occiduntur.”

The supposed “saints” he goes on to describe in their true character. What they were bent on persecuting was really Grace, viz. what he preaches under the figure of “Christ our mother-hen”:

“Superbi semper contra iustitiam Dei pugnant et stultitiam æstimant, quæ sapientia [sic] eis mittitur; similiter veritas eis mendacium videtur. Imo persequuntur et occidunt eos, qui veritatem dicunt. Sic enim et ego semper prædico de Christo, gallina nostra. Efficitur mihi errans et falsum dictum: ‘Vult Dominus esse gallina nostra ad salutem, sed nos nolumus’.… Nolunt audire, quod iustitiæ eorum peccata sint, quæ gallina egeant, imo quod peius est, versi in vultures etiam ipsi alios a gallina rapere nituntur et persequuntur reliquos pullos.… Sicut Iudæi … iustitiam statuentes quod sibi placuit, ita isti hoc gratiam vocant quod ipsi somniant.” (Weim. ed., 1, p. 31.)

A few pages further on, the new Lutheran teaching on Grace is clearly seen in its process of growth:

“Ecce impossibilis est lex propter carnem; verumtamen Christus impletionem suam nobis impertit, dum se ipsum gallinam nobis exhibet, ut sub alas eius confugiamus et per eius impletionem nos quoque legem impleamus. O dulcis gallina, o beatos pullos huius gallinæ!” (P. 35.)

To the “vultures,” i.e. his opponents, he returns again in the same lectures. They build only on their “sapientia carnis” when they set out to gain what they consider to be virtue and the gifts of grace. (Weim. ed., 1, pp. 61, 62, 70.)

“In his maxime pereunt [peccant?] hæretici et superbi, dum ea pertinaciter diligunt, quasi ideo Deum diligant, quia hæc diligunt. Inde enim zelant et furiunt, ubi reprehenduntur in istis, et defendunt se ac zelum Dei sine scientia exercent.… Quantumlibet sapiant et bene vivant, recte adhuc de sapientia carnis vivere dicendi sunt.… Servi [superbi?] sine timore et occultissime superbi.… Talis est stultitia hypocritarum de virtutibus et gratiis Dei, præsumentium se esse integros et iustos.”

A trace of the antagonism within the Order is also found in the notes of the sermons preached in the summer of 1516. On July 6, Luther speaks of the greatest plague now rampant in the Church:

“Prosequimur, quæ incepimus, nam singularem illi tractatum quærunt, cum non sit hodie pestis maior per ecclesiam ista peste hominum, qui dicunt, ‘bonum oportet facere,’ nescire volentes, quid sit bonum vel malum. Sunt enim inimici crucis Christi i.e. bonorum Dei.”

As we know, his theology was professedly the “theology of the cross.” As for his foes, lay, clerical or monastic, their outward works were but the lamb-skins concealing the wolves beneath:

“Ad alia vocati, quam quæ ipsi elegerunt, difficiles imo rebelles sunt et contrarii, impatientes, [inclinati] detrahere ac iudicare, alios negligere, contentiosi, opiniosæ cervicis, indomiti sensus, ideo non pacifici, brevianimes, immansueti, duri, crudi. Hæc vitia et opera interioris hominis ovina veste contegunt, i.e. actionibus, oblationibus, gestu, ceremoniis corporalibus, ita ut et sibi et aliis simplicibus boni et iusti videantur.”

On July 27 he speaks of the “darts” which the foes let fly from their ambush at those who are right of heart.

“Hæc ideo iam commemoro, quia iam accedo ad subtiliores homines et invisibiles transgressores præcepti Dei et in abscondito peccantes et sagittantes eos qui recte sint corde.”

In another sermon preached on the same day, speaking of the Pharisee and the Publican, he says:

“Credo quod pauci timeant se pharisæo similes esse quem odiunt; sed ego scio, quod plures ei similes sint.… Non præsumamus securi, quod publicano similes simus.”

In this sentence, and elsewhere, stress should not be laid on the use of the first person plural, as it is merely a rhetorical embellishment. The Pharisee is the self-righteous man; he bears “idolum iustitiæ suæ in corde statutum”; he refuses to be accounted a sinner, hence:

“incurrit in Christum, qui omnes peccatores suscepit in se. Et ideo Christus iudicatur, accusatur, mordetur, quandocunque peccator quicunque accusatur, etc. Qui autem Christum iudicat, suum iudicem iudicat, Deum violenter negat. Vide quo perveniat furens et insipiens superbia.”

This indeed, in itself, is all capable of a perfectly orthodox interpretation, not, however, if we take it in conjunction with all the circumstances. On Aug. 3, the preacher again inveighs against the “sensuales iustitiarii,” who hang on their works and observances: This is to remain

“… pueri abecedarii in isto statu; sed heu quam plurimi hodie in illis indurantur, quia hæc putant esse seria, et magna ea æstimant. [Tamen] qui Spiritu Dei aguntur, ubi didicerint exterioris hominis disciplinas, non eas multum curant nisi ut præludium.”

True piety on the other hand consisted in allowing oneself to be ridden by God. The man of God

“vadit quocumque eum Dominus suus equitat; nunquam scit quo vadat, plus agitur quam agit, semper it et quomodocunque per aquam, per lutum, per imbrem, per nivem, ventum, etc. Tales sunt homines Dei, qui Spiritu Dei aguntur.”

The “holy-by-works” soil themselves with the seven deadly sins of the spirit. Hence, let us not befoul ourselves by making a rock of the “opera iustitiæ.” Let us leave that sort of thing to beginners to whom indeed we may teach

“multis bonis operibus exercere et a malis abstinere secundum sensibilem hominem, ut sunt [sic] ieiunare, vigilare, orare, laborare, misereri, servire, obsequi, etc.”

These words must have been addressed to men with some theological training, for, in this discourse, Luther dilates at some length on a text of Alexander of Hales; doubtless those present were members of his Order; but what then must we think of the teacher who thus proclaims a freedom from all the observances and traditional rules by which his fellow-monks were bound? Luther’s point of view was one, which, if adopted, spelt the end not only of the Observantines but even of Conventualism. Hence it is no wonder that it caused murmuring.

5. The collapse of the Augustinian Congregation

The fifth Council of the Lateran took measures against many abuses which had crept in among the mendicant Orders, particularly among the Hermits of St. Augustine. As we know, the German Congregation under Staupitz and with Luther as Rural Vicar was no better off than the other branches. It is from June 30, 1516, i.e. during the period of Luther’s “vicariate” that we find a curious note in the “Acta Generalatus Ægidii Viterbiensis.” (Above, p. 497.)

“Universo ordini significamus bellum nobis indictum ab episcopis in concilio Lateranensi, ob idque nos reformationem indicimus omnibus monasteriis.” [Cp. 2 Jan., 1517]. “Religioni universæ quæcunque in concilio acta sunt contra mendicantes per litteras longissimas significamus et reformationem exactissimam indicimus.”

In thus doing the Minister-General’s intention, to judge by the few scraps his Acts contain, was to bring back his people “ad communem vitam.” No doubt too many dispensations had been given for the sake of making study easier, or for other reasons. The reader may remember the incident (above, vol. i., p. 297, n. 1) of Gabriel Zwilling’s being sent to Erfurt and the words used by Luther in his letter to Lang. Zwilling, who, after leaving the Augustinians, became one of the Zwickau “Prophets” but afterwards accepted an appointment as Lutheran minister at Torgau, had joined the Augustinians in 1502 and matriculated at Wittenberg University in 1512; hence he had already been sixteen years an Augustinian at the time when Luther wrote that he had “not yet seen or learnt the rites and usages of the Order.” Does not this seem to prove that the Rule must have been greatly relaxed and that too many exceptions were allowed in the common way of life? Luther himself, as we know, had been dispensed in his student-days from attending Matins and had been assigned a serving-brother; this is proved by the manuscript notes of the Table-Talk made by Rörer. “(Staupitzius) absolvit eum a matutinis et addidit fratrem famulum.” (Kroker, “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” 1908, p. 370.) It has indeed been urged that Zwilling’s ignorance of the “rites” was due to the smallness of the Wittenberg monastery. But, as Luther wrote to Lang on Oct. 26, 1516, the house contained “twenty-two priests, twelve students, and, in all, forty-one persons.” (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 67). This was surely enough to allow of the carrying out of the “rites and usages of the Order.” Zwilling, moreover, was sent to Erfurt, not only to get a better insight into the ways of the Order, but, mainly, to learn Greek: “Ut et ipse et alii quam optime, i.e. christianiter, græcisent.”

6. The Tower Incident (vol. I, pp. 388-400)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther’s words as they were heard by Schlaginhaufen:

I. Copies of Steinhart (1550) and Khummer (1554): | II. Anonymous Copy of (Preger) 1551:

“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]

“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): | IV. Lauterbach c. 1559 (Bindseil, 1, p. 52): | V. Rörer (Jena, Bos. q. 24 s, Bl. 117´, 118):

“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.”

“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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. The Indulgence-Theses

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

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

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

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

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

8. The Temptations at the Wartburg

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

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

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

9. Prayer at the Wartburg

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

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

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

above all, in Emser, whom he calls a “vas diaboli proprie obsessum.” (Ib., 3, p. 197.)

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

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

11. Luther’s moral character

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

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

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

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

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

12. Luther’s views on lies

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

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

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

Hence the “mendacium officiosum,” far from being a sin, is an “officium caritatis,” i.e. to tell one is “servare, non transgredi, præcepta Dei.” (Ib., p. 288 sq.)

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

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

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

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

In “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, pp. 140-143, Luther distinguishes the “iocosum mendacium”—which is merely a “grammaticum peccatum”—and the “officiosum mendacium”—such as was Christ’s on the road to Emaus—from the true lie: “Revera unum tantum mendacii genus est, quod nocet proximo.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Luther’s lack of the missionary spirit

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

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

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

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

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

14. Notes

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

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

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES

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

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

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

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

[5] “De constituendis scholis,” etc.

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

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

[8] Erl. ed., 14², pp. 390, 389.

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

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

[11] Ib., p. 519=380.

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

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

[14] P. 554=401, 402.

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

[16] P. 586=420 f.

[17] P. 587=421.

[18] Ib., 15, p. 34=22, p. 178.

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

[20] Cp. Kawerau, ib.

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

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

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

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

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

[26] Ib., p. 35 f.=175.

[27] See also above, n. 1.

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

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

[30] Ib., p. 40=185.

[31] Ib., p. 53=198.

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

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

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

[35] Ib., p. 584=419.

[36] P. 530=387.

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

[38] P. 586=421.

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

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

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

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

[43] Ib., p. 306.

[44] Ib., p. 297; cp. p. 289.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[51] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 37.

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

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

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

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

[56] Ib., p. 344.

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

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

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

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

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

[62] Ib., p. 47=192.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[70] Ib., p. 280.

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

[72] See above, p. 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[88] Ib.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[96] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 483.

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

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

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

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

[101] Ib., col. 915: “… intolerabili degravavit invidia.”

[102] Ib., col. 1089: “Tantam ignaviam invexit hoc novum evangelium.”

[103] Ib., col. 1069: “Amant viaticum et uxorem, cetera pili non faciunt.”

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

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

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

[107] Ib., p. 260.

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

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

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

[111] Ib., i., p. 25 ff.

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

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

[114] Schiele, ib., p. 391.

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

[116] “Opp.,” 3, col. 1363 sq.

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

[118] Janssen, ib., p. 102.

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

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

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

[122] Ib., p. 393.

[123] Janssen, ib., p. 43. Schiele, ib., p. 593.

[124] Schiele, ib., p. 390.

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

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

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

[128] M. Ritter, “Matthiä Flacii Illyrici Leben”², 1725, p. 105 Janssen, ib., p. 265.

[129] For proofs see Janssen, ib., p. 286 ff.

[130] Ib., p. 295.

[131] On the contrast between mediæval and Lutheran charity, see above, vol. iv., p. 477 ff., and Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. xv., pp. 425-526.

[132] Adolf Bruder, art. “Armenpflege,” “Staatslexikon der Görresgesellschaft.”

[133] F. Ehrle, “Beiträge z. Gesch. u. Reform der Armenpflege,” 1881; do. “Die Armenordnungen von Nürnberg (1522) und von Ypern (1525),” “Hist. Jahrb.,” 9, 1888, p. 450 ff. Ratzinger, “Gesch. d. kirchl. Armenpflege”², 1884, p. 442 ff. Janssen, p. 431.

[134] L. Feuchtwanger, “Gesch. der sozialen Politik und des Armenwesens im Zeitalter der Reformation” (“Jahrb. für Gesetzgebung,” etc., ed. G. Schmoller, N.F. 32, 1908, p. 168 ff. (I), and 33, 1909, p. 191 ff. (II), I, p. 169.)

[135] “De origine, situ, moribus et institutis Norimbergæ,” cap. 12.

[136] Reprint of the Regulations of 1522 according to the oldest revision, in Ehrle, “Die Armenordnungen,” p. 459 ff. For the passage “Our salvation,” etc., see p. 467.

[137] Ehrle, ib., p. 477 f. Feuchtwanger, ib., I., p. 184.

[138] Janssen, ib., xv., p. 439 ff.

[139] Feuchtwanger, ib., p. 182. For all the towns mentioned above see Janssen, loc. cit.

[140] Weim. ed., 26, p. 639; Erl. ed., 63, p. 270.

[141] Ib., 6, p. 450 f.=21, p. 335 f.

[142] Cp., for instance, the passage in the Church-Postils, Erl. ed., 14², p. 391: “The whole world is full of idle, faithless, wicked knaves, among the day labourers, lazy handicraftsmen, servants, maids, to say nothing of the greedy, work-shy beggars,” etc.

[143] Weim. ed., 6, p. 42; Erl. ed., 16², p. 87. (Longer) Sermon on Usury, 1520.

[144] Ib., 19, p. 654 f.=22, p. 281 in “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden.”

[145] Barge, “Andreas Karlstadt,” 2, p. 559 f.

[146] E. Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” 1, 1, p. 696 ff.

[147] Ib., p. 596 ff.; also “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 11 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 112 ff. On Leisnig cp. above, vol. v., p. 136 ff.

[148] Ib., pp. 11 ff., 14=106 ff., 110.

[149] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 551.

[150] It was the first to be established with so much pomp and circumstance.

[151] To Spalatin, Nov. 24, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 72 f.

[152] Cp. Ehrle, “Die Armenordnungen,” etc. (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 9, 1888), p. 475. The Altenburg regulations are no longer extant.

[153] Feuchtwanger, “Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung,” etc., I., p. 173. He quotes the enthusiastic words written on this occasion by the Wittenberg student Ulscenius: “O factum apostolicum, fervet hodie in Wittenbergensium cordibus Dei et proximi dilectio ardentissima,” etc., and remarks: We may take in conjunction with this statement the libertinism which actually prevailed in the town at the end of 1521.

[154] Cp. below.

[155] Weim. ed., 19, p. 74 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 231.

[156] Ib., 30, 2, p. 584 f.=17², p. 419 f.

[157] See Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 1, p. 303 ff.

[158] Erl. ed., 14², p. 391. Church Postils.

[159] Ib., p. 389.

[160] Weim. ed., 32, p. 409; Erl. ed., 43, p. 164. Expos. of Matt. vi.

[161] Ib., Erl. ed., 44, p. 356. Sermons on Matt. xviii.-xxiii.—For similar statements see the passage in the last Note and Erl. ed., 23, p. 317; also above, vol. iv., passim. Cp. also Luther’s statements in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 465 ff.; Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 2, p. 215, 306, 349.

[162] Erl. ed., 23, 313 f. “An die Pfarherrn wider den Wucher.” 1539.

[163] Feuchtwanger, II. (see above, p. 44, n. 2), p. 192.

[164] Ib., pp. 197, 180, 177 f., 176.

[165] The quotations here and in what follows are from Feuchtwanger.

[166] Feuchtwanger, II., p. 197. He quotes from the compilation of A. L. Richter, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16. Jahrh.,” and Sehling (above, p. 49, n. 3) Bugenhagen’s “Ordnungen” subsequent to those set up for Wittenberg in 1527. Cp. in K. A. Vogt, “Bugenhagen,” 1867, p. 101 ff., on the latter’s “Von den Christen-loven,” etc., 1526.

[167] Cp. Janssen, xv., p. 456 f.

[168] Feuchtwanger, ib., II., p. 206.

[169] Cp. ib., p. 214.

[170] Ib., p. 212.

[171] In his instruction against the Anabaptist doctrines (Wittenberg, 1528, D 3b) Melanchthon says: “Never have the people shown themselves more unfriendly and malicious towards the parsons and ministers of the Church than now. Some who wish to be thought very Evangelical seize upon the property given to the parsons, pulpits, schools and churches, and without which we should end by becoming heathen. The common people and the mob refuse to pay the parson his dues,” etc.

[172] See Janssen, ib., xv., p. 480, n. 1, where the touching complaint of Eber’s is quoted, viz. that the ministers of the Church were stripped and left to starve. He prophesies that future times will show how “little blessing spoliation brought those who warmed and fed themselves on Church property.” It was everywhere worst in the villages and small towns.

[173] Ib., xv., p. 477.

[174] Ib., p. 469 ff.

[175] Ib., p. 481 ff.

[176] For proofs see Janssen, ib.

[177] G. Kawerau, “Lehrb. der KG.,” 3, ed. W. Möller, 3rd ed., 1907, p. 434, with a reference to the works of Bossert.

[178] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 303 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 541 (in 1522).

[179] Cp. Janssen, ib., xv., p. 501.

[180] O. Jolles, “Die Ansichten der deutschen nationalökonomischen Schriftsteller des 16. und 17. Jahrh. über Bevölkerungswesen” (“Jahrb. f. Nationalökonomie u. Statistik,” N.F. 13, 1886, p. 196). Janssen, ib.

[181] Janssen, ib., xv., p. 505. Feuchtwanger must have been familiar with all this though he never quotes Janssen. He says (p. 214): “Only one who was unfavourable to the reformation would judge Protestantism by the fruits of its first two centuries.”

[182] “Reden und Aufsätze,” 2, 1904, p. 52, in the lecture “Die evangelischsoziale Aufgabe im Lichte der Gesch. der Kirche.”

[183] F. Schaub, “Die kath. Caritas und ihre Gegner,” 1909, p. 45.

[184] See the excellent work by Schaub, p. 14 ff., quoted in the previous Note, where it is stated, that, under present conditions, private charity certainly does not suffice and that, therefore, State relief is necessary; yet the latter is always merely subsidiary, because what is assumed by real Christian charity, i.e. self-sacrifice, and individual care, can only be realised in private relief of the poor; the State, on the other hand, has its efficient compulsory taxation (“caritas coacta”) and its own bureaucratic means of carrying out its work; in any case the State must not monopolise any branch of poor relief, and public and private charity ought to be in close touch. These remarks may serve to assist in the right appreciation of the historical movement described above.

[185] Feuchtwanger, II., p. 194.

[186] Ib., pp. 212, 214.

[187] Cp. ib., p. 214.

[188] Vol. iv., p. 127 ff.

[189] Erl. ed., 31, p. 236. “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur,” 1533. Above, vol. v., p. 59.

[190] Ib., p. 239 f.

[191] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 4, pp. 202-204.

[192] Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.,” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, pp. 725-755). “Similar testimony,” Paulus says, p. 740, “dating from the close of the Middle Ages is to be found in abundance.” He lays particular stress on the witness of monks and friars.

[193] Sermon on Marriage in his “Sermones dominicales,” Leipzig, 1530, Bl. J. 4a, L1. Q 2b. Paulus, ib., p. 741.

[194] Of pilgrimages in particular, Luther is fond of saying, that the monks enjoined them at the expense of the duties of a man’s calling. Cp., for instance, the passage cited above, p. 67, n. 1 (p. 203): “Mater familias … non faciat, quæ in papatu solent, ut discurrat ad templa,” etc. For the passages from Hollen see Paulus, ib., p. 740, and Fl. Landmann, “Das Predigtwesen in Westfalen in der letzten Zeit des MA.,” 1900, p. 179 f.

[195] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 2, p. 9 f. Paulus, ib., p. 749.

[196] Janssen, ib. Paulus, ib., p. 748.

[197] Cp. Paulus, ib., p. 750 ff., and H. Pesch, “Lehrb. der Nationalökonomie,” 2, 1909, p. 726.

[198] Weim. ed., 19, p. 635; Erl. ed., 22, p. 259. “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligen Stande seyn künden?” 1526.

[199] Ib., 18, p. 394=24², p. 324. “Sendebrieff von dem harten Buchlin widder die Bauren,” 1525.

[200] Ib., 19, p. 659=22, p. 287.

[201] Ib., 10, 2, p. 157=28, p. 200.

[202] Ib., p. 631=255. He speaks before this of nobles, who, after the peasant risings, had gone too far in their revenge.—Luther inveighs in the strongest language against the way in which the nobles oppressed the poor “burghers, unhappy pastors and preachers,” and says: “Here the lion has caught a mouse and fancies he has overcome the dragon. Germany is now full of such nobles and Junkers, who stink out the beer-houses and draw their steel only on the poor, wretched, defenceless people; such are the nobles. Out on such abandoned people! We Germans are indeed swine and savage beasts, and have no noble thoughts or courage in us, as the world too thinks!” This in the Commentary on the Four Psalms of Consolation, 1526. Weim. ed., 19, p. 604 f.; Erl. ed., 38, p. 439 f.

[203] Weim. ed., 11, p. 246 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 62 f. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523, Preface.—Cp. what was said, above, vol. ii., p. 205 f., etc.

[204] Weim. ed., 19, p. 278 f.; Erl. ed., 65, p. 43. “Widder den Radschlag der Meintzischen Pfafferey,” 1526 (not published by him on account of his sovereign’s prohibition).

[205] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 175.

[206] Weim. ed., 28, p. 520; Erl. ed., 36, p. 175.

[207] Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 137 ff.

[208] K. J. Fuchs, “Die Epochen der deutschen Agrargesch.” (“Allg. Ztng.,” 1898, Suppl. 70).

[209] Weim. ed., 16, p. 244; Erl. ed., 35, p. 233 (1524-26).

[210] Ib., 33, p. 659=48, p. 385 (1530-32).

[211] Ib., 24, p. 367 f.=33, p. 389 f.

[212] To the Elector Johann Frederick, Erl. ed., 55, p. 239; “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 246.

[213] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, p. 388.

[214] Ib.

[215] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 245.

[216] Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 529 f.

[217] Ib., p. 518 ff., Sermon of June 11, 1531.

[218] Ib., p. 109.

[219] Ib., p. 334 f.

[220] Weim. ed., 28, p. 329; Erl. ed., 50, p. 350. “We are ministers in a hostel where the devil is the landlord and the world the landlady, and the barmaids all kinds of wicked lusts, and all these, landlord, landlady and barmaids, are enemies and opponents of the Evangel.”

[221] Erl. ed., 32, p. 77.

[222] Above, vol. v., p. 403 ff.

[223] Erl. ed., 62, p. 375 f., “Tischreden.”

[224] Ib., p. 366.

[225] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” xv., p. 49 ff. Lucas Osiander the Elder sent Luther’s Schem Hamphoras to Duke Frederick of Würtemberg in 1598 in support of his petition for the expulsion of all Jews. For the same purpose, in 1612, the theological faculty of Giessen had some of Luther’s strongest sayings against the Jews reprinted. Ib., p. 51, n.

[226] C. Krause, “Eoban Hessus, sein Leben und seine Werke,” 2, 1879, p. 107. Janssen, ib., xiii., p. 101.

[227] 1, p. 279.

[228] To Johann Lang, Dec. 18, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 281: “facturus, ut multo plures offendat Christi pura doctrina.”

[229] Weim. ed., 6, p. 38; Erl. ed., 16², p. 82. Sermon on Usury, 1519.

[230] Ib., p. 37 f.=81, on the words of Christ, Matt. v. 40 f., that, to him who takes our coat we should leave our cloak also: “Many fancy this is not commanded or to be observed by every Christian, but is merely a voluntary counsel of perfection, and, like virginity and chastity, counselled not commanded.” But “these are the artifices whereby the teaching and example of our dear Lord Jesus Christ as given in the holy Gospel, together with that of all His Martyrs and Saints, is reversed, neglected and altogether suppressed.… God will blind and disgrace those who turn His clear and holy Word into darkness.… No excuse is of any avail, it is simply a command which we are bound to observe.” He continues: As true Christians we have to observe it, but, as members of a commonwealth we enjoy a divine institution whereby “the secular sword” protects us from any injury to our possessions.

[231] Ib., p. 50 f.=98.

[232] Ib., p. 6=117; cp. p. 50=98.

[233] Weim. ed., 15, p. 294 f.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 201.

[234] Ib., p. 312 ff.= 223 ff.

[235] Ib., 6, p. 466=21, p. 357.

[236] Cp. ib., 15, p. 304=22, p. 214 f.

[237] “Darstellung und Würdigung der Ansichten Luthers vom Staat und seinen wirtschaftlichen Aufgaben,” 1898, p. 83.

[238] Quoted by Luther in 1540, see Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 78.

[239] Ib.

[240] Weim. ed., 6, p. 466; Erl. ed., 21, p. 357.

[241] Ib., 15, p. 304=22, p. 213 f. Von Kauffshandlung, etc.

[242] Ib., p. 36=181. “An die Radherrn.”

[243] Ib., 6, p. 465 f.=21, p. 356.

[244] Ib., p. 466=356.

[245] Ib., 24, p. 351 f.=33, p. 370 f.

[246] Ib., 18, p. 391=24², p. 320 (1525).

[247] Ward, “Darstellung,” etc., p. 73.

[248] Kampschulte, “Johannes Calvin,” 1, 1869, p. 430. Ward, ib.

[249] Ward, ib., p. 74.

[250] Weim. ed., 15, p. 296; Erl. ed., 22, p. 204. Ward, ib., p. 75.

[251] “Werke,” ib., p. 295=202.

[252] Ward, p. 101.

[253] Ward, ib., p. 94

[254] Weim. ed., 24, p. 368; Erl. ed., 33, p. 390.

[255] On June 18, 1524, Erl. ed., 53, p. 244 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 354).

[256] Cp. Enders in n. 3 to the above letter.

[257] See above, vol. iv., p. 13 ff.

[258] Weim. ed., 24, p. 8; Erl. ed., 33, p. 11 (1527).

[259] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 279. Cp. J. Schneid, “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 108, 1891, pp. 241 ff., 473 ff., and B. Duhr, “Zeitschr. f. Kath. Theol.,” 24, 1900, p. 210.

[260] Cp. the Sermons on Usury of 1519, also certain passages in his “An den christl. Adel,” the booklet “Von Kauffshandlung und Wucher,” 1524, and the Sermon against Usury of April 13, 1539, which he followed up by a written appeal to the Wittenberg magistrates. M. Neumann, “Gesch. des Wuchers in Deutschland,” Halle, 1868, pp. 481, 618 ff.

[261] Erl. ed., 23, p. 283 f.

[262] Ib., p. 285.

[263] The Anabaptist Jorg Schnabel said in 1538, that on 20 gulden two or three were now taken as interest. For the text, see Janssen, ib., xv., p. 38.

[264] Erl. ed., 23, p. 285.

[265] Ib., p. 304 f.

[266] Ib., p. 285.

[267] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259; according to Heydenreich’s Notes. Erl. ed., 57, p. 360.

[268] Erl. ed., 23, p. 306 f.

[269] Ib., p. 319.

[270] Ib., cp. above, p. 80, n. 4.

[271] Ib., p. 311 f.

[272] P. Schanz, “Commentar über das Lukasevang.,” 1883, p. 226.

[273] Printed in H. Grisar, “Iacobi Lainez Disputationes Tridentinæ tom. 2: Disaput. variæ; accedunt Commentarii morales,” Oeniponte, 1886, pp. 227-321, with Introduction, pp. 60*-64*.

[274] P. 240; cp. p. 63*.

[275] P. 244 sqq.

[276] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 432.

[277] P. 287.

[278] P. 294.

[279] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259.

[280] Erl. ed., 23, p. 306 f.

[281] Ib., p. 338.

[282] Sep. 19, 1525, Erl. ed., 65, p. 239 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 243).

[283] To Dorothy Jörger, March 7, 1532, Erl. ed., 54, p. 277 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 160).

[284] Ward, “Darstellung,” etc., p. 94.

[285] Ib., p. 95.

[286] Weim. ed., 6, p. 53; Erl. ed., 16², p. 102 (1519).

[287] Ib., p. 51=99.

[288] Ib., p. 466=21, p. 356 f.

[289] Ib.

[290] Ib., 6, p. 58=16², p. 108 (1519).

[291] June 18, 1524, Erl. ed., 53, p. 245 f. (“Briefe,” 4, p. 354).

[292] To Sebastian Weller at Mansfeld, July 26, 1543, Erl. ed., 56, p. lviii.

[293] To Count Wolfgang von Gleichen, March 9, 1543, ib., p. 57.

[294] Ib., 45, p. 7.

[295] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259. “The properties have risen. Where formerly an estate was worth one hundred florins it is now worth quite three; qui ante potuit dare 5, potest nunc dare 6 vel septem.”

[296] Erl. ed., 23, pp. 286, 338. In the above letter to Sebastian Weller he declares (p. lviii) that, in his epistle to the parsons, he had only spoken “of mutuum and datum.”

[297] Ib., p. 289.

[298] Ib., p. 298.

[299] Ib., p. 289.

[300] Ib., p. 296. Very mild indeed are the directions he gives in his letter to the town-council of Dantzig on the charging of interest (May 5 (?), 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 296, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 165): “The Gospel is a spiritual rule by which no government can act.… The spiritual rule of the Gospel must be carefully distinguished from the outward, secular rule and on no account be confused with it. The Gospel rule the preacher must urge only by word of mouth and each one be left free in this matter; whoever wishes to take it, let him do so, whoever does not, let him leave it alone. I will give an example: the charging of interest is altogether at variance with the Gospel since Christ teaches ‘lend hoping for nothing.’ But we must not rush in here and suddenly put an end to all dissensions in accordance with the Gospel. No one has the right or the power to do this, for it has arisen out of human laws which St. Peter does not wish abrogated; but it is to be preached and the interest paid to those to whom it is due, whether they are willing to accept this Gospel and to surrender the interest or not. We cannot take them any further than this, for the Gospel demands willing hearts, moved by the Spirit of God.” The letter seems also to be aimed at the fanatics, whose violent action in opposing the charging of interest as un-Evangelical, Luther frowned on.

[301] “Luthers Theol. in ihrer geschichtl. Entwicklung,” 2², 1901, p. 328.

[302] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 331, quotes G. Schmoller (“Zur Gesch. der nationalökonomischen Ansichten in Deutschland während der Reformperiode,” in the “Zeitschr. f. die gesamte Staatswissenschaft,” 16).

[303] From the Munich Kreisarchiv, in B. Duhr, “Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 1905, 29, p. 180.

[304] Duhr, ib., 1908, 32, p. 609. Cp. 1900, 24, pp. 208 f., 210, on Eck.

[305] G. Scherer, “Drey unterschiedliche Predigten vom Geitz,” etc., Ingolstadt, 1605, p. 57 f.

[306] “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 158. “Vitæ reformatorum,” ed. Neander, p. 5. See above, vol. i., p. 17.

[307] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 158: “Totus stupebam et cohorrescebam.… Tanta maiestas (Dei),” etc.; Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 89: “I thought of fleeing from the altar … so terrified was I,” etc. (1532); Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 186: “fere mortuus essem”; “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 119; 3, p. 169; “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 400. See above, vol. i., p. 15 f.

[308] Erl. ed., 58, p. 140; cp. 60, p. 129. Of his “territus” we hear also from Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95, and “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 292.

[309] See above, vol. i., p. 16 f.

[310] Mainz, 1549, Bl. B. 8a. The book was written in Latin in 1533.

[311] “Acta Lutheri,” p. 1.

[312] What Denifle urges to the contrary (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. 726, n. 2) is not convincing.

[313] Cp. Kawerau, “Deutsch-evang. Bl.,” 1906, p. 447: “What anguish of soul he went through in the monastery is related by himself as early as 1518 in the touching account contained in the ‘Resolutiones’ to his 95 Theses.”

[314] “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 30.

[315] See above, vol. i., p. 381 f.

[316] Weim. ed., 1, p. 557 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 180 sq.

[317] See above, vol. ii., p. 170.

[318] “Etwas vom kranken Luther” (“Deutsch-evang. Bl.,” 29, 1904, p. 303 ff.), p. 305.

[319] To Spalatin, Jan. 13, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 12: “me subito sanguinis coagulo circum præcordia angustiatum pœneque exanimatum fuisse.”

[320] Cp. vol. v., p. 333, above, and Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 168.

[321] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. Kawerau, 1, p. 104 ff.; also “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 160 sqq. Cp. Bugenhagen’s account in his “Briefe,” ed. Vogt, p. 64 ff.

[322] “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 109: “in illis undis tentationum.” Cp. above, vol. v., pp. 334, 339.

[323] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 200, where we read (under Dec. 19, 1536): “Eo die Lutherus magno paroxysmo angustia circa pectus decubuit.” The dates given in the Table-Talk are not as a rule altogether reliable, but here they may be trusted because they happen to coincide with a portent in the sky looked upon as a bad omen.

[324] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 622 f.

[325] We may here call attention to what will be said in the next chapter concerning similar phenomena in Luther’s early days. This chapter, no less than the present one, is important for forming a just opinion on Luther’s pathological dispositions.

[326] To Johann Hess at Breslau, Jan. 31, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 50.

[327] To Johann Agricola, Feb. 1, 1529, ib., p. 51.

[328] Enders, ib., p. 54, n. 3.

[329] To Nicholas Hausmann at Zwickau, Feb. 13, 1529, ib., p. 53.

[330] To the same, March 3, 1529, ib., p. 61: “fere assidue cogor sanus ægrotare.”

[331] To Melanchthon, Aug. 1, 1530, ib., 8, p. 162: “ut neque tuto legere litteras possim neque lucem ferre”—common symptoms of neurasthenia.

[332] Ib.

[333] Aug. 3, 1530, ib., 8, p. 166. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 346.

[334] To Hans Honold at Augsburg, Oct. 2, 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 196 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 275).

[335] Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther,” p. 313.

[336] Dietrich’s Latin account, ed. Seidemann, “Sachs. Kirchen- und Schulblatt,” 1876, p. 355. Cp. Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” p. 71; Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 264; Kawerau, “Etwas vom kranken Luther,” p. 314.

[337] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 125.

[338] To Melanchthon, April 12, 1541, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 300.

[339] Ib.

[340] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, 1904, pp. 189, 223, 226.

[341] Cp. above vol. v., pp. 107-16, and vol. iv., p. 284 ff.

[342] See vol. ii., p. 163, n. 3.

[343] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 268.

[344] On uric acid and gout as the explanation of all his bodily troubles, see below, xxxvi. 5.

[345] Cp. above, vol. v., 333 ff.

[346] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 268.

[347] For the different passages quoted cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 315: Other temptations were nothing compared with this interior “angelus Sathanæ colaphizans, σκόλοψ,” where a man is nailed to the gibbet. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 53: “Ego vertigine seu capite hactenus laboravi, præter ea quæ angelus Sathanæ operatur. Tu ora pro me Deum, ut confortet me in fide et verbo suo” (to N. Hausmann, Feb. 13, 1529). The “sting of the flesh” was not in his case, as has been asserted, the result of nervousness, but an intellectual temptation to waver in the “faith” he preached, and to doubt of the “Word.”

[348] Cp. the numerous statements of contemporaries who were unable to explain Luther’s uncanny behaviour, his “infernal outbreaks of fury” and morbid hatred of the Pope (above, vol. v., p. 232 f.), otherwise than by supposing him to be possessed or mad (vol. iv., p. 351 ff.).

