Thursday, May 19, 2005
#1765-To the Parish-Leaders in Goettingen
(A picture of Marienkirche in Goettingen is in the archives. the first printing reads:"Christian Orders for the City of Geoettingen with a forward by D.Martin Luther". After the conclusion:"Printed in Wittenberg by Hans Luft MDXXXI". 16 pages in Octav. Many editions have it: Wittenberg (1569); Jena (1566); Altenburg;Leipzig; Walch;DeWette;Erlangen. All have the mistaken date of June 1528 and the superscription is missing.)The Reformation began first in October 1529 in Goettingen. ML mentioned in the beginning of the following the printing of the order in Wittenberg in 1531 and sent it to the Council on March see #1766.]
To the worthy Parish-heads (Pfarrherren) and Preachers of the City of Goettingen Mart.Luth.
Grace and peace in Christ! I have reviewed your Chrurch-order according to your wishes and provided for its printing; God the Father of all wisdom grant His grace that it gains a good acceptance, Amen.
We know very well, praise God, what we have for opponents in such matters, namely Satan with all his angels; since there is never a sufficiently good order,one good legally,good doctrinally; ja, there is, briefly, no counsel, no wisdom, no undertaking so good and just that needs not something added or altered; yes, it could be like the divine law, not beneficial, but rather harmful, Rom.4:15:"The law works wrath."
How many a wise man, yes, how many a holy man came up short in most beautiful and good matters and with the holiest of laws. Why is that? That is because there is one thing that belongs beyond the law and good orders and that is called the furtherance or benediction which St. Paul also says that even the Gospel (which is not only God's order but also God's power) creates nothing if does not have God's blessing in addition (1 Cor.3:7)
Therefore, it is foolish people who say:"I have what is good, I will perform; who will keep me from it?" That they say I have good rights, is well spoken; but when they say, I will also carry it out, that is too much. Such performance is not yours as little as the law is yours. God must help that it happens; otherwise you might well see whether you can defend it.
And even if you have a very good law, God will not suffer your defiance and boasting about rights; you should also humbly ask for help that He support the cause, and not you yourself alone so that you learn what the devil is, yes, what you yourself are that you may not accomplish it even though you have the right cause for the devil is a warrior who is against everything that is right and good and God must help not only to overcome the wrong but also help the right and good in every sort of matter, great or small. Therefore the Wisdom proverb says: Mine is the counsel and mine the fruition. Many have good cousel but the accomplishment does not follow and as many examples from history show the greatest misdirection follows the greatest counsel.
This is what I wanted to emphasize to you, dear sirs and friends, that you and your people are not only relying on your church-order as if you had no further need, since it has been determined, but humbly thank God and pray thereon that He grants you the benediction and fruition thereof and a blessed outcome.
There will be plenty of offenses and hinderniss found the Prince of the world, believe me, would also be Prince in Goettingen and has no desire to be a beggar.
May God cast him down under you as St. Paul prays Rom.16:20: God tread Satan under your feet. This is what I pray and wish for that God will bless and protect you and make you increase unblameable and powerful to His praise and glory,Amen.
To the worthy Parish-heads (Pfarrherren) and Preachers of the City of Goettingen Mart.Luth.
Grace and peace in Christ! I have reviewed your Chrurch-order according to your wishes and provided for its printing; God the Father of all wisdom grant His grace that it gains a good acceptance, Amen.
We know very well, praise God, what we have for opponents in such matters, namely Satan with all his angels; since there is never a sufficiently good order,one good legally,good doctrinally; ja, there is, briefly, no counsel, no wisdom, no undertaking so good and just that needs not something added or altered; yes, it could be like the divine law, not beneficial, but rather harmful, Rom.4:15:"The law works wrath."
How many a wise man, yes, how many a holy man came up short in most beautiful and good matters and with the holiest of laws. Why is that? That is because there is one thing that belongs beyond the law and good orders and that is called the furtherance or benediction which St. Paul also says that even the Gospel (which is not only God's order but also God's power) creates nothing if does not have God's blessing in addition (1 Cor.3:7)
Therefore, it is foolish people who say:"I have what is good, I will perform; who will keep me from it?" That they say I have good rights, is well spoken; but when they say, I will also carry it out, that is too much. Such performance is not yours as little as the law is yours. God must help that it happens; otherwise you might well see whether you can defend it.
