[1513] Ibid., 10, 3, p. 22 f.=28, p. 223. Cp. R. Seeberg, “Lehrb. der DG.,” p. 285 f.
[1514] Scheel gives Luther’s views on p. 45 as follows: “What is not taught by Christ is not apostolic even should Peter and Paul teach it. But all that preaches Christ is apostolic even should Judas, Annas, Pilate or Herod teach it. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 157.)... Hence Luther replies to his opponent, ‘You appeal to the slave, i.e. to Scripture, and not even to the whole or the most excellent part of it. This slave I leave for you; as for me, I appeal to the Lord, Who is King of Scripture.’” (“Comm. in Gal.,” 1, p. 387, Irmischer.) Scheel quotes the “Comm. in Gen.,” 1, p. 539: “Si adversarii scripturam urserint contra Christum, urgemus Christum contra scripturas.” He says finally, p. 74: “Luther found himself in Scripture just as the simple man finds in the outward world the answer to his own world of sense; with the unerring instinct of genius he found the essence of Scripture which was at the same time the essence of his own being.”
[1515] “Lehrb. d. DG.,” 3^[4], p. 867.
[1516] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 158.
[1517] Ibid., p. 160. For the liberty which Luther permitted himself in his translation of the sacred text, see vol. v., xxxiv., 3.
[1518] Cp. Döllinger, ibid., pp. 151-156.
[1519] “Gesch.,” etc., 1², 1896, p. 199.
[1520] “Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 190 f.
[1521] On the strength of the biblical labours of Erasmus and of Reuchlin, Zwingli did not scruple to call into question Luther’s assertion that it was he who drew “the Bible out from under the bench.” “Zwinglis Werke” (1828 ff.), 2, 2, p. 21.
[1522] See our vol. i., p. 224 f.