[_Gregorius Ariminensis_] _solus inter scholasticos contra omnes
scholasticos recentiores cum Carolostadio, id est Augustino et apostolo
Paulo consentit._” Cp. “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 84.
[352] In 2 Sent., fol. 91´ ad 2 (ed. Venet., 1503): “_Deus non præcipit
homini ut talia opera faciat sine auxilio suo_,” etc.
[353] Cp. the scholastic passages in Denifle, 11, p. 555, n. 3. He
leaves the explanation for the second volume, though A. Weiss does not
give it. Denifle’s remarks (p. 557 f.) on the practical application of
the principle “_Facienti_” are worthy of attention.
[354] Denifle, 1¹, p. 564.
[355] Denifle, 1, p. 670 f.
[356] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 61 _seq._ Such views have often been
adopted from Luther by Protestant theologians and historians. “The
worth of Scholasticism,” Denifle complains, 1¹, p. 845, “i.e. the
scholastic doctrine as misunderstood and misrepresented by them, is
judged of by them according to Luther’s erroneous views which they
receive as axioms, first principles and unalterable truths.” In the
second edition A. Weiss has struck out this sentence. Denifle, 1¹,
p. 840, complains with reason that Biel is accepted as a reliable
representative of Scholasticism. Cp. p. 552, n. 1, after showing his
inaccuracy in one passage: “The reader may judge for himself what a
false impression of St. Thomas’s teaching would be gained from Biel.”
[357] In the “_Resolutiones super propositionibus Lipsiæ disputatis_,”
concl. 1; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 3, p. 245 _sq._; Weim. ed., 2, p. 403. It
is of interest to see how he sums up his desire of ridding himself of
the oppression of doctrinal rules in the cry: “_Volo liber esse._” Cp.
_ibid._, pp. 247, 404.
[358] See above, p. 39 ff. Cp. passages quoted below, chapter vi. 3.
[359] See above, p 80. According to Usingen the “_primaria factio
nostræ unionis_” (i.e. of the Saxon Congr. of Augustinians) was
that which Luther led astray “_contra nativum conventum suum_.” The
“_secundaria factio_” was the Reformation “_qua pæne desolata est
nostra unio_.” See Usingen, “Sermo de S. cruce” (Erfordiæ, 1524); N.
Paulus, Usingen, p. 16, n. 5.
[360] Cp. Pollich, in Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 87. See above, p. 86.
[361] Fol. 233´. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 528, n. 1; “Rom. Schol.,” p. 244.
[362] Fol. 144. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 526, n. 3; “Rom. Schol,” p. 108.
[363] 1-2, q. 112, a. 3.
[364] S. Thom., “in Ep. ad Romanos,” lect. 1 (on Rom. iv. 2).
[365] In Rom. iii. 27: “_Non enim ex operibus est iustitia, sed ipsa
sunt ex iustitia_ (see in this connection Luther’s statement, p.
43) _ideoque non iustitiam operum sed opera iustitiæ dicimus_.” Cp.
Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 528-30.
[366] Fol. 158. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 531, n. 1, 2; “Rom. Schol.,”
p. 130: “_Hoc totum scholastici theologi unam dicunt mutationem:
expulsionem peccati et infusionem gratiæ._”
[367] See Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 542 ff.
[368] Denifle, 1¹, p. 520, n. 1.
[369] On Occam’s teaching on the supernatural habit see below, p. 154.
Occam, 2 Sent., q. 26, says, it seems “_quod iustitia originalis dicat
aliquid absolutum superadditum puris naturalibus_.” Biel speaks, 2
Sent., dist. 30, q. 1, concl. 3, of the “_donum supernaturale_.”
[370] Cp. in Gal. 1, p. 188 _seq._
[371] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 272.
[372] Erl. ed., 10², p. 11.
[373] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 244, in 1527.
[374] _Ibid._, p. 4.
[375] _Ibid._, 2, p. 420.
[376] Denifle, 1¹, p. 561. In spite of this, some Protestant critics
are under the impression that Denifle has made of Luther a faithful
follower of Occam and that he “gives him short shrift as a confirmed
Occamist.”
[377] On April 13, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 379 f.
[378] Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 564.
[379] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (ed. Kroker), p. 172. “_Scholastica
theologia in hoc articulo consentit, hominem ex puris naturalibus
posse mereri gratiam de congruo._” Words of Luther in 1540. As a good
Occamist he himself had taught the same in his first exposition of the
Psalms. See above, p. 75.
[380] Cp. the passages from Occam, d’Ailly and Biel in Denifle-Weiss,
1², p. 591 ff. To the texts there quoted from Occam must be added
those from 3 Sent., q. 8, A., where, “_de necessitate habituum
supernaturalium_,” he establishes three conclusions: 1. Their necessity
cannot be proved by natural reason. 2. The necessity of these habits
cannot be inferred from the article of faith, that eternal salvation
is bestowed on man on account of his merits. 3. We can in addition to
each supernatural habit possess also a natural one corresponding to it
and which impels us to similar acts. Yet, as he says in concluding, the
passage 1 Cor. xiii. 13: “_Nunc autem manent fides_,” etc., teaches
that the habits exist in the righteous and remain in the next life.
But at the letter D he returns to the subject: one who is not baptised
and receives instruction can arrive at the love of God: “_dilectio non
infusa, igitur acquisita_”; the acts of the will which we produce are
natural ones, therefore the habit also is natural which they induce:
“_non obstante quod sit in voluntate habitus supernaturalis propter
auctoritatem [scripturæ], adhuc oportet ponere habitum naturaliter
acquisitum_.” Finally, under T, after again recognising the “_fides
infusa, propter auctoritatem scripturæ_,” yet, as a matter of fact,
he says, though the habits might be acquired naturally, they are
frequently infused by God, and therefore called rightly “_dona Dei_”
and “_habitus infusi_.” The same habit, however, cannot be merely
naturally acquired, but also as such “_habere effectus eiusdem speciei
vel rationis_”; the supernatural habits might nevertheless appear
absolutely superfluous (“_viderentur totaliter superfluere_”) were it
not for biblical authority; “_non sunt ponendi propter aliquam rationem
evidentem_.” Thus, on the one hand, the strongest attempts to abolish
the habits, and, on the other, a holding fast to the teaching of the
Bible. Nothing is more incorrect than to accuse Occam of a simple
surrender of the supernatural qualities and a direct destruction of
the supernatural order. Even the index to Occam’s Commentary on the
Sentences shows under the word _habitus_ how strictly he distinguishes
between _habitus infusus_ and _habitus acquisitus_, and how he accepts
both and teaches, for instance, that the natural habits may remain even
after the destruction of the supernatural.
[381] See Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 594.
[382] In Augustine the doctrine of imputation does not appear. Cp.
Mausbach, “Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus” (1909), 2, p. 187, who, after
pointing out this fact, remarks: “This doctrine of imputation was
actually set up by Luther, whose mind was dominated by Nominalism.”
Luther was able to introduce the continuance of original sin into
Augustine’s writings only by forcing their meaning (see above, his
alteration of _concupiscentia_ into _peccatum_, p. 98). From the
standpoint of the continuance of original sin Luther, already in his
Commentary on Romans, attacks the supernatural habit of grace. Cp.
Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz bei Luther,” p. 310.
[383] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 2, p. 305, n. 4.
[384] Cp. Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,”^[4]. p. 699.
[385] Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 510.
[386] Denifle-Weiss, _ibid._, p. 606.
[387] In 2 Sent. in princ.: “_Multa, quæ apparent manifeste contra
rationem, et quorum opposita sunt consona fidei_.”
[388] Quodlib. 1, q. 1: “_Non potest demonstrative probari, quod tantum
unus est Deus_.”
[389] 1 Sent., dist. 2, q. 10, concl. 3, F.
[390] Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 608.
[391] Raynald., “Annal.,” _an._ 1513, n. 92 _sq._; Mansi, “Coll.
conc.,” 32, p. 842 _seq._
[392] Drews, “Disputationen Luthers,” p. 487, No. 4-6, from the
Disputation on January 11, 1539.
[393] In 1 Sent., q. 3, a. 3: “_nullæ vel paucæ sunt rationes evidentes
demonstrativæ ... magis opinio quam scientia, et ideo valde sunt
reprehensibiles qui nimis tenaciter adhærent auctoritati Aristotelis_.”
[394] “_Superbia scholasticos a pœnitentia et fide viva præpediens_,”
etc. “Opp.” (Antv., 1706), p. 90.
[395] See above, p. 70.
[396] So Luther relates, in Gal. 2, p. 103.
[397] “_Totius summæ christianarum rerum._” So the Weim. ed., 18, p.
614. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 132, in “_De servo arbitrio._”
[398] This is the work which Albert Ritschl, the well-known Protestant
theologian, summed up as follows on account of the contradictions
which it contained: “Luther’s work, ‘_De servo arbitrio_,’ is, and
remains, an unfortunate piece of bungling.” “Die christl. Lehre von der
Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung,” 1², Bonn, 1882, p. 221. See below, vol.
ii., xiv. 3.
[399] “_Non potest probari sufficienter, quod Deus sit causa finalis,_”
Quodlib. 4, q. 2. Other Nominalists go still further.
[400] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 508; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 29, “De
captivitate babylonica,” 1520.
[401] _Ibid._
[402] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, p. 423; Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 204. _Contra
regem Henricum._
[403] To Prince George or John of Anhalt, June, 1541, “Briefe” (de
Wette), 6, p. 284.
[404] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 614 ff.
[405] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 6, pp. 397, 399, 400, 425; Weim. ed., 10, 2,
pp. 188, 189, 190, 206. _Contra regem Henricum._
[406] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 18. After speaking of Occam as
“_ingeniosissimus_” he says: “_illius studium erat, res dilatare et
amplificare in infinitum_.”
[407] H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschungen (1910),
p. 53. “What made such a deep impression on him? [in the works of
Augustine]. First, if we may believe the notes in his own hand in the
copy he chiefly used (‘Werke,’ Weim. ed., vol. ix.), more particularly
Augustine’s mystico-philosophical considerations on God, the world, the
soul, the worthlessness of all earthly things, and felicity in God.
These ideas, however, were hardly quite new to him. He had already met
with them, for instance, in Bernard of Clairvaux and other mystics.”
That they should have “impressed him so forcibly,” as Böhmer rightly
remarks, was largely owing to the fact that his ear caught in them
echoes of the ideas germinating in his own mind.
[408] Cp., e.g., Tauler’s complaint against those who misuse the
directions of the mystics in the sense of ethical passivity, i.e. of
Quietism: “They blindly mislead their nature and become careless of
all good works,” etc. “They sink into a dangerous natural quietude
... without the practice of virtue.” “Man,” on the contrary, “must
recognise the commandments of God and the Church and resolve to keep
the same.” “Tauler’s Sermons,” ed. Hamberger, 1, p. 194 f. Cp. J. Zahn,
“Einführung in die christl. Mystik,” Paderborn, 1908, p. 313 ff.
[409] To George Leiffer, April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31.
[410] With regard to his ideas of the supposed animosity of mysticism
for Scholasticism, W. Köhler says (“Luther und die Kirchengesch.,”
1, 1, Erlangen, p. 285): “the opposition between mysticism and
Scholasticism, which has become historic, was never so acute as it
appeared to Luther’s imagination. In principle, Scholasticism and
mysticism stand on the same ground, one being the necessary complement
of the other.”
[411] From Dungersheim’s “Dialogus adversus M. Lutherum”; Enders,
“Briefwechsel,” p. 180.
[412] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 55: “_iuxta Taulerum tuum_.”
[413] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 205.
[414] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 135, he says of the earthly minded: “_Nullus
[est] eius Deus creator, quia non vult esse nihil, cuius ille sit
creator. Nullius_ [read _nullus_] _est potens, sapiens, bonus, quia non
vult in infirmitate, stultitia, penalitate sustinere eum_.”
[415] _Ibid._, p. 138, in the passage: “_Quia charitas Dei diffusa
est in cordibus nostris_” (Rom. v. 5): “_’Charitas Dei’ dicitur, quia
per eam solum Deum diligimus, ubi nihil visibile, nihil experimentale
nec intus nec foris est, in quod confidatur aut quod ametur aut
timeatur, sed super omnia in invisibilem Deum et inexperimentalem,
incomprehensibilem, sc. in medias tenebras interiores rapitur, nesciens
quid amet, sciens, autem quid non amet, et omne cognitum et expertum
fastidiens et id quod nondum cognoscit, tantum desiderans.... Hoc donum
longissimo abest ab iis, qui suas iustitias adhuc vident et diligunt
et non visis tristantur._” He thinks he must rise superior to such
self-righteous, to whom his brother monks, who are zealous for good
works (the Observantines?), belonged.
[416] See above, p. 43. We shall deal later with his further relations
with Lang, with whom he shared an inclination to mystic studies and
leanings.
[417] This is one of the seven old books discovered there in 1889-90;
the glosses added by Luther to the same were edited by Buchwald in the
Weim. ed., volume ix. For the glosses to Tauler, see _ibid._, p. 95 ff.
