1. Special thanks are due the libraries of Duke University, and particularly the courtesy of Mr. Donn Farris without whose help this article would not have been possible. Likewise, the reference department of the Appalachian State University Library was most helpful in locating materials. Dr. Hugh Lawrence Bond read the typescript and made invaluable suggestions. This article is dedicated to the memory of Carl Stamm Meyer (1907–1972). The following common abbreviations appear in this article: WA: Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar 1883ff WA Bibel: Die Deutsche Bibel. Weimar Edition. WA Br: Briefwechsel. Weimar Edition. WA TR: Tischreden. Weimar Edition. CR: Philippi Melanthonis Opera quae supersunt omnia in the Corpus Reformatorum. Halle, 1834ff. Suppl Mel: Supplementa Melanchthoniana. Werke Philipp Melanchthons die im Corpus Reformatorum vermisst werden. Leipzig, 1910ff. SA; Malanchthons Werke in Auswahl [Studienausgabe]. Edited By Robert Stupperich. Gutersloh, 1951ff. Allen: Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami. Edited by P. S. Allen, H. M. Allen, and H. W. Garrod, 12 vols. Oxford, 1906–1957. Cler: Desderii Erasmi Roterodami Opera omnia, Edited by J. Clericus. Leiden, 1703–1706. Reprinted, Hildesheim, 1962. Dolan: The Essential Erasmus. Edited by John P. Dolan. New York, 1964. BS: Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch—lutherischen Kirche. Herausgegeben imgedenkjahr der Augsburgischen Konfession 1930, Edited By Hans Lietzmann, Heinrich Nornkamm, Hans Volz, Erust Wolf. 2nd. Göttingen, 1952.

2. The first large-scale theological investigation was that by Kohls, Ernst Wilhelm, Die Theologie des Erasmus, 2 vols. (Basel: F. Reinhardt, 1966)Google Scholar, a work which, however, has little direct relationship to the problem before us. See also Bainton, Roland H., Erasmus of Christendom (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969)Google Scholar, who appends a useful bibliography, pp. 285–299, and Spitz, Lewis W., The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), Chap. 9, pp. 197ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Some valuable studies are also found in the collection of articles edited by Coppens, J., Scrinium Erasmianum, 2 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969)Google Scholar. For the older bibliography see Wolf, Gustav, Quellenkunde der deutschen Reformationsgeschichte 1 (Gotha, 1915; reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1965): 352–376.Google Scholar

3. On Erasmus and Zwingli, see Locher, G. W., “Zwingli und Erasmus”, Scrinium Erasmianum (1969) 2:325–350,Google Scholar and Rogge, Joachim, Zwingli und Erasmus, Der Friedensgedanken des jungen Zwingli (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsantalt, 1962).Google Scholar On the relation of Luther and Erasmus, see Krodel, Gottfried G., “Luther, Erasmus and Henry VIII”, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 53 (1962): 60–78.Google Scholar Heinrich Bornkamm investigated the controversy over free will in “Erasmus und Luther,” Luther-Jahrbuch 1958. Jahrbuch der Luther-Gesellschraft 25:3–22.Google Scholar On Erasmus and Melanchthon, see Maurer, Wilhelm, Der junge Melanchthon zwischen Humanismus und Reformation, 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967, 1969),Google Scholar who discussed the triangle relationship between Erasmus, Melanchthon, and Luther, in “Lex spiritualis bei Melanchthon his 1521” and “Melanchthons Anteil am Streit zwischen Luther und Erasmus”, both to be found in Melanchthon Studien. Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, Nr. 181, Jg. 70 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1964), 103ff. and 137ff.Google Scholar However, Maurer savs little about the influence of Erasmian Biblical studies upon Melanchthon before 1521.

