[1]“Gesch. der Moral,” Göttingen, 1908, p. 209.[2]Cp. the passages quoted in Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 11.[3]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 516; Erl. ed., 34, p. 138.[4]Ib., 10, 2, p. 295=16², p. 532.[5]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 7.[6]Vol. ii., p. 239 f. and vol. iv., p. 435. Cp. Luther’s own words,passim, in our previous volumes.[7]Comm. on Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557; Irmischer, 2, p. 144.[8]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, p. 495; Erl. ed., 51, p. 90. Cp. our vol. iv., p. 436.[9]Ib., p. 495=91.[10]To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.[11]W. Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” Berlin, 1908, p. 310.[12]Braun,ib., p. 310-312.[13]“Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 207; Irmischer, 1, p. 172.[14]“Leitfaden zum Stud. der DG,” Halle, 1906, p. 722.[15]Ib., pp. 770 f., 773 f., 778.[16]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 771, n. 4.[17]But cp. what Loofs says,ib., p. 772, n. 5.[18]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 153.[19]Ib., 10², p. 96.[20]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 721 f.[21]“Disput.,” ed. P. Drews, p. 159; cp.ib., pp. 126, 136 f., 156.[22]“Dixi ... quod christianus nullam prorsus legem habeat, sed quod tota illi lex abrogata sit cum suis terroribus et vexationibus.” “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 668 f.; Irmischer, 2, p. 263.[23]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 238 f.[24]Ib., Weim. ed., 24, p. 10; Erl. ed., 33, p. 13. Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 764, n. 2.[25]Loofs,ib., p. 773, where he cites the “Comm. on Gal.” (1535), Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 209; Irmischer, 1, p. 174.[26]“Quia Paulus hic versatur in loco iustificationis, ... necessitas postulabat, ut de lege tamquam de re contemptissima loqueretur, neque satis viliter et odiose, cum in hoc argumento versamur, de ea loqui possumus.” “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557; Irmischer, 2, p. 144. “Conscientia perterrefacta ... nihil de lege et peccato scire debet, sed tantum de Christo.”Ib., p. 207 f.=p. 173sq.Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 279 f. (“Tischreden”) and “Opp. lat. var.” 4, p. 427.[27]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 775. Luther here refers to Rom. v. 20; vii. 9, etc.[28]“Contritus lege tantum abest ut perveniat ad gratiam, ut longius ab ea discedat.” “Disput.,” ed. P. Drews, p. 284.[29]“Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 498; 40, 1, p. 208; Irmischer, 3, p. 236; 1, p. 173.[30]Loofs,ib., p. 775 f.[31]“Quæ (conscientia) sæpe ad desperationem, ad gladium et ad laqueum homines adigit.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 330; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 141sq.[32]P. 737, n.[33]Mt. xi. 30; Ps. cxviii. 165.[34]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 357; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 392. Luther frequently uses the term “conteri lege.”[35]“Dices enim: Peccata mea non sunt mea, quia non sunt in me, sed sunt aliena, Christi videlicet; non ergo me lædere poterunt.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 330; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 141.[36]“Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 436; Irmischer, 2, p. 17.[37]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 723; Erl. ed., 16², p. 48.[38]Ib., 10, 1, l. p. 338 f. = 7², p. 259 ff.[39]See, however, below, vol. vi., xxxvii., 2.[40]Vol. i., p. 317 f. andpassim.[41]Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 260.—Ammon (“Hdb. der chr. Sittenlehre,” 1, 1823, p. 76) laments that Luther “regarded the moral law merely as a vision of terror,” and that according to him “the essence of the Christian religion consisted, not in moral perfection, but in faith.” De Wette, “Christl. Sittenlehre,” 2, 2, 1821, p. 280 f., thinks that an ethical system might have been erected on the antithesis set up by Luther between the Law and the Gospel and on his theories of Christian freedom, “but that Luther was not equal to doing so. He was too much taken up with his fight against the Catholic holiness-by-works to devote all the attention he should to the moral side of the question and not enough of a scholar even to dream of any connection between faith and morality being feasible.”[42]Mathesius,ib.The Note in question is by Caspar Heydenreich.[43]“Christl. Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 91 f.[44]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 261.[45]Cp. the passages cited above, p. 9 ff., and vols. iii. and iv.passim.[46]It was Luther himself who published the Antinomian theses in two series on Dec. 1, 1537. Cp. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 420sqq.The most offensive of these theses Luther described as the outcome of Agricola’s teaching and attributed them to one of the latter’s pupils; Agricola, however, refused to admit that the propositions were his. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 458), who, after attempting to harmonise Luther’s earlier and later teaching on the Law, proceeds: “He paid no heed to the fact that Agricola was seeking to root sin out of the heart of the believer, though in a way all his own, and which Luther distrusted, nor did he make any distinction between what Agricola merely hinted at and what others carried to extremes: in the one he already saw the other embodied. All this was characteristic enough of Luther’s way of conducting controversy.”[47]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 434 (Thes. 17), 428 (Thes. 10).[48]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 352.[49]Ib.[50]Ib., p. 357.[51]Ib., p. 403.[52]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 153, Sermon of July 1, 5th Sunday after Trinity, andib., 14², p. 178, Sermon of Sep. 30, 18th Sunday after Trinity. Cp. Buchwald, “Ungedruckte Predigten Luthers,” 3, p. 108 ff. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 457.[53]“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 323.[54]Cp. Drews, “Disputationen Luthers,” pp. 382, 388, 394; G. Kawerau, “Joh. Agricola,” 1881, p. 194.[55]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 430sq.[56]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 1 ff. (publ. early in 1539). Also “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 147 ff.[57]“Briefe,”ib., p. 154.[58]To Melanchthon, Feb. 2, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 84.[59]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 35 (Table-Talk). Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 462 f.[60](In March, 1540) see C. E. Förstemann, “N. Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Kirchenreformation,” 1, 1842, reprinted, p. 317 ff.[61]Ib., p. 321 ff.; also in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 20, p. 2061 ff., and “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.[62]Förstemann,ib., p. 325. The quotation is from G. Kawerau, “Joh. Agricola,” “RE. f. prot. Theol.”[63]Förstemann,ib., p. 349.[64]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 464.[65]E. Kroker, “Katharina von Bora,” 1906, p. 280, from Agricola’s Notes, pub. by E. Thiele.[66]Cp. Kawerau in the Article referred to above, p. 20, n. 3.[67]“Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.[68]Melanchthon to Willibald Ransberck (Ramsbeck), Jan. 26, 1560, publ. by Nic. Müller in “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 139.[69]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 90. For other statements of Luther’s see our vol. iii., p. 401.[70]Loofs,ib., p. 858.[71]On Luther’s attitude towards penance see our vol. iii., pp. 184 ff., 196.[72]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 424.[73]See above, p. 11, n. 2.[74]“DG.,” 34, p. 842.[75]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 860, n. 2 and 4; 790, n. 7, and Harnack,ib.[76]Harnack (loc. cit.) points out that Luther’s statements on the subject do not agree when examined in detail.[77]E.g., Lipsius, “Luthers Lehre von der Busse,” 1892.[78]E.g., Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers und ihre Darstellung in neuester Zeit,” 1900.[79]To the latter passage (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 7) E. F. Fischer draws attention (“Luthers Sermo de pœnitentia von 1518,” 1906, p. 36). Galley (loc. cit., p. 20) had also referred to the same as being a further development of Luther’s doctrine on penance.—On Luther’s shifting attitude in regard to the motive of fear see our vol. iv., p. 455 f.[80]“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 452.[81]Ib., p. 402.[82]Ib., pp. 402-404.[83]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 206 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 127.[84]Ib., Erl. ed., 15², p. 40.[85]Ib., Weim. ed., 7, p. 36; Erl. ed., 27, p. 196.[86]Ib., p. 30=189.[87]“Comm. in ep. ad. Gal.,” 3, p. 365 (Irmischer).[88]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 49, p. 114 f., Exposition of John xiv.-xvi.[89]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 30 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189 f.[90]Ib., 6, p. 269 f.=16², p. 212, “Sermon von den guten Wercken,” 1520.[91]Our account is from Walther (above, p. 14, n. 1), p. 75 ff. His faithful rendering of Luther’s thought shows how actual grace is excluded.[92]34, p. 460.[93]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 29 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 188. “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.” Cp.ib., Erl. ed., 7², p. 257.[94]Walther,ib., p. 99.[95]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 249; Erl. ed., 16², p. 184.[96]Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, where the idea that faith “then does all the needful,” and that works are a natural product of faith is summed up thus: “Opera propter fidem fiunt.”[97]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 386; Erl. ed., 51, p. 479, in 1523, on 1 Peter iv. 19. Cp. also Erl. ed., 18², pp. 330, 333 f., in 1532, on 1 John iv. 17.[98]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 273.[99]Ib., 13², p. 97.[100]Cp. our vol. iv., p. 442.[101]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 219 f.[102]Ib., 14², p. 257.[103]Cp. Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 737. Hence Luther also says: “Dum bonus aut malus quisquam efficitur, non hoc ab operibus, sed a fide vel incredulitate oritur.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 62; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 239.[104]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 220.[105]See below, ch. xxxii., 6.[106]Printed, in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 524.[107]The first revised by Cruciger. Aurifaber published his notes four months after the sermons, which, as the Preface points out, “might well be taken as a standing witness to his [Luther’s] doctrine.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 501.[108]“Werke,” Erl. ed.,ib., p. 551.[109]Ib., p. 552.[110]Ib., p. 551.[111]Ib., p. 554.[112]“Comm. on Gal.,” 1, p. 196 (Irmischer).[113]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 559; Erl. ed., 12², p. 175. “Comm. on Gal.” (Irmischer), 1, p. 196.[114]Ib., Erl. ed., 17², p. 94; 49, p. 348.[115]Ib., 58, pp. 343, 347.[116]See above, p. 26 f., and vol. ii., p. 27 ff.[117]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553.[118]Ib., p. 548.[119]Ib.[120]Ib., p. 549.[121]Ib., p. 554.[122]Ib., p. 555.[123]Cp. p. 552: “Help me that I may, with gratitude, praise and exalt Thy Son.”[124]Köstlin’s summary,ib., p. 206.[125]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 40. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 13, p. 144.[126]Köstlin,ib., p. 207.[127]Cp. vol. i.,passim.[128]Köstlin,ib., p. 204.[129]In the Eisleben Sermons, p. 548.[130]On Luther’s attitude towards the supernatural moral order, see xxix., 5.[131]Cp. vol. ii., p. 223 ff., particularly p. 240 ff.[132]See above, p. 32, n. 4.[133]Köstlin,ib., p. 206.[134]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 346.[135]Ib., 20², 2, p. 548.[136]Ib., p. 545.[137]Ib., p. 549 f.[138]Ib., p. 551.[139]Luther’s opposite doctrine, which is of importance to the matter under consideration, is expressed by Köstlin (ib., p. 126 f.) as follows: Luther “does not make guilt and condemnation follow on the act which is contrary to God’s will, nor even on the determination to commit such an act, but on the inward motion, or concupiscence, nay, in the inborn evil propensity [even of the baptised] which exists prior to any conscious motion.... We do not find in his writings any further information on the other questions here involved” (e.g. of the children who die unbaptised, etc.).[140]In the Eisleben sermons,ib., p. 551.[141]Ib., p. 546.[142]“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 159. Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 385. Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 857, n. 4, and 770, n. 4.[143]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 153.[144]Ib., 13², p. 307.[145]Ib., p. 305 ff.[146]Ib., 15², p. 524. Köstlin,ib., p. 213.[147]Cp.ib., 43, p. 362 ff.[148]The headings in W. Walther’s “Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” pp. 100, 106, 120, 125 are as above.[149]Above, p. 32 f.[150]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 304 f.[151]Walther,ib., p. 102.[152]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553.[153]Ib., 12², p. 219.[154]Ib., 8², p. 119, in the exposition of 1 Cor. xiii. 2: “And though I had all faith and could remove mountains and had not charity, I am nothing.”[155]Ib., 15², p. 40.[156]Willibald Pirkheimer confronted Luther with the following statement of the Catholic teaching: “We know that free-will of itself without grace cannot suffice. We refer all things back to the Divine grace, but we believe, that, after the reception of that grace without which we are nothing, we still have to perform our rightful service. We are ever subject to the action of grace and always unite our efforts with grace.... But whoever believes that grace alone suffices even without any exercise of our will or subduing of our desire, such a one does nothing else but declare that no one is obliged to pray, watch, fast, take pity on the needy, or perform works of mercy,” etc. “Opp.,” ed. Goldast, p. 375sqq., in Drews, “Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” Leipzig, 1884, p. 119.[157]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 131.[158]Feb. 2, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 408.[159]See vol. iii., p. 462 ff.[160]Adolf Harnack, “DG.,” 34, p. 850.[161]Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 698, n. 1, p. 737.[162]Harnack,ib., p. 831 f.[163]“Confutatio calumn. resp.,” E 2a. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 39.[164]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 208.[165]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 33.[166]Köstlin,ib., pp. 284, 295.[167]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. Köstlin, however (p. 275 f.), points out that Luther nevertheless threatens those who refuse to accept his injunctions. Cp. below, xxix., 9.[168]“Werke,”ib., 7², p. 68.[169]Ib., 10², p. 108.[170]On dying spiritually, cp. vol. i., p. 169 andpassim.[171]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 108.[172]Ib.[173]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 206.[174]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 25. Cp. on Luther’s restriction of good works to practical love of our neighbour, vol. iv., p. 477 ff., and above, p. 26, 38 f.[175]Chr. E. Luthardt, “Die Ethik Luthers in ihren Grundzügen,”², 1875, p. 70.[176]Cp. “Compend. totius theol. Hugonis Argentorat.O.P.,” V. cap. ult.[177]Quoted from Luthardt,ib., pp. 70-73.[178]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 68.[179]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 502 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 365.[180]Ib., pp. 507, 509=370, 372.[181]Ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 25. Cp. Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 705.[182]“Werke,” Erl. ed. 15², p. 60. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 2, p. 273sqq.; 19, p. 18; 24, p. 463,sq.“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, pp. 115, 172.[183]Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 169 f., the passages quoted.[184]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 340; Erl. ed., 7², p. 261.—For the theological and psychological influences which led him to these statements, see vol. i., pp. 72 ff., 149 ff.[185]Cp. what Luther says in his Comm. on Romans in 1515-16: It depends entirely “on the gracious Will of God whether a thing is to be good or evil,” and “Nothing is of its own nature good, nothing of its own nature evil,” etc., vol. i., p. 211 f.[186]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 109, “In Genesim,” c. 3.[187]See vol. i., p. 148 f. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 527, n. 1.[188]Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 528, n. 2.[189]Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 527. Cp. our vol. i., p. 148 f.[190]“In 2 Sent.,” dist. 28, a. 1 ad 4. Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 482, n. 1. Cp. Luther’s frequent statement, already sufficiently considered in our vol. iv., p. 476 f., in which he sums up his new standpoint: Good works never make a good man, but good men perform good works.[191]Cp. Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 598.[192]Denifle-Weiss, p. 604. Cp. also p. 600, n. 2, where Denifle remarks: “Being an Occamist he never understood actual grace.”[193]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 60. After the words quoted above follows the remarkable passage: One builds churches, another makes pilgrimages, etc. “These are self-chosen works which God has not commanded.... Such self-chosen works are nought ... are sin.”[194]Ib., p. 61 f.[195]“Symb. Bücher,” ed. Müller-Kolde,10, p. 599 f.[196]Ib.The Thesis of man’s lack of freedom is bluntly expressed on p. 589, and in the sequel it is pointed out that in Luther’s larger Catechism not one word is found concerning free-will. Reference is made to his comparison of man with the lifeless pillar of salt (p. 593), and to Augustine’s “Confessions” (p. 596).[197]The last remark is from Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 857. Cp. our vol. iii., p. 348 ff. andpassim.[198]“Symb. Bücher,”ib., p. 601.[199]Ib.[200]Ib., p. 602.[201]Cp. vol. ii., pp. 232, 265 f., 290.[202]Quoted from Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 758. On the statement “without on that account being unjust” see vol. i., p. 187 ff., vol. ii, p. 268 f.[203]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 675; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 207. Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 757.[204]Cp. vol. ii., p. 294 ff, and below, xxxv., 2.[205]The above largely reproduces Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², p. 81 ff.[206]See our vol. ii., p. 298 f.[207]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 439; Erl. ed., 43, p. 211. Exposition of Mt. v.-vii. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297 f., and vol. iii., pp. 52 f., 60: A prince, as a Christian, must not even defend himself, since a Christian is dead to the world.[208]“Werke,”ib.[209]“Jugenderinnerungen aus seinem Nachlasse,” Jena, 1909, p. 155 f.[210]Cp. vol. ii., p. 140 ff.; vol. iii., p. 187 ff.; vol. iv., p. 130 f.[211]Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², p. 81.[212]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 280 f.[213]Cp. vol. ii., p. 107 for Luther’s earlier idea of the “holy brotherhood of spirits,” in which “omnia sunt indifferentia et libera.” See also vol. vi., xxxviii., 3.[214]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 108.[215]Ib., Weim. ed., 11, p. 255; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523.[216]Ib.[217]Ib., p. 252=70.[218]Ib., p. 251=68.[219]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 451.[220]Ib., p. 445.[221]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 236. Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur, 1533. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 294, and vol. iv., p. 331.[222]Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², pp. 93-96.[223]Cp. vol. iv., p. 127 ff., on the high esteem of worldly callings in the period previous to Luther’s. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 725 ff.).[224]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 42 f.[225]Cp. W. Walther, “Die christliche Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 50, where Ritschl’s opinion is disputed. The above complaint of Luther’s “uncertain way” is from Ritschl, who was not the first to make it; the Bible objection is also much older. It matters nothing that in addition to the faith usually extolled as the source of works, Luther also mentions the Holy Ghost (see passages in Walther, p. 46 f.) and once even speaks of the new feeling as though it were a gift of the Spirit dwelling in His very substance in the believer. (“Opp. lat. exeg,.” 19, p. 109sq.) These are reminiscences of his Catholic days and have in reality nothing to do with his doctrine of Imputation.[226]“Symbolik,” § 25.[227]Ib., § 26.[228]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.[229]Ib.[230]p. 111.[231]Owing to his assertion of man’s unfreedom and passivity, Luther found it very difficult to retain the true meaning of conscience. So long as he thought in any way as a Catholic he recognised the inner voice, the “synteresis,” that urges us to what is good and reproves what is evil, leaving man freedom of choice; this we see from his first Commentary on the Psalms, above, vol. i., p. 76 f. But already in his Commentary on Romans he characterised the “synteresis,” and the assumption of any freedom of choice on man’s part, as the loophole through which the old theology had dragged in its errors concerning grace. (Above, vol. i., p. 233 f.)[232]Cp. W. Walther, “Die christl. Sittlichkeit,” p. 31.[233]Above, vol. iv., p. 227. “You are to believe without doubting what God Himself has spoken to you, for I have God’s authority and commission to speak to and to comfort you.”[234]Letter of Aug. 21, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680: “Believe me, Christ speaks through me.”[235]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 220: “persuasi mihi, esse de coelo vocem Dei.”[236]Letter of March 8, 1544, “Briefe,”ib., p. 636.[237]In the letter quoted in n. 2,ib., p. 679 f.
[1]“Gesch. der Moral,” Göttingen, 1908, p. 209.[2]Cp. the passages quoted in Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 11.[3]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 516; Erl. ed., 34, p. 138.[4]Ib., 10, 2, p. 295=16², p. 532.[5]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 7.[6]Vol. ii., p. 239 f. and vol. iv., p. 435. Cp. Luther’s own words,passim, in our previous volumes.[7]Comm. on Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557; Irmischer, 2, p. 144.[8]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, p. 495; Erl. ed., 51, p. 90. Cp. our vol. iv., p. 436.[9]Ib., p. 495=91.[10]To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.[11]W. Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” Berlin, 1908, p. 310.[12]Braun,ib., p. 310-312.[13]“Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 207; Irmischer, 1, p. 172.[14]“Leitfaden zum Stud. der DG,” Halle, 1906, p. 722.[15]Ib., pp. 770 f., 773 f., 778.[16]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 771, n. 4.[17]But cp. what Loofs says,ib., p. 772, n. 5.[18]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 153.[19]Ib., 10², p. 96.[20]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 721 f.[21]“Disput.,” ed. P. Drews, p. 159; cp.ib., pp. 126, 136 f., 156.[22]“Dixi ... quod christianus nullam prorsus legem habeat, sed quod tota illi lex abrogata sit cum suis terroribus et vexationibus.” “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 668 f.; Irmischer, 2, p. 263.[23]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 238 f.[24]Ib., Weim. ed., 24, p. 10; Erl. ed., 33, p. 13. Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 764, n. 2.[25]Loofs,ib., p. 773, where he cites the “Comm. on Gal.” (1535), Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 209; Irmischer, 1, p. 174.[26]“Quia Paulus hic versatur in loco iustificationis, ... necessitas postulabat, ut de lege tamquam de re contemptissima loqueretur, neque satis viliter et odiose, cum in hoc argumento versamur, de ea loqui possumus.” “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557; Irmischer, 2, p. 144. “Conscientia perterrefacta ... nihil de lege et peccato scire debet, sed tantum de Christo.”Ib., p. 207 f.=p. 173sq.Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 279 f. (“Tischreden”) and “Opp. lat. var.” 4, p. 427.[27]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 775. Luther here refers to Rom. v. 20; vii. 9, etc.[28]“Contritus lege tantum abest ut perveniat ad gratiam, ut longius ab ea discedat.” “Disput.,” ed. P. Drews, p. 284.[29]“Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 498; 40, 1, p. 208; Irmischer, 3, p. 236; 1, p. 173.[30]Loofs,ib., p. 775 f.[31]“Quæ (conscientia) sæpe ad desperationem, ad gladium et ad laqueum homines adigit.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 330; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 141sq.[32]P. 737, n.[33]Mt. xi. 30; Ps. cxviii. 165.[34]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 357; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 392. Luther frequently uses the term “conteri lege.”[35]“Dices enim: Peccata mea non sunt mea, quia non sunt in me, sed sunt aliena, Christi videlicet; non ergo me lædere poterunt.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 330; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 141.[36]“Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 436; Irmischer, 2, p. 17.[37]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 723; Erl. ed., 16², p. 48.[38]Ib., 10, 1, l. p. 338 f. = 7², p. 259 ff.[39]See, however, below, vol. vi., xxxvii., 2.[40]Vol. i., p. 317 f. andpassim.[41]Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 260.—Ammon (“Hdb. der chr. Sittenlehre,” 1, 1823, p. 76) laments that Luther “regarded the moral law merely as a vision of terror,” and that according to him “the essence of the Christian religion consisted, not in moral perfection, but in faith.” De Wette, “Christl. Sittenlehre,” 2, 2, 1821, p. 280 f., thinks that an ethical system might have been erected on the antithesis set up by Luther between the Law and the Gospel and on his theories of Christian freedom, “but that Luther was not equal to doing so. He was too much taken up with his fight against the Catholic holiness-by-works to devote all the attention he should to the moral side of the question and not enough of a scholar even to dream of any connection between faith and morality being feasible.”[42]Mathesius,ib.The Note in question is by Caspar Heydenreich.[43]“Christl. Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 91 f.[44]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 261.[45]Cp. the passages cited above, p. 9 ff., and vols. iii. and iv.passim.[46]It was Luther himself who published the Antinomian theses in two series on Dec. 1, 1537. Cp. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 420sqq.The most offensive of these theses Luther described as the outcome of Agricola’s teaching and attributed them to one of the latter’s pupils; Agricola, however, refused to admit that the propositions were his. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 458), who, after attempting to harmonise Luther’s earlier and later teaching on the Law, proceeds: “He paid no heed to the fact that Agricola was seeking to root sin out of the heart of the believer, though in a way all his own, and which Luther distrusted, nor did he make any distinction between what Agricola merely hinted at and what others carried to extremes: in the one he already saw the other embodied. All this was characteristic enough of Luther’s way of conducting controversy.”[47]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 434 (Thes. 17), 428 (Thes. 10).[48]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 352.[49]Ib.[50]Ib., p. 357.[51]Ib., p. 403.[52]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 153, Sermon of July 1, 5th Sunday after Trinity, andib., 14², p. 178, Sermon of Sep. 30, 18th Sunday after Trinity. Cp. Buchwald, “Ungedruckte Predigten Luthers,” 3, p. 108 ff. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 457.[53]“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 323.[54]Cp. Drews, “Disputationen Luthers,” pp. 382, 388, 394; G. Kawerau, “Joh. Agricola,” 1881, p. 194.[55]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 430sq.[56]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 1 ff. (publ. early in 1539). Also “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 147 ff.[57]“Briefe,”ib., p. 154.[58]To Melanchthon, Feb. 2, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 84.[59]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 35 (Table-Talk). Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 462 f.[60](In March, 1540) see C. E. Förstemann, “N. Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Kirchenreformation,” 1, 1842, reprinted, p. 317 ff.[61]Ib., p. 321 ff.; also in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 20, p. 2061 ff., and “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.[62]Förstemann,ib., p. 325. The quotation is from G. Kawerau, “Joh. Agricola,” “RE. f. prot. Theol.”[63]Förstemann,ib., p. 349.[64]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 464.[65]E. Kroker, “Katharina von Bora,” 1906, p. 280, from Agricola’s Notes, pub. by E. Thiele.[66]Cp. Kawerau in the Article referred to above, p. 20, n. 3.[67]“Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.[68]Melanchthon to Willibald Ransberck (Ramsbeck), Jan. 26, 1560, publ. by Nic. Müller in “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 139.[69]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 90. For other statements of Luther’s see our vol. iii., p. 401.[70]Loofs,ib., p. 858.[71]On Luther’s attitude towards penance see our vol. iii., pp. 184 ff., 196.[72]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 424.[73]See above, p. 11, n. 2.[74]“DG.,” 34, p. 842.[75]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 860, n. 2 and 4; 790, n. 7, and Harnack,ib.[76]Harnack (loc. cit.) points out that Luther’s statements on the subject do not agree when examined in detail.[77]E.g., Lipsius, “Luthers Lehre von der Busse,” 1892.[78]E.g., Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers und ihre Darstellung in neuester Zeit,” 1900.[79]To the latter passage (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 7) E. F. Fischer draws attention (“Luthers Sermo de pœnitentia von 1518,” 1906, p. 36). Galley (loc. cit., p. 20) had also referred to the same as being a further development of Luther’s doctrine on penance.—On Luther’s shifting attitude in regard to the motive of fear see our vol. iv., p. 455 f.[80]“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 452.[81]Ib., p. 402.[82]Ib., pp. 402-404.[83]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 206 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 127.[84]Ib., Erl. ed., 15², p. 40.[85]Ib., Weim. ed., 7, p. 36; Erl. ed., 27, p. 196.[86]Ib., p. 30=189.[87]“Comm. in ep. ad. Gal.,” 3, p. 365 (Irmischer).[88]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 49, p. 114 f., Exposition of John xiv.-xvi.[89]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 30 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189 f.[90]Ib., 6, p. 269 f.=16², p. 212, “Sermon von den guten Wercken,” 1520.[91]Our account is from Walther (above, p. 14, n. 1), p. 75 ff. His faithful rendering of Luther’s thought shows how actual grace is excluded.[92]34, p. 460.[93]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 29 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 188. “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.” Cp.ib., Erl. ed., 7², p. 257.[94]Walther,ib., p. 99.[95]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 249; Erl. ed., 16², p. 184.[96]Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, where the idea that faith “then does all the needful,” and that works are a natural product of faith is summed up thus: “Opera propter fidem fiunt.”[97]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 386; Erl. ed., 51, p. 479, in 1523, on 1 Peter iv. 19. Cp. also Erl. ed., 18², pp. 330, 333 f., in 1532, on 1 John iv. 17.[98]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 273.[99]Ib., 13², p. 97.[100]Cp. our vol. iv., p. 442.[101]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 219 f.[102]Ib., 14², p. 257.[103]Cp. Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 737. Hence Luther also says: “Dum bonus aut malus quisquam efficitur, non hoc ab operibus, sed a fide vel incredulitate oritur.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 62; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 239.[104]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 220.[105]See below, ch. xxxii., 6.[106]Printed, in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 524.[107]The first revised by Cruciger. Aurifaber published his notes four months after the sermons, which, as the Preface points out, “might well be taken as a standing witness to his [Luther’s] doctrine.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 501.[108]“Werke,” Erl. ed.,ib., p. 551.[109]Ib., p. 552.[110]Ib., p. 551.[111]Ib., p. 554.[112]“Comm. on Gal.,” 1, p. 196 (Irmischer).[113]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 559; Erl. ed., 12², p. 175. “Comm. on Gal.” (Irmischer), 1, p. 196.[114]Ib., Erl. ed., 17², p. 94; 49, p. 348.[115]Ib., 58, pp. 343, 347.[116]See above, p. 26 f., and vol. ii., p. 27 ff.[117]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553.[118]Ib., p. 548.[119]Ib.[120]Ib., p. 549.[121]Ib., p. 554.[122]Ib., p. 555.[123]Cp. p. 552: “Help me that I may, with gratitude, praise and exalt Thy Son.”[124]Köstlin’s summary,ib., p. 206.[125]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 40. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 13, p. 144.[126]Köstlin,ib., p. 207.[127]Cp. vol. i.,passim.[128]Köstlin,ib., p. 204.[129]In the Eisleben Sermons, p. 548.[130]On Luther’s attitude towards the supernatural moral order, see xxix., 5.[131]Cp. vol. ii., p. 223 ff., particularly p. 240 ff.[132]See above, p. 32, n. 4.[133]Köstlin,ib., p. 206.[134]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 346.[135]Ib., 20², 2, p. 548.[136]Ib., p. 545.[137]Ib., p. 549 f.[138]Ib., p. 551.[139]Luther’s opposite doctrine, which is of importance to the matter under consideration, is expressed by Köstlin (ib., p. 126 f.) as follows: Luther “does not make guilt and condemnation follow on the act which is contrary to God’s will, nor even on the determination to commit such an act, but on the inward motion, or concupiscence, nay, in the inborn evil propensity [even of the baptised] which exists prior to any conscious motion.... We do not find in his writings any further information on the other questions here involved” (e.g. of the children who die unbaptised, etc.).[140]In the Eisleben sermons,ib., p. 551.[141]Ib., p. 546.[142]“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 159. Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 385. Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 857, n. 4, and 770, n. 4.[143]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 153.[144]Ib., 13², p. 307.[145]Ib., p. 305 ff.[146]Ib., 15², p. 524. Köstlin,ib., p. 213.[147]Cp.ib., 43, p. 362 ff.[148]The headings in W. Walther’s “Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” pp. 100, 106, 120, 125 are as above.[149]Above, p. 32 f.[150]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 304 f.[151]Walther,ib., p. 102.[152]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553.[153]Ib., 12², p. 219.[154]Ib., 8², p. 119, in the exposition of 1 Cor. xiii. 2: “And though I had all faith and could remove mountains and had not charity, I am nothing.”[155]Ib., 15², p. 40.[156]Willibald Pirkheimer confronted Luther with the following statement of the Catholic teaching: “We know that free-will of itself without grace cannot suffice. We refer all things back to the Divine grace, but we believe, that, after the reception of that grace without which we are nothing, we still have to perform our rightful service. We are ever subject to the action of grace and always unite our efforts with grace.... But whoever believes that grace alone suffices even without any exercise of our will or subduing of our desire, such a one does nothing else but declare that no one is obliged to pray, watch, fast, take pity on the needy, or perform works of mercy,” etc. “Opp.,” ed. Goldast, p. 375sqq., in Drews, “Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” Leipzig, 1884, p. 119.[157]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 131.[158]Feb. 2, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 408.[159]See vol. iii., p. 462 ff.[160]Adolf Harnack, “DG.,” 34, p. 850.[161]Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 698, n. 1, p. 737.[162]Harnack,ib., p. 831 f.[163]“Confutatio calumn. resp.,” E 2a. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 39.[164]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 208.[165]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 33.[166]Köstlin,ib., pp. 284, 295.[167]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. Köstlin, however (p. 275 f.), points out that Luther nevertheless threatens those who refuse to accept his injunctions. Cp. below, xxix., 9.[168]“Werke,”ib., 7², p. 68.[169]Ib., 10², p. 108.[170]On dying spiritually, cp. vol. i., p. 169 andpassim.[171]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 108.[172]Ib.[173]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 206.[174]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 25. Cp. on Luther’s restriction of good works to practical love of our neighbour, vol. iv., p. 477 ff., and above, p. 26, 38 f.[175]Chr. E. Luthardt, “Die Ethik Luthers in ihren Grundzügen,”², 1875, p. 70.[176]Cp. “Compend. totius theol. Hugonis Argentorat.O.P.,” V. cap. ult.[177]Quoted from Luthardt,ib., pp. 70-73.[178]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 68.[179]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 502 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 365.[180]Ib., pp. 507, 509=370, 372.[181]Ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 25. Cp. Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 705.[182]“Werke,” Erl. ed. 15², p. 60. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 2, p. 273sqq.; 19, p. 18; 24, p. 463,sq.“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, pp. 115, 172.[183]Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 169 f., the passages quoted.[184]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 340; Erl. ed., 7², p. 261.—For the theological and psychological influences which led him to these statements, see vol. i., pp. 72 ff., 149 ff.[185]Cp. what Luther says in his Comm. on Romans in 1515-16: It depends entirely “on the gracious Will of God whether a thing is to be good or evil,” and “Nothing is of its own nature good, nothing of its own nature evil,” etc., vol. i., p. 211 f.[186]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 109, “In Genesim,” c. 3.[187]See vol. i., p. 148 f. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 527, n. 1.[188]Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 528, n. 2.[189]Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 527. Cp. our vol. i., p. 148 f.[190]“In 2 Sent.,” dist. 28, a. 1 ad 4. Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 482, n. 1. Cp. Luther’s frequent statement, already sufficiently considered in our vol. iv., p. 476 f., in which he sums up his new standpoint: Good works never make a good man, but good men perform good works.[191]Cp. Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 598.[192]Denifle-Weiss, p. 604. Cp. also p. 600, n. 2, where Denifle remarks: “Being an Occamist he never understood actual grace.”[193]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 60. After the words quoted above follows the remarkable passage: One builds churches, another makes pilgrimages, etc. “These are self-chosen works which God has not commanded.... Such self-chosen works are nought ... are sin.”[194]Ib., p. 61 f.[195]“Symb. Bücher,” ed. Müller-Kolde,10, p. 599 f.[196]Ib.The Thesis of man’s lack of freedom is bluntly expressed on p. 589, and in the sequel it is pointed out that in Luther’s larger Catechism not one word is found concerning free-will. Reference is made to his comparison of man with the lifeless pillar of salt (p. 593), and to Augustine’s “Confessions” (p. 596).[197]The last remark is from Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 857. Cp. our vol. iii., p. 348 ff. andpassim.[198]“Symb. Bücher,”ib., p. 601.[199]Ib.[200]Ib., p. 602.[201]Cp. vol. ii., pp. 232, 265 f., 290.[202]Quoted from Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 758. On the statement “without on that account being unjust” see vol. i., p. 187 ff., vol. ii, p. 268 f.[203]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 675; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 207. Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 757.[204]Cp. vol. ii., p. 294 ff, and below, xxxv., 2.[205]The above largely reproduces Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², p. 81 ff.[206]See our vol. ii., p. 298 f.[207]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 439; Erl. ed., 43, p. 211. Exposition of Mt. v.-vii. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297 f., and vol. iii., pp. 52 f., 60: A prince, as a Christian, must not even defend himself, since a Christian is dead to the world.[208]“Werke,”ib.[209]“Jugenderinnerungen aus seinem Nachlasse,” Jena, 1909, p. 155 f.[210]Cp. vol. ii., p. 140 ff.; vol. iii., p. 187 ff.; vol. iv., p. 130 f.[211]Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², p. 81.[212]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 280 f.[213]Cp. vol. ii., p. 107 for Luther’s earlier idea of the “holy brotherhood of spirits,” in which “omnia sunt indifferentia et libera.” See also vol. vi., xxxviii., 3.[214]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 108.[215]Ib., Weim. ed., 11, p. 255; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523.[216]Ib.[217]Ib., p. 252=70.[218]Ib., p. 251=68.[219]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 451.[220]Ib., p. 445.[221]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 236. Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur, 1533. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 294, and vol. iv., p. 331.[222]Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², pp. 93-96.[223]Cp. vol. iv., p. 127 ff., on the high esteem of worldly callings in the period previous to Luther’s. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 725 ff.).[224]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 42 f.[225]Cp. W. Walther, “Die christliche Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 50, where Ritschl’s opinion is disputed. The above complaint of Luther’s “uncertain way” is from Ritschl, who was not the first to make it; the Bible objection is also much older. It matters nothing that in addition to the faith usually extolled as the source of works, Luther also mentions the Holy Ghost (see passages in Walther, p. 46 f.) and once even speaks of the new feeling as though it were a gift of the Spirit dwelling in His very substance in the believer. (“Opp. lat. exeg,.” 19, p. 109sq.) These are reminiscences of his Catholic days and have in reality nothing to do with his doctrine of Imputation.[226]“Symbolik,” § 25.[227]Ib., § 26.[228]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.[229]Ib.[230]p. 111.[231]Owing to his assertion of man’s unfreedom and passivity, Luther found it very difficult to retain the true meaning of conscience. So long as he thought in any way as a Catholic he recognised the inner voice, the “synteresis,” that urges us to what is good and reproves what is evil, leaving man freedom of choice; this we see from his first Commentary on the Psalms, above, vol. i., p. 76 f. But already in his Commentary on Romans he characterised the “synteresis,” and the assumption of any freedom of choice on man’s part, as the loophole through which the old theology had dragged in its errors concerning grace. (Above, vol. i., p. 233 f.)[232]Cp. W. Walther, “Die christl. Sittlichkeit,” p. 31.[233]Above, vol. iv., p. 227. “You are to believe without doubting what God Himself has spoken to you, for I have God’s authority and commission to speak to and to comfort you.”[234]Letter of Aug. 21, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680: “Believe me, Christ speaks through me.”[235]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 220: “persuasi mihi, esse de coelo vocem Dei.”[236]Letter of March 8, 1544, “Briefe,”ib., p. 636.[237]In the letter quoted in n. 2,ib., p. 679 f.
[1]“Gesch. der Moral,” Göttingen, 1908, p. 209.[2]Cp. the passages quoted in Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 11.[3]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 516; Erl. ed., 34, p. 138.[4]Ib., 10, 2, p. 295=16², p. 532.[5]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 7.[6]Vol. ii., p. 239 f. and vol. iv., p. 435. Cp. Luther’s own words,passim, in our previous volumes.[7]Comm. on Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557; Irmischer, 2, p. 144.[8]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, p. 495; Erl. ed., 51, p. 90. Cp. our vol. iv., p. 436.[9]Ib., p. 495=91.[10]To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.[11]W. Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” Berlin, 1908, p. 310.[12]Braun,ib., p. 310-312.[13]“Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 207; Irmischer, 1, p. 172.[14]“Leitfaden zum Stud. der DG,” Halle, 1906, p. 722.[15]Ib., pp. 770 f., 773 f., 778.[16]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 771, n. 4.[17]But cp. what Loofs says,ib., p. 772, n. 5.[18]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 153.[19]Ib., 10², p. 96.[20]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 721 f.[21]“Disput.,” ed. P. Drews, p. 159; cp.ib., pp. 126, 136 f., 156.[22]“Dixi ... quod christianus nullam prorsus legem habeat, sed quod tota illi lex abrogata sit cum suis terroribus et vexationibus.” “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 668 f.; Irmischer, 2, p. 263.[23]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 238 f.[24]Ib., Weim. ed., 24, p. 10; Erl. ed., 33, p. 13. Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 764, n. 2.[25]Loofs,ib., p. 773, where he cites the “Comm. on Gal.” (1535), Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 209; Irmischer, 1, p. 174.[26]“Quia Paulus hic versatur in loco iustificationis, ... necessitas postulabat, ut de lege tamquam de re contemptissima loqueretur, neque satis viliter et odiose, cum in hoc argumento versamur, de ea loqui possumus.” “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557; Irmischer, 2, p. 144. “Conscientia perterrefacta ... nihil de lege et peccato scire debet, sed tantum de Christo.”Ib., p. 207 f.=p. 173sq.Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 279 f. (“Tischreden”) and “Opp. lat. var.” 4, p. 427.[27]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 775. Luther here refers to Rom. v. 20; vii. 9, etc.[28]“Contritus lege tantum abest ut perveniat ad gratiam, ut longius ab ea discedat.” “Disput.,” ed. P. Drews, p. 284.[29]“Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 498; 40, 1, p. 208; Irmischer, 3, p. 236; 1, p. 173.[30]Loofs,ib., p. 775 f.[31]“Quæ (conscientia) sæpe ad desperationem, ad gladium et ad laqueum homines adigit.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 330; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 141sq.[32]P. 737, n.[33]Mt. xi. 30; Ps. cxviii. 165.[34]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 357; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 392. Luther frequently uses the term “conteri lege.”[35]“Dices enim: Peccata mea non sunt mea, quia non sunt in me, sed sunt aliena, Christi videlicet; non ergo me lædere poterunt.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 330; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 141.[36]“Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 436; Irmischer, 2, p. 17.[37]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 723; Erl. ed., 16², p. 48.[38]Ib., 10, 1, l. p. 338 f. = 7², p. 259 ff.[39]See, however, below, vol. vi., xxxvii., 2.[40]Vol. i., p. 317 f. andpassim.[41]Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 260.—Ammon (“Hdb. der chr. Sittenlehre,” 1, 1823, p. 76) laments that Luther “regarded the moral law merely as a vision of terror,” and that according to him “the essence of the Christian religion consisted, not in moral perfection, but in faith.” De Wette, “Christl. Sittenlehre,” 2, 2, 1821, p. 280 f., thinks that an ethical system might have been erected on the antithesis set up by Luther between the Law and the Gospel and on his theories of Christian freedom, “but that Luther was not equal to doing so. He was too much taken up with his fight against the Catholic holiness-by-works to devote all the attention he should to the moral side of the question and not enough of a scholar even to dream of any connection between faith and morality being feasible.”[42]Mathesius,ib.The Note in question is by Caspar Heydenreich.[43]“Christl. Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 91 f.[44]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 261.[45]Cp. the passages cited above, p. 9 ff., and vols. iii. and iv.passim.[46]It was Luther himself who published the Antinomian theses in two series on Dec. 1, 1537. Cp. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 420sqq.The most offensive of these theses Luther described as the outcome of Agricola’s teaching and attributed them to one of the latter’s pupils; Agricola, however, refused to admit that the propositions were his. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 458), who, after attempting to harmonise Luther’s earlier and later teaching on the Law, proceeds: “He paid no heed to the fact that Agricola was seeking to root sin out of the heart of the believer, though in a way all his own, and which Luther distrusted, nor did he make any distinction between what Agricola merely hinted at and what others carried to extremes: in the one he already saw the other embodied. All this was characteristic enough of Luther’s way of conducting controversy.”[47]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 434 (Thes. 17), 428 (Thes. 10).[48]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 352.[49]Ib.[50]Ib., p. 357.[51]Ib., p. 403.[52]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 153, Sermon of July 1, 5th Sunday after Trinity, andib., 14², p. 178, Sermon of Sep. 30, 18th Sunday after Trinity. Cp. Buchwald, “Ungedruckte Predigten Luthers,” 3, p. 108 ff. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 457.[53]“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 323.[54]Cp. Drews, “Disputationen Luthers,” pp. 382, 388, 394; G. Kawerau, “Joh. Agricola,” 1881, p. 194.[55]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 430sq.[56]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 1 ff. (publ. early in 1539). Also “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 147 ff.[57]“Briefe,”ib., p. 154.[58]To Melanchthon, Feb. 2, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 84.[59]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 35 (Table-Talk). Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 462 f.[60](In March, 1540) see C. E. Förstemann, “N. Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Kirchenreformation,” 1, 1842, reprinted, p. 317 ff.[61]Ib., p. 321 ff.; also in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 20, p. 2061 ff., and “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.[62]Förstemann,ib., p. 325. The quotation is from G. Kawerau, “Joh. Agricola,” “RE. f. prot. Theol.”[63]Förstemann,ib., p. 349.[64]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 464.[65]E. Kroker, “Katharina von Bora,” 1906, p. 280, from Agricola’s Notes, pub. by E. Thiele.[66]Cp. Kawerau in the Article referred to above, p. 20, n. 3.[67]“Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.[68]Melanchthon to Willibald Ransberck (Ramsbeck), Jan. 26, 1560, publ. by Nic. Müller in “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 139.[69]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 90. For other statements of Luther’s see our vol. iii., p. 401.[70]Loofs,ib., p. 858.[71]On Luther’s attitude towards penance see our vol. iii., pp. 184 ff., 196.[72]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 424.[73]See above, p. 11, n. 2.[74]“DG.,” 34, p. 842.[75]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 860, n. 2 and 4; 790, n. 7, and Harnack,ib.[76]Harnack (loc. cit.) points out that Luther’s statements on the subject do not agree when examined in detail.[77]E.g., Lipsius, “Luthers Lehre von der Busse,” 1892.[78]E.g., Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers und ihre Darstellung in neuester Zeit,” 1900.[79]To the latter passage (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 7) E. F. Fischer draws attention (“Luthers Sermo de pœnitentia von 1518,” 1906, p. 36). Galley (loc. cit., p. 20) had also referred to the same as being a further development of Luther’s doctrine on penance.—On Luther’s shifting attitude in regard to the motive of fear see our vol. iv., p. 455 f.[80]“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 452.[81]Ib., p. 402.[82]Ib., pp. 402-404.[83]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 206 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 127.[84]Ib., Erl. ed., 15², p. 40.[85]Ib., Weim. ed., 7, p. 36; Erl. ed., 27, p. 196.[86]Ib., p. 30=189.[87]“Comm. in ep. ad. Gal.,” 3, p. 365 (Irmischer).[88]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 49, p. 114 f., Exposition of John xiv.-xvi.[89]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 30 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189 f.[90]Ib., 6, p. 269 f.=16², p. 212, “Sermon von den guten Wercken,” 1520.[91]Our account is from Walther (above, p. 14, n. 1), p. 75 ff. His faithful rendering of Luther’s thought shows how actual grace is excluded.[92]34, p. 460.[93]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 29 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 188. “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.” Cp.ib., Erl. ed., 7², p. 257.[94]Walther,ib., p. 99.[95]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 249; Erl. ed., 16², p. 184.[96]Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, where the idea that faith “then does all the needful,” and that works are a natural product of faith is summed up thus: “Opera propter fidem fiunt.”[97]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 386; Erl. ed., 51, p. 479, in 1523, on 1 Peter iv. 19. Cp. also Erl. ed., 18², pp. 330, 333 f., in 1532, on 1 John iv. 17.[98]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 273.[99]Ib., 13², p. 97.[100]Cp. our vol. iv., p. 442.[101]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 219 f.[102]Ib., 14², p. 257.[103]Cp. Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 737. Hence Luther also says: “Dum bonus aut malus quisquam efficitur, non hoc ab operibus, sed a fide vel incredulitate oritur.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 62; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 239.[104]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 220.[105]See below, ch. xxxii., 6.[106]Printed, in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 524.[107]The first revised by Cruciger. Aurifaber published his notes four months after the sermons, which, as the Preface points out, “might well be taken as a standing witness to his [Luther’s] doctrine.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 501.[108]“Werke,” Erl. ed.,ib., p. 551.[109]Ib., p. 552.[110]Ib., p. 551.[111]Ib., p. 554.[112]“Comm. on Gal.,” 1, p. 196 (Irmischer).[113]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 559; Erl. ed., 12², p. 175. “Comm. on Gal.” (Irmischer), 1, p. 196.[114]Ib., Erl. ed., 17², p. 94; 49, p. 348.[115]Ib., 58, pp. 343, 347.[116]See above, p. 26 f., and vol. ii., p. 27 ff.[117]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553.[118]Ib., p. 548.[119]Ib.[120]Ib., p. 549.[121]Ib., p. 554.[122]Ib., p. 555.[123]Cp. p. 552: “Help me that I may, with gratitude, praise and exalt Thy Son.”[124]Köstlin’s summary,ib., p. 206.[125]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 40. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 13, p. 144.[126]Köstlin,ib., p. 207.[127]Cp. vol. i.,passim.[128]Köstlin,ib., p. 204.[129]In the Eisleben Sermons, p. 548.[130]On Luther’s attitude towards the supernatural moral order, see xxix., 5.[131]Cp. vol. ii., p. 223 ff., particularly p. 240 ff.[132]See above, p. 32, n. 4.[133]Köstlin,ib., p. 206.[134]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 346.[135]Ib., 20², 2, p. 548.[136]Ib., p. 545.[137]Ib., p. 549 f.[138]Ib., p. 551.[139]Luther’s opposite doctrine, which is of importance to the matter under consideration, is expressed by Köstlin (ib., p. 126 f.) as follows: Luther “does not make guilt and condemnation follow on the act which is contrary to God’s will, nor even on the determination to commit such an act, but on the inward motion, or concupiscence, nay, in the inborn evil propensity [even of the baptised] which exists prior to any conscious motion.... We do not find in his writings any further information on the other questions here involved” (e.g. of the children who die unbaptised, etc.).[140]In the Eisleben sermons,ib., p. 551.[141]Ib., p. 546.[142]“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 159. Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 385. Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 857, n. 4, and 770, n. 4.[143]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 153.[144]Ib., 13², p. 307.[145]Ib., p. 305 ff.[146]Ib., 15², p. 524. Köstlin,ib., p. 213.[147]Cp.ib., 43, p. 362 ff.[148]The headings in W. Walther’s “Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” pp. 100, 106, 120, 125 are as above.[149]Above, p. 32 f.[150]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 304 f.[151]Walther,ib., p. 102.[152]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553.[153]Ib., 12², p. 219.[154]Ib., 8², p. 119, in the exposition of 1 Cor. xiii. 2: “And though I had all faith and could remove mountains and had not charity, I am nothing.”[155]Ib., 15², p. 40.[156]Willibald Pirkheimer confronted Luther with the following statement of the Catholic teaching: “We know that free-will of itself without grace cannot suffice. We refer all things back to the Divine grace, but we believe, that, after the reception of that grace without which we are nothing, we still have to perform our rightful service. We are ever subject to the action of grace and always unite our efforts with grace.... But whoever believes that grace alone suffices even without any exercise of our will or subduing of our desire, such a one does nothing else but declare that no one is obliged to pray, watch, fast, take pity on the needy, or perform works of mercy,” etc. “Opp.,” ed. Goldast, p. 375sqq., in Drews, “Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” Leipzig, 1884, p. 119.[157]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 131.[158]Feb. 2, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 408.[159]See vol. iii., p. 462 ff.[160]Adolf Harnack, “DG.,” 34, p. 850.[161]Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 698, n. 1, p. 737.[162]Harnack,ib., p. 831 f.[163]“Confutatio calumn. resp.,” E 2a. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 39.[164]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 208.[165]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 33.[166]Köstlin,ib., pp. 284, 295.[167]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. Köstlin, however (p. 275 f.), points out that Luther nevertheless threatens those who refuse to accept his injunctions. Cp. below, xxix., 9.[168]“Werke,”ib., 7², p. 68.[169]Ib., 10², p. 108.[170]On dying spiritually, cp. vol. i., p. 169 andpassim.[171]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 108.[172]Ib.[173]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 206.[174]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 25. Cp. on Luther’s restriction of good works to practical love of our neighbour, vol. iv., p. 477 ff., and above, p. 26, 38 f.[175]Chr. E. Luthardt, “Die Ethik Luthers in ihren Grundzügen,”², 1875, p. 70.[176]Cp. “Compend. totius theol. Hugonis Argentorat.O.P.,” V. cap. ult.[177]Quoted from Luthardt,ib., pp. 70-73.[178]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 68.[179]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 502 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 365.[180]Ib., pp. 507, 509=370, 372.[181]Ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 25. Cp. Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 705.[182]“Werke,” Erl. ed. 15², p. 60. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 2, p. 273sqq.; 19, p. 18; 24, p. 463,sq.“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, pp. 115, 172.[183]Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 169 f., the passages quoted.[184]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 340; Erl. ed., 7², p. 261.—For the theological and psychological influences which led him to these statements, see vol. i., pp. 72 ff., 149 ff.[185]Cp. what Luther says in his Comm. on Romans in 1515-16: It depends entirely “on the gracious Will of God whether a thing is to be good or evil,” and “Nothing is of its own nature good, nothing of its own nature evil,” etc., vol. i., p. 211 f.[186]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 109, “In Genesim,” c. 3.[187]See vol. i., p. 148 f. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 527, n. 1.[188]Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 528, n. 2.[189]Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 527. Cp. our vol. i., p. 148 f.[190]“In 2 Sent.,” dist. 28, a. 1 ad 4. Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 482, n. 1. Cp. Luther’s frequent statement, already sufficiently considered in our vol. iv., p. 476 f., in which he sums up his new standpoint: Good works never make a good man, but good men perform good works.[191]Cp. Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 598.[192]Denifle-Weiss, p. 604. Cp. also p. 600, n. 2, where Denifle remarks: “Being an Occamist he never understood actual grace.”[193]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 60. After the words quoted above follows the remarkable passage: One builds churches, another makes pilgrimages, etc. “These are self-chosen works which God has not commanded.... Such self-chosen works are nought ... are sin.”[194]Ib., p. 61 f.[195]“Symb. Bücher,” ed. Müller-Kolde,10, p. 599 f.[196]Ib.The Thesis of man’s lack of freedom is bluntly expressed on p. 589, and in the sequel it is pointed out that in Luther’s larger Catechism not one word is found concerning free-will. Reference is made to his comparison of man with the lifeless pillar of salt (p. 593), and to Augustine’s “Confessions” (p. 596).[197]The last remark is from Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 857. Cp. our vol. iii., p. 348 ff. andpassim.[198]“Symb. Bücher,”ib., p. 601.[199]Ib.[200]Ib., p. 602.[201]Cp. vol. ii., pp. 232, 265 f., 290.[202]Quoted from Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 758. On the statement “without on that account being unjust” see vol. i., p. 187 ff., vol. ii, p. 268 f.[203]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 675; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 207. Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 757.[204]Cp. vol. ii., p. 294 ff, and below, xxxv., 2.[205]The above largely reproduces Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², p. 81 ff.[206]See our vol. ii., p. 298 f.[207]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 439; Erl. ed., 43, p. 211. Exposition of Mt. v.-vii. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297 f., and vol. iii., pp. 52 f., 60: A prince, as a Christian, must not even defend himself, since a Christian is dead to the world.[208]“Werke,”ib.[209]“Jugenderinnerungen aus seinem Nachlasse,” Jena, 1909, p. 155 f.[210]Cp. vol. ii., p. 140 ff.; vol. iii., p. 187 ff.; vol. iv., p. 130 f.[211]Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², p. 81.[212]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 280 f.[213]Cp. vol. ii., p. 107 for Luther’s earlier idea of the “holy brotherhood of spirits,” in which “omnia sunt indifferentia et libera.” See also vol. vi., xxxviii., 3.[214]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 108.[215]Ib., Weim. ed., 11, p. 255; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523.[216]Ib.[217]Ib., p. 252=70.[218]Ib., p. 251=68.[219]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 451.[220]Ib., p. 445.[221]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 236. Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur, 1533. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 294, and vol. iv., p. 331.[222]Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², pp. 93-96.[223]Cp. vol. iv., p. 127 ff., on the high esteem of worldly callings in the period previous to Luther’s. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 725 ff.).[224]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 42 f.[225]Cp. W. Walther, “Die christliche Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 50, where Ritschl’s opinion is disputed. The above complaint of Luther’s “uncertain way” is from Ritschl, who was not the first to make it; the Bible objection is also much older. It matters nothing that in addition to the faith usually extolled as the source of works, Luther also mentions the Holy Ghost (see passages in Walther, p. 46 f.) and once even speaks of the new feeling as though it were a gift of the Spirit dwelling in His very substance in the believer. (“Opp. lat. exeg,.” 19, p. 109sq.) These are reminiscences of his Catholic days and have in reality nothing to do with his doctrine of Imputation.[226]“Symbolik,” § 25.[227]Ib., § 26.[228]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.[229]Ib.[230]p. 111.[231]Owing to his assertion of man’s unfreedom and passivity, Luther found it very difficult to retain the true meaning of conscience. So long as he thought in any way as a Catholic he recognised the inner voice, the “synteresis,” that urges us to what is good and reproves what is evil, leaving man freedom of choice; this we see from his first Commentary on the Psalms, above, vol. i., p. 76 f. But already in his Commentary on Romans he characterised the “synteresis,” and the assumption of any freedom of choice on man’s part, as the loophole through which the old theology had dragged in its errors concerning grace. (Above, vol. i., p. 233 f.)[232]Cp. W. Walther, “Die christl. Sittlichkeit,” p. 31.[233]Above, vol. iv., p. 227. “You are to believe without doubting what God Himself has spoken to you, for I have God’s authority and commission to speak to and to comfort you.”[234]Letter of Aug. 21, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680: “Believe me, Christ speaks through me.”[235]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 220: “persuasi mihi, esse de coelo vocem Dei.”[236]Letter of March 8, 1544, “Briefe,”ib., p. 636.[237]In the letter quoted in n. 2,ib., p. 679 f.
[1]“Gesch. der Moral,” Göttingen, 1908, p. 209.
[2]Cp. the passages quoted in Möhler, “Symbolik,” § 11.
[3]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 24, p. 516; Erl. ed., 34, p. 138.
[4]Ib., 10, 2, p. 295=16², p. 532.
[5]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 7.
[6]Vol. ii., p. 239 f. and vol. iv., p. 435. Cp. Luther’s own words,passim, in our previous volumes.
[7]Comm. on Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557; Irmischer, 2, p. 144.
[8]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 36, p. 495; Erl. ed., 51, p. 90. Cp. our vol. iv., p. 436.
[9]Ib., p. 495=91.
[10]To Hier. Weller (July?), 1530, “Briefwechsel,” 8, p. 159.
[11]W. Braun, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” Berlin, 1908, p. 310.
[12]Braun,ib., p. 310-312.
[13]“Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 207; Irmischer, 1, p. 172.
[14]“Leitfaden zum Stud. der DG,” Halle, 1906, p. 722.
[15]Ib., pp. 770 f., 773 f., 778.
[16]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 771, n. 4.
[17]But cp. what Loofs says,ib., p. 772, n. 5.
[18]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 153.
[19]Ib., 10², p. 96.
[20]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 721 f.
[21]“Disput.,” ed. P. Drews, p. 159; cp.ib., pp. 126, 136 f., 156.
[22]“Dixi ... quod christianus nullam prorsus legem habeat, sed quod tota illi lex abrogata sit cum suis terroribus et vexationibus.” “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 668 f.; Irmischer, 2, p. 263.
[23]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 238 f.
[24]Ib., Weim. ed., 24, p. 10; Erl. ed., 33, p. 13. Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 764, n. 2.
[25]Loofs,ib., p. 773, where he cites the “Comm. on Gal.” (1535), Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 209; Irmischer, 1, p. 174.
[26]“Quia Paulus hic versatur in loco iustificationis, ... necessitas postulabat, ut de lege tamquam de re contemptissima loqueretur, neque satis viliter et odiose, cum in hoc argumento versamur, de ea loqui possumus.” “Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557; Irmischer, 2, p. 144. “Conscientia perterrefacta ... nihil de lege et peccato scire debet, sed tantum de Christo.”Ib., p. 207 f.=p. 173sq.Cp. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 279 f. (“Tischreden”) and “Opp. lat. var.” 4, p. 427.
[27]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 775. Luther here refers to Rom. v. 20; vii. 9, etc.
[28]“Contritus lege tantum abest ut perveniat ad gratiam, ut longius ab ea discedat.” “Disput.,” ed. P. Drews, p. 284.
[29]“Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 498; 40, 1, p. 208; Irmischer, 3, p. 236; 1, p. 173.
[30]Loofs,ib., p. 775 f.
[31]“Quæ (conscientia) sæpe ad desperationem, ad gladium et ad laqueum homines adigit.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 330; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 141sq.
[32]P. 737, n.
[33]Mt. xi. 30; Ps. cxviii. 165.
[34]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 357; “Opp. lat. var.,” 1, p. 392. Luther frequently uses the term “conteri lege.”
[35]“Dices enim: Peccata mea non sunt mea, quia non sunt in me, sed sunt aliena, Christi videlicet; non ergo me lædere poterunt.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 25, p. 330; “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 141.
[36]“Comm. on Gal.,” Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 436; Irmischer, 2, p. 17.
[37]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 723; Erl. ed., 16², p. 48.
[38]Ib., 10, 1, l. p. 338 f. = 7², p. 259 ff.
[39]See, however, below, vol. vi., xxxvii., 2.
[40]Vol. i., p. 317 f. andpassim.
[41]Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden,” ed. Kroker, p. 260.—Ammon (“Hdb. der chr. Sittenlehre,” 1, 1823, p. 76) laments that Luther “regarded the moral law merely as a vision of terror,” and that according to him “the essence of the Christian religion consisted, not in moral perfection, but in faith.” De Wette, “Christl. Sittenlehre,” 2, 2, 1821, p. 280 f., thinks that an ethical system might have been erected on the antithesis set up by Luther between the Law and the Gospel and on his theories of Christian freedom, “but that Luther was not equal to doing so. He was too much taken up with his fight against the Catholic holiness-by-works to devote all the attention he should to the moral side of the question and not enough of a scholar even to dream of any connection between faith and morality being feasible.”
[42]Mathesius,ib.The Note in question is by Caspar Heydenreich.
[43]“Christl. Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 91 f.
[44]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 261.
[45]Cp. the passages cited above, p. 9 ff., and vols. iii. and iv.passim.
[46]It was Luther himself who published the Antinomian theses in two series on Dec. 1, 1537. Cp. “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 420sqq.The most offensive of these theses Luther described as the outcome of Agricola’s teaching and attributed them to one of the latter’s pupils; Agricola, however, refused to admit that the propositions were his. Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau (2, p. 458), who, after attempting to harmonise Luther’s earlier and later teaching on the Law, proceeds: “He paid no heed to the fact that Agricola was seeking to root sin out of the heart of the believer, though in a way all his own, and which Luther distrusted, nor did he make any distinction between what Agricola merely hinted at and what others carried to extremes: in the one he already saw the other embodied. All this was characteristic enough of Luther’s way of conducting controversy.”
[47]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 434 (Thes. 17), 428 (Thes. 10).
[48]Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 352.
[49]Ib.
[50]Ib., p. 357.
[51]Ib., p. 403.
[52]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 153, Sermon of July 1, 5th Sunday after Trinity, andib., 14², p. 178, Sermon of Sep. 30, 18th Sunday after Trinity. Cp. Buchwald, “Ungedruckte Predigten Luthers,” 3, p. 108 ff. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 457.
[53]“Briefwechsel,” 11, p. 323.
[54]Cp. Drews, “Disputationen Luthers,” pp. 382, 388, 394; G. Kawerau, “Joh. Agricola,” 1881, p. 194.
[55]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 430sq.
[56]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 1 ff. (publ. early in 1539). Also “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 147 ff.
[57]“Briefe,”ib., p. 154.
[58]To Melanchthon, Feb. 2, 1539, “Briefwechsel,” 12, p. 84.
[59]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 61, p. 35 (Table-Talk). Cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 462 f.
[60](In March, 1540) see C. E. Förstemann, “N. Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der Kirchenreformation,” 1, 1842, reprinted, p. 317 ff.
[61]Ib., p. 321 ff.; also in “Werke,” ed. Walch, 20, p. 2061 ff., and “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.
[62]Förstemann,ib., p. 325. The quotation is from G. Kawerau, “Joh. Agricola,” “RE. f. prot. Theol.”
[63]Förstemann,ib., p. 349.
[64]Köstlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 464.
[65]E. Kroker, “Katharina von Bora,” 1906, p. 280, from Agricola’s Notes, pub. by E. Thiele.
[66]Cp. Kawerau in the Article referred to above, p. 20, n. 3.
[67]“Luthers Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.
[68]Melanchthon to Willibald Ransberck (Ramsbeck), Jan. 26, 1560, publ. by Nic. Müller in “Zeitschr. für KG.,” 14, 1894, p. 139.
[69]Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 90. For other statements of Luther’s see our vol. iii., p. 401.
[70]Loofs,ib., p. 858.
[71]On Luther’s attitude towards penance see our vol. iii., pp. 184 ff., 196.
[72]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 424.
[73]See above, p. 11, n. 2.
[74]“DG.,” 34, p. 842.
[75]Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 860, n. 2 and 4; 790, n. 7, and Harnack,ib.
[76]Harnack (loc. cit.) points out that Luther’s statements on the subject do not agree when examined in detail.
[77]E.g., Lipsius, “Luthers Lehre von der Busse,” 1892.
[78]E.g., Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers und ihre Darstellung in neuester Zeit,” 1900.
[79]To the latter passage (“Werke,” Erl. ed., 32, p. 7) E. F. Fischer draws attention (“Luthers Sermo de pœnitentia von 1518,” 1906, p. 36). Galley (loc. cit., p. 20) had also referred to the same as being a further development of Luther’s doctrine on penance.—On Luther’s shifting attitude in regard to the motive of fear see our vol. iv., p. 455 f.
[80]“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 452.
[81]Ib., p. 402.
[82]Ib., pp. 402-404.
[83]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 206 f.; Erl. ed., 16², p. 127.
[84]Ib., Erl. ed., 15², p. 40.
[85]Ib., Weim. ed., 7, p. 36; Erl. ed., 27, p. 196.
[86]Ib., p. 30=189.
[87]“Comm. in ep. ad. Gal.,” 3, p. 365 (Irmischer).
[88]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 49, p. 114 f., Exposition of John xiv.-xvi.
[89]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 30 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189 f.
[90]Ib., 6, p. 269 f.=16², p. 212, “Sermon von den guten Wercken,” 1520.
[91]Our account is from Walther (above, p. 14, n. 1), p. 75 ff. His faithful rendering of Luther’s thought shows how actual grace is excluded.
[92]34, p. 460.
[93]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 29 f.; Erl. ed., 27, p. 188. “Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen.” Cp.ib., Erl. ed., 7², p. 257.
[94]Walther,ib., p. 99.
[95]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 249; Erl. ed., 16², p. 184.
[96]Cp. “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, where the idea that faith “then does all the needful,” and that works are a natural product of faith is summed up thus: “Opera propter fidem fiunt.”
[97]Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 386; Erl. ed., 51, p. 479, in 1523, on 1 Peter iv. 19. Cp. also Erl. ed., 18², pp. 330, 333 f., in 1532, on 1 John iv. 17.
[98]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 273.
[99]Ib., 13², p. 97.
[100]Cp. our vol. iv., p. 442.
[101]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 219 f.
[102]Ib., 14², p. 257.
[103]Cp. Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 737. Hence Luther also says: “Dum bonus aut malus quisquam efficitur, non hoc ab operibus, sed a fide vel incredulitate oritur.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 62; “Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 239.
[104]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 11², p. 220.
[105]See below, ch. xxxii., 6.
[106]Printed, in “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 524.
[107]The first revised by Cruciger. Aurifaber published his notes four months after the sermons, which, as the Preface points out, “might well be taken as a standing witness to his [Luther’s] doctrine.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 501.
[108]“Werke,” Erl. ed.,ib., p. 551.
[109]Ib., p. 552.
[110]Ib., p. 551.
[111]Ib., p. 554.
[112]“Comm. on Gal.,” 1, p. 196 (Irmischer).
[113]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 559; Erl. ed., 12², p. 175. “Comm. on Gal.” (Irmischer), 1, p. 196.
[114]Ib., Erl. ed., 17², p. 94; 49, p. 348.
[115]Ib., 58, pp. 343, 347.
[116]See above, p. 26 f., and vol. ii., p. 27 ff.
[117]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553.
[118]Ib., p. 548.
[119]Ib.
[120]Ib., p. 549.
[121]Ib., p. 554.
[122]Ib., p. 555.
[123]Cp. p. 552: “Help me that I may, with gratitude, praise and exalt Thy Son.”
[124]Köstlin’s summary,ib., p. 206.
[125]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 40. Cp. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 13, p. 144.
[126]Köstlin,ib., p. 207.
[127]Cp. vol. i.,passim.
[128]Köstlin,ib., p. 204.
[129]In the Eisleben Sermons, p. 548.
[130]On Luther’s attitude towards the supernatural moral order, see xxix., 5.
[131]Cp. vol. ii., p. 223 ff., particularly p. 240 ff.
[132]See above, p. 32, n. 4.
[133]Köstlin,ib., p. 206.
[134]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 58, p. 346.
[135]Ib., 20², 2, p. 548.
[136]Ib., p. 545.
[137]Ib., p. 549 f.
[138]Ib., p. 551.
[139]Luther’s opposite doctrine, which is of importance to the matter under consideration, is expressed by Köstlin (ib., p. 126 f.) as follows: Luther “does not make guilt and condemnation follow on the act which is contrary to God’s will, nor even on the determination to commit such an act, but on the inward motion, or concupiscence, nay, in the inborn evil propensity [even of the baptised] which exists prior to any conscious motion.... We do not find in his writings any further information on the other questions here involved” (e.g. of the children who die unbaptised, etc.).
[140]In the Eisleben sermons,ib., p. 551.
[141]Ib., p. 546.
[142]“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, p. 159. Cp. “Corp. ref.,” 3, p. 385. Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 857, n. 4, and 770, n. 4.
[143]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 19², p. 153.
[144]Ib., 13², p. 307.
[145]Ib., p. 305 ff.
[146]Ib., 15², p. 524. Köstlin,ib., p. 213.
[147]Cp.ib., 43, p. 362 ff.
[148]The headings in W. Walther’s “Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” pp. 100, 106, 120, 125 are as above.
[149]Above, p. 32 f.
[150]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 304 f.
[151]Walther,ib., p. 102.
[152]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 20², 2, p. 553.
[153]Ib., 12², p. 219.
[154]Ib., 8², p. 119, in the exposition of 1 Cor. xiii. 2: “And though I had all faith and could remove mountains and had not charity, I am nothing.”
[155]Ib., 15², p. 40.
[156]Willibald Pirkheimer confronted Luther with the following statement of the Catholic teaching: “We know that free-will of itself without grace cannot suffice. We refer all things back to the Divine grace, but we believe, that, after the reception of that grace without which we are nothing, we still have to perform our rightful service. We are ever subject to the action of grace and always unite our efforts with grace.... But whoever believes that grace alone suffices even without any exercise of our will or subduing of our desire, such a one does nothing else but declare that no one is obliged to pray, watch, fast, take pity on the needy, or perform works of mercy,” etc. “Opp.,” ed. Goldast, p. 375sqq., in Drews, “Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reformation,” Leipzig, 1884, p. 119.
[157]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 16², p. 131.
[158]Feb. 2, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 408.
[159]See vol. iii., p. 462 ff.
[160]Adolf Harnack, “DG.,” 34, p. 850.
[161]Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 698, n. 1, p. 737.
[162]Harnack,ib., p. 831 f.
[163]“Confutatio calumn. resp.,” E 2a. Döllinger, “Reformation,” 1, p. 39.
[164]Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 208.
[165]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 9², p. 33.
[166]Köstlin,ib., pp. 284, 295.
[167]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. Köstlin, however (p. 275 f.), points out that Luther nevertheless threatens those who refuse to accept his injunctions. Cp. below, xxix., 9.
[168]“Werke,”ib., 7², p. 68.
[169]Ib., 10², p. 108.
[170]On dying spiritually, cp. vol. i., p. 169 andpassim.
[171]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 108.
[172]Ib.
[173]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 13², p. 206.
[174]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 10², p. 25. Cp. on Luther’s restriction of good works to practical love of our neighbour, vol. iv., p. 477 ff., and above, p. 26, 38 f.
[175]Chr. E. Luthardt, “Die Ethik Luthers in ihren Grundzügen,”², 1875, p. 70.
[176]Cp. “Compend. totius theol. Hugonis Argentorat.O.P.,” V. cap. ult.
[177]Quoted from Luthardt,ib., pp. 70-73.
[178]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 7², p. 68.
[179]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 26, p. 502 f.; Erl. ed., 30, p. 365.
[180]Ib., pp. 507, 509=370, 372.
[181]Ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 25. Cp. Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 705.
[182]“Werke,” Erl. ed. 15², p. 60. “Opp. lat. exeg.,” 2, p. 273sqq.; 19, p. 18; 24, p. 463,sq.“Disputationes,” ed. Drews, pp. 115, 172.
[183]Cp. Köstlin, “Luthers Theol.,” 2², p. 169 f., the passages quoted.
[184]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 340; Erl. ed., 7², p. 261.—For the theological and psychological influences which led him to these statements, see vol. i., pp. 72 ff., 149 ff.
[185]Cp. what Luther says in his Comm. on Romans in 1515-16: It depends entirely “on the gracious Will of God whether a thing is to be good or evil,” and “Nothing is of its own nature good, nothing of its own nature evil,” etc., vol. i., p. 211 f.
[186]“Opp. lat. exeg.,” 1, p. 109, “In Genesim,” c. 3.
[187]See vol. i., p. 148 f. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 527, n. 1.
[188]Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 528, n. 2.
[189]Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 527. Cp. our vol. i., p. 148 f.
[190]“In 2 Sent.,” dist. 28, a. 1 ad 4. Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 482, n. 1. Cp. Luther’s frequent statement, already sufficiently considered in our vol. iv., p. 476 f., in which he sums up his new standpoint: Good works never make a good man, but good men perform good works.
[191]Cp. Denifle-Weiss,ib., p. 598.
[192]Denifle-Weiss, p. 604. Cp. also p. 600, n. 2, where Denifle remarks: “Being an Occamist he never understood actual grace.”
[193]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 60. After the words quoted above follows the remarkable passage: One builds churches, another makes pilgrimages, etc. “These are self-chosen works which God has not commanded.... Such self-chosen works are nought ... are sin.”
[194]Ib., p. 61 f.
[195]“Symb. Bücher,” ed. Müller-Kolde,10, p. 599 f.
[196]Ib.The Thesis of man’s lack of freedom is bluntly expressed on p. 589, and in the sequel it is pointed out that in Luther’s larger Catechism not one word is found concerning free-will. Reference is made to his comparison of man with the lifeless pillar of salt (p. 593), and to Augustine’s “Confessions” (p. 596).
[197]The last remark is from Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 857. Cp. our vol. iii., p. 348 ff. andpassim.
[198]“Symb. Bücher,”ib., p. 601.
[199]Ib.
[200]Ib., p. 602.
[201]Cp. vol. ii., pp. 232, 265 f., 290.
[202]Quoted from Loofs, “DG.,”4, p. 758. On the statement “without on that account being unjust” see vol. i., p. 187 ff., vol. ii, p. 268 f.
[203]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 675; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 207. Cp. Loofs,ib., p. 757.
[204]Cp. vol. ii., p. 294 ff, and below, xxxv., 2.
[205]The above largely reproduces Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², p. 81 ff.
[206]See our vol. ii., p. 298 f.
[207]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 32, p. 439; Erl. ed., 43, p. 211. Exposition of Mt. v.-vii. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297 f., and vol. iii., pp. 52 f., 60: A prince, as a Christian, must not even defend himself, since a Christian is dead to the world.
[208]“Werke,”ib.
[209]“Jugenderinnerungen aus seinem Nachlasse,” Jena, 1909, p. 155 f.
[210]Cp. vol. ii., p. 140 ff.; vol. iii., p. 187 ff.; vol. iv., p. 130 f.
[211]Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², p. 81.
[212]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 280 f.
[213]Cp. vol. ii., p. 107 for Luther’s earlier idea of the “holy brotherhood of spirits,” in which “omnia sunt indifferentia et libera.” See also vol. vi., xxxviii., 3.
[214]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 1², p. 108.
[215]Ib., Weim. ed., 11, p. 255; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73. “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,” 1523.
[216]Ib.
[217]Ib., p. 252=70.
[218]Ib., p. 251=68.
[219]“Opp. lat. var.,” 4, p. 451.
[220]Ib., p. 445.
[221]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 31, p. 236. Verantwortung der auffgelegten Auffrur, 1533. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 294, and vol. iv., p. 331.
[222]Luthardt, “Luthers Ethik,”², pp. 93-96.
[223]Cp. vol. iv., p. 127 ff., on the high esteem of worldly callings in the period previous to Luther’s. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die Wertung der weltlichen Berufe im MA.” (“Hist. Jahrb.,” 1911, p. 725 ff.).
[224]“Werke,” Erl. ed., 15², p. 42 f.
[225]Cp. W. Walther, “Die christliche Sittlichkeit nach Luther,” 1909, p. 50, where Ritschl’s opinion is disputed. The above complaint of Luther’s “uncertain way” is from Ritschl, who was not the first to make it; the Bible objection is also much older. It matters nothing that in addition to the faith usually extolled as the source of works, Luther also mentions the Holy Ghost (see passages in Walther, p. 46 f.) and once even speaks of the new feeling as though it were a gift of the Spirit dwelling in His very substance in the believer. (“Opp. lat. exeg,.” 19, p. 109sq.) These are reminiscences of his Catholic days and have in reality nothing to do with his doctrine of Imputation.
[226]“Symbolik,” § 25.
[227]Ib., § 26.
[228]“Werke,” Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.
[229]Ib.
[230]p. 111.
[231]Owing to his assertion of man’s unfreedom and passivity, Luther found it very difficult to retain the true meaning of conscience. So long as he thought in any way as a Catholic he recognised the inner voice, the “synteresis,” that urges us to what is good and reproves what is evil, leaving man freedom of choice; this we see from his first Commentary on the Psalms, above, vol. i., p. 76 f. But already in his Commentary on Romans he characterised the “synteresis,” and the assumption of any freedom of choice on man’s part, as the loophole through which the old theology had dragged in its errors concerning grace. (Above, vol. i., p. 233 f.)
[232]Cp. W. Walther, “Die christl. Sittlichkeit,” p. 31.
[233]Above, vol. iv., p. 227. “You are to believe without doubting what God Himself has spoken to you, for I have God’s authority and commission to speak to and to comfort you.”
[234]Letter of Aug. 21, 1544, “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680: “Believe me, Christ speaks through me.”
[235]“Colloq.,” ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 220: “persuasi mihi, esse de coelo vocem Dei.”
[236]Letter of March 8, 1544, “Briefe,”ib., p. 636.
[237]In the letter quoted in n. 2,ib., p. 679 f.