I. Controversial writings against the antinomians. 1)
The beginner of the antinomian disputes was M. Johann Agricola from Eisleben. After his birthplace he is often called M. Eisleben, also we often meet the abbreviation of Agricola: Grickel. 2) His patronymic is Schneider; 3) however, he later changed this name to Schnitter 4) and translated it into Latin Agricola. He was born on April 20, 1494. 5) He probably received his school education in Brunswick and then in the winter semester of 1509, in his sixteenth year, he moved to the University of Leipzig, where he was enrolled as Johannes Schneyder de Eyssleuben. He earned there (when? we do not know) the degree of baccalaureus artium,
1) In this section we have used Kawerau's monograph "Johann Agricola", Berlin 1881, also Köstlin's account, II, 464 sf.
2) He called himself by this name in his family. Kawerau, Agricola, p. 4.
3) His father was also a tailor of his trade. Bindseil, Oollo^nia, vol. II, p. 254.
4) In a marriage certificate of Luther from 1524, he is called "Magister Johannes Schnitter von Eisleben". De Wette, Vol. VI, p. 50l.
5) Thus Kawerau 1. o. p. 5. Others assume the year 1492.
However, he left this university without earning a master's degree. In 1514 we meet him again in Braunschweig, as it seems, effective as a teacher. In the winter semester of 1515/16, Agricola went to Wittenberg to continue his studies there. His name is entered in the register of the philosophical faculty as Joannes Schneider de Yszloben, baccal. Leypsens. He was admitted to the number of chorales 6) (choristers) by the licentiate Christoph Blank, who was dean of the so-called small choir in the Allerheiligenstifte at Wittenberg. The salary he received for his service enabled him to continue his studies. After a short stay in Wittenberg, he became an enthusiastic follower of Luther and demonstrated this in his first literary work; namely, during Lent 1517, he copied the sermons that Luther had preached on the Lord's Prayer, added his own explanations in part, and had them published without Luther's knowledge.
6) Different from these oNorates are the pueri symphoniaci (De Wette, vol. V, p. 796 f.) Compare about the Allerheiligenstift at Wittenberg and its institution the introduction to the 19th volume of the St. Louis edition, p. 50 d ff.
at Leipzig. 1) He dedicated this work to his patron Christoph Blank in a preface dated Jan. 13, 1518, and signed himself as "Joannes sneider"; on the title, however, he does not use his name, but refers to himself as "his [Luther's] student one. Luther was dissatisfied with this publication, although this work of Agricola's, as the rapidly successive editions testify, found great recognition, and felt "caused to omit this paternoster (in 1519) 2) again and to explain himself further". In the preface he pronounces: I "do not know how by God's fate I come into play, that some to friendship, some also to enmity saw and drive my word". On February 11, 1518, Agricola was awarded a master's degree in the philosophical faculty. A few months later Melanchthon came to Wittenberg, with whom he soon became close friends. In June 1519, Agricola (together with Melanchthon) accompanied Luther to the disputation in Leipzig and made the necessary notes for Luther, 3) as well as M. Johann Graumann (Poliander) for Eck. Soon after their return from Leipzig, namely on September 19, 1519, Melanchthon and Agricola were awarded the theological baccalaureate (ad biblia), whereby both entered the theological faculty. Like Melanchthon, Agricola came more and more into friendly relations with Luther, indeed, he was drawn into his closest circle of friends. In the Table Talks (Cap. 37, § 33), Luther calls him not only "a good friend," but one of "his best friends." As early as July 22, 1520, there was a rumor that Agricola was planning to enter into matrimony.
1) Kawerau, Agricola, p. 14 f.
2) Agricola's adaptation of the Lord's Prayer can be found in Walch, old edition, vol. VII, 1024 ff, Luther's revision in Col. 1086 ff.
3) Perhaps already as a notary? For in this capacity he acted on November 17, 1520 at Luther's appeal from Pope Leo X to a Concilium. In the Latin Jena edition (1566), Dom. II, col. 258 d he calls himself lokannes Larotor (sartor - tailor) äo Lislsdsn, pudlicus saora axostoliea autoritato Notarius. On the other hand, in the Latin Wittenberg edition (1550), Dom. I, col. 232 d lacks this notarial certification, which is found in the original prints. Cf. Lrl, oxx. v. a., vol. V, p. 230 f.
4) On September 10, he married Elisabeth or Else Moshauer. The woman was well known to Luther (presumably she was a Wittenberger. Cf. Kawerau, l. c. p. 27) and she was highly esteemed by him. There is a letter of Luther to her from June 10, 1527 5) and the Wittenberg theologians testify in their report to the Elector from April 5, 1540, that 6) "the Doctor always loved and supported him, his wife and child". Agricola's marriage was richly blessed with children; at the time of his move to Wittenberg (December 1536) he had "nine living children". 7) He earned his living through his activity as a private lecturer at the University of Wittenberg, lecturing partly on philosophical disciplines, e.g. on Melanchthon's "Dialectic", and partly, and predominantly, on New Testament exegesis. 8) In the spring of 1521 he was also entrusted with the office of a catechist at the parish church, 9) and received from the Wittenberg treasury 7, later 10-1/2, shocks of groschen for giving religious instruction to the youth in the parish church ("lection in the parish church"). In addition, he occasionally helped the deacons with
4) Luther's letters to Spalatin of July 22 and August 31, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 707, § 3 and 715, § 2.
5) This letter is found in the St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1808 (with the correct year. Instead of "willens", "will" should be read) and duplicate (with the wrong year 1537) ibid. col. 1790. Duplicate also in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 182 and vol. V, p. 64; Walch, old edition, vol. X, 2100 and 2121; Erlanger, vol. 53, p. 403 and vol. 55, p. 179. Seidemann in De Wette, vol. VI, p. 450, note 5, already recognized the identity of the two letters, but did not comment on which of them had the correct date; in Burkhardt nothing is said about this duplicate. The year 1537 cannot be correct, because Agricola already left Eisleben for Wittenberg on December 19, 1536, and had his permanent residence in the latter place until he escaped from Wittenberg on August 15, 1540, and followed the call to Berlin.
6) Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 327a.
7) Ibid. p. 291b and p. 315 d.
8) In the Zwickauer Rathsschulbibliothek are still Collegienhefte, which were copied in Agricola's lectures in the twenties, namely on Marcus, Lucas, John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans, the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Galatians, the twentieth chapter of the 5th book of Moses, of which most of them are preserved only in fragments. Kawerau l. c. S. 30.
9) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 72, § 3.
Agricola was also called upon to help out with sermons. In 1524 we find Agricola among the "servants (ministris) of the church in Wittenberg" during the decision-making process on a difficult marriage case. Although his activity in the service of the church was quite significant, and he also administered the most diverse ecclesiastical offices for 45 years, he was never ordained, but remained, as he himself says, an "unordained, unanointed layman". 1) Carlstadt and his comrades were involved in the tumultuous activity. Agricola did not participate in the tumultuous activity of Carlstadt and his comrades during Luther's absence at the Wartburg, but "neither Melanchthon nor Agricola were able to exert a prudent and powerful counteraction to Carlstadt's stormy innovations. "Clarity came into the confused Wittenberg circumstances only through Luther's return full of the Wartburg. His powerful sermons 2) also made an indelible impression on Agricola's mind. He testifies: 'It is inconceivable that anyone could have treated this matter with greater eloquence, greater earnestness, or greater zeal; always equal to himself, he has here surpassed himself!'" Agricola's first major independent work as a writer, by which he acquired a respected name as an interpreter of Scripture, is his "Commentary on the Gospel of Lucas" of 1524, which grew out of the lectures given on this Gospel in 1523. Although this work is not pure in doctrine and suffers from many other deficiencies, it was well received and widely distributed. It was first printed in 1525 by Sympertus Ruff in Augsburg; in the same year a second printing appeared in Nuremberg by Petrejus. In the following year (1526), Johann Secerius published
1) Kawerau, l. c. P. 31 f. Agricola also never attained the doctorate. Several times he has been called Doctor by wrong resolution of the "D" before his name with Doctor (instead of vorninus). Kawerau I. o. p. 21, note 1.
2) These are the "eight sermons" reported in No. 1 of this volume. The addition that Kawerau makes here (Agricola, p. 34): "against the Zwickau prophets" is not quite correct. For these sermons are primarily directed against Carlstadt and Zwilling, while the Zwickau prophets did not participate in the cult reforms in Wittenberg. Cf. this introduction p. 11.
In 1529, Secerius printed the Commentary again. This book had the honor of being placed on the Index librorum prohibitorum by the papists in 1546. 3)
Agricola had friendly relations with Münzer in the first years of the Reformation and perhaps even earlier (in Leipzig and Brunswick). When Münzer served at the Church of St. Mary in Zwickau in 1520, the two were still in correspondence. 4) However, as soon as Agricola reproached him for his boastful nature, his hopeful spirit, his spiteful behavior against individual persons, his abuse of the office of preacher, as a result of which it was reported about him that he was intent on nothing but murder and bloodshed, but Münzer rejected such warnings and rebukes from above, the bonds of friendship between them loosened (in the spring of 1521) and soon ceased completely. However, Agricola observed Münzer's activities with lively interest, and his writings are rich in memories and notes about the Peasants' War and Münzer's behavior, especially in Allstädt. On April 16, 1525, he and Melanchthon accompanied Luther on his journey through the Thuringian lands at the beginning of the Peasants' Revolt. Luther was prompted to return to Wittenberg quickly by the news of the death of the Elector Frederick on May 5. On the other hand, Agricola stayed for some time in his hometown Eisleben, mainly because of the establishment of the school, which Count Albrecht of Mansfeld wanted to found there; for Luther, in whose hands the count had placed the school matter, had chosen him to be the director of this school. Before Agricola moved to Eisleben, however, he was sent by Luther to Frankfurt, 5) whose council had requested a man to establish the church there. This matter was settled in a short
3) Kawerau, l. c. S. 37.
4) Kawerau l. c. S. 45.
5) Compare Luther's letter to the council of the city of Frankfurt of May 30, 1525. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 976.
The school was happily arranged, for the council had in the meantime found two suitable church servants, Melander and Algesheimer, who were already employed on June 13, 1525, the former in the St. Bartholomew and Liebfrauen Church, the latter in St. Leonhard. In the first days of August 1525, Agricola and his family went to Eisleben and the school, the opening of which had been prevented by the turbulent times of the peasant revolt, began. According to his profession, he not only had to take over the direction of the new Latin school, but also to preach sermons in St. Nicolai's Church (without being given an actual parish office), for which he was assured an annual salary of 120 gulden. Initially, Hermann Tulich 1) was his college, but only for a short time; the procurement of suitable assistants caused continual great concern. Among the number of Agricola's assistants, Franz Bnrkhard, the later vice-chancellor of Saxony, and Magister Veit Amerbach, who was later professor artium in Wittenberg, are mentioned; the former was only active in Eisleben for a short time, the latter for several years. 2)
Agricola must have been very capable as a preacher, because the Elector John took him (along with Spalatin) to the Diet of Speyer in 1526, where the Protestants for the first time exercised the right to preach the Word of God freely in public during a Diet assembly. Although they were unable to obtain the use of one of the churches there for their services, the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse allowed daily public preaching in the courtyard of their inns. The attendance of the people to these sermons was tremendous, 3) "yes, on holidays (so writes Spala-
1) Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XIX, 4. Tulich had already left Eisleben again before October 21, 1525. See Luther's letter to Agricola, De Wette, vol. III, p. 35, where DMiokii is read instead of luliolüi.
3) This is attested by Cochlaeus in his Oynanaentario, j". 147 sy.
tin) many thousands of people". On this occasion, Agricola gave continuous sermons on the Epistle to the Colossians and published them the following year with a dedication to Landgrave Philip under the title: "Die Epistel an die Colosser, S. Pauls, zu Speier gepredigt auff dem reychstage, von Joann Agricola Eysleben. By D. Martinnm Luther vbersehen. Wittenberg 1527. (Wittenberg by Simph'orian Reinhart.)" While he was in Speyer, Bugenhagen sent to him and Spalatin the writing in which he protests against the falsification which Bucer had made with his Psalm interpretation in the explanation of the 111th Psalm. 4) In the first half of the same year, Agricola also translated the Syngramma Suevicum.
Luther decorated this translation with his preface. In 1529 (in March), he again accompanied the Elector to the Diet of Speyer and this time also preached before thousands of listeners. 5) About two months before the beginning of the Imperial Diet in Augsburg, Elector John of Saxony wrote to Count Albrecht of Mansfeld (March 13): "You want to take with you Mag. Joh. Eisleben, who is to be used on such our journey as a preacher." 6) Agricola also preached at Augsburg, but only for a short time (from the beginning of May to June 15), before the emperor arrived; then, however, all preaching (including Roman preaching) was forbidden by the emperor during the Imperial Diet, and the Elector also had to comply with this prohibition, but nevertheless kept the theologians with him until he himself departed from Augsburg on September 23. Agricola enjoyed the same favor as with Elector John with his son and successor, Elector John Frederick, who took him to Vienna in 1535 when he traveled there to be feoffed with the electorship. This enfeoffment took place on November 20, 1535. Agricola later referred to the Elector for the sermons he preached during this trip.
4) Cf. this introduction, p. 36 f.
5) "On the following Sunday [March 21, 1529], about eight thousand people had been gathered at the morning and afternoon sermons." Kawerau, Agricola, p. 91.
6) Kawerau, I. o. p. 94.
as witnesses that he had preached the pure evangelical doctrine there, and the Elector gave him in a letter of 30 October 1537 1) the testimony: "we have no other recollection than that you preached the same [your teachers] on the journey to Vienna in the manner in which you recorded them. In a letter of October 30, 1537, 1) the Elector gave him the testimony: "We have no other recollection than that you preached the same [your teachers] on the journey to Vienna in the manner in which you recorded them," but also made known to him his will: "We also do not consider it inconvenient, but good and right that such unity [with Luther] should extend not only to the substance of the doctrine, but also to the words.
The first germs of Agricola's antinomian doctrine, although still quite undeveloped, can already be found in his above-mentioned Commentary on the Gospel of Lucas, published in 1525. 2) Almost everywhere he speaks only of the harm of sin, but almost nowhere of the guilt of sin and of the task of the law to reveal sin as guilt to the holy God and to bring it to consciousness. The only real use of the law is that it is good as a restraint for the raw masses, for the pagan-minded world. In this way, the message of grace of the Gospel comes to the individual, without the preparatory work of the law on the heart of the sinner being expressly and clearly emphasized. He describes the effect by which faith is evoked as a stirring of the heart, as being seized by the sweetness and kindness of God. From this emotion the new life of the Christian is dated, and it is a life of repentance. For repentance is the fruit of faith, the daily renewal of spiritual life; it does not begin with the recognition of sin, but with the grateful sensation of God's benefits. Here, therefore, we already find in the first beginnings the teaching that he later expressed in the first thesis of his "Theses Disseminated among the Brethren" 3). In addition, already in this writing we encounter several misunderstandable, even dangerous statements, 4) e.g. "Sins do not harm,
1) Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 312.
2) Kawerau, l. c. p. 133 ff.
3) Cf. Col. 1624 of this volume.
4) See Kawerau, I. o. p. 136.
They are as great as they want", to which a practical antinomianism could easily lean, although Agricola did not intend to preach a moral libertinism; for he assumed that the Holy Spirit had planted in the born-again the drive to fulfill the law of God willingly and with pleasure. Also in the "Christian Children's Education" of 1527, a Christian teaching for the Latin school, he begins with a partly well-done interpretation of the ten commandments, and also talks about the fact that the law should serve to expose our sins and to drive us to despair of ourselves, but in the end the main meaning of it remains for him that it is the "dog's shillelagh", i.e. the reins of the wild carnal nature, "so that it does not become too horny, but a little tame". The final section of his entire doctrinal exposition is the section on repentance. In this section he does not mention the law at all, but describes repentance as an effect of justifying faith, not as a feeling and repentance of the guilt of sin, but as "a new heart and other thoughts", as "not doing evil anymore".
Until then, Agricola had not been aware of any deviation from Luther's teaching; however, when Melanchthon's Articuli, de quibus egerunt per visitatores went out in print in the summer of 1527, a kind of prelude to the antinomian controversy that flared up ten years later was tied to this little work, which is the preliminary work for the "Instruction of the Visitators. In these Articuli, Melanchthon teaches that a preacher has to preach two things: the sermon of repentance and the sermon of forgiveness of sins. No one can understand what faith is if repentance is not preached first. Preaching the law drives to repentance, therefore the Decalogue is to be interpreted diligently. Repentance is a prerequisite for faith. Diligent preaching of the law will also be a great blessing for the believers in order to kill the old man and to grow in sanctification. This is undoubtedly the right pure doctrine that must be presented at all times; however, it was necessary to place special emphasis on it at that time, when many a Protestant
The "preacher of grace" preached grace in such a way that it inevitably had to become a cover for wickedness. But Agricola felt hit and joined in the cries of many that Melanchthon had fallen away and was "crowning backwards again. In contrast to these articles, he gave his doctrine a sharper form in his second catechetical work, "130 Common Questions for Young Children," the preface of which is dated Monday after Martinmas (November 18) 1527. This "catechism" was not caused by the need of the elementary school children, for whom the "Christian child education" had not proven to be useful, but by the articles of Melanchthon, which Agricola considered to be contrary to the teachings of Luther; on the other hand, he believed to be in complete agreement with Luther. The Decalogue is assigned almost the last place in this writing and it is settled with a few explanatory words. He describes the economy of the law here again, as he had already done in the Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, 1) as a failed attempt of God to influence man. He now knows only one function of the law, namely to force and compel, to punish and torment. He sees the law only as a penal code, it is, "the Jews' Sachsenspiegel", 2) and Christ has completely eliminated this single function of the law for the Christian. The whole process of the appropriation of salvation proceeds without the law being involved at any point. Therefore, it must be called a juconsequence or an accommodation to school usage, 3) that Agricola still teaches from the law at all. To the question: How does a person become a believer? the Catechism answers: "God has Christ's death and resurrection preached to the unbelieving world, namely, that it is to their benefit and that they are reconciled to God through Christ's blood. Whosoever then is moved by the blood of Christ, and whoever is well pleased with this preaching, the Father draws him to Christ, and
1) Cf. Kawerau, l. c. pp. 142 and 134.
2) Agricola also borrows the expression here from Luther, who uses it in his writing "Wider die himmlischen ProHheten" (Col. 153 in this volume). (Kawerau.)
3) Kawerau, l. c. S. 142.
sprinkles him with the blood of Christ. He believes the words of the sermon, he sees and recognizes the goodness of God that is proclaimed to him. He also sees his error and infirmity, he cries out over his unbelief, that is, he repents, repents and laments and takes care with diligence not to anger the one who has forgiven him so much." The pope teaches, "First consider and confess your sins, then you will become worthy of grace. But the Gospel preaches, first, the satisfaction of Christ; secondly, it preaches how we are to repent." Here, then, the service of the law for the preparatory recognition of sin is completely eliminated, and the justified, according to Paul's word: to the just there is no law, the law is of no concern at all. Of course, even the justified sins "every moment". But these sins are only a "need", only impulses of the "inherited damage", caused by the devil and the world. Of course, the Christian should fight against them, and this very fight against them is called repentance, but there is also the consolation: "no sins hinder blessedness, for grace is called, not good works, not evil works". The norm of the new life of the justified is not "you shall be holy, for I am holy," but merely, and therefore in a superficial way, charity. Because he has put aside the law, he lacks the seriousness of the concept of guilt when considering sins and the concept of holiness when presenting the Christian life.
Here we already find a developed autinomism in Agricola and it would certainly have come to an open rupture between him and the Wittenbergers if they had harbored the slightest suspicion against Agricola and had examined his writings with a critical eye; but it seems that Luther had not yet read the Catechism at that time, although he knew of its existence. When Agricola approached Luther with misgivings about Melanchthon's "Articles" even before they appeared in print, Luther appeased him 4) and admonished him.
4) In a letter of August 31, 1527. Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, appendix, no. 3.
to abstain from disputing about this matter, so that the visitation would not be hindered by it. Luther said against Melanchthon, 1) that it was only a dispute about words, which he did not respect very much. After the articles had been printed, Agricola turned again to Luther with certain accusations, and also made sure that his opposition to Melanchthon became generally known by distributing copies of his "Censur". With great zeal, he advocated Luther's interpretation of the passage Gal. 3:19, as opposed to Jerome's, which Melanchthon had accepted, and brought Melanchthon under suspicion of a doctrinal difference among those who judged superficially, even though he completely agreed with Luther in the doctrine of the law. In the course of the negotiations, Agricola realized that Luther was not in agreement with him, that he, the plaintiff, could easily become the defendant, and he pulled himself out of the matter by concealing the actual point of difference and, one may well say, not only made "tame and subtle turns" 2) but also used dishonest evasions. On November 26-28, 1527, the Elector summoned the disputing parties to Torgau together with Luther and Bugenhagen as arbitrators. Agricola's charge asserted that the doctrine of repentance in the Articuli was in conflict with Scripture and with Luther's teaching. In the prophet Jonah, Cap. 3, it says of the Ninivites first "they believed" and only then "they repented. 3) To prove that Melanchthon was in conflict with Luther, he referred to Luther's statement that repentance begins with love. In contrast, Melanchthon bravely defended the repentance that precedes justification. First the heart must have experienced the horrors of a fearful conscience, but in this process fear of punishment and love of justice are difficult to distinguish. Here Agricola, if he had been more forthright, would have had to object and freely come forward with his confession, but cowardly he evaded it, by instead of using the just-
1) On October 27, 1527. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 121.
2) Kawerau I. o. p. 147.
3) Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XIX, 83.
The first thing he did was to prove that Agricola subordinated the belief that there is a God who threatens, commands and terrifies, the fides minarum, to the faith that completes faith and thereby formally helped his sentence: "First faith, then repentance" to triumph. Luther then easily settled the dispute by proving that Agricola had understood the word faith in a much broader sense than Melanchthon.
These events had not clouded Luther's intimate intercourse with Agricola. Luther thought that in Agricola he had a faithful follower.
We have to assume, however, that from now on Agricola stood in conscious opposition to Luther and tried to bring his false doctrine to the people at every given opportunity. On September 11, 1528, Luther wrote to Agricola, 4) that someone had recently assured him in the most definite manner that Agricola (in a sermon preached at Altenburg in the summer) had put forward a new doctrine and asserted that faith could be without works. "I earnestly warn you," says Luther, "to beware of the devil and of your flesh." Agricola answered with the excuse that he had not railed against the doing of good works, but against the opinion that blessedness could be acquired by faith and works. The doctrine of faith has "a must" (oportet)), 5) whereas the doctrine of good works has no must, as can be seen in the case of the thief. Luther, as it seems, allowed himself to be reassured by this; and Agricola, too, did not give any particular reason for several years that would have brought him into suspicion of false teaching. But when in 1533 Count Hoyer of Mansfeld, who remained Catholic, appointed the apostate Georg Witzel as pastor of St. Andrew's in Eisleben, Agricola was prompted by this opponent to further strengthen his antinomianism and to make it more and more strident. Witzel led a poisonous and immoderately zealous fight against Luther and his followers, not only for the sake of the extremely small Catholic community, but also for the sake of the church.
4) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1121.
5) Cf. the Tischreden, Cap. 37,8 35. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1031. In Melanchthon's verses, Orator - ^Arioola is another translation of the name "reaper".
1) in Eisleben from falling away, but also to bring as many as possible back to the Roman church. In the same St. Audreas Church where Witzel preached in the morning, D. Caspar Güttel had to provide the service in the afternoon. Already a few days later, when Witzel had arrived in Eisleben, a clash with the Protestant preachers took place. On the Sunday after Galli, October 19, 2) 1533, Witzel stated in his sermon that through baptism a child's past sins were forgiven, but the sins it subsequently committed in its life could only be erased through its own work of repentance, namely through true repentance, conversion, prayer, almsgiving, and many other good works that followed faith 3). In the afternoon, Güttel gave him a proper answer, and the same happened in the following time, that Witzel's morning sermons, as he complained, were "drawn out by Güttel in the most hostile and murderous manner, and that with unswung, outrageous malicious words and poisonous greediness". Witzel also did not lack the most vicious outbursts against "the sect". He himself relates: "Allhie I have confidently punished the falsifiers of scripture, so fraudulent interpretation make, have they hot in their throat lie" etc. Immediately Agricola also reported to Wittenberg how Witzel stood by them. Already on October 22, 4) Luther wrote his answer to Agricola: "All that he [Witzel] holds and teaches is nothing at all (nimis nihil), and he is everywhere not worthy that someone who is knowledgeable of our doctrine should trouble himself for his sake. He will perish of his own accord if only our doctrine is taught clearly and abundantly. For his thing is of such a nature that it can neither be taught nor easily understood, since neither he himself nor his kind understand it." The herein contained
1) Witzel himself describes them as a "very small crowd" and reports, "I preach here to only ten citizens, and they don't even come to worship regularly."
2) Not the "18th of October", which Kawerau I. o. p. 153 offers, because this was a Saturday in 1533.
3) For him, "faith" is only the believing acceptance of the teachings of Scripture, the keeping oneself free from heresies. Kawerau, I. e. p. 158.
4) De Wette, Vol. IV, p. 488.
Luther's advice not to worry about such a vain opponent was not heeded by the Eisleben preachers. Güttel continued to preach entire sermons against Witzel, and Agricola also describes the sermons he preached at that time as controversial sermons against Witzel. 5) The more the latter attributed sin-redeeming power to the Christian's fulfillment of the law, the more the latter pushed the counter-doctrine and zealously opposed the benefits of the law. Through this continued polemic, he got deeper and deeper into antinomianism, so that he finally did not hesitate to accuse Luther of false doctrine, as was done in the third sentence of his third series of theses (Col. 1627 in this volume). We have a brief epitome of what Agricola taught in the last years of his stay in Eisleben in the series of theses, 6) which are attached to the paper: D. Martin Luthers Widerlegung der falschen und verführischen Lehre der Antinomer wider das Gesetz, in sechs Disputationen verfaßt 7) (No. 31 in this volume). For this doctrine he had formed a party whose adherents called themselves Minores, Minorisch or Minorists. 8) Luther, however, knew nothing about it, nor did he want to believe it, when Count Albrecht von Mansfeld reported it to him and other theologians (Jonas, Bugenhagen, Melanchthon), yes, even to the Elector soon after Agricola's departure from Eisleben and warned him against it.
Agricola's departure from Eisleben was initiated by all kinds of annoyances he had with Count Albrecht. Politically, the two stood on different points of view regarding the question of emergency defense; in one case, the count had granted permission, where the theologian had refused it. Agricola's income, 120 florins per year, was sufficient at the beginning of his tenure, but in the course of time it became less,
5) Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 3496.
6) On April 5, 1540, the Wittenberg theologians say in their report of these theses: "Magister Eisleben's Propositiones, which were made and transcribed many years ago." Förstemann l. c. p. 326 u.
7) These disputations were held from 1537 to 1540. For more information on the timing, see No. 31.
8) Compare the note to Col. 1624.
As his family grew and finally consisted of his wife and nine children, it became increasingly inadequate. His requests and pleas for an improvement of his situation only brought him promises; the stingy count did not decide to keep these promises. After Agricola had waited in vain for eight years for an increase in his salary, and had also rejected several professions with favorable offers, he thought of obtaining employment in Wittenberg, and therefore turned to Luther, who helped him to fulfill his wish. In a letter, which Agricola addressed to Luther 1) on October 18, 1536, he deals with great pleasure with the conditions, which Luther had put to him concerning the appointment. Luther had interceded for him with the Elector, and the latter had declared that he was willing to appoint him to the university. Although it was not possible to procure a professorship for him immediately, a favorable reason was soon found to appoint him to Wittenberg. The Elector approved the necessary salary and ordered Luther and the other theologians in a letter 2) of December 11, 1536, to cite, among others, "Magister Eisleben" to Wittenberg for a preliminary consultation on the Schmalkaldic Articles. Luther discharged this order on December 15.
1) This letter is found in Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 268, as we believe, with the correct date: "October 18". The time determination "18 December" given by Kawerau (p. 170) does not seem to us to be permissible according to the contents of the letter. Agricola says: rs zürn Ai866iits - since the matter now takes its beginning, Luther may occasionally (aliquancko) write to Count Albrecht; meanwhile he will find out what he may answer the man, and reports from his Fräu, she had said that she would like to die, if GOtt wanted her to experience that". Such speeches had not been made if the departure had been imminent. It is rather probable that Agricola did not give any written answer after December 15, because he left Eisleben with such great haste that the count did not find him there on December 21. The "18th of December" also proves to be impossible because Agricola wrote his farewell letter to the count on the 18th of December. Cf. Förstemann's Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 292a. There, p. 294d "Saturday, December 10" is an oversight by the Count. It should read "the 9th of December".
2) Burkhardt I. o. p. 271 f.
by a letter to Agricola, in which he requested him to come to Wittenberg during the Christmas holidays at the expense of the Elector. Immediately after receiving this letter, Agricola left for Wittenberg with his family in a hurry, without waiting for the return of Count Albrecht, who was currently absent from Eisenach, or to say goodbye to him personally, but left behind a very rough letter to the Count, written on December 18, 1536, which is included in its entirety in the answer that the Count gave Agricola on December 27, 1536. 3) About this hasty departure, the count expresses himself in his letter as follows: that he "departed unblessedly between two days without any cause and without having taken leave ... (despite the fact that we required you to appear before us on the following Thursday [Dec. 21] by writing)". The whole answer of the count is quite ungracious and full of bitter reproaches against Agricola. Albrecht sent a copy of this letter to the Elector John Frederick 4) on January 27, 1537, with a letter in which he warns against Agricola, so that by this man "almost a worse seduction than by Münzer might be caused", because he incites the subjects against the authorities, is frivolous in words, devoted to drink, and the like. Before his departure, he had not experienced as much of his affairs as is now coming to light. Also to Luther, Jonas, Pommer and Melanchthon, he had
3) Förstemann l. c. p. 291 f. At the beginning of this letter is another error that the count made in giving the date "dornstag den 20. tagk diß Monts", it should read "den 21.", if not, what is possible, "Dienstag den 19.". If Förstemann's interpretation (p. 294, note 5) of the words "zwuschen zweien Tagen" "So it happened at night" is correct, Agricola's departure might have taken place in the night from December 18 to 19. This gets some probability from the fact that the Count says he required Agricola "to come before him on the following Thursday [21 December]". Then the Count's return would have to be set for Tuesday, December 19. But it is more likely that there was an error in the date than in the day of the week.
4) Förstemann l. c. Soon in the beginning of this letter the expression returns that the "abscheidt czwissen czweyhen tagen gescheen" had happened.
had already sent this warning. The first reason "to be disgusted [with the count]" was "that he [Agricola] had not appointed a pastor in Eisleben who was related to him and of his own kind"; with this the count justified his warning that he should not make Agricola superintendent over the pastors, for such a thing would be detrimental, that is, Agricola would seek to bring people of his ilk into office. The theologians had been informed that Agricola had founded a sect in Eisleben against Luther and his teachings, which called itself "minoric" and condemned the teachings and school of the Wittenbergers as impure. None of those to whom the count had addressed his denunciations and warnings gave them the slightest credence, but all of them, because not the slightest complaint had been made beforehand, considered them to be slanders by which the count wanted to take revenge on Agricola.
Agricola found friendly exception with his whole large family in Luther's house and remained there even after Luther's departure (end of January) to the convent in Schmalkalden for a longer time, until he found the opportunity to rent a suitable apartment. Luther later said: 1) "I have trusted this man so much that I have given him the doctrine, the church, my house, my secrets", which is to be understood from the fact that Luther made him his deputy at the university as well as in the pulpit during his absence. Agricola was indeed active in the preliminary deliberations on the Schmalkaldic Articles, but he did not go with Luther to Schmalkalden, nor did he co-sign the Schmalkaldic Articles; this erroneous statement, which has often resurfaced, is based on a confusion of Johann Agricola with Stephan Agricola of Augsburg. Immediately following the Schmalkaldic Convention, due to the agreement of the houses of Saxony, Brandenburg and Hesse, a meeting of the princes took place in Zeitz (March 11-17, 1537), for which Agricola was appointed by the Elector as court preacher, because he was (in spite of the
1) Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 52. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1042.
Count Albrecht's accusations) "in great esteem at court and almost the ver
most trusted counselor". In the sermons he preached at Zeitz, "he displeased everyone. He used "new words" by insisting "that the revelation of wrath should be preached, not the law. 2) By this way of preaching he made himself suspicious.
Not long after, still in June 3) 1537, "drey Sermon und Predigen" (Three Sermons and Sermons) appeared in Wittenberg with Hans Luft, with a dedication of June 1, 1537 to Chancellor Brück. The manuscript had previously been presented to Luther for review, and the latter, probably without having examined it more closely, had said on the first holy day of Pentecost (May 20) against Agricola: "it is a good writing, that would not be wrong." 4) Simultaneously with the appearance of these sermons, however, the rumor also arose in Wittenberg that "theses written by Agricola were to be spread among brothers," 5) in which he had completely rejected the use of the law in the Christian church and had given a collection of "pure" and "impure" passages in the writings of Luther and Melanchthon. Against the latter he had said that he had been moderate up to now, but if he now saw that they wanted to suppress him, he would break loose. Now one began to read with critical eyes his published sermons, and found in them, however, the confirmation that he was lecturing antinomian doctrine. It is essentially the same that we find in his theses. This prompted Luther to testify against this doctrine as early as July 1, 1537, in a sermon on the 5th Sunday after Trinity. 6) Bugenhagen
2) Tischreden, Cap. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1042.
3) We are led to this time determination (Kawerau, p. 174, "in July") by the fact that Luther preaches against Agricola's Sermons already on July 1 (5th Sunday after Trinity). Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, 466 also assumes "June".
4) Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 1880, p. 303. (Kawerau, p. 174.)
5) These are the series of theses already mentioned in No. 31 of this volume. These are the series of theses already mentioned at the beginning of this volume.
6) Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XI, 1328, § 42 ff. This sermon is probably what Melanchthon sent to Johann Brenz on July 16, 1537. Oorx. Ref, Ill, 391.
started his journey to Denmark in July, and Agricola should have been his deputy in preaching and on the chair, but Bugenhagen forbade to let him on his pulpit, and Luther himself therefore stepped in as a "stopgap" for Bugenhagen. Luther's familiar intercourse with Agricola had so completely fallen away and such a complete estrangement had taken its place that the latter no longer went to Luther in person, but on September 2 sought to justify himself against him by letter because of his "three sermons. He pleaded that Luther had approved of these sermons and claimed that they contained only the doctrine that Luther himself preached. He was not aware of any false doctrine. In order to justify himself even further, he wrote a short confession of what he had always taught about the law. This "confession," however, is of such a nature that it (as Köstlin aptly remarks) "concealed his previous position more than it revealed it," for he passes over with silence the meaning of the law, to work recognition of sin and repentance. Cowardly he evaded here, as earlier in the dispute with Melanchthon, 1) because he did not have the courage to fight his assertions in a sharp open battle. 2) This written declaration was sufficient for Luther in that he refrained from personal statements against Agricola. Only in a sermon on the 18th Sunday after Trinity (September 30, 1537), in contrast to what he knew of the theses that had been circulated, he fully and clearly explained his own doctrine of the meaning of the law and the relationship between law and gospel to the congregation, 3) without mentioning Agricola by name. During a visit to Wittenberg in the course of October, the Elector also learned of the antinomian disputes and had Agricola warned by Chancellor Brück, and
1) P. 47 of this introduction.
2) Cf. Luther's statement, Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 55. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1044: "If only you would publicly argue against me and not so viciously foe behind the Pöckler [shield]!"
3) Thus Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 466. Only the date "on October 2" is wrong. The sermon is found in Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XI, 1700 sf. On October 12, Melanchthon already sent a printed copy of it to Veit Dietrich.
admonish him to compare himself with Luther. This prompted Agricola to seek reconciliation with Luther, and he must have gone so far in his explanations that the matter was for the first time "settled with given hands and promised fidelity. 4) Towards the end of October, Agricola reported on this to the Elector. The Elector repeats this report in a letter to Agricola of October 30, 1537: 5) that after our departure Luther had "kindly and amicably informed you: you had not been understood before, but now he sees that you agree with him in doctrine, and would be well pleased with you; he also wanted to call the others together, so that you would definitely compare yourselves". etc. 6) In his answer, the Elector demands from Agricola "that such unity extend not only to the substance of the doctrine, but also to the words. The Elector is doubtful "whether it would be as Eisleben wrote to us"; therefore, in a letter of the same date, he instructed the Chancellor Brück, 7) "to speak with Doctori Martino about it at the appropriate time", but especially to inquire "because Eisleben refers to his Summaries, which he wrote about the Evangelia, whether Doctori Martino has left it to him to print them and to have them publicly published or not, and to report this to us in the future". Probably only after Brück got rid of this order, Luther received the first information that Agricola had printed his "Summaries on the Gospels", 8) however, without Luther's prior knowledge and without the permission of the university, with Hans Luft. This writing, as we see from the dedication to some of Agricola's friends and relatives in Eisleben, was completed on September 24, and by the time Luther was notified of this, the first
4) Cf. Agricola's complaint to the Elector of March 31, 1540. Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 319f.
6) This statement of Agricola is cited by Kawerau l.c. p. 179. S. 179 in such a way, as if this was Luther's saying: "Luther 'showed him quite friendly and favorable'" etc.
7) Förstemann I. o. p. 313.
8) For the full title, see Col. 1648 of this volume, note 2.
six sheets printed. Luther immediately 1) had the existing copies confiscated. Only one copy, which Luther himself used and added marginal glosses to, has survived. 2) Luther judged this writing (Col. 1652 in this volume): "With such a postilla, Eisleben wanted to lay the first stone against our doctrine and us, that our doctrine must be unjust and impure, so that he alone might be praised as a master of pure doctrine. And at last it has been the fool's desire for his own honor that the Wittenbergers should be nothing, and Eisleben everything. Now Luther decided to fight openly against Agricola and had the "Theses spread among brothers" printed on December 1, 1537. Agricola was frightened when he heard about it and did not want to accept the theses as his own at all. With respect to the last antinomian series of theses (Col. 1627 f.), we see from Luther's own marginal note that he "does not interpret them to Eisleben, as the title indicates," 3) namely the second and third theses, but to his students, but regards them as a consequence of his principles. The doctrines expressed in these two theses: "You may well murder" etc. are the ones that Agricola, in his complaint against the Elector, 4) makes a second main point of complaint and accuses Luther of "calumnies" and "lies"; in his complaint, however, he wisely remains silent about this! Theses. Against Agricola's sentences, Luther wrote counter-theses, and still in December 1537, the first disputation against the antinomians (Col. 1628) took place, at which Agricola remained completely silent. 5) But since he continued to speak "in the corner" against Luther, the latter withdrew from him on January 6, 1538 6) the theological lectures, which had been assigned to him at Luther's request, "so that he would not be without work and [only] annoying [other people]" (otiosus et odiosus),
1) This will have happened around mid-November. Kawerau >. o. p. 18t.
2) Printed in Förstemann's "Neuem Urkunden buche", p. 296 ff.
3) i.e., the superscription Luther had placed over it: "Likewise others."
4) Förstemann I. c. S. 317.
5) 6orp. Uek. Ill, 482.
6) Luther's letter to Agricola. De Wette, Vol. V, p. 96.
He also told the Rector that he wanted Agricola "to abstain completely from theological work (a theologia). Now Agricola sent his wife to Luther and she pleaded for reconciliation; he was ready to do everything that Luther would demand. The latter demanded a public explanation, which Agricola gave in a satisfactory manner at the second disputation 7) (Col. 1632), in which he himself was an opponent, but only "to be instructed", and a public, solemn reconciliation took place. Luther also excused Agricola to the Elector, and obtained for him on (February 3) the Elector's order (against Bugenhagen's ban) that he be readmitted to the pulpit to inquire whether he held himself in doctrine uniform with Luther. On April 23, Agricola preached a second time by order of the Elector to recant his former doctrine and remove all suspicion from himself. Agricola refers to these two sermons in February and April in his complaint: 8) "I have ... with sermons twice ... kept myself in such a way that one must see what I change and improve in my speaking of the law." What Lauterbach reports on April 27, 1538, 9) that "Luther was sad and somewhat angry these days because of Agricola's impenitence and dissimulation" and said: "I don't want his made-up doctrine", almost leads to the assumption that Luther was not well satisfied with the last sermon, but also considered it to be a cover-up. But perhaps he did not want to reveal this out of compassion for Agricola's family? 10)
Of the third and fourth disputations against the antinomians (Col. 1636 and 1639) it is not known that they were actually held; but the words of Luther on February 3, 1538: 11) "but he is well
7) How much this whole matter had gone to Luther's heart, we can see from Luther's remarks in the Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 34. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1030.
8) Förstemann I. c. S. 319a.
9) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1721, No. 160.
10) Cf. Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 37. Walch, St. Louis ed. Vol. XXII, 1033.
11) Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 34. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1030.
The words "hewn" give room for the assumption that these disputations may still have taken place in January 1538 after the second reconciliation.
Externally, peace remained for a while until August 1538: 1) Agricola had renewed the assertion in a letter that Luther himself had made contradictory statements in his writings: 2) This prompted Luther to publish the theses of the fifth disputation (Col. 1642), which was held on September 13, 1538, and lasted almost five hours. 3) In this disputation, Luther "most violently opposed the new teachers. The payment of his salary and also his employment with the newly established Consistory was in question if he did not clear himself of the suspicion of false teaching. So he decided, because Luther pressed him, 4) that he would have to have a public recantation printed, and he himself was concerned that "he would not want to do it in such a way that it would be sufficiently respected," to place the writing of the recantation in Luther's hands, 5) to also ask him "that Luther do it as he could, he would be well satisfied with it"; and in humble submission he swore that he would not deviate from the pure doctrine in the future. Thus a third reconciliation took place on the outside, but the hearts remained estranged from each other. This is shown by Luther's confidential speeches from that time,
1) Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 35. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1031.
2) Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. II, p. 470.
3) Tischreden, Cap. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1062. Compare also Luther's statement about the antinomians at the end of his 33rd sermon on the first four chapters of John, which was preached the following day, Sept. 14, 1538. Erl. Vol. 47, p. 42.
4) Cf. Col. 1612, § 3, also Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 45. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XXII, 1038: "The same day he ordered (Sept. 3, 1538) to deal with Eisleben that he either recant publicly or be put to shame."
5) According to this the words in our edition of the table speeches (Col. 1032) are to be interpreted: "He has handed over his revocation to me" (ooillrnsQäuvit). The translation of ooiichn6n<lÄvit by "praised" in the old editions of the Table Talks is wrong. Luther himself in his writing "Wider die Antinomer" expresses it thus: "er hat mir's [to make the recantation for him] mächtiglich heimgestellt." This happened, according to the quoted passage in Hen Tischreden (Cap. 37, § 36), either on September 30, 1538, or shortly before....
But especially what Luther said on September 30, 1538, when Agricola asked Luther to write the recantation for him: 6) "I will seek the glory of Christ, not his, and describe in his own words the cowardly, proud, and godless man who would have done great harm to the church, and I will dedicate this recantation in his name to Caspar Güttel and the other preachers [at Eisleben]." Although this is already spoken in September, this recantation promised by Luther (completely in the manner pronounced by Luther) appeared only in January 1539 under the title "Wider die Antinomer" (No. 30 in this volume) in the form of a letter to D. Caspar Güttel, preacher at Eisleben. In it, Luther relentlessly reveals Agricola's previous insidious proceedings against him, that he had acted underhandedly and secretly in bringing up and spreading his false doctrine, and that he had also referred to Luther's books and boasted that Luther and Eisleben were on good terms with each other. Now, however, Agricola had humbly promised to renounce his false teachings, recant everything he had taught or written against the law, and promised to teach in conformity with the Wittenbergers, including the Augsburg Confession and the Apology. Agricola felt extremely hurt by this writing and became fiercely bitter, so that he sought to take revenge on Luther and obtain satisfaction for it. At first, he did this again "fencing meekly behind the Pöckler [shield]". 7) In the 17 theses, which he had written for a disputation to be held in the philosophical faculty on February 1, 8) 1539, he jibes at Luther in several dark theses, e.g. Jonathan, when he ate honey, had not sinned, but Saul, when he forbade him to do so, had confused Israel. Jonathan in this thesis is Agricola, who has the
6) Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 36. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1032.
7) Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 55. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1044.
8) Not "February 9", which Köstlin l. c. offers. p. 470 offers. Compare the passage of the table speeches cited in the previous note. But this is a printing error, which is corrected in Köstlin p. 676 aä p. 475.
Luther, on the other hand, who holds on to the law and does not allow him the honey, is Saul. Luther saw through this and therefore rightly reproached him in this disputation for persisting in his old error. In addition, news of the further spread of antinomianism came from Pomerania, Lüneburg, Thuringia, the Mark of Brandenburg and Frankfurt. This caused Luther to speak and write vehemently against the antinomians in his lectures 1) as well as in the writing "von den Conciliis und Kirchen" 2) which he completed in these days, but in the latter writing without mentioning Agricola in particular; he also testified from the pulpit. Agricola referred all this to himself and later used it for his "complaint" and its justification.
Towards the end of December 1538, Agricola (in order to be employed by the Consistory) had offered everything to affirm the purity of his teaching in various letters to the Wittenberg theologians Jonas, Cruciger and Melanchthon, to the Elector 3) and to Luther. On December 26, he wrote to the latter that he, as his spiritual father, wanted to accept his son, who had let himself be hurried by a mistake, again with a gentle spirit. When Chancellor Brück demanded of him a retraction, to Wendeln: Faber, pastor at Seeburg, to go out publicly, he prepared "a form of revocation" himself and brought it to Melanchthon, but added the request that he also "provide a form" 4). Melanchthon accommodated him by writing De duplici legis discrimine (1539) for him in Latin in the mildest possible form. This writing, which was only published after Luther's epistle "Against the Antinomians
1) In the "Interpretation on the First Book of Moses," Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. 1, 1188, § 196 ff; Col. 1208, § 4 ff; Col. 1212, § 17.
2) Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2741 ff, § 187-190; Col. 2782 f., § 248 f.; Col. 2778, § 243; Col. 2787, § 256. These passages, in the order given here, form the largest part of Agricola's more detailed justification for his complaint, to which Luther refers in his "Report". Compare the note to Col. 1657.
3) On December 22, 1538. This letter is found in Förstemann l. c. p. 314 f.
4) Förstemann I. c. S. 326.
(perhaps only towards the end of the year) 5) Agricola refers to it in his "Complaint" and calls it "a writing to the preachers and pastors in the land of Mansfeld". After he had thus appeased the theologians and satisfied the demands of the Elector by his recantation, he was appointed by the Elector to the Consistory on February 7, 1539, of which he remained a member until his departure from Wittenberg. In Wittenberg, he had also been able to obtain a following, so that his election as dean of the philosophical faculty on April 19 (or 21) was in prospect. 6) Luther prevented this, so that "his hopefulness, presumption and disobedience would not be strengthened by it". For a long time (since the disputation in February) they had not spoken a word to each other, when Luther wanted to go to Agricola in the last days of June 7) 1539 to talk to him personally, but he did not meet him at home. So there was no further reconciliation.
After Agricola had taken his oath, he no longer came out publicly with his false doctrine, but he also did not teach the pure doctrine clearly and distinctly, therefore Luther had good reason to complain about his dissimulation and hypocrisy over and over again: 8) "The little man has not yet set or made a few propositions in which he affirms or denies; says neither yes nor no, as is the way of the people; does not go alike, always keeps porridge in his mouth." But with his attacks on Luther, he gradually came out in public in an increasingly uncouth and bold manner. He boasted (at the beginning of July 1539), "he 9) is Abel, must suffer much
5) Kawerau 1. 6. p. 198, note 1 - In Förstemann I. c. p. 326 a states: "Which he had printed according to the doctor's writing."
6) Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 39. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1034.
7) In Bindseil, Ooltoguia, Dom. Ill, p. 321, Luther says on July 3, 1539: "he had recently been in Willen and was already on his way to reconcile with Agricola". Cf. Tischreden, Cap.37, Z92. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1066. Mathesius, St. Louis Edition, p. 230, reports that Luther did not meet him at home.
8) Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 39. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1035.
9) "Jener," Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 92, Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1066, is Agricola, because the following only fits him.
Introduction.55
and let himself be strangled." "What?" says Luther, "he will become a martyr under my hands, and I must be his executioner to make him a martyr? since he has grieved and martyred me much more than all my adversaries. No pope nor fanatic has grieved me more than he, and now I want to lay the blame at my door." How completely justified these words of Luther about Agricola are, will be seen by anyone who considers that the whole time during which Agricola was in Wittenberg was an uninterrupted chain of annoyances and cause of distress for Luther because of his false teachings and hypocritical behavior. The same can be seen in Agricola's further behavior. Already his letter to the Elector of December 22, 1538 1) contained, in addition to great praise, hidden accusations against Luther. He writes: "But because I notice and see that this whole business flows and stands from loud suspicion, how I should have something different in my heart and yet outwardly speak and act differently, so that nothing helps me anywhere, neither my humble submission and willing obedience, so that I testify that I want to die in his [Luther's] obedience, nor my manifold pleading by myself and others, nor my oath taken to confirm my faithfulness with it, in which the heathen are satisfied and content. . . Finally, not even that I offered to make known by a public writing wherein the lack of me had been." In September 1539, he sued his "spiritual father" and manifold benefactors with the Rector of the University, with Bugenhagen and with Melanchthon. 2) His points of complaint here will probably have been the same as later in the letters of complaint to the Mansfelds and to the Elector. The Rector D. Curio 3) offered to go with Agricola to Luther's home in order to bring about a settlement there, but refused Agricola's request that he cite Luther before him. Bugenhagen and Melanchthon also rejected his complaint. Zero
1) Not 1539, which Förstemann l. c. offers. p. 314 offers. (Kawerau I. c. p. 197, note 1.)
2) Förstemann 1. 6. p. 336a: "Er hat scheußlich klaget bei dem Herrn Pastor und Philippo."
3) Förstemann 1. c. S. 336b.
Agricola threatened to file a complaint with the Mansfelders, likewise with the Elector, and finally, he wanted to appeal to all scholars in Germany and Europe, because he did not want to put up with the slander, lies, and the imposition of heresies that Luther had inflicted on him. He let Luther know of his intentions, hoping that he would relent and admit that he had done him wrong; but Luther repeatedly told him that he should only sue him if he felt like it. After some time of waiting, Agricola actually sent on January 7, 1540 a letter 4) "to the pastors and preachers and the city bailiffs, citizens and all inhabitants of the city of Eisleben", in which he asks them to help him by their testimony to be exonerated from the trumped-up accusations that he was accused of. At the end of the same is an extremely venomous attack on those who take a stand against Agricola: "For it is ever true that whoever blames me for something else than I confessed in the booklet to the pastors of the Mansfeld dominion and in my disputation at Wittenberg, accuses me of being a dishonorable, disloyal, desperate villain, and will not think otherwise of him for the rest of my life; I also ask you to think of him as such, so that he can prove it to me, as is right. When Güttel sent a copy of this writing to Luther on April 7, 1540, he added in the accompanying letter: Luther would well hear from the copy "that the ungrateful man Agricola complains about E. A. W., with attached words of shame, as if he wanted to disgrace his fatherland, E. A. W., [and] all of us, [and] put us all to shame and punish us with lies, purging himself alone and cleaning up nicely, as he never stumbled and transgressed in such highly important matters, nor found himself lying." He also states that such rage of Agricola, at least in part, stems from Luther's writing "against the antinomians": "from it the wounds have been partly hewn, and the little steed has been running, and the bear has been humming".
Two months later, March 31, 1540,
4) The same is printed in Förstemann l. c. S. 315.
5) Fprstemann 1. c. S. 327 f.
Agricola sent the same writing 1) to the Elector John Frederick of Saxony (only the invective at the end was omitted). In it, mainly three "conditions" are asserted as points of complaint against Luther: Agricola is "imposed by Calumnia", 1. "he does not want to suffer any law", 2. "he teaches: You may murder, commit adultery etc., only believe, so it does you no harm." 3. 3. "Eisleben does not want to suffer a catechism." From the third point Agricola spins 32 "lies" which Luther brings against him, and he closes "the third edition" with the words, "Leng, devil, leug!" Then he assures his innocence and says that Luther "let himself be persuaded by poisonous slanderers and envious abusers of God and people to write untruths about other people." "There is no end to the blasphemy and vituperation in the pulpit. Therefore, he asks the Elector to "have an understanding, so that he may be overridden by such Zunodtigung [rape]".
The Elector, who was in Schmalkalden at that time, answered Agricola in a letter 2) from April 7, 1540: he did not like to hear that Agricola complained about Luther in such a way. If Agricola had tried to communicate with Luther himself, such a letter to the Elector would not have been necessary. Luther had never thought of Agricola, as he himself knew, in any other way than in a good way. But the Elector wanted to find out about things and order him to act. Before the Elector sent this answer, he had the theologians present in Schmalkalden, Jonas, Bugenhagen, Amsdorf and Melanchthon, report on the matter on April 5, 1540 3). Regarding Agricola's first point of complaint, they indicate that in his "Propositiones, 4) which were made and transcribed many years ago, also in his Postille, 5) which was in print at Wittenberg, it is clear,
1) Identical except for a few variants; of course with a changed address. Förstemann l. c. p. 317 with the erroneous date "March 1".
2) Förstemann I. c. p. 320 f.
3) Förstemann I. ". S. 325 ff.
4) i.e. in the series of theses at the beginning of No. 31 in this volume.
5) Cf. p. 51 f. of this introduction.
mall should not preach any law in the New Testament", therefore the first complaint is null and void. Melanchthon reports about the second complaint: "One of the city of Lüneburg wrote to me, Philippum, in many names, that he and they held that if one believed and nevertheless broke the marriage, ... it would not be sin, and punished ours for teaching that one loses grace and faith through such works." As a result, Luther "was moved to address Eisleben again and to demand a [public] revocation to put an end to such inequality in doctrine, which he offered to do. When Agricola "finally decided that the doctor should give him a form himself," he let the book go out against the antinomians. Luther's writings were indeed vehement, "but because the doctor [in this book] speaks primarily of doctrine, and not of Eisleben alone, ... it would be good that Magister Eisleben did not interpret the same book so burdensomely for himself alone and did not introduce such unnecessary, swift consequentialias 7) and consequences, as if the Doctor had accused him of having rejected the faith etc., which the Doctor does not interpret for him; item, Eisleben has not been mentioned in the book about the church. .. Magister Eisleben has also never been mentioned in sermons." Therefore, the theologians advised the Elector to "inform Agricola that he should put the matter with Doctore Martino to rest, considering with which man he wants to deal". As we have seen, the Elector acted according to this advice.
On April 12, Count Albrecht von Mansfeld 8) sent a copy of the letter to the Elector, which Agricola had sent to the Mansfelds. The content of the letter was of course not new to the Elector, because it corresponded almost word for word with the complaint addressed to him, but "because the same Eisleben can be heard at the end of the letter ... almost heavy and difficult words", 9) so he did not understand it.
6) Förstemann l. c. p. 326 suggests "actual", which does not correspond to the circumstances. Luther says (Col. 1612, § 3): a public contradiction".
7) As a result, the third and final head of claim is dismissed as unfounded.
8) The letter of Count Albrecht can be found in Förstemann l. 6. p. 329 f.
9) Cf. p. 55 of this introduction.
he suspected that Agricola might want to avoid leaving Wittenberg, and on April 18, 1540, he instructed the chancellor Brück to 1) "take Agricola into his hand," that is, to have him take a vow that he would not leave without the will of the Elector. The Elector left it to Brück's discretion whether he wanted to do this through the bailiff Bernhard von Mila or through the rector and the university. Brück chose the latter way and Agricola "recently after the Leipzig Easter market Angelübd gethan", that is, in the first days of May 1540. 2)
Now the Elector, who at first wanted to let the matter rest until he himself would come to Wittenberg, instructed 3) a commission, consisting of Chancellor Brück, the bailiff Bernhard von Mila and D. Benedict Pauli at Wittenberg. Benedict Pauli at Wittenberg, 4) that they would like to settle the matter between Luther and Agricola. They also consulted the Wittenberg theologians. Both united, 5) the secular councils and the theologians, demanded information from Agricola as to what his complaint consisted of and what evidence he could provide for it; therefore, his more detailed "explanation" (declaratio) and justification of the complaint is also addressed to both. The inscription of this document in the Weimar archives reads: "Principal article of trade, Eisleben's doctrine". This document is dated with certainty before June 8.
1) Förstemann I, c. p. 330.
2) Förstemann 1. 6. p. 348 k. The Leipzig Easter Fair ended in 1540 on May 1. According to this, it can be assumed that the order of the Elector to Bernhard von Mila, to knit Agricola (Förstemann I. o. p. 331), was not used. - It is in the Tischreden, Cap, 37, § 37 to end, Walch, St. Louiser Ausgabe, Vol. XXII, 1033 instead of "beschicken"/.bestricken" to read what Bindseil, Ooüocmia, Dom. II, p. 77 offers. From this it follows that this speech is to be set in the beginning of May 1540, whereby again some light is thrown on these events, which have not yet been set forth in full clarity. Because of the conventional wrong time determinations (especially of "Luther's Report"), no clear picture is presented to us in this part of the antinomian controversies even by Kawerau and Köstlin.
3) Förstemann l. c. S. 330 a, No. 17.
4) Ikick. S. 348 a.
5) This is proven by the title: "Ewer Gestreng und Ernwirden" (cf. the beginning of letter No. 24, Förstemann I. o. p. 340), which Agricola uses in his letters to the Commissarien.
The theologians' verdict on the complaint of the same date already refers to the same 6) and they say about it: "His present declaratio: one should preach the law with or after the gospel, he did not say that before, but rather: one should take the decalogue away from the sermon on repentance. On the whole, the final verdict of the theologians (Jonas, Cruciger and Bugenhagen), their "true and consistent. Answer to Magister Eisleben's Complaint", is identical in content to that which had already been given by the theologians in Schmalkalden. Here, the three points of complaint are formulated very briefly and clearly: 7) "Eisleben primarily points out three things in which he is said to have been wronged. The first: he has not so grossly erred as he is charged with; the second, he has not therefore abrogated the law, grace, faith etc.; the third, as often as antinomies are mentioned, he wants him to be touched with it." With respect to the first point, they judge that by Agricola's theses, in which he calls the doctrine of the Wittenbergers impure, and them perverters of the words of Christ, and by his postilion, in which he has set forth in clear words: One should not preach law in the New Testament and among Christians, it is proven "that the Lord Doctor Martinus Magister Eisleben did not do wrong". The second piece, which had been imposed on him, Eisleben had often called a big fat lie. But Luther did not put this on Agricola, but made a conclusion: "If sin is not, one does not need grace. And in this piece, the doctor does not speak of Magister Eisleben alone, but of many others.
6) Förstemann, I. c. p. 336b at the end: "seine itzige declaratio". Förstemann has given this writing the incorrect title: "Des M. Johann Agricola Vertheidigung seiner Lehre vom Gesetz gegen D. Luther" and dates it: "ungefähr am 8, Juni 1540". The wrong title comes from the assumption that "Luther's report" is to be set already in "April 1540", and it seems that Förstemann has assumed that Agricola defends himself against Luther in this writing. In contrast, this "Declaratio" is in fact the earlier one, and Luther refutes it in his report. Until now, it has been generally assumed that Luther's report, immediately after Agricola's complaint, is to be placed in April.
7) Förstemann l. c. S. 334 a, No. 21.
those who now fall into this phantasy". 1) Therefore, it is not wrong "that Luther teaches the doctrine that not only concerns Eisleben, but many others. "On the third article, that Magister Eisleben points to himself, where the Doctor Martinus calls the Autinomos, 2) the Doctor says that such an interpretation is not contrary to him. But it is true that not only Magister Eisleben had his phantasy, but many others have started to pretend such madness, as said, that grace and sin can be with each other against conscience. ... Because this doctrine is a common and necessary doctrine against all who unduly reject the law, the office of the preachers demands that they preach against such antinomies. And Magister Eisleben cannot use this for a private prosecution. From this it is clear that Doctor Martinus did him no injustice on account of this article. ... Therefore, we ask that he be held to it, so that he does not prove to the doctor that he has done him wrong. The secular commissioners agreed with this judgment of the theologians, and they presented it to the Elector as their own. 3)
. 1) That this judgment of the Wittenberg theologians is correct is shown by Luther's own marginal note to the theses Col. 1627 f. (compare the note there): "They [the 2nd and 3rd Theses] are also not interpreted to Eisleben, but to others, as, his students, as the title indicates," namely the superscription set by Luther: "Likewise others [Antinomians teach]. We have returned here to the subject already discussed in order to defend the Wittenberg theologians against the accusation raised by Kawerau (I. e. p. 205, note): "This prevarication, frequently put forward as Luther's excuse, was, according to his own testimony, a falsehood." If Kawerau, in order to prove this accusation, refers to Luther's writing against the antinomians, which "should hit Agricola in full force," he is mistaken. For the title of this writing: "Against the Antinomians" proves that it should not only hit "such game beginners and masters", but also his followers and disciples, who drew conclusions from Agricola's teaching, which he himself either did not draw, or even disapproved of and detested.
2) This passage indicates that the Commission also heard Luther about what he had to say about Eisleben's complaints. On the other hand, Luther seems to have spoken about this matter in writing only "after this interrogation" (Col. 1654), that is, after the verdict passed on June 8; therefore, and because he already had Agricola's "Declaratio" in his hands, we place his "report" after June 8.
3) The assumption of Bretschneider, Corp. Ill, 1035, that the secular councilors had written this concern is, as Förstemann I. o. p. 334 states, erroneous.
Brück also requested a written report from Luther on what he had to say about Eisleben's complaint and handed him the "Principalartikel" 4) for this purpose, which Agricola had handed over to the Commission before June 8. Luther sent his report full of M. Joh. Eisleben's false teachings and shameful deeds; in addition, an answer to his unfounded complaint against Luther (No. 32 in this volume) in the first half of June 5) to Chancellor Brück, who either on June 15 (or shortly before) reported to the Elector on the state of the matter. The Commission had not been able to bring about the desired settlement between Lnther and Agricola, because the latter insisted on his request (at the end of his "Declaratio"): "one should not burden him with what he does not owe". 6) Therefore, on June 15, 1540, the Elector informed the Commissars that he was of the opinion "that the matters must be brought to legal execution", 7) i.e. that the matter was to be settled by legal means, and ordered them to "appoint a legal date for Agricola to sue". Until this date, Agricola should either "send himself for settlement and reconciliation [with Luther]" or "bring his suit in a legal as well as articulate manner ... clearly and differently in writings". This order was communicated to Agricola by the Commissars on June 20, 8); in his written answer of June 21, Agricola insisted "that violence and injustice be done to him," and "insisted
4) Förstemann I. 6. p. 337 ff.
5) Perhaps this "Bencht" was already before the Commission on June 8. However, it is mentioned for the first time in the rescript of the Elector to his commissioners of June 15, 1540. Förstemann I. o. p. 339a, No. 23.
6) Förstemann I. c. S. 339 d, No. 22 at the end.
7) Ibiä. S. 339a, No. 23.
8) On June 27th, they report to the Elector that "today eight days have passed" they reported to M. Eisleben the Elector's order and that he had "soon the next day" delivered this writing, etc. What is meant is "Agricola's explanation of the Elector's order held out to him", Förstemann I. o. p. 340, No. 24. Förstemann places this "after June 21 and before June 27, 1540". From the words quoted above, however, it is certain that Agricola's "answer" must be dated June 21. That this answer is meant, proves the words repeated from the same: "he wants to bite into a sour apple".
then about the fourth day". Now the Elector decided "to take matters in hand against him and to carry them out in such a way that he and others would henceforth be afraid of such peculiar and repugnant ungodly teachings, ... to continue to follow the matters duly and to have him, that he had spoken and taught repugnantly of the articles touched upon, and thus to have him convicted of the deed, if it is possible". Therefore, in a letter 1) of July 10, 1540, he requested Count Albrecht of Mansfeld "to have his preachers and other servants and subjects inquire" what Agricola had taught in Mausfeld, "so that one could come to correct articles and further actions against him all the more effectively. The plaintiff had now become a defendant, for whose conviction testimonies were collected. Agricola himself realized that a detailed investigation would not be very favorable for him, and in the meantime he had looked around for other accommodations. Since during this time he had been asked by the councilors of the Electorate of Brandenburg, on behalf of Joachim II, whether he would not like to come to Berlin, on July 15, 1540, he first indicated this to the bailiff Bernhard von Mila with the request that he might inquire of the Elector "what he should do". When he did not receive an answer within a month, he decided to break his promise and escaped to Brandenburg on August 15, 1540.
On September 10, 1540, there was another dispute against the antinomians. The theses of this sixth disputation of Luther (Col. 1647) were defended by M. Joachim Mörlin from Wittenberg, under the chairmanship of Luther, in order to be admitted to the doctorate.
Even in Agricola's new place of residence, his existence depended on his being reconciled with the Wittenbergers and unanimous in his teaching. The Elector Joachim II himself was most eager to get the matter on track. Luther made three conditions: First, that Agricola retract his complaint; second, that he issue a public retraction of his false doctrine and address it to those at Eisleben; third, that
1) The same is found in Förstemann I. c, p. 343.
he would retract his scolding of Luther's writing against the antinomians. Agricola satisfied these conditions. He wrote a retraction, 2) which he sent to the Wittenbergers on December 9, 1540. After they had approved it, he had it printed and sent a copy of this "Confession and Confession of Johannis Agricola Eisleben, from the Law of God" 3) to the Elector on January 20, 1541, with a letter in which he asked for forgiveness. In the answer of the Elector 4) of February 28, 1541, he was once again reproached for his infidelity, which he had been guilty of by breaking his vow, but he received the promise that he should have security and a passport in the Electoral and Ducal Saxon lands.
Furthermore, Agricola did not present any more antinomian teachings and "Luther's Report" (No. 32) would probably never have been published in print if Agricola had not played an extremely sad role in the negotiations about the union with the Roman Church (Augsburg Interim). This is probably the reason why this work was first printed in 1549. The words of the title "and shameful deed" should express: that Agricola, the ungrateful man, sued his benefactor and preceptor Luther before the Elector. He died in 1566 as court preacher in Berlin.
II. Controversial Writings Against Schwenkfeld, Anabaptists and Other Enthusiasts.
In the sacrament controversy, besides Carlstadt, Zwingli and Oecolampad, we also encounter the names of the Silesians Valentin Krautwald and Caspar Schwenkfeld (von Ossig), who twisted the words of institution in this way: "My body, which is given for you, is this, namely spiritual food." 5) Luther complained in
2) Initially, Agricola also tried to adorn himself here by pretending that he had only presented his doctrine "disputation-wise". But he had to change this and acknowledge and revoke his earlier errors without further ado.
3) Printed in Förstemann l. c. p. 349 f.
4) Ibid. S. 352.
5) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 128, with the wrong timing: "Wednesday after Palmarum" instead of "Tuesday" (March 27).
In a letter to Spalatin of March 27, 1526, he wrote that they tormented him excessively with their books and were also very burdensome to him because of their chattiness. Namely, Schwenkfeld, after Carlstadt had come out with his error, also wrote a book on the Sacrament, which he personally presented to Luther during a visit to Wittenberg at the end of 1525. 1) The latter sent his book back to him after a few months, on April 14, 1526, together with an admonition to Caspar Schwenkfeld to desist from his error (No. 33 in this volume). Schwenkfeld, however, did not only persist in this error, but also brought many other delusions on the way, concerning the person of Christ, with which he turned to Luther in a letter dated October 12, 1543 2) and asked him to examine his teachings and to condemn him no longer without reason. On November 8, the books of Schwenkfeld were delivered to Luther. The verdict about Schwenkfeld, which Luther filled that day in the circle of friends, and Luther's answer to Schwenkfeld's messenger (No. 34 in this volume) show us with what indignation 3) Luther confronted such enthusiasts. The false doctrine presented by Schwenkfeld gave him cause for the "Disputation that in Christ the divine and human natures are united in such a way that Christ is only one person" (1543), which is printed in the 10th volume of the St. Louis edition, Col. 1140 ff. At the beginning of Luther's short confession of Holy Communion (No. 47 in this volume), Luther speaks about the use Schwenkfeld made of his "Letter to the Messenger".
At the beginning of 1532, prompted by the prowling and unauthorized intrusion of the Anabaptists, Luther wrote his letter to Eberhard von der Tann on the prowlers and angle preachers (No. 35 in this volume), in which he advises that the Anabaptists should not be allowed to take advantage of their influence,
1) Compare the last note to No. 33.
2) Kolde, Xnalketa, p. 392: "in Schwenkfelds Dpistolar. (1870) II, 701 ff."
3) This expression seems to be more appropriate than the one used by Köstlin, Martin Luther. Bd. II, p. 590: "passionately coarse".
that one should insist to such people that they must prove their profession, because no one can have a preaching ministry without command and profession.
In the same year 1532, perhaps in April, Luther sent a letter to Margrave Albrecht of Brandenburg, Duke of Prussia, (No. 36 in this volume) in response to an inquiry by the prince about the sacrament and the proper understanding of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of Saint John. He admonishes the duke not to tolerate in his country such people who cause all kinds of disagreement and red tape over the text.
Similarly, on October 9, 1532, Luther exhorted in a letter to the Counts of Schlick to keep Jáchymov clean of swarmers (No. 37 in this volume), whereupon the Counts shortly issued a mandate against the swarmers.
When the preacher of Münster, Bernhard Rothmann, let a book "Restitutio", which was full of blasphemy and seditious teachings, go out, Melanchthon, on the other hand, in the first half of the year 1535, made several propositions against the teachings of the Anabaptists (No. 38 in this volume). There are four pieces against which he directs his attack, namely, 1. that they teach that before the last day there will be an outward bodily kingdom of Christ on earth, in which the pious will rule and destroy all godless princes by force; 2. that they teach that the subjects of the church are to be the rulers of the world; and 3. that they teach that the rulers of the church are to be the rulers of the world. That they teach that the subjects shall resist their authorities and overthrow them; 3. That they teach that their preachers shall take up the sword and overthrow ungodly authorities; 4. That they teach that in their new church there shall be none ungodly, but all holy and pure. Another redaction of this writing, provided with Melanchthon's preface and somewhat more detailed, 4) is No. 40 in this volume: Wider das gotteslästerliche und schändliche Buch, so zu Münster im Druck lulich ausgegangen ist, etliche Propositiones gestellt durch Philipp Melanchthon.
4) Compare the note to the caption of No.40,
Now, because one of these two redactions is completely dispensable, we have omitted the former and retained only the number and title so as not to confuse the count.
A paper entitled "Neue Zeitung von den Wiedertäufern zu Münster" (No. 39 in this volume), which reports on the life and activities of the Anabaptists in Münster in the late year of 1534, was prefaced by Luther (probably at the beginning of 1535) and printed.
Even before the fall of the city of Münster, i.e. in the first half of 1535, Nicolaus Amsdorf's final speeches against the Anabaptists and Sacramentarians appeared (No. 43 in this volume); on the other hand, after the conquest of Münster (June 25, 1535), Melanchthon's publication of several unchristian articles, which the Anabaptists claimed (No. 41 in this volume). This writing is assigned by some to the year 1535, by others to the year 1536; likewise Melanchthon's teaching against the doctrine of the Anabaptists (No. 42 in this volume). In 1536, Melanchthon's concern appeared that secular authorities were obliged to defend the Anabaptists with corporal punishment (No. 44).
In Freiberg, a preacher had crept in who persuaded the people that it was not necessary for them to go to Leisnig to hear the sermon and receive the Sacrament there (because in Freiberg, which was under the control of Duke George, neither the Gospel was allowed to be preached nor the Sacrament to be administered in both forms), but that every landlord could administer the Sacrament in his house. Therefore, on February 11, 1536, Luther sent a warning to Lorenz Castner and his comrades at Freiberg to beware of angle preachers (No. 45 in this volume).
In 1544, Luther wrote a preface to Justus Menius' book on the spirit of the Anabaptists, which is included in No. 46 of this volume.
Luther learned that Schwenkfeld spread the letter, which he had addressed to his messenger (No. 34 in this volume), "to his honor and glory" and to Luther's "disgrace and shame". This caused him in 1544, at the end of September ("as I now go to the pit"), before his end, to once again issue a short confession of the Holy Sacrament against the enthusiasts (no. 47 in this volume). 47 in this volume), in order to "bring this testimony and this glory," he says, "with me before the judgment seat of my dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that I have condemned and shunned with all earnestness the swarmers and enemies of the Sacrament, Carlstadt, Zwingel, Oecolampad, Steukefeld [Schwenkfeld] and their disciples at Zurich and where they are, according to his command, Tit. 3, 10. For Schwenkfeld's sake alone Luther would not have written, but word came to Luther many times "as if the enthusiasts should boast that he was one with them." In addition, in the summer of 1544, the draft of the Reformation, which Bucer and Melanchthon had written for the Archbishop of Cologne, had come into his hands. 1) Luther judged this book as follows: 2) "It [the book] has long been full of talk about the benefit, fruit, and honor of the sacrament, but it mumbles about the substance, so that one should not hear what it thinks of it, in all measure as the enthusiasts do; - nowhere does it want to come out, whether there is real body and blood, received orally". Therefore, he testifies again in this writing that he has never had anything in common with the false doctrine of the heretics, nor does he want to have anything in common with it now.
1) Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. II, p. 591.
2) In the letter to Brück (July or August 1544), Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 486 f.
Third Section.