Hartmann Grisar

[1] Luther, von Hartmann Grisar, S.J. (Herdersche Verlagshandlung, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1911-12).

[2] “Historien,” Bl. 3´.

[3] Account from the mouth of Luther’s friend, Justus Jonas (anno 1538), made public by P. Tschackert in “Theolog. Studien und Kritiken,” Jahrg., 1897, p. 578.

[4] Ibid.

[5] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 187.

[6] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 187.

[7] Bei K. JÜrgens, “Luther von seiner Geburt his zum Ablassstreite,” l Bd. Leipzig, 1846, p. 522, from the unpublished Cod. chart. bibl. duc. Goth, 168, p. 26. According to Loesche (“Analecta Lutherana,” p. 24, n. 8) this MS. (B. 168) was written in 1553, and may be described as a collection of Luther’s opinions on various persons and things. On page 26 it contains a list entitled “Studia Lutheri.” We shall have occasion to deal with Luther’s entrance into religion in volume vi., chapter xxxvii., 2.

[8] Hier. Dungersheim von Ochsenfurt, Professor of Theology in Leipzig, in a tract published in 1531 in “Aliqua opuscula magistri Hieronymi Dungersheym ... contra M. Lutherum edita,” written in 1530, “Dadelung des ... Bekentnus oder untuchtigen Lutherischen Testaments,” Bl. 14a. (MÜnchener UniversitÄtsbibliothek, Theol., 3099, n. 552.)

[9] “Hutteni Opp.,” ed. BÖcking, 1, p. 309.

[10] “Tischreden,” ed. FÖrstemann, 4, p. 129; Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 235.

[11] Mathesius, “Historien,” Bl. 3.

[12] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 744, n. 1, p. 31.

[13] Ibid., 1, p. 754, n. 2, p. 166.

[14] N. Paulus, “BartholomÄus Arnoldi von Usingen,” Freiburg im Breisgau, 1893.

[15] “Hutteni Opp.,” ed. BÖcking, 1, p. 309. Cp. 1, p. 307, ep. 1, “Martino Luthero, amico suo antiquissimo.”

[16] Th. Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation und Johann von Staupitz,” Gotha, 1879, p. 380.

[17] Luther to Spalatinus, July 3, 1526 (see “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 366). To the Elector Johann of Saxony, November 15, 1526: Luther’s “Werke,” Erl. ed. 54, p. 50 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 403). Johann of Saxony to Luther, November 26, 1526; “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 409. Luther to the same, March 1, 1527: “Werke,” Erl. ed. 53, p. 398 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 27). On the three friends mentioned in the text, see A. Hausrath, “Luthers Bekehrung” (“Neue Heidelberger JahrbÜcher,” 6, 1896, pp. 163-66 ff. and idem. “Luthers Leben,” 1, 1904, p. 14 ff.).

[18] Cp. below, p. 16. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 73.

[19] To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.

[20] Letter to the Elector (April or June?, 1540), ed. Seidemann, “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 197.

[21] In the Preface to Bugenhagen’s (Pomeranus) edition of “Athanasius contra idolatriam,” etc., WittenbergÆ, 1532. He there recalls having read the Dialogue of Athanasius and Arius “with zeal and a glow of faith,” “primo anno monachatus mei, cum ErfordiÆ pÆdagogus meus monasticus vir sane optimus et absque dubio sub damnato cucullo verus christianus mihi eum sua manu descriptum dedisset legendum” (Cp. “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100).

[22] Ph. Melanchthonis Vita Lutheri (“VitÆ quattuor reformatorum,” Berolini, 1841), p. 5.

[23] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.

[24] To George Leiffer, April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31. “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” ibid.

[25] To Leiffer, ibid.

[26] “Lutheri Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 296.

[27] On Luther’s teachers and studies, see Oertel, “Vom jungen Luther,” p. 105 f.; for Paltz, see N. Paulus in the Innsbruck “Zeitschrift f. kath. Theologie,” 23, 1899, p. 48.

[28] April 22, 1507, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 1.

[29] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 158. (Cp. “Colloq.” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 169: “ita horrui, ut fugissem de altari,” etc.) Also Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405.

[30] “Lutheri Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 239; “Werke,” Weim. ed. 8, p. 574.

[31] From Bavarus’s Collection of Table-Talk; the information is received from a sermon of Luther’s preached in 1544. Oertel, “Vom jungen Luther,” p. 93.

[32] F. Falk, “Alte Zeugnisse Über Luthers Vater und Mutter und die MÖhraer,” in “Histor-polit. BlÄtter,” 120, 1897, pp. 415-25.

[33] “Lutherbriefe,” Dresden, 1859, p. 11, n.

[34] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 292. “Tischreden,” ed. FÖrstemann, 2, p. 164.

[35] Dungersheim, “Erzeigung der Falschheit des unchristlichen lutherischen Comments usw.,” in “Aliqua opuscula,” p. 15, cited above on p. 4.

[36] Joh. CochlÆus, “Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri,” Mogunt., 1549, p. 1.

[37] Dungersheim, ut supra.

[38] “Vita Lutheri,” p. 5 (see above, p. 10, n. 3.).

[39] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 71.

[40] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 364; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 660.

[41] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” p. 19, 100.

[42] Ibid.

[43] To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.

[44] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 240; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 574.

[45] “Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 295, on Hieronymus Weller.

[46] To Hier. Weller, see p. 19, n. 4.

[47] See below, volume vi., cap. xxxvii., where these questions are treated more fully.

[48] The reference in Dungersheim, “Dadelung,” p. 14 (see above, p. 4, n. 3) has been discussed by N. Paulus in the “Histor. Jahrbuch,” 1903, p. 73.

[49] See volume iii., chapter xvii., 6.

[50] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, pp. 28-94.

[51] Ibid., pp. 2-14.

[52] Ibid., p. 12.

[53] “Audivi crebrius, nunquam satis pacifice vixisse eum.” So CochlÆus (see above, p. 17, n. 2) in 1524.

[54] J. Oldecop, “Chronik,” ed. K. Euling, 1891, p. 17.

[55] Dungersheim, “Wore Widerlegung des falschen Buchleins M. Lutheri von beyder Gestald des hochwÜrdigsten Sacraments” (see above, p. 4, n. 3), p. 31´.

[56] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 77.

[57] Ericeus, “Sylvula sententiarum,” p. 142. Cp. J. K. Seidemann, “Luthers Älteste Vorlesungen Über die Psalmen,” 1, Dresden, 1876, p. xvii. “Ego adolescens audivi doctos viros et bonos grammaticos,” etc.

[58] In the tract “Rationis LatomianÆ confutatio,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 400; Weim. ed., 8, p. 45.

[59] The above description of Luther’s life in the monastery, starting from the strange circumstances of his entrance, has intentionally been left incomplete. Below, in volume vi., chapter xxxvii., the whole development of his character and disposition as it appears more clearly in the course of his history, and at the same time his own later views and his manner of depicting his life in religion, are reverted to in detail.

[60] “Erzeigung der Falschheit,” p. 6.

[61] “Dadelung des Bekenntnus,” p. 15´, 16.

[62] “A venatione Luteriana Ægocerotis assertio,” s.l.e.a.E, 5´.

[63] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 30, p. 372: “Although I have been a great, grievous, shameful sinner and have wasted and spent my youth damnably,” yet his greatest sins were that he had been a monk and had said Mass.

[64] “Commentaria,” etc., p. 1. “Acer ingenio et ad contradicendum audax et vehemens.”

[65] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 96 f.

[66] For the date and cause, see N. Paulus in the “Histor. Jahrbuch,” 1891, 68 f., 314 f.; 1901, 110 ff.; 1903, 72 ff. Also “Histor.-polit. BlÄtter,” 142, 1908, 738-52. The year 1510-11, as against that given by KÖstlin-Kawerau, viz. 1511-12, is now accepted by Kroker in his edition of the “Tischreden der Mathesischen Sammlung,” p. 417, and by Kawerau in his “Lutherkalender,” 1910.

[67] “Werke,” Erl. ed. 62, p. 438. “Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, 165; “Tischreden,” ed. FÖrstemann, 4, 687.

[68] “Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 169, and n. 33.

[69] “Werke,” Erl. ed. 40, p. 284.

[70] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 99 f.

[71] “Luthers Romfahrt,” p. 79.

[72] Georgius Mylius, “In Epistolam divi Pauli ad Romanos,” etc., IenÆ, 1595. “PrÆfatio,” fol. 2´. Cp. Theod. Elze, “Luthers Reise nach Rom,” Berlin, 1899, pp. 3, 45, 80.

[73] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 749 f.

[74] On his own account Paul was only a boy of eleven when he heard this statement from his father; it is therefore very doubtful whether he understood and remembered it correctly. Luther would surely have returned to the subject more frequently had it really played so great a part in his development, especially as he speaks so often of his journey to Rome. O. Scheel in his recent thesis on the development of Luther down to the time of the conclusion of the lectures on the Epistle to the Romans (“Schriften des Vereins fÜr Reformationsgesch, Nr. 100, JubilÄumsschrift,” 1910, pp. 61-230), quite correctly says: “It is possible that his son, knowing of what importance Romans i. 17 had become for Luther, may at a later date have combined these words with the Roman incident.” In any case, the objections with regard to this incident are so great that little can be made out of it.

[75] Sermo in Vincula S. Petri, hence on August 1. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1 (1883), p. 69.

[76] “Tischreden,” ed. FÖrstemann, 4, p. 687.

[77] “Chronik,” p. 30.

[78] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 40, p. 284.

[79] This remark only applies to the statement in the text. When Oldecop says he was told in Rome that Luther had come to Rome without the authorisation of his Superiors, this was untrue.

[80] Preface to Oldecop’s “Chronik.”

[81] Cp. George, Duke of Saxony, in the pamphlet published under Arnoldi’s name: “Auf das SchmÄhbÜchlein Luthers wider den Meuchler von Dresden,” 1531 (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25, p. 147), where he thus addresses Luther: “You are hostile to the Pope because, among other reasons, he would not free you from the frock and give you a whore for your wife.” The mention of the frock points to a reminiscence of what actually had taken place. Possibly the Jew is the same Jakob who, in 1520, accepted Luther’s doctrine in Germany and was baptised. Cp. Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 4, pp. 97, 147.

[82] A proof of this may, e.g., be found in certain statements on marriage made by the jurist Christoph Scheurl, borrowed from his professor Codro Urceo of Bologna, and brought forward in a speech held at Wittenberg, November 16, 1508. A Latin dialogue which the Wittenberg professor Andreas Meinhardi published in 1508 also betrays the influence of those humanistic groups. J. Haussleitner (“Die UniversitÄt Wittenberg vor dem Eintritt Luthers,” 1903, pp. 46 f., 84 ff.) attributes the manner of expression and the views of both to the ecclesiasticism of the Middle Ages. Cp. on the other side N. Paulus in the “Wissenschaftl. Beilage” to “Germania,” 1904, No. 10.

[83] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 263; “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 36, n. 5.

[84] Letter of May 29, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 35.

[85] Lang to Mutian, May 2, 1515, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 36, n. 5.

[86] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 14.

[87] Letter of August 5, 1514, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 20.

[88] To Johann Lang, October 5, 1516, and to Spalatin about the same time, “Briefwechsel,” 1, pp. 59, 62.

[89] Letter of March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88.

[90] To Spalatin, October 19, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 64.

[91] Letter of March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88.

[92] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 163; cp. p. 96 ff., and Kolde, “Martin Luther,” 1, pp. 47, 50, 59 f.

[93] Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” I¹⁸, p. 703; English translation, “Hist. of the German People,” ii., p. 297. See also Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Engl. trans.), vol. vii., p. 290 ff.

[94] Ibid.

[95] Ibid., p. 700.

[96] Ibid., p. 703.

[97] Janssen-Pastor, ibid., p. 701.

[98] Ibid., p. 721.

[99] Janssen-Pastor, ibid., pp. 703, 704. The words in single inverted commas are from J. E. JÖrg, “Deutschland in der Revolutionsperiode 1522-26,” Freiburg, 1851, p. 191.

[100] Janssen-Pastor, ibid., p. 705 f. See below (vol. ii., ch. xiv. 5) what we say regarding the clergy and monasteries at Erfurt.

[101] Ibid., p. 712.

[102] Ibid., p. 709. On the Synods, see Hefele-HergenrÖther, “Konziliengesch.,” vol. viii. Cp. Janssen-Pastor, as above, p. 680 f., and H. Grisar, “Ein Bild aus dem deutschen Synodalleben im Jahrhundert vor der Glaubensspaltung” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1, 1880, pp. 603-40).

[103] Nicolaus de Clemangiis, “De ruina ecclesiÆ,” c. 22, in Herm. von der Hardt, “Magnum oecumenicum Constantiense Concilium,” Helmestad., 1700, 1, 3 col., 23 sq.; Hefele, as above, 7, pp. 385, 416, 422, 594; 8, p. 97. Ioh. de Segovia, “Hist. syn. Basil.”, Vindob., 1873, 2, p. 774: “Quia in quibusdam regionibus nonnulli iurisdictionem ecclesiasticam habentes pecuniarios questus a concubinariis percipere non erubescunt, patiendo eos in tali foeditate sordescere.”

[104] Cp. on the “courtisans,” Janssen-Pastor, ibid., pp. 715-18.

[105] Cp. Janssen-Pastor, ibid., p. 743.

[106] Jos. Schmidlin, “Das Luthertum als historische Erscheinung” (“Wissenschaftl. Beilage” to “Germania,” 1909, Nos. 13-15), p. 99 f. Cp. Albert Weiss, “Luther und Luthertum” (in Denifle’s 2nd vol.), p. 34 ff.

[107] Schmidlin, as above. Also Albert Weiss, as above, p. 108, allows: “The conditions of things at the commencement of the sixteenth century were such that their continuance was clearly impossible, and it was easy to predict a catastrophe.... The abuses were great and had become in some cases intolerable, so that we can understand how many lost courage, patience and confidence.... It is true that everything was not corrupt, but the good there was was too feeble to struggle with success against the evil.” Nevertheless, in the genesis of the movement which led to the falling away from the Church, in spite of the more favourable view of the conditions which Weiss elsewhere takes, the real abuses in the Church, even in his own account, play a prominent part. That Luther’s work was not “necessary in view of the moral corruption” (p. 6), and that it “did not follow as an inevitable result” of the same (p. 37), but, on the contrary, was merely facilitated by circumstances, will be granted him by all who review the period with an unprejudiced mind.

[108] Lib. 1, c. 67, ed. Venet., 1560, fol. 90´, col. 1: “Heu, Domine Deus, quia ipsi sunt in tua persecutione primi, qui videntur in ecclesia tua primatum diligere et regere principatum.”

[109] Cap. 39 sq. in Herm. von der Hardt, “Magnum oecum. Constant. Concil.,” 1, 3, col. 41 sq.

[110] The author has thought it necessary to keep within limits in treating of the state of those times in order not to be led too far from Luther’s own personality. In the course of the work, the circumstances of the time and the prevailing social conditions, so far as they had a determining influence on Luther, will be considered in their own place. Such a separate treatment may, at the same time, acquaint one better with the facts than if a long and exhaustive review of the public conditions were to be given here. With regard to the history of the preliminaries of the schism there already exist many works dealing either generally with those times or with various subjects and districts; these works, however, vary much in merit. While mentioning these we would merely in passing utter a warning against generalisations and a priori constructions; especially must we be on our guard against either looking at things in so dark a light as to make Luther’s intervention appear absolutely necessary, or judging too favourably of the conditions previous to the religious struggle. In the latter case we come into collision on the one hand with numerous data which reveal with absolute certainty the existence of great corruption in the Church, and, on the other hand, we lose sight of the causes which alone offer a satisfactory historical explanation of the great spread of the schism. Luther himself—and it was this which decided us to abbreviate our survey—before the public dispute commenced, was far from possessing, in his quiet cloister, so clear a view of the conditions of the time as a learned historian is now able to obtain. The great world of Germany and Europe did not, as we know, reveal itself so clearly to the Monk and Professor as the little world of Wittenberg, and his few months of travel did not make him a judge of the world and of men. The dark and bright elements of ecclesiastical and popular life were seen by him only superficially and partially. In laying more stress on some traits than on others, he allowed himself to be influenced less by any weighing of actual facts than by his ardent feelings. Certain features of the times appear to have remained quite strange to him, notwithstanding the fact that in more recent descriptions of the influences at work in him, they are made to play a great part: so, for instance, Gallicanism with its anti-monarchical conception of the Church, or the philosophy of the ultra-realists. With respect to Nominalism, more particularly in its Occamistic form, and to mysticism, the case is absolutely different. This will, however, be discussed below (chaps. iv.-v.).

[111] On June 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 41.

[112] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 444.

[113] “Werke,” ibid., 3, p. 170.

[114] “Werke,” ibid., 3, p. 216.

[115] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 17.

[116] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 23 ff.

[117] Wilhelm Braun (“Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” Berlin, 1908) commences chapter ii. (“Luther’s Experience in the Monastery,” p. 19) as follows: “It is impossible to speak in the strict sense of any religious experience which Luther had in the monastery. It was no catastrophe which, with elemental force, brought about the Reformer’s change. Any dramatic element is entirely wanting. There was in his case no Damascus. It is a useless task to attempt, as has been done again and again, to determine the year and the day on which the actual reforming flame burnt up in Luther’s soul.” The author puts on one side KÖstlin-Kawerau’s long descriptions of the gradual ripening of the Reformer, his early comprehension of the Pauline writings, due to his inward struggles, etc. He declares Luther’s life “cannot be written so long as the beginnings of the Reformer and the growth of his tenets have not yet been made clear. That we are here still in the dark is proved, with regard to Luther’s psychology, by his latest Biographies.” This Protestant theologian, who works more independently than others, is quite resigned, “in view of the multitude of open questions raised by Luther’s early development, to see the fruits and tangible results of Luther research ripen slowly. Our most pressing duty is,” he says rightly, “to supply the material while deprecating rash conclusions”; without an acquaintance with the theology of the Middle Ages there is no possibility of understanding Luther: “in this respect Denifle’s ‘Luther und Luthertum’ furnished a wholesome though painful lesson to Protestant theologians” (p. v. f.).

[118] J. K. Seidemann, “Luthers erste und Älteste Vorlesungen Über die Psalmen, 1513 bis 1516,” 2 volumes, Dresden, 1876. Cp. Hering in “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1877, p. 633 ff.; G. Kawerau’s edition of Luther’s works, Weim. ed., volumes iii. and iv., also volume ix., pp. 116-21. He gives the title better, viz. “Dictata super Psalterium.”

[119] “AnfÄnge reformatorischer Bibelauslegung.” Ed. by Joh. Ficker, 1 volume. “Luthers Vorlesung Über den RÖmerbrief, 1515-16,” Leipzig, 1908. See below, chapter vi., 1.

[120] Kawerau’s edition in the Weim. ed., volume iv. According to the editor Luther commenced the lectures in 1516; KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,”¹ prefers the year 1517; in the 2nd ed. the year 1518. Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. 47 ff.; 1², p. x. f. Walther KÖhler in “Die Christl. Welt,” 1904, p. 203, says: “Denifles scharfsinnige ErÖrterung Über die angeblichen Vorlesungen zum Richterbuch wird, denke ich, im wesentlichen Beifall finden. Es ist ihm hier die glÜckliche Entdeckung gelungen, dass ganze StÜcke angeblich Lutherschen Eigentums wÖrtliche Entlehnungen aus Augustin sind.”

[121] See Ficker, “Luthers Vorlesung Über den RÖmerbrief,” p. 29 ff.

[122] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, and “Opp. lat. var.,” 1.

[123] Cp. Th. Brieger, “Die Gliederung der 95 Thesen Luthers” (in the “Festschrift” in honour of Max Lenz), with “Studien und Versuchen zur neueren Geschichte,” 1 Abh.

