LUTHER (Vol. 1-6). Grisar Hartmann
and emphasises in general terms the duty of charity which forbids schism without due cause! This statement has been erroneously regarded by Catholics as an admission of the Primacy by Luther, as a “wonderful confession which the evidence of the facts wrung from the heretic.” With respect to this explanation, which, as Luther himself says, was destined for the “simple people,” Köstlin-Kawerau’s “Luther-Biographie,” 1, p. 227, says: “In this way did Luther fulfil his promise [to Miltitz] of exhorting to obedience to Rome. He exhorts to submission to this power because, according to him, it merely extends to externals. With regard to anything further, its origin, its character, and its extent, he reserves to himself and to learned men generally, liberty of judgment. Of the important assertions which he had already made on this point in various passages in his works, none are here withdrawn.” And yet, in this remarkable document composed at the instigation of Miltitz, he calls himself “a submissive and obedient son of the Holy Christian Churches in which, by God’s help, I will die,” and declares: “I may say with a clear conscience that I have never imagined anything [hostile] with regard to the Papacy or its power.” He is, nevertheless, as he even there states, sure of his own “rock,” and ready to stand up for it like Paul, Athanasius, and Augustine, even though he should be left quite alone. God is able to speak through one against all, even as He once spoke through the mouth of a she-ass.
[943] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 163. On the date see Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 258.
[944] Ibid.
[945] Luther to Spalatin, January 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 351.
[946] Ibid.
[947] Luther to the Duke, May 16, 1519, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. III., No. 830 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 52). The Duke to Luther, May 23, 1519, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 59. Cp. “Akten und Briefe zur Kirchen politik Herzog Georgs von Sachsen,” ed. F. Gess, Leipzig, Bd. 1, 1905, p. 85.
[948] Luther to Spalatin, January, 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 350.
[949] In his pamphlet against Luther, “A venatione Luteriana Ægocerotis Assertio,” end November, 1519. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 225, n. 8. Cf. “An den Stier zu Wittenberg.” No place or year (1520, or beginning 1521). Fol. Aij, 6.
[950] “Auff des Stiers tzu Wittenberg Wiettende Replica,” Leipzig, 1521, Aiiij., Enders, ibid.
[951] Ibid., fol. A, 3´.
[952] “An den Stier zu Wittenberg,” fol. A, 2.
[953] “Auff des Bocks zu Leypczick Antwort,” 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 27, 206 ff.
[954] “Auff des Stiers tzu Wittenberg Wiettende Replica,” fol. A, 3´.
[955] “Auff des Bocks,” etc., “Werke,” Erl. ed., n. 27, p. 208 f.
[956] Sess. 6, c. 8.
[957] Ibid., cap. ix., Contra inanem fiduciam.
[958] See the letter above, p. 15. On Usingen, see his Life, by N. Paulus, p. 17.
[959] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 215.
[960] Ibid., p. 132.
[961] Ibid., p. 124.
[962] In De servo arbitrio, “Werke,” Weim ed., 18, p. 719.
[963] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 180.
[964] Ibid., p. 181.
[965] F. Loofs, “Leitfaden der Dogmengesch.,” 4, p. 711, lays stress on passages quoted by Denifle, but admits (p. 721) that they are “not so clear.” The same applies to the passages quoted above, p. 261.
[966] Cp. K. Stange, “Die ersten ethischen Disputationen Luthers” (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” No. 1), p. 54.
[967] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 540 f.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 152 seq.
[968] Cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 542. “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 156: “Cui (sacerdoti absolventi) qui crediderit cum fiducia, vere obtinuit pacem et remissionem apud Deum; id est certus fit, se esse absolutum, non rei sed fidei certitudine propter infallibilem misericordiam promittentis sermonem Quodcunque solveris,” etc. “Sic Ro. V. Iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius, pacem habemus ad Deum per fidem, non utique per rem.”
[969] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 541.
[970] Ibid., p. 629 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 378 seq.
[971] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 557; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 179 seq. No reason can be advanced against the application of this passage to Luther himself except that the formula he employs, Novi hominem (cp. 2 Cor xii. 2: “Scio hominem in Christo ... raptum”), he also once makes use of in an account given of another person. This circumstance, however, does not invalidate the reference to his own person, which is apparent from the whole context. It is true, however, that Luther does not directly refer to himself. The Protestant historians, J. Köstlin, W. Köhler, W. Braun, G. Kawerau, etc., also refer the passage to Luther himself. The last-named historian says, in the “Deutsch-Evangelische Blätter,” 1906, p. 447, that this passage of the Resolutions gives an idea “of the night of the soul which he had experienced.”
[972] See volume vi., chapter xxxvi., “Dark side of the Life of the Soul,” 4, 5.
[973] “Werke,”