LUTHER

Nihil Obstat

Sti. Zudovici, die 26 Jan., 1913.

F. Gr. HOLWECK,

Ceiisor.

Imprimatur

Sti. Zudovici, die 30 Jan., 1913.

Johannes J. Glennon,

Archicpiscopus Sti. Ludovici.

LUTHER

BY

HARTMANN GRISAR, S.J.

PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

AUTHORISED TRANSLATION FROM THE GERMAN BY

E. M. LAMOND

EDITED BY

LUIGI CAPPADELTA

Volume I

LONDON
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., Ltd.

BROADWAY HOUSE, 68-74 CARTER LANE, E.C.
1913

BY THE SAME AUTHOR
In Three Volumes. Royal 8vo, each 15s. net.

HISTORY OF ROME AND THE POPES
IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Authorised English Translation, edited by Luigi Cappadelta.
Profusely Illustrated. With maps, plans, and photographs of
basilicas, mosaics, coins, and other memorials.

"The present work might be described as a history of the
mediaeval Popes, with the history of the City of Rome and of its
civilization as a background, the author's design being so to com-
bine the two stories as to produce a true picture of what Rome
was in the Middle Ages." — Author's Preface.

The three volumes now issued represent Volume I in the bulky
German original. This portion of Father Grisar's great enterprise
is self-contained, and the history is brought down to the epoch of
St. Gregory I.

"A valuable and interesting book, Avell translated . . . will,
we are sure, be welcomed by all students and lovers of Rome,
whether Catholic or not." — The Tablet.

"Dr. Grisar's splendid history has long been the treasured
possession of students of mediaeval art and church history. We
welcome its appearance in an English translation, which has been
executed with scrupulous care and with every advantage of type,
paper, and illustration." — The Guardian.

The rights of translation and of reproduction are reserved

EMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONS

P. 9, line 12 ff. On the habit, cp. Paulus, " Joh. Hoffmeister," 1891,
p. 4.

P. 13, note, read "Oergel."

P. 14, line 4 from below. For " Augustinian," read " colleague at the
University of Wittenberg."

P. 27, line 2 from below to p. 28, line 1. Elsewhere he does so quite
clearly, cp. " Tischreden " (Veit Dietrich), Weim. ed., 1, p. 61.

P. 29, line 7 from below. It was not actually a papal Bull, but a docu-
ment in the Pope's name drawn up by Carvajal, the legate.

P. 30, line 12. Read : " Cochlseus, who knew something of the
matter " ; line 2 from below, after " told us " add : " In point of fact it
is clear that Luther's journey failed in its purpose, and that the dispute
was finally settled only in May, 1512, at the Cologne Chapter" ; note 1,
last line, omit "his " and add after date " p. 97."

P. 33, line 11. The account of the incident at the Scala Santa must be
corrected in the light of new information. See vol. vi. , xlii., 2.

P. 38, line 2 from below. Read : " October 18."

P. 39, line 21. For " He himself admits, etc.," read : "Yet he seems
to have looked on his removal to Wittenberg as a ' come down.' " See
below, p. 127.

P. 59, line 9 f. For "amazed replies" read "silly letters" ("litteras
stupidas"1).

P. 72, line 18. Read : " captiosi et contentiosi."

P. 148, note 1, line 3. For " Luther " read " Lang."

P. 169, note 2, line 8. Read " longissime.''''

P. 178, note 3, line 3. For "1826 " read " 1864."

P. 184, line 14. For " Vogel" read " Vopel."

P. 199, last paragraph. Correct according to vol. vi., xlii., 4.

P. 219, note 5. Add : "That, in the Commentary on Romans Justifi-
cation is produced by humility, is admitted by Wilh. Braun ('Evang.
Kirchenzeitung,' 1911, No. 32, col. 506)."

P. 297, note 1, line 6. After " conventualiter " add "per omnia."

P. 312, line 20. For " 97 " read " 99."

P. 315, line 1. For " April 25 " read " April 26."

P. 332, note 1, line 1. For « February 13" read " May 22."

P. 337, note 1. For " May " read " September."

P. 396. See the various texts in greater detail in vol. vi., xlii., 6.

CONTENTS

Bibliography ....... pages xv-xxv

Introduction ....... pages xxvii-xxxix

CHAPTER I. COURSE OF STUDIES AND FIRST YEARS

IN THE MONASTERY . . pages 3-60

1. Luther's Novitiate and Early Life.

The new postulant at the gate of the Erfurt priory.
Luther's youth ; his parents ; early education ; stay at
Eisenach. Enters the University of Erfurt. Humanist
friends. His novitiate. Troubles of conscience quieted by
Staupitz, the Vicar of the Saxon Congregation of Augus-
tinian Hermits. Luther's professors . . . pages 3-12

2. Fidelity to His New Calling ; His Temptations.

Luther's theological course. Lectures and lecturers ;
Bible-study ; first Mass. His father on his vocation ; his
father's character. Luther's inward troubles ; falls into a
fit in choir ; Melanchthon on Luther's attacks of fear. St.
Bernard on certainty of salvation. Luther's " own way "
with his difficulties. He is sent to Wittenberg and back to
Erfurt. Learned occupations. Luther's assurance manifest
in his earliest notes, the glosses on Peter Lombard ; his
glosses on Augustine ; his fame ; his virulent temper ; his
acquaintance with Hus. Oldecop, Dungersheim and Emser
on his moral character in early days. Humanistic influences.
Luther is chosen by the Observantines to represent them
in Rome . . . . . . . pages 12-29

3. The Journey to Rome.

Dissensions within the Congregation. Staupitz opposed
by seven Observantine priories, on whose behalf Luther
proceeds to Rome. The visit's evil effect on the monk. His
opinion of the Curia and the moral state of Rome. An
episode at the Scala Santa. Luther's belief in the Primacy
not shaken by what he saw. On the Holy Mass ; his petition
to be secularised ; perils of an Italian j ourney. Luther returns
to Wittenberg and forsakes the cause of the Observantines.

pages 29-38

4. The Little World op Wittenberg and the Great World

in Church and State.

Luther takes the doctorate ; his first lectures ; his sur-
roundings at the University of Wittenberg ; the professors ;
Humanism ; schemes for reform ; Mutian, Spalatin, Reuch-
lin, the " Letters of Obscure Men," Erasmus. Luther's road
not that of his Humanist friends. Currents of thought in
the age of discovery and awakened learning ; decay of

viii CONTENTS

Church life ; attempts at reform ; abasement of clergy ;
abuses rampant everywhere ; sad state of the Curia. Signs
of the coming storm. Luther's way prepared by the course
of events. A curious academic dispute . . . pages 38-60

CHAPTER II. HARBINGERS OF CHANGE . pages 61-103

1. Sources Old and New.

Peculiar difficulties of the problem. Process of Luther's
inward estrangement from the Church. The sources, par-
ticularly those recently brought to light. The marginal notes
in Luther's books now at Zwickau. His letters ; earliest
scriptural notes, i.e. the glosses and scholia ; lectures on
Scripture ; sermons, 1515-1516 ; earliest printed works ;
his Disputations. Two stages of his development, the first till
1517, the second till the end of 1518 ... pages 61-67

2. Luther's Commentary on the Psalms (1513-15). Dispute

with the observantines and the " self-righteous."
His passionate opposition to the Observantines in his
Order, and to " righteousness by works," a presage of the
coming change. He vents his ire on the " Little Saints " of
the Order in his discourse at Gotha. On righteousness by
grace and righteousness by works ; on the force of con-
cupiscence' and original sin. No essential divergence from
the Church's belief and tradition to be found in the Com-
mentary on the Psalms ; reminiscences of Augustine ;
mystical trend ; defects of Luther's early work . pages 67-78

3. Excerpts from the Oldest Sermons. His Adversaries.

The sermons and their testimony to Luther's scorn for the
Observantines. Echoes of the controversy proceeding
within the Order. The Leitzkau discourse and its mysticism

pages 78-84

4. Preliminary Remarks on Young Luther's Relations to

Scholasticism and Mysticism.

His early prejudice against Scholasticism, its psychological
reason ; his poor opinion of Aristotle and the Schoolmen.
Martin Pollich's misgivings. Luther's leaning to mysticism,
its cause. Esteem for Tauler and the " Theologia Deutsch."
His letter to G. Leiffer pages 84-88

5. Excerpts from the Earliest Letters.

Signs of a change in Luther's letter to G. Spenlein ; self-
despair and trust in Christ. To Johann Lang on a work
wrongly ascribed to St. Augustine and on his difficulties with
his colleagues at Wittenberg. To Spalatin on Erasmus ; his
dislike of everything savouring of Pelagianism . pages 88-93

6. The Theological Goal.

The first shaping of Luther's heretical views, in the Com-
mentary on Romans. Imputation of Christ's righteousness ;
uncertainty of justification ; original sin remains after
baptism, being identical with concupiscence ; impossibility
of fulfilling the law without justification ; absence of all
human freedom for good ; sinful character of natural virtue ;
all " venial " sins really mortal ; no such thing as merit ;
predestination ....... pages 93-103

CONTENTS ix

CHAPTER III. THE STARTING-POINT . . pages 104-129

1. Former Inaccurate Views.

The starting-point not simply the desire to reform the
Church ; nor mere antipathy to the Dominicans. Hus's
influence merely secondary. Luther's own account of his
search for a " merciful God " not to be trusted any more than
his later descriptions of his life as a monk . . pages 104-110

2. Whether Evil Concupiscence is Irresistible ?

Luther's belief in its irresistibility not to be alleged as a
proof of his moral perversity. Traces of the belief early
noticeable in him ; he demands that people should neverthe-
less strive against concupiscence with the weapons of the
spirit ; concupiscence ineradicable, identical with original
sin, and actually sinful. Luther not a determinist from the
beginning. His pseudo -mysticism scarcely reconcilable
with his supposed moral perversity . . . pages 110-117

3. The Real Starting-point and the Co-operating Factors.

Luther's new opinions grounded on his antipathy to good
works ; hence his belief in the incapacity of man for good.
Other factors ; his character, his self-confidence and com-
bativeness ; his anger with the formalism prevalent in his day ;
his fear of eternal reprobation ; his inadequate knowledge of
the real doctrine of the Church ; his hasty promotion pages 117-129
CHAPTER IV. " I AM OF OCCAM'S PARTY " pages 130-165

1. A Closer Examination of Luther's Theological Training.

Not trained in the best school of Scholasticism. His
Occamist education. Positive and negative influence of
Occamism on Luther ..... pages 130-133

2. Negative Influence of the Occamist School on Luther.

Luther's criticism of Occam ; he abandons certain views
of the Occamists and flies to the opposite extreme ; offended
by their neglect of Scripture and by the subtlety of their
philosophy ; hence he comes to oppose Aristotelianism and
the Scholastics generally. Occamistic exaggeration of man's
powers leads him ex opposito to underrate the same. Negative
influence of Occamism on Luther's teaching regarding
original sin. Gabriel Biel on original sin ; the keeping of the
commandments ; the love of God ; whether man can merit
grace ; Gregory of Rimini ; the principle : " Facienti quod
est in se Deus non denegat gratiam " ; the deficiencies of the
Occamists laid at the door of Scholasticism. Three answers
to the question how Luther failed to perceive that he was for-
saking the Church's doctrine. His denial of natural righteous-
ness, and his ignorance of the true scholastic teaching on the
point ; misunderstands his own masters. His interpretation
of the words, " Without me ye can do nothing." His re-
jection of actual grace ..... pages 133-154

3. Positive Influence of Occamism.

Occamist " acceptation " and Lutheran " imputation."
Luther assails the habit of supernatural grace and replaces the
doctrine of an essential order of things by the arbitrary
pactum Dei. Divorce of faith and reason. Feeling and
religious experience. Predestination ; transubstantiation.
Luther's anti-Thomism, his combativeness and loquacity.
Other alleged influences, viz. Gallicanism, ultra-realism,
Wiclifism, and Neo-Platonism .... pages 155-165

x CONTENTS

CHAPTER V. THE ROCKS OF FALSE MYSTICISM

pages 166-183

1. Tattler and Luther.

Tauler's orthodox doctrine distorted by Luther to serve his
purpose. Passivity in the hands of God explained as the
absence of all effort. Luther's application of Tauler's
teaching to his own states of anxiety. His knowledge of
Tauler ; annotations to Tauler's sermons ; the German
mystics ; a " return to nothingness " the supreme aim of the
Christian . ...... pages 166-174

2. Effect of Mysticism on Luther.

Advantages of its study outweighed by disadvantage.
Why Luther failed to become a true mystic. Specimens of his
mystic utterances. His edition of the " Theologia Deutsch " ;
attitude to pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Bernard and
Gerson ; an excerpt from his " Operationes in psalmos"

pages 175-183

CHAPTER VI. THE CHANGE OF 1515 IN THE LIGHT OF

THE COMMENTARY ON ROMANS (1515-16) pages 184-261

1. The New Publications.

Denifle the first to utilise the Commentary on Romans.
Ficker's recent edition of the original. General remarks on the
Commentary. Aim of St. Paul according to Luther pages 184-187

2. Gloomy Views Regarding God and Predestination.

Luther's " more profound theology " and unconditional
predestination to hell ; God's will that the wicked be damned.
God to be approached in fear and despair, not with works
and in the hope of reward. The mystic on resignation to hell.
Man's will and his salvation entirely in God's hands. Ob-
jections : Is it not God's will that all be saved ? Why impose
commandments which the will is not free to perform ? Un-
perceived inconsistencies .... pages 187-197

3. The Fight against " Holiness-by- Works " and the Ob-

servantines in the commentary on romans.

Luther's aversion to works and observances. His rude
description of the " Observants " and " Justiciaries." The
very word " righteousness " a cause of vexation pages 197-202

4. Attack on Predisposition to Good and on Free Will.

Human nature entirely spoiled by original sin. Being
unable to fulfil the command "Non concupisces," we are ever
sinning mortally. Uncertainty of salvation ; the will not
free for good. Interpretation of Rom. viii. 2 f . Against
Scholasticism. In penance and confession no removal
{ablatio) of sin. . . . . . pages 202-209

6. Luther rudely sets aside the Older Doctrine of Virtue
and Sin.

The habit of sanctifying grace ; " cursed be the word
'Jormatum charitate' " ; sin coexistent with grace in the
good man ; Augustine on concupiscence. " Nothing is of its
own nature good or bad " ; the Occamist acceptation- theory
against the " Aristotelian " definition of virtue and the
scholastic doctrine that virtues and vices are qualities of the
soul pages 209-213

CONTENTS xi

6. Preparation for Justification.

Christ's grace does all, and yet man disposes himself for
justification. Man's self-culture. Inconsistencies explained
by reminiscences of his early Catholic training . pages 213-214

7. Appropriation of the Righteousness of Christ by

Humility — Neither "Faith Only" nor Assurance of

Salvation.

Imputation applied to justification. Another's righteous-
ness is imputed to us and becomes ours ; sin remains, but is
no longer accounted ; our inability to know whether Christ's
righteousness has been imputed to us. Advantage of fear.
" He who renounces his own self and willingly faces death
and damnation " is truly humble, and in such humility is
safety. Faith not yet substituted for humility. Passivity
again emphasised ...... pages 214-222

8. Subjectivism and Church Authority. Storm and Stress.

The back place already taken in Luther's mind by the
Church and her teaching-office ; his preference for a theology
of his own invention. Our duty of not judging Luther by the
later Tridentine decrees. His Catholic sentiments on the
hierarchy ; denounces abuses whilst respecting the rights of
the Roman Church ; desiderates a reduction of festivals ; re-
proves Bishops for insisting on their rights instead of
rejoicing to see them infringed. On listening to the inner
voice pages 223-230

9. The Mystic in the Commentary on Romans.

Luther's misapprehension of Tauler and other mystics
clearly proved in the Commentary. Quietism. The " Spark
in the Soul." The " Theology of the Cross." The " Night
of the Soul." Readiness for hell the joy of the truly wise ;
Christ and Paul the Apostle, two instances of such readiness

pages 230-240

10. The Commentary on Romans as a Work of Religion and

Learning.

Its witness to the unsettled state of the writer's mind.
Texts and commentaries utilised ; neglect of Aquinas's
Commentary ; the author's style ; obscenity and paradox ;
a tilt at the philosophers ; the character of the work rather
spoilt by unnecessary polemics. Appeal to Augustine.
Misuse of theological terms. " The word of God is every
word which proceeds from the mouth of a good man." Con-
tradiction a criterion of truth. All the prophets against
observances. Unconscious self-contradiction on the subject
of freedom. Whether any progress is apparent in the course
of the Commentary. Comparison of Luther's public utter-
ances with those in the Commentary. Some excerpts from
the Commentary on Hebrews . . . -_j . pages 241-261

xii CONTENTS

CHAPTER VII. SOME PARTICULARS WITH REGARD
TO THE OUTWARD CIRCUMSTANCES AND
INWARD LIFE OF LUTHER AT THE TIME OF
THE CRISIS pages 262-302

1. Luther as Superior of Eleven Augustinian Houses.

His election as Rural Vicar, 1516 ; his discourse on the
Little Saints delivered at the Chapter ; influence of his
administration ; extracts from his correspondence ; his
quick despatch of business .... pages 262-268

2. The Monk of Liberal Views and Independent Action.

His ideal of humility. On vows. Prejudice against observ-
ances. Blames formalism prevalent in the Church generally
and in the monasteries. Paltz and Tauler on this subject.
Overwork leads Luther to neglect his spiritual duties ; Mass
and Divine Office ; his final abandonment of the Breviary.
His outward appearance ; his quarrelsomeness . pages 268-280

3. Luther's Ultra-Spiritualism and Calls for Reform.

Is Self-improvement Possible ? Penance.

His pessimism ; the whole world sunk in corruption.
Opinion of theologians. Justifiable criticism. On the
clergy ; proposes placing the administration of all temporali-
ties in the hands of the Princes. On Indulgences. His
familiarity with the Elector of Saxony. On the dreadful
state of Rome. The prevalence of Pelagianism ; three deadly
vices ; on his own temptations ; how people fall and rise again ;
on diabolical terrors ; on making the best of things and
reconciling ourselves to remaining in sin ; his inability to
understand the nature of contrition ; denial that perfect
contrition exists ; his mysticism averse to the motive of
fear or of heavenly recompense ; misrepresentation of the
Church's doctrine concerning attrition. Ascribes his view of
penance to Staupitz ; the part of Staupitz in the downfall
of the Congregation. Mohler and Neander on Luther's
resemblance to Marcion the Gnostic. Paradoxical character
of the monk pages 280-302

CHAPTER VIII. THE COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE
TO THE GALATIANS. FIRST DISPUTATIONS
AND FIRST TRIUMPHS . . . pages 303-326

1. " The Commencement of the Gospel Business." Exposi-

tion of the Epistle to the Galatians (1516-17).
Melanchthon and Mathesius on the birth of the " Evangel."
Luther's first disciples, Carlstadt, Amsdorf, etc. His appeals
to St. Augustine. The Commentary on Galatians begins in
1516. Luther's progress in the light of this and the longer
Commentary published later .... pages 303-310

2. Disputations on Man's Powers and against Scholasticism

(1516-17).

Bernhardi's Disputation in 1516 presided over by Luther ;
11 Man sins in spite of every effort." Luther to Lang on the
scandal of the " Gabrielists." Giinther's Disputation in 1517 ;
specimens of the theses defended; Luther circulates them
widely . . pages 310-314

CONTENTS xiii

Disputation at Heidelberg on Faith and Grace. Other
Public Utterances.

The Heidelberg Chapter. Leonard Beyer defends Luther's
theses in the presence of Bucer and other future adherents of
the cause. The theses and their demonstration ; Grace not
to be obtained by works ; the motive of fear ; free will a mere
name. A Wittenberg Disputation in 1518, " For the Quieting
of Anxious Consciences." The three great Disputations
described by Luther as " Initium negocii evangelici." Luther
to Trutfetter on his aims .... pages 315-321

Attitude to the Church.

Luther continues to acknowledge the doctrinal office of the
Church. The principle of private interpretation of Scripture
not yet enunciated. Explanation of Luther's inconsistency
in conduct ; on obedience to the Church ; traces all heresies
back to pride ; his correct description of Indulgences in
1516, his regret at their abuse .... pages 321-326

CHAPTER IX. THE INDULGENCE-THESES OF 1517

AND THEIR AFTER-EFFECTS . . pages 327-373

1. Tetzel's Preaching of the Indulgence ; the 95 Theses.

The St. Peter's Indulgence and its preaching ; Luther's
information regarding it ; his sermon before the Elector.
The 95 theses nailed to the door of the Castle Church ; their
contents ; the excitement caused ; Augustinians refrain
from any measure against the author ; the Heidelberg
Chapter ; the " Resolutions " ; Dominicans take up the
challenge. Fables regarding Luther and Tetzel ; Tetzel's
private life ; charges brought against him by Luther and
Miltitz ; the real Tetzel ; Luther's statement that he did
not know " what an Indulgence was." Luther's letter to
Tetzel on his death-bed ..... pages 327-347

2. The Collection for St. Peter's in History and Legend.

The Indulgence granted on behalf of the building fund ;
new sources of information ; Albert of Brandenburg obtains
the See of Mayence ; his payments to Rome ; the Indulgence
granted him for his indemnification ; arrangements made for
its preaching ; the pecuniary result a failure . pages 347-355

3. The Trial at Augsburg (1518).

The summons. Luther before Cardinal Cajetan at Augs-
burg ; Letters written from Augsburg ; refuses to recant ;
his flight ; his appeal to a General Council. Popular works on
the Penitential Psalms, the Our Father, and the Ten Com-
mandments ....... pages 355-362

4. The Disputation at Leipzig, 1519. Miltitz. Questionable

Reports.

Circumstances of the Disputation. Luther's dissatisfaction
with the result. Unfortunate attempts of Miltitz to smooth
things down. Luther's justification of his polemics. Stories
of his doings and sayings at Dresden ; his sermon before the
Court ; Eraser's reports of certain utterances . pages 362-373

xiv CONTENTS

CHAPTER X. LUTHER'S PROGRESS IN THE NEW

TEACHING pages 374-404

1. The Second Stage of His Development : Assurance of

Salvation.

In the first stage assurance of salvation through faith
alone was yet unknown to him. The Catholic doctrine on
this subject. How Luther reached his doctrine by the path
of despair ; the several steps of his progress from 1516
onwards ; the Resolutions ; the " pangs of Hell " ; the
interview with Cajetan ; first clear trace of the doctrine in his
works written in 1519 . . . . pages 374-388

2. The Discovery in the Monastery Tower, 1518-19.

The information contained in Luther's later Prrefatio to
be trusted in the main ; other testimonies ; his state at the
time one of great anxiety ; his terror of God's justice. The
Gate of Paradise suddenly opened by the text : " The just
man liveth by faith " ; where this revelation was vouchsafed :
In the " cloaca " on the tower ; the revelation referred by
Luther to the Holy Ghost ; its importance and connection
with Luther's mysticism .... pages 388-400

3. Legends. Storm-Signals.

Luther's faulty recollection in later life responsible for
the rise of legends regarding his discovery. His statement
that he was the first to interpret Romans i. 17 as speaking
of the justice by which God makes us just. His " discovery "
confirms him in his attitude towards Rome ; the Pope a more
dangerous foe of the German nation than the Turk. The
legend that the German knights and Humanists were
responsible for Luther's opposition to Rome . pages 400-404

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Note. — The following is an alphabetical list of the books,
etc., referred to in an abbreviated form in the course of our work,
the title under which they are quoted in each case figuring first.

For the Bibliography of Luther generally, we may refer to
the following : E. G. Vogel, " Bibliographia Lutheri," Halle,
1851 ; LA. Fabricius, " Centifolium Lutheranum," 2 parts,
[amburg, 1728-1730 ; Wm. Maurenbrecher, " Studien und
>kizzen," Leipzig, 1874, p. 205 ff. (a good list of the studies on
Luther and his work). The articles on Luther in the " Deutsche
Biographie," in the Catholic " Kirchenlexikon " (2nd ed.),
and the Protestant " Realenzyklopadie fiir Theologie," etc.,
also provide more or less detailed bibliographies. So also
do W. Moller, " Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte," vol. 3, ed.
by Kawerau (3rd ed., particularly p. 4 ff.) ; Hergenrother, " Lehr-
buch der Kirchengeschichte," vol. 3, 3rd ed., by J. P. Kirsch
(particularly p. 4 ff.) ; Janssen- Pastor, " Geschichte des
deutschen Volkes," etc. (in the lists at the commencement of
each vol., particularly vols. ii. and hi.). The bibliographical data
added by various writers in the prefaces to the various works of
Luther in the new Weimar complete edition are not only copious
but also often quite reliable, for instance, those on the German
Bible.

" Analecta Lutherana, Brief e und Aktenstiicke zur Geschichte
Luthers, Zugleich ein Supplement zu den bisherigen
Sammlungen seines Brief wechsels," ed. by Th. Kolde,
Gotha, 1883.

" Analecta Lutherana et Melanchthoniana," see Mathesius,
" Aufzeichnungen."

" Archiv fiir Reformationsgeschichte. Texte und Untersuch-
ungen. In Verbindung mit dem Verein fiir Reformations-
geschichte," ed. W. Friedensburg. Berlin, later Leipzig,
1903-1904 ff.

Balan, P., " Monumenta reformationis Lutheranse ex tabulariis
S. Sedis secretis, 1521-1525," Ratisbonse, 1883, 1884.

Barge, H., " Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt," 2 vols.,
Leipzig, 1905.

Beatus Rhenanus, see Correspondence.

xvi BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berger, A., " Martin Luther in kujturgeschichtlicher Darstellung."

2 vols., Berlin, 1895-1898.

Bezold, F. von, " Geschichte der deutschen Reformation,"
Berlin, 1890.

" Bibliothek des Kgl. Preussischen Historischen Instituts in
Rom," Rome, 1905 ff.

Blaurer, see Correspondence.

Bohmer, H., " Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung " (from
" Natur und Geisteswelt," No. 113), Leipzig, 1906, 2nd ed.,
1910.

Brandenburg, E., " Luthers Anschauung von Staat und Gesell-
schaft " (Schriften des Vereins fiir Reformationsgeschichte),
Hft. 70, Halle, 1901.

Braun, W., " Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben
und Lehre," Berlin, 1908.

" Brief e," see Letters.

" Brief wechsel," see Correspondence.

Brieger, Th., " Aleander und Luther. Die vervollstandigten
Aleander-Depeschen nebst Untersuchungen iiber den Worm-
ser Reichstag," I, Gotha, 1884.

Burkhardt, C. A., " Geschichte der sachsischen Kirchen- und
Schulvisitationen von 1524-1545," Leipzig, 1879.

Calvini, I., " Opera quae supersunt omnia, ediderunt G. Braun,
E. Cunitz, E. Reuss," 59 vol. (29-87 in the " Corpus
Reformatorum"), Brunsvigae, 1863-1900.

Cardauns, L., " Zur Geschichte der kirchlichen Unions- und
Reformbestrebungen von 1538-1542 " (" Bibliothek des
Kgl. Preuss. Historischen Instituts in Rom," vol. 5), Rome,
1910.

— see " Nuntiaturberichte."

Cochlaeus, I., " Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri . . .
ab a. 1517 usque ad a. 1537 conscripta," Moguntiae, 1549.

(" Colloquia," ed. Bindseil), Bindseil, Hk E., " D. Martini Lutheri
Colloquia, Meditationes, Consolationes, Iudicia, Sententiae,
Narrationes, Responsa, Facetiae e codice ms. Bibliothecae
Orphanotrophei Halensis cum perpetua collatione editionis
Rebenstockianae edita et prolegomenis indicibusque in-
structa," 3.voll., Lemgoviae et Detmoldae, 1863-1866.

(" Commentarius in Epist. ad Galat."), "M. Lutheri Corn-
men tarius in Epistolam ad Galatas," ed. I. A. Irmischer,

3 voll., Erlangae, 1843 sq.

BIBLIOGRAPHY xvii

(Cordatus, " Tagebuch "), Wrampelmeyer, H., "Tagebuch iiber
Dr. Martin Luther, gefiihrt von Dr. Conrad Cordatus, 1537,"
1st ed., Halle, 1885.

u Corpus Reformatorum," ed. Bretschneider, Halis Saxoniae,
1834, sqq. voll. 1-28, " Melanchthonis opera " ; voll. 29-87,
" Calvini opera " ; voll. 88-89, " Zwinglii opera."

Correspondence : " Dr. Martin Luthers Brief wechsel," edited
with annotations by L. Enders, 11 vols., Frankfurt a/M., also
Calw and Stuttgart, 1884-1907, 12 vols., ed. G. Kawerau,
Leipzig, 1910 ; see also Letters.

— " Brief wechsel Luthers, mit vielen unbekannten Brief en und

unter Beriicksichtigung der De Wetteschen Ausgabe," ed.
C. A. Burkhardt, Leipzig, 1866.

— " Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus," etc., ed. A. Horawitz

and K. Hartf elder, Leipzig, 1886.

— " Briefwechsel der Bruder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer,

1509-1548," ed. Tr. Schiess, 1 vol., Freiburg i/Breisgau, 1908.

— " Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas," etc., ed. G. Kawerau, 2 vols.,

Halle, 1884.

— " Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps des Grossraiitigen von

Hessen mit Bucer," ed. by M. Lenz (" Publikationen aus
dem Kgl. Preuss. Staatsarchiv,"), 3 vols., Leipzig, 1880-1891.

Denifle, H., O.P., " Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Ent-
wickelung quellenmassig dargestellt," 1 vol., Mayence, 1904 ;
2nded., 1st part, 1904 ; 2nd part, ed. A. M. Weiss, O.P., 1906.
Quellenbelege zu l2, 1-2, "Die Abendlandische Schriftaus-
legung bis Luther iiber Iustitia Dei (Rom. i. 17) und Iusti-
flcatio. Beitrag zur Geschichte der Exegese, der Literatur
und des Dogmas im Mittelalter," 1905, 2nd vol. of the main
work, ed. A. M. Weiss, O.P., 1909.

— " Luther in rationalistischer und christlicher Beleuchtung,
Prinzipielle Auseinandersetzung mit A. Harnack und
R. Seeberg," Mayence, 1904.

" Deutsch-evangelische Blatter. Zeitschrift fur den gesamten
Bereich des deutschen Protestantismus," Halle, 1891, sq.

(" Disputationen," ed. Drews), Drews, P., " Disputationen Dr.
Martin Luthers, in den Jahren, 1535-1545 an der Universitat
Wittenberg gehalten," 1st ed., Gottingen, 1895.

(" Disputationen," ed. Stange), Stange, C, " Die altesten
ethischen ' Disputationen Dr. Martin Luthers" (" Quel-
lenschriften zur Geschichte des Protestantismus," 1), Leipzig,
1904.

xviii BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dollinger, J. I. von, " Luther, eine Skizze," Freiburg i/B., 1890
(also in Wetzer and Welte's Kirchenlexikon, 1st and 2nd
ed., Art. " Luther J').

— " Die Reformation, ihre innere Entwickelung und ihre Wirk-
ungen im Umfange des lutherischen Bekenntnisses," 3 vols.,
Ratisbon, 1846-1848 (l2, 1851).

Ehses St., " Geschichte der Packschen Handel. Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der deutschen Reformation," Freiburg i/B., 1881.

Ellinger, G., " Philipp Melanchthon. Ein Lebensbild," Berlin,
1902.

" Erasmi D. Roterodami Opera omnia emendatiora et auctiora,"
ed. Clericus, 10 torn., Lugd. Batavorum, 1702-1706.

" Erlauterungen und Erganzungen zu Janssens Geschichte des
deutschen Volkes," ed. L. von Pastor, Freiburg i/B., 1898, sq.

Evers, G., " Martin Luther. Lebens- und Charakterbild, von ihm
selbst gezeichnet in seinen eigenen Schriften und Korres-
pondenzen," Hft. 1-14, Mayence, 1883-1894.

Falk, F., "Die Bibel am Ausgang des Mittelalters," Mayence,
1905.

— " Die Ehe am Ausgang des Mittelalters " (" Erlauterungen und
Erganzungen zu Janssens Geschichte des deutschen Volkes,"
Vol. 6, Hft. 4), Freiburg i/B., 1908.

" Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation," ed.
O. Clemen, Leipzig and New York, 1907 ft.

Forstemann, C. E., " Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der
evangelischen' Kirchenreform " (one only vol. published),
Hamburg, 1842.

Harnack, A., " Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte," 3 vols. :
" Die Entwickelung des kirchlichen Dogmas " ; ii, iii, 4th ed.,
Tubingen, 1910.

Hausrath, A., " Luthers Leben," 2 vols., Berlin, 1904 (2nd re-
impression with amended preface).

Hergenr other, Card. J., " Handbuch der allgemeinen Kirchen-
geschichte," 4th ed., ed. J. P. Kirsch, 3 vols., Freiburg i/B,
1909.

" Historisches Jahrbuch," ed. the Gorres-Gesellschaft, Minister,
later Munich, 1880 ff.

" Historisch-politische Blatter fiir das katholische Deutschland,"
Munich, 1838 ff.

" Hutteni Ulr. Opera," 5 vol., ed. Booking, Lipsise, 1859-1862.

BIBLIOGRAPHY xix

(Janssen-Pastor) Janssen, J., " Geschichte des deutschen Volkes
seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters," 17-18 ed. by L. von
Pastor, vol. 1-2, Freiburg i/B., 1897 ; vol. 3, 1899. English
Trans., " History of the German People at the Close of the
Middle Ages," 1-22, 1905; 3-41, 1900; 5-61, 1903 (see
also "Erlauterungen und Erganzungen ").

; An meine Kritiker. Nebst Erganzungen und Erlauterungen
zu den drei ersten Banden meiner Geschichte des deutschen
Volkes," Freiburg i/B., 1882.

; Ein zweites Wort an meine Kritiker. Nebst Erganzungen
und Erlauterungen zu den drei ersten Banden meiner
Geschichte des deutschen Volkes," Freiburg i/B., 1883.

Kahnis, C. F. A., " Die deutsche Reformation," vol. 1, Leipzig,
1872 (no others published).

Kalkoff, P., " Forschungen zu Luthers romischem Prozess "
(" Bibliothek des Kgl. Preuss. Histor. Instituts in Rom,"
vol. 2), Rome, 1905.

" Kirchenordnungen, Die evangelischen des 16 Jahrhunderts,"
ed. E. Sehling : 1, " Die Ordnungen Luthers fur die
ernestinischen und albertinischen Gebiete," Leipzig, 1902 ;
2, " Die vier geistlichen Gebiete," etc., 1904 ; 3, " Die Mark
Brandenburg," 1909.

Kohler, W., " Katholizismus und Reformation. Kritisches
Referat liber die wissenschaftlichen Leistungen der neueren
katholischen Theologie auf dem Gebiete der Reformations-
geschichte," Giessen, 1905.

— " Luther und die Kirchengeschichte," 1, vol. 1, Erlangen, 1900.

Kostlin, J., " Luthers Theologie in ihrer geschichtlichen Ent-
wickelung und in ihrem Zusammenhang dargestellt," 2nd ed.,
2 vols., Stuttgart, 1901.

(Kostlin-Kawerau), Kostlin, J., " Martin Luther. Sein Leben
und seine Schriften," 5th ed., continued after the death of
the author by G. Kawerau, 2 vols., Berlin, 1903.

Kolde, Th., see " Analecta Lutherana."

— " Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation und Johann von

Staupitz. Ein Beitrag zur Ordens- und Reformations-
geschichte nach meistens ungedruckten Quellen," Gotha,
1879.

— " Martin Luther, Eine Biographie," 2 vols., Gotha, 1884-

1893.

Laemmer, H., " Monumenta Vaticana historiam ecclesiasticam
ssbcuH XVI, illustrantia," Friburgi Brisgovise, 1861.

xx BIBLIOGRAPHY

(Lauterbach, " Tagebuch "), Seidemann, J. K., " A. Lauterbachs
Tagebuch auf das Jahr 1538. Die Hauptquelle der
Tischreden Luthers," Dresden, 1872.

Letters, " M. Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken,"
ed. M. De Wette, 5 parts, Berlin, 1825-1828 ; 6th part, ed.
J. K. Seidemann, Berlin, 1856.

Loesche, G., see Mathesius, " Aufzeichnungen " ; Mathesius,

" Historien."
Loscher, V. E., " Vollstandige Reformationsacta und Doku-

menta," 3 vols., Leipzig, 1720-1729.

Loofs, F., " Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte,"
4th ed., Halle a/S., 1906.

Luthardt, C. E., " Die Ethik Luthers in ihren Grundziigen," 2nd
ed., Leipzig, 1875.

Luther's Works : 1, Complete editions of his works, see " Werke,"
"Opera Lat. var.," "Opera Lat. exeg.," " Commentarius
in Epist. ad Galatas," Romerbriefkommentar ; 2, Corre-
spondence, see Letters, Correspondence, and " Analecta " ;
3, Table-Talk, see " Tischreden," ed. Aurifaber, ed. Forste-
mann, also " Werke," Erl. ed. vol. 57-62, " Werke," Halle,
ed., vol. 22, " Colloquia," Cordatus, Lauterbach, Mathesius,
" Aufzeichnungen," Mathesius, " Tischreden," Schlagin-
haufen ; 4, on other matters see " Analecta," " Disputa-
tionen," " Symbolische Biicher."

(Mathesius, " Aufzeichnungen "), Loesche, G., " Analecta
Lutherana et Melanchthoniana, Tischreden Luthers und
Ausspruche Melanchthons hauptsachlich nach den Auf-
zeichnungen des Johannes Mathesius, aus der Nurnberger
Handschrift im Germanischen Museum mit Beniitzung
von Seidemanns Vorarbeiten," Gotha, 1892.

Mathesius, J., " Historien von des ehrwiirdigen in Gott seligen
thewren Manns Gottes Doctoris Martini Luther Anfang
Lehr, Leben und Sterben," Niirnberg, 1566, ed. G. Loesche,
Prague, 1898 and 1906 (" Bibliothek deutscher Schriftsteller
aus Bohmen," vol. 9). Our quotations are from the Nurem-
berg ed.

(Mathesius, " Tischreden "), Kroker, E., " Luthers Tischreden
in der Mathesischen Sammlung. Aus einer Handschrift der
Leipziger Stadtbibliothek," ed. Leipzig, 1903.

Maurenbrecher, W., " Studien und Skizzen zur Geschichte der
Reformationszeit," Leipzig, 1874.

— Geschichte der katholischen Reformation," 1 vol., Nord-
lingen, 1880.

Melanchthon, see " Analecta," by Loescho.

Melanchthon, see " Vita Lutheri."

BIBLIOGRAPHY xxi

11 Melanchthonis opera omnia," ed. Bretschneider (in " Corpus
Reformatorum," vol. 1-28), Halis Saxonise, 1834-1863.

Mohler, J. A., " Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte," ed. Pius Gams,
3 vols., Ratisbon, 1868.

— " Symbolik oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensatze der

Katholiken und Protestanten nach ihren offentlichen
Bekenntnisschriften," 1st ed., Ratisbon, 1832 ; 10th ed.,
with additions, by J. M. Raich, Mayence, 1889.

Moller, W., " Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte," 3 vols., " Re-
formation und Gegenreformation," ed. G. Kawerau, 3rd
ed., Tubingen, 1907.

Miiller, K., " Luther und Karlstadt. Stiicke aus ihrem gegen-
seitigen Verhaltnis untersucht," Tubingen, 1909.

— " Kirche Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther," Tubingen,

1910.

Mxinzer, Th., " Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort wider
das geistlose sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg," ed. Enders
("Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke," No. 118), Halle,
1893.

" Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke des 16 und 17 Jahr-
hunderts," Halle, 1876 ff.

" Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland nebst erganzenden
Aktenstiicken : 1, 1533-1559, ed. Kgl. Preuss. Institut
in Rom, & Kgl. Preuss. Archivverwaltung ; vols. 5-6,
" Nuntiaturen Morones und Poggios," " Legationen Farneses
und Cervinis, 1539-1540," ed. L. Cardauns ; " Gesandtschaft
Campeggios," " Nuntiaturen Morones und Poggios, 1540-
1541," ed. L. Cardauns, Berlin, 1909.

("Opp. Lat. exeg."), " M. Lutheri Exegetica opera latina,"
cur. C. Elsperger, 28 voll., Erlangse, 1829 sqq. (also published
apart), " D. M. Lutheri Commentarius in Epistolam ad
Galatas," ed. I. A. Irmischer, 3 voll., Erlangse, 1843, sq.

("Opp. Lat. var."), " M. Lutheri Opera latina varii argumenti
ad reformationis historiam imprimis pertinentia," cur.
H. Schmidt, voll. 1-7, Francofurti, 1865 sqq. (part of the
Erlangen ed. of Luther's works).

Oergel, G., " Vom jungen Luther. Beitrage zur Lutherfprschung,"
Erfurt, 1899.

Pastor, L. von, " Geschichte der Papste seit dem Ausgang des
Mittelalters. Mit Benutzung des papstlichen Geheimarchivs
und vieler anderer Archive bearbeitet," vols. 1-3 in 3rd-4th
ed., Freiburg i/B., 1901, 1904, 1899 ; vol. 4 first half 1906,
second half 1907 ; vol. 5 1909. English Trans., " History
of the Popes from the close of the Middle Ages," 1-23, 1906 ;
3-4 2, 1900 : 5-62, 1901 : 7-8\ 1908.

xxii BIBLIOGRAPHY

Paulsen, F., " Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den
deutschen Schulen und Universitaten vom Ausgang des
Mittelalters bis zur Gegenwart. Mit besonderer Rucksicht
auf den klassischen Unterricht," Leipzig, 1885, 2nd ed.,
2 vols. 1896-1897.

Paulus, N., " Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen
Luther, 1518-1563 " (" Erlauterungen und Erganzungen
zu Janssens Geschichte des deutschen Volkes," vol. 4, 1-2).
Freiburg i/B., 1903.

— " Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16 Jahr-

hundert," Freiburg i/B., 1910.

— " Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit " (" Glaube und Wissen,"

Hft, 4), Munich, 1905.

— " Luthers Lebensende. Eine kritische Untersuchung " (" Erl-

auterungen und Erganzungen zu Janssens Geschichte des
deutschen Volkes," vol. 1, P. 1), Freiburg i/B., 1898.

— " Kaspar Schatzgeyer, ein Vorkampfer der katholischen

Kirche gegen Luther in Siiddeutschland " (" Strassburger
theologische Studien," vol. 3, 1), Freiburg i/B., 1898.

— " Johann Tetzel, der Ablassprediger," Mayence, 1899.

— " Bartholomaus Arnoldi von Usingen " (" Strassburger theo-

logische Studien," vol. 1, 3), Freiburg i/B., 1893.

" Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte in
Verbindung mit ihrem historischen Institut zu Rom," ed.
the Gorres-Gesellschaft, Paderborn, 1892 ff.

" — aus den italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken," ed.
Kgl. Preuss. Histor. Institut in Rom, Rome, 1897 ff.

" Quellenschriften zur Geschichte des Protestantismus zum
Gebrauch in akademischen TJbungen," in Verbindung mit
anderen Fachgenossen ed. J. Kunze and C. Stange, Leipzig,
1904, ff.

(Oldecop), " Joh. Oldecops Chronik," ed. K. Euling ("Bibl. des
literarischen Vereins von Stuttgart," vol. 190), Tubingen,
1891.^

(Ratzeberger), " Ratzeberger M., Handschriftliche Geschichte
liber Luther und seine Zeit," ed. Ch. G. Neudecker, Jena,
1850.

" Raynaldi Annales ecclesiastici. Accedunt notse chronologicae,"
etc., auct. J. D. Mansi, Tom. 12-14, Lucae, 1755.

" Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte," ed. J. Greving,
Miinster i/VV., 1906 ff.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxm

" Reichstagsakten, Deutsche," N.S., 2 vols. : " Deutsche
Reichstagsakten unter Karl V," ed. Adolf Wrede. At the
command of H.M. the King of Bavaria, ed. by the Historical
Commission of the Kgl. Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Gotha, 1896.

Riff el, K., " Christliche Kirchengeschichte der neuesten Zeit,
von dem Anfange der grossen Glaubens- und Kirchenspaltung
des 16 Jahrhunderts," 3 vols. (vol. 1, 2nded.), Mayence, 1842-
1846.

Ritschl, A., " Rechtfertigung und Versohnung," 3 vols., 2nd ed.,
Bonn, 1882 f.

— O., " Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus," vol. 1, Leipzig,
1908.

Romans, Commentary on, Ficker, J., " Luthers Vorlesung iiber
den Romerbrief 1515-1516," Glossen, 2, Scholien ("Anfange,
reformatorischer Bibelauslegung," ed. J. Ficker, vol. 1),
Leipzig, 1908.

" Sammlung gemeinverstandlicher Vortrage und Schriften aus
dem Gebiete der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte." Tu-
bingen and Leipzig, 1896 ff.

Scheel, O., " Luthers Stellung zur Heiligen Schrift " (" Sammlung
gemeinverstandlicher Vortrage und Schriften aus dem
Gebiete der Theologie," No. 29), Tubingen, 1902.

(Schlaginhaufen, " Aufzeichnungen "), " Tischreden Luthers
aus den Jahren 1531 und 1532 nach den Aufzeichnungen von
Johann Schlaginhaufen aus einer Miinchener Handschrift,"
ed. W. Preger, Leipzig, 1888.

" Scholia Rom," see Romans, Commentary on.

" Schriften des Vereins fiir Reformationsgeschichte," Halle,

1883 ff.
Seckendorf, V. L. a, " Commentarius historicus et apologeticus

de Lutheranismo sive de reformatione religionis ductu D.

Martini Lutheri . . . recepta et stabilita," Lipsise, 1694.

Spahn, M., " Johann Cochlaus. Ein Lebensbild aus der Zeit
der Kirchenspaltung," Berlin, 1898.

" Studien und Darstellungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte.
Im Auftrage der Gorres-Gesellschaft und in Verbindung mit
der Redaktion des Historischen Jahrbuches," ed. H. Grauert,
Freiburg i/B., 1900 ff.

" Studien und Kritiken, Theologische. Zeitschrift fiir das
gesamte Gebiet der Theologie," Hamburg, later, Gotha,
1835 ff.

(" Symbolische Biicher "), Muller H. T., "Die symbolischen
Biicher der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche deutsch und
lateinisch. Mit einer neuen historischen Einleitung von Th.
Kolde " 10th ed., Gutersloh, 1907.,

xxiv BIBLIOGRAPHY

" Table-Talk," see " Tischreden."

" Tischreden oder Colloquia M. Luthers," ed. Aurifaber, 2 vols.,
Eisleben, 1564-1565.

(Tischreden ed. Forstemann), Forstemann, K. E., " Dr. Martin
Luthers Tischreden oder Colloquia. Nach Aurifabers erster
Ausgabe niit sorgfaltiger Vergleichung sowohl der Stangwald-
ischen als der Selneccerschen Redaktion," 4 vols. (4th vol.
ed. with assistance of H. E. Bindseil), Leipzig, 1844-1848.

Ulenberg, C, " Historia de Vita . . . Lutheri, Melanchthonis,
Matth. Flacii Illyrici, G. Maioris et Andr. Osiandri," 2 voll.,
Colonise, 1622.

("Vita Lutheri"), "Melanchthonis Philippi Vita Lutheri," in
" Vitse, quatuor reformatorum," Berolini, 1841. Also in
" Corp. Ref." 6, p. 155 sq. and previously as Preface to the
2nd vol. of the Wittenberg Latin edition of Luther's works.

Walther, W., " Fur Luther, Wider Rom. Handbuch der Apolo-
getik Luthers und der Reformation den romischen Anklagen
gegeniiber," Halle a/S., 1906.

Weiss, A. M., O.P., " Lutherpsychologie als Schliissel zur Luther-
legende. Denifles Untersuchungen kritisch nachgepriift,"
Mayence, 1906 ; 2nd ed., 1906.

— " Luther und Luthertum," 2, see Denifle.

(" Werke," Erl. ed.), " M. Luthers samtliche Werke," 67 vols., ed.
J. G. Plochmann and J. A. Irmischer, Erlangen, 1826-1868,
vols. 1-20 and 24-26, 2nd ed., ed. L. Enders, Frankfurt a/M.,
1862 ff. To the Erl. ed. belong also the Latin " Opp. Lat.
exeg.," the " Commentar. in Epist. ad. Galat.," the " Opp.
Lat. var.," and the Correspondence ( Brief wechsel) ed. by
Enders (see under these four titles).

— Weim. ed., " Dr. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamt-

ausgabe," Weimar, 1883 ff., ed. J. Knaake, G. Kawerau,
P. Pietsch, N. Miiller, K. Drescher and W. Walther. So far
(Jan., 1911) there have appeared vols. 1-9: 10, 1, 2, 3 ;
11-16 ; 17, 1 ; 18-20 ; 23-29 ; 30, 2 ; 3 ; 32 ; 33 ; 34, 1, 2 ;
36; 37. "Deutsche Bibel (1522-1541)," 2 vols, with
introductions.

— Altenburg ed., 1661-1664, 10 vols. (German) ; reprinted

Leipzig, 1729-1740, 22 vols.

— Eisleben ed. ("Supplement zur Wittenberger und Jenaer

Ausg."), ed. J. Aurifaber, 2 vols., 1564-1565.

BIBLIOGRAPHY xxv

" Werke," Halle ed., ed. J. G.Walch,24vols., 1740-1753 (German),
"Neue Ausgabe im Auftrage des Ministeriums derdeutschen
evangelisch-lutherischen Synode von Missouri, Ohio und
andern Staaten," St. Louis, Mo., Zwickau, Schriftenverein,
22 vols., 1880-1904, 23 (index), 1910.

— Jena ed., 8 vols, of German and 4 vols, of Latin writings, 1555-

1558 ; re-edited later.

— Wittenberg ed., 12 vols, of German (1539-1559) and 7 vols.

of Latin writings (1545-1558).

— " Auswahl," ed. Buchwald, Kawerau, Kostlin, etc., 8 vols.,

3rd ed., Brunswick and Berlin, 1905 ff. ; also 2 supple-
mentary vols.

Wiedemann, Th., " Johann Eck, Professor der Theologie an der
Universitat Ingolstadt," Ratisbon, 1865.

Works (Luther's), see " Werke."

" Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie," Innsbruck, 1877 ff.

" — fiir Kirchengeschichte," ed. Th. Brieger, Gotha, 1877 ff.

" — fiir Theologie und Kirche," Tubingen, 1890 ff.

" Zwinglii H. Opera. Completa editio prima cur. M. Schulero
et H. Schulthessio," 8 voll. (voll. 7 et 8 " epistolae "),
Turici, 1828-1842. In "Corpus Reformatorum " (2 vols.),
voll. 88-89, Berlin and Leipzig, 1905-1908.

INTRODUCTION

(PREFACE TO THE FIRST AND SECOND GERMAN
EDITIONS)

The author's purpose in the present work 1 has been to give
an exact historical and psychological picture of Luther's
personality, which still remains an enigma from so many
points of view. He would fain present an accurate delinea-
tion of Luther's character as seen both from within and from
outside throughout the history of his life and work from his
earliest years till his death. He has, however, placed his
hero's interior life, his spiritual development and his psychic
history well in the foreground of his sketch.

The external history of the originator of the great German
schism has indeed been dealt with fully enough before this.
Special historical studies on the various points of his career
and times exist in great number and are being daily added to.
Whenever necessary, the author has made use of such
existing material, although these works are only rarely
quoted, in order not to overload the book.

Everyone knows with what animation Luther's life has

recently been discussed, how his doctrines have been probed,

and how they have been compared and contrasted with the

theology of the Middle Ages. The Commentary on the

Epistle to the Romans, a work of Luther's youth, which was

first made use of by Denifle and which now exists in a

printed form, has supplied very important new material for

the study of the rise of his opinions. With the assistance

of this work it has become possible to give an entirely new

explanation of how the breach with Rome came about.

With regard to the actual questions of dogma, it has been

my endeavour to bestow upon them the attention necessary

for a right comprehension of history ; at the same time the

theological element can only be considered as secondary,

our intention being to supply an exact portrait of Luther

as a whole, which should emphasise various aspects of his

1 Luther, von Haktmann Grisar, S.J. (Herdersche Verlagshandlung,
Freiburg im Breisgau, 1911-12).

xxviii INTRODUCTION

mind and character, and not to write a history of dogma,
much less a controversial or theological tract. The investiga-
tion of his mind, of his intellectual and moral springs of
action, and of the spiritual reaction which he himself
experienced from his life's work, is indispensably neces-
sary if we wish to do justice to the man who so powerfully
influenced the development of Europe, and to form a correct
idea of the human sides, good as well as bad, of his character.

We have preferred, when sketching the psychological
picture, to do so in Luther's own words. This method was,
however, the most suitable one, in spite of its apparent
clumsiness ; indeed it is the only one which does not merely
put the truth before the eyes of the reader, but likewise the
proofs that it is the truth, while at the same time giving an
absolutely life-like picture. It has frequently been necessary
to allow Luther to speak in his own words in order that in
matters which have been diversely interpreted, or on which
he was somewhat uncertain, he may be free to bring forward
the pros and cons himself ; we have thus given him the
fullest opportunity to defend or accuse himself. If, for this
reason, he is quoted more often than some readers may like,
yet the originality of his mode of expression, which is always
vivid, often drastic, and not infrequently eloquent, should
suffice to prevent any impression of tiresomeness.

Luther's personality with all its well-known outspokenness
has, as a matter of course, been introduced, unvarnished
and unexpurgated, just as it betrays itself in the printed
pamphlets, which as a rule give so vivid a picture of the
writer, in the confidential letters, and in the chatty talk
with his friends and table-companions. In a book which,
needless to say, is not destined for the edification of the
young, but to describe, as an historical work should, the
conditions of things as they really were, the author has not
thought it permissible to suppress certain offensive passages,
or to tone down expressions which, from the standpoint of
modern taste, are often too outspoken. With regard to the
Table-Talk it may at once be stated that, by preference, we
have gone to the actual sources from whence it was taken,
so far as these sources are known, i.e. to the first Notes made
by Luther's own pupils and recently edited from the actual
MSS. by Protestant scholars such as Preger, Wrampelmeyer,
Loesche, Kroker, and others.

INTRODUCTION xxix

In order to preserve the character of the old-time language,
the original words and phrases employed by Luther, and
also by his friends, have been, as far as possible, adhered to,
though not the actual mode of spelling. A certain un-
equalness was, however, unavoidable owing to the fact that
some of Luther's Latin expressions which have been trans-
lated into modern German appear side by side with texts in
old German, and that in the first written notes of the Table-
Talk frequently only half the sentence is in German, the
other half, owing to the use of Latin stenography, or because
the speakers intermingled Latin and German haphazard,
being given in Latin. Some difficulties presented by the
German of that day have been made plain to the reader by
words introduced in brackets.

In selecting and sifting the material, a watchful eye has
been kept not only on Luther's mental history, but also on
the Luther-Legends, whether emanating from advocates of
the Wittenberg Doctor or from his Catholic opponents. It is
a remarkable phenomenon only to be explained by the
ardent interest taken in the struggle which Luther called
forth, how quickly and to what an extent legendary matter
accumulated, and with what tenacity it was adhered to.
The inventions which we already find flourishing luxuriantly
in the earliest panegyrics on the Reformer and in the oldest
controversial works written to confute him (we express no
opinion on the good faith of either side), are many of them
not yet exploded, but continue a sort of tradition, even to
the present day. Much that was false in the tales dating
from the outset, whether in Luther's favour or to his dis-
advantage, is still quoted to-day, in favour of or against him.
In the light of a dispassionate examination the cloud-banks
of panegyrics and embellishments tend, however, to vanish
into thin air, though, on the other hand, a number of dark
spots which still clung to the memory of the mari' — owing
to hasty acceptance of the statements of older anti-Lutheran
writers, have also disappeared.

The Protestant historian, Wilhelm Maurenbrecher, de-
clared in 1874 in his " Studien und Skizzen zur Geschichte
der Reformationszeit " (p. 239), that a good life of Luther
could not soon be written owing to the old misrepresenta-
tions having given birth to a fable convenue ; " the rubbish
and filth with which the current theological view of the

xxx INTRODUCTION

Reformation period has been choked up, intentionally or
unintentionally, is too great, and the utter nonsense
which it has been the custom to present and to accept with
readiness as Luther's history, is still too strong." Mauren-
brecher, speaking of the Protestant tradition, felt himself
justified in alluding to " a touching affection for stories
which have become dear." During the forty years or so
which have elapsed since then, things have, however, im-
proved considerably. Protestant scholars have taken on
themselves the honourable task of clearing away the rubbish.
Nevertheless, looking at the accounts in vogue of Luther's
development, one of the most recent historians of dogma,
writing from Luther's own camp, at the very commencement
of a work dealing with the Reformer's development, declares :
" We still possess no reliable biography of Luther." So says
Wilhelm Braun in his work, " Die Bedeutung der Con-
cupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre " (Berlin, 1908).

The excrescences on the Catholic side have also been
blamed by conscientious Catholic historians. I am not here
speaking of the insulting treatment of Luther customary with
some of the older polemical writers, with regard to which
Erasmus said : " Si scribit adversus Lutherum, qui subinde
vocat ilium asinum, stipitem, bestiam, cacodcemonem, anti-
christum, nihil eratfacilius quam in ilium scribere" (" Opp.,"
ed. Lugd., 3, col. 658) ; I am speaking rather of the great
number of fables and false interpretations which have been
accepted, mostly without verification. Concerning these
Joseph Schmidlin says in his article, " Der Weg zum
historischen Verstandnis des Luthertums " (III., " Vereins-
schrift der Gorresgesellschaft fur 1909," p. 32 f.) : " The
Luther-problem has not yet found a solution. ... To
what an extent the apologetico-dogmatic method, as
employed by Catholics, can deviate from historical truth is
proved down to the present day by the numerous contro-
versial pamphlets merely intended to serve the purposes of
the moment. . . . The historical point of view, on the
contrary, is splendidly adapted to bring into evidence the
common ground on which Catholic and Protestant scholars
can, to a certain extent, join hands."

While confronting the fables which have grown up on
either side with the simple facts as they are known, I was,
naturally, unwilling to be constantly denouncing the

INTRODUCTION xxxi

authors who were responsible for their invention or who have
since made them their own, and accordingly, on principle,
I have avoided mentioning the names of those whose
accounts I have rectified, and confined myself to the facts
alone ; in this wise I hope to have avoided giving offence
or any reason for superfluous personal discussions. I trust
that it is clear from the very form of the book, which deals
with Luther and with him alone, that the history of the
Wittenberg Doctor is my only concern and that I have no
wish to quarrel with any writer of olden or more recent
times. I have been able to profit by the liberty thus
attained, to attack the various fables without the slightest
scruple.

With regard to the other details of the work ; my inten-
tion being to write a psychology of Luther based on his
history, it necessarily followed that some parts which were
of special importance for this purpose had to be treated at
greater length, whereas others, more particularly historical
events which had already been repeatedly described, could
be passed over very lightly.

Owing to the psychological point of view adopted in this
work the author has also been obliged to follow certain rules
in the division and grouping. Some sections had to be
devoted to the consideration of special points in Luther's
character and in the direction of his mind, manifestations of
which frequently belong to entirely different periods of his
life. Certain pervading tendencies of his life could be
treated of only in the third volume, and then only by going
back to elements already portrayed, but absolutely essential
for a right comprehension of the subject. Without some
such arrangement it seemed impossible to explain satis-
factorily his development, and to produce a convincing
picture of the man as a whole.

Although a complete and lengthy description has been
devoted to Luther's idea of his higher mission (vol. iii., ch.
xvi.) — a subject rightly considered of the greatest interest
■ — yet the growth of this idea, its justification, and its
various phases, is really being dealt with throughout the
work. The thoughtful reader will probably be able to
arrive at a decision as to whether the idea was well founded
or not, from the historical materials furnished by Luther
himself. He will see that the result which shines out from

xxxii INTRODUCTION

the pages of this book is one gained purely by means of
history, and that the mere scientific process is sufficient to
smooth the way for a solution of the question ; to discuss it
from a sectarian standpoint never entered into my mind.

The writer's unalterable principle on this point has been,
that in historical studies the religious convictions of the
author must never induce him to set aside the stubborn
facts of the past, to refuse their full importance to the
sources, or pusillanimously to deny the rightful deductions
from history. This, however, does not mean that he has
imposed on himself any denial of his religious convictions.
Just as the convinced Protestant, when judging of historical
facts, cannot avoid showing his personal standpoint, and
just as the freethinking historian applies his own standard
everywhere in criticising events both profane and religious,
so the Catholic too must be free to express his opinion from
the point of view of his own principles as soon as the facts
have been established. The unreasonableness and im-
possibility of writing a history from which personal con-
victions are entirely absent has been recognised by all
competent authorities, and, in a subject like that here
treated, this is as plain as day. Such an artificial and unreal
history of Luther would surely be dreary and dull enough to
frighten anyone, apart from the fact that Luther himself,
whose fiery nature certainly admitted nothing of indifference,
would be the first to protest against it, if he could.
^ Is it really impossible for a Catholic historian to depict
Luther as he really was without offending Protestant
feelings in any way ? Without any exaggerated optimism,
I believe it to be quite possible, because honesty and
historical justice must always be able to find a place some-
where under the sun and wherever light can be thrown, even
in the most delicate historical questions. In the extracts
from my studies on Luther (cp. for instance the article
"Der 'gute Trunk' in den Lutheranklagen, eine Revision" in
the " Historisches Jahrbuch," 1905, pp. 479-507), Protestants
themselves admitted that the matter was treated " with
entire objectivity" and acknowledged the "moderate
tone " which prevailed throughout. Such admissions were
to me a source of real pleasure. Other critics, highly pre-
judiced in favour of Luther, actually went so far as to
declare, that this impartiality and moderation was " all on

INTRODUCTION xxxiii

the surface " and a mere " ingenious make-believe,"
employed only in order the better to deceive the reader.
They took it upon themselves to declare it impossible that
certain charges made against Luther should have been
minimised by me in real earnest, and various good aspects of
his character admitted frankly and with conviction. Such
discoveries, as far-fetched as they are wanting in courtesy,
may be left to take care of themselves, though I shall not be
surprised to be again made the object of similar personal
insults on the appearance of this book^J

I may, however, assure Protestant readers in general,
whose esteem for Luther is great and who may be dis-
agreeably affected by certain passages in this book which are
new to them, that the idea of offending them by a single
word was very far from my intention. I am well aware, and
the many years I have passed at home in a country of which
the population is partly Catholic and partly Protestant have
made it still clearer to me, how Protestants carry out in all
good faith and according to their lights the practice of their
religion. Merely in view of these, and quite apart from the
gravity of the subject itself, everything that could be looked
on as a challenge or an insult should surely be avoided as a
stupid blunder. I would therefore ask that the book be
judged impartially, and without allowing feelings, in them-
selves quite natural, to interfere unduly ; let the reader ask
himself simply whether each assertion is, or is not, proved
by the facts and witnesses. As regards the author, however,
he would' ask his readers to remember that we Catholics (to
quote the words of a Swiss writer) " are not prevented by
the view we hold of the Church, from rejoicing over all that
our separated brethren throughout the world have preserved
of the inheritance of Christ, and display in their lives, that,
on the contrary, our best and sincerest esteem is for the bona
■fides of those who think otherwise than we" (" Schwei-
zerische Kirchenzeitung," 1910, No. 52, December 29).

With regard to " inconvenient facts," Friedrich Paulsen
wrote in his " Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts " (I2,
1896, p. 196) : " If Protestant historians had not yielded so
much to the inclination to slur over inconvenient facts,
Janssen's ' History of the German People ' [English trans.,
1901-1909] would not have made the impression it did —
surely an 'inconvenient fact' for many Protestants." The

xxxiv INTRODUCTION

same respected Protestant scholar also has a word to say to
those who were scandalised at some disagreeable historical
home- truths which he had published, " as though it were my
fault that facts occurred in the history of the Reformation
which a friendly biographer of Luther must regret."

Even in the Protestant world of the present day there is
a very general demand for a plain, unvarnished picture of
Luther. " Amicus Lutherus magis arnica Veritas," as Chr.
Rogge said when voicing this demand ; the same writer also
admitted that there was " much to be learnt from the Catho-
lics, even though they emphasised Luther's less favourable
qualities " ; that, " we could not indeed expect them to look
at Luther with our eyes, but nevertheless we have not lost
all hope of again finding among them men who will fight the
Monk of Wittenberg with weapons worthy of him." And
further, " the scholar given up to historical research can and
ought to strive to bring the really essential element of these
struggles to the knowledge and appreciation of his oppo-
nents, for, if anywhere, then surely in the two principal
camps of Christendom, large-minded polemics should be
possible" ("Zum Kampfe um Luther" in the " Turmer,'i
January, 1906, p. 490).

I have not only avoided theological polemics with
Protestants, but have carefully refrained from considering
Protestantism at all, whether that of to-day or of the two
previous centuries. To show the effects of Luther's work
upon the history of the world was not my business. The
object of my studies has not been Lutheranism, but Luther
himself considered apart from later Protestantism, so far as
this was possible ; of course, we cannot separate Luther
from the effects he produced, he foresaw the results of his
work, and the acceptance of this responsibility was quite
characteristic of him. I will only say, that the task I set
myself in this work closes with the first struggles over his
grave. I may remark further, that the Luther of theology,
even in Protestant circles, is being considered more and
more as an isolated fact. Are there not even many Protes-
tant theologians who at the present day allow him no place
whatever in the theological and philosophical doctrines
which they hold ? Indeed, is it not an understood thing
with many of our Protestant contemporaries, to reject
entirely or in part the doctrines most peculiar and most dear

INTRODUCTION xxxv

to Luther. Two years ago the cry was raised for " a further
development of religion," for " a return from Trinitarian to
Unitarian Christianity, from the dogmatic to the historic
Christ," and at the same time the Allgemeine Evangelisch-
Lutherische Konferenz at Hanover received a broad hint
that, instead of wasting time in working for the Lutheran
tenets, they would be better employed in devising a Chris-
tianity which should suit the needs of the day and unite all
Protestants in one body. In these and similar symptoms we
cannot fail to see a real renunciation of Luther as the founder
of Protestant belief, for there are many who refuse to hold
fast even to that rudimentary Christianity which he, in
agreement with all preceding ages, continued to advocate.
Only on account of his revolt against external authority in
religious questions and his bitter opposition to the Papacy,
is he still looked up to as a leader. There is therefore all the
less reason for the historian, who subjects Luther to his
scrutiny, to fear any reproach of having unwarrantably
assailed the Protestantism of to-day.

As in these pages my only object has been to examine
Luther's person, his interior experiences and his opinions
from the point of view of pure history, I think I have the
right to refuse beforehand to be drawn into any religious
controversy. On the other hand, historical criticism of facts
will always be welcomed by me, whether it comes from the
Catholic or from the Protestant camp, and will be par-
ticularly appreciated wherever it assists in elucidating those
questions which still remain unsolved and to which I shall
refer when occasion arises.

Finally, an historical reminiscence, which carries us back
to the religious contradictions as they existed in Germany a
hundred years ago, may not be out of place. At that time
Gottlieb Jakob Planck of Wurttemberg, Professor of
Theology at Gottingen, after the lengthy and unprofitable
polemics of earlier ages, made a first attempt to pave the
way for a more just treatment by the Protestant party of
Luther's history and theology. In his principal work, i.e. in
the six volumes of his " Geschichte der Entstehung, der
Veranderung und der Bildung unseres protestantischen
Lehrbegriffs " (finished in 1800), he ventured, with all the
honesty of a scholar and the frankness natural to a Swabian,
to break through the time-honoured custom according to

xxxvi INTRODUCTION

which, as he says, all " those who dared even to touch on the
mistakes of our reformers were stigmatised as blasphemers."
" While engaged on this work," he declares, " I never made
any attempt to forget I was a Protestant, but I hope that my
personal convictions have never led me to misrepresent
other people's doctrines, or to commit any injustice or even
to pass an unkind judgment. Calm impartiality is all that
can be demanded." I should like, mutatis mutandis, to make
his words my own, and to declare that, while I, too, have
never forgotten that I am a Catholic, I stand in no fear of
my impartiality being impugned.

I would likewise wish to appropriate the following words
taken from Planck, substituting the word " Protestants " for
" Catholics " : " The justice which I have thought it neces-
sary to do to Catholics may perhaps excite some surprise,
because some people can never understand one's treating
opponents with fairness." But " I am convinced that, if my
readers are scandalised, this will merely be on account of the
novelty of the method. I really could not bring myself to
sacrifice truth and justice to any fear of giving offence."
Planck admits, elsewhere, speaking of Lutheran history, that
compliance with the demands of impartiality in respect of
certain persons and events which he had to describe, was
sometimes " incredibly hard," and he proceeds : " There are
circumstances where every investigator is apt to get annoyed
unless indeed disinterestedness is to him a natural virtue.
... It is exasperating [the present writer can vouch for
this] to have to waste time and patience on certain things."
So speaks a theologian renowned among Protestants for his
earnestness and kindliness.

With the best of intentions Planck spent part of his time
and strength in the chimerical task of bringing about a
" reunion of the principal Christian bodies." He wrote a
work, " Ueber die Trennung und Wiedervereinigung,"
etc. (on Schism and Reunion, 1803), and another entitled
" Worte des Friedens an die katholische Kirche " (Wrords
of Peace to the Catholic Church, 1809). It was his desire
" to seek out the good which surely exists everywhere." The
ideas he put forward were, it is true, unsuited for the
realisation of his great plan. He was too unfamiliar with
the organisation of the Catholic Church, and the limitations
of his earlier education disqualified him for the undertaking

INTRODUCTION xxxvii

he had in view. What really shattered the hopes of reunion
held by many during that period of triumphant Rationalism
was, not merely the shallowness of the views prevailing, but
above all the spirit of animosity let loose among all fervent
Lutherans by the celebration, in 1817, of the third centenary
of the Reformation. Catholics soon perceived that reunion
was unfortunately still very far distant, and that, in the
interests of the public peace, all that could be expected was
the retention of mutual esteem and Christian charity
between the two great denominations.

It is also my most ardent desire that esteem and charity
should increase, and this growth of appreciation between
Catholics and Protestants will certainly not be hindered by
the free and untrammelled discussion of matters of history.

On the contrary, as a Protestant critic of Walter Kohler's
" Katholizismus und Reformation " says, " it is to be hoped
that historical investigation may lessen the contradictions,
and if in this way it is possible to come closer together, not
indeed perhaps to understand each other completely, yet
at least to make some attempt to do so, then something
deeper and more lasting will have been gained than at the
time when Rationalism prevailed. The attempt then made
to bring the parties together was the result of a levelling
down of religious beliefs, now the same object is sought by
penetrating more profoundly into the essentials of the
different creeds " (" Theologische Literaturzeitung," 1907,
p. 250).

The quotations from Luther's writings have been taken from
the most recent Weimar edition so far as it at present reaches.
What is not contained in the Weimar edition has been taken from
the previous Erlangen edition (method of quotation : Weim. ed.,
Erl. ed.) ; the latter is, however, often quoted as well as the
Weimar edition because it is more widely known and more readily
available for reference.

Luther's letters have been taken from the new edition of the
" Brief wechsel " by Enders, which is also not yet quite complete.
The epistles of Luther's later years, which are still wanting in
Enders' work, and also some of earlier date, are given as in volumes
lii.-liv. of the Erlangen edition, where a great number of German
letters are collected, or else as in the old edition of " Brief e,
Sendschreiben und Bedenken " by De Wette-Seidemann. (See
above, p. xvii. ff., "Correspondence," "Letters," "Works.")

With regard to the other sources of information we need only
state, that until the whole of the " Tischreden " (Table-Talk) have
been edited by Ernst Kroker in the Weimar series, we are com-

xxxviii INTRODUCTION

pelled to have recourse to the older German and Latin collections
of the same, together with the original notes mentioned above
(p. xx.). Of the German collection, in addition to the work of
Aurifaber, the "Tischreden " of Forstemann-Bindseil and of the
Erlangen edition (vols, lvii.-lxii.) have been used, and, for the
Latin collection, Bindseil's careful edition (see p. xvi. f.).

From among the large number of lives of Luther which have
been consulted I shall mention only the two latest, one by a
Catholic, Denifle, and the other by two Protestants, Kostlin and
Kawerau.

It is hardly necessary to say, that I brought to the study
of the two last-mentioned works an absolutely independent
judgment. The information —universally acknowledged
as extremely valuable- — supplied by Denifle's ponderous
volumes on the relation between Luther's theology and that
of the Middle Ages, was of considerable service to me. To
Kostlin's biography of Luther, continued by Kawerau, I am
indebted for some useful data with regard to the history and
chronology of Luther's writings.

This most detailed of the Protestant biographies, and the
most frequently quoted by me, offers this further advantage
that in its judgment of Luther, his life's work, and his
personal qualities, it occupies a middle line between two
Protestant extremes. Kostlin having belonged to the so-
called intermediary school of theology, the author, in his
delineation of Luther, avoids alike certain excesses of the
conservatives and the caustic, subtilising criticism of the
rationalists. There is no such thing as a simple " Protestant-
opinion" on Luther; and Kostlin's intermediary treatment
is the one least likely to lead a Catholic to commit an in-
justice against either of the extreme parties in Protestantism.

Does a Catholic opinion exist with regard to Luther's
personal qualities and his fate ? Does the much-discussed
work of Denifle represent the " Catholic feeling " ? That it
does has frequently been asserted by those most strongly
opposed to Denifle. Yet Denifle's manner of regarding
Luther was, on the whole, by no means simply " Catholic,"
but largely biassed by his individual opinion, as indeed has
ever been the appreciation by Catholic authors of the
different points of Luther's character. Only on those points
could Denifle's opinion strictly be styled " Catholic " where
he makes the direct acknowledgment of dogmas and the
essential organisation of the Church the standard for

INTRODUCTION xxxix

Luther's views and reforms ; and in this he certainly had
on his side the repudiation of Luther by all Catholics. A
" Catholic opinion," in any other sense than the above, is
the sheerest nonsense, and the learned Dominican would
certainly have been the last to make such a claim on his
own behalf. ^The present writer protests beforehand against
any such interpretation being placed on his work. The
following statements, whether they differ from or agree with
those of Denifle, must be looked on as a mere attempt to
express what appears to the author to be clearly contained
in the sources whence his information comes. In all purely
historical questions, in questions of fact and their inferences,
the Catholic investigator is entirely free, and decides purely
and simply to the best of his knowledge and conscience.^

A list of Luther's writings with the volumes in which they
occur in the last two editions, as well as a detailed index of
subjects and names at the end of the sixth volume, will
facilitate the use of this work.

The author would like to take this opportunity of ex-
pressing his most cordial thanks to the Royal Bavarian
Library of Munich, and also to the University Library in
that city, for the friendly assistance rendered him. These
rich sources of information have afforded him, during his
frequent and lengthy visits to the Bavarian capital, what
the libraries of Rome, which he had been in the habit of
consulting for his History of Rome and the Popes of the
Middle Ages (Eng. trans., 3 vols., 1911-12), could not supply
on the subject here treated. The author will now return to
the exploitation of the treasures of Rome and to the task he
originally undertook and hopes to bring out, in the near
future, a further volume of the History of Rome.

THE AUTHOR.

Munich, January 1, 1911.

VOL. I
LUTHER THE MONK

LUTHER

CHAPTER I

COURSE OF STUDIES AND FIRST YEARS IN THE MONASTERY

1. Luther's Novitiate and Early Life

On July 16, 1505, Martin Luther, then a student at the
University of Erfurt, invited his friends and acquaintances
to a farewell supper. He wished to see them about him for
the last time before his approaching retirement to the cloister.
" The bright, cheerful young fellow," as his later pupil,
Mathesius,1 calls him, was a favourite in his own circle.
Those assembled to bid him farewell, amongst whom were
also " honest, virtuous maidens and women,"2 were doubt-
less somewhat taken aback at their friend's sudden deter-
mination to leave the world ; but Luther was outwardly
" beyond measure cheerful " and showed himself so light of
heart that he played the lute while the wine-cup circled round.3

On the following morning— it was the feast of St. Alexius,
as Luther remembered when an old man 4 — some of his
fellow-students accompanied him to the gate of the Augus-
tinian monastery and then, with tears in their eyes, saw
the doors close upon him. The Prior, who was already
apprised of the matter, greeted the timid new-comer, em-
braced him, and then, in accordance with the Rule, con-
fided him to the Master of Novices to be initiated into the
customs of the community.

In the quiet monastic cell and amid the strange new
surroundings the student was probably able little by little

1 " Historien," Bl. 3'.

2 Account from the mouth of Luther's friend, Justus Jonas (anno
1538), made public by P. Tschackert in " Theolog. Studien und
Kritiken," Jahrg., 1897, p. 578.

3 Ibid. 4 " Colloquia," ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 187.

4 LUTHER THE MONK

to master the excitement which, though hidden from out-
siders, raged within his breast ; for the determination to
become a monk had been arrived at under strange, soul-
stirring circumstances. He was on his way back to Erfurt,
after a visit to his parents' house, when, near Stotternheim,
he was overtaken by a thunderstorm, and as a flash of
lightning close beside him threatened him " like a heavenly
vision," he made the sudden vow : " Save me, dear St.
Anne, and I will become a monk."1 He appears also at that
very time to have been reduced to a state of great grief and
alarm by the sudden death of a dear comrade, also a student,
who had been stabbed, either in a quarrel or in a duel.
Thus the thoughts which had perhaps for long been attract-
ing his serious temperament towards the cloister ripened
with overwhelming rapidity. Could we but take a much
later assertion of his as correct, the reason of his resolve was
to be found in a certain vexation with himself : because he
" despaired " of himself, he once says, therefore did he
retire into the monastery.2

It was his earnest resolution to renounce the freedom of his
academic years and to seek peace of soul and reconciliation
with God in the bosom of the pious community. He per-
sisted in keeping the vow made in haste and terror in spite
of dissuading voices which made themselves heard both
within himself and around him, and the determined opposi-
tion of his father to his embracing the religious state. Some
were full of admiration for the energetic transformation of
the new postulant. Thus the respected Augustinian of
Erfurt, Johann Nathin, compared the suddenness and
decision of his step to the one-time conversion of Saul into
the Apostle Paul.3 Crotus Rubeanus, the Humanist, then

1 " Colloquia," ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 187.

2 Bei K. Jiirgens, " Luther von seiner Geburt bis zum Ablassstreite,"
1 Bd. Leipzig, 1846, p. 522, from the unpublished Cod. chart, bibl.
due. Goth, 168, p. 26. According to Loesche (" Analecta Lutherana,"
p. 24, n. 8) this MS. (B. 168) was written in 1553, and may be described
as a collection of Luther's opinions on various persons and things. On
page 26 it contains a list entitled "Studia Lutheri." We shall have
occasion to deal with Luther's entrance into religion in volume vi.,
chapter xxxvii., 2.

3 Hier. Dungersheim von Ochsenfurt, Professor of Theology in
Leipzig, in a tract published in 1531 in " Aliqua opuscula magistri
Hieronymi Dungersheym . . . contra M. Lutherum edita," written
in 1530, " Dadelung des . . . Bekentnus oder untuchtigen Luther-
ischen Testaments," Bl. 14a. (Munchener Universitatsbibliothek,
Theol., 3099, n. 552.)

EARLY LIFE 5

stopping at Erfurt, in a later letter to Luther, expressed
himself no less forcibly with regard to the heavenly flash
which had made him a monk.1 The brothers of the " Ger-
man Congregation of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine '*
■ — such was the full title of the Order — on their part re-
joiced at the acquisition of the highly gifted and promising
youth, who had already taken his degree as Master of
Philosophy at the University of Erfurt.

If the novice, after gradually regaining peace of mind
within the silent walls, permitted his thoughts to recur to
his former way of life, this must have presented itself to
him as full of trouble and care and very deficient in the
homely joys of family life. Luther's early career differed
hardly at all from that of the poorest students of that time.
He was born on November 10, 1483, in Eisleben in
Saxony ; his parents were Hans Luther, a miner of peasant
extraction (he signed himself Luder) and Margaret Luther.
They had originally settled in the town of Mansfeld, but had
gone first to Mohra and then to Eisleben. Their gifted son
spent his childhood in Mansfeld and first attended school
there. His father was a stern, harsh man. His mother, too,
though she meant well by him, once beat him till the blood
came, all on account of a nut.2 The boy was also intimi-
dated by the stupid brutality of his teachers, and it does not
appear that the customary religious teaching he received,
raised his spirits or led to a freer, more hopeful develop-
ment of his spiritual life. He was one day, as he relates
later, " beaten fifteen times in succession during one morn-
ing " at school, to the best of his knowledge without any
fault of his own, though, probably, not without having
brought the punishment upon himself by insubordination
and obstinacy. After that, in his fourteenth year, he received
instruction in Magdeburg from the " Pious Brethren of the
Common Life," and begged his bread by singing from door
to door. A year later he went to Eisenach, where his mother
had some poor relatives, to continue his Latin studies.
In this town he still pursued the same hard mode of earning
his living, until a charitable woman, Ursula, the wife of
Kunz (Konrad) Cotta, received him into her well-to-do and

1 " Hutteni Opp.," ed. Booking, 1, p. 309.

2 " Tischreden," ed. Forstemann, 4, p. 129 ; Mathesius, " Au{-
zeichnungen," p. 235.

6 LUTHER THE MONK

comfortable household, furnishing him with food and lodging.
Luther, in his old age, recalled with great gratitude the
memory of his noble benefactress.1

As a boy he had experienced but little of life's pleasures
and received small kindness from the world ; but now life's
horizon brightened somewhat for the growing youth.

Full of enthusiasm for the career mapped out for him by
his father, that, namely, of the Law, he went in the summer
of 1501 to the University of Erfurt. His parents' financial
circumstances had meanwhile somewhat improved as the
result of his father's industry in the mines at Mansfeld.
The assiduous student was therefore no longer dependent on
the help of strangers. According to some writers he took
up his abode in St. George's Hostel.2 He was entered in the
Matriculation Register of the Erfurt High School as " Mar-
tinus Ludher ex Mansfelt," and for some considerable time
after he continued to spell his family name as Luder, a form
which is also to be found up to the beginning of the seven-
teenth century in the case of others (Liider, Luider, Leuder).
From 1512 he began, however, to sign himself " Lutherus "
or " Luther."3 The lectures on philosophy, understood in the
widest sense of the term, which he first attended were
delivered at the University of Erfurt by comparatively
capable teachers, some of whom belonged to the Augustinian
Order. The Catholic spirit of the Middle Ages still per-
meated the teaching and the whole life of the little republic
of learning. As yet, learning was still cast in the mould of
the traditional scholastic method, and the men, equally
devoted to the Church and to their profession, who were
Luther's principal teachers, Jodocus Trutfetter of Eisenach
and Bartholomew Arnoldi of Usingen,4 later an Augustinian,
were well versed in the scholastic spirit of the day.

Alongside the traditional teaching of the schools there
already existed in Erfurt and the neighbourhood another,
viz. that of the Humanists, or so-called poets, which, though
largely at variance with Scholasticism, was cultivated by
many of the best minds of the day. Luther, with his vivacity
of thought and feeling, could not long remain a stranger to

1 Mathesius, " Historien," Bl. 3.

2 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 744, n. 1, p. 31.

3 Ibid., 1, p. 754, n. 2, p. 166.

4 N. Paulus, " Bartholomaus Arnoldi von Usingen," Freiburg im
Breisgau, 1893.

HUMANIST FRIENDS 7

them. With their spiritual head Mutianus at Gotha, close
by, they formed one of the more prominent groups of Ger-
man Humanists, although, so far, they had not produced
any work of great consequence. The contrast between
Humanism and Scholasticism, which was to come out so
strongly at a later period, was as yet hardly noticeable in the
Erfurt schools. Crotus Rubcanus, at that time a University
friend of Luther's, became at a later date, however, the
principal author of the " Epistolse Obscurorum Virorum,"
a clever and biting libel on monks and Scholastics, written
from a Humanist standpoint. Crotus boasted subsequently
of his intimate intercourse (" summa familiaritas ") with
Luther. l

Another Humanist friend whose spiritual relationship with
him dates from that time, was Johann Lang, afterwards an
Augustinian monk, with whom Luther stood in active inter-
change of thought during the most critical time of his
development, as may be seen from the letters quoted below,
and who, caught up by the Lutheran movement, left his
Order 2 to become the first preacher of the new faith in
Erfurt. The third name which we find in connection with
Luther is that of Kaspar Schalbe, a cousin, or possibly a
brother of the lady already mentioned, Mistress Ursula
Cotta of Eisenach. Schalbe did not turn out any better
than the others. A few years later, on being charged before
the Elector of Saxony with a crime against morality, he was
glad to avail himself of Luther's mediation with the Ruler
of the land.3 Finally, we also know that a later patron and
supporter of Luther, the Humanist Spalatinus, was then
carrying on his studies in Erfurt. George Burckhardt of
Spalt — whence his name Spalatinus — was a student there
from 1498 to 1502, and, from 1505 to 1508, was engaged as

1 " Hutteni Opp.," ed. Booking, 1, p. 309. Cp. 1, p. 307, ep. 1,
" Martino Luthero, amico suo antiquissimo."

2 Th. Kolde, " Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation und Johann
von Staupitz," Gotha, 1879, p. 380.

3 Luther to Spalatinus, July 3, 1526 (see " Brief wechsel," 5, p. 366).
To the Elector Johann of Saxony, November 15, 1526 : Luther's
"Werke," Erl. ed. 54, p. 50 (" Brief wechsel," 5, p. 403). Johann of
Saxony to Luther, November 26, 1526; " Brief wechsel," 5, p. 409.
Luther to the same, March 1, 1527 : " Werke," Erl. ed. 53, p. 398
("Brief wechsel," 6, p. 27). On the three friends mentioned in the
text, see A. Hausrath, "Luthers Bekehrung" (" Neue Heidelberger
Jahrbucher," 6, 1896, pp. 163-66 ff. and idem. "Luthers Leben," 1,
1904, p. 14 ff.).

8 LUTHER THE MONK

a clerical preceptor in the immediate vicinity of the town.
Luther and Spalatinus always looked on themselves later
as early friends whom fate had brought together.

As a student, Luther devoted himself with great zest to
the various branches of philosophy, and, carried away by
the spirit of the Humanists, in his private time he studied
the Latin classics, more particularly Cicero, Virgil, Livy,
Ovid, also Terence, Juvenal, Horace and Plautus. At a
later date he was able to make skilful use of quotations from
these authors when occasion demanded. Amongst others, he
attended the lectures of Hieronymus Emser, a subsequent
opponent well worth his metal. Of his life during those
years, which, owing to the laxity of morals prevailing in the
town, must have been full of danger for him, we learn little,
owing to the silence of our sources. Luther himself in his
later years coarsely described the town as a " beer house "
and a " nest of immorality."

Unlike his frivolous comrades, he was often beset with
heavy thoughts, no doubt largely due to the after effects of
his gloomy youth. Among his chums he was known as
" Musicus," on account of his learning to play the lute,
and as the " Philosopher," owing to his frequent fits of
moodiness.

In the monastery, where the reader left him, he no doubt
remained subject to such fits of depression, especially at
the beginning when dwelling on his change of life. It is
difficult to say how far the feeling of self-despair, which he
mentions, had mastered him before his entry intone on ventual
life. In later years, apart from the vow and the mysterious
" heavenly terror," he also says that in leaving the world
he was seeking to escape the severity of his parents. His
statements, however, do not always agree. As for the pre-
cipitate vow to enter a monastery, he must have been well
aware that, even if valid when originaHy made, it was no
longer binding on him from the day when, after conscientious
self-examination, he became aware that, owing to his natural
disposition, he had no vocation for a religious life. Not
every character is fitted for carrying out the evangelical
counsels, and to force oneself into a mould, however good,
for which one is manifestly unsuited is certainly not in
accordance with the will of a wise and beneficent Providence.

Luther, agreeably with the statutes of the Order, during

THE NOVITIATE 9

the whole period of his novitiate and until the hour of his
profession had arrived, was perfectly free to return to his
fellow-students, the religious tie never having been intended
to bring him misery in place of the happiness which it
promises. Immediately after coming to the monastery, i.e.
before his clothing, he was, according to the Rule, given
considerable time in which to weigh earnestly, under the
direction of an experienced brother of the Order, whether,
as stated in the statutes of the Augustinians, " the spirit
which was leading him was of God." Only after this did he
receive the habit of the Order, apparently, however, in the
same year, 1505. The habit consisted of a white woollen
tunic, a scapular, also white, falling over the breast and
back, and a black mantle with a hood and wide sleeves to
be worn over all.

After the clothing began the novitiate, which lasted a
whole year. During this period the candidate had not only
to undertake a series of exercises consisting in prayer,
manual labour and penitential works, but had also to dis-
charge certain humiliating offices, which might help him to
acquire the virtue of humility as practised in the Order.
Out of consideration for the University and his academic
dignity Luther was, however, speedily exempted from some
of the latter duties. It appears that during his noviceship
he was attentive to the rules, and that the superiors treated
him with fatherly kindness. Although some members of the
community may have observed the Rule from routine, while
others, as is often the case in large communities, may not
have been conspicuous for their charity- — Luther refers to
something of this kind in his Table-Talk — yet the spirit of
the Erfurt monastery was, like that of most of the other
houses of the Congregation, on the whole quite blameless.
The novice himself, as yet full of goodwill, was not only
satisfied with his calling, but even looked on the state he
had chosen as a " heavenly life."1

From the very first, however, as he himself complains
later, he was constantly " worried and depressed "2 by
thoughts connected with religion. He was sorely troubled
by the fear of God's judgment, by gloomy thoughts on pre-
destination, and by the recollection of his own sins. Al-

1 Cp. below, p. 16. Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 73.

2 To Hier. Weller (July ?), 1530, " Brief wechsel," 8, p. 159

10 LUTHER THE MONK

though he made a general confession in the monastery and
renewed it again later, his confessions never gave him any
satisfaction, so that his director laid on him the obligation
not to hark back to things which caused him sadness of spirit
nor to dwell on the details of his sins. " You are a fool,"
he once said to him ; " God is not angry with you, but it is
you who are angry with Him."

Those versed in the ways of the spiritual life are well
aware that many a one aiming at perfection is exposed to
the purifying fire of trials such as these. Traditional
Catholic teaching and the experience of those skilled in the
direction of conventual inmates had laid down the remedies
most effectual for such a condition. What Luther himself
relates later with regard to the encouragement he received
from his superiors and brothers in the monastery, shows
clearly that suitable direction, enlightenment and encourage-
ment were not wanting to him either then or in the following
years. He himself praises his " Prscceptor " and " monastic
pacdagogue," i.e. the Novice-Master, as " a dear old man,"1
who " under the damned frock was without doubt a true
Christian."2 It was probably he who said to him in an hour
of trial that he should always recall the article of the Creed
" I believe in the forgiveness of sins."3 " What are you
doing, my son ? " he said to him on another occasion ; " do
you not know that the Lord has Himself commanded us to
hope? "4 words which made a great and unforgettable im-
pression on him. Later, in the year 1516, he pointed out
another brother, Master Bartholomew (Usingen), as the
" best paraclete and comforter "5 in the Erfurt monastery,
as he could testify from his own experience. The monks
knew well and impressed it upon his troubled mind that,

1 Letter to the Elector (April or June ?, 1540), ed. Seidemann,
" Lauterbachs Tagebuch," p. 197.

2 In the Preface to Bugenhagen's (Pomeranus) edition of "Athan-
asius contra idolatriam," etc., Wittenbergse, 1532. He there recalls
having read the Dialogue of Athanasius and Arius " with zeal and a
glow of faith," " primo anno monachatus mei, cum Erfordice pcedagogus
mens monaslicus vir sane optimus et absque dubio sub damnato cucullo
verus chrislianus mihi eum sua rnanu descriptum dedisset legendum " (Cp.
"Opp. Lat. exeg.," 19, p. 100).

3 Ph. Melanchthonis Vita Lutheri (" Vitse quattuor reformatorum,"
Berohni, 1841), p. 5.

4 "Opp. Lat. exeg.," 19, p. 100.

5 To George Leiffer, April 15, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 31.
" Opp. Lat. exeg.," ibid.

INWARD UNREST 11

through the merits of the Redeemer, and after earnest
preparation of the soul, true forgiveness may be obtained,
and that through the cross of Christ, and through it alone,
we can do all things necessary, even in the midst of the
bitterest assaults.

Luther, however, too often responded to such admonitions
only by cherishing his own views the more. He continued
morbidly to torment himself. This self-torture, at any rate
during the first enthusiastic days of his religious life, may
have assumed the form of pious scruples, but later it gradu-
ally took on another character under the influence of bodily
affections. He did not, like other scrupulous persons, regain
his peace of mind, because, led away by his distorted and
excited fancy, he liked, as he himself admits, to dwell on
the doubts as to whether the counsels he received were not
illusion and deception. Sad experience taught him into
what devious paths and to " what a state of inward unrest,
self-will and self-sufficiency are capable of leading a man."1

The Superior or Vicar-General of the Saxon or German
Augustinian Congregation to which Luther belonged was
at that time Johann Staupitz, a man highly esteemed in
the world of learning and culture.

He frequently visited Erfurt and had thus the opportunity
of talking to the new brother whom the University had
given him, and who may well have attracted his attention
by his careworn look, his restless manner and his peculiar,
bright, deep-set eyes. Staupitz soon began to have a great
esteem for him. He had great influence over Luther, though
unable to free him from the strange spirit, already too
deeply rooted. To the sad doubts concerning his own salva-
tion which Brother Martin laid before him, Staupitz replied
by exhorting him as follows in the spirit of the Catholic
Church : " Why torment yourself with such thoughts and
broodings ? Look at the wounds of Christ and His Blood
shed for you. There you will see your predestination to
heaven shining forth to your comfort."2 Quite rightly he
impressed upon him, in the matter of confession and penance,
that the principal thing was to arouse in himself the will
to love God and righteousness, and that he must not pause
before unhealthy imaginations of sin. The lines of thought,

1 To Leiffer, ibid.

2 "Lutheri Opp. Lat. exeg.," 6, p. 296.

12 LUTHER THE MONK

however, which the imaginative and emotional young man
laid bare to him, were probably at times somewhat strange,
and it is Luther himself who relates that Staupitz once said
to him : " Master Martin, I fail to understand that."

In spite of his inward fears Luther persevered, which
goes to prove the strength of will which was always one of
his characteristics. As the Order was satisfied with him, he
was admitted at the end of the year of novitiate to pro-
fession by the taking of the three Vows of the Order. He
received on this occasion the name of Augustine, but always
pref erred to it his baptismal name of Martin. The text of
the Vows which he read aloud solemnly before the altar,
according to custom, in the presence of the Prior Winand of
Diedenhofcn and all the brothers, was as follows : "I,
Brother Augustine Luder, make profession and vow obedi-
ence to Almighty God, Blessed Mary ever Virgin and to
thee Father Prior, in the name of, and as representing the
Superior- General of the Hermits of St. Augustine, and his
successors, likewise to live without property and in chastity
until death, according to the Rule of our Holy Father
Augustine." The young monk, voluntarily and after due
consideration, had thus taken upon himself the threefold
yoke of Christ by the three Vows, i.e. by the most solemn
and sacred promise which it is possible to make on earth.
He had bound himself by a sacred oath to God to prepare
himself for heaven by treading a path of life in which per-
fection is sought in the carrying out of the evangelical
counsels of our Saviour, and throughout his life to combat
the temptations of the world with the weapons of poverty,
chastity and obedience.

Such was the solemn Vow, which, later on, he declared to
have been absolutely worthless.

2. Fidelity to Ms new calling ; his temptations

After making his profession the young religious was set
by his Erfurt superiors to study theology, which was taught
privately in the monastery.

The theological fare served up by the teachers of the Order
was not very inviting, consisting as it largely did of the mere
verbalism of a Scholasticism in decay. With the exception
of the Sentences of Peter Lombard, the students at the
Erfurt monastery did not study the theological works of the

LUTHER'S PROFESSORS 13

great masters of the thirteenth century ; neither Thomas
of Aquin, the prince of scholastic theology and philosophy,
nor his true successors, not even ^Egidius Romanus, himself
a Hermit of St. Augustine, were well known to them. The
whole of their time at Erfurt, as elsewhere also, was de-
voted to the study of the last of the schoolmen who, indeed,
stood nearer in point of time, but who were far from teaching
the true doctrine with the fulness and richness of the earlier
doctors. They were too much given to speculation and
logical word-play. The older schoolmen were no longer
appreciated and nominalistic errors, such as were fostered
in the school of William of Occam, held the field. One of
the better schoolmen of the day was Gabriel Biel. His
works, which have a certain value, together with some of
the writings of the Fathers of the Church, formed the principal
arsenal from which Luther drew his theological knowledge,
and upon which he exercised his dialectics. In addition to this,
he also studied the theological tractates of John Gerson
and Cardinal Peter d'Ailly, works which, apart from other
theological defects, contain various errors concerning the
authority of the Church and her Head ; that these particular
errors had any deeper influence on the direction of Luther's
mind cannot, however, be proved. What we do find is that
the one-sidedness of this school, with its tendency to hair-
splitting, had a negative effect upon him. At an early date
he was repelled by the scholastic subtleties, for which,
according to him, Aristotle alone was responsible, and pre-
ferred to turn to the reading and study of the Bible. He
nevertheless made the prevalent school methods so much his
own as to apply them often, in a quite surprising fashion,
in his earliest sermons and writings.

The man who exercised the greatest influence on the
theological study in the Erfurt monastery was the learned
Augustinian, Johann Paltz, who was teaching there when
Luther entered. He was a good Churchman and a fair
scholar, and was also much esteemed as a preacher. By
his side worked Johann Nathin, who has already been
mentioned, likewise one of the respected theologians of the
Order.1 Luther's teachers, full of veneration for the Holy

1 On Luther's teachers and studies, see Oertel, " Vom jungen
Luther," p. 105 f. ; for Paltz, see N. Paulus in the Innsbruck
" Zeitschrift f. kath. Theologie," 23, 1899, p. 48.

14 LUTHER THE MONK

Scriptures as the revealed Word of God, were not at all
displeased to see their pupil having frequent recourse to
the Bible, in order to seek in the well of the Divine Word
instruction and enlightenment, by which to supplement
the teachings of the schoolmen and the Fathers.

Luther had, moreover, already become acquainted with
the Bible in the library of the Erfurt University, whilst still
engaged in studying philosophy. He had, however, not
prosecuted his reading of the Bible, though the same library
would doubtless have supplied him with numerous well-
thumbed commentaries on Holy Writ. In the monastery
a copy of the Bible was given him at the beginning of his
theological course. It was, as we learn from him incidentally,
a Latin translation bound in red leather, and remained in
his hands until he left Erfurt. The statutes of the Order
enjoined on all its members " assiduous reading, devout
hearing and industrious study of the Holy Scriptures."

The young monk immersed himself more and more in the
study of his beloved Bible when Staupitz, the Vicar, advised
him to select the same as his special subject in order to
render himself a capable " localis and textualis " in the Holy
Scriptures.

The Superior seems to have had even then the intention
of making use later of Luther as a public professor of
biblical lore. So ardently was the Vicar's advice followed
by Luther that, in his preference for reading the Bible and
studying its interpretation, he neglected the rest of his
theological education, and his teacher Usingen was obliged
to protest against his one-sided study of the sacred text.
So full was Luther of the most sacred of books, that he was
able (at least this is what he says later) to show the wondering
brothers the exact spot in his ponderous red volume where
every subject, nay even every quotation, was to be found.
It was with great regret that, on leaving this community,
he found himself prohibited by the Rule from taking the
copy away with him. Later, as an opponent of the religious
life, he states that no one but himself read the Bible in the
monastery at Erfurt, whilst of his foe Carlstadt, a former
Augustinian, he bluntly says that he had never seen a Bible
until he was promoted to the dignity of Doctor. Of course,
neither assertion can be taken literally.

When the day drew nigh for him to celebrate his first Mass

HIS FIRST MASS 15

as newly ordained priest, he invited not only his father
but several other guests to be present at a ceremony which
meant so much both to him and to his friends. Thus, in a
letter of invitation to Johann Braun, Vicar in Eisenach, who
had shown him much kindness and help during his early
years in that town, he says that : " God had chosen him,
an unworthy sinner, for the unspeakable dignity of His
service at the altar," and begged his fatherly friend to
come, and by his prayers to assist him " so that his sacrifice
might be pleasing in the sight of God." He also expressed
to him his great indebtedness to Schalbe's College at Eisenach,
which he would also have gladly seen represented at the
ceremony. This is the first letter of Luther's which has
been preserved and with which the critical edition of his
" Correspondence," now being published, commences.1 The
first Mass took place on Cantate Sunday, May 2, 1507.
Luther relates later, with regard to his state of mind during
the sacred ceremony, that he could hardly contain himself
for excitement and fear. The words " Te igitur clementis-
sime Pater,'" at the commencement of the Canon of the
Mass, and " Offero tibi Deo meo vivo et vero" at the oblation,
brought so vividly to his mind the Awful, Eternal Majesty,
that he was hardly able to go on (" lotus stupebam et co-
horrescebam ") ; he would have rushed down from the altar
had he not been held back ; the fear of making some mis-
take in the ceremonies and so committing a mortal sin, so
he says, quite bewildered him.2 Yet he must have known,
with regard to the ceremonies, that any unintentional in-
fringement of them was no sin, and least of all a mortal
sin, although he attributes the contrary opinion to the
" Papists " after his apostasy^/

His father Hans assisted at the celebration. His presence
in the church and in the refectory was the first sign of his
acquiescence in his son's vocation. But when the latter,
during dinner, praised the religious calling and the monastic
life as something high and great,3 and went on to recall
the vow he had made at the time of the thunderstorm,

1 April 22, 1507, " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 1.

2 " Opp. Lat. exeg.," 6, p 158. (Op. " Colloq." ed. Bindseil, 3,
p. 169 : " ita horrui, ut fugissem de altari" etc.) Also Mathesius,
" Tischreden," p. 405.

3 "Lutheri Opp. Lat. var.," 6, p. 239; " Werke," Weim. ed. 8
p. 574.

16 LUTHER THE MONK

asserting that he had been called by " terrors from Heaven "
(" de ccelo terrores "), this was too much for his level-headed
father, who, to the astonishment of the guests, sharply inter-
posed with the words : " Oh, that it may not have been a
delusion and a diabolical vision." He could not overcome
his dislike for his son's resolve. "I sit here and eat and
drink," he cried, "and would much rather be far away."
Luther retorted he had better be content, and that "to be
a monk was a peaceful and heavenly life."1 The statement
with regard to the elder Luther agrees with the character
of the man and with the severity which he had displayed
long before to Martin.

Here an assertion must be mentioned made by George
Wicel, a well-informed contemporary ; once a Lutheran, he
was, from 1533-8, Catholic priest at Eisleben. Two or
three times he repeats in print, that Hans Luther had once
slain a man in a fit of anger at his home at Mohra. Luther
and his friends never denied this public statement. In
recent years attempts have been made to support the same
by local tradition, and the fact of the father changing his
abode from Mohra to Mansfeld has thus been accounted for.2
According to Karl Seidemann, an expert on Luther (1859),
the testimony of Wicel may be taken as settling definitively
the constantly recurring dispute on the subject.3

The following facts which have been handed down throw
some light on the inward state of the young man at this
time and shortly after.

At a procession of the Blessed Sacrament he had to
accompany Staupitz, the Vicar, as his deacon. Such was
the terror which suddenly seized him that he almost fled.
On speaking afterwards of this to his superior, who was also
his friend, he received the foll5wing instructive reply : " This
fear is not from Christ ; Christ does not affright, He com-
forts."4

One day that Luther was present at High Mass in the
monks' choir, he had a fit during the Gospel, which, as it

1 From Bavarus's Collection of Table-Talk ; the information is
received from a sermon of Luther's preached in 1544. Oertel, " Vom
jungen Luther," p. 93.

2 F. Falk, " Alte Zeugnisse iiber Luthers Vater und Mutter und die
Mohraer," in " Histor-polit. Blatter," 120, 1897, pp. 415-25.

3 " Lutherbriefe," Dresden, 1859, p. 11, n.

4 " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 292. " Tischreden," ed. Forstemann,
2, p. 164.

MORBID FEARS 17

happened, told the story of the man possessed. He fell to
the ground and in his paroxysms behaved like one mad.
At the same time he cried out, as his brother monks affirmed :
" It is not I, it is not I," meaning that he was not the man
possessed.1 It might seem to have been an epileptic fit,
but there is no other instance of Luther having such attacks,
though he did suffer from ordinary fits of fainting. Strange
to say, some of his companions in the monastery had an idea
that he had dealings with the devil, while others, mainly
on account of the above-mentioned attack, actually declared
him an epileptic. We learn both these facts from his
opponent and contemporary, Johann Cochlacus, who was
on good terms with Luther's former associates. He asserts
positively that a " certain singularity of manner " had been
remarked upon by his fellows in the monastery.2 Later on
his brother monk, Johann Nathin, went so far as to assert
that " an apostate spirit had mastered him," i.e. that he
stood under the influence of the devil.3

Melanchthon was afterwards to hear from Luther's own
lips something of the dark states of terror from which he
had suffered since his youth. When he speaks of them at
the commencement of his biographical eulcgy on his late
friend4 he connects Luther's strange excitement in the days
before his entrance into religion with a certain event in his
later history at a time when he was engaged in public con-
troversy. "As he himself related, and as many are aware,"
says Melanchthon, " when considering attentively examples
of Gcd's anger, or any notable accounts of His punishments,
such terror possessed him ('tanti terrores concutiebanV) as
almost to cause him to give up the ghost." He describes
how, as a full-grcwn man, when such fears overcame him,
he would actually writhe en his bed. He suffered from these
terrors (terrores) either for the first time, or most severely,
in the year in which he lost his friend by death in an accident,
i.e. before his admission to the monastery. " It was not
poverty," Melanchthon continues, " but his love of piety

1 Dungersheim, " Erzeigung der Falschheit des unchristlichen
lutherischen Comments usw.," in " AHqua opuscula," p. 15, cited
above on p. 4.

2 Joh. Cochlseus, " Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri,"
Mogunt., 1549, p. 1.

3 Dungersheim, ut supra.

4 " Vita Lutheri," p. 5 (see above, p. 10, n. 3.)-

18 LUTHER THE MONK

which led him to choose the religious life, and, while pur-
suing his theological and scholastic studies, he drank with
glowing fervour from the springs of heavenly doctrine,
namely, the writings of the prophets and apostles (i.e. the
Old and New Testament) in order to instruct his spirit in the
Divine Will and to nourish fear and love with strong testi-
mony. Overwhelmed with these pains and terrors (' dolor es
et pavores'), he plunged only the more zealously into the
study of the Bible."

According to Melanchthon's account, the same old
Augustinian who ence had directed Luther's attention in
an attack of faint-heartedness to the Christian's duty of
recalling the article of the forgiveness of sins, also quoted
him a saying of St. Bernard : " Only believe that thy sins
are forgiven thee through Christ. That is the testimony
which the Holy Ghost gives in thy heart : ' Thy sins are
forgiven.' Such is the teaching of the apostle, that man is
justified by faith."1

Such words of Catholic faith and joyful trust in God
might well have sufficed to reassure an obedient and humble
spirit. Luther began to read more and more the mystic
writings of the saint of Clairvaux, but as to how far they
served to bring him peace of conscience no one can now say ;
certain it is that, at a later date, he placed a foreign inter-
pretation upon the above-mentioned text and upon many
other similar sayings of St. Bernard, which, taken in a
Catholic sense, might have been of comfort to him, in order
to render them favourable to the methods by which he
proposed to make his new teaching a source of consolation.
He accustomed himself more and more to follow " his own
way," as he calls it, in mind and sentiment. Though in
later times he speaks often and at length of his spiritual
trials in the monastery, we never hear of his humbling him-
self before God with childlike, trustful prayer in order to find
a way out of his difficulties.

If we consider the temptations of which he speaks, we
might be tempted to think that he, with his promising
disposition and proneness to extremes, had been singled out
in a quite special manner by the tempter. During the term
of novitiate, writes Luther when more advanced in years,
the evil spirit of darkness, so he has learned, does not
1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 71.

HIS TEMPTATIONS 19

usually assail so bitterly the monk who is striving after per-
fection. Satan generally tempts him but slightly, and, more
especially as regards temptations of the flesh, the novice is
left in comparative peace, " indeed, nothing appears to him
more agreeable than chastity."1 But, after that time,
so he tells us, he himself had to bewail not only fears and
doubts, but also numberless temptations which " his age
brought along with it."2 He felt himself at the same time
troubled with doubts as to his vocation and by " violent
movements of hatred, envy, quarrelsomeness and pride." 3

" I was unable to rid myself of the weight ; horrible and
terrifying thoughts (' horrendce et terrificce cogitationes '),
stormed in upon me."4 Temptations to despair of his salva-
tion and to blaspheme God tormented him more especially.

He had often wondered, he says on one occasion to his
father Hans, whether he was the only man whom the devil
thus attacked and persecuted,5 and later he comforted one
who was in great anxiety with the words : " When beset
with the greatest temptations I could scarcely retain my
bodily powers, hardly keep my breath, and no one was able
to comfort me. All those to whom I complained answered
' I know nothing about it,' so that I used to sigh ' Is it I
alone who am plagued with the spirit of sorrow ! ' "6

He thinks that he learned the nature of these temptations
from the Psalms, and that he had by experience made close
acquaintance with the verse of the Bible : " Every night I
will wash my bed : I will water my couch with my tears "
(Ps. vi. 7). Satan with his temptations was the murderer
of mankind ; but, notwithstanding, one must not despair.
Luther here speaks of visions granted him, and of angels
who after ten years brought him consolation in his solitude ;
these statements we shall examine later.

Elsewhere he again recounts how Staupitz encouraged
him and the manner in which he interpreted his advice
reveals a singular self-esteem. Staupitz had pointed out to
him the interior trials endured by holy men, who had been
purified by temptation, and, after having been humbled,

1 " Opp. Lat. var.," 6, p. 364 ; " Werke," Weim. ed., 8, p. 660.

2 "Opp. Lat. exeg.," p. 19, 100.

3 Ibid.

4 To Hier. Weller (July ?), 1530, " Briefwechsel," 8, p. 160.

5 " Opp. Lat. var.," 6, pp. 240 ; "Werke," Weim. ed., 8, p. 574.

6 " Coll.," ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 295, on Hieronymus Weller.

20 LUTHER THE MONK

had risen to be powerful instruments in God's hand.
Perhaps, said Staupitz, God has great designs also for you,
for the greater good of His Church. This well-meant
encouragement remained vividly impressed upon Luther's
memory, not least because it seemed to predict a great
future for him. " And so it has actually come to pass," he
himself says later, " I have become a great doctor though
in the time of my temptations I could never have believed
it."1 Speaking later of a reference made by Staupitz to the
temptations which humbled St. Paul, he says : " I accepted
the words which St. Paul uses : ' A sting of my flesh was
given me lest the greatness of the revelation should exalt
me ' (2 Cor. xii. 7), wherefore I receive it as. the word and
voice of the Holy Spirit." Such reflections as these, to
which Luther gave himself up, certainly did not tend to help
him to rid himself completely of the temptations, and to
vanquish his melancholy thoughts of predestination. As a
result of following " his own way " and cultivating his
morbid fears, he never succeeded in shaking himself free
from the thought of predestination. This will appear quite
clearly in his recently published Commentary on the Epistle
to the Romans, written in 1515-16. In fact, the whole of the
theology which he set up against that of the Catholic Church
was in some sense dominated by his ideas on predestination.

We must, however, pay him this tribute, that during the
whole of his stay in the Erfurt monastery he strove to live as
a true monk and to keep the Rule. Such was the testimony
borne by an old brother monk, as Flacius' Illyricus relates,
who had lived with him at Erfurt and who always remained
true to the Church.

Though such may well have been the case, we cannot all
the same accept as reliable the accounts, exaggerated and
distorted as they clearly are, which, long after his falling
away, he gives of his extraordinary holiness when in the
monastery. He there attributes to himself, from controversial
motives, a piety far above the ordinary, and speaks of the
tremendous labours and penances which he imposed upon
himself in his blindness. Led away by his imagination and by
party animus, he exalts his one-time " holiness by works,"
as he terms it, to be the better able to assure his hearers
■ — ostensibly from his own experience and from the bitter
1 To Hier. Weller, see p. 19, n. 4.

HIS FIRST LECTURES 21

lisappointment he says he underwent — that all works of
the Papists, even those of the most pious, holy and mortified,
were absolutely worthless for procuring true peace for the
soul thirsting after salvation, and that the Catholic Church
was quite unable by her teaching to reconcile a soul with
God. History merely tells us that he was an observant
monk who kept the Rule, and, for that reason, enjoyed the
confidence of his superiors.1

Relying upon his ability and his achievements, Staupitz,
the Vicar, summoned him in the autumn of 1508, to Witten-
berg, in order that he might there continue his studies and
at the same time commence his work as a teacher on a
humble scale.

As Master of Philosophy Luther gave lectures on the
Ethics of Aristotle and probably also on Dialectics, though,
as he himself says, he would have preferred to mount the
chair of Theology, for which he already esteemed himself
fitted, and which, with its higher tasks, attracted him much
more than philosophy. In March, 1509, he was already the
recipient of a theological degree and entered the Faculty as
a " Baccalaureus Biblieus." This authorised him to deliver
lectures on the Holy Scriptures at the University.

In the same year, however, probably in the late autumn,
Luther's career at Wittenberg was interrupted for a time
by his being sent back to Erfurt. With regard to the reasons
for this nothing is known with certainty, but a movement
which was going forward in the Congregation may have been
the cause. In the question of the stricter observance which
had recently been raised among the Augustinians, and which
will be treated of below, Luther had not sided with the
Wittenberg monastery but with his older friends at Erfurt.
He was opposed to certain administrative regulations pro-
moted by Staupitz, which, in the opinion of many, threat-
ened the future discipline of the Order. At any rate, he had to
return to Erfurt just as he was about to become " Sen-
tentiarius," i.e. to be promoted to the office of lecturing on
the "Magister Sententiarium." For these lectures, too, he
had already qualified himself. His second stay at Erfurt
and the part — so important for the understanding of his
later life — which he played in the disputes of the Order,

1 See below, volume vi., cap. xxxvii., where these questions are
treated more fully.

22 LUTHER THE MONK

are new data in his history which have as yet received little
attention.

He was made very welcome by his brothers at Erfurt, at
once took up his work as " Sententiarius " and, for about a
year and a half, held forth on that celebrated textbook of
theology, the Book of Sentences.

He was also employed in important business for the monas-
tery and accompanied Dr. Nathin on a mission in connec-
tion with the question of the statutes of the Congregation
and the above-mentioned dispute. Both went to Halle to
Adolf of Anhalt, Provost of Magdeburg Cathedral, for the
purpose of defending the " observance in the vicariate."
The monk made an excellent impression on the Provost of
the Cathedral.1 The esteem which Luther enjoyed while he
was at Erfurt exposes the futility of those old fables, once
widely circulated and generally believed, that whilst there
he had entered into a liaison with a girl and had declared
that he intended to go as far as he could until the times
permitted of his marrying in due form.2

Of Luther's lectures at that time some traces are to be
found in a book in the Ratsschul-Library at Zwickau,
these being the oldest specimens of his handwriting which
we possess. They were made public in 1893 in volume ix.
of the " Kritische Gesamtausgabe " of Luther's works
now appearing, and consist of detailed marginal notes
to the Sentences of the Lombard of which the book in
question is a printed copy.3 The notes consist chiefly of
subtle dialectic explanations or corrections of Peter Lom-
bard and are quite in the theological style of the day. The
vanity and audacity of the language used is frequently sur-
prising; for instance, when the young master takes upon
himself to speak of the " buffoonery " of contemporary
theologians and philosophers, or of an ostensibly " almost
heretical opinion " which he discovers in Venerable Duns
Scotus ; still more is this the case when he expresses his
dislike of the traditional scholastic speculation and logic,
alluding to the " rancid rules of the logicians," to " those
grubs, the philosophers," to the " dregs of philosophy "
and to that " putrid philosopher Aristotle."

1 The reference in Dungersheim, "Dadelung," p. 14 (see above, p. 4,
n. 3 ) has been discussed by N. Paulus in the ' ' Histor. Jahrbuch, ' ' 1 903, p. 7 3.

2 See volume iii.. chapter xvii., 6.

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 9, pp. 28-94

HIS FIRST LECTURES 23

It is worthy of note in connection with his mental growth
that, on the very cover of the book, he, most independently,
declares war on the "Sophists," though we do not mean to
imply that such a war was not justifiable from many points
of view. As a torch, however, for the illuminating of theo-
logical truth he is not unwilling to use philosophy. Very
strong, nay emphatic, is his appeal to the Word of God
on a trivial and purely speculative question relating to the
inner life of the Trinity. He says : " Though many highly
esteemed teachers assert this, yet the fact remains that on
their side they have not Holy Scripture, but merely human
reasons : but I say that on my side I have the Written Word
that the soul is the image of God, and therefore I say with
the Apostle ' Though an angel from Heaven, i.e. a Doctor of
the Church, preach to you otherwise, let him be anathema.' "

In these glosses we may, however, seek in vain for any
trace, even the faintest, of Luther's future teaching. The
young theologian still maintains the Church's standpoint,
particularly with regard to the doctrines which he was
afterwards to call into question.

He still speaks correctly of " faith which works through
charity and by which we are justified." Equally blameless
are his statements regarding concupiscence in fallen man
and the exercise of free will in the choice of good under the
influence of Divine Grace. Once, it is true, he casually
speaks of Christ as " our righteousness and sanctification,"
but, in spite of the weight which has been laid on this ex
pression, it is in no wise remarkable, and merely voices
the Catholic view of St. Augustine, or better still, of St.
Paul. To Romans i. 16 f., to which he was later to attach
so much importance in his new system, he refers once, inter-
preting it correctly and agreeably with the Glossa ordinaria ;
clearly enough it had not yet begun to interest him and
his harmless words afford no proof of the statement which
has been made, that already at the time he wrote " the
birth-hoUr of the reformation had rung."

That Luther also studied at that time some of the writings
of St. Augustine we see from three old volumes of the works
of this Father in the Zwickau Library, which contain notes
made in Luther's handwriting on the De Trinitate, on the
Be Civitate Dei, and other similar writings. These notes,
made about the same time, are correct in their doctrino.

24 LUTHER THE MONK

According to Melanchthon, already at Erfurt he had begun
a " very thorough study " of the African Father of the
Church.

& In the latter notes, which were also published in the
Weimar edition of Luther's works,1 he once flies into a
violent fit of indignation with the celebrated Wimpfeling,
who was mixed up in a literary dispute with the Augustinian
Order. He calls the worthy man " a garrulous barker and
an envious critic of the fame of the Augustinians, who had
lost his reason through obstinacy and hate, and who re-
quires a cut of the knife to open his mole's eyes " ; he,
" with his brazen front, should be ashamed of himself."2
Glibness of tongue, combined with intelligence and fancy,
and, in addition to unusual talents, great perseverance in
study, these were the qualities which many admired in the
new teacher. Whoever had to dispute with so sharp and
fiery an opponent, was sure to get the worst of the encounter.
The fame of the new teacher soon spread throughout the
Augustinian province, but his originality and want of
restraint naturally raised him up some enemies.

Alongside of his readiness in controversy which some
admired, many remarked in him quarrelsomeness and dis-
putatiousness. He never learnt how to live " at peace "
with his brothers,3 as some of the old monks afterwards
told the Humanist Cochlacus. His Catholic pupil Johann
Oldecop, says of his leaving Erfurt for Wittenberg, that the
separation was not altogether displeasing to the Augustinians
of Erfurt, because Luther was always desirous of coming
off victor in differences of opinion, and liked to stir up
strife.4 Hieronymus Dungersheim, a subsequent Catholic
opponent who watched him very narrowly, writes that he
" had always been a quarrelsome man in his ways and
habits," and that he had acquired that reputation even
before ever he came to the monastery.5 Dungersheim
questioned those who had known him as a secular student
at Erfurt. The above statements come, it is true, from the

1 Ibid., pp. 2-14. > Ihid^ p. 12.

3 " Audivi crebrius, nunquam satis pacifice vixisse eum,y So
Cochise us (see above, p. 17, n. 2) in 1524.

4 J. Oldecop, " Chronik," ed. K. Euling, 1891, p. 17.

5 Dungersheim, " Wore Widerlegung des falschen Buchleins M.
Lutheri von beyder Gestald des hochwurdigsten Sacraments " (see
above, p. 4, n. 3), p. 31'.