And even if you have a very good law, God will not suffer your defiance and boasting about rights; you should also humbly ask for help that He support the cause, and not you yourself alone so that you learn what the devil is, yes, what you yourself are that you may not accomplish it even though you have the right cause for the devil is a warrior who is against everything that is right and good and God must help not only to overcome the wrong but also help the right and good in every sort of matter, great or small. Therefore the Wisdom proverb says: Mine is the counsel and mine the fruition. Many have good cousel but the accomplishment does not follow and as many examples from history show the greatest misdirection follows the greatest counsel.
This is what I wanted to emphasize to you, dear sirs and friends, that you and your people are not only relying on your church-order as if you had no further need, since it has been determined, but humbly thank God and pray thereon that He grants you the benediction and fruition thereof and a blessed outcome.
There will be plenty of offenses and hinderniss found the Prince of the world, believe me, would also be Prince in Goettingen and has no desire to be a beggar.
May God cast him down under you as St. Paul prays Rom.16:20: God tread Satan under your feet. This is what I pray and wish for that God will bless and protect you and make you increase unblameable and powerful to His praise and glory,Amen.
Monday, May 16, 2005
#1764-To Justus Menius in Eisenach
Grace and peace in the LOrd! It is true, my dear Justus, what you hear that, at least, Bucer has begun to have the same opinion as we about the LOrd's Supper (Abendmahl), if the letters which he made to me and Philip are not deceptive which I could not easily believe. For the rest if the others do the same is yet uncertain: Bucer labors and works toward that there and has accomplished so much that all agree that the Body of the LOrd is truly present in the Abendmahl and is offered also in bodily presence. However, the others say that He is only offered to a believing and godly soul for nourishment; Bucer, however, agree that He is also offered to the hand of the godless and received with the mouth. His letters clearly state this.
Regarding the letters of yours and that of my uncle I cannot answer. I am flooded with letters from everywhere. I am only one alone and each individual thinks that his matters alone are which the idle Luther should take care of. Thus the messengers cannot wait for all the letters and have no compensation and also have other things to do so they expect that the letters of yours should be ready for them so they can immediately be delivered.
You may say to Georg, to Thomas and to my uncle: in time I will answer and cooperate with them."I will not" as one each and every project quickly and at the same time "deliver". Be it well you and pray for me. 1531. Martin Luther.
NOTES: Luther's uncle is Ziegler, brother of ML's mother. Georg is Georg Thomas pastor in Eisenach; Thomas is Thomas Neuenhagen, also pastor there.
No date on this but since ML has evidently received Bucer's letter of February 9 the date of beginning of Febraury by Seidemann is too early.
Eisenach, you may remember, will later be the birthplace of J.S. Bach as well as having been ML's early stomping ground with Wartburg on the hill outside.
Regarding the letters of yours and that of my uncle I cannot answer. I am flooded with letters from everywhere. I am only one alone and each individual thinks that his matters alone are which the idle Luther should take care of. Thus the messengers cannot wait for all the letters and have no compensation and also have other things to do so they expect that the letters of yours should be ready for them so they can immediately be delivered.
You may say to Georg, to Thomas and to my uncle: in time I will answer and cooperate with them."I will not" as one each and every project quickly and at the same time "deliver". Be it well you and pray for me. 1531. Martin Luther.
NOTES: Luther's uncle is Ziegler, brother of ML's mother. Georg is Georg Thomas pastor in Eisenach; Thomas is Thomas Neuenhagen, also pastor there.
No date on this but since ML has evidently received Bucer's letter of February 9 the date of beginning of Febraury by Seidemann is too early.
Eisenach, you may remember, will later be the birthplace of J.S. Bach as well as having been ML's early stomping ground with Wartburg on the hill outside.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
#1759-Martin Bucer to ML
To the great Defender of the pure Christianity, D. Martin Luther, the very exalted Theologian, his exquisite, highly regarded teacher.
