[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.