[1823] Lectio 28.
[1824] Ibid., L. 17 (E.). Master Egeling discusses this even more in detail. Franz says (ibid., p. 548), speaking of Egeling’s MS., of which he makes use: “The remarkable length at which he vindicates the Church’s rule that the Canon be recited silently is not without significance. It would appear that this gave offence to the people.” Luther seized upon this popular prejudice as a weapon in his war on the Mass.
[1825] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 308 ff. New edition by G. Kawerau in “Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 50, Halle, 1883.
[1826] “Werke,” ibid., p. 308.
[1827] Ibid., p. 374 f.
[1828] P. 372.
[1829] Vol. v., xxxi., 4.
[1830] To Nic. Hausmann at Dessau, Dec. 17, 1533, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 363, where he calls the writing a “novi generis libellus,” which challenged the Papists to see whether they had an answer ready to give the devil when lying on their death-beds.
[1831] A. Freytag, in Koffmane, “Die handschriftl. Überlieferung von Werken Luthers,” 1907, pp. 16 and 11, where in Luther’s rough notes the words first occur: “primum argumentum diaboli.” Freytag, however, is of opinion, that “Luther’s account of the disputation with the devil certainly [?] had its origin in the Reformer’s tormenting mental experiences, and that he had been actually assailed by accusing thoughts concerning his former share in the abomination of private Masses.” Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 308, speaking of the disputation, also refers to the “anguish of soul” which overwhelmed him “owing to his own former share in so great a crime as he now more fully recognised it to be.” Cp. our vol. v., xxxii.
[1832] In the letter to Hausmann (above, n. 2): “Lutherum hoc libello tentare papatus sapientiam et potentiam.”