4. Literature on the Annotations and Paraphrases includes Bludau, August, Die beidlen ersten Erasmus-Ausgaben des Neuen Testaments und ihre Gegner, Biblische Studien, Band 7, Heft. 5, ed, ed. Bardenhewer, O. (Freiburg: Herder, 1902)Google Scholar. Schlingeusienen, Hermann, “Erasmus als Exeget auf Grund seiner Schriften zu Matthäus”, Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 48 (1929): 16–57.Google ScholarPadberg, Rudolf, “Glaubenstheolegie und Glaubensverkündigung bei Erasmus von Rotterdam. Dargestellt auf der Grundlage der Paraphrase zum Römerbrief”, in Verkilndigung und Glaube. Festgabe für Franzx. Arnold (Freiburg: Herder, 1958), pp. 58–75.Google ScholarBainton, Roland H., “The Paraphrases of Erasmus”, Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 57 (1966): 67–75.Google ScholarPayne, John B., “Toward the Hermeneutics of Erasmus” Scrinium Erasmianum (1969) 2:13–49,Google Scholar and “Erasmus: Interpreter of Romans”. in Meyer, Carl S., ed., Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies (St. Louis: Foundation for Reformation Research, 1971, 2:1–35.Google ScholarAnderson, Marvin. “Erasmus the Exegete”, Concordia Theological Monthly, 42 (1969): 722–723,Google Scholar and Carl S. Meyer, “Erasmus on the Study of Scripture”, ibid. pp. 734–746. Tentler, Thomas N., “Forgiveness and Consolation in the Religious Thought of Erasmus”, Studies in the Renaissance 12 (1965): 110–133,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and C. A. L. Jarrott, “Erasmus' Biblical Humanism”, ibid. 17 (1970): 119–52. Aldridge, John William, The Hermeneutic of Erasmus, Basel Studies of Theology, no.2 (Zürieh: EVZ Verlag, 1966)Google Scholar. Rabil, Albert Jr, Erasmus and the New Testament: The Mind of a Christian Humanist (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1972)Google Scholar. Rabil's book, in spite of several methodological weaknesses noted elsewhere in this paper, brings an important addition to the literature.

5. For a presentation in English see Seebohm, Frederick, The Oxford Reformers: John Colet, Erasmus, and Thomas More. Being a History of Their Fellow-Work, 3rd ed. (London; Longmans, Green and Co., 1887), pp. 276–278, 294–305, 312–336 and 391–407.Google Scholar See Bludau, pp. 1–58, and Rabil, pp. 83–97. Meissinger, Karl August, Erasmus von Rotterdam (Berlin: Albert Nauch & Co., 1948), p. 200,Google Scholar is amazed because he thinks that Erasmus did most of the writing of this work in the five months between September 1, 1515 and January 31, 1516, an unnecessary assumption since the correspondence of Erasmus frequently mentions his having worked on his Novum Instrumentum for many years previous to its appearance. See Eckert, Willihad Paul, Erasmus von Rotterdam. Werk and Wirkung (Cologne: Wienand-Verlag, 1967), 1:223,Google Scholar who takes cote of this preparation between 1511 and 1514.

6. Erasmus, letter to Heinrich Glarean. November 1517: “Noui Testaineuti bonam par- term recognonimus et ita recognouimus vt aliud sit opus futuriim”. Allen 3:134. The revision of 1519 had 400 corrections over the first edition. See Eckert. 1: 233.

7. Maurer, W., “Lex spiritualis bei Melanchthou big 1521”, p. 103 n. 4Google Scholar, et passim. compares Erasmus in the late Clericus texts with early works of Melanchthon (see his n. 41 on p. 109). Similarly, Rahil. p. 160 and n. 12. attempts a comparison of Erasmus and Luther by using the Clericus edition together with an English translation of Luther's Lectures on Romans. Thereby he thinks to document the assertion that “Luther's discussion of the needless proliferation of holy days and the desirability of curtailing their number is doubtless directly dependent upon Erasmus' annotations …” To accomplish their purpose, both Maurer and Rabil should use Erasmus texts that were available at the given time to Melanchthon and Luther. Similarly, Mcconica's, James K. article, “Erasmus and the Grammar of Consent,” Sorinium Erasmianum (1969) 2: 77ff.Google Scholar, attempted to prove that Erasmus used the idea of magnus consensus “well before the appearance of Luther” in his gloss on Matt. 11: 28–30Google Scholar; however, MeConica failed to notice that this concept did not appear in the 1516 edition, but was first introduced into the version of 1519.

