Chapter X: Luther’s Progress in the New Teaching (4)

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

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

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

[503] _Ibid._, p. 46.

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

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

[506] _Ibid._, p. 332.

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

[508] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 209.

[509] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 322.

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

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

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

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

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

[511] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 183.

[512] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 183 f.

[513] Cp. _ibid._, pp. 114, 185, 187, 244.

[514] _Ibid._, p. 108.

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

[516] _Ibid._, p. 114.

[517] _Ibid._, p. 167.

[518] _Ibid._, p. 111.

[519] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 179.

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

[521] _Ibid._, p. 178.

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

[523] “_Contra Julianum_,” l. 3, c. 26; Migne, P. L., xliv., col. 733 _sq._

[524] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 182.

[525] _Ibid._, p. 221.

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

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

[528] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 221.

[529] _Ibid._

[530] Cp. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 183.

[531] _Ibid._, p. 89.

[532] _Ibid._, p. 90 f.

[533] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 91.

[534] _Ibid._, p. 93.

[535] _Ibid._, p. 95.

[536] _Ibid._, p. 96.

[537] _Ibid._, p. 100 f.

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

[539] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 608.

[540] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 41.

[541] _Ibid._, p. 83 f.

[542] _Ibid._, p. 84.

[543] _Ibid._, p. 114 f.

[544] Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 465.

[545] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 104 f.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[555] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 219.

[556] _Ibid._, p. 230.

[557] _Ibid._, p. 105.

[558] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 84.

[559] _Ibid._, p. 83.

[560] _Ibid._, p. 89.

[561] _Ibid._, p. 86 f.

[562] _Ibid._, p. 39.

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

[564] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 322.

[565] _Ibid._, p. lxxvi.

[566] _Ibid._, p. 14.

[567] See below, chapter x.

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

[569] Denifle, 1¹, p. 444.

[570] _Ibid._, p. 605 ff., with his testimonies.

[571] _Ibid._, p. 599.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[576] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 209 f.: “_Nostri theologi velut acutuli_,” etc. “_Hæc tantum vacua verba sunt_,” etc. “_Est ridicula additio si dicas_,” etc. “_Torquent intelligentiam_,” etc. Thus he arrives at his “_immutabilis prædestinatio_.” “_Præcipit Deus ut irretiantur reprobi, ut ostendat iram suam_,” with the pains of hell which they are absolutely powerless to escape (p. 213). See also above, p. 189 ff.

[577] _Ibid._, p. 6. Against the “_mercenarii_.” In Ficker’s text it reads: “_qualium hodie in ecclesia solus est numerus_.” In place of “_solus_” read “_tantus_” or some other such word.

[578] _Ibid._, p. 7.

[579] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 111.

[580] _Ibid._, p. 290. Cp. p. 317.

[581] _Ibid._, p. 294 f.

[582] _Ibid._, p. 248 f.

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

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

[585] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 243.

[586] _Ibid._, p. 275 f.

[587] _Ibid._, p. 278.

[588] _Ibid._, p. 317.

[589] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 271 f.

[590] _Ibid._, p. 272.

[591] _Ibid._, p. 300 f.

[592] _Ibid._, p. 301.

[593] _Ibid._, p. 272.

[594] _Ibid._, p. 301 f.

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

[596] _Ibid._, p. 242.

[597] _Ibid._, pp. 298, 302, 303.

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

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

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

[601] _Ibid._, p. 271 ff.

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

[603] P. lxxxii.

[604] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 203.

[605] _Ibid._, pp. 205, 206.

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

[607] Braun, p. 296.

[608] _Ibid._, p. 297.

[609] _Ibid._

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

[611] Braun, p. 296.

[612] _Ibid._, p. 284.

[613] Braun, p. 301.

[614] _Ibid._

[615] Cp. _ibid._, pp. 287, 288.

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

[617] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 59.

[618] _Ibid._, p. 133.

[619] _Ibid._, p. 139.

[620] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 133 f.

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

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

[623] _Ibid._, theses 19, 20.

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

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

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

[627] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 213, 223.

[628] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 214.

[629] _Ibid._, p. 218.

[630] _Ibid._, p. 217 f.

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

[632] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 218 f.

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

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

[635] Cp. above, p. 228.

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

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

[638] Thus Ficker, p. lxii.

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

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

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

[642] _Ibid._, p. 208.

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

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

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

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

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

[648] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 170-6.

[649] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 178.

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

[651] _Ibid._, p. 517, n. 3.

[652] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 175 f.

[653] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 234 f., 277.

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

[655] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 303.

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

[657] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 241.

[658] _Ibid._, p. 242.

[659] _Ibid._, p. 245.

[660] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 86 f.

[661] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 87 f.

[662] _Ibid._, p. 89.

[663] _Ibid._, p. 92.

[664] _Ibid._, p. 93.

[665] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 94.

[666] _Ibid._, p. 95.

[667] _Ibid._, p. 96.

[668] _Ibid._, p. 97.

[669] _Ibid._, p. 323 f. Cp. above, p. 218 f.

[670] _Ibid._, p. 86: “_Igitur iustificatio requirit non opera legis, sed vivam fidem, quæ sua operetur opera._” Cp. above, p. 214, n. 6, where he speaks of the “_præparatio_” for justification by the fulfilling of the law.

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

[672] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 321.

[673] Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 34.

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

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

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

[677] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 486.

[678] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 243.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[686] October 26, 1516, _ibid._, p. 67.

[687] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 68.

[688] June 22, 1516, _ibid._, p. 42.

[689] _Ibid._, p. 43.

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

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

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

[693] May 29, 1516, _ibid._, p. 38.

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

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

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

[697] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 219 f.

[698] _Ibid._, p. 317.

[699] _Ibid._, p. 291.

[700] See above, p. 71.

[701] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 318.

[702] _Ibid._

[703] _Ibid._

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

[705] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 317.

[706] _Ibid._, p. 123.

[707] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 317.

[708] _Ibid._, p. 318.

[709] _Ibid._, p. 165 f.

[710] _Ibid._, p. 286.

[711] _Ibid._, p. 320.

[712] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 316 f.

[713] _Ibid._, p. 317: “_Curandum, ut [vota] eadem charitate solvantur, qua sunt promissa, sine qua solvi non possunt.... Ideo apostatæ sunt multi, et non videntur._”

[714] “Celifodina,” Supplementum, Erfordiæ, 1504, fol. L. 3 _seq._, M. 1´ _seq._

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

[716] Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 283.

[717] _Ibid._

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

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

[720] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 288.

[721] _Ibid._, pp. 319, 320.

[722] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 290.

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

[724] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 321.

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

[726] Also in German.

[727] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 321 f.

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

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

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

[731] Melanchthon said on one occasion, according to Waltz (see above, p. 278, n. 2), p. 326: “_Leo habet oculos χαροπούς_ (bright-eyed), _Lutheri oculi sunt χαροποί_, _et habebant leonem in ascendente_ (probably “_habebat_,” viz. Luther in his Horoscope). _Et tales plerumque sunt ingeniosi_ ... They were brown eyes, “_circuit circulus gilvus_.”

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

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

[734] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 301.

[735] _Ibid._, p. 317: “_Nunc omnes fere desipiunt_ (this is about the Church’s fasts) ... _ut rursum_ (_populus_) _apostolis indigeat ipsis, ut veram disceret pietatem_

[736] _Ibid._, p. 199.

[737] Seneca, Ep. 45, 4.

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

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

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

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

[742] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 335.

[743] _Ibid._, p. 300.

[744] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 243.

[745] _Ibid._, p. 272.

[746] _Ibid._, p. 287.

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

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

[749] “_Adeo infeliciter cessit opulentia et potentatus ecclesiæ._” _Ibid._, p. 482.

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

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

[752] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 319.

[753] _Ibid._, p. 310.

[754] _Ibid._

[755] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 298.

[756] _Ibid._, p. 299.

[757] _Ibid._, p. 309.

[758] _Ibid._, p. 322 f.

[759] _Ibid._, p. 323.

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

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

[762] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.

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

[764] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 100.

[765] _Ibid._, p. 102.

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

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

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

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

[770] See above, p. 10.

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

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

[773] _Ibid._, p. 319.

[774] _Ibid._, p. 320.

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

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

[777] Commentar. in Galat., ed. Irmischer, Erlangæ, 1, p. 193 _seq._: “_Vera pœnitentia incipit a timore et iudicio Dei._”

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

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

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

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

[782] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 69.

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

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

[785] See above, p. 95.

[786] See below, p. 323.

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

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

[789] “Kirchengesch.,” 1, p. 782.

[790] “Adversus Marcion.,” 4, c. 5.

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

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

[793] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 323.

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

[795] “Vita Lutheri,” p. 6.

[796] “Historien”, Bl., 8´, 9.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[806] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 437.

[807] See Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 275.

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

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

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

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

[812] _Ibid._, p. 161.

[813] _Ibid._, p. 164.

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

[815] _Ibid._, p. 735.

[816] Cp. Möhler, p. 139.

[817] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 275.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[830] Kolde, p. 327.

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

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

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

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

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

[836] Concl. 24.

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

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

[839] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 370.

[840] _Ibid._, pp. 371, 374.

[841] _Ibid._, p. 633.

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

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

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

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

[846] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.

[847] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 170.

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

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

[850] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 83.

[851] _Ibid._, 1, p. 65 ff.

[852] _Ibid._, p. 65 ff.

[853] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 65.

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

[855] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 401.

[856] _Ibid._, 49, p. 300.

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