Читать книгу LUTHER (Vol. 1-6) - Grisar Hartmann - Страница 71

[547] For the explanation of certain expressions of Luther’s in this Commentary, e.g. that “God infuses grace,” and that faith without works does not justify, see Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 466.

[548] “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 2, p. 148: “Pugnat esse ex Deo natum et simul esse peccatorem.” Cp. Weim. ed. 2, p. 420.

[549] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 23, p. 160. By “saints,” Luther means the pious folk who follow his teaching.

[550] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 420 (in the year 1519).

[551] Cp., for the absence of assurance of salvation, “Schol. Rom., “ p. 104: “Ex sola Dei reputatione iusti sumus; reputatio enim eius non in nobis nec in potestate nostra est. Ergo nec iustitia nostra in nobis est nec in potestate nostra,” and, p. 105: “Peccatores (sumus) in re, iusti autem in spe “; p. 108: “Sanus perfecte est in spe, in re autem peccator “; p. 89: “Nunquam scire possumus, an iustificati simus, an credamus; idcirco tanquam opera nostra sint opera legis estimemus et humiliter peccatores simus in sola misericordia eius iustificari cupientes.... In ipsum (Christum) credere incertum est “; only by this road of the sense of sin is it possible to attain to the “grace of justification and pardon for a possible secret and unconscious unbelief “; he “qui se credere putat et omnem fidem possidere perfecte” has no part in this. The pious always think with regard to their good works: “Quis scit, si gratia Dei hæc mecum faciat? Quis det mihi scire, quod bona intentio mea ex Deo sit? Quomodo scio, quod id quod feci, meum, seu quod in me est, Deo placeat?” (p. 323). (Cp. the celebrated question: How can I find a gracious God?) “Away therefore,” he says, “with the proud self-righteous who think themselves sure of their works!” (p. 221). Fear, humility, despair is according to him the only fitting state in which to appear before God: “Him who despairs of himself, the Lord accepts” (p. 223)—that is to say, if He has not destined him for hell!

[552] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 221; see above, p. 211, note 4.

[553] From passage cited above, p. 114, n. 1.

[554] “Schol. Rom.,” 214. Cp. his explanation of the 4th Heidelberg Thesis, that in a Christian “desperatio” ( “mortificatio”) and “vivificatio” are united; also Theses 18 and 24, that “conteri lege” is for everyone a necessity of the spiritual life. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 356 f., 361, 364.

[555] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 219.

[556] Ibid., p. 230.

[557] Ibid., p. 105.

[558] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 84.

[559] Ibid., p. 83.

[560] Ibid., p. 89.

[561] Ibid., p. 86 f.

[562] Ibid., p. 39.

[563] Ficker refers to “Schol. Rom.,” p. 23 ff., 108 ff., 111 seq., 114, 167, 185, 187, 199, 244, 283, 287, 322 f.

[564] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 322.

[565] Ibid., p. lxxvi.

[566] Ibid., p. 14.

[567] See below, chapter x.

[568] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 651; 4, p. 228.

[569] Denifle, 1¹, p. 444.

[570] Ibid., p. 605 ff., with his testimonies.

[571] Ibid., p. 599.

[572] Cp. above, p. 218, and “Schol. Rom.,” p. 105 ff.: “(sancti) iustitiam a Deo secundum misericordiam ipsius implorant, eo ipso semper quoque iusti a Deo reputantur.”

[573] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 219. This remarkable passage, which is a proof of his pseudo-mysticism, runs: “Omnis nostra affirmatio boni cuiuscunque sub negatione eiusdem [abscondita est] ut fides locum habeat in Deo, qui est negativa essentia [!] et bonitas et sapientia et iustitia nec potest possideri aut attingi nisi negatis omnibus affirmativis nostris.”

[574] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 206. Cp. Denifle, 1¹, p. 600.

[575] In Gal., 1, p. 14. We can understand that Protestant theologians should wish to find in Luther’s Commentary on Romans the foundation of the later so-called “Reformed Confession.” O. Scheel, the first among them to treat in a detailed manner of the Commentary edited by Ficker (“Die Entwicklung Luthers” [”Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch., No. 100”], p. 174 ff.), has brought together a number of passages from this work concerning the doctrine of justification, which do not quite agree with the purely outward character of justification according to Luther, dwelt upon above, and which appear to presuppose an inward renewal. In the Commentary assertions are not wanting which contradict the ideas we have pointed out as running through the work; this is due to the fact that the author repeatedly reverts either to true Catholic views or to nominalistic ideas. It is not surprising that contradictions should occur very frequently at the commencement of his career, and that they also do so at a later period is undeniable. (Cp. O. Scheel’s samples of Luther’s Bible-teaching in our volume iv., xxviii., 1 and 2.)

Scheel himself says with reference to the doctrine of justification in the Commentary: “Luther was unable to give to his new conception of Christianity any thorough dogmatic sequence (p. 182); “these statements (on Rom. iii.) are devoid of doctrinal clearness” (p. 183). According to him it cannot be said “that Luther has arrived at any clear presentment of his reforming ideas in his Commentary on Romans” (p. 186). In the teaching of the Commentary re Concupiscence Scheel claims, it is true, to find “that deeply religious and moral conception of a reformed Christianity which is peculiar to Luther” (p. 188), but, nevertheless, remarks that Luther has not found “a quite uniform definition” for “the meaning which he connects with Concupiscence. Even the suppression of the guilt and the non-imputing of original sin might, in view of Luther’s new religious and voluntarist views, be regarded as insufficient; for insufficient importance attributed to the connection between sin and guilt leads finally to an impersonal estimate of sin” (pp. 188, 189). He stopped short at a definition “in which we miss the severely voluntarist connection between sin and guilt” (p. 190). The author therefore speaks of Luther’s view of sin as “insufficient” (p. 191).

With regard to grace, he continues: “Luther’s statements as to grace are also not altogether without ambiguity” (ibid.), “he employs the customary designations for the action of grace, without reflecting that they do not correspond with his ethical and psychological views of grace” (p. 192). “Man’s passivity in the process of salvation which he vindicates, and which, according to the Reformed Confession, was surely to be taken religiously, being only intended to deny the existence of any claim to merit, he defends so ponderously that all the psychological spontaneity of his voluntarism disappears and Quietist mysticism has to supply him with the colours necessary for depicting the appropriation of grace” (ibid.).

Concerning the question of assurance of salvation in the Commentary on Romans, Scheel, indeed, admits that “Luther had not yet arrived at any definite certainty of salvation” (p. 195), and that his statements are not “in touch with the saving faith of the Reformation” (ibid.); he finds, however, in the fear which Luther demands, “an element for overcoming the uncertainty with regard to salvation” (p. 198), indeed, he even thinks (p. 199) that “he had practically arrived at a certainty of salvation.” So much may be admitted, that the incompleteness of the system contained in the Commentary led Luther at a later period to add to his numerous other errors, that of absolute certainty of salvation by “faith alone.” With this our position is made clear with regard to Holl’s article “Heilsgewissheit im Römerbriefkommentar,” in the “Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,” 20, 1910, p. 245 ff., where the doctrine of assurance is dated as far back as 1516 (p. 290).

[576] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 209 f.: “Nostri theologi velut acutuli,” etc. “Hæc tantum vacua verba sunt,” etc. “Est ridicula additio si dicas,” etc. “Torquent intelligentiam,” etc. Thus he arrives at his “immutabilis prædestinatio.” “Præcipit Deus ut irretiantur reprobi, ut ostendat iram suam,” with the pains of hell which they are absolutely powerless to escape (p. 213). See also above, p. 189 ff.

[577] Ibid., p. 6. Against the “mercenarii.” In Ficker’s text it reads: “qualium hodie in ecclesia solus est numerus.” In place of “solus” read “tantus” or some other such word.

[578] Ibid., p. 7.

[579] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 111.

[580] Ibid., p. 290. Cp. p. 317.

[581] Ibid., p. 294 f.

[582] Ibid., p. 248 f.

[583] Ibid. Of the true preacher he says: “Sub humili subiectione eiusdem auctoritatis prædicet, semper stare iudicio illius paratus ac, quæ mandata ei sunt, loqui, non quæ placita sunt sibi ac inventa.” The punishment threatened by Zach. xiii. 3 against false prophets (“configent eum”), was to be applied to those who teach subversive doctrines on their own authority, being the anathema of their ecclesiastical superiors. “Hoc est telum fortissimum, quo percutiuntur hæretici, quia sine testimonio Dei vel authoritatis a Deo confirmatæ, sed proprio motu, specie pietatis erecti, prædicant, ut Ier. xxiii. (v. 21): Ipsi currebant et ego non mittebam eos. Et tamen audent dicere: Nos salvabimur ... nos credimus ... prædicamus. Sed hoc dicere non possunt: Nos prædicamus, quia missi sumus. Hic, hic iacent! Et hic est tota vis et salus, sine quo cetera falsa sunt, licet an falsa sint non cogitent.” The Church preaches an authentic gospel, which, according to Romans i. 2, was introduced into the world with solemn sanction and according to prophecy. But the gospel of the heretic? “Monstret, ubi sit ante promissum et a quo.” Where is its attestation? “Sed horum illi nihil solliciti stulte dicunt: Nos veritatem habemus.... Quasi hoc satis sit ex Deo esse, quia ipsis ita ex Deo videatur esse.... Sic ergo authoritas ecclesiæ instituta, ut nunc adhuc Romana tenet ecclesia.” The heretics, it is true, assert that they are in possession of the really wholesome teaching. “Volunt autem summam pietatem, ut sibi videtur.” But the decision does not rest here with man’s own feelings; on the contrary, the Word of God frequently overthrows man’s own opinion: “non sinit stare sensum nostrum, etiam in iis quæ sunt [i.e. videntur] sanctissima, sed destruit ac eradicat ac dissipat omnia.” How powerfully and thoughtfully is he able to handle an argument when he has right on his side! Could anyone condemn more strongly his own later attitude?

[584] How, for instance, he exaggerates in his mystical enthusiasm the principle of authority, see below, p. 252.

[585] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 243.

[586] Ibid., p. 275 f.

[587] Ibid., p. 278.

[588] Ibid., p. 317.

[589] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 271 f.

[590] Ibid., p. 272.

[591] Ibid., p. 300 f.

[592] Ibid., p. 301.

[593] Ibid., p. 272.

[594] Ibid., p. 301 f.

[595] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 320. It cannot be proved that such gloomy forebodings were due to the influence of the apocalyptic literature then so widely disseminated in print. (See Ficker, p. xcix.) The verdict which he passes on the Church of that day is, however, as severe and comprehensive as “the sharpest criticisms of the Reformed theology, or of the apocalyptic literature” (ibid., p. xcvii.); the verdict is really a consequence of his “new conception of a personal religion” (p. xci.). On the strength of this Ficker thinks he may go so far as to say: “Just as, hitherto, he had confronted the teaching authorities with the Scripture rightly understood and opened up the religion of the gospel to the individual, bringing it home to each one as a moral force, so now under the pressure of the Scripture and of outward events, he sets up the new standard of Christian life ... thus realising in practice the religion he had discovered” (pp. xci., xcvi.).

[596] Ibid., p. 242.

[597] Ibid., pp. 298, 302, 303.

[598] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 285.

[599] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 49. De libertate christiana.

[600] Cp. J. Zahn, “Einführung in die christl. Mystik,” p. 102.

[601] Ibid., p. 271 ff.

[602] Braun, “Concupiscenz,”. 301, n. 2.

[603] P. lxxxii.

[604] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 203.

[605] Ibid., pp. 205, 206.

[606] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 281, 286.

[607] Braun, p. 296.

[608] Ibid., p. 297.

[609] Ibid.

[610] On the syntheresis, see above, p. 75. When Luther, on the strength of Romans ii., nevertheless, recognises “that natural religion exerts the force of conscience in the hearts of the heathen,” he is contradicting himself without being aware of it. (Braun, p. 300.)

[611] Braun, p. 296.

[612] Ibid., p. 284.

[613] Braun, p. 301.

[614] Ibid.

[615] Cp. ibid., pp. 287, 288.

[616] For instance, “Schol. Rom.,” p. 136 ff.: “Natura nostra vitio primi peccati tam profunda est in seipsam incurva, ut non solum optima dona Dei sibi inflectat ... verum etiam hoc ipsum ignoret.... Hoc vitium propriissimo nomine Scriptura Aon, id est iniquitatem, pravitatem, curvitatem appellat.... Talis curvitas est necessario inimica crucis, cum crux mortificet omnia nostra, illa autem se et sua vivificet.” Therefore it is necessary (and here he comes to his personal ideas against the self-righteous) to reach a point where, “iustitia et sapientia omnis devoratur et absorbetur.... Charitas Dei extinguit fruitionem propriæ iustitiæ, quia non nisi solum et purum Deum diligit, non dona ipsa Dei, sicut hipocritæ iustitiarii.” “What Luther says of pure love,” Denifle remarks (Denifle, 1¹, p. 484), “rests merely on his misconception of Tauler.” He points out that, in his Commentary on Romans, owing to his false idea of self-love he went so far as to “explain the command ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ in quite a different sense from that hitherto taught by the Church, for ourselves we may only hate.... According to him, this command means: hate thyself that thou mayest love thy neighbour alone.” (“Oblitus tui, solum proximum diligas.”)

[617] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 59.

[618] Ibid., p. 133.

[619] Ibid., p. 139.

[620] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 133 f.

[621] Ibid., p. 137. Cp. above, p. 234, n. 4 end.

[622] Heidelberg Disputation, on thesis 24. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 363. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 401.

[623] Ibid., theses 19, 20.

[624] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 285.

[625] Cp. Luther’s appeal to Tauler: “De ista patientia Dei et sufferentia vide Taulerum,” etc. (see above, p. 232). Denifle, 1¹, p. 484, remarks: “The above statements are in part founded on Tauler, whom Luther misunderstood throughout. The two stood on different ground and had a different starting-point and a different goal.”

[626] In allusion to such doctrines, Denifle speaks (Denifle, 1¹, p. 486) of “Luther’s worse than morbid, yea, terrible theology.” The passages in Tauler which have been alleged to show that his teaching was similar to that of Luther on this point, have quite a different sense. Tauler did not recognise the undeserved reprobation which Luther presupposes; he makes the horrible misfortune of eternal reprobation, which culminates in hatred of God, a result of voluntary separation from Him in this life.

[627] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 213, 223.

[628] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 214.

[629] Ibid., p. 218.

[630] Ibid., p. 217 f.

[631] On the history of the explanation of this passage see Cornely, “Commentar. in Ep. ad Romanos,” pp. 471-4.

[632] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 218 f.

[633] The frequently quoted description is to be found in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 557 f.

[634] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 272. Cp. ibid., p. 301.

[635] Cp. above, p. 228.

[636] J. Ficker in the Preface of his edition of the Commentary, p. liv.

[637] For the sources used by Luther, see Ficker, pp. liii.-lxii.

[638] Thus Ficker, p. lxii.

[639] “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” p. 176.

[640] See above, p. 129. W. Friedensburg, “Fortschritte in Kenntnis der Reformationsgesch.” (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 1-59), p. 17: “It appears [from Denifle’s work] that Luther was little acquainted with the Scholastics of the Middle Ages, especially with Thomas of Aquin—which was equally the case with nearly all his contemporaries [?]—and that he drew his information from secondary sources,” etc.

[641] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 335. The reproach brought against these opponents of backbiting forms an exact parallel to Luther’s address, “Contra sanctulos,” mentioned above. Compare the allusions, p. 334, “Tædiosi sunt et nolunt esse in communione aliorum; sic hæretici, sic multi superbi.” And before: “Hi insulsi homines contra totum ordinem [he is referring to their state or position in life] insurgunt ac velut ipsi sint mundi, ut nullibi sordeant, cum tamen ante et retro et intus non nisi suum et porcorum sint forum et officina.” The anecdote which he relates (p. 243 f.) of the man who resolved “amore Dei velle nunquam mingere,” with which Luther laughs to scorn the desire of some to perform extraordinary works for God’s sake, is quite in keeping with this language.

[642] Ibid., p. 208.

[643] Ibid., p. 101. This kind of language which he indulges in at a later date agrees with his character. “His personality presents hundreds of enigmas”; says A. Hausrath in his biography of Luther, 1, p. vii., “of all great men Luther was the most paradoxical.”

[644] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 187. Cp. p. 321.

[645] Sess. 6, c. 7. Cp. c. 16: “Quæ enim,” etc. In can. 11 of this session “inherent” charity is again mentioned, and in can. 10 the righteousness by which we are “formaliter iusti.” Cp. Luther’s bitter attack on the expression “fides formata caritate” (see above, p. 209).

[646] Sess. 7, can. 8, 9.

[647] “Educative” grace which imparts “strength” is probably what we call actual grace, not sanctifying grace. Luther makes no distinction either as regards the term or the matter. His determinism, with its “servum arbitrium,” left no room for actual grace to perform any real work; this he admits more plainly of the time preceding justification than of that which follows it. Cp. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 206: “Ad primam gratiam sicut et ad gloriam semper nos habemus passive sicut mulier ad conceptum,” etc. It is here he introduces his “mystical” recommendation, viz. to suffer God’s strong grace, and without any act of reason or will “in tenebras ac velut in perditionem et annihilationem ire,” however hard that may be. Here we find nothing about any “educative and moulding energy.”

[648] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 170-6.

[649] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 178.

[650] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹, p.515 f.

[651] Ibid., p. 517, n. 3.

[652] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 175 f.

[653] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 234 f., 277.

[654] Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 518 f.

[655] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 303.

[656] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. 673.

[657] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 241.

[658] Ibid., p. 242.

[659] Ibid., p. 245.

[660] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 86 f.

[661] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 87 f.

[662] Ibid., p. 89.

[663] Ibid., p. 92.

[664] Ibid., p. 93.

[665] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 94.

[666] Ibid., p. 95.

[667] Ibid., p. 96.

[668] Ibid., p. 97.

[669] Ibid., p. 323 f. Cp. above, p. 218 f.

[670] Ibid., p. 86: “Igitur iustificatio requirit non opera legis, sed vivam fidem, quæ sua operetur opera.” Cp. above, p. 214, n. 6, where he speaks of the “præparatio” for justification by the fulfilling of the law.

[671] Ibid., p. 85. It is possible that, without making any distinction, he here passes on to the activity of the righteous. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 466, 467, on Luther’s want of clearness regarding justifying faith.

[672] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 321.

[673] Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 34.

[674] See above, p. 249, n. 1, and p. 204.

[675] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 447 f., 466 f.

[676] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 74 f., who sees in such passages the trace of “Augustinian-Bernardine piety,” which formed “the inner link between Luther and (the mystic) Staupitz.”

[677] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 486.

[678] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 243.

[679] Thes., 81 seq., 90. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 291 seq. Weim. ed., 1, pp. 625, 627.

[680] Regarding this MS. see Ficker’s Introduction to the Commentary on Romans, p. xxix. f.

[681] May 29, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 37 f.

[682] August 30, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 49.

[683] In September (?), 1516, ibid., p. 57.

[684] October 5, 1516, ibid., p. 60. The expression covering of our shame occurs frequently in his writings, thus it appears in “Schol. Rom.,” p. 334, where Gal. vi. 1 (“Alter alterius onera portate”) is rendered: “Alter alterius ignominiam portate”; Christ too willingly bore our shame.

[685] September (?), 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 54.

[686] October 26, 1516, ibid., p. 67.

[687] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 68.

[688] June 22, 1516, ibid., p. 42.

[689] Ibid., p. 43.

[690] Cp. Luther’s Indulgence theses, 92 and 93, where “pax, pax,” and “crux, crux” are repeated in the same way. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 291. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 628.

[691] October 26, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 68: “Feci ideo, quod sperabam, me ipsum illic ad medium annum regnaturum.”

[692] September 25, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 51.

[693] May 29, 1516, ibid., p. 38.

[694] May 17, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 99.

[695] Undated (1516?), ibid., p. 77.

[696] From the latter months of 1516, ibid., p. 76: “Confiteor tibi, quod vita mea in dies appropinquat inferno, quia quotidie peior fio et miserior.”

[697] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 219 f.

[698] Ibid., p. 317.

[699] Ibid., p. 291.

[700] See above, p. 71.

[701] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 318.

[702] Ibid.

[703] Ibid.

[704] Of himself he says at a later date: I went into the convent “because I despaired of myself.” (See above, p. 4.)

[705] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 317.

[706] Ibid., p. 123.

[707] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 317.

[708] Ibid., p. 318.

[709] Ibid., p. 165 f.

[710] Ibid., p. 286.

[711] Ibid., p. 320.

[712] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 316 f.

[713] Ibid., p. 317: “Curandum, ut [vota] eadem charitate solvantur, qua sunt promissa, sine qua solvi non possunt.... Ideo apostatæ sunt multi, et non videntur.”

[714] “Celifodina,” Supplementum, Erfordiæ, 1504, fol. L. 3 seq., M. 1´ seq.

[715] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 283.

[716] Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 283.

[717] Ibid.

[718] April 15, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 31.

[719] October 26, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 66 f.

[720] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 288.

[721] Ibid., pp. 319, 320.

[722] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 290.

[723] Erl. ed., 23, p. 222.

[724] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 321.

[725] These words are given in German in the Latin text.

[726] Also in German.

[727] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 321 f.

[728] “Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch.,” ed. Brieger, 4, 1886, p. 330, in the Dicta Melanchthoniana, given by O. Waltz. Cp. Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 155, where Luther says, in June, 1540: “At the time when I was a monk I was so much occupied in lecturing, writing, singing, etc., that owing to my work I was unable to recite the canonical Hours. Therefore on Saturday I made up for what I had missed during the six days of the week, taking no meals and praying the whole day, but, nevertheless, I did not trouble about the sense of the words. Thus were we poor people tormented by the decrees of the Popes.”

[729] Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 6. Cp. “Coll.,” ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 67, and “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 3, p. 236.

[730] “Scio quod non vivo quæ doceo.” To Bishop Adolf of Merseburg, February 4, 1520, “Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 312.

[731] Melanchthon said on one occasion, according to Waltz (see above, p. 278, n. 2), p. 326: “Leo habet oculos χαροπούς (bright-eyed), Lutheri oculi sunt χαροποί, et habebant leonem in ascendente (probably “habebat,” viz. Luther in his Horoscope). Et tales plerumque sunt ingeniosi ... They were brown eyes, “circuit circulus gilvus.”

[732] Joh. Oldecop’s “Chronik” (ed. K. Euling, Tübingen, 1891), pp. 36, 49. He says of Luther’s friend Lang, whose lecture on the Epistle to Titus he had heard: “dat he ein hoifferdich monnik was und let sik vele bedunken,” i.e. that he was a proud monk thinking not a little of himself.

[733] Ibid., p. 40. P. 17, of the Erfurt days: He spoke against everyone with a strange audacity and would give way to no one. P. 28: Martin was always wanting to be in the right and liked to pick a quarrel.

[734] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 301.

[735] Ibid., p. 317: “Nunc omnes fere desipiunt (this is about the Church’s fasts) ... ut rursum (populus) apostolis indigeat ipsis, ut veram disceret pietatem

[736] Ibid., p. 199.

[737] Seneca, Ep. 45, 4.

[738] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 111. Here the term “Sawtheologen” occurs.

[739] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 89.

[740] Fr. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.,”⁴ 1906, p. 690. Cp. above, pp. 127 ff., 130 ff., etc., on Luther’s ignorance of Scholasticism.

[741] August 24, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 47.

[742] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 335.

[743] Ibid., p. 300.

[744] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 243.

[745] Ibid., p. 272.

[746] Ibid., p. 287.

[747] To Spalatin, December 14, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 73.

[748] The Operationes in Psalmos with the letter of May 27, 1519, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 480 ff.

[749] “Adeo infeliciter cessit opulentia et potentatus ecclesiæ.” Ibid., p. 482.

[750] In “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 9, Luther’s receipt. See ibid., p. 10, n. 2, for the discreditable and incorrect tales concerning Luther, which grew up around this gift.

[751] Letter of middle of May, 1519, “Werke,” Erl. ed., 53, p. 9. (“Briefwechsel,” 2, p. 35.)

[752] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 319.

[753] Ibid., p. 310.

[754] Ibid.

[755] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 298.

[756] Ibid., p. 299.

[757] Ibid., p. 309.