CHAPTER X
LUTHER’S PROGRESS IN THE NEW TEACHING
1. The Second Stage of his development. Assurance of Salvation
TWO elements were still wanting to Luther’s teaching—the very two which, at a later date and till the end of his life, he regarded as the corner-stone of the truth which he had discovered—viz. Faith alone as the means of justification, and the assurance of Divine favour, which was its outcome. Both these elements are most closely connected, and go to make up the Lutheran doctrine of the appropriation of salvation, or personal certainty of faith. In accordance therewith justifying faith includes not only a belief in Christ as the Saviour; I must not merely believe that He will save and sanctify me if I turn to Him with humility and confidence—this the Church had ever taught—but I must also have entire faith in my justification, and rest assured, that without any work whatsoever on my part and solely by means of such a faith, all the demands made upon me are fulfilled, the merits of Christ appropriated, and my remaining sins not imputed to me; such is personal assurance of salvation by faith alone.
The teaching of the Catholic Church, we may remind our readers, never recognised in its exhortation to faith and confidence in God, the existence of this “faith alone” which justifies without further ado, nor did it require that of necessity there must be a special faith in one’s state of salvation. In place of faith alone the Church taught what the Council of Trent thus sums up: “We are said to be justified by faith because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and reach the blessed company of His children.”[956]
And instead of setting up a special faith in our own state of salvation, her teaching, as expressed by the same Council, had ever been that “no devout person may doubt the mercy of God, the merit of Christ and the power and efficacy of the sacraments,” though, on the other hand, “no one may boast with certainty of the remission of his sins”; “nor may it be said that those who are truly justified must convince themselves beyond all doubt that they are justified and that no one is absolved from sin and justified unless he believe with certainty that he has been so absolved and justified, as though absolution and justification were accomplished by this faith alone”; “but rather everyone, bearing in mind his own weakness and indisposition, may well be anxious and afraid for his salvation, as no one can know, with the certainty of faith which excludes all error, that he has attained to the grace of God.”[957]
Such was the doctrine which Luther had learnt in his early days as a monk; it animated his youthful zeal for the religious life and did not interfere with his contented and happy frame of mind, as expressed in the letter of invitation to his first Mass and his conversations with Usingen.[958] The writings of St. Bernard had taught him, that in the religious life this happiness is the portion of all those who seek God. Luther knew that thousands like himself rejoiced from their hearts in the “anointed cross” of the service of God, as Bernard calls it. On the by-path he chose to follow he lost, however, his happiness and increased his doubts and inward unrest.
Luther, after forsaking the Catholic standpoint, had hitherto been tormented by anxiety as to how we can be assured of the Grace of God. Having left the secure footing of the Church’s views on nature, grace and predestination, he was now in search of a certainty even more absolute. His Commentary on Romans had concluded with the anxious question: “Who will give me the assurance that I am pleasing God by my works?” As yet he can give no other answer than that, “we must call upon God’s grace with fear and trembling and seek to render Him gracious to us by humility and self-annihilation, because all depends upon His arbitrary Will (above, p. 217 ff.). In these lectures, in the course of his gloomy and abstruse treatment of predestination, he had instructed his hearers how they must be resigned to this uncertainty concerning eternity (p. 236 ff.).
In the act of resignation he perceived various signs of predestination. He says in the Commentary on Romans: “There are three degrees in the signs of predestination. Some are content with God’s Will, but are confident they are among the elect and do not wish to be damned. Others, who stand on a higher level, are resigned and contented with God’s Will, or at least wish to be so, even though God should not choose to save them but to place them amongst the lost. The third, i.e. the last and highest degree, is to be resigned in very deed to hell if such be the Will of God, which is perhaps the case with many at the hour of death. In this way we become altogether purified from self-will and the wisdom of the flesh.”[959]
“Terrible pride prevails among the hypocrites and men of the law, who, because they believe in Christ, think themselves already saved and sufficiently righteous,” these claim to attain to grace and the Divine Sonship “by faith alone” (“_ex fide tantum_”), “as though we were saved by Christ without the performance of any works or acts of our own” (“_sic ut ipsi nihil operentur, nihil exhibeant de fide_”). Such men possess too much faith, or rather none at all.[960]
While he was thus wavering between reminiscences of the Catholic teaching and his own pseudo-mystical ideas on justification and imputation, his mind must indeed have been in a state of incessant agitation, so that uneasiness and fear became his natural element. “As we are unable to keep God’s commandments and are therefore always unrighteous, there remains nothing for us but to be in constant fear of the Judgment (‘_ut iudicium semper timeamus_’), and to pray for pardon, or rather for the non-imputing of our unrighteousness.” “We are to rejoice, according to the Psalmist (ii. 11), before God on account of His Mercy, but with trembling on account of the sin which deserves His Judgment.”[961]
In 1525 he wrote: To leave man no free will for what is good and to make him altogether dependent on God’s predestination “seems, it is true, cruel and intolerable; countless of the greatest minds of previous ages have taken offence at this. And who, indeed, is there whom the idea does not offend? I myself have more than once been greatly scandalised at it and plunged into an abyss of despair so that I wished I had never been created. But then I learned how wholesome despair is and how close it lies to grace.”[962]
This he “learned,” or thought he learned, through his doctrine of assurance of salvation through faith.
“The forgiveness offered us by God in His Word” (if we may here anticipate his later teaching), became for him a definite object of sanctifying and saving faith, to the extent that faith came to be identical in his eyes with _fiducia_.
Faith is, as he says, “a real heartfelt confidence in Christ.”[963] “He strongly emphasises at the same time the relation between what is here proposed for belief and the individual believer; I believe that God is gracious to me and forgives me. That, says Luther [later], makes the Article of the Forgiveness of Sins particularly difficult, for though the other Articles of Faith may be more difficult if once we begin to speak of them and try to understand them, yet in the Article of the Forgiveness of Sins what presents the greatest difficulty is, that ‘each one must accept this for himself in particular.’ This was hard to a man because he must stand greatly in awe of the anger of God and His Judgment; but when the Article of the Forgiveness of Sins comes home to us and we really experience its meaning, then the other Articles concerning God, the Creator, the Son of God, etc., ‘also come home to us and enter into our experience.’ And, according to Luther, true faith consists in this, that I believe and am assured that God is my God because He speaks to me and forgives my sins.”[964] While taking the acceptance of the whole of revelation for granted, he magnifies fiducial faith to such an extent, that many Protestant theologians have come to consider a trusting faith in Christ to be his only essential requirement, in fact to imagine that in this alone faith consists; claiming to be merely following Luther, they deny that the acceptance of individual points of faith, i.e. Articles of Faith, can be a necessary condition for salvation.
Fiducial faith, with its assurance of salvation was the way which Luther discovered out of all his troubles about two years after the termination of his Commentary on Romans, in 1518, or the beginning of 1519. This discovery is a remarkable event, which stands alone, and with which we must concern ourselves after first examining what led up to it. From the place where it was made, viz. the tower belonging to the monastery, it might be styled the Tower Experience.
The incident remained imbedded in Luther’s mind till his old age; he frequently alludes to it, and though in some of its details his memory did not serve him aright and his apprehension of it may have been somewhat modified by party prejudice, yet the main elements of the story appear to be historically quite credible. He fixes not merely the place, but also the time of the incident, namely, the commencement of his second course of lectures on the Psalms (1518-19), i.e. two matters which ever serve as the most reliable framework for the picture of an event long past. From what he relates between 1532 and 1545, one thing is directly certain regarding this purely spiritual, and for that reason rather less tangible incident, viz. that it was an experience arrived at only after the acutest mental anguish and which Luther ever after regarded as a special illumination vouchsafed to him by God. It is connected with Romans i. 17: “For the justice of God is revealed therein [in the Gospel] from faith unto faith as it is written [Hab. ii. 4]: ‘The just man liveth by faith.’”
What is indirectly no less certain, from the unanimity of the testimonies, and from the course of his development as vouched for by his writings, is that the discovery in question was really that of the assurance of salvation.
* * * * *
The various opinions which have been expressed on the account of the event given by Luther (see below, p. 388 ff.) in 1545, and the numerous attempts which have been made to fix a date for the same, render it necessary to trace chronologically the development of the doctrine of faith and salvation in Luther’s mind till the year 1519. We shall see that his statement as to the time when the event took place (1518-19) not only presents no difficulty, but that such a termination to his experiences was naturally to be expected.
Prior to 1518-19 the absolute assurance of salvation which appears afterwards is nowhere distinctly expressed in Luther’s doctrine on faith and salvation.
Passages to the contrary, which have been quoted from the imprinted lectures on Hebrews delivered previous to the autumn of 1517, need not be interpreted in the sense of fiducial faith and assurance of salvation. They refer rather indistinctly to the effects of faith without the works which Luther had now come to detest, and attack “self-righteousness,” as in the Commentary on Romans (“_sola fides ... quæ non nititur operibus illis_ [_orationibus et præparatoriis_”]). They only hint vaguely at the road he will follow later.[965]
Again, in the Indulgence theses of October 31, 1517, directed against Tetzel, the assurance of salvation is not expressed, and we find a recommendation “to trust rather to enter heaven by much tribulation than by security and peace.” In place of _pax, pax!_ he, as a mystic, would prefer to exhort the people with the cry: _crux, crux!_ (thesis 93).
Neither do the theses of the Heidelberg Disputation in April, 1518, contain the assurance of salvation, although theses 25-8 touch upon justification and, as against the law, extol the great effects of the faith which Christ works in us.[966]
On the other hand, the Resolutions to the Indulgence theses which appeared shortly after (1518) treat to a certain extent of the subject and attempt to give a solution.[967] There we read: “In the confusion [in the mind of the man who is perturbed by thoughts of sin and rejection] God works a strange work in order to accomplish His work”; grace is infused (“_infunditur gratia_”), while man still fancies he “is about to be damned.” In order to rid himself of his “despair,” he goes to Confession “so that the priest may declare him absolved and give peace to his conscience.” “The man who is to be absolved must take great care lest he doubt the remission of his sins.” Faith in Christ’s words to Peter: “Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,” etc., does all. The whole passage, which describes justification in the fanciful and paradoxical language of the mystic, is worth quoting: “When God begins to justify a man, He first damns him; He is about to build, but first He pulls down, to heal but first He deals wounds, to vivify but first He condemns to death. He crushes a man, humbles him by the knowledge of himself and his sins and makes him tremble, so that, under a sense of his misery, he cries out [with Holy Scripture] ‘there is no peace for my bones because of my sins, there is no health in my flesh because of Thy wrath. For the mountains melt away before the face of God, He sends out His arrows, He troubles us with His anger and with the breath of His wrath. The sinner sinks down into hell and shame covers his face. David frequently experienced this confusion and tribulation and describes it with sighs in several of the Psalms. Salvation has its origin in this confusion, because ‘the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.’” The ways of God are in a tempest and a whirlwind, according to Nahum (i. 3); man’s destruction is to Him “the most pleasing sacrifice,” the animal sacrificed is torn in pieces, the hide is stripped off, and it is slaughtered. Luther in three passages from the Prophets, describes the “infusion of grace,” which man is apt to mistake for the outpouring of the Divine wrath upon him.
Because the man who is justified is still “without peace and consolation,” not trusting his own judgment, he begs the priest for comfort in Confession. “He is led to cling to the judgment of another not because he is a spiritual superior, or because he possesses any power, but on account of the words of Christ Who cannot lie: ‘Whatsoever thou shalt loose,’ etc. Faith in these words has worked peace of conscience while the priest looses by virtue of the same.”[968] “Christ is our peace. Without faith in His word, no one will ever be at peace even after more than a thousand absolutions from the Pope. Thanks be to God for this sweet power of the priest.”
Such words of gratitude do not disguise the fact, that the sacrament of penance is stripped of its meaning by the assurance, that “the remission of guilt takes place by the infusion of grace before the priest has given absolution.”
Above all it is plain we have not yet here that assurance of salvation, as Luther held it at a later date:
“Whoever seeks peace in another way [than through the absolution of the priest],” he says in the same passage, “say, by his own inward experience, appears to be tempting God, and not seeking peace by faith.” With this denial of the validity of personal inward experience (“_experientia intus_”) he brushes aside an element which, scarcely a year later, he represents as essential. He says still more definitely: “The remission of guilt is not assured to us, as a general rule, except by the sentence of the priest, and not even by him unless we believe Christ’s promise with regard to loosing. But so long as we are not certain of the remission it is no remission.” “As the infusion of grace is hidden under the appearance of anger, man is still more uncertain of grace when it is present than when it is absent.”[969]
That Luther could rest satisfied with so shadowy and insufficient a conception can only be attributed to his state of mind at the time.
He lays great stress on absolution in the Disputation of the year 1518 “For the calming of troubled consciences” (above, p. 319).[970] Here it is expressly stated, that the strongest assurance regarding the state of grace is to be derived from the priest’s absolution and the accompanying faith of the penitent Christian: “Whoever is absolved by the power of the keys must rather die and renounce all creatures than doubt of his absolution” (thesis 16). “Those who declare the remission of sins to be doubtful on account of the uncertainty of contrition, err to the point of denying the faith” (13), for “the forgiveness of sins is based much more upon faith in the word of Christ: ‘Whatsoever thou shalt loose,’ etc.” (9). “The power of the keys operates a sure and infallible work by the word and the command of Christ, when used in earnest.” (24). The concluding words of the Disputation already quoted elsewhere accordingly exhort to boundless confidence, while at the same time alluding significantly to the text which has risen on Luther’s horizon, though as yet he understands it only imperfectly: “The just man liveth by faith.”
His state of uncertainty with regard to the appropriation of salvation caused Luther great disquietude. Other circumstances, particularly his feverish excitement at the outset of his public struggle, also contributed towards his inward unrest. The morbid fear of which he had never rid himself was also powerfully stirred.
The supreme degree of this painful torment of soul may be gathered from the description he gives in the Resolutions.
In this work, which appeared in August, 1518, in dealing with the 15th Indulgence thesis, he tries to prove that the punishment of Purgatory may be made up merely by fear and terror. Many of those living even now, he says, had experienced how high the flood of such interior sufferings can rise and how close they bring a man to despair. He would not quarrel with any who did not believe this, but those who had been through such trials were in a position to speak of them. Tauler treated of such pains in his German sermons and brought forward some examples; of course, to the Scholastics Tauler was unknown; they did not appreciate him, but he had found more real theology in this theologian who wrote in German than “among the whole of the Scholastics of all the universities.” He then proceeds, beginning with the very formula with which Paul introduces the account of his raptures: “I know a man” (_Novi hominem_), to describe the mystical interior sufferings which he had “frequently” experienced; though they had never persisted long, they were so “hellish,” that whoever had not undergone them himself was quite unable to speak of them. Had this consuming fire lasted only for the tenth part of an hour all a man’s bones were reduced to ashes.
“God then appears to be horribly angered and with Him all creation. There is no possibility of flight, no comfort whether within or without, only a hollow accusing voice. The soul laments, according to the words of Scripture: ‘Lord I am cast away from Thy face,’ she dares not even say: ‘Chastise me not in Thy wrath.’ At this moment—inexplicable as it is—the soul is unable even to believe in its possible liberation, but only feels that the punishment is not at an end. It appears everlasting and unceasing. The soul finds nothing in its whole being but a bare longing for help, nothing but terrible sighing, though it knows not whence to implore assistance. Thus the soul, like Christ, is completely extenuated, all its bones are numbered, there is not a tissue in it which is not penetrated with the excruciating bitterness, with flight, with mournful anxiety and pain, and all for ever and ever. When a ball passes over a board every point of the line along which it travels bears the whole weight of the ball, though it does not receive the ball into itself. So, too, the eternal flood of pain passes over the soul and causes it to taste the whole endless weight of eternal pain in every part, but the pain is not permanently received into the soul, it does not last, but passes.”[971]
The above so strange and fantastic description incorporated in a Latin work written for the learned, in the interests of Luther’s psychology, calls for further consideration.
Particular stress must here be laid on the false mysticism in which Luther was then entangled, and his free use of the fanciful language of certain of the mystics. Luther’s states had, however, nothing in common with those described in somewhat similar words by the healthier mystics, viz. the sore trial of the Mount of Olives through which the soul passes owing to the complete withdrawal of consolation. He, however, imagines he sees himself portrayed not only in such descriptions of the mystics, but also in mystical passages in the Psalms over which, at this time of change, he was fond of brooding. David’s cries ring in his ears; his experience of the hell in which the soul must dwell, of the life which draws nigh to hell, of the bones which are banished to the gate of hell, of the sinking into a dark sea, into the bowels of the earth under the heaped-up weight of endless misery.
It must also be borne in mind that the Monk, with his pseudo-mystical ideas, cherished a gloomy conception of God, and held the terrible doctrine of the absolute predestination of the damned. Having wandered away from the Catholic teaching, with his views on man’s lack of free will, and the theory of arbitrary imputation by God, he found no answer in his troubled conscience to the question which weighed him down, namely, how to arrive at the assurance of a Gracious God. Confusion and interior pangs of conscience for a while gained the upper hand.
Lastly, his peculiar morbid tendency to fear must also be taken into account, for it afforded an opportunity to the Tempter to add to his confusion by raising difficulties regarding the deficiencies of his new, self-chosen theology.
Adolph Hausrath in his Life of Luther even speaks of periodical mental disturbances from which he suffered during the time he was a monk; the disturbing power inherent in the monastic practices, so he says, took possession of his sensitive nature with its strong feelings; Luther only escaped the danger of going mad by bravely bursting the fetters of the monastic Rule and the Popish Faith. In the strong inward combats which Luther endured at a later date Hausrath recognises a return of this affliction. In his second edition he has toned down this view of Luther’s periodical attacks of mental illness out of regard for the objections which had, not without reason, been urged against his statement. In Luther’s case, however, there is no reason for assuming any “monkish mental disease,” nor can he be proved to have suffered from any disturbance whatever of his mental functions at any time of his life.[972] But if we take it that the night of the soul which he passed through, whether in the monastery or during his later struggle, had at its basis a peculiar physico-psychic disposition revealing a want of normal inward stability, then we can perhaps easily explain some other strange and at first blush inexplicable phenomena which his case presents.
At any rate, the fundamental new dogma of the assurance of salvation was not the product of a clear, quiet, calm atmosphere of soul. It was born amidst unbearable inward mental confusion, and was a frantic attempt at self-pacification on the part of the Wittenberg Doctor whose active but unstable mind had already left the true course.
* * * * *
It is of interest and helps us to reach a right understanding of the Tower Experience, to follow the change of view regarding assurance of salvation which is apparent in Luther’s statements and writings in the latter months of 1518 and beginning of 1519.
At the time when, in October, 1518, Luther, a prey to other anxieties, stood before Cardinal Cajetan at Augsburg, he was already making great strides towards the new and consoling dogma of faith alone, moved thereto by indignation at the censure which one of his propositions had called forth. He says to Cardinal Cajetan in his explanation of the second of the assertions which he was required to withdraw, that it was incorrect to speak of it as “a new and false theology that no one can be justified except by faith, and that it is necessary to hold it as certain in faith that one is justified, and not in any way to doubt the obtaining of grace, because whoever doubts or is uncertain is no longer justified, but is rejecting grace.”[973]
He attempts to prove this first as regards Confession. The principal thing is to believe the words of Christ: “Whatsoever thou shalt loose,” etc., i.e. by applying the words to oneself; “under pain of eternal damnation and to avoid committing a sin of unbelief,” it is necessary to believe this; this faith is the only disposition for the sacrament and no work whatever serves as a preparation.[974] No one could receive grace who doubted of its reception; but, if we believed, then we received everything in the sacrament. The belief that we receive a personal remission of sin is, according to St. Bernard, the testimony of the Holy Ghost in our heart; this, according to the same Father, is expressed in Romans iii. 28: “We hold that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the law.” Let Cardinal Cajetan, he says finally—after quoting a great number of biblical passages having no bearing on the matter in hand—show him how he is to understand in any other way all these texts from the Divine utterances.
What is remarkable is, however, that, during his trial at Augsburg, he allows Confession and Absolution to recede further into the background than in the Resolutions; he no longer speaks of the above-mentioned magical production of the personal assurance of salvation, by the formula of absolution, as by the testimony of another; he now holds the absolute certainty of justification to be present by faith even before this, whenever a man is willing to submit himself, according to his instructions, to the Sacrament of Penance.[975] Thus faith alone and the assurance of salvation were already present. The principal difficulty, however, as he admits below (p. 389 f.), still troubled his mind. This was the Justice of God, which haunted his conscience, though it did not hinder his going forward.
The appeal he made to a General Council in November and his “conjecture” of December, 1518, that the Pope might be Antichrist,[976] were momentous indications that he was cutting himself adrift from the authority of the Church. At the same time he stripped the ideas he had hitherto held on faith of everything that reminded him of the traditional teaching of the Church; he transformed the faith necessary for justification into a mere act of confidence in the merits of Christ without any reference to the Sacraments, to the other truths of faith, or to the Church, who is the guardian and mouthpiece of faith. To lay hold upon the righteousness of Christ with a sure trust is made to suffice for justification and for the fullest assurance of salvation, without any of the preliminaries and conditions on which he had formerly insisted. This act, too, God alone operates in man, who himself is devoid of all free will. Although he incidentally clothes the act of confidence with love, and even hints at the good works a man may have performed previous to this act, also requiring good resolutions for the future, yet these are only additions which are really inconsistent with his idea. Henceforward fiducial faith appears to him as really an isolated fact, an act of confidence inspired by God merely from His good pleasure and with no regard for any work. A vast change of far-reaching consequence had taken place in Luther’s conception of the appropriation of the _iustitia Dei_, he had now reached an interpretation of the words _iustus ex fide vivit_ and of the whole meaning of the gospel, upon which, notwithstanding the independence of his treatment of doctrine, he had never hitherto ventured.
We may well ask what event, what development, had led up to this.
Salvation by faith alone and the absolute assurance of one’s state of grace, were taught by Luther quite openly in the second course of lectures on the Psalms, which he had commenced in 1518 (perhaps at the end of the year), and the beginning of which he published in 1519 with a preface addressed to the Elector Frederick, dated March 27, 1519 (see above, p. 285). This was the “_Operationes in Psalmos_,” upon the publication of which he was engaged until 1521, and which was finally left unfinished.
This work he, even at a later date, described as an entirely true exposition of his actual teaching on justification.[977]
Other lectures, delivered at an earlier period, received no such praise from him; on the contrary, he never took the trouble of having them printed, and does not even mention them. Although the Commentary on Romans, which we have already studied, had advanced a considerable distance along the new lines of thought, nevertheless, at a later date its tone appeared too Catholic to please him; it did not contain the new creed “_Credo me esse salvum_.” The same is true of the earlier course on the Psalms, of the lectures on Galatians, on Hebrews and on the Epistle to Titus. Luther, as a rule, was very ready to have his writings printed, but these, after he had entered upon the second stage of his development, he plainly looked upon as unripe and incomplete.
Simultaneously with the printing of the new Commentary on the Psalms he commenced that of another Commentary, also consisting of lectures. This is the shorter of the two works on Galatians which he has left us in print (above, p. 306 f.). This Commentary on Galatians, together with the “_Operationes in Psalmos_” is the earliest witness to his new and definitive conception of _sola fides_ as an entire confidence in one’s justification.
To these must be added the almost contemporary “_Sermo de triplici iustitia_” delivered towards the end of 1518, and the “_Sermo de duplici iustitia_” dating from the commencement of 1519.
The righteousness of Christ, he says in the sermon on the threefold righteousness[978]—without any reference to the Sacraments, with the exception of Baptism, or to the Church’s means of grace—“is our whole being” and “becomes by faith our righteousness, according to Romans i.: ‘The just man liveth by faith’”; “Whoever has this shall not be damned, even though he commit sin,”[979] this being proved by two passages from the Psalms; “by this man becomes lord of all things.” There is no such thing as merit. “Every Christian must beware of ever doubting as to whether his works are pleasing to God; whoever doubts this, sins, loses all his works and labours in vain.... He is not acting from faith or in faith.” “As you believe in Christ so too you must believe that your works are well pleasing to God because they are of faith [i.e. done in a state of grace].”
In the sermon on the twofold righteousness one of the first quotations from the Bible on which the same idea is based and yet more strongly expressed is again Romans i. 17: “The justice of God is revealed in the gospel,” etc.[980] This passage assumes a more prominent position in his mind. He pauses in his explanation of Psalm xxx. 1: “_In iustitia tua libera me_”; this, he says, signifies “the righteousness of Christ which has become ours by faith, grace and the mercy of God.” He finds that this righteousness is frequently referred to in the Psalms as the “work of God, confession, power of God, mercy, truth and justice. These are all names for faith in Christ, or rather names for that righteousness which is in Christ.” It is true that “this alien righteousness which is only infused by grace is never completely infused all at once, but begins, increases and is finally completed by death.” It is displayed by works of faith, especially those for the good of others, where man, “the lord of all things,” makes himself “the servant of all”—words which Luther employs in exactly the same sense shortly afterwards as the foundation of his work: “On the freedom of a Christian man.” Faith, i.e. confidence in our own salvation by Christ, works all this; it imparts a certainty so that we are able to say: “Christ’s life, work, sufferings and death are mine, just as though I had myself lived, worked, suffered and died; so great is the confidence with which you are able to glory in Christ.”[981]
His teaching, even then, was against the law. According to him, says Loofs, “the law, even as ‘explained’ in the New Testament, which renders assurance of salvation possible only after the fulfilment of demands impossible to the natural man, is, it is true, necessary as a negative preparation for faith, though not to be regarded as the expression of the relationship desired by God between Himself and man. It is the gospel which teaches us the position which God wishes us to occupy with regard to Himself; according to its teaching we must, before we do anything for our salvation, be certain by faith of God’s forgiving grace, in order to be born again by such a faith and become capable of fulfilling the Will of God.”[982] The Protestant theologian who writes thus in his History of Dogma also points out that according to Luther, the law was merely revealed by God as an educational measure and as the foundation of a scale of rewards, whereas the gospel represents the justice of God in the order of grace (Rom. i. 17). “In this conception of the antagonism between the law and the gospel,” says Loofs, “and in the possibility and necessity of an assurance of salvation which it presupposes lies the fundamental difference between the Lutheran and the Catholic view of Christianity.”[983]
At these fundamental views regarding the appropriation of salvation, or righteousness by faith, Luther had accordingly already arrived in 1518-19 when engaged on his second exposition of the Psalms.
2. The Discovery in the Monastery Tower (1518-19)
Luther describes, in an important passage of the Preface to the Latin edition of his works in 1545, how he finally arrived at his ideas of faith and the assurance of salvation.[984] It is the only occasion on which he expatiates in so detailed and vivid a manner on his own development. In the light of this passage his other assertions must be considered.
The reader is at once struck by what Luther relates of the gloom and confusion of his mind previous to the discovery in the tower. In the preface, he says: “The passage, Romans i., ‘The Justice of God is revealed in the Gospel,’ had, till then, been an obstacle to me. For I hated the words ‘justice of God,’ which according to the use and custom of all teachers I had been taught to interpret in the philosophical sense, namely, as referring to the formal and active justice by which God is just and punishes the sinners and the unjust. Although I was a blameless monk, I felt myself as a sinner before God, suffered great trouble of conscience and was unable to look with confidence on God as propitiated by my satisfaction, therefore I did not love, but on the contrary, hated, the just God Who punishes sinners; I was angry with Him with furious murmuring, and said: The unhappy sinners and those who owing to original sin are for all eternity rejected are already sufficiently oppressed by every kind of misfortune owing to the Ten Commandments, and as though this were not enough God wills [according to Rom. i.] by means of the gospel to heap pain on pain, and threatens us with His Justice and His Anger even in the gospel.”[985]
In his Table-Talk, as reported by Heydenreich, he says in the winter of 1542-43 in a quite similar way: “These words were always in my mind. Wherever the ‘Justice of God’ occurs in Scripture I was only able to understand this to mean the justice by which He Himself is just and judges according to justice.... I stood there and knocked for someone to open to me, but no one came to undo the door; I did not know what to make of it.... Before finding the solution I shuddered with horror, I hated the Psalms and the Scripture where the justice of God occurs, which I took to mean that He was just and the Judge of sinners, but not that He was our Justification and our imputed righteousness.” “The whole of Scripture stood like a wall in front of me.”[986]
“As often as I read that the Justice of God was revealed in the Gospel,” he says in his Commentary on Genesis, “I wished that God had never revealed the Gospel, for who could love an angry God Who judges and condemns?”[987]
“This word Justice,” he says in another Commentary in 1532, “cost me much sweat (‘_magno sudore mihi constitit_’). To interpret this as though it meant the justice according to which God damns the wicked is not merely unfounded but very dangerous; it awakens in the heart great hatred of God and His Justice; for who can love Him Who treats the sinner according to justice? Never forget that God’s justice means that justice by which we are justified; it is the gift of the remission of sins.”[988]
That in truth it “cost him much sweat” before he was able to overcome the objections suggested by the justice of God itself, is proved by other and stronger allusions of Luther to the interior storms he underwent at this crisis. We refer to other statements in which, as above, he is speaking of Bible passages containing the expression Justice of God. Thus for instance: “The words just and Justice of God were like a lightning-flash in my conscience (‘_fulmen in conscientia_’); when I heard them, they at once filled me with terror. I thought God is Just and therefore He punishes.”[989] “That word _iustitia_,” he said in September, 1538, “was a thunder-clap to my heart. When as a papist I read: ‘Deliver me in Thy Justice’ (Ps. xxx. 2), and ‘In Thy Truth,’ etc., I immediately represented to myself the avenging Justice and the fury of an angry God. In my heart I hated Paul when I read: ‘The Justice of God is revealed in the Gospel’ ... till at last in my affliction a remedy presented itself.”[990]
Here we may mention some statements, which, though they belong to his later, fictitious portrayal of his spiritual development,[991] nevertheless contain an element of truth concerning his inner life at the time when he was still a monk, and probably during those very months when he was excitedly and confusedly brooding over the assurance of salvation. In reality they merely describe in greater detail what the above passages relate of his dread of God’s Justice, though they also falsely charge all papists and all monks with being full of servile fear for the Judge, and forming a school of despair.
“We fled from Christ,” he says in one of these remarkable passages, “as from the devil; for we were taught that everyone must appear before the Judgment-seat of Christ with his works and orders.... The Gospel tells us that Christ does not come as a Judge but as a Saviour; but the monks taught the contrary, namely, that He was to be our Judge.”[992] Now, he says, elsewhere, the word of God which has been rediscovered “depicts Christ as our Justice.” But in the monastery he, like all the others, had “fallen away from the faith,” and therefore his “heart trembled and palpitated for fear lest God should not be gracious” to him. “I often shuddered at the name of Jesus and when I looked at Him on the cross, He seemed to me like a lightning-flash.”[993]
He had often, he assures us, been forced to say: “I wish there were no God,”[994] “and none of them looked upon my unbelief as a sin.”[995]
It was “simple idolatry, for I did not believe in Christ but looked on Him as a stern and terrible Judge.”[996] “I did not know how I stood towards God,” “was unable to pray aright,”[997] indeed “no one knew anything” about prayer, “for we did not pray in faith in Christ.”[998]
It was a “great martyrdom and bondage from which the gospel set us free”;[999] I was, as it were, in a privy and in the kingdom of the devil.[1000] He felt the terrors of the Divine Judgment, he assures us (possibly on account of the inward wrestling with the _iustitia Dei_) so that his “hair stood on end” when he thought of it. “At the monastery I shuddered when they spoke of death or the other life.”[1001]
“I was the most wretched man on earth; day and night there was nothing but howling and despair which no one was able to put an end to for me. Thus I was bathed and baptised and properly sweated in my monkery. Thanks be to God that I did not sweat myself to death, otherwise I should have long ago been in the depths of hell with my monkish baptism. For I knew Christ only as a stern Judge from Whom I wished to escape and was unable to do so.... Thus have they tortured many a worthy soul throughout life and at last thrown him in despair into the infernal abyss.”[1002]
“In this way I raged (‘_Ita furebam_’),” Luther continues in the Latin Preface where he speaks of his sudden discovery, “and my conscience caused me terror and confusion; I knocked imploringly at the verse of Paul (Rom. i. 17) with a burning thirst to know what it meant.” He now describes the actual inward experience.
“At last, while brooding day and night, by the mercy of God I noticed the connection between the words: the Justice of God is revealed therein [in the gospel], as it is written, ‘The just man liveth by faith.’ Then I began to understand the Justice of God as that by which the just man lives by the gift of God, viz. by faith; [I saw that] the sense is this: ‘By the gospel, justice, i.e. the passive justice of God, is revealed by which the merciful God justifies by faith, as it is written: ‘The just man liveth by faith.’ Then I felt myself born again and fancied I had passed through the gates of Paradise. The whole of Scripture thereupon appeared to me in quite a different light. I ran rapidly through the passages in question as they lived in my memory and compared them with other expressions, such as: ‘Work of God,’ i.e. the work which God carries on in us; ‘Power of God,’ by which He makes us strong; ‘Wisdom of God,’ by which He makes us wise; likewise the ‘Strength of God,’ ‘Salvation of God,’ and ‘Honour of God.’ Then I extolled that sweetest word, Justice, with as much love as I had previously hated it, and this passage of Paul’s became to me in very truth the gate of Paradise.” He adds that the reading of Augustine had strengthened him in his interpretation, and, “provided with better weapons by means of this experience, I set about the exposition of the Psalms for the second time”; this work was, however, interrupted by the Diet of Worms.
Luther, it is true, does not speak here of the monastery tower as the scene of his experience, but this is described quite plainly in his other statements given below. In these the privy situated above the “Hypocaustum” is mentioned as the place where the discovery took place. They at the same time complete and confirm the account given in the Preface of the antecedents of this new enlightenment, i.e. the immediately preceding terrors of God’s avenging justice, the time it happened, viz. when Luther was engaged on the Psalms, and finally, the subject-matter of the experience.
The accounts from Luther’s own lips must here be considered collectively.
Not only do they correspond exactly with Luther’s condition of mind, as described above, but also, according to the chronological account already given of the development of his teaching, with the time he recommenced his work on the Psalms, 1518-19, which period Luther expressly mentions in the Preface as the date of the incident.[1003] It is not necessary, indeed, when we consider the above description of the course of his development, not possible, to assign an earlier date to the incident, though some have recently pushed it back to a time prior to his first exposition on the Psalms. Others, on account of some minor inexactitudes which occur in the principal account given in 1545 (see below, p. 399), hold it to be a fanciful invention of Luther in his old age in which he was merely summing up the result of a long inward process. If every circumstance be calmly weighed the historian must however, in the main, support Luther’s account; he is not free to sacrifice the valuable source of knowledge, of such vast importance in arriving at an estimate of Luther’s personality, presented by these testimonies.
In what follows Luther’s other testimonies to the same effect as that contained in the Preface, will be duly brought forward and their peculiarities noted.
The first testimony is to be found in Johann Schlaginhaufen’s notes and speaks of the fears which the thought of God’s avenging justice habitually caused Luther and from which the discovery delivered him.[1004] This pupil of Luther’s relates, in an abbreviated Latin form, the following communication which he received from Luther between June and September, 1532, i.e. thirteen years before the Preface: “The words just and Justice were like a flash of lightning in my conscience. When I heard them I was filled with terror [and thought]: Is He just? Then He will punish; ‘The just man liveth by faith,’ ‘the Justice of God is made manifest without the law’ (cp. Rom. iii. 21); our life therefore comes of faith; God’s Justice must be the salvation of everyone who believes. Then my conscience at once comforted itself: Surely it is the Justice of God which justifies us and saves us; and this word (_iustitia_) became more pleasing to me.” “This art,” Schlaginhaufen proceeds in Luther’s own German, “the _Spiritus sanctus_ infused into me in this Cl.” (see p. 396).
The fear of the Divine Justice also appears in the foreground in the account of the incident in Luther’s Table-Talk in September, 1540, as preserved by Johann Mathesius.[1005] “At the outset when I read and sang in the Psalm [every evening at Compline] the words: ‘_In iustitia tua libera me_,’ I was afraid and hated the words: ‘_iustitia Dei_,’ ‘_iudicium Dei_,’ ‘_opus Dei_.’ For I thought nothing less than that ‘_iustitia Dei_’ meant His strict Judgment. And if He was to save me according to His strict Judgment I should be lost for ever. But ‘_misericordiam Dei_,’ ‘_adiutorium Dei_,’ those words pleased me better.” But it was only after the light of a true understanding of God’s Justice had risen upon me that “I began to relish the Psalter.”
The notes on Luther’s Table-Talk made by his friend Master Caspar Heydenreich, dating from the winter 1542-43, and edited by Kroker in 1903 from the collection of Mathesius, must also be considered.[1006]
Mathesius records them under the descriptive title: “_Evangelii occasio renascentis per Doctorem_.” He plainly thought, agreeably with Luther’s own opinion and that of his pupils, that the enlightenment he had received on the text “The just man liveth by faith” was the most important, or at least one of the most important causes of “the new birth of the Gospel through the Doctor”—Luther. And, as a matter of fact, Luther’s conviction, which was shared by his pupils, that this saving interpretation had been infused by the Holy Spirit, sufficiently explains why so much stress should be laid on this incident, and also why the recipient of the said illumination so frequently recurs to it.
Under the above title we find Heydenreich’s lengthy account, taken from Luther’s own lips, which agrees entirely with the statements of the Preface and, in particular, dwells on Luther’s ecstasy of joy at the discovery (“_Cum hoc invenissem, ita delectabar, in tanta lætitia, ut nihil supra_”).
In several of the accounts the Psalms are represented as the primary cause of the struggles that went on in Luther’s soul, and the correct comprehension of them as one of the first fruits of his new discernment. Then “I first relished the Psalter,” Luther says in Mathesius’s account, and in Heydenreich’s notes he declares: “Whereas I formerly hated the Psalms and the Scripture where mention was made of the Justice of God, the way was now clear to me when I read in the Psalms: ‘Deliver me in Thy Justice’ and ‘Deliver me in Thy mercy,’” for God’s mercy, by which He justifies us with His grace, had, from that time onward, come to mean the same to him as “the righteousness of God.”
In Anton Lauterbach’s Diary of 1538 two passages from the Psalms are likewise quoted as the cause of Luther’s trouble of conscience,[1007] and in the Halle MS. of the “Colloquia” which Bindseil edited, and which is based on Lauterbach’s collection, a similar uneasiness is said to have been induced by the Psalms in priests generally: “When, in Popery, we read the verses [in question] we immediately thought of the avenging Justice ... but when I took into consideration what follows ... I became joyful,” the right interpretation of the passage concerning the just man who lives by faith “supplied a remedy for all who were afflicted” (“_afflictis remedium contigit_”).[1008]
Another passage in the Psalms which caused him trouble is quoted by Luther when referring to the event in his Commentary on Psalm l. (li.), which he wrote in 1532: “_Exsultabit lingua mea iustitiam tuam_” (verse 16); as the biblical view of Justice had been obscured in his mind and in that of all, he had been unable to understand how it was possible to praise the avenging Justice in the Psalms.[1009]
Thus, there is no doubt that the Psalms were the actual occasion of his discovery and his statement in the Preface of 1545 with regard to the time it occurred is thereby confirmed.[1010]
Luther’s pupil, Conrad Cordatus, in recording the matter in his diary is quite right in emphasising, in Luther’s own words, that the knowledge gained by the incident was: “_Ergo ex fide est iustitia et ex iustitia vita_”;[1011] this is also done in the German Table-Talk, where we find a rather more detailed description of the inference drawn by Luther: “Then I became of another mind and from that moment thought: We are to live as justified by faith, and the Justice of God, which is His attribute, shall save all who believe; these verses will no longer affright the poor sinners and those who are troubled in conscience, but on the contrary comfort them.”[1012]
In the reference made to the event in the Commentary on Genesis (1540), the fact that the just man lives by faith is also placed in the foreground, and in this case we may safely rely on the Commentary though it was not printed till after Luther’s death.[1013] Here we read that it was the knowledge he had acquired “under the enlightenment of the Holy Ghost” that “our life comes from faith” that had “opened out the whole of Scripture to him, and heaven itself.” This, according to the passage in question, was the result of the “anxious work,” which at the outset he had devoted to the comprehension of Romans i. 17. By the use of such an expression as “at the outset,” “_primum_,” the opening word of the whole passage which speaks of his development, he would appear to imply that it was then that the foundation was laid of the great evangelical truth concerning faith. This agrees with the title Mathesius bestows on his notes: “Occasion of the re-birth of the gospel by means of the Doctor.” In the passage in question in the Commentary on Genesis the consoling faith which he had been commissioned to teach is contrasted with the “unbelief” prevalent in Popery, which has lost all experience of this security. “They did not know that unbelief was a sin ... and yet conscience cannot find any real comfort in works. Let us therefore enjoy the blessing of God which is now imparted to us.”
Luther’s utterances so far have referred more to the inward occasion, to the time and the subject-matter of the experience from which the dogma of absolute assurance of salvation took its rise. The statements which follow, on the other hand, refer more to the place where the incident occurred, but they at the same time emphasise more particularly an element which was incidentally connected with it, namely, the inspiration by the Spirit of God.
In Lauterbach’s “Colloquia” (ed. by Bindseil) the account commences with the words: “By the grace of God while thinking on one occasion on this tower [he seems to be pointing with his finger to the very spot] and hypocaustum, over those words: _Iustus ex fide vivit_ ... the Holy Ghost revealed the Scripture to me in this tower.”[1014] In Cordatus’s diary both circumstances are mentioned: “On one occasion on this tower (where the privy of the monks was situated) when I was speculating on the words, etc., the Holy Ghost imparted to me this knowledge on this tower,” i.e. to understand that “Justice comes of faith and life proceeds from Justice.”[1015] The editor, H. Wrampelmeyer, points out the fact that the mention of the “privy” is omitted in the later Table-Talk. In the German Table-Talk the inspiration is mentioned instead: “This knowledge was given to me by the Holy Ghost alone.”[1016] Rebenstock, in his valuable Latin Table-Talk, gives both together: “_in hac turri vel hypocausto_,” and later: “_Hæc verba per Spiritum sanctum mihi revelata sunt_.”[1017] The Lutheran pastor Caspar Khummer, who, in 1554, made a collection of Table-Talk, relates both circumstances (in Lauterbach’s edition): “_Cum semel in hac turri speculabar_,” and further on: “With this knowledge the Holy Ghost inspired me in this cloaca on the tower.”[1018]
The mention of the cloaca explains the entry of Johann Schlaginhaufen in his notes of Luther’s own words in 1532: “This art the _Spiritus sanctus_ infused into me in this Cl.”[1019] Cloaca is abbreviated into Cl., probably because Schlaginhaufen’s copyist, was reluctant to write it out in full alongside of the account of the inspiration which Luther had received from the Holy Ghost; the editor suggests we should read “Capitel”; but the chapter-house is not to be thought of. Strange indeed are the interpretations which have been given, even in recent times, by the unlearned to many of the expressions in our texts. The “_locus secretus_” was supposed to be “a special place allotted to the monks in the tower,” whereas it is clear that the “secret chamber” was simply the closet or privy, a word which occurs often enough in Luther’s later abuse of the Papists. In olden times it was very usual to establish this adjunct on the city wall and its towers, the sewage having egress outside the town boundaries. The buildings on the city wall, of which we hear in connection with Luther’s monastery, were simply this and nothing more.[1020] It has been said that by the word “tower” was meant a spiritual prison, namely, Popery, in which Luther languished until his enlightenment. In the hypocaustum was seen the spiritual sweat-bath in which the Monk was immersed till the time of his liberation by the new doctrine. As a matter of fact the allusion is to a heating apparatus, or warmed space, either below or in front of the privy, some such arrangement being common in monasteries. In his cell Luther had no stove.
We know from Luther’s letters that there was a question in 1519 of allotting some other place outside the walls to the previously existing privy, or of rebuilding it. In the name of the community, Luther, in the middle of May, 1519, requested the Elector for permission to erect a “necessary building outside the walls on the moat,” because the “gentlemen of the Wittenberg Council” delayed giving their sanction.[1021] The result of the request is unknown; as, however, Cordatus, in the passage referring to the tower, makes use of the words: “in which the monks’ privy was,” it would seem at the time he wrote to have been no longer in the tower. The tower, however, remained, otherwise Luther would not have said, as he did, that the event took place on (or in) _this_ tower. An historian of Luther’s Augustinian priory stated in 1883, that, on the eastern side of the monastery, where the localities in question were probably situated, broken drain-pipes were to be seen up to the middle of last (the eighteenth) century.[1022]
We must, therefore, represent the scene of the discovery as the secret chamber, which Luther expressly mentions, situated in a tower on the walls, probably on the eastern flank of the monastery. Constructed against the outer side of the tower, it probably projected over the moat, and, below, or in front of it, was the so-called hypocaustum.
As regards the revelation mentioned in the above passages, it is certain that Luther always traced back the knowledge so acquired to a special revelation, though not indeed to anything like a vision. Those verses on faith composed his “evangel,” and he always declared with regard to this “evangel” that his discovery, made at the cost of so much labour, had been accompanied by a “revelation of the Holy Ghost.”[1023]
He speaks, for instance, of the time when he began to advocate his favourite doctrine as being the time of the “revelation of the evangel.”[1024] In answer to the fanatics who disputed his right to the first place in the new teaching, he defends himself by saying that it was he who “not without the revelation of the Holy Ghost had again brought forward the gospel.” The words contained in his letter to the Elector on his return from the Wartburg express a consciousness of a higher illumination, where he declares that he had received the “evangel, not from men, but solely from heaven through our Lord Jesus Christ.”[1025]
“Such self-reliance almost fills us with anxiety,” says Adolf Harnack, of the latter and other writings. “... We seek in vain in the whole history of the Church for examples of men who could write such letters as that to the Elector, and the writings which Luther composed on the Wartburg. I can quite understand how Catholic critics see in these letters a ‘delirious pride.’ There is no choice except to judge Luther thus or to recognise that his place was an entirely peculiar one in the history of the Christian religion.”[1026] Harnack goes on to quote another extremely self-confident passage from Luther: “It pleased God well to reveal His Son through me,” and then expresses his own opinion on the subject: “Luther’s merit consisted in the circumstance that he was able to express what he had experienced, namely, the equation of the assurance of salvation, and faith”;[1027] his self-reliance, Harnack adds, was the “true expression of a religious freedom such as Clement of Alexandria had painted as the disposition of a true Christian, and such as the mystics of all ages had in their way sought to attain to.”[1028]
Luther’s claim to special illumination must, as hinted before, be restricted to the domain of the aforesaid doctrine of assurance of salvation; the whole of his doctrine did not come to him from God, or at least only by way of the inspiration of the Spirit, which, according to his own statements to be afterwards considered, is common to all well-disposed Christians who make use of Holy Scripture. Döllinger, also, says: This doctrine was the “only one which he really believed he had received by a special revelation of the Holy Ghost.”[1029]
Here again we perceive the fundamental importance attaching to the assurance of salvation as the corner-stone of his development. Unconsciously he had been driven forward to this extremity. Protestants quite rightly have often pointed out that the decisive question for him was: “How can I, a mere single individual, be assured of the forgiveness of sins and thereby of the mercy of God?” “He ventured,” so it has been said, “to throw overboard all doubts as to the doctrine of assurance of salvation and to declare frankly and freely: it is impossible to trust God without being fully assured of redemption and salvation.” “One thing only was still wanting (in his Commentary on Romans), namely, the clear perception of the fact, that the believer not only may be certain of his redemption, but that he must be so.” The mystics helped him finally to arrive at the “joyous sense of trust in God” after he had been through “the hell of a troubled conscience”; thus he was set “free from the last scruples and doubts, and reached the consciousness that he might, nay, must, rest assured of his God.”[1030]
The fact cannot be concealed, that in the above passages concerning the discovery on the tower, which for the most part date from a later period of Luther’s life, there is some obscurity and confusion as to the subject. He says first: the Justice of God, by which God (Christ) is Just, is taught in the New Law and is also indicated in the Psalms, and this Justice of God is reckoned to us as our Justice. Secondly, we lay hold upon it only by faith, and thus our life comes from faith (fiducial faith with assurance of salvation), of which fact we must be joyfully confident. Thirdly: The difficulty caused by the idea of God’s avenging Justice, which weighs down the soul, must therefore be fought against with determination. Of the first of these three elements Luther had made personal experience long before this time; its earliest expression is at the commencement of the Commentary on Romans, also in the well-known letter to Spenlein of April 7, 1516. He had therefore no right to speak of it as forming the subject of his newly acquired knowledge. The second element on the other hand was really new, and gave him the answer to the anxious question: How is the imputed Justice of God to become mine? Not by self-annihilation, not by _humilitas_, not by yearning prayer and other works which hitherto he had proposed as the means, but by faith only which had assured him of “regeneration,” of heavenly revelations, etc. Concerning the third element no more need be said here, however greedily he may have seized the semblance of comfort which the discovery afforded him, passing from the storms of his crisis into what he took to be a safe haven of peace.
The illusory talisman of absolute assurance of salvation was the result of the second stage of his development.
3. Legends. Storm Signals
On looking back in later years upon the course of his spiritual progress in the monastery, Luther was unable to distinguish clearly between the various stages of his development. The incident in the tower, which had left the strongest impression on his memory, drew the first stage more and more into the foreground in his imagination, so that in his accounts he assigns to it an undue prominence to the disadvantage of the two others. Hence the want of clearness noticeable in his statements with regard to the same.
We find not merely obscurity, but actual error, particularly in his account of the traditional interpretation and that which he had himself begun to advocate of the _Iustitia Dei_ (Rom. i. 17). Luther is, in this matter, the originator of the great legend still current even in our own day, which represents him as a Columbus discovering therein the central truth set forth by Paul; no one had been able to find the key to the passage before his glance penetrated to the truth. All the learned men of earlier times had said that _iustitia_ there meant the avenging Justice of an angry God. As a matter of fact, in Luther’s lectures on Genesis in 1540-41,[1031] it is asserted that all the doctors of the Church, with the exception of Augustine, had misunderstood the verses Romans i. 16 f.; Luther’s Preface to his Latin works to some extent presupposes the same, for he says that he had, “according to the custom and use of all doctors” (“_usu et consuetudine omnium doctorum doctus_”), understood the passage as meaning that justice “by which God is Just and punishes sin,” and only Augustine, with whom he had made common cause, had found the right interpretation (“_iustitiam Dei interpretatur, qua nos Deus induit_”), although even the latter did not teach imputation clearly (see above, p. 392).[1032]
“As a matter of fact, however, the exact opposite is the case: all the mediæval doctors whom he studied as a monk, Peter Lombard, Lyra and Paul of Burgos, gave, as can be proved, the same interpretation as Augustine. Thus Luther was completely at sea as to the handling of this, to him most important, passage.”[1033] Luther in his Preface says that contrary to all expectation (“_praeter spem_”) he had, after his own discovery, found in St. Augustine’s “_De spiritu et littera_” an interpretation which agreed with his own, and that this caused him fresh joy, although Augustine expresses himself imperfectly with regard to the same. Denifle, on the other hand, proves by the testimony of more than sixty interpreters of antiquity, that all are unanimous in taking the _iustitia Dei_ in St. Paul in the same sense as St. Augustine, viz. as the Justice by which God renders men just.[1034] The demonstration is conducted with “commendable accuracy and fulness.”[1035]
Luther himself, strange to say, at an earlier date and previous to the Tower incident, had repeatedly employed the correct interpretation. We can only suppose that it then made no impression on him, at any rate, no such impression as the incident on the Tower. He makes use of it with special reference to its older representatives, in the marginal notes to the Sentences of Peter Lombard, 1509-10,[1036] then in the Commentary on the Psalms, and finally even in the Commentary on Romans, where he twice quotes Augustine and even the “_De spiritu et littera_.”
It is true that on these occasions he passes over the passage in the Epistle without displaying any particular interest, i.e. without laying on it the stress he does at a later date. Another difference is also noticeable. Luther has introduced since 1518 an entirely new idea, which he had not before, into his interpretation of the _iustitia Dei_. In it he finds not only that the justice which comes from God justifies us, but that it is bestowed upon us solely and directly by means of a trusting faith, and that thus a “life” in grace is opened up to man of which he must be infallibly certain in his innermost consciousness.
In his accounts, says Loofs, “we have documentary proof of impaired memory.” “It is plain that Luther’s memory, in the course of years, and owing to his ‘_odium papæ_,’ had, as we can well understand, become inaccurate with regard to pre-Reformation conditions.”[1037] The “_odium papæ_” would certainly seem to have been concerned in his placing in the forefront his supposed re-discovery of an exegesis which Popery had forgotten.
Merely in order to throw light on the sequel of the great legend in our own times, we may here remark that it is difficult to understand the displeasure expressed by a modern Church historian and admirer of Luther, when some Protestants dared to agree with Denifle’s lengthy demonstration of the real exegetical history of Romans i. 17. An impartial theologian, amongst others, expressed himself as follows in a periodical: “Denifle has proved beyond a doubt that Luther was wrong when he asserted that the earlier doctors had almost without exception taken the _iustitia Dei_, Rom. i. 17, in the sense of the Divine anger.”[1038] These words roused the admirer we have in mind to reply immediately as follows in the “Theologisches Literaturblatt” of Leipzig: “Does then the writer not perceive what the result must be for Luther’s character?” Of two things, one, he says, either Luther lied, or he acted most unscrupulously and never consulted the earlier doctors.[1039]
The new discovery not only filled Luther with blind courage and defiant presumption in the defence of his previous teaching, but also lent a giant strength to his action as a reformer of ecclesiastical conditions against Rome’s abuses. He now begins to act as a spokesman of the nation and to constitute himself the leader of the already existing anti-Roman movement in Germany.
He now persuades himself more strongly than ever that he is in possession of a truth which is to be suppressed by Italian trickery and imperiousness, if not by “poison and the dagger,” as was being planned in Italy. Rome had ravaged Scripture and the Church, her name should be Babylon: this (Apocalyptic) Beast, this Antichrist, must be exposed before the world, otherwise he might as well surrender his theology and allow it to perish; “I do not care if even my friends say I have lost my reason; it must be so; I have awaited this hour when they should be offended in me, as the disciples and friends of Christ were in Christ (Matt. xxvi. 31; Mark xiv. 27); truth must stand by its divine strength, not by mine or yours or that of any man.”[1040]
“It is only we Germans on whom the Empire descended, who have strengthened the power of the Popes so far as we could. For our punishment we have had to endure them as masters in cursing and abuse, and now as robbers also by means of pallium-fees and taxes on the bishoprics.”[1041]
In the Preface to the Commentary on Galatians he sent forth a call to the Germans and their Princes, which anticipates his later pamphlet “To the Nobility of the German Nation,” in the same way as the ideas contained in his work on the Twofold Justice serve as a prelude to the booklet “On the Freedom of a Christian Man.” “Those godless windbags, Prierias, Cajetan and their fellows, abuse us as German clowns, simpletons, beasts, barbarians, and mock at the incredible patience with which we allow ourselves to be deceived and robbed. All praise therefore to the German Princes for recently [1518], at Augsburg, refusing the tenths, twentieths and fiftieths to the Roman Curia, notwithstanding that they knew the cursed Roman Council [5th of the Lateran] had sanctioned these taxes. They recognised that the Pope and the Council had erred ... that the legates of the Curia are only after gold and more gold. The example of these lay theologians is especially worthy of imitation.... It is a proof of greater piety when the Princes and other folk of any degree oppose the Curia than if they were to take up arms against the Turk.”[1042]
As we shall see, it was not Ulrich von Hutten who first roused Luther to such language against Rome, and to the stirring up of a false patriotism. Hutten’s letters to him, and those of the other Humanists, are of later date, as also the congratulations and exhortations of the Humanist Crotus Rubeanus. It is a legend to attribute the raising of the standard of the Reformation principally to the Humanists and revolutionary knights. The fact that its origin may be traced back to 1521 does not make it one whit more credible historically. The air, in any case, was full of the anti-Roman spirit of revolt breathed by the Humanists and knights. The Wittenberg Monk had become acquainted with this spirit and found it sympathetic. How well it suited his purpose will be shown in the next chapter.
The subversive doctrines which he had now at length fully developed in the quiet of his monastery held the first place among the factors which drove him onwards; in so far as these doctrines were in very truth his own production, born of his own heart and brain amid incredible anxieties and struggles, we may, nay must, say that it was a new and independent task which he undertook, and that his was the labour and his the results. What Luther with his subversive theology propounded from that time forward, what he, with his chief doctrine of justification by faith and the appropriation of salvation, began to set in the place of the old teaching, was “in no way the necessary product of the various factors which had assisted in his education, but rather something new, original and never before known, only to be accounted for by Luther’s own extraordinary genius.”[1043] In this sense the entire lack of originality with which he has frequently been reproached must also be relegated to the domain of legend. In attacking him to-day, the tactics which commended themselves to the older theologians, who knew little of his history, or at any rate of the course of his interior development, should no longer be resorted to. Their plan was to range all his doctrines under some one or other of the older heresies—even though only the germ of his errors was to be found in former ages—and then sapiently to declare he had merely gone about collecting his errors from the various olden heretics. It is quite a different matter that like errors are so frequently met with in history even in most unexpected quarters; it is due to their many-sidedness and to their windings and aberrations. The truth which is vouched for by the Church pursues its own straight, undeviating path, from the earliest disciples of Christ down to our own times, and in its quiet, immutable splendour is infinitely more original than any error, however new and modern it may claim to be.
END OF VOL. I.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Luther_, VON HARTMANN GRISAR, S.J. (Herdersche Verlagshandlung, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1911-12).
[2] “Historien,” Bl. 3´.
[3] Account from the mouth of Luther’s friend, Justus Jonas (_anno_ 1538), made public by P. Tschackert in “Theolog. Studien und Kritiken,” Jahrg., 1897, p. 578.
[4] _Ibid._
[5] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 187.
[6] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 187.
[7] Bei K. Jürgens, “Luther von seiner Geburt his zum Ablassstreite,” l Bd. Leipzig, 1846, p. 522, from the unpublished Cod. chart. bibl. duc. Goth, 168, p. 26. According to Loesche (“Analecta Lutherana,” p. 24, n. 8) this MS. (B. 168) was written in 1553, and may be described as a collection of Luther’s opinions on various persons and things. On page 26 it contains a list entitled “Studia Lutheri.” We shall have occasion to deal with Luther’s entrance into religion in volume vi., chapter xxxvii., 2.
[8] Hier. Dungersheim von Ochsenfurt, Professor of Theology in Leipzig, in a tract published in 1531 in “Aliqua opuscula magistri Hieronymi Dungersheym ... contra M. Lutherum edita,” written in 1530, “Dadelung des ... Bekentnus oder untuchtigen Lutherischen Testaments,” Bl. 14a. (Münchener Universitätsbibliothek, Theol., 3099, n. 552.)
[9] “Hutteni Opp.,” ed. Böcking, 1, p. 309.
[10] “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 4, p. 129; Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 235.
[11] Mathesius, “Historien,” Bl. 3.
[12] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 744, n. 1, p. 31.
[13] _Ibid._, 1, p. 754, n. 2, p. 166.
[14] N. Paulus, “Bartholomäus Arnoldi von Usingen,” Freiburg im Breisgau, 1893.
[15] “Hutteni Opp.,” ed. Böcking, 1, p. 309. Cp. 1, p. 307, ep. 1, “Martino Luthero, amico suo antiquissimo.”
[16] Th. Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation und Johann von Staupitz,” Gotha, 1879, p. 380.
[17] Luther to Spalatinus, July 3, 1526 (see “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 366). To the Elector Johann of Saxony, November 15, 1526: Luther’s “Werke,” Erl. ed. 54, p. 50 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 403). Johann of Saxony to Luther, November 26, 1526; “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 409. Luther to the same, March 1, 1527: “Werke,” Erl. ed. 53, p. 398 (“Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 27). On the three friends mentioned in the text, see A. Hausrath, “Luthers Bekehrung” (“Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher,” 6, 1896, pp. 163-66 ff. and _idem._ “Luthers Leben,” 1, 1904, p. 14 ff.).
[18] Cp. below, p. 16. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 73.
[19] To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.
[20] Letter to the Elector (April or June?, 1540), ed. Seidemann, “Lauterbachs Tagebuch,” p. 197.
[21] In the Preface to Bugenhagen’s (Pomeranus) edition of “Athanasius contra idolatriam,” etc., Wittenbergæ, 1532. He there recalls having read the Dialogue of Athanasius and Arius “with zeal and a glow of faith,” “_primo anno monachatus mei, cum Erfordiæ pædagogus meus monasticus vir sane optimus et absque dubio sub damnato cucullo verus christianus mihi eum sua manu descriptum dedisset legendum_” (Cp. “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100).
[22] Ph. Melanchthonis Vita Lutheri (“Vitæ quattuor reformatorum,” Berolini, 1841), p. 5.
[23] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.
[24] To George Leiffer, April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31. “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” _ibid._
[25] To Leiffer, _ibid._
[26] “Lutheri Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 296.
[27] On Luther’s teachers and studies, see Oertel, “Vom jungen Luther,” p. 105 f.; for Paltz, see N. Paulus in the Innsbruck “Zeitschrift f. kath. Theologie,” 23, 1899, p. 48.
[28] April 22, 1507, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 1.
[29] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 6, p. 158. (Cp. “Colloq.” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 169: “_ita horrui, ut fugissem de altari_,” etc.) Also Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 405.
[30] “Lutheri Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 239; “Werke,” Weim. ed. 8, p. 574.
[31] From Bavarus’s Collection of Table-Talk; the information is received from a sermon of Luther’s preached in 1544. Oertel, “Vom jungen Luther,” p. 93.
[32] F. Falk, “Alte Zeugnisse über Luthers Vater und Mutter und die Möhraer,” in “Histor-polit. Blätter,” 120, 1897, pp. 415-25.
[33] “Lutherbriefe,” Dresden, 1859, p. 11, n.
[34] “Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 292. “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 2, p. 164.
[35] Dungersheim, “Erzeigung der Falschheit des unchristlichen lutherischen Comments usw.,” in “Aliqua opuscula,” p. 15, cited above on p. 4.
[36] Joh. Cochlæus, “Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri,” Mogunt., 1549, p. 1.
[37] Dungersheim, _ut supra_.
[38] “Vita Lutheri,” p. 5 (see above, p. 10, n. 3.).
[39] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 71.
[40] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 364; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 660.
[41] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” p. 19, 100.
[42] _Ibid._
[43] To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 160.
[44] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 240; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 574.
[45] “Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 295, on Hieronymus Weller.
[46] To Hier. Weller, see p. 19, n. 4.
[47] See below, volume vi., cap. xxxvii., where these questions are treated more fully.
[48] The reference in Dungersheim, “Dadelung,” p. 14 (see above, p. 4, n. 3) has been discussed by N. Paulus in the “Histor. Jahrbuch,” 1903, p. 73.
[49] See volume iii., chapter xvii., 6.
[50] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, pp. 28-94.
[51] _Ibid._, pp. 2-14.
[52] _Ibid._, p. 12.
[53] “_Audivi crebrius, nunquam satis pacifice vixisse eum._” So Cochlæus (see above, p. 17, n. 2) in 1524.
[54] J. Oldecop, “Chronik,” ed. K. Euling, 1891, p. 17.
[55] Dungersheim, “Wore Widerlegung des falschen Buchleins M. Lutheri von beyder Gestald des hochwürdigsten Sacraments” (see above, p. 4, n. 3), p. 31´.
[56] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 77.
[57] Ericeus, “Sylvula sententiarum,” p. 142. Cp. J. K. Seidemann, “Luthers älteste Vorlesungen über die Psalmen,” 1, Dresden, 1876, p. xvii. “_Ego adolescens audivi doctos viros et bonos grammaticos_,” etc.
[58] In the tract “Rationis Latomianæ confutatio,” “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 400; Weim. ed., 8, p. 45.
[59] The above description of Luther’s life in the monastery, starting from the strange circumstances of his entrance, has intentionally been left incomplete. Below, in volume vi., chapter xxxvii., the whole development of his character and disposition as it appears more clearly in the course of his history, and at the same time his own later views and his manner of depicting his life in religion, are reverted to in detail.
[60] “Erzeigung der Falschheit,” p. 6.
[61] “Dadelung des Bekenntnus,” p. 15´, 16.
[62] “A venatione Luteriana Ægocerotis assertio,” s.l.e.a.E, 5´.
[63] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 30, p. 372: “Although I have been a great, grievous, shameful sinner and have wasted and spent my youth damnably,” yet his greatest sins were that he had been a monk and had said Mass.
[64] “Commentaria,” etc., p. 1. “_Acer ingenio et ad contradicendum audax et vehemens._”
[65] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 96 f.
[66] For the date and cause, see N. Paulus in the “Histor. Jahrbuch,” 1891, 68 f., 314 f.; 1901, 110 ff.; 1903, 72 ff. Also “Histor.-polit. Blätter,” 142, 1908, 738-52. The year 1510-11, as against that given by Köstlin-Kawerau, viz. 1511-12, is now accepted by Kroker in his edition of the “Tischreden der Mathesischen Sammlung,” p. 417, and by Kawerau in his “Lutherkalender,” 1910.
[67] “Werke,” Erl. ed. 62, p. 438. “Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, 165; “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 4, 687.
[68] “Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 169, and n. 33.
[69] “Werke,” Erl. ed. 40, p. 284.
[70] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 99 f.
[71] “Luthers Romfahrt,” p. 79.
[72] Georgius Mylius, “In Epistolam divi Pauli ad Romanos,” etc., Ienæ, 1595. “Præfatio,” fol. 2´. Cp. Theod. Elze, “Luthers Reise nach Rom,” Berlin, 1899, pp. 3, 45, 80.
[73] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 749 f.
[74] On his own account Paul was only a boy of eleven when he heard this statement from his father; it is therefore very doubtful whether he understood and remembered it correctly. Luther would surely have returned to the subject more frequently had it really played so great a part in his development, especially as he speaks so often of his journey to Rome. O. Scheel in his recent thesis on the development of Luther down to the time of the conclusion of the lectures on the Epistle to the Romans (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch, Nr. 100, Jubiläumsschrift,” 1910, pp. 61-230), quite correctly says: “It is possible that his son, knowing of what importance Romans i. 17 had become for Luther, may at a later date have combined these words with the Roman incident.” In any case, the objections with regard to this incident are so great that little can be made out of it.
[75] Sermo in Vincula S. Petri, hence on August 1. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1 (1883), p. 69.
[76] “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 4, p. 687.
[77] “Chronik,” p. 30.
[78] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 40, p. 284.
[79] This remark only applies to the statement in the text. When Oldecop says he was told in Rome that Luther had come to Rome without the authorisation of his Superiors, this was untrue.
[80] Preface to Oldecop’s “Chronik.”
[81] Cp. George, Duke of Saxony, in the pamphlet published under Arnoldi’s name: “Auf das Schmähbüchlein Luthers wider den Meuchler von Dresden,” 1531 (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25, p. 147), where he thus addresses Luther: “You are hostile to the Pope because, among other reasons, he would not free you from the frock and give you a whore for your wife.” The mention of the frock points to a reminiscence of what actually had taken place. Possibly the Jew is the same Jakob who, in 1520, accepted Luther’s doctrine in Germany and was baptised. Cp. Luther’s “Briefwechsel,” 4, pp. 97, 147.
[82] A proof of this may, e.g., be found in certain statements on marriage made by the jurist Christoph Scheurl, borrowed from his professor Codro Urceo of Bologna, and brought forward in a speech held at Wittenberg, November 16, 1508. A Latin dialogue which the Wittenberg professor Andreas Meinhardi published in 1508 also betrays the influence of those humanistic groups. J. Haussleitner (“Die Universität Wittenberg vor dem Eintritt Luthers,” 1903, pp. 46 f., 84 ff.) attributes the manner of expression and the views of both to the ecclesiasticism of the Middle Ages. Cp. on the other side N. Paulus in the “Wissenschaftl. Beilage” to “Germania,” 1904, No. 10.
[83] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 263; “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 36, n. 5.
[84] Letter of May 29, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 35.
[85] Lang to Mutian, May 2, 1515, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 36, n. 5.
[86] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 14.
[87] Letter of August 5, 1514, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 20.
[88] To Johann Lang, October 5, 1516, and to Spalatin about the same time, “Briefwechsel,” 1, pp. 59, 62.
[89] Letter of March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88.
[90] To Spalatin, October 19, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 64.
[91] Letter of March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88.
[92] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 163; cp. p. 96 ff., and Kolde, “Martin Luther,” 1, pp. 47, 50, 59 f.
[93] Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” I^[18], p. 703; English translation, “Hist. of the German People,” ii., p. 297. See also Pastor, “Hist. of the Popes” (Engl. trans.), vol. vii., p. 290 ff.
[94] _Ibid._
[95] _Ibid._, p. 700.
[96] _Ibid._, p. 703.
[97] Janssen-Pastor, _ibid._, p. 701.
[98] _Ibid._, p. 721.
[99] Janssen-Pastor, _ibid._, pp. 703, 704. The words in single inverted commas are from J. E. Jörg, “Deutschland in der Revolutionsperiode 1522-26,” Freiburg, 1851, p. 191.
[100] Janssen-Pastor, _ibid._, p. 705 f. See below (vol. ii., ch. xiv. 5) what we say regarding the clergy and monasteries at Erfurt.
[101] _Ibid._, p. 712.
[102] _Ibid._, p. 709. On the Synods, see Hefele-Hergenröther, “Konziliengesch.,” vol. viii. Cp. Janssen-Pastor, as above, p. 680 f., and H. Grisar, “Ein Bild aus dem deutschen Synodalleben im Jahrhundert vor der Glaubensspaltung” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1, 1880, pp. 603-40).
[103] Nicolaus de Clemangiis, “_De ruina ecclesiæ_,” c. 22, in Herm. von der Hardt, “_Magnum œcumenicum Constantiense Concilium_,” Helmestad., 1700, 1, 3 col., 23 _sq._; Hefele, as above, 7, pp. 385, 416, 422, 594; 8, p. 97. Ioh. de Segovia, “Hist. syn. Basil.”, Vindob., 1873, 2, p. 774: “_Quia in quibusdam regionibus nonnulli iurisdictionem ecclesiasticam habentes pecuniarios questus a concubinariis percipere non erubescunt, patiendo eos in tali fœditate sordescere._”
[104] Cp. on the “courtisans,” Janssen-Pastor, _ibid._, pp. 715-18.
[105] Cp. Janssen-Pastor, _ibid._, p. 743.
[106] Jos. Schmidlin, “Das Luthertum als historische Erscheinung” (“Wissenschaftl. Beilage” to “Germania,” 1909, Nos. 13-15), p. 99 f. Cp. Albert Weiss, “Luther und Luthertum” (in Denifle’s 2nd vol.), p. 34 ff.
[107] Schmidlin, as above. Also Albert Weiss, as above, p. 108, allows: “The conditions of things at the commencement of the sixteenth century were such that their continuance was clearly impossible, and it was easy to predict a catastrophe.... The abuses were great and had become in some cases intolerable, so that we can understand how many lost courage, patience and confidence.... It is true that everything was not corrupt, but the good there was was too feeble to struggle with success against the evil.” Nevertheless, in the genesis of the movement which led to the falling away from the Church, in spite of the more favourable view of the conditions which Weiss elsewhere takes, the real abuses in the Church, even in his own account, play a prominent part. That Luther’s work was not “necessary in view of the moral corruption” (p. 6), and that it “did not follow as an inevitable result” of the same (p. 37), but, on the contrary, was merely facilitated by circumstances, will be granted him by all who review the period with an unprejudiced mind.
[108] Lib. 1, c. 67, ed. Venet., 1560, fol. 90´, col. 1: “_Heu, Domine Deus, quia ipsi sunt in tua persecutione primi, qui videntur in ecclesia tua primatum diligere et regere principatum._”
[109] Cap. 39 _sq._ in Herm. von der Hardt, “_Magnum œcum. Constant. Concil._,” 1, 3, col. 41 _sq._
[110] The author has thought it necessary to keep within limits in treating of the state of those times in order not to be led too far from Luther’s own personality. In the course of the work, the circumstances of the time and the prevailing social conditions, so far as they had a determining influence on Luther, will be considered in their own place. Such a separate treatment may, at the same time, acquaint one better with the facts than if a long and exhaustive review of the public conditions were to be given here. With regard to the history of the preliminaries of the schism there already exist many works dealing either generally with those times or with various subjects and districts; these works, however, vary much in merit. While mentioning these we would merely in passing utter a warning against generalisations and _a priori_ constructions; especially must we be on our guard against either looking at things in so dark a light as to make Luther’s intervention appear absolutely necessary, or judging too favourably of the conditions previous to the religious struggle. In the latter case we come into collision on the one hand with numerous data which reveal with absolute certainty the existence of great corruption in the Church, and, on the other hand, we lose sight of the causes which alone offer a satisfactory historical explanation of the great spread of the schism. Luther himself—and it was this which decided us to abbreviate our survey—before the public dispute commenced, was far from possessing, in his quiet cloister, so clear a view of the conditions of the time as a learned historian is now able to obtain. The great world of Germany and Europe did not, as we know, reveal itself so clearly to the Monk and Professor as the little world of Wittenberg, and his few months of travel did not make him a judge of the world and of men. The dark and bright elements of ecclesiastical and popular life were seen by him only superficially and partially. In laying more stress on some traits than on others, he allowed himself to be influenced less by any weighing of actual facts than by his ardent feelings. Certain features of the times appear to have remained quite strange to him, notwithstanding the fact that in more recent descriptions of the influences at work in him, they are made to play a great part: so, for instance, Gallicanism with its anti-monarchical conception of the Church, or the philosophy of the ultra-realists. With respect to Nominalism, more particularly in its Occamistic form, and to mysticism, the case is absolutely different. This will, however, be discussed below (chaps. iv.-v.).
[111] On June 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 41.
[112] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 444.
[113] “Werke,” _ibid._, 3, p. 170.
[114] “Werke,” _ibid._, 3, p. 216.
[115] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 17.
[116] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 23 ff.
[117] Wilhelm Braun (“Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” Berlin, 1908) commences chapter ii. (“Luther’s Experience in the Monastery,” p. 19) as follows: “It is impossible to speak in the strict sense of any religious experience which Luther had in the monastery. It was no catastrophe which, with elemental force, brought about the Reformer’s change. Any dramatic element is entirely wanting. There was in his case no Damascus. It is a useless task to attempt, as has been done again and again, to determine the year and the day on which the actual reforming flame burnt up in Luther’s soul.” The author puts on one side Köstlin-Kawerau’s long descriptions of the gradual ripening of the Reformer, his early comprehension of the Pauline writings, due to his inward struggles, etc. He declares Luther’s life “cannot be written so long as the beginnings of the Reformer and the growth of his tenets have not yet been made clear. That we are here still in the dark is proved, with regard to Luther’s psychology, by his latest Biographies.” This Protestant theologian, who works more independently than others, is quite resigned, “in view of the multitude of open questions raised by Luther’s early development, to see the fruits and tangible results of Luther research ripen slowly. Our most pressing duty is,” he says rightly, “to supply the material while deprecating rash conclusions”; without an acquaintance with the theology of the Middle Ages there is no possibility of understanding Luther: “in this respect Denifle’s ‘Luther und Luthertum’ furnished a wholesome though painful lesson to Protestant theologians” (p. v. f.).
[118] J. K. Seidemann, “Luthers erste und älteste Vorlesungen über die Psalmen, 1513 bis 1516,” 2 volumes, Dresden, 1876. Cp. Hering in “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 1877, p. 633 ff.; G. Kawerau’s edition of Luther’s works, Weim. ed., volumes iii. and iv., also volume ix., pp. 116-21. He gives the title better, viz. “_Dictata super Psalterium_.”
[119] “Anfänge reformatorischer Bibelauslegung.” Ed. by Joh. Ficker, 1 volume. “Luthers Vorlesung über den Römerbrief, 1515-16,” Leipzig, 1908. See below, chapter vi., 1.
[120] Kawerau’s edition in the Weim. ed., volume iv. According to the editor Luther commenced the lectures in 1516; Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,”¹ prefers the year 1517; in the 2nd ed. the year 1518. Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. 47 ff.; 1², p. x. f. Walther Köhler in “Die Christl. Welt,” 1904, p. 203, says: “Denifles scharfsinnige Erörterung über die angeblichen Vorlesungen zum Richterbuch wird, denke ich, im wesentlichen Beifall finden. Es ist ihm hier die glückliche Entdeckung gelungen, dass ganze Stücke angeblich Lutherschen Eigentums wörtliche Entlehnungen aus Augustin sind.”
[121] See Ficker, “Luthers Vorlesung über den Römerbrief,” p. 29 ff.
[122] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, and “Opp. lat. var.,” 1.
[123] Cp. Th. Brieger, “Die Gliederung der 95 Thesen Luthers” (in the “Festschrift” in honour of Max Lenz), with “Studien und Versuchen zur neueren Geschichte,” 1 Abh.
[124] The writings and theses referred to appear in the two first volumes of the Weim. ed. and of the “Opp. lat.” The “Theologia Deutsch” has recently been reprinted by Mandel (1908) from Luther’s text.
[125] See below, chapter vi., 2 ff.
[126] See below, chapter x., 1-2.
[127] W. Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” p. 22: “We learn nothing of the dispute then going on between the Conventuals and the Observantines, the laxer and stricter exponents of the monastic Rule; and yet Luther may have experienced their differences in his own person; his second removal from Erfurt to Wittenberg in 1511 was perhaps a disciplinary act, because he and Lang stood on the side of Staupitz and against the Erfurt Council. Probably Luther went to Rome about this very matter.” Concerning his removal and journey to Rome, see above, pp. 29, 38. We learn, it is true, no details about the dispute between the monasteries, and this is perhaps what Braun means; but its continuance is, to my mind, apparent from Luther’s statements, as well as from the leading part he took against the Observantines. Ficker (“Luthers Vorlesung über den Römerbrief,” 1908, p. xcvii.) only mentions the Observantines cursorily, saying that Luther did not seem much attached to them. Hering (“Theolog. Studien und Kritiken,” 1877, p. 627) offers little of interest.
[128] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 61.
[129] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 155.
[130] _Ibid._, 4, p. 312. Note “_bonitas fidei_” (= Christian righteousness), “_veritas fidei_” (= Christian truth), “_iustitiæ fidei substantia_” (= essence of Christian righteousness).
[131] _Ibid._, 4, p. 122.
[132] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 675; 1, p. 44.
[133] Köstlin, “Martin Luther,” 1², p. 125. In the 5th edition by Köstlin and Kawerau (vol. i., p. 122) the disapproving comment of Köstlin’s was suppressed.
[134] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 423.
[135] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 424.
[136] _Ibid._, p. 425.
[137] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 42, where he explains Psalm iv. 1 (_Cum invocarem exaudivit me Deus iustitiæ meæ_) as follows and underlines same (his grandson Johann Ernst Luther has added in the margin: “_Locus illustris de iustificatione_”): “_Vide quam vera et pia est ista confessio, quæ_ NIHIL SIBI DE MERITIS ARROGAT. _Non enim ait ‘cum multa fecissem, vel opere, ore aut aliquo meo membro meruissem,’ ut intelligas, eum_ NULLAM IUSTITIAM ALLEGARE, _nullum meritum iactare, nullam dignitatem ostentare, sed_ NUDAM ET SOLAM MISERICORDIAM DEI _et benignitatem gratuitam extollere, quæ nihil in eo invenit_.”
[138] Cp. _ibid._, 3, pp. 172, 288, 355, 439, 514; and 4, p. 19, etc. Hunzinger, who quotes these and other passages, says: “He warns much against our own works and desire to gain merit” (“Luther und die deutsche Mystik,” in “Neue kirchl. Zeitschrift,” 19, 1908, Hft. 11, pp. 972-88, p. 978).
[139] Weim. ed., 3, p. 537 ff. on Psalm lxxvi.
[140] _Ibid._, p. 549: “_Inde et mihi_ [_psalmus_ lxxvi.] _difficilis, quia extra compunctionem sum et loquor de compunctione_”; in such matters one must be able “_intus sentire_”; “_igitur quia meæ compunctionis practica non possum, declarabo eum_ [_psalmum_] _ad exemplum et ex practica B. Augustini_ (‘Confess.,’ 1, 8).”
[141] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 331 f.
[142] _Ibid._, 4, p. 78.
[143] _Ibid._, 4, p. 306 f.
[144] _Ibid._, p. 312.
[145] _Ibid._, 3, p. 541. “_Non in viribus nostris et iustitiis operemur, sed opera Dei discamus operari ... Eruditus_ [_psalmi auctor_] _concludit, opera Dei non esse, nisi quæ Deus in nobis operetur. Quare iustitiæ et opera nostra coram eo nihil sunt, ideoque opera exterioris iustitiæ non sunt opera Dei_,” p. 542: “_Omnia ista_ (Ps. lvi. 13) _dicuntur contra superbos et iustos apud se, qui meditantur, quomodo sua opera statuant et suas adinventiones exerceant_.” He therefore blames them: “_Foris ambulant in carne et carnali iustitia_,” etc. Cp. _ibid._, 4, p. 281 against “_proprietarii iustitiæ_” who, in exchange for good works, have taken out righteousness on lease.
[146] Weim. ed., 4, p. 443. Cp. _ibid._, 3, pp. 174, 178, where Romans i. 17, “_Iustitia Dei revelatur in eo_ [_evangelio_],” is quoted with the correct traditional meaning.
[147] _Ibid._, 4, p. 383. The passage reminds one of the “_esto peccator et pecca fortiter_,” which will be referred to later. It reads: “_Æquum est infirmari secundum carnem, ut inhabitet in nobis virtus Christi_ (2 Cor. xii. 9) _in homine interiori_. ÆQUUM EST INIUSTOS ET PECCATORES FIERI, _ut iustificetur Deus in sermonibus suis_ (Ps. l. 6): _quia non venit iustos vocare sed peccatores_ (Matt. ix. 13), _id est ut iustitia nostra agnoscatur nihil esse nisi peccatum et pannus menstruatæ_ (Is. lxiv. 6), _ac sic potius iustitia Christi regnet in nobis, dum per ipsum et in ipso confidimus salvari, non ex nobis, ne auferamus ei nomen, quod est Jhesus, id est Salvator_.”
[148] Cp. Weim. ed., 3, pp. 290, 284.
[149] _Ibid._, p. 172.
[150] _Ibid._, 3, p. 320 ff.; 4, p. 300 ff., 312.
[151] _Ibid._, 4, p. 325.
[152] Weim. ed., p. 343: “_omnes sumus massa perditionis et debitores mortis æternæ_.”
[153] _Ibid._, p. 354.
[154] Cp. _ibid._, 4, p. 207.
[155] _Ibid._, p. 497.
[156] _Ibid._, p. 383.
[157] _Ibid._, p. 211.
[158] _Ibid._, 3, p. 171: “_Quod ex nullis operibus peccata remittuntur, sed sola misericordia Dei non imputantis._” Cp. p. 175.
[159] Cp. on Concupiscence, in the Commentary on the Psalms, Denifle, 1², p. 441 f. and pp. 453, 476. A. Hunzinger, “Lutherstudien,” 1; “Luthers Neuplatonismus in den Psalmvorlesungen,” Leipzig, 1906, Preface: “Denifle’s ‘Luther’ is correct; Luther during the first years of his literary activity stood on Catholic ground; nor is it by any means the case that from the beginning the reforming element was contained in germ in Luther’s theology.” On the other hand, the elements which were to lead him to take the step from the obscure theology of the Commentary on the Psalms to the heretical theology of 1515-16—viz. his false mysticism and misapprehension of the Epistle to the Romans—were already present. The most suspicious passage in the Commentary on the Psalms is 4, p. 227, which points to the continuance of his doubts regarding predestination; he says that Christ had drunk of the chalice of suffering for the elect, but not for all. See the next note, especially the first quotation.
[160] Weim. ed., 4, p. 295: “_Anima mea est in potestate mea et in libertate arbitrii possum eam perdere vel salvare eligendo vel reprobando legem tuam_.” Concupiscence has not yet become original sin itself, but is still a mere relic of the same (3, pp. 215, 453). Köstlin, in “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 66, quotes other passages from the Commentary on the Psalms, thus, 3, p. 584: God is more ready to have mercy on us than we are to beseech Him; but He is unable to have mercy on us if our pride proves a hindrance (“_quando nos nolumus ... prohibente nostra superbia_”). In his marginal notes on Peter Lombard (written 1509) Luther had rightly said: “_Liberum arbitrium damnatur quia ... gratiam ... oblatam et exhibitam non acceptat vel acceptam non custodit._” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 71.
[161] Weim. ed., 3, p. 546: “_Desideriis ait apostolus, carnis non esse obediendum, nec regnare peccatum debere licet esse desideria et peccata in carne prohiberi non possit.... In mediis tentationibus eundum est_, as the Israelites passed through the Red Sea. _Sentiri et videre et experiri oportet bonitates et malitias carnis, sed non consentire._”
[162] _Ibid._, 3, p. 603: “_Residuum præteritorum bonorum_ [of the original state] _quod in affectu remansit syntheresico_.” On the syntheresis and Luther’s early views on this subject see Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 51 f., 125.
[163] Weim. ed., 4, p. 295, cp. above, p. 74, n. 9.
[164] _Ibid._, 3, pp. 89, 101, 200; 4, p. 204 f., 309.
[165] _Ibid._, 4, pp. 262, 309.
[166] _Ibid._, pp. 262, 312.
[167] _Ibid._, 3, pp. 52, 189, 239 f., 424, 462, 466, 603.
[168] _Ibid._, 4, p. 250.
[169] _Ibid._, 3, pp. 426, 239.
[170] Weim. ed., 3, p. 289. Cp. _Ibid._, 4, pp. 329, 312: “_ex pacto et promissione Dei_.”
[171] “Dogmengesch.,”^[4] (1906), p. 697 with ref. to “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 443: “_sine merito redimi de peccatis_,” and similar passages.
[172] “Luther und die deutsche Mystik,” p. 976, above, p. 71, n. 4.
[173] “Lutherstudien,” 1. See above, p. 74, n. 8.
[174] Hunzinger thus sums up his results in “Luther und die deutsche Mystik,” p. 975.
[175] Veit Dietrich MS. Collecta, fol. 137´ in Seidemann, “Luthers erste Psalmenvorlesung,” 1, p. vii.
[176] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 29. _Ibid._, “In Augustinum,” pp. 7, 23, 24, 27.
[177] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 26 f., probably not meant seriously by Luther.
[178] “Luthers ungedruckte Predigten,” ed. G. Buchwald, 3, 1885, p. 50.
[179] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 121.
[180] Johann Mensing O.P., “Antapologie,” Frankfurt, 1533, fol. 18´. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe mit Luther,” 1903, p. 40.
[181] Cp. Evers, “Luther,” 1, p. 377.
[182] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 30 f.: “_Semper prædico de Christo, gallina nostra ... et efficitur mihi errans et falsum._” He preached, namely, against those “_qui ab alis_ [_Domini_] _recedunt in sua propria bona opera ... et nolunt audire, quod iustitiæ eorum peccata sint. Gratiam maxime impugnant, qui eam iactant_.” The expression “_gallina nostra_” appears also in the Commentary on the Psalms (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 71).
[183] To Spalatin, June 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 40.
[184] Cp. his reproaches against members of his own Order with regard to disobedience and want of charity, which will be given shortly.
[185] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 61.
[186] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 62, Fragment.
[187] _Ibid._, p. 63. (_Sermo contra opinionem sanctitatis et meriti._)
[188] _Ibid._, p. 70. (_Sermo de vitiis capitalibus in merito operum et opinione sanctitatis se efferentibus._)
[189] _Ibid._, p. 73. Line 25 should read “_in fine quia_” not “_in fine qui_”; and line 28 “_in Deo quieti_” not “_ac Deo quieti_.” The edition elsewhere leaves much to be desired.
[190] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 10: “_Scatet totus orbis imo inundat ... doctrinam sordibus._” The doubts as to the authenticity of this sermon do not deserve attention.
[191] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 118. Extracts from the first of the Christmas sermons of 1515 (or 1514).
[192] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 128 _seq._
[193] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 129.
[194] Seidemann, “Luthers Vorlesungen über die Psalmen,” 1, p. 211; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 319.
[195] To Joh. Lang, Prior at Erfurt, February 8, 1517. “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 86: “_Nihil ita ardet animus, quam histrionem illum, qui tam vere Græca larva ecclesiam lusit, multis revelare ignominiamque eius cunctis ostendere_.” De Wette has the letter incorrectly dated February 8, 1516.
[196] Letter to Trutfetter, May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 187.
[197] “Corpus Reform.,” 3, p. 154, n. 83. O. Waltz erroneously questions this statement in “Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch.,” 2, 1878, p. 628. Cp. 3, 1879, 305.
[198] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 110 f.
[199] Preface to his first edition: “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 153.
[200] “Correspondence,” 1, p. 75.
[201] Letter of April 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 29. (De Wette dates it April 7.)
[202] “Luther never became by his diligent study of Tauler a mystic in the strict sense of the word. He makes his own merely the language of mysticism. He often uses the same expressions as Tauler, but with another meaning, indeed he even unconsciously imputes to Tauler his own views,” H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 35 (omitted in the 2nd edition, 1910).
[203] September (?), 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 54 ff.
[204] To Spalatin, about October 5, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 62.
[205] _Ibid._
[206] To Spalatin, October 19, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 63. Spalatin took his advice, as his letter to Erasmus (“Opp. Erasmi,” ed. Lugd. Bat., 3, col. 1579 _sq._) shows. The letter is also printed in “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 65.
[207] See below, chapter vi., p. 1 ff.
[208] H. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.,” 4, 1906, p. 702 ff.
[209] “Cod. Vat. Palat. 1826,” fol. 77; Denifle, 1², “Quellenbelege,” p. 313 f.; “Scholia to Romans” (Ficker), p. 2.
[210] Fol. 121´ and 122. “Scholia to Rom.,” p. 73: “(_Iusti_) _gemunt et implorant gratiam Dei ... credunt semper, se esse peccatores.... Sic humiliantur sic plorant, sic gemunt, donec perfecte sanentur, quod fit in morte.... Si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus_ (1 Io., i. 8).... _Confisi se iam habere gratiam Dei omittunt sua secreta rimari, tepescunt cotidie_,” etc. The passage is a continuation of that quoted by Denifle-Weiss, “Luther,” 1², p. 463, n. 10, and makes the latter appear in a different sense somewhat more favourable to the righteous.
[211] Fol. 230 ff. “Scholia to Rom.,” p. 241 f., in Denifle, 1², “Quellenbelege,” p. 329.
[212] _Ibid._
[213] _Ibid._, “Scholia to Rom.,” p. 243.
[214] Fol. 104. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 465, n. 1; “Schol. to Rom.,” p. 44. Cp. the passage fol. 152 Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 527, n. 1; “Schol. to Rom.,” p. 121, where Luther’s addition, omitted by Denifle, sums up everything: “_Ideo omnes in iniquitate id est iniustitia nascimur, morimur, sola autem reputatione miserentis Dei per fidem verbi eius iusti sumus._”
[215] Fol. 159. “Schol. to Rom.,” p. 132, where he reproves those “_qui nimium securi incedunt per Christum, non per fidem, quasi sic per Christum salvandi sint, ut ipsi nihil operentur, nihil exhibeant de fide. Hi nimiam habent fidem, immo nullam. Quare utrumque fieri oportet ‘per fidem,’ ‘per Christum,’ ut in fide Christi, omnia, quæ possumus, faciamus atque patiamur; et tamen iis omnibus servos inutiles nos agnoscamus, per Christum solum sufficientes nos confidamus ad accessum Dei. Omnibus enim operibus fidei id agitur, ut Christo et iustitiæ eius refugio ac protectione digni efficiamur._”
[216] Fol. 190. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 518, n. 1; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 165 f.
[217] Fol. 173. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 156, he says of the text: “_ut destruatur corpus peccati_” (Rom. vi. 6): “_Destrui corpus peccati est concupiscentias carnis et veteris hominis frangi laboribus pœnitentiæ et crucis, ac sic de die in diem minui eas ac mortificari, ut Col. iii._ (v. 5). _’Mortificate membra vestra, quæ sunt super terram.’ Sicut ibidem clarissime describit utrunque hominem novum et veterem._”
[218] Fol. 100 and 100’. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 38 f.; Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 44, n. 1, where, however (line 9), the Vatican copy reads rightly “_potuit_,” not “_oportuit_”; line 11 should read “_summum ens, quod_.” Both are correct in Ficker. The words “_legem impleverunt_,” line 15, really belong to another passage.
[219] Fol. 132’. To supplement the quotation (Denifle-Weiss, 1, p. 468), which is incompletely quoted, I have taken from the Vatican MS. (Ficker, “Scholia to Rom.,” p. 89) the following: “_Qui autem sic timuerit et humiliter confessus fuerit, dabitur ei gratia ut iustificetur et dimittatur peccatum, si quid forte per occultam et ignoratam incredulitatem fecerit. Sic Iob verebatur omnia opera sua. Et Apostolus non sibi conscius fuit, et tamen non in hoc se iustificatum putat. Ac per hoc soli Christo iustitia relinquitur, soli ipsi opera gratiæ et spiritus; nos autem semper in operibus legis, semper iniusti, semper peccatores, secundum illud Ps._ xxxi. (v. 6): ‘_Pro hac orabit ad te omnis sanctus._’” There follows an invective against the proud man: “_qui se credere putat et omnem fidem possidere perfecte_.”
[220] Fol. 154. “Scholia Rom.,” p. 124. The saints begged for forgiveness because in them “_peccatum manifestum est cum ipsis, apud se ipsos et in conscientia sua.... Ne desperent misericordiam in Christo invocant et ita exaudiuntur. Hæc est sapientia abscondita in mysterio._” He concludes: our righteousness is unknown to us, “_quia in ipso et consilio eius (Dei) tota pendet_.”
[221] Passages in Denifle-Weiss, l², p. 470 ff.; p. 482 ff. Cp. p. 442 ff.
[222] Fol. 144´. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 455, n. 4, and p. 482, n. 3; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 108 ff.
[223] Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 457 ff.
[224] “Scholia to Rom.,” p. 109.
[225] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 75.
[226] Thus “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 414 and 731; 4, p. 691; 7, pp. 110 and 344; 8, p. 93. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15, p. 54; 16, p. 141; 63, p. 131; “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 2, p. 42; 4, p. 391; etc. Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 461. He may in time have come to believe the words were really Augustine’s.
[227] Ficker, p. xli. and xxix.
[228] Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 457 ff., on the whole question; he also points out two other falsifications of Augustine’s views committed by Luther.
[229] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 108.
[230] Cp. Denifle, 1, pp. 458, 502 ff.
[231] Fol. 144´. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 455, n. 4; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 109. The continuation of this passage, which is not without importance, is: “_Ita mecum pugnavi, nesciens quod remissio quidem vera sit, sed tamen non sit ablatio peccati._”
[232] Fol. 153´. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 124: “_Igitur ex quo Dei præceptum implere non possumus ac per hoc semper iniusti merito sumus, nihil restat, [quam] ut iudicium semper timeamus et pro remissione iniustitiæ, immo pro nonimputatione oremus; quia nunquam remittitur omnino, sed manet et indiget non imputatione._” Of the true Catholic doctrine, _re_ the inability of man and God’s grace, Denifle treats very well (1, pp. 416-27).
[233] Fol. 193. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 508, n. 1; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 183.
[234] _Ibid._
[235] J. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 215. Cp. 2, p. 124.
[236] Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 509; Köstlin, 2², p. 50, quotes, amongst others, Luther’s later thesis that mere human reason can only take for good what is evil.
[237] Fol. 77. Denifle, 1² “Quellenbelege,” p. 313; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 1.
[238] Fol. 75´. Vatican MS. of Commentary on Hebrews; Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 528, n. 2.
[239] Fol. 153´. “Rom. Schol.,” p. 123: in the continuation of passage quoted by Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 503, n. 5: “_Non potest intus sine misericordia Dei iustus esse, quum sit fomite corruptus.... Quæ iniquitas non invenitur in credentibus et gementibus quia succurit eis Christus de plenitudine puritatis suæ et tegit eorum hoc imperfectum._”
[240] Fol. 153. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 503, n. 5; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 123.
[241] Fol. 153. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 123: “_Patet quod nullum est peccatum veniale ex substantia et natura sua sed nec meritum._”
[242] Fol. 153´. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 124: “_Dicis, ut quid ergo merita sanctorum adeo prædicantur. Respondeo, quod non sunt eorum merita, sed Christi in eis._”
[243] Fol. 121, 121´; Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 453; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 73 f.
[244] On Predestination see below, chapter vi. 2.
[245] Assertions in this sense lightly made by Cochlæus and Emser were accepted as true by later writers, such as Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius in his “_Confutatio prolegomenorum Brentii_”; thus the legend finds acceptance even among recent polemics. Emser only said, “he was now beginning to suspect” that Luther had come forward because there was “nothing to be made out of the indulgence business for you (Luther) or your party, and because Tetzel and his followers instead of your party were entrusted with the indulgence business.” “_A venatione Luteriana Ægocerotis assertio_,” fol. c., November, 1519. Cochlæus meant his accusation rather more seriously, but brings forward no proofs.
[246] “_Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam Lutheri_,” 1532, p. 447, in “Erasmi Opp.” t. 10, Lugd., Batav., 1706, p. 1555: “_Si tollas ... quæ illi conveniunt cum I. Hus et I. Wiclevo aliisque nonnullis, fortasse non multum restabit, quo veluti proprio glorietur._”
[247] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, pp. 292, 334. Cp. W. Köhler, “Luther und die Kirchengesch.,” (1900), p. 168 f.
[248] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 315.
[249] W. Köhler, _ibid._, p. 225: “In his acquaintance with the sources Luther hardly rises above the average. Eck is superior to him in this point, for he deals with the various sources as an expert, which Luther never was. Emser also was not behind Luther ... that Luther became acquainted with Hus’s ‘_De Ecclesia_’ at an earlier period than his friends and adversaries was due to the kindness of the Bohemians, not to his own zeal in research. His friends as well as his adversaries made haste to catch up with him again.”
[250] “Concerning Eck’s latest Bulls.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 28; Weim. ed., 6, p. 591. Cp. Luther’s “Prefaces and epilogues to some letters of Hus” (1536 and 1537), “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 59 ff., and “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 536 _seq._
[251] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 81. See W. Köhler, _ibid._, p. 167: “We may well ask here whether the experience of later years does not come in as well.”
[252] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 80 f.; 24², p. 27 f.; Weim. ed., 6, p. 590 f.
[253] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 591. See above, p. 25.
[254] Köhler, “Luther und die Kirchengesch.,” p. 226, and “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 216.
[255] “Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 240 f.
[256] Cp. Köhler, p. 165 f., from “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 185; _ibid._, p. 223: “It is certain that Luther had read nothing of Wiclif’s.”
[257] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 152.
[258] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 152.
[259] Denifle has shown from a large number of passages which Luther knew, that the Church at that time represented “God the Lord always as a merciful and gracious God, not as the stern judge” whom it was necessary “to propitiate by works” (Denifle, 1², p. 400 ff., pp. 420, 421).
[260] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 49, p. 315.
[261] “Literar. Beilage” to the “Köln. Volksztg.,” No. 44, October 29, 1903. “Luthers Selbstzeugnisse über seine Klosterzeit, eine Lutherlegende.”
[262] Various passages which are supposed to prove Luther’s moral faults, or defects in his character, have simply been passed over in the above as insufficient. Thus what he says regarding his state in the monastery: “Even where it was only a question of a small temptation of death or sin, I fell” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 279). This “fall,” according to the context, does not refer to a yielding to the attacks of evil desires, but the ostensible melting away of his trust in a merciful God. It is quite apparent that “a temptation of death” cannot be understood in the former, but only in the latter sense. Luther once says that the doctrine that sin is expelled all at once and that grace is infused also all at once in justification drives a man to despair, as his own experience teaches; for it is clear that sin dwells in the heart together with good, anger with mildness, sensuality with chastity (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 664; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 73 _seq._); but he refers this whole explanation not to actual giving way to concupiscence, but simply to the inevitable continuance of concupiscence in the righteous, which he, it is true, calls sin. We may also mention here the text wrongly quoted in which, as a proof of his haughty bearing, speaking of a certain theological interpretation, he says: “_legi mille auctores_,” though he was then but a young man (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 62; gloss to the Sentences). What he really says is: “_lege mille auctores_,” i.e. you will not find it otherwise in a thousand writers; the “_legi_” is only a misprint.
The statement which has been quoted as a proof of the self-deception which his pride engendered in him, viz. that God had placed him in his office as one quite “invincible,” rests on a similar misprint. Instead of “_invictissimum_,” as in Enders (“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 21), we should read “_invitissimum_,” according to W. Walther’s correct rendering, and the idea is one which often recurs in Luther, viz. that God had called him to the office in spite of his disinclination. Nor can his want of the spirit of prayer be proved by his statement that he often followed the office with so much distraction that “the Psalm or the Hour (Hora) was ended before I noticed whether I was at the beginning or in the middle” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 23, p. 22). If he were speaking of voluntary inattention, that would be something different, but the imagination of one so much occupied as he was might well be greatly distracted quite unintentionally.
[263] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 295. Cp. _ibid._, 9, p. 112, Luther’s marginal note on Anselm’s “_Opuscula_,” which has the same meaning: Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 507, n. 3.
[264] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 262: “_Recte dicunt Doctores, quod homini facienti quod in se est infallibiliter dat gratiam et licet non de condigno sese possit ad gratiam præparare, quia est incomparabilis_ (correct view of the supernatural) _tamen bene de congruo propter promissionem istam Dei et pactum misericordiæ_.” The best Scholastics, however, rightly questioned the “_de congruo_.” The proposition “_Facienti_,” etc., with “_infallibiliter dat_” instead of the usual “_non denegat_” is nominalistic (Denifle, 1¹, p. 556 f.; cp. pp. 407, 415).
[265] Besides the former passage, see for “_congrue se disponere_,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 329. Though Luther emphasises at the same time the _gratis esse_ of grace, yet Loofs (“Dogmengesch.,” 4, p. 700) is not altogether wrong, having regard for Luther’s nominalistic views, in saying: “we must at least consider his opinion at that time as crypto-semi-Pelagian.” He is rightly indignant with Köstlin (“Luthers Theologie,”² p. 67 f.) for having “attempted to conform these passages with Luther’s later views.”
[266] Fol. 100. Denifle, 1¹, p. 414, n. 5; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 38: “_per sui præparationem ad eandem, quantum in se est_.”
[267] Fol. 100. Denifle, 1¹, p. 414, n. 4; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 37.
[268] Fol. 212. Denifle-Weiss, 1, p. 508, n. 2; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 212: “_habita autem gratia, (arbitrium) proprie factum est liberum, saltem respectu salutis_.”
[269] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 103; Loofs, p. 708.
[270] Cp. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 107.
[271] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 388.
[272] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15, p. 53 f.
[273] _Ibid._, 27, p. 180 f.; Weim. ed., 7, p. 24, Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen, 1520.
[274] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 374. See below, chapter viii. 3.
[275] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 35; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 64: “_Si cognoscatur, quod nullis consiliis, nullis auxiliis nostris concupiscentia ex nobis possit auferri, et hæc contra legem est, quæ dicit ‘Non concupisces’ et experimur omnes invincibilem esse concupiscentiam penitus, quid restat, nisi ut sapientia carnis cesset et cedat, desperet in semetipsa, pereat et humiliata aliunde quærat auxilium, quod sibi præstare nequit?_.
[276] In Comm. on Epistle to the Rom., fol. 167; quoted by Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 476, n. 2; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 144 f.
[277] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 207; 3, p. 535.
[278] “Werke”, Erl. ed., 58, p. 382; Table-Talk.
[279] To George Spenlein, April 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 29: “_anima tua, pertæsa propriam iustitiam, discat in iustitia Christi respirare atque confidere_,” etc.; see above, p. 89.
[280] See above, p. 83.
[281] “Disputation of Bartholomew Bernhardi”; “Werke,” Weim. ed., p. 145 ff.
[282] “Disputation of Franz Günther”; _ibid._, p. 224 ff., Nos. 37, 25.
[283] To Johann Lang, March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 88. He will not be one: “_qui arbitrio hominis nonnihil tribuit_.”
[284] The Seven Penitential Psalms; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 158 ff., especially pp. 160, 201, 211, 213, 219. For “pains of hell” cp. _ibid._, p. 557.
[285] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 319-24.
[286] To Staupitz, March 31, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” p. 175 f.
[287] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 288 (1525); Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 465 ff.
[288] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 552 ff.
[289] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 396; Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 87 (an. 1522): “_opera quibus erga homines utendum est, offerunt Deo_,” etc.
[290] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 282: “They praise their works,” “the lousy works.” Cp. _ibid._, 22², pp. 52, 381.
[291] At Halle. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 16, p. 221 ff., against the “lousy monks” and their “holiness by works.” Cp. generally the four last sermons at Eisleben, _ibid._, pp. 209, 230, 245, 264.
[292] To George Leiffer, April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31.
[293] March 31, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 175.
[294] “Pride brought him to fall and to despair of himself, pride prevented his rising again and made him despair of God’s grace which assists us to keep God’s law which our concupiscence resists.” So Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 463.
[295] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 18. Biel’s much-esteemed book on the Mass was composed principally of discourses to the clergy delivered in the cathedral at Mayence by his friend and teacher Egeling Becker of Brunswick. In the title Biel speaks of him as “_vita pariter et doctrina præfulgidus_.” Adolf Franz, “Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter” (1902), p. 550 ff.
[296] “Tischreden,” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 243.
[297] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 6: he yearns for theology which examines “the kernel of the nut and the marrow of the bones: _quæ nucleum nucis et medullam tritici et medullam ossium scrutatur_.”
[298] G. Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” Erfurt, 1899, p. 113.
[299] Denifle, 1¹, p. 501 f.
[300] Oergel, p. 118, from the Gotha MS., A 262, fol. 258.
[301] This is at least what he assures the Erfurt Faculty, December 21, 1514. “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 24.
[302] Letter of the Elector to Staupitz (April 7, 1518), in Kolde, “Anal. Lutherana,” p. 314.
[303] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 607, n. 1.
[304] When Luther in his answers to Prierias (Weim. ed., 1, p. 661), angered at his opponent’s frequent references to the Angelic Doctor, remarks: “_etiam ea quæ fidei sunt, in quæstiones vocat et fidem vertit in ‘utrum,’_” the words “_quæstiones_” and “_utrum_” lead us to doubt whether he had done more than read the headings of the “Questions.” Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 550.
[305] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 600; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 137.
[306] Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 165.
[307] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 375.
[308] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (ed. Kroker), p. 172. Uttered between the 7th and the 24th August, 1540.
[309] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 183; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 188.
[310] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 315 _seq._
[311] Denifle-Weiss, 2, p. 331.
[312] _Ibid._, p. 229.
[313] Denifle, “Chartularium universitatis Paris.,” 2, p. 588.
[314] Thus A. Weiss, p. 330.
[315] See volume v., xxxiv., 3.
[316] “Opp.,” ed. Antv., 1706, p. 457.
[317] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 375, in his exhortation to the clergy.
[318] More on this below. He repeats this accusation several times, also in the context of the previous passage. He is confusing natural good works with supernatural and meritorious good works.
[319] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 173. Uttered between the 7th and 24th August, 1540.
[320] Cp., for instance, Occam, “In libros sententiarum,” Lugd., 1495, l. 3, q. 8 to 1. The passage “_Nunc autem manent fides_,” etc., is the only one mentioned, with the reference “Ad. Cor.” Of any exegetical application there is no question whatever. Speculative theology left biblical interpretation too exclusively to the perfunctory Bible lecturers, and assumed as well known and proved what should first have been positively established.
[321] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 18. Cp. “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 270.
[322] See above, p. 83.
[323] Denifle-Weiss, 2, p. 300 ff., where the danger to the faith which lay in the foundation tendency of Nominalism is strongly emphasised, but where it is also admitted that the consequences were not actually drawn, and that it required “centuries of thought before the questions raised were pursued to their bitter end,” p. 303.
[324] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 27.
[325] “Parvulus philosophiæ naturalis,” Lips., 1499, fol. 136. N. Paulus, “Der Augustiner Barth. Arnoldi v. Usingen” (Strasburg “Theol. Studien,” 1, 3), p. 4.
[326] _Ibid._, fol. 18; Paulus, _ibid._, p. 5.
[327] Paulus, p. 17; Oergel, “Vom jungen Luther,” p. 131.
[328] Cp. e.g. Luther’s theses in Drews’ Disputations, p. 42: “_Ratio aversatur fidem, Solius Dei est, dare fidem contra naturam, contra rationem, et credere_.” It belongs to the year 1536.
[329] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 335; “_Responsio ad Catharinum_.” Cp. Weim. ed., 8, 127: “_De Thoma Aquino, an damnatus vel beatus sit, vehementissime dubito.... Multa hæretica scripsit et autor est regnantis Aristotelis, vastatoris piæ doctrinæ_.” He continues, saying that he is entitled to hold this opinion, “_qui educatus in eis sim et coætaneorum doctissimorum ingenia expertus, optima istius generis scripta contemplatus_.” So in “_Rationis Latomianæ confutatio_” (1521).
[330] Letter of May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 190.
[331] Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 610, n. 1.
[332] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 5, p. 22; “_Operationes in psalmos_.” Written in 1519 ff.
[333] Above, p. 137, note 5.
[334] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 401.
[335] Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 554, where he refers to a “Treatise on the preparation for grace” to appear in his second volume, but which is not contained in the second volume edited by A. Weiss.
[336] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 110. “_O stulti, O Sawtheologen._” He is referring to the “_theologi scholastici_,” p. 108, “_nostri theologi_,” p. 111.
[337] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 414.
[338] Biel, in 2 Sent., dist. 30, q. 2 ad 4 (Brixiæ, 1574): “_Rectitudo autem naturalis voluntatis, eius sc. libertas, non corrumpitur per peccatum; illa enim est realiter ipsa voluntas, nec ab ea separabilis._” Cp. however Biel’s other passage, quoted by Denifle-Weiss, 1, p. 535, n. 4, where he speaks differently. The teaching of the school of Occam deserves more careful examination than has hitherto been bestowed on it, and perhaps the Luther studies which have been so actively carried on of late will promote this. Meanwhile we must give a warning against statements which presuppose an excessive alienation of this school from the general teaching of the Church. Occam has recently been represented by the Protestant party, in discussions on Luther’s development, as the “outspoken antipodes of mediæval Christendom,” “whose aim it clearly was to strike at the very root of the ancient Christian view of the Redemption by grace.” Revelation was to him merely a “collection of unreasonable doctrines,” and the Bible a “chance jumble of unreasonable Divine oracles.” As a matter of fact, he always recognised in the teaching of the Church the correct interpretation of Scripture, and was under the impression that his teaching on the Redemption was conformable with the Church’s interpretation. We are also told that he always restricted infallibility to Holy Scripture, denying it to the Councils; that, with regard to the doctrine of grace, he assailed the teaching of the Schoolmen according to which grace was to be considered as “Divine matter,” and took the forgiveness of sins to mean merely the non-imputation of sin; that Luther’s proofs of the omnipresence of the body of Christ had been anticipated by Occam, and that, in the same way, his teaching with regard to the right of worldly authorities to reform the Church was also to be found in Occam. As regards Occam’s ecclesiastico-political ideas it is quite true they pervade Luther’s theses, nevertheless Occam’s erroneous doctrines on the constitution of the Church were not studied in the schools through which Luther had passed, but only those on Scholasticism: they are also never quoted by Luther in defence of his teaching.
[339] Sess., vi., c. 1.
[340] Cp. p. 140, note, where: “_Rectitudo naturalis voluntatis est libertas voluntatis_,” etc., precedes the first words quoted.
[341] “_Qualitas corporalis inclinans appetitum sensitivum_,” etc., and “_qualitas carnis inordinata inclinans_,” etc. In 2 Sent., q. 26; in 3 Sent., q. 2; Quodlib., 3, q. 10; Denifle, 1¹, p. 843.
[342] In 3 Sent., dist. 27, art. 3, quoted further on p. 155, n. 1. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 535, n. 4, and p. 536 ff.
[343] Denifle, 1¹, p. 843 f.
[344] Occam, 1 Sent., dist. 1, q. 2, concl. 1: “_Voluntas potest se conformare dictamini rationis_,” etc.
[345] 2 Sent., dist. 28 (Brix. ed.), fol. 143´.
[346] Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 527, n. 3, p. 521.
[347] _Ibid._, p. 522, n. 2.
[348] _Ibid._, p. 541, n. 1. In spite of this, the teaching of the much-used Commentary on the Sentences continued to make itself felt, more particularly as the author enjoyed great consideration among the ecclesiastically minded, represented Nominalism at Tübingen, and was honoured as “the last of the Scholastics.” It is worth while to quote the points of his teaching on grace from his book on the Sentences with the glosses which Biel does not forget to mention. The principal passage is in 3 Sent., dist. 27, art. 3, dub. 2 to Q (according to the Lyons edition of 1514). Among the five propositions there set up, “_post. Domn. Pe. de Aliaco_” (d’Ailly), the first teaches the possibility of an act of love of God “_ex naturalibus_.” This is the reason: “_omni dictamini rationis rectæ voluntas ex suis naturalibus potest se conformare_.” The second proposition, however, says: “_Talis amoris actus non potest stare in viatore de potentia Dei ordinata sine gratia et charitate infusa_,” owing to the principle, “_Facienti quod est in se_.” That grace is every moment at man’s disposal is proved from many Bible passages, yet any other more perfect disposition for grace than the natural act of love of God is not possible to man; the natural act in relation to grace is, however, only prior “_natura_,” not “_tempore_.” The third proposition runs: “_Charitas infusa tamen est prior in meriti ratione_,” etc. The fourth: with this natural act no mortal sins can exist. The fifth: “_Stante lege_ [i.e. _præsente ordinatione Dei_] _nullus homo per pura naturalia potest implere præceptum de dilectione Dei super omnia. Probatur, quia lex iubet, quod actus cadens sub præcepto fiat in gratia, quæ est habitus supernaturalis._”
[349] Biel, in 2 Sent., dist. 28, says of the natural love of God: “_Actus dilectionis Dei super omnia est dispositio ultimata et sufficiens ad gratiæ infusionem.... Gratia superadditur tanquam præviæ dispositioni_,” etc. But _ibid._, fol. 143´, he says: “_Sic ad præparandum se ad donum Dei suscipiendum non indiget alio dono gratiæ, sed Deo ipsum movente_ [_sc. concursu generali_].”
[350] Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 542 f.
[351] To Spalatin, August 15, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 109: “_Is_ [_Gregorius Ariminensis_] _solus inter scholasticos contra omnes scholasticos recentiores cum Carolostadio, id est Augustino et apostolo Paulo consentit._” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 84.
[352] In 2 Sent., fol. 91´ ad 2 (ed. Venet., 1503): “_Deus non præcipit homini ut talia opera faciat sine auxilio suo_,” etc.
[353] Cp. the scholastic passages in Denifle, 11, p. 555, n. 3. He leaves the explanation for the second volume, though A. Weiss does not give it. Denifle’s remarks (p. 557 f.) on the practical application of the principle “_Facienti_” are worthy of attention.
[354] Denifle, 1¹, p. 564.
[355] Denifle, 1, p. 670 f.
[356] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 61 _seq._ Such views have often been adopted from Luther by Protestant theologians and historians. “The worth of Scholasticism,” Denifle complains, 1¹, p. 845, “i.e. the scholastic doctrine as misunderstood and misrepresented by them, is judged of by them according to Luther’s erroneous views which they receive as axioms, first principles and unalterable truths.” In the second edition A. Weiss has struck out this sentence. Denifle, 1¹, p. 840, complains with reason that Biel is accepted as a reliable representative of Scholasticism. Cp. p. 552, n. 1, after showing his inaccuracy in one passage: “The reader may judge for himself what a false impression of St. Thomas’s teaching would be gained from Biel.”
[357] In the “_Resolutiones super propositionibus Lipsiæ disputatis_,” concl. 1; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 3, p. 245 _sq._; Weim. ed., 2, p. 403. It is of interest to see how he sums up his desire of ridding himself of the oppression of doctrinal rules in the cry: “_Volo liber esse._” Cp. _ibid._, pp. 247, 404.
[358] See above, p. 39 ff. Cp. passages quoted below, chapter vi. 3.
[359] See above, p 80. According to Usingen the “_primaria factio nostræ unionis_” (i.e. of the Saxon Congr. of Augustinians) was that which Luther led astray “_contra nativum conventum suum_.” The “_secundaria factio_” was the Reformation “_qua pæne desolata est nostra unio_.” See Usingen, “Sermo de S. cruce” (Erfordiæ, 1524); N. Paulus, Usingen, p. 16, n. 5.
[360] Cp. Pollich, in Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 87. See above, p. 86.
[361] Fol. 233´. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 528, n. 1; “Rom. Schol.,” p. 244.
[362] Fol. 144. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 526, n. 3; “Rom. Schol,” p. 108.
[363] 1-2, q. 112, a. 3.
[364] S. Thom., “in Ep. ad Romanos,” lect. 1 (on Rom. iv. 2).
[365] In Rom. iii. 27: “_Non enim ex operibus est iustitia, sed ipsa sunt ex iustitia_ (see in this connection Luther’s statement, p. 43) _ideoque non iustitiam operum sed opera iustitiæ dicimus_.” Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 528-30.
[366] Fol. 158. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 531, n. 1, 2; “Rom. Schol.,” p. 130: “_Hoc totum scholastici theologi unam dicunt mutationem: expulsionem peccati et infusionem gratiæ._”
[367] See Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 542 ff.
[368] Denifle, 1¹, p. 520, n. 1.
[369] On Occam’s teaching on the supernatural habit see below, p. 154. Occam, 2 Sent., q. 26, says, it seems “_quod iustitia originalis dicat aliquid absolutum superadditum puris naturalibus_.” Biel speaks, 2 Sent., dist. 30, q. 1, concl. 3, of the “_donum supernaturale_.”
[370] Cp. in Gal. 1, p. 188 _seq._
[371] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 272.
[372] Erl. ed., 10², p. 11.
[373] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 244, in 1527.
[374] _Ibid._, p. 4.
[375] _Ibid._, 2, p. 420.
[376] Denifle, 1¹, p. 561. In spite of this, some Protestant critics are under the impression that Denifle has made of Luther a faithful follower of Occam and that he “gives him short shrift as a confirmed Occamist.”
[377] On April 13, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 379 f.
[378] Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 564.
[379] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (ed. Kroker), p. 172. “_Scholastica theologia in hoc articulo consentit, hominem ex puris naturalibus posse mereri gratiam de congruo._” Words of Luther in 1540. As a good Occamist he himself had taught the same in his first exposition of the Psalms. See above, p. 75.
[380] Cp. the passages from Occam, d’Ailly and Biel in Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 591 ff. To the texts there quoted from Occam must be added those from 3 Sent., q. 8, A., where, “_de necessitate habituum supernaturalium_,” he establishes three conclusions: 1. Their necessity cannot be proved by natural reason. 2. The necessity of these habits cannot be inferred from the article of faith, that eternal salvation is bestowed on man on account of his merits. 3. We can in addition to each supernatural habit possess also a natural one corresponding to it and which impels us to similar acts. Yet, as he says in concluding, the passage 1 Cor. xiii. 13: “_Nunc autem manent fides_,” etc., teaches that the habits exist in the righteous and remain in the next life. But at the letter D he returns to the subject: one who is not baptised and receives instruction can arrive at the love of God: “_dilectio non infusa, igitur acquisita_”; the acts of the will which we produce are natural ones, therefore the habit also is natural which they induce: “_non obstante quod sit in voluntate habitus supernaturalis propter auctoritatem [scripturæ], adhuc oportet ponere habitum naturaliter acquisitum_.” Finally, under T, after again recognising the “_fides infusa, propter auctoritatem scripturæ_,” yet, as a matter of fact, he says, though the habits might be acquired naturally, they are frequently infused by God, and therefore called rightly “_dona Dei_” and “_habitus infusi_.” The same habit, however, cannot be merely naturally acquired, but also as such “_habere effectus eiusdem speciei vel rationis_”; the supernatural habits might nevertheless appear absolutely superfluous (“_viderentur totaliter superfluere_”) were it not for biblical authority; “_non sunt ponendi propter aliquam rationem evidentem_.” Thus, on the one hand, the strongest attempts to abolish the habits, and, on the other, a holding fast to the teaching of the Bible. Nothing is more incorrect than to accuse Occam of a simple surrender of the supernatural qualities and a direct destruction of the supernatural order. Even the index to Occam’s Commentary on the Sentences shows under the word _habitus_ how strictly he distinguishes between _habitus infusus_ and _habitus acquisitus_, and how he accepts both and teaches, for instance, that the natural habits may remain even after the destruction of the supernatural.
[381] See Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 594.
[382] In Augustine the doctrine of imputation does not appear. Cp. Mausbach, “Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus” (1909), 2, p. 187, who, after pointing out this fact, remarks: “This doctrine of imputation was actually set up by Luther, whose mind was dominated by Nominalism.” Luther was able to introduce the continuance of original sin into Augustine’s writings only by forcing their meaning (see above, his alteration of _concupiscentia_ into _peccatum_, p. 98). From the standpoint of the continuance of original sin Luther, already in his Commentary on Romans, attacks the supernatural habit of grace. Cp. Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz bei Luther,” p. 310.
[383] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 2, p. 305, n. 4.
[384] Cp. Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,”^[4]. p. 699.
[385] Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 510.
[386] Denifle-Weiss, _ibid._, p. 606.
[387] In 2 Sent. in princ.: “_Multa, quæ apparent manifeste contra rationem, et quorum opposita sunt consona fidei_.”
[388] Quodlib. 1, q. 1: “_Non potest demonstrative probari, quod tantum unus est Deus_.”
[389] 1 Sent., dist. 2, q. 10, concl. 3, F.
[390] Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 608.
[391] Raynald., “Annal.,” _an._ 1513, n. 92 _sq._; Mansi, “Coll. conc.,” 32, p. 842 _seq._
[392] Drews, “Disputationen Luthers,” p. 487, No. 4-6, from the Disputation on January 11, 1539.
[393] In 1 Sent., q. 3, a. 3: “_nullæ vel paucæ sunt rationes evidentes demonstrativæ ... magis opinio quam scientia, et ideo valde sunt reprehensibiles qui nimis tenaciter adhærent auctoritati Aristotelis_.”
[394] “_Superbia scholasticos a pœnitentia et fide viva præpediens_,” etc. “Opp.” (Antv., 1706), p. 90.
[395] See above, p. 70.
[396] So Luther relates, in Gal. 2, p. 103.
[397] “_Totius summæ christianarum rerum._” So the Weim. ed., 18, p. 614. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 132, in “_De servo arbitrio._”
[398] This is the work which Albert Ritschl, the well-known Protestant theologian, summed up as follows on account of the contradictions which it contained: “Luther’s work, ‘_De servo arbitrio_,’ is, and remains, an unfortunate piece of bungling.” “Die christl. Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung,” 1², Bonn, 1882, p. 221. See below, vol. ii., xiv. 3.
[399] “_Non potest probari sufficienter, quod Deus sit causa finalis,_” Quodlib. 4, q. 2. Other Nominalists go still further.
[400] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 508; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 29, “De captivitate babylonica,” 1520.
[401] _Ibid._
[402] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 423; Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 204. _Contra regem Henricum._
[403] To Prince George or John of Anhalt, June, 1541, “Briefe” (de Wette), 6, p. 284.
[404] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 614 ff.