CONTACT WITH HITS 25

camp of his adversaries, but they are not only uncontra-
dicted by any further testimony, but entirely agree with
other data regarding his character.

Luther, in his own account of himself which he gave
later, tells us that he was then and during the first part of
his career as a monk, so full of zeal for the truth handed
down by the Church that he would have given over to
death any denier of the same, and have been ready to carry
the wood for burning him at the stake. He also says in his
queer, exaggerated fashion, that in those days he wor-
shipped the Pope. At the same time he announces that
his study of the Bible at Erfurt had already shown him
many errors in the Papist Church, but that he had sought
to soothe his conscience with the question : " Art thou the
only wise man ? " though by so doing he had retarded his
understanding of the Holy Scriptures.1 He also asserts
later that his father's words spoken at the banquet which
followed his first Mass, viz. that his religious vocation was
probably a delusion, had pierced ever deeper into his mind
and appeared to him more and more true. Yet he likewise
tells us elsewhere of his persevering zeal in his profession,
and of his excessive fastings and disciplines.

It is hard to find the real clue in this tangle of later state-
ments, all of them influenced by polemical considerations.

He says quite seriously, and this may very well be true,
that what he was wont to hear at times outside the monastery
from unbelieving " grammarians," i.e. humanists, regarding
the great difference between the teaching of Holy Scripture
and that of the existing Church, made a deep impression
on him. 2 He had, however, calmed himself, so he says, with
the thought that this was other people's business. In the
monastic library he once came across some sermons of
John Hus. Their contents appeared to him excellent,
nevertheless, so he writes, from aversion for the author's
name, he laid aside the book without reading any further,
though not without surprise that such a man should have
written in many ways so well and so correctly. Johann
Grefenstein, his master at Erfurt, had once let fall the

1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 77.

2 Ericeus, " Sylvula sententiarum," p. 142. Cp. J. K. Seidemann,
" Luthers alteste Vorlesungen liber die Psahnen," 1, Dresden, 1876,
p. xvii. " Ego adolescens audivi dodos vivos et bonos grammaticos," etc.

26 LUTHER THE MONK

remark in his presence that Hus had been put to death
without any previous attempt being made to instruct or
convert him.

At that time, Hus failed to make any impression oil
him. Doubts, however, assaulted him in the shape of
temptations. Those he repulsed, well aware of the danger.
In June, 1521, writing at the Wartburg, he says that more
than ten years before, much that was taught by Popes,
Councils and Universities had appeared to him absurd and
in contradiction with Christ, but that he had put a bridle
on his thoughts in accordance with the Proverb of Solomon :
" Lean not upon thy own prudence."1 Certain it is that
his clear mind must early have perceived that the Church
of that day fell far short of the ideal, and it is possible that
even in those early years, such a perception may have
awakened in him doubts and discontent and have led him
to take a too gloomy view of the state of the Church.

In any case, Luther's own testimony as given above
leads us to suspect the presence in his mind at an early
date of a deep-seated dissatisfaction which foreboded ill to
the monk's future fidelity to the Church.2

A strong moral foundation would have been necessary to
save a mind so singularly constituted from wavering, and if
we may believe the statement of his contemporary, Hierony-
mus Dungersheim of Leipzig, this was just what Luther had
always lacked. Dungersheim, in a pamphlet against Luther
the heretic, harks back to the years he spent at Erfurt as a
secular student and accuses him of evil habits, probably
contracted then, but the after effects of which made them-
selves felt when he had entered into religion and caused him
to rebel against his profession. If Luther, so he says, was
now persuaded that no religious could keep the vow of
chastity, in his case the inability could only be due to a
certain " former bad habit," of which stories were told,
and to his neglect of prayer. 3 In another writing the same

1 In the tract " Rationis Latomianse confutatio," " Opp. Lat. var.,"
5, p. 400 ; Weim. ed., 8, p. 45.

2 The above description of Luther's life in the monastery, starting
from the strange circumstances of his entrance, has intentionally
been left incomplete. Below, in volume vi., chapter xxxvii., the whole
development of his character and disposition as it appears more clearly
in the course of his history, and at the same time his own later views
and his manner of depicting his life in religion, are reverted to in detail.

3 " Erzeigung der Falschheit," p. 6.

< THE SINS OF MY YOUTH" 27

opponent accuses him openly of having indulged in the
grossest vice during his academic years, and mentions as
his informant one of the comrades who had, later on,
accompanied Luther to the gates of the monastery.1 He
says nothing, perhaps, indeed, he knew nothing more
definite, and with regard to Luther's life in religion, he is
unable to adduce anything to his discredit.

But yet another of Luther's later adversaries has strong
words for our hero's early life. His testimony, which has
not so far been dealt with, must be treated of here because
such charges, if well founded, doubtless contribute much
to the psychological explanation of the processes going for-
ward in Luther. This testimony is given by Hieronymus
Emser of Dresden, who, it is true, was himself by no means
spotless, and who, on that account, was roundly reprimanded
by the man he had attacked. In his rejoinder to Luther, a
pamphlet published in 1520, and the only one preserved,
he says : " Was it necessary on account of my letter that
you should hold up to public execration my former deviations
which are indeed, for the most part, mere inventions ?
What do you think has come to my ears concerning your
own criminal deeds (' jiagitia ') ? " He will be silent about
them, he says, because he does not wish to return evil for
evil, but he continues : " That you also fell, I must attribute
to the same cause which brought about my own fall, namely,
the want of public discipline in our days, so that young men
live as they please without fear of punishment and do just
what they like."2 We must remember that at Erfurt
Emser and Luther had stood in the relation of teacher and
disciple. His words, like those of Dungersheim written from
Leipzig, voice the opinion on Luther later on current in
the hostile University circles of Erfurt.

When Luther in his later years speaks of the " sins of
his youth," this, in his grotesquely anti-catholic vocabulary,
means the good works of his monastic life, even the celebra-
tion of Holy Mass. Once, however, at the end of his tract
on the Last Supper (1528), 3 speaking of the sins of his youth,

1 " Dadelung des Bekenntnus," p. 15', 16.

2 " A venatione Luteriana iEgocerotis assertio," s.l.e.a.E, 5'.

3 " Werke," Erl. ed., 30, p. 372 : " Although I have been a great,
grievous, shameful sinner and have wasted and spent my youth
damnably," yet his greatest sins were that he had been a monk and
had said Mass.

28 LUTHER THE MONK

he seems to distinguish between the Catholic works above
referred to and other faults of which he accuses himself in
the same general terms.

In the young Augustinian's Erfurt days he was pre-
vented by the Rule from cultivating any intimate and dis-
tracting friendship with persons in the world. We only
know that he, and likewise his brother monk Johann Lang,
had some friendly intercourse with the Humanist Petreius
(Peter Eberbach), who not long after, in a letter dated
May 8, 1512, greets Lang — then already with Luther at
Wittenberg- — in these words : " Sancte Lange et Sancte
Marline orate pro me" Mutianus, the Gotha canon and
chief of the Humanists, who was very unorthodox in his
views, in a letter to Lang of the beginning of May, 1515,
seems to remember Luther, for he sends greetings to the
" pious Dr. Martin."

His intercourse with the Humanists led Luther to make
use of philology in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
He thus entered upon a useful, we may even say indispens-
able, course, in which he might have done great service.
At Erfurt he continued constantly to study his copy of the
Bible, which had become an inseparable companion. " As
no one in the monastery read the Bible " (at any rate not with
his zeal) he was able to natter himself with being first in
the house in the matter of biblical knowledge ; indeed in this
field he was probably the greatest expert in the whole
Congregation.

In addition to this, he began to turn his busy mind to
the study of Hebrew, and contrived to provide himself with
a dictionary, which at that time was considered a treasure.
Lang, with his humanistic culture, was able to assist him
with the Greek. ,

Meanwhile the dispute in the Order with regard to the
observance had reached a point when it seemed right to
the party to which Luther belonged to seek the intervention
of Rome in their favour, or to anticipate an appeal on the
part of their opponents. The choice of seven houses " of
the observance " resulted in Luther being chosen as the
delegate to represent them in Rome. So little opposed to
the Church was Luther's theology and Bible interpretation
in his Erfurt days, and so considerable was the number of
brethren, even in other Observantine houses who held him

THE AUGUSTINIANS 29

to be a faithful monk, that they deemed him best suited for
so difficult a mission. What Cochlacus, according to in-
formation drawn from Augustinian sources, relates later
sounds, however, quite reasonable, viz. that he was selected
on account of his " cleverness and his forceful spirit of con-
tradiction," which promised a complete victory over the
other faction.1

Luther's journey to Rome, according to Oldecop, was
undertaken from Erfurt.

3. The Journey to Eome

The Saxon, or more correctly German, Congregation of
Augustinians, at the time of Luther's journey to Rome,
had reached a crisis in its history.

Founded on the old Order of Hermits of St. Augustine,
by the pious and zealous Andreas Proles (1503), and pro-
vided by him with excellent statutes intended to promote a
reform of discipline, the Congregation had, since its founda-
tion, been withdrawn from the control of the Provincial of
the unreformed Augustinian Province of Saxony in order
the better to preserve its stricter observance.2 It stood
directly under the General of the Order at Rome, whose
German representative was a Vicar-General— in Luther's
time, Staupitz. He was simply styled Vicar, or sometimes
Provincial. The monasteries under him numbered about
thirty, and were distributed throughout several so-called
districts, each headed by a Rural Vicar.

Staupitz's aim was to bring about a reunion of the German
Congregation with the numerous non-observant monasteries
in Germany, an amalgamation which would probably have
led indirectly to his becoming the head of all these com-
munities. He had already, September 30, 1510, after
sounding the Pope, published a papal Bull approving such
a union, and, by virtue of the same, begun to style himself
Provincial of Thuringia and Saxony. His efforts were,
however, met by decided oppositicn within the Congregation.
Certain houses which were in favour of the old state of
things and feared that union would lead to a relaxation of
discipline, vehemently opposed Staupitz and his plans. To

1 " Commentaria," etc., p. 1. "Acer ingenio et ad contradicendum
audax et vehemensJ'''

2 Kolde, " Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation," p. 96 f.

30 LUTHER THE MONK

this party belonged also the Erfurt monastery, and Luther
himself took an active part in the position assumed by his
house. The object of his visit to Halle with Dr. Nathin to
see Prince Adolf of Anhalt, the Cathedral Provost, had been
to obtain a " petition " in favour of the " observance."
The opposition became acute when the Bull above referred
to was published by Staupitz, and we may consider the
protest of the seven Observantine monasteries against the
Bull as the direct cause of Luther's despatch to Rome.

The monk, then seven-and-twenty years of age, with his
written authority to act as procurator in the case (" litis
procurator " is what Cochlscus, who was well informed on
these matters, styles him), set out forthwith en his journey.
It was in the autumn 1510, 1 and Luther was then lecturing
en the third book of the Sentences. His absence lasted
four or five months, i.e. until the spring 1511, when we
again find him at Erfurt. Luther, and those who felt with
him, found no difficulty in reconciling their efforts for the
preservation of the observance against the will of Staupitz,
with due submission to him as their Superior.

Another monk of the Order accompanied Luther to the
capital of Christendom as the Rule enjoined in the case of
journeys. The joy at such an opportunity of seeing the
Eternal City, of quenching his ardent thirst for knowledge
by the acquisition of new experiences and of gaining the
graces attached to so holy a pilgrimage, may well have
hurried his steps during the wearisome journey, which in
those days had to be undertaken on foot. He had even,
according to a later statement, made the resolution to
cleanse his conscience- — so frequently tortured by fears —
by a general confession, indeed he once says that this was his
main object, passing over the real reason.

With regard to the effect of the journey on the question
concerning the Order, according to Cochlaeus a certain com-
promise was reached, the details of which are, however,
not told us. At any rate Staupitz was unable to carry out
his plan and eventually gave it up. The dispute between

1 For the date and cause, see N. Paulus in the "Histor. Jahrbuch,"
1891, 68 f., 314 f. ; 1901, 110 ff. ; 1903, 72 ff. Also " Histor.-polit.
Blatter," 142, 1908, 738-52. The year 1510-11, as against that given
by Kostlin-Kawerau, viz. 1511-12, is now accepted by Kroker in his
edition of the "Tischreden der Mathesischen Sammlung," p. 417, and
by Kawerau in his " Luther kalender," 1910.

OBSERVANTINES AND CONVENTUALS 31

"Observants" and " non-Observants " thus started, as we
may gather from statements made by Luther to which we
refer later, far from being at an end became more and more
acute. It appears to have done untold harm to the Con-
gregation and to have largely contributed to its fall.

What effect had the visit to Italy and Rome upon the
development of the young monk ?

Thousands have been cheered in spirit by the visit to the
tombs of the Apostles ; prayer at the holy places of Rome,
the immediate proximity of the Vicar of Christ and of the
world-embracing government of the Church made them feel
what they had never felt before, the pulse-beat of the heart
of Christendom, and they returned full of enthusiasm,
strengthened and inspirited, and with the desire of working
for souls in accordance with the mind of the Church.

With Luther this was not the case.

He was much less impressed by the Rome of the Saints
than by the corruption then rampant in ecclesiastical circles.

On first perceiving Rome from the heights of Monte
Mario, he devoutly greeted the city, as all pilgrims were
wont to do, overjoyed at having reached the goal of their
long pilgrimage.1 After that, he untiringly occupied him-
self, so far as his chief business permitted, in seeing all that
Rome had to show. He assures us that he believed everything
that was told him of the real or legendary reminiscences of
the holy places both above and under ground. He does
not, however, appear to have been very careful in his choice
of guides and acquaintances, for the anecdotes concerning
the condition of things at Rome which he brought back
with him to his own country were, if not untrue, at least
exceedingly spiteful. The Augustinians whom he there
met had not the spirit of the reform inaugurated by Proles.
Their southern freedom and lack of restraint found all too
strong an echo in Luther's character. The general confession
he had projected was probably never made,2 for, as he asserts
later, he had not found among the clergy a single suitable,
worthy man. During his distracting stay in the Eternal
City he said Mass, so he tells us, perhaps once, perhaps ten
times, i.e. occasionally, not regularly.3 He was greatly

\ "Werke," Erl. ed. 62, p. 438. "Coll.," ed. Bindseil, 1, 165;
" Tisehreden," ed. Forstemann, 4, 687.

2 "Coll.," ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 169, and n. 33.

3 "Werke," Erl. ed. 40, p. 284.

32 LUTHER THE MONK

scandalised at much he heard and saw, partly owing to his
looking at things with the critical eye of a northerner, partly
owing to the really existing moral disorders.

The Rome of that day was the Rome of Julius II, the
then Pope, and of his predecessor Alexander VI ; it was
the Rome of the Popes of the height of the Renaissance,
glorified by art, but inwardly deeply debased. The capital
of Christendom, under the influence of the frivolity
which had seized the occupants of the Papal throne and
invaded the ranks of the higher clergy, had proved false
to her dignity and forgetful of the fact that the eyes of the
Faithful who visited Rome from every quarter of the globe
were jealously fixed upon her in their anxiety lest the godless
spirit of the world should poison the very heart of the
Church.

Instead of being edified by the good which he undoubtedly
encountered and by the great ideal of the Church which
no shadow can ever darken, Luther, with his critically
disposed mind, proved all too receptive to the contrary
impressions and allowed himself to be unduly influenced
by the dark side of things, i.e. the corruption of morals.
Subsequently, in his public controversies and private Table-
Talk, he tells quite a number of disreputable tales,1 which,
whether based on fact or not, were all too favourable to his
anti-Roman tendencies. He was in the habit of saying, in
his usual tone, that whoever looked about him a little in
Rome, would find abominations compared to which those of
Sodom were mere child's play. He declares that he heard
from the mouth of Papal courtiers the statement : "It
cannot go on much longer, it must break up." In the com-
pany in which he mixed he heard these words let fall : " If
there be a Hell, then Rome is built over it." He says that he
had heard it said of one, who expressed his grief at such a
state of things, that he was a " buon cristiano" which meant
much the same as a good-natured simpleton. In his prone-
ness to accept evil tales he believed, at least so he asserts
later, the statement made in his presence, that many priests
were in the habit of repeating jokes at Mass in place of the
words of consecration. He relates that he even questioned
whether the bishops and priests at Rome, the prelates of
the Curia, aye, the Pope himself, had any Christian belief
1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 99 f.

THE ROME JOURNEY 33

It is not worth while to go into the details of the
scandals he records, because, as Hausrath justly remarks,
" it is questionable how much weight is due to statements
which, in part, date from the later years of his life, when he
had so completely altered."1

In his accounts the share which he himself actually took
in the pious pilgrim-exercises of the time is kept very much
in the background.

He came to the so-called Scala Santa at the Lateran, and
saw the Faithful, from motives of penance, ascending the
holy steps on their knees. He turned away from this touch-
ing popular veneration of the sufferings of the Redeemer,
and preferred not to follow the example of the other pilgrims.
An account given by his son Paul in 1582 says that he
then quoted the Bible verse : " The just man liveth by
faith." If it be a fact that he made use of these words
which were to assume so great importance and to be so
sadly misinterpreted in his subsequent theology, it was
certainly not in their later sense. In reality we have here
in all probability an instance of a later opinion being
gratuitously anticipated, for Luther himself declares that
he discovered his gospel only after he had taken his Doctor's
degree, and this we shall show abundantly further on.
Older Protestant writers have frequently represented the
scene at the steps of the Lateran in unhistorical colours
owing to their desire to furnish a graphic historical beginning
of the change in Luther's mind. Mylius of Jena was one of
the first to do this.2 Mylius, in 1595, quite falsely asserts
that Luther had already commented on the Epistle to the
Romans previous to his journey to Rome, and adds that
he had already then noted the later interpretation of the
Bible text in question. It is true that his son Paul, where
he speaks of Luther's exclamation as having been com-
municated to him by his father, expressly states that " he
had then, through the spirit of Jesus, come to the knowledge
of the truth of the holy gospel." But Kostlin's Biography
of Luther rightly denies this, and describes it as an "ex-
aggeration "3~-" error " would have been better — for the

1 " Luthers Romfahrt," p. 79.

2 Georgius Mylius, "In Epistolam divi Pauli ad Romanos," etc.,
Iense, 1595. " Prsefatio," fol. 2'. Cp. Theod. Elze, "Luthers Reise
nach Rom." Berlin, 1899, pp. 3, 45, 80.

3 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 749 f.

34 LUTHER THE MONK

assumption to which Luther's friends still cling with such
affection, namely, that from the very commencement of his
journey to Rome he had been " haunted by the Bible text
concerning justification by faith," at a time " when he
still was striving to serve God by his own works," must be
struck out of history as a mere fiction.1

At Rome Luther's conviction of the authority of the
Holy See was in no wise shaken, in spite of what some people
have thought. All the scandals had not been able to achieve
this. As late as 1516 he was still preaching in entire accord-
ance with the traditional doctrine of the Church on the
power of the Papacy, and it is worth while to quote his
words in order to show the Catholic thoughts which engaged
him while wandering through the streets of Rome. " If
Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church
would not have been perfect because there would have
been no order and each one would have been able to say he
was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did,
each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many
Churches arose as there were heads. Christ therefore wills,
in order that all may be assembled in one unity, that His
Power be exercised by one man to whom also He commits
it. He has, however, made this Power so strong that
He looses all the powers of Hell (without injury) against it.
He says : ' The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it,'
as though He said : ' They will fight against it but never
overcome it,' so that in this way it is made manifest that
this power is in reality from God and not from man. Where-
fore whoever breaks away from this unity and order of the
Power, let him not boast of great enlightenment and won-
derful works, as our Picards and other heretics do, ' for much
better is obedience than the victims of fools who know not

1 On his own account Paul was only a boy of eleven when he heard
this statement from his father ; it is therefore very doubtful whether
he understood and remembered it correctly. Luther would surely
have returned to the subject more frequently had it really played so
great a part in his development, especially as he speaks so often of his
journey to Rome. O. Scheel in his recent thesis on the development of
Luther down to the time of the conclusion of the lectures on the Epistle
to the Romans (" Schriften des Vereins fur Reformationsgesch, Nr.
100, Jubilaumsschrift," 1910, pp. 61-230), quite correctly says: "It is
possible that his son, knowing of what importance Romans i. 17 had
become for Luther, may at a later date have combined these words
with the Roman incident." In any case, the objections with regard to
this incident are so great that little can bo made out of it.

THE ROME JOURNEY 35

what evil they do ' (Eccles. iv. 17)."1 That, when in Rome,
he was still full of reverence for the Pope, Luther shows in
his Table-Talk, though his language on this occasion can
only be described as filthy.2

His ideas with regard to the Church's means of Grace, the
Mass, Indulgences and Prayer had not, at the time of his
return to Germany, undergone any theoretical change,
though it is highly probable that his practical observance of
the Church's law suffered considerably. The fact is, his
character was not yet sufficiently formed when he started
on his journey ; he was, as Oldecop says, " a wild young
fellow."3

Luther later on relates it as a joke, that, when at Rome,
he had been so zealous in gaining Indulgences that he had
wished his parents were already dead so that he might
apply to their souls the great Indulgences obtainable there.4
Of the Masses which he celebrated in the Holy City he
assures us- — again more by way of a joke than as an exact
statement of fact- — that he said them so piously and slowly
that three, or even six, Italian priests or monks had finished
all their Masses in succession before he had come to the end
of one. He even declares that in Rome Mass is said so
rapidly that ten, one after another, occupied only one hour,
and that he himself had been urged on with the cry : " Hurry
up, Brother, hurry up." Whoever is familiar with the older
Luther's manner of speech, will be on his guard against
taking such jests seriously or as proof of scrupulosity ;
he is, in reality, merely laying stress on the blatant contrast
between his own habit and the precipitation of the Italians.

In 1519, i.e. not yet ten years after Luther's visit, his
pupil Oldecop came to Rome and set to work to make
diligent enquiries concerning the stay there of his already
famous master, with whose teaching, however, he did not
agree. As he says in his " Chronik," published not long
since, he learned that Luther had taken lessons in Hebrew
from a Jew called Jakob, who gave himself out to be a
physician. He sought out the Jew, probably a German,
and heard from him that " Martinus had begged the Pope

1 Sermo in Vincula S. Petri, hence on August 1. " Werke," Weim.
ed., 1 (1883), p. 69.

2 "Tischreden," ed. Forstemann, 4, p. 687.

3 " Chronik," p. 30.

4 " Werke," Erl. ed., 40, p. 284.

36 LUTHER THE MONK

to be allowed to study in Italy for ten years in secular
dress," but that, owing to the absence of any authorisation
from his Superiors, his request had been refused, and
Martinus, instead of being privileged to dress as a secular
priest, had been obliged to retain his " cowl," i.e. the habit
of his Order. Oldecop then betook himself to the official
who, as he learnt, had drafted the monk's petition, and
who fully confirmed the Jew's statement. There is no
reason for doubting these new tales,1 notwithstanding the
fact that in some of the other statements made by Oldecop,
especially those in which he had no personal concern, some
unintentional errors occur. According to the character given
him by his editor Carl Euling, he was " an educated and
honourable man, with good judgment."2 Notice deserves
to be taken of a minor detail of the incident which confirms
the truth of this account, namely, that the official, affrighted
at the mention of Luther's name, was at first unwilling to
speak, and then begged that the fact of his having had
dealings with him should not be betrayed. The man, who
is here portrayed to the life, after he became more loquacious,
also expressed the opinion that had Luther been allowed
to take off the cowl he would never have put it on again ;
a view, of course, merely based on the later course of events.
Luther's desire for learning was so great, and his impulsive
character so marked, that it is quite possible that he cherished
such a project. Nor was there anything so very singular
in the plan, for about that time other monks had been
secularised at their own request. In a Brief dated January
26, 1517, Erasmus, who was an Augustinian canon,
received permission to wear the dress of a secular priest,
a fact to which Luther, on occasion, makes allusion. As
such a privilege, even though restricted as to duration,
would without doubt have appealed to the freedom of
thought which at that time Luther was beginning to culti-
vate, the fact that it was refused owing to the lack of
authorisation by his German Superiors assuredly cannot
have sweetened his recollection of the Roman Curia ; its
only effect was probably to wound his vanity. He himself
never speaks of this petition ; he had no cause to do so, and

1 This remark only applies to the statement in the text. When
Oldecop says he was told in Rome that Luther had come to Rome
without the authorisation of his Superiors, this was untrue.

2 Preface to Oldecop's " Chronik."

OPINION OF ROMANS 37

indeed it ill agreed with the legend which, with advancing
years, he began to weave about his life in the monastery.
On the other hand, we have probably a distorted version of
the incident in an assertion, circulated later by his opponents,
viz. that during his stay at Rome he had sought secularisa-
tion in order to be able to marry. *

Regarding the morals of the Italians and not the Romans
only, he makes many unfavourable and even unfair state-
ments in his later reminiscences of his wanderings through
their country. The only things which found favour in his eyes
were, in fact, their charity and benevolence as displayed in
some of the hospitals, particularly in Florence, the sobriety
of the people and, at Rome, the careful carrying out of
ecclesiastical business. An evil breath of moral laxity was
passing over the whole country, more especially, however,
over the rich and opulent towns and the higher classes, in-
fected as they were with the indifferentism of the Humanists.
Those travelling alone found themselves exposed in the inns
to the worst moral dangers. We must also call to mind that,
in those very years the Neapolitan, or French disease, as
syphilis was then called, infested a wide area of this other-
wise delightful country, having been introduced by the
troops who came to southern Italy. The places where
strangers from other lands were obliged to spend the night
on their travels were hotbeds of infection for both body and
soul.

Luther returned to Germany towards the month of
February, 1511, though he was no longer the same man
as when he set out. He said, after his apostasy : " I, like
a fool, carried onions to Italy and brought garlic (i.e. worse
stuff) back with me." As a controversialist he declared
that he would not take 100,000 gulden to have missed
seeing Rome, as otherwise he would feel that he was doing
the Papacy an injustice ; he only wished that everyone
who was about to become a priest would visit Rome.

1 Cp. George, Duke of Saxony, in the pamphlet published under
Arnoldi's name : " Auf das Schmahbuchlein Luthers wider den
Meuchlervon Dresden," 1531 (" Werke," Erl. ed., 25, p. 147), where he
thus addresses Luther: " You are hostile to the Pope because, among
other reasons, he would not free you from the frock and give you a
whore for your wife." The mention of the frock points to a reminiscence
of what actually had taken place. Possibly the Jew is the same
Jakob who, in 1520, accepted Luther's doctrine in Germany and was
baptised. Cp. Luther's " Brief wechsel," 4, pp. 97, 147.

38 LUTHER THE MONK

A notable result of his stay in Italy was, that Luther,
after his return to the monastery, immediately changed
his standpoint regarding the " observance." Sent to Rome
for the defence of the " observance," he now unexpectedly
veered round and became its opponent. " He deserted to
Staupitz " as Cochlacus puts it, evidently using the very
words of the Observantines, and soon Luther was seen
passionately assailing the Observantines, whose spokesman
he had been shortly before. In all likelihood his changed
view stood in some connection with a change in his domicile.
No sooner had he returned to the Observantine monastery
of Erfurt, than he left it for Wittenberg, where he was to
take his degree of Doctor of Divinity and then ascend the
professorial chair. Doubtless under Staupitz's influence the
fulfilment of those great hopes which he had formerly
cherished now arose on the horizon of his mind. To continue
to withstand Staupitz in the matter of the observance
could but prove a hindrance to his advance, especially as
the Wittenberg community was for the most part opposed
to the observance. Nothing further is, however, known
with regard to this strange change of front. It was of
the greatest importance for his future development, as
will appear in the sequel ; the history of his warfare against
the Observantines, to which as yet little attention has been
paid, may also be considered as a new and determining
factor in his mental career.

4. The Little World of Wittenberg and the Great World
in Church and State

Since the spring 1511, Luther had been qualifying, by
diligent study in his cell in the great Augustinian monastery
at Wittenberg, to take his degree of Doctor in Divinity
in the University of that city.

In his later statements he says that he had small hopes
of success in his new career on account of his weak health ;
that he had in vain opposed Staupitz's invitation to take
his doctorate, and that he had been compelled by obedience
to comply with his Superior's orders. After passing bril-
liantly the requisite tests, the University bestowed upon
him the theological degree on October 1, 1512. Luther at
once commenced his lectures on Holy Scripture, the subject

WITTENBERG 39

of this, his first course, being the Psalms (1513-16). His
audience consisted mainly of young Augustinians, to whom
a correct understanding of the Psalms was a practical need
for their services in choir.

He displayed already in these early lectures, no less than
in those of the later period, the whole force of his fancy and
eloquence, his great ability in the choice of quotations from
the Bible, his extraordinary subjectivity, and, however out
of place in such a quarter, the vehemence of his passion ;
in our own day the sustained rhetorical tone of his lectures
would scarcely appeal to the hearer.

The fiery and stimulating teacher was in his true element
at Wittenberg. The animation that pervaded students
and teachers, the distinction which he enjoyed amongst
his friends, his unlimited influence over the numerous
young men gathered there, more especially over the students
of his own Order, no less than the favour of the Elector of
Saxony for the University, the Order, and, subsequently,
for his own person, all this, in spite of his alleged unwilling-
ness to embrace the profession, made his stay at Wittenberg,
and his work there, very agreeable to him. He himself
admits that his Superiors had done well in placing him
there. Wittenberg became in the sequel the citadel of his
teaching. There he remained until the evening of his days
as Professor of Holy Scripture, and quitted the town only
when forced by urgent reasons to do so.

As with all men of great gifts, who make a deep impression
on their day, but are, all the same, children of their time,
so was it with Luther. In his case, however, the influence
from without was all the deeper because his lively and
receptive temperament lent itself to a stronger external
stimulus, and also because the position of so young a man
in a professorial chair in the very heart of Germany did
much to foster such influences.

Martin Pollich of Mellcrstadt, formerly Professor at
Leipzig, a physician, a jurist and a man of humanistic
tendencies who had helped Staupitz to organise the new
University, enjoyed a great reputation in the Wittenberg
schools. Alongside him were the theologians Amsdorf,
Carlstadt, Link, Lang and Staupitz. Nicholas von Amsdorf,
who was subsequently said to be " more Luther than Luther
himself," had been since 1511 licentiate of theology, and

40 LUTHER THE MONK

had at the same time filled, as a secular priest, the office
of Canon at the Castle Church. Andreas Bodenstein von
Carlstadt, usually known as Carlstadt, occupied a position
amongst the Augustinians engaged in teaching. He had
taken his degree at Wittenberg in 1510, and was at the
outset a zealous representative of Scholasticism, though he
speedily attached himself to Luther's new teaching. He
was the first to proclaim the solubility of religious vows.
Wenceslaus Link worked at the University from 1509 to
about 1516, eventually succeeding Staupitz as Augustinian
Vicar-General, and, later, by his marriage in 1523, gave the
last Augustinians of the unfortunate Congregation the
signal for forsaking the Order. Another Augustinian,
Johann Lang, who had been Luther's friend since the days
of his first studies at Erfurt, had come to Wittenberg about
1512 as teacher at the " Studium " of the Order, though
he scon left it to return to Erfurt. Johann Staupitz, the
Superior of the Congregation, resigned in 1512 his Pro-
fessorship of Holy Scripture at Wittenberg, being unable
to attend to it sufficiently owing to his frequent absence,
and made over the post to Luther, whom, as he says in his
eulogistic speech to the Elector of Saxony, he had been
at pains to form into a " very special Doctor of Holy
Scripture."

The teaching in the University at that time was, of course,
from the religious standpoint, Catholic. Its scholarship
was, however, infected with the humanistic views of the
Italian naturalism, and this new school had already stamped
some of the professors with its freethinking spirit.1

The influence of Humanism on Luther's development
must be admitted, though it is frequently overrated, the
subsequent open alliance of the German Humanists with
the new gospel being set back, without due cause, to Luther's
early days. As a student he had plunged into the study of

1 A proof of this may, e.g. , be f ound in certain statements on marriage
made by the jurist Christoph Scheurl, borrowed from his professor
Codro Urceo of Bologna, and brought forward in a speech held at
Wittenberg, November 16, 1508. A Latin dialogue which the Witten-
berg professor Andreas Meinhardi published in 1508 also betrays the
influence of those humanistic groups. J. Haussleitner (" Die Uni-
versitat Wittenberg vor dem Eintritt Luthers," 1903, pp. 46 f., 84 ff.)
attributes the manner of expression and the views of both to the
ecclesiasticism of the Middle Ages. Cp. on the other side N. Paulus
in the " Wissenschaftl. Beilage " to " Germania," 1904, No. 10.

HUMANIST FRIENDS 41

the ancient classics which he loved, but there was a great;
difference between this and the being in complete intellectual
communion with the later Humanists, whose aims were in
many respects opposed to the Church's. Thanks to the
practical turn of his mind, the study of the classics, which
he occasionally continued later, never engaged his attention
or fascinated him to the extent it did certain Humanists of
the Renaissance, who saw in the revival of classic Paganism
the salvation of mankind. As a young professor at the
University he was not, however, able to escape entirely
the influence of the liberalism of the age, with its one-sided
and ill-considered opposition to so many of the older
elements of culture, an opposition which might easily
prove as detrimental as a blind and biassed defence of the
older order.

It is not necessary to demonstrate here how dangerous
a spirit of change and libertinism was being imported in
the books of the Italian Humanists, or by the German
students who had attended their lectures.

With regard to Luther personally, we know that he not
only had some connection with Mutian, the leader of a
movement which at that time was still chiefly literary, but
also that Johann Lang at once forwarded to Mutian a
lecture against the morals of the " little Saints " of his Order
delivered by Luther at Gotha in 1515.1 Luther also excused
himself in a very respectful letter to this leader of the
Humanists for not having called on him when passing
through Gotha in 1516. 2 Luther's most intimate friend,
Lang, through whom he seems to have entered into a cer-
tain exchange of ideas with Humanism, was an enthusiastic
Humanist and possessed of great literary connections.
Lang, for his part, speaks highly to Mutian of the assistance
rendered him in his studies by Luther.3 There can therefore
be no doubt that Luther was no stranger to the efforts of
the Humanists, to their bold and incisive criticism of the
traditional methods, to their new idealism and their spirit
of independence. Many of the ideas which filled the air in
those days had doubtless an attraction for and exerted

1 Kolde, " Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation," p. 263 ; " Brief-
wechsel," 1, p. 36, n. 5.

2 Letter of May 29, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 35.

3 Lang to Mutian, May 2, 1515, " Brief wechsel." 1, p. 36, n. 5.

42 LUTHER THE MONK

an influence on the open-hearted, receptive disposition
of the talented monk.

Luther's friendship with Spalatin, which dated from his
Erfurt days, must also be taken into account in this regard.
For Spalatin, who came as tutor and preacher in 1508 to
the Court of the Elector of Saxony, was very closely allied
in spirit with the Humanists of Erfurt and Gotha. It was
he who asked Luther for his opinion respecting the famous
dispute of the Cologne Faculty with the Humanist Reuchlin,
a quarrel which engaged the sympathy of scholars and men
of education throughout the length and breadth of Germany.
Luther, in his reply, which dates from January or February,
1514, had at that time no hesitation in emphatically taking
the side of Reuchlin, who, he declared, possessed his love
and esteem. God, he says, would carry on His work in
spite of the determined opposition of one thousand times one
thousand Cologne burghers, and he adds meaningly that
there were much more important matters with the Church
which needed reform ; they were " straining at gnats and
swallowing camels."1 The conservative attitude of the
authorities at Cologne was at that time not at all to his taste.
Not long after Luther writes very strongly to Spalatin,
again in favour of Reuchlin, against Ortwin de Graes of
Cologne, and says among other things that he had hitherto
thought the latter an ass, but that he must now call him a
dog, a wolf and a crocodile, in spite of his wanting to play
the lion,2 expressions which are quite characteristic of
Luther's style.

On the appearance of the " Letters of Obscure Men,"
and a similar satirical writing which followed them, and
which also found its way into Luther's hands, the young
Wittenberg professor, instead of taking the field against
the evil tendency of these attacks of the Humanist party on
the " bigots of Scholasticism and the cloister " as such
diatribes deserved, and as he in his character of monk and
theologian should have done, sought to take a middle
course : he approved of the purpose of the attacks, but not
of the satire itself, which mended nothing and contained too
much invective. Both productions, he says, must have
come out of the same pot ; they had as their author, if not

1 " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 14.

2 Letter of August 5, 1514, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 20.

ERASMUS 43

the same, at least a very similar comedian. It is now
known that the real author of the letters which caused such
an uproar was his former University friend, Crotus Rubeanus.1

On what terms did Luther stand with respect to Erasmus,
the leader of the Humanists, before their great and final
estrangement ? As he speaks of Erasmus in a letter of 1517
to Lang as " our Erasmus," we may infer that until then
he was, to a certain extent, favourably disposed towards
him. He rejoiced on reading his humanistic writings to
find that " he belaboured the monks and clergy so manfully
and so learnedly and had torn the veil off their out-of-date
rubbish." 2 Yet, on the same occasion, he confesses that his
liking for Erasmus is becoming weaker. It was not the
attitude of Erasmus to the Church in general which even
then separated Luther from him, but his new teaching on
Grace, the origin of which will be treated of later. It is
true Luther conveyed to him through Spalatin his good
wishes for his renown and progress, but in the same message
he admonished him not to follow the example of nearly
every commentator in interpreting certain passages where
Paul condemns " righteousness by works " as referring
only to the Mosaic ceremonial law, and not rather to all the
works of the Decalogue. If such are performed " outside
the Faith in Christ," then though they should make of a
man a Fabricius, a Regulus, or a paragon of perfection, yet
they have as little in common with righteousness as black-
berries have with figs " ; it is not the works which justify
a man, but rather our righteousness which sanctifies the
works. Abel was more pleasing to God than his works.3
The exclusive sense in which Luther interprets these words,
according to which he does not even admit that works of
righteousness are of any value for the increase of righteous-
ness, is a consequence of his new standpoint, to which he is
anxious to convert Erasmus and all the Humanists.

He had the Humanists in his mind when he wrote as
follows to Johann Lang : " The times are perilous, and a man
may be a great Greek, or Hebrew [scholar] without being
a wise Christian. . . . He who makes concessions to human

1 To Johann Lang, October 5, 1516, and to Spalatin about the
same time, " Brief wechsel," 1, pp. 59, 62.

2 Letter of March 1, 1517, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 88.

3 To Spalatin, October 19, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 64.

44 LUTHER THE MONK

free-will judges differently from him who knows nothing
save Grace alone."1 But this is to forestall a development
of his error, which will be described later. At the time that
his new doctrine originated he was far more in sympathy
with the theories of certain groups of late mediaeval mystics
than with the views of the Humanists, because, as will
appear later, he found in them the expression of that
annihilation of the human by means of Grace, of which the
idea was floating before his mind, and because he also
discovered in them an " inwardness " which agreed with
his own feelings at that time.

From Erasmus and his compeers he undoubtedly borrowed,
in addition to a spirit of justifiable criticism, an exaggerated
sentiment of independence towards ecclesiastical antiquity.
The contact with their humanistic views assuredly strength-
ened in him the modern tendency to individualism. Not
long after a change in the nature of his friendship necessarily
took place. His antagonism to Erasmus in the matter of
his doctrine of Grace led to a bitter dispute between the
two, to which Luther's contribution was his work on " The
Servitude of the Will " (De servo arbitrio) ; at the same time
his alliance with the Humanists remained of value to him
in the subversive movement which he had inaugurated.

Mighty indeed were the forces, heralds of a spiritual
upheaval, which, since the fifteenth century, had streamed
through the Western world in closer or more distant con-
nection with the great revival of the study of classical
antiquity. They proclaimed the advent of a new cycle in
the history of mankind. This excited world could not fail
to impart its impulse to the youthful Luther.

The recently discovered art of printing had, as it were
at one blow, created a world-wide community of intellectual
productions and literary ideas such as the Middle Ages
had never dreamed of. The nations were drawn closer
together at that period by the interchange of the most varied
and far-reaching discoveries. The spirit of worldly enter-
prise awoke as from a long slumber as a result of the astonish-
ing discovery of great and wealthy countries overseas.

With the greater facilities for intellectual intercourse and
the increase of means of study, criticism set to work on all
branches of learning with greater results than ever before.
1 Letter of March 1, 1517, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 88.

ECCLESIASTICAL ABUSES 45

The greater States now did what they had been willing but
unable to do before ; they freed themselves more and more
from the former tutelage of the Church ; they aimed at
securing freedom and shaking off that priestly influence
to which, in part at least, they owed their stability and their
growth ; nor was this movement confined to the greater
States, for, in Germany, at any rate, the wealthy cities, the
great landed proprietors and princes were all alike intent
on ridding themselves of the oppression under which they
had hitherto laboured and on securing for themselves an
increase of power. In brief, everywhere the old restraints
were breaking down, everywhere a forward movement of
individualism was in progress at the expense of the common-
weal and the traditional order of the Middle Ages ; but,
above all, at the expense of the Church's religious authority,
which, alone till then, had kept individualism in check
to the profit of humanity.

It would indeed have been well had at least the Catholic
Church at that critical period been free from weakness and
abuse. Her Divine power of blessing the nations, it is true,
still survived, her preaching of the truth, her treasure of
the Sacraments, in short, her soul, was unchanged ; but,
because she was suffering from many lamentable imper-
fections, the disruptive forces were able to come into play
with fatal results. The complaints of eloquent men full of
zeal for souls, both at that time and during the preceding
decades, particularly in Germany, over the decline of
religious life among the Faithful and the corruption in the
clergy, were only too well founded, and deserved to have
met with a much more effectual reception than they did.
What the monk of Wittenberg, with unbridled passion and
glaring exaggeration, was about to thunder forth over the
world in his mighty call for reform, had already for the most
part been urged by others, yea, by great Saints of the Church
who attacked the abuses with the high-minded zeal of ripe
experience. Strict, earnest and experienced men had set to
work on a Catholic reform in many parts of the Church,
not excepting Germany, in the only profitable way, viz.
not by doctrinal innovation, but by raising the standard
of morality among both people and clergy. But progress
was slow, very slow, for reasons which cannot be dealt with
here. The life-work of the pious founder of his own Con-

46 LUTHER THE MONK

gregation might well have served Luther as an admirable
example of moral- regeneration and efficiency; for the aim
of Andreas Proles was, as a Protestant writer remarks :
" A strong and mighty Reformation " ; he lived in hopes
that God would shortly raise up a hero capable of bringing
it about with strength and determination, though the
Reformation he had in his mind, as our historian allows,
could only have been a Reformation in the Catholic sense.1
Another attractive example of reforming zeal was also given
under Luther's very eyes by the Windesheim Congregation
of the Brethren of the Common Life, with whom he had
been in friendly intercourse from his boyish days.

The disorders in Germany had an all too powerful strong-
hold in the higher ranks of ecclesiastical authority. Not
until after the Council of Trent did it become apparent
how much the breaking down of this bulwark of corruption
would cost. The bishops were for the most part incapable
or worldly. Abbots, provosts, wealthy canons and digni-
taries vied with and even excelled the episcopate in their
neglect of the duties of their clerical state. In the filling
of Church ofTices worldly influence was paramount, and in
its wake followed forced nominations, selfishness, incom-
petence and a general retrograde movement ; the moral
disorders among the clergy and the people accumulated
under lazy and incompetent superiors. The system of
indulgences, pilgrimages, sodalities and numerous practices
connected with the veneration of the Saints, as well as many
other details of worship, showed lamentable excesses.

Of the above-mentioned evils within the German Church,
two will be examined more closely : the interference of the
Government and the worldly-minded nobility in Church
matters, and the evil ways of the higher and lower grades
of the clergy.

Not merely were the clerical dues frequently seized by
the princes and lesser authorities, but positions in the
Cathedral chapters and episcopal sees were, in many cases,
handed over arbitrarily to members of the nobility or ruling
houses, so that in many places the most important posts
were held by men without a vocation and utterly unworthy
of the office. " When the ecclesiastical storm broke out at

1 Kolde, "Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation," p. 163; cp.
p. 96 ff. and Kolde, " Martin Luther," 1, pp. 47, 50, 59 f.

EPISCOPAL PLURALISTS 47

the end of the second decade of the sixteenth century the
following archbishoprics and bishoprics were filled by the
sons of princes : Bremen, Freising, Halberstadt, Hildcsheim,
Magdeburg, Mayence, Merseburg, Metz, Minden, Minister,
Naumburg, Osnabriick, Paderborn, Passau, Ratisbon, Spires,
Verden and Verdun."1 The bishops drawn from the
princely houses were, as a rule, involved in worldly business
or in Court intrigues, even where, as was the case, for instance,
with the powerful Archbishop of Mayence, Albrecht of
Brandenburg, their early education had not been entirely
anti-ecclesiastical.

Another evil was the uniting of several important bishop-
rics in the hands of one individual. " The Archbishop of
Bremen was at the same time Bishop of Verden, the Bishop
of Osnabriick also Bishop of Paderborn, the Archbishop
of Mayence also Archbishop of Magdeburg and Bishop of
Halberstadt. George, Palsgrave of the Rhine and Duke of
Bavaria, had already in his thirteenth year been made
Cathedral Provost of Mayence and afterwards became
a Canon of Cologne and Treves, Provost of St. Donatian's
at Bruges, patron of the livings of Hochheim and Lorch on
the Rhine and finally, in 1513, Bishop of Spires. By special
privilege of Pope Leo X, granted June 22, 1513, he, an other-
wise earnest and pious man, was permitted to hold all these
benefices in addition to his bishopric of Spires."2 A con-
temporary, reviewing the condition of the worldly-minded
bishops, complains " that the higher clergy are chiefly to
blame for the careless way in which the cure of souls is
exercised. They place unsuitable shepherds over the people,
while they themselves draw the tithes. Many seek to unite
in their grasp the greatest possible number of livings without
fulfilling the duties they entail and waste the revenues of
the Church in luxury, on servants, pages, dogs and horses.
One seeks to outvie the other in ostentation and luxury."3
One of the most important explanations of the fact, that,
at the very outset of the religious innovation, the falling
away from the Church took place with such astonishing
celerity, is to be found in the corruption and apathy of the
episcopate.4

1 Janssen-Pastor, " Gesch. des deutschen Volkes," I18, p. 703 ;
English translation, " Hist, of the German People," ii., p. 297. See
also Pastor, " Hist, of the Popes " (Engl, trans.), vol. vii., p. 290 ff.

2 Ibid. a Ibidtf p# 700> 4 Ibidf p. 703t

48 LUTHER THE MONK

Bertold Pirstinger, Bishop of Chiemsee and author of
the lament " Onus ecclesice" wrote sadly in 1519 : " Where
does the choice fall upon a good, capable and learned bishop,
where on one who is not inexperienced, sensual and ignorant
of spiritual things ? . . . I know of some bishops who
prefer to wear a sword and armour rather than their clerical
garb. It has come to this, that the episcopate is now given
up to worldly possessions, sordid cares, stormy wars,
worldly sovereignty. . . . The prescribed provincial and
diocesan synods are not held. Hence many Church matters
which ought to be reformed are neglected. Besides this,
the bishops do not visit their parishes at fixed times, and
yet they exact from them heavy taxes. Thus the lives of
the clergy and laity have sunk to a low level and the churches
are unadorned and falling to pieces." The zealous bishop
closes his gloomy description, in which perhaps he is too
inclined to generalise, with a touching prayer to God for
a true reformation from within : " Therefore grant that
the Church may be reformed, which has been redeemed by
Thy Blood and is now, through our fault, near to destruc-
tion."1 He considers, however, that a reform of the Church
undertaken from within and preserving her faith and in-
stitutions is what is needed. The deterioration was in his
eyes, and in those of the best men of the day, undoubtedly
very great, but not irreparable.

A glance at the work of many excellent men, such as
Trithemius, Wimpfeling, Geiler of Kaysersberg and others,
may serve as a warning against an excessive generalisation
with regard to the deterioration in the ranks of the higher
and lower clergy. Weaknesses, disorders and morbid
growths are far more apparent to the eyes of contemporaries
than goodness, which usually fails to attract attention.
Even Johann Nider, the Dominican, who, as a rule, is un-
sparing in lashing the weaknesses of the clergy of his day,
is compelled to speak a word of warning : " Take heed
never to pass a universal judgment when speaking only of
many, otherwise you will never, or hardly ever, escape
passing an unjust one."2

That there was, however, the most pressing need of a
reform in the lives of both higher and lower clergy is proved
by a glance at the state of the priesthood. The position

1 Janssen-Pastor, ibid., p. 701. 2 Ibid., p. 721.

THE LOWER CLERGY 49

of the lower clergy, in comparison with that of their betters
" who rolled in riches and luxury," was one not in keeping
with the dignity of their state. " Apart from the often very
precarious tithes and stole -fees they had no stipend, so that
their poverty, and sometimes also their avarice, obliged
them to turn to other means of livelihood, which . . .
necessarily exposed them to the contempt of the people.
There can be no doubt that ' a very large portion of the
lower clergy had fallen so far from the ideal of their calling,
that one may speak of the priestly proletariat of that
day, using' the word in both its ordinary and its literal
sense.' This clerical proletariat was ready to join any
movement which promised to promote its own low
aims."1

The number of clergy, largely owing to the excessive
multiplication of small foundations without any cure of
souls, had increased to such an extent that among so many
there must necessarily have been a very large number who
had no real vocation, while their lack of employment must
have spelt a real danger to their morals. Attached to two
churches at Breslau at the end of the fifteenth century
were 236 clerics, all of them mere Mass-priests, i.e. ordained
simply to say Mass in the chantry chapels founded with
very small endowments. Besides the daily celebration,
these Mass-priests had as their only obligation the recital
of the Breviary. In the Cathedral at Meissen there were,
in 1480, besides 14 canons, 14 Mass-priests and 60 curates.
In Strasburg the Cathedral foundation comprised 36 canon-
ries, that of St. Thomas 20, Old St. Peter's 17, New St.
Peter's 15 and All Saints' 12. In addition to these were
also numerous deputies who were prepared to officiate at
High Mass in place of the actual beneficiaries. Of such
deputies there were no fewer than 63 attached to the Cathe-
dral, where there were also 38 chaplaincies. In Cologne
Johann Agricola gives the number of " priests and monks "
(though he adds "so it is said ") as 5000 ; on another
occasion he estimates the number of monks and nuns only,
at 5000. What is certain is that the " German Rome "
on the Rhine numbered at that time 11 collegiate foun-

1 Janssen-Pastor, ibid., pp. 703, 704. The words in single inverted
commas are from J. E. Jorg, " Deutschland in der Revolutions-
periode 1522-26," Freiburg, 1851, p. 191.

50 LUTHER THE MONK

dations, 19 parish churches, over 100 chapels, 22 monasteries,
12 hospitals and 76 religious houses.1

The above-mentioned Bishop of Chiemsee attributes the
corruption of the priesthood principally to the misuse by
clergy and laity of their right of patronage both in nomina-
tions and by arbitrary interference. Geiler of Kaysersberg
is of the same opinion ; he attributes to the laity, more
particularly to the patrons among the nobility, the sad
condition of the parishes. Uneducated, bad, immoral men
were now presented, he says, not the good and virtuous.2
Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who did so much service to
Germany, had declared quite openly the cause of the
deformation of the clerical system to be the admission to
Holy Orders of unworthy candidates, the concubinage of
the clergy, plurality of benefices, and simony. Towards the
end of the fifteenth century the complaints increased,
more especially with regard to the immorality of the clergy.
" The numerous regulations of bishops and synods leave
no doubt about the fact that a large portion of the German
clergy transgressed the law of celibacy in the most flagrant
manner."3 A statement which was presented to the Dukes
of Bavaria in 1477 declared that in the opinion of many
friends and advocates of a healthy reform, an improvement
in the morals of the clergy, where the real cause of all the
Church's evils lay, must be taken in hand. It is true there
were districts where a blameless and praiseworthy clergy
worked, as, for example, the Rhine-Lands, Schleswig-
Holstein and the Algau. On the other hand, in Saxony,
Luther's home, and in Franconia and Bavaria great dis-
orders were reported in this respect. The " De ruina
ecclesice" an earlier work, attributed to Nicholas of
Clemangcs, tells us of bishops in the commencement of
the fifteenth century who, in consideration of a money pay-
ment, permitted concubinage to their clergy, and Hefele's
" History of the Councils " gives numerous synodical
decrees of that date forbidding the bishops to accept

1 Janssen-Pastor, ibid., p. 705 f. See below (vol. ii., ch. xiv. 5) what
we say regarding the clergy and monasteries at Erfurt.

2 Ibid., p. 712.

3 Ibid., p. 709. On the Synods, see Hefele-Hergenrother, " Kon-
zilicngesch.," vol. viii. Cp. Janssen-Pastor, as above, p. 680 f., and
H. Grisar, " Ein Bild aus dem deutschen Synodalleben im Jahrhun-
dert vor der Glaubensspaltung " (" Hist. Jahrb.," 1, 1880, pp. 603-40).

CLERGY VERSUS LAITY 51

money or presents in return for permitting or conniving at
concubinage.1

Along with concubinage many of the higher clergy dis-
played a luxury and a spirit of haughty pride which repelled
the people, especially the more independent burghers.
Members of the less fortunate clergy gave themselves up
to striving after gain by pressing for their tithes and fees
and rents, a tendency which was encouraged both in high
and low by the excessive demands made by Rome. Worth-
less so-called courtisans, i.e. clerks furnished with briefs
from the Papal Court (corle), seized upon the best benefices
and gave an infectious example of greed, while at the same
time their action helped to add fuel to the prejudice and
hatred already existing for the Curia.2

Innumerable were the causes of friction in the domain of
worldly interests which gave rise to strife and enmity
between laity and clergy. Laymen saw with displeasure
how the most influential and laborious posts were filled,
not by the beneficiaries themselves, but by incapable
representatives, while the actual incumbents resided else-
where in comfortable ease and leisure at the expense of the
old foundations endowed by the laity. On the other hand,
the churches and monasteries complained of the rights
appropriated or misused by the princes and nobility, an
abuse which often led to the monasteries serving as
homes for worn-out officials, or to the vexatious seizure
and retention of the estates of deceased priests or abbots.
It is clear that such a self-seeking policy on the part of the
powerful naturally resulted in the most serious evils and
abuses in Church matters, quite apart from the bad feeling
thus aroused between the clerical and lay elements of the
State.

The richer monasteries in particular had to submit to
becoming the preserves of the nobles, who made it their
practice to provide in this way for the younger scions of

1 Nicolaus de Clemangiis, " De ruina ecclesice" c. 22, in" Herm.
von der Hardt, " Magnum cecumenicum Constantiense Concilium,''''
Helmestad., 1700, 1, 3 col., 23 sq.; Hefele, as above, 7, pp. 385, 416,
422, 594 ; 8, p. 97. Ioh. de Segovia, " Hist. syn. Basil.", Vindob.,
1873, 2, p. 774 : " Quia in quibusdam regionibus nonnulli iurisdic-
tionem ecclesiasticam habentes pecuniarios questus a concubinariis
percipere non erubescunt, patiendo eos in tali fceditate sordescere."

2 Cp. on the " courtisans," Janssen-Pastor, ibid., pp. 715-18.

52 LUTHER THE MONK

their family, and for that reason sought to prevent members
of the middle classes being admitted to profession. The
efforts to reform lax monasteries, which are often met with
about the close of the Middle Ages, were frequently stifled
by these and similar worldly influences.

In the disintegration of ecclesiastical order, the power and
influence of the rulers of the land with regard to Church
matters was, as might be expected, constantly on the
increase.

Many German princes, influenced by the ideas with re-
gard to the dignity of the State which came into such vogue
in the fifteenth century, and dissatisfied with the concessions
already made to them by the Church, arrogated still further
privileges, for example, the taxation of Church lands, the
restriction of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the so-called Govern-
ment Placet and an oppressive right of visiting and super-
vising the parishes within their territories. There had
thus grown up in many districts a system of secular inter-
ference in Church matters long before the religious apostasy
of the sixteenth century resulted in the total submission
of the Church to the Protestant princes of the land. The
Catholic ruler recognised in principle the doctrines and
rights of the Church. What, however, was to happen if
rulers, equipped with such twofold authority, altered their
attitude to the Church on the outbreak of the schism ?
Their fidelity was in many cases already put to a severe
test by the disorders of the clergy, which were doing harm
to their country and which Rome made no attempt to
suppress. The ecclesiastico-political complaints of the
princes (the famous Gravamina) against Rome are proofs
of their annoyance ; for these charges, as Dr. Eck pointed
out, were for the most part well founded ; Eck's opinion
was shared by other authorities, such as Bertold von Henne-
berg, Wimpfeling, Duke George of Saxony, and Aleander
the Papal Nuncio, who all express themselves in the same
manner regarding the financial grievances against Rome,
which were felt in Germany throughout all ranks and classes
down to the meanest individual.1

" On account of these and other causes the irritation and
opposition to the Holy See had, on the eve of the great
German schism, reached boiling point ; this vexation is
1 Cp. Janssen-Pastor, ibid., p. 743.

REAL ABUSES 53

explained, as the ' Gravamina nationis Germanicce ' clearly
prove, by the disorders of the Curia, and still more by
its unceasing demands." "That the smouldering dis-
content broke into open flame was the doing of those
scoffers without faith or conscience, such as the Humanists,
who persisted in pouring on the fire the oil of their sophis-
tries."1 The Catholic historian from whom these words
are borrowed rightly draws attention to the " mistaken
policy " entered on by Luther's followers when they attacked
the hierarchical order on account of the disorders rampant
in the life and administration of the Church. The success
of their " mistaken policy " was a " speaking proof of the
coarseness, blindness and passion of the German people at
that time," but in its practical results their policy helped to
bring about an ever-to-be-regretted alteration and to open
a yawning chasm which still exists to-day. " That the
vexation was not altogether without cause no honest historian
can deny, whatever his enthusiasm for the Catholic Church,"
for " the action of Churchmen, whether belonging to the
hierarchy or to the regular or secular clergy, cannot be
misunderstood. Throughout the whole of Christendom,
and particularly in Germany, the general state of things
was deplorable. . . . Even though the evils of the waning
Middle Ages may have been, and still continue to be,
grossly exaggerated by Protestants, and though in the
fifteenth century we see many cheering examples and some
partially successful attempts at reform, yet there still
remains enough foulness to account psychologically for the
falling away."2

And yet the disorders in matters ecclesiastical in Germany
would not have entailed the sad consequences they did had
they not been accompanied by a great number of social

1 Jos. Schmidlin, "Das Luthertum als historische Erscheinung"
("Wissenschaftl. Beilage" to " Germania," 1909, Nos. 13-15), p. 99 f.
Cp. Albert Weiss, " Luther und Luthertum " (in Denifle's 2nd vol.),
p. 34 ff.

2 Schmidlin, as above. Also Albert Weiss, as above, p. 108, allows :
" The conditions of things at the commencement of the sixteenth century
were such that their continuance was clearly impossible, and it was
easy to predict a catastrophe. . . . The abuses were great and had
become in some cases intolerable, so that we can understand how
many lost courage, patience and confidence. ... It is true that
everything was not corrupt, but the good there was was too feeble to
struggle with success against the evil." Nevertheless, in the genesis
of the movement which led to the falling away from the Church, in

54 LUTHER THE MONK

evils, especially the intense discontent of the lower classes
with their position and a hostile jealousy of the laity against
the privileges and possessions of the clergy. Savage out-
breaks of rebellion against the old traditional order of things
were of frequent occurrence. In many localities the peasants
were in arms against their princes and masters for the
improvement of their conditions ; the knights and the
nobility, to say nothing of the cities, gave themselves up to
the spirit of aggrandisement referred to above. It was just
this spirit of unrest and discontent of which the coming
mighty movement of intellectual and religious reform was
to avail itself.

If we look more closely at Italy and Rome we find that
in Italy, which comprised within its limits the seat of the
supreme authority in the Church and of which the influence
on civilisation everywhere was so important, complete
religious indifference had taken root among many of the
most highly cultured. The Renaissance, the famed classic
regeneration, had undergone a change for the worse, and,
in the name of education, was promoting the most question-
able tendencies. After having been welcomed and en-
couraged by the Papacy with over-great confidence it dis-
appointed both the Popes and the Church with its poisonous
fruits.

At the time that the Holy See was lavishing princely
gifts on art and learning, the pernicious system of Church
taxation so often complained of by the nations was be-
coming more and more firmly established. This taxation,
which had started at the time of the residence of the Popes
at Avignon in consequence of the real state of need in which
the central government of the Church then stood, became
more and more an oppressive burden, especially in Germany.
It was exploited by Luther in one of his earliest contro-
versial writings where, voicing the popular discontent in
that spiteful language of which he was a master, he joined
his protest to that of the German Estates of the realm.

spite of the more favourable view of the conditions which Weiss else-
where takes, the real abuses in the Church, even in his own account,
play a prominent part. That Luther's work was not " necessary in view
of the moral corruption" (p. 6), and that it "did not follow as an in-
evitable result " of the same (p. 37), but, on the contrary, was merely
facilitated by circumstances, will be granted him by all who review
the period with an unprejudiced mind.

PAPAL EXACTIONS 55

Combining truth and fancy, the administration of the Papal
finances became in his hands a popular and terribly effective
weapon. It has frequently been pointed out how much
the authority of the Holy See suffered in the preceding
age, not only on account of the Western Schism when three
rival claimants simultaneously strove for the tiara, but
also through the so-called reforming councils and their
opposition to the constitution of the Church, through the
political mistakes of the Popes since they established their
headquarters in France, through the struggle they waged
to assert their power in Italy, that apple of discord of rising
nations, and also, in the case of the Avignon Popes, through
their lack, or, at any rate, suspected lack, of independence.
To this we must add the shocking behaviour of the Curial
officials and of several of the cardinals in the Eternal City,
especially at the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth cen-
turies, also the disgraceful example of Alexander VI and the
Borgia family, the bearing of his successor Julius II, more
befitting a soldier than an ecclesiastic, and the very worldly
spirit of Leo X and his Court. Ostentation and the abuse
of worldly possessions and Church revenues which Alvarez
Pelayo, the Spanish Franciscan, had already bewailed in
his " De planctu ecclesice " had risen to still greater heights
at Rome. The work of this severe critic, who, in spite of
his fault-finding, was nevertheless well disposed to the Curia,
was in general circulation just previous to Luther's appear-
ance on the field ; it was several times reprinted, for in-
stance, at Ulm in 1474, and again at Lyons in 1517, with a
dedication to the later Pope Hadrian VI. It is there we
find the indignant assertion, that those who bear the dignity
of the primacy are God's worst persecutors.1 In the work
" De squaloribus Romance curiae. " various well-founded
complaints were adduced, together with much that was
incorrect and exaggerated. The book " Be ruina ecclesice'''
(see above, *p. 50) contained accusations against the Popes
and the government of the Church couched in rude and
violent language, and these too gained new and stronger
significance at the end of the fifteenth and commencement
of the sixteenth century. We actually read therein that

1 Lib. 1, c. 67, ed. Venet., 1560, fol. 90', col. 1 : " Heu, Domine
Deus, quia ipsi sunt in tua persecutione primi, qui videntur in ecclesia
tua primatum diligere et regere principatum"

56 LUTHER THE MONK

the number of the righteous in the Church is diminutive
compared with that of the wicked.1

There is no doubt that the state of things, so far as it Avas
known from the above-mentioned books, or from observa-
tion or rumour, was busily and impatiently discussed in the
company frequented by Luther at the University of Witten-
berg. What Luther had himself seen at Rome must have
still further contributed to increase the bitterness among
his friends.

When the Monk of Wittenberg openly commenced his
attacks on the Papacy, it became apparent how far the
disorders just alluded to had prepared the way for his plans.
It was clear that all the currents adverse to the Papacy were,
so to speak, waiting for the coming of one man, who should
unchain them with his powerful hand. Amongst those who
hitherto had been faithful adherents of the Church, Luther
found combustible material — social, moral and political—
heaped up so high that a stunning result was not surprising.
Had there arisen a saint like St. Bernard, on whose words
the world of the Middle Ages had hung, with the Divine gift
of teaching and writing as the times demanded, who can say
what course events would have taken ? But Luther arrived
on the scene with his terrible, mighty voice, pressed all
the elements of the storm into his service, and, launching
a defiance of which the world had never before heard
the like, succeeded in winning an immense success for the
standard he had raised.2

1 Cap. 39 sq. in Herm. von der Hardt, " Magnum cecum. Constant.
Condi." 1, 3, col. 41 sq.

2 The author has thought it necessary to keep within limits in
treating of the state of those times in order not to be led too far from
Luther's own personality. In the course of the work, the circum-
stances of the time and the prevailing social conditions, so far as they
had a determining influence on Luther, will be considered in their
own place. Such a separate treatment may, at the same time, acquaint
one better with the facts than if a long and exhaustive* review of the
public conditions were to be given here. With regard to the history
of the preliminaries of the schism there already exist many works
dealing either generally with those times or with various subjects
and districts ; these works, however, vary much in merit. While
mentioning these we would merely in passing utter a warning against
generalisations and a priori constructions ; especially must we be on
our guard against either looking at things in so dark a light as to make
Luther's intervention appear absolutely necessary, or judging too
favourably of the conditions previous to the religious struggle. In
the latter case we come into collision on the one hand with numerous

LUTHER ON BISHOPS 57

Luther from the very outset of his career was too liberal
in his blame of the customs and conditions in the Church
which happened to meet with his disapproval.

Scarcely had he finished his course of studies as a learner
than he already began to wax eloquent against various
abuses. In his characteristic love of exaggeration of
language he did not fear to use the sharpest epithets, nor to
magnify the evil, whether in his academic lectures or in the
pulpit, or in his letters and writings. He wrote, for instance,
to Spalatin in 1516 to dissuade the Elector of Saxony,
Frederick the Wise, from promoting Staupitz to a bishopric :
he who becomes a bishop in these days falls into the most
evil of company, all the wickedness of Greece, Rome and
Sodom were to be found in the bishops ; Spalatin should
compare the carryings-on of the present bishops with those
of the bishops of Christian antiquity ; now a pastor of souls
was considered quite exemplary if he merely pursued his
worldly business and built up for himself with his riches an
insatiable hell.1

In his first lectures at Wittenberg he complains that
" neither monasteries nor colleges, nor Cathedral churches
will in any sort accept discipline." 2 The clergy, he says, in
another place, generalising after the fashion common among

data which reveal with absolute certainty the existence of great cor-
ruption in the Church, and, on the other hand, we lose sight of the causes
which alone offer a satisfactory historical explanation of the great
spread of the schism. Luther himself — and it was this which decided
us to abbreviate our survey — before the public dispute commenced,
was far from possessing, in his quiet cloister, so clear a view of the condi-
tions of the time as a learned historian is now able to obtain. The great
world of Germany and Europe did not, as we know, reveal itself so
clearly to the Monk and Professor as the little world of Wittenberg,
and his few months of travel did not make him a judge of the world
and of men. The dark and bright elements of ecclesiastical and
popular life were seen by him only superficially and partially. In
laying more stress on some traits than on others, he allowed himself
to be influenced less by any weighing of actual facts than by his ardent
feelings. Certain features of the times appear to have remained quite
strange to him, notwithstanding the fact that in more recent de-
scriptions of the influences at work in him, they are made to play a
great part : so, for instance, Gallicanism with its anti-monarchical
conception of the Church, or the philosophy of the ultra-realists.
With respect to Nominalism, more particularly in its Occamistic form,
and to mysticism, the case is absolutely different. This will, however,
be discussed below (chaps, iv.-v.).

1 On June 8, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 41.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 3, p. 444.

58 LUTHER THE MONK

preachers, should be the eyes of the Church, but to-day they
do not direct the body, i.e. the Faithful, for they are
blinded : they are the soul, but they do not give life, but
rather kill by their deadly example ; about nothing do
they trouble less than about souls.1 In similar language
he, in these lectures, represents the bishops and priests as
simply " full of the most abominable unchastity " ; accord-
ing to him, they bring to the pulpit nothing but " their views
and fables, nothing but masquerading and buffoonery,"
so that the Church can do nothing but cry aloud over the
misery in which it is sunk. " The strength of her youth has
forsaken her."2

One of the earliest portions of Luther's correspondence
which has been preserved and which takes us back to his little
world at Wittenberg, throws a clearer light on his character
at that time. It deals with an unpleasant dispute with his
brother monks at Erfurt, which he became involved in
owing to his having taken his doctorate at Wittenberg
instead of at Erfurt. The Erfurt monastery reproached him
with a serious infringement of the rules and disrespect for
the Theological Faculty there ; he had, they said, entered
the teaching Corporation of Erfurt in virtue of the oath
which he had taken in the customary manner on his appoint-
ment as Sententiarius, and was therefore under strict
obligation to take his degree of Doctor in this Faculty and
not elsewhere. Other unknown charges were also made
against him, but were speedily withdrawn. It is highly
probable that the tension between Observantines and
Conventuals increased the misunderstanding.

Nathin, the Erfurt Augustinian, first wrote a rather tactless
letter to Luther about it all, as it would appear in the name of
the council of the monastery. Luther was extremely angry and
allowed his excitement free play. He first expresses his surprise
in two letters to the Prior and the council, and was about to
despatch a third when he learnt that the accusations against him,
with the exception of that regarding his doctorate, had been with-
drawn. While Nathin's letter and also the two passionate
replies of the young Doctor have been lost, two other letters of
the latter regarding the matter exist, and are professedly letters
of excuse. The first is in reality nothing of the kind, but rather
the opposite. In this letter, dated June 16, 1514, and addressed

1 "Werke," ibid., 3, p. 170.

2 " Werke," ibid., 3, p. 216.

LUTHER AND NATHIN 59

to the Prior and the council, Luther to begin with complains
vehemently of the evil reports against his person which, accord-
ing to his information, some of those he was addressing at Erfurt
had circulated previously. Nathin's letter had, however, bean
the last straw. " This letter," he says, which was written in the
name of all, angered him so much with its lies and its provoking,
poisonous scorn, that " I had almost poured out the vials of my
wrath and indignation on his head and the whole monastery, as
Master Paltz did." They had probably received the two " amazed
replies " ; as however the other charges had been withdrawn, he
would hold the majority of those he was addressing as excused ;
they must now, on their part, forget any hurt they had felt at his
previous replies ; " Lay all that I have done," these are his words,
" to the account of the furious epistle of Master Nathin, for my
anger was only too well justified. Now, however, I hear still
worse things of this man, viz. that he accuses me everywhere of
being a dishonourable perjurer on account of the oath to the
Faculty which I am supposed to have taken and not kept." He
goes on to explain that he had been guilty of no such crime,
for the Biblical lectures at the commencement of which he was
supposed to have taken the oath, and at which, it is true, in
accordance with the customs of the University, such an oath was
generally taken, had not been begun by him at Erfurt ; at his
opening lecture on the Sentences in that town he had, so far as he
remembers, taken no oath, nor could he recall having ever taken
any oath in the Faculty at Erfurt. He closes with an expression
of respect and gratitude to the Erfurt Faculty. Though he was
the injured party, he was calm and contented and joyful, for he
had deserved much worse of God : they too should lay their
bitterness aside, " as God has clearly willed my departure (ex-
corporatio) from Erfurt, and we must not withstand God."1 This
letter and Luther's previous steps cannot be regarded as giving
proof of a harmoniously attuned disposition. He may have been
in the right in the matter of the oath, a question of which it is
difficult to judge. It was not, however, very surprising that the
Erfurt monks took steps to force Luther to make more satisfactory
amends to the Faculty than the strange letter of excuse given
above. It is plain that under pressure of some higher authority
invoked by them, a second letter, this time of more correct
character, was despatched by the Wittenberg Doctor. In judging
of this academic dispute, we must bear in mind the store that
was set in those days on University traditions.

The second letter in question, dated December 21, 1514, is
addressed to the " excellent Fathers and Gentlemen, the Dean
and other Doctors of the Theological Faculty of Studies at
Erfurt " and in the very first words shows itself to be a humble
apology and request for pardon. It contains further information
regarding the affair. He begs them at least not to deem him guilty
of a fault committed knowingly and out of malice ; if he had done
anything unseemly, at least it was unintentionally (" extra dolum
1 " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 17.

60 LUTHER THE MONK

et conscientiam ") ; he begs them to dispense and ratify, to supply
what is wanting and to remit, if not the penalty, at least the
fault.1

We learn nothing further about the dispute. The negotia-
tions did not lead to the renewal of the good relations with
Erfurt, which had been interrupted by his brusque departure.
The people of Erfurt were amongst the first to object to the
new, so-called Augustinism and Paulinism of the Witten-
berg Professor.

1 " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 23 ff.

CHAPTER II

HARBINGERS OF CHANGE

1. Sources, Old and New

The history of Luther's inward development during his
first years at Wittenberg up to 1517, is, to a certain extent,
rather obscure. The study of deep psychological processes
must always be reckoned amongst the most complex of
problems, and in our case the difficulty is increased by the
nature of Luther's own statements with regard to himself.
These belong without exception to his later years, are
uncertain and contradictory in character, and in nearly
every instance represent views influenced by his contro-
versies and such as he was wont to advocate in his old age.
Thanks to more recent discoveries, however, we are now
possessed of works written by Luther in his youth which
supply us with better information. By a proper use of these,
we are able to obtain a much clearer picture of his develop-
ment than was formerly possible.

Many false ideas which were once current have now been
dispelled ; more especially there can no longer be any
question of the customary Protestant view, namely, that
the Monk of Wittenberg was first led to his new doctrine
through some unusual inward religious experience by which
he attained the joyful assurance of salvation by faith alone,
and not by means of the good works of Popery and monas-
ticism. This so-called inner experience, which used to be
placed in the forefront of his change of opinions, as a
" Divine Experience," as shown below, must disappear
altogether from history.1 Objection must equally be taken

1 Wilhelm Braun (" Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers
Leben und Lehre," Berlin, 1908) commences chapter ii. (" Luther's
Experience in the Monastery," p. 19) as follows : " It is impossible
to speak in the strict sense of any religious experience which Luther
had in the monastery. It was no catastrophe which, with elemental
force, brought about the Reformer's change. Any dramatic element

6i

62 LUTHER THE MONK

to some of the views with which Catholics have been wont
to explain Luther's apostasy. The path Luther followed,
though subject to numerous and varied influences, is now
seen to be much less complicated than was hitherto supposed.

Two results already brought to light by other authors
are now confirmed. First, the process of his falling away
from the Church's teaching was already accomplished in
Luther's mind before he began the dispute about Indulgences
with Tetzel ; secondly, a certain moral change, the outlines
of which are clearly marked, went hand in hand with his
theological views, indeed, if anything, preceded them ; the
signs of such an ethical change are apparent in his growing
indifference to good works, and to the aims and rules of
conventual life, and in the quite extraordinary self-
confidence he displayed, more especially when disputes
arose.

Characteristic of the ethical side of his nature are the
remarks and marginal annotations we have of his, which
were published by Buchwald in 1893 ; these notes were
written by Luther in many of the books he made use of in
his early days as theological lecturer at Erfurt (1509-10).
These books are the oldest available sources for a correct
estimation of his intellectual activity. They were found in
the Ratsschul-Library at Zwickau. Of special interest is
a volume containing various writings of St. Augustine, and
a copy of the Sentences of Peter Lombard, which is of
great importance on account of the notes. The running

is entirely wanting. There was in his case no Damascus. It is a
useless task to attempt, as has been done again and again, to deter-
mine the year and the day on which the actual reforming flame burnt
up in Luther's soul." The author puts on one side Kostlin-Kawerau's
long descriptions of the gradual ripening of the Reformer, his early
comprehension of the Pauline writings, due to his inward struggles,
etc. He declares Luther's life " cannot be written so long as the
beginnings of the Reformer and the growth of his tenets have not yet
been made clear. That we are here still in the dark is proved, with
regard to Luther's psychology, by his latest Biographies." This
Protestant theologian, who works more independently than others,
is quite resigned, "in view of the multitude of open questions raised
by Luther's early development, to see the fruits and tangible
results of Luther research ripen slowly. Our most pressing duty is,"
he says rightly, " to supply the material while deprecating rash con-
clusions " ; without an acquaintance with the theology of the Middle
Ages there is no possibility of understanding Luther : "in this respect
Denifle's ' Luther und Luthertum ' furnished a wholesome though
painful lesson to Protestant theologians " (p. v. f.).

LECTURES ON THE PSALMS 63

commentary in Luther's early handwriting shows his great
industry, enables us to see what especially impressed him,
and betrays also his marvellous belief in himself as well as
his stormy, unbridled temper.

Of Luther's letters written previous to 1514 only five
remain, and are of comparatively little historical interest.
Of the year 1515 there is only one, of 1516 there are nineteen,
of 1517 already twenty-one, and they increase in importance
as well as in number.

In 1513 he began, at Wittenberg University, his Com-
mentary on the Psalms, which has been known since 1876,
and continued those lectures up to 1515 or 1516. Following
his lively and practical bent, he refers therein to the most
varied questions of theology and the religious life, and
occasionally even introduces contemporary matters, so that
these lectures afford many opportunities by which to judge
of his development and mode of thought. First the scholia,
which till then had been known only in part, were edited in
a somewhat cumbersome form by Seidemann, then a better
edition by Kawerau, containing both the scholia and the
glosses, followed in 1885.1 In dividing this exegetical work
into scholia and glosses, Luther was following the traditional
method of the Middle Ages. The glosses are very short, as
was customary ; they were written by Luther between the
lines of the text itself or in the margin and explained the
words and grammatical construction ; on the sense they
touch only in the most meagre fashion. On the other hand,
the detailed scholia seek to unfold the meaning of the
verses and often expand into free digressions. In addition
to the glosses and the scholia on the Psalms, Kawerau's
edition also includes the preparatory notes, written by
Luther in a copy of the first edition of the " Psalterium
quincuplex " of Faber Stapulensis (Paris, 1509), which, like
the glosses and scholia, attest both the learning of their
author and the peculiar tendency of his mind. Luther used
for his text the Latin Vulgate, making a very sparing use of
his rudimentary Hebrew. The glosses and the scholia were,

1 J. K. Seidemann, "Luthers erste und alteste Vorlesungen uber
die Psalmen, 1513 bis 1516," 2 volumes, Dresden, 1876. Cp. Hering in
" Theol. Studien und Kritiken," 1877, p. 633 ff. ; G. Kawerau's
edition of Luther's works, Weim. ed., volumes iii. and iv., also
volume ix., pp. 116-21. He gives the title better, viz. " Dictata super
Psalterium."

64 LUTHER THE MONK

however, intended chiefly for the professor himself ; to the
students who attended his biblical lectures Luther was in
the habit of giving a short dictation comprising a summary of
what he had prepared, and then, with the assistance of his
glosses and scholia, dilating more fully on the subject.
Scholars' notebooks containing such dictations given by
Luther in early days together with his fuller explanation
are in existence, but have never been printed.

After the Psalms, the lectures of our Wittenberg " Doctor
of the Bible " dealt with St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans.
This work- — of such supreme importance for the compre-
hension of Luther's spiritual development- — with its glosses
and scholia complete, was published only in 1908 in Ticker's
edition.1 The lectures on the Book of Judges, edited in
1 884 by Buchwald and then again by Kawerau as a work of
Luther supposed to have been delivered in 1516, are,
according to Denifle, not Luther's at all ; they are largely
borrowed from St. Augustine, and, at the very most, are a
redaction by another hand of the notes of one of Luther's
pupils.2 Transcripts of Luther's lectures on the Epistle to
Titus, and Epistle to the Hebrews, delivered in 1516 and
1517 respectively, are still lying unedited in the Vatican
Library.3 On the other hand, his lectures on the Epistle to
the Galatians (1516-17) were brought out by himself in
1519.

Further light may be shed on them by the publication of
a hitherto unedited student's notebook, discovered at
Cologne in 1877.

To the years 1514-20 belongs a rich mine of information
in the sermons preached by Luther in the monastery church
of the Augustinians, or in the parish church of the town.
They consist of more or less detailed notes, written in Latin,

1 " Anfange reformatorischer Bibelauslegung." Ed. by Joh. Ficker,
1 volume. " Luthers Vorlesung iiber den Romerbrief, 1515-1G,"
Leipzig, 1908. See below, chapter vi., 1.

2 Kawerau's edition in the Weim. ed., volume iv. According to
the editor Luther commenced the lectures in 1516 ; Kostlin, "Luthers
Theologie,"1 prefers the year 1517 ; in the 2nd ed. the year 1518.
Denifle, " Luther und Luthertum," 1, p. 47 ff. ; l2, p. x. f. Walther
Kohler in "Die Christl. Welt," 1904, p. 203, says : "Denifles scharfsin-
nige Erorterung iiber die angeblichen Vorlesungen zum Richterbuch
wird, denke ich, im wesentlichen Beifall finden. Es ist ihm hier die
gliickliche Entdeckung gelungen, dass ganze Stucke angeblich Luther-
schen Eigentums wortliche Entlehnungen aus Augustin sind."

3 See Ficker, " Luthers Vorlesung iiber den Romerbrief," p. 29 ff.

HIS SERMONS 65

on the Gospels and Epistles of the Sundays and Feast days ;
some are the merest sketches, but all, as we may assume,
were written down by himself for his own use, or to be handed
to others.1 Chronologically, they are headed by three
sermons for Christmas time, probably dating from 1515.
The exact dating of these older sermons is sometimes rather
difficult, and will have to be undertaken in the future, the
Weimar edition of Luther's works having made no attempt
at this. The sermons were all of them printed in 1720, with
the exception of two printed only in 1886. A complete
discourse held at a synodal meeting at Leitzkau, near Zerbst,
and printed in 1708, stands apart, and probably belongs to
1515, a year of the greatest consequence in Luther's develop-
ment. To the same year belongs, without a doubt, the
lecture delivered at a chapter of the Order, which may
aptly be entitled : " Against the little Saints." (See below,
p. 69.)

The first of the works written and published by Luther
himself was of a homiletic nature ; this was his Commentary
on the Seven Penitential Psalms, published in 1517. To the
same year, or the next, belong his expositions of the Lord's
Prayer and Ten Commandments, consisting of excerpts
from his sermons sent by him to the press. The celebrated
ninety-five Theses, which led directly to the dispute on
Indulgences, followed next in point of time.

Just as the Theses referred to throw light upon his
development,2 so also, and to an even greater extent, do
the Disputations which took place at academic festivals
about that same period. In these Disputations propositions
drawn up either by himself or by his colleagues, were
defended by his pupils under his own direction. They dis-
play his theological views as he was wont to vent them at
home, and are therefore all the more natural and reliable.
Of such Disputations we have that of Bartholomew Bern-
hardi in 1516 "On the Powers and the Will of Man without
Grace " ; that of Francis Gimther in 1517 " Concerning
Grace and Nature," also entitled " Against the Theology of
the Schoolmen," and the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518,

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, and " Opp. lat. var.," 1.

2 Cp. Th. Brieger, " Die Gliederung der 95 Thesen Luthers " (in
the " Festschrift " in honour of Max Lenz), with " Studien und Ver-
suchen zur neueren Geschichte," 1 Abh.

I.— F

66 LUTHER THE MONK

with Leonard Beyer as defendant of twenty-eight philo-
sophical and twelve theological theses. In the latter theses
there are also various notes in Luther's handwriting.

Of Luther's writings, dating from the strenuous year
1518, some of which are in Latin and others in German
and which throw some light on his previous development,
we may mention in their chronological order : the sermon
on " Indulgence and Grace," the detailed " Resolutions "
on the Indulgence Theses, the discourse on Penance, the
" Asterisci " against Eck, the pamphlet " Freedom of the
Sermon on Indulgence and Grace," an exposition of Psalm ex.,
the reply to Prierias, the sermon on the power of excom-
munication, then the report of his trial at Augsburg and
the sermon on the " Threefold Righteousness." To these
we must add his complete edition of " Theologia Deutsch,"
an anonymous mystical pamphlet of the fourteenth century
a portion of which he had brought out in 1516 with a preface
of his own.1

These are the sources which Luther himself has left behind
him and from which the inner history of his apostasy and of
his new theology must principally be taken. The further
evidence derivable from his later works, his sermons, letters
and Table-Talk, will be dealt with in due course.

Only at the end of 1518 was his new teaching practically
complete. At that time a new and final element had been
added, the doctrine of absolute individual certainty of
salvation by " Fiducial Faith." This was regarded by
Luther and his followers as the corner-stone of evangelical
Christianity now once again recovered. At the commence-
ment of 1519, we find it expressed in the new Commentary
on the Epistle to the Galatians (a new and enlarged edition
of the earlier lectures), and in the new Commentary on the
Psalms, which was printed simultaneously. Hence Luther's
whole process of development up to that time may be
divided into two stages by the doctrine of the assurance
of salvation ; in the first, up to 1517, this essential element
was still wanting : the doctrine of the necessity of belief
in personal justification and future salvation does not

1 The writings and theses referred to appear in the two first volumes
of the Weim. ed. and of the " Opp. lat." The " Theologia Deutsch "
has recently been reprinted by Mandel (1908) from Luther's text.

THE OBSERVANTINES 67

appear, and for this reason Luther himself, later on, speaks
of this time as a period of unstable, and in part despairing,
search.1 The second stage covers the years 1517-18, and
commences with the Resolutions and the Augsburg trial,
where we find the Professor gradually acquiring that
absolute certainty of salvation to which he finally attained
through an illumination which he was wont to regard as
God's own work.2

In the next section we deal merely with the first stage,
which we shall seek to elucidate from the psychological,
theological and ethical standpoint.

2. Luther's Commentary on the Psalms (1513-15). Dispute
with the Observantines and the " Self-righteous "

Presages of the storm which Luther was about to raise
were visible in his first course of lectures on the Psalms
given at Wittenberg. With regard to several particularly
important parts of his work on the Psalms, it would be
desirable to determine to what precise time during the period
1513-15 they belong ; but this is a matter of considerable
difficulty. The polemics they contain against the so-called
" Saints by works," the " Self-righteous " and the Obser-
vantines, the last of which must here be considered first,
seem to belong to the earlier part of the period. In particular
his animus against the Observantines, traces of which are
plentiful, seems to have been of early growth. It also
deserves more attention than has hitherto been bestowed
on it, on account of its psychological and theological influence
on Luther.3

Under the Observantines Luther in his Commentary on
the Psalms refers, openly or covertly, to the members of the
German Augustinian Congregation, i.e. to those who
adhered to that party to which, since his return from Rome,
he had been opposed.

1 See below, chapter vi., 2 ff.

2 See below, chapter x., 1-2.

3 W. Braun, " Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben
und Lehre," p. 22 : " We learn nothing of the dispute then going on
between the Conventuals and the Observantines, the laxer and stricter
exponents of the monastic Rule ; and yet Luther may have experi-
enced their differences in his own person ; his second removal from
Erfurt to Wittenberg in 1511 was perhaps a disciplinary act, because
he and Lang stood on the side of Staupitz and against the Erfurt
Council. Probably Luther went to Rome about this very matter."

68 LUTHER THE MONK

No sooner had Luther, as Cochkeus remarked (p. 38),
" deserted to Staupitz " and begun to defend his opinions,
the aim of which was to surrender the privileged position
of the Congregation and the stringency of the Rule, than his
fiery temper led him to constitute himself the champion of
the monasteries with whose cause he had allied himself,
particularly that of Wittenberg ; indeed, he was, if not
actually the first, one of the earliest to take up the cudgels
on their behalf. The mission to Rome with which he had
previously been entrusted lent him special authority, and
his expert knowledge of the case seemed to entitle him to a
voice on the subject. To this was added the importance of
his position at the University, his reputation as a talented
and eloquent lecturer, and his power as a preacher. His
sociability drew many to him, especially among the young,
and his readiness of tongue marked him out as a real party
man.

In his lectures on the Psalms his fiery nature led him to attack
sharply the Observantines, whom he frequently mentions by
name ; even in the lecture-room his aim was to prejudice the
young Augustinians who were his audience against the defenders
of the traditional constitution ; instead of encouraging the rising
generation of monks to strive after perfection on the tried and
proved lines of their Congregation, he broke out into declamatory
attacks against those monks who took their vocation seriously
as they received it from their predecessors, and abused them as
Pharisees and hypocrites ; according to him, they were puffed up
by their carnal mind because they esteemed " fasting and lengthy
prayers."

There are Pharisees, he cries, even now who extol fasting and
long-drawn prayer ; " they make rules," but " their zeal is
directed against the Lord." There are many in the Church who
" dispute about ceremonies and are enthusiastic for the hollo w-
ness of exterior observances." " I am acquainted with still more
obstinate hypocrites." 1 " It is to be feared that all Observantines,
all exempted, and privileged religious, must be reckoned among
those puffed up in their carnal mind. How harmful they are to

Concerning his removal and journey to Rome, see above, pp. 29, 38. We
learn, it is true, no details about the dispute between the monasteries, and
this is perhaps what Braun means ; but its continuance is, to my mind,
apparent from Luther's statements, as well as from the leading part
he took against the Observantines. Ficker (" Luthers Vorlesung iiber
den Romerbrief," 1908, p. xcvii.) only mentions the Observantines
cursorily, saying that Luther did not seem much attached to them.
Hering (" Theolog. Studien und Kritiken," 1877, p. 627) offers little
of interest.

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 3, p. 61.

ON SLANDER 69

the Church has not yet become clear, but the fact remains and
will make itself apparent in time. If we ask why they insist upon
isolation, they reply : On account of the protection of the
cloistral discipline. But that is the light of an angel of Satan."1

The following attack on the Observantines in the lectures
on the Psalms is on the same lines : There are plenty of " men
proud of their holiness and observance, hypocrites and false
brothers."2 " But the fate of a Divine condemnation " will fall
upon " all the proud and stiff-necked, all the superstitious, re-
bellious, disobedient, also, as I fear, on our Observantines, who
under a show of strict discipline are only loading themselves with
insubordination and rebellion."3

The Observantines were plainly in his opinion demonstrating
their unruliness by seeking to stand by the old foundation
principles of the Congregation. He is angered by their exemption
from the General and their isolation from the other German
Augustinians, and still less does he like their severities ; they ought
to fall into line with the Conventuals and join them. We know
nothing further of the matter nor anything of the rights of the
case ; it may be noted, however, that the after history of the
party with which Luther sided and the eventual dissolution of
the Congregation, appear rather to justify the Observantines.

On the occasion of a convention of the Order at Gotha in 1515
— at which the Conventuals must have had a decided majority,
seeing that Luther was chosen as Rural Vicar — he delivered, on
May 1, the strange address on slander, which has been preserved.
He represents this fault as prevalent amongst the opposite party
and lashes in unmeasured terms those in the Order " who wish
to appear holy," " who see no fault in themselves," but who
unearth the hidden sins and faults of others, and hinder them in
doing good and " in teaching." Thus the estrangement had
proceeded very far. Perhaps, even allowing for Luther's ex-
aggeration, the other side may have had its weaknesses, and been
guilty of precipitancy and sins of the tongue, though it is unlikely
that the faults were all on one side. It is noticeable, however, that
Luther's discourse is not directed against calumniators who
invent and disseminate untruths against their opponents, but
only against those who bring to light the real faults of their
brethren. Scattered through the Latin text of the sermon are
highly opprobrious epithets in German. The preacher, for their
want of charity, calls his opponents " poisonous serpents, traitors,
vagabonds, murderers, tyrants, devils, and all that is evil, desperate,
incredulous, envious, and haters." He speaks in detail of their
devil's filth and of the human excrement which they busy them-
selves in sorting, anxious to discover the faults of their adver-

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 3, p. 155.

2 Ibid., 4, p. 312. Note " bonitas fidei "( = Christian righteousness),
" Veritas fidei "( = Christian truth), " iustitice fidei substantia "(^essence
of Christian righteousness).

3 Ibid., 4, p. 122.

70 LUTHER THE MONK

saries.1 The wealth of biblical passages quoted in this strange
address cannot make up for the lack of clear ideas and of any
discrimination and judgment as to the limits to be observed by a
preacher in commenting on the faults of his time. Luther's fond-
ness for the use of filthy and repulsive figures of speech also
makes a very disagreeable impression. It is true that there we
must take into account the manners of the time, and his Saxon
surroundings, but even Julius Kostlin, Luther's biographer, was
shocked at the indecency of the expressions which Luther uses.2
The real reason of this discourse was probably that Luther
wished to enter on his office as Rural Vicar by striking a deadly
blow at the Observant faction and at their habit of crying down
his own party. It was this address which his friend Lang, fully
alive to its range, sent at once to Mutian, the frivolous leader of
the Humanists at Goth a, describing it as a sermon "Against the
little Saints."

Returning to the Commentary on the Psalms, we find
that therein Luther sometimes makes characteristic state-
ments about himself. On one occasion, doubtless in a fit of
depression, he pours out the following effusion : " If
Ezechiel says the eyes wax feeble, this prophecy is largely
fulfilled at the present time, as I perceive in myself and in
many others. They know very well all that must be believed,
but their faith and assent is so dull that they are oppressed
as by sleep, are heavy of heart, and unable to raise them-
selves up to God." Such states of lukewarmness were to be
banished by means of fear, but woe to him who permits the
feeling of self-righteousness to take the place of the weari-
ness, for " there is no greater unrighteousness than excessive
righteousness." 3 In the latter words he seems to be again
alluding to the " little Saints " and the ostensibly self-
righteous members of his Order.

His ill-humour is partly a result of his dissatisfaction
with the disorders which he knew or believed to exist in his
immediate surroundings, in the Order, and in ecclesiastical
life generally. He frequently speaks of them with indigna-
tion, though from the new standpoint which he was gradually
taking. " We live in a false peace," he cries, and fancy we
can draw on the " Treasure of the merits of Christ and the
Saints." " Popes and bishops are flinging about graces and

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 4, p. 675 ; 1, p. 44.

2 Kostlin, " Martin Luther," l2, p. 125. In the 5th edition by
Kostlin and Kawerau (vol. i., p. 122) the disapproving comment of
Kostlin's was suppressed.

3 " Werke." Weim. ed., 3, p. 423.

ON RELIGIOUS MENDICANTS 71

indulgences." x Unmindful of the consequences, he dimin-
ished the respect of his youthful hearers for the authority
of the Church. As to the religious life, he was wont to speak
as follows : " Here come men of religion and vaunt their
confraternities and indulgences at every street corner only
to get money for food and clothing. Oh ! those begging
friars ! those begging friars ! those begging friars ! Perhaps
you are to be excused because you receive alms in God's
name, and preach the word and perform the other services
gratis. That may be, but see you look to it." 2 These words
in the mouth of one who was himself a member of a mendi-
cant Order, for this the Augustinian Hermits undoubtedly
were, amounted to an attack on the constitution of his own
Congregation.

In his Commentary on the Psalms he frequently at one
and the same time rails at the " self-righteous " and " holy
by works " and at the opposition party in his Order, so that
it is not easy to distinguish against whom his attacks are
directed. Already at this period he shows a certain tendency
to under-estimate the value of Christian good works and to
insist one-sidedly on the power and efficacy of faith and on
the application of the merits of Christ.

Most emphatically, as opposed to trust in good works and
merits, does he insist on the grace of Christ, the " nuda et sola
misericordia Dei et benignitas gratuita " which must be our
support and stay.3 His exhortations against works and human
efforts sound as though intended to dissuade from any such,
whether inward or outward, as though the merits of Christ and
the righteousness which God gives us might thereby suffer. 4 Man's
interior efforts towards repentance by means of the contempla-
tion of the misery and the consequences of sin, do not appeal to

1 " Werke," Weim. ed„ 3, p. 424. 2 Ibid., p. 425.

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 3, p. 42, where he explains Psalm iv. 1
(Cum invocarem exaudivit me Deus iustitice mece) as follows and under-
lines same (his grandson Johann Ernst Luther has added in the margin :
" Locus illustris de iustificatione ") : " Vide quam vera et pia est ista
confessio, quce nihil sibi de meritis arrogat. Non enim ait ' cum
multa fecissem, vel opere, ore aut aliquo meo membro meruissem,'' ut
intelligas, eum nullam iustitiam allegare, nullum meritum iactare,
nullam dignitatem ostentare, sed nudam et solam misericordiam Dei
et benignitatem gratuitam extollere, quce nihil in eo invenit."

4 Cp. ibid., 3, pp. 172, 288, 355, 439, 514 ; and 4, p. 19, etc. Hunzinger,
who quotes these and other passages, says : " He warns much against
our own works and desire to gain merit" (" Luther und die deutsche
Mystik," in "Neue kirchl. Zeitschrift," 19, 1908, Hi't. 11, pp. 972-88,
p. 978).

72 LUTHER THE MONK

him. He is well aware that repentance consists in sorrow for and
hatred of sin, x but he says that he himself has no personal experi-
ence of this kind of compunction.2 He complains that so many-
turn to exterior works, they " follow their own inventions and
make rules of their own at their choice ; their ceremonies and the
works they have devised are everything to them " : but to act
thus is to set up " a new standard of righteousness instead of
cultivating the spiritual things which God prescribes, namely, the
Word of God, Grace and Salvation. These persons are in so much
the greater error because it is a fine spiritual by-path, they are
obstinate and stiff-necked, full of hidden pride in spite of the
wonderful humility of which they make a show." At last, carried
away by his anger with what is mostly a phantom of his own
creation, he exclaims : " Yes, they are given up to spiritual
idolatry, a sin against the Holy Ghost for which there is no
forgiveness."3

With such-like harsh accusations of presumptuous zeal for good
works he frequently attacks the " capitosi et ostentiosi monachi et
sacerdotes." Let us go for them, he cries, since they are proud of
despising others.4 Obedience and humility they have none, for
they are seduced by the angel of darkness, who assumes the garb
of an angel of light. They wish to do great works and they set
themselves above the small and insignificant things demanded
by obedience. These devotees in religious dress (" religiosi
devotarii ") should beware of putting their trust in the pious
exercises peculiar to them, while they remain lazy, languid,
careless, and disobedient in the common life of the Order.5 The
last words " si in Us quce sunt conventualia et communia " are, in
the MS., pointed to by a hand drawn in the margin. The term
" conventualia " seems reminiscent of the Conventuals, but not
much further on, in the Commentary on the same Psalm (cxviii.),
we find the word " observance." The Psalmist, he says, implicitly
condemns " those who are proud of their holiness, and observ-
ance, who destroy humility and obedience."6 He goes on to
advocate something akin to Quietism, saying we should do, not
our own works, but God's works, i.e. "those which God works in
us " : everything we do of ourselves belongs only to outward or
carnal righteousness.7 It is quite possible that he did not wish
to deny the correct sense these words might convey, for, elsewhere

1 Weim. ed., 3, p. 537 ff. on Psalm lxxvi.

2 Ibid., p. 549 : " Inde et mihi [psalmus lxxvi.] difficilis, quia extra
compunctionem sum et loquor de compunctione " ; in such matters one
must be able " intus sentire " ; " igitur quia mece compunctionis practica
non possum, declarabo eum [psalmum] ad exemplum et ex practica B.
Augustini ('Confess.,' 1, 8)."

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 3, p. 331 f.

4 Ibid., 4, p. 78. 5 Ibid., 4, p. 306 f. 6 Ibid., p. 312.

7 Ibid., 3, p. 541. " Non in viribus nostris et iustitiis operemur,
sed opera Dei discamus operari . . . Eruditus [psalmi auctor] con-
cludit, opera Dei non esse, nisi quce Deus in nobis operetur. Quare
iustitice et opera nostra coram eo nihil sunt, ideoque opera exterioris
iustitice non sunt opera Dei," p. 542 : " Omnia ista (Ps. lvi. 13) dicunlur

GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION 73

in his controversies, he appears unaware of the exaggeration of
his language. But the skirmish with the so-called self-righteous
had a deeper explanation. Luther was so fascinated with the
righteousness which God gives through faith, that man's share in
securing the same is already relegated too much to the back-
ground.

Thus he explains the verse of Psalm cxlii. where the words occur
"Give ear to my supplication in Thy truth and hear me in Thy
righteousness " as follows : " Hear me by Thy mercy and truth,
i.e. through the truth of Thy promises of mercy to the penitent
and those who beseech Thee, not for my merits' sake ; hear me in
Thy righteousness, not in my righteousness, but in that which
Thou givest and wilt give me through faith."1 With words of
remarkable forcefulness he declares that, to be in sin, only makes
more evident the value of the " iustitia " which comes through
Christ. "It is therefore fitting that we become unrighteous and
sinners " ; what he really means to say is, that we should feel
ourselves to be such.2 Elsewhere he dwells, not incorrectly, but
with startling emphasis, on the fact that justification comes only
from God and without any effort on our part (gratis),3 and that it
is not due to works ;4 sanctification must proceed not from our own
righteousness and according to the letter, but from the heart, and
with grace, spirit and truth.5 The desire for justification is to him
the same as the desire for " a lively and strong faith in which I
live and am justified." " Enliven me," he says, " i.e. penetrate
me with faith, because the just man lives by faith ; faith is our
life."6

Even at that time he was not averse to dwelling on the strength
of concupiscence and, in his usual hyperbolical style, he lays stress
on the weakness and wickedness of human nature. " We are all

contra superbos et iustos apud se, qui meditantur, quomodo sua opera
statuant et suas adinventiones exerceant" He therefore blames them :
" Foris ambulant in came et carnali iustitia" etc. Cp. ibid., 4, p. 281
against " proprietarii iustitice " who, in exchange for good works,
have taken out righteousness on lease.

1 Weim. ed., 4, p. 443. Cp. ibid., 3, pp. 174, 178, where Romans i.
17, " Iustitia Dei revelatur in eo [evangelio]," is quoted with the correct
traditional meaning.

2 Ibid., 4, p. 383. The passage reminds one of the " esto peccator
et pecca fortiter," which will be referred to later. It reads : " Mquum
est infirmari secundum carnem, ut inhabitet in nobis virtus Christi
(2 Cor. xii. 9) in homine interiori. ./Equum est iniustos et pecca-
tores fieri, ut iustificetur Deus in sermonibus suis (Ps. 1. 6) : quia
non venit iustos vocare sed peccatores (Matt. ix. 13), id est ut iustitia
nostra agnoscatur nihil esse nisi peccatum et pannus menstruato3 (Is.
Jxiv. 6), ac sic potius iustitia Christi regnet in nobis, dum per ipsum et
in ipso confidimus salvari, non ex nobis, ne auferamus ei nomen, quod
est Jhesus, id est Salvator."

3 Cp. Weim. ed., 3, pp. 290, 284.

4 Ibid., p. 172.

5 Ibid., 3, p. 320 ff. ; 4, p. 300 ff., 312.

6 Ibid., 4, p. 325.

74 LUTHER THE MONK

a lost lump " -,1 " whoever is without God sins necessarily, i.e.
he is in sin " ;2 " unconquerable " or " necessary " are terms he
is fond of applying to concupiscence in his discourses.3 From
other passages it would almost appear as if, even then, he
admitted the persistence of original sin, even after baptism ; for
instance, he says that the whole world is "in peccatis original-
ibus," though unaware of it, and must therefore cry " mea
culpa" ;4 our righteousness is nothing but sin ;5 understanding,
will, and memory, even in the baptised, are all fallen, and, like
the wounded Jew, await the coming of the Samaritan.6 He also
speaks of the imputation of righteousness by God who, instead
of attributing to us our sins, " imputes [the merits of Christ] unto
our righteousness."7

Still, taken in their context, none of these passages furnish
any decisive proof of a deviation from the Church's faith.
They forebode, indeed, Luther's later errors, but contain
as yet no explicit denial of Catholic doctrine. In this we
must subscribe to Denifle's view, and admit that no teaching
actually heretical is found in the Commentary on the
Psalms.8

With reference to man's natural powers, that cardinal point of
Luther's later teaching, neither the ability to be good and pleasing
to God, nor the freedom of choosing what is right and good in
spite of concupiscence, is denied.9 Concupiscence, as he fre-

1 Weim. ed., p. 343 : " omnes sumus massa perditionis et debitor es
mortis mternaz."

2 Ibid,, p. 354. 3 Cp. ibid., 4, p. 207. 4 Ibid., p. 497.
5 Ibid., p. 383. 6 Ibid., p. 211.

7 Ibid., 3, p. 171 : " Quod ex nullis operibus peccata remittuntur,
sed sola misericordia Dei -non imputantis." Cp. p. 175.

8 Cp. on Concupiscence, in the Commentary on the Psalms, Denifle, 1 2,
p. 441 f. and pp. 453, 476. A. Hunzinger, " Lutherstudien," 1 ; " Luthers
Neuplatonismus in den Psalmvorlesungen," Leipzig, 1906, Preface :
" Denifle's ' Luther ' is correct ; Luther during the first years of his
literary activity stood on Catholic ground ; nor is it by any means
the case that from the beginning the reforming element was contained
in germ in Luther's theology." On the other hand, the elements
which were to lead him to take the step from the obscure theology
of the Commentary on the Psalms to the heretical theology of 1515-16
— viz. his false mysticism and misapprehension of the Epistle to
the Romans — were already present. The most suspicious passage in
the Commentary on the Psalms is 4, p. 227, which points to the con-
tinuance of his doubts regarding predestination ; he says that Christ
had drunk of the chalice of suffering for the elect, but not for all. See
the next note, especially the first quotation.

9 Weim. ed., 4, p. 295 : " Anima mea est in potestate mea et in
libertate arbitrii possum earn perdere vel salvare eligendo vel reprobando
legem tuam." Concupiscence has not yet become original sin itself,
but is still a mere relic of the same (3, pp. 215, 453). Kostlin, in
" Luthers Theologie," l2, p. 66, quotes other passages from the Com-

SALVATION IN OUR HANDS 75

quently admonishes us, must be driven back, " it must not be
allowed the mastery," though it will always make itself felt ; it
is like a Red Sea through the midst of which we must pass,
refusing our consent to the temptations which press upon us like
an advancing tide.1 Luther lays great weight on the so-called
Syntheresis, the inner voice which, according to the explanation
of the schoolmen, he believes cries longingly to God, by whom
also it is heard ; it is the ineradicable precious remnant of good
left in us,2 and upon which grace acts. Man's salvation is in his
own hands inasmuch as he is able either to accept or to reject the
law of God.3 Luther also speaks "of a preparation for grace
(" dispositio et prceparatio " ) which God's preventing, super-
natural grace assists.4 He expressly invokes the traditional
theological axiom that " God's grace is vouchsafed to everyone
who does his part."5 He even teaches, following Occam's school,
that such self -preparation constitutes a merit " de congruo."6 He
speaks as a Catholic of the doctrine of merit, admits the so-called
thesaurus meritorum from which indulgences derive their efficacy,
and, without taking offence, alludes to satisfaction (satisfactio
opens),1 to works of supererogation,8 as also to the place of
purification in the next world {purgatorium).9

Regarding God's imputing of righteousness he follows, it is
true, the Occamist doctrine, and on this subject the following
words are the most interesting : faith and grace by which we to-
day (i.e. in the present order of things) are justified, would not
justify without the intervention of the pactum Dei ; i.e. of God's
mercy, who has so ordained it, but who might have ordained
otherwise.10 Friedrich Loofs rightly says regarding imputation
in the Commentary on the Psalms : "It must be noted that the

mentary on the Psalms, thus, 3, p. 584 : God is more ready to have
mercy on us than we are to beseech Him ; but He is unable to have
mercy on us if our pride proves a hindrance (" quando nos nolumus . . .
prohibente nostra superbia "). In his marginal notes on Peter Lombard
(written 1509) Luther had rightly said : " Liberum arbitrium damnatur
quia . . . gratiam . . . oblatam et exhibitam non acceptat vel acceptam
non custodit.'''' " Werke," Weim. ed., 9, p. 71.

1 Weim. ed., 3, p. 546 : " Desideriis ait apostolus, carnis non esse
obediendum, nee regnare peccatum debere licet esse desideria et peccata in
came prohiberi non possit. . . . In mediis tentationibus eundum est, as the
Israelites passed through the Red Sea. Senliri et videre et experiri
oportet bonitates et malitias carnis, sed non conseniirey

2 Ibid., 3, p. 603 : " Residuum prazteritorum bonorum [of the original
state] quod in affectu remansit syntheresico." On the syntheresis and
Luther's early views on this subject see Kostlin, "Luthers Theologie,"
l2, p. 51 f., 125.

3 Weim. ed., 4, p. 295, cp. above, p. 74, n. 9.

4 Ibid., 3, pp. 89, 101, 200 ; 4, p. 204 f., 309.

5 Ibid., 4, pp. 262, 309. 6 Ibid., pp. 262, 312

7 Ibid., 3, pp. 52, 189, 239 f., 424, 462, 466, 603.

8 Ibid., 4, p. 250. 9 Ibid., 3, pp. 426, 239.

10 Weim. ed., 3, p. 289. Cp. Ibid., 4, pp. 329, 312 : " ex pacto et
promissione Dei."

76 LUTHER THE MONK

reputari iustum, i.e. the being-declared- justified, is not considered
by Luther as the reverse of making righteous ; on the contrary,
the sine merito iustificari in the sense of absolvi is at the same time
the beginning of a new life."1 "The faith," so A. Hunzinger
opines of the passages in question in the same work, " is as yet no
imputative faith," i.e. not in the later Lutheran sense.2

The Protestant scholar last mentioned has dissected the
Commentary on the Psalms in detail ; particularly did he
examine its connection with the philosophical and mystical
system sometimes designated as Augustinian Neo-
Platonism.3 It may be left an open question whether his
complicated researches have succeeded in proving that in
the Commentary- — interpreted in the light of some of the
older sermons and the marginal glosses in the Zwickau
books- — Luther's teaching resolves itself into a " somewhat
loose and contradictory mixture of four elements," namely,
Augustinian Neo-Platonism, an Augustinian doctrine on
sin and grace, a trace of scholastic theology, and some of the
mysticism of St. Bernard.4 His researches and his com-
parison of many passages in the Commentary on the Psalms
with the works of Augustine, especially with the " Solilo-
quia" and the book " De vera religione" have certainly
shown that Luther was indebted for his expressions and to a
certain extent for his line of thought, to those works of
Augustine with which he was then acquainted. He had
probably been attracted by the mystical tendency of these
writings, by that reflection of Platonism, which, however,
neither in St. Augustine's nor in Luther's case, as Hun-
zinger himself admits, involved any real acceptance of the
erroneous ideas of the heathen Neo-Platonism. Luther
was weary of the dry Scholasticism he had learned at the
schools and greedily absorbed the theology of the Bishop
of Hippo, which appealed far more to him, though his
previous studies had been insufficient to equip him for its
proper understanding. His own words in 1532 express his
case fairly accurately. He says : "In the beginning I

1 " Dogmengesch.," 4 (1906), p. 697 with ref. to " Werke," Weim.
ed., 4, p. 443 : " sine merito redimi de peccatis," and similar passages.

2 " Luther und die deutsche Mystik," p. 976, above, p. 71, n. 4.

3 " Lutherstudien," 1. See above, p. 74, n. 8.

4 Hunzinger thus sums up his results in " Luther und die deutsche
Mystik," p. 975.

DEFECTS OF HIS EARLY WORK 77

devoured rather than read Augustine." x In a marginal
note on the Sentences of Peter Lombard he speaks, in 1509,
of this Doctor as " numquam satis laudatus" like him, he,
too, would fain send the " moderni " and that " tabulator
Aristoteles " about their business.2

The obscure and tangled mysticism which the young
author of the Commentary on the Psalms built up on
Augustine- — whose spirit was far more profound than
Luther's' — the smattering of Augustinian theology, altered
to suit his controversial purposes, with which he supple-
mented his own scholastic, or rather Occamistic, theology,
and the needless length of the work, make his Commentary
into an unattractive congeries of moral, philosophical and
theological thoughts, undigested, disconnected and some-
times unintelligible. Various causes contributed to this
tangle, not the least being the nature of the subject itself.
Most of the Psalms present all sorts of ideas and figures, and
give the theological and practical commentator opportunity
to introduce whatever he pleases from the stores of his
knowledge. With some truth Luther himself said of his
work in a letter to Spalatin, dated December 26, 1515, that
it was not worth printing, that it contained too much
superficial matter, and deserved rather to be effaced with a
sponge than to be perpetuated by the press.3 There is
something unfinished about the work, because the author
himself was still feeling his way towards that great alteration
which he had at heart ; as yet he has no wish to seek for a
reform from without the Church, he not only values the
authority of the Church and the belief she expounds, but
also, on the whole, the learned tradition of previous ages
with which his rather scanty knowledge of Scholasticism
made him conversant. This, however, did not prevent him
attacking the real or imaginary abuses of the Schoolmen,
nor was his esteem for the Church and his Order great enough
to hinder him from criticising, rightly or wrongly, the con-
dition and institutions of the Church and of monasticism.

The statement made by him in 1537, that he discovered

1 Veit Dietrich MS. Collecta, fol. 137' in Seidemann, " Luthers
erste Psalmenvorlesung," 1, p. vii.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 9, p. 29. Ibid., " In Augustinum," pp.
7, 23, 24, 27.

3 " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 26 f., probably not meant seriously by
Luther.

78 LUTHER THE MONK

his new doctrine at the time he took his degree as Doctor,
i.e. in 1512, cannot therefore be taken as chronologically
accurate. His words, in a sermon preached on May 21, were :
" Now we have again reached the light, but I reached it
when I became a Doctor . . . you should know that Christ
is not sent as a judge." 1

3. Excerpts from the Oldest Sermons. His Adversaries

In the sermons which Luther, during his professorship,
preached at Wittenberg in 1515-16, we notice the cutting,
and at times ironical, censure with which he speaks to
the people of the abuses and excesses which pervaded
the exercise of the priestly office, particularly preaching.
He is displeased with certain excesses in the veneration of
the Saints, and reproves what he considers wrong in the
popular celebration of the festivals of the Church and in
other matters. These religious discourses contain many
beautiful thoughts and give proof, as do the lectures also,
of a rich imagination and great knowledge of the Bible.
But even apart from the harsh denunciation of the con-
ditions in the Church, the prevailing tone is one of too
great hastiness and self-sufficiency, nor are the Faithful
treated justly. It was not surprising that remarks were
made, and that he was jeered at as a " greenhorn " by the
listeners, who told him that he could not " convert old
rogues " with that sort of thing.2

He complains bitterly, and with some show of reason,
that at that time preaching had fallen to a very low ebb
in Germany. The preachers too often treated of trivial
and useless subjects, enlarged, with distinctions and sub-
distinctions, on subjects belonging to the province of
philosophy and theology, and lost themselves in artificial
allegorical interpretations of the Bible. In their recom-
mendation of popular devotions they sometimes went to
extremes and sometimes lapsed into platitude. There was
too little of the wealth of thought, power and inward
unction of Brother Bertold of Regensburg and his school to
be found in the pulpits of that day. Even in Luther's own
sermons during these years we meet with numerous defects

1 " Luthers ungedruckte Predigten," ed. G. Buchwald, 3, 1885,
p. 50.

2 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 121.

HIS QUARRELSOME TEMPER 79

of the time, barren speculations in the style of the nominal-
istic school through which he had passed, too much forcing
and allegorising of the Bible text, and too much coarse and
exaggerated declamation. To be pert and provoking was
then more usual than now, and owing to his natural tendency
lie was very prone to assume that tone. The shyness which
more recent biographers and admirers frequently ascribe to
the young professor is not recognisable in his sermons. That
he ever was shy can only be established by remarks
dropped by Luther in later life, and, as is well known, such
remarks cannot be taken as reliable sources of information
concerning his early years. Were Luther's later account
correct, then we should be forced to ascribe to the young
preacher and professor a burning desire to live in the
solitude of his cell and to spend his days quite apart from
the world and the debates and struggles going forward
in the Church outside. Yet, in reality, there was nothing to
which he was more inclined in his sermons than to allow his
personal opinions to carry him to violent polemics against
people and things displeasing to him ; he was also in the
habit of crediting opponents more friendly to the Church
than he, or even the Church itself, with views which they
certainly did not hold. Johann Mensing, one of his then
pupils at the University of Wittenberg, speaks of this in
words to which little attention has hitherto been paid :
" I may say," he writes, " and have often heard it myself,
that when Luther had something especially good or new to
say in a sermon he was wont to attribute to other theologians
the opposite opinion, and in spite of their having written
and taught just the same, and of his very likely taking it
from them himself, to represent it as a precious thing he had
just discovered and of which others were ignorant ; all this in
order to make a name for himself, like Herostratus, who set
fire to the temple of Diana." 1 We may also mention here a
remark of Hieronymus Emser. After saying that Luther's
sermons were not those of a cleric, he adds : " I may say
with truth that I have never in all my life heard such an
audacious preacher." 2 These, it is true, are testimonies

1 Johann Mensing O.P., " Antapologie," Frankfurt, 1533, fol. 18'.
Cp. N. Paulus, " Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe mit Luther,"
1903, p. 40.

2 Cp. Evers, "Luther," 1, p. 377.

80 LUTHER THE MONK

from the camp of Luther's opponents, but some passages
from his early sermons will show the tone which frequently
prevails in them.

Already in the Christmas sermons of 1515 Luther does not
scruple to place himself, as it were, on the same footing with
the prophets, wise men and those learned in the Scriptures,
whose persecution Christ foretold, more particularly among
the last of the three groups. Even then his view was
unorthodox.

" There are some," he says, " who by the study of Holy
Scripture form themselves into teachers and who are taught
neither by men nor directly by God alone." These are the
learned in the Scriptures. " They exercise themselves in the
knowledge of the truth by meditation and research. Thus they
become able to interpret the Bible and to write for the instruction
of others." But such men are persecuted, he continues, and, as
the Lord prophesied of the prophets and wise men and scribes
that they would not be received, but attacked, so is it also with
me. They murmur against my teaching, as I am aware, and
oppose it. They reproach me with being in error because " I
preach always of Christ as the hen under whose wings all who
wish to be righteous must gather." Thus his ideas with regard to
righteousness must have been looked upon as importunate or
exaggerated, and, by some, in all probability, as erroneous. He
immediately launches out into an apology : " What I have said
is this : We are not saved by all our righteousness, but it is the
wings of the hen which protect us against the birds of prey, i.e.
against the devil . . . but, as it was with the Jews, who
persecuted righteousness, so it is to-day. My adversaries do not
know what righteousness is, they call their own fancies grace.
They become birds of prey and pounce upon the chicks who hope
for salvation through the mercy of our hen."1

Such rude treatment meted out to those who found
fault with him (and one naturally thinks of clergy and
religious, perhaps even of his very brethren, as the culprits),
the denouncing them from the pulpit as " birds of prey,"
and his claim to lay down the law, this, and similar passages
in the sermons, throw a strong light on his disputatious
temper.

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 30 f.: " Semper prcedico de Christo,
gallina nostra . . . et efficitur miki errans et falsum." He preached,
namely, against those " qui ab alis [Domini'] recedunt in sua propria
bona opera . . . et nolunt audire, quod iustitice eorum peccata sint.
Oratiam maxime impugnant, qui earn iactant.'''' The expression " gallina
nostra " appears also in the Commentary on the Psalms (" Werke,"
Weim. ed., 3, p. 71).

DENUNCIATION OF OBSERVANTINES 81

In a well-ordered condition of things the Superiors of the
Augustinians or the diocesan authorities would have inter-
vened to put a stop to sermons so scandalously offensive ; at
Wittenberg, however, the evil was left unchecked and
allowed to take deeper root. The students, the younger
monks and some of the burghers, became loud and en-
thusiastic followers of the bold preacher. Staupitz was
altogether on his side, and, owing to him, also the Elector of
Saxony. The Prince was, however, so little of an authority
on matters theological that Luther once writes of him that
he was " in things concerning God and the salvation of the
soul almost seven times blind."1

Luther's notes on his Sunday sermons during the summer
of 1516- — a time when he had already expressed his errors
quite plainly in his lectures on the Epistle to the Romans- —
afford us a glimpse of an acute controversy. At this time
his sermons dealt with the first Commandment.

The Gospel for the 7th Sunday after Pentecost with the words :
" Beware of false prophets " gives him an all too tempting oppor-
tunity for a brush with his adversaries, and, on July 6, he attacks
them from the standpoint of his new ideas on righteousness.
" Much fasting, and long prayers," he cries, " study, preaching,
watching, and poor clothing, these are the pious lambskins under
which ravening wolves hide themselves." In their case these are
only " works done for show." These Observan tines, for all their
great outward display of holiness, are " heretics and schismatics."
Thus does he storm, evidently applying his words to his brother
monks of the Observantine party, who probably had been among
the first to criticise him. The following remarks on rebellion and
defamation make this application all the clearer.2 "The true
works by which we may recognise the prophets are done in the
inner and hidden man. But these proud men are wanting above
all in patience and the charity which is forgetful of self, but
concerned for others." " When they have to do works which are
not to their liking they are slow, rebellious, obstinate, but they
well know how to take away the name of others and to pass
judgment on them. . . . There is no greater plague in the Church
to-day than these men with the words : ' Good works are
necessary ' in their mouths ; men who refuse to distinguish
between what is good and evil because they are enemies of the
Cross, i.e. of the good things of God."3

Such a daring challenge on Luther's part did not fail in its

1 To Spalatin, June 8, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 40.

2 Cp. his reproaches against members of his own Order with regard
to disobedience and want of charity, which will be given shortly.

