Chapter 34

[612]Verse 53 ff.[613]September 28, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 246.[614]On September 27, 1525,ibid., p. 245.[615]Cp. letter of May 26, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 304 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 179).[616]“Qui te fecit sine te, non iustificat te sine te,” “Serm.,” 160, n. 13.[617]“De duabus animabus,” 14, n. 22.[618]Genesis iv. 6 f. According to the Vulgate.[619]2 Corinthians vi. 1; 1 Corinthians xv. 10; Philippians ii. 12.[620]Deuteronomy xxx. 19.[621]Ed. F. Pfeiffer², 1855, p. 208.[622]“De nuptiis et concup.,” 2, c. 8.[623]“Epp.,” 157, c. 2. It is notorious that in his controversial writings against the Pelagians, Augustine, in his later years, came to insist more and more upon grace, yet he never denied free-will nor its consequences, viz. merit and guilt. Some of Luther’s misrepresentations of the statements of this Father of the Church will be given later.[624]J. Ficker, in the Preface, p. lxxv, referring to “Schol. Rom.,” 38, 42, 71, 90, 91, 93, 101; cp. 171, 179, 188, 218.[625]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 30 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 55 f.[626]A. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit ... bis zum Jahre 1525,” Göttingen, 1901, p. 10 f.[627]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 10 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 29 f.[628]Ibid., p. 78 = p. 177. Cp. F. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” Göttingen, 1875, p. 51 (the 2nd edition is a mere reprint).[629]Cp. for this and for the other theses Luther’s works mentioned in volume i., p. 310 ff., and also “Die ältesten Disputationen,” etc., ed. Stange, for instance, p. 5: “Voluntas hominis sine gratia non est libera, sed servit, licet non invita.”[630]Stange,ibid., p. 15.[631]Stange,ibid., p. 16, n. 1, referring to his work, “Die reformatorische Lehre von der Freiheit des Handelns,” in “Neue kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1903, p. 214 ff.[632]Cp. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 48 f.[633]On Luther’s Determinism, see below. For the deterministic passages in the work, “De servo arbitrio,” 1525, cf. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit,” p. 21.[634]Latin text in Stange,ibid., p. 18. Cp. Kattenbusch.,ibid., p. 41 ff., for what Luther said in 1516.[635]See Stange,ibid., p. 35 ff.[636]Thesis 13, in Stange,ibid., p. 53. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 354; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 388. Cp. Thesis 14: “Liberum arbitrium post peccatum potest in bonum potentia subiectiva, in malum vero activa semper.” On the Heidelberg Disputation, see volume i., p. 315 ff.[637]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 421; “Opp. Lat var.,” 3, p. 272.[638]Ibid., p. 424 = p. 276.[639]Jul. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², Stuttgart, 1901, p. 218.[640]In the “Assertio omnium articulorum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 148; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 234. Cp.ibid., p. 146 = p. 231: “Patimur omnes et omnia: cessat liberum arbitrium erga Deum.”[641]Ibid., p. 146 = p. 230. This passage was toned down, after Luther’s death, in the Wittenberg ed. (1546) and Jena ed. (1557); Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 316 n.[642]“Werke,”ibid., p. 143 ff.=p. 227 ff. It is strange but characteristic how he appeals to experience as against the doctrine of free-will: everyone possessed arguments against it “ex vita propria.... Secus rem se habere monstrat experientia omnium” (p. 145=p. 230). His views of concupiscence come in here.[643]“Non est homo in manu sua, etiam mala operans et cogitans” (ibid., p. 145=p. 230).[644]“Nam et mala opera in impiis Deus operatur” (ibid.).[645]“Assertio,” etc. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 145 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 231 f.[646]“Contra duas epp. Pelag.,” 1. 3, c. 8.[647]“De spiritu et litt.,” c. 3, n. 5.[648]In place of “Neque liberum arbitrium quidquid nisi ad peccandum valet, si lateat veritatis via,” he makes Augustine say: “Liberum arbitrium sine gratia non valet nisi ad peccandum.” Of the subject itself sufficient explanation will be found in Catholic handbooks. Cp., for instance, Hurter, “Theolog. specialis,” pars. 2¹¹, 1903, p. 55 f.[649]“Assertio,” etc. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 146: “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 233.[650]Ibid., pp. 95=158.[651]Ibid., p. 148=234.[652]Ibid.[653]Weim. ed., 5, p. 149=p. 235.[654]Ibid., p. 97 f.=p. 161 f.[655]Ibid., p. 100=p. 165.[656]“Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 96=p. 158.[657]“Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 142 f.=p. 226.[658]Ibid., p. 145=p. 229.[659]Cp.ibid., p. 145=p. 230: “Unde non est dubium, satana magistro in ecclesiam venisse hoc nomen liberum arbitrium, ad seducendos homines a via Dei in vias suas proprias.”[660]Cp. “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 106. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 70.[661]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 235. “Kirchenpostille,” Sermon of 1521. Cp. Köstlin,ibid., 1², p. 365.[662]See Köstlin,ibid., p. 366. He admits (2², p. 82) that Luther “expressly denies free-will” to those who “would not.”[663]Weim. ed., 7, p. 147; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 232.[664]Köstlin,ibid., 1², p. 366.[665]To Hans von Rechenberg, August 18, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 33 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 444). This letter to the promoter of Lutheranism at Freistadt in Silesia, was at once spread abroad in print and is included amongst Luther’s catechetical works. Later he finds in the same passage, viz. Timothy ii. 4, merely an expression of God’s desire that we should render our neighbours “all temporal and spiritual assistance” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 316 ff.). In support of this he appeals to Psalm xxxvi.: “Men and beasts Thou wilt preserve, O Lord.” To find in Scripture that salvation was open to all men whose free-will was ready to accept it, was “to pluck out some words of Scripture and fashion them according to our own fancy” (p. 317).[666]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 317.[667]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 14, p. 73: Erl. ed., 52, p. 271; cp.ibid., p. 69=p. 267.[668]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 51, p. 317.[669]“Corpus ref.,” 21, p. 87 f. Later we read: “Fateor in externo rerum delectu esse quandam libertatem, internos vero affectus prorsus nego in potestate nostra esse” (ibid., p. 92). Both passages in Kolde’s edition based on theeditio princeps, Leipzig, 1900, 3rd. ed., pp. 67, 74.[670]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 601; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 117.[671]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 144.[672]Thesis 16 of the Disputation of 1516 (see vol. i., p. 310): “Voluntas non est libera, sed servit, licet non invita.”[673]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 212; 9, p. 238; Erl. ed., 16², p. 135.[674]Ibid., p. 210=235=131.[675]See above, p. 27 ff.[676]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 39; Erl. ed., 27, p. 199. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 358 ff.[677]See below, p. 288, the Sermon in 1531.[678]To Johann Lang, April 12, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 331.[679]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 657.[680]Cp. Luther to Kaspar Borner, Professor at Leipzig, May 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 375.[681]N. Paulus points out in his article “Georg Agricola” (“Histor-polit. Blätter,” 136, 1905, p. 793 ff.), that this scholar had never been one of Luther’s followers, and was particularly repelled by his views on the absence of free-will, which he opposed as early as 1522.[682]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 377, n. 6, from Weller’s “Altes aus allen Teilen der Gesch.,” 1, 1765, p. 18.[683]We may allude, for instance, to the beautiful words which, strange to say, have been described by certain Protestants as a moralistic explaining away of the true “evangelical comprehension of the person of Christ and His work”: “Ut certiore cursu queas ad felicitatem contendere, haec tibi quarta sit regula, ut totius vitae tuae Christum velut unicum scopum præfigas, ad quem unum omnia studia, omnes conatus, omne otium ac negotium conferas. Christum vero esse puta non vocem inanem, sed nihil aliud quam charitatem, simplicitatem, patientiam, puritatem, breviter, quidquid ille docuit” (“Enchiridion,” Basil., 1519, p. 93). G. Kawerau quotes from the correspondence of Justus Jonas which he edited, 1, p. 31, the words of Eobanus Hessus (1519) on the “Enchiridion”: “Plane divinum opus,” and the following utterance of Ulrich Zasius (1520) on the same, from the correspondence of Beatus Rhenanus, p. 230: “Miles christianus, quem tamen, si vel solus ab Erasmo exisset, immortali laude prædicare conveniebat, ut qui christiano homini veræ salutis compendium, brevi velut enchiridio demonstret.” “Luther und Erasmus,” in “Deutsch-Evangel. Blätter,” 1906, Hft. 1, in the reprint, p. 4.[684]In a letter to P. Servatius, July 9, 1514, Erasmus says: “Voluptatibus etsi quando fui inquinatus nunquam servivi” (“Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 1527). Perhaps he meant more by this than when he says of Thomas More, in a letter to Ulrich von Hutten, July 23, 1519, which is sometimes cited in comparison: “Cum ætas ferret, non abhorruit [Th. Morus] a puellarum amoribus, sed citra infamiam, et sic ut oblatis magis frueretur, quam captatis et animo mutuo caperetur potius quam coitu” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 474seq.).[685]A. Dürer’s exclamation given above, p. 41: “O Erasmus Roderdamus, Knight of Christ, ride forth,” etc., is an allusion to the “miles christianus” depicted by Erasmus in the “Enchiridion.” Kawerau,ibid., p. 2.[686]The passages in proof of his “rationalistic interpretation of Scripture” are to be found in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 21 ff.[687]Janssen,ibid., p. 15.[688]Kawerau,ibid., p. 5.[689]To Christoph von Stadion, Bishop of Augsburg, August 26, 1528, “Opp.,” 3, col. 1095seq.[690]On September 3, 1522, “Opp.,” 3, col. 731. Cp. Fel. Gess, “Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs,” Leipzig, 1905, p. 352.[691]At the end of 1520 he declares that he has only read ten or twelve pages of Luther’s writings. To Campegius, December 6, 1520, and to Leo X, September 13, 1520, “Opp.,” 3, col. 596, 578.[692]Cp. Max Richter, “Erasmus und seine Stellung zu Luther,” Leipzig, 1907, p. 10 ff.[693]Ibid., col. 431seq.Cp. his statement to Jodocus [i.e. Justus] Jonas of July 31, 1518: “Luther had given some excellent advice; had he but gone to work more gently. As to the value of his doctrines, I neither can, nor wish to, express an opinion” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 334).[694]To Cardinal Wolsey: “Vita magno omnium consensu probatur,” etc. (“Opp.,” 3, col. 322). Cp. his letter to Campegius, of December 6, 1520. To Leo X he writes, on September 13, 1520 (col. 578): “Bonis igitur illius [Lutheri] favi ... immo gloriæ Chriti in illo favi.” Assurances such as these may well explain Rome’s delay in condemning Luther.[695]It is of a portion of the work (described briefly in volume i., p. 386) which had then appeared, that Erasmus writes: “Vehementer arrident et spero magnam utilitatem allaturos” (col. 445). How ready he was to express approval of any work of which a copy was presented to him is shown by his reply to the Bohemian Brethren in 1511, who had sent him one of their several confessions of faith founded on the new interpretation of Holy Scripture: Of what he had “read in their book,” he writes, he had “thoroughly approved and trusted that the rest was equally correct”; from any public approval he preferred, however, to abstain in order not to have his writings censured by the Papists, but to “preserve his reputation and strength unimpaired for the general good.” Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 20 f.[696]The letter is also to be found in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 66 ff.[697]“Opp.,” 3, col. 514. In his complaints concerning the disorders of the Church he says, for instance: “Mundus oneratus est ... tyrannide fratrum mendicantium”; and then “in sacris concionibus minimum audiri de Christo, de potestate pontificis et de opinionibus recentium fere omnia”; in short: “nihil est corruptius ne apud Turcas quidem.”[698]Luther to Lang, January 26, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 305: “egregia epistola, ubi me egregie tutatur, ita tamen, ut nihil minus quam me tutari videatur, sicut solet pro dexteritate sua.”[699]F. O. Stichart, “Erasmus von Rotterdam,” Leipzig, 1870, p. 325, Kawerau,ibid., p. 10.[700]On August 31, 1521, “Zwinglii Opp.,” 7, p. 310. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. trans., 3, p. 17, where the assertion that Erasmus had won over Pellicanus and Capito to the Zwinglian doctrine of the Last Supper is said to be utterly false. Though Erasmus declares that he never forsook the teaching of the Church on this point, Melanchthon nevertheless says that he was the actual originator of the Zwinglian denial of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament. Melanchthon to Camerarius, July 26, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1083: “Nostri inimici illum [Erasmum] amant, qui multorum dogmatum semina in suis libris sparsit, quæ fortasse longe graviores tumultus aliquando excitatura fuerant, nisi Lutherus exortus esset ac studia hominum alio traxisset. Tota illa tragædia, περὶ δειπνου κυριακοῦ, ab ipso nata videri potest.”[701]Cp. Fel. Gess, “Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs,” 1 p. 354.[702]To Spalatin, July 6, 1520, cp. Stähelin, “Theol. Realenzyklopädie,” 5³, p. 442.[703]“Opp.,” 3, col. 639seq.[704]Ibid., col. 713, 742.[705]So, for instance, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 698 (1525).[706]Ibid., p. 693.[707]“Opp.,” 3, col. 826.[708]“Opp.,” 3, col. 919.[709]Ibid., col. 1104.[710]Ioan. Genesius Sepulveda Cordubensis, “De rebus gestis Caroli Quinti,” in his “Opp.,” 1 (Matriti, 1780), p. 468.[711]To Johann Œcolampadius at Basle, June 20, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 164: “Forte et ipse[Erasmus]in campestribus Moab morietur(Num. xxxvi. 13)....In terram promissionis ducere non potest ... ut qui vel non possit vel non velit de iis[scripturis]recte iudicare.”[712]In his “Diatribe” against Luther, Erasmus likewise declares that he submits himself in all to the authority of the Church. Cp. Joh. Walter’s edition (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” Hft., 8, 1910), p. 3. Later he wrote concerning his attitude to Catholic dogma: “De his quæ sunt fidei, liberam habeo conscientiam apud Deum” (“Opp.,” 10, col. 1538).[713]To Christoph von Stadion, in the letter referred to above, p. 246, n. 1. Even in 1520 and 1521 he says that he had been the first to condemn the Wittenberg preaching because he had foreseen danger and disturbance. There, however, he dwells more on the detriment to learning.[714]“Si quis deus mihi prædixisset, hoc sæculum exoriturum, quædam aut non scripsissem, aut aliter scripsissem” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 681).[715]To quote here only one instance, Luther says (1544) in the “Tischreden” of Mathesius, edited by Kroker, p. 343, that he desired that the “Annotationes in Novum Testamentum” by Erasmus (a much-esteemed and really epoch-making work) should not be further disseminated, “because it contains Epicureanism and other poison.” Erasmus had destroyed many “in body, soul, and spirit,” and had been an “originator of the ‘Sakramentirer’”; he had injured the gospel as much as he had furthered the interests of learning. “He was a terrible man, and Zwingli was led astray by him. Egranus [Johann Wildenauer of Eger, who forsook the Wittenberg teaching] he had also perverted, and he now believes just about as much as Erasmus; his end was “sine crux et sine lux.” The latter remark concerning Erasmus’s death calls for explanation. Erasmus arrived in August, 1535, in a weak state of health at Basle, a city already despoiled of every vestige of Catholic worship—in order to supervise the printing of his “Origenes” by the celebrated Basle printers. His illness had been increasing since March, 1536, and in the night of the 11th to 12th July of that year he died unexpectedly and without having received the sacraments. A fortnight before this, on June 28, in a letter to a friend, Johann Goclen, he had expressed his regret that he was lying ill in a city dominated by the reformers. On account of the difference in religion he would rather be summoned out of this life elsewhere. “Ep.,” 1299. “Opp.,” 3, col. 1522.[716]Kawerau,ibid., p. 15. He, however, remarks concerning Erasmus: “The instinct of self-preservation forced such admissions from him.” There is no reason for doubting the “veracity” of his statements in favour of the Catholic Church.[717]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 287.[718]Joh. v. Walter, “Das Wesen der Religion nach Erasmus und Luther,” 1906, p. 7. “That Erasmus set himself seriously to improve matters is shown by his letters,” thus A. Freitag in the Preface to the “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 594, n. 3.[719]“Annales” (ed. Aretin, “Beiträge zur Gesch. und Literatur,” 9, 1807), p. 1018: “Ubi Erasmus quippiam optat aut fieri velle innuit, ibi Lutherus totis viribus irruit.” Leib’s “Briefwechsel und Diarien,” an important source for that period, J. Schlecht has edited in J. Greving’s “Reformationsgesch. Studien,” Hft. 7.[720]The preface has been reprinted in O. Braunsberger, “B. Petri Canisii Epistulæ et Acta,” 3, 1901, p. 280seq.The passage is on p. 283. Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 15, where the work of Canisius, “De incomparabili virgine Maria,” is also quoted.[721]In the letter of Erasmus to the Lutheran Johann Cäsarius, December 16, 1523: “Ego peperi ovum, Lutherus exclusit, mirum dictum minoritarum istorum magnaque et bona pulte dignum.” “Opp.,” 3, col. 840.