tence and remission of sins needs the decision of a council, not being of private interpretation. Our Luther has tried to loose the Gordian knot with more boldness than success; yet many think that what that learned man has written is gospel truth. Imagine the rest! What Luther has written on penitence and faith I think quite salutary. For the whole purpose of our life is that it may cast off vices and grow in virtues, and we must strive always to be armed against our immortal enemy, to take up the cross, to buffet our body and thus to improve, for this is the true business of a Chris- tian. Who flees from it flees from salvation; who resists it commits suicide. For* this end nothing is more apt than penitence. Who has dared to deny that faith is most potent in the sacraments? But as it is not my profession to discuss these things, I appeal to the theologians, I mean those who love the truth.
In the aforesaid matter I follow and admire Luther, and, as much as my legal studies enable me, I am prepared to defend him on them. But there are blemishes in the Lutheran doctrines which I dislike. His proposition that we sin even when we do good, unless properly understood, is a strange assertion. For in a certain sense we can tolerate this propo- sition, considering the doer of good not in the particular good act, but in his general character, so that even a righteous man sins, being imperfect and at fault in many things.^ Thus far I understand Luther; I agree with his opinion and even embrace it, for it takes away pride, cultivates humility, ex- cites love and reverence for God, and is founded in the Holy Scripture. But I see the Theses^ of the Wittenbergers seem to understand the aforesaid proposition in a complicated sense, even of the very good act, as though he who did a good deed sinned even in doing it. I do not see how this can be so, or else I do not understand their meaning. It seems to be mere nonsense with what it implies, as I explain more fully else-
>Reading "«d" for "at." p. 220, line 6.
Thia is a complete misunderstanding of Luther's position, which was that any "natural" good act, uninspired hj God's grace, is insufficient to merit his favor, ajid thus cannot be considered above the usual level of our sinful nature. C/. Smith, oP, cit., p. 66.
- /. €., the Thtses for the Leipsic debate.
�� �
