XIII Luther's dispute with King Henry VIII of England.
Luther's quarrel with King Henry VIII of England arose from the fact that the king, in a very vehement writing full of invective and the most vexatious accusations against Luther, sought to refute the latter's book "Of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church" and to uphold the seven sacraments of the Roman Church. As a reward for these his efforts for the Roman Church and the Papal See, the Pope awarded him the title of Protector of the Faith.
Already on August 31, 1520, a part of the writing of the Babylonian captivity of the church 1) (No. 69 in this volume) was finished, probably already printed (excusum), as we see from his letter to Spalatin under this date. On October 6, the printing was completed and the writing was sent?) Fourteen days after its appearance, it was banned. This enormous reformation writing belongs, as Kolde (Martin Luther, p. 271) rightly says, "to the most spiritually powerful, which Luther ever wrote". In it he sang the higher hymn against Rome, which he sang at the end of the book.
1) The various editions of this manuscript are given in the first note to No. 69.
2) Cf. the list of some of Luther's writings that are relevant here, Col. 424.
of his writing to the German nobility. That it followed so soon - for the writing to the nobility was not completed until June 23 and appeared in mid-August - was probably due to the fact that an unnamed and unknown Italian monk in Cremona had written against the communion under both forms, and Alveld had published his treatise on the communion of the laity under both forms against Luther in Leipzig in July 1520. The writing about the Babylonian captivity of the church is addressed to Hermann Tulich, Corrector in Melchior Lotther's printing office in Wittenberg. 3) In it Luther proves that all those are ungodly who deny the laity communion under both forms. He calls it a "prelude" because he still wants to deliver a great deal to his time, 4) as soon as the papists will have overcome this book; a "recantation" because in this writing he denies the seven number of sacraments, while in his "Sermon of the New Testament, that is, of the Mass," published shortly before the writing was issued to the nobility, he still gives seven sacraments.
3) Cf. the 2nd note to Col. 4 of this volume.
4) As the completion of the Babylonian prison, Luther sees, as he says in the epilogue to his answer to Ambrosius Catharinus, his interpretation of the eighth chapter of the prophet Daniel (Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 1484 ff.), in which he proves "that in the Scriptures there is very much of their Prince and Head," namely, that he is the end-Christ.
mente had admitted. Here he accepts only three sacraments, baptism, the Lord's Supper and penance; the latter in a broader sense. These three, however, have been led into a miserable captivity by the Roman court, and the church has been deprived of all its freedom. Above all, however, Luther deals with the sacrament of the altar and proves from Scripture that it must be administered to communicants under both forms, according to the institution of Christ, and that the correct sacrament is not given under one form. This robbery of the one form is the first captivity of this sacrament. The second is the teaching that bread and wine should cease after the consecration, being changed into the body and blood of Christ, and that all those are declared heretics who will not believe this. However, Luther still allows either of these two opinions to stand, except that no one is held guilty of heresy if he believes that there is true bread and true wine on the altar. The third captivity is the ungodly abuse of this sacrament, that it has been made into a good work and a sacrifice; from it have come communities, brotherhoods, intercessions, merits, annual feasts, memorial days, and such like articles of commerce, and a mere fair has been made of the sacrament of God. But the sacrament can only be of use to those who receive it themselves or who hear Christ's words with a believing heart: "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. Thus, all masses offered for specific purposes, the so-called votive masses, and thus also everything through which the "venerable testament of God has been drawn into the bondage of the most ungodly profit", fall into this category.
In a similar way, Luther shows how baptism and repentance are also led into captivity. "Almost no one is left who remembers that he was baptized and boasts of baptism, after so many other ways have been invented to remit sins and go to heaven." When people have fallen into sins, they despair as if they have lost baptism, and begin to lean on repentance, relying on
abandoned. "Hence have arisen the innumerable burdens of vows, spiritualities, works, satisfactions, pilgrimages, indulgences, and sects, and such a flood of books, questions, opinions, and statutes of men, that the whole world can no longer contain, so that this tyranny afflicts the Church of God much more grievously than it ever afflicted the synagogue or any other nation under heaven."
Of the other so-called sacraments of the papal church, confirmation, marriage, priestly ordination and the last rites, Luther proves that they are not sacraments, but Roman charms, against God and His Word, a Babylonian captivity of the Church.
How powerfully and sensitively the Roman church was struck by this writing can be seen, among other things, from the fact that the imperial confessor Glapio had extracted 32 articles from it at the Diet of Worms as heresies, and that the articles which Luther was to recant at Worms were mainly taken from it. 1) Likewise, the University of Paris extracted 24 articles from this writing as erroneous. 2) and declared that this book was so full of various errors that it rightly deserved to be compared to the Koran. 3) Joh. Cochläus, 4) in his displeasure about this book, states that Luther borrowed much from Wiklef's and Hussen's books, which seemed to serve him for his indignation. Luther himself, however, in his "Answer to King Henry of England's Book" summarizes the behavior and rage of the papists in these words: "Two years ago I let go out a booklet in Latin called The Babylonian Prison, which made the papists nonsensical, and they have lied about it and hated me for taking pity on them. Everyone would have liked to devour it, but the fishing rod was too hard and too sharp for them.
As repugnant and detestable as this book was to the papists, as pleasant and beneficial was
1) Cf. Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Reformation, p. 37 and p. 44.
2) Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, Col.
3) Ibidem, Col. 937.
4) In oonunsut. äs necessary st serixtis Imtdsri x. 28.
It is a good example for the lovers of the evangelical truth. Through it, among others, D. Johann Bugenhagen (Pomeranus), who was then rector of the Latin school at Treptow in Pomerania, came to the knowledge of the gospel. 1) Otto Slutow, church inspector there, had invited him and his colleagues as guests towards the end of the year 1520. At the table, Slutow showed the book of the Babylonian Captivity, which he had received from a friend in Leipzig, and especially asked Bugenhagen for a verdict on it. During the meal, Bugenhagen read a few pages and then hastily and hastily passed judgment: since the Savior of the world had suffered, many heretics had troubled the church and attacked it severely, but none had done so badly as Luther. But when he had read the book in its entirety and considered it more carefully, he passed a completely different judgment on his colleagues: "What can I tell you? The whole world is blind and in great darkness. This one man stands what is true." Through the testimony that Bugenhagen then gave, many were won for the gospel, among them the abbot of the place, Johannes Bodelwinus, and the preachers there, Joh. Kyrichius, and Joh. Lorichius, along with the deacon Christian Kettelhut, who now also preached the gospel. A fierce persecution arose, led by Bishop Erasmus in Camin, and Bugenhagen, forced to leave Treptow, turned to Wittenberg in the spring of 1521. The pastor of the town, Simon Heinsius, had died and Bugenhagen became his successor.
King Henry VIII of England also had a great hatred for Luther and therefore sent, on May 20, 1521, a letter to Emperor Carl V and a letter to Prince Ludwig of the Palatinate (No. 70 and 71 in this volume) with the request that these princes wanted to root out the weeds and the poisonous heresy, to drive this fragile, sick and wicked sheep far and wide from the Christian faith and to chase it away, the impure and infected member from the noblest part of the
1) Seckendorf, Historia IMdsrauisrui, üb. I, x. 179 and 182.
The body must be cut down in time, the heretical books and Luther himself must be completely destroyed by fire, force and sword and uprooted by the roots.
Probably driven mainly by ambition, King Henry VIII joined the ranks of the fighters against Luther and in 1521 had a refutation of Luther's writing "Of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church" issued under his name under the title: Assertion of the Seven Sacraments against Martin Luther 2) (No. 72 in this volume). It is dedicated to Pope Leo X and was solemnly presented to him by an envoy, John Clerk, on October 20, 1521. In return, Leo X gave him the title of "Protector of the Faith" and granted an indulgence for ten years to all who would read the King's writing. It cannot be determined whether the king himself wrote this scripture or whether he made use of outside assistance. He was not unlearned, for he had initially been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury by his father Henry VII. The theological studies, especially of Thomas Aquinas, which he had pursued in his youth, he continued when he became crown prince after the death of his elder brother and even as king. Therefore it is not impossible that he himself, as he wanted to be regarded for it, was the author of the writing. Luther, on the other hand, expressed the opinion 3) "that King Henry had given an ell of coarse cloth or two to it", that, on the other hand, Edward Lee, chaplain and almoner of Henry VIII, had written the book. Others hold Thomas Morus or Johann Fischer, bishop of Rochester, for the author. The latter assumption gains some probability from the fact that this book was included in the collection of Fischer's writings, and that he later sought to defend this book. Others say that Cardinal Wolsey helped the king with this work. In any case, this much is certain, that the book was quite appropriate to the king's school of thought.
2) The Latin title and indication of the editions can be found in the first note to No. 72.
3) In his German response to King Henry of England's book, § 4.
On the papal side there was no small rejoicing that such a powerful king had appeared as a fighter for the Roman see, as a defender of Roman doctrine. In Rome, his book was put on a par with the writings of Jerome and Augustine; in England, the clergy showered him with flattery of every kind and compared him to King Solomon; from Germany, Duke George wrote to him: "But how far we approved of Ew. Durchlaucht's writing and how useful we thought it to be for everyone is clear from the fact that we translated it from Latin into German and had it republished by the printers of our country." Emser, who had made the translation on Duke George's order, says in his letter to the Duchess Barbara of Saxony that among those who had written against Luther, none had come so close to the goal as the King of England.
If we now look at the Scriptures themselves, we find that there is nothing in them of correct proof from the Holy Scriptures. Luther summarizes the reasons presented in the book to the effect that the king always bases his opinions on the length of time and the number of people and concludes with the statement: "It must be so. On the other hand, the book contains a great wealth of invective and a variety of the most spiteful accusations against Luther. He calls Luther an excessively arrogant man, a member of Satan, a hellish wolf; he has a heart full of pus from which his mouth overflows, acts with a malice that no mouth can express and no pen can describe, but brings out of himself only empty wind. Luther is a plague, a vicious, deceitful, impudent, foolish, simple-minded man, a launderer, slanderer, liar, a death-striker who deprives people of body and soul. The main accusations he brings against Luther are the following: Luther contradicts himself because he now teaches differently than before; he called the Babylonian captivity a prelude because he was about to revoke the whole Christian religion; he taught that the more erroneous the teaching, the more he was a liar.
Because Luther says that no sin condemns but unbelief, he does not consider adultery, capital murder, perjury, patricide to be damnable sins; he makes faith a defense of a vicious life; he wants that secret confession should not be commanded, so that no one is deterred from sinning by a heavy penance and that everything is permitted to everyone; He emphasizes faith in such a way that it not only certifies good works, but also makes one bold for all evil deeds; his opinion is that faith is always sufficient for salvation without good works; he teaches that marriage is not a sacrament, so that in the future people will no longer place so much emphasis on marital fidelity.
After Luther had received this book in June, he announced his intention to Spalatin 1) on July 4, 1522, that he would respond to it, and on July 26, 1522, that he would proceed no less against the King of England than in his book against the false spiritual status of the pope and the bishops, because he saw that he was humbling himself in vain. Whoever has read the king's writing and seen from it how he dealt with Luther, will certainly not be surprised that Luther also put his plan into action. Luther's reply appeared in Latin in August 1522 under the title: Wider Heinrich, König von England, Martin Lutheri (No. 73b in this volume), then also in the same year in German by Luther himself under the title: Antwort deutsch Doctor Martin Luthers auf König Heinrichs von England Buch (No. 73a in this volume). The Latin edition is accompanied by a note to Count Sebastian Schlick dated July 15, 1522. We have found it necessary to bring a new translation of the Latin reply in addition to the German reply made by Luther himself, because Luther's work is not actually a
1) Cf. the list of some of Luther's writings that are relevant here, Col. 424.
2) The Latin title and editions are given in the notes to the headings of No. 73a and 73b.