[722]To Sinapius, July 31, 1534, in R. Stähelin, “Briefe aus der Reformationszeit,” “Programm,” Basle, 1887, p. 24: The “proverbiaἀδελφικά,” to use the term of Erasmus, runs: “Erasmus est pater Lutheri; Œcolampadius et Erasmus sunt milites Pilati, qui crucifixerunt Iesum.” Similar accusations, he adds, were heard also in other quarters. The Spanish theologian, L. Carvajal, remarks (1528) in his “Apologia diluens nugas Erasmi in sacras religiones,” that the Germans said of Erasmus: “Erasmus peperit ova, Lutherus exclusit pullos.” Ed. Cracow, 1540, Fol. C 1 a. The author was very angry with Erasmus on account of his calumnies against religious: “Utinam Lutherus mentiatur, qui te [Erasmum] atheon dicit.” Fol. E 3a.[723]In Preface referred to above, p. 253, n. 2.[724]“Origines de la réforme,” 2, Paris, 1909, p. 439, whence what precedes is also taken. The author’s opinion here quoted is the more remarkable owing to the fact, that in this chapter on “Christian Humanism,” he unduly magnifies both it and its followers, for instance, Erasmus. He writes on p. 441: “Presque partout l’humanisme se montrera l’adversaire du mouvement (de Luther) dont il sera la première victime. C’est qu’entre le principe fondamental de la réforme et celui de l’humanisme il y a un abîme. Ce dernier n’entendait pas seulement rester catholique, il l’était, et par sa soumission à l’unité extérieure et par sa doctrine de la liberté, et par un esprit d’équilibre et de mesure si conforme aux habitudes de pensée et de vie du catholicisme.” The first sentence, to dwell only upon this, makes out the opposition of Humanism to the Reformation to have been far more general than was the case, and speaks inaccurately of Humanism as itsfirstvictim. The first victim was the Catholic faith and practice throughout a large part of Europe, for the preservation of which the Humanists failed to show sufficient zeal. It is true that they met with a bitter retribution for their share in paving the way for the catastrophe, in the destruction of much they had done which perished in the storm which submerged scholarship. Erasmus twice asserts his conviction: “Ubicunque regnat Lutheranismus, ibi litterarum est interitus” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 1139; 10, col. 1618), and often repeats the same in other words. See present work, vol. v., xxxv. 3.[725]K. Gillert, “Briefwechsel des Konrad Mutianus,” Halle, 1890, p. 300.[726]Cp. G. Kawerau in W. Möller, “Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, p. 63.[727]From Aleander’s account in Balan, “Monumenta ref. Luth.,” p. 100 (cp. pp. 55, 79, 81); cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 16. Erasmus, in the above letter, dated August 26, 1528, and addressed to Christoph v. Stadion, describes Aleander and his intimate friend the Prince of Carpi as the originators of the charge, that, by his denial of dogma, he had been the cause of Lutheranism: “Cuius vanissimi rumoris præcipuus auctor fuit Hieronymus Aleander, homo, ut nihil aliud dicam, non superstitiose verax. Eiusdem sententiæ videtur Albertus Carporum princeps, Aleandro iunctissimus magisque simillimus.”[728]Hermelink, “Die religiösen Reformbestrebungen des deutschen Humanismus,” Tübingen, 1908. We may also mention here that Joh. v. Walter, in his edition of the “Diatribe” p. xxiii., criticises Zickendraht (“Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther,” etc., see below), “who lays too much stress on the sceptical utterances of Erasmus [in the ‘Diatribe’].”[729]On March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 88. See present work, vol. i., p. 43.[730]“Neque est ut timeam casurum me, nisi mutem sententiam.”[731]On May 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 375.[732]“Opp.,” 3, col. 809.[733]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 656 f. In the note on p. 790 it is pointed out that the passage in question does not refer to any work by Erasmus. A. Freitag, in the introduction to his reprint of the book, “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 577, says: “The words of Erasmus, in his letter to L. Vives on Ascension Day, 1527: ‘perdidimus liberum arbitrium,’ do not refer to the work, ‘De libero arbitrio.’” The jesting words used by Erasmus in a letter to Auerbach, dated December 10, 1524, which have also been quoted in support of the legend (“Profecto nunc habere desii liberum arbitrium, posteaquam emisi in vulgus”), only mean that, even had he so desired, it was now impossible to withdraw a book already published. He wrote in exactly the same sense to King Henry VIII on September 6, 1524: “iacta est alea, exiit in lucem libellus de libero arbitrio.”[734]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 319, “about April 15,” 1524.[735]“Ceterum clementia et mansuetudo mea erga peccatores et impios, quantumvis insanos et iniquos, arbitror, non modo teste mea conscientia, sed et multorum experientia, satis testata sit. Sic hactenus stilum cohibui, utcunque pungeres me, cohibiturum etiam scripsi in literis ad amicos, quæ tibi quoque lectæ sunt, donec palam prodires. Nam utcunque non nobiscum sapias et pleraque pietatis capita vel impie vel simulanter damnes aut suspendas, pertinaciam tamen tibi tribuere non possum neque volo” (p. 320 f.). Cp. Erasmus to Melanchthon, September 6, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 672.[736]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 404, said in 1537, March 21-28.[737]In the Leyden edition (Lugd. Batav.), 9, col. 1215-48. In German in Walch’s edition of Luther’s Works, 18, p. 1962seq.New critical edition with introduction by Joh. v. Walter in the “Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” No. 8, Leipzig, 1910.[738]“Epp.,” ed. Riegger, cp. 45. Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 47.[739]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 7.[740]On September 30, 1524. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 675. Cp. Enders, 5, p. 46.[741]Enders, 5, p. 47.[742]In the Introduction to the work, “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 614; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 131seq., we read: “An voluntas aliquid vel nihil agat in iis quæ pertinent ad salutem ... hic est cardo nostræ disputationis, hic versatur status causæ huius. Nam hoc agimus,” etc. “Hoc problema esse partem alteram totius summæ christianarum rerum,” etc. “Altera pars summæ christianæ est nosse, an Deus contingentur aliquid præsciat, et an omnia faciamus necessitate.”[743]At the close of the work mentioned in the previous note, p. 786 = 367: “Unus tu et solus cardinem rerum vidisti et ipsum iugulum petisti.”[744]A. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit ... bis zum Jahre 1525,” Göttingen, 1901, p. 46. It is true that the author declares on the same page: “Because and in so far as Luther was moved to his denial by his refusal to admit of merit and by his doctrine of the assurance of salvation, every evangelical theologian will agree with him; the admission of a system of salary between God and man is the death of evangelical piety; but belief in free-will does not necessarily lead to this.” Free-will, he declares, is, on the contrary, quite compatible with the “sola fides.” On p. 45 he had said: “Luther’s theology ends in contradictions which can only be obviated by the assumption of free-will and by a positive recognition of the powers of the natural man.”[745]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 46.[746]E. Kroker, “Katherina Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 280 f. “Ipsa supplicante scripsi.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 146.[747]See present work, vol. i., p. 204.[748]The Latin text in “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 113-368, and (with only unimportant differences) in the Weim. ed., 18, p. 600-787. A new German translation with introduction and explanations by O. Scheel, in “Luthers Werke,” ed. Buchwald, etc., sup. vol. ii., Berlin, 1905, p. 203 ff.[749]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 663 f. This work of Luther’s “was a stumbling-block to his followers, and attempts were made to explain it away by all the arts of violent exegesis; cp. Walch (in his edition of Luther’s works), 18, Introduction, p. 140 ff.” Kawerau in W. Möller, “Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, p. 63.[750]F. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen und von der Prädestination,” Göttingen, 1875 (Anastatischer Neudruck, Göttingen, 1905). Many Protestant theologians have recently defended, with renewed enthusiasm, Luther’s standpoint in the book “De servo arbitrio,” under the impression that it places man in the true state of subserviency to God and thus forms the basis of true religion. See below.[751]“De servo arbitrio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 781; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 359. Cp.ibid., p. 638=160: at most “in inferioribus sciat [homo], sese in suis facultatibus et possessionibus habere ius utendi, faciendi, omittendi pro libero arbitrio, licet et idipsum regatur solius Dei libero arbitrio, quocunque illi placuerit.” Taube (see p. 228, n. 2), p. 21, remarks, like Kattenbusch (above p. 264, n. 5), p. 48, that such degradation of free-will, even “in inferioribus,” is to be found in Luther’s earlier writings.[752]Kattenbusch, p. 7 f.[753]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 615 = 134: “Ex quo sequitur irrefragabiliter: Omnia quæ facimus, omnia quæ fiunt, etsi nobis videntur mutabiliter et contingenter fieri, revera tamen fiunt necessario, si Dei voluntatem species. Voluntas enim Dei efficax est,” etc. In the Jena Latin edition of Luther, 3 (1567), this passage has been watered down. Cp. also p. 615 = 133: “Deus nihil præscit contingenter, sed omnia incommutabili et æterna infallibilique voluntate et prævidet et proponit et facit,” p. 670 = 200: “Omnia quæ fiunt (sunt) meræ necessitatis.”[754]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 753 = 317: “Deus omnia, quæ condidit solus, solus quoque movet, agit et rapit, omnipotentiæ suæ motu, quem illa non possunt vitare nec mutare, sed necessario sequuntur et parent.” Cp. p. 747 = 308: God works upon the will with His “actuosissima operatio, quam vitare vel mutare non possumus, sed qua (homo) tale velle habet necessario, quale illi Deus dedit, et quale rapit suo motu.... Rapitur omnium voluntas, ut velit et faciat, sive sit bona sive mala.”[755]Ibid., p. 754 = 317, 318. Luther here shows a quite enigmatical want of comprehension for Erasmus’s exposition of the ancient Catholic doctrine concerning the co-operation of the will with grace.[756]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 615 = 133.[757]Ibid., p. 619 = 138.[758]Taube, p. 19 f.[759]“De servo arbitrio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 636; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 158.[760]“De servo arbitrio,” 7, p. 724seq.= 276.[761]Ibid., p. 730 = 284.[762]Ibid., p. 712seq.= 259seq.: cp. p. 627-629seq.= 147, 150seq.: Kattenbusch,ibid., p. 12.[763]Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,”4p. 758: “God’s universal action and His sovereign will determines [according to Luther’s theory] man’s destiny.” That passages of the Bible, such as 1 Timothy ii. 4, as urged in the “Diatribe” of Erasmus, contradict this, Luther will not admit. “Illudit sese Diatribe ignorantia sua, dum nihil distinguit inter Deum prædicatum et absconditum, hoc est inter verbum Dei et Deum ipsum. Multa ... Deus ... vult, quæ verbo suo non ostendit se velle; sic non vult mortem peccatoris, verbo scilicet, vult autem illam voluntate illa imperscrutabili.” In connection with such thoughts Luther does not shrink from saying (p. 731 = 284): “Si placet tibi Deus indignos coronans, non debet etiam displicere immeritos damnans,” and (p. 633 = 154): “Sua voluntate nos necessario damnabiles facit.” The passage here quoted on the “Deus absconditus” is to be found in Luther’s “De servo arbitrio,” p. 685 = 222, and has many parallels, for instance, p. 684, 689 = 221, 227. Of such passages Kattenbusch says (p. 17,ibid.): “Luther expressly advances it as a theory that God has two contradictory wills, the secret will of which no one knows anything, and another which He causes to be proclaimed.” Luther assumes that God makes use of His “exemption from the moral law which binds us” by “not being obliged actually to strive after what He proclaims to be His intention [the salvation of all men]—in other words, that He is free to lie.” According to Luther there is a great difference “between God not considering Himself bound by His word, and man acting in the same way” (ibid.).[764]Taube, p. 35.[765]See above p. 235 f.[766]Taube, p. 35. See what has already been said (vol. i., p. 155 ff.) of Luther’s connection with the Nominalism of Occam. It should also be compared with what follows.[767]P. 729seq.= 283.[768]Taube, p. 35 f.[769]Ibid., p. 33.[770]P. 719 = 268: “Hoc offendit quam maxime sensum illum communem seu rationem naturalem,” etc. Cp. p. 707seq.= 252seq.: “Ratio humana offenditur.... Absurdum enim manet, ratione iudice, ut Deus ille justus et bonus exigat a libero arbitrio impossibilia.... Sed fides et spiritus aliter iudicant, qui Deum bonum credunt, etiamsi omnes homines perderet.” P. 720 = 260: “Cuius (Dei) voluntatis nulla est causa, nec ratio, quæ illi ceu regula et mensura præscribatur, quum nihil sit illi æquale aut superius, sed ipse est regula omnium.”[771]P. 784 = 363: “Si enim talis esset eius iustitia, quæ humano captu posset iudicari esse iusta, plane non esset divina.”[772]P. 686 = 223.[773]P. 695 = 236.[774]Cp. p. 709, 711, 747 = 255, 257, 308.[775]Cp. M. Scheibe, “Calvins Prädestinationslehre, ein Beitrag zur Würdigung der Eigenart seiner Theologie und Religiosität,” Halle, 1897, p. 12.[776]Taube, p. 39.[777]Kattenbusch, p. 11 f.: “Adam’s sin, from which springs the depravity of the human race, was [according to Luther] called forth by God Himself ... Adam could not avoid acting contrary to the command.”[778]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 633 = 154: In order that faith may reign, everything must be hidden “sub contrario obiectu, sensu, experientia.... Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse clementem qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat, qui sua voluntate nos necessario damnabiles facit.” Against this Taube remarks (p. 41): “Theological criticism cannot fail to assert that the Christian faith, viz. belief in a God of almighty and holy love, becomes impossible, if He arbitrarily predestines so many, indeed, the greater part of mankind, to damnation, and is the creator of sin.... In this case faith in the Christian God, and also morality generally, could only remain despite such theological theories.”[779]P. 632, 633 = 153, 154. Cp. Luther’s Commentary on Romans, 1515-1516, on the humility and despair of self which brings about justification (vol. i., p. 217 ff.).[780]Taube, dealing with certain Protestants, who, after having duly watered down some of Luther’s theological peculiarities, assert that “the feeling of responsibility is satisfactorily explained in his theology.”[781]P. 783 = 362seq.[782]P. 784 = 363: “Si movet, quod difficile sit, clementiam et æquitatem Dei tueri, ut qui damnet immeritos,” etc.[783]Ibid., and p. 785 = 365.[784]Taube, p. 41 ff.[785]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 786 = 366.[786]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 670 = 199.[787]Ibid., p. 635 = 157.[788]“Sic humana voluntas in medio posita est, ceu iumentum. Si insederit Deus, vult et vadit quo vult Deus, ut psalmus(lxxiii. [lxxii.], 22)dicit: Factus sum sicut iumentum, et ego semper tecum. Si insederit Satan, vult et vadit quo vult Satan. Nec est in eius arbitrio ad utrum sessorem currere aut eum quærere, sed ipsi sessores certant ob ipsum obtinendum et possidendum” (p. 635 = 157). And yet it has recently been asserted by some Protestants, that, according to Luther, grace was “psychologically active,” whereas by the Schoolmen it was regarded as a “dead quality”; Luther’s “delicate psychological comprehension of God’s educational way” is at the same time extolled. N. Paulus rightly remarks (“Theol. Revue,” 1908, col. 344), “that the Schoolmen advocated a vital co-operation with grace is known to everyone who is at all acquainted with Scholasticism.” He quotes W. Köhler’s opinion of Luther’s system: Where man is impelled by God “every psychological factor must disappear.” “All actions become in the last instance something foreign to man” (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1903, col. 526). Paulus also refers to the following criticism by Köhler concerning the total depravity of man’s nature by the Fall, to which Luther ascribes our unfreedom: “Involuntarily we feel ourselves urged to ask, in view of this mass of sinfulness, how, given the total depravity of man, can redemption be possible unless by some gigantic, supernatural, mechanical means?” (“Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” 1904, p. 39).F. Kattenbusch points out in his criticism of Luther’s doctrine of the enslaved will (“Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 32 ff.) that Luther’s aim was certainly to humble and abase himself before the greatness of God’s grace, but that he went much too far; he wished to feel his salvation as the “result of God’s arbitrary act”; this sentiment was, however, not normal, nor “religiously healthy” (p. 35 f.). He also remarks (p. 10): “If according to this [the comparison with the saddle-horse] the process of regeneration is made to appear merely as a struggle between God and Satan in which God remains the victor, it is clear that the doctrine which Luther cherishes of the ethico-religious life is altogether mechanical and outward.” Kattenbusch was quite aware of the influence of the mediæval schools on Luther. The after-effects of Nominalism, he says, are not, indeed, so very prominent in the Reformer, “yet it seems to me we must admit, that alongside the principal religious current in Luther, runs a side-stream of religious feeling which can only spring from Nominalism and Mysticism.... In so far as they influence Luther’s doctrines, the latter may be said to spring from a polluted source. And, as regards the doctrine of the ‘servum arbitrium’ and of Predestination, the Church which takes its name from Luther has assuredly done well in improving upon the paths traced out for her by the great Reformer” (p. 94 f.). Cp. Albert Ritschl’s criticism of Luther’s denial of free-will, “Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung,” 34, pp. 280, 296 ff.