[418] Weim. ed., 9, pp. 98, 102 f. The real action of God on the
spirit is that which takes place through Him “_ignorantibus et non
intelligentibus nobis id quod agit_.” He complains: “_Etsi sciamus quod
Deus non agat in nobis, nisi prius nos et nostra destruat ... non nudi
stamus in mera fide_”; but the “_nuda fides_” is necessary because
God acts contrary to our ways of thinking and does what we may fancy
to be “_ex diabolo_.” Such exhortations to confide ourselves blindly
to a higher direction may be right, but one naturally asks how is the
fact of this guidance from on high to be guaranteed and distinguished
from a mere leading astray. Luther in his public life simply assumed
his mission to be divine because he felt it to be such (see vol. iii.,
xvi., 1 and 2), and because he persuaded himself that he was being
led by inspiration from above “like a blind horse” to fight against
Antichrist.
[419] Weim. ed., 9, p. 103: “_Nullius exempli passionem vel operationem
oportet sibi præstituere, sed indifferentem et nudam voluntatem
habere_,” etc.
[420] _Ibid._, p. 98 f.
[421] _Ibid._, p. 98: It is true he thinks he is explaining what
precedes: “_Nota, quod divina pati magis quam agere oportet._”
[422] _Ibid._, p. 104. Cp. p. 103: “_Deus est intimior rebus ceteris
quam ipse_ [i.e. _ipsæ_] _sibi_,” etc.
[423] See J. Zahn, “Einführung in die christl. Mystik,” p. 320.
Reference may be made to this excellent work for the historical proofs,
even from Tauler, into which we are not able to enter; p. 291, on the
“Erlöschen der Ichheit.”
[424] Zahn, _ibid._, pp. 331, 327.
[425] “Sermons,” ed. Hamberger, 2, p. 131; in the sermon on Luke xv. 8
ff. Cp. Zahn, p. 343 ff. “Ueber die Prüfungen im mystischen Leben.”
[426] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 135 _seq._, p. 138: “_Charitas Dei, quæ est
purissima affectio in Deum, quæ sola facit rectos corde, sola aufert
iniquitatem, sola exstinguit fruitionem propriæ iustitiæ. Quia non
nisi solum et purum Deum diligit, non dona ipsa Dei, sicut hipocritæ
iustitiarii._” P. 139, again against the “_hipocritarum charitas,
qui sibi ipsis fingunt et simulant se habere charitatem.... Diligere
Deum propter dona et propter comodum est vilissima dilectione, i.e.
concupiscentia eum diligere._” God is to be loved “_propter voluntatem
Dei absolute_,” otherwise it is not the love of the children of God,
but the love of slaves. He overlooks the fact that it is possible to
recommend the higher without altogether repudiating the lower.
[427] 2-2, q. 188, a. 5.
[428] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 123 f., quoted by Hunzinger, “Luther
und die deutsche Mystik” [”Neue kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 19 (1908), Heft
11, pp. 972-88], p. 984, who remarks: the passage shows “how great the
danger was at that time of Luther becoming lost in these speculations”;
this is the “most extreme mystical utterance to be found in his
writings.” When he says: “What is here described as a _via crucis_ is
genuinely Neo-Platonic,” all will not agree with him. Hunzinger, p.
975, also considers it a proof of Neo-Platonism when, in his Commentary
on the Psalms, Luther follows St. Augustine and urges man “_avertere se
a visibilibus et convertere se ad invisibilia et intelligibilia_.” One
is more inclined to agree with his concluding sentence: “No one will
wish to assert, after taking note of this proposition, that Luther in
his mystical period never left the path of the ethical.”
[429] See below, viii. 2.
[430] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 74 f.
[431] April 8, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 28. See above, p. 88.
[432] Recently edited (1908) by H. Mandel according to Luther’s edition
with additions from MSS.; see “Theol. Literaturztg.,” p. 493 (1909).
Mandel says in the preface: “It is obviously not correct to represent
Luther’s well-known experiences in the monastery [which?] as directly
connected with his fundamental ideas of reform. Rather it is evident,
and acknowledged by Luther himself, that he learnt his root ideas in
the school of Tauler and the ‘Theologia Deutsch.’” It is true that his
misapprehension of the same strengthened his mistaken notions. The very
first chapter in the booklet disproves the assertion frequently made
that it is decidedly Pantheistic in tone; there a definite distinction
is made between God and the creature as the “perfect” and the “divided”
essence: “of all the divided none is perfect. Hence the perfect is
no part of the divided.” In the light of this the obscure sentence
which occurs in the “Theologia Deutsch,” that God, the Perfect, is the
essence of all things, without which and outside of which there is no
real being, must not be understood in the Pantheistic sense. The book,
in fact, contains no sentence which cannot be understood in an orthodox
fashion when taken in conjunction with others.
[433] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 137.
[434] Cp. W. Köhler, “Luther und die Kirchengesch.,” 1, 1, p. 244,
who quotes Tauler in the above sense from his sermons in Hamberger’s
edition (Frankfurt a/M., 1826), volume i., p. 261 ff.; volume ii., pp.
408, 410, 428. Köhler remarks (p. 239) that “however much Tauler had in
common with Luther ... the latter overlooked the differences”; on p.
244: “his severity to self-righteousness is a point which Luther learnt
from Tauler.”
[435] In his “Asterisci,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 298, agreeing with the
Resolutiones, _ibid._, p. 586. Cp. Köhler, pp. 248-50.
[436] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 674; Köhler, p. 252.
[437] Volume ii., p. 133.
[438] J. Zahn, “Einführung in die christl. Mystik,” p. 302.
[439] J. Zahn, _ibid._, p. 303. Zahn expresses himself very aptly
in regard to the unfavourable moral effects of the contrary theory;
the incentive which Christ expressly recommends when He says we are
to rejoice in the glorious reward which awaits us in the next world
(Matt. v. 12) has a very different influence. Against Fénelon’s
incorrect views of pure love without any admixture of interest for
eternal salvation, he has the following: “The greatest fault in
Fénelon’s system lies in the coupling together of the real striving
after perfection and the attainment of salvation with an unworthy
egotistical working for a reward” (p. 307). The theories of Mme. Guyon,
whom Fénelon defends, are simply appalling: “O Will of my God, Thou
wouldst be my Paradise in Hell.” According to her, the sacrifice of
salvation is the culmination of the interior life (_ibid._, p. 292).
Cp. the propositions from the Quietist mysticism of Molinos, condemned
by Innocent XI on November 20, 1687.
[440] An exposition of Luther’s directed against the Areopagite
(“Werke,” Weim. ed., 5, p. 163) is accompanied with the strange
information that one becomes a theologian “_moriendo et damnando, non
intelligendo, legendo aut speculando_.”
[441] Köhler, p. 332. “There is an immense difference” when Luther
speaks of trust in God or of the sufferings of Christ and when Bernard
does the same. “Luther did not notice anything of this difference,
though it was worth while examining ... he identified with him his own
resuscitation of the gospel.”
[442] Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 121 f. (Table-Talk); Köhler, p. 362
f.: “Those Romanists (Emser, Eck, etc.) knew better how to appreciate
Gerson than Luther did, in whom the insight into Gerson’s ‘Catholicism’
was sadly wanting.” “He ever remained a stranger to the true inwardness
of Gerson.”
[443] Köhler, p. 335 f., where examples are given of Luther’s
“subjective interpretation” of St. Bonaventure.
[444] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 5, p. 353.
[445] Köhler, p. 261. Köhler says that Tauler “laid great stress on the
Divine initiative”; but so did the Scholastics and the Fathers.
[446] Hunzinger, “Neue kirchl. Zeitschr.,” _ibid._, p. 985 f. “We may
say that German mysticism achieved what it did in Luther in union with
his study of the Epistle to the Romans.” “Thus the acute change from
Indeterminism to religious Determinism took place in Luther under the
direct influence of German mysticism. In the ‘_De servo arbitrio_’ it
attained its extremest limit. This is not explained [more correctly,
_entirely_ explained], as some have thought, by Occamism, but by German
mysticism.” P. 987: After his period of mysticism Luther took leave
altogether of the semi-Pelagianism and Indeterminism of Scholasticism.
On p. 988 Luther’s standpoint is thus stated: “Any concurrence between
free will and its faculties and grace, or any kind of preparation for
grace, is altogether done away with.... God’s grace alone works for
salvation, and predestination is the only cause of salvation in those
who are justified.”
[447] Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹, more particularly from p.
413; Denifle-Weiss, 1², more particularly from p. 447; Denifle, 1²,
“Quellenbelege,” p. 309 ff.
[448] See Joh. Ficker, “Luthers Vorlesung über den Römerbrief,”
Leipzig, 1908, p. xxv. ff., xxx.
[449] Cp. Grauert, “P. Heinrich Denifle,” 1906, p. 53 ff. Grauert
referred to J. K. Oetrich, “Entwurf einer Gesch. der Bibliothek zu
Berlin” (1752, p. 63).
[450] On the glosses and scholia generally, see above, p. 63.
[451] See above, p. 93 f.
[452] See below, chapter viii. 1.
[453] Cod. Vat. palat. 1826, fol. 77; Denifle, 1², “Quellenbelege,” p.
313 f.; Ficker, “Rom. Schol.,” p. 2 f.
[454] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 227.
[455] Ficker, p. 1.
[456] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 21 ff. Denifle had only stated generally that
Luther taught absolute predestination, without quoting the passages in
the Commentary. Cp. Fr. Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,”^[4] p. 709, n. 8.
[457] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 22 f.
[458] _Ibid._, p. 22 f.
[459] _Ibid._, p. 23.
[460] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 24.
[461] With regard to the fact of Luther’s tendency to a fear and terror
of God, O. Scheel says (“Die Entwicklung Luthers, Schriften des Vereins
für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, Leipzig, 1910, pp. 61-230, p. 80):
“We possess statements from Luther’s own pen during his life in the
monastery which show that the thought of death and Divine Judgment
moved him deeply. The words, that the countenance of the Lord is upon
us, are [to him] terrible.... We see one fear succeeding the other in
the face of sudden death ... the thought of God the Judge inspires him
with horror.... It is possible that the manner in which these feelings
express themselves was connected with morbid dispositions, that the
attacks of fear which suddenly, without apparent cause, fell upon
him, were due to an unhealthy body. That the assaults reacted on his
bodily state is probable. The root of the fear, however, lies in the
lively conviction of the righteous Judgment of God.” W. Braun (“Die
Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” p. 295) thinks
that “Luther’s assaults in the monastery were a mystical exercise. He
experienced what Tauler and the ‘Theologia Deutsch’ relate regarding
the consuming inward fires of Purgatory. Luther mentions that Tauler
[like himself!] was acquainted with the ‘_horror conscientiæ a facie
iudicii Dei_.’” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 5, p. 203.
[462] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 20 f.
[463] _Ibid._, p. 323.
[464] _Ibid._, p. 322.
[465] _Ibid._, p. 222 f.: “_Hii (qui vere bona faciunt) sciunt
quod homo ex se nihil potest facere_,” in contradistinction to the
“Pelagians,” who “_libertati arbitrii tribuunt facere quod est in se,
ante gratiam_.”
[466] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 221.
[467] _Ibid._, p. 323.
[468] _Ibid._, p. 221.
[469] _Ibid._, p. 223.
[470] _Ibid._, p. 214.
[471] _Ibid._, pp. 215-20.
[472] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 226.
[473] _Ibid._, p. 223: “_Si enim vellent quod vult Deus, etiamsi
damnatos et reprobatos vellet, non haberent malum; quia vellent, quod
vult Deus, et haberent in se voluntatem Dei per patientiam._”
[474] _Ibid._, p. 217.
[475] _Ibid._, p. 217 f.
[476] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 225.
[477] _Ibid._, pp. 208, 209, 210.
[478] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 219.
[479] _Ibid._, p. 221.
[480] Bonaventure, in iii., dist. 27, a. 2, q. 2: “_Amor concupiscentiæ
non repugnat amori amicitiæ in caritate_,” etc. Cp. Thom. Aquin., 2-2,
q. 23, a, 1.
[481] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 210, 218.
[482] _Ibid._, p. 227.
[483] “Schol. Rom.”
[484] _Ibid._, pp. 227, 228.
[485] _Ibid._, p. 224.
[486] _Ibid._, p. 229.
[487] _Ibid._, 231.
[488] “_Commentar. in Ep. ad Romanos_,” p. 495.
[489] Formerly some few Catholic theologians found in the statements
of the Apostle the so-called “_prædestinatio ad gloriam ante prævisa
merita_” (though never a “_reprobatio ante prævisa merita_”); but as J.
Th. Beelen remarks in his “_Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos_” (1854),
none of them ever sought for an exegetical foundation for the same.
Cornely, l.c., p. 495 _sq._
[490] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 230, and August., “Enchiridion ad Laurent.,” c.
98, Migne, P. L., xl., p. 278.
[491] S. Aug., “Contra Iulianum,” 6, n. 8, 14, 24; “Opus imperf.,” 1,
c. 64, c. 132 _seq._, 175: “De catechiz. rudibus,” n. 52; “De spiritu
et litt.,” c. 33; “Retract,” 1, c. 10, n. 2. Cp. Cornely, p. 494, on
some exegetical peculiarities of Augustine.
[492] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 212.
[493] _Ibid._, p. 213.
[494] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 212 ff.
[495] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 1 ff.
[496] _Ibid._, p. 2 f.
[497] _Ibid._, p. 305. “_Observantes invicem propter Deum pugnant, sed
dilectionis præceptum nihil attendunt._”
[498] _Ibid._, p. 334.
[499] Cp. above, p. 88 ff., Luther’s letter to Spenlein, who had left
his monastery for that at Memmingen.
[500] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 325.
