abscondita in mysterio.” He concludes: our righteousness is unknown to us, “quia in ipso et consilio eius (Dei) tota pendet.”
[221] Passages in Denifle-Weiss, l², p. 470 ff.; p. 482 ff. Cp. p. 442 ff.
[222] Fol. 144´. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 455, n. 4, and p. 482, n. 3; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 108 ff.
[223] Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 457 ff.
[224] “Scholia to Rom.,” p. 109.
[225] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 75.
[226] Thus “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, pp. 414 and 731; 4, p. 691; 7, pp. 110 and 344; 8, p. 93. “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15, p. 54; 16, p. 141; 63, p. 131; “Tischreden,” ed. Förstemann, 2, p. 42; 4, p. 391; etc. Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 461. He may in time have come to believe the words were really Augustine’s.
[227] Ficker, p. xli. and xxix.
[228] Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 457 ff., on the whole question; he also points out two other falsifications of Augustine’s views committed by Luther.
[229] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 108.
[230] Cp. Denifle, 1, pp. 458, 502 ff.
[231] Fol. 144´. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 455, n. 4; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 109. The continuation of this passage, which is not without importance, is: “Ita mecum pugnavi, nesciens quod remissio quidem vera sit, sed tamen non sit ablatio peccati.”
[232] Fol. 153´. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 124: “Igitur ex quo Dei præceptum implere non possumus ac per hoc semper iniusti merito sumus, nihil restat, [quam] ut iudicium semper timeamus et pro remissione iniustitiæ, immo pro nonimputatione oremus; quia nunquam remittitur omnino, sed manet et indiget non imputatione.” Of the true Catholic doctrine, re the inability of man and God’s grace, Denifle treats very well (1, pp. 416-27).
[233] Fol. 193. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 508, n. 1; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 183.
[234] Ibid.
[235] J. Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 215. Cp. 2, p. 124.
[236] Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 509; Köstlin, 2², p. 50, quotes, amongst others, Luther’s later thesis that mere human reason can only take for good what is evil.
[237] Fol. 77. Denifle, 1² “Quellenbelege,” p. 313; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 1.
[238] Fol. 75´. Vatican MS. of Commentary on Hebrews; Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 528, n. 2.
[239] Fol. 153´. “Rom. Schol.,” p. 123: in the continuation of passage quoted by Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 503, n. 5: “Non potest intus sine misericordia Dei iustus esse, quum sit fomite corruptus.... Quæ iniquitas non invenitur in credentibus et gementibus quia succurit eis Christus de plenitudine puritatis suæ et tegit eorum hoc imperfectum.”
[240] Fol. 153. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 503, n. 5; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 123.
[241] Fol. 153. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 123: “Patet quod nullum est peccatum veniale ex substantia et natura sua sed nec meritum.”
[242] Fol. 153´. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 124: “Dicis, ut quid ergo merita sanctorum adeo prædicantur. Respondeo, quod non sunt eorum merita, sed Christi in eis.”
[243] Fol. 121, 121´; Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 453; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 73 f.
[244] On Predestination see below, chapter vi. 2.
[245] Assertions in this sense lightly made by Cochlæus and Emser were accepted as true by later writers, such as Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius in his “Confutatio prolegomenorum Brentii”; thus the legend finds acceptance even among recent polemics. Emser only said, “he was now beginning to suspect” that Luther had come forward because there was “nothing to be made out of the indulgence business for you (Luther) or your party, and because Tetzel and his followers instead of your party were entrusted with the indulgence business.” “A venatione Luteriana Ægocerotis assertio,” fol. c., November, 1519. Cochlæus meant his accusation rather more seriously, but brings forward no proofs.
[246] “Purgatio adv. epistolam non sobriam Lutheri,” 1532, p. 447, in “Erasmi Opp.” t. 10, Lugd., Batav., 1706, p. 1555: “Si tollas ... quæ illi conveniunt cum I. Hus et I. Wiclevo aliisque nonnullis, fortasse non multum restabit, quo veluti proprio glorietur.”
[247] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, pp. 292, 334. Cp. W. Köhler, “Luther und die Kirchengesch.,” (1900), p. 168 f.
[248] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 315.
[249] W. Köhler, ibid., p. 225: “In his acquaintance with the sources Luther hardly rises above the average. Eck is superior to him in this point, for he deals with the various sources as an expert, which Luther never was. Emser also was not behind Luther ... that Luther became acquainted with Hus’s ‘De Ecclesia’ at an earlier period than his friends and adversaries was due to the kindness of the Bohemians, not to his own zeal in research. His friends as well as his adversaries made haste to catch up with him again.”
[250] “Concerning Eck’s latest Bulls.” “Werke,” Erl. ed., 24², p. 28; Weim. ed., 6, p. 591. Cp. Luther’s “Prefaces and epilogues to some letters of Hus” (1536 and 1537), “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 59 ff., and “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 536 seq.
[251] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 65, p. 81. See W. Köhler, ibid., p. 167: “We may well ask here whether the experience