[612]Verse 53 ff.[613]September 28, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 246.[614]On September 27, 1525,ibid., p. 245.[615]Cp. letter of May 26, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 304 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 179).[616]“Qui te fecit sine te, non iustificat te sine te,” “Serm.,” 160, n. 13.[617]“De duabus animabus,” 14, n. 22.[618]Genesis iv. 6 f. According to the Vulgate.[619]2 Corinthians vi. 1; 1 Corinthians xv. 10; Philippians ii. 12.[620]Deuteronomy xxx. 19.[621]Ed. F. Pfeiffer², 1855, p. 208.[622]“De nuptiis et concup.,” 2, c. 8.[623]“Epp.,” 157, c. 2. It is notorious that in his controversial writings against the Pelagians, Augustine, in his later years, came to insist more and more upon grace, yet he never denied free-will nor its consequences, viz. merit and guilt. Some of Luther’s misrepresentations of the statements of this Father of the Church will be given later.[624]J. Ficker, in the Preface, p. lxxv, referring to “Schol. Rom.,” 38, 42, 71, 90, 91, 93, 101; cp. 171, 179, 188, 218.[625]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 30 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 55 f.[626]A. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit ... bis zum Jahre 1525,” Göttingen, 1901, p. 10 f.[627]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 10 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 29 f.[628]Ibid., p. 78 = p. 177. Cp. F. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” Göttingen, 1875, p. 51 (the 2nd edition is a mere reprint).[629]Cp. for this and for the other theses Luther’s works mentioned in volume i., p. 310 ff., and also “Die ältesten Disputationen,” etc., ed. Stange, for instance, p. 5: “Voluntas hominis sine gratia non est libera, sed servit, licet non invita.”[630]Stange,ibid., p. 15.[631]Stange,ibid., p. 16, n. 1, referring to his work, “Die reformatorische Lehre von der Freiheit des Handelns,” in “Neue kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1903, p. 214 ff.[632]Cp. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 48 f.[633]On Luther’s Determinism, see below. For the deterministic passages in the work, “De servo arbitrio,” 1525, cf. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit,” p. 21.[634]Latin text in Stange,ibid., p. 18. Cp. Kattenbusch.,ibid., p. 41 ff., for what Luther said in 1516.[635]See Stange,ibid., p. 35 ff.[636]Thesis 13, in Stange,ibid., p. 53. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 354; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 388. Cp. Thesis 14: “Liberum arbitrium post peccatum potest in bonum potentia subiectiva, in malum vero activa semper.” On the Heidelberg Disputation, see volume i., p. 315 ff.[637]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 421; “Opp. Lat var.,” 3, p. 272.[638]Ibid., p. 424 = p. 276.[639]Jul. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², Stuttgart, 1901, p. 218.[640]In the “Assertio omnium articulorum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 148; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 234. Cp.ibid., p. 146 = p. 231: “Patimur omnes et omnia: cessat liberum arbitrium erga Deum.”[641]Ibid., p. 146 = p. 230. This passage was toned down, after Luther’s death, in the Wittenberg ed. (1546) and Jena ed. (1557); Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 316 n.[642]“Werke,”ibid., p. 143 ff.=p. 227 ff. It is strange but characteristic how he appeals to experience as against the doctrine of free-will: everyone possessed arguments against it “ex vita propria.... Secus rem se habere monstrat experientia omnium” (p. 145=p. 230). His views of concupiscence come in here.[643]“Non est homo in manu sua, etiam mala operans et cogitans” (ibid., p. 145=p. 230).[644]“Nam et mala opera in impiis Deus operatur” (ibid.).[645]“Assertio,” etc. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 145 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 231 f.[646]“Contra duas epp. Pelag.,” 1. 3, c. 8.[647]“De spiritu et litt.,” c. 3, n. 5.[648]In place of “Neque liberum arbitrium quidquid nisi ad peccandum valet, si lateat veritatis via,” he makes Augustine say: “Liberum arbitrium sine gratia non valet nisi ad peccandum.” Of the subject itself sufficient explanation will be found in Catholic handbooks. Cp., for instance, Hurter, “Theolog. specialis,” pars. 2¹¹, 1903, p. 55 f.[649]“Assertio,” etc. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 146: “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 233.[650]Ibid., pp. 95=158.[651]Ibid., p. 148=234.[652]Ibid.[653]Weim. ed., 5, p. 149=p. 235.[654]Ibid., p. 97 f.=p. 161 f.[655]Ibid., p. 100=p. 165.[656]“Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 96=p. 158.[657]“Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 142 f.=p. 226.[658]Ibid., p. 145=p. 229.[659]Cp.ibid., p. 145=p. 230: “Unde non est dubium, satana magistro in ecclesiam venisse hoc nomen liberum arbitrium, ad seducendos homines a via Dei in vias suas proprias.”[660]Cp. “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 106. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 70.[661]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 235. “Kirchenpostille,” Sermon of 1521. Cp. Köstlin,ibid., 1², p. 365.[662]See Köstlin,ibid., p. 366. He admits (2², p. 82) that Luther “expressly denies free-will” to those who “would not.”[663]Weim. ed., 7, p. 147; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 232.[664]Köstlin,ibid., 1², p. 366.[665]To Hans von Rechenberg, August 18, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 33 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 444). This letter to the promoter of Lutheranism at Freistadt in Silesia, was at once spread abroad in print and is included amongst Luther’s catechetical works. Later he finds in the same passage, viz. Timothy ii. 4, merely an expression of God’s desire that we should render our neighbours “all temporal and spiritual assistance” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 316 ff.). In support of this he appeals to Psalm xxxvi.: “Men and beasts Thou wilt preserve, O Lord.” To find in Scripture that salvation was open to all men whose free-will was ready to accept it, was “to pluck out some words of Scripture and fashion them according to our own fancy” (p. 317).[666]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 317.[667]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 14, p. 73: Erl. ed., 52, p. 271; cp.ibid., p. 69=p. 267.[668]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 51, p. 317.[669]“Corpus ref.,” 21, p. 87 f. Later we read: “Fateor in externo rerum delectu esse quandam libertatem, internos vero affectus prorsus nego in potestate nostra esse” (ibid., p. 92). Both passages in Kolde’s edition based on theeditio princeps, Leipzig, 1900, 3rd. ed., pp. 67, 74.[670]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 601; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 117.[671]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 144.[672]Thesis 16 of the Disputation of 1516 (see vol. i., p. 310): “Voluntas non est libera, sed servit, licet non invita.”[673]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 212; 9, p. 238; Erl. ed., 16², p. 135.[674]Ibid., p. 210=235=131.[675]See above, p. 27 ff.[676]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 39; Erl. ed., 27, p. 199. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 358 ff.[677]See below, p. 288, the Sermon in 1531.[678]To Johann Lang, April 12, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 331.[679]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 657.[680]Cp. Luther to Kaspar Borner, Professor at Leipzig, May 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 375.[681]N. Paulus points out in his article “Georg Agricola” (“Histor-polit. Blätter,” 136, 1905, p. 793 ff.), that this scholar had never been one of Luther’s followers, and was particularly repelled by his views on the absence of free-will, which he opposed as early as 1522.[682]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 377, n. 6, from Weller’s “Altes aus allen Teilen der Gesch.,” 1, 1765, p. 18.[683]We may allude, for instance, to the beautiful words which, strange to say, have been described by certain Protestants as a moralistic explaining away of the true “evangelical comprehension of the person of Christ and His work”: “Ut certiore cursu queas ad felicitatem contendere, haec tibi quarta sit regula, ut totius vitae tuae Christum velut unicum scopum præfigas, ad quem unum omnia studia, omnes conatus, omne otium ac negotium conferas. Christum vero esse puta non vocem inanem, sed nihil aliud quam charitatem, simplicitatem, patientiam, puritatem, breviter, quidquid ille docuit” (“Enchiridion,” Basil., 1519, p. 93). G. Kawerau quotes from the correspondence of Justus Jonas which he edited, 1, p. 31, the words of Eobanus Hessus (1519) on the “Enchiridion”: “Plane divinum opus,” and the following utterance of Ulrich Zasius (1520) on the same, from the correspondence of Beatus Rhenanus, p. 230: “Miles christianus, quem tamen, si vel solus ab Erasmo exisset, immortali laude prædicare conveniebat, ut qui christiano homini veræ salutis compendium, brevi velut enchiridio demonstret.” “Luther und Erasmus,” in “Deutsch-Evangel. Blätter,” 1906, Hft. 1, in the reprint, p. 4.[684]In a letter to P. Servatius, July 9, 1514, Erasmus says: “Voluptatibus etsi quando fui inquinatus nunquam servivi” (“Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 1527). Perhaps he meant more by this than when he says of Thomas More, in a letter to Ulrich von Hutten, July 23, 1519, which is sometimes cited in comparison: “Cum ætas ferret, non abhorruit [Th. Morus] a puellarum amoribus, sed citra infamiam, et sic ut oblatis magis frueretur, quam captatis et animo mutuo caperetur potius quam coitu” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 474seq.).[685]A. Dürer’s exclamation given above, p. 41: “O Erasmus Roderdamus, Knight of Christ, ride forth,” etc., is an allusion to the “miles christianus” depicted by Erasmus in the “Enchiridion.” Kawerau,ibid., p. 2.[686]The passages in proof of his “rationalistic interpretation of Scripture” are to be found in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 21 ff.[687]Janssen,ibid., p. 15.[688]Kawerau,ibid., p. 5.[689]To Christoph von Stadion, Bishop of Augsburg, August 26, 1528, “Opp.,” 3, col. 1095seq.[690]On September 3, 1522, “Opp.,” 3, col. 731. Cp. Fel. Gess, “Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs,” Leipzig, 1905, p. 352.[691]At the end of 1520 he declares that he has only read ten or twelve pages of Luther’s writings. To Campegius, December 6, 1520, and to Leo X, September 13, 1520, “Opp.,” 3, col. 596, 578.[692]Cp. Max Richter, “Erasmus und seine Stellung zu Luther,” Leipzig, 1907, p. 10 ff.[693]Ibid., col. 431seq.Cp. his statement to Jodocus [i.e. Justus] Jonas of July 31, 1518: “Luther had given some excellent advice; had he but gone to work more gently. As to the value of his doctrines, I neither can, nor wish to, express an opinion” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 334).[694]To Cardinal Wolsey: “Vita magno omnium consensu probatur,” etc. (“Opp.,” 3, col. 322). Cp. his letter to Campegius, of December 6, 1520. To Leo X he writes, on September 13, 1520 (col. 578): “Bonis igitur illius [Lutheri] favi ... immo gloriæ Chriti in illo favi.” Assurances such as these may well explain Rome’s delay in condemning Luther.[695]It is of a portion of the work (described briefly in volume i., p. 386) which had then appeared, that Erasmus writes: “Vehementer arrident et spero magnam utilitatem allaturos” (col. 445). How ready he was to express approval of any work of which a copy was presented to him is shown by his reply to the Bohemian Brethren in 1511, who had sent him one of their several confessions of faith founded on the new interpretation of Holy Scripture: Of what he had “read in their book,” he writes, he had “thoroughly approved and trusted that the rest was equally correct”; from any public approval he preferred, however, to abstain in order not to have his writings censured by the Papists, but to “preserve his reputation and strength unimpaired for the general good.” Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 20 f.[696]The letter is also to be found in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 66 ff.[697]“Opp.,” 3, col. 514. In his complaints concerning the disorders of the Church he says, for instance: “Mundus oneratus est ... tyrannide fratrum mendicantium”; and then “in sacris concionibus minimum audiri de Christo, de potestate pontificis et de opinionibus recentium fere omnia”; in short: “nihil est corruptius ne apud Turcas quidem.”[698]Luther to Lang, January 26, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 305: “egregia epistola, ubi me egregie tutatur, ita tamen, ut nihil minus quam me tutari videatur, sicut solet pro dexteritate sua.”[699]F. O. Stichart, “Erasmus von Rotterdam,” Leipzig, 1870, p. 325, Kawerau,ibid., p. 10.[700]On August 31, 1521, “Zwinglii Opp.,” 7, p. 310. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. trans., 3, p. 17, where the assertion that Erasmus had won over Pellicanus and Capito to the Zwinglian doctrine of the Last Supper is said to be utterly false. Though Erasmus declares that he never forsook the teaching of the Church on this point, Melanchthon nevertheless says that he was the actual originator of the Zwinglian denial of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament. Melanchthon to Camerarius, July 26, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1083: “Nostri inimici illum [Erasmum] amant, qui multorum dogmatum semina in suis libris sparsit, quæ fortasse longe graviores tumultus aliquando excitatura fuerant, nisi Lutherus exortus esset ac studia hominum alio traxisset. Tota illa tragædia, περὶ δειπνου κυριακοῦ, ab ipso nata videri potest.”[701]Cp. Fel. Gess, “Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs,” 1 p. 354.[702]To Spalatin, July 6, 1520, cp. Stähelin, “Theol. Realenzyklopädie,” 5³, p. 442.[703]“Opp.,” 3, col. 639seq.[704]Ibid., col. 713, 742.[705]So, for instance, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 698 (1525).[706]Ibid., p. 693.[707]“Opp.,” 3, col. 826.[708]“Opp.,” 3, col. 919.[709]Ibid., col. 1104.[710]Ioan. Genesius Sepulveda Cordubensis, “De rebus gestis Caroli Quinti,” in his “Opp.,” 1 (Matriti, 1780), p. 468.[711]To Johann Œcolampadius at Basle, June 20, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 164: “Forte et ipse[Erasmus]in campestribus Moab morietur(Num. xxxvi. 13)....In terram promissionis ducere non potest ... ut qui vel non possit vel non velit de iis[scripturis]recte iudicare.”[712]In his “Diatribe” against Luther, Erasmus likewise declares that he submits himself in all to the authority of the Church. Cp. Joh. Walter’s edition (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” Hft., 8, 1910), p. 3. Later he wrote concerning his attitude to Catholic dogma: “De his quæ sunt fidei, liberam habeo conscientiam apud Deum” (“Opp.,” 10, col. 1538).[713]To Christoph von Stadion, in the letter referred to above, p. 246, n. 1. Even in 1520 and 1521 he says that he had been the first to condemn the Wittenberg preaching because he had foreseen danger and disturbance. There, however, he dwells more on the detriment to learning.[714]“Si quis deus mihi prædixisset, hoc sæculum exoriturum, quædam aut non scripsissem, aut aliter scripsissem” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 681).[715]To quote here only one instance, Luther says (1544) in the “Tischreden” of Mathesius, edited by Kroker, p. 343, that he desired that the “Annotationes in Novum Testamentum” by Erasmus (a much-esteemed and really epoch-making work) should not be further disseminated, “because it contains Epicureanism and other poison.” Erasmus had destroyed many “in body, soul, and spirit,” and had been an “originator of the ‘Sakramentirer’”; he had injured the gospel as much as he had furthered the interests of learning. “He was a terrible man, and Zwingli was led astray by him. Egranus [Johann Wildenauer of Eger, who forsook the Wittenberg teaching] he had also perverted, and he now believes just about as much as Erasmus; his end was “sine crux et sine lux.” The latter remark concerning Erasmus’s death calls for explanation. Erasmus arrived in August, 1535, in a weak state of health at Basle, a city already despoiled of every vestige of Catholic worship—in order to supervise the printing of his “Origenes” by the celebrated Basle printers. His illness had been increasing since March, 1536, and in the night of the 11th to 12th July of that year he died unexpectedly and without having received the sacraments. A fortnight before this, on June 28, in a letter to a friend, Johann Goclen, he had expressed his regret that he was lying ill in a city dominated by the reformers. On account of the difference in religion he would rather be summoned out of this life elsewhere. “Ep.,” 1299. “Opp.,” 3, col. 1522.[716]Kawerau,ibid., p. 15. He, however, remarks concerning Erasmus: “The instinct of self-preservation forced such admissions from him.” There is no reason for doubting the “veracity” of his statements in favour of the Catholic Church.[717]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 287.[718]Joh. v. Walter, “Das Wesen der Religion nach Erasmus und Luther,” 1906, p. 7. “That Erasmus set himself seriously to improve matters is shown by his letters,” thus A. Freitag in the Preface to the “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 594, n. 3.[719]“Annales” (ed. Aretin, “Beiträge zur Gesch. und Literatur,” 9, 1807), p. 1018: “Ubi Erasmus quippiam optat aut fieri velle innuit, ibi Lutherus totis viribus irruit.” Leib’s “Briefwechsel und Diarien,” an important source for that period, J. Schlecht has edited in J. Greving’s “Reformationsgesch. Studien,” Hft. 7.[720]The preface has been reprinted in O. Braunsberger, “B. Petri Canisii Epistulæ et Acta,” 3, 1901, p. 280seq.The passage is on p. 283. Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 15, where the work of Canisius, “De incomparabili virgine Maria,” is also quoted.[721]In the letter of Erasmus to the Lutheran Johann Cäsarius, December 16, 1523: “Ego peperi ovum, Lutherus exclusit, mirum dictum minoritarum istorum magnaque et bona pulte dignum.” “Opp.,” 3, col. 840.