[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.