Man yearning for grace : Luther’s early spiritual teaching

Citation preview

HIM?*

L?7Z VV 1517• As we have seen at the beginning of this chapter, the primary target of Luther’s attack in the “Disputation against Scholastic Theology” of September 4, 1517, was the conception of the unaided natural power of man to avoid sin, to prepare for grace, and even to love God above all things (Theses 5-19, 20-30,

3!-39> and 54-63)- Midway through the list of theses, Luther inserted fourteen more general theses (41-53) against the use of Aristotelian ethics, logic, and metaphysics in theology. Theses 64—90 present Luther s own conception of the spiritual observance of the law through grace, then Theses 91-98 finally depict the work of grace in bringing a man to the love of God. Leif Grane has shown in detail how the majority of Luther’s theses closely followed the wording of Gabriel Biel. For ex¬ ample, Theses 5-19 attack the first answer to dubium 2 of III d. 27, q. un., art 3.294 The frequent contra Gabrielem in the margins of the printed copies of the theses makes it clear that Luther s disputation is a conscious and thoroughgoing rejection of the nominalist theology of the will, of disposition for grace, and the observance of the law of God that he found in the Collectorium of Gabriel Biel. There are, however, two slight restrictions that must be made about our knowledge of Luther’s precise doctrinal position on these questions in September 1517. First, we do not have a text of the argumentation that he prepared, or would have prepared, in support of his theses. This makes our knowledge of his under¬ standing of each thesis considerably less clear and less certain than, for instance, our knowledge of Bernhard’s theses from

Luthers Works Mid-1516 to September 2517

191

September 1516 or of Luther’s own theses for the Heidelberg Disputation in May 1518. Each of the latter theses takes on important nuances when we study the appended argumentation and especially, in the case of the Heidelberg Disputation, when we work through Luther’s preparatory essay on the captivity of the will in sin.295 We have nothing comparable to aid our under¬ standing of the theses of September 4, 1517. Second, we cannot conclude from the lapidary text of the theses what theological qualification Luther would have attributed to each. A few months later, he sat down to write out a defense of a more famous set of theses he had drawn up, those for the disputation (which did not take place) on the power of indulgences. It is instructive to see how Luther began each of his Resolutiones with a statement of his own position regarding the thesis at hand. Of course, in most cases he affirms the thesis and sets out to prove it,296 but on Thesis 7, he began with the distinction that though the fact of the matter is certain, the understanding of this fact is still to be worked out.297 For Thesis 8, he admits that the question is quite disputable.298 One must therefore take care in drawing conclusions from the disputation theses. A full understanding of a position cannot come from the simple text of a thesis. We do know that Luther wanted to defend each of the 98 theses against scholastic theology,299 but we do not know in detail how he would have supported each thesis, except, of course, where the theses flow together to support each other, as is fre¬ quently the case. Further, we do not know how he would have defined or distinguished his terms nor the precise degree of certi¬ tude he would have ascribed to each of his positions. We must not forget that each of these matters was of no little importance in the scholastic argumentation that Luther used. With these restrictions made, we can turn to the theses them¬ selves with an eye to what further light they throw on the concrete life of the Christian man.300 After defending the authority of St. Augustine, especially against the Pelagian heresy (Theses 1-3), Luther states his basic theme in Thesis 4: “Therefore the truth is that man has become

192

Man Yearning For Grace

a bad tree and so cannot but will and do evil.”301 Luther linked this assertion to the three theses on the authority of St. Augustine. Further, we hear an echo here of Bernhard’s first thesis of a year before.302 Thus, the idea of man as “a bad tree” is clearly basic for Luther’s counterposition. The sense of Thesis 4 is then made amply clear by the follow¬ ing fifteen theses, in which Luther rejects one by one the argu¬ ments Biel gave for the assertion, “The human will can in this life love God above all things with its unaided natural powers.”303 Luther’s counterposition is this: (1) without grace the will neces¬ sarily chooses evil, that is, in a manner diverging from the dictate of right reason (Theses 6-7); (2) this is not the evil of Manichaeism, but a case of a vitiated nature (Theses 8-9); (3) man can love only creatures and therefore not God (Thesis 16); and (4) in sum, the phrase “to love God above all things naturally” is a fiction and a chimera (Thesis 18). Thus, the starting point of Luther’s attack on scholastic theology is his view of fallen man—the man alienated from God by sin and further so weakened and impotent that he cannot on his own avoid further sin. The will of this fallen man does not enjoy untrammeled freedom, but is a captive to sin (Theses 5 and 7). Now this is an extreme position, and it reminds us of the view of distorted and twisted human nature regularly attributed to Lutherans in later controversy. However, we must recall the limits of our knowledge of Luther’s position in September 1517. Further, two important clarifications of his general position are to be found in the essay he wrote in preparation for the Heidel¬ berg Disputation in May 1518. Here Luther asserted his view of man much in the way of the 1517 disputation: “Outside of grace, the human will is not free to choose between contraries [velle/nolle] nor between contradictories [velle/non velle], but is a slave and a captive. . . .”304 However, he then prefaced his defense of this thesis with an important clarifying note: “We are speaking of the freedom of the will with regard to merit and demerit. With regard to other objects, I do not deny that the will is and appears to itself to be free both as to contraries and

Luthers Works Mid-1516 to September 1517

193

contradictories.”305 Luther’s argument is thus a limited one— whether one can act meritoriously without grace. It is an argu¬ ment about man’s religious capabilities that leaves other less important areas untouched. This clarification suggests that the essential point in Luther’s assertion of man’s “vitiated nature” in the disputation of September 1517 is the alienation from God that this nature cannot overcome by itself. The dictate of right reason he has in mind should be narrowly conceived as referring precisely to the question at issue—the love of God above all things. For this act, nature is impotent without grace. The same essay for the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518 gives another important supposition that we can well keep in mind while reading the disputation theses of September 1517. This is Luther’s definition of sin. His principle is deceptively simple: “Whoever does less than he ought thereby sins.” The proof is: “Thou shalt love the Lord your God with your whole heart and all your strength.” On this, our Lord said in Mt 5: “Not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” There¬ fore, “We must love God with all our strength or else we sin.”306 Of course, Luther’s scholastic adversaries would not have accepted this definition of sin, though they would have had their hands full in opposing his arguments. Our point, however, is that this con¬ ception of sin gives us an important principle for interpreting Luther’s position on September 4, -1517; he is arguing from an ideal of total willingness in God’s service, the same ideal that structures the spirituality we have been studying. Let us now return to the theses against scholastic theology with these two clarifications in mind. Theses 20-29 reject Biel’s position that an act of loving God with the love of friendship is the best natural disposition by which a man can prepare himself for God’s grace.307 Luther’s counter¬ position is that such an act of love is not the work of nature but of prevenient grace (Thesis 20). The love of God is not the act of one who is turning to God, but of one who is already turned to God; it is thus both temporally and naturally after grace (Thesis 27). The preparation for grace is, rather, God’s eternal decree of

194

Man Yearning For Grace

predestination (Thesis 29). This last assertion serves to guarantee that grace is truly a gift of God. There follow four series of theses that touch on somewhat random themes: Theses 30-32, on the current theology of pre¬ destination; Theses 33-36, rejecting natural efforts to remove obstacles to grace, or any excuse from guilt because of “invincible ignorance” (since, according to Luther, without grace all igno¬ rance is invincible); Theses 37-42, against natural moral virtues (they will always be rendered sinful by pride or by reluctance, that is, they will not be wholehearted); and Theses 43-53, against Aristotelianism in theology. Theses 54-57 carry an important explanation of Luther’s con¬ cept of grace: Grace is never dormant, but is a living, moving, operative spirit, and is absolutely necessary for an act of love of God. Theses 56 and 57 contain a brief rejection of speculation about an order of creation in which grace would not be present with the love of God,308 or in which God would accept a man for eternal life without justifying grace (Thesis 57).309 These few theses (especially 55-57) show the abyss that separates Luther’s theology from the via moderna. He is utterly concrete in his thinking about fallen man and about God’s power¬ ful instrument for raising up this man and filling him with new life and new love. Luther focuses his vision on God’s work, a dynamic operation (he calls grace spiritus operosus) in this world. We see how impossible it is for him to think of grace as a static possession that could be dormant and subject to a man’s beck and call. Grace is, rather, the dux or tractrix that will retain the initiative. Another impossible thought for Luther is that of the other universes that can be spun out by reflections on all that God could have done by his absolute power. As a man wholly concerned with depicting God’s work in this world, Luther found the nominalist concern to pose and reflect on the other possibili¬ ties a thoroughly academic question. It was simply not a living option for him in theology. That only two theses (56 and 57) are directed against positions of this kind show how little they in-

Luthers Works Mid-1516 to September 1517

195

terested him. The other 96 theses strive to speak of man as he is and about God’s work in a man’s life. Thus the whole disputation is in actu exercito a rejection of this kind of thought, which had left its mark on every page of Biel’s Collectorium. Theses 58-62 serve as a bridge to the long series of theses (63-90) that depict the effects of law and grace. Biel had taken over a proposition from Pierre d’Ailly that in this order of creation no one can in fact fulfill God’s precept of love, since the precept is precisely that one love God out of the supernatural habit of grace. Admittedly, there can be observance of the substance of the precept without grace, but not observance according to the ultimate intention of God (that is, an act of charity in grace). In this fashion, d’Ailly and Biel claimed to hold to the anti-Pelagian teaching of the Council of Carthage that anathematized those defending an observance of God’s law by free will without grace.310 Luther struck at the heart of this position—it makes God’s grace an arbitrary requirement in addition to God’s law. Further, the assertion that man can observe the precept on his own will only stirs hatred for God’s grace, a hatred more violent than one’s hatred of the law itself (Theses 58-61). Luther had a clear alternative to offer to this conception of man’s powers: Our failure is not in the absence of a peripheral and arbitrary require¬ ment, but it is rather that deep in our heart we are not able to give that spiritual observance of the law that God wants, namely, an observance that is pure of all resentment and lust (Theses 64-65). This first movement of Luther’s hymn to grace climaxes with the simple assertion in Theses 68 and 69 that it is a work of God’s grace when a man is free of lust and anger and that therefore without grace there is absolutely no fulfillment of God’s law. From this point Luther concentrates on the effects the law has on the naked will: The law stimulates bad will (Thesis 71), enmity (Thesis 72), fear and perhaps a simulated responsiveness (Thesis 73). In fine, the law makes sin abound by repelling the will (Thesis 75). This line of assertions, though, climaxes again

ig6

Man Yearning For Grace

with the counterpointed theme: “But the grace of God makes uprightness abound through Jesus Christ, since it makes the law pleasing” (Thesis 76). Grace is thus God’s instrument in trans¬ forming attitudes, in planting the delight in the law that is an upright life in Christ. Again Luther turns back to the unaided will, this time to underscore the empty show of those who observe outwardly but have not God’s grace in their hearts (Theses 77-81). This “ob¬ servance” does not refer merely to ceremonies, but to the ten commandments as well (Theses 83-84). The counterpoint is: “The ‘good law’ and the ‘love of God’ by which a man is alive are both poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit” (Thesis 85, conflated from Rom 7, 12 and 5, 5). Luther returns to speak of the enmity toward the law that the will shows in its hatred and lusts, an enmity that makes it utterly clear against the via moderna that the natural will is iniquitous and evil (Thesis 89). However, the final word in the series is positive: “Grace is necessary as the mediatrix who reconciles the will and the law” (Thesis 90). Looking back on Theses 63-90, we see first of all the same affirmation of the impotence of the natural will of fallen man that dominated this disputation from the start, but Luther’s position has taken on new breadth and clarity through his description of the lusts and resentment of the will under the law, where a man’s alienation and impotence express themselves concretely. A second result of these theses is of a different kind, however, where we see a notable expansion of Luther’s idea of grace. First came Thesis 55, where he spoke- of grace as a vivus, mobilis, et operosus spiritus. He then punctuated the series from Thesis 63 to 90 four times with descriptions of the work of grace: It sup¬ presses or expels lusts and anger (Thesis 68); it gives rise to pleasure in the law and so makes uprightness abound (Thesis 76); it is intimately connected with the love of God poured into our hearts (Thesis 85); and it is the mediatrix that reconciles the will with the law (Thesis 90). Here, then, is the heart of Luther’s

Luther s Works Mid-1516 to September 1517

197

alternative to the via moderna—the grace that is God’s instru¬ ment in transforming the sick heart of man and making him agree¬ able and willing in his duties, drawing from him a generous love of God.311 Some measure of the importance of these affirmations on grace is that Luther turned immediately in Theses 91-93 to fend off the divergent concept of grace he found in a passage of Biel’s, where infused charity was relegated to the subordinate role of aiding the love of God instead of directing the will to God.312 Luther responded contra Gabrielem that the grace of God is given to direct the will lest it err in the love of God (Thesis 91). He then filled in the final details in his view of the work of grace by depicting the necessary circumstances in which genuine love of God endured. Love cannot coexist with any delight in creatures (Thesis 95), but is identical with hatred of oneself and knowing nothing outside of God himself (Thesis 96) and total conformity with whatever he wills (Theses 97-98). This completes our look into the controversial polemic side of

Luther’s

Wittenberg

Augustinianism.

The

theses

against

scholastic theology of September 4, 1517 give us a good picture of the themes dominating the theological atmosphere in Wittenberg: the alienated and impotent will, which is again and again termed an arbor malus; bitter attacks against Aristotle as the enemy of grace; the grace of God as the prevenient, operative, cleansing instrument with which God recreates the will in love; and the ideal of total willingness in carrying out God’s law. Our primary view of Luther in mid-1517 must therefore be that of a successful young theologian who has outlined a theologi¬ cal program and who is seeing, no doubt to his great satisfaction, this program being accepted by his students and colleagues. The program is Pauline and Augustinian in its main lines, but in many aspects bears the stamp of an original genius, for example, where grace is called a vivus et operosus spiritus or the mediatrix con-

cilians legem voluntati. We must keep the focus here when treating the work of the young Luther; he was a professor who

Man Yearning For Grace

198

took his stand on a set of theological affirmations and negations. Here is his “substance,” as he explained the word in 1514, the basis on which he stakes his intellectual life. Certainly, after approaching such a text as the disputation theses against scholastic theology, the first impression one re¬ ceives is that of embittered negative polemic. One is tempted to judge Luther as one of those small spirits who only attack, appar¬ ently from the one principle that existing traditional thought or practice is fallible and probably irrelevant; but once Luther’s theology of grace has been set in relief, especially against the undeniable naturalist optimism of the via moderna, then we understand that Luther’s polemic was grounded positively on an impressive conception of God’s work in the human heart. Further, we have seen that Luther’s negative polemic position is not wholly unambiguous,

as, for example, in his words

on

the

captivity of the will some eight months later in preparing for the Heidelberg Disputation. This would suggest that in our final evaluation of the “Disputation against Scholastic Theology” we give a certain primacy to the concept of grace and the ideal of Christian living that Luther sketched in the final theses. One last aspect to be noted in this disputation is a thesis that we purposely passed over in our analysis. This is Thesis 66, in which Luther affirmed that human impotence (manifested in re¬ sentment and lust) is so great that even in grace one can never measure up to the perfection the law calls for. This is a pre¬ cision to add to the last theses on total conformity to God’s will. This conformity is not reached in this life all at once, when one’s heart is transformed by God’s grace. No, this heart is not the whole of the man. The work of grace is not complete all at once, nor is it complete in a lifetime. Thus, the Christian man is one

on the way

toward fuller love of God, toward ever

greater extension of uprightness and willingness throughout his person. This is the context in which we will find Luther struggling to understand penance, confession, and indulgences. One final source must be consulted to complete our view of

Luthers Works Mid-1516 to September 1517

199

Luther s work before we turn to his words on indulgences. We must listen to parts of his lectures of the summer semester (late April to October 1517) on Hebrews, Chapters 1-5.

6. LUTHER’S LECTURES ON HEBREWS, CHAPTERS 1-5, APRIL TO SEPTEMBER 1517 Parallel with the campaign against scholastic theology in the summer semester of 1517, Luther’s Scripture lectures covered

Hebrews, Chapters 1-5.313 We can survey the content of these lectures in four steps: (i) Luther’s restatement of the radical and exclusive opposition of human law, doctrine, and observances over against Christ’s work and the response of faith; (it) his richly Christological theology of justification; (in) the many-sided response to God’s work and word in “faith in Christ;” and (iv) his new departure in sacramental doctrine. The first three points complete our survey of Luther’s development leading to his intervention on indulgences. The fourth section depicts a sudden new beginning in Luther’s teaching that led directly to the crisis of October 1518 in Augsburg and thence to the Reformation as a heretical and divisive movement.

i. Law and Christ’s Sacramental Work. In an early marginal gloss, Luther summed up the content of Hebrews: In this letter it is to be noted that Paul extols grace over against the pride arising from legal and human justice. He proves that with¬ out Christ neither the law, nor the priesthood, nor prophecy, nor even a ministry by angels suffices for salvation. All of these were instituted and carried out with reference to Christ’s coming. Therefore, Paul asserts that Christ alone should be taught.314 An early scholion then spells out in more contemporary terms all that is intended in this rejection of every means of salvation out¬ side of Christ—“because no doctrine at all, whether civil, canoni-

200

Man Yearning For Grace

cal, philosophical, or in any way human, can guide a man and make him upright.”315 All these human instruments are impotent, for at most they only regulate external conduct, but in no way touch the heart and cleanse it of the dregs of self-love.316 In a number of passages early in these lectures Luther elaborates somewhat his thesis on the impotence of human law and doctrine. The law is made “firm” (the Vulgate of Heb 2, 2) only through fear of its punishments or through hope of advan¬ tage. This can only produce hypocrisy since the law leaves the heart untouched and the will attends only to threats or ad¬ vantages, and so in no way to the law itself.317 Luther saw Heb 3, 12 (“Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart”) as wholly concentrated on the word “heart,” in contrast to the hand or the eye or the ear. This was with good reason, for there is no purity in the hand, eye, or ear, unless the heart is first made pure. The defilement of a man’s heart is too deep-seated to be even fully known, much less to be rooted out by human effort. It is only by adhering in faith to the most pure word of God that a man is cleansed and remade—being recreated pure and good like the word.318 The secret of man’s renovation is indicated in Jn .3, 5: “Unless one is born of water and the Holy Spirit. . . .” The Gospel thus leaves nothing of the old man, but wholly destroys him, and makes him anew by faith in Christ, rooting out all self-love even to planting self-hatred.319 The law calls only for external works, while the Gospel calls for the single interior “work,” which is faith.320 The ultimate ground for the contrast between law and faith in Christ is the difference between the sterility of mere human opinions and the vitality and operative power of Christ himself. Through faith in Christ, Christ lives, works, and reigns in the heart of a man.321 A parallel explanation tells why Heb 1, 9 (“Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness”) applies only to Christ, for outside of Christ, people love either the complex money-pleasure-honor or perhaps glory, or at best themselves, above righteousness. This love of self vitiates the virtues of the philosophers—and even of the theologians!322 The righteousness

Luther’s Works Mid-1516 to September 1517

201

involved here is iustitia Dei, namely, giving God his due, not the worldly justice of men. The Christian man is, then, one who is beginning to love righteousness, and this by reason of Christ’s gift of a love of justice bestowed out of the fullness of his unique love.323 Thus we find in the first pages of Luther’s lectures a striking restatement of the familiar contrast between human uprightness and the work of Christ in remaking the heart of man. What is specific to these passages is a fresh “Christological concentration.” The epistle to the Hebrews carried Luther well beyond negative polemic against human justice to a stress on the powerful in¬ fluence of Christ in the new life that flows from faith in him: “His justice effects our justice;”324 “Christ, the lover of justice, out of his love supplies our beginning love;”325 “Christ lives, and he does not just live but he works, and he does not just work but he reigns. And so faith in him cannot be inactive, but it lives and works and reigns, and thus works flow of their own out of faith.”326 This conception of Christ’s vital and operative influence in a Christian’s life brought again to Luther’s mind the Augustinian terms sacramentum and exemplum. Portraying Christ as sacra¬ ment is Luther’s way of stressing that he is the single source of Christian living and that faith in him is the indispensable starting point of such a life.327 Christ’s sacramental effectiveness is first pro nobis, and then active in nobis through faith. Calling Christ an example is accordingly Luther’s way of subordinating our efforts of penance in imitation of Christ to Christ’s operative in¬ fluence. It is not a question of excluding imitation but of asserting the essential priority of Christ’s “sacramental” influence. More pointedly, it is a priority of personalized faith over efforts to model our conduct upon Christ’s example: “Whoever wants to imitate Christ as an example must first believe firmly that Christ has suffered and died for him as a sacrament.”328 It is thus the primacy of Christ as a sacrament that ultimately gives rise to the demands made on a man to radically change his heart. It is obvious that human boasting is decisively deflated by

202

Man Yearning For Grace

these initial passages. Erudition, wisdom, knowledge, are no cause for satisfaction, since they do not touch the heart of man. Even worse, they serve to cover over deep-rooted illness and make a person incurable who takes satisfaction in these all-toohuman achievements.329 The absolute need of a change of heart, of a basic change of our self-estimate, is clear enough. Luther urged later the deceptiveness of iustitia propria in leading to selfglorification and satisfaction in one’s own uprightness. Nothing is more contrary to faith and faith’s utter reversal of our self¬ estimation.330 Moreover, Luther calls for one to give up all reliance on his own penance and purgative efforts against sin, for Christ has already made the essential purgation. This does not exclude penance but, rather, asserts that Christ’s suffering must become the operative “sacramental” source of our penance. Other¬ wise, our efforts are doomed to failure.331 We have thus seen an initial summary of Luther’s thoughts in his Lectures on Hebrews. From this beginning we can watch his thought unfold in two directions. One movement is Christological, as he sketches out in further detail his dramatic vision of Christ s saving work (Section ii). The second movement can be called tropological, ’ namely, where he elaborates the rami¬ fications of faith in Christ for Christian living (Section Hi). ii. Redemption and Justification. Hebrews was the occasion for Luther to depict the work of Christ in a variety of ways. What stands out here is the way he repeatedly stressed the per¬ sonal or dramatic aspects of the redemption and avoided the juridical categories that had with few exceptions dominated West¬ ern thought on the redemption since St. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo. The tone of Luther s work was given in an early scholion in which he noted how the author of the epistle spoke first of the humanity of Christ before he spoke of the divinity. This hu¬ manity is our Jacob s ladder for ascending to the knowledge of God, and here we must make our ascent, putting aside all meta¬ physical rules and audacious, man-made approaches to God.332 This emphasis on God s marvelous condescension in Christ recurs,

Luthers Works Mid-1516 to September 1517

203

then, in four different contexts, as Luther seeks to interpret Christ’s work on the basis of Heb 1-5. Toward the end of the fourth chapter of Hebrews, Luther’s text brought the priesthood of Christ to the fore. His scholion interpreted this passage as one aimed at consoling those who had been filled with terror.333 The occasion of terror had been the vision of the word of God as the two-edged sword (Heb 4, i2ff), which Luther explained, following Chrysostom, as God’s in¬ exorable instrument against unbelievers.334 “For those therefore who are terrified with fear of God’s eternal judgment with its horrible cutting and dividing, for such there is no refuge but that unique asylum which is Christ our high priest, in whose humanity alone we find protection and are saved from this judgment.”335 The priesthood of Christ is, then, the theme of Chapter 5, which has as it purpose the confirmation of our confidence in certainty.336 In developing his interpretation of Christ’s priesthood in Heb 5, 1, Luther pointed first to Aaron as a figure of Christ, for while Moses could only make the sins of Israel manifest, Aaron took these sins upon himself and bore them away. Thus Christ bears the sins of all who believe, and grounds our confidence in approaching the throne of grace.337 In developing this theme, Luther again contrasts Moses and Aaron as representing respec¬ tively the law and the grace of forgiveness. He then specifies the work of the priest in bearing away sin, a work which Christ carried out in an eminent manner.338 A related figure of Christ’s priestly work is in Is 27, 2ff, where the Lord appears keeping diligent watch over his vineyard. This image expresses the pro nobis aspect of Christ’s work in protecting his Church against any harmful visitation. The ultimate explanation of this protection is that Christ, by showing himself, strengthens the troubled con¬ science.339 A first theme idea for Luther’s portrayal of the work of Christ is thus the priesthood of Christ as the ground of our confidence. A second, and somewhat less developed, Christological theme is that of Christ as ruler in the Church. The angels’ worshiping

204

Man Yearning For Grace

of Christ (Heb 1, 6ff) was the occasion for Luther to make a brief excursus on the kingdom of Christ, which is the Church. In contrast to the light of the heavenly kingdom, the kingdom of the incarnate Lord is shrouded in the darkness of faith, since in it the wisdom of men is taken captive. In Christ’s kingdom, a disciplining work goes on in justice and judgment (Ps 96, 2), but in heaven there will be no more discipline nor judgment nor cross, but only peace and perfect health.340 The scepter (Heb 1, 8) of Christ’s rule is for Luther first the iron rod by which he beats down the carnal old man. Actually, however, his scepter is none other than the Gospel, the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith.341 Thus, the redemptive work of Christ is carried out as the powerful work of a king who subjects his enemies (hu¬ man wisdom, the old man) and by his word brings discipline and uprightness into the lives of his people. Another gloss (on Heb 1, 6) portrayed this rule in terms that open up a brand new perspective: “Earlier, the prince of this world ruled in the midst of sin and death, causing the earth to groan. But now the Lord rules in justice and life, and so ‘let the earth rejoice; let the many coast lands be glad.’ ”342 Christ’s sovereignty is thus one that has been wrestled away from Satan, so that uprightness, life, and joy might replace sin and death. A third portrayal of the work of Christ was Luther’s long scholion on Heb 2, 14 (“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil ). Luther began his exposition with a series of Scripture texts to show that death is the work of the devil, while life and peace are God’s works in Christ. The destruction of death spoken of in the verse was, however, through death. This is the most excellent kind of victory, Luther explains, where one strikes down an enemy with the enemy’s own weapon. It is also an outstanding instance of an alien work leading to success of ones own work: For as the devil thus brought Christ down to death, Christ then absorbed death totally in himself by the immortality of his divinity and gloriously

Luthers Works Mid-1516 to September 1517

205

rose.”343 Now that the devil’s works are destroyed in Christ our head, in the same way the devil should be defeated in each member of Christ. As in the person of Christ, immortality won out over mortality in the very act of dying, so now God through Christ is destroying in us death and the works of the devil. “For as Christ by his union with the immortal divinity overcame death by dying, so the Christian by his union with the immortal Christ (a union brought about by faith in Christ) also by dying over¬ comes death, and thus God in destroying the devil by the devil’s own work carries out his own work through an alien work.”344 The truth lying at the heart of this explanation of God’s victory in the Christian man (the “tropological” realization of Christ’s vic¬ tory) is from John 11, 25f: “He who believes in me shall never die; though he die yet shall he live.”345 Moreover, this dramatic insight into the redemption explains why St. Paul proclaimed the resurrection of Christ with such joy all through his letters. It was precisely through the resurrection that God won the decisive victory, overcoming the law and sin and death and hell and the devil and the world and the flesh for all who believe in Christ and call on him.346 A last image depicts the destruction of sin through the image of the burning wind of Ex 14 that dried up the Red Sea; so is sin, the cause of death, dried up by the Holy Spirit sent from Christ on the cross.347 A moment’s reflection on the passage we have summarized suffices to stir our admiration for Luther’s portrayal of the re¬ demption. The theme of the opus alienum that brings about God’s opus proprium is constantly in his thought. The conception, however, of Christ’s triumphing precisely by letting the devil work his will is ingenious and enlightening. The presupposition for our sharing in Christ’s victory is our union with him in faith. That this union does insure God’s victory in us shows that for Luther, the life of the just man is far more than a matter of his attitudes, and far more than mere external imputation of Christ’s merits. The issue is the common life of Christ and the Christian, a life conceived by Luther on the analogy of the union of hu¬ manity and divinity in Christ. Here the stress is on the victory

206

Man Yearning For Grace

over death that union with Christ insures.348 In other passages, Luther had stressed the effects even in this life: Christ’s justice effects our justice; Christ supplies our love of justice out of his fullness; Christ lives and rules as faith flows into good works. All in all, we must rate these notes on Hebrews with their sweep and originality as the high point among the passages we have seen so far. Luther elaborated a fourth image of Christ’s redemptive work in explaining the phrase “author of salvation” in Heb 2, 10. He first took dux salutis as a synonym from Erasmus, but then re¬ ferred to Heb 5, where Christ is called “the cause of salvation in all who submit to him.” Luther then specifies this causality as exemplarity under the controlling hand of God the Father: For God the Father made Christ the sign and idea, according to whose image those adhering to Christ through faith are transformed and thus detached from the images in this world. Thus Isaias wrote, The Lord will raise a sign for the nations and will assemble the outcasts of Israel.”349 The underlying thought is akin to the basic principle we found underlying Luther’s exegesis of the Psalms in 1513-1515—that Gods work is isomorphic in its three phases, namely, in Christ, in the Church, and in the Christian. Here on Hebrews, however, Luther has overcome any reduction of Christ’s significance to mere exemplarity by his explicit words on faith as an adhesion to Christ that establishes a common life. The law of this life is, then, conformity to Christ. To underscore his conception, Luther provided his hearers with a homely example: As civil authorities often sponsor public spectacles, which have the effect of drawing the citizens away from their shops and homes, so Christ has been made a spectacle before the whole world by the proclamation of the Gospel, and those who know and contemplate him are drawn away from their worldly attachments and transformed into the likeness of Christ.350 In a final movement of thought, Luther explains the moving force by which men are drawn to God. It is

Luthers Works Mid-1516 to September 1517

207

a movement of love by which men are gently attracted to Christ. This, then, is the ultimate meaning of Christ’s passion, for in his passion Christ became the absolutely perfect example and spec¬ tacle of God s mercy and love where force and fear are wholly foreign.351 We must surely rate as the high point of Luther’s early the¬ ology these scholia on Heb 1-5, where he unfolds the mystery of Christ’s redemptive work and its “sacramental” power with the aid of these four striking images: the true Aaron who bears the sins of his people; the powerful ruler who brings order and the good life to his people; the risen and victorious Lord who has broken the rule of sin and death by absorbing all of their killing power in himself; and the spectacle of mercy that gently attracts and transforms those who gaze on it. Here we have a brilliant new departure in expressing the mysteries of redemption and justification. The potential for fur¬ ther development from this starting point is great, a potential grounded in the fertility of appropriate images to generate new insights. The value of these scholia is also thereby heightened, in that they offer a rich theological alternative to the dying scholasticism Luther was encountering in Gabriel Biel. in. The Christian Life. We turn now to another dimension of Luther’s theological program in the Lectures on Hebrews, to the “tropological” phase of his work as he elaborated the rami¬ fications of faith in Christ in Christian living. The themes we find here are of particular value in our investigation since they show us aspects of Luther’s Christian life-ideal from a time immediately before he applied his conception of Christian living to the par¬ ticular question of indulgences. Four themes stand out. In three early passages, Luther portrayed the Christian life as one of conformity to the crucified Christ. In contrast to mere human doctrines that only change outward conduct, the Gospel with which Christ rules in his Church roots out the self-love from the heart of man and makes him anew even to the planting of self-hatred.352 Corresponding to this inner transformation is the

208

Man Yearning For Grace

outward appearance of the people of Christ, for all that was said about the majesty of God’s Son in Heb 1, 8ff is utterly con¬ trary to appearances and therefore calls for a robust faith; the people of Christ appear to be exiles going down in death, igno¬ miny, and extreme poverty. The life, glory, and riches of Christ’s kingdom are hidden beneath the contrary. All of this outward affliction and lowliness is to be the lot of each one who wishes to live in Christ’s kingdom.353 This theme recurred in Luther’s explanation of Heb 2, 9, on how Jesus was made for a little while lower than the angels. Luther found here first a consolation and a source of patience in suffering, for the tribulation is only for a little while but the reward is eternal.354 This led to an exposition of God’s work in us to destroy the body of sin, a work he carries out through crosses, suffering, death, and ignominy. Such a life is what Paul referred to as “knowing only Christ crucified.” This passage therefore gives rise to the counsel “to welcome trials and even death itself with open arms, no differently than if one were receiving Christ in praise and joy, for Christ truly comes always in the form he took on as he emptied himself from the form of God.”355 A second theme of Christian living develops one aspect of this crucified life—the Christian’s attitude toward death. The occasion was the exposition of the victory God won over the devil by turning the weapon of death back on the devil. A long corol¬ lary made the application that genuine Christian life manifests itself in contempt for death that goes even to the extent of will¬ ingness to die.356 Luther elaborates his theme first by specifying this contempt for death as the reverse side of faith in the resur¬ rection. He who still fears death clearly loves this life more than the future life.357 After an apt quotation from Chrysostom, Luther then shows how both the prayer “Thy Kingdom come” and our baptismal union with Christ’s death point us to a willing accept¬ ance of death.358 If fear of the consequences of sin makes death terrible, this manifests a deficient faith in Christ as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Actually, faith in Christ takes away the sense of sin.359 The Christian should go

Luthers Works Mid-1516 to September 1527

209

directly contrary to this fear grounded in sin and should all the more desire death as the event that will put an end to sin. Death can be an occasion for exercising our faith in Christ.360 After two supporting quotations from St. Cyprian, Luther then explains that this contempt for death and the grace thereto is, rather, the goal for which every Christian should strive in this life. Actually, Christians have contempt for death in much the same way as they are just and freed from sin in St. Paul’s mode of speaking: “Not that they are such, but that they are beginning to be so and are obliged to become so by constant efforts to advance.”361 Luther’s little treatise on overcoming fear of death ends with the insertion of this theme of Christian living into the familiar pattern of progress and advance that we have seen so often.362 Faith in Christ (in the Lamb of God) and in his resurrection are thus not total at any one point, as in the conversion of values and trust from oneself to Christ. Rather they are only begun and then lie before the Christian man as a constant challenge and call for him to grow. A third aspect of Christian living touched on in the Lectures on Hebrews was faith in invisible reality. In an earlier gloss (Heb 2, 8), Luther pointed out that the Psalm verse affirming that all is in subjection under Christ’s feet, touches on a matter of faith. This is not a res that we can experience, for our experi¬ ence is just the opposite.363 However, faith can pierce through to grasp Christ’s hidden lordship. The words in Heb 3, 5, on Moses’ office of testimony about things to come, was an occasion for stressing that our faith is based not on the manifestation of present realities but on testimony to things that do not appear. Therefore, we must be hearers, since Christ spoke of heaven and of the future life, both of which are beyond the reach of our minds and our wildest desires: “Therefore the Lord’s testimony is a word of faith, and a hidden wisdom understood only by his little ones.”364 The use of Ps 95, yS in Heb 3, 7 led to a long scholion on the words, “If you listen to his voice today. . . .” The verse points to the sum and substance of God’s demand upon us:

210

Man Yearning For Grace

It is to be noted that the one most important thing that God requires of the Jews, yes, of all men, is that they hear his voice. Thus Moses called out so often in Deuteronomy, “Hear, O Israel! . . .” In fact no word was spoken more often by the prophets than “hear,” “hear ye,” “they do not hear. . . .” This is with good reason, because without faith it is impossible that God be with us or at work in us, since all his works are done by the word. Therefore, no one can work with him, who does not adhere to his word through faith, just as an instrument cannot work for an artisan unless it be taken up in his hand. Therefore it is utterly perverse to hasten to works before God does his work in us, that is, before we believe.365

The theme of the work of God in us led Luther to expound his thesis on the utter incompatibility between natural prudence and God’s work. His is a contrary work before which a man must give up even his best intentions and conform to the other. Those who rely on their counsels hinder God’s work in themselves, “since God operates in a manner that is above our powers, above our sense, above our intention and every thought. ... For he is most exalted, and his is a most exalted work.”366 Corresponding to this conception of God’s work, the scholion concludes with this radical portrayal of faith: “Therefore faith in Christ is a most arduous matter, since it is a rapture and a removal away from all that one senses within and without into something that one does not sense within or without, namely, into the invisible, most exalted, and incomprehensible God.”367 This theme of God’s contrary work is familiar from the pre¬ vious lecture courses Luther gave on Scripture.368 The restate¬ ment in the Lectures on Hebrews is important in showing us a conception that lies behind Luther’s rejection of the will’s opera¬ tion without grace in the theses against scholastic theology, as in Thesis 89: “. . . it is clear that in all the natural will is evil and iniquitous.”369 The work God is doing proceeds from a sub¬ lime wisdom to which natural knowledge and planning cannot measure up. The Hebrews scholia make it clear that a basic part of Luther’s spiritual teaching, that is, his idea of faith in Christ, placed a high demand upon a man, the demand for detachment

Luthers Works Mid-1516 to September 1517

211

from empirical realities, for self-denial, and for docility under the hand of God as it carried out its contrary work in his life. A fourth theme of Christian living described in these lectures appears to have grown out of the assertion that God does all his work through his word. In Luther’s comments on Heb 3, i2ff, we come across a cluster of statements on the transforming power of God’s word and on Christian living as adhesion to the word. Luther commented on the “evil and unbelieving heart” of Heb 3, 12 with the explanation that our defilement of heart can never be adequately known nor successfully expelled by unaided human powers, but faith in the word of God does purify, because the word is itself most pure and excellent, and it has the power of making pure and excellent anyone who adheres to it in faith. Shortly after, Luther speaks of the word as “alive and life-giving.” Accordingly, anyone who departs from the word by unbelief is necessarily in malice, impurity, and death, in short, in all things contrary to the word of God.370 On the next verse (“But exhort one another every day”), Luther carried on the theme of a life centered on the word of God, by interpreting the exhortation as being to assiduous read¬ ing, hearing, and meditating on the word of God so as to stir one’s spirit and overcome the temptations and cares that tend to befoul our hearts.371 Just as the body needs bread, so the heart needs the word of God, and without it the heart inevitably gets entangled with creatures and becomes defiled. Only by returning to the word is the heart again cleansed.372 Then, on the obduracy spoken of in Heb 3, 13, Luther characterizes faith as an adhesion to God in which the word softens the heart. In this context he can think of faith in the word as a nuptial embrace by which one is made one spirit with God.373 A corollary follows that faith in the word is identical with all virtue, and unbelief with all vice. The ground is that faith makes a man like God’s word, and in fact makes him truly God’s son in being without sin and filled with every virtue.374 The conception of Christian living is clear—a life of close adhesion to God’s word and hearing, reading, and meditation to

212

Man Yearning For Grace

preserve and enliven one’s hold on this word. The basic thought is the transforming power of the word, that is, of the word by which God communicates his wisdom, justice, truth, and good¬ ness to the man who believes.375 The consequence is that we are referred to this word as the indispensable source of purity and life. iv. Fides sacramenti. A final point of major importance in Luther’s lectures on Hebrews 1-5 is the scholion on Heb 5, 1, in which he presented his conception of the kind of faith re¬ quired in the reception of the sacraments. This idea recurred three times in the second half of the Hebrews lectures and became one of the crucial points in Luther’s work in the year 1518.376 Two points are important to note regarding the immediate context of this scholion. First, we should recall that Luther’s initial summary of Chapter 5 stressed confidence and certainty as the result the author of the epistle sought to bring about by his treatment of Christ as high priest.377 This overall purpose of the chapter was then underscored in an initial scholion on the first verse in which Luther stressed Christ’s priesthood pro nobis and drew the consequence: “Therefore let us approach the throne of grace with confidence and without fear.”378 These two themes of Christus pro nobis and our corresponding fiducia provided the matrix of reflection in which Luther’s understanding of the verse developed toward a new conception of the kind of faith required for fruitful reception of a sacrament. This new conception was then the topic of a second scholion, this time on the pro hominibus of Heb 5, 1. Luther started by noting that it is not enough for a Christian to believe that Christ was made high priest for men in general (as even the demons and sinners believe), but he must believe that Christ is high priest for himself personally. As St. Bernard said in his sermon on the Annunciation, it is not enough to be¬ lieve that God can forgive one’s sins and grant grace and glory; one must believe with all certitude that one’s sins are forgiven, that grace has been granted, and that glory will be given. This

Luthers Works Mid-1516 to September 1517

213

is the witness of the Holy Spirit in our conscience (see 2 Cor 1, 12), clearly marked off by St. Bernard as God’s gift from a self-made, Pelagian self-awareness.379 This scholion thus unfolds as Luther’s attempt to specify the precise aspect that makes faith living and effective. Thus far, he has made two points: first, the faith that makes a true Chris¬ tian is one that senses or realizes the pro me reference of Christ’s priestly office and work; and second, this personalized faith takes the form described by St. Bernard as a God-given certitude about one’s own forgiveness and grace. The critical phrase in the first part of this scholion is this description of two kinds of faith: “You must believe that God is able to forgive your sins and grant grace and glory. But this is not enough, unless you believe in all certainty that your sins are forgiven, grace has been granted, and that glory will be given you.”380 From this idea of faith, Luther goes on to the question of fruitful reception of the sacraments. His thesis is that no one receives grace because he is absolved, baptized, anointed, or because he receives Holy Communion, but because he believes that by these sacramental actions he will receive grace.381 Luther then gives two arguments from authority for his thesis: first, the widely accepted dictum, Non sacramentum, sed fides sacramenti iustificat; and second, a formula adapted from St. Augustine, Iustificat [sacramentum], non quia fit, sed quia creditur382 Our scholion has moved thus from a somewhat general char¬ acterization of authentic faith to the assertion of a thesis on sacramental efficacy. This efficacy in conferring grace is, accord¬ ing to Luther, wholly dependent on the faith of the recipient, a faith, however, which he has qualified as the testimony of the Spirit of God impressing on a man the certitude that he is receiving grace. Primary in the sacramental event is “faith in the sacrament,” namely, faith specified by certainty regarding the present effect of the sacrament.383 From this thesis, Luther moves on to brand as erroneous first, a doctrinal statement and second, a practice of the faithful. Luther calls pernicious and false the position that “the sacraments

214

Man Yearning For Grace

of the new law are in such wise efficacious signs of grace, that they require no disposition in the recipient, except that he place no obex, that is, no mortal sin in actu”38i Against this conception, Luther counters that the sacraments require a most pure heart in the recipient, and this purity of heart comes only through faith. Did not Philip first enquire as to the faith of the Egyptian eunuch before baptizing him, and does not the Church require that someone answer for an infant “I believe” before baptism? It is clear that far more is required than the simple absence of mortal sin.385 Luther concludes from his two cases to his thesis: “Therefore, one does not gain grace because he is baptized, but because he believes.”386 A second example of error is in the practice of those who come to Holy Communion relying on the fact that they have confessed, that they are not aware of any mortal sin, or that they have made the proper preparatory prayers. This, for Luther, is worse than no preparation, since these acts do not make one worthy and pure. Instead, this confidence in oneself makes one all the more defiled. If they only believe that they will receive grace upon receiving the sacrament, then this faith—and it alone —makes them worthy and pure, for this is a faith that relies on the pure and reliable word of Christ: “Come to me you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you.”387 The two passages in criticism of errors on this point make it clear that Luther has made an important new departure with his conception of fides sacramenti. There are, it seems to us, two distinct steps in the advance of his thinking. The first is one of rendering quite precise his conception of faith. The new fixing of fides as certitude of a particular effect, such as forgiveness or an increase of grace, had been foreshadowed in his scholion of Rom 8, 16, where he also cited St. Bernard at length.388 In the present passage, then, the faith of the true Christian is specified as the certainty that Christ’s priestly work is effective in one’s own case. Living faith is accordingly a matter of certitude about one’s own condition, one’s own position before God. Where the tradition had spoken on fides caritate formata, Luther affirms

Luthers Works Mid-1516 to September 1517

215

fides certitudine remissionis meae formata as the human side of the event of justification.389 The second step in Luther’s new departure is the application of the new idea of faith within the problematic of sacramental theology. This may well have stemmed from the fact that in the late summer of 1517, he was already at work studying the the¬ ology of indulgences and so had been brought to reflect on the sacrament of penance. The advance is the assertion that the fides certitudine formata is the one necessary and sufficient dis¬ position for fruitful reception of a sacrament, and correspond¬ ingly that any other disposition involves sacrilegious defilement of the sacrament and judgment upon the recipient. The two threatening echoes of 1 Cor 11, 29390 make it perhaps most clear that this scholion signals a new departure on an important theo¬ logical point, a point that is quite literally a matter of life and death. Luther’s theology of Christian living has issued in a new conception of a sacramental gift of grace. The immediate step leading to this new conception was the idea of faith as certitude regarding the effect of God’s work in us here and now.391 Luther’s conception of fides sacramenti opens up a perspec¬ tive that would carry us beyond the problematic of this work. An adequate study of it would require detailed background presenta¬ tions in sacramental theology,392 and careful investigation of Luther’s works from mid-1517 to 1522. For the present, we turn now in Chapter VI to show how Luther applied the spiritual themes of his early works in his inter¬ vention on indulgences in October 1517. Our evaluation of his early spirituality in Chapter VII will entail a summary of the material presented in this chapter.

VI Luther on Indulgences in 1517

We turn now to a detailed examination of the documents directly pertaining to Luther’s 1517 intervention on the question of indul¬ gences. With this chapter we have arrived at the point where we can apply the insights gained in the past four chapters to deepen our understanding of the controversy out of which the Reformation came to be. It is to be hoped that the schemata and the concepts, the positions and the themes investigated so far will clearly show us the background against which Luther developed his thinking on the theology and practice of indul¬ gences in 1517. We will take up the material in six steps: (1) a review of Luther’s references to indulgences in the first two lecture courses on Scripture; (2) his sermon of February 24, 1517 on the feast of St. Matthias; (3) his letter of October 31, 1517 to Archbishop Albrecht of Magdeburg and Mainz; (4) his disputation theses on indulgences; (5) the theological treatise he also sent to the archbishop; and (6) the sermon on Zacchaeus (of uncertain date).

1. REFERENCES TO INDULGENCES IN LUTHER’S EARLY WORKS Five different times in the lectures on the Psalms and on Romans, Luther referred expressly or indirectly to indulgences. 216

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

217

His view here was focused on the practical effects of indulgence practice, and he applied as a norm the spirituality of progres¬ sive expulsion of sin we have seen. His critique was, in some respects, sharper than his first utterances on indulgences in the documents of his 1517 intervention. We will take up each of these five references in turn, with a view especially to grasping the context of his thought and the motifs of his criticism. i. Luther’s first reference to indulgences in the 1513-1515 lectures on the Psalms came as he depicted the trials of the Church of his day, as part of the context for the analogical inter¬ pretation of Ps 68.1 The framework of Luther’s thought is the schema of the three ages of Church history that he took over from St. Bernard.2 The Psalm is literally a prayer of Christ in the midst of his suffering, but it also reflects the trials of the Church, which Luther broke down into the epochs of persecu¬ tion and martyrdom, of heresy and the orthodox doctors, and finally of tepidity, empty worship, false security, and the easy way to heaven.3 This third epoch is the period in which Luther is writing, and is the age in which laziness reigns in the Church. The threatening “waters” of Ps 68, 2 are interpreted as the great multitude of “semi-Christians” who inundate the Church of Luther’s day. They pray and sing half-heartedly, since the devil has succeeded in driving the fear of God out of their hearts and infecting them with a sense of security.4 In the midst of this description of declining fervor, Luther makes his first reference to indulgences. The cause of tepidity and empty worship is a sense of self-satisfaction that makes strenuous effort toward salvation appear unnecessary. The way to heaven is made easy, and Luther singles out two ways in which this takes place—“by indulgences, and by doctrines mak¬ ing life easy, for example, that one sigh is enough [for salva¬ tion].”5 Thus, Luther couples practice and doctrine to sketch briefly the cause of decline—indulgences have the effect of kill¬ ing serious effort, probably meaning efforts of penance and morti¬ fication. Moreover, the doctrine that one sigh of love and sorrow

218

Man Yearning For Grace

would be sufficient for salvation combines to make the way to heaven appear easy. In the same passage on the life of these “semi-Christians,” Luther refers to 1 Cor 1, 28, and God’s choice of “the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are.” Luther’s idea of “the things that are not” is tropological— “those who are heartily convinced that they themselves are nothing.” Their nothingness is not ontological, but a consciously held self-estimate. Such an attitude gives rise to fervor and to an impatience to advance spiritually.6 Thus, Luther’s first reference to indulgences stresses their baneful effects in the lives of Christians in the Church of his own day. His attention is not directed to any aspect of the theological ground of indulgences or to their relation to sacra¬ mental confession, to purgatory, or to the communion of saints. Rather, he sees indulgences as one phenomenon in the concrete life of the Church, which served as material for his interpreta¬ tion of the allegorical sense of the Psalms. The context points unmistakably to Luther’s spiritual ideal of fervor and spiritual affection in liturgical prayer, and to a life of earnest efforts to advance. This is the norm. Instead, however, the Church is plagued by prosperity, and its people loll in security; indulgences have the effect of worsening this situation. We would say, then, that Luther spoke here primarily as a critic of the contemporary scene and also as a promoter of a characteristic spiritual ideal. ii. Luther referred a second time to indulgences as he worked out his exposition of Verse 4 of this same Psalm 68. This verse was part of the complaint of Christ and of his Church in the midst of suffering: “My eyes grow dim with waiting for my God.” Literally, one s eyes grow tired of looking up in an attitude of prayer and faith while all along the tumult of evil and sin rages.7 Luther then goes to the allegorical interpretation to set this lament into the context of the life of the Church. Thus the “eyes of Christ are earnest students, contemplatives, and prelates, but these eyes are dimmed by the presence of a vast majority of worldly, proud, and avaricious men in the Church. Neglect of

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

219

the lectio divina has all but snuffed out the light of Christ’s eyes in the Church.8 The tropological interpretation turns to the life of the Chris¬ tian man. Here the “eyes of Christ” stand for a sense of faith with spiritual illuminations but these eyes are dimmed by the absence of fervor and affection toward the truths of Scripture that are all too well and all too coldly known.9 This last thought prompts Luther to expatiate on the spiritual torpor and sloth that reigns in the Church. Against this, Christ urged us to watch¬ fulness and to a holy fear that expels drowsiness and security.10 Luther then speaks of the paradoxical deadliness of the devil’s current attack on the Church—“namely, not by persecution, but by security and leisure.”11 In illustrating this subtle attack on the Church, Luther comes to speak of indulgences. His point is, however, not the straight¬ forward assertion that indulgences make the faithful secure, as in the previous reference. His target is, rather, the men—bishops, priests, and mendicant orders—who are charged with the admin¬ istration of indulgences in the Church. They are especially in¬ fected by the plague of security and indolence. This manifests itself in their heedless manner of distributing the graces of for¬ giveness won by the blood of Christ and the martyrs. They pre¬ sume, first, that they can attain forgiveness and come to salvation themselves by these merits alone, that is, without any effort on their own part. In fact, on this basis, they turn wholly to worldly pursuits.12 Second, they distribute too profusely the riches of this treasury and give no thought to their duty of contributing some¬ thing to the treasury themselves. Luther’s point is not that the treasury will be used up, but that the conduct of these men makes them ill-disposed to share in these riches of forgiveness.13 Thus, Luther appears here more in the role of a critic of the contemporary scene in the Church than as the spiritual teacher of holy impatience. This is the Luther who spoke so sharply in criticism of bishops and princes in the Lectures on Romans. Here he compares them, echoing the parable of the prodigal son, to light-minded offspring of rich parents who know only how to

220

Man Yearning For Grace

spend their inheritance and are incapable of increasing the family fortune.14 A second theme is the spiritual problem of the security and tepidity that can frustrate all the profuse grants of grace and forgiveness. In the last section of this scholion, Luther brings religious orders under fire for their prodigality in distributing their merits —through brotherhoods and grants of indulgences—for the secu¬ lar purpose of keeping themselves in food and clothing out of the contributions their grants bring. It is the great misery of the Church of Luther’s day that the Gospel is only preached when the material needs of the preacher make it necessary.15 Luther brushes aside as irrelevant the excuse of the mendicants that they only receive alms given in honor of God, and thus preach gratuitously. The whole picture adds up to a fulfillment of the eschatological prophecy of Christ in Mt 24, isff—the abomina¬ tion of desolation is set up in God’s holy place!16 This example of Luther’s criticism of indulgence practice fixes on the profuseness of current grants of indulgences, and stresses the lack of disposition of leading men of the Church. His approach is thus not by way of a theological reflection on the doctrine of indulgences, but instead, the very practical ap¬ proach of a critical observer interested in the spiritual health of the Church at large. On the mendicants, however, the tone changes. The critique is sharp, and takes on a whole new dimen¬ sion by the reference to the events of the last ages. We are suddenly reminded that the writer is not just a man of common sense pointing out the follies of his contemporaries. His thought operates instead within a definite schema of Church history. He is living late in the third age, the time of the "semi-Christians,” and the fourth age will soon dawn, with the coming of the AntiChrist. This schema makes his polemic more bitter and more ominous. in. We now turn to Luther’s Lectures on Romans to examine in turn three texts in which he referred to indulgences. The first

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

221

of these came at the end of Luther’s long scholion on Rom 4, 7, where he elaborated his insight into the way Scripture speaks of sin as the fomes or radical inclination to evil.17 We recall how this view of sin conditioned Luther’s characteristic view of Chris¬ tian living as earnest and prayerful effort to speed the process of healing this deep wound in our being.18 Toward the end of this scholion, Luther repeated his thesis on God’s merciful impu¬ tation of uprightness, on the Christian’s confession of sin and petition for God’s justice, and on the continuing presence of sin all through our lives.19 On the last point, Luther feels the need of collecting a series of proof-texts to back up his interpretation of St. Paul. After giving eight Old Testament and four New Testament texts, he adds St. Augustine’s words on the way our charity is always in some way deficient and can ever be increased. This deficiency is for Augustine the ground of the Scripture texts on the universality of sin and injustice (1 Kings 8, 46; Ps 143, 2). Thus, continues Augustine, we must continue to pray the fifth petition of the Our Father, even though all our sins of word, deed, and thought be remitted in baptism.20 To this statement of Augustine’s on the vice that blemishes our love of God, Luther adds that the prayer for forgiveness is not only in place after baptism, but is even more applicable after receiving the sacra¬ ment of penance and after winning indulgences.21 The thought here is clear, as Luther expressed it succinctly a few lines later: “Iniquity is found in his uprightness.”22 This is the effect of the radical sin that flaws our good works. Con¬ sequently, one must continually pray to God for forgiveness and for healing from the sin that remains. If that prayer does follow, then God does not impute our root sin as serious: “Therefore, even in doing good we sin, unless God does not cover our imper¬ fection through Christ and not impute it to us; it is therefore made ‘venial’ by the mercy of the God who does not impute it because of our faith and our sigh over this imperfection which he accepts in Christ.”23 “This iniquity is not found in those who believe and sigh, because Christ comes to their aid out of the

222

Man Yearning For Grace

fullness of his purity and covers their imperfection.”24 It is clearly the stress on a faith that issues in a sigh for forgiveness and help that is central here. Indulgences are mentioned along with the sacraments of baptism and penance as events that the Chris¬ tian must not allow to cloud his vision and divert his attention from his main task of praying for help in the struggle against the root sin that is in him. Here Luther has spoken as a theologian of the Christian life. He gives scant attention to the theology or the practice of indul¬ gences, but will guard against any detriment to the main concern a Christian must have. It is important to see this context and this concern of Luther’s, for it is basically the same context in which he will speak in 1517. iv. A second reference to indulgences in the Lectures on Romans occurred in Luther’s scholion on Rom 10, 6, at the end of a passage on faith in the word of God as the way to justifica¬ tion.20 In this passage, Luther comes to attack the iustitiarii whom he ranks among those contemning the word because of thengreat concern for the size of their works to the detriment of an obedient faith attending only to the word.26 This theme leads him to a comment on the tactics of preachers who seek to incite the simple folk to an imitation of the great deeds of the saints to the detriment of their duties to God in their state of life. Closely allied with these preachers are those who make such great offers of indulgences for the purpose of building and deco¬ rating churches and for supporting even more outward cere¬ monies.27 Luther charges the bishops, and even the pope himself, with extreme cruelty in their way of distributing spiritual bene¬ fits. What they have received gratis they pass on only in exchange for temporal support of their churches. Here Luther finds a clear sign of inner corruption in high places, and a case of the Chris¬ tian people being led astray from the true worship and service of God.28 Again, Luther’s view encompasses the life of the Church

Luther on Indulgences in 2527

223

as a whole. His charge against the hierarchy is, however, more biting than in the Dictata. Prelates are more concerned with the external work of building churches and for this they gouge the pockets of the common people. They neglect bringing people to genuine worship and service of God, which in this context is associated with obedient faith in the word and with fulfilling the duties of one’s state. Indulgences appear only as one of the instruments in the pernicious program of the hierarchy. Luther is again in the role of a critic of the contemporary scene. Whereas the previous reference to indulgences referred more to the spir¬ itual life of the individual, here Luther considers their effect on the masses who are so susceptible to great offers and extreme promises.29 v. A last, indirect reference to indulgences followed as Luther turned to Rom 10, 10 (Corde enim creditur ad salutem). He begins the scholion with a paraphrase that also serves to apply the verse to contemporary life: “It is as if he would say that through no works, no wisdom, no studies, nor through riches or honors does one come to justice, although many today are sure that by giving two coins they gain forgiveness of their sins.”30 No, justice is a matter of giving God what is his due, that is, believing his word with all our heart, and admitting that we are sinners and worthy of condemnation.31 This is a justice that has nothing to do with the gift of money, but is a justice “through that faith by which a man gives up his own views in captivity to the word of the cross and denies himself.”32 Here Luther is the spiritual teacher whose “system” centers on the radical change of our self-estimate under the word of God. It is not our virtues that count, but our acceptance of the humbling judgment that we are sinners. Here the gift of money for a pious purpose simply can play no role. To summarize, the wider context of Luther’s references to indulgences from 1513 to mid-1516 is the conviction that he is living in a time of tepidity and decline in the Church. The popu-

224

Man Yearning For Grace

lar understanding of indulgences fits neatly into this picture, for people see them as a way to heaven without great effort, so their effect is to kill off fervor and the holy impatience with one’s progress. An underlying theme of Luther’s critique is that of our need to continually pray to God for forgiveness, even after sinful deeds have been sacramentally forgiven and our satisfaction lightened by indulgences. A second theme of his critique is the false emphasis and the actual abuses in the dispensing of indul¬ gences. The mendicant orders offer indulgences and a share in their spiritual goods only with an eye to material support. Prel¬ ates are far too concerned with buildings and ceremonies, in support of which they make grandiose offers of indulgences. They end by taking advantage of the impressionable common people and divert them from their service of God in their humble vocation in life.33 Thus, the first theme of Luther’s criticism grows naturally out of the spirituality of penance and progress that has emerged in our study of his early works. The second theme is one that was strong in the second half of the Lectures on Romans but which then receded until it re-emerged eruptively after the fateful events of 1517-1518.

