[866] Cp. Pastor, “History of the Popes,” volume vii., English translation, p. 361. Kalkoff, “Forschungen zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” Rom., 1905, p. 44 f., and “Zu Luthers römischem Prozess: Das Verfahren des Erzbischofs v. Mainz gegen Luther,” in “Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch.,” 31, 1910, pp. 48-65. Cp. ibid., p. 368 ff., on the Dominicans. Both authors should be consulted for the subsequent history of Rome’s intervention. The Papal letter in Bembi, Epistolæ Leonis X, 1, 16, n. 18.
[867] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 313.
[868] “Origines illustr. stirpis Saxonicæ l. 7,” Ienæ, 1597, p. 859. Seckendorf, in his “Comment. de Lutheranismo,” relates the same from Fabricius. Both, however, make the mistake of placing the event a year too early. N. Paulus, in the “Histor.-polit. Blätter,” 137, 1906, p. 51 f., doubts the credibility of the story, because Fabricius is devoid of the critical spirit. It is not clear whether Luther refers to some other sermon.
[869] To Spalatin, January 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 349. For further particulars with regard to the Dresden visit, which has been so much misrepresented, see below, ix. 4.
[870] May 30, 1518 (?), “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 200 f. Weim. ed., 1, p. 527 ff.
[871] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 220. Weim. ed., p. 582, Concl. 26.
[872] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 328 seq., in a Preface to his Disputations.
[873] May 1, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 223.
[874] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 647 ff.
[875] Cp. V. Prop., n. 3: “Non sum hæreticus si negativam teneo, donec determinetur a concilio.” N. 6: “Ego ecclesiam ... repræsentative non [scio] nisi in concilio”; but it was incorrect “si quidquid facit ecclesia virtualis, id est papa (as Prierias stated), factum ecclesiæ dicitur”: The Pope and the Councils might err in their regulations on practical matters (“factum ecclesiæ”).