[349] To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159 f.

[350] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9, of Staupitz: “dicebat, se nunquam sensisse.”

[351] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 129.

[352] See vol. i., pp. 120 ff., 223 ff., 269 ff.

[353] Weim. ed., 18, p. 633; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 154.

[354] Nov. 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126.

[355] July 16, 1517, ib., p. 102.

[356] Oct. 26, 1516, ib., p. 67: “præter proprias tentationes cum carne, mundo et diabolo.” Cp. above, vol. i., p. 275.

[357] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 223.

[358] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.

[359] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 166 ff., and, in particular, pp. 230-40.

[360] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 50: “illos horrores contra Deum,” etc., March 29, 1538.

[361] June 4, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 207.

[362] (In Sep.?) 1516, ib., p. 55.

[363] May 18, 1517, ib., p. 100.

[364] March 1, 1517, ib., p. 88.

[365] Nov. 11, 1517, ib., p. 124.

[366] Luther wrote this about the time of the “Tower incident” (above, vol. i., p. 377 ff.), when engaged in wrestling after “certainty.”

[367] Weim. ed., 5, p. 165. Cp. W. Köhler, “Luther und die KG.,” I, 1 (1900), p. 260.

[368] “Werke,” ib., p. 203; Köhler, ib., p. 259.

[369] Erl. ed., 10², p. 67.

[370] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 70.

[371] Weim. ed., 9, p. 215; Erl. ed., 16², p. 52, in the first non-expurgated form of the sermon (cp. above, vol. ii., p. 148).

[372] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.

[373] Feb. 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 431. For “titillatio” see vol. ii., p. 94.

[374] To Melanchthon, July 13, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 189. An attempt has been made to deprive the word libido of the sense it always has with Luther (cp. 1st Comm. on Galatians, 1519, and the later Commentary of 1531). It was alleged to mean “nothing more than an unusual desire for food and drink”; in the same way the word “flesh” was taken merely as the antithesis of “spirit,” i.e. the Holy Ghost!

[375] Ib., p. 193: “peccatis immergor in hac solitudine.”

[376] Aug. 3, 1521, ib., p. 213.

[377] To Nicholas Gerbel of Strasburg, Nov. 1, 1521, ib., p. 240.

[378] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1521, ib., p. 247 f.

[379] Ib.

[380] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9.

[381] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 55. Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 81.

[382] “Myconii Historia reformationis,” ed. E. S. Cyprianus, p. 42.

[383] “Ratzebergers Handschriftl. Gesch.,” etc., p. 54.

[384] “Hist.,” Bl., 196.

[385] Ib.

[386] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 440.

[387] Erl. ed., 59, p. 340 f.

[388] “Tagebuch,” p. 293.

[389] Erl. ed., 59, p. 341.

[390] Ib.

[391] Erl. ed., 60, p. 70.

[392] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 85, where Lœsche remarks that the Gotha Codex 263, 122 proved this by an instance taken from Luther’s life. Cp. also Erl. ed., 59, p. 337.

[393] Erl. ed., 59, p. 337.

[394] Ib., 57, p. 65.

[395] Ib., 60, p. 108.

[396] Ib., 58, p. 128 f. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 286 f.

[397] In Aurifaber’s edition, 1568, Bl. 91, 92. Stangwald, who as a rule eliminates, as he assures us, all that was not Luther’s very own, has retained it in his edition of the Table-Talk (1571); likewise Selnecker (1577). For this reason we also find it in Förstemann’s 1st ed., 1844, p. 400. It is not given in the Latin Table-Talk, but, as a comparison with Bindseil’s “Tabellen,” 3, p. 471, shows, we miss in the Latin a whole number of unquestionably authentic Luther conversations occurring in the German editions. It is to be found in “Werke,” Erl.

[398] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 517.

[399] Erl. ed., 58, p. 128.

[400] Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 72.

[401] Ib., p. 71.

[402] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 39, Jan. to March, 1532. The passage commences: “Tanta spectra vidi,” seemingly referring to the ghosts at the Wartburg.

[403] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 97.

[404] Erl. ed., 58, p. 4.

[405] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 20. Preface dating from 1545.

[406] See below, p. 142 ff.

[407] “Fui (dignus), cui sub æternæ iræ maledictione interminaretur, ne ullo modo de iis dubitarem.” Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 81, n. From Khummer’s “Tagebuch.” Reference to some external apparition is not excluded.

[408] See above, p. 125.

[409] Cp. above, p. 117, etc.

[410] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 42. Cp. Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 95.

[411] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 127.

[412] Cordatus, ib., p. 95. Cp. Erl. ed., 57, p. 305.

[413] From the MS. quoted by Kawerau, “Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wissenschaft und kirchl. Leben,” 1, 1880, p. 50. Cp. F. Küchenmeister, “Luthers Krankengesch.,” p. 67 f.

[414] “Werke,” Weim. ed., on the German Bible, 3, p. xlii. Risch, “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1911, p. 80.

[415] Above, p. 123.

[416] “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter,” 29, 1904, p. 310.

[417] Alber Erasm., Dialogus vom Interim, 1548, Bl. B. III. Cp. Seidemann, “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1876, p. 564 f.

[418] Above, p. 123 f.

[419] C. F. Kahnis, “Die deutsche Reformation,” 1, 1872, p. 142.

[420] “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed. 21, Suppl., p. 325.*

[421] “Handschriftl. Gesch.,” etc., p. 133.

[422] Ratzeberger, ib.

[423] To Cath. Bora, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 786. Cp. the letter of Feb. 7 to the same, ib., 5, p. 787: “I think that hell and the whole world must be empty of devils who have all forgathered here at Eisleben on my account; so great are the difficulties.”

[424] “Fünf Briefen aus den letzten Tagen Luthers,” ed. Kawerau (”Stud. und Krit.,“ 54, 1881, p. 160 ff.), p. 162: “Ut video, Sathan nates videndas porrigit mihi et ultro derisum adest (addit?)”; after this, adds Friedrich, the way was paved for some sort of reconciliation.

[425] To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 773: “Satanica sunt hæc, sed Deus, quem rident, ridebit eos suo tempore.” Cp. also vol. v., passim.

[426] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 113. Erl. ed., 60, pp. 55, 73.

[427] p. 193 ff.

[428] Ib., p. 200.

[429] Erl. ed., 31, p. 311.

[430] To Nich. Hausmann, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 363.

[431] Cp. G. Koffmane, “Handschriftl. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907. See above, vol. iv., p. 520 f.

[432] This was the view taken, e.g. by Fr. Balduinus, who published a work at Eisleben in 1605 against the unfortunate attempt of the learned Jesuit, Nicholas Serarius, to uphold the reality of the dialogue with the devil. According to Balduinus it was really a “gravissima tentatio beati Lutheri,” by which the devil sought to reduce him to despair.

[433] Cp. Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 9, of Dec. 14, 1531.

[434] Ib., p. 89, in May, 1532, thus only a few months after the above statement.

[435] Seb. Fröschel, “Von den heiligen Engeln, vom Teuffel und des Menschen Seele. Drey Sermon,” Wittenberg, 1563, Bl. L2 to Bl. 4a.—Friedr. Staphylus, “Nachdruck zu Verfechtung des Buches vom rechten waren Verstandt des göttlichen Worts,” Ingolstadt, 1562, p. 154´.

[436] “Whereupon Luther became even more anxious and alarmed.… It was wonderful to see how he ran about the sacristy meanwhile, wringing his hands for very fear.”

[437] Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. xxiv., where the exorcism is transposed to Jan. 18(19).—Ib., p. 772, Luther relates how he had cured the madness (“mania”) of a “melancholy” person who had been subjected by the devil to this “temptation,” and also explains how blessings were to be given.

[438] See above, vol. v., p. 240 f.

[439] To Bora, July 2, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 107.

[440] Erl. ed., 60, pp. 138-40.

[441] Luther to Ebert, Aug. 5, 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 21.

[442] Kirchhoff is alluding to the case of the “changelings” mentioned above, vol. v., p. 292. It is true Luther did not regard them as human beings.

[443] “Allg. Zeitschr. für Psychiatrie,” 44, 1888, p. 329 ff.—For Luther’s view of the insane as possessed, see above, vol. v., p. 281.

[444] See above, p. 128, n. 7.

[445] Vol. i., p. 391.

[446] Above, vol. v., p. 322.

[447] Above, vol. v., p. 226 ff.

[448] Erl. ed., 9², p. 358 f.

[449] See above, vol. i., p. 391 ff.

[450] Above, vol. i., p. 398.

[451] Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296, end of Feb., 1522). Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 111.

[452] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 106 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 143 f.

[453] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 81; above, p. 128, n. 7.

[454] Above, vol. iv., p. 258.

[455] 1 Cor. xiv. 30. The passage, however, refers to the “charismata” of the early Church and sets up no sort of standard for judging of doctrine in later times.

[456] “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 175 f. Greving, p. 18 f. Cp. Steph. Ehses, “Röm. Quartalschrift,” 12, 1898, p. 456, on M. Spahn, “Cochlæus,” p. 81, who criticises Cochlæus unfavourably because he demanded signs and wonders from Luther.

[457] Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8; Erl. ed., 28, p. 211, from notes taken at the time.

[458] Jonas, i., 2: “Surrexit Ionas, ut fugeret a facie Domini.”

[459] “Werke,” ib., pp. 11=214.

[460] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 40; Erl. ed., 28, p. 316 in the revision of the above Wittenberg sermon entitled: “Von beider Gestallt des Sacramentes zu nehmen.”

[461] Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 184; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 391: “Certus sum, dogmata mea habere me de cœlo” (against Henry VIII).

[462] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 496; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 23: “revelatione divina ad hoc vocatus.”

[463] Weim. ed., 20, p. 674. The passage is from the Wolfenbüttel MS., which reproduces Rörer’s Notes (revised, possibly, by Flacius). In another set of Notes Luther speaks here of his doctrine as “evangelium veritatis.”—Cp. vol. iv., p. 408: “not without a revelation of the Holy Ghost.”

[464] Weim. ed., 32, p. 477; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.

[465] Note in Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 81.

[466] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 169: “Deus revelavit in hoc schola verbum suum. Quicumque nos fugiunt et sugillant nos clanculum, ii defecerunt a fide,” etc. In 1540.

[467] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 22 sq.; cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 211.

[468] “Luthers Werke,” Walch’s ed., 21, p. 363* f. Seckendorf, “Commentaria de Lutheranismo,” gives the passage as follows: “Ionas sæpe eum dixisse memorat, se nemini mortalium aperturum esse, etc., fore autem ut in die novissimo innotescant, sicut et revelationes egregiæ, quæ sub initium doctrinæ habuerit et nemini detexerit” (Lips., 1694, lib. 3, sect. 36, p. 647). Bugenhagen says in his funeral oration (Walch, 21, p. 329*), that God the Father had revealed His Son through Luther, whilst Melanchthon goes so far as to boast that the latter had received his doctrine, not from “human sagacity,” but that God had revealed it to him (see “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 58 sq., and Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 625). The expression that Luther’s gospel had been “revealed” became quite usual, as we see from the heading of a chapter in the Latin “Colloquia,” entitled: “Occasio et cursus evangelii revelati” (ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 178).—Just as Luther asserted he was reforming the Church, “divina auctoritate” (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 16), so Calvin, too, claimed to derive his ministry of the Word (which differed from that of Luther in so many points) from Christ. Zwingli did the same, and his followers cared but little for Luther’s claim to the contrary.

[469] Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 8 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 212.

[470] Ib., 10, 2, p. 23=28, p. 298.

[471] P. 40=316.

[472] Ib.

[473] P. 23=298; op. Gal. i. 28.

[474] Paul forbade his disciples to say: “Ego sum Pauli,” and asked: “Numquid Paulus crucifixus est pro vobis?” (1 Cor. i. 12 sq.).

[475] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 363 ff.

[476] In Casel’s account, Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 74.

[477] Weim. ed.; 25, p. 120; cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 22, p. 93 sq.

[478] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 49; cp. above, vol. v., p. 352. Above, vol. v., pp. 339 f., 319, 328. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 176.

[479] Above, vol. v., p. 327 f.

[480] Weim. ed., 5, p. 385. “Operationes in Psalmos,” 1519-21.

[481] Erl. ed., 38, p. 225.

[482] Ib., p. 221.

[483] See vol. iv., p. 222.

[484] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 53; cp. Erl. ed., 49, p. 91, on John xiv.-xv.

[485] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 20, p. 181 sq. Enarr. ps. cxxx.; cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 206 ff.; Erl. ed., 37, p. 420 ff.

[486] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 27 f.

[487] On Marcus, cp. Weim. ed., 61, pp. 1, 73.

[488] Cp. vol. ii., pp. 377 f., 371 f., and, with regard to Campanus, p. 378.

[489] Cordatus, ib., p. 28.

[490] Weim. ed., 18, p. 783=“Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 362. “De servo arbitrio.” See vol. ii., p. 276.

[491] To the Elector Augustus of Saxony, “Corp. ref.,” 9, p. 766: “Stoica et manichæa deliria.” Cp. vol. v., p. 258.

[492] Ib., 24, p. 375; cp. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16. Jahrb.,” p. 81.

[493] Cp. vol. iii., pp. 45, 75 f., 125 f.

[494] On his discovery of Antichrist see above, vol. iii., p. 141 ff. He reached it amidst strange fears: “Ego sic angor,” etc. To Spalatin, Feb. 24, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 332. On the thoughts of Satan see the letter to Egranus of March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173: “Nisi cogitationes Satanæ scirem, mirarer quo furore ille [Eccius] amicitias solveret,” etc.

[495] Vol. iii., p. 149 ff.

[496] Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 301.

[497] Erl. ed., 60, pp. 176-311.

[498] Cp. his statement in Schlaginhaufen’s Table-Talk, p. 56: “Adversariorum verbi natura non est humana, sed plane diabolica” (1532).

[499] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 404 f. (Jan., 1537), with reference to Dan. xi. 36; xii. 1. The “Sic volo,” etc., from Juvenal, “Sat.,” 6, 223, he applies to himself, above, vol. v., p. 517.

[500] Mathesius, ib., p. 293. In 1542-3. The picture given at the beginning of this portion of the Table-Talk of how Luther the “monk” and Catherine the “nun” seated at table after dinner raise the cross hand-in-hand against Antichrist and say: “Post scripturam non habemus firmius argumentum quam crucem!” speaks volumes for their infatuation.

[501] Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 410, in a sermon of Nov. 1, 1531.

[502] Erl. ed., 63, p. 276. On his abnormal hatred see vol. iv., p. 300 f.

[503] Ib.

[504] To Lang, Aug. 18, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 461.

[505] Cp. vol. iv., p. 95 f. My belief that in the passage in question in Luther’s letter to Melanchthon of Aug. 28, 1530 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 235), the word “mendacia” should be read after “dolos” as in the oldest Protestant editions, has since received confirmation from P. Sinthern in the “Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.,” 1912, p. 180 ff., where the quotations from Johann Lorenz Doller, “Luthers katholisches Monument,” Frankfurt-am-Main, 1817, p. 309 ff., are set forth in their true light.

[506] Erl. ed., 25², p. 425.

[507] Weim. ed., 26, p. 509; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372 f.

[508] Vol. iv., p. 304.

[509] See vol. iv., p. 327 ff., and the remark of Harnack, ib., p. 340 f.: “Either he suffered from the mania of greatness or his self-reliance really corresponded with his task and achievements.”

[510] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 210.

[511] Ib., p. 308 (1540). Cp. above, vol. v., p. 241 ff.

[512] To Lang: “Sitne libellus meus [De captivitate babylonica] tam atrox et ferox tu videris et alii omnes. Libertate et impetu fateor plenus est, multis tamen placet, nec aulæ nostræ penitus displicet. Ego de me in his rebus nihil statuere possum. Forte ego præcursor sum Philippi [Melanchthonis], cui exemplo Heliæ viam parem in spiritu et virtute, conturbaturus Israel et Achabitas [cp. 1 Kings xviii. 17] oratione itaque opus erit, si quid peccatum est.” A little later he says of Antichrist: “Odi ego ex corde hominem illum peccati et filium perditionis [2 Thes. ii. 3] cum universo suo imperio.”

[513] In Casel’s report (Nov. 29, 1525), Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 74.

[514] To Lang, Nov. 11, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 126.

[515] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 6.

[516] Erl. ed., 57, p. 73. “Tischreden,” ed. Aurifaber, Eisleben, 1566, pp. 18 and 18´.

[517] Above, vol. iii., p. 121.

[518] Erl. ed., 65, p. 62, preface to his translation of Jeremias.

[519] See below, xxxviii, 1.

[520] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 169.

[521] Weim. ed., 32, p. 474; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.

[522] Ib., p. 473=265.

[523] Cp. Spangenberg, “Theander Lutherus,” pp. 45 and 51.

[524] See above, vol. iii., p. 159 ff. On the nun Florentina.

[525] Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden,” p. 92: “Articulus remissionis peccatorum est in omnibus creaturis” (a. 1532). Cp. p. 139: “Deus in omnibus officiis, statibus intromisit remissionem peccatorum,” etc.

[526] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201 (Khummer): “Melanthon retulit, Lutherum sæpe dixisse, articulum de remissione peccatorum esse fundamentum, unde exstruatur articulus de creatione.”

[527] Erl. ed., 58, p. 390.

[528] See vol. iii., p. 195 ff.

[529] See above, vol. v., p. 517.

[530] Cp. above, vol. v., p. 585; vol. iv., pp. 331, 343; vol. ii., p. 294.

[531] Weim. ed., 26, p. 531; Erl. ed., 63, p. 273 (1528).

[532] Ib., p. 530=272.

[533] See vol. iii., p. 175 ff.

[534] Erl. ed., 60, p. 129 f.: “Break out at once into abuse, particularly if the devil attacks you with justification! He frequently assails me with an argument that is not worth a snap, but in the turmoil and temptation I do not notice this; but when I have recovered I see it plainly.”

[535] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 515.

[536] To Chancellor Brück, Jan. 27, 1524, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 282.

[537] Erl. ed., 60, p. 129.

[538] To Melanchthon, Aug. 3, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 166: “My head is indeed obstinate as you fellows say.”

[539] Paul Pietsch, in the preface (p. xxi. f.) to vol. 32 of the Weim. ed.: “His annoyance and his tendency to see only the darker side of things show plainly enough … that Luther was suffering from that deep depression to which great men are sometimes liable. In later life, for instance in 1544, this depression again overtook Luther, and he even resolved to quit Wittenberg, and it was only with difficulty that he was dissuaded from doing so. In 1545 again something similar occurred. Yet in 1544 and 1545 his discouragement had again no real cause.”

[540] Cp. Paulus, “Köln. Volksztng.” (Lit. Beil.), 1906, p. 355, on vol. 32 of the Weimar edition.

[541] To Link, Dec. 1, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 326.

[542] “Si quid hic iocis aut conviciis excedit.”

[543] “Briefwechsel Bugenhagens,” ed. Vogt, p. 67 ff.

[544] We remember having recently read in a review, that many, at the present day, consider “mental aberration an indispensable condition of mental greatness.”

[545] “Si hæc a febricitante dicerentur, quid dici possit insanius!” “Opp.,” 10, col. 1282, in 1526.

[546] The passages are given in Latin above, vol. iv., p. 353, n. 3.

[547] Cp. above, vol. ii., pp. 267 and 274; cp. also below, what Hausrath and Möbius say. The expression “abnormal state of temper” is used by W. Köhler in the “Theol. Literaturbericht,” vol. 23 (1903), p. 499. Elsewhere he calls Luther “the most paradoxical figure imaginable, who speaks differently to every hearer” (ib., vol. 24, 1904, p. 517).—See also Döllinger (“Kirchenlexikon,”[2] art. “Luther,” col. 344), and Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 48, 1873 ed., p. 423. U. Berlière, O.S.B., recently remarked: “Une étude psychologique de Luther ne peut être séparée de son histoire ni de l’évolution de sa vie intérieure, encore moins de son état pathologique.… Cette étude n’est pas encore achevée” (“Revue bénédictine,” 1906, p. 630 f.).

[548] See Köhler, “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 27.

[549] Cp. above, vol. i., p. 383. Cp. also the remarks on the next page, n. 2.

[550] In the art. “Luthers Bekehrung” (“N. Heidelb. Jahrb.,” 6, 1896), p. 193.

[551] “Luthers Leben,” 1, 1905, p. 109 f. The author speaks of the “secret sufferings of soul” which did not, however, interfere with the thoroughness of his work (p. 110); incidentally, in exoneration of the violence of Luther’s writings against Zwingli, he urges that Luther wrote it “at a time of great depression, which he even wished his opponents might endure for but a quarter of an hour to see if it would not convert them” (2, p. 213). At the Wartburg “his mental suffering returned, as it always did when he remained for any length of time without outward stimulus or active intercourse with the outside world” (1, p. 475). In the supplement to his unaltered 2nd edition Hausrath deals with the objections raised against his “pathological” view though he considerably modifies his wordings (1, p. 573 ff.).

[552] On Ebstein see below, p. 176 f. Ebstein’s is an improvement on Küchenmeister, “Dr. Martin Luthers Krankengesch.,” Leipzig, 1881. Küchenmeister did not do justice to the historical material and always quotes at second hand. Th. Kolde rightly speaks of his work as a “book that had better not have been written” (“Anal. Lutherana,” p. 50). He also thinks Berkhan’s treatment of the subject (ib., p. 51) “of small value.”

[553] “Deutsch-evangelische Bl.,” 29, Halle, 1904, p. 303 ff.

[554] See above, p. 109 ff.

[555] P. 316.

[556] “Archiv f. Psychiatrie,” 11, Berlin, 1880-1, p. 798 ff.

[557] P. 799. Cp. above, p. 100 ff.

[558] Möbius proceeds on the principle that “in each of us what is healthy is mixed with what is morbid and the more anyone rises above the average, the further he departs from the normal.” “The pathological element is part of every eminent man.” This, according to Möbius, is particularly the case with the genius. Hence, in his studies, it is his aim to show how psychiatry “may be used for appreciating great men.” Möbius intended to deal in detail with the pathology of Luther but was prevented by death from carrying out his plan. In his study on Schopenhauer (“Ausgewählte Werke,” Bd. 4)—who according to him was certainly not insane in the ordinary sense—he says: “I consider Schopenhauer one of the best instances to prove that it is only pathology which teaches us rightly to understand great writers and their works.… Schopenhauer became the philosopher of pessimism because, from the beginning, he was a sickly man. It was not the recognition of the evils in the world that made him take this line, but he deliberately sought out and described the evils because he needed to vindicate his own pessimism. He had displayed the latter even as a boy, having inherited it from his father, and his morbid disposition influenced his whole mode of thought.”

[559] In “Schmidts Jahrb. der in- und ausländischen gesamten Medizin,” ed. P. J. Möbius and H. Doppe, 288, Leipzig, 1905, Hft. 12, Dec., p. 264 in the notice of my articles “Ein Grundproblem aus Luthers Seelenleben,” in the “Köln. Volksztng.,” Lit. Beilage, 1905, Nos. 40 and 41.

[560] [Above, p. 173.]

[561] [Emil Kraepelin, “Psychiatrie, Ein Lehrbuch für Studierende und Ärzte,”⁶ Leipzig, 1899, Cap. ix.: “Das manisch-depressive Irresein,” pp. 359-425.]

[562] “Dr. Martin Luthers Krankheiten und deren Einfluss auf seinen körperlichen und geistigen Zustand,” Stuttgart, 1908.

[563] Pp. 7, 64.

[564] Pp. 45 ff., 56 ff.

[565] Pp. 62, 10, 63 f., 60, 55, 54, 64.

[566] This Ebstein admits (p. 44), though he argues that the “seizures in the joints” of which Luther complains must have had a gouty origin.

[567] Ib., p. 40. But cp. above, p. 110 f.

[568] Cp. in “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 6, p. 191, for the proofs in support of this letter quoted by Enders from Kawerau.

[569] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 168.

[570] Ebstein, ib., p. 44.

[571] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 691 f.

[572] Pp. 49, 53.

[573] P. 55 f.

[574] P. 56.

[575] P. 12.

[576] P. 62.

[577] P. 10.

[578] P. 44 f.

[579] “Luther auf dem Standpunkt der Psychiatrie beurteilt,” Wien, 1874. Bruno Schön declares that Luther was “in part excused by the fact that he was deranged” (p. 3); this derangement Luther contrived to explain away by laying it all down to the devil, whom he had seen in actual hallucinations (p. 9); he had regarded all his opponents as fools, just as the inmates of an asylum look upon all others as fools and on themselves as perfectly sane (p. 28), etc.

[580] “Grundriss einer Gesch. der deutschen Irrenpflege,” 1890, p. 76.

[581] “Antwort auf das Sendschreiben,”³ Sulzbach, 1817, p. 70 ff.

[582] See the 2nd ed. of this writing, bearing the same title as the 1st, “Seitenstück zur Weisheit Luthers.” The 1st ed. is weaker in its animadversions than the 2nd.

[583] P. 188.

[584] See above, vol. i., p. 16.

[585] “Zeitschr. des Harzvereins,” 39, 1906, p. 191 ff. It cannot be proved from the records that the second Hans Luther had been guilty of actual manslaughter. Hence in vol. i., it was not necessary to point out that the manslaughter of which Wicel accuses Martin Luther’s father, repeating his accusation most emphatically in public writings without its being called into question by Luther, cannot be placed to the account of the second Hans with any semblance of likelihood (though it has been done, cp. “Luther-Kalender,” 1910, p. 76 f). Wicel came to Eisleben in 1533, thus only a few years after the father’s death, and was able to assure himself of the facts, concerning which there was not likely to be any mistake owing to Martin Luther’s celebrity at that time.

[586] Aug. Cramer, “Die Nervosität,” Jena, 1906.

[587] “Grundriss der Psychiatrie,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 104.

[588] Ib., p. 141 f.

[589] “Monatsschr. für Psychiatrie,” Berlin, 1907, p. 230.

[590] Ib., p. 236.

[591] A. Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 432.

[592] Ib., p. 432 f.

[593] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 169.

[594] Ib., (from Rebenstock).

[595] Ib., p. 175.

[596] Ib., p. 170.

[597] Ib.

[598] Erl. ed., 31, p. 257.

[599] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 195.

[600] Ib., p. 188: “… et D. Staupitius me incitabat contra papam.”

[601] Ib., p. 176.

[602] See above, vol. i., pp. 104 ff., 184 ff., 303 ff., where his theological attitude previous to the indulgence theses is discussed. It is taken for granted that the account of his development given in vol. i. is already known to the reader. The fictions have already been discounted in vol. i., p. 20 f. and p. 110 f.

[603] “Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung” (“Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen- und dogmengesch. Quellenschriften,” 2, Reihe 9. Hft.), 1911, p. 11 ff.

[604] Luther’s untrustworthiness here, where it is a question of his polemics, does not render untrue certain other data of a non-polemical character and otherwise supported. This is the case, e.g. with the date given above when the meaning of Rom. i. 17 first dawned upon him; this happens to agree with the facts. Cp. above, vol. i., p. 388 ff.

[605] Erl. ed., 63, p. 405, in the preface of 1539 to his German writings.

[606] See vol. iii., p. 153 ff. Cp. “Werke,” ib., p. 370, in a preface of 1531, where, referring to the “many and great miracles,” he makes no distinction between Evangel and Gospel.

[607] Ib., p. 373 (1542).

[608] Ib., p. 400 in the preface of 1539 to his German writings.

[609] Ib., p. 328.

[610] Ib., p. 295 (1530).

[611] Hausrath, “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 432.

[612] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. des Reformationszeitalters,” p. 219.

[613] “Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Hft. 100, 1910, p. 14.—Cp. K. A. Meissinger, quoted above, vol. ii., p. 362, n. 2.

[614] “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1908, p. 580.

[615] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182.

[616] Weim. ed., 33, p. 431 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 201.

[617] Ib., 49, p. 118.

[618] Ib., 20², 2, p. 420.

[619] “Comment. in Galat.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 138; Irmischer, 1, p. 109 sq.

[620] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.

[621] Ib., 7, p. 74.

[622] Weim. ed., 33, p. 560; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306.

[623] Erl. ed., 49, p. 27. Cp. 20, 2, p. 420.

[624] Weim. ed., 33, p. 575; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317.

[625] Erl. ed., 46, p. 73.

[626] At the time the present writer’s series of articles on Luther’s intellectual development was appearing in the “Köln. Volkszeitung” (1903, 1904), Denifle’s work which also insists on the unreliable nature of the legend (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹ 1904, pp. 389 ff., 725 f., 739 f.) was already in print.

[627] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 183.

[628] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 123 (1545).

[629] Erl. ed., 49, p. 300. Comm. on John xiv.-xvi., of 1537.

[630] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 72. “Enarr. in Genesim,” c.a. 1541.

[631] Ib., 5, p. 267, a. 1539.

[632] Erl. ed., 49, p. 27 (1537).

[633] Weim. ed., 33, p. 561; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306. Comm. on John vi.-viii., 1531.

[634] Erl. ed., 31, p. 273. “Kleine Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch,” 1533.

[635] Comment. in Galat., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 135; Irmischer, 1, p. 107. Cp. p. 138=p. 109. The passage was only introduced by Luther in the 1538 ed., a fact remarkable for the history of the legend.

[636] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 420.

[637] Comment. in Galat. ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 20, 1535.

[638] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 226. Enar. in ps. 45, a. 1532.

[639] See above, p. 126.

[640] See above, p. 150.

[641] Erl. ed. 58, p. 377.

[642] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 401. Enarr. in Is. (1543).

[643] Comm. in Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 137; Irmischer, 1, p. 109, of 1535.

[644] Erl. ed. 45, p. 156. Sermon of Dec. 7, 1539.

[645] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 36. From Khummer, no date, but a late utterance.

[646] “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 23, preface to the Latin works (1545).

[647] N. Ericeus, “Sylvula sententiarum,” 1566, p. 174 ff.

[648] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100 (1532).

[649] To Bugenhagen (1532), preface to the latter’s edition of Athanasius, “De trinitate,” “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 252).

[650] Weim. ed., 34, 2, p. 410 (1531). In the text, for “deinde quando,” read “deinde quanto.” A second hasty report, ib., gives the passage in this form: “Multos scio, et ego unus fui, quando confessus and clean et dixi orationes meas, I came to the altar it was all not worth a straw; vocabam presbyterum, et quando absolutio had been pronounced et missa perfecta [erat], tum certus ut antea [eram] and as much at peace with God ut antea, …” Of the Last Day: “Ego non libenter audiebam istum diem.”

[651] Above, vol. i., p. 290 f.

[652] Ericeus, “Sylvula,” l. c.

[653] G. Buchwald, “Ungedruckte Predigten Luthers 1537-1540,” 1905, p. 61 f. Scheel, “Dokumente,” p. x., n.

[654] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 122 (1532).

[655] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156. Sermon of Dec. 7, 1539.

[656] Ib., p. 154, from the same sermon.

[657] Ib., 31, p. 279. “Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch.”

[658] Dr. Kirchhoff, “Zeitschr. f. Psychiatrie,” vol. 44, 1888, p. 376.

[659] Cp. previous volumes, passim, particularly vol. iv., pp. 120-31.

[660] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182. See above, p. 192.

[661] Erl. ed., 14², p. 342.

[662] Comment. in ep. ad Galat., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 137. Irmischer, 1, p. 109.

[663] Erl. ed., 47, p. 37.

[664] Ib., 49, p. 27.

[665] Ib., 45, p. 156 f.

[666] Ib.

[667] Ib., 14², p. 185.

[668] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 10, p. 232.

[669] Ib., 19, p. 100.

[670] See above, vol. i., p. 278.

[671] Cp. apart from the “Dicta Melanchthoniana” (ed. Waltz, “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 4, 1880, p. 324 ff.), p. 330:—“diebus Sabbati, cum esset vacuus a concionibus,” etc., “initio evangelii—” “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, where the same thing is related no less than three times: 1, p. 67; 1, p. 198; 3, p. 279, the German Table-Talk, Erl. ed., 59, pp. 10 and 21, and Ericeus, “Sylvula Sententiarum,” 1566, p. 174 sq.

[672] Erl. ed., 47, p. 37.

[673] Ib., 49, p. 315.

[674] Aquinas, “Summa theol.,” 3, q. 40, a. 2 ad 1. In ep. ad Tim. c. 4, lect. 2. “Summa theol.,” 2, 2, q. 88, a, 2 ad 3. Denifle, ib., 1², p. 365 f., where other quotations are given from Thomas and the mediæval theologians.—Cp. the wholesome teaching of the “Imitation”—already widely read in Luther’s day—on the value of outward works compared with interior virtue and charity (Bk. II., cap. 1): “Regnum Dei intra vos est, dicit Dominus,” are the words with which it begins. Bk. I., c. 19: “Multo plus debet esse intus quam quod cernitur foris,” and, again: “Iustorum propositum in gratia Dei potius quam in propria sapientia pendet,” etc. On the need of discretion see ib., 3, c. 7.

[675] “De non esu carnium ap. Carthus.,” “Opp.,” 2, pp. 723, 729. Denifle, ib., p. 370.

[676] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 49.

[677] See above, vol. i., p. 80 ff.

[678] Weim. ed., 4, p. 626. Denifle, 1², p. 376 f.

[679] Ib., 6, p. 246; Erl. ed., 16², p. 180. Denifle, 1², p. 377 f.

[680] Weim. ed., 37, p. 661. Sermon of Feb. 1, 1534.

[681] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 18, p. 226. Enarr. in ps. 45. Jan., 1532.

[682] Weim. ed., 33, p. 561; Erl. ed., 48, p. 306. In the Comment. on John vi.-viii., 27 Oct., 1531.

[683] Erl. ed., 49, p. 300 (1537): “I myself must testify from my own experience: After having been a pious monk for over twenty years.” This reading of the sermons reported and edited by Cruciger is embodied in the text, whereas, in the notes, it is corrected to “fifteen.”

[684] Erl. ed., 46, p. 78, Sermon of 1537.

[685] On March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 490: “Fraterculus in Christo … in angulo sepultus,” etc.

[686] To Joh. Braun, April 22, 1507, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 1 f; “sola et liberalissima sua misericordia … tanta divinæ bonitatis magnificentia.”

[687] March 17, 1509, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 6.

[688] From a MS. sermon of Luther’s of 1544 at Gotha. Scheel, “Dokumente,” p. 20.

[689] To N. Paulus is due the credit of having drawn attention in 1893 to the description given by Luther to Usingen. Hausrath in his article “Luthers Bekehrung” in 1896 (“N. Heidelb. Jahrb.,”) also noted how happy Luther had at first been in the convent. Cp. his “Leben Luthers,” 1, p. 22.

[690] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 197 (Khummer): The good old man had taught him to commit perplexing matters of conscience “divinæ bonitati.”—Preface to Bugenhagen’s edition of St. Athanasius “De Trinitate”: “Vir sane optimus et absque dubio sub damnato cucullo verus christianus.”—Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100, on the preceptor’s words (above, vol. i., p. 10): “Fili quid facis, an nescis, quod ipse Dominus iussit nos sperare?”—Cp. Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 84 (Khummer): Luther’s reminiscence of the wise exhortation of his preceptor on conversations with women (“pauca et brevia loquatur”).—Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 1.

[691] See above, vol. i., p. 11.

[692] To George Leiffer, Augustinian at Erfurt, April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31.

[693] Flacius Illyr., “Clarissimæ quædam notæ veræ ac falsæ religionis,” Magdeburgi (1549), pages not numbered, end of cap. xv.: “Affirmabat is Martinum Lutherum apud ipsos sancte vixisse, exactissime regulam servasse et diligenter studuisse.” Copy of this rare work in the Vienna Hofbibliothek.