[124] The writings and theses referred to appear in the two first volumes of the Weim. ed. and of the “Opp. lat.” The “Theologia Deutsch” has recently been reprinted by Mandel (1908) from Luther’s text.

[125] See below, chapter vi., 2 ff.

[126] See below, chapter x., 1-2.

[127] W. Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” p. 22: “We learn nothing of the dispute then going on between the Conventuals and the Observantines, the laxer and stricter exponents of the monastic Rule; and yet Luther may have experienced their differences in his own person; his second removal from Erfurt to Wittenberg in 1511 was perhaps a disciplinary act, because he and Lang stood on the side of Staupitz and against the Erfurt Council. Probably Luther went to Rome about this very matter.” Concerning his removal and journey to Rome, see above, pp. 29, 38. We learn, it is true, no details about the dispute between the monasteries, and this is perhaps what Braun means; but its continuance is, to my mind, apparent from Luther’s statements, as well as from the leading part he took against the Observantines. Ficker (“Luthers Vorlesung Über den RÖmerbrief,” 1908, p. xcvii.) only mentions the Observantines cursorily, saying that Luther did not seem much attached to them. Hering (“Theolog. Studien und Kritiken,” 1877, p. 627) offers little of interest.

[128] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 61.

[129] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 155.

[130] Ibid., 4, p. 312. Note “bonitas fidei” (= Christian righteousness), “veritas fidei” (= Christian truth), “iustitiÆ fidei substantia” (= essence of Christian righteousness).

[131] Ibid., 4, p. 122.

[132] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 675; 1, p. 44.

[133] KÖstlin, “Martin Luther,” 1², p. 125. In the 5th edition by KÖstlin and Kawerau (vol. i., p. 122) the disapproving comment of KÖstlin’s was suppressed.

[134] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 423.

[135] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 424.

[136] Ibid., p. 425.

[137] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 42, where he explains Psalm iv. 1 (Cum invocarem exaudivit me Deus iustitiÆ meÆ) as follows and underlines same (his grandson Johann Ernst Luther has added in the margin: “Locus illustris de iustificatione”): “Vide quam vera et pia est ista confessio, quÆ nihil sibi de meritis arrogat. Non enim ait ‘cum multa fecissem, vel opere, ore aut aliquo meo membro meruissem,’ ut intelligas, eum nullam iustitiam allegare, nullum meritum iactare, nullam dignitatem ostentare, sed nudam et solam misericordiam Dei et benignitatem gratuitam extollere, quÆ nihil in eo invenit.”

[138] Cp. ibid., 3, pp. 172, 288, 355, 439, 514; and 4, p. 19, etc. Hunzinger, who quotes these and other passages, says: “He warns much against our own works and desire to gain merit” (“Luther und die deutsche Mystik,” in “Neue kirchl. Zeitschrift,” 19, 1908, Hft. 11, pp. 972-88, p. 978).

[139] Weim. ed., 3, p. 537 ff. on Psalm lxxvi.

[140] Ibid., p. 549: “Inde et mihi [psalmus lxxvi.] difficilis, quia extra compunctionem sum et loquor de compunctione”; in such matters one must be able “intus sentire”; “igitur quia meÆ compunctionis practica non possum, declarabo eum [psalmum] ad exemplum et ex practica B. Augustini (‘Confess.,’ 1, 8).”

[141] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 331 f.

[142] Ibid., 4, p. 78.

[143] Ibid., 4, p. 306 f.

[144] Ibid., p. 312.

[145] Ibid., 3, p. 541. “Non in viribus nostris et iustitiis operemur, sed opera Dei discamus operari ... Eruditus [psalmi auctor] concludit, opera Dei non esse, nisi quÆ Deus in nobis operetur. Quare iustitiÆ et opera nostra coram eo nihil sunt, ideoque opera exterioris iustitiÆ non sunt opera Dei,” p. 542: “Omnia ista (Ps. lvi. 13) dicuntur contra superbos et iustos apud se, qui meditantur, quomodo sua opera statuant et suas adinventiones exerceant.” He therefore blames them: “Foris ambulant in carne et carnali iustitia,” etc. Cp. ibid., 4, p. 281 against “proprietarii iustitiÆ” who, in exchange for good works, have taken out righteousness on lease.

[146] Weim. ed., 4, p. 443. Cp. ibid., 3, pp. 174, 178, where Romans i. 17, “Iustitia Dei revelatur in eo [evangelio],” is quoted with the correct traditional meaning.

[147] Ibid., 4, p. 383. The passage reminds one of the “esto peccator et pecca fortiter,” which will be referred to later. It reads: “Æquum est infirmari secundum carnem, ut inhabitet in nobis virtus Christi (2 Cor. xii. 9) in homine interiori. Æquum est iniustos et peccatores fieri, ut iustificetur Deus in sermonibus suis (Ps. l. 6): quia non venit iustos vocare sed peccatores (Matt. ix. 13), id est ut iustitia nostra agnoscatur nihil esse nisi peccatum et pannus menstruatÆ (Is. lxiv. 6), ac sic potius iustitia Christi regnet in nobis, dum per ipsum et in ipso confidimus salvari, non ex nobis, ne auferamus ei nomen, quod est Jhesus, id est Salvator.”

[148] Cp. Weim. ed., 3, pp. 290, 284.

[149] Ibid., p. 172.

[150] Ibid., 3, p. 320 ff.; 4, p. 300 ff., 312.

[151] Ibid., 4, p. 325.

[152] Weim. ed., p. 343: “omnes sumus massa perditionis et debitores mortis ÆternÆ.”

[153] Ibid., p. 354.

[154] Cp. ibid., 4, p. 207.

[155] Ibid., p. 497.

[156] Ibid., p. 383.

[157] Ibid., p. 211.

[158] Ibid., 3, p. 171: “Quod ex nullis operibus peccata remittuntur, sed sola misericordia Dei non imputantis.” Cp. p. 175.

[159] Cp. on Concupiscence, in the Commentary on the Psalms, Denifle, 1², p. 441 f. and pp. 453, 476. A. Hunzinger, “Lutherstudien,” 1; “Luthers Neuplatonismus in den Psalmvorlesungen,” Leipzig, 1906, Preface: “Denifle’s ‘Luther’ is correct; Luther during the first years of his literary activity stood on Catholic ground; nor is it by any means the case that from the beginning the reforming element was contained in germ in Luther’s theology.” On the other hand, the elements which were to lead him to take the step from the obscure theology of the Commentary on the Psalms to the heretical theology of 1515-16—viz. his false mysticism and misapprehension of the Epistle to the Romans—were already present. The most suspicious passage in the Commentary on the Psalms is 4, p. 227, which points to the continuance of his doubts regarding predestination; he says that Christ had drunk of the chalice of suffering for the elect, but not for all. See the next note, especially the first quotation.

[160] Weim. ed., 4, p. 295: “Anima mea est in potestate mea et in libertate arbitrii possum eam perdere vel salvare eligendo vel reprobando legem tuam.” Concupiscence has not yet become original sin itself, but is still a mere relic of the same (3, pp. 215, 453). KÖstlin, in “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 66, quotes other passages from the Commentary on the Psalms, thus, 3, p. 584: God is more ready to have mercy on us than we are to beseech Him; but He is unable to have mercy on us if our pride proves a hindrance (“quando nos nolumus ... prohibente nostra superbia”). In his marginal notes on Peter Lombard (written 1509) Luther had rightly said: “Liberum arbitrium damnatur quia ... gratiam ... oblatam et exhibitam non acceptat vel acceptam non custodit.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 71.

[161] Weim. ed., 3, p. 546: “Desideriis ait apostolus, carnis non esse obediendum, nec regnare peccatum debere licet esse desideria et peccata in carne prohiberi non possit.... In mediis tentationibus eundum est, as the Israelites passed through the Red Sea. Sentiri et videre et experiri oportet bonitates et malitias carnis, sed non consentire.”

[162] Ibid., 3, p. 603: “Residuum prÆteritorum bonorum [of the original state] quod in affectu remansit syntheresico.” On the syntheresis and Luther’s early views on this subject see KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 51 f., 125.

[163] Weim. ed., 4, p. 295, cp. above, p. 74, n. 9.

[164] Ibid., 3, pp. 89, 101, 200; 4, p. 204 f., 309.

[165] Ibid., 4, pp. 262, 309.

[166] Ibid., pp. 262, 312.

[167] Ibid., 3, pp. 52, 189, 239 f., 424, 462, 466, 603.

[168] Ibid., 4, p. 250.

[169] Ibid., 3, pp. 426, 239.

[170] Weim. ed., 3, p. 289. Cp. Ibid., 4, pp. 329, 312: “ex pacto et promissione Dei.”

[171] “Dogmengesch.,”⁴ (1906), p. 697 with ref. to “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 443: “sine merito redimi de peccatis,” and similar passages.

[172] “Luther und die deutsche Mystik,” p. 976, above, p. 71, n. 4.

[173] “Lutherstudien,” 1. See above, p. 74, n. 8.

[174] Hunzinger thus sums up his results in “Luther und die deutsche Mystik,” p. 975.

[175] Veit Dietrich MS. Collecta, fol. 137´ in Seidemann, “Luthers erste Psalmenvorlesung,” 1, p. vii.

[176] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 29. Ibid., “In Augustinum,” pp. 7, 23, 24, 27.

[177] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 26 f., probably not meant seriously by Luther.

[178] “Luthers ungedruckte Predigten,” ed. G. Buchwald, 3, 1885, p. 50.

[179] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 121.

[180] Johann Mensing O.P., “Antapologie,” Frankfurt, 1533, fol. 18´. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe mit Luther,” 1903, p. 40.

[181] Cp. Evers, “Luther,” 1, p. 377.

[182] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 30 f.: “Semper prÆdico de Christo, gallina nostra ... et efficitur mihi errans et falsum.” He preached, namely, against those “qui ab alis [Domini] recedunt in sua propria bona opera ... et nolunt audire, quod iustitiÆ eorum peccata sint. Gratiam maxime impugnant, qui eam iactant.” The expression “gallina nostra” appears also in the Commentary on the Psalms (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 71).

[183] To Spalatin, June 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 40.

[184] Cp. his reproaches against members of his own Order with regard to disobedience and want of charity, which will be given shortly.

[185] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 61.

[186] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 62, Fragment.

[187] Ibid., p. 63. (Sermo contra opinionem sanctitatis et meriti.)

[188] Ibid., p. 70. (Sermo de vitiis capitalibus in merito operum et opinione sanctitatis se efferentibus.)

[189] Ibid., p. 73. Line 25 should read “in fine quia” not “in fine qui”; and line 28 “in Deo quieti” not “ac Deo quieti.” The edition elsewhere leaves much to be desired.

[190] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 10: “Scatet totus orbis imo inundat ... doctrinam sordibus.” The doubts as to the authenticity of this sermon do not deserve attention.

[191] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 118. Extracts from the first of the Christmas sermons of 1515 (or 1514).

[192] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 128 seq.

[193] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 129.

[194] Seidemann, “Luthers Vorlesungen Über die Psalmen,” 1, p. 211; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 319.

[195] To Joh. Lang, Prior at Erfurt, February 8, 1517. “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 86: “Nihil ita ardet animus, quam histrionem illum, qui tam vere GrÆca larva ecclesiam lusit, multis revelare ignominiamque eius cunctis ostendere.” De Wette has the letter incorrectly dated February 8, 1516.

[196] Letter to Trutfetter, May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 187.

[197] “Corpus Reform.,” 3, p. 154, n. 83. O. Waltz erroneously questions this statement in “Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch.,” 2, 1878, p. 628. Cp. 3, 1879, 305.

[198] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 110 f.

[199] Preface to his first edition: “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 153.

[200] “Correspondence,” 1, p. 75.

[201] Letter of April 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 29. (De Wette dates it April 7.)

[202] “Luther never became by his diligent study of Tauler a mystic in the strict sense of the word. He makes his own merely the language of mysticism. He often uses the same expressions as Tauler, but with another meaning, indeed he even unconsciously imputes to Tauler his own views,” H. BÖhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 35 (omitted in the 2nd edition, 1910).

[203] September (?), 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 54 ff.

[204] To Spalatin, about October 5, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 62.

[205] Ibid.

[206] To Spalatin, October 19, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 63. Spalatin took his advice, as his letter to Erasmus (“Opp. Erasmi,” ed. Lugd. Bat., 3, col. 1579 sq.) shows. The letter is also printed in “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 65.

[207] See below, chapter vi., p. 1 ff.

[208] H. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.,” 4, 1906, p. 702 ff.

[209] “Cod. Vat. Palat. 1826,” fol. 77; Denifle, 1², “Quellenbelege,” p. 313 f.; “Scholia to Romans” (Ficker), p. 2.

[210] Fol. 121´ and 122. “Scholia to Rom.,” p. 73: “(Iusti) gemunt et implorant gratiam Dei ... credunt semper, se esse peccatores.... Sic humiliantur sic plorant, sic gemunt, donec perfecte sanentur, quod fit in morte.... Si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus (1 Io., i. 8).... Confisi se iam habere gratiam Dei omittunt sua secreta rimari, tepescunt cotidie,” etc. The passage is a continuation of that quoted by Denifle-Weiss, “Luther,” 1², p. 463, n. 10, and makes the latter appear in a different sense somewhat more favourable to the righteous.

[211] Fol. 230 ff. “Scholia to Rom.,” p. 241 f., in Denifle, 1², “Quellenbelege,” p. 329.

[212] Ibid.

[213] Ibid., “Scholia to Rom.,” p. 243.

[214] Fol. 104. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 465, n. 1; “Schol. to Rom.,” p. 44. Cp. the passage fol. 152 Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 527, n. 1; “Schol. to Rom.,” p. 121, where Luther’s addition, omitted by Denifle, sums up everything: “Ideo omnes in iniquitate id est iniustitia nascimur, morimur, sola autem reputatione miserentis Dei per fidem verbi eius iusti sumus.”

[215] Fol. 159. “Schol. to Rom.,” p. 132, where he reproves those “qui nimium securi incedunt per Christum, non per fidem, quasi sic per Christum salvandi sint, ut ipsi nihil operentur, nihil exhibeant de fide. Hi nimiam habent fidem, immo nullam. Quare utrumque fieri oportet ‘per fidem,’ ‘per Christum,’ ut in fide Christi, omnia, quÆ possumus, faciamus atque patiamur; et tamen iis omnibus servos inutiles nos agnoscamus, per Christum solum sufficientes nos confidamus ad accessum Dei. Omnibus enim operibus fidei id agitur, ut Christo et iustitiÆ eius refugio ac protectione digni efficiamur.”

[216] Fol. 190. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 518, n. 1; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 165 f.

[217] Fol. 173. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 156, he says of the text: “ut destruatur corpus peccati” (Rom. vi. 6): “Destrui corpus peccati est concupiscentias carnis et veteris hominis frangi laboribus poenitentiÆ et crucis, ac sic de die in diem minui eas ac mortificari, ut Col. iii. (v. 5). ’Mortificate membra vestra, quÆ sunt super terram.’ Sicut ibidem clarissime describit utrunque hominem novum et veterem.”

[218] Fol. 100 and 100’. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 38 f.; Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 44, n. 1, where, however (line 9), the Vatican copy reads rightly “potuit,” not “oportuit”; line 11 should read “summum ens, quod.” Both are correct in Ficker. The words “legem impleverunt,” line 15, really belong to another passage.

[219] Fol. 132’. To supplement the quotation (Denifle-Weiss, 1, p. 468), which is incompletely quoted, I have taken from the Vatican MS. (Ficker, “Scholia to Rom.,” p. 89) the following: “Qui autem sic timuerit et humiliter confessus fuerit, dabitur ei gratia ut iustificetur et dimittatur peccatum, si quid forte per occultam et ignoratam incredulitatem fecerit. Sic Iob verebatur omnia opera sua. Et Apostolus non sibi conscius fuit, et tamen non in hoc se iustificatum putat. Ac per hoc soli Christo iustitia relinquitur, soli ipsi opera gratiÆ et spiritus; nos autem semper in operibus legis, semper iniusti, semper peccatores, secundum illud Ps. xxxi. (v. 6): ‘Pro hac orabit ad te omnis sanctus.’” There follows an invective against the proud man: “qui se credere putat et omnem fidem possidere perfecte.”

[220] Fol. 154. “Scholia Rom.,” p. 124. The saints begged for forgiveness because in them “peccatum manifestum est cum ipsis, apud se ipsos et in conscientia sua.... Ne desperent misericordiam in Christo invocant et ita exaudiuntur. HÆc est sapientia abscondita in mysterio.” He concludes: our righteousness is unknown to us, “quia in ipso et consilio eius (Dei) tota pendet.”

[221] Passages in Denifle-Weiss, l², p. 470 ff.; p. 482 ff. Cp. p. 442 ff.

[222] Fol. 144´. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 455, n. 4, and p. 482, n. 3; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 108 ff.

[223] Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 457 ff.

[224] “Scholia to Rom.,” p. 109.

[225] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 75.

[226] Thus “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 414 and 731; 4, p. 691; 7, pp. 110 and 344; 8, p. 93. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15, p. 54; 16, p. 141; 63, p. 131; “Tischreden,” ed. FÖrstemann, 2, p. 42; 4, p. 391; etc. Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 461. He may in time have come to believe the words were really Augustine’s.

[227] Ficker, p. xli. and xxix.

[228] Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 457 ff., on the whole question; he also points out two other falsifications of Augustine’s views committed by Luther.

[229] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 108.

[230] Cp. Denifle, 1, pp. 458, 502 ff.

[231] Fol. 144´. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 455, n. 4; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 109. The continuation of this passage, which is not without importance, is: “Ita mecum pugnavi, nesciens quod remissio quidem vera sit, sed tamen non sit ablatio peccati.”

[232] Fol. 153´. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 124: “Igitur ex quo Dei prÆceptum implere non possumus ac per hoc semper iniusti merito sumus, nihil restat, [quam] ut iudicium semper timeamus et pro remissione iniustitiÆ, immo pro nonimputatione oremus; quia nunquam remittitur omnino, sed manet et indiget non imputatione.” Of the true Catholic doctrine, re the inability of man and God’s grace, Denifle treats very well (1, pp. 416-27).

[233] Fol. 193. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 508, n. 1; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 183.

[234] Ibid.

[235] J. KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 215. Cp. 2, p. 124.

[236] Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 509; KÖstlin, 2², p. 50, quotes, amongst others, Luther’s later thesis that mere human reason can only take for good what is evil.

[237] Fol. 77. Denifle, 1² “Quellenbelege,” p. 313; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 1.

[238] Fol. 75´. Vatican MS. of Commentary on Hebrews; Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 528, n. 2.

[239] Fol. 153´. “Rom. Schol.,” p. 123: in the continuation of passage quoted by Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 503, n. 5: “Non potest intus sine misericordia Dei iustus esse, quum sit fomite corruptus.... QuÆ iniquitas non invenitur in credentibus et gementibus quia succurit eis Christus de plenitudine puritatis suÆ et tegit eorum hoc imperfectum.”

[240] Fol. 153. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 503, n. 5; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 123.

[241] Fol. 153. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 123: “Patet quod nullum est peccatum veniale ex substantia et natura sua sed nec meritum.”

[242] Fol. 153´. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 124: “Dicis, ut quid ergo merita sanctorum adeo prÆdicantur. Respondeo, quod non sunt eorum merita, sed Christi in eis.”

[243] Fol. 121, 121´; Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 453; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 73 f.

[244] On Predestination see below, chapter vi. 2.

[245] Assertions in this sense lightly made by CochlÆus and Emser were accepted as true by later writers, such as Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius in his “Confutatio prolegomenorum Brentii”; thus the legend finds acceptance even among recent polemics. Emser only said, “he was now beginning to suspect” that Luther had come forward because there was “nothing to be made out of the indulgence business for you (Luther) or your party, and because Tetzel and his followers instead of your party were entrusted with the indulgence business.” “A venatione Luteriana Ægocerotis assertio,” fol. c., November, 1519. CochlÆus meant his accusation rather more seriously, but brings forward no proofs.