[722]To Sinapius, July 31, 1534, in R. Stähelin, “Briefe aus der Reformationszeit,” “Programm,” Basle, 1887, p. 24: The “proverbiaἀδελφικά,” to use the term of Erasmus, runs: “Erasmus est pater Lutheri; Œcolampadius et Erasmus sunt milites Pilati, qui crucifixerunt Iesum.” Similar accusations, he adds, were heard also in other quarters. The Spanish theologian, L. Carvajal, remarks (1528) in his “Apologia diluens nugas Erasmi in sacras religiones,” that the Germans said of Erasmus: “Erasmus peperit ova, Lutherus exclusit pullos.” Ed. Cracow, 1540, Fol. C 1 a. The author was very angry with Erasmus on account of his calumnies against religious: “Utinam Lutherus mentiatur, qui te [Erasmum] atheon dicit.” Fol. E 3a.[723]In Preface referred to above, p. 253, n. 2.[724]“Origines de la réforme,” 2, Paris, 1909, p. 439, whence what precedes is also taken. The author’s opinion here quoted is the more remarkable owing to the fact, that in this chapter on “Christian Humanism,” he unduly magnifies both it and its followers, for instance, Erasmus. He writes on p. 441: “Presque partout l’humanisme se montrera l’adversaire du mouvement (de Luther) dont il sera la première victime. C’est qu’entre le principe fondamental de la réforme et celui de l’humanisme il y a un abîme. Ce dernier n’entendait pas seulement rester catholique, il l’était, et par sa soumission à l’unité extérieure et par sa doctrine de la liberté, et par un esprit d’équilibre et de mesure si conforme aux habitudes de pensée et de vie du catholicisme.” The first sentence, to dwell only upon this, makes out the opposition of Humanism to the Reformation to have been far more general than was the case, and speaks inaccurately of Humanism as itsfirstvictim. The first victim was the Catholic faith and practice throughout a large part of Europe, for the preservation of which the Humanists failed to show sufficient zeal. It is true that they met with a bitter retribution for their share in paving the way for the catastrophe, in the destruction of much they had done which perished in the storm which submerged scholarship. Erasmus twice asserts his conviction: “Ubicunque regnat Lutheranismus, ibi litterarum est interitus” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 1139; 10, col. 1618), and often repeats the same in other words. See present work, vol. v., xxxv. 3.[725]K. Gillert, “Briefwechsel des Konrad Mutianus,” Halle, 1890, p. 300.[726]Cp. G. Kawerau in W. Möller, “Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, p. 63.[727]From Aleander’s account in Balan, “Monumenta ref. Luth.,” p. 100 (cp. pp. 55, 79, 81); cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 16. Erasmus, in the above letter, dated August 26, 1528, and addressed to Christoph v. Stadion, describes Aleander and his intimate friend the Prince of Carpi as the originators of the charge, that, by his denial of dogma, he had been the cause of Lutheranism: “Cuius vanissimi rumoris præcipuus auctor fuit Hieronymus Aleander, homo, ut nihil aliud dicam, non superstitiose verax. Eiusdem sententiæ videtur Albertus Carporum princeps, Aleandro iunctissimus magisque simillimus.”[728]Hermelink, “Die religiösen Reformbestrebungen des deutschen Humanismus,” Tübingen, 1908. We may also mention here that Joh. v. Walter, in his edition of the “Diatribe” p. xxiii., criticises Zickendraht (“Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther,” etc., see below), “who lays too much stress on the sceptical utterances of Erasmus [in the ‘Diatribe’].”[729]On March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 88. See present work, vol. i., p. 43.[730]“Neque est ut timeam casurum me, nisi mutem sententiam.”[731]On May 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 375.[732]“Opp.,” 3, col. 809.[733]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 656 f. In the note on p. 790 it is pointed out that the passage in question does not refer to any work by Erasmus. A. Freitag, in the introduction to his reprint of the book, “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 577, says: “The words of Erasmus, in his letter to L. Vives on Ascension Day, 1527: ‘perdidimus liberum arbitrium,’ do not refer to the work, ‘De libero arbitrio.’” The jesting words used by Erasmus in a letter to Auerbach, dated December 10, 1524, which have also been quoted in support of the legend (“Profecto nunc habere desii liberum arbitrium, posteaquam emisi in vulgus”), only mean that, even had he so desired, it was now impossible to withdraw a book already published. He wrote in exactly the same sense to King Henry VIII on September 6, 1524: “iacta est alea, exiit in lucem libellus de libero arbitrio.”[734]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 319, “about April 15,” 1524.[735]“Ceterum clementia et mansuetudo mea erga peccatores et impios, quantumvis insanos et iniquos, arbitror, non modo teste mea conscientia, sed et multorum experientia, satis testata sit. Sic hactenus stilum cohibui, utcunque pungeres me, cohibiturum etiam scripsi in literis ad amicos, quæ tibi quoque lectæ sunt, donec palam prodires. Nam utcunque non nobiscum sapias et pleraque pietatis capita vel impie vel simulanter damnes aut suspendas, pertinaciam tamen tibi tribuere non possum neque volo” (p. 320 f.). Cp. Erasmus to Melanchthon, September 6, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 672.[736]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 404, said in 1537, March 21-28.[737]In the Leyden edition (Lugd. Batav.), 9, col. 1215-48. In German in Walch’s edition of Luther’s Works, 18, p. 1962seq.New critical edition with introduction by Joh. v. Walter in the “Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” No. 8, Leipzig, 1910.[738]“Epp.,” ed. Riegger, cp. 45. Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 47.[739]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 7.[740]On September 30, 1524. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 675. Cp. Enders, 5, p. 46.[741]Enders, 5, p. 47.[742]In the Introduction to the work, “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 614; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 131seq., we read: “An voluntas aliquid vel nihil agat in iis quæ pertinent ad salutem ... hic est cardo nostræ disputationis, hic versatur status causæ huius. Nam hoc agimus,” etc. “Hoc problema esse partem alteram totius summæ christianarum rerum,” etc. “Altera pars summæ christianæ est nosse, an Deus contingentur aliquid præsciat, et an omnia faciamus necessitate.”[743]At the close of the work mentioned in the previous note, p. 786 = 367: “Unus tu et solus cardinem rerum vidisti et ipsum iugulum petisti.”[744]A. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit ... bis zum Jahre 1525,” Göttingen, 1901, p. 46. It is true that the author declares on the same page: “Because and in so far as Luther was moved to his denial by his refusal to admit of merit and by his doctrine of the assurance of salvation, every evangelical theologian will agree with him; the admission of a system of salary between God and man is the death of evangelical piety; but belief in free-will does not necessarily lead to this.” Free-will, he declares, is, on the contrary, quite compatible with the “sola fides.” On p. 45 he had said: “Luther’s theology ends in contradictions which can only be obviated by the assumption of free-will and by a positive recognition of the powers of the natural man.”[745]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 46.[746]E. Kroker, “Katherina Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 280 f. “Ipsa supplicante scripsi.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 146.[747]See present work, vol. i., p. 204.[748]The Latin text in “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 113-368, and (with only unimportant differences) in the Weim. ed., 18, p. 600-787. A new German translation with introduction and explanations by O. Scheel, in “Luthers Werke,” ed. Buchwald, etc., sup. vol. ii., Berlin, 1905, p. 203 ff.[749]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 663 f. This work of Luther’s “was a stumbling-block to his followers, and attempts were made to explain it away by all the arts of violent exegesis; cp. Walch (in his edition of Luther’s works), 18, Introduction, p. 140 ff.” Kawerau in W. Möller, “Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, p. 63.[750]F. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen und von der Prädestination,” Göttingen, 1875 (Anastatischer Neudruck, Göttingen, 1905). Many Protestant theologians have recently defended, with renewed enthusiasm, Luther’s standpoint in the book “De servo arbitrio,” under the impression that it places man in the true state of subserviency to God and thus forms the basis of true religion. See below.[751]“De servo arbitrio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 781; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 359. Cp.ibid., p. 638=160: at most “in inferioribus sciat [homo], sese in suis facultatibus et possessionibus habere ius utendi, faciendi, omittendi pro libero arbitrio, licet et idipsum regatur solius Dei libero arbitrio, quocunque illi placuerit.” Taube (see p. 228, n. 2), p. 21, remarks, like Kattenbusch (above p. 264, n. 5), p. 48, that such degradation of free-will, even “in inferioribus,” is to be found in Luther’s earlier writings.[752]Kattenbusch, p. 7 f.[753]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 615 = 134: “Ex quo sequitur irrefragabiliter: Omnia quæ facimus, omnia quæ fiunt, etsi nobis videntur mutabiliter et contingenter fieri, revera tamen fiunt necessario, si Dei voluntatem species. Voluntas enim Dei efficax est,” etc. In the Jena Latin edition of Luther, 3 (1567), this passage has been watered down. Cp. also p. 615 = 133: “Deus nihil præscit contingenter, sed omnia incommutabili et æterna infallibilique voluntate et prævidet et proponit et facit,” p. 670 = 200: “Omnia quæ fiunt (sunt) meræ necessitatis.”[754]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 753 = 317: “Deus omnia, quæ condidit solus, solus quoque movet, agit et rapit, omnipotentiæ suæ motu, quem illa non possunt vitare nec mutare, sed necessario sequuntur et parent.” Cp. p. 747 = 308: God works upon the will with His “actuosissima operatio, quam vitare vel mutare non possumus, sed qua (homo) tale velle habet necessario, quale illi Deus dedit, et quale rapit suo motu.... Rapitur omnium voluntas, ut velit et faciat, sive sit bona sive mala.”[755]Ibid., p. 754 = 317, 318. Luther here shows a quite enigmatical want of comprehension for Erasmus’s exposition of the ancient Catholic doctrine concerning the co-operation of the will with grace.[756]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 615 = 133.[757]Ibid., p. 619 = 138.[758]Taube, p. 19 f.[759]“De servo arbitrio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 636; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 158.[760]“De servo arbitrio,” 7, p. 724seq.= 276.[761]Ibid., p. 730 = 284.[762]Ibid., p. 712seq.= 259seq.: cp. p. 627-629seq.= 147, 150seq.: Kattenbusch,ibid., p. 12.[763]Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,”4p. 758: “God’s universal action and His sovereign will determines [according to Luther’s theory] man’s destiny.” That passages of the Bible, such as 1 Timothy ii. 4, as urged in the “Diatribe” of Erasmus, contradict this, Luther will not admit. “Illudit sese Diatribe ignorantia sua, dum nihil distinguit inter Deum prædicatum et absconditum, hoc est inter verbum Dei et Deum ipsum. Multa ... Deus ... vult, quæ verbo suo non ostendit se velle; sic non vult mortem peccatoris, verbo scilicet, vult autem illam voluntate illa imperscrutabili.” In connection with such thoughts Luther does not shrink from saying (p. 731 = 284): “Si placet tibi Deus indignos coronans, non debet etiam displicere immeritos damnans,” and (p. 633 = 154): “Sua voluntate nos necessario damnabiles facit.” The passage here quoted on the “Deus absconditus” is to be found in Luther’s “De servo arbitrio,” p. 685 = 222, and has many parallels, for instance, p. 684, 689 = 221, 227. Of such passages Kattenbusch says (p. 17,ibid.): “Luther expressly advances it as a theory that God has two contradictory wills, the secret will of which no one knows anything, and another which He causes to be proclaimed.” Luther assumes that God makes use of His “exemption from the moral law which binds us” by “not being obliged actually to strive after what He proclaims to be His intention [the salvation of all men]—in other words, that He is free to lie.” According to Luther there is a great difference “between God not considering Himself bound by His word, and man acting in the same way” (ibid.).[764]Taube, p. 35.[765]See above p. 235 f.[766]Taube, p. 35. See what has already been said (vol. i., p. 155 ff.) of Luther’s connection with the Nominalism of Occam. It should also be compared with what follows.[767]P. 729seq.= 283.[768]Taube, p. 35 f.[769]Ibid., p. 33.[770]P. 719 = 268: “Hoc offendit quam maxime sensum illum communem seu rationem naturalem,” etc. Cp. p. 707seq.= 252seq.: “Ratio humana offenditur.... Absurdum enim manet, ratione iudice, ut Deus ille justus et bonus exigat a libero arbitrio impossibilia.... Sed fides et spiritus aliter iudicant, qui Deum bonum credunt, etiamsi omnes homines perderet.” P. 720 = 260: “Cuius (Dei) voluntatis nulla est causa, nec ratio, quæ illi ceu regula et mensura præscribatur, quum nihil sit illi æquale aut superius, sed ipse est regula omnium.”[771]P. 784 = 363: “Si enim talis esset eius iustitia, quæ humano captu posset iudicari esse iusta, plane non esset divina.”[772]P. 686 = 223.[773]P. 695 = 236.[774]Cp. p. 709, 711, 747 = 255, 257, 308.[775]Cp. M. Scheibe, “Calvins Prädestinationslehre, ein Beitrag zur Würdigung der Eigenart seiner Theologie und Religiosität,” Halle, 1897, p. 12.[776]Taube, p. 39.[777]Kattenbusch, p. 11 f.: “Adam’s sin, from which springs the depravity of the human race, was [according to Luther] called forth by God Himself ... Adam could not avoid acting contrary to the command.”[778]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 633 = 154: In order that faith may reign, everything must be hidden “sub contrario obiectu, sensu, experientia.... Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse clementem qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat, qui sua voluntate nos necessario damnabiles facit.” Against this Taube remarks (p. 41): “Theological criticism cannot fail to assert that the Christian faith, viz. belief in a God of almighty and holy love, becomes impossible, if He arbitrarily predestines so many, indeed, the greater part of mankind, to damnation, and is the creator of sin.... In this case faith in the Christian God, and also morality generally, could only remain despite such theological theories.”[779]P. 632, 633 = 153, 154. Cp. Luther’s Commentary on Romans, 1515-1516, on the humility and despair of self which brings about justification (vol. i., p. 217 ff.).[780]Taube, dealing with certain Protestants, who, after having duly watered down some of Luther’s theological peculiarities, assert that “the feeling of responsibility is satisfactorily explained in his theology.”[781]P. 783 = 362seq.[782]P. 784 = 363: “Si movet, quod difficile sit, clementiam et æquitatem Dei tueri, ut qui damnet immeritos,” etc.[783]Ibid., and p. 785 = 365.[784]Taube, p. 41 ff.[785]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 786 = 366.[786]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 670 = 199.[787]Ibid., p. 635 = 157.[788]“Sic humana voluntas in medio posita est, ceu iumentum. Si insederit Deus, vult et vadit quo vult Deus, ut psalmus(lxxiii. [lxxii.], 22)dicit: Factus sum sicut iumentum, et ego semper tecum. Si insederit Satan, vult et vadit quo vult Satan. Nec est in eius arbitrio ad utrum sessorem currere aut eum quærere, sed ipsi sessores certant ob ipsum obtinendum et possidendum” (p. 635 = 157). And yet it has recently been asserted by some Protestants, that, according to Luther, grace was “psychologically active,” whereas by the Schoolmen it was regarded as a “dead quality”; Luther’s “delicate psychological comprehension of God’s educational way” is at the same time extolled. N. Paulus rightly remarks (“Theol. Revue,” 1908, col. 344), “that the Schoolmen advocated a vital co-operation with grace is known to everyone who is at all acquainted with Scholasticism.” He quotes W. Köhler’s opinion of Luther’s system: Where man is impelled by God “every psychological factor must disappear.” “All actions become in the last instance something foreign to man” (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1903, col. 526). Paulus also refers to the following criticism by Köhler concerning the total depravity of man’s nature by the Fall, to which Luther ascribes our unfreedom: “Involuntarily we feel ourselves urged to ask, in view of this mass of sinfulness, how, given the total depravity of man, can redemption be possible unless by some gigantic, supernatural, mechanical means?” (“Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” 1904, p. 39).F. Kattenbusch points out in his criticism of Luther’s doctrine of the enslaved will (“Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 32 ff.) that Luther’s aim was certainly to humble and abase himself before the greatness of God’s grace, but that he went much too far; he wished to feel his salvation as the “result of God’s arbitrary act”; this sentiment was, however, not normal, nor “religiously healthy” (p. 35 f.). He also remarks (p. 10): “If according to this [the comparison with the saddle-horse] the process of regeneration is made to appear merely as a struggle between God and Satan in which God remains the victor, it is clear that the doctrine which Luther cherishes of the ethico-religious life is altogether mechanical and outward.” Kattenbusch was quite aware of the influence of the mediæval schools on Luther. The after-effects of Nominalism, he says, are not, indeed, so very prominent in the Reformer, “yet it seems to me we must admit, that alongside the principal religious current in Luther, runs a side-stream of religious feeling which can only spring from Nominalism and Mysticism.... In so far as they influence Luther’s doctrines, the latter may be said to spring from a polluted source. And, as regards the doctrine of the ‘servum arbitrium’ and of Predestination, the Church which takes its name from Luther has assuredly done well in improving upon the paths traced out for her by the great Reformer” (p. 94 f.). Cp. Albert Ritschl’s criticism of Luther’s denial of free-will, “Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung,” 34, pp. 280, 296 ff.