[501] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 20, he speaks against the “_spiritualis
et subtilior idolatria_”; p. 45, against those who are “_vane
gloriosi_” in their exterior observances; p. 75, against the “_nimis
iusti_,” “_nimis intelligentes_” and “_nimis quærentes_,” who are
“_incorrigibiles in suo sensu_”; p. 83, a fresh outburst against those
who “_in suis iustitiis pacem in carne quærunt_....” “_Nihil capiunt
quia sunt superbi.... Præsumunt quod Deus eorum sensum et opera
approbabit, quia ipsis iustus et rectus apparet_”; p. 86, he again
attacks “_omnes superbi in ecclesia spirituales, qui sunt magnorum
et multorum operum_.” Then, to omit many digressions against the
“_iustitiarii_,” and merely to quote from the last part of the work,
he says, p. 220, of the righteous in his own sense by whom damnation
would be willingly accepted (“_libentes damnari volunt_”), that they
shame the swarm of others, “_qui sibi merita fingunt et pingunt ac bona
quærunt, fugiunt mala et in absconditis suis nihil habent_”; these
are, according to p. 221, “_superbi iustitiarii, qui certi sunt de
bonis operibus suis_,” or, according to p. 273, those “_in sua iustitia
præsumentes_.” The “_sapientes iustitiarii_,” according to p. 331,
destroy the temple of God by their false wisdom and their observances.
Superintendent H. Hering has expressed himself candidly in the
“Theologische Studien und Kritiken” (50, 1877, p. 627) on certain
notable passages in Luther’s Commentary on the Psalms: “His anger,”
so he says, “is almost more vehement against the Observantines than
against the heretics”; to their claim to exemptions and dispensations
Luther opposes the assertion that it is impossible to dispense
from obedience. He refers, among other passages of Luther’s, to
the beginning of his interpretation of Psalm xxxi. (“_Beati quorum
remissæ_,” etc.), where apparently the Observantines are denounced
as schismatics on account of their opposition to Staupitz and his
plans: “_similiter et superstitiosi seu schismatici abiiciunt per suam
singularitatem suum prælatum, in quo Christus eis præficitur, quorum
hodie maior est numerus (quam hæreticorum)_.” “Werke,” Weim. ed.,
3, p. 174. In earlier passages (3, p. 172) he speaks against those
who, in the singularity of their observances, “_reiecta obedientia et
fide suam statuunt iustitiam_” and declares them, on account of their
pride, to be deniers of Christ, and (p. 61) against the upholders of
special statutes who fight for their ceremonies and their “_vanitas
observantiæ exterioris_,” who “_compunguntur in habitu_,” etc. We seem
to hear echoes of the struggle that was going on in the Order not only
in the passages from the sermons quoted above (p. 80 ff.), but also
in such as the following, from the year 1516: These “_iustitiarii_”
are “_irritabilissimi omnium_”; they are “_prompti alios vindicare
... iudicare, condemnare, quærulantes et accusantes, quod iniuriam
sustineant, ipsi recte facientes_”; but “they do not fulfil the spirit
of the law” (“Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 160; cp. 158 Weim. ed., 1, p.
114). He puts in the mouth of the “_iustitiarii_”: “_Tu peius vivis
quam ego_,” and describes how they fancy themselves quite safe and
have no need of Christ as their physician (_ibid._, p. 128; Weim.
ed., 1, p. 85). He had already accused them above of disobedience and
rebellion, and his charging them with revolt against their lawful
superior (“_abiiciunt per suam singularitatem suum prælatum_”) leads
one to suppose he had in view the opposition of the Observantines
to Staupitz’s plans. We may perhaps find in these passages reason
for applying the attacks in the Commentary on Romans to the Erfurt
Observantines, though there is no actual proof of this.
Does not Staupitz himself, who was Vicar-General of the Congregation,
in certain of his works (published after 1515) sometimes oppose the
spirit of the Observantines, such as it appears to him? Cp. Braun,
“Concupiscenz,” p. 68 ff. It would be surprising if no echo of a
conflict which touched him so nearly had obtruded itself into his
writings. Unfortunately historical data regarding the external progress
of the breach are wanting. Braun fully recognises Luther’s alienation
and that it had grounds; thus of Luther’s cutting address delivered
before the Chapter of the Order at Gotha on May 1, 1515, he says: “It
is obvious that sad experiences lay behind these words.... The tendency
to quarrelsomeness, which, it cannot be denied, was apparent in Luther
at a later date—though much may be said in excuse of it—may have made
itself felt even then, long before his breach with the Church.” The
“_primaria nostræ unionis factio_,” which Barthol. Usingen mentions
(see N. Paulus, “Usingen,” p. 16, n. 5, and Oergel, “Der junge Luther,”
p. 132), brought Luther’s friend, Johann Lang, in the summer of 1511
from Erfurt to Wittenberg. He joined Luther in passing over from
the stricter to the more liberal party supported by Staupitz. For
Cochlæus’s statement regarding Luther: “_ad Staupitzium defecit_,” see
above, p. 38. The relations existing between the Observantines and the
Conventuals, even among other Orders where a similar movement towards
reform was taking place, are instructive. There was, for instance,
a division in the Dominican Order. The Observantine priories of the
so-called German Province of the Dominicans (_prov. teutonica_)—as
a matter of fact, the Province of South Germany—were permitted to
choose a Provincial, while the Conventual priories formed a special
German Congregation (_congregatio Germanica_), with a Vicar-General
at their head. Since 1511 Johann Faber had been Vicar-General, but he
too was in favour of a reform. The cause of the conflict in this case
arose from the Observantines trying to bring the Conventuals to their
way of thinking by appealing to ecclesiastical and secular authority.
Cp. N. Paulus in the “Histor. Jahrbuch,” 17, 1896, p. 44, and in “Die
deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,” 1903, p. 299.
[502] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 273. With the above is connected the fact that
in his mysticism he peremptorily demands the surrender of all rights
and privileges.
[503] _Ibid._, p. 46.
[504] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 11, 45, 84, 94.
[505] The reader should notice his exaggerations regarding the teachers
of whose nominalistic tendency he disapproves: “_docent, quod lex opere
tantum sit implenda, etiam sine impletione cordis.... Nec ipsi minimo
saltem cordis conatu eadem aggrediuntur, sed solummodo externo opere_.”
_Ibid._, p. 45.
[506] _Ibid._, p. 332.
[507] The passage here referred to in St. Aug. is in “_Contra
Iulianum_,” 1. 8, c. 8; Migne, P. L. xliv., p. 689. Augustine there
when he speaks of “_servum potius quam liberum arbitrium_” does so in
another sense, though Luther saw fit to borrow the expression for the
title of his own later work of 1525: “_De servo arbitrio_.”
[508] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 209.
[509] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 322.
[510] _Ibid._, p. 323. In connection with the proposition at the
commencement of this division: “Man can of himself do nothing,” Luther
attacks the mediæval theological axiom: “_Facienti quod est in se,
Deus non denegat gratiam_” (in his Commentary on the Psalms, Weim.
ed., 4, p. 262, he already gives it as: “_Deus infallibiliter dat
gratiam_”). In order to make the matter clear we may state in advance
that, according to Catholic doctrine, we cannot with the powers of
nature merit grace either “_de condigno_” or “_de congruo_”; grace
excludes any natural acquiring of the same; man is only able to dispose
himself negatively for the acquisition of grace, not positively, i.e.
not in such a way as to demand grace as a right. “_Homo non movet se
ipsum ad hoc, quod adipiscatur divinum auxilium, quod supra ipsum est,
sed potius ad hoc adipiscendum a Deo movetur._” Thom., “_Summa contra
gent._,” 3, c. 149. In accordance with this, true Scholasticism did not
and could not wish to express by the proposition “_Facienti quod est in
se_,” etc., any real meriting of grace by our natural powers. Luther’s
attacks, which presuppose this, were therefore of no avail against
the true theology of the Middle Ages. The natural acts recognised by
theology as good are generally unimportant, have no supernatural merit,
and cannot positively qualify for grace in the sense of “_Facienti_,
etc.” The axiom implies rather that whoever does his part, roused
and moved thereto by actual grace, will arrive at saving grace and
reach heaven; it presupposes a negative preparation; God in His mercy
does not refuse His grace to whoever does his part. It was therefore
presumed that the actual grace of God was at work in every good work
which man performed, inviting to, co-operating with, and furthering it.
Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 577 ff. The mediæval theological work most
widely known in Luther’s time, the “_Compendium theologicæ veritatis_,”
says expressly: “Without grace no one is able to do his part so as to
prepare himself for salvation” (l. 5, c. 11). We find there no trace
of the Pelagianism with which Luther so bitterly reproached the whole
theology of the Middle Ages. (See Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 576, n. 5). “Is
mere co-operation with grace Pelagian?” Denifle asks (p. 577). And
what authorised Luther to say in the Schmalkald Articles (Müller-Kolde,
“Die symbolischen Bücher der evangel. luther. Kirche,” 1907, p. 311)
that the teaching “_si faciat homo quantum in se est, Deum largiri ei
certo suam gratiam_” was a _portentum_, a heathenish dogma from which
it followed that Christ had died in vain?
Luther himself had previously, in his Commentary on the Psalms (Weim.
ed., 4, p. 262), written, that God gives His grace without fail to
him who does his part, and yet he thereby assumed, with the whole of
theology, that grace and glory were not on that account merited, but
given us without any desert on our part. (Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 441.)
The passage reads: “_Hinc recte doctores, quod homini facienti quod
est in se, Deus infallibiliter dat gratiam, et licet non de condigno
sese possit ad gratiam præparare, quia est incomparabilis, tamen bene
de congruo, propter promissionem istam Dei et pactum misericordiæ._ “
Denifle here remarks aptly: “We must not overlook the fact, that Luther
here formulates the proposition ‘_Facienti_,’ etc., in the nominalistic
sense.” What is more important is that Luther, immediately before, had
rightly excluded all supernatural merit from natural action ( “_non ex
meritis, sed ex mera promissione miserentis Dei_ “).
The Nominalists of Occam’s school went much further in allowing
a natural preparation for grace (though not a meriting) than the
recognised representatives of Scholasticism. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p.
586: “The preparation for saving grace takes place, according to the
Occamists, by purely natural acts under the general concurrence of God;
particular concurrence is, according to them and speaking generally,
the saving grace itself, whereas, according to Scholasticism proper,
special concurrence, i.e. actual grace, intervenes between the natural
and the supernatural, i.e. saving grace, and is necessary for man’s
preparation for the reception of the latter; the general concurrence on
the other hand is represented as insufficient because it belongs to the
natural order. (See above, pp. 141 ff.) Nevertheless, the Nominalists,
as A. Weiss points out (Denifle, 1², p. 578, n. 2), came to expound
their theory quite satisfactorily. See Altenstaig, “Lexicon theolog.,”
Venet., 1583, fol. 163, s.v. _Facere quod in se est_. Still, Denifle is
right when he says (p. 441) that the reproach of Pelagianism later on
urged against them by Luther did to some extent apply to the Occamists.
The deeper ground, however, which led Luther in the above passages of
the Commentary on Romans to attack the “_Facienti_,” etc., was that,
in his antagonism against the good works of the self-righteous, he
had, with the assistance of pseudo-mysticism, reached a point where
he denied that any vital act on the part of man had any potency for
the working out of salvation. In the work of salvation he allows of
no power of choice: “The fulfilling of the law by our own efforts is
absolutely impossible “; “free will is altogether in sin and cannot
choose what is good in God’s sight.” See vol. ii., xiv. 3. Cp. W.
Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz bei Luther,” pp. 215, 217, 219,
221.
Protestant theologians could, moreover, have found the axiom
“_Facienti_,” etc., duly explained in the Catholic sense, with
its biblical and patristic supports, even in the ordinary Catholic
handbooks of theology, which would have obviated much misapprehension;
cp., for instance, H. Hurter, “_Theologiæ specialis pars altera_, “¹¹
Innsbruck, 1903 (Compendium 3), p. 65 _seq._, 72 _seq._
[511] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 183.
[512] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 183 f.
[513] Cp. _ibid._, pp. 114, 185, 187, 244.
[514] _Ibid._, p. 108.
[515] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 108 f. Cp. p. 178, where he complains that
they had reached the “_nocentissima fraus, ut baptizati vel absoluti,
statim se sine omni peccato arbitrantes, securi fierent de adepta
iustitia et manibus remissis quieti, nullius sc. conscii peccati, quod
gemitu et lachrymis lugendo et laborando expugnarent atque expurgarent.
Igitur peccatum est in spirituali homine relictum_,” etc. It is clear
that the continuance cf the “_fomes peccati_” is confused with the
continuance of sin and the languor which is frequently due to weakness
after the extirpation of sin, with a languor which must necessarily
set in. The “grace which is given” he sometimes looks upon as actual,
sometimes as saving grace. To follow him through all his erroneous
notions would be endless.
[516] _Ibid._, p. 114.
[517] _Ibid._, p. 167.
[518] _Ibid._, p. 111.
[519] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 179.
[520] _Ibid._, p. 178. See above, p. 209, n. 1.
[521] _Ibid._, p. 178.
[522] _Ibid._, p. 181. The passage quoted from Augustine is in “_De
nuptiis et concupiscentia ad Valerium_,” l. 1, c. 23; Migne, P. L.,
xliv., col. 428.
[523] “_Contra Julianum_,” l. 3, c. 26; Migne, P. L., xliv., col. 733
_sq._
[524] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 182.
[525] _Ibid._, p. 221.