[246] “Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam Lutheri,” 1532, p. 447, in “Erasmi Opp.” t. 10, Lugd., Batav., 1706, p. 1555: “Si tollas ... quÆ illi conveniunt cum I. Hus et I. Wiclevo aliisque nonnullis, fortasse non multum restabit, quo veluti proprio glorietur.”

[247] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, pp. 292, 334. Cp. W. KÖhler, “Luther und die Kirchengesch.,” (1900), p. 168 f.

[248] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 315.

[249] W. KÖhler, ibid., p. 225: “In his acquaintance with the sources Luther hardly rises above the average. Eck is superior to him in this point, for he deals with the various sources as an expert, which Luther never was. Emser also was not behind Luther ... that Luther became acquainted with Hus’s ‘De Ecclesia’ at an earlier period than his friends and adversaries was due to the kindness of the Bohemians, not to his own zeal in research. His friends as well as his adversaries made haste to catch up with him again.”

[250] “Concerning Eck’s latest Bulls.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 28; Weim. ed., 6, p. 591. Cp. Luther’s “Prefaces and epilogues to some letters of Hus” (1536 and 1537), “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 59 ff., and “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 536 seq.

[251] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 81. See W. KÖhler, ibid., p. 167: “We may well ask here whether the experience of later years does not come in as well.”

[252] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 80 f.; 24², p. 27 f.; Weim. ed., 6, p. 590 f.

[253] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 591. See above, p. 25.

[254] KÖhler, “Luther und die Kirchengesch.,” p. 226, and “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 216.

[255] “Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 240 f.

[256] Cp. KÖhler, p. 165 f., from “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 185; ibid., p. 223: “It is certain that Luther had read nothing of Wiclif’s.”

[257] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 152.

[258] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 152.

[259] Denifle has shown from a large number of passages which Luther knew, that the Church at that time represented “God the Lord always as a merciful and gracious God, not as the stern judge” whom it was necessary “to propitiate by works” (Denifle, 1², p. 400 ff., pp. 420, 421).

[260] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 49, p. 315.

[261] “Literar. Beilage” to the “KÖln. Volksztg.,” No. 44, October 29, 1903. “Luthers Selbstzeugnisse Über seine Klosterzeit, eine Lutherlegende.”

[262] Various passages which are supposed to prove Luther’s moral faults, or defects in his character, have simply been passed over in the above as insufficient. Thus what he says regarding his state in the monastery: “Even where it was only a question of a small temptation of death or sin, I fell” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 279). This “fall,” according to the context, does not refer to a yielding to the attacks of evil desires, but the ostensible melting away of his trust in a merciful God. It is quite apparent that “a temptation of death” cannot be understood in the former, but only in the latter sense. Luther once says that the doctrine that sin is expelled all at once and that grace is infused also all at once in justification drives a man to despair, as his own experience teaches; for it is clear that sin dwells in the heart together with good, anger with mildness, sensuality with chastity (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 664; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 73 seq.); but he refers this whole explanation not to actual giving way to concupiscence, but simply to the inevitable continuance of concupiscence in the righteous, which he, it is true, calls sin. We may also mention here the text wrongly quoted in which, as a proof of his haughty bearing, speaking of a certain theological interpretation, he says: “legi mille auctores,” though he was then but a young man (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 62; gloss to the Sentences). What he really says is: “lege mille auctores,” i.e. you will not find it otherwise in a thousand writers; the “legi” is only a misprint.

The statement which has been quoted as a proof of the self-deception which his pride engendered in him, viz. that God had placed him in his office as one quite “invincible,” rests on a similar misprint. Instead of “invictissimum,” as in Enders (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 21), we should read “invitissimum,” according to W. Walther’s correct rendering, and the idea is one which often recurs in Luther, viz. that God had called him to the office in spite of his disinclination. Nor can his want of the spirit of prayer be proved by his statement that he often followed the office with so much distraction that “the Psalm or the Hour (Hora) was ended before I noticed whether I was at the beginning or in the middle” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 22). If he were speaking of voluntary inattention, that would be something different, but the imagination of one so much occupied as he was might well be greatly distracted quite unintentionally.

[263] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 295. Cp. ibid., 9, p. 112, Luther’s marginal note on Anselm’s “Opuscula,” which has the same meaning: Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 507, n. 3.

[264] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 262: “Recte dicunt Doctores, quod homini facienti quod in se est infallibiliter dat gratiam et licet non de condigno sese possit ad gratiam prÆparare, quia est incomparabilis (correct view of the supernatural) tamen bene de congruo propter promissionem istam Dei et pactum misericordiÆ.” The best Scholastics, however, rightly questioned the “de congruo.” The proposition “Facienti,” etc., with “infallibiliter dat” instead of the usual “non denegat” is nominalistic (Denifle, 1¹, p. 556 f.; cp. pp. 407, 415).

[265] Besides the former passage, see for “congrue se disponere,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 329. Though Luther emphasises at the same time the gratis esse of grace, yet Loofs (“Dogmengesch.,” 4, p. 700) is not altogether wrong, having regard for Luther’s nominalistic views, in saying: “we must at least consider his opinion at that time as crypto-semi-Pelagian.” He is rightly indignant with KÖstlin (“Luthers Theologie,”² p. 67 f.) for having “attempted to conform these passages with Luther’s later views.”

[266] Fol. 100. Denifle, 1¹, p. 414, n. 5; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 38: “per sui prÆparationem ad eandem, quantum in se est.”

[267] Fol. 100. Denifle, 1¹, p. 414, n. 4; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 37.

[268] Fol. 212. Denifle-Weiss, 1, p. 508, n. 2; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 212: “habita autem gratia, (arbitrium) proprie factum est liberum, saltem respectu salutis.”

[269] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 103; Loofs, p. 708.

[270] Cp. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 107.

[271] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 388.

[272] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15, p. 53 f.

[273] Ibid., 27, p. 180 f.; Weim. ed., 7, p. 24, Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen, 1520.

[274] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 374. See below, chapter viii. 3.

[275] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 35; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 64: “Si cognoscatur, quod nullis consiliis, nullis auxiliis nostris concupiscentia ex nobis possit auferri, et hÆc contra legem est, quÆ dicit ‘Non concupisces’ et experimur omnes invincibilem esse concupiscentiam penitus, quid restat, nisi ut sapientia carnis cesset et cedat, desperet in semetipsa, pereat et humiliata aliunde quÆrat auxilium, quod sibi prÆstare nequit?.

[276] In Comm. on Epistle to the Rom., fol. 167; quoted by Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 476, n. 2; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 144 f.

[277] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 207; 3, p. 535.

[278] “Werke”, Erl. ed., 58, p. 382; Table-Talk.

[279] To George Spenlein, April 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 29: “anima tua, pertÆsa propriam iustitiam, discat in iustitia Christi respirare atque confidere,” etc.; see above, p. 89.

[280] See above, p. 83.

[281] “Disputation of Bartholomew Bernhardi”; “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 145 ff.

[282] “Disputation of Franz GÜnther”; ibid., p. 224 ff., Nos. 37, 25.

[283] To Johann Lang, March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88. He will not be one: “qui arbitrio hominis nonnihil tribuit.”

[284] The Seven Penitential Psalms; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 158 ff., especially pp. 160, 201, 211, 213, 219. For “pains of hell” cp. ibid., p. 557.

[285] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 319-24.

[286] To Staupitz, March 31, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” p. 175 f.

[287] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 288 (1525); KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 465 ff.

[288] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 552 ff.

[289] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 396; Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 87 (an. 1522): “opera quibus erga homines utendum est, offerunt Deo,” etc.

[290] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 282: “They praise their works,” “the lousy works.” Cp. ibid., 22², pp. 52, 381.

[291] At Halle. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16, p. 221 ff., against the “lousy monks” and their “holiness by works.” Cp. generally the four last sermons at Eisleben, ibid., pp. 209, 230, 245, 264.

[292] To George Leiffer, April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31.

[293] March 31, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 175.

[294] “Pride brought him to fall and to despair of himself, pride prevented his rising again and made him despair of God’s grace which assists us to keep God’s law which our concupiscence resists.” So Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 463.

[295] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 18. Biel’s much-esteemed book on the Mass was composed principally of discourses to the clergy delivered in the cathedral at Mayence by his friend and teacher Egeling Becker of Brunswick. In the title Biel speaks of him as “vita pariter et doctrina prÆfulgidus.” Adolf Franz, “Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter” (1902), p. 550 ff.

[296] “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 243.

[297] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 6: he yearns for theology which examines “the kernel of the nut and the marrow of the bones: quÆ nucleum nucis et medullam tritici et medullam ossium scrutatur.”

[298] G. Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” Erfurt, 1899, p. 113.

[299] Denifle, 1¹, p. 501 f.

[300] Oergel, p. 118, from the Gotha MS., A 262, fol. 258.

[301] This is at least what he assures the Erfurt Faculty, December 21, 1514. “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 24.

[302] Letter of the Elector to Staupitz (April 7, 1518), in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 314.

[303] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 607, n. 1.

[304] When Luther in his answers to Prierias (Weim. ed., 1, p. 661), angered at his opponent’s frequent references to the Angelic Doctor, remarks: “etiam ea quÆ fidei sunt, in quÆstiones vocat et fidem vertit in ‘utrum,’” the words “quÆstiones” and “utrum” lead us to doubt whether he had done more than read the headings of the “Questions.” Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 550.

[305] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 600; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 137.

[306] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 165.

[307] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 375.

[308] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (ed. Kroker), p. 172. Uttered between the 7th and the 24th August, 1540.

[309] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 183; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 188.

[310] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 315 seq.

[311] Denifle-Weiss, 2, p. 331.

[312] Ibid., p. 229.

[313] Denifle, “Chartularium universitatis Paris.,” 2, p. 588.

[314] Thus A. Weiss, p. 330.

[315] See volume v., xxxiv., 3.

[316] “Opp.,” ed. Antv., 1706, p. 457.

[317] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 375, in his exhortation to the clergy.

[318] More on this below. He repeats this accusation several times, also in the context of the previous passage. He is confusing natural good works with supernatural and meritorious good works.

[319] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 173. Uttered between the 7th and 24th August, 1540.

[320] Cp., for instance, Occam, “In libros sententiarum,” Lugd., 1495, l. 3, q. 8 to 1. The passage “Nunc autem manent fides,” etc., is the only one mentioned, with the reference “Ad. Cor.” Of any exegetical application there is no question whatever. Speculative theology left biblical interpretation too exclusively to the perfunctory Bible lecturers, and assumed as well known and proved what should first have been positively established.

[321] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 18. Cp. “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 270.

[322] See above, p. 83.

[323] Denifle-Weiss, 2, p. 300 ff., where the danger to the faith which lay in the foundation tendency of Nominalism is strongly emphasised, but where it is also admitted that the consequences were not actually drawn, and that it required “centuries of thought before the questions raised were pursued to their bitter end,” p. 303.

[324] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 27.

[325] “Parvulus philosophiÆ naturalis,” Lips., 1499, fol. 136. N. Paulus, “Der Augustiner Barth. Arnoldi v. Usingen” (Strasburg “Theol. Studien,” 1, 3), p. 4.

[326] Ibid., fol. 18; Paulus, ibid., p. 5.

[327] Paulus, p. 17; Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” p. 131.

[328] Cp. e.g. Luther’s theses in Drews’ Disputations, p. 42: “Ratio aversatur fidem, Solius Dei est, dare fidem contra naturam, contra rationem, et credere.” It belongs to the year 1536.

[329] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 335; “Responsio ad Catharinum.” Cp. Weim. ed., 8, 127: “De Thoma Aquino, an damnatus vel beatus sit, vehementissime dubito.... Multa hÆretica scripsit et autor est regnantis Aristotelis, vastatoris piÆ doctrinÆ.” He continues, saying that he is entitled to hold this opinion, “qui educatus in eis sim et coÆtaneorum doctissimorum ingenia expertus, optima istius generis scripta contemplatus.” So in “Rationis LatomianÆ confutatio” (1521).

[330] Letter of May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 190.

[331] Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 610, n. 1.

[332] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 5, p. 22; “Operationes in psalmos.” Written in 1519 ff.

[333] Above, p. 137, note 5.

[334] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 401.

[335] Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 554, where he refers to a “Treatise on the preparation for grace” to appear in his second volume, but which is not contained in the second volume edited by A. Weiss.

[336] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 110. “O stulti, O Sawtheologen.” He is referring to the “theologi scholastici,” p. 108, “nostri theologi,” p. 111.

[337] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 414.

[338] Biel, in 2 Sent., dist. 30, q. 2 ad 4 (BrixiÆ, 1574): “Rectitudo autem naturalis voluntatis, eius sc. libertas, non corrumpitur per peccatum; illa enim est realiter ipsa voluntas, nec ab ea separabilis.” Cp. however Biel’s other passage, quoted by Denifle-Weiss, 1, p. 535, n. 4, where he speaks differently. The teaching of the school of Occam deserves more careful examination than has hitherto been bestowed on it, and perhaps the Luther studies which have been so actively carried on of late will promote this. Meanwhile we must give a warning against statements which presuppose an excessive alienation of this school from the general teaching of the Church. Occam has recently been represented by the Protestant party, in discussions on Luther’s development, as the “outspoken antipodes of mediÆval Christendom,” “whose aim it clearly was to strike at the very root of the ancient Christian view of the Redemption by grace.” Revelation was to him merely a “collection of unreasonable doctrines,” and the Bible a “chance jumble of unreasonable Divine oracles.” As a matter of fact, he always recognised in the teaching of the Church the correct interpretation of Scripture, and was under the impression that his teaching on the Redemption was conformable with the Church’s interpretation. We are also told that he always restricted infallibility to Holy Scripture, denying it to the Councils; that, with regard to the doctrine of grace, he assailed the teaching of the Schoolmen according to which grace was to be considered as “Divine matter,” and took the forgiveness of sins to mean merely the non-imputation of sin; that Luther’s proofs of the omnipresence of the body of Christ had been anticipated by Occam, and that, in the same way, his teaching with regard to the right of worldly authorities to reform the Church was also to be found in Occam. As regards Occam’s ecclesiastico-political ideas it is quite true they pervade Luther’s theses, nevertheless Occam’s erroneous doctrines on the constitution of the Church were not studied in the schools through which Luther had passed, but only those on Scholasticism: they are also never quoted by Luther in defence of his teaching.

[339] Sess., vi., c. 1.

[340] Cp. p. 140, note, where: “Rectitudo naturalis voluntatis est libertas voluntatis,” etc., precedes the first words quoted.

[341] “Qualitas corporalis inclinans appetitum sensitivum,” etc., and “qualitas carnis inordinata inclinans,” etc. In 2 Sent., q. 26; in 3 Sent., q. 2; Quodlib., 3, q. 10; Denifle, 1¹, p. 843.

[342] In 3 Sent., dist. 27, art. 3, quoted further on p. 155, n. 1. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 535, n. 4, and p. 536 ff.

[343] Denifle, 1¹, p. 843 f.

[344] Occam, 1 Sent., dist. 1, q. 2, concl. 1: “Voluntas potest se conformare dictamini rationis,” etc.

[345] 2 Sent., dist. 28 (Brix. ed.), fol. 143´.

[346] Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 527, n. 3, p. 521.

[347] Ibid., p. 522, n. 2.

[348] Ibid., p. 541, n. 1. In spite of this, the teaching of the much-used Commentary on the Sentences continued to make itself felt, more particularly as the author enjoyed great consideration among the ecclesiastically minded, represented Nominalism at TÜbingen, and was honoured as “the last of the Scholastics.” It is worth while to quote the points of his teaching on grace from his book on the Sentences with the glosses which Biel does not forget to mention. The principal passage is in 3 Sent., dist. 27, art. 3, dub. 2 to Q (according to the Lyons edition of 1514). Among the five propositions there set up, “post. Domn. Pe. de Aliaco” (d’Ailly), the first teaches the possibility of an act of love of God “ex naturalibus.” This is the reason: “omni dictamini rationis rectÆ voluntas ex suis naturalibus potest se conformare.” The second proposition, however, says: “Talis amoris actus non potest stare in viatore de potentia Dei ordinata sine gratia et charitate infusa,” owing to the principle, “Facienti quod est in se.” That grace is every moment at man’s disposal is proved from many Bible passages, yet any other more perfect disposition for grace than the natural act of love of God is not possible to man; the natural act in relation to grace is, however, only prior “natura,” not “tempore.” The third proposition runs: “Charitas infusa tamen est prior in meriti ratione,” etc. The fourth: with this natural act no mortal sins can exist. The fifth: “Stante lege [i.e. prÆsente ordinatione Dei] nullus homo per pura naturalia potest implere prÆceptum de dilectione Dei super omnia. Probatur, quia lex iubet, quod actus cadens sub prÆcepto fiat in gratia, quÆ est habitus supernaturalis.”

[349] Biel, in 2 Sent., dist. 28, says of the natural love of God: “Actus dilectionis Dei super omnia est dispositio ultimata et sufficiens ad gratiÆ infusionem.... Gratia superadditur tanquam prÆviÆ dispositioni,” etc. But ibid., fol. 143´, he says: “Sic ad prÆparandum se ad donum Dei suscipiendum non indiget alio dono gratiÆ, sed Deo ipsum movente [sc. concursu generali].”

[350] Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 542 f.

[351] To Spalatin, August 15, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 109: “Is [Gregorius Ariminensis] solus inter scholasticos contra omnes scholasticos recentiores cum Carolostadio, id est Augustino et apostolo Paulo consentit.” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 84.

[352] In 2 Sent., fol. 91´ ad 2 (ed. Venet., 1503): “Deus non prÆcipit homini ut talia opera faciat sine auxilio suo,” etc.

[353] Cp. the scholastic passages in Denifle, 11, p. 555, n. 3. He leaves the explanation for the second volume, though A. Weiss does not give it. Denifle’s remarks (p. 557 f.) on the practical application of the principle “Facienti” are worthy of attention.

[354] Denifle, 1¹, p. 564.

[355] Denifle, 1, p. 670 f.

[356] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 61 seq. Such views have often been adopted from Luther by Protestant theologians and historians. “The worth of Scholasticism,” Denifle complains, 1¹, p. 845, “i.e. the scholastic doctrine as misunderstood and misrepresented by them, is judged of by them according to Luther’s erroneous views which they receive as axioms, first principles and unalterable truths.” In the second edition A. Weiss has struck out this sentence. Denifle, 1¹, p. 840, complains with reason that Biel is accepted as a reliable representative of Scholasticism. Cp. p. 552, n. 1, after showing his inaccuracy in one passage: “The reader may judge for himself what a false impression of St. Thomas’s teaching would be gained from Biel.”

[357] In the “Resolutiones super propositionibus LipsiÆ disputatis,” concl. 1; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 3, p. 245 sq.; Weim. ed., 2, p. 403. It is of interest to see how he sums up his desire of ridding himself of the oppression of doctrinal rules in the cry: “Volo liber esse.” Cp. ibid., pp. 247, 404.

[358] See above, p. 39 ff. Cp. passages quoted below, chapter vi. 3.

[359] See above, p 80. According to Usingen the “primaria factio nostrÆ unionis” (i.e. of the Saxon Congr. of Augustinians) was that which Luther led astray “contra nativum conventum suum.” The “secundaria factio” was the Reformation “qua pÆne desolata est nostra unio.” See Usingen, “Sermo de S. cruce” (ErfordiÆ, 1524); N. Paulus, Usingen, p. 16, n. 5.

[360] Cp. Pollich, in KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 87. See above, p. 86.

[361] Fol. 233´. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 528, n. 1; “Rom. Schol.,” p. 244.

