Of other, in part from Carlstadt's evil example originated ravings, errors, impetuous preachers and such aergernissen, all of which Luther has bravely resisted.
From the impetuous Predign at Oelsnitz, and others who had spread erroneous teachings.
Luther's testimony of his annoyance at such preachers who cause trouble with uncouth words and manners.
See Luther's preface on Joh. Apel's Schutzfchrtft in the 14th volume of this collection, Col. 260 f.
Luther expresses his displeasure with Spalatin that the Weimar court preacher Wolfgang Stein married an elderly woman for the sake of mammon, which is a disgrace to the Gospel.
See Appendix, No. 123.
705: Luther's letter to the Oelsnitz City Council on account of their impetuous preacher, in which he asks for God's sake to turn the people away from him and to prevent the mob from using force. Dec. 4, 1523.
This letter is found in the Eisleben edition, vol. I, p. 277; in the Altenburger, vol. II, p. 366; in the Leipziger, vol. XVIII, p. 492; in De Wette, vol. II, p. 438 and in the Erlanger, vol. 53, p. 222.
To the honorable and wise council and the community of Oelsnitz, my special dear gentlemen and friends.
1. grace and peace in Christ. Honorable, wise, dear sirs and good friends! It is
706 Luther's letter to Michael von der Straßen concerning the preacher at Oelsnitz im Voigtlande, Wolfgang Crusius, who rejected confession and absolution, as well as papal law and the mass without communion, in very harsh terms. October 16, 1523.
This letter is first printed from a copy in the Weimar Archives in the Supplement to the Leipzig edition, p. 34; then in Walch; in De Wette, vol. II, p. 422 and in the Erlanger, vol. 53, p. 218.
To the honorable and firm Michael von der Straßen, escort at Borna, my especially favorable lord and friend.
Grace and peace in Christ. These articles are much more valid, namely those about forced confession and mass are about money. But you have well heard my opinion in the booklet on confession and mass: that confession is good when it is uncoerced and free, and mass is not sacrifice, nor good works, but only a testament and God's good deed etc. But this preacher lacks that he starts too high, and throws away the old shoes before he has new ones, and wants to put the must into old barrels; that is not fine. He should teach the people neatly about faith and love; this teaching would be time enough for a year, if they understood Christ well beforehand. What is it that one attacks the ignorant people so quickly? I have preached in Wittenberg for three years before I brought it to the people, and they want to do it in one hour. We are sorry enough for them, such honor-seekers. For this reason, I ask you to tell the Oelsnitz governor that he should order the preacher to start cleanly and preach Christ correctly for the time being, or leave his raving and go away; but especially that he should leave confession unpunished and unpunished with absolution, and not mix the parish office with monastery and cathedral work. I can see that [he] is an immodest head who has seen a smoke, but does not know where it burns, and has heard ringing, but not beating. Hiemit GOtt commanded. Your gift, if it comes, we will not refuse and thank you kindly. Greetings to your dear Ribben. God's grace with you. Amen. I think that this writing is enough also for the
707 Luther's letter to the Elector John of Saxony in the matter of Hans Mohr, a soldier at Coburg, who had denied the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. January 16, 1528.
The original of this letter is in the Weimar Archives, printed from it in the Supplement to the Leipzig edition, p. 49; in De Wette, Vol. Ill, p.256 and in the Erlangen edition, Vol. 53, p. 416. All editions have the wrong date: "January 9", because it has been overlooked, which Burkhardt, p. 126, states, that the date of the original reads: "Dornstag nachtriura
reZuin."
To the most illustrious, highborn Prince and Lord, Duke of Saxony and Elector, Landgrave in Thuringia and Margrave of Meissen, my most gracious Lord.
Grace and peace in Christ. Most Serene, Highborn Prince, Most Gracious Lord! On the matter of Hans Mohr at Coburg, on account of the Zwinglian opinion, I give E. C. F. G. my humble opinion. First, because the same Hans Mohr has no command to speak of such matters publicly, and yet is annoying to others, since he is not required or urged by anyone to confess his faith, he should refrain from speaking of it among the simple until he is urged to do so. Secondly, because he is not certain of the matter, nor can he be certain, he should not speak of it to anyone, whether learned or unlearned, in the opinion that he wants to consider it certain, even according to divine right, 1 Pet. 3, but to the preacher (where he does not want to remain silent) and the pastor; 1) there first hear and ask that they first hear his cause and reason, and then act with him in a Christian way. Thirdly, because he blasphemes our faith with a public lie, since he says that we make the Creator out of the creature, he shall thereby justly deserve eternal silence, as the
1) There is no punctuation mark here in the outputs.