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 61.

82 LUTHER THE MONK

effect. Within as well as outside the Order united preparations
were being made for a strong resistance, his foes working both
openly and in secret.

Luther's adversaries were again made the object of his public
vituperation in two sermons preached on the same day a little
later. This was on July 27, the 10th Sunday after Pentecost.
In one sermon the passionate orator attempted to show the
danger of the times ; he describes how powerful the devil had
become and how under the appearance of good works he was
making certain persons " fine breakers " of the first Command-
ment. " And these venture," he says, " to shoot arrows
secretly against those who are right of heart."1 In the other
sermon his opponents had to submit to being called — in allusion
to the Sunday's Gospel of the Pharisee and the Publican — real
" Pharisees, who by reason of their assumed holiness and merits
seek the praise of men," whereas in reality, with their self-
righteousness, they have merely erected an idol in their hearts. 2

Even this was not enough however. The continuous com-
plaints of those who thought differently from himself called
Luther into the field again the very next Sunday (August 3).3
They heard what they might have anticipated, as soon as the
fiery preacher, whose appearance was doubtless greeted by his
pupils and adherents with looks of joy, got to work on his theeis :
To place our hope in anything but God, even in the merit of our
good works, is to have false idols before God. Then the stream
of words flowed apace against the " proud saints," against the
presumptuous assurance of salvation on the part of the servitors
of works, against the fools who make the narrow way to heaven
still narrower, against the ABC pupils, who know nothing out-
side their own works. " These are old stagers," he cries, because,
like certain horses who only go along one track, they know only
the one path of their own works. As though he recollected his
own short-lived zeal for the work of the Order, he adds : "At
the commencement, when a man first enters on the path of the
religious life he has to exercise himself in many good works,
fasts, vigils, prayers, works of mercy, submission, obedience and
other such-like." But to remain permanently stuck fast in these,
that is what makes a man a Pharisee. " The truly pious who are
led by the Spirit," he continues, in a vein of peculiar mysticism,
" once initiated into these things, do not trouble much more
about them. Rather they offer themselves to God, ready for any
work to which He may call them, and are led through many
sufferings and humiliations without knowing whither they are

1 "Werke," Weim. ed.. 1, p. 62, Fragment.

2 Ibid., p. 63. (Sermo contra opinionem sanctitatis et meriti.)

3 Ibid., p. 70. {Sermo de vitiis capitalibus in merito operum et
opinione sanctitatis se efferentibus.)

4 Ibid., p. 73. Line 25 should read " in fine quia " not " in fine
qui " ; and line 28 " in Deo quietV not " ac Deo quieii." The edition
elsewhere leaves much to be desired.

THE WORD OF TRUTH" 83

Luther frequently spoke at that time in the language of a
certain school of mysticism with which he was much
enamoured. The following extract from the sermon under
consideration, together with some thoughts on similar lines,
from his synodal address at Leitzau, belong here.

" The man of God leaves himself entirely in God's hands and
does not attach himself to any works. His works are nameless at
the commencement, though not at the end, because he does not
act, but remains passive ; he does not calculate with his own
cleverness, or make projects, but allows himself to be led and
does differently from what he had intended ; thus he is calm and
at rest in God. Whereas the self-righteous who abound in their
own sense (' sensuales iustitiarii ') are apt to despair of their own
works — for they want to determine and name every word before-
hand, and with them the name is the first thing and this they
follow up with their works — the man of God on the contrary
hurries forward in advance of every name."

In the discourse which Luther wrote, probably in the autumn
or winter months of 1515, for Georg Masco v, provost of Leitzau
(see above, p. 65), and which was intended for a synodal meeting of
the clergy, he says, in his most exaggerated fashion : " The whole
world lies as it were under a deluge of false and filthy teaching."
The Word of God like a tiny flame is barely kept alive. Egoism,
worldliness and vice are predominant. And the remedy ? He
will cry it aloud over the whole world : the only remedy is to
preach " the word of truth " with much greater zeal. The
greatest, " nay almost the only sin of the priests " is the neglect
of the " word of truth " and it is much to be deplored, according
to him, " that priests who fall into sins of the flesh make more
account of them than of the neglect of the preaching of the word
of truth."1

The address deals further at great length with the holy re-
generation of man in God. This is something which God works in
us while we remain altogether passive : a man's seeking, praying,
knocking has nothing to do with it because mercy alone effects it.
Man does nothing (" ipso nihil agente, petente, merente ") ; in this
mystical regeneration by God, it is as with the natural generation of
man : "he who is generated in both cases does not count, and
can do nothing by his work or merits towards his begetting, but
lies wholly in the will of the Father."

As sons of God we must bear fruit — here the discourse becomes
quite practical — and the purpose of this meeting is to demand it
of the clergy. " We must not expose our Synod to the scorn of
our enemies." It is more important that chastity and every
virtue should dwell in the priests than that statutes should be
made with regard to readings, prayers, festivals, and ceremonies.

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 10 : " Scatet totus orbis imo inundat
. . . doctrinam sordibus.'''' The doubts as to the authenticity of this
sermon do not deserve attention.

84 LUTHER THE MONK

The vague, obscure mysticism which played a part in
Luther's spiritual development at that time, as well as his
wrong, one-sided interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans,
had, as already stated, led him into a heterodox by-way.

A cursory glance at the influence of Scholasticism and
Mysticism on his mental progress, may perhaps be here
in place.

4. Preliminary Remarks on Young Luther's Relations to
Scholasticism and Mysticism

In the years of Luther's development the two great
intellectual forces of the Middle Ages, Scholasticism and
Mysticism, no longer exercised quite so powerful an influence
as of yore, when they ruled over the world of intellect.
Their influence on Luther's views and his career was diverse.
Scholasticism in its then state of decay, with its endless
subtilties and disputatiousness, which, moreover, he knew
only under the form of Occam's nominalism, repelled him,
to his own great loss. As a result he never acquired those
elements of knowledge of true and lasting value to be found
in the better schools, of which the traditions embodied the
work of centuries of intellectual effort on the part of some
of the world's greatest minds. Mysticism, on the other
hand, attracted him on account of his natural disposition,
so full of feeling and imagination. He had been initiated
into it at the monastery by the works of Bernard of Clair-
vaux, Bonaventure and Gerson, and, later, by the sermons
of Taulcr and the so-called German Theology. This study
had been recommended him by Staupitz and also by his
brother monks, especially by Johann Lang. It was, however,
the more obscure and ambiguous writings and extracts from
mystic works which appealed to him most, owing to his
being able to read into them his own ideas.

As regards Scholasticism, his character predisposed him
against it. Scholastic learning is founded on conceptual
operations of reason ; it aims at clear definitions, logical
proofs and a systematic linking together of propositions.
Luther's mind, on the other hand, inclined more to a free
treatment of the subject, one which allowed for feeling and
imagination, and to such descriptions as offered a field for
his eloquence. One of the chief reasons, however, for his

OCCAMISM 85

lifelong dislike of Scholasticism was his very partiaracquaint-
ance with the same. He had, as we shall see, never studied
its great representatives in the thirteenth century ; he had
made acquaintance only with its later exponents, viz. the
Nominalists of Occam's school, who gave the tone to his
theological instructions and whose teachings were very
prevalent in the schools in that day. He speaks repeatedly
of William of Occam as his teacher. Of Luther's relations
to his doctrines we shall have to speak later : some of
Occam's views he opposed, others, which happened to be at
variance with those of St. Thomas of Aquin, he approved.
He would not have attributed to the latter and to other
exponents of the better school of Scholasticism such foolish
theses as he did — theses of which they never even dreamt—
had he possessed any clear notion of their teaching. There
can be no doubt that he also imbibed during his first years
as a student at Erfurt, the spirit of antagonism against
Scholasticism which Humanism with its craving for novelty
displayed, an antagonism based ostensibly on disgust at the
unclassic form of the former.

Already during the earliest period of his career at Witten-
berg, as soon, indeed, as he began to preach and lecture,
he commenced his attacks against Scholasticism.

He considers that Aristotle, on whom in the Middle Ages both
theologians and philosophers had set such store, had been grossly
misunderstood by most of the scholastics ; all the good there is
in Aristotle, he says, he has stolen from others ; whatever in him
is right, others must understand and make use of better than he
himself. 1

He often passes judgment on the theology of the Middle Ages
from the point of view of the narrow, one-sided school of Occam,
and then, with his lively imagination, he grossly exaggerates the
opposition between it and St. Thomas of Aquin and the more
classic schoolmen. The whole herd of theologians, he says, has
been led astray by Aristotle ; nor have they understood- him in
the least ; according to him, Thomas of Aquin — the Doctor whom
the Church has so greatly honoured and placed at the head of all
theologians — did not expound a single chapter of Aristotle
aright ; "all the Thomists together " have not understood one
chapter. Aristotle has only led them all to lay too much stress
upon the importance and merit of human effort and human works
to the disadvantage of God's grace. Here lay Aristotle's chief
crime discovered by Luther, thanks to his own new theology.2

1 Cp. Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 118. Extracts from the first of the
Christmas sermons of 1515 (or 1514).

2 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 128 seq.

86 LUTHER THE MONK

In his lectures on the Psalms Luther already tells his hearers
that the bold loquacity of theology was due to Aristotle ;' he
makes highly exaggerated remarks regarding the disputes between
the Scotists and Occam and between Occam and Scotus.2 Peter
Lombard, no less than Scotus and St. Thomas, comes in for some
harsh criticism. But Luther ever reverts to Aristotle. He wishes,
so he writes to his friend Lang in February, 1516, to tear off
" the Greek mask which this comedian has assumed to pass him-
self off in the Church as a philosopher ; his shame should be laid
bare to all."3

Such audacious language had probably never before been
used against the greatest minds in the history of human
thought by a theological professor, who himself had as yet
given no proof whatever of his capacity.

His attacks on Scholasticism and the philosophical and
theological schools up to that day, were soon employed to
cover his attacks on dogma and the laws of the Church.
In 1518 he places Scholasticism and Canon Law on the same
footing, both needing reform.4

The learned Martin Pollich, who was teaching law at the
University of Wittenberg, looked at the young assailant
with forebodings as to the future. He frequently said that
this monk would overthrow the teaching which yet prevailed
at all the universities. " This brother has deep-set eyes,"
he once remarked, " he must have strange fancies." 5 His
strange eyes, with their pensive gleam, ever ready to smile
on a friend, and, in fact, his whole presence, made an im-
pression upon all who were brought into close contact with
him. It is an undoubted fact, true even of his later days,
that intercourse with him was pleasant, especially to those
whom he honoured with his friendship or whom he wished
to influence. Not only were his pupils at Wittenberg
devoted admirers of the brave critic of the Schoolmen, but,
little by little, he also gained an unquestioned authority

1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 129.

2 Seidemann, " Luthers Vorlesungen uber die Psalmen," 1, p. 211 ;
" Werke," Weim. ed., 3, p. 319.

3 To Joh. Lang, Prior at Erfurt, February 8, 1517. " Brief wechsel,"
1, p. 86 : " Nihil ita ardet animus, quam histrionem ilium, qui tarn vere
Grceca larva ecclesiam lusit, multis revelare ignominiamque eius cunctis
ostendere." De Wette has the letter incorrectly dated February 8, 1516.

4 Letter to Trutfetter, May 9, 1518, " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 187.

5 " Corpus Reform.," 3, p. 154, n. 83. O. Waltz erroneously ques-
tions this statement in " Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch.," 2, 1878, p. 628.
Cp. 3, 1879, 305.

THE GERMAN MYSTICS 87

over the other professors, the more so as there was no one at
the University able or willing to take the risks of a challenge.

The psychological reaction on himself of so high a position
at the University must not be under-estimated as a factor
in his development. He felt himself to be a pioneer in the
struggle against Scholasticism, and one called to reinstate
a new theology.

His attitude to mysticism was absolutely different from
that which he assumed with regard to Aristotle and Scholas-
ticism.

Luther speaks in praise of Tauler for the first time in
1516, though he had probably become acquainted with him
earlier. At about that same time a little booklet, " Theologia
Deutsch" exercised a great influence upon him.

In a letter to Lang — who was also inclined to look with favour
on Tauler, the master of German mystic theology — Luther
betrays how greatly he was attracted by this writer. In his
sonorous, expansive language, he speaks of him as a teacher
whose enlightenment was such, that, though utterly unknown in
the theological schools, he contains more real theology than all
the scholastic theologians of all the universities put together. He
also repeatedly assured his hearers that Tauler's book of sermons
had " led him to the spirit."1

At that time Luther showed great preference for the exhorta-
tions of the German mystics on self-abasement, apathy and
abnegation of self. " Theologia Deutsch," that little work of an
unknown Frankfort priest of the fourteenth century, which he
came across in a MS., so fascinated him that, adding to it a preface
and his own name, " Martinus Luder," he published it in 1516 at
Wittenberg. It was the first occasion of his making use of the
press ; this first edition was, however, incomplete, owing to the
state of the MS. ; the work was finally reissued complete and
under the title which Luther himself had selected, viz. " A
German Theologia," in 1518. In the sub-title of the first edition
he had called it a " noble spiritual booklet," and in the preface
had praised it, saying that it did not float like foam on the top of
the water, but that it had been brought up from the bottom of
the Jordan by a true Israelite.2 In the first edition he had
erroneously attributed the booklet to Tauler ; in the second he
says it is equal in merit to Tauler's own writings. Yet, to tell the
truth, it is far from reaching Tauler's high standard of thought.
Luther, however, assures us that, next to the Bible and St.
Augustine, he can mention no book from which he has learned
more of the nature of God, Christ, man and all other things, than
from this work. W^ien he forwarded a printed copy of the first

1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 110 f.

2 Preface to his first edition : " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 153.

88 LUTHER THE MONK

edition to Spalatin (December 14, 1516), he wrote, that Tauler
offered a solid theology which was quite similar to the old ; that
he was acquainted with no theology more wholesome and evan-
gelical. Spalatin should saturate himself with Tauler's sermons ;
" taste and see how sweet the Lord is, after you have first tasted
and seen how bitter is everything that is ourselves."1

In addition to the authors mentioned, the mysticism of
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and of Gerard Groot, the
founder of the Community of the Brethren of the Common Life,
were known to him. That he was, or had been, fond of reading
the writings of St. Bernard, we may guess from his many — often
misunderstood — quotations from the same.

Luther was also well able, whilst under the influence of that
inwardness which he loved so much in the mystics, to make his
own their truly devotional and often moving language.

In a friendly letter he comforts, as follows, an Augustinian at
Erfurt, Georg Leiffer, regarding his spiritual troubles : " The
Cross of Christ is distributed throughout the whole world and
each one gets a small piece of it. Do not throw yours away, but
lay it, like a sacred relic, in a golden shrine, i.e. in a heart filled
with gentle charity. For even the wrongs which we suffer from
men, persecutions, passion and hatred, which are caused us
either by the wicked or by those who mean well, are priceless
relics, which have not indeed, like the wood of the cross, been
hallowed by contact with our Lord's body, but which have
been blessed by His most loving heart, encompassed by His
friendly, Divine Will, kissed and sanctified. The curse becomes a
blessing, insult becomes righteousness, suffering becomes an
aureole, and the cross a joy. Farewell, sweet father and brother,
and pray for me."

5. Excerpts from the Earliest Letters

The above letter of Luther's is one of the few remaining
whieh belong to that transition period in his life. His letters
are ^naturally not devoid of traces of the theological change
which was going forward within him, and they may there-
fore be considered among the precursors of his future
doctrine.

His new theological standpoint is already apparent in
the charitable and sympathetic letter of encouragement
which, as Rural Vicar, he sent to one of his brother monks
about that time. " Learn, my sweet brother," he writes
to George. Spenlein, an Augustinian of the monastery of
Mcmmingen, " learn Christ and Him Crucified, learn to
sing to Him, and, despairing of your own self, say to
Him : Thou, Lord Jesus, art my righteousness, but I am
1 " Correspondence," 1, p. 75.

MYSTIC TONE OF LETTERS 89

Thy sin ; Thou hast accepted what I am and given me what
Thou art ; Thou hast thus become what Thou wast not,
and what I was not I have received. . . . Never desire,"
he exhorts him, " a purity so great as to make you cease
thinking yourself, nay being, a sinner ; for Christ dwells
only in sinners ; He came down from heaven where He
dwells in the righteous in order to live also in sinners. If
you ponder upon His love, then you will become conscious
of His most sweet consolation. What were the use of His
death had we to attain to peace of conscience by our own
trouble and labour ? Therefore only in Him will you find
peace through a trustful despair of yourself and your
works."1

A similar mystical tone (we are not here concerned with
the theology it implied) shows itself also here and there in
Luther's later correspondence. The life of public contro-
versy in which he was soon to engage was certainly not
conducive to the peaceful, mystical tone of thought and
to the cultivation of the interior spirit ; as might have
been expected, the result of the struggle was to cast his
feeling and his mode of thought in a very different mould.
It was impossible for him to become the mystic some
people have made him out to be owing to the distractions
and excitement of his life of struggle.2

In the above *letter to Spenlein, Luther speaks of this
monk's relations to his brethren. Spenlein had previously
been in the monastery at Wittenberg, where Luther had
known him as a zealous monk, much troubled about the
details of the Rule, and who even found it difficult to have
to live with monks who were less exact in their observance.
" When you were with us," says the writer, " you were
under the impression, or rather in the error in which I also
was at one time held captive, and of which I have not even
now completely rid myself (' nondum expugnavi '), that it
is necessary to perform good works until one is confident

1 Letter of April 8, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 29. (De Wette
dates it April 7.)

2 " Luther never became by his diligent study of Tauler a mystic
in the strict sense of the word. He makes his own merely the language
of mysticism. He often uses the same expressions as Tauler, but with
another meaning, indeed he even unconsciously imputes to Tauler
his own views," H. Bohmer, " Luther im Lichte der neueren For-
schung," Leipzig, 1906, p. 35 (omitted in the 2nd edition, 1910).

90 LUTHER THE MONK

of being able to appear before God decked out, as it were,
in deeds and merits, a thing which is utterly impossible."
Luther is desirous of hearing what Spenlein now thinks,
" whether he has not at last grown sick of self -righteousness
and learnt to breathe freely and trust in the righteousness
of Christ." " If, however, you believe firmly in the righteous-
ness of Christ — and cursed be he who does not — then you
will be able to bear with careless and erring brothers patiently
and charitably ; you will make their sins your own," as
Christ does with ours, "and in whatever good you do, in
that you will allow them to participate ... be as one of
them and bear with them. To think of flight and solitude,
and to wish to be far away from those who we think are
worse than ourselves, that is an unhappy righteousness.
... On the contrary, if you are a lily and a rose of Christ,
then remember that j^ou must be among thorns, and beware
of becoming yourself a thorn by impatience, rash judgment
and secret pride. ... If Christ had willed to live only
amongst the good or to die only for His friends, for whom,
pray, would He ever have died, or with whom would He
have lived ? "

Spenlein was then no longer living in a monastery subject to
the Rural Vicar. It is even probable that he had left Witten-
berg and the new Vicar's district on account of differences
of opinion on the matter of Observance. He betook himself
to the imperial city of Memmingen, presumably because a
different spirit prevailed in the monastery there. This would
seem to explain how Luther came to speak to this doubtless
most worthy religious of " unhappy righteousness," inter-
preting the state of the case in his own perverse fashion.

Among the other letters despatched in 1516 that to Lang
at Erfurt deserves special attention ; in it Luther expresses
himself in confidence, quite openly, on the disapproval of
his work and of his theological standpoint which was showing
itself at Wittenberg and at Erfurt.1

His study of St. Augustine had put him in a position to recog-
nise, on internal grounds, that a work, " On true and false
penance," generally attributed to this African Father, was not
really his. He tells his friend that his opinion of the book had
" given great offence to all " ; though the insipid contents of the
same were so far removed from the spirit of Augustine, yet it

1 September (?), 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 54 ff.

HUMANISTS REBUKED 91

was esteemed because it had been quoted and employed by
Gratian and Peter Lombard as one of Augustine's works. That
he had been aware of this and nevertheless had stood up for the
truth, that was his crime, which had aroused the enmity par
ticularly of Dr. Carlstadt ; not, however, that he cared very
much ; both Lombard and Gratian had done much harm to
consciences by means of this stupid book.

His opinion regarding the spuriousness of the work was in the
end generally accepted, even, for instance, by Bellarmine ;
Trithemius, moreover, had been of the same opinion before
Luther's time ; in his attacks on its contents, however, Luther,
led astray by his false ideas of penance, exceeded all bounds, and
thus vexed, beyond measure, his colleagues who at that time
still held the opposite view.

According to this letter, he had also challenged all the critics
of his new ideas in a disputation held by one of his pupils under
his direction. " They barked and screeched at me on account of
my lectures, but their mouths were to be stopped and the opinions
of others heard." It was a question of defending his erroneous
doctrine, regarding the absolute helplessness of nature, which he
had meantime formulated, and to which we shall return im-
mediately. In consequence, he says, all the " Gabrielists " (i.e.
followers of the scholastic Gabriel Biel) here, as well as in the
Faculty at Erfurt, were nonplussed. But I know my Gabriel quite
as well as his own wonderful, wonderstruck worshippers ; "he
writes well, but as soon as he touches on grace, charity, hope, and
faith, then, like Scotus his leader, he treads in the footprints of
Pelagius." Luther was quite free to dissent from the view, even
of so good a professor as Biel, in this question of grace and virtue,
but, already at that time, he had denounced as Pelagian several
doctrines of the Church. Among those who were angered was the
theologian Nicholas von Amsdorf, who took his licentiate at the
same time as Luther, and became later on his close friend.
Amsdorf secretly sent one of Luther's theses, of which he dis-
approved, to Erfurt, but afterwards allowed himself to be
pacified.

The humanistic tendency which was at that time begin-
ning to make its way had, as we see from the letters, little
part in the rise of the Lutheran movement at Wittenberg.

The view that Luther's new teaching was due to the direct
influence of the mode of thought of such men as Hutten,
Crotus and Mutian is incorrect. On the contrary, Luther,
full as he was of his one-sided supra-naturalism, was bound
to disapprove of the Humanist ideal and made no secret of
his disapproval. In his letters in 1516 he also found fault
with the satirical and frivolous attacks of the Humanists
on the state of the Church and the theological learning of
the day. He considered the " Epistolce obscurorum virorum "

92 LUTHER THE MONK

impudent, and called the author a clown.1 A similar work
by the same group of Humanists against the " Theolo-
gasters," entitled " Tenor supplicationis Pasquilliance "
■ — as he informs Spalatin, himself a Humanist — he had held
up to the ridicule of his colleagues, as it richly deserved on
account of the invective and slanders which it contained.2

He appealed to Spalatin to draw the attention of Erasmus to
his misapprehension of righteousness as it appears in the Epistle
to the Romans ; he says that Erasmus overrates the virtues of
heathen heroes, whereas even the most blameless of men, even
Fabricius and Regulus, were miles away from righteousness ;
outside of faith in Christ there is, according to him, no righteous-
ness whatever ; Aristotle, whom everybody follows, likewise
knew nothing of this righteousness ; but Paul and Augustine
teach it ; what Paul calls self-righteousness is not merely, as
Erasmus says, a righteousness founded on the observances of the
Mosaic Law, but any righteousness whatever which springs out
of works, or out of the observance of any law ; Paul also teaches
original sin in the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, a
fact which Erasmus wrongly denies. With regard to Augustine,
he could unfold to him (Erasmus) St. Paul's meaning better than
he thinks, but he should diligently read the writings against the
Pelagians, above all the De Spiritu et littera. Augustine there
takes a firm stand on the foundation of the earlier Fathers
(Luther's quotations from his authorities show how much
the study had fascinated him). But after Augustine's day,
dead literalism became the general rule. Lyra's Bible Com-
mentary, for instance, is full of it ; the right interpretation of
Holy Scripture is also wanting in Faber Stapulensis, notwith-
standing his many excellencies. Hence, he writes, we must fall
back on Augustine, on Augustine rather than on Jerome to whom
Erasmus gives the preference in Bible matters, for Jerome keeps
too much to the historical side ; he recommends Augustine not
merely because he is an Augustinian monk, for formerly he him-
self did not think him worthy of consideration until he " fell in "
(incidissem) with his books.3

Augustine's " On the Spirit and the Letter," a work dedicated
to Marcellinus, and dating from the end of 412, with which
Luther had become acquainted in 1515, had a lasting influence on
him. In this book the great Doctor of the Church strikes at the
very root of Pelagianism and shows the necessity, for the
accomplishment of supernatural good works (" facere et perficere

1 To Spalatin, about October 5, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 62.

2 Ibid.

3 To Spalatin, October 19, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 63. Spalatin
took his advice, as his letter to Erasmus (" Opp. Erasmi," ed. Lugd.
Bat., 3, col. 1579 sq.) shows. The letter is also printed in " Brief-
wechsel," 1, p. 65

AGAINST PELAGIANISM 93

bonum "), of inward grace which he calls " spiritus " in contra-
distinction to outward grace which he terms " littera." Luther,
however, referred this necessity more and more to everything
good, even to what is purely natural, hence his loud accusations
soon after against the theology of the Church as savouring of
Pelagianism.

Humanism at that time stood for a Pelagian view of life and
therefore could not be altogether sympathetic to Luther. Its
influence on him, especially in his youth, cannot, however, be
altogether disregarded ; he had been brought into too close
contact with it in his student days and also during his theological
course at Erfurt, and his mind was too lively and too open to the
currents of the time for him not to have felt something of its effects.
The very extravagance of his criticism of things theological may,
in part, be traced back to the example of the Humanists.

From Luther's lectures on the Psalms, as well as from
his sermons and letters till 1516 inclusive, we have adduced
various elements which may be considered to forebode the
greater and more important change yet to come. They
are, indeed, not exactly precursors of what one designates
usually as the Reformation, but rather of the new Lutheran
theology which was responsible for that upheaval in the
ecclesiastical, ethical and social sphere which became known
as the Reformation.

6. The Theological Goal

Before continuing in a more systematic form the examina-
tion of the origin of Luther's new theology, of which wre have
just seen some of the antecedents, we must cast a glance
at the erroneous theological result which Luther had already
reached in 1515-16, and which must be considered as the
goal of his actual development.

Several of the above passages, from sermons and letters of the
years 1515-16, have already in part betrayed the result. It
appears, however, in full in the lectures on the Epistle to the
Romans delivered between the autumn, 1515, and the summer,
1516, already several times referred to.1 Everyone who has
followed the course of Luther research during the last decade will
recall the commotion aroused when Denifle announced the
discovery in the Vatican Library of a copy hitherto unknown
of Luther's youthful work (Palat. 1826). Much labour has since
been expended in connection with the numerous passages quoted
from it by this scholar. A popular Protestant history of dogma
even attempted to arrange Denifle's quotations so as to form with

1 See below, chapter vi., p. 1 ff.

94 LUTHER THE MONK

them a complete picture.1 Meanwhile a complete edition of the
lectures on the Epistle to the Romans has been brought out by
Johann Ficker which will serve as the foundation for a proper
treatment of the new material. It may, however, be of interest,
and serve to recall the literary movement of the last few years,
if we here sum up Luther's errors of 1516 according to the
extracts from the lectures on the Epistle to the Romans adduced
by Denifle. The present writer, on the ground of his study of the
Vatican copy undertaken previous to the appearance of Ficker' s
edition, can assure the reader that the extracts really give the
kernel of the lectures. Some additions which he then noted as
elucidating Denifle's excerpts are given in the notes according to
the MS. and alongside of the quotations from Denifle; every-
where, however, Ficker's new edition has also been quoted,
reference being made to the scholia, or to the glosses, on the
Epistle to the Romans, according as the passages are taken from
the one or the other part of Luther's Commentary.

The Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans really
represents the first taking shape of Luther's heretical
views. From the very beginning he expresses some of them
without concealment. It% is clear that during his prepara-
tion for these lectures in the summer and early autumn of
1515 things within him had reached a climax, and, over-
coming all scruples, he determined to take the decisive
step of laying the result of his new and quite peculiar views
before his audience at the University. At the very
commencement his confident theses declare that the com-
mentator will deduce everything from Paul, and as Ave
proceed we see more and more clearly how his immersion
in his mistaken interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans
■ — that deep well of apostolic teaching- — led him to propound
the false doctrines born of his earlier antipathy for Scholas-
ticism and liking for pseudo-mysticism.

In the very first pages Luther endeavours to show how
imputed righteousness is the principal doctrine advocated
by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. Justification by
faith alone and the new appreciation of works is expressed
quite openly.

" God has willed to save us," this he represents as the sum
total of the Epistle, " not by our own but by extraneous righteous-
ness and wisdom, not by such as is in us or produced by our
inner self, but by that which comes to us from elsewhere." " We

1 H. Loofs, " Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.," 4, 1906,
p. 702 ff.

IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS 95

must rest altogether on an extraneous and foreign righteousness,"
he repeats, " and therefore destroy our own, i.e. our homely
righteousness " (" non per domesticam sed per extraneam iustitiam,"
etc. ). * So fascinated is he by the terrifying picture of self-righteous-
ness and holiness by works, that he is more than inclined to
weaken the inclination for good works, though he indeed declares
them necessary : according to him they produce in man a self-
consciousness which prevents him regarding himself as un-
righteous and as needing the justification of Christ. The truly
righteous, such are his actual words, always believe " that they
are sinners . . . they sigh until they are completely cured of
concupiscence, a release which takes place at death." Everyone
must be distrustful even of his good intentions, he tells his
adversaries, i.e. " those who trust in themselves, who, thinking
they are in possession of God's grace, cease to prove themselves,
and sink daily into greater lukewarmness." He asks ironically
whether " they acted from the pure love of God," for now,
erroneously, he will allow only the purest love of God as a motive. 2
He writes : "he who thinks, that the greater his works, the more
sure he is of salvation shows himself to be an unbeliever, a proud
man and a contemner of the word. It does not depend at all on
the multitude of works [in the right sense this was admitted by the
old theologians] ; it is nothing but temptation to pay any
attention to this." It is mere " wisdom of the flesh," he thinks,
for anyone to pay attention to the "difference of works" rather
than to the word, particularly the inward word and its impulses. 3
Here in his mystical language he states the following para-
doxical thesis : " the wisdom of the spiritually minded knows
neither good nor evil (" prudentia spiritualium neque bonum
neque malum scit ") ; it keeps its eyes fixed always on the word,
not on the work."4 He concludes : "let us only close our eyes,
listen in simplicity to the word, and do what it commands
whether it be foolish or evil or great or small " (" sive stultum sive
malum, sive magnum sive parvum prazcipiat, hoc faciamus ").5 As
righteousness does not proceed from works we must so much
the more cling to imputation. " Our works are nothing, we find
in ourselves nothing but thoughts which accuse us . . . where

1 " Cod. Vat. Palat. 1826," fol. 77 ; Denifle, l2, " Quellenbelege,"
p. 313 f. ; " Scholia to Romans " (Ficker), p. 2.

2 Fol. 121' and 122. " Scholia to Rom.," p. 73 : " (Iusti) gemunt
et implorant gratiam Dei . . . credunt semper, se esse peccatores. . . .
Sic humiliantur sic plorant, sic gemunt, donee perfecte sanentur, quod
fit in morte. . . . Si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos
seducimus (1 Io., i. 8). . . . Confisi se iam habere gratiam Dei omittunt
sua secreta rimari, tepescunt cotidie," etc. The passage is a continua-
tion of that quoted by Denifle-Weiss, "Luther," l2, p. 463, n. 10,
and makes the latter appear in a different sense somewhat more
favourable to the righteous.

3 Fol. 230 ff. " Scholia to Rom.," p. 241 f., in Denifle, l2, " Quel-
lenbelege," p. 329.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid., " Scholia to Rom.," p. 243.

96 LUTHER THE MONK

shall we find defenders ? Nowhere but in Christ . . . the heart,
it is true, reproves a man for his evil works, it accuses him and
witnesses against him. But he who believes in Christ turns at
once [from himself] to Christ and says : He has done enough, He
is righteous, He is my defence, He died for me, He has made His
righteousness mine and my sin His. But if He has made my sin
His, then it is no longer mine and I am free. If He has made His
righteousness mine, then I am righteous through the same
righteousness as He."1

Here then the sinner, as Luther teaches in his letter to Spenlein
(see above, p. 88 ff.), simply casts himself upon Christ and hides
himself just as he is " under the wings of the hen " (p. 80),
comforting himself with the doctrine of imputation. The old
Church, on the contrary, not only pointed to the merits of Christ
(see above, pp. 10, 18) but also to the exhortations of St. Paul
where he calls for zealous, active co-operation with the Divine
grace, for inward conversion in the spirit, for works of penance
and for purification from sin by contrition in order that our
reconciliation with God and real pardon may become possible.
Hence, while the Catholic doctrine conceives of justification as
an interior, organic process, Luther is beginning to take it as
something exterior and mechanical, as a process which results from
the pushing forward of a foreign righteousness, as if it were a
curtain. He turns away from the Catholic doctrine according to
which a man justified by a living and active faith is really in-
corporated in Christ as the shoot is grafted into the olive tree, or
the branch on the vine, i.e. to a new life, to an interior ennobling
through sanctifying grace and the infused supernatural virtues of
faith, hope and charity.

Nevertheless Luther himself was affrighted at the theory of
faith alone, and imputation. He feared lest he should be re-
proached with setting good works aside with his doctrine of
imputed merit. He therefore explains in self-defence that he
did not desire a bare faith ; " the hypocrites and the lawyers "
thought they would be saved by such a faith, but according to
Paul's words a faith was requisite by which we " approach
Christ " (" per quern habemus accessum per fidem," Rom. v. 2).
Those are therefore in error who go forward in Christ with over-
great certainty, but not by faith ; as though they would be saved
by Christ, for not doing anything themselves and giving no sign
of faith. These possess too much faith, or, better still, none at
all. Both must exist : " by faith " and " by Christ " ; we must
do and suffer gladly all that we can in the faith of Christ, and yet
account ourselves in all things unprofitable servants, and only
through Christ alone think ourselves able to go to God. For the

1 Fol. 104. Denifle- Weiss, l2, p. 465, n. 1 ; " Schol. to Rom.,"
p. 44. Cp. the passage fol. 152 Denifle-Weiss, l2, p. 527, n. 1 ; " Schol.
to Rom.," p. 121, where Luther's addition, omitted by Denifle, sums
up everything : " Ideo omnes in iniquitate id est iniustitia nascimur,
morimur, sola autem reputatione miserentis Dei per fidem verbi eius
iusti sumus."

JUSTIFICATION DOUBTFUL 97

object of works of faith is to make us worthy of Christ and of the
refuge and protection of His righteousness."1 With this is con-
nected Luther's insistence on the necessity of invoking God's
grace in order that we may be able to fight against our passions
and to bring forth good works, and in order that the passions,
which in themselves are sin, may not be imputed by God. 2 Thus
can "the body of sin be destroyed " and the " old man over-
come."3 Luther admits, though with hesitation and in contra-
diction with himself, works which prepare us for justification.4

In spite of everything, in this first stage of his develop-
ment, justification appears to him uncertain. He declares
in so many words : " We cannot know whether we are
justified and whether we believe"; and he can only add
rather lamely : "we must look upon our works as works
of the Law and be, in humility, sinners, hoping only to be
justified through the mercy of Christ."5 He has no " joyful
assurance of salvation "■ — which, in fact, had no place

1 Fol. 159. " Schol. to Rom.," p. 132, where he reproves those
" qui nimium securi incedunt per Christum, non per /idem, quasi sic
per Christum salvandi sint, ut ipsi nihil operentur, nihil exhibeant de
fide. Hi nimiam habent fidem, immo nullam. Quare utrumque fieri
oportet ' per fidem,'' ' per Christum,'' ut in fide Christi, omnia, quae
possumus, faciamus atque patiamur ; et tamen Us omnibus servos inutiles
nos agnoscamus, per Christum solum sufficientes nos confidamus ad
accessum Dei. Omnibus enim operibus fidei id agitur, ut Christo et
iustitice eius refugio ac protectione digni efficiamur."

2 Fol. 190. Denifle-Weiss, l2, p. 518, n. 1 ; " Schol. Rom.," p.
165 f.

3 Fol. 173. "Schol. Rom.," p. 156, he says of the text: " ut
destruatur corpus peccati " (Rom. vi. 6) : " Destrui corpus peccati est
concupiscentias carnis et veteris hominis frangi laboribus poznitentioz
et crucis, ac sic de die in diem minui eas ac mortificari, ut Col. iii. (v. 5).
' Mortificate membra vestra, quaz sunt super terram.' Sicut ibidem
clarissime describit utrunque hominem novum et veterem."

4 Fol. 100 and 100'. " Schol. Rom.," p. 38 f. ; Denifle-Weiss,
l2, p. 44, n. 1, where, however (line 9), the Vatican copy reads rightly
" potuit," not " oportuit " ; line 11 should read " summum ens, quod."
Both are correct in Ficker. The words " legem impleverunt," line 15,
really belong to another passage.

5 Fol. 132'. To supplement the quotation (Denifle-Weiss, 1,
p. 468), which is incompletely quoted, I have taken from the Vatican MS.
(Ficker, " Scholia to Rom.," p. 89) the following : " Qui autem sic
timuerit et humiliter confessus fuerit, dabitur ei gratia ut iustificetur
et dimittatur peccatum, si quid forte per occultam et ignoratam incredu-
litatem fecerit. Sic lob verebatur omnia opera sua. Et Apostolus non
sibi conscius fuit, et tamen non in hoc se iustificatum putat. Ac per hoc
soli Christo iustitia relinquitur, soli ipsi opera gratice et spiritus ; nos
autem semper in operibus legis, semper iniusti, semper peccatores,
secundum illud Ps. xxxi. (v. 6) : ' Pro hac orabit ad te omnis
sanctus.' " There follows an invective against the proud man : "qui
se credere putat et omnem fidem possidere perfected '

98 LUTHER THE MONK

whatever in the new teaching as expounded by Luther
himself' — and its name is always drowned by the loud cry
of sin. Even saints, on account of the sin which still clings
to them, do not know whether they are pleasing to God.
If they are well advised, they beg solely for the forgiveness
of their sin which lies like lead on their conscience. " That
is," the mystic explains, " the wisdom which is hidden in
secret" (** abscondita in mysterio"), because our righteous-
ness " being entirely dependent on God's decree remains
unknown to us." x

Luther cannot assure us sufficiently often that man is
nothing but sin, and sins in everything. His reason is that
concupiscence remains in man after baptism. This con-
cupiscence he looks upon as real sin, in fact it is the original
sin, enduring original sin, so that original sin is not removed
by baptism, remains obdurate to all subsequent justifying
grace,2 and, until death, can, at the utmost, only be
diminished. He says expressly, quite against the Church's
teaching, that original sin is only covered over in baptism,
and he tries to support this by a misunderstood text from
Augustine and by misrepresenting Scholasticism.3

Augustine teaches with clearness and precision in many
passages that original sin is blotted out by baptism and entirely
remitted ;4 Luther, however, quotes him to the opposite effect.
The passage in question occurs in De nuptiis et concupiscentia
(1., c. xxv., n. 28) where Luther makes this Father say : sin
{peccatum) is forgiven in baptism, not so that it no longer remains,
but that it is no longer imputed.5 Whereas what Augustine
actually says is : the concupiscence of the flesh is forgiven, etc.
(" dimitti concupiscentiam carnis non ut non sit, sed ut in peccatum
non imputetur "). And yet Luther was acquainted with the true
reading of the passage — which is really opposed to his view — as
he had annotated it in the margin of the Sentences of Peter
Lombard, where it is correctly given. 6 Luther, after having thus

1 Fol. 154. " Scholia Rom.," p. 124. The saints begged for for-
giveness because in them " peccatum manifestum est cum ipsis, apud
8e ipsos et in conscientia sua. . . . Ne desperent misericordiam in
Christo invocant et ita exaudiuntur. Hcec est sapientia abscondita in
mysterio.'''' He concludes : our righteousness is unknown to us, "quia
in ipso et consilio eius (Dei) tota pendet."

2 Passages in Denifle- Weiss, l2, p. 470 ff. ; p. 482 ff. Cp. p. 442 ff.

3 Fol. 144'. Denifle- Weiss, l2, p. 455, n. 4, and p. 482, n. 3 ; " Schol.
Rom.," p. 108 ff.

4 Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 457 ff.

6 " Scholia to Rom.," p. 109.
6 " Werke," Weim, ed., 9, p. 75,

HIS MISAPPREHENSIONS 99

twisted the passage as above, employs if frequently later.1 In
the original lecture on the Epistle to the Romans he has, it is
true, added to the text, after the word " peccatum," the word
" concupiscentia," as the new editor points out, in excuse of
Luther.2 But on the preceding page Luther adds in exactly the
same way in two passages of his own text where he speaks of
" peccatum," the word " concupiscentia," so that his addition to
Augustine cannot be regarded as a mere correction of a false
citation, all the less since the incorrect form is found unaltered
elsewhere in his writings.3

As regards Scholasticism, Luther holds that its teaching on
original sin was very faulty, because it " dreamt " that original
sin, like actual sin, was entirely removed (by baptism).4 This is
one of his first attacks on a particular doctrine of Scholasticism,
his earlier opposition having been to Scholasticism in general.
The blame he here administers presupposes the truth of his view
that concupiscence and original sin come under the same category,
and that the former is culpable. Almost all the Scholastics had
made the essence of original sin to consist in the loss of original
justice, whilst allowing that its " materiale," as they called it,
lay in concupiscence, so that without any "dream" it was quite
easy to conceive of original sin as blotted out, while the
"materiale" or " fomes peccati" or concupiscence remained.5
Other examples of how Luther, partly owing to his ignorance of
true Scholasticism, came to bring the most glaring charges
against that school, will be given later.

Actual sins remain, according to Luther, even after
forgiveness, for they- too are only covered over. Formerly,
it is true, he admits having believed that repentance and
the sacrament of penance removed everything (" omnia
ablata putabam et evacuata, etiam intrinsece"), and therefore
in his madness he had thought himself better after confession
than those who had not confessed.6 "Thus I struggled
with myself, not knowing that whilst forgiveness is certainly
true, yet there is no removal of sin."

1 Thus '; Werke," Weim. ed., 2, pp. 414 and 731 ; 4, p. 691 ;
7, pp. 110 and 344 ; 8, p. 93. " Werke," Erl. ed., 15, p. 54 ; 16, p.
141 ; 63, p. 131 ; " Tischreden," ed. Forstemann, 2, p. 42 ; 4, p.
391 ; etc. Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 461. He may in time have come to believe
the words were really Augustine's.

2 Ficker, p. xli. and xxix.

3 Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 457 ff., on the whole question ; he also points
out two other falsifications of Augustine's views committed by Luther.

4 "Schol. Rom.," p. 108.

5 Cp. Denifle, 1, pp. 458, 502 ff.

6 Fol. 144'. Denifle-Weiss, l2, p. 455, n. 4 ; " Schol. Rom.," p. 109.
The continuation of this passage, which is not without importance, is :
" Ita mecum pugnavi, nesciens quod remissio quidem vera sit, sed tamen
non sit ablatio 'peccati"

100 LUTHER THE MONK

Not only does real sin continue to dwell in man through
concupiscence, but, according to a further statement of
Luther, the keeping of God's law is impossible to man.
" As we cannot keep God's commandments we are really
always in unrighteousness, and therefore there remains
nothing for us but to fear and to beg for remission of the
unrighteousness, or rather that it may not be imputed,
for it is never altogether remitted, but remains and requires
the act of non-imputation.1

But how, then, he must have asked himself in following
out the train of thought of his new system, if, owing to the
depravity of human nature as the result of original sin
there remains in man no freedom in the choice of good ?
" Where does the freedom of the will come in ? " he asks,
as it follows from the Apostle's teaching that " the keeping
of the law is simply impossible " (" scepius dixi, simpliciter
esse impossibile legem implere? ").2 He hesitates, it is true,
to deny free will, but only for a moment, and then tells us
boldly that the will has been robbed of its freedom (of
choosing) good. " Had I said this, people would curse me,"
but, according to him, it is St. Paul who advocates the
doctrine that without grace there is no freedom of the will
in the choice of good which can please God.3 Here we have
a foretaste of the doctrine Luther was to express at the
Leipzig disputation and elsewhere, viz. that the freedom
of the will for good is merely a name (" res de solo titulo "),4
and of that later terrible thesis of his that free will in general
is dead (" liberum arbitrium est mortuum"),* a thesis he
defended more particularly against Erasmus.

The young Monk was thus prepared to admit all the
consequences of his new ideas, whereas the Apostle Paul,
more particularly in his Epistle to the Romans, recognises

1 Fol. 153'. " Sehol. Rom.," p. 124 : " Igitur ex quo Dei prceceptum
implere non possumus ac per hoc semper iniusti merito sumus, nihil
restat, [quam] ut iudicium semper timeamus et pro remissione iniustitice,
immo pro nonimputatione oremus ; quia nunquam remittitur omnino,
sed manet et indiget non imputatione." Of the true Catholic doctrine,
re the inability of man and God's grace, Denifle treats very well (1,
pp. 416-27).

2 Fol. 193. Denifle- Weiss, l2, p. 508, n. 1 ; " Schol. Rom.," p. 183.

3 Ibid.

4 J. Kostlin, "Luthers Theologie," l2, p. 215. Cp. 2, p. 124.

5 Denifie-Weiss, l2, p. 509 ; Kostlin, 22, p. 50, quotes, amongst
others, Luther's later thesis that mere human reason can only take
for good what is evil.

"DOING GOOD WE SIN" 101

the ability of man for natural goodness, and speaks of the
law of nature in the heathen world and the possibility and
actuality of its observance. " They do by nature the things
of the law " (Rom. ii. 14). Luther will only allow that they
do such things by means of grace, and the word grace again
he uses merely for the grace of justification. His opinion
with regard to the virtues of the heathen sages is noteworthy.
He says that the philosophers of olden time had to be
damned, although they may have been virtuous from their
very inmost soul (" ex animo et medullis "), because they
had at least experienced some self-satisfaction in their
virtue, and, in consequence of the sinfulness of nature,
must necessarily have succumbed to sinful love of self.1
Not long after, i.e. as early as 1517, he declares in his MS.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews their virtues
to be merely vices (" revera sunt villa").2

But what place is given to the virtues of the righteous
in Christianity ? "As even the righteous man is depraved
by sin he cannot be inwardly righteous without the mercy
of God. ... In the believers and in those who sigh un-
righteousness is absent only because Christ comes to their
assistance with the fulness of His sinlessness, and covers
over their imperfections."3 Even when we " do good, we
sin " (" bene operando peccamus "), so runs his paradoxical
thesis ; " but Christ covers over what is wanting and does
not impute it." And why do we always sin in doing good ?
" Because owing to concupiscence and sensuality we do
not perform the good with the intensity and purity of
intention which the law demands, i.e. not with all our might
(' ex omnibus viribus,' Luke x. 27), the desires of the flesh
being too strong."4 The Church, on the other hand, teaches
that good works done in the state of sanctifying grace are
pleasing to God in spite of concupiscence, which, it is true,
remains after baptism and after the blotting out of original

1 Fol. 77. Denifie, l2 " Quellenbelege," p. 313 ; " Schol. Rom.,"
p. 1.

2 Fol. 75'. Vatican MS. of Commentary on Hebrews ; Denifle-
Weiss, l2, p. 528, n. 2.

3 Fol. 153'. "Rom. Schol.," p. 123 : in the continuation of passage
quoted by Denifie- Weiss, l2, p. 503, n. 5: " Non potest intus sine
misericordia Dei iustus esse, quum sit fomite corruptus. . . . Quce
iniquitas non invenitur in credentibus et gementibus quia succurit eis
Christus de plenitudine puritatis suoe et tegit eorum hoc imperfectum."

4 Fol. 153. Denifie- Weiss, l2, p. 503, n. 5 ; " Schol. Rom.," p. 123.

102 LUTHER THE MONK

sin which ensued, but which is not sinful so long as there is
no consent to its enticements.

As regards the distinction between mortal and venial
sin, we find Luther's doctrine has already reached its later
standpoint, according to which there is no difference between
them. In the same way he already denies the merit of good
works. " It is clear," he writes, " that according to sub-
stance and nature venial sin does not exist, and that there
is no such thing as merit."1 All sins, in his opinion, are
mortal, because even the smallest contains the deadly
poison of concupiscence. With regard to merit, according
to him, even " the saints have no merit of their own, but
only Christ's merits."2 Even in their actions the motive
of perfect love was not sufficiently lively. " If it might be
done unpunished and there were no expectation of reward,
then even the good man would omit the good and do evil
like the bad."3

With this pessimistic view of Luther's we conclude our
preliminary glance at the theological goal to which his
development had led him. We will not at present pursue
further the theme of pessimism which might be brought out
more clearly in the light of the doctrine contained in his
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans regarding
absolute predestination to hell, and resignation to hell as
the highest act of virtue.4 All the new doctrines we have
passed in review may be regarded as forerunners of the great
revolution soon to come ; we see here in these questions
of doctrine the utter lack of respect and the boldness which
the originator of this revolutionary theology will, later on,
manifest against the Church, when it became clear that,
without being untrue to herself, she could not approve his
teaching. Meanwhile the connection of these doctrines
among themselves and with the coming world-historic
movement calls for further elucidation. We need offer no
excuse for attempting this in detail in the following pages.

1 Fol. 153. " Schol. Rom.," p. 123 : " Patet quod nullum est
peccatum veniale ex substantia et natura sua sed nee meritum."

2 Fol. 153'. " Schol. Rom.," p. 124 : " Diets, ut quid ergo merita
sanctorum adeo prosdicantur. JRespondeo, quod non sunt eorum merita,
sed Christi in eis."

3 Fol. 121, 121'; Denifle-Weiss, l2, p. 453; "Schol. Rom.,"
p. 73 f.

4 On Predestination see below, chapter vi. 2.

LUTHER RESEARCH 103

The history of Luther's development has passed into the
foreground of literary interest by reason of the works
which have appeared within the last few years, and, owing
to the numerous sources and particular studies recently
published, the historian is now in the fortunate position of
being able to offer a sure solution of much that has hitherto
been doubtful on a subject which has always exercised,
and doubtless will continue to exercise, people's minds.

CHAPTER III

THE STARTING-POINT

1. Former Inaccurate Views

The views formerly current with regard to the origin of
Luther's struggle against the old Church were due to an
insufficient knowledge of history, and might be ignored
were it not that their after effects still remain in literature.

It will be sufficient to mention three of these views. It
was said that the Church's teaching on Indulgences, and
the practices of the Qua?stors or Indulgence-preachers,
first brought Luther into antagonism with the Church
authorities and then gradually entangled him more and
more in the great struggle regarding other erroneous teach-
ings and usages. As a matter of fact, the question of In-
dulgences was raised only subsequent to Luther's first great
departures from the Church's doctrine.

Then it was said that the far-seeing teacher of Wittenberg
had from the very first directed his attention to the reforma-
tion of the whole Church, which he found sunk in abuses,
and had therefore commenced with a doctrinal reform as
a necessary preliminary. As though Luther- — this is what
this childish view presupposes- — had before him from the
beginning the plan of his whole momentous work, or sat
down to draw up a general programme for the reforma-
tion of doctrine, commencing with the fall of Adam. We
are to believe that the Monk at once severed all connecting
ties with the whole of the past, in faith as well as in the
practical conception of the Church's life ; that he went
through no previous long inward process, attended for him
by a weary conflict of soul ; that, in fact, such a world-
stirring revolution had been dependent on the will of one
man, and was not the result of the simultaneous action of
many factors which had, at the outset, been ignored and not
taken into consideration. The whole struggle for the " better-

104

THE STARTING-POINT 105

ment of the Church " was a gradual development, and the
co-operating elements led their originator, both in his
teaching and his practical changes, far beyond what he
had originally aimed at. When Luther, brooding over
original sin, grace and justification, first began to set up
his new ideas against the so-called self-righteous and " little
Saints " of his immediate surroundings, he did, it is true,
now and again speak excitedly of the reforms necessary
to meet certain phases of the great decline in the public
life of the Church ; but the Doctor of Holy Scripture was,
as a matter of fact, far more preoccupied with the question
of the theology of Paul and Augustine than with the abuses
in the Church and outer world, which were, to tell the truth,
very remote from the Monk's cell and lecture-room.

The third view is also incorrect which has it that it was
rivalry between two Orders, viz. dissatisfaction and envy
on the part of the Augustinians against the Dominicans,
which set the Monk on his career. The Augustinians, it
was said,1 were annoyed with the rival Order because the
preaching of the Indulgence had been entrusted to its
members and not rather to so capable a man as Luther.
Notwithstanding the early date at which this charge was
made, even by Luther's own contemporaries, the fact
remains, that not only were there Augustinian Indulgence-
preachers, as, for instance, Johann Paltz, but that Luther's
erroneous teaching had already made its appearance before
he had as yet commenced his struggle with Tetzel, and
before he had even thought of the Dominicans Prierias and
Cardinal Cajetan. Jealousy against his adversaries, the
Dominicans, afterwards added fuel to the flame, but it was
not the starting-point.

Moreover, in treating here of Luther's starting-point,
we are not seeking to determine, as was the case with the

1 Assertions in this sense lightly made by Cochlseus and Emser
were accepted as true by later writers, such as Cardinal Stanislaus
Hosius in his " Confutatio prolegomenorum Brentii " ; thus the legend
finds acceptance even among recent polemics. Emser only said,
" he was now beginning to suspect " that Luther had come forward
because there was " nothing to be made out of the indulgence business
for you (Luther) or your party, and because Tetzel and his followers
instead of your party were entrusted with the indulgence business."
" A venatione Luteriana JEgocerotis assertio," fol. c, November, 1519.
Cochlseus meant his accusation rather more seriously, but brings
forward no proofs.

106 LUTHER THE MONK

three views mentioned above, the origin and points of
contact of the whole movement comprised under the name
of the Reformation, but only of the first rise of Luther's
new opinions on doctrine. These originated quite apart
from any attempt at external reform of the Church, and
were equally remote from the idea of breaking away from
the Pope or of proclaiming freedom of belief or unbelief,
though many have fancied that these were Luther's first
aims.

Points of contact have been sought for not only in
Humanism and its criticism of Church doctrine, but more
particularly in the teaching and tenets of Hus, Luther's
starting-point being traced back to his deep study of the
writings of John Hus, which had ultimately led him to
revive his errors ; most of Luther's theses, so we are told,
were merely a revival of Hus's teaching. This view calls
for a closer examination than the others.

A priori we might easily fancy that he had been led to
his teaching on the Church by means of the writings of
Wiclif and Hus, for here we do find a great similarity. But
it is precisely this teaching on the Church which is not to
be found amongst his earlier errors ; he reached his views
on this subject only as a result of the conflict he had to
wage, and, moreover, even then he brought them forward
under varying aspects. Erasmus, it is true, thought it
fair to say, not merely of his teaching on the Church, but
of his teaching in general, that if " what he has in common
with Wiclif and Hus be removed, there would not be much
left."1 Erasmus does not analyse Luther's assertions,
otherwise he would certainly have experienced some diffi-
culty in bringing out in detail his supposed dependence.
We do not, however, deny that there may be some con-
nection on certain points.

Luther himself is absolutely silent as regards having
arrived at his ideas through Wiclif and Hus. He evidently
considers himself quite independent. In his earlier years
he even speaks very strongly against the Bohemian heretics
and the Picards, as he frequently calls the Husites. In his

1 " Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam Lutheri," 1532, p. 447, in
" Erasmi Opp." t. 10, Lugd., Batav., 1706, p. 1555 : "Si tollas . . .
quce illi conveniunt cum I. Hus et I. Wiclevo aliisque nonnullis, fortassc
non multum restabit, quo veluti proprio glorietur."

LUTHER ON HUS 107

Commentary on the Psalms he regards them simply as
heretics,1 and in his lectures on the Epistle to the Romans
he once instances the " hccresis Pighardorum " as an example
of the wilful destruction of what is holy.2 Later, however,
at and after his public apostasy, and even shortly after the
Leipzig Disputation, he defends some of Hus's doctrines,
and the result of his perusal of Hus's work, " De ecclesia"
was to make him more audacious in upholding the views
it contains.3 This quite explains the great sympathy with
which he afterwards speaks of Hus and his writings in
general, and the passionate way in which he blames the
Catholic Church for having condemned him. He says in
1520 : "In many parts of the German land there still
survives the memory of John Hus, and, as it did not fade,
I also took it up, and discovered that he was a worthy,
highly enlightened man. . . . See, all ye Papists and
Romanists," he cries, " whether you are able to undo one
page of John Hus with all y our writings."4 That book
of Hus's sermons which he found as a young student of
theology in the monastery library at Erfurt (p. 25), he
declares that he laid aside because it was by an arch-
heretic, though he had found much good in it, and had been
horrified that such a man had suffered death as a heretic ;
as he had at that time convinced himself, Hus interpreted
Scripture powerfully and in a Christian manner.5 We also
know that Luther relates that Staupitz had told him of
Proles, his predecessor, how he disapproved of Johann
Zacharirc, one of the most capable opponents of Hus, and

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 3, pp. 292, 334. Cp. W. Kohler, " Luther
und die Kirchengesch.," (1900), p. 168 f.

2 " Schol. Rom.," p. 315.

3 W. Kohler, ibid., p. 225 : " In his acquaintance with the sources
Luther hardly rises above the average. Eck is superior to him in this
point, for he deals with the various sources as an expert, which Luther
never was. Emser also was not behind Luther . . . that Luther
became acquainted with Hus's ' De Ecclesia ' at an earlier period than
his friends and adversaries was due to the kindness of the Bohemians,
not to his own zeal in research. His friends as well as his adversaries
made haste to catch up with him again."

* "Concerning Eck's latest Bulls." "Werke," Erl. ed., 242, p. 28;
Weim. ed., 6, p. 591. Cp. Luther's "Prefaces and epilogues to some
letters of Hus" (1536 and 1537), " Werke," Erl. ed., 65, p. 59 ff., and
" Opp. Lat. var.," 7, p. 536 &eq.

5 " Werke," Erl. ed., 65, p. 81. See W. Kdhler, ibid., p. 167 :
" We may well ask here whether the experience of later years does
not come in as well."

108 LUTHER THE MONK

that Staupitz had agreed : the latter also held that " Zach-
ariae had gone to the devil, but that Hus had been unfairly
treated."1 This opinion reinforces that of Grefenstein,
mentioned above.2 Nor does Luther, when speaking of his
later development, ever admit having read Hus and other
heretical books, or being in any way indebted to them. On
the other hand, he tries always to place himself above Hus.
What Hus, according to him, discovered was quite insig-
nificant ("minora et pandora"); he only commenced bringing
the light which had in reality to come from him (Luther).3
He only " reproved the abuses and the life of the Pope," he
says on a later occasion, " but I put the knife to his throat,
I oppose his existence and his teaching and make him
merely equal to other bishops ; that I did not do at first,"4
i.e. I did not commence that way. It is certainly true that
at the beginning he made no attempt to oppose the Papacy
and the power of the Church.

At any rate, and this is what is most true in the above
statements regarding Luther's connection with Hus, the
feeling against Rome which Hus had stirred up, and the
memory of the latter, proved of assistance to Luther when
he came forward and brought him a speedier success ;
he himself says on one occasion : " It is a tradition among
honest people that Hus suffered violence and injustice,"
and calls the belief that Hus was condemned by false
judges " robustissima," so that no Pope, or Kaiser or
University can shake it.5

Protestant biographers, as is well known, are fond of
representing the inward process through which Luther
went in the monastery, agreeably with his own descriptions
in later years.6 Unable to find peace of conscience and
assurance of salvation in the " works "of his monastery
life or of the Papacy, his one aim had been to arrive at the
knowledge of a " merciful God," and for this purpose he had
been obliged to unearth in Holy Scripture the long-forgotten

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 65, p. 80 f. ; 242, p. 27 f. ; Weim. ed., 6,
p. 590 f.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 6, p. 591. See above, p. 25.

3 Kohler, " Luther und die Kirchengesch.," p. 226, and " Opp.
Lat. var.," 5, p. 216.

4 " Coll.," ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 240 f.

5 Cp. Kohler, p. 165 f., from " Werke," Weim. ed., 6, p. 185 ;
ibid., p. 223 : " It is certain that Luther had read nothing of Wiclif's."

6 " Werke," Erl. ed., 192, p. 152.

ON THE MONASTIC LIFE 109

doctrine of justification by faith. Some Protestant writers
dwell not so much upon his longing for certainty of salvation
as upon his desire for virtue and true righteousness. " Oh,
when wilt thou become pious and do enough?"1 Others
again complete the picture by laying stress upon his recogni-
tion of the concupiscence which is always reigning in man
and which is sin, and of man's inability to keep the com-
mandments ; it was his recognition of this which " produced
Luther's theology ; his whole doctrine of justification
culminated in the warfare against sin." All these de-
scriptions are, however, based on an uncritical acceptance
of Luther's later accounts of his life in religion, accounts
plainly inspired by his polemic against the old Church,
and intended to illustrate his false assertion that, in the
cloister and in the Papacy, the way to obtain grace from
God was utterly unknown.

Here we will mention only cursorily some of Luther's later
statements, purporting to give a picture of his life as a monk.

To these belong the assertion that in the monastery he had not
prayed with faith in Christ, because " no one knew anything "
about Christ : that there the Saviour was known only as a strict
Judge, and that he had therefore wished there were no Saviour :
" I wished there had been no God." " None of us " believed at
all that Christ was our Saviour, and, by dint of works, we " lost
our baptism." We were always told : " Torment yourself in the
monastery . . . whip yourself until you destroy your own sin ;
that was the teaching and faith of the Pope."2 " It was a cursed
life, full of malignity, was the life of that monkery."3

The apostate monk's object in all those statements regarding
his interior or exterior experiences in the monastery was to strike
at the Catholic Church.

We certainly cannot accept as historic the picture of religious
practice, or malpractice, given in the following : whenever his
eyes fell upon a figure of Christ, owing to his popish upbringing,
he " would have preferred to see the devil rather than Christ " ; he
had thought " that he had been raised to the company of angels,"
but found he had really been " among devils " ; he had " raged "
in his search for comfort in Holy Scripture ; he had also con-
tinuously suffered " a very great martyrdom and the task-
mastership " of his conscience. " Self-righteousness " only had

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 192, p. 152.

2 Denifle has shown from a large number of passages which Luther
knew, that the Church at that time represented " God the Lord always
as a merciful and gracious God, not as the stern judge " whom it was
necessary "to propitiate by works" (Denifle, l2, p. 400 ff., pp. 420,

3 " Werke," Erl. ed., 49, p. 315.

110 LUTHER THE MONK

counted for anything ; so great was it that he had been taught
not to thank God for the Sacrament, but that God should thank
him ; but, notwithstanding all these errors, he had always sought
after a " merciful God " and had at last found Him by coming
to understand His gospel.

The birth and growth of this fable in the mind of Luther as
he advanced in years will occupy us later. The present writer
may point out, that no convincing answer has been given to the
objections against the legend which he made public even prior
to the appearance of Denine's first volume,1 and which were
repeated therein independently, and at considerably greater
length. On the Protestant side, too, much more caution is now
being observed in the use of Luther's later descriptions of his own
development, the tendency being to use contemporary sources
instead. This is seen, for instance, in the studies by Braun on
Luther's theory of concupiscence and by Hunzinger on Luther's
mysticism, which will be quoted later.

In explanation of the inner process through which Luther
went, the primary reason for his turning away from Catholic
doctrine has been attributed by some Catholics to scrupu-
losity combined with an unhealthy self-righteousness, which
by an inward reaction grew into carelessness and despair.
How far this view is correct, and how far it requires to be
supplemented by other important factors, will be shown
further on.

Meanwhile another altogether too summary theory, a
theory which overshoots the mark, must first be considered.

2. Whether Evil Concupiscence is Irresistible ?

Formerly, and even in recent times, many writers on
the Catholic side have endeavoured to prove that the
principal motive for Luther's new opinions lay in worldli-
ness, sensuality, and more especially sins of the flesh. In
order to explain his teaching attempts were made to establish
the closest connection between Luther's views with regard
to the survival of sin in man without his consent, the
covering over of man's guilt by the merits of Christ and the
worthlessness of good works on the one hand, and on the
other a nature ravaged by sinful habits, such as was attri-
buted to the originator of these doctrines. The principal
argument in favour of this view was found in the not unusual

1 "Literar. Beilage" to the "Koln. Volksztg.," No. 44, October 29,
1903. " Luthers Selbstzeugnisse iiber seine Klosterzeit, eine Luther-
legende."

ALLEGED MORAL PERVERSION 111

experience that intellectual errors frequently arise from
moral faults. When, however, we come to examine Luther's
character more narrowly, we at once perceive that other
factors must be taken into consideration in his inward
change, so that, in his case, it is not easy to decide how far
his new ideas were produced under the pressure of his own
sensuality. It was taken for granted that, owing to habitual
moral faults, and through constant indulgence in the
concupiscence of the flesh, he had been reduced to a state
of utter inward degradation. Now, in point of fact, beyond
what has been already quoted nothing can be found re-
garding his moral conduct previous to his change of view.
No other circumstances are known concerning Luther than
those already mentioned and those to be given later.
It is true that historj^ does not possess the all-seeing eye
of Him who searches the heart and the reins; the sources
containing information concerning the youth of Luther,
before and after his profession, are also very inadequate ;
nevertheless, we must admit that the only arguments upon
which the assertion of his great inward corruption could
historically be based, namely, actual texts and facts capable
of convincing anyone, are not forthcoming in the material
at our command.1

1 Various passages which are supposed to prove Luther's moral
faults, or defects in his character, have simply been passed over in
the above as insufficient. Thus what he says regarding his state in
the monastery : " Even where it was only a question of a small tempta-
tion of death or sin, I fell " (" Werke," Erl. ed., 31, p. 279). This
" fall," according to the context, does not refer to a yielding to the
attacks of evil desires, but the ostensible melting away of his trust in
a merciful God. It is quite apparent that " a temptation of death "
cannot be understood in the former, but only in the latter sense.
Luther once says that the doctrine that sin is expelled all at once and
that grace is infused also all at once in justification drives a man to
despair, as his own experience teaches ; for it is clear that sin dwells
in the heart together with good, anger with mildness, sensuality with
chastity (" Werke," Weim. ed., 4, p. 664 ; " Opp. Lat. var.," 1, p.
73 seq.) ; but he refers this whole explanation not to actual giving way
to concupiscence, but simply to the inevitable continuance of concu-
piscence in the righteous, which he, it is true, calls sin. We may also
mention here the text wrongly quoted in which, as a proof of his
haughty bearing, speaking of a certain theological interpretation, he
says : " legi mille auctores" though he was then but a young man
(" Werke," Weim. ed., 9, p. 62 ; gloss to the Sentences). What he
really says is : " lege mille auctores" i.e. you will not find it otherwise
in a thousand writers; the " legi " is only a misprint.

The statement which has been quoted as a proof of the self-deception
which his pride engendered in him, viz. that God had placed him in his

112 LUTHER THE MONK

If Luther did actually teach the fatal invincibility of
concupiscence (of this we shall have more to say later),
yet he might well have arrived at this view by some other
way than that of constant falls and the abiding experience
of his own weakness and sinfulness. It is at least certain
that sad personal experience is not the only thing which
gives rise to grave errors of judgment.

Nor does the manner in which Luther represents concu-
piscence prove his own inward corruption. He does not
make it to consist merely in the concupiscence of the flesh,
and when he says that it is impossible to conquer concu-
piscence he is not thinking merely of this. When he speaks
of concupiscence, and of a " fomes peccati " in man, he
usually means concupiscence in the wide theological sense,
i.e. as the attraction to every transgression which flatters
our imperfect and evil nature, in particular to selfishness,
as the centre around which clusters all that is sinful- — pride,
hatred, sensuality, etc.

Luther certainly teaches, even at the outset, as we shall
point out later, that the will of man, by Adam's Fall, has
lost in our ruined nature even the power to work anything
that is good or pleasing to God, and therefore that it is
impossible for man, in his own strength, to withstand sin
and its lusts.

But he does not bring forward this doctrine under cir-
cumstances and in words which give us to understand that
he was guided by the intention of showing any indulgence to
concupiscence ; on the contrary, he would like to encourage
everyone to oppose concupiscence by means of grace and
faith. Numerous texts might be quoted which clearly show
this to have been the case.

In what sense then does he allow the irresistibility of
concupiscence ? We shall find the answer in what follows.

office as one quite " invincible," rests on a similar misprint. Instead
of " invictissimum," as in Enders (" Briefwechsel," 1, p. 21), we should
read " invilissimum," according to W. Walther's correct rendering,
and the idea is one which often recurs in Luther, viz. that God had
called him to the office in spite of his disinclination. Nor can his want
of the spirit of prayer be proved by his statement that he often followed
the office with so much distraction that " the Psalm or the Hour
(Hore) was ended before I noticed whether I was at the beginning or
in the middle" (" Werke," Erl. ed., 23, p. 22). If he were speaking
of voluntary inattention, that would be something different, but the
imagination of one so much occupied as he was might well be greatly
distracted quite unintentionally.

ON CONCUPISCENCE 113

He frequently expresses the truth, taught by faith and
experience alike, regarding the continuance of concupiscence
in man, even in the most perfect, and he does so in terms
so strong that he seems to make concupiscence invincible.
We can also see that he has a lively sense of the burden of
concupiscence, that he cherishes a certain gloomy distrust
of God's readiness to come to man's assistance —a distrust
connected with his temptations on predestination —and
that he undervalues the helps which the Church offers
against evil desires. Finally, he sees in the very existence
of concupiscence a culpable offence against the Almighty,
and declares that, without grace, man is an unhappy
prisoner, who in consequence of original sin is in the fullest
sense incapable of doing what is good.

In his Commentary on the Psalms (1512-15-16) he still,
it is true, upholds the natural freedom of man as opposed
to his passions. In the Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans (1515-16), and frequently in the sermons of that
period, he indeed sacrifices this freedom, but even there he
insists that the grace of God will in the end secure the victory
to those who seek aid and pray humbly, and he also instances
some of the means which, with the efficacious assistance
of God, may help to victory in the religious life. To this
later standpoint of the possibility of resistance with the
assistance of grace he adhered to his end. Exhortations
to struggle not only against actual sins, but also against
the smouldering fire of concupiscence — which must be ex-
tinguished more and more in the righteous until at length
death sets him free — occupy many pages of his writings.
The jarring notes present in the above teaching do not seem
to have troubled him at any time ; he seeks to conceal them
and to pass them over. Never once does he enter upon a
real theological discussion of the most difficult point of all,
the relation of grace to free will.

Luther also speaks of our freedom and our responsibility for
our personal salvation in his Commentary on the Psalms : " My
soul is in my own keeping ; by the freedom of my will I can
make it eternally happy or eternally unhappy by choosing cr
rejecting Thy law." Therefore Psalm cxviii. 109 says, " My
soul is always in my hands," and although I am free to do either,
yet I have not " forgotten Thy law."1 He defends the principle

1 "Werke," Weim. ed., 4, p. 295. Cp. ibid., 9, p. 112, Luther's
marginal note on Anselm's " 0'puscula,'n which has the same meaning.
Denifle- Weiss, l2, p. 507, n, 3.
I.— I »

114 LUTHER THE MONK

of the theologians, that God does not refuse His grace to him
who does his best (" facienti quod est in se, Deus non denegat
gratiam").1 He teaches also that it is possible to prepare for
grace which is always at hand. 2

" Whoever keeps the law," he writes in the lectures on the
Epistle to the Romans, at a time when he had already denied the
freedom of the will for good, "is in Christ, and grace is given him
according as he has prepared himself for it to the best of his
power."3 Without grace man is, it is true, unable to do any-
thing that is good in God's sight, but " the law of nature is known
to everyone, and therefore no one is excusable " who does not
follow it and fight against evil.4 Grace, according to him, sets the
enslaved will in the righteous free again to work for his salvation.
" After he has received grace, he has been set free, at least to
work for his eternal salvation."5 This remarkable passage
together with its continuation will be considered later when we
deal more fully with the Commentary on Romans. We may
also draw attention to the fact, that in his Notes on Tauler's
sermons, written about the same time as the Commentary, quite
against the supposed utter inability of the will for good, he
acknowledges the natural inclination in man towards good — the
so-called Syntheresis, or moral good conscience.6

In his lectures on Romans he insists that, " by means of works
of penance and the cross," concupiscence must be fought against
without intermission, forced back and diminished ; " the body
of sin " must, according to the Apostle, be destroyed.7 Luther
must therefore certainly have regarded man as capable of resist-
ing his evil passions, at any rate with assistance from above.

Of his later statements it will suffice to mention the following :

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 4, p. 262 : " Recte dicunt Doclores, quod
homini facienti quod in se est infallibiliter dot gratiam et licet non de
condigno sese possit ad gratiam prceparare, quia est incomparabilis
(correct view of the supernatural) tamen bene de congruo propter pro-
missionem istam Dei et pactum misericordim.'''' The best Scholastics,
however, rightly questioned the " de congruo.'''' The proposition
" Facienti" etc., with " infallibiliter dat " instead of the usual " non
denegat " is nominalistic (Denifle, l1, p. 556 f. ; cp. pp. 407, 415).

2 Besides the former passage, see for " congrue se disponere," Weim.
ed., 4, p. 329. Though Luther emphasises at the same time the gratis
esse of grace, yet Loofs ("Dogmengesch.," 4, p. 700) is not altogether
wrong, having regard for Luther's nominalistic views, in saying: "we
must at least consider his opinion at that time as crypto-semi- Pelagian."
He is rightly indignant with Kostlin (" Luthers Theologie," 2 p. 67 f.)
for having "attempted to conform these passages with Luther's later
views."

3 Fol. 100. Denifle, l1, p. 414, n. 5; " Schol. Rom.," p. 38:
" per sui prceparationem ad eandem, quantum in se est.''''

4 Fol. 100. Denifle, l1, p. 414, n. 4; "Rom. Schol.," p. 37.

5 Fol. 212. Denifle-Weiss, 1, p. 508, n. 2 ; " Schol. Rom.," p. 212 :
" habita autem gratia, (arbitrium) proprie factum est liberum, saltern
respectu salutis."

6 " Werke," Weim. ed., 9, p. 103 ; Loofs, p. 708.

7 Cp. " Schol. Rom.," p. 107.

ON CONCUPISCENCE 115

" If I will not leave sin and become pious," he says of the struggle
against evil, "I may indeed strive to become the master, and
God's property, and to be free, but nothing will come of it."1
Or again : "As long as we live here, evil desires and passions
remain in us which draw us to sin, against which we must strive
and fight, as St. Peter says (1 Peter ii. 11 f.). We must therefore
always exercise ourselves and pray always and fight against sin
... as often as you feel yourself tempted to impatience, pride,
unchastity or other sins . . . you must forthwith think how
best to withstand these arrows, and beg the Lord Jesus that your
sin may not gain the upper hand and overcome you, but that it
may be conquered by His grace."2 " Do you wish to keep all the
commandments," he says later, "to be free from your evil
desires and from sin, as the commandments require and demand,
then see you believe in Christ."3

Further, if we consider those passages in Luther's earlier
writings alleged as proofs of his belief in the irresistibility of con-
cupiscence, we find that in every case they merely emphasise the
inevitable continuance of concupiscence in man, without in any
way implying the necessity of our acquiescing in the same, and
without excluding grace. In the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518
he says for instance, " Why do we hold concupiscence to te
irresistible ? Well, try and do something without the interference
of concupiscence. Naturally you cannot.. So then your nature
is incapable of fulfilling the law." 4 Elsewhere also Luther lays
much stress upon the indestructibility and the impossibility of
rooting out of man the smouldering fire of evil, the " fomes
peccati," though he is wrong in making this condition equivalent
to a culpable non-fulfilling of the law by man ; he is mistaken
not only in his common statement that man's evil inclination,
even though involuntary, is sinful in God's sight, that it is in
fact original sin, and that it would carry man to damnation were
God not to impute to him Christ's righteousness ; he also errs
by unduly magnifying the power of concupiscence, as though
the practice of virtue, prayer and the reception of the Sacraments
did not weaken it much more than he is willing to admit.

In 1515 he declares that evil concupiscence or sin " cannot
be removed from us by any counsel or work," and that "we all
recognise it to be quite invincible (" invincibilem esse concupis-
centiam penitus ") ;5 invincible, i.e. in the sense of ineradicable,

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 48, p. 388.

2 " Werke," Erl. ed., 15, p. 53 f.

3 Ibid., 27, p. 180 f. ; Weim. ed., 7, p. 24, Von der Freiheit eines
Christenmenschen, 1520.

4 " Werke." Weim. ed., 1, p. 374. See below, chapter viii. 3.

s « Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 35 ; " Opp. Lat. var.," 1, p. 64 :
" Si cognoscatur, quod nullis consiliis, nullis auxiliis nostris concupi-
scentia ex nobis possit auferri, et hcec contra legem est, quce dicit ' Non
concupisces ' et experimur omnes invincibilem esse concupiscentiam
penitus, quid restat, nisi ut sapientia carnis cesset et cedat, desperet in
semetipsa, pereat et humiliata aliunde qucerat auxilium, quod sibi
prcestare nequit ?

116 LUTHER THE MONK

for which reason, as he again repeats here, it must at least be
rendered innocuous by humble prayer for God's help. In spite of
the strong expression " invincibilis," and in spite of the com-
parison he makes elsewhere between the evil inclination and
Cerberus or Antreus,1 he does not go further here than in another
assertion in the Commentary on the Psalms which has also been
urged against him : " the passion of anger, pride, sensuality,
when it is aroused, is strong, yea invincible (' immo invincibilis'),
as experience teaches," i.e. it appears so to the person attacked
by it. He had just remarked that in such a case we must hope in
God and despair of ourselves. He describes in the strongest
terms, in the Commentary on the Psalms, the strength of con-
cupiscence in habitual sinners who are not accustomed to turn to
God's grace : " the sinner who is oppressed by vice, and feels the
devil and his body of sin forcing him to evil, allows the inner
voice to speak constantly against sin, and severely blames himself
in his conscience . . . reason and the moral sense, remnants left
over from the ruin of original sin, awaken in him and cry without
ceasing to the Lord, even though the will sins, forced thereto by
sin." 2 We repeat, that in his Commentary on the Psalms he does
not yet actually deny natural freedom in the doing of what is
good.

The view that man, without God's grace, is entirely
kicking in freedom with regard to his passions— a view
which, it is true, permeates Luther's Commentary on
Romans- — was not the starting-point of Luther's theological
development. It was the end of the first stage through
which he had passed. This doctrine reached later on its
culminating point in his book, "Be servo arbitrio" against
Erasmus. Here, at the head of his proofs, he openly
confesses himself a determinist, admitting that God has
decreed beforehand all man's actions ; any such deter-
minism is, however, wanting in his earlier life, nor is it to
be found in his Commentary on Romans; Luther does not
yet show himself to be led by determinist ideas. Even
in his work against Erasmus there are no forcible grounds
for attributing the origin of his new teaching to his inward
corruption. Therein he merely denies the freedom of the
will for good without grace, though he allows it to be free
in indifferent matters, a somewhat inconsistent theory
owing to the difficulty of determining exactly the limita-
tions of these indifferent things.

Neither the Commentary on the Psalms nor that on

1 In Comm. on Epistle to the Rom., fol. 167 ; quoted by Denifle-
Weiss, l2, p. 476, n. 2 ; " Schol. Rom.," p. 144 f.

2 "Werke," Weim. ed., 4, p. 207; 3, p. 535.

DISTASTE FOR GOOD WORKS 117

Romans gives us the impression of being the work of an
immoral man, a fact which should also carry some weight.
An author who at the first assault had capitulated to his
evil desires would hardly have been able to conceal his low
moral standard ; he would rather have been tempted to
join the Epicureans or the Sceptics, or the unbelieving
ranks of the Humanists. Of anything of the kind there is no
trace in the books last mentioned.

Their characteristic is rather- — there is no harm in men-
tioning it now- — a certain false spiritualism, a mysticism,
which, especially in the interpretation of the Epistle to
the Romans, frequently follows quite devious paths. In
consequence of his unceasing opposition to self-righteous-
ness, of his poor idea of God and of human strength, and
of his false mystical train of thought, Luther came to dismiss
human freedom and to set up the power of sin on the throne.
Aristotle's teaching regarding the natural righteousness
which arises from good actions is particularly distasteful
to Luther, and equally distasteful to the nominalistic
critic is the doctrine of supernatural righteousness through
infused sanctifying grace, which he prefers to replace by
the imputation of the merits of Christ.

3. The Real Starting-point and the Co-operating Factors

The real origin of Luther's teaching must be sought in
a fundamental principle which governed him, which was
fostered by the decline in his life as a religious and a priest,
and more particularly by his inordinate love of his own
opinion and by the uncharitable criticisms he passed upon
others. This was his unfavourable estimate of good works,
and of any effort, natural or supernatural, on the part of
man.

This opposition to a principle, common to the Church
and to monasticism, as to the necessity in which men
generally and religious in particular stand of performing
good works if they wish to please God, is the first deviation
from the right path which we notice in him. He called it
a fight against " holiness by works " and self-righteousness,
and in this fight he went still further. He made his own
the deadly error that man by his natural powers is unable
to do anything but sin. To this he added that the man who,

118 LUTHER THE MONK

by God's grace, is raised to justification through divinely
infused faith and trust must, it is true, perforin good works,
but that the latter are not to be accounted meritorious.
All works avail nothing as means for arriving at righteous-
ness and eternal salvation ; faith alone effects both. Not
at the outset, but gradually, did he make his antagonism to
good works the foundation of a doctrine built up under the
influence of a lively imagination, a powerful and undisci-
plined self-confidence and other factors which will be
mentioned below. In his controversy with the " holy by
works " he had exclaimed (p. 81) " there is no greater
pest in the Church to-day than those men who go about
saying c we must do good works.' " His real enemies were
soon the traditional Catholic belief and practice regarding
good works and personal activity in general ; he did not
confine himself to expressing his dissatisfaction with the
Observantines in his own Order or the possible excesses of
other supporters of outward works.

It is easy to recognise how this opposition to works runs
like a dark thread through the first beginnings of his teaching
of the new doctrine and onward through the whole course
of his life. We may here, starting at the commencement,
anticipate his history somewhat.

" At the first," so he says himself in later years, " my
struggle was against trust in works,"1 and this is confirmed
by the MS. Commentary on Romans which he commenced
in 1515 (see below, chap. vi. 3). The first occasion in his
correspondence in which he allows his new views to appear
is in 1516, in a recommendation to a friend that " he should
cultivate disgust with his own righteousness and despair
of himself," that this was better than to do as " those who
plague themselves with their works until they think they
are fit to stand in God's sight."2 He expresses himself in
a similar strain on self-righteousness in sermons preached
at this time.3

The same line of thought also appears in a paradoxical form,
as the basis of a disputation held at Wittenberg in 1510 under
his presidency. Man sins, so we find it said, " when he does what

1 Werke, Erl. ed., 58, p. 382 ; Table-Talk.

2 To George Spenlein, April 8, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 29 :
" anima tua, pertcesa propria?n iustitiam, discat in iustitia Christi
respirare atque confi&ere," etc. ; see above, p. 89.

3 See above, p. 83.

WORKS A SOURCE OF PRIDE 119

is in him" (" quod est in se"), and those who are " righteous in
their own eyes " by reason of their good works, i.e. all who do
not simply " despair of themselves," are condemned. This
ruling thought also pervades another disputation of one of his
pupils in 1517, where we read : " every good work must needs at
once make nature proud and puffed up," and " hope is not given
us by our merits, but by suffering [painful interior struggles],
which root out merit," x i.e. which destroy every feeling of self-
satisfaction grounded on merit. He tells one of his confidants in
the same year that his great aim was " to grant nothing to human
works, but to know only God's grace."2

In his first German work, printed in 1517, the Commentary on
the Seven Penitential Psalms, he opposes " all proud living
and work and righteousness " and bewails the " spiritual pride,
the last and deepest of all vices,"3 with which, according to him,
those are filled who seek for " safety and false consolation " in
their works instead of simply embracing the " word of grace."
He places works so much in the background in his teaching at
that time, that he brings forward this objection against himself,
whether, instead of always speaking of grace, he should not speak
more of " human righteousness, wisdom and strength." Instead
of defending himself he declares " a good life does not consist in
many works"; to feel oneself "a miserable, damned, forsaken
sinner " is better, even when God sends trouble of soul, which is
" a drop or foretaste of the pains of hell," and which renders the
human corpse quite ill and weak ; such suffering makes a man
like Christ who also bore the same.4

When in 1518 he published his Latin sermon on Penance, its
chief thesis was that man's part in his reconciliation with God
counted for nought ; we must despair in order to attain con-
trition, at least from the motive of fear of God ; we must merely
submit with faith to the action of grace. " Whoever trusts to
his contrition when receiving absolution, builds on the sand of
his works and is guilty of shameless presumption."5

He writes in the same year that blinded adversaries accuse
him of condemning good works, more especially that he dared to
declare war against rosaries, the Little Office, and other prayers,
and yet the sum of his sermon was only this : " that we must not
place our confidence in our own work."6

Thus the depreciation of works is the prevailing note, even in
his first public utterances ; this it also remains.

When he began his attack on religious vows, he supported his

1 " Disputation of Bartholomew Bernhardi " ; " Werke," Weim.
ed., p. 145 ff.

2 " Disputation of Franz Giinther " ; ibid., p. 224 ff., Nos. 37, 25.

3 To Johann Lang, March 1, 1517, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 88.
He will not be one : " qui arbitrio hominis nonnihil tribuit.'1''

4 The Seven Penitential Psalms ; " Werke," Weim. ed., 1,
p. 158 ff., especially pp. 1 GO, 201, 211, 213, 219. For "pains of hell"
cp. ibid., p. 557.

5 "Werke," Weim. ed., 1, pp. 319-24.

6 To Staupitz, March 31, 1518, " Brief wechsel," p. 175 f.

120 LUTHER THE MONK

campaign by preference on the ostensible worthlessness of human
works for obtaining merit in heaven ; vows were to be rejected
because the heart must not seek its stay in works,1 and in his
attacks on the celibacy of the clergy and religious, he again
declared that he was attacking the " false saints " who intrench
themselves behind the holiness of the works accomplished by
them in a state superior to that of family life, but that faith
makes all outward things free.2 This prejudice against works
is the principal feature in his polemics ; for instance, he explains
to King Henry VIII in a rejoinder directed against him that
the enemy he was called upon to overcome was the pestilential
doctrine of the necessity of appearing before God with works
(" velle per opera coram Deo agere), whereas works were good only
in the eyes of man.3 In season and out of season, he pours forth
his rage against the works in the Papacy with such words as these :
Away with masses, pilgrimages, Office in Choir, saint-worship,
cowls, virginity, confraternities, rules, and such-like, away with
" the lousy works " ;4 and so he preached to his very end in 1546. 5

It is not, however, sufficient to take as Luther's starting-
point his opposition to good works, though this always
remains the chief feature in his doctrine. Further fresh
light may be thrown on the enigmatical process of his inner
change if we consider various influences which contributed
to lead him to his new doctrine and to develop the same.

A preliminary glance at the case shows us, first of all,
that Luther in his youth was trained in the theological
school of Occam, i.e. in a form of theology showing great
signs of decadence. The nominalistic, and more particularly
the false anthropological speculations of Occam, d'Ailly
and Biel, which did not allow its full rights to grace, called
forth his opposition, and he soon lost all confidence in the
old theology ; in his exaggeration he went to the theological
extreme contrary to Occamism and declared war against
the ability of nature to do good. This was a negative effect
of Occamism. This view encouraged him in his opposition
to the " self -righteousness " which he fancied he saw every-

1 "Werke," Erl. ed., 53, p. 288 (1525); Kostlin-Kawerau, 1,
p. 465 ff.

2 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 552 ff.

3 " Opp. Lat. var.," 6, p. 396 ; Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 87 (an. 1522) :
" opera quibus erga homines utendum est, offerunt Deo," etc.

4 " Werke," Erl. ed., 152, p. 282 : " They praise their works,"
" the lousy works." Cp. ibid., 222, pp. 52, 381.

5 At Halle. "Werke," Erl. ed., 16, p. 221 ff., against the "lousy
monks " and their " holiness by works." Cp. generally the four last
sermons at Eisleben, ibid., pp. 209, 230, 245, 264.

"THE WISDOM OF MY MIND" 121

where, even in the zeal of the Observan tines for their rule,
especially when he had already fallen away from the ideals
of his profession, from monastic piety and the spirit of the
priesthood. A boundless self-reliance began to possess him,
and led him forward regardless of all. This was the " wisdom
of his own mind " of which he accuses himself in 1516 in a
letter to a friend in the Order, speaking of it as the " founda-
tion and root " of much unrest ; bitterly he exclaims :
" Oh, how much pain has the evil eye [this self-conceit]
already caused me, and how much does it continue to
plague me."1 We may take these words more seriously
than they were probably meant. His egotism and pride
were flattered to such an extent by his imagination that he
seemed to find everywhere confirmation of his own pre-
conceived notions. Having read Tauler he at once con-
sidered him as the greatest of writers, because he was able
to credit him with some of his own sentiments. Then again
in Augustine, the Doctor of the Church, he found, as he
imagined, a true reflection of his new doctrine. Devoid of
the necessary intellectual and moral discipline, he allowed
himself to be blinded by a fanatic attachment to his own
opinion.

Carried away by his own judgment and regardless of the
teaching of all the schools, yea, even of the Church herself,
he passed into the camp of the enemy, perhaps without at
first being aware of it ; he came to deny entirely the merit
of good works as though they were of no importance for our
salvation as compared with the power of faith, an idea in
which he fortified himself by his one-sided study of Holy
Scripture and by his misinterpretation of the Epistles of
St. Paul, that preacher of the power of faith and of the
grace of Christ. He was always accustomed to consider
the Bible as his special province, and, given his character,
it was not difficult for him to identify himself with it, and
to ascribe to himself the discovery of great Scriptural
truths till then misunderstood or forgotten; for instance,
the destruction of man's powers by original sin and their
renewal by faith and grace. The false doctrine of the
outward imputation of the merits of Christ came next.
The school of Occam here prepared the way for him by its
views on sanctifying grace and " acceptation " (imputa-
1 To George Leiffer, April 15, 1516, " Brief wechsel," l,.p. 31.

122 LUTHER THE MONK

tion). Luther found in Occam's views on this subject no
obstacle, but rather a support. This positive influence on
him of Occam will be dealt with below (chap. iv. 3), together
with other positive effects which decadent Scholasticism
exercised upon him. Just as it suited his violent character
to declare in no gentle words the renunciation of personal
merit of every kind for the imputation of the merits of
Christ, so the tendency of his own religious life, which had
become alienated from the ideals of his Order, encouraged
him to make the whole moral task consist in a simple,
trustful appropriation of the saving merits of Christ, in
confidence, comfort and safety, notwithstanding the dis-
sentient inner voices.

Further, his study of false mysticism (see below, chap, v.)
helped to clothe his new ideas in the deceptive dress of
piety. To himself he seemed to be fulfilling perfectly the
precepts of the mystics to seek everywhere the spirit and
make small account of outward things : he imagined that
Christ would be truly honoured, and the importance of
Divine grace effectually made manifest, by despair of our
own works, yea, even of ourself. The power which a
mysticism gone astray exercised in those early stages upon
a mind so full of imagination and feeling cannot be over-
estimated.

The oldest letter we have of Luther to Staupitz is in itself
a witness to its writer's self-deception ; to his fatherly
friend he speaks quite openly and even appeals to his
sermons " on the Love of God " in support of his own
errors. Staupitz had warned him in a friendly manner
that in many places his name stood in very bad repute.
Luther admits in this letter, written four months after he
had affixed the well-known Wittenberg Theses, that his
doctrine of justification, his sermons on the worthlessness
of works, and his opposition to the theology in vogue in
the schools had raised a storm against him. People said
that he rejected pious practices and all good works. And
yet he was merely a disciple of Tauler's theology, and, like
Staupitz, had taught nothing else but that " we should
place our confidence in none other than Jesus Christ, not
in any prayers and merits and good works, because we are
saved not by our works, but by God's mercy." If God
were working in him, so he concludes enthusiastically, then

PRIDE PRECEDES THE FALL 123

no one can turn him aside ; but if it was not God's work,
then, indeed, no one can advance his cause.1

We must assume that at the beginning of his alienation
from the Church among other motives he was largely
deceived by the appearance of good ; there is, in any case,
nothing decisive to show the process as purely material, as
a result of his efforts to relieve himself from his moral
obligations, or as due to a worldly spirit. His responsibility,
of course, became much greater when, as he advanced and
was able to review things more calmly, he obstinately
adhered to his new views, and, as his sermons and writings
prove, defended them, even against the best-meant criticism,
with bitterness, hate and passion. Self-love, which, even
in his earlier life, had held too great a place, now took
complete control of him, and the spirit of contradiction
closed the gates for ever against his return. Luther's
character was one which contradiction only served to
stimulate and to drive to extremes.

Thus his spiritual pride was his real misfortune.2

In his case we find a sad confirmation of what is fre-
quently observed in the falling away from truth of highly
gifted minds ; self-esteem and self-conceit suggest the first
thoughts of a turning away from the truth, hitherto held
in honour, and then, with fatal strength, condemns the
wanderer to keep to the path he has chosen. Further
concessions to the spirit of the world then follow as a conse-
quence of the apostate's continued enmity to the Church.
Of the last moral decline so noticeable in Luther's later life
there is also no lack of similar instances, for it is the rule
that after a man has been led astray by pride there should
follow further moral deviations from the right path. The
Monk's subsequent breach of his vows and his marriage
with a former nun was a sacrilege, which to Catholic
eyes showed plainly how he who begins in the spirit of
pride, even though his purposes be good, may end in the
flesh.

At the earliest inception of Luther's theological errors
other elements may however be perceived which help to

1 March 31, 1518, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 175.

2 " Pride brought him to fall and to despair of himself, pride
prevented his rising again and made him despair of God's grace which
assists us to keep God's law which our concupiscence resists." So
Denifle-Weiss, l2, p. 463.

124 LUTHER THE MONK

explain more easily his growing antipathy to so-called
holiness by works. First, there was the real abuse then
prevalent in the practice of works. Here we find a weak
spot in the religious life of the time, nor is it unlikely that
grave faults and repulsive excesses were to be found even
in the Augustinian monasteries with which Luther was
acquainted. We have already drawn attention to the
formalism which in many cases had affected the clergy and
the monastic houses. The often one-sided cultivation of
exterior works, which, for instance, by the Indulgence-
preachers, were proclaimed unfailing in their effects ; the
popular excesses in saint-worship ; far-fetched legends and
exhortations to imitate the extraordinary practices of
saintly heroes ; the stepmotherly treatment meted out in
the pulpit to the regular and ordinary duties of a Christian ;
the self-interest, avarice and jealousy rampant in con-
fraternities, pilgrimages and other public expressions of
worship, faults which had slipped in partly owing to the
petty egotism of the corporations and Orders, partly to
the greed of their members, partly to a mania for false
piety ; all this may well have made a painful impression
on the Wittenberg Professor, and have called forth his
eloquent reproof. His tendency to look at the worst side
of things doubtless contributed, together with the above
reasons, to fill him with distaste for good works in general.

The extraordinary exaggerations of which he was guilty
must, however, be imputed to himself alone. It has been
said to his excuse that, as Rural Vicar, he had been able
to acquire correct information regarding the state of things.
But, as it happens, his frequent and unrestrained outbursts
against abuses belong, at least in great part, to the time
when he was a simple monk, who, apart from his journeys
to Rome and Cologne and his stay at Erfurt, had seen little
outside his cell beyond the adjoining walls of Wittenberg.
His lectures on the Psalms and the Epistle to the Romans
both offer strange examples of such exaggerations, though
both were delivered before he had had any experience as
Rural Vicar.

Finally his own morbid personal condition must be taken
into account ; the after-effects of his passing fit of scrupu-
losity, and the lasting feeling of fear which sometimes quite
overmastered him. His inclination to doubts concerning

SPIRITUAL PATHOLOGY 125

his election remained, and therewith also the moral results
which the fear of being predestined to hell would naturally
exercise upon his peculiar temperament. He remained
an outspoken prcdestinarian of the most violent type. (See
chap. vi. 2.) He had to come to terms with this fear of hell,
and his system shows the result ; in many respects it
appears as a reaction against the oppressive burden of the
thought of eternal rejection.

His state of fear, however, as already indicated, proceeded
not merely from the numerous temptations of which he
himself speaks, but also from his own inward depression,
from an affection, partly psychical and partly physical,
which often prostrated him in terror. Only later, with the
help of other facts of his inner life, will it be possible to
deal with this darker side of Luther (vol. vi. xxxvi.). He
imagined that during these fits, in which troubles of con-
science also intervened, and which, according to his de-
scription, were akin to the pains of hell, he was forsaken
by Gcd, and sunk in the eerie night of the soul of which the
mystics treat. He also considered them at an early period
as a trial sent by God and intended to prepare him for
higher things. In trying to escape from this feeling of
terror, at the time of his change he embraced all the more
readily ideas of false security which seemed to be offered
by the appropriation of the merits of Christ, and the rejection
of all attempt to acquire merit on one's own account.
Psychologically, it is comprehensible that this solution
seemed to him to let a beam of sunlight into the darkness of
his terror. Anxious to escape from fear he threw himself
frantically into the opposite extreme, into a system of self-
pacification hitherto unknown to theology. But even this
new system did not serve to calm him in the first stage of his
error. There was still something lacking, so he felt, in his
doctrine, and to this he attained only in the second stage
of the process by his discovery that the seal is set on inward
peace by the doctrine of the absolute assurance of salvation
imparted by Faith. (See chap, x.)

Morbid fears prevented any childlike trust in God taking
root in a mind so inexplicably agitated as his. With what
great fervour he prepared himself for his priestly ordination,
and for celebrating his first Mass, may here be illustrated
by his own statement, that he then read Gabriel Biel's book

126 LUTHER THE MONK

on the Mass (" Sacri canonis missce expositio liter alls ac
mystica ") " with a bleeding heart." So he himself says
later, when he also speaks of the work, then widely used,
as " an excellent book, as I then thought."1 From the tone
of his letter of invitation to his first Mass we can judge of
his state of commotion. The confusion and trouble which he
experienced at his first Mass, and the fear which seized him
during the procession of the Blessed Sacrament, lead us to
conclude that he was readily overcome by vain apprehen-
sions combined with physical excitement. Here also belongs
Luther's later statement concerning the fears which he
(and others too) experienced when in the monastery at
the smallest ritual blunders, as though they had been
great sins ; such an assertion, though exaggerated and
untrue, is probably an echo of his own troubled state
during the liturgical ceremonies.

It is possible that those fears may have been the cause
of his great pessimism with regard to human works. They
may have contributed to make him see sin in what was
merely the result of fallen nature with its involuntary
concupiscences, without any consent of the will. Such fears
may have pursued him when he began to brood over the
doctrine of man's powers, original sin and grace ; we speak
of his " brooding," for his inclinations at that time were
to a melancholy contemplation of things unseen. The
timidity which he had acquired in the early days of his
boyhood and at school doubtless had its effect in keeping
him in such moods, apart from his own temperament.

On close examination of Luther's theological studies we
find that his preparation for the office of professor- — so far
as a knowledge of the positive doctrine of the Church, of
the Fathers and of good Scholasticism is concerned — was
all too meagre.

He had not at his command the time necessary for pene-
trating deeply into dogma or into its presentment by
earlier exponents. What was said above of his course of

1 Lauterbach, "Tagebuch," p. 18. Biel's much- esteemed book on
the Mass was composed principally of discourses to the clergy delivered
in the cathedral at Mayence by his friend and teacher Egeling Becker
of Brunswick. In the title Biel speaks of him as " vita pariter el
doctrina prcefulgidus" Adolf Franz, " Die Messe im deutschen Mittel-
alter" (1902), p. 550 ff.

INSUFFICIENT TRAINING 127

studies must, however, be supplemented by some further
details.

After his ordination in Erfurt, at Easter, 1507, he began the
two-year course of theology to which alone the privileges of the
Augustinians obliged him. In addition to the lectures, which,
as was usual, were based on the Sentences of Peter Lombard,
there was also the Office in Choir ; the pupils of the Order were
indeed on lecture days not obliged to attend Matins, Sext and
Compline, but the latter had to be said by Luther privately, as
he was a priest. While the lectures on the Sentences were still
in progress, Luther was pursuing his scriptural studies. Before
the full time had expired however, after about eighteen months
of theological study, he was, as mentioned before, called to the
University of Wittenberg at the commencement of the winter
term, 1508, in order to deliver " Lectiones publicce " on moral
philosophy, i.e. on the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. He
was, it is true, expected to prosecute his theological studies at the
same time by attending lectures, but for this he can scarcely have
found much time, seeing that he had himself to give a daily
lecture of one hour on so difficult a subject as the Ethics in the
Faculty of Philosophy. A capable young man was needed by
Staupitz to supply the requirements of the University, which was
largely under his care, for the former lecturer on Ethics,
Wolfgang Ostermayr, had, so it appears, suddenly left, and dire
necessity caused the incompleteness of Luther's philosophical
training to be overlooked. Staupitz was the more willing to
shut his eyes to what was wanting, as he was personally much
attached to the highly promising lecturer, about whom moreover
he had already his plans. That Luther was not particularly
pleased at the way in which he was employed, we learn from his
Table-Talk : "At Erfurt I was reading nothing but the Bible,
when God, in a wonderful manner, and contrary to everyone's
expectations, sent me from Erfurt to Wittenberg ; that was a nice
come down for me."1 The word actually made use of in the last
sentence was a slang expression of the students and implied that
his new position was not to his liking. It was less the overwork
than his antipathy to philosophy and Aristotle that made him
feel uncomfortable ; he himself complains : " violentum est
studium, maxime philosophice" in his letter from Wittenberg to
Johann Braun in Eisenach (March 17, 1509). In this letter he
also confesses that he is longing to exchange philosophy for
theology. 2 After a single term his prof essors thought him worthy
of the degree of " Bacularius (Baccalaureus) Biblicus." This was
the lowest theological degree, and was conferred on him by
Staupitz the Dean on March 9, 1509, according to the Dean'o

1 " Tischreden," " Werke," Erl. ed., 58, p. 243.

2 " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 6 : he yearns for theology which examines
" the kernel of the nut and the marrow of the bones : quce nucleum
nucis et medullam tritici et medullam ossium scrutatur."

128 LUTHER THE MONK

Register of the Theological Faculty. Thus did he pass the two
years of his course of theology.

Besides the lecture on philosophy he had now also to discourse
daily for one hour on portions of Holy Scripture, teaching being
then considered a part of the course of studies. In addition to
this he was obliged to attend the theological lectures and disputa-
tions. " Indeed a colossal task," says a Protestant Luther-
scholar, " which shows what great demands Staupitz made on
the powers of his pupils."1

The next degree in theology, that of " Sententiarius " was to
have been conferred on Luther, as we know, in the autumn of
1509, when suddenly, owing to internal disputes, he was recalled
from Wittenberg to his monastery at Erfurt. What prospect of
quiet theological study opened out before him there ? At Erfurt
his preparation again consisted principally in teaching and in
disputing in his own peculiar way. As soon as the University had
accepted him as " Sententiarius," he had at once to give theo-
logical lectures on the Sentences. He was also employed in the
monastery, together with Dr. Nathin, as sub-regent of house
studies, i.e. in the instruction of the novices in the duties of
their profession. At the same time he not only continued his
accustomed biblical reading, but, in order to be able to prosecute
it more thoroughly, began to study Greek and Hebrew, in which
Johann Lang, an Augustinian who has been frequently mentioned
and who was a trained Humanist, rendered him appreciable
service. The eighteen months he spent in the Erfurt monastery
were distracted by the dissensions within the Order, by his
journeys to Halle and then to Rome and his intercourse with
Erfurt Humanists, such as Petrejus (Peter Eberbach). After his
return from five months' absence in Rome, the dispute in the
Order continued to hinder his studies and finally drove him to
the friends of Staupitz at Wittenberg, as soon as he had declared
himself against the Erfurt Observautines. Thence the affairs of
the Order carried him in May, 1512, to the Chapter at Cologne,
where the degree of Doctor of Divinity was conferred upon him.
During his preparation for his doctorate he already began, urged
on by Staupitz, to preach in the monastery church at Witten-
berg, where the Elector once heard him and was filled with
admiration. He was also always ready to assist others with their
work, as for instance when he prepared for the Provost the
address to be delivered before the Synod at Leitzkau. And when
at thirty years of age, in October, 1515, he undertook, as Doctor,
to deliver the lectura in biblia at the University of Wittenberg,
this was not in his case the commencement of a career of learned
leisure, but the filling of a position encumbered with the cure of
souls, with preaching and much monastic business.

In view of his defective education in theology properly so
called, we may well raise the question how, without any thorough
knowledge of the subject, he could feel himself summoned to
undertake such far-reaching theological changes.

1 G. Oergel, "Vom jungen Luther," Erfurt, 1899, p. 113.

INSUFFICIENT TRAINING 129

" At the parting of the ways," says Denifle, regarding Luther's
knowledge of theology, " and even when he had already set up
his first momentous theses and declared war on Scholasticism,
he was still but half-educated. . . . He knew nothing of the
golden age of Scholasticism, and was even unacquainted with the
doctor of his own Order [who followed the greater Schoolmen]
^Egydius of Rome." " He was a self-taught, not a methodically
trained, man."1 In spite of his self-reliance, a feeling of the
insufficiency of his education seems to have tormented him at the
outset. We should not perhaps be justified in accepting what he
said in later years, that he had at first " been greatly afraid of the
pulpit " even when (in his second stay at Wittenberg) it was only
a question of preaching " in the Refectory before the brethren."2
But according to his own statement, he expressed very strongly
to Staupitz his fear of taking the degree of Doctor of Divinity,
and two years later he declared that he had only yielded to
pressure.3 But Staupitz, who urged him forward with excessive
zeal, had said in his presence when Luther preached before the
Elector : "I will prepare for Your Highness in this man a very
special Doctor, who will please you well," words which the Elector
did not forget and of which he reminded Staupitz in 1518.4

The fact that Staupitz made such slight demands in Luther's
case regarding theological preparation may be explained from
his own course of studies. His previous history shows his
studies to have been anything but deep, and this is a matter
worth noting, because it is an example of how a solid study of
theology was at that time often wanting even in eminent men in
the Church. After he had been entered at Tubingen in 1497 as
Master of Arts, he commenced (October 29, 1498), the biblical
course, and, a little more than two months later (January 10,
1499), began to deliver theological lectures on the Sentences.
Half a year of this qualified him for the Licentiate, and, a day
after, he became Doctor of Divinity. " These untrained theo-
logians," says Denifle, after giving the dates just mentioned,
" wanted to reform theology, and looked with contempt on the
theology of the Middle Ages, of which they were utterly ignorant;"5

1 Denifle, 1\ p. 501 f.

2 Oergel, p. 118, from the Gotha MS., A 262, fol. 258.

3 This is at least what he assures the Erfurt Faculty, December
21, 1514. " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 24.

4 Letter of the Elector to Staupitz (April 7, 1518), in Kolde, " Anal.
Lutherana," p. 314.

5 " Luther und Luthertum,

CHAPTER IV

" i am of Occam's party "
1. A closer examination of Luther's Theological Training

It was not time only which was wanting in Luther's case
for a deep course of theological study, he was even denied
what was equally essential, namely, a really scholarly
presentment of theology such as is to be found in the best
period of Scholasticism.

The great Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, with their
finished system, combining a pious veneration for the
traditions of the Fathers with high flights of thought, were
almost unknown to him ; at least, he never esteemed or
made any attempt to penetrate himself with the learning
of Albertus Magnus, Thomas of Aquin or Bonaventure,
notwithstanding the fact that in the Church their teaching,
particularly that of Aquinas, already took the first place,
owing to the approval of the Holy See. Luther frequently
displayed his utter ignorance of Thomism, as we shall show
later.1

The nominalistic philosophy and theology offered him by
the schools he attended has, with reason, been described
as a crippled parody of true Scholasticism. In this, its
latest development, Scholasticism had fallen from its
height, and, abandoning itself to speculative subtleties,
had opened a wide field to Nominalism and its disintegrat-
ing criticism. The critical acumen demonstrated by John
Duns Scotus, the famous Franciscan Doctor (Doctor Sub-
tilis), who died at Cologne in 1308, the late-comers would
fain have further emphasised. Incapable as they were of

1 When Luther in his answers to Prierias (Weim. ed., 1, p. 661),
angered at his opponent's frequent references to the Angelic Doctor,
remarks : " etiam ea quce fidei sunt, in qucestiones vocat et fidem vertit
in ' utrum,'' " the words " qucestiones " and " utrum " lead us to doubt
whether he had done more than read the headings of the " Questions."
Cp. Denifle, 11, p. 550.

WILLIAM OF OCCAM 131

producing anything great themselves, they exercised their
wits in criticising every insignificant proposition which could
possibly be questioned in philosophy and theology. The
Franciscan, William of Occam (Ockham, Surrey), called
Doctor Singnlaris, or Invincibilis, also Venerabilis Inceptor
Nominalium, was one of the boldest and most prolific
geniuses of the Middle Ages in the domain of philosophy and
theology. His great works, composed during his professor-
ship, especially his Commentary on the Sentences, his
" Centifolium " and his " Quodlibeta" are proofs of this.
On theological questions concerning poverty he came into
conflict with the Pope, his Sentences were condemned by
the University of Paris, he appealed from the Holy See to a
General Council, was excommunicated in 1328, protested
against the decisions of the General Chapter of the Order,
and then took refuge with Lewis of Bavaria, the schismatic,
whose literary defender he became. He wrote for him,
among other things, his ecclesiastico-political " Dialogus,'3
and even after his protector's death continued to resist
Clement VI. Occam died at Munich in 1340, reconciled
with his Order, though whether the excommunication had
already been removed or not is doubtful.

He revived Nominalism in philosophy and theology.
His teaching was so much that of the schools through which
Luther had been that the latter could declare : " sum
occamiccc j'actionis,"1 and speak quite simply of Occam as
" magister mens.'''2 It cannot, however, be said, as it recently
has been, that Luther " prided himself on being Occam's
disciple," and that he " would not give a refusal to his
beloved master " ; for it was more in irony than in earnest
that he spoke when he said : " I also am of Occam's party " ;
and when, as late as 1530, he still speaks of " Occam, my
beloved master," 3 this is said in jest only in order to
be able to accuse him more forcibly as an expert with the
greatest of errors ; nevertheless, he places Occam in point
of learning far above Thomas of Aquin, the " so-called
Doctor of Doctors," whom he despised. Regarding, how-
ever, the esteem in which Occam was held in his youth, he
afterwards said : "We had to give him the title Verier-

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 6, p. 600 ; " Opp. Lat. var.," 5, p. 137.

2 Cordatus, " Tagebuch," p. 165.

3 " Werke," Erl. ed., 242, p. 375.

132 LUTHER THE MONK

abilis huius sectce [scholce] primus repertory but adds :
" Happy are you [my table-companions] in not having to
learn the dung which was offered me."1 He felt compelled,
nevertheless, to praise Occam's dialectic skill and his in-
exhaustible acutcness, and for his part considered him the
most gifted of the Schoolmen (" summus dialecticus, scholas-
ticorum doctorum sine dubio prineeps et ingeniosissimus ").2
It was not only at a later period that he was ready to admit
his weaknesses, for even at the beginning of his course, in
the Commentary on Romans (1515-16), he attacks certain
essential errors of Occam and his school.

His acquaintance with the master he owed, moreover,
more to Occam's disciples, i.e. to the later theologians of
the Occamist school, more especially Gabriel Biel, than to
his own reading of the voluminous and unwieldy works
of Occam himself. We are already aware that, of the dis-
ciples and intellectual heirs of Occam, he studied more
particularly the two well-known writers d'Ailly, Cardinal
of Cambrai — whom Luther usually calls quite simply the
Cardinal- — whose ideas were very daring, and the humble
Gabriel Biel, Professor at Tubingen, whose writings, clear,
and rich in thought, possessed many good qualities.

Their one-sided Nominalism unfortunately led these
Occamists to an excessive estimate of the powers of nature
and an undervaluing of grace, and also to a certain incorrect
view of the supernatural. We must add that they were
disposed to neglect Holy Scripture and to set too much
store, on their speculations, and that, with regard to the
relations between reason and faith, they did not abide by
the approved principles and practice of the earlier School-
men.

The Occamist theology strongly influenced the talented
and critical pupil, though diversely. Most of the elements
of which it was made up repelled him, and as he regarded
them as essential parts of Scholasticism, they filled him
with a distaste for Scholasticism generally. Other of its
elements attracted him, namely, those more in conformity
with his ideas and feeling. These he enrolled in the service
of his theological views, which- — again following Occam's

1 Mathesius, " Tischreden " (ed. Kroker), p. 172. Uttered between
the 7th and the 24th August, 1540.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 6, p. 183; " Opp. Lat. var.," 4, p. 188.

OPPOSED TO OCCAMISM 133

example- — he developed with excessive independence. Thus
the tendency to a false separation of natural and super-
natural commended itself to him ; he greedily seized upon
the ideas of Nominalism with regard to imputation after
he had commenced groping about for a new system of
theology. His greatest objection was for the views of his
teachers regarding the powers of man and grace. This it
was, more especially, which raised in him the spirit of
contradiction and set him on a path of his own. To one
in his timorous state such views were unsympathetic ; he
himself scented sin and imperfection everywhere ; also he
preferred to see the powers of the will depreciated and every-
thing placed to the account of grace and Divine election.
Thus, what he read into Holy Scripture concerning faith
and Christ seemed to him to speak a language entirely
different from that of the subtleties of the Occamists.

His unfettered acceptance or rejection of the doctrinal
views submitted to him was quite in accordance with his
character. He was not one to surrender himself simply to
authority. His unusual ability incited him to independent
criticism of opinions commonly received, and to voice his
opposition in the public disputations against his not over-
brilliant Nominalist professors ; the strong appeal which
he made to the Bible, with which the others were less well
acquainted, and to the rights of faith and the grace of Christ,
was in his favour.

2. Negative Influence of the Occamist School on Luther

Besides the recently published Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans various statements in his sermons,
disputations and letters prove the opposition that existed
between Luther and his own school. In the Disputation
of 1517 entitled " Contra scholasticam theologiam" for
instance, he expressly names, as the opponents against
whom his various theses are aimed, Scotus, Occam, the
Cardinal, Gabriel, and, generally, " omnes scholastici " or
" communis sentential " dictum commune," " usus mul-
torum" " philosophi" or "morales."1

Before we proceed to examine the individual points of
Luther's conflict with Occamism and with what he con-
sidered the teaching of Scholasticism as a whole, two
1 " Opp. Lat. var.," 1, p. 315 seq.

134 LUTHER THE MONK

general points of this opposition must be mentioned. His
first grievance is the neglect of Holy Scripture.

A sensible want in the Divinity studies of that time lay, as a
matter of fact, in the insufficient use of the positive foundations
of theology, i.e. above all of Holy Scripture, and also of the
tradition of the Fathers of the Church and the decisions of the
Church in her office as teacher. " Luther had rightly recognised,"
says Albert Weiss, " what harm resulted from the regrettable
neglect of Holy Scripture on the part of so many theologians, and
therefore he chose as his watchword the cry for the improvement
of theology by a return to the Bible." x " That Luther was moved
to great anger by the Nominalists' neglect of the Bible is not to be
wondered at."2 "He would not have been Luther," the same
author rightly says, " had he not soon veered round to the other
extreme, i.e. to the battle-cry : Scripture only, and nothing but
the Scripture, away with all Scholasticism."

This abuse, however, had already been reproved and bewailed
by the Church before Luther's time ; there is no dearth of
statements by the very highest authorities urging a remedy,
though it is true more should have been done. Pope Clement VI
wrote reprovingly to the University of Paris, on May 20, 1346 :
" Most theologians do not trouble themselves about the text
of Holy Scripture, about the actual words of their principal
witnesses, about the expositions of the Saints and Doctors, i.e.
concerning the sources from which real theology is taken, a fact
which is bitterly to be deplored. ... In place of this they
entangle themselves in philosophical questions and in disputes
which merely pander to their cleverness, in doubtful interpreta-
tions, dangerous doctrines and the rest."3 But "with the
prevalent spirit of formalism and disorder, embodied chiefly in
Nominalism," " a healthy and at the same time fruitful treatment
of Holy Scripture had become impossible. . . . These were
abuses which had long been calling for the reintroduction of a
positive and more scriptural treatment of theology."4 Though
the judgment passed by Luther in his later years on the neglect of
Holy Scripture was somewhat too general (for it was historically
untrue to say that Scripture had ever been altogether given up
by the Church),5 yet contemporaries agree with him in blaming
the too extensive use of Aristotle's philosophy in the schools to
the detriment of the Bible-text. Long before, Gerson, whose
books were in Luther's hands, had laid stress on the importance
of Holy Scripture for theology. " Holy Scripture," he says, " is
a Rule of Faith, which it is only necessary to understand aright ;
against it there is no appeal to authority or to the decisions of
human reason : nor can custom, law or practice have any weight
if proved to be contrary to Holy Scripture."6

1 Denifle- Weiss, 2, p. 331. 2 Ibid., p. 229.

3 Denifle, " Chartularium universitatis Paris.," 2, p. 588.
* Thus A. Weiss, p. 330. 5 See volume v., xxxiv., 3.

6 " Opp.," ed Antv., 1706, p. 457.

THE SCHOOLMEN AND SCRIPTURE 135

Luther, with palpable exaggeration, lays the charge at the
door of theology as a whole, even of the earlier school, and would
have us believe that the abuse was inseparable from ecclesiastical
science. He speaks to this effect more and more forcibly during
the course of his controversies. Thus in 1530 he says of the
Scholastics, that they " despised Holy Scripture." " What ! they
exclaimed, the Bible ? Why, the Bible is a heretic's book, and
you need only read the Doctors to find that out. I know that I
am not lying in saying this, for I grew up amongst them and saw
and heard all about them." And so they had arrived at doctrines
about which one must ask : "Is this the way to honour Christ's
blood and death ? " Everything was full of " idle doctrines
which did not agree among themselves, and strange new
opinions."1 Occam, he declares in his Table-Talk in 1540, "ex-
celled them all in genius and has confuted all the other schools,
but even he said and wrote in so many words that it could not
be proved from Scripture that the Holy Ghost is necessary for a
good work."2 " These people had intelligence, had time for work
and had grown grey in study, but about Christ they understood
nothing, because they esteemed Holy Scripture lightly. No
one read the Bible so as to steep himself in its contents with
reflection, it was only treated like a history book. 3

It is true that the scholastic treatment of the doctrines of
faith, as advocated by Occam against the more positive school,
disregarded Holy Scripture to such an extent that, in the master's
subtle Commentaries, it hardly finds any place ; even in the
treatment of the supernatural virtues — faith, hope and charity —
Scripture scarcely intervenes.4 But it was unjust of Luther, on
this account, to speak of the Schoolmen's contempt for the Bible,
or to say, for instance in his Table-Talk, about his master, Gabriel
Biel, whose Commentary on the Sentences had become, so to
speak, a hand-book : " The authority of the Bible counted for
nothing with Gabriel."5 Biel esteemed and utilised the Bible as
the true Word of God, but he did not satisfy young Luther, who
desiderated in him much more of the Bible and a little less of
philosophy. The " word," he declares, was not cherished by the

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 242, p. 375, in his exhortation to the clergy.

2 More on this below. He repeats this accusation several times,
also in the context of the previous passage. He is confusing natural
good works with supernatural and meritorious good works.

3 Mathesius, " Tischreden " (Kroker), p. 173. Uttered between the
7th and 24th August, 1540.

4 Cp., for instance, Occam, " In libros sententiarum," Lugd., 1495,
1. 3, q. 8 to 1. The passage " Nunc autem manent fides," etc., is the
only one mentioned, with the reference " Ad. Cor." Of any exegetical
application there is no question whatever. Speculative theology left
biblical interpretation too exclusively to the perfunctory Bible lecturers,
and assumed as well known and proved what should first have been
positively established.

