[735] “Ceterum clementia et mansuetudo mea erga peccatores et impios, quantumvis insanos et iniquos, arbitror, non modo teste mea conscientia, sed et multorum experientia, satis testata sit. Sic hactenus stilum cohibui, utcunque pungeres me, cohibiturum etiam scripsi in literis ad amicos, quæ tibi quoque lectæ sunt, donec palam prodires. Nam utcunque non nobiscum sapias et pleraque pietatis capita vel impie vel simulanter damnes aut suspendas, pertinaciam tamen tibi tribuere non possum neque volo” (p. 320 f.). Cp. Erasmus to Melanchthon, September 6, 1524, “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 672.
[736] Mathesius, “Tischreden” (Kroker), p. 404, said in 1537, March 21-28.
[737] In the Leyden edition (Lugd. Batav.), 9, col. 1215-48. In German in Walch’s edition of Luther’s Works, 18, p. 1962 seq. New critical edition with introduction by Joh. v. Walter in the “Quellenschriften zur Gesch. des Protestantismus,” No. 8, Leipzig, 1910.
[738] “Epp.,” ed. Riegger, cp. 45. Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 47.
[739] Döllinger, “Die Reformation,” 1, p. 7.
[740] On September 30, 1524. “Corp. ref.,” 1, p. 675. Cp. Enders, 5, p. 46.
[741] Enders, 5, p. 47.
[742] In the Introduction to the work, “De servo arbitrio,” Weim. ed., 18, p. 614; “Opp. Lat. var.,” 7, p. 131 seq., we read: “An voluntas aliquid vel nihil agat in iis quæ pertinent ad salutem ... hic est cardo nostræ disputationis, hic versatur status causæ huius. Nam hoc agimus,” etc. “Hoc problema esse partem alteram totius summæ christianarum rerum,” etc. “Altera pars summæ christianæ est nosse, an Deus contingentur aliquid præsciat, et an omnia faciamus necessitate.”
[743] At the close of the work mentioned in the previous note, p. 786 = 367: “Unus tu et solus cardinem rerum vidisti et ipsum iugulum petisti.”
[744] A. Taube, “Luthers Lehre über die Freiheit ... bis zum Jahre 1525,” Göttingen, 1901, p. 46. It is true that the author declares on the same page: “Because and in so far as Luther was moved to his denial by his refusal to admit of merit and by his doctrine of the assurance of salvation, every evangelical theologian will agree with him; the admission of a system of salary between God and man is the death of evangelical piety; but belief in free-will does not necessarily lead to this.” Free-will, he declares, is, on the contrary, quite compatible with the “sola fides.” On p. 45 he had said: “Luther’s theology ends in contradictions which can only be obviated by the assumption of free-will and by a positive recognition of the powers of the natural man.”