Grace and peace in Christ! Your letter, highly honorable teacher, written to me on January 22, I have read and thank the LOrd with my brethren and colleagues, who have conferred with me, you have, to an extent, found our Confession (A Harmony-Writing to Duke Ernst of Lueneberg) to be satisfactory. You marvel that I make Zwingli and Oecolampadius to be participants in this opinion. You might be surprised what they,especially Oecolampadius, who negotiated with me over this matter, after they tested my judgement, that they say we should be quiet about the writing. However, you will again be surprised and ask me why when we confess that here in the Lord's Supper Christ's Body is truly present and through the Words and Sacrament offered but as food for the soul and not for the belly why we have difficulty with applyiing the words "Take,eat",etc. (as we have in our Confession)to an external taking of the Body with the bread by the mouth so that also the godless have it offered to them. That does not trouble us, highly-honorable Luther, nor have I for that reason added the words "for the feeding of the soul" nor because I do not believe that the Body of Christ can be present in more than one thing at a time and could be there offered but rather because I want to satisfy those who falsely think that you make the Body of Christ to be food for the body but which you expressly make denial of in your Confession in Quatern Sij. Here are your words word for word:"Therefore it is also right to say that one who grasps this bread, takes hold of the Body of Christ, and he who eats this bread eats the Body of Christ, he who crumbles this bread with the teeth or the tongue the same crumbles the Body of Christ with teeth or tongue; and yet it remains in every way true that no one sees,holds, bites or crumbles the Body as one does visibly see and bite other flesh.Then what one does with the bread is appropriated to the Body of Christ because of the Sacramental union." In that you write:"Then, what one does with the bread"etc. you absolutely acknowledge that it is taken with the hand, bitten with the teeth, and delivered to the belly, digested as what happens to natural nourishment that happens to the bread but the Body of Christ accompanies (is attached?)it only by virtue of the Sacramental union and for this reason it does not actually happen to the Body of Christ.
Therefore the Body of Christ in the Lord's Supper is not given for nourishment to the belly but for the soul and it is for that (the soul) and not for the other (the belly) that it is sought. And since we confess that the Body of Christ is offered through the Words and Sacrament so we also confidently confess that He is present with the bread and that for this reason on account of the Sacramental union is extended to the mouths of the godless as well as to the blessed. However, the godless,as you write, do not apprehend it just as the blind do not apprehend the light of the sun though it shines on their eyes as on the eyes of the seeing. Yes, we confess that they who know that the Body of the LOrd is here offered receive it also but to the ruin of their soul and not its nourishment. Then they, after they have received the Word of the LOrd are not as the blind are to the light of the sun. Those who have nothing of the faith and regard this bread as completely no different than other bread-I do not see how they are different in their eating than would be a mouse who nibbles of it. Christ instituted this holy doing (or Sacrament? not known whether sacramentum or sacrum is to be read) for his disciples so I completely do not know what should be attributed to any sort of people who do not know Christ. Yet I might rather say: They on the outside are nothing to us and I have no quarrel with you or any other defender of the faith in this matter but remain silent. Thus we hold and teach and never at any time have anything but abhorrence for those who regard this Sacrament as nothing but bread and wine and not at the same time the Body and Blood of the LOrd and to be sure sought in the LOrd's Supper: so we do not think of it as any falsehood or blasphemy when either you celebrate with us or any of ours celebrate with you the Lord's Supper. Both sides recite the Words of the LOrd in good faith and simple faith in the same is taught and the partaking (Essen) of Christ commended above everything else. And while some have a backward understanding of this we do not believe the gifts of God are dependent upon the merit of the church-servant or the communicants and that those who receive Christ's promise in faith as well as with the ears are truly not deceived in their hope and as Leo says that as much as one believes so it happens.The more I think about it, as this is now to be for the judgments of the people, that you are right in saying that we should gradually teach about the presence and food (Essen=meal, supper?) of Christ in the LOrd's Supper so that the Church should be stremgthened if there is some sort of possibility to do so and that you are also sparing no effort toward harmony and that regarding the open questions you request that through friendliness nourished and further harmony through prayer to Christ and that not yet there be any public statement regarding our agreement put in writing. Surely, I would have done so much earlier and with your permission, no doubt, I would have held back our confession if I had not feared the perverted judgment of many and feared offending many. Therefore I am pleased about that the truth about the human body of Christ is in heaven and locally present in the bread and also not mingled with the bread in a natural way in that I see that this is not contrary to your faith. You describe the manner in which Christ's body is heaven as well as present in the LOrd's Supper in this way:"that He sits in the midst of all creation in a certain place and when a certain part of creation is designated such as bread and wine selected by the Word of God like one might say of a crystal when a definite part of it is placed before the eye in the midst of it in a certain place there is a spark or flame: see, here in the front part and back part of the crystal is a flame." Thus, you surely don't mean that the Body of Christ is locally in heaven and yet you maintain it is spatially in the bread. For this we would confess with the Fathers the true situation with a body that Christ is at some sort of place in heaven and nevertheless at the same time truly present in the Sacrament and I cannot see what the difference is between us on this matter.
