Chapter XIV: From the Peasant War to the Diet of Augsburg (1525-1530) (12)

[625] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 30 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 55 f.

[626] A. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit ... bis zum Jahre 1525,” Göttingen, 1901, p. 10 f.

[627] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 10 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 29 f.

[628] _Ibid._, p. 78 = p. 177. Cp. F. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” Göttingen, 1875, p. 51 (the 2nd edition is a mere reprint).

[629] Cp. for this and for the other theses Luther’s works mentioned in volume i., p. 310 ff., and also “Die ältesten Disputationen,” etc., ed. Stange, for instance, p. 5: “_Voluntas hominis sine gratia non est libera, sed servit, licet non invita_.”

[630] Stange, _ibid._, p. 15.

[631] Stange, _ibid._, p. 16, n. 1, referring to his work, “Die reformatorische Lehre von der Freiheit des Handelns,” in “Neue kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1903, p. 214 ff.

[632] Cp. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 48 f.

[633] On Luther’s Determinism, see below. For the deterministic passages in the work, “De servo arbitrio,” 1525, cf. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit,” p. 21.

[634] Latin text in Stange, _ibid._, p. 18. Cp. Kattenbusch., _ibid._, p. 41 ff., for what Luther said in 1516.

[635] See Stange, _ibid._, p. 35 ff.

[636] Thesis 13, in Stange, _ibid._, p. 53. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 354; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 388. Cp. Thesis 14: “_Liberum arbitrium post peccatum potest in bonum potentia subiectiva, in malum vero activa semper_.” On the Heidelberg Disputation, see volume i., p. 315 ff.

[637] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 421; “Opp. Lat var.,” 3, p. 272.

[638] _Ibid._, p. 424 = p. 276.

[639] Jul. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², Stuttgart, 1901, p. 218.

[640] In the “Assertio omnium articulorum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 148; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 234. Cp. _ibid._, p. 146 = p. 231: “_Patimur omnes et omnia: cessat liberum arbitrium erga Deum_.”

[641] _Ibid._, p. 146 = p. 230. This passage was toned down, after Luther’s death, in the Wittenberg ed. (1546) and Jena ed. (1557); Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 316 n.

[642] “Werke,” _ibid._, p. 143 ff.=p. 227 ff. It is strange but characteristic how he appeals to experience as against the doctrine of free-will: everyone possessed arguments against it “_ex vita propria.... Secus rem se habere monstrat experientia omnium_” (p. 145=p. 230). His views of concupiscence come in here.

[643] “_Non est homo in manu sua, etiam mala operans et cogitans_” (_ibid._, p. 145=p. 230).

[644] “_Nam et mala opera in impiis Deus operatur_” (_ibid._).

[645] “_Assertio_,” etc. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 145 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 231 f.

[646] “Contra duas epp. Pelag.,” 1. 3, c. 8.

[647] “De spiritu et litt.,” c. 3, n. 5.

[648] In place of “_Neque liberum arbitrium quidquid nisi ad peccandum valet, si lateat veritatis via_,” he makes Augustine say: “_Liberum arbitrium sine gratia non valet nisi ad peccandum_.” Of the subject itself sufficient explanation will be found in Catholic handbooks. Cp., for instance, Hurter, “Theolog. specialis,” pars. 2¹¹, 1903, p. 55 f.

[649] “Assertio,” etc. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 146: “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 233.

[650] _Ibid._, pp. 95=158.

[651] _Ibid._, p. 148=234.

[652] _Ibid._

[653] Weim. ed., 5, p. 149=p. 235.

[654] _Ibid._, p. 97 f.=p. 161 f.

[655] _Ibid._, p. 100=p. 165.

[656] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 96=p. 158.

[657] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 142 f.=p. 226.

[658] _Ibid._, p. 145=p. 229.

[659] Cp. _ibid._, p. 145=p. 230: “_Unde non est dubium, satana magistro in ecclesiam venisse hoc nomen liberum arbitrium, ad seducendos homines a via Dei in vias suas proprias_.”

[660] Cp. “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 106. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 70.

[661] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 235. “Kirchenpostille,” Sermon of 1521. Cp. Köstlin, _ibid._, 1², p. 365.

[662] See Köstlin, _ibid._, p. 366. He admits (2², p. 82) that Luther “expressly denies free-will” to those who “would not.”

[663] Weim. ed., 7, p. 147; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 232.

[664] Köstlin, _ibid._, 1², p. 366.

[665] To Hans von Rechenberg, August 18, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 33 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 444). This letter to the promoter of Lutheranism at Freistadt in Silesia, was at once spread abroad in print and is included amongst Luther’s catechetical works. Later he finds in the same passage, viz. Timothy ii. 4, merely an expression of God’s desire that we should render our neighbours “all temporal and spiritual assistance” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 316 ff.). In support of this he appeals to Psalm xxxvi.: “Men and beasts Thou wilt preserve, O Lord.” To find in Scripture that salvation was open to all men whose free-will was ready to accept it, was “to pluck out some words of Scripture and fashion them according to our own fancy” (p. 317).

[666] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 317.

[667] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 14, p. 73: Erl. ed., 52, p. 271; cp. _ibid._, p. 69=p. 267.

[668] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 51, p. 317.

[669] “Corpus ref.,” 21, p. 87 f. Later we read: “_Fateor in externo rerum delectu esse quandam libertatem, internos vero affectus prorsus nego in potestate nostra esse_” (_ibid._, p. 92). Both passages in Kolde’s edition based on the _editio princeps_, Leipzig, 1900, 3rd. ed., pp. 67, 74.

[670] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 601; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 117.

[671] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 144.

[672] Thesis 16 of the Disputation of 1516 (see vol. i., p. 310): “_Voluntas non est libera, sed servit, licet non invita_.”

[673] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 212; 9, p. 238; Erl. ed., 16², p. 135.

[674] _Ibid._, p. 210=235=131.

[675] See above, p. 27 ff.

[676] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 39; Erl. ed., 27, p. 199. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 358 ff.

[677] See below, p. 288, the Sermon in 1531.

[678] To Johann Lang, April 12, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 331.

[679] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 657.

[680] Cp. Luther to Kaspar Borner, Professor at Leipzig, May 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 375.

[681] N. Paulus points out in his article “Georg Agricola” (“Histor-polit. Blätter,” 136, 1905, p. 793 ff.), that this scholar had never been one of Luther’s followers, and was particularly repelled by his views on the absence of free-will, which he opposed as early as 1522.

[682] “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 377, n. 6, from Weller’s “Altes aus allen Teilen der Gesch.,” 1, 1765, p. 18.