[405] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, pp. 397, 399, 400, 425; Weim. ed., 10, 2, pp. 188, 189, 190, 206. _Contra regem Henricum._
[406] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 18. After speaking of Occam as “_ingeniosissimus_” he says: “_illius studium erat, res dilatare et amplificare in infinitum_.”
[407] H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschungen (1910), p. 53. “What made such a deep impression on him? [in the works of Augustine]. First, if we may believe the notes in his own hand in the copy he chiefly used (‘Werke,’ Weim. ed., vol. ix.), more particularly Augustine’s mystico-philosophical considerations on God, the world, the soul, the worthlessness of all earthly things, and felicity in God. These ideas, however, were hardly quite new to him. He had already met with them, for instance, in Bernard of Clairvaux and other mystics.” That they should have “impressed him so forcibly,” as Böhmer rightly remarks, was largely owing to the fact that his ear caught in them echoes of the ideas germinating in his own mind.
[408] Cp., e.g., Tauler’s complaint against those who misuse the directions of the mystics in the sense of ethical passivity, i.e. of Quietism: “They blindly mislead their nature and become careless of all good works,” etc. “They sink into a dangerous natural quietude ... without the practice of virtue.” “Man,” on the contrary, “must recognise the commandments of God and the Church and resolve to keep the same.” “Tauler’s Sermons,” ed. Hamberger, 1, p. 194 f. Cp. J. Zahn, “Einführung in die christl. Mystik,” Paderborn, 1908, p. 313 ff.
[409] To George Leiffer, April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31.
[410] With regard to his ideas of the supposed animosity of mysticism for Scholasticism, W. Köhler says (“Luther und die Kirchengesch.,” 1, 1, Erlangen, p. 285): “the opposition between mysticism and Scholasticism, which has become historic, was never so acute as it appeared to Luther’s imagination. In principle, Scholasticism and mysticism stand on the same ground, one being the necessary complement of the other.”
[411] From Dungersheim’s “Dialogus adversus M. Lutherum”; Enders, “Briefwechsel,” p. 180.
[412] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 55: “_iuxta Taulerum tuum_.”
[413] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 205.
[414] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 135, he says of the earthly minded: “_Nullus [est] eius Deus creator, quia non vult esse nihil, cuius ille sit creator. Nullius_ [read _nullus_] _est potens, sapiens, bonus, quia non vult in infirmitate, stultitia, penalitate sustinere eum_.”
[415] _Ibid._, p. 138, in the passage: “_Quia charitas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris_” (Rom. v. 5): “_’Charitas Dei’ dicitur, quia per eam solum Deum diligimus, ubi nihil visibile, nihil experimentale nec intus nec foris est, in quod confidatur aut quod ametur aut timeatur, sed super omnia in invisibilem Deum et inexperimentalem, incomprehensibilem, sc. in medias tenebras interiores rapitur, nesciens quid amet, sciens, autem quid non amet, et omne cognitum et expertum fastidiens et id quod nondum cognoscit, tantum desiderans.... Hoc donum longissimo abest ab iis, qui suas iustitias adhuc vident et diligunt et non visis tristantur._” He thinks he must rise superior to such self-righteous, to whom his brother monks, who are zealous for good works (the Observantines?), belonged.
[416] See above, p. 43. We shall deal later with his further relations with Lang, with whom he shared an inclination to mystic studies and leanings.
[417] This is one of the seven old books discovered there in 1889-90; the glosses added by Luther to the same were edited by Buchwald in the Weim. ed., volume ix. For the glosses to Tauler, see _ibid._, p. 95 ff.
[418] Weim. ed., 9, pp. 98, 102 f. The real action of God on the spirit is that which takes place through Him “_ignorantibus et non intelligentibus nobis id quod agit_.” He complains: “_Etsi sciamus quod Deus non agat in nobis, nisi prius nos et nostra destruat ... non nudi stamus in mera fide_”; but the “_nuda fides_” is necessary because God acts contrary to our ways of thinking and does what we may fancy to be “_ex diabolo_.” Such exhortations to confide ourselves blindly to a higher direction may be right, but one naturally asks how is the fact of this guidance from on high to be guaranteed and distinguished from a mere leading astray. Luther in his public life simply assumed his mission to be divine because he felt it to be such (see vol. iii., xvi., 1 and 2), and because he persuaded himself that he was being led by inspiration from above “like a blind horse” to fight against Antichrist.
[419] Weim. ed., 9, p. 103: “_Nullius exempli passionem vel operationem oportet sibi præstituere, sed indifferentem et nudam voluntatem habere_,” etc.
[420] _Ibid._, p. 98 f.
[421] _Ibid._, p. 98: It is true he thinks he is explaining what precedes: “_Nota, quod divina pati magis quam agere oportet._”
[422] _Ibid._, p. 104. Cp. p. 103: “_Deus est intimior rebus ceteris quam ipse_ [i.e. _ipsæ_] _sibi_,” etc.
[423] See J. Zahn, “Einführung in die christl. Mystik,” p. 320. Reference may be made to this excellent work for the historical proofs, even from Tauler, into which we are not able to enter; p. 291, on the “Erlöschen der Ichheit.”
[424] Zahn, _ibid._, pp. 331, 327.
[425] “Sermons,” ed. Hamberger, 2, p. 131; in the sermon on Luke xv. 8 ff. Cp. Zahn, p. 343 ff. “Ueber die Prüfungen im mystischen Leben.”
[426] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 135 _seq._, p. 138: “_Charitas Dei, quæ est purissima affectio in Deum, quæ sola facit rectos corde, sola aufert iniquitatem, sola exstinguit fruitionem propriæ iustitiæ. Quia non nisi solum et purum Deum diligit, non dona ipsa Dei, sicut hipocritæ iustitiarii._” P. 139, again against the “_hipocritarum charitas, qui sibi ipsis fingunt et simulant se habere charitatem.... Diligere Deum propter dona et propter comodum est vilissima dilectione, i.e. concupiscentia eum diligere._” God is to be loved “_propter voluntatem Dei absolute_,” otherwise it is not the love of the children of God, but the love of slaves. He overlooks the fact that it is possible to recommend the higher without altogether repudiating the lower.
[427] 2-2, q. 188, a. 5.
[428] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 123 f., quoted by Hunzinger, “Luther und die deutsche Mystik” [”Neue kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 19 (1908), Heft 11, pp. 972-88], p. 984, who remarks: the passage shows “how great the danger was at that time of Luther becoming lost in these speculations”; this is the “most extreme mystical utterance to be found in his writings.” When he says: “What is here described as a _via crucis_ is genuinely Neo-Platonic,” all will not agree with him. Hunzinger, p. 975, also considers it a proof of Neo-Platonism when, in his Commentary on the Psalms, Luther follows St. Augustine and urges man “_avertere se a visibilibus et convertere se ad invisibilia et intelligibilia_.” One is more inclined to agree with his concluding sentence: “No one will wish to assert, after taking note of this proposition, that Luther in his mystical period never left the path of the ethical.”
[429] See below, viii. 2.
[430] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 74 f.
[431] April 8, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 28. See above, p. 88.
[432] Recently edited (1908) by H. Mandel according to Luther’s edition with additions from MSS.; see “Theol. Literaturztg.,” p. 493 (1909). Mandel says in the preface: “It is obviously not correct to represent Luther’s well-known experiences in the monastery [which?] as directly connected with his fundamental ideas of reform. Rather it is evident, and acknowledged by Luther himself, that he learnt his root ideas in the school of Tauler and the ‘Theologia Deutsch.’” It is true that his misapprehension of the same strengthened his mistaken notions. The very first chapter in the booklet disproves the assertion frequently made that it is decidedly Pantheistic in tone; there a definite distinction is made between God and the creature as the “perfect” and the “divided” essence: “of all the divided none is perfect. Hence the perfect is no part of the divided.” In the light of this the obscure sentence which occurs in the “Theologia Deutsch,” that God, the Perfect, is the essence of all things, without which and outside of which there is no real being, must not be understood in the Pantheistic sense. The book, in fact, contains no sentence which cannot be understood in an orthodox fashion when taken in conjunction with others.
[433] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 137.
[434] Cp. W. Köhler, “Luther und die Kirchengesch.,” 1, 1, p. 244, who quotes Tauler in the above sense from his sermons in Hamberger’s edition (Frankfurt a/M., 1826), volume i., p. 261 ff.; volume ii., pp. 408, 410, 428. Köhler remarks (p. 239) that “however much Tauler had in common with Luther ... the latter overlooked the differences”; on p. 244: “his severity to self-righteousness is a point which Luther learnt from Tauler.”
[435] In his “Asterisci,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 298, agreeing with the Resolutiones, _ibid._, p. 586. Cp. Köhler, pp. 248-50.
[436] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 674; Köhler, p. 252.
[437] Volume ii., p. 133.
[438] J. Zahn, “Einführung in die christl. Mystik,” p. 302.
[439] J. Zahn, _ibid._, p. 303. Zahn expresses himself very aptly in regard to the unfavourable moral effects of the contrary theory; the incentive which Christ expressly recommends when He says we are to rejoice in the glorious reward which awaits us in the next world (Matt. v. 12) has a very different influence. Against Fénelon’s incorrect views of pure love without any admixture of interest for eternal salvation, he has the following: “The greatest fault in Fénelon’s system lies in the coupling together of the real striving after perfection and the attainment of salvation with an unworthy egotistical working for a reward” (p. 307). The theories of Mme. Guyon, whom Fénelon defends, are simply appalling: “O Will of my God, Thou wouldst be my Paradise in Hell.” According to her, the sacrifice of salvation is the culmination of the interior life (_ibid._, p. 292). Cp. the propositions from the Quietist mysticism of Molinos, condemned by Innocent XI on November 20, 1687.
[440] An exposition of Luther’s directed against the Areopagite (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 5, p. 163) is accompanied with the strange information that one becomes a theologian “_moriendo et damnando, non intelligendo, legendo aut speculando_.”
[441] Köhler, p. 332. “There is an immense difference” when Luther speaks of trust in God or of the sufferings of Christ and when Bernard does the same. “Luther did not notice anything of this difference, though it was worth while examining ... he identified with him his own resuscitation of the gospel.”
[442] Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 121 f. (Table-Talk); Köhler, p. 362 f.: “Those Romanists (Emser, Eck, etc.) knew better how to appreciate Gerson than Luther did, in whom the insight into Gerson’s ‘Catholicism’ was sadly wanting.” “He ever remained a stranger to the true inwardness of Gerson.”
[443] Köhler, p. 335 f., where examples are given of Luther’s “subjective interpretation” of St. Bonaventure.
[444] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 5, p. 353.
[445] Köhler, p. 261. Köhler says that Tauler “laid great stress on the Divine initiative”; but so did the Scholastics and the Fathers.
[446] Hunzinger, “Neue kirchl. Zeitschr.,” _ibid._, p. 985 f. “We may say that German mysticism achieved what it did in Luther in union with his study of the Epistle to the Romans.” “Thus the acute change from Indeterminism to religious Determinism took place in Luther under the direct influence of German mysticism. In the ‘_De servo arbitrio_’ it attained its extremest limit. This is not explained [more correctly, _entirely_ explained], as some have thought, by Occamism, but by German mysticism.” P. 987: After his period of mysticism Luther took leave altogether of the semi-Pelagianism and Indeterminism of Scholasticism. On p. 988 Luther’s standpoint is thus stated: “Any concurrence between free will and its faculties and grace, or any kind of preparation for grace, is altogether done away with.... God’s grace alone works for salvation, and predestination is the only cause of salvation in those who are justified.”
[447] Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹, more particularly from p. 413; Denifle-Weiss, 1², more particularly from p. 447; Denifle, 1², “Quellenbelege,” p. 309 ff.
[448] See Joh. Ficker, “Luthers Vorlesung über den Römerbrief,” Leipzig, 1908, p. xxv. ff., xxx.
[449] Cp. Grauert, “P. Heinrich Denifle,” 1906, p. 53 ff. Grauert referred to J. K. Oetrich, “Entwurf einer Gesch. der Bibliothek zu Berlin” (1752, p. 63).
[450] On the glosses and scholia generally, see above, p. 63.
[451] See above, p. 93 f.
[452] See below, chapter viii. 1.
[453] Cod. Vat. palat. 1826, fol. 77; Denifle, 1², “Quellenbelege,” p. 313 f.; Ficker, “Rom. Schol.,” p. 2 f.
[454] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 227.
[455] Ficker, p. 1.
[456] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 21 ff. Denifle had only stated generally that Luther taught absolute predestination, without quoting the passages in the Commentary. Cp. Fr. Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,”^[4] p. 709, n. 8.
[457] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 22 f.
[458] _Ibid._, p. 22 f.
[459] _Ibid._, p. 23.
[460] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 24.
[461] With regard to the fact of Luther’s tendency to a fear and terror of God, O. Scheel says (“Die Entwicklung Luthers, Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, Leipzig, 1910, pp. 61-230, p. 80): “We possess statements from Luther’s own pen during his life in the monastery which show that the thought of death and Divine Judgment moved him deeply. The words, that the countenance of the Lord is upon us, are [to him] terrible.... We see one fear succeeding the other in the face of sudden death ... the thought of God the Judge inspires him with horror.... It is possible that the manner in which these feelings express themselves was connected with morbid dispositions, that the attacks of fear which suddenly, without apparent cause, fell upon him, were due to an unhealthy body. That the assaults reacted on his bodily state is probable. The root of the fear, however, lies in the lively conviction of the righteous Judgment of God.” W. Braun (“Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” p. 295) thinks that “Luther’s assaults in the monastery were a mystical exercise. He experienced what Tauler and the ‘Theologia Deutsch’ relate regarding the consuming inward fires of Purgatory. Luther mentions that Tauler [like himself!] was acquainted with the ‘_horror conscientiæ a facie iudicii Dei_.’” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 5, p. 203.
[462] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 20 f.
[463] _Ibid._, p. 323.
[464] _Ibid._, p. 322.
[465] _Ibid._, p. 222 f.: “_Hii (qui vere bona faciunt) sciunt quod homo ex se nihil potest facere_,” in contradistinction to the “Pelagians,” who “_libertati arbitrii tribuunt facere quod est in se, ante gratiam_.”
[466] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 221.
[467] _Ibid._, p. 323.
[468] _Ibid._, p. 221.
[469] _Ibid._, p. 223.
[470] _Ibid._, p. 214.
[471] _Ibid._, pp. 215-20.
[472] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 226.
[473] _Ibid._, p. 223: “_Si enim vellent quod vult Deus, etiamsi damnatos et reprobatos vellet, non haberent malum; quia vellent, quod vult Deus, et haberent in se voluntatem Dei per patientiam._”
[474] _Ibid._, p. 217.
[475] _Ibid._, p. 217 f.
[476] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 225.
[477] _Ibid._, pp. 208, 209, 210.
[478] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 219.
[479] _Ibid._, p. 221.
[480] Bonaventure, in iii., dist. 27, a. 2, q. 2: “_Amor concupiscentiæ non repugnat amori amicitiæ in caritate_,” etc. Cp. Thom. Aquin., 2-2, q. 23, a, 1.
[481] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 210, 218.
[482] _Ibid._, p. 227.
[483] “Schol. Rom.”
[484] _Ibid._, pp. 227, 228.
[485] _Ibid._, p. 224.
[486] _Ibid._, p. 229.
[487] _Ibid._, 231.
[488] “_Commentar. in Ep. ad Romanos_,” p. 495.
[489] Formerly some few Catholic theologians found in the statements of the Apostle the so-called “_prædestinatio ad gloriam ante prævisa merita_” (though never a “_reprobatio ante prævisa merita_”); but as J. Th. Beelen remarks in his “_Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos_” (1854), none of them ever sought for an exegetical foundation for the same. Cornely, l.c., p. 495 _sq._
[490] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 230, and August., “Enchiridion ad Laurent.,” c. 98, Migne, P. L., xl., p. 278.
[491] S. Aug., “Contra Iulianum,” 6, n. 8, 14, 24; “Opus imperf.,” 1, c. 64, c. 132 _seq._, 175: “De catechiz. rudibus,” n. 52; “De spiritu et litt.,” c. 33; “Retract,” 1, c. 10, n. 2. Cp. Cornely, p. 494, on some exegetical peculiarities of Augustine.
[492] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 212.
[493] _Ibid._, p. 213.
[494] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 212 ff.
[495] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 1 ff.
[496] _Ibid._, p. 2 f.
[497] _Ibid._, p. 305. “_Observantes invicem propter Deum pugnant, sed dilectionis præceptum nihil attendunt._”
[498] _Ibid._, p. 334.
[499] Cp. above, p. 88 ff., Luther’s letter to Spenlein, who had left his monastery for that at Memmingen.
[500] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 325.
[501] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 20, he speaks against the “_spiritualis et subtilior idolatria_”; p. 45, against those who are “_vane gloriosi_” in their exterior observances; p. 75, against the “_nimis iusti_,” “_nimis intelligentes_” and “_nimis quærentes_,” who are “_incorrigibiles in suo sensu_”; p. 83, a fresh outburst against those who “_in suis iustitiis pacem in carne quærunt_....” “_Nihil capiunt quia sunt superbi.... Præsumunt quod Deus eorum sensum et opera approbabit, quia ipsis iustus et rectus apparet_”; p. 86, he again attacks “_omnes superbi in ecclesia spirituales, qui sunt magnorum et multorum operum_.” Then, to omit many digressions against the “_iustitiarii_,” and merely to quote from the last part of the work, he says, p. 220, of the righteous in his own sense by whom damnation would be willingly accepted (“_libentes damnari volunt_”), that they shame the swarm of others, “_qui sibi merita fingunt et pingunt ac bona quærunt, fugiunt mala et in absconditis suis nihil habent_”; these are, according to p. 221, “_superbi iustitiarii, qui certi sunt de bonis operibus suis_,” or, according to p. 273, those “_in sua iustitia præsumentes_.” The “_sapientes iustitiarii_,” according to p. 331, destroy the temple of God by their false wisdom and their observances.
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.
[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.