Now I do not doubt that you would gladly set aside this thing for which you are not lined up to do battle over and thereby obtain through quarreling what is not permitted by conscience. We can easily acknowledge that this repulsive thing about which there is peace in our churches that in yours there is distress through misunderstanding, which is lacking nowhere,so therefore I am permitting with the greatest of equanimity that this my writing about our unanimity should be withheld and according to your advice which you also gave in Coburg and that on both sides we make efforts to promote peace in the way which I have previously outlined. What you will encounter with Oecolampadius and many other servants of other churches and, to be sure not a few churches is that the real presence (solida) of Christ in the Lord's Supper is also taught along with the signs (symbolis). Zwingli fears,according to my understanding, all too much, that the people will come to harm by thinking of a meal (Essen) of Christ as corruptible nourishment of the belly by neglecting the reality of the faith in human body of Christ. Yet he was willing to permit that what I have sent him be publicized with the hope which he still has that it will be the beginning step toward peace. We want to pray to Christ that He will bring it to completion and that in relation to one another it will serve to peace in everything before us. Of any stubborness on your I have already expressed myself at length, my dear father; I know that the glory of Christ and not for any of your own you have taken much care both here and in other matters. And I do not dooubt that you have fittingly deliberated how much this division has hindered the course of the Gospel although we truly have not recognized that the people, whose fellowship is very important, have any who have joined an army of Christ except for doing that which helps the saints. Trust in Christ to whose glory everything will be accomplished. I plead with you that you will attribute to this side what is written about their stubbornness since your position is unmovablly determined regarding the
words:"Take,eat, this is my body" and that you up to this can accept nothing else that the Body of Christ is given with the bread of the LOrd to eat and should be received with the mouth and given to all who eat this bread of the LOrd so they with an unalterable position that they ,considering that Christ is to be attributed true manhood ,shy away from expressing"this bread is my Body" in a simple (simplicem)way and that "is" should be taken essentially(substantive). They observe that you do not deny that the bread cannot be what the Body of the LOrd is. From that debate a thousand fighting points would arise about which I have always sworn that it only consists about words. Finally to bring this letter to an end I want to remind you of one thing that my conscience maintains this that these words of the LOrd:"Take" etc., require that we believe that the Body of the LOrd is truly offered with the bread. However, regarding what I wrote to M. Philip, whom I intentionally did not want to be considered, regarding the godless, I want to know that you concede that you understand, it seems to me, that these words were spoken to the disciples and that we should not be disputing in this matter about those who expressly are not disciples of Christ not that thereby I in expressing Christ's presence for souls make Him to be absent from the signs since I, nevertheless, say that He is received through the signs and His presence offered but only add to this that everything is instituted for the nourishment of the soul, not for the body, except to the extent the power of immortality overflows from the soul(to the body)/ Here you have amply my opinion which is earnestly taught in our church and in very many others and it is (my) good hope that we all finally will be of one opinion and that we zealously work for the same. Be it right well with you in Christ and receive me again, as you have, as a father. In Strassburg on the 9th of February. Most worthy Herr, Your yielding Martin Bucer.
NOTES: Very many distinctions that do make a difference though they may seem to be a matter of words. Seems to me like everything turns on the presence of Christ and the presence of His Body and Blood in the Sacrament.