[526] _Ibid._ “_Bonitas Dei facit nos bonos et opera nostra bona; quia
non essent in se bona, nisi quia Deus reputat ea bona. Et tantum sunt
vel non sunt, quantum ille reputat vel non reputat. Idcirco nostrum
reputare vel non reputare nihil est. Qui sic sapit, semper pavidus est,
semper Dei reputationem timet et expectat. Idcirco nescit superbire
et contendere, sicut faciunt superbi iustitiarii, qui certi sunt de
bonis operibus suis. Perversa itaque est definitio virtutis apud
Aristotelem, quod ipsa nos perficit et opus eius laudabile reddit._”
The nominalistic doctrine of acceptation also comes out in Luther’s
Heidelberg Disputation (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, pp. 352, 356), though
he explains it in such a fashion that it is clear he does not wish to
go as far as Occam’s paradox to be mentioned immediately. He answers
the objection that the same act cannot be pleasing and displeasing
to God at the same time, thus: “The Scholastics are acquainted only
with an acceptation by God without forgiveness; we, on the contrary,
know that the evil in all works is forgiven through Christ, our
righteousness, Who makes good all our defects; just as the saints have
so-called merits only in Christ, for Whose sake God accepts graciously
their works which He would not otherwise accept.” “Werke,” Weim. ed.,
1, p. 370. Cp. W. Braun, “Die Concupiscenz,” etc., p. 213, where he
rightly draws attention to the fact that A. Jundt, “Le développement
de la pensée religieuse de Luther jusqu’en 1517,” Paris, 1906, has
not drawn his “information regarding Scholasticism from the right
source, but from Harnack’s and Seeberg’s works, and even from Denifle’s
quotations.” Cp. “Hist. Jahrbuch,” 27, 1906, p. 884: “Jundt knows
nothing of the Catholic literature on the matter,” etc.
[527] Braun, pp. 191, 211; “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 42; 2, p. 536.
[528] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 221.
[529] _Ibid._
[530] Cp. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 183.
[531] _Ibid._, p. 89.
[532] _Ibid._, p. 90 f.
[533] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 91.
[534] _Ibid._, p. 93.
[535] _Ibid._, p. 95.
[536] _Ibid._, p. 96.
[537] _Ibid._, p. 100 f.
[538] Cp. what he says in “Schol. Rom.,” p. 85, about the “_opera
iusta, bona, sancta extra vel ante iustificationem_.” On p. 84 he
says, our good deeds should be directed towards the end “_ut mereamur
iustificari ex ipso (Deo)_.” In the interpretation of chapter ii. he
explains verse 14: “_Quicumque legem implet est in Christo et datur ei
gratia per sui præparationem ad eandem, quantum in se est_,” p. 38.
[539] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 608.
[540] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 41.
[541] _Ibid._, p. 83 f.
[542] _Ibid._, p. 84.
[543] _Ibid._, p. 114 f.
[544] Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 465.
[545] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 104 f.
[546] J. Ficker in the preface to Luther’s Commentary on Romans, p.
lxxi.
[547] For the explanation of certain expressions of Luther’s in this
Commentary, e.g. that “God infuses grace,” and that faith without
works does not justify, see Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 466.
[548] “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 2, p. 148: “_Pugnat esse ex Deo
natum et simul esse peccatorem._” Cp. Weim. ed. 2, p. 420.
[549] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 160. By “saints,” Luther means the
pious folk who follow his teaching.
[550] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 420 (in the year 1519).
[551] Cp., for the absence of assurance of salvation, “Schol. Rom.,
“ p. 104: “_Ex sola Dei reputatione iusti sumus; reputatio enim eius
non in nobis nec in potestate nostra est. Ergo nec iustitia nostra
in nobis est nec in potestate nostra_,” and, p. 105: “_Peccatores
(sumus) in re, iusti autem in spe_ “; p. 108: “_Sanus perfecte est
in spe, in re autem peccator_ “; p. 89: “_Nunquam scire possumus, an
iustificati simus, an credamus; idcirco tanquam opera nostra sint opera
legis estimemus et humiliter peccatores simus in sola misericordia
eius iustificari cupientes.... In ipsum (Christum) credere incertum
est_ “; only by this road of the sense of sin is it possible to attain
to the “grace of justification and pardon for a possible secret and
unconscious unbelief “; he “_qui se credere putat et omnem fidem
possidere perfecte_” has no part in this. The pious always think
with regard to their good works: “_Quis scit, si gratia Dei hæc mecum
faciat? Quis det mihi scire, quod bona intentio mea ex Deo sit? Quomodo
scio, quod id quod feci, meum, seu quod in me est, Deo placeat?_” (p.
323). (Cp. the celebrated question: How can I find a gracious God?)
“Away therefore,” he says, “with the proud self-righteous who think
themselves sure of their works!” (p. 221). Fear, humility, despair is
according to him the only fitting state in which to appear before God:
“Him who despairs of himself, the Lord accepts” (p. 223)—that is to
say, if He has not destined him for hell!
[552] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 221; see above, p. 211, note 4.
[553] From passage cited above, p. 114, n. 1.
[554] “Schol. Rom.,” 214. Cp. his explanation of the 4th Heidelberg
Thesis, that in a Christian “_desperatio_” ( “_mortificatio_”) and
“_vivificatio_” are united; also Theses 18 and 24, that “_conteri
lege_” is for everyone a necessity of the spiritual life. “Werke,”
Weim. ed., 1, p. 356 f., 361, 364.
[555] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 219.
[556] _Ibid._, p. 230.
[557] _Ibid._, p. 105.
[558] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 84.
[559] _Ibid._, p. 83.
[560] _Ibid._, p. 89.
[561] _Ibid._, p. 86 f.
[562] _Ibid._, p. 39.
[563] Ficker refers to “Schol. Rom.,” p. 23 ff., 108 ff., 111 _seq._,
114, 167, 185, 187, 199, 244, 283, 287, 322 f.
[564] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 322.
[565] _Ibid._, p. lxxvi.
[566] _Ibid._, p. 14.
[567] See below, chapter x.
[568] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 651; 4, p. 228.
[569] Denifle, 1¹, p. 444.
[570] _Ibid._, p. 605 ff., with his testimonies.
[571] _Ibid._, p. 599.
[572] Cp. above, p. 218, and “Schol. Rom.,” p. 105 ff.: “_(sancti)
iustitiam a Deo secundum misericordiam ipsius implorant, eo ipso semper
quoque iusti a Deo reputantur_.”
[573] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 219. This remarkable passage, which is a
proof of his pseudo-mysticism, runs: “_Omnis nostra affirmatio boni
cuiuscunque sub negatione eiusdem [abscondita est] ut fides locum
habeat in Deo, qui est negativa essentia _[!]_ et bonitas et sapientia
et iustitia nec potest possideri aut attingi nisi negatis omnibus
affirmativis nostris_.”
[574] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 206. Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 600.
[575] In Gal., 1, p. 14. We can understand that Protestant theologians
should wish to find in Luther’s Commentary on Romans the foundation
of the later so-called “Reformed Confession.” O. Scheel, the first
among them to treat in a detailed manner of the Commentary edited
by Ficker (“Die Entwicklung Luthers” [”Schriften des Vereins für
Reformationsgesch., No. 100”], p. 174 ff.), has brought together
a number of passages from this work concerning the doctrine of
justification, which do not quite agree with the purely outward
character of justification according to Luther, dwelt upon above,
and which appear to presuppose an inward renewal. In the Commentary
assertions are not wanting which contradict the ideas we have pointed
out as running through the work; this is due to the fact that the
author repeatedly reverts either to true Catholic views or to
nominalistic ideas. It is not surprising that contradictions should
occur very frequently at the commencement of his career, and that they
also do so at a later period is undeniable. (Cp. O. Scheel’s samples of
Luther’s Bible-teaching in our volume iv., xxviii., 1 and 2.)
Scheel himself says with reference to the doctrine of justification
in the Commentary: “Luther was unable to give to his new conception
of Christianity any thorough dogmatic sequence (p. 182); “these
statements (on Rom. iii.) are devoid of doctrinal clearness” (p. 183).
According to him it cannot be said “that Luther has arrived at any
clear presentment of his reforming ideas in his Commentary on Romans”
(p. 186). In the teaching of the Commentary _re_ Concupiscence Scheel
claims, it is true, to find “that deeply religious and moral conception
of a reformed Christianity which is peculiar to Luther” (p. 188),
but, nevertheless, remarks that Luther has not found “a quite uniform
definition” for “the meaning which he connects with Concupiscence.
Even the suppression of the guilt and the non-imputing of original sin
might, in view of Luther’s new religious and voluntarist views, be
regarded as insufficient; for insufficient importance attributed to
the connection between sin and guilt leads finally to an impersonal
estimate of sin” (pp. 188, 189). He stopped short at a definition “in
which we miss the severely voluntarist connection between sin and
guilt” (p. 190). The author therefore speaks of Luther’s view of sin as
“insufficient” (p. 191).
With regard to grace, he continues: “Luther’s statements as to grace
are also not altogether without ambiguity” (_ibid._), “he employs the
customary designations for the action of grace, without reflecting
that they do not correspond with his ethical and psychological views
of grace” (p. 192). “Man’s passivity in the process of salvation
which he vindicates, and which, according to the Reformed Confession,
was surely to be taken religiously, being only intended to deny the
existence of any claim to merit, he defends so ponderously that all the
psychological spontaneity of his voluntarism disappears and Quietist
mysticism has to supply him with the colours necessary for depicting
the appropriation of grace” (_ibid._).
Concerning the question of assurance of salvation in the Commentary
on Romans, Scheel, indeed, admits that “Luther had not yet arrived at
any definite certainty of salvation” (p. 195), and that his statements
are not “in touch with the saving faith of the Reformation” (_ibid._);
he finds, however, in the fear which Luther demands, “an element for
overcoming the uncertainty with regard to salvation” (p. 198), indeed,
he even thinks (p. 199) that “he had practically arrived at a certainty
of salvation.” So much may be admitted, that the incompleteness of
the system contained in the Commentary led Luther at a later period
to add to his numerous other errors, that of absolute certainty of
salvation by “faith alone.” With this our position is made clear with
regard to Holl’s article “Heilsgewissheit im Römerbriefkommentar,” in
the “Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,” 20, 1910, p. 245 ff., where the
doctrine of assurance is dated as far back as 1516 (p. 290).
[576] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 209 f.: “_Nostri theologi velut acutuli_,”
etc. “_Hæc tantum vacua verba sunt_,” etc. “_Est ridicula additio si
dicas_,” etc. “_Torquent intelligentiam_,” etc. Thus he arrives at
his “_immutabilis prædestinatio_.” “_Præcipit Deus ut irretiantur
reprobi, ut ostendat iram suam_,” with the pains of hell which they are
absolutely powerless to escape (p. 213). See also above, p. 189 ff.
[577] _Ibid._, p. 6. Against the “_mercenarii_.” In Ficker’s text it
reads: “_qualium hodie in ecclesia solus est numerus_.” In place of
“_solus_” read “_tantus_” or some other such word.
[578] _Ibid._, p. 7.
[579] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 111.
[580] _Ibid._, p. 290. Cp. p. 317.
[581] _Ibid._, p. 294 f.
[582] _Ibid._, p. 248 f.
[583] _Ibid._ Of the true preacher he says: “_Sub humili subiectione
eiusdem auctoritatis prædicet, semper stare iudicio illius paratus
ac, quæ mandata ei sunt, loqui, non quæ placita sunt sibi ac
inventa_.” The punishment threatened by Zach. xiii. 3 against false
prophets (“_configent eum_”), was to be applied to those who teach
subversive doctrines on their own authority, being the anathema of
their ecclesiastical superiors. “_Hoc est telum fortissimum, quo
percutiuntur hæretici, quia sine testimonio Dei vel authoritatis a
Deo confirmatæ, sed proprio motu, specie pietatis erecti, prædicant,
ut Ier._ xxiii. (v. 21): _Ipsi currebant et ego non mittebam eos. Et
tamen audent dicere: Nos salvabimur ... nos credimus ... prædicamus.
Sed hoc dicere non possunt: Nos prædicamus, quia missi sumus. Hic,
hic iacent! Et hic est tota vis et salus, sine quo cetera falsa sunt,
licet an falsa sint non cogitent._” The Church preaches an authentic
gospel, which, according to Romans i. 2, was introduced into the
world with solemn sanction and according to prophecy. But the gospel
of the heretic? “_Monstret, ubi sit ante promissum et a quo._” Where
is its attestation? “_Sed horum illi nihil solliciti stulte dicunt:
Nos veritatem habemus.... Quasi hoc satis sit ex Deo esse, quia ipsis
ita ex Deo videatur esse.... Sic ergo authoritas ecclesiæ instituta,
ut nunc adhuc Romana tenet ecclesia._” The heretics, it is true,
assert that they are in possession of the really wholesome teaching.
“_Volunt autem summam pietatem, ut sibi videtur._” But the decision
does not rest here with man’s own feelings; on the contrary, the Word
of God frequently overthrows man’s own opinion: “_non sinit stare
sensum nostrum, etiam in iis quæ sunt _[i.e. _videntur_]_ sanctissima,
sed destruit ac eradicat ac dissipat omnia_.” How powerfully and
thoughtfully is he able to handle an argument when he has right on his
side! Could anyone condemn more strongly his own later attitude?
[584] How, for instance, he exaggerates in his mystical enthusiasm the
principle of authority, see below, p. 252.
[585] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 243.