5 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 18. Cp. " Colloquia," ed. BindseiL
3, p. 270.

136 LUTHER THE MONK

priests, and this he had already shown in his Leitzkau discourse
to be the reason of all the corruption. x

The preponderance of philosophy, and more particularly
the excessive authority of Aristotle, in the theological
method of his circle offered Luther a second point of attack.
Here also it was a question of a rather widely spread abuse
which the better class of Schoolmen had prudently avoided.
The Nominalistic schools, generally speaking, showed a
tendency to a rationalistic treatment of the truths of faith,
which affrighted Luther considerably. General ideas, ac-
cording to the Nominalists, were merely " nomina" i.e.
empty words ; Nominalists concerned themselves only with
what was actual and tangible. Nominalism was fond of
displaying its dialectic and even its insolence at the expense
of theology on the despised Universal ideas. We can
understand the invective with which Luther gives expression
to his hatred of Scholasticism, though his right to do so
arose only from his limited acquaintance with those few
Scholastics whom he had chosen,2 or, rather, who had
been allotted to him, as his masters ; the schools he
attended were at that time all following the method of the
Nominalists, then usually known as " modern."

Already, in 1509 (see above, p. 22), a severe criticism of
Aristotle appears in Luther's marginal notes. This is in a gloss
on Augustine's work " On the City of God " which he was then
devouring as a sort of antidote : " Far more apparent is the
error of our theologians when they impudently chatter ( ' impu-
dentissime garriunt ') and affirm of Aristotle that he does not
deviate from Catholic truth."3

Luther's later exaggerations need not be refuted, in which he
complains so loudly of the idolatrous Aristotelian worship of
reason on the part of all the Scholastics. It was in general
perfectly well known regarding Aristotle that he had erred, and
also where he erred ; books had even been written dealing with
his deviations from the faith. This, however, did not prevent
many from over-estimating him. We must set against this, how-
ever, the fact that Luther's own professor of philosophy in the
University of Erfurt, Bartholomew Arnoldi of Usingen, had

1 See above, p. 83.

2 Denifle- Weiss, 2, p. 300 ft, where the danger to the faith which
lay in the foundation tendency of Nominalism is strongly emphasised,
but where it is also admitted that the consequences were not actually
drawn, and that it required " centuries of thought before the questions
raised were pursued to their bitter end," p. 303.

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 9, p. 27.

-ARISTOTLE EQUAL TO CHRIST" 137

declarer], like others before him, that those who represented
the Stagirite as without errors were "not worthy of the name of
philosophers, for they were not lovers of the truth but mocked at
philosophy ; they should just read their hero more carefully and
they would find that, for instance, he made out the world to be
without any beginning, a view which Moses, the prophet of truth,
had shown to be an error ; Scotus, too, wrote in the first book of
his Commentary on the Sentences, that the works of Aristotle
were more in agreement with the law of Mohammed than with that
of Christ."1 Usingen was an earnest and moderate man, who did
not shrink, even in his philosophical writings, from preferring
Divine Revelation to the exaggeration of the rights of reason..
" The inadequacy of philosophers is as apparent as the great
value of the Sacred Books. The latter rise far above the know-
ledge attained by mere human reason and natural light."2
Owing to the fact that he had made no secret of his views in his
intercourse with Luther, especially when they became more
intimate on Luther's entering the Order to which he himself
belonged,3 we can understand and explain the sympathy and
respect with which Luther long after cherished his memory,
though the path he followed was no longer that of his old teacher.
Usingen was a Nominalist, but his example shows that there
were some enlightened men who belonged to this school, and who
did it honour.

In the course of time, regardless of the numerous examples
giving him the lie, Luther came ruthlessly to condemn all the
Schoolmen and the whole Middle Ages ostensibly on the ground
of the pretended poisoning of the faith by Aristotle, but really
because he himself had set up a contradiction between faith and
reason.4 He says in 1521 that the Scholastics, headed by Aquinas,
" solus aristotelicissimus ac plane Aristoteles ipse," had smuggled
philosophy into the world, though the Apostle had condemned
it ; thus it became too powerful, made Aristotle equal to Christ
in dignity and trustworthiness, and darkened for us the Sun of
righteousness and truth, the Son of God. 5 Three years before he
had declared in writing to his other professor of philosophy at
the University of Erfurt, Jodocus Trutfetter, who was vexed

1 " Parvulus philosophise naturalis," Lips., 1499, fol. 136. N.
Paulus, " Der Augustiner Barth. Arnoldi v. Usingen " (Strasburg
" Theol. Studien," 1, 3), p. 4.

2 Ibid., fol 18 ; Paulus, ibid., p. 5.

3 Paulus, p. 17 ; Oergel, " Vom jungen Luther," p. 131.

4 Cp. e.g. Luther's theses in Drews' Disputations, p. 42 : " Ratio
aversatur fidem, Solius Dei est, dare fidem contra naturam, contra
ralionem, et credere." It belongs to the year 1536.

5 " Opp. Lat. var.," 5, p. 335 ; " Responsio ad Catharinum."
Cp. Weim. ed., 8.. 127 : " De Thoma Aquino, an damnatus vel beatus
sit, vehementissime dubito. . . . Multa hceretica scripsit et autor est
regnantis Aristotelis, vastatoris pioe doctrinaz."' He continues, saying
that he is entitled to hold this opinion, " qui educatus in eis sim et
co&taneorum doctissimorum ingenia expertus, optima istius generis
scripta contemplatus" So in " Rationis Latomiance confutatio " (1521).

138 LUTHER THE MONK

with his theses Contra scholasticam theologiam, that he daily
prayed to God that in place of the perverse studies in vogue, the
wholesome study of the Bible and the Fathers might again be
introduced (" ut rursum biblice et s. patrum purissima studia
revocentur "J.1 Yet three years earlier, in his first lectures on the
Epistle to the Romans, he had said to his pupils : "let us learn
to know Jesus Christ, and him crucified," and urged them not
to waste their time in the study of the foolish whims of meta-
physicians, but at most, to treat philosophy as a subject which
one must be acquainted with in order to be able to refute it, and
on the other hand to throw themselves with all their might into
the study of Holy Scripture. 2

There can therefore be no question, as we have seen, that his
idea that philosophy was the ruin of the Church, an idea present
in his mind even in his earliest public life, was founded on the many
actually existing abuses, though his own ultra-spiritualism and
his gloomy mistrust of man's nature led him to feel the evil more
than others, so that, in reacting against it, he lost his balance
instead of calmly lending his assistance towards improving
matters.

Luther's reaction was not only against Oceamism in
general, but also against various particular doctrines of
that school, especially, as stated before., against such
doctrines as exalted the powers of nature at the expense
of grace.

Here again he committed his first fault, the indefensible
injustice of blindly charging Scholasticism and theology
generally with what he found faulty in his own narrow
circle, though these errors had been avoided by St. Thomas
and the best of the Schoolmen. It has been pointed out
that he was not acquainted with this real Scholasticism,
nevertheless, in 1519, he had the assurance to say : " No
one shall teach me scholastic theology, I know it."3 "I
was brought up amongst them (Thomas, Bonaventure. etc.),
I am also acquainted with the minds of the most learned
contemporaries and have saturated myself in the best
writings of this sort."4

He, all too often, gives us the means to judge the value of this
assertion of his. In the same year, for instance, he sums up the
chief points of the theology which alone he had learnt, and calls

1 Letter of May 9, 1518, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 190.

2 Denifle-Weiss, l2, p. 610, n. 1.

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 5, p. 22 ; " Operationes in psalmos."
Written in 1519 ff.

4 Above, p. 137, note 5.

"SOW THEOLOGIANS" 139

it in all good faith the scholastic theology of the Church, though
it was merely the meagre theology of his own Occamist professors.
In order to show all he had had to struggle with he says : "I
had formerly learned among the monstrous things ( ' monstra ' )
which are almost accounted axioms of scholastic theology . . .
that man can do his part in the acquiring of grace ; that he can
remove obstacles to grace ; that he is able to oppose no hindrance
to grace ; that he can keep the commandments of God according
to the letter, though not according to the intention of the law-
giver ; that he has freedom of choice [personal freedom in the
work of salvation] between this and that, between both contra-
dictories and contraries ; that his will is able to love God above
all things through its purely natural powers and that there is
such a thing as an act of charity, of friendship, by merely natural
powers."1

We are to believe that these were the " axioms of
scholastic theolcgy ! "

Such was not the case. For all acts necessary for salva-
tion true Scholasticism demanded the supernatural " pre-
venting " grace of God.2 Yet as early as 1516 Luther had
elegantly described all the scholastic theologians as " Sow
theologians," on account of their pretended " Deliria "
against grace.3 His first fault, that of unwarranted generali-
sation, comes out clearly.

The second, more momentous, fault which Luther com-
mitted was to fly to the extreme even in doctrine, abolishing
all that displeased him and setting up as his main thesis,
that man can do nothing, absolutely nothing, good. Not
only did he say : "I learnt nothing in scholastic theology
worth remembering ; I only learnt what must be unlearnt,
what is absolutely opposed to Holy Scripture " (" omnino
contraria divinis litterip").* He also asserted at a very
early period that Holy Scripture teaches that God's grace
does everything in man of itself alone without his vital
participation, without liberty, without resolve, without
merit. Such a statement does not indeed appear in the
Commentary on the Psalms, but it will be found in his
academic lectures on the Pauline Epistles, more especially

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 2, p. 401.

2 Cp. Denifle, l1, p. 554, where he refers to a " Treatise on the
preparation for grace " to appear in his second volume, but which is
not contained in the second volume edited by A. Weiss.

3 " Schol. Rom.," p. 110. "0 stulti, O Sawtheologen" He is
referring to the " theologi scholastici," p. 108, " nostri iheologi" p. 111.

4 " Werke," Weim. ed., 2, p. 414.

140 LUTHER THE MONK

in the Commentary on Romans. For a moment he thought
he had discovered in St. Augustine the necessary weapons
against the formalism of his school of theology, but now
St. Paul appeared to him to give the loudest testimony
against it ; the Apostle is so determined in his denunciation
of the pride of human reason and human will, and in pre-
senting the Gospel of the Son of God, faith and grace, as
the only salvation of mankind. Luther imagined he had
found in Paul the doctrines which appealed to him : that
all human works were equally useless, whether for eternal
salvation or for natural goodness ; that man's powers are
good for nothing but sin ; if grace, which the Apostle extols,
is to come to its rights, then we must say of original sin
that it has utterly ruined man's powers of thinking and
willing so far as what is good in God's sight is concerned ;
original sin still lives, even in the baptised, as a real sin,
being an invincible attraction to selfishness and all evil,
more particularly to that of the flesh ; by it the will is so
enslaved that only in those who are justified by grace can
there be any question of freedom for good.

As regards Occam's teaching concerning man, his Fall and his
powers, so far as this affects the question of a correct under-
standing of Luther's development : in the matter of original sin
it agreed with that of Aquinas and Scotus, according to which its
essence was a carentia iustitice debitce, i.e. originalis ; likewise it
asserted the existence of concupiscence in man, the fomes or
tinder of sin, as Occam is fond of calling it, as the consequence of
original sin ; on the other hand it minimised too much the evil
effects of original sin on the reason and on the will, by assuming
that these powers still remain in man almost unimpaired. This
was due to the nominalistic identification of the soul with its
faculties ; as the soul remained the same as before, so, they said,
the powers as a whole also remained the same.1 The " disabling "

1 Biel, in 2 Sent., dist. 30, q. 2 ad 4 (Brixise, 1574) : " Reciitudo autem
naturalis voluntatis, eius sc. libertas, non corrumpitur per peccatum ;
ilia enim est realiter ipsa voluntas, nee ab ea separabilis." Cp. however
Biel's other passage, quoted by Denifle-Weiss, 1, p. 535, n. 4, where
he speaks differently. The teaching of the school of Occam deserves
more careful examination than has hitherto been bestowed on it, and
perhaps the Luther studies which have been so actively carried on of
late will promote this. Meanwhile we must give a warning against
statements which presuppose an excessive alienation of this school
from the general teaching of the Church. Occam has recently been
represented by the Protestant party, in discussions on Luther's de-
velopment, as the " outspoken antipodes of mediaeval Christendom,"
" whose aim it clearly was to strike at the very root of the ancient

BIEL'S FAULTS 141

of these powers of which St. Thomas and the other Scholastics
speak, i.e. the weakening which the Council of Trent also teaches
(" liberum arbitrium viribus attenuatum et inclinatum "j,1 was not
sufficiently emphasised.

Gabriel Biel, whose views are of some weight on account of
his connection with Luther, finds the rectitude of the natural will
(rectitudo) in its liberty, and this, he says, has remained intact
because it is, as a matter of fact, the will itself, from which it does
not differ.2 In other passages, it is true, he speaks of " wounds " ;
for owing to concupiscence the will is " inconstant and change-
able " ; but he nevertheless reverts to " rectitudo," erroneously
relegating the results of original sin to the lower powers alone.
Following Occam, and against St. Thomas and Scotus, he makes
of concupiscence a " qualitas," viz. a " qualitas corporalis."3
Again, following his master and d'Ailly, Biel asserts — and this
is real Occamism — that the will is able without grace to follow
the dictates of right reason (" dictamen rectce rationis") in every-
thing, and is therefore able of itself to keep the whole law of
nature, even to love God purely and above all things.4 An
example of how inaccurate Biel is in the details of his theological
discussions has been pointed out by Denifle, who shows that in
quoting three various opinions of the greater Scholastics on a
question of the doctrine of original sin (" utrum peccatum originate
sit aliquid positivum in anima vel in came ") " not one of the
opinions is correctly given," and yet this " superficial and wordy

Christian view of the Redemption by grace." Revelation was to him
merely a " collection of unreasonable doctrines," and the Bible a
" chance jumble of unreasonable Divine oracles." As a matter of
fact, he always recognised in the teaching of the Church the correct
interpretation of Scripture, and was under the impression that his
teaching on the Redemption was conformable with the Church's in-
terpretation. We are also told that he always restricted infallibility to
Holy Scripture, denying it to the Councils ; that, with regard to the
doctrine of grace, he assailed the teaching of the Schoolmen according
to which grace was to be considered as " Divine matter." and took
the forgiveness of sins to mean merely the non-imputation of sin ;
that Luther's proofs of the omnipresence of the body of Christ had
been anticipated by Occam, and that, in the same way, his teaching
with regard to the right of worldly authorities to reform the Church
was also to be found in Occam. As regards Occam's ecclesiastico-
political ideas it is quite true they pervade Luther's theses, never-
theless Occam's erroneous doctrines on the constitution of the Church
were not studied in the schools through which Luther had passed, but
only those on Scholasticism : they are also never quoted by Luther
in defence of his teaching.

1 Sess., vi., c. 1.

2 Cp. p. 140, note, where : "Rectitudo naturalis voluntatis est libertas
voluntatis,'''' etc., precedes the first words quoted.

3 " Qualitas corporalis inclinans appetitum sensilivum," etc., and
" qualitas carnis inordinata inclinans,'''' etc. In 2 Sent., q. 26 ; in
3 Sent., q. 2 ; Quodlib., 3, q. 10 ; Denifle, 1\ p. 843.

4 In 3 Sent., dist. 27, art. 3, quoted further on p. 155, n. 1. Cp.
Denifle- Weiss, l2, p. 535, n. 4, and p. 536 ff.

142 LUTHER THE MONK

author was one of Luther's principal sources of information
regarding the best period of Scholasticism."1

The Nominalists doubtless recognised the supernatural order
as distinct frorn the natural, and Occam as well as Biel, d'Ailly
and Gerson do not here differ materially from the rest of the
Scholastics ; but the limits of natural ability, more particularly
in respect of keeping the commandments and loving God above
all, are carried too far. Luther's masters had here insisted with
great emphasis on the argument of Scotus which they frequently
and erroneously made to prove even more than was intended,
viz. that as reason is capable of realising that man is able to
fulfil the law and to render such love, and as the will is in a
position to carry out all that reason puts before it, therefore man
is able to fulfil both requirements. 2 In this argument insufficient
attention has been paid to the difficulties which interior and
exterior circumstances place in the way of fallen man. Theo-
logians generally were very much divided in opinion concerning
the possibility of fulfilling these requirements, and the better
class of Scholastics denied it, declaring that the assistance of
actual grace was requisite, which, however, they held, was given
to all men of good will. Against the doctrine which Biel made his
own, that man is able, without grace, to avoid all mortal sin,3
keep all the commandments and love God above all things,
not only Thomists, but even some of the Nominalists protested.4

Here again, according to Denifle, a serious error, committed
by Biel regarding St. Thomas, must be pointed out, one, too,
which may have had its effect upon Luther. Biel erroneously
makes the holy Doctor say the opposite of what he really teaches
when he ascribes to him the proposition : " Homo potest caver e
peccata mortalia [omnia] sine gratia." As Denifle reminds us
again, it was " from this author that Luther drew in great part
his knowledge of the earlier Scholastics."5 Biel, however, in his
sermons and instructions to preachers restricts the thesis of the
possibility of loving God above all things through our natural
powers. This, man is able to do, he says, " according to some
writers, more especially in the state of paradisiacal innocence,
but the act is not so perfect and not so easy as with God's grace
and is without supernatural merit. God has so ordained that He
will not accept any act as meritorious for heaven excepting only
that which is elicited by grace " (" ex gratia elicitum ").6

1 Denifle, l1, p. 843 f.

2 Occam, 1 Sent., dist. 1, q. 2, concl. 1 : " Voluntas potest se con-
formare dictamini rationis,^ etc.

3 2 Sent., dist. 28 (Brix. ed.), fol. 143'.

4 Cp. Denifle, \\ p. 527, n. 3, p. 521.

5 Ibid., p. 522, n. 2.

6 Ibid., p. 541, n. 1. In spite of this, the teaching of the much-used
Commentary on the Sentences continued to make itself felt, more
particularly as the author enjoyed great consideration among the
ecclesiastically minded, represented Nominalism at Tubingen, and
was honoured as " the last of the Scholastics." It is worth while to
quote the points of his teaching on grace from his book on the Sentences

THOMISTS LUMPED WITH OCCAMISTS 143

The views of the Occamists or " Moderns " exhibited yet
other weak points. Man, so they taught, is able to merit grace
" de congruo." They admitted, it is true, that grace was a
supernatural gift, " donata " and " gratuita," as they termed it,
but they saw in man's natural love of God, and in his efforts, an
adequate disposition for arriving at the state of saving grace.1
The great Schoolmen on the contrary taught with St. Thomas,
that the preparation and disposition for saving grace, i.e. all
those good works which precede justification, do not originate in
us but are due to the grace of Christ.

As for the teaching regarding natural and supernatural love
of God, the keeping of the commandments and the predisposition
for grace, Luther, in 1516, appears to have scarcely been ac-
quainted with the opinion of any of the better representatives of
Scholasticism, to whom he had access. It was only in 1518 that
his attention was directed to Gregory of Rimini (General of the
Augustinian Hermits in 1357), an eclectic whose views were
somewhat unusual, and in this case, Luther, instead of making
use of the good which was to be found in him in abundance,
preferred to disregard his real opinion and to set him up as
opposed to the teaching of the Schoolmen.2 In 1519, labouring
under a total misapprehension of the truth as regards both
Gregory and the Schoolmen, he wrote : " the ' Moderns ' agree
with the Scotists and Thomists concerning free will and grace,
with the one exception of Gregory of Rimini, whom they all
condemn, but who rightly and effectively proves them to be
worse than the Pelagians. He alone among all the Scholastics

with the glosses which Biel does not forget to mention. The principal
passage is in 3 Sent., dist. 27, art. 3, dub. 2 to Q (according to the
Lyons edition of 1514). Among tho five propositions there set up,
" post. Domn. Pe. de Aliaco " (d'Ailly), the first teaches the possibility
of an act of love of God " ex naturalibus." This is the reason : " omni
dictamini rationis reclce voluntas ex suis naturalibus potest ee conformare."
The second proposition, however, says : " Talis amoris actus non
potest stare in viator e de potentia Dei ordinata sine gratia et charitate
infusa," owing to the principle, " Facienti quod est in se." That grace
is every moment at man's disposal is proved from many Bible passages,
yet any other more perfect disposition for grace than the natural act
of love of God is not possible to man ; the natural act in relation to
grace is, however, only prior " natura," not " tempore.'1'' The third
proposition runs : " Charitas infusa tamen est prior in meriti ratione,"
etc. The fourth : with this natural act no mortal sins can exist.
The fifth : " Stante lege [i.e. proesente ordinatione Dei] nullus homo
per pura naturalia potest implere prceceptum de dilectione Dei super
omnia. Probatur, quia lex iubet, quod actus cadens sub prcecepto fiat
in gratia, qua? est habitus supernaturalis."

1 Biel, in 2 Sent., dist. 28, says of the natural love of God : " Actus
dilectionis Dei super omnia est dispositio ultimata et sufficiens ad gratice
infusionem. . . . Gratia super additur tanquam prazvio? dispositioni"
etc. But ibid., fol. 143', he says : " Sic ad prceparandum se ad donum
Dei suscipiendum non indiget alio dono gratia?, sed Deo ipsum movente
[sc. concur su generali]."

2 Cp. Denifle, 1\ p. 542 f.

144 LUTHER THE MONK

agrees with Augustine and the Apostle Paul, against Carlstadt
and all the new Schoolmen."1 As though all Scholastics, old
and new, had taught what Luther here attributes to them, viz.
that "it is possible to gain heaven without grace," because,
according to them, " a good though not meritorious work can be
done " without grace. On the contrary, not the Thomists only,
but also many other theologians were opposed to the thesis that
the will could, of itself, always and everywhere, conform itself to
the dictates of right reason and thus arrive at grace, but Gregory
of Rimini, whom Luther favours so much as a Doctor of his own
Order, declares that the keeping of the whole law was only
possible through grace, and that therefore God had, with His
law, imposed nothing impossible on man.2 According to Luther,
however, God had demanded of human nature what was im-
possible.

Occam and his school deviate somewhat from the rest of the
Scholastics in the application of the well-known axiom :
" Facienti quod est in se Deus non denegat gratiam."3

While the better class of Scholastics understood it as meaning
that God allows the man to arrive at saving grace and justifica-
tion, who does his part with the help of actual grace, the schools
of the decline interpreted the principle as implying that God
would always give saving grace where there was adequate
human and natural preparation ; they thus came to make this
grace a mere complement of man's natural effort ; the effect of
grace was accordingly purely formal ; man's effort remained the
same as before, but, by an act of favour, it was made conformable
with God's " intention " ; for it was God's will that no man
should enjoy the Beatific Vision, without such grace, which,
however, He never failed to bestow in response to human efforts.
Some modern writers have described this view of grace to which
the Nominalists were inclined, as a stamp imprinting on purely
human effort a higher value. At any rate, according to the
Occamists, man prepares for grace by natural acts performed
under the ordinary concurrence of God (concursus generalis),*
whereas, according to the better Scholastics, this preparation
demanded, not only the ordinary, but also the particular con-
currence of God, namely, actual grace ; they maintained that
ordinary concurrence was inadequate because it belonged to the
natural order.

Actual grace was entirely neglected by the Occamists ; the

1 To Spalatin, August 15, 1519, " Briefwechsel," 2, p. 109 : " Is
[Gregorius Ariminensis] solus inter scholasticos contra omnes scholasticos
recentiores cum Carolosiadio, id est Augustino et apcstolo Paulo con-
sentit.'''' Cp. " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 84.

2 In 2 Sent., fol. 91' ad 2 (ed. Venet., 1503): "Deus non prcecipit
homini ut talia opera faciat sine auxilio suo," etc.

3 Cp. the scholastic passages in Denifle, l1, p. 555, n. 3. He leaves
the explanation for the second volume, though A. Weiss does not give
it. Denifle's remarks (p. 557 f.) on the practical application of the
principle " Facienti " are worthy of attention.

4 Denifle, l1, p. 564.

" THE SCHOOLS OF THE SOPHISTS " 145

special help of God is, according to most of them, saving grace
itself ; actual grace, i.e. the divinely infused intermediary between
man's natural and supernatural life, finds no place in their
system. This explains, if we may anticipate a little, how it is
that Luther pays so little attention to actual grace j1 he has no
need of it, because man, according to him, cannot keep the law
at all without the (imputed) state of grace. It is unfortunate
that Biel, in whom Luther trusted, should have misrepresented
the actual teaching of true Scholasticism concerning the necessity
and nature of grace, whether of actual or saving grace.

As early as 1515 Luther, with the insufficient knowledge he
possessed, accused the Scholastics generally of teaching that
" man by his natural powers is able to love God above all things,
and substantially to do the works commanded, though not, indeed,
according to the ' intention ' of the lawgiver, i.e. not in the state
of grace." " Therefore, according to them," he says, " grace
was not necessary save by a new imposition demanding more than
the law {''per novam exactionem ultra legem ') ; for, as they teach,
the law is fulfilled by our own strength. Thus grace is not
necessary to fulfil the law, save by reason of God's new exaction
which goes beyond the law. Who will put up with these sacri-
legious views ? " Assuredly his indignation against Scholasti-
cism would have been righteous had its teaching really been what
he imagined. In the same way, and with similarly strong ex-
pressions, he generalises what he had learnt in his narrow world
at Erfurt and Wittenberg, and ascribes to the whole of Christen-
dom, to the Popes and all the schools, exactly what the Occamists
said of the results of original sin being solely confined to the
lower powers. Here, and in other connections too, he exclaims :
" the whole Papacy has taught this, and all the schools of Sophists
[Scholastics]." "Have they not denied that nature was ruined
by sin when they assert that they are able to choose what is
good according to the dictates of right reason ? "*

From his antagonism to such views, an antagonism we find
already in 1515, when he was preparing for his lectures on the
Epistle to the Romans, sprang his own gloomy doctrine of the
death of free will for good, and the poisoning of human nature by
original sin. With its first appearance in the lectures mentioned
we shall deal later.

1 Denifle, 1, p. 670 f.

2 " OPP- Lat. exeg.," 19, p. 61 seq. Such views have often been
adopted from Luther by Protestant theologians and historians.
"The worth of Scholasticism," Denifle complains, l1, p. 845, "i.e.
the scholastic doctrine as misunderstood and misrepresented by them,
is judged of by them according to Luther's erroneous views which they
receive as axioms, first principles and unalterable truths." In the
second edition A. Weiss has struck out this sentence. Denifle, l1,
p. 840, complains with reason that Biel is accepted as a reliable repre-
sentative of Scholasticism. Cp. p. 552, n. 1, after showing his in-
accuracy in one passage : " The reader may judge for himself what
a false impression of St. Thomas's teaching would be gained from
Biel."

146 LUTHER THE MONK

Here a more general question must first receive an answer.
How came the youthful Luther to absorb into his life the
views above described without apparently shrinking in the
least from the opposition to the Church's teaching manifest
in them ?

Various answers are forthcoming. In the first place,
in consequence of his training which consisted too exclu-
sively in the discussion of speculative controversies, he
had come to see in the theological doctrines merely opinions
of the schools, on which it was permissible to sit in judg-
ment. He had forgotten that there existed a positive body
of unassailable doctrine. Even when engaged in mercilessly
attacking this body of doctrine he still appears to have
been unaware of having outstepped the lines of permissible
disputation. We cannot, however, altogether exonerate
him from being in some degree conscious that in his attack
on the Church he was treading dangerous ground. In the
lectures on the Epistle to the Romans he goes so far as to
declare, that the Church was almost destroyed (" pene
subversa ") by the teaching of the Scholastics, and that
everything was full of Pelagian errors, because grace for
the support of the will had been abolished. Things such as
these and others of a like nature he could assuredly not have
uttered without, in his calmer hours, asking himself how
he could reconcile such a standpoint with his duty to the
Church. It is true, however, that such quiet hours were
exceptional in his case. There can be no doubt also that
his idea of the Church and of the binding character of her
doctrine was confused. In 1519 he had no hesitation in
pointing to the action of other Doctors, who, before that
date, had engaged in controversy with each other, in vindica-
tion of the tremendous struggle he had just commenced.
I am only doing what they did ; " Scotus, single-handed,
opposed the opinions of all the schools and Doctors and
gained the victory (?). Occam did the same, many others
have done and are doing likewise up to the present
day (?). If then these are at liberty to withstand all, why
not I ? "*

1 In the " Resolutiones super propositionibus Lipsice disputatis"
concl. 1 ; " Opp. Lat. var.," 3, p. 245 sq. ; Weim. ed., 2, p. 403. It
is of interest to see how he sums up his desire of ridding himself of the
oppression of doctrinal rules in the cry : " Volo liber esse." Cp. ibid.,
pp. 247, 404.

OCCAMISM AND OBSERVANCE 147

The second answer to the above question lies in the
outward circumstances existing in his monastic home at the
time of the beginning of his struggle. The members of his
Congregation, most of whom were of Occam's school, were
still greatly excited and divided by the quarrel going on in
their midst regarding organisation and discipline. The
Observantincs with their praise of the old order and exer-
cises were a thorn in the flesh of the other Augustinians,
more lax and modern in their views, especially for Luther,
who was at their head. A spirit of antagonism existed not
merely between the different houses of the Order, but even
in the houses themselves a struggle seems to have been
carried on. On the one side there was a tenacious adherence
to the older practices of the Order, on the other suspicion
and reproaches were levelled against the innovations of
the Observantincs. The result was that the fiery young
Professor, while inveighing against the Occamist theory of
self-righteousness, thundered at the same time against the
Observantines as living instances of the self-righteous and
holy-by-works. Some of the reasons for this supposition
have already been given, and more will be forthcoming
when we consider the Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans.1

War was to the Wittenberg Doctor even then an element
of life. He found it going on, and encouraged it amongst
the wearers of the Augustinian habit. The first and second
" factions " in the Order, as Usingen calls them, i.e. the first
division caused by the question of observance, and the
second by the great controversy concerning faith, were,
we may be sure, closely allied in Luther's mind ; the con-
troversy concerning observance may assuredly be reckoned
amongst the outward causes which carried him along with
them into the greater struggle and contributed for a time
to hide from him the danger of his position. Though details
are lacking of the resistance to Luther's first challenge to
the theologians of his Order, to Scholasticism and the
Church's doctrine, yet, as already said, we can see from
the Commentary on Romans, from other unprinted early
lectures, and also from the disputations and sermons, that
the Order continued in a state of commotion, and that, as
a matter of fact, the second " faction " was an outgrowth

1 See above, p. 39 ff. Cp. passages quoted below, chapter vi. 3.

148 LUTHER THE MONK

of the first.1 The Observan tines had to put up with hearing
themselves styled by Luther " iustitiarii " and Pharisees ;
but probably there were others, even members of the Witten-
berg University, perhaps some of those jurists and philoso-
phers2 to whom he refers in his Commentary on Romans,
and whom he so cordially detested, who also were counted
amongst the " iustitiarii" in fact all whom the outrageous
assertions of their young colleague regarding the observance
of precepts and regulations and against human freedom,
roused to opposition.

To these two answers a third must be added, which
turns upon the character of Luther in his youth. His
extreme self-sufficiency blinded him, and his discovery of real
errors in the theology in which he had been trained* drove
him in his impetuosity to imagine that he was called, and
had the right, to introduce an entirely new theology. His
searching glance had spied out real mistakes ; his strength
and boldness had resulted in the bringing to light of actual
abuses ; his want of consideration in the pointing out of
blemishes in the Church had, in some degree, been successful
and earned for him the applause of many ; his criticism of
theology was greeted as triumphant by his pupils, the more
so as the Doctors he attacked were but feeble men unable
to reply to so strong an indictment, or else living at a dis-
tance (in Erfurt). The growing self-consciousness, which
expresses itself even in the form of his controversial language,
must not be disregarded as a psychological fact in the problem,
one, too, which also helped to blind him to the real outcome
of his work.

Only the most extreme spirit of antagonism could have
led the Monk to make, in addition to his other harsh ex-
aggerated charges against Scholasticism, the following
assertion, to which, as it is important for the origin of
Lutheranism, some attention must be paid. He says the
doctrine is false that righteousness which can be acquired

1 See above, p 80. According to Usingen the " primaria f actio
nostrce unionis " (i.e. of the Saxon Congr. of Augustinians) was that
which Luther led astray " contra nativum conventum suum." The
" secundaria f actio " was the Reformation " qua pame desolata est
nostra unio." See Usingen, " Sermo de S. cruce " (Erfordise, 1524) ;
N. Paulus, Usingen, p. 16, n. 5.

2 Cp. Pollich, in Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 87. See above, p. 86.

LAWYERS' RIGHTEOUSNESS 149

by means of good works (of the natural order) is even
conceivable ; this was invented by Aristotle ; this righteous-
ness of the philosophers and jurists has penetrated into the
Church, while, as a matter of fact, owing to the naughtiness,
nay, corruption of mankind, resulting from original sin,
it was a monstrosity and an abomination in God's sight ;
the scholastic distinctions of distributive and commutative
justice, etc., " were also due to blindness of spirit and mere
human wisdom " ; the Scholastics have put this infamous,
purely human righteousness in the place of righteousness by
grace, which is of value in God's sight ; they have said there
is no original sin, and have acted as though all men did not
feel concupiscence within themselves very strongly ; they
have represented righteousness as the fruit of our natural
efforts, and in consequence of this people now believe that
righteousness may be had through Indulgences costing
two pence, i.e. through works of the very slightest worth !
But " the Apostle teaches," he says, " Corde creditur ad
iustitiam, i.e. not by works, or wisdom, or study, not by
riches and honours can man attain to righteousness. . . .
That is a new way to righteousness, against, and far above,
Aristotle . . . and his political, God-forsaken righteous-
ness."1 Yet, according to him, the Scholastics knew no
better. " They speak like Aristotle in his ' Ethics,' who
makes . . . righteousness consist in works, as also its
attainment and its loss."2

Is it possible that the writer of the above sentences was really
incapable of distinguishing between the natural and the super-
natural in moral good according to the fundamental principle
of true Scholasticism ? Was Luther really ignorant of the theses
which run through the whole of Scholasticism such as this of
St. Thomas : " Donum gratice excedit omnem prceparationem
virtutis humance" ?3 The great lack of discrimination which
underlies the above attack is characteristic of Luther in his
youth and of his want of consideration in the standpoint he
assumed. He starts from some justifiable objection to the
nominalistic theology — which really was inadequate on the
subject of the preparation for supernatural righteousness — sets
up against it his own doctrine of fallen man and his salvation,
and, then, without further ado, ascribes an absolutely fanciful
idea of righteousness to the Church and the whole of Scholasti-

1 Fol. 233'. Denifle- Weiss, l2, p. 528, n. 1 ; " Rom. Schol.," p. 244.

2 Fol. 144. Denifle-Weiss, l2, p. 526, n. 3 ; " Rom. Schol," p. 108.

3 1-2, q. 112, a. 3.

150 LUTHER THE MONK

cism. What he failed to distinguish, St. Thomas, Thomism, and
all true Scholastics distinguished with very great clearness.
Aquinas draws a sharp line of demarcation between the civil
virtue of righteousness and the so-called infused righteousness
of the aot of justification. He anticipates, so to speak, Luther's
objection and his confusion of one idea with another, and teaches
that by the repeated performance of exterior works an inward
habit is without doubt formed in consequence of which man is
better disposed to act rightly, as Aristotle teaches in his " Ethics ";
" but," he says, " this only holds good of human righteousness,
by which man is disposed to what is humanly good ( ' iustitia
humana ad bonum humanum ' ) ; by human works the habit of
such righteousness can be acquired. But the righteousness
which counts in the eyes of God (i.e. supernatural righteousness)
is ordained to the Divine good, namely, to future glory, which
exceeds human strength ( ' iustitia quaz habet gloriam apud Deum ;
ordinata ad bonum divinum ') . . . wherefore man's works are
of no value for producing the habit of this righteousness, but
the heart of man must first of all be inwardly justified by God,
so that he may do the works which are of worth for eternal
glory."1

So speaks the most eminent of the Schoolmen in the name of
the true theology of the Middle Ages.

For Luther, who brings forward the above arbitrary objection
in his Commentary on Romans, it would have been very easy to
have made use of the explanation just given, for it is found in
St. Thomas's Commentary on this very Epistle. Luther, one
would have thought, would certainly have consulted this work
for his interpretation of the Epistle, were it only on account of
its historical interest, and even if it had not been the best work
on the subject which had so far appeared. But no, it seems that
he never looked into this Commentary, nor even into the older
glosses of Peter Lombard on the Epistle to the Romans, then
much in use ; in the latter he would at once have found the
refutation of the charge he brought against the Scholastics of
advocating the doctrine of Aristotle on righteousness by works,
as the gloss to the classic passage (Romans iii. 27) runs as
follows : " For righteousness is not by works (' non ex operibus
est iustitia '), but works are the result of righteousness, and there-
fore we do not say : ' the righteousness of works, but the works
of righteousness.' "2

He does not even trouble to uphold the frivolous accusation
that the Schoolmen had been acquainted only with Aristotelian
righteousness, but actually refutes it by another objection. He
finds fault with the " scholastic theologians " for having, as he

1 S. Thorn., " in Ep. ad Romanos," lect. 1 (on Rom. iv. 2).

2 In Rom. iii. 27 : " Non enim ex operibus est iustitia, sed ipsa
sunt ex iustitia (see in this connection Luther's statement, p. 43)
ideoque non iustitiam operum sed opera iustitice dicimus." Cp. Denifle-
Weiss, l2, pp. 528-30.

INJUSTICE TO OCCAMISTS 151

says in the Commentary on Romans, " held the doctrine of the
expulsion of sin and the infusion of grace " to be a single change.1
He hereby admits that they were familiar with something more
than mere Aristotelian righteousness, for in Aristotle there^is
certainly no question of any infusion of grace. But Luther
frequently speaks in this way of the distinction which the
Scholastics made between acquired and infused righteousness.

The changcableness and inconstancy of his assertions
regarding the doctrines of the Scholastics is quite remark-
able. He makes no difficulty about admitting later, against
his previous statements, that the Scholastics did not teach
that man was able to love God above all things merely by
his own strength ; this was the teaching only of the Scotists
and the "Moderns" (i.e. Nominalists or Occamists).2 At
that time he was perhaps better acquainted with Biel,
who instances Thomas and Bonaventure in opposition
to this doctrine.3 Luther was also careless in the accounts
he gave even of the theology of his own circle, viz. that of
the Occamists, and the injustice he does Scholasticism as
a whole, he repeats against his own school by exaggerating
its faults or suppressing the necessary distinctions in order
to be the better able to refute its theses by the Bible and
St. Augustine. As therefore it is impossible to form an
opinion on Scholasticism as a whole from Luther's assertions,
so we cannot trust his account even of his own masters,
in whose works he thinks himself so well versed.

He is, for instance, neglecting a distinction when he repeatedly
asserts that Occam, his " Master," denied the biblical truth
that the Holy Ghost is necessary for the performance of a good
work. As a matter of fact, the Occamists, like the Scotists, did
not here differ essentially from the Thomists, although differences
are apparent in their teaching on the supernatural habit, and on
the preparation for the attainment of this supernatural righteous-
ness, i.e. for justification.4 He is wronging his own " f actio
occamica " when, from its teaching that man could, by his
natural powers, acquire a love of God beyond all things, he at

1 Fol. 158. Denifle-Weiss, l2, p. 531, n. 1, 2 ; "Rom. Schol.,"
p. 130 : " Hoc totum scholastici theologi unam dicunt ?nutalione?n :
expulsionem peccati et infusionem gratice."

2 See Denifle-Weiss, l2, p. 542 ff.

3 Denifle, l1, p. 520, n. 1.

4 On Occam's teaching on the supernatural habit see below, p. 154.
Occam, 2 Sent., q. 26, says, it seems " quod iustitia originalis dicat
aliquid absolutum superadditum puris naturalibus." Biel speaks, 2
Sent., dist. 30, q. 1, concl. 3, of the " donum supernaturale."

152 LUTHER THE MONK

once infers that it declared infused grace to be superfluous,1
and further, when, for instance, he asserted that the axiom
quoted above, and peculiarly beloved of the Occamists, " Facienti
quod est in se Deus non denegat gratiam," was erroneous, as
though it placed a " wall of iron " between man and the grace of
God.2 No Occamist understood the axiom in the way he wishes
to make out.

Luther went so far in his gainsaying of the Occamist
doctrine of the almost unimpaired ability of man for purely
natural good, that he arrived at the opposite pole and
began to maintain that there was no such thing as vitally
good acts on man's part ; that man as man does not act in
doing what is good, but that grace alone does everything.
The oldest statements of this sort are reserved for the
quotations to be given below from his Commentary on
Romans. We give, however, a few of his later utterances
to this effect. They prove that the crass denial of man's
doing anything good continued to characterise him in later
life as much as earlier.

In the Gospel-homilies contained in his "Postils," he teaches
the people that it was a " shameful doctrine of the Popes,
universities, and monasteries " to say " we ought by the strength
of our free will to begin [exclusive of God's help ?] by seeking
God, coming to Him, running after Him and earning His grace."
" Beware, beware," he cries, " of this poison ; it is the merest
devil's doctrine by which the whole world is led astray. . . .
You ask : How then must we begin to become pious, and what
must we do that God may begin in us ? Reply : What, don't
you hear that in you there is no doing, no beginning to be pious,
as little as there is any continuing and ending ? God only is the
beginning, furthering and ending. All that you begin is sin and
remains sin, let it look as pretty as it will ; you can do nothing
but sin, do how you will . . . you must remain in sin, do what
you will, and all is sin whatever you do alone of your free
will ; for if you were able of your own free will not to sin,
or to do what is pleasing to God, of what use would Christ be
to you ? "3

Elsewhere, on account of the supposed inability of man, he
teaches a sort of Quietism : "Is anyone to become converted,
pious and a Christian, we don't set about it ; no praying, no
fasting assists it ; it must come from heaven and from grace
alone. . . . Whoever wants to become pious, let him not say :
' I will set about doing good works in order to obtain grace,' but,

1 Cp. in Gal. 1, p. 188 seq.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 272.

3 Erl. cd., 102, p. 11.

CONCURRENCE AND GRACE 153

' I will wait to see whether God by His word will give me His
grace and His spirit.' "*

And on another occasion his words are still stronger : " The
gospel tells us only to open our bosom and take, and says :
' Behold what God has done for you, He made His Son become
flesh for you.' Believe this and accept it and you will be saved."2

Seen in the light of such passages, it becomes clear that the
following must not be taken as a mere expression of humility,
but as a deprecation of good deeds. Already, in 1519, Luther
says : " Man, like a cripple with disabled hands and feet,
must invoke grace as the artisan of works (' operum arti-
ficem ')."3 The difficulty is that this very invocation is
itself a vital, though surely not a sinful, action. Would not
a man have been justified in saying even of this preliminary
act : I will wait, I may not begin ? " Luther was scarcely
acquainted with the doctrine of a wholesome Scholasticism
and with that of the Church concerning the mysterious
reciprocal action of grace and free will in man. He was
qualified to oppose the Occamist teaching, but was incapable
of replacing it by the true doctrine."4

Against the prevalent doctrine on the powers of man, Luther,
among other verses from the Bible, brought forward John xv. 5 :
" Without me ye can do nothing." A remark on his use of this
supposed scriptural proof may serve to conclude what we have
said of the far-reaching negative influence of Occamism on the
youthful Luther.

The decisive words of the Redeemer : " Without me ye can do
nothing," so Luther says to his friend Spalatin, had hitherto been
understood quite wrongly. And, in proof of this, he adduces the
interpretation which he must have heard in his school, or read
in the authors who were there in repute : " Our masters," he
says, " have made a distinction between the general and the
particular concurrence of God " (concursus generalis and con-
cur sus specialis or gratia) ; with the general concurrence man
was able, so they taught, to do what is naturally good, i.e. what
they considered to be good ; with the particular, however, that
which is beyond nature (" qum gratice sunt et supra naturam "),
and meritorious for heaven. To this statement of the perfectly
correct teaching of his masters he adds, however, the following :

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 24, p. 244, in 1527.

2 Ibid., p. 4.

3 Ibid., 2, p. 420.

* Denifle, I1, p. 561. In spite of this, some Protestant critics are
under the impression that Denifle has made of Luther a faithful
follower of Occam and that he " gives him short shrift as a confirmed
Occamist."

154 LUTHER THE MONK

they taught that " with our powers we are able, under the
general Divine concurrence, to prepare ourselves for the obtaining
of grace, i.e. for the obtaining of the particular concurrence,
hence that we can ' inchoative ' do something, to gain merit and the
vision of God, notwithstanding the express teaching of Christ,
though we are indeed unable to do this ' perfective,' without the
particular assistance of grace."1

What Luther says here applies at most to the Nominalists ;
according to Occam's school the preparation for sanctifying
grace takes place by purely natural acts,2 and accordingly this
school was not disposed to take Christ's words about eternal life
too literally. Although healthy Scholasticism knows nothing of
this and holds fast to the literal meaning of the words "Without
me ye can do nothing," viz. nothing for eternal life (the absolute
necessity of the general concurrence is taken for granted),
yet Luther, in all simplicity, assures his friend that the whole
past had taken the words of Christ in the sense he mentions
(" Sic est hucusque autoritas ista exposita et intellecta.")3 This
doctrine he detests so heartily, that he sets up the very extreme
opposite in his new system. The general Divine concursus, he
says in his letter to Spalatin quoted above, certainly leads nature
on to work of itself, but it cannot do otherwise than " seek its
own and misuse the gifts of God." Nature merely provides stuff
for the " punishing fire," however " good and moral its works
may appear outwardly." Hence, according to him, there is no
distinction between general and particular concurrence, between
the inchoative and the perfective act ; without Christ, and
" before we have been healed by His grace," there is absolutely
nothing but mischief and sin.

By " grace," here and elsewhere, he means the state of
justifying grace. Whereas true Scholasticism recognises
actual grace, which assists man even before justification,
this is as good as excluded by Luther already in the be-
ginning of his theological change. Why ? Partly because
he cannot make use of it as he refers everything to justifying
faith, partly because the Occamists, his masters, erroneously
reduced the particular influence of God almost entirely to
sanctifying grace, and neglected or denied actual grace.

In the latter respect we perceive one of the positive effects
of Occamism on Luther. This leads us to another aspect
of the present theme.

1 On April 13, 1520, " Brief wechsel," 2, p. 379 f.

2 Cp. Denifie, l1, p. 564.

3 Mathesius, " Tischreden " (ed. Kroker), p. 172. " Scholastica
theologia in hoc articulo consentit, hominem ex puris naturalibus posse
mereri gratiam de congruo." Words of Luther in 1540. As a good
Occamist he himself had taught the same in his first exposition of the
Psalms. See above, p. 75.

DIRECT INFLUENCE OF OCCAMISM 155

3. Positive Influence of Occamism

We have so far been considering the precipitate and
excessive antagonism shown at an early date by Luther
towards the school of Occam, especially towards its
anthropological doctrines ; we have also noted its influence
on his new heretical principles, particularly on his denial
of man's natural ability for good. Now we must turn our
attention to the positive influence of the Occamist teaching
upon his new line of thought, for Luther's errors are to be
ascribed not only to the negative, but also to the positive
effects of his school.

His principal dogma, that of justification, must first be
taken into consideration.

This he drew up entirely on the lines of a scheme handed
down to him by his school. It is no uncommon thing to
see even the most independent and active minds tearing
themselves away from a traditional train of thought in one
particular, and yet continuing in another to pursue the
accustomed course, so great is the power which a custom
acquired at school possesses over the intellect. The simi-
larity existing between Luther's and Occam's doctrine of
the imputation of righteou sness isquite remarkable. Occam
had held it, at least as possible, that a righteousness existed
which was merely imputed ; at any rate, it was only because
God so willed it that sanctifying grace was necessary in the
present order of things. He and his school had, as a matter
of fact, no clear perception of the supernatural habit as a
supernatural principle of life in the soul. According to the
Occamist Peter d'Ailly, whom Luther repeatedly quotes
in his notes on Peter Lombard, reason cannot be convinced
of the necessity of the supernatural habit ; all that this is
supposed to do can be done equally well by a naturally
acquired habit ; an unworthy man might be found worthy
of eternal life without any actual change taking place in
him ; only owing to an acceptation on God's part ("a sola
divina acceptatione ") does the soul become worthy of
eternal life, not on account of any created cause (therefore
not on account of love and grace).1 " The whole work of

1 Cp. the passages from Occam, d'Ailly and Biel in Denifle- Weiss,
l2, p. 591 ff. To the texts there quoted from Occam must be added
those from 3 Sent., q. 8, A., where, " de necessitate habituum super -
naturalium" he establishes three conclusions : 1. Their necessity

156 LUTHER THE MONK

salvation here becomes external ; it is mechanical, not
organic."1

If Luther, in consequence of his study of these Occamist
doctrines, fell into error regarding the supernatural, the
consequences were even worse when, with his head full
of such Occamistic ideas, he proceeded to expound the
most difficult of the Pauline Epistles, with their dim and
mysterious handling of grace, and, at the same time, to
ponder on the writings of St. Augustine, 2 that deep-thinking
Doctor of grace. Such studies could only breed fresh
confusion in his mind.

cannot be proved by natural reason. 2. The necessity of these habits
cannot be inferred from the article of faith, that eternal salvation is
bestowed on man on account of his merits. 3. We can in addition to
each supernatural habit possess also a natural one corresponding to
it and which impels us to similar acts. Yet, as he says in concluding,
the passage 1 Cor. xiii. 13 : " Nunc autem manent fides," etc., teaches
that the habits exist in the righteous and remain in the next life. But
at the letter D he returns to the subject : one who is not baptised and
receives instruction can arrive at the love of God : " dilectio non
infusa, igitur acquisita " ; the acts of the will which we produce are
natural ones, therefore the habit also is natural which they induce :
" non obstante quod sit in voluntate habitus supernaturalis propter
auctoritatem [scriptural], adhuc oportet ponere habitum naturaliter
acquisitum" Finally, under T, after again recognising the " fides
infusa, propter auctoritatem scripturce," yet, as a matter of fact, he
says, though the habits might be acquired naturally, they are fre-
quently infused by God, and therefore called rightly " dona Dei "
and " habitus infusi." The same habit, however, cannot be merely
naturally acquired, but also as such " habere effectus eiusdem speciei
vel rationis " ; the supernatural habits might nevertheless appear
absolutely superfluous (" viderentur totaliter super fluere") were it
not for biblical authority ; " non sunt ponendi propter aliquam rationem
evidentem." Thus, on the one hand, the strongest attempts to abolish
the habits, and, on the other, a holding fast to the teaching of the
Bible. Nothing is more incorrect than to accuse Occam of a simple
surrender of the supernatural qualities and a direct destruction of the
supernatural order. Even the index to Occam's Commentary on the
Sentences shows under the word habitus how strictly he distinguishes
between habitus infusus and habitus acquisitus, and how he accepts
both and teaches, for instance, that the natural habits may remain
even after the destruction of the supernatural.

1 See Denifle- Weiss, l2, p. 594.

2 In Augustine the doctrine of imputation does not appear. Cp.
Mausbach, "Die Ethik des hi. Augustinus" (1909), 2, p. 187, who,
after pointing out this fact, remarks : " This doctrine of imputation
was actually set up by Luther, whose mind was dominated by Nomi-
nalism." Luther was able to introduce the continuance of original
sin into Augustine's writings only by forcing their meaning (see above,
his alteration of concupiscentia into peccatum, p. 98). From the stand-
point of the continuance of original sin Luther, already in his Commen-
tary on Romans, attacks the supernatural habit pf grace. Cp. Braun,
" Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz bei Luther," p. 310.

DIRECT INFLUENCE OF OCCAMISM 157

The result was as follows : regarding imputation, i.e.
one of the foundations of his theology, Luther quotes Occam
in such a way as to represent him as teaching as a fact what
he merely held to be possible. He declares sanctifying grace
to be not merely superfluous, but also non-existent, and
erects the theory of Divine acceptation into a dogma. This
alone would be sufficient to demonstrate his positive depend-
ence on Occamism.

The theories of acceptation, which were peculiar to the
Occamists and which Luther took over — though what they
called by this name he prefers to call imputation — had not
only met with approval, but had also been widely applied
by this school.

According to d'Ailly, evil is not evil on account of its special
nature, but only because God forbids it (" practise, quia lege
prohibitum ") ; a law or rule of conduct does not exist by nature,
for God might have willed otherwise ("potest non esse lex") ;
He has, however, decreed it in the present order of things.
Similar views appear in Luther's Commentary on Romans, where
little regard is paid to the objective foundation of the moral law. x

According to Occam, God acts according to whim. D'Ailly
actually discovers in him the view that it is not impossible to
suppose that the created will might deserve well by hating God,
because God might conceivably command this. In Luther we
at least find the opinion that God knows of no grounds for His
action and might therefore work what is evil in man, which then,
of course, would not be evil in God in consequence of His not
imputing it to Himself as such.

The Divine imputation or pactum plays its part in the Occam-
istic sense in Luther's earliest theological lectures on the Psalms.
" Faith and Grace," he there says, " by which we are justified
to-day, would not justify us of themselves save as a consequence
of the ' pactum Dei.' " In the same place he teaches that, as a
result of such an " agreement and promise," those who, before
Christ, fulfilled the law according to the letter, acquired a
supernatural merit de congruo.2

Luther's dependence on Occamism caused him, as Denifle
expresses it, to be always " on bad terms with the super-
natural " ;3 we must not, however, take this as meaning that
Luther did not do his best, according to his own lights, to support
and to encourage faith in revelation, both in himself and in
others.

We shall see how in the case of justification he regards
faith, and then his particular " faith only " as the one

1 Cp. Denifle- Weiss, 2, p. 305, n. 4.

2 Cp. Loofs, " Dogmengesch.," 4, p. 699.

3 Denifle- Weiss, l2, p. 510.

158 LUTHER THE MONK

factor, not, however, the faith which is animated by charity,
and this because, with the Occamists, he rejects all super-
natural habits. He extols the value of faith on every occasion
at the expense of the other virtues.1

The positive influence of Occam on Luther is also to be
traced in the domain of faith and knowledge. Luther
imagines he is fortifying faith by laying stress on its supposed
opposition to reason, a tendency which is manifest already
in his Commentary on Romans. In this Occam and his
school were his models.

The saying that there is much in faith which is " plainly
against reason and the contrary of which is established by faith "2
comes from d' A illy. Occam found the arguments for the exist-
ence of one God inadequate.3 Biel has not so much to say
against these proofs, but he does hold that the fact that one only
God exists is a matter of faith not capable of being absolutely
proved by reason. 4

Occam, whom Biel praises as " multum clarus et latus," made
faith to know almost everything, but the results achieved by
reason to be few and unreliable.5 He employed the function of
reason, of a caustic reason to boot, in order to raise doubts, or
to exercise the mind at the expense of the truths of revelation ;
yet in the positive recognition of articles of faith he allowed
reason to recede into the background. In any case he prepared
the way for the saying, that a thing may be false in theology
and yet true in philosophy, and vice versa, a proposition con-
demned at the 5th Lateran Council by the Constitution Apostolici
Regiminis of Leo X. 6

Luther came to state clearly that " it was quite false to say
the same thing was true in philosophy and also in theology";
whoever taught this was fettering the articles of faith " as
prisoners to the judgment of reason."7 We shall have to speak
later of many examples of the violent and hateful language with
which he disparages reason in favour of faith. His love for the
Bible at an early period strengthened in him the idea — one which
the Occamists often advanced in the course of the dialectic
criticism to which they subjected the truths of religion — that
after all, the decisions of faith are not the same as those of the

1 Denifle-Weiss, ibid., p. 606.

2 In 2 Sent, in princ. : " Multa, quae apparent manifeste contra
rationem, et quorum opposita sunt consona fidei."

3 Quodlib. 1, q. 1 : " Non potest demonstrative probari, quod tantum
unus est Deus."

4 1 Sent., dist. 2, q. 10, concl. 3, F.

5 Denifle-Weiss, l2, p. 608.

6 Raynald., "Annal.," an. 1513, n. 92 sq. ; Mansi, "Coll. cone.,"
32, p. 842 seq.

7 Drews, " Disputationen Luthers," p 487, No. 4-6, from the
Disputation on January 11, 1539.

DIRECT INFLUENCE OF OCCAMISM 159

mind, and that we must make the best of this fact. Luther even
in his Commentary on Romans is ever ready to decry the "wisdom
of the flesh," which is there described as constantly interfering
with faith.

The union of faith and knowledge, of which true Scholasticism
was proud, never appealed to Luther.

The Occamists had also been before him in attacking Aristotle.
The fact that many esteemed this philosopher too highly gave
rise in their camp to bitter and exaggerated criticism, and to
excessive abuse of the Stagirite. Against the blind Aristotelians
d'Ailly had already written somewhat unkindly : "In philosophy,
i.e. in the teaching of Aristotle, there are no, or but few, con-
vincing proofs . . . we must call the philosophy or teaching of
Aristotle an opinion rather than a science."1 Gregory of Rimini,
whom Luther made use of and who was not ignorant of Occamism,
says that Aristotle had shockingly gone astray (" turpissime
erravit ") on many points, and, in some, had contradicted himself.

Such were the minds that inspired Luther at the time
when he was already making for a theological goal different
from that of the " rationalists," wise ones of this world,
and loquacious wiseacres, as he calls all the Scholastics
indiscriminately in his Commentary on Romans. Wherever
theology has made a right and moderate use of philosophical
proofs, philosophy has always shown itself as the ancilla
theologice, and has been of assistance in theological develop-
ment. After expelling reason from the domain of super-
natural knowledge Luther was forced to fall back on feeling
and inward experience, i.e. on elements, which, owing to
their inconstancy and variability, did not deserve the place
he gave them. This was as harmful to faith as the denial
of the rights of reason.

Gerson had lamented, concerning the misuse of philoso-
phical criticism in religious matters, that the methods of
the Nominalists made faith grow cold,2 and it may be that
Luther had experienced these effects in himself, since, in
his lectures on the Psalms, he acknowledges and regrets
the cooling of his life of faith.3 But, surely, in the same way
the predominance of feeling and so-called religious experience
was also to be regretted, as it crippled faith and deprived
it of a sure guide.

1 In 1 Sent., q. 3, a. 3 : "nullce vel paucce sunt rationes evidentes
demonstrativce . . . magis opinio quam scientia, et ideo valde sunt
reprehensibiles qui nimis tenaciter adhcerent auctoritati Aristotelis."

2 " Superbia scholasticos a poznitentia et fide viva prcepediens" etc.
" Opp." (Antw, 1706), p. 90.

3 See above, p. 70.

160 LUTHER THE MONK

Staupitz spoke from feeling and not from a clear perception
of facts when, in his admiration, he praised Luther as
exalting Christ and His grace. He applauded Luther, as
the latter says " at the outset of his career " : " This
pleases me in your teaching, that it gives honour and all to
God alone and nothing to man. We cannot ascribe to God
sufficient honour and goodness, etc."1 Staupitz sought for
enlightenment in a certain mysticism akin to Quietism,
instead of in real Scholasticism. On such mystic by-ways
Luther was sure to fall in with him, and, as a matter of fact,
from the point of view of a false mysticism, Luther was to
denounce " rationalising wisdom " and to speak in favour
of religious feeling even more strongly than he had done
before.

Under the influence of both these elements, a quietistic
mysticism and an antagonism to reason in matters of faith,
his scorn for all natural works grew. This made it easier
for him to regard the natural order of human powers as
having been completely upset by original sin. More and
more he comes to recognise only an appearance of natural
virtues ; to consider them as the poisonous blossoms of
that unconquerable selfishness which lies ever on the watch
in the heart of man, and is only to be gradually tamed by
the justifying grace of God. The denial of all freedom,
under the ban of sin, little by little becomes for him the
principal thing, the " summa causa" which, as he says in
so many words, he has to defend.2 Beside the debasement
of reason and the false fancies of his mysticism, stood as a
worthy companion the religion of the enslaved will ; this
we find present in his mind from the beginning, and at a
later period it obtained a lasting monument in the work
" De servo arbitrio" which Luther regarded as the climax
of his theology.3

But there are other connecting-links between Occamism
and the errors of the young Monk.

1 So Luther relates, In Gal. 2, p. 103.

2 " Totius summce christianarum rerum" So the Weim. ed., 18,
p. 614. " Opp. Lat. var.," 7, p. 132, in " De servo arbitrio."

3 This is the work which Albert Ritschl, the well-known Protestant
theologian, summed up as follows on account of the contradictions
which it contained : " Luther's work, ' De servo arbitrio,' is, and
remains, an unfortunate piece of bungling." " Die christl. Lehre von
der Rechtfertigung und Versohnung," l2, Bonn, 1882, p. 221. See
below, vol. ii., xiv. 3.

DIRECT INFLUENCE OF OCCAMISM 161

According to Occam's school the purely spiritual attri-
butes of God cannot be logically proved ; it does not con-
sider it as proved merely by reason that God is the last and
final end of man, and that outside of Him there is no real
human happiness, nor even, according to Occam himself,
that " any final cause exists on account of which all things
happen " j1 not only, according to him, must we be on our
guard against any idea that reason can arrive at God as the
origin of happiness and as the end of salvation, but even
His attributes we must beware of examining philosophically.
God's outward action knows no law, but is purely arbitrary.
Thus Occamism, with its theory of the arbitrary Divine
Will, manifesting itself in the act of " acceptation " or
imputation, was more likely to produce a servile feeling of
dependence on God than any childlike relationship ; with
this corresponded the feeling of the utter worthlessness of
man's own works in relation to imputation, which, abso-
lutely speaking, might have been other than it is.

It is highly probable that the bewildered soul of the young
Augustinian greedily lent an ear to such ideas, and laboured
to make them meet his own needs. The doubts as to pre-
destination which tormented him were certainly not thereby
diminished, but rather increased. How could the idea of
an arbitrary God have been of any use to him ? In all
likelihood the apprehensiveness and obscurity which colours
his idea of God, in the Commentary on Romans, was due
to notions imbibed by him in his school. Luther was later
on to express this conception in his teaching regarding the
" Deus absconditus" on whom, as the source of all pre-
destination (even to hell), we may not look, and whom we
may only timidly adore. Already in the Commentary
referred to he teaches the absolute predestination to hell
of those who are to be damned, a doctrine which no Occamist
had yet ventured to put forward.

Among the other points of contact between Luther's
teaching and Occamism, or Nominalism, we may mention,
as a striking example, his denial of Transubstantiation,
which he expressly associates with one of the theses of the
-Occamist d'Ailly. Here his especial hatred of the school of
St. Thomas comes out very glaringly.

1 " Non potest probari sufficienter, quod Deus sit causa finalis."
Quodlib. 4, q. 2. Other Nominalists go still further.

162 LUTHER THE MONK

Luther himself confesses later how the Occamist school had
led him to this denial.1 When studying scholastic theology he
had read in d'Ailly that the mystery of Christ's presence in the
Sacrament of the Altar would be much more comprehensible
could we but assume that He was present with the bread, i.e.
without any change of substance, but that this was impossible
owing to the unassailable contrary teaching of the Church on
Transubstantiation. The same idea is found in Occam, but of
this Luther was unaware. Luther criticises d'Ailly's appeal to
the Church, and then proceeds : " I found out later on what sort
of Church it is which sets up such a doctrine ; it is the Thomistic,
the Aristotelian. My discovery made me bolder, and therefore
I decided for Consnbstantiation. The opinions of the Thomists,
even though approved by Pope or Council, remain opinions and
do not become articles of faith, though an angel from heaven
should say the contrary ; what is asserted apart from Scripture
and without manifest revelation, cannot be believed."2 Yet in
point of fact the term " Transsubstantintio " had been first used
in a definition by the (Ecumenical Lateran Council of 1215 to
express the ancient teaching of the Church regarding the change
of substance. According to what Luther here says, St. Thomas
of Aquin (whose birth occurred some ten years later) was re-
sponsible for the introduction of the word and what it stood for,
in other words for the doctrine itself. A little later Luther
solemnly reaffirmed that " Transubstantiation is purely Thom-
istic " (1522).3 "The Decretals settled the word, but there is
no doubt that it was introduced into the Church by those coarse
blockheads the Thomists" (1541).4 Hence either he did not
know of the Council or its date, or he did not know when St.
Thomas wrote ; in any case he was ignorant of the relation in
which the teaching of St. Thomas on this point stood. to the
teaching of earlier ages. He was unaware of the historical fact of
the general adoption of the term since the end of the eleventh
century ; 5 he was not acquainted with the theologians who
taught in the interval between the Lateran Council and St.
Thomas, and who used both the name and the idea of Tran-
substantiation, and among whom were Albertus Magnus and
Alexander of Hales ; he cannot even have noted the title of the
Decretal from which he derived the knowledge of the existence
of the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Middle Ages, for it
is headed : " Innocentius tertius in concilio generali."

That he should have made St. Thomas responsible for
the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and that so rudely,

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 6, p. 508 ; " Opp. Lat. var.," 5, p. 29,
" De captivitate babylonica," 1520.

2 Ibid.

3 " Opp. Lat. var.," 6, p. 423 ; Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 204. Contra
regem Henricum.

4 To Prince George or John of Anhalt, June, 1541, " Brief e" (de
Wette), 6, p. 284.

6 Cp. Denifle-Weiss, l2, p. 614 ff.

"THE THOMIST HOGS " 163

appears to be a result of his ever-increasing hatred for
Aquinas. In the first period of his change of view, his
opposition was to the Scholastics in general, but from 1518
onwards his assaults are on St. Thomas and the Thomists.
Why was this ? A Thomist, Prierias of Rome, was the
author of the first pamphlet against him ; another Thomist,
Cardinal Cajetan, had summoned him to appear before his
tribunal ; both belonged to the Dominican Order, in which
Thomas, the great Dominican Saint, was most enthusiastic-
ally studied. Tetzel, too, was a Dominican and a Thomist.
Any examination of Luther's development cannot but pay
attention to this circumstance, though it is true it does not
belong to his earliest period. It makes many of the out-
breaks of anger to which he gave way later more compre-
hensible. In 1522 Luther pours out his ire on the " asinine
coarseness of the Thomists," on " the Thomist hogs and
donkeys," on the " stupid audacity and thickheadedness
of the Thomists," who " have neither judgment, nor insight,
nor industry in their whole body."1 His theology, we may
remark, largely owed its growth to this quarrel and the
contradiction it called forth.

Luther's tendency to controversial theology and his very
manner of proceeding, in itself far less positive than negative,
bore the Occamist stamp. It is true he was predisposed
this way by nature, yet the criticism of the nominalistic
school, the acuteness and questioning attitude of Occam
and d'Ailly, lent an additional impulse to his putting forth
like efforts. We shall not be mistaken in assuming that his
doctrinal arbitrariness was, to a certain extent at least, a
result of the atmosphere of decadent theology in which his
lot had been cast. The paradoxes to which he so frequently
descends are manifestly modelled on the antilogies with
which Occam's works abound ; like Occam, he frequently
leaves the reader in doubt as to his meaning, or speaks
later in quite a different way from what he did before.
Occam's garrulity was, so it would appear, infectious.
Luther himself, while praising his acuteness, blames Occam
for the long amplifications to which he was addicted.2 On

1 " Opp. Lat. var.," 6, pp. 397, 399, 400, 425 ; Weim. ed\, 10, 2,
pp. 188, 189, 190, 206. Contra regem Henricum.

2 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 18. After speaking of Occam as
" ingeniosissimus " he says : " illius studium erat, res dilaiare et
amplificare in infinitum"

164 LUTHER THE MONK

more than one occasion Luther reproaches himself for his
discursiveness and superabundance of rhetoric. Even the
Commentaries he wrote in his youth on the Psalms and the
Epistle to the Romans prove to the reader that his self-
reproof was well deserved, whilst the second Commentary
also manifests that spirit of criticism and arbitrariness,
bold to overstep the barriers of the traditional teaching of
the Church, which he had likewise received from his Occamist
masters.

Various attempts have been made to point out other
theological influences, besides those considered above, as
having worked upon Luther in his earlier years.

It would carry us too far to discuss these opinions indi-
vidually, the more so that there are scarcely sufficient data
to hand to lead to a decision. Luther himself, who should be
the principal witness, is very reticent concerning the authors
and the opinions he made use of in forming his own ideas.
He would rather give the impression that everything had
grown up spontaneously from his own thought and research ;
that his teaching sprang into being from himself alone
without the concurrence of outsiders, like Minerva from the
head of Jupiter. He assumes to himself with the utmost
emphasis the precedence in the discovery of the Gospel,
for instance, against rivals such as Carlstadt and Zwingli ;
he alone had read his Bible, and Carlstadt was quite un-
acquainted with it ; he only, with illumination from above,
had discovered everything.

As we find in his writings so few allusions to outside
influences- — save to that of Occamism- — it does not" appear
worth while to philosophise as to whether he had, or had
not, been touched by the Gallicanism which was in the air.
It is very doubtful whether he, in the comparative seclusion
of his little world of Erfurt and Wittenberg, came to any
extent under this influence, especially as his studies were so
cursory and brief and confined within such narrow limits.
The Gallican tendencies did not find in Germany anything
like so fruitful a soil as in France. It is true that Luther
soon after his change of opinions was capable of rivalling
any Paris professor of Gallican sympathies in his depreciation
of the Holy See. Hence though no immediate influence
on Luther can be allowed to Gallicanism, yet the fact

MYSTIC INFLUENCES 165

remains that the prevalent anti-Roman tendencies greatly
contributed to the wide acceptance of the Lutheran schism
in Germany, and even beyond its borders.

Again, that Luther, as has been asserted, after having
tasted the food provided by Nominalism, was so disgusted
as to rush to the opposite extreme in Scholasticism, making
his own the very worst elements of realism, both philoso-
phical and theological, seems to rest on fancy rather than
on facts. We may likewise refuse to see in Wiclifism, with
which Luther was acquainted only through the Constance
Theses, any element of inspiration, and also shake our heads
when some Protestants, at the other extreme, try to show
that the Doctors of the Church, St. Augustine and St.
Bernard, were really the parties responsible for Luther's
turning his back on the doctrines of the Church.

On the other hand, the influence of mysticism, with which
we have now to deal, deserves much more attention. It
cannot be denied that a very considerable part in the de-
velopment of his new ideas was played by mysticism ;
already at an early date the mystic spirit which Augustine's
works owed to their writer's Platonic studies, had attracted
Luther without, however, making him a Neo-Platonist.1
During the time of his mental growth he was likewise
warmly attached to German mysticism. Yet, here again,
it is an exaggeration, as we can already see, to state as some
non- Catholics do that Luther, " as the theologian of the
Reformation," was merely " a disciple of Tauler and the
Frankfort author of the German Theology," or that " it
was only through meeting with the Frankfort theologian
that he was changed from a despairing swimmer struggling
in the billows of a gloomy sea into a great reformer."

1 H. Bohmer, " Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschungen
(1910), p. 53. " What made such a deep impression on him ? [in the
works of Augustine]. First, if we may believe the notes in his own
hand in the copy he chiefly used (' Werke,' Weim. ed., vol. ix.), more
particularly Augustine's mystico-philosophical considerations on God,
the world, the soul, the worthlessness of all earthly things, and felicity
in God. These ideas, however, were hardly quite new to him. He had
already met with them, for instance, in Bernard of Clairvaux and
other mystics." That they should have " impressed him so forcibly,"
as Bohmer rightly remarks, was largely owing to the fact that his ear
caught in them echoes of the ideas germinating in his own mind.

CHAPTER V

THE ROCKS OF FALSE MYSTICISM

1. Tauler and Luther

John Tauler, the mystic and Dominican preacher of
Strasburg, whom Luther so favoured, was quite Catholic
in his teaching ; to attribute to him, as has been done, any
Pantheistic ideas is to do him an injustice, and it is equally
wrong to imagine that he forestalled Luther's notions
regarding grace and justification. Yet his fanciful and
suggestive mode of expression, his language which voiced,
not the conceptual definiteness of Scholasticism, but the
deep feelings of the speaker, often allows of his words being
interpreted in a way quite foreign to his real meaning. It
was just this depth of feeling and this obscurity which
attracted Luther. As his letters show, he breathed more
freely while perusing Tauler's writings, because they re-
sponded to his natural disposition and his moods, not the
least point in their favour being the absence in them of
those hard-and-dry philosophical and dialectical mannerisms
which were hateful to him. Without 'even rightly under-
standing it, he at once applied the teaching of this master
of mysticism to his own inward condition and his new, grow-
ing opinions ; he clothed his own feelings and views in
Tauler's beautiful and inspiring words. His beloved mother-
tongue, so expertly handled in Tauler's sermons, was at
the same time a new means of binding him still more firmly
to the mystic. In Tauler the necessity of the complete
surrender of the soul to the action of God, of indifference
and self-abandonment, is strongly emphasised. To free
oneself as far as possible of self ; to renounce all confidence
in oneself in so far as this implies self-love and the pride
of the sinful creature ; to accept with waiting, longing,
suffering confidence God's almighty working, this, with
Tauler as with all true mystics, is the fundamental condition

166

TAULER 167

for a union through love with the most Perfect Being.
Luther, in his false interpretation of Tauler, came to dream
of a certain false passivity on man's part, which he then
expanded into that complete passivity which accompanies
the process of justification. He thought that Tauler re-
pudiated the doing of good works in his own sense. He
fancied that in him he had an ally in his fight against the
so-called self-righteous and holy-by-works. He quite over-
looked the contrary exhortations to the practice of good
works and all observances of the Church which the great
mystic had so much at heart.1

Tauler frequently speaks of the night of the soul, of the
darkness in which the natural man must place himself on
the way from death to life and through the cross to light ;
by this he means the self-humiliation which is pleasing to
God, by which man fills himself with the sense of his own
nothingness, and so prepares for the incoming of God into
his innermost being. He often insists that the Creator, by
means of the suffering and cruel inward desolation which He
sends His elect, brings about that state of night, cross and
death, to prove and refine the soul in order to prepare it for
an intimate union with Himself. Such passages Luther
referred to the states of fear and fright from which he so
frequently suffered, possibly also to his want of joy in his
vocation, and the state of unrest which, as he complains
to his brother monk, George Leiffer, owing to his surrendering
himself too much to his own excessive cleverness, pressed
heavily upon him.2 When, during the warfare he had to
wage on behalf of his new doctrine, his inward unrest
increased, and at times almost mastered him, he took
refuge still more eagerly in the tenets of the mystic, striving
to calm himself with the idea that his pangs of conscience
and his mental anguish were merely a preparation for the
strong, joyous faith which must spring up in his soul and

1 Cp., e.g., Tauler's complaint against those who misuse the direc-
tions of the mystics in the sense of ethical passivity, i.e. of Quietism :
" They blindly mislead their nature and become careless of all good
works," etc. " They sink into a dangerous natural quietude . . .
without the practice of virtue." " Man," on the contrary, " must
recognise the commandments of God and the Church and resolve to
keep the same." " Tauler's Sermons," ed. Hamberger, 1, p. 194 f.
Cp. J. Zahn, " Einfiihrung in die christl. Mystik," Paderborn, 1908,
p. 313 ff.

2 To George Leiffer, April 15, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 31.

168 LUTHER THE MONK

those of his followers as a pledge of justification. His very
doubts and difficulties became to him, with the help of his
misunderstood mysticism, a sign that he was chosen for the
highest things, and that God would lead him and all to
peace through the new doctrine. It is in connection with
his teaching concerning the night of the soul that he most
frequently quotes Tauler at the commencement of his
public struggle, whereas, before that, he had been wont to
bring him into the field only against the so-called self-
righteous, or against Scholasticism.1

It was known at that time that he had become a pupil of
Tauler, whom he frequently quoted, but few of his adver-
saries seem to have recognised the above-mentioned psycho-
logical connection. Dungersheim of Leipzig on one occasion,
in 1519, rightly holds up before him the teaching and
example of Tauler, and tells him he might have learnt
from him how useful it was to accept from others warnings
and criticisms ; he gloried in having learnt from Tauler
many more spiritual doctrines than from any other man,
but he really only understood one thing well, namely, how
to kick against the pricks to his own hurt.2

Luther's first mention of Tauler is not contained in his letter
to Lang of the late summer of 1516, 3 as was hitherto thought,
but in the Commentary on Romans, which was already finished
in the summer of 1516.

It follows from this circumstance that he was already ac-
quainted with Tauler's sermons during the time that he was
busy on this Epistle. He had come across them somewhat
earlier, probably in the course of 1515, when he was nearing his
inward crisis. In this passage of the Commentary4 he declares
that God works secretly in man and without his knowledge,
and that what He does must be borne, i.e. must be accepted
with humility and neglect of self. How we are thus to suffer what
God sends, " Tauler," he says, " explains in the German lan-
guage better than the others. Yes, yes, we do not know how to

1 With regard to his ideas of the supposed animosity of mysticism
for Scholasticism, W. Kohler says (" Luther und die Kirchengesch.,"
1, 1, Erlangen, p. 285) : " the opposition between mysticism and
Scholasticism, which has become historic, was never so acute as it
appeared to Luther's imagination. In principle, Scholasticism and
mysticism stand on the same ground, one being the necessary comple-
ment of the other."

2 From Dungersheim's " Dialogue adversus M. Lutherum " ;
Enders, " Brief wechsel," p. 180.

3 " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 55 : "iuxta Taulerum tuum."

4 " Schol. Rom.," p. 205.

TAULER 169

pray in the way we should. Therefore God's strength must come
to the assistance of our misery. We, however, must acknowledge
our despair and utter nakedness."

But without actually mentioning Tauler by name, he frequently
in this Commentary, utilises ideas which he supports by his
teaching. Thus, when in Romans v. 3 he describes in far-fetched
terms the self-annihilation of the soul, its fears and pains, from
which finally its firm hope in God emerges. The " tribulatio
patientiam operaticr " of the Apostle he takes there to mean
mystical inward tribulation ; one must desire to be as nothing, in
order that the honour of the Eternal God as Creator may remain. x
Only the self-righteous and the hypocrites shun the mystical
death which lies in a renunciation of all self-merit ; according to
a mystical interpretation of a certain Bible passage the " strong
man armed " (Luke xi. 21 f.) will destroy the " mountains of
their works " ; but the good, in their absolute destitution and
tribulation, rejoice in God only, because, according to Paul,
" the charity of God is poured forth " in the hearts of the sorely
proved ; they are drawn into the mysterious darkness of the
Divine union and recognise therein not what they love, but
only what they do not love ; they find nothing but satiety in
what they know and experience, only what they know not, that
they desire.2 Such language simply misinterprets some of
Tauler's profound meditations.

As, in his Commentary on the Psalms, Luther does not yet
refer either directly or indirectly to Tauler, although the matter
frequently invited him to do so, this confirms the supposition
that it was only after the termination of those lectures, or towards
their conclusion in 1515, that he became acquainted with the
Master's sermons — which alone come under consideration.
Probably, as mentioned elsewhere, he owed his knowledge of
them to Johann Lang.3

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 135, he says of the earthly minded : " Ntdlus
[est] eius Deus creator, quia non vult esse nihil, cuius ille sit creator.
Nullius [read nullus] est potens, sapiens, bonus, quia non vult in in-
firmitate, stultitia, penalitate sustinere eum."

2 Ibid., p. 138, in the passage : " Quia charitas Dei diffusa est in
cordibus noslris " (Rom. v. 5) : " ' Charitas Dei ' dicitur, quia per earn
solum Deum diligimus, ubi nihil visibile, nihil experimentale nee intus
nee foris est, in quod confidatur aut quod ametur aut timeatur, sed super
omnia in invisibilem Deum et inexperimentalem, incomprehensibilem, sc.
in medias tenebras interiores rapitur, nesciens quid amet, sciens, autem
quid non amet, et omne cognitum et experlum fastidiens et id quod nondum
cognoscit, tantum desiderans. . . . Hoc donum longissimo abest ab Us,
qui suas iustitias adhuc vident et diligunt et non visis tristantur.^
He thinks he must rise superior to such self-righteous, to whom his
brother monks, who are zealous for good works (the Observantines ?),
belonged.

3 See above, p. 43. We shall deal later with his further relations
with Lang, with whom he shared an inclination to mystic studies
and leanings.

170 LUTHER THE MONK

One of the books used by Luther in his youth and pre-
served in the Ratsschul-Library at Zwickau is a copy of
Tauler's sermons in the 1508 Augsburg edition with Luther's
annotations made about 15I5.1 The notes prove how
strongly his active imagination was caught up into this new
world of ideas, and how, with swelling sails, he set out for
the port he thought lay beyond the mystic horizon.

Mysticism teaches the true wisdom, he there says, warmly
praising this knowledge as " experimental, not doctrinal "
(" sapientia experimentalis et non doctrinalis "). Dimly the error
breaks in upon his mind, that man can have no wish, no will of
his own with respect to God ; true religion {vera fides) is the
complete renunciation of the will, the most absolute passivity ;
only thus is the empty vessel of the heart filled by God, the cause
of all ; the work of salvation is a " negotium absconditum,"
entirely the work of God, and He commences it by the destruc-
tion of our self (" quod nos et nostra destruat ") ; He empties us not
only of our good works and desires, but even of our knowledge,
for " He can only work in us while we are ignorant and do not
comprehend what He is doing." Any active striving after virtue
on our part (" operatio virtutum ") only hinders the birth of the
word in our soul.2

His new ideal of virtue necessarily involves our not striving
after any particular virtues ; we are not to imitate this or that
special virtue of some saint lest this prove to be the result of
our own planning, and not God's direction, and thus be contrary
to passivity.3 Not only will he grant nothing to sexual desire,
or allow it anywhere, but even the enjoyment of the five senses
(he calls it simply luxuria) must be struggled against, and

1 This is one of the seven old books discovered there in 1889-90;
the glosses added by Luther to the same were edited by Buchwald
in the Weim. ed., volume ix. For the glosses to Tauler, see ibid.,
p. 95 ff .

2 Weim. ed., 9, pp. 98, 102 f. The real action of God on the spirit
is that which takes place through Him " ignorantibus et non intelli-
genlibus nobis id quod agit"'' He complains : " Etsi sciamus quod
Deus non agat in nobis, nisi prius nos et nostra destruat . . . non nudi
stamus in mera fide " ; but the " nuda fides " is necessary because
God acts contrary to our ways of thinking and does what we may
fancy to be " ex diabolo." Such exhortations to confide ourselves blindly
to a higher direction may be right, but one naturally asks how is -the
fact of this guidance from on high to be guaranteed and distinguished
from a mere leading astray. Luther in his public life simply assumed
his mission to be divine because he felt it to be such (see vol. hi., xvi.,
1 and 2), and because he persuaded himself that he was being led by
inspiration from above " like a blind horse " to fight against Anti-
christ.

3 Weim. ed., 9, p. 103 : " Nullius exempli passionem vel opera-
tionem oportet sibi prcestituere, sed indifferentem et nudam voluntatem
habere," etc.

TAULER 171

the ** sweets of the spirit " be kept at a distance, namely,
" devotiones," " affectiones," " consolationes et hominum bonorum
societates."1

In his recommendation of passivity two tendencies unite, the
negative influence of the school of Occam, viz. the opposition to
human works, and the influence of certain dimly apprehended
mystical thoughts.

While Luther twists Tauler's expressions to suit the errors
which were germinating in his mind in opposition to Scholasti-
cism, or, rather, to Occamism, he proceeds, according to his manu-
script notes in Tauler's book, seriously to jeopardise free will
without, however, as yet actually attacking it. He finds the
origin of all evil in man's setting up against God his own will,
and cherishing his own individual intentions and hopes. He
thinks he is summing up the whole of Tauler's doctrine with the
words " God does everything in us " (" omnia in nobis operatur
Deus " ). 2 Where Tauler in one of his sermons, obviously speaking
of other matters, says : " When God is in all things," Luther
immediately follows up the author's words with : " Hoc, quceso,
nota " ;3 the exclusiveness of the Divine being and working
appears to him of the utmost moment.

And yet it should be expressly pointed out that Tauler and the
real Christian mystics knew nothing of that passivity and complete
surrendering of self which floated before Luther's mind. On the
contrary, they declare such ideas to be false. " The ideal of
Christian mysticism is not an ideal of apathy but of energy,"4
" a striving after an annihilation of individuality " was always
a mark of mock mysticism. Another essential difference between
true mysticism and that of Luther is to be found in the quality
of the state of spiritual sadness and abandonment. Luther's
descriptions of the state mirror the condition of a soul without
hope or trust and merely filled with despair and dull resignation ;
this we shall see more clearly in his accounts of the pains of hell
and of readiness for hell. With the recognised Catholic mystics
this is not the case, and, in spite of all loss of consolation, there
yet remains, according to them, " in the very depths of the soul,
the heroic resolve of fidelity in silent prayer."5 Confidence and
love are never quenched though they are not sensibly felt, and
the feeling of the separation of the soul from its God in this
Gethsemane proceeds merely from a great love of God which does
not think of any " readiness for hell." " That is love," Tauler

1 Ibid., p. 98 f.

2 Ibid., p. 98 : It is true he thinks he is explaining what precedes :
" Nota, quod divina pati magis quam agere oportet."

3 Ibid., p. 104. Cp. p. 103 : " Deus est intimior rebus ceteris quam
ipse [i.e. ipsoe~\ sibi," etc.

4 See J. Zahn, " Einfuhrung in die christl. Mystik," p. 320. Refer-
ence may be made to this excellent work for the historical proofs,
even from Tauler, into which we are not able to enter ; p. 291, on the
" Erloschen der Ichheit."

5 Zahn, ibid., pp. 331, 327.

172 LUTHER THE MONK

says, where there is a burning in the midst of starvation, want
and deprivations, and yet at the same time perfect calm.1

It is no wonder that in Luther's Commentary on Romans,
written at about the same time as the notes, or shortly after, his
pseudo-mysticism breaks out. In addition to the already quoted
passages from the Commentary let us take the following, which
is characteristic of his new conception of perfect love : With the
cross we must put everything of self to death ; should God give
spiritual graces, we must not enjoy them, not rejoice over them ;
for they may bring us in place of death a mistaken life of self, so
that we stop short at the creature and leave the Creator. There-
fore away with all trust in works ! Only the most perfect love,
the embracing of God's will absolutely, without any personal
advantage is of any worth, only such love as would, if it could,
strip itself even of its own being. 2

Frequently in this period of strange spiritual transition
Luther's manner of speaking of the dissolving of the soul in
God, and the penetrating of all things by the Divine, borders
on Pantheism, or on false Neo-Platonism. This, however,
is merely owing to his faulty mode of expression. He does
not appear to have been either disposed or tempted to
leave the path of Christianity for actual Pantheism or Neo-
Platonism, although the previous example of Master Eckhart
and of others shows us, that mysticism has not infrequently
allured even great and talented minds on to these rocks.
That he should, as already shown, have welcomed without
any sign of scruple the actual destruction of all free will for
good must, in part, be explained by his lack of a thorough
theological and philosophical training. How different
might have been his development, given his mental char-
acter, had he, instead of devoting his attention in his unripe
years to the teachings of mysticism, steeped himself, for
instance, in the " Summa Theologica " of Thomas of Aquin,

1 " Sermons," ed. Hamberger, 2, p. 131 ; in the sermon on Luke
xv. 8 ff. Cp. Zahn, p. 343 ff. " Ueber die Prufungen im mystischen
Leben."

2 " Schol. Rom.," p. 135 seq., p. 138 : " Charitas Dei, quae est
purissima affectio in Deum, quce sola facit rectos corde, sola aufert
iniquitatem, sola exstinguit fruitionem proprice iustitios. Quia non
nisi solum et purum Deum diligit, non dona ipsa Dei, sicut hipo-
critm iustitiarii.'''' P. 139, again against the " hipocritarum charitas,
qui sibi ipsis fingunt et simulant se habere charitatem. . . . Diligere
Deum propter dona et propter comodum est vilissima dilectione, i.e.
concupiscentia eum diligere.'''' God is to be loved " propter voluntatem
Dei absolute," otherwise it is not the love of the children of God, but
the love of slaves. He overlooks the fact that it is possible to recom-
mend the higher without altogether repudiating the lower.

THE GERMAN MYSTICS 173

that brightest and greatest mind of the Middle Ages ! After
making himself thoroughly at home in such a theology he
would then have been qualified to summon to his assistance
the better sort of mysticism, in which he would have found
much agreeing with his stamp of mind and which would
have allowed him to rise to a still higher enjoyment of the
true and good. If then he was not content to stop short at
Tauler and the " German Theology," there was the Domini-
can Henry Suso also at his service, the godly author of
writings such as " The Little Book of Eternal Wisdom,"
which has been called the " finest fruit of German mysticism"
(Denifle). He shows in how inspiring a union pious immer-
sion in God can be combined with theological clearness of
thought. Many others who flourished after the time of
Suso, in Germany and elsewhere, and who distinguished
themselves as practical and at the same time theoretical
mystics by the depth of their feeling and their theological
culture would have served as his examples. Such were
Johann Ruysbroek, of Groenendael near Brussels, Gerard
Groot of Deventer, the founder of the Brothers of the Com-
mon Life, Henry of Louvain, Ludolf the Carthusian, Gerson
of Paris — with his excellent Introduction to Mysticism, on
the lines of the so-called Areopagite— Thomas a Kempis,
the pious guide, and, among enlightened women, Lidwina
of Schiedam in Holland, Catherine of Bologna and Catherine
of Genoa. The names mentioned, so far as they belong to
the domain of German mysticism, point to a fertile religious
and literary field in Luther's own country, as attractive by
profundity of thought and beauty of representation as by
depth of feeling and heartiness of expression. It was a cruel
misunderstanding- — which, however, is now breaking down
more and more, even in the case of Protestant writers— to
represent the ideas of German mysticism as precursors of
Luther's later doctrine.

This vein of true mysticism remained sealed to Luther.
By attempting to create a theology of his own with the
fantastic notions which he read into Tauler, he fell into the
mistake against which Thomas of Aquin had already
sounded a warning note in his " Summa Theological
Without a safe guiding star many minds are led astray by
the attraction of the extraordinary, by the delusions of an
excited fancy or the influence of disordered inclinations,

174 LUTHER THE MONK

and consider that to be the work of Divine grace which is
merely deception, as experience shows.1

As an expression of the spiritual turmoil going on in
Luther, we may quote a passage from a sermon of January,
1517. Speaking of the gifts of the three kings he says :
" the pure and choice myrrh is the abnegation with which
we must be ready to return to absolute nothingness, to the
state before creation ; every longing for God is there re-
linquished (!), and likewise the desire for things outside of
God ; one thing only is desired : to be led according to His
good pleasure back to the starting-point, i.e. to nothingness.
Ah, yes, just as before God called us into existence we were
nothing, desired nothing, and existed only in the mind of
God, so we must return to that point, to know nothing, to
desire nothing, to be nothing. That is a short way, the way
of the cross, by which we may most speedily arrive at life."2
Whether a sermon was the right place for such, at best
purely incomprehensible, an outburst, is doubtful. Luther,
the idealist, was then disposed to pay but little attention
to such practical considerations. In the eyes of many of
his pupils and friends, however, mystical discourses of this
sort may have lent him the appearance of a pious, spiritually
minded man.

With regard to the " way of the cross " and the " theology
of the cress," which he began to teach as soon as he had lost
himself in the maze of mysticism, he explains himself more
clearly in the Disputations which he organised at Witten-
berg, and which will be dealt with below.3

1 2-2, q. 188, a. 5.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 123 f., quoted by Hunzinger, " Luther
und die deutsche Mystik " [" Neue kirchl. Zeitschr.," 19 (1908),
Heft 11, pp. 972-88], p. 984, who remarks : the passage shows " how
great the danger was at that time of Luther becoming lost in these
speculations " ; this is the " most extreme mystical utterance to be
found in his writings." When he says : " What is here described as
a via cruris is genuinely Neo-Platonic," all will not agree with him.
Hunzinger, p. 975, also considers it a proof of Neo-Platonism when,
in his Commentary on the Psalms, Luther follows St. Augustine and
urges man " avertere se a visibilibus et converter -e se ad invisibilia et
intelligibilia." One is more inclined to agree with his concluding
sentence : " No one will wish to assert, after taking note of this pro-
position, that Luther in his mystical period never left the path of the
ethical."

3 See below, viii. 2.

FRUITS OF MYSTICISM 175

2. Effect of Mysticism on Luther

The study of mysticism was not altogether disadvan-
tageous to Luther, for it proved of use to him in various
ways.

First, as regards his grasp of spiritual subjects and their
expression in words, Tauler's simple and heartfelt manner
taught him how to clothe his thoughts in popular and
attractive dress. The proof of this is to be found in his
writings for the people and in several of his more carefully
prepared sermons, particularly in the works and sermons
of the first period when the mystical influence was still
predominant. Also with regard to the common body of
Christian belief, so far as he still held fast to the same,
several excellent elements of Catholic mysticism stood him
in good stead, notwithstanding his inward alienation.
The intimate attachment of the mystics to Christ and their
longing expectation of salvation through the Lord alone,
sentiments which made an immense impression on his soul,
notwithstanding the fact that he understood them in a
one-sided and mistaken fashion, probably had their share
in preserving in him to the very end his faith in the Divinity
of Christ and in the salvation He wrought. They also led
him to esteem the whole Bible as the Word of God, and to
hold fast to various other mysteries which some of the
Reformers opposed, for instance, the mysterious presence
of Christ in the Sacrament, even though they did not
prevent him from modifying these doctrines according to
his whim. While Luther retained many of the views rooted
in the faith and sentiment of earlier ages, the Rationalism
of Zwingli was much more ready to throw overboard what
did not appear to be sanctioned by reason ; this came out
especially in the controversy on the Lord's Supper. The
reason of this was that Zwingli had been trained in the
school of a narrow and critical Humanism ; of mysticism
in any shape or form he knew nothing at all.

Among the advantages which Luther derived from
mysticism we cannot, however, reckon, as some have done,
his later success against the fanatics ; this success was not
a result of his having overcome their false mysticism by the
true one. By that time he had almost completely given
up his mysticism, whether true or false. He certainly met

176 LUTHER THE MONK

the attacks of the fanatics and Anabaptists by appealing
to his own mystical experiences, but that was really a mere
tactical, though none the less effective, manoeuvre on his
part, which, with his ready tongue and pen, he was able
to put to excellent account. " Who spoke of spirits ? " he
says ; "I also know the spirit and have had experience of
the spirit ; I am able, yea, am called, to reveal their delu-
sions." And in the eyes of many he may certainly have been
considered, on account of the " mystical " terrors he had
suffered, and to which he frequently referred in public, to
be specially fitted to unmask the false spiritualism of his
opponents. As a matter of fact, his fears and his mysticism
had nothing to do with the real discerning of spirits ; they
never brought him light, but only darkness. The truth is
that, at the time of his contest with the fanatics, he had
become more sober, had a clear, practical eye for the mis-
chief of the movement, and regarded it as the highest duty
of self-preservation to stamp out the flame of revolt against
his patrons and his own teaching. We shall see, however,
that the fanatics were, in a certain sense, the children of
Luther's own spirit.

The real good which Luther may have derived from the
study of mysticism was far more than counterbalanced by
the regrettable results of his notions concerning the " pure
myrrh " of passivity, and the desire for nothingness, which
at one and the same time involved him in a real labyrinth,
and raised his estimation of his own mission to an enormous
and dangerous height. He came to fancy himself far
superior not only to the Occamists, but to the whole of the
secular and regular clergy, the " swarm of religious and
priests," even to all the theologians, and particularly to the
Scholastics, those " sow theologians," who knew nothing
of what he was conversant with.

His mysticism had already paved the way for his later
belief with regard to his own Divine call to establish the
new teaching ; it was supported by his views of God's
guidance of the unconscious soul ; what he would formerly
have regarded as a mistaken road and due to diabolical
inspiration was now labelled a godly act.

True and real mysticism could not take root in him
because, to start with, the necessary predisposition, con-

MILITANT MYSTICISM 177

cerning which the other mystics and Tauler are agreed,
was wanting, viz. above all humility, calmness and that
holy indifference, which allows itself to be led by God along
the path of the rules of its calling without any ulterior,
private aims ; peaceableness, composure of mind and zeal
in prayer were not his. What mysticism left behind in
Luther was scarcely more than the fragrance of its Avords,
without any real fruit. What took root and grew in him was
rather the hard wood from which lances are made, ready
for every combat that may arise. His mysticism itself
gives the impression of being part of the battle which his
antagonism to the Occamists led him to give to Scholasticism.
Those who contradicted his new ideas — even his brother
monks, like the Erfurt philosophers and theologians- —
appeared to him to be opposed on account of their Scholas-
ticism. The most effective way of escaping or overcoming
them seemed to him the replacing of the older theology by
another, in which, together with Holy Scripture and St.
Augustine, mysticism should occupy a chief place.

By this, however, we do not mean that the mysticism of
Luther was merely a fighting weapon. From his letters we may
gather that he lived in the belief that his new road would con-
duct him to a joyous nearness to God.

The letter is dated December 14, 1516, in which he exhorts his
friend Spalatin, at the Court of the Elector, to taste in Tauler
" the pure, thorough theology, which so closely resembles the
old, and to see how bitter everything is that is ourselves,"
in order to "discover how sweet the Lord is."1 He is
already so mystically inclined that he will not even advise
his friend in answer to a query, which little religious books
he should translate into German for the use of the people ;
this advice lay in the counsel of God, as what was most whole-
some for man was generally not appreciated ; hardly was there
one who sought for Christ ; the world was full of wolves (these
thoughts certainly seem to have remained with him in his public
career) ; we must mistrust even our best intentions and be
guided only by Christ in prayer ; but the " swarm of religious
and priests always follow their own good and pious notions and
are thereby miserably deceived."

His letter to George Spenlein, which is saturated with an
extravagant mysticism of grace, also belongs to the same
year, 1516. 2

On December 4, 1516 (see above, p. 87), Luther finished
seeing through the press the " Theologia Deutsch," which he

1 " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 74 f.

2 April 8, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 28. See above, p. 88.

178 LUTHER THE MONK

brought out, first in an incomplete edition, because he was under
the impression that it was by Tauler. It is an echo of Tauler's
authentic works, somewhat distorted, however, by Luther's
Preface, at the end of which he declares that a thorough teaching
of the Holy Scripture " must make fools," intending thereby to
contrast the insignificance of natural knowledge with Divine
revelation. The booklet teaches mysticism from the Church's
standpoint, though its language is not well chosen. There is,
however, no real need to interpret certain obscure passages in a
pantheistic sense, as has been done. The booklet cannot there-
fore be taken as a proof that Luther at that time was pantheistic-
ally inclined, or that he possessed so little theological and philo-
sophical knowledge as not to be able to distinguish between
Pantheism and the teaching of the Church. Nor is there the
slightest trace of specifically Lutheran doctrine in the " Theologia
Deutsch."1

In a sermon of February 15, 1517, based on Tauler, Luther
busies himself with those priests, laymen, and in particular
religious, who, so he says, wish to be thought especially pious,
but who are hypocrites because, even in spiritual things,
they do not overcome their self-love because they attempt, for
the love of God, to accomplish much and to do great things ;
almost all Tauler's sermons, he remarks, show how clearly he
saw through these false self-righteous, and how energetically he
opposed them.2 As a matter of fact, Tauler, in the remarks
referred to, has in his mind those who deserve, for other reasons,
to be blamed on account of their perverse and proud mind, while
Luther utilises such utterances in support of his own notorious
dislike for good works and for zealous individual effort.3

1 Recently edited (1908) by H. Mandel according to Luther's
edition with additions from MSS. ; see " Theol. Literaturztg.," p. 493
(1909). Mandel says in the preface: "It is obviously not correct
to represent Luther's well-known experiences in the monastery [which?]
as directly connected with his fundamental ideas of reform. Rather
it is evident, and acknowledged by Luther himself, that he learnt his
root ideas in the school of Tauler and the ' Theologia Deutsch.' "
It is true that his misapprehension of the same strengthened his
mistaken notions. The very first chapter in the booklet disproves
the assertion frequently made that it is decidedly Pantheistic
in tone ; there a definite distinction is made between God and the
creature as the " perfect " and the " divided " essence : "of all the
divided none is perfect. Hence the perfect is no part of the divided."
In the light of this the obscure sentence which occurs in the " Theologia
Deutsch," that God, the Perfect, is the essence of all things, without
which and outside of which there is no real being, must not be under-
stood in the Pantheistic sense. The book, in fact, contains no sentence
which cannot be understood in an orthodox fashion when taken in
conjunction with others.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 137.

3 Cp. W. Kohler, " Luther und die Kirchengesch.," 1, 1, p. 244,
who quotes Tauler in the above sense from his sermons in Hamberger's
edition (Frankfurt a/M., 182G), volume i., p. 261 ff. ; volume ii.,
pp. 408, 410, 428. Kohler remarks (p. 239) that " however much

ANNIHILATION OF SELF-WILL 179

In his defence of his Wittenberg Indulgence Theses against
Eck's " Obelisci " (1518), we also find a characteristic misrepre-
sentation of Tauler. Tauler, speaking of the possible torments
resulting from the deprivation of religious consolation which
may be experienced on earth, instances the vision of a poor soul
who, by humble resignation to God's Will, was delivered from
its trouble. Luther takes the story as referring to a soul in
Purgatory, and sees therein not merely a proof that souls are
resigned in the place of purgation, but that they actually rejoice
in the separation from salvation which God has imposed upon
them ; finally, he uses the story in support of his twenty-ninth
pseudo-mystical thesis, in which he says that, on account of the
piety of those who have died in the peace of God, it is uncertain
whether all souls in Purgatory even wish to be delivered from
their torments.1 His mystical ideas concerning abandonment
to God's good pleasure had warped his understanding.

In the above passage, and again later, he instances Paul and
Moses as men who had desired to become a curse of God. If
they expressed such a wish during life, he declares, a similar
desire on the part of the dead is comprehensible. The common
and better interpretation of the Bible passages in question
regarding Moses and Paul differs very much from that of Luther.

Luther embraced the idea, which permeates Tauler's
works, of the painful annihilation of self-will and of all
man's sensual inclinations, not in order to mortify his own
self-will and sensuality by obedience to the rules of his
Order and humble submission to the practices of the Church,
but the better to make his delusive disregard for the zealous
performance of good works appear high and perfect to his
own mind and in that of others.

One should be ready, so he asserts in the defence of his
theses against Prierias, to renounce all hope in any merit
or reward to such an extent that " if you were to see heaven
open before you, you would nevertheless, as the learned
Dr. Tauler, one of your own Order [Prierias was also a
Dominican], says, not enter unless you had first consulted
God's Will as regards your entering, so that even in glory
you may not be seeking your own will."2 In Tauler there is,
it is true, something of the sort,3 though it does not authorise

Tauler had in common with Luther . . . the latter overlooked the
differences " ; on p. 244 : " his severity to self -righteousness is a
point which Luther learnt from Tauler."

1 In his " Asterisci," Weim. ed., 1, p. 298, agreeing with the Resolu-
tiones, ibid., p. 586. Cp. Kohler, pp. 248-50.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 674 ; Kohler, p. 252.

3 Volume ii., p. 133.

180 LUTHER THE MONK

Luther to assume the standpoint he does in his theory of
resignation. Luther in his Commentary on Romans, as
already stated, goes so far as to preach resignation to eternal
damnation, and even to demand of us a desire to be damned
should it please God to decree it for us (see below, vi. 9).
All this for the ostensible purpose of excluding the slightest
appearance of self-love. " But how," a modern author
asks, writing with a knowledge of the better Christian
mysticism, " can there be less merit in striving after the
final consummation in the next life which is offered and
recommended to us by the Divine favour, and from which
final salvation is inseparable ? How then can the ideal
state of the mystic consist in indifference to his perfection
and salvation, to heaven or hell f "1 " Indifference with
regard to the attainment of the highest, uncreated, eternal,
endless Good can never be postulated."2 But Luther thinks
he can justify this and other errors with the help of Tauler
and his own mysticism.

But he did not, and could not, use Tauler as a weapon
against the Schoolmen. All he could do was to magnify
the loss which these had suffered through not being ac-
quainted with such a theology as Tauler's, " the truest
theology." Tauler, as a matter of fact, was not opposed
to Scholasticism, indeed, the pith of his exhortations rests
upon well-grounded scholastic principles.

By the time his second and complete edition of the
" Theologia Deutsch " appeared, the printing of which
was finished on June 4, 1518, Luther knew with certainty
that this booklet was not by Tauler. Nevertheless, in the
Preface he heaps exaggerated praise upon it, gives it a

1 J. Zahn, " Einfuhrung in die christl. Mystik," p. 302.

2 J. Zahn, ibid., p. 303. Zahn expresses himself very aptly in
regard to the unfavourable moral effects of the contrary theory ; the
incentive which Christ expressly recommends when He says we are
to rejoice in the glorious reward which awaits us in the next world
(Matt. v. 12) has a very different influence. Against Fenelon's in-
correct views of pure love without any admixture of interest for
eternal salvation, he has the following: "The greatest fault in Fene-
lon's system lies in the coupling together of the real striving after
perfection and the attainment of salvation with an unworthy egotistical
working for a reward " (p. 307). The theories of Mme. Guyon, whom
Fenelon defends, are simply appalling : " O Will of my God, Thou
wouldst be my Paradise in Hell." According to her, the sacrifice of
salvation is the culmination of the interior life (ibid., p. 292). Cp.
the propositions from the Quietist mysticism of Molinos, condemned
by Innocent XI on November 20, 1687.

CHOICE OF MYSTIC GUIDES 181

place beside the Bible and St. Augustine, and declares that
his own teaching, on account of which Wittenberg is being
assailed, possesses in it a real bulwark : " Only now " has
he discovered that, before his time, " other people " thought
just the same as he. Here then we see the alliance which
he has entered into with mysticism, now placed completely
at the service of his rediscovered Evangel ; the sympathy
which had attracted him to the German mystics during
the last few years here reveals its true character and is led
to its overdue triumph. In a certain sense mysticism was
always to remain harnessed to his chariot.

On the other hand, Luther very soon gave up pseudo-
Dionysius the Areopagite, the mystic whose teaching had
spread from the East over the whole of the West. At first,
following public opinion, he had esteemed him very highly,
the more so since he had taken him for a disciple of the
Apostles ; but, subsequently to the Disputation at Leipzig,
where the Areopagite was urged against him, he shows
himself very much opposed to him. According to Luther,
he does not allow Christ to come to His rights, he grants
too much to philosophy and is, of course, all wrong in his
teaching concerning the hierarchy of the Church.1 Luther,
however, always remained true to St. Bernard, with whom
he had become acquainted, together with Gerson, in his
spiritual reading at the monastery. From St. Bernard, as
likewise from Tauler, he borrowed many mystic ideas, yet
not without at the same time forcibly misinterpreting them
and ascribing to the former, ideas which are altogether
foreign to his mind.2 Gerson's theologico-mystical intro-
duction, which Luther cites in his glosses on Tauler, did not
experience any better treatment at his hands,3 while Bona-

1 An exposition of Luther's directed against the Areopagite
(" Werke," Weim. ed., 5, p. 163) is accompanied with the strange
information that one becomes a theologian moriendo et damnando,
non intelligendo, legendo aut speculando."

2 Kohler, p. 332. " There is an immense difference " when Luther
speaks of trust in God or of the sufferings of Christ and when Bernard
does the same. " Luther did not notice anything of this difference,
though it was worth while examining ... he identified with him his
own resuscitation of the gospel."

3 Cp. " Werke," Erl. ed., 62, p. 121 f. (Table-Talk) ; Kohler,
p. 362 f. : " Those Romanists (Emser, Eck, etc.) knew better how to
appreciate Gerson than Luther did, in whom the insight into Gerson's
1 Catholicism ' was sadly wanting." " He ever remained a stranger
to the true inwardness of Gerson."

182 LUTHER THE MONK

venture, the mystic whom he once prized, came under
suspicion on account of his theological teaching, even before
the Areopagite.1

On the other hand, he retained his esteem for Tauler
till the end.

Some very remarkable references which Luther makes
to Tauler's teaching are in connection with the troubles
of conscience which dogged the steps of the Wittenberg
Doctor from his first public appearance. These will be
mentioned later, together with the means of allaying such
torments of soul, which he gives in his " Operationes in
Psalmos " (1519-21), borrowing them from misunderstood
passages of Tauler.

We conclude with another passage from the " Opera-
tiones " in which, following Tauler, he gives expression to
that favourite idea of his, which like a star of ill-omen
presided at the rise of his new theology. Psalm xi., according
to him, is intended to demonstrate the " righteousness by
faith " against " the supporters of holiness by works and
the deceptive appearance of human righteousness." This
is a forced interpretation going far beyond his own former
exposition of the Psalm in question. " To-day," he says —
with an eye on the so-called holy-by-works, or iustitiarii —
" there are many such seducers, as Johann Tauler also
frequently warns us."2 Of course, here again, what he has
in mind are the well-known admonitions of Tauler, to trust
in God more than in our own acts of virtue, though he takes
them quite wrongly as implying the worthlessness of works
for salvation. A Protestant authority here meets us at
least half-way: "Tauler certainly did not hold in so
accentuated a fashion as Luther the antithesis between
grace and works, for he allows that ■ good works ' bring a
man forward on the way of salvation."3

Luther, since beginning his over-zealous and excited
perusal of Tauler's writings, presents to the calm observer
the appearance of a man caught up in a dangerous whirl
of overstrain. Even in the first months this whirl of a
mystic world brought up from the depth of his soul all the

1 Kohler, p. 335 f., where examples are given of Luther's " sub-
jective interpretation " of St. Bonaventure.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 5, p. 353.

3 Kohler, p. 261. Kohler says that Tauler "laid great stress on
the Divine initiative " : but so did the Scholastics and the Fathers.

MYSTIC INTOXICATION 183

accumulated sediment of anti-theological feeling and disgust
with the state of the Church. The enthusiasm with which
Luther speaks of the " Theologia Deutsch " and Tauler,
shows, as a Protestant theologian has it, " that the
mysticism of the late Middle Ages had intoxicated him."
" It is clear that we have here a turning-point in Luther's
theology."1

Of mighty importance for the future was his unfortunate
choice, perhaps due to his state of mind, just in that period
of storm and stress, to deliver lectures at the University on
the Epistle to the Romans. Through his Commentary on
this Epistle he set a seal upon his new views directed against
the Church's doctrine concerning grace, works and justifica-
tion.

1 Hunzinger, " Neuo kirclil. Zeitschr.," ibid., p. 985 f. " We may
say that German mysticism achieved what it did in Luther in union
with his study of the Epistle to the Romans." " Thus the acute change
from Indeterminism to religious Determinism took place in Luther
under the direct influence of German mysticism. In the ' De servo
arbitrio ' it attained its extremest limit. This is not explained [more
correctly, entirely explained], as some have thought, by Occamism,
but by German mysticism." P. 987 : After his period of mysticism
Luther took leave altogether of the semi-Pelagianism and Indeter-
minism of Scholasticism. On p. 988 Luther's standpoint is thus
stated : " Any concurrence between free will and its faculties and
grace, or any kind of preparation for grace, is altogether done away
with. . . . God's grace alone works for salvation, and predestination
is the only cause of salvation in those who arc justified."

CHAPTER VI

THE CHANGE OF 1515 IN THE LIGHT OF THE
COMMENTARY ON ROMANS (1515-16)

1. The New Publications

Luther's lectures on the Epistle to the Romans which,
as mentioned above (p. 93), he delivered at Wittenberg
from April, 1515, to September or October, 1516, existed
till recently (1904-8) only in MS. form. To Denifle belongs
the merit of having first drawn public attention to this
important source of information, which he exploited, and
from the text of which he furnished long extracts according
to the Vatican Codex palatinus lat. 1826.1 The MS.
referred to, containing the scholia, is a copy by Aurifaber of
the lectures which Luther himself wrote out in full, and once
belonged to the library of Ulrich Fugger, whence it came
to the Palatina at Heidelberg, and, ultimately, on the
transference of the Palatina to Rome, found its way to the
Vatican Library. It was first made use of by Dr. Vogel,
and then, in 1899, thoroughly studied by Professor Joh.
Ficker.2 While the work was in process of publication
the original by Luther's own hand was discovered in 1903
in the Codex lat. theol. 21,4° of the State Library in Berlin,
or rather rediscovered, for it had already been referred to
in 1752 in an account of the library.3 According to this
MS., which also contains the glosses,4 the Commentary,
after having been collated with the Roman MS., which is
frequently inaccurate, was edited with a detailed introduc-

1 Denifle, "Luther und Luthertum," l1, more particularly from
p. 413; Denifle-Weiss, l2, more particularly from p. 447; Denifle,
l2, " Quellenbelege," p. 309 ff.

2 See Joh. Ficker, " Luthers Vorlesung iiber den Romerbrief,"
Leipzig, 1908, p. xxv. ff., xxx.

3 Cp. Grauert, "P. Heinrich Denifle," 1906, p. 53 ff. Grauert referred
to J. K. Oetrich, " Entwurf einer Gesch. der Bibliothek zu Berlin "
(1752, p. 63).

* On the glosses and scholia generally, see above, p. 63.

184

COMMENTARY ON ROMANS 185

tion at Leipzig in 1908 by Joh. Ficker, Professor at Stras-
burg University ; it forms the first volume of a collection
entitled " Anfange reformatorischer Bibelauslegung."

Denifle's preliminary excerpts were so ample and
exact that, as a comparison with what has since been
published proves, they afforded a trustworthy insight into
a certain number of Luther's doctrinal views of decisive
value in forming an opinion on the general course of his
development.1 But it is only now, with the whole work
before us, scholia and glosses complete, that it is possible
to give a fair and well-founded account of the ideas
which were coming to the front in Luther. The connection
between different points of his teaching appears in a clearer
light, and various opinions are disclosed which were fresh
in Luther's mind, and upon which Denifle had not touched,
but which are of great importance in the history of his
growth. Among such matters thus brought to light were
Luther's gloomy views on God and predestination, with
which we shall deal in our next section.

The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans ranks first among
all his letters for the depth of thought and wealth of revela-
tion which it contains. It treats of the most exalted ques-
tions of human thought, and handles the most difficult
problems of Christian faith and hope. Its subject-matter
is the eternal election of the Gentile and Jewish world to
salvation in Christ ; the guidance of the heathen by the
law of nature, and of the Jews by the Mosaic law ; the
powers of man when left to himself, and of man super-
naturally raised ; the universality and potency of the
saving grace of Christ, and the manner of its appropriation
in justification by faith ; finally the life, death and resur-
rection in which the Christian, through faith, unites himself
with Christ.2

We may doubt whether the young Doctor of Wittenberg
was qualified to grapple with so great a task as the explana-
tion of this charter of faith, especially bearing in mind his
comparatively insignificant knowledge of the Fathers of the
Church and the theological literature of the past, his im-
petuosity in dealing with recondite questions, and his
excitable fancy which always hurried in advance of his
judgment. At any rate, he himself thought his powers
1 See above, p. 93 f. 2 See below, chapter viii. 1.

186 LUTHER THE MONK

sufficient for a work on which the most enlightened minds
of the Church had tested their abilities. He immediately
followed up this Commentary with other lectures on certain
epistles of St. Paul, wherein the Apostle discloses the depths
of his knowledge.

On perusing the lengthy pages of the Commentary on
Romans we are amazed at the eloquence of the young
author, at his dexterity in description and his skill in the
apt use of biblical quotations ; but his manner of working
contrasts very unfavourably with that of the older Com
mentators on the Epistle, such as Thomas of Aquin with his
brevity and definiteness and, particularly, his assurance
in theological matters. Luther's mode of treating the
subject is, apart from other considerations, usually too
rhetorical and not seldom quite tedious in its amplitude.

The work, with its freedom both in its language and its
treatment of the subject, reveals many interesting traits
which go to make up a picture of Luther's inward self.

He starts with the assumption that the whole of the
Epistle was intended by its author to " uproot from the
heart the feeling of self-righteousness and any satisfaction
in the same," and- — to use his own odd expression- — " to
implant, establish and magnify sin therein (' plantare, ac
constituere et magnificare 'peccatmn')."1 "Although there
may be no sin in the heart or any suspicion of its existence,"
he declares, we ought and must feel ourselves to be full of
sin, in contradistinction to the grace of Christ from Whom
alone we receive what is pleasing to God.

In his passionate opposition to the real or imaginary
self-righteous he allows himself, in these lectures, to be
drawn into an ever deeper distrust of man's ability to do
anything that is good. The nightmare of self -righteousness
never leaves him for a moment. His attack would have
been justifiable if he had merely been fighting against sinful
self-righteousness which is really selfishness, or against
the delusion that natural morality will suffice before God.
Nor does it appear who is defending such erroneous ideas
against him, or which school upheld the thesis Luther is
always opposing, viz. that there is a saving righteousness
which arises, is preserved, and works without the preventing

1 Cod. Vat. palat. 1826, fol. 77; Denifle, l2, " Quellenbelege,"
p. 313 f. ; Ficker, " Rom. Schol.," p. 2 f.

PREDESTINATION 187

and accompanying grace of God. It is, however, clear that
there was in his own soul a dislike for works ; so strong in
fact is his feeling in this regard that he simply calls all works
" works of the law," and cannot be too forcible in demon-
strating the antagonism of the Apostle to their supposed
over-estimation. Probably one reason for his selection of
this Epistle for interpretation was that it appeared to him
to agree even better than other biblical works with his own
ideas against " self-righteousness." We must now consider
in detail some of the leading ideas of the Commentary on
Romans.

2. Gloomy Views regarding God and Predestination

The tendency to a dismal conception of God plays, in
combination with his ideas on predestination, an incisive
part in Luther's Commentary on Romans, which, so far,
has received too little attention. The tendency is noticeable
throughout his early mental history. He was never able
to overcome his former temptations to sadness and despair
on account of the possibility of his irrevocable predestination
to hell, sufficiently to attain to the joy of the children of
God and to the trustful recognition of God's general and
certain will for our salvation. The advice which Staupitz,
among others, gave him was assuredly correct, viz. to take
refuge in the wounds of Christ, and Luther probably tried
to follow it. But we do not learn that he paid diligent heed
to the further admonitions of the ancient ascetics, to exert
oneself in the practice of good works, as though one's
predestination depended entirely on the works one performs
with the grace of God. On the contrary, of set purpose, he
avoided any effort on his own part and preferred the mis-
leading mystical views of Quietism.

The melancholy idea of predestination again peeps out
unabashed in the passage in his Commentary on the Psalms,
where he says, that Christ " drank the cup of pain for His
elect, but not for all."1

If he set out to explain the Epistle to the Romans with a
gloomy conception of God, in which we recognise the old
temptations regarding predestination, owing to his mis-
apprehension of certain passages of the Epistle concerning

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 4, p. 227.

188 LUTHER THE MONK

God's liberty and inscrutability in the bestowal of grace,
his ideas, as he advances, become progressively more stern
and dismal. The editor of the Commentary remarks, not
without reason, on the forcible way in which Luther, " even
in chapter i., emphasises the sovereignty of the Will of God."1
It is true of many, Luther says there, that God gives them
up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness (cp. Rom.
i. 24), nor is this merely a permission, but an appointment
and command (" non tantum permissio, sed commissio et
iussio ").2 In such a case God commands the devil or the
flesh to tempt a man and conquer him. It is true that when
God chooses to act graciously He prevents the evil ; but
He also wills to be severe and to punish, and " then He
makes the wicked to sin more abundantly ('facit abundantius
peccare ') " ; then "He forsakes a man so that he may not
be able to resist the devil, who carries out the order and the
Will of God in bringing about his fall."

The youthful University Professor believes that he is
here teaching a " more profound theology." No one was
to come to him, he says, with the shallow and hackneyed
assertion that, on the above hypothesis, man's free will was
destroyed ; only narrow minds (" rudiores ") take exception
at this " profundior iheologia"* The teaching of this new
theology was the following :

" This man may do what he pleases, it is God's will that he
should be overcome by sin." " It is true that God does not
desire the sin, although He wills that it shall take place ( ' non
sequitur quod Deus peccatum velit, licet ipsum velit fieri ' ) ; for He
only wills that it shall happen, in order to manifest in man the
greatness of His anger and His severity by punishing in him the
sin which He hates." " It is therefore on account of the punish-
ment that God wills that the sin shall be committed. . . . God
alone may will such a thing " (" Hoc autem soli Deo licitum est
velle "),* and he repeats fearlessly: "in order that all misery
and shame may be heaped upon the man, God wills he should
commit this sin."5 He fancies he is communicating to his pupils
" the highest secrets of theology," meant only for the perfect,
when he assures them that both statements are right : God wills
to oblige me and all men [to do what is good] and yet He does not

1 Ficker, p. 1.

2 " Schol. Rom.," p. 21 ff. Denifle had only stated generally that
Luther taught absolute predestination, without quoting the passages
in the Commentary, Cp. Fr. Loofs, " Dogmengesch.,"4 p. 709, n. 8.

