[873] Ibid.
[874] In Uhlhorn, “Urbanus Rhegius,” 1861, p. 159 f.
[875] “Storia del Concilio di Trento,” 1, 4, Roma, 1664, 1, p. 58. Here we read: “Non essendo povero di letteratura, ne pareva ricchissimo, perchè portava tutto il suo capitale nella punta della lingua.”
[876] 6, 10 (i., p. 691); Denifle (“Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 24) calls Luther “not merely talented, but in many points very much so.” Ibid., p. xxv., he enumerates Luther’s “good natural qualities,” which he is ready to prize.
[877] “Lutherpsychologie,”² p. 225.
[878] Seeberg, “Luther und Luthertum in der neuesten kath. Beleuchtung” (a reply to Denifle), 1904.
[879] “Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 51; “KL.”² 8, col. 339.
[880] Vol. iii., p. 298 f.; and vol. ii., p. 160.
[881] Cp. H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,”² p. 115.
[882] There is no sufficient ground for charging the earlier Catholic accounts of Luther with having said nothing of his better side. It is true that in self-defence, and following the usual method of controversy, they did insist rather too much on what was objectionable—the Jesuits of the 16th and 17th centuries being no exception to the rule—without sufficiently discriminating between what was true and what was false (B. Duhr, S.J., “Gesch. der Jesuiten in den Ländern deutscher Zunge,” 1907, p. 681). Luther himself was, however, partly to blame for this, owing to the quantity of unfavourable material he provided. But, after the first heat of battle was over, even in the days of Caspar Ulenberg, the Cologne parish priest, who, in 1589, wrote a biography of Luther, there have always been numbers of Catholic writers ready to admit the good there was in Luther. At the present day appreciative passages abound both in general encyclopædias and in handbooks written for students. To mention some examples, H. Brück (“Lehrb. der KG.”) speaks of Luther’s “sparkling imagination, his popular eloquence, which was its consequence, and of his indefatigable capacity for work”; also of his “disinterestedness.” J. Alzog says (“Universalgesch. der christl. Kirche”): “He did not lack the deeper religious feeling which seeks its satisfaction.” J. A. Möhler (“KG.”) writes: “He may be compared for his power to the great conquerors of the world; like them, too, he knew no other law than his own will.” J. v. Döllinger (as yet still a Catholic) says of him (“KL.”²), that he was a “sympathetic friend, free from avarice and greed of money,” and ever “ready to assist others”; “he possessed undeniably great rhetorical talent in dialectic and a wonderful gift of carrying men away.” In Herder’s “Konversationslexikon,” 5³ (1905), we read of Luther: “In the circle of his friends ... he knew how to speak thoughtfully of matters of theology.... His family life had its finer side ... he was a staunch advocate of conjugal fidelity in his sermons and elsewhere.... What he taught concerning the dignity of worldly callings was in many instances quite right and true.... In the works he intended for edification he gave his followers stimulating food for thought, drawn from the treasure-house of the truths of Christianity and of nature.... He promoted a more diligent study of Holy Scripture and the cause of positive theology to much effect. His art of using his native tongue was of great service in furthering the language. His translation of the whole Bible stands as a linguistic monument to him.... The powerful hymns he composed are also treasured by the whole Protestant world.”