175.
[159] Cp. on Concupiscence, in the Commentary on the Psalms, Denifle, 1², p. 441 f. and pp. 453, 476. A. Hunzinger, “Lutherstudien,” 1; “Luthers Neuplatonismus in den Psalmvorlesungen,” Leipzig, 1906, Preface: “Denifle’s ‘Luther’ is correct; Luther during the first years of his literary activity stood on Catholic ground; nor is it by any means the case that from the beginning the reforming element was contained in germ in Luther’s theology.” On the other hand, the elements which were to lead him to take the step from the obscure theology of the Commentary on the Psalms to the heretical theology of 1515-16—viz. his false mysticism and misapprehension of the Epistle to the Romans—were already present. The most suspicious passage in the Commentary on the Psalms is 4, p. 227, which points to the continuance of his doubts regarding predestination; he says that Christ had drunk of the chalice of suffering for the elect, but not for all. See the next note, especially the first quotation.
[160] Weim. ed., 4, p. 295: “Anima mea est in potestate mea et in libertate arbitrii possum eam perdere vel salvare eligendo vel reprobando legem tuam.” Concupiscence has not yet become original sin itself, but is still a mere relic of the same (3, pp. 215, 453). Köstlin, in “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 66, quotes other passages from the Commentary on the Psalms, thus, 3, p. 584: God is more ready to have mercy on us than we are to beseech Him; but He is unable to have mercy on us if our pride proves a hindrance (“quando nos nolumus ... prohibente nostra superbia”). In his marginal notes on Peter Lombard (written 1509) Luther had rightly said: “Liberum arbitrium damnatur quia ... gratiam ... oblatam et exhibitam non acceptat vel acceptam non custodit.” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 71.
[161] Weim. ed., 3, p. 546: “Desideriis ait apostolus, carnis non esse obediendum, nec regnare peccatum debere licet esse desideria et peccata in carne prohiberi non possit.... In mediis tentationibus eundum est, as the Israelites passed through the Red Sea. Sentiri et videre et experiri oportet bonitates et malitias carnis, sed non consentire.”
[162] Ibid., 3, p. 603: “Residuum præteritorum bonorum [of the original state] quod in affectu remansit syntheresico.” On the syntheresis and Luther’s early views on this subject see Köstlin, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 51 f., 125.
[163] Weim. ed., 4, p. 295, cp. above, p. 74, n. 9.
[164] Ibid., 3, pp. 89, 101, 200; 4, p. 204 f., 309.
[165] Ibid., 4, pp. 262, 309.
[166] Ibid., pp. 262, 312.
[167] Ibid., 3, pp. 52, 189, 239 f., 424, 462, 466, 603.
[168] Ibid., 4, p. 250.
[169] Ibid., 3, pp. 426, 239.
[170] Weim. ed., 3, p. 289. Cp. Ibid., 4, pp. 329, 312: “ex pacto et promissione Dei.”
[171] “Dogmengesch.,”4 (1906), p. 697 with ref. to “Werke,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 443: “sine merito redimi de peccatis,” and similar passages.
[172] “Luther und die deutsche Mystik,” p. 976, above, p. 71, n. 4.
[173] “Lutherstudien,” 1. See above, p. 74, n. 8.
[174] Hunzinger thus sums up his results in “Luther und die deutsche Mystik,” p. 975.
[175] Veit Dietrich MS. Collecta, fol. 137´ in Seidemann, “Luthers erste Psalmenvorlesung,” 1, p. vii.
[176] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 29. Ibid., “In Augustinum,” pp. 7, 23, 24, 27.
[177] “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 26 f., probably not meant seriously by Luther.
[178] “Luthers ungedruckte Predigten,” ed. G. Buchwald, 3, 1885, p. 50.
[179] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 121.
[180] Johann Mensing O.P., “Antapologie,” Frankfurt, 1533, fol. 18´. Cp. N. Paulus, “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe mit Luther,” 1903, p. 40.
[181] Cp. Evers, “Luther,” 1, p. 377.
[182] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 30 f.: “Semper prædico de Christo, gallina nostra ... et efficitur mihi errans et falsum.” He preached, namely, against those “qui ab alis [Domini] recedunt in sua propria bona opera ... et nolunt audire, quod iustitiæ eorum peccata sint. Gratiam maxime impugnant, qui eam iactant.” The expression “gallina nostra” appears also in the Commentary on the Psalms (“Werke,” Weim. ed., 3, p. 71).
[183] To Spalatin, June 8, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 40.
[184] Cp. his reproaches against members of his own Order with regard to disobedience and want of charity, which will be given shortly.
[185] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 61.
[186] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 62, Fragment.
[187] Ibid., p. 63. (Sermo contra opinionem sanctitatis et meriti.)
[188] Ibid., p. 70. (Sermo de vitiis capitalibus in merito operum et opinione sanctitatis se efferentibus.)
[189] Ibid., p. 73. Line 25 should read “in fine quia” not “in fine qui”; and line 28 “in Deo quieti” not “ac Deo quieti.” The edition elsewhere leaves much to be desired.