[586] _Ibid._, p. 275 f.
[587] _Ibid._, p. 278.
[588] _Ibid._, p. 317.
[589] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 271 f.
[590] _Ibid._, p. 272.
[591] _Ibid._, p. 300 f.
[592] _Ibid._, p. 301.
[593] _Ibid._, p. 272.
[594] _Ibid._, p. 301 f.
[595] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 320. It cannot be proved that such gloomy
forebodings were due to the influence of the apocalyptic literature
then so widely disseminated in print. (See Ficker, p. xcix.) The
verdict which he passes on the Church of that day is, however, as
severe and comprehensive as “the sharpest criticisms of the Reformed
theology, or of the apocalyptic literature” (_ibid._, p. xcvii.); the
verdict is really a consequence of his “new conception of a personal
religion” (p. xci.). On the strength of this Ficker thinks he may go
so far as to say: “Just as, hitherto, he had confronted the teaching
authorities with the Scripture rightly understood and opened up the
religion of the gospel to the individual, bringing it home to each one
as a moral force, so now under the pressure of the Scripture and of
outward events, he sets up the new standard of Christian life ... thus
realising in practice the religion he had discovered” (pp. xci., xcvi.).
[596] _Ibid._, p. 242.
[597] _Ibid._, pp. 298, 302, 303.
[598] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 285.
[599] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 49. _De libertate christiana._
[600] Cp. J. Zahn, “Einführung in die christl. Mystik,” p. 102.
[601] _Ibid._, p. 271 ff.
[602] Braun, “Concupiscenz,”. 301, n. 2.
[603] P. lxxxii.
[604] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 203.
[605] _Ibid._, pp. 205, 206.
[606] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 281, 286.
[607] Braun, p. 296.
[608] _Ibid._, p. 297.
[609] _Ibid._
[610] On the syntheresis, see above, p. 75. When Luther, on the
strength of Romans ii., nevertheless, recognises “that natural religion
exerts the force of conscience in the hearts of the heathen,” he is
contradicting himself without being aware of it. (Braun, p. 300.)
[611] Braun, p. 296.
[612] _Ibid._, p. 284.
[613] Braun, p. 301.
[614] _Ibid._
[615] Cp. _ibid._, pp. 287, 288.
[616] For instance, “Schol. Rom.,” p. 136 ff.: “_Natura nostra vitio
primi peccati tam profunda est in seipsam incurva, ut non solum
optima dona Dei sibi inflectat ... verum etiam hoc ipsum ignoret....
Hoc vitium propriissimo nomine Scriptura Aon, id est iniquitatem,
pravitatem, curvitatem appellat.... Talis curvitas est necessario
inimica crucis, cum crux mortificet omnia nostra, illa autem se et
sua vivificet._” Therefore it is necessary (and here he comes to his
personal ideas against the self-righteous) to reach a point where,
“_iustitia et sapientia omnis devoratur et absorbetur.... Charitas Dei
extinguit fruitionem propriæ iustitiæ, quia non nisi solum et purum
Deum diligit, non dona ipsa Dei, sicut hipocritæ iustitiarii._” “What
Luther says of pure love,” Denifle remarks (Denifle, 1¹, p. 484),
“rests merely on his misconception of Tauler.” He points out that, in
his Commentary on Romans, owing to his false idea of self-love he went
so far as to “explain the command ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ in
quite a different sense from that hitherto taught by the Church, for
ourselves we may only hate.... According to him, this command means:
hate thyself that thou mayest love thy neighbour alone.” (“_Oblitus
tui, solum proximum diligas._”)
[617] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 59.
[618] _Ibid._, p. 133.
[619] _Ibid._, p. 139.
[620] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 133 f.
[621] _Ibid._, p. 137. Cp. above, p. 234, n. 4 end.
[622] Heidelberg Disputation, on thesis 24. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p.
363. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 401.
[623] _Ibid._, theses 19, 20.
[624] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 285.
[625] Cp. Luther’s appeal to Tauler: “_De ista patientia Dei et
sufferentia vide Taulerum_,” etc. (see above, p. 232). Denifle, 1¹, p.
484, remarks: “The above statements are in part founded on Tauler, whom
Luther misunderstood throughout. The two stood on different ground and
had a different starting-point and a different goal.”
[626] In allusion to such doctrines, Denifle speaks (Denifle, 1¹, p.
486) of “Luther’s worse than morbid, yea, terrible theology.” The
passages in Tauler which have been alleged to show that his teaching
was similar to that of Luther on this point, have quite a different
sense. Tauler did not recognise the undeserved reprobation which Luther
presupposes; he makes the horrible misfortune of eternal reprobation,
which culminates in hatred of God, a result of voluntary separation
from Him in this life.
[627] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 213, 223.
[628] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 214.
[629] _Ibid._, p. 218.
[630] _Ibid._, p. 217 f.
[631] On the history of the explanation of this passage see Cornely,
“Commentar. in Ep. ad Romanos,” pp. 471-4.
[632] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 218 f.
[633] The frequently quoted description is to be found in “Werke,”
Weim. ed., 1, p. 557 f.
[634] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 272. Cp. _ibid._, p. 301.
[635] Cp. above, p. 228.
[636] J. Ficker in the Preface of his edition of the Commentary, p. liv.
[637] For the sources used by Luther, see Ficker, pp. liii.-lxii.
[638] Thus Ficker, p. lxii.
[639] “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” p.
176.
[640] See above, p. 129. W. Friedensburg, “Fortschritte in Kenntnis der
Reformationsgesch.” (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,”
No. 100, 1910, pp. 1-59), p. 17: “It appears [from Denifle’s work] that
Luther was little acquainted with the Scholastics of the Middle Ages,
especially with Thomas of Aquin—which was equally the case with nearly
all his contemporaries [?]—and that he drew his information from
secondary sources,” etc.
[641] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 335. The reproach brought against these
opponents of backbiting forms an exact parallel to Luther’s address,
“_Contra sanctulos_,” mentioned above. Compare the allusions, p. 334,
“_Tædiosi sunt et nolunt esse in communione aliorum; sic hæretici, sic
multi superbi._” And before: “_Hi insulsi homines contra totum ordinem_
[he is referring to their state or position in life] _insurgunt ac
velut ipsi sint mundi, ut nullibi sordeant, cum tamen ante et retro et
intus non nisi suum et porcorum sint forum et officina_.” The anecdote
which he relates (p. 243 f.) of the man who resolved “_amore Dei velle
nunquam mingere_,” with which Luther laughs to scorn the desire of some
to perform extraordinary works for God’s sake, is quite in keeping with
this language.
[642] _Ibid._, p. 208.
[643] _Ibid._, p. 101. This kind of language which he indulges in at
a later date agrees with his character. “His personality presents
hundreds of enigmas”; says A. Hausrath in his biography of Luther, 1,
p. vii., “of all great men Luther was the most paradoxical.”
[644] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 187. Cp. p. 321.
[645] Sess. 6, c. 7. Cp. c. 16: “_Quæ enim_,” etc. In can. 11 of this
session “inherent” charity is again mentioned, and in can. 10 the
righteousness by which we are “_formaliter iusti_.” Cp. Luther’s bitter
attack on the expression “_fides formata caritate_” (see above, p. 209).
[646] Sess. 7, can. 8, 9.
[647] “Educative” grace which imparts “strength” is probably what we
call actual grace, not sanctifying grace. Luther makes no distinction
either as regards the term or the matter. His determinism, with its
“_servum arbitrium_,” left no room for actual grace to perform any real
work; this he admits more plainly of the time preceding justification
than of that which follows it. Cp. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 206: “_Ad
primam gratiam sicut et ad gloriam semper nos habemus passive sicut
mulier ad conceptum_,” etc. It is here he introduces his “mystical”
recommendation, viz. to suffer God’s strong grace, and without any
act of reason or will “_in tenebras ac velut in perditionem et
annihilationem ire_,” however hard that may be. Here we find nothing
about any “educative and moulding energy.”
[648] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 170-6.
[649] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 178.
[650] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹, p.515 f.
[651] _Ibid._, p. 517, n. 3.
[652] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 175 f.
[653] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 234 f., 277.
[654] Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 518 f.
[655] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 303.
[656] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. 673.
[657] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 241.
[658] _Ibid._, p. 242.
[659] _Ibid._, p. 245.
[660] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 86 f.
[661] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 87 f.
[662] _Ibid._, p. 89.
[663] _Ibid._, p. 92.
[664] _Ibid._, p. 93.
[665] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 94.
[666] _Ibid._, p. 95.
[667] _Ibid._, p. 96.
[668] _Ibid._, p. 97.
[669] _Ibid._, p. 323 f. Cp. above, p. 218 f.
[670] _Ibid._, p. 86: “_Igitur iustificatio requirit non opera legis,
sed vivam fidem, quæ sua operetur opera._” Cp. above, p. 214, n.
6, where he speaks of the “_præparatio_” for justification by the
fulfilling of the law.
[671] _Ibid._, p. 85. It is possible that, without making any
distinction, he here passes on to the activity of the righteous.
Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 466, 467, on Luther’s want of clearness
regarding justifying faith.
[672] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 321.
[673] Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 34.
[674] See above, p. 249, n. 1, and p. 204.
[675] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 447 f., 466 f.
[676] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 74 f., who sees in such passages
the trace of “Augustinian-Bernardine piety,” which formed “the inner
link between Luther and (the mystic) Staupitz.”
[677] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 486.
[678] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 243.
[679] Thes., 81 _seq._, 90. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 291 _seq._ Weim.
ed., 1, pp. 625, 627.
[680] Regarding this MS. see Ficker’s Introduction to the Commentary on
Romans, p. xxix. f.
[681] May 29, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 37 f.
[682] August 30, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 49.
[683] In September (?), 1516, _ibid._, p. 57.
[684] October 5, 1516, _ibid._, p. 60. The expression covering of our
shame occurs frequently in his writings, thus it appears in “Schol.
Rom.,” p. 334, where Gal. vi. 1 (“_Alter alterius onera portate_”) is
rendered: “_Alter alterius ignominiam portate_”; Christ too willingly
bore our shame.
[685] September (?), 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 54.
[686] October 26, 1516, _ibid._, p. 67.
[687] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 68.
[688] June 22, 1516, _ibid._, p. 42.
[689] _Ibid._, p. 43.
[690] Cp. Luther’s Indulgence theses, 92 and 93, where “_pax_, _pax_,”
and “_crux_, _crux_” are repeated in the same way. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1,
p. 291. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 628.
[691] October 26, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 68: “_Feci ideo, quod
sperabam, me ipsum illic ad medium annum regnaturum._”
[692] September 25, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 51.
[693] May 29, 1516, _ibid._, p. 38.
[694] May 17, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 99.
[695] Undated (1516?), _ibid._, p. 77.
[696] From the latter months of 1516, _ibid._, p. 76: “_Confiteor tibi,
quod vita mea in dies appropinquat inferno, quia quotidie peior fio et
miserior._”
[697] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 219 f.
[698] _Ibid._, p. 317.
[699] _Ibid._, p. 291.
[700] See above, p. 71.
[701] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 318.
[702] _Ibid._
[703] _Ibid._
[704] Of himself he says at a later date: I went into the convent
“because I despaired of myself.” (See above, p. 4.)
[705] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 317.
[706] _Ibid._, p. 123.
[707] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 317.
[708] _Ibid._, p. 318.
[709] _Ibid._, p. 165 f.
[710] _Ibid._, p. 286.
[711] _Ibid._, p. 320.
[712] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 316 f.
[713] _Ibid._, p. 317: “_Curandum, ut [vota] eadem charitate solvantur,
qua sunt promissa, sine qua solvi non possunt.... Ideo apostatæ sunt
multi, et non videntur._”
[714] “Celifodina,” Supplementum, Erfordiæ, 1504, fol. L. 3 _seq._, M.
1´ _seq._
[715] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 283.
[716] Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 283.
[717] _Ibid._
[718] April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31.
[719] October 26, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 66 f.
[720] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 288.
[721] _Ibid._, pp. 319, 320.
[722] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 290.
[723] Erl. ed., 23, p. 222.
[724] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 321.
[725] These words are given in German in the Latin text.
[726] Also in German.
[727] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 321 f.
[728] “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” ed. Brieger, 4, 1886, p. 330,
in the _Dicta Melanchthoniana_, given by O. Waltz. Cp. Mathesius,
“Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 155, where Luther says, in June, 1540:
“At the time when I was a monk I was so much occupied in lecturing,
writing, singing, etc., that owing to my work I was unable to recite
the canonical Hours. Therefore on Saturday I made up for what I had
missed during the six days of the week, taking no meals and praying the
whole day, but, nevertheless, I did not trouble about the sense of the
words. Thus were we poor people tormented by the decrees of the Popes.”
[729] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 6. Cp. “Coll.,” ed.
Bindseil, 1, p. 67, and “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 3, p. 236.
[730] “_Scio quod non vivo quæ doceo._” To Bishop Adolf of Merseburg,
February 4, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 312.
[731] Melanchthon said on one occasion, according to Waltz (see above,
p. 278, n. 2), p. 326: “_Leo habet oculos χαροπούς_ (bright-eyed),
_Lutheri oculi sunt χαροποί_, _et habebant leonem in ascendente_
(probably “_habebat_,” viz. Luther in his Horoscope). _Et tales
plerumque sunt ingeniosi_ ... They were brown eyes, “_circuit circulus
gilvus_.”
[732] Joh. Oldecop’s “Chronik” (ed. K. Euling, Tübingen, 1891), pp.