[683] We may allude, for instance, to the beautiful words which, strange to say, have been described by certain Protestants as a moralistic explaining away of the true “evangelical comprehension of the person of Christ and His work”: “_Ut certiore cursu queas ad felicitatem contendere, haec tibi quarta sit regula, ut totius vitae tuae Christum velut unicum scopum præfigas, ad quem unum omnia studia, omnes conatus, omne otium ac negotium conferas. Christum vero esse puta non vocem inanem, sed nihil aliud quam charitatem, simplicitatem, patientiam, puritatem, breviter, quidquid ille docuit_” (“_Enchiridion_,” Basil., 1519, p. 93). G. Kawerau quotes from the correspondence of Justus Jonas which he edited, 1, p. 31, the words of Eobanus Hessus (1519) on the “_Enchiridion_”: “_Plane divinum opus_,” and the following utterance of Ulrich Zasius (1520) on the same, from the correspondence of Beatus Rhenanus, p. 230: “_Miles christianus, quem tamen, si vel solus ab Erasmo exisset, immortali laude prædicare conveniebat, ut qui christiano homini veræ salutis compendium, brevi velut enchiridio demonstret_.” “Luther und Erasmus,” in “Deutsch-Evangel. Blätter,” 1906, Hft. 1, in the reprint, p. 4.

[684] In a letter to P. Servatius, July 9, 1514, Erasmus says: “_Voluptatibus etsi quando fui inquinatus nunquam servivi_” (“Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 1527). Perhaps he meant more by this than when he says of Thomas More, in a letter to Ulrich von Hutten, July 23, 1519, which is sometimes cited in comparison: “_Cum ætas ferret, non abhorruit [Th. Morus] a puellarum amoribus, sed citra infamiam, et sic ut oblatis magis frueretur, quam captatis et animo mutuo caperetur potius quam coitu_” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 474 _seq._).

[685] A. Dürer’s exclamation given above, p. 41: “O Erasmus Roderdamus, Knight of Christ, ride forth,” etc., is an allusion to the “_miles christianus_” depicted by Erasmus in the “_Enchiridion_.” Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 2.

[686] The passages in proof of his “rationalistic interpretation of Scripture” are to be found in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 21 ff.

[687] Janssen, _ibid._, p. 15.

[688] Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 5.

[689] To Christoph von Stadion, Bishop of Augsburg, August 26, 1528, “Opp.,” 3, col. 1095 _seq._

[690] On September 3, 1522, “Opp.,” 3, col. 731. Cp. Fel. Gess, “Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs,” Leipzig, 1905, p. 352.

[691] At the end of 1520 he declares that he has only read ten or twelve pages of Luther’s writings. To Campegius, December 6, 1520, and to Leo X, September 13, 1520, “Opp.,” 3, col. 596, 578.

[692] Cp. Max Richter, “Erasmus und seine Stellung zu Luther,” Leipzig, 1907, p. 10 ff.

[693] _Ibid._, col. 431 _seq._ Cp. his statement to Jodocus [i.e. Justus] Jonas of July 31, 1518: “Luther had given some excellent advice; had he but gone to work more gently. As to the value of his doctrines, I neither can, nor wish to, express an opinion” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 334).

[694] To Cardinal Wolsey: “_Vita magno omnium consensu probatur_,” etc. (“Opp.,” 3, col. 322). Cp. his letter to Campegius, of December 6, 1520. To Leo X he writes, on September 13, 1520 (col. 578): “_Bonis igitur illius [Lutheri] favi ... immo gloriæ Chriti in illo favi_.” Assurances such as these may well explain Rome’s delay in condemning Luther.

[695] It is of a portion of the work (described briefly in volume i., p. 386) which had then appeared, that Erasmus writes: “_Vehementer arrident et spero magnam utilitatem allaturos_” (col. 445). How ready he was to express approval of any work of which a copy was presented to him is shown by his reply to the Bohemian Brethren in 1511, who had sent him one of their several confessions of faith founded on the new interpretation of Holy Scripture: Of what he had “read in their book,” he writes, he had “thoroughly approved and trusted that the rest was equally correct”; from any public approval he preferred, however, to abstain in order not to have his writings censured by the Papists, but to “preserve his reputation and strength unimpaired for the general good.” Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 20 f.

[696] The letter is also to be found in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 66 ff.

[697] “Opp.,” 3, col. 514. In his complaints concerning the disorders of the Church he says, for instance: “_Mundus oneratus est ... tyrannide fratrum mendicantium_”; and then “_in sacris concionibus minimum audiri de Christo, de potestate pontificis et de opinionibus recentium fere omnia_”; in short: “_nihil est corruptius ne apud Turcas quidem_.”

[698] Luther to Lang, January 26, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 305: “_egregia epistola, ubi me egregie tutatur, ita tamen, ut nihil minus quam me tutari videatur, sicut solet pro dexteritate sua_.”

[699] F. O. Stichart, “Erasmus von Rotterdam,” Leipzig, 1870, p. 325, Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 10.

[700] On August 31, 1521, “Zwinglii Opp.,” 7, p. 310. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. trans., 3, p. 17, where the assertion that Erasmus had won over Pellicanus and Capito to the Zwinglian doctrine of the Last Supper is said to be utterly false. Though Erasmus declares that he never forsook the teaching of the Church on this point, Melanchthon nevertheless says that he was the actual originator of the Zwinglian denial of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament. Melanchthon to Camerarius, July 26, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1083: “_Nostri inimici illum [Erasmum] amant, qui multorum dogmatum semina in suis libris sparsit, quæ fortasse longe graviores tumultus aliquando excitatura fuerant, nisi Lutherus exortus esset ac studia hominum alio traxisset. Tota illa tragædia, περὶ δειπνου κυριακοῦ, ab ipso nata videri potest._”

[701] Cp. Fel. Gess, “Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs,” 1 p. 354.

[702] To Spalatin, July 6, 1520, cp. Stähelin, “Theol. Realenzyklopädie,” 5³, p. 442.

[703] “Opp.,” 3, col. 639 _seq._

[704] _Ibid._, col. 713, 742.

[705] So, for instance, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 698 (1525).

[706] _Ibid._, p. 693.

[707] “Opp.,” 3, col. 826.

[708] “Opp.,” 3, col. 919.

[709] _Ibid._, col. 1104.

[710] Ioan. Genesius Sepulveda Cordubensis, “_De rebus gestis Caroli Quinti_,” in his “Opp.,” 1 (Matriti, 1780), p. 468.

[711] To Johann Œcolampadius at Basle, June 20, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 164: “_Forte et ipse_ [_Erasmus_] _in campestribus Moab morietur_ (Num. xxxvi. 13).... _In terram promissionis ducere non potest ... ut qui vel non possit vel non velit de iis_ [_scripturis_] _recte iudicare._”

[712] In his “_Diatribe_” against Luther, Erasmus likewise declares that he submits himself in all to the authority of the Church. Cp. Joh. Walter’s edition (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” Hft., 8, 1910), p. 3. Later he wrote concerning his attitude to Catholic dogma: “_De his quæ sunt fidei, liberam habeo conscientiam apud Deum_” (“Opp.,” 10, col. 1538).