[362] Fol. 144. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 526, n. 3; “Rom. Schol,” p. 108.

[363] 1-2, q. 112, a. 3.

[364] S. Thom., “in Ep. ad Romanos,” lect. 1 (on Rom. iv. 2).

[365] In Rom. iii. 27: “Non enim ex operibus est iustitia, sed ipsa sunt ex iustitia (see in this connection Luther’s statement, p. 43) ideoque non iustitiam operum sed opera iustitiÆ dicimus.” Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 528-30.

[366] Fol. 158. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 531, n. 1, 2; “Rom. Schol.,” p. 130: “Hoc totum scholastici theologi unam dicunt mutationem: expulsionem peccati et infusionem gratiÆ.”

[367] See Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 542 ff.

[368] Denifle, 1¹, p. 520, n. 1.

[369] On Occam’s teaching on the supernatural habit see below, p. 154. Occam, 2 Sent., q. 26, says, it seems “quod iustitia originalis dicat aliquid absolutum superadditum puris naturalibus.” Biel speaks, 2 Sent., dist. 30, q. 1, concl. 3, of the “donum supernaturale.”

[370] Cp. in Gal. 1, p. 188 seq.

[371] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 272.

[372] Erl. ed., 10², p. 11.

[373] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 244, in 1527.

[374] Ibid., p. 4.

[375] Ibid., 2, p. 420.

[376] Denifle, 1¹, p. 561. In spite of this, some Protestant critics are under the impression that Denifle has made of Luther a faithful follower of Occam and that he “gives him short shrift as a confirmed Occamist.”

[377] On April 13, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 379 f.

[378] Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 564.

[379] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (ed. Kroker), p. 172. “Scholastica theologia in hoc articulo consentit, hominem ex puris naturalibus posse mereri gratiam de congruo.” Words of Luther in 1540. As a good Occamist he himself had taught the same in his first exposition of the Psalms. See above, p. 75.

[380] Cp. the passages from Occam, d’Ailly and Biel in Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 591 ff. To the texts there quoted from Occam must be added those from 3 Sent., q. 8, A., where, “de necessitate habituum supernaturalium,” he establishes three conclusions: 1. Their necessity cannot be proved by natural reason. 2. The necessity of these habits cannot be inferred from the article of faith, that eternal salvation is bestowed on man on account of his merits. 3. We can in addition to each supernatural habit possess also a natural one corresponding to it and which impels us to similar acts. Yet, as he says in concluding, the passage 1 Cor. xiii. 13: “Nunc autem manent fides,” etc., teaches that the habits exist in the righteous and remain in the next life. But at the letter D he returns to the subject: one who is not baptised and receives instruction can arrive at the love of God: “dilectio non infusa, igitur acquisita”; the acts of the will which we produce are natural ones, therefore the habit also is natural which they induce: “non obstante quod sit in voluntate habitus supernaturalis propter auctoritatem [scripturÆ], adhuc oportet ponere habitum naturaliter acquisitum.” Finally, under T, after again recognising the “fides infusa, propter auctoritatem scripturÆ,” yet, as a matter of fact, he says, though the habits might be acquired naturally, they are frequently infused by God, and therefore called rightly “dona Dei” and “habitus infusi.” The same habit, however, cannot be merely naturally acquired, but also as such “habere effectus eiusdem speciei vel rationis”; the supernatural habits might nevertheless appear absolutely superfluous (“viderentur totaliter superfluere”) were it not for biblical authority; “non sunt ponendi propter aliquam rationem evidentem.” Thus, on the one hand, the strongest attempts to abolish the habits, and, on the other, a holding fast to the teaching of the Bible. Nothing is more incorrect than to accuse Occam of a simple surrender of the supernatural qualities and a direct destruction of the supernatural order. Even the index to Occam’s Commentary on the Sentences shows under the word habitus how strictly he distinguishes between habitus infusus and habitus acquisitus, and how he accepts both and teaches, for instance, that the natural habits may remain even after the destruction of the supernatural.

[381] See Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 594.

[382] In Augustine the doctrine of imputation does not appear. Cp. Mausbach, “Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus” (1909), 2, p. 187, who, after pointing out this fact, remarks: “This doctrine of imputation was actually set up by Luther, whose mind was dominated by Nominalism.” Luther was able to introduce the continuance of original sin into Augustine’s writings only by forcing their meaning (see above, his alteration of concupiscentia into peccatum, p. 98). From the standpoint of the continuance of original sin Luther, already in his Commentary on Romans, attacks the supernatural habit of grace. Cp. Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz bei Luther,” p. 310.

[383] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 2, p. 305, n. 4.

[384] Cp. Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,”⁴. p. 699.

[385] Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 510.

[386] Denifle-Weiss, ibid., p. 606.

[387] In 2 Sent. in princ.: “Multa, quÆ apparent manifeste contra rationem, et quorum opposita sunt consona fidei.”

[388] Quodlib. 1, q. 1: “Non potest demonstrative probari, quod tantum unus est Deus.”

[389] 1 Sent., dist. 2, q. 10, concl. 3, F.

[390] Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 608.

[391] Raynald., “Annal.,” an. 1513, n. 92 sq.; Mansi, “Coll. conc.,” 32, p. 842 seq.

[392] Drews, “Disputationen Luthers,” p. 487, No. 4-6, from the Disputation on January 11, 1539.

[393] In 1 Sent., q. 3, a. 3: “nullÆ vel paucÆ sunt rationes evidentes demonstrativÆ ... magis opinio quam scientia, et ideo valde sunt reprehensibiles qui nimis tenaciter adhÆrent auctoritati Aristotelis.”

[394] “Superbia scholasticos a poenitentia et fide viva prÆpediens,” etc. “Opp.” (Antv., 1706), p. 90.

[395] See above, p. 70.

[396] So Luther relates, in Gal. 2, p. 103.

[397] “Totius summÆ christianarum rerum.” So the Weim. ed., 18, p. 614. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 132, in “De servo arbitrio.”

[398] This is the work which Albert Ritschl, the well-known Protestant theologian, summed up as follows on account of the contradictions which it contained: “Luther’s work, ‘De servo arbitrio,’ is, and remains, an unfortunate piece of bungling.” “Die christl. Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und VersÖhnung,” 1², Bonn, 1882, p. 221. See below, vol. ii., xiv. 3.

[399] “Non potest probari sufficienter, quod Deus sit causa finalis,” Quodlib. 4, q. 2. Other Nominalists go still further.

[400] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 508; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 29, “De captivitate babylonica,” 1520.

[401] Ibid.

[402] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 423; Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 204. Contra regem Henricum.

[403] To Prince George or John of Anhalt, June, 1541, “Briefe” (de Wette), 6, p. 284.

[404] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 614 ff.

[405] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, pp. 397, 399, 400, 425; Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 188, 189, 190, 206. Contra regem Henricum.

[406] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 18. After speaking of Occam as “ingeniosissimus” he says: “illius studium erat, res dilatare et amplificare in infinitum.”

[407] H. BÖhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschungen (1910), p. 53. “What made such a deep impression on him? [in the works of Augustine]. First, if we may believe the notes in his own hand in the copy he chiefly used (‘Werke,’ Weim. ed., vol. ix.), more particularly Augustine’s mystico-philosophical considerations on God, the world, the soul, the worthlessness of all earthly things, and felicity in God. These ideas, however, were hardly quite new to him. He had already met with them, for instance, in Bernard of Clairvaux and other mystics.” That they should have “impressed him so forcibly,” as BÖhmer rightly remarks, was largely owing to the fact that his ear caught in them echoes of the ideas germinating in his own mind.

[408] Cp., e.g., Tauler’s complaint against those who misuse the directions of the mystics in the sense of ethical passivity, i.e. of Quietism: “They blindly mislead their nature and become careless of all good works,” etc. “They sink into a dangerous natural quietude ... without the practice of virtue.” “Man,” on the contrary, “must recognise the commandments of God and the Church and resolve to keep the same.” “Tauler’s Sermons,” ed. Hamberger, 1, p. 194 f. Cp. J. Zahn, “EinfÜhrung in die christl. Mystik,” Paderborn, 1908, p. 313 ff.

[409] To George Leiffer, April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31.

[410] With regard to his ideas of the supposed animosity of mysticism for Scholasticism, W. KÖhler says (“Luther und die Kirchengesch.,” 1, 1, Erlangen, p. 285): “the opposition between mysticism and Scholasticism, which has become historic, was never so acute as it appeared to Luther’s imagination. In principle, Scholasticism and mysticism stand on the same ground, one being the necessary complement of the other.”

[411] From Dungersheim’s “Dialogus adversus M. Lutherum”; Enders, “Briefwechsel,” p. 180.

[412] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 55: “iuxta Taulerum tuum.”

[413] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 205.

[414] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 135, he says of the earthly minded: “Nullus [est] eius Deus creator, quia non vult esse nihil, cuius ille sit creator. Nullius [read nullus] est potens, sapiens, bonus, quia non vult in infirmitate, stultitia, penalitate sustinere eum.”

[415] Ibid., p. 138, in the passage: “Quia charitas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris” (Rom. v. 5): “’Charitas Dei’ dicitur, quia per eam solum Deum diligimus, ubi nihil visibile, nihil experimentale nec intus nec foris est, in quod confidatur aut quod ametur aut timeatur, sed super omnia in invisibilem Deum et inexperimentalem, incomprehensibilem, sc. in medias tenebras interiores rapitur, nesciens quid amet, sciens, autem quid non amet, et omne cognitum et expertum fastidiens et id quod nondum cognoscit, tantum desiderans.... Hoc donum longissimo abest ab iis, qui suas iustitias adhuc vident et diligunt et non visis tristantur.” He thinks he must rise superior to such self-righteous, to whom his brother monks, who are zealous for good works (the Observantines?), belonged.

[416] See above, p. 43. We shall deal later with his further relations with Lang, with whom he shared an inclination to mystic studies and leanings.

[417] This is one of the seven old books discovered there in 1889-90; the glosses added by Luther to the same were edited by Buchwald in the Weim. ed., volume ix. For the glosses to Tauler, see ibid., p. 95 ff.

[418] Weim. ed., 9, pp. 98, 102 f. The real action of God on the spirit is that which takes place through Him “ignorantibus et non intelligentibus nobis id quod agit.” He complains: “Etsi sciamus quod Deus non agat in nobis, nisi prius nos et nostra destruat ... non nudi stamus in mera fide”; but the “nuda fides” is necessary because God acts contrary to our ways of thinking and does what we may fancy to be “ex diabolo.” Such exhortations to confide ourselves blindly to a higher direction may be right, but one naturally asks how is the fact of this guidance from on high to be guaranteed and distinguished from a mere leading astray. Luther in his public life simply assumed his mission to be divine because he felt it to be such (see vol. iii., xvi., 1 and 2), and because he persuaded himself that he was being led by inspiration from above “like a blind horse” to fight against Antichrist.

[419] Weim. ed., 9, p. 103: “Nullius exempli passionem vel operationem oportet sibi prÆstituere, sed indifferentem et nudam voluntatem habere,” etc.

[420] Ibid., p. 98 f.

[421] Ibid., p. 98: It is true he thinks he is explaining what precedes: “Nota, quod divina pati magis quam agere oportet.”

[422] Ibid., p. 104. Cp. p. 103: “Deus est intimior rebus ceteris quam ipse [i.e. ipsÆ] sibi,” etc.

[423] See J. Zahn, “EinfÜhrung in die christl. Mystik,” p. 320. Reference may be made to this excellent work for the historical proofs, even from Tauler, into which we are not able to enter; p. 291, on the “ErlÖschen der Ichheit.”

[424] Zahn, ibid., pp. 331, 327.

[425] “Sermons,” ed. Hamberger, 2, p. 131; in the sermon on Luke xv. 8 ff. Cp. Zahn, p. 343 ff. “Ueber die PrÜfungen im mystischen Leben.”

[426] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 135 seq., p. 138: “Charitas Dei, quÆ est purissima affectio in Deum, quÆ sola facit rectos corde, sola aufert iniquitatem, sola exstinguit fruitionem propriÆ iustitiÆ. Quia non nisi solum et purum Deum diligit, non dona ipsa Dei, sicut hipocritÆ iustitiarii.” P. 139, again against the “hipocritarum charitas, qui sibi ipsis fingunt et simulant se habere charitatem.... Diligere Deum propter dona et propter comodum est vilissima dilectione, i.e. concupiscentia eum diligere.” God is to be loved “propter voluntatem Dei absolute,” otherwise it is not the love of the children of God, but the love of slaves. He overlooks the fact that it is possible to recommend the higher without altogether repudiating the lower.

[427] 2-2, q. 188, a. 5.

[428] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 123 f., quoted by Hunzinger, “Luther und die deutsche Mystik” [”Neue kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 19 (1908), Heft 11, pp. 972-88], p. 984, who remarks: the passage shows “how great the danger was at that time of Luther becoming lost in these speculations”; this is the “most extreme mystical utterance to be found in his writings.” When he says: “What is here described as a via crucis is genuinely Neo-Platonic,” all will not agree with him. Hunzinger, p. 975, also considers it a proof of Neo-Platonism when, in his Commentary on the Psalms, Luther follows St. Augustine and urges man “avertere se a visibilibus et convertere se ad invisibilia et intelligibilia.” One is more inclined to agree with his concluding sentence: “No one will wish to assert, after taking note of this proposition, that Luther in his mystical period never left the path of the ethical.”

[429] See below, viii. 2.

[430] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 74 f.

[431] April 8, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 28. See above, p. 88.

[432] Recently edited (1908) by H. Mandel according to Luther’s edition with additions from MSS.; see “Theol. Literaturztg.,” p. 493 (1909). Mandel says in the preface: “It is obviously not correct to represent Luther’s well-known experiences in the monastery [which?] as directly connected with his fundamental ideas of reform. Rather it is evident, and acknowledged by Luther himself, that he learnt his root ideas in the school of Tauler and the ‘Theologia Deutsch.’” It is true that his misapprehension of the same strengthened his mistaken notions. The very first chapter in the booklet disproves the assertion frequently made that it is decidedly Pantheistic in tone; there a definite distinction is made between God and the creature as the “perfect” and the “divided” essence: “of all the divided none is perfect. Hence the perfect is no part of the divided.” In the light of this the obscure sentence which occurs in the “Theologia Deutsch,” that God, the Perfect, is the essence of all things, without which and outside of which there is no real being, must not be understood in the Pantheistic sense. The book, in fact, contains no sentence which cannot be understood in an orthodox fashion when taken in conjunction with others.

[433] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 137.

[434] Cp. W. KÖhler, “Luther und die Kirchengesch.,” 1, 1, p. 244, who quotes Tauler in the above sense from his sermons in Hamberger’s edition (Frankfurt a/M., 1826), volume i., p. 261 ff.; volume ii., pp. 408, 410, 428. KÖhler remarks (p. 239) that “however much Tauler had in common with Luther ... the latter overlooked the differences”; on p. 244: “his severity to self-righteousness is a point which Luther learnt from Tauler.”

[435] In his “Asterisci,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 298, agreeing with the Resolutiones, ibid., p. 586. Cp. KÖhler, pp. 248-50.

[436] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 674; KÖhler, p. 252.

[437] Volume ii., p. 133.

[438] J. Zahn, “EinfÜhrung in die christl. Mystik,” p. 302.

[439] J. Zahn, ibid., p. 303. Zahn expresses himself very aptly in regard to the unfavourable moral effects of the contrary theory; the incentive which Christ expressly recommends when He says we are to rejoice in the glorious reward which awaits us in the next world (Matt. v. 12) has a very different influence. Against FÉnelon’s incorrect views of pure love without any admixture of interest for eternal salvation, he has the following: “The greatest fault in FÉnelon’s system lies in the coupling together of the real striving after perfection and the attainment of salvation with an unworthy egotistical working for a reward” (p. 307). The theories of Mme. Guyon, whom FÉnelon defends, are simply appalling: “O Will of my God, Thou wouldst be my Paradise in Hell.” According to her, the sacrifice of salvation is the culmination of the interior life (ibid., p. 292). Cp. the propositions from the Quietist mysticism of Molinos, condemned by Innocent XI on November 20, 1687.

[440] An exposition of Luther’s directed against the Areopagite (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 5, p. 163) is accompanied with the strange information that one becomes a theologian “moriendo et damnando, non intelligendo, legendo aut speculando.”

[441] KÖhler, p. 332. “There is an immense difference” when Luther speaks of trust in God or of the sufferings of Christ and when Bernard does the same. “Luther did not notice anything of this difference, though it was worth while examining ... he identified with him his own resuscitation of the gospel.”

[442] Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 121 f. (Table-Talk); KÖhler, p. 362 f.: “Those Romanists (Emser, Eck, etc.) knew better how to appreciate Gerson than Luther did, in whom the insight into Gerson’s ‘Catholicism’ was sadly wanting.” “He ever remained a stranger to the true inwardness of Gerson.”

[443] KÖhler, p. 335 f., where examples are given of Luther’s “subjective interpretation” of St. Bonaventure.

[444] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 5, p. 353.

[445] KÖhler, p. 261. KÖhler says that Tauler “laid great stress on the Divine initiative”; but so did the Scholastics and the Fathers.

[446] Hunzinger, “Neue kirchl. Zeitschr.,” ibid., p. 985 f. “We may say that German mysticism achieved what it did in Luther in union with his study of the Epistle to the Romans.” “Thus the acute change from Indeterminism to religious Determinism took place in Luther under the direct influence of German mysticism. In the ‘De servo arbitrio’ it attained its extremest limit. This is not explained [more correctly, entirely explained], as some have thought, by Occamism, but by German mysticism.” P. 987: After his period of mysticism Luther took leave altogether of the semi-Pelagianism and Indeterminism of Scholasticism. On p. 988 Luther’s standpoint is thus stated: “Any concurrence between free will and its faculties and grace, or any kind of preparation for grace, is altogether done away with.... God’s grace alone works for salvation, and predestination is the only cause of salvation in those who are justified.”

[447] Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹, more particularly from p. 413; Denifle-Weiss, 1², more particularly from p. 447; Denifle, 1², “Quellenbelege,” p. 309 ff.

[448] See Joh. Ficker, “Luthers Vorlesung Über den RÖmerbrief,” Leipzig, 1908, p. xxv. ff., xxx.

[449] Cp. Grauert, “P. Heinrich Denifle,” 1906, p. 53 ff. Grauert referred to J. K. Oetrich, “Entwurf einer Gesch. der Bibliothek zu Berlin” (1752, p. 63).

[450] On the glosses and scholia generally, see above, p. 63.

[451] See above, p. 93 f.

[452] See below, chapter viii. 1.

[453] Cod. Vat. palat. 1826, fol. 77; Denifle, 1², “Quellenbelege,” p. 313 f.; Ficker, “Rom. Schol.,” p. 2 f.

[454] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 227.

[455] Ficker, p. 1.

[456] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 21 ff. Denifle had only stated generally that Luther taught absolute predestination, without quoting the passages in the Commentary. Cp. Fr. Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,”⁴ p. 709, n. 8.

[457] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 22 f.

[458] Ibid., p. 22 f.

[459] Ibid., p. 23.

[460] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 24.

[461] With regard to the fact of Luther’s tendency to a fear and terror of God, O. Scheel says (“Die Entwicklung Luthers, Schriften des Vereins fÜr Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, Leipzig, 1910, pp. 61-230, p. 80): “We possess statements from Luther’s own pen during his life in the monastery which show that the thought of death and Divine Judgment moved him deeply. The words, that the countenance of the Lord is upon us, are [to him] terrible.... We see one fear succeeding the other in the face of sudden death ... the thought of God the Judge inspires him with horror.... It is possible that the manner in which these feelings express themselves was connected with morbid dispositions, that the attacks of fear which suddenly, without apparent cause, fell upon him, were due to an unhealthy body. That the assaults reacted on his bodily state is probable. The root of the fear, however, lies in the lively conviction of the righteous Judgment of God.” W. Braun (“Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” p. 295) thinks that “Luther’s assaults in the monastery were a mystical exercise. He experienced what Tauler and the ‘Theologia Deutsch’ relate regarding the consuming inward fires of Purgatory. Luther mentions that Tauler [like himself!] was acquainted with the ‘horror conscientiÆ a facie iudicii Dei.’” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 5, p. 203.