2. LUTHER’S SERMON ON ST. MATTHIAS’ DAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1517 Luther s first words on indulgences before a wider popular audience came at the end of his sermon on February 24, 1517, in the parish church of Wittenberg. The Gospel text of the dayi Mt 11, 25s, gave Luther his theme—the hidden wisdom of God’s little ones, in contrast to the only apparent wisdom of the wise. Those who confess their folly and hunger after wisdom are seen by God as truly wise,34 but those who cultivate right reason and natural prudence are led by God to miss the truth so that they come to confess their folly and seek the guidance of grace.35 The ground of all this is that our wisdom is hidden in Christ,

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

225

though this should not lead to the false conclusion that we are to be idle. No, the little ones know that when Christ’s wisdom is revealed in a person, then Christ is supremely active in him.36 From this basic assertion of Christ’s life in those humble enough to accept him, Luther develops the contrast between those who strive frantically to reach peace of conscience by their own effort and penance, and those who simply and humbly answer Christ’s invitation to come to him for refreshment. To come to Christ is, of course, not easy. It involves leaving our¬ selves and putting total trust in Christ, which is a heavy cross entailing conversion to genuine hatred for one’s sins.37 Those who do not come to Christ in this way do not reach peace. They become more and more concerned with the punishments for their sins, which Luther brands as a subtle form of selfishness.38 At this point, Luther speaks of the effect of the great pro¬ fusion of indulgences in his day. Their effect is precisely the promotion of this “servile justice” of those overly concerned with escaping the punishment for sin, without any concern for avoid¬ ing sin itself.39 Indulgences lead to a great sense of security and to an equivalent permission to sin, when the people should, rather, be led to embrace the cross and the punishments for sin.40 Luther can, however, see a possible place for indulgences—for the weak in faith, who cannot bear to hear of the cross as the way to peace. His main emphasis, however, will be on true meekness and the cross, for thereby one comes to Christ and to rest for his soul, which is exactly the opposite of what indulgences teach and promote.41 The sermon closes with four exclamations on the misery of the times in which priests drowsily allow a deadly security in the midst of evil to spread even more.42 The wider context of Luther’s words on indulgences is clearly the pointedly christocentric thought on justification that we noted as characteristic of his works in early 1517. Christ’s work in the just is, however, hidden beneath folly and humility, which Luther then explains as the radical change of those who come to Christ by despairing of themselves and relying on Christ. Thus the context combines three familiar themes: God’s work beneath

Man Yearning For Grace

226

contrary appearances, the transforming action of Christ, and the radical change of self-estimate.43 There is another theme present in this sermon, which had not been strong in the early works—the question of peace of conscience.44 This is a thought that is pregnant with Luther’s new conception of faith in 1518, though there is no hint here of the precise orientation of faith to one’s own forgiveness. Luther s judgment on indulgences is at first quite negative in this context. Indulgences only serve to turn people’s attention to a source other than Christ for a quite questionable kind of security. Further, they effectively hinder the new attitude of faith by promoting concern for the punishments due to sin. Thus, indulgences offer a false kind of security, since one does not attack the root of one’s worries by hatred of sin itself and the embracing of the cross of Christ. Hence, we have from late February

1517

an adverse judgment on the effects of indulgences,

again without systematic questions about their doctrinal basis, but from the standpoint of Luther’s christocentric thinking on justification, and fromThe corresponding spirituality of self-denial and attachment to Christ’s cross.45

3. LUTHER’S LETTER TO ARCHBISHOP ALBRECHT OCTOBER 31, 1517

In this section and in the following sections we will study Luther s theses on indulgences and his theological intervention on the indulgence question in late 1517- He appears to have written to a number of bishops about the preaching of Johann Tetzel, but we have only firm documentary sources for the materials he sent to Albrecht, Bishop of Magdeburg and Mainz, under the date of October 31, 1517.46 We will take up Luther’s letter to Albrecht in this section, and in the following sections, study Luther’s theses on indulgences and finally his theological treatise on the question.

117

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

Luther clearly attributed great importance to his letter to Albrecht. In November 1518 he spoke of a copy (or copies) of it that still existed after passing through many hands.47 In 1541 he still had a copy of the letter, which served to ground his charge that Albrecht had been warned and thus must be held responsible for the beginning of the Reformation.48 Luther’s letter begins with a highly rhetorical protestation of humility and unworthiness to approach Albrecht’s exalted presence. It is only with great hesitation that he has finally come to write.49 In the second paragraph, he broaches the subject of the St. Peter’s indulgence, being preached under Albrecht’s name in the neighborhood of Wittenberg.50 His point, however, is not directly against the men preaching the indulgences, whom he has not heard; rather, his concern is stirred by the errors and misunderstandings that are spreading among the people.51 The misunderstandings Luther calls to Albrecht’s attention are:

(i) if people gain an indulgence, they are sure of their

salvation; (ii) the souls in purgatory are immediately freed when one’s contribution for St. Peter’s falls into the basket; (Hi) the graces offered in connection with this indulgence are so great that even the most frightful sin

(for example, violating the

mother of God) can be forgiven; and (iv) through these indul¬ gences a person is freed of all guilt and punishment.52 We will now sketch out in some detail the background of each of Luther’s charges.

i. Security about Salvation. The false security flowing from indulgences was the central thesis of Luther’s earlier critique of them.53 In the early works this fitted into a wider campaign against false security and complacency.54 Toward the end of the

Lectures on Romans he had connected this pernicious self-con¬ fidence with the externalizing of penance.55 The true life of the Christian is marked by earnest prayer for grace and by concern to keep advancing.56 Thus, we can see how Luther s own deepest conviction about Christian living conditioned his critical reaction

228

Man Yearning For Grace

when he first encountered people confident about their salvation by reason of the great graces of the St. Peter’s indulgence. ii. Immediate Release from Purgatory. To understand some¬ thing of the background of Luther’s second, third, and fourth complaint, we can do no better than refer to passages in the Instructio Summuriu, a document drawn up under Albrecht’s authority for the promulgation and practical regulation of the preaching of the St. Peter’s indulgence. Luther knew this In¬ structio,57 and later in his letter he begged Albrecht to see to it that it be withdrawn and replaced by new instructions for the indulgence preachers. Thus Luther’s ultimate target in his inter¬ vention was the Instructio Summaria, and we will see that the popular misunderstandings he pointed out were to an extent clearly grounded in this document. Now the phrase statim evolant does not appear in the In¬ structio, although there are a number of passages that would make it easy to draw the conclusion that souls would immediately be released from purgatory when the coin fell into the basket. For instance, the “first principal grace” that can be gained by the living did include a total remittance of the punishments due to be exacted in purgatory.58 The fourth principal grace is the indulgence for the dead. In one sentence the preachers are counseled to use moderation in treating this theme,59 but shortly after, the Instructio urges them on with a remarkable display of superlatives to great energy in proclaiming the grace offered the departed souls.60 If the preachers were only true to this instruc¬ tion, it is no wonder that they would have expressed the most certain help promised the souls in purgatory in terms equivalent to the statim evolant about which Luther explained. Further, the term used by the Instructio for the act of gaining the indulgence for the dead was animus redimere,61 another phrase that could easily lead to the same misunderstanding. in. Forgiveness of Serious Sins. This complaint refers most probably to the jurisdictional faculties given by the “confessional

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

229

letter” as the second of the four principal graces. This is not in itself a question of forgiveness of sins, but of special faculties to be given to confessors whom people possessing the letter would later approach.62 The preachers were urged in the Instructio Summaria to explain clearly the wide range of faculties given by the letters of this indulgence, especially in comparison with the lesser grants of previous years. The preachers were to explain the scope of these faculties to the very best of their abilities.63 Luther adapted this third complaint to the mode of expres¬ sion of the Instructio when he depicted the popular idea as being thaf “these graces” were so great (tantas esse has gratuis . . .). This reflects quite well the inexact formulations of the Instructio. Not only did the document name each of the four principal grants of the indulgence as “graces,” that is, four notably dif¬ ferent benefits,64 but it also used the word gratia most unclearly in the description of the first principal grace. In a space of four lines, gratia stands for three different things: the papal grant of the indulgence as a whole, the plenary indulgence for the living, and the grace of justification granted with the forgiveness of sins.65 Here is a good example of what Joseph Lortz often called the “theological confusion” of the pre-Reformation period. We will see below Luther’s attempt in his Tractatus de Indulgentiis to bring some order into the theological talk about grace in connection with indulgences. iv. Liberation from Guilt and Punishment. Luther’s fourth complaint touches on the asserted liberation from all guilt and punishment. The phrase, ab omni poena et culpa, itself does not appear in the versions of the Instructio that are at our disposal, but a survey of the theological manuals of the time shows clearly that Luther’s fourth complaint was over one of the living issues of the day. The Summa Angelica of Angelus Carletus (died 1495) and the Rosella Casuum (published 1483) of Baptista de Salis had both treated the question explicitly, with Carletus opting for such a grant in specific cases and de Salis deciding against

230

Man Yearning For Grace

such a remission in the indulgence itself.66 Silvester Prierias had, in his Summa (theological-canonical dictionary) of 1514, rejected the phrase in its strict sense, but had explained how it could feasibly be used if one were speaking of the conditions for gain¬ ing the indulgence (contrition and confession) as well.67 The problems connected with this liberation ab omni poena et culpa occasioned Nikolas Paulus to devote a chapter to the question in his history of indulgences in the middle ages,68 and a reform schema at the Council of Trent urged that bishops exert great care that preachers do not intimate that indulgences forgive the guilt for sins.69 Thus Luther’s fourth point touches on a serious issue, and must be judged as an attempted reform of a real abuse in the preaching of his day. After his four charges, Luther turns to the Archbishop and brings home the fact that this combination of error and mis¬ understanding makes up the deadly poison that is infecting the souls committed to Albrecht’s pastoral care: “The souls com¬ mitted to your care, excellent Father, are thus directed to death.” Daily, Albrecht’s awful responsibility grows.70 Even he cannot be sure of his salvation on the ground of his episcopal office. To stress the danger of any security about salvation, Luther adds a list of Scripture texts on the difficulty of salvation. The way to life is narrow (Mt 7, 14); the just man will hardly be saved (1 Pet 4, 18); we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2, 16).71 This leads to Luther’s pointed question: How then can they [the indulgence preachers] make the people secure and bereft of fear through their false fables and promises of forgiveness?”72 On the positive side, Luther wrote but one brief sentence on his own understanding of indulgences: “They take away only external punishments that used to be imposed canonically, and thus grant no least benefit leading to salvation or sanctity.”73 This brief sentence does suggest, however, that Luther’s thought on the positive significance and function of indulgences was structured by a strong dualism. He draws a clear contrast be-

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

231

tween external punishment—a matter of canon law and papal remittance—and the graces of salvation and holiness. We will remain alert to this characteristic of thought, to see if it occurs in the other documents as the framework of Luther’s thought on indulgences in October 1517. The remainder of Luther’s letter stresses first Albrecht’s primary duties of office, the preaching of the Gospel and the promotion of the works of piety and charity. Consequently, there is a serious danger for a bishop if all that is heard in the diocese is the raving of indulgence preachers.74 After citing two startling sentences from the Instruction Luther makes his practical plea that Albrecht withdraw the Instructio before someone embar¬ rasses the Archbishop by a published refutation of it.76 Thus, the first document of Luther’s intervention is clearly penetrated with well-grounded pastoral worries about the effects of Tetzel’s preaching. The background of Luther’s complaint was, however, not a tabula rasa. First of all, there was his own characteristic vision of the Christian life of struggle with the root sin of concupiscence, and of constant effort to advance along the narrow path leading to salvation. As early as 15 Luther had remarked that indulgences make this path appear decep¬ tively easy.77 Moreover, the Instructio Sunwnaria, itself with its careless and exaggerated formulations, made up part of this background. Finally, there was Luther’s own conception of what an indulgence actually granted. He had, however, expressed this last point with extreme brevity in his letter, which, on the whole, offered no alternative theology of indulgences to that underlying the Instructio Summaria. It is most probably this last point that prompted Luther to send on to Albrecht two further writings to which he referred in this postscript: “If it please your most reverend Paternity, you may look over these disputations of mine (meas disputationes), so as to understand how doubtful the theory of indulgences is which they broadcast as utterly certain.”78 Thus Luther decided, after composing his letter, to send Albrecht further material in support of the main contention of the letter

232

Man Yearning For Grace

by a somewhat detailed theological statement of the questions involved. We turn now to study and evaluate each of these two further writings.

4. LUTHER’S INDULGENCE THESES

We are fortunate to be taking up Luther’s indulgence theses at a time when detailed investigations by Hans Volz,79 Erwin Iserloh,80 and Klemens Honselmann81 are at hand to provide a whole host of insights into the immediate circumstances sur¬ rounding their composition and publication. We must first simply refer to the collections of statements gathered by these three historians that make it imperative to brand as a legend the story of Luther’s dramatic posting of his theses on the door of the castle church on October 31, 1517 and not as a historical event.82 Luther never once, in his several nar¬ ratives of the events of this time, mentioned posting the theses. In fact, no disputation took place at Wittenberg University.83 Moreover, Luther claimed that only when the bishops did not heed the warning he gave them in private did he at last make his theses public. In 1545> he explained: “When they showed contempt for me, then I brought out my list for disputation.”84 In an open letter to the pope in 1518, Luther related: “I warned some leading men of the Church privately, . . . Then at last, when I could do nothing else, it seemed right to gently oppose them [the preachers] by calling their dogmas into question and proposing a disputation. And so I brought out my list for a disputation.”85 If we take these words at their face value, then the story of the theses posting cannot be maintained. Luther wrote these words for a public that included a good number of opponents. These opponents would have jumped at a chance to show Luther doctoring history to his own advantage, and this is precisely what they could have done if it were known that he had not

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

233

waited for the bishops to react, but had made his theses public in Wittenberg on the same October 31 on which he wrote to the Archbishop of Mainz. After minute studies, K. Honselmann concluded that these theses of October 31 were hand-written, without a heading and enumeration, and were in fact run together in paragraphs or larger blocks.86 Further, the theses that Albrecht forwarded to Rome, where they were copied for use in Sylvester Prierias’ Dialogus, may well have not included the theses numbered 92 and 93 in later printed editions.87 An initial survey of the content of the theses shows that Luther sought to treat indulgences on a wide theological and pastoral basis. After setting the framework of discussion, he wrote a long series of theses (5-20) that attempted to specify the meaning of “a plenary remission” of punishments. The exclusion of a remittance of guilt (culpa) in Theses 6 and 7, and the restriction of canonical punishments to this life in Theses 8-13, bring Luther to propose the conclusion in Thesis 20 that a plenary remission does not unrestrictedly cover all penalties, but only those that the pope himself has imposed. Even though Luther gave an excursus of six theses (14—19) on the spiritual pains of death and purgatory, he had no conclusive statement on indul¬ gences for them (in Theses 25-29), but rather a series of state¬ ments that would bring the question to discussion, while striking hard at the extremes of the indulgence preachers (in Theses 27-28). Theses 30-31 call in question the certainty of indulgences gained for oneself, by urging that the stated condition of true contrition is not easily fulfilled. There follow, in Theses 32-39, a series of barbed attacks against various ideas behind the Instructio Summaria. Luther’s central doctrinal point appears to be Thesis 34: “These graces of forgiveness touch only the punishments of sacra¬ mental satisfaction constituted by men.” In Theses 36 and 37, he urges that every true Christian already has the graces of for¬ giveness and the share in Christ’s benefits that the Instructio offered for a contribution to St. Peter’s. Luther’s pastoral intent

234

Man Yearning For Grace

comes to the fore in Theses 41-50, which begin repeatedly, Docendi sunt Christiani, and offer countersuggestions for re¬ strained and right-ordered preaching of charity and indulgences. Next, Luther turned (in Theses 56-68) to a clarification of the concept “treasury of the Church,” which was used to explain the source of the graces granted by the Church in indulgences. His main point is that this treasury is not simply Christ’s merits, for these are always at work in the lives of Christians, granting them grace and leading them to a life of penance (Thesis 58). Instead, the source of indulgences is purely and simply the keys (Thesis 60), that is, the power by which the pope can pardon from the punishment he himself has imposed (Thesis 61). In Theses 6980, Luther turns back to the practical abuses in the preaching of indulgences, with emphasis (in Theses 70, 72, and 80) on the responsibility of bishops to regulate this preaching. A final series of theses (81-90) lists the prickly questions that an intelligent layman might well ask about various inconsistencies in the theory and practice of indulgences. Luther concludes (Thesis 90) that it only hurts the pope’s good name to answer the questions solely by recourse to papal power and authority. The questions must be met with sound reasoning. In the final theses, Luther returns to his starting point—the whole Christian life is one of penance, mortification, and tribulation in the following of our crucified head (Theses 1, 3-4, 94-95). This initial survey shows that the theses take a much broader approach to indulgences than did Luther’s letter to Albrecht. A brief comparison brings out somewhat the character of the theses, (i) Where Luther simply stated in the letter the fact that people were being made secure as to their salvation, Thesis 32 asserts: Those who think they are made secure as to their salvation by the letters of forgiveness, these will be damned eternally with their teachers!” (ii) The letter reported that people were saying that the graces of this indulgence could bring the forgiveness of even the greatest imaginable sin, but Thesis 75 castigated the holding of such an opinion as insanity. These two examples suggest that, in spite of the sameness of

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

235

the topic, the theses and the letter were composed for notably distinct purposes. The biting tone of the theses would more likely alienate Albrecht than stir his pastoral responsibilities. Our initial survey of the content of the theses showed, in addi¬ tion, that they discussed many topics that go beyond the com¬ pact sentences of the letter. The excursus on death and purgatory as spiritual experiences (Theses 14-19), the extended effort to clarify the nature of the treasury of the Church (Theses 56-68), the detailed questions of laymen (Theses 81-89), all open up questions that would have hardly interested Archbishop Albrecht. Thus, we would conclude from the text of the theses themselves that they were not composed to be sent to Albrecht. Conse¬ quently, we judge the postscript of Luther’s letter to be a genuine one that reflects his afterthought to send the theses with his letter. We must, therefore, ask for which audience Luther had in fact written the theses. The best source of information here is Luther himself, in a letter of March 5, 1518, to C. Scheurl in Niimberg. In an earlier letter, Scheurl had complained that he had not originally received a copy of the theses from Luther himself (by March 1518 the theses were circulating widely). Luther’s answer to his friend’s complaint gives the exact purpose of the theses: “First, as to your query why I did not send you the theses. I answer that it was not my plan or my wish to make them public. Rather, I wanted first to confer over them with a few people here and in the vicinity. Thus, on the judgment of many, they could have been condemned and destroyed or ap¬ proved and then published.”88 Luther goes on to lament the amazing circulation of the theses, not because the truth should be kept from the people, but because the theses are not an apt means for instructing them: . . for I have doubts over some of the theses, others I would have posed differently and more certainly, or I would have omitted them, if I had had any hope of this happening.”89 The theses, therefore, were not written primarily to be sent to the bishops. They were composed at about the same time as the letter, but were to be discussed by theologians and per-

236

Man Yearning For Grace

haps even to be formally disputed. Luther’s aim was to gain clarity through an exchange of opinion, a clarity that was a crying need in the welter of vexing questions surrounding the theology and practice of indulgences. Thus, the sending of the theses was not wholly according to this plan,90 but so it happened. Moreover, Luther’s own assertions as to the private character of his initial intervention,91 and of the adequacy of the warnings he gave the bishops, force us to conclude that some interval elapsed (perhaps two or three weeks) between the sending of the materials to the bishops and his further distribution of them in his original plan for a scientific-academic discussion.92 At any rate, it is clear that the theses are not an exact reflec¬ tion of Luther’s own position on indulgences in October 1517. They are not a theological position, but rather the rough copy of sentences that can well admit of improvement before being made public.93 Actually, Luther first asserted his “position” in the Resolutiones, written early in 1518 and published in August, where he began each essay on the respective theses with a state¬ ment of his stand on the idea enunciated in the thesis. However, in October 1517 all that has not yet been definitely decided; consequently, for our investigation of Luther’s thought on the Christian life, the indulgence theses are only of limited value. It would have been in the course of the disputation that Luther would take his stand on each thesis, explain how he understood the terms, and give the arguments grounding this position. Once these restrictions are made, we can still, to some extent advance our study of Luther on the Christian life through the theses. Three points are to be noted. In the first place, Theses 5 to 20 do make up a more or less sustained argument for limiting the effects of indulgences to the remission of penances that the pope himself has imposed. Thesis 34 asserts a similar limitation of indulgences to the remission of the man-made punishments imposed in the sacrament of pen¬ ance. This seems to be the central point to Luther’s thoughts in the other theses. If indulgences function only within these limits, then for a sound theology and for a properly restrained

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

23 7

preaching of indulgences, all kinds of conclusions follow. Central here is the limitation of their scope in Theses 20 and 34, which echo the single statement Luther made in explaining indulgences in his letter to Albrecht. Second, we must underscore how frequently Luther struck out against confidence or a sense of security arising from indul¬ gences. Here we hear the echo from the early works on the themes of holy unrest and constant progress. In the theses, how¬ ever, the limitation of indulgences to the remission of man-made penalties is a further ground for ruling out a security induced specifically by indulgences. Added to this is the further ground of the uncertainty of true contrition, one of the conditions for gaining an indulgence for oneself (Thesis 30). Thus, both the limited scope of indulgences and the problem of true contrition provide the ground for Luther’s threatening Thesis 32: “Those who think they are made secure as to their salvation by the letters of forgiveness, these will be damned eternally with their teachers!” Christians should therefore be taught that indulgences are useful only if they do not base their confidence on them, whereas if indulgences weaken the fear of God, they are most harmful (Thesis 49). The fear of God is primary and excludes a vain sense of security stemming from indulgences—no matter what guarantees the preachers might give (Thesis 52). The final thesis underscores again the primacy of tribulation over peace and security on the road to heaven. Thus one clear theme of the theses is Luther’s regular attack on security in the life of a Christian. Third, we would note the presence in the theses of the dualistic thought-pattern apparent in Luther’s letter to Albrecht. He wrote: “Indulgences confer no least benefit toward salvation or holiness, but only remove the eternal punishment which formerly was canonically imposed.”94 In the first theses a similar sharp contrast is set up between the sacrament of penance on the one side (Thesis 2), and the lifelong effort of penance on the other. The latter consists in interior hatred of self and external morti¬ fication (Theses 1, 3-4). Accordingly, throughout the theses, in-

238

Man Yearning For Grace

dulgences are limited to the first area of sacramental and canon¬ ical penance (especially in Theses 20 and 34), and excluded from the second area of “life-penance.” In the latter area, true contrition—though rare (Thesis 31)—seeks and embraces pun¬ ishment (Thesis 40). There Christ’s merits are always at work, granting interior grace and leading to a mortified life under the cross (Thesis 58). In the “life-penance,” the imposed sacra¬ mental penance and the power of the keys exercised in indul¬ gences play no role. This severe limitation of the scope of indulgences and, by implication, of the significance of sacramental penance as well, is what we would single out as the most characteristic theological motif of the theses.95 After an evaluation of the theology reflected in the theses, we must first marvel at the richness of Luther’s conception of the life-penance” that is Christ’s work in his members (see Theses 58 and 94). At the same time, however, we see here a pitifully weak ecclesiology and a conception that puts the sacra¬ ments outside the area of serious Christian concern. The sac¬ raments are left to float freely in the area of arbitrarily imposed ordinances (Thesis 7), and are not integrated into the otherwise rich spirituality characteristic of Luther’s early works.

5. LUTHER’S TREATISE ON INDULGENCES The third document sent by Luther to Archibishop Albrecht is the Tractatus de Indulgentiis, which has been all but forgotten in modern studies of Luther s theology.96 This is most regrettable, since the treatise offers a clear picture of Luther’s conception of indulgences, and shows his quite successful integration of indul¬ gences into the spirituality of penance and progress we have been studying. We are dealing with a minor theological master¬ piece. The Weimar edition of Luther s works gave an inferior text of this treatise under the title Ex sermone habito Dom. X post Trinit. A. 1516.97 This would be Luther’s sermon of July 27, 1516,

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

239

near the beginning of his series of introductory sermons for his exposition of the ten commandments in the parish church. How¬ ever, this series already contains a complete sermon for this Sunday, which treats the Gospel pericope of the day (Lk 18, 9-14).98 The following text, beginning De indulgentiis, contains no reference to this Gospel, nor to the first commandment, nor to any Scripture text as its leitmotif. Its style is clearly that of a treatise dealing in orderly fashion with its topic without any direct address to the hearer or reader. The first bit of helpful data for placing this writing came with the discovery of a copy of it in Mainz among copied texts from the correspondence between Archbishop Albrecht and the Mainz theological faculty in December 1517. The correspondence involved the faculty’s judgment on certain works of Martin Luther, and in the midst of the documents lay our text, with the title Tractatus de Indulgentiis per Doctorem Martinum ordinis S. Augustini Wittenbergae editus.w Still more clarity emerges from the letter Albrecht sent to his Magdeburg councilors on December 13, 1517. In it, he acknowledges their transmission of the treatise and conclusion on the holy matter A>f indulgences written by a presumptuous monk of Wittenberg. Albrecht reports that he has sent “the articles, the position, and the treatise” to the pope.100 Luther, therefore, sent three pieces to Albrecht under the date of October 31, 1517: a letter, a list of theses, and a treatise on indulgences. It is interesting now to re-read Luther s post¬ script to the letter. Here he offered Albrecht the opportunity to look at “these disputations [plural] of mine,” so that he might see how doubtful the doctrine on indulgences is.101 We would not say the theses Luther sent present the matter they treat as doubtful. Rather, they are quite outspoken and clear on the matter (not, of course, that Luther maintained every point in them). The reader senses nothing of the lack of clarity and doubts that Luther admits in his letters about the theses, but in the treatise, Luther speaks far differently: on the remission of the pains of purgatory, “I do not understand this question well

240

Man Yearning For Grace

enough, but it is without doubt uncertain whether God forgives in this manner.”102 On the distinction between perfect and im¬ perfect contrition, he says: “I confess my ignorance;”103 and at the end of the treatise: “Still I have this doubt.”104 The precise goal of the treatise appears to be the distinction between what is certain and clear in the doctrine of indulgences and what is doubtful. Here we see a theologian wrestling with a difficult problem in the midst of the theological confusion of the preReformation time. When Luther has to some extent delimited the clear and certain from the doubtful matters, then he can write that it is most useful to grant and to win indulgences!105 We have here, therefore, a treatise from Luther’s own hand that unfolds his conception of indulgences systematically and with personal conviction. The issues are of extraordinary signifi¬ cance: What is the grace gained through indulgence? How does this grace stand in relation to the infused grace of the Christian? How do these two relate to the fomes and the root sin that infects a man? What is progress in grace? What is purgatory for? What is the source of the power of indulgences to help a person? What precisely does the pope do when he grants indulgences?—and— echoing in every line—With what degree of certitude can we speak of the effects of indulgences? The tone of the treatise serves to enhance its value as a record of Luther s thought. There is polemic here, but polemic that is clearly under rein. Luther wanted above all to grasp the nature and function of indulgences, and he went at his task with remarkable objectivity. It is a far cry from the apocalyptic threats against the mendicants that we saw in the Dictata. Like the Lectures on Hebrews in mid-1517, the Tractatus de Indulgentiis is engrossed with its subject and is most moderate in dealing polemic slaps at the adversary. Once we have placed this document historically, there arises the question of its exact character. Our own study of it has led us to the hypothesis about its origin that it is most probably Luther’s preparatory essay written with an eye to the position he himself would take in the discussion—or even disputation—

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

241

on indulgences. Here Luther puts down his own thoughts on indulgences orderly and clearly. It is similar to the preparatory essay he wrote for the Heidelberg Disputation of May 1518.106 The treatise on indulgences has as its purpose to set forth what exactly is the virtus of indulgences.107 In it, Luther seeks to explain how, why, and to what extent he understood indulgences to have a virtus. Best of all, he does this within the context of the theology of sin, of grace, and of Christian living—as we have seen this theology unfold in the previous chapters. Because of the obvious importance of Luther’s Treatise on Indulgences, and because it has not been selected for translation in the new American edition of Luther’s works, we will give our own translation of the treatise. We add to each section a brief analysis. [1.] On indulgences: Although indulgences are the very merits of Christ and of his saints and so should be treated with all reverence, they have in fact nonetheless become a shocking exercise of greed. For who actually seeks the salvation of souls through indulgences, and not instead money for his coffers? This is evident from the way indulgences are preached. For the commissioners and preachers do nothing but extol indulgences and incite the people to contribute. You hear no one instructing the people about what indulgences are, or about how much they grant, or about the purpose they serve. Instead, all you hear is how much one must contribute. The people are always left in ignorance, so that they come to think that by gaining indul¬ gences they are at once saved. Indulgences, however, do not, at least per se, grant the grace which makes a person just or more just. They grant instead only the remission of penance and of imposed satisfaction, which though does not mean that one who then dies goes immediately to heaven. But most of the people are simple and have been deceived into thinking that a plenary indulgence drives out all sin, and one is thus at once ready for heaven. So they sin with abandon, and thereby burden themselves with the bonds of concupiscence.108 Luther’s first paragraph sketches the problematic within which indulgences must be discussed. There is a clear tension

2^2

Man Yearning For Grace

here between the exalted matter (a question of the merits of Christ and of salvation) and the avarice with which indulgences are administered. The critical point is that the preachers give the people no adequate instruction on indulgences but leave them under the impression that gaining an indulgence means instant salvation. In the final sentence, Luther depicts four con¬ sequences of indulgence practice. In the first place, most of the people believe that a plenary indulgence expels all sin. Luther uses here the phrase peccatum aufferre, which is a technical term in his Augustinian theology of forgiveness. It stands for the total expulsion of all concupiscence, namely, for the completed process of healing that is the Chris¬ tian’s lifelong task. It is distinct from peccatum remittere, which is the effect of absolution working the forgiveness of actual sins, bringing the non-imputation of concupiscence, and starting its expulsion.109 Second, people think that this plenary remission brings as a natural consequence the immediate entry into heaven after death. It is to be noted that the theological literature of the day did in some cases lay the groundwork for this idea.110 Third, sinful deeds abound. Indulgences have so focused people s attention on punishments, and have been portrayed as so destructive of these punishments, that they have lost thenfear of sin. Here is an echo of Luther’s sermon of February 24, 1517-111

Fourth, the people fall all the more under the sway of con¬ cupiscence. Luther sees concupiscence here in connection with actual sins. It is not just an inordination left after original sin is forgiven, a structural absence of complete self-possession, but the inclination that is unavoidably connected with actual sins. The most important datum of this first paragraph, however, is Luther’s initial, delimiting statement of just what an indul¬ gence grants. It does not confer of itself the grace of justifica¬ tion, but only the remission of penances and satisfactory works that have been imposed on a person. With this sentence he seeks

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

243

to dispel the cloudy imprecision of the Instructio Summaria in its many-sided use of the word gratia,112 and with the statement that indulgences do not grant justifying grace he feels he has cut the ground out from under the idea that an indulgence means immediate entry into heaven. Thus, Luther’s first, rather general definition of an indulgence shows that he thinks of two processes that are quite distinct: on the one hand, there is justification, both as a distinct event, and as a process to be continued and advanced as one becomes more just; on the other hand, there is the remission of the satis¬ factory penances, which the Church imposes in the sacrament of penance and then remits through an indulgence. However, the distinction between the two processes is not total. With the qualifying phrase saltern per se, Luther limited somewhat his assertion of the separation of the two processes. Here a slight opening is left for a possible effect of indulgences on the process of justification. We will see this worked out when Luther explains how he understands the term per modum suffragii to explain the mode of granting indulgences to the dead. [2.] We must, therefore, recall that grace is of two kinds, namely, the grace of remission and infused grace, with the former being ex¬ trinsic and the latter intrinsic. The grace of remission is a release from the temporal punishment imposed by a confessor, which one must undergo on earth or in purgatory, if it still remains [at death]. At one time, for instance, they gave seven years for one sin. But this release in no way diminishes concupiscence and the infection of our nature. Neither does it increase charity or grant grace and interior virtue. All these, however, must take place before one enters the kingdom of God, for “flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor x5> 5°) and “nothing defiled will enter” (Ap 21, 27). But no one knows how long this takes in purgatory. Nor can the pope in any way re¬ lease a person [from this interior healing] by the authority of the keys, but only by applying the intercession of the whole Church. In the latter case, however, a doubt will remain whether God accepts the intercession for some part or for all [of the healing]. The pope can, of course, release a soul from purgatory with regard to the penance

244

Man Yearning For Grace

he has himself imposed or could impose. The wording of the papal bull indicates this: “so far as the keys of holy mother Church extend” and “we mercifully release from imposed penances.” Hence it is irre¬ sponsible to proclaim that by these indulgences souls are released from purgatory. For this statement is not clear, nor do they explain how it should be understood. Or else the pope is cruel, in not granting to the suffering souls gratis what he can grant for money contributed to the Church. Infused grace is an interior illumination of the mind and a kindling of the will. This is an eternal emanation into the soul like rays of the sun, and it does not become inactive after a plenary indulgence. This grace is necessary for the extirpation of concupiscence, until it is com¬ pletely rooted out. This process is complete when a person is so filled with disgust for this life that he sighs longingly for God and finally breaks free from the body out of desire for God. Clearly, only a few who gain a plenary indulgence are so disposed. Further, a plenary indulgence is only granted to those who have proper sorrow and have confessed.113

The systematic idea underlying Luther’s argument is clearly the distinction between the grace of forgiveness and infused grace. These parallel the two distinct tasks that a man has to fulfill before entering heaven: First, there are the temporal pun¬ ishments imposed by the confessor, which must be worked out either in this life or finally in purgatory. The grace of forgiveness is the removal of this punishment by the power of the keys in the grant of an indulgence. The second task follows from con¬ cupiscence, a sickness of human nature, which, as we saw in the first paragraph, grows with actual sins. Before one enters heaven, concupiscence must be totally expelled and replaced by charity and interior virtue, and this latter is the work of infused grace. These two graces, one extrinsic and the other intrinsic, must be kept distinct. The great error of the indulgence preachers is to give the people the impression that indulgences grant the infused grace that they must have for entering heaven. Luther’s overall aim is to show that indulgences have nothing to do with the more essential task of a Christian, namely, the extirpation of concupiscence and his growth in charity and detachment from

Luther on Indulgences in i$iy

245

this world. When that is understood, then the false security and certainty of immediate salvation based on indulgences will disappear. Luther makes it clear that the Church works to promote these two tasks in distinct ways. It is the power of the keys that remits the imposed temporal punishments. The extent of this power of remittance is the same as the power to impose these punishments, as Luther finds expressed in the papal bull.114 Even in purgatory the pope can remit punishments that he has imposed himself that have not been worked out in this life. In the extirpation of concupiscence, however, the Church can only apply her intercession, not simply to grant, but to beg the needed infused grace from God. The success of this intercession is not certain, since we do not know whether God will accept the Church’s petition. Here Luther uses one of the favorite words of nominalism, by speaking of God’s acceptatio, but in the Augustinian context of the prayer of the Church in aid of the struggles of one of her members against concupiscence. Luther’s main con¬ cern is to hold separate the two actions of the Church. The keys grant no healing grace. The intercession does not aim at the remission of sacramentally imposed penances. The ground for the incertitude even after winning a plenary indulgence is clear. This indulgence stems from the power of the keys and remits only the imposed temporal punishments. The indulgence does not touch the other hindrances to one’s entry into heaven. These are possibly still considerable: con¬ cupiscence, the wound of our nature, the absence of charity, attachment to this world, and in the case of the souls in purga¬ tory, we have no idea how long such a purification takes, nor do we know whether and to what extent God accedes to the Church’s prayer and grants healing grace. Therefore Luther can turn conclusively against the phrase redimere aninxas used to describe the winning of an indulgence for the dead.115 This is a careless use of words that even the preachers cannot explain. If this freeing of the souls in purgatory were so easy, then the pope would be unspeakably cruel in not giving them freely that

246

Man Yearning For Grace

for which he demands a contribution to the Church. There are all kinds of uncertainties surrounding this whole matter, and the preachers should recognize this and be more moderate in their language. Luther’s conception of the healing process by which a man is made ready to enter heaven involves three moments. First, there is the malady of concupiscence that is made worse by actual sins. It is closely related with weakness in charity and with attachment to this life. Second, there is the process by which this malady is cured. The means is infused grace, which illuminates the mind and stirs the will. It is light and fire, and is as lasting as the rays of the sun.116 Luther speaks unmistakably of a process that extends over time, succeeding gradually until sin is wholly rooted out. Only at the end of the process is one ready for heaven.117 The final, ideal stage comes when a man is filled with disgust for this life and with sighing for God. Then his spirit appears to be loosed naturally from his body.118 The description of this healing process gives Luther more material for attacking a false security based on indulgences; only very few who obtain plenary indulgences are so completely detached from this life that they can be judged ready for heaven. Further, the condition of true contrition is to be noted. Luther does not develop this idea, but his implication is clear. All in all, indulgences are in no way a reason for security as to one’s salvation. [3-] Corollary: Since no one can be certain about himself, and far less about others, that he is perfectly and worthily contrite and has confessed, it is irresponsible to assert that one gaining indulgences goes immediately to heaven or that a soul is freed from purgatory. I could see this, if one indicated a soul about whose release I was al¬ ready certain, say one who had been contrite on earth and had merited to be freed, as St. Augustine said. But only God knows which souls are and are not so disposed. For otherwise one must suffer purgatory since one has not merited to be helped, namely, by making oneself worthy through sufficient contrition and detachment from love of creatures. However this might be, for I do not understand it suffi-

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

247

ciently, it is without doubt still uncertain whether God will release the imperfectly contrite through indulgences. For they have loved God imperfectly and they had an excessive affection attaching them¬ selves to creatures. Thus, over and above the sins they committed and had forgiven by contrition, confession, and plenary indulgences, they are still befouled by reason of this attachment with which they died. This attachment can surely not be removed by a plenary in¬ dulgence, when it has not been driven out by contrition. Rather the attachment remains and is actu present in the separated soul and cannot be removed in purgatory unless one first turns against it in contrition and repentance. Who, though, is sorry over having feared death? Or who puts this fear away, by ceasing to rebel against God’s will? Do not they say this themselves, when they state that indulgences help only those who are contrite and have confessed, and no one else?119

The last thought of the previous paragraph grounds Luther’s rejection of two formulations that came up frequently in the indulgence preaching, that is, statim evolare, regarding the im¬ mediate entry into heaven of those who gain a plenary indul¬ gence and then die; and animam eripi (a purgatorio), for the act of gaining an indulgence for the departed. These phrases are only justified where one is both worthily and fully contrite, “worthily” as a condition of receiving the indulgence, and “per¬ fectly” as the sign that concupiscence is fully rooted out. Luther then sought to explain the case where these turns of phrase might be applicable. An indulgence would have such an effect if a certain person were contrite, and if, further, he had merited being helped by the Church’s prayer. The key point is that one be detached from the things of this life, that is, that the process of healing be considerably advanced. Then the indul¬ gence would remit the imposed punishments and bring this deserving one to salvation—but only God knows who is so deserving of help, in the way St. Augustine described.120 There is one uncertainty that Luther can mark out as clear, namely, the effect of indulgences won for souls in purgatory who are still sick with concupiscence. Their contrition was only

248

Man Yearning For Grace

imperfect, and their love of God weak. Thus, over and beyond their actual sins, which are remitted by contrition, confession, and a plenary indulgence covering their satisfaction, they are still bound by affective ties to this earth. This affection is not touched by a plenary indulgence, but is only driven out by con¬ trition and by a real conversion. It remains intact in the sepa¬ rated soul, and must be changed by a genuine conversion. The content of this conversion is acceptance of the will of God con¬ cerning one’s death.121 Thus the ideal for the souls in purgatory is the same as for those on earth who are being cured of con¬ cupiscence and being brought to the pure sigh of disgust with life and love for God with which the soul ascends unhindered to God. In purgatory, as well, the goal is that perfect detach¬ ment from this life that makes death fearful. The problem, of course, is just how the sufferings of purgatory affect this change of attitude. Of itself, it is a work of infused grace enlightening the mind and stirring the will. What is the connection with the pains of purgatory? Again, the structure of Luther’s argument presupposes the two parallel tasks of penance: the first for actual sins, by which sacramentally imposed satisfaction is fulfilled either on earth or in purgatory, possibly by the power of the keys in an indulgence; the second process seeks to root out the attachment to this world that stems from sin but is only overcome under the infused grace by a real conversion issuing in acceptance of death. In this second task an indulgence plays no part. [4.] But you will say, “Perfect contrition of itself takes away all punishment, and hence indulgences are not needed, since the per¬ fectly contrite person goes immediately and directly to heaven.” In answer, I must confess my ignorance. The perfectly contrite person goes to heaven without indulgences, but the imperfectly contrite cannot go to heaven even with indulgences. For God places no de¬ mands upon one who is perfectly contrite, neither for actual sins nor for habitual, i.e., for the tinder and “original” sin. What good then are indulgences? Do they only serve to satisfy for actual sins? But how are souls saved when their actual sins are forgiven, but original or

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

249

habitual sin remains? For those whose original sin is remitted, actual sin as well is remitted, but not vice versa. By “original sin” I mean the tinder left from our origin which has not yet been healed by grace nor overcome and mortified by our good efforts, as St. Paul indicates in chapters 6 and 8 of Romans. Could it be that those who have merited to be contrite over this tinder in purgatory or in death attain this contrition through indul¬ gences? They do not consider this difficulty, since no one is concerned with mortifying this tinder and with the root sin. They only think of lopping off actual sins by contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Then they quickly fall back into sin and “return to their vomit” (2 Pt 2, 22), since they do not attend to the infection and to the root of sin. Thus they are like people cutting off rivulets flowing from a spring or the leaves from a tree, who though leave intact the stream and the root. They have no concern to sigh earnestly for the grace that destroys this body of sin and puts to death our sinful members. Could it perhaps be that the term per modum suffragii means that this suffrage not only grants them remission of actual sins, but that it also impetrates contrition and repentance over the tinder and the remaining earthly attachments and that it confers the grace of perfect love of God and longing for God? For example, if a person about to die is not resigned nor so desires to be released that he most gladly obeys God’s will, then it is clear that he is dying in sin. I speak here of resignation of mind and will, even though the senses may rebel, as was the case with Christ and all martyrs. This sin is not a mortal sin, but still it is nearly so, and he has not repented for it in this life. Could it be that he receives from God the grace of repentance in purgatory, and this through the suffrages of the Church, with the re¬ sult that he becomes willingly resigned to death? He cannot so repent by natural power nor can the fire of purgatory free him from this sin without grace. But he did die in sin, since he did not love with his whole heart what God willed, but was unwilling, nor was “his delight in the law of the Lord” (Ps 1, 2). Though he outwardly obeyed the command, still his heart was not in it.122

Luther widens the scope of his inquiry through an objection, stresses again the forgotten factor of root sin, strikes polemically against the superficial theology of sin of his day, and then sug-

250

Man Yearning For Grace

gests a remarkable answer to the difficult problem of how con¬ cupiscent affections are rooted out in purgatory. The explanation of purification of the affections by genuine contrition that Luther gave in the third paragraph is the basis for a difficult objection—when this conversion of detachment and love of God has taken place, are not indulgences superfluous? A person with perfect contrition has overcome both obstacles (from actual and from radical sin) keeping him from heaven. On the other hand, a person with only imperfect contrition is still attached to this life, and so must still overcome his radical or habitual sin. Indulgences are no help to him; what he needs is mortification of his affections and conversion under grace to love of God. One cannot help but admire the earnestness with which Luther went at his subject, and the deftness with which he opened up all aspects of his problems. To make his point about root sin quite clear, Luther gives a definition and contrasts his view with current theology. This is original sin, that is, the tinder left in us from the beginning of life onwards, not yet healed by grace nor overcome and mortified by our good efforts. This is what St. Paul described in Rom 6 and 8, for example, as the “body of sin” that is still to be destroyed (6, 6); the “sin” that must not reign in us (6> 12'~14)y the flesh according to which we must not live (8, i2f) and from which we long to be freed (8, 2of). Basic to Luther’s conception here is the vision of Christian life as the progressive healing under grace from this radical sin—it is “not yet healed by grace. The nondum of this phrase reminds us of the basic view of Christian living in the Lectures on Romans,123 Suddenly, Luther is in a dialogue with theologians who do not share his view of Christian living. With no introduction of his discussion partner, he begins arguing that his adversary holds a superficial idea of sin that leads to an almost immediate repe¬ tition of sins after sacramental forgiveness. Their only care is with actual sins, with discrete deeds, and with their remittance through contrition, confession, and the imposed satisfaction. This, however, does not touch the roots of sin. Consequently, people

Luther on Indulgences in i$iy

251

fall back immediately into the same sins. The unnamed adversary simply has not grasped at any depth the problem of the forgive¬ ness of sins.124 His whole concern is with actual sins, and with the operation of the sacrament. Seeing the thrust of this argument, we are not surprised that Luther soon began to question the rele¬ vance of the division of penance into the classic three acts of contrition, confession, and satisfaction.125 The last clauses of this attack sketch out the true concerns of a Christian. He goes to the roots of his problems with sin and is earnestly concerned to pray for healing grace. His is the sigh of petition for the infused grace that destroys the body of sin (see Rom 6, 6) and puts to death the members sin uses as its instruments. Again, the means of purification is clearly healing grace, the infused grace Luther had introduced in the second paragraph of the treatise. This is the light and the flame that kills sin at its roots and stirs our affections to a purified love of God; for this grace the Christian people must beg God with the sighs of contrition. This is their main concern, a task far more important than gaining the “quick grace” of the remittance of actual sins. It is to be noted that this vision of Christian living cannot be adequately expressed in existentialist terms as a life under the word of God. Nor is sola fide—sola gratia enough. Faith and grace are important and basic, but they are not alone. Faith must flower in the earnest prayer of petition for healing grace, which is not the grace usually indicated in the sola gratia formula; this healing grace stimulates and brings to term the efforts of mortification, the efforts that go against our selfish, earth-bound affections in the work of breaking the chains of concupiscence. This, then, is the Christian life as Luther depicted it in his indulgence treatise, a view that is wholly consistent with his Lectures on Romans, and with the idea of justification as pro¬ gressive cleansing in the sermon of January 1, 1517- This is not the whole of Luther’s early theology, for the radical change of self-estimate and the “sacramental” activity of Christ are not explicitly treated, but his consistency in speaking of life in these

252

Man Yearning For Grace

terms indicates that the “constant sigh begging the grace to heal the body of sin” formulates well one of the leitmotifs of this imposing theological conception.126 The young Luther must be seen as a theologian of the Christian life, namely, of justification as a constant process of purification. Too much emphasis has been placed on his occasional expressions regarding the justice of God and justification as an event. A main concern of his was justification as a life-work. The discussion of root sin occasioned a pregnant question on Luther’s part: Could it be that indulgences are the means by which deserving souls do gain the grace of contrition and so overcome their sinful affections? This question brings Luther to take another look at how indulgences work, and in the midst of this look, he finds insight into the meaning of the traditional phrase per modum suffragii. He explains this hypothetically. This is the brilliant insight hinted at by the qualifying phrase “at least per se” in Luther’s initial, restrictive definition of indul¬ gences.127 Luther’s idea is that the suffragium could well be itself a prayer of impetration that gains from God the grace of con¬ version by which the person comes to a purified, affective love of God. As far as we can see, this is Luther’s own personal in¬ sight into a new explanation of the problem he is wrestling with. Only St. Bonaventure can be counted with Luther in conceiving of an indulgence as a petition in aid of the souls in purgatory.128 St. Thomas thought of the Church s help as a type of dispensa¬ tion; late scholasticism and the medieval canonists thought of it as vicarious satisfaction offered to the justice of God on behalf of the souls in purgatory.129 Luther s idea is that the Church does have an influence upon the purification of radical sin, but here the Church does not work by the power of the keys, by which it simply remits the punishment for actual sins it has imposed. Rather, the Church offers a suffragium of impetration that moves God to grant the needed grace of contrition and conversion to love and longing for God. Luther does not assert this, but only poses the question. His is a new idea made possible by the discussion in the treatise.

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

253

Therefore he cannot responsibly maintain this as certain, but must pose the question, and in the course of dialogue and further reflection, test the aptness of this explanation.130 Since Luther’s insight is most probably his original work, we must ask how it was that he came to think of the Church’s influence as impetration. We would suggest that the matrix of reflection was the theology of Christian life that had taken shape in the Lectures on Romans and was the background in this treatise of Luther’s words on root sin and its expulsion by healing grace. In this vision of Christian living, it is grace that gives the enthusiasm, the good will, the sound will to embrace God’s law.131 In this treatise, this is the same goal a man must reach in this life or in purgatory before he is ready to enter heaven, but the way to this goal is earnest petition for grace, as we saw in the Lectures on: Romans.132 In the Tractatus, Luther depicts the misled victims of the superficial theology concentrated on actual sins in this way: “They are not concerned to sigh con¬ stantly in petition for the grace that destroys the body of sin.”133 From this view of the sigh of petition of the individual, it is then but one step to conceiving the reality behind the formula per modum suffragii as the Church’s prayer of petition that God grant to this soul the grace it needs to transform its affections. What the Church does here for the souls in purgatory is the same thing that the Christian man must do for himself in this life—“that is, earnestly seek God’s healing grace.”134 The idea of the Church interceding for the souls being purified of their sinful affections grew quite naturally out of Luther’s conviction that each of us must beg God earnestly for the grace to purify ourselves of root sin. The final lines of this fourth paragraph return to the ideal state one must reach before liberation from purgatory. On the one side is contrition and repentance over one’s sinful affections left from actual sins to bind him to this earth. Replacing this is the “grace” of love and longing for God, the direct opposite of concupiscence. Luther’s example makes this clear; a sure sign that one is “dying in sin” is the unwillingness to accept death as

254

Man Yearning For Grace

God’s will. This is not a mortal sin that brings condemnation, but is a sign of attachment to this life, which shows the presence of concupiscence. This is not just a superficial revulsion of the senses against death, for even Christ and the martyrs knew this. It is, rather, secundum rationem, that is, deep in the core of the person, that one is not resigned to death. The predicament is that even in purgatory one’s natural efforts or the pains of torment cannot free him from this sinful affection. This is a work of grace transforming the heart. Therefore, what the Church does through an indulgence is to beg God that the grace of contrition be given, so that at least in purgatory these affections might be overcome and replaced by a good will that accepts death from God’s hand —“that they might willingly accept death.”135 In this acceptance of death, Luther sees the best expression of just what life is about, namely, to love God with the whole heart.136 It seems important to stress this deeply spiritual conception of Christian living that Luther maintained in the months immediately before his entry upon the stage of public affairs. It would hardly seem necessary or correct to stamp this view as “false mysticism”137 that must lead to harmful theological consequences.

[5.] Let us draw the matter together, as far as we can. All the works and merits of Christ and of the Church are in the hands of the pope and he can apply whatever good works are done through Christ in the Church in three ways, as follows: first, as satisfaction; secondly, as a suffrage; and thirdly, as a votive offering or as a sacrifice of praise. In this same way Christ by his deeds glorified God, took away our sins, and merited grace. The pope makes an application as satisfaction in the indulgences he grants the living. The sense and intention of this is such that if you have sinned and then in sorrow for your sins you want to make satisfaction, you then come to the pope saying, “Holy Father, I beg you to direct the works and prayers of the Church [to satisfy] for my sins.” Then he answers, “Let it be as you ask.” Then all who offer Mass, who pray, fast, labor, or do any other work pleasing to God do this for you, so that you are freed from the labor of penance and satis¬ faction. This is a plenary indulgence. This is, however, not all that

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

255

you need, for thereby you neither receive interior grace, nor do you advance, but you remain in the same grace as when you made this petition. Therefore, you must still make efforts to advance and you must take care not to grow lethargic and snore away thinking you are purified and thus secure. Then you must diligently crucify your mem¬ bers and mortify the source of sin, that is, your concupiscence. For just as it was the cause of the sins for which the indulgence was granted, so it will cause further sins, if you stand still in security.138

The last paragraphs of Luther’s Treatise on Indulgences are remarkably calm and well-ordered. He has gained the needed insight into the intelligible structure of his material, and now makes the systematic presentation. First he gives a three-part schema to set his material in order. This he takes over from Christology and applies to the Church’s work. Just as the work of Christ has three purposes—to glorify God, to bear our sins, and to merit grace for us—so the Church through the pope administers the “goods Christ produces in the Church” in three ways. The application of these merits as satisfaction (corresponding with the second sin of Christ’s work) is the topic of this paragraph. In the sixth paragraph of the treatise, Luther explains the application as a suffrage (corre¬ sponding roughly to Christ’s work of meriting grace). The third application receives but one brief sentence of treatment at the end of the seventh paragraph of the treatise (corresponding to Christ’s giving glory to God).139 The ordinary way an indulgence works is that of satisfaction for the debt of punishment owed by the living. The one gaining the indulgence is the one who has sinned and has repented of his sin and is desirous of making satisfaction. Seeking the indul¬ gence is equivalent to asking that the prayers and good works of the Church be ordered to the purpose of satisfying for these sins. Thus the imposed penance, the sacramental satisfaction, is carried out vicariously in the labors, prayers, sacrifices, Masses, and other works that please God in the Church. It is the pope who can “steer” these good works to the fulfillment of this pur¬ pose. This, then, is a plenary indulgence—the remittance of the

256

Man Yearning For Grace

vindictive punishments imposed in sacramental forgiveness of actual sins. The concrete way Luther conceives of this application, as in the dialogue between the sinner and the pope, shows that he has gone way beyond the quantitative thinking of the theological manuals of his time.140 He sees an indulgence in a framework of persons helping each other; and the limitiations of this indul¬ gence are quite clear. This application does not bring about any interior growth in the person gaining the indulgence. It grants him no interior grace to help him root out concupiscence, and therefore it cannot conceivably be a reason for security. In fact, it only makes him free to attend to the far more important task of overcoming the radical sin that led to actual sin in the first place. Two points call for commentary here. In the first place, we observe that Luther saw the satis¬ factory penances of prayer and good works imposed in the sacrament of penance as severely and radically distinct from the life-penance of one seeking under grace to overcome concupis¬ cence. His dualistic thought prevented him from seeing any rela¬ tionship between the prayer and mortification imposed in the sacrament and the prayer and mortification demanded by one’s vocation in life to root out concupiscence. One was for actual sins, the other for radical sin. One was imposed by man or by canon law, the other by God and by our infected nature. This su§§ests that it was unbearable for Luther when his theses on indulgences were attacked on precisely this point in the counter¬ theses by Konrad Wimpina for Johann Tetzel. Four times these opponents urged that God in his justice, and not just the con¬ fessor or canon law, calls for the sacramental satisfaction of prayers or works of mortification.141 This argument would sud¬ denly make iustitia divina a problem for Luther, a problem that threatened to shake the most important structure of his thought in this whole area. We must at least consider the possibility that this experience sent Luther back to the epistle to the Romans to test whether iustitia divina could possibly mean what Wimpina and Tetzel contended it meant. At any rate, the explanation that

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

257

Luther wrote for the fifth of his indulgence themes shows that he had noted this point in the Wimpina-Tetzel’s theses.142 The seventh Resolutio shows that Luther had gained an insight into the meaning of ecclesial forgiveness that issued in a new con¬ ception of the sacrament of penance. We are startled to see that he bases this new conception on a remarkable use of Rom 1, 17, namely, that the phrase fides in fidern shows that the faith one must have in approaching the sacrament is a certitude about one’s forgiveness that brings peace and solace.143 This, then, is a remarkable chain of events: from the dualism of vindictive and “real” penance in October 1517, to the challenge posed by Wimpina-Tetzel’s alternative, to Luther’s reflection on sacramen¬ tal penance, and to the new conception of fides sacramenti that —in Luther’s Sermo de Poenitentia (Easter 1518) and the Augs¬ burg encounter with Cardinal Cajetan (October 1518)—led to the tragedy of the Reformation. This, we submit, was the begin¬ ning of the Reformation and of the oft-sought “reformation element” (namely, fides absolutionis) in Luther’s theology. In the Treatise on Indulgences, however, all this is not yet present. Far more important is Luther’s theme of progress in Christian living, for progress is just what a plenary indulgence does not give. At the end of the fifth paragraph, Luther brings home again that the essential task of the Christian is the morti¬ fication that does to death the roots of sin. At all costs the Christian must avoid dozing away in the certitude that he will be saved—as if the indulgence had helped purify him from the root sin of concupiscence. If he does stand still in this false security, then he is certain to fall back into the same sins for which he had received the remittance of punishment by the application of the good works of the Church as satisfaction in his case. [6.] The pope makes an application as a suffrage in the indul¬ gences he grants the departed. Strictly speaking, these are not in¬ dulgences, because the pope cannot absolve or forgive the departed, but only make intercession that God will forgive and absolve them,

258

Man Yearning For Grace

whether from the punishment due for their actual sins, or from the root sin that they did not mortify and cure in life. This is no doubt done by an infusion of grace, which they can in no way merit them¬ selves. I do not see that the pope makes this intercession for the living, although the Church as a whole intercedes for all before God. It is, however, something more when this is applied to a particular person by the pope or by anyone else. For the pope himself says that the departed become sharers, and he states quite clearly that he under¬ stands this as being by way of suffrage. However, those who gain these indulgences should not lightly declare that the soul they named is freed, for one does not know if that soul is worthy before God, or if perhaps another soul was more worthy. Therefore, the pope appears to do more by indulgences for the departed than for the living, since he impetrates infused grace for the former, but grants only a remission [of punishment] to the living. The souls in purgatory are related to subsequent grace, that is, to increase of grace and to its completion in glory, as a sinner is re¬ lated to first grace or justification. For neither can merit grace, but both are able to receive it. This is true of him who has the first grace, even though he is no longer in this life and of him who is still in this fife, though he does not have the prior grace.144

Luther stresses that the second mode of applying the goods that are in the Church through Christ is not in the strict sense an “indulgence” of punishment made by the pope, but rather the Church s intercession that God effect the purification of the souls in purgatory by infused grace. There is a slight change from Luther s earlier view that the pope could simply remit the imposed punishments for the souls in purgatory.145 The interces¬ sion is for release from both punishments, namely, from actual and from radical sin. The expulsion of concupiscence clearly takes place through infused healing grace. Can there be any way in which the Church gains this for the living? Yes, the Church is always offering her prayers before God for this grace, but it does make sense that this be applied to a particular person, somewhat as the departed are expressly made sharers in the intercession of the Church.146 At any rate, the elements of uncertainty are clear. One

Luther on Indulgences in 2517

259

should not say that his indulgence has effected the release of a particular person from purgatory, since we do not know if this particular person has so merited as to make himself ready to be freed from purgatory. But in general, this theological elabora¬ tion of the problem has shown that the Church’s help for the souls in purgatory, through indulgences, is greater than the help it gives the living. The former receive the infused grace leading to conversion and charity, while the latter are only freed from the vindictive punishments imposed by men. Earlier in the paragraph, Luther had stated that the dead can in no way merit the infused grace they need, but their previous merits do have their effect in preparing them to be helped by God upon the Church’s impetration. Some are better prepared than others to receive this help, but they do not merit the grace itself. In fact, they stand in relation to this grace and to its flowering in heaven just as the sinner stands in relation to the first gift of justifying grace. Both can receive the gift of grace, but not by merit. [7.] One point, though, is still doubtful. If the pope only offers a suffrage and intercedes for souls, approaching God as a mediator and not as one having jurisdiction, how can he be certain that a soul is freed? For God is free to decide to what extent, how, when, where, and for whom he hears the prayers of his Church. Who is certain that God accepts in the manner in which we make the petition? Unless perhaps it is that God does not turn back the prayer of his Church, where Christ is praying with her. For he said, ‘Ask and it will be given you” (Mt 7, 7), and again, “Whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you receive it, and you will” (Mk 11, 24). Since this is the case, the granting of and the gaining of indul¬ gences is a most useful practice, in spite of the commerce and avarice which we fear is involved with them. Perhaps God wants to show greater mercy toward the departed in our day, since he sees them forgotten by the living. Also, more souls go to purgatory today than earlier, since Christians today are lazier than earlier. Thus many go there, but few work on their behalf, since both the departed and their survivors were and still are quite lazy. The pope comes to their aid at least in this manner.

26o

Man Yearning For Grace

Finally, the pope applies the good works of the Church as a votive offering or in thanksgiving and in praise of God for the blessings granted himself and the elect.147

Still, the question of certitude crops up again. How can the pope be certain that a soul—some soul—is freed by an indul¬ gence for the dead? The pope s action is that of a mediator only, while God alone judges whether and how this prayer is to be answered. God s acceptance is freely given, according to his own good pleasure. Even here, the answer lies in the fact that Christ prays in his Church and with his Church when this suffrage is offered. Thus the Church can be confident, as Christ himself urged it to be confident, that it will be heard. This, then, bases Luther’s final evaluation of indulgences— since the Church is certain of being heard, indulgences are most useful. Even the avarice of the preachers cannot tarnish the good that is to be won here. We are amazed to hear this evaluation. It stands in notable contrast with the bitter attacks of the earlier references Luther made to indulgences while commenting on the Psalms and on Romans. The pendulum has swung to a positive judgment, in spite of the abuses. Finally, Luther can even see a reason for the multiplication of indulgences in his own day. In this time when the Christian people are as a whole lazier than before, God is coming in a more abundant way to the aid of the souls in purgatory. More¬ over, in this time of little concern with rooting out concupis¬ cence, many more are going to purgatory. Thus it is good that the pope is doing what he can for them. This is basically the same justification that Gabriel Biel offered to this problem in his Expositio Canonis Missae. Biel also thought that this was an age in which charity was growing cold, and that therefore more indulgences were quite appropriate.148

[8.] Therefore, we must be quite earnest in preventing indul¬ gences, that is, satisfactions, from becoming a cause of security, lazi¬ ness, and neglect of interior grace. Instead, we must be diligent to

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

261

fully cure the infection of our nature and thirst to come to God out of love for him, hatred of this life, and disgust with ourselves. That is, we must incessantly seek God’s healing grace. This is the end of this matter.149

Luther concludes by returning to the theme of Christian life as a healing process, and to the ardent prayer for the grace by which we are so healed. Here is the spirituality of Luther’s Lectures on Romans neatly compressed into one sentence, and then addressed to the precise problematic surrounding indul¬ gences. The true enemy is peace and security. Therefore, although indulgences do have a function in the life of the Church, the main concern must be the healing and the growth in love and detachment from this life. Above all, we must beg God for the grace that enlightens, inflames, cleanses, and turns our affections to him. This, then, is the way in which Luther ordered his thoughts and his arguments in preparation for a discussion on indulgences with other theologians. His theses were designed to stimulate this discussion. They were not his doctrine, but were a means to introduce topics and arguments for discussion. The Treatise on Indulgences shows us the quite moderate position—together with some brilliant insights—that he would have offered in this discussion. What a tragedy that it was the barbed sentences of the theses that spread over Germany in fourteen days and not this penetrating little treatise! We cannot think of a sadder “might have been” in the whole course of history.

6. LUTHER’S SERMON ON ZACCHAEUS Our last document pertaining to Luther’s intervention on the question of indulgences is a sermon on Lk 19, 1-10, that he gave on the vigil of the liturgical commemoration of the dedica¬ tion of one of the Wittenberg churches.150 The exact date of the sermon cannot as yet be determined,151 but the resemblances

262

Man Yearning For Grace

to the thought structures of Luther’s theses and the Treatise on Indulgences suggest a date near October 31, 1517.152 Further, Luthers questions in the sermon about the scriptural basis of private (that is, sacramental) confession and satisfaction indicate that he has moved beyond the topics of his theses and has begun to ask the questions that became urgent in 1518 in the Sermon on Indulgences and Grace and in the explanations of the indul¬ gence theses. Therefore, the sermon on Zacchaeus seems to us to have been given after October 31, 1517, perhaps in January 1518, as Nikolas Paulus maintained.153 The theme in the body of the sermon is the contrast between the selflessness of Zacchaeus and the self-seeking of those who murmured against Christ for going to dine with a publican. Zacchaeus is the one who thought highly of Christ, but lowly of himself. Such people seek Christ in a spiritual manner, that is, humbly and not daring to desire a visitation from him.154 In this case, Christ made Zacchaeus’ vocation to grace manifest, so that his self-righteous neighbors might grasp their own sin.155 They had sought Christ, not to be saved by him, but so that he might give outward testimony to their holiness. Their hearts were perverted with thoughts of their own worthiness and the desire of commendation and Christ did not come to them, hoping thereby to bring them down in acknowledgment of thenself-love.156 The vice of self-love that only grace can heal is Luther’s springboard to an attack on the indulgence preachers. Thenpreaching serves more to promote this vice than to draw the people away from it. Since the “great pomp of indulgences” is near at hand, and since many have asked, Luther will say a few words on the subject of indulgences to help save his hearers from misunderstanding.157 After admitting that the strict word¬ ing the pope used in his grant, and perhaps even the wording of the sermons, are both valid, Luther strives to set up the right structures of thought for understanding the matter correctly, sually, one speaks of the three parts of penance (confession,

Luther on Indulgences in 1517

263

contrition, and satisfaction), but it is better to begin with the more basic distinction between the sign and reality of penance. Real penance is interior and of the heart, and is what Christ urged with his words “do penance.” But “sign-penance” is the external and often fictitious penance that consists in confession and satisfaction. Luther adds that the last two acts can be either public or private. He then questions whether private confession and satisfaction, as practiced in the Church, are grounded in Scripture. At any rate, what John the Baptist urged in Lk 3 is not to the point as a defense of private satisfaction. What John taught is the duty a Christian must carry out publicly all through his life.158 In this structure we recognize the dualism we noted in Luther’s letter to Albrecht, in Thesis 4, and in the Treatise on Indulgences.159 On one side, Luther affirms an interior, “true” penance commanded by Christ. On the other side, are the series of external acts of confession and satisfaction as practiced in the Church. These are sharply and decisively distinguished from the penance of the heart. Luther appears, in part, to argue from the possibility of these two being separated, for example, when the external acts do not flow from the penance of the heart, to a more radical separation.160 At least he takes no cognizance of a possible ordination of the two to each other, so that the inner penance of the heart finds its apt expression and flowering in the acts of ecclesial penance. The structure, however, does help Luther to express clearly and succinctly his critique of indulgence preaching. Indulgences function to remit privately imposed satisfactory penance, and this alone. The actual result of indulgences is, though, Luther fears, that they work against the interior “real” penance of the heart.161 His concern is, accordingly, to describe this true spir¬ itual penance of the Christian man. He is one who has learned to hate himself and to turn to God confessing his guilt, and by this detestation of himself he makes satisfaction before God. He is ready to be ground down by God’s creatures, and thus does

264

Man Yearning For Grace

not seek to escape punishment by indulgences, but rather to embrace the cross that vindictively repairs God’s injured justice.162 In comparison with this true contrition, the superficiality of mere fear of punishment is revealed—it is like the “gallows-sorrow” of the criminal before punishment. This latter is in fact a love of self and of one’s sin, combined with fear of the consequences of sin.163 The conclusion is clear: “What a dangerous affair is this indulgence preaching!” Indulgences effectively teach men to flee satisfaction and punishment, and so they can hardly be preached at the same time that one urges the people to the true contrition that seeks rather a rigid fulfillment of the penances due for sin.164 It is no excuse for the current practice that the ideal of true contrition is only for the perfect. Rather, one must strive to bring men to this perfection. In the Gospels the prostitutes and the Publicans began with this contrition, and so all are to be exhorted to it.165 These words give us an excellent final example of what our investigation has discovered again and again—namely, that the main aim of Luther s early work is grasped only when we see him as a teacher of spirituality, as a promoter of a definite style of life. His spiritual teaching is clear in this last sermon: selfaccusation of sinfulness, self-hatred, a life of mortification and the cross. This style of life was the underlying basis of his dis¬ satisfaction with the preaching of indulgences. Thus, the back¬ ground of his actions in late 1517 must be seen in the spirituality he evolved in the years since 1513. Our Chapters II-V have shown the content of this spirituality, and the present chapter has shown the normative part it played in his initial intervention on indulgences.

YII Reflections and Evaluation

Our examination of the documents making up Luther’s inter¬ vention on indulgences brings us to the end of the period we marked out for investigation. A summary of our findings from the assembled material will include an evaluation of the spiritu¬ ality presented in Luther’s early works and our reflections on the vision of Christian living we have found.

1. THREE REFLECTIONS Refore we address ourselves directly to an assessment of the weaknesses and the values of Luther’s earliest spirituality, there are three points that arise quite naturally out of the work we have done so far. i. First, we would underscore a point that is pertinent to the method of research on Luther. In this investigation it has proven most helpful to exclude from consideration all questions related to Luther’s personal spiritual biography and to attend closely to the mass of material extant from his early lectures, letters, sermons, and occasional writings. We need all the energy we can marshal, if we are to see these works correctly. Interpre265

266

Man Yearning For Grace

tations stemming from Luther’s later autobiographical reflections are not too helpful, and are in fact distracting.1 The work of historical understanding of the documents is difficult enough without being disturbed by the attempt to press the early data into a framework that could arise only later.2 The pertinence of this reflection on method can be exemplified in three instances. Is it not a great loss when attention to Luther’s somewhat infrequent statements in these works about the justice of God all but crowds out the constant themes of spiritual prog¬ ress and advance to purified willingness in God’s service? Second, there is the irresponsible neglect in modern research of such an important document as the Treatise on Indulgences. A partial cause of this, it seems to us, is excessive attention to Luther’s autobiography. This document does not fit into Luther’s own later view of his development. He may later have wished that he had not written it, but such considerations can play no part in the historian s study of the important documentation offered in this treatise for knowing Luther’s theological position in October 1517. Third, very little attention has been given to Luthers striking conception of gratia sanans in his early works. We have seen the importance of this idea in the disputation against the scholastic via moderna in September 1517. It is more difficult to assign the cause for the neglect here. Confessional positions may perhaps play a role, since for later Lutheranism, “grace” was more often associated with God’s non-imputation of our sms than with his transforming work in our hearts. What¬ ever the cause, it is clear that the historians have been insensitive to this important element in Luther’s early work. Part of the reason is surely the fact that the elder Luther did not speak of his early theology of healing grace. The point we are making can be illuminated by reference to modern New Testament exegesis. Here, form-criticism has made us realize that our Gospel text is to be understood in part from the post-Pentecost horizon of the early Church. Our Gospels are documents of the Church as it worshiped, taught, debated and reflected on its own experience. The light of Pentecost

Reflections and Evolution

267

illumines the whole; but does not something similar hold for Luther as well? All that he said and did after December 1518 is shadowed by his vision of the Anti-Christ in Rome. Should there not be constant and explicit awareness of this, when one takes up any of Luther’s many later reflections on his own development? This horizon, we suspect, is the reason why his autobiographical reflections are of so little help as we study the abundant documentation of his early work. In contrast to the New Testament, for Luther we have a vast number of ipsissima verba to keep us busy for many years. The most striking example of our point concerns Luther’s relation to the scholastic via moderna. For some time it has been the fashion to understand Luther’s development as a gradual departure from this school of theology, but the marginal notes of 1509-1510 and the Lectures on the Psalter show us that we cannot speak of his theology of man and of grace at that time as being in the nominalist tradition. His later assertions that he was of Ockham’s school must refer to his philosophical training in Erfurt from 1502 to 1505.3 From Luther’s first recorded work in theology we see him concentrating on this order of salvation centered on Christ, where men are being freed from the bonds of concupiscent self-seeking. Luther had no interest in the domi¬ nant themes of the via moderna, such as God’s absolute power and man’s natural abilities to prepare himself for grace. From the start, Luther concentrated on the life of the just man, not on the construction of his being, nor on the distinction between what is necessary and what is contingent in God’s work. This focus points to another theological and spiritual tradition, if we are to understand the origin of Luther’s characteristic themes. This seems to us to be the eclectic, monastic tradition, which is at once Augustinian, Bernardine, devout, and mystical—without being wholly any one of these. In this context, Luther’s concen¬ tration on Christ, on the sinner’s accusation of himself, on con¬ stant progress, and on the yearning sigh for grace makes sense. Admittedly, this tradition is difficult to isolate historically and to present systematically. However, a start is being made, for

268

Man Yearning For Grace

example, in the attention given to the medieval Psalm commen¬ taries in the work of Gerhard Ebeling and in the new edition of the Lectures on the Psalter in Volume 55 of the Weimar edition. More work of correlation must be done here, for example, relating Luther to the late medieval lives of Christ,4 or to the florilegia in which he most probably first met the saying of St. Bernard on spiritual progress. If this work is to succeed, we must resolutely break free of the crippling fascination with Luther’s later auto¬ biographical narratives.

ii. Our second reflection is the main conclusion we would draw from our work in Chapters V and VI of this investigation. Our point is simply this: Luther’s early theological and spiritual teaching reached a high point in early 1517. With this assertion, we are indirectly anticipating our evaluation of Luther’s early work. The immediate issue, however, is a differentiation we feel must be made between the parts of this work. We can imagine that there will be different reactions to this thesis. Many see the Lectures on Romans of 1515-1516 as the first bloom of an evangelical springtime. Others, perhaps con¬ vinced by the work of Ernst Bizer, will lean toward seeing a high point somewhat later in the first phase of Luther’s career. Catholics may feel uneasy about considering Luther at his best in the months immediately before his first salvos of polemic against the pope. However, the material we have found and presented does not allow us to escape this conclusion. We would point to four significant themes of Luther’s work in these early months of 1517 that ground this conclusion. In the first place, there was Luther’s vision of the work of Christ in the first chapters of the Lectures on Hebrews. Here he saw Christ as the victorious and attractive head of the new humanity and as the life-giving “sacrament”—both cause and sign—that transform those who adhere to him in faith. In these lectures, Luther was well on his way toward overcoming the pessimism of the Lectures on Romans, where he was led by his great concern with sin to slight the statements of his text on the

Reflections and Evolution

269

work of Christ. It could be objected that the statements in the Hebrews lectures were conditioned by Luther’s text. We cannot simply overlook this point, since Luther was before all else an expositor of texts given to him rather than a systematic thinker working from his own outline. The point is that in his exposition of Hebrews he did develop the text in the direction to which it was itself pointing.5 On Romans, especially on Chapter 3, Verses 2off, and in the last half of Chapter 5, Luther did not move with his text toward a fuller exposition of its Christology. In the Lectures on Hebrews we find an abundant—although delayed—realization of the great promise that was implicit in the initial position Luther took in opting for a Christological exegesis of the Psalms in 1513. Second, we would point to the theology of healing and transforming grace that underlies Luther’s work in early 1517, climaxing in the counterpointed theme (Theses 55, 68, 76, 85, and 90-91) of the September disputation against the via moderna. Here is the anthropological correlate of Luther’s vision of Christ’s victory in the Lectures on Hebrews. This transforming grace, which he called “a living, moving, operative spirit” (Thesis 55), and whose work it is to reconcile the will and the law (Thesis 90), is the instrument with which Christ spreads his victory through the personal existence of his followers. With this grace, Christ reclaims territory from sin and self-seeking; it is prevenient, operative, cleansing, and it results in a new creation in charity. In the Treatise on Indulgences, Luther intimated how this grace works to break the bonds holding our affections fixed on this world and draw them to God. As he said in his sermon on February 24, 1517, Christ is actuosissimus in our lives, working with his grace to transform our hearts. It was this theology of grace that gave focus and form to Luther’s vision of the life of die new man in Christ as he portrayed him in these early months of 1517. These first two elements in Luther’s theology at this time make up the germ of a genuine theological renewal of great power. His view of Christ in the Lectures on Hebrews overcomes

2J0

Man Yearning For Grace

the heavily juridical and satisfactory view of the redemption that, with few exceptions, had dominated Western theology since Anselm. Christ is, in Luther’s view, far more than the one who paid the debt for sin in the past. Rather, Christ is the victor over death who today is the source and sacrament of new life for those who join themselves to him. Second, Luther’s theology of interior renewal by the healing power of grace overcomes the extrinsicism involved in the nominalist stress on God’s acceptance of our works as meritorious.6 Further, this nominalist theology concentrated excessively on preparation for justification, with its extended treatments of the interplay of natural effort and grace in coming to justification. In fact, the Christian begins in God’s grace from the great gift of his baptism. Thus, Luther’s teaching has far greater actuality and nearness to life by reason of his concentration on the work of the Christian driving out sin and purifying his motivation of selfishness. Third, there was the conception of faith in Christ that Luther spoke of in his Lectures on Galatians. He depicted this as a wholly new set of values and a complete reorientation of our views. It is important to stress the wide sweep of this new atti¬ tude. It is far more than just new self-understanding or a new self-estimate. It is an all-embracing spiritual attitude by which a man prizes Christ as his one good and as his one defense against evil. This is naturally not gained all at once, but is to be constantly appropriated, “until all things outside of Christ are contemned. Here, we submit, Luther is well along the way toward overcoming the diffusiveness characteristic of his state¬ ments on faith in the Lectures on Romans. Admittedly, these statements characterizing faith in the Gala¬ tians lectures are few in number, perhaps not enough to be properly called a theme of Luther’s work at this time. Still, the positive elements in these statements show a true movement away from the great emphasis on self-accusation in Luther’s first two major lecture series. It seems, however, that the potential of the 1516-1517 Lectures on Galatians was not realized, for Luther

Reflections and Evolution

2JX

decisively reshaped his idea of faith in late 1517 and in 1518 to stress again the ego in faith.7 Fourth, there was the vision of Christian living that Luther presented in the Treatise on Indulgences. Here the Christian is one who goes to the roots of his sins, who sighs for healing grace to kill off these roots and transform his affections, and who works responsibly to mortify his earth-bound affections. This is the “life-penance” that was Luther’s main theme in his intervention on indulgences. The cross should be planted deep in the exist¬ ence of the Christian man. Luther’s compelling vision stressed that this man is in transit in the concrete and definite manner of killing off the roots of sin within him. Here was a positive contribution that could have restored balance to the theory and practice of indulgences in the Church. Unfortunately, Luther lived in a disputatious age, and Konrad Wimpina fastened on the exposed weak point in Luther’s excessively dualistic spiritu¬ ality with its separation of “life-penance” and the sacrament of penance. This opened a new topic and shifted the discussion to sacramental theory, where Luther took the steps that led to the divisive Reformation. Still, this must not cloud our vision of the genuine chance of true reform that was present on the day Luther drafted his Treatise on Indulgences.8 These four themes of Luther’s work in 1517 are therefore the grounds for contending that his work reached a high point in these months: his view of Christ’s victory over death and his sacramental effectiveness in men; his idea of healing grace; the new, positive elements in his conception of faith; and, finally, the ideal of Christian living he presented in the Treatise on In¬ dulgences. Here Luther moved well beyond the negative and pessimistic themes of the Lectures on Romans, and was at work in Wittenberg to bring about a genuine renewal of theology and Christian life. Hi. Our last reflection offers a question for further discussion. Is it not the case that Luther’s shift of 1518 to great emphasis

272

Man Yearning For Grace

on the Christian’s certitude in faith of being forgiven and being in God’s grace threatened to destroy this imposing conception we have just depicted? The last section of our presentation of the Lectures on Hebrews showed us the direction of this shift. Soon after, Luther came to say that contrition and prayer are of far less value than faith in (that is, certitude of) being forgiven and being in grace.9 In the first place, this narrows down the magnificent sweep of Luther’s vision of Christ’s work. In the new conception, Christ did not die and rise to bring new life to his people, but to bring individuals the assurance of God’s favor in the midst of their anguish. Christ’s work is reduced to that of salving troubled con¬ sciences. The problem is that many of us, being less introspective, suffer little spiritual anguish. Here, Christ could easily become superfluous to the strong. Second, Luther’s stress on certitude completely relativized the cleansing work of grace in making us over in charity. Charity is now on the fringe of things valued, for one must be above all certain of God’s consoling gift, which then turns out to be not transforming charity but the conscious certitude itself of forgiveness. Third, the idea of faith in Christ, which Luther sketched in the Lectures on Galatians, gave way to certitude of forgiveness and grace. The Christian’s view is narrowed and his gaze turns from Christ to himself.10 Faith is no longer a new evaluation of the world, but is fearfully concentrated on my own “status’’ before God. Fourth, the sorrow for sin that was for the Luther of 1517 the lasting source of “life-penance” is explicitly and repeatedly excluded from the Christian’s area of serious concern. It is clear that Luther s later attack is against a self-satisfied reliance on one s own works of penance. The pathos of his development is that he comes, so it seems, to stress only one thing—be certain you are forgiven and you are truly forgiven. The grand program of life-penance that dominated the Treatise on Indulgences is thus undercut. Luther turned from the emphases that made his

Reflections and Evolution

273

initial intervention on indulgences so valuable and so potent for reform, for in 1518 the stress shifted from peccatum auferre to peccatum remittere, to use his earlier terminology. This shift, we believe, can only be judged as a loss for Christian spirituality. This third reflection is, we realize, only a sketch. We see the need for careful study of his works in 1518 to see the actual extent to which the new conception of faith drained the earlier themes of the rich spirituality we have presented in this work. However, there seems to be good initial evidence that the new idea of faith brought a new spirituality of questionable value in comparison with what we found in Luther’s works of late 1516 and early 1517.

2. AN EVALUATION OF LUTHER’S EARLY SPIRITUAL TEACHING Our assessment of Luther’s vision of Christian living falls naturally into a double series of indications by which we point out first, the weaknesses of Luther’s conception, and then the values this vision had for renewal in theology and in the Church then and can still have for Christians today. i. The first notable weakness of the spirituality we have seen is in the anthropology that underlay Luther’s thinking about the Christian man. His view was excessively dualistic. We would point to two instances in which this dualism gave rise to serious problems. First, there was the platonic view of man that appeared in our Chapters II and III. In the marginals of 1509-1510, Luther spoke of the separated soul as already a person.11 This implies a number of consequences about the fully constituted man of body and soul. The body would not be seen as an essential con¬ stitutive part of man. The soul can well be thought of as im¬ prisoned in an alien element. Man’s true fulfillment can hardly lie in his growth as a person in this world, but must be located

274

Man Yearning For Grace

outside this world. Admittedly, Luther did not draw these con¬ sequences in his earliest works, but in the Dictata he urged the Christian to “return within” to the true goods of the spirit.12 This bent toward a platonic spiritualism seems to us to have made it impossible for Luther to integrate the sacraments into his earliest spirituality. His was an intense spiritual program, but the symbolic events where we meet Christ working in this world did not play any significant role in this way of life. God has chosen to use corporeal elements as vehicles of his coming to us. He carries out his work in our fives through the humanity of Christ, through water, bread, oil, and social encounter in the Church. Luther’s early spirituality, although intense in its ideal and often brilliant in its execution, did not give these symbols and events any significant place in the Christian fife. This spiritu¬ ality tended to play itself out in the inner life of our self-estimate and motivations. The daily sacramental life of the Church was severely excluded from this interior area of concentration. We saw Luther’s dualism written large in his words on penance in his first utterances on indulgences. Ecclesial penance played no part in ‘life-penance;” the two were not ordered to each other. Life-penance was an intense and rich private affair in which the Christian sought his inner renewal under healing grace. Ecclesial penance was concerned with carrying out the imposed penances due for sinful deeds. The Lectures on Hebrews show Luther on the way toward overcoming this dualism by a fresh emphasis on the humanity of Christ. He does not see Christ here as an instance of the Deus absconditus, a hidden God under the veil of manhood. Rather, the humanity of Christ has a positive function, as our Jacob’s ladder and as the bait that caught Satan. The risen Christ was the sacrament of new life.13 This brings Luther naturally to a new assertion of the incarnation and of the role played by the body and by external events in our salvation. This could, we believe, overcome the burdensome dualism and force a new reflec¬ tion on sacramental events in a fully incarnational spirituality. However, Luthers thought took another turn in these same

Reflections and Evolution

275

Lectures on Hebrews, that is, to faith as certitude of forgiveness in one’s own case. This involves a new interpretation of the sacraments, with great stress on the return of the man of faith upon himself to the effect of the sacramental word in his own existence. In Luther’s new conception, the sacraments do not open a man in worship and loving adoration as his response to the word, but they turn him back on himself in a manner we can only judge as spiritually sterile—although consoling—and as deleterious for the imposing spirituality of penance, prayer, and progress we have seen. A second anthropological problem arises from Luther’s exclu¬ sive use of the dualism caro/spiritus in the Lectures on Romans. He speaks only of the two opposed powers struggling for domi¬ nance in a human life. Luther did not make it clear that there is a human subject who is decisively qualified either by his own agreement with the Spirit or by his surrender to the flesh. In the terminology of the Dictata, who is it that takes to himself God’s judgment so as to justify God in his words and bring the Gospel from being “ostensively and doctrinally” judgment and justice to be fully this in the life and self-awareness of the Christian?14 In the language of the Lectures on Romans, who lusts with selfseeking or who serves willingly with and under God’s grace? It is not enough to say that the flesh lusts and the spirit loves, for this can go on independently of our choice and willingness. This is not an artificial problem. It appeared in the explana¬ tion Luther gave of the phrase “the works of the law” in Gal 2, 16 in late 1516. He explained that this means quite literally that the law is the doer, not the spirit, not the man, not ourselves.15 This is simplistic exegesis, to say the least. Also, we saw that Luther could only cite Augustine’s words distinguishing “having concupiscence” and “carrying out concupiscence.”16 The citation itself testifies to Luther’s will to assert the significance of consent to the root sin within us, but he did not integrate the distinction systematically into his own thought. The reason, we suggest, is the oversimplified dualism of flesh and spirit that led Luther to neglect the responsible subject who is in immediate and constant

276

Man Yearning For Grace

dialogue with his flesh of sin as well as with the Holy Spirit given him. We would therefore underscore Luther’s dualistic thinking about man as the source of serious problems in the spirituality we have seen, especially in the neglect of the sacraments and of the responsible human subject. A second problem that Luther elaborated is within the spiritu¬ ality itself. This vision of Christian living suffers, we feel, from the one-sidedness of the Lectures on Romans. Whether we term this weakness Luther’s pessimism, or his failure to expound Christ’s victory over sin, or simply his anthropocentrism, is not important. One has only to compare Luther’s very fleeting exegesis of Rom 5, 12-21, where Paul asserts repeatedly that compared with sin Christ’s grace has more abounded, with his extended scholia on sin on Rom 3, 4 and 4, 7, to see this one¬ sidedness. Paul Althaus admitted long ago that Luther’s doctrine of sin was notably different from that of St. Paul.17 Luther’s failure to capture the healthy balance present in his underlying text turned out to have serious consequences for the spirituality he taught. Luther’s Christian is an atomized man, the likes of which the New Testament does not know. Clearly, this man lived an intense life of penance and growth, but his attention was onesidedly on his own sin and his own need of grace. Luther’s Christian was ever burrowing into the flaws in his own motiva¬ tion, in a way that is foreign to the New Testament.18 The theme of unselfish service of our brothers and sisters in the body of Christ is seriously underdeveloped. Here it would be unjust to hold up the ideal of a missionary spirituality or that of service to the suffering. These are the great themes of our own century. Luther was a mendicant friar of the sixteenth century bound to a monastic routine. However, we do know that his days were filled with small jobs for others in the friary, in the order in Saxony, and in the Wittenberg parish.19 His students were for the most part destined for similar lives of service in the Church. However, we hear practically nothing of this fraternal service in

Reflections and Evolution

2 77

Luther’s teaching. Instead, he excoriates the flawed motives and methods of his contemporaries and burrows ever deeper into their imperfect motivation in religious practice. Another underdeveloped theme in Luther’s early spirituality is that of the Christian’s praise of God through, with, and in Christ. This is the message of many Psalms in a Christian read¬ ing—it is the great climax of Rom 8, the central nerve of Eph l, and day in and day out, it is the “style” in which we speak to God in the Canon of the Mass, but Luther turned again and again to sin, to human nothingness, and fixed the Christian’s at¬ tention one-sidedly upon himself. Here, the Lectures on Hebrews breathe another atmosphere, but, it seems, only in passing. In looking for the cause of Luther’s spiritual individualism, we would fix primarily upon the underdevelopment of passages in the Lectures on Romans that could have been the occasion to celebrate Christ’s triumph and thus fill out his vision of Christian living. For all its brilliance and intensity, Luthers early spiritu¬ ality is excessively individualistic and introspective. ii. With these critical points made, we must return to the admiring tones that have been dominant all through our investi¬ gation. The weaknesses and one-sidedness we have noted do not cancel out the potential for reform and renewal this spirituality offered in the sixteenth century and still offers in the twentieth. This was especially clear in Luther’s brilliant campaign against the via moderna, in the Christological passages of the Lectures on Hebrews, and in the Treatise on Indulgences. These works should be sources of lasting enrichment to Christians of all con¬ fessions. It will help, however, to single out once more some aspects of Luther’s earliest spirituality that especially commend themselves to our reflection today. In the first place, Luther incessantly stressed our impotence before God regarding our salvation. This is the immediate ground of the metanoia of self-estimate that was the basic and formative theme of the earliest works. The sinner is in absolute need of God’s intervention if he is to overcome his alienation from God.

278

Man Yearning For Grace

This impotence and the complex of spiritual attitudes that arise from it should play a role in any Christian spirituality. It should lead to the fundamental option not to live out of our own power and wisdom, but out of the gracious work of God in recreating our hearts, and there must be an intervention—an opus Dei— if such a life is to begin. Our Christian life is one of God’s works and because of this it can be our work with and in his grace. Even if we come to assert a value before God of a Christian’s deeds done in the power of God’s grace, still this assertion of “merit” is no ground for independence, for self-reliance, and for forgetting that the possibility itself for this new qualification and worth in us is God’s initial, prevenient grace. The doctrine of merit rests on the Christus actuosissimus in the existence of the Christian. This knowledge of our own impotence and our need of Gods work would prohibit merit from playing any extensive role in a Christian’s conscious self-estimate. The style of our basic option remains the same—not living out of our own power and wisdom, but living in grace and faith. “God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure,” and “He who began a good work imyoti will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 2, 13 and 1, 6). Second, Luther always thought about man as decisively qualified by the spirit or by the flesh. The basic dualism of the Dictata was the concrete division of men into the just and the sinners. There is no middle ground between faith and obstinacy before God. The neutral worlds under God’s absolute power have no significance in this vision. In this world, a neutral set of natural virtues played no role in Luther’s thought. In spite of the imperfect anthropology we found in Luther’s view of the individual, his view of men in this world is nevertheless of great value. This view was Luther’s basic argument against the via moderna in 1516-1517, and it must be scored as a decisive point in his favor. This view of man as spiritually qualified either in faith or sin is an important “word” for us today. The attitudes and capa¬ bilities of modern man play a great role in the assessment of our

Reflections and Evolution

279

times. We are becoming aware of anonymously Christian values in the secular ideals and programs of our contemporaries. This, however, must not blind us to the simple fact that a human being is either in faith or not, either open and receptive to the work of Christ in him or hindering it while seeking his own gratifica¬ tion or glorification. If a man be not in Christ, then he cannot be immune from the devastating criticism Luther knew only too well how to carry through. Third, Luther saw clearly that our life task is to do to death the roots of sin. Sinful deeds are but the offshoots of the disordination we inherit and then intensify by our own sins. We would not call this condition “sin” without qualification. This must be saved for personal rejection of God’s appeal to us. Still, there is great value in having Luther point to the self-affirmation and self-seeking that flaw our affections. The metanoia of con¬ version or faith does not totally change this state of affairs in a person. There are levels of the person not subjected to Christ s rule. Therefore, there must be a “life-penance” of denial and unselfishness. Here Luther’s Treatise on Indulgences is very per¬ tinent in pointing to an important aspect of what we must be about in following Christ. Today, many seem unaware of the complexity of the human person. Far too often faith in Christ is subtly thought of as a decision that immediately transforms the whole of a man, as if one had his person wholly in his grasp and under control. Rather, there are levels of life and of desire that lie outside our conscious and responsible control. Here there are disorders and disorienta¬ tions that are not corrected by an ever so genuine act of faith _this is Luther’s peccatum radicale. It takes serious effort—and the searing work of grace—to spread the reign of Christ into these depths. Luther’s emphasis on the lifetime work of pen¬ ance—peccatum auferre he called it—reminds us of the great weakness of a simplistic idea of faith. Faith is a basic option that must be implemented in a lifetime of following Christ’s hard worcj—Poenitentiam agitel—as Luther expressed it in his first indulgence thesis.

28o

Man Yearning For Grace

Fourth, Luther thought of God as actively at work in our lives. This is the God who is semper praesto, in the language of the 1509-1510 marginals. This is the opus Dei tropologicum of the Dictata, in which God is conforming us to the image of his Son. This is the Christus actuosissimus of early 1517, who is both sacrament and example in our lives. Finally, there was the striking theology of healing grace that stands out when one grasps the underlying theme of Luther’s argument with Ockham and Biel. This is no distant God, no God who has died. Instead, it is the God of Scripture who is incessantly at work, not just in the world, but in the hearts of men, where he would burn away the rank¬ ness of sin and implant new life and new love. It is good to have heard Luther’s words about God at work within us. Both Cath¬ olics and Lutherans can learn much here. As we learn together from Luther’s earliest spirituality, this too could well be a work of God, actively drawing us toward unity and reconciliation.

Abbreviations Used in Notes

SOURCES AND TRANSLATIONS W—The Weimar edition of Luther’s works References give volume number, page number, and number of the bne on which the passage cited or referred to begins. WBr—The Weimar edition of Luther’s letters References give volume number, number of the letter, line num¬ ber within the letter on which the passage cited or referred to begins, and then, after a semicolon, the page number. Bo—The Bonn edition of Luther’s works (selection) References give volume and page number. Pauck—Wilhelm Pauck’s translation of Luther’s Lectures on Romans LW—Luthers Works, American Edition References give volume and page number. PL—Patrologia Latina

PERIODICALS AND LEXICA HThR—Harvard Theological Review KuD—Kerygma und Dogma LThK2—Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche, second edition LJb—Luther Jahrbuch NZsysTh—Neue Zeitschrift fur systematische Theologie rGG3—Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, third edition 281

282

Abbreviations Used in Notes

PERIODICALS AND LEXICA (cont’d.) RHE—Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique ThLZ—Theologische Literaturzeitung ThStK—Theologische Studien und Kritiken TS—Theological Studies TrThZ—Trierer theologische Zeitschrift ZKG—Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte ZkTh—Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie ZThK—Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche

Notes

Chapter I 1. W 56, 235,31 (our translation; Pauck, 87). 2. “Quare tota vita populi novi, populi fidelis, populi spiritualis est gemitu cordis, voce oris [W: operis], opere corporis non nisi postulare, quaerere et petere iustificari semper usque ad mortem, nunquam stare, nunquam apprehendisse, nulla opera ponere finem adeptae iustitiae, sed tanquam adhuc semper extra se habitantem expectare, se vero semper in peccatis adhuc vivere et esse.” W 56, 264,16 (Pauck, n8f). For the reading “oris” in 264,17, we follow R. Schwarz, Fides, spes, und charitas beim jungen Luther (Berlin, 1962), 282, n. 102. Luther also used the scheme cor-os-corpus at W 56, 17,20. 3. For further material on this sigh of yearning for grace, see pp. 125E At the Luther Research Congress at Jarvenpaa, Finland, in August 1966, Heiko Oberman called attention to Luther’s words on the gemitus of the man of faith as one index of how Luther could use a word from the mystical tradition but transform it by inserting it into his developing theology. See Oberman s paper, Simul gemitus et raptus: Luther und die Mystik,” in The Church, Mysticism, Sancti¬ fication and the Natural in Luthers Thought (Philadelphia, 1967), especially 55-59. The text we cited in the previous note shows how Luther sees the gemitus of the Christian: it is his anxious petition for God’s healing grace. The context is the expulsion of sin (peccatum auferre) after forgiveness (peccatum remittere), in terms Luther used in his Lectures on Romans (W 56, 274,8ff [Pauck, 128]). 283

284

Notes to pages 2-4

4. . non solliciti assiduo gemitu pro gratia destructrice corporis huius peccati et mortificatrice membrorum peccati.” From Luther’s Tractatus de indulgentiis, cited from Walther Kohler, Dokumente zum Ablassstreit von 1517 (Tubingen, 2nd ed., 1934), 97. Now also at WBr 12, 42123,80; 7. On this treatise, see pp. 3f and 238ff. We have presented our own English translation of the treatise along with an introduction and commentary in TS 28 (1967), 481-518. 5. “Id itaque diligenter attendendum, ne indulgentiae, id est satisfactiones, fiant nobis causae securitatis et prigritiae et damnum interioris gratiae; sed sedulo agamus, ut morbus naturae perfecte sanetur et ad Deum venire sitiamus prae amore eius et odio vitae huius et nostri ipsius taedio, id est, assidue sanantem gratiam eius quaeramus.” Tractatus de indulgentiis, cited from Kohler, Dokumente, qq. Also WBr 12, 4212a, 152; 9. 6. Gerhard Muller has surveyed the recent research in his article, “Neuere Literatur zur Theologie des jungen Luther,” KuD 11 (1965), 325~357- A number of newer studies have already made Muller’s survey somewhat dated, for example, the books by H. Hiibner, K. Honselmann, and Paul Hacker (see Bibliography). Articles in’the Jedin Festschrift (Reformata Reformanda [Munster, 1965]) by E. Kleineidam and E. Iserloh treat the young Luther. We must also note the papers given by H. Oberman, E. Iserloh, and G. Ebeling at the Third International Congress for Luther Research in 1966. These papers have been edited by Ivar Asheim under the title. The Church, Mysticism, Sanctification and the Natural in Luthers Thought (Phila¬ delphia, 1967). 7- See, for example, E. Iserloh, The Theses Were Not Posted (Boston, 1968). The main steps of the debate can be traced in the literature given in our Bibliography under the names Volz, Iserloh, Aland, and Honselmann. H. Steitz surveyed the first stages of the controversy in Martin Luthers Ablassthesen von 1517. Bericht iiber die Diskussion i957—196,5> in Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 16 (1965), 661-674. 8. For a more detailed presentation of the context and content of Luthers intervention, see pp. 226-261. 9. Fritz Hermann reported his discovery of the treatise in ZKG 28 (1907), 37off. G. Kruger reviewed what was known about the treatise and gave a corrected text in ThStK 90 (1917) 507^ W Kohler took over Kruger’s text in the second edition of his Doku¬ mente zum Ablassstreit von 1517, although with no change in the in¬ correct dating and title given in the Weimar edition. In 1967 a fully critical edition of the treatise appeared in Vol. 12 of Luther’s letters in the Weimar edition, pp. 5-9.

Notes to pages 4-6

285

10. Martin Luthers Thesenanschlag und dessen Vorgeschichte (Weimar, 1959). Most recently Heinrich Bornkamm indicated the importance of Luther’s treatise. See Thesen und Thesenanschlag Luthers,” in Geist und Geschichte der Reformation, 188, n. 30. 11. The Theses Were Not Posted, pp. 37-42. 12. Luther concluded his treatise, “Utilissimum est istas indulgentias dari et redimi, quidquid sit de avaritia et quaestu. . . Kohler, Dokumente, 99. WBr 12, 4212a, 141; 8. He limited this ap¬ proval of indulgences with the condition that indulgences must not hinder progressive expulsion of concupiscence, as expressed in the lines cited on p. 284, n. 5. 13. Some of the more important studies of the Dictata are found in our Bibliography under the names Hirsch, Vogelsang, Wagner, Ebeling, Brandenburg, Schwarz, and Metzger. 14. An influential indication of this primacy is in E. Vogelsang s Die Anfange von Luthers Christologie (Berlin-Leipzig, 1929), 27b See also pp. 51-54. 15. L. Grane, Contra Gahrielem (Copenhagen, 1962). 16. Ibid., especially 265-382. 17. W 57II, 102,16 (our translation). 18. Note how Joseph Lortz has striven to correct just this impres¬ sion given by his earlier writings on Luther. Martin Luther Grundziige seiner geistigen Struktur,” in Reformata Reformanda (Jedin Festschrift) (Munster, 1965), 1, 220. 19. Die Wittenberger Universitatstheologie und die Anfange der Reformation (Tubingen, 1928), 44. 20. Reflection on the situation of Catholic theology after Vatican II suggests that Luther, especially in his response to the via moderna of scholasticism, has an added relevance for today. Theologically, Vatican II embodies the option of the teaching Church not to speak in the technical language of the neo-scholastic theological manuals. In¬ stead of the highly conceptualized preparatory schemata, the Council gave us documents filled with biblical images, enlivened by pastoral immediacy. Theological work after the Council is already marked by these same characteristics. Thus, it should prove instructive to review Luther’s theological venture in order to assess the gains and losses of his very influential biblical-pastoral work. J > t IT / Pl T nnrl I rvnrlnn Luther, trans. E. M. Lamond, I (St. Louis and London, Chan. X Sec. 1: “The Second Stage of His Development.

a

286

Notes to pages 6-y

second edition in 1962 and a third in 1966. Gerhard Hennig, a stu¬ dent of Bizer, has offered an important confirmation of this position in his study of Luther’s confrontation in October 1518, with Cajetan. Cajetan und Luther (Stuttgart, 1966). Otto H. Pesch, O.P., has nar¬ rated the course of the dispute over Bizer’s position in “Zur Frage nach Luthers reformatorischer Wende,” Catholica 20 (1966), 216-243 and 264-280. 23. Fides ex auditu, 2d ed., 166 and 171. 24. Das Ich im Glauben bei Martin Luther (Graz, 1966), espe¬ cially 104-123. Hacker’s book was reviewed by the author in TS 28 U967), 374-376. See the interesting use made of Hacker’s con¬ clusions^ by Hans Urs von Balthasar in the article, “Zwei Glaubensweisen,” Hochland 59 (1967), 401-412. 25- W 54, 179-187 (LW 34, 327-338). 26. Others who have argued for a crucial development in Luther’s view in 1518 are Uuras Saamivaara in Luther Discovers the Gospel (St. Louis, 1951), which originally appeared in Finland in 1947; and F. Edward Cranz in An Essay on the Development of Luthers Thought \xt {Uftice> Law’ and Society (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1959). Walther von Loewenich also spoke of a shift at this time from a negative, waiting faith, to a positive, consoling certainty of the for¬ giveness of sins in Luthers theologia crucis (Munich, 1929), 105. Gerhard Ebeling spoke of Luther’s new understanding of a sacrament as the address of Christ giving peace of conscience, which arose in the course of the indulgence controversy. “Luther-Theologie,” RGG3 IV, Col. 502. 27- This is clear from the Acta Augustana in which Luther re¬ produced the position he had maintained against Cajetan. See es¬ pecially the passage at W 2, 13,23 to 16,3 (LW 31, 27i-274).’The point of the argument was made even clearer in one of Cajetan’s eleven analytical essays on Luther’s theology, written between Sep¬ tember 25 and October 12, 1518, in preparation for the meeting with J-.uther. He then wrote four more essays during and after his arguments with Luther, October 14-October 29. In the Venice edition of ajetan s Opuscule omnia (1588), these essays are found on 97-118 Modern biographers of Luther are all aware of the decisive nature of the Augsburg hearing, but they (with two exceptions) make no mention °f Cajetan s preparation. The two who know he prepared (Heinrich Boehmer and R. Thiel), speak of only four and three essays respectively, instead of eleven, and omit any reference to the crucial essay of September 26, 1518, on the kind of faith required for fruitful reception of the sacrament of penance. Gerhard Hennig described Cajetan s essays in Cajetan und Luther, 45-63. The im-

Notes to pages

7-9

287

portance of the argument over Luther’s idea of faith is clear in Luther’s letter to Carlstadt, written from Augsburg on the day of his second session with Cajetan. He reported how he had been called upon to recant this idea, but he would not move an inch on this point: “I will not become a heretic by denying the position through which I myself became a Christian. Rather than do this, I will die first, even if I be burned, banned, and cursed.” Letter of October 14, 1518. WBr 1, 100,60; 217 (our translation). 28. W 2, 14,25 and 15,7 (LW 31, 273). 29. Heiko Oberman has attempted to capsulize the difference between Luther’s theology and the medieval Catholic tradition in the formula fides Christo formata, which would indicate what is specifically new in Luther. “ ‘Iustitia Christi’ and ‘Iustitia Dei’—Luther and the Scholastic Doctrine of Justification,” HThR 59 (1966), 1-26, es¬ pecially 2off. This term does not, however, give the specific point of controversy in 1518 as Luther’s work of reform actually turned to¬ ward the devisive Reformation. 30. This kind of faith was for Luther a necessary condition for remaining justified. He wrote in the Acta Augustana, “Si enim dubitat et incertus est [quod gratiam consequatur], iam non iustificatur, sed evomit gratiam.” W 2, 13,9 (LW 31, 270). 31. A good indication that there was a significant change in Luther’s idea of faith in 1518 is his comment on Heb 9, 24, sometime in the winter semester of 1517-1518. After urging that a Christian must be absolutely certain that Christ is high priest on his own per¬ sonal behalf, he urges great caution in using Ecclesiastes 9, 1 (Vulgate: “Nescit homo, an odio vel amore dignus sit”) to prove that a man cannot be certain of his own present state. The text is, according to Luther, about the future, and to apply it to the present is to ruin the right idea of faith: “Hoc est enim funditus evertere Christum et fidem eius.” W 57III, 216, 5. Earlier, though, Luther had cited this Vulgate text against such certitude, that is, in the sense that he here attacked. See W 56, 79,18 and 57II, 101,18. Luthers student, Bartholomew Bernhard, had also applied this text against a present certitude in the disputation of September 25, 1516, where on all points he is simply defending the ideas of Luther’s Lectures on Romans. See W 1, 150,1. 32. “. . . pro re theologica et salute fratrum haec facio.” WBr 1, 27,42; 71 (LW 48, 26). 33. Friedrich Myconius related in his sixteenth-century chronicle that Luther encountered the St. Peter’s indulgence in the confessional. Penitents had demanded absolution without any sign of contrition, but solely on the basis of a “confessional letter” gained by contributing

288

Notes to pages

10-13

toward the building of St. Peter’s. See Hans Volz, Martin Luthers Thesenanschlag und dessen Vorgeschichte, 72L 34. We would point to two recent examples of the great diffi¬ culty involved in overstressing Luther’s personal struggles. The best of the small biographies of Luther is Franz Lau’s Luther (Berlin, *959; English version, Philadelphia, 1962). Lau admits that we cannot chart Luther’s interior struggle from the data of his early works, neither as to its precise content nor as to the dates of its beginning, its greatest intensity, and its solution. Even though the evidence on this is lacking, Lau still asserts that it is clear that the Reformation came about as a result of Luther’s monastery struggles (English ver¬ sion, p. 67). In view of the problems and lack of firm evidence, we cannot see sufficient grounds for such a firm conclusion. A recent Catholic study of Luther’s theology is Thomas McDonough, O.P., The Law and the Gospel in Luther (London, 1963). McDonough feels that it was nominalist theology that, above all, led to Luther’s near despair, and thus set the stage for the development of Luther’s central theme of the contrast of law and Gospel. However, McDonough’s section on this baneful nominalist influence (32—45) is one long string of conjectures about how the nominalist view of God and stress on natural effort “could have” tormented Luther’s conscience. Con¬ trasted with these conjectures is the clear evidence of Luther’s lively christocentric thought in his early work, his emphasis on prevenient giace fi om 1509 to 1510, and on faith as the active assimilation of God s implicit and explicit revelation of our sinfulness. Luther comes out of a quite un-nominalist, monastic theological tradition, as can be documented. A far more promising approach to Luther today is one that sees his early work in the context of medieval piety. See Martin Elzes two important articles: “Ziige spatmittelalterlicher Frommigkeit in Luthers Theologie,” ZThK 62 (1965), 381-402; and “Das Verstandms der Passion Jesu im ausgehenden Mittelalter und bei Luther,” in Geist und Geschichte der Reformation, 127—151. 35- The expression is J. Pelikan’s. “Continuity and Order in Luther s View of Church and Ministry,” in The Church, Mysticism, sanctification and the Natural in Luthers Thought, 144. 36. Joseph Lortz, in his article, judged them to be mainly or¬ thodox “Luthers Rbmerbriefvorlesung—Grundanliegen,” TrThZ 71 • t?- W129-153 and 2l6-247- Dino Bellucci, S.J., judged otherwise m his Gregorian University dissertation, Fede e Giustificazione in Lutero (Rome, 1963). Bellucci’s work is certainly carefully done, and is a well-documented study of Luther’s Dictata super psalterium a. lectures on Romans. There are, however, two major difficulties with his central thesis. First, it is not clear that Bellucci has estab-

Notes to pages 13-16

289

lished a binding doctrinal norm to be applied in judging Luther’s lectures of 1515-1516. It is not enough to show a discrepancy between Luther and Augustine and/or Aquinas. Even H. Grisar admitted that in the early sixteenth century there was much yet to be done on the doctrines of original sin, grace, and justification. The labors of Trent witness to this. See Martin Luther: His Life and Work, 78. Secondly, Bellucci had to make one questionable assumption about the dating of Luther’s exposition of Psalms 1 and 4. Critics familiar with the manu¬ script material (H. Boehmer and E. Vogelsang) held that these were revisions that Luther wrote in 1516, that is, after the Lectures on Romans. Bellucci does not accept this, apparently because of the Catholic theology of the passages. If these critics are right, then Bellucci’s thesis is seriously shaken, for he would have Luther de¬ parting seriously from tradition in the work on Romans, then returning to a traditional. Catholic conception as he wrote on Psalms 1 and 4 in the months after the end of the Lectures on Romans. 37. This is, of course, the thesis often made by Joseph Lortz. See, for example. How the Reformation Came (New York, 1964), 61. 38. “Martin Luther—Grundziige seiner geistigen Struktur,” Re¬ format a Reformanda (Jedin Festschrift), I, 218. 39. Rare indeed are counsels such as Bernhard Lohse gave his fellow Lutherans in his contribution to the Reformation Jubilee in 1967. Lohse urged Lutherans to exercise critical and independent judgment in taking over even the central ideas of the Reformation. At times, he advises, they should have the courage to depart from Luther, for example, in his condemnation of the more radical or “en¬ thusiastic” reformers, and especially in his reckless polemics against the Catholic Church. “The Reformation Today,” in Lutheran Quarterly 19 (1967), 247. It will be a happy day when a Catholic who criti¬ cizes some point of Luther’s work does not meet an automatically defensive reaction from his Lutheran fellow scholars.

Chapter 11

1. The notes to St. Augustine are found in W 9, 5-27; those to Peter Lombard in W 9, 29-94. 2. See Otto Scheel, Martin Luther (3d and 4th eds. Tubingen, 1930), II, 394-397, for an account of Luther’s return from Witten¬ berg to Erfurt in 1509, after a year of teaching Aristotle’s Ethics and studying theology. The Erfurt faculty granted Luther the degree of Sententiarius in early autumn, 1509.

Notes to pages 16-18

290

3. Most probably, Luther’s trip to Rome in the winter of 15101511 forced him to break off his lectures on the Sentences before he took up Book IV. The fact that there are no notes from his hand on Book IV makes it difficult to ascertain his earliest thinking in the important area of sacramental theology. 4. “Non esto subitus et temerarius judex tu qui legis, cum res ineffabilis est.” W q, 20,27. 5- W 9, 47,15. 6. W 9, 21,37. 7- W 9, 88,32. 8. All philosophy is stupidity (W 9, 13,21). The philosophers battle with each other “in nudis verborum novitatibus et aequivocationibus” (24,25). Their rules are “rancid” (47,6). Luther prefers one position of Lombard: “dimissis larvis philosophorum” (74,10). He singles out Aristotle s teaching on beatitude in order to under¬ score its discrepancy with the Catholic faith (23,6; 27,22). Luther does not, however, completely reject the aid that philosophy brings the theologian. Lombard showed a healthy moderation in this matter that Luther commended (29,1). See B. Lohse, Ratio und Fides (Gottingen, 1958), 24ff. 9. Biel presented this thesis of the via moderna thus: “Deus non potest contra rectam rationem, verum est, sed recta ratio quantum ad exteriora est voluntas sua. Non enim habet aliam regulam cui teneatur se conformare, sed ipsa divina voluntas est regula omnium contingenium. Nec enim quia aliquid rectum est aut justum, ideo Deus vult, sed quia Deus vult, ideo justum et rectum.” Collectorium I, 17, 9- L a- 3> corol. 1 K. The essential aspect of grace was for Biel the divine will to grant beatitude: “hoc idem intelligitur per esse acceptum, esse charum, vel esse dilectum deo, scilicet velle divinum quo talem beatificare si manserit in statu tali non ponens obicem per peccatum.” I, 17, q. 1, a. 1 B. However, caution should be used here m seeing arbitrariness: “In the thesis that God is the first rule of all justice, it is not the lawlessness of the set order which is expressed, but man s inability to discover the motives and causes of God’s ac¬ tions. Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cam¬ bridge, Mass., 1963), 98. V 10. An idea reported by Lombard in I Sent., d. 43 c un • Quaracchi ed., I, 265. ’ ’’ 11. W 9, 60,5. 4i6f12' GiVen by L°mbard’ 11

Sent’

d• 23> c. 1; Quaracchi ed., I,

13. ... hie necessario voluntati ejus cedendum est quae injusta esse non potest, quia nulli debere potest. Creatura autem non potest

Notes to pages ig-20

291

non debere, quia non potest non esse finita i.e. certo naturae et arbitrii modo terminata, extra quam cum nititur libertate sua (quam decuit sic creari liberam) fit mala et inobediens.” W 9, 69,15. 14. “Christus non potuit peccare propter identitatem personae divinae, quae est super omnem legem, sicut dixit: ‘Dominus est filius hominis etiam sabbati’: consequenter et totius legis. Unde si contra totam legem fecisset, non tamen peccasset.” W 9, 88,1. Ockham did not hesitate to say that since God is no one’s debtor, he could cause a morally deformed or “sinful” act. Ill Sent., q. 12 X. See E. Iserloh, Gnade und Eucharistie in der philosophischen Theologie des Wilhelm von Ockham (Wiesbaden, 1956), 65. 15. W 9, 74,33. See also 76,3, where Luther describes concupis¬

cence as the “pondus et inclinatio ad malum quam sic Deus esse voluit in poenam Adae.” 16. Contra Gabrielem (Copenhagen, 1962), 71. The modem defense of the nominalist “dialectic of the two powers” in the works of Paul Vignaux and Heiko Oberman (see Bibliography) has sought to remove the misunderstanding that the men of the via moderna somehow conceived of an order of creation other than the one in which we find ourselves. They show how reflections on what God could have done by another decree underscore his omnipotence and the contingence of this order. This is a point well made, but in itself it is only satisfying when one reads only the modern summarized exposi¬ tions of nominalist thought. When one takes the trouble to work through Biel’s extended treatment of one or more topics, then the impression cannot be avoided that his theology is not primarily concerned with the present order of salvation. This theology moves in a realm of the non-contradictory, logically possible. In a theology so located, the unspeakable wisdom of God, which is manifest (in signs and mystery) in this order, is all but forgotten. Scripture praises this wisdom (Job 28, Prov 8, Ps 104, Eph 1), and St. Paul finds it paradoxically in the cross of Christ (1 Cor i,i8ff), but the fifteenthcentury student of the via moderna heard and read of the Christian dispensation, in which this wisdom is manifest, only as an afterthought to laborious discourses on how it could conceivably be otherwise. He was not led to deepen his grasp of the revealed mysteries beyond the tiring application of the categories contingent/ necessarium. It is Luther’s greatness to have offered a christocentric alternative to this spiritually fruitless mode of presenting theology. 17. W 9, 42,36. Luther’s notes on created charity are examined in greater detail in Section 5 of this chapter. 18. The roots of Luther’s healthy concentration on the real order can well have been the emphasis in nominalist philosophy on intuitive

292

Notes to pages 20-21

knowledge of the concrete singular. On this aspect of nominalist thought, see Paul Vignaux, “Nominalisme,” DThC XI, especially cols. 752 and 754; also, Sebastian Day, Intuitive Cognition, Key to the Significance of the Later Scholastics (St. Bonaventure, New York, 1947)19- W 9, 93,1. 20. W 9, 23,30. This same phrasing also occurred at W 9, 39,32. 21. “Hoc credere est in humanitatem ejus credere quae nobis data est in hac vita pro vita et salute. Ipse enim per fidem suae incamationis est vita nostra, justitia nostra et resurrectio nostra.” W 9, 17,12. 22. Luther calls the crucifixion of Christ a “sacrament” that re¬ deems us from death and makes the soul die to sin. W 9, 18,20.27. Comparison with the text in Augustine, De Trinitate IV, c. 3, shows that in these lines Luther was summarizing a rambling text of Augustine. The idea, however, that Christ’s mysteries have a sacra¬ mental effect in us, was a standard part of Luther’s lifelong thinking. See E. Iserloh s exposition of this in “Sacramentum et exemplum— Ein augustinisches Thema lutherischer Theologie,” in Reformata Reformanda (Munster, 1965) I, 247—264. Iserloh, in his paper, Luther und die Mystik,” in The Church, Mysticism, Sanctification and the Natural in Luther’s Thought, especially 75-83, brought this same theme to bear on Luther’s “mystical” idea of the presence and action of Christ in the Christian. Martin Elze recently indicated that Luther’s use of the sacramentum/ exemplum scheme is a good index of Luther s characteristic view of Christ and a key to understanding how his tropological exegesis of the Psalms (see Chapter III) is the center of his early theology. “Das Verstandnis der Passion Jesu im ausgehenden Mittelalter und bei Luther,” in Geist und Geschichte der Reformation, 148-151. 23. W 9, 83—89. We need a detailed study of these notes on Christology within the context of medieval speculative theology. 24. See R. Schwarz, Tides, spes, und caritas beim iungen Luther (Berlin, 1962), 69ff. 25- W 9, 39,32; and 23,31. 26. “Homo paene jumentum factus est, quia incorporea difficulter capit, nisi quae corporalia sunt per fidem abjiciat.” W 9, 23,36. Paul Vignaux saw this text converging with later texts stressing man’s passivity in justification, and commented: “L’experience chretienne consiste a decouvrir, au dela de la zone temporelle ou l’homme agit sur les choses, une zone spirituelle ou il patit, de Dieu.” Luther Com¬ mentate^ des Sentences (Paris, 1935), 7, n. 1. This suggests a dualistic world-view akin to neo-platonism. Luther did speak twice of the soul as the person (W 9, 84,39 and 85,6) and added that the body

Notes to pages 22-23

293

is the vestimentum (85,25). This provides the anthropological sup¬ position for conceiving faith as a movement into the realm of the incorporeal. 27. W 9, 64,39. 28. W 9, 88,7. One might say that Luther gave a “tropological” interpretation of Christ’s fulfilling the law. 29. W 9, 88,1. There appears to be no simple explanation possible regarding Luther’s relation to the Ockhamist tradition. His Disputa¬ tion against Scholastic Theology in September 1517, revealed his categorical rejection of the via moderna on sin, law, grace, and charity, but we cannot bring firm textual evidence that Luther ever agreed with the nominalists on these points. Still, his later thought shows influences probably derived from nominalism: his forbidding view of God in De servo arbitrio (1525), his constant equation of reality with what is intuited (especially the written and spoken word), and his basic approach to the sacraments where he stresses more the will of Christ ordering them than their harmony and organic coherence with our lives. E. Iserloh has termed Luther an “antithetical Ockhamist because of this peculiar combination. “Luthers Stellung in der theologischen Tradition,” in Wandlungen des Lutherbildes (Wurzburg, 1966), 30. 30. W 9, 31. Otto notes in great and servitude

61,35. , , , , , Scheel, one of the few modem scholars to study these detail, saw their dominant theme as being the weakness of the sinner as well as of the Christian. Martin Luther

n, 465. 32. Luther described original justice indirectly in this note: “peccatum originale . . . quoad essentiale autem est ipse motus camis immo ipsa caro et sanguis privata virtute et gratia. Ideo enim caro concupiscet, quia est deserta a gratia et virtute. W 9, 73>31< On the result of this original endowment: “[ratio] prius cum facilitate potuit Dei praeceptum in omnibus carne oboediente sibi implere. 75>23Elsewhere, Luther termed the endowment virtus et fortitudo (73,40). 33- W 9, 75,30. A few lines later, while explaining how con¬ cupiscence can be called an evil, Luther identifies original justice and the rein: “primo quia habet ipsum malum, id est absentiam freni, quod est justitia originalis.” 76,6. 34. This emphasis on the empowerment for integral living fits well with Luther’s reinterpretation of habitual grace as the ever¬ present Holy Spirit who offers the gift of charity: “Spiritus sanctus est caritas concurrens seipso cum voluntate ad productionem actus amandi.” W 9, 43,6. Both original justice and uncreated charity (the Holy Spirit) are oriented to performance, that is, to ruling the flesh or

294

Notes to pages

23-25

to loving God. This corresponds with Luther’s stress on healing grace in his Lectures on Romans (1515—1516) and in the Treatise on Indul¬ gences (1517). 35- W 9, 74,1. In 75,22, Luther begins a passage in which he clearly identifies Adam’s sin as disobedience after he was empowered to easily keep God’s commands. 36. W 9, 74,34 and 74,41. 37- W 9, 74,21. 38. The image vestimentum est corpus is suggested by Luther’s assertion, “non minus anima per se est persona quam conjuncta. Cor¬ pus enim nihil addit.” W 9, 85,12. A few lines later, he added, “Corpus autem vestimentum est animae secundum scripturam” (85,25). 39- W 9, 75,26. See also 73,36 and 73,31: “peccatum originale est nihil seu privatio sicut omne peccatum quoad formale.” 40. Quaracchi ed., I, 464. 4i- W 9, 73,24. 42. W 9, 75,39 and 76,2. 43- W 9, 76,14. 44. II Sent., d. 25, c. 6; Quaracchi ed., I, 431. 45. Both phrases occur at W 9, 71,10. 46. “Sicut [liberum arbitrium] gratiam (quae virtus est) comitatur ad bonum velut ducem et tractricem, ita comitatur infirmitatem sive legem carnis cui copulatum est (sicut tunc gratiae) ad malum velut ducem. Et ita utrinque liberum est et utrinque aliter agere nequit (loquor de gratia consummata et infirmitate non sanata). Sed in fide est mixtura et temperatio utriusque extremi. . . .” W 9, 71,6. 47* Luther concluded: Sive sic sive aliter dicatur, sufficit, quod res ipsa sane intelligatur. Nam utique verum est, si impossibile est ipsum ad bonum per se surgere, necessario per se vertitur ad malum, aut salem manet sub malo, si non ipsum eligat” (W g, 71,31). W. Jetter expressed well the predicament of the man who on his own can only turn to evil or remain in evil. Die Taufe heim jungen Luther, 162. Leif Grane hesitated to conclude from this passage to man’s moral impotence without grace because of the possibility that the miseri might be the souls in hell. Contra Gabrielem, 273. This, however, is excluded by Luther’s designation of them with the phrase infirmate non sanata (71,11), and by the fact that Lombard’s schema of the four states (II Sent., d. 25, c. 6) does not include the damned. An¬ other reason for Grane’s hesitation appears to be his overinterpretation of other marginal notes as indications that Luther thought in 15091510 that there could be a natural morality without grace. Contra Gabrielem, 268f.

Notes to pages

25-27

295

48. For a good example of Ockham’s moral optimism, see E. Iserloh, Gnade und Eucharistie, 92, n. 170. 49. W 9, 75,11. In a sermon, Biel used similar words to describe the post-baptismal situation of the Christian: “Et ita fomitem debilitat, non quod remittat aut extinguat secundum multos, sed quia potentiam fortificat.” Cited by H. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology, 127, n. 23. Biel, the preacher, does not seem to share the moral optimism of his master, Ockham. 50. W 9, 75,25. 51. W 9, 71,23. 52. Three scholars who have maintained that Luther stood in the nominalist camp on this question in 1509 are Karl Holl (Gesammelte Aufsdtze, I [7th ed., Tubingen, 1948], 187II), Otto Scheel (Martin Luther, II, 452), and Leif Grane. The last named found Luther’s note at W 9, 31,8 speaking like Biel, in a manner that is an unmistakable approval of a natural morality unrelated to a man’s relation to God. Contra Gabrielem, 268. Furthermore, other texts point in this direction, for example, Luther’s words about a fides acquisita et naturaliter moralis, that can coexist with mortal sin (W 9, 90,30), or the note mentioning meritum de congruo (72,19). However, the considerations we will outline in this section show that a number of points can be made against this conclusion. Note especially the very un-nominalist role Luther attributed to prevenient actual grace, and the way he spoke of charity as the regina meritorum (44,6). See p. 297, n. 71. 53. This was noted by Scheel (Martin Luther, II, 465) and by L. Grane (Contra Gabrielem, 270), but both hesitated to draw any conclusion from this fact. Heiko Oberman’s words confirm the im¬ portance of the concept ex puris naturalibus in the via moderns: “These terms appear at all the decisive junctures of Biel’s theology—formaliter in the relation of faith and understanding, philosophy and theology— materialiter in such central theological issues as original sin, redemp¬ tion, and reconciliation.” The Harvest of Medieval Theology, 3°54. W 9, 72,36. In the margin of the previous distinction Luther had jotted the well-known couplet, “Quidquid habes meriti, praeventrix gratia donat: Nil Deus in nobis praeter sua dona coronat” (72,27). It is important that Luther not only jotted the couplet down again in the margin of Tauler’s sermons (W g, 99,27), but that he used the term gratia praeventrix in a note that is not a citation of a traditional dictum (W 9, 72,36, as given in our text). 55. W 9, 62,28. 56. “Sicut gratiam (quae virtus est) comitatur [liberum arbitrium] ad bonum velut ducem et tractricem, ita comitatur infirmitatem sive legem carnis ... ad malum velut ducem.” W 9, 7L6. Later, in the

296

Notes to pages 27-2Q

same note, Luther described sin in a viator as the refusal to follow the lead of this grace: “non comitatur ducem gratiam, sed retrocedit et stat rebelle ipsa progredi volente” (71,37). 57. Heiko Oberman described what a minor role such a prevenient help played in Gabriel Biel’s thought. In fact, “when the term gratia gratis data is used, it is thoroughly naturalized and barely distinguish¬ able from man’s natural endowments.” The Harvest of Medieval Theology, 138. 58. J. Auer gives a good survey of the different answers proposed in reaction to the idea taught by Lombard in I Sent., d. 17: Die Entwicklung der Gnadenlehre in der Hochscholastik I (Freiburg, 1942)> 86-123. Paul Vignaux’s monograph, Luther Commentateur des Sentences (Paris, 1935)> studies Luther’s note to this passage in detail and sets it into the context of the Ockhamist theologians. See also R. Schwarz s treatment in Fides, spes und caritas heim jungen Luther (Berlin, 1962), 12-40. 59. I Sent., d. 17, c. 1; Quaracchi ed., I, 106-108. 60. W 9, 42,31 and 42,39. 61. Charitas (quidquid sit de possibili) de facto semper datur cum spiritu sancto et spiritus sanctus cum ea et in ea.” W 9, 42,36. 62. On Luther s polemic against philosophy in these notes, see p. 290, n. 8. 63. Et videtur Magister non penitus absurdissime loqui: in eo quod habitum dicit esse spiritum sanctum. Quia commentum illud de habitibus opinionem habet ex verbis Aristotelis rancidi philosophi. Alias bene posset dici, quod spiritus sanctus est charitas concurrens seipso cum voluntate ad productionem actus amandi.” W 9, 43,2. See also 44,4: “Habitus autem adhuc est Spiritus sanctus.” R. Schwarz rightly drew the conclusion that for Luther the virtue of charity had only actual existence in the subject, instead of inhering as a quality independent of the subject s actions. Fides, spes und caritas heim jungen Luther, 29. 64. W 9, 43,7, reading ecclesiae with Vogelsang (Bo 5, 7), in¬ stead of the unintelligible essentiae of W 9. 65. W 9, 72,4. R. Schwarz treats this extensively. Fides, spes und caritas heim jungen Luther, 40-49, 65L 66. W 9, 72,11. 67- W 9, 90,27. 68. Fides ex auditu . . . sensus seu intellectus, qui recepit sensum illorum, ille habet fidem. Assensus enim ad istum sensus est tides, licet non videat, quomodo sensus ille verus sit. . . . Fides, i.e. assensus, fit ex auditu, i.e. apprehensione (perceptione) significationis seu sensus verborum. Qui est interior auditus.” W 9, 92,23.

Notes to pages

29-32

297

69. “Si charitas facit totam personam gratam, cur non et ipsam qualitatem, quia omnium potentiarum actus et habitus per charitatem gratificantur, quae sola est virtus et omnes alias facit virtutes.” W 9, 90,32-

70. Luther spoke of uncreated charity (that is, the Holy Spirit) and of acts of charity without shifting the emphasis to the divine will to accept one for eternal life as was done in the via moderna. Ock¬ ham saw the principal aspect of charity in God’s gracious will to accept a person into eternal life. The quality of the will was a sec¬ ondary matter. See his comment in I, 17, q. 3, cited by J. Auer, Die Entwicklung der Gnadenlehre in der Hochscholastik I, 95, n. 43. See also Gabriel Biel’s description of grace and charity as the state in which God wills to grant a person eternal life. I, d. 17, q. 1, art. 1 A. 71. What Luther wrote regarding fides acquisita pertained to the assent to God’s truth that can remain after serious sin. In Luther’s note, this faith has no positive relation to justification and infused faith; Luther also describes it as weak, ineffective, and fated to die out in time of trial. W 9, 90,28. This is hardly a natural preparation for justification. Luther’s application of the term meritum de congruo is to a text that did not speak of moral striving, of natural ethics and of its virtues, but of a thought or wish for the gift of justification. W 9, 72,19. See p. 295, n. 52. 72. Quaracchi ed., I, 419. 73. “Stare est retrogredi, dicit b. Bernardus. Ergo si potuit tantum stare, non potuit manere innocens.” W 9, 69,36. 74. “Respondetur, quod stare in statu irmocentiae non erat retro¬ gredi. Sicut nec in beatitudine stare est retrogredi. Sed b. Bernardus loquitur de nostro statu, si saltern status et non potius fluxus est. W 9, 70,1 (continued from the previous citation).

75- W 9, 13,!0. 76. During his reading of Augustine’s De Trinitate, Luther added a note to a chapter in which Augustine stressed how a Christian must ever keep advancing and never be satisfied with his present condition and achievements. We must forget what is behind and press on to what is ahead (Phil 3,13). This, for Luther, is exactly what is meant by humility. W 9, 22,1. 77. W 9, 70,33. In the first line of this text read reproba (so Vogelsang, Bo 5, 10) and not reprobo with the Weimar edition. 78. “Ecce hie aperte habes, quia gratia praevenit bonae voluntatis meritum, et ipsa voluntas bona pedissequa est gratiae, non praevia.” II Sent., d. 26, c. 2; Quaracchi ed., I, 438. 79. “Sicut gratiam (quae virtus est) comitatur [voluntas] ad bonum velut ducem et tractricem, ita comitatur infirmitatem sive

298

Notes to pages 32-36

legem carnis cui copulatum est (sicut tunc gratiae) ad malum velut ducem.” W 9, 71,6. 80. See Luther’s remark, “gratia non necessitat, sed inclinat.” W 9, 62,28. 81. It is essential to the understanding of this passage to see Luther s dependence on the framework given by Lombard in d. 25, c. 6. Here he speaks of four states of the will: (1) Ante peccatum; (2) Post peccatum vero, ante reparationem gratiae; (3) Post reparationem vero, ante confirmationem; and (4) Post confirmationem. Quaracchi ed., I, 431. Regarding the fourth state, Luther spoke of gratia consummata (see next note), which agrees with the term for the fourth state in the less critical edition in PL 192, 707. 82. Luther expressed this complicated relationship in these com¬ pressed words: “Et ita utrinque liberum est et utique aliter agere nequit (loquor de gratia consummata et infirmitate non sanata). Sed in fide est mixtura et temperatio utrisque extremi, usque dum ad speciem perducamur. W 9, 71,9 (continuing from the text cited in n- 79)83. W 9, 71, lines 13-34. We will summarize the content of these lines in the next three paragraphs of our text. 84. “Verumtamen quia Deus semper praesto est, nee ideo liberum arbitrium damnatur, quia non habet gratiam aut habere non potest, sed quia oblatum et exhibitam non acceptat vel acceptam non custodit et non comitatur ducem gratiam, sed retrocedit et stat rebelle ipsa progredi volente. Sicut in beatis non ideo est beatitudo, quia habet gratiam praecise, sed quia earn acceptant et consentiunt earn habere.” W 9, 71,34. 85. Verum notandum est, quod sicut ad bonum principalitas est gratiae, ita ad malum principalitas est voluntatis, concomitante hie infirmitate, illic voluntate.” W 9, 72,1. 86. W 9, 71,13 and 71,32. 87. See p. 295, n. 52. 88. W 9, 73,29. See p. 24. 89- W 9, 75,16. 90. W 9, 75,32. 91. W 9, 62,28. 92. [Concupiscentia] non est per se mala, sed est poena tantum et per accidens mala, prout anima non vincens earn peccat ex eius inclinatione et pondere.” W 9, 75,39. 93- W 9, 75,22. 94. W 9, 71,23. 95- On II Sent., d. 28, c. 3 (Quaracchi ed. I, 454), Luther interlaced a sentence of Lombard’s with these comments: Lombard:

Notes to pages 36-38

299

“Quis, inquis, peccat in eo quod nullo modo caveri potest?” Luther: “nullo modo dixit, quia per gratiam oblatam potest.” Lombard: “Peccatur autem; caveri ergo potest.” Luther: “non ex se, sed cum gratia” (W 9, 73,1). 96. Lombard related this Pelagian position: “Illam vero gratiam Dei, sine qua nihil boni possumus facere, non esse dicunt nisi in libero arbitrio, quod nullis suis praecedentibus meritis ab illo accepit nostra natura” (II Sent., d. 28, c. 2; Quaracchi ed. I, 453). Luther com¬ mented: “Hoc verbum verum potest esse maxime de gratia praeventrice, sicut in verbis jacet, sed non ad intentionem Pelagii” (W 9, 72,36). Seep. 295, n. 54. 97. See p. 17. 98. See p. 290, n. 8. 99. This reticence is reflected in Luther’s letter of March 17, 15°9> to Johannes Braun, in which, after expressing his longing to take up theology and so to pierce to the heart of the matter, Luther added, “Sed Deus est Deus; homo saepe, immo semper, fallitur in suo iudicio. Hie est Deus noster, ipse reget nos in suavitate et in saecula (WBr 1, 5,44; 17)100. See p. 22. 101. See p. 21. 102. For example: “[Concupiscentia] non est mala nisi occasionaliter inquantum ratio contra earn sibi in pugnam pro poena inobedientiae primae relictam debet certare.” W 9, 75>21103. W 9, 69,36. 104. See p. 298, n. 84. 105. R. Weijenborg has charged that Luther was teaching an erroneous ethical rigorism. Biel never went so far as to see a sin in ordinary resistance to the invitation to perfection, but saw in this only a non-culpable imperfection. Luther was speaking of a sin that was not a deliberate transgression of the law of God, thus proposing^ an ethical rigorism that would eventually bruise one’s conscience. “La charite dans la premiere theologie de Luther (i5°9—1515)»( RHE 45 (1950), 636f and 640. Weijenborg clearly transposes Luther’s thought into a wholly alien conceptual framework. The issue in Luther’s note to II Sent., d. 26, c. 3, is the concrete situation of man in the present dispensation, given the inevitability of serious sin if this man be without grace (a good Catholic thesis). Luther answers this question with the affirmation that grace is always present, and therefore sin is not an inevitable fate, but a free refusal of the grace of the ever¬ present God. In fact, Luther’s description of grace as the dux and tractrix is a notable improvement over the nominalists tendency to stress only the free and extrinsic acceptance by God of our efforts

300

Notes to pages 38-41

and their neglect of God’s drawing (Jn 6,44) and inviting men to himself. It remains to be seen whether Weijenborg’s generally phrased retractatio of 1965 will cover this charge of ethical rigorism made in 1950. See his letter in LJb 33 (1966), 118. 106. De Trin., I, 1,1; PL 42, 819. 107. W 9, 16,2. 108. W 9, 18,13. 109. ‘Non negat quin sciat, sed quod non sciat modum, i.e. humiliter non scit, quae humilitas est modus sciendi.” W 9, 22,1. B. Lohse accordingly spoke of humility as the norm and measure of all knowing. Ratio und Fides, 26. We would prefer to see it that for Luther, humility is the framework within which Christian knowledge of God must occur. 110. W 9, 20,27. 111. W 9, 20,33. 112. I Sent., d. 37, c. 3; Quaracchi ed., I, 233. H3. W 9, 56,31. God’s use of the foolish things of this world to confound the wise is a theme we will meet in Luther’s Lectures on the Psalter (1513-1515). The present text is another example of how Luther moved easily from a point of general doctrine about God (here, ubiquity) to a theme touching the concrete way of salvation God has chosen ( per stultitiam salvos facere credentes” 56,32). Luther thinks tropologically, even outside of the formal structure of the senses of scripture. W. Maurer noticed this tendency in Luther’s earliest work. “Die Anfange von Luthers Theologie,” ThLZ 77 (1952), ,114r. W 9’ 8l’31- B. Lohse pointed out how this text shows Luther fixing on self-will and not on sexual lust when he presents the root of sin. Monchtum und Reformation, 218. Lohse goes on to find theological significance in the letter of September 22, 1512, in which Luther expressly refrains from expressing his humility lest he take pride in his own virtue (WBr 1, n. 6,9; 18). This seems to us to be piessing a text that only reflects Luther’s intensified self-consciousness as he approached his advance to the doctorate.

Chapter III

1. The designation Luther had prepare his

Latin name for these lectures stems from Luther’s own of them in his letter to Spalatin, September 9, 1^6. just finished lecturing on Romans and then turned to earlier lectures on the Psalms for publication. The notes

Notes to pages 41-42

301

on the Psalms were, however, not such that they could be printed without Luther’s constant attention. Therefore he told Spalatin that they would eventually be printed in Wittenberg and not by a printer with whom Spalatin has contact: “Rogo te, ut pro me illi Martino Mercatori respondeas, ut scilicet non expectat dictata mea super psalterium” (WBr 1, 21,5; 56). 2. Luther’s glosses and scholia are found in W 3 and W 4, edited in 1885-1886 by G. Kawerau, who also published, in 1917* a folio page of scholia that had been lost (ThStK 90 [1917], 522—526). The first fascicles of the vastly improved edition of the Dictata (W 55I, with the glosses, and W 55II, with the scholia) appeared in 1963, covering Ps 1—15. E. Vogelsang’s edition of excerpts in Bo 5, 46-216, is valuable for the corrections offered against W 3 and W 4. For a taste of Luther’s Psalm exegesis in English, see J. M. Reu, Luthers German Bible (Columbus, Ohio, 1934), 95-1113. A topic of great importance we must omit is that of Luther’s dependence on (and independence of) the medieval commentaries he used. He called himself collector Psalterii (WBr 1, 28,9; 72), and in the course of the Dictata, he cited Jerome, Augustine, the Glossa Ordinaria, the Glossa Interlinearia, Cassiodorus, Nicolas of Lyra, Paul of Burgos, Matthias Doering, John of Turrecremada, and Faber Stapulensis. This list was given by Gerhard Ebeling in Luthers Auslegung des 14.(15.) Psalms in der ersten Psalmenvorlesung, ZThK 50 (1953), 280, n. 1. W 55 will facilitate the needed work in this important area. G. Ebeling gives a striking impression of the complex relationship that obtained, and of Luther s creativity within the medieval framework, in the work cited and in three other articles: “Die Anfange von Luthers Hermeneutik” (ZThK 48 [ 1951 ]) > 172~ 230; “Luthers Psalterdruck von Jahre i5!3 (ZThK ^50 [ 19531)» 43-99; and “Luthers Auslegung des 44.(45.) Psalms (in Luther Forschung heute [Berlin, 1958]), 32-48. 4. W 55II, 1, 25,11. The “1” between volume and page number refers to the intended first bound section of the future Volume 55II. The glosses in W 55I will also be so divided. 5. “Nisi forte haec sit lux nostra, ‘intrare scil. in sancturarium Domini et intelligere in novissimis eorum’, ut scil. sensus, qui est primus, fiat novissimus, et qui novissimus, fiat primus.” W 55II, 1, 25,20. For Luther, the prophetic interpretation of the Psalms is to take seriously David’s claim in 2 Sam 23,2 to be an instrument by which the Spirit speaks (26,19). , , . 6. Brandenburg also brought out the contrast with Luther s imme¬ diate predecessor in Psalm interpretation, Faber Stapulensis, who stressed the prophetic sense also, but from David s viewpoint, loo ing

302

Notes to pages 42-45

forward to the fulfillment. Luther’s standpoint is consciously taken in the NT, where the Psalms are seen as already fulfilled. Gericht und

Evangelium (Paderbom, i960), 16. In his treatment, Brandenburg stresses to an excess the point that Luther sees the Scripture as an actual work of present address. This is a favorite theme of existentialist theology, but in the Dictata Luther was primarily an observer of the work of God in Christ, in the Church, and in the Christian man. 7. Gerhard Ebeling’s minute analysis of the preface depicts Luther s many-sided relationship to the medieval tradition. ZThK 50 (*953), 80-99. See also the commentary (W 55I, 1, 7-11). Luther clearly stands within a tradition, but gives greater emphasis to the Christological interpretation than his predecessors, and is more cate¬ gorical in rejecting literal-historical exegesis, as was possible even in his day by attending to rabbinical lore and to what was known of ancient Jewish worship. 8- W 55I, 1, 6,4.

9- W 55I, 1, 6,10. 10. W 55I, 1, 6,25. Among the barely legible jottings on the title page of Luther’s specially prepared Psalter is the following: “Christus in omnibus prophetis loquitur, sed abscondite” (1,27). Here in nuce is the hermeneutic of the Dictata; it is Christological exegesis, but done in faith so as to penetrate to God’s hidden word and work.

11. Given in the article, “Luthers Psalterdruck von Jahre 1513” (ZThK 50 [1953]), 57, n. 1 and 58, n. 1. 12. W 4, 476,10. J.3. The justification for using this Psalm verse for Christ’s exalta¬ tion is the phrase, ‘ putting everything in subjection under his feet.” This, for Luther, can be applied only to God, and therefore must be about Christ (W 3, 80,34). Note that ancient Christological dogma plays a key role here. Wilhelm Maurer made the point that Luther’s creative discoveries in his earliest works were firmly rooted in ancient tradition. “Die Anfiinge von Luthers Theologie,” ThLZ 77

(1952),

6—8. A system that reduces these ancient articles of faith to ciphers in a present encounter with the word cannot claim to have caught the genius of the Dictata. Traditional Christology functions centrally in Luther’s Psalm interpretation. 14. W 3, 410,2. Throughout this chapter we follow the Dictata in referring to the Psalms according to the Vulgate enumeration. !5- W 3, 426,19. 16. W 3, 426,27.

17- W 4, 379,32. 18. Given the many Psalms in which the speaker is under attack and persecution, there was bound to be a great emphasis on Christ’s

Notes to pages 45-47 paSsion and death in Luther’s exposition: “Crux enim Christi ubique in scripturis occurrit” (W 3, 63,1). This simple fact is counted among the sources of Luther’s “theology of the cross.” 19. W 55II, 1, 54,19. On Christ as the only way to salvation, see W 3, 187,23 (“alibi non est salus nisi in Christo: ideoque necessario sunt in delicto, qui Christum et iustitiam eius oderunt et sunt insalvabiles”); W 3, 297,13; 316,6; 320,37 (“ex quo omnis homo extra Christum mendax est sequitur quod nec os nec manus eius iustitiam faciat”); W 4, 388,30; and W 3, 56,33 (from the revision of 1516). 20. As Luther explained in the second half of the Praefatio Ihesu Christi in his printed Psalm text: “Quidquid de Domino Ihesu Christo in persona sua ad literam dicitur hoc ipsum allegorice de adiutorio sibi simili [Gen 2,18] et ecclesia sibi in omnibus conformi debet intelligi. Idemque simul tropologice debet intelligi de quolibet spirituali et interiori homine contra suam camem et exteriorem hominem” (W 55I, 1, 8,8). Even more concise was Luther’s marginal gloss to Ps 20,2: “De Christo prophetice loquitur et simul eadem de ecclesia eius et quolibet membro. Quia omnia ascribuntur tanquam Christo soli, quia per ipsum solum habent omnes, cum de plenitudine eius accipiant omnes” (W 3, 132,21). 21. W 4, 468,28. 22. W 3, 154,5. Among the works of his hands that God carries out alone are creation, justification, and redemption. 23- W 3, 367,28. 24- W 3, 369,6. 25. “Primo sine opere humano incarnabitur, . . . Sicut enim Christus de spiritu sancto conceptus est: ita quilibet fidelis nullo opere humano sed sola gratia Dei et operatione spiritus sancti iustificatur et renascitur.” W 3, 468,14. E. Vogelsang’s presentation of this idea has rightly become a classic in research on Luther. Die Anfange von Luthers Christologie (Berlin and Leipzig, 1929), 52ff. This will re¬ main true because of the importance of this cluster of concepts, even if it prove not to give the key to Luther’s 1545 account of his insight into the meaning of iustitia Dei in Rom 1, 17. 26. W 4, 53,1.3327. W 4, 61,18. Warren Quanbeck pointed out the significance of this: “Luther’s understanding of Christ as the opus Dei provided him with a new systematic setting for the attributes of God. Here is the dynamic, active working of God in the world in contrast to the static conception of his attributes in medieval theology. . . . Luther also de¬ veloped a new exegetical method in which the tropological meaning grows out of the literal. Christ is the literal sense of the Psalms; the tropological sense is his work in the believer. The new perception of

3«4

Notes to pages 47-49

the meaning of God’s work and the new relationship of literal and tropological senses were results of Luther’s occupation with the notion of the opus Dei in the Psalms.” “Luther’s Early Exegesis,” in Luther Today (Decora, Iowa, 1957), 57. 28. W 4, 241,8. 29. See p. 303, n. 20. 30. W 55I, 1, 8,12. 31. W 4, 261,25. At the end of this passage, Luther expresses approval of the language of the scholastics on preparation for grace: “Hinc recte dicunt Doctores quod homini facienti quod in se est, Deus infallibiliter dat gratiam, et licet non de condigno sese possit ad gratiam praeparare, quia est incomparabilis, tamen bene de congruo propter promissionem istam Dei et pactum misericordiae” (W 4, 262,4). However, Luther has so stressed God’s initiative all through this passage, and he so carefully avoided the technical phrase meritum de congruo, that his agreement with the scholastics seems to us not to involve agreement with the nominalist view of preparation for grace by natural striving that God then responds to as congruous merit. The analogy between Christ’s first coming and his coming in grace is the theme of this passage. However, this involved an explicit exclusion of merit (261, 26.32.38 and 262, 1). Then Luther noted as a fact that in the Old Testament people had to prepare themselves for Christ, since God required it. Preparation for Christ was on their part a fitting, or congruous, response to God’s promise. Here Luther in¬ terprets the term de congruo as applying to the people’s response, not to God s response to their efforts. His agreement with nominalism is only verbal. We have already seen how Luther’s earliest theology stressed prevenient grace. Thus we cannot agree with Heiko Oberman s periodization of Luther’s departure from the nominalist camp. In fact, on grace and the will, it is never clear that he was in this camp. Oberman had seen this text as a clear sign of Luther’s nominal¬ ism on the will and grace in mid-1515: “Facientibus quod est in se Deus non denegat gratiam: Robert Holcot and the Beginnings of Luther’s Theology” (HThR 55 [1962]), 337. See Leif Grane’s careful study of this and the other texts of the Dictata on preparation for grace. Contra Gabrielem, 295-30 x. We would not deny that Luther thought of the justified man as capable of merit. See D. Bellucci, Fede e Giustificazione, 130—136. 32. W 4, 19,32. 33. W 3, 606,8. 34. In a marginal gloss on Ps 62,1 Luther wrote: “Sicut autem Psalmus iste est vox Christi inter Iudaeos tanquam capitis nostri, ita etiam est ecclesiae tanquam corporis eius et cuiuslibet fidelis tanquam

Notes to pages 49-51

305

membri eius. Unde dicit St. Augustinus: Psalmus iste dicitur ex persona Domini et membrorum eius. Sunt enim omnes in deserto huius mondi” (W 3, 357,23). 35. W 3, 483,39 and 484,27. 36. W 3, 489,31. 37. “Semper enim sicut in capite, ita et in corpore. Caput autem primo fuit humiliatum et postea magnificatum. Ita postquam ecclesia per coelum scripturae et fidem fundata est super stabilitatem suam, mox persecutionibus tradita, ut magnificaretur.” W 4, 179,13. 38. See p. 48. 39. W 3, 299,29 and 176,28; 483,5. 40. On Ps 20, 2: “De Christo prophetice loquitur et simul eadem de ecclesia eius et quolibet membro. Quae omnia ascribuntur tanquam Christo soli, quia per ipsum solum habent omnes, cum de plenitudine eius accipiant omnes.” W 3, 132,21. See also: “Ecclesia est species decoris eius, scilicet Christi, quia ei assimilata est et de eius plenitudine accipiens” (281,8). On Ps 30, Luther gave this canon: “Quod ubicunque Christus in psalmis conqueritur et orat in afflictione corporali ad literam, sub eisdem verbis quaeritur et orat omnis fidelis anima in Christo genita et erudita et in peccatum se tentatam vel lapsam agnoscens. Quia Christus usque hodie conspuitur, occiditur, flagellatur, crucifigitur in nobis ipsis” (W 3, 167,21). 41. “Sic enim omni veritati et iustitiae et iusto contingit, ut deseratur usque ad desperationem, decensum ad inferos et mortem. Sed non videt corruptionem nec derelinquitur in inferno. Sicut enim Christo contingit in persona, qui est obiectum, fons, origo, et sol iustitiae, veritatis, et salutis, ita fit in radiis, rivis, speciebus ab eo pendentibus et fluentibus.” W 4, 76,14. 42. “Ratio omnium, quia Deus facit omnes sanctos suos conformes fieri imagini filii sui, ideo eadem verba omnibus congruunt. W 3, 46,32. Earlier, Luther spoke succinctly about the mirahilia Dei of Ps 110,4: “Ista autem mirabilia radicaliter et causaliter in Christi passione sunt facta, ad cuius exemplum omnes formari necesse est” (W 4, 243,14). However, Christ is more than just the exemplar: “Iudicat ergo Dominus iam populus in equitate discemens per gratias suas bonos a malis, ... In hoc iudicio resurgitur resurrectione prima secundum animam, cuius figura et causa est resurrectio Christi”^ (W 55II, 1, 20,15). Here is the view of Christ as the “sacrament,” the effective sign of our new life, as we saw in the marginals to Augustine. See p. 292, n. 22. 43. W 55I, 1, 2,1. . 44. Luther elaborated on the words ad docendutn found in his Vulgate text at the head of Ps 59 with this marginal note: “Morahter

3°6

Notes to pages 51-52

instruendum. Sensus enim moralis vocatur doctrina in scriptura. Rom *5, Quaecumque scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt/ Et ideo tropologicus sensus est ultimatus et principaliter intentus in scriptura. . . (W 3, 335, *9 )• D- Bellucci has treated this matter in some detail. Fede e Giustificazione, 101—109. 45- W 3, 465,1. 46. “[Opera Dei] omnia sunt tanquam fomenta timoris et spei, odii et amoris estimanda et ponderanda. Cum autem frequenter dixerimus tropologiam esse primarium sensum Scripturae, quo habito facile sequitur sua sponte allegoria et anagogia et applicationes par¬ ticulates contingentium.” W 3, 531,32. 47. Bonum tropologicum est fides et opera eius, ex quo et per ipsum oritur bonum allegoricum, id est corpus Christi, qui Domino adhaerent usque ad gloriam futuram, anagogicum bonum.” W 3, 532,24- B). Bellucci called attention to the danger involved in making wholesale use of this principle, that is, that the dependence of the individual upon the Church (that is its word and sacraments) would be neglected. Fede e Giustificazione, 106. Whether Luther’s work in the Dictata actually moves in this direction is difficult to decide in such a diffuse work. Shortly before this text, he had urged priests to pray the frequent Deus in adiutorium . . of the breviary devoutly: quoniam si ecclesia adiuta fuerit, nos quoque salvi erimus, cum ipsa sit gallina nostra, nos pulli eius” (W 3, 446,32). 48. Tropologiam autem psalmi credo ex saepe dictis facile apparere. Nam quaecumque de adventu primo in comem dicuntur: simul de adventu spirituali intelliguntur. Immo adventus in camem ordinatur et fit propter istum spiritualem: alioquin nihil profuisset. . . Quid enim prodesset Deum hominem fieri, nisi idipsum credendo salvaremur? Quocirca Christus non dicitur iustitia, pax, misericordia, salus nostra in persona sua nisi effective. Sed fides Christi, qua iustificamur, pacificamur, per quern in nobis regnat.” W 4, 19,32. 49- A. Brandenburg has posed the question whether’Bultmann’s radical existentialist interpretation has not harvested the seed planted in Luther’s first lectures on the Psalms. Gericht und Evangelium, 17. Among the many points to be considered as we try to form an answer to this question, we would urge the following: (1) The decision of the just man which brings the tropological sense to term in living faith is made in terms of detachment from the “world” (that is W 4, 156,4), or war against the “flesh,” etc. The content of the bonum tropologicum is quite monastic and other-worldly. In a sense, Thomas a Kempis would be a more kindred spirit with Luther than the moderns but of course, the main issue is not over the content of one’s life-shaping decision. (2) Luther is not just “existential” in dealing

Notes to pages

52-53

307

with the tropological interpretation. It was “carnal understanding that made the Jews miss the true significance of Christ. The structure is clear—a threefold work of God. Moreover, the primacy of the tropological sense did not lead Luther to relativize the other two senses, as is often the case in a modern existential interpretation. (3) The scholia on Ps 77 are instructive—it is the remembrance of Christ’s deeds in the flesh that is to nourish faith, hope, and contempt for temporal goods. Our great problem is neglect of the deeds of Christ. See W 3, 565,29: “Nonne haec est hodie omnium devotorum quaerela, quod incamatio et passio Christi adeo in oblivionem venit, ut vix Christianismus appareat?” Such texts make one pause before accepting the thesis that the Dictata are closely akin to an existentialist theology of the word. Room must be left at the center of any systematization of this work for the incarnate Son of God as a reality and not just as a cipher to aid one’s struggle for a new self-understanding. 50. Tribuation is essential: “Quia est expressa sententia sacrae scripturae, quod qui extra tribulationem est, extra statum et spem salutis est” (W 3, 344,31). 51. W 3, 447,11. 52. “Semper fortior est sensus et aestimatio carms quam spintus. Quod totum fit, ut virtus noster non sit in nobis, sed in Deo, qui vivificat mortuos, erigit elisos, allevat corruentes, ut scilicet occidat istos principes.” W 4, 384,2. 53-

W 3, 445,35 437)29- This passage shows that great care is needed in speaking of the all-exclusive activity of God (“Alleinwirksamkeit”) in connec¬ tion with the opus Dei in the Dictata, as E. Vogelsang did in the central portion of his book Die Anfange von Luthers Christologie, 55. The saints are struck down by God, but they also mortify themselves. 60. On the Gospel as the virga ferrea, see W 55II, 1, 37,19; also the text in the previous note. On Ps 118,13, Luther explained iudicia thus: quae sunt verba correptionis et crucis Christi, in quibus continetur, quae mala culpae sint vitanda pro iustitia conservanda, et quae mala poenae propter iustitiam et Christum sustinenda. Sic enim Evangelium iudicat, id est arguit peccata, ut vitentur, et castigat veterem hominem, ut proficiat iustitia interioris” (W 4, 310,13). This is a fine text in support of Heiko Oberman’s remark that the central issue for Luther is the conservation of life in Christ, not the prepara¬ tion for it, as was the case in the via modernd. “ ‘Iustitia Christi’ and Iustitia Dei’—Luther and the Scholastic Doctrine of Justification,” . '59 (*966), 13. The text given here, and the material treated in Section 8 of this chapter, stress even more the issue of progress in interior justice, an emphasis that removes Luther even further from the nominalist theologians and closer to the monastic-spiritual tradition which is, unfortunately, very difficult to fix historically. Much ot this latter tradition would have come to Luther via florilegia of pious sayings, for instance. Thus he would have heard Bernard’s “Non progredi est retrogredi, an idea that had great influence for his view ot Christian living in these early works. 61.. The word schemata is not meant to designate these as purely formal structures. Rather they are concrete aspects, or modes of the opus Dei in its different phases. The Psalm text itself gave rise to each of these to a greater or lesser extent. Luther, however generalized them, and used them to draw out the sense of many other verses He was convinced that these patterns characterized what God was about.

Notes to pages 54-55

309

62. A. Brandenburg develops this dualism more fully in his Gericht und Evangelium, 33ft and 86ff. 63. W 4, 469,23. In a “Vocabularium” drawn up for Ps 1, Luther gave this seminal description: Iudicium est sententia damnationis et est proprie quando quis seipsum accusat, detestatur et condemnat, sicut nostri theologi dicunt de actibus poenitentiae; hos vocat scriptura ‘iudicium.’ . . (W 55II, 1, 32,18). 64. “Ita sunt duae praedicationes in ecclesia: . . . exhortari ad gaudium in Domino et exhortari ad luctum et poenitentiam in seipso ... In una canitur iustitia, quae est nobis ex Deo, in altera iudicium. In una passiones et crux Christi, in altera resurrectio, gloria, et^consolationes Christi.” W 4, 121,20. See also W 4, i74>27i>337>22 ( Du0 evangelium docet, id est bonitatem et disciplinam 37°>3°65. “Quando dico evangelium esse iudicium et iustitiam, intelligendum de evangelio pleno sive impleto. Evangelium enim impletum et opere perfectum ipsum est iudicium et iustitia quibus regit Christus ecclesiam. Alioquin si pro solo verbo evangelii accipitur, tunc tantummodo est sic iudicium et iustitia, quod ostendit quae sint damnanda et eligenda. Hoc est, ut nostro more loquar: evangelium est realiter et formaliter iudicium et iustitia, quando sic opere vivitur sicut ipsum nos docet. Est autem ostensive et doctrinaliter iudicium et iustitia, quando docet sic vivendum.’ W 3, 463,21, cited from Bo 5> LS®, where Vogelsang has explained the complications caused by Luther s insertion of Sheet 103 of the Dresden Psalter. Later (perhaps) Luther spoke of the evangelium nudum that can become impletum, that is, incarnatum et operibus indutum (W 3? 51^>14)66. W 4, 253, 2ff. r 67. W 55II, 1, 32,18, cited in n. 63. See also “Confessio emm et accusatio sui est ‘iudicium’ hoc, quod ‘amat Dominus, et correctio sedis eius.’ Anima enim, quae sic sine intermissione seipsam detestatur, ‘odit se in hoc mundo,’ displicet sibi et odit opera sua, haec est quae portat iudicium hoc et semper resurgit” (33,8). 68. On this theme, see especially H. Bandt, Luthers Lehre vom verborgenen Gott (Berlin, 1958), 24-43. See also Brandenburg, Gericht und Evangelium, 28-33. 69. W 4, 77, lines 34-39, and 7§> lines 4~970. W 4, 81,20. _ _ . , 71. W 4, 83,3. A. Hunzinger had argued that a dualistic ontology underlies all the main concepts of the Dictata. Luthers Neuplatonismus in der Psalmenvorlesung von I5i3-15l6 (Leipzig, 1906),_ 15» 3b and 48. The present theme suggests that for Luther the biblical con¬ trast of pride and humility was, or became, more basic than any ontology. 1 Cor 1, 22ff is a very basic text for Luthers thinking at

3io

Notes to pages 55-56

this time, for example, “Semper enim Christi veritas in humilitate est et in specie quae scandalisat sapientiam carnis: ideo semper patitur vituperia et opprobria at illis, quia non cognoverunt earn, quibus stulta videtur et infirma et mala omnino. Ecce o humilitas ubique, quomodo docetur in singulis versibus et crux Christi” (W 4, 386,25). F. Edward Cranz has maintained that in the Dictata Luther was moving from Platonist thinking (stressing harmony between image and exemplar, between the visible and the invisible, etc.) to a theology of the cross (stressing discontinuity, opposition, and paradox). This has something to say for itself, but is extremely difficult to pin down. See Cianzs An Essay on the Development of Luther’s Thought on Justice, Law, and Society, 2—7.

72- His alien work is done by him, that he might do his own work.” W 4, 87,24. 73- W 3, 547,24 and 548,21. 74; 1 Cor 1,23 and 1,27 are among the most cited Scripture verses in the Dictata (12 and 10 times, respectively). See L. Pinomaa, Register der Bibelzitate in Luthers Scriften 1500—1510 (Helsinki, n.d.), Part 2, 31. These verses are the sources of the characteristic dualism of coram Deo and coram hominibus in Luther’s psalm exposi¬ tion. 75- For example: Omnis disciplina Dei in sanctis est patema et mansueta, eo quod solam carnem castiget ad salutem spiritus. Et ita disciplina et mansueta stant simul. Quia disciplinam caro mansuetudmem autem spiritus sentit.” ThStK 90 (1917), 523. 76. W 3, 407,19. 77. In a marginal gloss on Ps 53,5: “Sanctis enim Deus intus adest, ubi impii non vident” (W 3, 300,24), then in the scholion: tmristus et Christiani licet secundum carnem patiantur et occidentur, tamen anima eorum semper salva evadat et nunquam comprehenditur, ■ • omo manifeste persequitur, sed Deus immediate et occulte adiuvat: quod impii non vident-” (W 3, 302,13). See also W 4, 33L7H F°r1 * m,ore devel°Ped treatment, see Wilhelm Maurer, Kirche und Geschichte nach Luthers Dictata super Psalterium ” in Luther Forschung heute, 85-101. See also John M. Headley, Luthers View of Church History (New Haven and London, 1963), i4qff although Headley s concentration is on Luther’s later conception. It is astounding that so little attention has been paid to this schema of Church history to help recapture Luther’s understanding of his own age. Admittedly this is something taken over from the tradition but then Luther was not one to separate even traditional ideas from life 79- See, for example, PL 183, 768ff and 958ff “v 7v

Notes to pages 56-57

311

80. Luther developed this schema in some detail in his scholia on Ps 68, listing there the infirmitates ecclesiae (W 3, 416,6). See p. 217L The schema was also basic in the Praefatio Ihesu Christi printed in Luther’s text of the Psalter. See W 55I, 1, 8,12. The schema is also to be found at W 3, 85,30; 443,32—444,25; and 601,38. 81. W 3, 417,1. 82. “Sicut prima tempora felicia fuerunt, quia disciplinae et tribulationis tempora fuerunt, ubi ecclesia maxime profecit, sic novissima infelicia, quia pacis et securitatis tempora sunt et erunt, ubi ecclesia maxime defecit et deficiet. Et ultima persecutionum ecclesiae erit pax et securitas.” W 3, 433,14 and W 4, 76,29. In the revised scholion on Ps 1,6 (1516), Luther spoke of the four seasons through which the Church had lived: “Autumnus iam restat et nunc instat, in quo messis et vindemia agetur novissimi iudicii. Hie rursus incipit frigus charitatis” (W 3, 25,29). Two recent works indicate that such a pessimistic assessment of the age was widespread at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Jane D. Douglass relates how the Strassburg cathedral preacher, John Geiler of Kaisersberg (d. 1510), frequently complained about the low state of theology, the general moral cor¬ ruption, and especially the sinfulness of clerics. Justification in Late Medieval Preaching (Leiden, 1966), 62, 7gf, 94.f, and 97f. John W. O’Malley, S.J., documented a nearly identical judgment on the age from the works of the Augustinian Prior General, Giles of Viterbo (d. 1532), and went on to show agreement of others all over Europe. “Historical Thought and the Reform Crisis of the Early Sixteenth Century,” TS 28 (1967), 531-548, especially 534®- In the case of Giles, O’Malley concludes to notable influence by an a priori his¬ torical schematism that hindered a more sensitive and more objective comparison of the age with a valid ideal. There is some probability that both Luther and Erasmus were both crippled in assessing their own age by similar, quasi-mythical thought patterns. O Malley wrote: “Belief in some form of historical decline or degeneration from a holier or more perfect era was also widespread and derived much more directly from myths and theories inherited from antiquity and the middle ages than from a scientific analysis of historical data (ibid., 543f). We would maintain that Luther’s Lectures on the Psalms in 1513-1515 give repeated evidence of such a prepossession. 83. The observantes were the exempt religious groups who, in Luther’s view, flee from true obedience. See the description at W 3, 154>36, where Luther accuses them of neglecting their true obliga¬ tion’ in order to offer to God multa et magna ex propria adinventione. They do not do “the works of the Lord,” but follow their own will: “Tales hodie esse timendum est omnes observantes et exemptos sive

312

Notes to page

57

privilegiatos. . . (155,8). Here Luther is sniping at his Augustinian brethren in houses of strict observance, for example, those in Erfurt, where Luther began his religious life, who refused to accede to the plan for the reunion of the order in Saxony. See O. Scheel, Martin Luther, II, 480ft, 54off, and 6s8ff. Scheel’s postulate that Luther discovered the Pauline gospel sometime in 1512 or 1513 makes him read observantes in these texts as if the word no longer referred to members of the order of which Luther was a member at this time. Fortunately, B. Lohse’s more balanced judgment (Monchtum und Reformation [Gottingen, 1963], 267-272) has been taken into the critical apparatus of W 55II (on p. 87Q. Lohse sees the attack on the houses of strict observance as occupying an important place in the Dictata, although within Luther’s comprehensive criticism of all men of pride who set up their own way of justice. 84. Cited by Luther at W 3, 417,7. 85. W 3, 169,33. 86. W 3, 174,26. 87. W 3, 216,7. 88. “Hodie proh dolor est, quia est inefficax fides, fides informis, quando solum sciuntur credenda, sed virtutem fidei non operantur, i.e. quando regnum Dei in sermone et non in virtute collocant.” W 3, 490,26. 89- W 3, 509,16-35. 90. Nostris autem temporibus est pugna cum hipocritis et falsis fratribus, qui de bonitate fidei pugnant, quam sibi arrogant, per observantias suas iactantes suam sanctitatem.” W 4, 312,21. See also W 4, 156,30, and Luther’s bitter, and at times abusive, sermon against the falsi fratres on May 1, 1515 (W 1, 44ft and 4, 675®). 91. Cum igitur nostro tempore reales passiones et tribulationes non habeamus, summe necessarium est, ut saltern affectuales istas nobis inferamus, ut sic apti simus, quibus Deus misereatur et quos salvet. Ac sic nostri ipsorum simus Tyranni, tortores, Haeretici, excitantes tales affectus, qui nos persequantur et ad meliora cogant ne per pacem et securitatem dissolvamur.” W 3, 432,26. 92- Gerhard Ebeling pointed out the all-embracing dualism of Luther s thinking in the Dictata. He contrasted the reality that is manageable and ready at hand, although ephemeral, with the true, hidden reality that we cannot dispose of. See especially ZThK 48 (1951), 187L On p. 191 of this article, Ebeling makes the important precision that this is not primarily an ontological dualism, but a con¬ trast of two ways of understanding how a man stands before God. It is the opposition of two kinds of existence open to a man (p. 195). We would wish to shift the emphasis slightly to stress the concrete

Notes to pages 58-60

313

duality of impii/ iusti, to two kinds of men reacting to the opus Dei. This, we feel, is closer to the concrete-descriptive character of the work Luther did in unfolding the senses of the Psalm text. Leif Grane, Contra Gabrielem, 293, 295, and 301; and Axel Gyllenkrok, Rechtfertigung und Heiligung in der frtihen evangelischen Theologie Luthers (Wiesbaden, 1952), 24S and 99. On p. 47, Gyllenkrok made the pertinent remark that it is not a question of the identity of justice and humility in the Dictata, but that the just man is the humble man. In the terminology of the passage cited on p. 309, n. 65, Luther is more interested in the evangelium plenum sive impletum, or incarnatum et operibus indutum, that is, in the men who realize the Gospel in their lives. 93. W 3, 131,31 and 181,2. 94. W 4, 469,6. 95. W 3, 182,24. . 96. “De membris autem Christi sic: cum ceciderit aliquis in peccatum, non colliditur usque in desperationem sed resurgit. Quia septies in die cadit iustus et toties resurgit. Impii autem cadent in malum, i.e. desperationem et contemptum.” W 3, 207,35.

97- W 3, 475,3598. W 3, 649,30. ... T , IT 99. Gerhard Ebeling’s article, “Die Anfange von Luthers Hermeneutik,” ZThK 48 (1951), 172-230, stresses the importance of this dualism in the Dictata. See also A. Brandenburg, Gericht und Evan¬ gelium, 9 iff. B. Lohse has recently presented the evidence in favor of Luther being in touch with Augustine’s De spiritu et littera even during the Dictata, and not at first during the Lectures on Romans. “Die Bedeutung Augustins fur den jungen Luther,” KuD 11 (1965), 116-135. 100. W 55I, 1, 26*. 101. W 55I, 1, 4,25. 102. W 55I, 1, 30,11. 103. On Ps 39,8, Luther explained: “Loquitur contra literalem populum, quia Messiam sperat in bonis terrenis et infimis regnaturum, qui tamen in coelo et nubibus, i.e. sanctis spiritualibus in fide suspensis et umbratis, i.e. nubibus spiritualibus, regnat” (W 3, 199,27). 104. W 3, 194A9 and 258,5. 105- W 3, 167,12. 106. W 3, 515,36. See also W 4, 92,2. 107. Luther likened his work to cracking hard nuts, which then proved to be most sweet to the taste: “Ego autem quandocunque habeo aliquem textum nuceum, cuius cortex mihi durus est, allido eum mox ad petram et invenio nucleum suavissimum.” The rock, of

314

Notes to pages 60-61

course, is Christ. W 55I, 1, 6,32. It was the Spirit who would open the difficult meaning of Ps 118. Others had failed by not attending to the prophetic sense, which was the basic sense. Speaking of this, Luther explained: “Quia absconditus est et in spiritu nimium interiori loquens, unde non possit eius causa et motivum videri, cur sic et non aliter dixerit et ordinaverit, ab iis, qui non eosdem motus habent. Nam nullus alium in scripturis spiritualibus intelligit, nisi eundem spiritum sapiat et habeat” (W 4, 305,8). Warren Quanbeck well delineates the predominant ideal of spiritual understanding under the influence of the Holy Spirit in Luther’s early work. “Luther’s Early Exegesis,” in Luther Today (Decora, Iowa, 1957), 82-103. 108. For example, W 55II, 1, 105,2; 106,20; W 3, 277,2; W 4, 170,29; and 226,25. 109. W 55II, 1, 124,5; W 3, 96,23 (“Lex autem spiritualiter intellecta est idem cum evangelio.”); W 4, 134,20. 110. W 3, 641,28 (“Legem enim statuere perfacile est et obligare, sed virtutem faciendi et solvendi non nisi Deus dare potest legislator, qui iubet simul et dat benedictionem, ut implere possint.”) See also W 4> 3°9>7- These two texts express the central theme of St. Augustine’s De spiritu et littera. See p. 313, n. 99. 111. ' 164,22; and 256.9 (“Deus utitur verbis nostris, sive sint evangelia sive prophetiae, tanquam instrumentis, in quibus ipse viva verba in cordibus scribit. . . . [Stilus] ducitur in literas vivas, quando Deus incrementum dat et afficere et sapere concedit.”); W 4, 9,28 ( Lex est verbum Mosi ad nos, evangelium autem verbum Dei in nos.”). 112. ‘Non sicut illi in littera. et visibili iustitia et lege incedo, quam Moses scripsit vel homo. Sed intrabo, intus ibo, introrsum accedam in spiritualem iustitiam, quae est virtus Christi, quae scribi non potest litteris sicut Lex Mosi.” W 3, 455,29. D. Bellucci concen¬ trated his search for Luther’s most characteristic discovery on the question of the exigence posed by the lex spiritualis to man in the concrete. Fede e Giustificazione, especially 29-30. This is a critical controversial question, and we would not deny that it plays some role in the Dictata, but it does not seem to us to have been a central question for Luther at this time. Such an anthropocentric question is foreign to the main movement of Luther’s thought in 1513-1515, where the great theme is not what a man does or can do, but what God is doing in each phase of his work. g ii3- ^ 55lf> i> 33A and 33>i6. See also the text given on p. 309, . , lx4' est laus Dei.

*n principle est accusator sui, et sic confessio peccati W 3, 185,6. This connection was expanded by E. Vogel-

Notes to pages 61-62

3i5

sang in “Der Confessio-Begriff des jungen Luther” (LJb 12 [1930]), 91-108. 115. “Nullus benedicit Dominum, nisi qui sibi displicet et se maledicet et cui Deus solus placet. . . . Qui enim sibi aliquid videtur et non omnino detestabilis, hie manifeste habet etiam laudem sui in ore suo, et non est semper laus Dei in ore meo. Unde confessio peccati est gloria et laus Dei, et nunquam Deum recte laudamus nisi prius nosipsos vituperaverimus.” W 3, 191,1. 116. See A. Brandenburg’s helpful survey, Gericht und Evangelium, 59—69. Brandenburg’s stress on the simultaneity of judgment and justice (since God’s work is hidden beneath its contrary) seems to us to offer the basic idea needed to grasp Luther’s conception on this point. We would not be as hesitant as Brandenburg is about excluding the concept of merit from precisely this complex (p. 66). Luther speaks of merit in the Dictata in connection with the Chris¬ tian’s advance toward future glory. See Bellucci, Fede e Giustificazione, i2gff. The basis of this life, however, is God’s work in the man willing to admit his own sin. In describing this work of God, Brandenburg seems to overstress the role of the word of God. For instance, in the note on iudicium on the inside cover of Faber s Psalterium Qunicuplex, Luther described God’s work as the trials in¬ flicted upon the flesh so that the spirit might reign. W 4, 469,6. Furthermore, the word is not alone: “Evangelium vocale et litterale est impossibilis lex, nisi Deus ipsum intus simul doceat. ‘Spiritus autem est qui vivificat’ et roborat; quando Deus immediate inspirat et docet hominem, simul dat gratiam et ignem” (W 3, 451,2.4). 117. For example, in the line gloss in Ps 36,28 (text: “Dominus amat iudicium), Luther explained: “ut homo seipsum iudicet, castigat, accuset, damnet, et per hoc potes perseverare in ecclesia.” W 3, 208,5. To this, he added in the margin, “Humflitas enim ipsa est iudicium et per ipsam in ecclesiae perseverat omnis sanctus” (208,33), and later: “Nemo per fidem iustificatur nisi prius per humilitatem sese iniustum confiteatur. Haec autem est humilitas” (W 3, 345,29). 118. See p. 311, n. 83. 119- W 5511, 1, 29,9. „ 120. The text was: “Secundum opera manuum eorum tribue llus, and Luther’s marginal gloss: “quia iustitiam suam statuunt et iustitiae Christi non subiiciuntur” (W 3, 152,37). 121. W 3, 155,30. Previously, Luther had listed the oftenders, and of those who worship idols made according to their own justice, he wrote: “idola seu opera manuum eorum opera ilia, quae faciunt secundum iustitiam suam, ignorantes iustitiam Dei. Et sic erigunt opera sua contra Deum et fidem Christi

(154U9) •

316

Notes to pages

62-65

122. W 3, 170,30. 123. W 3, 323,30; 327,6; 355,1; 454,19; and 309,15, where Lu¬ ther contrasted iniustitia (simply unbelief) and labor (strenuous effort following one’s own path to justice). 124. W 55II, 1, 29,10 and W 3, 331,25. W 55I, 1, 26*. 126. W 4, 203,1. 127. For example, at W 4, 317,12 and 384,15. 128. “Oportet enim esse iustum in voluntate et sic in opus procedere. Contra autem superbi, qui ex eo quod operantur, volunt sibi imputari iustitiam, et non prius imputari sibi iustitiam, ut operentur. Et haec est iustitia humana, quae ex operibus fit et imputatur. Sed ilia est iustitia Dei, quae est ante omne opus. Sicut peccatum originale est ante omne opus nostrum malum: sic fuisset iustitia originahs ante omne opus nostrum bonum. Cuius loco nobis nunc iustitia Christi datur ante omne opus meritorium.” W 4, 19,24. 129. On superbos in Ps 118,78 Luther expanded: “Superbos dicit spirituali superbia, ipsos scilicet iustitiarios et sui iustificatores, qui ex operibus iusti esse volunt et non ex promissione et misericordia Dei miserentis, sed suorum esse putant meritorum et esse currentis atque volentis, quod iusti sint” (W 4, 344,24). 130. For example, in the recent works of Ernst Bizer, Fides ex auditu (i958ff); Regin Prenter, Der barmherzige Richter (Copen¬ hagen, 1962); and D. Bellucci, Fede e Giustificazione (1963). 131- W 3, 155,23. 132. W 3, 170,38. Luther made the same point in greater detail at W 3, 287,29. See also W 4, 204,22, where Luther argued from 1 Cor 1,30: Quia Dominus factus est nobis virtus et sapientia et potentia, ideo ipse solus a nobis praedicandus est, et nostra potentia infirmanda et sapientia infatuanda atque bonitas seu iustitia nostra condemnenda.” 133. On the revelation of both the wrath and justice of God in Rom 1, 17-18: Sensus est: nullus hominum scivit, quod ira Dei esset super omnes et quod omnes essent in peccatis coram eo, sed per Evangelium suum ipse de coelo revelavit et quomodo ab ista ira salvi fieremus, ut per quam iustitiam liberaremur, scilicet per Christum” 3> 174>1b). The Gospel of Gods justice is clearly a word about salvation in Christ. Later, in a gloss on Ps 89,1: “Ignoravit enim omnis homo se esse sub ira Dei, donee evangelium veniret et earn manifestaret. Ro. 1. ‘Revelatur enim (scilicet in evangelio) ira Dei de coelo (W 4, 50,27). 134. Et ideo vocatur [evangelium] iudicium Dei, quia contranum est iudicio hominum; damnat enim ea, quae eligunt homines,

Notes to pages

65-67

317

et eligit ea quae damnat homines. Et hoc iudicium est in cruce Christi nobis ostensum. Quia sicut ipse mortuus est et abiectio plebis factus, ita oportet nos simile iudicium cum eo portare, crucifigi, et mori spiritualiter, ut Apostolus Ro. 6 et 8. exponit. Notandum autem, quod quando dico evangelium esse iudicium et iustitiam, intelligendum de evangelio pleno sive impleto. Evangelium enim impletum et opere perfectum ipsum est iudicium et iustitia, quibus regit Christus ecclesiam. . . . Evangebum est realiter et formaliter iudicium et iustitia, quando sic opere vivitur sicut ipsum nos docet. Est autem ostensive et doctrinaliter iudicium et iustitia, quando docet sic vivendum. W 3, 463,15135- W 4, 278,11. 136. “Si enim aliquid nostri susciperet et non penitus reprobaret, iam nec verus Deus nec solus bonus esset, quia et nos beneficiis cum eo certaremus. Nunc autem vult, quod nos tantummodo accipiamus, et ipse solus dat, et ita sit vere Deus. Unde nisi quis se confiteatur malum, non potest confiteri Domino, quoniam bonus. Ubi enim Deum bonum dicis, te bonum esse neges oportet et omnio malum confitearis. W 4, 278,32. 137. Werner Dettloff presented a useful survey of the way this axiom was used by Scotus (in close connection with Gods absolute goodness, in which human virtues, especially Gods gift of charity, do share) and then in the nominalist theologians of the late middle ages (in extreme deductions about an arbitrary God who, de potentia^ sua absoluta, could even condemn a man living in his grace). Das Gottesbild und die Rechtfertigung in der Schultheologie zwischen Duns Scotus und Luther,” Wissenschaft und Weisheit 27 (1964), 197-210. 138. W 3, 228,13, and then: “Opus summe est ut acuto verbo Dei oboedientia ei commendetur. Quia in hoc stat tota ratio et perfectio Christianae vitae” (228,22). 139. W 55II, 1, 114,22. 140. W 4, 366,24. See B. Lohse, Monchtum und Reformation, 221—235, for a wider treatment of Luther s words on obedience in the Dictata. Lohse sees here a very close connection made between faith and obedience. In obedience, faith comes to realization. 141. W 55II, 1, 10,23. , , 142. W 55II, 1, 33,16. The confession of our total dependence on God and of our sin never ceases. Advance in holiness does not make it superfluous: “Quilibet quantumvis sanctus necesse hebeat, de se coram Deo omne malum sentire et confiteri et ^omnino nihil. Et dicere ‘Tibi soli peccavi,’ tibi malus sum, nihil sum (W 3, 282,37). 143- W 55II, 1, 24,6-

318

Notes to page 6y

144. See the series of propositions Luther drew up to explain how God is justified in his words” (Ps 50,6). W 3, 287,32. For example, Deus in seipso non iustificatur, sed in sermonibus et in nobis. . . . Tunc fimus peccatores, quando tales nos esse agnoscimus, quia tales coram Deo sumus.” Thus, Luther says that Scripture does not speak of sin as it is in itself, but as cognitum et confessum (W 3, 191,20). Both H. J. Iwand (Rechtfertigungslehre und Christusglaube [Munich, 1961 (^Leipzig, 1930)], 85) and B. Lohse (Ratio und Fides, 105) made the connection between this concept of God’s word becoming true in our acknowledgment and the traditional Lutheran simul iustus

et peccator. A man admits that he is a sinner, since this is revealed, and in thus "becoming” a sinner, he is paradoxically just, since he is speaking the truth. 145. It is the lasting merit of A. Brandenburg’s Gericht und Evangelium to have developed in a thematic presentation the per¬ spectives of Luther’s use of iudicium in the Dictata. Whatever critique the book deserves for its one-sidedness (see notes 6, 48, and 116 in this chapter), it is because of Brandenburg’s work that research on the

Dictata has been decisively helped in noting the importance of this theme of God’s judgment. 146. W 3, 203,1. See also p. 315, n. 117. 147. W 3, 465,1. See Bo 5, 152, where Vogelsang has given a clear presentation of this text as it was in Luther’s manuscript. 148. This passage is often discussed and therefore we will give it at some length. Luther is explaining how God judges, in the tropological sense:

Quia condemnat opera camis et mundi. Ostendit enim,

quod omnia, quae sunt in nobis et in mundo, coram Deo sunt abominabilia et damnabilia. Et ita qui ei per fidem adhaeret, necessario sibi vilis et nihil, abominabilis et damnibilis efficitur. Quae est vera humilitas. . . . Quare castigatio et crucifixio camis et damnatio omnium quae sunt in mundo sunt iudicia Dei:

quae per iudicium, id est

evangelium et gratiam suam, in suis operatur. Et sic fit iustitia. Quia qui sibi iniustus est et ita coram Deo humilis, huic dat Deus gratiam suam In isto modo frequentissime accipitur in scripturis. Sic iustitia tropologice est fides Christi. Ro 1, ‘Iustitia Dei revelatur in eo etc.” (W 3, 462,27; Bo 5, 155,2). We cannot exclude the possibility that this passage is the result of a sudden enlightenment (“the tower experience) about Bom 1,17. If this is the case, then Luther saw suddenly that God’s justice is active unto salvation in the Gospel, givmg to the man of humble faith the justice he cannot achieve for himself. The evidence for such an insight is Luther’s remark that such in the case with all God’s attributes, that is, with ‘Veritas, virtus, salus

Notes to pages 68-70

3i9

iustitia, scilicet qua nos facit fortes, salvos, iustos, sapientes, . . . quae omnia Christus est literaliter, et fides eius moraliter haec omnia” (Bo 5, 156,20 [=W 3, 458,11]). However, this discovery sometime in 1514 would not exclude the fact that Luther got another insight into the same passage, precisely, into the phrase “Justus ex fide vivit,” in early 1518, after a new problem about the justice of God had been forced upon him in the indulgence controversy. We have indicated briefly below what this new problem was. See pp. 256f. 149. Brandenburg drew together the main themes of the Dictata thus: “The hidden God comes to us through his Son and the cross, when the word about the cross enters our lives. The man who is humbled and admits his sin makes himself receptive for this word of judgment. Taking it to himself, he brings it to fulfillment precisely as the Gospel” (Gericht und Evangelium, 41). 150- W 55II, 1, 21,10. 151. “Immo pro tropologia haec regula est: Quod ubicunque Christus in psalmis conqueritur et orat in afflictione corporali ad literam, sub eisdem verbis quaeritur et orat omnis fidelis anima in Christo genita et erudita et in peccatum se tentatam vel lapsam agnoscens. Quia Christus usque hodie conspuitur, occiditur, flagellatur, crucifigitur in nobis ipsis.” W 3, 167,20. 152. W 3, 523,5. 153- W 3, 537>1-54°>33-

154- W 3, 540,34 and 541,11. 155. W 4, 148,26. See also 152,21. 156- W 55II, 1, 78,1a.

157. Luther glossed the verse thus: “‘ut iustificeris : verax et iustus solus proberis et iustificatur gratis, non ego, sed potius confundar et omnis homo mecum, ‘in sermonibus tuis’: quibus iustitiam tuam promisisti et omnes in peccato esse decrevisti (W 3, 284,23). 158. W 3, 288,14. . 159. For example, “Non melius Deus laudatur quam confessione nostrorum peccatorum” (W 3, 378,24). In a gloss on the word Confiteantur in Ps 66,4: “Te laudando, sese accusando” (W 3, 383,26). On the mouth as the “second door”: ‘os, per quam exit confessio Christi, scilicet confitendo peccatum suum et gloriam Christi (W 3, 500,38). “Deum non invocat nisi qui eum glorificet et iustiticet et sese condemnet et confundat.” W 3, 510,14; W 4, 124,22 and 238,14. 160. “Ergo utraque confessio necessaria est, et sunt duae partes unius integralis confessionis. Sed melior pars est confessio laudis et dignior velut forma et lux.’ W 4, 239,1.

320

Notes to pages 70-73 161. W 4, 242,23.

162. For instance, nisi nos peccatum habere cognoscamus, gratiam Dei non honoramus” (W 3, 191,21). 163. For instance, “Iustus in principio est accusator sui, et sic confessio peccati est laus Dei” (W 3, 185,6). 164. W 55II, 1, 34,1. 165. On recte iudicate of Ps 57>2: "Hoc iudicium est seipsum condemnare et nullo modo iustificare. Et hoc est initium iustitiae, in quo Iudaei etiam usque hodie errant” (W 3 322 1O 166. W 55II, 1, 36,13. 167* W 55II, 1, 36,26. 168. W 3, 191,26. 169. W 3, 345,29. 170. W 3, 429,9. 171. W 3, 462,37. See the original on p. 318, n. 148. 172. W 3, 514,27.

173- w 3, 409,33. *74- W 3, 458,3. 175. W 4, 241,30. 176. W 4, 90,36. 177- God’s judgment and his justice are very closely linked, but it would be going too far to simply identify them and thus to say that Luther knew in the Dictata only a justice that accuses and punishes. Ernst Bizer made this oversimplification. Fides ex auditu, 22. Self¬ accusation is one very important aspect of a just life, but the profile of the just man consists of much more than merely humility. Bizer seems to us to have so concentrated on the problem set by Luther’s autobiographical preface of 1545 that he has missed much that is in the Dictata. 178. “Castigatio et crucifixio camis et damnatio omnium, quae sunt in mundo, sunt iudicia Dei: quae per iudicium, id est evangelium et gratiam suam, in suis operatur. Et sic fit iustitia.” W 3, 462,34. 179- According to the previous note, the judgment of ’God is carried out in this world (operatur) by both the Gospel and grace. On Ps 44,3, Luther spoke of the gratia attrahens in the word of Christ and the Apostles (W 3, 258,28). 180. W 3, 514,27. 181. W 3, 258,26. 182. This was the theme of one of the earliest monographs on the Dictata. A. W. Hunzinger’s Luthers Neuplatonismus in der Psalmenvorlesung von 1513-1516 (Leipzig, 1906). See especially 31, 48,

Notes to pages

73-75

321

183. W 3, 201,25. In one scholion, the more basic distinction appears to be that between the flesh and the spirit: “ergo ascendere equos [Ps 75,7] est in came et iis quae camis sunt, visibilibus tantum et temporalibus, vehi, exaltari, et confidere, non in spiritu et fide invisibilium” (W 3, 522,8). 184. W 4, 107,30. Earlier, Luther had written: “Est autem ante Deum, qui spiritualia videt. Est ante se, qui visibilia tantum respicit (W 3, 474,18). On the mirabilia God does [Ps 76,15], Luther spoke also of the marvels done by faith even to his day: “Et vere magnum est animam sanare et iustificare, ut omnia visibilia contemnat et caelestia aperet. Magna magnalia” (W 3, 543,15)185. “Philosophia semper de visibilibus et apparentibus, vel saltern ex apparentibus deducta loquitur, fides autem non est apparentium, nec est apparentibus deducta: immo de coelo est, cum ex apparentibus potius contrarium fidei semper deducatur, ut patet. W 3, 508,1. “Intelligere in Scriptura non dicatur de iis, qui tantum visibilia et sensibilia cogitant, . . . sed qui spiritualia et invisibilia cogitant, quod non nisi per fidem potest in hac vita.” W 3, 230,19. See B. Lohse, Ratio et Fdes, 38-40, for further texts. 186. “Fides enim, quae est non sensitiva nec ex sensitiva procedens cognitio sed desursum solum intellectualis. W 3, 474,14187. W 4, 10,35. 188. “Nam sicut exteriora et visibilia sunt in nobis, immo nos m ipsis, cum sit spiritus noster invisibilis mersus in visibilia: quando ad se redit ad invisibilia et ea quae sunt sua propria. Et tunc videbit bona et mala sua, quae sunt invisibilia. De his autem loquitur verbum Dei; ergo patet, quomodo in nobis loquitur, quoniam de bonis et malis invisibilibus loquitur, quae sunt in nobis. Quae vult temporalia putare, non percipit verbum Dei nec ea quae Dei sunt. W 4, 11,9. 189. This view of the human spirit in an alien element fits, to a degree, with the two assertions in Luther s marginals on Lombard about the separated human soul being no less a person than when conjoined with the body (W 9, 84,39 and 85,6). From this position, the conclusion that visible realities are alien is quite understandable. See p. 292, n. 26. 190. One explanation Luther gives of the phrase latibulum Dei in Ps 17,12 is mysterium incarnationis. Luther explains: Quia in humanitate absconditus latet, quae est tenebrae eius, in quibus videri non potuit, sed tantum audiri” (W 3, 124,34). H. Bandt showed, however, that Luther’s explanation of this phrase may well have been taken from previous psalm expositions. The one phrase that was not found in the texts Bandt gave is the final one: sed tantum audiri. Luthers Lehre vom verborgenen Gott, 26 f.

322

Notes to pages 75-78

191. W 3, 515,31. On the Jews: “Deum in carne negant ac sic sapientiam absconditam in mysterio non cognoscunt” (515,38). 192. “Quae [conversio] ideo summe necessaria, quia non potest humana virtute fieri, sed tantum divina: pro eo quod Deus in came absconditus est, ita ut eum omnis homo cognoscere non possit nisi ex spirituali gratia Dei illustratus.” W 4, 6,40. !93- W 55I, 1, 102,10; W 3, 229,28. *94- W 3, 620,5. x95- y.3, 141’34196. Sicut ergo nos per fidem incamationis et futurae gloriae sanctificamur: sic tunc populus synagogae sanctus erat per fidem futurae incamationis.” W 3, 508,21. 197- This was the point posed first as a question, and then affirmed with reservation by A. Brandenburg. Gericht und Evangelium, 17, 105, and i4gff. 198- W 55II, 1, 117,23. J99- Et est breviter nihil aliud nisi sapientia crucis Christi, quae gentibus stultitia et Iudaeis scandalum est, scilicet intelligere, quod filius Dei est incarnatus et crucifixus et mortuus et suscitatus propter nostram salutem. . . . Sed quia totum hoc est in fide et non in sensu nec ratione, ideo intellectus hominum in scriptura dicitur sensualitas ” w 3, 176,7 and 367,34. 200. Intelligere itaque est spiritualia et mysteria salutis et gratiae ei agnoscere, unde usus loquendi obtinuit dicere ‘mysteria’ redemptionis et incamationis, eo quod non nisi mysticis pateant et spiritualibus, non autem hominibus, quibus est potius stultitia.” W 1 176 10

201. W 4, 81,25.

’

y'

202. Nunc autem, quia dat sub contrariis, et discordat signum a signato: ideo non tantum profunde, sed ‘nimis profunde’ factae sunt. Qms enim cognosceret, quod qui humiliantur, affliguntur . . . visibiliter maxime simul intus exaltentur, consolentur . . . nisi spiritu per hdem doceretur? ... Sic enim placuit Deo per stultitiam cmcis salvare credentes et per sapientiam salutis damnare incredulos.” W 4 82 17 203. W 4, 82,37-83,25. 204. W 1, 540,8 and 541,16 (LW 31, 99 and 101). 205- W 1, 356,16.33 (LW 31, 43f). 206

This fact casts a final light upon the all-important duality

° and- spm1tual mentalities. “Everything is spiritual, to the extent that it is understood coram Deo, that is, in light of the cross of Chnst where God is hidden beneath the contrary. Salvation is spirit¬ ual to the extent that it is understood not as innerworldly security nor as the gift of temporal goods, but as being crucified with Christ, so as to have life in death. G. Ebeling, ZThK 48 (1951) 199

Notes to pages

79-81

323

207. W 3, 150,9.35. Later, Luther put it succinctly: “Scientia itaque eorum quae consecutus es; sed fides eorum, quae assequi habes: scientia praesentium et praeteritorum, fides futuorum proprie” (W 4, 322,17 and 9,1). 208. “Legem fidei docebo te, quae testis est futuorum bonorum et argumentum non apparentium: fidei legem docebo te, quae fidelis testis est futuorum.” W 3, 611,17. 209. W 4, 146,15. Earlier, Luther had depicted Christ’s work thus: “ut Christus veniens doceret paupertatem et humilitatem et nudam spem futuorum bonorum” (W 3, 561,10). 210. W 3, 227,20. 211. W 3, 419,25. In the midst of this extended passage, Luther gave this concise definition: “Quare breviter quidquid est in mundo, quo aliquis potest secundum hanc vitam subsistere et florere, sub¬ stantia dicitur” (420,3). 212. “Nullus enim poterit ascensiones in corde disponere et ex libertate vias Dei, ire, nisi primum fixe ponat eas in loco fidei: immo nisi fidem prius firmiter ponat. . . . Qui enim dubitat et haesitat in fide, quae est substantia, quomodo ascendet? . . . Quare locum ponere est eligere fixum, in quo homo fide et spe nitatur, id est in nullum temporale quod poni non potest, sed semper fluit, sed in aeternum, sclilicet verbum Christi, quod manet in aeternum, quia positum est. W 3, 651,8. 213. On Ps 118,148, Luther explained: “Fidelis populus spirituals quaerit, quae sunt in fide et evangelio nobis donata maxima (W 4, 376,10). Therefore the petition in this verse is for words alone: “non res sed signa rerum” (376,14). It is a prayer for the goods of the Church: “quae non sunt nisi ipsum' evangelium gratiae, quod est signum et verbum sperandarum rerum et non apparentium , (376,18). 214. A good example of this phenomenon was Luther s explana¬ tion of the analogy between the Old and New Testaments: Sicut antiquis nondum apparuit gratia Dei, sed prophetabatur. Et nobis nondum apparet quid erimus, sed testimonia habemus super iis (W 4, 310,31). Both testaments are described in terms of what they lacked. In the context of fides invisibilium, Luther did not compare the graces granted in both testaments. When this question arises, he tends to stress the discord between the sign and what is signified, or the opposition of letter (OT) and spirit (NT). 215. W 3, 279,30. 217. This was the conclusion of Gerhard Ebeling

(ZThK 48

[1951], 20of), who first excluded the interpretation that the word was for Luther in the Dictata itself a sacrament, and then argued

324

Notes to pages 81-82

from texts on the word as testimony about the future and not as a display of present realities (for example, W 3, 2279,30; W 4 310,29 and 272,16) that Luther’s thinking was moving in a direction dia¬ metrically opposed to the Catholic view of the sacraments. E. Iserloh has denied Ebeling’s conclusion in his article, “ ‘Existentiale Inter¬ pretation’ in Luthers ersten Psalmvorlesung?” Theologische Revue 57 (!963), 73-84. Our next section carries further the approach Iserloh took. 218. For example: Cum enim a littera et vanitate declinarent et cor suum in testimonia Christi inclinarent, ubi vivitur tantummodo in spe futuorum, contemptu praesentium: quia non res sed testimonia tantum rerum habentur, ideoque velut stulti, impotentes et nihili iudicabantur fideles et ita fiebat eis verbum gratiae in oppribrium tota die” (W 4, 326,1). 219. See, for example, the previous note. On Ps 118,42, Luther explains how the faithful can bear patiently the ridicule of their glorying in the cross: “Haec enim facit fides et spes futuorum. Si enim non haberent fidem et spem, non responderent verbum, sed tacerent et consentirent eis crucem fugientes et tantum in hac vita quaerentes bona” (W 4, 330,17); or, on Ps 118,162, on the “laetitia ... in spe futuorum et non in re praesentium,” which Luther inter¬ prets as belonging to the Church existing “inter persequentes” (W 4 380,35). 220. W 4, 355,29. 2?T1' W 4’ 359>35- On Ps 118,166, Luther spoke of the “visibilia, m quibus sine fide et spe, sed re et praesentia vivitur. Hoc enim est impiorum et incredulorum, qui sapere nesciunt in visibilia et aetema: ideo sunt in temporalia’ (W 4, 388,13); and on Ps 114,10, after the text cited by Ebeling ( Omnia bona nostra sunt tantum in verbis et promissis [W 4, 272,16]), Luther added: “Illi autem qui sua bona lactant et in re praesenti magnificant, non habent fidem illarum sed visionem. Nos autem credimus, et ideo opere ostendere non possumus” (272,19). The contrast is not against grace under signs (that is, sacra¬ ments ), but against the unbelieving, affluent man of this world 222. W 4, 368,10. 223- W 4, 359,37. 224. Confirmation of this interpretation of the contrast res/spes is ound in earlier texts in which the silence and patience of the saints was contrasted with the worldly prowess of the impious: “Sancti autem in silentio, patientia, et in spe, non in re sicut illi, quia in nomine Domini salvantur, quod non nisi in spe fit et patientia et silentio, ubi lmpii in tumultu et re, immo rei vanitate salvantur” (W 3 301 11) See also W 3, 341,35 and 450,34. ’ h

Notes to pages 83-85

325

225. “Captivari oportet intellectum, eo quod non visibilia nec invisibilia exhibeat, sed testimonia invisibilium ac sic visibilia tollit, invisibilia promittit, relinquens in medio utrorumque id est in testimoniis et argumento futuorum non apparentium.” W 4, 324,35. 226. “Quibus [testimoniis] non adhaeretur nisi credendo eis ut veris et fidelibus. Quia si sciretur, iam nec testimonia essent, sed exhibitio et nulla fides.” W 4, 322,15. Thus faith grasps the word “sine re exhibita, sed non sine re exhibenda.” W 4, 381,42. 227. On Ps 59, where Lyra has used the word testimonium in his title for the Psalm, Luther commented, “Et quare? Nisi quia hoc ipso prohibet, ne carnaliter intelligatur: ne signum pro re et testimonium pro exhibitione operum accipiamus” (W 3, 338,8). 228. W 4, 310,29. 229. W 4, 322,17. 230. 231. 232. speak of

See p. 80. W 4, 310,31. A final thought here is that even St. Thomas Aquinas can a sacrament as a “signum prognosticum, id est, praenun-

tiativum futurae gloriae.” S.T., III, q. 60, a. 3c. The liturgical prayer, “O Sacrum Convivium,” names the Holy Eucharist

pignus futurae

gloriae.” 233- W 55II, 1, 31,41 ... 234. “Voluntas hie non ut in scholis accipitur, sed pro libentia spotaneaque promptitudine . . . et voluntario beneplacito, non prout distinguitur contra intellectum vel actum voluntatis, sed omnino pro voluntate

omnium

virium,

ita quod

omnes

volenter sint ‘in lege Domini’ et libenter.

vires,

omnia

membra

W 55^, L 35,3-

235- W 3, i5o,33-

236. W 3, 286,14. 237. W 3, 649,2. 238. W 4, 69,25. 239. W4, 215,27 and 250,24. . 240. Luther paraphrased the verse thus: ‘ Id est voluntarius tui ad illam, non servifi timore et formidine poenae coactus, ut olim. Gratia enim facit velle et spontaneum esse” (W 4, 324,16). 241. W 55II, 1, 6,1. 242. “Quod non est eorum, qui sub lege sunt in spintu servitutis in timore, sed qui in gratia et spiritu libertatis. Unde liberi, . . . spontanei voluntariique dicuntur Christiani a Christo suo, qui primus talis est. Iudaei autem tediosi et involimtarii tantum in lege sunt. Licet enim lex per timorem poenarum potuit manum prohibere et per spem bonorum ad opera provocare, tamen voluntatem intus non potuit neque

Notes to pages 85-88

326

solvere neque ligare. . . . Hoc enim fit solum vinculis chariatis, quam non lex, sed Christus in spiritu suo dedit.” W 55II, 1, 6,1. 243- W 55II, 1, 9,4.

244. G. Metzger, Gelebter Glaube (Gottingen, 1964), 59. 245- w 55l> L 2,1. See also W 4, 147,1. 246. W 55II, 1, 88,16. In a marginal gloss: “Si vis affectum huius psalmi et sapidum intellectum exugere, imaginare Dominum tuum redemptorem tuum mitissima charitate et pietate geniculantem coram Patre, onustum peccatis tuis et totius mundi ac pro eis amarissime flentem eandemque detestantem indignabundum. Tu es pro quo tam ardenter orat tantus mediator. Quid ergo respondes, quin fles et oras cum flente et orante cum te et tua miseria” (W 55I, 1, 40,4). 247- W 3, 186,4.31. 248. “Et in omnibus psalmis, ubi persona Domini inducitur pro nobis orare et plangere, cum affectuosa et gratissima devotione attendenda et suscipienda sunt, ut non tantum intellectus videat, quid ipse faciat, sed etiam affectus recognoscat et ex intimis medullis gratias ei agat.” W 3, 217,1. 249- W 3, 643,32. Similarly, W 3, 549,30. 250. W 3, 416,17. We take up this passage in greater detail in Chapter VI, pp. 217!. 251. “Orationes habentur, sed tepide et raucae, quas proximus vix audiat. Nam vere rauca est oratio, quae aspera et dura et sine affectione producitur et sicca.” W 3, 422,15. 252. W 3, 423,8 and 490,26. 253- W 3, 446,29. 254. W 4, 320,37. 255- W 3, 644,1. 256. W 3, 186,34. 257. W 3, 433,24. Luther ended this scholion thus: “Hoc quanto affectuosius feceris, tanto magis intelliges charitatem Christi et accenderis ad charitatem erga eum” (434,5). 258. W 4, 320,38. 259- W 4, 356,23. 260. Sed ubi coeperis et facere quod credis, iam via clarius cognoscitur quam pedes tui, ita ut clarius lumen habeas ex operando, quam solo affectu credendo. Quia dum credis, clausum habes lumen in affectu, sed dum operaris, iam velut educto lumine per experientiam duceris in via recta. Multo enim illuminatiores sunt in fide practici quam speculativi.” W 4, 356,32. 261. W 4, 320,37. 262. For instance, “in hac vita non attingimus perfecte, ideo semper in via, semper in desiderio oportet esse” (W 4, 283,13). On

Notes to pages 88-go currus Dei

in

Ps

327

67,18,

Luther

explained:

“tropologice

est

ipsa

anima . . . quia festinat ex hoc mundo et semper in via est, usque dum ad patriam et domum veniat coelestium” (W 3, 404,15). 263. W 3, 396,17.37. 264. “In isto versu optime instituitur vita proficientis, ut scilicet discat, qui vitia vult vincere et disperdere, semper in matutino sit, semper inchoet, semper nihil se fecisse putet et cogitet.” W 4, 140,2. 265. W 55II, 1, 64,11. 266. See pp. 56L 267. “Et nota, quod sicut prima tempora foelicia fuerunt, quia disciplinae profecit:

et

tribulationis

tempora

sic novissima infoelicia,

fuerunt,

quia

ubi

pacis

ecclesia

maxime

et securitatis

tempora

sunt et erunt, ubi ecclesia maxime deficit et deficiet.” W 3, 433,14. 268. W 3, 447,29. 269. “Qui tiones

superbi

Domini,

sed

sunt,

iam

non

concupiscunt

iustificatos

sese

desiderare

abunde

putant

iustificaet

omnes

iustificationes adeptos.” W 4, 315,23. “Velle manere semper in tendentia

et

desiderio

proficiendi,

haec

est

vera

humilitas.”

315,34.

Similarly, W 4, 214,25. 270. W 4, 318,35. 271. As stressed at W 3, 396,37. 272. W 4, 342,12. 273. “Proficientes semper sunt incipientes

ad ea quae nondum

habent, tarn in gratia quam sapientia, ut amplius abundent tarn intellectu quam affectu. Quia hie nihil nisi evangelium et gratia petitur semper” (W 4, 344,10), and on the Jews: “Illi quaerunt mendacium, quia sibi iam

iusti videntur et

ammodo non

inter incipientes,

sed

omnino constituti, ut iustitiam et iudicium exerceant et vindictam in peccatores”

(W 55II, 1, 69,25 [from 1516]).

274. W 4, 336,12. Later, Luther wrote:

“Quare, ut supra dixi,

semper sumus in motu, semper iustificandi, qui iusti sumus. Nam hinc venit,

ut omnis iustitia pro presenti instanti sit peccatum

ad earn,

quae in sequenti instanti addenda est. Quia vere dicit B. Bernardus: ‘Ubi incipis nolle fieri melior, desinis esse bonus. Quia non est status in via Dei: ipsa mora peccatum est’ ” (W 4, 364,14). 275. “Et ut saepe dictum est, proficere est nihil aliud, nisi semper incipere. Et incipere sine proficere hoc ipsum est deficere. Sicut patet in omni motu et actu totius creaturae.” W 4, 350,14. In the revised scholion on Ps 4,2, Luther gathered together all the texts grounding this view: a Bernard dictum; Phil 3,13; Apoc 22,11

(“Qui iustus est,

iustificetur adhuc”); 1 Cor 10,12; Sir 18,6; 1 Cor 8,2. They all point to this way of life:

“Scil.

semper

secundum

incipere,

semper recurrere monita

ad principium

apostoli

et huius

a

novo

psalmi.

et

Quia

328

Notes to pages 90-91

semper relinquitur, quo crescas, ergo semper es in motu et initio (W 5511, 1, 64,13)„ t 276. For example, W 3, 337,27, as well as the text cited nrst in the previous note. 277. After the text cited in note 274, Luther continued: Quare qui in praesenti instanti se iustum confidit et stat, iam iustitiam perdidit, sicut in motu similiter patet: terminus, qui in isto instanti est ad quern, ipse in sequenti est terminus a quo. Terminus autem a quo est peccatum, a quo semper eundum est. Et terminus ad quern est iustitia, quo semper eundum est. Quare recte dixi, quod semper praecedens iustitia est iniquitas ad sequentem, et velut litera ad spiritum, vanitas ad plenitudinem, ut supra” (W 4, 364,18). 278. Cited at W 4, 296,34; 315,27; 336,17- See Lennart Pinomaa, “Die profectio bei Luther,” in Gedenkschrift fur Werner Elert (Berlin, 1955), 123. See also note 275. B. Lohse treated the theme of progress in the Dictata in Monchtum und Reformation, 258-265. He empha¬ sizes Luther’s reformulation of this traditional motif in light of the judgment of God against our sin. The norm of progress is for Luther not an ethical perfection to be attained, but the cross, which becomes ever newly actual in the Christian’s self-estimate (253 and 260). 279. An example of this is R. Prenter’s “anti-Bizer” book, Der barmherzige Richter, which gives in many respects a distorted view of the Dictata, because the problem posed stems from Luther’s auto¬ biographical preface from 1545. The problematic of the iustitia Dei passiva is foreign to the Dictata. Luther’s great concern in 1513-1515 was the iustificatio Dei (in our self-accusation), and not the iustitia, qua Deus nos iustos facit. In the climactic exposition of Ps 118 (over 100 pages in W 4), Luther concentrated on the life of the homo iustus with very little about the Deus iustus in iustificando. 280. W 9, 71,34. See p. 33b 281. W 4, 364,19. 282. W 3, 215,16. 283. W 3, 292,33. 284. W 3, 453,5. 285. W 3, 200,39. 286. W 3, 512,26 and 650,17. 287. W 3, 337,30, but our merits play no part in our own con¬ scious approach to God: “Si enim cum meritis accederemus, iam non praeveniremus, immo non acciperemus sed iam accepissemus” (W 4, 375,36). 288. W 4, 113,25. 289. “Atque quia nullus tarn perfectus est, quin in aliquo adhue

Notes to pages 91-94

329

sit perficiendus, nullus tam illustratus, quin illustrandus, accendendus, castificandus, humiliandus, et sic de omnibus virtutibus.” W 4, 320,14. 290. W 4, 344,13. 291. W 4, 349,14. 292. W 4, 357,28. 293. “Apud nos Christianos, sicut est continua perfectio, de luce ad lucem intelligendo, de virtute ad virtutem exercendo, ita semper primum est litera ad futurum et futurum est spiritus ad primum in acquirendo. Qui ergo non vult proficere ad futurum, ipse vult literam perstare sicut Iudaei.” W 4, 345,31; 321,26; 364,24; and 365,9. 294. “Terminus, qui in isto instanti est ad quern, ipse in sequenti instanti est terminus a quo. Terminus autem a quo est peccatum, a quo semper eundum est. Et terminus ad quern est iustitia, quo semper eundum est.” W 4, 364,20. 295. “In quo intermedio nihil efficacius quam verbum Dei, quod confirmat in gradu praesenti et excitat ad futurum. Adiuvat enim sustinere literam et facit quaerere spiritum. . . . Sed quia verbum Dei super omnia habet vim motivam: est enim ignis non tantum lucens, sed et ardens, et ‘sermo Dei vivus est, penetrabilior omni gladio ancipiti’: igitur in omni taedio recurre ad memoriam verbi et confirmaberis in proposito tuo.” W 4, 321,31. See also W 3, 651,25 and W 4, 296. W 4, 336,12. See pp. 8gf., above. Similarly, nos modo sumus recti in iis, quae habemus, et tamen ad ea quae nondum habemus, in tenebris” (W 4, 251,12). 297. W 4, 364,21. 298. See p. 91. 299. From the note on the inside cover of Faber’s Psalterium (W 4, 469,2). 300. “Et hinc enim sequitur maxima humiliatio sui: quia in omni opere bono, vix deest caro in aliquo. Et sic efBcimur nihil, scientes quoniam in multis offendimus omnes, ne aliquis in sua merita confidat, sed detestetur.” W 3, 439,20. 301. W 4, 357,28. 302. W 4, 363,29. 303. W 4, 364,8. 304. W 4, 364,14. . . 305. “Et ita paulatim obliviscitur misera anima timorem Domini et quod regnum coelorum vim patitur. Ac sic incipit dormitare et stertere, quasi iam apprehenderit.” W 3, 447,35: W 4, 192,18. 306. See the biting polemic at W 3, 332,12. 307. “Velle manere semper in tendentia et desiderio proficiendi,

330

Notes to pages 95-96

haec est vera humilitas, . . . Superbi enim et acidiosi, qui quaerunt esse sancti vel otiosi, concupiscunt cito finire laborem et pervenire ad summum. Ideo non concupiscunt desiderium et continuum studium proficiendi, . . . Nos ergo hoc concupiscamus, ut possumus semper proficere nec ullo tempore pausare aut perficisse: quod et facit qui spiritu vivit. Semper enim magis et magis optat sibi incendi desiderium, quod nunquam obdormire vellet.” W 4, 315,34.

Chapter TV 1. This is Vogelsang’s dating, given at Bo 5, 222. J. Ficker main¬ tained (W 56, xxix) that Luther began on Romans in May 1515, and so lectured for three semesters instead of two. We would like to call attention to Joseph Lortz’s two-part article, “Luthers Romerbriefvorlesung—Grundanliegen,” TrThZ 71 (1962), 129-153 and 216-247, which is the best single introduction to the lectures and deserves to be more widely known. 2. See the first marginal gloss, W 56, 3,6. The first scholion begins: “Summarium huius epistolae est destruere et evellere et disperdere omnem sapientiam et iustitiam camis (id est quantacunque potest esse in conspectu hominum, etiam coram nobis ipsis), quantumvis ex animo et synceritate fiant, et plantare ac constituere et magnificare peccatum (quantumvis ipsum non sit aut esse putabatur)” (W 56, 157,2 [Pauck, 3]). In expanding this idea, Luther refers to the mission of Jeremiah “to root out, destroy, dissipate, and over¬ throw (Jer 1,10), which he then refers to self-made justice. The reason: Deus enim nos non per domesticam, sed per extraneam iustitiam et sapientiam vult salvare, non quae veniat et nascatur ex nobis, sed quae aliunde veniat in nos, non quae in terra nostra oritur, sed quae de coelo venit. Igitur omnino externa et aliena iustitia oportet erudiri (158,10 [Pauck, 4]). After insisting that the external justice that comes from Christ and is in us should be no cause for glorying (159,2), Luther drives home the point that we must have humility in all things, letting God declare us just, which he will do if we do not interfere with him by trying to justify ourselves (159,12) (see Pauck, 4f). D. Bellucci saw in these lines a massive attack against the position of Luther’s Catholic contemporaries, that is, that the justified man possesses an intrinsic supernatural justice given by God. Fede e Giustificazione in Cutero, 156b This is an extreme interpreta¬ tion of Luthers words. Actually, what he said about intrinsic and extrinsic justice refer first of all to the two fora, coram Deo (extrinsic)

Notes to page 96

33i

and coram hominibus (intrinsic), and then to the “source” of the graces of justification. Luther’s attack is against the “intrinsic justice” of hypocrites who rely upon themselves and their achievements to the neglect of the healing grace of God. Bellucci speaks very seldom of God’s healing work in men, the refusal of consent to concupiscence made possible by the power of the Holy Spirit, or about the love of God that grace does inspire in us. We have treated each of these intrinsic works of God in later sections. 3. W 56, 207,7 (Pauck, 57). 4. W 56, 332,4 (Pauck, 190). Both justice and sin are for Luther total qualifications of a man, and cannot be psychically localized. See L. Grane, Contra Gabrielem, 316. 5. W 56, 255,18 (Pauck, 108) and 418,25 (293). Luther was very explicit in another passage that reveals the great importance here of the contrast of coram Deo and coram hominibus: “Perversa itaque est definitio virtutis apud Aristotelem, quod ipsa nos perficit et opus eius laudabile reddit, nisi intelligit, quod coram hominibus et in oculis nostris nos perficit et opera nostra commendat. Quod est coram Deo abominabile et contrarium magis placitum” (395,4 [Pauck, 266]). Beneath the rhetoric, we see that the issue is between justice as an acquired virtue and as God’s gift in Christ. 6. W 56, 248,30 (Pauck, 101). See Luther’s letter to G. Spenlein, April 8, 1516, in which he speaks of the danger of a presump¬ tion consisting in the efforts to do enough good so that one can stand before God clothed in one’s own virtues and merits (WBr 1, 11,18; 35 [LW 48, 12]). This letter contains one of the rare bits of direct evidence on Luther’s own spiritual development. He wrote about this attempt at self-justification: “While you were here, you were one who held this opinion, or rather, error. So was I, and I am still fighting against the error without having conquered it as yet” (LW 48,12). 7. W 56, 338,21 (Pauck, 199). According to our thought patterns, Luther is speaking of an “intrinsic” gift but for him it was extrinsic, since it came from outside ourselves and was not visible coram homini¬ bus. 8. On justifying faith in Rom 10,6, Luther explained: “Intentio Apostoli est, quod tota iustitia hominis ad salutem pendet ex verbo per fidem et non ex opere per scientiam” (W 56, 415,22 [Pauck, 289]). A few fines later he adds that faith reduces the wisdom of the flesh to nothingness, rendering a man docile, alert to hear and follow. Faith in the word is the true mortification that crushes our sensus proprius (416,5 [Pauck, 290]). 9. W 56, 158,11, cited in n. 2, p. 330. Strictly speaking, what is

332

Notes to pages

96-97

extraneous is the origin of this justice, for it is a justice quae aliunde veniat in nos (158,12 [Pauck, 4]). 10. “Ideo recte dixi, quod extrinsecum nobis est omne bonum nostrum, quod est Christus. Sicut Apostolus dicit: ‘Qui nobis factus est a Deo sapientia et iustitia et sanctificatio et redemptio.’ Quae omnia in nobis sunt non nisi per fidem et spem in ipsum.” W 56, 279,22 (Pauck, 134). H. Hiibner interprets this passage as a personalist explanation of justification, in a mode similar to the acceptatio idea of the nominalists, that Luther directs against an ontological explanation through a supematurally infused habit. Rechtfertigung und Heilgung in Luthers Rdmerbriefvorlesung (Witten, 1965), ggff. This is to weaken Luther’s point beyond recognition, for he continues this passage by comparing the just man to the Church as depicted in the Canticle of Canticles, where the real ground of praise is not the Church itself but Christ “dwelling” in it (W 56, 279,25 [Pauck, 134]). A second comparison is that of light on our earth—it does not come from the earth but from the sun that illumines the earth. Ibid. Luther then speaks of the saints, whose good is outside themselves in Christ, who, nevertheless, is in them through faith (280,2 [Pauck, 134])- Luther concludes that we are his kingdom and that his beauty is in us to cover our ugliness. He thus uses the biblical idea of im¬ putation in close connection with that of indwelling. His thought is fuller and more plastic than Hiibner would admit. The reference to nominalist acceptatio is particularly distracting from the richness of Luther’s idea of Christ’s life in the Christian. u. W 56,252,17 (Pauck, 105). 12. About the truly just he says: “sunt peccatores et confitentur se peccare et peccasse, sed dolent et odiunt se ipsos eiusmodi ac desiderant iustificari ac assidue quaerunt et gemunt pro iustitia ad Deum. Hie est populus Dei iugiter portans iudicium crucis super seipsos” (W 56, 266,8 [Pauck, 120]). 13. Sed dicendum, quis modus iste sit, quo hominem spiritualiter fieri oportet peccatorem. Est enim non naturalis. Quia sic non fit, sed est omnis homo peccator. Sed tota vis huius mutationis latet in sensu seu aestimatione ac reputatione nostra. Hunc enim mutare intendit omnis sermo scripturae et omnis operatio Dei.” W 56, 233,5 (Pauck, 83)- H. J. Iwand pointed to the importance of this fieri by which one becomes in self-knowledge what one is in fact already. This is a basic theme for Luther. Rechtfertigungslehre und Christusglaube (Munich, 1961), 85ff. Luther counseled Spenlein not to aspire to such purity of intention that he could no longer think of himself as a sinner, for Christ came from heaven not for just men but to dwell in sinners. WBr 1, 11,28; 35 (LW 48, i2f).

Notes to pages qj-ioo

333

14. “Vere verbum Dei, si venit, venit contra sensum et votum nostrum. Non sinit stare sensum nostrum, etiam in his quae sunt sanctissima, sed destruit ac eradicat ac dissipat omnia.” W 56, 423,19 (Pauck, 298). 15- w 5b> 157>2 (Pauck, 3). See p. 330, n. 2. 16. W 56, 190,27. (See Pauck, 39). 17. It is to be noted that many of these passages are not found in the notes that Luther dictated to his students, that is, not in W 57I. This indicates his reserve in striking out beyond the area of personal spirituality. Gerhard Miiller evaluated this fact in his article, “Ekklesiologie und Kirchenkritik beim jungen Luther,” NZSysTh 7 (1965), n8ff. 18. W 56, 480,3 (Pauck, 364). 19- W 56> 189,3 (Pauck, 37) and 413,11 (286). 20. For example, W 56, 273,6 (Pauck, 128); 275,17 (i2gf); 354,22 (216); 371,2 (235); and 395,4 (266). 21. W 56, 276,6 (Pauck, 130). 22. W 56, 502,14 (Pauck, 390). 23- w 56, 464*1 (Pauck, 345). 24. W 56, 258,1 (Pauck, 111). At 484,3 (368), Luther strikes out at the observantes with one quick blow, for their neglect of charity. In his Monchtum und Reformation (294-301), B. Lohse treats Luther’s polemic against self-will, pride, and singularity in these lectures. Lohse shows how this polemic, which was originally against religious of stricter observance, became a general theme of Luther’s spiritual teaching. 25. For instance, W 56, 185,35 (Pauck, 33); 192,26 (41); and 348,18 (210). 26. Luther’s idea is reflected in his explanation that we love our neighbor “as ourselves” when we do good as completely and as eagerly for others as we naturally do it for ourselves under the influence of self-love. W 56, 518,4 (Pauck, 407). Lortz spoke of the deeplyrooted egotism as the kernel of sinfulness in a man, which Luther would have one become aware of and oppose. TrThZ 71 (1962), 143. 27. “Ex corde et sensu (ut ait scriptura) proni semper simus ad malum ac per hoc inviti ad legem et ad bonum, quare nec facimus bonum.” W 56, 234,19 (Pauck, 85). He then states: “Non sit possibili hominem ex se ipso hanc voluntatem habere, cum sit semper ad malum inclinatus, adeo ut non nisi per gratiam Dei possit erigi ad bonum” (237,2 [Pauck, 88]). See also 260,18 (114). 28. W 56, 268,27 (Pauck, 124). 29. W 56, 271,2 (Pauck, 125), and then: “Experientia testetur, quod in quantumlibet bene operemur, relinquitur concupiscentia ista

334

Notes to page 100

ad malum et nemo mundis ab ilia, nec infans unius diei” (271,24 [Pauck, 126]). This is a good place to recall the results of Paul Althaus’ work, Paulus und Luther iiber den Menschen. First, since Luther interpreted Rom 7, l^fF as the lament of a Christian man who cannot fulfill the law of love and willingness, Luther misses a valuable insight into the duality Paul saw in the sinner, namely, of the nous, which knows and affirms God’s will, and the sarx, which prevails and makes the mind’s dictates futile. For Paul, the sinner remains a re¬ sponsible creature of God, who, nevertheless, is unable to help him¬ self. Luther asserts that the sinner is all sarx. See Althaus’ summary, 55. On p. 67, Althaus concludes that Protestant theology must correct Luther on this point. Second, Luther did not take sufficient account of the decisive change described in Rom 8, 1—7. For Paul, sin is some¬ thing the Christian left behind. Now he can defeat temptation, and is not in need of daily forgiveness. On these three points, Luther taught otherwise, mainly because he simplistically identified sin as that which is not pleasing to God. See Althaus, 68—80, where, how¬ ever, he does not refer to the Romans lectures of 1515-1516. Althaus generously admits that the Catholic doctrine of concupiscence is the one Paul would call his own today (88f). However, we must not neglect Luther’s words on the work of healing grace in the Christian, by which concupiscence is diminished. The fact is, though, that Luther’s exposition of Romans, taken as a whole, does not reflect the victorious tones we find in the simple text of Rom 5 and 8. Still, Luther s spirituality can have a “form” that is very important for us to know, and from which we can learn, even if its “content” (that is, the doctrine of sin and justification) is not fully Pauline. 30. For instance, W 56, 273,3 (Pauck, 128), where Luther con¬ trasts scholastic theologians with Ambrose and Augustine, whom he follows. See also 276,3 (Pauck, 130) and 312,2 (167). 31. W 56,285,15 (Pauck, 139). 32. W 56, 353,12-354,13 (Pauck, 215). See also the use of this distinction of facere and perficere regarding good as well as evil at 342>5 (Pauck, 203). The ideal is keeping the law purissime, liberrime, et laetissime, but the flesh prevents this. Interestingly enough, Luther admits that on this point the scholastics had said in substance the same thing as Augustine, but they did not use Scripture and so could not come to a real grasp of what vice and virtue were: “Sic enim spiritus et carnis differentia penitus cessavit intelligi” (354,25 [Pauck, 216]). Here, Luther hints at the basic difference between his thought and that of his opponents. He thinks of man with the highly “quali¬ fied” categories of caro and spiritus. He takes it seriously that both of these are in a person, with one of them having the upper hand.

Notes to pages 100-102

335

Scholastic anthropology was more interested in the “structure” of man, and did not treat his religious qualification at great length. By speak¬ ing of the soul and the faculties of mind and will, scholasticism did not lose sight of man’s responsibility (that is, the Pauline nous) as Luther did. However, it seems clear that the two views can be seen as complementary and not necessarily mutually exclusive. 33. For example, Luther concludes his explanation of Rom 3, 10 (“Non est iustus quisquam”) thus: “Homo non potest nisi quae sua sunt quaerere et se super omnia diligere. Quae est summa omnium vitiorum. Unde et in bonis et virtutibus tales quaerunt seipsos, sc. ut sibi placeant et plaudant” (W 56, 237,13 [Pauck, 89]). See also 279,16 (Pauck 134) and 518,4 (407). 34. W 56, 312,8 (see Pauck, 167). D. Bellucci treats this text on pages 79-81 of his Fede e Giustificazione, and then goes on to underscore the differences between this and Luther’s earlier idea of sin in 1509—1510. Bellucci fails to point out Luther’s pastoral aim (“Putare ergo peccatum originis esse solum privationem iustitiae in voluntate, hoc est occasionem dare tepiditatis et resolvere totum conatum poenitentiae. . . .” [313,18]), and Luther’s clear statement that the Spirit rules this sin: “Peccatum in nobis manet, sed ‘non dominatur nobis,’ quia subiectum est spiritui, ut ipse destruat ipsum, quod prius regnavit super ipsum” (314,4). Bellucci’s conclusion, that Luther stressed a sin that the Church never knew (p. 95), is over¬ simplified. Luther is talking about the concupiscence that for Thomas was the material aspect of original sin, which does not simply dis¬ appear with baptism. Rather, it is left ad agonem (Trent), and grows in intensity with actual sin. What Luther referred to can also be identified with the “remains of sin,” a complex of attachments and bad habits, which are truly evils in the Christian personality, to be countered with penance and prayer. Luther spoke of this simplistically as “sin,” but this does not alter the fact that the Church knows quite well about the reality designated, and that a serious spirituality will be concerned with this reality. 35- W 56, 313,18 (Pauck, 169). Luther further describes how the “baptisati vel absoluti statim se sine omni peccato arbitrantes, securi fierent de adepta iustitia et manibus remissis quieti, nullius sc. conscii peccati, quod gemitu et lachrymis, lugendo et laborando expugnarent atque expurgarent” (350,1 [Pauck, 212]). 36. “Regia ergo via et via pacis in spiritu est peccatum quidem nosse et odisse et ita in timore Dei incedere, ne imputet et dominari permittat, et tamen orare misericordiam eius, ut nos ab eo liberet et non imputet.” W 56, 283,7 (Pauck, 137). 37. W 56, 197,11 (Pauck, 46).

336

Notes to pages 102-104

38. W 56, 198,8 (Pauck, 46f). 39. W 56, 248,13 (Pauck, 101). 40. “Omnis enim lex dat occasionem peccandi, nisi assit gratia et favor, affectus, voluntas ad legem. Voluntas enim semper manet contraria malletque facere aliud, si liceret, licet faciat ad extra, quod lex iubet. Irritatur enim magis ad peccatum per imperium legis, quam adiuvetur.” W 56, 200,11 (Pauck, 49—where the translation, how¬ ever, does not bring out clearly that grace gives delight in the law). 41. “Sic est cum voluntate hominis et lege, quod est in peccato quidem, sed non scitur, donee legem sentiat et percipiat; tunc sine legis vitio magis fervet et aperte.” W 56, 67,29 (from a marginal gloss not given by Pauck). 42. “Discamus itaque ante omnia infirmitatem nostram ex perfecta legis cognitione et videbimus, quomodo simpliciter necessarius fuerit Christus, largitor spiritus et gratiae.” W 56, 358,21 (omitted by Pauck). 43- W 56, 203,8 (Pauck, 52). 44. W 56, 337,10 (Pauck, 197). 45. W 56, 496,22 and 497,7 (Pauck, 384). 46. W 56, 493,14 (Pauck, 380). 47. W 56, 496,8 (Pauck, 383) and 499,26 (387), but Luther can also say in this same context: “Quae consensu antiquo totius Ecclesiae et amore Dei ac iustis causis imposita sunt, necessario sunt servanda, non quod ipsa sint necessaria et immutabilia, sed quod obedientia ex charitate debita Deo et Ecclesiae est necessaria” (496,29 [Pauck, 384]). B. Lohse drew the conclusion that in this passage, Luther has come to place monastic vows “on the side of the law” (Monchtum und Reformation, 307). In Luther’s text, however, we read that monastic practices can be vowed ex amore Dei and with a spontanea voluntate et affectu libertatis (from the first passage referred to in this note). This puts vows clearly on the side of grace and charity. 48. W 56, 500,14 (Pauck, 388). 49. “Non sic, impii, non sic! Sed opus est, ut prostratus in cubiculo tuo totis viribus Deum ores, ut etiam intentionem, quam praesumpsisti, ipse te det, non in securitate a te et in te concepta vadas, sed a misericordia eius petita et expecta.” W 56, 501,15 (Pauck, 389)50. W 56, 501,20 (Pauck, 389). 51. W 56, 424,8 (Pauck, 298). 52. “Evangelium autem dicit: ‘Ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccata mundi.’ Lex conscientiam urget peccatis, sed evangelium

Notes to pages 104-105

337

liberat earn et pacificat per fidem Christi.” W 56, 424,15 (Pauck,

299)53. “Nisi per gratiam Dei (quam credentibus in Christum promisit et largitur) sanetur ista voluntas, ut liberi sumus et hilares ad opera legis, quaerentes non nisi Deo placere et eius voluntatem facere, non timore poenae aut amore nostri operantes, semper sub peccato sumus.” W 56, 235,21 (Pauck, 86). Luther speaks explicitly of gratia sanans at 276,8 (Pauck, 130). Note also 391,22 (Pauck, 262), where the way to perfect expulsion of concupiscent self-love is “per superabundantem gratiae infusionem.” We will cite Luther’s text more than usual in this section, since more than one author has been led by Luther’s dialectic of the two fora to think that God’s gifts remain wholly extrinsic. 54. Explaining Paul’s words about our “old man” in Rom 6,6, Luther stresses that he is not only present in the deeds of sinful flesh, but that he taints our strivings after justice, wisdom, and the worship of God. This is the curvitas of self-satisfaction that “uses” God as a means to our enjoyment, but the grace of God can raise a man above this (W 56, 325,4 [Pauck, 182]). Luther also spoke of our prayer: “cum assiduis . . . gemitibus ad Deum . . . ut hoc taedium tollat et ad hilaritatem perficiat voluntatem auferatque per gratiam pronitatem illius ad malum” (257,26 [Pauck, 111]). At 274,10 (Pauck, 128), Luther spoke of the “gratia, quae [peccatum manens] auferre incipit.” 55. Luther speaks of the will’s need of grace: “quae earn faciat libentem et hilarem ad legem” (W 56, 279,21 [Pauck, 134]). See also 235,21 (Pauck, 86) and 241,22 (93). One must beg the grace: “ut homo mutatus in spiritu hilari corde et voluntario omnia velit et agat, non servili timore . . . sed liberali et virili animo” (336,14 [Pauck, 195]). 56. “Nunquam dilectio Dei in nobis est, nisi per gratiam incepta.’ W 56, 275,12 (Pauck, 129). “Solus enim amor voluntatis liberrimus ideo facit vel omittit, quia Deo sic placet, etiam non curando quodcunque aliud bonum nec metuendo aliquod malum praeter ipsam Dei voluntatem. Quod non habet natura, sed gratia per fidem Christi donata per spiritum sanctum.” W 56, 358,4 (Pauck, 221). 57. Note the function of grace reflected in Luther’s heated out¬ burst against the nominalist idea that natural powers are strong enough to keep the substance of the law, while grace is needed to correspond to a special added requirement: “Sic ergo gratia non fuerat necessaria nisi per novam exactionem ultra legem. Siquidem lex impletur ex nostris viribus, ut dicunt, ergo non necessaria gratia pro impletione legis, sed solum pro impletione novae super legem exac-

338

Notes to pages 105-106

tionis a Deo impositae .... At haec concupiscentia semper in nobis est; ergo nunquam dilectio Dei in nobis est, nisi per gratiam incepta, et reliquo concupiscentiae adhuc sanando” (W 56, 274,14 [Pauck, 129]). Further, on natural law and our unaided powers: “se et sua in omnibus quaerit, non autem Deum, quod sola fides in charitate facit” (355,17 [Pauck, 218]). B. Lohse interpreted both of these texts in an odd fashion, seeing in them Luther’s rejection of the idea of a second baptism in monastic vows and his exclusion of effort to grow in habitual virtues (Monchtum und Reformation, 292). Luther’s texts are in fact directed against well-known theses of the via moderna on grace and the will. He argues for the absolute necessity of grace, and speaks of charity beginning in us under the influence of grace. Therefore, striving on our part is possible, not by natural efforts, but by ardent prayer for God’s healing grace. 58. W 56, 356,22 (Pauck, 219), and then: “Gratia in omnibus quae videt, non est contenta, nisi Deum in illis et supra ilia videat et in gloriam Dei omnia esse, videri, opera velit, optet, et gaudet” (357>b [Pauck, 220]). Such a grace is obviously not just God’s favor, nor simply the merits of Christ imputed to us. H. J. Iwand brought out well the distinction that Luther was concerned to make. He speaks unhesitatingly of a gift of new life and justice that belongs to the Christian, but this must play no role in his self-awareness. God is making him just, but not in his own eyes, not coram seipso. Rechtfertigungslehre und Christusglaube, 31. 59- W 56, 318,13 (Pauck, 174). The analogy between sin and grace was important in these lectures. Here, Luther spoke of the grace of God: “qua nos iustificat, immo quae est in Christo sicut in principio, ut peccatum hominis in Adam” (line 2of), but it further holds true that just as sin is in us (Luther’s great thesis), so also grace and new life are in us. God’s imputation is effective in a real gift: Sicut iustitia nostra ex Deo est ipsa inclinatio ad bonum et declinatio a malo interius per gratiam data, opera autem sunt potius fructus iustitiae, ita peccatum est ipsa declinatio a bono et inclinatio ad malum et opera peccati fructus sunt huius peccati” (271,11 [Pauck, 126]). In his 1521 response to the Louvain theologian Latomus, Luther distinguished gratia and donum somewhat differently, with the former referring to God’s favor given singly and wholly and the latter being multiple and given as a leaven to purge out sin gradually (W 8, 107,13). 60. W 56, 327,9 (Pauck, 185). 61. W 56, 379,2 (Pauck, 244). 62. W 9, 71,6, in the marginal notes to Peter Lombard in 1509— 1510. See p. 294, n. 46, and p. 298, n. 84.

