[1533] To Jodocus Trutvetter, May 9, 1518, ibid., p. 186.
[1534] “Werke,” Weim ed., 1, p. 384 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 12 f.
[1535] Löscher, “Reformationsacta,” 2, p. 80.
[1536] In the postscript to the “Acta Augustana,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 18, 21 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 385 seq., 391 seq.
[1537] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, l, p. 54. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 542, and “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 640. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 672, 675, 727 ff.
[1538] Cp., in “Luthers Werke in Auswahl,” ed. Buchwald, 2 suppl., 1905, p. 43, O. Scheel’s remarks on the writing “De votis monasticis” (Weim. ed., 8, p. 583; “ Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 252), where Luther says that whoever denies the virginity of Mary plays havoc with the whole faith.
[1539] Thus A. Berger, “M. Luther,” Tl. 2, pp. 98, 100. Cp. this author’s view (on p. 100): “This means an obscuring and impoverishing of the faith as discovered and laid down by himself.” The following observation of Berger’s is remarkable: “Luther, as theologian, was merely the restorer of primæval Christianity, such as he understood it; Zwingli, however, understood it otherwise” (p. 102).
[1540] See vol. i., p. 193.
[1541] See vol. ii., p. 223 ff.
[1542] “Ph. Melanchthonis Annotationes in Epistolas Pauli ad Rhomanos et Corinthios,” Norimbergæ, 1522. The later editions are quoted in “Corp. ref.,” 15, p. 441. In this volume Bindseil has not reprinted the writing owing to Melanchthon’s retractation of it (see next page). It should, however, have been printed as an historical document.—The introductory preface, in “Briefe,” 2, p. 239, dated July 29, 1522 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 438).