[462] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 20 f.

[463] Ibid., p. 323.

[464] Ibid., p. 322.

[465] Ibid., p. 222 f.: “Hii (qui vere bona faciunt) sciunt quod homo ex se nihil potest facere,” in contradistinction to the “Pelagians,” who “libertati arbitrii tribuunt facere quod est in se, ante gratiam.”

[466] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 221.

[467] Ibid., p. 323.

[468] Ibid., p. 221.

[469] Ibid., p. 223.

[470] Ibid., p. 214.

[471] Ibid., pp. 215-20.

[472] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 226.

[473] Ibid., p. 223: “Si enim vellent quod vult Deus, etiamsi damnatos et reprobatos vellet, non haberent malum; quia vellent, quod vult Deus, et haberent in se voluntatem Dei per patientiam.”

[474] Ibid., p. 217.

[475] Ibid., p. 217 f.

[476] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 225.

[477] Ibid., pp. 208, 209, 210.

[478] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 219.

[479] Ibid., p. 221.

[480] Bonaventure, in iii., dist. 27, a. 2, q. 2: “Amor concupiscentiÆ non repugnat amori amicitiÆ in caritate,” etc. Cp. Thom. Aquin., 2-2, q. 23, a, 1.

[481] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 210, 218.

[482] Ibid., p. 227.

[483] “Schol. Rom.”

[484] Ibid., pp. 227, 228.

[485] Ibid., p. 224.

[486] Ibid., p. 229.

[487] Ibid., 231.

[488] “Commentar. in Ep. ad Romanos,” p. 495.

[489] Formerly some few Catholic theologians found in the statements of the Apostle the so-called “prÆdestinatio ad gloriam ante prÆvisa merita” (though never a “reprobatio ante prÆvisa merita”); but as J. Th. Beelen remarks in his “Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos” (1854), none of them ever sought for an exegetical foundation for the same. Cornely, l.c., p. 495 sq.

[490] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 230, and August., “Enchiridion ad Laurent.,” c. 98, Migne, P. L., xl., p. 278.

[491] S. Aug., “Contra Iulianum,” 6, n. 8, 14, 24; “Opus imperf.,” 1, c. 64, c. 132 seq., 175: “De catechiz. rudibus,” n. 52; “De spiritu et litt.,” c. 33; “Retract,” 1, c. 10, n. 2. Cp. Cornely, p. 494, on some exegetical peculiarities of Augustine.

[492] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 212.

[493] Ibid., p. 213.

[494] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 212 ff.

[495] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 1 ff.

[496] Ibid., p. 2 f.

[497] Ibid., p. 305. “Observantes invicem propter Deum pugnant, sed dilectionis prÆceptum nihil attendunt.”

[498] Ibid., p. 334.

[499] Cp. above, p. 88 ff., Luther’s letter to Spenlein, who had left his monastery for that at Memmingen.

[500] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 325.

[501] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 20, he speaks against the “spiritualis et subtilior idolatria”; p. 45, against those who are “vane gloriosi” in their exterior observances; p. 75, against the “nimis iusti,” “nimis intelligentes” and “nimis quÆrentes,” who are “incorrigibiles in suo sensu”; p. 83, a fresh outburst against those who “in suis iustitiis pacem in carne quÆrunt....” “Nihil capiunt quia sunt superbi.... PrÆsumunt quod Deus eorum sensum et opera approbabit, quia ipsis iustus et rectus apparet”; p. 86, he again attacks “omnes superbi in ecclesia spirituales, qui sunt magnorum et multorum operum.” Then, to omit many digressions against the “iustitiarii,” and merely to quote from the last part of the work, he says, p. 220, of the righteous in his own sense by whom damnation would be willingly accepted (“libentes damnari volunt”), that they shame the swarm of others, “qui sibi merita fingunt et pingunt ac bona quÆrunt, fugiunt mala et in absconditis suis nihil habent”; these are, according to p. 221, “superbi iustitiarii, qui certi sunt de bonis operibus suis,” or, according to p. 273, those “in sua iustitia prÆsumentes.” The “sapientes iustitiarii,” according to p. 331, destroy the temple of God by their false wisdom and their observances.

Superintendent H. Hering has expressed himself candidly in the “Theologische Studien und Kritiken” (50, 1877, p. 627) on certain notable passages in Luther’s Commentary on the Psalms: “His anger,” so he says, “is almost more vehement against the Observantines than against the heretics”; to their claim to exemptions and dispensations Luther opposes the assertion that it is impossible to dispense from obedience. He refers, among other passages of Luther’s, to the beginning of his interpretation of Psalm xxxi. (“Beati quorum remissÆ,” etc.), where apparently the Observantines are denounced as schismatics on account of their opposition to Staupitz and his plans: “similiter et superstitiosi seu schismatici abiiciunt per suam singularitatem suum prÆlatum, in quo Christus eis prÆficitur, quorum hodie maior est numerus (quam hÆreticorum).” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 174. In earlier passages (3, p. 172) he speaks against those who, in the singularity of their observances, “reiecta obedientia et fide suam statuunt iustitiam” and declares them, on account of their pride, to be deniers of Christ, and (p. 61) against the upholders of special statutes who fight for their ceremonies and their “vanitas observantiÆ exterioris,” who “compunguntur in habitu,” etc. We seem to hear echoes of the struggle that was going on in the Order not only in the passages from the sermons quoted above (p. 80 ff.), but also in such as the following, from the year 1516: These “iustitiarii” are “irritabilissimi omnium”; they are “prompti alios vindicare ... iudicare, condemnare, quÆrulantes et accusantes, quod iniuriam sustineant, ipsi recte facientes”; but “they do not fulfil the spirit of the law” (“Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 160; cp. 158 Weim. ed., 1, p. 114). He puts in the mouth of the “iustitiarii”: “Tu peius vivis quam ego,” and describes how they fancy themselves quite safe and have no need of Christ as their physician (ibid., p. 128; Weim. ed., 1, p. 85). He had already accused them above of disobedience and rebellion, and his charging them with revolt against their lawful superior (“abiiciunt per suam singularitatem suum prÆlatum”) leads one to suppose he had in view the opposition of the Observantines to Staupitz’s plans. We may perhaps find in these passages reason for applying the attacks in the Commentary on Romans to the Erfurt Observantines, though there is no actual proof of this.

Does not Staupitz himself, who was Vicar-General of the Congregation, in certain of his works (published after 1515) sometimes oppose the spirit of the Observantines, such as it appears to him? Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 68 ff. It would be surprising if no echo of a conflict which touched him so nearly had obtruded itself into his writings. Unfortunately historical data regarding the external progress of the breach are wanting. Braun fully recognises Luther’s alienation and that it had grounds; thus of Luther’s cutting address delivered before the Chapter of the Order at Gotha on May 1, 1515, he says: “It is obvious that sad experiences lay behind these words.... The tendency to quarrelsomeness, which, it cannot be denied, was apparent in Luther at a later date—though much may be said in excuse of it—may have made itself felt even then, long before his breach with the Church.” The “primaria nostrÆ unionis factio,” which Barthol. Usingen mentions (see N. Paulus, “Usingen,” p. 16, n. 5, and Oergel, “Der junge Luther,” p. 132), brought Luther’s friend, Johann Lang, in the summer of 1511 from Erfurt to Wittenberg. He joined Luther in passing over from the stricter to the more liberal party supported by Staupitz. For CochlÆus’s statement regarding Luther: “ad Staupitzium defecit,” see above, p. 38. The relations existing between the Observantines and the Conventuals, even among other Orders where a similar movement towards reform was taking place, are instructive. There was, for instance, a division in the Dominican Order. The Observantine priories of the so-called German Province of the Dominicans (prov. teutonica)—as a matter of fact, the Province of South Germany—were permitted to choose a Provincial, while the Conventual priories formed a special German Congregation (congregatio Germanica), with a Vicar-General at their head. Since 1511 Johann Faber had been Vicar-General, but he too was in favour of a reform. The cause of the conflict in this case arose from the Observantines trying to bring the Conventuals to their way of thinking by appealing to ecclesiastical and secular authority. Cp. N. Paulus in the “Histor. Jahrbuch,” 17, 1896, p. 44, and in “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” 1903, p. 299.

[502] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 273. With the above is connected the fact that in his mysticism he peremptorily demands the surrender of all rights and privileges.

[503] Ibid., p. 46.

[504] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 11, 45, 84, 94.

[505] The reader should notice his exaggerations regarding the teachers of whose nominalistic tendency he disapproves: “docent, quod lex opere tantum sit implenda, etiam sine impletione cordis.... Nec ipsi minimo saltem cordis conatu eadem aggrediuntur, sed solummodo externo opere.” Ibid., p. 45.

[506] Ibid., p. 332.

[507] The passage here referred to in St. Aug. is in “Contra Iulianum,” 1. 8, c. 8; Migne, P. L. xliv., p. 689. Augustine there when he speaks of “servum potius quam liberum arbitrium” does so in another sense, though Luther saw fit to borrow the expression for the title of his own later work of 1525: “De servo arbitrio.”

[508] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 209.

[509] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 322.

[510] Ibid., p. 323. In connection with the proposition at the commencement of this division: “Man can of himself do nothing,” Luther attacks the mediÆval theological axiom: “Facienti quod est in se, Deus non denegat gratiam” (in his Commentary on the Psalms, Weim. ed., 4, p. 262, he already gives it as: “Deus infallibiliter dat gratiam”). In order to make the matter clear we may state in advance that, according to Catholic doctrine, we cannot with the powers of nature merit grace either “de condigno” or “de congruo”; grace excludes any natural acquiring of the same; man is only able to dispose himself negatively for the acquisition of grace, not positively, i.e. not in such a way as to demand grace as a right. “Homo non movet se ipsum ad hoc, quod adipiscatur divinum auxilium, quod supra ipsum est, sed potius ad hoc adipiscendum a Deo movetur.” Thom., “Summa contra gent.,” 3, c. 149. In accordance with this, true Scholasticism did not and could not wish to express by the proposition “Facienti quod est in se,” etc., any real meriting of grace by our natural powers. Luther’s attacks, which presuppose this, were therefore of no avail against the true theology of the Middle Ages. The natural acts recognised by theology as good are generally unimportant, have no supernatural merit, and cannot positively qualify for grace in the sense of “Facienti, etc.” The axiom implies rather that whoever does his part, roused and moved thereto by actual grace, will arrive at saving grace and reach heaven; it presupposes a negative preparation; God in His mercy does not refuse His grace to whoever does his part. It was therefore presumed that the actual grace of God was at work in every good work which man performed, inviting to, co-operating with, and furthering it. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 577 ff. The mediÆval theological work most widely known in Luther’s time, the “Compendium theologicÆ veritatis,” says expressly: “Without grace no one is able to do his part so as to prepare himself for salvation” (l. 5, c. 11). We find there no trace of the Pelagianism with which Luther so bitterly reproached the whole theology of the Middle Ages. (See Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 576, n. 5). “Is mere co-operation with grace Pelagian?” Denifle asks (p. 577). And what authorised Luther to say in the Schmalkald Articles (MÜller-Kolde, “Die symbolischen BÜcher der evangel. luther. Kirche,” 1907, p. 311) that the teaching “si faciat homo quantum in se est, Deum largiri ei certo suam gratiam” was a portentum, a heathenish dogma from which it followed that Christ had died in vain?

Luther himself had previously, in his Commentary on the Psalms (Weim. ed., 4, p. 262), written, that God gives His grace without fail to him who does his part, and yet he thereby assumed, with the whole of theology, that grace and glory were not on that account merited, but given us without any desert on our part. (Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 441.) The passage reads: “Hinc recte doctores, quod homini facienti quod est in se, Deus infallibiliter dat gratiam, et licet non de condigno sese possit ad gratiam prÆparare, quia est incomparabilis, tamen bene de congruo, propter promissionem istam Dei et pactum misericordiÆ. “ Denifle here remarks aptly: “We must not overlook the fact, that Luther here formulates the proposition ‘Facienti,’ etc., in the nominalistic sense.” What is more important is that Luther, immediately before, had rightly excluded all supernatural merit from natural action ( “non ex meritis, sed ex mera promissione miserentis Dei “).

The Nominalists of Occam’s school went much further in allowing a natural preparation for grace (though not a meriting) than the recognised representatives of Scholasticism. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 586: “The preparation for saving grace takes place, according to the Occamists, by purely natural acts under the general concurrence of God; particular concurrence is, according to them and speaking generally, the saving grace itself, whereas, according to Scholasticism proper, special concurrence, i.e. actual grace, intervenes between the natural and the supernatural, i.e. saving grace, and is necessary for man’s preparation for the reception of the latter; the general concurrence on the other hand is represented as insufficient because it belongs to the natural order. (See above, pp. 141 ff.) Nevertheless, the Nominalists, as A. Weiss points out (Denifle, 1², p. 578, n. 2), came to expound their theory quite satisfactorily. See Altenstaig, “Lexicon theolog.,” Venet., 1583, fol. 163, s.v. Facere quod in se est. Still, Denifle is right when he says (p. 441) that the reproach of Pelagianism later on urged against them by Luther did to some extent apply to the Occamists.

The deeper ground, however, which led Luther in the above passages of the Commentary on Romans to attack the “Facienti,” etc., was that, in his antagonism against the good works of the self-righteous, he had, with the assistance of pseudo-mysticism, reached a point where he denied that any vital act on the part of man had any potency for the working out of salvation. In the work of salvation he allows of no power of choice: “The fulfilling of the law by our own efforts is absolutely impossible “; “free will is altogether in sin and cannot choose what is good in God’s sight.” See vol. ii., xiv. 3. Cp. W. Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz bei Luther,” pp. 215, 217, 219, 221.

Protestant theologians could, moreover, have found the axiom “Facienti,” etc., duly explained in the Catholic sense, with its biblical and patristic supports, even in the ordinary Catholic handbooks of theology, which would have obviated much misapprehension; cp., for instance, H. Hurter, “TheologiÆ specialis pars altera,“¹¹ Innsbruck, 1903 (Compendium 3), p. 65 seq., 72 seq.

[511] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 183.

[512] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 183 f.

[513] Cp. ibid., pp. 114, 185, 187, 244.

[514] Ibid., p. 108.

[515] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 108 f. Cp. p. 178, where he complains that they had reached the “nocentissima fraus, ut baptizati vel absoluti, statim se sine omni peccato arbitrantes, securi fierent de adepta iustitia et manibus remissis quieti, nullius sc. conscii peccati, quod gemitu et lachrymis lugendo et laborando expugnarent atque expurgarent. Igitur peccatum est in spirituali homine relictum,” etc. It is clear that the continuance cf the “fomes peccati” is confused with the continuance of sin and the languor which is frequently due to weakness after the extirpation of sin, with a languor which must necessarily set in. The “grace which is given” he sometimes looks upon as actual, sometimes as saving grace. To follow him through all his erroneous notions would be endless.

[516] Ibid., p. 114.

[517] Ibid., p. 167.

[518] Ibid., p. 111.

[519] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 179.

[520] Ibid., p. 178. See above, p. 209, n. 1.

[521] Ibid., p. 178.

[522] Ibid., p. 181. The passage quoted from Augustine is in “De nuptiis et concupiscentia ad Valerium,” l. 1, c. 23; Migne, P. L., xliv., col. 428.

[523] “Contra Julianum,” l. 3, c. 26; Migne, P. L., xliv., col. 733 sq.

[524] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 182.

[525] Ibid., p. 221.

[526] Ibid. “Bonitas Dei facit nos bonos et opera nostra bona; quia non essent in se bona, nisi quia Deus reputat ea bona. Et tantum sunt vel non sunt, quantum ille reputat vel non reputat. Idcirco nostrum reputare vel non reputare nihil est. Qui sic sapit, semper pavidus est, semper Dei reputationem timet et expectat. Idcirco nescit superbire et contendere, sicut faciunt superbi iustitiarii, qui certi sunt de bonis operibus suis. Perversa itaque est definitio virtutis apud Aristotelem, quod ipsa nos perficit et opus eius laudabile reddit.” The nominalistic doctrine of acceptation also comes out in Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 352, 356), though he explains it in such a fashion that it is clear he does not wish to go as far as Occam’s paradox to be mentioned immediately. He answers the objection that the same act cannot be pleasing and displeasing to God at the same time, thus: “The Scholastics are acquainted only with an acceptation by God without forgiveness; we, on the contrary, know that the evil in all works is forgiven through Christ, our righteousness, Who makes good all our defects; just as the saints have so-called merits only in Christ, for Whose sake God accepts graciously their works which He would not otherwise accept.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 370. Cp. W. Braun, “Die Concupiscenz,” etc., p. 213, where he rightly draws attention to the fact that A. Jundt, “Le dÉveloppement de la pensÉe religieuse de Luther jusqu’en 1517,” Paris, 1906, has not drawn his “information regarding Scholasticism from the right source, but from Harnack’s and Seeberg’s works, and even from Denifle’s quotations.” Cp. “Hist. Jahrbuch,” 27, 1906, p. 884: “Jundt knows nothing of the Catholic literature on the matter,” etc.

[527] Braun, pp. 191, 211; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 42; 2, p. 536.

[528] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 221.

[529] Ibid.

[530] Cp. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 183.

[531] Ibid., p. 89.

[532] Ibid., p. 90 f.

[533] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 91.

[534] Ibid., p. 93.

[535] Ibid., p. 95.

[536] Ibid., p. 96.

[537] Ibid., p. 100 f.

[538] Cp. what he says in “Schol. Rom.,” p. 85, about the “opera iusta, bona, sancta extra vel ante iustificationem.” On p. 84 he says, our good deeds should be directed towards the end “ut mereamur iustificari ex ipso (Deo).” In the interpretation of chapter ii. he explains verse 14: “Quicumque legem implet est in Christo et datur ei gratia per sui prÆparationem ad eandem, quantum in se est,” p. 38.

[539] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 608.

[540] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 41.

[541] Ibid., p. 83 f.

[542] Ibid., p. 84.

[543] Ibid., p. 114 f.

[544] Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 465.

[545] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 104 f.

[546] J. Ficker in the preface to Luther’s Commentary on Romans, p. lxxi.

[547] For the explanation of certain expressions of Luther’s in this Commentary, e.g. that “God infuses grace,” and that faith without works does not justify, see Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 466.

[548] “Tischreden,” ed. FÖrstemann, 2, p. 148: “Pugnat esse ex Deo natum et simul esse peccatorem.” Cp. Weim. ed. 2, p. 420.

[549] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 160. By “saints,” Luther means the pious folk who follow his teaching.

[550] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 420 (in the year 1519).

[551] Cp., for the absence of assurance of salvation, “Schol. Rom., “ p. 104: “Ex sola Dei reputatione iusti sumus; reputatio enim eius non in nobis nec in potestate nostra est. Ergo nec iustitia nostra in nobis est nec in potestate nostra,” and, p. 105: “Peccatores (sumus) in re, iusti autem in spe “; p. 108: “Sanus perfecte est in spe, in re autem peccator “; p. 89: “Nunquam scire possumus, an iustificati simus, an credamus; idcirco tanquam opera nostra sint opera legis estimemus et humiliter peccatores simus in sola misericordia eius iustificari cupientes.... In ipsum (Christum) credere incertum est “; only by this road of the sense of sin is it possible to attain to the “grace of justification and pardon for a possible secret and unconscious unbelief “; he “qui se credere putat et omnem fidem possidere perfecte” has no part in this. The pious always think with regard to their good works: “Quis scit, si gratia Dei hÆc mecum faciat? Quis det mihi scire, quod bona intentio mea ex Deo sit? Quomodo scio, quod id quod feci, meum, seu quod in me est, Deo placeat?” (p. 323). (Cp. the celebrated question: How can I find a gracious God?) “Away therefore,” he says, “with the proud self-righteous who think themselves sure of their works!” (p. 221). Fear, humility, despair is according to him the only fitting state in which to appear before God: “Him who despairs of himself, the Lord accepts” (p. 223)—that is to say, if He has not destined him for hell!