8. In 1955 I presented this distinction between reputare and imputare and noted that the young Luther employed the former but not the latter term and that, when he did speak of imputation, it was in context other than the later Melanchthonian view. See my dissertation, Die Entwicklung der evangelischen Rechtfertiqunqslehre lei Melanchthon bis 1521 im Vergleich mit der Luthers (Erlangen, 1955), pp. 86–91.Google Scholar Claiming that Luther had always taught imputation and denying the possibility that he might have taken this concept from Melanchthon, Martin Greachat attacked this position. However, Greschat's criticisms do not apply for two reasons: (1) citing “Green, pp. 111, 118, 141, etc.”, he overlooked the crucial section (pp. 86–91) in which I had proved my position on the basis of the original sources; (2) this oversight led him to reject the sources themselves. Appealing to secondary literature to refute my position, be forsook the necessary principle that history must be based upon the sources. This brought him to deny the distinction between imputation and reputation and to find imputation where it really did not occur. See Greachat, Martin, Meianchthon neben Luther. Studien zur Gestalt Jer Rechtfertigungslehre zwisehen 1528 und 1537 (Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1965), p. 71Google Scholar n. 107, et passim.

9. In his Paraphase on Rom. 4:3 Valla has treated imputare, reputare and accepto ferre as synonyms: “logisētai. Quis putet graece, hoe est in fonie esse unum uerbu [m] pro- his omnibus, reputare; imputare, & accepto for/re: quanquam nunqua[m] me legisse memini accepto fer/re, sed acceptum ferre: unde acceptilatio: sed alia illa est significatio.” Laurestius Valla Opera omnia. Con una premessa di Eugenio Garin. Tomus prior scripta in editione Basilensi anna MDXL collecta (Turin: Bottega d'Erasmo, 1962), 1:856.Google Scholar Erasmus was rather tolerant when in his Annotation on the same passage the following comment appeared in all editions: “Nec injuria Valla taxat hoc loco puerilem affectationern eopiae in Interprete, dum idem verbum Graecum, eodem in loco, mine vertit reputatur, nunc accepto fert, nune imputatur, quasi nefas esset eamdem vocem saepius repeti”. Cler. 6: 578C.

10. See Ioannis Coleti Enarratio in Epistolain S. Pauli ad Romanos. An Exposition of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Delivered as Lectures in the University of Oxford about the Year 1497, bilingual volume edited by J. H. Lupton, 1873 (reprint, Ridgewood, N. J.: The Gregg Press, 1965).Google Scholar This exposition greatly impressed Erasmus as an auditor, for Colet abandoned the medieval practice of dictating glosses on the Vulgate text; he did not divide his commentary into glosses and scholia, as even the early Luther was to do. Through Erasmus, Colet was to influence the future reformers. However, I cannot find Erasmus' “grammar of justification” in Colet. A useful research tool is Meyer, Carl S., “A John Colet Bibliography”, Bulletin of the Library, Foundation for Reformation Research, St. Louis, 5 (09 1970): 23–27.Google Scholar

11. The only applicable work of Faber that I could obtain was his Commentary on Romans (1517); here the advances in the doctrine of faith, grace and imputation made by Erasmus are missing. On the later Faber see Heller, Henry, “The Evangelicism of Lefèvre d'Etaples: 1525”, Studies in the Renaissance 19 (1972): 42–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the one hand, Faber saw faith as fiducia in 1522 (p. 57); on the other hand, grace was “a spiritual fluid infused into man” which led to “purification, illumination, perfection—which signified growing receptivity to grace” (p. 58). Heller writes that Faber was far removed from the Wittenberg theology of grace and sin, law and gospel (p. 64).

12. Pauck gave an inexact translation of the comment on Rom. 4: 6: “His faith is reckoned for righteousness even as David terms … the blessedness of a man … unto whom God imputes righteousness without works”. Not imputare but reputare stood in Luther's actual words: “Reputatur fides eius ad lustitiam, Sicut et Dauid dicit … Beatitudinem hominis …, cui Deus reputat Institiam sine operibus”. (Emphasis mine.) WA 56: 267ff. Pauck was reading a later doctrine of justification into the Romans lectures of the young Luther, a common cause of confusion. See Wilhelm, Pauck, ed., Luther: Lectures on Romans, Vol. 15 of Th-e Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), p. 123.Google Scholar “Passive righteousness did not occur in Luther in its Protestant dimension before 1518.

