Chapter X: Luther’s Progress in the New Teaching (5)

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

[859] See below, ix. 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[875] Cp. V. Prop., n. 3: “_Non sum hæreticus si negativam teneo, donec determinetur a concilio._” N. 6: “_Ego ecclesiam ... repræsentative non [scio] nisi in concilio_”; but it was incorrect “_si quidquid facit ecclesia virtualis, id est papa_ (as Prierias stated), _factum ecclesiæ dicitur_”: The Pope and the Councils might err in their regulations on practical matters (“_factum ecclesiæ_”).

[876] See above, p. 291.

[877] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.

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

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

[880] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 50.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[887] _Ibid._, p. 271.

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

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

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

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

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

[893] _Ibid._, p. 171 f.

[894] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 53.

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

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

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

[898] N. Paulus, “Tetzel,” p. 169.

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

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

[901] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 52.

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

[903] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 342.

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

[905] Schulte, _ibid._, 2, p. 96.

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

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

[908] Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” p. 379. Cp. Schrörs, _ibid._, p. 299.

[909] Schrörs, _ibid._

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

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

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

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

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

[915] Schulte, _ibid._, 1, p. 173.

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

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

[918] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 238.

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

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

[921] _Ibid._, “_Ecclesia Romana auro insatiabiliter eget et vorando assidue sitim auget._”

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

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

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

[925] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 317.

[926] On December 13, 1518, _ibid._, p. 320.

[927] On February 2, 1519, _ibid._, p. 410.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[934] _Ibid._, p. 411 ff.

[935] “Chronik,” p. 45.

[936] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 490.

[937] _Ibid._, p. 494.

[938] _Ibid._, p. 486.

[939] _Ibid._, p. 485.

[940] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 245.

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

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

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

[944] _Ibid._

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

[946] _Ibid._

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

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

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

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

[951] _Ibid._, fol. A, 3´.

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

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

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

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

[956] Sess. 6, c. 8.

[957] _Ibid._, cap. ix., _Contra inanem fiduciam_.

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

[959] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 215.

[960] _Ibid._, p. 132.

[961] _Ibid._, p. 124.

[962] In _De servo arbitrio_, “Werke,” Weim ed., 18, p. 719.

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

[964] _Ibid._, p. 181.

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

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

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

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

[969] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 541.

[970] _Ibid._, p. 629 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 378 _seq._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[981] _Ibid._, p. 145 [329].

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

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

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

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

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

[987] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74.

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

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

[990] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 130.

[991] See volume vi., xxxvii.

[992] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 39 f.

[993] _Ibid._, 45, p. 156.

[994] _Ibid._, 46, p. 73.

[995] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74.

[996] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 49, p. 27.

[997] _Ibid._, 17, p. 139 f.

[998] _Ibid._, 44, p. 354.

[999] _Ibid._, 59, p. 10.

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

[1001] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 146.

[1002] _Ibid._, 31, p. 279.

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

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

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

[1006] Kroker’s edition, p. 309.

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

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

[1009] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 130.

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

[1011] P. 423.

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

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

[1014] Volume i., p. 52.

[1015] P. 423.

[1016] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 370.

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

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

[1019] See above, p. 393.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1026] “Dogmengesch.,” 3, p. 812.

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

[1028] _Ibid._

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

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

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

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

[1033] Thus Böhmer, _ibid._, p. 35.

[1034] Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1². “Quellenbelege; die abendländischen Schriftausleger bis Luther über _iustitia Dei_ (Rom. i. 17) und _iustificatio_,” 1905. Among the older interpreters Abailard alone may be an exception.

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

[1036] Cp. Böhmer², p. 47: “It is a matter of interest that he refers for the interpretation to a work much used in that period, the ‘Biblia cum glossa ordinaria,’ printed at Basle by Froben, 1508. It is plain that he looked up this gloss on the Epistle.” On the strength of this Böhmer thought himself entitled to say: “The birth-hour of the Reformation falls in the winter 1508-9.... Its birthplace was the Black Monastery at Wittenberg”; but “it was only quite slowly that Luther lived himself into his new religious views.”

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

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

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

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

[1041] _Ibid._, p. 6.

[1042] Cp. Böhmer², p. 63.

[1043] Böhmer², p. 60.