[694] On the passages in the Comm. on Rom. of 1515-16 in which he speaks well of the religious life, see above, vol. i., p. 270.

[695] Weim. ed., 2, p. 736; Erl. ed., 21, p. 242. Denifle, 1², p. 39.

[696] Ib., 2, p. 644; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 500, and in his “Letter to the Minorites of Jüterbogk,” May 15, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 40: “Media quibus facilius implentur præcepta.” Cp. Denifle, 1², p. 36.

[697] Sep. 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 226.

[698] Above, vol. ii., p. 181 ff.

[699] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 183: “in gloriam Dei et confusionem sathanæ.”

[700] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 450: “etiam in complexus veni coniugis,” etc. Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. See above, vol. v., p. 354; vol. iii., p. 175.

[701] To Nich. Gerbel of Strasburg, Nov. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 241: “ut nihil iam auribus meis sonet odiosius monialis, monachi, sacerdotis nomine et paradisum arbitrer coniugium vel summa inopia laborans.” Thus the monk and priest, four years before his marriage.

[702] To George Mascov, Provost of the Premonstratensian house at Leitzkau, end of 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 76. At the close of the letter, of which only fragments have been preserved, we read: “Quam maxime rogo ut pro me Dominum ores; confiteor enim tibi, quod vita mea in dies appropinquet inferno, quia quotidie peior fio et miserior,” which must, of course, be understood of his moral, not his physical, condition. The “drawing nigh to hell” is an echo of Ps. lxxxvii., which was such a favourite of his, where we read: “repleta est malis anima mea et vita mea inferno appropinquavit” (v. 3), and: “In me transierunt iræ tuæ, et terrores tui conturbaverunt me” (v. 17).

[703] Above, vol. i., p. 88.

[704] To Spalatin, Dec. 14, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 73 f., where he begins by humbly confessing his unworthiness to receive any attention from the Elector (“talis tantusque princeps”), at whose Court Spalatin held a post.

[705] To Joh. Lang, Feb. 8, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 86. “Quid enim non credant, qui Aristoteli crediderunt, vera esse, quæ ipse calumniosissimus calumniator aliis affiingit et imponit tam absurda, ut asinus et lapis non possint tacere ad illa?” (ib., p. 85).

[706] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 44, from Dietrich’s MSS.

[707] To Hier. Weller, July (?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.

[708] “Videbis,” Staupitz had said, according to him, “quod ad res magnas gerendas te ministro (Deus) utetur. Atque ita accidit,” Luther goes on. “Nam ego magnus (licet enim hoc mihi de me iure prædicare) factus sum doctor.” Such utterances, he continues, have in them something of the “oraculum et divinatio.” Then follows the statement quoted above concerning the other prophecy of his future greatness: “huius dicti sæpissime memini,” and again he declares such words contain “aliquid divinationis et oraculi.”

[709] Above, p. 102.

[710] Reprinted in Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 79: “De tua præstantia, bonitate, eruditione creber sermo incidit.” After having spoken of Luther’s “celebris fama,” Scheurl expresses the wish “to become his friend.” The words are simply those in common use among the humanists.

[711] Jan. 27, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 82 ff.

[712] Weim. ed., 1, p. 30; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 57: “Nolunt audire, quod iustitiæ eorum peccata sint.… Gratiam maxime impugnant, qui eam iactant.”

[713] “Incurrunt inobedientiam et rebellionem.” See vol. i., p. 69.

[714] “Hæc est lux angeli Sathanæ” (ib.).

[715] Ib., p. 53.

[716] Weim. ed., 1, p, 12; “Opp. lat. var.,” I, p. 33.

[717] To Spalatin, June 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 41: “præsulari id est pergræcari sodomitari, romanari.”

[718] To Spalatin, in the spring, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 91: “eruditio sæculi nostri ferrea, immo terrea, sive sit Græcitatis sive Latinitatis sive Hebræitatis.”

[719] To Lang, March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88.

[720] See above, vol. i., p. 228.

[721] Ib., p. 70.

[722] To Nich. Hausmann at Zwickau, “Briefwechsel,” p. 144: “Corpore satis bene valeo, sed tot distrahor externis actibus, ut spiritus prope extinguatur raroque sui curam habeat. Ora pro me, ne carne consummer.” Cp. Gal. iii. 3: “Sic stulti estis, ut quum spiritu cœperitis, nunc carne consummemini.”

[723] To Lang, Oct. 26, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 67: “raro mihi integrum tempus est,” etc.; above, vol. i., p. 275.

[724] To Lang, Sep. 4, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 106. Cp. vol. i., p. 313.

[725] To Chr. Scheurl, May 6, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 97: “Sunt paradoxa modestis et qui non ea cognoverint, sed eudoxa et calodoxa scientibus, mihi vero aristodoxa. Benedictus Deus, qui rursum iubet de tenebris splendescere lumen.”

[726] To George Leiffer, Augustinian at Erfurt, April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31: “sola prudentia sensus nostri causa et radix universæ inquietudinis nostræ.”

[727] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88: “si nulli placerent, mihi optime placerent.”

[728] March 28, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 489.

[729] Vol. i., p. 391: “furebam ita sæva et perturbata conscientia,” etc.

[730] Erl. ed., 26², p. 71.

[731] To Sylvius Egranus (Joh. Wildenauer), March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 173: “Ego quo magis illi furunt, eo amplius procedo; relinquo priora, ut in illis latrent, sequor posteriora, ut et illa latrent.”

[732] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 512.

[733] To Staupitz, Feb. 20, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 430: “Deus rapit, pellit, nedum ducit me; non sum compos mei, volo esse quietus et rapior in medios tumultus.”

[734] Above, vol. ii., p. 17.

[735] Lectures on Romans, ed. J. Ficker, 1908, Scholia, p. 221.

[736] Ib., p. 220.

[737] Ib.

[738] Weim. ed., 26, p. 504; Erl. ed., 30, p. 366. “Vom Abendmal Bekentnis,” 1528.

[739] Melanchthon in his “Elogium” on Luther, “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 158: “Vitæ Reformatorum,” ed. Neander, p. 5. See above, p. 100.

[740] To supplement what we said in vol. i., p. 4, we may give a passage from Rörer’s notes of the Table-Talk (ed. Kroker, in “Archiv f. RG.,” 5, 1908, p. 346): “Cum in monasterium intrabam et relinquebam omnia desperans de me ipso, postulavi iterum biblia.” Ib., p. 369 f. “Causa ingrediendi monasterii fuit, quia perterrefactus tonitru, cum despatiaretur ante civitatem Erphordiæ, votum vovit Hannæ et fracto propemodum pede [? through being thrown down by the stroke of lightning?] he entered the cloister and bound himself by vows.”

[741] Vol. i., p. 16.

[742] Dungersheim, “Dadelung,” etc., Bl. 14.

[743] “Chronik.” etc., ed. Euling, 1891, p. 30.

[744] Account published by Tschakert in “Theol. Stud. und Krit.,” 1897, p. 578. The passage may possibly have been influenced by Luther’s statement above concerning his father’s words “illusio et præstigium.” Cp. below, p. 224, n. 6.

[745] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 408 (in 1537).

[746] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 187, related by Luther to his friends on the feast-day of St. Anne, July 16 [? 26], 1539.

[747] Ib., under date, July 16 (1539), the anniversary of his entering the convent.

[748] See above, vol. i., p. 4.

[749] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 182.

[750] Ib., 3, p. 185.

[751] Weim. ed., 8, p. 573 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 239, in the dedication to his father of “De Votis monasticis” (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 249).

[752] Ib., he refers to the same remark of his father’s in a letter to Melanchthon of Sep. 9, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 225: “Utinam non esset sathanæ præstigium.… Videtur mihi per os eius Deus velut a longe me allocutus, sed tarde, tamen satis.”

[753] To Joh. Braun at Eisenach, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 6: “Quod si statum meum nosse desideras, bene habeo Dei gratia, nisi quod violentum est studium.”

[754] B. Heyne, “Über Besessenheitswahn bei geistigen Erkrankungszuständen,” Paderborn, 1904, p. 126.

[755] Erl. ed., 44, p. 127.

[756] Ib., 45, p. 156. See above, p. 197.

[757] Ib., Weim. ed., 36, p. 553 f.; Erl. ed., 51, p. 146, Comment. on 1 Cor. xv.

[758] See above, p. 99 ff.

[759] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156.

[760] Note, ib.

[761] Ib., 44, p. 127.

[762] G. Buchwald, “Luthers ungedruckte Predigten 1528-1546,” vol. iii., 1885, p. 50: In Popery “horrible fears” had been caused by the doctrine of Christ as Judge. “Iuventus non intelligit; videat ne amittat hanc lucem [of his Evangel]. Si scivissemus non ivissemus in cœnobia. Quando Christum inspexi, vidi diabolum.”

[763] W. Köhler, “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 28. The mental struggle had not been denied, either by Denifle, or in my article in the Beilage of the “Köln. Volksztng.,” 1903, No. 44.

[764] Köhler, ib., pp. 27-29. Cp. Köhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 69.

[765] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 330; Erl. ed., 24², p. 391.

[766] Ib., p. 280=365.

[767] Ib., p. 279 f.=364.

[768] Ib., p. 290=370.

[769] Late in June, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159 f.

[770] See above, vol. i., p. 269 f.

[771] Above, p. 101 f.

[772] Weim. ed., 18, p. 783; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 362.

[773] Ib.

[774] Weim. ed., 28, p. 48, June 10.

[775] Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372.

[776] Ib., p. 504=366.

[777] Ib.

[778] Weim. ed., 33, p. 574 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317.

[779] Weim. ed., 32, p. 241. Cp. the similar passage quoted above, p. 197, from Schlaginhaufen.

[780] Erl. ed., 31, p. 273 in “Kleine Anwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch.” Given more in detail above, p. 195.

[781] Weim. ed., 36, p. 554; Erl. ed., 51, p. 146.

[782] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 420.

[783] Comm. in Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 135; Irmischer, 1, p. 109.

[784] Cp. Erl. ed. 31, p. 273.

[785] “Opp. lat. exeg.” 11, p. 123.

[786] Erl. ed., 14², p. 343.

[787] See above, vol. iii., p. 206; vol. iv., p. 213 f.

[788] Denifle, 1², p. 392.

[789] Erl. ed., 19², p. 151 f.

[790] Weim. ed., 33, p. 574 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 317 f.

[791] Ib., 14², p. 342 ff.

[792] Erl. ed., 63, p. 369 f., 1542.

[793] Ib., p. 372.

[794] Ib., 63, p. 374. Preface to his “Barfuser Eulenspiegel und Alcoran,” 1542.

[795] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 423.

[796] Weim. ed. 42, p. 504; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 3, p. 119.

[797] Ib., p. 505=200.

[798] Cp. Denifle, 1², p. 368 and above, p. 202.

[799] Ib.

[800] Erl. ed., 45, p. 156 f.

[801] Ib., 31, p. 279.

[802] Cp. Weim. ed., 11, pp. 408-416; Erl. ed., 22, pp. 141-151.

[803] Above, vol. v., p. 432 ff., and vol. iii., p. 9 ff.

[804] Cp. vol. ii., p. 346.

[805] Weim. ed., 15, p. 218 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 265, 1524.

[806] Above, vol. iii., p. 392 f.

[807] Ib., p. 10.

[808] Weim. ed., 1, p. 624; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 288. In the Resolutions, 1518.—Weim. ed., 7, pp. 139, 439; Erl. ed., 24², p. 139. “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, 221. In the “Assertio omnium articulorum.” Cp. proposition 33 condemned by Leo X, 1520, in the Bull “Exsurge Domine.” N. Paulus, in “Hist.-pol. Bl.,” 140, 1907, p. 357 ff., and “Protestantismus und Toleranz im 16 Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 26 f.

[809] Weim. ed., 7, p. 139; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 221.

[810] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 424: “Hence there is no alternative, you must either believe everything or nothing,” and vol. v., p. 398, n. 3.

[811] Weim. ed., 11, p. 267; Erl. ed., 22, p. 90.

[812] Weim. ed., 18, p. 298 f. Erl. ed., 24², p. 276.

[813] Erl. ed., 53, p. 134 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 356). He adds that he had notified the Altenburgers that “the rights, authority, revenues and power of the Canons were at an end because they were publicly opposed to the Evangel.”

[814] To the Wittenberg Canons, July 11, 1523, Erl. ed., 53, p. 178 f. (“Briefe,” 4, p. 176).

[815] In a sermon of Aug. 2, 1523, Weim. ed., 12, p. 649; Erl. ed., 17², p. 57. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 5.

[816] Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 76. According to Burkhardt, Hier. Schurf and the licentiate Pauli were entrusted with the mission to Luther; but “Luther continued to storm, and the council took steps to forbid the Mass and even intercourse with others. So far had Luther carried matters!”—Bezold, “Gesch. der deutschen Ref.,” Berlin, 1890, p. 563, observes of Luther’s attitude at that time: “It is of interest to note his transition from the principles of freedom of conscience and the independence of the Church to religious coercion and State assistance.”

[817] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 327 ff.; vol. iv., p. 510.

[818] Cp. N. Paulus, “Protestantismus und Toleranz,” p. 10.

[819] Reprinted in Kolde’s, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 68 ff.

[820] Ib., p. 72.

[821] The Memo. of the three preachers in “Mitteil. der geschichtsforsch. Gesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, 1866, p. 513 ff.; cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318, n. 1. On Altenburg, see above, vol. ii., p. 314 ff.

[822] Erl. ed., 53, p. 367 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 318).

[823] In Burkhardt, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” p. 102, and Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 320.

[824] Text in Sehling, “Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des 16 Jahrh.,” Abt. 1, 1. Hälfte, 1902, p. 142 ff. See above, vol. v., p. 592 f.

[825] Ib. These stern measures were aimed at the followers of Carlstadt and Zwingli, but were also applied to the Catholics.

[826] The writing, most probably by Link (spring, 1524), is in the “Mitteilungen der geschichtsforsch. Gesellschaft des Osterlandes,” 6, p. 119 ff.

[827] In the Mem. referred to above, p. 241, n. 3.

[828] Paulus, ib., p. 12.

[829] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 307.

[830] Cp. their petition to George drafted by Luther, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 285.

[831] Letter of the first half of July, 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 243 ff. (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 318).

[832] Sep. 19, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 246.

[833] Beginning of July, 1539, in the Memorandum on the need of abolishing the Mass at Meissen. Ib., p. 189. Paulus, ib., p. 15.

[834] Paulus, ib.

[835] To Jos. Levin Metzsch of Mila, Aug. 26, 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 97 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 149).

[836] On Sep. 14, 1531, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 54, p. 255 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).

[837] Sehling, “Kirchenordnungen,” 1, 1, pp. 175, 176, 187, 195. Cp. Luther to Beier of Zwickau, 1533, undated, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365.

[838] Above, vol. ii., p. 311, and present vol., p. 240, n. 1.

[839] Ib., vol. ii., p. 318.

[840] Ib., p. 381.

[841] Ib., p. 319.

[842] Ib., p. 318.

[843] Above, vol. iv., p. 298.

[844] Above, vol. iii., p. 45.

[845] Ib., p. 359.

[846] Ib., p. 79 f.

[847] Above, vol. v., p. 367.

[848] Ib., p. 578.

[849] Ib., p. 580.

[850] Ib., p. 579.

[851] Paulus, ib., p. 32.

[852] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f. Paulus, ib., p. 35.

[853] Above, vol. iii., p. 431.

[854] Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,”¹ p. 801. Cp. above, vol. v., p. 384, and elsewhere.

[855] Above, vol. ii., p. 324.

[856] Above, vol. v., p. 110.

[857] Vol. ii., p. 13.

[858] Above, vol. v., p. 383.

[859] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 55, p. 156 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 136).

[860] Liborius Magdeburger (Dec. 2, 1536) to the Town Clerk of Zwickau Johann Roth. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” ib., p. 136, n. 3.

[861] Enders, ib.

[862] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 171.

[863] Ib., p. 180.

[864] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 44 ff.

[865] Vol. ii., p. 101.

[866] Ib.

[867] Vol. iii., p. 46.

[868] Ib.

[869] Ib.

[870] Ib., p. 126.

[871] Weim. ed., 15, p. 218 f.; Erl. ed., 53, p. 255 f.

[872] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 117.

[873] Weim. ed., 18, p. 299; Erl. ed., 24², p. 276. Paulus, ib., p. 28 f.

[874] Erl. ed., 4², p. 290 f. Paulus, ib., p. 30 f.

[875] Letter of July 14, 1528, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 299: “In hac causa terret me exempli sequela, quam in papistis et ante Christum in Iudœis videmus.… Idem sequuturum esse timeo et apud nostros.” If on the other hand they erred on the side of severity in the matter of banishment, the evil was not so great. Paulus, p. 31.

[876] Paulus, ib., p. 29.

[877] Ib., p. 31.

[878] “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 17 sq. Paulus, ib., p. 32.

[879] Erl. ed., 39, p. 224 ff.

[880] Ib., pp. 250, 252, 254. The Commentary was printed in the spring of 1530.

[881] U. Haussdorff, “Leben Spenglers,” Nuremberg, 1741, p. 190 ff. Paulus, ib., p. 34.

[882] Aug. 3, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 163.

[883] “Corp. ref.,” 4, pp. 737-740. Cp. Paulus, ib., p. 41 f.

[884] Printed at Wittenberg in 1536 and signed by Luther, Bugenhagen, Cruciger and Melanchthon on June 5. Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 347; “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 195 sqq.

[885] Vol. 32, 1911, p. 155, in a review of Wappler’s work. For further details from Wappler and from the valuable studies of W. Köhler see below, p. 266 ff.

[886] Weim. ed., 32, p. 507; Erl. ed., 43, p. 313.

[887] Ib., p. 475=264 f. Paulus, ib., p. 45.

[888] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 552 f.; Erl. ed., 54, p. 288 f., Letter of Feb. or the beginning of March, 1532 (“Briefwechsel.” 9, p. 157).

[889] Erl. ed., 1², p. 196 f. (c. 1533).

[890] Ib., 39, pp. 318-320.

[891] Weim. ed., 18, p. 148; Erl. ed., 30, p. 68.

[892] Ib., p. 148 ff.=68 f.

[893] See Wappler, “Die Stellung Kursachsens und des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen zur Täuferbewegung,” 1910 (“RGI. Studien und Texte,” ed. J. Greving), p. 156.

[894] Wappler, ib., p. 4.

[895] Ib., pp. 12, 36, 85.

[896] P. 204 f.

[897] P. 37 ff., 83 ff.

[898] Wappler, “Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1908, p. 28 ff., 70 ff. Paulus, ib., p. 316.

[899] Wappler, ib., p. 96 ff.

[900] Hasche, “Diplomatische Gesch. Dresdens,” vol. ii., 1817, p. 221. Paulus, ib., p. 317.

[901] Wappler, “Stellung Kursachsens,” p. 242. Paulus, ib., p. 319.

[902] Wappler, ib., p. 164. Paulus, ib., p. 314.

[903] Wappler, ib., pp. 155, 234. Paulus, ib., p. 311.

[904] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1525. This is one of the answers he gave to opponents who say, “neminem debere cogi ad fidem et evangelion,” and “principes in externis solum ius habere.” To the latter he replies: “principes cohibent externas abominationes,” and goes on to add: “Cum igitur ipsimet [adversarii] fateantur, in externis rebus esse ius principum, ipsi sese damnant.” If they wanted an example let them remember Christ Who drove the sellers out of the Temple. This he wrote, relying on the favour which the new Elector had extended to his cause: “Nosti quantum princeps iste noster est evangelii studiosus,” so he remarks with satisfaction. “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 271.

[905] In the Visitation Rules of 1527, Sehling, ib.

[906] Brandenburg, “Moritz von Sachsen,” 1, p. 22 f.

[907] Erl. ed., 57, p. 6.

[908] Commentary on Ps. lxxxii. Erl. ed., 39, p. 257 f.

[909] Memorandum of 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 179 f. (“Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 105).

[910] Comm. on Ps. lxxxii., p. 251 f.

[911] Ib.

[912] Ib., p. 252 f. Paulus, ib., p. 39.

[913] Above, p. 252, n. 1.

[914] “Briefwechsel,” 10, p. 346.

[915] Comment. on Ps. lxxxii. Erl. ed., 39, p. 250 f.

[916] Ib., p. 251 f. Paulus, ib., p. 36.

[917] To Albert, Margrave of Brandenburg. “Ein Sendbrief und Vorred der Dieneren zu Zürich,” Zürich, 1532, A 4b. Paulus, ib., p. 48.

[918] Comm. on Ps. lxxxii., ib.

[919] Ib.

[920] Above, vol. ii., p. 347.

[921] Vol. iii., p. 390.

[922] Ib., p. 392.

[923] Above, vol. v., p. 399.

[924] Ib., p. 448.

[925] Above, p. 144.

[926] Erl. ed., 20², p. 555 ff. Aurifaber assures us that he “took down the sermon from Luther’s lips” and revised it “with diligence” at Wittenberg. Paulus, ib., p. 57 f.—Cp. the intolerant sermon preached at Halle shortly before, below, p. 274.

[927] Above, vol. iii., p. 39.

[928] Erl. ed., 54, p. 98 (“Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 151).

[929] “Briefwechsel,” ib.

[930] Weim. ed., 26, p. 223; Erl. ed., 23, p. 45 f.

[931] Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 349; Erl. ed., 21, p. 7.

[932] Enders, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 104, n. 11.

[933] In 1533, undated, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 365.

[934] Sehling, 1, p. 195.

[935] “Ordnungen,” etc., Dresden, 1573, Bl. 132, 146. Paulus, ib., p. 318.

[936] Cp. the Rescript of Sep. 1, 1623. Paulus, ib.

[937] Hannoviæ, 1652, p. 861. Cp. ib., p. 858 sqq. Paulus, ib., n. 4.

[938] “Practica nova,” I, q. 44, n. 45: “Usu ac consuetudine saxonica obtinuit, eiusmodi hæreticos seditiosos aut blasphemantes igne comburi.” Paulus, ib., p. 323, n. 7.

[939] Paulus, ib., p. 49 against O. Ritschl.

[940] C. E. Förstemann, “Liber Decanorum facultatis theol. acad. Vitebergensis,” 1838, p. 152 sqq.

[941] “Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes,” 1², p. 212.

[942] “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 57.

[943] Ib., p. 35, April 18, 1540.

[944] Luther to Myconius at Gotha, Oct. 24, 1535, ib., 10, p. 248.

[945] “Corp. ref.,” 23, p. cvii. sq.

[946] P. 25 f.

[947] P. 29.

[948] P. 38.

[949] Köhler, “Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1906, p. 211.

[950] “Ref. und Ketzerprozess,” p. 23.

[951] Cp. above, p. 252.

[952] “Stellung Kursachsens,” p. 123 f.

[953] Ib., p. 125.

[954] Ib., p. 126 f.

[955] “Die Inquisition,” p. 70 f.

[956] Ib., p. 69 ff.

[957] “Inquisition,” etc., p. 6 f.

[958] “Studien und Skizzen zur Gesch. der RZ.,” 1874, p. 20.

[959] “Die Reformation und die älteren Reformparteien,” 1885, p. 446. Paulus, ib., p. 314.

[960] “Die rechtliche Stellung der evangel. Kirche in Deutschland,” 1893, p. 90.

[961] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 3⁴, p. 816.

[962] “Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt,” 2, 1905, pp. 138, 187.

[963] “Literarisches Zentralblatt,” 1905, No. 36.

[964] “Deutsche Literaturztng.,” 1896, No. 2, on Paulus, “Über die Reformatoren und die Gewissensfreiheit,” 1895.

[965] “Deutsche Zeitschr. für KR.,” 1896, p. 138.

[966] Neander, “Das Eine und Mannigfaltige des christl. Lebens,” 1840, p. 224.

[967] “Ursachen, warumb die altgleubige catholische Christen bei dem alten waren Christenthumb verharren sollen,” Cologne, 1589, p. 354.

[968] “Kirche und Kirchen,” 1861, p. 68.

[969] Ib., p. 50 f.

[970] Above, vol. iii., pp. 358 ff., 438 ff.

[971] Ib., p. 358.

[972] Ib., Cp. Paulus, ib., p. 74 f.

[973] “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 851 sqq.: “Quæstio, an politica potestas debeat tollere hæreticos.”

[974] “Zeitschr. f. Rechtsgesch.,” 8, 1869, p. 264.

[975] “Die Theol. der Gegenwart,” 3, 3, 1909, p. 49.

[976] To Camerarius, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 334.

[977] M. Mayer, “Spengleriana,” 1830, p. 70 ff. Paulus, ib., p. 33. Luther’s “booklet” to which his opponents appealed is the letter of July, 1524, to the Saxon Princes, quoted above, vol. ii., p. 365.

[978] Paulus, ib., p. 143.

[979] Ib., p. 144.

[980] P. 156 ff.

[981] P. 166.

[982] Paulus, pp. 223, 226.

[983] Cp. Kawerau in Möller’s “KG.,” 3³, p. 471 ff.

[984] Ib., p. 474.

[985] To Martin Frecht at Ulm, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 955. Cp. his letter to Buchholzer, Aug. 5, 1558, against Schwenckfeld, ib., 9, p. 579. Paulus, ib., p. 78.

[986] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 983. Cp. on Franck’s objections to compulsion, A. Hegler, “Geist und Schrift bei S. Franck,” 1892, p. 260 ff.—See also below, p. 289.

[987] Wappler, “Die Stellung Kursachsens,” pp. 155, 223, 234. Paulus ib., p. 311.

[988] Paulus, ib., p. 75. Cp. vol. iii., p. 358.

[989] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 274, 1542. Cp. vol. iii., p. 409.

[990] Feb. 4, 1538, to Luther and “Domini in Christo et venerandi et amandi,” i.e. the other theologians at Wittenberg, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 328: “Parata est paulo post satis feliciter per Christum ordinatio ecclesiarum totius regni Daniæ a sereniss. rege,” etc. “Per totum regnum Daniæ regnat Christus in omnibus ecclesiis,” etc.

[991] See vol. iii., p. 413.

[992] See J. C. v. Dreyhaupt, “Ausführliche Beschreibung des Saal-Kreyses,” 1, 1749, p. 982 ff. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” ed. Kawerau, 2, p. 1. Paulus, ib., p. 80 ff.

[993] On this sermon of Jan. 26, 1546, see below, xxxix., 3.

[994] Dreyhaupt, ib., p. 210 ff. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 2, p. 191.

[995] To Lang the Erfurt preacher, “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 2, p. 224: Halle, with the whole of its Church, had submitted to the Elector “beneficio altissimi Dei … a cultu Baal, a fanis idololatricis et omni idololatria tandem expurgata.”

[996] Above, p. 240 f.

[997] Ib. Cp. his letter to the Elector, Oct. 1, 1525, Kolde, “Friedrich der Weise,” 1881, p. 72. Paulus, ib., p. 11.

[998] To Philip of Hesse, Jan. 15, 1532. Wappler. “Die Stellung Kursachsens,” p. 156.

[999] His letter of 1533, above, p. 255 f.

[1000] “Verlegung,” etc. (Wittenberg, 1536), Bl. A 4a, E 3a. Paulus, ib., p. 71 f.

[1001] “Prozess,” etc., Worms (1557). Paulus, ib., p. 72 f.

[1002] “Ob eine weltliche Obrigkeit … möge die Wiedertäufer … richten lassen,” Marburg, 1528. Paulus, ib., p. 115, correcting Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers.”

[1003] Melanchthon, Feb., 1530, to a friend, “Corp. ref.,” 2, p. 18.

[1004] F. L. Heyd, “Ulrich, Herzog zu Würtemberg,” 3, 1844, p. 172. Paulus, ib., p. 123.

[1005] Chr. Besold, “Virginum sacrarum monimenta,” etc., 1636, p. 237 sqq. Janssen-Pastor, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 7, pp. 80-90.

[1006] “Von den Worten Christi, Matt. xiii. (v. 30),” no place, 1541, Bl. C 1 to D 3, Paulus, p. 92 f.

[1007] Cp. Paulus, ib., pp. 86-91.

[1008] Cp. ib., pp. 100-115, with extracts from A. Wrede, “Die Einführung der Reformation im Lüneburgischen durch Herzog Ernst den Bekenner,” 1887. Cp. Wrede, “Ernst der Bekenner,” 1888.

[1009] “Responsio de missa, matrimonio et iure magistratus in religionem,” Argentorati, 1537. 2nd ed. 1540. Extracts from the latter in Paulus, p. 129 ff.

[1010] C. Hagan, ib., quoted p. 153.

[1011] Paulus, ib., p. 155.

[1012] P. v. Stetten, “Gesch. der Stadt Augsburg,” 1, 1743, p. 445.

[1013] Paulus, ib., p. 160.

[1014] On Bucer, cp. Paulus, ib., pp. 142-175.

[1015] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), 7, p. 91.

[1016] Ib.

[1017] To Anton Lauterbach, May 7, 1542, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 468. The persons in question had already frequently communicated under both kinds as a sign of their entry into Lutheranism, but had passed unfavourable criticisms on certain measures of Luther’s. He commissions Lauterbach: “Ubi etiam pœnituerint, hoc exigendum est, ut hactenus a nobis gesta et in posterum gerenda probent. Alioqui quæ erit pœnitentia, si nostra facta damnaverint hoc est sua omnia per fictam pœnitentiam stabilierint?”

[1018] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 322.

[1019] Deut. xiii. 5 ff., above, p. 273.

[1020] Erl. ed., 61, p. 7, “Tischreden.”

[1021] Ib., p. 26.

[1022] P. 8 f.

[1023] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 377.

[1024] “Werke,” ib., p. 26.

[1025] P. 30.

[1026] P. 11.

[1027] P. 27 ff.

[1028] P. 31.

[1029] P. 14.

[1030] See e.g. the next quotation.

[1031] Weim. ed., 19, p. 609 f.; Erl. ed., 38, p. 445 f., “Vier trostliche Psalmen … an die Königyn zu Hungern.”

[1032] Ib., p. 585=414.

[1033] Ib., Weim. ed., 7, p. 394; Erl. ed., 24², p. 112.

[1034] Ib., 19², p. 273.

[1035] Ib., 38, p. 177 f.

[1036] Ib., Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 235; Erl. ed., 39, p. 114.

[1037] Ib., 10², p. 193 f.

[1038] Mathesius, “Aufzeichn.,” p. 83.

[1039] Erl. ed., 61, p. 17.

[1040] Cp. Weim. ed., 8, p. 684; Erl. ed., 22, p. 56.

[1041] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 321.

[1042] Erl. ed., 61, p. 5.

[1043] Ib., Weim. ed., 8, p. 683; Erl. ed., 22, p. 52 f.

[1044] Ib., 11², p. 267.

[1045] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 323.

[1046] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 295.

[1047] Ib., p. 317.

[1048] Ib., p. 295.

[1049] Erl. ed., 61, p. 21.

[1050] Ib., p. 1.

[1051] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 153 ff.

[1052] Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 162.

[1053] Letter of Aug. 21, 1524, Weim. ed., 15, p. 240 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 377 f.; “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 2, p. 538).

[1054] Above, vol. iii., p. 154.

[1055] “Briefe,” 6, p. 199 f. See above, vol. iv., p. 292.

[1056] “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 549.

[1057] Erl. ed., 60, p. 318 f. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 156 sq.

[1058] See above, vol. iii., p. 234, n. 1.

[1059] Ed. Const. v. Höfler, “SB. der böhm. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften,” 1892, p. 79 f.

[1060] P. 123 Lemnius says the following of Luther’s private life: “Dum se episcopum iactitat evangelicum, qui fit, ut ille parum sobrie vivat? Vino enim ciboque sese ingurgitare solet suosque adulatores et assentatores secum habet, habet suam Venerem ac fere nihil prorsus illi deesse potest, quod ad voluptatem ac libidinem pertinet.” Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 274.

[1061] “Apologia,” p. 136.

[1062] See above, vol. v., pp. 169 ff., 250 ff.

[1063] Erl. ed., 61, p. 16

[1064] Ib., p. 7 f.

[1065] P. 8 f.

[1066] P. 17.

[1067] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 249.

[1068] Ib., p. 239.

[1069] P. 167.

[1070] P. 90.

[1071] P. 154.

[1072] P. 253.

[1073] P. 109.

[1074] P. 166.

[1075] P. 403.

[1076] Erl. ed., 61, p. 19 f.

[1077] Ib., p. 22.

[1078] P. 24.

[1079] P. 25.

[1080] Above, vol. ii., p. 377.

[1081] Erl. ed., 63, p. 415, in the Preface to the 2nd part of his German Works (compiled from his writings). Cp. vol. 28, pp. 64, 89.

[1082] “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 529 (1534).

[1083] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 407; Erl. ed., 63, p. 303 (1531).

[1084] Erl. ed., 49, p. 163 f.

[1085] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 17.

[1086] “Ecclesiæ ratio diligenter habenda est.” Ib.

[1087] To Melanchthon, July 21, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 128: a bishop has no ecclesiastical authority, no “potestas statuendi quidquam … quia ecclesia est libera et domina.”

[1088] Weim. ed., 6, p. 300 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 107. Cp. ib., p. 296 f.=102; the Church is chiefly “inward, spiritual Christianity,” though she, like the soul in the body, has also an external existence of a kind; P. 297 f.=103: She is governed only by Christ. “Who can tell who really believes or not?”

[1089] Weim. ed., 7, p. 719: “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 309 (1521): “Dicet autem, si ecclesia tota est in spiritu et res omnino spiritualis, nemo ergo nosse poterit, ubi sit ulla eius pars in toto orbe.”

[1090] Erl. ed., 25², p. 440 (1539).

[1091] Weim. ed., 8, p. 419; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 127 (1522): “Quis ecclesiam nobis monstrabit, quum sit occulta in Spiritu et solum credatur? Sicut dicimus: Credo ecclesiam sanctam.”

[1092] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 20.

[1093] Köstlin, Art. Kirche, in “R.E. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901.

[1094] Weim. ed., 6, p. 301; Erl. ed., 27, p. 108.

[1095] Cp. the passage quoted by Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 49, p. 427, from “De servo arbitrio.”

[1096] Erl. ed., 25², p. 416.

[1097] Cp. the theological doctrine of the distinction between the body and soul of the Church. H. Hurter, “Theol. dogm. Comp.,” 1¹¹, 1903, p. 259. Tract iii., art. 2.

[1098] Erl. ed., 25², p. 418.

[1099] Ib., p. 419.

[1100] P. 420.

[1101] P. 421 ff.

[1102] For Bellarmine, see “Controversiæ,” Colon., 2, 1615, 1. 3. “De ecclesia militante,” p. 65 sq.

[1103] Cp. above, p. 150 ff.

[1104] Bellarmine, l. c., p. 65.

[1105] Hurter, “Theol. dogm. Comp.,” p. 227.

[1106] Erl. ed., 25², p. 434.

[1107] “Symbolik,” §49, p. 424 f.

[1108] Cp. “Apol. conf. August.,” art. 7. Müller-Kolde,¹⁰ p. 153.

[1109] The Church, according to his explanation of the article of the Creed in question, is “the assembly of the Saints, i.e. an assembly composed only of saints,” not an assembly of all those who have been baptised. Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², pp. 257, 278.

[1110] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 21.

[1111] Erl. ed., 66, p. 440 f.

[1112] Art. “Kirche,” in “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, 1901, pp. 337, 349.

[1113] Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 262, with the quotation from Erl. ed., 9², p. 285 f.: “In her each one must be found, in her each one must be enrolled, whoso wishes to be saved and to come to God, and, outside of her, no one will be saved.”