[552] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 221; see above, p. 211, note 4.

[553] From passage cited above, p. 114, n. 1.

[554] “Schol. Rom.,” 214. Cp. his explanation of the 4th Heidelberg Thesis, that in a Christian “desperatio” ( “mortificatio”) and “vivificatio” are united; also Theses 18 and 24, that “conteri lege” is for everyone a necessity of the spiritual life. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 356 f., 361, 364.

[555] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 219.

[556] Ibid., p. 230.

[557] Ibid., p. 105.

[558] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 84.

[559] Ibid., p. 83.

[560] Ibid., p. 89.

[561] Ibid., p. 86 f.

[562] Ibid., p. 39.

[563] Ficker refers to “Schol. Rom.,” p. 23 ff., 108 ff., 111 seq., 114, 167, 185, 187, 199, 244, 283, 287, 322 f.

[564] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 322.

[565] Ibid., p. lxxvi.

[566] Ibid., p. 14.

[567] See below, chapter x.

[568] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 651; 4, p. 228.

[569] Denifle, 1¹, p. 444.

[570] Ibid., p. 605 ff., with his testimonies.

[571] Ibid., p. 599.

[572] Cp. above, p. 218, and “Schol. Rom.,” p. 105 ff.: “(sancti) iustitiam a Deo secundum misericordiam ipsius implorant, eo ipso semper quoque iusti a Deo reputantur.”

[573] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 219. This remarkable passage, which is a proof of his pseudo-mysticism, runs: “Omnis nostra affirmatio boni cuiuscunque sub negatione eiusdem [abscondita est] ut fides locum habeat in Deo, qui est negativa essentia [!] et bonitas et sapientia et iustitia nec potest possideri aut attingi nisi negatis omnibus affirmativis nostris.”

[574] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 206. Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 600.

[575] In Gal., 1, p. 14. We can understand that Protestant theologians should wish to find in Luther’s Commentary on Romans the foundation of the later so-called “Reformed Confession.” O. Scheel, the first among them to treat in a detailed manner of the Commentary edited by Ficker (“Die Entwicklung Luthers” [”Schriften des Vereins fÜr Reformationsgesch., No. 100”], p. 174 ff.), has brought together a number of passages from this work concerning the doctrine of justification, which do not quite agree with the purely outward character of justification according to Luther, dwelt upon above, and which appear to presuppose an inward renewal. In the Commentary assertions are not wanting which contradict the ideas we have pointed out as running through the work; this is due to the fact that the author repeatedly reverts either to true Catholic views or to nominalistic ideas. It is not surprising that contradictions should occur very frequently at the commencement of his career, and that they also do so at a later period is undeniable. (Cp. O. Scheel’s samples of Luther’s Bible-teaching in our volume iv., xxviii., 1 and 2.)

Scheel himself says with reference to the doctrine of justification in the Commentary: “Luther was unable to give to his new conception of Christianity any thorough dogmatic sequence (p. 182); “these statements (on Rom. iii.) are devoid of doctrinal clearness” (p. 183). According to him it cannot be said “that Luther has arrived at any clear presentment of his reforming ideas in his Commentary on Romans” (p. 186). In the teaching of the Commentary re Concupiscence Scheel claims, it is true, to find “that deeply religious and moral conception of a reformed Christianity which is peculiar to Luther” (p. 188), but, nevertheless, remarks that Luther has not found “a quite uniform definition” for “the meaning which he connects with Concupiscence. Even the suppression of the guilt and the non-imputing of original sin might, in view of Luther’s new religious and voluntarist views, be regarded as insufficient; for insufficient importance attributed to the connection between sin and guilt leads finally to an impersonal estimate of sin” (pp. 188, 189). He stopped short at a definition “in which we miss the severely voluntarist connection between sin and guilt” (p. 190). The author therefore speaks of Luther’s view of sin as “insufficient” (p. 191).

With regard to grace, he continues: “Luther’s statements as to grace are also not altogether without ambiguity” (ibid.), “he employs the customary designations for the action of grace, without reflecting that they do not correspond with his ethical and psychological views of grace” (p. 192). “Man’s passivity in the process of salvation which he vindicates, and which, according to the Reformed Confession, was surely to be taken religiously, being only intended to deny the existence of any claim to merit, he defends so ponderously that all the psychological spontaneity of his voluntarism disappears and Quietist mysticism has to supply him with the colours necessary for depicting the appropriation of grace” (ibid.).

Concerning the question of assurance of salvation in the Commentary on Romans, Scheel, indeed, admits that “Luther had not yet arrived at any definite certainty of salvation” (p. 195), and that his statements are not “in touch with the saving faith of the Reformation” (ibid.); he finds, however, in the fear which Luther demands, “an element for overcoming the uncertainty with regard to salvation” (p. 198), indeed, he even thinks (p. 199) that “he had practically arrived at a certainty of salvation.” So much may be admitted, that the incompleteness of the system contained in the Commentary led Luther at a later period to add to his numerous other errors, that of absolute certainty of salvation by “faith alone.” With this our position is made clear with regard to Holl’s article “Heilsgewissheit im RÖmerbriefkommentar,” in the “Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,” 20, 1910, p. 245 ff., where the doctrine of assurance is dated as far back as 1516 (p. 290).

[576] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 209 f.: “Nostri theologi velut acutuli,” etc. “HÆc tantum vacua verba sunt,” etc. “Est ridicula additio si dicas,” etc. “Torquent intelligentiam,” etc. Thus he arrives at his “immutabilis prÆdestinatio.” “PrÆcipit Deus ut irretiantur reprobi, ut ostendat iram suam,” with the pains of hell which they are absolutely powerless to escape (p. 213). See also above, p. 189 ff.

[577] Ibid., p. 6. Against the “mercenarii.” In Ficker’s text it reads: “qualium hodie in ecclesia solus est numerus.” In place of “solus” read “tantus” or some other such word.

[578] Ibid., p. 7.

[579] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 111.

[580] Ibid., p. 290. Cp. p. 317.

[581] Ibid., p. 294 f.

[582] Ibid., p. 248 f.

[583] Ibid. Of the true preacher he says: “Sub humili subiectione eiusdem auctoritatis prÆdicet, semper stare iudicio illius paratus ac, quÆ mandata ei sunt, loqui, non quÆ placita sunt sibi ac inventa.” The punishment threatened by Zach. xiii. 3 against false prophets (“configent eum”), was to be applied to those who teach subversive doctrines on their own authority, being the anathema of their ecclesiastical superiors. “Hoc est telum fortissimum, quo percutiuntur hÆretici, quia sine testimonio Dei vel authoritatis a Deo confirmatÆ, sed proprio motu, specie pietatis erecti, prÆdicant, ut Ier. xxiii. (v. 21): Ipsi currebant et ego non mittebam eos. Et tamen audent dicere: Nos salvabimur ... nos credimus ... prÆdicamus. Sed hoc dicere non possunt: Nos prÆdicamus, quia missi sumus. Hic, hic iacent! Et hic est tota vis et salus, sine quo cetera falsa sunt, licet an falsa sint non cogitent.” The Church preaches an authentic gospel, which, according to Romans i. 2, was introduced into the world with solemn sanction and according to prophecy. But the gospel of the heretic? “Monstret, ubi sit ante promissum et a quo.” Where is its attestation? “Sed horum illi nihil solliciti stulte dicunt: Nos veritatem habemus.... Quasi hoc satis sit ex Deo esse, quia ipsis ita ex Deo videatur esse.... Sic ergo authoritas ecclesiÆ instituta, ut nunc adhuc Romana tenet ecclesia.” The heretics, it is true, assert that they are in possession of the really wholesome teaching. “Volunt autem summam pietatem, ut sibi videtur.” But the decision does not rest here with man’s own feelings; on the contrary, the Word of God frequently overthrows man’s own opinion: “non sinit stare sensum nostrum, etiam in iis quÆ sunt [i.e. videntur] sanctissima, sed destruit ac eradicat ac dissipat omnia.” How powerfully and thoughtfully is he able to handle an argument when he has right on his side! Could anyone condemn more strongly his own later attitude?

[584] How, for instance, he exaggerates in his mystical enthusiasm the principle of authority, see below, p. 252.

[585] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 243.

[586] Ibid., p. 275 f.

[587] Ibid., p. 278.

[588] Ibid., p. 317.

[589] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 271 f.

[590] Ibid., p. 272.

[591] Ibid., p. 300 f.

[592] Ibid., p. 301.

[593] Ibid., p. 272.

[594] Ibid., p. 301 f.

[595] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 320. It cannot be proved that such gloomy forebodings were due to the influence of the apocalyptic literature then so widely disseminated in print. (See Ficker, p. xcix.) The verdict which he passes on the Church of that day is, however, as severe and comprehensive as “the sharpest criticisms of the Reformed theology, or of the apocalyptic literature” (ibid., p. xcvii.); the verdict is really a consequence of his “new conception of a personal religion” (p. xci.). On the strength of this Ficker thinks he may go so far as to say: “Just as, hitherto, he had confronted the teaching authorities with the Scripture rightly understood and opened up the religion of the gospel to the individual, bringing it home to each one as a moral force, so now under the pressure of the Scripture and of outward events, he sets up the new standard of Christian life ... thus realising in practice the religion he had discovered” (pp. xci., xcvi.).

[596] Ibid., p. 242.

[597] Ibid., pp. 298, 302, 303.

[598] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 285.

[599] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 49. De libertate christiana.

[600] Cp. J. Zahn, “EinfÜhrung in die christl. Mystik,” p. 102.

[601] Ibid., p. 271 ff.

[602] Braun, “Concupiscenz,”. 301, n. 2.

[603] P. lxxxii.

[604] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 203.

[605] Ibid., pp. 205, 206.

[606] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 281, 286.

[607] Braun, p. 296.

[608] Ibid., p. 297.

[609] Ibid.

[610] On the syntheresis, see above, p. 75. When Luther, on the strength of Romans ii., nevertheless, recognises “that natural religion exerts the force of conscience in the hearts of the heathen,” he is contradicting himself without being aware of it. (Braun, p. 300.)

[611] Braun, p. 296.

[612] Ibid., p. 284.

[613] Braun, p. 301.

[614] Ibid.

[615] Cp. ibid., pp. 287, 288.

[616] For instance, “Schol. Rom.,” p. 136 ff.: “Natura nostra vitio primi peccati tam profunda est in seipsam incurva, ut non solum optima dona Dei sibi inflectat ... verum etiam hoc ipsum ignoret.... Hoc vitium propriissimo nomine Scriptura Aon, id est iniquitatem, pravitatem, curvitatem appellat.... Talis curvitas est necessario inimica crucis, cum crux mortificet omnia nostra, illa autem se et sua vivificet.” Therefore it is necessary (and here he comes to his personal ideas against the self-righteous) to reach a point where, “iustitia et sapientia omnis devoratur et absorbetur.... Charitas Dei extinguit fruitionem propriÆ iustitiÆ, quia non nisi solum et purum Deum diligit, non dona ipsa Dei, sicut hipocritÆ iustitiarii.” “What Luther says of pure love,” Denifle remarks (Denifle, 1¹, p. 484), “rests merely on his misconception of Tauler.” He points out that, in his Commentary on Romans, owing to his false idea of self-love he went so far as to “explain the command ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ in quite a different sense from that hitherto taught by the Church, for ourselves we may only hate.... According to him, this command means: hate thyself that thou mayest love thy neighbour alone.” (“Oblitus tui, solum proximum diligas.”)

[617] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 59.

[618] Ibid., p. 133.

[619] Ibid., p. 139.

[620] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 133 f.

[621] Ibid., p. 137. Cp. above, p. 234, n. 4 end.

[622] Heidelberg Disputation, on thesis 24. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 363. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 401.

[623] Ibid., theses 19, 20.

[624] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 285.

[625] Cp. Luther’s appeal to Tauler: “De ista patientia Dei et sufferentia vide Taulerum,” etc. (see above, p. 232). Denifle, 1¹, p. 484, remarks: “The above statements are in part founded on Tauler, whom Luther misunderstood throughout. The two stood on different ground and had a different starting-point and a different goal.”

[626] In allusion to such doctrines, Denifle speaks (Denifle, 1¹, p. 486) of “Luther’s worse than morbid, yea, terrible theology.” The passages in Tauler which have been alleged to show that his teaching was similar to that of Luther on this point, have quite a different sense. Tauler did not recognise the undeserved reprobation which Luther presupposes; he makes the horrible misfortune of eternal reprobation, which culminates in hatred of God, a result of voluntary separation from Him in this life.

[627] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 213, 223.

[628] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 214.

[629] Ibid., p. 218.

[630] Ibid., p. 217 f.

[631] On the history of the explanation of this passage see Cornely, “Commentar. in Ep. ad Romanos,” pp. 471-4.

[632] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 218 f.

[633] The frequently quoted description is to be found in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 557 f.

[634] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 272. Cp. ibid., p. 301.

[635] Cp. above, p. 228.

[636] J. Ficker in the Preface of his edition of the Commentary, p. liv.

[637] For the sources used by Luther, see Ficker, pp. liii.-lxii.

[638] Thus Ficker, p. lxii.

[639] “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” p. 176.

[640] See above, p. 129. W. Friedensburg, “Fortschritte in Kenntnis der Reformationsgesch.” (“Schriften des Vereins fÜr Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 1-59), p. 17: “It appears [from Denifle’s work] that Luther was little acquainted with the Scholastics of the Middle Ages, especially with Thomas of Aquin—which was equally the case with nearly all his contemporaries [?]—and that he drew his information from secondary sources,” etc.

[641] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 335. The reproach brought against these opponents of backbiting forms an exact parallel to Luther’s address, “Contra sanctulos,” mentioned above. Compare the allusions, p. 334, “TÆdiosi sunt et nolunt esse in communione aliorum; sic hÆretici, sic multi superbi.” And before: “Hi insulsi homines contra totum ordinem [he is referring to their state or position in life] insurgunt ac velut ipsi sint mundi, ut nullibi sordeant, cum tamen ante et retro et intus non nisi suum et porcorum sint forum et officina.” The anecdote which he relates (p. 243 f.) of the man who resolved “amore Dei velle nunquam mingere,” with which Luther laughs to scorn the desire of some to perform extraordinary works for God’s sake, is quite in keeping with this language.

[642] Ibid., p. 208.

[643] Ibid., p. 101. This kind of language which he indulges in at a later date agrees with his character. “His personality presents hundreds of enigmas”; says A. Hausrath in his biography of Luther, 1, p. vii., “of all great men Luther was the most paradoxical.”

[644] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 187. Cp. p. 321.

[645] Sess. 6, c. 7. Cp. c. 16: “QuÆ enim,” etc. In can. 11 of this session “inherent” charity is again mentioned, and in can. 10 the righteousness by which we are “formaliter iusti.” Cp. Luther’s bitter attack on the expression “fides formata caritate” (see above, p. 209).

[646] Sess. 7, can. 8, 9.

[647] “Educative” grace which imparts “strength” is probably what we call actual grace, not sanctifying grace. Luther makes no distinction either as regards the term or the matter. His determinism, with its “servum arbitrium,” left no room for actual grace to perform any real work; this he admits more plainly of the time preceding justification than of that which follows it. Cp. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 206: “Ad primam gratiam sicut et ad gloriam semper nos habemus passive sicut mulier ad conceptum,” etc. It is here he introduces his “mystical” recommendation, viz. to suffer God’s strong grace, and without any act of reason or will “in tenebras ac velut in perditionem et annihilationem ire,” however hard that may be. Here we find nothing about any “educative and moulding energy.”

[648] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 170-6.

[649] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 178.

[650] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹, p.515 f.

[651] Ibid., p. 517, n. 3.

[652] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 175 f.

[653] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 234 f., 277.

[654] Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 518 f.

[655] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 303.

[656] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. 673.

[657] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 241.

[658] Ibid., p. 242.

[659] Ibid., p. 245.

[660] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 86 f.

[661] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 87 f.

[662] Ibid., p. 89.

[663] Ibid., p. 92.

[664] Ibid., p. 93.

[665] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 94.

[666] Ibid., p. 95.

[667] Ibid., p. 96.

[668] Ibid., p. 97.

[669] Ibid., p. 323 f. Cp. above, p. 218 f.

[670] Ibid., p. 86: “Igitur iustificatio requirit non opera legis, sed vivam fidem, quÆ sua operetur opera.” Cp. above, p. 214, n. 6, where he speaks of the “prÆparatio” for justification by the fulfilling of the law.

[671] Ibid., p. 85. It is possible that, without making any distinction, he here passes on to the activity of the righteous. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 466, 467, on Luther’s want of clearness regarding justifying faith.

[672] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 321.

[673] Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 34.

[674] See above, p. 249, n. 1, and p. 204.

[675] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 447 f., 466 f.

[676] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 74 f., who sees in such passages the trace of “Augustinian-Bernardine piety,” which formed “the inner link between Luther and (the mystic) Staupitz.”

[677] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 486.

[678] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 243.

[679] Thes., 81 seq., 90. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 291 seq. Weim. ed., 1, pp. 625, 627.

[680] Regarding this MS. see Ficker’s Introduction to the Commentary on Romans, p. xxix. f.

[681] May 29, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 37 f.

[682] August 30, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 49.

[683] In September (?), 1516, ibid., p. 57.

[684] October 5, 1516, ibid., p. 60. The expression covering of our shame occurs frequently in his writings, thus it appears in “Schol. Rom.,” p. 334, where Gal. vi. 1 (“Alter alterius onera portate”) is rendered: “Alter alterius ignominiam portate”; Christ too willingly bore our shame.

[685] September (?), 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 54.

[686] October 26, 1516, ibid., p. 67.

[687] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 68.

[688] June 22, 1516, ibid., p. 42.

[689] Ibid., p. 43.

[690] Cp. Luther’s Indulgence theses, 92 and 93, where “pax, pax,” and “crux, crux” are repeated in the same way. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 291. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 628.

[691] October 26, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 68: “Feci ideo, quod sperabam, me ipsum illic ad medium annum regnaturum.”

[692] September 25, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 51.

[693] May 29, 1516, ibid., p. 38.

[694] May 17, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 99.

[695] Undated (1516?), ibid., p. 77.

[696] From the latter months of 1516, ibid., p. 76: “Confiteor tibi, quod vita mea in dies appropinquat inferno, quia quotidie peior fio et miserior.”

[697] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 219 f.

[698] Ibid., p. 317.

[699] Ibid., p. 291.

[700] See above, p. 71.

[701] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 318.

[702] Ibid.

[703] Ibid.

[704] Of himself he says at a later date: I went into the convent “because I despaired of myself.” (See above, p. 4.)

[705] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 317.

[706] Ibid., p. 123.

[707] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 317.

[708] Ibid., p. 318.

[709] Ibid., p. 165 f.

[710] Ibid., p. 286.

[711] Ibid., p. 320.

[712] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 316 f.

[713] Ibid., p. 317: “Curandum, ut [vota] eadem charitate solvantur, qua sunt promissa, sine qua solvi non possunt.... Ideo apostatÆ sunt multi, et non videntur.”

[714] “Celifodina,” Supplementum, ErfordiÆ, 1504, fol. L. 3 seq., M. 1´ seq.

[715] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 283.

[716] Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 283.

[717] Ibid.

[718] April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31.

[719] October 26, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 66 f.

[720] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 288.

[721] Ibid., pp. 319, 320.

[722] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 290.

[723] Erl. ed., 23, p. 222.

[724] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 321.

[725] These words are given in German in the Latin text.

[726] Also in German.

[727] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 321 f.

[728] “Zeitschr. fÜr Kirchengesch.,” ed. Brieger, 4, 1886, p. 330, in the Dicta Melanchthoniana, given by O. Waltz. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 155, where Luther says, in June, 1540: “At the time when I was a monk I was so much occupied in lecturing, writing, singing, etc., that owing to my work I was unable to recite the canonical Hours. Therefore on Saturday I made up for what I had missed during the six days of the week, taking no meals and praying the whole day, but, nevertheless, I did not trouble about the sense of the words. Thus were we poor people tormented by the decrees of the Popes.”

[729] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 6. Cp. “Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 67, and “Tischreden,” ed. FÖrstemann, 3, p. 236.

[730] “Scio quod non vivo quÆ doceo.” To Bishop Adolf of Merseburg, February 4, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 312.

[731] Melanchthon said on one occasion, according to Waltz (see above, p. 278, n. 2), p. 326: “Leo habet oculos ?a??p??? (bright-eyed), Lutheri oculi sunt ?a??p??, et habebant leonem in ascendente (probably “habebat,” viz. Luther in his Horoscope). Et tales plerumque sunt ingeniosi ... They were brown eyes, “circuit circulus gilvus.”

[732] Joh. Oldecop’s “Chronik” (ed. K. Euling, TÜbingen, 1891), pp. 36, 49. He says of Luther’s friend Lang, whose lecture on the Epistle to Titus he had heard: “dat he ein hoifferdich monnik was und let sik vele bedunken,” i.e. that he was a proud monk thinking not a little of himself.

[733] Ibid., p. 40. P. 17, of the Erfurt days: He spoke against everyone with a strange audacity and would give way to no one. P. 28: Martin was always wanting to be in the right and liked to pick a quarrel.

[734] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 301.

[735] Ibid., p. 317: “Nunc omnes fere desipiunt (this is about the Church’s fasts) ... ut rursum (populus) apostolis indigeat ipsis, ut veram disceret pietatem

[736] Ibid., p. 199.

[737] Seneca, Ep. 45, 4.

[738] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 111. Here the term “Sawtheologen” occurs.

[739] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 89.

[740] Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.,”⁴ 1906, p. 690. Cp. above, pp. 127 ff., 130 ff., etc., on Luther’s ignorance of Scholasticism.

[741] August 24, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 47.

[742] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 335.

[743] Ibid., p. 300.

[744] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 243.

[745] Ibid., p. 272.

[746] Ibid., p. 287.

[747] To Spalatin, December 14, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 73.

[748] The Operationes in Psalmos with the letter of May 27, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 480 ff.

[749] “Adeo infeliciter cessit opulentia et potentatus ecclesiÆ.” Ibid., p. 482.

[750] In “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 9, Luther’s receipt. See ibid., p. 10, n. 2, for the discreditable and incorrect tales concerning Luther, which grew up around this gift.

[751] Letter of middle of May, 1519, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 9. (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 35.)

[752] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 319.

[753] Ibid., p. 310.

[754] Ibid.

[755] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 298.

[756] Ibid., p. 299.

[757] Ibid., p. 309.

[758] Ibid., p. 322 f.

[759] Ibid., p. 323.

[760] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 486. Cp. p. 207. Commentary on Psalms.

[761] From the sermon on married life, 1519, 1 ed., “Werke” Weim. ed., 9, p. 213.

[762] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.

[763] P. 228. Where he here speaks of “sin,” it is more probable that he means concupiscence.

[764] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 100.

[765] Ibid., p. 102.

[766] See above, p. 72, n. 2.

[767] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 109. Cp. above, p. 92, n. 1.

[768] “Sermo do poenitentia,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 321.

[769] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100. Cp. his statement in his first answer to Prierias that zeal for sacramental penance could only endure by a miracle, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 649 f. On the other hand, he speaks of experiences he had had on the reception of grace, seemingly referring to his confessions: “Probavi sÆpius infusionem gratiÆ fieri cum magna animi concussione.” This appears in the Assertio omnium articulorum (1520). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 91 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 154. According to the teaching of all ascetics the reception of grace imparts peace and joy in God. Luther, however, infers from his abnormal feelings: “Sis ergo certus: simul dum homo conteritur, simul gratia infunditur, et in medio terrore diligit iustitiam, si vere poenitet.” Weim. ed., 7, p. 117; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 189.

[770] See above, p. 10.

[771] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 466: “Contritio de timore inferni et peccati turpitudine est literalis, ficta et brevi durans, quia non radicata amore, sed incussa timore tantum.”

[772] Sermon of October 31, 1516, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p, 99.

[773] Ibid., p. 319.

[774] Ibid., p. 320.

[775] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 321: “Oratio et agnitio atque confessio impoenitentiÆ tuÆ, si ficta non fuerit, eo ipso faciet, ut Deus te poenitentem verum reputet.” This quite agrees with what he had already said in a sermon in 1515 (?): “Etsi Deus imposuit nobis impossibilia et super virtutem nostram, non tamen hic ullus excusatur”; for we cover ourselves with Christ: “Christus impletionem suam nobis impertit, dum seipsum gallinam nobis exhibet.” See above, p. 80.

[776] The passage already referred to in his Commentary on Romans also comes in here, namely, where he writes that he could not understand why after contrition and confession he should not consider himself better than others who had not confessed. By this he means to convey that the common teaching that by real contrition and confession “esse omnia ablata et evacuata” led to pride, whereas according to his idea sin still remained. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 455, n. 4.

[777] Commentar. in Galat., ed. Irmischer, ErlangÆ, 1, p. 193 seq.: “Vera poenitentia incipit a timore et iudicio Dei.”

[778] Cp. Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers,” 1900; Lipsius, “Luthers Lehre von der Busse,” 1902, and KÖstlin’s strange attempts at explanation, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 131 ff. W. Hermann, “Die Busse der evangelischen Christen,” in “Zeitschr. fÜr Theol. und Kirche,” 1, 1891, p. 30, says: “It is true that Luther never entirely forsook the true idea on this point (Penance), which he had arrived at with so much effort. But the difficulties of Church government led him to relegate this idea to the background and to return to the narrow Roman Catholic view of the Sacrament of Penance.” And also ibid., p. 70: “With regard to the questions affecting contrition, the Reformers practically returned to the standpoint of the Roman Church.”

[779] For the manner in which contrition was taught before Luther’s time in popular works such as are here being considered, see the articles of N. Paulus in the Innsbruck “Zeitschrift fÜr kathol. Theol.,” 28, 1904; p. 1 ff., on the German confession-books; p. 449 ff. on the German books of edification; p. 682 ff. on the German books on preparation for death. Contrition arising from fear alone is not represented as sufficient in any of the numerous confession-books at that time. Ibid., pp. 34, 449. Among the authors of works of piety there is only one, viz. the Augustinian Johann Paltz, in his “Celifodina” (Heavenly Mine), to admit that contrition from the motive of fear together with the priest’s absolution sufficed for the remission of sin; “but even he requires, in addition to an earnest turning away from sin, a certain striving after perfect contrition, or love; he looks upon imperfect contrition rather as a means of arriving at perfect contrition; he is even very anxious to lead the faithful to the higher level of perfect contrition.” Paulus, p. 485. Cp. on Paltz, p. 475-9. Of the theologians cp. more particularly Gabriel Biel, whose writings Luther had studied, in his “Collectorium circa 4 libros sententiarum,” TubingÆ, 1501, l. 4, dist. 35, q. unica, art. 1. Here he makes a distinction between “timor servilis,” which is ready to sin if there were no punishment, and “timor, qui non includit hanc deformitatem.” He admits with regard to the latter: “est tamen bonus et utilis, per quem fit paulatim consuetudo ad actus bonos de genere exercendos et malos vitandos, quo prÆparatur locus charitatis.” In Art. 3 he declares the latter fear to be a gift of the Holy Ghost. But—in complete contradiction to the accusation which Luther makes—he teaches that contrition merely from fear is not sufficient, and requires a contrition from love. In the same way Nicholas von DinkelsbÜhl in his Tractatus (ArgentinÆ, 1516, fol. 71) rejects the fear which is not in any way allied with love, but considers it, together with the latter, wholesome as forming a commencement of contrition. The Dominican, Johann Herolt, whose sermons were widely disseminated, teaches in the Sermones de tempore (1418) and the Sermones super epistolas (1439 and 1444) that to avoid sin merely from the fear of punishment is sinful, but he is thinking of the so-called timor serviliter servilis, in which the voluntary attachment to sin still remains. He, as well as some others, omits to point out that, in addition to the bad servile fear, there was also a wholesome fear (N. Paulus, in his art. on Herolt, “Zeitschrift f. kathol. Theol.,” 26, 1902, p. 428 f.). The Franciscan, Stephen Brulefer, in his “Opuscula” (Parisiis, 1500, fol. 24 seq.) opposes certain theologians who had rejected servile fear as absolutely sinful; fear (which really excludes sin), he says, is a gift of the Holy Ghost, and theologians who teach otherwise are “prÆdicatores prÆsumptuosi, indiscreti et insipientes,” and they deserved to be punished as heretics. It was only Luther’s erroneous teaching which led theologians to formulate this doctrine with greater exactitude. Cp. A. W. Hunzinger, “Lutherstudien,” 2 Heft. Abt. 1: “Das Furchtproblem in der katholischen Lehre von Augustin bis Luther,” Leipzig, 1907. In this article the author wishes to furnish an introduction to Luther’s doctrine of fear, but starts with the assumption that the will to sin is an essential of the fear of punishment. On Hunzinger, see the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 28, 1907, p. 413 f.

[780] May 30, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 195.

[781] Apart from Luther, we have another example of the same kind in Gabriel Zwilling, who also left the Church, and of whom Luther says in a letter to Johann Lang at Erfurt (March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 87 f.), that he was sending him to the Erfurt monastery in accordance with Staupitz’s directions, and that care was to be taken “ut conventualiter se gerat: scis enim quod necdum ritus et mores ordinis viderit aut didicerit.” Thus he had been allowed to live at Wittenberg without conforming to community rule, unless, indeed, we read the passage as implying that at the Wittenberg monastery no attention was paid to the rule by anybody.

[782] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 69.

[783] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 262.

[784] Letter of May 30, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 199.

[785] See above, p. 95.

[786] See below, p. 323.

[787] “Deutsch-evangelische BlÄtter,” 32, 1907, p. 537.

[788] “Kirchengesch.,” ed. by P. Gams, 3, 1868, p. 106.

[789] “Kirchengesch.,” 1, p. 782.

[790] “Adversus Marcion.,” 4, c. 5.

[791] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 576: In the “wretched study of right and law” we find everywhere the comfortless fetters of precepts. “O reptilia,” he cries, “quorum non est numerus!”

[792] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 22.

[793] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 323.

[794] For the second stage, see ch. x. 1-2.

[795] “Vita Lutheri,” p. 6.

[796] “Historien”, Bl., 8´, 9.

[797] Cp. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 1, p. 45.

[798] “Chronik,” p. 28: Luther in his lectures “turned the Latin into German.”

[799] Letter of January 27, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 83: “Non sine timore meo me undique iactat et dicit: Christum in te prÆdico et credere cogor.’.

[800] To Johann Lang, May 18, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 100.

[801] From Veit Dietrich’s MS. Collecta, fol. 137´, in Seidemann, “Luthers Psalmenvorlesungen,” 1, p. vii.: “Augustinum vorabam, non legebam.”

[802] “One of the best points in Denifle’s book is the proof he gives that Luther misunderstood Augustine’s doctrine on sin, to which he looked as his chief support in the Church.” W. KÖhler, in “Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” p. 27.

[803] Melanchthon to Brenz, end May, 1531, “Briefwechsel” 9, p. 18 f.

[804] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 436 ff. Cp. in the Erl. ed., “Commentar. in Ep. ad Galat.,” ed. Irmischer, 1, p. iii. seq.; 3, p. 121 seq.

[805] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 751, n. to p. 107, 2.

[806] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 437.

[807] See KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 275.

[808] In Irmischer’s Erl. edition, printed in three volumes.

[809] Cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 300 f.

[810] Cp. MÖhler, “Symbolik,” p. 156, n. 1.

[811] Comment. in Gal., 2, p. 163.

[812] Ibid., p. 161.

[813] Ibid., p. 164.

[814] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1, p. 733, where a thorough examination is made of the certainty of salvation assumed in this system.

[815] Ibid., p. 735.

[816] Cp. MÖhler, p. 139.

[817] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 275.

[818] James ii. 22, 24, 26. 2 Peter i. 10. On Luther’s later denial of the inspiration of the Epistle of St. James, see volume iv., xxviii. 2. In this he made no account of the critical proof of the traditional ascription of this Epistle, but considered it merely from his own subjective point of view.

[819] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 145 ff.

[820] Letter of 1516, probably September, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 55.

[821] As Enders thinks, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 58.

[822] See Feustking, “Das Leben des ersten verehelichten evangelischen Predigers B. Bernhardi.” As Enders rightly remarks, he was not really the “first married preacher”; this honour belonging to Jakob Seydler.

[823] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 228. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 321.

[824] Letter of September 4, 1517, to Johann Lang, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 106.

[825] Letter of September 11, 1517, to Christoph Scheurl. Ibid., p. 109.

[826] Letter of November 3, 1517. Ibid., p. 119: “Ad Martinum Luder. Christi theologiam restaurare et in illius lege ambulare.”

[827] Plitt, “Luthers Leben,” Leipzig, 1883, p. 69.

[828] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 315.

[829] Kalkoff, “Forschungen zu Luthers rÖmischem Prozess,” 1905, p. 44 seq. Pastor, “History of the Popes,” English translation, volume vii., p. 361 ff.

[830] Kolde, p. 327.

[831] Bucer to Beatus Rhenanus, May 1, 1518, in the Correspondence of Beatus Rhenanus, ed. Horawitz and Hartfelder, Leipzig, 1866, p. 106 f. Also in “Relatio historica de disputatione Heidelbergensi ad Beatum Rhenanum,” printed in the “Introductio in hist. evang.” by D. Gerdesius, GrÖningen, 1744, Supp., p. 176. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 352. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 385.

[832] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 353. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 385.

[833] Concl. 25, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 364. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 402.

[834] Concl. 16, “Quid igitur faciemus? Vacabimus otio, quia nihil nisi peccatum facimus.”

[835] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 360. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 398.

[836] Concl. 24.

[837] Cp. above, p. 202 ff.

[838] In the Explicatio conclusionis VI., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 367, where the editor says in a note: “Martin Bucer testifies in his letter to Beatus Rhenanus on May 1, 1518, that this comparison was made by Luther in the Disputation.” See p. 74, n. 9.

[839] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 370.

[840] Ibid., pp. 371, 374.

[841] Ibid., p. 633.

[842] Disput., Heidelberg, an. 1518, thes. 24. Cp. thes. 20. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 362 f. Cp. above, p. 235.

[843] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 143, n.

[844] Letter of May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 187.

[845] Cp. MÖhler, “Symbolik,” pp. 100, 154 ff.

[846] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.

[847] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 170.

[848] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 69. See above, p. 34 f.

[849] Letter of September 1, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 223.

[850] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 83.

[851] Ibid., 1, p. 65 ff.

[852] Ibid., p. 65 ff.

[853] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 65.

[854] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 188.

[855] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 401.

[856] Ibid., 49, p. 300.

[857] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 183. These words are there placed in the year 1523.

[858] Many of the erroneous Protestant notions as to the doctrine of Indulgences might be removed by a glance at any Catholic hand-book of theology. See, for instance, Hurter, “Theol. dogmat.,” ed. 11 (1903), t. 3, p. 499 seq., 509, where, for example, the expression “relaxatio poenÆ et culpÆ,” which has shocked so many moderns, is explained in the correct historical and theological sense, reference, for instance, being made to the article by N. Paulus (partly against Th. Brieger) in the “Zeitschrift fÜr kath. Theol.,” 23, 1899, p. 48 ff., “Johann von Paltz Über Ablass und Reue.” The German Augustinian Paltz is an authentic witness to the Catholic view at that time. “The guilt is remitted,” he says, “by virtue of the Sacrament of Penance which is here introduced, and the punishment by virtue of the Indulgence which is here dispensed.” “Celifodina,” fol. x., 1, in Paulus, p. 51, n. 4.

[859] See below, ix. 2.

[860] A. Schulte, “Die Fugger in Rom 1495-1523,” 2 vols., Leipzig, 1904. W. SchÖrs, “Die Mainzer Erzbischofswahl und der Ablass vom Jahre 1514,” in the Innsbruck “Zeitschrift fÜr kath. Theol.,” 31, 1907, pp. 267-302. For details on this matter see the next section.

[861] Not the anniversary of its dedication. Cp. N. MÜller in the “Archiv fÜr Reformationsgesch.,” (6), 1909, p. 184, n. 4.

[862] “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 529. For the theses see also, Erl. ed., “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 285 seq.

[863] Cp. Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of the 41 propositions of Luther condemned in 1520.

[864] Letter to Bishop Hieronymus Scultetus of February 13, 1518 (?), “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 150: “Inter quÆ sunt de quibus dubito, nonnulla ignoro, aliqua et nego.” P. 151: “Disputo non assero,” etc.

[865] “Chronik,” ed. K. Euling, p. 48 f. Cp. above, p. 280.

[866] Cp. Pastor, “History of the Popes,” volume vii., English translation, p. 361. Kalkoff, “Forschungen zu Luthers rÖmischem Prozess,” Rom., 1905, p. 44 f., and “Zu Luthers rÖmischem Prozess: Das Verfahren des Erzbischofs v. Mainz gegen Luther,” in “Zeitschrift fÜr Kirchengesch.,” 31, 1910, pp. 48-65. Cp. ibid., p. 368 ff., on the Dominicans. Both authors should be consulted for the subsequent history of Rome’s intervention. The Papal letter in Bembi, EpistolÆ Leonis X, 1, 16, n. 18.

[867] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 313.

[868] “Origines illustr. stirpis SaxonicÆ l. 7,” IenÆ, 1597, p. 859. Seckendorf, in his “Comment. de Lutheranismo,” relates the same from Fabricius. Both, however, make the mistake of placing the event a year too early. N. Paulus, in the “Histor.-polit. BlÄtter,” 137, 1906, p. 51 f., doubts the credibility of the story, because Fabricius is devoid of the critical spirit. It is not clear whether Luther refers to some other sermon.

[869] To Spalatin, January 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 349. For further particulars with regard to the Dresden visit, which has been so much misrepresented, see below, ix. 4.

[870] May 30, 1518 (?), “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 200 f. Weim. ed., 1, p. 527 ff.

[871] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 220. Weim. ed., p. 582, Concl. 26.

[872] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 328 seq., in a Preface to his Disputations.

[873] May 1, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 223.

[874] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 647 ff.

[875] Cp. V. Prop., n. 3: “Non sum hÆreticus si negativam teneo, donec determinetur a concilio.” N. 6: “Ego ecclesiam ... reprÆsentative non [scio] nisi in concilio”; but it was incorrect “si quidquid facit ecclesia virtualis, id est papa (as Prierias stated), factum ecclesiÆ dicitur”: The Pope and the Councils might err in their regulations on practical matters (“factum ecclesiÆ”).

[876] See above, p. 291.

[877] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.

[878] See Pastor, “History of the Popes,” English translation, volume vii., p. 372.

[879] N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” 1903, pp. 1-9, “Johann Tetzel”; also in the “Katholik,” 1899, 1, pp. 484-510; 1901, 1, pp. 453-68, 554-70.

[880] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 50.

[881] “Hist. Vierteljahrsschr. fÜr Gesch.,” 5, 1902, p. 256.