13. The Vulgate, translated Rom. 4:3 thus: “Quid enim dicit Scriptura! Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad institiam’”. Erasmus 1516: “Quid enim scriptura dicit¶ Credidit autem Abraham deo, & imputatum est ei ad insticiam”. Rom. 4:5 in the Vulgate: “ei vero qui non operatur, eredenti antem in eum qui iustificat impium reputatur fides eius ad iustitiam secundmu propositium gratiae Dei”. Erasmus: “Porro ei qui non operatur, credit autem in eum qui iustificat impium, imputatur fides sua ad iusticiam.” Erasmus' intention is clear.

14. See also the following examples. From the Ratio of 1518: “Quid est: in domino gloriari! Nimiruin, quidquid recte fit a nobis, gratuitae Christi beneficentiae ascribere” (AS 3:284). ‘Vides, ut ubique gratiam et donationem vacat nostram iustitiam. Quid autem adiecit¶ Per unum Iesum Christum” ibid., 286. “Quin etiam ex Habacuc testimonio adeo institiae summam fidei refert acceptam, ut quod Abraham vir tantus dee placuerit, non alii rei quam fidei velit imputare. Atque bane sententiam Geneseos testirnonio confirmat: Credidit Abraham deo, et imputatum est illi ad institiam” (ibid., pp. 308- 310). Paraphrase of Rom. 4:3: “credidit Abraham Deo, & ea credulitas imputata est illi ad justititiam’ (Cler. 7:788B). Paraphrase of Rom. 4: ‘et illis ad iustitiam’ priusquam circumcidi jussus esset, fidei commendatione justus est pronuntiatus” (ibid., 489D).

15. See Tappert, Theodore G., Kooiman, Wilem J. and Green, Lowell C., The Mature Luther (Decorali, Iowa: Luther College Press, 1959), pp. 113–129Google Scholar, for a fuller treatment.

16. “Illud adijciam, hoc loco fidem non usurpari proprie pro ea, qua credimus credenda, sed qua speramus, hoe est ipsa fiducia.” Novum Instrumentum omne, 1516, 2: 595.Google Scholar

17. “Apud eundem euaugelistam capite decimo quarto discipulis expavefactis ac vociferantibus prae timore: Habete, inquit, fiduciam, ego sum, nolite timere. Ac mox Petrus fide fultus ad exemplum praeceptoris ambulat super aquas. Idem haesitans pessum it et audit: O parum fidens, quare dubitabas¶ Ac proximo capite, veluti coactus per Chananaeae fiduciam, ut cui nollet praestaret hoe beneficii, exclamat: mulier, O, magna est fides tua, fiat tibi sicut vis”. Ratio, in AS 3:296–298.Google Scholar

18. “Justitia, inquam, non legalis, sed Dei, idque non per circumcisionem aut Judaicas ceremonias, sed per fidem ac fiduciam erga Jesum Christum per quem unum vera justitia confertur”. (1522) Cler. 7:786E. Compare the later Annotations: “nam fidem frequenter usurpat pro fiducia erga Deum, ut non multum differat a spe”. Cler 6: 562F.

19. “At deum immortalem quam non spem de se praebet, admodum etiam adolescens, ac pene puer, Philippus ille Melanchthon utraque literatura pene ex aeque suspiciendus¶ Quod inuentionis acumen¶ quae sermonis puritas¶ quanta reconditarum rerum memoria! quam unria lectio! quam uerecunda regiacque prorsus indolis festiuitas¶” Novum Instrumentum omne (Basel: Froben, 1516), 2:555.Google Scholar This edition was placed at my disposal by courtesy of Duke University Library.

20. Given in Suppl Mel 6, 1: pp. 20ff.Google Scholar Compare Allen 2:319. Other instances where Melanchthon recommended Erasmus: SA 1:6. 16. 17. SA 4: 181. See CR 1: 71–73 (=WA 5: 24ff.). On his admiration for Erasmus, see especially the works by Maurer, n. 3.

21. Erasmus wrote from Louvain in 1517: “De Melanchthone et sentio praeclare et spero maguifice, tantum vt eum iuuenem nobis Christus thu velit esse superstitem. Is prorsus obscurabit Erasmum”. Allen 3:18. Many historians claim that the Protestant reformation destroyed the humanist movement, but I do not agree. Humanism reached its peak of influence in the extensive system of classical schools of Germany and Scandinavia which grew out of Melanchthon's plan.