[1114] Köstlin, ib., p. 269.

[1115] Ib., p. 169.

[1116] See above, vol. ii., pp. 267 f., 287 f.

[1117] Prop. 23.

[1118] Prop. 24.

[1119] See above vol. i., p. 371.

[1120] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 224.

[1121] See above, vol. iii., p. 143 ff.

[1122] And yet he declares later (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 15) that he would gladly have acknowledged the Pope (i.e. sacrificed his doctrine of the Church) “modo evangelium docuisset,” i.e. if the Pope had agreed to his doctrine of Justification. Indeed at the end of Feb., 1519, he says, in the “Unterricht auff etlich Artikell” (see below, p. 307) “for no kind of sin or abuse” is it lawful to begin a schism. Weim. ed., 2, p. 72; Erl. ed., 24², p. 10. Cp. W. Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 20.

[1123] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.

[1124] To Spalatin, Jan. 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 352; he adds: “Non ligat nec nocet ira Decretalium, quando tuetur misericordia Christi.”

[1125] Weim. ed., 2, p. 183 ff. “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 296 sqq.

[1126] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 250.—Other statements made by Luther at this time must be read in the light of the above theory, e.g. his words in the “Comm. on Gal.”: “As widely, broadly, and deeply as possible do I distinguish between the Roman Church and the Roman Curia.” “They must know that they are mistaken when they cry out that I do not hold with the Roman Church; I who love so truly not only the Roman Church but the whole Church of Christ.” “Comm. on Gal.,” ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 134 sq. Cp. W. Walther, “Für Luther,” 1906, p. 24.

[1127] Weim. ed., 2, pp. 399, 404 ff., 427, 429; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, pp. 240, 244 sqq., 281, 284. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 255 ff.

[1128] For his earlier days cp. the passage in “Freiheyt dess Sermons Bepstlichen Ablass belangend” (1518), Weim. ed., 1, p. 384; Erl. ed., 27, p. 12: “If already so many and thousands more, and all of them holy Doctors had held this or that, yet they are of no account as compared with a single verse of Holy Writ, as St. Paul says, Gal. (i. 8): ‘Even though an angel from heaven,’ etc.”

[1129] Weim. ed., 2, p. 431; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.

[1130] Ib., p. 183 ff.=296 sqq. (Thesis 13).

[1131] Denzinger-Bannwart, “Enchiridion,” p. 259.

[1132] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §44, p. 399.

[1133] Cp. above, vol. iv., p. 387 ff. and vol. ii., p. 368.

[1134] Above, p. 237.

[1135] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 256, from Weim. ed., 2, p. 430; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, p. 285.

[1136] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 349. Augustine, however, is speaking of truth in general.

[1137] See above, vol. iv., p. 403 ff.

[1138] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §46, p. 409, with the following quotation from Luther’s “De captiv. Babylon.”: “Christianis nihil nullo iure posse imponi legum, sive ab hominibus, sive ab angelis, nisi quantum volunt; liberi enim sumus ab omnibus.”

[1139] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 398. The work is printed in Weim. ed., 7, p. 704 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 286 sqq.

[1140] Weim. ed., 12, p. 169 ff.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 494 sqq.

[1141] Cp. the passages quoted by Möhler, “Symbolik,” §45, p. 405, n. 2: “Christianus ita certus est, quid credere et non credere debeat, ut etiam pro ipso moriatur, aut saltem mori paratus sit.” Thus to teach as a priest involved nothing very dreadful, “cum verbum Dei hic luceat et iubeat, simul necessitas animarum cogat.”

[1142] “Symbolik,” §45, p. 409.

[1143] Ib., §45, p. 406.

[1144] Ib., §44, p. 399.

[1145] Art. Kirche, “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 10³, p. 337.

[1146] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §49, p. 427.

[1147] Erl. ed., 26², p. 188.

[1148] Köstlin in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,” 7², p. 716. Omitted in the 3rd ed.

[1149] “Christl. Welt,” ed. Rade, 1, 1902, No. 38.

[1150] Weim. ed., 2, p. 69 ff; Erl. ed., 24², p. 5 ff.

[1151] Ib.,6, p. 477 ff.; 9, p. 302 ff.=12 ff.

[1152] Ib., 2, p. 72 f.=24², p. 10 f.

[1153] Ib., 6, p. 480=24², p. 13. Cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 303 f.; 9, p. 476 f.

[1154] Ib., 10, 2, p. 232=28, p. 350.

[1155] Ib., p. 232=351.

[1156] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 86 ff.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 337 ff. “Corp. ref.,” 26, p. 151 sqq. Kolde, “Die Augsburgische Konfession,” p. 123 ff.

[1157] Vol. ii., p. 179.

[1158] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §49, p. 428 n.

[1159] “Confessio August.,” art. 7. “Symbolische Bücher,” ed. Müller Kolde, p. 40.

[1160] “Apol. confess.,” art. 7, “Symbol. Bücher,” p. 152.

[1161] Art. 14, “Symbol. Bücher,” p. 42.

[1162] “De potestate et iurisdict. episcoporum” (by Melanchthon). “Symbol. Bücher,” p. 341 f.

[1163] Erl. ed., 31, p. 348 f. (1533).

[1164] Ib., Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 230.

[1165] In “Von den Schlüsseln,” 1530, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 435 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 126 ff. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 222 f.

[1166] See above, vol. ii., p. 112.

[1167] “Symbolik,” §47, p. 416.

[1168] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 398.

[1169] “Christlicher Gegenbericht,” 1561, Bl. Y III´. (The copy in the Munich State Library contains the autograph dedication of Staphylus to Joh. Jacob Fugger.) Also in the “Apologia,” by Laur. Surius, Colon, 1562, p. 353. Cp. Bellarminus, “Controversiæ,” t. 2 (Colon, 1615), p. 58.

[1170] “Centur.,” 1, lib. 1, c. 4, col. 170, in Bellarmin, ib. In recent times Protestant theologians have divided on the subject, some favouring more the visible, others the invisible Church. The latter are the more logical. Cp. G. Kawerau’s statement: “We may dispute as to whether the term invisible ‘Church’ is well chosen or not, but what it means is clear; for what else is it but a decided protest against every attempt to attribute within the domain of the Evangel, to a visible, ecclesiastical, legally constituted society the attributes of the Church in which we believe? Protestantism by its very nature cannot make of its outward edifice an ‘ecclesia proprie dicta.’” “Über Berechtigung und Bedeutung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments,” 1887, p. 12.

[1171] See above, p. 265.

[1172] Testimonial of May 17, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 57 f.

[1173] Testimonial of April 18, 1540, ib. p. 35 f.

[1174] Above, vol. iii., p. 41.

[1175] See above, vol. v., p. 250.

[1176] Erl. ed., 43, p. 281. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 102.

[1177] Above, vol. v., p. 191, n. 4.

[1178] Ib.

[1179] Above, vol. v., p. 170.

[1180] Ib.

[1181] Ib., p. 171.

[1182] Ib.

[1183] Cp. above, vol. v., p. 138 f.

[1184] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 26.

[1185] Above, vol. v., p. 180.

[1186] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 47.

[1187] Aug. 26, 1529, “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 151.

[1188] Köstlin, Art. “Kirche” in the “RE. f. prot. Th. und Kirche,” vol. 10³.

[1189] Above, vol. v., p. 180.

[1190] Cp. “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 20: “Lutherus dicebat de usu et necessitate consistorii, quod lapsam et pendentem ecclesiam iterum fulciret,” etc.

[1191] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 520; Erl. ed., 31, p. 217, in the writing “Von den Schleichern und Winckelpredigern” (1532), Luther directs “officials, judges and whoever has to rule” to ask the teachers who were under suspicion: “Who has sent you?” “Why are you after setting up something new?” “If this work was done with zeal it would be of great profit.… Otherwise, unless they insisted on the call or command, there would come to be no Church left.”—Concerning the provision for the Church’s needs Luther speaks of the “duty” of the Elector to see in some way that the parsonages were adequately supported “in order that the Universities and divine worship be not hindered from want, from the needs of the poor belly.” Erl. ed., 53, p. 331.

[1192] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 552.

[1193] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 50; Art. “Luther,” “KL.,” 8², p. 338.

[1194] Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 625 f.; Erl. ed., 48, p. 358.

[1195] Ib., Erl. ed., 50, p. 8.

[1196] Ib., 46, p. 226.

[1197] Luther says, for instance, that, in earlier days, “Emperors and Kings had commanded and instituted public worship in their lands” (Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 42).

[1198] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 42.

[1199] To Albert Count of Mansfeld, Oct. 5, 1536, Erl. ed., 55, p. 147 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 90).

[1200] We may quote the remarkable letter to the Town Council of Zwickau, dated Sep. 27, 1536, Erl. ed., 55, p. 146 (“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 88): “My feeling is always that the two rules, the spiritual and the secular, or Church and Town-Hall, are not to intermingle, otherwise the one devours the other and both perish as happened in Popery.” Cp. on the other hand, above, vol. v., p. 580: “everything must be equal and made to intermingle whether it be termed spiritual or secular.”

[1201] To Daniel Cresser, parson at Dresden, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 596.

[1202] Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 284.

[1203] Mejer (†) und Sehling, “Kirchengewalt,” in the “RE. f. prot. Th.,”³. Cp. the art. “Kirchenregiment”: “The Church, as a body separate from the State, is something modern (?) and quite unknown to Luther.”

[1204] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 22.

[1205] See Emil Richter, “Gesch. der evangel. Kirchenverfassung in Deutschland,” 1851, p. 64.

[1206] Erl. ed., 25², p. 424 f.

[1207] Ib., Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 424 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 122 f.

[1208] To Melanchthon, July 21, 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 129 f.

[1209] H. Hermelink, “Der Toleranzgedanke im Reformationszeitalter” (“Schriften des Vereins f. RG.,” Hft., 98, pp. 37-70), 1908, p. 49.

[1210] Ib., p. 66, n.

[1211] Above, vol. v., p. 565.

[1212] See Paulsen, above, vol. v., p. 57.

[1213] Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. Trans.), vol. vi., p. 148.

[1214] Köstlin refers to the same thing when he says: “The fact that there was originally in Christianity a well defined office of overseers was either not recognised by him at all, or at least not adequately.” Art. “Kirche,” “R.E. f. prot. Th.,” 10³.

[1215] Scholia to Romans, p. 248 f. Cp. above, vol. i., p. 323.

[1216] Above, p. 297.

[1217] Memo. of Aug. 22(?), 1536, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 40 ff.

[1218] “An die Christen zu Erfurt,” Jan.-Feb., 1527, Erl. ed., 53, p. 411 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 15).

[1219] Above, vol. ii., p. 360.

[1220] Sep. 30, 1533, Erl. ed., 55, p. 25 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 341).

[1221] Cp. above, vol. ii., p. 336 ff.

[1222] In the Notes to the memorandum of 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 342.

[1223] To Daniel Cresser, Oct. 22, 1543, “Briefe,” 5, p. 596. See the text, above, vol. v., p. 182.

[1224] Erl. ed., 26², p. 124.

[1225] Cp. above, p. 320 n. 1.

[1226] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 130 f.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 58 f.

[1227] Erl. ed., 65, p. 177.

[1228] See above, vol. ii., p. 297 ff.

[1229] To the Elector Johann, Aug. 26, 1530, Erl. ed., 54, p. 188 (“Briefwechsel,” 8, 215).

[1230] To Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 272.

[1231] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2¹, pp. 554, 563. In the 2nd ed. the chapter has been altered and not always for the better.

[1232] Ib., p. 563.

[1233] Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 339 f.; Erl. ed., 24², p. 396 ff.

[1234] Ib., p. 338-396.

[1235] Joh. Mensing, “Gründtliche Unterrichte, was eyn frommer Christen von der heyligen Kirche … halten sol,” 1528, in Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” 1903, p. 25.

[1236] Erl. ed., 26², p. 66.

[1237] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2¹, p. 546.

[1238] Erl. ed., 26², p. 66.

[1239] “Digamy” as a canonical hindrance to ordination is founded on the prescription of St. Paul, 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12. For the history of this impediment see Phillips, “Kirchenrecht,” 1, p. 519 ff.

[1240] Erl. ed., 25², p. 427.

[1241] Ib., p. 428.

[1242] Erl. ed., 26², p. 45 f.

[1243] Ib., p. 46.

[1244] Ib., p. 43. This, some years later, was to form the frontispiece of his book “Wider das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft.”

[1245] Cp. what he says elsewhere: “The Church is an assembly of the people which is founded on the invisible. It is the ungodly who see in the Church nothing but misery, weakness, scandal and sin. The wise of this world take offence at her look because she is subject to scandals and divisions; they dream of a holy, pure and undefiled Church, the Divine Dove. It is true that, in God’s sight, the Church does so appear, but to the eyes of men she resembles her bridegroom Christ Who according to Isaias liii., seemed torn, bruised, spit upon, crucified, mocked at” (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 14).—Luther was perfectly aware of the works of holiness by which the Catholic Church is distinguished, her penitential practices and life of prayer. Speaking of this he is fond of depreciating it as something external and declaring: “Hence we must speak differently of the matter and learn to know that the Christian Church is holy, not in herself nor in this life, but in Christ; a holiness by grace is indeed received here, but it is completed in the next world.” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 408 f.; Erl. ed., 63, p. 304 f. Preface to Crossner’s “Sermon von der Kirche,” 1531.

[1246] Erl. ed., 26², p. 55.

[1247] P. 66.

[1248] P. 55.

[1249] These errors constituted, according to Luther, a “flood of all kinds of human doctrine, lies, errors, idolatry and abominations,” “countless devilish dens of murderers in which the welfare of souls suffers gruesomely” (Erl. ed., 31, p. 336 f.).

[1250] Ib., 26², p. 53. Cp. ib., 31, p. 337: “The Church, or Christendom, has remained and will stand, this is undoubtedly true.”

[1251] Above, p. 330 n. 3. Paulus, ib., p. 24.

[1252] Köstlin’s summary, “Luther’s Theol.,” 2¹, p. 552.

[1253] Erl. ed., 31, p. 333.

[1254] Ib., p. 332.

[1255] Ib., p. 334.

[1256] Ib., p. 332.

[1257] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 552: “While he … repeatedly declared, that, in spite of the Divine promises, Christendom had fallen into error on certain points, he could never be induced to admit this of the article of the Presence of the Body [of Christ in the Sacrament].”

[1258] Erl. ed., 31, p. 339. Elsewhere he likewise admits, that, in the olden Church and particularly in the convents “there lived many great saints”; it was true that they, “the elect of God,” had been led astray, “yet they were at last delivered and made their escape through faith in Jesus Christ.” Weim. ed., 26, p. 504; Erl. ed., 30, p. 366 (1528).

[1259] Erl. ed., 26², p. 46 f.

[1260] Ib., p. 43.

[1261] “Augustinus voluit scribere iudicanda non credenda, sicut alius locus eiusdem scriptoris testatur: Nolo meis scriptis plus credi,” etc. (“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 17). Cp. vol. iv., p. 400.

[1262] “Ecclesia verbo Dei generatur, alitur, nutritur, roboratur” (Erl. ed., 25², p. 420).

[1263] Mensing, in Paulus, ib., p. 25.

[1264] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 13-25: “Ecclesia, quæ regnum Christi dicitur.”

[1265] Erl. ed., 26², p. 172 ff., “Wider das Bapstum zu Rom vom Teuffel gestifft,” 1545.

[1266] As early as the Leipzig Disputation Luther had been obliged to have recourse to the explanation, that by the rock was meant either the faith Peter had confessed, or else Christ Himself. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, 245, remarks on this: “We cannot honestly deny its weakness.”

[1267] “Das Matthäusevangelium und seine Parallelen,” Halle, 1876, p. 393.

[1268] “Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol.,” ed. Hilgenfeld, 1878, p. 115.—H. A. Meyer, “Kritisch-exegetisches Handb. über das Evangelium des Matthäus,”⁶ Göttingen, 1876, says of Matt. xvi. 18 f.: “There is no doubt that the primacy among the Apostles is here bestowed on Peter.”—Schelling wrote (“Philosophie der Offenbarung,” 2, Stuttgart. 1858, p. 301): “These words of Christ (Matt. xvi. 18 f.) are conclusive to all eternity as to the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles; it requires all the blindness of party spirit to fail to see this or to give them any other meaning.”

[1269] P. 185.

[1270] Above, p. 305.

[1271] P. 188.

[1272] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 638.

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

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

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

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

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

[1278] Ib., p. 735.

[1279] P. 733.

[1280] P. 737.

[1281] P. 738.

[1282] P. 739.

[1283] See below, p. 355 ff.

[1284] “Briefe,” 5, p. 741.

[1285] Ib., p. 742.

[1286] P. 743.

[1287] Ib., 6, p. 379.

[1288] Ib., 5, p. 380.

[1289] P. 739.

[1290] P. 745.

[1291] P. 746.

[1292] P. 746.

[1293] P. 750.

[1294] Pp. 744, 750 f.

[1295] P. 751.

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

[1297] P. 740.

[1298] See below, p. 352.

[1299] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 606.

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

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

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

[1303] “Briefe,” 5, p. 752 f.

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

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

[1306] Ratzeberger, “Gesch.,” p. 125.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1315] “Briefe,” 5, p. 761

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

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

[1318] “Briefe,” 5, p. 764 f.

[1319] Aug. 19, 1545, ib., p. 757.

[1320] Ib., p. 768.

[1321] P. 769.

[1322] “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 11, p. 325.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1331] Hausrath, ib., 2, p. 469.

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

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

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

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

[1336] Hausrath, ib., p. 465.

[1337] Hausrath, ib., p. 477 f.

[1338] “Briefe,” 5, p. 715.

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

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

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

[1342] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 469 f.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1356] Schlaginhaufen, ib., p. 81.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1372] “Ratzebergers Gesch.,” p. 131.

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

[1374] “Ratzebergers Gesch.,” p. 132.

[1375] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 472 ff.

[1376] Ib., p. 479 f.

[1377] P. 479.

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

[1379] P. 481.

[1380] P. 480.

[1381] P. 482.

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

[1383] Feb. 10, 1546, ib., p. 789.

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

[1385] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 495.

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

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

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

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

[1390] Ib., p. 488.

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

[1392] Ib., p. 135.

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

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

[1395] Feb. 7, 1546, ib., p. 787.

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

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

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

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

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

[1401] Mathesius, ib., p. 113.

[1402] Ib., p. 384.

[1403] Ib., p. 113.

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

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

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

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

[1408] Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 483 ff.

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

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

[1411] “Briefe,” 5, p. 783 f.

[1412] Ib., p. 789 f.

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

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

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

[1416] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 619.

[1417] Above, p. 132.

[1418] “Briefe,” 5, p. 791 f.

[1419] Ib., p. 792.

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

[1421] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 614.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1437] “Werke,” ib., p. 329.

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

[1439] Ib., p. 328.

[1440] Paulus, p. 5 ff.

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

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

[1443] Paulus, ib., p. 61, n. 2.

[1444] Ib., p. 61 f.

[1445] Ib., p. 60, n. 6.

[1446] “Corp. ref.,” 6, p. 58 sq.

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

[1448] Ib., p. 329* ff.

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

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

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

[1452] Ib., Preface.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1462] Ib., 21, p. 380.*

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

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

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

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

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

[1468] Above, p. 29.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1477] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 121.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1487] Ib., p. 27 ff.=2 ff.

[1488] Ib., p. 27=3.

[1489] Ib., 33, p. 630=48, p. 361.

[1490] Ib., p. 634 f.=365.

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

[1492] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 54.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1503] Ib., p. 684=54.

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

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

[1506] Ib.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1515] “De Actis,” etc., p. 318.

[1516] Preface.

[1517] Ib.

[1518] “De Actis,” p. 317.

[1519] “De Actis,” p. 318.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1526] “Corp. ref.,” 8, p. 798.

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

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

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

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

[1531] Janssen, ib., 8, 175.

[1532] Janssen, ib., p. 176.

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

“Esset ut hæc sanctæ doctrinæ strenue custos
Condidit ad Salæ pulcra fluenta scholam
Quæ tumidos docto confunderet ore sophistas,
Nec sineret falsis dogmata vera premi,
Sed quia mox ætas mundi trahet ægra ruinam,
Pullulat errorum nunc numerosa seges, etc.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1541] Janssen, ib., p. 190.

[1542] Ib., p. 192.

[1543] Ib., p. 193.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1552] Ib., 4, p. 150. Janssen, ib., p. 419.

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

[1554] Janssen, ib., p. 414 f.

[1555] Ib., p. 415.

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

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

[1558] Above, p. 419.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1565] Grauert, ib., p. 37.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1572] Ib., 9, p. 1084, “Hyperaspistes,” 1, 1: “Quis enim est tam malus scriptor, ut non aliquid admisceat probandum.”

[1573] Ib., 10, col. 1251.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1590] Sess. 24, “De reform.,” c. 4.

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

[1592] Janssen, ib., p. 58 ff.

[1593] Janssen, ib., p. 129.

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

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

[1596] Cp. Denifle, 1², p. 287 ff.

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

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

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

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

[1601] “Lehrb. der DG.,” 3⁴, p. 810.

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

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

[1604] Stephan, ib., pp. 17, 34, 67.

[1605] Schmidlin, ib., col. 445.

[1606] Stephan, ib., p. 126.

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

[1608] Stephan, ib., pp. 15, 18, 22.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1619] Stephan, ib., p. 34.

[1620] Ib., pp. 35-38, 43.

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

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

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

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

[1625] Stephan, ib., p. 54.

[1626] Ib., p. 46.

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

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

[1629] Stephan’s words, ib., p. 59.

[1630] Ib., p. 74; cp. ib., p. 72, Lessing’s high opinion of Luther.

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

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

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

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

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

[1636] “Luthers Leben,” 1, p. xiii.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1647] Stephan, ib., p. 69.

[1648] Ib., p. 110 ff.

[1649] Boehmer, ib., p. 120.

[1650] Ib., 2nd ed., p. 140.

[1651] Ib., 2nd ed., p. 153.

[1652] Boehmer, ib., p. 153.

[1653] Stephan, ib., p. 93.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1660] Ib., p. 10.

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

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

INDEX

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

Transcriber’s Note: All six volumes of this work are available on Project Gutenberg, but this index only links to page references within the current volume.

Abailard, i. 401
Abbots, Prince-, ii. 120, iii. 262 f.
Abel, i. 43
Abortions.
See Misbirths

Abraham, iv. 109, 111, 156, v. 124, 413, vi. 74;

“I am A.,” iii. 273;
his “lie,” iv. 109, 113, v. 501, vi. 514;
his idolatry, iii. 192, v. 124
Absolution.
See Confession
Abstinence.
See Fasts

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

Abusive language, i. 69, 72, 83, 209 f., 284, ii. 152 ff., 396, iii. 172, iv. 188 f., 192, 300, 306-326, 365, 370, v. 88, 116, 342, 383 f., 395, 398 f., 411 f., vi. 109, 214 f.;
shocks Bullinger, v. 409;
Melanchthon, iii. 364 f.;
Zwingli, iii. 380.
See Unseemliness
Acceptation, i. 155.
See Imputation
Accolti, P., ii. 46
Acta Augustana, i. 359
Activity.
See Work
Actual sin.
See Sin
Actus matrimonialis, iv. 137, 151 f., v. 48
Adam, ii. 271, 282 f.
⸺ Melchior, v. 271 f.
Adiaphora, v. 263, vi. 410 ff.
Adrian.
See Hadrian
Adulteration of wine, iii. 297, 313

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

Ægidius Romanus, i. 13, 129
⸺ Viterbiensis, vi. 497, 503
Æpinus, J., vi. 82, 408
Æsop’s Fables, iv. 246, vi. 16 ff., 368 f.;
“A New F.,” iv. 177
Agnus Dei, iv. 123
Agonies.
See Temptations
Agony in the Garden, v. 363
Agricola, George, ii. 242, iii. 304
⸺ Johann, as L.’s helper, v. 181, 563, n.;
against L., ii. 370, iii. 301 f., iv. 100, 309, vi. 280 f.;

L. on A., iii. 219, 278, 400, 407, 475, v. 15, 25, 238, 276, vi. 281, 289, 343, 354, 398;
and Bugenhagen, v. 275;
and Bora, iii. 216, v. 21;
and Jonas, iii. 414;
and Melanchthon, iii. 444, v. 22.
See Antinomians
⸺ Stephen, iv. 514
⸺ Wolfgang, iii. 284 ff.

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

Ailments:

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

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

Albert of Brandenburg, v. 220

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

⸺ Mayence; concern in the Indulgence, i. 328, 348 ff.;

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

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

Albertinus, Æ., v. 271, vi. 382, n.
Albertus, L., iv. 226
⸺ Magnus, i. 162
Albrecht, B., v. 295
Alderspach, vi. 29 f.

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

Alemann, A., ii. 139, 141
Alexander III, iv. 109 f., v. 424, vi. 494
⸺ VI, i. 55, iv. 90 (cp. correction, vi. 516)
⸺ of Hales, i. 162, vi. 503
Alfeld.
See Alveld
Allstedt, ii. 364, iv. 172
Alms.
See Poor-Relief
Altenburg, ii. 314 ff., vi. 49, 52, 240

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

Ambiguity.
See Dishonesty
Ambrose, St., iii. 250, iv. 335, v. 586;
pseudo-, iv. 174 f., 177
Amen, L.’s use of the word, vi. 511.
See Pope-Ass
Amerbach, B. and V., iv. 183, 364, vi. 170
America, vi. 515

Amsdorf, N., as L.’s henchman, i. 39, 91, 278, 304, 311, ii. 169, iii. 405;
against good works, iv. 475, vi. 392;
matrimonial agent, ii. 137, 139;
dealings with spirits, v. 282, 315 f.;
“consecration,” v. 191 ff.;
edits L.’s works, ii. 55;
coarseness, iii. 336;
quarrels, vi. 409 ff.;
and Agricola, v. 20;
and Erasmus, iv. 181 f.;
and Melanchthon, iii. 366, v. 257;
ejected from his bishopric, vi. 408
Anabaptists:
their rise, iii. 418 f.;
effect on L., ii, 93, vi. 75 f., 86, 312;

Melanchthon denies their existence, iii. 374, iv. 113;

L. attacks them, ii. 363 ff., iii. 419;
appeals to tradition, iv. 488;
condemns them to death, ii. 365 f., v. 349, vi. 249, 275;
their strictures on L., ii. 130, 367 f., 377, iii. 275.

See Fanatics, Münzer
Andreæ, J., iv. 200, vi. 275, 419, 421, 424
Angels, v. 381, 395, vi. 127 f., 131;

A. guardian, i. 19, v. 279 f., 297, 309, 327, vi. 374;
visions of A.
See Ghosts
Anger.
See Passion
Anhalt, Adolf of, i. 22
⸺ Johann, vi, 226.
See Wolfgang, etc.
Anne, devotion to St., i. 4, iv. 140, vi. 223
Anointing, Last, iii. 7, vi. 410

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

See Pope

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

See Agricola
Antwerp, ii. 167, v. 172, vi. 43
Apel, J., ii. 174, 183
Apocalypse, v. 521 f.

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

Apocrypha, v. 497, 521 f.
See Bible (Canon)
Apostasy, i. 62 ff., 120 f., 258 f., 385 ff.;
concealment of, i. 146 ff., ii. 15 ff.;
later description of, vi. 187-205

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

Apostles described, iii. 191 f., v. 124;
L.’s belief about them, vi. 515
Apothecaries, i. 245, v. 235.
See Landau
Apparitions.
See Ghosts
Appeal to Pope, i. 258;
to Council, i. 356, 359, iii. 432 f., 443, v. 376 f.

Appearance of L., i. 279, ii. 157 ff., iii. 428 f., iv. 230.

See Dress, Eyes, Portrait
Apriolus.
See Eberlin
Aquila, C., iii. 366, vi. 410

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

Arcimboldi, i. 344, 352

Argula, ii. 173

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

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

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

Arnoldi, B.

See Usingen

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

Arnstadt, iv. 15, vi. 139

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

Asceticism, v. 87.

See Mortification

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

See Superstition

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

Attrition, i. 292 ff.

See Contrition.

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

Confession, ii. 384, iii. 329 ff., vi. 281

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

Augustine, St., i. 12, 23 f., 76 f., 90 f., 92, 204, 210 f., 250, 305 f., 400 f., ii. 225 f., 233 f., iv. 108 ff., 331, 335, 439 f.;
pseudo-A., i. 311 f., vi. 501, 515;

L. and Melanchthon disagree with A., iii. 333, vi. 336;
on works, iv. 457-464

Augustinians, i. 4 f., 9 f., 28 f., 68, 81 f., 147, 262 ff., 297 ff., 315 f., ii. 89, 334, 337; vi. 473 f., 498-504;

Rule of, vi. 202 f.;
and Dominicans, i. 105

Aurifaber, J., i. 184, ii. 289, iii. 218, 224, 230, 239, iv. 269, v. 30, vi. 372, 387, 391, 410 f., 416, 423

Aurogallus, M., v. 496 f., 499

Authority, ecclesiastical, ii. 31, 73, 74 f., vi. 163 f.;
secular A., ii. 294-312;
“A.” instead of State, v. 584;
L.’s changes of view about, ii. 196-211, 346;
contradictions, v. 601;
has nothing to do with the Church, v. 55;
yet must uphold Lutheranism, v. 56.
See Freedom
Babel, ii. 34, v. 171, vi. 315
Babylon, Roman, ii. 13, 19 f., 56

Babylonian captivity, ii. 20, 27, 37, iii. 146, 407, iv. 510, vi. 302

Bachmann, P., iii. 63, iv. 100, 352 f., v. 123

Bachofen, Fr., vi. 493
Backsliding, i. 289
Balaam, iv. 337
Balduin, F., v. 295
Bamberger, P., ii. 345
Banishment.
See Intolerance

Baptism, infant, ii. 97, 372 f., iii. 277, 391, 395, 421, iv. 487 ff., v. 292, 462, vi. 166;
of Jews, v. 412 f.;
is a sacrament, ii. 27;
mark of the Church, vi. 294;
B. and original sin, v. 451;
optional?, iii. 11, iv. 488 ff.;
works through faith, i. 364, iv. 486 f., vi. 310;
lost by L., vi. 197

Barnes, R., iii. 260, 428, iv. 3 f., 8, 11 ff., vi. 488, 492

Barnim XI, Duke, vi. 61
Baronius, C., vi. 437
Basle, ii. 422, vi. 38, 272

Baumgärtner, H., ii. 138 f., iii. 327, 337, iv. 222

Bawdy houses.

See Brothels

Beer, ii. 22, iii. 208 f., 219, 294 ff., 304, 306 f., 313 ff., 317, v. 354, 364, vi. 373

Beger, L., iv. 71

Beggars, v. 562, vi. 42 ff., 55.

See Mendicancy

Beier.

See Beyer

Belief.

See Faith

Bellarmin, i. 91, vi. 294, 323, 384 f.

Beltzius, iv. 219 ff.

Benevolence.

See Generosity, Poor-relief, Students

Bennet, iv. 7

Benno, St., v. 123 ff., vi. 243 f.

Bergen, Book of, vi. 419

Berlepsch (Berlips), ii. 95, vi. 124 f.

Bernard, St., i. 18, 84, 88, 181, 243, iii. 176, v. 91;
his “perdite vixi,” iv. 88 f.
⸺ the Jew, iii. 301
Berndt, A., iii. 216
Bernhardi, B., i. 65, 310 ff.
Berthold of Chiemsee, iv. 356
⸺ Ratisbon, v. 77
Besler, iv. 221
Besold, H., iii. 218, 221, vi. 360
Beyer, C., iv. 282, vi. 358 f.

⸺ L., i. 66, 316 ff., 334, iv. 222, v. 353, vi. 263

⸺ M., iv. 43

Beza, T., 278

Bible, olden editions and translations, i. 14, 28, v. 542 ff.;
looked down upon by Nominalists, i. 134 f.;
a “heretics’ book,” iv. 396;
“Bible, Bubble,” ii. 365, 370 f.;
Canon, iv. 400 ff., 505, v. 436 f., 521 ff.;
inspiration, iv. 398 ff., v. 437 f.;
interpretation, ii. 235 ff., iv. 387-431;
see Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, etc.;
L.’s translations, iv. 242 f., v. 494-546;
Revised B., v. 523 ff.;
“B. alone,” iv. 387-405;
Lutherans’ use of the B., vi. 431 f.;
the “paper idol,” vi. 271.
See Word
Bibliander, v. 421
Bibra, L. von, i. 334
Bidembach (brothers), iv. 221

Biel, G., i. 13, 91, 125, 132, 135, 140 ff., 151, 224, 243, 311, 345, iv. 119, 440, 508, 516 f., vi. 433, 514 f.

Bigamy, ii. 33.
See Henry VIII, Philip II, Leprosy
Billicanus, i. 316, iii. 447
Bing, S., iv. 15

Bishops, Catholic, i. 46 ff., 224 f., 281, ii. 28, 101, 103, 114, 193, 210 f., 301, 387 f., iii. 440, v. 101, vi. 324, 404, 493;

Lutheran, iii. 428, iv. 126, v. 191, n., 602, vi. 315, 356;

L.’s offer to the B., iii. 330, 337 f., 343, 439 f., v. 190-198, 329, 386, 601, vi. 239;
only B. are forbidden to have several wives, iv. 28

Blasphemy, utterances savouring of, iv. 292, 344, v. 198, 233, 310, n., 407;

B. to be punished by death, iii. 71, 358, iv. 266, vi. 259.

See Idolatry, Temptations

Blaurer (brothers), i. xvii, ii. 153, 155, 157, iii. 304, 433, iv. 6, 116, 196 f., 323, vi. 278

Bock, H., vi. 265, 313
Bohemian Brethren, ii. 25, iii. 152, vi. 316
Bolsec, J., vi. 385
Bomhauer, i. 244

Bonaventure, St., i. 84, 181 f., 346, iii. 176, 261

Boniface VIII, i. 339, v. 584
Bonn, H., v. 166
Books, on forbidden, ii. 58 f.

Bora, Cath. von, flight from nunnery and marriage, ii. 135, 138, 141, 173-188;
brews the beer, iii. 313;
“too rude,” ii. 379, iii. 229, v. 83;
“go back to the convent,” iii. 268;
gifts from sovereigns, ii. 139, iv. 8, 26;
after L.’s death, vi. 346;
and Agricola, iii. 216, v. 21;
and Cruciger, vi. 359;
in Letters, iv. 281 f., v. 199, 308 f., vi. 369, 372 f.;

Legends, iii. 281 f., v. 372;
and Melanchthon’s wife, iii. 365.
See Will, L.’s last
Borner, C., ii. 258
Bose, M. A. J., v. 271
Bossuet, iv. 71
Bozius, T., vi. 381
Brandenburg, iv. 195, v. 408
Brant, S., iii. 152, v. 540
Braun, J., i. 15, 127, vi. 206

Brenz, J., i. 316, iii. 50, 405, iv. 5 f., 167, 459 f., vi. 257, 408, 482

Brethren of the Common Life, i. 5, 46, vi. 35

Breviary, i. 127, 225, 269, 275-279, ii. 126, iii. 114, v. 316, vi. 200 f.

Briesmann, J., iv. 155, v. 152

Brothels, ii. 359, iii. 122, 227 f., iv. 176, 229.

See Prostitutes

Brück, C., vi. 40 f.

⸺ G., iii. 87, 123, 216, iv. 36, 40, 44, v. 197, 201, 385, 590, vi. 372, 385 f.

Brulefer, S., iv. 120

Brunswick, ii. 215, iii. 408, v. 167, 217, 394 f., vi. 35, 276 f.

