p. 297.
[609] Ibid.
[610] On the syntheresis, see above, p. 75. When Luther, on the strength of Romans ii., nevertheless, recognises “that natural religion exerts the force of conscience in the hearts of the heathen,” he is contradicting himself without being aware of it. (Braun, p. 300.)
[611] Braun, p. 296.
[612] Ibid., p. 284.
[613] Braun, p. 301.
[614] Ibid.
[615] Cp. ibid., pp. 287, 288.
[616] For instance, “Schol. Rom.,” p. 136 ff.: “Natura nostra vitio primi peccati tam profunda est in seipsam incurva, ut non solum optima dona Dei sibi inflectat ... verum etiam hoc ipsum ignoret.... Hoc vitium propriissimo nomine Scriptura Aon, id est iniquitatem, pravitatem, curvitatem appellat.... Talis curvitas est necessario inimica crucis, cum crux mortificet omnia nostra, illa autem se et sua vivificet.” Therefore it is necessary (and here he comes to his personal ideas against the self-righteous) to reach a point where, “iustitia et sapientia omnis devoratur et absorbetur.... Charitas Dei extinguit fruitionem propriæ iustitiæ, quia non nisi solum et purum Deum diligit, non dona ipsa Dei, sicut hipocritæ iustitiarii.” “What Luther says of pure love,” Denifle remarks (Denifle, 1¹, p. 484), “rests merely on his misconception of Tauler.” He points out that, in his Commentary on Romans, owing to his false idea of self-love he went so far as to “explain the command ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ in quite a different sense from that hitherto taught by the Church, for ourselves we may only hate.... According to him, this command means: hate thyself that thou mayest love thy neighbour alone.” (“Oblitus tui, solum proximum diligas.”)
[617] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 59.
[618] Ibid., p. 133.
[619] Ibid., p. 139.
[620] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 133 f.
[621] Ibid., p. 137. Cp. above, p. 234, n. 4 end.
[622] Heidelberg Disputation, on thesis 24. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 363. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 401.
[623] Ibid., theses 19, 20.
[624] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 285.
[625] Cp. Luther’s appeal to Tauler: “De ista patientia Dei et sufferentia vide Taulerum,” etc. (see above, p. 232). Denifle, 1¹, p. 484, remarks: “The above statements are in part founded on Tauler, whom Luther misunderstood throughout. The two stood on different ground and had a different starting-point and a different goal.”
[626] In allusion to such doctrines, Denifle speaks (Denifle, 1¹, p. 486) of “Luther’s worse than morbid, yea, terrible theology.” The passages in Tauler which have been alleged to show that his teaching was similar to that of Luther on this point, have quite a different sense. Tauler did not recognise the undeserved reprobation which Luther presupposes; he makes the horrible misfortune of eternal reprobation, which culminates in hatred of God, a result of voluntary separation from Him in this life.
[627] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 213, 223.
[628] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 214.
[629] Ibid., p. 218.
[630] Ibid., p. 217 f.
[631] On the history of the explanation of this passage see Cornely, “Commentar. in Ep. ad Romanos,” pp. 471-4.
[632] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 218 f.
[633] The frequently quoted description is to be found in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 557 f.
[634] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 272. Cp. ibid., p. 301.
[635] Cp. above, p. 228.
[636] J. Ficker in the Preface of his edition of the Commentary, p. liv.
[637] For the sources used by Luther, see Ficker, pp. liii.-lxii.
[638] Thus Ficker, p. lxii.
[639] “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre,” p. 176.
[640] See above, p. 129. W. Friedensburg, “Fortschritte in Kenntnis der Reformationsgesch.” (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, 1910, pp. 1-59), p. 17: “It appears [from Denifle’s work] that Luther was little acquainted with the Scholastics of the Middle Ages, especially with Thomas of Aquin—which was equally the case with nearly all his contemporaries [?]—and that he drew his information from secondary sources,” etc.
[641] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 335. The reproach brought against these opponents of backbiting forms an exact parallel to Luther’s address, “Contra sanctulos,” mentioned above. Compare the allusions, p. 334, “Tædiosi sunt et nolunt esse in communione aliorum; sic hæretici, sic multi superbi.” And before: “Hi insulsi homines contra totum ordinem [he is referring to their state or position in life] insurgunt ac velut ipsi sint mundi, ut nullibi sordeant, cum tamen ante et retro et intus non nisi suum et porcorum sint forum et officina.” The anecdote which he relates (p. 243 f.) of the man who resolved “amore Dei velle nunquam mingere,” with which Luther laughs to scorn the desire of some to perform extraordinary works for God’s sake, is quite in keeping