Notes to pages ioy-108

339

63- W 56, 172,16 (Pauck, 18). 64. W 56, 512,5 (Pauck, 400). Luther is following Augustine here, and gives an explicit reference to Contra Julianum IV, 3, 24 (PL 44, 750). 65- W 56, 512,7 (Pauck, 4oof). 66. W 56, 228,18 (Pauck, 78). 67. W 56, 227,18 (Pauck, 78). 68. “Nunc autem Deus revelavit, quid de nobis sentiret ac iudicaret, scil. quod omnes sint in peccato. Huic ergo revelationi suae sive sermonibus suis debemus cedere et credere ac sic iustificare et verificare eos ac per hoc nos ipsos (quod non cogniveramus) secundum eos peccatores confiteri” W 56, 229,28 (Pauck, 7gf). See also 218,7 (70); 226,16 (77); and 231,12 (81). 69. Luther asserts: “Nos tales facit [Deus] quale est verbum suum, hoc est iustum, verum, sapiens, etc. . . . Tunc enim iam similis forma est in verbo et in credente, i.e. veritas et iustitia” (W 56, 227,3 [Pauck, 77]). 70. On Rom 3, 11 (“Non est intelligens”): “Intellectus iste de quo hie loquitur, est ipsa fides seu notitia invisibilium et credibilium. Ideo est intellectus in abscondito, quia eorum, quae homo ex seipso nosse non potest” (W 56, 238,28 [Pauck, 90]). The great hindrance to this “understanding” is pride, which leads to indocility toward the word of God (253,3 [Pauck, 106]). 71. “Ideo notandum, quod ‘charitas Dei’ dicitur, quia per earn solum Deum diligimus, ubi nihil visibile, nihil experimentale nec intus nec 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 experitum fastidiens et id, quod nondum cognoscit, tantum desiderans.” W 56, 307,2 (Pauck, 162). 72. For instance, “Apostolus distinguit inter legem et fidem, sive inter literam et gratiam, ita et inter opera eorum. Opera legis dicit, quae Hunt extra fidem et gratiam et ex lege per timorem cogente vel promissionem temporalium alliciente facta. Opera autem fidei dicit, quae ex spiritu libertatis amore solo Dei fiunt. Et haec fieri non possunt nisi a iustificatis per fidem, ad quam iustificationem opera legis nihil cooperantur.” W 56, 248,10 (Pauck, 101). See also 291,16 (Pauck, 145)73- w 56, 276,34 (Pauck, 131). 74. “. . . tegitur peccatum, i.e. sc. ipse fomes, per non-imputationem Dei propter humilitatem et gemitum fidei pro ipso.” W 56,

340

Notes to pages

108-109

284,13 (Pauck, i38f). At 289,30 (Pauck, 143), Luther says that concupiscence is not iniquitous “in credentibus et gementibus.” 75. W 56, 267,11 (Pauck, 122). 76. W 56, 250,18 (Pauck, 103). 77. “Hoc autem non praestat nisi fides, quae excaecat omnem sapientiam carnis faciens nihil sciri, paratum doceri ac duci et promptum audire et cedere. Quia non magnitudinem operum, sed mortificationem veteris hominis requirit Deus. Non autem mortificatur nisi per fidem, quae humiliat sensum proprium et subiicit alterius.” W 56, 4i6,5 (Pauck, 290). 78. W 56, 451,25 (Pauck, 332). 79. “Si enim Deus promittit et non est, qui credat promittenti, certe et promissio quoque Dei nulla erit neque implebitur, quia nulli est promissa, cum nullus earn receperit. Ergo fides ratificat promissionem et promissio fidem requirit in eo, cui fit.” W 56, 46,13 (from a gloss not given by Pauck). D. Bellucci treated this aspect of faith more fully in his Fede e Giustifwazione, 165-168. 80. W 56, 271,27 (Pauck, 127). 81. W 56, 249,13 (Pauck, 102). See also 251,12.22 (Pauck, 104). 82. “Ita et superbus quisque in suo sensu semper opponit se vel praecepto vel consilio recte monentis ad salutem. Cui cum non credit, similiter nihil credit et periit tota fides propter unius sensus pertinaciam.” W 56, 250,3 (Pauck, 103). 83- W 56, 251,22 (Pauck, 104); 252,11.19 (105); 255,30 (109); and 416,12 (290). B. Lohse spoke well of obedience to the word of a prelate as a “test case” of one’s obedience to God’s word. Monchtum und Reformation, 281. Such humility is the “existential form” that faith takes. Ibid., 301. 84. “Ideo si credis peccata tua non deleri nisi ab eo [a Deo], benefacis. Sed adde adhuc: ut et hoc credas (non quod possis tu, sed necesse est, ut spiritus faciat te hoc credere) ‘quia per ipsum peccata tibi donantur. Hoc est testimonium, quod perhibet in corde nostro spiritus sanctus dicens: Dimissa sunt tibi peccata tua. Sic enim arbitratur Apostolus hominem iustificari per fidem’ (assertive de te ipso etiam, non tantum de electis credere, quod Christus pro peccatis tuis mortuus sit et satisfecit).” W 56, 370,7 (Pauck, 234). The citation within this text is from St. Bernard’s sermon on the Annunciation (PL 183, 383)) as sre the applications to our merits (of which the Spirit give us testimony [370,i4f]) and to our future glory (about which the Spirit testifies that we will attain it [370,20]). However, Luther inserted these words after Bernard’s application of this struc¬ ture to our merits: Id fit, quando opera, quae facis, confidis Deo esse accepta et grata, quaecunque sint ilia tandem. Confidis autem

Notes to pages 109-110

34i

ea esse grata, quando sentis te per ea opera nihil esse coram Deo, licet bona sint et in obedientia facta, quia non facis ea, quae sunt mala. Et ista humilitas et compunctio in bonis operibus facit ea esse grata” (370,16 [Pauck, 235]). Thus, it is humility and not reflexive certitute about himself that is the decisive attitude in the just man. Here, Luther returns to the central stream of thought in these lectures, where humility is the dominant theme. The idea that what is essential in living faith is a reflexive assurance of being forgiven has been taken up, mulled over, but not asserted with full conviction. For a fuller analysis of Luther’s scholion on Rom 8,16, see Paul Hacker, Das Ich im Glauben bei Martin Luther, 105-109. 85. “Nondum Deo satisfecimus aut legem omnino implevimus. Unde ergo accipiemus defendentes? Non nisi a Christo et in Christo. Cor enim credentis in Christum, si reprehenderit eum et accusaverit eum contra eum testificans de malo opere, mox avertit se et ad Christum convertit dicitque: Hie autem satisfecit, his iustus est, hie mea defensio, hie pro me mortuus est, hie suam iustitiam meam fecit et meum peccatum suum fecit.” W 56, 204,13 (Pauck, 53f). 86. W 56, 424,2-426,9 (Pauck, 298-301). 87. W 56, 424,16 (Pauck, 299). 88. Moreover, a whole series of texts explicitly points to our uncertainty of forgiveness and grace. The main theme of the spirit¬ uality of these lectures is that of seeking and looking ahead to justice and grace. “Nullus sanctorum se iustum putat aut confitetur, sed iustificari semper se petit et expectat.” W 56, 259,18 (Pauck, 113). As a gloss on Rom 8, 16, Luther first wrote: “Qui confidit forti fide et spe se esse filium Dei, ipse est filius Dei, quod sine spiritu nemo potest,” but then he added the traditional proof-text against such a faith: “Contra Ecclesiast. 9: ‘Nescit homo, an odio vel amore dignus sit’” (79,15 [Pauck, 234, n. 29]). He also wrote: “Illi [sancti] utique, quibus ea opera sunt reputata et commendata, non ideo fecerunt, ut reputarentur, immo ignoraverunt, an reputarentur a Deo, sed egerunt, quod potuerunt, in humili fide, semper petentes grata esse Deo secundum misericordiam suam, quae agerent” (276,29 [Pauck, 131]). See also 246,33 (Pauck, 99) and 252,18 (105). Clearly, a simple citation of these texts will not finally settle all aspects of this problem. However, the citation will show the dominance of themes of humility and seeking over the great theme of certitude of justification in Luther’s works in 1518- See A. Gyllenkrok, Rechtfertigung und Heiligung, 66—73, for a sensitive review of this material. 89. W 56, 407,11 (Pauck, 279). 90. “Verbum Christi non potest suscipi nisi abnegatis et praecisis omnibus i.e. etiam intellectu captivato et omni sensu humiliter sub-

342

Notes to pages 110-112

misso. Sed quia plurimi persistunt in superbia sua et verbum non capiunt, immo verbo non capiuntur, ideo vix reliquiae salvantur.” W 56, 408,23 (Pauck, 280). Later: “Vere verbum Dei, si venit, venit contra sensum et votum nostrum. Non sinit stare sensum, etiam in his quae sunt sanctissima, sed destruit ac eradicat ac dissipat omnia” (W 56, 423,19 [Pauck, 298]). 91. W 56, 409,4 (Pauck, 281). 92. W 56, 173,7 (Pauck, 19). See p. 107. 93. “Huius vitae status habendo, sed quaerendo Deo peragitur. Semper quaerendum et requirendum i.e. iterum ac iterum quaerendum. . . . Sic enim itur de virtute in virtutem, a claritate in claritatem, in eandem formam. Non enim qui incipit et quaeret, sed ‘qui perseverat’ et requirit ‘usque in finem, hie salvus erit,’ semper incipiens, quaerens, et quaesitum semper requirens. Qui enim non proficit in via Dei, deficit. Et qui non requirit, quaesitum amittit, cum non sit standum in via Dei. ‘Et ubi incipimus nolle fieri meliores, desinimus esse boni,’ ut ait S. Bernardus.” W 56, 239,14 (Pauck, 91). 94. W 56, 442,3 (Pauck, 322). 95- W 56, 442,18 (Pauck, 322). 96. Luther describes the insight into this distinction as one that helped him, since it allowed him to make sense out of piously calling oneself a sinner even after confession, and a life of penance. Earlier, he had not understood this: “Ita mecum pugnavi, nesciens quod remissio quidem vera sit, sed tamen non sit ablatio peccati, nisi in spe i.e. auferenda et data gratia, quae auferre incipit ut non imputetur ammodo pro peccato” (W 56, 274,8 [Pauck, 128]). 97. W 56, 258,16 (Pauck, 112). Shortly before, Luther spoke of earnest prayer and the effort of penance as the agricultura sui ipsius by which a man prepares for healing grace (257,30 [Pauck, 111]). Later, he spoke of our duty to do to death the corpus peccati that is always with us: Sed hoc odium et haec resistentia corporis peccati non est levis, sed laboriosissima, ad quam necessaria sunt tot opera poenitentiae, quod fieri possunt, praesertim cautela otii” (321,19 [Pauck, 178]). Baptism and confession are no cause for security and relaxing: Non enim ad otium vocati sumus, sed ad laborem contra passiones.” 350,8 (Pauck, 212). 98. W 56, 266,11 (Pauck, 120). 99Igitur ista vita est vita curationis a peccato, non sine pec¬ cato finita curatione et adepta sanitate. Ecclesia stabulum est et infirmaria aegrotantium et sanandorum. Coelum vero est palatium sanorum et iustorum.” W 56, 275,25 (Pauck, 130). Luther developed this theme more fully at 272,3 (Pauck, 127). B. Lohse had treated the theme of progress in these lectures in Monchtum und Reformation

Notes to pages 112-113

343

(284-288). One misses in Lohse’s presentation the repeated emphasis on healing and expulsion of concupiscence that we find in Luther’s text. For Luther, in 1515-1516, the most typical form of our advance is poenitentia, which is justification in fieri, effected by prayer, selfdenial, and healing grace. 100. They are “sanificati, i.e. sani fientes.” W 56, 347,13 (Pauck, 208). 101. W 56, 441,16 (Pauck, 321). 102. W 56, 513,19 (Pauck, 402). It is important to see this theme of “man in motion” as the context for the famous Lutheran formula simul iustus et peccator. Luther’s first use of it was at 272,17 (Pauck, 127), where he compared our situation to that of the man brought by the Good Samaritan to the hostel to be cured, who was then egrotus simul et sanus (272,7; Pauck, 127). Joseph Lortz sees here Luther’s basic conception of the Christian man—he is imperfect, yet still striving and praying for the complete cure that comes with death. TrThZ 71 (1962), 237. This is not precisely the post-Tridentine Catholic view of man, but it seems that the realities are very similar in both views. The terminology is different, since Catholic doctrine would not use the term “sinner” so freely, but this doctrine does admit the validity of Luther’s thought. The stress on cure from bad habits, from selfishness, from the remains of sin, is quite at home in a Catholic view of man. 103. “Semper orandum et operandum, ut crescat gratia et spiritus, decrescat autem ac destruatur corpus peccati et deficiat vetustas. Non enim iustificavit nos i.e. perfecit et absolvit iustos et iustitiam, sed incepit, ut perficiat.” W 56, 258,17 (Pauck, 112). 104. “Populus itaque fidei totam vitam suam agit in quaerendo iustificationem.” W 56, 264,35 (Pauck, 119). 105. “Sic et Apostolus non arbitratur se apprehendisse, sed extendit se in anteriora quaerendo, oblitus posteriorum inveniendo. Qui enim sic quaesierit corde et opere, sine dubio eo ipso, quo iustificari se petit et iustum esse se non putat, iam iustus est apud Deum. W 56, 265,17 (Pauck, 120). , 106. W 56, 280,17 (Pauck, 135). Lortz stresses that this theme of progressive cure and struggle is essential for understanding Luther’s idea of justification in these lectures. It is not given all at once, but is itself a growth process that lasts until death. TrThZ 71 (1962), 223. 107. W 56, 258,21 (Pauck, 135). 108. “Ista vita est vita curationis a peccato, non sine peccato finita curatione et adepta sanitate. Ecclesia stabulum est et infirmaria egrotantium et sanandorum.” W 56, 275,26 (Pauck, 13°)• See also 351,11 (Pauck, 213).

344

Notes to pages 113-115

109. On the renewal urged in Rom 12,2: ‘‘Loquitur de iis, qui iam inceperunt esse Christiani. Quorum vita non est in quiescere, sed in moveri de bono in melius velut egrotus de egritudine in sanitatem, ut et Dominus ostendit in homine semivivo in curam Samaritani suscepto” (W 56, 441,14 [Pauck, 321]). 110. Luther developed the “Good Samaritan” theme most fully at W 56, 272,11 (Pauck, 127), and on the man under treatment: “Sanus perfecte est in spe, in re autem peccator, sed initium habens iustitiae, ut amplius quaerat semper, semper iniustum se sciens” (272,19). We recall from Chapter III (see p. 8if.) that for Luther, the phrase in re refers to something knowable, coram hominibus and empirically. Thus the initium iustitiae is not a res in this sense, but it is no less real. A. Gyllenkrok has argued well against those who try to water down this inchoative justice in these lectures. Rechtfertigung und Heiligung, 120-124. 111. W 56, 264,16 (Pauck, 118), cited on p. 283, n. 2. 112. See p. 107. 113. See pp. 64ff. H4. W 56, 229,28 (Pauck, 79) and 231,6 (81). 115. W 56, 226,4 (Pauck, 76); 229,7 (79); 231,20 (81); and 232,34 (83). 116. W 56, 215,2 (Pauck, 66).

117' ^ Luther at W 56, 17,19 and 270,6 (Pauck, 125). 118. Justificatio Dei passiva et activa et fides seu credulitas in ipsum sunt idem. Quia quod nos eius sermones iustificamus, donum ipsius est, ac propter idem donum ipse nos iustos habet i.e. iustificat. Et sermones eius non iustificamus, nisi dum credimus eos iustos etc.” W 56, 227,18 (Pauck, 78). ng. Quia dum sancti peccatum suum semper in conspectu habent et iustitiam a Deo secundum misericordiam ipsius implorant, eo ipso semper quoque iusti a Deo reputantur. Ergo sibiipsis et in veritate iniusti sunt, Deo autem propter hanc confessionem peccati eos reputanti iusti; re vera peccatores, sed reputatione miserentis Dei iusti autem in spe.” W 56, 269,25 (Pauck, 125). At 271,20 (126), the mark of those whose sin God remits is that they acknowledge, confess, and hate their sin. 12.0. Iustificat . . . enim [Deus] in verbo suo, dum nos tales racit, quale est verbum suum, hoc est iustum, verum, sapiens, etc. Et ita nos in verbum suum, non autem verbum suum in nos mutat. Facit autem tales tunc, quando nos verbum suum tale credimus esse, sc. iustum, verum. Tunc enim iam similis forma est in verbo et in credente i.e. veritas et iustitia.” W 56, 227,2 (Pauck, 77). On Rom ’ 17> Luther lepeated this idea, speaking of how the wisdom of the

Notes to pages 115-117

345

flesh must cede to the form of the word of God and thus a man takes on the justice, veracity, wisdom, etc. of the word in which he believes (329,28 [Pauck, 188]). 121. See p. 330, n. 2. 122. W 56, 233,5 (Pauck, 83), cited on p. 332, n. 13. 123. On Rom 1,1: “Non tantum laboratur in Ecclesia, ut iustitia et sapientia nostra nihil sit neque efferatur per gloriam neque celebretur per opinionem . . . sed ut destruatur et evellatur de affectu et complacentia interiori nostra coram oculis nostris” (W 56, 157,20 [Pauck, 3f]). See also 430,22 (Pauck, 307), where Luther speaks of the worship the proud give to his idol, that is, to the “complacentia operum suorum et magniputatio iustitiae suae.” 124. “Deus enim nos non per domesticam, sed per extraneam iustitiam et sapientiam vult salvare, non quae veniat et nascatur ex nobis, sed quae aliunde veniat in nos, non quae in terra nostra oritur, sed quae de coelo venit. Igitur omnino externa et aliena iustitia oportet erudiri. Quare primum oportet propriam et domesticam evelli.” W 56, 158,10 (Pauck, 4) and 159,12 (5). 125. W 56, 33,13 (Pauck, 85, n. 32). 126. W 56, 306,15 (Pauck, 161). 127. W 56, 394,27 (Pauck, 266). 128. W 56, 376,14 (Pauck, 241). 129. W 56, 404,1 (Pauck, 275). 130. W 56, 502,19 (Pauck, 390). 131. “Sed nunc Christus vult omnem affectum nostrum ita esse exutum, ut non solum pro nostris vitiis non timeamus confusionem et pro nostris virtutibus non amemus gloriam et vanam iustitiam, sed nee de ipsa externa, quae ex Christo in nobis est, iustitia gloriari coram hominibus debeamus.” W 56, 158,22 (Pauck, 4). The externa iustitia is nonetheless in nobis, but Luther s attention is not centered here, but on one’s self-estimate. 132. “Studiosissime fieri eiusmodi debent et omni fervore exercere, eo sc. fine, ut per ipsa tanquam praeparatoria tandem apti et capaces fieri possumus iustitiae Dei, non ut sint iustitia, sed ut quaerant iustitiam. . . . Parare enim illis omnibus oportet viam Domini venturi in nobis. Non autem sunt via Domini. Haec est enim iustitia Dei, quam praesens Dominus post ilia in nobis efficit solus. W 56, 233,26 (Pauck, 84). 133- W 56, 192,26 (Pauck, 41). 134. W 56, 258,1 (Pauck, 111). 135. “Qui iustus est et legem implevit, sine dubio habet, unde glorietur et superbiat. At illi se eiusmodi credunt esse, quia ad extra fecerunt, quae lex statuit et prohibuit. Ideo non humiliantur, non

346

Notes to pages 118-ng

vilescunt sibi tanquam peccatores. Non quaerunt iustificari, non gemunt pro iustitia, quia adeptum se possidere confidunt.” W 56, 263,31 (Pauck, 118) and 236,13 (87). 136. W 56, 298,24 (Pauck, 154). 137. W 56, 305,24 (Pauck, 160). At 306,5 (Pauck, 161) Luther speaks of self-reliant sinners: “ignorantes, quomodo in nudum Deum sperandum sit. See also 402,7 (Pauck, 273), where Luther explains the aim of God’s stirring Pharao against the Hebrews. It was that they might come to expect help from no one except God. 138. W 56, 279,22 (Pauck, 134). The Catholic reader could well be diawn^to cry out with Denifle and Bellucci, “Extr insicism! Extrinsicism! There is no doubt that Luther stresses the iustitia aliena more than does post-Tridentine Catholic doctrine, but we have seen again and again that the context of this emphasis was stress on the spiritual self-denial that is utterly stripped of all confidence in oneself. We have seen also, often enough, that grace is at work “in” the justified Christian, as Luther depicts him in 1515—1516. u 139- An important minor theme, however, is that of Christ as the sacrament, which both signifies and effects our new life: Christ rose from the dead, sibi corporaliter, nobis sacramentaliter,” accord¬ ing to Luther’s gloss ^ on Rom 6,9. W 56, 58,19 (Pauck, 184, note 17). Rom 6,10 on Christ’s glorious life was, for Luther, “expressio sacramenti mortis Christi, ^q.d. sicut Christus semel mortuus nunquam moritur, ita quicumque spiritualiter moritur peccato semel, nunquam amphus moritur, sed vivet in aeternum” (59,14 [Pauck, ibid.]). Gloss¬ ing Rom 5,10, Luther wrote: “Resurrectio et vita Christi est non tantum sacramentum, sed et causa, i.e. efficax sacramentum nostrae spiritualis resurrectionis et __ vitae, quia facit resurgere et vivere credentes 111 in / -*■ O-T ^ v-iv/uvinti)

140. W 56, 171,14 (Pauck, 17). 141. W 56, 218,7 (Pauck, 70).

Notes to pages 119-122

347

142. W 56, 375,2 (Pauck, 240). 143. “Inde enim fit, quod cum petimus Deum, quaecunque ilia tandem sint, et ipse exaudiens incipit ea velle donare, sic donat, ut contraveniat omnibus nostris conceptibus .... Quod totum ideo facit, quia natura Dei est, prius destruere et annihilare, quidquid in nobis est, antequam sua donet.” W 56, 375,14 (Pauck, 240). 144. W 56, 375,22 (Pauck, 24of). 145. W 56, 376,19 (Pauck, 241) and 378,2 (243). 146. W 56, 376,31 (Pauck, 242). 147. W 56, 381,5 (Pauck, 246). 148. W 56, 378,13 (Pauck, 243). 149. W 56, 390,13 (Pauck, 261). 150. W 56, 390,23 (Pauck, 262) and 516,31 (406). 151. “Iis autem, qui vere Deum diligit amore filiali et amicitiae, qui non est ex natura, sed spiritu sancto solum, sunt pulcherrima ista verba et perfectissimi exempli testimonia. Tales enim libere sese offerunt in omnem voluntatem Dei, etiam ad inferum et mortem aeternaliter, si Deus ita vellet, ut sua voluntas plene fiat; adeo nihil quaerunt, quae sua sunt.” W 56, 391,7 (Pauck, 262). 152. W 56, 391,12 (Pauck, 262). 153- W 56, 391,17 (Pauck, 262). 154. W 56, 39:1,29 (Pauck, 263). 155- W 56, 392,7 (Pauck, 263). 156. W 56, 392,20 (Pauck, 263). 157. “Bonum enim nostrum absconditum est et ita perfecte, ut sub contrario absconditum sit. Sic vita nostra sub morte, dilectio nostri sub odio nostri, gloria sub ignominia. . . .” W 56, 392,28 (Pauck, 264), and then: “Ecce haec sunt bona, quae nobis optare debemus (i.e. omne malum). Sic enim sumus conformes Deo, qui in nobis nihil boni reputat aut agnoscit” (393,13 [Pauck, 264]). 158. W 56, 393,24 (Pauck, 265). 159- W 56, 450,20 (Pauck, 331). 160. W 56, 445,18 (Pauck, 325). 161. W 56, 445,25 (Pauck, 325O. Then Luther made the point that a new gift of grace always goes counter to our own ideas. Stub¬ bornness thus repels God’s gift. The most useful knowledge Christ s faithful can have is the transformatio sensus nostri. 446,14 (Pauck, 326). 162. W 56, 447,18 (Pauck, 327). 163. “Sicut itaque Dei sapientia abscondita est sub specie stultitiae et veritas sub forma mendacii, ita enim verbum Dei, quoties venit, venit in specie contraria menti nostrae, quae sibi vera sapere videtur; ideo verbum contrarium sibi mendacium iudicat adeo, ut

348

Notes to pages 122-125

Christus verbum suum appelaverit adversarium nostrum, Matt. 5 . . . . Ita et voluntas Dei, cum sit vere et naturaliter ‘bona, beneplacens, perfecta,’ sed ita abscondita sub specie mali, displicentis ac desperati, ut nostrae voluntati . . . non nisi pessima, desperatissima, et nullo modo Dei, sed diaboli voluntas videatur.” W 56, 446,31 (Pauck, 326). This is a paradoxical opposition the philosophers cannot grasp. Instead, it is a matter for practical, living insight. 447,19 (Pauck, 327*)l64- W 56, 447,23 (Pauck, 328). 1®5- W 56, 447,27-449,19 (Pauck 328-329). Luther concludes with this counsel: “Cuicunque ergo fit iniuria et malum obvenit in suo bono, avertat oculum ab isto malo et cogitet, quantum in aliis malum habeat, et videbit, quam bona sit voluntas Dei in isto malo, quod obvenit; hoc enim est renovari mentem et in alium sensum mutari et sapere, quae Dei sunt” (449,23 [Pauck, 330]). 166. W 56, 423,20 (Pauck, 298). At the end of these three sections, which in effect outline the ideal of humility in the Lectures on Romans, we must admit the correctness of much of Ernst Bizer’s analysis, especially when he stresses that faith is here more an acceptance of God s condemning word than of his forgiving word (Fides ex auditu, 2d ed., pp. 34 and 37). 167. W 56, 248,12 (Pauck, 101). 168. After God gives his dona spirituals, he sends trials to hinder a man from the dangerous path of enjoyment of them. “Sic enim discit homo pure Deum amare et colere, dum non propter gratiam et dona, sed propter ipsum solum Deum colit.” W 56, 305,14 (Pauck 159)169. W 56, 337,13 (Pauck, 197). Earlier, Luther wrote of the doctrina spirituals contained in the assertion: “quod voluntate et puritate cordis suit opera legis facienda” (205,3 [Pauck, 54]), and in 264,31 (119): Falsum est, quod opera legis impleant legem, cum lex sit spiritual*, requirens cor et voluntatem, quam impossible est ex nobis habere, ut supra dictum est saepius.” 170. W 56, 163,4-16 (Pauck, 9). 171- W 56, 427,14 (Pauck, 302). 172. W 56, 356,27 (Pauck, 219). 173. W 56, 306,26 (Pauck, 162). 174- W 56, 308,4 (Pauck, 163). “xt

1r5'-W 56’ 338,6, (Pauck> *98), but Luther adds in the next line: on faciunt autem liberrima voluntate, nisi qui per spiritum sanctum charitatem habent. 176. W 56, 366,14 (Pauck, 230).

Notes to pages 125-126

349

177. The weak ones are those “qui se credunt debero, quod vere non necessario debent.” W 56, 492,9 (Pauck, 379). Luther then col¬ lects all the New Testament passages attacking the Judaizers (1 Tim i,3ff; Gal 4,9ff; Col 2,16; Hebr 13,9; 1 Cor 8,1 and 10,6) and con¬ cludes: “Quod in nova lege omnia sunt libera et nulla necessaria iis, qui credunt in Christo, sed sufficit 'charitas . . . de corde puro et conscientia bona et fide non ficta’” (493,15 [Pauck, 380]). Later, he wrote: “Totus itaque error in hac parte est, quod non cogitamus, quia haec omnia non necessitate pellente aut timore sollicitante, sed hilaritate ac voluntate liberrima excitante facienda sunt, ut Deo placeant” (501,19 [Pauck, 389]). 178. W 56, 494,4 (Pauck, 381). 179. W 56, 496,14 (Pauck, 383). Luther intimated that wide¬ spread knowledge of this version of Christian liberty would bring a sharp decrease in pious practices and religious observances (499,26 [Pauck, 387]). On the other hand, there is so little observance of the rule of liberty and hilaritas that he must remark glumly: “Timeo, quod omnes pereamus hodie. Quis enim istam sequitur regulam?’ (500,11 [Pauck, 388]). This pessimism is a result of Luther’s nonPauline idea of sin, and of an idea of liberty foreign to the New Testa¬ ment in the way it drives the Christian to introspection about feelings over which he has no control. Luther had the good sense to give only a very abbreviated version of these passages in his actual lectures on Rom 14,1. See W 57I, 226,20-228,6. 180. “Nisi per gratiam Dei (quam credentibus in Christum promisit et largitur) sanetur ista voluntas, ut liberi sumus et hilares ad opera legis, quaerentes non nisi Deo placere et eius voluntatem facere, non timore poenae aut amore nostri operantes, semper sub peccato sumus.” W 56, 235,21 (Pauck, 86); 279,20 (134); and 338,9 (198). 181. W 56, 66,22 (from a gloss not in Pauck). R. Hermann por¬ trayed well the intimate bond between Luthers stress on progress and the primacy of prayer in the just fife. Das Verhaltnis von Rechtfertigung und Gebet,” Gesammelte Schriften, 35» 28ff. Hermann, how¬ ever, does not specify this prayer as a petition for God’s healing grace for further purification of the flawed motivation with which even the best Christian serves God. Luther s gratia sanans is little known among his Lutheran expositors. 182. Luther is writing against the preachers who stress the signs of the presence of grace: “Pestilentissimum itaque genus praedicantium est hodie, quod de signis praesentis gratiae praedicat, ut securos homines faciat, cum hoc sit optimum signum gratiae, timere sc. et tremere, et praesentissimum signum irae Dei securum esse et con-

35°

Notes to pages 126-127

fidere .... Sic enim per timorem gratia invenitur et per gratiam voluntarius homo efficitur ad opera bona, sine qua invitus est” (W 56, 503,21 [Pauck, 392]). 183. W 56, 501,15 (Pauck, 389). 184. W 56, 335,31 (Pauck, 87), quoted in part on p. 283. Where Luther speaks explicitly of healing, R. Hermann finds in this text the Christian turning to God s forgiveness. This is a pale, Lutheranized version. “Das Verhaltnis von Rechtfertigung und Gebet,” Gesammelte Schriften, 31. For Luther, close examination of one’s motives would lead to humility, prayer, and progress: “certe timerent, humiliarentur, et gratiam Dei semper querulis gemitibus quaererent, ac sic semper proficerent” (236,23 [Pauck, 88]). The text of Rom 7 gave Luther a number of opportunities to speak of this yearning sigh of petition: 34°>5 (Pauck, 201); 346,17.31 (208); 350,1.11 (212); and 66,25. 185. “Ubi nostri theologi peccatum ad sola opera deflexerunt et ea solum inceperunt docere, quibus opera caveantur, non, quomodo per gemitum humiliter gratiam sanantem quaerant et se peccatores agnoscant. Ideo necessario superbos faciunt, . . .” W 56, 276,6 (Pauck, 13°)- The rule is: Assiduis oporteat gemitibus ad Deum intendere, ut hoc taedium tollat et ad hilaritatem perficiat voluntatem auferatque per gratiam pronitatem illius ad malum” (257,26 [Pauck, 111]). 186. W 56, 336,14 (Pauck, 195). 187. W 56, 266,5 (Pauck, 120), cited in part in p. 332, n. 12. 188. W 56, 281,18 (Pauck, 135). Other passages indicate that Luther is speaking of the non-imputation of concupiscence, and envisions a true though inchoative—transformation of the person: Misencordia Dei est, quod hoc [malum] manet et non pro peccato reputatur iis, qui invocant eim et gemunt pro liberatione sua. Tales emm facile et opera cavent, quia quaerent iustificari omni studio” (271,27 [Pauck, 127]). Luther explains how sin is covered (as Ps 32,1 states): sc. ipse fomes [tegitur] per non-imputationem Dei propter humilitatem et gemitum fidei pro ipso” (284,13 [Pauck, i38tj). Later, though, speaking of the non-imputation of the flaws m our chanty which is propter fidem et gemitum, Luther does not speak of the effective healing process (289,15 [Pauck, 143]). Again he speaks in this sense at 287,16 (Pauck, 141). However, the larger context of the Lectures on Romans points clearly to a healing process worked by God s grace from the time of justification. 189. Lex factorum necessario inflat et gloriationem ponit, quia qui mstus est et legem implevit, sine dubio habet, unde glorietur et superbiat. At ilh se eiusmodi credunt esse, quia ad extra fecerunt quae ex statuit et prohibuit. Ideo non humiliantur, non vilescunt sibi tanquam peccatores. Non quaerunt iustificari, non gemunt pro

Notes to pages 127-132

35i

iustitia, quia adeptum se possidere confidunt.” W 56, 263,31 (Pauck, 118). 190. W 56, 268,27 (Pauck, 124). A few lines later, Luther wrote: “Quia dum sancti peccatum suum semper in conspectu habent et iustitiam a Deo secundum misericordiam ipsius implorant, eo ipso semper quoque iusti a Deo reputantur” (269,25 [Pauck, 125]). 191. “Regia ergo via et via pacis in spiritu est peccatum quidem nosse et odisse et ita in timore Dei incedere, ne imputet et dominari permittat, et tamen orare misericordiam eius, ut nos ab eo liberet et non imputet.” W 56, 283,7 (Pauck, 137). 192. W 56, 264,16 (Pauck, 118), cited in the original on p. 283, n. 2.

Chapter V 1. The list of Luther’s works in this period of little over a year gives the impression of a very busy and perhaps even an overworked man. This impression is confirmed by Luther’s narrative of his tasks in a letter to Johann Lang on October 26, 1516. In Wittenberg, Luther was preaching regularly both in the Augustinian house and in the parish church, directing the studies of younger members of the order, lecturing on St. Paul, and revising his lectures on the Psalms. As district superior he was involved in the affairs of eleven Augus¬ tinian houses, and he complained that letter-writing took up so much time that he often did not have time for his breviary or to celebrate Mass. WBr 1, 28,4; 72 (LW 48, 27Q. 2. See Gordon Rupp, The Righteousness of God, 195—202, for an English translation of some representative scholia from these lectures. 3. This last point is not of itself indicative of a change in Luther s attitudes. Actually, many of the sharpest passages of the Lectures on Romans are found only in Luther’s preparatory notes (W 56) and not in the students’ notes (W 57I). Thus there may well have been passages in Luther’s written scholia on Galatians that applied the the¬ ology of that letter to the life of the Church, perhaps even to the theology and practice of indulgences, but of this we cannot be sure. The letter to Lang suggests that Luther had less time to prepare his lectures in the winter semester of 1516-1517. 4. In the original: “Quia sine gratia voluntas manet prona ad malum adversans ea quae scripta sunt in lege” (W 57II, 22,11). 5. Luther explained why the phrase opera legis was appropriate in Gal 2, 16: “Eius enim deputantur opera, cuius voluntas iubet aut facit ea. Sed lex iubet, sc. terrore poenarum vel promissione bonorum.

352

Notes to pages 132-134

ac sic extorquet ea ab externo homine et invita voluntate. Igitur sunt ‘opera legis,’ non quia secundum legem, sed quia a lege potius nolentibus nobis hunt” (W 57II, 69,8). If this explanation is to be taken literally, one cannot suppress the question about the responsible subject not only of the works of the law but also of the works of faith. As we write (September 1967), we are looking for some light on this subject from the announced work of Wilfred Joest, Ontologie der Person (Gottingen, 1967), which will treat Luther’s understand¬ ing of the human person. 6. W 57II, 68,14. 7. W 57II, 73,21. 8. W 57II, 79,7. 9. W 57II, 79,19. 10. “Nunquam peccat existens extra gratiam non occidendo, non moechando etc., sed peccat intus in corde odiendo et concupiscendo, quae talibus praeceptis prohibentur, ut manifeste patet Matth. 5. per ipsiusmet Christi expositionem, sine quo tamen odio et concupiscentia nemo esse potest ullo modo, nisi per gratiam sanetur. Igitur non est intentio legis, ut in gratia servetur, tanquam gratiam habere hoc ipsum sit iam nova exactio ultra legem; sed intendit lex, ut servetur. Servari autem sine gratia non potest, ac sic cogit gratiam quaerere.” W 57II, 80,12. 11. W 57II, 58,22. 12. See pp. i25ff. 13- W 57II, 60,9. See also the last lines of the passage cited in n. 9. 14. “Sic et e contrario concupiscentias ‘facere’ est eas habere, titillari et moveri illis, sive sint ad libidine sive ad iram; sed ‘perficere’ est eis consentire et implere, quae sunt opera camis.” W 57II, 102,9 and 105,10. Luther also referred to this distinction in the Lectures on Romans. See p. 100. !5- W 57II, 80,25. 1.6. After speaking of Scripture, doctrines, and laws as these elements of the world,” Luther continued, “Elementa vero Dei vel divina sunt scripturae vivae digito Dei cordibus impressae ut gratia, iustitia, prudentia, charitas, pax, sapientia, virtus, etc. Haec autem nullis doctrinis hominum tradi possunt.” W 57II, 87,11. 17. W 57II, 90,15. 18. W 57II, 83,15, and in the next scholion: “Itaque Apostolus e?rfjpe “nem et hitentionem legis exprimit, dum non est posita, ut vivificaret et impleretur a nobis, sed magis, ut concluderet sub peccato et humiharet ad quaerendam gratiam” (84,29). Luther’s glosses on this verse (Gal 3, 22) mentioned two themes of the Lectures on Ro-

Notes to pages 135-136

353

mans: humble acknowledgement of one’s sin (26,16) and the sigh of petition for grace (“illos facit suspirare ad gratiam” [27,3]). 19. W 57II, 68,18. B. Lohse spoke of this passage as being di¬ rected against a libertine misunderstanding of Luther’s conception of justification. Monchtum und Reformation, 313. 20. W 57II, 73,15. In the original, Luther wrote thus of the “law of the spirit”: “Est ipsa viva voluntas experimentalisque vita ‘scripta digito Dei’ i.e. spiritu sancto ‘in cordibus nostis,’ . . . i.e. tota simul iustitia intra et extra. . . .” (73,17). 21. W 57II, 96,10. 22. It is new in comparison with Luther’s treatment of the dis¬ tinction in the Lectures on Romans. W 56, 424-426 (Pauck, 298301). See p. 104. 23. In a remark at table in 1542 or 1543, Luther connected his liberating discovery of the meaning of the “justice of God’ in Rom 1, 17 with a discovery of the distinction between the law and the Gospel. Previously, he had held that Christ differed from Moses only in time and perfection, but then he broke through to see that the Gospel is totally other than the law (Tabletalk, n. 5518), given by Otto Scheel, Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung (2d ed., Tubingen, 1929), 172. Here, the later Luther proves to be an inept guide to his own early thought, since from the very first marginals on Lombard and Augustine, Christ played a unique role in his description of the way to salvation. This table remark should be seen in the context of the Lutheran polemic of the 1540’s against Catholic theology, one often formulated in the charge that Catholics did not know the dis¬ tinction between the law and the Gospel. Consequently, they were said to know nothing of the unique consolations offered by the Gospel. Luther spoke in quite lurid tones of his earlier suffering amid that ignorance. His early works, however, show clearly that he knew that Christ is the source of forgiveness and grace. 24. On Romans, Luther had written: “[Evangelium] angustiatis . . . optatum nunciat remedium;” “pacem nunciat;” “liberat [conscientiam] et pacificat per fidem Christi; gratiam offert; morbo medetur ad salutem” (W 5b, 424»10,11,17 an(^ 42®>8-9 [Pauck, 298, 299, and 300]). 25. “Lex praedicat facienda et omittenda, immo commissa et omissa, ac per hoc solam dat cognitionem peccati. Evangelium autem praedicat remissionem peccati et impletionem factam legis, sc. per Christum. Ideo vox legis est haec: ‘redde quod debes;’ evangelium autem haec: ‘remittuntur tibi peccata tua.’ . . . Ecce praedicatio re¬ mission^ peccatorum, hoc est evangelii.” W 57H> 59A8. 26. W 57II, 80,16, cited on p. 352, n. 10.

354

Notes to pages 136-138

27. W 57II, 103,2. See also 73,15.25 on the work of the Spirit giving the will life and delight in the law. 28. W 57II, 55,4. 29. “Sequitur, quod iustus per fidem nemini det, quod suum est ex seipso, sed ex alio, sc. Christo, qui solus ita iustus est, ut omnibus reddat, quod reddendum est, immo omnia ei debent.” W 57II, 69,21. 30. W 57II, 73,17, cited in pdrt on p. 353, n. 20. 31. We continue from the passage cited in n. 29: “Ideo qui in Christum credit, per Christum non solum omnibus satisfacit, sed etiam facit, ut omnia sibi debeant, cum per fidem efficiatur unum cum Christo. Ideo vocatur haec iustitia ‘iustitia Dei,’ quia donatur a Deo, 1 Corin,i: ‘Qui factus est nobis a Deo iustitia atque prudentia’ (W 57II, 69,23). The simple grammatical explanation of iustitia Dei as referring to the work of God betrays nothing of the charged etc.

atmosphere the elder Luther associated with his early thinking on the justice of God. Heiko Oberman has recently maintained that it was precisely the identification of iustitia Christi (given the man of faith in justification) and iustitia Dei (the justice of Christ plus our good works, which God will demand in the judgment) that makes Luther specifically different from the scholastic and Tridentine view. HThR

59 (!966), igff. However, the text cited here would not indicate that the question of final judgment played any significant role in Luthers use of these terms in 1516—1517. His main concern is to attack the iustitia propria humana that makes a man pay no attention to healing grace and to faith in Christ. Catholic spirituality. 32. W 57II, 69,15.

Such a concern is

good

33- W 57II, 70,5. This is one of a series of texts that one misses in Ernst Bizer s Fides ex auditu, in which the 1516—1517 Galatians lectures are not treated. See also 69,15 (cited in n. 29 and 31), and 73,15 (on the spirit giving charity). Attending to these texts, one could hardly maintain that Luther at this time saw our justice in imitating the humble Christ by striving toward ever greater humility. There is a work of grace here that makes a man one with Christ. 34. W 57II, 80,26.

35- Summe tamen cavenda est, ne ista cognitio accipiatur specu¬ lative, qua Christus tantum obiective cognoscitur. Nam haec est mortua, et daemones adeo habent earn. . . . Sed est accipienda ipsa practica, sc. vita, essentia, et experientia ad exemplum et imaginem Christi” W 57II, 94,436. Nullius est tanta fides, ut non possit aut debeat augeri. Ideo pro augmento eius operanda sunt bona et cavenda mala. Est enim

Notes to pages 138-140

355

fides, ut patuit, latissima et pluribus gradibus differens, donee omnia perfecte praeter Christum contemnantur.” W 57II, 70,26. 37. W 57II, 69,25, cited in n. 31. Later, Luther spoke of those “having Christ, the fulfiller of the law, namely by faith” (97,17). 38. “Omnes fideles sunt iusti propter Christum, in quern credunt et cui incipiunt fieri conformes per mortificationem veteris hominis.” W 57II, 74,939. W 57II, 94,7, cited in n. 35. 40. “Iustus non debet bene vivere et bene facere, sed bene vivit et bene facit.” W 57II, 105,27. 41. W 57II, 97,15. 42. W 57II, 63,20. 43. W 57II, 63,15. 44. W 57II, 101,3. 45. “Caute intelligenda est vulgata sententia doctorum ex hoc praecepto [Gal 5,14: Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum] sumpta, quod ordinata charitas incipit a se ipso, ne repugnet huic, quod non debemus nobis placere nee nostra quaerere, immo nos odisse et abnegare et semper a se ad proximum tendere. Idcirco ordinata charitas est verum odium sui et amor proximi,” W 57II, 100,23. 46. See p. 354, n. 36. 47. See above, n. 38. 48. W 57II, 60,13. 49. W 57II, 88,16. . 50. For example: “Et redempti sumus et assidue redimimur, facti sumus filii Dei et efficimur, missus est spiritus et mittitur. ...

(W

57II, 88,22). 51. W 57II, 102,15. A. Gyllenkrok sensed the importance of this passage and pointed out that the just man is precisely one who lives this life of continual striving. Seeking justice and growing in it is the sign that justice is present. Rechtfertigung und Heiligung in der

friihen evangelischen Theologie Luthers (Wiesbaden, 1952), 125. 52. For instance: “Non ergo opera legis sunt mala, cum sint a Deo imposita; sed ideo sunt

reiecta, quia in illis ponebatur fiducia et

finis legis.” W 57II, 68,18 and 56,4. 53. “Terribile est iustitiam propriam

statuere.

Hoc

enim

est

‘transferri’ a Christo, et gratia et veritate Dei excidere.” W 57II, 56,14. 54. Continuing from the previous citation: “Inde enim duplex malum vel error eorum ponitur, sc. contra bonos mores et contra fidem. Contra fidem est sapere et confidere in aliam sapientiam vel iustitiam extra Christum. Contra bonos mores est salva hac fide sensualibus viribus cadere vel errare” (W 57II, 56,15).

Notes to pages 141-145

356

55. “Tota vis huius controversiae consistit non in operibus legis precise, sed in necessitate et liberalitate operum legis.” W 57II, 63,8. 56. W 57II, 63,9. 57. “Externum enim opus est indifferens. Tota autem differentia est in conscientia, opinione, mente, consilia, intentione etc. Igitur opera legis, si fiant conscientia necessitatis, peccata sunt adversus gratiam; si autem Hunt pietate charitatis, merita sunt secundum gratiam.” W 57II, 97,25. 58. 59. 60. 61.

See pp. W 57II, W 57II, W 57II,

139b 89,2. 89,11. 106,6.

62. W 57II, 102,15 and above.

74>9>

cited on p. 140 and p. 355, n. 38,

63. “. . . ut quisque suo studio sibi intentus proficiat in eo quod coepit.” W 57II, 106,16. 64. W 9, 97-104. The notes are generally thought to have been written in the latter half of 1516. See W 9, 95. H. Quiring remarked perceptively that marginal notes like these are not of themselves of great value for charting Luther’s development, except in cases where the same ideas turn up in other works. ZSTh 13 (1936), 2iif. 65. W 1, 153. Luther’s 1518 edition added chapters missing in 1516 and supplied the title Eyn theologia deutsch. A useful English edition of this work was published under the title Theologia Germanica (New York, 1949), incorporating the introduction and notes from an earlier German edition by Joseph

Bernhart.

For

a good

review of the present state of knowledge about this work, see G. Baring, schung,

Luther und die

Theologia Deutsch’ in der neuesten For-

Theologische Zeitschrift 23 (1967), 48—62. Baring would

agree with R. Haubst (see LThK2, Vol. 10, Col. 6if) that the work stems from Johannes of Frankfurt and was written ca. 1430. 66. De ista patientia Dei et sufferentia vide Taulerum, qui prae caeteris hanc materiam praeclare ad lucem dedit in lingua teutonica. Sic, sic nescimus, sicut oportet orare.’ Ideo necessarius est spiritus nobis, qui adiuvet infirmitates nostras.” W 56, 378,13 (Pauck, 243). 67. WBr 1, n. 26,13; 65. 68. W 1, 153. 69. WBr 1, 30,58; 79 (LW 48, 35f). 70. On the hypocrites: Hi eximia virtutis specie elucent, sed secretissime suffocatrices spinas, i.e. sui affectiones, non advertunt. De qua vide latissime sermones fere Tauleri omnes, qui hunc hypocritarum defectum et clarissime cognovit et copiosissime insectatus est” (W 1, 137,13)-

Notes to pages 145-147

35 7

71. It is important to observe caution in speaking of the effects of “mysticism” on Luther. First, it is doubtful if Luther gained any totally new elements of thought from the German mystical writers. Some new terms did come into his vocabulary, at least for a while. See E. Vogelsang, “Luther und die Mystik,” LJb 19 (1937), 42, n. 2. As to theological content, however, it seems that these writers merely brought Luther to place more emphasis on certain elements already present in his thinking. Bernd Moeller urged that we speak more of an “impression” than of an “influence” upon Luther by Tauler. “Luther und Tauler” in La mystique rhenane

(Paris,

1963),

116.

Even the ideas that impressed Luther were not from the mystical parts of these works, that is, where they treat the refined joys of union with God in the depths of the soul. However, a case can also be made for the position that, if “mystical” means a stress on union with Christ, then Luther had a decidedly mystical strain in his theology through the whole of his career. This was E. Iserlohs thesis in “Luther und die Mystik,” in The Church, Mysticism, Sanctification

and the Natural in Luther s Thought, 60-83. We have formulated our view of Luther’s exact relation to the German mystical writers in 1516-1517 in the last part of this section. 72. In F. Vetter’s critical edition of Tauler, this sermon is n. 41.

Die Predigten Taulers (Berlin, 1910), 170—176. 73. In the original:

“Deus volens eos in se nude

convertere

aufert et haec [dona spiritualia] ab eis, ut det meliora (i.e. seipsum). Et in tali privatione multo maior est dolor de quo hie dicit. Et ita semper Deus urget nos ascendere de imperfecto ad imperfectum, donee ipsum apprehendamus et semper destruit priora et tollit, ut conferat sequentia. In tali autem opere multum sumus stulti, iiresignati, quaerulosi et desperati ac impatientes, quia non credimus in eum (W 9, 101,25). 74. W 9, 101,33. 75. W 9, 102,17. . , t , 76. W 4, 469,7. Luther jotted this on the inside front cover ot Faber Stapulensis’ Psalterium Quincuplex. 77. W 4, 81,28. 78. W 4, 87,24. See p. 55 and pp. 76f. Luther quotes the Vulgate of Is 28,21. 79. Die Predigten Taulers, 9, line 34L 80. W 9, 97,12. Also 103,12. 81. “Igitur tota salus est resignatio voluntatis in omnibus ut me docet sive in spiritualibus sive temporalibus. Et nuda fides in Deum. W 9, 102,34. 82. W 9, 102,6.

Notes to pages 147-150

358

83. “Igitur nullius exempli passionem vel operationem oportet sibi praestituere, sed indifferentem et nudam voluntatem habere ad quamcunque ferendam, quando, ubi, quomodo, per quem voluerit Deus.” W 9, 103,4. 84. See p. 144L 85. WBr 1, 30,50; 78 (LW 48,35). 86. W 57II, 89,23. See also Luther’s gloss in Gal 5,10 (W 57II,

39>2)87. W 9, 102,6. 88. “Et nuda fides in Deum.” W 9, 102,35. 89. In the original: “pati in spiritualibus excellentissima virtus est: ut in fide, spe, charitate, item ariditate, pusillanimitate.” W 9, 100,32. 90. For example, in his exposition of the seven penitential Psalms in the Spring of 1517, Luther grounded the need of both hope and fear in our lives by referring to the two opposed men in us. The old man must fear as he nears destruction; the new man must hope and grow strong. W 1, 208,21. Earlier, he had spoken of our continual purification as Adam gradually departs from us and Christ enters to reign in us (186,25). 91. W g, 98,14. The passage ends: “Loquitur enim de nativitate spirituali verbi increati. Theologia autem propria de spirituali nativi¬ tate verbi incamati habet unum necessarium et optimam partem” (98,22). Luther’s value judgment favoring the latter theology lies less in the term theologi propria than in the espress statement that this theology has the best part. Theologia propria is a technical term from Gerson s schema of the three kinds of theology:

symbolic theology

(working from images), proper theology (pertaining to the “ratio”), and mystical theology. See Luther’s scholion on Heb 5,12 (W 57III, !79>5)> whh the references given in the apparatus. 92. A similar coolness toward the “mystical” parts of Tauler’s work is reflected in the fact that his notes on Tauler’s Sermon 41 break off in the last half of the sermon at the point where Tauler warms to the theme of mystical union. 93. See pp. 42ff.

94- Nota: passionem Christi habere in memoria literaliter nihil prodest, spiritualiter vita est.” W 9, 103,28. 95. See the modem (New York, 1949), 139L 96. W 1, 153.

English translation, Theologia Germanica

97- W 1, 153. 98. W 5711,41,7. 99. Die Predigten Taulers, n. 45, 194-201.

Notes to pages 150-153

359

100. W 9, 103,31. See also 98,38, where Luther defines the sin of luxuria: “scilicet omnium quinque sensuum voluptas vel libido et ultra hoc complacentia quinque operum in corde.” 101. “Ideo oportet affectum esse nudum et exutum ab omni sapientia et iustitia nostra et in solo Deo niti et se nihil reputare.” W 9, 103,35. See also 102,4, against ever judging oneself to have achieved anything. 102. W 9, 103,7. 103. W 9, 101,21. 104. See pp. 95ff. 105. In the Lectures on Romans, W 56, 233,7 (Pauck, 83). 106. Luther explained the purpose of this disputation in a letter to Lang in October 1516. A student had put the theses together (out of his notes from Luther’s Lectures on Romans, as we will see) partly to oppose the critics of Luther’s ideas and partly to offer the ideas for the judgment of others. WBr 1, 26,20; 65. 107. In 1518, Luther defended his own teaching by reference to Tauler. He is teaching the same as Tauler, that is, “ne homines in aliud quidquam confidant quam in solum Ihesum Christum, non in orationes et merita vel opera sua. Quia non currentibus nobis, sed miserente Deo salvi erimus.” Letter of March 31, 1518, to Staupitz. WBr 1, 66,8; 160. 108. There are, of course, other points on which Luther referred approvingly to Tauler in later years, for example, for his under¬ standing of purgatory. See W 1, 557,25 (LW 31, i28f). This, how¬ ever, lies beyond the limits of our present study. Bernd Moeller has given a very useful list of all these references in his article Tauler und Luther,” in La mystique rhenane, 158, n. 3. 109. W 1, 60-141, with the exception of the Treatise on indul¬

gences (65-69) and the Sermo de indulgentiis pridie Dedications (94—99),

neither of which belong to this series. We discuss the dating

and the content of both in the next chapter. The Sermon on the feast of the purification of Mary given in this series (W 1, 130-132 and W 4, 636-639) is probably from February

2, 1518.

110. E. Vogelsang’s survey gives one a good initial orientation for work with Luther’s earliest sermons: “Zur Datierung der friihesten Lutherpredigten.” ZKG 50 (1931), 112-145- On the whole, however, remarkably little has been written on the theological content of these sermons. . £ 111. This exposition of the commandments was the basis tor Luther’s Decern praecepta WiUenbergensi praedicata populo (printed July 20, 1518; W 1, 398-521). Some scholars argue for considerable revision of the talks for publication, and therefore we do not use the

360

Notes to pages

153-155

Decern praecepta in this chapter. See R. H. Fife, The Revolt of Martin Luther (New York, 1957), 235, n. 62. 112. W 1, 61,14. Luther adds that these men of hypocritical strict observance are a veritable plague in the Church of his day (62,8). 113. W 1, 63,24 (LW 51,15). 114. W 1, 63,30 (LW 51,15). 115. W 1, 64,35 (LW 51,17). 116. W 1, 70,15. Later in this sermon, Luther affirms the need of works of fasting and prayer at the beginning of the spiritual life, but adds that one must take great care not to fall into the spiritual evil of building upon these works

(71,4). There follows a spiritual

interpretation of the seven capital sins as forms of reliance on works, for example of spiritual lust as delectare, placere, titilare in eisdem operibus (71,27). 117. W 1, 74,11. The rest of this August 10 sermon lists God’s benefits, climaxing in Christ who is for us both “sacramentum et exemplum (77>b)> and concluding: “Haec itaque beneficia cum gratitudine affectuosa sunt rememoranda et sic omnia bona voluntarie ei referenda et offerenda cum promptitudine confidendi in Deum in aeternum” (77,15). 118. W 1, 70,30. 119. On “seeking first the kingdom of God and his justice”: “hoc est, ut in regno eius sitis et iusti coram illo: iustitia enim Dei est, cuando iusti sumus ex Deo iustificante et imputante, quae iustitia non consistit in operibus, sed in fide, spe, charitate. Non enim qui iusta operatur iustus est, ut Aristoteles ait, neque operando iusta et dicimur iusti sed credendo et sperando in Deum. Hoc est quod passim dicimus resignationem et abnegationem sui. Nemo enim sese resignat, nisi qui credit et sperat ac totus in Deum confidit” (W 1, 84,16). On this basis, Luther makes his point against Lombard. 120. W 1, 85,3. 121. W 1, 104,31. 122. W 1, 105,5. A spiritual understanding does not refer to allegorical, tropological, or other senses, but is an understanding, “quae significat spiritum seu gratiam, ut scilicet qui habet spiritum et gratiam, hoc habet quod lex iubet” (106,9). 123. W 1, 108,13. 124. Si autem intelligas, etiam non concupiscendum, iam spiritu intelligis et anima tua nihil apud se invenit, quo freta possit secura esse se legem implevisse. Ideo ad Deum dirigitur et humiliata suspirat ad gratiam. Hoc autem est esse rectum cor et spiritum rectum, qui in Deo solo nititur et misericordia eius.” W 1, 110,16.

361

Notes to pages 155-158 125. W 1, 113,16 (LW 51,20).

126. W i, 113,34 (LW 5!,2i). 127. W 1, 114,26 (LW 51,22). 128. “Hoc est evangelium, i.e. iucundum et suave nuntium animae, quae per legem interpretatam iam iam peribat et deiecta fuit, audire scilicet,

quod lex est

impleta

scilicet per Christum,

quod

non sit necesse earn implere sed tantummodo implenti per fidem adhaerere et conformari, quia Christus est iustitia, sanctificatio, redemptio nostra. . . . Sic interpretando humiliat, ut gratiam nuntiando exaltet.” W 1, 105,23. E. Bizer interprets this justice as consisting precisely in the imitation of Christ’s humility, an achievement that is reckoned as true justice. Fides ex auditu, 2d ed., 65. Bizer, however, takes no account of the radical change brought about by faith s adhering to Christ. We see later (p. 362, n- M7, especially) that Christ brings a “new life” into the man of faith. The young Luther did not thin out the work of Christ the sacramentum to a merely moral change in the life of a Christian. 129. “Proprium officium Evangelii est nuntiare proprium opus Dei i.e.

gratiam,

quam pacem et iustitiam et veritatem

omnibus

gratis dat Pater misericordiarum, mitigans omnem iram suam. Inde enim evangelium dicitur bonum, iucundum, . . . quando nunciatui remissio peccatorum tristibus conscientiis.” W 1, 113,6 (LW 51,20). 130. W 57II, 60,9. 131. For instance, in concluding his sermon on December 27, 1516, Luther interpreted mater honorificata (Sir 15,2), as referring to Christ, who is to us as a mother hen protecting her chicks^ There is nothing sweeter than maternal care, nothing better to give et securitas ac blanda consolatio.

fiducia

This is the effect of the justice of

Christ. W 1, 117,8. 132. W 1, 119,7133- W 1, 77,4- The main assertion is this: “Sacramentum est, quod ligatus est pro nobis, ut nos ligati solveremur in aeterniim. Exemplum est, ut et nos vel ab hominibus vel a nobis ipsis ligemur vinculis poenitentiae super veterem hominem. Iustificat Sacramento hominem interiorem et facit novum. . . .

77,6-

134. W 1, 81,2. 135. W 1, 84,15, cited on p. 360, n. 119. 136. “Non itaque extra nos est iustitia quaerenda, sed intus in corde per fidem, . . . Ideo tibi sufficit Christus per fidem, ut sis iustus: quo facto non tibi vivis, operaris, pateris, sed Christo. Ideo per ilia nihil tuum sed Ghristi tantummodo. Cuius instrumentum enim es, eius tu habes tuum, scilicet Christum ipsum per fidem, habeat et ipse

362

Notes to pages 150-162

suum, id est, te et opera in te, et erit perfectum matrimonium.” W 1, 104,17. 137. W 1, 112,26 (LW 51,19). 138. W 1, 118,4. 139- Meo enim docemur sanctificari prius et parari et contritione ac poenitentia purgari ante omne opus bonum, ut prius iusti simus quam operemur. Ista autem purgatio est opus Dei et gratiae infusio, sine nobis iustificatio. Ad gratiam nos per opera quidem praeparare possumus, sed non per illam habere.” W 1, 118,13. 140. W 1, 118,21. J.41. “At non hoc est fidem exturbare, si homo factis operibus et servatis moribus tarn securus et iucundus efficitur, tanquam satisfecerit per omnia legi, nullius sibi peccati amplius conscius? . . . Doctrina autem fidei hoc docet, quod homo iugiter debet intus gemere pro gratia sciens quod cor eius non ideo est mundum si opera sunt munda, n'ec ideo voluntas sana, quia mores sunt boni.” W 1, 118,33. We see how close the gemitus pro gratia is to the center of Luther’s thought on Christian living. 142. Continuing from the previous citation: “Ista ergo displicentia sui, odium et taedium vitae suae non debet unquam cessare. . . . Hoc suum absconditum peccatum (quod per gratiam sanari inceptum est) sancti assidue habent in oculis, ideo non possunt superbire de externis suis operibus.” W 1, 118,40. 143- Haec, inquam, doctrina fidei et interioris iustitiae negligitur hodie, quia per opera festinant iustificari, antequam discant intus, quomodo sint peccatores, . . . Siquidem nec mores nec opera nec virtutes nec merita sunt bona, nisi fiant ab eo qui luget et gemit suam internam immunditiam, i.e. ab humili spiritu et tribulato, qui est sacrificium Deo. Hie autem gemitus facit, quod sua merita potius peccata esse cognoscit, Deus autem per gratiam suam huic luctui eius quod peccatum est ignoscit. Sic sine humilitate non fit bonum, i.e. sine iustitia ante omne opus.” W 1, 119,7. The gemitus is a dominant characteristic in the profile of the serious Christian. 144- “Ita iustitia fidei sine quidem operibus datur, sed tamen ad opera et propter opera datur, cum sit res quaedam viva nec possit esse otiosa. W 1, 119,34. 145. W 1, 120,2. 146. W 1, 139,24-140,12 (LW 51,28). 147. Non sint otiosi, in quibus sapientia Christus revelatus est, et qui non 1am ipse sed Christus in eo vivit, non est metuendum, ne Christus sit otiosus, immo actuosissimus est, et id ipsum cum omni suavitate et facilitate, ubi illi sua sapientia et iustitia laborant, sudant onerantur mira misera et frustra.” W 1, 140,19 (LW 51,29). This life

Notes to pages 162-165

363

of Christ in the just is clear in other passages in these sermons: (1) Christ works in us just as Adam does, as treated on p. 158. (2) Christ is the sacramentum (“Iustificat sacramento hominem interiorem et facit novum, . . [77,8] before he is exemption. (3) Faith brings about an exchange, a perfectum matrimonium, between a man and Christ, by which the man becomes Christ’s instrument. See 104,17, cited on p. 361, n. 136. Thus Christ is far more than an example of humility, as Ernst Bizer maintained. See p. 361, n. 128. 148. See pp. i53ff. 149. W 1, 60,28. 150. W 1, 84,15, cited onp. 360, n. 119. 151. W 1, 88,19. 152. W 1, 101,19. See also 105,26 on justification by adhering to and being conformed to Christ who has fulfilled the law. 153- W 1, 101,33. 154. W 1, 102,7. 155. “Iustus enim ex fide vivit, credere autem non potest nisi nihil videat aut sentiat aut tangat intus et extus. Hoc autem est suspendi in cruce, ubi nunquam tangit terram in qua confidat: haec est via proficientium.” W 1, 102,39. 156. For example: “Haec est enim myrrha pura et electa, sese in purum nihil resignare, sicut fuit antequam esset, et nec Deum nec aliquid extra Deum cupere, sed solummodo ad beneplacitum Dei volenter reduci ad suum principium i.e. nihil.” W 1, 123,38. 157. W 1, 124,1. 158. See the passage beginning at W 1, 86,11, concluding: “Ita nos semper aegros agnoscere et gemere quod tales sumus ad superbiam, iram, etc. ut cito ab ea aegritudine originali sanaremur, donee non delectaret peccare. Nunc autem velut nihil peccati sit in nobis, securi imus operibus tantum occupati, quibus cessantibus cessamus lugere. Ideo semper et toties recidivamus” (86,24). iSg. W 1, 90,40. Luther’s ideal was well reflected in his inter¬ pretation of the seed on the rocks in the Sexagesima Gospel: “Quod proprium est iustitiariorum in propriis viribus tacite confidentium, qui ignorant, quod iugi suspirio et assiduo gemitu gratia est sitienda, quaerenda, accipienda, nec unquam incepisse praesumendum. . . W 1, 136,8. See also Luther’s remarks on December 14, 1516, on the obligation ad fieri perfectum (109,16). On January 1, 1517, he spoke of the “perfect circumcision” that comes with the future resurrection, but which for us is perficienda interim (121,33). B. Lohse gave the last two loci. Monchtum und Reformation, 313. 160. This dominance is what Ernst Bizer indicated as Luther’s reticence about God’s opus proprium, in comparison with his more

364

Notes to pages 165-166

extended treatment of God’s opus alienum. Fides ex auditu, 2d ed., 63. However, Bizer’s evaluation of this emphasis in Luther’s early work is clearly in need of revision, since he takes no account of how the life of penance under God’s opus alienum is for Luther under the influence of Christ—the actuosissimus (see p. 362, n. 147)—in the person who has turned to him. This Christological basis of the just life is clear in these sermons, even though Luther’s words on it are not extensive. 161. One can gain a good impression of this work by reading through the English translation of Luther’s exposition of the first penitential Psalm in J. M. Reu, Luthers German Bible (Columbus, Ohio, 1934), 141-148. 162. As in his letter to Lang, March 1, 1517. WBr 1, 35,12; 90 (LW 48, 40). 163. The main reason for Luther’s revision in 1525 appears to have been his advance in the knowledge of Hebrew. However, he could still state in 1525 that the earlier version could be read without harm (W 18, 479,4), but in 1525, the Gospel is shining with mid-day splendor and Luther himself has grown as a theologian (479,10). Kurt Aland (Der Weg zur Reformation [Munich, 1965], 85-102) attempted to locate Luther’s tower experience between the two edi¬ tions, but must himself admit that Luther revised only a relatively small part of the text (87), and that a good number of the texts left unchanged in 1525 clearly reflect the early humility theology Luther is supposed to have left behind after the “tower experience” (100). 164. See Luther’s letters to Scheurl (WBr 1, 38,5; 93) and to Spalatin (39,14; 96) about the booklet. 165. No one prays with deep conviction who has not been deeply disturbed and left desolate. Otherwise, he does not know his need, and he continues securely finding strength and consolation in himself and in creatures.’ W 1, 160,22 (our translation from Luther’s German, as are all the citations in this section). 166. W 1, 160,25. 167. W 1, 159,23. 168. Here we note that this and similar Psalms can never be deeply understood or prayed with conviction unless a man grasps his own feebleness, much as this happens before death and the last journey. Blessed are they who experience this in fife, for each man must experience the collapse and annihilation of all his powers, works and his whole being, so that nothing is left but a miserable, con¬ demned, and desolate sinner. Then comes divine help and strength ” W 1, 160,10.

Notes to pages 166-168

365

169. Here is a slight echo of the Seelengrund of Tauler and Eyn theologia deutsch. The context, however, is quite different, for the mystical writers were striving to bring advanced souls across the last threshold to the dehghts of mystical union with God, a union situated in this Seelengrund. See E. Vogelsang, “Luther und die Mystik” in Luther Jahrbuch 19 (1937), 42, n. 2, for a hst of other such terms found in Luther’s exposition of the penitential Psalms. 170. W 1, 160,21. 171. On Ps 6,2—3, Luther speaks repeatedly of God’s “strength,” “help and strength,” “strength and consolation,” and “blessed con¬ solation” (W 1, 160, passim). 172. W 1, 207,24. 173. W 1, 174,1; 191,2; 210,27. 174. W 1, 191,2. 175. W 1, 164,15. 176. W 1, 173, 7-12 and 180,19. 177. W 1, 182,31. 178. W 1, 215,20. 179. W 1, 160,33. See also 216,25, on how the delay in God’s gift of grace brings the soul to cry more earnestly in its fear of being forsaken, and thus to receive grace more perfectly. 180. W 1, 201,12-27. 181. “All Scripture and word of God point to Christ’s passion, as he himself witnessed in the last chapter of Luke: Scripture con¬ tains nothing else but the promise of grace and forgiveness of sins through the passion of Christ. And alone whoever beheves in him will be saved. All who do not want to be sinners oppose this truth, Christ’s passion, and this faith, especially those who once began such a life. They will not accept that they are sinners, and they will not sigh in yearning for Christ.” W 1, 187,29. 182. W 1, 193,6. 183. W 1, 189,4. „ „ 184. On “sighing,” W 1, 162,27; 203,30. On crying out, 169,10; 206,28. On “whining,” 165,5. 185. W 1, 187,35. 186. W 1, 201,12. 187. “A desolate soul, that sees nothing in itself, this is for God the best sacrifice, especially when she crys out for his grace. For God hears nothing more pleasing than cries and thirsting after his mercy. W 1, 216,14. 188. W 1, 190,9. . 189. “The upright spirit is the good will that is directed straight

366

Notes to pages 168-172

to God, that seeks God alone. This spirit is made anew and poured by God into the depths of our hearts, so that there is no deceit in our spirit.” W 1, 191,3 and 191,18. 190. W 1, 162,32. And on Ps 6,8, Luther put it succinctly: “God’s counsel is to hear gladly those who cry out and complain, but not those who are secure and feel free. Therefore a good life does not consist in visible works and appearances, but in a sighing and de¬ pressed spirit” (W 1, 165,10). 191. W 1, 208,15. 192. W 1, 164,3. 193- “The first grace is a beginning of washing and cleansing. In this those remain who attend only to actual, exterior sins—or they fall back .... In us, Adam must depart and Christ enter in. Adam must go down, and Christ alone rule and be present. So there is no end to washing and cleansing in this life. For our inborn Adam would make the good works of our growing new life to be sins and nothing, if God did not attend to our start in grace and washing.” W 1, 186,21. 194. W 1, 177,3.

195- W 1, 186,32. 196. “This is the verse that teaches us to count our exterior good works for nothing and not to believe the praise and honor people heap on them. For they are befouled and imperfect, and are not of value before God, if we do not admit their flaws and failures.” W 1, *87,9. Similarly, on Ps 51,10 at 190,24, and in the closing lines of the book (220,15). 197. W 1, 190,34. 198. See pp. 167b 199. W 1, 212,19. 200. W 1, 220,15. 201. W 1, 190,3. 202. W 1, 216,36. 203. W 56, 369,27 (Pauck, 234f). See pp. iogf. 204. W 1, 190,30. 205. W 1, 191,3. 206. For all who serve in fear are constant and firm only as long as their fear lasts. In fact they are under constraint and serve God with reluctance. . . . But those who serve God with a good and upright will are constant in God’s service, no matter how it goes, whether sweet or sour. For God has made them firm and constant in their noble, generous, princely, and unconstrained will.” W 1, 191,28. 207. W 1, 209,14. 208. W 1, 164,10. 209. W 1, 179,27.

Notes to pages 172-175

367

210. W 1, 212,12. 211. W 1, 165,10, cited on p. 366, n. 190. 212. W 1, 201,12. 213. W 1, 160,14, given on p. 364, n. 168. 214. W 1, 165,12. 215. “The ‘works of God’s hands’ are the devout souls he con¬ ceives and creates by grace without any cooperation on their part. Thus they come to be new creatures in Christ.” W 1, 215,26. 216. “All consolation, help, and happiness rest wholly on your works alone. When you do our works and our works are thus not ours but yours, then they are pleasing to you, right, true, and good.” W 1, 215,6. 217. Continuing from the text cited in n. 215: “The ‘works’ are the deeds and experiences God brings about through them once they are created anew. Here they are cooperators” (W 1, 215,28). 218. As in the Lectures on Romans, where in one passage Luther explained that the non-imputation of our root sin was “propter humilem fidei gemitum.” W 56, 276,34 (Pauck, 131). 219. For example, on Ps 6,4: “God’s arrows and angry words make sin (consciously) present in the heart. With this comes interior unrest and terror in the conscience and in all powers of the soul.” W 1, 176,23. 220. W 1, 192,29, and on Ps 130,8, Luther speaks of the justice by which we are to be just as nothing other than “the gracious gift of the pure, unmerited mercy of God” (211,7). 221. W 1, 215,33 and 218,30. 222. “. . . the grace, with which God makes us true and just through Christ, as the Apostle Paul speaks in Romans 1, 2, and 3 of ‘the justice of God and truth of God,’ that is given us through faith in Christ.” W 1, 212,35. 223. W 1, 212,38. 224. Thus, any attempt to describe Luther as being plagued in 1517 with spiritual anguish over a fearsome vindictive justice of God finds no documentation in the present work on the penitential Psalms. The older Luther did appear to speak of such anguish of conscience before God’s justice, especially in his autobiographical essay in 1545. This inconcinnity between the early documents and the later narra¬ tives makes it all the more clear that our understanding of Luther’s development is best served by exact study of the richly documented years 1513-1518. 225. “Someone could say to me, ‘Can you do nothing else but speak of human justice, wisdom, and strength? Why do you always interpret Scripture from God’s justice and grace? You always sing the

368

Notes to pages 175-178

same song and pluck the same string.’ Here I answer that each must look to himself. For my part, I confess that as often as I found in Scripture something less than Christ, I’ve never been satisfied. When I found more than Christ, I never felt so poor.” W 1, 219,21. 226. W 1, 212,9. 227. “Christ is God’s grace, mercy, justice, truth, wisdom, power, consolation, and happiness, all given us by God without any merit. I say Christ, not meaning causaliter, as some say with empty words, as if he gave justice and remained himself outside us. Such a justice is dead, and in fact is never given except with Christ being there, just as the rays of the sun and the heat of a fire are not anywhere without the sun and the fire also being there.” W 1, 219,30. 228. W 1, 186,25. 229. W 1, 188,18. 230. W 1, 171,4. 231. W 1, 187,9, cited on p. 366, n. 196, and 220,15. 232. W 1, 186,27. 233- “We distinguish first injustice, by which a man is not upright (frum) before God. He is missing something he should have, namely uprightness (frumkeyt) and good works. This is the first kind of fault. The second is misdeeds, that is, the evil works which flow from the first kind of fault.” W 1, 168,12. 234. “ ‘Sin’ is the evil of our nature which remains constantly there, while misdeeds and injustice are events. Sin is the evil desires, lusts, fears that are inborn and grow in us and stir us to the first two faults. This is the sin that remains all our days and which in itself is mortal, if God did not graciously forgive it to those who are pained by it and long to be healed of it. Thus the psalmist says that God does not ‘impute’ it. He means, ‘This sin is there, but God in his grace does not count it.’” W 1, 168,19. 235. Continuing from the previous text: “Therefore this sin is venial (teglich), but it will immediately become mortal, if a man becomes proud and ceases to be constantly pained by it” (W 1, 168,25). 236. The heart of this argument against the via moderna appears in Luther’s letter to Johann Lang in October 1516: “I know what Gabriel [Biel] says, and it is all fine, except where he writes about grace, charity, hope, faith, and the virtues. Here he follows Scotus into Pelagianism to an extent I can hardly express now in a letter” (WBr 1, 26,32; 66 [our translation]). 237. W 1, 224-228 and Bo 5, 320-326. E. Vogelsang’s edition in Bo 5 has corrected the enumeration of the theses of this disputation given in W 1 and has added a valuable apparatus of scholastic loci

Notes to pages 178-181

369

exemplifying the doctrines attacked by Luther. We have followed the Bo 5 text and enumeration in this chapter. The translations are our own, since the version given in LW 31 (9—16) has proven to be unreliable. 238. This term is suggested above all by the presentation by Karl Bauer in his Die Wittenberger Universitatstheologie und die Anfdnge der deutschen Reformation. The term has the added value of placing Luther’s protest against the via moderna in the context of other “Augustinian” polemics against Ockham and his followers, for example, Thomas Bradwardine in the 14th century (see Gordon Leff, Bradwardine and the Pelagians [Cambridge, 1957]; Heiko Oberman, Arch¬ bishop Thomas Bradwardine—A Fourteenth Century Augustinian [Utrecht, 1957]), and Gregory of Rimini, whose commentary on the Sentences offers many parallels with Luther’s campaign (see Gordon Leff, Gregory of Rimini—Tradition and Innovation in Fourteenth Century Thought [Manchester, 1961], i7iff.). 239. This sharp opposition on Luther’s part to the Ockhamist tradition makes impossible the easy classification of Luther as a nominalist that one often meets. See Bengt Haegglund, “Was Luther a Nominalist?,” Concordia Theological Monthly 28 (1957), 441-452, for a clear statement of Luther’s radical divergence from the nom¬ inalists in the theology of man and of salvation. Erwin Iserloh speaks of Luther as an “antithetical nominalist,” to bring out that while Luther polemicizes against nominalism he is nonetheless deeply influenced by it in his theology of God, of Scripture, and of the sacraments. “Luthers Stellung in der theologischen Tradition” in Wandlungen des Lutherbildes (Wurzburg, 1966), 15-46. 240. See pp. igf and 26. 241. See p. 24. 242. See pp. 33b 243. See pp. 42ff. and 5iff. 244. Leif Grane noted again and again that Luther viewed man s situation before God in a manner wholly different from the way Biel saw it. Contra Gabrielem, 275, 293, 295, 30of, etc. See also B. Lohse’s words about Luther’s radically new conceiving of the role of reason in man’s relation to God (Ratio und Fides, 42). 245- W 3, 382,7. 246. W 3, 419,25. See p. 79, above. 247. See pp. 96 and 98. 248. See p. 101. 249. See p. 98. 250. See p. 98. 251. W 56, 371,2 (Pauck, 235-237).

370

Notes to pages 181-184

252. W 1, 145-150 and Bo 5, 312-320. 253. WBr 1, 26,18; 65. 254. E. Vogelsang gives the parallel loci in his notes, Bo 5, 3i3f. 255. WBr 1, 26,20; 65. 256. W 1, 145,10.24. 257. W 1, 146,14.23. 258. “Corollarium I. Homo vetus, vanitas vanitatum universaque vanitas, reliquas quoque creatures, alioqui bonas, afficit vanas. Patet, quod vetus homo est ille, qui purissime Deum non diligit, nec ferventer sitit et esurit, sed mente et spiritu saturitatem in creatura praesumit. . . . Sine vitio suo et extrinsece fiat [creatura] mala, vana, noxia, quod opinione et erronea aestimatione seu amore et fruitione perversa reputatur altius ab homine quam est in veritate.” W 1, 145,28. The last lines are practically verbatim from Luther’s Lectures on Romans (W 56, 373,2 [Pauck, 238]). 259. “Conclusio secunda. Homo, Dei gratia exclusa, praecepta eius servare nequaquam potest neque se, vel de congruo vel de condigno, ad gratiam praeparare, verum necessario sub peccato manet. W 1, 147,9. 260. W 1, 147,20. On the absolute need of grace, Bernhard re¬ ferred to two imposing allies: the Apostle Paul, “gratiae praedicator,” and Doctor Augustinus, “gratiae defensor” (147,31). 261. W 1, 147,37 and 148,13. 262. See p. 115. 263. W 1, 148,34. 264. W 1, 149,8. 265. W 1, 149,19. 266. W 1, 149,32. Luther’s Vulgate read the last clause thus: nescit homo, utrum amore an odio dignus sit.” On Luther’s concern a few months later that this proof-text be understood quite differently, see p. 287, n. 31. His change in the understanding prescribed for this text is a good index of the important shift in early 1518 in his theology of Christian living. 267. W 1, 150,3. Luther clarified the intent of this corollary in a letter to Sapalatin on December 31, 1516 (WBr 1, 31,6; 82). 268. These notes were first published by Hermann Degering in a supplementary volume to the Weimar edition, Luthers Randbemerkungen zu Gabriel Biels Collectorium in quattuor libros sententiarum und zu dessen Sacri canonis missae expositio (Weimar, 1933). Leif Grane studied these marginals carefully (Contra Gabrielem, 348-368), and showed how they served as Luther’s preparation for the disputa¬ tion of September 4, 1517. Grane also corrected a number of Degering’s false readings of the notes.

Notes to pages i84~i8g

37i

269. For instance, Luther rejected the opinions reviewed by Biel attributing to Christ’s flesh a special purity that by implication called in question Christ’s oneness with us in descent from Adam. Luther noted: “et sic non sumus redempti” (Degering, Luthers Randbemerkungen, 3). 270. Luther attacked Biel’s occasionalistic view of sacramental causality (Ibid., 17). He also chided Biel for never mentioning the role of faith, or of God’s promises, or of God’s actual speaking in the sacraments (Ibid., i8f). 271. Ibid., 11; Grane, Contra Gabrielem, 350, n. 6. See Grane’s interpretation (352f). 272. Collectorium, III, d. 27, q. un., art. 3, dub. 2 Q. 273. Degering, Luthers Randbemerkungen, 14; Grane, Contra Gabrielem, 357, n. 21. 274. Degering, op. cit., 14. 275. Ibid., 14L, Grane, op. cit., 359, n. 23. Grane’s corrected reading of the passage removed the unintelligibilities of the text as given by Degering. 276. Degering, op. cit., 15. 277. Ibid. 278. Ibid., 16. 279. Luther noted crisply: “Quod est impossibile. Sed nullus [amor] est ordinatus sine gratia” (Ibid., 12). 280. Luther jotted: “Cave hanc distinctionem perfectae/imperfectae impletionis” (Ibid., 14), reading the note, however, with Grane (op. cit., 355, n. 15). , 281. This theory occasioned Luthers famous vernacular outburst in the Lectures on Romans: “O stulti, O Sawtheologen! Sic ergo gratia non fuerat necessaria nisi per novam exactionem ultra legem” (W 56, 274,11 [Pauck, 129]). 282. Collectorium, III, d. 27, un., art. 3, dub. 4 U. 283. Degering, op. cit., 16. 284. Ibid. Grane has straightened out the context of this note. Op. cit., 365, n. 37. 285. Degering, op. cit., 11. 286. “Natura. Melius diceret Deus. Sic philosophamur, ut theologisare cessemus.” Ibid., 11. 287. WBr 1, 34,4.23; 88f (LW 48, 37O. The reference to the friars reminds us of what Luther said he was about in his work on Scripture: “pro re theologica et salute fratrum haec facio” (WBr 1, 27,42; 71 [LW 48, 26]). 288. WBr 1, 35,15; 9° (LW 48, 289. WBr 1, 38,15; 94.

4°)-

372

Notes to pages

189-194

290. WBr 1, 41,8; 99 (our translation). 291. WBr 1, 42,26; 100. 292. WBr 1, 45,7; 103. 293. WBr 1, 46,35; 106. 294. Contra Gabrielem, 371-375 and 383-385. 295- W 1, 365-374 (LW 31, 58-70). The term “preparatory essay” is from Vogelsang, Bo 5, 375 and 392. 296. For instance, Thesis 1 (W 1, 530,18), Thesis 2 (531,23), and Thesis 3 (532,4). 297- “Hanc assero nee eget disputatione aut probatione, tanto omnium consensu approbata. Sed in eius intelligentia adhuc laboro.” w i, 539,35 (LW 31, 98). 298. Hanc disputo, etsi multi sunt, qui mirentur earn esse dubiam.” W 1, 545,12 (LW 31, 107). 299. In the covering letter to Lang, Luther admitted that the theses may well seem paradoxa or even cacodoxa to the Erfurt the¬ ologians; in his own eyes they were orthodoxa (WBr 1, 45,8; 103). 300. Again, we follow Vogelsang’s corrected enumeration of the theses in Bo 5. Theses 1 to 55 are the same as in W 1. Thesis 55 of W 1 is divided by Vogelsang into Theses 55 and 56. Consequently, we then have a number greater by one for each of Theses 56 to 97 of W 1. 301. W 1, 224,13; Bo 5, 321. 302. W 1, 145,9.24. See p. 182. 3°3- In bid s Collectorium, III, d. 27, q. un., art. 3, dub. 2 Q. 304. W 1,365,25 (our translation). 305. W 1, 365,32 (our translation). 306. W 1, 368,10 (our translation). 307. Biel had held this in Collectorium, III, d. 27, p. un., art. 3, dub. 2 Q. 308. Biel had written: “Si amanti Deum super omnia non infunderetur gratia, quod fieri posset per Dei potentiam absolutam, actus file amoris amicitiae, licet esset moraliter bonus et omnibus circumstantiis moralibus (etiam circumstantia finis) sufficienter vestitus, non tamen esse meritorius” (ibid.). 309. This is one of two theses that Luther directed explicitly (by jotting Contra Occam in the margin) against the instigator of late medieval nominalism. Ockham had written: “De potentia Dei absoluta sine omni formaliter inhaerente potest Deus animam acceptare” (I Sent., d. 17, q. 1 E). See E. Iserloh, Gnade und Eucharistie, 8gff. Paul Vignaux has presented the circumstances of Luther’s argument with Ockham in Sur Luther et Ockham” in Franziskanische Studien 32 (i95°), 21-30. He has perceived that an important difference is

Notes to pages

195-200

373

in the conception of grace: for Ockham this is God’s acceptatio (quite extrinsic!), while for Luther, grace is the living, operative, spiritual reality that makes charity possible. 310. Biel, Collectorium, III, d. 27, q. un., art. 3, dub. 2 R. 311. Leif Grane’s Contra Gabrielem is marred by the failure to indicate the rich theology of grace that lies behind Luther’s polemic against the via moderna. We are deeply indebted to Grane for his interpretation of Luther’s early works, for his detailed exegesis of Biel, and for his careful correlation of Luther’s attacks with the passages attacked in Biel. However, when Grane begins to treat Luther’s idea of grace, he gets sidetracked into psychological speculation (373). A few paragraphs later, he falsely interprets the work of grace as being the suspension of the law (374), where Luther wrote “Gratia . . . facit placere legem” (Thesis 76)—grace makes the fulfillment of the law a delight. Later Lutheranism did tend to neglect this gratia sanans, but in Luther’s attack on the via moderna in 1517, this kind of grace is the principal ground of his argument. 312. Collectorium, III, d. 27, q. un., art. 3, dub. 4 U. 313. Johannes Ficker, editor of these lectures in W 57III, arrived at the beginning of Chapter 6 as the line of demarcation between the two semesters in which Luther lectured on Hebrews. W 57III, x^xFor a good impression of Luther’s work, one can profitably read the English translation of selections given by M. Reu, Luther s German Bible (Columbus, 1934), *148-° 165, or those in Rupp’s The Right¬ eousness of God, 202-214. A useful recent study of these lectures is J. B. Boendermaker, Luthers Commentaar op de Brief aan de Hebreeen (Assen, 1965). Boendermaker gives a summary of his work in German (118—126). His comparisons between Luther and Nicholas of Lyra on the verses of Hebrews often involves a presentation of the parallel Latin texts, and so is useful even for one who has not fully mastered Dutch. 314. W 57III, 5,10. Boendermaker shows that Luther’s gloss stresses sharp opposition, where Nicholas of Lyra’s gloss spoke only of the eminentiam novi testamenti respectu vetoris. Lyra thinks of a dif¬ ference of degree; Luther, of opposition, exclusiveness, and even con¬ flict between the two ways. Luthers Commentaar, 27. 315-

W 57III, 109,9. 316. W 57III, 109,12. 317. W 57III, 113,10. 318. “Curandum enim est ante omnia, ut cor sit bonum, purum, sanctum, ut psal. 50: ‘Cor mundum crea in me, Deus, et spiritum rectum innova in visceribus meis,’ q. d. nihil est munditia operum corporis, nisi prior sit munditia cordis. Haec autem immunditia cordis

374

Nates to pages 200-201

adeo est profunda, ut nullus homo satis earn cognoscat, multo minus expurgare suis viribus possit, . . . Ideo cor mundum et bonum non fit nisi per fidem Christi, . . . Fides enim verbi purificat, quia sicut verbum Dei est purissimum et optimum, ita facit eum, qui adhaeret ei, similem sui purum et bonum.” W 57III, 147,12. This transforming power of the word was brought out in the Lectures on Romans, where Luther showed that self-accusation involved taking on the truth of the word. Thus a man took on the same form as the word, that is, justice and truth. See p. 115, especially the text in n. 120. 319. “Evangelium vero dicit: ‘Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu denuo, non potest intrare regnum coelorum,’ ac sic nihil reservat veteris hominis, sed totum destruit et facit novum usque ad odium sui eradicans penitus amorem sui per fidem Christi.” W 57III, 109,15. 32°- *Tota itaque substantia novae legis et iustitia eius est unica ilia fides Christi, . . .” W 57III, 114,2. 321. Continuing from the previous citation: “. . . non tamen sic una et sterilis sicut humanae opiniones, quia Christus vivit, et non solum vivit, sed operatur, nec solum operatur, sed etiam regnat. Ideo non potest fieri ut fides in ilium sit otiosa, sed vivit et ipsa, operatur atque triumphat, et ita sua sponte fluunt opera foras ex fide” (W 57III, X14>3)- This reminds us of Luther’s description of God’s grace as vivus, mobilis, et operosus spiritus” in Thesis 55 of the disputation on Septem¬ ber 5, 1517. See pp. ig6f. 322. W 57III, 110,2. 323. W 57III, 110,14, concluding: “Igitur Christi est solius diligere iustitiam et odisse iniquitatem, hominis autem est diligere iniquitatem et odisse iustitiam. Christiani autem hominis est incipere odisse iniquitatem et diligere iustitiam, nec diligit nisi per Christum, hoc est, quod Christus, dilector iustitiae, sua dilectione supplet incipientem dilectionem nostram.” 324. Antequam poenitemus nos, remissa iam sunt peccata, immo primo ipsa pius purgatio demum operatur et in nobis poenitentiam, sicut iustitia eius nostram iustitiam operatur.” W 57III, 101,20. 325. W 57III, 110,23, cited in the original in n. 323. 326. W 57III, 114,4 cited in the original in n. 321. On the reign of Christ, see the marginal note to Heb 1, 6 at 7,21. 327. “Sic enim nostra patientia ex patientia Christi, nostra humilitas ex illus et cetera bona simili modo, si modo firmiter credimus, quod pro nobis ista omnia fecerit.” W 57III, 114,7. Luther states that Christ’s death was both sacramentum et exemplum in the fine gloss to Heb 2,9 at 12,15. J- P- Boendermaker treats Luther’s use of this pair of concepts in Luthers Commentaar, 99-102. He argues from W 57III, 209,16 that Luther’s use of sacramentum et exemplum is

Notes to pages 201-206

375

directed against a kind of piety stressing compassion with Jesus in his sufferings. Our faith is, rather, trust in his work for us as sacrament. Boendermaker also argues that Luther differs from German mysticism in his stress on Christ’s passage to glory though death, since the mystics concentrated solely on the passion. See Erwin Iserloh’s study of this idea of Christ as sacrament and (then) example in the Jedin-Festschrift, Reformata Reformanda, 247-264. 328. W 57III, 114,15. Luther spoke of this primacy of faith over efforts at imitation in his scholion to Heb 3,7, where he concluded: “Perversissimum est festinare ad opera, antequam Deus operetur in nobis, i.e. antequam credimus” (143,5). A. Gyllenkrok brought out well the point of this passage. Rechtfertigung und Heiligung, 42. 329. W 57III, 109,19. 330. W 57III, 150,19. 331. “Desperandum itaque est de nostra poenitentia, de nostra purgatione peccatorum, quia antequam poenitemus nos, remissa iam sunt peccata, immo primo ipsa eius purgatio demum operatur et in nobis poenitentiam, sicut iustitia eius nostram iustitiam operatur.” W 57III, 101,19. 332. W 57III, 99,1. 333- W 57III, 165,9. 334- W 57III, 161,17-162,19. 335- W 57III, 164,14. 336. W 57III, 27,20. 337- W 57IH, 165,15338. “Sacerdotii natura et officium sit peccatorum esse ferculum seu portaculum; sunt ergo sua, quia portat et ab aliis tollit. In quo iterum Christus figuratus est verus Aaron et ‘agnus Dei, qui tollit peccata mundi.’ ” W 57III, 166,8. 339- W 57III, 166,22. 340. W 57III, 104,17, especially 105,5: “Regnum autem Christi est in nube et enigmate fidei, . . . Item in regno Chnsti sedes eius ‘corrigitur iustitia et iudicio,’ in coelo vero non erit correctionis locus neque iudicii aut ullius crucis, sed locus pacis et perfectae sanitatis. 341. W 57III, 108,9. 342. W 57III, 7,23.

343- w 57in> 128,13. 344. W 57III, 129,21. 345. Cited at W 57III, 129,18. 346. W 57III, 130,8. 347. W 57III, 130,19, 348. J. P. Boendermaker finds this “victory motif one of the main characteristics of these lectures. Luthers Commentaar, 94- We

37®

Notes to pages 206-209

would agree with this, but then go on to draw even more strongly the conclusion that Luther’s highly praised Lectures on Romans de¬ serve to be criticized for their failure to develop the theme of Christ’s victory that is also to be found in Romans. 349- W 57III, 124,12 and 178,2. 350. . . Ita Christus, per evangelium velut spectaculum toti mundo exhibitus, cognitione sui et contemplatione omnes rapit et abstrahit ab his, quibus adhaeserunt in mundo. Et hoc ipsum est eos transformari et similes ei fieri. Sic enim dicit Christum esse causam et ducem salutis, quia per ipsum trahit et adducit filios suos in gloriam.” W 57III, 125,2. Boendermaker underscores that this theme of our conformity to Christ is always expressed with passive verbs in these lectures. It is clearly God’s work and not our striving to imitate Christ. Luthers Commentaar, 89. 351. “Non enim vi et timore cogit Deus ad salutem, sed dulci isto spectaculo misericordiae et charitatis suae movet et trahit per amorem, quotquot salvabit.” W 57III, 125,11. 352- W 57III, 109,15, cited on p. 374, n. 319. 353- W 57III, 107,15. 354- W 57III, 122,2. 355- W 57III, 122,20. 356- “Qui non sponte moriatur, non est Christianus appellandus.” W 57III, 131,8. 357- “Qui timet mortem aut non vult mori, non satis est Chris¬ tianus, quia adhuc in fide resurrectionis deficiunt, dum plus diligunt hanc vitam quam futuram.” W 57III, 1*11,5. 358. W 57III, 131,12. 359- W 57III, 131,17. 360. Si enim propter peccatum timetur mors, multo magis optanda est propter peccata, quia sola mors est, quae finit et occidit peccatum. Ergo mors, interfectrix peccati, tantum est amanda, quan¬ tum peccatum timetur.” W 57III, 132,8. 361. “Ille contemptus mortis et gratia eius ab Apostolo et sanctis praedicata est meta ilia et perfectio, ad quam niti debet omnis Christianorum vita, licet paucissimi sint tarn perfecti. Sic enim et iustos et sanctos et liberos a peccato appellat ad Romanos, non quod sint, sed quod inceperint esse et debeant tales fieri assidue proficiendo.” W 57III, 132,24 and 135,5. 362. Above, p. 374, n. 323. Christians were described as those who have begun to love justice and hate iniquity, and on Heb 4,11: “Quare Christianorum unicum debet esse studium, ut cotidie magis ac magis moriantur huic vitae eiusque taedio festinant ad futuram vitam” (W 57III, 160,15).

Notes to pages 200-213

377

363. “Haec omnia interpretando scripturam adiungit, quia non rem, sed fidem praedicat. Nondum enim apparet omnia esse subiecta Christi, sed contra ipsum cum suis subiectum potius omnibus, . . . Ergo fide opus est in his verbis.” W 57III, 12,19. 364. W 57III, 139,9. 365. W 57III, 142,18. 366. W 57III, 144,1. 367. W 57III, 144,10. Similarly, on Heb. 6,2: “Fides enim facit cor fixum haerere in coelestibus pentiusque rapi et versari in invisibilibus” (185,2); but Luther could also say: “Licet enim vere sit res omnium dificillima fides in Deum, tamen per verba et opera Dei praecedentia multum confortatur et facilior fit” (144,14). 368. See above, especially pp. 55L, 76ff., and n8ff. 369. W 1, 228,17. 370. W 57III, 147,15, cited on p. 373, n. 318, and then: “A Deo enim vivo disceditur, dum a verbo eius disceditur, quod est vivum et omnia vivificans, immo Deus ipse, ideo moriuntur .... Discedere autem fit per incredulitatem. Atque ita patet, quid sit cor malum, incredulitatis scil., in quo nil est bonum, sed omne malum, quia recedit ab omni bono” (W 57III, 148,12). 371. W 57III, 148,19. 372. W 57III, 149.9. 373. “Cor hominis inter 4 terminos versatur. Dum enim adhaeret Deo, per verbum natura liquescit, mollescit Deo et durescit creaturae, dum vero adhaeret creaturae, durescit Deo et mollescit creaturae. . . . Haec autem adhaesio est ipsa fides verbi, immo ilia copula desponsacionis, de qua Osee 2. dicit: Et sponsabo te mihi in fide, secundum illud 1. ad Corin. 7: ‘Qui adhaeret Deo, unus spiritus est.’ ” W 57III, 151,5 and 156,19. . . . 374. “Corrollarie sequitur, quod fides Christi est omms virtus et incredulatas omne vitium, . . . Quia per fidem fit homo similis verbo Dei, verbum autem est filius Dei. Ita autem efficitur, ut sit filius Dei omnis, qui credit in enum, Io. 1, ac per hoc sine omni peccato plenusque omni virtute.” W 57III, 151,13375. “Iste est iustus, sapiens, verus, bonus etc., qui credit in verbum Dei.” W 57III, 148,6—a note added in the margin of the Dessauer manuscript beside Luther s scholion on Heb 3>12376. See n. 391 for the loci where Luther developed and de¬ fended his new conception of faith. 377. W 57III, 27,20. ., . . , 378. W 57III, 165,15. The scholion then continues with the elab¬ oration of the Aaron typology we have seen above, p. 203. 379. “Non enim testimonium conscientiae eiusmodi, ut beatus

378

Notes to pages 213-214

Bemhardus ait, intelligitur, quod nobis ex nobis est (hoc enim Pelagianum est) et gloria in confusione, sed quod conscientia nostra accipit sicut et iustitiam et veritatem.” W 57III, 169,20. The novelty is clear, since Luther’s earlier position was that conscience (and consciousness) was dominated by one’s own sinfulness under God’s judgment 380. W 57III, 169,15. 381. “Inde fit, ut nullus consequatur gratiam, quia absolvitur aut baptisatur aut communicatur aut inungitur, sed quia credit sic absolvendo, baptizando, communicando, iniungnedo se consequi gratiam.” W 57HI, 169,23. The structure of this sentence (that is, “credit . . . se consequi gratiam”) grounds Paul Hacker’s frequent use of the term “reflexive faith” to indicate Luther’s new position. See his Das Ich im Glauben bei Martin Luther. 382. W 57III, 170,1. The source of the first dictum has not been located. Luther cited it here, however, as vulgatissimum et probatissimurn dictum. At least five times in 1518 he used it to support his new idea of fides sacramenti: W 1, 286,18 (Asterisci against Eck), 324,1.6 (Sermo de poenitentia), 544,40 (seventh indulgence resolu¬ tion), 631,7 (a disputation on peace of conscience), and W 2, 15,31 (Acta Augustana). This shows that the importance of faith was known in the tradition in which Luther was arguing. Whether it was under¬ stood as he was arguing is, to say the least, doubtful. The Augustine citation is from the sermons on St. John’s Gospel (PL 35, 1840). 383. In his Acta Augustana in November 1518, Luther spoke twice of fides de effectu praesenti (W 2, 14,25 and 15,7). 384. W 57III, 170,4. 385. “Immo requirit purissimum cor quodlibet sacramentum, alioquin reus erit sacramenti et iudicium sibi suscipiet. Cor autem non purificatur nisi per fidem, Actuum 15. Sic enim Philippus non baptisavit eunuchum nisi explorata eius fide nec ullus nunc infans baptizatur, nisi pro eo respondetur: credo.” W 57III, 170,8. 386. W 57III, 170,12. 387. “Ita quoque magnus est error eorum, qui ad sacramentum eucharistiae accedunt arundine ilia nixi, quod confessi sunt, quod non sibi conscii sunt peccati mortalis vel praemiserunt orationes suas et praeparatoria. Omnes illi sibi iudicium manducant et bibunt, quia his omnibus non fiunt digni et puri, immo per earn fiduciam puritatis peius polluuntur. Sed si credant et confidant sese gratiam ibi consecuturos, haec sola fides facit eos puros et dignos, quae non nititur in operibus illis, sed in purissimo, piissimo, firmissimo verbo Christi dicentis: Venite ad me omnes, qui laboratis et onerati estis, ego reficiam vos.’” W 57III, 170,13. 388. W 56, 369,27. See p. 109.

Notes to pages 215-217

379

389. Thus we remain skeptical about the usefulness of Heiko Oberman’s suggested formula “fides Christo formata,” to indicate the point of Luther’s departure from the tradition. HThR 59 (1966), 2off. At least, such a formula is not helpful in reducing to a neat phrase Luther’s dominant concern in the decisive months of 15171518. 390. W 57III, 170,9 and 171,1. See n. 385 and 387. 391. Luther explained and defended his new conception of fides sacramenti in a great variety of contexts in 1518. We recall here how Luther changed his understanding of Ec 9,1, the standard proof-text against a present certitude of grace. This occurred in his scholion on Heb 9,24. See p. 287, n. 31. Luther further proposed his new idea of faith in the seventh and thirty-eighth indulgence resolutions (W 1, 541—545 and 594—596), in his Sermo de poenitentia (W 1, 318—324), in a sermon on preparation for Holy Communion (especially W 1, 331), in a spring disputation (W 1, 630—633), in the Acta Augustana (especially W 2, 13-16), and in the scholion on Ps 4, 9, of the Operationes in Psalmos begun in the summer of 1518 (W 5, 123-125). We hope to publish soon a detailed investigation of these loci and others related to them, especially within the context of late medieval sacra¬ mental theology. We suspect that there will be some justification for Luther’s stress on faith against extreme conclusions from the opus operatum doctrine, but that the kind of faith Luther proposed is wholly new and a real danger for the impressive spirituality he had been teaching. 392. As found, for instance, in L. Villette’s two volume work, Foi et sacrement (Paris, 1959 and 1964).

Chapter VI 1. Luther set the stage for his exposition in a marginal gloss tell¬ ing of the different contexts in which the Psalm was to be understood. First, it is the prayer of Christ amid his sufferings. Second, it is the prayer of the Church and its members in three successive persecutions: first, in war, then in heresy, and now in the present plague of peace and security. W 3, 410,21. 2. See pp. 56L 3. W 3, 416,6. 4. “Aquae sunt multitudo tepidorum et literalium Christianorum usque hodie ab eisdem immissa ecclesiae. . . . Quia vere sic oratur et canitur in ecclesia, languente spiritu . . . ut si homini fieret talis cultus,

380

Notes to pages 217-220

contemneretur; quanto magis a tanta maiestate. Et tota instantia diaboli est contra nos, ut sic semichristianos faciat. Putamus quidem abesse eum, sed fortissime adest. Non quidem adversitate aut haeresi nos impugnat, quia ibi sese victum cernit, sed prosperitate, securitate, et quiete. Et haec omnia veniunt, quia sine timore Dei sumus et non omnino nihil nos esse putamus, sed sufficienter agere, ut supra dixi.” W 3, 416,29. 5. W 3, 416,22. 6. “Et hie proprie Deus ‘elegit ea quae non sunt, ut destruat ea quae sunt.’ Quia qui ex vero corde sese nihil esse putat, sine dubio fervet et festinat ad profectum et bonum.” W 3, 416,23. 7. W 3, 422,31. 8. W 3, 422,35. 9- “Tropologice autem oculi Christi sunt fidei sensus et illuminationes spirituales; illae similiter defecerunt in multis, etiam in his qui multa sciunt in scriptura ac omnia mysteria noscunt et ea quae sunt fidei pulchre callent, ita ut vere sint in eis oculi Christi. Sed defecerunt, quia non sapiunt affectu ea quae sciunt, et segniter ac frigide aguntur in Deum secundum ea quae cognoscunt.” W 3, 423,8. 10. W 3, 423,22. 11. W3, 424,13. 12. Ita pontifices et sacerdotes profudunt gratias et indulgentias sanguine Christi et martyrum congregatas et nobis relictas, ut non putent sese necesse habere augere ilium thezaurum, nec aliter remissionem peccatorum et regnum coelorum acquirere, nisi illorum meritis. . . . Verum ipsi putant sese habere in praesidio et promptu repositum hunc thezaurum, ut quando velint, eo utantur. Ideo securi tradunt se in omnia quae sunt mundi.” W 3, 424,17. Nikolas Paulus, the Catholic historian, would confirm the objective side of Luther’s complaint. Indulgences were so multiplied in the early sixteenth cen¬ tury that people often lost any sense of their value. Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittelalter (Paderbom, 1923), III, 470L 13. Sed timeo ne sicut prodigis haeredibus contingit, ita et nobis contingat, scilicet prodactis et consumptis omnibus bonis mendicare et omnem necessitatem cum ignominia sustinere. Non quod thezaurus ecclesiae sit consumptibilis, sed nobis dico consumptibilis. Est infinitus in se, sed non in nobis, quia minor pars eo participant.” W 3, 424,31. M- W 3, 424,14. J5' “Talis etima prodigalitas meritorum est etiam in religiosis, qui suas fratemitates et indulgentias per omnes angulos spargunt, tantum ut victum et amictum habeant. Quern si haberent talia nihil molirentur. Horribilis furor et coeca misera, quod nunc non nisi ex necessitate evangelisamus, et non ex voluntate, et copiosissimus talium numerus!”

Notes to pages 220-222

381

W 3, 424,36. For instance, the rosary brotherhood of the Dominicans had been so richly endowed that when a member prayed the rosary he gained 7,700 days' indulgence. In the local chapter connected with the Leipzig St. Paul’s priory (of which J. Tetzel was a member), 55,000 were inscribed on the rolls of this brotherhood over a forty-year period. See G. Kawerau, “Luthers Randbemerkungen zum Marienpsalter 1515,” ThStK 90 (1917), 87. This historical fact does not, however, confirm Luther’s version of the motivation underlying the brotherhoods. 16. “O mendicantes, mendicantes, mendicantes! At excusat forte, quod elemosynas propter Deum recipitis, et verbum Dei ac omnia gratis rependitis. Esto sane: vos videritis! De tali igitur tribulatione ecclesiae intelligo Matthe. 24, ‘Cum videris abominationem.’ Quia mira proprietate verba in earn consonant, licet sic a Domino principaliter esse intenta non audeam asserere.” W 3, 425,4. 17. W 56, 27iff (Pauck, 125!!). 18. For example: “Haec concupiscentia semper in nobis est; ergo nunquam dilectio Dei in nobis est, nisi per gratiam incepta et reliquo concupiscentiae adhuc sanando.” W 56, 275,11 (Pauck, 129). And, “Ista vita est vita curationis a peccato, non sine peccato finita curatione et adepta sanitate. Ecclesia stabulum est et infirmaria egrotantium et sanandorum; coelum vero est palatium sanorum et iustorum.” 275,26 (Pauck, 130). 19. W 56, 287,16 (Pauck, 141). The texts referred to or given in n. 16 and 17 complement this text by indicating that God s imputa¬ tion is effective in granting the just a new life under the influence of operative, healing grace. 20. W 56, 289,1 (Pauck, i42f). 21. “Eadem ratio est de poenitentia et indulgentiis, quae de baptismo, immo multo efficacior.” W 56, 289,12 (Pauck, 143). 22. W 56, 289,28 (Pauck, 143). 23. W 56, 289,18 (Pauck, 143). 24. W 56, 289,29 (Pauck, 143). 25. W 56, 415,22 (Pauck, 289). The extended passage beginning at this point could be used well to exemplify the thesis that Luther was a “theologian of the word.” However, this word has definite content, as the gloss on this verse indicates: "... credere, quod Christus sit mortuus et resurrexit. Quae fides facit ut vivat, etiam qui non fecerit opera legis.” W 56, 99>26. In addition, this word issues in more than a new self-understanding, for such faith involves obedience even to the words of prelates and to the counsels of good men (416,12 [Pauck, 290]). Ernst Bizer has used this text to his advantage in arguing that Luther’s idea of faith in 1516 differs considerably from

382

Notes to pages 222-224

the consoling certitude of forgiveness he stressed in 1518. Fides ex auditu, 2d ed., 36f. 26. W 56, 416,35 (Pauck, 291). 27. W 56, 417,20 (Pauck, 292). 28. “Et papa et pontifices, qui tain largi sunt pro temporalibus subsidiis ecclesiarum in indulgentiis, super omnem crudelitatem crudeles sunt, si non maiora vel aequalia propter Deum gratis et intuitu animarum largiuntur, cum omnia gratis acceperint gratis donanda. Sed ‘corrupti sunt et abominabiles facti sunt in studiis suis,’ seducti et seducentes populum Christi a vera cultura Dei.” W 56, 417,27 (Pauck, 292). 29. Luther closed the scholion on Rom 10,6 with this pastoral rule: “Idcirco sanctorum opera non sunt absolute praedicanda i.e. hominibus commendanda, ut eadem faciunt, sed addendum: ecce in suo statu ille sic et sic vivit, tibi in exemplum, ut in tuo statu similiter facias, non autem, ut illius eadem facias et tuo statu neglecto in illius transilias.” W 56, 418,17 (Pauck, 293). 30. W 56, 418,23 (Pauck, 293). 31. W 56, 419,6 (Pauck, 294). 32. W 56, 419,16 (Pauck, 294). 33. Gerhard Muller had drawn together the elements in Luther’s criticism of Church life in the early lectures. “Ekldesiologie und Kirchenkritik beim jungen Luther,” NZSysTh 7 (1965), looff. Muller points out that Luther did not give most of his critical remarks in the lecture hall, but left them unsaid in his notes. We would not accept without reservations Muller’s conclusion about Luther’s development. Where he stresses (p. 127) that Luther’s criticism stemmed from his insights into Scripture even in the Dictata, one must take account of the non-scriptural view of Church history that Luther brought into his work of Psalm interpretation. This view, especially in giving Luther the theme pax et securitas for judging his own age, was an important norm for his criticism of Church life. His view of history helped give him the sense of living in a time of decline. See John W. O Malley’s perceptive remarks about this “myth and metaphysics” approach to an assessment of one’s own age, an approach quite wide¬ spread in early sixteenth-century Europe. TS 28 (1967), 531-548. See p. 311, n. 82. 34. W 1, 138,31 (LW 51, 27). The title of this sermon is mis¬ takenly given as Sermon on St. Matthew’s Day in both the table of contents and on p. 26 of LW 51. The feast of St. Matthew is Septem¬ ber 21. It is St. Matthias who is commemorated on February 24. 35- W 1, 139,13 (LW 51, 27). Luther speaks here of gratia dirigens echoing the prevenient grace he spoke of as dux et tractrix

Notes to page

225

383

in the 1509 marginals. See p. 27. Here is Luther’s alternative to an autonomous ratio. 36. “Non est metuendum, ne Christus sit otiosus, immo actuosissimus est, et id cum omni suavitate et facilitate.” W x, 140,20 (LW 51, 29). In his sermon of January 1, Luther had spoken similarly of the iustitia fidei: “Cum sit res quaedam viva nec possit esse otiosa” (W 1, 119,35). In Thesis 55 of the disputation of September 4, 1517, he spoke of grace as the vivus, mobilis, et operosus spiritus (W 1, 227,1). The frequent juxtaposition of such realistic statements of the effects of grace with passages on imputation of justice and non¬ imputation of sin could still disturb the alert Catholic reader. Perhaps it would be good to look at this passage in the sermon for Matthias’ Day: “Ideo quantumcunque operentur, laborent, speculentur, nihil aliud faciunt quam quod animae inquietudinem augeant quam per haec fugere quaerunt, quae non effugitur nisi sciendo Patrem et Filium, i.e. gratiam et misericordiam Dei in Christo nobis gratis datam et merita Christi nobis imputata” (W 1, 140,27 [LW 51, 29]). First, we see that Luther’s main interest was in the spiritual attitudes and con¬ sciously sought goals of the Christian man. The final phrase, however, suggests this synthesis: the merits of Christ are imputed as our iustitia aliena, for they are his—though we are in him. This is the ground of the non-imputation of concupiscence, but grace is truly given as the power for transforming our desires and purifying our motives. Grace is the effective guide in a new life in which self-seeking plays a progressively smaller role. 37. W 1, 140,33 (LW 51, 2gf). 38. W 1, 141,14 (LW 51, 30). 39. “Adhuc servilem iustitiam mire perficiunt ipsae effusiones indulgentiarum, quibus nihil agitur, quam ut populus discat timere, fugere, horrere poenam peccatorum, non autem ita et peccata. W 1, 141,22 (LW 51, 31). 40. Continuing from the previous note: Ideo parum sentitur fructus indulgentiarum, sed magna securitas et licentia peccandi, ita sane ut, nisi timerent poenam peccatorum, nullus vellet optare gratis istas indulgentias, cum potius populus ad poenam amandam esset exhortandus et crucem amplectendam. Et utinam ego mentiar, qui dico, indulgentias forte ita rectissime dici, quia indulgere est per¬ mittee et indulgentias impunitas, permissio peccandi et licentia evacuandi crucem Christi” (W 1, 141,24 [LW 51! 31!)’ 41. “Aut si permittendae indulgentiae, non nisi infirmis in fide sunt dandae, ne scandalizentur qui per crucem nituntur ad mititatem et humilitatem pervenire, ut hie dicit Dominus. Nam non per in¬ dulgentias, sed per mititatem et humilitatem hie dicit invenire requiem

384

Notes to pages 225-226

animarum, Mititas autem non est nisi in poenis et cruce, a qua illae indulgentiae absolvunt, quam horrere docent et faciunt ut nusquam efficiamur mites et humiles, i.e. nunquam indulgentiam consequamur nec ad Christum veniamus.” W 1, 141,30 (LW 51, 31). 42. “O pericula nostri temporis! O stertentes sacerdotes! O tenebras plus quam Aegypticas! Quam securi sumus in omnibus pessimis malis nostris!” W 1, 141,37 (LW 51, 31). 43. This indicates that the proper context for understanding the beginning of Luther’s concern over indulgences in 1517 is the series of sermons he gave in the parish church of Wittenberg, July 1516 to February, 1517. See pp. i52ff. These three themes were clearly stressed all through these sermons. The fact that the theme of the Christus actuosissimus is not mentioned in most accounts of the in¬ dulgence controversy is disturbing. Such a careful worker as Bernhard Lohse should have at least mentioned it in his article on Luther’s Christology in the indulgence controversy. LJb 27 (i960), 5iff. The operative presence of Christ is for Luther the alternative to frantic efforts at self-purgation and as well to great interest in indulgences. This view of Christ is clearly evident in Thesis 58 of Luther’s ninetyfive theses on indulgences. 44. Against the gentle mode of Christ’s activity in men, Luther contrasts the frantic efforts of some: “Nam suis consiliis et studiis et viis nituntur ad quietem conscientiae pervenire, et non ante pausare quam intelligant sua peccata satisfactione purgasse” (W 1, 140,23 [LW 51, 29]). 45. We have passed over Luther’s marginal note to Lectio 57 of Biel’s Canonis missae expositio. Biel was weighing the respective value of good works offered as satisfactory suffrages for the dead with in¬ dulgences that could be won for them. Luther: “Vide vide portenta humani capitis.” H. Degering, Luthers Randbemerkungen, 20. Luther leaves little room for theological analysis of his thinking here. 46. In May 1518, in the prefatory letter to Pope Leo X that accompanied the Resolutiones of the ninety-five theses, Luther stated that he wrote privately to “aliquot Magnates Ecclesiarum.” He con¬ tinued: “Hie ab aliis acceptabar, allis ridiculum, aliis aliud videbar, . . (W 1, 528,20). Writing to Frederick the Wise in Novem¬ ber 1518, he spoke of two bishops, Albrecht of Magdeburg and Mainz, and Hieronymus of Brandenburg. To these he wrote, “privatis litteris, antequam disputationem ederem” (WBr 1, 110,362; 245). Luther mentions the same two in Tabletalk, n. 6431, and in his autobiographi¬ cal preface of 1545 (W 54, 180,12 [LW 34, 329]). In the letter to Frederick, Luther speaks of the two bishops as the only ones who

Notes to page 227

385

knew of his disputation. We can say with certainty that Luther sent his theses to at least two bishops. A moment’s reflection on the texts given here, with attention to the important people to whom Luther was writing, will show how utterly improbable it is that Luther posted his theses publicly on October 31, 1517. We return briefly to this later. 47. WBr 1, 110,364; 245. 48. W 51, 540,18 and 541,21 (LW 41, 233f). 49. “Testis est mihi Dominus Ihesus, quod meae parvitatis et turpitudinis mihi conscius diu iam distuli, quod nunc perfricata fronte perficio, . . .” WBr 1, 48,9; 111 (LW 48, 45). Kurt Aland indicated the exalted position Albrecht actually held (Cardinal, Archbishop of Mainz and thereby first bishop of Germany, Chancellor of the Empire, President of the Imperial Electors, etc.). The rhetoric of Luther’s beginning it fitting. K. Aland, Martin Luthers 95 Theses (St. Louis, 1967), 106. 50. WBr 1, 48,15; 111 (LW 48, 46). Hanz Volz has gathered into a tight narrative the details of Tetzel’s preaching and the back¬ ground of the St. Peter’s indulgence. Martin Luthers Thesenanschlag, 10—14. On April 10, 1517, Tetzel preached in Jiiterbog, 18 miles from Wittenberg. Luther told in Wider Hans Worst in 1541 how the peo¬ ple went over from Wittenberg to gain the indulgence (W 51, 539.4 [LW 41, 231]). 51. “Non adeo accuso praedicatorum exclamationes, quas non audivi, sed doleo falsissimas intelligentias populi ex illis conceptas, quas vulgo undique inactant.” WBr 1, 48,16; 111 (LW 48, 46). Three times in the Resolutiones Luther spoke of how he tried to correct such popular misunderstanding. W 1, 572,7; 587,23; 626,11 (LW 31, 153.180.247f). Myconius related in his chronicle of 1541 that Luther collided with the “confessional letter” granted as part of the St. Peter’s indulgence, when some asked in the confessional for absolution simply on the ground of the letter. See Hans Volz, Martin Luthers Thesenanschlag, 72L 52. In the original: “Videlicet, quod credunt infelices animae, si literas indulgentiarum redemerint, securi sint de salute sua; item, quod animae de purgotorio statim evolent, ubi contributionem in cistam coniecerint; deinde, tantas esse has gratias, ut nullum sit adeo mag¬ num peccatum, etiam (ut aiunt) si per impossible quis matrem Dei violasset, quin possit solvi; item, quod homo per istas indulgentias liber sit ab omni poena et culpa” (WBr 1, 48,18; 111 [LW 48, 46]). 53. See pp. 217b and 225. 54. For example, in the Lectures on Romans, Luther had pointed

386

Notes to pages

227-229

to false security as the consequence of exclusive attention to sinful deeds to the neglect of efforts against concupiscence: “Iustificandos se nesciunt, sed iustificatos se esse confidunt, ac ita per securitatem suam sine omni labore diaboli prostemuntur” (W 56, 276,12 [Pauck, 130]). See also 282,12 (Pauck, 136). 55. “Et horum hominum genus hodie est portentosissimum et copiosissimum, qui poenitentiam a Christo praedicatam in temporalia opera et externa constituerunt, quibus factis sese iustos arbitrantur. Inde confessio ilia frequens facta est in pemiciem perditae fiduciae in semetipsum, quia non tollit, quod praesumunt.” W 56, 486,15 (Pauck,

37* )• 56. See pp. 11 iff and 125®. 57. Later in his letter, Luther cited two passages from the instruc¬ tion. WBr 1, 48,47; 111 (LW 48, 47f). The text of the instruction is given by W. Kohler, Dokumente zum Ablassstreit von 1517 (Tubingen, 1934), 104-124. 58. “Prima gratia est plenaria remissio omnium peccatorum; . . . per quam etiam peccatorum remissionem sibi poenae in purgatorio propter offensam divinae maiestatis luendae plenissime remittuntur atque dicti purgatorii poenae omnino delentur.” Instructio Summaria in Kohler, Dokumente, 110 (LW 48, 48, n. 18). 59. Ibid., 116. 60. ‘Circa istam gratiam eflBcacissime declarandam praedicatores diligentissimi esse debent, eo quod animabus defunctis per hanc certissime subvenitur et negotio fabricae sancti 'Petri fructuosissime accumulatissimeque consulitur.” Ibid. 61. For example, in the initial general instructions for the preachers: ‘ Praedicatores etiam in singulis suis sermonibus populum monere debent, . . . ut in redimendis animabus neglegentes non inveniantur.” Ibid., 108. 62. The instruction listed six concessions accruing to those ob¬ taining the confessional letters. Ibid., 114. The base contribution was one-fourth of a Rheinish floren. See N. Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittehlter, II, 124 and III, 303!. 63. Cuius continentiam ac tenorem praedicatores et confessores summis viribus explanare ac extollere debent.” Kohler, Dokumente, ii364. Ibid., 110. 65. Prima gratia est plenaria remissio omnium peccatorum; qua quidem gratia nihil maius dici potest, eo quod homo peccator et divina gratia privatus per illam perfectam remissionem et Dei gratiam denuo consequitur.” Ibid.

Notes to pages 230-231

387

66. J. Dietterle surveyed this material in great detail in ten articles in ZKG 24—28 (1903—1907). On the Summa angelica, ZKG 27 (1906), 2g6ff; and on the Rosella casuum, ibid., 434®. 67. Prierias wrote: “Quae indulgentia plenaria vulgariter dicitur de culpa et poena, quod proprie non est verum, quia solus Deus culpam remittit. Sed ideo sic dicitur quia ibi remittitur culpa a Deo in contritione quae praeexigitur, et poena a Papa per indulgentiam quae subsequitur.” Cited by Dietterle, ZKG 28 (1907), 429. 68. Geschichte des Ablasses in Mittelalter, III, 330-351. 69. The text is given by Paulus (ibid., 350). 70. WBr 1, 48,24; 111 (LW 48, 46). 71. WBr 1, 48,28; 111 (LW 48, 46f). The theme of the via arta to salvation echoes the passage in the Lectures on Romans on the high demand put on men by the word of Christ: “Verbum Christi non potest suscipi nisi abnegatis et praecisis omnibus i.e. etiam intellectu captivato et omni sensu humiliter submisso. Sed quia plurimi persistunt in superbia sua et verbum non capiunt, immo verbo non capiuntur, ideo vix reliquiae salvantur” (W 56, 408,23 [Pauck, 280]). 72. WBr 1, 48,32; 111 (LW 48, 47). 73. “Cum indulgentiae prorsus nihil boni conferant animabus ad salutem aut sanctitatem, sed tantummodo poenam externam, olim canonice imponi solitam, auferant.” WBr 1, 48,34; 111 (LW 48, 47). 74. WBr 1, 48,42; 111 (LW 48, 47). 75. First, “Unam principalium gratiarum esse donum illud Dei inaestimabile, quo reconciliatur homo Deo, et omnes poenae delentur purgatorii.” WBr 1, 48,49; 11 if (LW 48, 470- See n. 58 and 65, on p. 386, where we give the pertinent texts of the Instructio. Second: “non sit necessaria contritio iis, qui animas vel confessionalia redimunt” (WBr 1, 48,51; 112 [LW 48, 48]). See the text of the Instruc¬ tio. Kohler, Dokumente, 116, lines iff and 25ft. 76. WBr 1, 48,54; 112 (LW 48, 48). These words of Luther’s are open to various interpretations. It is a fact that opponents of indulgences appeared with some regularity in the later Middle Ages. See Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses, III, 516-533. However, Luther’s own words later, in Tabletalk, n, 6431, indicate that he remembered having threatened himself to write against the Archbishop s project. 77. See pp. 217L 78. In the original: “Si t[uae] reverendissimae p[aternitati] placet, poterit has meas disputationes videre, ut intelligat, quam dubia res sit indulgentiarum opinio, quam illi ut certissimam seminant (WBr 1, 48,65; 112 [LW 48, 48f]). E. Iserloh recently advanced the hypoth¬ esis that Luther may well have written out his ninety-five theses

388

Notes to pages 232-233

after October 31. This postscript would then have been added some time later, after the theses were composed, and after Luther’s con¬ versation with Hieronymus Schurff, in which he said he planned to write against the abuses in indulgence practice. See Tabletalk, n. 3722. Iserloh, The Theses Were Not Posted, 54. 79. Martin Luthers Thesenanschlag und dessen Vorgeschichte (Weimar, 1959). 80. Luther zwischen Reform und Reformation (Munster, 1966), English version, The Theses Were Not Posted (Boston, 1968). Iserloh presented his case against the theses’ posting on October 31, 1517, in an earlier, less detailed work. Luthers Thesenanschlag—Tatsache oder Legende? (Weisbaden, 1962). 81. Urfassung und Drucke der Ablassthesen Martin Luthers und ihre Veroffentlichung (Paderborn, 1966). 82. Volz collected these testimonies on 19-23 of his book (n. 79). Iserloh gives them on 56-61 and 76-97 of his 1968 book (n. 80). Honselmann presents the texts with extended commentary on 84116 of his book mentioned in the previous note. We give significant parts of some of these texts on p. 384, n. 46, and in nn. 84 and 85. 83. The point has been made in the current discussion that the posting of theses on the door of Wittenberg’s castle church was a regular and even commonplace occurrence. This is actually an argu¬ ment against such a posting by Luther on October 31, 1517. Such postings were commonplace only because the disputation was a standard procedure in late medieval university education, but in the present case, no disputation took place, in spite of the fact that Luther was, as an ordinary professor, in a position simply to appoint time, place, and disputants. Since there was no university disputation, in all probability there was no posting of theses. Luther’s version of the events also militates against such a posting, but are Catholic historians the only ones who take Luther’s words as credible narra¬ tives? 84* • • • ego contemptus edidi disputationis schedulam,” from Luthers autobiographical preface to the first volume of his collected works. W 54, 180,16 (LW 34, 329). 85. Monui privatim aliquot Magnates ecclesiarum. . . . Tandem, cum nihil possem aliud visum est saltern leniuscule illis reluctari, id est, eorum dogmata in dubium et disputationem vocare. Itaque schedulam disputatoriam edidi. . . .” From the prefatory letter printed with the Resolutions for the ninety-five theses. W 1, 528, 20 (not in LW). 86. Honselmann, Urfassung und Drucke, 34 and 125L 87. Ibid., 57f and 61. However, there are quite good arguments against this last detail in Honselmann s view. See Iserloh, Luther

Notes to pages 235-238

389

zwischen Reform und Reformation, 73!; The Theses Were Not Posted, 87f, and Hans Volz, “Die Urfassung von Luthers 95 Thesen,” in ZKG 78 (1967), 78. 88. WBr 1, 62,1; 152. Luther further described his theses and their purpose in his open letter to Pope Leo X in May 1518: “apud nostros et propter nostros tantum sunt editae et sic editae, ut mihi incredibile sit, eas ab omnibus intelligi. Disputationes enim sunt, non doctrinae, non dogmata, obscurius pro more et enygmaticos positae. Alioqui si praevidere potuissem, certe id pro mea parte curassem, ut essent intellectu faciliores” (W 1, 528,38). If Luther were aware of all this on October 31, 1517, then we doubt that he wrote the theses pre¬ cisely for Albrecht. One does not send difficult, obscure, and enigmatic theses along when asking the first bishop of the land to become con¬ scious of his responsibility to control and oversee preaching in his diocese. 89. WBr 1, 62,13; 152. In the same vein, Luther had written to Bishop Hieronymus of Brandenburg on February 13, 15*8: Inter uqae [theses] sunt, quae dubio, nonnulla ignoro, aliqua et nego. Nulla vero pertinaciter assero” (WBr 1, 58,52; 139). 90. One wonders if the sending of the theses to Albrecht was the imprudence or mistake to which Luther cryptically referred in 1538. He said that at first he was all alone and then “per imprudentiam” he fell into the battle against the pope (W 39I, 6,9). 91. W 1, 528,20, cited in n. 85. 92. K. Honselmann concludes to mid-December as the time when Luther sent his theses to learned friends for their consideration. This allows him to verify Luther’s words that his theses spread through the whole of Germany in fourteen days, since the printings in Basel, Niimberg, and Leipzig came in early January 1518. Urfassung und Drucke, 130. It seems more probable that on November 11, Luther sent one copy of the theses to Lang in Erfurt. 93. This formulation follows closely that of Honselmann. Ibid., 95. It is important to guard against reading our contemporary idea of “theses” into Luther’s situation in 1517. Today, theses are more often firm positions reached at the end of discussion and argument. In 1517* theses were propositions to be disputed, and for which the defender was expected to offer definitions of the terms used and to marshal probative arguments. 94. WBr 1, 48,34; 111 (LW 48,47)95. Because of Luther’s radical split between sacramental penance (the satisfactory prayers or acts of sacrifice imposed by the confessor) and “life-penance” (with continual self-accusation, prayer for grace, and effort to advance), it was probably unbearable for him when

390

Notes to pages

238-239

Konrad Wimpina answered with the counterthesis that the sacramental satisfactions were required by God’s justice (Theses 4, 7, 41; see Kohler, Dokumente, 128, 129, and 133). Wimpina’s principle: “Deus delictum absque ultione non patiatur” (Counterthesis 3). Here the theological affirmation of a iustitia Dei vindictiva became a real prob¬ lem for Luther, most likely for the first time. His solution, we would suggest, was the new theology of sacramental forgiveness that led to the devisive Reformation. 96. We have already presented much of the material in this section in an article on the occasion of the Reformation Jubilee of 1967. “Luther’s Treatise on Indulgences” in Theological Studies 28 (!967)> 481-518. Among modem biographers of Luther, H. Boehmer appears to be the only one who knows that Luther sent this treatise to Archbishop Albrecht on October 31, 1517. See Boehmer’s Road to Reformation (Philadelphia, 1946), 184b However, Boehmer makes no mention of the contents of the treatise along with his account of Luther s letter and theses. Robert H. Fife thinks that Luther gave this piece as a sermon in late 1517, but admits that as a sermon it would have been far too filled with subtle theological argumentation that would only mystify his hearers. The Revolt of Martin Luther (New York, 1957), 249. Fife’s argument that the treatise and theses are far too different in tone to have been written at the same time is not conclusive. One has only to consider that the two writings were of wholly different literary genre to grasp how they could have been written at the same time and still differ. The treatise gives Luther’s reasoned, theological account of a theology of indulgences. The theses give sentences aimed at stimulating discussion and debate over ques¬ tions in this area. Thus the massive attention given to the theses is really a great disservice to Luther as a theologian. The Enlightenment idolization of Luther as apostle of freedom and forerunner of revolu¬ tion seems to be still filtering into or even twisting our understanding of his work.

97; W 1, 65-69. The title comes from V. Loscher’s edition of Luther’s sermons in 1720. 98. W 1, 63-65 (LW 51, 14-17). 99. This copy is the source of the text we use in this section. For details about the discovery of this document, see F. Hermann’s report (ZKG 28 [1907], 37off). G. Kruger published a critical text of the treatise in ThStK 90 (1917), 5o7ff, from which W. Kohler took it over for the second edition of his Dokumente zum Ablassstreit von 1517 (94-97)- Kohler, however, did not change the title given in W 1. More recently, the Reformation scholars, Hans Volz and Heinrich Bornkamm, have called attention to the forgotten treatise and indi-

Notes to pages 230-246

39i

cated that it is an important source for understanding Luther’s theo¬ logical position at the beginning of the indulgence controversy. See Volz, Martin Luthers Thesenanschlag, 18, and Bornkamm, “Thesen und Thesenanschlag Luthers” in Geist und Geschichte der Reformation (Berlin, 1966), 188, n. 30. The treatise is now given in WBr 12, as no. 4212a, pp. 5-9. 100. The text of this letter was cited by Hermann (ZKG 28 [1907], p. 370, and by Volz, in Martin Luthers Thesenanschlag, 27 and 91. 101. See p. 387, n. 78. 102. Kohler, Dokumente, 96, line 8f. WBr 12, 4212a,52; 6. 103. Ibid., line 25. WBr 12, 4212a,66; 7. 104. Ibid., 99, line 7. WBr 12, 42123,134; 8. 105. In the next to the last paragraph, Luther wrote: “Quae cum ita sint, utilissimum est istas indulgentias dari et redimi, quidquid sit de avaritia et quaestu, quae in illis exerceri timentur.” Kohler, Dokumente, 99. WBr 12, 42123,141; 8. 106. W 1, 365-374 (LW 31, 58-70). 107. The disputation that Luther proposed in the introduction to his ninety-five theses was “pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum,” according to the title of “edition C” (probably from Basel in Jan¬ uary 1517), W 1, 231. 108. Original in Kohler, Documente, 94. WBr 12, 42123,4—17; 5. 109. The classic exposition of Luther’s conception is his long scholion on Rom 4,7, especially W 56, 272-277 (Pauck, 127-131). 110. For example, Oswaldus de Lasco, author of a small theo¬ logical dictionary at this time, simply gave the idea of Hostiensis that one dying after gaining a plenary indulgence goes immediately to heaven, and then concluded that when one can gain such an in¬ dulgence, sacramental satisfaction is of no practical use. Rosarium Theologiae (Hagenau, 1508), entry “Indulgentia.” 111. See pp. 225b Earlier, Luther had argued in the Lectures on Romans that the exclusive attention to sinful deeds and the security stemming from frequent confession led to a widespread relapse into the same sins. W 56, 276,11 (Pauck, 130). 112. See p. 386, n. 65. 113. Original in Kohler, Dokumente, 94L WBr 12, 42123,18-42; 5b 114. The phrase Luther refers to occurs in the formula of abso¬ lution prescribed by the Instructio Summaria. Kohler, Dokumente, 121. 115. See p. 386, n. 61. 116. See p. 105, for Luther’s use of this image regarding grace in the Lectures on Romans.

392

Notes to pages 246-252

117. In the Lectures on Romans, Luther expressed it concisely thus: “Igitur ista vita est vita curationis a peccato, non sine peccato finita curatione et adepta sanitate. Ecclesia stabulum est et infirmaria egrotantium et sanandorum. Coelum vero est palatium sanorum et iustorum.” W 56, 275,25 (Pauck, 130). 118. In explaining Heb 2,14, probably in mid-summer 1517, Luther spoke of contempt for death as the goal of our striving, especially in deepening our faith in the resurrection: ‘Qui timet mortem aut non vult mori, non est satis Christianus, quia adhuc in fide resurrectionis deficiunt, dum plus diligunt hanc vitam quam futuram. . . (W 57III, 131,5). Further: “Ille contemptus mortis et gratia eius ab apostolo et sanctis praedicata est meta ilia et perfectio, ad quam niti debet omnis Christianorum vita, licet paucissimi sint tarn perfecti” (132,24). 119. Original in Kohler, Dokumente, 95L WBr 12, 42123,43-63; 6f. 120. The reference is to Augustine’s Enchiridion, c. 29 (n. 110); PL 40, 283. Augustine explained how the souls in purgatory were of a middle quality in this life, that is, bad enough to merit going to purgatory, but good enough to deserve being helped by the Church. 121. This, also, seems to be the thought behind Theses 14 to 18 of Luther’s ninety-five theses on indulgences. The souls in purgatory can grow in charity, and thus make up what they lacked when they feared their death. 122. Original in Kohler, Dokumente, g6f. WBr 12, 42123,6495; 7123. See pp. 11 iff. 124. This point was made with special clarity in the Lectures on Romans. W 56, 273,3 (Pauck, 128). 125. Luther first posed this question in the Sermo pridie dedica¬ tionis that is taken up in the next section of this chapter. The same problem is the starting point of Luther’s popular Sermon on Indul¬ gences and Grace of March 1518. 126. See also the final clause of this treatise: “assidue sanantem gratiam eius quaeramus” (Kohler, Dokumente, 99; WBr 12, 4212a, 156; 9)127. Luther had written: “Non enim ea gratia ibi confertur, saltern per se, qua quis iustus aut iustior fiat, sed tantum remissio poenitentiae et satisfactionis iniunctae, qua dimissa non sequitur, quod statim evolet in coelum qui sic moritur” (ibid., 94; WBr 12, 4212a, 12; 5)128. Bonaventure had written thus about the souls in purgatory: “Cum illi iam exierunt forum ecclesiae et ecclesiasticum iudicium,

Notes to pages

252-255

393

videtur, quod eis non possit fieri absolutio, nisi per modum deprecationis, et ita, proprie loquendo, non fit eis relaxatio.” In IV Sent., d. 20, art. un., q. 5. There is no evidence for Luther being dependent on Bonaventure. 129. See Nikolaus Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittelalter, II, I72ff and III, 391b 130. Even as a hypothesis, Luther’s conception of the indulgence per modum suffragii will amaze anyone acquainted with the best contemporary theological work on indulgences. Luther’s idea is prac¬ tically the same as the one that arose out of B. Poschmann’s detailed historical studies and out of the systematic reflections of Karl Rahner. See Rahner’s article, “Remarks on the Theology of Indulgences” in Theological Investigations (Baltimore, 1963), II, 175-201. More recently, Eduard Schillebeeckx has presented this historical data and drawn the same consequences for understanding the suffragium. “The Spiritual Intent of Indulgences,” in Lutheran World 14 (1967), 11-32. Rahner returned to this topic in two articles in S chriften zur Theologie VIII (Einsiedeln, 1967), 472-518. His reflections on “the remains of sin” are nearly identical—for instance, in seeing here defective charity —with Luther’s view in the present treatise. 131. For instance, “Sic enim per timorem, gratia invenitur; et per gratiam voluntarius homo efficitur ad opera bona sine qua invitus est (W 56, 504,3 [Pauck, 392]) . 132. For example, “Assiduis oporteat gemitibus ad Deum intendere, ut hoc taedium tollat et ad hilaritatem perficiat voluntatem auferatque per gratiam pronitatem illius ad malum” (W 56, 257,26 [Pauck, 111]). 133. Given by Kohler, Dokumente, 97. WBr 12, 4212a,80; 7. 134. These are the final words of the treatise. Ibid., 99. WBr 12, 4212a,156; 9. 135. Ibid., 97. WBr 12, 4212a,91; 7. 136. This is basically the same view of purgatory that Luther had presented in his Lectures on Romans. W 56, 391,29 (Pauck, 263). See p. 120. 137. This occurs in the title, “Klippen falscher Mystik, of H. Grisar’s chapter on the influence of Tauler on Luther, especially in reference to Luther’s stress on total resignation to God s will. Luther, (Freiburg, 1924), I, i42ff. 138. Original in Kohler, Dokumente, 97f. WBr 12, 42128,96; 7. 139. In the resolution of Thesis 26, Luther refers again to this schema of a threefold application of the merits of the Church. He said of this division: “Sic enim et ego aliquando et docui et scripsi” (W 1, 580,11 [LW 31, 167]).

394

Notes to pages 256-261

140. One senses this on practically every page of the manuals surveyed by J. Dietterle. ZKG 24-28 (1903-1907). 141. See p. 389, n. 95. 142. He wrote: “Iterum hie Leonte ilia mihi oggannit, remitti, quae a iustitia divina exigitur, vel in purgatorio est luenda. Cui et ego respondeo, impiissimum esse sentire, quod Papa habeat protestatem mutandi ius divinum, et id relaxare quod iustitia divina inflixit” (W 1, 536,17 [LW 31, 93]). 143- Igitur remissio dei [ante confessionem] gratiam operatur, sed remissio sacerdotis pacem, quae et ipsa est gratia et donum Dei, quia fides remissionis et gratiae praesentis. Et hanc meo sensu dicerem esse earn, quam nostri doctores dicunt per sacramenta ecclesiae efficaciter conferri, non autem ipsam primam iustificantem, quam ante sacramentum oportet adesse in adultis, sed, ut Rom 1. dicitur: ‘Fides in fidem,’ oportet enim accedentem credere. At baptisatum oportet credere, se recte credidisse et accessise, aut pacem nunquam habebit, quae non nisi ex fide habetur.” W 1, 542,7 (LW 31, 102). 144. Original in Kohler, Dokumente, 98L WBr 12 4212a 115133; 8. 145. See pp. 243ff. 146. Luther appears here to touch briefly on the problem posed by the third principal grace of the St. Peter’s indulgence—the partici¬ pation in all the spiritual goods of the universal Church given to all who contributed to the building of St. Peter’s. See the Instructio Summaria in Kohler, Dokumente, 115. Luther appears here to have no deep-seated problem with the idea of this grace. His Thesis 37 posed a serious difficulty against this third grace, probably, however, to stimulate a discussion of the point. 147. Original in Kohler, Dokumente, 99, and WBr 12, 42123,134150; 8f. We have made slight emendations following Kruger ThStK 90 (1917), 520. 148. Lectio 57 O; Oberman-Courtenay edition, II, 407!. 149. Original in Kohler, Dokumente, 99. WBr 12 4212a 152156; 9150. W 1, 94-99 and W 4, 670-674. r1 the beginninS.of the eighteenth century, V. Loscher included this text in the series of sermons Luther gave in connection with his expositions of the ten commandments. Loscher gave only anno 1517” to place the sermon more exactly. The editors of W 1 new that Luthers sermons on the ten commandments ended on February 27, 1517. They thought the dedication feast for which the sermon was given would have fallen on All Saints Day and that the

Notes to page 262

395

church would be the castle church of Wittenberg. To keep this within the dates of the series on the ten commandments, they dated the sermon October 31, 1516. In 1924, Karl Bauer argued for October 31, 1517, pointing to the order and clarity of the section on indulgences, to Luther’s indication that he had already spoken on indulgences (W 1, 98,17), and to the striking similarities to the ninety-five theses. See Bauer’s article (ZKG 43 [1924], 174-179). Hans Volz argued in 1959 for the W 1 dating (Martin Luthers Thesenanschlag, 6gff), but inconclusively, since he paid no attention to how the theological content of the sermon shows Luther much further along than he was in 1516. Nor did Volz consider that the sermon could have been given in the parish church. Further, all the arguments for October 31, in no matter which year, are mistaken in identifying the commemora¬ tion of the dedication of a church with the feast of the saint (or in this case of All Saints) for whom the church is named. Liturgically, these are two different events, as Nikolas Paulus showed in 1924. ZkTh 48, (1924), 630-633. Paulus’ arguments for January 16, 1518 as the date of the sermon would be perhaps the best we can do, even though his use of the Treatise on Indulgences as a witness of Luther’s early thought on the question presumes erroneously that the ninety-five theses are an exact statement of Luther’s position in October 1517- On this, see p. 236. 152. Most striking is Luther’s use of Poenitentiam agite as the scriptural basis for true interior penance (W 1, 98,25). This echoes Thesis 1 of the 95 theses. His protestation that the intention and pre¬ cise wording of the pope is correct (g8,igf) echoes Thesis 91. The opposition of poenitentia rei and poenitentia signi (98,24) reduces to a formula what Luther says in Theses 2—4. The true interior penance expresses itself in sui detestatio intus (99,4), which parallels the odium sui (id est poenitantia vera intus) of Thesis 4. Luther be¬ gins the last paragraph of the sermon with an indication of the great danger and difficulty of preaching indulgences (99,20), which re¬ minds us of Thesis 39. 153. A further argument for a later dating is Luther’s protestatio. W 1, 98,19. This suggests that he has already heard charges that his intervention on indulgences is an attack on the pope s honor and au¬ thority. Additionally, Luther’s response to the rhetorical question about his ideal of perfect contrition (99,25) suggests that someone has already attacked his theses (for example. Thesis 4, or 40, or 94) as containing a high ideal that is not for all Christians. Thus, to us, Luther seems to be already in the midst of a debate and thus some¬ what beyond the stage matters had reached in October 1517.

396

Notes to pages 262-264

154- W 1, 94,12 and 95,25. 155. “Potuisset [Christus] hunc Zachaeum occulte vocare ad gratiam, sed voluit id manifeste fieri, ut illi falsam iustitiam propriam agnoscerent et Zachaeo similes forent.” W 1, 98,5. 156. W 1, 98,8. 157. “Hoc autem vitium est in quolibet homine, nisi per gratiam sanetur, et fuit ab initia mundi eritque usque in finem, quia quaerit in omnibus, etiam in Christo, quae sua sunt. Regnat autem potissimum nostro tempore, ubi populus per seductores, fabulatores, etc. in istud vitium ducitur, qui debuit potius reduci. Quales sunt qui indulgentias praedicant, de quibus ex. gr. et quia id multi petierunt, pauca dicam. Dixi enim de iis alias plura, maxime cum sit prae foribus pompa ista indulgentiarum, ut sim ego excusatus et vos a periculo falsae intelligentiae eruamini.” W 1, 98,12. 158. W 1, 98,23. The final words in this passage echo Luther’s first indulgence thesis: “Nam satisfactio ilia, quam Iohannes praescripsit Lucae 3. est totius vitae Christianae officium et generalis omnibus imposita et publica.” 159. See pp. 230b, 237b, and 244!?. 160. “Poenitentia . . . rei est ilia interior cordis et sola vera poenitentia, . . . Signi est ilia exterior quae frequenter est facta cum ilia interior sit facta saepe, et haec habet suas illas partes, confessionem et satisfactionem, . . .” W 1, 98,24. 161. “Conclusio. Indulgentiae praerequirunt, immo ad contritionis veritatem debent prodesse aut sunt maxime: tollunt autem nihil aliud quam privatae satisfactionis impositiones. Et sic timendum, quod frequenter cooperentur contra poenitentiam interiorem.” W 1, 98,37. 162. Our last extended quotation from Luther’s early work is his description of the truly penitent man: “Poenitens vere purissime sibi displicet in omnibus quae fecit, et efficaciter convertuntur ad Deum pureque agnoscunt culpam et Deo confitentur in corde. Deinde per sui destationem intus sese mordet et punit; ideo ibidem Deo satisfacit. Immo vere poenitens vellet, si fieri posset, ut omnis creatura suum peccatum videret et odisset, et paratus est ab omnibus conculcari. Non quaerit indulgentias et remissiones poenarum, sed exactiones poenarum.” W 1, 99,2. 163. W 1, 99,8. 164. Videte itaqua, quam periculosa res sit indulgentiarum praedicatio, quae praecisa gratia docet, scilicet fugere satisfactionem et poenam, . . . Qua enim facilitate simul et semel possunt praedicare contritio vera et tarn facilis largaque indulgentia, cum vera contritio rigidam exactionem cupiat et ilia nimis laxet?” W 1 qq 20. 165. W 1, 99,25.

Notes to pages 265-270

397

Chapter VII 1. We noted specific instances of this difficulty on pp. gf. and 63L 2. One important factor in Luther’s later frame of mind was the personal spiritual trauma he experienced in the last three months of 1518. One can follow this through his letters. In Letter No. 100 of WBr 1 (October 14, 1518), he told Carlstadt how Cardinal Cajetan had demanded recantation of the very idea through which he (Luther) had become a Christian. In Letter No. 110 (November 21, 1518), he told Prince-Elector Friedrich he would never give up his idea of faith, and that he was deeply disturbed that his idea was so little known in the Church and even thought to be erroneous (especially lines 56ff, 7iff, and 8off). Then, in Letter No. 121 (December 18, 1518), he told Wenceslaus Link that he was near the conclusion that the Anti-Christ was now reigning in the Roman curia. Cajetan s astute criticism of his idea at Augsburg had evidently had this effect. Unfor¬ tunately, none of these three letters is given in LW 48, the volume of the American edition giving Luther’s early letters. Ernst Bizer used Letters No. 100 and 121 in the first pages of his Luther und der Papst (Munich, 1958) to narrate Luther’s crisis of 1518 as he “broke through” to his conviction that the pope was at least the Anti-Christ, if not worse. 3. Erwin Iserloh collected Luther’s professions of following Ock¬ ham in his article “Luthers Stellung in der theologischen Tradition” in Wandlungen des Lutherhildes, i6f. 4. Martin Elze’s two articles have made a good start in this field. See our Bibliography. 5. A further objection could be that Luther took over some of what he said about Christ in these passages from patristic commen¬ tators, especially from St. John Chrysostom. See Boendermaker, Luthers Commentaar, 3iff, 36f, and 39®> f°r an ordered account of Luther’s borrowings from Chrysostom. However, the fact that Luther was taking from the ancient tradition tells us much about his own readiness to understand Christ in a new manner. The idea of Christ as the “sacrament” of our new life remained a part of Luther s thought through the whole of his career, as Erwin Iserloh showed in his arti¬ cle on the concepts sacramentum and exemplum in Reformata Ref or manda, I, 248-265. 6. As we noted before, W. Dettloff presented this material suc¬ cinctly in his article, “Das Gottesbild und die Rechtfertigung in der Schultheologie zwischen Duns Scotus und Luther” in Wissenschaft und Weisheit 27 (1964), 197-210.

398

Notes to pages 271-276

7. See especially p. 379, n. 391, where we have indicated some of the loci where Luther presented this idea in 1518. 8. Erwin Iserloh treated more at length the genuine possibilities for reform present in Luther’s initial intervention on indulgences in The Theses Were Not Posted, looff. 9. For example, in the resolution of the thirty-eighth indulgence resolution, Luther wrote: “Proinde non adeo est necessaria contritio quam fides. Incomparabiliter enim plus ibi [in sacramento] consequitur fides absolutionis quam fervor contritionis” (W 1, 595,21). 10. One of the strangest examples of this return to the self oc¬ curred in the resolution of the seventh indulgence thesis, where Luther interpreted the phrase, fides in fidem (Rom 1, 17), to mean that the one who has been baptized must believe that he believed rightly in coming to the sacrament: “baptizatum oportet etiam credere, se recte credidisse et accessisse, aut pacem nunquam habebit, quae non nisi ex fide habetur.” W 1, 542,12. The presence of the self in this in¬ voluted act of faith (credere se recte credidisse) is a good index that something has gone wrong in Luther’s thinking about faith. n. W 9, 84,39 and 85,6. See p. 292, n. 26. 12. W 4, 10,35. See pp. 74b 13- See the first two subsections in Chapter V, Section 6, pp. 199— 207. 14. W 3, 463,30.32. See p. 65, especially n. 134. !5- W 57II, 69,6. See p. 351, n. 5. 16. W 56, 342,7 and 353>12- See also W 57II, 102,9 and pp. 100 and 134. 17. Paulus und Luther iiber den Menschen, especially 55ft and 77ff- The first edition of this work came out in 1938.

18. This was most striking in Luther’s scholion on Rom 14 1. See W 56, 493-498 (Pauck, 379-386). For Luther, the issue is the sense of necessity or liberty with which one performs religious prac¬ tices. There is, of course, a kernel of truth in Luther’s stress on the interior intention, but he overdoes this so as to neglect the natural correlation between the intention and the deed in which this intention ordinarily becomes incarnate. Because of this nexus, certain deeds can become matters of real obligation in the unfolding of the Christian’s new life in Christ. 19. This was clear from Luther’s letter to Lang on October 26 1516. Seep. 351, n. 1.

Bibliography

SOURCES Luther, Martin, D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar, i883ff. -, D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Briefwechsel. Weimar, 19306:. -, Anfange reformatorischer Bibelauslegung, 1: Luthers Vorlesung iiber den Romerbrief. Johannes Ficker, Ed. Leipzig, 1908. -Dokumente zu Luthers Entwicklung. Otto Scheel, Ed. 2d edition, Tubingen, 1929. -, Anfange reformatorischer Bibelauslegung, Vol. 2: Luthers Vorlesung iiber den Hebraerbrief. Johannes Ficker, Ed. Leipzig, 1929. —, Luthers Randbemerkungen zu Gabriel Biels Collectorium in quattuor libros sententiarum and zu dessen Sacri canonis missae expositio. Hermann Degering, Ed. Weimar, 1933. —, Luthers Werke in Auswahl, Vol. 5: Der junge Luther. Erich Vogelsang, Ed. 3d edition, Berlin, 1963. -, et al., Dokumente zum Ablassstreit von 1517. Walther Kohler, Ed. 2d edition, Tubingen, 1934. -, Luthers Works, The American Edition. Philadelphia and St. Louis, 1955- Lectures on Romans. Wilhelm Pauck, Trans, and Ed. Phila¬ delphia, 1961. Biel, Gabriel, Collectorium in quattuor libros sententiarum. Tubingen, 1501.

399

400

.

Bibliography

-, Canonis missae expositio. Heiko Oberman and William J. Courtenay, Eds. Wiesbaden, 1963®. Cajetan, Thomas de Vio, Opuscula omnia. Venice, 1588. Lasco, Oswaldus de, Rosarium Theologiae. Hagenau, 1508. Lombard, Peter, Libri IV Sententiarum. 2 vols.. Ad Claras Aquas (Quaracchi Ed.), 1916. Patrologia Latina. Tauler, Johannes, Die Predigten Taulers. Ferdinand Vetter, Ed. Ber¬ lin, 1910. Theologia Germanica. Introduction and Notes by J. Bernhart. New York, 1949.

SECONDARY LITERATURE Aland, Kurt, Der Weg Zur Reformation. Munich, 1965. -, Martin Luthers 95 Thesen. Hamburg, 1965. English version, Martin Luther s 95 Theses. St. Louis, 1967. Althaus, Paul, Paulus und Luther iiber den Menschen. 4th edition, Giitersloh, 1963. Auer, J., Die Enlwicklung der Gnadenlehre in der Hochscholastik, Vol. I: Das Wesen der Gnade. Freiburg, 1942. von Balthasar, Hans Urs, “Zwei Glaubensweisen,” in Hochland 59 (i967), 401-412. Bandt, Helmut, Luthers Lehre vom verborgenen Gott. Berlin, 1958. Baring, G., “Luther und die ‘Theologia Deutsch’ in der neuesten Forschung,” in Theologische Zeitschrift 23 (1967), 48-62. Bauer, Karl, “Das Entstehungsjahr von Luthers Sermo de indulgentiis pridie dedications,” in ZKG 43 (1924), 174-179. -, Die Wittenberger Universitatstheologie und die Anfdnge der deutschen Reformation. Tubingen, 1928. Bellucci, Dino, Fede e Giustificazione in Lutero. Rome, 1963. Bizer, Ernst, Fides ex auditu. 2nd edition, Neukirchen, 1961. -, Luther und der Papst. Munich, 1958. Boehmer, Heinrich, Der junge Luther. Heinrich Bornkamm, Ed. 3d edition, Leipzig, 1939. English version. Road to Reformation. Philadelphia, 1946. Boendermaker, J. P., Luthers Commentaar op de Brief aan de Hebreeen 1517-1518. Assen., 1965. Bornkamm, Heinrich, “Thesen und Thesenanschlag Luthers,” in Geist und Geschichte der Reformation (Berlin, 1966), 179-218. Brandenburg, Albert, Gericht und Evangelium. Paderborn, i960.

Bibliography

401

von Campenhausen, Hans, “Reformatorisches Selbstbewusstsein und Geschichtsbewusstsein bei Luther 1517-1522,” in Tradition und Leben (Tubingen, 1962), 318-342. Cranz, F. Edward, An Essay on the Development of Luther’s Thought on Justice, Law, and Society. Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1959Day, Sebastian, Intuitive Cognition, A Key to the Significance of the Later Scholastics. St. Bonaventure, New York, 1947. Dettloff, Werner, “Das Gottesbild und die Rechfertigung in der Schultheologie zwischen Duns Scotus and Luther,” in Wissenschaft und Weisheit 2.J (1964), 197-210. Dietterle, Johannes, “Die Summae confessorum (sive de casibus conscientiae) von ihren Anfangen an bis zu Silvester Prierias,” in ten parts in ZKG 24—28 (1903-1907). Douglass, Jane Dempsey, Justification in Late Medieval Preaching. Leiden, 1966. Ebeling, Gerhard, “Die Anfange von Luthers Hermeneutik,” in ZThK

48 (1951), 172-230. -, “Luthers Psalterdruck von Jahre 1513,” in ZThK 50 (1953)> 43-99. -, “Luthers Auslegung des 14. (15-) Psalms in der ersten Psalmenvorlesung im Vergleich mit der exegetischen Tradition,

in ZThK 50 (1953), 280-339. -, “Luthers Auslegung des 44. (45-) Psalms,” in Lutherforschung heute (Berlin, 1958). -, art. “Luther-theologie,” in RGG3, Vol. IV, col. 495—520. -, Luther—Einfiihrung in sein Denken. Tubingen, 1964. Ellwein, Eduard, “Die Entfaltung der theologia crucis in Luthers Hebraerbriefvorlesung,” in Theologische Aufsdtze (Barth Fest¬ schrift) (Munich, 1936), 382-404. Elze, Martin, “Ziige spatmittelalterlicher Frommigkeit in Luthers Theologie,” in ZThK 62 (1965), 381-402. -, “Das Verstandnis der Passion Jesu in ausgehenden Mittelalter und bei Luther,” in Geist und Geschichte der Reformation (Berlin, 1966), 127-151. Feckes, Carl, Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Gabriel Biel. Miinster, 1925. Fife, Robert H., The Revolt of Martin Luther. New York, 1957. Grane, Leif, Contra Gabrielem. Copenhagen, 1962. Grisar, Hartmann, Luther. 3 vols. 3d edition, Freiburg, 1924. English version, St. Louis and London, 1913-, Martin Luther—His Life and Work. Westminster, Md., 1950 (= St. Louis, 1930).

402

-

Bibliography

Gyllenkrok, Axel, Rechtfertigung und Heiligung in der friihen evangelischen Theologie Luthers. Wiesbaden, 1952. Hacker, Paul, Das Ich im Glauben bei Martin Luther. Graz, 1966. Haegglund, Bengt, “Was Luther a Nominalist?,” in Concordia Theo¬ logical Monthly 28 (1957), 441-452. Headley, John M., Luther’s View of Church History. New Haven and London, 1963. Hennig, Gerhard, Cajetan und Luther. Stuttgart, 1966. Hermann, Fritz, “Luthers Tractatus de indulgentiis,” in ZKG 28

(1907), 370-373Hermann, Rudolf, “Das Verhaltuis von Rechtfertigung und Gebet,” in Gesammelte Studien zur Theologie Luthers und der Refor¬ mation (Gottingen, i960), 11-43. -, Luthers These “Gerecht und Sunder Zugleich.” Giitersloh, i960. Hirsch, Emanuel, “Initium theologiae Lutheri,” in Lutherstudien (Giitersloh, 1954), Vol II, 9-35. Holl, Karl, Gesammelte Aufsdtze zur Kirchengeschichte, I: Luther. 7th edition, Tubingen, 1948. Honselmann, Klemens, Urfassung und Drucke der Ablassthesen Martin Luthers und ihre Veroffentlichung. Paderbom, 1966. Hiibner, Hans, Rechtfertigung und Heiligung in Luthers Romerbriefvorlesung. Witten, 1965. Hunzinger, A. W., Luthers Neuplatonismus in der Psalmenvorlesung von 1513-1516. Leipzig, 1906. Iserloh, Erwin, Gnade und Eucharistie in der philosophischen The¬ ologie des Wilhelm von Ockham. Wiesbaden, 1956. -, Luthers Thesenanschlag—Tatsache oder Legende? Wies¬ baden, 1962. -, Existentiale Interpretation’ in Luthers ersten Psalmvorlesung?” in Theologische Revue 57 (1963), 73—84. -, “Sacr amen turn et exemplum—Ein augustinisches Thema lutherischer Theologie,” in Reformata Reformanda (Jedin Fest¬ schrift) (Munster, 1965), I, 247-264. , Luthers Stellung in der theologischen Tradition,” in Wandlungen des Lutherbildes (Wurzburg, 1966), 15—47. -, “Luther und die Mystik,” in The Church, Mysticism, Sancti¬ fication and the Natural in Luther s Thought (Philadelphia, 1967), 60-83. , Luther zwnschen Reform und Reformation. Munster, 1966; English version, The Theses Were Not Posted, Boston, 1968. Iwand, Hans Joachim, Rechtfertigungslehre und Christusglaube. Mu¬ nich, 1961 (= Leipzig, 1930).

Bibliography

403

Jetter, Werner, Die Taufe beim jungen Luther. Tubingen, 1954. Kawerau, Gustav, “Luthers Randbemerkungen zum Marienpsalter 1515,” in ThStK 90 (1917), 81-87. Kleineidam, Erich, “Die Universitat Erfurt in den Jahren 1501-1505,” in Reformata Reformanda (Jedin Festschrift) (Munster, 1965), I, 142-195. Kriiger, Gustav, “Luthers Tractatus de Indulgentiis,” in ThStK 90 (1917), 507-520. Lau, Franz, Luther. Robert H. Fischer, trans. Philadelphia, 1962. Leff, Gordon, Bradwardine and the Pelagians. Cambridge, 1957. -, Gregory of Rimini—Tradition and Innovation in Fourteenth Century Thought. Manchester, 1961. Loewenich, Walter von, Luthers theologia crucis. Munich, 1929. Lohse, Bernard, Ratio und Fides. Gottingen, 1958. -, “Luthers Christologie im Ablassstreit,” in Luther Jahrbuch 27 (i960), 51-63. -, Monchtum und Reformation. Gottingen, 1963. -, “Der Stand der Debatte iiber Luthers Thesenanschlag,” in Luther 34 (1963), 132-136. w -, “Die Bedeutung Augustins fiir den jungen Luther, in KuD 11 (1965), 116-135, _ 7 . . , -, “The Reformation Today,” in Lutheran Quarterly 19 (1967), 231-248. Lortz, Joseph, Die Reformation in Deutschland. 2 vols. 4th edition. Freiburg, 1962. -, How the Reformation Came. New York, 1964. -, “Luthers Romerbriefvorlesung—Grundanliegen,” in TrThZ 71 (1962), 129-153 and 216-247. ^ -, “Martin Luther—Grundziige seiner geistigen Struktur, in Reformata Reformanda (Jedin Festschrift) (Munster, 1965), I, 214-246. Manns, Peter, “Fides absoluta—fides incarnata,” in Reformata Refor¬ manda (Jedin Festschrift) (Munster, 1965), I, 265-312. Maurer, Wilhelm, “Die Anfange von Luthers Theologie,” in ThLZ 77 (1952), 1-12. “Kirche und Geschichte nach Luthers Dictata super psalterium,” in Lutherforschung heute (Berlin, 1958), 85-101. McDonough, O.P., Thomas, The Law and the Gospel in Luther. London, 1963. Meissinger, Karl, Der katholische Luther. Munich 1952. Metzger, G., Gelebter Glaube. Gottingen, 1964. Moeller, Bernd, “Tauler und Luther,” in La Mystique rhenane (Pans, 1963), 157-168.

Bibliography

4°4

Muller, Gerhard, “Die Einheit der Theologie des jungen Luthers,” in Reformation und Confessio (Maurer Festschrift) (Berlin-Hamburg,^ 1965), 37-51. -, “Ekklesiologie und Kirchenkritik beim jungen Luther,” in NZSysTh 7 (1965), 100-128. -, “Neuere Literatur zur Theologie des jungen Luther,” in KuD

11 (1965). 325-357Oberman, Heiko, Archbishop Thomas Bradwardine—A Fourteenth Century Augustinian. Utrecht, 1957. -, “Facientibus quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam: Robert Holcot O.P. and the Beginnings of Luther’s Theology,” in HThR 55 (1962), 317-342. -, The Harvest of Medieval Theology. Cambridge, Mass., 1963. -, “ lustitia Christi’ and ‘Iustitia Dei’—Luther and the Scho¬ lastic Doctrine of Justification,” in HThR 59 (1966), 1-26. -, “Simul gemitus et raptus: Luther und die Mystik,” in The Church, Mysticism, Sanctification and the Natural in Luthers Thought, Ivar Asheim, Ed. (Philadelphia, 1967), 20-59. O Malley, John W., S.J., “Historical Thought and the Reform Crisis of the Early Sixteenth Century, ” in TS 28 (1967), 531-548. Paulus, Nikolas, Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittelalter. 3 vols. Paderborn, 1922-1923. , Das Entstehungsjahr von Luthers Sermo de indulgentiis pridie Dedicationis,” in ZkTh 48 (1924), 630-633. Pesch, O.P., Otto H., “Zur Frage nach Luthers reformatorischer Wende,” in Catholica 20 (1966), 216—243 and 264—280. Pfiirtner, Stephanus, Luther und Thomas im Gespruch. Heidelberg, 1961. English version, Luther and Thomas on Salvation, New York, 1965. Pinomaa, Lennart, Register der Bibelzitate in Luthers Schriften igog— 1519. Helsinki, n.d. -, “Die profectio bei Luther,” in Gedenkschrift fur D. Werner Elert (Berlin, 1955), 119-127. Poschmann, Bernard, Der Ablass im Licht der Bussgeschichte. Bonn, 1948. Prenter, Regin, Der barmherzige Richter. Aarhus, 1961. Quanbeck, Warren A., “Luther’s Early Exegesis,” in Luther Today (Decora, Iowa, 1957), 35-103. Quiring, Horst, “Luther und die Mystik,” in ZSysTh 13 (1936), 150174 and 179-240. Rahner, Karl, S.J., art. “Ablass” in LThK2, I, 46-53. , Remarks on the Theology of Indulgences,” in Theological Investigations (Baltimore, 1963), II, 175-201.

Bibliography

405

Reu, J. M., Luthers German Bible. Columbus, Ohio, 1934. Rupp, Gordon, The Righteousness of God. London, 1953. Saamivaara, Uuras, Luther Discovers the Gospel. St. Louis, 1951Scheel, Otto, Martin Luther. Vom Katholizismus ziir Reformation. 2 vols. 3d and 4th editions, Tubingen, 1930. Schillebeeckx, Eduard, O.P., “The Spiritual Intent of Indulgences, in Lutheran World 14 (1967), 11-32. Schwarz, Reinhard, Fides, spes und charitas beim jungen Luther. Berlin, 1962. Steitz, Heinrich, “Martin Luthers Ablassthesen von 1517. Bericht iiber die Diskussion 1957—1965,” in Geschichte in Wissensclmft und Unterricht 16 (1955), 661-674. Todd, John M., Martin Luther. London, 1964. Vignaux, Paul, art. “Nominalisme,” in DThC, XI, Cols. 717—784. -, Luther Commentateur des Sentences. Paris, 1935. -, “Sur Luther et Ockham,” in Franziskanische Studien. 32 (1950), 21-30. Vogelsang, Erich, Die Anfange von Luthers Christologie. BerlinLeipzig, 1929. -, “Der Confessio-Begriff des jungen Luther,” in Luther Jahrbuch 12 (1930), 91-108. -, “Zur Datierung der friihesten Lutherpredigten,” in ZKG 50 (1931), 112-145. -, “Luther und die Mystik,” in Luther Jahrbuch 19 (1937). 32—54. Volz, Hans, Martin Luthers Thesenanschlag und dessen Vorgeschichte. Weimar, 1959. -, “Die Urfassung von Luthers 95 Thesen,” in ZKG 78 (1967),

67~93-

,

.

,

.

.

Wagner, W., “Die Kirche als Corpus Christi mysticum beim jungen Luther,” in ZkTh 61 (1937)* 29-98. Weijenborg, Reynold, “La charite dans la premiere theologie de Luther 1505-1515,” in RHE 45 (1950), 617-669. Wicks, Jared, “Luther’s Treatise on Indulgences,” in TS 28 (1967),

481-518.

Index of Names

Bernard of Clairvaux, St., 30, 36f, 56f, 63, 87, 90, 99, 109, ii2f, 152, 159, 171, 212f, 217, 267f, 297, 308, 327, 340, 342, 378 Bernhard, Bartholomew (of Feldkirch), 181-184, 190, 192, 287, 370 Bemhart, Joseph, 356, 400 Biel, Gabriel, 5, 8, 19, 179, i8if, 184-188, 190, ig2f, 195, 197, 207, 260, 280, 290, 295-297, 299, 368, 371-373, 384, 399 Bizer, Ernst, 6, 268, 285, 316, 320, 328, 348, 354, 361, 363f, 381, 397, 400 Boehmer, Heinrich, 286, 289, 390, 400 Boendermaker, J. P., 373-37^,

Aland, Kurt, 284, 364, 385, 400 Albrecht, Archbishop, 3, 9, 216, 226ff, 23of, 233f, 237S, 384f, 387, 38gf Althaus, Paul, 276, 334, 400 Ambrose, St., 334 Anselm, St., 202, 270 Aristotle, 154, 160, 178, i8of, i88ff, 197, 28gf, 296, 331, 360 Asheim, Ivar, 284 Auer, J., 2g6f, 400 Augustine, St., 9, i6ff, 20, 27f, 31, 38, 110, 113, 131, i34f> 140, 157, 182, 184, 189, igif, 221, 246f, 267, 275, 289, 292, 297, 301, 305, 3i3f, 334, 339, 353, 370, 378, 392

397, 400 Bonaventure, St., 252, 307, 392f Bomkamm, Heinrich, 15, 285^ 39of, 400 Bradwardine, Thomas, 369 Brandenburg, Albert, 42, 285, 30 if, 306, 309, 313, 315, 3i8f, 322, 400 Braun, Johannes, 299

Balthasar, Hans Urs von, 286, 400 Bandt, Helmut, 309, 321, 400 Baring, G., 356, 400 Bauer, Karl, 6, 369, 395, 400 Bellucci, Dino, 288f, 304, 306, 314-316, 33of, 335, 340, 346, 400

407

408

Bruno of Wurzburg, 43 Bultmann, Rudolf, 76, 306

Cajetan, Thomas de Vio (Car¬ dinal), 7f, 13b 257, 286f, 397, 400 Campenhausen, Hans von, 401 Carletus, Angelus, 22gf Carlstadt, Andreas, 189, 287,

397 Cassiodonis, 301 Chrysostom, St. John, 203, 208,

397 Courtenay, W. J., 394, 400 Cranz, F. Edward, 286, 310, 401 Cyprian, St., 209

Index of Names Feckes, C., 401 Ficker, Johannes, 330, 373, 399 Fife, R. H., 360, 390, 401 Friedrich the Wise, PrinceElector, 384, 397

Geiler of Kaisersberg, John, 311 Gerson, Jean, 358 Giles of Viterbo, 311 Glossa interlinearia, 301 Glossa ordinaria, 301 Grane, Leif, sf, igf, 190, 285, 294b 304, 313, 33i , 369-371, 373, 401 Gregory the Great, St., 28 Grisar, Hartmann, 6, 285, 289,

393, 401 Gyllenkrok, Axel, 313, 341, 344, 355, 375, 402

d’Ailly, Pierre, 20, 195 Day, Sebastian, 292, 401 Degering, Hermann, 37of, 384,

399 Denifle, H., 346 Dettloff, Werner, 317, 397, 401 Dietterle, J., 387, 394, 401 Doering, Matthias, 301 Douglass, Jane D., 311, 401

Ebeling, Gerhard, 15, 43, 268, 284-286, 30if, 3i2f, 322324, 401 Eck, Johann, 189, 378 Ellwein, E., 401 Elze, Martin, 288, 292, 307, 397, 401 Erasmus, Desiderius, 128, 188, 206, 311 Eyntheologia deutsch, 119, 123, 130, i43ff, 148-152, 356, 365

Hacker, Paul, 6, 284, 286, 341, 378, 402 Haegglund, Bengt, 369, 402 Haubst, R., 356 Headley, John M., 310, 402 Hennig, Gerhard, 286, 402 Hermann, Fritz, 284, 39of, 402 Hermann, Rudolf, 349b 402 Hieronymus, Bishop of Branden¬ burg, 384, 389 Hirsch, Emanuel, 285, 402 Holl, Karl, 15, 295, 402 Honzelmann, Klemens, 232b 284, 388b 402 Hostiensis, 391 Hiibner, Hans, 284, 332, 402 Hunziger, A., 309, 320, 402

Iserloh, Erwin, 4, 232, 284, 291293, 295, 324, 346, 357, 369, 372, 375, 387b 397b 402

409

Index of Names Iwand, H. J., 318, 332, 338, 346, 402

Ludolf of Saxony, 43 Lyra, Nicholas of, 107, 301, 325,

373 Jeremiah, 330 Jerome, St., 131, 301 Jetter, Werner, 294, 403 Joest, Wilfred, 352 Johannes of Frankfurt, 356 John the Baptist, 155, 167, 263 Julius II, Pope, 122

Kawerau, G., 301, 381, 403 Kempis, Thomas a, 306 Kleineidam, E., 284, 403 Kohler, Walther, 284!, 386f,

390-394, 399 Kruger, Gustav, 284, 390, 394, 403

Lamond, E. M., 285 Lang, Johann, 144, i88f, 351,

359, 364, 389, 398 Lasco, Oswaldus de, 391, 400 Latomus, 338 Lau, Franz, 288, 403 Leff, Gordon, 369, 403 Leo X, Pope, 384 Link, Wenceslaus, 397 Ldscher, V., 390, 394 Loewenich, Walther von, 286, 403

Lohse, Bernhard, 15, 28gf, 300, 3i2f, 3i7f, 321, 328, 333, 336, 338, 340, 342f, 353, 363, 369, 384, 403 Lombard, Peter, 16-22, 24f, 27b 30®, 38f, 154, 179, 188, 28gf, 296, 2g8f, 321, 338, 353, 360, 400 Lortz, Joseph, 15, 229, 285, 288f, 330, 333, 343, 4«3

Manns, Peter, 403 Maurer, Wilhelm, 15, 300, 302, 310, 403 McDonough, Thomas, 288, 403 Meissinger, Karl, 403 Metzger, G., 285, 326, 403 Moeller, Bemd, 357, 359, 403 Muller, Gerhard, 284, 333, 382, 404 Myconius, Friedrich, 287, 385

Oberman, Heiko, 283!, 287, 2gof, 295f, 304, 308, 354, 369, 379, 394, 400, 404 Ockham, William, 20, i78f, i8if, 267, 280, 291, 295, 297, ; 369, 372, 397 O’Malley, John W., 311, 382, 404

Pauck, Wilhelm, 399 Paul, St., 31, 38ff, 43, g6f, 99102, io5f, 110, 114, 116, 121-128, i3if, 139-143, i55f, 182, 199, 209, 221, 249, 276, 291, 317, 334b 337, 35 if, 370 Paul of Burgos, 301 Paulus, Nikolas, 230, 262, 380, 386f, 393, 395, 4«4 Pelikan, Jaroslav, 288 Pesch, Otto H., 286, 404 Pfiirtner, Stephanus, 404 Pinomaa, L., 310, 328, 404 Porphyry, 188 Poschmann, B., 393, 404

Index of Names

410

Prenter, Regin, 316, 328, 404 Prierias, Sylvester, 230, 233, 387

Quanbeck, Warren, 303, 404 Quiring, Horst, 356, 404

314,

Steitz, Heinrich, 284, 405

Tauler, Johannes, ligf, 123, 130, 143-152, 295, 358-359, 365,

393, 400

Rahner, Karl, 393, 404 Reu, J. M., 301, 364, 373, 405 Rimini, Gregory of, 25, 369 Rupp, Gordon, 351, 373, 405

Tetzel, Johann, 3, 9, 165, 226, 231, 256f, 381, 385 Thiel, R., 286 Thomas Aquinas, St., 252, 289, 325, 335 Todd, John M., 405 Trutvetter, Jodocus, 188 Turrecremada, John of, 43, 301

Saamivaara, Uuras, 286, 405 Salis, Baptista de, 230 Scheel, Otto, 289, 293, 295, 312,

Vetter, F., 357, 399 Vignaux, Paul, zgif, 296, 372,

353, 399, 405 Scheurl, Christoph,

Villette, Louis, 379 Vogelsang, Erich, 285, 289, 297, 301, 303, 3o8f, 314^ 318,

165,

189,

235, 364 Schillebeeckx, Eduard, 393, 405 Schurff, Hieronymus, 388 Schwarz, Reinhard, 283, 285, 292, 296, 405 Scotus, Duns, 317, 368 Spalatin, Georg, 8, 145, 147, 165, 3oof, 364 Spenlein, G., 33 if, Stapulensis, Faber, 43, 46, 54, 58, 301, 315, 329, 357 Staupitz, Johannes von, 359

405

330, 357, 359, 365, 368, 370, 372, 399, 405 Volz, Hans, 4, 232, 284, 288, 385, 388-391, 395, 405

Wagner,. W., 285, 405 Weijenborg, R., 2ggf, 405 Wicks, Jared, 405 Wimpina, Konrad, 256f, 271, 390

;

DATE DUE UR 15 n FE 21 ‘96

GAYLORD

PRINTED INU.S A.

MARYGROUE COLLEGE LIBRARY

Man yearning for grace; Luther’s 284.1 L97Z US

3 1127 0DD4SS7S 5

284.1 L97Z

jw6