[612]Verse 53 ff.[613]September 28, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 246.[614]On September 27, 1525,ibid., p. 245.[615]Cp. letter of May 26, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 304 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 179).[616]“Qui te fecit sine te, non iustificat te sine te,” “Serm.,” 160, n. 13.[617]“De duabus animabus,” 14, n. 22.[618]Genesis iv. 6 f. According to the Vulgate.[619]2 Corinthians vi. 1; 1 Corinthians xv. 10; Philippians ii. 12.[620]Deuteronomy xxx. 19.[621]Ed. F. Pfeiffer², 1855, p. 208.[622]“De nuptiis et concup.,” 2, c. 8.[623]“Epp.,” 157, c. 2. It is notorious that in his controversial writings against the Pelagians, Augustine, in his later years, came to insist more and more upon grace, yet he never denied free-will nor its consequences, viz. merit and guilt. Some of Luther’s misrepresentations of the statements of this Father of the Church will be given later.[624]J. Ficker, in the Preface, p. lxxv, referring to “Schol. Rom.,” 38, 42, 71, 90, 91, 93, 101; cp. 171, 179, 188, 218.[625]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 30 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 55 f.[626]A. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit ... bis zum Jahre 1525,” Göttingen, 1901, p. 10 f.[627]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 10 ff. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 29 f.[628]Ibid., p. 78 = p. 177. Cp. F. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” Göttingen, 1875, p. 51 (the 2nd edition is a mere reprint).[629]Cp. for this and for the other theses Luther’s works mentioned in volume i., p. 310 ff., and also “Die ältesten Disputationen,” etc., ed. Stange, for instance, p. 5: “Voluntas hominis sine gratia non est libera, sed servit, licet non invita.”[630]Stange,ibid., p. 15.[631]Stange,ibid., p. 16, n. 1, referring to his work, “Die reformatorische Lehre von der Freiheit des Handelns,” in “Neue kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 3, 1903, p. 214 ff.[632]Cp. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 48 f.[633]On Luther’s Determinism, see below. For the deterministic passages in the work, “De servo arbitrio,” 1525, cf. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit,” p. 21.[634]Latin text in Stange,ibid., p. 18. Cp. Kattenbusch.,ibid., p. 41 ff., for what Luther said in 1516.[635]See Stange,ibid., p. 35 ff.[636]Thesis 13, in Stange,ibid., p. 53. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 354; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 388. Cp. Thesis 14: “Liberum arbitrium post peccatum potest in bonum potentia subiectiva, in malum vero activa semper.” On the Heidelberg Disputation, see volume i., p. 315 ff.[637]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 421; “Opp. Lat var.,” 3, p. 272.[638]Ibid., p. 424 = p. 276.[639]Jul. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², Stuttgart, 1901, p. 218.[640]In the “Assertio omnium articulorum,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 148; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 234. Cp.ibid., p. 146 = p. 231: “Patimur omnes et omnia: cessat liberum arbitrium erga Deum.”[641]Ibid., p. 146 = p. 230. This passage was toned down, after Luther’s death, in the Wittenberg ed. (1546) and Jena ed. (1557); Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 316 n.[642]“Werke,”ibid., p. 143 ff.=p. 227 ff. It is strange but characteristic how he appeals to experience as against the doctrine of free-will: everyone possessed arguments against it “ex vita propria.... Secus rem se habere monstrat experientia omnium” (p. 145=p. 230). His views of concupiscence come in here.[643]“Non est homo in manu sua, etiam mala operans et cogitans” (ibid., p. 145=p. 230).[644]“Nam et mala opera in impiis Deus operatur” (ibid.).[645]“Assertio,” etc. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 145 ff.; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 231 f.[646]“Contra duas epp. Pelag.,” 1. 3, c. 8.[647]“De spiritu et litt.,” c. 3, n. 5.[648]In place of “Neque liberum arbitrium quidquid nisi ad peccandum valet, si lateat veritatis via,” he makes Augustine say: “Liberum arbitrium sine gratia non valet nisi ad peccandum.” Of the subject itself sufficient explanation will be found in Catholic handbooks. Cp., for instance, Hurter, “Theolog. specialis,” pars. 2¹¹, 1903, p. 55 f.[649]“Assertio,” etc. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 146: “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 233.[650]Ibid., pp. 95=158.[651]Ibid., p. 148=234.[652]Ibid.[653]Weim. ed., 5, p. 149=p. 235.[654]Ibid., p. 97 f.=p. 161 f.[655]Ibid., p. 100=p. 165.[656]“Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 96=p. 158.[657]“Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 142 f.=p. 226.[658]Ibid., p. 145=p. 229.[659]Cp.ibid., p. 145=p. 230: “Unde non est dubium, satana magistro in ecclesiam venisse hoc nomen liberum arbitrium, ad seducendos homines a via Dei in vias suas proprias.”[660]Cp. “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 106. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 2², p. 70.[661]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 235. “Kirchenpostille,” Sermon of 1521. Cp. Köstlin,ibid., 1², p. 365.[662]See Köstlin,ibid., p. 366. He admits (2², p. 82) that Luther “expressly denies free-will” to those who “would not.”[663]Weim. ed., 7, p. 147; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 5, p. 232.[664]Köstlin,ibid., 1², p. 366.[665]To Hans von Rechenberg, August 18, 1522, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 22, p. 33 (“Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 444). This letter to the promoter of Lutheranism at Freistadt in Silesia, was at once spread abroad in print and is included amongst Luther’s catechetical works. Later he finds in the same passage, viz. Timothy ii. 4, merely an expression of God’s desire that we should render our neighbours “all temporal and spiritual assistance” (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 316 ff.). In support of this he appeals to Psalm xxxvi.: “Men and beasts Thou wilt preserve, O Lord.” To find in Scripture that salvation was open to all men whose free-will was ready to accept it, was “to pluck out some words of Scripture and fashion them according to our own fancy” (p. 317).[666]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 317.[667]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 14, p. 73: Erl. ed., 52, p. 271; cp.ibid., p. 69=p. 267.[668]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 51, p. 317.[669]“Corpus ref.,” 21, p. 87 f. Later we read: “Fateor in externo rerum delectu esse quandam libertatem, internos vero affectus prorsus nego in potestate nostra esse” (ibid., p. 92). Both passages in Kolde’s edition based on theeditio princeps, Leipzig, 1900, 3rd. ed., pp. 67, 74.[670]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 601; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 117.[671]Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 144.[672]Thesis 16 of the Disputation of 1516 (see vol. i., p. 310): “Voluntas non est libera, sed servit, licet non invita.”[673]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 212; 9, p. 238; Erl. ed., 16², p. 135.[674]Ibid., p. 210=235=131.[675]See above, p. 27 ff.[676]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 39; Erl. ed., 27, p. 199. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 358 ff.[677]See below, p. 288, the Sermon in 1531.[678]To Johann Lang, April 12, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 331.[679]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 657.[680]Cp. Luther to Kaspar Borner, Professor at Leipzig, May 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 375.[681]N. Paulus points out in his article “Georg Agricola” (“Histor-polit. Blätter,” 136, 1905, p. 793 ff.), that this scholar had never been one of Luther’s followers, and was particularly repelled by his views on the absence of free-will, which he opposed as early as 1522.[682]“Luthers Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 377, n. 6, from Weller’s “Altes aus allen Teilen der Gesch.,” 1, 1765, p. 18.[683]We may allude, for instance, to the beautiful words which, strange to say, have been described by certain Protestants as a moralistic explaining away of the true “evangelical comprehension of the person of Christ and His work”: “Ut certiore cursu queas ad felicitatem contendere, haec tibi quarta sit regula, ut totius vitae tuae Christum velut unicum scopum præfigas, ad quem unum omnia studia, omnes conatus, omne otium ac negotium conferas. Christum vero esse puta non vocem inanem, sed nihil aliud quam charitatem, simplicitatem, patientiam, puritatem, breviter, quidquid ille docuit” (“Enchiridion,” Basil., 1519, p. 93). G. Kawerau quotes from the correspondence of Justus Jonas which he edited, 1, p. 31, the words of Eobanus Hessus (1519) on the “Enchiridion”: “Plane divinum opus,” and the following utterance of Ulrich Zasius (1520) on the same, from the correspondence of Beatus Rhenanus, p. 230: “Miles christianus, quem tamen, si vel solus ab Erasmo exisset, immortali laude prædicare conveniebat, ut qui christiano homini veræ salutis compendium, brevi velut enchiridio demonstret.” “Luther und Erasmus,” in “Deutsch-Evangel. Blätter,” 1906, Hft. 1, in the reprint, p. 4.[684]In a letter to P. Servatius, July 9, 1514, Erasmus says: “Voluptatibus etsi quando fui inquinatus nunquam servivi” (“Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 1527). Perhaps he meant more by this than when he says of Thomas More, in a letter to Ulrich von Hutten, July 23, 1519, which is sometimes cited in comparison: “Cum ætas ferret, non abhorruit [Th. Morus] a puellarum amoribus, sed citra infamiam, et sic ut oblatis magis frueretur, quam captatis et animo mutuo caperetur potius quam coitu” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 474seq.).[685]A. Dürer’s exclamation given above, p. 41: “O Erasmus Roderdamus, Knight of Christ, ride forth,” etc., is an allusion to the “miles christianus” depicted by Erasmus in the “Enchiridion.” Kawerau,ibid., p. 2.[686]The passages in proof of his “rationalistic interpretation of Scripture” are to be found in Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 21 ff.[687]Janssen,ibid., p. 15.[688]Kawerau,ibid., p. 5.[689]To Christoph von Stadion, Bishop of Augsburg, August 26, 1528, “Opp.,” 3, col. 1095seq.[690]On September 3, 1522, “Opp.,” 3, col. 731. Cp. Fel. Gess, “Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs,” Leipzig, 1905, p. 352.[691]At the end of 1520 he declares that he has only read ten or twelve pages of Luther’s writings. To Campegius, December 6, 1520, and to Leo X, September 13, 1520, “Opp.,” 3, col. 596, 578.[692]Cp. Max Richter, “Erasmus und seine Stellung zu Luther,” Leipzig, 1907, p. 10 ff.[693]Ibid., col. 431seq.Cp. his statement to Jodocus [i.e. Justus] Jonas of July 31, 1518: “Luther had given some excellent advice; had he but gone to work more gently. As to the value of his doctrines, I neither can, nor wish to, express an opinion” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 334).[694]To Cardinal Wolsey: “Vita magno omnium consensu probatur,” etc. (“Opp.,” 3, col. 322). Cp. his letter to Campegius, of December 6, 1520. To Leo X he writes, on September 13, 1520 (col. 578): “Bonis igitur illius [Lutheri] favi ... immo gloriæ Chriti in illo favi.” Assurances such as these may well explain Rome’s delay in condemning Luther.[695]It is of a portion of the work (described briefly in volume i., p. 386) which had then appeared, that Erasmus writes: “Vehementer arrident et spero magnam utilitatem allaturos” (col. 445). How ready he was to express approval of any work of which a copy was presented to him is shown by his reply to the Bohemian Brethren in 1511, who had sent him one of their several confessions of faith founded on the new interpretation of Holy Scripture: Of what he had “read in their book,” he writes, he had “thoroughly approved and trusted that the rest was equally correct”; from any public approval he preferred, however, to abstain in order not to have his writings censured by the Papists, but to “preserve his reputation and strength unimpaired for the general good.” Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 20 f.