[269] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 397 f.
[270] For proofs from Luther’s correspondence, vol. xi., see the article of N. Paulus in the “Lit. Beil. der Köln. Volksztng.,” 1908, p. 226. On Erasmus, see below, p. 93.
[271] “Ratzebergers Chronik,” ed. Neudecker, p. 69 f.
[272] Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 662, p. 307, n. 1.
[273] Joh. Karl Seidemann, “Beiträge zur RG.,” 1845 ff., p. 137.
[274] “Katholizismus und Reformation,” p. 45.
[275] Letter to Bullinger, 1535, “Corp. ref.,” 10, p. 138.
[276] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 56 f.; “KL.,” 8², col. 342 f.
[277] K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther über die Willensfreiheit,” Leipzig, 1909, admits at least concerning some of Luther’s assertions in the “De servo arbitrio,” that “he was led away by the wish to draw wrong inferences from his opponent’s premises”; for instance, in asserting that Erasmus “outdid the Pelagians”; by reading much into Erasmus which was not there he brought charges against him which are “manifestly false” (p. 81). Luther sought “to transplant the seed sown by Erasmus from its native soil to his own field” (p. 79); the ideas of Erasmus “were interpreted agreeably to Luther’s own ways and logic” (cp. p. v.); it would not be right “simply to take for granted that Luther’s supposed allies (such as Laurentius Valla, ‘De libero arbitrio’; cp. ‘Werke,’ Erl. ed., 58, p. 237 ff.) in the struggle with Erasmus, really were what he made them out to be” (p. 2).—H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther, leur polémique sur le libre arbitre,” Paris, 1910, lays still greater stress on the injustice done to Erasmus by Luther.
[278] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 531; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 523. Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 253, n. 3, and our vol. ii., p. 398 f.