22. So early as the Loci of 1521 Melanchthon had insisted that no works, whether preceding or following justification, were the merit upon which justification was based (SA 2, 1:108), thereby separating justification from the works of faith which inevitably followed it. In the Apologia to the Augsburg Confession (1531) he stressed a different aspect of justification, not sufficiently recognized by modern scholars, that of making or effecting a righteous out of an unrighteous person: “Et quia iustificari significat ex iniustis iustos effici seu regenerari, significat et iustos pronuntiari seu reputari”. Apology § 72 (BS 174). Compare parallels: Apology § 48 (BS 175), §117 (BS 184), §252 (209), §293 (218) and 304–308 (219).

23. For details of the lengthy debate see my article, “Formgeschichtliehe und inhaitliche Probleme in den Werken des jungen Melanchthon: Ein neuer Zugang zu scinen Bibelarbeiten und Disputationsthesen”, Zeitschrift für Kirchegesehichte 84 (1973): 30–48.Google Scholar

24. Philipp Melanchthon, De rhetorica libri tres. Argentorati Anno M. D. XXIII. I used this reprint of the first edition, thanks to the Rare Book Room of St. Louis University. Otto Beuttenmüller seems to have overlooked this edition in his valuable Vorläufiges Verzeichnis der Melanchthon-Drucke des 16, Jahrhunderts (Halle: Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, 1960).Google Scholar

25. “Iustum eniin dicimus, non quod intelligat, sed quam uelit agatque iusta, est igitur appetitius.” sig. B. lv.

26. “Docemus dupliciter, aut simplex thema, ut cum do iustitia lege, fide peccato dicimus. aut complexum thema, ut: Omnia hominum opera, peccata sunt. Liberum arbitrium sua §natura in bonum ferri, est impoβibile. Lex non justificat, gratia justificat.” sig. G.3-G 3v.

27. Thus his early Rhetoric: “Sic Paulus ad Rhomanos apte interpellat ipso sese, cum dixiet: ubi abundauit deictum, superabundauit & gratia, statim subijcit: Quid igitur dicemus! Manebimus in peccato¶ Vide igitur quomodo dispositionem adiuuet, & caput sit alijs figuris, ut hoc apud Paulum loco, praesumptioni. Subiectio qua respondemus ipsi nobis, ut eodem loco Paulus respondet obiection: manebimus in peccato ¶ dicens Absit &c. hanc opinor ratiocinationem Cicero dixit”. sig. H 5. For about a decade, Melanchthon held the notion that Paul had built his epistles around antique rhetoric which was hence the key to understanding Paul. Texts where Melauehthon used rhetoric to interpret Paul were recently published in Texte aus der Anfangszeit Melanchthons, ed. Ernst Bizer (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag des Erziehungsvereins, 1966), pp. 10–85.Google Scholar This approach should not be attributed to the influence of either Erasmus or Luther.

28. The evidence in favor of the authenticity of the Baccalaureate Theses is discussed in my paper mentioned in n. 23.

29. A copy of the Greek New Testament in Melanchthon's autograph is in the second part of Codex Aa3, 4 in the library of the Christaneum, pp. 51–143 (modern enumeration), where our notation is on page 71. He reproduced the text of Erasmus. Compare the description in Plitt, G. L. and Kolde, Theodor, Die Loci communes Philipp Melanchthons in ihrer Urgestalt, 3d. ed. (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1900), pp. 40–42.Google Scholar

30. PAVLI APOSTOLI AD ROMANOS EPISTOLA, published at Wittenberg in 1521 (or 1520¶), sig. Aa viii ff. This and many similar statements are tabulated on p. 48 of my article cited in note 23.

31. I refer to the following edition: Annotationes Philippi Melanchthonis in Epistolas Pauli Ad Rhomanos Et Corinthios. Colophon: Impraessum Norimbergae per Iohannem Stuchs 10 Kal: Nouembris Anno [15] 22 u. FINIS LAVS DEO. See the following comments. On Rom. 1:17: “Nam cum nit lustitia dei significat, institiam donari seu Imputari a deo”. sig. Bv. On Rom. 4:4: “Paulus gratuita dei imputationi nos iustificari contendit … Si esset operum respectus, non esset gratuita imputatio, Deinde addidit statim contrarium, credenti fit imputatio, sine operum respectu, ideoque gratuita. Et his sententiis refelluntur palam, qui vindicant humana merita, Paul[us] ait fidem sine operibus imputari, certo vult gratuitam esse imputationem”, sig. C. iiij^v-D. The terrible Latin in which the student's copybook was published might explain why Melanchthon was angry with Luther for having published it behind his back, and why he always denied it as his own work. See his disavowal: “Nam ante aliquot annos edita est silvula quaedam commentariorum in Romanos et Corinthios meo nomine, quam ego plane non agnosco”, SA 5:26.