[696]The letter is also to be found in “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 66 ff.[697]“Opp.,” 3, col. 514. In his complaints concerning the disorders of the Church he says, for instance: “Mundus oneratus est ... tyrannide fratrum mendicantium”; and then “in sacris concionibus minimum audiri de Christo, de potestate pontificis et de opinionibus recentium fere omnia”; in short: “nihil est corruptius ne apud Turcas quidem.”[698]Luther to Lang, January 26, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 305: “egregia epistola, ubi me egregie tutatur, ita tamen, ut nihil minus quam me tutari videatur, sicut solet pro dexteritate sua.”[699]F. O. Stichart, “Erasmus von Rotterdam,” Leipzig, 1870, p. 325, Kawerau,ibid., p. 10.[700]On August 31, 1521, “Zwinglii Opp.,” 7, p. 310. Cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People,” Engl. trans., 3, p. 17, where the assertion that Erasmus had won over Pellicanus and Capito to the Zwinglian doctrine of the Last Supper is said to be utterly false. Though Erasmus declares that he never forsook the teaching of the Church on this point, Melanchthon nevertheless says that he was the actual originator of the Zwinglian denial of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament. Melanchthon to Camerarius, July 26, 1529, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 1083: “Nostri inimici illum [Erasmum] amant, qui multorum dogmatum semina in suis libris sparsit, quæ fortasse longe graviores tumultus aliquando excitatura fuerant, nisi Lutherus exortus esset ac studia hominum alio traxisset. Tota illa tragædia, περὶ δειπνου κυριακοῦ, ab ipso nata videri potest.”[701]Cp. Fel. Gess, “Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs,” 1 p. 354.[702]To Spalatin, July 6, 1520, cp. Stähelin, “Theol. Realenzyklopädie,” 5³, p. 442.[703]“Opp.,” 3, col. 639seq.[704]Ibid., col. 713, 742.[705]So, for instance, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 698 (1525).[706]Ibid., p. 693.[707]“Opp.,” 3, col. 826.[708]“Opp.,” 3, col. 919.[709]Ibid., col. 1104.[710]Ioan. Genesius Sepulveda Cordubensis, “De rebus gestis Caroli Quinti,” in his “Opp.,” 1 (Matriti, 1780), p. 468.[711]To Johann Œcolampadius at Basle, June 20, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 164: “Forte et ipse[Erasmus]in campestribus Moab morietur(Num. xxxvi. 13)....In terram promissionis ducere non potest ... ut qui vel non possit vel non velit de iis[scripturis]recte iudicare.”[712]In his “Diatribe” against Luther, Erasmus likewise declares that he submits himself in all to the authority of the Church. Cp. Joh. Walter’s edition (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” Hft., 8, 1910), p. 3. Later he wrote concerning his attitude to Catholic dogma: “De his quæ sunt fidei, liberam habeo conscientiam apud Deum” (“Opp.,” 10, col. 1538).[713]To Christoph von Stadion, in the letter referred to above, p. 246, n. 1. Even in 1520 and 1521 he says that he had been the first to condemn the Wittenberg preaching because he had foreseen danger and disturbance. There, however, he dwells more on the detriment to learning.[714]“Si quis deus mihi prædixisset, hoc sæculum exoriturum, quædam aut non scripsissem, aut aliter scripsissem” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 681).[715]To quote here only one instance, Luther says (1544) in the “Tischreden” of Mathesius, edited by Kroker, p. 343, that he desired that the “Annotationes in Novum Testamentum” by Erasmus (a much-esteemed and really epoch-making work) should not be further disseminated, “because it contains Epicureanism and other poison.” Erasmus had destroyed many “in body, soul, and spirit,” and had been an “originator of the ‘Sakramentirer’”; he had injured the gospel as much as he had furthered the interests of learning. “He was a terrible man, and Zwingli was led astray by him. Egranus [Johann Wildenauer of Eger, who forsook the Wittenberg teaching] he had also perverted, and he now believes just about as much as Erasmus; his end was “sine crux et sine lux.” The latter remark concerning Erasmus’s death calls for explanation. Erasmus arrived in August, 1535, in a weak state of health at Basle, a city already despoiled of every vestige of Catholic worship—in order to supervise the printing of his “Origenes” by the celebrated Basle printers. His illness had been increasing since March, 1536, and in the night of the 11th to 12th July of that year he died unexpectedly and without having received the sacraments. A fortnight before this, on June 28, in a letter to a friend, Johann Goclen, he had expressed his regret that he was lying ill in a city dominated by the reformers. On account of the difference in religion he would rather be summoned out of this life elsewhere. “Ep.,” 1299. “Opp.,” 3, col. 1522.[716]Kawerau,ibid., p. 15. He, however, remarks concerning Erasmus: “The instinct of self-preservation forced such admissions from him.” There is no reason for doubting the “veracity” of his statements in favour of the Catholic Church.[717]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 287.[718]Joh. v. Walter, “Das Wesen der Religion nach Erasmus und Luther,” 1906, p. 7. “That Erasmus set himself seriously to improve matters is shown by his letters,” thus A. Freitag in the Preface to the “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 594, n. 3.[719]“Annales” (ed. Aretin, “Beiträge zur Gesch. und Literatur,” 9, 1807), p. 1018: “Ubi Erasmus quippiam optat aut fieri velle innuit, ibi Lutherus totis viribus irruit.” Leib’s “Briefwechsel und Diarien,” an important source for that period, J. Schlecht has edited in J. Greving’s “Reformationsgesch. Studien,” Hft. 7.[720]The preface has been reprinted in O. Braunsberger, “B. Petri Canisii Epistulæ et Acta,” 3, 1901, p. 280seq.The passage is on p. 283. Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 15, where the work of Canisius, “De incomparabili virgine Maria,” is also quoted.[721]In the letter of Erasmus to the Lutheran Johann Cäsarius, December 16, 1523: “Ego peperi ovum, Lutherus exclusit, mirum dictum minoritarum istorum magnaque et bona pulte dignum.” “Opp.,” 3, col. 840.[722]To Sinapius, July 31, 1534, in R. Stähelin, “Briefe aus der Reformationszeit,” “Programm,” Basle, 1887, p. 24: The “proverbiaἀδελφικά,” to use the term of Erasmus, runs: “Erasmus est pater Lutheri; Œcolampadius et Erasmus sunt milites Pilati, qui crucifixerunt Iesum.” Similar accusations, he adds, were heard also in other quarters. The Spanish theologian, L. Carvajal, remarks (1528) in his “Apologia diluens nugas Erasmi in sacras religiones,” that the Germans said of Erasmus: “Erasmus peperit ova, Lutherus exclusit pullos.” Ed. Cracow, 1540, Fol. C 1 a. The author was very angry with Erasmus on account of his calumnies against religious: “Utinam Lutherus mentiatur, qui te [Erasmum] atheon dicit.” Fol. E 3a.[723]In Preface referred to above, p. 253, n. 2.[724]“Origines de la réforme,” 2, Paris, 1909, p. 439, whence what precedes is also taken. The author’s opinion here quoted is the more remarkable owing to the fact, that in this chapter on “Christian Humanism,” he unduly magnifies both it and its followers, for instance, Erasmus. He writes on p. 441: “Presque partout l’humanisme se montrera l’adversaire du mouvement (de Luther) dont il sera la première victime. C’est qu’entre le principe fondamental de la réforme et celui de l’humanisme il y a un abîme. Ce dernier n’entendait pas seulement rester catholique, il l’était, et par sa soumission à l’unité extérieure et par sa doctrine de la liberté, et par un esprit d’équilibre et de mesure si conforme aux habitudes de pensée et de vie du catholicisme.” The first sentence, to dwell only upon this, makes out the opposition of Humanism to the Reformation to have been far more general than was the case, and speaks inaccurately of Humanism as itsfirstvictim. The first victim was the Catholic faith and practice throughout a large part of Europe, for the preservation of which the Humanists failed to show sufficient zeal. It is true that they met with a bitter retribution for their share in paving the way for the catastrophe, in the destruction of much they had done which perished in the storm which submerged scholarship. Erasmus twice asserts his conviction: “Ubicunque regnat Lutheranismus, ibi litterarum est interitus” (“Opp.,” 3, col. 1139; 10, col. 1618), and often repeats the same in other words. See present work, vol. v., xxxv. 3.[725]K. Gillert, “Briefwechsel des Konrad Mutianus,” Halle, 1890, p. 300.[726]Cp. G. Kawerau in W. Möller, “Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, p. 63.[727]From Aleander’s account in Balan, “Monumenta ref. Luth.,” p. 100 (cp. pp. 55, 79, 81); cp. Janssen, “Hist. of the German People” (Engl. trans.), 3, p. 16. Erasmus, in the above letter, dated August 26, 1528, and addressed to Christoph v. Stadion, describes Aleander and his intimate friend the Prince of Carpi as the originators of the charge, that, by his denial of dogma, he had been the cause of Lutheranism: “Cuius vanissimi rumoris præcipuus auctor fuit Hieronymus Aleander, homo, ut nihil aliud dicam, non superstitiose verax. Eiusdem sententiæ videtur Albertus Carporum princeps, Aleandro iunctissimus magisque simillimus.”[728]Hermelink, “Die religiösen Reformbestrebungen des deutschen Humanismus,” Tübingen, 1908. We may also mention here that Joh. v. Walter, in his edition of the “Diatribe” p. xxiii., criticises Zickendraht (“Der Streit zwischen Erasmus und Luther,” etc., see below), “who lays too much stress on the sceptical utterances of Erasmus [in the ‘Diatribe’].”[729]On March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 88. See present work, vol. i., p. 43.[730]“Neque est ut timeam casurum me, nisi mutem sententiam.”[731]On May 28, 1522, “Briefwechsel,” 3, p. 375.[732]“Opp.,” 3, col. 809.[733]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 656 f. In the note on p. 790 it is pointed out that the passage in question does not refer to any work by Erasmus. A. Freitag, in the introduction to his reprint of the book, “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 577, says: “The words of Erasmus, in his letter to L. Vives on Ascension Day, 1527: ‘perdidimus liberum arbitrium,’ do not refer to the work, ‘De libero arbitrio.’” The jesting words used by Erasmus in a letter to Auerbach, dated December 10, 1524, which have also been quoted in support of the legend (“Profecto nunc habere desii liberum arbitrium, posteaquam emisi in vulgus”), only mean that, even had he so desired, it was now impossible to withdraw a book already published. He wrote in exactly the same sense to King Henry VIII on September 6, 1524: “iacta est alea, exiit in lucem libellus de libero arbitrio.”[734]“Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 319, “about April 15,” 1524.[735]“Ceterum clementia et mansuetudo mea erga peccatores et impios, quantumvis insanos et iniquos, arbitror, non modo teste mea conscientia, sed et multorum experientia, satis testata sit. Sic hactenus stilum cohibui, utcunque pungeres me, cohibiturum etiam scripsi in literis ad amicos, quæ tibi quoque lectæ sunt, donec palam prodires. Nam utcunque non nobiscum sapias et pleraque pietatis capita vel impie vel simulanter damnes aut suspendas, pertinaciam tamen tibi tribuere non possum neque volo” (p. 320 f.). Cp. Erasmus to Melanchthon, September 6, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 672.[736]Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 404, said in 1537, March 21-28.[737]In the Leyden edition (Lugd. Batav.), 9, col. 1215-48. In German in Walch’s edition of Luther’s Works, 18, p. 1962seq.New critical edition with introduction by Joh. v. Walter in the “Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” No. 8, Leipzig, 1910.[738]“Epp.,” ed. Riegger, cp. 45. Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 47.[739]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 7.[740]On September 30, 1524. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 675. Cp. Enders, 5, p. 46.[741]Enders, 5, p. 47.[742]In the Introduction to the work, “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 614; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 131seq., we read: “An voluntas aliquid vel nihil agat in iis quæ pertinent ad salutem ... hic est cardo nostræ disputationis, hic versatur status causæ huius. Nam hoc agimus,” etc. “Hoc problema esse partem alteram totius summæ christianarum rerum,” etc. “Altera pars summæ christianæ est nosse, an Deus contingentur aliquid præsciat, et an omnia faciamus necessitate.”[743]At the close of the work mentioned in the previous note, p. 786 = 367: “Unus tu et solus cardinem rerum vidisti et ipsum iugulum petisti.”[744]A. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit ... bis zum Jahre 1525,” Göttingen, 1901, p. 46. It is true that the author declares on the same page: “Because and in so far as Luther was moved to his denial by his refusal to admit of merit and by his doctrine of the assurance of salvation, every evangelical theologian will agree with him; the admission of a system of salary between God and man is the death of evangelical piety; but belief in free-will does not necessarily lead to this.” Free-will, he declares, is, on the contrary, quite compatible with the “sola fides.” On p. 45 he had said: “Luther’s theology ends in contradictions which can only be obviated by the assumption of free-will and by a positive recognition of the powers of the natural man.”[745]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 46.[746]E. Kroker, “Katherina Bora,” Leipzig, 1906, p. 280 f. “Ipsa supplicante scripsi.” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 146.[747]See present work, vol. i., p. 204.[748]The Latin text in “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 113-368, and (with only unimportant differences) in the Weim. ed., 18, p. 600-787. A new German translation with introduction and explanations by O. Scheel, in “Luthers Werke,” ed. Buchwald, etc., sup. vol. ii., Berlin, 1905, p. 203 ff.[749]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 663 f. This work of Luther’s “was a stumbling-block to his followers, and attempts were made to explain it away by all the arts of violent exegesis; cp. Walch (in his edition of Luther’s works), 18, Introduction, p. 140 ff.” Kawerau in W. Möller, “Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.,” 3³, 1907, p. 63.[750]F. Kattenbusch, “Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen und von der Prädestination,” Göttingen, 1875 (Anastatischer Neudruck, Göttingen, 1905). Many Protestant theologians have recently defended, with renewed enthusiasm, Luther’s standpoint in the book “De servo arbitrio,” under the impression that it places man in the true state of subserviency to God and thus forms the basis of true religion. See below.[751]“De servo arbitrio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 781; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 359. Cp.ibid., p. 638=160: at most “in inferioribus sciat [homo], sese in suis facultatibus et possessionibus habere ius utendi, faciendi, omittendi pro libero arbitrio, licet et idipsum regatur solius Dei libero arbitrio, quocunque illi placuerit.” Taube (see p. 228, n. 2), p. 21, remarks, like Kattenbusch (above p. 264, n. 5), p. 48, that such degradation of free-will, even “in inferioribus,” is to be found in Luther’s earlier writings.[752]Kattenbusch, p. 7 f.[753]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 615 = 134: “Ex quo sequitur irrefragabiliter: Omnia quæ facimus, omnia quæ fiunt, etsi nobis videntur mutabiliter et contingenter fieri, revera tamen fiunt necessario, si Dei voluntatem species. Voluntas enim Dei efficax est,” etc. In the Jena Latin edition of Luther, 3 (1567), this passage has been watered down. Cp. also p. 615 = 133: “Deus nihil præscit contingenter, sed omnia incommutabili et æterna infallibilique voluntate et prævidet et proponit et facit,” p. 670 = 200: “Omnia quæ fiunt (sunt) meræ necessitatis.”[754]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 753 = 317: “Deus omnia, quæ condidit solus, solus quoque movet, agit et rapit, omnipotentiæ suæ motu, quem illa non possunt vitare nec mutare, sed necessario sequuntur et parent.” Cp. p. 747 = 308: God works upon the will with His “actuosissima operatio, quam vitare vel mutare non possumus, sed qua (homo) tale velle habet necessario, quale illi Deus dedit, et quale rapit suo motu.... Rapitur omnium voluntas, ut velit et faciat, sive sit bona sive mala.”[755]Ibid., p. 754 = 317, 318. Luther here shows a quite enigmatical want of comprehension for Erasmus’s exposition of the ancient Catholic doctrine concerning the co-operation of the will with grace.[756]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 615 = 133.[757]Ibid., p. 619 = 138.[758]Taube, p. 19 f.[759]“De servo arbitrio,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 636; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 158.[760]“De servo arbitrio,” 7, p. 724seq.= 276.[761]Ibid., p. 730 = 284.[762]Ibid., p. 712seq.= 259seq.: cp. p. 627-629seq.= 147, 150seq.: Kattenbusch,ibid., p. 12.[763]Loofs, “Dogmengesch.,”4p. 758: “God’s universal action and His sovereign will determines [according to Luther’s theory] man’s destiny.” That passages of the Bible, such as 1 Timothy ii. 4, as urged in the “Diatribe” of Erasmus, contradict this, Luther will not admit. “Illudit sese Diatribe ignorantia sua, dum nihil distinguit inter Deum prædicatum et absconditum, hoc est inter verbum Dei et Deum ipsum. Multa ... Deus ... vult, quæ verbo suo non ostendit se velle; sic non vult mortem peccatoris, verbo scilicet, vult autem illam voluntate illa imperscrutabili.” In connection with such thoughts Luther does not shrink from saying (p. 731 = 284): “Si placet tibi Deus indignos coronans, non debet etiam displicere immeritos damnans,” and (p. 633 = 154): “Sua voluntate nos necessario damnabiles facit.” The passage here quoted on the “Deus absconditus” is to be found in Luther’s “De servo arbitrio,” p. 685 = 222, and has many parallels, for instance, p. 684, 689 = 221, 227. Of such passages Kattenbusch says (p. 17,ibid.): “Luther expressly advances it as a theory that God has two contradictory wills, the secret will of which no one knows anything, and another which He causes to be proclaimed.” Luther assumes that God makes use of His “exemption from the moral law which binds us” by “not being obliged actually to strive after what He proclaims to be His intention [the salvation of all men]—in other words, that He is free to lie.” According to Luther there is a great difference “between God not considering Himself bound by His word, and man acting in the same way” (ibid.).[764]Taube, p. 35.[765]See above p. 235 f.[766]Taube, p. 35. See what has already been said (vol. i., p. 155 ff.) of Luther’s connection with the Nominalism of Occam. It should also be compared with what follows.[767]P. 729seq.= 283.[768]Taube, p. 35 f.[769]Ibid., p. 33.[770]P. 719 = 268: “Hoc offendit quam maxime sensum illum communem seu rationem naturalem,” etc. Cp. p. 707seq.= 252seq.: “Ratio humana offenditur.... Absurdum enim manet, ratione iudice, ut Deus ille justus et bonus exigat a libero arbitrio impossibilia.... Sed fides et spiritus aliter iudicant, qui Deum bonum credunt, etiamsi omnes homines perderet.” P. 720 = 260: “Cuius (Dei) voluntatis nulla est causa, nec ratio, quæ illi ceu regula et mensura præscribatur, quum nihil sit illi æquale aut superius, sed ipse est regula omnium.”[771]P. 784 = 363: “Si enim talis esset eius iustitia, quæ humano captu posset iudicari esse iusta, plane non esset divina.”[772]P. 686 = 223.[773]P. 695 = 236.[774]Cp. p. 709, 711, 747 = 255, 257, 308.[775]Cp. M. Scheibe, “Calvins Prädestinationslehre, ein Beitrag zur Würdigung der Eigenart seiner Theologie und Religiosität,” Halle, 1897, p. 12.[776]Taube, p. 39.[777]Kattenbusch, p. 11 f.: “Adam’s sin, from which springs the depravity of the human race, was [according to Luther] called forth by God Himself ... Adam could not avoid acting contrary to the command.”[778]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 633 = 154: In order that faith may reign, everything must be hidden “sub contrario obiectu, sensu, experientia.... Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse clementem qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat, qui sua voluntate nos necessario damnabiles facit.” Against this Taube remarks (p. 41): “Theological criticism cannot fail to assert that the Christian faith, viz. belief in a God of almighty and holy love, becomes impossible, if He arbitrarily predestines so many, indeed, the greater part of mankind, to damnation, and is the creator of sin.... In this case faith in the Christian God, and also morality generally, could only remain despite such theological theories.”[779]P. 632, 633 = 153, 154. Cp. Luther’s Commentary on Romans, 1515-1516, on the humility and despair of self which brings about justification (vol. i., p. 217 ff.).[780]Taube, dealing with certain Protestants, who, after having duly watered down some of Luther’s theological peculiarities, assert that “the feeling of responsibility is satisfactorily explained in his theology.”[781]P. 783 = 362seq.[782]P. 784 = 363: “Si movet, quod difficile sit, clementiam et æquitatem Dei tueri, ut qui damnet immeritos,” etc.[783]Ibid., and p. 785 = 365.[784]Taube, p. 41 ff.[785]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 786 = 366.[786]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 670 = 199.[787]Ibid., p. 635 = 157.[788]“Sic humana voluntas in medio posita est, ceu iumentum. Si insederit Deus, vult et vadit quo vult Deus, ut psalmus(lxxiii. [lxxii.], 22)dicit: Factus sum sicut iumentum, et ego semper tecum. Si insederit Satan, vult et vadit quo vult Satan. Nec est in eius arbitrio ad utrum sessorem currere aut eum quærere, sed ipsi sessores certant ob ipsum obtinendum et possidendum” (p. 635 = 157). And yet it has recently been asserted by some Protestants, that, according to Luther, grace was “psychologically active,” whereas by the Schoolmen it was regarded as a “dead quality”; Luther’s “delicate psychological comprehension of God’s educational way” is at the same time extolled. N. Paulus rightly remarks (“Theol. Revue,” 1908, col. 344), “that the Schoolmen advocated a vital co-operation with grace is known to everyone who is at all acquainted with Scholasticism.” He quotes W. Köhler’s opinion of Luther’s system: Where man is impelled by God “every psychological factor must disappear.” “All actions become in the last instance something foreign to man” (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1903, col. 526). Paulus also refers to the following criticism by Köhler concerning the total depravity of man’s nature by the Fall, to which Luther ascribes our unfreedom: “Involuntarily we feel ourselves urged to ask, in view of this mass of sinfulness, how, given the total depravity of man, can redemption be possible unless by some gigantic, supernatural, mechanical means?” (“Ein Wort zu Denifles Luther,” 1904, p. 39).F. Kattenbusch points out in his criticism of Luther’s doctrine of the enslaved will (“Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 32 ff.) that Luther’s aim was certainly to humble and abase himself before the greatness of God’s grace, but that he went much too far; he wished to feel his salvation as the “result of God’s arbitrary act”; this sentiment was, however, not normal, nor “religiously healthy” (p. 35 f.). He also remarks (p. 10): “If according to this [the comparison with the saddle-horse] the process of regeneration is made to appear merely as a struggle between God and Satan in which God remains the victor, it is clear that the doctrine which Luther cherishes of the ethico-religious life is altogether mechanical and outward.” Kattenbusch was quite aware of the influence of the mediæval schools on Luther. The after-effects of Nominalism, he says, are not, indeed, so very prominent in the Reformer, “yet it seems to me we must admit, that alongside the principal religious current in Luther, runs a side-stream of religious feeling which can only spring from Nominalism and Mysticism.... In so far as they influence Luther’s doctrines, the latter may be said to spring from a polluted source. And, as regards the doctrine of the ‘servum arbitrium’ and of Predestination, the Church which takes its name from Luther has assuredly done well in improving upon the paths traced out for her by the great Reformer” (p. 94 f.). Cp. Albert Ritschl’s criticism of Luther’s denial of free-will, “Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung,” 34, pp. 280, 296 ff.

