[975] In the beginning of 1519 he gives instructions to the Faithful, intended to show them how to make a good use of Confession (“A Short Instruction how to make a Confession,” “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 57 ff; Erl. ed., 21, p. 244 ff.). Even in March, 1520, he republished this little work in an extended form, “Confitendi Ratio,” Weim. ed., 6, p. 154 seq. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 4, p. 152 seq. (cp. Köstlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 278), where he recommends confession, merely warning the penitent, “ut non fiducia confessionis vel faciendæ vel factæ nitatur, sed in solius Dei clementissimam promissionem tota fidei plenitudine confidat, certissimus videlicet, quod, qui confessuro peccata sua promisit veniam, promissionem suam fidelissime præstabit.”
[976] To Wenceslaus Link, December 11, 1518, “Briefwechsel,” 1, p. 316.
[977] Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen,” p. 75.
[978] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 44 f. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 325 seq.
[979] “Hanc qui habet, etiamsi peccet, non damnatur.”
[980] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 2, p. 146. “Opp. Lat. var.,” 2, p. 330.
[981] Ibid., p. 145 [329].
[982] F. Loofs, “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengesch.”4, p. 721 f.
[983] P. 722. We may mention casually Loofs’s well-founded criticism of Luther’s doctrine of Justification and Assurance of Salvation (p. 767 f.). Further attention will be given to this point of his teaching and to that on the Law and the Gospel in volume iv., xxviii., 3, and volume vi., xxxix., 2 and 4.
[984] “Opp. Lat. var.,” 1, p. 22 seq. This passage will be compared with a similar lengthy statement in the Commentary on Genesis (“Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74, cp. 10, p. 155), which, however, is not of equal importance with the former because the Commentary consists merely of notes made by others from Luther’s lectures, and the portion in question was not published till after Luther’s death. Cp. on the latter, O. Scheel, “Die Entwicklung Luthers,” etc. (“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgesch.,” No. 100, pp. 61-230), p. 107 f.
[985] The rest of the passage is given below, p. 391. The contents will first be made clear by quotations from parallel statements of Luther’s.
[986] Mathesius, “Table-Talk,” p. 309.
[987] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74.
[988] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 130. Exposition of Psalm li.
[989] From Khummer’s Notes in Seidemann’s edition of Lauterbach’s “Tagebuch,” p. 81.
[990] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 130.
[991] See volume vi., xxxvii.
[992] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 47, p. 39 f.
[993] Ibid., 45, p. 156.
[994] Ibid., 46, p. 73.
[995] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 7, p. 74.
[996] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 49, p. 27.
[997] Ibid., 17, p. 139 f.
[998] Ibid., 44, p. 354.
[999] Ibid., 59, p. 10.
[1000] In Galat., 1, p. 109.
[1001] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 51, p. 146.
[1002] Ibid., 31, p. 279.
[1003] “Cœpi psalterium secundo interpretari.... Eo anno (MDXIX) iam redieram ad psalterium denuo interpretandum.”
[1004] Schlaginhaufen, “Tischreden” (1531-1532), p. 108.
[1005] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 211 f.
[1006] Kroker’s edition, p. 309.
[1007] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 130.
[1008] “Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 275. Cp. 1, p. 52.
[1009] “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” 19, p. 130.
[1010] Kawerau also lays great stress on the connection between Luther’s development and his work on the Psalms. “Theol. Studien und Kritiken,” 77, 1904, p. 617. He even thinks the Psalms rather than the idea of the Iustitia Dei formed the starting-point. J. Ficker says in the Preface to his edition of the Commentary on Romans, p. lxxii, with regard to the testimony Luther gives concerning himself in his Præfatio: “He speaks of the second course [on the Psalms], but is, without doubt, thinking of the first.” And O. Scheel (see above, p. 388, n. 3), p. 112 f., etc., prefers to fix the first course on the Psalms as the time of Luther’s