[713] To Christoph von Stadion, in the letter referred to above, p. 246, n. 1. Even in 1520 and 1521 he says that he had been the first to condemn the Wittenberg preaching because he had foreseen danger and disturbance. There, however, he dwells more on the detriment to learning.

[714] “_Si quis deus mihi prædixisset, hoc sæculum exoriturum, quædam aut non scripsissem, aut aliter scripsissem_” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 681).

[715] To quote here only one instance, Luther says (1544) in the “Tischreden” of Mathesius, edited by Kroker, p. 343, that he desired that the “_Annotationes in Novum Testamentum_” by Erasmus (a much-esteemed and really epoch-making work) should not be further disseminated, “because it contains Epicureanism and other poison.” Erasmus had destroyed many “in body, soul, and spirit,” and had been an “originator of the ‘Sakramentirer’”; he had injured the gospel as much as he had furthered the interests of learning. “He was a terrible man, and Zwingli was led astray by him. Egranus [Johann Wildenauer of Eger, who forsook the Wittenberg teaching] he had also perverted, and he now believes just about as much as Erasmus; his end was “_sine crux et sine lux_.” The latter remark concerning Erasmus’s death calls for explanation. Erasmus arrived in August, 1535, in a weak state of health at Basle, a city already despoiled of every vestige of Catholic worship--in order to supervise the printing of his “_Origenes_” by the celebrated Basle printers. His illness had been increasing since March, 1536, and in the night of the 11th to 12th July of that year he died unexpectedly and without having received the sacraments. A fortnight before this, on June 28, in a letter to a friend, Johann Goclen, he had expressed his regret that he was lying ill in a city dominated by the reformers. On account of the difference in religion he would rather be summoned out of this life elsewhere. “Ep.,” 1299. “Opp.,” 3, col. 1522.

[716] Kawerau, _ibid._, p. 15. He, however, remarks concerning Erasmus: “The instinct of self-preservation forced such admissions from him.” There is no reason for doubting the “veracity” of his statements in favour of the Catholic Church.

[717] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 287.

[718] Joh. v. Walter, “Das Wesen der Religion nach Erasmus und Luther,” 1906, p. 7. “That Erasmus set himself seriously to improve matters is shown by his letters,” thus A. Freitag in the Preface to the “_De servo arbitrio_,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 594, n. 3.

[719] “_Annales_” (ed. Aretin, “Beiträge zur Gesch. und Literatur,” 9, 1807), p. 1018: “_Ubi Erasmus quippiam optat aut fieri velle innuit, ibi Lutherus totis viribus irruit_.” Leib’s “Briefwechsel und Diarien,” an important source for that period, J. Schlecht has edited in J. Greving’s “Reformationsgesch. Studien,” Hft. 7.

[720] The preface has been reprinted in O. Braunsberger, “_B. Petri Canisii Epistulæ et Acta_,” 3, 1901, p. 280 _seq._ The passage is on p. 283. Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 2^[18], p. 15, where the work of Canisius, “_De incomparabili virgine Maria_,” is also quoted.

[721] In the letter of Erasmus to the Lutheran Johann Cäsarius, December 16, 1523: “_Ego peperi ovum, Lutherus exclusit, mirum dictum minoritarum istorum magnaque et bona pulte dignum_.” “Opp.,” 3, col. 840.

[722] To Sinapius, July 31, 1534, in R. Stähelin, “Briefe aus der Reformationszeit,” “Programm,” Basle, 1887, p. 24: The “proverbia _ἀδελφικά_,” to use the term of Erasmus, runs: “_Erasmus est pater Lutheri; Œcolampadius et Erasmus sunt milites Pilati, qui crucifixerunt Iesum_.” Similar accusations, he adds, were heard also in other quarters. The Spanish theologian, L. Carvajal, remarks (1528) in his “_Apologia diluens nugas Erasmi in sacras religiones_,” that the Germans said of Erasmus: “_Erasmus peperit ova, Lutherus exclusit pullos_.” Ed. Cracow, 1540, Fol. C 1 a. The author was very angry with Erasmus on account of his calumnies against religious: “_Utinam Lutherus mentiatur, qui te [Erasmum] atheon dicit_.” Fol. E 3a.

[723] In Preface referred to above, p. 253, n. 2.

[724] “Origines de la réforme,” 2, Paris, 1909, p. 439, whence what precedes is also taken. The author’s opinion here quoted is the more remarkable owing to the fact, that in this chapter on “Christian Humanism,” he unduly magnifies both it and its followers, for instance, Erasmus. He writes on p. 441: “Presque partout l’humanisme se montrera l’adversaire du mouvement (de Luther) dont il sera la première victime. C’est qu’entre le principe fondamental de la réforme et celui de l’humanisme il y a un abîme. Ce dernier n’entendait pas seulement rester catholique, il l’était, et par sa soumission à l’unité extérieure et par sa doctrine de la liberté, et par un esprit d’équilibre et de mesure si conforme aux habitudes de pensée et de vie du catholicisme.” The first sentence, to dwell only upon this, makes out the opposition of Humanism to the Reformation to have been far more general than was the case, and speaks inaccurately of Humanism as its _first_ victim. The first victim was the Catholic faith and practice throughout a large part of Europe, for the preservation of which the Humanists failed to show sufficient zeal. It is true that they met with a bitter retribution for their share in paving the way for the catastrophe, in the destruction of much they had done which perished in the storm which submerged scholarship. Erasmus twice asserts his conviction: “_Ubicunque regnat Lutheranismus, ibi litterarum est interitus_” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 1139; 10, col. 1618), and often repeats the same in other words. See present work, vol. v., xxxv. 3.

[725] K. Gillert, “Briefwechsel des Konrad Mutianus,” Halle, 1890, p. 300.

[726] Cp. G. Kawerau in W. Möller, “Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, p. 63.

[727] From Aleander’s account in Balan, “_Monumenta ref. Luth._,” p. 100 (cp. pp. 55, 79, 81); cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 16. Erasmus, in the above letter, dated August 26, 1528, and addressed to Christoph v. Stadion, describes Aleander and his intimate friend the Prince of Carpi as the originators of the charge, that, by his denial of dogma, he had been the cause of Lutheranism: “_Cuius vanissimi rumoris præcipuus auctor fuit Hieronymus Aleander, homo, ut nihil aliud dicam, non superstitiose verax. Eiusdem sententiæ videtur Albertus Carporum princeps, Aleandro iunctissimus magisque simillimus._”

[728] Hermelink, “Die religiösen Reformbestrebungen des deutschen Humanismus,” Tübingen, 1908. We may also mention here that Joh. v. Walter, in his edition of the “_Diatribe_” p. xxiii., criticises Zickendraht (“Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther,” etc., see below), “who lays too much stress on the sceptical utterances of Erasmus [in the ‘_Diatribe_’].”