36, 49. He says of Luther’s friend Lang, whose lecture on the Epistle
to Titus he had heard: “dat he ein hoifferdich monnik was und let sik
vele bedunken,” i.e. that he was a proud monk thinking not a little of
himself.
[733] _Ibid._, p. 40. P. 17, of the Erfurt days: He spoke against
everyone with a strange audacity and would give way to no one. P.
28: Martin was always wanting to be in the right and liked to pick a
quarrel.
[734] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 301.
[735] _Ibid._, p. 317: “_Nunc omnes fere desipiunt_ (this is about the
Church’s fasts) ... _ut rursum_ (_populus_) _apostolis indigeat ipsis,
ut veram disceret pietatem_
[736] _Ibid._, p. 199.
[737] Seneca, Ep. 45, 4.
[738] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 111. Here the term “Sawtheologen” occurs.
[739] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 89.
[740] Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.,”^[4] 1906, p.
690. Cp. above, pp. 127 ff., 130 ff., etc., on Luther’s ignorance of
Scholasticism.
[741] August 24, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 47.
[742] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 335.
[743] _Ibid._, p. 300.
[744] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 243.
[745] _Ibid._, p. 272.
[746] _Ibid._, p. 287.
[747] To Spalatin, December 14, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 73.
[748] The _Operationes in Psalmos_ with the letter of May 27, 1519,
“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 480 ff.
[749] “_Adeo infeliciter cessit opulentia et potentatus ecclesiæ._”
_Ibid._, p. 482.
[750] In “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 9, Luther’s receipt. See _ibid._, p.
10, n. 2, for the discreditable and incorrect tales concerning Luther,
which grew up around this gift.
[751] Letter of middle of May, 1519, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 9.
(“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 35.)
[752] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 319.
[753] _Ibid._, p. 310.
[754] _Ibid._
[755] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 298.
[756] _Ibid._, p. 299.
[757] _Ibid._, p. 309.
[758] _Ibid._, p. 322 f.
[759] _Ibid._, p. 323.
[760] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 486. Cp. p. 207. Commentary on Psalms.
[761] From the sermon on married life, 1519, 1 ed., “Werke” Weim. ed.,
9, p. 213.
[762] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100.
[763] P. 228. Where he here speaks of “sin,” it is more probable that
he means concupiscence.
[764] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 100.
[765] _Ibid._, p. 102.
[766] See above, p. 72, n. 2.
[767] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 109. Cp. above, p. 92, n. 1.
[768] “Sermo do pœnitentia,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 321.
[769] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 100. Cp. his statement in his first
answer to Prierias that zeal for sacramental penance could only endure
by a miracle, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 649 f. On the other hand, he
speaks of experiences he had had on the reception of grace, seemingly
referring to his confessions: “_Probavi sæpius infusionem gratiæ fieri
cum magna animi concussione._” This appears in the _Assertio omnium
articulorum_ (1520). “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 91 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,”
5, p. 154. According to the teaching of all ascetics the reception of
grace imparts peace and joy in God. Luther, however, infers from his
abnormal feelings: “_Sis ergo certus: simul dum homo conteritur, simul
gratia infunditur, et in medio terrore diligit iustitiam, si vere
pœnitet._” Weim. ed., 7, p. 117; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 189.
[770] See above, p. 10.
[771] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 466: “_Contritio de timore inferni et
peccati turpitudine est literalis, ficta et brevi durans, quia non
radicata amore, sed incussa timore tantum._”
[772] Sermon of October 31, 1516, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p, 99.
[773] _Ibid._, p. 319.
[774] _Ibid._, p. 320.
[775] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 321: “_Oratio et agnitio atque
confessio impœnitentiæ tuæ, si ficta non fuerit, eo ipso faciet,
ut Deus te pœnitentem verum reputet._” This quite agrees with what
he had already said in a sermon in 1515 (?): “_Etsi Deus imposuit
nobis impossibilia et super virtutem nostram, non tamen hic ullus
excusatur_”; for we cover ourselves with Christ: “_Christus impletionem
suam nobis impertit, dum seipsum gallinam nobis exhibet._” See above,
p. 80.
[776] The passage already referred to in his Commentary on Romans also
comes in here, namely, where he writes that he could not understand why
after contrition and confession he should not consider himself better
than others who had not confessed. By this he means to convey that the
common teaching that by real contrition and confession “_esse omnia
ablata et evacuata_” led to pride, whereas according to his idea sin
still remained. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 455, n. 4.
[777] Commentar. in Galat., ed. Irmischer, Erlangæ, 1, p. 193 _seq._:
“_Vera pœnitentia incipit a timore et iudicio Dei._”
[778] Cp. Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers,” 1900; Lipsius, “Luthers
Lehre von der Busse,” 1902, and Köstlin’s strange attempts at
explanation, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 131 ff. W. Hermann, “Die Busse
der evangelischen Christen,” in “Zeitschr. für Theol. und Kirche,” 1,
1891, p. 30, says: “It is true that Luther never entirely forsook the
true idea on this point (Penance), which he had arrived at with so much
effort. But the difficulties of Church government led him to relegate
this idea to the background and to return to the narrow Roman Catholic
view of the Sacrament of Penance.” And also _ibid._, p. 70: “With
regard to the questions affecting contrition, the Reformers practically
returned to the standpoint of the Roman Church.”
[779] For the manner in which contrition was taught before Luther’s
time in popular works such as are here being considered, see the
articles of N. Paulus in the Innsbruck “Zeitschrift für kathol.
Theol.,” 28, 1904; p. 1 ff., on the German confession-books; p. 449
ff. on the German books of edification; p. 682 ff. on the German books
on preparation for death. Contrition arising from fear alone is not
represented as sufficient in any of the numerous confession-books
at that time. _Ibid._, pp. 34, 449. Among the authors of works of
piety there is only one, viz. the Augustinian Johann Paltz, in his
“Celifodina” (Heavenly Mine), to admit that contrition from the
motive of fear together with the priest’s absolution sufficed for the
remission of sin; “but even he requires, in addition to an earnest
turning away from sin, a certain striving after perfect contrition, or
love; he looks upon imperfect contrition rather as a means of arriving
at perfect contrition; he is even very anxious to lead the faithful
to the higher level of perfect contrition.” Paulus, p. 485. Cp. on
Paltz, p. 475-9. Of the theologians cp. more particularly Gabriel
Biel, whose writings Luther had studied, in his “_Collectorium circa
4 libros sententiarum_,” Tubingæ, 1501, l. 4, dist. 35, q. unica,
art. 1. Here he makes a distinction between “_timor servilis_,” which
is ready to sin if there were no punishment, and “_timor, qui non
includit hanc deformitatem_.” He admits with regard to the latter:
“_est tamen bonus et utilis, per quem fit paulatim consuetudo ad actus
bonos de genere exercendos et malos vitandos, quo præparatur locus
charitatis_.” In Art. 3 he declares the latter fear to be a gift of
the Holy Ghost. But—in complete contradiction to the accusation
which Luther makes—he teaches that contrition merely from fear is
not sufficient, and requires a contrition from love. In the same
way Nicholas von Dinkelsbühl in his Tractatus (Argentinæ, 1516,
fol. 71) rejects the fear which is not in any way allied with love,
but considers it, together with the latter, wholesome as forming a
commencement of contrition. The Dominican, Johann Herolt, whose sermons
were widely disseminated, teaches in the _Sermones de tempore_ (1418)
and the _Sermones super epistolas_ (1439 and 1444) that to avoid sin
merely from the fear of punishment is sinful, but he is thinking of
the so-called _timor serviliter servilis_, in which the voluntary
attachment to sin still remains. He, as well as some others, omits
to point out that, in addition to the bad servile fear, there was
also a wholesome fear (N. Paulus, in his art. on Herolt, “Zeitschrift
f. kathol. Theol.,” 26, 1902, p. 428 f.). The Franciscan, Stephen
Brulefer, in his “Opuscula” (Parisiis, 1500, fol. 24 _seq._) opposes
certain theologians who had rejected servile fear as absolutely
sinful; fear (which really excludes sin), he says, is a gift of the
Holy Ghost, and theologians who teach otherwise are “_prædicatores
præsumptuosi, indiscreti et insipientes_,” and they deserved to be
punished as heretics. It was only Luther’s erroneous teaching which led
theologians to formulate this doctrine with greater exactitude. Cp.
A. W. Hunzinger, “Lutherstudien,” 2 Heft. Abt. 1: “Das Furchtproblem
in der katholischen Lehre von Augustin bis Luther,” Leipzig, 1907. In
this article the author wishes to furnish an introduction to Luther’s
doctrine of fear, but starts with the assumption that the will to sin
is an essential of the fear of punishment. On Hunzinger, see the “Hist.
Jahrb.,” 28, 1907, p. 413 f.
[780] May 30, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 195.
[781] Apart from Luther, we have another example of the same kind in
Gabriel Zwilling, who also left the Church, and of whom Luther says in
a letter to Johann Lang at Erfurt (March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p.
87 f.), that he was sending him to the Erfurt monastery in accordance
with Staupitz’s directions, and that care was to be taken “_ut
conventualiter se gerat: scis enim quod necdum ritus et mores ordinis
viderit aut didicerit_.” Thus he had been allowed to live at Wittenberg
without conforming to community rule, unless, indeed, we read the
passage as implying that at the Wittenberg monastery no attention was
paid to the rule by anybody.
[782] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 69.
[783] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 262.
[784] Letter of May 30, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 199.
[785] See above, p. 95.
[786] See below, p. 323.
[787] “Deutsch-evangelische Blätter,” 32, 1907, p. 537.
[788] “Kirchengesch.,” ed. by P. Gams, 3, 1868, p. 106.
[789] “Kirchengesch.,” 1, p. 782.
[790] “Adversus Marcion.,” 4, c. 5.
[791] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 576: In the “wretched study of right
and law” we find everywhere the comfortless fetters of precepts. “_O
reptilia_,” he cries, “_quorum non est numerus!_”
[792] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 22.
[793] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 323.
[794] For the second stage, see ch. x. 1-2.
[795] “Vita Lutheri,” p. 6.
[796] “Historien”, Bl., 8´, 9.
[797] Cp. Barge, “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 1, p. 45.
[798] “Chronik,” p. 28: Luther in his lectures “turned the Latin into
German.”
[799] Letter of January 27, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 83: “_Non
sine timore meo me undique iactat et dicit: Christum in te prædico et
credere cogor._’.
[800] To Johann Lang, May 18, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 100.
[801] From Veit Dietrich’s MS. Collecta, fol. 137´, in Seidemann,
“Luthers Psalmenvorlesungen,” 1, p. vii.: “_Augustinum vorabam, non
legebam._”
[802] “One of the best points in Denifle’s book is the proof he gives
that Luther misunderstood Augustine’s doctrine on sin, to which he
looked as his chief support in the Church.” W. Köhler, in “Ein Wort zu
Denifles Luther,” p. 27.
[803] Melanchthon to Brenz, end May, 1531, “Briefwechsel” 9, p. 18 f.
[804] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 436 ff. Cp. in the Erl. ed.,
“Commentar. in Ep. ad Galat.,” ed. Irmischer, 1, p. iii. _seq._; 3, p.
121 _seq._
[805] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 751, n. to p. 107, 2.
[806] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 437.
[807] See Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 275.
[808] In Irmischer’s Erl. edition, printed in three volumes.
[809] Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 300 f.
[810] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” p. 156, n. 1.
[811] Comment. in Gal., 2, p. 163.
[812] _Ibid._, p. 161.
[813] _Ibid._, p. 164.
[814] Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1, p. 733, where a thorough examination is
made of the certainty of salvation assumed in this system.
[815] _Ibid._, p. 735.
[816] Cp. Möhler, p. 139.
[817] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 275.
[818] James ii. 22, 24, 26. 2 Peter i. 10. On Luther’s later denial of
the inspiration of the Epistle of St. James, see volume iv., xxviii.
2. In this he made no account of the critical proof of the traditional
ascription of this Epistle, but considered it merely from his own
subjective point of view.
[819] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 145 ff.
[820] Letter of 1516, probably September, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 55.
[821] As Enders thinks, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 58.
[822] See Feustking, “Das Leben des ersten verehelichten evangelischen
Predigers B. Bernhardi.” As Enders rightly remarks, he was not really
the “first married preacher”; this honour belonging to Jakob Seydler.
[823] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 228. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 321.
[824] Letter of September 4, 1517, to Johann Lang, “Briefwechsel,” 1,
p. 106.
[825] Letter of September 11, 1517, to Christoph Scheurl. _Ibid._, p.
109.
[826] Letter of November 3, 1517. _Ibid._, p. 119: “_Ad Martinum Luder.
Christi theologiam restaurare et in illius lege ambulare._”
[827] Plitt, “Luthers Leben,” Leipzig, 1883, p. 69.
[828] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 315.
[829] Kalkoff, “Forschungen zu Luthers römischem Prozess,” 1905, p.
44 _seq._ Pastor, “History of the Popes,” English translation, volume
vii., p. 361 ff.
[830] Kolde, p. 327.
[831] Bucer to Beatus Rhenanus, May 1, 1518, in the Correspondence
of Beatus Rhenanus, ed. Horawitz and Hartfelder, Leipzig, 1866, p.
106 f. Also in “_Relatio historica de disputatione Heidelbergensi ad
Beatum Rhenanum_,” printed in the “Introductio in hist. evang.” by D.