2096 Erl. 53.417. SS3. Section 6: Other ravings. No. 707 ff. W. XV, 2SV1-2SV3. 2097
thus sufficiently indicating that he understands neither our faith nor his own, and out of sheer wilful ignorance wants to atone for his lust and blasphemy, and incite the poor rabble to the same lie and blasphemy. For we do not say that the creature is made the Creator when we say that Christ's body is in the Lord's Supper or the bread. He does not want to know that we do not make the bread and the body one being and nature, but only that the bread and the body are there at the same time; just as all blasphemers blaspheme. And even if one were to say that the creature became the Creator (as we do not do in this article), it would still not be all wrong, for we all believe and say that God is man and man is God in Christ, since man is the creature and God the Creator. Therefore, such speech is not so abominable among Christians as they blaspheme, and thus want to make it false that God is man. Therefore, such lies and blasphemies should be cause enough for his mouth to be controlled, as it is to be assumed that he prefers to deal with lies and blasphemies than with the truth. I order E. C. F. G. to judge this humbly. 1) Hereby commanded by God. Amen. Thursday after the Octave Trium Regum [16 Jan] 1528.
E. C. F. G.
subservient
Martinus Luther.
708: Luther's letter to the escort at Borna, Michael von der Straßen, against the rebellious preacher at Oelsnitz.
December 5, 1523.
This letter is found in the Eisleben edition, vol. I, p. 177; in the Altenburger, vol. II, p. 366; in the Leipziger, vol. XVIII, p. 492; in De Wette, vol. II, p. 439 and in the Erlanger, vol. 53, p. 223.
Grace and peace in Christ. Honorable, dear Lord and friend! I have received and heard your writing together with the enclosed letter, and it is my counsel that my
1) Seckendorf, nist. Imtk., lib. II, x.124,? 43 (2), reports: After receiving this answer from Luther, this soldier's appointment was taken away, and he was dismissed, since he could not be reformed and silenced.
The most gracious Lord should do this by force and either expel the preacher at Oelsnitz or force him to talk the people out of such clumsy things and revoke them. For such preaching is neither evangelical nor human, but certainly of the devil. And because they do this with their fists, it is not enough to act against them with words, but to fight the fist with a fist. Let one or six be taken by the neck and thrown into the hole, and the devil will change his attitude. I have already written a letter to the council and congregation there. Hereby commanded by God, on Saturday, in Vigilia Nicolai [December 5] Anno 1523.
Martinus Luther.
B. How D. Strauss at Eisenach and Wolfgang Stein at Weimar have abolished imperial and papal law and want to reintroduce the Mosaic laws.
709 Luther's objection, written at the request of Duke John Frederick on June 18, 1524, to the controversy raised by V. Jakob Strauß as to whether one should judge according to the laws of Moses or those of the Emperor.
This concern, which is fragmented in Walch (namely the first part is found in vol. X, 402; the second part in vol. XXI, 70) is found in the St. Louis edition, vol. X, 354 ff. It is to be dated June 18, 1524. In the previous editions, the wrong date is: "May 21." Likewise, the wrong address: "An den Churfürsten Friedrich." According to Burkhardt, p. 71, the following corrections should be made in the text: Col. 356, line 2 v. u. read: "ob's" instead of: als; id. Z. I v. u. read: "GOtt" instead of: gar; Col. 357, Z. 7 v. u. read: "und lass da sehen".
710 Duke John Frederick of Saxony's answer to D. Matt. Luther, in which he testifies to great joy over the explanation he has received and the insight he has gained into this controversial question, adding that he hopes to win back his father, the Elector, whom Wolfgang Stein had completely taken over; he also wishes that Luther would hold a church visitation and remove unfit preachers with the help of the authorities.
This letter is found in Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 352.
The ninth chapter.
Two imperial congresses held at Nuremberg in the years 1522 to 1524, and the consequences of the latter in particular.
Since the documents in this chapter are rather colorfully jumbled, we give the reader here for his orientation a short historical message about the Imperial Diet held in Nuremberg in the years 1522 to 1524. The first one was announced by Emperor Carl V on February 12, 1522, for March 23 (No. 711), and lasted until May 8, as can be seen from the Reichstag resolution No. 734. In this very convention it was decreed that a new Diet should be opened on September 1, 1522. The first Reichstag dealt almost exclusively with the imminent danger of the Turks and how to avert it; Luther is not even mentioned in the Reichstag resolution. The second Reichstag lasted until March 6, 1523, and was ended on that day by the imperial mandate No. 731 instead of a Reichstag conclusion. The third Reichstag was announced for the beginning of December 1523, but opened only on January 14, 1524, and ended on April 18, 1524, by the Imperial Mandate No. 741. Here it is actually only about the last two imperial assemblies.