[729] On March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 88. See present work, vol. i., p. 43.

[730] “_Neque est ut timeam casurum me, nisi mutem sententiam._”

[731] On May 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 375.

[732] “Opp.,” 3, col. 809.

[733] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 656 f. In the note on p. 790 it is pointed out that the passage in question does not refer to any work by Erasmus. A. Freitag, in the introduction to his reprint of the book, “_De servo arbitrio_,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 577, says: “The words of Erasmus, in his letter to L. Vives on Ascension Day, 1527: ‘_perdidimus liberum arbitrium_,’ do not refer to the work, ‘_De libero arbitrio_.’” The jesting words used by Erasmus in a letter to Auerbach, dated December 10, 1524, which have also been quoted in support of the legend (“_Profecto nunc habere desii liberum arbitrium, posteaquam emisi in vulgus_”), only mean that, even had he so desired, it was now impossible to withdraw a book already published. He wrote in exactly the same sense to King Henry VIII on September 6, 1524: “_iacta est alea, exiit in lucem libellus de libero arbitrio_.”

[734] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 319, “about April 15,” 1524.

[735] “_Ceterum clementia et mansuetudo mea erga peccatores et impios, quantumvis insanos et iniquos, arbitror, non modo teste mea conscientia, sed et multorum experientia, satis testata sit. Sic hactenus stilum cohibui, utcunque pungeres me, cohibiturum etiam scripsi in literis ad amicos, quæ tibi quoque lectæ sunt, donec palam prodires. Nam utcunque non nobiscum sapias et pleraque pietatis capita vel impie vel simulanter damnes aut suspendas, pertinaciam tamen tibi tribuere non possum neque volo_” (p. 320 f.). Cp. Erasmus to Melanchthon, September 6, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 672.

[736] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 404, said in 1537, March 21-28.

[737] In the Leyden edition (Lugd. Batav.), 9, col. 1215-48. In German in Walch’s edition of Luther’s Works, 18, p. 1962 _seq._ New critical edition with introduction by Joh. v. Walter in the “Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” No. 8, Leipzig, 1910.

[738] “Epp.,” ed. Riegger, cp. 45. Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 47.

[739] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 7.

[740] On September 30, 1524. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 675. Cp. Enders, 5, p. 46.

[741] Enders, 5, p. 47.

[742] In the Introduction to the work, “_De servo arbitrio_,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 614; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 131 _seq._, we read: “_An voluntas aliquid vel nihil agat in iis quæ pertinent ad salutem ... hic est cardo nostræ disputationis, hic versatur status causæ huius. Nam hoc agimus_,” etc. “_Hoc problema esse partem alteram totius summæ christianarum rerum_,” etc. “_Altera pars summæ christianæ est nosse, an Deus contingentur aliquid præsciat, et an omnia faciamus necessitate._”

[743] At the close of the work mentioned in the previous note, p. 786 = 367: “_Unus tu et solus cardinem rerum vidisti et ipsum iugulum petisti_.”

[744] A. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit ... bis zum Jahre 1525,” Göttingen, 1901, p. 46. It is true that the author declares on the same page: “Because and in so far as Luther was moved to his denial by his refusal to admit of merit and by his doctrine of the assurance of salvation, every evangelical theologian will agree with him; the admission of a system of salary between God and man is the death of evangelical piety; but belief in free-will does not necessarily lead to this.” Free-will, he declares, is, on the contrary, quite compatible with the “_sola fides_.” On p. 45 he had said: “Luther’s theology ends in contradictions which can only be obviated by the assumption of free-will and by a positive recognition of the powers of the natural man.”

[745] “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 46.

[746] E. Kroker, “Katherina Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 280 f. “_Ipsa supplicante scripsi._” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 146.

[747] See present work, vol. i., p. 204.

[748] The Latin text in “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 113-368, and (with only unimportant differences) in the Weim. ed., 18, p. 600-787. A new German translation with introduction and explanations by O. Scheel, in “Luthers Werke,” ed. Buchwald, etc., sup. vol. ii., Berlin, 1905, p. 203 ff.

[749] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 663 f. This work of Luther’s “was a stumbling-block to his followers, and attempts were made to explain it away by all the arts of violent exegesis; cp. Walch (in his edition of Luther’s works), 18, Introduction, p. 140 ff.” Kawerau in W. Möller, “Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, p. 63.

[750] F. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen und von der Prädestination,” Göttingen, 1875 (Anastatischer Neudruck, Göttingen, 1905). Many Protestant theologians have recently defended, with renewed enthusiasm, Luther’s standpoint in the book “_De servo arbitrio_,” under the impression that it places man in the true state of subserviency to God and thus forms the basis of true religion. See below.

[751] “_De servo arbitrio_,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 781; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 359. Cp. _ibid._, p. 638=160: at most “_in inferioribus sciat [homo], sese in suis facultatibus et possessionibus habere ius utendi, faciendi, omittendi pro libero arbitrio, licet et idipsum regatur solius Dei libero arbitrio, quocunque illi placuerit_.” Taube (see p. 228, n. 2), p. 21, remarks, like Kattenbusch (above p. 264, n. 5), p. 48, that such degradation of free-will, even “_in inferioribus_,” is to be found in Luther’s earlier writings.

[752] Kattenbusch, p. 7 f.

[753] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 615 = 134: “_Ex quo sequitur irrefragabiliter: Omnia quæ facimus, omnia quæ fiunt, etsi nobis videntur mutabiliter et contingenter fieri, revera tamen fiunt necessario, si Dei voluntatem species. Voluntas enim Dei efficax est_,” etc. In the Jena Latin edition of Luther, 3 (1567), this passage has been watered down. Cp. also p. 615 = 133: “_Deus nihil præscit contingenter, sed omnia incommutabili et æterna infallibilique voluntate et prævidet et proponit et facit_,” p. 670 = 200: “_Omnia quæ fiunt (sunt) meræ necessitatis_.”

[754] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 753 = 317: “_Deus omnia, quæ condidit solus, solus quoque movet, agit et rapit, omnipotentiæ suæ motu, quem illa non possunt vitare nec mutare, sed necessario sequuntur et parent_.” Cp. p. 747 = 308: God works upon the will with His “_actuosissima operatio, quam vitare vel mutare non possumus, sed qua (homo) tale velle habet necessario, quale illi Deus dedit, et quale rapit suo motu.... Rapitur omnium voluntas, ut velit et faciat, sive sit bona sive mala._”

[755] _Ibid._, p. 754 = 317, 318. Luther here shows a quite enigmatical want of comprehension for Erasmus’s exposition of the ancient Catholic doctrine concerning the co-operation of the will with grace.

