[265] Besides the former passage, see for “congrue se disponere,” Weim. ed., 4, p. 329. Though Luther emphasises at the same time the gratis esse of grace, yet Loofs (“Dogmengesch.,” 4, p. 700) is not altogether wrong, having regard for Luther’s nominalistic views, in saying: “we must at least consider his opinion at that time as crypto-semi-Pelagian.” He is rightly indignant with Köstlin (“Luthers Theologie,”² p. 67 f.) for having “attempted to conform these passages with Luther’s later views.”
[266] Fol. 100. Denifle, 1¹, p. 414, n. 5; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 38: “per sui præparationem ad eandem, quantum in se est.”
[267] Fol. 100. Denifle, 1¹, p. 414, n. 4; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 37.
[268] Fol. 212. Denifle-Weiss, 1, p. 508, n. 2; “Schol. Rom.,” p. 212: “habita autem gratia, (arbitrium) proprie factum est liberum, saltem respectu salutis.”
[269] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 9, p. 103; Loofs, p. 708.
[270] Cp. “Schol. Rom.,” p. 107.
[271] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 48, p. 388.
[272] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 15, p. 53 f.
[273] Ibid., 27, p. 180 f.; Weim. ed., 7, p. 24, Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen, 1520.
[274] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 1, p. 374. See below, chapter viii. 3.