Luther's writing is not to be called a translation of the Latin, but a free adaptation, which has essentially the same content, but is quite significantly shortened. At the beginning of his writing, Luther complains that while he always cries: Gospel, Gospel, Christ, Christ, his opponents answer nothing else but: Fathers, fathers, use, use, statutes, statutes. Then he defends himself against the accusation, as if he contradicts himself, making the distinction that in the things which every Christian must know for his salvation, as of faith, of love, of good works, of hope, of suffering, of dying, of baptism, of repentance, of the Lord's Supper, of the Law, of sins, of the grace of God, of free will, of Christ, of God, of the Last Judgment, of heaven and hell, of the Christian Church, of excommunication, and the like, never taught anything other than what the Scriptures say and always remained true. But of the other things that stand like weeds in the Christian field, as of the papacy, of the articles of the conciliar, of the teachers, of indulgences, of purgatory, of masses, of high schools, of spiritual vows, of the bishops who are now, of human laws, of the ministry of the saints, of new sacraments, and the like, he did not know in the beginning that they were contrary to Scripture, and only thought that they were without Scripture; He only wanted the Scriptures to be pure, clean, and certain, and therefore he was willing to leave the papacy in place and to help it. But because they maintain all their lies and iniquities and do not want to be punished, because through their resistance their lies have come to light more and more clearly by means of the bright Scriptures, Luther had to punish his first books by the last and revoke them in these matters that are outside the Scriptures; for he had given too much honor to the papacy. After that, he deals with indulgences, the power of the pope, and especially Holy Communion, upholding through God's Word the doctrine he had put forward: But of transubstantiation he explains himself in such a way that he had said before that it was all the same whether one held this way or the other about the change of bread; but now, after having explained the reasons of the
He says that it is ungodly and blasphemous if someone says that the bread is changed, but catholic and godly if one says with Paul: the bread we break is the body of Christ. He then briefly speaks of priestly ordination and marriage and (in the German answer) of the power of faith, which alone, without any works, can destroy sins. No one can do good works who is not first pious. God first forgives sin and purifies the heart through faith; but he who stands in faith does not sin, for the word of God to which he adheres is almighty and God's power; it does not let him fall or sink.
As thoroughly as Luther refuted the book of the king in this writing, none of his writings has been judged more hatefully than this one, because he, which cannot be denied, treated a "king" extremely harshly in it. This has been interpreted as if he were depriving the authorities of their due honor. He should have dealt gently and mildly with the one who blasphemed the king of honors, who spoke lies (against better knowledge), who reviled the teaching of the gospel, justification by faith alone, as the cause of sin, as hellish poison, as the very worst heresy and wickedness, because he was a king! In appearing against Luther as a hostile writer, the king did not wait for his magisterial office. As a king, it was least fitting for him to lie against Luther and his teachings and to use the lowest malicious words, and for the sake of his unroyal behavior he deserved two strikes. Although Luther gave him back his vile words, he did not repay him in kind, for lies are not to be found in Luther; he always stuck to the truth. 1) In our opinion, therefore, Luther is absolutely right when he says: "If a king of England is allowed to spew out his lies unashamedly, I may cheerfully shove them back down his throat, for in doing so he blasphemes all my Christian doctrine and smears his dirt.
1) Luther himself asserts these reasons in the penultimate paragraph of his German response to King Henry of England's book.
to the crown of my King of honors, which is Christ, whose doctrine I have."
However, we hear how Luther continues to defend himself against the accusation that he wrote too harshly against the King of England, which even several of his friends agreed with. Already on August 28, 1522, he wrote a letter to a good friend (No. 74 in this volume), in which he indicates the cause of this harsh letter. In it he says, as in two other letters 1) to Spalatin, September 4, 1522, and to Joh. Lang, Nov. (?) 1522, that he had done it with good deliberation and would henceforth no longer treat blasphemers and liars with gentleness. Christ, Peter and Paul (not to mention the prophets) had not always been gentle, but they had also scolded such people harshly and horribly. His friendly, gentle writings, his humble offering, his patient endurance of their lies and blasphemies only moved his adversaries to stronger raving and blasphemy, so that they found themselves completely hardened. Whoever would accept Luther's teachings with a right heart would not be annoyed by his blasphemy. It would also be judged quite unfairly: if his enemies scold and blaspheme, one would not want to see it, but would praise them for being the best Christians; in Luther, on the other hand, they do not notice the many good things, but pick up only the hard things and consider him a heretic. Those have scolded much more than Luther and are with great heaps nonsensical on the one Luther. It is God's judgment that those who are not worthy of the Gospel should be offended by such scolding and fall away. Why he is so harsh, one cannot see now, but will have to recognize it in his time and confess that it is out of a good heart and well done.
1) Cf. the list of some of the writings that have an impact here, Col. 425.
2) We are of the opinion that with these words Luther refers to the judgment of the Lord; likewise in the letter to Spalatin of September 4, 1522. In contrast, Köstlin (3rd edition), vol. i, 677, says: "We will, of course, not be able to find such a justification of his procedure by a later turn of events." Also in the letter to Spalatin of March 11, 1527, which refers to Luther's harsh letter in his
It was to be expected that Luther's answer would provoke the king's anger. On February 20, 1523, he sent a letter through a special herald to the Dukes of Saxony (No. 75 in this volume), namely to Prince Frederick, his brother John, and Duke George, in which he complains about the dishonor that Luther has done to his royal name and honor, and requests that they, as princes of the same bloodline as the kings of England, would like to curb Luther and his accursed sect; if it could not be done with kindness, also with bloodshed. Finally, he asks them not to allow Luther's translation of the Bible to be spread.
Before the herald could hand over the letter from his king to Elector Frederick (which happened on April 27, 1523), Knight Hans von Planitz wrote to Elector Frederick (No. 76 in this volume) on April 24, 1523, informing him of what he had learned from the English herald on the way, so that the latter would not come before him without the Elector's prior knowledge. Planitz, however, escorted the herald from Nuremberg, where he had been the Elector's envoy at the Imperial Diet, to Altenburg. On April 28 or 29, 3) 1523, the letter of reply from the Elector Frederick and his brother, Duke John (No. 77 in this volume), together with a passport 4) (No. 78) were handed over to the herald. This answer will probably not have turned out quite according to the wishes of King Heinrich. The two princes testify in it that they want to keep themselves as Christians and obedient members of the Christian church by God's grace. They do not undertake to represent Luther's teachings, writings and sermons, but leave everything at its value and leave it to its own responsibility, since it would be difficult for them, without the divine Scriptures, because they do not have the necessary knowledge and experience in these matters, to do anything.
"Answer to the King of England's blasphemy title," Luther says, "but Christ will judge."
3) For this timing, see the last note to No. 77.
4) In the same the name of the herald Raphael Jork [York?] is given.
to act or to undertake. They also remind the king that he himself has written that he considers it unseemly to enter into a disputation with Luther, and that he will not rage with the nonsensical man and will never become so nonsensical that he should be annoyed that he is scolded by a nonsensical man for a nonsensical man. Furthermore, they announce that at the last Imperial Diet in Nuremberg, the papal nuncio received this answer from the emperor and the empire to his question: "How is this matter to be dealt with? What would be decided in this concilium by the assembly of common Christianity, they would abide by as Christian princes, as they have also now proven in this matter of their hope no differently than befits Christian people.
The response of Duke George of Saxony to the letter of King Henry VIII (No. 79 in this volume) was of a completely different nature. (No. 79 in this volume), which he handed over to the Herald on May 9, 1523. The king's letter had been delivered to the duke on April 30. 1) Duke George states that he would not have allowed the publication of Luther's writings to go unpunished in his lands. He has. He has forbidden Luther's writings against the king in his country and has given the printer who first offered them for sale a severe prison sentence. Indeed, he had the king's excellent writing translated and republished by his printers. Luther's book clearly shows that its author has nothing to protect himself with except nonsensical blasphemies. The injustice done to the king was as painful to all noble German princes as if it had been done to them. Because Luther was not in his territory, he could not do anything against him, but he tried to prevent Luther's writings as well as Luther's followers in every way. For this reason, he also had all the copies of Luther's
1) See § 1 of this paper.
German translation of the New Testament, through which Luther wanted to bring his teachings to the people, for his own money. Let everyone recognize that, even if everything works to the detriment of the church, he was not lacking in will but rather in ability. From Luther's teaching that the necessity of both good and evil depends on God, all Lutheran errors flowed, namely, that free will is nothing; from the blind reason of men; from the contempt of good works; from the rejection of all customs as well as other human ordinances. He wanted to make every effort to put a stop to these.
Probably on May 13, 1523, Spalatin reported in a letter to Elector Frederick (No. 80 in this volume) about the departure of the English herald and mentions in particular that he had complained that he had been delayed so long by Duke George, that the latter had not let him come before him personally, that he had been treated unfriendly by his courtiers, that a good part of the gift of honor had been stolen; On the other hand, he praised the kind treatment that the Elector and his best brother, Duke John, had bestowed upon him, and he also praised both princes as pious and wise people.
As long as Luther was convinced that one of his opponents was stubbornly obstinate, he did not want to use any restraint against him, as he expresses in his letter to Johann Lang in November (?) 1522. (In this volume, appendix, no. 1.) As soon as he thought he had good reason to hope for such an opponent, he was not ashamed to humble himself before him in order to win him over to the cause of the gospel. This was the case with King Henry VII of England. Motivated by manifold ideas of his friends, especially by letters of the exiled King Christian of Denmark, perhaps also at the instigation of his Elector and Duke John, Luther wrote a humble missive to King Henry VII of England.
The first draft of this letter was sent by Luther to Spalatin 1) on May 15, 1525, with the request that he add to it or change what was necessary. What Luther writes at the beginning of the text No. 83: "I was not moved to do this without cause, nor by lesser people," also seems to indicate that Luther was prompted to write this letter by his princes. The words of Luther just mentioned cannot refer to King Christian, because Luther himself names him in § 10 (of No. 83). According to Luther's letter to Spalatin 2) of June 21, 1525, it seems as if the rumor had gone out that letters or writings of the King of England entitled to good hope for him; for Luther speaks of such in immediate connection with the letter of the King of Denmark. On September 1, 1525, the letter was actually written and probably, as can be seen from the latter letter to Spalatin, handed over to a messenger through Spalatin's mediation and sent to the King of England. In this letter, Luther humiliates himself in the interest of the cause of the Gospel with the greatest self-denial before the King of England. He says that credible witnesses have informed him that the booklet, which went out under the name of the king, did not come from him, but from malicious sophists who misused his name. Therefore, for the sake of the love, suffering and honor of Christ, he asks the king to forgive him for what he has offended him with, and also offers, if it should be so pleasing to the king, to recant all this in another public book. Luther, however, expressly excludes his doctrine from such recantation, because he "teaches nothing else than that we must be saved through faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who suffered for us and was raised again. Finally, he asks God that the king become a perfect disciple of Christ, a confessor of the Gospel and Luther's gracious Lord, and pronounces,
1) Cf. the list of some of Luther's writings that are relevant here, Col. 425.
2) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 977 f. § 2.
that he was waiting for a gracious and kind answer.
It took a long time, almost a year, until this missive of Luther's came into the hands of the king, therefore his answer to Luther's above-mentioned missive (No. 82 in this volume) was delayed until the end of the year 1526 and only reached Luther's hands around New Year's Day 1527. This answer of the king was extremely hostile and vituperative, as Luther remarks in a letter to Wenceslaus Link about Christmas 1526 3) (in this volume, appendix, no. 11), "that it has the appearance, as if he is glad about the opportunity to be able to take revenge on me". In a vile manner, the king repeatedly speaks out about the marriage alliance Luther had entered into with a nun sanctified to God, reviles in many words Luther's heresy of faith and good works, by which he had plunged countless souls into hell, and demands that he confess his errors and recant his heresies.
This long writing of the king, for whose author Luther considered Erasmus, as he states in a letter to Spalatin of February 1, 1527 and to Johann Lang of February 4, 1527 (in this volume, appendix, no. 3 and no. 2), Luther countered at the beginning of the year 1527, probably already in February, his short reply to the king's blasphemous writing in England, Titel (no. 83 in this volume), which is mainly directed against the title under which Emser had published Luther's missive together with the king's answer in German translation: "Ein Sendbrief Martin Luthers an den König in Engelland, Heinrichen dies Namens den achten, darinnen er verzicht 4) und Gnade begtet, um das, damit er gemeldten König närrisch und zu jähe ver-
3) About the time determination of this letter, which is assigned to the year 1525 by Walch and also by De Wette, Vol. Ill, p. 58 s., compare Col. 425, note 2, and Köstlin, Martin Luther (3rd edition), Vol. II, p. 146 aä p. 646.
4) "Belicht" i.e. forgiveness. Köstlin misunderstood the word "verzicht" and therefore changed the title of vol. II, p. 145 to: "darin er verzichtet und um Gnade begtet.
