² Weimarer Ausgabe, 6, 347.

³ W. A. 6,584.18–585.5.

⁴ W. A. 6,431.26 ff.

⁵ W. A. 6, 433.

⁶ End. 3,90. Feb. 21, 1521.

⁷ W. A. 8, 673.

⁸ I have grouped passages from pp. 676, 677, and 680.

⁹ W. A. 10, II, 108, 1522.

¹⁰ Ibid. 140.

¹¹ H. Preuss, Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik, 1906, p. 165, note 2.

¹² Page 16, note 2.

¹³ Preuss' references are here given according to the latest editions. End. 3, 312, March 17, 1622; 3, 330, April 12, 1522; 3, 342, April 17,1522; 3, 406, June 27, 1522; E. A. 53, 143, July 10, 1522; End. 4, 227 f., September 7, 1523; Op. v. arg. VII, 2, comment End. 4, 260, before December 4, 1523.

¹⁴ End. 2, 463, August 19, 1520.

¹⁵ W. A. 18, 398.29 f., 1525.

¹⁶ W. A. 11, 336.22 f., condensed. Luther's whole attitude up to this tract is given by Lewin Reinhold, Luthers Stellung zu den Juden (diss.), Breslau, 1911.

¹⁷ W. A. 8, 411 and 476. The preface was ready November 1, 1521. On the whole question of the suppression of the mass at Wittenberg see Karl Müller, Luther und Karlstadt, I-III, cf. Tiling, ‘Der Kampf gegen die Missa Privata in Wittenberg im Herbst 1521,’ N. K. Z. 20,1909. Nikoläus Müller, Die Wittenberger Bewegung 1521 und 1522, 2nd ed., 1911, gives some valuable material for the events of 1524.

¹⁸ In the Eight Sermons. W. A. 10, III, 1–64, March 9–17, 1522. We have these only in the report of Aurifaber, but Luther worked them over in ‘Von beider Gestalt des Sakraments zu nehmen.’ W. A. 10, II, 11–41, April 1522.

¹⁹ W. A. 10, III, 9.31 f.

²⁰ Ibid. 17.20 f.

²¹ Ibid. 18.4 f.

²² Ibid. 32, condensed.

²³ Ibid. 20.31.

²⁴ Ibid. 33.21.

²⁵ Ibid. 18.28 f.

²⁶ W. A. 10, II, 37.

²⁷ W. A. 6, 258 f.

²⁸ W. A. 8, 475.20 f.

²⁹ Through Spalatin. End. 3, 250, November 22, 1521; End. 4, 46–47, before December 25,1522; End. 4, 53 f., January 2, 1523. Evans is wrong in his comment on ‘Vom Greuel der Stillmesse,’ 1525, when he says, ”Coercion is not, it must be clearly understood, to be applied by the hand of the prince.”

³⁰ Utinam istas missas saltern Princeps intermitteret, quas quotidie e Camerae stipendio alit. End. 4, 54.

³¹ End. 4, 89 f., March 1, 1523.

³² Erlanger Ausgabe, 53, 178 f., July 11, 1523.

³³ Page 5.

³⁴ End. 3, 292.13, end of February 1522.

³⁵ E. A. 53, 107, March 5, 1522. Cf. K. Müller, Kirche, Gemeinde u. Obrigkeit, pp. 25 and 27.

³⁶ See End. 4, 176 f.

³⁷ W. A. 12, 647 f. See Buchwald in T. S. K., 1884 and 1885.

³⁸ End. 4, 211, condensed.

³⁹ End. 5, 54, November 17, text in E. A. 53, 269.

^39a Seckendorf, Commentarius historicus de Lutheranismo, 1694, I, p. 276.

⁴⁰ C. A. H. Burckhardt, Dr. Martin Luthere Briefwechsel, p. 76, November 24.

⁴¹ W. A. 15, 774. The sermon is based on the notes of a hearer, but Luther worked it over and said practically the same thing in Vom Greuel der Stillmesse, W. A. 18, 36.

⁴² Walch, 19, 1453.

⁴³ Seckendorf, loc. cit.