Bucer, M., joins L., i. 316;
disagrees with L., iv. 99 f., v. 237, vi. 354;
denies sacramental presence, iii. 354, iv. 498, v. 268;
shocked at L.’s language, ii. 155, iii. 417, iv. 326;
intolerance, vi. 271, 277 f.;
in favour of a Protestant Council, v. 176;
serves Landgrave Philip as adviser in the bigamy, iv. 15-62;
suggests a lie, iv. 114;
at Cologne, v. 166;
at Strasburg, vi. 46;
agrees with Calvin, v. 399 f.;
against Schnepf, iv. 198;
allows 12% interest, vi. 98;
a mediator, iii. 383, 417, 420 ff., 446 f., v. 172

Buchholzer, G., v. 313

Buchner, A., vi. 392

Bugenhagen, J., friendship with L., iii. 404-413, 432, v. 22, 173, 175, 262, 328, 335, n., vi. 326, 347, 364;
at L.’s wedding, ii. 174;
untruthfulness, iii. 74;
coarseness, iii. 178, 229 f., v. 304;
“cardinal,” iii. 427;
“ordains” pastors, vi. 265, 313 f.;
disagreement with L., iv. 239, vi. 353;
parish-priest of Wittenberg, ii. 174, iv. 231, 273, v. 136;

L.’s confessor, iii. 437, iv. 249, v. 333, vi. 103;
panegyric on L., vi. 387 f., 443;
intolerance, vi. 273;
is called a Papist, vi. 410;
literary work, ii. 118, 399, v. 489, 499; vi. 438, 476;
missionary work, ii. 323, v. 167, 217;
poor-relief, vi. 57 f.
Bullinger, H., his intolerance, vi. 271, 278;
indignant with L., iii. 277, 417, iv. 325, v. 115, 409;
on L. as translator, v. 520, 523;
on the bigamy, iv. 10, n., 43, 68
Burer, A., ii. 157, iv. 269
Burgos, P. of, i. 243, 401, v. 411
Burkhard, iv. 11
Burning of the Bull, ii. 51, 54, vi. 381
Büttner, W., v. 295
Butz, P., vi. 271
Cahera, G., ii. 112

Cajetan, Cardinal, 340 f., 344, 357, 384, iv. 86, 302, vi. 487;
on polygamy, iii. 261
Calculus.
See Ailments
Calixt, G., iv. 310
Calixtines, ii. 112
Call.
See Mission
Calovius, A., iii. 138
Calumnies:

on olden Church, i. 79, 271, 283, 394, iv. 80-98, 102 f., 117-134, v. 485, vi. 199;
on the Popes, iv. 90 f. [amend according to vi. 516];
on Erasmus, ii. 251, 294, iii. 135;
on others, iv. 86, v. 106 f.
Calvin, relations with L., v. 399-402;
as an organiser, iv. 280, n.;
“agonies,” v. 75;
predestinarianism, ii. 268, 271, iii. 189, 350;
vocation, iii. 140, n.;
intolerance, iii. 258;
on the Supper, iii. 354, 446 ff., v. 264;
end justifies the means, iv. 111, n.;
at Geneva, vi. 488, 490, 492;
Calvinism, vi. 414

Camerarius, J., relations with L., ii. 256, iv. 220 f., vi. 348;
with Melanchthon, ii. 145 ff., iii. 357, 364, iv. 61 f., 209, vi. 6, 37;
as editor, ii. 176 ff., 180

Campanus, J., ii. 376, 378, 398, iii. 403, vi. 251, 284

Campeggio, L., ii. 380, 392, iii. 334 ff.

Candles, ii. 321, v. 147, 282, vi. 410

Canisius, P., ii. 253, iii. 238, 376, iv. 385 f., v. 264, 296 f., vi. 323, 384, 427 ff., 434, 437

Canon.

See Bible, Mass

Canon Law, i. 227, v. 183, 601, vi. 21, 188 f.

See Lawyers
Canonisation, v. 122 f.
Canus, M., vi. 323
Capella, Galeatius, vi. 491
Capito, W., relations with L., ii. 6 f.;
against L., ii. 242, iv. 99, vi. 280;
on bigamy, iv. 6, 10, n.;
intolerance, vi. 277 f.;
despair, iv. 220;
dishonesty, iv. 115;
relief of poor, vi. 46
Caraccioli, M., ii. 6
Caraffa, vi. 488
Cardinals, iii. 427 f., 443, n., v. 108 f.
Caricatures, in the German Bible, v. 528;
in “Popery Pictured,” in “Das Bapstum mit seinen Gliedern,” in the “Passional Christi et Antichristi,” v. 421-426

Carlowitz, iv. 69, v. 252

Carlstadt, A. B. von, friendship with L., i. 40, 304, 362 f.;
takes side of the Zwickau Prophets, ii. 97-100;
against L., iii. 183, iv. 336;
against images, v. 208;
Real Presence, iv. 493;
sacraments, iv. 486;
saint-worship, ii. 345;
vows, ii. 83 f.;
on Epistle of James, v. 523;

L. against him, i. 14, 91, 97, 101, ii. 154, 166, 374, iii. 4, 121, 154, 177, 385-400, 409, 424, iv. 87, 308, v. 104, 399, vi. 280, 289. Cp. vi. p. 478

Carpi, A. P., ii. 256
Carpzov, B., v. 264, 295, vi. 443, n.
Carthusians, ii. 335.
See Lening
Casel, G., v. 127
Casimir of Brandenburg, v. 317
Cassian, iv. 110

Catechism, ii. 119, iv. 233 ff., v. 483-494, vi. 263, 433 ff.

Catharinus, A., ii. 57, iii. 142, 276, 279, 303, vi. 323

Catherine of Alexandria, St., iv. 246
⸺ Aragon, iv. 3
⸺ Bologna (and Genoa, SS.), i. 173
Catholic, L.’s Church C., ii. 108, iii. 368

Catholics, act against their conscience, iii. 90, vi. 284;
cannot pray, v. 88;
have a beam in their eye, vi. 332;
know L. to be in the right, ii. 70.
See Calumnies, Church, Intolerance
Cato, vi. 16, 18
Catullus, vi. 18

Celibacy, clergy’s disregard for the law, i. 50;
assailed by L., i. 120, 276, ii. 83-87, 115-129, iii. 246-251, 262, iv. 87, 147-150, v. 112.

See Marriage, Preachers, Vows
Celichius, A., iv. 223
Celtes, C., vi. 45
Centuriators, Magdeburg, vi. 313.
See Flacius

Certainty, need of, i. 308, ii. 368, iii. 9, 47 f., 112, 140-141, notes, 146, 159, iv. 440 ff., v. 25-43, 323, vi. 283 ff., 302;
our lack of C., i. 95, 97, 207 ff.

Chalice, ii. 99, 110, 321, iii. 10, 371, v. 216

Chamberlain, Houston Stewart, vi. 459 f.
Chancery, German, iv. 244
Changelings, v. 292, vi. 140;
L. a C.?, iv. 358
Charity.
See Love of God and Poor-relief

Charles V, L. to, or on, C., ii. 20, 69, iii. 105, n., iv. 270;
at Worms, ii. 61 ff.;
against L., i. 340, ii. 79;
and Erasmus, ii. 256;
Hermann von Wied, v. 166;
Josel of Rosheim, v. 409;
Landgrave Philip, iv. 21 f., 68, v. 396;
the Schmalkalden League, iii. 430;
the Council, iii. 424 f., v. 380;
the Turks, iii. 88 f.
See also Appendix I passim

Chastity, Catholic teaching and practice, ii. 120 f., 128 f., iv. 133, 135, 138;
in L.’s view, i. 259, 362, iii. 243 f., iv. 147 f., 473 f., vi. 404;

L.’s C., i. 7, 19;

Melanchthon on C., iii. 325;
temptations against, i. 287, ii. 86, 161, n., vi. 118 f.

See Celibacy

Chemnitz, M., vi. 313, 415, 419, 443, n.

Children, L.’s, iii. 215 f., 232, 280 f., 428, iv. 265, v. 108, 226, 230, vi. 31, 373, 378 f.

See Luther (Hans, etc.)
Chrism, iv. 519, v. 101, 195
Christ, Divinity of, iv. 238 ff., v. 412;
almost forgotten, ii. 245;
darkened by Aristotle, i. 137;
formerly unknown, i. 135, 282, 320, ii. 92;
known only as the Judge, i. 391, ii. 281, iv. 103;
who did not die for our sins, vi. 245, 260;
the “weak” C., ii. 385, iii. 191, v. 227;

His Body omnipresent, iii. 396, iv. 495 f., vi. 253 f., 414 f.;
sole content of Scripture, v. 541;
His preaching in Hell, v. 48;
His “lie,” vi. 514;
“C. our hen,” i. 80, vi. 372, 501 f.
See Faith

Christian III of Denmark, ii. 139, iii. 413, iv. 75

Christians, L.’s title for his followers, ii. 108, 345, v. 172, 518;
what C. must do, iii. 52, 60, 69, 79, 81, v. 44 f., vi. 80, n.;
need no divine worship, vi. 147 f.;
nor government, v. 572 f.;
they are few, iii. 24 f., vi. 292 f.

See Church-Apart, Evangelicals, Temptations, Worship

Christina, Landgravine, iv. 14, 18 f., 24, 69
Chronology of the world, iii. 147, vi. 349
Chrysostom, St. J., i. 243, iv. 335
Church, iii. 22-38, vi. 290-340;
to be esteemed, i. 223 ff., 337, iv. 406, 410, 488;

L.’s view connected with Wiclif’s and Hus’s?, i. 106, vi. 299;
visibility, ii. 304, iii. 28;
criticised by moderns, v. 465 ff.;
my Churches, v. 173, vi. 314, 356;
marks of the C., vi. 293-297, 327;

Church-Apart of the true Believers, ii. 104, 111, 304, ii. 25 f., v. 133-140;

Church property, ii. 318, 327, iii. 33-38, 68, 234, 440, v. 203 ff., vi. 51, 61.

See Infallibility
Chytræus, iv. 461, vi. 419
Cicero, i. 8, vi. 17, 376
Circumcision, iii. 256
Cistercians.
See Mayer

Civilisation, L. founder of modern, vi. 457 ff.

Claius, J., v. 505, vi. 443
Clandestinity.
See Marriage
Classics, vi. 16 f.
Clavasio, A. de, ii. 51
Clémanges, N. of, i. 50
Clement IV, iv. 89, v. 424
⸺ VI, i. 134
⸺ VII, ii. 392, iii. 424 f., iv. 6

Clergy, i. 46-53, 57, 283 f., iv. 127 ff., 169 f., v. 485

Cleve, W. von, v. 396

Clichtoveus, J., iv. 152, n., 353, n., vi. 437

Cloaca, i. 393, vi. 504-510
Clothes.
See Dress
Coarseness.
See Unseemliness

Coburg, ii. 95, 384 ff., 389 ff., iii. 87 f., 123, 175, 299, iv. 313, v. 98, 117, 346, 497, vi. 106, 512

Cochlæus, with Luther at Worms, ii. 65, vi. 135, 143 f.;
on L., i. 17, 24, 30, iii. 303, iv. 92, 354, 358, vi. 431;

L. on C., v. 182, 303;

C. on Melanchthon, v. 267;
literary work, ii. 196, 212, iii. 63, 86, 276, n., iv. 380 ff., 522, v. 591, vi. 405 ff.;
language, ii. 150;
and the Jesuits, vi. 428, n.;
death, vi. 384
Cœlestinus, J. F., vi. 415
Cœlius, M., vi. 132, 374, 377 ff., 387 f.
Coler, M., vi. 255
Cologne, i. 42, v. 166, 233;
L. at C., iv. 171, n.;
Book of Reform, iii. 354, 447
Combats, spiritual.
See Temptations

Commandments, Ten, “unknown to Catholics,” vi. 200;
in L.’s Catechism, v. 485;
a bad law, i. 313;
not to be dwelt on, iii. 175, 226, 394, v. 454;
sermons on the, i. 361;
C. do not justify, i. 43;
need not be kept, ii. 28 f., iv. 454;
indeed cannot, i. 100, 144, 189, 207, 339;
hurtful to salvation, i. 317;
their object, i. 287 f., ii. 271 f.;
C. of the Church, v. 46, 246, vi. 316;

L.’s unwillingness to impose C. and precepts, v. 85 f., 139, 142, 147, 179, 484.

See Counsels
Commerce.
See Merchants

Communicatio idiomatum, iv. 240, v. 456, vi. 420

Communion, under both kinds, ii. 99, 321, iii. 10, 330, 335, iv. 525, vi. 279, n.;
of the sick, v. 464.
See Eucharist, Mass, Supper
Compostella, iv. 105, vi. 405

Concords (various Protestant), iii. 330 f., 421 f., 434, 436, 441, 447, v. 176, 259, vi. 412, 419-423

Concubinage, among the German clergy, i. 50 f.;
recommended by L. to the members of the Teutonic Order, iii. 262 f.;
the Landgrave’s “concubine,” iv. 28, 40, 52
Concupiscence, i. 141, 207 ff.;
all-powerful, i. 73 f., 110-117;
destroys freedom, ii. 278 f.;
is a sin, i. 99, 203, 210, ii. 150, vi. 365;
identical with original sin, i. 98
Concurrence, Divine, i. 144, 153 f., ii. 233

Conduct, L.’s safe, i. 334, ii. 62, 66 ff., 69, 367, iv. 85, vi. 188

Confession, i. 10, 99, 208 ff., 290-296, 250, 380, n., 384 f., ii. 59 f., 99, iii. 10, 210, 324, 410, 421, 437, iv. 21, 30-39, 248-256, v. 74, 315, 320, vi. 340, 374, 496 f.

See Penance

Confirmation, vi. 410

Congregational Churches, ii. 98-114, iii. 22-43

Conjugal due, rendering the, a sin, iv. 152.
See Marriage
Conradin, iv. 89, v. 424
Consanguinity, iv. 156 f.
Conscience, iv. 56 f.;
the only true C. is that which agrees with L.’s, v. 66-78;
all the Lutheran’s troubles of C. must be from the devil, v. 328 ff., 339, 355 f.;
struggles of C., see Temptations;
freedom of C., see Intolerance;
see also Synteresis
Consecration.
See Ordination

Consistories, iii. 29, v. 179-185, 601 f., vi. 314, 356

Constance, Council of, i. 364, ii. 232, iii. 426, iv. 287

Constantine, ii. 309, iii. 71, v. 229, 594;
Donation of C., iii. 145, vi. 489
Constipation.
See Ailments

Consubstantiation, i. 162, ii. 320, iii. 380, iv. 495 f., v. 463, vi. 415

Contarini, C., ii. 78, iii. 429, iv. 69, 359, vi. 488

Contelori, F., i. 354
Contingent things, i. 193.
See Necessity

Contradictions: the Schoolmen admitted grace, and didn’t, i. 150;
the monks were, and were not, zealous, i. 271;
death was a reason why L. should, and should not, marry, ii. 181;
the Bible errs, and does not, iv. 418;

God is, and is not, author of evil, ii. 281 f.;
hell can, and can’t, be escaped by those predestined, i. 192;
works are, and are not, called for, i. 255, iv. 447, v. 454 f.;

Scripture is, and is not, sole rule of faith, iv. 415 ff.;

God alone does all, i. 255;
yet man must prepare for Grace, i. 213;
freedom of judgment and yet binding creeds, iii. 3;
continence possible, and impossible, iii. 243 f.;
repentance out of fear, good, and yet evil, i. 293;
armed resistance lawful, and not lawful, v. 55 f., 58 f.;

Church has, and has not, any power of her own, ii. 295 ff., v. 597 ff., vi. 329;
for money lent money may, and may not, be taken, vi. 91 f.;
on the Eucharist, v. 464.

See Councils, Opposition

Contrition, not necessary for justification, iv. 433 f. (but cp. iv. 438 f. and v. 15);
nor for confession, iii. 210;
what C. is, i. 290-296, v. 12, 310, n.
Controversy.
See Polemics
Conventuals, vi. 498.
See Observantines
Conviction.
See Certainty
Copernicus, iii. 100, vi. 25
Copes.
See Vestments

Cordatus, C., i. xvii., 395, iii. 178 f., 218, 225, 228, 231, n., 294, 369, 371, 377, 414, 434, iv. 269, 461, vi. 391, 505 ff.

Cordus, E., ii. 125, 220, 256, 342, iv. 176, vi. 28

Corpulence, ii. 157, iii. 296, 309

Corvinus, A., iii. 218, iv. 14, 25, 28, 74, 184, vi. 487 f.

Coster, F., vi. 385

Cotta, K. and U., i. 5, iii. 288 f.

Councils, Œcumenical, L. appeals to one, i. 359;
cannot err, i. 339;
can err, i. 364, v. 378, vi. 299;
a “Christian” C., ii. 50;

Rome’s efforts to assemble a Council, iii. 424-429;
a free German C., v. 379;
the projected Protestant Council, iii. 432 f., 441, v. 170, 175-179, vi. 424.

See Constance, Trent, etc.

Counsels, Evangelical, vi. 89;
are really commands, ii. 166, 299, v. 46 ff., 56-60, vi. 80, n., 89;
with the exception of chastity, ii. 166.
See Law
Courage, ii. 27, 76 f., 367, v. 131
Craco, C., vi. 415, 417

Cranach, Lucas (the Elder and Younger), ii. 158 f., 174, iii. 300, v. 224, 422 f., 425, 429, 495 f., 498, 519, 528

Cranmer, iv. 10, n.
Creed, iv. 415, 483, v. 360, 473, 485 f., 554
Cricius, A., iii. 370

Critical acumen, i. 90 f., 181, 282 f., 311 f., iv. 174 f., 177, 246, v. 153, 474, 522, vi. 335.

See Apocrypha

Cromwell, iv. 12

Cronberg, H. von, ii. 325 f.

Cross, sign of the, iii. 83, 435;
mystic particles of the C., i. 88.

See Crucifix, Theology of the C.

Crotus Rubeanus, i. 4 f., 7, 403, ii. 3 f., 62, 256, iii. 403, vi. 28, 31

Crucifix, iii. 84, 132, v. 212, vi. 197, 225, 335;
taken to bed by nuns, iv. 106

Cruciger, C., iii. 171, 371, 377, 433 f., iv. 194, 299, v. 22, 237, 262, 270 f., 499, vi. 5, 346, 359, 364, 417

Crusades, iii. 81, 83
Cryptocalvinism, vi. 414-423
Culsamer, J., ii. 344
Curæus, J., vi. 417
Curia, iii. 128.
See Rome
Curses, i. 209, ii. 13, iv. 295-305.
See Maledictory prayer
Cusa, N. of, i. 50
Cyprian, i. 243, iii. 250, vi. 339

Daniel, ii. 57, iii. 84, 141 f., 148, iv. 134, 315

Dantiscus, iv. 274, n., 357
Dantzig, v. 216
David, v. 300, 579 f., vi. 253
Day, The.
See Last Day
Deacons, Lutheran, vi. 57, 265
Death, vi. 376-386;
Italian pamphlet on L.’s death, vi. 371;
L.’s wish to die, vi. 107, 341;
best d. for Pope and his cardinals, v. 383 f.
See Opponents
Decalogue.
See Commandments
Deceit.
See Dishonesty
Decretals, i. 367, ii. 51, iv. 303, vi. 338

Defiance, ii. 52, iii. 21, 394, iv. 317, 416, 511, v. 369, vi. 168 f., 318, 396-403

Degree, academical, i. 21, 58, 127 ff., 285, ii. 130, 362, vi. 466.

See Doctorate

Demonology, ii. 389 f., v. 275-305, 427, vi. 111

Denmark, ii. 323, iii. 412 f., vi. 247, 273
Depression.
See Pessimism

Desertion, ground for divorce, iii. 252 ff., 257

Despair, L.’s reason for becoming a monk, i. 4, vi. 224;
necessary, i. 191.
See Fear, Temptations
Dessau, League of, ii. 213

Determinism, i. 116, 183, n., ii. 227, 241, 266, 284, 288

Dettigkofer, D., iv. 75
Deuterocanonical Books.
See Apocrypha
Devils, v. 275-305, vi. 122-140;
white d., ii. 348;
attend L.’s funeral, vi. 385;

“as many devils as tiles on the roofs,” ii. 62, 367;

Devil holds the Jews captive, v. 406 f.;
is a poisoner, v. 235;
a good dialectician, ii. 379;
kidnaps people, vi. 383;
lives in the water, vi. 372;
L.’s vocation, from the d.? i. 16, ii. 86;
cause of L.’s ailments, iii. 317 f., vi. 111;
sorely wounded by L., iii. 122;
the d. as L.’s father, iv. 358;
the d.’s embassy, v. 98, n.
See Exorcism, Ghosts, Possession, Satan
Didymus Faventinus, vi. 26
Diet, L’.s, iii. 211, 305, 309 f., 317 f.

Dietenberger, J., ii. 222, iv. 101, 355, 383, v. 520

Dietrich, V. (Theodoricus Vitus), iii. 58, 216, 218, 317, iv. 12, 180, vi. 130, 250, 391, 505 ff.

Diller, M., vi. 275

Dionysius “the Areopagite,” i. 181

Diplomacy, i. 365, ii. 15, 21 f., 55, 58 f., 100, 109 f., 295 f., 302 f., 321, 365 f., iii. 331, n., iv. 6, 39, 97, n., vi. 325-340

Discipline, Church, i. 57, v. 388.

See Clergy and Preachers

Diseases.

See Ailments

Dishonesty, i. 335 f., ii. 15-25, 49, 385 ff., 392, iv. 41, v. 111, 537 f.

See Gospel-proviso, Lies

Dispensations, Papal, i. 271, iv. 3, 5, 18, 20, 156, 319, vi. 497;

Luther’s, i. 9, 358, iv. 30, 38, n., vi. 500, 504

Disputations, i. 310-320, 362-365, vi. 21;
early disputatiousness, i. 58 ff.

Distractions, need of, iii. 179, v. 353 f.

Divorce, ii. 33, 149, iii. 252-258, iv. 3-13, 156 ff.

See Pauline privilege

Doctor, Doctorate, i. 33, 38, 78, 281, ii. 375, iii. 157 f., 297, 315 f., 320, 369 n., 391, iv. 227, 344, 346, v. 103 f., 304, 384, 510 n., vi. 375;

“A great Doctor,” i. 20, iii. 177, iv. 330.
See Degree
Doliatoris, J., ii. 339
Domestic life, iii. 215 ff., iv. 280 ff.
See Family

Dominicans, i. 39, 105, 163, 179, 337, 339, 370 f., ii. 12, iv. 383.

See Cajetan, Tetzel, etc.
Doubts, ii. 79 f., iii. 112, iv. 218-227.
See Temptations
Down-heartedness.
See Pessimism
Draco, J., ii. 124
Draconites, J., ii. 256
Dreams, v. 352, vi. 149, 444

Dress, L.’s, i. 9, 276 f., 285 f., ii. 78, iii. 428, iv. 74

Dressel, M., i. 266 f.

Dringenberg, L., vi. 34

Drink, ii. 87, 94, 131, iii. 294-318.

See Beer, Wine

Dungersheim, i. 24, 26, 168, ii. 145 f., 186, iii. 275, iv. 335, vi. 101

Dürer, A., ii. 40-44, 127, 158, 244, n., iii. 137

Ear-discharge.
See Ailments
Eber, P., vi. 275, 410, 412
Eberbach, P.
See Petreius

Eberlin, J., ii. 124, 129, 162 ff., 189, 354 f., v. 215, vi. 62

Ebner, H., ii. 334

Ecclesiastes by the Grace of God, ii. 102, 345, iv. 329, vi. 400

Eck, J., relations with L., i. 262 ff., 313, iv. 388;
attacks L., i. 336, ii. 147, iv. 86, 101, 377 ff.;
literary work, iv. 457, 502, 513, v. 456, 520, vi. 87, 323;

L. on E., i. 179, 336, ii. 49, 51, 70, iii. 114, iv. 86, 182, 287, 301 f., 319, v. 110, 282, 473;

E. in Rome, ii. 45 f.;
E. and Emser, ii. 222;
and Pirkheimer, ii., 39;
and Melanchthon, iii. 446, v. 267;
his death, vi. 383
Eckhard, iii. 163
Eckhart, Master, i. 172
Economics.
See Usury
Edemberger, L., ii. 170
Education, L.’s, defects of, i. 126 ff.;
of children, i. 362, v. 280.
See Schools

Egranus, iii. 384 f., 402 f., iv. 360, v. 42, vi. 289

Ehem, C., vi. 271
Ehrhardt, J., vi. 78
Eilenburg, ii. 319

Eisenach, i. 5, ii. 68, iii. 288, 421, vi. 125, 276;

Conference, iv. 50-55

Eisleben, i. 5, 262, iii. 159, iv. 361, 497, v. 30 ff., vi. 5, 372 ff.

Election.
See Predestination, Vicar
Eleutherius, i. 314

Elevation of the Elements, iii. 393 f., iv. 195, n., 239 f., v. 153, 397, vi. 353

Elias, the New, ii. 129, 163 f., 189, iii. 141, 165, 322, iv. 348 f., v. 426, vi. 347, 391, 442

Elisabeth, Palsgravine, iv. 70
⸺ of Rochlitz, iv. 16, 24, 27, 201
Eliseus, his trick, iv. 113
Eloquence, iii. 103.
See Rhetoric
Emotion, value of, iii. 179
Emperor.
See Kaiser

Emser, H., relations with L., i. 8, 27, 371 ff.;
against L., i. 79, 346, 366, ii. 14, 220 ff., iii. 127, iv. 324, 354, 376;

L. against E., ii. 13, 51, iv. 182, 288, v. 307, 541, vi. 383, 512;
literary work, v. 123, 517, 519, 531;

E. and Melanchthon, vi. 26

End, justifies the means, ii. 156, iv. 110, n., vi. 92, 399;
of World.
See Last Day
Epicure, Epicureans, v. 116, 173
Epicureans.
See Erasmus, Papists, Rome
Epilepsy.
See Ailments
Episcopate.
See Bishops

Epistolæ obscurorum virorum, i. 6 f., 42, 91 f., ii. 3 f.

Epitaph, L.’s, ii. 159, vi. 377, 393
Equivocation, iv. 28 f., 51.
See Dishonesty
Erasmus, secularised, i. 36;
edition of New Testament, i. 242 f., v. 510, vi. 454, 467;

“Colloquia,” iii. 443 f., vi. 16, 38;
for L., i. xxx., ii. 3, 9;
alleged saying, vi. 390;
against L., ii. 126, 154, 242-294, iii. 173, iv. 179-186, 325, 353, v. 115 f., vi. 32, 36, 170, 429 f.;
on L.’s marriage, ii. 186;
blames L. for the Peasant War, ii. 212;

L. on E., i. 43, 92, ii. 219, 223, 267, iii. 135, 208, 403, iv. 91, 100 f., 287, 329, v. 456, vi. 397, 429 f.;

E. and Charles V, ii. 256;
and Dürer, ii. 41;
and Ferdinand I, ii. 249, vi. 429 f.;
and Duke George, ii. 246, 261;
and Melanchthon, iii. 320, 346, 366, 369, 376, 443 f., v. 268;
and Stadion, v. 273;
and Vives, vi. 44
Erbe, F., vi. 255

Erfurt, i. 3, 6, 21, 58 f., 263, 312, 363, ii, 62 f., 336-362, v. 213 ff., vi. 27 f., 326 f.

Ericeus, iii. 436, n.
Eschatology.
See Apocalyptics, Last Day
Eschwege, iv. 38
Esdras, ii. 235
Esther, iii. 253;
Book of E., v. 521
Ethics, iii. 200 f., v. 3-164, vi. 453;
in Occamism, i. 157.
See Works

Eucharist, iii. 380-384, 393 ff., 444 f., iv. 250 f., 492-499, v. 74, 149, 462-465;
is a sacrament, ii. 27;
to be adored, iv. 239 f., vi. 353;
not to be reserved, ii. 320 f., v. 222.

See Communion, Consubstantiation, Elevation, Mass, Supper, Zwinglians

Eusebius, v. 411
Eustochium, ii. 121, iii. 243
Eutychianism, v. 81
Evangel.
See Gospel

Evangelical Church Evangelicals, ii. 108, iii. 96, 301, iv. 21, 210, 311, v. 230.

See Christians

Exaggeration, i. 57, 124, 244, 283, iv. 343 f., vi. 22, 200, 216 f.

Excommunication, Church’s use of, against L., ii. 19 f., 45-52, 90;

L. against E., i. 24 f., 51 f., 54, 66, 337, 371, ii. 231 f., iii. 120, 146, iv. 85 f., 320, v. 122;

L.’s own use of E., ii. 335, iii. 324, iv. 209 f., 216 f., 245, v. 19, 139 f., 143, 148, 186 ff., 603, vi. 263, 293, 316

Exegesis.
See Bible interpretation
Exemption, i. 283.
See Dispensations
Exorcism, iii. 411, vi. 137-140
Expectants, iv. 339

Experience, inward, i. 159, 170, 241 f., 323, 377, 380, ii. 233, n., 277, iv. 391 ff., v. 7, 81, 161 f., vi. 127, 192, 234

Exsurge Domine, ii. 47
Extra ecclesiam.
See Salvation
Extreme Unction, iii. 7, vi. 410
Eyb, A. von, iv. 136

Eyes, L.’s., i. 86, 279, ii. 158 f., iv. 357 f.

Ezechiel, iii. 84, 88

Faber (J.) Stapulensis, i. 63, 92, 243, vi. 437

⸺ J., vi. 494

⸺ J., vi. 498

⸺ (or Fabri), J., of Vienna, ii. 135, iii. 194, 335, 416, iv. 302, 383, 514, v. 266, 529, vi. 323, 384, 516

⸺ P.
See Favre
Fabricius, J., iii. 292, vi. 443
⸺ T., vi. 494

Facienti quod est in se, etc., i. 144, 205, n.

Fainting-fits.

See Ailments

Faith, L. begins to make more of F. than of works, i. 72 f., 121, 133, 221;
what F. means to L., ii. 34, iii. 352 f., v. 38 ff., 444-449;
true F. is humility, i. 219, 252 f.;
it comprises the “fides historica,” i. 76, 377, iii. 14 f., 415, iv. 413 ff., 432 f.;
and all the elements of Christianity, ii. 72, iii. 13 f.;
such F. is either complete or non-existent, i. 253, iii. 384, 424, v. 398;

F. as a mere assent, iii. 18; iv. 432 f.;
articles of F., iv. 414 f.;
justification, due to Fiducial F., i. 377-400, iv. 431-449;
which is the one thing necessary, iii. 180-186;
and is produced by God alone, ii. 290, n.;
this F. is weak even in L. himself, iii. 201 ff., 415, iv. 275, 441 f., v. 74 f., 130, 357-368;
this F. is Saving F., i. 261, 385;
it includes the love of God, v. 41 f., 477 (but, cp. i. 308, also excludes it), yet is no “fides formata caritate” which is a “thing accursed,” i. 209, iii. 329, v. 12;

“by F. alone,” v. 515;
criticised by Schwenckfeld, v. 160 f.;
Rule of F., iv. 482 ff.;
“vera fides,” i. 170.
See Reason
False charges.
See Legends

Family, L.’s, iii, 42, iv. 232 f., v. 558 f., 561.

See Domestic life

Fanatics, origin, ii. 97 ff.;
they force L. to reconsider his theory of the worthlessness of works, iv. 474;
and to insist on the rights of the authorities, v. 569 f.;
why don’t they perform miracles? vi. 151 f.;

L.’s attack on them, ii. 167, 363-379.

See Anabaptists, Carlstadt, etc.

Farel, Guil., v. 167

Fasting, i. 227, 339, iii. 226 f., 309, 428, v. 87 ff., 355, vi. 321.

See Mortification, Penance
Fatalism, ii. 263.
See Pessimism
Fathers of the Church, iv. 410;
Erasmus’s work, ii. 243, 253;

L. demands a return to them, i. 138, 320 (See Augustine);
yet he dislikes their praise of chastity, ii. 120 f.;
their belief in free will, ii. 287;
and their ignorance of faith alone, iv. 335;
nevertheless they may be appealed to, iii. 380 f., iv. 409 f., 415, vi. 336.

See Tradition
Faust, Dr., v. 241
Favre, P., iv. 385 f., vi. 427 f.

Fear of God’s judgments, i. 125, 251, 294 f., 318, iv. 433, 455, 462, v. 22 f.

Feasts.

See Holidays

Feige, J., iv. 41, 54, 69, 113

Ferber, G., iii. 286 f.

Ferdinand I (Archduke, King and Kaiser), ii. 132, 215, 380, iii. 89, 276, 303, 437, iv. 162, 285, v. 404, vi. 480, 485, 487, 489

Ferinarius, J., v. 193
Ferreri, L., iii. 173 f., vi. 430
Festivals.
See Holidays
Finance, Papal, i. 51 f., 54, 347 ff.
Findling, J., iii. 171 f.
Fischart, v. 295
Fischer, C., vi. 61
⸺ J., vi. 265, 314

Fisher, Bp. of Rochester, iii. 70, 428, iv. 9, v. 110, vi. 246

Flacius Illyricus, ii. 361, iii. 446, iv. 514, v. 219, 263, 426, vi. 40, 207, 391 f., 407 ff., 412 f., 443, n.

Flasch, S., iv. 160
Fliesbach, C., vi. 61
Florence, hospitals, iv. 481;
tale, v. 318
Florentina, the runaway nun, iii. 159 f.
Fomes peccati.
See Concupiscence
Fontaine, S., vi. 385
Forchheim, ii. 345
Forgiveness of sins, i. 10;
a covering over, i. 99 f., v. 6 f.;
not an actual removal, i. 208, 210 f., iii. 182, v. 37;

St. Augustine’s view, iv. 462;
comes through faith in Christ, i. 115, iii. 183, 192 f.;
believer sins not in doing evil, i. 208, iii. 180 f.;
article of F. is fundamental, vi. 166, n.;
chief article of the creed, v. 95.
See Confession, Contrition, Faith, Sin
Formal principle.
See Bible alone
Forstemius, v. 500
Forster, vi. 271
Fortenagel, L., ii. 158
Fox, Bp. of Hereford, iv. 10

Franciscans, ii. 128, 254, iii. 166, 172, vi. 247

François I., ii, 168, iii. 424, iv. 69, 76, vi. 472, 480, 488, 490, 492

Frank, S., v. 83, 190, vi. 271, 289

Frankenhausen, ii. 365

Frankfurt on Main, iii. 71, v. 377, 400, vi, 35, 61

⸺ ⸺ Oder, vi. 29, 41
Franz, W., iv. 469
Frederick Barbarossa, v. 424, vi. 443, 494
⸺ II of Prussia, vi. 447 f.

⸺ the Wise of Saxony, his character, iv. 205 f.;
praised by L., ii. 7 f., 91, 101, iii. 167 f.;
his familiarity, v. 311;
passion for relics, i. 284 f., 327;
receives the Golden Rose, i. 365, n.;
L.’s strictures on F., i. 81;
F. protects L., i. 334, 340 f., 355, ii. 67;
restrains him, v. 587;
hinders his marriage?, ii. 183;
F. and Carlstadt, ii. 97 f.;
and Erasmus, ii. 246;
and Spalatin, ii. 23
⸺ III of the Palatinate, vi. 414, 420

Freedom of the Gospel, i. 229, 251, ii. 27 ff., 34, 84-87, 241, iii. 9, v. 476 f., vi. 447.