Grace and peace in Christ! Your letter, highly honorable teacher, written to me on January 22, I have read and thank the LOrd with my brethren and colleagues, who have conferred with me, you have, to an extent, found our Confession (A Harmony-Writing to Duke Ernst of Lueneberg) to be satisfactory. You marvel that I make Zwingli and Oecolampadius to be participants in this opinion. You might be surprised what they,especially Oecolampadius, who negotiated with me over this matter, after they tested my judgement, that they say we should be quiet about the writing. However, you will again be surprised and ask me why when we confess that here in the Lord's Supper Christ's Body is truly present and through the Words and Sacrament offered but as food for the soul and not for the belly why we have difficulty with applyiing the words "Take,eat",etc. (as we have in our Confession)to an external taking of the Body with the bread by the mouth so that also the godless have it offered to them. That does not trouble us, highly-honorable Luther, nor have I for that reason added the words "for the feeding of the soul" nor because I do not believe that the Body of Christ can be present in more than one thing at a time and could be there offered but rather because I want to satisfy those who falsely think that you make the Body of Christ to be food for the body but which you expressly make denial of in your Confession in Quatern Sij. Here are your words word for word:"Therefore it is also right to say that one who grasps this bread, takes hold of the Body of Christ, and he who eats this bread eats the Body of Christ, he who crumbles this bread with the teeth or the tongue the same crumbles the Body of Christ with teeth or tongue; and yet it remains in every way true that no one sees,holds, bites or crumbles the Body as one does visibly see and bite other flesh.Then what one does with the bread is appropriated to the Body of Christ because of the Sacramental union." In that you write:"Then, what one does with the bread"etc. you absolutely acknowledge that it is taken with the hand, bitten with the teeth, and delivered to the belly, digested as what happens to natural nourishment that happens to the bread but the Body of Christ accompanies (is attached?)it only by virtue of the Sacramental union and for this reason it does not actually happen to the Body of Christ.
Therefore the Body of Christ in the Lord's Supper is not given for nourishment to the belly but for the soul and it is for that (the soul) and not for the other (the belly) that it is sought. And since we confess that the Body of Christ is offered through the Words and Sacrament so we also confidently confess that He is present with the bread and that for this reason on account of the Sacramental union is extended to the mouths of the godless as well as to the blessed. However, the godless,as you write, do not apprehend it just as the blind do not apprehend the light of the sun though it shines on their eyes as on the eyes of the seeing. Yes, we confess that they who know that the Body of the LOrd is here offered receive it also but to the ruin of their soul and not its nourishment. Then they, after they have received the Word of the LOrd are not as the blind are to the light of the sun. Those who have nothing of the faith and regard this bread as completely no different than other bread-I do not see how they are different in their eating than would be a mouse who nibbles of it. Christ instituted this holy doing (or Sacrament? not known whether sacramentum or sacrum is to be read) for his disciples so I completely do not know what should be attributed to any sort of people who do not know Christ. Yet I might rather say: They on the outside are nothing to us and I have no quarrel with you or any other defender of the faith in this matter but remain silent. Thus we hold and teach and never at any time have anything but abhorrence for those who regard this Sacrament as nothing but bread and wine and not at the same time the Body and Blood of the LOrd and to be sure sought in the LOrd's Supper: so we do not think of it as any falsehood or blasphemy when either you celebrate with us or any of ours celebrate with you the Lord's Supper. Both sides recite the Words of the LOrd in good faith and simple faith in the same is taught and the partaking (Essen) of Christ commended above everything else. And while some have a backward understanding of this we do not believe the gifts of God are dependent upon the merit of the church-servant or the communicants and that those who receive Christ's promise in faith as well as with the ears are truly not deceived in their hope and as Leo says that as much as one believes so it happens.The more I think about it, as this is now to be for the judgments of the people, that you are right in saying that we should gradually teach about the presence and food (Essen=meal, supper?) of Christ in the LOrd's Supper so that the Church should be stremgthened if there is some sort of possibility to do so and that you are also sparing no effort toward harmony and that regarding the open questions you request that through friendliness nourished and further harmony through prayer to Christ and that not yet there be any public statement regarding our agreement put in writing. Surely, I would have done so much earlier and with your permission, no doubt, I would have held back our confession if I had not feared the perverted judgment of many and feared offending many. Therefore I am pleased about that the truth about the human body of Christ is in heaven and locally present in the bread and also not mingled with the bread in a natural way in that I see that this is not contrary to your faith. You describe the manner in which Christ's body is heaven as well as present in the LOrd's Supper in this way:"that He sits in the midst of all creation in a certain place and when a certain part of creation is designated such as bread and wine selected by the Word of God like one might say of a crystal when a definite part of it is placed before the eye in the midst of it in a certain place there is a spark or flame: see, here in the front part and back part of the crystal is a flame." Thus, you surely don't mean that the Body of Christ is locally in heaven and yet you maintain it is spatially in the bread. For this we would confess with the Fathers the true situation with a body that Christ is at some sort of place in heaven and nevertheless at the same time truly present in the Sacrament and I cannot see what the difference is between us on this matter.