I have promised to revoke the same. The now reported Serene King, Prince and Lord etc. Antwort auf obgenannten Sendbrief, einem jedem Christen nützlich und christlich zu lesen." This title was intended to give the impression that Luther had recanted his teaching. Therefore, in this writing, Luther asks his readers "not to turn back on the title that they have printed on it with great courage and now shout and rejoice: Luther has recanted . . . But that I should recant something in secret letters, which I teach with public writings, is nothing." "Since I let myself be persuaded that the king of England had turned back and was inclined to the Gospel, I went to and wanted to excuse my person against his person." Many people who were favorably disposed toward the Gospel also took offense at this writing of Luther's because of its harshness, as Luther wrote to Spalatin 1) on March 11, 1527: "It is wonderful how many people, even among our own, take offense at my little book against the king of England, although it seems to me very necessary against the so great hope of the devil; but Christ will judge." However, although there was great joy in Rome that such a great, powerful king had published writings against Luther, and the followers of the Pope thought that Luther, overwhelmed by the great prestige of his opponent, would now have to remain silent, even to many, Many who loved the Gospel and were friendly toward Luther were not comfortable with it, and the fear arose that it would not go well, so according to God's advice this controversy also had to serve to strengthen the cause of the Gospel and many would fall in with it. 2)
XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George of Saxony.
Duke George of Saxony, the cousin of the Chursächsichen princes, was a laudable secular regent, a friend of scholars,
1) Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 2696.
p. 26.
He was a patron of the sciences and had a good education himself, for he understood and spoke Latin and wrote most of his letters himself, 3) both in German and Latin; in the most important imperial affairs, Emperor Carl V consulted him.
Not immediately after the beginning of the Reformation, he emerged as an open enemy of Luther. For he too, like the other German princes, recognized the necessity of a reformation of the church, but wanted it to be limited to purely external things. Only the depravity and immorality of the clergy, the great pomp and wealth of the bishops and high prelates offended him, and the fact that so much money was being drawn from the German land through indulgences was a thorn in his side. Therefore, he liked some of the first writings of Luther, which were directed against the indulgences, very much, and he promoted the realization of the Leipzig disputation, was also personally present, because he expected honor from it for his University of Leipzig. 4) He also allowed Luther's writings to be printed in Leipzig. But he was annoyed by Luther's teachings on faith and divine grace. When he attacked the supremacy of the pope and began to teach against the communion under one form, he became Luther's determined enemy, a persecutor and tyrant against the followers of the Protestant doctrine. His high officials, the chancellor Pflug, the councillor Carlowitz, the secretary Emser, along with the bishops of Merseburg and Meissen did their utmost to stir up the Duke's anger against the pure doctrine, so that after the Leipzig disputation he was not only inaccessible to the Gospel, but also hostile to it, but, hostile to it, did nothing that was in his power to hinder the course of the gospel and, where it had already taken root, to suppress and eradicate it.
Already about the first sermon that Duke George heard from Luther's mouth, on the feast day of St. Jacob, July 25, 1517, in the castle's
3) Cf. Kolde, Friedrich der Weise, p. 32, note 3.
4) Cf. Duke George's letter to Luther, No. 98 in this volume, § II, and Luther's letter to Spalatin, August 13, 1519, Walch, old edition, Vol. X V, I35S, § 5.
In a sermon in the church of Dresden, in which he explained that there was no reason to doubt his blessedness because those who heard God's word with true faith were righteous disciples of Christ and chosen for eternal life, he expressed himself very displeasingly and said: He wanted to give a lot of money because he had not heard this sermon, because it only made the people safe and nefarious.
The first reason for Luther's dispute with Duke George was Luther's sermon, which he published in December 1519: Ein Sermon von dem hochwürdigen Sacrament des heiligen wahren Leichnams Christi und von den Bruderschaften (No. 84 in this volume). In it, he lays special emphasis on the fact that through this holy sacrament the glorious fellowship of faith, love, mutual service and common suffering is signified and worked, and exhorts to this right Christian fellowship. On the other hand, he warns against the brotherhoods that were going on at that time, 1) in which one under the name of some saint or the holy virgin or the holy corpse of Christ for the benefit of the members of the brotherhood, who had paid their entrance fee of one to twenty guilders and otherwise paid their contributions, Luther had the confraternity hold vigils and masses, after which they "gave the whole day and night and other days to the devil" "with eating, drinking, wasting money, yelling, screaming, chatting, dancing and wasting time. Luther urges, if one wants to keep brotherhoods, that they be made similar to the right divine brotherhood mij showing love and service to one's neighbor. One should use the money that one wants to spend to feed the poor or otherwise help the needy and needy. One should not see to it that many masses are held, but strive that one increases in the meaning and the faith of the sacrament, then it would stand better in Christianity.
It was especially one sentence in this sermon which caused the opposition of the opponents of the
1) Cf. Kolde, Friedrich der Weise, p. 74 f., where the 86 brotherhoods to which Degenhard Pfeffinger belonged at his death (1519) are listed.
It is considered good by me that the church in a common concilio again decrees that all men be given both forms, like the priests. On the basis of these words, the Leipzig theologians, as Luther wrote to Spalatin, accused him of Bohemian heresy on January 10, 1520 (in this volume, Appendix, No. 4), and proclaimed that Luther was a Bohemian by birth and education. Luther suspects that this little seed was sown by Ochsenfart (Dungersheim). In order to refute both accusations of his enemies, that he "demanded and commanded" communion under both forms and that he was a Bohemian by birth, Luther wrote after the middle of January 1520 an explanation of several articles in his Sermon vom hochwürdigen Sacrament des heiligen wahren Leichnams Christi (No. 87 in this volume). Luther sent a finished copy of this writing to his friend Joh. Lang on January 26, 1520?)
The sermon was in print on November 29, 1519, 2) and came into the hands of Duke George on Christmas Eve. Incited by Emser and others, he wrote a letter to the Elector Frederick on December 27, 1519 (No. 85 in this volume), in which he announced that, in his and other scholars' opinion, this booklet of Luther's was "almost Prague" and "basically brought much heresy and annoyance with it. Since Luther began to preach, more than six thousand followers of the Communion under both forms had increased in Bohemia, the Bohemian heresy was strengthened, and because Luther had all his sermons printed, he wanted to cause irreparable damage through them in all lands, also in those of Duke George; Indeed, through his printed writings, if this were not resisted, Luther would be bishop and leader of the heretics (Häresiarcha) at Prague, while the Elector thought he had him as doctor in Wittenberg. Therefore, the Elector may prevent the aggravation and damage in Christendom by appropriate decrees. In the answer
2) Cf. the list of some of the writings that have an impact here, Col. 486 ff.
To Duke George, on December 29, 1519, the Elector declares (No. 86 in this volume) that he does not defend Luther's teachings, and that he also completely refrains from such matters; however, he hears that Luther's teachings are considered Christian by many scholars and persons of understanding. He leaves them with their value and with his (Luther's) responsibility, especially since Luther's matter is already under judicial decision and Luther has also offered to appear before the commissary appointed by the pope and to be judged in equity.
Shortly thereafter, another contender against Luther's sermon appeared on the scene. On January 24, 1520, the Bishop of Meissen, Johann von Schleinitz, issued a letter against Luther's sermon on the reverend sacrament (No. 88 in this volume). 88 in this volume), in which he decreed that Luther's sermon should be confiscated everywhere, because in it, contrary to the statutes of the recent Lateran Council, the use of the Holy Sacrament in both forms was recommended, whereby the obedient members of the Church would be given cause to doubt the Sacrament and its reception, and great trouble, error and division would be caused in the Church of God, especially in the diocese of Meissen, which borders on the land of condemned error (Bohemia).' Furthermore, he commanded that in order to counteract the trouble caused by the booklet in his diocese, the people should be instructed by sermons that under every form the Lord Christ is whole, and they should be taught that those who, in obedience to the Mother, the Church, are satisfied with one form, deserve more by taking it than by communion under both forms. This decree was issued by the bishop with the advice and consent of his chapter and posted everywhere. It was issued under the seal of the official office at Stolpen, but in the name of the bishop, who had his residence there.
On February 5, 1520, Luther wrote to Spalatin that the bishop of Meissen had banned his sermon in a public note and sent him a Latin copy of the note. At the same time he showed him his ab-
The bishop refuses to answer. Three days later, he informs him that he wrote the German answer to the bishop's note yesterday (February 7). On February 11, he writes to the bishop: he should not be surprised at the vehemence of Luther's answer to the note, which went out under the official's seal in Stolpen (No. 89a in this volume), which is well deserved by his opponents. 1) The Latin answer to the same (No. 89b in this volume) is now in progress. At the same time Luther asks for the bishop's note back, because he needs the best tomorrow or at the latest the day after tomorrow, in order to attach it to the Latin answer. Immediately after sending this letter, Luther received a warning from Spalatin that he should not write vehemently against the Bishop of Meissen. But it was too late; Luther wrote to Spalatin on February 12 (in this volume, Appendix, No. 5) and informed him that the writing was already under the press. Thereupon Luther received from Spalatin, as soon as he had received a finished copy (on February 16, such a copy was already in Stolpen), a letter full of reproaches about the vehemence in his answer to Stolpen's note, against which Luther defends himself in his letter to Spalatin (No. 90 in this volume), before February 18, 2) 1520, and justifies his vehemence. In the postscript to this letter, he repeats that Spalatin's accusation that his advice was despised was unfounded, because Spalatin did not remember that the German answer was almost finished when he received the warning. Spalatin's advice had come too late. On the other hand, Luther promises him in a letter on February 18, 3) that he wants to print the Latin answer.
1) The writing, which Luther sent to Spalatin at the same time as this letter, is not this "answer to the note", but the Tessaradecas, a consolation writing, which is dedicated to the Elector Frederick. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 1816 contains a print of the same.
2) That this letter is to be placed before February 18 and is earlier than the one reported by De Wette, Vol. 1, 413, is evident from what we have reported in the first note to No. 90, taken together with what Luther asserts in the postscript to this letter.
3) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 673.
We will arrange it as gently as possible and send it to him for review before it is printed. This would also have happened with the German answer, if it had not already been in print. As a result, the considerably more extensive Latin writing turned out to be much gentler than the German. That Luther did not direct his answer directly against the bishop of Meissen, but chose the above-mentioned title, he did so because he did not want to believe that this more "foolish than foolish" decree originated from him, because he was much too pious and learned for that. There were only two or three lickspittles who misused the name of such a great bishop and the church to cover their ignorance and spitefulness; he wanted to answer them with this. First, Luther shows the silliness that in the decree it is described as annoying, rebellious, unholy, and presumptuous if someone expresses the wish that a council would decide something, and yet Luther did not teach that one should pass both forms, but, although it seems good to him, he expressly put it aside to the determination of a council. Luther then argues that the author of the note cites no better reason for his action than the last Roman concilium, not yet ten years old, which is considered nothing in Rome and is not held in high esteem anywhere, serves to strengthen the Bohemian error. Furthermore, that they lead the saying for the One Figure: Obedience is better than sacrifice, is clumsy; for the Bohemians require obedience to Christ, who has instituted both forms in the Gospel, and rightly accuse us of disobedience to the Gospel. This saying puts us defenselessly into the hands of the Bohemians by giving them the sword against us. Finally, that it is commanded to be taught that Christ is wholly under every form is done out of malice, in order to bring Luther under suspicion as if he did not believe this, while he never denied such, yes, not even the Bohemians.
Another cause of dispute was the translation of the New Testament published by Luther. The printing had already begun in May 1522, and in July the following were published
1) On September 25, Luther sent a finished copy to the castle captain von Berlepsch at Wartburg Castle. The very large print run was very well received, was soon out of print, and a second edition appeared in December. Since the enemies of the Gospel feared that if the common man got hold of the Bible, he would see the truth of Luther's teachings and the groundlessness of the Pabst, especially since Luther had added marginal glosses to his translation in which he attacked the Pabst, and since woodcuts had been inserted into the Revelation of John, which were partly aimed at the Pabst, they took measures to prevent the distribution of the New Testament. On November 7, 1522, Duke George of Saxony issued a mandate to hand over the New Testament translated by Luther (No. 91 in this volume). In it, he recalls that he had already seriously commanded that no one should dare to read, buy, or sell Luther's books, or to have them with him. Now, however, that the German translation of the New Testament has been published in Wittenberg, which is generally believed to have been translated by Luther, 2) he orders that anyone who has such a book in his possession should deliver it to the nearest magistrate. The money spent for it would be refunded, but the person concerned should state where and from whom, and also how much he had received such books. The delivery was to be made by Christmas 1522, under threat of severe punishment. The success that Duke George had with this mandate is extraordinarily low. 3) According to the reports of the three bailiffs in question, four copies were delivered in the bailiwick of Leipzig (among them two that were ordered for Duke Heinrich of Mecklenburg; the third was delivered by the bailiff Georg von Wiedenbach, with the
1) Cf. Walch, old edition, Vol. X V, Appendix, No. 92.
2) It went out in folio with the simple title: Das neve Testament, Deutzsch, Vuittenberg, without indication of the translator, the printer and the year. (Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, 600.)
3) Cf. Seidemann, Erläuterungen zur Reformationgeschichte, pp. 56 ff.
Remark that it had been given to him by Lotther), in the bailiwick of Meissen four copies, in the bailiwick of Weißenfels, however, not a single one. Therefore, it also has to do with the one, whose Duke George claimed against the King of England in his letter of May 9, 1523 (No. 79 of this volume, § 10): "we have taken all copies of this book, as many as were brought into our country and sold in it, for our own money from those who had bought them," was not much, because despite all his efforts he could not get rid of more than a few florins for the few copies, because some of the books were delivered "to the gracious lord for obedience", without asking for money for them.
During an occasional visit to Weimar in October 1522, Luther delivered, among other things, a sermon by secular authorities. Duke John of Saxony, who had heard it, requested that Luther print it. This was done; But prompted by the commands of Duke George of Saxony, 1) the Dukes of Bavaria, and the Elector of Brandenburg that the New Testaments be delivered, he gave it a different form, and the sermon became "von weltlicher Obrigkeit, how far one owes obedience to them", in which he proved that secular authorities are not entitled to rule over faith and conscience, that they are not allowed to give such commandments and that therefore the subjects "should not hand over one leaf, not one letter". This writing is found in the St. Louis edition, vol. X, 374 ff, and there, in the preface Col. 52 ff. the necessary is said about it.
Shortly thereafter, another dispute arose with Duke George over the consolation pamphlet that Luther sent to Hartmuth von Cronberg shortly after his return from the Wartburg, in March 1522, under the title: "A Missive to all those who suffer comforting persecution on account of the Word of God, by D. Martin
1) The mandate of Duke George was also posted in the lands of Duke Henry of Saxony. Cf. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 52 s.
Luther wrote to the honorable Hartmuth von Cronberg", in which Luther consoled him about the loss of his possessions, the small town and castle of Cronberg. Castle Cronberg, which he had lost through participation in the feuds of his father-in-law Franz von Sickingen. The words, which Duke Georg, when a printed copy came to his hands, 2) referred to himself and which most likely also applied to him, are the following 3): "Such joy and gladness in Christ the wretched enemies do not recognize, and are angry with us that we tell them about it and offer it to them, wanting to kill us for the sake of life. Oh God! The almighty resurrection of Christ is too much of a greater defiance than that he should be made afraid and cowardly by their instant violence of straw and paper tyranny. The one is primarily the water bubble N.. 4) defies heaven with its high belly, and has renounced the gospel; also has it in mind that he wants to eat Christ like a wolf eats a mosquito; also makes himself believe that he has not bitten a little scratch into his left spur, and rages before all others. I have prayed for him with all my heart, and have almost taken pity on his horrible run-up, but I worry that his sentence has long been deserved" etc. On December 28, 1522, Duke George received the reprint of the letter to Cronberg and issued a letter to Luther on December 30 (No. 92 in this volume), in which he inquires whether Luther confessed that he had let the letter go out to Hartmuth von Cronberg. Luther's reply to Duke George's letter (No. 93), which took place on January 3, 1523, was very vehement. Throughout, he addresses him in the same. He addresses him as "Ew. Fürstliche Ungnaden", but signs himself "Martinus Luther von GOttes Gnaden Evangelist zu Wittenberg". It is all the same to him how Duke George wants to receive what Luther has written, because in everything,
2) Luther himself states that he neither arranged nor ordered the printing. Therefore, a considerable time passed between the writing of the letter and the arrival of a printed copy in Duke George's hands. Cf. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 76.
3) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1983 f., Z 7 and 8. 4) One edition here has the name of Duke Georg.
whatever he acts or speaks against the same, he offers himself justly, and with God's help he will also receive it as right; God, however, will find the power well. Luther was being maliciously lied to by the Duke, and would have just cause to complain of iniquities, but he kept silent about it all; however, he would not fear any water bubble to death. Duke George became even more bitter about this and on January 17, 1523, he complained to Elector Frederick 1) with the request, "E. L. should show himself against Luther in such a way, so that we and everyone may judge that E. L. is not pleased to blaspheme and revile us as your cousin and flesh and blood so innocently". On the basis of this statement of claim, an extensive correspondence between Chursachsen and Duke Geor ensued, 2) which only came to its end on May 11, 1523, when both sides agreed that Luther should be summoned to Naumburg on May 20 before a court of arbitration, which should consist of three members of the Elector and three members of the Duke. However, nothing came of the matter; why not is not known. However, we see from a letter of Duke George to the Elector John of February 19, 1529, that around Exaudi 1523, their mutual councils had negotiated with each other at Naumburg and that he (Duke George) had then put the matter to rest at Frederick's and John's request. In addition, Duke George had turned for advice and help in this matter to the Imperial Regiment in Nuremberg, to his brother Duke Henry and to Count Albrecht of Mansfeld; all of them unanimously advised him to refrain from seeking his right against Luther, but gave him their "sympathy". The imperial regiment could not be set in motion against Luther even by Georg's reproaching him for the way in which Luther, in his writing on secular authority, had called the princes in general knaves.
1) The letter is found in Seidemann's "Erläuterungen" p. 63 ff.
2) Seidemann 1. e. p. 66 ff. lists 20 to and from writings. The correspondence of Duke Georg with his brother Duke Heinrich, with Count Albrecht von Mansfeld and with the Michsregiment at Nuremberg is also found there.
had cloaked. 3) Four letters to Link and Spalatin concerning this dispute can be found in the appendix of this volume, No. 6 to No. 9. A short excerpt from them, as far as the present matter is concerned, has been given in Col. 492 f.
Once again, in 1527, Luther's translation of the New Testament became the cause of a dispute, in which, however, only Duke George and his family were active, but Luther remained silent about the multiple falsehoods and obviously false accusations that were brought against him. As early as September 21, 1523, Emser had Wolfgang Stöcke! in Leipzig state: "For what reason and cause Luther's interpretation of the New Testament had been forbidden to the common man. With an apparent indication of how, where and in which places Luther had perverted the text and acted unfaithfully, or with false glosses and prefaces had led him out of the old Christian path to his advantage and delusion. By the Ordinario Loci, my gracious lord, Lord Adolph, Bishop of Merseburg and Prince of Anhalt etc., übersichtiget and approved", 158 quarto leaves. A second edition in octavo appeared in Dresden in 1524 under the title: "Annotationes Hieronymi Emser über Luthers Neu Testament gebessert und emendirt"; a third edition in Leipzig in 1528 in octavo. In the extensive preface and in the annotations, Emser wanted to bring more than a thousand heresies and errors on Luther, but all that he has brought forward is miserable useless stuff and comes to the point that Luther in his translation had departed from the old Latin version and used some words differently than they are usually taken; these are supposed to be the heresies and errors.
3) Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, 629. - Earlier, Duke George had already appealed to the Imperial Regiment Against Luther. He had sent Luther's book "Von beider Gestalt des Sacraments zu nehmen" to the same and expressed the hope, "because now", after Luther had returned from the Wartburg to Wittenberg, "one knew well where Martinus abstained and where he had his being, therefore one would probably show oneself duly in it. Cf. Kolde, Friedrich der Weise, p. 63, the letter of Hans von der Planitz to Elector Friedrich, from Nuremberg, May 14, 1822. Planitz says there about Duke Georg, he "is quite heated in this matter.
Emser's writing is rough, un-German and therefore incomprehensible. Then, in 1527, Stöckel 1) published Emser's New Testament in folio under the title: "Das Neue Testament nach Laut der christlichen Kirchen bewährten Text corrigirt und wiederum zurecht gebracht", mostly a reprint of Luther's translation. But where Emser deviated from Luther and added to his own, he spoiled the matter. That is why Luther called him the "Sudler in Dresen". Luther himself publicly stated this in his "Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen und Fürbitte der Heiligen", 2) 1530: "The Sudler in Dresen confesses that my German is sweet and good, and saw well that he could not make it better, and yet wanted to disgrace it; went to and took before him my New Testament almost from word to word, as I have made it, and did my preface, glossa and name of it, wrote his name, preface and gloffa to it, thus sold my New Testament under his name. Dear children, what a pity it was that his sovereign condemned and forbade to read Luther's New Testament with an atrocious preface, but at the same time commanded to read Sudler's New Testament, which is exactly the same one that Luther made. Duke George's preface to Emser's New Testament, dated August 1, 1527, is included in No. 94 of this volume. From it, one can clearly see how justified Luther's accusation against him is, that he "rudely lies" against Luther, and how good reason Luther had to act harshly against him. 3) He does not mention Luther's teaching
1) Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 52. Walch in his introduction p. 37 states "zu Dresden". Waldau in "Emsers Leben und Schriften", p. 68, names neither printer nor place of printing for the first edition. Walch's information will be correct, since, as it seems, Stöckel moved from Leipzig to Dresden.
2) Walch, old edition, Vol. XXI, 313, ? 4. in this volume, Col. 971. We have included this writing, which Walch had reworked, in this volume in its entirety, Col. 968 ff.
3) Again and again the accusation arises that Luther wrote too harshly against the enemies of the gospel. We are of the opinion that this accusation cannot be countered more effectively than by pointing out how Luther's opponents reviled and blasphemed the Lord Jesus Christ and His Church in him. Therefore we leave here a more extensive extract from this
alone "a glaring, heretical doctrine," his followers "a godless sect," censures him: "he has in many places perverted the New Testament, added to and detracted from it, provided it with heretical glosses, reviled and rebuked the canonical writings of the holy apostles, and cloaked his godless doctrine under the appearance of the Gospel," but even goes so far as to claim that "Luther has famously said that he wants to make it so that in a short time no church, no priest, and neither prince nor bishop shall remain under heaven. He blames Luther for all ungodly doctrine and shameful life of any fanatics and red spirits, for the whole abomination of the peasant revolt: "he also undertook, through his subsequent fanatics and falsely called evangelical preachers, to completely eradicate the Christian church and our holy faith, and to expel not only the dear saints, but also Christ Himself from heaven. Likewise, that images of the saints and crucifixes in churches and in the streets have been broken and smashed, that all good works are reviled, abolished and omitted, that a carnal, wild life is led: this is the consequence of Luther's teaching. "But in order to remain unpunished, they have struck down the sacred conciliar laws and all the power of the church, and have granted the common rabble the power to judge and punish not only the Scriptures and conciliar laws, but also the authorities, ecclesiastical and secular." "Some say that baptism is not necessary." "They also tear up the sacrament of holy matrimony in an unchristian way, allowing and giving two or more wives to one man, two or more husbands to one woman." "The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is handled in an exceedingly unchristian manner and in many different ways. Some want to have it under two forms, some under none; some consider it to be Christ's flesh and blood.
We follow the characteristic writing of his bitter enemy and believe that we are thereby once and for all relieved of the duty to continue to defend Luther against this accusation. Which believing Christian's heart should not burn with righteous anger over such invectives of the church of Christ as Duke George here mendaciously presents? Luther could not have been a reformer if he had treated such a man gently and gelinoe.
Blood, but not for Christ Himself; some say that Christ is there, but only as a man, not as a God; some say that bread and wine together with the flesh and blood; some that it is only bread and wine and a bad sign, like a seal to a letter." "They show no honor to the reverend Sacrament; some go to it without all repentance and confession, eating and drinking as if it were common food and drink. They thrust the hosts into their pockets, carry themselves about with them, call it an idol and a devil, and trample it underfoot." "This happens because they do not consider Christ to be a god, but only a bad man and prophet, and some do not consider him at all. They say that he was conceived in original sin, much less that he could have taken away other people's sin." From this ungodly doctrine and writings these tender fruits had arisen, "namely, not only a carnal, but also an animal and devilish liberty, self-will, sacrilege, disobedience and bloody rebellion of the poor deceived subjects, contempt, dishonor and blasphemy of all spiritual and temporal authorities, apostasy and wretched fall of the clergy, abandonment of all discipline and fear of God." The sacred instruments had been "sold on the open market, used for worldly pleasure, and houses of worship had been turned into stables and other unseemly buildings, all worship and devotion of the people to God and His saints had been extinguished, and our holy Christian faith had been completely eradicated from many places. In particular, however, "miserable murder, death and bloodshed" had resulted from it, and Luther and his followers had "alienated many Christian souls, whom Christ had purchased with His precious blood, from Him again by their seductive teachings, and, as to be feared, caused them to be eternally damned." In his last writing against the King of England 1) Luther had boasted "that he had brought us into this freedom and light", "the enthusiasts and the red spirits would neither have been so bold nor so scanty to start the thing".
1) This refers to the paper No. 83 in this volume. Compare s 21 of the same.
Therefore, as a Christian prince, he had reason enough to forbid Luther's translation of the New Testament. In order to clear himself of the accusation that he wanted to forbid the reading of God's word, he says that he was able to get Hieronymus Emser to correct the New Testament according to the Vulgate, and recommends his subjects most urgently to accept this true word of God and to read it diligently for the salvation of their souls. Finally, he grants Emser a privilege for this New Testament for two years. - As evil as this edition of the New Testament had been intended by Duke George, it became, through God's gracious government, a means for a quicker and further spread of the holy Gospel, for in a short time a large number of different editions appeared, 2) through which, contrary to the custom of the Roman Church, the Word of God was put into the hands of the laity. Even if the translation is not entirely correct, it is mostly Luther's work, 3) and those who read it were able to recognize from it the correctness of the Lutheran doctrine and the groundlessness of Pabstism.
When, after almost half a year, the first edition of Emser's New Testament was almost out of print, the Duke granted his privilege for the new printing (No. 95 in this volume) on January 25, 1528, in favor of the publishers and the editor, who has not been named. This second edition is significantly changed, or, as Duke George says: "with a noticeable improvement." In addition to Duke George's preface, it is preceded by another short preface (No. 96), in which George's preface is called "a Summarium of Lutheran and other heresies arising from it. As already mentioned, Luther remained silent on the subject, although he did intend to "send a letter of condolence to Duke Georg.
2) Waldau, Emser, p. 68 ff, lists 27 different editions, among them also one from Lower Saxony at Rostock in 1530.
3) Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 313 f., Z5.- In this volume, Col. 971.
4) Thus Luther writes to Jonas, December 10, 1527. Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, appendix, no. 4.
because of the eternal disgrace with which those who live under his protection have sullied him by misusing his name for the preface to Emser's will. He refrained from doing so, however, because Emser had died in the meantime (November 8, 1527) and Duke George was ill.
However, Luther did not miss an attempt to win Duke George by a friendly humble letter, which he sent to him on December 21, 1525, moved by "great fine people of his countrymen. This humble letter from Luther to Duke George is found in this volume, No. 97. A few days later, on December 28, 1525, Duke George issued a harsh, unfriendly reply to this letter (No. 98 in this volume), in which he accuses Luther's gospel of all false teaching and all shameful living, expresses his inclination to punish Luther as he did Muenzer, and ridicules him because of his marriage to a nun. In a letter to Nicolaus Hausmann (No. 99) of January 20, 1526, Luther says that he had written to Duke George in good hope, but that he had been mistaken and had humbled himself in vain; he would not answer him. Already before, in a letter to Amsdorf (No. 12 in the appendix of this volume), on January 2, 1526, he had reported that he had written a humble and completely sincere letter to Duke George, but that he had received an exceedingly foolish answer, in which the boorish crudeness inherited from his Bohemian blood was revealed. Almost a year later, around Christmas 1526, Luther remembers this matter once again in a letter to Wenceslaus Link (No. 11 in the appendix of this volume), in which he informs him that his humble letter to the King of England had been answered by him so hostilely that it seems as if he is looking forward to an opportunity for revenge, as is Duke George.
Another of Luther's disputes with Duke George arose from the so-called Packsche Händeln. It had the council and
1) Cf. Col. 417 in this volume.
Otto von Pack, informed Landgrave Philipp von Hessen that on May 13, 1527, an alliance had been made under oath at Breslau by the most important Catholic princes against the princes adhering to the Gospel, with the intention of demanding Luther's surrender and restoring the old church service everywhere. If the Protestant princes refused to do so, they were to go to war and divide their lands among themselves. The following were named as participants in the alliance: the King of Bohemia, Ferdinand, Duke George of Saxony, the Dukes William and Ludwig of Bavaria, the Electors Joachim of Brandenburg and Albrecht of Mainz, the Archbishop Matthew Lang of Salzburg, the Bishops Wigand of Bamberg and Conrad of Würzburg. At the first communication about the alliance, which still falls into the year 1527, 3) Pack had given the landgrave a copy of the alliance, but promised that he would also provide him with the original for inspection. On the occasion of a visit, which the Landgrave paid to his father-in-law, Duke Georg, in Dresden, Pack presented the Landgrave with another copy on February 18, 1528, which was allegedly taken from the Duke's chancellery and provided with the Duke's seal. Pack, however, made an effort to get the original signed and sealed by all participants against payment of 4000 florins (which he really received). After his return from Dresden, the Landgrave went to Weimar to the Elector of Saxony and his son and, in the face of the threatening danger, persuaded them to make a counter-agreement, which was concluded on March 9, 1528. In it, it was stated that 26,000 men of war should be raised, and that one wanted to try to attract other allies, the kings of Poland and Denmark, the dukes of Prussia, Lüneburg, Pomerania and Mecklenburg and the cities of Ulm and Magdeburg, "for life, honor, dignity,
2) Seckendorf has May 12; but xost Invocavit is May 13, since Invocavit fell out of the twelfth in 1527.
3) Seckendorf, Rist. IntM, lid. II, x. 946.
to protect country and people and everything that can be conceived in the world". By acting quickly, they wanted to forestall the opponents; however, the dukes of the Church did not want to strike before they had obtained the advice of their theologians on this matter. Luther and Melanchthon advised peace and to wait for the attack of the opponents. As a result, the Elector began to hesitate and a more moderate alliance was reached at another convention on April 23, 1528. Covenants. However, it was very difficult to temper the landgrave's heat and prevent him from invading the lands of the bishops of Bamberg, Würzburg and Mainz with the army they had gathered at Herren-Breitungen on the Werra. However, he wanted to spare his father-in-law, Duke Georg; therefore, on May 17, 1528, he admonished him by letter, 1) he would like to resign from this shameful alliance. On May 21, Duke Georg replied that the alliance was a worthless invention, and if the landgrave did not name the person who had reported it to him, he would have to consider him the inventor of it. Duke George had the landgrave's letter and his reply to it printed and sent it to everyone who was interested. At the same time the Landgrave published, on May 22, before he had received the answer of Duke George, the wording of the alliance indicated to him by Pack. Luther commemorates this writing in a letter to Amsdorf, June 8, 1528, No. 14 in the appendix of this volume.
Like Duke George, all interested parties denied the existence of such an alliance and protested their innocence. In June 2)
1) This letter of the Landgrave, He^ogs Georg's answer to it, the letters of apology of the other princes and other documents relating to this trade can be found in Walch, old edition, Vol. XVI, 428 ff.
2) Cf. the letter of Elector John to Luther, Melanchthon and the captain at Wittenberg, June 9, 1528. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 135. According to this letter, peace had already been reached with the two Franconian bishops; an agreement was reached with Mainz at Gelnhausen on June 14. A reconciliation between Duke Georg and the Landgrave was reached in September. Seckendorf, 8ist. Imtk., lid. II, p. 98.
Through the mediation of the Electors of Trier and the Palatinate, war undertakings were abandoned. The bishops of Mainz and Würzburg, however, on whose borders the landgrave's army lay, each had to pay him 40,000 guldens in war indemnity, the bishop of Bamberg 20,000 guldens. This put an end to Pack's unrest. The landgrave had had D. Pack imprisoned, as we can see from Luther's letter to Johann Hess (No. 13 in the appendix of this volume), which was probably written before mid-June 1528. 3) From July 20 to 24, a solemn interrogation of him was held in Cassel, to which King Ferdinand, the Princes of Treves, the Palatinate and Brandenburg, and Duke George had sent their envoys. First, he was questioned by the Hessian chancellor Joh. Feig whether he had informed the landgrave that such a covenant (the wording of which was read out) had been concluded between the king [Ferdinand] and the princes; whether he had shown the landgrave a copy with the seal of Duke George on February 18, 1528 in Dresden, and finally, whether he had promised to procure and present the original? Pack answered all this in the affirmative without reservation. Upon questioning, all the envoys present declared that they considered the landgrave excused for having believed this man's report. Thereupon the chancellor of Duke George, D. Pistoris, continued the case against Pack, accusing him of many forgeries in writings and of deceitfulness in actions, also of embezzling funds from the revenues of the prince, and that he had sought to stir up discord among the princes. Most of these accusations Pack denied, others he gave a different interpretation. With regard to his knowledge of the alliance and the document in which the articles of it were laid down, he testified as follows: When he was present in Breslau, he was not present at the deliberations.
3) Luther's letter to Wenceslaus Link, July 14, 1528, is also about Pack's imprisonment and his upcoming interrogation. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1539, ß 19. A duplicate of this letter is Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, appendix, no. 2.
In 1527, when Duke Heinrich of Brunswick was with Duke Georg, the latter ordered him to give the Chancellor Pistoris the command to fetch the document he was aware of. Pistoris had been prevented from putting it into the Duke's hands himself, and had handed it over to him [D. Pack] to deliver it to the Duke. After one or two hours, he had received it back from the Duke and was to deliver it to the Chancellor again. He had read it through beforehand, but had not revealed anything to anyone except the landgrave. The latter had already heard rumors of the alliance; when Pack was sent to Cassel by Duke Georg, and the Landgrave questioned him about it, he made the announcement under the seal of secrecy, and gave him a copy of it, but for nothing, and also promised to procure the original. On his return to Dresden, he found that the Duke's seal had been broken and the document had been torn. He gave many reasons why he had not, and could not, have invented the articles of the covenant. He stated that five years ago 1) a council had been held by the Mainz, the Brandenburg and Duke George at Jüterbock to eradicate Luther's heresy; at Zerbst the same matter had been discussed and finally at Dessau it had been decided to use force, with the consent of the Emperor and Ferdinand. For this he referred to the minutes (Acta) of these meetings. The document, which he had shown to the Landgrave on February 18, had been destroyed by himself after he had received it again from the Landgrave, because he could not have put the seal, which had been pressed on the envelope and the silk thread, back in its place so that it was sealed as before. This had been done out of fear of discovery. The document was made by the hand of a certain
1) The first intended alliance of the Old Believer princes living in Saxony and Hesse is from October 20, 1523, and so far completely unknown, although the articles for it still exist. (Seidemann, Explanations, p. 130.)
He should be summoned and questioned, then it will become clear from which original (autographo) he copied it. If he were to be convicted that he (Pack) had invented and written it, he would suffer any punishment. Pistoris replied that the Bohemian was a worthless man and had already been expelled from the court. But the argument with which Pistoris cornered D. Pack the most was this: he showed letters which Pack had written to him from Hesse under a fictitious place and time, in which he accused the landgrave of causing unrest on the basis of a quite simple and unworthy fictitious alliance. Pack could not wriggle out of this accusation in any other way than to say that he had wanted to give the chancellor the runaround so as not to be hindered in his plan to obtain the original, for the sake of which he had made a trip to Dresden. The action ended with Pistoris declaring that it was sufficiently obvious that Pack was guilty of fraud and, together with the other envoys, demanding Pack's extradition to his master so that he could be questioned thoroughly and the matter would come to light even more clearly. The landgrave refused to comply with this demand. For the time being, Pack was kept in custody, but then expelled from the country. Inactive, he wandered around for several years until he was finally beheaded in 1536 2) in Vilvorden, a town near Brüffel, on the orders of Duke Georg, who had persecuted him incessantly. It does not follow from this act of George that he considered the alliance a fabrication, but may have considered himself entitled to do so because of the breach of trust and the theft of the document from his office. Link was firmly convinced of the existence of the alliance, as he stated in his letter to Duke John Frederick, early in December 1528; also Spalatin, who writes in his handwritten history of the year 1528: "The poor man (Pack) has the Breslau Alliance of the German nation and the whole Christian nation in his hands.
2) Thus Seckendorf. Cochläus gives the year 1537.
to his great discomfort, he will finally lose his life and limb in the Netherlands. 1)
Luther held, as he stated in a letter to Wenceslaus Link, 2) on June 14, 1528, that the alliance of the godless princes was not a mere fantasy (chimaera). 3) Duke George's mute apology was almost a confession, because everyone knew that they had dealt with such things in order to destroy the gospel. Link had carelessly left this letter out of his hands, so it had been possible that Duke George, without Link's knowledge and will, had obtained a copy of it on October 27, 1528, and now made great efforts to get hold of the original as well. He had therefore, through his secretary Thomas von der Heiden, approached the council 4) of Nuremberg with the request that they help the Duke to obtain the original. The council, however, did not agree. One of the "few" to whom Link had sent the letter was D. juris Scheurl; he had the original in his hands and played the traitor. 5) On the one hand, he had George's secretary, Thomas von der Heiden, inspect the original through his servant, and on the other hand, he himself dictated Luther's letter to his (Scheurl's) servant in the pen for Duke George. With difficulty, Link recovered the original from Scheurl, who had been offered "one hundred or two [hundred] florins" for it, and then burned it. Shortly before the 4th De-
1) Hortleder, äe deUo Oernaanieo. Dona. I, IIP. II, "ap. 9, tot. 800.
2) Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 507.
3) Later, Luther still held on to this opinion, even expressing it publicly again in 1533 in a pamphlet Against Duke George. (Cf. No. 30 in the appendix of this volume, § 66 and § 74. Likewise in the writing "Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden. 1531 (Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2074, § 33).
4). Cf. the letter from Chancellor Brück to Luther, December 4, 1528. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 152 f.
5) See No. 15 in the appendix to this volume.
6) Cf. Duke Georg's letter to Scheurl, end of November or beginning of December 1528. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 143.
cember 7) Link had written to Duke Johann Friedrich about the letter matter.
The very next day after receiving the copy of the letter, on October 28, 1528, Duke George wrote a letter to Luther 8) in which he asked him, without offering a greeting or a grace, if he had made "a writing according to the one in it" for the link. On October 31, Luther replied, 9) he wished that he be spared such notes or copies. Those who had prepared and handed such notes would probably be able to give information as to what the writing was. As always, Duke George sued Luther because of this evasive answer at the Elector and Luther defended himself on November 25, 1528 10) against the accusation of the Duke in a letter to the Elector, which, written in general terms, was intended to be forwarded to Duke George. The Elector wished, 11) "so that our cousin would not be easily induced to further writing and disputation", that a small mitigating change be made by Luther's hand and that the letter be copied by him. 12) This was done and the mitigated letter was given the same date as the previous one, namely: on the day 13) of Catharine; it was sent to Duke George on December 11.
This would have been the end of the dispute, but Luther had meanwhile written his "Report to a Good Friend of Both Saints on the Mandate of the Bishop of Meissen", in which he says: "Everyone must be an enemy to them (the Lutheran princes) and seek treacherous plots and alliances against them, of which they can make use.
7) Not only on December 23 as Seckendorf, lid. II, p. 99, and reported to him according to Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 138. Cf. the letter of Chancellor Brück. Burkhardt, p. 152.
8) Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 509.
9) Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 510.
10) De Wette, vol: III, 404.
11) Letter from the Elector to Luther, December 2, 1528. Burkhardt, p. 151 f.
12) This mitigated letter is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 270. Seidemann, Lutherbriefe, p. 36.
13) Not "am Montage Catharinä", as De Wette and Walch have, because Catharinä fell on Wednesday in 1528, Cf. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 130.
must be ashamed of himself afterwards, as the attack in Mainz also happened. 1) On the other hand, Duke Georg had a document printed under the title 2): "What form we Georg, von GOttes Gnaden Herzog zu Sachsen etc., by Martin Luther of the poetic alliance halben in Schriften unerfindlich angegeben und darauf unsere Antwort." At the end: "Printed in Dresden by Wolfgang Stöckel". It is dated December 19, 1528, and already on that day he sent a copy to the Elector, 3) on December 22 also to the Landgrave, with the request "to have such [writing] publicly read and posted to yours". On December 19, the document was also sent to King Ferdinand, the Electors of Mainz and Brandenburg, the Archbishop of Salzburg, the Dukes of Bavaria, and the Bishops of Würzburg and Bamberg. In this document, George had Luther's letter printed according to his copy, as well as his letter to Luther and his answer. 8000 copies of it had been printed, which were to be thrown on the market at the New Year's Fair in Leipzig; before that, only single copies had been given to some favored persons. There was a big surprise waiting for the duke. Luther had also received a copy at the same time. Therefore he made the decision, as he reported towards the end of December in a letter to Wenceslaus Link (No. 15 in the appendix of this volume), to publish his answer, quite unexpectedly for Duke George, with the writing of his opponent at the same time. On December 31st, Luther sent a letter to the Elector (No. 22 in the appendix of this volume), in which he mentions that in the next New Year's Mass, next to the great booklet of Duke George, his answer will go out, and consoles him because of his worry about Duke George's raving. Thus, Luther's writing on secret and stolen letters (No. 100 in this volume) appeared on New Year's Day 1529, in which he asserts: "If the letter to Link is not mine, then it is a fictitious, false, lying letter, which shall be without harm to me; but if it is mine, as I have stated in this way on
1) § 11 in No. 157 of this volume.
2) Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 506-519.
3) Cf. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, pp. 135 and 139.
Duke George's confession and deed, then to Duke George is my earnest demand on my account, but on God's account his earnest strict commandment, that he make the said letter, together with all copies that are copied or printed from it, in the case of a mortal sin and loss of divine graces and blessedness, to me or to D. Wenceslao as stolen and robbed property to its rightful lord and owner, and thus, with full restitution, make the letter secret again and put it where he took it, because there is God's commandment, 'thou shalt not steal', to which G. must be subject as well as other men. At the end is an interpretation of the seventh Psalm.
Already on January 22, 1529, George's rejoinder against this writing of Luther's was produced) under the title: "A short report, so we Georg, von GOttes Gnaden Herzog zu Sachsen etc., auf etzliche neue rasende Lügen, die Martin Luther in einem Druck gegen unsere Entschuldigung, des gedichteten Bündnisses halben, ausgehen, zu thun verursacht." "Printed in Dresden by Wolfgang Stöckel." At the same time, namely on January 23, 1529, Cochlaeus also sent out a rebuttal under the title: "How, against the illustrious Highborn Prince and Lord, Mr. George, Duke of Saxony etc., Martin Luther has Germanized and misused the seventh Psalm, apparently indicated by Doctorem Joannem Cocleum." In the meantime, Duke Georg again complained to the Elector through his advisors Heinrich von Schleinitz zum Sathan and Wolf von Schönberg, Amtmann zu Meißen, on January 13, 1529. They delivered Luther's writing "von heimlichen Briefen" (of secret letters) together with Georg's counter-writing "ein kurzer Bericht" (a short report), the latter of which the Elector should allow to be posted in his lands. The envoys received a written reply: Luther's letter to Link had been written on June 14, 1528, i.e. "before the treaties", and was therefore no longer to be considered. George should not have hurried so much with his tendering and printing and thus not have made the matter more difficult. The
4) Seidemann, Erläuterungen, pp. 136 ff.
The Elector wanted to issue a prohibition to Luther and the Wittenberg printers "to revile his loved ones or anyone else," as his blessed brother had seriously forbidden them earlier. Unfortunately, they were also printing unpeaceful things elsewhere. In a letter of January 24, 1529, George replied that Luther had also reviled him "according to the contract" in the writing on the bishop of Meissen's mandate because of the fabricated alliance. George sends his latest responsibility (the "short report") in print and asks the Elector to allow it to be posted in the Electorate by George's messenger. In his reply of January 28, 1529, the Elector repeats that Duke Georg had made the settlement of the matter more difficult by his excessive haste. He was not pleased that Luther had become involved with Georg. He had never taken Luther's side, just as his brother had not, so Georg should not have involved him in these matters. The messenger could strike unhindered. Thus Duke George received permission to spread his writings against Luther in the Electorate by public notice, while Luther received on January 18, 1529 1) from the Elector the order not to have anything printed against Duke George or other princes and persons without having sent it in beforehand and having received permission to do so. What he allowed to be printed in teaching matters was to be overlooked by the Rector and some persons of the University, as the decree of Elector Friedrich already existed. Duke George was not yet satisfied with this, but wrote again on February 19 that Luther's writing on the Bishop of Meissen's mandate had gone out "somewhat after the first contract"; this writing clearly proved "that Luther would not let himself contest the contract", and he did not consider what was said for Luther sufficient. But the Elector put an end to this dispute by writing to Duke George on February 22, 1529: he did not want to dispute with him any further in this matter; if the Duke wanted to have the matter brought before impartial judges, he would not bear any responsibility for it.
1) See the letter from the Elector to Luther. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 155 f.
Shyness. In a letter to Duke George on June 30, 1530, and to Melanchthon on July 7, 1530, Erasmus spoke very disapprovingly about Luther's writing "of secret letters. These letters are, as Seidemann says, 3) extremely strange in relation to Erasmus himself.
After the Imperial Diet in Augsburg, in 1531, Luther had sent out two sharp writings, the "Warning to his dear Germans" and the "Gloss on the supposed imperial edict. 4) Duke George complained about them again by letter to the Elector as "a pious man who wanted to do right", and at the same time sent two letters of abuse 5) (which were addressed to the abbess and the provost of the monastery at Riesa [Rissau], both dated Wittenberg, March 19, 1531, and the first signed by M. L.), with the inquiry whether Luther would confess to these letters. The Elector sent the Chancellor Brück to Wittenberg to put this question to Luther and to give him the order in the name of the Elector that he should refrain from the vehement, sharp letter, "so that incorrectness may be prevented". On April 16, 1531, Luther therefore wrote to the Elector. 6) Luther rejects the two shameful letters; it is not his way of writing and he knows neither the monastery nor the abbess. That his two writings are sharp and violent, he admits, but justifies it with the "sharpness and speed of the trade" on the side of the opponents. The adversary has "omitted such a dreadful, cruel, bloodthirsty, false edict, and thus twitched the sword against the Elector and his relatives". The Elector had been silent about all this for more than half a year and had shown too much patience, thus making the opponents even more defiant, proud and wanton. "For this reason," Luther continues, "whether C. F. G. and her relatives want to remain silent and suffer forever, it is nevertheless the
2) HpistolLL eä. Olsriei, PÄZ. 1293 s.
3) "Explanatory Notes," p. 142.
4) Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 1959 and 2016.
5) These two letters are printed in Burkhardt's "Briefwechsel," p. 190.
6) Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2119.
I have not been able to remain silent nor to suffer for such a long time, as the matter is initially and most nobly my own. For if I should finally remain silent on such a public condemnation of my doctrine, it would be just as much as if I abandoned it and denied it; before I want to do that and suffer, I want to incur the wrath of all the devils, of all the world, before the imperial councilors remain silent. Then Luther explains that "that part should also take itself by the nose once. The emperor has never punished or forbidden the most shameful and sharpest writings, which have gone out without intermission throughout the empire, even in his hereditary lands and in the French lands. Likewise, King Ferdinand did not find D. Faber's writing too harshly, or the Dukes of Bavaria those of D. Eck, which are full of lies and blasphemy; they did not oppose or punish them. Margrave Joachim did not punish his Wimpina and Mensing; Duke George was never displeased that Emser, Cochläus and many others in his lands wrote sharply, bitterly and disgracefully against us, and also touched and sullied the honor of the deceased Elector and the reigning Elector. "Has Duke George himself written against me (says Luther) and many times in such a way that a loose Emser or snotspoon should be ashamed to write in this way; but it should not be given to him either." Luther soon carried out this threat. In the meantime, Duke George himself, but anonymously, had sent out a vehement diatribe against Luther and hid behind the priest of Cologne. Even before May 8, 1531 1) Luther's answer to it appeared under the title: "Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden gedruckt" ("Against the Assassin Printed in Dresden"), 2) in which Luther very sharply denounces Duke George under the epithet "Assassin" 3). Although the writings concerning this episode of Luther's dispute with Duke George are not found in this volume, we have not been able to pass them by, because the next dispute is, at least in part, related to it.
1) Cf. Luther's letter to Brück of this date. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2124.
2) Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2062.
3) See the note to No. 25 in the appendix of this volume.
The preaching of the Gospel had found many followers in Leipzig, so Duke George took strict measures to prevent the continuation of the Word of God and to bring people back to the priesthood. Everyone who went to confession and communion around Easter received a mark from the priest, by which he could prove that he had communicated under one form. Whoever could not show such a badge either had to take an oath in which he renounced the evangelical doctrine (the form of the oath, which Duke George interpreted to the subjects who had fallen away from the Gospel, can be found in the appendix of this volume No. 26), or had himself expelled from the city. In their distress, several citizens of Leipzig turned to Luther 5) with the question whether they could take a gestalt with a clear conscience, 6) in order to satisfy their authorities. Luther's answer to the question of some citizens of Leipzig, on April 11, 1533, (No. 23 in the appendix of this volume) was that no one may do this who is convinced in his conscience that both forms are God's word and order. Because of this letter, the mayor of Leipzig, Wolf Wiedemann, sent a letter to Luther (No. 24 in the appendix of this volume), in which he asked, on April 25, 1533, whether Luther would confess to the same as his own. On April 27, Luther replied to Wiedemann (No. 25 in the appendix to this volume) that if he told him on whose authority, whether the priest at Cologne or the assassin at Dresden or Duke George, 7) he should be given an ample answer. Thereupon, the Duke sued Luthern again before the Elector, on the basis of the letter to the Leipzigers, because he had led the subjects to disobey their authorities.
4) Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. II, 312 says that it later turned out that none of the oath formulas circulated at Leipzig had come from the secular or ecclesiastical authorities.
5) Cf. Tischreden, cap. 27, § 150. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 925.
6) What may be meant by the words: "under the appearance, as if they had both received form", namely the so-called unconsecrated flushing chalice, about it compare Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 664 uä p. 314, note 1.
7) Cf. the note to No. 25 in the appendix.
for sedition, and for the sake of several expressions used in the letter, for defamation. The Elector wrote to Luther 1) on May 12, 1533, informing him of the complaint and asking him to answer for it. Luther did this in his writing: Verantwortung des von Herzog Georg ihm auflegten Aufruhrs, in Juni oder Juli 1533 (No. 28 in the appendix of this volume), to which he added a long letter of consolation 2) to the Christians innocently chased out of Leipzig by Duke George. In it, he first reminds him of the lesson that Duke Georg received in the writing of secret and stolen letters. Then he rejects the accusation as if he had offended the person or the prince's honor with his letter to the Leipzigers, or had even stirred up sedition against him. For it was a spiritual matter, concerning God's Word and blessedness, that he had acted in it; no worldly matter or sedition could be made out of it. Yes, Luther had even advised the people to suffer and tolerate, not to go against their authorities, but to let go of body and goods for the sake of God's word. By calling him an apostle of the devil, he was not blaspheming the Duke, but telling the truth as it is reckoned before God in spiritual matters. If Duke George wanted to refer the words: "they shall strike the devil in the face with the cross" to himself and understand an iron or wooden cross, this would be quite unreasonable. Luther, by the grace of God, had the glory that since the time of the apostles, no one had taught so gloriously and clearly about the authorities and had confirmed, instructed and comforted the consciences of the secular classes as he had. After a long and heated correspondence had been conducted between Duke Georg and the Elector because of this writing, Duke Georg sent a delegation of three men, namely Heinrich von Schleinitz zum Sathan, Doctor Georg von Breitenbach, Ordinary, and Hans Pflug zu Frauenhayn, with a letter to be delivered to Dresden on
1) The same can be found in Burkhardt's "Briefwechsel".
2) This letter of consolation is found in Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 1932 sf.
The envoys were to request from John Frederick that they be allowed to present their advertisement in the presence of all the councilors and the entire court staff. If this was refused, they were to make the advertisement known to the other councilors and court servants after the audience had been completed. On August 10, they publicly presented their complaints against Luther before the entire court in Altenburg. In particular, they asserted 4) that Luther had been guilty of lying by stating that an oath had been administered to the Leipzigers against the Protestant religion. The Elector had the Chancellor Brück reply to them excellently (viriliter), with great praise of Luther. He had preached the pure word of God and the Elector wanted to preserve this in his lands. Finally, the matter was referred to a court of arbitration which, on November 18, 5) at Grimma, decreed that one should refrain from quarreling and that the theologians should be instructed to be modest in their writing, especially in matters that did not concern religion, and that peace and harmony between the princes should be maintained. In the meantime, Duke George had sent out a rebuttal to Luther's "responsibility" through Cochlaeus under the title: "Duke George of Saxony's honest and thorough apology against Mart. Luther's seditious and mendacious letter and responsibility." Dresden 1533. At the same time (for by D. Benedict Pauli, mayor of Wittenberg, who was in Dresden at the time, a large part of the printed sheets had been sent to Luther), Luther's small answer to Duke Georgen's latest book (No. 30 in the appendix to this volume) appeared at the autumn fair, i.e., at the end of September or beginning of October 1533. This answer was not directed against Cochläus, but against Duke Georg, because the writing was, as Luther says, "drawn with his name and shield by heart". He calls it a
3) Thus Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 214 f.
4) Seckendorf, Rist. I^utli., lid. Ill, x. 59.
5) Not on November 13, as Seckendorf indicates. Cf. De Wette, vol. VI, 507, note 7.
"This book is only a preface and forerunner of a larger one, which he wants to publish. In it, Luther defends himself against the accusation that he had invented the oath formula. Cochläus had it printed in his book; but because he did not get it from Luther, it is clear that Luther did not invent it. Concerning the fact that Duke George blames him for being a perjured, perverted monk, Luther explains splendidly that the monks are not only perjured, but also denied, apostate Christians and blasphemers and new crucifiers of their Savior Jesus Christ: whoever goes out from them and goes to repentance in Christ is a blessed apostate, a blessed perverter, a blessed perjurer, who has not believed the devil and has become an apostate before him. Luther came from the devilish vow back to his right and denied baptism. He who has vowed monasticism is guilty, at the loss of his blessedness, of falling away from this blasphemy and escaping. It is a blessed name with which Duke George thinks he has reviled Luther. Luther likes to be scolded by all names, except that he is a faithful, pious monk. Finally, he defends the late Elector John and the Landgrave because of the war armament undertaken for the sake of the Pack alliance and repeats that "even today the Notel has not been purified from the princely alliance. Cochläus sent out a reply to this writing under the title: "To Luther's short answer a short rebuttal concerning Duke Georgen of Saxony. Luther was prevented from answering this and from publishing his promised larger writing against it by the treaty concluded in the meantime at Grimma, by which silence was imposed on both parties.
Finally, it is to be mentioned that Duke George once unwittingly gave a praising testimony about Luther, namely about Luther's doubts whether men of war can also be in a blessed state. About this is to look up the report of M. Cyriacus Spangenberg, which we have communicated in No. 101 in this volume.
Luther's verdict on Duke George, which he passed in 1533, is found in this volume, Appendix, No. 27.
XV Luther's dispute with the Elector Albrecht of Mainz.
Already on the occasion of Luther's quarrel with Tetzel, Cardinal 1) Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Magdeburg and Mainz, Administrator of the Bishopric of Halberstadt, also Elector of Mainz, was remembered in the introduction to the 18th volume of the St. Louis edition (pp. 5 and 13). He and Pope Leo X were very similar in their love of art and science, their pompousness, their love of precious buildings and their need for money. Albrecht also needed large sums of money to pay for the pallium of the Archbishopric of Mainz and to indulge his addiction to fornication. When Luther's 95 theses against indulgences depleted his main source of money, he sought to open up another, albeit smaller one, by setting up a new indulgence business in Halle after Tetzel's death. Because, as Luther says, the Elector Albrecht "freely confessed publicly how all the clumsy 'Thaddel', by which Tetzel happened, were not his alone, but the Bishop of Mainz's will", so on December 1, 1521, from the Wartburg, he addressed the "hard, but Christian writing to the Cardinal and Archbishop of Magdeburg and Mainz, concerning the indulgence, which he again had set up in Halle after Tetzel's death". etc. (No. 102 in this volume.) In it, he reminds the Elector that he had already "written to him twice in Latin" 2) and that he had prayed to him out of Christian love.
1) By the way, Albrecht received the cardinal dignity from the pope only on August 1, 1618. This is "the strongest explanation about how the pope wanted to get involved in the accusations that he had to suffer because of the trade in indulgences. (Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 208.)
2) The first letter is from October 31, 1517, the second from February 4, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 479 and 1640. That no "missing letter" from Nov. 26, 1521 (or 1522) will be addressed to Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz, as Seidemann and Burkhardt assume, compare the second note to No. 103 in this volume. This has, as we found later, also already Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 797 (3rd ed. p. 802) aü p. 486 pronounced.
1) This letter together with a postscript can be found in Krafft, Briefe und Documente, p. 35 ff.
2) Seckendorf, Hist. I^id. I, x. 175.
more suitable (commodiorem) way to promote. Through this letter of Capito's, the suspicion arose in Luther that the archbishop might not have meant it sincerely with his kind answer, and therefore wrote to Melanchthon on January 13, 1522 3): "If the letter of Mainz had been alone, they would have achieved their purpose (vicerant), but now that that of Fabricius was enclosed, they have revealed their cunning and their empty pretense; this displeases me extraordinarily about Fabricius. I wanted the ungodly nature to come to an end, and that orator [Capito] represents the cause of ungodliness by teaching the bishop to confess his personal sins, and believes that Luther has been led quite nicely on the fool's rope in this way. I will also moderate myself so that I do not treat this man in the first letter as he deserves, but I will show him, and he shall know, that other people can also feel something with their noses" (spiritum esse in naribus hominis). This happened in Luther's letter to Wolfgang Fabricius Capito of January 17, 1522 (No. 104 in this volume). Luther tells him that Capito, by his own interpretation, had forced him to understand the words "another way" as follows: "the gospel would be promoted if the princes were given credit for something, if they were spared, if their deeds were excused, and (as your words read) if we held ourselves in such a way that we did not wantonly challenge them to a quarrel. This way of yours is, in my opinion, a right hypocrisy and denial of Christian truth, and quite actually 'the reputation of the person,' which Scripture so abhors that it [rejects] nothing in a more vehement way." "One should say before all things what is right and wrong; after that, when the hearer has accepted such, one should tolerate him, and, as Paul says, receive the weak in faith." Accordingly, Capito should also hold himself against his bishop. On the same day (January 17, 1522) Luther wrote to Spalatin: "I like neither the bishop's nor Capito's letter because of their unfortunate and all-too-revealing deceptive euphemism (fucum).
3) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 103.
I have answered Fabricius, not the bishop [nor will I do so], until I have known his mind."
Not from the very beginning had Luther intended to limit himself in this matter to a private punishment of the archbishop, but as early as October 7, 1521, he wrote to Spalatin 1): "I will not allow myself to be held back from attacking the idol at Mainz privately and publicly along with his whorehouse at Halle." On November 1, 1521, he informed Nicolaus Gerbellius 2) that he had finished a public punishment against the Cardinal of Mainz, and on November 11, 1521, he sent the finished document to Spalatin 3) with the request that he hand it over to Melanchthon. In this letter Luther also expresses his displeasure about the fact that the court wants to prevent him from writing against the archbishop because of the renewed indulgences in Halle, and declares that he will not let himself be prevented from doing so, should he lose Spalatin, yes, also the prince and all creatures over it. 4) Nevertheless, Spalatin, probably on the orders of the Elector, who had said that "he would not suffer that anything be written against the Mainzer, or anything that might disturb the public peace, kept Luther's writing with him. Luther learned of this during a secret visit to Wittenberg and therefore wrote a reproachful letter to Spalatin from there, approximately between December 5 and 8, 1521 5) No. 105 in this volume). As a result, Spalatin delivered the writing that was to go out against the Mainzer to Melanch-
1) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 765.
2) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV', Appendix, No. 71, § 5.
3) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 80.
4) Thus perdam is correctly reproduced by Walch I. e.. What Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, 484, offers: "ob auch Spalatin und der Churfürst und alle Welt darüber zu, Grunde gingen", is a thought unworthy of Luther and quite remote from him. It would be frightening if a reformer would say (and Luther would really have said this, if xerclam here means "to ruin"): "I will rather ruin you and even the prince and all creatures"! How the papists would rejoice if they could bring this with truth on Luther! And now this horrible mistake in Köstlin already runs through three editions.
5) For the timing, see the first note to No. 105.
thon, and Luther asked him, in the aforementioned letter of January 13, 1522, to keep it for future use.
Now there was a longer pause in Luther's quarrel against the Cardinal of Mainz, for from then on he was quite silent against the Gospel, except that here and there, as Luther assumed, violence was exercised against the followers of the Gospel not by the Cardinal himself, but "by some wolves and lions at his court. This happened especially in Miltenberg, Halberstadt and Halle. 6) In Miltenberg, a Chur-Mainzian city, D. Johann Draconites, called D. Johann Carlstadt from his birthplace, preached the Gospel. For this reason he was driven out, but several of his followers were killed or imprisoned. As a result, Luther sent out a missive to the Christians of Miltenberg in February 1524, 7) in which he comforted the distressed community. Luther announced this to the Elector of Mainz 8) on February 14, 1524, in a very moderate letter. The Elector seems to have behaved in such a way that Luther was confident that he would also turn to the Gospel, and in a letter 9) of June 2, 1525, he admonished him to marry and to change the archbishopric into a secular principality. Similarly, on July 6, 1530, Luther sent him an admonition from the fortress of Coburg to 10) accept the Protestant confession, or at least to leave it in peace. But Luther was deceived in his hopes; the Cardinal continued his old life of sin and fell from one disgraceful deed to another. In June 1535, he committed a judicial murder of his rentmaster, Hans von Schönitz (Schenitz, Schanz), from whom, without allowing him an advocate or responsibility, he used torture to extract the confession of all kinds of fraud and embezzlement of funds. Although the relatives agreed to act as guarantors, the
6) Cf. Luther's letter to Spalatin of January 18, 1524. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 886, s 3.
7) Walch, old edition, vol. V, 1844.
8) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 67.
9) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 678.
10) Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 1085.
1) he did not let the matter come to an ordinary investigation before the imperial chamber court, but hanged Hans Schönitz on the Giebichenstein with great haste, making himself the judge in his own matter. Luther expresses the suspicion that if Hans Schönitz had been admitted to the defense, it would have come to light that those funds had been spent on fornication and other evil activities of the Cardinal; that is why his mouth had been shut so quickly. It was brought to the Cardinal's attention that Ludwig Rabe, one of his subjects, should talk about these events much now and then. Therefore, the Cardinal had made attempts to have Ludwig Rabe imprisoned in Leipzig. But the latter had escaped and had found a place of refuge with Luther as "table companion and house guest". When the Cardinal addressed a letter to Rabe in which he threatened that "he would have Rabe speak of the executed Hans Schanz," Luther took this to mean that the Cardinal was "poking and prodding" at him, that is, that the Cardinal wanted to accuse him and Rabe of giving him a bad name by speaking out of turn in Schanzen's matter. So he tried to shift his shame onto Luthern. In order to do enough for his conscience, so that God and the world would not judge him as if he was silent in evil matters, Luther wrote a serious and last 2) punitive letter to Cardinal Albrecht 2c on July 31, 1535. (No. 31 in the appendix of this volume.) Luther says that he does not want to be forbidden to hear and believe, nor to tell good friends what honest people are saying about Schanz. Incidentally, all of Wittenberg was full of Schanz's accident for two days before Luther and Rabe learned of it, and they could not believe that the servant they had loved so much before had died so suddenly and in such a way from his dearest friend.
1) Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1689, No. 64. Lauterbach, p. 31.
2) It did not remain the last. Cf. the last note to this paper.
Lord should be hanged. "Such a thing," says Luther, "neither Ludwig nor I had brought about nor invented, and the Cardinal's name was spit upon and condemned without our doing."
The brother of the executed man, Antonius von Schönitz, endeavored to save his brother's honor and also to bring into his possession his brother's goods, which the Cardinal had confiscated in order to hold himself harmless, and therefore wanted to take the right path against him. On the other hand, the Cardinal made every possible effort to wrest from the hanged man the papers he had left behind, which were in Antony's hands, in order to deprive him of the evidence that could be used against him. He also did not omit anything that served to shift all the blame onto the murdered man and to purify himself in public opinion. Therefore, before January 12, 1536, Luther issued a harsh punitive and warning letter to the Cardinal (No. 33 in the appendix of this volume), in which he expresses that he should not succeed in his high endeavor "to bury and cover the blood of poor Hans Schanzen by various ways and persons", as with the innocent blood of M. Georg Winkler. The Cardinal "wants to work with honor from the blood of both and let the shame remain on the dead", but Luther is awakened by God to be an Elijah over Ahab and Jezebel. By this writing, he indicates to him that he wants to use Hans "Schanzen's last words, when he cried out against violence and then died, that he did not deserve such death" against the Cardinal. Luther made this known for his own sake, so that it could not be said that "he had neither admonished nor denounced anything beforehand.
Some time passed, probably because of resistance from the court, before Luther fulfilled his promise. In the meantime, we have a whole number of letters 3) that were written in this matter; most of them are addressed to Prince George of Anhalt, whom Luther er-
3) De Wette, Vol. VI, pp. 166. 170. 171. 174. 175.
Burkhardt, p. 264.
warns not to let the Cardinal use him as an intermediary in the matter of Schönitzen; the Cardinal only wants to delay the matter. Luther's intention to write vehemently against the Cardinal of Mainz must also have become known in other circles. For at the beginning of December 1536, the Elector John Frederick, moved by a letter from the Elector of Brandenburg and his cousins, asked Luther how he was doing with his planned letter against the Cardinal of Mainz. Luther answered in a letter to Brück of December 10, 1536 (in the appendix of this volume, No. 32), that he wished the princes all the best and would prefer that they persist with their cousin, the Cardinal, so that he would improve. They would also consider that it would not mean a tribe reviled if Luther had to tell the truth to a boy. To the reproach of Duke Albrecht of Prussia (July 24, 1538), who was well-disposed toward him, that he had attacked the Elector of Mainz too harshly in his writing against the epigrams of M. Simon Lemnius, Luther replied on August 15, 1): "It is not a disgrace to have boys in a family, but honest that one neither praises nor defends them. Once again Duke Albrecht 2) admonished Luther to be lenient against the Cardinal on October 8, 1538, adding "that broken pots were found in all places." Prince George of Anhalt also seems to have asked Luthern 3) not to publish the writing against the Cardinal. The Elector of Brandenburg had written to the Elector of Saxony as well as to the Landgrave of Hesse to prevent the publication of the writing; indeed, Luther's sovereign had "diligently and in many ways bargained with him that he would postpone the publication of that writing for at least a few more months, but Luther said that he had reasons why he did not want to drag it out and postpone it; and he wanted [the verdict] 4)
1) De Wette, Vol. V, p. 123.
2) Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 312.
3) In his letter to Luther of December 22, 1538. Kolde, Analecta p. 336, note 1.
4) Here, in the letter of I. Jonas to Georg von Anhalt, dated January 6, 1539, is an illegible Greek word. Bgl. Kolde I. o.
God's and man's suffering, he is urged by his conscience etc." At the beginning of the year 1539, Luther let his writing against the bishop of Magdeburg, Cardinal Albrecht, concerning the innocently hanged Hans Schenitz (No. 34 in the appendix of this volume), go out. 5) In the preface, Luther says: "It is no disgrace for a noble lineage to punish a bad boy who has sprung from this lineage. In the scripture itself, Luther proves on the basis of Job 31, 13-15, that the Cardinal was partisan and judge in one person in the matter of Schönitz, contrary to God's word, and puts this on the Cardinal's conscience. However, Luther was now obligated by his Elector to no longer print anything in personal matters that he had not previously presented to the court. 6) Nevertheless, Luther writes to Justus Jonas on November 6, 1542 (No. 35a and 35b in the appendix of this volume), "that the mockery of the sanctuary of the Cardinal at Mainz 7) is his," and states: "For I am not willing to be silent about the desperate enemy of God and blasphemer at Mainz for his diabolical will to courage, which he drives for and against the blood of Christ. . . For they shall sit under him that sitteth on the right hand of God, and not above him; with honors not."
XVI Luther's dispute with Caspar Schatzgeyer.
Caspar Schatzgeyer or, as he is also called, Schatzger (on his tombstone in the Franciscan church in Munich: Schazgier), was born in Landshut (Bavaria) in 1463 and received his first instruction in the Franciscan monastery there. He then studied theology in Ingolstadt, became a Baccalaureus and then entered the order of the Minorites in his hometown. In 1514
5) As Köstlin, Martin Luther (3rd ed.), vol. II, p. 431 assumes, it was written in December 1538.
6) Köstlin, Martin Luther, 3rd ed. Vol. II, 432.
7) De Wette, Vol. V, 504, remarks that he knows nothing to say about this for explanation. We have included this "mocking note" in the appendix immediately after the letter to Jonas.
He was elected Provincial at the Order's Chapter in Heidelberg and re-elected in 1520 at the Chapter in Amberg. At the time when Eck attributed his Expurgatio 1) to him, September 2, 1519, we meet him as priest and Guardian of the Franciscan monastery at Nuremberg. In 1523, at the General Chapter of Burgos, he was appointed Jnquisitor of the Faith. He seems to have spent most of his monastic life as Guardian of the Franciscan monastery in Munich, where he taught exegesis and dogmatics to his brothers and died on September 18, 1527. He wrote a large amount of writings, 2) which were collected by his friars and published in Ingolstadt in 1543 as Opera omnia Schatz- geri, with a preface by Eck. The book in which he attacked Luther's writing on the vows has the title: Replica contra periculosa scripta post Scrutinium divinae scripturae jam pridem emissum emanata, de votis monasticis, constitutionibus ecclesiasticis, sacrificio sacrosanctae Eucharistiae, sacerdotio novae legis, potestate apostolica cum adjectione responsionis ad tria objecta. As we can see from Luther's letter to D. Johann Brismann, perhaps in January 1523 (No. 106 in this volume), Luther entrusted him, who had previously also been a Minorit, with the answer to Schatzgeyer's writing and at the same time gave him some reasons. Brismann's answer, to which he added Luther's letter, has the title: Ad Casp. Schatzgeyri Minoritae plicas3 ) responsio per Jo. Brismannum pro Lutherano libello de votis monasticis. M. Lutheri epistola ad Brismannum de eodem. It appeared at Wittenberg in 1523 and was reprinted in the same year. Schatzgeyer, on the other hand, sent out his Examen novarum doctrinarum, etc., but received no reply.
1) Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, Introduction, p. 27, second columne.
2) Wiedemann, Eck, p. 419 ff. lists 23 different writings.
3) This refers to the title of the opposing writing: repliea.
XVII Luther's dispute with Cochlaeus.
Cochlaeus was actually named Johann Dobeneck, but called himself Cochlaeus (from cochlea, the snail) after his birthplace, the village of Wendelstein near Nuremberg. At the time when he attacked Luther in a writing about the power of the sacraments, through which he wanted to overthrow justification by faith alone, he stood as dean of the church of the Holy Virgin at Frankfurt am Main. From there he fled at the beginning of the peasant revolt in 1525 and received the canonicate of St. Victor in Mainz. After the death of Emser (who died on November 8, 1527) he was called to Meissen by Duke George in 1529. 4) He died in 1552 at Breslau or, as others indicate, in Vienna. He was a bitter, malicious, impudent adversary of Luther, who of all spread the most slander and invective against Luther and let one writing after another go out against Luther and his teachings. Only to the one above-mentioned writing Luther answered him with a counter-writing "Wider den gewappneten Mann Cochläus" (No. 107 in this volume) in the middle of February 1523. This writing is addressed to Wilhelm Nesen 5), a teacher expelled from Louvain, who had found a refuge in Wittenberg, but in the following year, as Luther reported to Johann Lang 6) on July 6, drowned in the Elbe. In this writing, Luther proves extremely clearly and beautifully that faith alone makes one righteous. The arrogant boasts of Cochläus, however, as Luther reports about the duel offered to him by Cochläus at Worms, made him ridiculous before the whole world. Therefore, Luther did not consider him to be one of his worthy opponents, and in a letter to Spalatin (No. 17 in the appendix of this volume) of February 1, 1524, he states that it was not necessary to answer Cochläus about his books.
4) Seckendorf, Rist. I^utN., Ind. II, p. 14a (16).
5) Luther mentions Nesen in the "Antwort auf des Königs zu England Lästerschrift Titel" (in this volume Col. 416) with the words: "der feine Mensch".
6) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 907.