See Intolerance

⸺ ⸺ Will, i. 100, 204 ff., 207, 318 f., ii. 223-294, iii. 349 f.;
in Augustine, iv. 458 f.;
according to Calvin, v. 400 f.;

Melanchthon, iii. 346 ff., iv. 436, v. 258, vi. 152 f.;

Schwenckfeld, v. 159.
See Determinism
Free-thought, L. the herald of?, iii. 109
Friars.
See Monks
Friedrich, A., vi. 133
Fröschel, S., v. 188, 280, vi. 137
Fugger family, i. 328, 348 ff., 352, vi. 83
Funk, J., vi. 408
Furtenbach, B., vi. 82

Galatians, commentary on, i. 64, 66, 306-310, 386, v. 292

Gallicanism, i. 164
Gallows grief, i. 292.
See Fear of God’s judgments
Gallus, iv., vi. 410
Gangra, Council, vi. 489
Gantner, J., vi. 271
Gebhard of Mansfeld, iii. 64

Geiler of Kaysersberg, ii. 151, iv. 135, v. 290, vi. 46

Generosity, iv. 270 ff.
Genesis, commentary on, i. 395, iv. 14
Geneva, iii. 448.
See Calvin
George, “Junker,” ii. 81, 159

⸺ of Anhalt, iii. 215, v. 167, 192, vi. 347, 366

⸺ of Brandenburg, ii. 384, iii. 50, 62, 314, vi. 263

⸺ Saxony, iv. 187-193;
L.’s mystical advice to G., i. 228, 242;
preaches before him, i. 334, 369 f.;
at the Leipzig Disputation, i. 362 ff.;

L.’s rage with him, ii. 396 f., iii. 121, iv. 287, 302 f., vi. 243;

G. against L., ii. 395 f., iii. 275, iv. 101 f., 159, 192 f., 322, v. 171, vi. 400 f.;

G.’s severity to peccant clergy, iv. 158;
G. and Arnoldi, ii. 392;
and Erasmus, ii. 246, 261;
and the “Leipzig poets,” iv. 173 ff.;
and Wicel, iv. 362;
G.’s sons, iv. 163;
his death, iv. 27, 194, 302
Gerbel, N., ii. 83
Gerhard, J., iii. 138
Gerhoch of Reichersberg, v. 553
German, Council, v. 379, 382;
G. language a barbarous one, v. 497;

L.’s influence on G., iii. 103, v. 504-510, vi. 15, 416, 443;
makes unseemliness popular, iii. 239;

G. nationalism, i. 403, ii. 10, 26, iii. 93-108, v. 129, vi. 390 f., 446, 448, 457, 460 f.;

G. theology, i. 66, 87, 177, 180 f., 230, 237, 345, ii. 145, 225

Germans, L.’s unflattering descriptions, v. 534, vi. 4, 72.

See Italians, Prophet of the G., etc.

Gerson, J., i. 13, 84, 134, 142, 159, 173, 179 f., 233, 243, iii. 179, v. 91, vi. 202

Getelen, A. von, iv. 383
Ghinucci, G., i. 338
Ghost, egg and feathers of the Holy, iv. 292.
See Spirit

Ghosts, etc., i. 19, 176, ii. 81 f., 95 f., 167, 389 f., iii. 118, 160, 356 f., iv. 315, v. 283 f., 346, vi. 122-140;

L.’s ghost, iv. 300.
See Devils
Giddiness.
See Ailments
Giengarius, ii. 164

Gifts to L., i. 285 f., iii. 304, 314 f., iv. 8, 10, 26, 271.

See Talents
Glareanus, H., vi. 31
Glatz, C., ii. 139, 174, n.
Gleichen, E. von, iv. 20
Glosses, i. 62 f., iii. 398
Gluttony, ii. 87, 94.
See Diet
Gnesiolutherans, iii. 375, vi. 415

God: the Hidden G., i. 161, ii. 239, 268 ff., 284, iii. 190;

G. “in se” and “quoad nos,” v. 441 f.;

Occam’s view that His existence is not demonstrable, i. 158, 161;
shared by Melanchthon, v. 269;

“falsehood” of the Catholic opinion of G., i. 190, 301, ii. 269 f., 284;

L.’s gloomy conception of G., i. 113, 116, 187-197, 381;
fear of G.’s judgments, i. 10, 189, n., 294 f., 393, v. 473;

G. is not bound by justice, i. 196 f., ii. 292 f., n.;
commands impossibilities, i. 144, 188 f.;
works evil in the wicked, ii. 233, 270, 282, iii. 190.

See Will
Gödelmann, J. G., v. 295
Goethe, vi. 448
Golhart, J., vi. 265
Good intention, works, etc.
See Intention, Works
Gospel, rediscovered by L., i. 393 f.;
“my G.,” iv. 334;
content of the G., iii. 186;
G. existed before Christ, v. 8;
rule of G. quite distinct from worldly rule, v. 564 f.;

Gospel-proviso, ii. 384 f., iii. 330, 338, 343, iv. 96.

See Law
Gotha, i. 69 f., 262, vi. 326, 409
Gout.
See Ailments
Government.
See Authority

Grace, semi-Pelagian stamp of Occam’s teaching, i. 132, 141 ff., 311, vi. 426;
exaggerated by L., i. 151 ff.;
need of G., 72 ff., 83;
means of G., v. 461 f.;
actual grace, v. 36;
G. and predestination, i. 204 ff., ii. 229;
preparation for G., i. 75, 144 f., ii. 226, iii. 210;

Catholics never know whether they are in G., vi. 193.

See Justification
Granvell, iv. 369
Gräter, J., v. 295
Gratian, i. 91, 311, ii. 51

Gravamina nationis Germanicæ, i. 52 f., ii. 66, 77, iii. 98

Great man, a, iv. 260, 330, vi. 211 f., 448, 457;
a G. theologian, vi. 349;
see Doctor, Megalomania;
Greatness, vi. 398-407
Grebel, C., ii. 370 f.

Greek, i. 28, 128, ii. 235, v. 494, 509 f., 606, vi. 12, 19, 36, 38, 431, 504;

G. orthodox, ii. 13, v. 175
Grefenstein, J., i. 25
Gregorian chant, ii. 171.
See Hymns
Gregory I, iv. 335, 464, 525, v. 252, vi. 515
⸺ VII, iv. 110, n., v. 424, n.
⸺ of Rimini, i. 143 f., 159
Greiffenklau, R. von, ii. 65, vi. 383
Greser, D., vi. 61
Groote, G., i. 88, 173
Gropper, J., vi. 492
Gross, C., iii. 218, n.
⸺ E., iv. 128 f., 136
Grynæus, S., iv. 10, n.
Gualther, R., iv. 10, n., 68
Guidiccione, G., iii. 425
Günther, i. 65, 312, vi. 216
Güttel, C., v. 19
Gymnasia, vi. 20
Haarlem, whale of, iii. 148
Habit, supernatural, i. 155 f.
See Virtue
Hadrian IV, v. 424, n., vi. 494
⸺ VI, i. 55, ii. 39, 165, iv. 371
Hagenau conference, v. 400
Hagiolatry.
See Saint-worship
Halberstadt, v. 220
Halle, v. 165, 219, vi. 272, 381, 384 f., 407
Hallucinations, ii. 81, vi. 129 ff., 172-186
Halo.
See Portraits
Hamburg, iii. 408, v. 218
Hamelmann, H., iv. 223
Hammelburg treaty, ii. 360
Hamster, Hans, vi. 255
Haner, J., iv. 470 f.
Hardenberg, A. R., iv. 497

Harnack, A., on L., i. 398, ii. 72, iv. 483 f., v. 432-469, vi. 63, 441

Hasenberg, J., iv. 173 ff., v. 519
Hass, J., i. 344
Hatred, of God, i. 389;
resignation to God’s H., i. 238;

L.’s H. for his foes, iii. 172, 412, 434, iv. 508, v. 98-116, 429

Haubitz, A. von, v. 591

Hausen, vi. 288

Hausmann, N., ii. 135, 205, 387, iv. 219, v. 140, 590

Health.
See Ailments
Heathen, salvation of ancient, v. 48;
their virtues, vices, i. 101, v. 50.
See Missions

Hebrew, i. 28, 35, 128, iv. 46, v. 410, 413, 428, 494 f., 510 ff., 533, vi. 19, 36, 431.

See Jews

Hebrews, commentary on Epistle to the, i. 64, 251, 260 ff., 306, 378;

Pauline authorship denied, v. 521
Hecker, G., i. 355
Hedio, C., ii. 193 f., vi. 46, 58, 278
Hegemon, P., vi. 494
Hegius, A., vi. 34
Heidelberg Chapter, i. 298, 334, v. 13;

Disputation, i. 115, 315 ff., 334, 379, ii. 230;

University, iii. 291, vi. 29, 40, 414
Heintz, P., iii. 411
Hel, C., vi. 271
Held, G., iii. 215
⸺ M., vi. 490
Helding, M., iv. 223, 384, v. 21
Helfenstein, U. von, ii. 131

Hell, predestination to, i. 102, 307, 312 f., 317, ii. 227, 239, 268, iii. 329, v. 5, 438, 441;
according to Calvin, v. 400;
Mosellanus, ii. 242;
Melanchthon, iii. 347;
Schwenckfeld, v. 159;
resignation to H., i. 174, 190, 192, 237 ff., 376, vi. 220

Heller, S., iii. 314

Hemorrhoids.

See Ailments.

Hen.

See Christ

Hendriks-Hoen, C., iv. 493

Henry VIII, L. and the divorce, iii. 255, 260, iv. 3-13, vi. 488;
approval of H.’s cruelty, iii. 70, 428, v. 110;

L.’s rudeness to H., ii. 152 f., 211, iv. 302, 391;

H. and Erasmus, ii. 259;
and Melanchthon, iii. 357, 373 f.;
and the Schmalkalden League, iii. 65

⸺ of Brunswick, iii. 124, 270 f., iv. 63-71, 97 ff., 288, 293 f., v. 167, 236, 394 f., vi. 349, 407

⸺ Saxony, iv. 27, 194, v. 124 f., vi. 243, 255

Herborn, N., ii. 254

Herder, G., vi. 446

Heretics, in L.’s fold, ii. 74, 379, iii. 398, iv. 245, v. 169 ff., 238 f., 349, vi. 288 f., 343, 351 ff., 364 f., 398, 415 f.;
on H., i. 225, n.;

H. all begin by doubting one article, i. 253, iii. 384, 424, v. 398;
the ways of H., vi. 280-289;
their vanity, i. 225, 324, vi. 164;
obstinacy, i. 253, v. 349;
H. are the devil’s dwelling-place, v. 284;
not to be punished, ii. 301;
and yet to be punished severely.
See Intolerance, Zwinglians.
Herolt, J., iv. 120, 128
Hersfeld, ii. 68
Hervagius, iv. 183
Hesse, iv. 210 f., v. 141 f., 188, 408
Hesshusen, T., iv. 323, vi. 413, 415

Hessus, Eobanus, joins L., ii. 3, 43, 62, 256;
fanaticism, ii. 355;
at Nuremberg, vi. 6;
on runaway monks, ii. 124 f.;
on the decay of learning, vi. 27 f., 37, 79;
and of morals, ii. 342, 349 f.

Heyden, J. von der, ii. 188, iv. 173 ff., v. 592

Heydenreich, C., i. 393, iii. 221
Hierarchy.
See Bishops
Hilary of Poitiers, iii. 381, iv. 110
Hildesheim, v. 218 f.
Hilten, J., iii. 166
Hindrances.
See Impediments
History, study of, vi. 4, 19, 36, 437
Hoff, H. von, ii. 351, 353 f.
Hoffmann, C., iv. 355
Hoffmeister, J., iv. 114 f., 352, vi. 384-498
Hofmann, M., v. 151
Hohenzollerns.
See Albert, Joachim, of Brandenburg
Holbein, ii. 158
Holidays, i. 227, ii. 253, vi. 430, n.

Holiness, as a mark of the Church, vi. 296, 330, 332 f.

Holkot, R., iv. 137
Hollen, G., vi. 68
Holler, J. L., v. 521
Holy monk, L. a, vi. 194 f.
Holzhausen, H. von, ii. 184
Homberg, synod, v. 141
Home.
See Domestic life, Postils
Homoousios, iv. 240
Hondorf, A., v. 295
Honesty (in Bible-translation), v. 513 ff.
See Truthfulness
Honstein, W. von, i. 228
Hoogstraaten, ii. 14, iv. 302, 383, vi. 383
Hope.
See Faith (Fiducial)
Horn, A., ii. 361, n.
Horns, L.’s, v. 109, vi. 398
Hosius, S., i. 105, n., vi. 385
Hospitals, iv. 480 f.

Hoyer of Mansfeld, ii. 79, 131 f., iii. 276, 303, 312

Hubmaier, B., ii. 365

Huguenots, vi. 422

Humanism, i. 6 ff., 40-44, 91 f., ii. 3-9, vi. 30 f.

See Erasmus, etc.

Humility, source of justification, i. 214-219, 258;

L.’s H., ii. 16 f., 21, 366, iv. 273 f., 277, 327 ff., 347, v. 114, vi. 209-212

Humour, i. 277, ii. 140-145, 183 f., iii. 281, 306, iv. 104, 257, 279, 303, v. 306-318, vi. 350, 373 f.

Hundelshausen, H. von, iv. 25

Hungary, iii. 89, vi. 480, 483

Hus, J., i. 25 f., 106 ff., 356, 364, iii. 143 f., 155, 165, iv. 188, 317, 330, 417, n., v. 243, 389, 425, vi. 443

Hutten, U. von, i. 403, ii. 4-10, 54, 66 f., 248, vi. 467, 470

Hutter, L., vi. 443

Huttner, A., v. 215

Hymns, i. 278, n., v. 223, 342 f., 546-556, vi. 436

Hyperius, A., iv. 468 f., vi. 58
Hypocrisy.
See Dishonesty

Ickelsamer, V., ii. 126 f., 130, 377, iii. 170, 302, iv. 337, v. 115

Iconoclasm.
See Image-worship
Idol, L. made into an, iv. 70, vi. 422
Idolatry, to stand by one’s statutes, i. 72;
to look on God as the Judge, i. 390 f.;
to honour Mary, iv. 502 f.;
to say Mass, iv. 507, n.;
to pray, i. 309;

L.’s gainsayers are all idolaters, ii. 316, 329, 364, v. 113.

See Intolerance, Saint-worship
Ignatius of Antioch, iii. 381
⸺ Loyola, vi. 384, 427 f., 435
Illnesses.
See Ailments
Illuminism.
See Rationalism

Image-worship, iconoclastic riots, etc., ii. 97 ff., 244 f., iii. 391 ff., iv. 411, v. 202 ff., 207-224

Immaculate conception, iv. 238
Immoral, L.? i. 26 f., 111, iii. 273-294
Impanation.
See Consubstantiation

Impediments, matrimonial, ii. 33, 150, 187, iii. 257 ff., iv. 10, 156 ff.

Impotence, ground for Divorce, iii. 255.
See Marriage
Impropriety.
See Unseemliness
Imputation, i. 94 f., 155 ff.;
a nominalist view, i. 75, 122, 133, 161;

L.’s peculiar conception of it, i. 74, 94, 117, 191, 212, 214 f., 219, 290.

See Justification
Incense, v. 147
Inconsistencies.
See Contradictions
Incubi, iv. 358 f., v. 286.
See Possessed

Indulgences, L.’s earlier views on, i. 35, 75, 324;
the quarrel with Tetzel, i. 325-356, vi. 510;
other attacks on I., i. 70 f., 149, 227, 260, 284, 296 f., ii. 16, iv. 372 f., v. 472

Infallibility of the Church, acknowledged, i. 162, 323, ii. 50, vi. 253;
denied, ii. 301;
L.’s own, ii. 375 f., vi. 256 f.
See Pope
Infant.
See Baptism
Infidelity.
See Unbelief

Informers, L.’s, about Roman matters, i. 348 f., ii. 27, v. 382

Ingolstadt, vi. 431
Inkpot legend, ii. 96
Innocent III, i. 162, ii. 522
⸺ VIII, v. 296

Inquisition, the Saxon, ii. 332, iv. 409, v. 592 f., vi. 241 f., 264 ff.

Insanity.

See Ailments

Inspiration, L.’s, ii. 93 f., iii. 137 f.

See Bible, Spirit

Intemperance.

See Drink

Intention (“intentio bona”), i. 177, 190, 202, 205, 277 f., ii. 241

Interest, vi. 79-98
Interim, iii. 375 f.
See Leipzig, Ratisbon
Intermarriage of nobles, vi. 71

Intolerance, L.’s, ii. 72, 318, 331 f., 335, iii. 357 ff., 393, 409, 439, 447, iv. 512, v. 567, 577, 592, vi. 237-280, 408 f.

See Blasphemy, Carlstadt, etc., Jews, etc.
Irrationalism, iii. 8
Isaac’s untruth, vi. 513

Italians, i. 54, 356, 339, ii. 5, iii. 94, 96 f., 130, iv. 320, v. 391

Iwanek, G., v. 373
Jacob’s lie to Isaac, vi. 515
⸺ the Jew, i. 35 f., vi. 497
Jaius, C., iii. 376, vi. 427

James, Epistle of, ii. 32, iv. 277, 389, 474, v. 522 f., vi. 446

Jena, iii. 385 f., v. 236, vi. 40, 412, 415

Jeremias, L. a new, vi. 161 f., 442

Jerome, St., i. 92, ii. 121 ff., iii. 243 f., iv. 164, 331, 335, v. 284, vi. 413, 530

Jests.

See Humour

Jews, iii. 235, n., 281, 289 f., iv. 265 f., 284-288, 296, v. 30 f., 115, 283, 298, 402-417, vi. 78, 262, 373 f.

Joachim of Anhalt, v. 313

⸺ I of Brandenburg, i. 349, ii. 214, iv. 302, v. 282

⸺ II, iii. 71 ff., iv. 195, v. 20, 313, vi. 61, 76

Joachimstal, iii. 402, vi. 389

Job, iv. 266, v. 497

Johann the Constant, of Saxony, relations with L., ii. 240, 345, iii. 35, iv. 206 f., 316, v. 496;
furthers L.’s cause, ii. 214, 331, v. 144, 576, 579, 587;
on resistance to the Kaiser, ii. 382, iii. 49, 51, 54, 325 f.;
and Erfurt, ii. 359;
one of the “Protesters,” ii. 384;
moral character, iv. 206;
not strong, iii. 37 f.;
temperate, iii. 307;
intolerance, vi. 241, 255 ff., 274 f.
⸺ Casimir, iv. 70, vi. 422

⸺ Frederick, L. dedicates to him his Magnificat, v. 480;
opinion of Henry VIII, iv. 11;
and the Turkish War, iii. 87, 90;
and resistance to the Kaiser, iii. 70;
rude behaviour to the Legate, iii. 441;
interference at Naumburg, v. 165 f.;
invites L. to draft his Schmalkalden Articles, iii. 431 f.;
intolerance, v. 403, vi. 274 f.;
and the Landgrave’s bigamy, iv. 22 f., 27;
relations with L., vi. 341, 347, 394;
sometimes has a drop too much, iii. 307, n.;
a sodomite, iv. 60, 202 ff.;
his moral character, iii. 268, iv. 202 ff., 207;
is deposed, vi. 407
John the Baptist, L. a new, vi. 442
Jokes.
See Humour

Jonas, J., close relationship with L., ii. 174, 387, iii. 44, 52, 55, 57, 70, 300 f., 348, 367, 413-416, 432, v. 138, 175, 197, 231, 333, vi. 222, 326, 372 ff.;
translates L.’s works into Latin, ii. 264, iv. 521 f., v. 382, 403 f.;
help in the German Bible, v. 499 f.;
missionary work, iv. 194, v. 124 f., 165, vi. 273 f.;
assists at ordinations, vi. 314, 347;
promotes the Consistories, iii. 31, v. 181, 183 f.;
acts as judge, iii. 171, 401 f., v. 20, vi. 281;
fanaticism, iii. 131, iv. 299, 510 f.;
a misunderstanding with L., v. 107;
his writing paper, ii. 144;
his melancholy, iv. 219;
and the bigamy, iv. 26, 36, 43;
and Wicel, v. 43;
present at L.’s death, his panegyric, iv. 244, 348, vi. 373, 380 f., 387 f., 396

⸺ Prophet, v. 532
Jordan of Saxony, vi. 236
Jörger, D., vi. 92
Josel of Rosheim, v. 403, 408 f.
Jovian, iii. 41, vi. 355
Jubilee Year, vi. 86
Judae, L., iii. 227, 302, 417
Judas, ii. 282, iii. 190, v. 352
Jude, epistle of, v. 522
Judex, M., vi. 410
Judge.
See Christ
Judgment.
See God, Last Day
Julius II, i. 55, 228, 339, 351, vi. 516
⸺ III, vi. 436
Juncker, C., iii. 292, vi. 289, n.

Justice, of God, i. 391, 388-402, iv. 93 f., vi. 190;
human J., i. 150;
the twofold and threefold “justice,” i. 387;
natural and supernatural, v. 49-52;
“justice” becomes “piety,” v. 514;
commutative, v. 58, 117 ff.;
reaching of J., i. 71 ff., vi. 195;
“formalis justitia,” iv. 460.
See Justification

Justification, according to L., iv. 432-449, v. 453-461;
consists in a being declared just, i. 213 ff.;
the fear of its absence is the sign of its presence, i. 218, 302;
is ever doubtful, i. 97;
preparation for, i. 213 f.;
its preaching makes the congregation snore, iv. 232.

See Certainty, Faith, Grace, Humility, Imputation

Justinian, ii. 269, vi. 91
Justitiarii, i. 148, 199 ff., iv. 170
Juvenal, vi. 18
Kaiser, iii. 48-54.
See Charles V, etc., Resistance
Kalteisen, H., i. 346
Karg, G., iii. 171, vi. 275
Kaufmann, F., iii. 217, vi. 358
⸺ M., iii. 216 f., v. 344
Kauxdorf, A., ii. 319
Kern, J., iv. 172 f.
Kessler, J., ii, 157 ff., iv. 268, 357 f.
Khummer, C., i. 396, vi. 505 ff.

Kingdom of God v. Kingdom of the World, ii. 297;
consists in forgiveness of sins, iv. 448
Kirchner, T., vi. 415
Kleindienst, B., iv. 95, 101
Kliefoth, v. 150
Kling, C., ii. 355, v. 341, vi. 326
⸺ M., iv. 289, vi. 356
Klingenbeyl, S., vi. 157, n.
Kneusel, B., v. 203
Knights, ii. 26, 56, 66 f., 197, vi. 402;
Teutonic, ii. 120, 223, iii. 16, 262, iv. 196
Koch, V., vi. 4
Kohlhase, Hans, v. 117-119
Kokeritz, C. von, iii. 72
Kolb, F., iv. 493
Kollin, C., ii. 154, iv. 383
Königsberg, v. 216, vi. 41, 408
Koppe, L., ii. 136
Koran, v. 419, 421
Körner, W., vi. 419
Koss, J., iv. 303 f.
Kötteritz, S. von, vi. 49
Krafft, U., iii. 238
Kraft, A., ii. 256, iv. 25
Kramer, M., iv. 158, 208, n.
Krapp, C., iii. 365
Kraus, J., v. 373
Krautwald, V., v. 79
Krug, N., v. 295
Kultur.
See Civilisation
Lagarde, P. de, v. 512, vi. 449
Lainez, vi. 90, 435
Laing, J., vi. 385
Laity, i. 281, ii. 103, v. 178.
See Clergy
Lamb of God, iv. 123, 517

Lambert, Fr., of Avignon, ii. 137, v. 141 f., vi. 8, 475, 479

Landau, J., iii. 304, vi. 376, n., 379 f.
Lang, J., at Erfurt, i. 40;
relations with the Humanists, i. 28, ii. 256;
love for mysticism, i. 41, 84, 169, 264 f., 280;

L.’s right hand man, i. 7, 265 f., ii. 342, vi. 114, 116, 118;
translates Matthew, v. 546;
succeeds L. as Augustinian Vicar, i. 315, 334;
promotes the apostasy of Erfurt, ii. 337, 340;
causes scandal, ii. 123, 355;
intolerance, ii. 354;
difficulties with his flock, vi. 326 ff.
⸺ P., i. 353
Langen, R. von, vi. 34

Language, L.’s, advantages, iii. 103, iv. 242 ff.;
defects, ii. 153 f., 198, iii. 172.
See Abusive L., German L., Unseemliness
Languages, vi. 3, 12, 15, 25 f., 83, 436 f.
Lasco, vi. 58
Lasius, C., vi. 412
Last Day, v. 241-252;
will come in less than a century (v. 393) now that L. has shown up the Roman Antichrist, ii. 56, 103, iii. 147;
signs of its nearness, ii. 168, 200 f.;
among them the prevalence of syphilis, ii. 162;
and of melancholy, iv. 224;
also the bad morals of the New Believers, iii. 165, iv. 218, v. 180;
the dissensions rampant among them, v. 170 f.;
the inroads of the Turks, iii. 82, 84, 88, 92, v. 418;
its expectation a ground for L.’s marriage, ii. 181;
as an explanation of his lack of missionary zeal, vi. 515;
does not prove L. a man of strong faith, v. 361;
its pathological character, vi. 154
Lateran Councils, i. 162, vi. 34, 503
Latin, iii. 396, 428, v. 146, 508
Latomus, iv. 329, vi. 384, 473.
See Louvain

Lauterbach, A., i. xx., 394, iii. 163, 218 ff., 223, 230, v. 169, 188, iv. 342, 391, 505 ff.

Lauterbecken, G., vi. 98

Lauze, W., iv. 202

Law and Gospel, iv. 459, v. 7-14, 24, 323, 451;
hard to distinguish, ii. 375, iv. 227, vi. 204 f.;
mosaic L., iii. 387, 394 f.

See Antinomians, Commandments, Natural L., Schwenckfeld

Lawyers, attacked by L., i. 202, iii. 39 ff., 56 f., 233, 411, iv. 228 ff., v. 207, 293 ff., vi. 355-361

Learning.

See Schools

Legends, L.’s, about his early life, vi. 187-236;
about the olden Church, iv. 116-178;

Legends about L., i. 111, n., ii. 69-74, 94 ff., iii. 278-294, v. 367-374, vi. 381-386;

Legends of the Saints.
See Critical acumen
Leib, K., ii. 39, 253, iv. 354
Leiffer, G., i. 88, 274
Leipzig Disputation, i. 362 ff.;
Interim, iii. 375, v. 263, vi. 410, 412;
University, vi. 29;
L.’s last visit, vi. 348
Leisentritt, J., vi. 436
Leisnig, v. 136 ff., 142, vi. 49 ff.

Lemnius, S., ii. 188, iii. 233 f., 274, 297, 302, iv. 292, vi. 287 ff.

Lening, J., iv. 24 f., 65 ff., 201

Leo X, and Albert of Mayence, i. 348-354;
takes steps against Luther, i. 333, 341, ii. 45;
his Bulls, ii. 39, 52 f.;

Luther’s letter, i. 335, 340, ii. 17 ff., 30, vi. 218

Leprosy, ground for bigamy or divorce, iii. 255, iv. 20

Lessing, vi. 446, 448
Leyser, P., iv. 469
Libraries, v. 215, vi. 19
Lichtenberg, ii. 317
Lichtenberger, J., iii. 167, iv. 330
Liége, vi. 35

Lies, iv. 28 f., 51, 55, 80-178, vi. 191, 513 ff.

See Abraham, etc., Dishonesty
Lights.
See Candles
Liguori, v. 469, n.
Lindanus, W., vi. 385

Link, W., Luther’s intimate, i. 40, 264, 359, ii. 184, iii. 54, 60, 121, n., 143 f., 424, iv. 96, v. 516;
resigns his office as General Vicar and goes to Altenburg, i. 315 f., vi. 49, 52, 242;
at Nuremberg, ii. 335 f., v. 172 f., 186;
his temptations, v. 338 f.
Litany, iii. 412, vi. 482
Liturgy.
See Worship
Lochau, v. 251
Locher, J., iii. 152

Lombard, Peter, i. 12, 22, 86, 91, 98, 150, 243, 305, 311, 410, vi. 21

Löscher, T., vi. 316

Lotichius, N., v. 295

Lotther (or Lother), the printer, ii. 367, v. 498

Louis of Bavaria, ii. 380, iii. 430
⸺ the Palatinate, vi. 420
Louvain, the town, vi. 35, 38, 43;
the theologians, ii. 46, vi. 328, 348 f.
See Latomus

Love of God, perfect, i. 158, 172, 191, 194, 236, 238 f., 308, v. 33 f.;
imperfect is mere egotism, i. 251;
required together with faith for justification, i. 207, ii. 240.

See Faith.
Love of one’s neighbour, see Poor-relief
Lübeck, iii. 64 f., 408, 410
Ludel, T., iii. 285
Ludicke, J., iii. 72
Luft (Lufft), Hans, the printer, v. 498, 502
Lüneburg, ii. 384, vi. 276
Lupinus, P., i. 304, iii. 389
Luscinius, O., iv. 471, vi. 31
Lute-playing, i. 7, ii. 131, 157, iii. 288
Luther, spelling of the name, i. 6, 264;

Hans, the father, i. 5, 15 f., 19, 25, ii. 86, 182, 216, iii. 308, iv. 265, v. 230, vi. 182 f., 224;

Hans, the son, iii. 216, iv. 181, vi. 346, 368, 371, 509;

Catherine L., see Bora;
James L., v. 108;
Paul L., i. 33, vi. 378 f., 496.
See Children
Lutherans, ii. 108, vi. 476.
See Christians
Lutz, R., v. 296
Lycosthenes, C., iii. 152

Lyra, N., of, i. 92, 243, 401, ii. 237, v. 413, 535

Macarius, St., ii. 379
⸺ Magnes, iii. 381
Macchiavelli, vi. 57
Machabees, 2nd Book, iv. 505 f.
Madness, is from the devil, v. 280.
See Ailments (Insanity)

Magdeburg, i. 5, iii. 64, 442, v. 219 f., 236, vi. 5, 35, 408, 413

Magdeburgius, J., iv. 225
Magenbuch, J., ii. 162 f., iv. 349
Magi, their lie to Herod, vi. 514.
See Three Kings
Magic, v. 240 f., 277, 284 f.
See Superstition, Witches.
M. in the sacraments, i. 248
Magnus of Mecklenburg, iii. 371

Major, G., v. 262, 265, vi. 272, 364, 408 ff., 412, 494

Maladies.

See Ailments

Maledictory prayer, iii. 172, 208, 437 f., v. 94.

See Curses
Malipiero, iii. 152
Malsburg, H. von der, iv. 25
Maltitz, J. von, vi. 516
Malvasian wine, ii. 131, iii. 297
Man.
See Great M.
Mania.
See Madness
Manichæans, ii. 376, iii. 259, vi. 413, 415

Mansfeld, i. 5, ii. 131, iv. 165, vi. 132, 350 f.

Mantel, J., iv. 210
Mantua, Council, iii. 425, 428 f., vi. 488
Marbach, J., vi. 275, 493
Marburg, archives, iii. 51;

Conference, ii. 334, 390, iii. 328, 342, 381, 382 f., 416, v. 340, 531 f.;

University, vi. 40
Marcion, i. 300
Marcolfus, iii. 268, iv. 45 f.
Margaritha, A., v. 411
Marguérin de la Bigne, vi. 438
Marienwerder, v. 216
Marquard, iv. 120
Marriage, iii. 241-273, 324 f., iv. 129-178;

L.’s charges against the Papists, v. 112, vi. 232;
did he better it? ii. 148 ff., v. 283;

M. secularised, iii. 38-42;
a remedy against fornication, ii. 116 ff., 142, vi. 166;
impediments, iii. 290 f.;
is commanded, ii. 166;
clandestine M., ii. 120, 149, n., iii. 39 ff., iv. 289 f., vi. 355-359;
with brother of impotent man, ii. 33 f.;
exchange of wives, iv. 160.

See Actus matrimonialis, Bigamy, Divorce, Impediments, Intermarriage, Leprosy, Sacraments, Women

L.’s M., see Wedding
Marschalk, i. 263
Marsupino, v. 382
Martial, vi. 18

Mary, Virgin, L. on honour paid to the, iv. 235-238, 500-503, v. 146, 476;
conceived without sin, iv. 238, n.;
her virginity, v. 446;
on the Hail M., iv. 502, v. 478, 480, 517.
See Saint-worship
Mascov, G., i. 83, 267 f.
Mass, iv. 506-527;

L.’s first M., i. 15, 125 f., iv. 170, vi. 100, 226;
how quickly Masses are said in Rome, i. 35;
last M., ii. 88;
early distaste for, i. 275 f., iv. 124 f., vi. 196 f.;
insults, i. 27 f., ii. 166, iii. 130, 227, 305;

Masses for dead bring in money, iii. 439, iv. 513 f.;

M. suppressed, ii. 311, 320 f., 327 f.;
against the Canon, ii. 330, v. 154;
the “winklemass,” ii. 88, iv. 518-523;
not a sacrifice, ii. 89 f., 320, 385, iv. 506-518, v. 150, 439;
yet L. calls it the “sacrificium eucharisticum,” v. 149, 464;

M. is quietly changed into Communion-service, ii. 98 f., v. 145 ff., 150;

“Formula missæ,” v. 135, 145, 546;
German M., v. 139, 146, vi. 445.
See Eucharist
Material principle.
See Faith, Justification

Mathesius, J., relations with L., iii. 312, iv. 269;
enthusiasm, v. 364, 488, vi. 389 f.;
“Historien,” i. xx., vi. 389 f., 443;
on his Catholic days, v. 490, n.;
on Tetzel, iv. 84;
on Egranus, iii. 402 f.;
Frau Cotta, iii. 288;
on the beginning of the Gospel-business, i. 303 f., 393;
on the ghosts, etc., vi. 123;
on L.’s prophecies, iii. 164;
on L.’s habit of taking a sip at night, iii. 305 f., 310;
on the German Bible, v. 499 f.;
on the Table-Talk, iii. 218 f., 222, 228, 232, 239, iv. 43 f., v. 170;
and the song for driving out Antichrist, v. 555 f.;
his melancholy, iv. 222, v. 363 f., vi. 150 f.

Maupis, F., vi. 346

Maurice of Saxony, iv. 315, v. 125, 167, 200 ff., 252, vi. 347, 407, 410

Maximilian I of Bavaria, ii. 43
⸺ I, Kaiser, i. 340
Mayence, ii. 6, 214 f., v. 221, vi. 431
Mayer, W., vi. 29, 426
Mayron, F., i. 346

Mechanical system of grace, i. 156, 308, ii. 274, n., 284

Mechler, Æ., ii. 345, 354
Meckbach, J., iv. 69
Medals, vi. 389
Medicines, spoilt by the devil, v. 283.
See Physicians
Meder, v. 295
Mediævalism, L.’s, vi. 440-444, 453 ff.
Medici, Guilio dei, ii. 46

Mediocrity standardised, i. 71 f., iii. 211 f., 311 f., v. 124

Medler, N., v. 165, 194, vi. 346, 488

Medmann, P., v. 166

Megalomania, iv. 327-350, v. 110 f., 389 ff., 530-533, vi. 161 ff., 284 f., 361, 398-406.

See Doctor, Great man
Meinhardi, A. von, i. 40, n., iv. 141
Meirisch, M., i. 144, iv. 160
Meissen, iv. 86, v. 123, 200 ff., vi. 243

Melancholy, iii. 402, 416, iv. 210, 218-227, v. 305, vi. 176, 221, 227

Melanchthon, Ph., character and work, iii. 319-378, 438-449, v. 252-275;
acts as intermediary between the Knights and L., ii. 5;
pictured with L., vi. 389, n.;
and alone, ii. 158;
enthusiasm for L., i. 303, iii. 165, iv. 269, 357;
his “Passional,” v. 425;

“Pope-Ass,” iii. 150 ff.;
his Commonplace-Book, ii. 239, 282, n., 287 f., iv. 498, v. 4;

Instructions for the Visitors, v. 591;
panegyric on L., v. 262, vi. 387;
Vita Lutheri, i. 17 f., 303;
helps in the German Bible, v. 495 ff.;
favours the fanatics, ii. 99;
comparative moderation, iii. 134;
criticises L.’s teaching, v. 460 f.;
drops predestinarianism, ii. 239, 268, 287, n., iv. 435 f., vi. 152 f.;
on the Law, v. 17;
penance, v. 452 f.;
need of good works, iv. 476;
Eucharist, iii. 424, v. 465;
finds fault with L.’s language, ii. 144 f., 155, 176 ff., iii. 240, 276 f.;

M.’s melancholy, ii. 167, iii. 201, iv. 219;
belief in astrology, ii. 168, iii. 306;
superstition, ii. 390, v. 240;
dances occasionally, iii. 303;
on the Virgin Mary, iv. 502;
strictures on the Universities, vi. 26;
and Agricola, v. 15, 20;
and Amerbach, iv. 364;
and Amsdorf, v. 193;
and Bucer, iii. 421;
and Calvin, v. 401;
and Cordatus, iv. 461;
and Erasmus, ii. 248 f., 262, iv. 183;
and Henry VIII, iv. 10 f.;
his daughter, vi. 418;
and Lemnius, vi. 287;
as an educationalist, iii. 391, vi. 5 f., 9, 13, n., 16 f., 18, 21, 26, 38, 435;
his students’ lack of discipline, v. 157, 247;
his hopes of a Protestant Council, v. 170, 175 f.;
his leading place in Lutheranism, v. 173, 183;
ordains ministers, vi. 265, 314;
intolerance, ii. 203, iv. 9, v. 20, 22 f., 82, vi. 251 f., 269 f.;
truthfulness, ii. 386 f., iv. 112 f.;
misrepresents Augustine, i. 305 f., iv. 459;
thwarts L.’s Schmalkalden Articles, iii. 432;
armed resistance, iii. 59;
the Landgrave’s bigamy (iv. 13-79) is the cause of an indisposition, iii. 268, iv. 144;
miraculously cured by L., iii. 162, iv. 48;
is sometimes suspected by L., v. 237, vi. 345;
plans to leave Wittenberg, vi. 347, 352 f.;
at Mansfeld, vi. 350 f.

See Cryptocalvinism, Pecca fortiter, Synergism

Melander, D., iv. 24 f., 157, 201, 251

Memmingen, iii. 64, 421

Mendicancy, i. 71, 270, ii. 337, vi. 473, 500.

See Beggars

Menius, J., ii. 256, iii. 68, 421, iv. 66 f., 74, 203, v. 282, vi. 276, 391, 409 f., 482 f.

Mensing, J., i. 79, iii. 195, iv. 121, 160, 303, 385, vi. 330, n., 432

Merchants, v. 157, vi. 6, 79-86

Merit, i. 75, 102, 119, 143, 157, 179, iv. 449, v. 8 f., 459 f.;
of Christ, i. 71 f.
Merseburg, v. 167, 219, vi. 347
Metz, v. 167, 396

Metzsch, Hans, ii. 169, iii. 426, iv. 216, 245, v. 118, 187 f., 312, vi. 22

⸺ Jos. L., vi. 262
Meyer, P., ii. 327
Michol’s lie, iv. 109
Micyllus, vi. 36

Middle Ages, L.’s misrepresentations of the, iv. 116-178.

See Mediævalism
Military service, iv. 247
Milsungen, iv. 18

Miltitz, C. von, i. 341 f., 348, 365, ii. 18, 86, vi. 190, 307

Mind, L.’s, vi. 156-186

Ministers, Ministry, ii. 107-111, 113 f., iv. 126, vi. 311;
their choice, ii. 112, 192, 358, vi. 599;
their support, iii. 34.
See Ordinations, Preachers, Priests
Minkwitz, J. von, v. 220

Miracles, ii. 63, iii. 117, 153-162, v. 288, 313, vi. 164 f., 191, 285 f., 443.

See Fanatics, Melanchthon, Monk-Calf
Misbirths, iii. 152;
consolation for women suffering M., iv. 248
Misrepresentations.
See Calumnies, Legends

Mission, L.’s, i. 37, 74, 91 ff., iii. 109-168, iv. 313-318, 391, v. 321 ff., vi. 161-166, 283 f., 285 f.

See Certainty, Revelation, Vocation

Missions, foreign, iii. 213 ff., v. 249, vi. 427, 515

Misson, M., iii. 292

Mochau, M., von, vi. 509

Modern spirit, L. and the, ii. 72, iii. 19, vi. 454 f.

Modesty.
See Humility
Mohacz, iii. 89
Mohammed, iv. 6, v. 479.
See Koran, Turks
Mohr, G., iv. 219, vi. 346, 349
Möhra, i. 5, 16
Moibanus, A., vi. 491
Moller, H., vi. 417
Monastery, L. in the, i. 3-34, iii. 114;
his legend, vi. 187-236.
See Wittenberg
Money, vi. 84, 87 f.

Monk-Calf, ii. 57, iii. 149 f., 355 f., v. 244, 310, vi. 155

Monkeys, v. 286

Monks, what their name comes from, iv. 161;

L. on M. and friars, i. 270 f., ii. 138, iii. 228, v. 113 f., vi. 514.

See Apostate M., Spectre M., Vows

Mönsterberg, U. von, vi. 482

Morality.

See Ethics.

L.’s morals, vi. 512

Moravia, v. 403 f.

Morbid trains of thought, vi. 141-182, 224 ff.

More, Sir Th., ii. 244, n., iii. 70, 237, iv. 9, 284, v. 110, vi. 246

Mörlin, J., vi. 408, 492

Morone, J., iv. 28, vi. 492

Mortal sins, all breaches of the Rules, i. 15, iv. 105, n.

See Scapular, Sin

Mortification, i. 191, 235, iii. 211, v. 31, 86, 92, 481, vi. 235.

See Penance
Mosaism.
See Law, Mosaic
Mosellanus, P., ii. 242, iv. 269, vi. 16
Moses, i. 179, ii. 221, v. 236;
to be slain, v. 324;
a German M., vi. 442;
a second M., vi. 442;
“relics” of, iv. 292
Moth, Ph., vi. 488
Motives, v. 34
Mountjoy, ii. 251
Mühlberg, vi. 407
Mühlhausen, ii. 167, 364 f., iii. 422

Müller, C., ii. 208, iii. 296, 315 f., iv. 361

Münch, J., vi. 385

Munich, ii. 172

Münster, ii. 365, iii. 419, v. 166, 173, vi. 35

⸺ S., v. 411, 413, 532, 535
Münzer, Th., ii. 200-207, 363-378;
at Allstedt, iv. 172;
at Zwickau, iii. 402;
L.’s rival, iii. 4;
won’t work miracles, iii. 154, vi. 285;
his “presumption,” iii. 389 f., vi. 152;
his “sins,” iii. 177;
preaches against the two popes, of Rome and Wittenberg, iv. 309, 337, vi. 281;
his defence, ii. 130, iii. 275, 302, iv. 100;
is doomed, iii. 384
Murmellius, J., vi. 34

Murner, Th., ii. 154, iv. 376, 384, vi. 430, 513

Musa, A., ii. 345, iv. 222, v. 174, 363
Musæus, S., iv. 220
Musculus, A., vi. 61, 419
⸺ W., iii. 300, vi. 277

Music, i. 8, ii. 170 ff., iii. 66 f., iv. 256 f., v. 223, 302, 547 f., 551 f., 554, vi. 19

Mutian, R., i. 7, 28, 41, ii. 3, 243, iii. 287, vi. 31, 350, 387

Myconius, F., iii. 62, 162, 166, 421, iv. 84, 200, vi. 123, 265, 326, 341, 491

⸺ O., iv. 198
Mylius, G., i. 33
Mysticism, i. 160, 165-183, 268;
German M., i. 84, 87 f., ii. 275, n.;
mystic pangs of hell, i. 231-240, vi. 102, 115 ff.;
was L. a mystic? i. 89, n., v. 476;
some mystic effusions, i. 82-90, 230-240, 280 ff., 318, v. 32 f., 198, 476

Namur, vi. 43

Nannius, J., vi. 488

Nathin, J., i. 4, 13, 17, 22, 58, 128, ii. 337, 361, n., iv. 354, vi. 101, n.

Nationalism.
See German N.
Natural virtues, see Virtue;
N. order, v. 49-52;
N. law, i. 141, 143 f.;
thunderstorms, etc., not N., v. 286;
Nature and Grace, i. 204

Naumburg, iii. 375, v. 165 f., 192 ff., vi. 328, 408

Nausea, F., iv. 383

Necessity, all takes place of, ii. 227, 290, v. 53;

N. knows no law, iii. 90
Neobulus, H.
See Lening
Neoplatonism, i. 76, 174
Nerve trouble.
See Ailments
Neustadt Admonition, vi. 422
Nicene Council, iii. 157, iv. 240, vi. 314
Nider, J., i. 48
Nietzsche, vi. 459
Nigrinus, iv. 324
Nimbschen.
See Nuns
Nimbus.
See Portraits

Nobility, ii. 3 ff., 26 ff., 199, 216, vi. 71 f., 402

Noe, L. a new N., vi. 388, 442
Nominalism, i. 130 ff., ii. 275, n.;
Nominalists on lies, vi. 514 f.;
Semi-Pelagianism of the, vi. 426.
See Occam, etc.
Noppus, J., vi. 493
Nordhausen, v. 236, vi. 276
Nossenus, M., ii. 342
Novalis, vi. 449

Nuns, apostate, of Nimbschen, etc., ii. 135-148, 177 f., 282;
their fate, iv. 172 ff., 175 f.;
persecution of the faithful ones, vi. 276 f., 278 f.;
two newly “cursed” N., vi. 343

Nuremberg, ii. 334 ff., v. 172 f., 186, 223, 255;

Town-Council, ii. 335, iii. 59 ff.;
Diets of N., ii. 189, 334, 380, iii. 76;
Poor-relief, vi. 46;
Schools, vi. 5 f., 35 ff.;
tolerance, vi. 270 f.
Oaths, lawful to take, v. 570

Obedience, ii. 15 ff., 308 ff., iii. 172, vi. 498 f.

Observantines and Conventuals, i. 28-38, 67-78, 81 f., 147, 198 ff., 255, 262 f., 267, 298, vi. 497-503

Obstinacy.

See Defiance

Occam, Occamism, i. 13, 84 ff., 120, 130-165, 171, 191, 204 f., 212, 216, 243, iv. 417, n., v. 51.

See Nominalism

Œcolampadius, J., takes Zwingli’s side, iii. 409, n., v. 79;
wants to establish synods, v. 176;
opposes the bigamy, iv. 6, 10, n.;
Œ. on L., iv. 99;

L. on Œ., ii. 254, iii. 389, 403, 424, iv. 87, 308, v. 105, 447, vi. 278, 281, 284, 289

Office.

See Breviary, Calling, Ministry

Oils.

See Anointing, Chrism

Oldecop, J., 24, 29, 35 f., 304, 332, 361, iv. 229, 429, v. 218, vi. 222, 385, 497

Olevian, C., vi. 414
Olmütz, W. von., iii. 152
Omnipresence.
See Christ

Opponents, awful death of L.’s, iv. 302, 304, vi. 161, 191, 383 f.;

See Catholics, Heretics

Opposition, a sign that one is in the right, i. 253

Orders, Holy, all “jugglery,” vi. 404;

“donkey-smearing,” v. 101

Ordinations, Lutheran, ii. 112, iii. 428, v. 101, 190-197, vi. 264 f., 313 f., 347, 374

Ordo matrimonialis, iv. 129 f.
Organs, ii. 227, v. 148
Origen, iv. 110, 331

Original sin, i. 74 f., 92, 99, 140 f., 203 f., 210, ii. 250, v. 6, 37, 438,450, 487, vi. 412 f., 420.

See Concupiscence, Grace

Orlamünde, iii. 256, 385

Orthodox side, L.’s, ii. 399, iv. 239 ff., 526 f.;

O. Lutheranism, vi. 440-444
Ortiz, iv. 386
Ortwin de Graes, i. 42

Osiander, A., ii. 334, iii. 434, 444, iv. 9, 29, 223, v. 170, 257, 410, 531, vi. 408 f.

Osnabrück, v. 166
Ossitz, vi. 137
Ostermayer, W., i. 127
Ostia, v. 109, 384
Otto I, Kaiser, v. 220
⸺ A., vi. 410

Our Father, the, i. 65, 361, ii, 240, v. 94, 124, 473, 476, 478, 485

Outlawry, L.’s, ii. 45
Overwork, i. 267.
See Work
Pack, O. von, iii. 48 f., 326, v. 343
Pagans.
See Heathen
Pagninus, S., v. 535
Palladius, P., iii. 413, n., vi. 273, 489
Pallavicini, S., iv. 259
Palpitations.
See Ailments

Paltz, J., i. 13, 105, 224, 243, 272 f. 327, n., 345

Palude, P. de, i. 346, iii. 261
Pantheism, i. 166, 172, 178, ii. 284, vi. 456
Panvinius, O., vi. 437
Papacy.
See Pope, Popedom
Papists are murderers, iii. 130 ff., 414;
Cains and devils, iii. 43;
fattening pigs, iv. 288;
as bad as Turks, iii. 91 f., vi. 155;
abnormal nature of L.’s views of the P., vi. 156 ff.

Pappus, H., iv. 100
Parents, L.’s, i. 5, v. 294, vi. 223.
See Luther, Hans

Paris, University of, i. 363, v. 279, vi. 37, 349, 472

Parrots, v. 286
Pastors.
See Ministers
Pathology.
See Ailments
Patmos (the Wartburg), ii. 91
Patriarchs, iii. 259, iv. 4, vi. 74, 85.
See Prince
Patriotism.
See German nationalism
Paul, St., as L.’s mainstay, i. 94, 140, 179;
Paul rather than Jesus, iii. 169, vi. 453 f.;
his failings, ii. 289, v. 360, 362 f., 393;
L. a new P., iii. 165, v. 517 f.;
like P., iii. 119, iv. 273

⸺ III, Pope, ii. 250, iii. 420, 425, 427, 443, iv. 90, v. 168, 234 f., 380, 382, vi. 427, n.

Pauli, B., v. 22
⸺ J., vi. 513
⸺ S., iv. 225 f.
Pauline privilege, ii. 33, iii, 254
Pázmány, P., vi. 385

Peasants, ii. 180, 189-219, 350, 353, 356 f., iii. 323 f., v. 181, 588, vi. 70-74, 76, 84, 406

Pecca fortiter, iii. 195-199, vi. 166

Pelagianism, i. 91 ff., 190, 199, 205 f., 287, ii. 225, 232, 293, n.

See Grace
Pelargus, A., iv. 383
Pelayo, A., i. 55
Pellicanus, C., iii. 383 f.

Penance, i. 65 f., 90 f., 119, 290, 292-296, 311 f., iii. 176, 184 ff., 212, 323, iv. 460, 491, v. 23 f., 452 f;
the sacrament, ii. 27, iii. 338, iv. 249, 491 f., v. 462.

See Confession, Contrition, Satisfaction

Perfection, reputed to be found only in the cloistral “state of P.,” i. 85, n., iv. 130 f., 133;

L.’s idea of P., i. 166, v. 43, 84 ff., 439;
his own efforts, iii. 187-193.
See Counsels
Perrenoti, N., v. 382
Perusco, M. de, i. 338

Pessimism, i. 126, 289, iii. 24, 84, 98 f., 123, 190 f., v. 130, 225-234, 241

Pessler, ii. 334
Pestel, P., vi. 255, 267
Pestilence.
See Plague
Peter, thou art, v. 518, vi. 338 ff.;
L. like P., v. 340;
P.’s denial, iii. 182;
second epistle of, v. 522;
the legend of P., iv. 264
Petreius, i. 28
Peucer, C., vi. 415, 418
Peutinger, C., ii. 76, vi. 45, 271
Pezel, C., vi. 417
Pfeffinger, J., vi. 76, 347, 410, 412
Pfeifer, H., ii, 364, 373

Pflug, J. von, iv. 69, v. 21, 165, 191, 197, vi. 39, n., 408, 436, 492

Pharisees, i. 82, iv. 45

Philip II, Landgrave of Hesse, a patron of the new religion, ii. 216, 388, iii. 64, 72, 340, v. 201 f., 576;
inclines to the Church-apart, v. 141 ff.;
to Zwinglianism, ii, 333 f., iii. 327, 337, 383, 445, v. 172;
refuses help against the Turks, iii. 87;
stands for resistance against the Kaiser, iii. 50;
and carries L. with him, iii. 54 ff.;
raid on Würtemberg, iii. 67 f.;
and Brunswick, v. 394 ff.;
makes a secret covenant with the Kaiser, v. 396;
vanquished by the latter, vi. 407;
favours a Protestant Council, v. 175;
his bigamy, iv. 13-79, 209;
sends L. a barrel of wine, iii. 314;
and Melanchthon, iii. 373;
his morality, iv. 201, 71 f.;
intolerance, vi. 256, 258, 272
Philippists, iii. 375, vi. 415

Philosophy, i. 22, 136, 158 f., 244 f., 281, 320, v. 440 ff., 445, vi. 18, 20 f., 445.

See Aristotle
Phocas, iii. 93, iv. 297
Phormion, vi. 82

Physicians, iii. 211, v. 203, 281, 283, vi. 7, 21, 378 ff.

See Ratzeberger, Rychardus
Picards, i. 34, 106 f., ii. 186
Pictures.
See Images, Portraits
Pietism, v. 173, vi. 63, 440, 444 f.
Pighius, A., v. 75, vi. 384
Pilgrimages, i. 46, 124, v. 212, 288, vi. 68
Pirata, A., iv. 383
Pirkheimer, C., ii. 334 f.

⸺ W., ii. 39 f., 43, 67, 127, 256, iv. 353, 453, 471, v. 431, vi. 37

Pirna, vi. 415
Pirstinger, B., i. 48, 344 f.
Pistorius, F., ii. 131, vi. 275, 290, n., 492

Plague, i. 265, iv. 248, 272 f., v. 337, vi. 509;

“the Pope’s Plague,” iii. 435, v. 102, vi. 370, 377, 389, 394 f., 407

Planck, J., i. xi. f., iii. 174, vi. 449
Planitz, Hans von der, v. 591
Plantsch, M., v. 290
Plassen, C., van der, iv. 368
Plato, L.’s guest, iii. 218, 232
Plautus, vi. 16, 18
Plenaries, iv. 135
Poison, iii. 116, v. 235 f.
Pole, Cardinal, vi. 488
Polemics, iv. 283-350, v. 375-431.
See Calumnies, Lies, Unseemliness
Polenz, G. von. iv. 96 f., 155
Poliander, vi. 37
Politician, L. a P.? vi. 459 ff.
Pollich, M., i. 39, 86, iv. 258 f., 357
Polner, Hans, iii. 217, 307
Poltergeists.
See Ghosts

Polygamy, iii. 259 ff., 268, iv. 3 ff., 146, v. 72, vi. 86.

See Philip II, his bigamy
Polygranus, F., i. 345
Pomeranus.
See Bugenhagen
Pommersfelden, L. von, ii. 215
Ponikau, iii. 435
Pontanus.
See Brück, G.
Poor-Relief, vi. 42-65;
in olden times, iv. 477-481;
L.’s merits, v. 26, 117, 562;
bad effects, v. 205

Pope of Rome, Popedom, iii. 128 ff., iv. 295-305, v. 381-389;
acknowledged by L., i. 34 f., 324;
“papa, papa!” ii. 347;
not infallible, ii. 50;
P. flings about indulgences, i. 70;
early blame for Julius II, i. 228;
and Leo X, i. 348;
what the P. teaches, vi. 337 f.;

P. oppresses the Germans, iii. 96 ff., 105 f.;
presumes to decide on matters of faith, iii. 130;
not head of Christendom, v. 383;
instituted by the devil, vi. 190;
attacked in his very marrow, ii. 260;
is adored as God, iii. 130;
Popes are seducers, i. 227;
the Pope-Ass, iii. 150 ff., 355;
worse than the Turk, i. 359, iii. 72, 79, 82, 86, n., 91 f., 126, iv. 164, v. 416;

“Popery pictured,” v. 421-431.

See Antichrist, Infallibility, Peter, Plague, Rome, Werewolf

⸺ of Wittenberg, L. a new P., iii. 277 (Judae);
has set up a new Papal chair, ii. 130, 377 (Ickelsamer);
has taken the P.’s place (iv. 337);
is a new P. (vi. 281) who bestows church-property on the princes, ii. 377 (Münzer);

“pseudo-papa,” ii. 163, n.,;
“I am your P.,” v. 231;
P. of Germany, vi. 77;

“called by God to be an anti-pope,” ii. 54, iii. 110;

“ego sum papa,” v. 191, n., vi. 315;
“the German P.,” iii. 427, vi. 77;
a Cæsarean popedom, vi. 452
Porchetus de Salvaticis, v. 411
Portents, iii. 148-152, v. 239.
See Astrology
Portraits, L.’s vi. 389, 393 f., 430, 443;
depicted with a halo, ii. 66.
See Appearance

Possessed, L. P.? ii. 68, 392, 396, iii. 127, 429, iv. 352-360, vi. 112;

Agricola P., v. 22;
Carlstadt, iii. 390 f.;
Schwenckfeld, v. 83;
other cases, ii. 289, 376, iii. 148;
calm of the P. at L.’s funeral, vi. 385;
in the P. the devil takes the soul’s place, v. 281, n., 292

Postils, Church-P., ii. 119, iii. 151, v. 158, 473 f., 480;

Home-P., iv. 217, 232, v. 470

Powers, natural, made too much of by the Nominalists, i. 132;
and too little of by L., i. 65, 74 f., 100 f., 117, 133, 140, 160, 310 ff., iv. 229.

See Determinism
Prætorius, Alexius, vi. 409
⸺ Anton, vi. 61
Prague, ii. 112
Prateolus, vi. 385, 409
Prayer, true P. L.’s “discovery,” iii. 345;
P. arises from Faith, v. 27;
his opponents don’t pray, iii. 399;
how monks pray in choir, i. 277;

P. is necessary, i. 35, 153, 235, 279, ii. 349;
how to pray, v. 478 ff.;
P. decried, i. 68, iii. 205;
all P. petition, v. 87;

L.’s P., ii. 87, iii. 206 ff., 365, 410, 435, iv. 275-278, v. 94, 199, vi. 232 f., 235, 511 f.;
power of L.’s P., iii. 113, 162, 209, n., iv. 267, v. 313, vi. 161 f., 391, 395 f.;

Catholics’ P., i. 390, iii. 131 f.;

“Pray Maurice to death,” iv. 315.

See Breviary, Maledictory P.

Preachers, even “millers’ maids” (iv. 389) can expound Scripture, yet true P. are only those “in office,” iv. 126, vi. 250, n., 315;
best unmarried, iii. 248;

L.’s complaints about the P., ii. 123, 127;
preach faith and decry good works, iv. 466 ff.;
on the faults of others, ii. 344, iii. 323 f., iv. 323 f.;
preach violence, ii. 323 f., 340 f., 354 f., iv. 514;
responsible for breaches of wedlock, iv. 158, 160, 165 ff., 172 f., 201, 208;
seek only an income and a wife, ii. 126, vi. 32;
scorned by the people, iii. 34, iv. 209, 211, 218, 478, n., v. 182, 249, vi. 77, 326, 343.

See Ministers, Priesthood
Precepts.
See Commandments

Predestination, i. 74, n., 183, 187-198, 208, 238, 313, 369, ii. 268-294, iii. 189, 347, iv. 434, 447, v. 159, 438;
doubts concerning P., i. 19, 124 f., 161, 190 f., 376, vi. 219, 221.

See Determinism, Hell

Predictions.

See Prophecies

Presents.

See Gifts

Prices, high, vi. 77, 84 f.

Pride, i. 123, 279, 287, ii. 54, 130, 221, 368, iii. 200, 389, iv. 332, n., v. 110 f.;
according to L. source of all heretical pravity, i. 287, 324, ii. 376

Prierias, S., i. 66, 163, 338 ff., 366, ii. 12 f., iii. 145, iv. 373 ff.

Priesthood, the olden P. a wall between man and God, iv. 123, 126, 516;
the new P. universal, all being priests though not preachers, ii. 31, 35, 89, 106, 113 f., 193, 211, 304, iii. 12, 15, iv. 455, 516, v. 160, vi. 250, n., 303 f., 306, 311, 403.

See Apostates, Preachers

Primacy, Roman, dates only from Phocas, iii. 93.

See Peter
Prince, as patriarch, v. 579-584;
as bishop, vi. 322;
as chief member of the Church, v. 144;
as supreme head, v. 590;
his duties, v. 568 ff.;

P. and Christian two different things, iii. 60, 69, 81, v. 55 f.;

L.’s treatment of the princes, ii. 305 ff., iii. 24, iv. 290-294.

See Authority, secular

Printers, printing-press, ii. 52 f., iv. 365, 381, v. 558, 560, vi. 431.

See Lotther, Lufft
Private judgment.
See Bible interpretation

Probst, J., ii. 346, iii. 300, iv. 160, v. 195, vi. 349

Processions, whether right, iv. 239, v. 313, 464, vi. 353, n.

Professor, L. as University P., iv. 228 ff.

Proles, A., i. 29, 46, 107, 297, iv. 119, vi. 68

Prophecies, L.’s, iii. 155, 163-168, iv. 13, v. 169-174, vi. 416, 443 f.;

P. fulfilled in L., iii. 165 ff., 396 f., iv. 330

Prophet, L. a, vi. 306, 391;

P. of the Germans, iii. 96, iv. 329, vi. 389 f., 442.

See Fanatics

Prostitutes, iii. 243, iv. 148, 215 f., 227, v. 109, 231.

See Brothels
Protest of Spires, ii. 381
Protestants.
See Christians
Proverbs, iii. 104, iv. 246
Proviso.
See Gospel-P.
Prussia, iv. 196, v. 216, 286

Psalms, commentaries and lectures on the, i. 63, 67-77, 119, 285, 361, 386

Psychology of L.’s abuse, iv. 306-326;
of his development, vi. 112-123;
of his humour, v. 319 ff.

Purgatory, i. 75, 179, 324, 343, iii. 329, iv. 504 ff., v. 283, 299, 438, vi. 484

Qualitas, “Christ my Q.,” iv. 460;
concupiscence a Q.? i. 141
Quare.
See Reason
Quarrelsomeness, i. 79

Quietism, i. 83, 167, 221 f., 231 f., ii. 225, iii. 210, v. 45, 86 f.

See Mysticism
Rabbis, v. 407, 414, 533.
See Jews
Rabe, A.
See Corvinus
⸺ L., v. 106
Rapagelanus, S., vi. 494
Ratichius, W., vi. 9
Rationalism, v. 269, vi. 440, 446 ff.
See Zwinglianism
Ratisbon, vi. 47, 412;
conferences and Interim, iii. 446, v. 274, 379 f.;

Diet, vi. 495

Ratzeberger, M., ii. 82, 170, iii. 74, 288, 309, vi. 103, 123, 132, 344, 347, 364, 377

Rauchhaupt, v. 239
Reaction, iii. 3-21.
See Antinomians, Fanatics, Peasants

Reason, L.’s antipathy for, i. 132, 158, 216, iii. 8, 21, 203, 210, 321, v. 4, 440, vi. 25, 364;
leads him to deny freedom, ii. 279 f.;
to require faith of infants brought for baptism, ii. 373;

“quare” comes from the devil, ii. 378;
R. a devil’s whore, vi. 364 f.
See Philosophy
Reform, need of R., ii. 222;
desired by all, vi. 402;
Roman proposals for R., iii. 443.
See Humanism
Reformation, v. 119-132;
its birth-hour, i. 23;

“from the monk’s melancholy sprang the R.,” vi. 176;
usual idea of it “mythological,” vi. 448;
the “peasant-rising of the spirit,” iii. 19;
a “remedy for the future,” ii. 249, 257

Reformer, L. a R.? iii. 236 f., 273, vi. 401 ff.

Regeneration, iii. 271.
See Justification
Reginald, W., vi. 385
Rehlinger, J., vi. 271
Reichenbach, ii. 138
Reinholdt, v. 218
Reisner, vi. 443
Reissenbusch, ii. 116 ff., 319 f.
Relaxation, weekly, iii. 307
Relics, i. 235, 284 f., ii. 245, 327;
L.’s list of R., iv. 292;
L.’s R., vi. 443
Religious teacher? L. a, vi. 455 f.
See Blasphemy, Quietism;
R. War, see Resistance
Rellach, J., v. 543
Remission.
See Forgiveness
Resignation.
See Hell

Resistance, armed R. against the Kaiser, ii. 309 f., iii. 43-76, 95, 431 ff.

Responsibility, ii. 79 f., 125, 272, iii. 438, v. 373 ff., vi. 162, 171, 228, 406 f.

Retractations, v. 23 f., vi. 260, 308
Reuchlin, J., i. 42, iii. 320
Reutlingen, ii. 384, iii. 64, 421, v. 80
Reval, vi. 265, 313

Revelation, L.’s, i. 377 f., 393, 397 ff., ii. 91, 114, 153, iii. 110 ff., 119, vi. 141-171, 387 f.

See Faith, Mission
Reward.
See Merit
Rhaide, B., iv. 25, vi. 486
Rhau, G., ii. 170

Rhegius, U., iv. 165, 467 f., vi. 58, 276, 487, 492

Rhetoric, iv. 342-350, vi. 200
Richardus, v. 419
Riesenburg, v. 216
Riga, vi. 475
Righteousness.
See Justice
Rings, L.’s, iii. 302, 428
Ritschl, A., v. 28, vi. 456
Ritual, iv. 223, 296, v. 313.
See Worship
Rivander, Z., iv. 222
Rivius, J., iv. 165, 470
Rochlitz, E. von, iv. 16, 24, 27, 201

Romans, Commentary on, i. 93-102, 184-260, iv. 422, 426

Romanticists, vi. 449
Rome, a heathen place, i. 286;
where nothing is believed, iv. 102, 296;
though seat of the martyrs, vi. 307;
abode of Antichrist, i. 359;
where Erasmus learnt unbelief, iii. 135;
a good thing if attacked by Turks, iii. 92;
L’s visit to R., i. 29 ff., vi. 188, 496 f.;
union with R. not necessary, ii. 9.
See Babylon, Pope, Pope-Ass
Rorarius, T., vi. 61

Rörer, G., iii. 218, iv. 498, v. 191, 499 ff., vi. 281, 391, 505 ff.

Rosary, i. 119, v. 248

Rose, golden, i. 365, n.

Rosheim.

See Josel

Rosina, iii. 217, 281, v. 107 f., 235, vi. 369

Rostock, iii. 371, vi. 29, 61
Rotenburg, iv. 25
Roth, S., iv. 99, v. 158
Rothenburg, ii. 167, iii. 387
Roting, M., vi. 6
Rubeanus.
See Crotus
Rudolstadt, vi. 265, 314
Rühel, ii. 142, 204, 206
Ruler.
See Prince
Rungius, P., vi. 275
Ruysbroek, J., i. 173
Rychardus, W., ii. 162 ff., iv. 349
Sabbatarians, v. 403 f.
Sabbath-Sunday, iii. 394 f.;
Sabbath of the soul, v. 86 f.
See Quietism
Sabellicus, iv. 89
Sabinus, G., ii. 390, iii. 362
Sachs, Hans, v. 223
Sachse, M., iv. 222
Sacrament, see Supper;
Sacramentarians, see Zwinglians

Sacraments, i. 27, 37, ii. 59, 389, iii. 262 f., iv. 146, 486-500, v. 438 f., 461 f.;
may be received or not, iii. 10;
preparation for, iii. 209 f.;
depend on faith of the receiver, i. 357, vi. 310;
are marks of the true Church, vi. 295, 309;

L.’s doctrine of the S. criticised, v. 461-465;
marriage is a S., iv. 146, 149;
is not, iii. 262 ff.;
not even with the Papists, iv. 134;
a merdiferous S., iv. 163.
See Baptism, etc.
Sacrifice.
See Mass
Sadoleto, J., iii. 335, 443, v. 401, vi. 488
Sailer, G., iv. 15, 65
Sainctes, C. de, vi. 386
St. Gall, iii. 422

Saint, use of the word by L., i. 82, ii. 217, n., iii. 187 f.;

L. a S., ii. 396, iii. 154, 169, vi. 389, 392, 445.

See Sanctus;

“S. L.,” vi. 391, see Portraits

Saints, what the S. did a dog or pig could do, iii. 227;
frailty of the S., iii. 191 f.;
the “little S.,” see Observantines;
legends of the S., i. 124, 282, iv. 246, v. 153 f., 474, vi. 335, 437, n.;
worship of the S., abuses in, i. 46, 361;
assailed by Erasmus, ii. 245;
L.’s attitude, iv. 499-503;
Mary made into a goddess, iv. 237;
and adored, 502 f.;
on canonisation, v. 122 f.;
suppression of feast-days, v. 146;
reintroduction mooted, vi. 410
Sala, B. von, i. 370
Salat, Hans, iv. 324

Sale, A. and M. von der, iv. 14, 16, 24 ff., 69 f.

Salvation, “outside of the Church no S.,” vi. 297, 425.

See Certainty, Faith, Grace, Hell, Humility, Justification

Salzburg, iii. 430
Sam, C., iii. 277
Samson, v. 382;
a “second S.,” iv. 338, vi. 442
Sanctity.
See Holiness
Sanctus Domini, ii. 51, n., vi. 389, n.
Sapidus, J., vi. 271
Sarcerius, E., iv. 71, 165, 222, vi. 61
Satan, L. reads his thoughts, vi. 154;
buffets, etc. of S., vi. 160 f., 111;
the prince of this world, ii. 273, iii. 190 f.

See Devil
Satire.
See Humour
Satisfaction, i. 75, 288, 296.
See Penance
Saur, A., v. 295
Savonarola, vi. 475
Saxo, J., iii. 412
Saxon, “I am a hard S.,” iv. 44, vi. 398
Saxony, v. 219, vi. 8;
Duchy of, iii. 416, iv. 194 ff., v. 124 ff.;

Electorate of, ii. 327-334, iii. 33 ff., iv. 202-210, v. 181, 296, vi. 241 f., 254 f., 414;
chief playground of the demons, v. 286

Scala Santa, i. 33, vi. 496

Scapular, mortal sin to leave cell without one’s, iv. 94, vi. 200

Scepticism, utterances savouring of, iii. 415, v. 360 f., 501;

L.’s promotion of S., ii. 32, 253, iii. 18.
See Rationalism
Schade.
See Mosellanus
Schaffhausen, iii. 422
Schalbe, C., i. 7
Schärtlin von Burtenbach, v. 219

Schatzgeyer, C., ii. 128, iii. 237, iv. 131, 353, n., 384

Schauenberg, S. von, ii. 5, 9, 27, iv. 83
Schelhorn, vi. 288
Schem Hamphoras.
See Jews

Schenk, J., iii. 371, 401 f., 414, iv. 309, v. 16, 237 f., vi. 273, 280, 285, 488

⸺ zu Schweinsberg, R., iv. 25, 38

Scheurl, C., i. 40, n., 304 f., 313, 361, ii. 149, iv. 141, 429, vi. 31, 212 f., 510 f.

