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., 24ˆ², 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., 24ˆ², 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.