The passage in Hebrews xi. 1, which was of the greatest importance for his views (“_Est fides sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium_”), he interprets in a false sense, whereas St. Thomas takes it correctly. He takes “_substantia_,” etc. (ἑλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις πραγμάτων) as “_possessio et facultas futurarum rerum_,” and the word “_argumentum_” (ἔλεγχος) as “_signum_.”[653] It was only in 1519 that he learnt from Melanchthon that this interpretation could not be made to agree with the Greek text. Even when making known his mistake he gives a side hit at the _Sententiarii_, i.e. the Scholastics. And yet he would have found the correct interpretation in St. Thomas’s “_Summa Theologica_,” and also in his Commentary on Romans, viz. that “_substantia_” here means foundation, or first beginning (“_fides est prima pars iustitiæ_”), while “_argumentum_” has the sense of firm assent, i.e. to the truth that “is not seen.”[654] To sum up briefly here some of the fundamental theological confusions of which the author of the Commentary on Romans is guilty, either from carelessness or in the excitement of controversy, we may mention that he confuses freedom with willingness or joyousness, the works of the Mosaic law with the works of natural or Christian morality, true humility with self-annihilation and despair, confidence with presumption; to him true contrition is grief sensibly manifested, all charity other than perfect is mere perverse self-seeking, and holy fear of the Divine judgment and penalties is a slavish, selfish service.