Luther. Grisar Hartmann
Lat. var.,” 5, p. 189.
[770] See above, p. 10.
[771] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 466: “Contritio de timore inferni et peccati turpitudine est literalis, ficta et brevi durans, quia non radicata amore, sed incussa timore tantum.”
[772] Sermon of October 31, 1516, “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p, 99.
[773] Ibid., p. 319.
[774] Ibid., p. 320.
[775] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 321: “Oratio et agnitio atque confessio impœnitentiæ tuæ, si ficta non fuerit, eo ipso faciet, ut Deus te pœnitentem verum reputet.” This quite agrees with what he had already said in a sermon in 1515 (?): “Etsi Deus imposuit nobis impossibilia et super virtutem nostram, non tamen hic ullus excusatur”; for we cover ourselves with Christ: “Christus impletionem suam nobis impertit, dum seipsum gallinam nobis exhibet.” See above, p. 80.
[776] The passage already referred to in his Commentary on Romans also comes in here, namely, where he writes that he could not understand why after contrition and confession he should not consider himself better than others who had not confessed. By this he means to convey that the common teaching that by real contrition and confession “esse omnia ablata et evacuata” led to pride, whereas according to his idea sin still remained. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, 1², p. 455, n. 4.
[777] Commentar. in Galat., ed. Irmischer, Erlangæ, 1, p. 193 seq.: “Vera pœnitentia incipit a timore et iudicio Dei.”
[778] Cp. Galley, “Die Busslehre Luthers,” 1900; Lipsius, “Luthers Lehre von der Busse,” 1902, and Köstlin’s strange attempts at explanation, “Luthers Theologie,” 1², p. 131 ff. W. Hermann, “Die Busse der evangelischen Christen,” in “Zeitschr. für Theol. und Kirche,” 1, 1891, p. 30, says: “It is true that Luther never entirely forsook the true idea on this point (Penance), which he had arrived at with so much effort. But the difficulties of Church government led him to relegate this idea to the background and to return to the narrow Roman Catholic view of the Sacrament of Penance.” And also ibid., p. 70: “With regard to the questions affecting contrition, the Reformers practically returned to the standpoint of the Roman Church.”
[779] For the manner in which contrition was taught before Luther’s time in popular works such as are here being considered, see the articles of N. Paulus in the Innsbruck “Zeitschrift für kathol. Theol.,” 28, 1904; p. 1 ff., on the German confession-books; p. 449 ff. on the German books of edification; p. 682 ff. on the German books on preparation for death. Contrition arising from fear alone is not represented as sufficient in any of the numerous confession-books at that time. Ibid., pp. 34, 449. Among the authors of works of piety there is only one, viz. the Augustinian Johann Paltz, in his “Celifodina” (Heavenly Mine), to admit that contrition from the motive of fear together with the priest’s absolution sufficed for the remission of sin; “but even he requires, in addition to an earnest turning away from sin, a certain striving after perfect contrition, or love; he looks upon imperfect contrition rather as a means of arriving at perfect contrition; he is even very anxious to lead the faithful to the higher level of perfect contrition.” Paulus, p. 485. Cp. on Paltz, p. 475-9. Of the theologians cp. more particularly Gabriel Biel, whose writings Luther had studied, in his “Collectorium circa 4 libros sententiarum,” Tubingæ, 1501, l. 4, dist. 35, q. unica, art. 1. Here he makes a distinction between “timor servilis,” which is ready to sin if there were no punishment, and “timor, qui non includit hanc deformitatem.” He admits with regard to the latter: “est tamen bonus et utilis, per quem fit paulatim consuetudo ad actus bonos de genere exercendos et malos vitandos, quo præparatur locus charitatis.” In Art. 3 he declares the latter fear to be a gift of the Holy Ghost. But—in complete contradiction to the accusation which Luther makes—he teaches that contrition merely from fear is not sufficient, and requires a contrition from love. In the same way Nicholas von Dinkelsbühl in his Tractatus (Argentinæ, 1516, fol. 71) rejects the fear which is not in any way allied with love, but considers it, together with the latter, wholesome as forming a commencement of contrition. The Dominican, Johann Herolt, whose sermons were widely disseminated, teaches in the Sermones de tempore (1418) and the Sermones super epistolas (1439 and 1444) that to avoid sin merely from the fear of punishment is sinful, but he is thinking of the so-called timor serviliter servilis, in which the voluntary attachment to sin still remains. He, as well as some others, omits to point out that, in addition to the bad servile fear, there was also a wholesome fear (N. Paulus, in his art. on Herolt, “Zeitschrift f. kathol. Theol.,” 26, 1902, p. 428 f.). The Franciscan, Stephen Brulefer, in his “Opuscula” (Parisiis, 1500, fol. 24 seq.) opposes certain theologians who had rejected servile fear as absolutely sinful; fear (which really excludes sin), he says, is a gift of the Holy Ghost, and theologians who teach otherwise are “prædicatores præsumptuosi, indiscreti et insipientes,” and they deserved to be punished as heretics. It was only Luther’s erroneous teaching which led theologians to formulate this doctrine with greater exactitude. Cp. A. W. Hunzinger, “Lutherstudien,” 2 Heft. Abt. 1: “Das Furchtproblem in der katholischen Lehre von Augustin bis Luther,” Leipzig, 1907. In this article the author wishes to furnish an introduction to Luther’s doctrine of fear, but starts with the assumption that the will to sin is an essential of the fear of punishment. On Hunzinger, see the “Hist. Jahrb.,” 28, 1907, p. 413 f.
[780] May 30, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 195.
[781] Apart from Luther, we have another example of the same kind in Gabriel Zwilling, who also left the Church, and of whom Luther says in a letter to Johann Lang at Erfurt (March 1, 1517, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 87 f.), that he was sending him to the Erfurt monastery in accordance with Staupitz’s directions, and that care was to be taken “ut conventualiter se gerat: scis enim quod necdum ritus et mores ordinis viderit aut didicerit.” Thus he had been allowed to live at Wittenberg without conforming to community rule, unless, indeed, we read the passage as implying that at the Wittenberg monastery no attention was paid to the rule by anybody.
[782] Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 69.
[783] Kolde, “Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation,” p. 262.
[784] Letter of May 30, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 199.
[785] See above, p. 95.
[786] See below, p. 323.
[787] “Deutsch-evangelische Blätter,” 32, 1907, p. 537.
[788] “Kirchengesch.,” ed. by P. Gams, 3, 1868,