[756] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 615 = 133.

[757] _Ibid._, p. 619 = 138.

[758] Taube, p. 19 f.

[759] “_De servo arbitrio_,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 636; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 158.

[760] “_De servo arbitrio_,” 7, p. 724 _seq._ = 276.

[761] _Ibid._, p. 730 = 284.

[762] _Ibid._, p. 712 _seq._ = 259 _seq._: cp. p. 627-629 _seq._ = 147, 150 _seq._: Kattenbusch, _ibid._, p. 12.

[763] Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,”^[4] p. 758: “God’s universal action and His sovereign will determines [according to Luther’s theory] man’s destiny.” That passages of the Bible, such as 1 Timothy ii. 4, as urged in the “_Diatribe_” of Erasmus, contradict this, Luther will not admit. “_Illudit sese Diatribe ignorantia sua, dum nihil distinguit inter Deum prædicatum et absconditum, hoc est inter verbum Dei et Deum ipsum. Multa ... Deus ... vult, quæ verbo suo non ostendit se velle; sic non vult mortem peccatoris, verbo scilicet, vult autem illam voluntate illa imperscrutabili._” In connection with such thoughts Luther does not shrink from saying (p. 731 = 284): “_Si placet tibi Deus indignos coronans, non debet etiam displicere immeritos damnans_,” and (p. 633 = 154): “_Sua voluntate nos necessario damnabiles facit_.” The passage here quoted on the “_Deus absconditus_” is to be found in Luther’s “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 685 = 222, and has many parallels, for instance, p. 684, 689 = 221, 227. Of such passages Kattenbusch says (p. 17, _ibid._): “Luther expressly advances it as a theory that God has two contradictory wills, the secret will of which no one knows anything, and another which He causes to be proclaimed.” Luther assumes that God makes use of His “exemption from the moral law which binds us” by “not being obliged actually to strive after what He proclaims to be His intention [the salvation of all men]--in other words, that He is free to lie.” According to Luther there is a great difference “between God not considering Himself bound by His word, and man acting in the same way” (_ibid._).

[764] Taube, p. 35.

[765] See above p. 235 f.

[766] Taube, p. 35. See what has already been said (vol. i., p. 155 ff.) of Luther’s connection with the Nominalism of Occam. It should also be compared with what follows.

[767] P. 729 _seq._ = 283.

[768] Taube, p. 35 f.

[769] _Ibid._, p. 33.

[770] P. 719 = 268: “_Hoc offendit quam maxime sensum illum communem seu rationem naturalem_,” etc. Cp. p. 707 _seq._ = 252 _seq._: “_Ratio humana offenditur.... Absurdum enim manet, ratione iudice, ut Deus ille justus et bonus exigat a libero arbitrio impossibilia.... Sed fides et spiritus aliter iudicant, qui Deum bonum credunt, etiamsi omnes homines perderet._” P. 720 = 260: “_Cuius (Dei) voluntatis nulla est causa, nec ratio, quæ illi ceu regula et mensura præscribatur, quum nihil sit illi æquale aut superius, sed ipse est regula omnium_.”

[771] P. 784 = 363: “_Si enim talis esset eius iustitia, quæ humano captu posset iudicari esse iusta, plane non esset divina_.”

[772] P. 686 = 223.

[773] P. 695 = 236.

[774] Cp. p. 709, 711, 747 = 255, 257, 308.

[775] Cp. M. Scheibe, “Calvins Prädestinationslehre, ein Beitrag zur Würdigung der Eigenart seiner Theologie und Religiosität,” Halle, 1897, p. 12.

[776] Taube, p. 39.

[777] Kattenbusch, p. 11 f.: “Adam’s sin, from which springs the depravity of the human race, was [according to Luther] called forth by God Himself ... Adam could not avoid acting contrary to the command.”

[778] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 633 = 154: In order that faith may reign, everything must be hidden “_sub contrario obiectu, sensu, experientia.... Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse clementem qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat, qui sua voluntate nos necessario damnabiles facit._” Against this Taube remarks (p. 41): “Theological criticism cannot fail to assert that the Christian faith, viz. belief in a God of almighty and holy love, becomes impossible, if He arbitrarily predestines so many, indeed, the greater part of mankind, to damnation, and is the creator of sin.... In this case faith in the Christian God, and also morality generally, could only remain despite such theological theories.”

[779] P. 632, 633 = 153, 154. Cp. Luther’s Commentary on Romans, 1515-1516, on the humility and despair of self which brings about justification (vol. i., p. 217 ff.).

[780] Taube, dealing with certain Protestants, who, after having duly watered down some of Luther’s theological peculiarities, assert that “the feeling of responsibility is satisfactorily explained in his theology.”

[781] P. 783 = 362 _seq._

[782] P. 784 = 363: “_Si movet, quod difficile sit, clementiam et æquitatem Dei tueri, ut qui damnet immeritos_,” etc.

[783] _Ibid._, and p. 785 = 365.

[784] Taube, p. 41 ff.

[785] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 786 = 366.

[786] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 670 = 199.

[787] _Ibid._, p. 635 = 157.

[788] “_Sic humana voluntas in medio posita est, ceu iumentum. Si insederit Deus, vult et vadit quo vult Deus, ut psalmus_ (lxxiii. [lxxii.], 22) _dicit: Factus sum sicut iumentum, et ego semper tecum. Si insederit Satan, vult et vadit quo vult Satan. Nec est in eius arbitrio ad utrum sessorem currere aut eum quærere, sed ipsi sessores certant ob ipsum obtinendum et possidendum_” (p. 635 = 157). And yet it has recently been asserted by some Protestants, that, according to Luther, grace was “psychologically active,” whereas by the Schoolmen it was regarded as a “dead quality”; Luther’s “delicate psychological comprehension of God’s educational way” is at the same time extolled. N. Paulus rightly remarks (“Theol. Revue,” 1908, col. 344), “that the Schoolmen advocated a vital co-operation with grace is known to everyone who is at all acquainted with Scholasticism.” He quotes W. Köhler’s opinion of Luther’s system: Where man is impelled by God “every psychological factor must disappear.” “All actions become in the last instance something foreign to man” (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1903, col. 526). Paulus also refers to the following criticism by Köhler concerning the total depravity of man’s nature by the Fall, to which Luther ascribes our unfreedom: “Involuntarily we feel ourselves urged to ask, in view of this mass of sinfulness, how, given the total depravity of man, can redemption be possible unless by some gigantic, supernatural, mechanical means?” (“Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” 1904, p. 39).

F. Kattenbusch points out in his criticism of Luther’s doctrine of the enslaved will (“Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 32 ff.) that Luther’s aim was certainly to humble and abase himself before the greatness of God’s grace, but that he went much too far; he wished to feel his salvation as the “result of God’s arbitrary act”; this sentiment was, however, not normal, nor “religiously healthy” (p. 35 f.). He also remarks (p. 10): “If according to this [the comparison with the saddle-horse] the process of regeneration is made to appear merely as a struggle between God and Satan in which God remains the victor, it is clear that the doctrine which Luther cherishes of the ethico-religious life is altogether mechanical and outward.” Kattenbusch was quite aware of the influence of the mediæval schools on Luther. The after-effects of Nominalism, he says, are not, indeed, so very prominent in the Reformer, “yet it seems to me we must admit, that alongside the principal religious current in Luther, runs a side-stream of religious feeling which can only spring from Nominalism and Mysticism.... In so far as they influence Luther’s doctrines, the latter may be said to spring from a polluted source. And, as regards the doctrine of the ‘_servum arbitrium_’ and of Predestination, the Church which takes its name from Luther has assuredly done well in improving upon the paths traced out for her by the great Reformer” (p. 94 f.). Cp. Albert Ritschl’s criticism of Luther’s denial of free-will, “Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung,” 3^[4], pp. 280, 296 ff.

[789] P. 779 = 356: “_Dum liberum arbitrium statuis, Christum evacuas_.”

[790] _Ibid._: “_De libero arbitrio nihil dicere poteris, nisi quæ contraria sunt Christo, scilicet quod error, mors, Satan et omnia mala in ipso regnent_.”

[791] _Ibid._, p. 625 = 143.

[792] _Ibid._

[793] _Ibid._, p. 625 = 144.

[794] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 719 = 268: “_Ego ipse non semel offensus sum usque ad profundum et abyssum desperationis, ut optarem, nunquam esse me creatum hominem, antequam scirem, quam salutaris illa esset desperatio et quam gratiæ propinqua_.”

[795] _Ibid._, p. 633 = 154. To the reader of the present work it will also be familiar. Compare the passages previously quoted, vol. i., 218 f., 235, 238 ff., 259, 317 f., 379, 381.

[796] _Ibid._, p. 783 = 362 _seq._

[797] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 783 = 262 f.: “_Ego sane me confiteor, si qua fieri posset, nollem mihi dari liberum arbitrium, aut quippiam in manu mea relinqui, quo ad salutem conari possem_,” etc.

[798] _Ibid._, p. 787 = 368: “_Ego vero hoc libro non contuli, sed asserui et assero, ac penes nullum volo esse iudicium, sed omnibus suadeo, ut præstent obsequium_.” The extraordinary self-confidence of these words is more easily explained if we consider them as aimed against the literary device of Erasmus. After the manner of the Humanists, at the beginning of his “_Diatribe_,” he had declared that he intended merely to enter upon an examination, a _collatio_ (cp. _διατριβή_), and that he hated logical demonstrations, an exaggeration for which Luther soundly rated him in the very first pages, urging that he must be either a “frivolous orator” or a “godless writer,” if he could not take so important a question seriously (p. 120). The termination of Erasmus’s work, where he says: “_Contuli, penes alios stet ultimum iudicium_” (ed. J. v. Walter, p. 92), is played upon word for word in the conclusion of the “_De servo arbitrio_.”

[799] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 641 = 162 _seq._

[800] “_Quod probat eius indignatio. Hoc non fieret, si esset libera vel haberet liberum arbitrium._” The effect of egotism in man depraved by original sin is here classed by him with the enslavement of the will; he was ever given to exaggerating the strength of concupiscence. Cp. vol. i., pp. 70 f., 110 ff.

[801] P. 634 = 156.

[802] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 720 = 269.

[803] _Ibid._, p. 730 = 283. Here he is seeking to prove, “_(Deum non) talem esse oportere, qui merita respiciat in damnandis_.”

[804] _Ibid._, p. 633 = 154.

[805] _Ibid._, p. 673 = 204.

[806] _Ibid._, p. 633 = 154.

[807] “_Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse clementem, qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat.... Si possem ulla ratione comprehendere, quomodo is sit Deus misericors et iustus, qui tantam iram et iniquitatem ostendit, non esset opus fide. Nunc cum id comprehendi non potest, fit locus exercendæ fidei._”

[808] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 602 = 119.

[809] _Ibid._, p. 636 = 158.

[810] _Ibid._, p. 638 = 160.

[811] P. 605 = 123.

[812] _Ibid._, p. 601 = 117.

[813] P. 664 = 192. The Weimar editor remarks of a similar assertion of Luther’s on p. 664: “There is no doubt that Luther in this passage draws conclusions from the definition of Erasmus (viz. of free-will) which do not directly follow from it.” In confirmation of this Kattenbusch (p. 28) is quoted where he speaks of “Luther’s tactics in his controversy with Erasmus, the object of which was ... to convict Erasmus in one way or another, usually by distorting his words, of rendering grace, the Holy Ghost, or Christ, superfluous for the attainment of salvation.” Kattenbusch instances in support of this pp. 191 _seq._, 193, 208, 213, 224, 231, 238, 287, 303, 324, 330, 354, etc., in the Erlangen ed.

[814] P. 770 = 342. “And yet Erasmus, as against the Pelagians, always upheld the necessity of the _gratia peculiaris_.” Thus the Weim. ed., 18, p. 770, n. 2.

[815] _Ibid._, p. 756 = 320.

[816] Luther says in the passage quoted: “_Exstant themata et problemata, in quibus perpetuo asserui usque in hanc horam, liberum arbitrium esse nihil et rem (eo verbo tum utebar) de solo titulo_.” The last words refer to the 13th Thesis of his Heidelberg Disputation (see vol. i., p. 317). The Weimar editor quotes against the “_perpetuo asserui_,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 32, and 4, p. 295, with the remark: “These are exceptions of which Erasmus could not be aware.” It is not, however, a question of Erasmus, but whether Luther was telling the truth when he said: “It is false that I ever admitted free-will” (“_antea non nihil illi tribuerim_”).

[817] P. 778 = 354.

[818] Cp. vol. v., xxxii. 4.

[819] Luther’s Works ed. by Buchwald, etc., 2. Supplementary volume, 1905, p. 530.

[820] Cp. Melanchthon’s “_Loci theologici_” (1521), in the third edition by Plitt-Kolde, 1900, p. 87. In this work, in which “the fundamental ideas of Luther found a classical expression,” the theology is “strongly predestinarian in character, and even answers affirmatively the question: ‘_utrum Deus mala faciat_.’” Kawerau, in Möller, “Lehrb. der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, pp. 41, 43. The “_Loci_” Luther speaks of in “_De servo arbitrio_” (Weim. ed., 18, p. 601; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 117) as an “_invictus libellus, meo iudicio non solum immortalitate, sed canone quoque ecclesiastico dignus_.”

[821] Scheel, _ibid._ (above, p. 264, n. 3), p. 400.

[822] “_Fingat, refingat, cavilletur, recavilletur Diatribe, quantum volet. Si præscivit Deus, Iudam fore proditorem, necessarie Iudas fiebat proditor, nec erat in manu Judæ aut ullius creaturæ, aliter facere aut voluntatem mutare, licet id fecerit volendo non coactus, sed velle illud erat opus Dei, quod omnipotentia sua movebat, sicut et omnia alia._” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 715; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 263.

[823] “_Cur permisit (Deus) Adam ruere?... Deus est, cuius voluntatis nulla est causa nec ratio_,” etc. _Ibid._, p. 712 = 260.

[824] “_De servo arbitrio_,” p. 712 = 260.

[825] Thus Kattenbusch, _ibid._, p. 22, who points out that, according to Luther, “Nothing takes place in the world without God.” He concludes (_ibid._) that “On the whole nothing is gained” by Luther’s supposed attempts to relieve God of the responsibility for Adam’s Fall.

[826] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 709; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 255.

[827] _Ibid._

[828] _Ibid._, p. 730 = 284: “_Quia incommodum sibi est, hoc iniquum, hoc intolerabile est, hic expostulatur, hic murmuratur, hic blasphematur_.”

[829] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 711, n. 1.

[830] Kattenbusch, _ibid._, p. 15 f.

[831] _Ibid._, p. 20. Cp. on the proposition “_omnia necessario fiunt_,” above, p. 265, n. 3.

[832] P. 20 ff.

[833] Scheel, _ibid._ (see above, p. 264, n. 3), pp. 211, 529 f., 532, 545. Kattenbusch, _ibid._

[834] Scheel, _ibid._, p. 540.

[835] P. 211 f.

[836] Of the more modern works we shall mention only the Catholic one by H. Humbertclaude, “Erasme et Luther,” 1910, and the Protestant one by K. Zickendraht, “Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther über die Willensfreiheit,” 1909. The latter, though on the whole supporting Luther, cannot help perceiving “the contradictions of the whole work ‘_De servo arbitrio_’” (p. 130), which led Ritschl, whom Kattenbusch follows, to call it an “unhappy piece of patchwork.” Although he characterises Luther’s ideas as “wholly the outcome of the Pauline spirit” (p. 134), yet he speaks of “Luther’s pantheistic determinism” (p. 197), and avers the “incompatibility” of the monistic pantheism which he finds here with the ethical dualism of his general train of thought (p. 168); the presence of “two contradictory theories” is, according to him, an undoubted “fact” (p. 141).

[837] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 640; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 162: “_Ex mea parte unus Vuicleff, et alter Laurentius Valla, quanquam et Augustinus quem præteris, meus totus est_.” Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, pp. 101, 103, 107.

[838] “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 2, p. 66.

[839] Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 619, n.

[840] Zickendraht, _ibid._, p. 180 f.

[841] “Disputationen M. Luthers, 1535-1545,” edited for the first time by Paul Drews, Göttingen, 1895, p. 279 f.

[842] _Ibid._, p. 75.

[843] _Ibid._, p. 92, n. 29 ff. Drews points out (p. 90) that in the 1538 edition the whole of the theses _De homine_ “are, strange to say, omitted.” Cp. also “Disputationen,” p. 11, n. 29: “_Iustificati autem sic gratis tum facimus opera, imo Christus ipse in nobis facit omnia_.” Also pp. 92, 94, 95, 266, 318, 481. On p. 160 we meet with the drastic expression: The depravation of human nature by original sin is so great, “_ut suspirare ad Deum non possimus, nedum nos explicare aut bonum facere_.” Hence there is an end to our “_liberum arbitrium; sed restituetur nobis in resurrectione mortuorum, ubi rursum collocabimur in paradisum_.”

[844] Cp. Melanchthon’s letter to the Elector August of Saxony, which will be given in detail later, where he characterises as “_stoica_” and “_manichæa deliria_,” on the part of Luther, the view that “all works, good and bad, in all men, whether good or bad, happened by necessity.” Such mad fancies he had rejected “during Luther’s lifetime and afterwards,” “Corp. Ref.,” 9, p. 766. Likewise, in his “_Responsiones ad articulos bavaricæ inquisitionis_,” Melanchthon calls such doctrines “_stoici et manichæi furores_,” and adds: “_Oro iuniores, ut fugiant has monstruosas opiniones, quæ sunt contumeliosæ contra Deum et perniciosæ moribus. Nam si omnia necessaria sunt, nihil opus est deliberatione et diligentia.... Saepe homines applaudunt monstruosis opinionibus tantum quia monstruosæ sunt et mirantur non intellectas.... Firmissima veritas est, Deum nec velle peccata nec impellere voluntates ad peccandum._” Melanchthon wrote this after Luther had already passed away; he was terrified by the moral results of these “monstrous” doctrines. “Opp.,” Witebergæ, 1562, 1, p. 369.

[845] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 34, 1, p. 163, in the first and second set of notes on the sermon.

[846] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 177 f., said between August 7 and 24, from notes taken by Mathesius himself.

[847] “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 222.

[848] “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 222.

[849] _Ibid._, p. 224.

[850] _Ibid._, p. 225.

[851] _Ibid._, p. 222.

[852] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 512 ff.

[853] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 290-300. Cp. on this passage, from a lecture published from notes, Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 6 f., where he very aptly draws attention to the points which Luther here (as elsewhere) evades: (1) “Whether faith is rendered inwardly possible to every man by the will and action of God?” (2) “Why does God fail to instil faith into so many?” (3) “How is final perseverance assured in the elect?”

[854] “The enigmas of predestination were in his case in the last instance inextricably bound up with deterministic ideas--a fact not unimportant for the fate of his predestinarian ideas, for instance, in the hands of Melanchthon.” F. Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,” p. 763. _Ibid._, p. 757. “He was convinced that he was merely advocating Paul’s doctrine of grace. Yet what he expounds is a deterministic doctrine of predestination which shrinks from no consequences, not even from attributing the Fall directly to God.” Loofs points out, that, according to Luther, Adam fell because “the Spirit [of God] did not render him obedient,” and quotes the “_De servo arbitrio_,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 207: “_Non potuit velle bonum ... id est obedientiam, quia spiritus illam non addebat_.” The same author shows (p. 766 f.) how the above ideas remain with Luther even at a later date, and cause him to represent the faith which, in man, is coincident with justification, as “effected by God simply in accordance with His Eternal Providence.” “We can, however, understand how Luther, in his sermons to the people, prefers to state the case as though faith were the condition demanded of man for the forgiveness of his sins and the receiving of the Spirit”; the fact is he “frequently leaves his predestinarian ideas on one side.”

