687.
[77] “Chronik,” p. 30.
[78] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 40, p. 284.
[79] This remark only applies to the statement in the text. When Oldecop says he was told in Rome that Luther had come to Rome without the authorisation of his Superiors, this was untrue.
[80] Preface to Oldecop’s “Chronik.”
[81] Cp. George, Duke of Saxony, in the pamphlet published under Arnoldi’s name: “Auf das Schmähbüchlein Luthers wider den Meuchler von Dresden,” 1531 (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25, p. 147), where he thus addresses Luther: “You are hostile to the Pope because, among other reasons, he would not free you from the frock and give you a whore for your wife.” The mention of the frock points to a reminiscence of what actually had taken place. Possibly the Jew is the same Jakob who, in 1520, accepted Luther’s doctrine in Germany and was baptised. Cp. Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 4, pp. 97, 147.
[82] A proof of this may, e.g., be found in certain statements on marriage made by the jurist Christoph Scheurl, borrowed from his professor Codro Urceo of Bologna, and brought forward in a speech held at Wittenberg, November 16, 1508. A Latin dialogue which the Wittenberg professor Andreas Meinhardi published in 1508 also betrays the influence of those humanistic groups. J. Haussleitner (“Die Universität Wittenberg vor dem Eintritt Luthers,” 1903, pp. 46 f., 84 ff.) attributes the manner of expression and the views of both to the ecclesiasticism of the Middle Ages. Cp. on the other side N. Paulus in the “Wissenschaftl. Beilage” to “Germania,” 1904, No. 10.
[83] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 263; “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 36, n. 5.
[84] Letter of May 29, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 35.
[85] Lang to Mutian, May 2, 1515, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 36, n. 5.
[86] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 14.
[87] Letter of August 5, 1514, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 20.
[88] To Johann Lang, October 5, 1516, and to Spalatin about the same time, “Briefwechsel,” 1, pp. 59, 62.
[89] Letter of March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88.
[90] To Spalatin, October 19, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 64.
[91] Letter of March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88.
[92] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 163; cp. p. 96 ff., and Kolde, “Martin Luther,” 1, pp. 47, 50, 59 f.
[93] Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” I18, p. 703; English translation, “Hist. of the German People,” ii., p. 297. See also Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Engl. trans.), vol. vii., p. 290 ff.
[94] Ibid.
[95] Ibid., p. 700.
[96] Ibid., p. 703.
[97] Janssen-Pastor, ibid., p. 701.
[98] Ibid., p. 721.
[99] Janssen-Pastor, ibid., pp. 703, 704. The words in single inverted commas are from J. E. Jörg, “Deutschland in der Revolutionsperiode 1522-26,” Freiburg, 1851, p. 191.
[100] Janssen-Pastor, ibid., p. 705 f. See below (vol. ii., ch. xiv. 5) what we say regarding the clergy and monasteries at Erfurt.
[101] Ibid., p. 712.
[102] Ibid., p. 709. On the Synods, see Hefele-Hergenröther, “Konziliengesch.,” vol. viii. Cp. Janssen-Pastor, as above, p. 680 f., and H. Grisar, “Ein Bild aus dem deutschen Synodalleben im Jahrhundert vor der Glaubensspaltung” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1, 1880, pp. 603-40).
[103] Nicolaus de Clemangiis, “De ruina ecclesiæ,” c. 22, in Herm. von der Hardt, “Magnum œcumenicum Constantiense Concilium,” Helmestad., 1700, 1, 3 col., 23 sq.; Hefele, as above, 7, pp. 385, 416, 422, 594; 8, p. 97. Ioh. de Segovia, “Hist. syn. Basil.”, Vindob., 1873, 2, p. 774: “Quia in quibusdam regionibus nonnulli iurisdictionem ecclesiasticam habentes pecuniarios questus a concubinariis percipere non erubescunt, patiendo eos in tali fœditate sordescere.”
[104] Cp. on the “courtisans,” Janssen-Pastor, ibid., pp. 715-18.
[105] Cp. Janssen-Pastor, ibid., p. 743.
[106] Jos. Schmidlin, “Das Luthertum als historische Erscheinung” (“Wissenschaftl. Beilage” to “Germania,” 1909, Nos. 13-15), p. 99 f. Cp. Albert Weiss, “Luther und Luthertum” (in Denifle’s 2nd vol.), p. 34 ff.
[107] Schmidlin, as above. Also Albert Weiss, as above, p. 108, allows: “The conditions of things at the commencement of the sixteenth century were such that their continuance was clearly impossible, and it was easy to predict a catastrophe.... The abuses were great and had become in some cases intolerable, so that we can understand how many lost courage, patience and confidence.... It is true that everything was not corrupt, but the good there was was too feeble to struggle with success against the evil.” Nevertheless, in the genesis of the movement which led to the falling away from the Church, in spite of the more favourable view of the conditions which Weiss elsewhere takes, the real abuses in the Church, even in his own account, play a prominent part. That Luther’s work was not “necessary in view of the moral corruption” (p. 6), and that it “did not follow as an inevitable result” of the same (p. 37), but, on the contrary, was merely facilitated by circumstances, will be