32. If the Annotations on Romans (n. 31) be accepted as authentic and dated ca. 1519, the following comment would be prior to that in the Rerum theoiogicarum capita: “Est ergo Christus, ceu pignus diuinae promissionis, per quam & gratia, hoc est fauor dei, & spiritu sanctus [sic!] promissus est, qui corda innouet, & legeni faeiat …” Op. cit., sig. B ii.

33. Many Luther scholars fail to see that the expression iustitia Dei had a different content in 1515 from what it should have in 1520 or later. Typical is Müller's, Gerhard rejection of the thesis of Albrecht Peters, Der Weg zur Reforrnation (Munich, 1965),Google Scholar with this comment: “[Seine] Interpretation … hat Bestechendes an sich. Doch gibt sic keine Antwort auf die Frage, wieso Luther sehon in der Römerbriefvorlesung zu Kapitel 1, 17 die Justitia Del als diejenige interpretieren kann, ‘dureh die wir von ibm gereschfertigt werden’. Luther verweist im Anschluβ daran auf Augustina ‘De spiritu et littera’ (WA 56:172, 4–7), wo er ja seinem Selbstzeugnis auffolge seine theologisehe Neuentdockung von der passiven Gerechtigkeit bestatigt gefunden haben will.” Müller, , “Neuere Literatur zur Theologie des jungen Luther,” Kerygma und Dogma vl (1965): 338.Google Scholar Miller has asked the wrong question. Nearly every Christian scholar since Augustine and Pelagius knew that God's righteousness in some form justifies the sinner. The righteousness of God in the Romans Lectures is Augustinian and pre-reformational; it is “analytic”. Luther had to overcome the position which Müller cites from WA. 56: 172 before he could reach his “mature” doctrine of justification, sometimes called ‘synthetic.”

34. For documentation see my article, “Faith, Righteousness, and Justification: New Light on Their Development under Luther and Melanchthon,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 4 (1973): 65–86.Google Scholar

35. Bludau, pp. 52–56, a Roman Catholic scholar, felt the same way as Luther in this respect. Other statements of Luther which were unfavorable to Erasmus are summarized in Ficker, Johannes, Luther als Professor (Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1928), pp. 7and 30.Google Scholar

36. WA 1:525. See Vogelsang, Erich. Die Bedeutung der neuveroffentlichlen Hebräer brief—Vorlesung Luthers υon 1517/18. Ein Beitrag zur Frage: Humanismus und Reformation (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1930), pp. 11 and 24, N. 25.27.Google Scholar

37. Variations in the second edition of the Short Galatians Commentary (1523) are indicated in the critical apparatus tinder the 1519 text. From the following list of references to Erasmus in 1519, only the sixth was retained in 1523: WA 2:⁴⁵²³-4.5, ⁴⁶⁰8, ⁴⁶³7–11, ⁴⁷⁶38f., ⁴⁸²8–10, ⁴⁸⁴17–24, ⁵⁰²20–22, ⁵⁰⁶28–33, ⁵⁰⁸22–24. In his introduction to the published notes of Luther's Lectures on Galatians (1516f.), Meissinger suggested that Melanehthon edited the Commentary of 1519, and indicated a number of Melanchthonisms. WA 57, 2:xi-xviii.