Schlaginhaufen, J., i. xxiii., 393, iii. 177, 218 f., 225, 231, 287, 383, iv. 180, 226 f., v. 323, vi. 504-510;
his fainting-fit, v. 326 ff.

Schlahinhauffen, iii. 286 f.

Schleupner, D., ii. 334

Schlick, S. von, ii. 70

Schmalkalden, Conventions, iii. 58 f., 123, 430-441, v. 82, 175, 376, vi. 272;

League iii. 62, 64-68, 71, iv. 8 f., 11, v. 185, 394 f.;

War, v. 219, 252, vi. 274, 375, 407
Schmaltz, iii. 83
Schmedenstede, H., vi. 493
Schnabel, T., v. 142, vi. 51, 489
Schnauss, C., iii. 416
Schnepf, E., i. 316, iv. 29, 197, 461
Schöffer, J., v. 543

Scholasticism, L.’s relations with, i. 22 f., 84 ff., 130-164, 208, 243, 320, 357, iv. 92, v. 50, 59.

See Aquinas, Louvain, Nominalists
Schönfeld, A. von, ii. 139, 141
Schönitz, Hans von, v. 106 f.
Schools, vi. 3-41;
school-punishments, i. 5;

L’s concern for the S., iv. 247, 264 f., v. 386, 562;
decline of the S., iv. 208, vi. 367, 435 f.
See Æsop, Greek, etc.
Schott, F., v. 117
Schud, G., iv. 10
Schultheiss, W., vi. 271
Schurf, A., vi. 509

⸺ H., i. 304, ii. 99, 176, iii. 407, iv. 289, v. 591, vi. 356 ff.

Schütz, C., vi. 415, 417
Schwabach Articles, v. 340, vi. 309
Schwäbisch-Hall, vi. 275
Schwarzburg, ii. 318
Schweiniz, iii. 300
Schwenckfeld, C., v. 78-84, 155-164;
L’s interview with S., v. 138 f.;

L. on S., ii. 376, 379, iii. 409, n., v. 276, 397, vi. 272, 289;

“Stinkfield,” iii. 424

Scotus, Duns, i. 22, 86, 91, 130, 142, 146, 243, 311, iv. 120

⸺ J. M., vi. 493
Scribonius, G. A., v. 295
Scripture.
See Bible

Scruples, i. 11, 15, 110, 124 f., iii. 180, n., vi. 203, 219

Scultetus, H., i. 228, 332, 336, ii. 16 ff., iv. 82

Seckendorf, i. xxiii.

Sects, Sectarians.

See Heretics

Secular, calling, iv. 127-131, v. 55-60, 561, vi. 65-98.

See Authority, Clergy
Secularisation.
See Church-property, Marriage
Sedulius, H., iv. 178, vi. 382
Self-denial.
See Mortification
Self-righteousness.
See Works, holiness by

Selnecker, N., iii. 445, iv. 220, 225, vi. 62, 391, 417, 419, 421

Senfl, L., ii. 171 f., iii. 66

Sepulchre, the Holy, ii. 91, iii. 167 f.

Serarius, N., vi. 136, n.

Serfdom, ii. 217, vi. 74

Sermons, in Catholic times, i. 78 ff., iv. 136, v. 153 f., vi. 432;
see Geiler, etc.;
L.’s S., iv. 230 ff.;
notes of his S., ii. 149, n.;
place of the Sermon in Lutheran service, v. 152 f.

See Preachers
Servetus, iii. 358, vi. 266, 269, 272, 275
Service.
See Worship

Sic volo sic iubeo, iv. 346, v. 517, vi. 156, 166

Sickell, J., vi. 377, n.

Sickingen, F. von, ii. 4, 9, 67, 69, 93, 326, v. 240, vi. 467

Sickness.
See Ailments
Sidonie of Saxony, iv. 22
Sieberger, W., vi. 487
Silvius, P., iii. 429, iv. 178, 356, 358 f.
Simony, i. 328, 350 f.
Sin, the burden of past sins, i. 10 ff., 18;
need of finding a gracious God, i. 108 f.;

L.’s teaching on S., i. 209 ff., iii. 180-188;
all done without grace is S., ii. 229;
wicked man sins in doing good, i. 318 f.;
all man’s deeds are mortal sins, i. 101, 203;
no distinction between mortal and venial S., i. 102, iv. 459, vi. 514;
murder, adultery, etc., are small sins, v. 305;
the marriage-rite a S., iv. 152;
does God will S.? i. 188 f.;
man’s will all turned to S., ii. 287;
actual S., i. 99, 224, v. 438;
we should gladly be sinners, i. 73, 88 f., 186, iii. 177;
and cast our sins on Christ, v. 12;
it is good to commit a S., ii. 339, iii. 175 ff.;

“doing good we sin,” i. 101;
L. rebukes S., v. 31 ff.;
biggest S. (saying Mass), iii. 410;
“daily” S., iii 309.

See Concupiscence, Contrition, Forgiveness, Justification, Original S., Pecca fortiter, Scapular

Siricius, M., iv. 70
Sittardus, M., iii. 195, 238, iv. 383
Slander, i. 69.
See Calumnies
Sleeplessness.
See Ailments;
Sleep-walkers, v. 283
Sleidanus, J., ii. 196, iii. 239, vi. 451
Social work, L.’s, v. 561-564
Sodom, see Wittenberg;
Sodomite.
See Johann of Saxony
Sola fides, see Faith;
interpolation of “sola,” iv. 345 f., v. 513 f.

Soli Deo (to the Sun-God), vi. 350
Solida Declaratio, vi. 420
Solitude, to be avoided, v. 93, 302
Solomon’s, Temple, v. 501;
wives, iv. 161 f.
Somnambulists, v. 283
Sophists, i. 23.
See Scholastics
Sorbonne.
See Paris
Sorcery.
See Devil, Superstition, Witches
Sovereign.
See Prince

Spalatin, G., L.’s intimate, i. 7, 42, ii. 58, iii. 38, n., 113 f., 144 f., 269, v. 110, vi. 510;
his friend at Court, i. 263 f., 358, 368, ii. 19, 23, iii. 78, 301, vi. 241;
helps in the German Bible, v. 495;
marriage matters, ii. 137, 140, 173;
intolerance, ii. 331, v. 145, 593, vi. 240, 274;
missionary work, ii. 316, v. 124 f.;
becomes a victim to melancholy, iii. 197, iv. 219 f., v. 362;
consoled by L., v. 330;
the tale about his parents, iii. 284-287

Spangenberg, C., iii. 209, n., iv. 269, v. 174, 300, 426, vi. 62, 134 f., 276, 391, 413

⸺ J. von, ii. 361, n., vi. 391
Spectre-monks of Spires, ii. 389 f., vi. 209
Spee, F. von, v. 295
Spener, vi. 444

Spengler, L., ii. 334, 385, iii. 50, 58 ff., vi. 7, 36, 250, 483

Spenlein, G., i. 88 ff., 177, 263
Speratus, v. 190
Spires, i. 214, v. 221;

Diets, ii. 380 ff., iii. 49, 86, 88, 327, v. 168, 396

Spirit, iii. 382, 397 f., iv. 309, 314, 387-419, v. 73.

See Synteresis.
Bible S., see Word
Stadion, v. 273
Stangwald, vi. 391
Staphylus, F., iv. 167, vi. 137, 312 f., 384
Stapleton, T., vi. 323
Stapulensis.
See Faber
Staremberg, B. von, vi. 477

State, L. and the S., v. 559 ff., 568-579, 582, 585;

S. Church, iii. 29-33.

See Consistories, Intolerance, Prince

Statues.

See Images

Staupitz, J., theological deficiencies, i. 129;
his aims in the Order, i. 29;

L. “falls away” to S., i. 38;
esteem for and rapid promotion of L., i. 11 f., 14, 19 ff., 127, 160, 262, 295-299, 340, v. 63, vi. 212 f., 228;
advice to L., i. 16;
on Hus, i. 107 f., iii. 144;
at Heidelberg, i. 315 f.;

“your works are read in houses of ill-fame,” ii. 151, iii. 122;
proposed for a bishopric, i. 57;
dispenses L., i. 358, vi. 500, 504;
his sister, ii. 137;
the prophecy, iii. 165;
an enemy of the popedom? i. 326, vi. 189;
visit to Rome, vi. 497;
on the soul and her bridegroom, vi. 513
Stein, W., v. 194, vi. 86
Steinbach, W., i. 345
Steindorf, J., vi. 255
Steinhart, G., vi. 505 f.

Stiefel, M., ii. 376, iii. 389, v. 250 f., vi. 285

Stolberg, L. von, v. 211
Stolpen, v. 125
Stoltz, J., iii. 218
Storch, N., vi. 152
Stössel, J., vi. 415, 417
Stoutness.
See Corpulence
Stralsund, v. 216

Strasburg, ii. 382, iii. 386 f., 421, v. 409, vi. 46, 278, 412, 422

Strauss, J., iii. 409, n.
Strigel, V., iv. 222, vi. 412
Strobel, C. G., v. 271
Stübner, M., vi. 285

Students, L.’s care for, iii. 296 f., iv. 228 ff., vi. 367;
lack of discipline, ii. 51 f., v. 157, 247, vi. 30, 37, 41.

See Melanchthon
Stuhlweissenburg, v. 227
Sturm, Jakob, iv. 75
⸺ Joh., vi. 255
Sturz, G., ii. 350, v. 495
Stuttgart, vi. 38, 275
Stützel, ii. 334
Suarez, v. 375, n.

Subjectivism, i. 223 ff., 367, ii. 31 ff., 73, iii. 18 f., 81, 128, vi. 334, 458

Sublitz, vi. 122
Suevus, S., iv. 224, n.
Suicide, a work of the devil, v. 281 f.;
increase in Lutheranism, iv. 222 f., v. 240;
L.’s temptations to commit S., v. 352 f.;
and the baseless tale that he did, vi. 379, 381 f.

Suleiman II, iii. 76, 81, 88, 92, vi. 485;
inquires after L., iii. 83

Sunday.

See Sabbath-S.

Superintendents, iii. 30, 324, v. 190, 595, vi. 10

Supernatural, order, v. 49-52;
L.’s view of the S., i. 132, 157.
See Justification

Superstition, ii. 103, 167 f., 389, iii. 118, 148-152, 229 f., 355 ff., 410 f., v. 239 ff., 276 f., 428.

See Astrology, Changelings, Demonology, Last Day, Witches

Supper, Lord’s, the new rite, ii. 109 f.;
S. versus Sermon, v. 152 f.;
abuse of the, iii. 304, v. 163;
examination of those who partake, v. 134 f.;
no S. without communicants, v. 152;
L.’s last attendance at the S., vi. 374.
See Cryptocalvinism, Eucharist
Surgant, J., v. 491
Surplice.
See Vestments
Suso, H., i. 173
Sutel, J., iii. 163
Sweden, vi. 474, 480
Sylvius.
See Silvius

Synergism, ii. 287 ff., iii. 349 f., v. 53 f., 263, 454, vi. 412 ff.

Synteresis, i. 75, 114, 233 f., ii. 227 f.

See Conscience

Syphilis, i. 37.

See Ailments

Table-Talk, iii. 217-241, iv. 262-268, vi. 504-510;

L.’s words softened in the German T.-T., iii. 179, n.;
reasons for its publication, vi. 390 f.;
on the “good drink,” iii. 305 ff.;
the bigamy, iv. 43-49;
the Mass, iv. 523 f.;
end of the world, v. 247 ff.;
Antichrist, vi. 155.
See Aurifaber, Cordatus, etc.
Tagler, U., iv. 172

Talents, i. 24, iii. 217, iv. 257 ff., 327 ff., v. 475 f., 482 f., vi. 111

Talmud, iv. 285.

See Jews

Tauler, J., i. 84, 87, 122, 166-174, 178-183, 232 ff., 237, 243, 273 f., 299, 381, ii. 145, 372, vi. 115 ff., 215

Taxes, iv. 291.

See Tithes

Temptations, of the flesh, i. 18 f., 275, 287 f., ii. 82 f., 94 f., vi. 118, 120 f., 511;
to blasphemy, i. 194, ii. 122;
T. against faith, i. 25 f., 124, v. 362 f.;
to despair, i. 19, 376, ii. 276, v. 361;

“struggles and T.,” etc., v. 319-375, vi. 98-122, 150-154;
due to remembrance of past sins, v. 303;
to uncertainty whether his teaching be true, iii. 178, 202;
such T. are exalted ones, ii. 121;
make good Bible-interpreters, iii. 119, v. 390, 532, vi. 149;
make one humble, iii. 389;
are God’s own seal on L.’s work, iii. 119;
a mark of the true Christian, vi. 294 f.;
drink, a good remedy, iii. 306

Terence, iv. 47, 61, 186, 217, vi. 16, 18 f., 235

Tetrapolitana, Confessio, iii. 444, iv. 199

Tetzel, J., i. 105, 163, 314, 320, 325-330, 341-347, 352, iv. 84, 372, 390, vi. 188 f.

Teutleben, C., von ii. 21
Teutonic Knights.
See Knights
Thann, E. von der, iv. 25, 40 f.
Theocracy, v. 580-584, vi. 57
Theology, speculative T., v. 440 ff.;

T. of the Cross, i. 174, 191, 234 f., 270, 319, 332, ii. 146, 234, vi. 116.

See Scholasticism;
“deeper” T., see Mysticism
Thesaurus ecclesiæ, i. 70, 75, 357.
See Indulgence, Mass, Purgatory
Thomae, M., vi. 151
Thomas of Aquin, see Aquinas;
Thomists, i. 162 f., 243, 271, 339, 370.
See Aristotle
Three Kings, i. 174, iv. 171.
See Magi
Thuringia, v. 21
Timothy, v. 328
Tithes, ii. 193, 221, vi. 85 f., 94 f.
Titillationes, ii. 94
Titles.

See Doctor, Ecclesiastes, Pope (of Wittenberg), Prophet, etc.

Titus, 64, 306, 386

Tobogganing, vi. 373

Tolerance, L. the herald of T.? iii. 109, v. 558, vi. 266 f., 448.

See Intolerance
Tomb, L.’s, vi. 387 ff., 392 ff.
Tonsure, i. 120, 276, v. 113, 515

Torgau, ii. 215, iii. 55 ff., v. 183, 340, vi. 108;

T. Articles, vi. 417;
Book of T., vi. 419
Tower-incident, i. 388-400

Tradition, not the same as the personal views of the Fathers, vi. 336;
is the common usage of the Churches, vi. 253, 309;
scorned, iv. 420 f.;
thrown over, v. 437 f.;
and yet appealed to, iii. 395 f., iv. 409 f., 494;
v. 399, 462.

See Fathers

Training.

See Education

Translations, iii. 413 f., 416.

See Bible, etc.

Transubstantiation, i. 161 f., iii. 329, 382, n., 445 f.

See Consubstantiation
Transylvania, v. 167
Treasure.
See Thesaurus

Trent, Council of, indirectly brought about by L., vi. 426;
steps towards its assembling, iii. 424 ff., vi. 492, 494;
its doings, v. 387 ff.;
on relics, etc., vi. 437;
the Catechism, vi. 435;
not fair to judge L. everywhere by its standard, i. 224;

L. on the Council, iv. 339 f., v. 376-394, 429, vi. 344, 364, 375;
its reaction on the Protestants, vi. 419 f., 423 f.

Treptow, iii. 407
Treves, v. 221
Trinity, ii. 397 ff., iv. 240 f., 488 f.
Trithemius, J., i. 48, 91
Trump of doom, iv. 329, v. 239, vi. 344

Trutfetter, J., i. 6, 137, 311, 320, 343, iv. 356

Truthfulness, v. 111.
See Calumnies, Lies
Tübingen, iii. 430, vi. 38
Turks, iii. 76-93, iv. 247, v. 417-421;
a sign of the Last Day, v. 227;
L.’s fear, v. 167;

L. does little to help the defence, ii. 383, iii. 70 f., 94 f., 214, v. 129, 231;

T. and Pope, etc., ii. 324, v. 234;

T. and Evangelicals, iv. 20, v. 197, 234, 417-421, 479;

Embassy to the T., v. 234, vi. 344 f.

See Appendix I, passim

Tyrants, world cannot get on without, iii. 147;
assassination of T., ii. 199, iii. 357, iv. 12, vi. 269

Ubiquity.

See Christ

Ulenberg, C., i. xxiv., ii. 131, iv. 243, 262, n., vi. 268

Ulm, ii. 382, iii. 64, 421, vi. 272, 278
Ulrich of Augsburg, S., iii. 250, iv. 89 f.
⸺ Würtemberg, iii. 58, 67 f., iv. 196 ff.
Ulscenius, vi. 52, n.
Unbelief, L.’s occasional U., v. 373;
the worst of sins, iii. 177;
“Catholic U.,” i. 326, 390, 395;
lack of fiducial faith constitutes U., vi. 193 f.

See Faith, Rome
Undermark, M., iv. 383
Universities, appealed to, ii. 21, iv. 6;
unmarried Fellows at the, iv. 154;
derided, ii. 80, 347, iii. 143, iv. 336, vi. 24 f., 33;
decline of the U. due to L., ii. 340 f., 358 f., vi. 27 f.;
the new U., vi. 38.

See Paris, etc.

Unseemliness of L.’s language, specimens of the, i. 245, ii. 117 f., 121, 144 ff., iii. 226, 229-241, 251, 264-273, 399, 403, 426, iv. 45, 64, 106, 143, 148, 153 f., 161-164, 177, 285 ff., 295 f., 305, 318-322, v. 115, 196, 229, 238, 397, 406 f., 421-431, vi. 72, 254, 336, 338, 349, 363 f., 513.

See Abusive language
Urban, vi. 383
Ursinus, Z., vi. 414, 422
Usingen, B. A. von, L.’s professor, i. 6, 14;
suspicious of Aristotle, i. 136 f.;
the “best Paraclete,” i. 10, vi. 206;
traces in the Comm. on Romans, i. 243;
U. on the two “factions,” i. 147;
opposes L., i. 311, ii. 342 ff., 350;
L.’s treatment of U., ii. 337, 347, 361, n.

Usury and interest, iii. 104, iv. 216, 266, v. 479, 562, vi. 78, n., 81-98

Utilitarianism, vi. 23
Utraquists of Prague, ii. 9, 112
Vadian, J., iv. 100
Valla, L., ii. 286, iii. 145
Vasa, G., vi. 480
Vehe, M., iii. 238, iv. 383, vi. 436
Venatorius, T., ii. 43, vi. 483
Venial sin.
See Sin
Venice, i. 228, iii. 430, v. 167

Vergerio, P. P., iii. 70, 425-430, iv. 358 f., 485, v. 391

Vestments, ii. 323, iii. 393, 413, iv. 511, v. 147, 220, 222, 313, vi. 410

Vicar, District, L. elected, i. 69;
doings as D. V., i. 88 ff., 124, 262-268, 297 f., 315 f., 333 f.

Viccius, J., ii. 27
Vienna, iii. 81, 88, 383
Vio, T. de, ii. 46

Violence, of language, ii. 11, 13 f., iii. 365 f., 444, iv. 306 f., vi. 108 f., 112;

V. advocated, ii. 55, iii. 127.
Violent measures, see Intolerance
Virgil, vi. 17 f., 376
Virgin, Blessed, see Mary;
Virgin-Birth, iv. 241, vi. 420, n.;
L. a V., ii. 143
Virginity, iii. 244, iv. 147 f.
See Chastity
Virtue, no infused V., v. 35;
no efforts to be made after V., i. 83, iii. 187 ff.;
the conception of V. altered, iv. 459;
natural V. is no V. but rather vice, i. 101, 160;

V. is not a real “habit” nor a “quality,” i. 149 f., 209-213, 216;

L.’s new view of V., iii. 200-217;
its defects, v. 84 ff.
See Qualitas
Vischer, S., vi. 61
Visions.
See Ghost

Visitations, ii. 113, 223, 299, n., 332, iii. 34, 323, iv. 207 ff., v. 588-597, vi. 241 f.

Vitalis, F., iii. 152

Vives, J. L., vi. 44, 58

Vocation, L.’s V. to the monastic state, i. 18 f., 25, 167, 297 f.

See Mission, Secular calling
Volta, G. della, i. 333
Vows, according to Erasmus, ii. 245;
Melanchthon, iii. 325, 330, 360, 439;
according to L., i. 269 f.;

L.’s attack on V., i. 120, ii. 83-87, 115 ff.;
encourages others to break their, ii. 116 ff., 139 f., 142, 169;

L.’s own V., i. 12, ii. 86, vi. 205 ff., 222 f.

See Chastity
Vulgarity.
See Unseemliness
Wages, high, vi. 84 (iii. 291)
Walch, J. G., iii. 138, 164, 222, vi. 447
Waldensians, iv. 417, n.
Waldschmidt, B., v. 295
Walther, J., ii. 334, iv. 256, v. 547
⸺ R., vi. 40
Wanckel, M., v. 421
War, legitimacy of, iv. 299;
evil of, v. 282.
See Julius II, Peasants, Resistance, Turks
Warsager, J., iv. 64, n.
Wartburg, stay at the, ii. 79-96, 368;
temptations, ii. 88, iii. 196, vi. 511;
apparitions, etc., vi. 123 f., 134;
beginning of the German Bible, v. 494, 544;
effect on L. of his stay, iii. 5 f., 120 f.
Water, Holy, iii. 266
Wealth, on whom bestowed, iv. 265
Wedding, L.’s, ii. 173-189;
his thoughts before it, ii. 86 f., 118 f., 139 ff., 147 f., 169 f., 218 f., vi. 208;
a “Joseph’s marriage,” ii. 142;
after-allusions to his W., iii. 269;
“good days,” iii. 178, v. 328, vi. 208;
a means of escaping temptations, vi. 209;
God’s own work, vi. 162;
not recognised by the lawyers, iii. 42, vi. 341, 355.

See Bora, Marriage
Wegscheider, J., vi. 447
Weida, M., of, iii. 238, iv. 128, 136
Weier, M., ii. 323
Weimar, iii. 70, iv. 23, 44 f., 48, vi. 9
Weinsberg, ii. 198, vi. 477
Weislinger, N., ii. 131
Weller, A., iv. 206

⸺ Hier., iii. 175 ff., 196, 218, 221, 306, iv. 219, 244, 269, v. 329, vi. 488

Werdenberg, Hans von, iii. 292

Werewolf, the Papal, iv. 298, v. 384, vi. 244 f., 491

Werner, Hans, iv. 197
⸺ Z., vi. 449
Wesenberg, vi. 61
Wessel, J., vi. 474
Westphal, J., vi. 408, 410, 415
Whale.
See Haarlem
Whore, use of the word, iii. 270 f.

Wicel, G., i. 16, iii. 403, 416, iv. 160, 165 f., 181 f., 361 ff., 471, v. 43, 379, 436

Wiclif, i. 106, 108, n., ii. 232, 286, n., iv. 417, n., v. 243, vi. 26

Widebram, F., vi. 417
Widerstett, ii. 137
Wied, H. von, v. 166, vi. 492 f.
Wieland, vi. 448

Wife, terrible to die without a W., iii. 242 f.

See Bishop, Bora, Marriage, Women
Wigand, J., vi. 409 f., 413, 415
Wild, J., iii. 238, iv. 366
Wilde, S., iv. 99

Will of God, reason why things are good and evil, i. 157, 212, see God (the hidden);

Will (human), see Freedom;
L.’s strong Will, iii. 112, iv. 259, vi. 396.
See Defiance

Will, Last W. and Testament, iii. 42 f., 435 f., iv. 207, 281, 329

William of Bavaria, ii. 171 f., 380, iii. 66, 430, iv. 367

⸺ II, of Hesse, iv. 45, 61

⸺ IV, iv. 70, vi. 420

Wimpfeling, J., i. 24, 48, 52, iii. 238, iv. 169, vi. 18, 34, 214

Wimpina, C., i. 344, iv. 303, 384

Winand, i. 12

Wine, iii. 293, 301, 304, 307, 310, 314, iv. 26, 171, vi. 446

Winistede, J., vi. 61

Winther, J., iv. 25

Witches, L. and the, iii. 230, 356 f., v. 187, 241 f., 276 f., 289-297, 304

Wittenberg, L. goes to W., i. 21;
dislike for, iv. 215 f., vi. 345 ff.;
“compelled by God” to go thither, iii. 114;
the escaped nuns at W., ii. 136 ff.;
conversion of the town, ii. 327 ff., vi. 240 f.;

Bugenhagen made parish-priest, iii. 407;
suppression of the Mass, ii. 90 f., iv. 510 f.;

“Church of W.,” “School of W.,” v. 384, vi. 314 f.;
morals, iv. 209 f., 215-218, v. 247, vi. 77;
the students vi. 367;
hasty marriages, vi. 358;
the Black Monastery, i. 297, n., iii. 218, 282 f., v. 203 f., 207, 346, vi. 509;

Elster Gate, ii. 51, 54, vi. 381;
Parish church, ii. 98, iv. 286;
University, i. 38 f.

See Melanchthon, Pope (of Wittenberg), Zwingli

Wolferinus, vi. 354

Wolfframsdorff, J. F. von, iii. 292

Wolfgang of Anhalt, ii. 384, iii. 64, vi. 380 f.

Wollin, iii. 407
Women, status of, iii. 233, 267, iv. 132-178;
advice of L.’s director, vi. 206, n.;
degraded by L., iii. 253;
“plenty of wives and children few,” iii. 291;

“who loves not woman, wine and song,” iii. 293 f.;

“a woman’s love,” iii. 289.

See Marriage

Word, the inner W. (i.e. spirit), i. 229, 299, iv. 397 f.;
replaced by the outward W. (i.e. letter), iii. 397 f., iv. 408-411, v. 161, 164, vi. 149;
the divine W. in the Sermon and the Eucharist, v. 153;
the W. of truth, i. 83.

See Bible, Revelations, Temptations

Work, L.’s power for work, i. 267, 274 f., ii. 52 f., 87 f., 97 f., 134, 160, 223, iii. 117, 298 f., iv. 260 f., v. 497 ff., vi. 342, 348

Works, good, iv. 449-481, v. 38-43;

L.’s dislike for, i. 43, 62, 118 ff., 167, 208, ii. 348 f., v. 45;
reason for his apostasy, i. 117 ff., vi. 189;
natural G. W. non-existent, i. 92;
probably all of them mortal sins, i. 317;
G. W. are mere Mosaism, i. 251;
the Catholic “Holiness-by-works,” i. 67, 71, 108, 182;
the only goodness in W. is imputed goodness, i. 212;
truly G. W. are found only in those justified by faith, i. 215;
in these all works are G. W., ii. 36, n.;
whereas in others all are sins, v. 47 f.;
the best of G. W. is fiducial faith, v. 85;

L.’s teaching on G. W. helps on his cause, vi. 403 f.

See Commandments, Concurrence, Counsels, Ethics, Law, Merit, Synergism

World, L. against the W. and the W. against L., vi. 271;

W. and Christianity, v. 55 f.;
end of W.
See Last Day;
see also Secular Calling

Worms, L. at the Diet of, ii. 57 f., 61-79, 132, 324, 367, iii. 209, n., iv. 85, 355, vi. 105;

Edict of W., ii. 380 f.

Worship, L.’s charges against Catholic W., i. 283, ii. 354 f., iii. 46, v. 46, 439, vi. 242-245;
true W. consists of faith, praise and thanks, v. 44;
public W., v. 145-154, 466;
not meant for “Christians,” v. 466, vi. 445, n.;
must be free, i. 252;
the new form of W., ii. 97 f., 320 f.;
to be in Latin, iii. 396;
v. 146; or in Greek, or Hebrew, iv. 280;
to be settled by the Government, vi. 263.
See Ritual
Würtemberg, iii. 67 f., iv. 46, 53, 196-201
Würzburg, v. 220, vi. 47
Wurzen, v. 200, 202
Ypres, vi. 43 f.
Zachariae, J., i. 107
Zanchi, vi. 410, n.

Zasius, U., ii. 39, 211 f., 244, n., 256, 261, iv. 336, 360, vi. 31, 438 f.

Zeitz, v. 193, iv. 346
Zell, M., ii. 153, vi. 278
Zerbst, v. 189, 218, vi. 266
Ziegler, B., v. 500, vi. 410
⸺ J., ii. 133, iii. 303, vi. 271
Zinzendorf, vi. 445
Ziska, iii. 96
Zoch, L., iv. 349
Zulsdorf, vi. 346
Zürich, iii. 422 ff., 447

Zwickau, ii. 97, 99, 205, iii. 234, 402, vi. 34 f., 255, 263, 266

Zwilling, G., i. 297, n., ii. 98, 314 ff., 336, iii. 121, vi. 504

Zwingli, U., an Erasmian, ii. 248;
yet a predestinarian, iii. 189;
an iconoclast, v. 208, 222;
rationalist, i. 175;
intolerance, vi. 278;
stands up for the Epistle of James, v. 523;
against the bigamy, iv. 10, n.;
relations with L., iii. 379-385;

L.’s jealousy, ii. 376, iii. 65, 177, 389, iv. 87, 308 ff., 410 f., 493 f., v. 104, 231, 531 f., vi. 108, 280, 289, 352;

Wittenberg Concord, iii. 417-424;
Z. on L., iii. 277.
See Marburg Conference, Philip II

Zwinglians, Sacramentarians, etc., ii. 223, iii. 67, 327 f., 379-385, 409, 424, v. 76, 79 f., 104 f., 169, 231, 397 ff., 465, vi. 289, 316, 351 f., 396.

See Supper

Zwolle, vi. 35

PRINTED BY
WM. BRENDON AND SON, LTD.,
PLYMOUTH, ENGLAND.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LUTHER, VOL. 6 OF 6 ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

LUTHER

CHAPTER XXXV (Continued) LUTHER’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SOCIETY AND EDUCATION

- 3. Elementary Schools and Higher Education

- Luther’s Appeals on Behalf of the Schools
- Polemical Trend of Luther’s Pedagogics
- Luther’s Educational Plans

- The Decline of the Schools Following in the Wake of the Innovations

- Higher Education before Luther’s Day

- Luther’s Success

- 4. Benevolence and Relief of the Poor

- At the Close of the Middle Ages

- Luther’s Efforts. The Primary Cause of their Failure

- A Second Stumbling Block: Lack of Organisation

- Influence of Luther’s Ethics. Robbery of Church Property Proves a Curse

- Some Recent Excuses

- 5. Luther’s Attitude towards Worldly Callings

- Luther’s Pessimism Regarding Various Callings. The Peasants

- The Psychological Background. Luther’s Estrangement from Whole Classes of Society

- The Merchant Class
- Influence of Old-Testament Ideas
- Usury and Interest
- Luther on Unearned Incomes and Annuities

CHAPTER XXXVI THE DARKER SIDE OF LUTHER’S INNER LIFE. HIS AILMENTS

- 1. Early Sufferings, Bodily and Mental

- Fits of Fear; Palpitations; Swoons

- Nervousness and other Ailments

- The so-called Temptations no Mere Morbid Phenomena

- 2. Psychic Problems of Luther’s Religious Development

- Temptations to Despair
- The Shadow of Pseudo-Mysticism
- Other Ordeals
- Summary

- 3. Ghosts, Delusions, Apparitions of the Devil

- The Statements Concerning Luther’s Intercourse with the Beyond

- The Disputation with the Devil on the Mass

- Possession and Exorcism

- 4. Revelation and Illusion. Morbid Trains of Thought

- Luther’s Insistence on Private Revelation

- Some Apparent Withdrawals

- The “Temptations” as one of Luther’s Bulwarks

- Three Perverted Theories Dominating Luther’s Outlook

- Other Abnormal Lines of Thought and Behaviour

- 5. Luther’s Psychology according to Physicians and Historians

- Addendum. Some Medical Opinions on Nervous Degeneration, and Abnormal Ideas.

CHAPTER XXXVII LUTHER’S LATER EMBELLISHMENT OF HIS EARLY LIFE

- 1. Luther’s later Picture of his Convent Life and Apostasy

- The Legend about his First Public Appearance

- The Legend about his Years of Monkish Piety

- 2. The Reality. Luther’s Falsification of History

- Monastic Days of Peace and Happiness. The Vows and their Breach

- Some Doubtful Virtues
- Luther’s Alterations of the Facts
- The Monkish Nightmare

- 3. The Legend receives its last touch; how it was used

CHAPTER XXXVIII END OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. THE CHURCH-UNSEEN AND THE VISIBLE CHURCH-BY-LAW

- 1. From Religious Licence to Religious Constraint

- Freedom as the Watchword

- Intolerance Towards Catholics in Theory and Practice

- Threats of Bloody Reprisals against Papists, Priestlings and Monks

- The Death-Penalty Sectarians within the New Fold

- Luther’s Self-justification and Excuses
- Compulsory Attendance at Church
- Opinions of Protestant Historians
- Luther’s Spirit in his Fellows

- 2. Luther as Judge

- The Conceit and the Obstinacy of the “Heretics”

- “Heretics” who cannot be sure of their Cause

- Where are your Miracles?

- His Anger with Lemnius and Others

- 3. The Church-Unseen, its Origin and Early History

- Invisibility of Luther’s Church

- The Marks of the Church. Gradual Disappearance of the Old Conception of the Church

- Origin and Early Outbuilding of the New Idea of the Church

- Luther’s Later Attitude Towards the Idea of the Church. Objections

- 4. The Church becomes visible. Its organisation

- 5. Luther’s Tactics in Questions concerning the Church

- The Erfurt Preachers in a Tight Place

- Controversies with the Catholics on the Question of the Church

- The Indefectibility of the Church and Her Thousand-Year-Long Error

- Luther’s Tactics in the Interpretation of the Bible

CHAPTER XXXIX END OF LUTHER’S LIFE

- 1. The Flight from Wittenberg

- 2. Last Troubles and Cares

- Theological Disruption
- The Controversy on Clandestine Marriages
- Difficulties with the State Church
- The Present and the To-come

- 3. Luther’s Death at Eisleben (1546)

- 4. In the World of Legend

CHAPTER XL AT THE GRAVE

- 1. Luther’s fame among the friends he left behind

- 2. Luther’s Memory among the Catholics. The Question of His Greatness

- 3. Luther’s Fate in the First Struggles for his Spiritual Heritage

- The Osiandric, Majorite, Adiaphoristic and Synergistic Controversies

- Cryptocalvinism

- The so-called formula of concord (1580)

- 4. Mutual Influence of the Two Camps. Growing Strength of the Catholic Church

- Luther’s Churches

- Progress and Gains of Catholicism

- 5. Luther as described by the Olden “Orthodox” Lutherans

- 6. Luther as seen by the Pietists and Rationalists

- 7. The Modern Picture of Luther

- The latest efforts to portray Luther

- The Janus-Picture of the Mediæval and Modern Luther

- The “Religious” Reformer and the Hero of “Kultur”

- A “Political” Luther?—Conclusion

XLI—APPENDIX I LUTHER’S WRITINGS AND THE EVENTS OF THE DAY ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

XLII—APPENDIX II ADDITIONS AND EMENDATIONS

- 1-2. Luther’s Visit to Rome

- 3. Luther’s conception of “Observance” and his conflict with his brother friars

- 4. Attack upon the “Self-righteous”

- 5. The collapse of the Augustinian Congregation

- 6. The Tower Incident (vol. I, pp. 388-400)
- 7. The Indulgence-Theses
- 8. The Temptations at the Wartburg
- 9. Prayer at the Wartburg

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

- 11. Luther’s moral character
- 12. Luther’s views on lies
- 13. Luther’s lack of the missionary spirit
- 14. Notes

FOOTNOTES
INDEX
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE