XXVIII. THE NEW DOGMAS IN AN HISTORICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL LIGHT (part 2 of 2)
[1759] Ibid., 10, 3, p. 313=15², p. 495. Church-postils, Sermon on Mary’s Nativity.
[1760] Ibid., 1, p. 79=“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 118. Sermon on the Assumption, Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 86.
[1761] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 107; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 150.
[1762] Above, p. 238, n. 1.
[1763] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 6², p. 433.
[1764] Ibid., 19², p. 29 ff.; 37, p. 71. Köstlin, ibid., 2, p. 135.
[1765] Cp., ibid., Erl. ed., 7², p. 276.
[1766] Ibid., 20², 2, pp. 530-532.
[1767] Ibid., Weim. ed., 7, pp. 568, 573 f.; Erl. ed., 45, pp. 245, 250 f.
[1768] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 574 f.
[1769] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 59 f. On March 11, 1523.
[1770] Müller-Kolde, “Symb. Bücher,”^[10] p. 227.
[1771] “Hom. de temp.,” Aug. Vindel., 1533 (“Opp.,” tom. 5, pars 1), fol. 55´.
[1772] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 113 ff; Erl. ed., 15², p. 495 f.
[1773] Ibid., p. 321 f. = 499.
[1774] Ibid., p. 325 = 501.
[1775] Müller-Kolde, ibid., p. 303.
[1776] K. Hase, “Hdb. der prot. Polemik,” Buch 2, Kapitel 6: “Most mortals are too good for hell, but assuredly not good enough for heaven. We may as well openly admit that there is something not quite clear here in the Protestantism of the Reformation.”
[1777] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 555; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 177. Resolutions on the Indulgence Theses. Thesis 15.
[1778] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585; Erl. ed., 10², p. 354.
[1779] Cp., ibid., Erl. ed., 13², p. 2 ff.; 15², p. 521; 17², p. 55.
[1780] In the “Bekentnis” also, ibid., Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; in Erl. ed., 30, p. 370, prayer for the dead is left optional.
[1781] Ibid., Erl. ed., 31, p. 184 ff.
[1782] That a sacrifice had been made of the Mass appeared to him “Idolatry and a shameful abuse,” a “twofold impiety and abomination”; its abomination no tongue could express. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, pp. 489, 493; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 38, 45 f.; 60, pp. 403 f., 396.
[1783] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 243. There were, however, always some voices raised amongst Protestants to demand that the “Sacrifice and Atonement” under some shape or form should be insisted on more than the sermon. The Presence of Christ, as taught by Luther, although this Presence did not involve a sacrifice, was made use of to oppose any further denuding of worship. “No longer is the Sacrifice and the Atonement which takes place at the Altar to be the centre of Divine worship,” Pastor E. Strack wrote in 1904, in “Der alte Glaube,” 1903-4, 5, col. 1255, “but, according to modern views, God is merely present in the listening congregation by virtue of the Word preached from the pulpit. Hence the pulpit becomes the central point, the altar an accessory. To this we cannot agree. Without atonement we have no God; hence no altar either ... and no pulpit.”
[1784] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 24: “Stante missa Lutherus est damnatus, ruente missa totum fundamentum papæ corruit.”
[1785] Ibid., p. 19: “nam ego toto pectore illam adorabam.” But cp. below, p. 509, n. 2.
[1786] Above, vol. i., p. 275.
[1787] Ibid., p. 276.
[1788] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 18.
[1789] Cp. vol. i., p. 15 f. and, besides the references given there, a passage from George Rörer’s MS. of the Table-Talk, given by E. Kroker, “Archiv für RG.,” 5, 1908, p. 354, where Luther, in a paroxysm of terror at the words of the Canon “offero tibi Deo vivo æterno [sic],” says: “Sic perterrefiebam, ut ab altari discedere cogitabam, et fecissem, nisi me retinuisset meus præceptor, quia cogitavi: Who is He with Whom you are speaking? From that time forward I said Mass with terror, and I am thankful to God that He has released me from it.”
[1790] On a solemn occasion, at the conclusion of his “Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis,” in 1528, he has it, that, though he had “spent his youth damnably,” yet his having been a monk and his having said Mass had been his greatest sins. See below, p. 524.
[1791] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 443 ff.; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 12, pp. 81, 83 seq.
[1792] Ibid., 2, p. 738 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 25 ff.
[1793] Ibid., 6, p. 364 ff.=27, p. 155 ff.
[1794] Aug. 1, 1521, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 208.
[1795] Above, vol. iii., p. 194 ff.
[1796] Vol. ii., pp. 88 f., 327 ff.
[1797] To Spalatin, Sep. 23, 1525. Cp. “Briefwechsel des Jonas,” 1, p. 94.
[1798] See vol. ii., p. 320.
[1799] Ibid.
[1800] Ibid., p. 328.
[1801] On Rörer’s work and its connection with the writing mentioned, see Weim. ed., 18, p. 22 ff.
[1802] F. Probst, “Die Liturgie der drei ersten Jahrh.,” 1870, p. 349 ff. P. Drews, “Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons der röm. Messe,” 1902, p. 39 ff. F. X. Funk, “Über den Kanon.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 24, 1903), pp. 62 ff., 283 ff. (against Drews). A. Baumstark, “Liturgia romana e liturgia dell’ esarcato, Origini del canon missæ romanæ,” 1904 (see “Hist. Jahrb.,” 25, 1904, p. 859; cp., ibid., 31, 1910, p. 596). P. Drews, “Untersuchungen über die sog. klementinische Liturgie,” 1 Tl., 1907 (see “Hist. Jahrb.,” 28, 1907, p. 166). N. Gihr, “Das hl. Messopfer”^[10], 1907.
[1803] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 119, in 1540.
[1804] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 36; Erl. ed., 29, p. 132 f.
[1805] Cp. vol. ii., p. 311.
[1806] Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 1², p. 338. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 28, pp. 216 ff., 258 ff.
[1807] Vol. ii., pp. 326 ff., 336 ff.
[1808] After Köstlin (ibid., p. 340), who quotes from “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 49 (Weim. ed., 8, p. 687 f.), Luther’s passage against the Princes, who allow everything to slide: they ought to draw the sword, not indeed to “put the priests to death,” but to “forbid by word and then put down by force whatever they do that is over or against the Gospel.”
[1809] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 29; Erl. ed., 29, p. 124.
[1810] Ibid., p. 33=129.
[1811] “Auf Luthers Greuel wider die heilige Stillmess Antwort,” 1525.
[1812] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 31; Erl. ed., 29, p. 126.
[1813] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 527.
[1814] Cp. “Hist. Jahrb.,” 12, 1891, p. 776, where N. Paulus quotes for the first time a memorandum (1523) of Johann Staupitz against Stephen Agricola, which corroborates his statement mentioned before (ibid., p. 309 ff.), that Staupitz was quite Catholic in his views on matters of faith.
[1815] “Antwort auf das ... Geschwetz M. Flaccii Illyrici,” 1558, p. 121 f. Quoted by Paulus, ibid., p. 776.
[1816] “Opp.,” 10, col. 1578 seq. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 13 f.
[1817] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 236.
[1818] For this excellent work, which for the most part reproduces the lectures of Magister Egeling Becker, see A. Franz, “Die Messe im deutschen MA.,” Freiburg, 1902, pp. 542-554. The comprehensive “Expositio,” comprising 51 “signatures,” consists of 89 Lectures addressed to the clergy. Franz characterises it as “a work which, by its theological thoroughness and its moderately ascetical views, was calculated to promote learning amongst the clergy and render them more worthy of exercising their greatest and finest privilege” (p. 554).
[1819] Lectio 85, F.
[1820] Ibid.: “Quamvis autem semel oblatus est Christus in aperta carnis effigie, offertur nihilominus quotidie in altari velatus,” etc. Of the numerous witnesses to the ancient belief of the Church, Joh. Ernest Grabe notes in his Oxford edition of Irenæus (1702) with regard to a statement of his on this subject (4 c. 17, al. 33): “What Irenæus here teaches of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, Ignatius and Justin taught before him, and Tertullian and Cyprian after. It is clearly vouched for in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians.” “There is no doubt that Irenæus and the other Fathers, both those who had seen the Apostles, as well as their immediate successors, regarded the Eucharist as the Sacrifice of the New Law, and ... presented at the altar the consecrated elements of Bread and Wine to God the Father in order to figure the bloody Sacrifice which He Himself had offered on the cross in His flesh and Blood, and in order to obtain the fruits of His death for all for whom it was offered.” Gregory the Great taught with antiquity (Hom. 37 in Evang. c. 7): “Quoties ei (Deo) hostiam suæ passionis offerimus, toties nobis ad absolutionem nostram passionem illius reparamus,” and in his Dialogues, which contributed greatly to the high esteem of Masses for the dead (we are here considering the doctrine, not the legends), he says of the Sacrifice of the Mass: “Hæc singulariter victima ab æterno interitu animam salvat, quæ illam nobis mortem Unigeniti per mysterium reparat.... Pro nobis iterum in hoc mysterio sacræ oblationis immolatur” (“Dial.,” 4, 58; cf. 59). The well-known Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz wrote in his “Examen concilii Tridentini” (1565-1573), that it could not be denied that the Fathers, when speaking of the celebration of the Supper, make use of expressions descriptive of Sacrifice, such as “sacrificium,” “immolatio,” “oblatio,” “hostia,” “victima,” “offerre,” “sacrificare,” “immolare” (t. 2, p. 782). Cp. J. Döllinger, “Die Lehre von der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrh.,” 1826. J. A. Möhler, “Symbolik,” §§ 34 and 35.
[1821] Lectio 85, under L.: “Si eos dispositos inveniat, eis gratiam obtinet virtute illius unius sacrificii, a quo omnis gratia in nos influxit, et per consequens peccata mortalia in eis delet ... in quantum gratiam contritionis eis impetrat.”
[1822] Lectio 26, under F.
[1823] Lectio 28.
[1824] Ibid., L. 17 (E.). Master Egeling discusses this even more in detail. Franz says (ibid., p. 548), speaking of Egeling’s MS., of which he makes use: “The remarkable length at which he vindicates the Church’s rule that the Canon be recited silently is not without significance. It would appear that this gave offence to the people.” Luther seized upon this popular prejudice as a weapon in his war on the Mass.
[1825] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 308 ff. New edition by G. Kawerau in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 50, Halle, 1883.
[1826] “Werke,” ibid., p. 308.
[1827] Ibid., p. 374 f.
[1828] P. 372.
[1829] Vol. v., xxxi., 4.
[1830] To Nic. Hausmann at Dessau, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 363, where he calls the writing a “novi generis libellus,” which challenged the Papists to see whether they had an answer ready to give the devil when lying on their death-beds.
[1831] A. Freytag, in Koffmane, “Die handschriftl. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907, pp. 16 and 11, where in Luther’s rough notes the words first occur: “primum argumentum diaboli.” Freytag, however, is of opinion, that “Luther’s account of the disputation with the devil certainly [?] had its origin in the Reformer’s tormenting mental experiences, and that he had been actually assailed by accusing thoughts concerning his former share in the abomination of private Masses.” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 308, speaking of the disputation, also refers to the “anguish of soul” which overwhelmed him “owing to his own former share in so great a crime as he now more fully recognised it to be.” Cp. our vol. v., xxxii.
[1832] In the letter to Hausmann (above, n. 2): “Lutherum hoc libello tentare papatus sapientiam et potentiam.”
[1833] To Spalatin; only an extract extant. See Jonas’s “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 201: “Lutherus scribit utilissimum, fortissimum arietem, quo quatietur, ut ferreus murus, papatus.”
[1834] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 378 ff.
[1835] Ibid., p. 379.
[1836] P. 383.
[1837] P. 384.
[1838] On “Bible, Babble, Bubble,” see above, vol. ii, pp. 365, 370; on the “Heresy-book,” see above, p. 396.
[1839] Bl. A. 3.
[1840] In this sense G. Kawerau’s remark on the “Winckelmesse” is much to the point: “It is of interest on account of the insight it affords into the Reformer’s efforts to arrive at certainty concerning the fundamentals of his religious views.” In the Introduction to the edition quoted above, p. 519 n. 1.
[1841] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 132.
[1842] Ibid., p. 119.
[1843] See the letter written before his first Mass, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 10.
[1844] See “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 508; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372. Above, p. 509 n. 3.
[1845] Above, vol. iii., p. 130.
[1846] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 122.
[1847] Ibid., p. 119.
[1848] Ibid., p. 120.
[1849] Ibid. On Gregory the Great, see above, p. 517 n. 2.
[1850] Ibid., p. 119.
[1851] Ibid., p. 122.
[1852] Symbol. Bücher^[10], p. 301 ff. “Luthers Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 174 ff.
[1853] “Brieff von seinem Buch der Winckelmessen,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 381 f.