3 " Schol. Rom.," p. 22 f. 4 Ibid., p. 22 f.
5 Ibid., p. 23.

"SENSELESS CHATTER" 189

give His grace to all, but only to whom He will, reserving to Him-
self the choice. Some it does not please Him to justify because
He manifests so much the more through them His honour in the
elect ; in the same way He also wills sin, though only indirectly,
viz. " that He may be glorified in the elect." Hence we must
not make it a mere matter of permission, for " how would God
permit it unless it were His will ? " " Senseless chatter," thus
he describes the unanimous contrary teaching of theologians,
" such is the objection they raise that man would thus be damned
without any fault on his part, because he could not fulfil the law
and was expected to do what was impossible." — We can only ask
how his own method is to be described when he contents himself
with this solution : "If that objection had any weight it would
follow that it was not necessary to preach, to pray, to exhort, and
Christ's death would also not be necessary. Yet by means of all
this God has chosen to save His elect."1

Luther, as this somewhat lengthy passage shows, had,
at any rate at that time, no bright, kindly idea of God's
Nature, Goodness and inexhaustible Mercy, which wills to
make every creature here on earth happy and to save them
in eternity ; his mind was imprisoned within the narrow
limits to which he had before this accustomed himself ;
a false conception of God's essence' — perhaps a remainder
of his Occamist training — was already poisoning the very
vitals of his theology.

His melancholy conception of God comes to light not
only in the various passages where he speaks of predestina-
tion, but also in the dark pictures, which, in his morbid
frame of mind, he paints of the wickedness and sin of man
pitting his unquenchable concupiscence against God, the
All Holy.2 In order to adore this stern and cruel God in

1 "Schol. Rom.," p. 24.

2 With regard to the fact of Luther's tendency to a fear and terror
of God, O. Scheel says (" Die Entwicklung Luthers, Schriften des
Vereins fur Reformationsgesch.," No. 100, Leipzig, 1910, pp. 61-230,
p. 80) : " We possess statements from Luther's own pen during his
life in the monastery which show that the thought of death and Divine
Judgment moved him deeply. The words, that the countenance of
the Lord is upon us, are [to him] terrible. . . . We see one fear suc-
ceeding the other in the face of sudden death . . . the thought of
God the Judge inspires him with horror. ... It is possible that the
manner in which these feelings express themselves was connected
with morbid dispositions, that the attacks of fear which suddenly,
without apparent cause, fell upon him, were due to an unhealthy body.
That the assaults reacted on his bodily state is probable. The root
of the fear, however, lies in the lively conviction of the righteous
Judgment of God." W. Braun (" Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz
in Luthers Leben und Lehre," p. 295) thinks that " Luther's assaults
in the monastery were a mystical exercise. He experienced what

190 LUTHER THE MONK

his own way he had already built up on his false mysticism
a practical theory of resignation and self-surrender to
whatever might be the Divine Will, even should it destine
him to damnation. In the first pages of the Commentary
on Romans his idea of God enables him to proclaim loudly
and boldly, and with full knowledge of what he is doing,
his opposition to the religious practice of his many zealous
contemporaries, whether clerics or laymen.

Many have, according to him, an idea of God different from
his : " Oh, how many there are to-day who do not worship God
as He is, but as they imagine Him to be. Look at their singu-
larities and their superstitious rites, full of delusions. They give
up what they ought to practise, they choose out the works by
which they will honour Him, they fancy that God is such that
He looks down upon them and their works." " There is spread
abroad to-day a sort of idolatry by which God is not served as
He is. The love of their own ideas and their own righteousness
entirely blinds mankind, and they call it ' good intention.' They
imagine that God is thereby graciously disposed to them, whereas
it is not so : and so they worship their phantom God rather than
the true God."1

Neither do they understand how to pray, because they do not
know the awfulness of God. Does not the Scripture say ; he
asks them : " Serve ye the Lord with fear and rejoice unto Him
with trembling" (Ps. ii. 11), and "with fear and trembling
work out your salvation " (Phil. ii. 12) ? Not wanting to look at
their own works as " bad and suspicious " in the eyes of this
God, " they do not assiduously call upon His grace." They
assume that their good intention arises out of themselves, whereas
it is a gift of God, and desire to prepare themselves for the
infusion of grace.2 " Pelagian notions are at the bottom of all
this. No one acknowledges himself now to be a Pelagian, but
many are so unconsciously, with their principle that free will
must set to work to obtain grace."3

Such is the perilous position he reaches under the influence of
his distaste for works, viz. a violent antagonism to free will.
Man is unable to do the least thing to satisfy this Holy God. 4
The Occamist theology of the school in which he was trained
here serves him in good stead, as the following sentences, which

Tauler and the ' Theologia Deutsch ' relate regarding the consuming
inward fires of Purgatory. Luther mentions that Tauler [like himself !]
was acquainted with the ' horror conscientice a facie iudicii Dei.' "
" Werke," Weim. ed., 5, p. 203.

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 20 f.

2 Ibid., p. 323.

3 Ibid., p. 322.

4 Ibid., p. 222 f. : " Hii (qui vere bona faciunt) sciunt quod homo
ex se nihil potest facere,^ in contradistinction to the " Pelagians," who
" libertati arbitrii tribuunt facer e quod est in se, ante gratiam."

SELF-DESPAIR 191

are closely akin to Occam's acceptation- theory, show : " We
must always be rilled with anxiety, ever fear and await the
Divine acceptance " ; for as all our works are in themselves evil,
" only those are good which God imputes as good ; they are
in fact something or nothing, only in so far as God accepts them
or not." " The eternal God has chosen good works from the
beginning that they should please Him,"1 "but how can I ever
know that my deed pleases God ? How can I even know that my
good intention is from God ? "2 Hence, away with the proud
self-righteous (" superbi iustitiarii ") who are so sure of their
good works !

Fear, desponding humility and self-annihilation, according
to Luther, are the only feelings one can cherish in front of this
terrible, unaccountable God.3 "He who despairs of himself is
the one whom God accepts."4

He also speaks of a certain " pavor Dei," which is the founda-
tion of salvation : " trepidare et terreri " is the best sign, as it is
said in Psalm cxliii. : " Shoot out Thy arrows and Thou shalt
trouble them," the " terrens Deus " leads to life.5 True love does
not ask any enjoyment from God, rather, he here repeats, who-
ever loves Him from the hope of being made eternally happy by
Him, or from fear of being wretched without Him, has a sinful
and selfish love (" amor concupiscentice ") ; but to allow the
terrors of God to encompass us, to be ready to accept from
Him the most bitter interior and exterior cross, to all eternity,
that only is perfect love. And even with such love we are
dragged into thick interior darkness.6

All these gloomy thoughts which cloud his mind, gather,
when he comes to explain chapters viii. and ix. of the Epistle
to the Romans, where the Apostle deals with the question
of election to grace.

Luther thinks he has here found in St. Paul the doctrine
of predestination, not only to heaven, but also to hell,
expressed, moreover, in the strongest terms. At the same
time he warns his hearers against faint-heartedness, being
well aware how dangerous his views might prove to souls.

" Let no one immerse himself in these thoughts who is not
purified in spirit, lest he sink into an abyss of horror and despair ;
the eyes of the heart must first be purified by contemplating the
wounds of Christ. I discourse upon these matters solely because
the trend of the lectures leads up to them, and because they are
unavoidable. It is the strongest wine there is, and the most
perfect food, a solid nourishment for the perfect ; it is that most
exalted theology of which the Apostle says (1 Cor. ii. 6) : 'we

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 221. 2 Ibid., p. 323.

3 Ibid., p. 221. 4 Ibid., p. 223.

5 Ibid., p. 214. 6 Ibid., pp. 215-20.

192 LUTHER THE MONK

speak wisdom among the perfect ' . . . only the perfect and the
strong should study the first book of the Sentences [because
predestination is dealt with at the end of Peter Lombard's first
book] ; it should really be the last and not the first book ; to-
day many who are unprepared jump at it and then go away
blinded in spirit."1

Luther teaches that the Apostle's doctrine is : God did not
in their lifetime exercise His mercy towards the damned ; He
is right and not to be blamed when He follows herein His own
supreme will alone. " Why then does man murmur as though
God were not acting according to the law ? " His will is, for
every man, the highest good. Why should we not desire, and
that with the greatest fervour, the fulfilment of this will, since
it is a will which can in no way be evil ? " You say : Yes, but for
me it is evil. No, it is evil for none. The only evil is that men
cannot understand God's will and do it " ; they should know
that even in hell they are doing God's will if it is His wish that
they should be there. 2

Hence the only way he knows out of the darkness he has
himself created is recognition of, and resignation to, the
possibility of a purely arbitrary damnation by God. The
expressions he here makes use of for reprobation, " inter
reprobos haberi" " damnari," " morte ceterna puniri," make
it plain that he demands resignation to actual reprobation
and to being placed on a footing with the damned. Yet, as
he always considers this resignation as the most perfect
proof of acquiescence in the Will of God, it does not, accord-
ing to him, include within itself a readiness to hate God,
but, on the contrary, the strongest and highest love.3
With such an exalted frame of mind, however, the actual
penalty of hell would cease to exist. " It is impossible that
he should remain apart from God who throws himself so
entirely into the Will of God. He wills what God wills,
therefore he pleases God. If he pleases God, then he is
loved by God ; if he is loved by God, then he is saved."4
That he is thus cutting the ground from under his hypothesis
of an inevitable predestination to hell by teaching how we
can escape it, does not seem to strike him. Or does he,
perhaps, mean that only those who are not predestined to
hell can thus overcome the fear of hell ? Will such resigna-

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 226.

2 Ibid., p. 223 : " Si enim vellent quod vult Dens, etiamsi damnatos
et reprobatos vellet, non haberent malum ; quia vellent, quod vult Deus,
et haberent in se voluntatem Dei per patientiam."

3 Ibid., p. 217. 4 Ibid., p. 217 f.

CONTINGENCY AN ILLUSION 193

tion be possible to him who really believes himself destined
to hell, and who sees even in his resignation no means
whereby he can escape it ?

To such a one even the " wounds of Christ " offer no
assurance and no place of refuge. They only speak to man
of the God of revelation, not of the mysterious, unsearchable
God. The untenable and insulting comparison between the
mysterious and the revealed Supreme Being which Luther
was later on to institute is here already foreshadowed.

He explains in detail how the will of man does not in the
least belong to the person who wills, or the road to the
runner. " All is God's, who gives and creates the will."
We are all instruments of God, who works all in all. Our
will is like the saw and the stick- — examples which he re-
peatedly employs later in his harshest utterances concerning
the slavery of the will. Sawing is the act of the hand which
saws, but the saw is passive ; the animal is beaten,
not by the stick, but by him who holds the stick. So the
will also is nothing, but God who wields it is everything.1

Hence he rejects most positively the theological doctrine
that God foresees the final lot of man as something " con-
tingenter futurum" i.e. that he sees his rejection as something
dependent on man and brought about by his own fault.
No, according to Luther, in the election of grace everything
is preordained " inflexibili et firma voluntate" and this,
His own will, is alone present in the mind of God.

Luther speaks with scorn of " our subtle theologians," who
drag in their " contingens " and build up an election by grace on
" necessitous consequentice, sed non consequentis," in accordance
with the well-known scholastic ideas. " With God there is
absolutely no ' contingens,' but only with us ; for no leaf ever
falls from the tree to the earth without the will of the Father."
Besides, the theologians — so he accuses the Scholastics without
exception — " have imagined the case so, or at least have led to
its being so imagined, as though salvation were obtained or lost
through our own free will."2

We know that here he was wrong. As a matter of fact, true
Scholasticism attributed the work of salvation to grace together
with free will, so that two factors, the Divine and the human,
or the supernatural and the natural, are mutually engaged in the
same. But Luther, when here reporting the old teaching, does
not mention the factor of grace, but only " nostrum arbitrium."

He then adds : " Thus I once understood it." If he really

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 225. 2 Ibid., pp. 208, 209, 210.

i.— o

194 LUTHER THE MONK

ever believed salvation to be exclusively the work of free will,
then he erred grievously, and merely proves how defective his
study, even of Gabriel Biel, had been.

He also interpreted quite wrongly the view of contemporary
and earlier scholastic theologians on the love of God, and, again,
by excluding the supernatural factor. He reproaches them with
having, so he says, considered the love in question as merely
natural ("ex natura ") and yet as wholesome for eternal life, and
he demands that all wholesome love be made to proceed " ex
Spiritu Sancto," a thing which all theologians, even the Occam-
ists, had insisted on. He says : " they do not know in the least
what love is,"1 " nor do they know what virtue is, because they
allow themselves to be instructed on this point by Aristotle,
whose definition is absolutely erroneous."2 It makes no im-
pression upon him — perhaps he is even ignorant of the fact —
that the Scholastics consider, on good grounds, the love which
loves God's goodness as goodness towards us, and which makes
personal salvation its motive, compatible with the perfect love
of friendship (amicitice, complacentios).3 According to him, this
love must be extirpated ("amor exstirpandus") because it is full
of abominable self-seeking.4 In its place he sets up a most
perfect love (which will be described below), which includes
resignation to, and even a desire for, hell-fire, a resignation such
as Christ Himself manifested (!) in His abandonment to suffering.

Luther had now left the safe path of theological and ecclesi-
astical tradition to pursue his own ideas.

It is true that, notwithstanding his exhortation to be resigned
to the holy will of God in every case, he looks with fear at the
flood of blasphemies which must arise in the heart of one who
fears his own irrevocable, undeserved damnation. Anxious to
obviate this, or to arm the conscience against it, when pointing
to the wounds of Christ he adds these words : " Should anyone,
owing to overmastering temptation, come to blaspheme God,
that would not involve his eternal damnation. For even towards
the godless our God is not a God of impatience and cruelty. Such
blasphemies are forced out of a man by the devil, therefore they
may be more pleasing to God's ear than any Alleluia or song of
praise. The more terrible and abominable a blasphemy is, the
more pleasing it is to God when the heart feels that it does not
acquiesce in it, i.e. when it is involuntary."5

Involuntary thoughts, to which alone he sees fit to refer, are,
of course, not deserving of punishment ; but are the murmurs
and angry complaints against predestination to hell of which he
speaks always only involuntary ? The way to resignation which
he mentions in the same connection is no less questionable. It

1 "Schol. Rom.," p. 219. 2 Ibid., p. 221.

3 Bonaventure, in iii., dist. 27, a. 2, q. 2 : " Amor concupisceniice
non repugnat amori amicitice in caritate," etc. Cp. Thorn. Aquin.,
2-2, q. 23, a. 1.

4 " Schol. Rom.," pp. 210, 218

5 Ibid., p. 227.

UNCONDITIONAL PREDESTINATION 195

consists largely in " not troubling about such thoughts."1 But
will all be able to get so far as this ?

He again repeats with great insistence that " everything
happens according to God's choice " ; "he upon whom God
does not have mercy, remains in the lmassa' " [perditionis].2
" For whom it is, it is," he adds elsewhere in German, " whom it
hits, him it hits."3 God permits at times even the elect to be
reduced, as it were, to nothingness,4 but only in order that His
sole power may be made manifest and that it" may quench all
proud boasting ; for man is so ready to believe that he can by the
exercise of his free will rise again, and waxes presumptuous ; but
here he learns that grace exalts him before and above every
choice of his own (" ante omne arbitrium et supra arbitrium
suum ").5

We shall not here examine more closely his grave mis-
apprehension of the teaching of the Apostle in the Epistle
to the Romans, on which he tries to prop up his glaring
theory concerning predestination. Suffice it to say that the
principal passage to which he refers (Rom. ix. 11 ff.), accord-
ing to the exegetist Comely, is not now taken by any
expositor to refer to predestination, i.e. to the selection by
grace of each individual.6 The passage treats of the promises
made to the Jewish people (as a whole) which were given
without desert and freely ; but Israel, as St. Paul explains,
has, by its fault, rendered itself unworthy of the same and
excluded itself (as a whole) from the salvation which the
heathen obtain by faith — a reward of Israel's misdeeds,
which, in itself, is incompatible with Luther's doctrine of
an undeserved predestination to hell.7

Luther also quotes St. Augustine, but does not interpret
him correctly. He even overlooks the fact that this Father,
in one of the passages alleged, says the very opposite to his
new ideas on unconditional predestination to hell, and
attributes in every case the fate of the damned to their own
moral misdeeds. Augustine says, in his own profound,
concise way, in the text quoted by Luther : " the saved

1 " Schol. Rom." 2 Ibid., pp. 227, 228.

3 Ibid., p. 224. * Ibid., p. 229.

5 Ibid., 231.

6 " Commentar. in. Ep. ad Romanos," p. 495.

7 Formerly some few Catholic theologians found in the statements
of the Apostle the so-called " prcedestinatio ad gloriam ante prazvisa
merita" (though never a " reprobatio ante prozvisa merita"); but as
J. Th. Beelen remarks in his " Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos "
(1854), none of them ever sought for an exegetical foundation for the
same. Comely, I.e., p. 495 sq.

196 LUTHER THE MONK

may not pride himself on his merits, and the damned may
only bewail his demerits."1 In his meditations on the ever-
inscrutable mystery he regards the sinner's fault as entirely
voluntary, and his revolt against the eternal God as, on
this account, worthy of eternal damnation. Augustine
teaches that " to him as to every man who comes into this
world " salvation was offered with a wealth of means of
grace and with all the merits of Christ's bitter death on the
cross.2

Luther also quoted the Bible passages regarding God's
will for the salvation of all men, but only in order to say of
them : " such expressions are always to be understood
exclusively of the elect." It is merely " wisdom of the
flesh " to attempt to find a will of God that all men be saved
in the assurance of St. Paul : " God wills that all men
shall be saved " (1 Tim. ii. 4), or "in the passages which
say, that He gave His Son for us, that He created man for
eternal life, and that everything was created for man, but
man for God that he might enjoy Him eternally."3

Other objections which Luther makes he sets aside with the
same facility by a reference to the thoughts he has developed
above. 4 -Thus the first : Why did God give to man free will by
means of which he can merit either reward or punishment ? His
answer is : Where is this free will ? Man has no free will for
doing what is good. Then a second objection : " God damns no
one without sin, and he who is forced to sin is damned unjustly."
The answer to this is new : God ordains it so that those who are
to be damned are gladly, even though of necessity, in sin (" dat
voluntarie velle in peccato esse et manere et diligere iniquitatem ").
Finally, the last objection : " Why does God give them com-
mandments which He does not will them to keep, yea hardens
their will so much that they desire to act contrary to the law ?
Is not God in this case the cause of their sinning and being
damned ? " " Yes, that is the difficulty," he admits, " which, as
a matter of fact, has the most force ; it is the weightiest of all.
But to it the Apostle makes a special answer when he teaches :
God so wills it, and God Who thus wills, is not evil. Everything
is His, just as the clay belongs to the potter and waits on his

1 "Schol. Rom.," p. 230, and August., "Enchiridion ad Laurent.,"
c. 98, Migne, P. L., xL, p. 278.

2 S. Aug., "Contra Iulianum," 6, n. 8, 14, 24; "Opus imperf.,"
1, c. 64, c. 132 seq., 175; " De catechiz. rudibus," n. 52; " De
spiritu et litt.," c. 33 ; " Retract," 1, c. 10, n. 2. Cp. Comely, p. 494,
on some exegetical peculiarities of Augustine.

»■ " Schol. Rom.," p. 212.
4 Ibid., p. 213.

"DROP THE <MY'" 197

service." Enough, he continues, " God commands that the elect
shall be saved, and that those who are destined for hell shall be
entangled in evil in order that He may show forth His mercy
and also His anger."

It makes one shudder to hear how he cuts short the sighs of
the unhappy soul which sees itself a victim of God's harshness.
It complains : " It is a hard and bitter lot that God should seek
His honour in my misery ! " And Luther replies : " See, there
we have the wisdom of the flesh ! My misery ; ' my,' ' my,' that
is the voice of the flesh. Drop the ' my ' and say : Be Thou
honoured, O Lord. ... So long as you do not do that, you are
seeking your own will more than the will of God. We must judge
of God in a different manner from that in which we judge of man.
God owes no man anything."

" With this hard doctrine," he concludes, " the knife is placed
at the throat of holiness-by-works and fleshly wisdom and there-
fore the flesh is naturally incensed, and breaks out into blas-
phemies ; but man must learn that his salvation does not depend
upon his acts, but that it lies quite outside of him, namely, in
God, Who has chosen him."

He attempts* however, to mingle softer tones with the voices
of despair, which, he admits, these theories have let loose. This
he can only do at the expense of his own teaching, or by fining it
down. He says : whoever is terrified and confused, but then
tries to abandon himself with indifference to the severity of God,
he, let this be his comfort, is not of the number of those pre-
destined to hell. For only those who are really to be rejected are
not afraid [?], " they pay no heed to the danger and say, if I am
to be damned, so be it ! " On the other hand, confusion and fear
are signs of the " spiritus contribulatus," which, according to his
promise, God never rejects (Ps. 1.).

After all, then, we are forced to ask, according to this, is not
man to be saved by his own act, namely, the act of heroic indiffer-
ence to his eternity ? For this act remains an act of man :
" Whoever is filled with the fear of God, and, taking courage,
throws and precipitates himself into the truth of the promises of
God, he will be saved, and be one of the elect."1

3. The Fight against " Holiness-by- Works " and the
Observantines in the Commentary on Romans

His ideas on predestination were not the direct cause of
Luther's belittling of human effort and the value of good
works ; the latter tendency was present in him previous
to his adoption of rigid predestinarianism ; nor does he
ever attribute to election by grace any diminution of man's
powers or duties, whether in the case of the chosen or of the

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 212 ff.

198 LUTHER THE MONK

reprobate. The same commandments are given to those
whom God's terrible decree has destined for hell as to the
elect ; they possess the same human abilities, the same
weaknesses. It was not predestination which led him in
the first instance to attribute such strength to concupiscence
in man, and to invest it, as he ultimately did, with an
actually sinful and culpable character.

His ideas concerning the absolute corruption of the
children of Adam, even to the extinction of any liberty in
the doing of what is good, had another origin, and, in their
development, were influenced far more by false mysticism
than by the predestinarian delusion.

He approached the lectures on the Epistle to the Romans
in the conviction that, in this Epistle, he would find the
sanction of his earlier efforts against the self-righteous and
" holy-by-works," against whom his peculiar mysticism had
still further prejudiced him. From the very outset he inter-
prets the great Apostolic document on the calling of the
heathen and the Jews to salvation as directed exclusively
against those who, according to him, were imperilling the
Church ; against those who (whether in his own Order or
in Christendom generally) laid stress on the importance of
works, on the duty of fulfilling observances and the merit
of exercises of virtue for gaining heaven, and who were
unmindful of the righteousness which Christ gives us. This
is not the place to point out how Paul is speaking in quite
another sense, against those Jewish Christians who still
adhered to the works of the Mosaic Law, of the merely
relative value of works, of the liberty which Christianity
imparts and of the saving power of faith.

Luther, however, in the very first lines, tells the " holy-by-
works " that the whole purpose of the Epistle to the Romans
is a driving back and rooting out of the wisdom and righteous-
ness of the flesh. Among the heathen and the Jews were to be
found those who, though " devoted in their hearts to virtue,"
yet had not suppressed all self-satisfaction in the same, and
looked upon themselves as " righteous and good men " ; in the
.Church, according to Paul, all self -righteousness and wisdom
must be torn out of the affections, and self-complacency. God
willed to save us not by our own righteousness but by an ex-
traneous righteousness (" non per domesticam sed per extraneam
iustitiam vult salvare "), viz. by the imputed righteousness of
Christ, and, owing to the exterior righteousness which Christ
gives (" externa quae ex Christo in nobis est iustitia "), there can be

THE OBSERVANTINE " PIG-MARKET " 199

no boasting, nor must there be " any depression on account of
the sufferings and trials which come to us from Christ."1

" Christ's righteousness and His gifts," he says, " shine in the
true Christian. ... If any man possesses natural and spiritual
advantages, yet this is not considered by God as being his
wisdom, righteousness and goodness (' non ideo coram Deo talis
reputatur '), rather, he must wait in humility, as though he
possessed nothing, for the pure mercy of God, to see whether He
will look upon him as righteous and wise. God only does this if he
humbles himself deeply. We must learn to regard spiritual
possessions and works of righteousness as worthless for obtaining
the righteousness of Christ, we must renounce the idea that these
have any value in God's sight and merit a reward, otherwise we
shall not be saved " (" opera iusta velint nihil reputare," etc.).2

Any pretext, or even none at all, serves to bring him
back again and again in the work to the " Pelagian-minded
iustitiarii" It is possible that amongst these the " Ob-
servan tines " ranked first. Our thoughts revert to those
of his brother monks, whose cause he had at first defended
in the internal struggle within the Congregation, only to
turn on them unmercifully afterwards. On one occasion
he mentions by name the " Observants," reproaching them
with trying to outshine one another in their zeal for God,
while at the same time they had no love of their neighbour,
whereas, according to the passage he is just expounding,
" the fulness of the law is love."3 He would also appear
to be referring to them, when, on another occasion, he rails
at such monks, who by their behaviour bring their whole
profession into disgrace.

" They exalt themselves against other members of their
profession," he cries, " as though they were clean and had
no evil odour about them,"4 and continues in the style of
his monastic discourse on the " Little Saints " mentioned
above (p. 69 f.). " And yet before, behind and within they
are a pig-market and sty of sows . . . they wish to withdraw
from the rest, whereas they ought, were they really virtuous,
to help them to conceal their faults. But in place of patient
succour there is nothing in them but peevishness and a desire
to be far away (' qucerunt fugam . . . tediosi sunt et nolunt
esse in communione aliorum '). They will not serve those
who are good for nothing nor be their companions ; they

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 1 ff. 2 Ibid., p. 2 f.

3 Ibid., p. 305. " Observantes invicem propter Deum pugnant, sed
dilectionis prceceptwm nihil atlendunty

4 Ibid., p. 334.

200 LUTHER THE MONK

only desire to be the superiors and companions of the
worthy, the perfect and the sound. Therefore they run
from one place to another."1

The struggle of which this is a picture continued among
the German Augustinians. In the spring, 1520, a similar
conflict broke out in the Cologne Province, one side having
the sympathy of the Roman Conventuals.2 We can well
understand how the General of the Order in Rome was not
disposed to grant the exemptions claimed by the Observan-
tines of the Saxon Congregation against his own Provincials.

Luther brandishes his sharp blade against the " spiritually
minded, the proud, the stiff-necked, who seek peace in works and
in the flesh, the iustitiarii," 3 without making any sharp distinction
between the actual Observantines and the " self-righteous."

1 Cp. above, p. 88 fi\, Luther's letter to Spenlein, who had left his
monastery for that at Memmingen.

2 Kolde, " Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation," p. 325.

3 " Schol. Rom.," p. 20, he speaks against the " spiritualis et
subtilior idolatria " ; p. 45, against those who are " vane gloriosi " in
their exterior observances ; p. 75, against the " nimis iusti," " nimis
intelligentes " and " nimis queer entes," who are " incorrigibiles in suo
sensu " ; p. 83, a fresh outburst against those who " in suis iustitiis
pacem in came quairunt" ..." Nihil capiunt quia sunt superbi. . . .
Prazsumunt quod Deus eorum sensum et opera approbabit, quia ipsis
iustus et rectus apparet " ; p. 86, he again attacks "omnes superbi in
ecclesia spirituales, qui sunt magnorum et multorum operum." Then,
to omit many digressions against the " iustitiarii," and merely to
quote from the last part of the work, he says, p. 220, of the righteous
in his own sense by whom damnation would be willingly accepted
(" libentes damnari volunt "), that they shame the swarm of others,
" qui sibi merita fingunt et pingunt ac bona qucerunt, fugiunt mala et in
absconditis suis nihil habent " ; these are, according to p. 221, " superbi
iustitiarii, qui cerli sunt de bonis operibus suis," or, according to p. 273,
those " in sua iustilia prazsumentes." The " sapientes iustitiarii,"
according to p. 331, destroy the temple of God by their false wisdom
and their observances.

Superintendent H. Hering has expressed himself candidly in the
" Theologische Studien und Kritiken " (50, 1877, p. 627) on certain
notable passages in Luther's Commentary on the Psalms : " His
anger," so he says, " is almost more vehement against the Obser-
vantines than against the heretics " ; to their claim to exemptions
and dispensations Luther opposes the assertion that it is impossible
to dispense from obedience. He refers, among other passages of
Luther's, to the beginning of his interpretation of Psalm xxxi. (" Beati
quorum remissce," etc.), where apparently the Observantines are
denounced as schismatics on account of their opposition to Staupitz
and his plans : " similiter et super stitiosi seu schismatici abiiciunt per
suam singularitatem suum prcelatum, in quo Christus eis prceficitur,
quorum hodie maior est numerus (quam hoereticorum)." " Werke,"
Weim. ed., 3, p. 174. In earlier passages (3, p. 172) he speaks against
those who, in the singularity of their observances, " rciecta obedientia
et fide suam statuunt iustitiam " and declares them, on account of their

THE -JUSTICIARIES" 201

With regard to himself, he admits that he is so antagonistic
to the " iustitiarii," that he is opposed to all scrupulous observ-
ance of " iustitia," to all regulations and strict ordinances :

pride, to be deniers of Christ, and (p. 61) against the upholders of
special statutes who fight for their ceremonies and their " vanitas
observantiae exterior is," who " compunguntur in habitu," etc. We seem
to hear echoes of the struggle that was going on in the Order not only
in the passages from the sermons quoted above (p. 80 ff.), but also in
such as the following, from the year 1516 : These " iustitiarii " are
" irritabilissimi omnium " ; they are " prompti alios vindicare . . .
iudicare, condemnare, quazrulantes et accusantes, quod iniuriam sus-
tineant, ipsi recte facientes " ; but " they do not fulfil the spirit of the
law " (" Opp. Lat. var.," 1, p. 160 ; cp. 158 Weim. ed., 1, p. 114).
He puts in the mouth of the " iustitiarii " : " Tu peius vivis quam
ego" and describes how they fancy themselves quite safe and have no
need of Christ as their physician (ibid., p. 128 ; Weim. ed., 1, p. 85).
He had already accused them above of disobedience and rebellion,
and his charging them with revolt against their lawful superior
(" abiiciunt per suam singularitatem suum pradatum ") leads one to sup-
pose he had in view the opposition of the Observantines to Staupitz's
plans. We may perhaps find in these passages reason for applying
the attacks in the Commentary on Romans to the Erfurt Observan-
tines, though there is no actual proof of this.

Does not Staupitz himself, who was Vicar-General of the Congrega-
tion, in certain of his works (published after 1515) sometimes oppose
the spirit of the Observantines, such as it appears to him ? Cp. Braun,
" Concupiscenz," p. 68 ff. It would be surprising if no echo of a con-
flict which touched him so nearly had obtruded itself into his writings.
Unfortunately historical data regarding the external progress of the
breach are wanting. Braun fully recognises Luther's alienation and
that it had grounds ; thus of Luther's cutting address delivered before
the Chapter of the Order at Gotha on May 1, 1515, he says : "It is
obvious that sad experiences lay behind these words. . . . The tendency
to quarrelsomeness, which, it cannot be denied, was apparent in Luther
at a later date — though much may be said in excuse of it — may have
made itself felt even then, long before his breach with the Church."
The " primaria nostras unionis f actio," which Barthol. Usingen men-
tions (see N. Paulus, " Usingen," p. 16, n. 5, and Oergel, " Der junge
Luther," p. 132), brought Luther's friend, Johann Lang, in the summer
of 1511 from Erfurt to Wittenberg. He joined Luther in passing over
from the stricter to the more liberal party supported by Staupitz.
For Cochlaeus's statement regarding Luther : "ad Staupitzium defecit,"
see above, p. 38. The relations existing between the Observantines
and the Conventuals, even among other Orders where a similar move-
ment towards reform was taking place, are instructive. There was,
for instance, a division in the Dominican Order. The Observantine
priories of the so-called German Province of the Dominicans (prov.
teutonica) — as a matter of fact, the Province of South Germany —
were permitted to choose a Provincial, while the Conventual priories
formed a special German Congregation (congregatio Germanica), with
a Vicar-General at their head. Since 1511 Johann Faber had been
Vicar- General, but he too was in favour of a reform. The cause of
the conflict in this case arose from the Observantines trying to bring
the Conventuals to their way of thinking by appealing to ecclesiastical
and secular authority. Cp. N. Paulus in the " Histor. Jahrbuch,"
17, 1896, p. 44, and in " Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen
Luther," 1903, p. 299.

202 LUTHER THE MONK

" The very word righteousness vexes me : if anyone were to steal
from me, it would hurt me less than being obliged to listen to the
word righteousness. It is a word which the jurists always have
on their lips, but there is no more unlearned race than these men
of the law, save, perhaps, the men of good intention and superior
reason (' bonce-intentionarii seu sublimatce rationis ' ) ; for I have
experienced both in myself and in others, that when we were
righteous, God mocked at us."1

4. Attack on Predisposition to Good and on Free Will

The assertion of the complete corruption of human nature
owing to the continuance of original sin and the inex-
tinguishable tinder of concupiscence, arose from the above-
mentioned position which Luther had taken up with regard
to self-righteousness.

Man remains, according to what Luther says in the
Commentary on Romans, in spite of all his veneer of good
works, so alienated from God that he " does not love but
hates the law which forces him to what is good and forbids
what is evil ; his will, far from seeking the law, detests it.
Nature persists in its evil desires contrary to the law ; it is
always full of evil concupiscence when it is not assisted
from above." This concupiscence, however, is sin. Every-
thing that is good is due only to grace, and grace must
bring us to acknowledge this and to " seek Christ humbly
and so be saved."2

The descriptions of human doings which the author gives
us in eloquent language are not wanting in fidelity and truth
to nature, though we cannot approve his inferences. He has
a keen eye on others and is unmerciful in his delineation of
the faults which he perceived in the pious people around
him.

He spies out many who only act from a desire for the praise of
men, and who wish to appear, but not really to be, good. How
ready are such, he says, to depreciate themselves with apparent
humility. Others only do what is right because it gives them
pleasure, i.e. from inclination and without any higher motive.
Others do it from vain self-complacency ; yea, selfishness is
present in almost all, and mars their works. Outward routine
and a business-like righteousness spoils a great deal. It is to be

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 273. With the above is connected the fact
that in his mysticism he peremptorily demands the surrender of all
rights and privileges.

2 Ibid., p. 46.

"NON CONCUPISCES" 203

deplored that, like the Pharisees, they only keep what is com-
manded in view and long for the rewards of a busy and petty
virtue. *

In such descriptions he is easily carried too far and is some-
times even obviously unjust. Thus, for instance, of evil practices
he makes conscious theories, in order the more readily to gain
the upper hand of his adversaries. " They teach," he cries, " that
it is only necessary to keep the law by works and not with the
heart . . . their efforts are not accompanied with the least
inward effort, everything is wholly external."2

In respect of the doctrine of original sin and its conse-
quences in man, he not only magnifies enormously the
strength of the concupiscence which remains after baptism,
without sufficiently taking into account the spiritual means
by which it can be repressed, but gives the most open ex-
pression to his belief that concupiscence is actually sin ; it
is the persistence of original sin, rendering every man actually
culpable, even without any consent of the will. The " Non
concwpisces " of the Ten Commandments — which the
Apostle emphasises in his Epistle to the Romans, though
in another sense — Luther makes out to be such a pro-
hibition that, by the mere existence of concupiscence, it is
daily and hourly sinfully transgressed. He pays no atten-
tion to the theology of the Church, which had hitherto seen
in the " Non concwpisces " a prohibition of any voluntary
consent to a concupiscence existing without actual sin.

His attack on free will is very closely bound up with his
ideas on concupiscence.

" Concupiscence with weakness is against the law ' Thou shalt
not covet,' and it is deadly [a mortal sin], but the gracious God
does not impute it on account of the work of salvation which
has been commenced in [pardoned] man." " Even a venial
sin," he teaches in the same passage, " is, according to its nature
[owing to human nature which is entirely alienated from God], a
mortal sin, but the Creator does not impute ( ' imputat ' ) it as
mortal sin to the man whom he chooses to perfect and render
whole."3

He makes various attempts to deduce from concupiscence the
absolute want in the will of freedom to do what is good. There

1 "Schol. Rom.," pp. 11, 45, 84, 94.

2 The reader should notice his exaggerations regarding the teachers
of whose nominalistic tendency he disapproves : " docent, quod lex
opere tantum sit implenda, etiam sine impletione cordis. . . . Nee
ipsi minimo saltern cordis conatu eadem aggrediuntur, sed solummodo
extemo opere.'" Ibid., p. 45.

3 Ibid., p. 332.

204 LUTHER THE MONK

is* not the slightest doubt that he does deny this freedom, though,
on the other hand, he grants so much to liberty in his admo-
nitions concerning predestination (see below, p. 219) that he
practically retracts his denial. The position he takes up with
regard to grace ought to be a test of what he actually held : did
he look upon grace as in every case irresistible ? But on this very
point he is as yet indisposed to commit himself as he will not
hesitate to do later, to a positive, erroneous " yes." In short,
though he stands for a denial of liberty, he has not yet seen his
way to solve all the difficulties.

If we seek some specimens illustrating the course of his ideas
regarding lack of liberty, we find, perhaps, the strongest utterance
in his comments on Romans viii. 28 : " Free will apart from
grace possesses absolutely no power for righteousness, it is
necessarily in sin. Therefore St. Augustine in his book against
Julian terms it ' rather an enslaved than a free will.' But after
the obtaining of grace it becomes really free, at least as far as
salvation is concerned. The will is, it is true, free by nature,
but only for what comes within its province, not for what is
above it,' being bound in the chain of sin and therefore unable
to choose what is good in God's sight."1 Here Luther makes no
distinction between natural and supernatural good, but excludes
both from our choice ; in fact there is no such thing as natural
goodness, for what nature performs alone is only sin.

" Where is our righteousness," he exclaims rhetorically some
pages before this, " where are our works, where is the liberty of
choice, where the presupposed ' contingens ' (see above, p. 193) ?
This is what must be preached, this is the way to bring the
wisdom of the flesh to the dust ! The Apostle does so here. In
former passages he cut off its hands, its feet, its tongue ; here
he seizes it [the wisdom of the flesh which speaks in defence of
free will] and makes an end of it. Here, like a flash of light, it is
seen to possess nothing in itself, all its possession being in God."2
This, then, is Luther's conclusion : the elect are not saved by
the co-operation of their free will, but by the Divine decree ; not
by their merits, but by the unalterable edict from above by means
of which they conquer all the difficulties in the way of salvation.
He is silent here as to whether the elect may not succumb to sin
temporarily, either by the misuse of liberty, or from lack of com-
pelling grace.

Towards the end of the Commentary he asserts quite definitely
that we are unable to formulate even a good intention with our
human powers which could in any way [even in the natural order]
be pleasing to God.

He here examines certain opponents, who rightly denied this

1 The passage here referred to in St. Aug. is in " Contra Iulianum,"
1. 8, c. 8 ; Migne, P. L. xliv., p. 689. Augustine there when he speaks
of " servum potius quam liberum arbitrium " does so in another sense,
though Luther saw fit to borrow the expression for the title of his own
later work of 1525 : " De servo arbitrio."

2 " Schol. Rom.," p. 209.

MAN'S INCAPACITY 205

inability, " otherwise man would be forced to sin." Further on
he attributes to all theologians the teaching of the Occamists
(see above, p. 75) : " therewith we receive without fail the
infusion of God's grace " ; a proposition which certainly sounds
Pelagian. He passes over one point which true scholastic theo-
logians did not omit, viz. that God's supernatural assistance
" prevents " our natural will, raises the same into the order of
grace, and thus enables us to merit salvation. Further, again
disregarding the scholastic teaching, he foists upon all theologians
the idea that, having once formed our intention, " we need have
no further anxiety, or trouble ourselves to invoke God's grace."1
Such is, according to him, the position of his opponents.

In his answer he does not assert, as regards the first pro-
position, that God forces us to evil ; " the wicked," he says, " do
what they wish, perhaps even with good intentions, but God
allows them to sin even in their good works." Of this, according
to him, his opponents must be aware and therefore ought not to
act with so much assurance and certainty as though they were
really performing good works. Everyone should rather say :
" Who knows whether God's grace is working this in me ? "
Then only does man acknowledge " that he can do nothing of
himself " ; only thus can we escape Pelagianism, which is the
curse of the self-righteous. " But because they are persuaded
that it is always within their power to do what they can, and
therefore also to possess grace [here he is utilising some of the
real weaknesses of Occamism], therefore they do nothing but sin
all the time in their assurance."2

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 322.

2 Ibid., p. 323. In connection with the proposition at the
commencement of this division : " Man can of himself do nothing,"
Luther attacks the mediaeval theological axiom : " Facienti quod est
in se, Deus non denegat gratiam " (in his Commentary on the Psalms,
Weim. ed., 4, p. 262, he already gives it as : " Deus infallibiliter dot
gratiam "). In order to make the matter clear we may state in advance
that, according to Catholic doctrine, we cannot with the powers of
nature merit grace either " de condigno " or " de congruo " ; grace
excludes any natural acquiring of the same ; man is only able to
dispose himself negatively for the acquisition of grace, not positively,
i.e. not in such a way as to demand grace as a right. " Homo non
movet se ipsum ad hoc, quod adipiscatur divinum auxilium, quod supra
ipsum est, sed potius ad hoc adipiscendum a Deo movetur." Thorn.,
" Summa contra gent." 3, c. 149. In accordance with this, true Scholas-
ticism did not and could not wish to express by the proposition
" Facienti quod est in se," etc., any real meriting of grace by our
natural powers. Luther's attacks, which presuppose this, were there-
fore of no avail against the true theology of the Middle Ages. The
natural acts recognised by theology as good are generally unimportant,
have no supernatural merit, and cannot positively qualify for grace
in the sense of " Facienti, etc." The axiom implies rather that whoever
does his part, roused and moved thereto by actual grace, will arrive
at saying grace and reach heaven ; it presupposes a negative pre-
paration ; God in His mercy does not refuse His grace to whoever
does his part. It was therefore presumed that the actual grace of God
was at work in every good woik which man performed, inviting to,

206 LUTHER THE MONK

Luther does not here ask himself what else man is to perform
in order to possess the grace of God, beyond doing what he can,
humbling himself and praying for grace, as all preceding ages
had taught. He is still looking for an assurance of salvation by
some other method. Only at a later date does he learn, or thinks
he learns, how it is to be obtained (by faith alone). Here he
merely says : " It is the greatest plague to speak of the signs of
possessing grace and thereby to lull man into security." He
has not yet found the assurance of the " Gracious God," as he is
to express it later.

Meanwhile he proceeds, ostensibly following St. Paul, to
denounce the principle " he who does what he can," etc.,
like wise freewill and the possibility of fulfilling the law.

Paul teaches, for instance, in Romans viii. 3 f . : What the
Mosaic law could not do on account* of the rebellion of the flesh
in man, namely, conquer sin, that God did by the incarnation of
His Son, who overcame sin and helps us to fulfil the law ; in

co-operating with, and furthering it. Cp. Denifle- Weiss, l2, p. 577 ff.
The mediaeval theological work most widely known in Luther's time,
the " Compendium theologicce veritatis," says expressly : " Without
grace no one is able to do his part so as to prepare himself for salva-
tion " (1. 5, c. 11). We find there no trace of the Pelagianism with
which Luther so bitterly reproached the whole theology of the Middle
Ages. (See Denifle- Weiss, l2, p. 576, n. 5). "Is mere co-operation
with grace Pelagian ? " Denifle asks (p. 577). And what authorised
Luther to say in the Schmalkald Articles (Miiller-Kolde, " Die sym-
bolischen Biicher der evangel, luther. Kirche," 1907, p. 311) that
the teaching " si facial homo quantum in se est, Deum largiri ei certo
suam gratiam," was a portentum, a heathenish dogma from which it
followed that Christ had died in vain ?

Luther himself had previously, in his Commentary on the Psalms
(Weim. ed., 4, p. 262), written, that God gives His grace without fail
to him who does his part, and yet he thereby assumed, with the whole
of theology, that grace and glory were not on that account merited,
but given us without any desert on our part. (Denifle- Weiss, l2,
p. 441.) The passage reads : " Hinc recte doctor es, quod homini facienti
quod est in se, Deus infallibiliter dat gratiam, et licet non de condigno
sese possit ad gratiam prazparare, quia est incomparabilis, tamen bene
de congruo, propter promissionem istam Dei et pactum misericordiazy
Denifle here remarks aptly : " We must not overlook the fact, that
Luther here formulates the proposition ' Facienti? etc., in the nomi-
nalistic sense." What is more important is that Luther, immediately
before, had rightly excluded all supernatural merit from natural
action (" non ex meritis, sed ex mera promissione miserentis Dei ").

The Nominalists of Occam's school went much further in allowing
a natural preparation for grace (though not a meriting) than the
recognised representatives of Scholasticism. Denifle- Weiss, 1 2, p. 586 :
" The preparation for saving grace takes place, according to the
Occamists, by purely natural acts under the general concurrence of
God ; particular concurrence is, according to them and speaking
generally, the saving grace itself, whereas, according to Scholasticism
proper, special concurrence, i.e. actual grace, intervenes between the

FREEDOM CALLED INTO QUESTION 207

those who are not born again, sin lives as the " law of sin,"
because they are " weak " {-qadtvet.) against the attacks of
concupiscence ; on the other hand, the saving grace of the
gospel frees us from the " law of sin and death." To the pro-
position with which Paul introduces this doctrine, viz. that it
had not been possible for the law (i.e. the Mosaic Law) to conquer
sin, Luther simply adds : " where now is the freedom of the
will ?x . . . the holy Apostle Paul says here expressly that the
law was unable to condemn [overcome] sin, or even the weakness
which proceeds from the flesh. This is nothing else but the
doctrine which I have so frequently been insisting upon, that a
fulfilling of the law through our own efforts is impossible ; it
cannot even be said that we have the power to will and to be able,
in such a way as God would have us, viz. by grace [thus it is
possible to us to perform what is naturally good] ; for otherwise
grace would not be necessary, but only useful, and otherwise the
sin of Adam would not have corrupted our nature, but have left
it unimpaired. ... It is true that the law of nature is written
in the hearts of all ; reason also has a natural desire for what is
good, but this is selfish, being directed to our own good, not to
that which pleases God ; only faith working by love is directed
towards God. All that nature desires and acquires, goodness,
wisdom, virtue and whatever else there is, are evil goods (' male
bona sunt '), because nature, by original sin, is blinded in its
knowledge and chained in its affections, and therefore cannot
know God, nor love Him above all things nor yet refer all to Him.

natural and the supernatural, i.e. saving grace, and is necessary for
man's preparation for the reception of the latter ; the general con-
currence on the other hand is represented as insufficient because it
belongs to the natural order. (See above, pp. 141 ff.) Never-
theless, the Nominalists, as A. Weiss points out (Denifle, l2, p. 578,
n. 2), came to expound their theory quite satisfactorily. See Alten-
staig, " Lexicon theolog.," Venet., 1583, fol. 163, s.v. Facere quod in
se est. Still, Denifle is right when he says (p. 441) that the reproach
of Pelagianism later on urged against them by Luther did to some
extent apply to the Occamists.

The deeper ground, however, which led Luther in the above passages
of the Commentary on Romans to attack the " Facienli," etc., was
that, in his antagonism against the good works of the self-righteous,
he had, with the assistance of pseudo-mysticism, reached a point where
he denied that any vital act on the part of man had any potency for
the working out of salvation. In the work of salvation he allows of no
power of choice: "The fulfilling of the law by our own efforts is
absolutely impossible " ; " free will is altogether in sin and cannot
choose what is good in God's sight." See vol. ii., xiv. 3. Cp. W. Braun,
" Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz bei Luther," pp. 215, 217, 219, 221.

Protestant theologians could, moreover, have found the axiom
" Facienti" etc., duly explained in the Catholic sense, with its biblical
and patristic supports, even in the ordinary Catholic handbooks of
theology, which would have obviated much misapprehension ; cp.,
for instance, H. Hurter, " Theologian specialis pars altera,"11 Inns-
bruck, 1903 (Compendium 3), p. 65 seq., 72 seq.
1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 183.

208 LUTHER THE MONK

Therefore it follows that, without faith and love, man is unable
to desire, have, or do anything that is good, but only evil, even
when he does wThat is good." " Without love, i.e. without the
assistance of an external and higher power, he sins continually
against the law ' Thou shalt not covet,' for this commandment
requires that we should not appropriate or seek anything for
ourselves, but live, act and think for God in all things. This
commandment is simply beyond us."1

His object in thus disparaging liberty is not for the present
grounded on the Almighty Power of God, as though this
stood in its way, or, as was the case later, on predestination,
as though its irrefutable decree were incompatible with
liberty, but merely on his exaggeration of the results of
original sin with regard to doing what is good (i.e. on
concupiscence) ; he simply moves along the old lines of his
distaste for good works and for so-called self -righteousness.2

His misinterpretation qf the Scholastics, due partly to
ignorance, partly to the strength of his prejudice against
them, here did him very notable service. He says on one
occasion : "In their arbitrary fashion they make out that,
on the infusion of grace, the whole of original sin is remitted
in everyone just like all actual sin, as though sin could thus
be removed at once, in the same way as darkness is dis-
pelled by light. ... It is true their Aristotle made sin
and righteousness to consist in works. Either I never
understood them, or they did not express themselves well."3
Here there can be no doubt that the former hypothesis is
the correct one. That he did not understand his teachers
and the school books is apparent frcm the following re-
mark : If sin were completely removed in confessicn
("omnia ablata et evacuata"), then he who comes from
confession ought to prefer himself to all others, and not
look upon himself as a sinner like the rest. Even the
Occamists never provided the slightest ground for such an
inference, though they admitted in the justified the entire
remission of all sin, original as well as actual. Luther had
said in the very passage of the Commentary on Romans
just quoted : " the remission of sin is, it is true, a real
remission, yet not a removal of sin ; the removal is only
to be hoped for (" quod non sit ablatio peccaii, nisi in spe ")

1 "Schol. Rom.," p. 183 f.

2 Cp. ibid., pp. 114, 185, 187, 244.

3 Ibid., p. K8.

MALEDICTIONS 209

from the giving of grace ; grace commences the process of
the removal in this way, that the sin is no longer imputed
as sin."1 But, without recalling his own admission that he
may possibly have misunderstood the Scholastics, he goes
on to speak of the " deliria " of such Doctors.

5. Luther rudely sets aside the older doctrine of Virtue
and Sin

In his Commentary on Romans Luther enters upon the
domain of theological and philosophical discussion regarding
the questions of natural and supernatural morality, the
state of grace and the infused habit, sometimes with subtilty,
sometimes with coarse invective, but owing to the limits
of the present work we are unable to follow him except
quite cursorily.

The manner in which he flings his " curses " at the doc-
trines of Scholasticism is distinctive of him ; he says they
are entirely compounded of pride and ignorance with regard
to sin, to God and the law ;2 " cursed be the word ' formatum
charitate,' and also the distinction between works according
to the substance of the deed and the intention of the Law-
giver."3 There is perhaps no previous instance of a learned,
exegetical treatise intended for academic consumption
being thus spiced with curses.

Certain of Luther's remarks on his practical experience call for
consideration. Such is the following : " Everywhere in the
Church great relapses after confession are now noticeable.
People are confident that they are justified instead of first
awaiting justification, and therefore the devil has an easy task
with such false assurance of safety, and overthrows men. All
this is due to making righteousness consist in works. But who-
ever thinks like a Christian can find this out for himself.4

1 " Schol. Rem.," p. 108 f. Cp. p. 178, where he complains that they
had reached the " nocentissima fraus, ut baptizali vel absoluti, statim se
sine omni peccato arbitrantes, securi fierent de adepta iustitia et manibus
remissis quieti, nullius sc. conscii peccali, quod gemitu et lachrymis lugendo
et laborando expugnarent atque expurgarent. Igitur peccatum est in
spirituali homine relictum," etc. It is clear that the continuance of
the "/owes peccali " is confused with the continuance of sin and the
languor which is frequently due to weakness after the extirpation of
sin, with a languor which must necessarily set in. The " grace which
is given " he sometimes looks upon as actual, sometimes as saving
grace. To follow him through all his erroneous notions would be end-
less.

2 Ibid.., p. 114.

3 Jtbid.x p. 167. * Ibid., p. 111.

i.— p

210 LUTHER THE MONK

He gives the following exhortation with great emphasis and
almost as though he had made an astounding discovery : " Who-
ever goes to confession, let him not believe that he gets rid of his
burden and can then live in peace."1 His new doctrine of sin,
which he discloses in the same passage, lies at the bottom of this ;
the baptised and the absolved must on no account forthwith
consider themselves free from sin, on the contrary " they must
not fancy themselves sure of the righteousness they have obtained
and allow their hands to drop listlessly as though they were
not conscious of any sin, for they have yet to fight against it and
exterminate it with sighs and tears, with sadness and effort."2

" Sin, therefore, still remains in the spiritual man for his
exercise in the life of grace, for the humbling of his pride, for the
driving back of his presumption ; whoever does not exert
himself zealously in the struggle against it, is in danger of being
condemned even though he cease to sin any more (' sine dubio
habet, unde damnetur '). We must carry on a war with our
desires, for they are culpable (' culpa '), they are really sins and
render us worthy of damnation ; only the mercy of God does not
impute them to us ( ' imputare ' ) when we fight manfully against
them, calling upon God's grace."3

There are few passages in the Commentary where his false
conception of the entire corruption of human nature by
original sin and concupiscence comes out so plainly as in the
words just quoted. We see here too how this conception
leads him to the denial of all liberty for doing what is good,
and to the idea of imputation.

We can well understand that he needed St. Augustine to
assist him to cover all this. And yet, as though to em-
phasise his own devious course, he quotes, among other
passages, one in which Augustine confutes the view of
any sin being present in man simply by reason of con-
cupiscence.

" If we do not consent to concupiscence," Augustine says, " it
is no sin in those who are regenerate, so that, even if the ' Non
concupisces ' is infringed, yet the injunction of Jesus Sirach
(xviii. 30) ' Go not after thy lusts ' is observed. It is merely
a manner of speaking to call concupiscence sin (" modo quodam
loquendi "), because it sprang from sin, and, when it is victorious,
causes sin."4 To this statement of the Father of the Church,
which is so antagonistic to his own ideas, Luther can only add :

1 "Schol. Rom.," p. 179.

2 Ibid., p. 178. See above, p. 209, n. 1.

3 Ibid., p. 178.

4 Ibid., p. 181. The passage quoted from Augustine is in " De
nuptiis et concupiscentia act Valerium," 1. 1, c. 23 ; Migne, P. L., xliv.,
col. 428.

AUGUSTINE ON CONCUPISCENCE 211

that, certainly, concupiscence is in this way merely the cause and
effect of sin, but not formally sinful (" causaliter et effectualiter,
non formaliter ") ; Augustine himself had taught in another
passage,1 that owing to the mere existence of concupiscence, we
are able to do what is good only in an imperfect way, not well
and perfectly (" facer e, non perficere " ; cp. Rom vii.. 18) ; that we
ought, however, to strive to act well and perfectly " if we wish to
attain to the perfection of righteousness " (" perficere bonum, est
non concupiscere ").2

St. Augustine's words, which are much to the point if taken in
the right sense, only encouraged Luther in his opposition to the
Scholastics ; he points out to them that Augustine's manner is
not theirs, and that at least he supports his statements by Holy
Scripture when speaking of the desires which persist without the
consent of the will ; they on the other hand come along without
Bible proofs and thus with less authority ; those old Doctors
quieted consciences with the voice of the Apostle, but these new
ones do not do so at all, rather they force the Divine teaching
into the bed of their own abstractions ; for instance, they derive
from Aristotle their theory as to how virtues and vices dwell in
the soul, viz. as the form exists in the subject ; all comprehension
of the difference between flesh and spirit is thus made impossible.

The question which here forces itself upon Luther, viz.
how virtue and vice exist in the soul, is of fundamental
importance for his view of ethics, and, as it frequently
occurs in the Commentary, it must not be passed over.

When he says that virtues and vices do not adhere to the
soul, he means the same as what he elsewhere expresses
more clearly, viz. that " it depends merely on the gracious
will of God whether a thing is good or bad."3

"Nothing is good of its own nature, nothing is bad of its own
nature ; the will of God makes it good or bad."4

1 " Contra Julianum," 1. 3, c. 26 ; Migne, P. L., xliv., col. 733 sq.

2 " Schol. Rom.," p. 182.

3 Ibid.,_p. 221.

4 Ibid. " Bonitas Dei facit nos bonos et opera nostra bona ;
quia non essent in se bona, nisi quia Deus reputat ea bona. Et tantum
sunt vel non sunt, quantum ille reputat vel non reputat. Idcirco nostrum
reputare vel non reputare nihil est. Qui sic sapit, semper pavidus est,
semper Dei reputationem timet et expectat. Idcirco nescit superbire et
contendere, sicut faciunt superbi iustitiarii, qui certi sunt de bonis operibus
suis. Perversa itaque est defmitio virtutis apud Aristotelem, quod ipsa
nos perficit et opus eius laudabile reddit." The nominalistic doctrine
of acceptation also comes out in Luther's Heidelberg Disputation
(" Werke," Weim. ed., 1, pp. 352, 356), though he explains it in such
a fashion that it is clear he does not wish to go as far as Occam's
paradox to be mentioned immediately. He answers the objection
that the same act cannot be pleasing and displeasing to God at the
same time, thus : " The Scholastics are acquainted only with an

212 LUTHER THE MONK

This is the merest Nominalism, akin to Occam's paradox that
" hatred of God, theft and adultery might be not merely not
wicked, but even meritorious were the will of God to command
them."

From such ideas of Occam Luther advanced to the following :
" The will of God decides whether I am pleasing to Him or not."1

This explains the proposition which frequently appears, in the
Commentary on Romans and elsewhere, that man is at the same
time righteous and a sinner, that the righteous man has the left
foot still in sin and the right in grace. 2

In the Commentary he attacks self-complacency in the perform-
ance of good works with the cry : " Good works are not some-
thing that can please because they are good or meritorious, but
because they have been chosen by God from eternity as pleasing
to Himself," words which presuppose that only the imputation
matters. " Therefore," he continues, " works do not render us
good, but our goodness, or rather the goodness of God, makes us
good and our works good ; for in themselves they would not be
good, and they are or are not good in so far as God accounts them,
or does not account them good (' quantum ille reputat vel non
reputat '). Our own accounting or not accounting does not
matter in the least. Whoever keeps this before him is always
filled with fear, and waits with apprehension to see how God's
sentence will fall out. This puts an end to all that puffing up of
self and quarrelling, so beloved of the proud ' iustitiarii,' who are
so sure of their good works."

" Even the very definition of virtue which Aristotle gives," he
concludes, " is all wrong, as though, forsooth, virtue made us
perfect and its work rendered us worthy of praise. The truth is
simply that it makes us praiseworthy in our own eyes and
commends our works to us ; but this is abominable in God's
sight, while the contrary is pleasing to Him."3

As a matter of fact, Scholasticism, basing its teaching on
Aristotle, considered virtue and vice as something real and
objective, as qualities of the soul which adhere to it inwardly
and " inform " it, i.e. impart to it a spiritual form and become
part of it in the same way as material things have their special

acceptation by God without forgiveness ; we, on the contrary, know
that the evil in all works is forgiven through Christ, our righteousness,
Who makes good all our defects ; just as the saints have so-called
merits only in Christ, for Whose sake God accepts graciously their
works which He would not otherwise accept." " Werke," Weim. ed.,
1, p. 370. Cp. W. Braun, " Die Concupiscenz," etc., p. 213, where he
rightly draws attention to the fact that A. Jundt, " Le developpement
de la pensee religieuse de Luther jusqu'en 1517," Paris, 1906, has
not drawn his " information regarding Scholasticism from the right
source, but from Harnack's and Seeberg's works, and even from
Denifle's quotations." Cp. " Hist. Jahrbuch," 27, 1906, p. 884 :
" Jundt knows nothing of the Catholic literature on the matter," etc.

1 Braun, pp. 191, 211; "Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 42 ; 2, p. 536.

2 "iSchol. Rom.," p. 221.

3 Ibid.

PREPARING FOR JUSTIFICATION 213

qualities, for instance, their natural colour without which they
do not exist. These, as a matter of fact, were merely learned
ways of expressing the fundamental truth naturally perceived
by all, viz. that evil deeds and vices render a man evil, and good
deeds and virtues render him good ; no sane mind could conceive
of a theory of imputation by which good is made evil or evil
good.

Luther was naturally obliged by his new theology of
imputation to declare war on the older theological view of
the existence of virtue and vice in the soul.1 It was in so
doing that, in his excitement, he uttered the curses above
referred to (p. 209). It was no mere question of words,
but of the very foundation of his new theology, a fact
which makes his excitement comprehensible.

As a matter of fact, by his application of the theory of
imputation he was heading for a " transformation of all
values " and drifting towards the admission of a " future
life of good and evil " long before modern philosophy had
confidently opened up a similar perspective.

6. Preparation for Justification

Notwithstanding the fact that, according to the above
exposition in the Commentary on Romans, man has ab-
solutely no freedom of choice for doing what is good and
that we cannot know with regard to our works how God
will account them, Luther frequently speaks in the same
book of the preparation necessary for obtaining justification,
namely, by works. Here his feeling and his eloquence
come into full play at the expense of clear theology. He
does not even take into account the irresistibility of grace,
which is the point he is bound to arrive at finally. Christ
alone does the work, he says (" soli Christo iustitia relin-
quitur, soli ipsi opera gratice et spiritus").2 On the other
hand, the bringing about of justification, at least so far as
preparation goes, is imposed upon man. There are " works
which predispose to justification," he teaches (" opera quo3
fiunt prceparatorie ad iuslificatione?n acquirendam "). " Who-
ever by his works disposes himself for the grace of justification
is already, to a certain extent, righteous ; for righteousness
largely consists in the will to be righteous."3

1 Cp. " Schol. Rom.," p. 183. 2 Ibid., p. 89. 3 Ibid., p. 90 f.

214 LUTHER THE MONK

" Such works," he continues, " are good, because we do not
trust in them, but by them prepare ourselves for justification
by which alone we may hope for righteousness."1 " Therefore we
must pray earnestly, be zealous in good works and mortify our-
selves (' castigandum ') until readiness and joyousness develop in
the will and its old inclination to sin is overcome by grace."

" For the grace [of justification] will not be given to man
without this personal agriculture of himself " (" non ddbitur
gratia sine ista agricultura sui ipsius ").2

We must continue to " look upon such works as merely pre-
paratory, just as all works of righteousness performed in grace,
prepare in their turn for an increase of justification, according
to Apoc. xxii. II."3 "Only so can we be saved, namely, by
repenting that we are laden with sin and are living in sin,
and by imploring of God our deliverance.4 He also, in other
passages, emphasises' the fact that works are necessary for
justification as its preparation : " We must do works in order to
obtain justification (' opera pro iustificatione quairenda '), works
of grace and faith ; they confirm the desire for justification and
the fulfilment of the law, but we may not think that we are
justified by them." " Rather, true believers spend their whole
life in seeking justification . . . whoever seeks it with the heart
and by works, is without doubt already justified in God's sight."5
Towards the end of the Commentary he describes in emphatic
words, which will be quoted below, the humility and sighing
which should bring about justification.

We need not here specify how far the demand for individual
effort is here a reminiscence of his Catholic training, or more
particularly due to the school of Occam. It is an undoubted
fact that Occamism and pseudo -mysticism are here rubbing
shoulders, and that Luther himself is aware of the incongruity.6

7. Appropriation of the righteousness of Christ by humility —
Neither " Faith only " nor assurance of Salvation

Luther's words, quoted above, where he says that Christ
fulfilled the law for us, He made His righteousness ours and
our sins His (see above, p. 95 f.), show that he applied in the
fullest manner the theory of imputation to justification.
Man remains a sinner, but the sin is not imputed to him,
he is accounted righteous by the imputing to him of what
is quite alien to him, viz. the righteousness of Christ. Thus

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 91. 2 Ibid., p. 93. 3 Ibid., p. 95.

4 Ibid., p. 96. 5 Ibid., p. 100 f.

6 Cp. what he says in " Schol. Rom.," p. 85, about the " opera iusta,
bona, sancta extra vel ante iustificationem.'''' On p. 84 he says, our good
deeds should be directed towards the end " ut mereamur iustificari ex
ipso (Deo)." In the interpretation of chapter ii. he explains verse 14 :
" Quicumque legem implet est in Christo et datur ei gratia per sui
prceparationem ad eandem, quantum in se est," p. *38.

CHRIST OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS 215

he is at one and the same time the friend and the enemy of
God.1

The verb " to justify " as used in Holy Scripture the author of
the Commentary on Romans simply takes to mean " to account
as righteous," or " to declare righteous." Thus he says : " The
doers of the law (according to Rom. ii. 13) are justified, i.e. they
are accounted righteous. In Psalm cxlii. we read : ' In Thy
sight no man living shall be justified,' i.e. be accounted righteous.
. . . The Pharisee in the Temple wished to ' justify himself '
(Luke x. 29), i.e. to declare his justification."2

" Whoever seeks peace in his righteousness, seeks it in the
flesh." " Christ only is righteousness and truth, and in Him all
is given us in order that by Him we may be righteous and true
and escape eternal damnation."3 " This justification takes place
(according to Paul) outside of works of the law, i.e. without works
which are outside of faith and grace, that is, which come from
the law, which forces by fear and attracts by temporal promises.
The Apostle calls those only works of faith which proceed from
the spirit of freedom through the love of God, and these can only
be done by the man who is justified by faith. The works of the
law however do not help towards justification, but are rather a
hindrance because they prevent a man from looking upon him-
self as unrighteous and in need of justification."4

" Christ, according to the Apostle, has become our righteous-
ness (1 Cor. i. 30), i.e. all the good that we possess is exterior,
it is Christ's. It is only in us by faith and hope in Him." " Our
fulness and our righteousness is outside of us, within we are empty
and poor. . . . The pious know that sin alone dwells in them,
but that this is covered over and not imputed on account of
Christ. . . . The beauty of Christ conceals our hideousness."5

" There is in this system," says Denifle, in his description of it,
" no question of the expulsion of sin. The sinner . . . casts him-
self in his sinful condition on Christ without any means of his
own, he hides himself under the wings of the hen and comforts
himself with the idea : Christ has done everything in place of me,
all my works would be merely sin . . . Luther did not perceive
what a grievous wrong he was doing to God by this theory. It
entirely suppresses the inward grace of God which raises a man
up again, penetrates to the depths of his soul and purifies and
fills it with supernatural strength. The organic process of
justification thus shrinks into a purely mechanical shifting of the
scenery." To this Denifle opposes the statement of Holy Scrip-
ture : " That man by a living faith is implanted in Christ as the
sapling is grafted on to the olive tree, or the branch on the vine,
so that there must be an interior change, an ennobling, and thus
a new life."6

Luther says, " we are outwardly righteous because we are

1 Cp. Denifle- Weiss, l2, p. 608. 2 " Schol. Rom.," p. 41.

3 Ibid., p. 83 f. 4 Ibid., p. 84. 5 Ibid., p. 114 f.
6 Denifle- Weiss, l2, p. 465.

216 LUTHER THE MONK

justified, not by our works, but only by the reputation of God ;
but His reputation is not inwardly within us, and is not within
our power." " Solum Deo reputante sumus iusti, ergo non nobis
viventibus vel operantibus ; quare intrinsece et ex nobis impii
semper."1

The connection between " reputation " as above and
Occam's theory of acceptation is unmistakable.

The nominalistic views of God and of His arbitrary
acceptation were the form in which Luther's ideas were
moulded. The general structure of his thoughts was de-
rived from what he had retained of the Nominalism of
Occam.2 On the principal point, however, Luther diverges
from the theology of the school of Occam by not admitting
in any way the saving grace which the latter teaches.
There is with him no such thing as an infused virtue of
righteousness.3 Luther in his doctrine on virtue and vice
had already suppressed them as " qualities," i.e. as objective
realities ; still more so does he deny that the grace which
makes us righteous is in any sense a real " qualitas" or
" habitus " ; in fact, he leaves no actual justifying grace
whatever actually inherent in man, but merely sees in God
a gracious willingness not to regard us as sinners, and to
lend us His all-powerful assistance for the struggle against
sin (concupiscence and actual sin).

Thus the outlines of the strongest assertions which he
makes later as to the imputing of the righteousness of
Christ are already apparent in his interpretation of the
Epistle to the Romans. Christ alone has assumed the place
of what the Catholic calls saving grace. He already teaches
what he was to sum up later in the short formula : " Christ
Himself is my quality and my formal righteousness," or,
again, what he was to say to Melanchthon in 1536 : " Born
of God and at the same time a sinner ; this is a contra-
diction ; but in the things of God we must not hearken to
reason."4 His Commentary on Romans prepares us for
his later assertions : " The gospel is a teaching having no

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 104 f.

2 J. Ficker in the preface to Luther's Commentary on Romans,
p. Ixxi.

3 For the explanation of certain expressions of Luther's in this Com-
mentary, e.g. that " God infuses grace," and that faith without works
does not justify, see Denifle-Weiss, l2, p. 466.

4 " Tischreden," ed. Forstemann, 2, p. 148 : " Pugnat esse ex Deo
natum et simul esse peccatorem.'" Cp. Weim. ed. 2, p. 420.

HUMBLE TRUST 217

connection whatever with reason, whereas the teaching of
the law can be understood by reason . . . reason cannot
grasp an extraneous righteousness and, even in the saints,
this belief is not sufficiently strong."1 " The enduring sin
is admitted by God as non-existent ; one and the same act
may be accepted before God and not accepted, be good
and not good." " Whoever terms this mere cavilling (' cavil-
latio ") is desirous of measuring the Divine by purblind
human reason and understands nothing of Holy Scripture."2

How then are we to obtain from God the imputation
of the righteousness of Christ ? There is surely some condi-
tion to be supplied by man which may allow it to be conferred,
for it cannot rule blindly and unconsciously. Or are we
never certain of this imputation ? Luther's answer is very
pessimistic : Man never knows that it has been bestowed
upon him. He can only hope, by sinking himself in his
own nothingness (" humilitas "), to placate God and obtain
this imputation.

Thus the author of the Commentary on Romans is still
very far from that absolute assurance of salvation by faith
which he was subsequently to advocate.3

He insists so much on the uncertainty of salvation that he
blames Catholic theologians severely for the assurance and

1 " Opp. Lat. exeg.," 23, p. 160. By "saints," Luther means the
pious folk who follow his teaching.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 2, p. 420 (in the year 1519).

3 Cp., for the absence of assurance of salvation, " Schol. Rom.,"
p. 104 : " Ex sola Dei reputatione iusti sumus ; reputatio enim eius non
in nobis nee in potestate nostra est. Ergo nee iustitia nostra in nobis est
nee in potestate nostra,'''' and, p. 105 : " Peccatores (sumus) in re, iusti
autem in spe " ; p. 108 : " Sanus perfecte est in spe, in re autem pec-
cator " ; p. 89 : " Nunquam scire possumus, an iusti ficati simus, an
credamus ; idcirco tanquam opera nostra sint opera legis estimemus et
humiliter peccatores simus in sola misericordia eius iusti ficari 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 hcec 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 !

218 LUTHER THE MONK

confidence which their teaching induces in man, and refuses to
admit any of the customary signs which moralists and ascetics
look upon as conclusive testimony of a soul being in a state of
grace.

The advantage he perceives in his new ideas is precisely that
they keep man ever in a state of fear (" semper pavidus ").1 That,
as Luther expressly says, " we can never know whether we are
justified and whether we believe, is owing to the fact that it is
hidden from us whether we live in every word of God."2 When
dealing with a passage, which he makes use of later in quite a
different sense (Rom. iii. 22, " the justice of God by faith of Jesus
Christ unto all and upon all"), he says : "We must fear and
tremble ( ' timent et pavent ' ) lest we please not God ; we must be
in fear and despair (' pavor et desperatio '), for such is God's own
work in us ; if this fear does not take the place of the customary
signs, then there is no hope possible ; and, in so far, fear alone is
a good sign."3 " Our life is in death [here speaks the mystic],
our salvation in destruction, our kingdom in banishment, our
heaven in hell."4 " Away with all trust in righteousness." Arise
and " destroy all presumption in wholesome despair."

On this road of painful despair Luther fancies he discovers
the only really " good sign " of salvation, so far as any sign at all
can be said to exist : " On account of the confession of their sins
God accounts the saints as righteous."5

" Whoever renounces everything, even himself, is ready to
become nothing (volens it in nihilum), to go to death and to
damnation, whoever voluntarily confesses and is persuaded that he
deserves nothing good, such a one has done enough in God's sight
and is righteous. We must, believing in the word of the cross, die
to ourselves and to everything ; then we shall live for God alone."
" The saints have their sins ever before them, they beg for
righteousness through the mercy of God and, for that very
reason, they are always accounted righteous by God ; in truth
they are sinners, though righteous by imputation ; unconsciously
righteous and consciously unrighteous, sinners in deed but
righteous in hope." " God's anger is great and wonderful ; He
accounts them at the same time righteous and unrighteous,
removing sin and not removing it."6 Here he exclaims patheti-
cally : " God is wonderful in His saints (Ps. lxvii. 36), who are
at the same time righteous and unrighteous." Of the " self-
righteous" he immediately adds ironically: , Wonderful is God
in the hypocrites, " who are at the same time unrighteous and
righteous ! " Without any suspicion of paradox, he concludes :

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 221 ; see above, p. 211, note 4.

2 From passage cited above, p. 114, n. 1.

3 " Schol. Rom.," 214. Cp. his explanation of the 4th Heidelberg
Thesis, that in a Christian " desperatio " (" mortification) and "vivi-
ficatio " 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.

* " Schol. Rom.," p. 219. 5 Ibid., p. 230.

6 Ibid., p. 105.

HUMBLE TRUST 219

" It is certain that God's elect will be saved, but no one is certain
that he is chosen."

Luther repeatedly represents the feeling of despair (under the
name of " humilitas ") as not merely a means of recognising the
imputation of God and therewith one's salvation, but even as in
itself the only means which can lead to salvation. He praises
" humility " in mystical language as something man must
struggle to attain and as the ideal of the devout. It occupies
almost the same place in his mind as the " sola fides " at a
later date.

That " humility " is to him the actual factor which obtains
the imputation of the merits of Christ and thus makes the soul
righteous and wins for it eternal salvation, is apparent not only
from the above, but also from the following utterances : " When
we are convinced that we are unrighteous and without the fear
of God, when, thus humbled, we acknowledge ourselves to be
godless and foolish, then we deserve to be justified by Him."1
The fear of God works humility, but humility makes us fit for all
[salvation] ; we must merely resign ourselves to the admission
that " there is nothing so righteous that it is not unrighteous,
nothing so true that it is not a lie, nothing so pure that it is not
filthy and profane before God."2 " Let us be sinners in humility
and only desire to be justified by the mercy of God." He alone
who acknowledges his entire unrighteousness, who fears and
beseeches, he alone, " as an abiding sinner," opens for himself the
door to salvation.3

We must believe everything that is of Christ, he says, and
only he does this who humbly bewails his own utter unrighteous-
ness.4 The mystic star of "humility" which has arisen to him
he even describes as the " vera fides," and makes the following
inference : "As this is so, we must humble ourselves beyond
bounds." " When we have humbled ourselves wholly before
God, then we have fulfilled righteousness, wholly and entirely
( ' totam perfectamque iustitiam ' ) ; for what else does all Scripture
teach but humility ? "5

Luther ascribes to " humility " all that he later ascribes to
faith ; "all Scripture," which now teaches humility, will later
teach that faith is the only power which saves. In that very
Epistle to the Romans, which at a later date was to be the
bulwark of his " sola fides," he can as yet, in 1515 and 1516, find
only " sola humilitas." His frequent exhortations to self-
annihilation and despair of one's own efforts, exhortations taking
the form of fulsome praise of one particular kind of humility,
must be traced back to mystical influence and to his irritation
against the " proud self-righteous."

It is true that Luther had, from the very beginning of
his exposition, as the editor of the Commentary justly
points out, " taken his stand against the scholastic [rather

1 "Schol. Rom," p. 84. ■ Ibid^ p# 83- a Ibid., p. 89.

* Ibid., p. 86 f. 5 Ibid., p. 39.

220 LUTHER THE MONK

the Church's] doctrine of salvation ; it is apparent at the
very outset of the lectures that the separation has already
taken place." It could not be otherwise, as at the com-
mencement of the Commentary he already denies the power
of man to do what is good. Ficker also says with truth :
" Luther again and again comes back to his oldest and
deepest torment, viz. the struggle against free will and
man's individual powers";1 his study of St. Paul confirms
his views, which now take clearer shape, until finally " he
incontinently identifies his opponents with the Pelagians."2
With regard to Luther's tenets on faith in the matter
of salvation he has so far not departed in any essential from
the accepted olden doctrine that faith is the commence-
ment, root and foundation of salvation.

The editor of the Commentary also admits, though with
limitations, the very remarkable fact that faith does not yet
occupy in the Commentary on Romans the position which
Luther assigns to it later : " the ' fides,' which Luther explains
with the help of a number of terms borrowed from his lectures on
the Psalms, in the exposition of the Pauline Epistle does not as
yet appear in its entire fulness and depth, as the expression of
the relation of man to the eternal, at least not to the same extent
as it does later ; frequently we have a mere reproduction of
the Pauline phraseology ; there is no lack of reminiscences of
Augustine, and the results of an Occamist training are also
apparent."3

We certainly cannot say that at the very beginning of the
Commentary,4 faith or even ''''sola fides" is conceded the high
place which it is afterwards to occupy in his system ; the ex-
pression " sola fides " occurs there by pure accident and does not
bear its later meaning ; it is only intended to elucidate a sentence
which in itself is correct : " iustitia Dei est causa salutis." By
this is meant that " fides evangelii " to which, as Luther says,
Augustine ascribes justification, but which the latter, according
to Luther's own admission, did not intend to take in the sense
of the later Lutheran " sola fides." Above all, as already pointed
out, faith, in the Commentary on Romans, lacks its chief
characteristic and does not of itself alone produce an absolute
assurance of the state of grace. It was only in 1518 that Luther
arrived at his peculiar belief in justification by virtue of a con-
fident faith in Christ (assurance of salvation).5

In the Commentary on Romans Luther understands by faith,
first the general submission of the mind to Divine revelation, a

1 Ficker refers to " Schol. Rom.," p. 23 ff., p. 108 ff., Ill seq., 114
167, 185, 187, 199, 244, 283, 287, 322 f.

2 " Schol. Rom.," p. 322. 3 Ibid., p. Ixxvi.

4 Ibid., p. 14. 5 See below, chapter x.

FAITH 221

faith which he here, as also later, in agreement with the Church's
teaching, accounts as the first preliminary for the state of grace.
His opposition to works and self-righteousness frequently urges
him to praise the high value of the faith which- comes from God,
whilst his mysticism likewise makes him accentuate the im-
portance of trust and blind submission. " Credite, confidite " he
cries in his exposition of the Psalms — of which the standpoint is
still entirely that of the Church — also fervently recommending to
his hearers the " fiducia graticc Dei."1 All that can be complained
of is that there, as in the Commentary on the Psalms, he seizes
every occasion to speak in favour of the advantages which
faith possesses over works.

With regard to his teaching on faith in the Commentary on
Romans, Denifle complains of " Luther's want of clearness in
respect of justifying faith," of his exaggerations and indistinct-
ness, of "his absolute ignorance of wholesome theology."2
" The medium in this doctrine of justification," he says, " is
really not faith at all, but the confession that we are always
under the works of the law, always unrighteous, always sinners " ;
" he never, even later, arrived at a correct or uniform idea of
faith. . . . Luther's assertion of the bondage of the will (com-
plete passivity) renders faith in the process of justification, a
mere monstrosity."3

Here we are not as yet concerned with the qualities of faith in
the Lutheran process of justification, but it must be pointed out,
that the acceptance of complete passivity in justification is a
necessary corollary of the above ideas of " humilitas." " Whereas
the Christian," Denifle says, following the Catholic teaching,
" moved and inspired by the grace of God repents of his sins, and,
with a trusting faith, turns to God and implores their pardon,
Luther excludes from justification all acts whether inward or
outward on the part of the sinner ; for God could not come into
our possession or be attained to without the suppression of every-
thing that is positive. Our works must cease and we ourselves
must remain passive in God's hands."4 In the Commentary on
Romans passivity in the work of justification is certainly insisted
on. Luther does not take the trouble to reconcile this with the
activity which man is to exert in steeping himself in humility in
order, by his prayers and supplications, to gain salvation.5 He
says of passivity : " God cannot be possessed or touched except
by the negation of everything that is in us." 6 " Then only are we

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 3, p. 651 ; 4, p. 228.

2 Denifle, 1\ p. 444.

3 Ibid., p. 605 ff., with his testimonies. 4 Ibid., p. 599.

5 Cp. above, p. 218, and " Schol. Rom.," p. 105 ff. : " (sancli) iusiiliam
a Deo secundum misericordiam ipsius implorant, eo ipso semper quoque
iusti a Deo reputantur."

6 "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
xn Deo, qui est negativa essentia [!] et bonitas et sapientia et iustitia nee
potest possideri aut attingi nisi negatis omnibus affirmativis nostris.'''

222 LUTHER THE MONK

capable of receiving God's works and plans, when our planning
and our works cease ; when we are altogether passive with
regard to God interiorly as well as exteriorly."1 In the Com-
mentary on Galatians, not long after, he calls Christian righteous-
ness a " passive righteousness," because we " there do nothing,
and give God nothing."2

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 206,. Cp. Denifle, 1\ p. 600.

2 In Gal., 1, p. 14. We can understand that Protestant theo-
logians 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 Com-
mentary edited by Ficker ("Die Entwicklung Luthers" ["Schriften
des Vereins fur 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 psycho-
logical spontaneity of his voluntarism disappears and Quietist mysticism
has to supply him with the colours necessary for depicting the appro-
priation of grace" (ibid.).

Concerning the question of assurance of salvation in the Commentary
on Romans, Scheel, indeed, admits that " Luther had not yet arrived

DISREGARDS CHURCH'S DOCTRINE 223

8. Subjectivism and Church Authority. Storm and Stress

Subjectivism plays an important part in the exposition
of the Epistle to the Romans.

It makes itself felt not merely in Luther's treatment of
the Doctors and the prevalent theological opinions, but also
in his ideas concerning the Church and her authority. We
cannot fail to see that the Church is beginning to take the
second place in his mind. Notwithstanding the numerous
long-decided controversial questions raised in the Com-
mentary, there is hardly any mention of the teaching office
of the Church, and the reader is not made aware that with
regard to these questions there existed in the Church a fixed
body of faith, established either by actual definition or by
generally accepted theological opinion. The doctrine of
absolute predestination to hell, for instance, had long before
been authoritatively repudiated in the decisions against
Gottschalk, but is nevertheless treated by Luther as an
open question, or rather as though it had been decided in
the affirmative, thus making of God a cruel avenger of
involuntary guilt.

The impetuous author, following his mistaken tendency
to independence, disdains to be guided by the heritage of
ecclesiastical and theological truth, as the Catholic professor
is wont to be in his researches in theology and in his ex-
planations of Holy Scripture. Luther, though by no means
devoid of faith in the Church, and in the existence in her of
the living Spirit of God, lacks that ecclesiastical feeling which
inspired so many of his contemporaries in their speculations,
both theological and philosophical ; we need only recall
his own professor, Johann Paltz, and Gabriel Biel to whom
he owed so much. Impelled by his subjectivism, and careless

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 incom-
pleteness 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 Romer-
briefkommentar," in the " Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche," 20, 1910,
p. 245 ft\, where the doctrine of assurance is dated as far back as 1516
(p. 290).

224 LUTHER THE MONK

of the teaching of preceding ages, he usually flies straight
to his own " profounder theology " for new solutions. Here
the habits engendered by the then customary debates in
the schools exercise a detrimental effect on him. He is
heedless of the fact that his hasty and bold assertions may
undermine the foundations which form the learned support
to the Church's dogmas. Important and assured truths
become to him, according to this superficial method, mere
" soap bubbles " which his breath can burst, " chimeras
of fancy " which will melt away in the mist. This is the
case, for instance, with the traditional doctrines of saving
grace, of the distinction between original and actual sin,
and of meritorious good works. Whoever does not agree
with his terrible doctrine of predestination is simply reckoned
among the subtle theologians, who are desirous of saving
everything with their vain distinctions.1 We cannot, of
course, measure Luther by the standard of the Tridentine
decrees, which embodied these and other questions in
distinct formularies of which the Church in his time had
not yet the advantage. Yet the principal points which
Luther began to agitate at this time were, if not already
actual dogmas, yet sufficiently expressed in the body of
the Church's teaching and illuminated by ecclesiastical
theology.

That he still adheres in the Commentary to the principle of
the hierarchy is apparent from the fact that he declares its
office to be sublime, and loudly bewails the fact that so many
unworthy individuals had forced themselves at that time into
its ranks ; he says in his curious language : " It is horrifying
and the greatest of all perils that there can be in this world or
the next ; it is simply the one biggest danger of all."2 In the
hierarchy, he says, God condescended to our weakness by choos-
ing to speak to us and come to our assistance through the medium
of men, and not directly, in His unapproachable and terrible
majesty.3

He also recognises the various grades of the hierarchy, priestly

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 209 f. : " Nostri (heologi velut acuiuli," etc.
" Hcec tantum vacua verba sunt,'''' etc. " Est ridicula addiiio si dicas,"
etc. " Torquent intelliqentiam,''' etc. Thus he arrives at his " im-
mutabilis pr&deslinatio." " Proscipit Deus ut irretianlur 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.

2 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.

3 Ibid., p. 7.

PREACHERS TRUE AND FALSE 225

and episcopal Orders. " The Church is a general hospital for
healing those who are spiritually sick " ;x the rules which she
gives to the clergy, the recital of the Divine Office for instance,
must be obediently carried out.2 She has a right to temporal
possessions, only " at the present day almost all declare these
to be spiritual things ; they, the clergy, are masters in this
' spiritual ' domain and are more careful about it than about
their real spiritualities, or about their use of thunderbolts
[excommunications] in the sentences pronounced by the Church."3
According to him, the prelates and the Church have a perfect
right to condemn false teachers however much the latter may
" utter their foolish cry of ' we have the truth, we believe, we
hear, we call upon God.' " " Just as though they must be of
God because they seem to themselves to be of God. No, we have
an authority which has been implanted in the Church, and the
Roman Church has this authority in her hands. Therefore the
preachers of the Church, unless they fall into error, p each with
assurance [on account of their commission]. But fahe teachers
are pleased with their own words, because they are according to
their own ideas. They appear to demand the greatest piety, but
are themselves governed by their own opinion, and their self-
will."4 " Whoever declares that he is sent by God must either
give proof of his mission by wonders and heavenly testimony,
as the Apostles did, or he must be recognised and commissioned by
an authority confirmed by Heaven. In the latter case, he must
stand and teach in humble subjection to such authority, ever
ready to submit to its judgment ; he must speak what he is
commissioned to speak and not what his own taste leads him to
invent. . . . Anathema is the weapon," he exclaims — un-
conscious of his own future — " which lays low the heretics."5

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 111. 2 Ibid., p. 290. Cp. p. 317.

3 Ibid., p. 294 f. 4 Ibid., p. 248 f.

5 Ibid. Of the true preacher he says : " Sub humili subiectione
eiusdem auctoritatis pruedicet, semper stare iudicio illius paratus ac,
quce mandata ei sunt, loqui, non quae placita sunt sibi ac inventa." The
punishment threatened by Zach. xiii. 3 against false prophets
, (" conflgent cum"), was to be applied to those who teach subversive
doctrines on their own authority, being the anathema of their ecclesias-
tical superiors. "Hoc est telum forlissimum, quo percutiuntur hmretici,
quia sine testimonio Dei vel authoritas a Deo confirmatce, sed proprio
motu, specie pietatis erecti, predicant, ut Ier. xxiii. (v. 21) : Ipsi currebant
et ego non mittebam eos. Et tamen audent dicere : Nos salvabimur . . .
nos credimus . . . praidicamus. Sed hoc dicere non possunt : Nos
prosdicamus, quia missi sumus. Hie, hie iacent ! Et hie est tota vis et
salus, sine quo cetera falsa sunt, licet an falsa sint non cogitenty 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 verilatem habemus. . . . Quasi hoc satis sit
ex Deo esse, quia ipsis ita ex Deo videatur esse. . . . Sic ergo authoritas
ecclesios instituta, ut nunc adhuc Romana tenet ecclesiay The heretics,
it is true, assert that they are in possession of the really wholesome

I.— Q

226 LUTHER THE MONK

Whenever he gets the chance he magnifies the corruption
of the Church so much that his expressions might lead one
to suppose that the saving institution founded by Christ
was either completely decayed and fallen away or was at
least on the road to forsaking its vocation as teacher and
as the guardian of morals. His complaints may, it is true,
be in part accounted for by the impetuosity which carries
him away and by his rhetorical turn. He probably did
not at that time really think that a healthy reformation
from within was absolutely impossible. Still, had anyone
attempted to carry out his immature and excessive demands
for reform, they would hardly have achieved much in the
way of a real regeneration. His ideas of a radical change
were deeply ingrained in his mind ; this we naturally gather
from his bringing them forward so frequently and under
such varied forms. In his mystical moods he sees the errors
and abuses opposed to the " Word " swollen into a veritable
" deluge " ; his professorial chair is only just above the
waves. Hence he will cry out as loudly as he can. In his
voice we can, however, detect a false note, and his ex-
aggerations and all his stormings do not avail to inspire
us with confidence. He is too full of his own subjectivity,
too impetuous and passionate to be a reformer, though his
other gifts might have fitted him for the office. His very
sensitiveness to neglect of duty in others, had it been puri-
fied and disciplined, aided by his eloquence, might have
been able to inaugurate a movement of reform. In many
of his sayings he comes nigh the position of a Catholic
reformer, and even, at times, makes exaggerated demands
on obedience and the need of feeling with the Church.1

We may add the following to the complaints above
mentioned, as occurring in the Commentary on Romans
with regard to the state of the Church.

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 Us quce sunt [i.e. videntur] sanc-
tissima, 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 ?

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

RAMPANT FORMALISM 227

" The Pope and the chief pastors of the Church," so runs
Luther's general and bitter charge, " have become corrupt and
their works are deserving of malediction ; they stand forth at
the present day as seducers of the Christian people " (" seducti et
seducentes populum Christi a vera cultura Dei ").1 He waxes
eloquent not only against their too frequent granting of in-
dulgences— from which in their avarice they derived worldly
profit for the Church — but also against their luxurious lives
which fill the whole world with the vices of Sodom, and others
too ; under their wicked stewardship the faithful throughout the
Church have altogether forgotten what good works, faith and
humility are, and make their eternal salvation depend upon
external observances and foolish legends. Even those who have
more insight and are better men, are all self-righteous and more
like idolaters than Christians.

The Apostle Paul, he says, expounds in the Epistle to the
Romans, the command of loving our neighbour (xii. 6 seq.), but
is this followed by the Church ? Instead of fulfilling it "we busy
ourselves with trivialities, build churches, increase the possessions
of the Church, heap money together, multiply the ornaments and
vessels of silver and gold in the churches, erect organs and other
pomps which please the eye. We make piety to consist in this.
But where is the man who sets himself to carry out the Apostle's
exhortations, not to speak of the great prevailing vices of pride,
arrogance, avarice, immorality and ambition."2 Not long after
this outburst, speaking in a milder strain, he says : " We exalt
ourselves so as to instruct the whole world, and hardly under-
stand ourselves what we are teaching." " People without train-
ing or knowledge of the world, sent by their bishops and religious
superiors, undertake to instruct men, but really only add to the
number of chatterers and windbags."3

On another occasion he declares, people think bustle in the
church, loud organ playing and pompous solemnities at Mass
are all that is needed ; for such things collections are made,
whereas alms-giving for the relief of our neighbour is not ac-
counted anything. Nothing is thought of swearing, lying or
backbiting, even on Feast Days, but if anyone eats flesh-meat or
eggs on a Friday, he gives great scandal, so unreasonable are
all people nowadays (" adeo nunc omnes desipiunt"). What is
needed to-day is to do away with the Fast Days and to abrogate
many of the Festivals . . . the whole Christian Code ought to be
purified and changed, and the solemnities, ceremonies, devotions
and the adorning of the churches reduced. But all this is on the
increase daily, so that faith and charity are stifled, and avarice,
arrogance and worldliness grow apace. What is worse, the faith-
ful hope to find in this their eternal salvation and do not trouble
about the inner man.4

The lawyers, he says, speaking in a mystical vein, act quite
wrongly when, as soon as they see that anyone has the law on his

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 243. 2 Ibid., p. 275 f.

3 Ibid., p. 278 * Ibid., p. 317.

228 LUTHER THE MONK

side, they encourage him to assert his rights (" qui statim quod
secundum iura iustum sciunt, prosequendum suadent "). " On
the contrary, every Christian should rejoice in suffering injustice,
even in matters of the greatest moment ( ' quoad maximas iustitias
nostras '). . . . But almost the whole world runs after the
contrary error [i.e. sternly asserts its rights]. Cardinals, bishops,
princes act like the Jews did to the King of Babylon (2 Kings xxiv.
20 ; xxv. Iff.); they cling to their petty privileges, lose sight of
morality and so perish." Someone should have told Duke
George (of Saxony) when he fought against the Duke of Frisia :
" Your own and your people's deserts are not so great that you
should not rather have patiently allowed yourself to be chastised
by that rebel, who, though unrighteous, was the executor of God's
righteous judgment. Calm yourself therefore and acknowledge
the Will of God."1

He says something similar to his own bishop, Hieronymus
Schulz (Scultetus) of Brandenburg,2 and to another bishop,
probably Wilhelm von Honstein, Bishop of Strasburg. The
latter had put in force the ecclesiastical statutes against the
infringers of the sanctity of the church. Luther says : " Why
trouble a town with this wretched matter ? It is merely a
question of human regulations ; but if the bishop desired to
enforce God's laws, he would not need to leave his own house ; he
is not indeed acting wrongly, but he is swallowing a camel and
straining at gnats (Matt, xxiii. 24). . . . But the bishops thirst
for vengeance, they brand the criminals and themselves deserve
to be worse branded. Would to God that the time may
come when rights and privileges and all who worship them are
consigned to perdition ! Ambition and unbelief should not be
allowed to triumph over those condemned for transgressing the
statutes."3

" I say this with pain, but I am obliged to because I have
an Apostolic commission to teach. My duty is to point out to
all the wrong they are committing, even to those in high places."4

In accordance with this, the young Professor loudly blames
Pope Julius II. In his quarrel with the Republic of Venice
" this advice should have been given him : ' Holy Father, Venice
is doing you a wrong, but the Roman Church deserves it on
account of her faults, yea, she deserves even worse. Therefore
do nothing, such is the Will of God.' But the Pope replied : 'No,
no, let us vindicate our rights by force.' "5 " He chastised them
[the Venetians] with great bloodshed because they had sinned
grievously and seized upon the possessions of the Church ; he
brought them back to the Church and so gained great merit.
But the horrible corruption of the Papal Curia and the mountain
of the most terrible immorality, pomp, avarice, ambition and
sacrilege is accounted no sin."6

On another occasion, after a no less forcible outburst against
Rome, he demands the abolition of " false piety " : This so-called

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 271 f. 2 Ibid., p. 272. 3 Ibid., p. 300 f.
* Ibid., p. 301. 6 Ibid., p. 272. 6 Ibid., p. 301 f.

THE FREEDOM OF THE SPIRIT 229

piety must no longer be permitted, as though it were merely a
weakness ; but in Rome they do not trouble about doing away
with it, there is there nothing but the freedom of the flesh ;
" almost all are wanting in charity." " I fear that in these days
we are all on the road to utter destruction."1

We must listen, he says' — alluding to the formalism which
he thinks is apparent everywhere' — to the " inward word,"
which often speaks to us quite differently from the injunc-
tions to which we are accustomed. " The wisdom of fools
always looks more to the work than to the word ; it thinks
itself able to gauge the meaning and value of the word from
the value or worthlessness of the deeds " ; what we should
do is the contrary ; the precious, inestimable word must
always resound in our hearts and direct all our outward
actions.2 The " spirit of the believer is subject to no one,"
" the spirit is free as regards all things " ; "all exterior
things are free to those who are in the spirit." " The bondage
[of charity] is the highest liberty." 3

Such words form a quite obvious preliminary to the
" Evangelical freedom " which he was afterwards to vindi-
cate. He thus gives a much wider application to the ideas
he had met with in Tauler than was in the mind of that
pious mystic. Tauler writes : "I tell you that you must
not submit your inner man to anyone, but to God only.
But your exterior man you must submit in a true and real
humility to God and to all creatures."4 Luther says
what on the surface seems quite similar : the Christian is
free and master of all things and is subject to no one (by
faith), and yet at the same time a willing servant of all and

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 320. It cannot be proved that such gloomy fore-
bodings 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 compre-
hensive 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.).

2 Ibid., p. 242.

3 Ibid., pp. 298, 302, 303.

4 Cp. Braun, " Concupiscenz," p. 285.

230 LUTHER THE MONK

subject to all (by charity).1 Yet, both in the Commentary
on Romans and in the works which were soon to follow,
" the willing servant " is more and more ousted by false
ideas of independence, so that a danger arises of only the
" free master of all things " remaining. In the Commentary
on Romans all exterior submission to the Church is, in
principle, menaced by a liberty which, appealing to the
inward experience of the Word and a deeper conception of
religion, seeks to overstep all barriers.

The confused ideas for which he was beholden to his
pseudo-mysticism were in great part the cause of this and
of other errors.

9. The Mystic in the Commentary on Romans

Since the appearance in print of Luther's Commentary on
Romans it has been possible to perceive more clearly the
ominous power which false mysticism had gained over the
young author.

His misapprehension of some of the principal elements
of Tauler's sermons and of the " Theologia Deutsch " stands
out in sharp relief in these lectures on the Pauline Epistle,
and we see more plainly how the obscure ideas he finds in
the mystics at once amalgamate with his own. The con-
nection between the pseudo-mysticism which he has built
up on the basis of true mysticism, and the method of theology
which he is already pursuing, appears here so great, and he
follows so closely the rather elastic figures and thoughts
provided by the mystical science of the soul, that we are
almost tempted, after reading his exposition of the Epistle
to the Romans, to ask whether all his intellectual mistakes
were not an outcome of his mysticism. The fact is, however,
that he began his study of mysticism only after having
commenced formulating the principles of his new world
of thought. It was only after the ferment had gone on
working for a considerable time that he chanced upon certain
mystic works. Yet, strange to say, the mysticism with
which he then became acquainted was not that German
variety which had already been infected with the errors
of Master Eckhart, but the sounder mysticism which had
avoided the pitfalls. It is a tragic coincidence that mysti-

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 7, p. 49. De libertate Christiana.

QUIETISM 231

cism, the most delicate blossom of the theology of the Middle
Ages and of true Catholicism, should have served to confirm
him in so many errors. True mysticism has in all ages been
a protest against all moral cowardice and inertia, against
tepidity and self-complacent mediocrity ; false mysticism,
on the other hand, debases itself to Quietism and even to
Antinomianism ; the world has lived to see pseudo-mysti-
cism deny evil the better to permit it.1 Even true mysticism
is constantly open to the danger not only of conscious and
intentional exaggeration of its theses, but of unintentional
misapprehension.

Misapprehension is a misfortune to which mysticism was
ever exposed, owing mainly to the inadequacy of human
language to express the mystic's thoughts,2 whereas Schol-
asticism, thanks to its clear-cut terminology, has been
spared such a fate, and for the same reason has never been
in favour with confused and cloudy minds. Tauler had
originally been trained in the Scholasticism of St. Thomas
of Aquin, and in the teaching of the Frankfort author of
the " Theologia Deutsch " the true principles of the old
school still shine out. This, however, did not save these
writers from having formerly been considered, by Protestants,
precursors of Luther's doctrines. Denifle, by his studies
on these and the later mystics, threw such valuable light
on the subject that the Protestant theologian Wilhelm
Braun, in the work he recently devoted to tracing the
development of Luther, says : " it is wrong for Protestants
to claim mysticism as a pre-Reformation reforming move-
ment ; this Denifle has proved in his epoch-making re-
searches."3

False Passivity

As regards the important new data furnished by the
Commentary on Romans on Luther's mysticism, the editor
himself admits in the preface that " the ideal of resignation
[preached by the Catholic mystics] was raised by Luther
to an unconditional passivity and to a real system of
Quietism, which he completely identified with the theme of
the Epistle to the Romans and with the piety of St. Augustine.
In this he found the bond of union combining all his ex

1 Cp. J. Zahn, " Einfuhrung in die christl. Mystik," p. 102.

2 Ibid., p. 271 ff.

3 Braun, " Concupiscenz," p. 301, n. 2f

232 LUTHER THE MONK

periences. Mysticism it is which lends its deep and fiery-
hue to his thoughts ; where Luther is describing the most
intimate processes and gives their highest expression to the
thoughts which inspire him, it is mysticism which is speaking
through him . . . the complete and unconditional surrender
of man to God."1

Luther gives in a peculiar fashion his reasons for taking such
a standpoint : " The Nature of God demands that He should
first destroy and annihilate everything there is in us before He
imparts His gifts. For it is written : ' The Lord maketh poor
and maketh rich, He bringeth down to hell and bringeth back
again.' By this most gracious plan He renders us fit for the
reception of His gifts and His works. We are then receptive
to His works and plans when our own plans and our own works
have ceased, and we become quite passive towards God (' quando
nostra consilia cessavit et opera quiescunt et efficimur pure passivi
respectu Dei ') both as regards exterior and interior activity.
. . . Then the ' utterable sighs ' commence, then ' the Spirit
comes and helps our infirmity.' "2 It is in the description of
this " suffering and bearing of God " that he expressly quotes
Tauler as the teacher of the higher form of prayer, adding :
" Yes, yes, ' we know not how we should pray,' therefore the
Spirit is necessary to assist us in our weakness." "Asa woman
remains passive in conception, so we must remain passive to
the first grace and eternal salvation. For our soul is Christ's
bride. Before grace, it is true, we pray and implore, but when
grace comes and the soul is to be impregnated by the Spirit, then
it must neither pray nor act, but only endure. To the soul this
seems hard and it is downcast, for that the soul should be without
act of the understanding and the will, that is much like sinking
into darkness, destruction and annihilation (' in perditionem et
annihilationem ') ; from this prospect she shrinks back in horror,
but in so doing she often deprives herself of the most precious
gifts of grace."3

It was just on this point that Luther most completely mis-
apprehended Tauler. It is true that this mediaeval mystic speaks
strongly against any too great esteem of human activity, and
that he also recommends the spiritual man, in certain circum-
stances, to " refuse all exterior works the better to devote himself
with the necessary submission and in entire peace " to interior
communication with his Maker and Highest Good, and, as he
says, "to suffer God."4 But he does not thereby recommend
man to long after a state without thought or will, or after mere
nothingness — in order to magnify God and His powers alone ;
according to Tauler, grace does not work in the soul " without
the co-operation of the understanding and the will."

1 P lxxxii. 2 " Schol. Pvom.," p. 203.

3 Ibid., pp. 205, 206.

4 Cp. Braun, " Concupiscenz," p. 281, 286.

MANKIND UTTERLY CORRUPT [?] 233

The Quenching of the " Good Spark in the Soul "

Luther in the above recommendation to passivity falsely
assumes that the soul is entirely corrupted by original sin
and only offends God with its acts. This also appears clearly
in the Commentary on Romans. Protestants themselves
now admit that Luther deviated from the standpoint of the
orthodox mystics, particularly from that of Tauler, and
that " in the view of the mystics of the Middle Ages there
is no doubt that the natural good in man outweighs the
natural evil. The central point in which all the lines of
mystic theology converge is this indestructible goodness."
So speaks a Protestant theologian.1

In Gerson, the mystic whom Luther had studied in his early
days at Erfurt, he must have met with the beautiful teaching,
that the soul had received from God a natural tendency towards
what is good, that this is " the virginal portion of the soul,"
which is the "source and seat of mystical theology."2 Tauler
is fond of treating of this " noble spark of fire in the soul," of
"this interior nobility which lies hidden in the depths."3 The
Scholastics, too, unanimously teach this disposition to good
which remains after original sin.

Luther, when opposing the good tendency, attacks only the
Scholastics, not the mystics ; he declares that all the errors on
grace and nature which he has to withstand entered through the
hole which the Scholastics made with their "syntheresis."4
One thing is certain, viz. that he was wrong in foisting his view
of the absolute corruption of the human race on the mystics ;
" he could not," the Protestant theologian above referred to
admits, " quite truthfully invoke the support of the mystics for
his assertions."5 The doctrines which Tauler advances in the
very context in which his blame of the self-righteous occurs,
viz. that there is no righteousness without personal acts, that
even the sinner can do what is good, that he, more especially,
must prepare himself for the grace of justification, pass unheeded
in Luther's exposition of the Epistle to the Romans. " Luther
overlooked this series [of testimonies given by Tauler] ; only
the statements regarding the righteous by works made any im-
pression on him ; his polemics are directed against those who
serve two masters, who wish to please God and the world and
to do great things for God's sake ; these are the people who are
at heart satisfied with themselves."6

1 Braun, p. 296. 2 Ibid., p. 297. 3 Ibid.

4 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.)

5 Braun, p. 296. « Ibid., p. 284.

234 LUTHER THE MONK

Tauler repeatedly uses the word " spirit " for man's native
good tendency and activity. This expression Luther simply
takes to mean the Divine Spirit, which must be infused into man
on account of his natural helplessness. The theologian mentioned
above here also admits : " Much that Tauler intended to refer
to the human syntheresis, or the created spirit, Luther has
ascribed to the uncreated Divine Spirit, who imparts grace and
faith " j1 on the other hand we may allow with the same author
that Luther was probably misled by the " hermaphrodism of
Tauler 's teaching, according to which the spirit longs for a
metamorphosis " ; Tauler 's lively description of the super-
natural being and life of the soul sometimes throws into the
background the independence of its action in the natural sphere,
though the outcome is not really an " hermaphrodite " in the
strict sense of the word. It is also true that " Luther overlooked
the other side, namely, the Divine immanence which all those
mystics teach with equal distinctness,2 or at least he did not
make sufficient account of it.

Selfishness and the " Theology of the Cross "

Another important point on which Luther deviated from
true mysticism has now been brought to light by the Com-
mentary on Romans. According to the Strasburg mystic,
and according to all good mystics generally, selfishness must
be looked on as the greatest interior enemy of man. It is a
leaven which readily infects the actions, even of the best,
and therefore must be expelled by struggling against it and
by prayer.

Selfishness, says the " Theologia Deutsch," " makes the crea-
ture turn away from the unchangeable good to that which is
changeable." Even in the case of the devil, it tells us, the reason
of his fall was " his I and my, his mine and me " ; he fancied
he was something, that something belonged to him and that he
had a right to something.3

In the Commentary on Romans Luther also speaks in im-
pressive words against selfishness and its malice.4 He makes

1 Braun, p. 301. 2 Ibid. 3 Cp. ibid., pp. 287, 288.

4 For instance, " Schol. Rom.," p. 136 ff. : " Natura nostra vitio
primi peccati tarn 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, pravita-
tem, curvitatem appellat. . . . Talis curvitas est necessario inimica
crucis, cum crux morti fleet omnia nostra, ilia autem se et sua vivi fleet."
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
propria! iustitiw, quia non nisi solum et purum Deum diligit, non dona
ipsa Dei, sicut hipocritce iustitiarii." " What Luther says of pure love,"

THE CROSS AND ITS FOES 235

use of every note at his command in order to warn us against
this serpent. In these passages we might fancy we hear the
voices of the mystic leaders of the faithful in the Middle Ages,
even of a Bernard of Clairvaux. Nor is practical advice wanting ;
we are exhorted to earnest, humble prayer, to a watchful re-
sistance— to be strengthened by practice— against the desires
of self-love, even in small things, to mortify and to tame our
flesh. We must go out of ourselves even in spiritual matters ;
everything, he says, depends in the spiritual life on self-abnega-
tion : " God's righteousness fills those only who seek to empty
themselves of their own righteousness, He fills the hungry and
the thirsty ... let us then tell God, so he says with all the
enthusiasm his idea of grace gives him : " how glad are we to be
empty, that Thou mayest be our fulness ; how glad to be weak,
that Thy strength may dwell within us ; how glad to be sinners,
that Thou mayest be justified in us ; how glad to be fools, that
Thou mayest be our wisdom ; how glad to be unrighteous, that
Thou mayest be our righteousness."1 Suffering sent by God,
so the author frequently repeats almost in Tauler's words, is to
be accepted as a remedy against the disease of self-love not only
with patience, but with joy. Pain, particularly inward pain,
should be honoured like the cross of Christ (" tribulatio velut
crux Christi adoranda ") ;2 we must bear it bravely like true
children of God and not take to flight like the servant, or the
hireling. 3

In connection with selfishness Luther exposes his so-
called " theologia cruris" which, with the adjuncts he gives
it, is quite in keeping with his ideas. He was also to advocate
the theology of the cross in his disputations, endeavouring
to show that it alone teaches us how to make a right use of
earthly things.

" He is not a Christian, but a Turk, and an enemy of Christ,
who does not desire afflictions." " Our theologians and popes
are in fact enemies of the cross of Christ . . . for no one hates
pain and trouble more than the popes and the lawyers [i.e. those
who insist upon laws and observances]. No one is more greedy
than they for riches, comfort, idleness, honour and pomp."
" They honour the relics of the Holy Cross and yet abhor and
fly from what they dislike." " We consider Christ our helper

Denifle remarks (Denifle, l1, p. 484), " rests merely on his misconcep-
tion 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")

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 59. 2 Ibid., p. 133. 3 Ibid., p. 139.

236 LUTHER THE MONK

and our support in time of trouble, but whoever does not suffer
gladly, cheats Him of these titles ; to such a one God even is no
longer the Creator because he will not return to the nothingness
from which God created all. Whoever will not suffer God in
weakness, foolishness and punishment, for him God is not power-
ful, not wise, not merciful."1 " The cross puts to death every-
thing that is in us. Nature, it is true, desires to make itself and
everything alive, but God in His love takes care, by the infliction
of crosses and suffering, that even spiritual gifts shall not taste
too sweet to the righteous ; he must not throw himself upon
them in a natural, godless impetuosity in order to enjoy them,
even though they be attractive and tempt him to savour them
... he may not even love God on account of His grace and His
gifts, but only for His own sake, otherwise this would be a
forbidden [!] indulgence in the grace received, and he would
insult the Father even more than he did before [i.e. when as yet
unrighteous !], In the Commentary on Romans Luther refuses to
recognise any love save that which springs from the most perfect
motive. He stigmatises the love which arises from the joy in
the benefits bestowed by a gracious God, — and which the orthodox
mystics allowed, — as presumption, and as an enjoyment of the
creature rather than of the Creator, and goes so far as to say
that if a man were to remain in this love " he would be lost
eternally."2

To these assertions we may add the following theses, defended
under Luther's auspices in 1518, which explain the new " theologia
cruets." " Whoever is not destroyed (' destructus ') and brought
back by the cross and suffering to the state of nothingness,
attributes to himself works and wisdom, but not to his God,
and so he abuses and dishonours the gifts of God. But whoever
is annihilated by suffering (' exinanitus ') ceases to do anything,
knowing that God is working in him and doing all. Therefore,
whether he himself does anything or not, he remains the same,
and neither vaunts himself for doing something nor is ashamed
of doing nothing, because God works in him. For himself, this
he knows, it is enough that he should suffer and be destroyed by
the crossj so that he may advance more and more towards
annihilation. This is what Christ teaches in John iii. 3 : ' Ye
must be born again.' If we are to be born again, we must first
die and be raised with the Son of God [on the cross] ; I say die,
i.e. taste death as though it were present."3 " We may not fly
from human wisdom and the law, but whoever is without the
theology of the cross is making the worst use of the best things.
The true theologian is not he who understands the ' invisible
things of God by the things that are made,' but he who by
suffering and the cross recognises in God the visible and the
obscure."4

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 133 f. 2 Ibid., p. 137. Cp. above, p. 234, n. 4 end.

3 Heidelberg Disputation, on thesis 24. " Werke," Weim. ed., 1,
p. 363. " Opp. Lat. var.," 1, p. 401.

4 Ibid., theses 19, 20.

THE NIGHT OF THE SOUL 237

The Night of the Soul and Resignation to Hell

The better to fight against selfishness Tauler had proposed
that everyone should look upon himself and his own works
as evil, imitating a certain holy brother who used to say :
" Know that I am the basest of sinners."1 In this innocent
recommendation nothing is implied of the complete corrup-
tion of nature, of a desire for hell, or of resignation to eternal
separation from God. It was only as an exercise in humility
and penitent love that Tauler and the other mystics wished
the devout man to cultivate the habit of looking on himself
as absolutely unworthy of heaven and as better fitted for a
place in hell. He is urged to descend in spirit to the
place of torment and acknowledge, against his egotism and
arrogance, that, on account of his sins, he has deserved a
place there among the damned, and not in the happy
vicinity of God.

They also depict in gloomy, mystical colours the condition
of the unhappy soul who, by the consent of God and in order
to try it, sees itself deprived of all comfort, and, as it were,
torn away from its highest good and relegated to hell.
Such pains, they teach, are intended as a way of purgation
for the soul, which, after such a night, can raise itself again
with all the more confidence and love to God, who has, so
far, preserved it from so great a misfortune.

The doctrine of the dark, mystical night appealed very
strongly to Luther's mind. In his theology he is fond of
picturing the soul as utterly sinful and deserving of hell,
meaning by this something very different from what
orthodox mystics taught. He also suffered greatly at times
from inward commotion and darkening of the soul, due to
fears regarding predestination, to a troubled conscience or
to morbid depression, of which the cause was perhaps
bodily rather than mental. These, however, bore no re-
semblance to the pains — " mystical exercises " as they have
been called by Protestants — of which the mystics speak.
In his " temptations in the monastery " he did not ex-
perience what Tauler and the " Theologia Deutsch "
narrate of the consuming inner fire of Purgatory. Luther,
however, erroneously applied their descriptions to his own

1 Cp. Braun, " Concupiscenz," p. 285.

238 LUTHER THE MONK

condition.1 Thus his idea of the night of the soul is quite
different from that of the mystics, though he describes it
in almost the same words, and, thanks to his imagination
and eloquence, possibly in even more striking colours.

Several times in his Commentary on Romans he repre-
sents resignation to, indeed even an actual desire for,
damnation — should that be the will of God — as something
grand and sublime. Thereby he thinks he is teaching the
highest degree of resignation to God's inscrutable will ;
thereby the highest step on the ladder of self-abnegation has
been attained. In reality it is an ideal of a frightful char-
acter, far worse even than a return to nothingness. He lets
us see here, as he does so often in other matters, how greatly
his turbulent spirit inclined to extremes.2

" If men willed what God wills," he writes, " even though He
should will to damn and reject them, they would see no evil in
that [in the predestination to hell which he teaches] ; for, as
they will what God wills, they have, owing to their resignation,
the will of God in them." Does he mean by this that they
should resign themselves to hating God for all eternity ? Luther
does not seem to notice that hatred of God is an essential part
of the condition of those who are damned (" damnari et reprobari
ad infernum "). Has he perhaps come to conceive of a hatred
of God proceeding from love ? He seems almost to credit those
who think of hell, with a resolve to bear everything, even hatred
of God, with loving submission to the will of Him Who by His
predestination has willed it.

He even dares to say to those who are affrighted by pre-
destination to hell, that resignation to eternal punishment is,
for the truly wise, a source of "ineffable joy" (" ineffabili
iucunditate in ista materia delectantur");3 for the perfect this is
" the best purgation from their own will," i.e. the way of the
greatest bitterness, " because under charity the cross and suffering
is always understood." But all, he says, even the half-imperfect,

1 Cp. Luther's appeal to Tauler : " De ista patientia Dei et sufferentia
vide Taulerum" etc. (see above, p. 232). Denifle, l1, 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."

2 In allusion to such doctrines, Denifle speaks (Denifle, l1, 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.

3 "Schol. Rom.," pp. 213, 223.

READINESS FOR HELL 239

see that here we have a splendid remedy for destroying " the
presumptuous building upon merit ; let everyone rejoice in
his fear and thank God,"1 the more so that those who are so
much afraid will certainly not go to hell ; "as they make them-
selves entirely conformable to the will of God it is impossible
that they should be delivered over to eternal punishment, as he
who resigns himself entirely to God's holy Will cannot remain
separated from Him."2

This doctrine of a wholesome fear of hell, of a saving, heroic
abandonment to God, and of an exalted and pure love to be
exercised by all as a " remedy " against damnation, invalidates
Luther's doctrine of absolute and undeserved predestination to
hell ; salvation is again made to depend upon both God and
man, whose co-operation becomes necessary ; it is only because
" man will not will what God wills " that he is damned. Yet,
according to Luther, the saving fear and resignation is only
possible to the elect, and these must in the end be in doubt as to
whether they are pleasing to God, just as they must be uncertain
regarding all their actions.

In confirmation of his theory of readiness for hell Luther even
refers to St. Paul, who says in his Epistle to the Romans, that he
had offered himself to the everlasting pains of hell for the salva-
tion of the Jews ; that, in order to save them, he had been ready
to be " an anathema from Christ."3 But the example does not
apply. According to a more correct explanation, the Apostle,
who was always in spiritual communion with Christ, speaks only
of an outward separation.4 Luther himself says in this connec-
tion : Paul did not desire to hate Christ, but was ready to be
separated from Him ; in this he displayed the " most sublime
degree of charity, a truly apostolic love " ; " this seems, of
course, incomprehensible and foolish to those who think them-
selves holy and love God with the ' amor concupiscentice,' i.e. on
account of their salvation and for the sake of eternal rest, or in
order to escape from hell, in other words, not for God's sake but
their own. . . . What they really desire is salvation according
to their own fancy, instead of desiring their own nothingness
both here and hereafter (' suum nihil optare '), and only the will
and glory of God," whereas " all perfect saints, out of their
overflowing affection, are ready to accept everything, even hell
itself. By reason of this readiness, it is true, they at once escape
all punishment."

According to Luther, even Christ offered Himself for hell
whole and entire. Luther does not make the slightest distinction
in the agony in the Garden between mere exterior and real
interior separation from God. Christ was ever united hypo-
statically with God, and His human nature never ceased to enjoy
the vision of God. Luther, however, merely says : " He found
Himself in a state of condemnation and abandonment which was

1 "Schol. Rom.," p. 214. 2 Ibid., p. 218. 3 Ibid., p. 217 f.

4 On the history of the explanation of this passage see Comely,
" Commentar. in Ep. ad Romanos," pp. 471-4.

240 LUTHER THE MONK

greater than that of all the saints. His sufferings were not easy
to Him, as some have imagined, because He actually and in
truth offered Himself to the eternal Father to be consigned to
eternal damnation for us ( ' quod realiter et vere se in ceternam
damnationem obtulit Deo patri pro nobis '). His human nature
did not behave differently from that of a man who is to be
condemned eternally to hell. On account of this love of God,
God at once raised Him from death and hell, and so He over-
came hell (' eum suscitavit a morte et inferno et sic momordit
infernum ' ; cp. Osee xiii. 14). All His saints must follow this
example, some more, some less ; and according to the degree
of their perfection in love they find this harder or easier. But
Christ bore the most severe form of it (' durissime hoc fecit '),
and for this reason He laments in many passages (in the Messianic
Psalms) the pains of hell."1

In the light of passages such as these we can understand
to some extent the lurid, fanciful, mystic description which
he gives early in 1518, clearly on the strength of his own
states of mind. He tells how a man fancies himself at
certain moments plunged into hell, and feels his breast
pierced by all the pangs of everlasting despair, because he
apprehends God's " frightful ire " and the impossibility of
ever being delivered. This grotesque picture of a soul,
with which we shall deal more fully later, although it is
partly taken almost word for word from the earlier de-
scriptions of the mystics, reveals its morbid character more
especially by the fact, that the hope, which, in the case of
the devout, remains in the depths of the soul even throughout
the most severe interior trials, seems entirely absent. God
is seen as He appeared to Luther, i.e. as an inexorable,
arbitrary punisher of His creature.2

Luther's mysticism is veritably a mysticism of despair
and the " humilitas" with its love ready even for hell,
which he belauds as the anchor of safety, is a forced ex-
pedient really excluded by his system, and which he himself
discarded as soon as he was able to replace it by the (God-
given) fides, in the shape of faith in personal justification
and salvation.