[855] “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 427, no date.

[856] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 80 f., where he states: “This contradicts all that we otherwise know of him.”

[857] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 664.

[858] To Capito at Strasburg, July 9, 1537, “Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 47: “_Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum._” In the “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 3, p. 418, Luther says, that Erasmus had “not refuted” his work “_De servo arbitrio_,” and would “never be able to do so for all eternity.”

[859] To Aquila, October 21, 1528 (?), “Briefwechsel,” 7, p. 6. In the Schmalkalden Articles, 1537 (3, 1), Luther asserts that it is utterly erroneous to say “_hominem habere liberum arbitrium faciendi bonum et omittendi malum, et contra omittendi bonum et faciendi malum_.” After enumerating other errors on sin he concludes: “_Talia et similia portenta orta sunt ex inscitia et ignorantia peccati et Christi Servatoris nostri, suntque vere et mere ethnica dogmata, quæ tolerare non possumus. Si enim ista approbantur, frustra Christus mortuus est_,” etc. “Die symbolischen Bücher der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche,” ed. Müller-Kolde^[10], p. 311.

[860] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², pp. 124 and 82. In the last passage Köstlin attempts to base “Luther’s reticence” on a certain “conviction” which he does not describe more particularly and which it is difficult to recognise; he attributes to Luther “a purer, more resigned readiness to listen to the other side.” Yet he had remarked previously: “From all that we know with certainty of Luther, it is plain that he stuck to his earlier views as to the hidden God and Divine predestination. Nor does Luther make any attempt to solve the difficulty, which must appear to us a contradiction; he simply discourages reflection on the subject.” M. Staube (“Das Verhältnis der menschlichen Willensfreiheit zur Gotteslehre bei Luther und Zwingli,” Zürich, 1894) writes with less indulgence than Köstlin on Luther’s doctrine. This theologian, an admirer of Zwingli, says bluntly: Luther’s doctrine of predestination and the lack of free-will “leads to the destruction of all evangelical belief, not only of the personal assurance of salvation but also of Holy Scripture, which itself knows nothing of an arbitrary and faithless God in the matter of man’s salvation” (p. 36). “What then is left of Luther’s Deity?” “A Divine Person Who dispenses His grace and mercy according to His mood” (p. 37). “God appears and acts as a blind, naked force, _fortuna, fatum_,” because what He does is “beyond good and evil” (p. 38). “Why invent the fable of God’s justice and holiness?... We do nothing, God works all in all.... This religion, which is the logical outcome of Luther’s work ‘_De servo arbitrio_,’ is surely not Christianity but Materialism”; only the name is wanting for morality and law to become “foolish fancies” (p. 39). Diametrically opposed to this are the explanations of certain of Luther’s modern theological admirers, who not only pay homage to the author of “_De servo arbitrio_” on account of his true piety, but see in Erasmus’s vindication of free-will mere frivolous Pelagianism. Adolf Harnack, in the fourth edition of his “Dogmengeschichte,” 3, p. 841, says: “Rightly the ‘_Diatribe_’ is looked upon as the masterpiece of Erasmus, yet it is an altogether secular, and, at bottom, irreligious work. Luther, on the other hand, insists on the fundamental fact of Christian experience. On this rests his doctrine of predestination, which is simply the expression of the Omnipotence of the grace of God.” With his doctrine of predestination and the enslaved will, and his treatment of the _Deus absconditus_, he “gave back religion to religion.” In the Weimar ed. of Luther’s works (18, p. 593), Harnack’s opinion is accepted and (p. 595) we are told that Luther “refuted in a masterly fashion the obscure and unintelligible definition given by Erasmus [of free-will].” Luther’s work appears to the author of the Preface to the “_De servo arbitrio_,” in this edition, as “a real achievement” (p. 596), and he quotes with satisfaction A. Ritschl’s opinion, that Luther, its writer, in his sovereign certainty, did not shrink from the _contradictio in adiecto_. In the “Deutsch-evangel. Blätter” (p. 528, n. 1 [reprint, p. 14]), G. Kawerau states that Luther asserted “with relentless logic man’s inability to turn to God, and did not shrink from the harshest predestinarian expressions, phrases, indeed, which gave great trouble to Lutherans at a later date, and which they would gladly have seen expunged from his writings that Calvin’s followers might not appeal to them. And yet we agree with Harnack,” etc. (then follow Harnack’s words as given above). Köstlin concludes: “The death of all religion, as K. Müller (‘Kirchengesch.,’ 2, p. 307) rightly remarks, is to take our own works and doings into account.”

[861] Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 28, where in proof of such perversions he refers to “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, pp. 191 _seq._, 208, 213, 224, 231, 238, 287, 303, 324, 330, 354, adding at the end an “_etc._” which is full of meaning.

[862] Luther, “Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur,” 1533, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 236.

[863] _Ibid._

[864] The theories of some theologians on the direct authority of the Church to interfere in secular matters do not here come into consideration.

[865] Fr. v. Bezold says: “Luther claimed the merit of having exalted the true understanding of the secular power in a way that no one else had done since the time of the Apostles.... The indefensibility of this and similar claims has long since been demonstrated” (“Kultur der Gegenwart,” 2, 5, 1, Berlin, 1908, p. 66).

[866] Some of his reservations were, however, of doubtful practical value. K. Holl, “Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment,” 1911 (p. 1 ff.), shows how Luther urges the secular power to make an end of the “thievery” of the clerics, and how he ascribes to this power the right of summoning Councils, though only “when needful.”

[867] This will be done in the present work as occasion arises. See more particularly vol. iii., xv. 2 and 3, and vol. v., xxxv. 1 and 2.

[868] See vol. iv., xxviii.

[869] For a Protestant criticism of them see Erich Brandenburg, “Luthers Anschauung von Staat und Gesellschaft,” 1901 (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” Hft. 70), and Karl Müller, “Kirche Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” 1910.

[870] “To the Christian nobility,” 1520, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 409; Erl. ed., 21, p. 284.

[871] _Ibid._

[872] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 410 = 285.

[873] “On the secular power,” 1523, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 11, p. 268; Erl. ed., 22, p. 89.

[874] Cp. _ibid._, Erl. ed., pp. 83-6, 88, 89, 91-3.

[875] _Ibid._, p. 69.

[876] Cp. _ibid._, Erl. ed., p. 94.