Dei velle nunquam mingere,” with which Luther laughs to scorn the desire of some to perform extraordinary works for God’s sake, is quite in keeping with this language.
[642] Ibid., p. 208.
[643] Ibid., p. 101. This kind of language which he indulges in at a later date agrees with his character. “His personality presents hundreds of enigmas”; says A. Hausrath in his biography of Luther, 1, p. vii., “of all great men Luther was the most paradoxical.”
[644] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 187. Cp. p. 321.
[645] Sess. 6, c. 7. Cp. c. 16: “Quæ enim,” etc. In can. 11 of this session “inherent” charity is again mentioned, and in can. 10 the righteousness by which we are “formaliter iusti.” Cp. Luther’s bitter attack on the expression “fides formata caritate” (see above, p. 209).
[646] Sess. 7, can. 8, 9.
[647] “Educative” grace which imparts “strength” is probably what we call actual grace, not sanctifying grace. Luther makes no distinction either as regards the term or the matter. His determinism, with its “servum arbitrium,” left no room for actual grace to perform any real work; this he admits more plainly of the time preceding justification than of that which follows it. Cp. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 206: “Ad primam gratiam sicut et ad gloriam semper nos habemus passive sicut mulier ad conceptum,” etc. It is here he introduces his “mystical” recommendation, viz. to suffer God’s strong grace, and without any act of reason or will “in tenebras ac velut in perditionem et annihilationem ire,” however hard that may be. Here we find nothing about any “educative and moulding energy.”
[648] “Schol. Rom.,” pp. 170-6.
[649] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 178.
[650] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1¹, p.515 f.
[651] Ibid., p. 517, n. 3.
[652] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 175 f.
[653] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 234 f., 277.
[654] Cp. Denifle, 1, p. 518 f.
[655] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 303.
[656] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1, p. 673.
[657] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 241.
[658] Ibid., p. 242.
[659] Ibid., p. 245.
[660] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 86 f.
[661] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 87 f.
[662] Ibid., p. 89.
[663] Ibid., p. 92.
[664] Ibid., p. 93.
[665] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 94.
[666] Ibid., p. 95.
[667] Ibid., p. 96.
[668] Ibid., p. 97.
[669] Ibid., p. 323 f. Cp. above, p. 218 f.
[670] Ibid., p. 86: “Igitur iustificatio requirit non opera legis, sed vivam fidem, quæ sua operetur opera.” Cp. above, p. 214, n. 6, where he speaks of the “præparatio” for justification by the fulfilling of the law.
[671] Ibid., p. 85. It is possible that, without making any distinction, he here passes on to the activity of the righteous. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², pp. 466, 467, on Luther’s want of clearness regarding justifying faith.
[672] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 321.
[673] Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 34.
[674] See above, p. 249, n. 1, and p. 204.
[675] “Luther und Luthertum,” 1², p. 447 f., 466 f.
[676] Cp. Braun, “Concupiscenz,” p. 74 f., who sees in such passages the trace of “Augustinian-Bernardine piety,” which formed “the inner link between Luther and (the mystic) Staupitz.”
[677] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 486.
[678] “Schol. Rom.,” p. 243.
[679] Thes., 81 seq., 90. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 291 seq. Weim. ed., 1, pp. 625, 627.
[680] Regarding this MS. see Ficker’s Introduction to the Commentary on Romans, p. xxix. f.
[681] May 29, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 37 f.
[682] August 30, 1516, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 49.