* " Schol. Rom., p. 218 f.

2 The frequently quoted description is to be found in " Werke,"
Weim. ed., 1, p. 557 f.

NO "RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE" 241

10. The Commentary on Romans as a Work of Religion
and Learning

The Commentary purports to be as much a religious as a
learned work. Its religious value can be shortly summed up
from the above.

The author is as much occupied in putting forth religious
ideas which appeal to him as in expounding exegetically
St. Paul's Epistle, and these ideas he supports on the text
of the Epistle to the Romans or on other passages from Holy
Scripture which he incessantly adduces. His intention also
was to make the considerations of practical use from the
religious point of view to his hearers, who were probably
most of them Augustinians. He wished to give them a
practical introduction to the doctrines of St. Paul, as he
understood them, and at the same time to his own mysticism.

We must, if we wish to do justice to the Commentary on
Romans, admit without reserve that it does not show us
the picture of a man who is morally bankrupt. The author
does not make the impression of one bent on sensuality,
and seeking the means of gratifying it. The work, on the
contrary, breathes a spiritual tendency, even to the point
of excess, though not, indeed, without a strong admixture
of the earthly element.

The author is, however, far from having arrived at any
clear religious views ; after wrestling with the secrets
of the Pauline Epistle with feeling and eloquence, he is
unable even at the end to extricate himself from a condition
of spiritual restlessness. The work testifies to an enduring
state of religious ferment.

The vivacity and fertility of thought which the author
displays is noteworthy ; the personal colouring in which he
depicts his religious ideas, and, frequently, too, rabidly
defends them against scholars and religious who think
differently, is unique, and of priceless value to the bio-
grapher. Such a strong personal tone is not, it is true, quite
in place in a learned work.

The religious " experience," so often supposed to stand
in the forefront of his development, is not to be found there.

If the so-called spiritual " experience " had actually taken
place Luther would certainly have alluded to it, for he has
much to say of his own state and observations. Why does

242 LUTHER THE MONK

he say nothing here of the experiences he afterwards relates
in such detail ? Of the excessive, almost suicidal, monastic
practices to which, as a Catholic-minded monk, he sur-
rendered himself, seeking God's grace, until through Divine
intervention he recognised that the path of works and
strictness of life, in fact the Catholic road generally, was
incapable of leading one to peace with God here below and
to union with God in eternity ? There is nothing here of
that sudden leap from weary, self-righteous seeking after
God- — ostensibly a delusion cherished by all Catholics- — to
the joyous consciousness of a gracious God, based on the
recognition of justification. Luther, on the other hand,
gives a seemingly accurate description of his own spiritual
development, though without mentioning himself, at the
end of his exposition of Romans hi., a passage to which we
shall return later.

The author frequently allows his fancied religious interests
to spoil his exegesis.

Often enough he does not even make an attempt to follow
up the thoughts of the Apostle and arrive at their sense.
His character is too impatient of restraint and too pre-
disposed to rhetoric. Thus he descends to the religious and
political questions then being debated at Wittenberg and
says by way of excuse : "I will explain the meaning of the
Apostle to you in its practical sense, in order that you may
understand the matter better by the help of some compari-
sons."1 These words occur in the passage in which he
admonishes Duke George of Saxony regarding his quarrels
with Edgard, Count of East Frisia (1514-15), telling him
he ought to have recognised the Will of God in the Count's
" malicious revolt " and have patiently suffered himself to
be vanquished by his foe> — as though it were the duty of
princes to become mystics like himself-2

If we now examine the actual value of the Commentary,
we find much that is excellent and calculated to elucidate
the Pauline text.

It is especially praiseworthy in Luther that he should
have made the Greek text edited by Erasmus the basis of
his work as soon as it was published during the course of his
lectures. He also makes frequent, diligent and intelligent

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 272. Cp. ibid., p. 301.

2 Cp. above, p. 228.

OUTSIDE INFLUENCES 243

use of the " exegetical ability " of Nicholas of Lyra,1
following him for the text as well as for the interpretation
and division of the subject ; this was the author whose
assistance he had formerly declined with far too much
contempt. Other authorities whom he also consults are
Paul of Burgos, Peter Lombard, for his explanations of the
Epistle to the Romans, and, for the division of the matter,
particularly the Schemata of Faber Stapulensis. His own
linguistic training and his knowledge of ancient literature
were of great service to him, as also was his natural quickness
of judgment combined with sagacity. He frequently quotes
passages from St. Augustine, and through him, i.e. at second-
hand, from Cyprian and Chrysostom ; in his interpretations
the mediaeval authorities of whom he makes most use are
the Master of the Sentences and St. Bernard.2 The way
in which Aristotle and the Scholastics are handled is already
plain from what we have said. Reminiscences of the works
of his own professors, Paltz, Trutfetter and Usingen, are
merely general, and he freely differs from them. As an
Occamist he feels himself in contradiction to the Thomists
and to some extent also to the Scotists ; in addition to
Occam, d'Aifly, Gerson and Biel have a great influence on
him, even in his interpretation of the Bible. Tauler, who
has so frequently been mentioned, also left deep traces of
his influence not only in the matter of the Commentary, but
also in the language, which is often obscure, rich in imagery
and full of feeling, while here and there we seem to find
reminiscences of the " Theologia Deutsch " which Luther
was to publish at the close of his lectures. The latter was,
" to his thinking, the most exact expression of the great
thoughts of the Epistle to the Romans."3

From a learned point of view his exegesis would probably
have been different and far more reliable had he consulted
the famous Commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas on the
Epistle to the Romans, not merely for the division of his
subject, but also for the matter. This Commentary held
the first place, as regards clearness and depth of thought,
among previous expositions, yet not once does Luther quote
it, and, probably, he had never opened the work for the

1 J. Ficker in the Preface of his edition of the Commentary, p. liv.

2 For the sources used by Luther, see Ficker, pp. liii.-lxii.

3 Thus Ficker, p. lxii.

244 LUTHER THE MONK

purpose of study. "It is most remarkable," Wilhelm
Braun says, speaking of Luther's Commentary and of his
whole development, " that Luther never came to understand
Thomas of Aquin. We meet with some disparaging remarks
[elsewhere than in the Commentary on Romans] ; he is
doubtful as to whether St. Thomas was really saved, because
he wrote some heretical stuff and brought Aristotle, the
corrupter of pious doctrine, into prominence in the Church ;
but he never understood him from the theological point
of view."1 We might well go further and say, that he
did not even do what must certainly precede any " under-
standing"-— study his writings with the intention of care-
fully examining them.2

How greatly does Luther in his method, his manner of
delivery and his spirit differ from St. Thomas, from the
latter's quiet precision and trustworthiness in following
the great traditions of learning and theology. Luther so
often speaks without due thought, so often in his impetuosity
sees but one side of things, he contradicts himself without
remarking it, falls into grotesque exaggeration, and, in many
passages, is not merely impulsive in his manner of speech,
but even destructive. The rashness with which he lays
hands on the generally accepted teaching of the best tried
minds, his assumption of supremacy in the intellectual
domain, the boundless self-confidence which peeps out of
so many of his assertions, gave cause for fearing the worst
from this professor, to whose words the University was even
then attentive.

He knew well how to hold his listeners by the versatility
of his spirit and his ability to handle words. His language
comprises, now weighty sentences, now popular and taking
comparisons. He speaks, when he is so inclined, in the
popular and forcible style he employs at a later date ; he
borrows from the lips of the populace sayings of unexampled
coarseness with which he spices his harangues, more especially

1 " Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,"
p. 176.

2 See above, p. 129. W. Friedensburg, " Fortschritte in Kenntnis
der Reformationsgesch " (" Schriften des Vereins fur Reformations-
gesch.," 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.

COARSENESS AND PARADOX 245

with a view to emphasising his attitude to his opponents.
We may be permitted to quote one such passage in which
he is speaking against those who hold themselves to be
pure : " I look on them as the biggest fools, who want to
forget how deeply they stick in the mire. . . . Did you
never ... in your mother's lap, and was not the smell
evil ? Is your perfume always so sweet ? Is there nothing
about your whole person which has an unpleasant odour ?
If you are so clean, I am surprised that the apothecaries
have not long ago got hold of you to use you in making
their balsams, for surely you must reek of balm. Yet had
your mother left you as you are and were, you would have
perished in your own filth."1

Immediately after this he proceeds with a more pleasing
thought : " Truly to please oneself, one must be utterly
displeased with self. No one can please himself and others
at the same time."

He is fond of startling antitheses and frequently loses
himself in paradoxes. " God has concealed righteousness
under sin, goodness under severity, mercy under anger."2
" He who does not think he is righteous, is for that very
reason righteous before God." "To be sinners does not
harm us, if we only strive earnestly for justification."3

It may serve to give a better idea of the exegetical value
of the whole work, and thereby increase our knowledge of
its author, if we consider some of the other peculiarities
which permeate it.

Luther frequently engages with great zest in philosophical
argument and has skirmishes in dialectics with his adver-

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 335. The reproach brought against these
opponents of backbiting forms an exact parallel to Luther's address,
" Contra sanctities," mentioned above. Compare the allusions, p. 334,

Tcediosi sunt et nolunt esse in communione aliorum ; sic hazretici,
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.

2 Ibid., p. 208.

3 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."

246 LUTHER THE MONK

saries, after the custom of the school of Occam. In such
cases he often becomes scarcely intelligible owing to his
utter neglect of the rules of logic. The answer he gives to
the proofs alleged by " modern philosophers " for the possi-
bility of a natural love of God is very characteristic. They
had urged : The will is able to grasp all that reason proposes
to it as right and necessary ; but reason proposes that we
must love God, the cause of all things, and the Highest Good
above all. Against this Luther philosophises as follows :
"That is decidedly a bad conclusion. The conclusion
should be : If the will is able to will everything that reason
prescribes shall be willed and performed, then the will may
will that God is to be loved above all, as reason says. But
it does not follow that the will can love God above all, but
merely that it can feebly will that this be done, i.e. the will
has just that tiny little bit of will (' voluntatulam voluntatis
habere ') which reason orders it to have." To this Luther adds :
" Were that proof correct, then the common teaching would
be erroneous that the law [of God in Revelation] has been
given in order to humble the proud who presumptuously
build on their own powers." And immediately, with
supposedly scriptural proofs, he proceeds to show that no
power for doing what is good can be ascribed to the will.1

In what he says of the position of philosophy to saving
grace- — a point we mentioned above- — we have another
example of his faulty method.

It is well known that the old^Scholastics, far from drawing
their profound teaching concerning sanctifying grace from
the " mouldy " stores of Aristotle, advocated, with regard
to justification, regeneration and bestowal of sanctifying
grace (" gratia sanctificans ") by the infusion of the Holy
Spirit, simply the views contained in Holy Scripture and
in the Fathers ; but, in order to make her teaching more
comprehensible and to insure it against aberrations, the
Church clothed it as far as necessary in the language of the
generally accepted philosophy. The element which Scholas-
ticism therewith borrowed from Aristotle— or to be accurate
not from him only, but, through the Fathers, from ancient
philosophy generally- — was of service for the comprehension
of revealed truth. Luther, however, was opposed to any-
thing which tended to greater definition because he was
1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 187. Cp. p. 321.

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF GRACE 247

more successful in expressing his diverging opinions in vague
and misapprehended biblical language than in the stricter
and more exact language of the philosophical schools.

The Church, on the other hand, has given Scholasticism
its due. In the definitions of the Council of Trent on the
points of faith which had been called into question, the
Church to a certain degree made her own the old traditional
expressions of the schools on the doctrine of grace, teaching,
for instance, that the " only formal cause of our righteous-
ness lies in the righteousness of God, not in that by which
He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just."
She declared that, with justifying grace, the "love of God
becomes inherent in us," and that with this grace man
" receives the infusion (' infusa accipit ') of faith, hope and
charity " ; she also speaks of the various causes of justifica-
tion, of the final, efficient, meritorious, instrumental and
formal cause.1 All these learned terms were admirably
fitted to express the ancient views vouched for by the
Bible or tradition, and the same may be said, for in-
stance, of the formula sanctioned by the Council of Trent,
that " by the sacraments grace is bestowed ' ex opere
operato,' " and that the sacraments of Baptism, Confirma-
tion and Order impart " a * character,' i.e. a spiritual and
ineradicable mark on account of which they cannot be
repeated."2 When the Church expresses herself in such
terms with regard to sanctifying grace, she implies thereby
no more than what is stated in the various biblical excerpts
quoted in detail by the Council of Trent to which Luther
had paid too little heed. Her teaching is that man is signed
and anointed with the spirit of promise which is the pledge
of our inheritance ; that he is renewed through the Spirit,
and that by the Spirit the love of God is poured forth in
his heart ; that he becomes a living member of Christ ;
that because he is made the heir and child of God he has a
right to heaven ; that he is born again by the Holy Ghost
to a new life, and thus is translated into the Kingdom of the
Love of His Son where he has redemption and forgiveness
of sins ; as such he is a friend and companion of God ; yet

1 Sess. 6, c. 7. Cp. c. 16 : " Quae 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)

2 Sess. 7, can. 8, 9.

248 LUTHER THE MONK

he must go on from virtue to virtue and, as the Apostle
says, be renewed from day to day by constantly mortifying
the members of his flesh and offering them as the weapons
of righteousness for sanctification.

In his Commentary on Romans Luther already breaks
away from tradition, i.e. from the whole growth of the past,
even on matters of the utmost moment, and this not at all
to the advantage of theology ; not merely the method and
mode of expression does he oppose, but even the very
substance of doctrine.

Protestant theology, following in his footsteps, went
further. Many of its representatives, as we shall see,
honestly expressed their serious doubts as to whether the
Bible teaching of sanctification by grace- — that process
which, according to the scriptural descriptions just quoted,
takes place in the very innermost being of man- — is really
expressed correctly by the Lutheran doctrine of the imputa-
tion of a purely extraneous righteousness. But even to-day
there are others who still support Luther's views in a
slightly modified form, and who will have it that the
scholastic and later teaching of the Church is a doctrine of
mere " magic," as though she made of saving grace a magical
power, of which the agency is baptism or absolution. It
is true that the process of sanctification as apprehended by
faith is to a large extent involved in impenetrable mystery,
but in Christianity there is much else which is mysterious.
It is perhaps this mysterious element which gives offence
and accounts for Catholic doctrine being described by so
opprobrious a word as " magic." Some Protestants of the
same school are also given to praising Luther- — in terms
which are also, though in another sense, mysterious and
obscure — for having from the very outset arrived at the
great idea of grace peculiar to the Reformed theology, viz.
at the " exaltation of religion above morality." He was
the first to ask : " How do I stand with regard to my God ? "
and who made the discovery, of which his Commentary on
Romans is a forcible proof, that it is " man's relation to
God through faith which creates the purer atmosphere in
which alone it is possible for morality to thrive." He
arrived, so we are told, at an apprehension of grace as " a
merciful consideration of the abiding sinner," and a true
" consolation of conscience " ; he at the same time recog-

INDWELLING SIN 249

nised grace as an " educative and moulding energy," which,
as such, imparts " strength for sanctification."1

To return to the exegetical side of the Commentary on
Romans, the confusion in which the ideas are presented
lends to much of it a stamp of great imperfection. There is
a general lack of cautious, intelligent comprehension of the
material, which sometimes is concerned with the tenderest
questions of faith, sometimes with vital points of morals.
The impartial observer sees so many traces of passion,
irritation, storm and stress that he begins to ask himself
whether the work has any real theological value.

The passage, Romans vii. 17, regarding the indwelling of sin in
man ("habitat in me peccatum ") Luther, in the interests of his
system, makes use of for an attack upon the Scholastics (" nostri
theologi "). He attributes to them an interpretation of the passage
which was certainly not theirs, and, from his own interpretation,
draws strange and quite unfounded inferences. According to
the interpretation commonly admitted by almost all exegetists,
whether Catholic or Protestant, St. Paul is here speaking of the
unregenerate man in whom sin dwells, preventing him from
fulfilling the law. Luther, on the contrary, asserts that the
Apostle is alluding to himself and to the regenerate generally,
and he quotes from the context no less than twelve proofs that
this is the correct interpretation.2 Scholastics either referred
the passage, like St. Augustine, to the righteous — in whom on
account of the survival of the " fomes peccati " sin in some
sense dwells, even the righteous being easily led away by the same
to sin — or they left the question open and allowed the verse to
refer to those who are not justified.

Luther, delighted by his discovery of the survival of original
sin in man after baptism, could not allow the opportunity to
slip of dealing a blow at the older theologians : " Is it not a fact
that the fallacious metaphysics of Aristotle — the philosophy
which is built up on human tradition — has blinded our theo-
logians ? They fancy that sin is destroyed in Baptism and in

1 " 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 " recom-
mendation, 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."

2 " Schol. Rom/," pp. 170-6.

250 LUTHER THE MONK

the sacrament of Penance, and they declare it absurd that the
Apostle should speak of sin dwelling within him [as a matter of
fact the Schoolmen did nothing of the sort]. The words ' habitat
in me peccatum ' were a fearful scandal to them. They fled to
the false and pernicious assertion that Paul is speaking merely
in the person of the carnal man [unregenerate], whereas he is,
in truth, speaking of his own person [and of the righteous]. They
say foolishly that in the righteous there is no sin, and yet the
Apostle obviously teaches the contrary in the plainest and most
open fashion."1

Of this passionate reversal of the old exegesis, Denifle, after
having pointed out the real state of the question by quoting the
commentators, says : " Luther merely exhibits his ignorance,
prejudice and prepossession ... he was not acting in the
interests of learning at all."2 Of Luther's twelve arguments in
favour of his interpretation he remarks : "in order to convince
oneself that the [opposite] view, now almost universally held,
is the correct one, it is only necessary to glance at Luther's
twelve proofs. They are utterly fallacious, beg the question and
take for granted what is not conceded."3 This judgment is
amply justified. Yet Luther, at the end of his long demonstra-
tion, exclaims : " It is really surprising that anyone could
have imagined that the Apostle was speaking in the person of the
old and carnal man." " No, the Apostle teaches regarding the
justified that they are at the same time righteous and sinners,
righteous because Christ's]|righteousness covers them and is
imputed to them, sinners because they do not fulfil the law and
are not without concupiscence."4 We can only say of Luther's
remarks on the Scholastics that, without really being acquainted
with them, he here again blindly abuses them because they were
opposed to his new theological views.

It was merely his prejudice against the Scholastics which led
him to continue : " Their stupid doctrine has deceived the world
and caused untold mischief, for the consequence was, that who-
ever was baptised and absolved at once looked upon himself as
free from sin, became sure of his righteousness, folded his arms,
and, because he was unconscious of any sin, considered it super-
fluous to trouble to struggle or to purify himself by sighs and
tears, by sorrow for sin and efforts to conquer it. No, sin remains
even in the spiritual man," etc. He appeals to St. Augustine,
indeed to the very passage to which the Scholastics were in-
debted for their interpretation of St. Paul's words concerning
the righteous. As remarked before (p. 98), Augustine is, how-
ever, very far from teaching that there is in the righteous real
guilt and sin, when, following St. Paul, he speaks of the sinful
concupiscence which dwells in the regenerate.

Luther would have avoided a great number of mistakes in his

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 178.

2 " Luther und Luthertum," l1, p 515 f.

3 Ibid., p. 517, n. 3.

4 " Schol. Rom.," p. 175 f.

FREEDOM FROM THE LAW 251

interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans had he conscientiously-
studied the older expositors instead of blindly opposing them.

The passage in Hebrews xi. 1, which was of the greatest
importance for his views (" Est fides sperandarum substantia
rerum, argumentum non apparentium "), he interprets in a false
sense, whereas St. Thomas takes it correctly. He takes "sub-
stantia," etc. [eXiri^o^vuv virbaracns irpayixaTuv) as " possessio et
facultas futurarum rerum," and the word "argumentum" (ZXeyxos)
as " signum."1 It was only in 1519 that he learnt from
Melanchthon that this interpretation could not be made to agree
with the Greek text. Even when making known his mistake he
gives a side hit at the Sententiarii, i.e. the Scholastics. And
yet he would have found the correct interpretation in St.
Thomas's " Summa Theologica," and also in his Commentary on
Romans, viz. that " substantia " here means foundation, or first
beginning (" fides est prima pars iustitice "), while "argumentum "
has the sense of firm assent, i.e. to the truth that " is not seen."2

To sum up briefly here some of the fundamental theo-
logical confusions of which the author of the Commentary
on Romans is guilty, either from carelessness or in the
excitement of controversy, we may mention that he
confuses freedom with willingness or joyousness, the works
of the Mosaic law with the works of natural or Christian
morality, true humility with self-annihilation and despair,
confidence with presumption ; to him true contrition is
grief sensibly manifested, all charity other than perfect is
mere perverse self-seeking, and holy fear of the Divine
judgment and penalties is a slavish, selfish service.

The freedom of the Christian spirit, bestowed by the
gospel in contradistinction to Judaism, Luther, owing to
persistent misapprehension, makes out to be freedom
regarding outward things of the law. Appealing to St.
Paul's teaching concerning the liberty of the gospel, he
says : "we must not be subject to the burden of any law
to such an extent as to consider the outward works of the
law necessary for salvation."3 Those who do so are, accord-
ing to him, attached to "a spiritual, but exceedingly
reprehensible " view, which we must oppose with all our
might. Away with those whose aim it is to " fulfil the law
by means of many observances." " The law is to be ob-
served not because we must keep it, but because we choose
to do so, not because it is necessary, but because it is per-

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 234 f., 277. 2 Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 518 f.

3 " Schol. Rom.," p. 303.

252 LUTHER THE MONK

mitted." Instead of this, he continues, we bow to-day
under the yoke of servitude, fancy it is necessary and yet
wish secretly that it did not exist (" Hcec servitus hodie late
grassatur" etc.). The effect of such distorted principles
on his views regarding the commandments of the Church
is very obvious. " Concerning the outward service of God,"
as Denifle has already pointed out, " Luther went to great
lengths in his defence of ' libertas.' . . . The believer is
free as regards all things ; ' sufficit charitas de corde puro '
he frequently repeated at the very time when he was vindi-
cating himself against the errors of the Picards."1 Though
as yet still far from the revulsion which was to come later
he was already cherishing the principles which were to lead
up to it.

What he says on obedience and personality in dealing
with Romans x. and the word of faith which calls for sub-
mission, exhibits a strange medley of excessive mystical
severity combined with a free handling of his own views,
and also some good examples of his stormy dialectics. It
is worth our while to dwell a little on these passages because
the train of thought furnishes a curious picture of the
direction of the young Monk's mind.

" The faith [which justifies] allows itself to be led in any
direction,"2 he says, "and is ready to hear and to yield; for
God does not require great works, but the putting to death of
the old man, but to this we cannot attain without submitting
our own ideas and judgment to the authority of another. . . ."
He then continues, vaguely confusing faith and humility : " The
old man is to be put to death by faith in the Word of God. But
God's Word is not only that which sounds from heaven, but
everything that comes from the mouth of a good man, more
particularly from our ecclesiastical superiors. That is why the
quarrelsome will hear nothing of this faith and take offence at
the word of faith. Instead of believing they demand proofs
and always think their own ideas right, and those of others false.
But whoever does not know how to submit himself and always
fancies he is not in the wrong, exhibits the plainest signs that
the old Adam still lives in him and that Christ has not yet risen
in him."3 Then follows a long and tedious description of how
" man must surrender his mind to the bondage of the word of
the Cross and renounce himself and all that is his until he dies
to self."*

It is surprising to find in the mouth of Luther such an

1 " Luther und Luthertum," 1, p. 673. 2 " Schol. Rom.," p. 241.
3 Ibid., p. 242. * Ibid., p. 245.

CONTRADICTION A CRITERION 253

utterance as that we must receive with submission every word
of a godly man in order to possess " faith " in its true meaning,
but it reappears on another occasion in the Commentary under
quite peculiar circumstances. The passage is a still more glaring
instance of confusion and is worth quoting in its entirety on
account of its mistaken train of thought and of its self-contra-
diction and jumping from one point to another, so characteristic
of Luther.

The explanation of Romans iii.1 begins with a general assault
on the " proud ' spirituals ' in the Church, with their great and
many works," the heading chosen being that " Justification
does not require works of the law, but true faith which performs
works of faith." The works of these " spirituals " are not works
of faith, but works of the law, for as they are proud and stiff-
necked they " do not believe in the precepts and counsels of
those who speak to them of salvation." Christ Himself speaks
in the latter, and to refuse to believe them in any one particular
is to deny faith in Him altogether ("fides consistit in indivi-
sibili ") ; for the same reason the heretics, if they deny only one
article of the faith, really deny the faith as a whole. In a word,
these proud folk " lose the whole faith, thanks merely to their
stiffness " (" periit tota fides propter unius sensus pertinaciam ") ;
so important is it to give way to truth whenever it approaches
us in humility ! Justification must therefore necessarily take
place without the works which those people have in their mind.
If a man cannot readily bear contradiction " he certainly cannot
be saved ; for there is no surer sign that our ideas, words and
works are of God than contradiction [!] ; everything that is of
God must be rejected by man, as we see from the example of our
Saviour, and, even if it be not of God, contradiction brings us
still greater profit and preserves us from shipwreck."

In support of this perplexing doctrine there follow examples
and quotations from the Bible, and finally this conclusion :
" it is a safe path when we are reproved, cursed and blamed."
He does not seem to notice that this assertion provides a ground
of excuse and defence for the so-called " proud ' spirituals,' "
for they, too, might argue that his contradiction gave a sanction
to their conduct.

Luther seems to have had only himself and his own interests
in view when he brought forward these ideas, beginning with the
extreme assertion that we must believe every word that a good
man speaks ; he apparently wished to insist on himself and his
followers being given credence, and on their views — which were
the views of faithful counsellors — being approved by the defenders
of works, whether in his Order or outside of it. As he encountered
contradiction, he immediately applied to his own case the very
elastic principle, that opposition in religious matters is a guarantee
of truth. This was a principle, we may mention, which he had
made his own ever since his mystical days, and which at a later

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 86 f.

254 LUTHER THE MONK

date and indeed till the end of his life, he repeatedly employed
in the service of his cause during his struggle with the Church.

Continuing his harangue against the " spirituals " and the
heretics with whom he classes them he goes on to say : " they
buoy themselves up in their idle self-complacency on account
of their faith in Christ, but in vain, as they will not believe in
that which is Christ's. The faith of Christ by which we are
justified is not merely faith in Christ, or in the person of Christ,
but in all that is Christ's." " Christ is not divided " (1 Cor. i.
13). Faith is something indivisible, Christ and whatever is
Christ's is one and the same.1 Therefore we must believe both
in Christ and in the Church, and in " every word that comes from
the mouth of an ecclesiastical superior, or of a good, pious man."
" But those who withdraw themselves from their superiors will
not listen to their words, but follow their own ideas," he again
repeats : " how do these, I ask, believe in Christ ? They believe
in His birth and His sufferings, but not in His whole word,
consequently they deny Him altogether. See how necessary is
the very greatest humility, as we who believe in Christ can never
be sure whether we believe in all that is His, and therefore must
remain uncertain as to whether we believe in Him Himself !
Justification can only proceed from such a fear and humility.
But the proud " do not understand the exalted sub til ties of this
faith ; they think they are in possession of the whole of faith,
yet cannot hear the Lord's voice, but rather resist it as though it
were false ; why ? because it is opposed to their own ideas."2
After a dialectical digression of doubtful character the hot-
blooded exegetist continues : All the Prophets rise up against
such men, for they always commence their holy message with
the words : " Thus saith the Lord " and, " whosoever it be whom
the Lord chooses as His mouthpiece, the demand is for faith,
resignation, humble subjection of our own ideas ; for it is only thus
that we are justified, and not otherwise." With incredible tenacity
he is ever harping on the assertion that the " self-righteous "
only deck themselves out with works of the law, but find no
grace with God. And finally, as though he had not yet said a
word against those rebels against faith and the Word of God, he
cries : " Let those open their ears who believe indeed in Christ,
but not in the word of Christ, who do not listen to their superiors
and who wish to be justified without this obedience, i.e. without
this faith in God and merely by their works." In another out-
burst he shows them — this time adopting a more mystical tone —
that Christ speaks " almost always when, where and as we do
not expect."3 " Who can discover all the wily attacks of Satan
by which he deceives us ? " Some wish to be justified by a
" slavish fear," in spite of their disinclination and ' by their own
strength alone " ; 4 those whom he deceives more artfully feel a
desire for what is good, " but in their self-complacency they
affect superstitious singularity (' singularitatis et superstitionis

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 87 f. 2 Ibid., p. 89.

3 Ibid., p. 92. 4 Ibid., p. 93.

INCONSISTENCIES UNEXPLAINED 255

affectatores '), they become rebels [like the Observan tines, see
p. 69], and under a show of obedience and love of God they
throw off their submission to the men of God, i.e. to the Vicars
and messengers of Christ."1 " It is presumption and pride which
changes works of grace into works of the law, and the righteous-
ness of God into human righteousness ; for," etc.2 " How then
can you be proud as though you were more righteous than another,
how can you despise him who sins, when you yourself [at least,
by your evil inclinations] are sunk in the same mire ? "3 etc.
" But they receive honour of men on account of their righteous-
ness,"4 a subject on which Luther proceeds to enlarge.

We have said enough. The torrent of words flows on aimlessly
in this way, ever labouring the same subject ; all this is given
us in lieu of real exegesis as corollaries to two verses of the
Epistle to the Romans.

In order to gauge the real value of the Commentary on
Romans we must now consider the treatment, abounding
in inconsistencies, accorded by Luther to man's efforts for
obtaining salvation.

In Luther's mind the idea of that God does all, stands side by
side with the traditional view of the Church, that man must
prepare himself ; he has, indeed, a curious knack of remaining
quite unconscious of his inconsistencies. On the one hand,
according to what he says, we must seek for justification by the
exertion of the fullest human effort, and this labour must be so
strenuous as to render God propitious to us (" Deum sibi pro-
pitium faciunt ").5 That is, at least, what we are told at the end
of the Commentary, but at the beginning we read : " The faith
which is to justify must manifest its works, works of the law are
not sufficient, it must be ' a living faith which performs its own
works.' "6 " When James and Paul say that man is justified by
works, they are opposing the false opinion that faith without
its works is sufficient, whereas such a faith is not faith at
all."7 According to this, it is plain, that, at that time, the idea
of man's co-operation in the work of salvation by the use of his
liberty still hovered in Luther's mind. But any idea of this kind
is elsewhere confronted and peremptorily dismissed by another
chain of ideas. How are we to make efforts by our own free will
when we do not possess free will for doing what is good ? "As
though," he says, " we had free will at our disposal whenever we
want ! Such an idea of free will can only serve to lull us into a

1 "Schol. Rom.," p. 94. 2 Ibid., p. 95. 3 Ibid., p. 96.

4 Ibid., p. 97. 6 Ibid> p# 323 f. Cp. above, p. 218 f.

6 Ibid., p. 86 : " Igitur iustificatio requirit non opera legis, sed vivam
fidem, quce sua operetur opera." Cp. above, p. 214, n. 6, where he speaks
of the " prceparatio " for justification by the fulfilling of the law.

7 Ibid., p. 85. It is possible that, without making any distinction,
he here passes on to the activity of the righteous. Cp. Denifie- Weiss, 1 2,
pp. 466, 467, on Luther's want of clearness regarding justifying faith.

256 LUTHER THE MONK

false security." (" Securi stertimus, freti liber o arbitrio quod ad
manum hdbentes, quando volumus, possumus pie intendere." y

Here he will only admit that man has freedom to pray for the
right use of his freedom. But, as a matter of fact, even this
liberty which might incite us to prayer, is non-existent. For
in respect of anything that is good [whether natural or super-
natural, he makes no distinction] we are only like raw metal or a
wooden stick. Because God's grace is the hand which works in us
for good and which performs our vital acts within us, while we
ourselves are quiescent and absolutely powerless, Luther says
in Romans iii. : "I have frequently insisted before upon the
fact, that it is impossible for us to have of ourselves the will or
the heart to fulfil the law." Why ? " Because the law is
spiritual." Meditation on man's enslaved condition as the
result of concupiscence, he declares in another passage, proves
my contention, no less than the terrible truth of predestination.

" Luther felt in himself that belief in the eternal predestination
by God [absolute election to grace] was the most powerful
support of his experience of the complete inadequacy of human
works and the efficacy of grace alone." The Protestant theologian2
who says this, to instance Luther's faith in the action of grace,
here quotes from the passages from the Commentary on Romans,
according to which God on the one hand bestows His grace only
on those He chooses, but on the other hand infallibly saves those
He elects to save. " The Spirit," Luther has it, " supports the
latter by His presence in all their weaknesses, so that they
prevail in circumstances where they would otherwise despair a
thousand times."3 It is, however, remarkable that just after
this explanation the cry bursts from Luther's lips : " Where are
now the good works, where the freedom of the will ? " Here the
irresistible " action of grace alone " appears as a direct con-
sequence of Luther's then views, though he refrains from ex-
pressing himself more clearly as to the nature of actual grace.

Thus in his mind are combined two widely divergent
ideas, viz. that God does everything in man who is devoid
of freedom- — and that man must draw nigh to God by
prayer and works of faith. It is a strange psychological
phenomenon to see how, instead of endeavouring to solve
the contradiction and examine the question in the light of
calm reason, he gives free play to feeling and imagination,
now passionately proving to the infamous Observants that
man is absolutely unable to do anything, now insisting on
the need of preparation for grace, i.e. unconsciously be-
coming the defender of the Church's doctrine of free will
and human co-operation. The fact is, he still, to some extent,

1 "Schol, Rom.," p. 321. 2 Braun, " Concupiscenz," p. 34.

3 See above, p. 249, n. 1, and p. 204.

PROGRESS IN IDEAS. 257

thinks with the Church. It was no easy task for him to
break away from a view, which is so natural to man and
so much in accordance with faith, viz. that there must be
some preparation on man's part for justification, in which
however, actual grace, which comes to the assistance of his
will and becomes part of it, also has its share.

Luther's peculiar mysticism with its preponderance of
feeling was, in part, the cause of his overlooking his task,
which was to propound from his professorial chair the teach-
ing of the Church in definite and exact terms- — so far as this
was possible to him with his insufficient theological training.
To this may be added the fact that the wealth of biblical
quotations, whether to the point or not, which he is wont
to adduce, tends to distract and confuse him as soon as he
attempts to draw any clear inferences.

According to Denifle a certain progress is apparent in the
Commentary on Romans inasmuch as the first three chapters
show Luther's new doctrines still in an inchoate form.
Luther, there, is seeking for something he has not yet fully
grasped, and the confusion of his language is a proof that
he has not as yet made up his mind. There is, however,
one point, according to Denifle, on which he is quite definite,
viz. concupiscence, though he does not yet know how to
combine it with his other ideas ; but, by the end of chapter iii.,
this doubt has been set aside, he has identified con-
cupiscence with original sin and reached other conclusions
besides. Still he avoids the principal question as to how
far human co-operation is necessary in the act of justifica-
tion.1

It is difficult to determine exactly this progress owing to
Luther's want of clearness and precision of expression, and
to his contradictory treatment of certain capital points.
The Commentary on Romans as it proceeds hardly shows
any improvement in this respect. With extraordinary
elasticity of mind, if we may so speak, the author without
the slightest compunction advocates concerning the most
profound theological questions, especially grace, ideas which
differ from and contradict each other. As at the very
commencement we meet some of the most incisive new
theses of Lutheranism— the imputation of the righteousness
1 " Luther und Luthertum," P, p. 447 f., 466 f.

258 LUTHER THE MONK

of Christ, the sinfulness of the natural man and his inability
to do what is good, and likewise predestination to hell in its
most outrageous form' — it is natural to infer that Luther
had already forsaken the Catholic doctrine on. these points
at the time he was preparing his lectures on the Epistle
to the Romans, i.e. about the summer of 1515. His mis-
apprehension of this Epistle must have had its influence on
his whole trend, and the elements already at work in his
mind helped to decide him to commit to writing in his
Commentary his supposed new and important doctrinal
discoveries.

We might expect to find in the Commentary the most
noticeable progress where he deals with preparation for
grace, for this was surely the point on which he was bound
to come into conflict with other doctrines. It is, however,
hard to tell whether he realised the difficulty. It is true
that much less stress is laid upon preparation for justification
as the work proceeds, whereas at the commencement the
author speaks unhesitatingly of the cultivation of the will
which must be undertaken in order to bring down grace.
(See above, p. 214.) This, however, might merely be
accidental and due to the fact that, in the last chapters,
St. Paul is dealing mainly with the virtues of the justified.
Towards the end of the Epistle, in connection with what
the Apostle says on charity and faith in the righteous, the
nature of that " humilitas " which Luther so eulogises as a
preliminary and accompaniment of the appropriation of
the righteousness of Christ undergoes a change and appears
more as faith with charity, or charity with faith. Luther's
manner of speaking thus varies according to the subject
with which Paul is dealing.

If we take the middle of the year 1515 as the starting-
point of Luther's new theology, then many of the statements
in his Commentary on the Psalms, especially in its latter
part, become more significant as precursors of Luther's
errors. The favourable view we expressed above of his
work on the Psalms, as regards its agreement with the
theology of the Church, was only meant to convey that a
Catholic interpretation of the questionable passages was
possible ; this, however, cannot be said of the theses in the
Commentary on Romans which we have just been con-
sidering. We now understand why unwillingness to allow

-THE PITH OF SCRIPTURE" 259

any ability in man to do what is good is the point in which
Luther's work on the Psalms goes furthest. There the
doctrine of his " profundior theologia " is : " We must
account ourselves as nothing, as sinful, liars, as dead in
God's sight ; we must not trust in any merits of our own."
There, too, we find paradoxes such as the following : " God
is wonderful in His saints, the most beautiful is to Him the
most hideous, the most infamous the most excellent ;
whoever thinks himself upright, with him God is not pleased.
... In the recognition of this lie the pith of the Scripture
and the kernel of the heavenly grain."1 Such expressions
are, it is true, not unlike what we sometimes hear from the
Church's theologians and saints, but in the light of the
Commentary on Romans they become more important as
signs of transition.

We must not forget, in view of the numerous enigmas
which the boldness of the Commentary on Romans presents,
that it bears merely a semi-public character and was not
intended for publication. In this work, destined only for
the lecture-room, Luther did not stop to weigh or fine down
his words, but gave the reins to his impulse, thus offering
us a so much the more interesting picture of his inmost
thoughts.

Some important particulars, in which this work differs
from other public utterances made by Luther about the
same time, are to be explained by the familiarity with which
he is speaking to his pupils.

In the sermons on the Ten Commandments, published in 1518
but preached in the two preceding years and consequently
intended for general consumption, he speaks differently of
concupiscence than in the Commentary. In the sermons he
declares that desires so long as they are involuntary are certainly
not sinful. He even says to a man who is troubled on account
of his involuntary temptations against purity : " No, no, you
have not lost your chastity by such thoughts ; on the contrary,
you have never been more chaste if you are only sure they came
to you against your will. ... It is a true sign of a lively sense of
chastity when a man feels displeasure, and it need not even
be absolute displeasure, otherwise there would be no attraction ;
he is in an uncertain state, now willing, now unwilling. ... In

1 Cp. Braun, " Concupiseenz," 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."

260 LUTHER THE MONK

the struggle for chastity the little bark is tossed hither and
thither on the waters, while [according to the gospel] Christ
is asleep within. Rouse Christ so that He may command the
sea, i.e. the flesh, and the wind, i.e. the devil."1 In the public
Indulgence theses of 1517, he is also careful not to express his
erroneous views on grace and the nature of man. It is character-
istic of him how he changes even the form of expression when
repeating an assertion which is also made in the Commentary on
Romans. In the Commentary he had written, that too great
esteem of outward works led to a too frequent granting of
Indulgences, and that the Pope and the Bishops were more cruel
than cruelty itself if they did not freely grant the same, or even
greater Indulgences, for God's sake and the good of souls, seeing
that they themselves had received all they had for nothing. 2 This
violent utterance here appears as the expression of his own
opinion. In the theses, however, he presents the same view to
the public with much greater caution ; he says, these and
similar objections brought forward by scrupulous laymen, were
caused, contrary to the wishes of the Pope, by dissolute Indulg-
ence preachers ; one might hear " such-like calumnious charges
and subtle questions from seculars," and they must " be taken into
account and answered." 3

The ideas contained in the Commentary on Romans are
also to be met with in the other lectures which followed.
Of this the present writer convinced himself by glancing
through the Vatican copies. The approaching publication
of the copies in the " Anfange reformatorischer Bibelaus-
legung," of Johann Ficker, a work which commenced
with the Commentary on Romans, will supply further
details. The character of the Wittenberg Professor is,
however, such that we may expect some surprising revela-
tions. Generally speaking, a movement in the direction of
the doctrine of " faith alone " is noticeable throughout his
work.

In view of Ficker's forthcoming edition it will suffice to
quote a few excerpts from the Commentary on the Epistle
to the Hebrews of 1517, according to the Vatican MS.
(Pal. lat. 1825).4 They show that the author in his exegesis
of this Epistle is imbued with the same idea as in the Com-
mentary on Romans, namely, that Paul exalts (in Luther's

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 486.

2 " Sohol. Rom.," p. 243.

3 Thes., 81 seq., 90. " Opp. Lat. var.," 1, p. 291 seq. Weim. ed., 1,
pp. 625, 627.

4 Regarding this MS. see Ficker's Introduction to the Com-
mentary on Romans, p. xxix. f.

FROM COMMENTARY ON HEBREWS 261

sense) the redemption in Christ, and Grace, in opposition to
righteousness by works. They also betray how he becomes
gradually familiar with the doctrine that faith alone justifies,
without any longer placing humility in the foreground as
the intermediary of justification as he once had done.

On folio 46 of the MS. he says : " We should notice how
Paul in this Epistle extols grace as against the pride of the
law and of human righteousness (' extollit adversus superbiam '
etc.). He proves that without Christ neither the law, nor the
priesthood, nor prophecy, nor the service of angels sufficed, but
that all these were established with a view to the coming Christ.
It is therefore his intention to teach Christ only."

On folio 117 Luther sets forth the difference between
" purity in the New and in the Old Testament." In the New Law
the Blood of Christ brings inward purification. " As conscience
cannot alter sin that has been committed and is utterly unable to
escape the future wrath, it is necessarily terrified and oppressed
wherever it turns. From this state of distress it can be released
only by the Blood of Christ. If it looks in faith upon this Blood,
it believes and knows that by the same its sins are washed away
and removed. Thus it is purified by faith and at the same time
quieted, so that, in joy over the remission of its sins, it no longer
fears punishment. No law can assist in this purification, no
works, in fact nothing but the Blood of Christ ajone (' ad hanc
munditiam . . . nihil nisi unicus hie sanguis Christi facere
potest '), and even this cannot accomplish it unless man believes in
his heart that it has been shed for the remission of sin. For it is
necessary to believe the testator when He says : ' This Blood
which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of
sins.' "

From Paul's words he goes on to infer that " good works done
outside of grace are sins, in the sense that they may be called
dead works. For if, without the Blood of Christ, conscience
is morally impure, it can only perform what corresponds with
its nature, namely, what is impure. . . ." Folio 117' : "It
follows that a good, pure, quiet, happy conscience can only be
the result of faith in the forgiveness of sins. But this is founded
only on the Word of God, which assures us that Christ's Blood
was shed unto the remission of sins."

Folio 118 : "It follows that those who contemplate the suffer-
ings of Christ only from compassion, or from some other reason
than in order to attain to faith, contemplate them to little
purpose, and in a heathenish manner. . . . The more frequently
we look upon the Blood of Christ the more firmly must we believe
that it was shed for our own sins ; for this is ' to drink and eat
spiritually,' to grow strong through this faith in Christ and to
become incorporated in Him."

CHAPTER VII

SOME PARTICULARS WITH REGARD TO THE OUTWARD
CIRCUMSTANCES AND INWARD LIFE OF LUTHER AT THE
TIME OF THE CRISIS

1. Luther as Superior of eleven Augustinian Houses

His election as Rural Vicar, which took place at the con-
vocation of the Order at Gotha (on April 29, 1515), had
raised Luther to a position of great importance in his
Congregation.

He had, within a short time, risen from being Sub-Prior
and Regent of the Wittenberg House of Studies to be the
chief dignitary in the Congregation after Staupitz, the Vicar-
General. The office was conferred on him, as was customary,
for a period of three years, i.e. till May, 1518. Of the
eleven monasteries which formed the District the two most
important and influential were Erfurt and Wittenberg.
The others were Dresden, Herzberg, Gotha, Langensalza,
Nordhausen, Sangershausen, Magdeburg and Neustadt on
the Orla, to which Eisleben was added, when, in July, 1515,
Staupitz and Luther presided at the opening of a new
monastery there. As Staupitz was frequently absent from
the District, the demands made on the activity of the new
Superior were all the greater.

At this time too his professorial Bible studies and his
efforts to clear up the confusion and difficulties existing in
his mind must have kept him fully occupied. In addition
to this there was the dissension within the Order itself on
the question of observance and of the constitution, a dis-
pute which required for its settlement a man filled with
zeal for the spiritual welfare of the monasteries, and one
thoroughly devoted to the exalted traditional aims of
the Congregation.

The mordant discourse on the " Little Saints " which
the fiery Monk delivered on May 1 at the Gotha meeting

262

LUTHER'S ASSOCIATES. 263

showed in what direction the influence of the new Rural
Vicar would be exerted. Johann Lang, his friend who was
present at the time, had a good reason for sending this
discourse to Mutian, the head of the Humanists at Gotha ;
the bitter critic of the " uncharitable self-righteous " gave
promise of the establishing of a freer ideal of life in the Order,
and so original and powerful a speaker was certain to be
strong enough to draw others with him.

What has been preserved of Luther's correspondence with
the priories and the monks of his District is unfortunately-
very meagre ; the remarkable rapidity with which the
Lutheran innovations spread among the Augustinians
speaks, however, at a later date very plainly of the powerful
influence which he had exerted on his brother monks during
the years that he held the office of Rural Vicar. The first
result of his influence was to bring into the ascendant a
conception of the aims of the Order differing from that of
the Observantincs. Hand in hand with this went the
recruiting of followers for his new theological ideas and for
the so-called Augustinian or Pauline movement, of which
the Wittenberg Faculty was the headquarters.

Johann Lang prepared the ground for Luther at the
Erfurt monastery, whither he went in 1515 and where he
became Prior in 1516. The Augustinian, George Spenlein,
Luther's Wittenberg friend, to whom he addressed the
curious, mystical letter on Christ's righteousness (above,
p. 88 f.), became, later on, a Lutheran preacher and parson
at Arnstadt. Luther, during his Vicariate, had as Prior at
Wittenberg his friend Wenceslaus Link, who was also
Doctor and Professor in the Theological Faculty. He was,
however, relieved of his office of Prior in 1516, left Wittenberg
and went to Munich as preacher, whence he removed to
Nuremberg at the beginning of 1517 ; in that town he
became later a zealous promoter of the Reformation. The
friendship which Luther had formed at Wittenberg with
George Spalatin, the astute courtier in priest's dress, was,
however, of still greater importance to him in his work both
within the Order and outside. Spalatin, who had received
a humanist training under Marschalk and Mutian at Erfurt,
came in 1511 to Wittenberg, where he entered the family
of the Elector as tutor to his two nephews, and, in 1513, was
promoted to the office of Court Chaplain and private secre-

264 LUTHER THE MONK

tary to the Elector. He readily undertook the management
at Court of the business in connection with the priories
under Luther's supervision, and, later on, contrived by his
influence in high quarters to promote the spread of the
religious innovations.

The letters which Luther wrote as Vicar he signed, as a
rule, " Frater Martinus Luther," though sometimes " Luder,
Augustinensis," usually with the addition " Vicarius," and
on one occasion " Vicarius Districtus," which, needless to
say, does not mean " the strict vicar " as it has been mis-
translated, but refers to his office as Rural Vicar of the
District.

In these letters, chiefly in Latin, which Luther addressed
to his monasteries, we meet with some pages containing
beautiful and inspiring thoughts. There can be no question
that he knew how to intervene with energy where abuses
called for it, just as he also could speak words of consolation,
encouragement and kindly admonition to those in fault.
The letters also contain some exhortations, well-worded
and full of piety, tending to the moral advancement of
zealous members of the Order. The allusions to faith in
Christ, our only help, and the absolute inadequacy of human
effort, are, however, very frequent, though he does not here
express his new theological opinions so definitely as he
does in expounding St. Paul.

To Johann Lang, who, as Prior of the Erfurt house, met with
many difficulties from his subordinates, he writes comforting and
consoling him : "Be strong and the Lord will be with you ; call
to mind that you are set up for a sign which shall be contradicted
(Luke ii. 34), to the one, indeed, a good odour unto life, to
another an odour of death (2 Cor. ii. 16)." x At Erfurt, as the
same letter shows, he had to intervene in the interests of discipline.
In order that no complaints might be brought against the Prior
by the brethren on account of the expenses for food and drink in
entertaining guests and for the keep of those who collected the
alms (terminarii) he orders an exact account to be kept of such
expenses ; the hostel for guests might, he says, become a real
danger to the monastery if not properly regulated ; the monastery
must not be turned into a beer-house or tavern, but must remain
a religious house. To uphold " the honour of the Reverend
Father Vicar," Staupitz, he directed that three contumacious
monks should be removed, by way of punishment, from Erfurt
to a less important convent. On the occasion of some un-
pleasantness which Lang experienced from his brother monks,

1 May 29, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 37 f.

HIS ADMINISTRATION 265

Luther impressed on him that, after receiving this blow on the
one cheek, he should bravely present the other also ; " and this
is not the last and worst slap you will have to endure, for God's
wisdom is as yet playing with you and preparing you for greater
struggles."1

" Be mild and friendly to the Prior of Nuremberg," he says
to him at a later date ; " it is necessary to be so, just because
he is harsh and unfriendly. One who is severe cannot get
the better of a hard man, but he who is mild can, just as one devil
cannot overcome another, but the finger of God must do this."2

And again, " As regards the brother who has fallen away, take
pity on him in the Lord. He has forsaken you, led astray by
impiety, but you must not on that account be wanting in charity
and turn your back upon him. Do not take the scandal too much
to heart. We have been called, baptised and ordained in order
to bear the burdens of others, for this reason the office clothes
our own wretchedness with honour. We must, according to the
proverb, ourselves cover our neighbour's shame, as Christ was,
still is, and for all eternity will be our covering, as it is written :
' Thou art a priest for ever ' (Heb. v. 6). Therefore beware of
desiring to be so clean that you will not allow yourself to be
touched by what is unclean, or of refusing to put up with un-
cleanness, to cover it over and to wipe it away. You have been
raised to a post of honour, but the task it involves is to bear
dishonour. It is on the cross and on affronts that we must pride
ourselves."3

At the commencement of the autumn term in 1516, he com-
plained that Lang was sending him too many brothers to study at
Wittenberg, more in fact than he was able to provide for,4 and
later, as the reason for his concern, he mentions that the Witten-
berg house already numbered 41 inmates, of whom 22 were priests
and 12 students, " who all have to live on our more than scanty
means; but the Lord will provide."5

At that time it was feared that Wittenberg might suffer from
an attack of the plague which was raging in the vicinity, and
which actually did break out there in October. Luther reassures
the troubled Prior of Erfurt, who had besought him to depart :
" It is possible that the plague may interfere with the lectures on
the Epistle to the Galatians which I have just commenced. But,
so far, it only snatches away two or three victims daily at most,
and sometimes even fewer. . . . And whither should I flee ? I
trust the heavens will not fall even should brother Martin be

1 August 30, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 49.

2 In September (?), 1516, ibid., p. 57.

3 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.

* September (?), 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 54„
6 October 26, 1516, ibid., p. 67.

266 LUTHER THE MONK

stricken. I shall send the brothers away and distribute them
should the mischief increase ; I have been appointed here and
obedience does not allow of my taking flight, unless a new order
be imposed on me to obey. Not as though I do not fear death,
I am not a Paul but merely an expounder of Paul ; but I trust
that the Lord will deliver me from my fear."1

When a member of the Teutonic Order sought for admission
into the Augustinian house at Neustadt, Luther instructed the
Prior there, Michael Dressel (Tornator) to observe very carefully
the ecclesiastical and conventual regulations provided for such
a case. " We must, it is true, work with God in the execution of
this pious project," he writes, " but we shall do this not by
allowing the ideas of the individual, however pious his intentions
may be, to decide the matter, but by carrying out the prescribed
law, the regulations of our predecessors, and the decrees of the
Fathers : whoever sets these aside need not hope to advance or
find salvation, however good his will may be."2

This Prior also had complained of the numerous contrarieties
which he experienced from his subordinates, and that he was
unable to enjoy any peace of soul. Luther says to him among
other things :3 " The man whom no one troubles is not at peace,
that is rather the peace of this world, but the man to whom people
bring all their troubles and who nevertheless remains calm and
bears everything that happens with joy. You say with Israel :
' Peace, peace, and there is no peace ! ' Say rather with Christ :
the cross, the cross, there is no cross.4 The cross will at once
cease to be a cross when a man accepts it joyfully and says :
Blessed cross, sacred wood, so holy and venerable ! . . . He
who with readiness embraces the cross in everything that he
feels, thinks and understands will in time find the fruit of his
suffering to be sweet peace. That is God's peace, under which our
thoughts and desires must be hidden in order that they may be
nailed to the cross, i.e. to the cross of contradiction and oppression.
Thus is peace truly established above all our thinking and
desiring, and becomes the most precious jewel. Therefore take
up all these disturbances of your peace with joy and clasp them
to you as holy relics, instead of endeavouring to seek peace
according to your own ideas."

When Luther afterwards visited the monastery of this same
Prior, on the occasion of an official visitation, he found the
community estranged from its head. He did not at that time
take any steps, but after a few weeks he suddenly removed
Michael Dressel from his office. In confidence he informed
Johann Lang, rather cryptically, that : "I did this because I
hoped to rule there myself for the half-year."5 Do the words

1 " Briefwochsel," 1, p. 68. 2 June 22, 1516, ibid., p. 42. 3 Ibid., p. 43.

4 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.

5 October 26, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 68 : " Feci ideo, quod
eperabam, me ipsum illic ad medium annum regnaturum."

QUICK DESPATCH OF BUSINESS 267

perhaps mean that he was anxious to secure a victory for that
party in the Order which was devoted to himself and opposed to
Dressel, who on this hypothesis was an Observantine ? His
action was peculiar from the fact that his letter addressed to the
community at Neustadt and to Dressel himself gave no reason
for the measure against the Prior other than that the brothers
were unable to live with him in peace and agreement ; the Prior,
he says, had always had the best intentions, but it is not enough
for a Superior to be good and pious, " it is also necessary that the
others should be at peace and in agreement with him " ; when a
Superior's measures fail to establish concord, then he should
revoke them.1 Still more unusual than such advice was the
circumstance that Luther would not allow the Prior to make any
defence, and cut short any excuses by his sudden action. In
another letter to the monks he justified his measure simply by
stating that there was no peace. In short, the rebellious monks
speedily got the better of the Superior whom they disliked. The
ex-Prior, Luther tells him, must on no account murmur because
he has been judged without a hearing (" quia te non auditum
iudicaverim ") ; he himself (Luther) was convinced of his good
will and also hoped that all the inmates of the convent were
grateful to him for the good intentions which he had displayed.
In the new election ordered by the Rural Vicar, Heinrich Zwetze
was chosen as Prior. Of the latter or how the matter ended
nothing more is known.

The office of Rural Vicar required above all, that, when
making his regular visitation of the religious houses, the
Vicar should have a personal interview with each brother,
hear what he had to say, and give him any spiritual direction
of which he might stand in need. We learn the following
of a visitation of this kind which Luther made in 1516 :
At the Gotha monastery the whole of the visitation occupied
only one hour ; at Langensalza two hours. He informs
Lang : "In these places the Lord will work without us and
direct the spiritual and temporal affairs in spite of the devil."2
He at once proceeded on the same journey to the house
at Nordhausen and then on to those at Eisleben and Magde-
burg. In two days the Rural Vicar was back in his beloved
Wittenberg. There is no doubt that such summary treat-
ment of his most important duties was not favourable to
discipline.

At Leitzkau the Augustinians possessed rights over the
large fisheries and Luther was intimate with the local
Cistercian Provost. When the Provost, George Maskov,

1 September 25, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 51.

2 May 29, 1516, ibid., p. 38.

268 LUTHER THE MONK

asked him how he should behave towards a brother monk
who had sinned grievously, seeing that he himself was a still
greater offender, Luther replied, saying, among other things,
that he ought certainly to punish him, for, as a rule, it was
necessary to exercise discipline towards those who are
better than ourselves. " We are all children of Adam,
therefore we do the works of Adam." But " our authority
is not ours, but God's." Perhaps God desired to help
that brother on the road of sin, namely, through shame.
"It is God Who does all this."1 And in another letter he
says to the Provost :2 " If many of your subjects are on the
way to moral ruin, yet you must not for that reason disquiet
them all. It is better quietly to save a few. . . . Let
the cockel grow together with the wheat ... for it is
better to bear with the many for the sake of the few than
to ruin the few on account of the many." In a mystical
vein he says : " Pray for me, for my life is daily drawing
nearer to hell (i.e. the lower world, ' inferno a'pyrofinquavit?
Ps. lxxxvii. 4), as I also become worse and more wretched
day by day."3

Bodily infirmities were then pressing hard upon him in
consequence of his many labours and spiritual trials, while
much of his time was swallowed up by his lectures which
were still in progress.

2. The Monk of Liberal Views and Independent Action

With regard to his own life as a religious and his con-
ception of his calling Luther was, at the time of the crisis,
still far removed from the position which he took up later,
though we find already in the Commentary on Romans
views which eventually could not fail to place him in oppo-
sition to the religious state.

What still bound him to the religious life was, above all,
the ideal of humility, which his mystical ideas had developed.
He also recognised fully the binding nature of his vows.
According to him man cannot steep himself sufficiently in

1 May 17, 1517, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 99.

2 Undated (1516 ?), ibid., p. 77.

3 From the latter months of 1516, ibid., p. 76 : " Confiteor tibi, quod
vita mea in dies appropinquat inferno, quia quotidie peior fio et
miserior."

ON THE RELIGIOUS LIFE 269

his essential nothingness before the Eternal God, and vows
are an expression of such submission to the Supreme Being.

" To love is to hate and condemn oneself, yea even to wish
evil to oneself." " Our good is hidden so deeply that it is con- '
cealed under its opposite ; thus life is hidden under death, real
egotism under hatred of self, honour under shame, salvation
under destruction, a kingdom under exile, heaven under hell,
wisdom under foolishness, righteousness under sin, strength
under weakness ; indeed all our affirmation of any good is
concealed under its negation in order that faith in God, Who is
the negation of all, may remain supreme . . . thus ' our life is
hidden with Christ in God ' (Col. iii. 3), i.e. in the negation of all
that can be felt, possessed and apprehended. . . . That is the
good which we must desire for ourselves," he says to his brother
monks, " then only are we good when we recognise the good God
and our evil self."1

He says elsewhere regarding vows : " All things are, it is true,
free to us, but by means of vows we can offer them all up out of
love ; when this has once taken place, then they are necessary,
not by their nature but on account of the vow which has been
taken voluntarily. Then we must be careful to keep the vows
with the same love with which we took them upon us, otherwise
they are not kept at all."2 In many points he goes further than
the Rule itself in the mystical demands he makes upon the
members of the Order.

In other respects Luther's requirements not only fall
far short of what is necessary, but even the ordinary monastic
duties fare badly at his hands. If it is the interior word which
is to guide the various actions, and if without the " spirit "
they are nothing, indeed would be better left undone, then
what place is left to the common observance of the monastic
Rule and the numerous pious practices, prayers and acts
of virtue to which a regular time and place are assigned ?

From the standpoint of his pseudo-mystical perfection
he criticises with acerbity the recitation of the Office in
Choir ; also the " unreasonableness and superstition of
pious founders of benefices," who, as it were, " desired to
purchase prayers " at certain fixed times. Founders of a
monastery ought not "to have prescribed the recitation of
the Office in Choir on their behalf ; by so doing they
wished to secure their own salvation and well-being before
God, instead of making their offerings purely for God's
sake.3 Such remarks plainly show that he was already far

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 219 f. 2 Ibid., p. 317.

3 Ibid., p. 291.

270 LUTHER THE MONK

removed in spirit from a right appreciation of his Order.
He had also expressed himself against the. mendicancy
practised by the Augustinians, and yet the Order was a
Mendicant Order and the collecting of alms one of its
essential statutes.1

Nevertheless, again and again he speaks in lofty language
of the value of the lowliness of the religious life. Now
especially, he writes in the Commentary on Romans
under the influence of his mystical " theologia crucis," it. is
a good thing to be a religious, better than during the last two
centuries. Why ? Because now monks are no longer so
highly esteemed as formerly, they are hated by the world
and looked upon as fools, and are " persecuted by the
bishops and clergy " ; therefore the religious ought to
rejoice in their cross and in their state of humiliation.2

Whoever takes vows imposes upon himself " a new law " out
of love for God ; he voluntarily renounces his own freedom in
order to obey his superiors, who stand in God's place. The
vows are for him indissoluble bonds, but bonds of love.3 " Who-
ever wishes to enter the cloister," he says,4 " because he thinks
he cannot otherwise be saved, ought not to enter. We must
beware of exemplifying the proverb : ' despair makes a monk ' ;
despair never made a monk, but only a devil.5 We must enter
from the motive of love, namely, because we perceive the weight
of our sins and are desirous of offering our Lord something great
out of love ; for this reason we sacrifice to Him our freedom,
assume the dress of a fool, and submit to the performance of
lowly offices."

His complaints are very serious and certainly somewhat
prejudiced, owing partly to his new theology, partly to his wrong
perception of the facts.

" Whoever keeps his vows with repugnance is behaving sacri-
legiously."6 Even he who is animated by the best of motives
scarcely acts from perfect love, but when this is entirely absent,
he says, " we sin even in our good works."7 Many who fulfil
their religious duties merely from routine and with indolence
" are apostates though they do not appear to be such," and in his
excessive zeal he continues : " the religious in the Church to-day
are held captive under a Mosaic bondage, and together with them
the clergy and the laity because they cling to the doctrines of
men (' doctrince hominum ') ; we all believe that without these

1 See above, p. 71. 2 " Schol. Rom.," p. 318.

3 Ibid. 4 Ibid.

5 Of himself he says at a later date : I went into the convent
" because I despaired of myself." (See above, p. 4.)

6 " Schol. Rom.," p. 317. 7 Ibid., p. 123.

ON HIS FELLOW-MONKS 271

there is no salvation, but that with these salvation is assured
without any further effort on our part."1

On the same occasion he allows himself to be carried away
from the subject of monasticism to the complaints regarding the
too frequent Feasts and Fasts and the formalism pervading the
whole life of the Church, to which we referred on page 227. Re-
turning to the monks, he declares that he finds the interior man
so greatly lacking in them that (without considering the many
exceptions) they were the cause of the hostile attitude which the
world assumed towards them. " Instead of rejoicing in shame,
they are only monks in appearance ; but I know that if they
possessed love they would be the happiest of men, happier than
the old hermits, because they are daily exposed to the cross
and contempt. But to-day there is no class of men more
presumptuous than they."2

At the same time, however, he blames the religious who are
too zealous for his liking, saying : " they are desirous of imitating
the works of the Saints and are proud of their Founders and
Fathers ; but this is merely trumpery, because they wish to do the
same great works themselves and yet neglect the spirit ; they are
like the Thomists and Scotists and the other sects, who defend
the writings and words of their pet authors without cultivating
the spirit, yea rather stifling it . . . but they are hypocrites, as
Saints they are not holy, as righteous they are anything but
righteous, and, while ostensibly performing good works, they, in
fact, do nothing."3

And what sort of works do the religious perform ? "In the
same way that nowadays all workmen are as lazy as though they
were asleep all day, so religious and priests sleep at their prayer
from laziness, both spiritually and corporally ; they do every-
thing with the utmost indolence . . . this fault is so wide-
spread that there is hardly one who is free from it."4 " Now,"
he exclaims passionately, speaking of the monks and clergy,
" almost all follow their vocation against their will and with-
out any love for it." " How many there are who would gladly
let everything go, ceremonies, prayers, rules and all, if the Pope
would only dispense from them, as indeed he could." " We
ought to perform these things willingly and gladly, not from fear
of remorse of conscience, or of punishment, or from the hope of
reward and honour. But supposing it were left free to each one
to fast, pray, obey, go to church, etc., I believe that in one year
everything would be at an end, all the churches empty and the
altars forsaken."5 He does not remember that shortly before he
had been complaining that outward observances were taken too
seriously so that they were looked upon as necessary means of
salvation (" sine his non esse salutem "), that " the whole of re-
ligion was made to consist in their fulfilment to the neglect of the
actual commandments of God, of faith and love," and that the

1 "Schol. Rom.," p. 317. 2 Ibid., p. 318.

3 Ibid., p. 165 f. * Ibid., p. 286.

5 Ibid., p. 320.

272 LUTHER THE MONK

" lower classes observe them under the impression that their
eternal salvation depends upon them."1 These complaints, too,
he had redoubled when speaking of the religious.

According to the testimony of the religious and theological
literature of that day, the monastic Orders were better in-
structed in the meaning and importance of outward observances
than Luther here assumes. Expounders of the Rules and
ascetical writers speak an altogether different language. In the
monasteries the distinction between the observances which were
enjoined under pain of grievous sin and were, therefore, under no
circumstances to be omitted, and such as were binding under the
Rule but not under pain of sin, was well understood, and a third
category was allowed, viz. such as were undertaken voluntarily,
for instance, the construction of churches, or their adornment.
It was also known, and that not only in religious houses — for the
popular manuals of that day set it forth clearly — that for an
action to be good the motive of perfect love, which Luther
represented as indispensable,2 was not requisite, but that other
religious motives, such as the fear of punishment of sin, were
sufficient though it was, indeed, desirable to rise to a higher
level. Above all, it was well known that the disinclination
towards what is good, which springs from man's sensual nature
like the temptation to indolence which still held sway even in
religious, are not sin but may be made the subject of a
meritorious struggle.

The formalism which it is true was widely prevalent in the
religious life at that time was due not so much to a faulty con-
ception of the religious state as to the inadequate fulfilment of its
obligations and its ideals. This deterioration was not likely
to be remedied by the application of the mistaken idea which
Luther advocated, namely, that not the slightest trace of human
weakness must be allowed to enter into the performance of good
works, otherwise they became utterly worthless. His stipulation
that everything must be done from the highest " spiritus internus,"
could only be the result of his extravagant mysticism. The
Rules of no Order, not even that of the Augustinians, went so
far as this. Yet the Rule of Luther's Augustinian Congregation
did not seek a merely outward, Pharisaical carrying out of its
regulations, but a life where the duties of the religious state were
performed in accordance with the inward spirit of the Order.

Luther's master, the Augustinian Johann Paltz, emphasises
this spirit very strongly in the instructions which he issued for
the preservation of the true ideals of the Order.

" Love," he there says, " pays more heed to the inward than
to the outward, but the spirit of the world mocks at what is
inward and sets great value on what is outward." He opposed
the principles tending to formalism and the deterioration of

1 "Schol. Rom.," p. 316 f.

2 Ibid., p. 317 : " Curandum, ut [vota] eadem charitate solvantur, qua
sunt promissa, sine qua solvi non possunt, . , , Jdeo apostates sunt
multi, et non videntur"

ON MISGUIDED REFORMERS 273

the religious life and shows himself to be imbued with a true and
deep appreciation of his profession. He entitles that portion
of his treatise directed against deviations from the Rule :
" Concerning the wild beasts who lay waste the religious life."
He writes with so much feeling and in so vivid a manner that the
reader of to-day almost fancies that he must have foreseen the
approaching storm and the destruction of his Congregation.
He scourges those who allow themselves to be led away by the
appearance of what is good (" sub specie boni "), who introduce
new roads to perfection according to their own ideas and require
men to do what lies beyond them ; they thus endanger the
carrying out of the ordinary good works and practices of the
religious life which all were able to perform. This, he says, was a
temptation of the enemy from the beginning, who seduced such
innovators to rely upon their own ideas and to consider them-
selves alone as good, wise and enlightened. " If the Babylonians
[this is the name he gives to the instigators of such disturb-
ances] force their way into the Order and if they obtain the upper
hand, that will be the end of discipline,* or at least it will be under-
mined ; but if the spirits of Jerusalem [the city of Peace] retain
the mastery, then the religious life will flourish and its develop-
ment will not be hindered by certain defects which are, as a
matter of fact, unavoidable in this life." These words are found
in a book written by the clear-sighted and zealous Augustinian
and published at Erfurt the year before Luther begged for
admittance at the gate of the Augustinian monastery of that
town.1 The monk of liberal views was already on the point
of becoming to his Order one of the " Babylonians " above
referred to.

Luther wished to introduce into the religious life the confused
ideas begotten of his mysticism, at the expense of the observances
which all were bound to fulfil. In this connection it should not
be forgotten that Tauler, the teacher whom Luther so much
admired, had shown that religious obedience if exercised in the
right spirit was capable, by the observance of the Rule in small
matters, of leading to greater perfection than could be arrived at
by the performance of great works or by contemplation when
these were self-chosen. Luther must have been acquainted with
the instructive story which Tauler relates and which was often
told in conventual houses, of the Child Jesus and the nun. The
Divine Child appears to her during her meditation, but, on being
suddenly called away to perform some allotted task and obeying
the summons, as a reward she finds on her return the Divine
Child wearing a still more benign and friendly countenance, and
her visitor is also at pains to point out to her that the humble
task for which she had left Him, pleases Him better than the
meditation in which she had been engaged when He first appeared
to her.2

1 " Celifodina," Supplementum, Erfordise, 1504, fol. L 3 seq., M.
1' seq.

2 Cp. Braun, " Concupiscenz," p. 283.

274 LUTHER THE MONK

Teachers of Tauler's stamp inculcated on monks and laymen
alike the highest esteem for small and insignificant tasks when
performed in compliance with obedience to the duties of one's state,
whatever it might be. It was unfair to the religious life and at
the same time to true Christian mysticism when Luther at a later
date, after his estrangement from the Order, in emphasising the
works which please God in the secular life, saw fit to speak as
though this view had hitherto been unknown.

Tauler had summed up the doctrine already well known in
earlier ages in the beautiful words : " When the most trivial
work is performed in real and simple obedience, such a work of
an obedient man is nobler and better and more pleasing to God
and is more profitable and meritorious than all the great works
which he may do here below of his own choice."1 Every artisan
and peasant is able, according to Tauler, to serve God in perfect
love in his humble calling ; he need not neglect his work to tread
the paths of sublime charity and lofty prayer. The mystic
illustrates this also by a little anecdote : "I know one who is a
very great friend of God and who has been all his days a farm-
labourer, for more than two score years. He once asked our Lord
whether he should leave his calling and go and sit in the churches.
But the Lord said No, and that he was to earn his bread with the
sweat of his brow and thus honour His true and noble Blood.
Every man must choose some suitable time by day or by night
during which he may go to the root of things, each one as best
he can."2

Luther, during the time of his crisis, was not only a monk
of dangerously wide views, but he was also inclined to take
liberties in practice.

There is a great dearth of information with regard to the
way in which Luther practised at that time the virtues of
the religious life, and from his own statements we do not
learn much. He complains, in 1516, to his friend Leiffer,
the Erfurt Augustinian : "I am sure and know from my
own experience, from yours too, and, in fact, from the
general experience of all whom I have seen troubled, that
it is merely the false wisdom of our own ideas which is the
origin and root of our disquietude. For our eye is evil,
and, to speak only of myself, into what painful misery has
it brought me and still continues to bring me."3

Luther, whose capacity for work was enormous, flung
himself into the employments which pressed upon him.
He reserved little time for self-examination and for culti-
vating his spiritual life. In addition to his lectures, his

1 Braun, " Concupiscenz," p. 283. 2 Ibid.

3 April 15, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 31.

CEASELESS ROUND OF WORK 275

studies, the direction of the younger monks, his sermons,
whether at the monastery or in the parish church, and the
heavy correspondence which devolved on him as Vicar, he
also undertook various other voluntary labours. Frequently
he had several sermons to preach on the same day, and
with his correspondence he was scarcely able to cope. This
was merely a prelude to what was to come. During the
first years after his public apostasy he himself kept four
printing presses at work, and besides this had a vast amount
of other business to attend to. His powers of work were
indeed amazing.

In 1516 in a letter he tells his friend Lang of his engage-
ments. " I really ought to have two secretaries or chan-
cellors. I do hardly anything all day but write letters.
... I am at the same time preacher to the monastery,
have to preach in the refectory and am even expected to
preach daily in the parish church. I am Regent of the
Studium [i.e. of the younger monks] and Vicar, that is to
say Prior eleven times over [i.e. of the eleven houses under
his supervision] ; I have to provide for the delivery of fish
from the Leitzkau pond and to manage the litigation of the
Herzberg fellows [the monks] at Torgau ; I am lecturing
on Paul, compiling an exposition of the Psalter and, as I
said before, writing letters most of the time."

" It is seldom," he adds, " that I have time for the
recitation of the Divine Office or to celebrate [Mass], and
then, too, I have my peculiar temptations from the flesh,
the world and the devil."1

Thus at the time he was constantly omitting Office in
Choir, the Breviary and the celebration of Mass, or per-
forming these sacred duties in the greatest haste in order
to get back to his business. We must dwell a little on this
confession, as it represents the only definite information we
have with regard to his spiritual life. If, as he says, he had
strong temptations to bewail, it should have been his first
care to strengthen his soul by spiritual exercises and to
implore God's assistance in the Holy Mass and by diligence
in Choir. Daily celebration of Mass had been earnestly
recommended by teachers of the spiritual life to all priests,
more particularly to those belonging to religious Orders.
The punctual recitation of the canonical Hours, i.e. of the
1 October 26, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 66 f.

276 LUTHER THE MONK

Breviary, was enjoined as a most serious duty not merely
by the laws of the Church, but also by the constitutions of
the Augustine Congregation. The latter declared that no
excuse could be alleged for the omission, and that whoever
neglected the canonical Hours was to be considered as a
schismatic. It is incomprehensible how Luther could
dispense himself from both these obligations by alleging
his want of time, as, according to his Rule, spiritual exercises
especially in the case of a Superior, took precedence of all
other duties, and it was for him to give an example to others
in the punctual performance of the same.

There was probably another reason for his omitting to
celebrate Mass.

He felt a repugnance for the Holy Sacrifice, perhaps on
account of his frequent fits of anxiety. He says, at a later
date, that he never took pleasure in saying Mass when a
monk ; this statement, however, cannot be taken to in-
clude the very earliest period of his priestly life, when the
good effects of his novitiate were still apparent, for one
reason because this would not agree with the enthusiasm
of his letter of invitation to his first Mass.

Religious services generally, he says in 1515-16 to the young
monks, with a boldness which he takes little pains to conceal,
" are in fact to-day more a hindrance than a help " to true piety.
Speaking of the manner of their performance he says with mani-
fest exaggeration, that it is such as to be no longer prayer. " We
only insult God more when we recite them. . . . We acquire
a false security of conscience as though we had really prayed,
and that is a terrible danger ! "* Then he goes on to explain
" Almost all follow their calling at the present day with distaste
and without love, and those who are zealous place their trust
in it and merely crucify their conscience." He speaks of the
" superstitious exercises of piety " which are performed from
gross ignorance, and sets up as the ideal, that each one should be
at liberty to decide what he will undertake in the way of priestly
or monastic observances, among which he enumerates expressly
" celibacy, the tonsure, the habit and the recitation of the
Breviary."2 We see from this that he was not much attached
even to the actual obligations of his profession, and we may
fairly surmise that such a disposition had not come upon him
suddenly ; these were rather the moral accompaniments of the
change in his theological views and really date from an earlier
period. We can also recognise in them the practical results of
his strong opposition to the Observantines of the Order, which

i " Sohol. Rom.," p. 288. 2 Ibid., pp. 319, 320.

ON THE DIVINE OFFICE 277

grew into an antagonism to all zeal in the religious life and in the
service of God, and even to the observance of the duties, great
or small, of one's state of life.

With his mystical idealism he demands, on the other hand,
what is contrary to reason and impossible of attainment. Prayer,
according to him, if rightly performed, is the "most strenuous
work and calls for the greatest energy " ; " the spirit must be
raised to God by the employment of constant violence " ; this
must be done "with fear and trembling," because the biblical
precept says : " work out your salvation with fear and trem-
bling " ; in short, it is, he declares, " the most difficult and most
tedious affair" (" difficillima et tcediosissima").1 Only then is
it not so " when the Spirit of God takes us beneath His wings and
carries us, or when misfortune forces us to pray from our hearts."

He can describe graphically the lukewarmness and distractions
which accompany the recitation of the Divine Office, and can
do so from experience if we may trust what he says in 1535 of
himself : "I have in my day spent much time in the recitation
of the canonical Hours, and often the Psalm or Hour was ended
before I knew whether I was at the beginning or in the middle
of it."2

The ironical description which he gives in 1516 of those who
pray with a good intention runs as follows :3 " They form their
good intention and make a virtue of necessity. But the devil
laughs at them behind their backs and says : ' put on your best
clothes, Kitty, we are going to have company.'4 They get up
and go into the choir and say to themselves [under the impression
that they are doing something praiseworthy] : ' See, little owl,
how fine you are, surely you are growing peacock's feathers ! '6
But I know you are like the ass in the fable, otherwise I should
have taken you for lions, you roar so ; but though you have got
into a lion's skin, I know you by your ears ! Soon, whilst they
are praying, weariness comes over them, they count up the pages
still to be gone through, and look at the number of verses to see
if they are nearly at the end. Then they console themselves
[for their tepidity] with their Scotus, who teaches that a virtual
intention suffices and an actual intention is unnecessary. But
the devil says to them : ' excellent, quite right, be at peace and
secure ! ' Thus we become," so the amusing description con-
cludes, " a laughing-stock to our enemy."

He thinks he has found a way out of the dualism which formerly
tormented him, and has become more independent. But what
has he found to replace it ? Merely fallacies, the inadequacy
and inconsistency of which are hidden from him by his egotism
and self-deception. " This good intention," he says of the teaching
of Scotus — which was perfectly correct, though liable to be
misunderstood, as it certainly was by Luther — " is not so easy

1 "Schol. Rom.," p. 290. 2 Erl. ed., 23, p. 222.

3 " Schol. Rom.," p. 321.

* These words are given in German in the Latin text.

5 Also in German.

278 LUTHER THE MONK

and under our own control, as Scotus would have it to our un-
doing ; as though we possessed free will to make good intentions
whenever we wish ! That is a very dangerous and widespread
fallacy, which leads us to carelessness and to snore in false
security." We must, on the contrary, he continues, prostrate
in our cell, implore this intention of God's mercy with all our
might and wait for it, instead of presumptuously producing it
from within ourselves ; and in the same way after doing any
good works we must not examine whether we have acted wickedly
by deed or omission (" neque quid mail fecimus aut omisimus "),
but with what interior fervour and gladness of heart we have
performed the action.1

As the recitation of the Hours in the monastery was one of the
duties of the day in the same way as the recitation of the Breviary
and Office in Choir is to-day, i.e. an obligation which expired
when the day was over, it is rather surprising to hear it said of
Luther that, at a later period, " after the rise of the Evangel
[i.e. actually during his conflict with the Church], ho frequently
shut himself up in his cell at the end of the week and recited,
fasting, all the prayers he had omitted, until his head swam and
he became for weeks incapable of working or hearing." This
strange tale about Luther reads rather differently in Melanch-
thon's version which he reports having had from Luther himself :
" At the commencement it was Luther's custom on the days on
which he was not obliged to preach to spend a whole day in
repeating the Hours seven times over [i.e. for the whole week],
getting up at 2 a.m. for that purpose. But then Amsdorf said
to him : ' If it is a sin to omit the Breviary, then you sinned
when you omitted it. But if it is not a sin, then why torment
yourself now ? ' Then when his work increased still more he
threw away the Breviary."2 The latter statement may indeed
be true, as Luther himself says in his Table-Talk : " Our Lord
God tore me away by force ' ab horis canonicis an. 1520 ' [?]
when I was already writing much." In this same passage he
again mentions how he recited the whole of the Office for the
seven days of the week on the Saturday and adds the historic
comment, that, owing to his fatigue from the Saturday fast and
consequent sleeplessness, they had been obliged to dose him with
"Dr. Esch's haustum soporiferum."3 It is therefore quite
possible that his statements as to the circumstances under which

1 "Schol. Rom.," p. 321 f.

2 " Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch.," ed. Brieger, 4, 1886, p. 330 in
the Dicta Melanchthoniana, given by O. Waltz. Cp. Mathesius, " Tisch-
reden " (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."

3 Schlaginhaufen, " Aufzeichnungen," p. 6. Cp. " Coll.," ed.
Bindseil, 1, p. 67, and " Tischreden," ed. Forstemann, 3, p. 236.

HIS OUTWARD APPEARANCE 279

he dispensed himself from the Breviary may contain some truth ;
all the facts point to the violent though confused struggle going
on in the young Monk's mind.

Yet Luther speaks ably enough in 1517 of the urgent necessity
of spiritual exercises, more particularly meditation on the
Scriptures, to which the recitation of the Office in Choir was an
introduction : " As we are attacked by countless distractions
from without, impeded by cares and engrossed by business, and as
all this leads us away from purity of heart, only one remedy
remains for us, viz. with great zeal to ' exhort each other '
(Heb. iii. 13), rouse our slumbering spirit by the Word of God,
reading the same continually, and hearing it as the Apostle
exhorts." Not long after he is, however, compelled to write :
" I know right well that I do not live in accordance with my
teaching."1

The exertions which his feverish activity entailed avenged
themselves on his health. He became so thin that one could
count his ribs, as the saying is. His incessant inward
anxieties also did their part in undermining his con-
stitution.

The outward appearance of the Monk was specially
remarkable on account of the brilliancy of his deep-set
eyes, to which Pollich, his professor at the University of
Wittenberg, had already drawn attention (p. 86). The
impression which this remarkable look, which always
remained with him, made on others, was very varied. His
subsequent friends and followers found in his eyes something
grand and noble, something of the eagle, while, on the other
hand, some remarks made by his opponents on the uncanny
effect of his magic glance will be mentioned later. Anger
intensified this look, and the strange power which Luther
exerted over those who opposed him, drew many under the
spell of his influence and worked upon them like a kind of
suggestion.2

Many remarked with concern on the youthful Luther's
too great self-sufficiency.

His then pupil Johann Oldecop describes him as " a man
of sense," but " proud by nature." " He began to be still
more haughty," Oldecop observes, when speaking of the

1 " Scio quod non vivo quae doceo." To Bishop Adolf of Merseburg,
February 4, 1520, " Brief wechsel," 2, p. 312.

2 Melanchthon said on one occasion, according to Waltz (see above,
p. 278, n. 2), p. 326: " Leo habet oculos xapoirovs (bright-eyed), Lutheri
oculi sunt xaP07r°L> et habebant leonem in ascendente (probably " habe-
bat" viz. Luther in his Horoscope). Et tales pier unique sunt ingeniosi . . ,
They were brown eyes, " circuit circulus gilvus."

280 LUTHER THE MONK

incipient schism.1 He will have it that at the University
Luther had always shown himself quarrelsome and dis-
putatious. Oldecop could never forget that Luther, his
professor, never held a disputation which did not end in
strife and quarrels.2 Luther's close connection with Johann
Lang, the Augustinian and rather free-thinking Humanist,
was also remarked upon, he says. We know from other
sources that Lang encouraged Luther in his peculiar ideas,
especially in his mysticism and in his contempt for the
theology of the schools.

3. Luther's Ultra- Spiritualism and calls for Reform. Is Self-
improvement possible ? Penance

It is clear from the above, that the passionate zeal for
reform which inspired the Augustinian proceeded chiefly
from his pseudo-mysticism. It would, however, be incorrect
to attribute all this zeal simply to mysticism, but neither
would it be in accordance with the facts of history were we
to deny the connection between his repeated complaints
and calls for reform and his spiritualistic ideas.

It may be worth while to listen here to what the youthful
Luther had to say of the reforming notions which already
inspired him, for it opens up a wide horizon against which
his psychology stands out in clear relief. Plans so far-
reaching can only have been the result of the exaggerated
and one-sided spiritualistic point of view, from which he
regarded the perversity of the world at large. The following
passages show what were the motives which urged him on.
He declared it to be the duty of ecclesiastical superiors to
show more indulgence to those who scorn their position and
" the rights and privileges of the Church," and this from
the motive of mystical resignation ; theologians ought to
teach, in place of their traditional science, how we are
" humbly to sigh after grace " ; philosophy must for the
future be silent because it is nothing but " the wisdom of

1 Joh. Oldecop's " Chronik " (eel. K. Euling, Tubingen, 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.

2 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.

AVERSION TO PHILOSOPHY 281

the flesh " ; lay authorities, moreover, who now begin to
see through our wickedness, ought to seize upon the tem-
poralities of the Church in order that she may be set free
to devote herself entirely to the interior Christian life.
Luther's view of the position and actual character of the
worldly powers at that time was absolutely untrue to life,
and one that could have been cherished only by a mystic
looking out on the world from the narrow walls of his cell.
A strange self-sufficiency, of which he himself appears to
have been utterly unaware, and which is therefore all the
more curious, was at the root of these ideas.

Such a tone unmistakably pervades the projects of reform
expressed not only in the Commentary on Romans, but
also in his exposition of the Psalms ; but a comparison of
these two works shows the increased stress which Luther
lays upon his own opinion in the later work, and the still
greater inconsidcration with which he rejects everything
which clashes with his views, a fact which proves that Luther
was progressing. In his Commentary on Romans he appeals
formally to the " apostolic authority " of his Doctor's
degree, when giving vent to the most unheard-of vitupera-
tion of the highest powers, ecclesiastical and lay. He
declares it to be his duty to reprove what he finds amiss in
all, and almost at the same moment denounces the bishops
who defend the rights of the' Church as " Pharaonici, Sathan-
ici, Behemotici " ; so convinced is he that their supposed
abuse of power entitles him to reprove them.1

The language in which the mystic unhesitatingly passes
the severest possible judgments could scarcely be stronger.

" We have fallen under a Jewish bondage . . . our preachers
have concealed from the people the truth regarding the right
way of worshipping God, and the Apostles must needs come again
to preach to us."2

"When shall we at last listen to reason," he cries,3 "and
understand that we must spend our valuable time more profitably
[than in the study of philosophy] ? ' We are ignorant of what is
necessary,' thus we should complain with Seneca, ' because we
merely learn what is superfluous.' We remain ignorant of what
might be of use to us while we busy ourselves with what is worse

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 301.

2 Ibid., p. 317: "Nunc omnes fere desipiunt (this is about the
Church's fasts) . . . ut rursutn (vopulus) apostolis indigeat ipsis, ut
veram disceret pietatem."

3 Ibid., p. 199.

282 LUTHER THE MONK

than worthless."1 He speaks thus because others were not alive
to the state of things, or had not the courage to open their mouths :
" Perhaps they would not be believed, but I have spent years
in these studies, have seen and heard much and know that they
are vain and perverse" (" studium vanitatis et perditionis ").
Therefore let us rise and destroy them !' " We must learn to
know Jesus Christ, and Him Crucified. ... Is it not a strange
madness to praise and belaud philosophy, a doctrine which is
merely the perverse wisdom of the flesh advocated by so-called
wise men and theologians ! "

" Those fools " who do not even know what grace is. . . .
" Who can bear with their blasphemous ideas ? " " They do not
know what sin or remission of sin is." "Our theologians see
sins only in works, and do not teach us how to change our minds
and how to implore grace with humble sighing. . . . They
make proud men, men who after due performance of their works
look on themselves as righteous, and seek not to fight against
their passions. That is the reason why Confession is of so little
use in the Church and why backsliding occurs so frequently."2

His hatred for theology leads him to make the following false
and bitter charges : " The Scholastics teach that it is only
necessary to fulfil the law outwardly, in deed, not with the heart ;
they do not even show how this is to be done, and thus the
faithful are left in the impossibility of doing good, because they
will never be able to fulfil the commandments unless they do so
with the heart. These teachers do not even stretch out a finger
towards the fulfilment of the law, I mean, they do not make its
fulfilment depend even in the slightest on the heart, but merely
on outward acts. Hence they become vain and proud."3 An
esteemed Protestant historian of dogma, in a recent work, speaks
of Luther's knowledge of Scholasticism as follows :

" Luther does not appear to have been acquainted with the
Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, more especially Thomas of Aquin.
About this statement, which Denifle constantly repeats, there
seems to me to be no doubt."4

The Wittenberg Professor makes use of scathing reproofs such
as had never before been heard. A good deal of his criticism was
justifiable, and he was certainly not wrong in applying it judici-
ously in his own special domain to much that had hitherto been
accepted as true. It is refreshing to those engaged in historical
research to note how he cuts himself adrift from the legends of
mediaeval hagiography, and how he writes on one occasion request-
ing Spalatin to copy out some particulars for him from Jerome's
book which he might use for a sermon on St. Bartholomew, "for
the fables and lies of the ' Catalogus * and ' Legenda aurea ' make

1 Seneca, Ep. 45, 4.

2 " Schol. Rom,," p. 111. Here the term " Sawtheologen " occurs.

3 Cp. Braun, " Concupiscenz," p. 89.

4 Fr. Loofs, " Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.,"4 190G,
p. 690. Cp. above, pp. 127 ff., 130 ff., etc., on Luther's ignorance of
Scholasticism.

FAULT-FINDING WITH THE CLERGY 283

my gorge rise."1 Criticism of ecclesiastical conditions was also
quite permissible when made in the right way and in the proper
quarters ; examples of such criticism were not wanting among
the saintly mediaeval reformers, and they might have been accept-
able to the authorities of the Church, or, at any rate, could not
have been repudiated by them.

But when Luther is dealing with the faults of the clergy,
secular or regular, he looks at everything with a jaundiced eye
as being saturated with arrogance, avarice and every vice, and
seems to fancy all have become traitors to God's cause. His love
of exaggeration and his want of charity override everything,
nor do these faults disappear with advancing years, but become
still more marked. Never was there an eye more keen to detect
the faults of others, never a tongue more ready to amplify them.
And yet he, who does not scruple to support his fierce and
passionate denunciations by the coarsest and most unfair generali-
sations, is himself the first to admit in his Commentary on Romans
that : " There are fools who put the fault they have to find with
a priest or religious to the account of all and then abuse them all
with bitterness, forgetting that they themselves are full of
imperfections." 2

He announces to his hearers in 1516 that, " to-day the clergy
are enveloped in thick darkness " ; "it troubles no one that all
the vices prevail among the faithful, pride, impurity, avarice,
quarrelling, anger, ingratitude " and every other vice ; " these
things you may do as much as you like so long as you respect
the rights and liberties of the Church ! but if you but touch these,
then you are no longer a true son and friend of the Church."
The clergy, he continues, have received many possessions and
liberties from the secular princes, but now they are quarrelling
with their patrons and insisting on their exemptions: "Bad,
godless men strut about with the gifts of their benefactors and
think they are doing enough when they mutter a few prayers
on their behalf," " and yet Paul when describing the priest and
his duties never even mentioned prayer [!]. But what he did
mention, that no one complies with to-day. . . . They are
priests only in appearance. . . . Where do you find one who
carries out the intention of the Founders ? Therefore they
deserve that what they have received [from the princes] should
be taken away from them again."3

"Asa matter of fact," the mystic continues, quite manifestly
conveying a hint to the secular authorities, " it were better, and
assuredly safer, if the temporalities of the clergy were placed
under the control of the worldly authorities . . . then they would
at least be obliged to stand in awe of others and would be more
cautious in all matters."

" Up to now the laity have been too unlettered, and from
ignorance have allowed themselves to be led, though full of
complaints and bitterness against the clergy. But now they

1 August 24, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 47.

2 " Schol. Rom.," p. 335. 3 Ibid., p. 300.

284 LUTHER THE MONK

are beginning to be aware of the secret of our iniquity ( ' nosse
mysteria iniquitatis nostra} ') and to examine into our duties.
... In addition to this, it seems to me that the secular authorities
fulfil their obligations better than our ecclesiastical rulers. They
rigorously punish theft and murder, at least when the lawyers
do not intervene with their artfulness. The Church authorities,
on the other hand, only proceed against those who infringe their
liberties, possessions and rights, and are filled with nothing but
pomp, avarice, immorality and disputatiousness." In the course
of this strong outburst, which gives us an insight into the working
of his mind, he goes on to brand the higher clergy as " whited
sepulchres " and as the " most godless breakers of the law," who
purposely promote only stupid fellows to the priesthood, or
even to the most exalted offices. Here the intemperance of his
language is already that of his later days, though a year was yet
to elapse before he published his Indulgence theses.

Strictures on the use of Indulgences occur, however, among
his criticisms dating from this time. He attacks the " unlearned
preachers " whose promises of Indulgences in return for dona-
tions for the building of churches, or similar pious objects,
attract the people, though the latter are " altogether careless
about fulfilling the duties of their calling." He lays to the charge
of the Pope and the Bishops not merely the real abuses in the
preaching of Indulgences — as though they had been aware of
them all — but also the making of Indulgences to depend on
offerings ; all the Bishops are, however, on the path to hell,
and intent on seducing the people from the true service of God.1

He had, as we have seen, praised the worldly authorities at
the expense of the ecclesiastical dignitaries, and now we find
him introducing into his theological lectures a strange eulogy of
Frederick, his Elector : " You, Prince Frederick, are yet to be
guided by a good angel, therefore be on the watch. How greatly
have you already been tried by injustice, and how rightly might
you have taken up arms ! You have suffered, you remained
peaceable. I wonder, were you calling to mind your sins, and
wishing thereby to confess them and do penance ? " To this
the mystic himself prudently replies : " I know not," and adds :
" Perhaps it was merely the fear of possibly getting the worse."2
The exhortations he sees fit to address to his sovereign are
directed not so much against selfishness or other faults, but
rather against his supposed excessive piety ; he is blamed for
frequently postponing audiences on the plea that he must be
present at prayers or Divine Service, and yet, Luther thinks,
" we ought to be resigned and indifferent to go wherever the
Lord calls us and not attach ourselves obstinately to anything " ;3
another complaint was that the Elector was too much given to
imitating the Bishop in the collecting of relics. The Elector's
love for rare relics was indeed notorious, and, as a matter of fact,
Luther himself was of service to the Elector in this very matter
at the time when Staupitz was negotiating for him at St. Ursula's

1 "Schol. Rom.," p. 243. 2 Ibid., p. 272. 3 Ibid., p. 287.

PRAISES THE ELECTOR 285

in Cologne. We hear of this in a letter, in which Luther also
sends his thanks to the Elector for his present of a new cowl
(cucullus) "of really princely cloth."1

When, after his second course of lectures on the Psalms,
Luther commenced the publishing of an amended edition he
dedicated this, his first effort in biblical exegesis, to the Elector,
with a preface in the form of a panegyric couched in the most
fulsome language.2 The Elector, Luther tells him, possessed all
the qualities of a good ruler in no common degree ; his love of
learning not only rendered him immortal himself, but conferred
this quality on all those who were permitted to belaud him.
Under his rule " pure theology triumphed " ; secular rulers had,
by promoting learning, taken precedence of spiritual dignitaries,
" for the Church's exuberant riches and her powerful influence
did not avail her much."3 Would that there were other such
temporal princes as Frederick, who, as Staupitz had said, was
able to discourse on Holy Scripture as learnedly and acutely as
the Pope himself (" vel sanctissimum et sum/mum, pontificem
deceret ") ; whose utterance bore witness to the " sagacity of his
judgment," filled Luther with love for such a sovereign and
made him strong in the defence of Holy Scripture against all
Scotists, Thomists, Albertists and Moderns (Nominalists). It
was only on account of his opponents, who scoffed at the Bible
and wished to replace God's Word by their own, that he had been
induced to quit his beloved solitude and retirement ; indeed,
he felt quite unworthy to wear the Doctor's cap which the Prince
had so kindly bought for him, 4 and merely did so from obedience ;
the Prince had been more careful for him than he was for himself,
had upheld him in his professorship and not allowed him to suffer
expulsion, however much he (Luther) had desired to suffer this
at the hands of his enemies.

The clever eulogist appears soon to have gained for himself
great favour at Court. Barely two months after the letter
spoken of, he requests of the sovereign, in the name of his priory,
permission " for the monks to build a chamber outside the walls
in the moat." The intention was to erect a privy in the town
moat for the use of the monastery, which was situated close to
the walls. At the same time he begs that a black cappa (habit)
which had been promised him in 1516 or 1517 might now be
bestowed upon him, and refers to his dedication of the Psalter
as perhaps deserving some such reward ; he also asks the Prince
to include in his gift a white cloak, which he might perchance
have merited by the " Apostle," i.e. by his Commentary on the

1 To Spalatin, December 14, 1516, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 73.

2 The Operationes in Psalmos with the letter of May 27, 1519,
" Brief wechsel," 1, p. 480 ff.

3 " Adeo infeliciter cessit opulentia et potentatus ecclesice" Ibid.,
p. 482.

4 In " Brief wechsel," 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.

286 LUTHER THE MONK

Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, upon which he was at that
time engaged.1

Such little touches often reveal the spiritual atmosphere in
which a man moves, and by which he is influenced, quite as
well as more important matters.

The frightful accusations which Luther brings forward
in his Commentary on Romans against the state of morals
in Rome belong to a somewhat earlier period ; their tone
is such as to lead one to fear the worst for the author's
submission to the highest authorities in the Church. The
language St. Bernard employed, though he too reproved
the immorality of the Papal residence, is quite different
in tone from the arrogant words of the Wittenberg Doctor ;
in the former the most grievous reproofs are mitigated by
the warm esteem the saint displays for authority as such,
and by filial affection for the Church ; in the latter there is
nothing but bitterness. Such outbursts of spite confirm
our previous observations concerning the results of Luther's
journey to Rome. His indignation with what he had seen
or heard during his visit to Rome of the moral conditions
under Alexander VI and Julius II became gradually more
apparent.

" At Rome," he exclaims, " they no longer recognise any
restrictions on their liberty, everything is set aside by means
of dispensations. They have arrogated to themselves
freedom of the flesh in every particular."2

" Rome to-day has sunk back to its old heathen state,"
where, as Paul says, licentiousness prevailed.3

" To-day Rome drags the whole world with her into the
puddle ; she far exceeds in unbridled luxury even ancient
Rome, and stands in even greater need of apostolic messengers
from God than she did at the beginning. My only hope is
that these may come to her in friendly guise and not to
execute stern justice."4

" We may well be amazed at the thick darkness of these
times." " It matters nothing to the Church authorities
though you be steeped in all the vices on the list drawn up
by Paul (2 Tim. iii. 2 ff.) ; the sins may cry to Heaven for
vengeance, but that does not matter, you are still looked

1 Letter of middle of May, 1519, " Werke," Erl. ed., 53, p. 9.
(" Brief wechsel," 2, p. 35.)

2 " Schol. Rom.," p. 319. 3 Ibid., p. 310. 4 Ibid.

PRIDE, ANGER AND SENSUALITY 287

upon as the most devout of Christians so long as you respect
the rights and liberties of the Church."1 " We have mere
phantom priests, who are well supported by phantom revenues.
The priests are such only in name."2 " Those who ought to
keep order are themselves the most godless transgressors, ' ' 3 etc.

Pride, everywhere, is, he thinks, the main cause of the
corruption of the times. The humility of Christ is forgotten,
and each one wants to exalt himself and amend others
instead of himself.

The worst kind of pride, he constantly declares, is that
which exalts its own good works in the sight of God. This
spiritual overbearing is the reason why the world is filled
with the heresy of the Pelagians ; the sovereign efficacy of
grace is not recognised.4 Almost the whole Church is over-
turned because men have put their trust in the deceptive
doctrines of the Schoolmen, which are opposed to grace,
" for owing to this, all commit sin with impunity . . . and
have lost all sense of fear."5

In 1514 we hear Luther asserting, that of the three vices,
sensuality, anger and pride, pride was the most difficult to
overcome, a warning which his own experience had con-
firmed all too surely. " This vice," he complains, " arises
even from victory over the other vices."8 One wonders
whether he is speaking here from personal experience.

We may ask a similar question with regard to the two
other faults mentioned by him, anger and sensuality. Putting
aside anger, the effects of which upon himself he frequently
admits, we find that he also gives an answer concerning the
third temptation. He writes in 1519 of the experiences of
his earlier years with regard to sensuality : " It is a shameful
temptation, I have had experience of it. You yourselves
are, I fancy, not ignorant of it. Oh, I know it well, when the
devil comes and tempts us and excites the flesh. Therefore
let a man consider well and prove himself whether he is
able to live in chastity, for when one is on heat, I know well
what it is, and when temptation then comes upon a man
he is already blind," etc.7

1 "Schol. Rom.," p. 298. 2 Ibid., p. 299. 3 Ibid., p. 309.

* Ibid., p. 322 f. 5 Ibid., p. 323.

6 " Werke," Weim. ed., 3, p. 486. Cp. p. 207. Commentary on
Psalms.

7 From the sermon on married life, 1519, led., "Werke" Weim. ed.,
9, p. 213.

288 LUTHER THE MONK

In his later years he also refers to the " very numerous
temptations " which he underwent at the monastery, and
of which he complained to his confessor ; the more he
fought against them, the stronger they became.1

What he says of falling into sin is very instructive from
the psychological point of view. It serves as a stepping-
stone to his views on penance.

" Even to-day," he writes in his Commentary on Romans
where he deals with hardened sinners, " God allows men to be
tempted by the devil, the world and the flesh until they are in
despair, choosing thus to humble His elect and lead them to put
their trust in Him alone without presuming upon their own will
and works. Yet He often, especially in our day, incites the devil
to plunge His elect into dreadful sins beneath which they languish,
or at least allows the devil ever to hinder their good resolutions,
making them do the contrary of what they wish to do, so that
it becomes plain to them that it is not they who will or perform
what is good. And yet by means of all this God leads them
against their expectations [to His grace] and sets them free while
they are sighing because they desire and do so much that is evil,
and are unable to desire and do the good they would. Yea, it
is thus that God manifests His strength and that His name is
magnified over the whole earth."2 This passage is scored in the
margin of the original MS. Was it his, intention to include himself
among those who are always hindered by the devil from doing
what is good, or even among those whom he plunges into dreadful
sins, who despair and are then at last led by God to His grace
and become promoters of the glory of His name ? A certain
resemblance which this description bears to other passages in
which he recounts his temptations, despair and supposed de-
liverance and election makes this seem possible, though it is by
no means certain.

We are more inclined to apply to him a remarkable description,
which he gives in another passage of the Commentary on Romans,
of the devil's action on a man whom he wishes to lead astray.
Man's fall under the bondage of sin and his resuscitation by
grace engage his attention often and with a singular intensity,
but generally speaking he makes no mention of contrition or
satisfaction, but only of a covering over with the righteousness
of Christ. The description in question, given in eloquent language,
is based on the well-known passage in Romans hi. 28: "We
account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the
law." This is the verse in which Luther later, in his translation,
interpolated the word "alone" ("by faith alone"), but on
which he does not as yet bestow any particular attention. On
the contrary, he commences his exposition of this text with the

1 " Opp. Lat. exeg.," 19, p. 100.

2 P. 228. Where he here speaks of " sin," it is more probable that
he means concupiscence.

ON DOWN-HEARTEDNESS 289

statement : " Righteousness must, indeed, be sought by works,
but these are not the works of the law because they are performed
by grace and in faith."1

He goes on to mention four classes of men who are led away
by the devil in their esteem and practice of works.2 The first
he draws away from all good works and entangles in manifest
sin. The second, who think themselves righteous, he makes
tepid and careless. The third, also righteous in their own eyes,
he renders over-zealous and superstitious, so that they set them-
selves up as a class apart and despise others ; they have been
mentioned over and over again in the above pages, in recounting
his warfare with the Observants, the " Spirituals," the proud
self-righteous, etc.

The fourth and last class might possibly include himself.

" The fourth class consists of those who, at the instigation of
the devil, desire to be free from any sin, pure and holy. But as
they, nevertheless, feel that they commit sin and that all they
do is tainted with evil, the devil terrifies them to such an extent
with fear of the judgments of God and scruples of conscience that
they almost despair. He is acquainted with each one's disposition
and tempts him accordingly. As they are zealous in the pursuit
of righteousness the devil is unable to turn them aside from it so
readily. Therefore he sets himself to fill them with enthusiasm,
so that they wish to free themselves too speedily from all trace
of concupiscence. This they are unable to do, and consequently
he succeeds in making them sad, downcast and faint-hearted,
yea, even in causing them unendurable anxiety of conscience
and despair."

When prescribing the remedy, he begins to use the first person
plural. " Therefore there is nothing for us to do but to make
the best of things and to remain in sin. We must sigh to be set
free, hoping in God's mercy. When a man desires to be cured
he may, if in too great a hurry, have a worse relapse. His cure
can only take place slowly and many weaknesses must be borne
with during convalescence. It is enough that sin be displeasing,
though it cannot be altogether expelled. For Christ bears every-
thing, if only it is displeasing to us ; His are the sins not ours,
and, here below, His righteousness is our property."

We may take that portion of the description where the
first person is used as an account of his own state. Here he
is describing his own practice. This passage, which in
itself admits of a good interpretation and might be made use
of by a Catholic ascetic, must be read in connection with
Luther's doctrine that concupiscence is sin. Looking at it
in this light, the sense in which he understands displeasure
with sin becomes clear, also why, in view of the ineradicable
nature of concupiscence, he is willing to console himself

1 " Schol. Rom.," p. 100. 2 Ibid., p. 102.

" i.—V

290 LUTHER THE MONK

with the idea that " Christ bears it all." His dislike of
concupiscence is entirely different from contrition for sin.
The young Monk frequently felt- himself oppressed by an
aversion for concupiscence, but of contrition for sin he
scarcely ever speaks, or only in such a way as to raise serious
doubts with regard to his idea of it and the manner in which
he personally manifested it, as the passages about to be
quoted will show. The practice of making Christ's righteous-
ness our own, saying, " His are the sins," etc., he does not
recommend merely in the case of concupiscence, but also
in that of actual sins ; it should, however, be noted that the
latter may quite well be displeasing to us without there
being any contrition in the theological sense, particularly
without there being perfect contrition.

Luther is here describing the remedy which he himself
applies in place of real penance, wholesome contrition and
compunction. It is to replace all the good resolutions
which strengthen and fortify the will, and all penitential
works done in satisfaction for the guilt of sin, and this
remedy he begins to recommend to others.

His contempt for good works, for zeal in the religious life
and for any efforts at overcoming self encourage him in
these views. His new ideas as to man's inability to do any-
thing that is good, as to his want of free will to fight against
concupiscence and the sovereign efficacy of grace and
absolute predestination, all incline him to the easy road of
imputation ; finally, he caps his system by persuading
himself that only by his new discoveries, which, moreover,
are borne out by St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, can
Christ receive the honour which is His due and His Gospel
come into its rights. Such was Luther's train of thought.

The characteristic position which Luther assumed in his
early days with regard to penance and the motive of fear,
must be more closely examined in order to complete the
above account.

The Monk frankly admits, not once but often, that
inward contrition for sin was something foreign, almost
unknown, to him. The statements he makes concerning his
confessions weigh heavily in the scale when we come to
consider the question of his spiritual life.

In a passage of his Commentary on the Psalms where he would
in the ordinary course have been obliged to speak of contrition

ON CONFESSION 291

he refrains irom doing so on the plea that he has had no experience
of it, and refers his hearers to the Confessions of St. Augustine.1

He admits in his Commentary on Romans that he had struggled
with himself (" ita mecum pugnavi ") because he could not believe
that contrition and confession really cleansed him from sin, as
he had always been conscious of sin, viz. concupiscence, still
continuing within him.2

In 1518 he writes : because the evil inclination to sin always
remains in man " there are none, or at least very few, in the whole
world who have perfect contrition, and I certainly admit this
in my own case."3

According to the statements he made in later years concerning
his fruitless attempts to awaken contrition within himself, and
concerning his relations with his confessor, he must have taken
the wrong road at an early period in his religious life ; the more
earnestly he sought to conceive contrition, he says, the greater
was his trouble of mind and remorse of conscience. " I was
unable to accept ( ' non poteram admittere ' ) the absolutions and
consolations of my confessors, for I thought to myself, who knows
whether I can put faith in these words of comfort?"4 This
sentence occurs in the passage mentioned above, where he states
how he had been tranquilised by the repeated exhortations of his
preceptor to recall God's command and cultivate the virtue of
hope. 5 It is true he here ascribes the original cause of his trouble
of mind to the teaching he had received " in the schools, which
had such a bad effect on him that he could not endure to hear
the word joy mentioned." It is clear that he is here speaking
with an ulterior purpose, namely, with a view to supporting his
polemic against the Catholic Church (" meo exemplo et periculo
moniti discite ! "). But it is highly probable that his idea of
concupiscence as sin tended to confuse his conception of con-
trition, and made confession and contrition painful to him.

At a later date he opposed the Catholic doctrine of con-
trition on account of his aversion to the motive of fear of
the judgments of God.

1 See above, p. 72, n. 2.

2 " Schol. Rom.," p. 109. Cp. above, p. 92, n. 1.

3 "Sermo de pcenitentia," " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 321.

4 " Opp. Lat,exeg.," 19, p. 100. Cp. his statement in his first answer
to Prierias that zeal for sacramental penance could only endure by a
miracle, " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 649 f. On the other hand, he
speaks of experiences he had had on the reception of grace, seemingly
referring to his confessions : " Probavi scepius infusionem gratice fieri
cum magna animi concussione." This appears in the Assertio omnium
articulorum (1520). " Werke," Weim. ed., 7, p. 91 ff. " Opp. Lat. var.,"
5, p. 154. According to the teaching of all ascetics the reception of
grace imparts peace and joy in God. Luther, however, infers from his
abnormal feelings : " Sis ergo certus : simul dum homo conteritur,
simul gratia infunditur, et in medio terrore diligit iustitiam, si vere
pcenitet" Weim. ed., 7, p. 117 ; " Opp. Lat. var.," 5, p. 189.

5 See above, p. 10.

292 LUTHER THE MONK

The Church had always taught that perfect contrition
was that which proceeded from a real love of God, but that
contrition from a holy fear of God was salutary because it
involved a turning away from sin and a beginning of love.
Luther, however, at the very commencement of his new
teaching, was at pains to exclude fear as an inspiring motive.
He was determined to weed it out of the religious life as
unworthy of the service of God, quite unmindful of the
fact that it was expressly recommended by reason, by the
Fathers of the Church and by the very words of the Bible.

He says, for instance, in 1518 in his sermon on the Ten Com-
mandments, that in contrition for sin no place is to be assigned
to fear. The contrition which must be aroused is, he says, to
proceed from love alone, because that which is based on fear is
always outward, hypocritical and not lasting.1

In an earlier sermon he mentions the two kinds of contrition,
namely, that which, according to him, is the only true one,
" out of love of justice and of punishment," or which, in other
words, hates sin from the love of God, and that which springs
from fear, which he says is artificial and not real, and to which
he gives the nickname " gallows grief." The latter, he says,
does not make us abhor sin, but merely the punishment of sin,
and were there no punishment for sin it would at once cease,2
Hence he misapprehends the nature of imperfect contrition, for
this in reality does not desire a return to sin.

He begins his tract on Penance in 1518 with the assertion,
that contrition from the motive of fear makes a man a still
greater sinner, because it does not detach the will from sin, and
because the will would return to sin so soon as there was no
punishment to be feared.3 This contrition, he says, his oppo-
nents among the theologians defend ; they could not understand
that penance is sweet and that this sweetness leads to an abhor-
rence and hatred of sin.4

As he had banished contrition from a motive of fear, he should
have laid all the more stress upon that which springs from love.
But here he was met by a difficulty, namely, that concupiscence
still exists in man and draws him towards sin, or ra.ther, according
to Luther's ideas, of itself makes him a real sinner, so that no
actual turning away from sin can take place in the heart. What
then was to be done ? " You must," he says, " cast yourself
by prayer into God's hands so that He may account your con-
trition as real and true." " Christ will supply from His own

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 466 : " Gontritio de timore inferni et
peccati turpitudine est literalis, ficta et brevi durans, quia non radicata
amove, sed incussa timore tantum."

2 Sermon of October 31, 1516, " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p, 99.

3 Ibid., p. 319. 4 Ibid., p. 320.

TRUE PENANCE 293

what is wanting in yours."1 Thus we again arrive at imputation,
at a mere outward covering over of the defect of inward change.

If he looked upon penance and confession in this light,
then, indeed, they were not of a nature to satisfy and
tranquilise him.2 We may, however, remark that in the
time of his great crisis an earnest and devout fear of God
the Judge would have availed him more than all his ex-
travagant mysticism with its tendency to cast off the
bonds of fear and abolish the keeping of the law.

We shall not be wrong if we assume that the frequent
states of terror- — of which the cause lay in his temperament
rather than in his will- — had their part in his aversion to
fear and^to the idea of God's judgment. He felt himself
impelled to escape at any cost from their dominion.

Other passages^ which Luther wrote at a later date on
fear and contrition read rather differently and seem to
advocate fear as a motive. We see thereby how hard he
found it to cut himself adrift from the natural and correct
view taught by theology. He declares, for instance, later,
with great emphasis, that " true penance begins with the
fear and the judgment of God."3

He betrays in this, as in other points, his confusion and
inconsequence.4

1 " Werke," Weim. ed.,^1, p. 321 : " Oratio et agnitio atque confessio
impoznitentioz tuce, si ficta non fuerit, eo ipso faciet, ut Deics te pcenitentem
verum reputet." This quite agrees with what he had already said in a
sermon in 1515 (?) : " Etsi Deus imposuit nobis impossibilia et super
virtutem nostrum, non tamen hie ullus excusatur " ; for we cover ourselves
with Christ : " Ghristus impletionem suam nobis impertit, dum seipsum
gallinam nobis exhibet." See above, p. 80.

2 The passage already referred to in his Commentary on Romans
also comes in here, namely, where he writes that he could not under-
stand why after contrition and confession he should not consider
himself better than others who had not confessed. By this he means
to convey that the common teaching that by real contrition and con-
fession "esse omnia ablata et evacuata" led to pride, whereas accord-
ing to his idea sin still remained. Cp. Denifle- Weiss, l2, p. 455, n. 4.

3 Commentar. in Galat., ed. Irmischer, Erlangae, 1, p. 193 seq. :
" Vera poenitentia incipit a timore et iudicio Dei."

4 Cp. Galley, " Die Busslehre Luthers," 1900; Lipsius, "Luthers
Lehre von der Busse," 1902, and Kostlin's strange attempts at explana-
tion, " Luthers Theologie," l2, p. 131 ff. W. Hermann, "Die Busse der
evangelischen Christen," in "Zeitschr. f iir Theol. und Kirche," 1, 1891,
p. 30, says : " It is true that Luther never entirely forsook the true
idea on this point (Penance), which he had arrived at with so much
effort. But the difficulties of Church government led him to relegate
this idea to the background and to return to the narrow Roman

294 LUTHER THE MONK

He is utterly unfair to the Church and to her theology
when he falsely asserts that she had admitted contrition
from fear alone, i.e. to the utter, exclusion of love ; every
kind of fear, he says maliciously, was recognised as suffi-
cient for receiving absolution, even that " gallows grief "
which abhorred sin solely from fear of punishment and with
the intention of returning to it if no punishment existed
(timor serviliter servilis, as it was subsequently termed by
theologians). This reproach did not strike home to the
theologians or to the Church. Theological and moral
treatises there were in plenty, which, like the Fathers of the
Church and the mediaeval Doctors, taught in express terms
the advantage of perfect contrition and exhorted the
faithful to it. Indeed, most of the popular manuals merely
taught that sin must be repented of for God's sake, from
love of God, without even mentioning simple attrition. It
was not only generally recognised and taken for granted
that the lower, imperfect contrition, i.e. that which arises
from fear, in order to be a means of forgiveness in the
Sacrament of Penance, must include a firm resolution of not
returning to sin, but it was set down as requisite that this
so-called "servile" fear (timor servilis) must be coupled
with a commencement of love of God, or else be of such a
nature as to lead up to it. It is sufficient to open the works
in circulation in the theological schools at the turn of the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to see at what length and
with what care these questions were discussed. It cannot,
however, be denied that some few of the later scholastic
theologians- — among them, significantly enough, Johann
Paltz, preceptor in the Augustinian monastery at Erfurt
at the time Luther entered — did not express themselves
clearly, and that some other theologians defended views
which were not correct.1

Catholic view of the Sacrament of Penance." And also ibid., p. 70 :
" With regard to the questions affecting contrition, the Reformers
practically returned to the standpoint of the Roman Church."

1 For the manner in which contrition was taught before Luther's
time in popular works such as are here being considered, see the articles
of N. Paulus in the Innsbruck " Zeitschrift fur kathol. Theol.," 28, 1904 ;
p. 1 ff., on the German confession-books ; p. 449 ff. on the German
books of edification ; p. 682 ff. on the German books on preparation
for death. Contrition arising from fear alone is not represented as
sufficient in any of the numerous confession-books at that time.
Ibid., pp. 34, 449. Among the authors of works of piety there is only
one, viz. the Augustinian Johann Paltz, in his " Celifodina" (Heavenly

TRUE PENANCE 295

But whether such theologians exerted a positive or
negative influence on Luther we do not know. One thing
is certain, however, namely, that he was influenced chiefly
by his own desire to free himself from what he looked upon
as an oppressive yoke and that his self-sufficiency and ignor-
ance speedily led him to fancy it his duty to confront the
theology of previous ages with his epoch-making discovery
regarding the doctrine of fear and penance.

This process is confirmed by a letter of his addressed to
Staupitz, his esteemed Superior, at a time when the commo-

Mine), to admit that contrition from the motive of fear together with
the priest's absolution sufficed for the remission of sin ; " but even ho
requires, in addition to an earnest turning away from sin, a certain
striving after perfect contrition, or love ; he looks upon imperfect
contrition rather as a means of arriving at perfect contrition ; he is
even very anxious to lead the faithful to the higher level of perfect
contrition." Paulus, p. 485. Cp. on Paltz, p. 475-9. Of the
theologians cp. more particularly Gabriel Biel, whose writings Luther
had studied, in his " Collectorium circa 4 libros sententiarum," Tubingse,
1501, 1. 4, dist. 35, q. unica, art. 1. Here he makes a distinction
between " timor servilis," which is ready to sin if there were no punish-
ment, and " timor, qui non includit hanc deformitatem." He admits
with regard to the latter : " est tamen bonus et utilis, per quern fit
paulalim consuetudo ad actus bonos de genere exercendos et malos vitandos,
quo pro3paratur locus charitatis." In Art. 3 he declares the latter fear
to be a gift of the Holy Ghost. But — in complete contradiction to
the accusation which Luther makes — he teaches that contrition merely
from fear is not sufficient, and requires a contrition from love. In the
same way Nicholas von Dinkelsbuhl in his Tractatus (Argentina), 15 1G,
fol. 71) rejects the fear which is not in any way allied with love, but
considers it, together with the latter, wholesome as forming a com-
mencement of contrition. The Dominican, Johann Herolt, whoso
sermons were widely disseminated, teaches in the Sermones de tempore
(1418) and the Sermones super epistolas (1439 and 1444) that to avoid
sin merely from the fear of punishment is sinful, but he is thinking of
the so-called timor serviliter servilis, in which the voluntary attachment
to sin still remains. He, as well as some others, omits to point out
that, in addition to the bad servile fear, there was also a wholesome fear
(N. Paulus, in his art. on Herolt, " Zeitschrift f. kathol. Theol.," 26,
1902, p. 428 f.). The Franciscan, Stephen Brulefer, in his " Opuscula "
(Parisiis, 1500, fol. 24 seq.) opposes certain theologians who had
rejected servile fear as absolutely sinful ; fear (which really excludes
sin), he says, is a gift of the Holy Ghost, and theologians who teach
otherwise are " prozdicatores prazsumptuosi, indiscreti et insipientes,^
and they deserved to be punished as heretics. It was only Luther's
erroneous teaching which led theologians to formulate this doctrine
with greater exactitude. Cp. A. W. Hunzinger, " Lutherstudien," 2
Heft. Abt. 1 : " Das Furchtproblem in der katholischen Lehre von
Augustin bis Luther," Leipzig, 1907. In this article the author wishes
to furnish an introduction to Luther's doctrine of fear, but starts with
the assumption that the will to sin is an essential of the fear of punish-
ment. On Hunzinger, see the " Hist. Jahrb.," 28, 1907, p. 413 fr

296 LUTHER THE MONK

tion caused by his Indulgence theses was in full swing,
which gives us a picture of his mental state.1 In it he says :

" The word which I hated most in all the Scriptures was the
word penance. Nevertheless [when performing penance and going
to confession], I played the hypocrite bravely before God,
attempting to wring out of myself an imaginary and artificial
love." He also grumbles here about the " works of penance
and the insipid satisfactions and the wearisome confession " ;
such a prominent position ought not to be assigned to them ;
the ordinary instructions and the modus confitendi contained
nothing but the most oppressive tyranny of conscience. He had
always felt this, and in his trouble it had been to him like a ray
from heaven when Staupitz once told him : " True penance is
that only which begins with the love of God and of justice, and
what the instructions represent as the last and crown of all is
rather the commencement and the starting-point of penance,
namely, love." This precious truth he had, on examination,
found to be absolutely confirmed by Holy Scripture (" s. scrip-
turce verba undique mihi colludebant ") — Luther had a curious
knack of finding in Scripture everything he wanted — even the
Greek term for penance, metanoia, led up to the same conclusion,
whereas the Latin " poenitentiam agere" implied effort and was
therefore misleading. Thus Staupitz's words had turned the
bitter taste of the word penance into sweetness for him. " God's
commandments always become sweet to us when we do not
merely content ourselves with reading them in books ; we must
learn to understand them in the wounds of our Sweetest Saviour."