Now I do not doubt that you would gladly set aside this thing for which you are not lined up to do battle over and thereby obtain through quarreling what is not permitted by conscience. We can easily acknowledge that this repulsive thing about which there is peace in our churches that in yours there is distress through misunderstanding, which is lacking nowhere,so therefore I am permitting with the greatest of equanimity that this my writing about our unanimity should be withheld and according to your advice which you also gave in Coburg and that on both sides we make efforts to promote peace in the way which I have previously outlined. What you will encounter with Oecolampadius and many other servants of other churches and, to be sure not a few churches is that the real presence (solida) of Christ in the Lord's Supper is also taught along with the signs (symbolis). Zwingli fears,according to my understanding, all too much, that the people will come to harm by thinking of a meal (Essen) of Christ as corruptible nourishment of the belly by neglecting the reality of the faith in human body of Christ. Yet he was willing to permit that what I have sent him be publicized with the hope which he still has that it will be the beginning step toward peace. We want to pray to Christ that He will bring it to completion and that in relation to one another it will serve to peace in everything before us. Of any stubborness on your I have already expressed myself at length, my dear father; I know that the glory of Christ and not for any of your own you have taken much care both here and in other matters. And I do not dooubt that you have fittingly deliberated how much this division has hindered the course of the Gospel although we truly have not recognized that the people, whose fellowship is very important, have any who have joined an army of Christ except for doing that which helps the saints. Trust in Christ to whose glory everything will be accomplished. I plead with you that you will attribute to this side what is written about their stubbornness since your position is unmovablly determined regarding the
words:"Take,eat, this is my body" and that you up to this can accept nothing else that the Body of Christ is given with the bread of the LOrd to eat and should be received with the mouth and given to all who eat this bread of the LOrd so they with an unalterable position that they ,considering that Christ is to be attributed true manhood ,shy away from expressing"this bread is my Body" in a simple (simplicem)way and that "is" should be taken essentially(substantive). They observe that you do not deny that the bread cannot be what the Body of the LOrd is. From that debate a thousand fighting points would arise about which I have always sworn that it only consists about words. Finally to bring this letter to an end I want to remind you of one thing that my conscience maintains this that these words of the LOrd:"Take" etc., require that we believe that the Body of the LOrd is truly offered with the bread. However, regarding what I wrote to M. Philip, whom I intentionally did not want to be considered, regarding the godless, I want to know that you concede that you understand, it seems to me, that these words were spoken to the disciples and that we should not be disputing in this matter about those who expressly are not disciples of Christ not that thereby I in expressing Christ's presence for souls make Him to be absent from the signs since I, nevertheless, say that He is received through the signs and His presence offered but only add to this that everything is instituted for the nourishment of the soul, not for the body, except to the extent the power of immortality overflows from the soul(to the body)/ Here you have amply my opinion which is earnestly taught in our church and in very many others and it is (my) good hope that we all finally will be of one opinion and that we zealously work for the same. Be it right well with you in Christ and receive me again, as you have, as a father. In Strassburg on the 9th of February. Most worthy Herr, Your yielding Martin Bucer.
NOTES: Very many distinctions that do make a difference though they may seem to be a matter of words. Seems to me like everything turns on the presence of Christ and the presence of His Body and Blood in the Sacrament.
Monday, May 09, 2005
#1757-To Catarina Zell in Strassburg
The virtuous wife of Mathis Zell in Strassburg, my friendly, dear friend.
Grace and peace in Christ! My dear woman. I have not answered your letter previously , though very proper, which came some time ago because I thought that it was too soon and the matter was so fresh; but now because,praise God, the stone wall (Schrope? word not used by ML elsewhere has far as Editors know; perhaps sharp stones) has been changed abit, and so I now again take up your letter so that now you ,your husband and friends may be assisted so that, please God, peace and unity may be preserved. You well know that over everything love must have the preeminence, excepting God. Where He and His Word have the precedence so certainly love shall be dominant next to God. Such a thing will not happen with our efforts nor devotion but with prayer and spiritual sighing; this is God's matter, not ours. God must accomplish it and it is not of our doing. Pray,pray,pray and let it be His concern. Herewith, be commnended to God, Amen. Greet for me your loving husband. 24 January 1531 Martinus Luther.
