second section of Luther's controversial writings against the papists:

Concerning the Papal Errors, which Luther Disputed.

I. Against Papal Errors in General.

Much more was written against Luther than he could ever have answered, although he would have had nothing else to do. But as we have seen many times before and now in the last-mentioned letter to Spalatin, he let many writings of his adversaries rush by, partly "because he was busy with other, better things", partly because "many such books were destroyed daily by himself". As a true teacher of the divine word, he especially took care of the consciences caught in the tyranny of the pope and made it his business to report to them from God's holy word, thereby equipping, strengthening and comforting them. 1) Such a writing is his booklet "Von Menschenlehre zu meiden" ("To avoid the doctrine of men") together with a "Antwort auf Sprüche, so man führt, um Menschenlehre zu stärken" ("Answer to sayings, which one uses to strengthen the doctrine of men") (No. 108 in this volume), which must have gone out soon after March 24, 1522, thus about April 1522. For on the aforementioned day, he wrote that he had intended to dedicate his book "von Menschenlehre" to his host at the Wartburg, because the latter had requested instruction from him in this matter, but did not dare to do so, because he feared that he would thereby betray the place of his imprisonment. Luther had this booklet published, as he himself says at the beginning of the book, "for the comfort and salvation of the poor consciences living in monasteries.

1) Here we only take into account those writings that are included in this volume, not those whose title Walch has attracted.

or pens lie imprisoned by human law", but not to the service of "the impudent lewd heads who raise their Christian nature only by eating eggs, meat, milk, not confessing, storming images etc." What else is worth mentioning is given in the note to the superscription, Col. 599.

Here follows in the old edition of Walch a writing, which has the title: Hauptartikel, durch welche die gemeine Christenheit bisher verführt worden, nebst Nicolai von Amsdorfs Zuschrift. This writing, which, as Amsdorf says in his letter to Otto von Ebenleben, has a layman as its author, first appeared in Wittenberg in 1522 without the name of the author, who "for moving reasons" did not want to be named. It was not included in the two oldest collections of Luther's works because it was known that it did not originate from Luther. First it was included by Aurifaber in the Eisleben Collection, Vol. I, p. 119 a, with the remark that it was considered certain that Luther was the author, and that Joachim Westphal (preacher in Hamburg, who attacked the Calvinist doctrine of the Lord's Supper in 1552) had also testified to this in one of his edited writings. From there it has passed into the Altenburg edition, vol. II, p. 224. In both of these editions, Amsdorf's dedicatory inscription is missing. In the Leipzig edition, vol. XVIII, p. 295, the writing is found with Amsdorf's dedication and is printed from it in the old Walch edition. We are of the opinion that Luther did not write it. The writing

The way of writing is completely different from Luther's. The content, however, is similar to the faith, but the writing does not seem to us to deserve a place in Luther's works. But even for the reprinting of Amsdorf's preface, which in our opinion is far better than the text itself, we do not think the reason is sufficient, which moved Walch to include the text together with the letter of his collection, namely, "because the same once came into the parts of Luther's books". We have thought it better to exclude the inappropriate again. Amsdorf himself did not include it in the Jena edition published under his supervision. His example is authoritative here because he, and perhaps only he, knew who the author was.

About the following writing: Das Pabstthum mit seinen Gliedern abgemalt und beschrieben, mit Luthers Vorund Nachrede (No. 109 in diesem Bande), Neujahr 1526, in which a large number of the ecclesiastical estates and orders are described in verse in the taste of the time, the necessary has already been said in the first note to the superscription. Luther was induced to let it go out because the papists became insolent and wanton again after the rebellious peasants had been defeated. This writing was supposed to be "a public punishment of the public abomination and devil's play", since the papists thought that "they had recovered and were completely reborn again".

Shortly before November 2, 1535, because on this day Luther sent several copies to Leonhard Beier, 1) pastor in Zwickau, thus about the end of October, the writing appeared: Etliche Artikel von den Papisten jetzt neulich verfälscht sammt einem Briefe D. Martin Luther to the preachers of Soest, 2) a city in Westphalia (No. 110 in this volume). The passage in the aforementioned letter that deals with these articles is as follows: "I am sending copies of the articles, about which

1) De Wette, Vol. IV, p. 647. This letter has not been referred to this writing so far. De Wette only says that it is about a "writing enclosed with Melanchthon", but does not know which one.

2) Spoken: "Soft". This is also how the Wittenberg edition spelled the name of the city.

you write. The papists have made miraculous things (mirabilia) of these articles everywhere, but their fame will be disgraced. M. Philip has not published them (edidit), and he is doing great injustice, more [but still] to the Elector 3) and to all of us;

3) To understand this passage correctly, we must add what Seckendorf, nist. Imtk., I^ld. Ill, p. 229 b, (ii) reports: "In the archive at Weimar UeZ. X. lob 452, OO, No. 220 is the same writing (Seckendorf is talking about the articles brought by the electoral envoys from England in November 1539, which Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 342 sf. Cf. the letter of the Elector to Luther and Metanchthon of November 13, 1539 in Burkhardt, Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 336) translated into German, but changed and truncated iinterpoluturn), with the inscription that it had been sent to the Emperor by the Elector of Saxony, Johann Friedrich. I confess that I was not a little troubled when I searched through this volume, and I could also find no sign from other papers and documents, on which occasion, on which day and in which year the Elector would have written such things "contrary to his religion". But after I had read the other volume, namely the one from which I have told the English affairs, and had looked more closely at the Latin writing which I have just communicated, which had been sent from England [it was not sent, but the envoys had brought it], I immediately recognized that the same slander had been brought up in Germany against the Elector, which the lickspittles in England had attached to Luther and his colleagues. However, it has been deceitfully changed in one place and another according to the differences of the country (locü) and the people. For what they inserted in the Scripture, which was spread in England, against the rule of the pope over kings and princes, in order to flatter King Henry, they omitted in the German. Also, in the [doctrine of] justification, they have come closer to Luther's teaching than most of the papal teachers in Germany approved. Of the masses they have also spoken more clearly, and where ceremonies and feasts are dealt with, they have written that only those feasts should be retained which would have been in use in the church at the time of Jerome, Ambrose, and Gregory of Nazianzus." Especially the last sentence proves irrefutably that Seckendorf is speaking here of our present Scripture. He is only mistaken in that he lets the English articles be the earlier ones from which the German ones are supposed to have been prepared, because he did not know the above letter of Luther to Beier, which was first published from the Gleichische Sammlung at Dresden by Schütze (Vol. II, p. 358). Rather, the articles written in Germany in 1535 were brought to England and changed there according to the king's taste. A secondary proof for this assumption lies in the signature of the English articles (Walch, alte Äusg. Bd. XVII, 345): "Gegeben in Deutschland im März 1539", because this is how it should read instead of "Gegeben in Deutschen". (Cf. Walch, introduction to the 17th volume, p. 55, first columne.) Thus it is also easily explained that neither

It seems as if they are perhaps brought together from some of M. Philip's writings. Well! the devil has often cheated himself; who knows whether he could not also cheat himself this time, when I do not doubt." From this it is clear that it was pretended that Melanchthon had written and published these articles, that the Wittenberg theologians had agreed, and that the Elector had sent them to the Emperor. Disturbed by this, the preachers at Soest sent these articles to Luther with the inquiry whether it was true that so much had been left to the papists. This prompted Luther to publish the fabricated articles together with his letter to the preachers at Soest, so that they could comfort their own and shut others up. Luther declared: "unless they accept the gospel which I call my gospel," there was no hope of agreement between him and the pope. Luther had caught the conscience of the papists that they know that their gospel is man's teaching, and they must confess that Luther's gospel is God's teaching and the Holy Scripture. Thus for the present this matter was ended; but it arose again four years later. These articles had found their way to England and had been so changed there as to please the king. In November 1539, the envoys whom the Elector had had in England brought these articles with him, whereupon the Elector wrote to Luther and Melanchthon 1) on November 13, 1539, asking them to counter "the cunning and evil practices of the adversaries" in a Latin writing. Much research was done to find the answer, but in vain, because, unknown even to the Elector, this matter had long since been dealt with in Germany by the present Scriptures; and therefore no answer was given. The only other thing that could be done for Ver-

Seckendorf, as he complains (Iäl>. Ill, 228a (r)), nor anyone else has been able to find the answer to this that Luther was ordered by his Elector, "a suitable writing in Latin". It is highly probable that this was never written, because Luther and Melanchthon must have answered the Elector's request: these articles had already been answered sufficiently four years ago by Luther's letter to the preachers at Soest.

1) This letter is found in Burkhardt, p. 336.

2) The fact that Luther writes in the letter: "My Lord Jesus Christ has now preserved me for more than twenty years in this great cause against so many spirits who wanted to overpower me and subjugate me to the pope" is easily settled by the fact that Luther does not count the years from the actual beginning of the Reformation, but from the year 1512, when he became Doctor of Theology.

In the case of the following text: Exemples of Papal Theology and Doctrine with Luther's Preface and Marginal Glosses (No. 111 in this volume), we have not been so fortunate, despite all the efforts made, that we could have determined the time of its writing or publication without doubt. The Jena edition has at the end the year 1523, which Seckendorf (Hist. Luth., Lib. I, p. 284, § 160, Add. ΙΠ, e) has also assumed, but no edition is known which is earlier than 1531. On the basis of this, Köstlin (Martin Luther, 3rd edition, Vol. II, p. 661) has decided for the year 1531. However, we do not consider this merely negative reason, "that there is no trace of older printings", sufficient to overturn the authority of the Jena edition. In Luther's letters we have not been able to find any hint of this writing; the writing itself also gives no definite clue to the solution of this question. We agree with the Erlangen edition (Opp. var. arZ., Vol. VII, p. 21) that the year 1523 is not improbable, because Luther had a lot to do with monastic vows at that time. In the scripture we are informed about the blasphemous sermon, which a Dominican Provincial held on the occasion of the initiation of a young girl into the order. Luther's statement in the Vorreds (§ 6), that he shared this excellent example of papal theology with young people of both sexes, "so that they will be more careful in the future to avoid the monsters of such a great abomination," seems to us to speak for an earlier time than 1531.

2) Seidemapn in De Wette, vol. VI, p. 235 places it after mid-November 1539 and Burkhardt remarks nothing about it.

t.

II. Against the person, office and power of the pope and bishops.

Luther's writing: Wider den falschgenannten geistlichen Stand des Pabsts und der Bischöfe (No. 112 in this volume) can probably be dated to July 1522, because his letter to Spalatin of July 26, 1522, in which he writes: "I wanted and it happened on purpose that my little book, which attacks the larval bishops, should be so sharp," suggests that this writing had come into Spalatin's hands shortly before. With great frankness and tremendous sharpness, he castigates the neglect of office and the worldly nature, pomp, ignorance and vice of the bishops and the extreme corruption of the Roman clergy, shows the danger and distress of conscience of those who are in the ecclesiastical orders, and teaches how the clergy should behave according to God's holy word. Seckendorf rightly remarks, 1) that it is wonderful that Luther remained alive even for one day after such testimony, which he gave so unreservedly against the great of the world. For almost all bishoprics were in the hands of the closest relatives of powerful princes, and there was hardly any bishop who, coming from a noble family, did not have influential protectors behind him. The papal liars, namely Cochlaeus 2) and Emser, accused Luther on the basis of this writing as an instigator of sedition and unrest, by concealing what Luther had expressly said, that the resistance against the disgraceful episcopal regiment must not be done with the fist, but with the word of God. Emser sent out a rebuttal under the title: "Wider den falschgenannten Ecclesiasten und wahrhaftigen Erzketzer Martinum Luther Emsers treue und neue Verwarnung, mit beständiger Vorlegung aus bewährter und kanonischer Schrift." (Against the false-named ecclesiastics and true arch-heretic Martin Luther Emser's faithful and new warning, with constant presentation from proven and canonical Scripture). Leipzig, 1523, but Luther did not answer him.

The second scripture Walch assigned to this section is Luther's letter

1) Rist. ILd. I, p. 201 d, (4).

2) in its OommeM. äs astis st soriptis ImÜrsr.

x. 63.

to Duke Albrecht of Prussia, about the Pope and his power (No. 113 in this volume), which will have to be set in January or February of the year 1524, because, as Aurifaber notes, it was handed over to Spalatin to be delivered to the Duke at the Imperial Diet in Nuremberg. This letter contains the answer to five questions which the duke had addressed to Luther concerning the power of the pope. Some of Luther's other writings, in which Luther dealt with the same subject, are referred to at the end of this section.

In addition to these two writings, Walch has included in the appendix of this volume a number of writings which he has described as concerning the Pabst's person and teachings, namely: Interpretation of two gruesome figures of the Pabst by Melanchthon with Luther's Amen and of the monk's calf at Freiberg found by Luther. End of January or beginning of February 1523 (No. 36 in the appendix of this volume). Two episcopal bulls, one of God (of the bishop of Samland) and one of Papal origin (of the bishop of Ermeland), with Luther's preface and glosses. January 1524 (No. 37 in the appendix to this volume). Luther's speeches, caught from his mouth at the disputation on Christ's words "Go and sell all that you have and give it to the poor" (Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 576). April 1539 (No. 39 in the appendix of this volume). Luther's preface to the barefoot monks Eulenspiegel and Alcoran, called Francisci liber conformitatum.

1542 (No. 40 in the appendix of this volume). Finally: Luther's preface to the booklet "Pabst loyalty of Hadrian IV and Alexander III against Emperor Frederick Barbarossa practiced. 1545 (No. 41 in the appendix of this volume). We have omitted the booklet itself, because it not only has no special value, but is even quite legerdemain-like and completely unhistorical, e.g. it lets the Emperor Frederick return to Germany from the Promised Land and hold another Imperial Diet in Nuremberg etc.

The only historical thing in this story is the humiliating treatment that Emperor Frederick had to suffer from Pope Alexander III in Venice, for the sake of which Luther wrote this preface. By the way, Luther also corrects the above wrong statement in § 4 of his preface and says that the emperor lost his life "in the water" in Palestine.

III Against indulgences.

Even before the actual beginning of the Reformation, Luther bore witness in his sermons against the mischief that was being practiced with indulgences. Several of these sermons, which Luther delivered as an introduction to his lectures on the Ten Commandments from the end of June 1516 to February 24, 1517, have been preserved in a manuscript from which they were first printed in Löscher's Reformation Acts, Vol. I, 729, 734 and 740. Three of them are included in this volume (translated according to the Weimar edition), namely a piece of Luther's sermon on indulgences from July 27, 1516 (No. 114), Luther's sermon on indulgences on the day before the consecration of the church (the collegiate church in Wittenberg) from October 31, 1516 (No. 115), and Luther's sermon on the day of St. Matthew, February 24, 1517 (No. 116). In these sermons, Luther leaves the indulgence itself as "the merit of Christ and his saints", which therefore is to be received with all reverence, but he severely castigates the abuse of it, through which it "has become the most shameful service of avarice and not the salvation of souls, but rather the money in the stock exchanges is sought". About the content of these sermons, the necessary has already been said in the 18th volume of our edition, introduction p. 9 f. As far as the text is concerned, the Weimar edition, Vol. I, p. 19 about it 1) says: "The text handed down to us by Löscher is distorted by gross errors. The so-called Erlanger Ausgabe, Lutheri opp. lat. var. arg. vol. I, p. 41-214, has most carefully corrected these errors.

1) The above is said about all the sermons found in Löscher, Vol. I, pp. 231-299 and pp. 729-795, and therefore also applies to our sermons, which belong to the latter section.

and even included obvious nonsense without objection. Walch had our sermons translated into German by younger scholars and assigned them to different parts of his edition; some even appear twice: the corrupt passages are simply omitted, the darker ones are broadly paraphrased according to their meaning; now and then faithful work shows itself." The last sermon "on the day of St. Matthew" has already been printed in the 12th volume of our edition, improved in several respects, but because the revision was made according to the Erlangen edition (the Weimar edition, the first volume of which appeared at the same time, could not yet be used), we were forced to insert it here once again in an improved translation. Whoever wants to convince himself of how justified the above judgment is about the mostly insufficient, extremely prolix translation in Walch's old edition, and furthermore how indispensable it is for us to make new translations (which significantly delays the publication of our edition), should take the trouble to compare the first of the above-mentioned three sermons (No. 114 in this volume) with the one in Walch's old edition, Vol. XIX, 917-929.

Luther's Theses on the Remission of Guilt and Punishment (No. 117 in this volume) were written in 1518; the time of their composition cannot be specified. They were intended for the Friday disputations in Wittenberg and closely follow Luther's "Explanations of his Disputation on the Power of Indulgences" 2) in content, in that our theses are also proven in this writing, as the last note attached to them testifies.

The next writing that we encounter in Walch's old edition, Christi Ablaßbrief gestellet durch D. Martin Luther den 10. Juni 1523, is not a separate writing, but a piece of Luther's interpretation of the Holy Father-Unsers 1517, which is found in Walch's old edition, Vol. VII, 1154-1156, §§ 132-135; therefore it is omitted here. First

2) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol.-XVIII, col. 100-269.

this piece under the above title recording healthy in a small collection: "Urtheil D. Martin Luther and Philippi Melanchthon by Erasmo Roterodam. A Christian epistle of D. Martin Luther to D. Wolfgang Fabritium Capitonem, in which is learned what measure to preach the gospel and how to use sharpness or kindness. Christ Letter of Indulgence. Do not become children - 1 Cor. 14." At the end of the letter of indulgence it says: Doctor Martinus Luther at Wittenberg. From the latter information it has been concluded that this writing is to be placed in the year 1523, although in it is still pronounced: "Not that I reject Roman indulgences." It first came into the collection of Luther's writings through Aurifaber, who included it as previously unprinted in the Eisleben edition, Vol. I, toi. 173. From there it has passed into all later editions: into the Altenburger, vol. II, p. 353; into the Hallischer Theil p. 135; into the Leipziger Ausgabe, vol. XVIIl, p. 495; into Walch's old edition, vol. XIX, 957 and into the Erlanger Ausgabe, vol. 29, p. 43.

Luther's letter to Spalatin of February 15, 1518, to which Walch refers in the old edition Col. 957, refers to Luther's Sermon on Indulgences and Grace; the necessary has been said about it in the 18th volume of the St. Louis edition, Introduction, p. 15, Col. 1.

Around the middle of December 1524, Pope Clement VII issued two bulls, dated December 17 and 19, in which he proclaimed a Jubilee Year for the year 1525. Luther had these printed under the title: Two Bulls of Pabst Clement the Seventh, in which he proclaims the Roman Jubilee Year etc. (No. 118 in this volume), and provided them with his preface and glosses. The going out of this writing will have to be set in the beginning of the year 1525. 1) In it, Luther says, "that the obvious deception and robbery of indulgences is so obvious that even the enemies of the Gospel must confess that it is vain avarice, deceit and fraud, and yet the Antichrist dares to continue with the lazy, stinking, embarrassed, and untrustworthy indulgences.

1) Cf. the first note to No. 118.

The first thing we know is that every hour when the holy gospel is heard and believed is a jubilee year, that the time when the gospel is pure is the right, pleasant jubilee year. "We know that every hour those who hear and believe the holy gospel have a year of rejoicing, that the time when the gospel goes pure is the right, rich, pleasant year of rejoicing." "Not the pabst's fictitious, lousy indulgences can satisfy consciences, but only faith in Christ." The Son of God "is the right, certain way to blessedness and no other, neither in heaven nor on earth. O blessed and blessed are those who have experienced this dear pleasant time, see and hear the joyful message, recognize it rightly, accept it, believe it from the heart and also thank God for such great grace. But few are those, even among us, who are still right in the Word of God".

IV. Against the aural confession.

Luther's writing "Weise, wie man beichten soll" (No. 119 in this volume) appeared at the end of March 1520, because on March 25 Luther sent a finished copy to Spalatin. 2) Already on January 14, 1519, Luther wrote to Spalatin, 3) that he was busy with an instruction on how one should confess (Formam confessionis meditor), and sent it to him on January 24. 4) After a year had passed, namely on January 18, 1520, Luther wrote to Spalatin 5): "I once made a 'Meise zu beichten' for you; I wish to have a copy of it (hujus exemplar), because I fear that it will be printed as it is, as our Adelmann writes to me, who wished that I should send it to him improved or changed." What Luther expresses here as an apprehension 6) that the editions he had written only for his

2) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix No. 29.

3) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 5 with the wrong year 1518. Cf. Weim. Ausg., vol. II, p. 48. Erl. Briefw., vol. I, p. 353, note 1.

4) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 618, § 1.

5) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 667, § 2.

6) Perhaps it is to be seen as a fine rebuke to Spalatin, because, as it seems, Adelmann, canon in Augsburg, wrote to Luther because of the already published writing.

In the meantime, already in the year 1519, it had happened several times that the writing, which had been written for a friend, but not for publication, would go out in print. Both in Leipzig by Melchior Lotther and in Basel by Adam Petri, this writing was published in this year under the title: "Eine kurze Anweisung, wie man beichten soll, aus Doctor Martin Luther Augustiners Wohlmeinung gezogen. 1) In the Leipzig copy is added at the end: "Printed at Leipzig from the demand of Melchior Lotther." If one compares this writing with the later translation of the Confitendi ratio by Spalatin, one can hardly doubt that the "short instruction" also came from Spalatin's pen. He must have given it to Melchior Lotther for printing at his request. Although Luther must have suspected that Spalatin had a hand in the publication, he did not let him pay for it, but after he had reworked it into the "Way of Confession", he sent it, as already mentioned, again to Spalatin, who translated it again and dedicated it to Duke John of Saxony on May 8, 1520. Luther had also intended a dedication of his improved writing to Alexius Chrosner, canon in Altenburg; indeed, he had already made such a dedication and had asked Chrosner 2) to allow him to send it to the Duke of Saxony.

1) This writing is found in Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 2158, and the first part of it in all editions of the Tischreden, Cap. 18, § 12, with the exception of "the St. Louis edition, in which this paragraph has been omitted as not belonging to the Tischreden (moreover as a duplicate). - It is remarkable that the three oldest complete editions of Luther's works, the Wittenberg, the Jena, and the Altenburg editions, did not include the "short instruction" because Luther did not want it to be published. It is first found in the Leipzig Supplement volume p. 118, then by Walch and in the Erlangen edition, vol. 21, p. 244 si. The proofs of this writing in the old editions given by the latter on p. 245 are simply taken out of the air. Also in the Weimar edition, vol. II, 69, this writing has found admission.

2) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 685 f. gives the letter to Chrosner the date "March 24", which may be correct; however, we suspect that the letter may be backdated by several more days, perhaps reading "VII 6al6n6. ^xrilis" may be read from XII 6u-. lencl. The latter would result in March 21. The date, which can be found for this letter in Aurifaber, Vol. I, p. 251 and after him in De Wette, Vol. I, p. 433 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, Vol. I, p. 370.

Luther had told the translators that the writing would go out under his name; however, it was omitted from the print, perhaps through an oversight at the printer's 3) office. The lack of good proofreading lamented by Luther is also evident in Spalatin's translation, at least in two places. We have found it necessary to make a new translation. In this writing, Luther teaches, as the title indicates: How one should confess. Namely, one should not rely on one's own works, one's own righteousness, nor on one's confession, but place one's trust in God's mercy and in the promise of His grace. Above all, a person must confess his sins to God, as if to a secret friend, to whom he is not ashamed to reveal all his affairs, with the earnest good intention of improving his life, but also not seeking this intention from himself, but from God, who alone can give it. Only obvious mortal sins belong to sacramental confession; secret sins of the heart do not belong to it, or only if a person has decided to commit sins against God's holy commandments with the open consent of his heart. A man is not even able to confess all his mortal sins, but only the fewest of them; therefore he should humble himself before God in such a way and say: "Behold, all that I am, my life, actions and speech are all such that they are mortal sin and damnable." This is the deadliest mortal sin, that a man does not believe that he is charged with mortal sin. One should abandon the generally accepted distinctions of sins, so that confession does not become torture,

finds: "7 tüulonü. ^xrilis", i.e. March 26, is wrong in any case. It is not to be assumed that Luther should have sent the writing to Spalatin on March 25, 1520 "without preface", but on the following day asked Chrosnern to allow him the dedication. The latest possible date for the letter to Chrosner is therefore March 24, because the date for the letter to Spalatin (March 25) is undoubted, since the original exists in Dessau. Cf. Burkhardt, Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 27.

3) In the aforementioned letter of March 25, 1520, Luther writes to Spalatin: "I send the 'Way to Confess' badly corrected, which is annoying, then also without preface, which, although it was ready, I do not know by what accident, we omitted when printing it."

But man should look rightly at the holy ten commandments, in which all sins are included, and then take absolution, in which he is absolved of his sins, with great joy in faith.

Luther's Instruction of Confessors on the Forbidden Books (No. 120 in this volume) appeared in mid-February 1521, 1) for the comfort of confessors to whom the confessors should refuse absolution or Holy Communion because they had or were reading Luther's writings. The confessors, and only those who consider Luther's teachings to be right in their conscience, are instructed how they should behave toward such sacrilegious behavior. In all humility, they are to deny their research to the confessor, and if he nevertheless does not want to desist and grant absolution after they have freely confessed that they have the forbidden books and do not want to promise not to have and read them anymore, they are to let him have his absolution, which he withholds from them as a thief and robber, and cheerfully boast that they are absolved before God. They should not allow themselves to be challenged even if they do not receive the sacrament in that year, for one may well do without it, but the soul cannot do without the divine word. One must not let himself be driven by anything from the teaching which he recognizes and respects in his conscience as divine. We are to strengthen ourselves with sayings of the Holy Scriptures, yes, praise God for making us worthy to suffer for the sake of His Word. Finally, Luther warns the confessors that they should not torture the consciences of the confessors, lest the latter be moved to ask and inquire in turn where they got the power and where the secret confession came from. If the pope and his people had not acted against Luther with storms and violence, much would have remained that they can now never bring back.

Of Luther's now following writing "Von der Beichte, ob die Pabst Macht habe zu gebieten" (No. 121 in

1) For this timing, see the note to the caption of No. 120.

De Wette (Vol. II, p. 13) assumes that it was not published until August or September of that year. It is likely that Luther's absence from Wittenberg, as he was writing it at Wartburg Castle, delayed its publication for so long. Originally, Luther intended to make a sermon out of it, as he wrote to Spalatin 2) on May 14, 1521: "I will write a German sermon on the freedom of the ear confession", but it became this booklet on confession. On June 10, he sends the finished manuscript to Spalatin 3) with the order to have it printed as soon as possible. About the 119th Psalm, 4) which he translated and annotated at that time, but had not yet completed, 5) Luther was still undecided whether he should add it to this writing or publish it as a separate booklet. Subsequently, this psalm appeared both separately and attached to our writing. The latter, however, had not yet happened on August 6, 1521, for on that day Luther wrote to Spalatin. 6): "I am surprised that the 119th Psalm has been so lost, for I am certain that I added it to the end of the Sermon on Confession in such a way that one part of it was on the same sheet with the last part [of the Scripture on Confession], so that the Sermon on Confession must necessarily be incomplete. The remaining part, however, I have sent especially with the second package; perhaps you are not looking carefully." About the printing of the. In a letter to Spalatin 7) of August 15, 1521, Luther expresses himself very displeasingly: "I have sent the second and third sheets 8) "I have received the second and third sheets 8) 'Of Confession' from you; I had already received the same with the first sheet from Philip.

2) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 68, ? 4.

3) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 74.

4) Walch, old edition, vol. V, 1816.

5) The beginning of the same was on the last sheet of the Scripture.

6) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 758.

7) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 73, s 1.

8) The whole of Scripture comprises en the various individual editions from 7 to 8H sheets; the Psalm 3 sheets.

hold. But I am extremely sorry and annoyed by this printing. Oh, if only I had not sent anything German! So badly, so carelessly, so without order 1) it is printed, so as not to say anything about the bad types and the bad paper. The printer Johannes 2) is also a "right Hans" (est Joannes in eodem tempore). - The writing itself has three parts. The first part is a preface in which Luther warns, on the basis of many sayings of the Holy Scriptures, against the doctrines of men and the commandments of men with which the pope has ruled in the church and suppressed the Word of God. In the second part, he demonstrates how the sayings used by the papists for auricular confession partly do not speak of it at all, partly (like Jac. 5, 16.) run completely counter to the commandment and compulsion of auricular confession; then, that the church fathers did not write anything about it either. In the third part, he teaches that secret confession is a very delicious, wholesome thing, for which one should thank God with all one's heart that it is permitted and given to us; it is an opened treasure of grace, in which God holds out and offers His mercy and forgiveness of all sin; it is a blessed, rich promise of God, which no one forces and presses, but entices and tempts everyone. Therefore, no one may be forced and driven to it by laws or commandments, but God wants to have such people who come to it eagerly and willingly, whose hearts struggle and groan for the help of divine grace. Against this the Pope, "the greatest juggler on earth", acts with his commandments that everyone should confess all his sins to his own priest at Easter time. No one should turn back on such commandments of the pope. 3)

1) Cf. the note to § 47 of this paper.

2) This probably refers to Johannes Grünenberg, from whose Osficin several editions of this writing originated, not Hans Luft, as De Wette assumes (Vol. II, p. 42), since it is not known that he also printed this writing. In the list of sources in Dietz, Wörterbuch zu Luthers Schriften (Dictionary of Luther's Writings), Luft's name appears first in the printing of the Tröstbrief an die Christen zu Augsburg (Letter of Comfort to the Christians at Augsburg), which is dated December II, 1523 (the printing has no date); then only again in 1524, "Die ander Epistel S. Petri" (The Other Epistle to St. Peter), and more frequently thereafter. '

3) A scripture that strengthens Luther's booklet on confession against the adversaries is his sermon on the ten lepers. Compare the note in the 12th volume of the St. Louis edition, Col. 1438.

V. Luther's Writings on the Ransoming and Binding Key or on the Violence of the

Church and from the ban.

Luther's Sermon on the Power of Banishment (No. 122 in this volume), which, as the Latin title indicates, "was finally wrung from him by evil mouths," 4) appeared between August 21 and 31, 1518. It was delivered when Luther had just returned from Heidelberg, presumably on Sunday Exaudi (May 16) 1518, in Wittenberg. "Already before, in a sermon of the Lent, 5) he had expressed himself about the 'Spiet', which one causes at present with the banning, and had then promised his listeners to instruct them once more in detail about what the banning really had to mean." 6) In the Lenten sermon he says, "The [ban] letters fly like bats for the sake of a small thing." Luther fulfilled his promise through our sermon, which, as he writes in a letter to Staupitz 7) of September 1, 1518, "was very necessary for the people because of the harsh drudgery of the officials against our people." By these words Luther himself gives us the occasion for this sermon. 8) "Although" (Luther continues) "all our jurists and theologians highly approve of it, it is nevertheless wonderful how great a fire the exceedingly frightening spies have endeavored to fan from it, since they have caught it from my mouth and then put it into exceedingly spitefully written articles and have spread them everywhere and are still spreading them; and they are very anxious to rob me of my good name. Finally, he even flies to Augsburg among the great ones [of the

4) The expression u liuZuis tertiis is taken from Sirach 28, 16. (according to the Vulgate), as the Weimar edition indicates.

5) St. Louis edition, vol. XII, 1311, s 16th Wednesday after Lätare (March 17) 1518.

6) Thus Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 211.

7) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. §, Z4.

8) This overturns the assumption of Löscher (II, 376), which Walch and the Erlangen edition followed, that Luther was moved to this sermon by the citation to Rome, which he received on August 7, 1518. Similarly, in the sixth section of our Sermons, Luther states "the cause" that prompted him to publish it.

In Dresden, 1) it has been thrown in my face, in that some articles of it have been attracted." Already earlier, namely on July 10, 1518, Luther had written to Wenceslaus Link 2): "I have recently preached a sermon to the people about the power of the ban, in which I have punished the tyranny and ignorance of this completely miserable bunch of officials, commissioners and vicars only above. Everyone is surprised that they have never heard of the same. Now we all expect what evil may come to me in the future; I have lit a new fire. But so does the word of truth, the sign which is contradicted. I wanted to debate this publicly, but the rumor had spread and moved many great people so much that my bishop of Brandenburg demanded through a noble messenger that I postpone the debate. I did so and still do, especially because my friends advised me to do so. This includes a letter from Spalatin to Luther 3) from September 5, 1518, in which he writes from the Imperial Diet in Augsburg: "I cannot say, however, how much evil, how much spitefulness the sentences of the ban seem to have brought you. I cannot be surprised enough that they were sent here from there, and all the more so because (I write what I have seen) an exceedingly bitter mockery against Roman avarice had been attached to them. For that which has been sent hither has been delivered into the hands of both apostolic legates. I fear that it has been sent to Rome and has done you tremendous harm." From these documents we see that Luther also wanted to organize a disputation on the subject of his sermon, but was prevented from doing so by the Bishop of Brandenburg. Luther himself did not initially intend to publish his sermon in print.

1) Cf. Luther's letter to Spalatin of January 14, 1819, Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 5. There and in De Wette, vol. I, p. 83, with the erroneous date 1518.

2) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 2, § 5.

3) Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 12.

As the title indicates, he was urged to do so by evil mouths, who picked up individual parts of his sermon and, to dishonor and corrupt him, turned them into hateful articles and spread them everywhere, including at the Imperial Diet in Augsburg. As a result of such shameful distortion of his doctrine, Luther was forced, after a considerable time had passed since the sermon had been held, to compose his sermon as well as possible from his memory and to publish it, in order to counteract the abuse of his words. Although the Elector had warned Luthern, probably through Spalatin, against his intention, perhaps because he feared greater harm from the outgoing of the sermon, the printing had been completed and the writing had appeared before he received the disfavored letter, for on August 31, 1518, Luther wrote to Spalatin 4): "Before your letter arrived, dear Spalatin, the Sermon vom Banne had already been published, but with such modesty and supported by such firm proofs of truth that I cherish the hope that it will not only not be disapproved of by the lovers of truth, but will be received entirely with favor, even by those whom tyranny itself delights; so gloriously have I exalted that holy power, yet without flattery, though not without necessity. For I have taught nothing in it which they themselves have not taught and still teach." In his letter to Spalatin 5) of August 21, 1518, Luther does not yet mention anything about the printing of the sermon, but on August 31 it had already gone out, so we have to put it between these two dates. - In this sermon Luther teaches that the ban is a separation from the community of believers. This, however, is a twofold one, an inward and an outward one. The inward, spiritual community consists of one faith, one love, one hope against God. The outward, bodily communion consists in the participation in the same sacraments, as a sign of the inward communion, also in the participation in outward things, intercourse and contact. Into the spiritual communion can

4) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 598, § 1.

5) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 528.

God alone, and no human being can exclude someone from this community, but only the human being himself through his own sin. Therefore, the ecclesiastical ban can only be a deprivation of external fellowship, nor is the soul handed over to the devil through it, nor is the person deprived of the goods of the church, if he remains in faith, love and hope. A just ban indicates that the soul of a person who, through mortal sin, has already deprived himself of the fellowship of the church and has given his soul to the devil, has been handed over to the devil. The ecclesiastical ban does not inflict anything, but has the prerequisite that someone is already spiritually separated from the church by his sin. The ban is temporal and bodily, and is intended to restore spiritual communion, not to ruin, but to restore and preserve people through shame. Therefore, the ban should be received with the greatest reverence and borne with the greatest patience. The fact that the ban has often not been received in this way is largely the fault of the officials, who, by their manifold threats and domineering behavior, have only endeavored to instill fear and terror of the ban on the people and have sometimes banished them for a very small sum of money, for the seventh or eighth part of a guilder, while they have let the most atrocious, most grievous sins go unpunished.

A sermon quite similar to this sermon, which is expanded from this sermon (for many passages in it are almost word for word the same), was preached by Luther in 1519, soon after his sermon on the Sacrament of the Holy Body of Christ, with special reference to the same, and had it published in the same year, probably in December, 1) under the title: "A Sermon on the Ban" (No. 123 in this volume). The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a sign of the communion of all saints, whereas the actual office of the banns is that they are given to a schoolmaster.

1) For the determination of the time, see the note to the heading.

Christian men from this sacrament. On the whole, the content is otherwise the same as in the previous sermon, only sharper against the tyranny that the spiritual judges exercised with the ban, and more detailed, because the first sermon has only twelve sections, this one, however, twenty-one.

In 1521, at one of the Friday disputations, the ban was 2) also disputed. Luther presented the theses; they can be found under the title Luther's Disputation on the Ban in No. 124 of this volume. It was probably held in the first quarter of the year, since Luther had already set out on his journey to Worms on April 2, 1521, but stayed at Wartburg Castle after the Imperial Diet. In the only disputation, which we still have from the year 1521, it is expressly added to the title that Luther sent it (namely from his Patmos).

During the Imperial Diet in Augsburg, Luther wrote his book on the keys (No. 125 in this volume). On July 20, 1530, Luther informed Wenceslaus Link 3) from Coburg that his recantation of Purgatory was now under press in Wittenberg and that he already had his lies of the keys in progress. As a reason for these two writings, Luther states that he wanted to give his opponents, who were raging and shouting against him out of boredom and because they had nothing to do, cause to rage and shout. On August 24, Luther sent his Sermon von den Schulen to Melanchthon 4) with the remark that this writing does not deny its author by its verbosity (verbositate) and that the booklet of the keys will be of the same kind. In fact, the writing was quite extensive, because it includes in different editions from 7-1/4 to 10 sheets in quarto. On September 8, the writing is in the hands of his wife and Luther writes to her 5): "If you like the copy of the Keys of St. John of Pomerania and Creutzigern, let it be printed. It is nothing that

2) The title in the Erlangen edition says so. 3) De Wette, Vol. IV, p. 104.

4) Walch, old edition. Vol. XVI, Appendix, No. II. 5) De Wette, Vol. VI, p. 122.

one celebrates the devil. The writing appeared then also soon, probably at the end of September or beginning of October, at Wittenberg with Hans Luft, because already on 20 October a reprint went out without indication of place and printer. 1) In the Tischreden, Cap. 18, § 3 (Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 558) we are told that the Bohemians were annoyed by this writing because they insisted that God alone forgives sin, but did not want to believe that he could and would do it through a man. Luther proves in this scripture that in the Gospel of Matthew, chapters 16 and 18, to which the papists refer, binding and loosing does not mean commanding and forbidding or making laws and commandments over Christianity, but Christ speaks of keeping and forgiving sin. These keys help to eternal life and do not require any work, but only faith. The papists, through their false doctrine of the keys, have made the pope a god on earth, so that they boast of him that he is also over the Holy Scriptures, and can change and interpret them as he pleases. The binding key of the pope, which establishes the laws, never errs; but from the right key they have made a wrong key, e.g. when the pope banishes someone who is not bound before God, or loosens someone who is not loose before God. They proved this by selling indulgences, with which they cheated the whole world out of their money. They have tied forgiveness to right repentance and confession, that is, to man's work, instead of basing it on God's promise, which is grasped in faith. Through the false key they have made God a liar in order to get the key to the world's box. They hold the keys not for a divine but for a human order, do not base them on God's word but on man's deeds. If a man is pious, the key will unlock; if a man is not pious, the key will not unlock. As Pabst's keys are, so is his church, an uncertain and lying church, which hovers in doubt and unbelief without God's word. But the church of faith stands on the ge

1) Erlanger Ausgabe, Vol. 31, p. 126. Print No. 2.

know the rock of Christ. Furthermore, they have further divided the keys into the key of power, according to which the pope has power to rule over everything in heaven and on earth, over emperors and kings, over angels and purgatory, and into the key of knowledge, by which the pope has power over all rights, spiritual and temporal; over all teachings, of God and of men; over all dealings, things, questions and errors. Christ does not want to have all these keys, the fallacy key, the knowledge key (that one should know how man stands before God), the key of force or rule, the binding key, which makes laws, the loosening key, which dispenses money, in the Church and Christians should not suffer them, but the doctrinal key, which God has commanded to the preaching ministry, and for those who sin, the right binding and loosening key. The papists practice the binding key by making laws, and the loosening key by remitting sins that should be punished with banishment; but they do not pay attention to these. They practice the keys on nothing but invented false sins that go against their laws or concern the dear penny, and knowingly banish the gospel. Finally, Luther gives a wonderful, comforting instruction on the right use of the keys. In it, God's word and promise is given to us, which we are to receive firmly in faith without any doubt.

Luther's article on the power of the Christian church, which he wants to maintain against the whole school of Satan etc. (No. 126 in this volume), from July 1530, 2) are written by Luther in Latin. The translation published in the same year is

The Erlangen edition, which wanted to include Luther's writings only in their original language, should not have included them in the 31st volume of the German writings, but should have limited itself to reproducing them in Latin. That the translation found in the old Walch edition and reproduced by the Erlangen edition is not by Luther is, in our opinion, already proven by the fact that the Wittenberg and Jena editions do not bring this, but another and indeed better and more exact translation, which was made according to the single edition (described in the first note of this number). All previous German translations have, according to the single edition, forty sentences. All other Latin editions offer only 38 sentences, because what was broadly separated in the 36th and 37th thesis of the single edition 1) was included in the conclusion of the 35th thesis (probably by Luther himself), making these two theses superfluous. In these theses it is taught that the church has no power to set articles of faith or to give commandments of good works, for these are sufficiently set forth in Holy Scripture. The Scripture is mistress of the Church, but not vice versa. The Church, but not a priest or the pope, can order ceremonies over itself, but in such a way that they can be changed according to the circumstances of the time. Failure to observe the ceremonies does not make one a heretic, but obstinate error in an article of faith. Priestly marriage, even according to the Pope's law, is neither a sin, nor a nuisance, nor something shameful, but Christian.

VI Luther's writings on the saints and their intercession.

In the church at Erfurt, several sermons about the service of the saints had caused quarrels and discord. To counter this, Luther wrote the Epistle or Instruction to the Church at Erfurt Assembled in God (No. 127 in

1) Cf. Erlanger Ausgabe, opp. var. srZ., vol. IV, p. 376 f., note 3.

This volume), dated July 10, 1522, and on the same day he sent it to Johann Lang 2) with the remark that if he wanted to have the epistle printed, he should see to it that it was divided correctly according to its sections. Luther also authorizes him to insert more names of those to whom he wishes to send greetings, but he should limit their number to ten. This is how it was printed, and according to what has just been said, probably first in Erfurt. - Above all, Luther admonishes the preachers to refrain from useless questions about the saints and the dead, but to point the people to the one mediator Christ. They have enough to teach and learn from him. The others, who want to call on the names of the saints, should not be despised in their weakness, but they should not place their trust and confidence in a saint, but only in Christ. For confidence is the highest honor due to God alone. By raising such unnecessary matters and questions, Satan seeks to corrupt the simple, necessary, simple knowledge of Christ. The weak are to be spared, and they are to be guided carefully, so that they leave the unnecessary and take hold of the one Christ as necessary. This is not accomplished by quarreling, rebellion and violence, but by tearing hearts away from the devil's false doctrine through the word of truth. Although Luther treats the weak so cleanly in this writing that he does not impute the calling of the saints to them as a sin, we cannot agree with Walch's judgment, which he states in the introduction to the 19th volume of the book. Introduction to the 19th volume, p. 84: Luther had indicated through this writing "that he had not yet gained sufficient knowledge of this matter. For to his friend Lang, to whom he had already promised a letter to the congregation in Erfurt on March 28, 1522 3), he writes in another letter, in which he renews this promise, on May 29, 1522 4): "It is foolish to bother with unnecessary

2) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 806.

3) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 101. § I. 4) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 788, s 3.

We must be careful not to waste our time on things and neglect what is necessary. The service of the saints will fall away by itself without our help, as soon as it is established that it is not necessary, and Christ alone is on Mount Tabor. For by this reason this service has passed away (excidit) from me, so that I do not know how and when I have stopped calling on the saints in prayer and have been content with Christ and God the Father alone. Therefore, I cannot praise those who summarily (simpliciter) condemn the worshippers of the saints among us. For one must lead the weak slowly and not suddenly rush, so that one first gives them the reason why it is not necessary to venerate them, then also obtains a reverent attitude toward them; my little book will speak about this." It should be especially noted that this writing is not an argument against the opponents of the truth, but an instruction to the church at Erfurt gathered in God, that is, for the believers who allow themselves to be instructed in their weakness by the Word of God.

The second writing of this section is: Ein Sendbrief D. M. Luthers vom Dolmetschen und Fürbitte der Heiligen (No. 128 in this volume), datirt vom 8. September 1530. In the old edition of Walch it is torn apart; the first part, of interpreting, is found in the 21st volume, Col. 309, the second part, of the intercession of the saints, here in the 19th volume. But Köstlin rightly says, 1) "that the two subjects of this epistle are more closely related to each other than it seems from the title. For since in the first part primarily Luther's translation of Rom. 3, 28. is defended, "that man is justified by faith alone," it is evident that it is a necessary consequence that nothing else, thus also not the intercession of the saints, if there were such, can help or assist in justification and blessedness. We therefore share the whole scripture in this volume. From Coburg, Luther sent the same to Wenceslaus Link 2) on September 12, 1530, and authorized

1) Martin Luther, 3rd edition, Vol. II, p. 846.

2) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1216.

Luther's letter was sent to Wenceslaus Link by a friend and handed over to him. "For I would like," Luther wrote, "that it should seem written in a corner, as it were, and precede as a prelude, as if I cared for nothing and dealt with other things. I have written more expansively in this matter, whether perhaps some might be preserved by hope. You can now put this title in front of it: A Letter from Mart. Luther on Interpreting', or as you like." Link seems to have soon arranged for the printing, for his preface is dated September 15, 1530, and the old collections have the addition to the heading: "to a good friend.

VII Luther's writings on Christian freedom and ceremonies.

According to the unanimous judgment of older and newer people, the writing "Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen" (No. 129 in this volume), which was written after October 12, 1520, is one of the most beautiful 3) that Luther ever wrote. Seckendorf 4) exclaims admiringly: "Would to God that the two sentences which Luther has treated in this booklet, as Luther has explained them, would also stick in the hearts of all Christians." Luther himself says of it in his letter to Pope Leo X: "So that I do not come empty before your holiness, I bring with me a little book, issued under your name, for a good wish and beginning of peace and good hope, from which your holiness may taste what [kind of] business I would like to do and would also like to deal with fruitfully, if it were possible for me in front of your unchristian flatterers. It is a small booklet, if the paper is looked at, but nevertheless the whole sum of a Christian life is comprehended in it, if the meaning is understood." So that it may be rightly recognized what a Christian man is and how it relates to the freedom that Christ has given

3) Kolde, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 274: "perhaps the most beautiful writing."

4) Hist. HP. I, x. 99 sq,

Luther treats the two sentences on the basis of Scripture: "A Christian man is a free lord over all things and subject to no one", and "an honorist man is a servant of all things and subject to everyone", by tracing everything back to faith and deriving it from it. We refrain here from a further communication of the contents, partly in order not to extend the introduction unduly, partly because every Christian should read and frequently reread this delicious scripture himself. - The occasion for this writing is the following: The papal legate Carl von Miltitz made all possible efforts to curb Luther, 1) or, as Miltitz expresses it in his letter to the Elector 2) of August 19, 1520: "I am sonder Zweifel, so mir Doctor Martinus folgen wird, ich will ihm, neben Ew. Churfürstl. Gn. Rath, help him out of this error and misfortune, which he is committing by papal sanctity. 3) I will also now come to the Chapter in Eisleben, act with the Patre Commissario along with the other brothers, and think of good means, save Doctor Martini's efforts, toil and work, and turn his letter into a different style, which is all first done by Your Electoral Grace. Gn. Jntercession and Council." Therefore, as he indicates here, Miltitz went to the General Chapter of the Augustinians taking place in Eisleben, 4) at which Staupitz resigned his office as Vicar General and Wenceslaus Link was elected in his place, gave a speech there and asked the Fathers for advice on how Luther should be subdued. They replied that they had nothing to do with him and did not know any advice, as Luther wrote to Spalatin on September 1, 1520. But finally Miltitz obtained from the chapter (as Luther informs Spalatin 5) on September 11): "that the venerable father Staupitz and the new vicar Wenceslaus should travel to me and ask me to have a private

1) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 39.

2) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 926. Cyprian, useful documents, Vol. I, 435.

3) In the original: "to help".

4) Miltitz hoped to meet Luthern there, but he was not present.

5) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 13.

I would write a letter to the Roman pope, assuring him that I would never have done anything against his person, and I expressed the hope that through this advice the matter would come to an end. Although this is not valid with me, not even with the fathers, the man will nevertheless be favored, who perhaps also wants to advise his cause through this. I will therefore write what is also the truth, that I have never taken anything into consideration that could be interpreted against the person of the pope; for what can I write more easily and with greater truth? By the way, I must be careful not to treat the [Roman] See too harshly when writing: yet it shall have its salt." As soon as Miltitz had received the promise from the chapter that the deputation he had requested should go to Luther, he wrote a very respectful letter to Luther from Eisleben on August 29, 1520, 6) in which he admonishes him "not to be contrary to his brothers who would visit him, but to be at their will and at the will of the whole chapter and to follow their advice, which the dear venerable brother (fraternitatem tuam) will never regret. As we have seen, Luther let himself be found willingly, but before he came to fulfill his promise, Eck had arrived from Rome with the papal bull of excommunication, so he changed his intention, as he wrote to Spalatin 7) on October 3, 1520: "I have not yet done it, nor will I do it now, since Eck, as one hears, has bulls and curses ready for me at Leipzig. It is not yet known what he wants to do." In the meantime, Eck had the papal bull posted at Meissen on September 21, at Merseburg on the 25th, and at Brandenburg on the 29th. 8) On October 3, Miltitz sent a copy of the bull from Leipzig to the Elector. Miltitz was very dissatisfied with the publication of the same by Eck, and was pleased about the various hardships and dangers which Eck had to endure in Leipzig because of

6) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 928. Seidemann, Miltitz, p. 25.

7) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 40, S1.

8) Letter from Miltitzen to the Elector of October 3, 1520. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 930.

The students, in particular, had to put up with his great shouting, banging and bragging about the bull, because it ruined his plans. "I told Eck that he had done wrong in publicizing the bull, while the matter had been in an amicable and peaceful relationship with him [Luther]; he should have written to me what I would have done in the matter. Still on the same day s3. Oct.] Miltitz wants "to ride to Fabian von Feilitsch, to ask him to write to Doctor Martino, that he comes to Lichtenberg or to Eilenberg", in order to act further with him, and has the most extensive expectations: "if he wants to follow his promise, I want to bring true 1) of this bull, because the bull has not force before 120 days; the while I want to have been long in it [in Rome] and have written again outside." So it happened that Luther went to Lichtenberg on October 11, arrived there at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and the next day agreed with Miltitz that he should publish a letter to the Pope in German and Latin, which would be placed in some small booklet. In the letter Luther should "tell his story, [assure] how he had never attacked the person of the pope and put the whole blame on Eck". About this, Miltitz reported to the Elector, October 14, 1520, from Eilenburg 2): "He will also be completely and utterly

1) The word "true" here might have the same meaning as in the expression wear and teur, wear, departure, so that the meaning of this sentence is: so I will deprive the bull of its power. Likewise in Miltitzen's letter to the Elector of October 14, 1520: "we want to find a cause for the matter soon, before one hundred and twenty days pass." After this passage we have changed "I and XX days" to "120 days". Cyprian I, 452.

2) The following letters belong here: Luther to Spalatin, October 11, 1520 (Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 41 with wrong date): "I am now going to Lichtenberg at this hour to offer Carl Miltitz again the opportunity to talk to me, as the prince has commanded, although the preceptor sv. Wolfgang ReißenAiW does not like to see it, who fears, I do not know, how great things." (Cf. Cyprian, vol. I, p. 445 st) - Luther to Spalatin, October 12, 1520. (Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 933, with the wrong signature: Lichtenberg, Antonii 1520 [i.e., 17 JanZ instead of: Lichtenberg, im Antoniterkloster sXntoniniE] 1520. In De Wette, vol. I, p. 496 with the inaccurate time determination 12. or 13 October, because we know that Luther

papal holiness in all humility; the booklet will go out in twelve days, and will have the date "on 6. September", immediately ten days after [the Council of the Chapter in] 3) Eisleben, because he was requested by [Staupitz and Link] 3) to write to papal holiness in all humility that he did so as an obedient man, but so that no one would say that Eckius with his followers had urged him to write such to papal holiness with his bull, which bull was published on the one [and] twentieth of September. So this booklet went out fifteen days before, before anyone knew anything about the bull." As agreed between them, Luther added September 6, 5) to his letter to the Pope and placed it in front of his Tractate von der christlichen Freiheit, which Luther had published in German and Latin. The German script is somewhat shorter than the Latin. Kolde judges it 6) to be more edifying than the Latin. What Köstlin 7) says about our scripture will also be correct, that Luther with it "just as with his other tracts and sermons gives the Christian readers

left Lichtenberg "at 1 o'clock past noon" on October 12, 1520). - Reißenbusch to Fabian von Feilitsch, October 13, 1520 (Cyprian, nützliche Urkunden, Vol. I, p. 444 sf.) In this letter, he reports on the meeting that took place and expresses his fears that he would be drawn into the game; that is why he did not stay at home: "If I were honorable, I would not have taken a hundred guilders to stay at home. For I would have encountered it the way I did. Mr. Carol wanted to bring me, the poor devil, into the game, so that, if one did not want to take revenge on Doctor Luther, that this would soon end with me. From this letter, the exact timing of the aforementioned letter and the correction for the letter of October 11 results, that the "preceptor" hovering in great fear is not Melanchthon, as Walch and after him De Wette note, but Reißenbusch. Miltitzen's letter to the Elector of October 14, 1520, is found in Cyprian, nützliche Urkunden, Vol. I, p. 449 sf.

3) Here Cyprian, Vol. I, p. 450, has a gap, which could be completed in the manner indicated. Accordingly, on August 27, the chapter would have decided to delegate the envoys to Luther.

4) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 934 sf.

5) April 6, in the Jena edition, then in Seckendorf, Cyprian et al, is a reading error: Apr. instead of Levi.

6) Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 277.

7) Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 395.

wanted to serve in general. It was not caused by the bull of excommunication or the intention of the letter to which Luther attached it, but was only used by him for this purpose. Also concerning the time of the publication of the writing, Luther will have kept himself according to the agreement with Miltitz. Since, according to the agreement of October 12, the booklet was to go out in twelve days, we have to place the writing in the second half of October 1520.

Luther's writing on the custom and confession of Christian freedom (No. 130 in this volume) is not a complete writing, but only a part of such, and is assigned by the old editions to the year 1524. According to its content, it corresponds to a section of the sermon 1) which Luther held on Wednesday after Invocavit (March 12) 1520 after his return from the Wartburg in Wittenberg, in order to ward off the disorders that had broken out there.

In a letter to Philipp Gluenspieß zu Mansfeld (No. 131 in this volume) in 1526, Luther writes that one can gladly yield to the weak in love and service and keep it with them, as long as one does not insist that it is commanded by God.

Luther's letter to Thomas Neuenhagen, preacher in Eisenach (No. 132 in this volume), dated September 3, 1524 (1526?), urges him to testify to the evangelical freedom with his words and to use the ceremonies freely. He is to despise the speeches of D. Jakob Strauß and his followers that diminish him, and not to give way to them at all. Both men, Neuenhagen and Strauß, belong to the first witnesses of the Gospel. As early as 1520, Neuenhagen had refused to publicize Leo X's bull of excommunication against Luther in the Wurzen parish, and was therefore thrown into prison by the bishop of Meissen, but escaped after a month and arrived in Wittenberg. As

1) Walch, old edition, vol. XX, 38, 88 10-17 and 8^, W 4-7.

2) Seckendorf, nist. I^utN., I4d. I, p. 272, H 152, Add. 3. says that he was eonventor (ick est eoncknetor) of the Wurzen parish.

We find him a faithful servant of Christ in Eisenach, where, as our letter testifies, he had to suffer disgrace for the sake of the Gospel. That he was really inferior to D. Strauß in gifts and scholarship, which Seckendorf and, according to him, Walch want to infer from our letter, we are not able to recognize from it. - Jakob Strauß was an impetuous man, like Carlstadt. In 1523 he began to preach against purgatory and similar things with great vehemence and not without many errors. For this reason, he was sued by the Dean and the Chapter of Eisenach before the brother of the Elector, Duke John of Saxony. 3) From the same year we also have a statement of Luther about him in a letter to Count George II of Werthheim from June 17, 1523, which disapprovingly remembers the self-will of D. Strauss 4): ,,I). Strauß has his head and now does it in Eisenach as well, as he can, and lets us say and write." The last words show that Strauß did not turn back on Luther's rebukes. The next letter of Luther, in which Strauss is mentioned, is dated October 18, 1523, addressed to Brück, 5) in which Luther expresses his concern about a booklet written by Strauss about the purchase of interest. In this book Strauss had stated "that the interest man is not guilty of handing over the debt to the usurer, otherwise he would consent to the usurer and sin with him. Of this Luther says, "This is not right." In the same matter, which extended into the following year, Luther then wrote several more letters to D. Strauß, namely one in October 1523 6), another probably in April 1524 (De Wette, vol. II, p. 502), and a third on April 25, 1524 (De Wette, vol. II, p. 504). These letters are written in the most amiable manner and assert the word of Christ against Straussen's position (Match. 5, 40. Luc. 6, 29.): "He who will take your skirt,

3) Scultetus, über das Jahr 1523, p. 163, for which he refers to the archives of the church at Eisenach.

4) De Wette, Vol. VI, p. 43.

5) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 912 f.

6) Walch, old edition, Vol. XXI, 77. The letter is not addressed to Brück, as De Wette already correctly assumed (Vol. II, 426), but to Strauß.

Let him also have the coat, and whoever strikes you on one cheek, offer him also the other." But Strauss continued to pursue his cause in sermons and writings. In June 1524, he had sent a letter of redemption to Duke John Frederick 1), which had turned out in such a way that the duke exclaimed: "Unfortunately, there are too many enthusiasts, God be lamented, and they cause us a lot of trouble up here. He expresses the wish that Luther, especially in Thuringia, would move from one city to another and see with what kind of preachers the cities were provided. "Which preachers then are not fit, you would have to dismiss with the help of the authorities." This is, because it is written in direct connection with Straussen's trade, especially directed against him. Only once more, namely in December 1524, in a letter from Luther to Spalatin 2) do we encounter a word that could give hope for a favorable turn in Straussen's behavior: "I like Straussen's sermon better than I did his booklet before." But even it is not completely satisfactory. In contrast, Luther writes to Spalatin as early as April 10, 1525 3): "I wish very much that D. Strauß, who also [like Carlstadt] seeks his rule, would be stopped by the prince. For already, although still secretly, we are not at all agreeable to him, since he prefers us to that rebellious, completely Carlstadtian peasant by far." By his further behavior, D. Strauss must have earned himself a very bad name, because the rumor about him was circulated and believed that he, like Münzer, had been executed 4). Still in 1525 Strauß was imprisoned in Weimar, as Seckendorf reports 5): "Luther suspected what happened in the following year (1525) at Eisenach, since this Strauß did not show the way (praeivit) to the raging people in the way he should have done, and through this stormy nature

1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 353. Letter from the duke to Luther, June 24, 1524.

2) Walch, alte Ausgab^ Vol. XXI, 940.

3) Walch, old edition; Vol. XXI, 969, § 3.

4) Luther's letter to Johann Rühel of May 30, 1525. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 165 ff, § 6.

5) Seckendorf, List. Lmtü., I4d. I, x. 272 d.

(praecipitantia) deserved to be brought to Weimar and kept in prison." In 1528, on September 24, Luther wrote to Chancellor Brück 6): "Some think, M. G. Herr should dare as much Brods on him (Carlstadt] and keep (him), as the Strauß was kept at Weimar." If it is true that Strauß was deposed in 1525, 7) imprisoned and held in custody for a longer time, it does not seem credible to us that he was still a preacher in Eisenach and Neuenhagen College on September 3, 1526. Rather, he was in Baden around this time and participated in the Sacrament controversy against Zwingli. 8) We would be inclined to refer our letter to the year 1524. The only authority for the year 1526 is Aurifaber's collection of letters; it might have been moved from IV to VI.

A Dominican, John de Turrecremata or Torquemada, who lived in the 15th century, taught in Paris, attended the Council of Basel, and attained great honors and titles, published a tractatus de efficacia aquae benedictae contra Petrum Anglicum in Bohemia, without indication of place and year. This tract was reprinted in Rome in 1524 and 1559. From this writing, an excerpt was made in German, in which a tenfold benefit of the consecrated water is praised in rhymed form. Luther had this excerpt reprinted in 1539 with the addition of several rhymes written by him, in which he castigates this horrible superstition and abomination, under the title: Von dem geweihten Wasser und des Pabsts Agnus Dei D. Mart. Luther (No. 133 in this volume). Place and printer are not indicated. The Wittenberg and Jena editions do not include this writing.

In 1539, Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg had a new church order drawn up, with Jakob Stratner in particular,

6) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2496, § 8.

7) In the Supplement to the first Index, No. 77, Seckendorf states this and repeats that it happened during the Peasants' Revolt.

8) Compare Walch, old edition, vol. XX, 1845 and 1872. Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, 84.

Court preacher in Berlin, 1) and Georg Buchholzer, provost in Berlin, and asked for Luther's expert opinion. This took place on December 4, 1539, in a letter to the Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg (No. 134 in this volume) and another letter to Georg Buchholzer (No. 135 in this volume), in which Luther made several expositions on the draft. Both letters were first printed in the Märkische Antiphonen-Buche and from there passed over into the Altenburg edition.

VIII. Luther's writings against the seven sacraments.

To this section belongs especially the first writing of this volume, Luther's Book of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. Walch has added the following writing to this section: Luther's hasty (extemporem) answer to the articles which the Magistri nostri extracted from his Babylonian captivity and from his writing "Grund und Ursach" (Reason and Cause) and which they wanted to reproach him with on his arrival at Worms before the imperial assembly there, as if they were heretical, although it has never been proven from Scripture that they are (No. 136 in this volume). The articles are probably to be placed with Förstemamn 2) in February of the year 1521 or perhaps only in March, for at this time the papal authorities often extracted articles from Luther's writings in order to convict him of heresy on the basis of them at the Diet of Worms. The papal legate Aleander also took care to collect such articles, 3) but not with the intention of making use of them at the Diet, but rather to use them to persuade the emperor that he should

1) Seckendorf, nist. Imtk., lab. Ill, p. 235 k, says he was court preacher in Onolzbach. We followed Seidemann in De Wette, vol. VI, p. 625.

2) Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 44.

3) Seckendorf, llist. Imtk., läk. I, p. 168 k, (in) lets our articles be collected by Aleander and says that they were presented to Luther at the Reichstag in April, which is erroneous. He counts 40 articles, while our writing has only 37.

Luthern should not be held responsible, but simply have his heretical books burned. 4) Another such collector was the emperor's confessor, Glapio, whose articles drawn from Luther's writings are preserved in the manuscript of Chancellor Brück. 5) The latter, however, had the intention to use them against Luther, but it did not come to that, because Aleander's advice prevailed. In Förstemann, only the articles are included, with the inscription in Spalatin's hand: "Die lateinischen Artikel, so Doctor Martinus Luther sollt revociren oder widerrufen 1521", without Luther's answers to them. These articles were sent to Luther by Spalatin, and in a letter to Spalatin 6) dated March 19, Luther acknowledges receipt. His answer to them will therefore have to be set at the end of March or the beginning of April, because on April 16, 10 o'clock in the morning, Luther arrived in Worms.

IX. Luther's Writings Against the Mass.

a. From the abuse of the mass.

On August 3, 1520, Luther sent his Sermon on the New Testament, that is, on the Holy Mass (No. 137 in this volume) to the Augustinian Johann Voigt at Magdeburg 7) with the instruction to deliver it to Staupitz, Provincial of the Augustinian Order. In this writing, in which he leaves the seven number of the sacraments still standing, which he attacks soon after in his Book of the Babylonian Captivity, he teaches that the Mass is not a sacrifice which we offer to God, because we must not presume to give anything to God in the sacrament in which he gives us everything. "Only those," says Luther, "who have the faith that Christ is a priest for them in heaven before God's eyes, lay their prayers, praise, distress and themselves on him and present them through him, do not doubt that he judges them.

4) Förstemann, 1. 6., p. 35 a.

5) Förstemann, I. o., p. 37 ff.

6) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2052, § I.

7) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 710, ß I. In this first paragraph, there is an abominable misprint: "der Mittend. Esel" instead of: "der Leipziger Esel," namely Alveld. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, introduction, p 31 ff.

They take the sacrament and testament as a sign of all this, and do not doubt that all sin is forgiven, that God has become a merciful Father, and that eternal life has been prepared: Behold, all those where they are, these are true priests, and truly keep true mass, and also obtain thereby what they will. For faith must do everything."

In October 1) of the year 1521, the Mass service in the church of the Augustinians in Wittenberg was completely discontinued, after Melanchthon and his students had already taken Holy Communion under both forms in the parish church on Michaelmas. Luther (at the Wartburg) was delighted by this news, because he "felt from it that the word of Christ was working in them and that they had not received it in vain," but he feared that not all of his monastic brethren would have made such a great change with a completely free good conscience, nor would they be prepared to invite upon themselves the raging and blustering of the adversaries, who would do the worst they could. Therefore, to comfort and strengthen the weak consciences, Luther wrote "On the Abuse of the Mass" (No. 138 in this volume) first in Latin, but then also in German. In Latin, the letter to the Augustinians at Wittenberg is dated November 1, 1521; the German letter is dated November 25. On November 11, Luther sent the Latin copy to Spalatin, 2) so that he would put it into print. Out of fear, however, Spalatin had not forwarded the writings that Luther had sent him (on the abuse of the Mass, on monastic vows, and against the new god at Halle), but had left them with him. Luther learned of this when he made a secret visit to Wittenberg in early December, and therefore wrote very unwillingly to Spalatin 3) and threatened that

1) Felix Ulscenius in his report to Capito reports that this happened on October 23, 1521 (üoäis) (Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 508), while Köstlin, Martin LutAr, Vol. I, p. 505, gives October 13.

2) Walch, alte Ausaabe^Bd. XV, Anhang, No. 80, §6.

3) Cf. Lucher's Brref to Spalatin, No. 105 in this volume.

he would proceed much more violently in the matters if Spalatin withheld the writings. 4) Walch says in the introduction to the 19th volume, p. 94: "whether Luther himself or someone else did the translation is not known to me," which the Erlangen edition (vol. 28, p. 27) repeats. But we are firmly convinced that Luther himself made the translation. It bears his stamp completely, and we do not think it possible that someone else, with the great freedom and boldness of this translation, would have been able to match the sense of the Latin original so exactly everywhere. In print, the German text will have appeared either simultaneously with the Latin or soon after it.

b. Of the abolition of the papal masses, especially the private or angular mass.

The writings reported here are largely related to the maintenance of the masses in the All Saints' Church in Wittenberg. This church was the collegiate church of the Collegium of Canonicals, 5) which was founded in 1359 by Duke Rudolf and originally 6) consisted of 14 canons (canons), 14 vicars and a number of canons (chorales). In 1509, Prince Frederick the Wise added 4 priests, 8 canons and a choir of 16 boys. These formed the so-called small choir and, like the canons (the larger choir), had their own dean; their task was to hold masses in honor of the Holy Virgin and to sing all kinds of chants at certain hours after the canons. Frederick continually made it his business to bring new shrines for the collegiate church in Wittenberg. 7) Still on August 13, 1520, he wrote to his brother, Duke Johann 8): "Tomorrow I will ask whether God

4) This timing is found in the original edition and in the Jena one (1566), Dorn. II, toi. 441.

5) Cf. Burkhardt, Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 55.

6) Seckendorf, nist. I,utN., lab. I, p. 274.

7) Cf. Luther's letter to Spalatin of December 14, 1516, Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 564, § 1. - Kolde, Friedrich der Weise, p. 28 f.

8) Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 2.

I want to go to Wittenberg and take my leave from all the dear saints, may the almighty God grant me grace to do so," and Spalatin's correspondence expressly testifies that he still had his commissioners buy out new treasures into the year 1522. 1) In 1519, the Elector, on the advice of his confessor, Jakob Voigt, a Franciscan, added two new priests and eight canons to the already large number of collegiate clergy, with the stipulation that they should hold masses and sing chants in remembrance of the Passion of Christ every week from Thursday to Sunday throughout the year, with the ceremonies that were otherwise only customary during the week of the martyrdom. Spalatin, probably at the Prince's suggestion, asked Luther to write something about this. Luther, however, rejected this in a letter to Spalatin 2) of August 18, 1519: "According to your wish, I have begun to make an effort to publish something about the contemplation of the Passion of Christ, but the more I think about it, the less I find what I like, because in the church there are already more than enough ceremonies, so that almost all serious things of Christian godliness are superstitions. He is equally disapproving in the following letter to the same 3) of August 26, 1519: "With regard to the arrangement of the contemplation of the Passion of Christ, nothing is so troublesome to me as that I see that these ceremonies tend to make people wonderfully hard, arid, inaccessible, and utterly unfit for all things and for all the power of a spiritual life." By this last increase, the number of clergy in the monastery at Wittenberg had risen to three and eighty, 4) who, according to Spalatin's estimate, said 11,039 masses annually. Annually, 35, 570 pounds of wax candles were consumed. Two complete communion vessels were made of solid gold, 27 of silver, and

1) Some of these letters in C. W. Schneider: Bibliothek der Kirchengeschichte. Weimar 1781, vol. II, p. 1 ff.

2) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 54 and (duplicate) vol. XXI, 5.

3) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 638 and again ibid., col. 6 f.

4) Seckendorf, nist. Lmtk., lük. I, x>. 274p.

In addition, about 40 other silver utensils. There was an enormous amount of vestments, including more than a hundred of heavy, thick, damask silk, in various colors, embroidered with gold. This gave the service a great splendor and Frederick took great pleasure in his pen. When Luther began to testify against the mass in sermons and writings in 1520, the mass soon came into such contempt that, while Luther was at the Wartburg, already on October 9, 1521, the two deans, D. Lorenz Schlamau (of the larger choir) and D. Christoph Blank (of the smaller choir), wrote to the Elector that there was a lack of priests who wanted to hold the newly founded masses. The Elector asked them to make an effort to maintain the foundation, but it was in vain; it went backwards. On March 16, 1522, they reported that the priests, who had been ordained in 1509 for the service of the Virgin Mary and recently in 1519 for the commemoration of the Passion of Christ, had resigned from their office, and therefore the dismissal of the choir singers had also become necessary. The canons and vicars of the old foundation, however, not only continued the masses, but also led a lewd life (that is why Luther calls the monastery a "Beth Aven"), so that Luther was prompted to preach against their godless life towards the end of the year 1522. On January 2, 1523, he wrote to Spalatin 5): "I have preached that even if they must be left in their godless ways, it is still the office of the authorities to prevent their fornication or to force them to marry. For even if no one can be forced to godliness and faith, public shameful deeds must be stopped." Not long after, on January 14, he wrote to Spalatin (Letter to Spalatin, No. 7 in the appendix of this volume): the sacrament should be distributed in both forms and the priesthood of Amaziah should be abolished. Luther took a more decisive stand on this matter when, in the course of February 1523, the dean of the greater

5) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. IIS.

The first one was the deceased of the choir, D. Lorenz Schlamau 1). Luther wrote to Spalatin 2) (probably soon after Schlamau's death, i.e. still in February) that he should see to it that such people were appointed who hated the abominations in the monastery, because now was the time to weaken this Bethaven. The provost of the monastery, D. Justus Jonas, came to Luther's aid by beginning to preach publicly against the existing church chants, vigils and masses in the monastery, 3) and delivered the letter written by Luther on March 1, 1523, to the provost and the canons in Wittenberg (No. 140a in this volume), in which he demanded that everything that could not be tolerated as an abomination against the Gospel be abolished. Inspired by this, the Scholasticus Matthäus Beskau, the Custos Johann Dolsche, Georg Elner, called Staffelstein, and Johann Volmar turned to the Elector on March 4, 1523 with the question: what should happen? The prince answered on March 6: the existing customs should be kept, or right reasons should be given why they should be changed. To Luthern, the canons said that no change could be made now because they did not have a dean. The election of a new dean caused great difficulty. Luther tried to influence it by writing (probably in the first days of March, but certainly before March 13) to Spalatin 4): "A dean and canons will be elected; but, O how I wish that Amsdorf or a similar man would become dean by the prince's determination!" Amsdorf was indeed elected dean by the university. He reports this in a letter to Spalatin 5) of March 13, 1523, indicating that he was thereby in great distress of conscience.

1) On February 9, he was dying. Luther's letter to Spalatin under this date Walch, old edition, vol. XXI 826.

2) Walch, all editions, Vol. XXI, 843. - De Wette, Vol. II, p. 314 has the time determination: In March or April. ,

3) Seckendorf, nist. Imtk., HP. I, p. 275, ss).

4) Walch, old edition, vol. XLI, 845. - De Wette, vol. II, p. 315 has also here a too late time determination: In April 1523^.

5) This praise is found in Kolde, Friedrich der Weise,

noth gerathen. He wished that the prince would disown him. His renunciation was accepted because he declared that he would not tolerate the masses. By July the election of a new dean came about; it fell to Matthew Beskau. This one continued the old way. Therefore, on July 11, 1523, Luther again addressed a letter to the canons of the Wittenberg Abbey (No. 139 in this volume), in which he reproached them that their previous excuse of not having a dean no longer existed, and renewed his request and demand that, in honor of the Gospel, the abominations in the Abbey Church be changed. The chapter also sent this letter to the Elector. 6) The latter, however, gave an evasive answer and wrote that the provost would have arrived in the meantime and would settle the matter. In the monastery, however, everything remained the same. Therefore, on August 2, 1523, Luther began to preach against the monastery. 7) This sermon is preserved in an excerpt: Ernstliche Erinnerung D. M. Luther to the canons of the monastery in Wittenberg in a public sermon to the whole congregation (No. 140d in this volume), in which he says: "They pretend that this is why they practice godlessness, because they call it the prince. But what does the prince's command concern us in this case? The prince is a secular ruler, who is supposed to be in charge of the sword, not the preaching office. You know that in this one should be more obedient to God than to men." This was again reported to the Elector. On August 7, 1523, he ordered the professors of law, Schurf and Schwertfeger, together with Melanchthon, to negotiate with Luther and to remind him that he had indicated to the Elector that he agreed with the decision of the Reichstag: "Furthermore, no innovation in religion should be started." They should also admonish him: "he should not act so quickly", because another Reichstag was coming up and one hoped for a concilium. Luther should refrain from his preaching against the chapter, which was too-

6) Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 62.

7) Seckendorf, nist. 4-utk., I4V. I, p. 275a, (k).

is against his promise. 1) The Elector also expressed his disapproval of the fact that three canons had recently been elected who did not want to say mass; he also did not like the fact that some of the canons (Carlstadt and Jonas) had taken wives. To this Luther replied (as the deputies reported to the Elector on August 13): He had understood the Reichstag resolution against the innovations in such a way that one should beware of such innovations that were against God's word. If, however, the commandments of the Diet had a different opinion and were contrary to the word of God, he could not obey them, but would preach and pray publicly against the masses. But he would admonish the people not to act violently. Thereupon the canons (probably at the instigation of Jonas) turned to Luther with the request to give them an expert opinion on how, in his opinion, they should arrange their church services. Luther granted them in the letter to the provost, the canons and the chapter of Wittenberg of August 19, 1523 (No. 141 in this volume). On August 27, Jonas addressed a long letter to the Elector, in which he explained that, after he had recognized the truth, he had often resolved to "put an end to the annoying, atrocious and unchristian abuses" in the collegiate church (to whose provost the Elector had appointed him) by his own authority, for which he was ready to give God and the prince an answer (responsurus). So far he had hesitated out of consideration for the dean, but mainly for the sake of the prince. Now the chapter had been seriously admonished by Luther, and many had been struck in their conscience, so he too wanted to make his opinion known to the Elector as to how the abuses could be changed. In the parish church at Wittenberg some abuses had already been stopped, but in the collegiate church about thirty masses were still held weekly, more out of compulsion of the foundation than out of good will of those who were bound to hold them. Then Jonas proposes

1) Credenzbrief Churfürst Friedrichs für Hieronymus Schürf, Joh. Schwertfeger und Melanchthon an Dr. Luther, nebst Instruction derselben. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 63.

The same changes that Luther had recommended to the chapter on August 19. Finally, Jonas makes the definite statement that he will no longer be present at the masses and that he awaits what the Elector wants to decree about him. The Chapter must have inquired about Luther's letter of August 19 also with the Elector, because he issued a resolution on August 25, 2) in which he stated that the Chapter should honor and maintain the old foundations until he had thought things over further and given an answer. So it remained after his decree of September 4, 3) which was probably issued mainly because of the letter of Jonas, because in it it is especially stated that those who had an abomination in the holding of the masses should resign their office as canons. However, shortly thereafter both parts, namely both the prince and the chapter, seem to have yielded significantly to Luther's will, because from Michaelmas 1523 on, a lection from the Old Testament was read in Latin or German in place of the masses, while the other divine services remained in part for a while. Luther, however, was not satisfied with this and from time to time made his displeasure known. To Spalatin (No. 142 in this volume) he wrote on October 12, 1523, that he did not care whether the Baalites kept their ceremonies or not; but he would like to see them abolished. In another letter of November 6, 1523 4) he defends himself against the accusation that he had advised the election of three new canons, while he preached against it. In December 1523, he admonishes his friend Hausmann, 5) that he should not be annoyed by the fact that the blasphemous Tophet still exists in Wittenberg. In God's words there is plenty of antidote against it. The ruin languishes in the corner. There are only three or four sows and rotten wests left. Again, on April 24, 1524, Luther speaks

2) Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 62.

3) Thus Burkhardt l. c. At Seckendorf: 4. oetodris. The latter cannot be correct, because a change really came about at Michaelmas.

4) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 870.

5) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 2255.

1) that he was annoyed that the canons did not want to change anything, even though they knew and confessed that it was completely ungodly. The last three new canons had given up their prebends for conscience' sake, so Schürf and Luther together asked the Elector 2) on July 8, 1524, to let them enjoy them; this request was repeated by Luther against Spalatin on July 10. On the same day, July 10, the answer of the Elector came, 3) from which it can be clearly seen that he, like Luther, was not completely satisfied with the present situation of things. He expresses his displeasure about the behavior of the three canonists, but does not give a complete rejection, but holds out the prospect that in the future the income of the prebends and fiefs would be used for other purposes, such as for the university, where the three canonists, if they were sent to lection, would also find their supply. Still on October 17, 1524, Luther wrote to Spalatin, 4) that he had not yet decided about the change of the ungodly ceremonies in the castle (i.e. in the All Saints' Monastery). "The time will come, if God wills, to create a council also in this matter." The occasion came very soon. About the middle of November, the dean communicated a pregnant woman in Wittenberg under one figure, against the promise given to Luther. As a result, Luther addressed a letter to the chapter at Wittenberg on November 17 (No. 143a in this volume), in which he urges the canons to "do away with everything that is red and spiritual, masses, vigils, and everything that is contrary to the holy Gospel. Instead of giving such an answer, the canons turned to the Elector the very next day, November 18, 1524, complaining 5) that Luther had not given the excuses for the church.

1) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 898.

2) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 73 and 908.

3) The same is printed in Burkhardt, Briefwechsel,

4) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 917.

5) An excerpt from this letter in Kolde, Friedrich der Weise, p. 67. The scribes are: Matthäus Beskau, Dechant, Georg Staffelstein and Joh. Vollmar.

of their dean, "but he wants all masses to be said in our church. If not, he wants to send both mayors to us to admonish us; if not, he intends to leave the preaching chair and put another one on it, who should preach in such a way that such masses should be stopped". The Elector ordered Dr. Hieronymus Schürf and the licentiate Benedict Pauli to Luther on November 24, 6) in order to admonish Luther from violent intervention, since he himself "preaches that one should let the Word of God be fenced, which would work well in its time, if God would have it", and he should first "do that which he himself would preach and learn". Luther may still have patience, just as the mass is still tolerated in Nuremberg. The prince promises that he will not hinder the change, if he would recognize after diligent instruction and prayer what would be right and pleasing to God. Therefore he demands from Luther that he inform him of his opinion in writing. "But I do not find," says Seckendorf, "what he has written." We are of the opinion that Luther's answer is to be sought in his writing of the abomination of the still mass, so called the Canon (No. 144 in this volume), in which he proves quite insurmountably what the title says. Luther may have started this writing 7) immediately after the last-mentioned negotiation with the electoral deputies, and the reasons presented in it must have been convincing for the Elector, because we do not hear that he made any further objections against the performance of the masses in the monastery. On November 27, 1524, Luther declares to Spalatin 8) in the most decisive manner that he will abort the masses. In this letter, he states that a contrary order from the prince had driven him from Wittenberg.

6) Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 76.

7) Because we do not have any definite clues to determine the time of writing, we have to rely on conjecture. The writing itself shows that the masses in the monastery still had their continuation. Compare, by the way, what is said immediately following to No. 143b.

8) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 932.

would do. But already on December 2, he was able to report to Amsdorf 1): "We have finally brought our canons to the point that they have agreed that the mass should be abolished". On the second Sunday of Advent, 2) December 4, 1524, Luther preached publicly against the Canon of the Mass and rejected it. This caused the Wittenbergers, university, council and community, to demand of the monastery that all ungodly ceremonies be abolished. This seems to have been done orally and in writing. For Seckendorf reports that on December 3 and 8 the canons again complained to the Elector: Luther had rejected the Canon of the Mass in the sermon on the second Advent, whereupon the Rector of the University, two Burgermeisters and ten Rathsherren came to the dean and told the chapter that they would all be in communion if they insisted on their ceremonies. The written request, however, is preserved for us in the writing "Der Wittenbergischen Universität, Raths und Gemeine Suchung bei dem Stifte zu Wittenberg, die gottlosen Ceremonien alle abuthun" (No. 143b in this volume), which is to be placed in the week after the second Sunday of Advent (December 4, 1524), because right at the beginning it refers to the sermon held on this day: "as heard from the next (i.e. the last) sermon". The thoughts expressed in this writing, indeed, in part the words used in it, agree so exactly with those used in the writing "Vom Greuel der Stillmesse," that a correlation between the sermon on the second Sunday of Advent, to which the authors of this writing refer, and the aforementioned writing seems undeniable. Either the sermon flowed from the Scripture of the Abomination of the Stillmeffe (which seems to us the more probable), or vice versa. Finally, however, the chapter came together. On December 24, 1524, Christoph Blank, dean of the smaller choir, wrote to the Elector, 3) that through diligent research he had come to the convi-

1) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 935.

2) Seckendorf, Hist. LMN., I^ib. I, x. 276, (I).

3) Seckendorf, nist. Hd. I, x. 276, (m).

He had also dismissed some of those who had hitherto held the masses in a different manner [than that which is in accordance with God's words]. The Elector answered the following day: "It is a difficult matter, which must be well considered, and he will take care of it, hoping also that means will be found to direct the matter in such a way that it will serve God's honor and our blessedness. In the meantime, however, in Wittenberg, "Des Capitels zu Wittenberg neue Ordnung des Gottesdiensts der Stiftskirche" (No. 143c in this volume) had been accepted by all the canons and introduced on December 24, 1524. The Elector allowed it to happen, probably because he too had come to the conclusion that those who urged the abolition of the mass had God's word for them.

The clergy at Eimbeck had written certain articles, since they had been asked by their sovereigns, the Dukes of Brunswick, to state "the reason for their faith". In their writing they had stated that the dispute about the corner mass was a quarrel about void things (de lana caprina). Count Albrecht of Mansfeld demanded an expert opinion from Luther. Luther complied with him in his letter to Count Albrecht of Mansfeld (No. 145 in this volume) on July 14, 1529. In this letter Luther shows that the Eimbeck clergymen in their writing spoke "as the arch-enemies of the sacrament and like the swarmers", therefore their princes should chase them out of the country as mocking knaves, or at least "to frighten" them to do so.

In a letter to Margrave George of Brandenburg (No. 146 in this volume), Luther replied to a previous inquiry on September 14, 1531, that the prince should not re-establish the angular masses because they are against God's command and Christ's institution, are sold and used as works and sacrifices, and are also used to atone for foreign sins against God, from which it follows that "they disturb the sacrament and the faith.

Luther struck a blow against the papacy and its strongest pillar, the mass, which was extremely sensitive to the papists, with his writing about the corner mass and the consecration of the clergy (No. 147 in this volume), which, as we can see from his letter to Nicolaus Hausmann 1) of December 17, 1533, had already been published at that time. The earliest news we have about it is from October 15, 1533, where Jonas told Spalatin 2): "Luther writes beteits ... a very strong tempest by which the papacy will be shaken." On January 3, 1534, Luther asked Amsdorf 3) to let him know what he thought of his book on the Angular Mass, because many accused him as if it were harmful to good and weak consciences. Amsdorf answered 4) on January 28, 1534: not to him, but perhaps to some pious, godly hearts it would seem questionable that Luther had said: A Christian can see and hear the masses. For the people of Halle and Leipzig wanted to whitewash their godlessness, if not defend it. Otherwise it was of the kind that was necessary at that time. In response, Luther thanked him 5) for his free judgment and added that it was not written for the papists, "as they are henceforth not worthy that we write or speak for them. Perhaps in May 1534, Luther wrote to Jonas, 6) that the book of the Chresem (chrismate) and the papist missalists annoyed the papists very much, although Luther had written it more to strengthen ours than to annoy the papists. At the same time, Luther asked Jonas to translate this book into Latin, which Jonas did. 7) From what Amsdorf says in his letter to Luther, we can conclude that the main impetus for this writing may have been that Luther wanted to make the Church, which had been under the tyranny of Duke George of Saxony and under the oppression of Cardinal Albrecht, more accessible.

1) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1411.

2) Weim. Archive, Neudecker. Transcript. (Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 665.)

3) De Wette, vol. IV, P. 499.

4) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 1988. ö) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 1990.

6) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1260,

7) See the note to the caption of No. 147.

Luther wanted to strengthen the faith of the Protestant Christians living in Mainz. At the beginning of this writing, Luther points out how humbly the Lutherans had pleaded against the Pope and his bishops at the Imperial Diet in Augsburg, that they would gladly let themselves be consecrated and governed by them if they did not force them to adopt unchristian articles, but this could not be obtained from them, "but they want to force us from the truth to their lies and abominations, or they want us dead. Now, perhaps, their violence and consecration would be like the indulgences of the past, which have now been completely despised and lost by the papists. But they would have to blame their own stubbornness and obduracy. Then Luther tells of a disputation that he had to endure in his heart with the devil in his camp. The devil had challenged him on the grounds that for fifteen years he had been saying Mass in the corner almost every day and had done nothing but idolatry with it; he had not worshipped Christ's body and blood, but bread and wine, and had held them up for others to worship. He was not able to overcome the arguments 8) with which the devil had attacked him. He had to admit his sin and throw himself on the mercy of Christ. What Luther intended with this narrative is clear, both from this writing itself and from the letter to Hausmann 9): "Luther had wanted to put the wisdom and ability of the Pabstthum to the test: If they can give an account of their doctrine, they shall have won; but if they cannot, what would they do if in the battle of death they had to endure these arguments and, moreover, also those of the devil? For it is absolutely necessary to see to it that consciences are sure and certain in all things. For if one doubt remains, everything else cannot be made certain. Therefore, the word of God and the word of men must be

8) They are in this writing §§ 7-24. It would go too far if we wanted to show them here.

9) De Wette, Vol. IV, p. 495; Walch, old edition, Vol. XXI, 1411. Walch's translation, however, is of such a nature that it can provide little clarity on this, so we are forced to translate the passages in question according to De Wette.

^be divorced to the last drop.... For certainty is required in this article; if the Papists can give it, I will praise them; if they cannot give it, the Antichrist will be fully revealed in all his abomination.... . . Luther confesses his recent battle with the devil, and asks for absolution from the papists (as the words of Book 7 clearly say). Whoever can give the same, let him be blessed (beatus); but let him stop shouting or citing unrhymed stuff, because that does not mean eliminating arguments (solvere), if one cites things that do not fit (inconveniens). Otherwise Luther could have also (as he had also seen to it1) ) adduced these unrhymed things, but he recognized that this was not enough: therefore he confesses and desires the wisdom of the papists, that haughty judge of God and men." On the same opinion he says in § 26 of the Scripture: "Summa, we are rid of such angular masses and Chresem and want to let them defend their masters, the Papists." Then Luther elaborates: If there is only bread and wine in the corner mass (because it is not kept according to Christ's order), then they are the greatest deceivers and seducers on earth, who have held out bread and wine to the Christians for Christ's body and blood, and besides this have shared and sold such their sacrifice and work as the highest service of God on earth, thereby reconciling sinners before God, redeeming the souls in purgatory, and driving away all misfortune temporally and eternally. But if the Body and Blood of Christ are there, they are the greatest thieves of God and robbers of the Church that have ever come on earth, because the Sacrament, according to Christ's order, is food common to all Christians for the strengthening and consolation of their faith. But the mangle-measurers keep it alone and sell their own work and sacrifice, their opus operatum. Here, the cries of "Church and fathers" cannot help. Human actions and speeches apart from and without God's word cannot help here. Moreover, because the consecration takes place secretly, no one can know what is going on in the win-

1) For example, in § 7 Luther refers to his ordination, to the papal church's command and obedience, to his seriousness and devotion.

Thomas Münzer famously said that he often omitted the words of the Consecration and ate more than two hundred unconsecrated Lord Gods, and it was said in Rome that some people held mass in such a way that they spoke the words over the bread and wine: You are bread, you will remain bread, you are wine, you will remain wine. The angular masses arose from human opinion, which was taken for the opinion of the church. The holy church, however, will let itself be heard on that day that it knew nothing of such an opinion, but that such was a blasphemous lie of the Antichrist, made strong by the effect of the devil. - Luther says about the ordination that only angle-measurers were ordained by the bishops, not parish priests or preachers. Through the ordination, they were only given the power and permission to hold angle masses, but not an office or ministry in the church. A parish priest or preacher had to be called or ordained anew. From a smeared angle priest, Christians have neither baptism, nor sacrament, nor consolation, nor absolution, nor preaching, nor any pastoral care. These have served only their belly and sold their work and sacrifice to the poor Christians. The right consecration, on the other hand, is to call or elect preachers, teachers and pastors from among those who have been born priests through holy baptism, to carry out such ministry for the sake of all of us. Finally, Luther admonishes the red spirits, including nefarious papists, to leave his book unused and not to use it to try to confirm their iniquity.

From the fact that Luther had made it uncertain in his writing on the corner mass whether Christ's body and blood were there or only bread and wine, because Christ's order and institution were not observed, some suspected that Luther was keeping up with the enthusiasts or enemies of the sacraments or would keep up with the times. Therefore, at the beginning of the year 1534, at the request of good friends, in order to shut up such false mouths, Luther sent a letter to a good friend concerning his book on the Anglican Mass (No. 148 in this volume).

In it, Luther refers to the fact that he has often confessed in his booklet In it, Luther refers to the fact that he has often confessed in his booklet that even among the papists, where they keep Christ's order, that is, where they act and distribute the sacrament and do not make a sacrifice out of it, even if it is only done in one form, it is still the true body of Christ and is received. He repeats and confirms the same confession of Holy Communion that he has made in many of his books against the enthusiasts, and wishes that the two words "Mass" and "Sacrament" be separated as far as darkness and light, yes, as the devil and God. He does not argue against the sacrament, but against the mass. The papal church keeps the mass in free disobedience to God, still wants to do right and well in it and not allow itself to be reformed, because with the cornerstone of the papal church, the mass, also falls its idol with its silver, gold and jewels. The sacrament, however, does not carry money, but brings spiritual benefit to eternal life.

In 1535, a disputation was held in Wittenberg against the angle mass (No. 149 in this volume), for which Luther presented the theses in the form of three syllogisms, in which it is proven that the angle masses are error, godlessness and idolatry, because they are based on human thought, will and service.

After Duke George of Saxony died on April 17, 1539, his successor, his brother Henry, introduced the Reformation in the Duchy of Saxony. Therefore, at the beginning of July 1539, at Luther's request, he raised a concern for Duke Heinrich of Saxony about the abolition of the private mass in the monastery of Meissen (No. 150 in this volume). At the end of this section, reference is made to two of Luther's other writings that concern the Angular Mass.

c. Against the papal doctrine of Transubstantiation.

When at the Imperial Diet in Regensburg in 1541, among other things, the

1) There are not, as the title of the issues says, "two concerns", but only one. Cf. the note to the title of No. 150 in this volume, Col. 1300.

When Luther and the papists were in the process of unification, and there seemed to be some hope for it, the Electorate of Brandenburg and Margrave George of Ansbach sent a delegation to Luther to seek his opinion. This consisted of Prince Johannes zu Anhalt, Matthias von Schulenburg, Churbrandenburg councilor, and Alexander Alesius. 2) They arrived in Wittenberg on June 7, 1541, and discussed the matter with Luther. Luther gave his opinion that the religious unification did not seem imminent to him, because the opponents had admitted four articles, but certainly not sincerely, because they did not want to admit the other ten, which would result with necessary consequence. On this occasion, the question of transubstantiation may have been discussed; Luther will have spoken about it at the table (because it is called a collation speech). This collation speech of the transubstantiation (No. 151 in this volume) Luther put in writing on request of one of the princes present, perhaps the prince George of Anhalt, who was also present at the conversation. Even the Elector Johann Friedrich came from Torgau to Wittenberg, entertained the princes present and took part in the discussion on June 10, 1541.

The assumption we have just made that the collation speech was written for Prince George of Anhalt gains in probability from the fact that Luther wrote his letter to George, Prince of Anhalt, about the transubstantiation (No. 152 in this volume) shortly before, namely on May 25, 1541, no doubt at the request of the prince.

d. About the elevation and worship of the sacrament.

Paul Speratus 3) had had to flee Vienna because of the preaching of the Gospel and on his journey northward he had been accepted as a preacher in the town of Iglau in Moravia at the beginning of 1522, where he worked with

2) Seckendorf, Ilist. I^MIi., I^id. Ill, p. 361, (10).

3) Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 1434, note 2 to no. 61.

the Bohemian Brethren, 1) who are also called Moravian Brethren, Waldensians and Picards. From there, perhaps on May 10, but in any case before May 16, 1522 (cf. Burkhardt, Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 68; De Wette, vol. VI, p. 621), he sent a sermon to Luther, which he had delivered in Vienna, along with a letter in which he expressed his concerns about the doctrine of the Lord's Supper of the Bohemian Brethren. The bearers of the sermon and the letter were deputies of the Brethren congregation there, who wished to come to an agreement with Luther. Luther reported this in the first half of May (perhaps May 10; see above) 1522 to Spalatin 2): "The theologians of Vienna have started a sad game with Paul Speratus, the former Würzburg preacher who was expelled from there, and now he is active at Jglau in Moravia. He has written to me and dedicated to me an excellent booklet of vows 3)" (obtulit). On May 16, 1522, Luther replied to Speratus, 4) that he believed the articles of the Picards had not come before him rightly and purely, for he [Luther] "had investigated all things from them himself, but had not found that they held the bread in the sacrament of the altar to be a mere signification of the body of Christ, and the wine alone to be a signification of the blood of Christ, but that they believed the bread to be truly and actually the body, and the wine to be truly and actually the blood of Christ". They have, however, some peculiar pointed thoughts, which Luther wishes they would not trouble themselves with. But Speratus should not condemn them until he had first learned all things. In response to several questions of the Bohemian brethren, which Speratus, through the deputies, had addressed to

1) These are to be distinguished from the Hussites, whom Luther calls Votiswos; he never calls the Bohemian brothers by this name.

2) In De Wette, vol. II, p. 447 and Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 882 without date with the erroneous year 1523.

3) Of the high vow of baptism, along with other vows. A sermon preached at Vienna in Austria. Paulus Speratus. Königsberg in Prussia 1524." Luther wrote to Speratus about it: "Your booklet ... pleases us almost well, therefore we would not be displeased if you had it printed." (De Wette, vol. VI, p. 33.)

4) De Wette, Vol. VI, p. 33.

In another letter to Speratus 5) of June 13, 1522, Luther gives information about the controversy that Luther had brought to Luther, although he advises Speratus to cut off such unnecessary questions, to despise them, and to condemn them by his contempt. Such a controversial question was also that of concomitance, 6) that is, whether with the body also the blood was present and at the same time with the blood the body of the Lord was given and received in the Lord's Supper; whether with the body of Christ also His divinity and at the same time also God the Father and the Holy Spirit were present. Another question was whether one must worship the sacrament? To this Luther gives the answer: It is free to worship and invoke under the Sacrament, but he does not sin who does not worship, nor does he sin who worships. Further information about the doctrine of the Bohemian brothers 7) is given in a letter that Luther wrote to Spalatin 8) on July 4, 1522, in which he reports the presence of the deputies: "The Picards had deputies with me who asked me for advice about their faith. I have found almost everything healthy, except that they use dark and strange ways of speaking instead of the way of writing. Furthermore, I am troubled by the fact that they claim that there is no faith in the baptism of little children and that it is of no use, and yet they baptize them and rebaptize those who come to them from among us; then they also accept seven sacraments. For the celibacy of the priests is considered good among them, although they do not consider it necessary, but leave it free. So nowhere in the whole world is the purity of the gospel. Whether they also have a sound opinion of faith and works is not yet clear to me, for I doubt that very much. With regard to the Lord's Supper I see nothing wrong, unless they act deceitfully with words; so also not with regard to baptism." Also in two letters

5) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 792.

6) For "Concomitance" see in this volume the paper No. 154, s 101 and s 103.

7) Cf. Tischreden, Cap. 37, U 65-68. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, 1049 ff. and Col. 1874, No. 480.

8) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 91.

to Hausman 1) Luther speaks out about the Picards. In the first Luther writes: "I now have no evil opinion of the Picards, having heard from those who were present [here] themselves their belief about the Lord's Supper." In the second, however, he says: "The Picards hold thus of the Sacrament, that Christ under the bread is not bodily, as some 2) say that they have seen there blood, a little child etc. but spiritually or sacramentally, that is, whoever receives the bread visibly, truly receives the natural blood of Him who sits at the right hand of the Father, but invisibly. About this I cannot condemn them, because in such a way we also teach (sapimus). Furthermore, that they do not worship, they blame precisely on the fact that he is there not visibly, as they have appearances (visiones), but invisibly, that is, at the right hand of the Father." But Luther did not come to complete clarity about their doctrine through the deputies, so he asked the Waldensians "to actually make this article clear through a special booklet". As a result, the senior of the Brethren, Lucas, wrote such a book in Latin, to which he gave the title "Of Victorious Truth", which was delivered to Luther together with a catechism, which had gone out in German and Bohemian, and an older apologia by the brothers Horn (actually Roh) and Michael Weiss. 3) But even in this book it was, as Luther says, "not yet made as loud and clear as I would have liked to have seen". In the catechism, however, it was pronounced: "That Christ in the Sacrament

1) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 868 and 869. In De Wette, vol. II, pp. 428 and 429 f., the first of these letters is dated "in October 1523" and the second "in October or November 1523", which can hardly be correct. Both letters are earlier than the writing No. 153, which we had to put "before June 1523". See what has been said about this writing.

2) To bring this passage in line with what is reported in the Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 67 (Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1050), one has to understand here under the "some" quite a few ddr Waldensians; however, the deputies must have assured that this was not their doctrine.

3) Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 669. - The two letters of Luther to Hausmann mentioned before may refer to this legation, thus written in spring 1523.

4) So Luther's reply is directed against the Waldensian catechism, not against the Latin book of Lucas. The latter seems to be Köstlin's opinion. Burkhardt, p. 67, also assumes that it was directed against the catechism.

5) Burkhardt, Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 67. De Wette, vol. II, p. 433 places our writing "before November 13, 1523," misled by misunderstanding the words "in tioo lidkllo aä Losinos," which he interprets to mean this writing, while the letter to the council and the community of the city of Prague is meant, which is found in Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1548 ff.

that Mary is a virgin and the mother of God, let it be said that Mary means a virgin and the mother of God. Likewise Christ is God and man, that is, Christ means God and man" etc. But we must refrain here from further indication of the content, and refer the reader to the Scripture itself.

In a letter to Leonhard Puchler, fencing master at Halle (No. 154 in this volume), Luther gives him an answer to his inquiry about the worship of the sacrament on December 11, 1523. Everyone should be free to do so; do not sin if you do it or do not do it, because he [Christ] has not commanded it.

Prince George of Anhalt had been disconcerted by the fact that Wittenberg had been reluctant to abolish the sacrament. Therefore, in his letter to Prince George of Anhalt of June 26, 1542 (No. 155 in this volume), Luther states the causes that had led to this. In all previous editions there is a letter, which is a combination of this letter with the one under No. 152, which we have omitted. About this, compare what was said in the first note to No. 152.

The last writing of this section is a letter of Luther to D. Gregorius Brück of January 6, 1543 (No. 156 in this volume), in which he indicates to him that he does not yet consider it time to let something go out publicly in print about the elevation and other ceremonies. "I have no hope," says Luther, "that we will ever more become one in need of the same ceremonies in all churches."

e. Against the Papal way of administering and using the Sacrament only under one form.

Initiated by a mandate of the Bishop of Meissen in 1528, in which he forbade communion under both forms, but commanded it under One Form and ordered the parish priests to teach the people "how under the One Form the whole Jesus Christ, Son of God, God and Man, is also His body and blood, and is eaten and drunk by the laity," Luther wrote the'

Writing: Ein Bericht an einen guten Freund von beider Gestalt des Sacraments aufs Bischofs zu Meißen Mandat (No. 157 in this volume), which was probably published in June 1528, because, as Duke Georg wrote to the Elector on February 19, 1529, it was written "somewhat after the first treaty" about the Pack Alliance (which was concluded on June 14 at Gelnhausen). With high probability, the unnamed "prudent person", to whom Luther attributed this letter, is to be looked for in the council of Freiberg, 2) because Cochläus dedicated his writing: "25 causes to offer the Sacrament to the laity under one form", which went out on January 10, 1529, to the dean and chapter of Freiberg, because some laity of the disobedient children of Freiberg enjoyed sub utraque or died like cattle without Sacrament. At the same time as this above-mentioned writing of Cochlaeus, another writing of the same, which is directed against Luther's letter, appeared under the title: "Vertheidigung bischöflichs Mandat zu Meißen, wider Martin Luthers Scheltworte. Printed in Leipzig by Nickel Schmidt. 24 quarto pages. It is dedicated to Count Hoyer of Mansfeld and dated January 9, 1529. In his writing, Luther destroys the reasons with which his opponents, especially Cochläus, D. Schmid (Faber) and D. Johannes Mensing (the fire of Bern), tried to support and defend the distribution of the sacrament under one form. The papists themselves "publicly confess that it is true and founded in Scripture to administer both forms" to the laity, according to Christ's institution, and also promise that "if a council were to be held, they would faithfully help that both forms should be administered to the laity. Furthermore, the pope "allows and gives both forms to the Bohemians", who are not all priests. "Is this right, why should it not be right for us?" To the answer given here: "The Church is above the Gospel and has the power to change it, as it has often done," Luther replies: "The Church, which boasts that it is above the Word of God, that is of the laity.

1) Cf. the introduction in this volume, section XIV.

2) Seidemann in De Wette, vol. VI, p. 630, note 2.

The devil's church and Satan's bride, who also wanted to set himself above God in the beginning.

The last writing of this section is: Etliche Sprüche wider das Concilium Obstantiense (wollt sagen Constantiense), zu Wittenberg gestellet und gehalten, und wo man noch will (No. 158 in diesem Bande). These are sentences that Luther posed for a Friday disputation in 1535. The necessary things about it have already been said in the first note to the scripture. Luther himself speaks about the name Obstantiense in the preface.

X. Luther's Writings on Law and Faith, Against the Merit of Works.

Almost all of Luther's writings assigned to this section (No. 159 to No. 171 in this volume) are disputations, the subject of which is indicated in the table of contents of this volume. Everything else that had to be said about them can be found in the notes to the headings.

XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows and monastic life in general.

In Wittenberg, during Luther's absence at the Wartburg, vows were discussed. This prompted him to elaborate a whole series of sentences on this subject, his "Kurzen Schlußreden von den Gelübden und geistlichen Leben der Klöster" (No. 172 and No. 173 in this volume 1) which he sent to both Melanchthon and Amsdorf 2) on September 9, 1521. His letter to Melanchthon (No. 18 in the appendix of this volume), in

1) In the old edition of Walch, these two numbers, as stated in his introduction p. 113, are separated from each other by mistake. That they belong together is proven by the words at the end of No. 172: "I want this to be disputed in such a way that it is recorded as certain and true; the following, the Disputation No. 1731, I simply submit so that it may be disputed and the truth investigated.

2) The letter to Amsdorf is found Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 97, but with wrong date. k'eriÄ sseunäa xost Xativitatis is not the second day of Christmas, but "Montag nach Mariä Gehurt", that is, the A. Sef^emdevL

to whom detailed and valuable instruction on the vows is given, at the same time grants him permission to publish this writing. "For I believe," says Luther, "that this opinion, which is clearly and firmly founded in the Holy Scriptures, can stand the light and the publicity." Melanchthon seems not to have waited for the "short explanations" promised by Luther in case of publication, but had this disputation printed soon, probably still in 1521. In the last words of the German single edition: "Bewerung mit geschrifft kumpt bald. Patientz." we find an allusion to Luther's promise and intention to add short explanations to the sentences. But this promise was not fulfilled, because some monks in Wittenberg had left the monastery, and Luther, who had received this news, "feared that they might have done so out of a conscience that was not yet sufficiently fortified. He wrote this in a letter to Spalatin of November 22, 1521 (No. 19 in the appendix to this volume) and added that this fear had forced him to write the booklet "Von den geistlichem und Klostergelübdens Martin Luthers Urtheil" (No. 174 in this volume). By this larger writing, as well as by the extensive execution, which Luther inserted into his Postille, with which he was busy at that time, a further explanation of his sentences became superfluous. 3) Attached to the letter was the Latin preface to this writing, a letter to his father Hans Luther, dated November 21, 1521, in which it is particularly discussed that Luther had entered monasticism about sixteen years ago without the knowledge and will of his father. He heartily and humbly begs his father not to disobey him, for he has now come so far that he is quite sure of it, there is nothing more holy, there is nothing less holy, and there is nothing more holy.

3) This excursus on the vows has also been published separately under the title: "Bedenken und Unterricht von den Klöstern und allen geistlichen Gelübden" and is found in the old edition of Walch (as a duplicate), vol. XIX, 2053-2084. We have omitted this writing in this volume, because it is already found at the appropriate place in the St. Louis edition, vol. XI, 391-415, 88 853-312.

There can be no higher service than to keep to God's commandments. At that time he not only doubted that this was the case, but he did not know anything about it at all. In the book itself, Luther proves most clearly, strongly and irrefutably from the Holy Scriptures that the monastic state is in its essence contrary to the Scriptures, that therefore the monastic vow is also void, illicit, ungodly and contrary to the Gospel, and that therefore one may also return to the freedom of the Christian faith with a clear conscience, and should do so as soon as possible. Already in the writing itself (towards the end) Luther says: "I consider that everything is so fortified with Scripture and clear reasons that it can not only shut the mouths of the adversaries (on which I have directed little of my attention), but also establish the consciences against God in good confidence and make them secure, which is what I have had in mind primarily. He repeats the same in his letter to D. Johann Brismann 1) in January 1523: The book of the vows is, "as I myself must say, of all those I have written, the strongest and, as I may well boast, irrevocable". For the rest, we refer the honored reader to the glorious writing itself. Against Luther's "Urtheil von den geistlichen und Klostergelübdens" Johann Dietenberger wrote a paper with the title: Joann. Dytenbergii Theologi, contra temerarium Martini Lutheri de votis Monasticis judicium. Libri Duo. However, these and other counter-writings did not prevent Luther's writings from penetrating the well-guarded monasteries and leading many monks and nuns out of them.

Shortly before Easter 1523, twelve virgins escaped from the Nimptschen monastery through the help of Leonhard Koppe in Torgau. 3) Luther himself soon made this public in a missive. Luther, who had suggested this himself, made this known publicly in a letter to Leonhard Koppe

1) In this volume No. 106, the cited passage is found in Col. 566, § 2.

2) Cf. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 112 f., note 3. 3) Cf. Col. 1667, note 4 in this volume."

Koppe, citizen of Torgau, of April 10, 1523 (No. 175 in this volume), in which he gives cause and answer that virgins may divinely leave the monasteries. As a reason "that he proclaims such" he gives: "What we do, we do in God and do not shrink from it in the light. "On the other hand, I do it to preserve the honor of the poor children and their friendship," so that no one may say that they were carried out dishonestly by loose boys and had put their honor in danger, because Koppe can be shown to be an honorable man under whose protection they have placed themselves.

On March 2, 1524, Luther sent out A Story of How God Helped Out an Honorable Convent Maiden with a letter to the Counts of Mansfeld (No. 176 in this volume), in which he railed against convent life. Luther publishes this story written by Florentina von Oberweimar, in which she describes the shameful, extremely tyrannical treatment she had to endure in the Neuenhelfte monastery in Eisleben, in order to show all the world "what monasticism is".

A papist Count of Henneberg had sent several articles to Duke John Frederick of Saxony, in which he sought to prove by means of sayings and examples from the Holy Scriptures that vows should not be broken. The duke sent these articles to Luther with the request to answer them. Luther did so on May 18, 1526, in his reply to Duke John Frederick of Saxony (No. 177 in this volume) on the articles drawn from Scripture for the monastic vows. At that time Luther was overloaded with work and gave only short, but conclusive answers. In the letter to the duke he expresses the wish that the same may direct the author of the article and other advocates of the vows to his "Büchlein von Klostergelübden" and similar writings.

Luther's writings had also penetrated the nunnery of St. Mary Magdalene of Penance in Freiberg, also called the Convent of St. James. There were about seven and seventy nuns in the convent, among them Ursula, Duchess of Münsterberg, and Trop-

Introduction.

pau, Countess of Glatz. She was daughter of Henry of Münsterberg and granddaughter of King George Podiebrad of Bohemia, thus sibling with Duke George (i.e. both were born of two sisters [De Wette, III, 391]), and niece of Duke George of Saxony's mother, Zdena, also related to George and Henry of Saxony. 1) She had turned to Luther with the request that he might be helpful to her to leave the monastery. Therefore Luther wrote on June 29, 1528 to his friend M. Nicolaus Hausmann 2) in Zwickau, whose brother Valentin lived in Freiberg: "As I hope, a thing will happen in which I will need your assistance one day; because a captive nun has written to me from Freiberg, who cries and sighs for redemption. She hopes to be able to escape from the convent and the city if there are people who will take her in on the outside and bring her into the territory of our prince. More of this at another time, for as yet I know not how far this city may be from the borders of our prince." Hausmann, as it seems, did not want to go into it, because in another letter to the same, 3) from August 5, 1528, Luther writes very briefly: "In the matter of the person who was to be kidnapped from Freiberg, nothing happens; it has only been thoughts, therefore you can be quiet." Ursula had by no means given up her plan of escape, however, but, since she had been able to achieve little or nothing by her complaints to her relatives, she left the convent on October 6, 4) with two other virgins, Dorothea Thanbergin from Freiberg and Margaretha Volkmarin from Leipzig, and turned to Wittenberg. Luther's house accepted them all as guests, as he reported to Spalatin on October 20, 1528 5). Already in the convent, Ursula had written a document to justify her steps and completed it on April 28, 1528. Luther had the same, provided with his post-

1) Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 106 ff.

2) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1113.

3) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1116.

4) Thus Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 118.

5) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1128. Cf. also Bürkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 148.

The original text was published in 1528 under the title: Der Durchlauchtigen, Hochgebornen F. Ursulen, Herzogin zu Mönsterberg etc., christliche Ursach des verlassen Klosters zu Freiberg (No. 178 in this volume). The fact that what Luther added is not, as the old editions call it, a preface, but a postscript, results partly from the fact that in the original edition published by Hans Luft in Wittenberg, Luther's writing makes up the last part, and partly from the fact that in the refutation, which the convent of the virgins who remained in the monastery at Freiberg completed on February 18, 1529. February 1529, it is said that he pinned his letter "to the book of the abetrunnygen nuns, praising them for their faithfulness and mysticism. Whether this refutation (says Seidemann 1. c. p. 115) was ever printed, since it was intended for printing, I cannot say. Later Ursula married a baron Hieronymus von Biberstein.

About the last two writings of this section: Luther's Answer and Report to Two Questions Brought to Him by Persons of High Standing, July 13, 1530 (No. 179), and: Grund und Ursach, dass das Klosterleben unchristlich sei, ein kurzer Auszug aus Luthers Buch von den Gelübden (No. 180 in diesem Bande), ist bei den Schriften selbst das Neöthige gesagt schon.

XII. Luther's writings on marital status, especially on priestly marriage, which was forbidden under the papists.

Luther addressed an exhortation to the lords of the Teutonic Order on March 28, 1523, that they should avoid false chastity and resort to proper marital chastity (No. 181 in this volume). In addition to the vow that they would fight against the unbelievers, the Teutonic Knights had also taken upon themselves the three monastic vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. There is a reason why Luther addressed especially to them the request to enter the marital state,

that Luther hoped "that your order could be a great, splendidly strong example before all other orders, if it were to break this course first, so that unchastity would be less in other orders as well, and the fruit of the Gospel would increase all the more. Moreover, it was easier for them to follow this admonition, because they were not hindered by the care for their livelihood like the mendicant monks, for the order was rich, and the masters could divide the goods among themselves. For the rest, Luther refers them to the writings in which he had given rich instruction on this subject elsewhere.

In 1528, an unnamed person spread very poisonous theses against the second marriage (the so-called digamy or, as it is called in these theses, bigamy) of the bishops. Some assume that Wilibald Pirkheimer of Nuremberg, who was initially favorable to the Reformation but fell away out of fear when his name was mentioned in Eck's bull, was the author of these theses. Luther published these theses in the same year (in Latin), with a short preface and a detailed refutation. We share this writing under the title: Eines Ungenannten Schlusse wider die andere Ehe der Priester, mit D. M. Luthers Widerlegung und kurzer Vorrede (No. 182 in this volume). Luther mentions these theses in a letter to Wenc. Link of May 12, 1528. 1)

XIII Luther's Writings from the Conciliar.

In this section, Walch has included only two smaller writings in this volume, while the larger and more important ones have been assigned to the 16th volume, but have only been mentioned here. The former of these two writings appeared under the title: "Aus-.

1) Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 2716.

schreibung eines heiligen, freien, christlichen Concilii. Anno 1535." (Without Luther's name.) (No. 183 in this volume.) Probably the same writing appeared earlier in Latin, for the Latin Jena edition (1603), Tom. III, fol. 477, places it in the year 1534. It is a kind of satire, in which the angel Gabriel, by command of the Holy Spirit, summons all believers in Christ to a holy, free, Christian concilio, in order to hear there the decree of the reformation of the church. It is written in the horribly prolix and convoluted curial style that was in use at the time.

About the other writing: Luthers Disputation, was ein Concilium für Macht und Gewalt habe, Anno 1536 (No. 184 in diesem Bande), ist nichts Besonderes zu bemerken.

It only remains to briefly mention two writings in the appendix of this volume (all others have already been mentioned in the appropriate place), which do not belong to any of the sections in this volume in particular. They concern Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne and Louvain, and should therefore have been added to the 18th volume of Walch's edition 2). One of them is Luther's preface to Melanchthon's responsibility on the Cologne subclerical writing against Bucer. 1543 (No. 20 in the appendix of this volume). We reproduce the other in an improved translation under the title: D. Martin Luthers Schrift wider die 32 Artikel der Theologisten zu Löwen (No. 21 in the appendix of this volume), which appeared in 1545, probably in September. The necessary has been said about the writings themselves.

2) Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne, Louvain and Paris is found in Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 932 ff.