The Monk was well aware that such mystical utterances
were sure of finding a welcome echo with the influential
Vicar of the whole Augustinian Congregation, himself a
mystic. He sends him with the same letter his long Latin
defence of his Indulgence theses (Resolutiones), which
Staupitz was to forward to the Pope.

He at the same time expresses some of his thoughts
concerning the connection between his doctrine of penance
and the controversy on Indulgences which had just com-
menced, probably hoping that Staupitz would also acquaint
Rome with them. These we cannot pass over without
remark in concluding our consideration of Luther's doctrine
on penance. The Indulgence-preachers, he says, must be
withstood because they are overturning the whole system
of penance ; not only do they set up penitential works and
satisfaction as the principal thing, but they extol them, solely
with a view to inducing the faithful to secure the remission

1 May 30, 1518, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 195.

STAUPITZ AS LUTHER'S ABETTOR 297

of satisfaction by their rich offerings in return for Indul-
gences. Therefore he has been obliged, though unwillingly,
to emerge from his retirement in order to defend the doctrine
that it is better to make real satisfaction than merely to
have it remitted by securing an Indulgence.

Staupitz, a short-sighted man, was not to be convinced
that, by Luther's teaching and the commotion which it was
arousing, the very existence of the Augustinian Congregation
was endangered and the Catholic Church herself menaced
in her dogma and discipline.

Instead of watching over the communities committed
to his care he spent his days in travelling from place to
place, a welcome and witty guest at the tables of great men,
devoting his spare time to writing pious and learned books.
The sad instances of disobedience, dissension and want of
discipline which became more and more prevalent in his
monasteries did not induce him to lay a restraining hand
upon them. Too many exemptions from regular observance
and the common life had already been permitted in the
Congregation in the past, and of this the effect was highly
pernicious.1 Luther himself had scarcely ever had the
opportunity of acquiring any practical experience of the
monastic life at its best during his conventual days ; it
offered no splendid picture which might have roused his
admiration and enthusiasm. This circumstance must be
taken into account in considering his growing coldness in
his profession and his gradually increasing animosity
towards the religious life. He and Staupitz helped to destroy
the fine foundation of Andreas Proles at a time when it
already showed signs of deterioration.

On one occasion, when referring to his administration,
Staupitz told Luther, that at first he had sought to carry
out his plans for the good of the Order, later he had followed

1 Apart from Luther, we have another example of the same kind in
Gabriel Zwilling, who also left the Church, and of whom Luther says
in a letter to Johann Lang at Erfurt (March 1, 1517, " Brief wechsel," 1,
p. 87 f.), that he was sending him to the Erfurt monastery in accord-
ance with Staupitz's directions, and that care was to be taken " ut
conventualiter se gerat : scis enim quod necdum ritus et mores ordinis
viderit aut didicerit" Thus he had been allowed to live at Witten-
berg without conforming to community rule, unless, indeed, we read
the passage as implying that at the Wittenberg monastery no
attention was paid to the rule by anybody.

298 LUTHER THE MONK

the advice of the Fathers of the Order, and, then, entrusted
the matter to God, but, now, he was letting things take
their course. Luther himself adds when recounting this :
" Then I came on the scene and started something new."1
It is a proof of the weakness which was coming upon the
institution, that a man holding principles such as "Luther
was advocating in his lectures and sermons should have
been allowed to retain for three years the position of Vicar
with jurisdiction over eleven monasteries. When he laid
down his office in the Chapter at Heidelberg in 1518 we do
not even learn that the Chapter carried out the measures
which had meanwhile been decreed against Luther by the
General of the Augustinians at Rome. The election of the
Prior of Erfurt, Johann Lang, Luther's friend and sym-
pathiser, as his successor, and the Heidelberg disputation
in the Augustinian monastery of that town, of which the
result was a victory for the new teaching, show sufficiently
the feelings of the Chapter. This election was the final
triumph of the non-Observantine party.

A later hand has added against Lang's name in the Register
of the University of Erfurt the words " Hussita apostata"2
intended to stigmatise his falling away to the Lutheran
heresy comparable only with that of Hus. On leaving the
Order he wrote an insulting vindication of his conduct, in
which among other things he says all the Priors are donkeys.
While he was Prior at Erfurt, a Prior was appointed at
Wittenberg whom Luther, as Rural Vicar, raised to this
dignity almost before he had finished his year of noviceship.
Only Luther's strange power over men can account for the
fact that so many of the monks were convinced that he was
animated by the true Spirit of God in his new ideas with
regard to conventual life and religion generally, and even
in his overhauling of theology. Later, when the Catholic
Church had spoken, they did not see their way to retract
and submit, but preferred to marry. Staupitz himself, the
inexperienced theologian, deceived by his protege's talents,
often said to him : " Christ speaks through you." It is
true, that, at a later date, he sternly represented to Luther
that he was going too far. After most of the monks had
ranged themselves under the new standard, their apathetic

1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 69.

2 Kolde, " Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation," p. 262.

LUTHER AN EXTREMIST 299

and disappointed Superior withdrew to a Catholic monastery
at Salzburg, where he expired in peace in 1524 as a Bene-
dictine Abbot.

At that period Church discipline in Germany was already
ruined. The man who was responsible for the downfall
reveals a mental state capable of going to any extreme
when in 1518 he writes to his fatherly friend Staupitz in
almost fanatical language : " Let Christ see to it whether
the words I have hitherto spoken are mine or His. Without
His permission no Pope or Prince can give a decision (Cp. Prov.
xxi. 1). ... I have no temporal possessions to lose, I have
only my weak body, tried by many labours. Should they
desire to take my life by treachery or violence they will
but shorten my existence by a few hours. I am content
with my sweetest Saviour and Redeemer, our Lord Jesus
Christ. Him I will praise as long as life lasts (Ps. ciii. 33).
Should others refuse to sing with me, what matters it ?
Let them howl alone if it pleases them. May our Lord
Jesus Christ ever preserve you, my sweetest father."1

The ultra-spiritualism which had cast its spell over Luther
was compounded, as we may see from what has. gone before,
of pseudo-mysticism, bad theology, a distaste for practical
works of piety, a tendency to polemics and a misguided
zeal for reform, not to speak of other elements. This it
was which animated him during the years which preceded
his public apostasy. On the other hand, in the subsequent
struggle against the Church it is rather less apparent, being,
to a certain extent, kept within bounds by the conflict he
was obliged to wage in his own camp against dangerous
fanatics such as Miinzer and Carlstadt. Nevertheless, his
spirit had not been entirely tamed, and, when occasion
arose, as we shall see later, was still capable of all its former
violence.

The Monk, at the time he was at work on the Epistle to
the Romans, by dint of studying the Bible and Tauler, had,
as he thought, attained to the mystical light of a higher
knowledge, and begins accordingly to speak of hearing the
inward voice. He tries to persuade himself that he hears
this voice speaking in his soul ; he looks upon it as so im-
perative that he is obliged, so he says, to do what it com-
1 Letter of May 30, 1518, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 199.

300 LUTHER THE MONK

mands, " whether it be foolish or evil or great or small."1
Thus the way is already paved for his mysterious compre-
hension of the Scriptures through the inner word, as his
letter to Spalatin shows ;2 we have also here the beginning
of what he supposed was the ratification of his Divine
mission as proclaimer of the new teaching.

Even before much was known of the data furnished by
the Commentary on Romans regarding Luther's develop-
ment, Fr. Loofs, on the strength of the fragments which
Denifle had made public, ventured to predict that, on the
publication of the whole work, it would be seen, " that Luther
was at that time following a road which might justly be
described as a peculiar form of quietistic mysticism."3
To-day we must go further and say that Luther's whole
character was steeped in ultra-spiritualism.

Johann Adam Mohler says of Luther's public work as
a teacher : "In his theological views he showed himself a
one-sided mystic."4 He adds, " had he lived in the second
century Luther would have been a gnostic like Marcion,
with some of whose peculiarities he is in singular agreement,"
a statement which is borne out by what we have seen of
Luther's work so far. Neander, the Protestant historian,
also compares the growth and development of Luther's
mind with that of Marcion.5 Neander looks upon Marcion
as Luther's spiritual comrade, in fact as a Protestant,
because he, like the founder of Protestantism, emphasised
the evil in man everywhere, set up an antagonism between
righteousness and grace, between the law and the gospel,
and preached freedom from the works of the law. This
Marcion did by appealing to the gnosis, or deeper knowledge.
Luther likewise bases his very first utterances on this
teaching and appeals to the more profound theology ; he
possesses that seductive enthusiasm which Marcion also
displayed at the commencement of his career. Soon we
shall see that Luther, again like Marcion, brushed aside
such books of the Bible as stood in his way ; the canon of
Holy Scripture must be brought into agreement with his
special conception of doctrine, and he and his pupils amplified
and altered this doctrine, even in its fundamentals, to such

1 See above, p. 95. 2 See below, p. 323.

3 " Deutsch-evangelische Blatter," 32, 1907, p. 537.

4 " Kirchengesch.," ed. by P. Gams, 3, 1868, p. 106.

5 " Kirchengesch.," 1, p. 782.

AN INCARNATION OF PARADOX 301

a degree, that the words which Tertullian applied to Marcion
might quite fit Luther too : " nam et quotidie reformant
Mud," i.e. their gospel.1 Luther at the very outset obscured
the conception of God by his doctrine of absolute predestina-
tion to hell. Marcion, it is true, went much further than
Luther in obfuscating the Christian teaching with regard
to God by setting up an eternal twofold principle, of good
and evil. The Wittenberg Professor never dreamt of so
radical a change in the doctrine respecting God, and in
comparison with that of Marcion this part of his system is
quite conservative.

We find in Luther, from the beginning of his career,
together with his rather gloomy ultra-spiritualism, another
characteristic embracing a number of heterogeneous quali-
ties, and which we can only describe as grotesque. Side by
side with his love of extremes, we find an ultra-conservative
regard for the text of Holy Scripture as he understood it,
no matter how allegorical his pet interpretation might be.
Again, the pious mysticism of his language scarcely agrees
with the practical disregard he manifested for his profession.
To this must be added, on the one hand, his tendency to
spring from one subject to another, and the restlessness
which permeates his theological statements, and on the
other, his ponderous Scholasticism. Again we have the
digressions in which he declaims on public events, and,
besides, his incorrect and uncharitable criticisms ; here
he displays his utter want of consideration, his ignorance
of the world and finally a tempestuous passion for freedom
in all things, which renders him altogether callous to the
vindication of their rights by others and makes him sigh
over the countless " fetters of men."2 All this, taken in con-
nection with his unusual talent, shows that Luther, though
a real genius and a man of originality, was inclined to be
hysterical. How curiously paradoxical his character was
is revealed in his exaggerated manner of speech and his
incessant recourse to antithesis.

With an unbounded confidence in himself and all too
well aware of the seduction exercised by his splendid talents,
he yet does not scruple to warn others with the utmost

1 " Adversus Marcion.," 4, c. 5.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 2, p. 576 : In the " wretched study of right
and law " we find everywhere the comfortless fetters of precepts.
" 0 re^liUa" he cries, " quorum non est numerus ! "

302 LUTHER THE MONK

seriousness against their " inclinations to arrogance, avarice
and ambition," and to represent pride as the cardinal sin.1
He is keen to notice defects in earlier theologians, but an
unhappy trait of his own blinds him to the fact that the
Church, as the invincible guardian of truth, must soon rise
up against him.

He has already discovered a new way of salvation which
is to tranquilise all, and yet he will be counted, not among
those who feel sure of their salvation, but among the' pious
who are anxious and troubled about their state of grace,
" who are still in fear lest they fall into wickedness, and,
therefore, through fear, become more and more deeply
steeped in humility in doing which they render God gracious
to them."2 The assurance of salvation by faith alone, the
sola fides of a later date, he still protests against so
vigorously, that, when he fancies he espies it in his oppo-
nents in any shape or form, he attacks them as " a pestilential
crew," who speak of the signs of grace and thereby, as he
imagines, lull men into security.

The last words show that the process of development is
not yet ended. What we have considered above was merely
the first of the two stages which he traversed before finally
arriving at the conception of his chief doctrine.3

1 Cp. Braun, " Concupiscenz," p. 22.

2 " Schol. Rom.," p. 323.

3 For the second stage, see ch. x. 1-2.

CHAPTER VIII

THE COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
FIRST DISPUTATIONS AND FIRST TRIUMPHS

1. "The Commencement of the Gospel Business." Exposition
of the Epistle to the Galatians (1516-17)

Luther's friends and admirers were at a later date loud
in their praise of the lectures on the Epistle to the Romans
and on that to the Galatians which he commenced imme-
diately after, and looked upon these as marking the dawn
of a new epoch in theology. Luther himself, with more
accuracy, designated the first disputations, of which we
shall come to speak presently, as the "commencement of
the gospel business."

Melanchthon in his short sketch of Luther's life speaks pomp-
ously of these lectures and manifests his entire unacquaintance
with the old Church and the truths for which she stood.

" In the opinion of the wise and pious the light of the new
teaching first broke forth, after a long and dark night, in the
Commentary on these Epistles. There Luther pointed out the
true distinction between the law and the gospel ; there he
refuted the Pharisaical errors which then ruled in the schools and
in the pulpits, namely, that man was able to obtain forgiveness
of sin by his own efforts and could be justified before God by the
performance of outward works. He brought back souls to the
Son of God, he pointed to the Lamb, Who bore the guilt of our
sins. He demonstrated that sin was forgiven for the sake of the
Son of God and that such a favour ought to be accepted in faith.
He also shed a great light on the other articles of faith."1

Mathesius, Luther's pupil and eulogist, in his sermons on
Luther, points out, in the following passionate words, the im-
portance of the lectures and disputations held by his master :
" Dr. Luther in all his lectures and disputations chiefly treats of
this question and article, whether the true faith by which we are
to live a Christian life and die a happy death is to be learned
from Holy Scripture or from the godless heathen Aristotle, on
whom the Doctors of the Schools attempted to base the doctrine
of the Romish Church and of the monks." " This is the chief

1 " Vita Lutheri," p. 6.

303

304 LUTHER THE MONK

issue between Dr. Luther and the Sophists. . . . Young Dr.
Luther has solemnly sworn, in due form, a true, public and godly
oath that he will hold fast by the holy and certain Scriptures ;
that it was more reasonable that we should rely in matters of
faith and conscience on the godly Scriptures rather than stake
our souls and consciences on the teaching of darksome Scotus,
foolish Albertus, questionable Thomas of Aquin, or of the
Moderns or Occamists. . . . He insisted upon this in his writings
and disputations before ever he began his controversy on In-
dulgences. For this reason he was at the time scolded as a
heretic and condemned by many because he scorned all the High
Schools and the learned men. . . . Although both his brethren
and other monks questioned all this, yet they were unable to
bring forward anything effective against him and his weighty

Luther's sermons and letters of the years 1516 to 1518
bear witness to the commotion caused by his theological
opinions.

The " new theology " which was being proclaimed at
Wittenberg was discussed with dismay, particularly at
Erfurt and in the more conservative monasteries. Andreas
Carlstadt, Luther's colleague at the University, and Peter
Lupinus, a former professor at Wittenberg, were at first
among his opponents, but were speedily won over. Carlstadt
indeed, as his 152 theses of April, 1517 show, even went
further on the new lines than Luther himself.2 Another
of his colleagues at the University, who at a later date
proved a more trustworthy ally, was Nicholas Amsdorf.
Schurf, the lawyer, was one of his most able patrons among
the lay professors. Spalatin, Court Chaplain, vigorously
but prudently advocated his cause with the Elector. At
Wittenberg Luther's party speedily gained the ascendant.
The students were full of enthusiasm for the bold, ready and
combative teacher, whose frequent use of German in his
lectures- — at that time an unheard-of thing — also pleased
them.3 The disputations, particularly, could thus be con-
ducted with less constraint and far more forcibly.

It is hard to say how far Luther realised the danger of
the path he was treading.

He wrote to Dr. Christopher Scheurl, a Nuremberg lawyer.

1 "Historien" Bl., 8', 9.

2 Cp. Barge, " Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt," 1, p. 45.

3 " Chronik," p. 28 : Luther in his lectures " turned the Latin into
German."

AUGUSTINE VERSUS ARISTOTLE 305

who was also one of his early patrons and protectors,
thanking him in the humble words of exaggerated human-
istic courtesy for the praise he had bestowed upon him :
he (Luther) recognised that the favour and applause of the
world were dangerous for us, that self-complacency and
pride were man's greatest enemies. He, nevertheless, tells
him in the same letter that Staupitz, at one time his Superior
and Director, had repeatedly said to him much to his
terror : "I praise Christ in you, and I am forced to believe
Him in you."1

In his exultation at the great success which he had
achieved at Wittenberg he says joyfully in the spring of
1517 in a letter to a friend : " Our theology and St. Augustine
are progressing happily and prevail at our University
(' procedunt et regnant," cp. Ps. xliv. 5). Aristotle is at a
discount and is hurrying to everlasting destruction. People
are quite disgusted with the lectures on the Sentences [of
Peter Lombard], and no one can be sure of an audience
unless he expounds this theology, i.e. the Bible or
St. Augustine, or some other teacher of note in the Church."2

He continued to rifle St. Augustine's writings for passages
which were apparently favourable to his views. He says,
later, that he ran through the writings of this Father of the
Church with such eagerness that he devoured rather than
read them.3 He certainly did not allow himself sufficient
time to appreciate properly the profound teachings of this,
the greatest Father of the Church, and best authority on
grace and justification. Even Protestant theologians now
admit that he quoted Augustine where the latter by no
means agrees with him.4 His own friends and contem-
poraries, such as Melanchthon, for instance, admitted the
contradiction existing between Luther's ideas and those of
St. Augustine on the most vital points ; it was, however,

1 Letter of January 27, 1517, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 83 : " Non
sine limore meo me undique iaciat et dicit : Christum in te prcedico et
credere cogor?

2 To Johann Lang, May 18, 1517, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 100.

3 From Veit Dietrich's MS. Collecta, fol. 137', in Seidemann,
" Luthers Psalmenvorlesungen," 1, p. vii. : " Augustinum vorabam,
non legebam" •

4 " One of the best points in Denifle's book is the proof he gives that
Luther misunderstood Augustine's doctrine on sin, to which he looked
as his chief support in the Church." W. Kohler, in " Ein Wort zu

i Denifles Luther," p. 27.

306 LUTHER THE MONK

essential that this Father of the Church, so Melanchthon
writes to one of his confidants, should be cited as in " entire
agreement " on account of the high esteem in which he was
generally held.1 Luther himself was, consciously or un-
consciously, in favour of these tactics ; he tampered auda-
ciously with the text of the Doctor of the Church in order
to extract from his writings proofs favourable to his own
doctrine ; or at the very least, trusting to his memory, he
made erroneous citations, when it would have been easy
for him to verify the quotations at their source ; the only
excuse to be alleged on his behalf in so grave a matter of
faith and conscience is his excessive precipitation and his
superficiality.

Luther's lectures on the Epistle to the Galatians com-
menced on October 27, 1516.

These he published in 1519 in an amended form,2 whereas
those on the Epistle to the Romans never appeared to him
fit for publication. Notes of the original lectures on Gala-
tians are said to be in the possession of Dr. Krafft of Elber-
feld, and will in all probability appear in the Weimar edition
of Luther's works.3

The lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews and on that
to Titus followed in 1517. Notes of the former, as stated
above, exist at Rome, and their approaching publication
will throw a clearer light on the change in the theological
views of their author.

In the printed Commentary on Galatians Luther's
teaching appears in a more advanced form. His develop-
ment had not only progressed during the course of the
lectures, but the time which elapsed before their publication
brought him fresh material which he introduced into the
Commentary. It would be essential to have them in the
form in which they were delivered in order to be able to
follow up the process which went forward in his mind. It
is nevertheless worth while to dwell on the work and at the
same time to compare parallel passages from Luther's
other Commentary on Galatians- — to be referred to imme-
diately-— were it only on account of the delight he takes in

1 Melanchthon to Brenz, end May, 1531, " Brief wechsel "9, p. 18 f.

2 "Werke," Weim. ed., 2, p. 436 ff. Cp. in the Erl. ed., " Com-
mentar. in Ep. ad Galat.," ed. Irmischer, 1, p. hi. seq. ; 3, p. 121 seq.

3 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 751, n. to p. 107, 2.

COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS 307

referring to this Epistle, or of the fact that his exposition of
it runs counter to the whole of tradition.

Luther ever had the highest opinion of the Epistle to the
Galatians and of his own Commentaries on it. At a later
date he says jokingly : " Epistola ad Galatas is my Epistle
to which I have plighted my troth ; my own Katey von
Bora."1 Melanchthon praises Luther's Commentary on
Galatians in a more serious fashion and says, it was in truth
" the coil of Theseus by the aid of which we are enabled to
wander through the labyrinth of biblical learning."2

Besides the shorter Commentary on Galatians published
in 1519 there is also a much longer one compiled from notes
of Luther's later lectures, made public in 1535 by his pupil
Rorer, together with a Preface by Luther himself.3 Pro-
testants consider it as " the most important literary product
of his academic career " and, in fact, as " the most important
of his theological works."4 In what follows we shall rely,
as we said before, on the sources which afford the most
accurate picture of his views, i.e. on both the shorter and
the longer redaction of his Commentary on Galatians,
especially where the latter repeats in still more forcible
language views already contained in the former.

It is well to know that, in his expositions of the Epistle
to the Galatians, Luther's antagonism to the Catholic
doctrine of Works, Justification and Original Sin is carried
further than in any other of his exegetical writings, until,
indeed, it verges on the paradoxical. Nowhere else does the
author so unhesitatingly read his own ideas into Holy
Scripture, or turn his back so completely on the most
venerable traditions of the Church.

For instance, he shows how God by His grace was obliged to
renew, from the root upwards, the tree of human nature, which
had fallen and become rotten to the core, in order that it might
bear fruit which was not mere poison and sin and such as to
render it worthy to be cast into hell fire. Everything is made to
depend upon that terrible doctrine of Divine Predestination,
which inexorably condemns a portion of mankind to hell. It never
occurred to him that this doctrine of a Predestination to hell was
in conflict with God's goodness and mercy, at least, he never had
the least hesitation in advocating it. The only preparation for

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 2, p. 437.

2 See Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 275.

3 In Irmischer's Erl. edition, printed in three volumes.

4 Cp. Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 300 f.

308 LUTHER THE MONK

salvation is the predestination to heaven of the man upon whom
God chooses to have mercy, seeing that man, on his part, is
utterly unable to do anything (" unica dispositio ad gratiam est
ceterna Dei electio "). Man is justified by the faith, which is
wrought by God's gracious Word and Spirit, but this faith is
really confidence in God's pardoning grace through Christ
(" Sufficit Christus per fidem, ut sis iustus "). In the printed
Commentary on Galatians we already have Luther's new doctrine
of the absolute assurance of salvation by faith alone.

This later discovery he insists upon, with wearisome reitera-
tion, in the Commentary on Galatians as the only means of
bringing relief to the conscience. We shall have occasion later
(ch. x., 1, 2) to speak of the origin of this new element in his
theology, which he made his own before the publication of the
first Commentary on Galatians.

He entirely excludes love from this faith, even the slightest
commencement of it, in more forcible terms than ever. " That
faith alone justifies," he writes, " which apprehends Christ by
means of the Word, and is beautified and adorned by it, not that
faith which includes love. . . . How does this take place, and
how is the Christian made so righteous ? " he asks. " By means
of the noble treasure and pearl, which is called Christ, and which
he makes his own by faith." " Therefore it is mere idle,
extravagant talk when those fools, the Sophists [the scholastic
theologians] chatter about the fides formata, i.e. a faith which is
to take its true form and shape from love."1 The relation which
exists between this view of a mechanically operating faith (which
moreover God alone produces in us) and the Lutheran doctrine
of the exclusive action of God in the " dead tree " of human
nature, cannot fail to be perceived. How could, indeed, such a
'view of God's action admit of any real, organic co-operation on
the part of man, even when exalted and strengthened by grace,
in the work of his own eternal salvation by virtue of faith
working through love ?

God's mercy, Luther says, is made known to man by a whisper
from above (the " secret voice ") : Thy sins are forgiven thee ;
the perception of this is not, however, essential ; probably,
Luther recognised that this was altogether too problematical.
Hence there is no escape from the fact that justification must
always remain uncertain. The author of this doctrine demands,
however, that man should induce in himself a kind of certainty,
in the same way that he demands certainty in the acceptance of
all facts of faith. " You must assume it as certain that your
service is pleasing to God. But this you can never do unless
you have the Holy Ghost."2 How are we to know whether we
have the Holy Ghost ? Again he answers : " We must accept
as certain and acknowledge that we are the temple of God."3
" We must be assured that not our service only but also our
person is pleasing to God."4 He goes on in this tone without in

1 Cp. Mohler, "Symbolik," p. 156, n. 1.

2 Comment, in Gal., 2, p. 163. 3 Ibid., p. 161. 4 Ibid., p. 164.

COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS 309

the least solving the difficulty.1 He declares that we must
risk, try, and exercise assurance. This, however, merely
depends upon a self-acquired dexterity,2 upon human ability,
which, moreover, frequently leaves even the strongest in the
lurch, as we shall see later from Luther's own example and that
of his followers.

He goes so far in speaking of faith and grace in the larger
Commentary on Galatians, as to brand the most sublime and
holy works, namely, prayer and meditation, as " idolatry "
unless performed in accordance with the only true principle of
faith, viz. with his doctrine regarding justification by faith alone.
This can be more readily understood when we consider that
according to him, man, in spite of his resistance to concupiscence,
is, nevertheless, on account of the same, guilty of the sins of
avarice, anger, impurity, a list to which he significantly adds " et
cetera,"3

He had expressed himself in a similar way in the shorter
Commentary, but did not think his expressions in that book
strong enough adequately to represent his ideas.4

As he constantly connects his statements with what he looks
upon as the main contentions of St. Paul in the Epistles to the
Romans and the Galatians, we may briefly remind our readers
of the interpretation which the older theology had ever placed
upon them.

The Apostle Paul teaches, according to the Fathers and the
greatest theologians of the Middle Ages, that both Jews and
heathen might attain to salvation and life by faith. He proves
this by showing that the heathen were not saved by the works
of nature, nor the Jews by the works of the Mosaic Law ; but he
does not by any means exclude works altogether as unnecessary
for justification. In the important passage of the Epistle to the
Romans (Rom. i. 17) where Paul quotes the words of Habacuc :
" The just man liveth by faith," there was no call to define more
clearly the nature of justifying faith, or to explain to what extent
it must be a living faith showing itself in works in charity and
in hope. To exclude works from faith, as Luther assumes him to
do, was very far from his intention in that passage. Nor is this
idea involved in the saying which Luther so frequently quotes
(Rom. iii. 28) : "We account a man to be justified by faith
without the works of the law," for here he merely excludes the
works " of the law," i.e. according to the context such works as
do not rest on faith but precede faith, whether the purely out-
ward works of the Mosaic ceremonial law, or other natural works
done apart from, or before, Christ. We shall speak later of
Luther's interpolation in this passage of the word " alone " after
" faith " in his translation of the Bible (see vol. v., xxxiv. 3).
When St. Paul elsewhere describes more narrowly the nature

1 Cp. Denifle- Weiss, 1, p. 733, where a thorough examination is made
of the certainty of salvation assumed in this system.

2 Ibid., p. 735. 3 Cp. Mohler, p. 139.
* Kostlin-Kawerau. 1, p. 275.

310 LUTHER THE MONK

of justifying faith (a fact to which both the Fathers and the
theologians draw attention), he is quite emphatic in asserting
that the sinner is not admitted by God to grace and made
partaker of the heavenly promises merely by virtue of a dead
faith, but by a real, supernatural faith which works by charity
(Gal. v. 6). This in previous ages had been rightly understood to
mean not merely an acceptance of the Word of God and the
intimate persuasion of the remission of one's sins, but a faith
enlivened by grace with charity. In confirmation of this, other
well-known passages of the New Testament were always quoted :
" Wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is
dead ? " " Do you see that by works a man is justified ; and not
by faith only ? " " For even as the body without the spirit is
dead : so also faith without works is dead." " Labour the more
that by good works you may make sure your calling and
election."1

Some important disputations which the youthful Univer-
sity Professor held on theses and " paradoxa " formulated
by himself prove how his teaching was taking ever deeper
root at Wittenberg and elsewhere. The story of these
disputations casts light on his peculiar tactics, viz. to meet
every kind of opposition by still more forcibly and defiantly
advancing his own propositions.

2. Disputations on man's powers and against Scholasticism
(1516-17)

In September, 1516, Luther arranged for a remarkable
Disputation to be held at Wittenberg by Bartholomew
Bernhardi of Feldkirchen, in Swabia, on the occasion of the
latter's promotion to be Lecturer on the Sentences. From
a confidential letter of Luther's to Johann Lang,
Prior at Erfurt, we learn some particulars as to the motive
which determined the choice of the theses, which latter are
still extant. From this we see that the Disputation was
held on account of those who " barked " at Luther's lectures.
" In order to shut the mouths of yelping curs, and at the
same time to let the opinion of others be heard," the theses
on man's absolute inability to do what is good were pur-
posely worded in a most offensive form. This Disputation
brought over Amsdorf, hitherto an opponent, to Luther's

1 James ii. 22, 24, 26. 2 Peter i. 10. On Luther's later denial of the
inspiration of the Epistle of St. James, see volume iv., xxviii. 2. In this
he made no account of the critical proof of the traditional ascription of
this Epistle, but considered it merely from his own subjective point of

BERNHARDFS DISPUTATION 311

side. Amsdorf sent a copy of the theses to Erfurt in
order to elicit the opinion of the professors there. But,
fearing lest the storm he foresaw might be directed against
Luther, he deleted the superscription bearing his name
(" Sub eximio viro Martino Luther o Augustiniano" etc.).
At the Disputation Luther presided, a fact which is all the
more significant when we remember that he was not at that
time Dean.

Among the theses to be debated one runs as follows :
Man is absolutely unable by his own unaided efforts to keep
the commandments of God ; he merely seeks his own, and
what is of the flesh ; he himself is " vanity of vanities "
and makes creatures, who in themselves are good, also to
be vain ; he is necessarily under the dominion of sin, " he
sins even when doing the best he can ; for of himself he is
unable either to will or to think."1

It is not surprising that theses such as this again roused
the antagonism of the followers of the old theology. Some
of Luther's former colleagues among the Erfurt monks con-
sidered themselves directly challenged. Trutfetter and Usin-
gen, two esteemed professors at Erfurt, having dared to point
out the difference between these theses and the Catholic
teaching as expressed in the works of Gabriel Biel, Luther
wrote to their Superior, Johann Lang : " Let them alone,
let your Gabrielists marvel at my ' position ' (i.e. at the
theses), for mine too (i.e. Biel's Catholic-minded supporters
at Wittenberg) still continue to be astonished." "Master
Amsdorf formerly belonged to them, but is now half con-
verted." " But I won't have them disputing with me as to
whether Gabriel said this, or Raphael or Michael said that.
I know what Gabriel teaches ; it is commendable so long
as he does not begin speaking of Grace, Charity, Hope,
Faith and Virtue, for then he becomes a Pelagian, like
Scotus, his master. But it is not necessary for me to speak
further on this matter here."2

In the same letter he deals some vigorous blows at Gratian
and the highly esteemed Peter Lombard ; according to him
they have made of the doctrine of penance a torment rather
than a remedy ; they took their matter from the treatise
" On True and False Penance'," attributed to St. Augustine ;

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 145 ff.

2 Letter of 1516, probably September, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 55.

312 LUTHER THE MONK

but he had been compelled to deny that this " stupid and
foolish " work was by St. Augustine. It is, however, quite
certain that this spurious work did not constitute " the
chief authority for the mediaeval doctrine of Penance," x
neither were its contents so untheological as we are expected
to believe.

Bernhardi, Luther's very devoted pupil, who held the
Disputation mentioned above, has been considered by
some to have been the first priest of the evangelical faith
to contract matrimony.2 This, however, is not quite correct
as others preceded him. But Bernhardi, as Provost of
Kemberg, was one of the first to draw this practical inference
from the freedom of the gospel.

A second pupil, Franz Gunther of Nordhausen, who was
chosen by Luther to conduct in the following year a Dispu-
tation which partook still more of the nature of a challenge,
became later a prominent partisan of Lutheranism. His
Disputation was held at Wittenberg, September 4, 1517,
under his master's presidency, with the object of obtaining
the degree of Baccalaureus Biblicus. His 97 theses faith-
fully echo Luther's teaching, particularly his antagonism to
Aristotle and Scholasticism. The theses were scattered
abroad with the object of making converts. At Erfurt and
elsewhere the friends of the new opinions to whom Luther
despatched the theses were to work for the spread of the
theological revolution. As a result of this Disputation his
Erfurt opponents again complained that Luther was too
audacious, that he was overbearing in his assertions and
was flinging broadcast wicked censures of the Catholic
doctors and their teaching. With these complaints, how-
ever, the matter ended, no one daring to do more.

At the end of Giinther's theses the following words occur in
print : "In all these propositions our intention was to say
nothing, and we believe we have said nothing, which is not in
accordance with Catholic doctrine and with ecclesiastical writers." 3
Yet in these prospositions we read : " Man, who has become a
rotten tree, can will and do only what is evil. . . . Man's will is

1 As Enders thinks, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 58.

2 See Feustking, " Das Leben des ersten verehelichten evangelischen
Predigers B. Bernhardi." As Enders rightly remarks, he was not really
the " first married preacher " ; this honour belonging to Jakob
Seydler.

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 228. " Opp. Lat. var.," 1, p. 321.

GUNTHER'S DISPUTATION 313

not free but captive " (thesis 5). " The only predisposition to
grace is the eternal election by God and predestination " (29).
" From beginning to end we are not masters of our actions but
servants " (39). " We do not become righteous by doing what is
right, but only after we have become righteous do we perform
what is right " (40). " The Jewish ceremonial law is not a good
law, neither are the Ten Commandments, and whatever is taught
and commanded with regard to outward observances " (82, 83).
" The only good law is the love of God which is poured forth in
our hearts by the Holy Ghost " (84).

The following will suffice to give an idea of Giinther's theses
on the relation of Aristotle to Christian philosophy and theology ;
" Aristotle's Ethics almost in its entirety is the worst enemy of
grace " (41). " It is not merely incorrect to say that without
Aristotle no man can become a theologian ; on the contrary, we
must say : he is no theologian who does not become one without
Aristotle " (43, 44).

At Wittenberg the Disputation called forth enthusiastic
applause among both professors and students, and the
defender was unanimously (" uno consensu dominorum ")
proclaimed a Bachelor. So deeply was Luther concerned in
this manifesto, that he expressed to Lang his readiness to
go to Erfurt and there personally to conduct the defence of
all the theses. He scoffs at those who had called them
not merely paradoxical but kakodoxical and even kakisto-
doxical (execrable).1 "To us," he says, " they can only be
orthodox." He was very zealous in distributing them far and
wide, and asked Christoph Scheurl, the Humanist of Nurem-
berg, to whom he sent some, to forward a copy to " our
Eck . . . who is so learned and intellectual " ; such was then
his opinion of his future adversary.2

Scheurl, and no doubt Luther's other friends also, took
care to spread the bold theses. This Humanist, who was
prejudiced in favour of Luther, ventured to prophesy a
great revolution in the domain of Divinity. At the com-
mencement of his reply to Luther's letter he greets him with
the wish, that " the theology of Christ may be reinstated,
and that we may walk in His Law ! " 3

This Disputation at Wittenberg has been described by
Protestants as a " decisive blow struck at mediaeval

1 Letter of September 4, 1517, to Johann Lang, " Brief wechsel," 1,
p. 106.

2 Letter of September 11, 1517, to Christoph Scheurl. Ibid., p. 109.

3 Letter of November 3, 1517. Ibid., p. 119: " Ad Martinum
Luder. Christi theologiam restaur are et in illius lege ambulare."

314 LUTHER THE MONK

doctrine."1 That it was an open challenge admits of no doubt.
Reticence and humility were not among Luther's qualities.
It would be to misrepresent him completely were we to
assign to him, as special characteristics, bashfulness,
timidity and love of retirement ; however much he himself
occasionally claims such virtues as his. On the other hand,
he also assures us that no one can say of him that he wished
the theses of this Disputation to be merely " whispered in
a corner."

With this impulse to bring his new doctrines boldly
before the world may be connected his taking, about this
time, in one of his letters the name Eleutherius, or Free-
spirited. This was his way of rendering into Greek his
name Luther, agreeably with the customs of the time.

Only a few weeks after the second Disputation which we
have been considering, he came forward with his Indulgence
theses against Tetzel, of which the result was to be another
great Disputation. Disputations seemed to him a very
desirable method of arousing sympathy for his ideas ;
these learned encounters with his opponents gave him a
good opportunity for displaying his fiery temper, his quick-
wittedness, his talent as an orator, his general knowledge, and
particularly his familiarity with the Bible.

But this is not yet the place to discuss the Indulgence
theses against Tetzel.

The better to appreciate the state of Luther's mind at the
time when he was becoming settled in his new theolcgical
principles, we may be permitted to consider here, by antici-
pation, another great Disputation on faith and grace, that,
namely, of Heidelberg, which took place after the outbreak
of Luther's hostilities with Tetzel. In comparison with these
questions, the Indulgence controversy was of less importance,
as we shall have occasion to see ; it was in reality an acci-
dental occurrence, though one pregnant with consequences,
and, as it turned out, the most decisive of all. The common
idea that the quarrel with Tetzel was the real starting-point
of Luther's whole conflict with the Church is utterly unten-
able.

1 Plitt, " Luthers Leben,': Leipzig, 1883, p. 69.

THE HEIDELBERG DISPUTATION 315

3. Disputation at Heidelberg on Faith and Grace. Other
Public Utterances

The Disputation at Heidelberg took place on April 25,
1518, about six months after the nailing up of the theses
against Tetzel. A Chapter of the Augustinian Congregation
held in that town afforded the opportunity for this Disputa-
tion.

To make use of the Chapters for such learned celebrations
was nothing unusual, but the selection of Luther to conduct
the theological discussion, at a time when his teaching on
Grace and his Indulgence theses had aroused widespread
comment and excitement, and when an examination of his
conduct was pending in the Order, was very significant.
Among the delegates of the priories present at the Chapter,
all of them chosen from the older and more respected monks,
there was clearly a majority in favour of Luther. Another
proof of this fact is, that at the Chapter, Johann Lang, who
was entirely of Luther's way of thinking, was chosen to
succeed him as Rural Vicar on the expiry of Luther's term of
service. Staupitz was confirmed in his dignity, though his
own attitude and his persistent blind prejudice in favour of
Luther must have been known to all. It appears that
Luther's controversy with Tetzel was not even discussed in
the Chapter ; x at any rate, we hear nothing whatever of it,
nor even of any difficulties being raised as to Luther's
position in the much more important question of justifica-
tion, although strict injunctions had already been sent to the
Order by the Holy See to place a check on him, and dissuade
him from the course he was pursuing.2

If, moreover, we bear in mind the character of the theses
at this Disputation, which went far beyond anything that
had yet appeared, but were nevertheless advocated before
all the members assembled, we cannot but look upon this
unhappy Chapter as the shipwreck of the German Augus-
tinian Congregation. At the next Chapter, which was held
after an interval of two years, i.e. sooner than was customary,
Staupitz received a severe reprimand from the General of the

1 Kolde, " Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation," p. 315.

2 Kalkoff, " Forschungen zu Luthers romischem Prozess," 1905,
p. 44 seq. Pastor, " History of the Popes," English translation,
volume vii., p. 361 ff.

316 LUTHER THE MONK

Order and at last laid down his office as Superior of the
Congregation.1 His weakness and vacillation had, however,
by that time already borne fruit.

Leonard Beyer, an Augustinian, another of Luther's
youthful pupils, was chosen by him to defend the theses at
Heidelberg under his own supervision. The Disputation
was held in the Lecture-room of the Augustinian monastery
in the town. Among the numerous guests present were
the professors of the University of Heidelberg. They were
not of Luther's way of thinking, and rather inclined to join
issue in the discussion, though in general their demeanour
was peaceable ; one of the younger professors, however,
in the course of the dispute voiced his disagreement in an
interruption : "If the peasants hear that, they will
certainly stone you."

Among those present, four young theologians, who at a
later date went over to the new faith and became its active
promoters, followed with lively interest the course of the
discussion, in which Luther himself frequently took part ;
these were Martin Bucer, an eloquent Dominican, afterwards
preacher at Strasburg and a close friend of Luther ; Johann
Brenz, a Master of Philosophy, who subsequently worked
for the new teaching in Swabia ; Erhard Schnepf, who
became eventually a preacher in Wurttemberg, and Theobald
Billicanus, whom the theologians at Heidelberg who
remained faithful to the Church summoned to be examined
before them on account of his lectures, and who then was
responsible for the apostasy of the town of Nordlingen. The
Disputation at Heidelberg had a great influence on all
these, and rendered them favourable to Luther.

The first named, Martin Bucer, full of enthusiasm for
Luther, informed a friend, that at the end of the Disputation
he had completely triumphed over all his opponents and
roused in almost all his hearers admiration of his learning,
eloquence, and fearlessness.2

If, however, we consider the theses from the theological

1 Kolde, p. 327.

2 Bucer to Beatus Rhenanus, May 1, 1518, in the Correspondence
of Beatus Rhenanus, ed. Horawitz and Hartf elder, Leipzig, 1866,
p. 106 f. Also in " Relatio historica de disputatione Heidelbergensi ad
Beatum Rhenanum," printed in the "Introductio in hist, evang." by
D. Gerdesius, Groningen, 1744, Supp., p. 176. Cp. " Luthers Werke,'
Weim. ed., 1, p. 352. " Opp. Lat. var.," 1, p. 385.

THE HEIDELBERG DISPUTATION 317

standpoint, we are able to understand better the impression
whieh Bucer in the same letter states they made on others,
namely, that this new theology of Wittenberg, which
exalted itself above Scholasticism and the learning of
previous ages, and even above the teaching of the whole
Church from the time of her Divine institution, justified the
most serious apprehensions and indictments.

Twenty-eight theses had been selected from theology and
twelve from philosophy. The very first theological proposition
declared in Luther's bold, paradoxical style, that the law of God
was unable to assist a man to righteousness, but, on the contrary,
was a hindrance to him in this respect.1 Some of the other
propositions were hardly less strong : Man's works, however good
they may be, are probably never anything but mortal sins (3) ;
after sin free will is will only in name, and when a man has done
the best he is capable of, he commits a mortal sin (13). If these
assertions recall some which we have heard before, they are
followed by others expressing, in the most startling manner, his
theory on grace. " He is not righteous who performs many
works, but he who, without works, believes firmly in Christ "
(25). " The law says, ' do this ' and it is never done ; Grace says
' believe in Him (Christ) ' and everything is already done " (26).
" Man must altogether despair of himself in order to be fit to
receive the grace of Christ " (18).

In the proofs, the text of which is still extant and was probably
printed together with the theses, we read other statements
which remove all doubt as to the seriousness of the propositions
put forth : " Righteousness is infused by faith, for we read : ' the
just man liveth by faith ' (Rom. i. 17) . . . not as though the
just man did not perform any works, but because his works are
not the cause of righteousness, but righteousness is the cause of
the works. Grace and faith are infused without any work on our
part, and then the works follow."2

Luther in one passage of these " proofs " addresses to himself
the only too-well-founded objection : " Therefore we will be
content without virtue as we on our part are able only to sin ! "3
But instead of solving this objection in a proper form, he answers
rhetorically : " No, fall on your knees and implore grace, put
your hope in Christ in Whom is salvation, life and resurrection.
Fear and wrath are wrought by the law, but hope and mercy
by grace."4

Underlying the whole Disputation, we perceive that antagon-
ism to the fear of God as the Judge of transgressions against the

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 353. " Opp. Lat. var.," 1, p. 385.

2 Concl. 25, "Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 364. "Opp. Lat. var.," 1,
p. 402.

8 Concl. 16, " Quid igitur faciemus ? Vacabimus otio, quia nihil nisi
peccatum facimus. ' '

4 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 360. " Opp. Lat. var.," 1, p. 398.

318 LUTHER THE MONK

law, which the reader has before remarked in Luther ; that fear
which Catholic teaching had hitherto represented as the beginning
of conversion and justification.

Utterances drawn from that mysticism into which he had
plunged and the language of which he had at that time made his
own, are also noticeable. He speaks at the Disputation of the
annihilation through which a man must pass in order to arrive at
the certainty of salvation (a road which is assuredly only for the
few, whereas all stand in need of certainty) : "Whoever is not
destroyed and brought back to nothingness by the cross and
suffering, attributes to himself works and wisdom. But whoever
has passed through this annihilation does not pursue works, but
leaves God to work and to do all in him ; it is the same to him
whether he performs works or not ; he is not proud of himself
when he does anything, nor despondent when God does not work
in him."1 He then proceeds, describing the absolute passivity
of his mysticism as the foundation of the process of salvation :
" He [who is to be justified] knows that it is enough for him to
suffer and be destroyed by the cross in order to be yet more
annihilated. This is what Christ meant when He said (John
iii. 7) : ' Ye must be born again.' If Christ speaks of ' being born
again,' it necessarily follows that we must first die, i.e. feel death
as though it were present."

Besides the antagonism to true and well-grounded fear, and
the mystical veneer, there is a third psychological element
which must be pointed out in the Heidelberg Theses, viz.
the uncalled-for emphasis laid on the strength of con-
cupiscence and man's inclination to what is evil, and the
insufficient appreciation of the means of grace which lead
to victory. This view of the domination of evil, which
must ultimately be favourable to libertinism, accompanies
the theoretical expression and the practical realisation of
his system.

In the Heidelberg Disputation we find in the proof of thesis 1 3,
already referred to : " It is clear as day that free will in man,
after Adam's Fall, is merely a name and therefore no free will at
all, at least as regards the choice of good ; for it is a captive, and
the servant of sin ; not as though it did not exist, but because
it is not free except for what is evil."2 This Luther pretends to
find in Holy Scripture (John viii. 34, 36), in two passages of St.
Augustine " and in countless other places." He undertakes to
prove this in a special note, by the fact that, according to the
teaching of the Fathers of the Church, man is unable during life
to avoid all faults, that he must fall without the assistance of
grace, and that, according to 2 Timothy ii. 26, he is held captive
by the " snares of the devil." " The wicked man sins," he says,

1 Concl. 24. 2 Cp. above, p. 202 ff.

"THE QUIETING OF CONSCIENCES" 319

" when he does what is good." "The righteous man also sins in
his good works," according to the words of the Apostle : " But I
see another law in my members fighting against the law of ray
mind " (Rom. vii. 23). God works everything in us ; but just as
the carpenter, however capable he may be, cannot work properly
with a jagged axe, so, in spite of God's work, sin still remains,
owing to the imperfection of the tool He makes use of, i.e. on
account of the sinfulness which permeates us.1

" The mercy of God consists in this, that He has patience with
us in spite of our sins and graciously accepts our works and our
life notwithstanding their complete worthlessness. . . . We
escape His Judgment through His mercy [to which we cling
through faith alone], not by our own righteousness. . . . God
excuses our works and makes them pardonable ; He supplies
what is wanting in us, and thus He is our righteousness."2

" How is it possible that a ' servant of sin ' should do anything
else but sin ? How can a man perform a work of light when he
is in darkness, a work of wisdom when he is a fool, the work of a
whole man when he is lying there sick, etc. ? Therefore all that
a man does is the work of the devil, of sin, of darkness and
foolishness." " Why do we say that concupiscence is irresistible ?
Well, just try to do what you can, but without concupiscence !
Of course, this is impossible. Thus your nature does not keep
the law. If you do not keep this, then still less can you keep the
law of charity."3

The crown of all this is found in certain propositions
from another of Luther's Disputations (the fourth) held at
Wittenberg in 1518, of which the eminently characteristic
title is : " For the ascertaining of the Truth and for the
Quieting of anxious Consciences." Here we find this
exhortation : " Cast yourself with a certain despair of
your own self, more particularly on account of the sins of
which you are ignorant, with confidence into the abyss of
the mercy of God, Who is true to His promises. The sum
total is this : The Just man shall live by faith, not, however,
by works or by the law." 4 Such is the theology which he
calls the " Theology of the Cross."5 The Church, with a
past of fifteen centuries behind her, also taught that the just
man must live by faith, but by this she meant a real faith

1 In the Explicatio conclusionis VI., " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 367,
where the editor says in a note : " Martin Bucer testifies in his letter
to Beatus Rhenanus on May 1, 1518, that this comparison was made
by Luther in the Disputation." See p. 74, n. 9.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 370.

3 Ibid., pp. 371, 374.

4 Ibid., p. 633.

5 Disput., Heidelberg, an. 1518, thes. 24. Cp. thes. 20. "Werke."
Weim. ed., 1, p. 362 f. Cp. above, p. 235.

320 LUTHER THE MONK

which leads to the love of the cross, which expresses itself in
submission, in salutary fear, in a striving after what is good
and which bears in itself the seeds of charity. She thus
exhorted the faithful to penance, the practice of good works
and a practical embracing of the cross. That was her
" Theology of the Cross."

The three more important Disputations considered above
were designated by Luther himself as the " beginning of the
evangelical business." He gave the title Initium negocii
evangelici to a collection of the theses debated at these
Disputations which appeared in print at Wittenberg in
1538. * It is significant that the theses against Tetzel and
on Indulgences have no place in this collection of the earliest
" evangelical " documents.

While Luther was on his way back from Heidelberg, in a
letter to Trutfetter his former professor, he submitted
certain thoughts on his own theological position, which may
well be deemed his programme for the future. To this worthy
man, who failed to share his views and had given him timely
warning of his errors, he says : "To speak plainly, my
firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible
unless the ecclesiastical laws, the Papal regulations,
scholastic theology, philosophy and logic as they at present
exist, are thoroughly uprooted and replaced by other
studies. I am so convinced of this that I daily ask the Lord
that the really pure study of the Bible and the Fathers may
speedily regain its true position."2

In this remarkable letter, which is a curious mixture of
respect and disputatious audacity, Luther admits that, on
account of his teaching on grace, he is already being scolded
in public sermons as a " heretic, a madman, a seducer and
one possessed by many devils " ; at Wittenberg, however,
he says, at the University all, with the exception of one
licentiate, declare that " they had hitherto been in ignorance
of Christ and His gospel." Too many charges were brought
against him. Let them " speak, hear, believe all things of
him in all places," he would, nevertheless, go forward and
not be afraid. Here he does not pass over his theses against
Tetzel in silence ; they had, he says, been spread in a quite

1 Cp. " Werke," Weim. ed„ 1, p. 143, n.

2 Letter of May 9, 1518, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 187.

ATTITUDE TO THE CHURCH 321

unexpected manner, whereas with his other theses this had
not been the case ; this he regretted as otherwise he would
have " expressed them more clearly." When publishing his
Indulgence theses he had had the truth concerning " the
grace of Christ "• — which he also defended at Heidelberg —
much at heart, for the result of the abuse of the system of
Indulgences was, that there was scarcely anyone who did
not hope to obtain the great gift of the " grace of God " by
means of a paltry Indulgence, a disgraceful reversal of the
true order of things.

4. Attitude to the Church

The foundations of the principal erroneous doctrines of
the new theology were already laid at a time when Luther
was still unmistakably asserting the authority of the Church
and the Papacy and the duty of submission incumbent on
all who desired to be true Christians.

Neither before his deviation from the Church's doctrine
nor whilst the new views were growing and becoming fixed,
did he go astray with respect to the binding nature of the
Church's teaching office, or seek to undermine the Divine
pre-eminence of the Holy See. Such a course would, it is
true, have been logical, as not one of the doctrines which
the Church proposes for belief can be assailed without the
whole of her doctrinal edifice being affected, and without
calling in question both her infallibility and her rightful
authority. Only subsequent to the Leipzig Disputation, at
which Luther unreservedly denied the doctrinal authority
of General Councils, do we find him prepared to abandon
the traditional view with regard to the Church and her
teaching office.

The formal principle of Lutheranism dates only from this
denial. The determining factor is no longer ecclesiastical
authority, but the private judgment of the individual, i.e.
the understanding of Holy Scripture* — now considered as
the only source of religious knowledge- — acquired under the
guidance of Divine enlightenment. Even then Luther
was in no hurry to formulate any clear theory of the Church,
of the Communion of the Faithful, of the oneness of Faith,
and of its mouthpiece. On the contrary, he frequently
^returns then and even later, as will be seen below, to his

322 LUTHER THE MONK

earlier conception of the Church, so natural was it to him and
to his time, so indispensable did her claims appear to him,
and so logically did they result from the whole connection
between Divine Revelation and the scheme of salvation.

How are we to explain this contradiction so long present
in Luther's mind, viz. his abandonment of the principal
dogmas of the Church and, at the same time, his emphatic
assertion of the Church's authority ? Chiefly by his lack of
theological training, also by his confusion of mind and
deficiency in real Church feeling ; then again by his excess
of imagination, by his pseudo-mysticism, and above all by
his devotion to his own ideas. Moreover, as we know,
the two conflicting tendencies did not dwell at peace within
him but were responsible for great restlessness and trouble
of mind. Had he been more in living touch with the faith
and spirit of the Church, he would doubtless have recognised
the urgent necessity of choosing between an absolute
abandonment of his new theological views and a definite
breach with the Church of his fathers. In explanation of
the confusion of his attitude to the Church we must call to
mind what has already been said, how, owing to the evils
rampant in the Church, he had not had the opportunity of
seeing that Divine institution at its best, a fact which may
have helped to weaken in his mind the conception of her
sublime mission and the binding nature of her ancient faith.
He remained in the Church, just as he remained in the
religious state, though its ideals had become sadly obscured
in his eyes.

In its place he built up for himself an imaginary world,
quite mistaking the true state of affairs with regard to his
own position. He fancied that the representatives of the
Church would gradually come round to his point of view,
seeing that it was so well founded. He thought that the
Papacy, when better informed, would never be able to
condemn the inferences he had made from the clear Word
of God, and his precious discovery for the solacing of every
sinner.

Perhaps he also sought to shelter himself behind the
divergent opinions entertained by the theologians of that
day with regard to justification. Several details, as yet
undefined, of this dogma, were then diversely explained,
though no doubt existed regarding the essentials. The

ATTITUDE TO THE CHURCH 323

views propounded by members of the Council of Trent
show how many side questions in this department called for
definition and learned research before the Council could
arrive at the classical formulation of the whole matter.1 No
true theologian, however, owing to want of distinctness in the
minor details of the dogma was, like Luther, prepared to
cast it overboard, or to demand its entire revision.

In the case of this strangely constituted man inward
discernment alone counted for anything.

With him this outweighed far too easily all the claims of
external authority, and how could it be otherwise when,
already at an early stage of his career, while perusing the
Holy Scriptures he had felt the Spirit of God in his new
ideas ? We have a picture of his feelings in his letter to
Spalatin of January 18, 1518, in which he says, the principal
thing when studying the Book of Books is to " despair of our
own learning and our own sagacity." " Be confident that
the Spirit will instil the sense into your mind. Believe this
on my experience. Therefore begin, starting with a humble
despair, to read the Bible from the very commencement." 2
There is here no reference to the traditional interpretation
handed down from the first centuries through the Fathers
and the theologians ; in place of this each one is invited to
seek for enlightenment under the guidance of that light
which he assumes to be the " Spirit."

And yet Luther's teaching with regard to the authority of the
Universal Church is, according to a sermon preached in 1516, as
follows : " The Church cannot err in proclaiming the faith ; only
the individual within her is liable to error. But let him beware
of differing from the Church ; for the Church's leaders are the
walls of the Church and our fathers ; "they are the eye of the body,
and in them we must seek the light."3 As the idea has not yet
dawned upon him that the whole body of the bishops had strayed
from the path of truth, he does not consider it necessary first to
seek where the true Church is ; he simply finds it there where
Peter presides in his successors. No private illumination, no
works however great, justify a separation from the Papacy.4 In
accordance with this principle, even in 1518, amidst the storm
of excitement and not long before the printing of his sermon on
excommunication, he assures Staupitz, his Superior, with the
utmost confidence : "I shall hold the Church's authority in all

1 Cp. Mohler, " Symbolik," pp. 100, 154 S.

2 " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 142.

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 3, p. 170.

4 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 69. See above, p. 34 f.

324 LUTHER THE MONK

honour " ; it is true, he goes on to say : "I have no scruple,
Reverend Father, about going forward with my exploration and
interpretation of the Word of God. The summons [to Rome] and
the menaces which have been uttered do not move me. I am
suffering, as you know, incomparably worse things which allow
me to pay but little heed to such as are temporal and transitory."1
The woes which he repeatedly utters against heretics, and of
which we have already given a striking example (above, p. 225),
are very startling, coming from his lips. In his exposition of the
Psalms he points a warning finger at pride, the source of all
heresies : " Out upon our madness, how often and how greatly,
do we fall into this fault ! All the heretics fell through inordinate
love of their own ideas. Hence it was not possible but that what
was false should appear to them true, and, what was true, false.
. . . Wisdom, in its original purity, can exist only in the humble
and meek."2

It would be easy to multiply the passages in which Luther,
in his early days, asserts with absolute conviction the
various doctrines of the Church which at a later date he was
to attack.

It may suffice to take as an example the doctrine of
Indulgences which was soon to become the centre of
the controversy started by his theses on this subject.
Luther presents the doctrine quite clearly and correctly
in a sermon on Indulgences preached in 1516.3 Here he
makes his own the general Catholic teaching, notwith-
standing that it clashes with his ideas on grace and justifica-
tion, a fact of which he assuredly was aware.

" An Indulgence," he says, "is the remission of the temporal
punishment which the penitent would have to undergo, whether
imposed by the priest or endured in Purgatory ; formerly, for
instance, seven years [of penance] were imposed in this way for
certain sins." " Therefore we must not imagine that our salva-
tion is straightway secured when we have gained an Indulgence,"
as it merely remits the temporal punishment. " Those alone
obtain complete remission of the punishment who, by real con-
trition and confession, are reconciled with God." " The souls in
Purgatory, as the Bull expressly states, profit by the Indulgence
only so far as the power of the Keys of Holy Church extend " ;
" per applicationem intercessionis," as he says, i.e. to use the
common theological expression, " per modum suffragii."* " Hence
the immediate and complete liberation of souls from Purgatory
is not to be assumed." " The Indulgences are [i.e. are based on]
the merits of Christ and His saints and are therefore to be

1 Letter of September 1, 1518, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 223.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 4, p. 83.

3 Ibid., 1, p. 65 ff. 4 Ibid., p. 65 ff.

ATTITUDE TO THE CHURCH 325

accepted with due veneration." " However the case may stand
with regard to the abuses to be apprehended in the use of in-
dulgences," so he ends his lengthy and important explanation,
" the offer and acceptance of Indulgences is of the greatest utility,
and perhaps in our times when God's mercy is so greatly despised,
it is His Will to bestow His favours upon us by means of these
Indulgences. . . . Indulgences must, however, never lead us, of
the Church militant, to a false sense of security and to spiritual
indolence." The speaker goes much more fully into detail on
many difficult questions than could be done in a sermon to-day.
On certain subtle points of theological controversy regarding
Indulgences, which had as yet not been definitely settled among
the learned, he admits his ignorance and his doubts. One thing,
however, is certain, namely, that he had no right to assert, as he
did later, that the age was steeped in the deepest ignorance with
regard to the nature of Indulgences, merely because some of these
more recondite questions had not been fully solved. His own
sermon just quoted is a refutation of the charge.

In this sermon he also attacks the abuses which in those days
were connected with the system of Indulgences, particularly the
disorders, which prevailed at the sermons and collections made for
Indulgences granted in support of various pious works and
usually undertaken by certain noted popular preachers. In one
of his strong generalisations he thus addressed his hearers at the
very commencement : " Indulgences have become the dirty
tool of avarice ! Who is there who seeks the salvation of souls
by their means and not rather the profit of his purse ? The
behaviour of the Indulgence-preachers makes this plain ; for
these commissaries and their delegates do nothing in their
sermons but praise the Indulgences and urge the people to give
donations, without instructing them as to what an Indulgence is."1

At that time John Tetzel was making a great stir with
the preaching of the Indulgence granted by Pope Leo X for
the church of St. Peter in Rome.

Luther's inward falling away from the teaching of the
Church and his whole state of mind had made him ripe for
a great public struggle. His action with regard to Tetzel
was merely the result of what had gone before, and the
consequences of the controversy were vastly more important
than the actual point in dispute.

Many years later, when the circumstances appeared to
him very different from what they really were, Luther
related that he had lived in humble retirement in his
monastery, studying Holy Scripture and following his calling
as Doctor of the Word of Gcd until he was drawn by force
into the controversy, and called forth into the arena of

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 65.

326 LUTHER THE MONK

public life. " I was completely dead to the world till God
deemed the time had come ; then Squire Tetzel excited me
with the Indulgence and Doctor Staupitius spurred me on
against the Pope." 1

Then gradually, so he says, his " other preaching followed,"
i.e. that against " holiness by works," and set free those who
had become " quite weary " of Popery with its self -righteous-
ness ; this " other preaching " was as follows : " Christ
says : Be at rest ; thou art not pious, I have done all for
thee, thy sins are forgiven thee." 2 Nevertheless, for some
years, so he assures us, he continued to practise " in ignor-
ance " the works of idolatry and unbelief in the monastery,
those works to which " everyone clung " ; 3 then at last he
cut himself adrift and laid aside the monk's habit " to
honour God and shame the devil." 4

1 " Colloquia," ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 188.

2 " Werke," Erl. ed., 48, p. 401. 3 Ibid., 49, p. 300.

4 " Colloquia," ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 183. These words are there placed
in the year 1523.

CHAPTER IX

THE INDULGENCE THESES OF 1517 AND THEIR AFTER-EFFECTS

1. Tetzel's preaching of the Indulgence ; the 95 theses

A member of the Dominican Order who would otherwise
have remained but little known in history obtained through
Luther a world-wide name.

Everyone has heard of the Indulgence-preacher, John
Tetzel, the active and able popular speaker, to whom
Albert of Brandenburg, Archbishop and Elector of Mayence,
entrusted the proclamation of the Indulgence granted. by
Leo X for the building of the new Church of St. Peter. In
1516 and 1517 he made the Indulgence known throughout
the dioceses of Magdeburg and Halberstadt, appealing
everywhere for funds to carry out the great enterprise in
Rome. What he taught was, in the main, the same as Luther
had previously taught regarding Indulgences (see above,
p. 324) ; he, like all theologians, was careful to point out
that an Indulgence was to be considered merely as a re-
mission of the temporal punishment due to sin, but not of
the actual guilt of sin.1 He declared, quite rightly, that the
erection of the Church of St. Peter was a matter of common
interest to the whole Christian world, and that the donations
towards it were to be looked upon as part of the pious
undertakings and good works which were always required

1 Many of the erroneous Protestant notions as to the doctrine of
Indulgences might be removed by a glance at any Catholic handbook
of theology. See, for instance, Hurter, " Theol. dogmat.," ed. 11 (1903),
t. 3, p. 499 seg., 509, where, for example, the expression " relaxatio
pcence et eulpee," which has shocked so many moderns, is explained in
the correct historical and theological sense, reference, for instance,
being made to the article by N. Paulus (partly against Th. Brieger) in
the " Zeitschrift fur kath. Theol.," 23, 1899, p. 48 ff, " Johann von
Paltz iiber Ablass und Reue." The German Augustinian Paltz is an
authentic witness to the Catholic view at that time. " The guilt is
remitted," he says, " by virtue of the Sacrament of Penance which is
here introduced, and the punishment by virtue of the Indulgence
which is here dispensed." " Celifodina," fol. x., 1, in Paulus, p. 51, n. 4.

327

328 LUTHER THE MONK

by the Church as one of the conditions for gaining an
Indulgence. At the same time, in accordance with the
teaching and practice of the Church, he demanded of all, as
an essential preparation for the Indulgence, conversion and
change of heart together with a good confession.1

The proclamation of this Indulgence on behalf of St.
Peter's- — which was preached throughout almost the whole
of the Christian world' — in the great dioceses of Mayence
and Magdeburg, had been entrusted by Leo X, in 1514, to
Archbishop Albert of Brandenburg, who held both these
sees.

This respected but worldly minded Elector had made the
customary payment, in this instance a very heavy one, to
the Roman Court for his confirmation in the see of Mayence
and in return for the pallium. He had also, in compliance
with an appeal made by the Papal Dataria, presented
to the Holy See ten thousand ducats, which he had raised
through the Fuggers of Augsburg, in order to secure the
above Indulgence for his dioceses ; in return for this the Pope
had made over to him, once for all, one-half of the total
proceeds of the Indulgence. With this he hoped to repay
his creditors, the Fuggers.2 The details of this affair will
be dealt with later, but we may here remark that it was
a transaction which certainly was unworthy of so sacred a
cause as that of an Indulgence, and which can only be
explained by the evil customs of that day, the pressure
applied by Albert's agents, and the influence of the avaricious
Florentine party at the Papal Court. Though perhaps not
actually simoniacal it certainly cannot be approved.

We cannot here refrain from drawing attention to a fact
which stands for all time as a solemn warning to the pastors
of the Church. Just as the sight of the corruption, both
ecclesiastical and moral,' in Rome under Julius II, and the
remembrance of an Alexander VI, had filled Luther with
bitter prejudice on his journey to Italy, so the extremely
worldly and regrettable action of the Curia, and episcopal
toleration of actual abuses in the promulgation of the
Indulgence, supplied him with welcome matter for his

1 See below, ix. 2.

2 A. Schulte, " Die Fugger in Rom 1495-1523," 2 vols., Leipzig,
1904. W. Schors, " Die Mainzer Erzbischofswahl und der Ablass vom
Jahre 1514," in the Innsbruck " Zeitschrif t f iir kath. Theol.," 31, 1907,
pp. 267-302. For details on this matter see the next section.

TETZEI/S PREACHING 329

charges and with -a deceitful pretext for the seducing of
countless souls.

Luther learned many discreditable particulars con-
cerning the arrangement arrived at between Rome and
Mayence for the preaching of the Indulgence and the use to
which half of the spoils was to be applied. What provoked
Luther and many others was not only the abuses which
prevailed in the use of Indulgences, about which there was
much grumbling, and the constantly recurring collections
which were a burden both to the rulers and their people, but
also the tales current regarding the behaviour of the monk
acting as Indulgence-preacher. Tetzel did not exactly
shine as an example of virtue, although the charges against
his earlier life are as baseless as the reproach of gross ignor-
ance. He was, as impartial historians have established,
forward and audacious and given to exaggeration. In his
sermons, mainly owing to his popular style of address, he
erred by using expressions only to be styled as strained and
ill-considered. He even employed phrases of a repulsive
nature in his attempts to extol the power of the Indulgence
preached by him. In addition to this, in explaining how
the Indulgence might be applied to the departed, he made
his own the wrong, exaggerated and quite unauthorised
opinions of certain isolated theologians, putting them on an
equal footing with the real teaching of the Church. Such
private opinions, it is true, had also found their way into
some of the official instructions on Indulgences. At any
rate, Tetzel, with misplaced zeal, mingled what was true
with what was false or uncertain. The great concourse of
people who gathered to hear the celebrated preacher also
led to many disorders, more particularly when, as was the
case at Annaberg, the occasion of the yearly fair was turned
to account in order to publish the Indulgence.

Shortly after the sermon already spoken of Luther
preached again at Wittenberg on the Indulgence and its
abuses, but without expressly referring to Tetzel. Another
sermon on the same subject was delivered at the Castle in
the presence of the Elector on the occasion of the exposition
of the rich collection of relics belonging to the Castle Church.
He still openly admitted the value of Indulgences, but
more and more he was disposed to find fault with the formal-
ism into which the system had degenerated. Later he

330 LUTHER THE MONK

declared that he had begun, already in 1516, " to dispute
about Indulgences and to write against the Pope " ; only the
first part of this clause is, however, true, and that only in a
certain sense. He had as yet written nothing against the
Primacy or against Indulgences as such. There is also no
foundation for the statement that, as soon as he heard
from Staupitz (at Grimma) of Tetzel's behaviour, he
exclaimed : " Please God, I will knock a hole in his drum."

It was on the question of Indulgences that the wider
controversy around his new doctrines, which were now
complete, was to commence. In October, 1517, he decided
to make a public attack on Tetzel. This he did when, on
the Eve of All Saints, October 31, 1517, he nailed up his 95
theses on Indulgences on the door of the Castle Church at
Wittenberg. As All Saints was the Titular Feast of the
Church x and as, on that day, numbers would be flocking
thither to celebrate the festival, he counted on securing
wide publicity for his theses. As a matter of fact, by
this means, and thanks to the efforts of Luther and his
friends, the printed theses were soon known everywhere.
Their very boldness and impudence also contributed to
their popularity. They were soon being read throughout
Germany, exciting general surprise and even admiration of
the Monk's language. The number of those who sincerely
applauded the theses, or who, at any rate, approved of the
greater part of their contents, was much greater than has
been generally believed.

The theses, of course, contained things which were
incomprehensible to non-theologians, but the very tone in
which they were written showed all the stupendous im-
portance of the step which had been taken. The more
timid were pacified by an introductory explanation of the
author embodied in the paper containing the theses, which
stated that the propositions did not determine anything
definite, but that " out of love and zeal for the ascertaining
of the truth " a public Disputation on these questions
would be held by Luther at Wittenberg, and that those who
were precluded from taking a personal part in the debate
might state their objections in writing.2

1 Not the anniversary of its dedication. Cp. N. Muller in the
" Archiv fur Reformationsgesch.," (6), 1909, p. 184, n. 4.

2 " Luthers Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 529. For the theses see also,
Erl. ed., " Opp. Lat. var.," 1, p. 285 seq.

THE INDULGENCE THESES 331

If we examine the theses more closely and watch the
behaviour of their author after they were made public, there
appears to be no doubt that they were considered by him as
settled beforehand and not merely as tentative propositions.
Many of them, from the theological point of view, go far
beyond a mere opposition of the abuse of Indulgences.
Luther, stimulated by contradiction, had to some extent
altered his previous views on the nature of Indulgences, and
brought them more into touch with the fundamental prin-
ciples of his erroneous theology.

A practical renunciation of the doctrine of Indulgences, as
it had been held up to that time, is to be found in the
theses, where Luther states that Indulgences have no value
in God's sight, but are merely to be regarded as the re-
mission by the Church of the canonical punishment (theses
5, 20, 21, etc.). This destroys the theological meaning of
Indulgences, for they had always been considered as a
remission of the temporal punishment of sin, but as a
remission which held good before the Divine Judgment-
seat.1 In some of the theses (58, 60) Luther likewise
attacks the generally accepted teaching with regard to the
Church's treasury of grace, on which Indulgences are based.
Erroneous views concerning the state of purgation of the
departed occur in some of the propositions (18, 19, 29).
Others appear to contain what is theologically incorrect,
and connected with his opinion regarding grace and justifica-
tion ; this opinion is not, however, clearly set forth in the
list of theses.

Many of the statements are mere irritating, insulting and
cynical observations on Indulgences in general, no distinction
being made between what was good and what was perverted.
Thus, for instance, thesis 66 declares the " treasures of
Indulgences " to be simply nets " in which the wealth of
mankind is caught." Others again scoff and mock at the
authority of the Church, as, for example, thesis 86. " Why
does not the Pope build the Basilica of St. Peter with his
own money and not with that of the poverty-stricken
faithful, seeing that he possesses to-day greater riches than
the most wealthy Croesus ? "

In order that a certain echo of the author's mystical

1 Cp. Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of the 41 propositions of Luther condemned
in 1520.

332 LUTHER THE MONK

Theologia Crucis may not be wanting even in this public
document, the last two theses contain a protest against the
formalism of the system of Indulgences : " Let Christians
be exhorted to follow Christ, their Head, through suffering
and through the pains of death and hell," " in order the
better to reach heaven they should put their trust in much
tribulation rather than in the certainty of peace."

The 95 theses spread rapidly through Germany, adding
dangerously to the already widespread dissatisfaction with
the Church and the Pope.

To Scultetus, Bishop of Brandenburg, within whose jurisdic-
tion Wittenberg lay, and to others, too, Luther continued
to explain the matter as though the theses were merely
intended to serve as the basis for a useful Disputation,1
which, however, as a matter of fact, never took place. He
assured the chief pastor of Brandenburg of his absolute
submission and his readiness to follow the Catholic Church in
everything. At the same time, however, he stated quite
clearly that, in his opinion, nothing could be advanced
against his theses either from Holy Scripture, Catholic
doctrine or canon law, with the exception of the utterances
" of some few canonists, who spoke without proofs, and of
some of the scholastic Doctors who cherished similar views,
but who also were unable to demonstrate anything " ; it
was not, of course, for him to give any decision, but he
might surely be permitted to open a discussion by means
of the Disputation.

Relying on his skill at debate, he looked forward to a
victory over Tetzel and to an opening for commencing the
struggle against the abuses connected with the preaching of
the Indulgence. Here we may recall the words of his pupil
Oldecop, already quoted before : " He spoke in unmeasured
terms against it [i.e. Indulgence-preaching], with great
impetuosity and audacity." He started the controversy,
being, says Oldecop, " by nature proud and audacious."2

Carried away by the astounding and ever-growing
applause of those who were otherwise loyal to the Church,
and deaf to the warnings and admonitions given him,
Luther launched among the people a German work entitled

1 Letter to Bishop Hieronymus Scultetus of February 13, 1518 (?),
" Brief wechsel," 1, p. 150 : " Inter quce sunt de quibus dubito, nonnulla
ignoro, aliqua et nego." P. 151 : '•' Disputo non assero," etc.

2 " Chronik," ed. K. Euling, p. 48 f. Cp. above, p. 280.

THE INDULGENCE THESES 333

" A Sermon on Indulgences and Grace," which contains
statements yet more vehement and seditious. Almost at
the same time, and in the greatest haste, he put on paper the
weighty " Resolutions " on his theses, written in Latin
for the benefit of the more learned. The latter appeared in
print in the spring of 1518.

Meanwhile, at the beginning of 1518, the Archbishop of
Mayence had forwarded to Rome an account of the move-
ment which had been started and of the Monk's theses.
As a result of this step the Pope, Leo X, on February 3,
instructed P. Gabriele della Volta, Vicar to the General of
the Augustinians, to seek to turn Luther aside from his
erroneous views by letter and by the admonitions of honest
and learned men ; delay might fan the spark into a flame
which it might be impossible to extinguish.1

There is no doubt that instructions to this effect were
despatched by Volta to Staupitz, and probably other
measures were contemplated at the approaching Chapter of
the German Augustinian Congregation at Heidelberg ; the
calming of the storm was a duty incumbent primarily on
the Order itself, and the Holy See accordingly decided to
act through Luther's immediate superiors. Unfortunately,
nothing whatever is known of any steps taken by the Order
at this early stage. At the Heidelberg Chapter, which was
held towards the end of April (above, p. 315) the election of
a new Vicar-General of the Congregation to which Luther
belonged had to take place ; a new Rural Vicar had also to
be elected in place of Luther, as the latter had now com-
pleted his term of office. It seems plain that Staupitz and
the large party who favoured Luther wished to act as gently
as possible and not to interfere in the movement beyond
making the necessary change in the person of the Rural
Vicar.

After Luther had received the summons to Heidelberg,
the Elector wrote to Staupitz a letter dated Friday in

1 Cp. Pastor, "History of the Popes," volume vii., English trans-
lation, p. 361. Kalkoff, " Forschungen zu Luthers romischem Prozess,"
Rom., 1905, p. 44 f., and " Zu Luthers romischem Prozess : Das
Verfahren des Erzbischofs v. Mainz gegen Luther," in " Zeitschrift
fur Kirchengesch.," 31, 1910, pp. 48-65. Cp. ibid., p. 368 ff., on the
Dominicans. Both authors should be consulted for the subsequent
history of Rome's intervention. The Papal letter in Bembi, Epistolce
Leonis X, 1, 16, n. 18.

334 LUTHER THE MONK

Easter week, with a request to see that Luther, on account
of his lectures, " shall return here at the very earliest and not
be delayed or detained." x We cannot infer from this or
from the Elector's letter of safe conduct for Luther himself,
that measures against him were anticipated at the Chapter.
These documents merely prove the exceptional favour
which Luther enjoyed with the reigning Prince.

Luther started from Wittenberg on April 11. Being a monk
he had to make the journey on foot as far as Wiirzburg ;
after having been hospitably entertained by the Bishop,
Lorenz von Bibra, who was very well disposed towards him,
he proceeded to Heidelberg by coach, together with Johann
Lang and some other monks. The Chapter re-elected
Staupitz and made Johann Lang Rural Vicar in Luther's
stead, a choice which, as already hinted, expressed approval
rather than disapproval of what Luther had done. It was
also very significant of the position adopted by the Augus-
tinian Congregation, that Luther should have been per-
mitted to preside at the Heidelberg Disputation. He
advanced the theses, which have already been discussed
(above, p. 317), containing the denial of free will, i.e. the
most important element of his new teaching, and entrusted
their defence to Master Leonard Beyer, an Augustinian of
Wittenberg, who conducted the debate in the presence of the
assembled Chapter and professors of Heidelberg University,
who had also been invited. It is remarkable that the
question of Indulgences, which was so greatly agitating
the minds of all, was not touched upon in the Disputation.
Perhaps it was thought better, from motives of prudence,
to avoid this subject altogether at Heidelberg.

At the beginning of May Luther returned to Wittenberg
by way of Wiirzburg and Erfurt. He took advantage of his
stay at Dresden to preach a sermon before Duke George
and his Court on July 25, 1518. In this sermon he spoke
in such a way of " the true understanding of the Word of
God," of the " Grace of Christ and eternal Predestination,"
and of the overcoming of the " Fear of God," that the Duke,
who was a staunch adherent of the Church, was much
displeased, and often declared afterwards that such teaching
only made men presumptuous. The account of the sermon
and of Duke George's opinion is first found in the" Origines
1 Kolde, " Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation," p. 313.

THE "RESOLUTIONS" 335

Saxonicce " 1 of George Fabricius, who died in 1571. But
Luther himself refers to the opposition excited in several
quarters by a controversial sermon he preached there,
and remarks, cynically : such fault-finders only speak
from an idle desire for praise ; these gossips want everything
and are able to do nothing, they are a " serpent's brood,"
" masked faces " whom I despise.2

On his return to Wittenberg he devoted himself to finishing
the Resolutions on the Indulgence theses. On August 21
he sent the first printed copy to Spalatin.

These Latin Resolutiones disputationis de virtute indul-
gentiarum, which dealt exclusively with the defence of the
95 theses, were more hostile in tone towards the whole
system of Indulgences than any of his previous utterances.
They show Luther's fiery temper and his state of irritation
even more plainly than the theses themselves. In them his
new teaching on faith and grace was for the first time
launched on the public in unmistakable outline. Even
abroad the learned were drawn into the movement by the
Latin publication which brought the matter within their
range.

Together with his Resolutions, Luther published two
letters, very submissive in tone, addressed, one to the Bishop
of Brandenburg, as Ordinary of Wittenberg, and the other
to Pope Leo X. To the Pope he said that he had ventured
to address himself to him because he had learned that some
persons at Rome were attempting to blacken his reputation,
as though he were infringing the power of the Keys of
the successor of St. Peter. He explained the reason of the
controversy from his own point of view and declared : "I
cannot recant." In the same letter, however, he asserts
his readiness to listen to Leo's voice " as to the Voice of
Christ, who presides in him and speaks through him " ; one
thing only he asks, viz. that the Pope will deal with him just

1 " Origines illustr. stirpis Saxonicce I. 7," Iense, 1597, p. 859.
Seckendorf, in his " Comment, de Luther anismo," relates the same
from Fabricius. Both, however, make the mistake of placing the
event a year too early. N. Paulus, in the " Histor.-polit. Blatter," 137,
1906, p. 51 f., doubts the credibility of the story, because Fabricius is
devoid of the critical spirit. It is not clear whether Luther refers to
some other sermon.

2 To Spalatin, January 14, 1519, " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 349. For
further particulars with regard to the Dresden visit, which has been
so much misrepresented, see below, ix. 4.

336 LUTHER THE MONK

as he pleases. " Enliven me, kill me, call me back, confirm
me, reject me, just as it pleases you ! " 1 In the Resolutions,
on the other hand, we read : "It makes no impression on
me what pleases or does not please the Pope. He is a man
like other men. There have been many Popes to whom not
only errors and vices, but even enormities (monstra) were
pleasing. I attend to the Pope as Pope, i.e. as he speaks
in the laws of the Church, or when he decides in accordance
with them, or with a Council, but not when he speaks out of
his own head." 2

At a later date he did not make any secret of the weakness
of so ambiguous a position. On one occasion in later years
when looking back upon the commencement of the struggle,
he said he had begun the controversy " as an unreflecting
and stupid Papist," that he had been drawn into the
business by " his own foolishness," that his " weakness and
inconsequence " had been deplorably exhibited, seeing that
he then still worshipped the Pope ; before this Lord of
Heaven and Earth, he writes, everything still trembled,
and he, the little monk, more like a corpse than a man, had
only dared to advance with lamentable uncertainty and
fear.3

In the same passage, he says : " I was certainly not glad and
confident at the outset." " What my heart suffered in the
first and second years, how I lay on the ground, yea, almost
despaired, of that they [my rivals, the fanatics] know
nothing, though they were happy to fall upon the Pope after
he had been severely wounded [by me]. They have sought
to take this honour to themselves, and, for all I care, they
are welcome to it." " They are ignorant of the Cross and of
Satan " ; but I only attained " to strength and wisdom
through death agonies and combats."

While Luther was superintending the printing of the
Resolutions at Wittenberg he was at the same time engaged
on other works.

Johann Eck had replied to his Indulgence theses by the
so-called " Obelisci," which Luther met with the " Aster-
isci," and as Tetzel, for his part, had issued a refutation of
the sermon on Indulgence and Grace, Luther brought out a

1 May 30, 1518 (?), " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 200 f. Weim. ed., 1,
p. 527 ff.

2 " Opp. Lat. var.," 2, p. 220. Weim. ed., p. 582, Concl. 26.

3 " Opp. Lat. var.," 4, p. 328 seq., in a Preface to his Disputations.

ON EXCOMMUNICATION 337

work in reply, entitled " Freedom of the Sermon on
Indulgence and Grace."

Fearing that the Pope would excommunicate him, Luther
preached a sermon to the inhabitants of Wittenberg in the
early summer of 1518, possibly on May 16, on the power of
excommunication ; what he there put forth excited wide-
spread comment and irritation. This sermon he issued in
print in August, but in an amended form. In it he says
excommunication is invalid in the case of one who honestly
asserts the truth ; nevertheless, it must be obeyed. He
blames the all too frequent use of excommunication, as
many good Churchmen had done before him. It had been
recognised and taught from Patristic times that unjust
excommunication did not deprive the excommunicate of
a part in the inward life of the Church (anima ecclesice).
This Luther emphasises for his own party purposes, but
without as yet setting up " a new view of the nature of the
Church."

He says, in a letter to his elderly friend Staupitz, that,
owing to the action of his adversaries, " a new flame " would
surely be kindled by this sermon, though he had extolled the
power of the Pope in it, as was fitting ; he declares that he
is the persecuted party ; " but Christ still lives and reigns
yesterday, to-day and for ever. My conscience tells me I
have taught the truth ; but it is just this which is hated
whenever its name is mentioned. Pray for me that I may
not rejoice overmuch nor be over-confident in myself in this
trouble." He trusts to triumph, by printing the sermon
referred to, over all those who had listened to it with jealousy,
and maliciously misrepresented it. Yet his mood is by no
means one of unmixed joy ; he hints in the same letter to
Staupitz at mysterious interior sufferings which weigh upon
him " incomparably more heavily," so he says, than the
fear of any measures Rome may take. At the same time
he is quite carried away by the idea that he must, at any
cost, fight against the contempt which the Romanists are
heaping upon the Kingdom of Christ.1

Meanwhile, in March, 1518, complaints had again been

carried to Rome by some Dominicans. Towards the middle

of June fresh official steps were taken by Rome against

Luther's person, this time without the intervention of the

1 May 1, 1518, " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 223.

I.— z

338 LUTHER THE MONK

Order. The course of these proceedings has been made
plain by recent research. The Papal Procurator Fiscal,
Mario de Perusco, raised a formal charge against the monk
on the suspicion of spreading heresy. By order of the Pope,
the preliminary examination was conducted by the Bishop
of Ascoli, Girolamo Ghinucci, as Auditor-General for suits
in the Apostolic Camera, while Silvester Mazzolini of Prierio
(Prierias), the Magister S. Palatii, who, like all Mayors of the
Apostolic Palace, belonged to the Dominican Order, was
entrusted with the task of penning a learned opinion on the
questions involved.

As Prierias had already made a study of the Indulgence
theses, he, as he himself says, took only three days to draw
up the opinion, which, moreover, he did not intend to stand
as an actual theological refutation. It was at once printed,
being entitled " In prcesumptuosas M. Lutheri conclusiones
de potestate papce dialogus." The work was not free from
exaggerations and gratuitous insults.

At the beginning of July, 1518, Luther was summoned to
appear within sixty days at Rome to stand his trial.
Ghinucci and Prierias sent the summons to Cardinal Cajetan,
who was then stopping at Augsburg, in order that he might
forward it to the Wittenberg Professor. Prierias's pamphlet
accompanied it, and Luther received both together on
August 7. He said at a later date in his Table-Talk, alluding
to the work of the Mayor of the Apostolic Palace, that the
despatch from Rome had stirred his blood to the utmost, as
he had then realised that the matter was deadly earnest,
since Rome was inexorable.

The very next day, with many contemptuous and dis-
affected remarks on the citation, he set about inducing the
Elector to use his influence with the Holy See in order that
judges might be appointed to try the case in Germany ; he
hoped to be thereby spared the dreaded journey to Rome.
It was at that time that he published the sermon on excom-
munication referred to above. On the day following the
receipt of the summons he set to work on a pamphlet in
reply to the Dialogus of Prierias, which appeared at the
end of August.1 This Latin Responsio he finished in two
days, thus beating Prierias, as he triumphantly informs
him. It is arrogant and insulting in tone, vindicates all the
1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 647 ff.

AGAINST PRIERIAS 339

theses one by one, and asserts some of the errors contained
in them in still stronger terms than before. He does not
as yet deny the infallibility of the Councils, on the contrary,
he explicitly admits it -,1 neither does he in set words state
that the Pope may emit false opinions when teaching on
faith and morals, although in recent times both these errors
have been said to be embodied in his reply.

The obscure passage regarding the possibility of the Councils
and Popes erring refers to their action in ecclesiastico-political
matters, as the cases instanced by Luther show more clearly,
e.g. the wars of Pope Julius II and the " tyrannical acts " which
he attributes to Boniface VIII.

It is true that the want of any clear admission in his reply of
the doctrinal authority of the Church, his violent insistence on the
Bible as interpreted by himself, and his arbitrary handling of
the older theology and practice, gave cause for apprehending
the worst.

Against Prierias he defends the opinion, that our Saviour
commanded what was impossible because we are always subject
to concupiscence ; that the sons of God are forced to do what is
good rather than left to perform it of their own accord, and, for
this reason, the higher theology teaches that those actions are
the best which Christ works in us without our co-operation, and
those the worst " which — according to the absolutely false
teaching of Aristotle — we perform by our own so-called free will."

From the latter circumstance the pseudo-mystic infers that
fasting, for instance, is excellent when the person who fasts is
absolutely unconscious of what he is doing and thinking of
something higher ; at such a moment he is furthest removed
from any craving for food. Sacramental Penance, he says, is
merely the commencement of penance, and zeal in its use could
only be maintained by a miracle.2

All these ideas, which, as we know from what has gone before,
give a true picture of the direction of his mind, are to be found at
the beginning of the work, of which the confusion is matched only
by its pretensions.

Because Prierias was a Dominican and Thomist, Luther here
displays the bitterest animosity against the Thomistic school,
an animosity which was henceforth never to cease, and likewise
summons his national feeling as a German to help him against
the Italian. In one of his letters Luther declared that he would
let him see there were men in Germany well versed in the arts

1 Cp. V. Prop., n. 3 : " Non sum hcereticus si negativam teneo, donee
determinetur a concilio.'''' N. 6 : " Ego ecclesiam . . . representative
non [scio] nisi in concilio " ; but it was incorrect " si quidquid facit
ecclesia virtualis, id est papa (as Prierias stated), factum ecclesios dicitur " :
The Pop 3 and the Councils might err in their regulations on practical

•matters (" factum ecclesios).

2 See above, p. 291.

340 LUTHER THE MONK

and wily tricks of the Romans ; if he continued to incense him,
he would make free use of his wit and pen against him.1

In his reply to Prierias, Luther had referred his opponent
to the Resolutions to his Indulgence theses, which were
then already in print. Staupitz forwarded to Rome the
copy destined for the Pope. The letters to Staupitz and
Leo X, which. were incorporated in the work, were dated
May 30, 1518, though the printing was not finished before
August 21. As the Resolutions, Luther's most important
work on the question of Indulgences, obstinately confirmed
the errors already expressed, more severe measures were
anticipated on the part of the Curia.

In his efforts to procure the appointment of judges to
try his cause in Germany, Luther sought, through the Elector,
to make use of the mediation of the Emperor Maximilian.
But the Emperor, who was earnestly solicitous for the
welfare of religion, and at the same time was anxious to
secure the Pope's favour on behalf of the election of his
grandson Charles as King of Rome, wrote to Leo X,
August 5, 1518, from Augsburg, that out of love for the
unity of the faith he would support any measures the Pope
might take against Luther.

More severe proceedings against Luther were accordingly
set on foot in Rome, even before the sixty days were over.
These measures are outlined in the Brief of August 23, 1518,
sent to Cardinal Cajetan, the Papal Legate at the Diet of
Augsburg.

In view of the notoriety of Luther's acts and teaching,
with the assistance of the spiritual and secular power,
Cajetan was to have him brought to Augsburg ; should
force have to be used, or should Luther not recant, then
Cajetan was to hand him over to Rome for trial and punish-
ment ; he himself therefore was not to be the actual judge,
but only to receive Luther's recantation. In the event of
his presenting himself voluntarily at Augsburg and recanting,
so ran the instructions, Luther was to find pardon and
mercy. Should it be impossible to procure his appearance
at Augsburg, then the measures provided by law and
custom for such cases were to be enforced ; he and his
followers were to be publicly excommunicated, and the
authorities in Church and State were to be forced, if neces-
1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 196.

THE TETZEL LEGEND 341

sary under pain of interdict, to seize and deliver up the
excommunicate.

The Elector, Frederick the Wise, however, demanded a
trial before Cardinal Cajetan at Augsburg; this was to be
carried out with " paternal gentleness." He would not
consent to sanction any other measures. Cajetan met his
wishes without being untrue either to the Pope or to himself.
" A man entirely devoted to study, without much practical
knowledge of the world, he was no match for such an expert
politician as Frederick of Saxony." 1 On September 11 he
obtained from Leo X a Brief placing in his own hands the
trial and decision on Luther's case.

Thus the way was paved for Luther's historic trial at
Augsburg.

Fables regarding Luther and Tetzel

Before passing on to the trial at Augsburg, we must first
deal with the legends which cluster round the name of
Tetzel and which were mostly started by Luther and the
Papal Chamberlain, Carl von Miltitz.

We have a detailed critical monograph on Tetzel by Dr. N.
Paulus : " Johann Tetzel, der Ablassprediger," Mayence, 1899,
which the same author2 has since supplemented by other publica-
tions. Paulus by his impartial research has sealed the fate of
the principal legends connected with Tetzel's name.

A statement made by Luther in 1541, i.e. at the time of his
most bitter polemics, has been repeated countless times since,
viz. that, in 1512, at Innsbruck, Tetzel the monk was condemned
by the Emperor Maximilian to be drowned in the River Inn for
the crime of adultery, and that only the intervention of the
Elector, Frederick the Wise, had saved him from this fate. This
is an untruth which Luther first made use of in his violent
pamphlet " Wider Hans Worst."3 Before that time he had never
mentioned anything of the kind. A. Berger says of the supposed
condemnation at Innsbruck : " Paulus has finally disposed of
the infamous tale of adultery and no one will ever venture to
bring it forward again."4 Before this Th. Brieger had declared :
"It is high time that this story which has been questioned even

1 See Pastor, " History of the Popes," English translation, volume
vii., p. 372.

2 N. Paulus, " Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen
Luther," 1903, pp. 1-9, " Johann Tetzel " ; also in the " Katholik,"
1899, 1, pp. 484-510; 1901, 1, pp. 453-68, 554-70.

3 " Werke," Erl. ed., 26, p. 50.

4 " Hist. Vierteljahrsschr. fur Gesch.," 5, 1902, p. 256.

342 LUTHER THE MONK

by Protestants should disappear."1 No authority whatever can
be quoted for representing in an unfavourable light the private
life of this man, who stood so prominently before the public.
Concerning the supposed ... Innsbruck incident, Fr. Dibelius,
Superintendent at Dresden, says : " among the imperfections
and crimes alleged against Tetzel by his enemies the charge of
immorality cannot be sustained."2

The shortsighted Papal Chamberlain Miltitz, in his eagerness
to secure peace on any terms, in the first years of the Indulgence
controversy made common cause with those opponents of
Tetzel who brought forward baseless charges of immorality
against him after he had withdrawn, at the end of 1518, to the
pious seclusion of his Dominican priory at Leipzig. In mid-
January, 1519, Tetzel had to endure the most bitter reproaches
from the ill-informed Papal agent. But, as Oscar Michael re-
marks, " all attempts to set up Miltitz as a reliable witness will
be in vain."3 "What Miltitz relates of Tetzel is altogether
unworthy of credence." Another Protestant writer had already
before that expressed himself likewise.4

With regard to the matter of Tetzel's sermons above
referred to, it is chiefly to Luther that we owe the charge of
flagrant errors and gross abuses in his proclamation of the
Indulgence. " He wrote," so Luther explained to his
friends, " that an Indulgence is a reconciliation between
Gcd and man and takes effect even though a man performs
no penance, and manifests neither contrition nor sorrow."5
" Tetzel put it so crudely that no one could fail to under-
stand his meaning."6

In his pamphlet of 1541 Luther says : " He sold grace for
money at the highest price he could." He then instances
six " horrible, dreadful articles " which the avaricious monk
had preached.

One of these which extols his Indulgence contains an offensive
statement respecting Our Lady ; another declares that, according
to Tetzel, " it was not necessary to feel sorrow or pain or contrition
for sin, but whoever bought the Indulgence, or the Indulgence-
letters," had also bought an Indulgence for " future sins " ;
three of the articles say he had magnified the effects of the Indul-
gence by the use of unseemly comparisons, and finally, one states

1 " Theol. Literaturztg.," 1900, p. 84.

2 In a lecture on Tetzel's Life and Teaching, " Dresdener Journal,"
1903, March 20.

3 " Munchener Allgemeine Zeitung," 1901, April 18, Beil., No. 88.

4 Ibid., 1900, May 14, Beil., No. 110. Cp. a like statement by anon-
Catholic critic in the " Frankfurter Zeitung," 1899, October 8, No. 279.

5 " Werke," Erl. ed., 60, p. 239 ; cp. p. 271 f.

6 Ibid., p. 271.

THE TETZEL LEGEND 343

that his teaching was that embodied in the ribald rhyme: "As
soon as money in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory's fire
springs."

As a matter of fact, the accusations brought against Tetzel,
of having sold forgiveness of sins for money without requiring
contrition, and of having even been ready to absolve from future
sins in return for a money payment, are, as N. Paulus, and others
before him, pointed out, utterly unjust.1 Even Carlstadt, after
he had gone over to the hostile camp of the new teaching, ad-
mitted that the Indulgence sermons, including those of Tetzel,
were in agreement with the generally accepted teaching of the
Church ; of the enormities just referred to he knows nothing.
Above all, Tetzel's own writings, likewise his instructions and
also the testimony of strangers, all speak in his favour. " The
Indulgence," Tetzel says in his " Vorlegung," "remits only the
pain [i.e. the penalty] of sins which have been repented of and
confessed." " No one merits an Indulgence unless he is in a
truly contrite state."2 Those who procured a Confession-letter
received, according to an ancient usage, with the same letter
permission to select a suitable confessor ; for this an alms was
given. The confessor was able to absolve, after a good confession,
from all sins, even in reserved cases, and to impart a Plenary
Indulgence by virtue of the Papal authorisation.

Tetzel was able with the help of official witnesses to refute
the calumny with regard to Mary in his eulogy of the Indulgence.
There can, however, be no doubt that he brought the pecuniary
side of the Indulgence too much into the foreground. Another
Dominican, a contemporary of his, Johann Lindner, criticises
his behaviour as follows : Dr. Johann Tetzel of Pirna, of the Order
of Preachers, from the Leipzig priory, a world-renowned preacher,
proclaimed the Jubilee Year [Jubilee Indulgence] at Naumburg
Leipzig, Magdeburg, Zwickau, Bautzen, Gorlitz, Cologne, Halle
and many other places. . . . His teaching found favour with
many ; but he devised unheard-of ways of raising money, was
far too liberal in conferring offices, put up far too many public
crosses [as a sign of the Indulgence-preaching] in towns and
villages, which caused scandal and bred complaints among the
people and brought the spiritual treasury into disrepute."3

Finally the last of the " horrible articles " mentioned above
does to some extent approach the truth. The saying about the
money in the coffer cannot, indeed, be traced to Tetzel's own lips,
yet in his sermons he advocated a certain opinion held by some
Schoolmen (though in no sense a doctrine of the Church),
viz. that an indulgence gained for the departed was at once and
infallibly applied to this or that soul for whom it was destined.

1 Cp. also N. Paulus's article on the remitting of future sins in
" Koln. Volkszeitung," 1905, Liter. Beilage, No. 43.

2 "Vorlegung wyder einen vormessen Sermon vom Ablass," etc
Without place or year (Frankfurt, 1518, 4to,# 15 Bl.).

3 Menckenius, " Scriptores rer. germ.,"'t. 2, Lips., 1728, p. 1486
Cp. N. Paulus, " Die deutschen Dominikaner," p. 7 f.

344 LUTHER THE MONK

This view was not supported by the Papal Bulls of Indulgence,
and Luther was not justified in asserting at a later date that the
Pope had actually taught this.1 Great theologians, such as
Cardinal Cajetan, for instance, even then expressed themselves
against such a view, which now is universally recognised as
untenable. It was the wish of Cajetan that no faith should be
given those preachers who taught such extravagances. " Preachers
speak in the name of the Church,"2 he wrote, " only so long as
they proclaim the teaching of Christ and the Church ; but if
for purposes of their own, they teach that about which they know
nothing and which is only their own imagination, they cannot
be regarded as mouthpieces of the Church ; no one must be
surprised if such as these fall into error." It is true, however,
that even the more highly placed Indulgence Commissaries did
not scruple, in their official proclamations, to set forth as certain
this doubtful scholastic opinion. It is no wonder that Tetzel
in his popular appeals seized upon it with avidity, for, in spite
of certain gifts, he was no great theologian. He not only taught
the certain and immediate liberation of the soul in the above sense
but also the erroneous proposition that a Plenary Indulgence
for the departed could be obtained without contrition and
penance on the part of the living, simply by means of a money
payment.

Some of Tetzel's more recent champions have insinuated that
the unfavourable opinion concerning his teaching rests merely
on witnesses who reported on his sermons from hearsay without
having themselves been present. As a matter of fact, however,
the accusations do not rest merely on such testimony, but more
especially on Tetzel's own theses, or " Anti-theses," as he called
them, on his " Vorlegung " against Luther and on his second
set of theses. This is reinforced by the official instructions on
the Indulgence to which he was bound to conform. That a
money payment alone is necessary for obtaining an Indulgence
for the departed is indeed stated — though wrongly — in the
instructions of Bomhauer and also in those of Arcimboldi and
Albert of Brandenburg. The Anti-theses above mentioned were
publicly defended by Tetzel on January 20, 1518, at the Uni-
versity of Frankfort on the Oder ; they thus belong to Tetzel,
though in reality they were drawn up by Conrad Wimpina, a
Professor of Theology in that town. Paulus published a new edition
of the Anti-theses, which were already known, from the original
broadsheet which he discovered in the Court Library at Munich.3
Four witnesses to the inaccuracy of Tetzel's sermons must be
mentioned : firstly, the Town Clerk of Gorlitz, Johann Hass ;
then Bertold Pirstinger, Bishop of Chiemsee and author of the

1 " Werke," Erl ed., 65, p. 78 : " The Pope had sternly commanded
the angels to carry forthwith the souls of the departed to heaven." Just
as Tetzel taught : "As soon as the penny rattles in the box, the soul
flies straight from Purgatory to Heaven."

2 November 20, 1519. "Opuscula," Lugd., 1558, p. 121. N.
Paulus, " Tetzel," p. 165. 3 Ibid., p. 171 U

THE TETZEL LEGEND 345

" Tewtsche Theologey " ; thirdly, the Saxon Franciscan Franz
Polygranus ; and lastly, Duke George of Saxony. They confirm
the statements taken from the above sources, and though their
assertions do not rest on what they themselves heard, yet they
may be considered as the echo of actual hearers.

In connection with the above " horrible, terrible articles "
taken from Tetzel's teaching, Luther makes a statement
with regard to his own position and knowledge at that time,
which, notwithstanding the sacred affirmation with which
he introduces it, is of very doubtful veracity.

" So truly as I have been saved by my Lord Christ," he
says of the beginning of the Indulgence controversy in 1517,
* I knew nothing of what an Indulgence was, and no more
did anyone else." x

It is possible that in 1541, when, as an elderly man, he wrote
these words, they may have appeared to him to be true, but the
sources from which history is taken demand that he himself as
well as his Catholic contemporaries should be protected against
such a charge of ignorance. His assertion has been defended
by some Protestants on the assumption that his ignorance was
only concerning the recipients of the revenues proceeding from
the Indulgence. But why force his words ? They refer, as the
whole context shows, to the theological doctrine of Indulgences.

We need hardly remind our readers that the conviction that
Luther was thoroughly well acquainted with the Catholic doctrine
on Indulgences can be demonstrated by his own sermon on
Indulgences of the year 1516. 2 He there shows himself perfectly
capable of distinguishing between the essentials of the Church's
doctrine and the obscure and difficult questions which the theo-
logians were wont to propound in their discussions. With regard
to these latter, and these only, he admitted his uncertainty, as
did other theologians too. This was as little a disgrace to him as
the obscurity surrounding certain points was to the theology of
the Church. But it is quite another matter when he says he did
not even know what an Indulgence was. That no one else knew
either, is a statement disposed of by his own sermon of 1516 and
the various theological tracts on this subject. We need only
recall the explanations of Cardinal Cajetan, of the Augustinian
theologian and preacher Johann Paltz and of the continuator
of the work of Gabriel Biel — so much studied among the Augus-
tinians — Wendelin Steinbach, who succeeded Biel as professor at
Tubingen. Biel himself had written on the question of Indulgences
for the departed, and, in his appendices on this subject, had
expressed himself quite correctly.

Of the older theologians who preceded those we have men-

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 26, p. 53.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 65 seq. For the contents, see above,
p. 324 f.

346 LUTHER THE MONK

tinned in a right appreciation of this subject, we may enumerate
the Franciscans Richard of Middletown, Petrus de Palude and
Franciscus Mayron ; the Dominicans Heinrich Kalteisen of
Coblentz, whose writings on Indulgences have been re-edited
by Dr. N. Paulus. All these treated the subject in accordance
with the doctrine of St. Thomas of Aquin and St. Bonaventure.
Kalteisen in his work, written in 1448 while he was Magister S.
Palatii, refers expressly to St. Thomas, whose opinion on questions
not yet definitively settled was ever considered the best. To
mention only one point, all agree in interpreting the old expression
(remissio peccatorum) usual in Indulgence-formulae, as meaning
a remission of the temporal punishment. Suarez, at a later date,
could well refer not only to " all theologians," but also to " all
' Summists,' " i.e. to all those who had compiled moral Sums
from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century.1

Thus, in 1517, the theological side of the question of
Indulgences was quite clear, and the statements made by
Luther at a later date are not deserving of credit. It was
Luther's false ideas on other points of theology and his
determination to put an immediate end to the abuses
connected with Indulgences, which led him in 1517 to make
a general attack, even though partly veiled, on the whole
ecclesiastical system of Indulgences.

If we keep this in view, a statement of Luther's to which
a false interpretation has been frequently given, becomes
clear. According to an account given by Hieronymus
Emser, he wrote to Tetzel at a time when the latter was
suffering keenly under the reproaches heaped upon him :
Not to worry, for it was not he who had begun the business,
but that the child had quite another father.2

This sentence has repeatedly been taken as a testimony against
himself on Luther's part, as though by it he had intended to say :
My new opinions and the desire to change the ecclesiastical order
of things were the cause of my coming forward, the Indulgence
was only an idle pretext. Luther's defenders, on the other hand,
took it to mean : " The child has, it is true, another father, viz.
God Himself Who took pity on His Church, and forced Luther to
come forward." Both interpretations are wrong, and the

1 Cp. the article by Dr. N. Paulus : " Johann v. Paltz iiber Ablass
und Reue " in the " Zeitschrift fur kath. theol.," 23, 1899, p. 48 ff. He
treats in the same review of Wendelin Steinbach, 24, 1900, p. 262 : of
Richard of Middletown, ibid., p. 12. See Kalteisen's writing, ibid.,
27, 1903, p. 368 ff. We also possess a treatise on Indulgences by the
secular priest Nic. of Dinkelsbuhl, professor at the University.

2 Emser, " Auff des Stieres tzu Wiettenberg wiettende Replica," Bl.
A. 3'. Cp. "Luthers Briefe," ed. de Wette, volume vi., K. Seidemann,
p. 18, where it is stated : " Luther's letter was in Emser's hands."

PREACHING OF THE INDULGENCE 347

following is the meaning as determined by the context : The
attack which Luther made upon Tetzel was really directed
against the authorities of the Church, against the Pope and
Archbishop Albert of Brandenburg ; these, not Tetzel, were the
" father of the child," and responsible for what afterwards
happened. x

Tetzel died August 11, 1519, broken down by the weight
of the accusations brought against him and by the sight of
the mischief which had been wrought, and was buried
before the High Altai: of the Dominican Church at Leipzig.

To describe the unfortunate monk as the " cause " of
the whole movement which began 1517 is, in view of what
has been stated in the preceding chapters, the merest legend.
Notwithstanding the efforts which Luther made to represent
the matter in this or a similar light, it has been clearly 2
proved that his own spiritual development was the " cause,"
or at least the principal cause, though other factors may
have co-operated more or less.

If we turn our attention to the external circumstances
and the reasons which led to Tetzel's Indulgence-preaching,
we shall find that recent research has brought to light
numerous facts to supplement those already known, artd
also various elements which dispose of the legends hitherto
current.

2. The Collections for St. Peter's in History and Legend

The scholarly, well-documented work of Aloysius Schulte
has thrown a clearer light upon the question of the St.
Peter's Indulgence and the part which the Archbishop of
Mayence and Magdeburg played in the same (cp. above,
p. 327).3

In his later days Luther spread the following version of
the origin of Tetzel's Indulgence-preaching : Albert of
Mayence selected the " great clamourer " Tetzel as preacher

1 N. Paulus, "Tetzel," p. 1G9.

2 As he declares in " Werke," Erl. ed., 26, p. 50 ff. ; " The first,
real and actual beginning of the Lutheran uproar" was Tetzel's
preaching, and " the fame of it did not please me at all, for I did not
know what an Indulgence was, and the song was getting too high for
my voice," it was the Bishop of Mayence who really commenced the
affair through " the cut-purse, Tetzel " ; he says in his Table-Talk :
"If the Popo had only dismissed the Indulgence-mongers, I would
willingly have been silent," " Colloquia," ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 195.

3 "Die Fugger in Rom 1495-1523," Bd. 1, Darstellung ; Bd. 2,
Urkunden, Leipzig, 1904.

348 LUTHER THE MONK

of the Indulgence in order, with one half of the proceeds
of the business, which was the part of the spoils to be
allotted to the Archbishop, to pay for the pallium which
Rome had sent him ; the cost of the pallium was said to have
amounted to 26,000 or even 30,000 gulden ; the Fuggers
advanced this money to Archbishop Albert and then he,
with Tetzel, " sent forth the Fugger cut-purses throughout
the land." " The Pope, too, had his finger in the pie, and
had seen that the [other] half went towards the building of
St. Peter's in Rome."1

At a later date some of the Protestants even averred
that Tetzel " collected in the first and only year [of his
preaching] one hundred thousand gulden."

In the above statements there is a mixture of truth and false-
hood. Various particulars, discreditable to both Rome and
Mayence, had reached Luther by a sure hand ; for others he
drew on his own imagination.2

As early as 1519 he says in his memoranda for the negotiations
with Miltitz : " The Pope, as his office required, should either
have forbidden and hindered the Bishop of Magdeburg [Albert]
from seeking so many bishoprics for himself, or have bestowed
them upon him freely as he had himself received them from the
Lord. But as the Pope encouraged the Bishop's ambition and
gratified his own greed for gold by taking so many thousand
gulden for the palliums, i.e. for the Bishops' mantles, and for the
dispensation, he had, I said [this is Luther], forced and instigated
the Bishop of Magdeburg to coin money out of the Indulgence.
. . . Then I became impatient with such a lamentable business,
and also, more especially, with the greed of the Florentines, who
persuaded the good, simple Pope to do as they wished, and drove
him into the greatest danger and misfortune."3 Luther was well-
informed regarding what was going on in Rome, probably owing
to his having friends at the Court of Albert. He refers in 1518
to an " epistola satis erudita " from Rome which had come into
his hands, and which inveighed in the strongest terms against
the Florentines who surrounded the Pope, as the " most avaricious
of men " ; " they abuse," so he writes, " the Pope's good nature
in order to fill the bottomless pit of their passionate love of
money."4

With regard to the statement, that Archbishop Albert had
petitioned the Pope for the Indulgence in order to pay off the
debt he had incurred by receiving the See of Mayence in addition

1 " Werkc," Erl. ed., 26, p. 52.

2 We shall come back later to the sources from which he drew his
information.

3 " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 342.

4 To Spalatin, September 2, 1518, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 227. Cp
Com. in Ep. ad. Gal., 3, p. 133.

FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES 349

to that of Magdeburg and also the expenses of the pallium, it
has now been ascertained (the fact is certainly no less to Rome's
discredit) that, in reality, it was the Roman authorities, who, for
financial reasons, offered the Indulgence to the Archbishop ; Albert
was to receive from the proceeds a compensation of 10,000 ducats,
which sum, in addition to the ordinary fees, had been demanded
of him on the occasion of his confirmation as Archbishop of
Mayence on account of the dispensation necessary for combining
the two Archiepiscopal Sees ; one half of the proceeds of the
Indulgence was to be made over to him for the needs of the Arch-
diocese of Mayence, the other half was to go towards the re-
building of St. Peter's, for which object a collection had already
commenced in other countries and was being promoted by the
preaching of the Indulgence.

Regarding the whole matter we learn the following details.

When Bishop Albert of Brandenburg, the brother of the
Brandenburg Elector, Joachim I, was chosen Archbishop in
1514 by the Cathedral Chapter of Mayence he was faced by great
difficulties, financial as well as ecclesiastical. Was it likely that
he would obtain from Rome his confirmation as Archbishop of
Mayence, seeing that he was already Archbishop of Magdeburg
and at the same time administrator of the diocese of Halber-
stadt ? Would it be possible for him to raise the customary
large sum to be paid for his confirmation and for the pallium,
seeing that the Archdiocese of Mayence, owing to two previous
vacancies in rapid succession, had already been obliged to pay
this sum twice within ten years, and was thus practically bank-
rupt ? The sum necessary, which was the same in the case of
Treves and Cologne, amounted on each occasion to about 14,000
ducats. With regard to the confirmation-fees for the See of
Mayence and the expenses of the pallium, the Elector Joachim,
who, for political reasons, was extremely anxious to see his
brother in possession of the electoral dignity of Mayence, promised
to defray the same, and thus the Mayence election took place on
March 9. The Archbishop-elect borrowed, on May 15 of the same
year, 21,000 ducats from the Fuggers, the great Augsburg
bankers — no doubt with his brother's concurrence — in order to
be able to meet at Rome the necessary outlay for his confirmation
and pallium.

Grave doubts, however, were entertained in the Papal Curia
as to whether, according to canon law, the above bishoprics
might be held by the same person. Two of the offices in question
were archbishoprics, and, hitherto, in spite of the prevalence of
the abuse of placing several croziers in one hand, two arch-
bishoprics had never been held by one man. Besides, the candi-
date was only in his twenty-fourth year.

An undesirable way out of the difficulty of obtaining the
necessary dispensation for holding the three ecclesiastical dig-
nities presented itself. An official of the Papal Dataria informed
the ambassador from Brandenburg, that if Albert could be
induced to pay 10,000 ducats beyond the customary fees " this

350 LUTHER THE MONK

should not be looked upon as a composition [tax], as His Holiness,
in return for the same, would grant a ten-year Plenary Indul-
gence in the shape of a Jubilee in the diocese of Mayence."1
This proposal emanated from the Papal officials, Leo X himself
as yet refusing to hear anything about the money question.
After lengthy negotiations the proposed plan was accepted by
the principals on both sides in the following amended shape :
The Indulgence, one half of the proceeds of which was to be
devoted to the building of St. Peter's, and the other to the Arch-
bishop of Mayence, wa? to be proclaimed for eight years, not
only in the diocese of Mayence, but throughout the ecclesiastical
provinces of Mayence and Magdeburg as well as in the domains
of the house of Brandenburg (i.e. throughout almost the half of
Germany, owing to the vastness of the province of Mayence) ;
the proceeds were to be divided into two parts in the manner
mentioned above, as alms for the erection of St. Peter's and as an
income for the Archbishop of Mayence. The Pope, in his simple
goodness of heart, was gradually induced, by political considera-
tions, to agree to the proposal. On July 19 the matter was
finally decided in Consistory. Thus no actual indemnity was
paid for the dispensation (as Luther asserted) beyond the In-
dulgence money and the alms for building. Pope Leo X con-
firmed the supplied in question on August 1, 1514. The public
Indulgence Bull, however, Sacrosancti Salvatoris, is dated March
31, 1515.

The branch house of the Fuggers at Rome at once paid the
sum of 10,000 ducats to the Pope. As the other fees for con-
firmation and the pallium had already been paid, the induction
of Albert as Archbishop of Mayence took place on August 18,
1514, no difficulty being raised as to his retaining the two other
Sees.

Every Catholic at the present day will agree with H. Schrors
that " this manner of acquiring benefices with the assistance of
an Indulgence was unworthy and reprehensible." 2 It brings before
our eyes an instance of the ecclesiastical abuses prevalent just
before the Reformation, and which cannot be sufficiently de-
plored. " Although Albert's confirmation may not have been,
strictly speaking, simoniacal," says a learned Catholic reviewer
of Schulte's works,3 "yet there is a strong suspicion of simony

1 Schulte, ibid., 2, p. 96.

2 H. Schrors on Schulte's work in the " Wissentschaftl. Beilage
zur Germania," 1904, Nos. 14 and 15, p. 299.

3 N. Paulus in the " Koln. Volksztg.," 1904, April 24, No. 339.
Schrors, ibid., 292 f., is right in excluding any simoniacal character frcm
the business, whether considered in the nature of a composition (which
it was not intended to be) or as the bestowal of an Indulgence with a
building alms attached to it. In the case of compositions (for the
bestowal of bishoprics) the fees customary from ancient times are
not a " compensation for a spiritual object, or for an object connected
with spiritual things, but a debt incurred on the occasion of the bestowal
of something spiritual." In the granting of Indulgences, however, a
condition of the imparting of any spiritual favour was always some gift

ABUSE OF INDULGENCES 351

about it ; at any rate, it was an extremely discreditable business,
and we may well look upon it as a Divine Judgment that the
Mayence Indulgence should have been the immediate occasion
of the great religious upheaval for which many other factors
had been paving the way." " The greater part of the blame
rests with the Hohenzollern brothers, who approached the Curia
with such an exorbitant demand for the cumulation of bene-
fices."1

" Looked at in itself, the allocation of Indulgences, like that
for St. Peter's, is to some extent justified by the fact, that it was
customary in the Middle Ages to make the granting of privileges
an opportunity for the giving of special alms, and that the posi-
tion of the Papacy, as head of the Church, gave it the right to
share in the privileges of its members. On this was based the
whole system of taxes levied by the Curia on the bestowal of
any office, inasmuch as the tax was really a part of the income
of the Curial officials ; whereas, however, Rome had hitherto
been content with one-third of the proceeds of an Indulgence,
this was now increased to one-half."2 "Nor was it right if, as
was probably the case, the Indulgence-preachers did not explain
to the people how one part of their alms was to be disposed of,
but left them in the belief that it was all to be devoted to the
object announced [i.e. the rebuilding of St. Peter's]."3

Finally, the too frequent tendering of Indulgences towards the
close of the Middle Ages must be noted as a regrettable abuse.
The collections made for Indulgences granted for all sorts of
ecclesiastical purposes were so numerous, that loud complaints
were raised by the Rulers about the heavy burden thus imposed
upon their people.

The Indulgence for St. Peter's followed many others and was
first started under Pope Julius II. In this case the importance
to the whole of Christendom of the erection of a new
church over the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles may have
afforded some justification. Originally intended to last only for
twelve months, the Indulgence was extended from year to year.

As regards its administration, Papal commissaries had been
appointed for the proclamation of the Indulgence and for making
the collections. Thus the Franciscan Observantines under the
Vicar-General of the Order were entrusted with the so-called
Cismontane provinces, comprising Italy and the Slavonian
regions to the east of Europe, including Hungary, the German

to be devoted to a special pious object. " Monetary self-denial for the
sake of the Roman building fund was an integral part of the Indul-
gence," " according to the Papal motu proprio it was justified by the
unusual length and irrevocable nature of the Indulgence." (Schrors.)
" The purchase or sale of spiritual things for money or money's worth,
never entered the minds of those who made use of the Indulgence."
So writes O. Pfulf in the " Stimmen aus Maria-Laach," 67, 1904, p. 322.

1 Kalkoff, " Forschungen," p. 379. Cp. Schrors, ibid., p. 299.

2 Schrors, ibid.

3 Ibid. With regard to this matter, the silence of the Indulgence
Instructions of Constance, dated 1513, is significant.

352 LUTHER THE MONK

portions of Moravia, Bohemia, Silesia and Prussia and likewise
Switzerland. In Switzerland the preacher was the celebrated
Franciscan Bernardin Samson. Other special commissaries
were distributed throughout the west of Europe, according to
the political divisions ; thus we find them established by Papal
appointment in Spain, Brittany, the British Isles, Savoy, Bur-
gundy, Scandinavia, and in the Spanish colonies in America.

