[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:

[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).