Gerdesius, Gröningen, 1744, Supp., p. 176. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim.
ed., 1, p. 352. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 385.
[832] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 353. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 385.
[833] Concl. 25, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 364. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p.
402.
[834] Concl. 16, “_Quid igitur faciemus? Vacabimus otio, quia nihil
nisi peccatum facimus._”
[835] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 360. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 398.
[836] Concl. 24.
[837] Cp. above, p. 202 ff.
[838] In the _Explicatio conclusionis_ VI., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p.
367, where the editor says in a note: “Martin Bucer testifies in his
letter to Beatus Rhenanus on May 1, 1518, that this comparison was made
by Luther in the Disputation.” See p. 74, n. 9.
[839] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 370.
[840] _Ibid._, pp. 371, 374.
[841] _Ibid._, p. 633.
[842] Disput., Heidelberg, _an._ 1518, thes. 24. Cp. thes. 20. “Werke,”
Weim. ed., 1, p. 362 f. Cp. above, p. 235.
[843] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 143, n.
[844] Letter of May 9, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 187.
[845] Cp. Möhler, “Symbolik,” pp. 100, 154 ff.
[846] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 142.
[847] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 170.
[848] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 69. See above, p. 34 f.
[849] Letter of September 1, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 223.
[850] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 83.
[851] _Ibid._, 1, p. 65 ff.
[852] _Ibid._, p. 65 ff.
[853] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 65.
[854] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 188.
[855] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 401.
[856] _Ibid._, 49, p. 300.
[857] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 183. These words are there
placed in the year 1523.
[858] Many of the erroneous Protestant notions as to the doctrine of
Indulgences might be removed by a glance at any Catholic hand-book
of theology. See, for instance, Hurter, “Theol. dogmat.,” ed. 11
(1903), t. 3, p. 499 _seq._, 509, where, for example, the expression
“_relaxatio pœnæ et culpæ_,” which has shocked so many moderns, is
explained in the correct historical and theological sense, reference,
for instance, being made to the article by N. Paulus (partly against
Th. Brieger) in the “Zeitschrift für kath. Theol.,” 23, 1899, p. 48
ff., “Johann von Paltz über Ablass und Reue.” The German Augustinian
Paltz is an authentic witness to the Catholic view at that time.
“The guilt is remitted,” he says, “by virtue of the Sacrament of
Penance which is here introduced, and the punishment by virtue of the
Indulgence which is here dispensed.” “Celifodina,” fol. x., 1, in
Paulus, p. 51, n. 4.
[859] See below, ix. 2.
[860] A. Schulte, “Die Fugger in Rom 1495-1523,” 2 vols., Leipzig,
1904. W. Schörs, “Die Mainzer Erzbischofswahl und der Ablass vom Jahre
1514,” in the Innsbruck “Zeitschrift für kath. Theol.,” 31, 1907, pp.
267-302. For details on this matter see the next section.
[861] Not the anniversary of its dedication. Cp. N. Müller in the
“Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,” (6), 1909, p. 184, n. 4.
[862] “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 529. For the theses see also,
Erl. ed., “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 285 _seq._
[863] Cp. Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of the 41 propositions of Luther condemned
in 1520.
[864] Letter to Bishop Hieronymus Scultetus of February 13, 1518 (?),
“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 150: “_Inter quæ sunt de quibus dubito, nonnulla
ignoro, aliqua et nego._” P. 151: “_Disputo non assero_,” etc.
[865] “Chronik,” ed. K. Euling, p. 48 f. Cp. above, p. 280.
[866] Cp. Pastor, “History of the Popes,” volume vii., English
translation, p. 361. Kalkoff, “Forschungen zu Luthers römischem
Prozess,” Rom., 1905, p. 44 f., and “Zu Luthers römischem Prozess: Das
Verfahren des Erzbischofs v. Mainz gegen Luther,” in “Zeitschrift für
Kirchengesch.,” 31, 1910, pp. 48-65. Cp. _ibid._, p. 368 ff., on the
Dominicans. Both authors should be consulted for the subsequent history
of Rome’s intervention. The Papal letter in Bembi, _Epistolæ Leonis X_,
1, 16, n. 18.
[867] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 313.
[868] “_Origines illustr. stirpis Saxonicæ l._ 7,” Ienæ, 1597, p. 859.
Seckendorf, in his “_Comment. de Lutheranismo_,” relates the same from
Fabricius. Both, however, make the mistake of placing the event a year
too early. N. Paulus, in the “Histor.-polit. Blätter,” 137, 1906, p. 51
f., doubts the credibility of the story, because Fabricius is devoid
of the critical spirit. It is not clear whether Luther refers to some
other sermon.
[869] To Spalatin, January 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 349. For
further particulars with regard to the Dresden visit, which has been so
much misrepresented, see below, ix. 4.
[870] May 30, 1518 (?), “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 200 f. Weim. ed., 1, p.
527 ff.
[871] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 220. Weim. ed., p. 582, Concl. 26.
[872] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 328 _seq._, in a Preface to his
Disputations.
[873] May 1, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 223.
[874] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 647 ff.
[875] Cp. V. Prop., n. 3: “_Non sum hæreticus si negativam teneo, donec
determinetur a concilio._” N. 6: “_Ego ecclesiam ... repræsentative non
[scio] nisi in concilio_”; but it was incorrect “_si quidquid facit
ecclesia virtualis, id est papa_ (as Prierias stated), _factum ecclesiæ
dicitur_”: The Pope and the Councils might err in their regulations on
practical matters (“_factum ecclesiæ_”).
[876] See above, p. 291.
[877] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.
[878] See Pastor, “History of the Popes,” English translation, volume
vii., p. 372.
[879] N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,”
1903, pp. 1-9, “Johann Tetzel”; also in the “Katholik,” 1899, 1, pp.
484-510; 1901, 1, pp. 453-68, 554-70.
[880] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 50.
[881] “Hist. Vierteljahrsschr. für Gesch.,” 5, 1902, p. 256.
[882] “Theol. Literaturztg.,” 1900, p. 84.
[883] In a lecture on Tetzel’s Life and Teaching, “Dresdener Journal,”
1903, March 20.
[884] “Münchener Allgemeine Zeitung,” 1901, April 18, Beil., No. 88.
[885] _Ibid._, 1900, May 14, Beil., No. 110. Cp. a like statement by a
non-Catholic critic in the “Frankfurter Zeitung,” 1899, October 8, No.
279.
[886] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 60, p. 239; cp. p. 271 f.
[887] _Ibid._, p. 271.
[888] Cp. also N. Paulus’s article on the remitting of future sins in
“Köln. Volkszeitung,” 1905, Liter. Beilage, No. 43.
[889] “Vorlegung wyder einen vormessen Sermon vom Ablass,” etc. Without
place or year (Frankfurt, 1518, 4^[to], 15 Bl.).
[890] Menckenius, “Scriptores rer. germ.,” t. 2, Lips., 1728, p. 1486
Cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner,” p. 7 f.
[891] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 78: “The Pope had sternly commanded the
angels to carry forthwith the souls of the departed to heaven.” Just as
Tetzel taught: “As soon as the penny rattles in the box, the soul flies
straight from Purgatory to Heaven.”
[892] November 20, 1519. “Opuscula,” Lugd., 1558, p. 121. N. Paulus,
“Tetzel,” p. 165.
[893] _Ibid._, p. 171 f.
[894] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 53.
[895] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 65 _seq._ For the contents, see above,
p. 324 f.
[896] Cp. the article by Dr. N. Paulus: “Johann v. Paltz über Ablass
und Reue” in the “Zeitschrift für kath. theol.,” 23, 1899, p. 48 ff.
He treats in the same review of Wendelin Steinbach, 24, 1900, p. 262:
of Richard of Middletown, _ibid._, p. 12. See Kalteisen’s writing,
_ibid._, 27, 1903, p. 368 ff. We also possess a treatise on Indulgences
by the secular priest Nic. of Dinkelsbühl, professor at the University.
[897] Emser, “Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica,” Bl.
A. 3´. Cp. “Luthers Briefe,” ed. de Wette, volume vi., K. Seidemann, p.
18, where it is stated: “Luther’s letter was in Emser’s hands.”
[898] N. Paulus, “Tetzel,” p. 169.
[899] As he declares in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 50 ff.; “The first,
real and actual beginning of the Lutheran uproar” was Tetzel’s
preaching, and “the fame of it did not please me at all, for I did not
know what an Indulgence was, and the song was getting too high for my
voice,” it was the Bishop of Mayence who really commenced the affair
through “the cut-purse, Tetzel”; he says in his Table-Talk: “If the
Pope had only dismissed the Indulgence-mongers, I would willingly have
been silent,” “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 195.
[900] “Die Fugger in Rom 1495-1523,” Bd. 1, Darstellung; Bd. 2,
Urkunden, Leipzig, 1904.
[901] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 26, p. 52.
[902] We shall come back later to the sources from which he drew his
information.
[903] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 342.
[904] To Spalatin, September 2, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 227. Cp.
Com. in Ep. ad. Gal., 3, p. 133.
[905] Schulte, _ibid._, 2, p. 96.
[906] H. Schrörs on Schulte’s work in the “Wissentschaftl. Beilage zur
Germania,” 1904, Nos. 14 and 15, p. 299.
[907] N. Paulus in the “Köln. Volksztg.,” 1904, April 24, No. 339.
Schrörs, _ibid._, 292 f., is right in excluding any simoniacal
character from the business, whether considered in the nature of a
composition (which it was not intended to be) or as the bestowal of
an Indulgence with a building alms attached to it. In the case of
compositions (for the bestowal of bishoprics) the fees customary from
ancient times are not a “compensation for a spiritual object, or for
an object connected with spiritual things, but a debt incurred on the
occasion of the bestowal of something spiritual.” In the granting of
Indulgences, however, a condition of the imparting of any spiritual
favour was always some gift to be devoted to a special pious object.
“Monetary self-denial for the sake of the Roman building fund was
an integral part of the Indulgence,” “according to the Papal _motu
proprio_ it was justified by the unusual length and irrevocable nature
of the Indulgence.” (Schrörs.) “The purchase or sale of spiritual
things for money or money’s worth, never entered the minds of those who
made use of the Indulgence.” So writes O. Pfülf in the “Stimmen aus
Maria-Laach,” 67, 1904, p. 322.
[908] Kalkoff, “Forschungen,” p. 379. Cp. Schrörs, _ibid._, p. 299.
[909] Schrörs, _ibid._
[910] _Ibid._ With regard to this matter, the silence of the Indulgence
Instructions of Constance, dated 1513, is significant.
[911] Cf. F. Herrmann, “Tetzels Eintritt in den Dienst des Erzbischofs
Albrecht,” in “Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch.,” 23, 1902, p. 263 ff.
[912] Schulte, “Die Fugger in Rom 1495-1523,” 2, p. 98.
[913] N. Paulus, in the “Köln. Volksztg.,” _ibid._, who gives the
quotations from Kapp and Wolfius. Paul Lang says, in Pistorius
Struvius, “Rer. germ. script.,” 1, p. 1281, Luther, by his interference
with the preaching of the Indulgence, had, “_ut fama fuit_,” caused the
Romans in one year a loss of 100,000 gulden.
[914] F. Herrmann, “Mainz-Magdeburgische
Ablasskistenvisitationsprotokolle,” in “Archiv für Reformationsgesch.,”
6, 1909 (pp. 361-84), p. 364 f., where the new accounts in question are
quoted.
[915] Schulte, _ibid._, 1, p. 173.
[916] Cp. N. Paulus, “Ablasspredigten des ausgehenden Mittelalters,” in
the “Liter. Beilage der Köln. Volksztg.,” 1910, No. 11.
[917] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 202. Cp. “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,”
1882, p. 692.
[918] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 238.
[919] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 175.
[920] To Spalatin from Augsburg, October 10, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1,
p. 242.
[921] _Ibid._, “_Ecclesia Romana auro insatiabiliter eget et vorando
assidue sitim auget._”
[922] In the letter quoted to Spalatin, p. 240 f.
[923] On the day of his return to Wittenberg, October 31, 1518
(the anniversary of the day the Indulgence theses had appeared),
“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 273.
[924] On December 11, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.
[925] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 317.
[926] On December 13, 1518, _ibid._, p. 320.
[927] On February 2, 1519, _ibid._, p. 410.
[928] The passages will be given more fully later.
[929] On May 6, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 97.
[930] To Johann Lang, March 1, 1517, _ibid._, p. 88.
[931] See the passage in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 219 ff.
[932] Printed _ibid._, 1, p. 74 ff. Erl. ed., 21, p. 156 ff.
[933] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 398 ff.
[934] _Ibid._, p. 411 ff.
[935] “Chronik,” p. 45.
[936] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 490.
[937] _Ibid._, p. 494.
[938] _Ibid._, p. 486.
[939] _Ibid._, p. 485.
[940] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 245.
[941] To Spalatin, July 20, 1519, from Wittenberg, “Briefwechsel,” 2,
p. 85 f. Cp. letter to the same, August 15, 1518, _ibid._, p. 103 ff.
especially p. 117.
[942] Cp. H. A. Creutzberg, “Karl von Miltitz,” 1907 (“Studien und
Darstellungen aus dem Gebiete der Gesch.,” ed. Grauert, Bd. 6, Heft.