38. The joyous exchange between the sinner and Christ figures prominently in the Operationes in Psalmos, WA 5, in the Treatise on Christian Liberty, and in the polemic against Latomus, WA 8, among others. See Maurer, Wilhelm, Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen. Zwei Untersuchungen zu Luthers Reformationsschriften 152O/21 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1949) esp. pp. 36ff.,Google Scholar and “Die Einheit der Theologie Luthers”, Theologisehe Literaturzeitung, Vol. 75 (1950), Sp. 245–252,Google Scholar reprinted in Kirche und Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Göttingen: Vandenloeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 1: 11–21.Google Scholar

39. This idea is developed in the Treatise on Good Works and the Large Catechism: God demands your faith, faith satisfies this requirement. In the Operationes in Psalmos: “hoc erit opus, cultus dei, si audias seu credas, idest fides est vere latria et primi mandati primum opus”. WA 5:394. See Althaus, Paul, “Gottes Gottheit als Sinn der Rechtfertigungslehre Luthers,” Luther Jahr-Buch, 1931, pp. 1–28,Google Scholar reprinted in Althaus, Paul, Luther und die Rechtfertigung (Darmstadt: Wissensehaftliche Buehgesellschaft, 1971), pp. 9–31.Google Scholar

40. Perhaps Luther was speaking against this Paraphase on Rom. 4:4: “For to be imputed, or rendered acceptable, is, properly speaking, not that the debt has been paid off in fact, but that notwithstanding one has been released out of imputed benignity.” (Cler. 7:788C). See also WA 40 1:372.

41. See the “Raphsodia sen Coneepta in Librum de loco Iustificationis” (1530), WA 30 2:657–673. Since Luther did not leave a treatise on justification, one is tempted to treat this work as such, but actually it is from the hand of Veit Dietrich. The lack of specifically Melanchthonian ideas in the work might be used to justify its authenticity, however.

42. This is true of the Large Commentary on Galatians (1531ff.). In the preface Luther acknowledged the work as his own (WA 40 1:33), but in his own summary of his position not one word of imputative justification appeared (pp. 34–36), although the concept was prominent in the Commentary itself. George Rörer, the most dependable amanuensis of Luther, prepared the text for publication. See the article on Rörer by Georg Müller in Realencykiopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirohe (1913), 24: 426–432,Google Scholar with bibliography.

43. Martin Greschat cited the “Raphsodia” (compare a. 41) without reference to the textual problems, and claimed to find imputative justification there; as a matter of fact, imputatio was not used in “Rhapsodia.” The historian is also alienated by Greschat's transmutation of Luther's words into a Word-theology which sounds more Barthian than Lutherian. See “das Wortgeschehen”, p. 68; “das neue Sein”, “neue Seinsordnung”, “die Realität glaubender ‘Wortförmigkeit,’” p. 69; “eine neue Existenz”, p. 70; and “jenes existentidllen Geschehens”, p. 72. These are twentieth- century ideas, not Luther's.

44. The Wittenberg Latin Bible of 1529 presents many problems to the critical historian. See Hans Volz, WA Bibel 8 (1954), pp. xlviii-liv, and WA Bibel 10 2 (1957): 158–163 et passim. Compare Köstlin, Julius and Kawerau, Gustav, Martin Luther: Sein Leben und seine Sehriften (Berlin: Alexander Duneker, 1903), 2:157ff.Google Scholar

45. The Preface on Romans in German is WA Bibel 7, pp. 2–26 (even-numbered pages): Jonas' Latin translation is in WA Bibel 5, pp. 619–632.

46. Volz (ibid., 10, 2:159: n. 6) challenged Edwin Nestle's statement (ibid., 5: xxii) that Luther listed the Latin Bible among his own works in 1533 (WA 38:133). Nevertheless, Volz agreed that Luther's authorship is documented in a letter by Lotther (WA Br 3:82f.) as well as a letter by Luther himself (ibid., p. 612).

47. An essential agreement in diversity between Luther and Melanchthon was affirmed by Elert, Werner, Morphologie des Luthertums, Vol. 1: The Structure of Luthertums, tranlated by Hansen, Walter A. (St. Louis: Coneordia, 1963),Google Scholar and by Martin Greschat. I, too, find such an essential unity in both reformers.

48. In the Lectures on Romans, faith justifies God passively (“Et lustificatio illa Dei passiua, qua a nobis Instificatur”), enabling God to justify the believer actively in turn (“Est ipsa Iustificatio nostri actiue a Deo”), WA 56:22g. From a sermon of 1525: “The Publican lets God be God. He keeps his place as a man, as he has been born, and gives to God the tribute that He is kind … This is genuine faith, through which God is repaid … and he fulfills all the commandments …” WA. 17 1:404.

49. See McConika, J. C., “Erasmus and the Grammar of Consent”, Scrinium Eramianum (1969) 2:79–83, 85ff, 95–97.Google Scholar