Chapter X: Luther’s Progress in the New Teaching (2)

In the reference made to the event in the Commentary on Genesis (1540), the fact that the just man lives by faith is also placed in the foreground, and in this case we may safely rely on the Commentary though it was not printed till after Luther’s death.[1013] Here we read that it was the knowledge he had acquired “under the enlightenment of the Holy Ghost” that “our life comes from faith” that had “opened out the whole of Scripture to him, and heaven itself.” This, according to the passage in question, was the result of the “anxious work,” which at the outset he had devoted to the comprehension of Romans i. 17. By the use of such an expression as “at the outset,” “_primum_,” the opening word of the whole passage which speaks of his development, he would appear to imply that it was then that the foundation was laid of the great evangelical truth concerning faith. This agrees with the title Mathesius bestows on his notes: “Occasion of the re-birth of the gospel by means of the Doctor.” In the passage in question in the Commentary on Genesis the consoling faith which he had been commissioned to teach is contrasted with the “unbelief” prevalent in Popery, which has lost all experience of this security. “They did not know that unbelief was a sin ... and yet conscience cannot find any real comfort in works. Let us therefore enjoy the blessing of God which is now imparted to us.”

Luther’s utterances so far have referred more to the inward occasion, to the time and the subject-matter of the experience from which the dogma of absolute assurance of salvation took its rise. The statements which follow, on the other hand, refer more to the place where the incident occurred, but they at the same time emphasise more particularly an element which was incidentally connected with it, namely, the inspiration by the Spirit of God.

In Lauterbach’s “Colloquia” (ed. by Bindseil) the account commences with the words: “By the grace of God while thinking on one occasion on this tower [he seems to be pointing with his finger to the very spot] and hypocaustum, over those words: _Iustus ex fide vivit_ ... the Holy Ghost revealed the Scripture to me in this tower.”[1014] In Cordatus’s diary both circumstances are mentioned: “On one occasion on this tower (where the privy of the monks was situated) when I was speculating on the words, etc., the Holy Ghost imparted to me this knowledge on this tower,” i.e. to understand that “Justice comes of faith and life proceeds from Justice.”[1015] The editor, H. Wrampelmeyer, points out the fact that the mention of the “privy” is omitted in the later Table-Talk. In the German Table-Talk the inspiration is mentioned instead: “This knowledge was given to me by the Holy Ghost alone.”[1016] Rebenstock, in his valuable Latin Table-Talk, gives both together: “_in hac turri vel hypocausto_,” and later: “_Hæc verba per Spiritum sanctum mihi revelata sunt_.”[1017] The Lutheran pastor Caspar Khummer, who, in 1554, made a collection of Table-Talk, relates both circumstances (in Lauterbach’s edition): “_Cum semel in hac turri speculabar_,” and further on: “With this knowledge the Holy Ghost inspired me in this cloaca on the tower.”[1018]

The mention of the cloaca explains the entry of Johann Schlaginhaufen in his notes of Luther’s own words in 1532: “This art the _Spiritus sanctus_ infused into me in this Cl.”[1019] Cloaca is abbreviated into Cl., probably because Schlaginhaufen’s copyist, was reluctant to write it out in full alongside of the account of the inspiration which Luther had received from the Holy Ghost; the editor suggests we should read “Capitel”; but the chapter-house is not to be thought of. Strange indeed are the interpretations which have been given, even in recent times, by the unlearned to many of the expressions in our texts. The “_locus secretus_” was supposed to be “a special place allotted to the monks in the tower,” whereas it is clear that the “secret chamber” was simply the closet or privy, a word which occurs often enough in Luther’s later abuse of the Papists. In olden times it was very usual to establish this adjunct on the city wall and its towers, the sewage having egress outside the town boundaries. The buildings on the city wall, of which we hear in connection with Luther’s monastery, were simply this and nothing more.[1020] It has been said that by the word “tower” was meant a spiritual prison, namely, Popery, in which Luther languished until his enlightenment. In the hypocaustum was seen the spiritual sweat-bath in which the Monk was immersed till the time of his liberation by the new doctrine. As a matter of fact the allusion is to a heating apparatus, or warmed space, either below or in front of the privy, some such arrangement being common in monasteries. In his cell Luther had no stove.

We know from Luther’s letters that there was a question in 1519 of allotting some other place outside the walls to the previously existing privy, or of rebuilding it. In the name of the community, Luther, in the middle of May, 1519, requested the Elector for permission to erect a “necessary building outside the walls on the moat,” because the “gentlemen of the Wittenberg Council” delayed giving their sanction.[1021] The result of the request is unknown; as, however, Cordatus, in the passage referring to the tower, makes use of the words: “in which the monks’ privy was,” it would seem at the time he wrote to have been no longer in the tower. The tower, however, remained, otherwise Luther would not have said, as he did, that the event took place on (or in) _this_ tower. An historian of Luther’s Augustinian priory stated in 1883, that, on the eastern side of the monastery, where the localities in question were probably situated, broken drain-pipes were to be seen up to the middle of last (the eighteenth) century.[1022]

We must, therefore, represent the scene of the discovery as the secret chamber, which Luther expressly mentions, situated in a tower on the walls, probably on the eastern flank of the monastery. Constructed against the outer side of the tower, it probably projected over the moat, and, below, or in front of it, was the so-called hypocaustum.

As regards the revelation mentioned in the above passages, it is certain that Luther always traced back the knowledge so acquired to a special revelation, though not indeed to anything like a vision. Those verses on faith composed his “evangel,” and he always declared with regard to this “evangel” that his discovery, made at the cost of so much labour, had been accompanied by a “revelation of the Holy Ghost.”[1023]

He speaks, for instance, of the time when he began to advocate his favourite doctrine as being the time of the “revelation of the evangel.”[1024] In answer to the fanatics who disputed his right to the first place in the new teaching, he defends himself by saying that it was he who “not without the revelation of the Holy Ghost had again brought forward the gospel.” The words contained in his letter to the Elector on his return from the Wartburg express a consciousness of a higher illumination, where he declares that he had received the “evangel, not from men, but solely from heaven through our Lord Jesus Christ.”[1025]

“Such self-reliance almost fills us with anxiety,” says Adolf Harnack, of the latter and other writings. “... We seek in vain in the whole history of the Church for examples of men who could write such letters as that to the Elector, and the writings which Luther composed on the Wartburg. I can quite understand how Catholic critics see in these letters a ‘delirious pride.’ There is no choice except to judge Luther thus or to recognise that his place was an entirely peculiar one in the history of the Christian religion.”[1026] Harnack goes on to quote another extremely self-confident passage from Luther: “It pleased God well to reveal His Son through me,” and then expresses his own opinion on the subject: “Luther’s merit consisted in the circumstance that he was able to express what he had experienced, namely, the equation of the assurance of salvation, and faith”;[1027] his self-reliance, Harnack adds, was the “true expression of a religious freedom such as Clement of Alexandria had painted as the disposition of a true Christian, and such as the mystics of all ages had in their way sought to attain to.”[1028]

Luther’s claim to special illumination must, as hinted before, be restricted to the domain of the aforesaid doctrine of assurance of salvation; the whole of his doctrine did not come to him from God, or at least only by way of the inspiration of the Spirit, which, according to his own statements to be afterwards considered, is common to all well-disposed Christians who make use of Holy Scripture. Döllinger, also, says: This doctrine was the “only one which he really believed he had received by a special revelation of the Holy Ghost.”[1029]

Here again we perceive the fundamental importance attaching to the assurance of salvation as the corner-stone of his development. Unconsciously he had been driven forward to this extremity. Protestants quite rightly have often pointed out that the decisive question for him was: “How can I, a mere single individual, be assured of the forgiveness of sins and thereby of the mercy of God?” “He ventured,” so it has been said, “to throw overboard all doubts as to the doctrine of assurance of salvation and to declare frankly and freely: it is impossible to trust God without being fully assured of redemption and salvation.” “One thing only was still wanting (in his Commentary on Romans), namely, the clear perception of the fact, that the believer not only may be certain of his redemption, but that he must be so.” The mystics helped him finally to arrive at the “joyous sense of trust in God” after he had been through “the hell of a troubled conscience”; thus he was set “free from the last scruples and doubts, and reached the consciousness that he might, nay, must, rest assured of his God.”[1030]

The fact cannot be concealed, that in the above passages concerning the discovery on the tower, which for the most part date from a later period of Luther’s life, there is some obscurity and confusion as to the subject. He says first: the Justice of God, by which God (Christ) is Just, is taught in the New Law and is also indicated in the Psalms, and this Justice of God is reckoned to us as our Justice. Secondly, we lay hold upon it only by faith, and thus our life comes from faith (fiducial faith with assurance of salvation), of which fact we must be joyfully confident. Thirdly: The difficulty caused by the idea of God’s avenging Justice, which weighs down the soul, must therefore be fought against with determination. Of the first of these three elements Luther had made personal experience long before this time; its earliest expression is at the commencement of the Commentary on Romans, also in the well-known letter to Spenlein of April 7, 1516. He had therefore no right to speak of it as forming the subject of his newly acquired knowledge. The second element on the other hand was really new, and gave him the answer to the anxious question: How is the imputed Justice of God to become mine? Not by self-annihilation, not by _humilitas_, not by yearning prayer and other works which hitherto he had proposed as the means, but by faith only which had assured him of “regeneration,” of heavenly revelations, etc. Concerning the third element no more need be said here, however greedily he may have seized the semblance of comfort which the discovery afforded him, passing from the storms of his crisis into what he took to be a safe haven of peace.

The illusory talisman of absolute assurance of salvation was the result of the second stage of his development.

3. Legends. Storm Signals

On looking back in later years upon the course of his spiritual progress in the monastery, Luther was unable to distinguish clearly between the various stages of his development. The incident in the tower, which had left the strongest impression on his memory, drew the first stage more and more into the foreground in his imagination, so that in his accounts he assigns to it an undue prominence to the disadvantage of the two others. Hence the want of clearness noticeable in his statements with regard to the same.

We find not merely obscurity, but actual error, particularly in his account of the traditional interpretation and that which he had himself begun to advocate of the _Iustitia Dei_ (Rom. i. 17). Luther is, in this matter, the originator of the great legend still current even in our own day, which represents him as a Columbus discovering therein the central truth set forth by Paul; no one had been able to find the key to the passage before his glance penetrated to the truth. All the learned men of earlier times had said that _iustitia_ there meant the avenging Justice of an angry God. As a matter of fact, in Luther’s lectures on Genesis in 1540-41,[1031] it is asserted that all the doctors of the Church, with the exception of Augustine, had misunderstood the verses Romans i. 16 f.; Luther’s Preface to his Latin works to some extent presupposes the same, for he says that he had, “according to the custom and use of all doctors” (“_usu et consuetudine omnium doctorum doctus_”), understood the passage as meaning that justice “by which God is Just and punishes sin,” and only Augustine, with whom he had made common cause, had found the right interpretation (“_iustitiam Dei interpretatur, qua nos Deus induit_”), although even the latter did not teach imputation clearly (see above, p. 392).[1032]

“As a matter of fact, however, the exact opposite is the case: all the mediæval doctors whom he studied as a monk, Peter Lombard, Lyra and Paul of Burgos, gave, as can be proved, the same interpretation as Augustine. Thus Luther was completely at sea as to the handling of this, to him most important, passage.”[1033] Luther in his Preface says that contrary to all expectation (“_praeter spem_”) he had, after his own discovery, found in St. Augustine’s “_De spiritu et littera_” an interpretation which agreed with his own, and that this caused him fresh joy, although Augustine expresses himself imperfectly with regard to the same. Denifle, on the other hand, proves by the testimony of more than sixty interpreters of antiquity, that all are unanimous in taking the _iustitia Dei_ in St. Paul in the same sense as St. Augustine, viz. as the Justice by which God renders men just.[1034] The demonstration is conducted with “commendable accuracy and fulness.”[1035]

Luther himself, strange to say, at an earlier date and previous to the Tower incident, had repeatedly employed the correct interpretation. We can only suppose that it then made no impression on him, at any rate, no such impression as the incident on the Tower. He makes use of it with special reference to its older representatives, in the marginal notes to the Sentences of Peter Lombard, 1509-10,[1036] then in the Commentary on the Psalms, and finally even in the Commentary on Romans, where he twice quotes Augustine and even the “_De spiritu et littera_.”

It is true that on these occasions he passes over the passage in the Epistle without displaying any particular interest, i.e. without laying on it the stress he does at a later date. Another difference is also noticeable. Luther has introduced since 1518 an entirely new idea, which he had not before, into his interpretation of the _iustitia Dei_. In it he finds not only that the justice which comes from God justifies us, but that it is bestowed upon us solely and directly by means of a trusting faith, and that thus a “life” in grace is opened up to man of which he must be infallibly certain in his innermost consciousness.

In his accounts, says Loofs, “we have documentary proof of impaired memory.” “It is plain that Luther’s memory, in the course of years, and owing to his ‘_odium papæ_,’ had, as we can well understand, become inaccurate with regard to pre-Reformation conditions.”[1037] The “_odium papæ_” would certainly seem to have been concerned in his placing in the forefront his supposed re-discovery of an exegesis which Popery had forgotten.

Merely in order to throw light on the sequel of the great legend in our own times, we may here remark that it is difficult to understand the displeasure expressed by a modern Church historian and admirer of Luther, when some Protestants dared to agree with Denifle’s lengthy demonstration of the real exegetical history of Romans i. 17. An impartial theologian, amongst others, expressed himself as follows in a periodical: “Denifle has proved beyond a doubt that Luther was wrong when he asserted that the earlier doctors had almost without exception taken the _iustitia Dei_, Rom. i. 17, in the sense of the Divine anger.”[1038] These words roused the admirer we have in mind to reply immediately as follows in the “Theologisches Literaturblatt” of Leipzig: “Does then the writer not perceive what the result must be for Luther’s character?” Of two things, one, he says, either Luther lied, or he acted most unscrupulously and never consulted the earlier doctors.[1039]

The new discovery not only filled Luther with blind courage and defiant presumption in the defence of his previous teaching, but also lent a giant strength to his action as a reformer of ecclesiastical conditions against Rome’s abuses. He now begins to act as a spokesman of the nation and to constitute himself the leader of the already existing anti-Roman movement in Germany.

He now persuades himself more strongly than ever that he is in possession of a truth which is to be suppressed by Italian trickery and imperiousness, if not by “poison and the dagger,” as was being planned in Italy. Rome had ravaged Scripture and the Church, her name should be Babylon: this (Apocalyptic) Beast, this Antichrist, must be exposed before the world, otherwise he might as well surrender his theology and allow it to perish; “I do not care if even my friends say I have lost my reason; it must be so; I have awaited this hour when they should be offended in me, as the disciples and friends of Christ were in Christ (Matt. xxvi. 31; Mark xiv. 27); truth must stand by its divine strength, not by mine or yours or that of any man.”[1040]

“It is only we Germans on whom the Empire descended, who have strengthened the power of the Popes so far as we could. For our punishment we have had to endure them as masters in cursing and abuse, and now as robbers also by means of pallium-fees and taxes on the bishoprics.”[1041]

In the Preface to the Commentary on Galatians he sent forth a call to the Germans and their Princes, which anticipates his later pamphlet “To the Nobility of the German Nation,” in the same way as the ideas contained in his work on the Twofold Justice serve as a prelude to the booklet “On the Freedom of a Christian Man.” “Those godless windbags, Prierias, Cajetan and their fellows, abuse us as German clowns, simpletons, beasts, barbarians, and mock at the incredible patience with which we allow ourselves to be deceived and robbed. All praise therefore to the German Princes for recently [1518], at Augsburg, refusing the tenths, twentieths and fiftieths to the Roman Curia, notwithstanding that they knew the cursed Roman Council [5th of the Lateran] had sanctioned these taxes. They recognised that the Pope and the Council had erred ... that the legates of the Curia are only after gold and more gold. The example of these lay theologians is especially worthy of imitation.... It is a proof of greater piety when the Princes and other folk of any degree oppose the Curia than if they were to take up arms against the Turk.”[1042]

As we shall see, it was not Ulrich von Hutten who first roused Luther to such language against Rome, and to the stirring up of a false patriotism. Hutten’s letters to him, and those of the other Humanists, are of later date, as also the congratulations and exhortations of the Humanist Crotus Rubeanus. It is a legend to attribute the raising of the standard of the Reformation principally to the Humanists and revolutionary knights. The fact that its origin may be traced back to 1521 does not make it one whit more credible historically. The air, in any case, was full of the anti-Roman spirit of revolt breathed by the Humanists and knights. The Wittenberg Monk had become acquainted with this spirit and found it sympathetic. How well it suited his purpose will be shown in the next chapter.

The subversive doctrines which he had now at length fully developed in the quiet of his monastery held the first place among the factors which drove him onwards; in so far as these doctrines were in very truth his own production, born of his own heart and brain amid incredible anxieties and struggles, we may, nay must, say that it was a new and independent task which he undertook, and that his was the labour and his the results. What Luther with his subversive theology propounded from that time forward, what he, with his chief doctrine of justification by faith and the appropriation of salvation, began to set in the place of the old teaching, was “in no way the necessary product of the various factors which had assisted in his education, but rather something new, original and never before known, only to be accounted for by Luther’s own extraordinary genius.”[1043] In this sense the entire lack of originality with which he has frequently been reproached must also be relegated to the domain of legend. In attacking him to-day, the tactics which commended themselves to the older theologians, who knew little of his history, or at any rate of the course of his interior development, should no longer be resorted to. Their plan was to range all his doctrines under some one or other of the older heresies—even though only the germ of his errors was to be found in former ages—and then sapiently to declare he had merely gone about collecting his errors from the various olden heretics. It is quite a different matter that like errors are so frequently met with in history even in most unexpected quarters; it is due to their many-sidedness and to their windings and aberrations. The truth which is vouched for by the Church pursues its own straight, undeviating path, from the earliest disciples of Christ down to our own times, and in its quiet, immutable splendour is infinitely more original than any error, however new and modern it may claim to be.

END OF VOL. I.

FOOTNOTES:

[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,” I^[18], 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 œcumenicum 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 fœditate 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 œcum. 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.)