[1163] Erl. ed., 31, p. 348 f. (1533).
[1164] Ib., Weim. ed., 19, p. 75; Erl. ed., 22, p. 230.
[1165] In “Von den Schlüsseln,” 1530, Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 435 ff.; Erl. ed., 31, p. 126 ff. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 222 f.
[1166] See above, vol. ii., p. 112.
[1167] “Symbolik,” §47, p. 416.
[1168] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 398.
[1169] “Christlicher Gegenbericht,” 1561, Bl. Y III´. (The copy in the Munich State Library contains the autograph dedication of Staphylus to Joh. Jacob Fugger.) Also in the “Apologia,” by Laur. Surius, Colon, 1562, p. 353. Cp. Bellarminus, “Controversiæ,” t. 2 (Colon, 1615), p. 58.
[1170] “Centur.,” 1, lib. 1, c. 4, col. 170, in Bellarmin, ib. In recent times Protestant theologians have divided on the subject, some favouring more the visible, others the invisible Church. The latter are the more logical. Cp. G. Kawerau’s statement: “We may dispute as to whether the term invisible ‘Church’ is well chosen or not, but what it means is clear; for what else is it but a decided protest against every attempt to attribute within the domain of the Evangel, to a visible, ecclesiastical, legally constituted society the attributes of the Church in which we believe? Protestantism by its very nature cannot make of its outward edifice an ‘ecclesia proprie dicta.’” “Über Berechtigung und Bedeutung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments,” 1887, p. 12.
[1171] See above, p. 265.
[1172] Testimonial of May 17, 1540, “Briefwechsel,” 13, p. 57 f.