NOTES: The story of the Reformation in Strassburg is fascinating-very complex but not quite the Lutheran brand, at least, at first. Mathis Zell or Matthias had the pulpit at the cathedral in Strassburg and along with Wolfgang Capito, another ML correspondent was very influential in spreading the Reformation. Catarina was a talented hymn writer and very tolerant to many who had different ideas on Reformation. Toward the end of her life when Lutherans denied burial to two sisters of the Schwenkfeld persuasion, she conducted the funerals herself and though quite infirm she conducted their burial services. Martin Bucer was very active in Strassburg and a long letter of his to ML is next. The above info is from Dairmaid McCullough's "The Reformation" which is a comprehensive account of the Reformation in all its aspects as well the Counter-Reformation.
Grace and peace in Christ! My dear woman. I have not answered your letter previously , though very proper, which came some time ago because I thought that it was too soon and the matter was so fresh; but now because,praise God, the stone wall (Schrope? word not used by ML elsewhere has far as Editors know; perhaps sharp stones) has been changed abit, and so I now again take up your letter so that now you ,your husband and friends may be assisted so that, please God, peace and unity may be preserved. You well know that over everything love must have the preeminence, excepting God. Where He and His Word have the precedence so certainly love shall be dominant next to God. Such a thing will not happen with our efforts nor devotion but with prayer and spiritual sighing; this is God's matter, not ours. God must accomplish it and it is not of our doing. Pray,pray,pray and let it be His concern. Herewith, be commnended to God, Amen. Greet for me your loving husband. 24 January 1531 Martinus Luther.
NOTES: The story of the Reformation in Strassburg is fascinating-very complex but not quite the Lutheran brand, at least, at first. Mathis Zell or Matthias had the pulpit at the cathedral in Strassburg and along with Wolfgang Capito, another ML correspondent was very influential in spreading the Reformation. Catarina was a talented hymn writer and very tolerant to many who had different ideas on Reformation. Toward the end of her life when Lutherans denied burial to two sisters of the Schwenkfeld persuasion, she conducted the funerals herself and though quite infirm she conducted their burial services. Martin Bucer was very active in Strassburg and a long letter of his to ML is next. The above info is from Dairmaid McCullough's "The Reformation" which is a comprehensive account of the Reformation in all its aspects as well the Counter-Reformation.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
#1754-To Johann Weber, Superintendent in Neustadt on the Orla
To the highly-honorable brother in Christ, Joahnn Weber, servant of the Word in Neustadt and faithful and pure superintendent.
Grace and peace in the LOrd! I have, worthy man, counseled Johann Nicolai in his marriage matter that he should do thus: First, that he should according to divine example summon her to judgment, that is, through a posted bill on the doors of churches in the vicinity admonish and summon her to answer to you or to him why she has fled and forsaken her husband, breaking her faithfulness, and commiting robbery and thievery etc. If she would not come, the same bill she would warned that there will bejudgment of her and she will be separated by divorce and permission given that the husband is free to take another. If this should happen the entire matter should be proclaimed to the people in a sermon by you. After this has been determined and the matter terminated through divorce it should be announced to her that Johann is free to take another as he explicitly makes it known. The offense of Satan must be countered in a public witness and work. Be it well with you and pray for me. The 16rh of January 1531. Martin Luther.
NOTE: Joh. Nicolai, pastor in Dreitzch, took Eva Erbes, a widow, to wife in 1527. She left him in October 1527. After numerous citations were posted in the vicnity of Wuerzburg and she failed to appear a court judgment of divorce was declared in October of 1531 and Nicolai permitted to marry again.
Grace and peace in the LOrd! I have, worthy man, counseled Johann Nicolai in his marriage matter that he should do thus: First, that he should according to divine example summon her to judgment, that is, through a posted bill on the doors of churches in the vicinity admonish and summon her to answer to you or to him why she has fled and forsaken her husband, breaking her faithfulness, and commiting robbery and thievery etc. If she would not come, the same bill she would warned that there will bejudgment of her and she will be separated by divorce and permission given that the husband is free to take another. If this should happen the entire matter should be proclaimed to the people in a sermon by you. After this has been determined and the matter terminated through divorce it should be announced to her that Johann is free to take another as he explicitly makes it known. The offense of Satan must be countered in a public witness and work. Be it well with you and pray for me. The 16rh of January 1531. Martin Luther.
NOTE: Joh. Nicolai, pastor in Dreitzch, took Eva Erbes, a widow, to wife in 1527. She left him in October 1527. After numerous citations were posted in the vicnity of Wuerzburg and she failed to appear a court judgment of divorce was declared in October of 1531 and Nicolai permitted to marry again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)