[612]Verse 53 ff.

[613]September 28, 1525, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 246.

[614]On September 27, 1525,ibid., p. 245.

[615]Cp. letter of May 26, 1525, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 304 (“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 179).

[616]“Qui te fecit sine te, non iustificat te sine te,” “Serm.,” 160, n. 13.

[617]“De duabus animabus,” 14, n. 22.

[618]Genesis iv. 6 f. According to the Vulgate.

[619]2 Corinthians vi. 1; 1 Corinthians xv. 10; Philippians ii. 12.

[620]Deuteronomy xxx. 19.

[621]Ed. F. Pfeiffer², 1855, p. 208.

[622]“De nuptiis et concup.,” 2, c. 8.

[623]“Epp.,” 157, c. 2. It is notorious that in his controversial writings against the Pelagians, Augustine, in his later years, came to insist more and more upon grace, yet he never denied free-will nor its consequences, viz. merit and guilt. Some of Luther’s misrepresentations of the statements of this Father of the Church will be given later.

[624]J. Ficker, in the Preface, p. lxxv, referring to “Schol. Rom.,” 38, 42, 71, 90, 91, 93, 101; cp. 171, 179, 188, 218.

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

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

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

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

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

[630]Stange,ibid., p. 15.

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

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

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

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

[635]See Stange,ibid., p. 35 ff.

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

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

[638]Ibid., p. 424 = p. 276.

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

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

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

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

[643]“Non est homo in manu sua, etiam mala operans et cogitans” (ibid., p. 145=p. 230).

[644]“Nam et mala opera in impiis Deus operatur” (ibid.).

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

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

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

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

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

[650]Ibid., pp. 95=158.

[651]Ibid., p. 148=234.

[652]Ibid.

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

[654]Ibid., p. 97 f.=p. 161 f.

[655]Ibid., p. 100=p. 165.

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

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

[658]Ibid., p. 145=p. 229.

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

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

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

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

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

[664]Köstlin,ibid., 1², p. 366.

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

[666]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 317.

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

[668]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 51, p. 317.

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

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

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

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

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

[674]Ibid., p. 210=235=131.

[675]See above, p. 27 ff.

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

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

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

[679]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 657.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[687]Janssen,ibid., p. 15.

[688]Kawerau,ibid., p. 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[703]“Opp.,” 3, col. 639seq.

[704]Ibid., col. 713, 742.

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

[706]Ibid., p. 693.

[707]“Opp.,” 3, col. 826.

[708]“Opp.,” 3, col. 919.

[709]Ibid., col. 1104.

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

[711]To Johann Œcolampadius at Basle, June 20, 1523, “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 164: “Forte et ipse[Erasmus]in campestribus Moab morietur(Num. xxxvi. 13)....In terram promissionis ducere non potest ... ut qui vel non possit vel non velit de iis[scripturis]recte iudicare.”

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

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

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

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

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

[717]Cordatus, “Tagebuch,” p. 287.

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

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

[720]The preface has been reprinted in O. Braunsberger, “B. Petri Canisii Epistulæ et Acta,” 3, 1901, p. 280seq.The passage is on p. 283. Cp. Janssen-Pastor, “Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,” 218, p. 15, where the work of Canisius, “De incomparabili virgine Maria,” is also quoted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[732]“Opp.,” 3, col. 809.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[741]Enders, 5, p. 47.

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

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

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

[745]“Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 46.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[752]Kattenbusch, p. 7 f.

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

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

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

[756]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 615 = 133.

[757]Ibid., p. 619 = 138.

[758]Taube, p. 19 f.

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

[760]“De servo arbitrio,” 7, p. 724seq.= 276.

[761]Ibid., p. 730 = 284.

[762]Ibid., p. 712seq.= 259seq.: cp. p. 627-629seq.= 147, 150seq.: Kattenbusch,ibid., p. 12.

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

[764]Taube, p. 35.

[765]See above p. 235 f.

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

[767]P. 729seq.= 283.

[768]Taube, p. 35 f.

[769]Ibid., p. 33.

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

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

[772]P. 686 = 223.

[773]P. 695 = 236.

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

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

[776]Taube, p. 39.

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

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

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

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

[781]P. 783 = 362seq.

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

[783]Ibid., and p. 785 = 365.

[784]Taube, p. 41 ff.

[785]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 786 = 366.

[786]“De servo arbitrio,” p. 670 = 199.

[787]Ibid., p. 635 = 157.

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

F. Kattenbusch points out in his criticism of Luther’s doctrine of the enslaved will (“Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen,” p. 32 ff.) that Luther’s aim was certainly to humble and abase himself before the greatness of God’s grace, but that he went much too far; he wished to feel his salvation as the “result of God’s arbitrary act”; this sentiment was, however, not normal, nor “religiously healthy” (p. 35 f.). He also remarks (p. 10): “If according to this [the comparison with the saddle-horse] the process of regeneration is made to appear merely as a struggle between God and Satan in which God remains the victor, it is clear that the doctrine which Luther cherishes of the ethico-religious life is altogether mechanical and outward.” Kattenbusch was quite aware of the influence of the mediæval schools on Luther. The after-effects of Nominalism, he says, are not, indeed, so very prominent in the Reformer, “yet it seems to me we must admit, that alongside the principal religious current in Luther, runs a side-stream of religious feeling which can only spring from Nominalism and Mysticism.... In so far as they influence Luther’s doctrines, the latter may be said to spring from a polluted source. And, as regards the doctrine of the ‘servum arbitrium’ and of Predestination, the Church which takes its name from Luther has assuredly done well in improving upon the paths traced out for her by the great Reformer” (p. 94 f.). Cp. Albert Ritschl’s criticism of Luther’s denial of free-will, “Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung,” 34, pp. 280, 296 ff.

Back to IndexNext