[1481]W. Köhler in his review of Kropatscheck (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1905, col. 453 ff.).[1482]P. 459. For proofs that, in the Middle Ages, the Bible occupied its due position in the faith and life of Christians, cp. K. Holzhey, “Die Inspiration der hl. Schrift in den Anschauungen des MA.,” 1895.[1483]Instructive indeed are the detailed proofs given in Kropatscheck’s work of how the heretical Waldenses, and, after them, Wiclif and Hus, used the “sola scriptura” against tradition and the authority of the Church. The example of the Waldenses had already shown that it was quite impossible to use the principle without accepting at the same time certain of the doctrines of the Church (p. 17 ff.). With Hus “the formula ‘sola scriptura’ rings again and again in his writings as a battle-cry” (p. 76). He wants the “lex Christi” and no “leges novæ,” hence, no Decretals, indulgences, Crusade-Bulls, priesthood or celibacy. The revolutionary force of the formula is noticeable in Hus and still more in the later Hussites; they declared the “Law of Grace” to be sufficient even for civil life, and, as “avengers of Scripture,” proclaimed war on those lords who thought differently, the Princes and the monasteries. Wiclif, “a Bible theologian from head to foot,” who even finds in Scripture all the wisdom and learning of the world, and describes it as a book everyone can understand, registered a success which was “great” only in the revolutionary sense. The Bible standpoint of Occam, to which Kropatscheck also devotes attention, has something in common with that of Luther (cp. Kropatscheck, “Occam und Luther,” in “Beiträge zur Förderung christl. Theol.,” 1900, p. 49 ff.). Kropatscheck emphasises the fact, that Occam, in his opposition to the Pope, had conceded to “the whole Church” the right of interpretation, and, like Marsilius of Padua, wished to set aside man-made laws for the Bible and the law of nature. The history of the Middle Ages and the “apocalyptic, political and social” trends connected with Holy Scripture show how dangerous and subversive any arbitrary treatment of the Bible could be. The written Word of God becomes a weapon wherewith to rouse the passions against the highest powers, an excuse for gross millenarianism and libertinism, and a veritable mine to be exploited by stupid, crazy fanatics.—Cp., on Kropatscheck, M. Buchberger, in “Theol. Revue,” 1906, p. 118 ff.; his review concludes as follows: “that no solid foundation can be won, but that everything totters without an authoritative, and, in the last instance, infallible, exponent of Holy Scripture. The call for such an exponent is the final conclusion powerfully borne in on the mind.”[1484]Ibid., p. 433.[1485]“W. Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” 1887, p. 117.[1486]From Pirkheimer’s “Oratio apolog.,” for the Convent of St. Clare at Nuremberg, in “Opp.,” ed. M. Goldast, 1610, p. 375seq.[1487]Gütersloh, 1903, p. 84 ff.[1488]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 195; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 408.[1489]“Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1905, col. 41.[1490]“Grundriss der DG.,” etc.³, Leipzig, 1910, p. 130.[1491]“Lehrbuch der DG.,” 2nd part, Erl., 1898, p. 289.[1492]Pp. 288, 283, 290 f.[1493]“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1901, col. 272. O. Ritschl (“DG.,” 1, 1908, p. 69 ff.) judges more favourably.[1494]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 156.[1495]Döllinger,ibid., pp. 156-173. Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², pp. 80 f., 668 ff., 675, 688, 716, andpassim.[1496]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 59; “KL.,” 8², p. 344.[1497]“Comm. in Gal.,” 1, p. 3, Irmischer.[1498]“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 119: “Articulus iustificationis est magister et princeps, dominus, rector et iudex super omnia genera doctrinarum, qui conservat et gubernat omnem doctrinam ecclesiasticam et erigit conscientiam nostrum coram Deo.”[1499]“Disputationes,” p. 11, n. 41.[1500]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 158.[1501]Ibid.[1502]“Briefe,” 6, p. 424, undated, and to a person unnamed: “Ex his duabus epistolis omnes, quæ incident, quæstiones, vel alioqui scripturæ loca obscuriora interpretator.”[1503]Ibid., p. 434. Written in a Bible: “Ad omnia dicta scripturæ, quibus videtur iustitia operum statui, respondebis ex Ebre. 11, hac voce: Fide,” etc.[1504]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 165 f.; Erl. ed., 47, p. 371. In the Exposition of John vi.-viii. (1530-1532).[1505]Cp.ibid., Erl. ed., 63, p. 157.[1506]Ibid., 8², p. 23. Cp. p. 24: “But know that Pope, Councils and the whole world in all their teaching are subject to the meanest Christian, even to a child of seven who has the faith, and that they must accept his opinion.”[1507]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 357; Erl, ed., 14², p. 47; cp. p. 379=78.[1508]Ibid., 13², p. 231; cp. Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, p. 298.[1509]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 145 f.[1510]“Quod sine scripturis asseritur aut revelatione probata, opinari licet, credi non est necesse.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 508; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 30. Cp.,ibid., 2, pp. 297, 279, 309-15=3, pp. 89, 62, 106-15.[1511]Ibid., 8, p. 141 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 323 f.; cp. p. 143 f.=325 f.[1512]Ibid., p. 235=39, p. 132.[1513]Ibid., 10, 3, p. 22 f.=28, p. 223. Cp. R. Seeberg, “Lehrb. der DG.,” p. 285 f.[1514]Scheel gives Luther’s views on p. 45 as follows: “What is not taught by Christ is not apostolic even should Peter and Paul teach it. But all that preaches Christ is apostolic even should Judas, Annas, Pilate or Herod teach it. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 157.)... Hence Luther replies to his opponent, ‘You appeal to the slave, i.e. to Scripture, and not even to the whole or the most excellent part of it. This slave I leave for you; as for me, I appeal to the Lord, Who is King of Scripture.’” (“Comm. in Gal.,” 1, p. 387, Irmischer.) Scheel quotes the “Comm. in Gen.,” 1, p. 539: “Si adversarii scripturam urserint contra Christum, urgemus Christum contra scripturas.” He says finally, p. 74: “Luther found himself in Scripture just as the simple man finds in the outward world the answer to his own world of sense; with the unerring instinct of genius he found the essence of Scripture which was at the same time the essence of his own being.”[1515]“Lehrb. d. DG.,” 3^[4], p. 867.[1516]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 158.[1517]Ibid., p. 160. For the liberty which Luther permitted himself in his translation of the sacred text, see vol. v., xxxiv., 3.[1518]Cp. Döllinger,ibid., pp. 151-156.[1519]“Gesch.,” etc., 1², 1896, p. 199.[1520]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 190 f.[1521]On the strength of the biblical labours of Erasmus and of Reuchlin, Zwingli did not scruple to call into question Luther’s assertion that it was he who drew “the Bible out from under the bench.” “Zwinglis Werke” (1828 ff.), 2, 2, p. 21.[1522]See our vol. i., p. 224 f.[1523]Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans, 1515-1516, ed. J. Ficker, 1908, Glosses, p. 4.[1524]Ibid., Scholia, p. 240: “Universa scriptura de solo Christo est ubique.”[1525]Ibid., p. 253.[1526]Ibid., Introduction, p. lxii.[1527]Ibid., p. lv., and vol. i., p. 242 f.[1528]Quoted by Ficker, p. lvii.[1529]“Scheurls Briefbuch,” ed. Soden and Knaake, 2, p. 2; Ficker,ibid., p. lxv.[1530]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 228; “Opp. lat[. missing?] var.,” 1, p. 321.[1531]Ibid., p. 239 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 4 ff.[1532]To Johann Sylvius Egranus, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 174.[1533]To Jodocus Trutvetter, May 9, 1518,ibid., p. 186.[1534]“Werke,” Weim ed., 1, p. 384 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 12 f.[1535]Löscher, “Reformationsacta,” 2, p. 80.[1536]In the postscript to the “Acta Augustana,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 18, 21 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 385seq., 391seq.[1537]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, l, p. 54. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 542, and “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 640. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 672, 675, 727 ff.[1538]Cp., in “Luthers Werke in Auswahl,” ed. Buchwald, 2 suppl., 1905, p. 43, O. Scheel’s remarks on the writing “De votis monasticis” (Weim. ed., 8, p. 583; “ Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 252), where Luther says that whoever denies the virginity of Mary plays havoc with the whole faith.[1539]Thus A. Berger, “M. Luther,” Tl. 2, pp. 98, 100. Cp. this author’s view (on p. 100): “This means an obscuring and impoverishing of the faith as discovered and laid down by himself.” The following observation of Berger’s is remarkable: “Luther, as theologian, was merely the restorer of primæval Christianity, such as he understood it; Zwingli, however, understood it otherwise” (p. 102).[1540]See vol. i., p. 193.[1541]See vol. ii., p. 223 ff.[1542]“Ph. Melanchthonis Annotationes in Epistolas Pauli ad Rhomanos et Corinthios,” Norimbergæ, 1522. The later editions are quoted in “Corp. ref.,” 15, p. 441. In this volume Bindseil has not reprinted the writing owing to Melanchthon’s retractation of it (see next page). It should, however, have been printed as an historical document.—The introductory preface, in “Briefe,” 2, p. 239, dated July 29, 1522 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 438).[1543]Letter of March 12, 1523. Cp. “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 2, p. 131.[1544]Owing to the rarity of the work, to which even the editor of the “Briefwechsel” had not access, we give in Latin the passages referred to from the copy contained in the Munich State Library: H 1´: “Necessario omnia eveniunt in omnibus creaturis.... Itaque sit hæc certa sententia, a Deo fieri omnia tam bona quam mala.” H 2´: “Nos vero dicemus, non solum permittere Deum creaturis ut operentur, sed ipsum omnia proprie agere, ut, sicut fatentur, proprium Dei opus esse Pauli vocationem ita fateantur, opera Dei propria esse sive quæ media vocantur, ut comedere, bibere, communia cum brutis, sive quæ mala sunt, ut Davidis adulterium, Manlii severitatem animadvertentis in filium.... Iam cum constet, Deum omnia facere, non permissive, sed potenter, ut Augustini verbo utamur, ita ut sit eius proprium opus Iudæ proditio sicut Pauli vocatio,” etc.—For Melanchthon’s statement in his “Loci” of the Lutheran denial of free-will, see above, vol. iii., p. 346.[1545]“Corp. ref.,” 15, p. 441.[1546]Melanchthon in his letter to the Elector August of Saxony, April, 1559. N. Paulus, “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” Munich, 1905, p. 52 f. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 347.[1547]See vol. ii., p. 265.[1548]“Comm. in Ep. ad. Gal.,” 1535, vol. i., p. 255. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 514. Cp. Luther’s Sermon of 1523 on the Feast of the Circumcision, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 508; Erl. ed., 15², p. 199: It had been shown long before by the institution of circumcision “that no one could reach God and be saved by works, but only by faith. This is insisted upon throughout the whole of Scripture by teaching and example. Sin in us is not merely a work or deed, but our real nature and essence; for this reason does God circumcise that member which pertains to birth and by which human nature is perpetuated.” On the same page we find the following: “Nature is depraved through and through so that no will is left for what is good”; “our nature is all poisoned and crammed with sin,” etc.—The sermon in which the singularly outspoken statement concerning circumcision occurs is also found in the postils. Some unbecoming language is also met at the commencement of the passage in question where Luther says: “It is quite true that God’s works and commandments are folly to nature and reason; God’s way of acting is mad enough”; Luther, however, hastens to add, “but if we keep our heads and look into it attentively, we shall soon see that all is done in the wisest manner.”[1549]Document of Oct. 14, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1 (p. 250 ff.), p. 256 ff.[1550]Cp. our vol. i., p. 384.[1551]Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 175, on passages dating from 1532 and 1539.[1552]“Disputationes,” pp. 429, 431 (of 1538).[1553]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 202.[1554]Ibid., 2², p. 257.[1555]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 43seq.: “iustus et sanctus aliena seu extrinseca sanctitate.”[1556]Ibid., 10, p. 110: “non tantum per dona, sed quoad substantiam.”[1557]Cp. the passages in Köstlin,ibid., p. 201 f.[1558]“Werke,” Er. ed., 18², p. 312.[1559]Ibid., 14², p. 287. In the light of this we can better understand the words which occur quite early in a writing of Luther’s: “Non iusta agendo iusti efficimur, as Aristotle taught, butiusti fiendo et essendo operamur iusta.” To Spalatin, Oct. 19, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 64. See below, xxviii., 4.[1560]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 285 f.[1561]Ibid., p. 282. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 226 f., also pp. 181 ff., 186 f., 194.[1562]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 652. First published by G. Berbig, “Der Veit-Dietrich-Codex in der Nürnb. Stadtbibliothek,” 1907.[1563]Cp. Th. Kolde in the “Beitr. z. Bayerischen KG.,” 14, 1908, p. 139 ff. Kolde rightly refers Luther’s words to Melanchthon, viz. that he would send him a writing, “si volet Christus, de iustificationis loco” (Aug. 24, 1530, from the fortress of Coburg, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 204), to the above work, and disagrees with Enders’ remark on the subject.[1564]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 23: “De imputatione non clare omnia explicat.”[1565]Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 521.[1566]J. Mausbach, “Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus,” 2, 1909, p. 98.[1567]Cp. Denifle-Weiss,ibid., p. 742, n. 3.[1568]Sess. VI. c. 9.[1569]“In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 2, p. 161.[1570]Ibid., p. 164.[1571]Ibid., p. 165.[1572]Ibid., p. 166. Cp. above, p. 437, and vol. i., p. 385 ff. on this certainty of faith.[1573]“In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 2, p. 166.[1574]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201.[1575]“In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 1, p. 101.[1576]Ibid., 2, p. 164.[1577]Ibid., p. 165.[1578]Ibid.[1579]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 230.[1580]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 163; Erl. ed., 47, p. 369.[1581]Above, vol. iii., pp. 202 ff., 226.[1582]Oct. 27, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 109.[1583]Nov. 22, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 121.[1584]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 264seq., in the exposition of Isaias, 1532, Denifle-Weiss,ibid., p. 738, n. 1.[1585]Ibid., p. 143. Denifle-Weiss,ibid., n. 2.[1586]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 188.[1587]To Wenceslaus Link, Oct. 26, 1539, “Briefe,” 5, p. 219.[1588]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 53.[1589]Ibid., p. 57seq.[1590]“Luthers ungedruckte Predigten,” ed. G. Buchwald, 3, Leipzig, 1885, p. 50.[1591]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201.[1592]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 54.[1593]K. Hase, “Hdbch. der prot. Polemik,”^[4] p. 264.[1594]“Kirche und Kirchen,” p. 428 f.[1595]Ibid., p. 269.[1596]“Gesch. des Pietismus,” 1, Bonn, 1880, p. 38.[1597]“Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt, die christl. Centrallehre, in dogmengeschichtl. und religionsgeschichtl. Beleuchtung,” Leipzig, 1907, p. 229.[1598]P. 120 f.[1599]On the Confession of Augsburg and Melanchthon’s alterations in Luther’s teaching, and on Melanchthon’s own change of views, cp. O. Ritschl, “Der doppelte Rechtfertigungsbegriff in der Apologie der Augsburgischen Konfession” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. u. Kirche,” 1910, pp. 292-338).[1600]On de Lagarde see “Theol. Revue,” 1908, col. 345. G. Esser, in his review there of Genrich’s work, remarks of the alleged “religious experiences”: “We hear the familiar rhapsodies concerning personal experience, religion that has to be lived and cannot be reduced to any formulas, and then again, experiences are discussed which have to be differentiated from others, vital experiences which must be accurately formulated, in short, a constant revolving in a circle, and a language that is always vague.” Before this Esser had said: “What can the word Justification mean to those who have lost all idea of the supernatural and of grace, and have so changed the idea of ‘faith’ that nothing remains but a vague religious sentiment, a venture of the will to affirm the value of a higher world in the face of worldly wisdom.”[1601]“Die Rechtfertigungslehre im Lichte der Gesch. des Protestantismus,” 1906 (“Sammlung ... Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theol.,” No. 45), pp. 2, 3, 42, 10, 16.[1602]“Die Rechtfertigungslehre in Luthers Vorlesungen über den Römerbrief mit bes. Rücksicht auf die Frage der Heilsgewissheit” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,” 1910, p. 245 ff.), pp. 287, 289.[1603]W. Köhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” pp. 54-58. Of this description O. Clemen remarks in the “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 1909, p. 380: “Those pages have attracted special attention where Köhler shows that, in the Catholic criticism of Luther’s doctrine of salvation, as unfair to ethical requirements, there lies a grain of truth.”[1604]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 355; cp. Erl. ed., 14², pp. 191, 195, 198 f., 205, 211 f.[1605]On the teaching of antiquity see Bellarmin, “De iustificatione,” 5, n. 10seq.[1606]See vol. i., p. 118 ff.[1607]Cp. e.g., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 683 f.; 10, 2, p. 126; Erl. ed., 22, p. 54; 28, p. 164; 53, p. 288. Vol. 15², p. 282, he speaks of the “lousy works,” and, pointing out that Christ had become the fulfiller of the Law, says: “They [the Papists] boast of their works.”—This is for him the real object of attack; he is determined to inveigh against the “unus furor, velle per opera coram Deo agere,” and says of the Catholics: “opera quibus erga homines utendum est, offerunt Deo.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 187; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 396.[1608]“My struggle has been first of all against all trust in works, on which the world insists and struts.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 382, Table-Talk.[1609]To George Spenlein, the Memmingen Augustinian, April 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 29: against the “tentatio præsumptionis in multis et iis præcipue qui iusti et boni esse omnibus viribus student; ignorantes iustitiam Dei, quæ in Christo est nobis effusissime et gratis donata, quærunt in se ipsis tamdiu operari bene, donec habeant fiduciam standi coram Deo, veluti virtutibus et meritis ornati; quod est impossibile fieri.” Cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 347; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 236, where he speaks against the “affectus propriæ iustitiæ” and declares that the sense of good works performed led men to fall. P. 347=237: the wish to have remained always pure was simply foolish, etc.[1610]“Opera,” Pars II. Ingolstadtii, 1531, p. 95: “Calumniatur Ludderus. quod per opera sua Christum excludant mediatorem,” etc.[1611]W. Köhler, “Denifles Luther,” p. 42, referring to Luther’s Works, Erl. ed., 32, p. 261.[1612]From Kilian Leib, “Verantwortung des Klosterstandes,” fol. 170´. Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 5, 33; 2nd ed., p. 587.[1613]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 349; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 239.[1614]Ibid., p. 348=238.[1615]Ibid., p. 347=236.[1616]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 105.[1617]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 212 f.[1618]Ibid., p. 213.[1619]Ibid., p. 221.[1620]Ibid., 6², p. 157, Hauspostille. Cp. above, p. 438, n. 9.[1621]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 432, in the notes taken of a sermon of 1524.[1622]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 349.[1623]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 369, Thesis 16.[1624]Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 9, p. 360; 10, p. 159; 11, p. 121.[1625]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 397; Erl. ed., 36, p. 6 f.[1626]To Spalatin, Oct. 16, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 64: “qui (Augustinus) apud me, antequam in libros eius incidissem, ne tantillum quidem favoris habuit.” Other Augustinians made more account of this Saint, popularly regarded as their founder.[1627]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 75, 109 f.[1628]Ibid., p. 127.[1629]“Stud. und Krit.,” 1878, p. 698; Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 134.[1630]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 100: “Theologia nostra et S. Augustinus prospere procedunt,” etc.[1631]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 137; here it is first stated: “Luther’s theology was regarded by him and his friends as simply that of the great Father Augustine.”[1632]Ibid., p. 138.[1633]Cp. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 364.[1634]August., “Contra Jul.,” 1, 2, c. 8, n. 23. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 486 ff, 511, 512, 513.[1635]Thus Denifle-Weiss,ibid., p. 508.[1636]Ibid., pp. 460 f., 467.[1637]Ibid., p. 469.[1638]Ibid., p. 472.[1639]Ibid.[1640]Melanchthon and Luther to Brenz, end of May, 1531, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 18.[1641]Thus Wrampelmeyer, editor of Cordatus’s “Tagebuch,” on the copy of the letter in Cordatus, p. 383.[1642]For the course pursued by Melanchthon when drawing up the portion of the Confession in question, see vol. iii., p. 329 f.[1643]“Tagebuch,” ed. Wrampelmeyer, p. 385: “Hactenus Philippus ille cum sua novitate.” The differences between Cordatus and Melanchthon related to the doctrine of Justification under another aspect. On these dissensions, see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 445 ff.; on the want of unity on Justification generally amongst Luther’s pupils, see Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 3, pp. 372-591.[1644]Döllinger,loc. cit., p. 367 f.[1645]Ibid., p. 370.[1646]“De catechizandis rudibus,” c. 5.[1647]Lib. 83, quæst., q. 76; “Enarr. 2 in psalm. 31,” n. 3; “De fide et operibus,” c. 14, n. 21.[1648]“Contra II epist. Pelag.,” 1, c. 13, n. 26.[1649]“De spiritu et littera,” c. 9.[1650]Ibid.[1651]“De peccato et merito,” 1, 9.[1652]“De Trinitate,” 15, 8, 14.[1653]“De fide et symbolo,” c. 9.[1654]“In Psalm. LXX,” serm. 2, n. 3.[1655]“De civitate Dei,” 19, 27.[1656]“Super Genesi ad litt.,” 8, 12.[1657]Sermo 158, c. 2. Similarly “In Psalm.” LXXXIII and CIX.[1658]“De fide et op.,” c. 10.[1659]“Homil. 29 in Evang.”[1660]See particularly above, pp. 195-218.[1661]Cp. p. 212.[1662]He says in a frequently misquoted paragraph (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 352 f.) in so many words: “The world ever remains the same; either it exalts faith wrongly [as do the ‘secure pseudo-Christians’ on his side whose ‘faith is not rooted aright,’ p. 351] or it wishes to be over-holy but without faith [like the Papists]. If we discourse on faith and grace, then no one will perform good works; if we insist on works, then no one will have anything to do with faith; few indeed are those who keep to the true middle course and even pious Christians find it difficult.”—This was certainly quite true of the piety he taught.[1663]Thus M. Staub, “Willensfreiheit ... bei Luther,” Zürich, 1894, p. 39, 2 ff. Cp. the passage in Luther’s book “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 697; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 238: “Quid potest robustius contra liberum arbitrium dici, quam ipsum esse nihili, ut non modo non velit bonum, sed nec sciat quidem, quantum faciat mali et quid sit bonum.” This he proves from the words of Christ on the cross: “They know not what they do”! “An est hic obscuritas in ullo verbo?... Hoc clarissimum verbum Christi,” etc.[1664]Urban Rhegius, “Eine Summe christl. Lehre,” Augsburg, 1527, fol. 5. Döllinger, “Ref.,” 2, p. 58.[1665]“U. Rhegii Deutsche Bücher und Schriften,” 2, Nürnberg, 1562, p. 234. Döllinger,ibid., p. 59.[1666]U. Rhegius, “Wie man fürsichtiglich reden soll,” ed. A. Uckeley, Leipzig, 1908, according to the 1536 German edition (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protest.” 6), in Uckeley’s summary, p. 7.[1667]Uckeley,ibid.[1668]Ibid., p. 45.[1669]Ibid., p. 9, reprinted by Uckeley.[1670]“Die Reformation,” 2, p. vii. f.[1671]“Hyperii Varia opuscula theol.,” tom. 2, Basil., 1580, p. 734. Döllinger,ibid., 2, p. 216.[1672]Ibid., tom. 1, Basil., 1570, p. 871; cp. p. 881. Döllinger,ibid., 2, p. 215.[1673]“Wahrhaftiger Bericht,” etc. (referring to the Altenburg Colloquy), 1507, Fol. D 2, Döllinger, “Reformation,” 2, p. 261 f.[1674]“Fortgesetzte Sammlung von alten und neuen theol. Sachen,” 1750, p. 676 ff. Döllinger, 2, p. 565.[1675]“Wolfg. Franzii Disputationes in August. Confess. Artic. posterior.,” Disput. 10, “De bonis operibus”; in Pfeiffer, “Consilia theol.,” p. 943seq.Döllinger, 2, p. 570.[1676]Ioh. Rivius, “De stultitia mortalium,” p. 32. Döllinger, 2, p. 600.[1677]Ibid., p. 50seq., and “Opp.,” 1614, pp. 275, 305, 370, 672. Döllinger, 2, p. 601 ff.[1678]“Haneri Prophetia vetus ac nova,” Lips., 1534, Præf., Fol. B, a. Döllinger, 1, p. 129 f.[1679]“Epistolæ duæ J. Haneri et G. Wicelii,” 1534, Fol. A 2 b, 3 a. Döllinger, 1, p. 127 f.[1680]In C. G. Murr, “Journal zur Kunstgesch. und Literatur,” Tl. 10, Nürnberg, 1781, p. 40 ff. Döllinger, 1, p. 169. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 40.[1681]Luscinius (Nachtigall), “Evangel. Historie,” 1525, pp. 445, 449. Döllinger, 1, p. 550.[1682]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 228; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 321, n. 97.[1683]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 24; Erl. ed., 27, p. 180.[1684]Ibid., Weim. ed., 1 p. 145 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 235seq.[1685]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², pp. 179 f., 182.[1686]Ibid., 21, p. 34 ff.[1687]Ibid., p. 94.[1688]Ibid., 15², p. 54.[1689]Ibid., 16², p. 210 f.; cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 268 f.; 9, p. 293 f.[1690]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 3 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 208.[1691]Ibid., 30, 3, p. 214=63, p. 295, Preface to “Der Wiedertauffer Lere” of Justus Menius.[1692]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 419seq., 434.[1693]“Solida declaratio,” 4, n. 15. “Symbolische Bücher10,” p. 627.
[1481]W. Köhler in his review of Kropatscheck (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1905, col. 453 ff.).[1482]P. 459. For proofs that, in the Middle Ages, the Bible occupied its due position in the faith and life of Christians, cp. K. Holzhey, “Die Inspiration der hl. Schrift in den Anschauungen des MA.,” 1895.[1483]Instructive indeed are the detailed proofs given in Kropatscheck’s work of how the heretical Waldenses, and, after them, Wiclif and Hus, used the “sola scriptura” against tradition and the authority of the Church. The example of the Waldenses had already shown that it was quite impossible to use the principle without accepting at the same time certain of the doctrines of the Church (p. 17 ff.). With Hus “the formula ‘sola scriptura’ rings again and again in his writings as a battle-cry” (p. 76). He wants the “lex Christi” and no “leges novæ,” hence, no Decretals, indulgences, Crusade-Bulls, priesthood or celibacy. The revolutionary force of the formula is noticeable in Hus and still more in the later Hussites; they declared the “Law of Grace” to be sufficient even for civil life, and, as “avengers of Scripture,” proclaimed war on those lords who thought differently, the Princes and the monasteries. Wiclif, “a Bible theologian from head to foot,” who even finds in Scripture all the wisdom and learning of the world, and describes it as a book everyone can understand, registered a success which was “great” only in the revolutionary sense. The Bible standpoint of Occam, to which Kropatscheck also devotes attention, has something in common with that of Luther (cp. Kropatscheck, “Occam und Luther,” in “Beiträge zur Förderung christl. Theol.,” 1900, p. 49 ff.). Kropatscheck emphasises the fact, that Occam, in his opposition to the Pope, had conceded to “the whole Church” the right of interpretation, and, like Marsilius of Padua, wished to set aside man-made laws for the Bible and the law of nature. The history of the Middle Ages and the “apocalyptic, political and social” trends connected with Holy Scripture show how dangerous and subversive any arbitrary treatment of the Bible could be. The written Word of God becomes a weapon wherewith to rouse the passions against the highest powers, an excuse for gross millenarianism and libertinism, and a veritable mine to be exploited by stupid, crazy fanatics.—Cp., on Kropatscheck, M. Buchberger, in “Theol. Revue,” 1906, p. 118 ff.; his review concludes as follows: “that no solid foundation can be won, but that everything totters without an authoritative, and, in the last instance, infallible, exponent of Holy Scripture. The call for such an exponent is the final conclusion powerfully borne in on the mind.”[1484]Ibid., p. 433.[1485]“W. Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” 1887, p. 117.[1486]From Pirkheimer’s “Oratio apolog.,” for the Convent of St. Clare at Nuremberg, in “Opp.,” ed. M. Goldast, 1610, p. 375seq.[1487]Gütersloh, 1903, p. 84 ff.[1488]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 195; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 408.[1489]“Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1905, col. 41.[1490]“Grundriss der DG.,” etc.³, Leipzig, 1910, p. 130.[1491]“Lehrbuch der DG.,” 2nd part, Erl., 1898, p. 289.[1492]Pp. 288, 283, 290 f.[1493]“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1901, col. 272. O. Ritschl (“DG.,” 1, 1908, p. 69 ff.) judges more favourably.[1494]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 156.[1495]Döllinger,ibid., pp. 156-173. Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², pp. 80 f., 668 ff., 675, 688, 716, andpassim.[1496]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 59; “KL.,” 8², p. 344.[1497]“Comm. in Gal.,” 1, p. 3, Irmischer.[1498]“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 119: “Articulus iustificationis est magister et princeps, dominus, rector et iudex super omnia genera doctrinarum, qui conservat et gubernat omnem doctrinam ecclesiasticam et erigit conscientiam nostrum coram Deo.”[1499]“Disputationes,” p. 11, n. 41.[1500]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 158.[1501]Ibid.[1502]“Briefe,” 6, p. 424, undated, and to a person unnamed: “Ex his duabus epistolis omnes, quæ incident, quæstiones, vel alioqui scripturæ loca obscuriora interpretator.”[1503]Ibid., p. 434. Written in a Bible: “Ad omnia dicta scripturæ, quibus videtur iustitia operum statui, respondebis ex Ebre. 11, hac voce: Fide,” etc.[1504]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 165 f.; Erl. ed., 47, p. 371. In the Exposition of John vi.-viii. (1530-1532).[1505]Cp.ibid., Erl. ed., 63, p. 157.[1506]Ibid., 8², p. 23. Cp. p. 24: “But know that Pope, Councils and the whole world in all their teaching are subject to the meanest Christian, even to a child of seven who has the faith, and that they must accept his opinion.”[1507]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 357; Erl, ed., 14², p. 47; cp. p. 379=78.[1508]Ibid., 13², p. 231; cp. Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, p. 298.[1509]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 145 f.[1510]“Quod sine scripturis asseritur aut revelatione probata, opinari licet, credi non est necesse.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 508; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 30. Cp.,ibid., 2, pp. 297, 279, 309-15=3, pp. 89, 62, 106-15.[1511]Ibid., 8, p. 141 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 323 f.; cp. p. 143 f.=325 f.[1512]Ibid., p. 235=39, p. 132.[1513]Ibid., 10, 3, p. 22 f.=28, p. 223. Cp. R. Seeberg, “Lehrb. der DG.,” p. 285 f.[1514]Scheel gives Luther’s views on p. 45 as follows: “What is not taught by Christ is not apostolic even should Peter and Paul teach it. But all that preaches Christ is apostolic even should Judas, Annas, Pilate or Herod teach it. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 157.)... Hence Luther replies to his opponent, ‘You appeal to the slave, i.e. to Scripture, and not even to the whole or the most excellent part of it. This slave I leave for you; as for me, I appeal to the Lord, Who is King of Scripture.’” (“Comm. in Gal.,” 1, p. 387, Irmischer.) Scheel quotes the “Comm. in Gen.,” 1, p. 539: “Si adversarii scripturam urserint contra Christum, urgemus Christum contra scripturas.” He says finally, p. 74: “Luther found himself in Scripture just as the simple man finds in the outward world the answer to his own world of sense; with the unerring instinct of genius he found the essence of Scripture which was at the same time the essence of his own being.”[1515]“Lehrb. d. DG.,” 3^[4], p. 867.[1516]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 158.[1517]Ibid., p. 160. For the liberty which Luther permitted himself in his translation of the sacred text, see vol. v., xxxiv., 3.[1518]Cp. Döllinger,ibid., pp. 151-156.[1519]“Gesch.,” etc., 1², 1896, p. 199.[1520]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 190 f.[1521]On the strength of the biblical labours of Erasmus and of Reuchlin, Zwingli did not scruple to call into question Luther’s assertion that it was he who drew “the Bible out from under the bench.” “Zwinglis Werke” (1828 ff.), 2, 2, p. 21.[1522]See our vol. i., p. 224 f.[1523]Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans, 1515-1516, ed. J. Ficker, 1908, Glosses, p. 4.[1524]Ibid., Scholia, p. 240: “Universa scriptura de solo Christo est ubique.”[1525]Ibid., p. 253.[1526]Ibid., Introduction, p. lxii.[1527]Ibid., p. lv., and vol. i., p. 242 f.[1528]Quoted by Ficker, p. lvii.[1529]“Scheurls Briefbuch,” ed. Soden and Knaake, 2, p. 2; Ficker,ibid., p. lxv.[1530]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 228; “Opp. lat[. missing?] var.,” 1, p. 321.[1531]Ibid., p. 239 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 4 ff.[1532]To Johann Sylvius Egranus, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 174.[1533]To Jodocus Trutvetter, May 9, 1518,ibid., p. 186.[1534]“Werke,” Weim ed., 1, p. 384 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 12 f.[1535]Löscher, “Reformationsacta,” 2, p. 80.[1536]In the postscript to the “Acta Augustana,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 18, 21 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 385seq., 391seq.[1537]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, l, p. 54. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 542, and “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 640. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 672, 675, 727 ff.[1538]Cp., in “Luthers Werke in Auswahl,” ed. Buchwald, 2 suppl., 1905, p. 43, O. Scheel’s remarks on the writing “De votis monasticis” (Weim. ed., 8, p. 583; “ Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 252), where Luther says that whoever denies the virginity of Mary plays havoc with the whole faith.[1539]Thus A. Berger, “M. Luther,” Tl. 2, pp. 98, 100. Cp. this author’s view (on p. 100): “This means an obscuring and impoverishing of the faith as discovered and laid down by himself.” The following observation of Berger’s is remarkable: “Luther, as theologian, was merely the restorer of primæval Christianity, such as he understood it; Zwingli, however, understood it otherwise” (p. 102).[1540]See vol. i., p. 193.[1541]See vol. ii., p. 223 ff.[1542]“Ph. Melanchthonis Annotationes in Epistolas Pauli ad Rhomanos et Corinthios,” Norimbergæ, 1522. The later editions are quoted in “Corp. ref.,” 15, p. 441. In this volume Bindseil has not reprinted the writing owing to Melanchthon’s retractation of it (see next page). It should, however, have been printed as an historical document.—The introductory preface, in “Briefe,” 2, p. 239, dated July 29, 1522 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 438).[1543]Letter of March 12, 1523. Cp. “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 2, p. 131.[1544]Owing to the rarity of the work, to which even the editor of the “Briefwechsel” had not access, we give in Latin the passages referred to from the copy contained in the Munich State Library: H 1´: “Necessario omnia eveniunt in omnibus creaturis.... Itaque sit hæc certa sententia, a Deo fieri omnia tam bona quam mala.” H 2´: “Nos vero dicemus, non solum permittere Deum creaturis ut operentur, sed ipsum omnia proprie agere, ut, sicut fatentur, proprium Dei opus esse Pauli vocationem ita fateantur, opera Dei propria esse sive quæ media vocantur, ut comedere, bibere, communia cum brutis, sive quæ mala sunt, ut Davidis adulterium, Manlii severitatem animadvertentis in filium.... Iam cum constet, Deum omnia facere, non permissive, sed potenter, ut Augustini verbo utamur, ita ut sit eius proprium opus Iudæ proditio sicut Pauli vocatio,” etc.—For Melanchthon’s statement in his “Loci” of the Lutheran denial of free-will, see above, vol. iii., p. 346.[1545]“Corp. ref.,” 15, p. 441.[1546]Melanchthon in his letter to the Elector August of Saxony, April, 1559. N. Paulus, “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” Munich, 1905, p. 52 f. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 347.[1547]See vol. ii., p. 265.[1548]“Comm. in Ep. ad. Gal.,” 1535, vol. i., p. 255. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 514. Cp. Luther’s Sermon of 1523 on the Feast of the Circumcision, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 508; Erl. ed., 15², p. 199: It had been shown long before by the institution of circumcision “that no one could reach God and be saved by works, but only by faith. This is insisted upon throughout the whole of Scripture by teaching and example. Sin in us is not merely a work or deed, but our real nature and essence; for this reason does God circumcise that member which pertains to birth and by which human nature is perpetuated.” On the same page we find the following: “Nature is depraved through and through so that no will is left for what is good”; “our nature is all poisoned and crammed with sin,” etc.—The sermon in which the singularly outspoken statement concerning circumcision occurs is also found in the postils. Some unbecoming language is also met at the commencement of the passage in question where Luther says: “It is quite true that God’s works and commandments are folly to nature and reason; God’s way of acting is mad enough”; Luther, however, hastens to add, “but if we keep our heads and look into it attentively, we shall soon see that all is done in the wisest manner.”[1549]Document of Oct. 14, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1 (p. 250 ff.), p. 256 ff.[1550]Cp. our vol. i., p. 384.[1551]Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 175, on passages dating from 1532 and 1539.[1552]“Disputationes,” pp. 429, 431 (of 1538).[1553]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 202.[1554]Ibid., 2², p. 257.[1555]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 43seq.: “iustus et sanctus aliena seu extrinseca sanctitate.”[1556]Ibid., 10, p. 110: “non tantum per dona, sed quoad substantiam.”[1557]Cp. the passages in Köstlin,ibid., p. 201 f.[1558]“Werke,” Er. ed., 18², p. 312.[1559]Ibid., 14², p. 287. In the light of this we can better understand the words which occur quite early in a writing of Luther’s: “Non iusta agendo iusti efficimur, as Aristotle taught, butiusti fiendo et essendo operamur iusta.” To Spalatin, Oct. 19, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 64. See below, xxviii., 4.[1560]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 285 f.[1561]Ibid., p. 282. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 226 f., also pp. 181 ff., 186 f., 194.[1562]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 652. First published by G. Berbig, “Der Veit-Dietrich-Codex in der Nürnb. Stadtbibliothek,” 1907.[1563]Cp. Th. Kolde in the “Beitr. z. Bayerischen KG.,” 14, 1908, p. 139 ff. Kolde rightly refers Luther’s words to Melanchthon, viz. that he would send him a writing, “si volet Christus, de iustificationis loco” (Aug. 24, 1530, from the fortress of Coburg, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 204), to the above work, and disagrees with Enders’ remark on the subject.[1564]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 23: “De imputatione non clare omnia explicat.”[1565]Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 521.[1566]J. Mausbach, “Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus,” 2, 1909, p. 98.[1567]Cp. Denifle-Weiss,ibid., p. 742, n. 3.[1568]Sess. VI. c. 9.[1569]“In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 2, p. 161.[1570]Ibid., p. 164.[1571]Ibid., p. 165.[1572]Ibid., p. 166. Cp. above, p. 437, and vol. i., p. 385 ff. on this certainty of faith.[1573]“In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 2, p. 166.[1574]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201.[1575]“In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 1, p. 101.[1576]Ibid., 2, p. 164.[1577]Ibid., p. 165.[1578]Ibid.[1579]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 230.[1580]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 163; Erl. ed., 47, p. 369.[1581]Above, vol. iii., pp. 202 ff., 226.[1582]Oct. 27, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 109.[1583]Nov. 22, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 121.[1584]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 264seq., in the exposition of Isaias, 1532, Denifle-Weiss,ibid., p. 738, n. 1.[1585]Ibid., p. 143. Denifle-Weiss,ibid., n. 2.[1586]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 188.[1587]To Wenceslaus Link, Oct. 26, 1539, “Briefe,” 5, p. 219.[1588]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 53.[1589]Ibid., p. 57seq.[1590]“Luthers ungedruckte Predigten,” ed. G. Buchwald, 3, Leipzig, 1885, p. 50.[1591]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201.[1592]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 54.[1593]K. Hase, “Hdbch. der prot. Polemik,”^[4] p. 264.[1594]“Kirche und Kirchen,” p. 428 f.[1595]Ibid., p. 269.[1596]“Gesch. des Pietismus,” 1, Bonn, 1880, p. 38.[1597]“Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt, die christl. Centrallehre, in dogmengeschichtl. und religionsgeschichtl. Beleuchtung,” Leipzig, 1907, p. 229.[1598]P. 120 f.[1599]On the Confession of Augsburg and Melanchthon’s alterations in Luther’s teaching, and on Melanchthon’s own change of views, cp. O. Ritschl, “Der doppelte Rechtfertigungsbegriff in der Apologie der Augsburgischen Konfession” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. u. Kirche,” 1910, pp. 292-338).[1600]On de Lagarde see “Theol. Revue,” 1908, col. 345. G. Esser, in his review there of Genrich’s work, remarks of the alleged “religious experiences”: “We hear the familiar rhapsodies concerning personal experience, religion that has to be lived and cannot be reduced to any formulas, and then again, experiences are discussed which have to be differentiated from others, vital experiences which must be accurately formulated, in short, a constant revolving in a circle, and a language that is always vague.” Before this Esser had said: “What can the word Justification mean to those who have lost all idea of the supernatural and of grace, and have so changed the idea of ‘faith’ that nothing remains but a vague religious sentiment, a venture of the will to affirm the value of a higher world in the face of worldly wisdom.”[1601]“Die Rechtfertigungslehre im Lichte der Gesch. des Protestantismus,” 1906 (“Sammlung ... Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theol.,” No. 45), pp. 2, 3, 42, 10, 16.[1602]“Die Rechtfertigungslehre in Luthers Vorlesungen über den Römerbrief mit bes. Rücksicht auf die Frage der Heilsgewissheit” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,” 1910, p. 245 ff.), pp. 287, 289.[1603]W. Köhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” pp. 54-58. Of this description O. Clemen remarks in the “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 1909, p. 380: “Those pages have attracted special attention where Köhler shows that, in the Catholic criticism of Luther’s doctrine of salvation, as unfair to ethical requirements, there lies a grain of truth.”[1604]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 355; cp. Erl. ed., 14², pp. 191, 195, 198 f., 205, 211 f.[1605]On the teaching of antiquity see Bellarmin, “De iustificatione,” 5, n. 10seq.[1606]See vol. i., p. 118 ff.[1607]Cp. e.g., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 683 f.; 10, 2, p. 126; Erl. ed., 22, p. 54; 28, p. 164; 53, p. 288. Vol. 15², p. 282, he speaks of the “lousy works,” and, pointing out that Christ had become the fulfiller of the Law, says: “They [the Papists] boast of their works.”—This is for him the real object of attack; he is determined to inveigh against the “unus furor, velle per opera coram Deo agere,” and says of the Catholics: “opera quibus erga homines utendum est, offerunt Deo.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 187; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 396.[1608]“My struggle has been first of all against all trust in works, on which the world insists and struts.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 382, Table-Talk.[1609]To George Spenlein, the Memmingen Augustinian, April 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 29: against the “tentatio præsumptionis in multis et iis præcipue qui iusti et boni esse omnibus viribus student; ignorantes iustitiam Dei, quæ in Christo est nobis effusissime et gratis donata, quærunt in se ipsis tamdiu operari bene, donec habeant fiduciam standi coram Deo, veluti virtutibus et meritis ornati; quod est impossibile fieri.” Cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 347; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 236, where he speaks against the “affectus propriæ iustitiæ” and declares that the sense of good works performed led men to fall. P. 347=237: the wish to have remained always pure was simply foolish, etc.[1610]“Opera,” Pars II. Ingolstadtii, 1531, p. 95: “Calumniatur Ludderus. quod per opera sua Christum excludant mediatorem,” etc.[1611]W. Köhler, “Denifles Luther,” p. 42, referring to Luther’s Works, Erl. ed., 32, p. 261.[1612]From Kilian Leib, “Verantwortung des Klosterstandes,” fol. 170´. Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 5, 33; 2nd ed., p. 587.[1613]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 349; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 239.[1614]Ibid., p. 348=238.[1615]Ibid., p. 347=236.[1616]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 105.[1617]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 212 f.[1618]Ibid., p. 213.[1619]Ibid., p. 221.[1620]Ibid., 6², p. 157, Hauspostille. Cp. above, p. 438, n. 9.[1621]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 432, in the notes taken of a sermon of 1524.[1622]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 349.[1623]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 369, Thesis 16.[1624]Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 9, p. 360; 10, p. 159; 11, p. 121.[1625]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 397; Erl. ed., 36, p. 6 f.[1626]To Spalatin, Oct. 16, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 64: “qui (Augustinus) apud me, antequam in libros eius incidissem, ne tantillum quidem favoris habuit.” Other Augustinians made more account of this Saint, popularly regarded as their founder.[1627]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 75, 109 f.[1628]Ibid., p. 127.[1629]“Stud. und Krit.,” 1878, p. 698; Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 134.[1630]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 100: “Theologia nostra et S. Augustinus prospere procedunt,” etc.[1631]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 137; here it is first stated: “Luther’s theology was regarded by him and his friends as simply that of the great Father Augustine.”[1632]Ibid., p. 138.[1633]Cp. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 364.[1634]August., “Contra Jul.,” 1, 2, c. 8, n. 23. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 486 ff, 511, 512, 513.[1635]Thus Denifle-Weiss,ibid., p. 508.[1636]Ibid., pp. 460 f., 467.[1637]Ibid., p. 469.[1638]Ibid., p. 472.[1639]Ibid.[1640]Melanchthon and Luther to Brenz, end of May, 1531, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 18.[1641]Thus Wrampelmeyer, editor of Cordatus’s “Tagebuch,” on the copy of the letter in Cordatus, p. 383.[1642]For the course pursued by Melanchthon when drawing up the portion of the Confession in question, see vol. iii., p. 329 f.[1643]“Tagebuch,” ed. Wrampelmeyer, p. 385: “Hactenus Philippus ille cum sua novitate.” The differences between Cordatus and Melanchthon related to the doctrine of Justification under another aspect. On these dissensions, see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 445 ff.; on the want of unity on Justification generally amongst Luther’s pupils, see Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 3, pp. 372-591.[1644]Döllinger,loc. cit., p. 367 f.[1645]Ibid., p. 370.[1646]“De catechizandis rudibus,” c. 5.[1647]Lib. 83, quæst., q. 76; “Enarr. 2 in psalm. 31,” n. 3; “De fide et operibus,” c. 14, n. 21.[1648]“Contra II epist. Pelag.,” 1, c. 13, n. 26.[1649]“De spiritu et littera,” c. 9.[1650]Ibid.[1651]“De peccato et merito,” 1, 9.[1652]“De Trinitate,” 15, 8, 14.[1653]“De fide et symbolo,” c. 9.[1654]“In Psalm. LXX,” serm. 2, n. 3.[1655]“De civitate Dei,” 19, 27.[1656]“Super Genesi ad litt.,” 8, 12.[1657]Sermo 158, c. 2. Similarly “In Psalm.” LXXXIII and CIX.[1658]“De fide et op.,” c. 10.[1659]“Homil. 29 in Evang.”[1660]See particularly above, pp. 195-218.[1661]Cp. p. 212.[1662]He says in a frequently misquoted paragraph (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 352 f.) in so many words: “The world ever remains the same; either it exalts faith wrongly [as do the ‘secure pseudo-Christians’ on his side whose ‘faith is not rooted aright,’ p. 351] or it wishes to be over-holy but without faith [like the Papists]. If we discourse on faith and grace, then no one will perform good works; if we insist on works, then no one will have anything to do with faith; few indeed are those who keep to the true middle course and even pious Christians find it difficult.”—This was certainly quite true of the piety he taught.[1663]Thus M. Staub, “Willensfreiheit ... bei Luther,” Zürich, 1894, p. 39, 2 ff. Cp. the passage in Luther’s book “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 697; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 238: “Quid potest robustius contra liberum arbitrium dici, quam ipsum esse nihili, ut non modo non velit bonum, sed nec sciat quidem, quantum faciat mali et quid sit bonum.” This he proves from the words of Christ on the cross: “They know not what they do”! “An est hic obscuritas in ullo verbo?... Hoc clarissimum verbum Christi,” etc.[1664]Urban Rhegius, “Eine Summe christl. Lehre,” Augsburg, 1527, fol. 5. Döllinger, “Ref.,” 2, p. 58.[1665]“U. Rhegii Deutsche Bücher und Schriften,” 2, Nürnberg, 1562, p. 234. Döllinger,ibid., p. 59.[1666]U. Rhegius, “Wie man fürsichtiglich reden soll,” ed. A. Uckeley, Leipzig, 1908, according to the 1536 German edition (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protest.” 6), in Uckeley’s summary, p. 7.[1667]Uckeley,ibid.[1668]Ibid., p. 45.[1669]Ibid., p. 9, reprinted by Uckeley.[1670]“Die Reformation,” 2, p. vii. f.[1671]“Hyperii Varia opuscula theol.,” tom. 2, Basil., 1580, p. 734. Döllinger,ibid., 2, p. 216.[1672]Ibid., tom. 1, Basil., 1570, p. 871; cp. p. 881. Döllinger,ibid., 2, p. 215.[1673]“Wahrhaftiger Bericht,” etc. (referring to the Altenburg Colloquy), 1507, Fol. D 2, Döllinger, “Reformation,” 2, p. 261 f.[1674]“Fortgesetzte Sammlung von alten und neuen theol. Sachen,” 1750, p. 676 ff. Döllinger, 2, p. 565.[1675]“Wolfg. Franzii Disputationes in August. Confess. Artic. posterior.,” Disput. 10, “De bonis operibus”; in Pfeiffer, “Consilia theol.,” p. 943seq.Döllinger, 2, p. 570.[1676]Ioh. Rivius, “De stultitia mortalium,” p. 32. Döllinger, 2, p. 600.[1677]Ibid., p. 50seq., and “Opp.,” 1614, pp. 275, 305, 370, 672. Döllinger, 2, p. 601 ff.[1678]“Haneri Prophetia vetus ac nova,” Lips., 1534, Præf., Fol. B, a. Döllinger, 1, p. 129 f.[1679]“Epistolæ duæ J. Haneri et G. Wicelii,” 1534, Fol. A 2 b, 3 a. Döllinger, 1, p. 127 f.[1680]In C. G. Murr, “Journal zur Kunstgesch. und Literatur,” Tl. 10, Nürnberg, 1781, p. 40 ff. Döllinger, 1, p. 169. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 40.[1681]Luscinius (Nachtigall), “Evangel. Historie,” 1525, pp. 445, 449. Döllinger, 1, p. 550.[1682]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 228; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 321, n. 97.[1683]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 24; Erl. ed., 27, p. 180.[1684]Ibid., Weim. ed., 1 p. 145 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 235seq.[1685]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², pp. 179 f., 182.[1686]Ibid., 21, p. 34 ff.[1687]Ibid., p. 94.[1688]Ibid., 15², p. 54.[1689]Ibid., 16², p. 210 f.; cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 268 f.; 9, p. 293 f.[1690]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 3 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 208.[1691]Ibid., 30, 3, p. 214=63, p. 295, Preface to “Der Wiedertauffer Lere” of Justus Menius.[1692]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 419seq., 434.[1693]“Solida declaratio,” 4, n. 15. “Symbolische Bücher10,” p. 627.
[1481]W. Köhler in his review of Kropatscheck (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1905, col. 453 ff.).[1482]P. 459. For proofs that, in the Middle Ages, the Bible occupied its due position in the faith and life of Christians, cp. K. Holzhey, “Die Inspiration der hl. Schrift in den Anschauungen des MA.,” 1895.[1483]Instructive indeed are the detailed proofs given in Kropatscheck’s work of how the heretical Waldenses, and, after them, Wiclif and Hus, used the “sola scriptura” against tradition and the authority of the Church. The example of the Waldenses had already shown that it was quite impossible to use the principle without accepting at the same time certain of the doctrines of the Church (p. 17 ff.). With Hus “the formula ‘sola scriptura’ rings again and again in his writings as a battle-cry” (p. 76). He wants the “lex Christi” and no “leges novæ,” hence, no Decretals, indulgences, Crusade-Bulls, priesthood or celibacy. The revolutionary force of the formula is noticeable in Hus and still more in the later Hussites; they declared the “Law of Grace” to be sufficient even for civil life, and, as “avengers of Scripture,” proclaimed war on those lords who thought differently, the Princes and the monasteries. Wiclif, “a Bible theologian from head to foot,” who even finds in Scripture all the wisdom and learning of the world, and describes it as a book everyone can understand, registered a success which was “great” only in the revolutionary sense. The Bible standpoint of Occam, to which Kropatscheck also devotes attention, has something in common with that of Luther (cp. Kropatscheck, “Occam und Luther,” in “Beiträge zur Förderung christl. Theol.,” 1900, p. 49 ff.). Kropatscheck emphasises the fact, that Occam, in his opposition to the Pope, had conceded to “the whole Church” the right of interpretation, and, like Marsilius of Padua, wished to set aside man-made laws for the Bible and the law of nature. The history of the Middle Ages and the “apocalyptic, political and social” trends connected with Holy Scripture show how dangerous and subversive any arbitrary treatment of the Bible could be. The written Word of God becomes a weapon wherewith to rouse the passions against the highest powers, an excuse for gross millenarianism and libertinism, and a veritable mine to be exploited by stupid, crazy fanatics.—Cp., on Kropatscheck, M. Buchberger, in “Theol. Revue,” 1906, p. 118 ff.; his review concludes as follows: “that no solid foundation can be won, but that everything totters without an authoritative, and, in the last instance, infallible, exponent of Holy Scripture. The call for such an exponent is the final conclusion powerfully borne in on the mind.”[1484]Ibid., p. 433.[1485]“W. Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” 1887, p. 117.[1486]From Pirkheimer’s “Oratio apolog.,” for the Convent of St. Clare at Nuremberg, in “Opp.,” ed. M. Goldast, 1610, p. 375seq.[1487]Gütersloh, 1903, p. 84 ff.[1488]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 195; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 408.[1489]“Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1905, col. 41.[1490]“Grundriss der DG.,” etc.³, Leipzig, 1910, p. 130.[1491]“Lehrbuch der DG.,” 2nd part, Erl., 1898, p. 289.[1492]Pp. 288, 283, 290 f.[1493]“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1901, col. 272. O. Ritschl (“DG.,” 1, 1908, p. 69 ff.) judges more favourably.[1494]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 156.[1495]Döllinger,ibid., pp. 156-173. Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², pp. 80 f., 668 ff., 675, 688, 716, andpassim.[1496]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 59; “KL.,” 8², p. 344.[1497]“Comm. in Gal.,” 1, p. 3, Irmischer.[1498]“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 119: “Articulus iustificationis est magister et princeps, dominus, rector et iudex super omnia genera doctrinarum, qui conservat et gubernat omnem doctrinam ecclesiasticam et erigit conscientiam nostrum coram Deo.”[1499]“Disputationes,” p. 11, n. 41.[1500]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 158.[1501]Ibid.[1502]“Briefe,” 6, p. 424, undated, and to a person unnamed: “Ex his duabus epistolis omnes, quæ incident, quæstiones, vel alioqui scripturæ loca obscuriora interpretator.”[1503]Ibid., p. 434. Written in a Bible: “Ad omnia dicta scripturæ, quibus videtur iustitia operum statui, respondebis ex Ebre. 11, hac voce: Fide,” etc.[1504]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 165 f.; Erl. ed., 47, p. 371. In the Exposition of John vi.-viii. (1530-1532).[1505]Cp.ibid., Erl. ed., 63, p. 157.[1506]Ibid., 8², p. 23. Cp. p. 24: “But know that Pope, Councils and the whole world in all their teaching are subject to the meanest Christian, even to a child of seven who has the faith, and that they must accept his opinion.”[1507]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 357; Erl, ed., 14², p. 47; cp. p. 379=78.[1508]Ibid., 13², p. 231; cp. Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, p. 298.[1509]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 145 f.[1510]“Quod sine scripturis asseritur aut revelatione probata, opinari licet, credi non est necesse.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 508; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 30. Cp.,ibid., 2, pp. 297, 279, 309-15=3, pp. 89, 62, 106-15.[1511]Ibid., 8, p. 141 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 323 f.; cp. p. 143 f.=325 f.[1512]Ibid., p. 235=39, p. 132.[1513]Ibid., 10, 3, p. 22 f.=28, p. 223. Cp. R. Seeberg, “Lehrb. der DG.,” p. 285 f.[1514]Scheel gives Luther’s views on p. 45 as follows: “What is not taught by Christ is not apostolic even should Peter and Paul teach it. But all that preaches Christ is apostolic even should Judas, Annas, Pilate or Herod teach it. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 157.)... Hence Luther replies to his opponent, ‘You appeal to the slave, i.e. to Scripture, and not even to the whole or the most excellent part of it. This slave I leave for you; as for me, I appeal to the Lord, Who is King of Scripture.’” (“Comm. in Gal.,” 1, p. 387, Irmischer.) Scheel quotes the “Comm. in Gen.,” 1, p. 539: “Si adversarii scripturam urserint contra Christum, urgemus Christum contra scripturas.” He says finally, p. 74: “Luther found himself in Scripture just as the simple man finds in the outward world the answer to his own world of sense; with the unerring instinct of genius he found the essence of Scripture which was at the same time the essence of his own being.”[1515]“Lehrb. d. DG.,” 3^[4], p. 867.[1516]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 158.[1517]Ibid., p. 160. For the liberty which Luther permitted himself in his translation of the sacred text, see vol. v., xxxiv., 3.[1518]Cp. Döllinger,ibid., pp. 151-156.[1519]“Gesch.,” etc., 1², 1896, p. 199.[1520]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 190 f.[1521]On the strength of the biblical labours of Erasmus and of Reuchlin, Zwingli did not scruple to call into question Luther’s assertion that it was he who drew “the Bible out from under the bench.” “Zwinglis Werke” (1828 ff.), 2, 2, p. 21.[1522]See our vol. i., p. 224 f.[1523]Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans, 1515-1516, ed. J. Ficker, 1908, Glosses, p. 4.[1524]Ibid., Scholia, p. 240: “Universa scriptura de solo Christo est ubique.”[1525]Ibid., p. 253.[1526]Ibid., Introduction, p. lxii.[1527]Ibid., p. lv., and vol. i., p. 242 f.[1528]Quoted by Ficker, p. lvii.[1529]“Scheurls Briefbuch,” ed. Soden and Knaake, 2, p. 2; Ficker,ibid., p. lxv.[1530]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 228; “Opp. lat[. missing?] var.,” 1, p. 321.[1531]Ibid., p. 239 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 4 ff.[1532]To Johann Sylvius Egranus, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 174.[1533]To Jodocus Trutvetter, May 9, 1518,ibid., p. 186.[1534]“Werke,” Weim ed., 1, p. 384 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 12 f.[1535]Löscher, “Reformationsacta,” 2, p. 80.[1536]In the postscript to the “Acta Augustana,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 18, 21 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 385seq., 391seq.[1537]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, l, p. 54. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 542, and “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 640. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 672, 675, 727 ff.[1538]Cp., in “Luthers Werke in Auswahl,” ed. Buchwald, 2 suppl., 1905, p. 43, O. Scheel’s remarks on the writing “De votis monasticis” (Weim. ed., 8, p. 583; “ Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 252), where Luther says that whoever denies the virginity of Mary plays havoc with the whole faith.[1539]Thus A. Berger, “M. Luther,” Tl. 2, pp. 98, 100. Cp. this author’s view (on p. 100): “This means an obscuring and impoverishing of the faith as discovered and laid down by himself.” The following observation of Berger’s is remarkable: “Luther, as theologian, was merely the restorer of primæval Christianity, such as he understood it; Zwingli, however, understood it otherwise” (p. 102).[1540]See vol. i., p. 193.[1541]See vol. ii., p. 223 ff.[1542]“Ph. Melanchthonis Annotationes in Epistolas Pauli ad Rhomanos et Corinthios,” Norimbergæ, 1522. The later editions are quoted in “Corp. ref.,” 15, p. 441. In this volume Bindseil has not reprinted the writing owing to Melanchthon’s retractation of it (see next page). It should, however, have been printed as an historical document.—The introductory preface, in “Briefe,” 2, p. 239, dated July 29, 1522 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 438).[1543]Letter of March 12, 1523. Cp. “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 2, p. 131.[1544]Owing to the rarity of the work, to which even the editor of the “Briefwechsel” had not access, we give in Latin the passages referred to from the copy contained in the Munich State Library: H 1´: “Necessario omnia eveniunt in omnibus creaturis.... Itaque sit hæc certa sententia, a Deo fieri omnia tam bona quam mala.” H 2´: “Nos vero dicemus, non solum permittere Deum creaturis ut operentur, sed ipsum omnia proprie agere, ut, sicut fatentur, proprium Dei opus esse Pauli vocationem ita fateantur, opera Dei propria esse sive quæ media vocantur, ut comedere, bibere, communia cum brutis, sive quæ mala sunt, ut Davidis adulterium, Manlii severitatem animadvertentis in filium.... Iam cum constet, Deum omnia facere, non permissive, sed potenter, ut Augustini verbo utamur, ita ut sit eius proprium opus Iudæ proditio sicut Pauli vocatio,” etc.—For Melanchthon’s statement in his “Loci” of the Lutheran denial of free-will, see above, vol. iii., p. 346.[1545]“Corp. ref.,” 15, p. 441.[1546]Melanchthon in his letter to the Elector August of Saxony, April, 1559. N. Paulus, “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” Munich, 1905, p. 52 f. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 347.[1547]See vol. ii., p. 265.[1548]“Comm. in Ep. ad. Gal.,” 1535, vol. i., p. 255. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 514. Cp. Luther’s Sermon of 1523 on the Feast of the Circumcision, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 508; Erl. ed., 15², p. 199: It had been shown long before by the institution of circumcision “that no one could reach God and be saved by works, but only by faith. This is insisted upon throughout the whole of Scripture by teaching and example. Sin in us is not merely a work or deed, but our real nature and essence; for this reason does God circumcise that member which pertains to birth and by which human nature is perpetuated.” On the same page we find the following: “Nature is depraved through and through so that no will is left for what is good”; “our nature is all poisoned and crammed with sin,” etc.—The sermon in which the singularly outspoken statement concerning circumcision occurs is also found in the postils. Some unbecoming language is also met at the commencement of the passage in question where Luther says: “It is quite true that God’s works and commandments are folly to nature and reason; God’s way of acting is mad enough”; Luther, however, hastens to add, “but if we keep our heads and look into it attentively, we shall soon see that all is done in the wisest manner.”[1549]Document of Oct. 14, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1 (p. 250 ff.), p. 256 ff.[1550]Cp. our vol. i., p. 384.[1551]Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 175, on passages dating from 1532 and 1539.[1552]“Disputationes,” pp. 429, 431 (of 1538).[1553]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 202.[1554]Ibid., 2², p. 257.[1555]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 43seq.: “iustus et sanctus aliena seu extrinseca sanctitate.”[1556]Ibid., 10, p. 110: “non tantum per dona, sed quoad substantiam.”[1557]Cp. the passages in Köstlin,ibid., p. 201 f.[1558]“Werke,” Er. ed., 18², p. 312.[1559]Ibid., 14², p. 287. In the light of this we can better understand the words which occur quite early in a writing of Luther’s: “Non iusta agendo iusti efficimur, as Aristotle taught, butiusti fiendo et essendo operamur iusta.” To Spalatin, Oct. 19, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 64. See below, xxviii., 4.[1560]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 285 f.[1561]Ibid., p. 282. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 226 f., also pp. 181 ff., 186 f., 194.[1562]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 652. First published by G. Berbig, “Der Veit-Dietrich-Codex in der Nürnb. Stadtbibliothek,” 1907.[1563]Cp. Th. Kolde in the “Beitr. z. Bayerischen KG.,” 14, 1908, p. 139 ff. Kolde rightly refers Luther’s words to Melanchthon, viz. that he would send him a writing, “si volet Christus, de iustificationis loco” (Aug. 24, 1530, from the fortress of Coburg, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 204), to the above work, and disagrees with Enders’ remark on the subject.[1564]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 23: “De imputatione non clare omnia explicat.”[1565]Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 521.[1566]J. Mausbach, “Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus,” 2, 1909, p. 98.[1567]Cp. Denifle-Weiss,ibid., p. 742, n. 3.[1568]Sess. VI. c. 9.[1569]“In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 2, p. 161.[1570]Ibid., p. 164.[1571]Ibid., p. 165.[1572]Ibid., p. 166. Cp. above, p. 437, and vol. i., p. 385 ff. on this certainty of faith.[1573]“In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 2, p. 166.[1574]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201.[1575]“In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 1, p. 101.[1576]Ibid., 2, p. 164.[1577]Ibid., p. 165.[1578]Ibid.[1579]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 230.[1580]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 163; Erl. ed., 47, p. 369.[1581]Above, vol. iii., pp. 202 ff., 226.[1582]Oct. 27, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 109.[1583]Nov. 22, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 121.[1584]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 264seq., in the exposition of Isaias, 1532, Denifle-Weiss,ibid., p. 738, n. 1.[1585]Ibid., p. 143. Denifle-Weiss,ibid., n. 2.[1586]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 188.[1587]To Wenceslaus Link, Oct. 26, 1539, “Briefe,” 5, p. 219.[1588]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 53.[1589]Ibid., p. 57seq.[1590]“Luthers ungedruckte Predigten,” ed. G. Buchwald, 3, Leipzig, 1885, p. 50.[1591]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201.[1592]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 54.[1593]K. Hase, “Hdbch. der prot. Polemik,”^[4] p. 264.[1594]“Kirche und Kirchen,” p. 428 f.[1595]Ibid., p. 269.[1596]“Gesch. des Pietismus,” 1, Bonn, 1880, p. 38.[1597]“Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt, die christl. Centrallehre, in dogmengeschichtl. und religionsgeschichtl. Beleuchtung,” Leipzig, 1907, p. 229.[1598]P. 120 f.[1599]On the Confession of Augsburg and Melanchthon’s alterations in Luther’s teaching, and on Melanchthon’s own change of views, cp. O. Ritschl, “Der doppelte Rechtfertigungsbegriff in der Apologie der Augsburgischen Konfession” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. u. Kirche,” 1910, pp. 292-338).[1600]On de Lagarde see “Theol. Revue,” 1908, col. 345. G. Esser, in his review there of Genrich’s work, remarks of the alleged “religious experiences”: “We hear the familiar rhapsodies concerning personal experience, religion that has to be lived and cannot be reduced to any formulas, and then again, experiences are discussed which have to be differentiated from others, vital experiences which must be accurately formulated, in short, a constant revolving in a circle, and a language that is always vague.” Before this Esser had said: “What can the word Justification mean to those who have lost all idea of the supernatural and of grace, and have so changed the idea of ‘faith’ that nothing remains but a vague religious sentiment, a venture of the will to affirm the value of a higher world in the face of worldly wisdom.”[1601]“Die Rechtfertigungslehre im Lichte der Gesch. des Protestantismus,” 1906 (“Sammlung ... Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theol.,” No. 45), pp. 2, 3, 42, 10, 16.[1602]“Die Rechtfertigungslehre in Luthers Vorlesungen über den Römerbrief mit bes. Rücksicht auf die Frage der Heilsgewissheit” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,” 1910, p. 245 ff.), pp. 287, 289.[1603]W. Köhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” pp. 54-58. Of this description O. Clemen remarks in the “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 1909, p. 380: “Those pages have attracted special attention where Köhler shows that, in the Catholic criticism of Luther’s doctrine of salvation, as unfair to ethical requirements, there lies a grain of truth.”[1604]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 355; cp. Erl. ed., 14², pp. 191, 195, 198 f., 205, 211 f.[1605]On the teaching of antiquity see Bellarmin, “De iustificatione,” 5, n. 10seq.[1606]See vol. i., p. 118 ff.[1607]Cp. e.g., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 683 f.; 10, 2, p. 126; Erl. ed., 22, p. 54; 28, p. 164; 53, p. 288. Vol. 15², p. 282, he speaks of the “lousy works,” and, pointing out that Christ had become the fulfiller of the Law, says: “They [the Papists] boast of their works.”—This is for him the real object of attack; he is determined to inveigh against the “unus furor, velle per opera coram Deo agere,” and says of the Catholics: “opera quibus erga homines utendum est, offerunt Deo.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 187; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 396.[1608]“My struggle has been first of all against all trust in works, on which the world insists and struts.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 382, Table-Talk.[1609]To George Spenlein, the Memmingen Augustinian, April 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 29: against the “tentatio præsumptionis in multis et iis præcipue qui iusti et boni esse omnibus viribus student; ignorantes iustitiam Dei, quæ in Christo est nobis effusissime et gratis donata, quærunt in se ipsis tamdiu operari bene, donec habeant fiduciam standi coram Deo, veluti virtutibus et meritis ornati; quod est impossibile fieri.” Cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 347; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 236, where he speaks against the “affectus propriæ iustitiæ” and declares that the sense of good works performed led men to fall. P. 347=237: the wish to have remained always pure was simply foolish, etc.[1610]“Opera,” Pars II. Ingolstadtii, 1531, p. 95: “Calumniatur Ludderus. quod per opera sua Christum excludant mediatorem,” etc.[1611]W. Köhler, “Denifles Luther,” p. 42, referring to Luther’s Works, Erl. ed., 32, p. 261.[1612]From Kilian Leib, “Verantwortung des Klosterstandes,” fol. 170´. Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 5, 33; 2nd ed., p. 587.[1613]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 349; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 239.[1614]Ibid., p. 348=238.[1615]Ibid., p. 347=236.[1616]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 105.[1617]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 212 f.[1618]Ibid., p. 213.[1619]Ibid., p. 221.[1620]Ibid., 6², p. 157, Hauspostille. Cp. above, p. 438, n. 9.[1621]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 432, in the notes taken of a sermon of 1524.[1622]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 349.[1623]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 369, Thesis 16.[1624]Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 9, p. 360; 10, p. 159; 11, p. 121.[1625]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 397; Erl. ed., 36, p. 6 f.[1626]To Spalatin, Oct. 16, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 64: “qui (Augustinus) apud me, antequam in libros eius incidissem, ne tantillum quidem favoris habuit.” Other Augustinians made more account of this Saint, popularly regarded as their founder.[1627]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 75, 109 f.[1628]Ibid., p. 127.[1629]“Stud. und Krit.,” 1878, p. 698; Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 134.[1630]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 100: “Theologia nostra et S. Augustinus prospere procedunt,” etc.[1631]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 137; here it is first stated: “Luther’s theology was regarded by him and his friends as simply that of the great Father Augustine.”[1632]Ibid., p. 138.[1633]Cp. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 364.[1634]August., “Contra Jul.,” 1, 2, c. 8, n. 23. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 486 ff, 511, 512, 513.[1635]Thus Denifle-Weiss,ibid., p. 508.[1636]Ibid., pp. 460 f., 467.[1637]Ibid., p. 469.[1638]Ibid., p. 472.[1639]Ibid.[1640]Melanchthon and Luther to Brenz, end of May, 1531, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 18.[1641]Thus Wrampelmeyer, editor of Cordatus’s “Tagebuch,” on the copy of the letter in Cordatus, p. 383.[1642]For the course pursued by Melanchthon when drawing up the portion of the Confession in question, see vol. iii., p. 329 f.[1643]“Tagebuch,” ed. Wrampelmeyer, p. 385: “Hactenus Philippus ille cum sua novitate.” The differences between Cordatus and Melanchthon related to the doctrine of Justification under another aspect. On these dissensions, see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 445 ff.; on the want of unity on Justification generally amongst Luther’s pupils, see Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 3, pp. 372-591.[1644]Döllinger,loc. cit., p. 367 f.[1645]Ibid., p. 370.[1646]“De catechizandis rudibus,” c. 5.[1647]Lib. 83, quæst., q. 76; “Enarr. 2 in psalm. 31,” n. 3; “De fide et operibus,” c. 14, n. 21.[1648]“Contra II epist. Pelag.,” 1, c. 13, n. 26.[1649]“De spiritu et littera,” c. 9.[1650]Ibid.[1651]“De peccato et merito,” 1, 9.[1652]“De Trinitate,” 15, 8, 14.[1653]“De fide et symbolo,” c. 9.[1654]“In Psalm. LXX,” serm. 2, n. 3.[1655]“De civitate Dei,” 19, 27.[1656]“Super Genesi ad litt.,” 8, 12.[1657]Sermo 158, c. 2. Similarly “In Psalm.” LXXXIII and CIX.[1658]“De fide et op.,” c. 10.[1659]“Homil. 29 in Evang.”[1660]See particularly above, pp. 195-218.[1661]Cp. p. 212.[1662]He says in a frequently misquoted paragraph (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 352 f.) in so many words: “The world ever remains the same; either it exalts faith wrongly [as do the ‘secure pseudo-Christians’ on his side whose ‘faith is not rooted aright,’ p. 351] or it wishes to be over-holy but without faith [like the Papists]. If we discourse on faith and grace, then no one will perform good works; if we insist on works, then no one will have anything to do with faith; few indeed are those who keep to the true middle course and even pious Christians find it difficult.”—This was certainly quite true of the piety he taught.[1663]Thus M. Staub, “Willensfreiheit ... bei Luther,” Zürich, 1894, p. 39, 2 ff. Cp. the passage in Luther’s book “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 697; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 238: “Quid potest robustius contra liberum arbitrium dici, quam ipsum esse nihili, ut non modo non velit bonum, sed nec sciat quidem, quantum faciat mali et quid sit bonum.” This he proves from the words of Christ on the cross: “They know not what they do”! “An est hic obscuritas in ullo verbo?... Hoc clarissimum verbum Christi,” etc.[1664]Urban Rhegius, “Eine Summe christl. Lehre,” Augsburg, 1527, fol. 5. Döllinger, “Ref.,” 2, p. 58.[1665]“U. Rhegii Deutsche Bücher und Schriften,” 2, Nürnberg, 1562, p. 234. Döllinger,ibid., p. 59.[1666]U. Rhegius, “Wie man fürsichtiglich reden soll,” ed. A. Uckeley, Leipzig, 1908, according to the 1536 German edition (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protest.” 6), in Uckeley’s summary, p. 7.[1667]Uckeley,ibid.[1668]Ibid., p. 45.[1669]Ibid., p. 9, reprinted by Uckeley.[1670]“Die Reformation,” 2, p. vii. f.[1671]“Hyperii Varia opuscula theol.,” tom. 2, Basil., 1580, p. 734. Döllinger,ibid., 2, p. 216.[1672]Ibid., tom. 1, Basil., 1570, p. 871; cp. p. 881. Döllinger,ibid., 2, p. 215.[1673]“Wahrhaftiger Bericht,” etc. (referring to the Altenburg Colloquy), 1507, Fol. D 2, Döllinger, “Reformation,” 2, p. 261 f.[1674]“Fortgesetzte Sammlung von alten und neuen theol. Sachen,” 1750, p. 676 ff. Döllinger, 2, p. 565.[1675]“Wolfg. Franzii Disputationes in August. Confess. Artic. posterior.,” Disput. 10, “De bonis operibus”; in Pfeiffer, “Consilia theol.,” p. 943seq.Döllinger, 2, p. 570.[1676]Ioh. Rivius, “De stultitia mortalium,” p. 32. Döllinger, 2, p. 600.[1677]Ibid., p. 50seq., and “Opp.,” 1614, pp. 275, 305, 370, 672. Döllinger, 2, p. 601 ff.[1678]“Haneri Prophetia vetus ac nova,” Lips., 1534, Præf., Fol. B, a. Döllinger, 1, p. 129 f.[1679]“Epistolæ duæ J. Haneri et G. Wicelii,” 1534, Fol. A 2 b, 3 a. Döllinger, 1, p. 127 f.[1680]In C. G. Murr, “Journal zur Kunstgesch. und Literatur,” Tl. 10, Nürnberg, 1781, p. 40 ff. Döllinger, 1, p. 169. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 40.[1681]Luscinius (Nachtigall), “Evangel. Historie,” 1525, pp. 445, 449. Döllinger, 1, p. 550.[1682]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 228; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 321, n. 97.[1683]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 24; Erl. ed., 27, p. 180.[1684]Ibid., Weim. ed., 1 p. 145 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 235seq.[1685]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², pp. 179 f., 182.[1686]Ibid., 21, p. 34 ff.[1687]Ibid., p. 94.[1688]Ibid., 15², p. 54.[1689]Ibid., 16², p. 210 f.; cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 268 f.; 9, p. 293 f.[1690]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 3 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 208.[1691]Ibid., 30, 3, p. 214=63, p. 295, Preface to “Der Wiedertauffer Lere” of Justus Menius.[1692]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 419seq., 434.[1693]“Solida declaratio,” 4, n. 15. “Symbolische Bücher10,” p. 627.
[1481]W. Köhler in his review of Kropatscheck (“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1905, col. 453 ff.).
[1482]P. 459. For proofs that, in the Middle Ages, the Bible occupied its due position in the faith and life of Christians, cp. K. Holzhey, “Die Inspiration der hl. Schrift in den Anschauungen des MA.,” 1895.
[1483]Instructive indeed are the detailed proofs given in Kropatscheck’s work of how the heretical Waldenses, and, after them, Wiclif and Hus, used the “sola scriptura” against tradition and the authority of the Church. The example of the Waldenses had already shown that it was quite impossible to use the principle without accepting at the same time certain of the doctrines of the Church (p. 17 ff.). With Hus “the formula ‘sola scriptura’ rings again and again in his writings as a battle-cry” (p. 76). He wants the “lex Christi” and no “leges novæ,” hence, no Decretals, indulgences, Crusade-Bulls, priesthood or celibacy. The revolutionary force of the formula is noticeable in Hus and still more in the later Hussites; they declared the “Law of Grace” to be sufficient even for civil life, and, as “avengers of Scripture,” proclaimed war on those lords who thought differently, the Princes and the monasteries. Wiclif, “a Bible theologian from head to foot,” who even finds in Scripture all the wisdom and learning of the world, and describes it as a book everyone can understand, registered a success which was “great” only in the revolutionary sense. The Bible standpoint of Occam, to which Kropatscheck also devotes attention, has something in common with that of Luther (cp. Kropatscheck, “Occam und Luther,” in “Beiträge zur Förderung christl. Theol.,” 1900, p. 49 ff.). Kropatscheck emphasises the fact, that Occam, in his opposition to the Pope, had conceded to “the whole Church” the right of interpretation, and, like Marsilius of Padua, wished to set aside man-made laws for the Bible and the law of nature. The history of the Middle Ages and the “apocalyptic, political and social” trends connected with Holy Scripture show how dangerous and subversive any arbitrary treatment of the Bible could be. The written Word of God becomes a weapon wherewith to rouse the passions against the highest powers, an excuse for gross millenarianism and libertinism, and a veritable mine to be exploited by stupid, crazy fanatics.—Cp., on Kropatscheck, M. Buchberger, in “Theol. Revue,” 1906, p. 118 ff.; his review concludes as follows: “that no solid foundation can be won, but that everything totters without an authoritative, and, in the last instance, infallible, exponent of Holy Scripture. The call for such an exponent is the final conclusion powerfully borne in on the mind.”
[1484]Ibid., p. 433.
[1485]“W. Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” 1887, p. 117.
[1486]From Pirkheimer’s “Oratio apolog.,” for the Convent of St. Clare at Nuremberg, in “Opp.,” ed. M. Goldast, 1610, p. 375seq.
[1487]Gütersloh, 1903, p. 84 ff.
[1488]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 195; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 408.
[1489]“Theol. Literaturblatt,” 1905, col. 41.
[1490]“Grundriss der DG.,” etc.³, Leipzig, 1910, p. 130.
[1491]“Lehrbuch der DG.,” 2nd part, Erl., 1898, p. 289.
[1492]Pp. 288, 283, 290 f.
[1493]“Theol. Literaturztng.,” 1901, col. 272. O. Ritschl (“DG.,” 1, 1908, p. 69 ff.) judges more favourably.
[1494]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 156.
[1495]Döllinger,ibid., pp. 156-173. Denifle, “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², pp. 80 f., 668 ff., 675, 688, 716, andpassim.
[1496]“Luther, eine Skizze,” p. 59; “KL.,” 8², p. 344.
[1497]“Comm. in Gal.,” 1, p. 3, Irmischer.
[1498]“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 119: “Articulus iustificationis est magister et princeps, dominus, rector et iudex super omnia genera doctrinarum, qui conservat et gubernat omnem doctrinam ecclesiasticam et erigit conscientiam nostrum coram Deo.”
[1499]“Disputationes,” p. 11, n. 41.
[1500]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 158.
[1501]Ibid.
[1502]“Briefe,” 6, p. 424, undated, and to a person unnamed: “Ex his duabus epistolis omnes, quæ incident, quæstiones, vel alioqui scripturæ loca obscuriora interpretator.”
[1503]Ibid., p. 434. Written in a Bible: “Ad omnia dicta scripturæ, quibus videtur iustitia operum statui, respondebis ex Ebre. 11, hac voce: Fide,” etc.
[1504]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 165 f.; Erl. ed., 47, p. 371. In the Exposition of John vi.-viii. (1530-1532).
[1505]Cp.ibid., Erl. ed., 63, p. 157.
[1506]Ibid., 8², p. 23. Cp. p. 24: “But know that Pope, Councils and the whole world in all their teaching are subject to the meanest Christian, even to a child of seven who has the faith, and that they must accept his opinion.”
[1507]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 8, p. 357; Erl, ed., 14², p. 47; cp. p. 379=78.
[1508]Ibid., 13², p. 231; cp. Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, p. 298.
[1509]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 145 f.
[1510]“Quod sine scripturis asseritur aut revelatione probata, opinari licet, credi non est necesse.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 508; “Opp. lat. var.,” 5, p. 30. Cp.,ibid., 2, pp. 297, 279, 309-15=3, pp. 89, 62, 106-15.
[1511]Ibid., 8, p. 141 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 323 f.; cp. p. 143 f.=325 f.
[1512]Ibid., p. 235=39, p. 132.
[1513]Ibid., 10, 3, p. 22 f.=28, p. 223. Cp. R. Seeberg, “Lehrb. der DG.,” p. 285 f.
[1514]Scheel gives Luther’s views on p. 45 as follows: “What is not taught by Christ is not apostolic even should Peter and Paul teach it. But all that preaches Christ is apostolic even should Judas, Annas, Pilate or Herod teach it. (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 63, p. 157.)... Hence Luther replies to his opponent, ‘You appeal to the slave, i.e. to Scripture, and not even to the whole or the most excellent part of it. This slave I leave for you; as for me, I appeal to the Lord, Who is King of Scripture.’” (“Comm. in Gal.,” 1, p. 387, Irmischer.) Scheel quotes the “Comm. in Gen.,” 1, p. 539: “Si adversarii scripturam urserint contra Christum, urgemus Christum contra scripturas.” He says finally, p. 74: “Luther found himself in Scripture just as the simple man finds in the outward world the answer to his own world of sense; with the unerring instinct of genius he found the essence of Scripture which was at the same time the essence of his own being.”
[1515]“Lehrb. d. DG.,” 3^[4], p. 867.
[1516]Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 158.
[1517]Ibid., p. 160. For the liberty which Luther permitted himself in his translation of the sacred text, see vol. v., xxxiv., 3.
[1518]Cp. Döllinger,ibid., pp. 151-156.
[1519]“Gesch.,” etc., 1², 1896, p. 199.
[1520]“Luthers Leben,” 2, p. 190 f.
[1521]On the strength of the biblical labours of Erasmus and of Reuchlin, Zwingli did not scruple to call into question Luther’s assertion that it was he who drew “the Bible out from under the bench.” “Zwinglis Werke” (1828 ff.), 2, 2, p. 21.
[1522]See our vol. i., p. 224 f.
[1523]Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans, 1515-1516, ed. J. Ficker, 1908, Glosses, p. 4.
[1524]Ibid., Scholia, p. 240: “Universa scriptura de solo Christo est ubique.”
[1525]Ibid., p. 253.
[1526]Ibid., Introduction, p. lxii.
[1527]Ibid., p. lv., and vol. i., p. 242 f.
[1528]Quoted by Ficker, p. lvii.
[1529]“Scheurls Briefbuch,” ed. Soden and Knaake, 2, p. 2; Ficker,ibid., p. lxv.
[1530]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 228; “Opp. lat[. missing?] var.,” 1, p. 321.
[1531]Ibid., p. 239 ff.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 4 ff.
[1532]To Johann Sylvius Egranus, March 24, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 174.
[1533]To Jodocus Trutvetter, May 9, 1518,ibid., p. 186.
[1534]“Werke,” Weim ed., 1, p. 384 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 12 f.
[1535]Löscher, “Reformationsacta,” 2, p. 80.
[1536]In the postscript to the “Acta Augustana,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 18, 21 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 2, pp. 385seq., 391seq.
[1537]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, l, p. 54. Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 542, and “Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 640. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 672, 675, 727 ff.
[1538]Cp., in “Luthers Werke in Auswahl,” ed. Buchwald, 2 suppl., 1905, p. 43, O. Scheel’s remarks on the writing “De votis monasticis” (Weim. ed., 8, p. 583; “ Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 252), where Luther says that whoever denies the virginity of Mary plays havoc with the whole faith.
[1539]Thus A. Berger, “M. Luther,” Tl. 2, pp. 98, 100. Cp. this author’s view (on p. 100): “This means an obscuring and impoverishing of the faith as discovered and laid down by himself.” The following observation of Berger’s is remarkable: “Luther, as theologian, was merely the restorer of primæval Christianity, such as he understood it; Zwingli, however, understood it otherwise” (p. 102).
[1540]See vol. i., p. 193.
[1541]See vol. ii., p. 223 ff.
[1542]“Ph. Melanchthonis Annotationes in Epistolas Pauli ad Rhomanos et Corinthios,” Norimbergæ, 1522. The later editions are quoted in “Corp. ref.,” 15, p. 441. In this volume Bindseil has not reprinted the writing owing to Melanchthon’s retractation of it (see next page). It should, however, have been printed as an historical document.—The introductory preface, in “Briefe,” 2, p. 239, dated July 29, 1522 (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 438).
[1543]Letter of March 12, 1523. Cp. “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 2, p. 131.
[1544]Owing to the rarity of the work, to which even the editor of the “Briefwechsel” had not access, we give in Latin the passages referred to from the copy contained in the Munich State Library: H 1´: “Necessario omnia eveniunt in omnibus creaturis.... Itaque sit hæc certa sententia, a Deo fieri omnia tam bona quam mala.” H 2´: “Nos vero dicemus, non solum permittere Deum creaturis ut operentur, sed ipsum omnia proprie agere, ut, sicut fatentur, proprium Dei opus esse Pauli vocationem ita fateantur, opera Dei propria esse sive quæ media vocantur, ut comedere, bibere, communia cum brutis, sive quæ mala sunt, ut Davidis adulterium, Manlii severitatem animadvertentis in filium.... Iam cum constet, Deum omnia facere, non permissive, sed potenter, ut Augustini verbo utamur, ita ut sit eius proprium opus Iudæ proditio sicut Pauli vocatio,” etc.—For Melanchthon’s statement in his “Loci” of the Lutheran denial of free-will, see above, vol. iii., p. 346.
[1545]“Corp. ref.,” 15, p. 441.
[1546]Melanchthon in his letter to the Elector August of Saxony, April, 1559. N. Paulus, “Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit,” Munich, 1905, p. 52 f. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 347.
[1547]See vol. ii., p. 265.
[1548]“Comm. in Ep. ad. Gal.,” 1535, vol. i., p. 255. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 514. Cp. Luther’s Sermon of 1523 on the Feast of the Circumcision, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 508; Erl. ed., 15², p. 199: It had been shown long before by the institution of circumcision “that no one could reach God and be saved by works, but only by faith. This is insisted upon throughout the whole of Scripture by teaching and example. Sin in us is not merely a work or deed, but our real nature and essence; for this reason does God circumcise that member which pertains to birth and by which human nature is perpetuated.” On the same page we find the following: “Nature is depraved through and through so that no will is left for what is good”; “our nature is all poisoned and crammed with sin,” etc.—The sermon in which the singularly outspoken statement concerning circumcision occurs is also found in the postils. Some unbecoming language is also met at the commencement of the passage in question where Luther says: “It is quite true that God’s works and commandments are folly to nature and reason; God’s way of acting is mad enough”; Luther, however, hastens to add, “but if we keep our heads and look into it attentively, we shall soon see that all is done in the wisest manner.”
[1549]Document of Oct. 14, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1 (p. 250 ff.), p. 256 ff.
[1550]Cp. our vol. i., p. 384.
[1551]Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 175, on passages dating from 1532 and 1539.
[1552]“Disputationes,” pp. 429, 431 (of 1538).
[1553]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 25², p. 202.
[1554]Ibid., 2², p. 257.
[1555]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 43seq.: “iustus et sanctus aliena seu extrinseca sanctitate.”
[1556]Ibid., 10, p. 110: “non tantum per dona, sed quoad substantiam.”
[1557]Cp. the passages in Köstlin,ibid., p. 201 f.
[1558]“Werke,” Er. ed., 18², p. 312.
[1559]Ibid., 14², p. 287. In the light of this we can better understand the words which occur quite early in a writing of Luther’s: “Non iusta agendo iusti efficimur, as Aristotle taught, butiusti fiendo et essendo operamur iusta.” To Spalatin, Oct. 19, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 64. See below, xxviii., 4.
[1560]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 285 f.
[1561]Ibid., p. 282. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 226 f., also pp. 181 ff., 186 f., 194.
[1562]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 652. First published by G. Berbig, “Der Veit-Dietrich-Codex in der Nürnb. Stadtbibliothek,” 1907.
[1563]Cp. Th. Kolde in the “Beitr. z. Bayerischen KG.,” 14, 1908, p. 139 ff. Kolde rightly refers Luther’s words to Melanchthon, viz. that he would send him a writing, “si volet Christus, de iustificationis loco” (Aug. 24, 1530, from the fortress of Coburg, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 204), to the above work, and disagrees with Enders’ remark on the subject.
[1564]“Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 23: “De imputatione non clare omnia explicat.”
[1565]Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 521.
[1566]J. Mausbach, “Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus,” 2, 1909, p. 98.
[1567]Cp. Denifle-Weiss,ibid., p. 742, n. 3.
[1568]Sess. VI. c. 9.
[1569]“In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 2, p. 161.
[1570]Ibid., p. 164.
[1571]Ibid., p. 165.
[1572]Ibid., p. 166. Cp. above, p. 437, and vol. i., p. 385 ff. on this certainty of faith.
[1573]“In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 2, p. 166.
[1574]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201.
[1575]“In Ep. ad. Gal.,” 1, p. 101.
[1576]Ibid., 2, p. 164.
[1577]Ibid., p. 165.
[1578]Ibid.
[1579]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 17², p. 230.
[1580]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 33, p. 163; Erl. ed., 47, p. 369.
[1581]Above, vol. iii., pp. 202 ff., 226.
[1582]Oct. 27, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 109.
[1583]Nov. 22, 1527, “Briefwechsel,” 6, p. 121.
[1584]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 264seq., in the exposition of Isaias, 1532, Denifle-Weiss,ibid., p. 738, n. 1.
[1585]Ibid., p. 143. Denifle-Weiss,ibid., n. 2.
[1586]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 188.
[1587]To Wenceslaus Link, Oct. 26, 1539, “Briefe,” 5, p. 219.
[1588]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 53.
[1589]Ibid., p. 57seq.
[1590]“Luthers ungedruckte Predigten,” ed. G. Buchwald, 3, Leipzig, 1885, p. 50.
[1591]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 201.
[1592]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 54.
[1593]K. Hase, “Hdbch. der prot. Polemik,”^[4] p. 264.
[1594]“Kirche und Kirchen,” p. 428 f.
[1595]Ibid., p. 269.
[1596]“Gesch. des Pietismus,” 1, Bonn, 1880, p. 38.
[1597]“Die Lehre von der Wiedergeburt, die christl. Centrallehre, in dogmengeschichtl. und religionsgeschichtl. Beleuchtung,” Leipzig, 1907, p. 229.
[1598]P. 120 f.
[1599]On the Confession of Augsburg and Melanchthon’s alterations in Luther’s teaching, and on Melanchthon’s own change of views, cp. O. Ritschl, “Der doppelte Rechtfertigungsbegriff in der Apologie der Augsburgischen Konfession” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. u. Kirche,” 1910, pp. 292-338).
[1600]On de Lagarde see “Theol. Revue,” 1908, col. 345. G. Esser, in his review there of Genrich’s work, remarks of the alleged “religious experiences”: “We hear the familiar rhapsodies concerning personal experience, religion that has to be lived and cannot be reduced to any formulas, and then again, experiences are discussed which have to be differentiated from others, vital experiences which must be accurately formulated, in short, a constant revolving in a circle, and a language that is always vague.” Before this Esser had said: “What can the word Justification mean to those who have lost all idea of the supernatural and of grace, and have so changed the idea of ‘faith’ that nothing remains but a vague religious sentiment, a venture of the will to affirm the value of a higher world in the face of worldly wisdom.”
[1601]“Die Rechtfertigungslehre im Lichte der Gesch. des Protestantismus,” 1906 (“Sammlung ... Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiet der Theol.,” No. 45), pp. 2, 3, 42, 10, 16.
[1602]“Die Rechtfertigungslehre in Luthers Vorlesungen über den Römerbrief mit bes. Rücksicht auf die Frage der Heilsgewissheit” (“Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,” 1910, p. 245 ff.), pp. 287, 289.
[1603]W. Köhler, “Katholizismus und Reformation,” pp. 54-58. Of this description O. Clemen remarks in the “Zeitschr. f. KG.,” 1909, p. 380: “Those pages have attracted special attention where Köhler shows that, in the Catholic criticism of Luther’s doctrine of salvation, as unfair to ethical requirements, there lies a grain of truth.”
[1604]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 355; cp. Erl. ed., 14², pp. 191, 195, 198 f., 205, 211 f.
[1605]On the teaching of antiquity see Bellarmin, “De iustificatione,” 5, n. 10seq.
[1606]See vol. i., p. 118 ff.
[1607]Cp. e.g., “Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 683 f.; 10, 2, p. 126; Erl. ed., 22, p. 54; 28, p. 164; 53, p. 288. Vol. 15², p. 282, he speaks of the “lousy works,” and, pointing out that Christ had become the fulfiller of the Law, says: “They [the Papists] boast of their works.”—This is for him the real object of attack; he is determined to inveigh against the “unus furor, velle per opera coram Deo agere,” and says of the Catholics: “opera quibus erga homines utendum est, offerunt Deo.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 187; “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 396.
[1608]“My struggle has been first of all against all trust in works, on which the world insists and struts.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 382, Table-Talk.
[1609]To George Spenlein, the Memmingen Augustinian, April 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 29: against the “tentatio præsumptionis in multis et iis præcipue qui iusti et boni esse omnibus viribus student; ignorantes iustitiam Dei, quæ in Christo est nobis effusissime et gratis donata, quærunt in se ipsis tamdiu operari bene, donec habeant fiduciam standi coram Deo, veluti virtutibus et meritis ornati; quod est impossibile fieri.” Cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 347; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 236, where he speaks against the “affectus propriæ iustitiæ” and declares that the sense of good works performed led men to fall. P. 347=237: the wish to have remained always pure was simply foolish, etc.
[1610]“Opera,” Pars II. Ingolstadtii, 1531, p. 95: “Calumniatur Ludderus. quod per opera sua Christum excludant mediatorem,” etc.
[1611]W. Köhler, “Denifles Luther,” p. 42, referring to Luther’s Works, Erl. ed., 32, p. 261.
[1612]From Kilian Leib, “Verantwortung des Klosterstandes,” fol. 170´. Cp. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 5, 33; 2nd ed., p. 587.
[1613]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 349; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 239.
[1614]Ibid., p. 348=238.
[1615]Ibid., p. 347=236.
[1616]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 105.
[1617]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 212 f.
[1618]Ibid., p. 213.
[1619]Ibid., p. 221.
[1620]Ibid., 6², p. 157, Hauspostille. Cp. above, p. 438, n. 9.
[1621]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 432, in the notes taken of a sermon of 1524.
[1622]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 349.
[1623]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 369, Thesis 16.
[1624]Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 9, p. 360; 10, p. 159; 11, p. 121.
[1625]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 16, p. 397; Erl. ed., 36, p. 6 f.
[1626]To Spalatin, Oct. 16, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 64: “qui (Augustinus) apud me, antequam in libros eius incidissem, ne tantillum quidem favoris habuit.” Other Augustinians made more account of this Saint, popularly regarded as their founder.
[1627]Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 75, 109 f.
[1628]Ibid., p. 127.
[1629]“Stud. und Krit.,” 1878, p. 698; Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 134.
[1630]“Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 100: “Theologia nostra et S. Augustinus prospere procedunt,” etc.
[1631]Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 137; here it is first stated: “Luther’s theology was regarded by him and his friends as simply that of the great Father Augustine.”
[1632]Ibid., p. 138.
[1633]Cp. Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 3, p. 364.
[1634]August., “Contra Jul.,” 1, 2, c. 8, n. 23. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 486 ff, 511, 512, 513.
[1635]Thus Denifle-Weiss,ibid., p. 508.
[1636]Ibid., pp. 460 f., 467.
[1637]Ibid., p. 469.
[1638]Ibid., p. 472.
[1639]Ibid.
[1640]Melanchthon and Luther to Brenz, end of May, 1531, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 18.
[1641]Thus Wrampelmeyer, editor of Cordatus’s “Tagebuch,” on the copy of the letter in Cordatus, p. 383.
[1642]For the course pursued by Melanchthon when drawing up the portion of the Confession in question, see vol. iii., p. 329 f.
[1643]“Tagebuch,” ed. Wrampelmeyer, p. 385: “Hactenus Philippus ille cum sua novitate.” The differences between Cordatus and Melanchthon related to the doctrine of Justification under another aspect. On these dissensions, see Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 445 ff.; on the want of unity on Justification generally amongst Luther’s pupils, see Döllinger, “Die Ref.,” 3, pp. 372-591.
[1644]Döllinger,loc. cit., p. 367 f.
[1645]Ibid., p. 370.
[1646]“De catechizandis rudibus,” c. 5.
[1647]Lib. 83, quæst., q. 76; “Enarr. 2 in psalm. 31,” n. 3; “De fide et operibus,” c. 14, n. 21.
[1648]“Contra II epist. Pelag.,” 1, c. 13, n. 26.
[1649]“De spiritu et littera,” c. 9.
[1650]Ibid.
[1651]“De peccato et merito,” 1, 9.
[1652]“De Trinitate,” 15, 8, 14.
[1653]“De fide et symbolo,” c. 9.
[1654]“In Psalm. LXX,” serm. 2, n. 3.
[1655]“De civitate Dei,” 19, 27.
[1656]“Super Genesi ad litt.,” 8, 12.
[1657]Sermo 158, c. 2. Similarly “In Psalm.” LXXXIII and CIX.
[1658]“De fide et op.,” c. 10.
[1659]“Homil. 29 in Evang.”
[1660]See particularly above, pp. 195-218.
[1661]Cp. p. 212.
[1662]He says in a frequently misquoted paragraph (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 18², p. 352 f.) in so many words: “The world ever remains the same; either it exalts faith wrongly [as do the ‘secure pseudo-Christians’ on his side whose ‘faith is not rooted aright,’ p. 351] or it wishes to be over-holy but without faith [like the Papists]. If we discourse on faith and grace, then no one will perform good works; if we insist on works, then no one will have anything to do with faith; few indeed are those who keep to the true middle course and even pious Christians find it difficult.”—This was certainly quite true of the piety he taught.
[1663]Thus M. Staub, “Willensfreiheit ... bei Luther,” Zürich, 1894, p. 39, 2 ff. Cp. the passage in Luther’s book “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 697; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 238: “Quid potest robustius contra liberum arbitrium dici, quam ipsum esse nihili, ut non modo non velit bonum, sed nec sciat quidem, quantum faciat mali et quid sit bonum.” This he proves from the words of Christ on the cross: “They know not what they do”! “An est hic obscuritas in ullo verbo?... Hoc clarissimum verbum Christi,” etc.
[1664]Urban Rhegius, “Eine Summe christl. Lehre,” Augsburg, 1527, fol. 5. Döllinger, “Ref.,” 2, p. 58.
[1665]“U. Rhegii Deutsche Bücher und Schriften,” 2, Nürnberg, 1562, p. 234. Döllinger,ibid., p. 59.
[1666]U. Rhegius, “Wie man fürsichtiglich reden soll,” ed. A. Uckeley, Leipzig, 1908, according to the 1536 German edition (“Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protest.” 6), in Uckeley’s summary, p. 7.
[1667]Uckeley,ibid.
[1668]Ibid., p. 45.
[1669]Ibid., p. 9, reprinted by Uckeley.
[1670]“Die Reformation,” 2, p. vii. f.
[1671]“Hyperii Varia opuscula theol.,” tom. 2, Basil., 1580, p. 734. Döllinger,ibid., 2, p. 216.
[1672]Ibid., tom. 1, Basil., 1570, p. 871; cp. p. 881. Döllinger,ibid., 2, p. 215.
[1673]“Wahrhaftiger Bericht,” etc. (referring to the Altenburg Colloquy), 1507, Fol. D 2, Döllinger, “Reformation,” 2, p. 261 f.
[1674]“Fortgesetzte Sammlung von alten und neuen theol. Sachen,” 1750, p. 676 ff. Döllinger, 2, p. 565.
[1675]“Wolfg. Franzii Disputationes in August. Confess. Artic. posterior.,” Disput. 10, “De bonis operibus”; in Pfeiffer, “Consilia theol.,” p. 943seq.Döllinger, 2, p. 570.
[1676]Ioh. Rivius, “De stultitia mortalium,” p. 32. Döllinger, 2, p. 600.
[1677]Ibid., p. 50seq., and “Opp.,” 1614, pp. 275, 305, 370, 672. Döllinger, 2, p. 601 ff.
[1678]“Haneri Prophetia vetus ac nova,” Lips., 1534, Præf., Fol. B, a. Döllinger, 1, p. 129 f.
[1679]“Epistolæ duæ J. Haneri et G. Wicelii,” 1534, Fol. A 2 b, 3 a. Döllinger, 1, p. 127 f.
[1680]In C. G. Murr, “Journal zur Kunstgesch. und Literatur,” Tl. 10, Nürnberg, 1781, p. 40 ff. Döllinger, 1, p. 169. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 40.
[1681]Luscinius (Nachtigall), “Evangel. Historie,” 1525, pp. 445, 449. Döllinger, 1, p. 550.
[1682]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 228; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 321, n. 97.
[1683]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 24; Erl. ed., 27, p. 180.
[1684]Ibid., Weim. ed., 1 p. 145 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 235seq.
[1685]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², pp. 179 f., 182.
[1686]Ibid., 21, p. 34 ff.
[1687]Ibid., p. 94.
[1688]Ibid., 15², p. 54.
[1689]Ibid., 16², p. 210 f.; cp. Weim. ed., 6, p. 268 f.; 9, p. 293 f.
[1690]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 3 f.; Erl. ed., 28, p. 208.
[1691]Ibid., 30, 3, p. 214=63, p. 295, Preface to “Der Wiedertauffer Lere” of Justus Menius.
[1692]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, pp. 419seq., 434.
[1693]“Solida declaratio,” 4, n. 15. “Symbolische Bücher10,” p. 627.