There had been some delay in introducing this arrangement
into Germany as the country was already exhausted by large
collections made for the Teutonic Order and the armies which it
had been compelled to raise for the defence of the Catholic
countries and Christian civilisation, and also by other taxes.
In 1514 the time seemed, however, to have arrived. In this
year, the same in which the bargain was struck with Albert of
Brandenburg, a Chief Commissary, in the person of a cleric at
the Papal Court, Gianangelo Arcimboldi, was appointed for the
provinces of Cologne, Treves, Salzburg, Bremen, Besancon and
other dioceses ; Mayence, on the other hand, with the other
portions of Germany before mentioned, was reserved for Albert
as Commissary-General.

The Chief Commissary appointed sub-commissaries and
preachers. Tetzel was chosen by Albert .of Mayence as sub-
Commissary. He had, before this, acted as sub-Commissary
(1505-6) for the preaching of the Indulgence on behalf of the
Teutonic Order in the dioceses of Merseburg and Naumburg,
and later had worked in many other parts of Germany for the
same Indulgence. In 1516 he had been appointed by Arcimboldi
as sub-Commissary and preacher in the diocese of Meissen. It
was in the beginning of 1517 that Archbishop Albert took him
into his service as sub-Commissary and preacher for the dioceses
of Halberstadt and Magdeburg.1 In this capacity he came in
the spring, 1517, to Jiiterbog, in the neighbourhood of Witten-
berg. While subordinate to Archbishop Albert he was at the
same time, like his employer, under the orders of a Roman
Commission ; all the Chief Commissaries, Albert as well as
Arcimboldi, were subordinate to a Papal Commission, at the
head of which was the Pope's Master of the Treasury.

The appointment of Albert as Chief Commissary had been
made under the impression that the standing of this powerful
German Prince of the Church would contribute to the success
of the undertaking, and influence even those who were not in
favour of the scheme. Yet Albert's own envoys, when the
handing over the Indulgence was first mooted, openly declared
that they were not inclined to agree to accepting the Indulgence
as " discontent, and perhaps something worse, might be the
result,"2 a fear which events were sadly to justify.

In the end the yield did not reach expectations ; this is plain
from the accounts now available. The " hundred thousand

1 Cf. F. Herrmann, " Tetzels Eintritt in den Dienst des Erzbischofs
Albrecht," in " Zeitschrift fur Kirchengesch.," 23, 1902, p. 263 ff.

2 Sehulte, '^Die Fuggcr in Rem 1495-1523/' 2, p. 98.

PROCEEDS OF INDULGENCE 353

gulden " which Tetzel was said to have collected in one year are
a mere fiction. This tale was spread abroad in 1721 by J. E.
Kapp, and before that by J. Wolfius (1600), and would appear
to date from a chance word let fall by Paul Lang, the Bene-
dictine (1520).1 We are, however, in possession of more authentic
details since an exact account was kept.

This account of the collections was made in the following
manner : the money-boxes were opened and the contents counted
in the presence of witnesses, and the statement of the amount
certified by a notary. Representatives of both parties — Arch-
bishop Albert and the Fugger bank — were present, and kept an
account, half of the proceeds being paid by the Fuggers to the
Curia at Rome for St. Peter's, and the other half to the Arch-
bishop of Mayence. It was a good thing and a guarantee against
mismanagement, that, at any rate in the case of the Mayence
Indulgence and that for St. Peter's, a reliable banking-house of
world-wide fame and conducted on business principles (even
though Luther styles the Fuggers cut-purses), should have thus
undertaken the supervision of the accounts, however distasteful
it may seem to have left to bank officials the distribution of the
Indulgence-letters from the very commencement of the preaching.

How much did the proceeds amount to ? The Mayence
Indulgence was preached only from the beginning of 1517 to
1518, the rise of the religious conflict interfering with its con-
tinuance. Schulte has, however, put us in possession of two
considerable statements of accounts concerning this period,
taken from the archives of the Vatican. That of May 5, 1519,
deals with the Papal half of the Indulgence money which flowed
in from the various dioceses of the ecclesiastical province of
Mayence during 1517 and 1518, and was handed over by the
house of Fugger. This half amounted to 1643 gulden 45 kreuzer.
A like sum was handed over to Albert, as has been proved by
Schulte from a document in the State archives at Magdeburg.
The other statement of account is dated June 16 of the same
year and places the sum total of the money received from the
ecclesiastical province of Magdeburg at 5149 gulden, according
to which each half amounted to 2574| gulden. If we assume
these sums, viz. 8436 gulden, to have been the gross proceeds
of the Indulgence enterprise, and if we take into consideration
the charges, comparatively high, for those engaged in the work,
then the amount cannot be described as large. Nor would the
Archbishop of Mayence have received entire the 4218 gulden
constituting his share, as, according to an arrangement made
with the Emperor, he had been obliged to make him a yearly
payment of 1000 gulden from the net profits. Thus only 3218
gulden would have remained to him. This would have com-

1 N. Paulus, in the " Koln. Volksztg.," ibid., who gives the quota-
tions from Kapp and Wolfius. Paul Lang says, in Pistorius Struvius,
"Rer. germ, script.," 1, p. 1281, Luther, by his interference with the
preaching of the Indulgence, had, " ut fama fuit," caused the Romans
in one year a loss of 100,000 gulden.

I.— 2 a

354 LUTHER THE MONK

pensated him but poorly for the enormous payments he had made
to Rome. As regards the sums mentioned we must bear in mind
the vast difference between the value of money then and now ;
the buying value of money, at a moderate estimate, was then
three times greater than to-day. Since the researches undertaken
by Schulte, other accounts, not included in the above, concerning
the revenues produced by the Indulgence have been discovered,
" a proof that an exact estimate of the whole proceeds of the
Mayence-Magdeburg Indulgence is as yet out of the question."1

Another fable which owes its origin to the anti-Catholic
inventions of the sixteenth century has it that Leo X did not
devote the results of the Mayence Indulgence to the building of
St. Peter's, but poured them into the already well-filled coffers of
his sister Maddalena, who had married a Cibo. There is no proof
for this assertion. Felice Cortelori, the well-known keeper of
the Vatican archives, declared, even in his day, that he was un-
able to find any confirmation of this story, which should therefore
be rejected as fabulous, and Schulte, as a result of his own in-
vestigations, agrees with him.2

Owing to the abuses and the change in public opinion, the
amalgamation of spiritual and temporal interests, as it appeared
in the Indulgence collections, became untenable in the course of
the sixteenth century. The Council of Trent did well, though
rather late in the day, in relegating, as far as possible, the system
of Indulgences to the spiritual domain, its original and special
sphere, that of benefiting souls. But one who knows how to
view the movement of the times and the development of the
Church's life from the standpoint of history, will be able to put
its true value upon this apparently strange union cf the temporal
and spiritual in the Indulgence system of the Late Middle Ages,
and will give due consideration to the fact, that in those days the
spiritual and temporal domains were more closely connected than
at any other period. They were thrown into mutual dependence,
each supporting the other ; that disadvantages as well as benefits
resulted, was of course inevitable.

The preaching of Indulgences in accordance with the spirit of
the Church, when rightly carried out, might be compared with
popular missions of the present day. Besides the less desirable
preachers many able and zealous men came forward wherever
the cross, or the so-called Vesper-Bild, was erected as a sign of the
preaching of the Indulgence. The crowds who streamed together,
listened to the admonitions of speakers previously unknown to
them and usually belonging to some Order, with more attention
than at the ordinary religious services ; many were led to a sense
of their sins and to amend their life, as they could not receive the
Indulgence without an inward change of heart ; they were also
glad to take advantage of the presence of strange confessors

1 F. Herrmann, " Mainz-Magdeburgische Ablasskisten visitations -
protokolle," in " Archiv fur Reformationsgesch.," 6, 1909 (pp. 361-84),
p. 3G4 f., where the new accounts in question are quoted.

2 Schulte, ibid., 1, p. 173.

THE AUGSBURG TRIAL 355

provided with ample faculties, to unburden their consciences by
a good confession. The alms seemed little to them in com-
parison with the spiritual gain. And as. hundreds came and
experienced a similar spiritual renewal, their very multitude fired
them with a common impulse to persevere in what was good.
The researches of historians have hitherto been directed too much
towards the abuses and outward disorders which accompanied
these popular practices, which were for so long a great help to
religion. It would be no loss if in future, so far as the special
accounts which have been handed down admit, historians were
to dwell more on the ordinary and little-noticed good results
effected by Indulgences since they were first started.1

3. The Trial at Augsburg (1518)

In the course of September, 1518, Luther received the
citation to appear before Cardinal Cajetan at Augsburg, as
had been agreed with the Elector Frederick; already, on
August 25, the General of the Augustinians had, in accord-
ance with the earlier and more stringent instructions from
Rome to Cajetan, forwarded an order to the Saxon Pro-
vincial Gerard Hecker, to seize Luther and keep him in
custody. At the end of September Luther set out for
Augsburg, where he arrived, with a recommendation from
the Elector and an Imperial safe conduct, on October 7.

He had started on the journey with great inward tremors
and was a prey to the same violent agitation at Augsburg.
At a later date he attributes the evil thoughts which plagued
him to the influence of a demon.2 He seems from the first
to have been determined to carry his cause with a high hand,
as ostensibly that of Jesus Christ. He becomes more and
more convinced of his mission from above, a persuasion
which takes possession of his soul with suggestive force.

In the fragment of a lost letter from Nuremberg we find him
writing of his journey on October 3-4, 1518, to his Wittenberg
friends whom he wishes to encourage to remain steadfast. Faint-
hearted people, so he says, had tried to dissuade him from con-
tinuing his journey, " but I stand fast ; let the Will of the Lord
be done ; even at Augsburg, even in the midst of His enemies,
Christ still reigns . . . Christ shall live though Martin and every
other sinner perish ; the God of my Salvation shall be exalted.
Farewell and be steadfast, stand upright because it is necessary
either to be rejected by man or by God, but God is true and every

1 Cp. N. Paulus, " Ablasspredigten des ausgehenden Mittelalters,"
in the " Liter. Beilage der Koln. Volksztg.," 1910, No. 11.

2 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 202. Cp. " Theol. Studien und Kritiken,"
1882, p. 692.

356 LUTHER THE MONK

man a liar."1 He certainly did not treat the matter lightly. To
attribute hypocrisy to him, as though he merely played a part,
would be to do him an injustice. It is true there are recent
writers who look upon him as a mere comedian, but it would be
nearer the mark to compare him to John Hus on his journey to
the Council of Constance. Like him, he looked forward to death
without any inclination to recant. The thought passed through
him, he once said later : " Now I must die," and he pictured to
himself " what a shame that would be for his parents."2

The two letters he addressed to Spalatin and Melanchthon a
few days after his arrival in Augsburg and before his first examina-
tion, gave proof of the strange mystical tendency which also
appears in the fragment mentioned above ; they show how he
overcomes the inward voice which urges him to submit, and also
the importunities of his anxious friends ; they also show how,
even then, he was prepared to take a certain step, should the
demands appear to him too great : "I shall assuredly appeal to
a General Council."3 He admits that he was " wavering between
hope and fear " and, in order to stimulate his own courage, he
draws a picture in these letters of two of the terrifying qualities of
these " Italians " before whose representative (i.e. Cajetan) he is
to defend himself.

We must try to place ourselves in his position and to appreciate
his prejudices.

In the first place, he relentlessly accuses his adversaries of
avarice and greed in everything ; unfortunately his knowledge
of the Indulgence business had furnished sufficient cause for
reproaches and complaints against the Church authorities in that
respect.4 Secondly, he finds fault with the "ignorance " of his
opponents, and here he undoubtedly excites himself quite wrongly
and unnecessarily over their supposed senseless and one-sided
Scholasticism. In his letter to Melanchthon he exclaims, as
though to reassure himself : " Italy lies in Egyptian darkness,
her animosity to learning and culture is unbounded. So greatly
do they misapprehend Christ and all that is Christ's. And yet
these are our teachers and masters in faith and morals. The
anger of God is thus fulfilled in us where He says : ' I will give
children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over
them.' Good-bye, my Philip, and turn aside God's anger by holy
prayers." The supposed want of sympathy with learning and
culture of which Luther accuses the Italians in this letter to Philip
Melanchthon is surely most untrue, and was no doubt intended
to strengthen Melanchthon, the weak and wavering Humanist,
in his allegiance to Luther's party, for Luther, notwithstanding
his anxieties, had not lost his cunning. The reproach against

1 " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 238.

2 " Colloquia," ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 175.

3 To Spalatin from Augsburg, October 10, 1518, " Brief wechsel,"
1, p. 242.

4 Ibid., " Ecclesia Romana auro insatiabiliter eget et vorando assidue
sitim auget."

THE AUGSBURG TRIAL 357

Italy and Rome, where at that time Humanism was nourishing
as nowhere else, can at most only apply to the stiffness of the old
debased Scholasticism, and perhaps to a certain backwardness in
biblical studies. Such blemishes afforded him a welcome handle.
" I will rather perish," he assures Melanchthon, the enthusiastic
scholar, "than withdraw my true theses and help to destroy
learning." M I go, should it please the Lord, to be sacrificed for
you and your young men."

He still clings to the idea of being one with the Church in his
theological views. " If they can prove to me that I have spoken
differently from what the Holy Roman Church teaches, I will at
once pronounce sentence against myself and beat a retreat, but,"
he adds, " there lies the knot." 1 A knot tied by himself. Strange,
indeed, is the method he proposes for cutting it : "If that
Cardinal [Cajetan] insists on the private opinions of St. Thomas
more strongly than is compatible with the doctrine and authority
of the Church, I shall not yield to him until the Church withdraws
from her earlier standpoint upon which I have taken up my
position."

How greatly the applause with which he was meeting every-
where worked upon him psychologically, confirming him in his
resistance, came out clearly at Augsburg.

It was only on this journey and at Augsburg itself that he
became aware what a celebrity his action had made him. He
alludes to this in the above-mentioned letter to Melanchthon,
where he also reveals a flattering self-complacency : " The only
thing that is new and wonderful here is, that the town rings with
my name. All want to see the man who, like a new Herostratus,
has kindled such a big blaze."

Cardinal Cajetan, after making vain representations to
Luther, finally demanded the withdrawal of two pro-
positions which he had plainly taught and acknowledged
as his. The first was his denial that the treasure of the
merits of Christ and the saints was the foundation of
Indulgences ; the second was the statement which appeared
in the " Resolutions," that the sacraments of the Church
owed their efficacy only to faith. These were points in
which he had manifestly deviated from the Catholic teaching
and, to boot, matters of supreme doctrinal importance ; as
a professor of theology Luther, moreover, had bound himself
to submit to the teaching authority of the Church.

His final answer to the Papal legate was, that he could not
recant unless he were convinced that he had said something
against Holy Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the
Papal definitions, or sound reason.

Then followed his famous secret flight from Augsburg to
1 In the letter quoted to Spalatin, p. 240 f.

358 LUTHER THE MONK

Wittenberg. Staupitz, who had stood by him at Augsburg,
dispensed him for the journey from any part of the Rule
which might have proved to his disadvantage, even from the
wearing of the Augustinian habit. This Superior had again
shown himself at Augsburg as a man of half-measures who
allowed his prejudice for Luther to outweigh the demands
of the Church and of his Order.

Luther caused his Appeal to the Pope " better instructed "
to be presented to the Cardinal at Augsburg. He intended,
as almost at the same time he confided to Spalatin, to make
an appeal to the future Council only after the Pope, " in the
plenitude of his power, or rather of his tyranny," had
rejected his first appeal.1 Meanwhile he does not know, and
this makes him waver between hope and fear, whether he will
be able to remain at the University of Wittenberg. Will
the Elector have power to retain him in his office ? Will it
be possible for him to continue to lead a safe existence
under his sovereign, and, above all, find protection in the
present danger from imprisonment and the violent measures
threatened ? At this, the turning-jDoint of his life, these
were the most pressing questions.

The duty of providing for his safety and furthering his
cause devolved principally on the Court Chaplain, Spalatin.
Luther, in his letters to Spalatin, which duly reached the
Elector either as they were written or in extracts, wisely
avoids any unseasonable demands which could only have
been prejudicial to his interests ; on the contrary, he
declares in well-chosen language, which was certain to
please the Elector, that he is ready to take up the pilgrim's
staff should it be necessary for the good of the cause ; the
verbal commentary on his letters was undertaken at Court
by his able clerical friend.

" I am filled with joy and peace," he writes to the courtier
in the letter above mentioned, " so that I can only wonder
how my skirmish [the trial at Augsburg] appears as some-
thing great to many esteemed men." If, however, joy and
contentment reigned in him at that time, this was principally
owing to his natural relief at his escape from the dreaded
town of Augsburg.

1 On the day of his return to Wittenberg, October 31, 1518 (the
anniversary of the day the Indulgence theses had appeared), " Brief-
wechsel," 1, p. 273.

POPE WORSE THAN TURK 359

In feverish haste, without awaiting the result of his first
appeal, he published, November 28, 1518, a new appeal to a
future General Council.

An appeal to an (Ecumenical Council was prohibited by
old laws of the Church, because, at the commencement of
any movement directed against the authority of the Church,
it appeared likely to render all efforts for the composing of
differences illusory. It was rightly felt that whoever came
in conflict with the Church would make every effort to
reserve the decision of his cause to some future Council,
more especially when he is able meanwhile to devote himself
freely to the furtherance of his ideas, and when the speedy
summoning of a Council is very doubtful. The claim
that an (Ecumenical Council should be called to pronounce
upon every new opinion was so extravagant that the
prohibition found general approval.

At the time of Luther's advent on the scene the prospect
of a General Council, owing to the dissensions among the
Christian Powers, had retreated into the far distance, and
even though it had been possible for the bishops throughout
the whole world to assemble, the meeting, according to
ancient custom and the regulations of canon law, would have
taken place under the Pope's presidency. Even in this event
Luther can, accordingly, have cherished but small hope of
winning the day.

His deep distrust of Rome we find expressed in the letter,
written almost simultaneously, to his trusted friend Wence-
laus Link, the Nuremberg Augustinian, to whom he was
forwarding his account of what had taken place at Augsburg
(Acta Augustana) : " My pen is giving birth to much
greater things than these Ada. I know not whence these
thoughts come to me ; the cause [i.e. the conflict], to my
thinking, has not yet commenced in earnest and much less can
these gentlemen from Rome look to see the end. I shall
send my little works to you so that you may see if I am
right in surmising that the real Anti- Christ whom Paul
describes (2 Thess. ii. 3 ff.) rules at the Roman Court. I think
I can prove that to-day he is worse than the Turks." 1
Whoever could speak in this way had already cut himself
adrift or was on the point of so doing.

1 On Decembar 11, 1518, " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 316.

360 LUTHER THE MONK

The powerful forces within the fiery and vivacious Monk
seethed like the crater of a volcano. The Lecture-hall at
Wittenberg again resounded with his eloquent and vehement
outbursts. The number of students at the University-
increased to an unexpected extent. " They surround my
desk like busy ants," Luther declares in a letter.1

He does not know whence the ideas he pours forth come to
him, but he sees daily more clearly that they are from
Christ. " I see," so he wrote to Staupitz, his Superior,
" they are determined [at Rome] to condemn me ; but
Christ on His part is resolved not to yield in me. May His
holy and blessed will be done, yea, may it be done. Pray
for me." 2 In the same way, though in stronger terms, he
informs his friend Johann Lang soon afterwards : " Our Eck
is again preparing to assail me ; it will come to this, that,
with the help of Christ, I shall carry out what I have long
since planned, namely, to strike a deadly blow at the Roman
vipers by means of a powerful book. Hitherto I have
merely played and jested with Rome, albeit she has smarted
as keenly under it as though it had been meant in deadly
earnest."3 "So God carries me away," we shall soon after
hear him say. " God draws me. I cannot control myself."
" God must see to it, what He is working through me. . . .
Why has He not instructed me otherwise ? " He fancies he
feels " the mighty breathing of the Spirit," and little by
little he is carried away by the conviction that he is God's
messenger and the leader of a cause which " is not of man's
invention."4

During the exciting years of 1517 and 1518 Luther, in
addition to his polemical works, published several popular,
practical handbooks on religion. They consisted chiefly of
collections and enlargements of the sermons which he still
continued to preach from time to time. Their publication
strengthened in many the impression, that the man whom
some denounced as a theological rebel was, on the contrary,
simply zealous for the salvation of souls and only seeking
the spiritual profit of his neighbour.

In the spring of 1517 he published, for instance, the

1 " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 317. 2 On December 13, 1518, ibid., p. 320.

3 On February 2, 1519, ibid., p. 410.

4 The passages will be given more fully later.

DEVOTIONAL WORKS 361

German exposition of the Seven Penitential Psalms,
already referred to, a book which, as he wrote to Christopher
Scheurl, was intended for the rough Saxon " to whom the
Christian teaching cannot be presented too fully."1 If the
work pleases no one, he says, then it will please him all the
more.2 In this work he speaks in heartfelt tones, especially
when enlarging upon the " Word of Grace " and describing
the riches of Christ.3 Another book, his " Exposition of
the Our Father for the simple laity," 4 first appeared in
1517 through Agricola, then again in 1518 after having been
amended by the author. In the preface he says amicably : "I
should like, if it were possible, to render a service even to my
adversaries ; for my desire is to be profitable to all men and
harmful to none." The object of such assurances is, however,
too evident, and they are, moreover, flatly contradicted by
his actual behaviour towards his opponents.

To pass over other pious instructions which his amazing
power for work created, he also published in 1518 the
detailed Latin notes of the sermons on the Ten Com-
mandments, which he had delivered in 1516-17.5 Many
portions of this book are really useful and hardly to be
distinguished from what a true spiritual guide of souls
would write, but they also contain other matter which
necessarily challenged dispute. In most of his explanations
he gives a very clever, popular and perfectly correct present-
ment of the contents of the commandments and the motives
for keeping them ; he goes, however, too far, for instance, in
his ruthless, and occasionally even contemptuous opposition
to the abuses connected with the veneration of the saints.
The tone which he here adopts in his strictures could not
have favourable results, and he would have done better had
he devoted himself to the criticism of the superstitious
practices to which he had alluded shortly before in con-
nection with the errors of the Middle Ages.6 Oldecop, who
was not unkindly disposed, complains that " in the matter of
the veneration of the saints, Luther was not in agreement
with the Catholic Ghurch."7

1 On May 6, 1517, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 97.

2 To Johann Lang, March 1, 1517, ibid., p. 88.

3 See the passage in " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 219 ff.

4 Printed ibid., 1, p. 74 ff. Erl. ed., 21, p. 156 ff.

5 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 398 ff.

6 Ibid., p. 411 ff. 7 " Chronik," p. 45.

362 LUTHER THE MONK

In the book in question, where he treats of the Sixth
Commandment, he is very severe and exact, indeed, rather
too exact and detailed in his enumeration and denunciation
of the various kinds of sins of the flesh. He speaks with
rhetorical emphasis and, it must be admitted, with a wealth
of earnest thought, against the habit of filthy talking which
was gaining ground at that time.1 Here, for example, after
the most solemn warnings against giving scandal to the little
ones, he lets fall these golden words with regard to reform :
" If the Church is to blossom again, the beginning must be
made by a careful training of the young."2 Among other
things, Luther treats of the temptations which the devout
man abhors and must abhor, although he can never escape
them, and gives vent to the paradox : " True chastity is
therefore to be found in sensuality, and the more filthy the
sensuality, the more beautiful the chastity,"3 surely a
delightful instance of our author's propensity to unusual
language. Somewhat obscurely, indeed, he also speaks
against the freedom of the will to do what is good ; Paul
invokes the mercy of God against the temptation " in the
body of this death " (Rom. vii. 24 f.), and he, Luther,
would lament over the " poison of death within him."
" Where then are those who vaunt their free will ? Why
do they not set themselves free from concupiscence as soon
as they please ? Why will they not, yea, why are they unable
even to will ? . . . Because their will is already elsewhere,
dragged away as a captive."4

4. The Disputation of Leipzig (1519). Miltitz.
Questionable Reports

The Leipzig Disputation, which commenced on June 27,
1519, and the origin and theological course of which has
been often enough depicted, as was to be expected, merely
induced Luther to proceed yet further with his revolutionary
theology.

The Pleissenburg of Leipzig has become since the Disputa-
tion between Luther and Carls tad t on the one side and Eck
on the other, a memorable monument of German history.
The great hall of this castle belonging to Duke George was
hung with splendid tapestries ; a guard of the citizens kept

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 490. 2 Ibid., p. 494.

3 Ibid., p. 486. 4 Ibid., p. 485.

LEIPZIG DISPUTATION 363

watch before the walls of the castle, for the Court, as well as
the city, wished to insure the safety of those conducting
the wordy tournament which was to be held in the public
name. In addition to the professors of the University of
Leipzig and the guests from Wittenberg, students as well as
masters, many others were present, brought together partly
by curiosity, partly by interest in one or other of the
religious parties. The Duke, the guests of distinction, and
the sworn stenographers had special places assigned to them.
Two professorial chairs stood facing each other. On that
belonging to the Wittenberg party Carlstadt, who had
arranged the affair, took his seat and disputed with Eck
for four whole days on man's free will and its efficacy with,
and under, grace.

Then, on July 4, Luther succeeded him and at once
launched into the theological controversy on the question
of the Primacy of the Pope. As in the case of Carlstadt,
Eck stood his ground without assistance until the Disputa-
tion closed on July 14.

The Acts of the debate were to have been submitted to the
Universities of Erfurt and Paris for decision as to the winner,
but this was never done. The final impression made on the
minds of the audience was that Eck had borne away the
palm. He had repelled the often virulent attacks of two
adversaries with untiring mental and physical energy, and
had displayed throughout a more extensive and ready
acquaintance with the theologians, the decisions of the
Church, the Fathers and the Bible than either of the repre-
sentatives of the new opinions. Of a powerful and imposing
exterior, with a strong sonorous voice, he dominated the
course of the Disputation by his clear-headedness, his com-
posure and deliberation, whereas Carlstadt was too hurried
and confused and unable to produce the necessary positive
proofs, and Luther, by his over-confidence, his rhetoric and
the habitual violence of his attacks on his enemies gave
umbrage to many. The greatest stumbling - block to
Luther's success lay in the fact that the principal point,
which was to be decisive for his standpoint towards the
Church, was still, even to himself, as Protestant writers
express it, " in process of inward development," whereas
" Eck could take his stand on a sound and solid basis." *
1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 245.

364 LUTHER THE MONK

This principal point was the question of the recognition
of the Church and her teaching office. Eck succeeded in
forcing public statements from his opponent which he would
perhaps have still preferred to keep in the background, but
which were, as a matter of fact, the outcome of his position.
On the second day of the controversy between Luther and
Eck, on July 5, the question of the exercise of the Church's
power and doctrinal authority in the condemnation of
Hus's erroneous teaching came under discussion. Luther
was now obliged to express his views on the condemnation
of the " Bohemian heretics." Driven into a corner he
declared, that among the Husite doctrines condemned by
the Council of Constance there were some very Christian
and evangelical propositions ; that the Council was wrong
in asserting that everyone who wished to be a member of
the Church must believe in the Primacy of the Papacy ;
that we must learn for ourselves from Holy Scripture what
is of Divine Right ; that the opinion of an individual
Christian must carry greater weight than that of either
Pope or Council if established on better grounds ; that
Councils not only might err in matters of faith, but that
they actually had erred, as in the case of that of Constance.

Such unheard-of admissions caused the greatest sensation.
Bluff Duke George, on hearing Luther's assertion that the
Christian doctrines of Hus had been unfairly condemned,
exclaimed in a voice loud enough to be heard throughout
the great hall : "A plague on it ! " shaking his head at the
same time and planting his hands on his hips.

It was an easy task for Eck to disprove on theological
grounds the statements of Luther.

The Disputation had at least the effect of clearing up the
position, and arousing misgivings in many of. those who
hitherto had been partisans of the Wittenberg Doctor.

Luther himself wrote in a very discontented frame of
mind to Spalatin regarding the Disputation, saying that
time had been wasted in the useless affair, and that Eck and
the theologians of Leipzig only sought worldly honour and on
this everything had suffered shipwreck. Only the discussion
on the Primacy (i.e. that very one at which the momentous
admissions were made) had been fruitful and productive.
This is his own impudent way of describing his position as
the only right one. " Hardly anything else," he continues,

EFFORTS OF MILTITZ 365

" was treated worthily. Eck was applauded, he triumphs
and reigns, but an end shall be put to this by my publica-
tion ; for as the Disputation was badly conducted I shall
have the Resolutions to the Disputation theses reprinted.
These people of Leipzig neither greeted us nor visited us,
but treated us as deadly enemies [and yet every considera-
tion had been shown him that circumstances permitted].
Eck they supplied with an escort, they surrounded him
constantly, honoured him with feasts and invitations,
presented him with a coat and a costly mantle, rode out
with him on pleasant excursions, in fact did everything
imaginable- — to disgrace us." " There you have the whole
tragedy ... it began ill and ended worse. ... As a rule,
I control my ill-humour, but here I cannot help pouring out
my grudge, because after all I am human and see how the
shamelessness of our adversaries and their poisonous hatred
of so holy a cause have grown beyond measure." x

Obstinately adhering to his standpoint and embittered
as he was by the Leipzig "tragedy," Luther would lend no
ear to the proposals for reconciliation and settlement
suggested by the Papal Chamberlain Carl von Miltitz.

His attempts in this direction had commenced even
before the Disputation. Their continuance revealed on the
one hand Luther's obstinacy, and on the other the inability
of this lay Papal official' — whose motives were merely
political- — to see the real seriousness of the matter. The
latter, in order to secure apparent victories, went beyond
his instructions and the intentions of those who had en-
trusted him with his mission. Luther on his part did not
shrink from diplomatic concessions which could not injure
him, but which anyone conversant with the conditions must
have seen to be impracticable. The easy triumphs of which
Miltitz's shortsighted love of peace was productive were
thus of very doubtful value.2

1 To Spalatin, July 20, 1519, from Wittenberg, " Brief wechsel," 2,
p. 85 f. Cp. letter to the same, August 15, 1518, ibid., p. 103 ff.
especially p. 117.

2 Cp. H. A. Creutzberg, "Karl von Miltitz," 1907 (" Studien und
Darstellungen aus dem Gebiete der Gesch.," ed. Grauert, Bd. 6,
Heft. 1). The Chamberlain, whose only recommendation was his
aristocratic Saxon birth, had been entrusted with the delivery of the
Golden Rose to the Elector of Saxony. That he " undertook the
role of intermediary on his own initiative," as has recently been
asserted by Protestants, is, according to Creutzberg, incorrect. The most

366 LUTHER THE MONK

Luther's edition of the Latin Commentary on the Epistle
to the Galatians, which appeared in September, 1519,
assumed all the more importance in his eyes. In this work,
written in the language of the learned (above, p. 306), he
undertook to defend on the widest basis and before cultured
men of every clime his doctrines concerning grace and
salvation, faith and righteousness.

Here we have a public manifestation not merely of the
doctrines which lay at the back of the schism he had
stirred up by his controversy with Tetzel, but also of his
wrong new view concerning Holy Scripture.

In the matter of style, Luther was more successful in his
shorter works, particularly in his German controversial
pamphlets. Writers who opposed him, such as Eck, Emser,
Dungersheim, Alveld, Hoogstraaten, Prierias he readily
withstood in words full of fire and imagination, although his
arguments, as a rule, left much to be desired and were not
atoned for by his passionate invective. His main contention,
voiced in a more or less coarse form, is, however, always the
following : the proofs which you adduce from the teaching
of the Church and the Fathers do not move me because

unfortunate mistake he made was not to insist upon Luther's recanta-
tion (cp. S. Merkle, " Reformationsgeschichtliche Streitfragen,"
Munich, 1904, p. 51), contenting himself with Luther's illusory ex-
planation of the end of February, 1519 (" Werke," Erl. ed., 242, p. 10 ff.),
published as a pamphlet. In this Luther simply speaks of the Papal
power as a thing of which the existence must be taken for granted, and
emphasises in general terms the duty of charity which forbids schism
without due cause ! This statement has been erroneously regarded
by Catholics as an admission of the Primacy by Luther, as a " wonder-
ful confession which the evidence of the facts wrung from the heretic."
With respect to this explanation, which, as Luther himself says, was
destined for the " simple people," Kostlin-Kawerau's " Luther-
Biographie," 1, p. 227, says : In this way did Luther fulfil his promise
[to Miltitz] of exhorting to obedience to Rome. He exhorts to sub-
mission to this power because, according to him, it merely extends to
externals. With regard to anything further, its origin, its character,
and its extent, he reserves to himself and to learned men generally,
liberty of judgment. Of the important assertions which he had already
made on this point in various passages in his works, none are here with-
drawn." And yet, in this remarkable document composed at the in-
stigation of Miltitz, he calls himself " a submissive and obedient son
of the Holy Christian Churches in which, by God's help, I will die,"
and declares : "I may say with a clear conscience that I have never
imagined anything [hostile] with regard to the Papacy or its power."
He is, nevertheless, as he even there states, sure of his own " rock,"
and ready to stand up for it like Paul, Athanasius, and Augustine, even
though he should be left quite alone. God is able to speak through one
against all, even as He once spoke through the mouth of a she-ass.

" PROVE ALL THINGS" 367

Holy Scripture, upon which I take my stand, is above both
Church and Fathers.

By the Holy Scripture he, moreover, persists in under-
standing his own interpretation of the Bible. By a tragic
mistake he has come to confound his own personal and
altogether subjective interpretation with the objective
" Word of God " in the Bible. In the same way he makes
not the slightest distinction between the meaning of the
" gospel," which he fancies he has discovered, and the actual
Gospel itself.

Catholics urged against Luther that the Church had been
entrusted with the safeguarding of the Holy Books, with the
handing down of the canon of Scripture and the correct inter-
pretation of the same, and that, from the earliest Christian times,
the Faithful had always left to the living Tradition, the General
Councils and the Supreme Teacher of the Church — the Vicar of
Christ and inheritor of the powers of Peter — the final decision in
doctrinal questions and the correct and binding interpretation of
Holy Scripture.

What Luther asserted, for instance, in his final letter to
Dungersheim, brought the central dogma, namely, that of the
teaching office of the Church, into still clearer light : " You have
nothing else on your lips," he says to Dungersheim and to all
Catholics generally, " but the words Church, Church, heretic,
heretic, and you will not admit that the injunction : ' Prove all
things, hold fast that which is good' (1 Thess. v. 21), applies to
any. But when we ask for the Church, you show us one man, the
Pope, to whom you entrust everything [i.e. all decisions on
matters of faith], and yet you do not prove by one word that his
faith is unchangeable. Yet we have discovered in the Pope's
Decretals more heresies than any heretic ever invented. You
ought to prove your standpoint and instead of this you always
start from the same premiss."1 Theologians, as a matter of fact,
had never claimed for all the contents of the Decretals a rank
among the solemn pronouncements on faith. What is, however,
more important is that Luther places the individual above the
Church and the Primacy appointed by God ; he puts the Scrip-
tures in his hand, to interpret as he will. He continues as follows :
" You ought to prove that the Church of God is with you and
nowhere else in the world. We want the Scriptures for our judge,
but you wish to be judges of the Scriptures."2

In this connection, seeking to justify the bitterness of his
polemics, he unwittingly gives an excellent portrait of himself :
" You misinterpret the words I speak, just as the ass in your
midst [Alveld] is doing at the present moment. This seems to be
the way with you people of Leipzig, you read without attention,

1 " Brief wechsel," 2, p. 163. On the date see Kostlin-Kawerau, 1,
p. 258. 2 Ibid.

368 LUTHER THE MONK

judge presumptuously, and are too stupid to understand the
writings of others. Maybe my patience will come to an end and
make room for anger, for I am after all as human as you ; you sit
there calmly and nag at me while I am oppressed with work and
everyone shows me his teeth, and, forsooth, humility is expected
of me while I am being attacked by ravening wolves. The weight
of the globe presses upon me (' orbis me premit'), and if I do so
much as nod, you cannot endure it ; if at last I turn round upon
you, I am accused and found fault with on all sides. I write this
to show my zeal for peace and concord ; why, in God's name, am
I not allowed to enjoy them ? "

He himself shows us later in what way he was desirous of
" peace and concord." From the words we have just quoted he
seems, strange to say, to think that the Roman party had no
right to fight for the great and sacred interests of Mother Church,
nor to repel the attacks he was making upon so much which had
hitherto been believed.

It is exceedingly sad to see how Luther, the once zealous
religious, has become alienated more and more from the
heart of the Church, from her life, ways of thought and
feeling. Passion for his cause, precipitation, overstrain,
both mental and bodily, the delusion that the whole world
was watching the brave monk's daring move, all this cuts
him off, more even than his previous conduct, from practical
association with the Church. His growing lukewarmness in
religion is paving the way for his complete apostasy.

He confesses that he lived in a worldly turmoil of work
and distractions, of parties and feastings which led him
away " to immoderation, impropriety and negligence."
Recollection, penance and humility become more and
more strangers to him, though he can still speak words of
piety ; everything is overcovered by the great struggle he
has called into being ; the less attention he devotes to the
duties of the religious life, the more he gravitates to the
Electoral Court, where Spalatin is ever busy seeking to
provide him with a safe shelter. This is the talented man,
so the Catholic sadly reminds himself, whose words might
have assisted in calling forth a real reform within the Church,
if, agreeably with the spirit and rules of the Church, he had
only appealed to the Faithful and their pastors with earnest-
ness and deliberation, with persistence and confidence in
God. Instead of this, he pushed forward heedlessly in the
slippery path to lay sacrilegious hands on the doctrine and
the whole structure of the Church as existing up to that
time.

DRESDEN TALES 369

At the close of this chapter some remarks may perhaps
be permitted on certain mistaken or misunderstood tales
concerning Luther, which belong to this period.

The history of the sermon referred to above (p. 334),
delivered by Luther at Dresden in July, 1518, in the presence
of Duke George of Saxony has recently been presented to
Protestant readers in the traditional legendary form as
" portraying the whole history of the following centuries."
If it were really so supremely important, then we ought,
indeed, in our narrative to have put this sermon in a better
light and assigned it a very different position. As a matter
of fact, however, its contents are by no means of any great
moment and do not even justify its description as " the
trial sermon of the pale Augustinian monk."

Duke George of Saxony, so we are told in this new and adorned
version of the incident, "had applied to the Vicar-General of the
Augustinians, Staupitz, requesting that he would procure for him
an honest and learned preacher," and Staupitz thereupon sent
him Luther " with a letter of recommendation in which he
described him as a highly gifted young man of proved excellence,
both as regards his studies and his moral character." As a
matter of fact, however, it is only known that Luther happened
to be in Dresden on July 25, 1518, on his way back from the
Heidelberg Chapter. As he usually did, he took advantage of the
opportunity afforded him of preaching. Of the letters of Duke
George or of Staupitz history knows nothing.

The sermon was delivered in the castle (" in castro ") in the
presence of the Court on the aforesaid day, which was a Sunday,
and also the Feast of James the Greater.1 The text was taken
from the Gospel for the Feast in which our Saviour says to James
and his brother : " Ye know not what ye ask " (Matt. xx. 22).
On this text Luther, doubtless in his customary burning words,
described " the foolishness of people in their prayers, and what
the true object of prayer should be." This is what he himself
tells us.2 He introduced among other things into the sermon a
story about three virgins, which, he says, was " quite theological."
According to another account, he did not lose the opportunity of
expressing the ideas which dominated him, namely, that those who
listen to the Word of God with an attentive mind are true
disciples of Christ, chosen, and predestinated for life everlasting,
and that we must overcome " the fear of God " ; he no doubt
laid particular stress on faith and depreciated good works. It
does not seem necessary to assume that there were two different
sermons. " The evangelical certainty of Salvation, as against the

1 Luther to Spalatin, January 14, 1519, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 351

2 Ibid.

370 LUTHER THE MONK

traditional righteousness by works," so runs the latest legendary-
account, " shone forth from his words more plainly than was
agreeable to the Duke."

Duke George was, and remained, a good Catholic. His
opinion of Luther's sermon is characteristic : "I would have
given much money not to have heard it," so he says, " because
such discourses make men presumptuous." This he repeated
several times at table with great displeasure. The occasion
which gave rise to this remark was that Barbara von Sala, a lady
of the Court who was present, praised the sermon as most
reassuring, and added that if she could hear such a sermon again
she would die with a quiet mind.

At the Court much was said in disparagement of the sermon
and the preacher, certain conversations of Luther in the town
seeming to have contributed to this. The Prior of the Augus-
tinian monastery at Dresden wrote afterwards to Luther telling
him that many found fault with him as unlearned and arrogant,
etc., that the sermon in the castle was made the ground for all
sorts of reproaches ; that it was also said that his story of the three
virgins had been directed against three particular ladies at the
Court, which surely was not the case. Shortly after, when pre-
paring for the Disputation at Leipzig, Luther must evidently have
feared that the Duke was not favourably disposed, for he wrote
begging that, if he had displeased him, he would " graciously
pardon everything." The Duke replied that he was not aware of
" any displeasure ever conceived by us against you." Duke
George, who was zealous for reform, was much in favour of
Luther's Indulgence theses and, after having come to an under-
standing with Eck, he sanctioned the Disputation at Leipzig
notwithstanding the objections of the Bishop and the theological
faculty. x

We know some details concerning Luther's behaviour in the
town, and the violent attacks on Thomas of Aquin and Aristotle,
to which he gave vent, in the presence of some of the Leipzig
theologians, at a dinner in Emser's house. Luther, as he himself
says, there defended the proposition, that " neither Thomas nor
all the Thomists put together had understood a single chapter of
Aristotle," undoubtedly an extraordinary statement, yet one
which, stripped of its cloak of hyperbole, is quite in Luther's
style. Not a single Thomist, he said on the same occasion, knew
what was meant by keeping God's Commandments.2 A young
Leipzig Master in the ensuing Disputation attacked him fiercely
on this score, and declared later that he had stopped his mouth
so completely that he was unable to say a word. A Dominican
who was standing at the door listening angrily to the attacks

1 Luther to the Duke, May 16, 1519, " Werke," Erl. ed., 56, p. III.,
No. 830 (" Brief wechsel," 2, p. 52). The Duke to Luther, May 23, 1519,
" Luthers Brief wechsel," 2, p. 59. Cp. " Akten und Briefe zur Kirchen
politik Herzog Georgs von Sachsen," ed. F. Gess, Leipzig, Bd. 1, 1905,
p. 85.

2 Luther to Spalatin, January, 14, 1519, "Brief wechsel,' 1., p. 350.

DRESDEN TALES 371

upon the great Doctor of his Order, afterwards admitted that he
had hardly been able to restrain himself from rushing into the
room and spitting in Luther's face.

This is all that the sources contain regarding Luther's stay at
Dresden. There is no justification for the proceeding of certain
Protestant narrators who magnify the so-called " trial sermon,"
and utilise Luther's sojourn to make him utter unique predictions
of the future. Other events of those years might with much
greater truth be represented as momentous, particularly the
Heidelberg Disputation from which Luther was then returning.

In private conversations at Dresden Luther showed
clearly how far he had already separated himself from the
older Church. Emser made representations to him on this
score : " I told you of it plainly at Dresden," he writes in
the following year, " and again at Leipzig, wrarning you in a
friendly manner and begging you to place some restraint
upon your zeal and to avoid giving offence, and not to
speak of the superstitious malpractices amongst us Catholics
in such a way as at the same time to root out all belief,
and to rob the German people of their faith."1 Elsewhere
Emser explains : " A year before the Disputation at
Leipzig [i.e. in 1518, and without doubt at Dresden] Luther
declared that he cared nothing for the Pope's excommunica-
tion and had already determined to die under it. And this,
should he deny it, I am ready to prove."2 We may take it
that Emser is here alluding to Luther's rude answers to his
adversaries, who, according to his own story, reproached
him at Dresden with the sermon he had preached at Witten-
berg on the " Power of Indulgences " ; some portions of this
sermon had already found their way to Dresden, though as
yet it had not been printed. There is no doubt that Emser
himself was among these adversaries. His statement about
what Luther said is absolutely trustworthy, and shows how
untrue the fable was that Luther was animated by the most
peaceful of intentions and only against his will was dragged
into a struggle which led eventually to his excommunica-
tion.

Luther's stay at Dresden and Leipzig affords an oppor-

1 In his pamphlet against Luther, " A venatione Luteriana ^Ego-
cerotis Assertio," end November, 1519. Enders, "Luthers Brief-
wechsel," 1, p. 225, n. 8. Cf. " An den Stier zu Wittenberg." No place
or year (1520, or beginning 1521). Fol. Aij, 6.

2 " Auff des Stiers tzu Wittenberg Wiettende Replica," Leipzig,
1521, Aiiij., Enders, ibid.

372 LUTHER THE MONK

tunity for discussing two of his famous and oft-quoted
utterances, which, in the sense they are generally em-
ployed against him, are historically doubtful. Emser, it is
usually stated, with his own ears heard Luther declare that
he was only waiting for an assurance of protection from
the secular power in order to declare war on the Pope, and
that Luther himself had admitted that his cause had not
been begun for God's sake.

The first utterance, so well revealing his low and cowardly
standard, Luther is said to have given vent to at Dresden in 1518,
telling Emser that if only a Prince would shield him, he would do
his worst against the Church. But is Emser here really referring
to words spoken by Luther himself ? What he actually says is
this : " Many people know that one of his Order had often and
in divers places been heard to say that if he [Luther] only knew
of a Prince who would have backed him, he would give Pope,
Bishop and Parsons a fine time of it."1 In these words we have
accordingly not an utterance of Luther's own, but merely one
of a brother monk. Neither is Dresden given as the place
where this was said ; on the contrary, the Augustinian referred to
was heard to say these words in many different places. What he
repeatedly said certainly does not redound to Luther's credit,
neither does it agree with the high-spirited defence of the truth
which is generally attributed to him by Protestants. Whether
the Augustinian spoke from a thorough knowledge of Luther, and
whether what he said really renders words which Luther had
spoken, cannot be determined. At any rate, the manner in which
Luther acted in order to gain and retain the protection of the
Elector, through the intermediary of Spalatin, gives some weight
to the words.

The other statement said to have been made by Luther was as
follows : " Let the devil do his utmost, the business was not begun
for God's sake and, for His sake, shall not be ended." This
Emser says he actually heard from Luther himself ; 2 he tells
Luther : "I warned you three times in a fraternal spirit and
begged you for God's sake to spare the poor people to whom you
were certainly giving great scandal by this matter, and you at
last answered me : ' Let the devil, etc.' "

It is, however, very doubtful whether Luther would have said
so plainly that his cause in the controversy had not been begun, and
should not cease, for God's sake (which is what Emser takes him as
meaning ) . In his reply to Emser Luther declares he had meant some-
thing quite different by what he said and we have no right to set
aside his explanation. He relates that the words were said to Emser
in the Chancery of the castle at Leipzig on the occasion of the Dis-
putation of 1519, but really of the opposite party who wished to
do him " harm " by the proposed Disputation ; Eck, who had

1 Ibid., fol. A, 3'. 2 " An den Stier zu Wittenberg," fol. A, 2.

DRESDEN TALES 373

" begun the Disputation," Emser and the Leipzig theologians
had a mind to injure thereby his teaching ; " my words applied
to them," "not to myself," those of "ours who were standing
by " are my witnesses ;x besides, he writes, he would have been
"possessed" had he said: "I did not begin this in God's
name " ; but, because in saying this he regretted " that the
opposite party sought honour rather than the truth," he said it
" with sorrowful words and a sad mind." Emser nevertheless
stood to his version2 and declared that Luther, far from speaking
sadly, had said the words with eyes sparkling with anger ; besides,
Luther had had no right to say anything of the kind about Emser
and the Leipzig theologians, as they had not then set on foot any
measures against him.

It is quite likely that Emser gave Luther the threefold warning
he speaks of above. But that Luther should have replied to the
exhortation " to spare the poor people," etc., by the strange
statement that " the matter had not been begun for God's sake "
is so utterly unlikely that he was probably right in denying it in
his reply to Emser.3 We may safely assume that Emser was a
little confused in his recollection of the interview ; in his con-
versation in the castle at Leipzig he may have spoken of Luther's
action generally and of the Disputation in particular, whereupon
Luther, thinking only of the Disputation, may well have said :
" Let the devil," etc. ; which Emser, in the excitement of the
dispute, took to refer to Luther's action as a whole.

At any rate, Luther's fear of giving scandal, according to his
own letters, was not nearly so great as he makes out in his reply
to Emser. Here, in the very passage under discussion, he over-
whelms Emser with abuse, a fact which does not awaken con-
fidence in his statements : " That man would indeed be a monster,
even worse than Emser himself, who did not heartily grieve to
cause annoyance to the poor people." He calls his opponent a
"poisonous, shameless liar," a "murderer," who spoke contrary
to his own "heart and conscience." "My great and joyful courage
cuts you to the quick " ; " Ecks, Emsers, Goats, Wolves and Ser-
pents and such-like senseless and ferocious beasts " would have
raved even against Christ Himself. In the same breath he declares,
that in his behaviour up to that time " he had never once started
a quarrel " ; everything unfavourable that had been said of him
was based merely on lies, which had been invented about him
" these three years " and had become a crying scandal.

1 " Auff des Bocks zu Leypczick Antwort," 1521, " Werke," Erl. ed.,
27, 206 ff.

2 " Auff des Stiers tzu Wittenberg Wiettende Replica," fol. A, 3'.

3 " Auff des Bocks," etc., " Werke," Erl. ed., n. 27, p. 208 f.

CHAPTER X

luther's progress in the new teaching

1. The Second Stage of his development. Assurance
of Salvation

Two elements were still wanting to Luther's teaching- —
the very two which, at a later date and till the end of his
life, he regarded as the corner-stone of the truth which he
had discovered- — viz. Faith alone as the means of justifica-
tion, and the assurance of Divine favour, which was its
outcome. Both these elements are most closely connected,
and go to make up the Lutheran doctrine of the appropriation
of salvation, or personal certainty of faith. In accordance
therewith justifying faith includes not only a belief in Christ
as the Saviour ; I must not merely believe that He will
save and sanctify me if I turn to Him with humility and
confidence- — this the Church had ever taught — but I must
also have entire faith in my justification, and rest assured,
that without any work whatsoever on my part and solely
by means of such a faith, all the demands made upon me are
fulfilled, the merits of Christ appropriated, and my remaining
sins not imputed to me ; such is personal assurance of
salvation by faith alone.

The teaching of the Catholic Church, we may remind our
readers, never recognised in its exhortation to faith and
confidence in God, the existence of this " faith alone "
which justifies without further ado, nor did it require that
of necessity there must be a special faith in one's state of
salvation. In place of faith alone the Church taught what
the Council of Trent thus sums up : " We are said to be
justified by faith because faith is the beginning of human
salvation, the foundation and root of all justification,
without which it is impossible to please God and reach the
blessed company of His children." 1

And instead of setting up a special faith in our own state
1 Sess. 6, c. 8.
374

THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE 375

of salvation, her teaching, as expressed by the same Council,
had ever been that " no devout person may doubt the mercy
of God, the merit of Christ and the power and efficacy of
the sacraments," though, on the other hand, "no one may
boast with certainty of the remission of his sins " ; " nor
may it be said that those who are truly justified must
convince themselves beyond all doubt that they are justified
and that no one is absolved from sin and justified unless he
believe with certainty that he has been so absolved and
justified, as though absolution and justification were
accomplished by this faith alone " ; " but rather everyone,
bearing in mind his own weakness and indisposition, may
well be anxious and afraid for his salvation, as no one can
know, with the certainty of faith which excludes all error,
that he has attained to the grace of God." 1

Such was the doctrine which Luther had learnt in his
early days as a monk ; it animated his youthful zeal for the
religious life and did not interfere with his contented and
happy frame of mind, as expressed in the letter of invitation
to his first Mass and his conversations with Usingen.2 The
writings of St. Bernard had taught him, that in the religious
life this happiness is the portion of all those who seek God.
Luther knew that thousands like himself rejoiced from their
hearts in the " anointed cross " of the service of God, as
Bernard calls it. On the by-path he chose to follow he lost,
however, his happiness and increased his doubts and inward
unrest.

Luther, after forsaking the Catholic standpoint, had
hitherto been tormented by anxiety as to how we can be
assured of the Grace of God. Having left the secure footing
of the Church's views on nature, grace and predestination,
he was now in search of a certainty even more absolute.
His Commentary on Romans had concluded with the anxious
question : " Who will give me the assurance that I am
pleasing God by my works ? " As yet he can give no other
answer than that, " we must call upon God's grace with
fear and trembling and seek to render Him gracious to us
by humility and self-annihilation, because all depends
upon His arbitrary Will (above, p. 217 ff.). In these lectures,

1 Ibid., cap. ix., Contra inanem fiduciam.

2 See the letter above, p. 15. On Usingen, sec his Life, by
N. Paulus, p. 17.

376 LUTHER THE MONK

in the course of his gloomy and abstruse treatment of pre-
destination, he had instructed his hearers how they must
be resigned to this uncertainty concerning eternity (p. 236 ff.).

In the act of resignation he perceived various signs of pre-
destination. He says in the Commentary on Romans : " There
are three degrees in the signs of predestination. Some are content
with God's Will, but are confident they are among the elect and
do not wish to be damned. Others, who stand on a higher level,
are resigned and contented with God's Will, or at least wish to be
so, even though God should not choose to save them but to place
them amongst the lost. The third, i.e. the last and highest
degree, is to be resigned in very deed to hell if such be the Will of
God, which is perhaps the case with many at the hour of death.
In this way we become altogether purified from self-will and the
wisdom of the flesh."1

" Terrible pride prevails among the hypocrites and men of the
law, who, because they believe in Christ, think themselves already
saved and sufficiently righteous," these claim to attain to grace
and the Divine Sonship " by faith alone" ("ex fide tantum"),
" as though we were saved by Christ without the performance of
any works or acts of our own " (" sic ut ipsi nihil operentur, nihil
exhibeant de fide "). Such men possess too much faith, or rather
none at all.2

While he was thus wavering between reminiscences of the
Catholic teaching and his own pseudo-mystical ideas on justifica-
tion and imputation, his mind must indeed have been in a state
of incessant agitation, so that uneasiness and fear became his
natural element. " As we are unable to keep God's command-
ments and are therefore always unrighteous, there remains
nothing for us but to be in constant fear of the Judgment ( ' ut
indicium semper timeamus '), and to pray for pardon, or rather
for the non-imputing of our unrighteousness." " We are to
rejoice, according to the Psalmist (ii. 11), before God on account
of His Mercy, but with trembling on account of the sin which
deserves His Judgment."3

In 1525 he wrote : To leave man no free will for what is
good and to make him altogether dependent on God's pre-
destination " seems, it is true, cruel and intolerable ; countless
of the greatest minds of previous ages have taken offence at this.
And who, indeed, is there whom the idea does not offend ? I
myself have more than once been greatly scandalised at it and
plunged into an abyss of despair so that I wished I had never
been created. But then I learned how wholesome despair is and
how close it lies to grace."4

This he " learned," or thought he learned, through his
doctrine of assurance of salvation through faith.

1 " Schol. Rom-," p. 215. 2 Ibid., p. 132.

3 Ibid., p. 124.

4 In De servo arbiirio, " Werke," Weim ed., 18, p. 719.

FEELING HIS WAY 377

" The forgiveness offered us by God in His Word " (if we
may here anticipate his later teaching), became for him a
definite object of sanctifying and saving faith, to the extent
that faith came to be identical in his eyes with fiducia.

Faith is, as he says, "a real heartfelt confidence in Christ."1
" He strongly emphasises at the same time the relation between
what is here proposed for belief and the individual believer ; I
believe that God is gracious to me and forgives me. That, says
Luther [later], makes the Article of the Forgiveness of Sins
particularly difficult, for though the other Articles of Faith may
be more difficult if once we begin to speak of them and try to
understand them, yet in the Article of the Forgiveness of Sins
what presents the greatest difficulty is, that ' each one must
accept this for himself in particular.' This was hard to a man
because he must stand greatly in awe of the anger of God and
His Judgment ; but when the Article of the Forgiveness of Sins
comes home to us and we really experience its meaning, then the
other Articles concerning God, the Creator, the Son of God, etc.,
1 also come home to us and enter into our experience.' And,
according to Luther, true faith consists in this, that I believe and
am assured that God is my God because He speaks to me and
forgives my sins."2 While taking the acceptance of the whole of
revelation for granted, he magnifies fiducial faith to such an
extent, that many Protestant theologians have come to consider
a trusting faith in Christ to be his only essential requirement, in
fact to imagine that in this alone faith consists ; claiming to be
merely following Luther, they deny that the acceptance of
individual points of faith, i.e. Articles of Faith, can be a necessary
condition for salvation.

Fiducial faith, with its assurance of salvation was the
way which Luther discovered out of all his troubles about
two years after the termination *of his Commentary on
Romans, in 1518, or the beginning of 1519. This discovery
is a remarkable event, which stands alone, and with which
we must concern ourselves after first examining what led up
to it. From the place where it was made, viz. the tower
belonging to the monastery, it might be styled the Tower
Experience.

The incident remained imbedded in Luther's mind till
his old age ; he frequently alludes to it, and though in some
of its details his memory did not serve him aright and his
apprehension of it may have been somewhat modified by
party prejudice, yet the main elements of the story appear
to be historically quite credible. He fixes not merely the

1 Kostlin, "Luthers Theologie," 22, p. 180. 2 Ibid., p. 181.

378 LUTHER THE MONK

place, but also the time of the incident, namely, the com-
mencement of his second course of lectures on the Psalms
(1518-19), i.e. two matters which ever serve as the most
reliable framework for the picture of an event long past.
From what he relates between 1532 and 1545, one thing is
directly certain regarding this purely spiritual, and for that
reason rather less tangible incident, viz. that it was an
experience arrived at only after the acutest mental anguish
and which Luther ever after regarded as a special illumina-
tion vouchsafed to him by God. It is connected with
Romans i. 17 : " For the justice of God is revealed therein
[in the Gospel] from faith unto faith as it is written [Hab.
ii. 4] : ' The just man liveth by faith.' "

What is indirectly no less certain, from the unanimity of
the testimonies, and from the course of his development as
vouched for by his writings, is that the discovery in question
was really that of the assurance of salvation.

The various opinions which have been expressed on the
account of the event given by Luther (see below, p. 388 ff.) in
1545, and the numerous attempts which have been made to
fix a date for the same, render it necessary to trace chrono-
logically the development of the doctrine of faith and
salvation in Luther's mind till the year 1519. We shall see
that his statement as to the time when the event took place
(1518-19) not only presents no difficulty, but that such a
termination to his experiences was naturally to be expected.

Prior to 1518-19 the absolute assurance of salvation which
appears afterwards is nowhere distinctly expressed in Luther's
doctrine on faith and salvation.

Passages to the contrary, which have been quoted from the
imprinted lectures on Hebrews delivered previous to the autumn
of 1517, need not be interpreted in the sense of fiducial faith and
assurance of salvation. They refer rather indistinctly to the
effects of faith without the works which Luther had now come to
detest, and attack " self -righteousness," as in the Commentary
on Romans (" sola fides . . . quae, non nititur operibus illis
[orationibus et prceparatoriis "]). They only hint vaguely at the
road he will follow later. 1

Again, in the Indulgence theses of October 31, 1517, directed
against Tetzel, the assurance of salvation is not expressed, and
we find a recommendation " to trust rather to enter heaven by

1 F. Loofs, " Leitfaden der Dogmengesch.," 4, p. 711, lays stress
on passages quoted by Denifle, but admits (p. 721) that they are " not
so clear." The same applies to the passages quoted above, p. 261.

FEELING HIS WAY 379

much tribulation than by security and peace." In place of pax,
pax / he, as a mystic, would prefer to exhort the people with the
cry : crux, crux ! (thesis 93).

Neither do the theses of the Heidelberg Disputation in April,
1518, contain the assurance of salvation, although theses 25-8
touch upon justification and, as against the law, extol the great
effects of the faith which Christ works in us.1

On the other hand, the Resolutions to the Indulgence theses
which appeared shortly after (1518) treat to a certain extent of
the subject and attempt to give a solution.2 There we read :
" In the confusion [in the mind of the man who is perturbed by
thoughts of sin and rejection] God works a strange work in order
to accomplish His work " ; grace is infused (" infunditur gratia"),
while man still fancies he "is about to be damned." In order
to rid himself of his " despair," he goes to Confession " so that the
priest may declare him absolved and give peace to his con-
science." " The man who is to be absolved must take great care
lest he doubt the remission of his sins." Faith in Christ's words
to Peter : " Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth," etc., does all.
The whole passage, which describes justification in the fanciful and
paradoxical language of the mystic, is worth quoting : " When
God begins to justify a man, He first damns him ; He is about to
build, but first He pulls down, to heal but first He deals wounds,
to vivify but first He condemns to death. He crushes a man,
humbles him by the knowledge of himself and his sins and makes
him tremble, so that, under a sense of his misery, he cries out
[with Holy Scripture] ' there is no peace for my bones because
of my sins, there is no health in my flesh because of Thy wrath.
For the mountains melt away before the face of God, He sends out
His arrows, He troubles us with His anger and with the breath of
His wrath. The sinner sinks down into hell and shame covers his
face. David frequently experienced this confusion and tribula-
tion and describes it with sighs in several of the Psalms. Salva-
tion has its origin in this confusion, because ' the fear of God is
the beginning of wisdom.' " The ways of God are in a tempest
and a whirlwind, according to Nahum (i. 3) ; man's destruction
is to Him " the most pleasing sacrifice," the animal sacrificed is
torn in pieces, the hide is stripped off, and it is slaughtered.
Luther in three passages from the Prophets, describes the " in-
fusion of grace," which man is apt to mistake for the outpouring
of the Divine wrath upon him.

Because the man who is justified is still " without peace and
consolation," not trusting his own judgment, he begs the priest
for comfort in Confession. " He is led to cling to the judgment of
another not because he is a spiritual superior, or because he pos-
sesses any power, but on account of the words of Christ Who
cannot lie : ' Whatsoever thou shalt loose,' etc. Faith in these

1 Cp. K. Stange, " Die ersten ethischen Disputationen Luthers "
(" Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus," No. 1), p. 54.

2 "Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 540 f. ; "Opp. Lat. var.," 2, p. 152
seg.

380 LUTHER THE MONK

words has worked peace of conscience while the priest looses by
virtue of the same."1 " Christ is our peace. Without faith in His
word, no one will ever be at peace even after more than a thousand
absolutions from the Pope. Thanks be to God for this sweet
power of the priest."

Such words of gratitude do not disguise the fact, that the
sacrament of penance is stripped of its meaning by the assur-
ance, that " the remission of guilt takes place by the infusion of
grace before the priest has given absolution."

Above all it is plain we have not yet here that assurance of
salvation, as Luther held it at a later date :

" Whoever seeks peace in another way [than through the
absolution of the priest]," he says in the same passage, " say, by
his own inward experience, appears to be tempting God, and not
seeking peace by faith." With this denial of the validity of
personal inward experience (" experientia intus ") he brushes
aside an element which, scarcely a year later, he represents as
essential. He says still more definitely : " The remission of
guilt is not assured to us, as a general rule, except by the sentence
of the priest, and not even by him unless we believe Christ's
promise with regard to loosing. But so long as we are not certain
of the remission it is no remission." " As the infusion of grace is
hidden under the appearance of anger, man is still more un-
certain of grace when it is present than when it is absent."2

That Luther could rest satisfied with so shadowy and in-
sufficient a conception can only be attributed to his state of mind
at the time.

He lays great stress on absolution in the Disputation of the
year 1518 " For the calming of troubled consciences " (above, p.
319).3 Here it is expressly stated, that the strongest assurance
regarding the state .of grace is to be derived from the priest's
absolution and the accompanying faith of the penitent Christian :
" Whoever is absolved by the power of the keys must rather die
and renounce all creatures than doubt of his absolution " (thesis
16). " Those who declare the remission of sins to be doubtful on
account of the uncertainty of contrition, err to the point of deny-
ing the faith " (13), for "the forgiveness of sins is based much
more upon faith in the word of Christ : ' Whatsoever thou shalt
loose,' etc." (9). "The power of the keys operates a sure and
infallible work by the word and the command of Christ, when
used in earnest." (24). The concluding words of the Disputation
already quoted elsewhere accordingly exhort to boundless con-
fidence, while at the same time alluding significantly to the text

1 Cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 542. " Opp. Lat. var.," p. 156 : " Cui
(sacerdoti absolventi) qui crediderit cum fiducia, vere obtinuit pacem et
remissionem apud Deum ; id est certus fit, se esse absolutum, non rei sed
fidei certitudine propter injallibilem misericordiam promittentis sermonem
Quodcunque solveris," etc. " Sic Ro. V, Iustifvcati gratis per gratiam
ipsius, pacem habemus ad Deum per fidem, non utique per rem.''''

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 541.

3 Ibid., p. 629 ff. ; " Opp. Lat. var.," 1, p. 378 seq.

FIDUCIAL FAITH 381

which has risen on Luther's horizon, though as yet he understands
it only imperfectly : " The just man liveth by faith."

His state of uncertainty with regard to the appropriation
of salvation caused Luther great disquietude. Other
circumstances, particularly his feverish excitement at the
outset of his public struggle, also contributed towards his
inward unrest. The morbid fear of which he had never rid
himself was also powerfully stirred.

The supreme degree of this painful torment of soul may
be gathered from the description he gives in the Resolutions.

In this work, which appeared in August, 1518, in dealing
with the 15th Indulgence thesis, he tries to prove that the
punishment of Purgatory may be made up merely by fear and
terror. Many of those living even now, he says, had ex-
perienced how high the flood of such interior sufferings can
rise and how close they bring a man to despair. He would
not quarrel with any who did not believe this, but those who
had been through such trials were in a position to speak of
them. Tauler treated of such pains in his German sermons
and brought forward some examples ; of course, to the
Scholastics Tauler was unknown ; they did not appreciate
him, but he had found more real theology in this theologian
who wrote in German than " among the wrhole of the Schol-
astics of all the universities." He then proceeds, beginning
with the very formula with which Paul introduces the
account of his raptures : " I know a man " (Novi hominem),
to describe the mystical interior sufferings which he had
" frequently " experienced ; though they had never per-
sisted long, they were so " hellish," that whoever had not
undergone them himself was quite unable to speak of them.
Had this consuming fire lasted only for the tenth part of an
hour all a man's bones were reduced to ashes.

" God then appears to be horribly angered and with Him
all creation. There is no possibility of flight, no comfort
whether within or without, only a hollow accusing voice.
The soul laments, according to the words of Scripture :
' Lord I am cast away from Thy face,' she dares not even say :
' Chastise me not in Thy wrath.' At this moment- — inex-
plicable as it is- — the soul is unable even to believe in its
possible liberation, but only feels that the punishment is
not at an end. It appears everlasting and unceasing. The
soul finds nothing in its whole being but a bare longing for

382 LUTHER THE MONK

help, nothing but terrible sighing, though it knows not
whence to implore assistance. Thus the soul, like Christ,
is completely extenuated, all its bones are numbered, there
is not a tissue in it which is not penetrated with the ex-
cruciating bitterness, with flight, with mournful anxiety
and pain, and all for ever and ever. When a ball passes
over a board every point of the line along which it travels
bears the whole weight of the ball, though it does not
receive the ball into itself. So, too, the eternal flood of pain
passes over the soul and causes it to taste the whole endless
weight of eternal pain in every part, but the pain is not per-
manently received into the soul, it does not last, but passes."1

The above so strange and fantastic description incor-
porated in a Latin work written for the learned, in the
interests of Luther's psychology, calls for further con-
sideration.

Particular stress must here be laid on the false mysticism
in which Luther was then entangled, and his free use of the
fanciful language of certain of the mystics. Luther's
states had, however, nothing in common with those de-
scribed in somewhat similar words by the healthier mystics,
viz. the sore trial of the Mount of Olives through which the
soul passes owing to the complete withdrawal of consolation.
He, however, imagines he sees himself portrayed not only
in such descriptions of the mystics, but also in mystical
passages in the Psalms over which, at this time of change,
he was fond of brooding. David's cries ring in his ears ; his
experience of the hell in which the soul must dwell, of the
life which draws nigh to hell, of the bones which are banished
to the gate of hell, of the sinking into a dark sea, into the
bowels of the earth under the heaped-up weight of endless
misery.

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 557 ; " Opp. Lat. var.," 2, p. 179 seq.
No reason can be advanced against the application of this passage
to Luther himself except that the formula he employs, Novi hominem
(cp. 2 Cor xii. 2: " Scio hominem in Christo . . . raptum"), he also
once makes use of in an account given of another person. This circum-
stance, howevei, does not invalidate the reference to his own person,
which is apparent from the whole context. It is true, however, that
Luther does not directly refer to himself. The Protestant historians,
J. Kostlin, W. Kohler, W. Braun, G. Kawerau, etc., also refer the
passage to Luther himself. The last-named historian says, in the
Deutsch-Evangelische Blatter," 1906, p. 447, that this passage of
the Resolutions gives an idea " of the night of the soul which he had
experienced."

FIDUCIAL FAITH 383

It must also be borne in mind that the Monk, with his
pseudo-mystical ideas, cherished a gloomy conception of
God, and held the terrible doctrine of the absolute pre-
destination of the damned. Having wandered away from
the Catholic teaching, with his views on man's lack of free
will, and the theory of arbitrary imputation by God, he
found no answer in his troubled conscience to the question
which weighed him down, namely, how to arrive at the
assurance of a Gracious God. Confusion and interior pangs
of conscience for a while gained the upper hand.

Lastly, his peculiar morbid tendency to fear must also be
taken into account, for it afforded an opportunity to the
Tempter to add to his confusion by raising difficulties
regarding the deficiencies of his new, self-chosen theology.

Adolph Hausrath in his Life of Luther even speaks of
periodical mental disturbances from which he suffered during
the time he was a monk ; the disturbing power inherent in
the monastic practices, so he says, took possession of his
sensitive nature with its strong feelings ; Luther only
escaped the danger of going mad by bravely bursting the
fetters of the monastic Rule and the Popish Faith. In the
strong inward combats which Luther endured at a later
date Hausrath recognises a return of this affliction. In his
second edition he has toned down this view of Luther's
periodical attacks of mental illness out of regard for the
objections which had, not without reason, been urged
against his statement. In Luther's case, however, there is
no reason for assuming any " monkish mental disease," nor
can he be proved to have suffered from any disturbance
whatever of his mental functions at any time of his life.1
But if we take it that the night of the soul which he passed
through, whether in the monastery or during his later
struggle, had at its basis a peculiar physico-psychic dis-
position revealing a want of normal inward stability, then
we can perhaps easily explain some other strange and at
first blush inexplicable phenomena which his case presents.

At any rate, the fundamental new dogma of the assurance
of salvation was not the product of a clear, quiet, calm
atmosphere of soul. It was born amidst unbearable inward
mental confusion, and was a frantic attempt at self-pacifica-

1 See volume vi., chapter xxxvi., " Dark side of the Life of the
Soul," 4, 5.

384 LUTHER THE MONK

tion on the part of the Wittenberg Doctor whose active but
unstable mind had already left the true course.

It is of interest and helps us to reach a right understanding
of the Tower Experience, to follow the change of view re-
garding assurance of salvation which is apparent in Luther's
statements and writings in the latter months of 1518 and
beginning of 1519.

At the time when, in October, 1518, Luther, a prey to
other anxieties, stood before Cardinal Cajetan at Augsburg,
he was already making great strides towards the new and
consoling dogma of faith alone, moved thereto by indigna-
tion at the censure which one of his propositions had called
forth. He says to Cardinal Cajetan in his explanation of the
second of the assertions which he was required to withdraw,
that it was incorrect to speak of it as "a new and false
theology that no one can be justified except by faith, and
that it is necessary to hold it as certain in faith that one is
justified, and not in any way to doubt the obtaining of
grace, because whoever doubts or is uncertain is no longer
justified, but is rejecting grace." x

He attempts to prove this first as regards Confession. The
principal thing is to believe the words of Christ : " Whatsoever
thou shalt loose," etc., i.e. by applying the words to oneself ;
" under pain of eternal damnation and to avoid committing a sin
of unbelief," it is necessary to believe this ; this faith is the only
disposition for the sacrament and no work whatever serves as a
preparation.2 No one could receive grace who doubted of its
reception ; but, if we believed, then we received everything in
the sacrament. The belief that we receive a personal remission of
sin is, according to St. Bernard, the testimony of the Holy Ghost
in our heart ; this, according to the same Father, is expressed in
Romans iii. 28 : " We hold that a man is justified by Faith with-
out the works of the law." Let Cardinal Cajetan, he says finally
— after quoting a great number of biblical passages having no
bearing on the matter in hand — show him how he is to under-
stand in any other way all these texts from the Divine utter-
ances.

What is remarkable is, however, that, during his trial at
Augsburg, he allows Confession and Absolution to recede further

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 2, p. 13 f. " Opp. Lat. var.," 2, p. 377 seq.

2 " Per nulla opera aptus (eris) ad sacramentum, sed per solam fidem,
quia sola fides verbi Christi iustificat, virificat, dignificat, prceparat ; sine
qua omnia alia vel sunt prcesumptionis rel desperaticnis studia. Iustus
enim non ex dispositione sua sed ex fide vivit, Rom. i. 17," which passage
(see below, p. 391 ft.) accordingly already plays a great part in his
considerations.

FIDUCIAL FAITH 385

into the background than in the Resolutions ; he no longer speaks
of the above-mentioned magical production of the personal
assurance of salvation, by the formula of absolution, as by the
testimony of another ; he now holds the absolute certainty of
justification to be present by faith even before this, whenever
a man is willing to submit himself, according to his instructions,
to the Sacrament of Penance.1 Thus faith alone and the assur-
ance of salvation were already present. The principal difficulty,
however, as he admits below (p. 389 f .), still troubled his mind. This
was the Justice of God, which haunted his conscience, though it
did not hinder his going forward.

The appeal he made to a General Couneil in November
and his " conjecture " of December, 1518, that the Pope
might be Antichrist,2 were momentous indications that he
was cutting himself adrift from the authority of the Church.
At the same time he stripped the ideas he had hitherto held
on faith of everything that reminded him of the traditional
teaching of the Church ; he transformed the faith necessary
for justification into a mere act of confidence in the merits of
Christ without any reference to the Sacraments, to the other
truths of faith, or to the Church, who is the guardian and
mouthpiece of faith. To lay hold upon the righteousness
of Christ with a sure trust is made to suffice for justification
and for the fullest assurance of salvation, without any of the
preliminaries and conditions on which he had formerly
insisted. This act, too, God alone operates in man, who
himself is devoid of all free will. Although he incidentally
clothes the act of confidence with love, and even hints at
the good works a man may have performed previous to this
act, also requiring good resolutions for the future, yet these
are only additions which are really inconsistent with his
idea. Henceforward fiducial faith appears to him as really
an isolated fact, an act of confidence inspired by God merely
from His good pleasure and with no regard for any work.

1 In the beginning of 1519 he gives instructions to the Faithful,
intended to show them how to make a good use of Confession ("A
Short Instruction how to make a Confession," " Werke," Weim.
ed., 2, p. 57 ff ; Erl. ed., 21, p. 244 ff.). Even in March, 1520, he re-
published this little work in an extended form, " Confitendi Ratio,"
Weim. ed., 6, p. 154 seq. " Opp. Lat. var.," 4, p. 152 seq. (cp. Kostlin-
Kawerau, 1, p. 278), where he recommends confession, merely warning
the penitent, " ut non fiducia confessionis vel faciendce vel factce niiatur,
sed in solius Dei clementissimam promissionem tota fidei plenitudine con-
fidat, certissimus videlicet, quod, qui confessuro peccata sua promisit
veniam, promissionem suam fidelissime prcestabit."

2 To Wenceslaus Link, December 11, 1518, " Brief wechsel," 1,
,p. 316.

i.— 2 c

386 LUTHER THE MONK

A vast change of far-reaching consequence had taken place
in Luther's conception of the appropriation of the iustitia Dei,
he had now reached an interpretation of the words iustus ex
fide vivit and of the whole meaning of the gospel, upon
which, notwithstanding the independence of his treatment
of doctrine, he had never hitherto ventured.

We may well ask what event, what development, had led
up to this.

Salvation by faith alone and the absolute assurance of
one's state of grace, were taught by Luther quite openly in
]he second course of lectures on the Psalms, which he had
commenced in 1518 (perhaps at the end of the year), and the
beginning of which he published in 1519 with a preface
addressed to the Elector Frederick, dated March 27, 1519
(see above, p. 285). This was the " Operationes in Psalmos,"
upon the publication of which he was engaged until 1521, and
which was finally left unfinished.

This work he, even at a later date, described as an entirely
true exposition of his actual teaching on justification.1

Other lectures, delivered at an earlier period, received
no such praise from him ; on the contrary, he never took
the trouble of having them printed, and does not even
mention them. Although the Commentary on Romans,
which we have already studied, had advanced a considerable
distance along the new lines of thought, nevertheless, at a
later date its tone appeared too Catholic to please him ; it
did not contain the new creed " Credo me esse salvum."
The same is true of the earlier course on the Psalms, of the
lectures on Galatians, on Hebrews and on the Epistle to
Titus. Luther, as a rule, was very ready to have his writings
printed, but these, after he had entered upon the second
stage of his development, he plainly looked upon as unripe
and incomplete.

Simultaneously with the printing of the new Commentary
on the Psalms he commenced that of another Commentary,
also consisting of lectures. This is the shorter of the two
works on Galatians which he has left us in print (above,
p. 306 f.). This Commentary on Galatians, together with the
" Operationes in Psalmos," is the earliest witness to his new
and definitive conception of sola fides as an entire confidence
in one's justification.

1 Mathesius, " Aufzeichnungen," p. 75,

FIDUCIAL FAITH 387

To these must be added the almost contemporary " Sermo
de triplici iustitia " delivered towards the end of 1518, and
the " Sermo de duplici iustitia,''' dating from the commence-
ment of 1519.

The righteousness of Christ, he says in the sermon on the
threefold righteousness1 — without any reference to the Sacra-
ments, with the exception of Baptism, or to the Church's means
of grace — " is our whole being " and " becomes by faith our
righteousness, according to Romans i. : ' The just man liveth by
faith ' " ; " Whoever has this shall not be damned, even though
he commit sin,"2 this being proved by two passages from the
Psalms ; " by this man becomes lord of all things." There is no
such thing as merit. " Every Christian must beware of ever
doubting as to whether his works are pleasing to God ; whoever
doubts this, sins, loses all his works and labours in vain. . . . He
is not acting from faith or in faith." " As you believe in Christ so
too you must believe that your works are well pleasing to God
because they are of faith [i.e. done in a state of grace]."

In the sermon on the twofold righteousness one of the first
quotations from the Bible on which the same idea is based and
yet more strongly expressed is again Romans i. 17 : " The
justice of God is revealed in the gospel," etc.3 This passage
assumes a more prominent position in his mind. He pauses in
his explanation of Psalm xxx. 1 : " In iustitia tua libera me " ;
this, he says, signifies " the righteousness of Christ which has
become ours by faith, grace and the mercy of God." He finds
that this righteousness is frequently referred to in the Psalms as
the " work of God, confession, power of God, mercy, truth and
justice. These are all names for faith in Christ, or rather names
for that righteousness which is in Christ." It is true that " this
alien righteousness which is only infused by grace is never com-
pletely infused all at once, but begins, increases and is finally
completed by death." It is displayed by works of faith, especially
those for the good of others, where man, " the lord of all things,"
makes himself " the servant of all " — words which Luther
employs in exactly the same sense shortly afterwards as the
foundation of his work : " On the freedom of a Christian man."
Faith, i.e. confidence in our own salvation by Christ, works all this ;
it imparts a certainty so that we are able to say : " Christ's life,
work, sufferings and death are mine, just as though I had myself
lived, worked, suffered and died ; so great is the confidence with
which you are able to glory in Christ."4

His teaching, even then, was against the law. According to
him, says Loofs, " the law, even as ' explained ' in the New
Testament, which renders assurance of salvation possible only
after the fulfilment of demands impossible to the natural man,

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 2, p. 44 f. " Opp. Lat. var.," 2, p. 325 seq.

2 " Hanc qui habet, etiamsi peccet, non damnatur.''''

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 2, p. 146. " Opp. Lat. var.," 2, p. 330,

4 Ibid., p. 145 [329].

388 LUTHER THE MONK

is, it is true, necessary as a negative preparation for faith, though
not to be regarded as the expression of the relationship desired
by God between Himself and man. It is the gospel which teaches
us the position which God wishes us to occupy with regard to
Himself ; according to its teaching we must, before we do any-
thing for our salvation, be certain by faith of God's forgiving
grace, in order to be born again by such a faith and become
capable of fulfilling the Will of God."1 The Protestant theologian
who writes thus in his History of Dogma also points out that
according to Luther, the law was merely revealed by God as an
educational measure and as the foundation of a scale of rewards,
whereas the gospel represents the justice of God in the order of
grace (Rom. i. 17). " In this conception of the antagonism
between the law and the gospel," says Loofs, " and in the
possibility and necessity of an assurance of salvation which it
presupposes lies the fundamental difference between the Lutheran
and the Catholic view of Christianity."2

At these fundamental views regarding the appropriation
of salvation, or righteousness by faith, Luther had accord-
ingly already arrived in 1518-19 when engaged on his second
exposition of the Psalms.

2. The Discovery in the Monastery Tower (1518-19)

Luther describes, in an important passage of the Preface to
the Latin edition of his works in 1545, how he finally arrived
at his ideas of faith and the assurance of salvation.3 It is
the only occasion on which he expatiates in so detailed and
vivid a manner on his own development. In the light of this
passage his other assertions must be considered.

The reader is at once struck by what Luther relates of
the gloom and confusion of his mind previous to the discovery
in the tower. In the preface, he says : " The passage,
Romans i., ' The Justice of God is revealed in the Gospel,' had,
till then, been an obstacle to me. For I hated the words

1 F. Loofs, " Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.'*4, p. 721 f.

2 P. 722. We may mention casually Loofs's well-founded criticism
of Luther's doctrine of Justification and Assurance of Salvation
(p. 767 f.). Further attention will be given to this point of his teaching
and to that on the Law and the Gospel in volume iv., xxviii., 3, and
volume vi., xxxix., 2 and 4.

3 " Opp. Lat. var.," 1, p. 22 seq. This passage will be compared
with a similar lengthy statement in the Commentary on Genesis (" Opp.
Lat. exeg.," 7, p. 74, cp. 10, p. 155), which, however, is not of equal
importance with the former because the Commentary consists merely
of notes made by others from Luther's lectures, and the portion in
question was not published till after Luther's death. Cp. on the latter,
O. Scheel, " Die Entwicklung Luthers," etc. (" Schriften des Vereins
fur Reformationsgesch.," No. 100, pp. 61-230), p. 107 f.

THE JUSTICE OF GOD 389

' justice of God,' which according to the use and custom
of all teachers I had been taught to interpret in the philo-
sophical sense, namely, as referring to the formal and active
justice by which God is just and punishes the sinners and the
unjust. Although I was a blameless monk, I felt myself as a
sinner before God, suffered great trouble of conscience and
was unable to look with confidence on God as propitiated by
my satisfaction, therefore I did not love, but on the contrary,
hated, the just God Who punishes sinners ; I was angry
with Him with furious murmuring, and said : The unhappy
sinners and those who owing to original sin are for all
eternity rejected are already sufficiently oppressed by every
kind of misfortune owing to the Ten Commandments, and as
though this were not enough God wills [according to Rom. i.]
by means of the gospel to heap pain on pain, and threatens
us with His Justice and His Anger even in the gospel."1

In his Table-Talk, as reported by Heydenreich, he says in
the winter of 1542-43 in a quite similar way : " These words
were always in my mind. Wherever the ' Justice of God '
occurs in Scripture I was only able to understand this to
mean the justice by which He Himself is just and judges
according to justice. ... I stood there and knocked for
someone to open to me, but no one came to undo the door ;
I did not know what to make of it. . . . Before finding the
solution I shuddered with horror, I hated the Psalms and the
Scripture where the justice of God occurs, which I took to
mean that He was just and the Judge of sinners, but not that
He was our Justification and our imputed righteousness."
" The whole of Scripture stood like a wall in front of me."2

" As often as I read that the Justice of God was revealed
in the Gospel," he says in his Commentary on Genesis, " I
wished that God had never revealed the Gospel, for who
could love an angry God Who judges and condemns ? "3

" This word Justice," he says in another Commentary in 1532,
"cost me much sweat (' magno sudor e mihi constitit'). To
interpret this as though it meant the justice according to which
God damns the wicked is not merely unfounded but very danger-
ous ; it awakens in the heart great hatred of God and His Justice ;
for who can love Him Who treats the sinner according to justice ?

1 The rest of the passage is given below, p. 391. The contents will
first be made clear by quotations from parallel statements of Luther's.

2 Mathesius, " Table-Talk," p. 309.

3 " Opp. Lat. exeg.," 7, p. 74.

390 LUTHER THE MONK

Never forget that God's justice means that justice by which we
are justified ; it is the gift of the remission of sins."1

That in truth it " cost him much sweat " before he was able to
overcome the objections suggested by the justice of God itself,
is proved by other and stronger allusions of Luther to the
interior storms he underwent at this crisis. We refer to other
statements in which, as above, he is speaking of Bible passages
containing the expression Justice of God. Thus for instance :
" The words just and Justice of God were like a lightning-flash
in my conscience (' fulmen in conscientia ') ; when I heard them,
they at once filled me with terror. I thought God is Just and
therefore He punishes."2 "That word iustitia," he said in
September, 1538, " was a thunder-clap to my heart. When as a
papist I read : ' Deliver me in Thy Justice ' (Ps. xxx. 2), and
' In Thy Truth,' etc., I immediately represented to myself the
avenging Justice and the fury of an angry God. In my heart I
hated Paul when I read : ' The Justice of God is revealed in the
Gospel ' . . . till at last in my affliction a remedy presented
itself."3

Here we may mention some statements, which, though they
belong to his later, fictitious portrayal of his spiritual develop-
ment,4 nevertheless contain an element of truth concerning his
inner life at the time when he was still a monk, and probably
during those very months when he was excitedly and confusedly
brooding over the assurance of salvation. In reality they merely
describe in greater detail what the above passages relate of his
dread of God's Justice, though they also falsely charge all papists
and all monks with being full of servile fear for the Judge, and
forming a school of despair.

" We fled from Christ," he says in one of these remarkable
passages, " as from the devil ; for we were taught that everyone
must appear before the Judgment-seat of Christ with his works
and orders. . . . The Gospel tells us that Christ does not come
as a Judge but as a Saviour ; but the monks taught the contrary,
namely, that He was to be our Judge."5 Now, he says, elsewhere,
the word of God which has been re-discovered " depicts Christ as
our Justice." But in the monastery he, like all the others, had
" fallen away from the faith," and therefore his " heart trembled
and palpitated for fear lest God should not be gracious " to him.
" I often shuddered at the name of Jesus and when I looked at
Him on the cross, He seemed to me like a lightning-flash."6

He had often, he assures us, been forced to say : "I wish
there were no God,"7 " and none of them looked upon my un-
belief as a sin."8

It was " simple idolatry, for I did not believe in Christ but

1 "Opp. Lat. exeg.," 19, p. 130. Exposition of Psalm li.

2 From Khummer's Notes in Seidemann's edition of Lauterbach's
" Tagebuch," p. 81.

3 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 130. 4 See volume vi., xxxvii.

6 " Werke," Erl. ed., 47, p. 39 f. 6 Ibid., 45, p. 156.

7 Ibid., 46, p. 73. 8 " Opp. Lat. exeg.," 7, p. 74.

THE STERN JUDGE 391

looked on Him as a stern and terrible Judge."1 " I did not know
how I stood towards God," " was unable to pray aright,"2 indeed
" no one knew anything " about prayer, " for we did not pray in
faith in Christ."3

It was a " great martyrdom and bondage from which the
gospel set us free " ;4 I was, as it were, in a privy and in the
kingdom of the devil. 5 He felt the terrors of the Divine Judgment,
he assures us (possibly on account of the inward wrestling with
the iustitia Dei) so that his " hair stood on end " when he thought
of it. " At the monastery I shuddered when they spoke of death
or the other life."6

" I was the most wretched man on earth ; day and night there
was nothing but howling and despair which no one was able to put
an end to for me. Thus I was bathed and baptised and properly
sweated in my monkery. Thanks be to God that I did not sweat
myself to death, otherwise I should have long ago been in the
depths of hell with my monkish baptism. For I knew Christ only
as a stern Judge from Whom I wished to escape and was unable
to do so. . . . Thus have they tortured many a worthy soul
throughout life and at last thrown him in despair into the infernal
abyss."7

" In this way I raged (' Ita furebam ')," Luther continues
in the Latin Preface where he speaks of his sudden discovery,
" and my conscience caused me terror and confusion ; I
knocked imploringly at the verse of Paul (Rom. i. 17) with
a burning thirst to know what it meant." He now describes
the actual inward experience.

" At last, while brooding day and night, by the mercy of God
I noticed the connection between the words : the Justice of God
is revealed therein [in the gospel], as it is written, 'The just
man liveth by faith.' Then I began to understand the Justice
of God as that by which the just man lives by the gift of God,
viz. by faith ; [I saw that] the sense is this : ' By the gospel,
justice, i.e. the passive justice of God, is revealed by which the
merciful God justifies by faith, as it is written : ' The just man
liveth by faith.' Then I felt myself born again and fancied I had
passed through the gates of Paradise. The whole of Scripture
thereupon appeared to me in quite a different light. I ran rapidly
through the passages in question as they lived in my memory
and compared them with other expressions, such as : ' Work of
God,' i.e. the work which God carries on in us ; ' Power of God,'
by which He makes us strong ; ' Wisdom of God,' by which He
makes us wise ; likewise the ' Strength of God,' ' Salvation of
God,' and ' Honour of God.' Then I extolled that sweetest word,
Justice, with as much love as I had previously hated it, and this

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 49, p. 27. 2 Ibid., 17, p. 139 f.

3 Ibid., 44, p. 354. 4 Ibid., 59, p. 10.

5 In Galat., 1, p. 109. 6 " Werke," Erl. ed., 51, p. 146

7 Ibid., 31, p. 279.

392 LUTHER THE MONK

passage of Paul's became to me in very truth the gate of
Paradise." He adds that the reading of Augustine had strength-
ened him in his interpretation, and, " provided with better
weapons by means of this experience, I set about the exposition
of the Psalms for the second time " ; this work was, however,
interrupted by the Diet of Worms.

Luther, it is true, does not speak here of the monastery
tower as the scene of his experience, but this is described
quite plainly in his other statements given below. In these
the privy situated above the " Hypocaustum " is mentioned
as the place where the discovery took place. They at the
same time complete and confirm the account given in the
Preface of the antecedents of this new enlightenment, i.e.
the immediately preceding terrors of God's avenging
justice, the time it happened, viz. when Luther was engaged
on the Psalms, and finally, the subject-matter of the
experience.

The accounts from Luther's own lips must here be con-
sidered collectively.

Not only do they correspond exactly with Luther's
condition of mind, as described above, but also, according to
the chronological account already given of the development
of his teaching, with the time he recommenced his work on
the Psalms, 1518-19, which period Luther expressly mentions
in the Preface as the date of the incident.1 It is not necessary,
indeed, when we consider the above description of the course
of his development, not possible, to assign an earlier date to
the incident, though some have recently pushed it back to a
time prior to his first exposition on the Psalms. Others, on
account of some minor inexactitudes which occur in the
principal account given in 1545 (see below, p. 399), hold it to
be a fanciful invention of Luther in his old age in which he
was merely summing up the result of a long inward process.
If every circumstance be calmly weighed the historian must
however, in the main, support Luther's account ; he is not
free to sacrifice the valuable source of knowledge, of such vast
importance in arriving at an estimate of Luther's personality,
presented by these testimonies.

In what follows Luther's other testimonies to the same
effect as that contained in the Preface, will be duly brought
forward and their peculiarities noted.

1 " Ccepi psalterium secundo interpretari. . . . Eo anno (MDXIX)
iam redieram ad psalterium denuo interpretandum"

THE TOWER INCIDENT 393

The first testimony is to be found in Johann Schlaginhaufen's
notes and speaks of the fears which the thought of God's aveng-
ing justice habitually caused Luther and from which the discovery
delivered him.1 This pupil of Luther's relates, in an abbreviated
Latin form, the following communication which he received from
Luther between June and September, 1532, i.e. thirteen years
before the Preface : " The words just and Justice were like a
flash of lightning in my conscience. When I heard them I was
filled with terror [and thought] : Is He just ? Then He will
punish ; ' The just man liveth by faith,' ' the Justice of God is
made manifest without the law ' (cp. Rom. iii. 21) ; our life
therefore comes of faith ; God's Justice must be the salvation of
everyone who believes. Then my conscience at once comforted
itself : Surely it is the Justice of God which justifies us and saves
us ; and this word (iustitia) became more pleasing to me."
" This art," Schlaginhaufen proceeds in Luther's own German,
"the Spiritus sanctus infused into me in this CI." (see p. 396).

The fear of the Divine Justice also appears in the foreground
in the account of the incident in Luther's Table-Talk in Septem-
ber, 1540, as preserved by Johann Mathesius.2 " At the outset
when I read and sang in the Psalm [every evening at Compline]
the words : ' In iustitia tua libera me,' I was afraid and hated
the words : ' iustitia Dei,' ' iudicium Dei,' ' opus Dei.' For I
thought nothing less than that ' iustitia Dei ' meant His strict
Judgment. And if He was to save me according to His strict
Judgment I should be lost for ever. But ' misericordiam Dei,'
' adiutorium Dei,' those words pleased me better." But it was
only after the light of a true understanding of God's Justice had
risen upon me that " I began to relish the Psalter."

The notes on Luther's Table-Talk made by his friend Master
Caspar Heydenreich, dating from the winter 1542-43, and edited
by Kroker in 1903 from the collection of Mathesius, must also be
considered. 3

Mathesius records them under the descriptive title : " Evangelii
occasio renascentis per Doctorem." He plainly thought, agreeably
with Luther's own opinion and that of his pupils, that the
enlightenment he had received on the text " The just man liveth
by faith " was the most important, or at least one of the most
important causes of " the new birth of the Gospel through the
Doctor " — Luther. And, as a matter of fact, Luther's con-
viction, which was shared by his pupils, that this saving inter-
pretation had been infused by the Holy Spirit, sufficiently
explains why so much stress should be laid on this incident, and
also why the recipient of the said illumination so frequently
recurs to it.

Under the above title we find Heydenreich 's lengthy account,
taken from Luther's own lips, which agrees entirely with the
statements of the Preface and, in particular, dwells on Luther's

1 Schlaginhaufen, "Tischreden" (1531-1532), p. 108.

2 Mathesius, "Tischreden," p. 211 f. 3 Kroker's edition, p.

309.

394 LUTHER THE MONK

ecstasy of joy at the discovery (" Cum hoc invenissem, ita
delectabar, in tarda Icetitia, ut nihil supra ").

In several of the accounts the Psalms are represented as the
primary cause of the struggles that went on in Luther's soul, and
the correct comprehension of them as one of the first fruits of
his new discernment. Then " I first relished the Psalter,"
Luther says in Mathesius's account, and in Heydenreich's notes
he declares : " Whereas I formerly hated the Psalms and the
Scripture where mention was made of the Justice of God, the
way was now clear to me when I read in the Psalms : ' Deliver me
in Thy Justice ' and ' Deliver me in Thy mercy,' " for God's
mercy, by which He justifies us with His grace, had, from that
time onward, come to mean the same to him as " the righteous-
ness of God."

In Anton Lauterbach's Diary of 1538 two passages from
the Psalms are likewise quoted as the cause of Luther's trouble of
conscience,1 and in the Halle MS. of the " Colloquia " which
Bindseil edited, and which is based on Lauterbach's collection, a
similar uneasiness is said to have been induced by the Psalms in
priests generally : " When, in Popery, we read the verses [in
question] we immediately thought of the avenging Justice . . .
but when I took into consideration what follows ... I became
joyful," the right interpretation of the passage concerning the
just man who lives by faith " supplied a remedy for all who were
afflicted " (" afflictis remedium contigit ").2

Another passage in the Psalms which caused him trouble is
quoted by Luther when referring to the event in his Commentary
on Psalm 1. (li.), which he wrote in 1532 : '.' Exsultabit lingua mea
iustitiam tuam " (verse 16) ; as the biblical view of Justice had
been obscured in his mind and in that of all, he had been unable
to understand how it was possible to praise the avenging Justice
in the Psalms.3

Thus, there is no doubt that the Psalms were the actual occa-
sion of his discovery and his statement in the Preface of 1545
with regard to the time it occurred is thereby confirmed.*

1 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 130.

2 " Colloquia," ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 275. Cp. 1, p. 52.

3 " Opp. Lat. exeg.," 19, p. 130.

4 Kawerau also lays great stress on the connection between Luther's
development and his work on the Psalms. " Theol. Studien und
Kritiken," 77, 1904, p. 617. He even thinks the Psalms rather than the
idea of the Iustitia Dei formed the starting-point. J. Ficker says in
the Preface to his edition of the Commentary on Romans, p. lxxii, with
regard to the testimony Luther gives concerning himself in his Praefatio :
" He speaks of the second course [on the Psalms], but is, without doubt,
thinking of the first." And O. Scheel (see above, p. 388, n. 3), p. 112 f.,
etc., prefers to fix the first course on the Psalms as the time of Luther's
experience, and rests his assumption on the fact that Luther had
" reforming ideas " present in his mind even before he wrote the
Commentary on Romans. I, nevertheless, think I may appeal in
opposition to this view to my preceding statements which touch on
all the points raised, more particularly on the change which during the

THE TOWER INCIDENT 395

Luther's pupil, Conrad Cordatus, in recording the matter in
his diary is quite right in emphasising, in Luther's own words,
that the knowledge gained by the incident was : " Ergo ex fide
est iustitia et ex iustitia vita " ;x this is also done in the German
Table-Talk, where we find a rather more detailed description of
the inference drawn by Luther : " Then I became of another
mind and from that moment thought : We are to live as justified
by faith, and the Justice of God, which is His attribute, shall save
all who believe ; these verses will no longer affright the poor
sinners and those who are troubled in conscience, but on the
contrary comfort them."2

In the reference made to the event in the Commentary on Genesis
(1540), the fact that the just man lives by faith is also placed in
the foreground, and in this case we may safely rely on the
Commentary though it was not printed till after Luther's death.3
Here we read that it was the knowledge he had acquired " under
the enlightenment of the Holy Ghost " that " our life comes from
faith " that had " opened out the whole of Scripture to him,
and heaven itself." This, according to the passage in question,
was the result of the " anxious work," which at the outset he had
devoted to the comprehension of Romans i. 17. By the use of
such an expression as "at the outset," " primum," the opening
word of the whole passage which speaks of his development, he
would appear to imply that it was then that the foundation was
laid of the great evangelical truth concerning faith. This agrees
with the title Mathesius bestows on his notes : " Occasion of the
re-birth of the gospel by means of the Doctor." In the passage
in question in the Commentary on Genesis the consoling faith
which he had been commissioned to teach is contrasted with the
" unbelief " prevalent in Popery, which has lost all experience of
this security. " They did not know that unbelief was a sin . . .
and yet conscience cannot find any real comfort in works. Let
us therefore enjoy the blessing of God which is now imparted
to us."

Luther's utterances so far have referred more to the
inward occasion, to the time and the subject-matter of the
experience from which the dogma of absolute assurance of

period from 1515 to 1516 occurred in Luther, who in his first Com-
mentary on the Psalms had been much more Catholic-minded. In
fixing chronologically the date of the experience described in the
Latin Prsefatio I have the further advantage of being supported by
Luther's clear and definite statement. As he esteemed his second
course on the Psalms so highly (see above, p. 386) and consigned the
first to oblivion, it is difficult to imagine that he mistook the one for
the other. On the other hand, a mistake as to the sequence of those
ideas which had made an impression on him in his youth might easily
be explained by advancing years, like his mistakes concerning the time
when he first became acquainted with certain authors (for instance,
in this case, with Augustine). x P. 423.

2 " Werke," Erl. ed., 58, p. 370. Cp. pp. 336, 404.

3 See above, p. 388, n. 3.

396 LUTHER THE MONK

salvation took its rise. The statements which follow, on the
other hand, refer more to the place where the incident
occurred, but they at the same time emphasise more par-
ticularly an element which was incidentally connected with
it, namely, the inspiration by the Spirit of God.

In Lauterbach's " Colloquia " (ed. by Bindseil) the account com-
mences with the words : " By the grace of God while thinking
on one occasion on this tower [he seems to be pointing with his
finger to the very spot] and hypocaustum, over those words :
lustus ex fide vivit . . . the Holy Ghost revealed the Scripture to
me in this tower."1 In Cordatus's diary both circumstances are
mentioned : " On one occasion on this tower (where the privy of
the monks was situated) when I was speculating on the words, etc.,
the Holy Ghost imparted to me this knowledge on this tower,"
i.e. to understand that " Justice comes of faith and life proceeds
from Justice."2 The editor, H. Wrampelmeyer, points out the
fact that the mention of the " privy " is omitted in the later
Table-Talk. In the German Table-Talk the inspiration is
mentioned instead : " This knowledge was given to me by the
Holy Ghost alone."3 Rebenstock, in his valuable Latin Table-
Talk, gives both together : "in hoc turri vel hypocausto," and
later: " Hcec verba per Spiritum sanctum mihi revelata sunt."*
The Lutheran pastor Caspar Khummer, who, in 1554, made a
collection of Table-Talk, relates both circumstances (in Lauter-
bach's edition) : " Cum semel in hac turri speculabar," and
further on : " With this knowledge the Holy Ghost inspired me
in this cloaca on the tower."5

The mention of the cloaca explains the entry of Johann
Schlaginhaufen in his notes of Luther's own words in 1532 :
" This art the Spiritus sanctus infused into me in this CI." 6 Cloaca
is abbreviated into CI., probably because Schlaginhaufen's
copyist, was reluctant to write it out in full alongside of the
account of the inspiration which Luther had received from the
Holy Ghost ; the editor suggests we should read " Capitel " ; but
the chapter-house is not to be thought of. Strange indeed are the
interpretations which have been given, even in recent times, by
the unlearned to many of the expressions in our texts. The
" locus secretus " was supposed to be "a special place allotted to
the monks in the tower," whereas it is clear that the " secret
chamber " was simply the closet or privy, a word which occurs
often enough in Luther's later abuse of the Papists. In olden
times it was very usual to establish this adjunct on the city wall
and its towers, the sewage having egress outside the town
boundaries. The buildings on the city wall, of which we hear in

1 Volume i., p. 52. 2 P. 423.

3 " Werke," Erl. ed., 58, p. 370.

4 In the notes to the " Colloquia," ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 52.

5 J. K. Seidemann in his edition of Lauterbach, p. 81.

6 See above, p. 393.

THE TOWER INCIDENT 397

connection with Luther's monastery, were simply this and
nothing more.1 It has been said that by the word " tower " was
meant a spiritual prison, namely, Popery, in which Luther
languished until his enlightenment. In the hypocaustum was
seen the spiritual sweat-bath in which the Monk was immersed
till the time of his liberation by the new doctrine. As a matter of
fact the allusion is to a heating apparatus, or warmed space,
either below or in front of the privy, some such arrangement being
common in monasteries. In his cell Luther had no stove.

We know from Luther's letters that there was a question in
1519 of allotting some other place outside the walls to the
previously existing privy, or of rebuilding it. In the name of the
community, Luther, in the middle of May, 1519, requested the
Elector for permission to erect a " necessary building outside the
walls on the moat," because the "gentlemen of the Wittenberg
Council" delayed giving their sanction.2 The result of the
request is unknown ; as, however, Cordatus, in the passage
referring to the tower, makes use of the words : "in which the
monks' privy was," it would seem at the time he wrote to have
been no longer in the tower. The tower, however, remained,
otherwise Luther would not have said, as he did, that the event
took place on (or in) this tower. An historian of Luther's Augus-
tinian priory stated in 1883, that, on the eastern side of the
monastery, where the localities in question were probably
situated, broken drain-pipes were to be seen up to the middle of
last (the eighteenth) century.3

We must, therefore, represent the scene of the discovery as
the secret chamber, which Luther expressly mentions, situated
in a tower on the walls, probably on the eastern flank of the
monastery. Constructed against the outer side of the tower, it
probably projected over the moat, and, below, or in front of it,
was the so-called hypocaustum.

As regards the revelation mentioned in the above passages,
it is certain that Luther always traced back the knowledge so
acquired to a special revelation, though not indeed to any-
thing like a vision. Those verses on faith composed his
" evangel," and he always declared with regard to this
" evangel " that his discovery, made at the cost of so much
labour, had been accompanied by a " revelation of the Holy
Ghost."4

He speaks, for instance, of the time when he began to advocate
his favourite doctrine as being the time of the " revelation of the
evangel."5 In answer to the fanatics who disputed his right to

1 Lisch, in Enders, " Brief wechsel Luthers," 2, p. 35, n. 2.

2 " Werke," Erl. ed., 53, p. 9. " Brief wechsel," 2, p. 35.

3 H. Stein, " Gesch. des Lutherhauses," 1883, p. 19.

4 See volume iii., xvi., 1, and volume vi., xxxvi., 4.

5 " Werke," Erl. ed., 61, p. 338, " Tischreden."

398 LUTHER THE MONK

the first place in the new teaching, he defends himself by saying
that it was he who " not without the revelation of the Holy Ghost
had again brought forward the gospel." The words contained in
his letter to the Elector on his return from the Wartburg express
a consciousness of a higher illumination, where he declares that
he had received the "evangel, not from men, but solely from
heaven through our Lord Jesus Christ."1

" Such self-reliance almost fills us with anxiety," says Adolf
Harnack, of the latter and other writings. "... We seek in vain in
the whole history of the Church for examples of men who could write
such letters as that to the Elector, and the writings which Luther
composed on the Wartburg. I can quite understand how Catholic
critics see in these letters a ' delirious pride.' There is no choice
except to judge Luther thus or to recognise that his place was an
entirely peculiar one in the history of the Christian religion."2
Harnack goes on to quote another extremely self-confident
passage from Luther : "It pleased God well to reveal His Son
through me," and then expresses his own opinion on the subject :
" Luther's merit consisted in the circumstance that he was able
to express what he had experienced, namely, the equation of the
assurance of salvation, and faith " ; 3 his self-reliance, Harnack
adds, was the " true expression of a religious freedom such as
Clement of Alexandria had painted as the disposition of a true
Christian, and such as the mystics of all ages had in their way
sought to attain to."4

Luther's claim to special illumination must, as hinted be-
fore, be restricted to the domain of the aforesaid doctrine of
assurance of salvation ; the whole of his doctrine did not come
to him from God, or at least only by way of the inspiration of
the Spirit, which, according to his own statements to be after-
wards considered, is common to all well-disposed Christians who
make use of Holy Scripture. Dollinger, also, says : This doctrine
was the " only one which he really believed he had received by a
special revelation of the Holy Ghost."6

Here again we perceive the fundamental importance attach-
ing to the assurance of salvation as the corner-stone of his
development. Unconsciously he had been driven forward
to this extremity. Protestants quite rightly have often
pointed out that the decisive question for him was : " How
can I, a mere single individual, be assured of the forgiveness
of sins and thereby of the mercy of God ? " " He ventured,"

1 On March 5, 1522, " Werke," Erl. ed., 53, p. 106 (" Brief wechsel,"
3, p. 296).

2 " Dogmengesch.," 3, p. 812.

3 Ibid., p. 846. Harnack (p. 812) urges that Luther's self-confidence
was combined with entire humility with respect to God.

4 Ibid.

6 " Die Reformation," 3, p. 186. Dollinger is there speaking of the
" doctrine of Imputation," by which he means the doctrine of faith
alone which produces the assurance of salvation.

THE TOWER INCIDENT 399

so it has been said, " to throw overboard all doubts as to the
doctrine of assurance of salvation and to declare frankly
and freely : it is impossible to trust God without being
fully assured of redemption and salvation." " One thing
only was still wanting (in his Commentary on Romans),
namely, the clear perception of the fact, that the believer
not only may be certain of his redemption, but that he
must be so." The mystics helped him finally to arrive at the
" joyous sense of trust in God " after he had been through
" the hell of a troubled conscience " ; thus he was set " free
from the last scruples and doubts, and reached the con-
sciousness that he might, nay, must, rest assured of his
God."1

The fact cannot be concealed, that in the above passages
concerning the discovery on the tower, which for the most
part date from a later period of Luther's life, there is some
obscurity and confusion as to the subject. He says first :
the Justice of God, by which God (Christ) is Just, is taught
in the New Law and is also indicated in the Psalms, and this
Justice of God is reckoned to us as our Justice. Secondly,
we lay hold upon it only by faith, and thus our life comes
from faith (fiducial faith with assurance of salvation), of
which fact we must be joyfully confident. Thirdly : The
difficulty caused by the idea of God's avenging Justice,
which weighs down the soul, must therefore be fought
against with determination. Of the first of these three ele-
ments Luther had made personal experience long before this
time ; its earliest expression is at the commencement of the
Commentary on Romans, also in the well-known letter to
Spenlein of April 7, 1516. He had therefore no right to
speak of it as forming the subject of his newly acquired
knowledge. The second element on the other hand was
really new, and gave him the answer to the anxious question :
How is the imputed Justice of God to become mine ? Not
by self-annihilation, not by humilitas, not by yearning
prayer and other works which hitherto he had proposed as
the means, but by faith only which had assured him of
" regeneration," of heavenly revelations, etc. Concerning
the third element no more need be said here, however
greedily he may have seized the semblance of comfort which

1 So H. Bohmer, "Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung"2,
1910, pp. 45, 57, 58.

400 LUTHER THE MONK

the discovery afforded him, passing from the storms of his
crisis into what he took to be a safe haven of peace.

The illusory talisman of absolute assurance of salvation
was the result of the second stage of his development.

3. Legends. Storm Signals

On looking back in later years upon the course of his
spiritual progress in the monastery, Luther was unable to
distinguish clearly between the various stages of his develop-
ment. The incident in the tower, which had left the strongest
impression on his memory, drew the first stage more and
more into the foreground in his imagination, so that in his
accounts he assigns to it an undue prominence to the
disadvantage of the two others. Hence the want of clearness
noticeable in his statements with regard to the same.

We find not merely obscurity, but actual error, particularly
in his account of the traditional interpretation and that
which he had himself begun to advocate of the Iustitia Dei
(Rom. i. 17). Luther is, in this matter, the originator of the
great legend still current even in our own day, which
represents him as a Columbus discovering therein the central
truth set forth by Paul ; no one had been able to find the
key to the passage before his glance penetrated to the
truth. All the learned men of earlier times had said that
iustitia there meant the avenging Justice of an angry God.
As a matter of fact, in Luther's lectures on Genesis in 1540-41, 1
it is asserted that all the doctors of the Church, with
the exception of Augustine, had misunderstood the verses
Romans i. 16 f. ; Luther's Preface to his Latin works to
some extent presupposes the same, for he says that he had,
" according to the custom and use of all doctors" (" usu et con-
suetudine omnium doctorum doctus "), understood the passage
as meaning that justice " by which God is Just and punishes
sin," and only Augustine, with whom he had made common
cause, had found the right interpretation (" iustitiam Dei
interpretatur, qua nos Deus induit "), although even the
latter did not teach imputation clearly (see above, p. 392). 2

1 See above, p. 388, n. 3. We can hardly assume that such a state-
ment was an error of the Notes ; it is more probable that Luther made
a mistake in his verbal delivery.

2 In other statements, such as that related by Heydenreich (above,
p. 393), he assumes that no doctor was able to supply him with the right
explanation : " No one came to open the door," etc.

THE LUTHER LEGEND 401

"Asa matter of fact, however, the exact opposite is the
case : all the mediaeval doctors whom he studied as a monk,
Peter Lombard, Lyra and Paul of Burgos, gave, as can be
proved, the same interpretation as Augustine. Thus Luther
was completely at sea as to the handling of this, to him
most important, passage."1 Luther in his Preface says
that contrary to all expectation (" praeter spem ") he had,
after his own discovery, found in St. Augustine's " De
spiritu et litter a " an interpretation which agreed with his
own, and that this caused him fresh joy, although Augustine
expresses himself imperfectly with regard to the same.
Denifle, on the other hand, proves by the testimony of more
than sixty interpreters of antiquity, that all are unani-
mous in taking the iustitia Dei in St. Paul in the same sense
as St. Augustine, viz. as the Justice by which God renders
men just.2 The demonstration is conducted with " com-
mendable accuracy and fulness."3

Luther himself, strange to say, at an earlier date and
previous to the Tower incident, had repeatedly employed
the correct interpretation. We can only suppose that it
then made no impression on him, at any rate, no such
impression as the incident on the Tower. He makes use of it
with special reference to its older representatives, in the
marginal notes to the Sentences of Peter Lombard, 1509-10, 4
then in the Commentary on the Psalms, and finally even in
the Commentary on Romans, where he twice quotes Augus-
tine and even the " De spiritu et litter a"

It is true that on these occasions he passes over the pas-
sage in the Epistle without displaying any particular interest,
i.e. without laying on it the stress he does at a later date.
Another difference is also noticeable. Luther has introduced
since 1518 an entirely new idea, which he had not before, into

1 Thus Bohmer, ibid., p. 35.

2 Denifle, " Luther und Luthertum," l2. " Quellenbelege ; die
abendlandischen Schriftausleger bis Luther uber iustitia Dei (Rom.
i. 17) und iustificatio," 1905. Among the older interpreters Abailard
alone may be an exception.

3 Ficker in the Preface, p. lxxix.

4 Cp. Bohmer2, p. 47 : " It is a matter of interest that he refers for
the interpretation to a work much used in that period, the ' Biblia cum
glossa ordinaria,' printed at Basle by Froben, 1508. It is plain that he
looked up this gloss on the Epistle." On the strength of this Bohmer
thought himself entitled to say : " The birth-hour of the Reformation
falls in the winter 1508-9. . . . Its birthplace was the Black Monastery
at Wittenberg " ; but " it was only quite slowly that Luther lived
himself into his new religious views."

I.— 2 D

402 LUTHER THE MONK

his interpretation of the iustitia Dei. In it he finds not only that
the justice which comes from God justifies us, but that it is
bestowed upon us solely and directly by means of a trusting
faith, and that thus a " life " in grace is opened up to man of
which he must be infallibly certain in his innermost conscious-
ness.

In his accounts, says Loofs, " we have documentary proof of
impaired memory." "It is plain that Luther's memory, in the
course of years, and owing to his ' odium papce,' had, as we can
well understand, become inaccurate with regard to pre-Reforma-
tion conditions."1 The " odium papce " would certainly seem to
have been concerned in his placing in the forefront his supposed
re-discovery of an exegesis which Popery had forgotten.

Merely in order to throw light on the sequel of the great
legend in our own times, we may here remark that it is difficult
to understand the displeasure expressed by a modern Church
historian and admirer of Luther, when some Protestants dared
to agree with Denifle's lengthy demonstration of the real
exegetical history of Romans i. 17. An impartial theologian,
amongst others, expressed himself as follows in a periodical :
" Denifle has proved beyond a doubt that' Luther was wrong
when he asserted that the earlier doctors had almost without
exception taken the iustitia Dei, Rom. i. 17, in the sense of the
Divine anger."2 These words roused the admirer we have in
mind to reply immediately as follows in the " Theologisches
Literaturblatt " of Leipzig : " Does then the writer not per-
ceive what the result must be for Luther's character ? " Of
two things, one, he says, either Luther lied, or he acted most
unscrupulously and never consulted the earlier doctors.3

The new discovery not only filled Luther with blind
courage and defiant presumption in the defence of his
previous teaching, but also lent a giant strength to his action
as a reformer of ecclesiastical conditions against Rome's
abuses. He now begins to act as a spokesman of the nation
and to constitute himself the leader of the already existing
anti-Roman movement in Germany.

He now persuades himself more strongly than ever that he
is in possession of a truth which is to be suppressed by Italian
trickery and imperiousness, if not by " poison and the dagger,"
as was being planned in Italy. Rome had ravaged Scripture and
the Church, her name should be Babylon : this (Apocalyptic)
Beast, this Antichrist, must be exposed before the world, other-

1 Loofs, " Dogmengesch."4, p. 688 f. Loofs remarks concerning
the statements on Augustine : " Luther was also mistaken with regard
to this [the time and the manner of his experience]." My view of the
state of the case differs, however, from that of Loofs, Braun, Bohmer,
Scheel, etc.

2 " Die Reformation," Lit. Beilage, September, 1905.

3 " Theologisches Literaturblatt," 26, 1905, col. 507.

THE LUTHER LEGEND 403

wise he might as well surrender his theology and allow it to
perish ; "I do not care if even my friends say I have lost my
reason ; it must be so ; I have awaited this hour when they
should be offended in me, as the disciples and friends of Christ
were in Christ (Matt. xxvi. 31 ; Mark xiv. 27) ; truth must stand
by its divine strength, not by mine or yours or that of any man."1

"It is only we Germans on whom the Empire descended, who
have strengthened the power of the Popes so far as we could.
For our punishment we have had to endure them as masters in
cursing and abuse, and now as robbers also by means of pallium-
fees and taxes on the bishoprics."2

In the Preface to the Commentary on Galatians he sent forth a
call to the Germans and their Princes, which anticipates his
later pamphlet " To the Nobility of the German Nation," in the
same way as the ideas contained in his work on the Twofold
Justice serve as a prelude to the booklet " On the Freedom of a
Christian Man." "Those godless windbags, Prierias, Cajetan and
their fellows, abuse us as German clowns, simpletons, beasts,
barbarians, and mock at the incredible patience with which we
allow ourselves to be deceived and robbed. All praise therefore
to the German Princes for recently [1518], at Augsburg, refusing
the tenths, twentieths and fiftieths to the Roman Curia, not-
withstanding that they knew the cursed Roman Council [5th of
the Lateran] had sanctioned these taxes. They recognised that
the Pope and the Council had erred . . . that the legates of the
Curia are only after gold and more gold. The example of these
lay theologians is especially worthy of imitation. ... It is a
proof of greater piety when the Princes and other folk of any
degree oppose the Curia than if they were to take up arms against
the Turk."3

As we shall see, it was not Ulrich von Hutten who first
roused Luther to such language against Rome, and to the
stirring up of a false patriotism. Hutten's letters to him,
and those of the other Humanists, are of later date, as also
the congratulations and exhortations of the Humanist
Crotus Rubeanus. It is a legend to attribute the raising
of the standard of the Reformation principally to the
Humanists and revolutionary knights. The fact that its
origin may be traced back to 1521 does not make it one whit
more credible historically. The air, in any case, was full of
the anti-Roman spirit of revolt breathed by the Humanists
and knights. The Wittenberg Monk had become acquainted
with this spirit and found it sympathetic. How well it
suited his purpose will be shown in the next chapter.

1 To Spalatin, February 24, 1519, " Brief wechsel," 2, p. 2 :
" Italicce subtilitates."

2 Ibid., p. 6. -a Cp> Bohmer2, p. 63.

404 LUTHER THE MONK

The subversive doctrines which he had now at length fully
developed in the quiet of his monastery held the first place
among the factors which drove him onwards ; in so far as
these doctrines were in very truth his own production, born
of his own heart and brain amid incredible anxieties and
struggles, we may, nay must, say that it was a new and
independent task which he undertook, and that his was the
labour and his the results. What Luther with his subversive
theology propounded from that time forward, what he,
with his chief doctrine of justification by faith and the
appropriation of salvation, began to set in the place of the old
teaching, was "in no way the necessary product of the
various factors which had assisted in his education, but
rather something new, original and never before known,
only to be accounted for by Luther's own extraordinary
genius." 1 In this sense the entire lack of originality with
which he has frequently been reproached must also be
relegated to the domain of legend. In attacking him to-day,
the tactics which commended themselves to the older
theologians, who knew little of his history, or at any rate of
the course of his interior development, should no longer be
resorted to. Their plan was to range all his doctrines under
some one or other of the older heresies- — even though only the
germ of his errors was to be found in former ages — and then
sapiently to declare he had merely gone about collecting his
errors from the various olden heretics. It is quite a different
matter that like errors are so frequently met with in
history even in most unexpected quarters ; it is due to their
many-sidedness and to their windings and aberrations.
The truth which is vouched for by the Church pursues its
own straight, undeviating path, from the earliest disciples
of Christ down to our own times, and in its quiet, immutable
splendour is infinitely more original than any error, how-
ever new and modern it may claim to be.

1 Bohmer2, p. 60.

END OF VOL. I.

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
LIBRARY

Acme Library Card Pocket

Under Pat. " Ref. Index File."
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU