Chapter X: Luther’s Progress in the New Teaching (3)

[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 pœnitentiæ 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 pœnitentia 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.