[21] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 157; Erl. ed., 27, p. 343.
[22] “Since Christ never commanded that the Sacrament should be received by everyone, it is permissible not only to receive only under one kind, but under neither.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 79; Erl. ed., 27, p. 72. Cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 507: “Cum Christus non praecepisset ulla (specie) uti”.
[23] The Larger Catechism of 1529, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 21, p. 129: “Here (in Scripture) we have God’s command and institution”; hence it is “seriously and strictly commanded that we be baptised on pain of not being saved.”
[24] To Haupold and others on September 17, 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 257, and ibid., 53, p. 77 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 236).
[25] The editor of the Weimar ed., 8, p. 132.
[26] “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” 1906, p. 127 (omitted in the 2nd edition). In 1524 Luther, when engaged with Münzer, still held that “all should preach stoutly and freely as they were able and against whomsoever they pleased.... Let the spirits fall upon one another and fight it out. Should some be led astray, so much the worse.” True doctrine being the fittest would nevertheless survive and prevail. To the Elector Frederick and Duke Johann of Saxony, July, 1524, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 265 (“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 372). The contradiction involved in the freedom which Luther apparently concedes to him was pointed out by Münzer in his “Schutzrede,” Fol. C. III., “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 375. Hence when Luther counselled that the revolt should be put down by force of arms, those who considered the war unjust, for instance because they happened to hold Anabaptist views, could well appeal to Luther and refuse to lend their assistance. (See present work, vol. ii., p. 311 f.)
[27] A. Weiss, “Luther und Luthertum,” Denifle, vol. ii., 1909, p. 251 f.
[28] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 509; Erl. ed., 30, p. 372 f.
[29] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 12², p. 221.
[30] Though it might be urged that he subordinates the first too much to the second even in his earlier period. In the “Kurcz Form der czehen Gepott,” etc. (1520), “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 215; Erl. ed., 22, p. 15, he teaches: “that there are two ways of believing: First, concerning God, when I believe what is said of God to be true, just as I believe that to be true which is said of the Turks, of the devil, or of hell; this faith is more a sort of knowledge, or observation, than real faith. According to the other we believe in God (Credo in Deum), i.e. when I not only believe that to be true which is said of God, but place my trust in Him.... It is only such a faith which hazards all on God ... which makes a Christian.... This is a living faith ... and this none can give but God alone.” The Catholic Church, however, had always required a “living faith,” one working by charity (fides caritate formata). It is remarkable how much, in the above passage, Luther allows the formal principle of historical faith, viz. the authority of the Revealing God, to recede into the background.