[882] “Theol. Literaturztg.,” 1900, p. 84.

[883] In a lecture on Tetzel’s Life and Teaching, “Dresdener Journal,” 1903, March 20.

[884] “MÜnchener Allgemeine Zeitung,” 1901, April 18, Beil., No. 88.

[885] Ibid., 1900, May 14, Beil., No. 110. Cp. a like statement by a non-Catholic critic in the “Frankfurter Zeitung,” 1899, October 8, No. 279.

[886] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 239; cp. p. 271 f.

[887] Ibid., p. 271.

[888] Cp. also N. Paulus’s article on the remitting of future sins in “KÖln. Volkszeitung,” 1905, Liter. Beilage, No. 43.

[889] “Vorlegung wyder einen vormessen Sermon vom Ablass,” etc. Without place or year (Frankfurt, 1518, 4^to, 15 Bl.).

[890] Menckenius, “Scriptores rer. germ.,” t. 2, Lips., 1728, p. 1486 Cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 7 f.

[891] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 78: “The Pope had sternly commanded the angels to carry forthwith the souls of the departed to heaven.” Just as Tetzel taught: “As soon as the penny rattles in the box, the soul flies straight from Purgatory to Heaven.”

[892] November 20, 1519. “Opuscula,” Lugd., 1558, p. 121. N. Paulus, “Tetzel,” p. 165.

[893] Ibid., p. 171 f.

[894] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 53.

[895] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 65 seq. For the contents, see above, p. 324 f.

[896] Cp. the article by Dr. N. Paulus: “Johann v. Paltz Über Ablass und Reue” in the “Zeitschrift fÜr kath. theol.,” 23, 1899, p. 48 ff. He treats in the same review of Wendelin Steinbach, 24, 1900, p. 262: of Richard of Middletown, ibid., p. 12. See Kalteisen’s writing, ibid., 27, 1903, p. 368 ff. We also possess a treatise on Indulgences by the secular priest Nic. of DinkelsbÜhl, professor at the University.

[897] Emser, “Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” Bl. A. 3´. Cp. “Luthers Briefe,” ed. de Wette, volume vi., K. Seidemann, p. 18, where it is stated: “Luther’s letter was in Emser’s hands.”

[898] N. Paulus, “Tetzel,” p. 169.

[899] As he declares in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 50 ff.; “The first, real and actual beginning of the Lutheran uproar” was Tetzel’s preaching, and “the fame of it did not please me at all, for I did not know what an Indulgence was, and the song was getting too high for my voice,” it was the Bishop of Mayence who really commenced the affair through “the cut-purse, Tetzel”; he says in his Table-Talk: “If the Pope had only dismissed the Indulgence-mongers, I would willingly have been silent,” “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 195.

[900] “Die Fugger in Rom 1495-1523,” Bd. 1, Darstellung; Bd. 2, Urkunden, Leipzig, 1904.

[901] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 52.

[902] We shall come back later to the sources from which he drew his information.

[903] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 342.

[904] To Spalatin, September 2, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 227. Cp. Com. in Ep. ad. Gal., 3, p. 133.

[905] Schulte, ibid., 2, p. 96.

[906] H. SchrÖrs on Schulte’s work in the “Wissentschaftl. Beilage zur Germania,” 1904, Nos. 14 and 15, p. 299.

[907] N. Paulus in the “KÖln. Volksztg.,” 1904, April 24, No. 339. SchrÖrs, ibid., 292 f., is right in excluding any simoniacal character from the business, whether considered in the nature of a composition (which it was not intended to be) or as the bestowal of an Indulgence with a building alms attached to it. In the case of compositions (for the bestowal of bishoprics) the fees customary from ancient times are not a “compensation for a spiritual object, or for an object connected with spiritual things, but a debt incurred on the occasion of the bestowal of something spiritual.” In the granting of Indulgences, however, a condition of the imparting of any spiritual favour was always some gift to be devoted to a special pious object. “Monetary self-denial for the sake of the Roman building fund was an integral part of the Indulgence,” “according to the Papal motu proprio it was justified by the unusual length and irrevocable nature of the Indulgence.” (SchrÖrs.) “The purchase or sale of spiritual things for money or money’s worth, never entered the minds of those who made use of the Indulgence.” So writes O. PfÜlf in the “Stimmen aus Maria-Laach,” 67, 1904, p. 322.

[908] Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” p. 379. Cp. SchrÖrs, ibid., p. 299.

[909] SchrÖrs, ibid.

[910] Ibid. With regard to this matter, the silence of the Indulgence Instructions of Constance, dated 1513, is significant.

[911] Cf. F. Herrmann, “Tetzels Eintritt in den Dienst des Erzbischofs Albrecht,” in “Zeitschrift fÜr Kirchengesch.,” 23, 1902, p. 263 ff.

[912] Schulte, “Die Fugger in Rom 1495-1523,” 2, p. 98.

[913] N. Paulus, in the “KÖln. Volksztg.,” ibid., who gives the quotations from Kapp and Wolfius. Paul Lang says, in Pistorius Struvius, “Rer. germ. script.,” 1, p. 1281, Luther, by his interference with the preaching of the Indulgence, had, “ut fama fuit,” caused the Romans in one year a loss of 100,000 gulden.

[914] F. Herrmann, “Mainz-Magdeburgische Ablasskistenvisitationsprotokolle,” in “Archiv fÜr Reformationsgesch.,” 6, 1909 (pp. 361-84), p. 364 f., where the new accounts in question are quoted.

[915] Schulte, ibid., 1, p. 173.

[916] Cp. N. Paulus, “Ablasspredigten des ausgehenden Mittelalters,” in the “Liter. Beilage der KÖln. Volksztg.,” 1910, No. 11.

[917] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 202. Cp. “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1882, p. 692.

[918] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 238.

[919] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 175.

[920] To Spalatin from Augsburg, October 10, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 242.

[921] Ibid., “Ecclesia Romana auro insatiabiliter eget et vorando assidue sitim auget.”

[922] In the letter quoted to Spalatin, p. 240 f.

[923] On the day of his return to Wittenberg, October 31, 1518 (the anniversary of the day the Indulgence theses had appeared), “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 273.

[924] On December 11, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.

[925] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 317.

[926] On December 13, 1518, ibid., p. 320.

[927] On February 2, 1519, ibid., p. 410.

[928] The passages will be given more fully later.

[929] On May 6, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 97.

[930] To Johann Lang, March 1, 1517, ibid., p. 88.

[931] See the passage in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 219 ff.

[932] Printed ibid., 1, p. 74 ff. Erl. ed., 21, p. 156 ff.

[933] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 398 ff.

[934] Ibid., p. 411 ff.

[935] “Chronik,” p. 45.

[936] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 490.

[937] Ibid., p. 494.

[938] Ibid., p. 486.

[939] Ibid., p. 485.

[940] KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 245.

[941] To Spalatin, July 20, 1519, from Wittenberg, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 85 f. Cp. letter to the same, August 15, 1518, ibid., p. 103 ff. especially p. 117.

[942] Cp. H. A. Creutzberg, “Karl von Miltitz,” 1907 (“Studien und Darstellungen aus dem Gebiete der Gesch.,” ed. Grauert, Bd. 6, Heft. 1). The Chamberlain, whose only recommendation was his aristocratic Saxon birth, had been entrusted with the delivery of the Golden Rose to the Elector of Saxony. That he “undertook the rÔle of intermediary on his own initiative,” as has recently been asserted by Protestants, is, according to Creutzberg, incorrect. The most unfortunate mistake he made was not to insist upon Luther’s recantation (cp. S. Merkle, “Reformationsgeschichtliche Streitfragen,” Munich, 1904, p. 51), contenting himself with Luther’s illusory explanation of the end of February, 1519 (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 242, p. 10 ff.), published as a pamphlet. In this Luther simply speaks of the Papal power as a thing of which the existence must be taken for granted, and emphasises in general terms the duty of charity which forbids schism without due cause! This statement has been erroneously regarded by Catholics as an admission of the Primacy by Luther, as a “wonderful confession which the evidence of the facts wrung from the heretic.” With respect to this explanation, which, as Luther himself says, was destined for the “simple people,” KÖstlin-Kawerau’s “Luther-Biographie,” 1, p. 227, says: “In this way did Luther fulfil his promise [to Miltitz] of exhorting to obedience to Rome. He exhorts to submission to this power because, according to him, it merely extends to externals. With regard to anything further, its origin, its character, and its extent, he reserves to himself and to learned men generally, liberty of judgment. Of the important assertions which he had already made on this point in various passages in his works, none are here withdrawn.” And yet, in this remarkable document composed at the instigation of Miltitz, he calls himself “a submissive and obedient son of the Holy Christian Churches in which, by God’s help, I will die,” and declares: “I may say with a clear conscience that I have never imagined anything [hostile] with regard to the Papacy or its power.” He is, nevertheless, as he even there states, sure of his own “rock,” and ready to stand up for it like Paul, Athanasius, and Augustine, even though he should be left quite alone. God is able to speak through one against all, even as He once spoke through the mouth of a she-ass.

[943] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 163. On the date see KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 258.

[944] Ibid.

[945] Luther to Spalatin, January 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 351.

[946] Ibid.

[947] Luther to the Duke, May 16, 1519, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. III., No. 830 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 52). The Duke to Luther, May 23, 1519, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 59. Cp. “Akten und Briefe zur Kirchen politik Herzog Georgs von Sachsen,” ed. F. Gess, Leipzig, Bd. 1, 1905, p. 85.

[948] Luther to Spalatin, January, 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 350.

[949] In his pamphlet against Luther, “A venatione Luteriana Ægocerotis Assertio,” end November, 1519. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 225, n. 8. Cf. “An den Stier zu Wittenberg.” No place or year (1520, or beginning 1521). Fol. Aij, 6.

[950] “Auff des Stiers tzu Wittenberg Wiettende Replica,” Leipzig, 1521, Aiiij., Enders, ibid.

[951] Ibid., fol. A, 3´.

[952] “An den Stier zu Wittenberg,” fol. A, 2.

[953] “Auff des Bocks zu Leypczick Antwort,” 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 27, 206 ff.

[954] “Auff des Stiers tzu Wittenberg Wiettende Replica,” fol. A, 3´.

[955] “Auff des Bocks,” etc., “Werke,” Erl. ed., n. 27, p. 208 f.

[956] Sess. 6, c. 8.

[957] Ibid., cap. ix., Contra inanem fiduciam.

[958] See the letter above, p. 15. On Usingen, see his Life, by N. Paulus, p. 17.

[959] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 215.

[960] Ibid., p. 132.

[961] Ibid., p. 124.

[962] In De servo arbitrio, “Werke,” Weim ed., 18, p. 719.

[963] KÖstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 180.

[964] Ibid., p. 181.

[965] F. Loofs, “Leitfaden der Dogmengesch.,” 4, p. 711, lays stress on passages quoted by Denifle, but admits (p. 721) that they are “not so clear.” The same applies to the passages quoted above, p. 261.

[966] Cp. K. Stange, “Die ersten ethischen Disputationen Luthers” (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” No. 1), p. 54.

[967] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 540 f.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 152 seq.

[968] Cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 542. “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 156: “Cui (sacerdoti absolventi) qui crediderit cum fiducia, vere obtinuit pacem et remissionem apud Deum; id est certus fit, se esse absolutum, non rei sed fidei certitudine propter infallibilem misericordiam promittentis sermonem Quodcunque solveris,” etc. “Sic Ro. V. Iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius, pacem habemus ad Deum per fidem, non utique per rem.”

[969] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 541.

[970] Ibid., p. 629 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 378 seq.

[971] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 557; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 179 seq. No reason can be advanced against the application of this passage to Luther himself except that the formula he employs, Novi hominem (cp. 2 Cor xii. 2: “Scio hominem in Christo ... raptum”), he also once makes use of in an account given of another person. This circumstance, however, does not invalidate the reference to his own person, which is apparent from the whole context. It is true, however, that Luther does not directly refer to himself. The Protestant historians, J. KÖstlin, W. KÖhler, W. Braun, G. Kawerau, etc., also refer the passage to Luther himself. The last-named historian says, in the “Deutsch-Evangelische BlÄtter,” 1906, p. 447, that this passage of the Resolutions gives an idea “of the night of the soul which he had experienced.”

[972] See volume vi., chapter xxxvi., “Dark side of the Life of the Soul,” 4, 5.

[973] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 13 f. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 377 seq.

[974] “Per nulla opera aptus (eris) ad sacramentum, sed per solam fidem, quia sola fides verbi Christi iustificat, vivificat, dignificat, prÆparat; sine qua omnia alia vel sunt prÆsumptionis vel desperationis studia. Iustus enim non ex dispositione sua sed ex fide vivit, Rom. i. 17,” which passage (see below, p. 391 ff.) accordingly already plays a great part in his considerations.

[975] In the beginning of 1519 he gives instructions to the Faithful, intended to show them how to make a good use of Confession (“A Short Instruction how to make a Confession,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 57 ff; Erl. ed., 21, p. 244 ff.). Even in March, 1520, he republished this little work in an extended form, “Confitendi Ratio,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 154 seq. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 152 seq. (cp. KÖstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 278), where he recommends confession, merely warning the penitent, “ut non fiducia confessionis vel faciendÆ vel factÆ nitatur, sed in solius Dei clementissimam promissionem tota fidei plenitudine confidat, certissimus videlicet, quod, qui confessuro peccata sua promisit veniam, promissionem suam fidelissime prÆstabit.”

[976] To Wenceslaus Link, December 11, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.

[977] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 75.

[978] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 44 f. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 325 seq.

[979] “Hanc qui habet, etiamsi peccet, non damnatur.”

[980] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 146. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 330.

[981] Ibid., p. 145 [329].

[982] F. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.”⁴, p. 721 f.

[983] P. 722. We may mention casually Loofs’s well-founded criticism of Luther’s doctrine of Justification and Assurance of Salvation (p. 767 f.). Further attention will be given to this point of his teaching and to that on the Law and the Gospel in volume iv., xxviii., 3, and volume vi., xxxix., 2 and 4.

[984] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 22 seq. This passage will be compared with a similar lengthy statement in the Commentary on Genesis (“Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74, cp. 10, p. 155), which, however, is not of equal importance with the former because the Commentary consists merely of notes made by others from Luther’s lectures, and the portion in question was not published till after Luther’s death. Cp. on the latter, O. Scheel, “Die Entwicklung Luthers,” etc. (“Schriften des Vereins fÜr Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, pp. 61-230), p. 107 f.

[985] The rest of the passage is given below, p. 391. The contents will first be made clear by quotations from parallel statements of Luther’s.

[986] Mathesius, “Table-Talk,” p. 309.

[987] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74.

[988] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 130. Exposition of Psalm li.

[989] From Khummer’s Notes in Seidemann’s edition of Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 81.

[990] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 130.

[991] See volume vi., xxxvii.

[992] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 39 f.

[993] Ibid., 45, p. 156.

[994] Ibid., 46, p. 73.

[995] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74.

[996] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 49, p. 27.

[997] Ibid., 17, p. 139 f.

[998] Ibid., 44, p. 354.

[999] Ibid., 59, p. 10.

[1000] In Galat., 1, p. 109.

[1001] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 146.

[1002] Ibid., 31, p. 279.

[1003] “Coepi psalterium secundo interpretari.... Eo anno (MDXIX) iam redieram ad psalterium denuo interpretandum.”

[1004] Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden” (1531-1532), p. 108.

[1005] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 211 f.

[1006] Kroker’s edition, p. 309.

[1007] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 130.

[1008] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 275. Cp. 1, p. 52.

[1009] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 130.

[1010] Kawerau also lays great stress on the connection between Luther’s development and his work on the Psalms. “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 77, 1904, p. 617. He even thinks the Psalms rather than the idea of the Iustitia Dei formed the starting-point. J. Ficker says in the Preface to his edition of the Commentary on Romans, p. lxxii, with regard to the testimony Luther gives concerning himself in his PrÆfatio: “He speaks of the second course [on the Psalms], but is, without doubt, thinking of the first.” And O. Scheel (see above, p. 388, n. 3), p. 112 f., etc., prefers to fix the first course on the Psalms as the time of Luther’s experience, and rests his assumption on the fact that Luther had “reforming ideas” present in his mind even before he wrote the Commentary on Romans. I, nevertheless, think I may appeal in opposition to this view to my preceding statements which touch on all the points raised, more particularly on the change which during the period from 1515 to 1516 occurred in Luther, who in his first Commentary on the Psalms had been much more Catholic-minded. In fixing chronologically the date of the experience described in the Latin PrÆfatio I have the further advantage of being supported by Luther’s clear and definite statement. As he esteemed his second course on the Psalms so highly (see above, p. 386) and consigned the first to oblivion, it is difficult to imagine that he mistook the one for the other. On the other hand, a mistake as to the sequence of those ideas which had made an impression on him in his youth might easily be explained by advancing years, like his mistakes concerning the time when he first became acquainted with certain authors (for instance, in this case, with Augustine).

[1011] P. 423.

[1012] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 370. Cp. pp. 336, 404.

[1013] See above, p. 388, n. 3.

[1014] Volume i., p. 52.

[1015] P. 423.

[1016] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 370.

[1017] In the notes to the “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 52.

[1018] J. K. Seidemann in his edition of Lauterbach, p. 81.

[1019] See above, p. 393.

[1020] Lisch, in Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 2, p. 35, n. 2.

[1021] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 9. “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 35.

[1022] H. Stein, “Gesch. des Lutherhauses,” 1883, p. 19.

[1023] See volume iii., xvi., 1, and volume vi., xxxvi., 4.

[1024] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 338, “Tischreden.”

[1025] On March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 296).

[1026] “Dogmengesch.,” 3, p. 812.

[1027] Ibid., p. 846. Harnack (p. 812) urges that Luther’s self-confidence was combined with entire humility with respect to God.

[1028] Ibid.

[1029] “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 186. DÖllinger is there speaking of the “doctrine of Imputation,” by which he means the doctrine of faith alone which produces the assurance of salvation.

[1030] So H. BÖhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung”², 1910, pp. 45, 57, 58.

[1031] See above, p. 388, n. 3. We can hardly assume that such a statement was an error of the Notes; it is more probable that Luther made a mistake in his verbal delivery.

[1032] In other statements, such as that related by Heydenreich (above, p. 393), he assumes that no doctor was able to supply him with the right explanation: “No one came to open the door,” etc.

[1033] Thus BÖhmer, ibid., p. 35.

[1034] Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1². “Quellenbelege; die abendlÄndischen Schriftausleger bis Luther Über iustitia Dei (Rom. i. 17) und iustificatio,” 1905. Among the older interpreters Abailard alone may be an exception.

[1035] Ficker in the Preface, p. lxxix.

[1036] Cp. BÖhmer², p. 47: “It is a matter of interest that he refers for the interpretation to a work much used in that period, the ‘Biblia cum glossa ordinaria,’ printed at Basle by Froben, 1508. It is plain that he looked up this gloss on the Epistle.” On the strength of this BÖhmer thought himself entitled to say: “The birth-hour of the Reformation falls in the winter 1508-9.... Its birthplace was the Black Monastery at Wittenberg”; but “it was only quite slowly that Luther lived himself into his new religious views.”

[1037] Loofs, “Dogmengesch.”⁴, p. 688 f. Loofs remarks concerning the statements on Augustine: “Luther was also mistaken with regard to this [the time and the manner of his experience].” My view of the state of the case differs, however, from that of Loofs, Braun, BÖhmer, Scheel, etc.

[1038] “Die Reformation,” Lit. Beilage, September, 1905.

[1039] “Theologisches Literaturblatt,” 26, 1905, col. 507.

[1040] To Spalatin, February 24, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 2: “ItalicÆ subtilitates.”

[1041] Ibid., p. 6.

[1042] Cp. BÖhmer², p. 63.

[1043] BÖhmer², p. 60.