⁴⁴ Luther to Amsdorf, “Canonicos nostros perpulimus tandem, ut consentiant missas esse abrogandas”; End. 5,80, Dec. 2, 1524. The dean of the smaller choir informed the elector on December 24 that he had learned by daily investigation that the mass was indefensible; Nikoläus Müller, Die Wittenberger Bewegung 1521 und 1522, p. 257. The clergy as a whole recognized that the said abuses are a horrid blasphemy; Walch, 19, 1457–58. The sources for the whole incident are reviewed in the introduction to Vom Greuel der Stillmesse, W. A. 18, 8–11.

⁴⁵ Theodor Kolde, Friedrich der Weise und die Anfänge der Reformation, 1881, p. 35, “nicht ohne Vergewaltigung.” Paulus, p. 8; Burr, 722; Evans, 114. Professor Burr writes me that he thinks his language was “too unqualified.” His kind suggestions have led me to revise my own expressions.

⁴⁶ W. A. 12, 600.38. See Burr, 720, note 7; Evans, 104, note 14; cf. W. A. 40, 1, 138. 1–2 and 13–15.

⁴⁷ The connection is emphasized by Paulus, p. 25, note 3, and Burr, loc. cit.

⁴⁸ W. A. 1, 391.35–392.3, June 1518, condensed.

⁴⁹ W. A. 1, 624.35–625.5, June 1518.

⁵⁰ W. A. 6, 455.22–25, August 1520, p. 392.

⁵¹ End. 3, 286, January 17, 1522.

⁵² W. A. 11, 263.7–265.3.

⁵³ E. A. 53, 265–268, August 21, 1524.

⁵⁴ Karlstadt, II, 139.

⁵⁵ Luther und Karlstadt, 178.

⁵⁶ For the charges and a criticism of them, see W. A. 18, 93 and 138 and notes.

⁵⁷ E. A. 53, 324, July 20, 1525.

⁵⁸ End. 5, 271, November 11, 1525, condensed.

⁵⁹ W. A. 11, 264.6–7.

⁶⁰ ‘Schwachheit,’ ‘Schalkheit.’ E. A. 53, 393, 1526.

⁶¹ W. A. 19, 443.7–10, probably composed in 1525, but not published until 1526.

⁶² E. A. 53, 367. To the elector, February 9, 1526, condensed.

⁶³ W. A. 19, 268, April 1526, condensed.

⁶⁴ Sehling, E. K. O., I, 143–144, June 16, 1527.

⁶⁵ End. 6, 299, July 14, 1588, condensed.

⁶⁶ Wappler, Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse, Anhang 1, Nr. 1, cf. pp. 8–11.

⁶⁷ Melanchthon composed the articles, but the provision was included on Luther's recommendation. End. 6,170; W. A. 26, 185 and 214; Sehling, E. K. O. 1, 159.

⁶⁸ W. A. 26, 145.22–146.7.

⁶⁹ April 23, 1529. Wappler, Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse, 56.

⁷⁰ End. 7, 150 and 151, August 26, 1529; cf. E. A. 54, 258, September 14, 1531, where banishment is the penalty for failure to learn the catechism.

⁷¹ ‘Seditiosissimi’. End. 7, 236, to Menius and Mykonius commending their plan to write against the Anabaptists. When the work appeared, Luther wrote a preface, W. A. 20, II, 211 f., but neither Luther nor Menius is specific as to penalties. Menius’ tract is in the Wittenberg edition of Luther's German works, 1551, vol. II, pp. 299b-301a.

⁷² End. 7, 357, June 1.

⁷³ End. 8, 163, August 3.

⁷⁴ W. A. 31, 1, 207. 33f.

⁷⁵ W. A. 6, 229.7, 1520; cf. Völker, 91, Paulus, 36, note 4.

⁷⁶ W. A. 31, 1, 209.4 f.

⁷⁷ Ibid. 213.19 f.

⁷⁸ Ibid. 212.4.

⁷⁹ Ibid. 208.11 f.

⁸⁰ Ibid. 211.11 f.

⁸¹ W. A. 30, III, 282, 1531.

⁸² C. R. IV, 739–740; Wappler, Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse, 61–62; Paulus, 41–43.

⁸³ W. A. 50, 11.32–12.2.

⁸⁴ End. 9, 365, 1533.

⁸⁵ E. A. 55, 140, June 4.

⁸⁶ See note 67.

⁸⁷ End. 10, 275, beginning of December 1535.

⁸⁸ 1536; see Paulus. 18.

⁸⁹ E. A.¹ 26, 181, 1545.

⁹⁰ Ibid. 155.

⁹¹ Ibid. 208. I have used the first edition, not having had access to the second, which Paulus used.

⁹² W. A. 30, III, 551.20 f., 1532.

⁹³ Ibid. 552.32–33, cf. 562.6.

⁹⁴ W. A. 30, III, 561.11 f., 1533.

⁹⁵ E. A. 32, 403–404, 1544, condensed.

⁹⁶ End. 15, 219, August 31, 1543.

⁹⁷ E. A. 32, 99–274, 1542. These sentences are taken from different parts of the tract. For the heart of it see the summary beginning p. 252.

⁹⁸ Allen, 105.

⁹⁹ W. A. 30, 1, 349.

¹⁰⁰ Wappler, Die Stellung Kursachsens, Exkurs, 123 f.; Paulus, 43.

¹⁰¹ W. A. 51,173–187.

¹⁰² For a list of German authors, see Wappler, loc. cit. Boehmer does not appeal to this sermon in the 5th edition. Among English authors are J. W. Allen, 105, and R. H. Murray, 272.

¹⁰³ Paulus, 56–57; Faulkner, 153; Wappler, Die Stellung Kursachsens, 125–126.

¹⁰⁴ W. A. 51, 184.4, 19, 37.

¹⁰⁵ W. A. 1, 625.5, 19 f., 1518; cf. End.1, 77, 1516; 3, 176, 1521.

¹⁰⁶ E. A.² 4, 290–292.

¹⁰⁷ E. A.² 1,189 and 196–197.

¹⁰⁸ W. A. 38, 348.30–349.6.

^108a On Luther and mysticism see the following:

Hering, Hermann, Die Mystik Luthers, 1879.

Hunziger, ‘Luther und die deutsche Mystik,’ N. K. Z., 1908, pp. 972–988.

Ihringer, Bernhahd, Der Schuldbegriff bei den Mystikern der Reformationzeit, 1912.

Müller, A. V., Luther und Tauler, 1918.

Smith, P., ‘Luther's Doctrine of Justification by Faith,’ H. T. R., 1913, pp. 407–425.

Scheel, Otto, ‘Taulers Mystik und Luthers reformatorische Entdeckung,’ in Festgabe für Kaftan, 1920.

Ritschl (Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, 4th ed., 1903, 129, note 1) complained that Hering was not sufficiently acquainted with the history of mysticism to know what was specifically mystic. But that does not invalidate his judgment as to what was not mystic. For the contrast between Luther and the mystics he is still useful. He finds in Luther the influence of Latin mysticism from 1513 to 1515, and of German mysticism beginning in 1515, reaching the high-water mark from 1517 to 1519, and declining during 1521 and 1522 (p. 292).

A. V. Müller finds nearly all of Luther in Tauler, but admits that for Tauler the value of works depended on love, for Luther on faith (p. 70). Scheel goes to the other extreme and denies that Luther could have been led by Tauler to adopt the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, since Tauler did not go that way himself (p. 310). But Scheel has to admit that Luther learned from the mystics the need of direct contact with God (Luthers Stellung zur heiligen Schrift, p. 21). Hunziger (p. 980) and P. Smith (p. 419) contend that Tauler turned the tide by teaching Luther the need of passivity.

Very valuable are the works dealing with Luther's position as to the relation of the Word and the Spirit:

Grützmacher. Richard H., Wort und Geist, 1902.

Locher, J. C. S., De Leer van Luther over Gods Woord, 1903.

Makonier, J. H., Het Inwendig Woord, 1890.

Otto, Rudolf, Die Anschauung vom heiligen Geiste bei Luther, 1898.

Maronier makes the interesting suggestion that there is a connection between Luther's breach with mysticism, humanism, and tolerance in 1525. See pp. 19–20 and 128.

¹⁰⁹ W. A. 18, 309–310, 1525.

¹¹⁰ W. A. 19, 263, 1526.

¹¹¹ W. A. 51, 484–485, 1541.

¹¹² E. A. 18, 65, 1537.

¹¹³ W. A. 10, III, 3–5, 1522.

¹¹⁴ See notes 247–252.

¹¹⁵ W. A. 11, 264, 1523.

¹¹⁶ W. A. 11, 264.7–9.

¹¹⁷ Ibid. 268.27–28.

¹¹⁸ Ibid. 269.21 f.

¹¹⁹ E. A. 58, 148, July 10, 1522.

¹²⁰ Kühn, 85.

¹²¹ W. A. 18, 359.26 f., 1525.

¹²² E. A. 19, 268, 1532.

¹²³ Grützmacher, 12.

¹²⁴ Otto, 62–63.

¹²⁵ W. A. 51, 521.19–23, 1541.

¹²⁶ W. A. 31, I, 208.11 f. Kühn (p. 107) contends that Luther was not concerned for the creed, but only for that in the creed which was to him religously vital. But why did he mention it at all?

¹²⁷ C. R. 12, 7. Melanchthon, writing in 1558, said “about” twenty years ago. The reliability of the passage has been impugned. For a vindication see Tschackert, Die Entstehung der lutherischen und der reformierten Kirchenlehre, § 90.

¹²⁸ G. Rietschel, Luther und die Ordination, 2nd ed., 1889, made the assertion on the basis of this passage, C. R. 12,7. To be sure Melanchthon referred to the example of the early church in applying a creedal test to ministers, but the contemporary situation had to do with the university. Nolumus docentes a confessione nostra dissentire, p. 6. In hac Academia et coniunctis Ecclesiis, p. 7.

¹²⁹ E. A. 55, 57–58, June 30, 1534.

¹³⁰ W. A. 50, 470.1–5, 1539.

¹³¹ End. 12, 354, January 18, 1540.

¹³² Luthers Stellung zur Heiligen Schrift, 1903, p. 32.

¹³³ W. A. 6, 561.25.

¹³⁴ W. A. 8, 411, November 1, 1521.

¹³⁵ W. A. 10, II, 90.8 f., finished May 29, 1522.

¹³⁶ End. 3, 275.129–137, January 13, 1522.

¹³⁷ W. A. 26, 167–168, 1528.

¹³⁸ End. 9, 157 dates February or March 1532. Text in W.A. 30, III, 552.9–14, and E. A. 54, 288.

¹³⁹ On this topic see the following:

Brandenburg, Erich, ‘Martin Luthers Anschauung von Staat und Gesellschaft,’ Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, Nr. 70, 1901, pp. 1–30.

Drews, Paul, ‘Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers?’ Z. T. K., Ergänzungsheft, 1908.

Foerster, Erich, ‘Fragen zur Luthers Kirchenbegriff aus der Gedankenwelt seines Alters,’ in Festgabe für Dr. Julius Kaftan, 1920.

Hermelink, H., ‘Zu Luthers Gedanken über Idealgemeinden und von weltlicher Obrigkeit,’ Z. K. G., 1908, 267 f.

Holl, Karl, Luther Aufsätze: Luther und das landeskirchliche Kirchenregiment, 1923, 326 f.

Kattenbusch, F., ‘Die Doppelschichtigkeit in Luther's Kirchenbegriff,’ T. S. K., vol. 100, Lutherana V, 1928, 197–347.

Köhler, Walther, ‘Entstehung der reformatio ecclesiarum Hassiae von 1526,’ D. Z. K. R., XVI, 1906.

‘Zu Luthers Kirchenbegriff,’ C. W., 1907, 371–377.

Meinecke, Friedrich, ‘Luther über christliches Gemeinwesen und christlichen Staat,’ H. Z., 1920,1–22.

Müller, Karl, Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit, 1910. The fullest and most satisfactory discussion. Summarized in C. W., 1910, 510 f., and 525 f.

Rieker, Karl, Die rechtliche Stellung der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands, 1893.

Sohm, Rudolf, Kirchenrecht, Bd. I, 1892, 461 f.

¹⁴⁰ W. A. 6, 292.36 f.

¹⁴¹ W. A. 11, 251.35 f.

¹⁴² W. A. 19, 73. Hermelink, Z. K. G., 1908, 292, finds a survival of such views until the year 1530.

¹⁴³ Stressed by Ernst Rietschel, ‘Luthers Anschauung von der Unsichtbarkeit und Sichtbarkeit der Kirche,’ T. S. K., No. 73, 1900, pp. 404–456.

¹⁴⁴ End. 3, 320–321, March 26, 1522.

¹⁴⁵ W. A. 12, 485.5, 1523.

¹⁴⁶ W. A. 19, 75.

¹⁴⁷ Stressed by Hermelink, Z. K. G., 1908, 311. He goes too far in that he deprives the congregational ideal of all significance for Luther, and contrasts merely the apocalyptic and neoplatonic conception of the church with the territorial. The apocalyptic probably had some effect, but it recurred in the later Luther without changing his view of the church, cf. pp. 291–292.

¹⁴⁸ W. A. 11, 411.13 f., 1523.

¹⁴⁹ W. Köhler, D. Z. K. R., 1906, 217–218, and C. W. 1907, 376.

¹⁵⁰ E. A. 53, 399, March 29, 1527.

¹⁵¹ So Brandenburg, Drews, and Holl.

¹⁵² Unsere verordenten visitatores, Sehling, E. K. O., I, 142.

¹⁵³ Ibid. 150.

¹⁵⁴ Holl, p. 375.

¹⁵⁵ Rieker, Sohm, and Foerster contended that for Luther the magistrate was bound to serve the church because of his baptism into the corpus christianum. This view was opposed by Brandenburg, Drews, and Holl, who would have the magistrate act only as a Christian believer. Meinecke said that for Luther the corpus christianum survived in the territorial church, but it is not easy to decide in what capacity the magistrate acts.

¹⁵⁶ Georg Rietschel, Luther und die Ordination, 2nd ed., 1889, chap. 1.

¹⁵⁷ W. A. 11, 412–413, cf. W. A. 12, 171–189, 1523.

¹⁵⁸ E. A. 53, 255, August 14, 1524.

¹⁵⁹ W. A. 18, 96.27 f., 1525.

¹⁶⁰ W. A. 17, 1, 361–362, 1525.

¹⁶¹ W. A. 27, 285.25 f.

¹⁶² W. A. 31, 1, 224, cf. 32, 386 f.

¹⁶³ W. A. 31, 1, 211.7,1530.

¹⁶⁴ E. A. 48, 139–140.

¹⁶⁵ End. 9, 129, November 27.

¹⁶⁶ W. A. 32, 529.17 f., 1530–32.

¹⁶⁷ Ibid., 528.35 f.

¹⁶⁸ W. A. 52, 310.28 f., 1544.

¹⁶⁹ W. A. 52, 759.21 f., 1541. G. Wünsch, Die Bergpredigt bei Luther, p. 102*, who collects these passages, misinterprets the last as if it meant “dass Amt allein noch nicht die rechte Autorität mache, wenn die Person schlecht sei.”

¹⁷⁰ W. A. 6, 407.10 f.

¹⁷¹ W. A. 30, II, 554.20 f., 1530.

¹⁷² End. 15, 100, January 27, 1543, condensed.

¹⁷³ Karl Müller, ‘Luthers Äusserungen über das Recht des bewaffneten Widerstands gegen den Kaiser,’ in Sitzungsberichte, Munich Academy, philos.-philol. und hist. Kl., 8. Abh., 1915, p. 28.

¹⁷⁴ This is the justification for Holl's statement that what distinguished Luther from the ‘Schwärmer ‘was his ‘Schuldgefühl (p. 447). Too much should not be made of this, for the mystics had a decided ‘Schuldbegriff.’ See Ihringer.

¹⁷⁵ Dilthey emphasized the ‘Opfertod Christi’ as the distinguishing difference. ‘Auffassung und Analyse der Menschen im 15. und 16. Jahrh.,’ Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 1892, 360.

¹⁷⁶ W. A. 1, 12.29 f., 1512; W. A. 6, 581.11 f., 1520; E. A. 53, 265, 1524.

¹⁷⁷ The teaching of the ‘Verdienst Christi’ may not be a very prominent element in Luther's theology, but it is there. J. Köstlin, Luthers Theologie, 2nd ed., II, 160; Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, 4th ed., 155 and 230 ff.; R. Seeberg, Textbook of the History of Doctrines, 1905, § 67, 9.

¹⁷⁸ Cited by A. V. Müller, 82–83.

¹⁷⁹ See the following:

Fullerton, Kemper, ‘Luther's Doctrine and Criticism of Scripture,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, LXIII, 1906, 1–34 and 284–299.

Harnack, Adolf Von, Dogmengeschichte, 2nd ed., III, 724 and 728.

Holi, Karl, ‘Luther's Bedeutung für den Fortschritt der Auslegungskunst,’ in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, I, Luther, 1923, 544–582.

Howorth, Henry H., ‘The Origin and Authority of the Biblical Canon according to the Continental Reformers. I. Luther and Karlstadt,’ Journal of Theological Studies, April 1907, 321–365; ‘II. Luther, Zwingli, Lefèvre, and Calvin,’ January 1908, 188–230.

Köstlest, Julius, Luthers Theologie, 2nd ed., II, 31 f.

Kolmodin, A., Skriftens Auktoritet Enligt Luther, Stockholm, 1919.

Kunze, Johannes, Glaubensregel, Heilige Schrift und Taufbekenntnis, 1899, 479–525.

Locher, J. C. S., De Leer van Luther over Gods Woord, Amsterdam, 1903.

Mejssinger, K. A., Luthers Exegese in der Frühzeit, 1911.

Preuss, Hans, Die Entwicklung des Schriftprinzips bei Luther bis zur Leipziger Disputation, 1901.

Scheel, Otto, Luthers Stellung zur heiligen Schrift (Sammlung gemeinverständlicher Vorträge, 29), 1902.

Smith, Preserved, ‘The Methods of Reformation Interpreters of the Bible,’ Biblical World, October 1911, 235–245.

“The German Bible,’ in Martin Luther, 1911.

Thimme, Karl, Luthers Stellung zur Heiligen Schrift, 1903.

Tschackert, Paul, Die Entstehung der lutherischen und der reformierten Kirehenlehre, 1910, 56–71.

Undritz, Oskar, ‘Die Entwicklung des Schriftprinzips bei Luther in den Anfangsjahren der Reformation,’ N. K. Z., 1897, 568–620.

Opinion on Luther's attitude toward the Bible differs as to his primary interest, whether humanistic or religious, and as to his consistency and development. The development is fully recorded by Köstlin. Fullerton (295–297) recognizes a conflict between a free handling and a stress on formal authority, with increasing emphasis on the latter. Locher (47) similarly finds unresolved inconsistencies, with a greater stress in the later Luther on the unity of the Bible (174). Kolmodin and Holl make the predominant interest religious, with but slight change. Kolmodin (59–60) minimizes the changes on Revelation and James. So, too, Tschackert, who records the changes in a footnote without comment (62 note 1). Howorth, too, makes little of them (1907, 855, note 1). Kunze sees in Luther a humanist from the beginning to the end. Preuss and Thimme find a combination of the religious and humanistic approach. Preuss traces the progress only to 1519, but he remarks that Harnack makes the early Luther too liberal (99 notes 5 and 6). Thimme admits Luther's changes, but does not consider them particularly significant (66 and 87). Harnack and Smith (Martin Luther, 267) stress Luther's inconsistency, and Scheel, too, though he so emphasizes verbal inspiration that one feels the balance tipping in that direction. He cannot, of course, admit the humanist in Luther. Undritz goes only through 1521, and does not discuss the questions which are of interest here. Meissinger is concerned with Luther's scholarship.

I have not given references for the statements in the text, unless they are not in Fullerton, or are particularly important for the argument.

¹⁸⁰ Kolmodin, 59; Scheel, 48, who notes a slight criticism of 2 Peter.

¹⁸¹ Cf. Thimme, 53.

¹⁸² Meissinger, 42.

¹⁸³ E. A. 33, 24.

¹⁸⁴ Holl, 564, cites W. A. 15, 345.22 f.

¹⁸⁵ W. A. 30, II, 632 f. and especially 637.1 f.

¹⁸⁶ W. A. 30, III, 110.15 f. and 122.25, 1529.

¹⁸⁷ Kolmodin, note 124.

¹⁸⁸ J. J. Wettstein, Prolegomena in Novum Testamentum, p. 888. The statement is made by Castellio. I have not seen Osiander.

¹⁸⁹ W. A. 46, 726.11; Kolmodin, note 130.

¹⁹⁰ E. A. 63, 114.

¹⁹¹ E. A. 51, 324 f.

¹⁹² E. A. 52, 1 f.

¹⁹³ E. A. 8², 23; for notation see E. A. 7, XL.

¹⁹⁴ E. A. 63, 169–170.

¹⁹⁵ E. A. 63, 168–169.

¹⁹⁶ Thimme, 66 and 87.

¹⁹⁷ Luther appealed to Tit. 3, 10 and 1 Tim. 6, 20; W. A. 30, I, 209.7 f., 1530. Cf. W. A. 30, III, 549.30, 1532.

¹⁹⁸ W. A. 18, 75.11 f. and 358.33 f., 1525.

¹⁹⁹ W. A. 30, I, 209.4 f., 1530.

²⁰⁰ E. A. 54, 254, September 14, 1531.

²⁰¹ W. A. 51, 234.12 f., 1534–35.

²⁰² End. 4, 211.

²⁰³ Eugène Ehrhardt, La notion du droit naturel chez Luther, 297–298.

²⁰⁴ F. Kattenbusch, Luthers Stellung zu den oecumenischen Symbolen, 1883, 2.

²⁰⁵ References in H. C. Lea, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, I, 1922, 212–215, criticized by Vacandard, The Inquisition, 9th impression, 1926, 23; F. Ruffini, La Libertà Religiosa, 1901, 36–38, English translation, 1912, 33–36. For a detailed study see W. K Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code (Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Columbia University, vol. XXIV, No. 2), 1905.

²⁰⁶ For Donatism see the references given in notes 210 and 211. For Manicheism, C. R., III, 201. Servetus was accused of Manicheism, Calvini opera, VIII, 463 and 773, C. R., VIII, 520.

²⁰⁷ W. Köhler, Reformation und Ketzerprozess, 40, makes the statement that it was not Calvin but Servetus who appealed to the Roman law, and that the plea was promptly rejected because Geneva recognized only the Old Testament. On the contrary it was merely Servetus’ interpretation of the law which was rejected, in that he claimed that under Constantine banishment was the maximum penalty (C. R., VIII, 762). The procurator told him that the death-penalty had been exacted from Constantine to Justinian, and that he was guilty of various offenses enumerated in the imperial codes (771 f.). Servetus upbraided Calvin for relying on Justinian (797 f.).

²⁰⁸ Trechsel, Die Protestantischen Antitrinitarier, 1844, II, 328.

²⁰⁹ Johann Lorenz von Mosheim, Anderweitiger Versuch einer vollständigen und unpartheyischen Ketzergeschichte, 1748, 435–440.

²¹⁰ That is, the Theodosian code, C. R., II, 18, 712. He considered the penalties too severe, III, 242; IX, 1004; XII, 143.

²¹¹ C. R., IV. 789; III, 199.

²¹² W. A. 26, 200.31, 1528; W. A. 31, 1, 209.27, 1530.

²¹³ End. 8, 118, Brief 1718, note 3.

²¹⁴ End. 8, 137, July 27, 1530.

²¹⁵ W. A. 18, 399.26 f., condensed.

²¹⁶ E. A. 54, 113, November 23, 1529.

²¹⁷ End. 14, 350–352, October 27, 1542.

²¹⁸ End. 4, 211.31, August 19, 1523.

²¹⁹ Calvini opera, VIII, 477.

²²⁰ Contra libellum Calvini, 181–182, cf. 130.

²²¹ 1518, W. A. 1, 392.2, ‘Schriftlesteren’; 1519, End. 2, 113.878; 1520, End. 2, 510.45; W. A. 6, 348.8–10, 431.27.

²²² ‘Rottengeister,’ W. A. 16, 470.5, 1525.

²²³ W. A. 18, 319.22, 359.23, 1525.

²²⁴ End. 5, 385, 1526, cf. E. A. 32, 404, 1544.

²²⁵ End. 6, 263.14, May 12, 1528.

²²⁶ E. A. 32, 253, 1543.

^226a Papists, End. 4, 330.10, April 26, 1524; E. A. 53, 368, February 9, 1526; ‘Rotten,’ W. A. 17, I, 146.16, 1525; Carlstadt, W. A. 18, 207.21, 1525; Peasants, W. A. 18, 360.14, 1525; Sacramentarians, E. A. 32, 410–411. Luther had no doubt that Zwingli died in blasphemy. His followers are to be avoided as ‘autokatakritos,’ 1544.

²²⁷ E. A. 32, 246–247, 1543.

²²⁸ E. A. 54, 180, July 30, 1530.

²²⁹ E. A.² 2, 54, 1534.

²³⁰ W. A. 51, 497.25–29, 1541.

²³¹ End. 9, 285–287, April 5, 1533.

²³² E.A. 32, 419, condensed, 1545; cf. E.A. 19, 269, 1532.

²³³ W. A. 18, 389.27–35,1525.

²³⁴ W. A. 11, 252.5, 1523; cf. W. A. 6, 267.35, 1520.

²³⁵ W. A. 18, 387.9, citation of Luke 6, 36.

²³⁶ Ibid. 390.6.

²³⁷ W. A. 32, 389. Holl, Gesammelte Aufsätze, Luther, 248–249, note 4, contends that in spite of Luther's preface this sermon cannot be relied on for his opinions, because the reporter is unknown, and some sayings sound more like Melanchthon. I have used it only in conjunction with similar utterances from unimpeachable sources.

²³⁸ W. A. 18, 87.13 f., 1525.

²³⁹ W. A. 11, 254.27 f.

²⁴⁰ W. A. 36, 552.15.

²⁴¹ W. A. 32, 399.11 f., cf. W. A. 19, 595–596, 1526. Cf. also G. Wünsch, Die Bergpredigt bei Luther, 103.

²⁴² W. A. 32, 390.19–31. This is paralleled by the passages cited by Holl himself, 286–287, on which the rest of my paragraph is based.

²⁴³ Cf. E. Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen, 501, and Wünsch, Die Bergpredigt bei Luther, especially 97–138.

²⁴⁴ Page 536.

²⁴⁵ Page 255, note 4. The reply to Troeltsch on this point continues to p. 287.

²⁴⁶ Z. T. K., 1928, Heft 3. Note that Troeltsch himself says (501 f.) that Luther tended to tone down the conflict.

²⁴⁷ End. 3, 280.51 f., January 17, 1522.

²⁴⁸ E. A. 19, 203; cf. W. A. 19, 583.31 f.

²⁴⁹ E. A. 32, 253, 1543.

²⁵⁰ W. A. 18, 386.13–14, 1525.

²⁵¹ E. A. 19, 269,1532.

²⁵² W. A. 32, 400.21–22, 1530–32.

²⁵³ Page 494.

²⁵⁴ The following passages deal specifically with the Sermon on the Mount: W. A. 6, 267.11 f., 1520; W. A. 18, 387.9, 1525; W. A. 19, 595.25, 1526; W. A. 32, 400.21–22. 1530–32.

²⁵⁵ W. A. 19, 631.25, 1526.

²⁵⁶ W. A. 51, 206.12 f., 1534–35.

²⁵⁷ W. A. 31, I, 194.32, 1530.

²⁵⁸ W. A. 11, 277.20–23, 1523.

²⁵⁹ Calvini opera, XIV, 613.

²⁶⁰ Passages collected by Wünsch, 112–113.

²⁶¹ End. 3, 281.87 f., January 17, 1522.

²⁶² W. A. 6, 267.21–26, 1520.

²⁶³ W. A. 16, 474.25–29, 1524–27; cf. W. A. 19, 595–596, 1526.

²⁶⁴ W. A. 32, 399.11–28, 1530–32.

²⁶⁵ W. A. 18, 393.26–32, 1525.

²⁶⁶ W. A. 11, 253–254, 1523.

²⁶⁷ Ibid. 277.11–15.

²⁶⁸ W. A. 18, 892.26–28.

²⁶⁹ W. A. 19, 625.26 f., 1526.

²⁷⁰ E. A. 32, 259.

²⁷¹ W. A. 6, 267.10–15, 27 f., 1520.

²⁷² Page 283. Kühn, too, recognizes the significance of this dualism, but lays greater stress on the exacting character of the revelation of the love of God in Christ, which tolerates no gospel beside itself and must be accepted if one is to escape God's wrath (95 f.).

²⁷³ W. A. 18, 302.9–11, 1525.

²⁷⁴ W. A. 28, 699.16 f., November 21, 1529.

²⁷⁵ W. A. 19, 626.25–27.

²⁷⁶ E. A.² 2, 49, cf. W. A. 18, 36.28–32, and 15, 774.