[293] To Count Wolfgang von Gleichen, March 9, 1543, ib., p. 57.
[294] Ib., 45, p. 7.
[295] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 259. “The properties have risen. Where formerly an estate was worth one hundred florins it is now worth quite three; qui ante potuit dare 5, potest nunc dare 6 vel septem.”
[296] Erl. ed., 23, pp. 286, 338. In the above letter to Sebastian Weller he declares (p. lviii) that, in his epistle to the parsons, he had only spoken “of mutuum and datum.”
[297] Ib., p. 289.
[298] Ib., p. 298.
[299] Ib., p. 289.
[300] Ib., p. 296. Very mild indeed are the directions he gives in his letter to the town-council of Dantzig on the charging of interest (May 5 (?), 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 296, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 165): “The Gospel is a spiritual rule by which no government can act.… The spiritual rule of the Gospel must be carefully distinguished from the outward, secular rule and on no account be confused with it. The Gospel rule the preacher must urge only by word of mouth and each one be left free in this matter; whoever wishes to take it, let him do so, whoever does not, let him leave it alone. I will give an example: the charging of interest is altogether at variance with the Gospel since Christ teaches ‘lend hoping for nothing.’ But we must not rush in here and suddenly put an end to all dissensions in accordance with the Gospel. No one has the right or the power to do this, for it has arisen out of human laws which St. Peter does not wish abrogated; but it is to be preached and the interest paid to those to whom it is due, whether they are willing to accept this Gospel and to surrender the interest or not. We cannot take them any further than this, for the Gospel demands willing hearts, moved by the Spirit of God.” The letter seems also to be aimed at the fanatics, whose violent action in opposing the charging of interest as un-Evangelical, Luther frowned on.
[301] “Luthers Theol. in ihrer geschichtl. Entwicklung,” 2², 1901, p. 328.
[302] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 331, quotes G. Schmoller (“Zur Gesch. der nationalökonomischen Ansichten in Deutschland während der Reformperiode,” in the “Zeitschr. f. die gesamte Staatswissenschaft,” 16).