1). The Chamberlain, whose only recommendation was his aristocratic
Saxon birth, had been entrusted with the delivery of the Golden Rose
to the Elector of Saxony. That he “undertook the rôle of intermediary
on his own initiative,” as has recently been asserted by Protestants,
is, according to Creutzberg, incorrect. The most unfortunate mistake
he made was not to insist upon Luther’s recantation (cp. S. Merkle,
“Reformationsgeschichtliche Streitfragen,” Munich, 1904, p. 51),
contenting himself with Luther’s illusory explanation of the end of
February, 1519 (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 242, p. 10 ff.), published as a
pamphlet. In this Luther simply speaks of the Papal power as a thing
of which the existence must be taken for granted, and emphasises in
general terms the duty of charity which forbids schism without due
cause! This statement has been erroneously regarded by Catholics as
an admission of the Primacy by Luther, as a “wonderful confession
which the evidence of the facts wrung from the heretic.” With respect
to this explanation, which, as Luther himself says, was destined for
the “simple people,” Köstlin-Kawerau’s “Luther-Biographie,” 1, p.
227, says: “In this way did Luther fulfil his promise [to Miltitz] of
exhorting to obedience to Rome. He exhorts to submission to this power
because, according to him, it merely extends to externals. With regard
to anything further, its origin, its character, and its extent, he
reserves to himself and to learned men generally, liberty of judgment.
Of the important assertions which he had already made on this point
in various passages in his works, none are here withdrawn.” And yet,
in this remarkable document composed at the instigation of Miltitz,
he calls himself “a submissive and obedient son of the Holy Christian
Churches in which, by God’s help, I will die,” and declares: “I may say
with a clear conscience that I have never imagined anything [hostile]
with regard to the Papacy or its power.” He is, nevertheless, as he
even there states, sure of his own “rock,” and ready to stand up for
it like Paul, Athanasius, and Augustine, even though he should be left
quite alone. God is able to speak through one against all, even as He
once spoke through the mouth of a she-ass.
[943] “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 163. On the date see Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p.
258.
[944] _Ibid._
[945] Luther to Spalatin, January 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 351.
[946] _Ibid._
[947] Luther to the Duke, May 16, 1519, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 56, p. III.,
No. 830 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 52). The Duke to Luther, May 23, 1519,
“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 59. Cp. “Akten und Briefe zur Kirchen
politik Herzog Georgs von Sachsen,” ed. F. Gess, Leipzig, Bd. 1, 1905,
p. 85.
[948] Luther to Spalatin, January, 14, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 350.
[949] In his pamphlet against Luther, “A venatione Luteriana Ægocerotis
Assertio,” end November, 1519. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 1, p.
225, n. 8. Cf. “An den Stier zu Wittenberg.” No place or year (1520, or
beginning 1521). Fol. Aij, 6.
[950] “Auff des Stiers tzu Wittenberg Wiettende Replica,” Leipzig,
1521, Aiiij., Enders, _ibid._
[951] _Ibid._, fol. A, 3´.
[952] “An den Stier zu Wittenberg,” fol. A, 2.
[953] “Auff des Bocks zu Leypczick Antwort,” 1521, “Werke,” Erl. ed.,
27, 206 ff.
[954] “Auff des Stiers tzu Wittenberg Wiettende Replica,” fol. A, 3´.
[955] “Auff des Bocks,” etc., “Werke,” Erl. ed., n. 27, p. 208 f.
[956] Sess. 6, c. 8.
[957] _Ibid._, cap. ix., _Contra inanem fiduciam_.
[958] See the letter above, p. 15. On Usingen, see his Life, by N.
Paulus, p. 17.
[959] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 215.
[960] _Ibid._, p. 132.
[961] _Ibid._, p. 124.
[962] In _De servo arbitrio_, “Werke,” Weim ed., 18, p. 719.
[963] Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 180.
[964] _Ibid._, p. 181.
[965] F. Loofs, “Leitfaden der Dogmengesch.,” 4, p. 711, lays stress on
passages quoted by Denifle, but admits (p. 721) that they are “not so
clear.” The same applies to the passages quoted above, p. 261.
[966] Cp. K. Stange, “Die ersten ethischen Disputationen Luthers”
(“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” No. 1), p. 54.
[967] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 540 f.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 152
_seq._
[968] Cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 542. “Opp. Lat. var.,” p. 156: “_Cui
(sacerdoti absolventi) qui crediderit cum fiducia, vere obtinuit pacem
et remissionem apud Deum; id est certus fit, se esse absolutum, non rei
sed fidei certitudine propter infallibilem misericordiam promittentis
sermonem Quodcunque solveris_,” etc. “_Sic Ro. V. Iustificati gratis
per gratiam ipsius, pacem habemus ad Deum per fidem, non utique per
rem._”
[969] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 541.
[970] _Ibid._, p. 629 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 378 _seq._
[971] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 557; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 179 _seq._
No reason can be advanced against the application of this passage to
Luther himself except that the formula he employs, _Novi hominem_ (cp.
2 Cor xii. 2: “_Scio hominem in Christo ... raptum_”), he also once
makes use of in an account given of another person. This circumstance,
however, does not invalidate the reference to his own person, which is
apparent from the whole context. It is true, however, that Luther does
not directly refer to himself. The Protestant historians, J. Köstlin,
W. Köhler, W. Braun, G. Kawerau, etc., also refer the passage to Luther
himself. The last-named historian says, in the “Deutsch-Evangelische
Blätter,” 1906, p. 447, that this passage of the Resolutions gives an
idea “of the night of the soul which he had experienced.”
[972] See volume vi., chapter xxxvi., “Dark side of the Life of the
Soul,” 4, 5.
[973] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 13 f. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 377 _seq._
[974] “_Per nulla opera aptus (eris) ad sacramentum, sed per solam
fidem, quia sola fides verbi Christi iustificat, vivificat, dignificat,
præparat; sine qua omnia alia vel sunt præsumptionis vel desperationis
studia. Iustus enim non ex dispositione sua sed ex fide vivit_, Rom. i.
17,” which passage (see below, p. 391 ff.) accordingly already plays a
great part in his considerations.
[975] In the beginning of 1519 he gives instructions to the Faithful,
intended to show them how to make a good use of Confession (“A Short
Instruction how to make a Confession,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 57 ff;
Erl. ed., 21, p. 244 ff.). Even in March, 1520, he republished this
little work in an extended form, “Confitendi Ratio,” Weim. ed., 6, p.
154 _seq._ “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 152 _seq._ (cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1,
p. 278), where he recommends confession, merely warning the penitent,
“_ut non fiducia confessionis vel faciendæ vel factæ nitatur, sed in
solius Dei clementissimam promissionem tota fidei plenitudine confidat,
certissimus videlicet, quod, qui confessuro peccata sua promisit
veniam, promissionem suam fidelissime præstabit_.”
[976] To Wenceslaus Link, December 11, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.
[977] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 75.
[978] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 44 f. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 325 _seq._
[979] “_Hanc qui habet, etiamsi peccet, non damnatur._”
[980] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 146. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 330.
[981] _Ibid._, p. 145 [329].
[982] F. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.”^[4], p. 721 f.
[983] P. 722. We may mention casually Loofs’s well-founded criticism of
Luther’s doctrine of Justification and Assurance of Salvation (p. 767
f.). Further attention will be given to this point of his teaching and
to that on the Law and the Gospel in volume iv., xxviii., 3, and volume
vi., xxxix., 2 and 4.
[984] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 22 _seq._ This passage will be compared
with a similar lengthy statement in the Commentary on Genesis (“Opp.
Lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74, cp. 10, p. 155), which, however, is not of
equal importance with the former because the Commentary consists
merely of notes made by others from Luther’s lectures, and the portion
in question was not published till after Luther’s death. Cp. on the
latter, O. Scheel, “Die Entwicklung Luthers,” etc. (“Schriften des
Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, pp. 61-230), p. 107 f.
[985] The rest of the passage is given below, p. 391. The contents will
first be made clear by quotations from parallel statements of Luther’s.
[986] Mathesius, “Table-Talk,” p. 309.
[987] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74.
[988] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 130. Exposition of Psalm li.
[989] From Khummer’s Notes in Seidemann’s edition of Lauterbach’s
“Tagebuch,” p. 81.
[990] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 130.
[991] See volume vi., xxxvii.
[992] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 39 f.
[993] _Ibid._, 45, p. 156.
[994] _Ibid._, 46, p. 73.
[995] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74.
[996] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 49, p. 27.
[997] _Ibid._, 17, p. 139 f.
[998] _Ibid._, 44, p. 354.
[999] _Ibid._, 59, p. 10.
[1000] In Galat., 1, p. 109.
[1001] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 146.
[1002] _Ibid._, 31, p. 279.
[1003] “_Cœpi psalterium secundo interpretari.... Eo anno (MDXIX) iam
redieram ad psalterium denuo interpretandum._”
[1004] Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden” (1531-1532), p. 108.
[1005] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 211 f.
[1006] Kroker’s edition, p. 309.
[1007] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 130.
[1008] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 275. Cp. 1, p. 52.
[1009] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 130.
[1010] Kawerau also lays great stress on the connection between
Luther’s development and his work on the Psalms. “Theol. Studien und
Kritiken,” 77, 1904, p. 617. He even thinks the Psalms rather than the
idea of the _Iustitia Dei_ formed the starting-point. J. Ficker says
in the Preface to his edition of the Commentary on Romans, p. lxxii,
with regard to the testimony Luther gives concerning himself in his
Præfatio: “He speaks of the second course [on the Psalms], but is,
without doubt, thinking of the first.” And O. Scheel (see above, p.
388, n. 3), p. 112 f., etc., prefers to fix the first course on the
Psalms as the time of Luther’s experience, and rests his assumption
on the fact that Luther had “reforming ideas” present in his mind
even before he wrote the Commentary on Romans. I, nevertheless, think
I may appeal in opposition to this view to my preceding statements
which touch on all the points raised, more particularly on the change
which during the period from 1515 to 1516 occurred in Luther, who in
his first Commentary on the Psalms had been much more Catholic-minded.
In fixing chronologically the date of the experience described in the
Latin Præfatio I have the further advantage of being supported by
Luther’s clear and definite statement. As he esteemed his second course
on the Psalms so highly (see above, p. 386) and consigned the first
to oblivion, it is difficult to imagine that he mistook the one for
the other. On the other hand, a mistake as to the sequence of those
ideas which had made an impression on him in his youth might easily be
explained by advancing years, like his mistakes concerning the time
when he first became acquainted with certain authors (for instance, in
this case, with Augustine).
[1011] P. 423.
[1012] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 370. Cp. pp. 336, 404.
[1013] See above, p. 388, n. 3.
[1014] Volume i., p. 52.
[1015] P. 423.
[1016] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 370.
[1017] In the notes to the “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 52.
[1018] J. K. Seidemann in his edition of Lauterbach, p. 81.
[1019] See above, p. 393.
[1020] Lisch, in Enders, “Briefwechsel Luthers,” 2, p. 35, n. 2.
[1021] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 9. “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 35.
[1022] H. Stein, “Gesch. des Lutherhauses,” 1883, p. 19.
[1023] See volume iii., xvi., 1, and volume vi., xxxvi., 4.
[1024] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 338, “Tischreden.”
[1025] On March 5, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (“Briefwechsel,”
3, p. 296).
[1026] “Dogmengesch.,” 3, p. 812.
[1027] _Ibid._, p. 846. Harnack (p. 812) urges that Luther’s
self-confidence was combined with entire humility with respect to God.
[1028] _Ibid._
[1029] “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 186. Döllinger is there speaking of the
“doctrine of Imputation,” by which he means the doctrine of faith alone
which produces the assurance of salvation.
[1030] So H. Böhmer, “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung”², 1910,
pp. 45, 57, 58.
[1031] See above, p. 388, n. 3. We can hardly assume that such a
statement was an error of the Notes; it is more probable that Luther
made a mistake in his verbal delivery.
[1032] In other statements, such as that related by Heydenreich (above,
p. 393), he assumes that no doctor was able to supply him with the
right explanation: “No one came to open the door,” etc.
[1033] Thus Böhmer, _ibid._, p. 35.
[1034] Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1². “Quellenbelege; die
abendländischen Schriftausleger bis Luther über _iustitia Dei_ (Rom. i.
17) und _iustificatio_,” 1905. Among the older interpreters Abailard
alone may be an exception.
[1035] Ficker in the Preface, p. lxxix.
[1036] Cp. Böhmer², p. 47: “It is a matter of interest that he refers
for the interpretation to a work much used in that period, the ‘Biblia
cum glossa ordinaria,’ printed at Basle by Froben, 1508. It is plain
that he looked up this gloss on the Epistle.” On the strength of
this Böhmer thought himself entitled to say: “The birth-hour of the
Reformation falls in the winter 1508-9.... Its birthplace was the Black
Monastery at Wittenberg”; but “it was only quite slowly that Luther
lived himself into his new religious views.”
[1037] Loofs, “Dogmengesch.”^[4], p. 688 f. Loofs remarks concerning
the statements on Augustine: “Luther was also mistaken with regard
to this [the time and the manner of his experience].” My view of the
state of the case differs, however, from that of Loofs, Braun, Böhmer,
Scheel, etc.
[1038] “Die Reformation,” Lit. Beilage, September, 1905.
[1039] “Theologisches Literaturblatt,” 26, 1905, col. 507.
[1040] To Spalatin, February 24, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 2:
“_Italicæ subtilitates._”
[1041] _Ibid._, p. 6.
[1042] Cp. Böhmer², p. 63.
[1043] Böhmer², p. 60.