YALE DIVINITY SCHOOL LIBRARY THE LIBRARY OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND INNER HARMONY. Dr. JULIUS KdSTLIN, PROFESSOR AND CONSISTORIALRATH AT HALLE. TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND GERMAN EDITION BY Rev. CHARLES E. HAY, A. M. COMPLETE IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL,. II. PHILADELPHIA: LUTHERAN PUBLICATION SOCIETY. Yale Divinity Library New Haven Conn. Copyright, 1897, by the LUTHERAN PUBLICATION SOCIETY. TABLE OF CONTENTS. BOOK III. (Continued). PRINCIPAL POINTS IN WHICH AN ADVANCE IS MANIFEST IN THE DOCTRINE OF LUTHER AFTER HIS RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG: DEVELOPED IN OPPOSITION TO TENDENCIES WHICH APPEARED UPON THE TERRITORY OF THE REFORMATION ITSELF. CHAPTER II. (Chapter I. of Book III. will be found in Volume I.) Opposition to the Falsely Evangelical Spirit. PAGE Introductory 19 Section 1. Doctrines and Demands Opposed by Luther before his Con troversy with Zwingli. I. Their Nature and Inner Mutual Relations. Outbreak at Wittenberg — Carlstadt — Munzer 21 Priestly Vestments — Reception of Elements by Hand or Mouth — Communion without Confession — Opposition to Fasts, Pictures, etc 21 Zwickau Prophets — Inward Illumination — Opposition to Infant Baptism — Violence — Destruction of Wicked Men 22 Law of Moses Valid in Secular Relations 23 Carlstadt's Views upon Infant Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Lay Activity 24 Connection with Medieval Mysticism — Grounds of Morality — i Relation of Man and God — The Historic Christ Depreciated . 24 Result seen in Unbridled License or Fanatical Legality 28 II. The Teaching of Luther in Opposition. I. The Fundamental Doctrine of Salvation — Law and Gospel — Positive Faith 28 2. Opposition to False Externality and Defence of the Divinely Appointed External Means of Grace and of External Order in the Church 33 (iii) IV TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE A. — Opposition to False Externality and Legality. The Christian Free from Ordinances 33 Mosaic Law Not Binding 34 Natural Laws Permanent 3^ Mosaic Law as Model for Legislators 37 Observance of the Sabbath 38 Usury — Year of Jubilee — Punishment of Theft 40 B. — Defence of the Objectivity of the True Means of Gtace and of a Proper Ecclesiastical Order. No Change of Principles, but Application in a New Direction . 41 a. — The Means of Grace in General — Particularly, the Word. God Speaks to Us only through External Means 43 b. — Infant Baptism, and Baptism in General. Stress upon Faith of Parents or Sponsors 45 Doctrine of Infant Baptism Endorsed by the Whole Church . 45 Children may have Faith 47 Divine Authority for Infant Baptism 52 Objective Validity apart from Faith of Recipient 54 Anabaptism a New Phase of Self- Righteousness 55 Divergences of Zwingli and Bucer 56 c. — The Lord's Supper. aa. — Opposition lo the Denial of the Bodily Presence before the Announcement of Carlstadfs Theory. Views of Bohemian Brethren — Not Clear, but Acknowledg ing a "Divine Gift" 58 Zwingli's View Anticipated by Honius 62 Positive Attitude of Luther 62 Treatise upon Adoration of the Sacrament 63 Natural Sense of Words vs. "Signifcat" 64 Not a Mere Sign of Incorporation into Spiritual Body of Christ, but Christ's Natural Body Imparted to All Communicants 65 Association of Body and Bread 68 The Word of Chief Importance 70 bb. — Defence of the Bodily Presence against Carlstadt. Carlstadt's "Remembrance" a Form of Work-Righteous ness 72 " Iovto " refers to the Bread ; " Given," to the Distribution. 72 _ ^_— The Simple Word vs. Reason 74 Forgiveness of Sins, Purchased on the Cross, here Bestowed. 75 Objections drawn fram Matt. xxiv. 23 and John vi. 63 . . 77 Relation of Presence in Sacrament to that in Heaven . . 78 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS. V PAGE Synecdoche 80 Prime Significance of the Word 81 Relation of Two Natures in Christ 82 d. — Support of Ecclesiastical Order, especially of a Regular Call to the Ministry, against Carlstadt and Other Fanatics. Stimulating Influence of the Doctrine of the Universal Priesthood 84 Abuse by Zwickau Prophets 85 Call to the Ministry 85 Limitations of Lay Activity 86 Intrusions of Anabaptists Condemned 92 Violent Resistance of Legal Authorities not Justified .... 97 Section 2. Opposition to Theories of the Lord's Supper Advanced by Zwingli and GLcolampadius. Introductory — Relation of Zwinglian Views to those of the Fanatics . 98 I. First Public Criticisms of the Views of Zwingli and QZcolam- padius. Suspicious Circumstances Noted by Luther 100 Letter to the Strassburgers. " Signifies." — Discussion Inevitable 101 .The Swabian Syngramma. A " Gift" Bestowed in Sacrament 102 The Wojd_ Brings the Body to the Bread for the Believing Communicant 102 A Real vs. Ideal Participation 106 ' Presence of Body in Heaven and in Sacrament 107 Relation to the Communion of Saints 107 Luther's Attitude toward the Document 108 2. Further Controversial Writings Preceding the Conciliatory Ne gotiations with Bucer. «. Dissertation : " Of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, against the Fanatical Spirits." Object to be Grasped by Faith in the Sacrament I09 Reply to Objections. Presence of Body Incongruous (Doctrine of Person of Christ Involved) HO Presence of Body Unnecessary 112 VI TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Benefits of Sacrament. Forgiveness of Sins and Salvation 112 Attestation of the Promise to the Individual 113 Memorial of Christ's Death 1 14 Promotive of Love among Believers 1 14 b. Tract entitled : " That these Words of Christ, ' This is my body,' etc., still Stand Secure against the Fanatical Spirits>" Reply to First Objection, i. c, That it is a Contradiction to say that the Body of Christ is in Heaven and also in the Sacra ment — (5 The Right Hand of God is Everywhere 116 q Christ can More Easily be in the Bread than in All Other Created Things 119 q Yet We can Apprehend Him only When He Reveals Himself 120 Reply to Second Objection, i. e., That the Flesh Profiteth Noth ing. — John vi. 63 — There is in John vi. 63 no Reference to the Body of Christ. 121 Spiritual should be Combined with Bodily Eating .... 121 Benefits of Bodily Participation. ^___TJie_Word_of_ Promise Appropriated 1 24 The Body of Christ is Spiritual Flesh and may be Par taken of Bodily or Spiritually 125 It Brings to the Soul, Righteousness ; to the Body, Im mortality 125 The Mouth Eats for the Heart 127 The Heart Eats for the Mouth. Why then is Oral Re ception Necessary ? 127 Appeal to Patristic Testimony 1 29 Body and Blood not Present in Sacramentarian Celebrations of the Supper 129 <.. The Large Confession of A. D. 1528 upon the Lord's Supper. Figurative Interpretation Condemned. f Is ".Nowhere in Scripture Means "Signifies" 131 Bread as a Figure would be Unnecessary, Profitless and In appropriate 133 Breaking of Bread refers to Distribution 133 Doctrine of the Person of Christ — Refutation of Zwingli's Allceosis 134 Christ's Presence in Heaven Involves His Presence Else where 135 Three Modes of Presence — Local, Definitive, Repletive . 137 Christ's Body not an "Alteram Infinitum" 140 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Vll PAGE Christ's Body may be Present in Supper Definitively, even though Special Location in Heaven be Granted .... 143 Demands of Identical Predication met by Sacramental Unity of Body and Bread. — Synecdoche 145 Sacrament a Sign, not of Body, but of the Unity of Believers. 148 Blessing of Sacrament is Forgiveness of Sins Embraced in Word of Promise 149 d. Luther at Marburg — The Schwabach Articles. Error in One Doctrine makes All Unclean 151 Old Arguments Met 152 Unexpected Harmony Except in Doctrine of the Lord's Supper ... 153 Person of Christ and Bodily Presence more Precisely Defined in Schwabach Articles 1 54 . Negotiations with Bucer — Wittenberg Concord — Luther's New Assault upon the Zwinglians. Tetrapolitana. — A " Gift," but merely Food for the Soul . . . 155 Colloquy with Bucer and Subsequent Letters — Reception by the Ungodly the Point of Difference 156 Augsburg Confession Adopted by Cities of Upper Germany- Luther Suspicious . , 159 Colloquy at Cassel — Surprising Harmony — Luther Gratified . . 162 The Wittenberg Concord. Luther : The Bread is the Body by Virtue of the Power of Christ; hence, even for Ungodly Communicants .... 167 Adopted, Except in Substituting " Unworthy " for " Ungodly." 169 Much nearer Luther's View than Helvetic Confession ... 172 The Swiss Withhold Assent 173 Conciliatory Attitude of Luther 1 74 Indignation Aroused Anew — Cologne Constitution Condemned. 183 " Short Confession of the Holy Sacrament " — Seven Fanatical Spirits 188 Consideration for Melanchthon, Bucer and Calvin 188 Kindness to the Bohemians — Warning to them 192 Denunciation of Zwinglianism and the Swiss Theologians . . . 194 Modifications of Luther's Theology during the Development- Period covered by Book III 196 TABLE OF CONTENTS. BOOK IV. THE DOCTRINAL VIEWS OF LUTHER PRESENTED IN SYSTEMATIC ORDER. Introductory. FACE A. General Character of Luther's Teaching 201 B. Range of Topics and their Original Mutual Relations 208 C. Order Observed in Presentation of Topics 217 CHAPTER I. The Source of Religious Truth. I . Methods of Revelation. General Revelation through Works of Nature, etc 218 Special Revelation in Sacred Scriptures 219 Tradition 222 2. The Ground of Faith in the Scriptures. Does not Rest upon Authority of the Church 224 Support of Antiquity Valuable, but not Decisive 224 Inner Witness of the Spirit 226 Relation to Christ the Criterion for Every Part f . 228 3. Separate Parts of the Scriptures. Relation of Old and New Testaments 230 Moses and the Law 231 The Prophets, Freedom in Criticising 233 The Psalms, High Estimate of 236 Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon 237 Job 238 Historical Books • 239 Apocryphal Books 240 Superiority of the New Testament 241 Epistles of Paul : Romans, Galatians, Ephesians 243 Gospel of John. I. John 243 I. Peter 243 The Synoptical Gospels , 243 The Acts of the Apostles 244 II. and III. John. II. Peter 244 Hebrews 246 James 247 Jude 247 Revelation 248 \ TABLE of CONTENTS. IX FAGB \ 4- Inspiration of the Sacred Writers. The Bible given by the Holy Spirit 250 Inspiration Attaches Primarily to Oral Deliverances 252 Co-operation of Human Agency 253 Sradation among Inspired Books 253 Disparagement of Portions of Accepted Books 254 fy S- Exposition and Understanding of Scripture. The Word Clear, but the Holy Spirit must Enable to Understand It 258 It must be Interpreted in Harmony with Christ 258 Proper Sense vs. Allegorical Interpretation 259 Right of Private Judgment 261 If 6. Study of the Scriptures. Textual and Topical Knowledge — Inward Preparation 261 Mystical Ideas 262 Inability of Reason 263 Reason Enlightened in Regeneration 265 Scriptures Furnish All Religious Truth, but it may be Developed in Human Confessions, etc 268 // J. Fundamental Articles. All Doctrines Closely Related 270 Ignorance or Denial of Some Articles does not Necessarily Imperil the Salvation of the Individual 271 The Church must Openly Confess All Articles of Faith 272 CHAPTER II. The Doctrine of God. Q Introductory. — Only Certain Phases of the Doctrine Discussed by Luther 274 I. Nature and Attributes. Two Controlling Ideas : The Hidden God of Majesty and the Re vealed God of Love 275 Revealed Attributes — Omnipotence .' 281 Omnipresence 282 Eternity 282 Omniscience — Immutable Decrees 283 Holy Zeal against Sin 283 Love — Revealed in Christ 284 Expressed in the term, " Righteousness of God " 286 Extends to All Men (Advance upon Earlier View) 287 Punishes only when Necessary, using the Devil as Agency . . 289 The Hidden God. — Incomprehensible 292 Divine Commandments, Judgments, Secret Will 294 Absolute Decree Inscrutable 294 X TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE No Attempt to Reconcile Hidden and Revealed Will, but Later Writings Lay More Stress upon the Latter 295 2. The Trinity. Plainly Revealed only through the Incarnation 310 ___jCiearly Established by Scripture 312 Objections of Reason Dismissed 313 The Son as the Word ; — As Likeness of the Father 314 Birth of the Son; Procession of the Spirit 316 Pre-eminence of the Father 316 Work of Each Person is Work of the Entire Godhead 317 Attributes of Each Person 318 Analogies in Nature, etc 319 CHAPTER III. Creation and Providence. Creation Out of Nothing. Time then Began 321 Finished for All Time, save as Sin Caused Creation of Thorns, Tenden cies to Disease, etc 322 Providential Care. All Things Originally Good 323 Man 324 Angels and their Ministry 324 Works of Nature as Mediums of Divine Agency 327 Miracles 329 Portents 330 Devil and Evil Angels — Character, Origin and Works 331 Subjection to God 335 Relation to Human Depravity 336 CHAPTER IV. Natural State of Man Before and Since the Fall. Original Right Will and True Knowledge of God 339 Physical and Spiritual Perfections 339 Dominion over Nature 340 Divine Image. Original Righteousness 341 Elements of Divine Worship. Submission to Divine Will 343 The First Sin 344 Nature of Sin in General 345 Original Sin. Its Transmission 346 State of Sin. Understanding, Will, and Bodily Powers Weakened 350 Sin no Part of Essential Nature of Man 352 The Will in Bondage to Satan 355 Capacity for Secular Affairs 356 All under Condemnation of Eternal Death 358 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI PAGE Intermediate Section. Transition to the General Subject of Salvation in Christ. . _. Rp-U^ifin between the Old and the New Testament Revelations of Salvation. 359 Salvation in Christ Revealed under the Old Covenant Through Word and Visible Sign . . 360 Advantages under the New Covenant : Clearness, Particularity and Spirituality 362 CHAPTER V. The Doctrine of Christ. Introductory. — Intimate Relation between the Person and the Work of Christ. — Christ's Work includes His Sacrifice and His Continued Agency within Us 365 Involves Both His Natures 366 Its Goal, Mystical Union with the Believer 367 Sacramentum and Exemplum 368 Contemplation of the Work of Christ leads to the Doctrine of His Person. 369 I. The Person of Christ, True Divinity and True Humanity 370 Relation of the Two Natures 371 The Union a Mystery. Necessitated by the Fall 371 The Divine Nature not Modified 373 The Human Nature Developed and Exalted 375 The Divine Nature does not Suffer; yet, " The Son of God Suffers." 376 Is the Body Omnipresent ? 377 Inseparable Union and Communion of the Two Natures 378 Communicatio Idiomatum 379 Does Luther too Highly Exalt the Human Nature ? 385 His Peculiarity Lies in his Emphasis upon the Persistence of the two Natures, particularly of the Human Nature, in the One Person . . 387 2. The Work of Christ. Chiefly Deliverance from Sin and Guilt, involving Subsequent Con quest of the Power of Sin 388 Vivid but Unsystematic Presentation by Luther 389 Perfect Holiness . 391 Obedience to Law and Subjection to its Curse 391 Bearing of Our Guilt, from Incarnation to Crucifixion 395 Made a Cuise, before Men and in Sight of God 396 His Sufferings an Infliction of the Wrath of God, with Subjection to Power of the Devil 398 No Guilt of His Own 401 Relation of the Devil to the Sufferings of Christ 402 Relation of the Law to the Sufferings of Christ 403 Xli TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Results for Us — Abundant Atonement by Sufferings and Active Obedience .... 4o(> Conquest of Sin, Devil, Law, Death and Hell 409 Relation of This Conquest to the Atonement 412 Peculiarity of Luther's General Presentation 413 Theory of Vicarious Suffering 41 S Descensus ad Inferos 4'7 Significance of the Ascension 42 1 The Power of Christ's Teaching 421 Christ as Prophet, Priest, King 422 CHAPTER VI. The Appropriation of Salvation by Faith, and the New Life of the Believer. I. Nature of Justifying Faith. Firm Trust in Mercy of God, as Revealed in Christ and Offered in the Word 425 Explicit vs. Implicit 427 Grasping rather than Longing 427 Cultivating the Christ for Us though Cherishing the Christ in Us. '428 Relation to Intellect, Sensibilities and Will 430 An Element of Repentance 431 A Gift of God. Fides infusa 433 2. The Justification Effected by Faith. Justification embraces the Entire New Condition of the Believer . . 435 Emphasis upon Forgiveness and Acceptance 436 Grace as the Favor of God vs. Scholastic Conception 437 Infusion of Christ's Life and of the Holy Spirit 438 Regeneration Wrought through Faith 440 Passive and Active Righteousness 440 Progressive Sanctification 44' Joyous Sense of Forgiveness 442 Faith Itself Secures Justification 443 But only in view of its Object, Christ 445 Thus throughout the Whole Life 450 Gracious Rewards of the Justified 452 3. The Life and Conduct of Man in the State of Grace. a. General View of the Life of the Believer on Earth. Already in Possession of Highest Blessing : Child of God — Heir of Heaven. One with Christ 454 Yet Sin still Clings to Him. Daily Repentance 455 Assaults of Temptation. Buffetings of Satan 458 Blissful Inward Experiences 460 Assurance of Acceptance 462 # table of contents. xm PAGE b. Life of the Believer in its Relation to Sin. Sin of the Believer is Truly Sin 465 Sins of Weakness and of Deliberation 466 Sin against the Holy Ghost 468 Triumphant Experience of Grace 469 c. Positive Moral Deportment of the Believer in the Various Rela tions of Life. Fear, Love and Trust in God 470 Prayer 472 Government of the Body 472 Fasting 473 Bodily Pleasures 474 Loving Treatment of Fellowman. Preaching of Works . . . 474 Marriage and Family Life — Sanctity. Training of Children 477 Concupiscence 47^ Marriage with Unbelievers 479 Ecclesiastical Sanction 48° Political Relations and Duties — Civil Government a " Hierarchy " 481 Existing Government to be Acknowledged 481 Object is to Preserve the Peace 482 Christians May Participate 483 Confined to Sphere of External Things 483 Monarchical Form not Essential 485 Right of Resistance 485 Duty of Clemency in Administration 486 Endurance of Wrong by Subjects 487 Essential Liberty of the Believer 488 CHAPTER VII. The Means of Grace. Introductory. — The Holy Spirit Works only Through the Means of Grace 489 I. The Word. Channel through which the Holy Spirit Enters the Heart 490 Relation to Those who Reject 492 The Oral Word 494 Retains Power when Preached to the Ungodly 494 Place of the Law under the New Covenant 495 Why yet to be Preached 496 Its Specific Nature 49^ Divinely Given 497 Civil vs. Spiritual Use 498 XIV table of contents. PAGE Cannot Produce Evangelical Repentance 49^ To be Kept by Believers 499 How then is the Believer Free from the Law 5°° *¦ Fullness of Blessings Conferred by the Word 5°2 2. The Sacraments. a. General View — Signs and Seals of the Divine Word 502 Chief Thing is a Treasure Given Us 5°3 The Word makes the Signs Effectual 5°3 Not Dependent upon Character of Administrant nor Faith of Recipient 504 Precise Divine Appointment Essential 504 Sacramental Character Only During Administration 505 Cannot Benefit without Faith 505 God not Bound by Them 506 Signs by Which the Church may be Recognized 506 Supremacy of the Word 506 b. Baptism. Does not Efface Original Sin 507 The Forgiveness Imparted is Perpetual 507 Luther Emphasized at first the Significance of the Sign ; after ward, the Word of Promise 507 First Effect is Forgiveness of Sin 508 Implanting of New Life 508 Significance of Dipping beneath Water 508 Efficacious only through the Word ; not through Character of Administrant 509 Perpetual Obligation 510 Application of Principles lo Infant Baptism 510 c. The Lord's Supper. What is the Imparted " Gift " ?— Fellowship of Christ and His Saints 512 Forgiveness of Sins in Word of Promise 512 The Body of Christ 512 Presence of the Crucified and Glorified Body 513 Sacramental Union vs. Transubstantiation 513 Necessity of Word of Christ and Special Appointment .... 514 Presence of Entire Godhead a Human Inference 515 How far Adoration Permissible 516 Sacramental Union Only During Celebration 516 Particular Benefits for the Body of the Communicant 516 Seal and Pledge of the Divine Promise 517 Forgiveness of Sin 517 Exaltation of the Body of Recipient 517 TABLE of contents. XV PAGE Why Luther Clung so Persistently to the Words of Institution . 519 A Memorial and Thank-Offering — Should be Publicly Admin istered 520 Fellowship with Christ and Fellow Believers 521 d. Absolution. Private Confession. Excommunication. Absolution Imparls Forgiveness of Sins 521 Dependent upon Power of the Keys; not upon Character of Administrant 522 Announces Grace of God to Individuals 522 On What Conditions to be Administered 524 Objective Certainty 524 Does not Follow Forgiveness, but Imparts it 525 Involves Preaching, Baptism, and Lord's Supper 525 May be Administered by Laymen . 526 Private Absolution Is the Chief Benefit of Private Confession . 529 Relation to Chief Means of Grace. Included under the Word . 532 The Binding Key, Excommunication 533 To be Publicly Administered 533 Involves Eternal Perdition, if Rightly Administered and No Repentance Follows . . . 534 To be Employed only against Open Offenders 534 A Final Admonition 535 Designed to Lead lo Repentance 536 No Other Real Sacraments 536 CHAPTER VIII. The Church. The Community of Believers. Christ, Its Head. Dependent upon Means of Grace 53$ An Objective Reality 539 By What Signs Recognized ? _ -Chiefly by Presence of Word and Sacraments 540 The Keys Sometimes Mentioned as Signs of the Church 541 Special Administrants of Means of Grace — Ordination 542 Office of Ministry Divinely Instituted 545 Special Blessing Attends Regular Ministry 54^ Ministers not Priests 547 No Obligation to Submit to Ministers who Teach False Doctrine . . 549 Church not Dependent upon Ministry 550 Prayer and Endurance of the Cross also Signs of the Church .... 55l Sanctified Lives of Believers an Unreliable Sign because Imperfect and Counterfeited 55 ' External Orders and Ceremonies not Obligatory 552 To be Adopted by the Congregation at Large 553 XV1 TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE Consideration for the Weak, but not for Wanton Opposers 554 Uniformity not Necessary 554 Mature Christians do not Require 555 Concrete Form of Pastoral Office : Bishops, Elders, Superintendents, etc. 556 Characteristics of the Church — Holy 557 Embraces Believers in All Places 557 The Pillar and Ground of the Truth 558 An Object of Faith and not of Sight 559 Relation of Civil Government to the Church Wide Influence of Luther's Views as Applied to Existing Circumstances. 560 Secular Princes called upon to Summon a General Council ; to Allow Free Preaching of the Word ; to Encourage Evangelical Measures . 562 Should Secure Preaching of the Word in its Purity, and Forbid Blas phemous Practices, as the Mass, etc 563 Should Preserve Harmony vs. Schisms 564 Large Use of Such Powers by Certain Princes 565 Luther's Strict Conception of the Doctrine which may be Tolerated. . 566 No One to be Driven to Faith ; but Attendance upon Preaching may be made Compulsory 567 Miscellaneous Character of the Congregations thus Formed 567 Their Right to Participate in Administration of the Church 568 They must be Permitted to Participate in Exercise of Excommunication. 569 Distinctness of Spheres of Church and State Maintained in Theory . . 570 Concrete Organization not Luther's Mission 571 CHAPTER IX. The Last Things. Eschatology not Thoroughly Discussed by Luther 573 Chiliasm Rejected eye Early Coming of Judgment Day Anticipated 57c Intermediate State — Purgatory Rejected 576 An Incomplete Condition _ rjj A State of Sleep ejj Do Torments of the Wicked Begin at Death ? 578 No Mention in Later Writings of Continued Moral Development . . . 578 Sin Finally Expelled at Believer's Death 578 No Question of Locality, although Local Terms Employed 579 Judgment Day. Visible Advent of Christ 580' Hell and the Ungodly c8t Final Blessedness of Believers, including Bodily Life 581 Transfiguration of External World 585 Eternal Sabbath 584 BOOK III (Continued). PRINCIPAL POINTS IN WHICH AN ADVANCE IS MANIFEST IN THE DOCTRINE OF LUTHER AFTER HIS RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG: DEVELOPED IN OPPOSITION TO TENDENCIES WHICH APPEARED UPON THE TERRITORY OF THE REFORMATION ITSELF. CHAPTER II* OPPOSITION TO THE FALSELY EVANGELICAL SPIRIT. INTRODUCTORY. At the very first outbreak of the fanatical spirit, by means of which, in the pointed phrase of Luther, the devil hurled himself upon the right side instead of upon the left, the full significance and magnitude of the danger thus threatening was, as above remarked, recognized by the Reformer. We have now to observe, further, that he ever afterward felt himself justified in recognizing, in all the doctrines and persons claiming to maintain with him the general evangelical view of saving truth, but to present it in a purer, freer and more spiritual form than he, the features of the same spirit which he was compelled to combat in Carlstadt, the Zwickau prophets, and Munzer. He brought this charge against Zwingli with peculiar energy. The entire character of his controversy with the latter was, from the very first, determined by this con ception. There was certainly, at all events, an actual bond of fellowship between the varied tendencies of the character now referred to, as over against the position of Luther, whatever may be the opinion held as to the differences between these various parties, or as to the validity of the claims made by them to an equal justification in their own appeal to the Gospel. For * Chapter I. of Book III. is included in Volume I. This has been done in order to give the two volumes of the English translation a uniform size and at the same time present in one volume the entire development of Luther's views in conflict with Roman Catholicism. The present volume thus embraces only those modifications and developments of the Reformer's doctrine which were occasioned by his opposition to the falsely evangelical spirit, followed by the systematic survey of the positions which he finally attained. In order to adhere more closely to the original, and to facilitate comparison with it, it was not deemed advisable to change the Chapter number, although the present plan involves a certain awkwardness in beginning this volume of the English translation with Chapter II. of Book III. of the original. (19) 20 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. Luther, the characteristic feature common to them all was that indicated in his remark : " The devil is here trying to make us altogether too evangelical." In accordance with his own con ception, we therefore here speak, in general terms, of the' " falsely evangelical spirit " which he was called upon to oppose. We embrace in a separate chapter, as one whole, the entire development attained by his views and doctrines in conflict with these new enemies. Already before the controversy with Zwingli, he had thoroughly elaborated his principles upon all the chief questions involved in the general agitation. The argument with Zwingli was concerned mainly with the further definition of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Accordingly, our review of the period falls naturally into fwo sections. We meet at this point a serious difficulty in the historical pre sentation of the development of the Reformer's views, especially in regard to the Theses upon the Lord's Supper drawn up in opposition to Zwingli. The entire doctrine of the person of Christ, and even that of the nature of God and His relation to the created universe, here become involved, and are carried to weighty conclusions. Yet, in our historical study, we have thus far found neither occasion nor space to present these subjects expressly, or in their inner relationships. They, and with them also the doctrine of the Lord's Supper as Luther now presents it, can be set in a clear light only in a systematic presentation of his entire developed theology, such as we can offer only in the closing portion of this work. Our immediate task must, there fore, be simply to present distinctly the leading ideas of Luther in regard to the sacrament as they were developed in the course of the present conflict. The significance of this doctrine in the entire framework of his system, and the basis of the interest which he felt in maintaining it, will require our careful attention at the proper time. Various separate points elaborated in the controversial writings directed against Zwingli will also find appro priate place in the final systematic review. There, too, finally, we shall be called upon to present in a comprehensive way his doctrine of the person of Christ and of God, and can there, as the nature of the case requires, present them before the full dis cussion of the doctrines of the Lord's Supper and the means of grace in general. AFTER RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG. 21 Section I. Doctrines and Demands Opposed by Luther before his Controversy with Zwingli. I. The Nature and fnner Mutual Relations of these Doctrines and Demands. OUTBREAK AT WITTENBERG CARLSTADT — MUNZER — PRIESTLY VEST MENTS HAND OR MOUTH COMMUNION WITHOUT CONFESSION FASTS PICTURES INWARD ILLUMINATION INFANT BAPTISM VIOLENCE DESTRUCTION OF THE WICKED LAWS OF MOSES LAY ACTIVITY MYSTICISM MORALITY MAN'S RELATION TO GOD UNBRIDLED LICENSE AND FANATICAL LEGALITY. From the latter part of the year 1521, that spirit which Luther described as " altogether too evangelical," but which he was fully convinced could be rightly treated only as a spirit of false hood, spread with rapidity and violence, throwing off gradually all disguise. It is not surprising that even honest confessors of Christian truth were deeply agitated by it, either wavering in their own estimate of its true character, or sorely alarmed at the encroachments of the hostile power. Very remarkable, also, from a historical point of view, is the varied and even mutually contradictory character of the elements which here combined in one general movement. First came the Disorderly Assaults upon the Mass- at Wittenberg. Carlstadt had borne a part in these, placing himself at the head of the movement. The fury of the storm was visited not only upon those abuses which Luther had pronounced an abomination and robbery in the sanctuary, i. e., the representation of the mass as a sacrifice and the denial of the cup to the laity. Nor were the agitators content with merely abolishing at once a custom so easily brought into intimate relation to the sacrificial theory as was the elevation of the host. The zeal of Carlstadt led him to assail also the customary priestly vestments and other ceremonies. It appeared to him a matter' of grave importance, that the bread was no longer placed by the priest in the mouth of the communi cant, but that the sacrament should be " received with the hands." He was not satisfied, now that confession to the priest was no longer compulsory, and that the torturing of consciences once associated with the practice had thus been abolished, but he THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. admitted the multitude indiscriminately, without any confession at all, to the privilege of communion. The liberation from all obligation to observe the fasts appointed by the Church was pro claimed as affecting all believers, without any regard for those who felt themselves still bound in conscience to observe them, and the actual public exercise of this liberty was made a test of evangelical Christianity. Carlstadt, at length, with the same passionate energy which inspired his opposition to the abomina tion of the mass, began to assail the pictures in the churches, declaring them to be no less contrary to the Word of God, namely, the First Commandment of the Decalogue. Next appeared at Wittenberg the Zwickau Prophets. The spirit of the Reformation had broken through the barriers of out ward ordinances and of the supposed human mediation of salva tion, in order to place the believing soul in the immediate presence of its God and Saviour. There now arose a class of men professing to be inspired by the same spirit, and to have received, also, by virtue of this immediate fellowship with God, direct revelations from Him. Instead of the external Word of God, which they regarded as a mere letter, they laid stress upon the special inward conversations which they professed to have with their God. The same principle led them to deny the validity of infant baptism. They failed to apprehend the spiritual transaction, which constitutes the essence of baptism, and, in consequence, adjudged it impossible for infants to appropriate the benefits of the ordinance. As Carlstadt, who had already before their day resorted to violence in opposing that which appeared to be condemned by the divine Word, now entered into willing alliance with them ; and as he had, in his warfare upon images, appealed to the Old Testament as also of binding authority, — the Anabaptists now sought not only to abolish all abuses by violent measures, but also to utterly destroy all wicked men, according to the example of Old Testament zealots and heroes. It was thus that Munzer sought to become a genuine reformer. Upon the bleeding corpses of the wicked, it was sup posed, and especially of such rulers as dared to resist the Spirit, the true kingdom of God was to be established on earth. The question, whether the Word of God, as contained in the Law of the Old Testament, must not be acknowledged as the final authority also in the sphere of all secular relations, was now AFTER RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG. 23 prominently agitated in yet wider circles. We have already seen Luther (for example, 'in his Address to the Nobility) extending the scope of his testimony based upon the divine Word to the discussion of secular conditions and grievances.1 His indignation was aroused especially by the usurious rates of interest demanded, and by the general course of the great merchants and moneyed men of the day. Now, in 1524, the ministers, Strauss, in Eisen ach, and Stein, in Weimar, demanded that, in accordance with the precepts of Moses, the taking of interest be entirely pro hibited. A number of professional jurists also enlisted in the movement. It was maintained that, instead of the imperial laws, which were of heathen origin, and the canonical laws, which originated with the popes, the Mosaic Law must be re-established. Strauss already, in a published sermon, proposed the re-instate- ment of the Mosaic year of jubilee, in which every man should regain possession of his alienated patrimony, a proposition which was favorably received in portions of Wiirtemberg. Returning now to the representative of this tendency who had in the beginning been most intimately associated with Luther, namely, Carlstadt, we shall find him proceeding to yet greater lengths in the same direction. He does not reject infant bap tism ; but he makes the essence of external baptism to consist merely in a public profession of faith toward God (in A. D. 1523).2 He then assails the real presence of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper. He rejects entirely the idea that the Lord's Supper is a gift of God to men. The forgiveness of sins is to be sought, not in the Lord's Supper, but in the sacrificial death suffered once for all by Christ. The object of the Lord's Supper is, that we may therein celebrate the memorial of this sac rifice, be led to a vivid apprehension of the death of Christ by means of " the cordial apprehension ( Briefe, ii, 202. 48 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. afford us merely fragmentary arguments. The fundamental principles underlying the doctrine are, indeed, firmly established in the mind of Luther. But upon some separate points, as is shown in his letter to Melanchthon, he is as yet himself endeavor ing to gain clearer convictions. He now, for the first time, fully develops the complete theory which harmonizes and binds together his views upon the subject. This theoiy he then pre sents in his writings, especially in the portion of the Church Postils which he was then engaged in preparing, viz., in the Sermon upon the Third Sunday after Epiphany} He himseK afterwards refers to this exposition of the subject in his tract of the year 1528, entitled: Von der Wiedertaufe, an zwei Pfarrherrn} In this Sermon he, first of all, expresses his purpose to " let the foundation stand firm and sure, that no one can be saved through the faith of others, but through his own." We must suffer the whole world to perish rather than surrender this prin ciple. With reference to the sacraments, he persists in his oppo sition to the lying doctrine, that one who receives the sacrament without faith receives grace and the forgiveness of sins. He repeats the Augustinian maxim : " Not the sacrament, but the faith of the sacrament, justifies." He declares most positively : " Baptism helps no one, and is to be granted to no one, unless he believe for himseK." He accordingly pronounces a mere " dream " the traditional opinion, that children receive grace, without faith, merely through the power of baptism. Even the holy ancient Fathers speak " not clearly enough " for him, when they affirm that young children are baptized in the faith of the Christian Church. They do not thoroughly explain how this faith benefits the children — whether they receive through it a faith of their own, or whether (as the Sophists interpret it) they are baptized, without faith of their own, upon the faith of the Church. He rejects also, on the other hand, the evasion of those who hold that children are baptized upon the future faith which they will exercise when they attain to years of discretion. This con ception he had met with in the writings of the Bohemian Breth ren, and had already antagonized it in his publication of the year 1 Erl. Ed., xi, 58 sqq. > Erl. Ed., xxvi, 255. AFTER RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG. 49 1523, designed especially for their instruction, Vom Anbeten des Sacraments, etc.1 He repeats here again : " Faith must be present before, or at least in, baptism ; otherwise, the child is not released from the devil and sin." Just as little will he allow the distinction between the kingdom of heaven, as the Christian Church and the Gospel — and that king dom as eternal life, in accordance with which children are sup posed to be baptized into the kingdom of heaven, not in the latter, but merely in the former sense of the term, i. e., " merely taken up into Christendom and brought to the Gospel." These notions, he declares, are all framed out of man's own imagination. In general, he is utterly unable to see in a baptism which is not to effect and grant to children the same benefits which it confers upon adults the same baptism, or, indeed, any baptism at all, but only " a sport and mockery of baptism " ; for there is no baptism except that which saves. Luther's own solution of the problem is the same as in his earlier publications. He indicates its nature in the above-cited comment upon the expressions of the Fathers, viz. : The question is, how the faith of the Church benefits the children. His pro positions are as follows : Children in baptism have faith of their own, which God HimseK effects in them through the petition and presentation of the sponsors in the name of the Christian Church. The children are not baptized in the faith of the sponsors, nor in that of the Church, but the faith of the sponsors and of the Church petitions in their behalf and secures for them a faith of their own, in which they are baptized. The ruler of Capernaum, who by his petition secured for his servant the gKt of health, serves as an example of the method here described, the narrative of this incident forming the text of the Sermon before us. Afterwards, in the Sermon in the Church Postils, delivered on the Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity. Luther makes use again of the account of the paralytic who was brought by others, with believing entreaty, to the Saviour.2 Very special emphasis is now laid upon the passages, Matt. xix. 13-15 ; Mk. x. 13-16 ; Luke xviii. 15, 16. These are for Luther " strong and firm utterances," which " no one shall take from us." He now applies them, too, in such a way as to indicate % Erl. Ed., xxviii, 416. 2 Ibid., xiv, 171 sq. Cf. Vol. I., p. 400. 4 50 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. that faith is bestowed upon children in the very act of baptism. Christ, he affirms, is present in baptism as truly as He was then present. According to His word, " Suffer the children," etc., it must be right and Christian to bring children to Him, which can be done in no other way than in baptism. It must be certain, also, that He blesses them and gives them the kingdom of heaven, which cannot be unless they have personal faith. The piety and faith of those who bring them may, indeed, help them to secure such faith, they being presented by means of the faith and effort of others ; but when they have been brought, and the priest or administrant deals with them in Christ's stead, He blesses them and gives them faith and the kingdom of heaven ; for the words and acts of the priest are the words and deeds of Christ Himself. From this it is evident that the awakening of faith in children and the bestowal of the salvation, or kingdom of heaven, which is dependent upon such awakening are in Luther's conception inseparably connected. Trf support of the position, that the apostles already baptized children and regarded them as believers, he now appeals to the words of i John ii. 13 : "I write unto you, children," etc. John, says he, there speaks of such as are younger than the youth already mentioned, i. e., of those under fifteen or eighteen years of age, and excepts none from that point downward to the first year of life. The apostles, therefore, held in regard to such, that " they believe and know the Father, just as though they had attained years of discretion and were able to read." The objection based on the supposed incapacity of little chil dren for the exercise of faith is now more definitely stated, as follows: Faith, according to Rom x. 17, cometh by hearing; but children, not having arrived at the years of discretion, cannot hear the Word of God. In meeting this, Luther avails himself of his closer definition of reason, as the substance (content) of the thinking, planning and striving in the natural man, in order to turn the immaturity of this endowment into an argument in behalf of infant baptism. He locates the " rebellion " (vid., p. 47) of the depraved nature in the reason. This is just the power that most stoutly resists the Word of God, so that no one can come to God without first dying to reason, becoming even " as unreasonable and unintelligent as any young child." He then argues directly : "Just because they are without reason, they are better adapted AFTER RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG. 5 1 for faith than old and rational persons, with whom reason is always standing in the way and will not stoop to pass her lofty head through the strait gate." Just at this point he claims the fullest recognition for his fundamental principle, that, at all events, God alone works our salvation : " Here God alone works, and reason is dead, blind and opposed to this work, like an irrational block. * * * Faith in God's Word is the work of God alone and beyond all the power of reason, and to Him the child is just as near as the adult — yea, much nearer." It "strikes" him, therefore, " that if any baptism can be certain, that of children must be the most certain of all, in view of the Word of Christ in which He bids them to be brought to Him. The old come of themselves, and in them there may be deceit in consequence of their mature reason, whereas in children, on account of their yet undeveloped (hidden) reason, there can be no deception, and in them Christ makes effectual (wirket) His blessing, as He has bidden them to be brought to Him." He again directs attention to the condition of the believer in sleep, in which the latter is never left without faith and the grace of God — and, still further, to other conditions, as in the midst of labors and worldly business, when the believer is not constantly thinking of faith or of reason, while yet his faith has not ceased to exist. He meets the objec tion based upon the necessity for a hearing of the Word (Rom. x.) by maintaining that it is only the intelligent hearing which is lacking in the case of children, whereas they have the spiritual hearing : in baptism they hear the Gospel — hear it, indeed, only once, but so much the more impressively because Christ, who commanded them to be brought to Him, now receives them. Luther does not, as we observe, enter upon a discussion of the question, what is really the psychological nature of faith and of a spiritual hearing of the Word, or, indeed, of any mental and religious exercise. We should be satisfied, he insists, with the invitation and assurance of the Lord, i. e., that we should suffer the children to come, etc.,— and to this he constantly returns. " Leave (the question of) their faith to Him who bids you bring them to Him, and say : Upon this I depend." " Isaiah lv. 9 says : My ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." " The works of God are secret, where and when He will." Luther, as already observed, in his tract, Von der Wiedertaufe, 52 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. addressed to two pastors in the year 1528,1 refers the reader to hisChurch Postils, from which we have gleaned the above extracts. In the former publication, he has gathered, together with the passage in Matt. xix. 14, a number of further scriptural testi monies in support of the proposition, that children may believe, even though they have as yet no reasoning power. Thus, the blood of the children, in Ps. cvi. 38, is called " innocent," although they certainly could not be pure without the Spirit and faith. He now lays especial emphasis upon the testimony con cerning John the Baptist, while he was yet in his mother's womb. In this child, he argues, faith must surely have been already pres ent (when he leaped at the coming of Mary) : hence it follows, that there may be faith even in little children. And it cannot now be denied that the very same Christ who there, while yet in the womb of Mary, came to John is present at baptism and in baptism. He speaks here through the mouth of the priest, as there through the mouth of His mother. Why should not, there fore, through His speaking and His baptism, the Spirit and faith here enter into children as there into John? Luther still firmly maintains that the baptism of children is the most secure of all, because a child cannot deceive, and because it comes to Christ as did John and as did the children who were brought to Him as recorded in Matt. xix. He now discusses more distinctly than in the passages hitherto cited the question, whether Christ has actually commanded the baptism of children. To those who profess themselves unable to find any utterances or examples in its favor in the New Testa ment, he replies, that Christ has not given command to baptize adult persons, or men or women as such, but only, in general terms, all nations (Matt, xxviii. 19) : but children form a large portion of the nations. He cites, further, examples from the Acts and the writings of Paul (1 Cor. i. 16), in which the bap tism of entire households is spoken of. He also draws an argu ment again from 1 John ii. 13. The sign of the ancient covenant, circumcision, is then also adduced. He assumes that God has now made His covenant with all nations through the Gospel, and has appointed baptism as its sign. Who, he asks, can then exclude the children? If 1 Erl. Ed., xxvi, 254-294. AFTER RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG. 53 the old covenant and its sign, circumcision, made the children of Abraham believing and people of God, much more must the new covenant and its sign have such power, and make those who accept it the people of God ; and it is to be accepted, according to the commandment of God, by the whole world. We must note, also, with special care the argument of Luther based upon the fact that God had, as a matter of history, allowed infant baptism to stand up to that time unchallenged in the Church, and had thus granted it gracious recognition (cf. supra, in the letter to Melanchthon) . He here emphasizes three points. First : No heresy has ever maintained its place perpetually, but only for a little while at most. Thus, also, if infant baptism had been wrong, God would not have upheld it so long, even as He has kept the Bible, the Lord's Prayer and the Children's Creed (/. Walch, 684-5. AFTER RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG. I07 the " carnality " of the body would be a false one, will, moreover, very soon become still more manKest. The Syngramma agrees again with Luther in its reply to the question, whether Christ does not then remain in heaven. He remains, it declares, in heaven, although He is at the same time, by virtue of His command and Word, distributed among His followers on earth. He is ascended to heaven and is everywhere, in such a sense that He is also, as He HimseK says, with us unto the end of the world. He comes to us, and yet remains at the right hand of God, i. e., " in all places in heaven and on earth." The Holy Spirit, also, is in the saints below, and, united with Christ, at the right hand of the Father. Why should it then be thought a strange assertion that the deified body of Christ like wise comes through the Word into the bread, and yet, at the same time, remains at the right hand of God? It will be observed that the body is here thought of as in its present glorified state. Attention is also distinctly directed to the difference between the presence of the Divine in Word and sacrament and the general omnipresence of God and Christ, in an earlier passage, in which, when speaking of the presence as effected through the Word, it is said : " We speak not of the presence according to which God is in all things." It is evidently the purpose here to make the same discrimination in reference to which Luther afterwards more definitely declared : The presence through the Word is that by virtue of which God is not only objectively present, but also wishes Himself to be actually apprehended by faith and taken up into the individual.1 •The significance of the sacrament, finally, in so far as the com munion of saints is presented in it, is represented in the way in which Luther understood it, /. e. . Not only for the strengthening of faith, but also as a sign of unity, has the Lord ordained that it be distributed to the Church. The " communion of the body of Christ " is to be understood of this distribution to the community of believers (cf. Luther's utterances above cited). Like Luther, too, the Syngramma contends against the idea, that by the body itself we are to understand the congregation. Like him, it appeals, in refutation of such a theory, to the fact that this body is " given for "us." In the opposition to this idea, especially, 1 Walch, 701-2, 717, 698, 108 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. appears to lie the explanation of the r.rdor with which the treatise everywhere seeks to hold to the true bodily nature, or carnality, of the body.1 It has been necessary for us to thus fully present the thoughts of this publication, prepared by other hands than Luther's, in order to comprehend and rightly estimate the attitude which he assumed toward it. He not only allowed it to be presented to the world with a commendatory preface from his hand, but he constantly in his letters expressed his approval of it, as an excellent defence of the pure faith touching the sacrament. He writes : " It is wonderful how the little book pleases (me)." He declares, in the first preface, that the Syngramma pleases him so well that he would be willing to translate it into German himself. The second preface says : " This excellent little book I like the better the longer I know it, because I know how they are' assailing it, and yet accomplishing nothing by their assaults ; for it is truth, and puts the lies to shame." 2 Yet we know how far the contents of the book varied from his own theory — that it could, despite the praise bestowed upon it, by no means be said of all the statements which it contained, that he adopted them as expressing his own views.3 It is incon ceivable also, that he, while bestowing so much attention upon it, should not himself have become aware of the variations referred to. We cannot, therefore, but regard it as significant that he should, in all his references to it of which we have any knowledge, have ignored these differences, to rejoice only in the valuable aid of men like-minded in the struggle against the common foes. The decisive consideration, however, in awakening this sense of fellowship with them, was beyond doubt the zeal with which they maintained the character of the sacrament as a divine, objective, real gift of grace, as over against which the part of the individual participating is but a receptive faith. It has been very justly remarked, that Luther had here to deal with a form of doctrinal conception with which, among all the' theories of the age of the Reformation, that of Cabin was most nearly related. Yet, when 'Walch, 702. sBriefe, iii, 93. 95. 98, 202. Erl. Ed., lxv, 180, 186. 8Vid. Luther himself, Briefe, iii, 202. AFTER RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG. IO9 this has been said, it must be at once further remarked, that the bodily participation, for which the Syngramma leaves no room, is yet not in express terms rejected by it — that the question which was to lead to division even among the common opponents of Zwingli and CEcolampadius was here, as yet, hidden from view in the imperfect analysis of the subject. 2. Further Controversial Writings Preceding the Conciliatory Negotiations with Bucer. Upon the two prefaces to the Syngramma followed, shortly afterward, A. D. 1526, the first independent publication of Luther against the doctrine there controverted, namely the a. DISSERTATION, OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF Christ, against the fanatical spirits (Sermon von dem Sac rament des Leibes und B lutes Christi wider die Schwarmgeister) . OBJECT TO BE GRASPED BY FAITH OBJECTIONS : BODILY PRESENCE INCONGRUOUS AND UNNECESSARY BENEFITS OF SACRAMENT : PAR TICULAR, MEMORIAL, PROMOTIVE OF BROTHERLY LOVE. He opens the discussion with the statement, that there are two principal things which must be considered in regard to the doc trine of the Lord's Supper. The first is the Object (objectum) of Faith, i. e., " the work, or thing, which we believe, or to which we are to cling " — the sacrament in and But the dogmatical development, which now again comes into prominent view, possesses for us naturally a far greater interest The principal point in dispute Luther now again declares to be, Whether the presence of the body of Christ in the Lords Supper is in conflict with His sitting at the right hand of God. Zwingli's reply to Luther's last publication could not but serve to carry this inquiry and the further question, in what way the pres ence of the body of Christ should be conceived, back to the gen eral question of the relation of the two natures in Christ. Luther here encountered the Zwinglian doctrine of Allceosis, If the Scriptures, when speaking of one nature of Christ, employ expressions, which really apply only to the other, and, accordingly, without discrimination affirm now of one and now of the other nature the conditions and activities described, this is, in the opinion of Zwingli, a mere form of speech, which he designates Allceosis. Thus, as Luther describes the theory, the Scriptures are supposed simply to take .the one nature for the other, whilst each of the natures, in reality, yet remains so distinct from the other as to retain only its own characteristic modes of activity. Against this Allceosis Luther cannot now too earnestly warn. He calls it the devil's mask. He declares that it is an entirely arbi trary invention of Zwingli, without any evidence from Scripture. Its grandmother is the old sorceress, Dame Reason. And he turns at once against it the force of the fundamental interest of Christian faith.1 When the Scriptures speak of the sufferings of Christ, this is, according to Zwingli, to be understood only of His human nature. But, in this case, Christ accomplishes nothing more by His sufferings than any other mere saint. If only the human nature suffered for us, then is Christ a poor Saviour, and stands in need, indeed, of a Saviour for HimseK. If the person of Christ is divided, as this accursed Allceosis teaches, the whole Christian faith and the salvation of the world are at once swept away. He himseK finds the explanation of the fact, that the 'Cf. supra, p. 83. AFTER RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG. 1 35 Scriptures ascribe to the humanity of Christ that which affects the divinity, and the reverse, in the actual union (unification) into which the divinity has entered with the humanity in the person of Christ. Divinity and humanity are in Christ one person. The person, Christ, is true God. If Christ now suffer, we may rightly say that the Son of God suffers : that is to say, the one part, the divinity, does not, indeed, suffer ; but the person, who is God, suffers in the other part, namely, the humanity. It is as though we should say, " The king's son is wounded," although it is only his leg that is wounded ; or, " Absalom is beautiful," although it is only his body that is beautiful. Since body and soul are one person, whatever befalls either the body or the soul, or even the smallest member of the body, is rightly ascribed to the whole person. Just in this way we are to apply to the entire person of Christ, in which divinity and humanity make one per son, whatever befalls either part of the person, because the two are but one person. We do not mingle the two natures into one nature. We do not say that divinity is humanity, or that the divine nature is human nature. But we mingle the two different natures into one single person, and say : God is man ; man is God. By means of the Allceosis, on the contrary, the person of Christ is divided, as though there were two persons. When, for example, the passages which speak of suffering are applied to the human nature alone, then, since not the nature, but the person, is the subject of the activity or suffering, Christ must be two persons. Having thus condemned in general terms Zwingli's conception of the relation between the natures and the person of Christ, Luther passes again to his fundamental proposition, that no con tradiction has been proved between Christ's existence in heaven and His presence in the Lord' s Supper ; but that, on the contrary, the former involves the ubiquity of the body. With this proposi tion he begins a new section of his dissertation, without attaching it, in the form of an inference, to the preceding section. Nor is the denial of the Allozosis really, in itself, the premise from which he deduces the omnipresence of the body ; and he himself de clares, on the other hand, that the latter doctrine could not in any event be overthrown by the Allceosis theory. For the idea underlying the proposition, that the body of Christ is everywhere, is not, says he, the same as that to which the Allceosis directly refers. The latter has to do only with the activities of the two 136 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. natures, whereas his proposition has to do with their essential character. His proposition, it is true, is an inference from the same unity of the person and the same union of the natures themselves in the person, from which he deduces also the necessity of rejecting the Allceosis. But to the height of his proposition, as he says, no Allceosis could reach. The latter can be applied only to utterances concerning the works of Christ, as when He is said to drink, to die, etc. But when it said that " God is man," or that " man is God," this cannot by any means be an Allceosis ; " God " must, at all events, be taken to mean God, and " man " to mean man. Luther then concludes, as in his earlier rejoin ders : Jesus Christ is essentially natural, true, complete God and man in One person, unseparated and undivided. "Since His humanity has- become one person with God, and so entirely and altogether taken up into God above all creatures that Lie, as it were, clings to Him, it is, therefore, not possible that the God could be anywhere where He would not be man. 'The two natures are so united with one another that they belong together more inti mately than soul and body ; and, accordingly, Christ 'must also be man wherever He is God. But the right hand of God, and Christ, by virtue of His sitting at the right hand of God and by virtue of His own essential divinity, are everywhere. In these declarations Luther again, referring to John iii. 13, includes also the period of Christ's earthly life. He charges upon Zwingli, who denied that the body of Christ is present wherever God is, and thus at the same time in heaven and on .earth, that his coarse spirit knows nothing of what it means to " be in heaven," and he appeals to the fact that Christ was then already, according to John iii. 13, at the same time in heaven. And he expressly adds, that this applies also to the humanity of Christ from the time of His existence in His mother's womb. It was higher and deeper in God than any angel, and hence, also, higher in heaven. According to this, there is left between the states of Christ, as walking upon the earth and as exalted in heaven, only the differ ence, that His humanity in the former state, although then already the above-depicted consequences of its union with the divinity pertained to it, yet, at the same time, revealed itseK in external visibility and humble form at one particular place on earth. If we now look back from this point upon the section of the Confession directed against the Allceosis, we cannot fail to note, AFTER RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG. 1 37 further, that conclusions are here drawn directly from the personal unity itseK, which go far beyond anything which might have been inferred merely from the positions then taken. From the latter, no more could be immediately concluded than that, in analogy with the declarations concerning the sufferings of Christ, the person which is human possesses in the other part, namely, the divinity, the attribute of omnipresence. Here, on the other hand, it is asserted, that by virtue of this union, the omnipresence, which belongs in the first instance to the one part, i. e., the divinity, and which is further said, according to the previous sec tion referred to, to belong to the person of Christ with reference to this one part, must have also passed over to the humanity itself. The controversial writings against the Sacramentarians carry us no farther in doctrinal distinctions upon these points. Luther's further utterances in relation to them will find their appropriate place in our connected presentation of his Christology. Thus we have found the Christological basis of Luther's doc trine of the Lord's Supper again unfolded in his Confession. He desires, however, to clear the way more fully for the acceptance of the bodily presence, which is for him assured by the relation of the humanity of Christ to His divinity, by expounding anew, yet more thoroughly and with minuter distinctions than hitherto, the theory that God, in order to be at any one place, is by no means bound to a local presence. He discriminates between three modes of being at one place, i. addressed another letter to him upon the subject, he again, in his reply of June 9th, refrains from discussing any point of doctrine, except that referred to in his previous communication. " I have been very glad to observe therein " (i. e., in their letter), says he, " that your hearts are all prepared for concord, and that you were pleased with my letter testifying that we do not here teach that there is in the sacrament an ascending and descending of the Lord, yet we do hold that the true body and blood are there received under bread and wine." Upon the precise ques tion as to the bodily or spiritual reception, he again says nothing. For further instruction he again refers them to Bucer and Capito. He assures them that he has no doubt that they have a pious little flock, that earnestly desires to live and act aright. In this he rejoices, and devoutly hopes that, if they be, indeed, as yet somewhat restrained by a hedge (of errors), God may in due time assist them to a joyful deliverance. Although he might still hesitate to fully trust some among them, on account of the char acter of their publications, he has contented himself with. express ing his fears to Bucer. He will give all credit even to such, as far as may be possible, until they also arrive at the full truth. He accordingly beseeches them to continue their efforts for the accomplishment of the divine work so well begun.1 Meanwhile Bullinger, who was a most decided, advocate of the Swiss position, especially as opposed to Bucer, had also opened communication with Luther by the sending of two of his publica tions to the latter. He had shortly before published Zwingli's Christianae fidei * * * expositio, etc., which was most highly calculated, by its theses upon the Lord's Supper, to arouse anew the zeal of Luther against the Sacramentarians, and, by its utterances touching the salvation of the heathen,2 to awaken his indignation against Zwingli's entire conception of Christianity. Nevertheless, Luther replies to him, under date of May 14th, 1538, in a gentle though earnest tone. He candidly expresses his disapproval of the publication of a writing in which there is so much to give offence to all pious people. At the same time, however, he assures his correspondent that the death of Zwingli and CEcolampadius had very deeply pained him, declaring, further, that he had ever since the Marburg Colloquy • Briefe, v, 1 20 sq. 2 Cf. infra, p. 1 89. 12 178 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. regarded the former as an excellent man. Yet he is careful to maintain his own convictions by pronouncing it to be the source of deepest grief to him, that he should be compelled to think of Zwingli as persisting to the end in his opposition. He still further declares, with perfect candor, that he cannot approve all that is said by Bullinger and his party, just as the latter may perhaps charge him with error — of which charge God must be the judge. On the other hand, he now again solemnly affirms that nothing that could happen would give him such joy as that God should, before his departure, at length grant to his Church the spirit of unity.1 During the progress of the negotiations looking toward har mony, he repeatedly expressed his satisfaction and hopes, not only to individuals representing the opposing party, but also to his own friends, as, for example, to the Duke of Prussia. To the latter he writes, under date of August, 1538, that he hopes in a short time to secure a happy concord.2 We turn now to the important question, how the entire attitude assumed by Luther during these negotiations is to be reconciled with the principles which he had hitherto, and under other cir cumstances, so stoutly maintained. In view of the much sterner bearing which marked his intercourse with the theologians of Upper Germany in 1536, what can have been his real impressions and hopes in regard to these Swiss? Two things, at least, must here be regarded as certain. In the first place, Luther, in so fir as he approached them, acted under the conviction that their positive confession of the reception of an objective heavenly gift as the essential feature of the sacrament constituted, at all events — even leaving out of view the concession of a bodily reception — a fundamental distinction from the theory of Zwinglianism. He acted in the confident assurance that the latter had been van quished, at least among the honest members of the opposite party, who now took part in the negotiations for peace. That his opinion of it had never been modified in the least, is evident enough from his letter to Bullinger cited above. In so far as he yet cherished suspicions against particular persons, these were based upon the fear that the latter yet persisted in their attach ment to Zwinglianism, although dishonestly subscribing articles 1 Briefe> v, 1 1 1 sq. s Ibid., 107, 124. AFTER RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG. 179 which, in his opinion, implied an utter rejection of that system. In the second place, it is evident that he can by no means have cherished the conviction that the opposite party in these nego tiations had, even in regard -to the bodily presence, as he taught it and as he held it to be confessed in the Wittenberg Concord, really come over to his own position. If he did not fail to note the difference still remaining between himseK and his brethren of Upper Germany, such an overlooking of the chasm between his view of the bodily presence and that of these men of Switzerland, who had themselves so plainly informed him of their understand ing of the language employed, must have been utterly impossible. Why did he, K unconscious of this difference, so persistently, even in his friendly reply to their appeal, avoid a positive acceptance of their interpretation as his own? We are compelled, therefore, to infer that harmony with them, despite this recognized differ ence, appeared to him not impossible. We must, however, be on our guard, lest we infer too much from the above. Luther did not mean by his participation in the negotiations in question to yield any portion of his full and strict doctrine of a bodily reception, nor to grant in the least that the point of difference was of small account. He defends himself, particularly, in a letter addressed, to Isny,1 against the charge of having forsaken his former position, in order that such boasting by the other party may not turn the concord into a worse dis cord. Should any one be inclined to infer from the forbearing attitude of Luther that he was merely seeking to avoid a discus sion of the question at issue, or that he would have been satisfied if merely allowed to quietly maintain his own personal opinion, such estimates of the situation must be utterly dissipated by the declaration in the Smalcald Articles in 1537 : " that bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ, and are offered to and received not only by pious, but also by ungodly Christians." He could prepare no statement of faith for evangelical believers without such clear enunciation of this doctrine ; nor does he stop at all to consider, in this case, that among the allies in Upper Ger many of the Smalcald League, which was expected to accept this confession, a discrimination is yet made between the un worthy and the ungodly ; still less, that hopes are now entertained 1 Briefe, v, 89. 180 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. of enlisting in the League the Swiss Reformers, who would cer tainly take offence at such an unequivocal statement of the doc trine. Yet, in his dealings with the Swiss, he does not, as yet, even urge upon them an assent to these propositions. On the contrary, whilst refuting the charge of the Zwinglians against his own doctrine as irreconcilable with the Saviour's state of exalta tion in heaven, he quietly permits them to retain their own inter pretation of the true, and yet only spiritual, dispensing of the body ; and for further instruction, he directs them to Bucer, who, as he well knew, would certainly not insist upon that particular feature of the doctrine. He cannot and will not himself approve the interpretation in question ; but he entrusts the work of recon ciliation to one who is willing to concede it. For a long time he carefully refrains from any public utterance which would indicate that he regarded the reconciliation as actually accomplished by the partial concord secured, and merely expresses the wish and hope that further progress may be made in that direction. But at length he speaks of the matter in such a way as to indicate that he regards the reconciliation with the leading Swiss Reformers as an accomplished fact, and that he still cherishes suspicion only in the case of certain individuals, and is chiefly concerned for a proper direction of the people in the matter. He may have further reflected, that the Swiss, allowed to retain their own view, would at any rate occupy but a subordinate position as compared with the German Lutheran churches, which confessed the full truth concerning the sacrament in. entire accordance with his view of it, and among whom, at that very time, his new Smalcald Confession was being received without opposition. It is possible that he may even have cherished the hope that, when the Swiss should have once actually entered into relations of harmony with the Germans, and when the " troubled waters- should have become clear," their aberrations might of themselves quietly disappear. Explain it as we may, however, the fact remains, that while these Swiss theologians were still at variance with the position of Luther, he was willing to extend to them the hand of reconciliation and peace. This was a kind of patience entirely different from that promised at Marburg, in which merely violent contention and abuse were to be avoided, whilst, on the other hand, Christian fellowship was still to be denied. It was also very much more than the theologians of Upper Germany had secured at Witten- AFTER. RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG. 181 berg, where, in subscribing the formula, with its strong and decided language, the latter had been permitted to interpret it in their own way, but could not have ventured to express their views with such boldness as did these men of Switzerland. What can it have been that made the unbending Luther now so yielding? He himself still speaks often of the gain which would result from a combination of evangelical believers against their enemies, whereas a failure of these negotiations would " occasion a new fools' jollification among the Papists."1 But even now we cannot persuade ourselves that purely outward aims or considerations can have forced from him a concession against which his con viction of the magnitude of the yet remaining difference of views protested. We must conclude, either that a spasm of amiable weakness beclouded the vision otherwise so keen, and broke the power of the will otherwise so sturdy ; or we must — as we hereby do — fall back again, for explanation of his attitude towards the Swiss theologians, upon the feeling and inner conviction, that the agreement in that which was fundamentally essential had now come to overbalance the difference upon that one point in which the latter had not as yet recognized che full meaning of the truth — that these men had now no longer, like Zwingli, " another spirit," but, despite their imperfections, the true evangelical spirit. Nor is the case, in this view of it, without parallel in Luther's previous history. We recall the moderation and kind ness with which he spoke of the Bohemian Brethren, and to them, in regard to their sacramental theory, and, especially, his attitude toward the Swabian Syngramma. This inner conviction, indeed, never secures a clear and independent analysis or expression in his writings. This, again, is closely connected with the fact, that he was never willing to go into extended explanations in response to the communications received from these men. Nor are we able to determine in what position, according to the view and aim of Luther, the Swiss would have been placed, had they entered into a league with the German Lutherans upon the basis of common confessions, such as that submitted at Smalcald. There is in so far, therefore, a lack of inner assurance and logical consistency in his course during this period, which makes it the easier to understand the fresh and violent outbreak of the polemic 1 Briefe, v, 125 1 82 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. spirit, which is so soon afterward manKest in his writings. Yet the object of this new assault is not the propositions themselves which were heretofore tolerated by him, but the Zwinglianism which he discovered lurking beneath them. If we study carefully the bearing of Luther in the period imme diately following the negotiations above described, we shall observe that he does not regard himseK as limited in the least, in the discharge of the duty of testifying against the errors of Zwingli, by his relations with the other Swiss theologians. In the year immediately following, 1539, he, in his tract, Von den Con- ciliis und Kirchen, charges Zwingli with Nestorianism, and men tions with him other Nestorians against whom he has had to contend.1 He again refutes his arguments against the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, in a letter to Francis R'heva, Count of Thum, who had been unsettled in his faith by them.2 In reply to the argument, that the body of Christ cannot be at the same time in heaven and in the saci anient, he here simply appeals to the omnipotence of God, and to John iii. 13. In a letter to Bucer, dated October 14th, he expresses, on the contrary, the fullest confidence in the latter, and in the latter's associates as well. At the same time, he refers in terms of high appreciation to Calvin, who was then living in Strassburg, and with whose fnstitutio religionis Christianae he must have become acquainted at that time.3 He writes : " Salute most respectfully for me Drs. J. Sturm and J. Calvin, whose little books I have read with singular pleasure." Calvin, who reported this with great delight to Farel, adds the remark : " Now think what I say there about the Eucharist." It is, indeed, true, that, in view of the import ance of this doctrine, the approval of Luther must be regarded as having particular reference to the treatment accorded to it by Calvin — another evidence for us, that Luther was at that time satisfied with vigorous testimony for the essential character of the Lord's Supper as a true reception of Christ, even where positive declarations concerning the bodily presence were lacking. Such testimony he here found in a form so full and vivid, that a parallel could scarcely have been discovered in the utterances of any preacher in the cities of Upper Gerlliany-4 1 Erl. Ed., xxv, 314. 2 Briefe, v, 199 sq. 3 Calvin's tract, " De sacra coena," did not appear until 1540. 4 Briefe, v, 211. Cf. Henry, Life of Calvin, i, 267. AFTER RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG. 183 But the Swiss were by no means disposed to bear with patience the assaults upon their chief Reformer. Bullinger protested, in the name of the Zurich ministers, against the course of Luther. In the latter, meanwhile, were aroused anew and with constantly increasing force suspicion, indignation and open hostility toward the false teaching which he now found to be not by any means renounced, as he had hoped, nor even cherished in silence by its adherents, but spreading more widely than ever. We have no direct information as to the precise effects produced in his own mind by these manKestations during the period immediately fol lowing. The first instance of renewed passionate utterances against the Swiss is found in his Letter of June 13th, if 43? addressed to the adherents of the Gospel in the neighborhood of Venice. To the latter, he reports that reconciliation with one party of the Sacramentarians is proving permanent, as, for exam ple, with those of Basle, Strassburg and Ulm, as is evident from their allowing Bucer to labor with Melanchthon in the reformation then in progress at Cologne. But in Switzerland some, especially at Zurich, persist in their hostility toward the sacrament, and use profane bread and wine to the exclusion of the sacrament — " men * * * of a spirit foreign to our own, infatuated (intoxicated) men, whose contagion is to be shunned." At the same time, he relates that the party with whom the reconciliation has been effected were driven to the acknowledgment that the body is received also through the mouth of the ungodly, and argues, in support of this position, that for a spiritual reception no Lord's Supjper would have been necessary, but the general ministry of the Word would have been all-sufficient. Very soon afterward, we find him complaining to his friend, Link, of the haughtiness and madness of the Swiss, by which they (Tit. iii. n) have condemned themselves.2 He then, in a letter to the Zurich book-dealer, Froschauer, acknowledging the receipt from the latter of a copy of Leo Judae's translation of the Bible, renounces all fellowship with the ministers of that city, inasmuch as all remonstrance with them proves in vain, and he does not wish to become a partner in their perdition, or in their vicious doctrines. They will meet the judgment which has fallen upon Zwingli, in whose steps they are following.3 A new Latin edition 1 Briefe, v, 564 sq. 2 Ibid., 571. 3 Ibid., 587. 184 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. of Zwingli's writings, which appeared in this year together with an apology, did not, as many supposed, arouse in the first instance the indignation of Luther against the Swiss, but must have been instrumental in furnishing further fuel to the flame. Our atten tion is now arrested also by the circulation of a report that Luther had himseK given up his former doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and had, to quote his own expression, " become one with the Fanatics." This report arose largely from the fact that the elevation of the host, which had been previously discontinued throughout nearly the whole of Saxony, had been recently aban doned also in Wittenberg, where Luther had suffered it to remain as a protest against the violent measures of Carlstadt, and where Bugenhagen had for some time been laboring to secure the end now attained. That the incident arrested general attention, is evident also from a number of Luther's letters ; and some per sons, it seems, regarded it as a confession that the body of Christ is, after all, not truly present in the sacrament.1 Not so surprising as this report about Luther was the rumor that Melanchthon had forsaken the Lutheran doctrine. Nothing could have been more aggravating to Luther than that, following closely upon the new triumph of Sacramentarianism in Switzerland, there should be any apparent justification for such rumors of his own subjugation by it, or of his toleration of it, at least, in his most intimate associate. He refers to the matter in a letter addressed on April 21st, 1544, to the clergy of Eperies, in Hungary, and, later, in a second communication, under date of November 12th, to the religious allies at Venice.2 He gives the solemn assurance in these letters, that, whatever reports may be circulated about him, he will never tolerate the abomination of the foes of the sac rament in the church entrusted to his care. As to Melanchthon, also, he writes to the Hungarians that he entertains no suspicions. It is evident that Luther, up to this moment, had reposed perfect confidence in the full acceptance of his doctrine by Melanchthon and (vid. supra) Bucer. As to the former, we note the further significant fact, that to him Luther had originally entrusted, in 1543, the preparation of the letter to the Venetians warning them against Sacramentarianism,3 a commission which he 1 Cf. Erl. Ed., xxxii, 398, 420. Briefe, v, 478 (cf. ibid., 236), 504, 550, 644. 2 Briefe, v, 644 sq., 697. 3Cf. the letter of the Venetians which elicited the response in question: Seckendorf, Hist. Luth., Lib. iii, (J xcvii, Add. iii. AFTER RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG. 185 was unable to execute on account of his summons to Cologne. But even that intimate tie by which Luther had always felt himself bound to Melanchthon was now in danger of violent disruption. We have seen with what satisfaction Luther had witnessed the departure of Bucer with Melanchthon to Cologne. They had there together drawn up for the Elector of Cologne a schedule for the direction of the reformatory movement, in which the sections treating of the Lord's Supper were from the hand of Bucer. They asserted : That the Lord's Supper is the fellowship of the body and blood of Christ, in the celebration of which we are to preserve His memory, in order that we may be strength ened in (our) faith in Him and remain entirely in Him and He in us ; that Christ ordains that His body be truly offered to us for the remission of sins and as a food of eternal life ; that who ever firmly trusts in the words of Christ and in the visible signs eats truly and to salvation the flesh of Christ and takes into him self the whole Christ with His merit and His grace. That, even without faith, the body of the Lord is truly eaten, although not to salvation and without the reception of the whole Christ, is not asserted, though jt is not, indeed, directly denied. It was the old Upper Germany mode of speaking of the sacrament — so expressed, moreover, that even the Swiss admirers of Zwingli might be satisfied with it. This document, which had been presented to the authorities of Cologne already on June 22d, 1543, was brought by the Elector of Saxony on his return from the Diet of Spires, toward the end of May, 1544, and sent by him early in June to Amsdorf, then the evangelical bishop of Naumburg, with a request for the latter's opinion of it. Luther, when writing to Amsdorf on June 23d, had not yet read it, but had in the mean time heard it highly commended, and Melanchthon had, in response to his inquiry, assured him that the proper understand ing and employment of the sacrament were taught therein. But when Amsdorf — probably in July — had forwarded a cutting review of the document, Luther, as he himself writes to Chan cellor Briick, aroused by Amsdorf's criticism, at once grasped the book and turned to the section treating of the sacrament. Here, he declares, the shoe pinched him hard, and in the entire discussion of the subject nothing pleased him. He found a great ¦deal of diffuse language about the benefits of the sacrament, but only a mumbling about its substance, from which the reader of 1 86 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. the book could gain no clear idea, just as is usually the case in the writings of the Fanatics. Although denouncing the Anabap tists, it has no word to say against the Fanatics. It nowhere ventures to say whether the true body is present and received by the mouth. The book is, in fact, more inclined to the doc trine of the Fanatics. Moreover, as the bishop (Amsdorf) shows, there is throughout too much empty twaddle, which reveals plainly enough the agency of the chatter-box, Bucer, in its preparation. What a storm of indignation now appeared to be arising in the soul of Luther, threatening to overwhelm even Melanchthon in its fury, is revealed most plainly in letters of the latter written soon afterward ; as, for example, in one under date of August 8 th, in which he reports that Luther regards Amsdorf's censure too mild, and in which he already expresses the fear that he may be driven from Wittenberg.1 These were the days which afforded the sharpest contrast to the years immediately preceding, when Luther had desired and hoped that a state of peace, fruitful in beneficent results, might 'Corpus Reformator., v. 113, 461, Anm. ; Briefe, v, 607, 708 sq.; Corpus Reformator., v, 459. I have dwelt at such length upon minute particulars in the above, because a number of points illustrating the course of events at this juncture have heretofore been veiled in uncertainty. That Luther's letter to Briick, which is without a date, was written at the time indicated, is clear from the connected circumstances as above recounted (contrary to the view of De Wette, Briefe, v, 709, Anm.). A letter of Melanchthon (Corp. Ref., v. 448) bearing the indefinite date, " 1543," says : " Laudata est senis Coloniensis con fessio ab electore duce Saxonico, a Macedone, a Luthero * * *; legimus enim fere ante mensem.1, Bletschneider thinks that this letter should be located in July, 1544, before Luther had been stirred up by Amsdorf s criticisms, and that the first publisher inserted the date at a venture. We must then assume that Luther had been made acquainted with the book by Melanchthon shortly after June 23d. In that case, the Reformer's first favorable opinion of it can scarcely be regatded as satisfactorily explained by the supposition that he, although then already filled with renewed suspicions of latent sacramentarian ism, did not himself observe anything amiss in its contents. We may, with more probability, suppose that, while the Elector's copy was still in the hands of Amsdorf, Melanchthon may have read a portion of his manusdript to Luther. But such a partial presentation of the document to Luther from the manuscript may have been made as well in the year 1543; so that all conjecture as to the date of the letter is needless. Bretschneider very inappropriately, and almost incredibly, adduces Luther's letter to Briick in evidence of the former's satisfaction with the Cologne publication. His eye must have fallen upon the first words : "I am well pleased with the bishop's articles," etc. ; and he must have supposed the reference to be to the Bishop of Cologne, instead of to Amsdorf. AFTER RETIREMENT AT THE WARTBURG. 1 87 be secured among all the adherents of evangelical truth — these the days in which his zeal for the pure doctrine of the sacrament threatened to produce an open breach in the very centre, and among the foremost representatives, of the German Reformation. How he was led to assume such an attitude at this time, we have endeavored to make in measure comprehensible through a careful tracing of the course of events preceding. We find the explana tion of the phenomenon in the relentless hostility which he had, from the very beginning of the sacramental controversy, mani fested toward all Fanaticism ; in a lack of clearness as to his own views and feelings, which was unmistakably revealed in his readi ness to accept the Concord ; and in his mortification that the suspicions entertained by others of lurking Zwinglian sacrament arianism beneath the outward acceptance of the latter, which suspicions he had himself suppressed, should now, after all, be so fully justified — that he should himself, by his yielding disposi tion, have actually promoted the spread of the error — and that now, at length, his own nearest associates, instead of standing up for the full truth as he had always maintained it, were, on the contrary, openly encouraging the divergent theories. We may safely presume, also, that strict advocates of his own doctrinal system, such as Amsdorf, used all their influence to fan the flame of his indignation against those who differed with them. In addition to all this, he had just been irritated anew by the fanatical Schwenkfeld, who had assailed him in a letter and a published pamphlet, and who was now reported to have suc ceeded in leading astray a number of the pastors of Upper Ger many.1 It has been remarked also, not without reason, that Luther's physical condition during his closing years was not with out influence upon his disposition. In the midst of his increasing bodily sufferings, the anticipation of death as near at hand, now fully justified by his condition, had become peculiarly vivid. Formerly, such anticipations had impelled him to the more earn est efforts for the restoration of harmony during his life-time ; now, he dreads the thought of appearing before the judgment- seat of his Lord before he shall have given one more and final testimony against the foes of the sacrament.2 1 Briefe, v, 613 sq. — Tischreden, Forstemann, i, 324. Corpus Reformator., v, 476. 2Cf. Erl. Ed., xxxii, 397. 1 88 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. With great anxiety, Melanchthon and his friends awaited a demonstration upon the part of Luther, which they supposed would involve the appearance of a new publication upon the doctrine of the sacrament, which should be a veritable " atrox liber." The early appearance of such a work, to be directed against the Swiss, he had himself announced in the letter to the clergy of Eperies, promising also that in it Schwenkfeld should not be overlooked. It was now noised about that he proposed, also, to pay his respects to Melanchthon and Bucer. It was further rumored, that he would no longer be satisfied with the conception of the words of institution as involving a synecdoche, and that he was preparing a new formula, subscription to which was to be demanded.1 The Elector himseK endeavored, through the medium of the Chancellor, to exert a mollKying influence upon Luther, and to persuade him merely to administer to Me lanchthon privately a Christian and paternal admonition. All these apprehensions proved, however, to be groundless. Luther's new Kurzes Bekenntniss vom heiligen Sacrament appeared in September of the same year, 1544.2 It contained more severe utterances against the Swiss and their Zwingli than any of his earlier writings, but no reference whatever to Melanchthon, or even to Bucer. Melanchthon reports, on October 10th, that he had assured Luther that he had always defended the theory of a synecdoche, i. .] 2 Vol. I., pp. 319, 408. Jena, ii, 369 b. Erl. Ed., xxyiii^^sq. Vol. I., p. 320. Jena, ii, 305, 562 b, and especially, Erl. Ed., xxviii, 339 sqq.; xxx, 394 sqq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 225 the approval of the Church ; as, for example, in support of the doctrines of infant baptism and the Lord's Supper. In reference to belief in the Trinity, he in one passage declares that it has positive testimonies and support even of an external character, such as its antiquity, extending back to the days of Adam, the miracles performed through it, its secure position maintained against all attacks and persecutions, and; finally, the sure prophe cies of the Christian religion touching its own future experience and that of other forms of religion in the world, which agree so well, and so unfailingly accord, with the actual course of history.1 Now we have undoubtedly a right, in view of Luther's known views, to employ these arguments in support of the claims of the Scriptures themselves, and we thus secure an entire series of apologetic deliverances upon the subject. Luther often speaks of the testimony which God bears to Christian truth and to His Word by its wonderful preservation ; and in such connections he also evidently thinks of the Word as given to us in the Scriptures. He refers, further, to the testimony of the Church, in discussing the claims of those books of the Bible whose canonical character he disputed, and that in such a way as to acknowledge the former as furnishing at least a desirable concomitant testimony in such cases. Thus he appeals, in the question concerning 2 Maccabees, from the professed unanimous testimony of the Church to Jerome; and against the canonical character of St. James, to the judgment of many authors. He cites, likewise, against the book of Jude the fact, that the Ancient Fathers had " cast it out of the chief Scriptures " ; against the Apocalypse, that it was also, according to Eusebius, by many of the Ancient Fathers not regarded as a work of the apostle ; and against the three books just named, together with the Epistle to the Hebrews, that they formerly " had a different repute " (ein ander Ansehen) } But the significance which Luther thus attaches to the antiquity of the faith and its universal acceptance in the Church does not, as we have already observed, in any way conflict with his position, that the decisive ground of our confidence in it nevertheless lies, and must lie, elsewhere. Such declarations as above cited in regard to the Apocryphal Books, or Antilegomenoi, by no means 1 Vol. I., pp. 408, 421, 505 sqq. Vol. II., pp. 53 sq., 160 sq., 163. *Cf. Vol. I., pp. 317, 322, 406. Erl. Ed., lxiii, 158, 159, 154. IS 226 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. imply that the external testimony, the lack of which would be an argument against the canonicity of any book, could of itself be accepted as sufficient testimony in its behaK. Such a lack of testimony is not even, as we shall find, for Luther the most weighty reason for his denial of the canonicity of particular books. He makes no further use of arguments drawn from the prophecies recorded in Scripture, by whose historical fulfilment our faith in the Word of God is to be confirmed. There is in the writings of Luther a notable absence of any apologetic discussion of the separate criteria by which the claim of a divine character for the Scriptures must be tested. It may be said in explanation of this,1 that no one in his day denied the divine origin of the Scriptures, and there was hence no occasion to defend it. On the other hand, this was assumed by all, and the Reformer was able to appeal to the Scriptures, which all alike acknowledged as divine, for arguments against the presumptuous claims of ecclesiastical tradition and the so-called inner light of the Fanatics. He himseK1 at one time remarked, that there is no longer any need of miracles, since the Scriptures aie now accepted even by the Papists and all the sects.2 Had he been brought into contact with parties opposing the Scriptures at large, he would no doubt have devoted much more attention to formal argument in their behalf. Yet it is to be, of course,' assumed that the grounds upon which faith in the divine Word must be originally based, and had in his own case been actually established, were clearly enough defined in his own mind. This has been manKest in our earlier investigations, and now again appears with equal clearness. We have just quoted the assertion, that every one must " realize within himself that it is truth." It is, according to Luther, the Holy Spirit who enables us, in the use of the Scriptures, to realize this. What Luther asserts, especially of the origination of faith by the Holy Spirit by means of the Scriptures, must be applied also to faith in the Scriptures themselves. Thus it is said, in the passage in which he speaks of external signs for the confirmation of faith : The Holy Spirit writes such (conviction) upon the hearts of men. The true hearer of the divine Word, says he, can testify that it is not the word of a man, but assuredly the Word of God : for God teaches him inwardly ; he is drawn by 'Vol. I., p. 509. 2 Erl., Ed., 1, 87. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 227 the Father. The true divine faith believes the Word, not for the sake of the preacher who declares it, " but it feels that what is said is certainly true " (er fiihlet, dass so gewiss wahr ist) . " The Word, of itself, must satisfy the heart, must so enclose and lay hold upon the man, that he, though ensnared in it, feels how true and right it is." Thus the Samaritans (John iv. 42) were, for example, compelled to believe. Luther here maintains most positively the doctrine of the witness of the Holy Spirit and that of divinely-wrought faith (fides divina). Accordingly, had he upon any occasion been called to face antagonists refusing to acknowledge the validity of the Word of God, we may be perfectly assured that he would have had no fear of meeting decisive force in any argument whatsoever based upon external criteria. In the light of this, we must understand a statement of the Tischreden : " With any one who denies that the evangelical Scriptures are the Word of God I will not argue a single word ; for we should not enter into dispiite with any one who rejects the first principles 1 prima principia, perhaps in the sense of ' primary sources ')." ' But in all the utterances of Luther concerning the " divine faith," he speaks not of faith in the divinity of the Scriptures in themselves considered, but he includes also faith in the truth which they contain, and has, indeed, for the most part, the latter chiefly in view. Thus, also, in the process of development experienced in his own inner life, the " divine faith " in the origin and character of Scripture, as contrasted with the human recognition which he had accorded it from his childhood, was not awakened until the Spirit had made clear to his mind, and imprinted upon his heart, the truth which it contained. Rather, on the contrary, had the chief content of Scripture, the funda mental doctrine of salvation, been already fully and powerfully revealed to his spirit by the Spirit from on high before he clearly recognized the fundamental difference between reverence for Scripture and reverence for ecclesiastical ordinances. Then already, also, had the Word of God in the Scriptures impressed itself upon his inner spiritual nature as a grand testimony to the Law, on the one hand, and to grace upon the other, with its central point in Christ Himself, to whom the Law was de signed directly to lead man. 1 Erl. Ed., xxviii, 340. Cf. Vol. I., pp. 322, 4°8, 5°8- El1- Ed-> vi> 23J > xlvii, 352 sq. ; x^A- sq- Tischr., Forst., i, 28. 228 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. In fact, this attitude toward the Scriptures, as such, and toward their contents is the characteristic feature of Luther's method of faith and doctrine. As he had, in his own use of the Scriptures, been drawn by the Father to the Son and Saviour, so, likewise, it was only after he had come to rightly apprehend and know the Son that he learned to rely clearly and firmly upon the Scriptures themselves, in contrast with all human authority and human fanaticism. In his own writings, however, we find no closer examination or analysis of the relation between these two aspects in the development of faith. With this general attitude toward the Scriptures corresponded, further, his conception of the proper position which the separate books of the Bible should, by virtue of their contents, occupy in relation to each other and as constituent parts of one whole — and of the significance which is accordingly to be ascribed to each. Christ Himself is the central point, by its relation to which all else is to be estimated. To Him — to the blessing announced already to Abraham, to the Vanquisher of the serpent announced already to Adam, points the whole volume of Scripture in both Old and New Testaments, with its commandments and promises, its divine deeds and divine utterances. He is " the point in the circle whence the whole circle has emanated and which .is seen from every part of it." He is the " Lord and King of the Scriptures." ' Upon the relation of each book to Him, therefore, depends its position and significance. Inasmuch as the inner value of the separate books to faith is conditioned by this principle, it is just upon this that the chief stress is laid in Luther's decision of the question 'whether any particular book has a valid iclaim to canonical authority. In this light we can understand the declaration : "This is the real touch stone by which all books are to be judged, i. e., when we see whether they make much of Christ or not." That which does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though it be taught by St. Peter or St. Paul ; on the other hand, that which preaches Christ would be apostolic, even though it were the work of Judas, Annas, etc.2 Of course, he does not mean by this that every book which pro- 'Erl. Ed., xlvii, 242 sqq.; xxxiv, 17 sqq.; xlvi, 348. Comm. ad Gal., i, 388 sq. 2 Erl. Ed., lxiii, 157 ; see also ibid., ii4ngq- ; Ii. 337 (where Luther demands particularly testimony to the death and resurrection of Christ). SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 229 claims Christ, and is accordingly apostolic in its contents, is therefore to be placed upon an equality with the writings of- the apostles themselves. He does not here mean to deny the supremacy which he ascribes to the Bible and its testimony of Christ above all other and merely human exhibitions of saving truth. This cannot be his meaning, even when he in one passage calls Melanchthon's Loci " a little book worthy not only of immortality, but of any ecclesiastical canon." 1 On the contrary, he cherishes, in regard to all human books, even though faithfully teaching of Christ, and especially in regard to his own, the fear that they may lead men to neglect the reading of the one Book " which alone is the fount of all wisdom." '' He valued books of this class only in so far as they were in manifest harmony with the original source of Christian truth. A lack, upon the other hand, of such testimony in behaK of Christ as may and should still be borne by Christians of the post-apostolic period is for him an evidence against the claims of any book to apostolicity and canonical authority. We find this principle applied especially in his utterances in regard to the Epistle of St. James. We have already cited his opinion as to the general spirit of this epistle. It was in 1522 that he asserted: James teaches nothing about Christ, although he mentions Him a number of times : instead, he urges, in opposition especially to St. Paul, only to the Law and its works. He calls it a real epistle of straw in comparison with John, Paul and Peter. Nor was it only in the earlier years of his life that he ventured to express such an opinion. He declared, in that portion of the Church Postils which first appeared in 1543, that this epistle was not composed by an apostle ; that it is not to be compared by any means with the writings of the apostles; and that it is not altogether in harmony with pure doctrine. In his Latin Commentary upon Genesis, he even presumes to say in reference to the conclusions of the epistle touching the doctrine of justification: James argues badly — James wanders (delirat) ? We are therefore, according to Luther, to place this inner 'Jena, iii, 166. Cf. Preface to Latin Works, Jena, I. ; Tischr., ii, 439. 2 Op. Ex., iv, 328. Cf. infra, p. 251. 3 Vol. I., pp. 322, 406. Erl. Ed., lxiii, 156 sq. (A. D. 1522), 115 (1522); li, 317 (1523) 5 viii» 207 (Cf- l67 Anm- and ErL Edi' vii' Preface> P- xii)- Op. Ex., v, 227. 230 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. criticism, and that, too, as being the most important, side by side with the consensus of ancient external testimony, which -he re garded as insufficient to decide absolutely the character of separ ate books. He took also into account considerations other than those of dogmatical character. The employment of expressions found in the Petrine and Pauline Epistles points, he thinks, to a later origin. The author of Jude epitomized the Second Epistle of Peter, and speaks also of that apostle as would be done by a disciple living at a later period. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks in the same way.1 This dogmatical decision of such questions was possible only in view of the peculiar way in which his faith in the Scriptures and their contents had been developed. We have traced the method by which he was led to regard the central point of their testi mony, i. e., that concerning Christ, as certain. This at once made him equally certain which were the "genuine (recht- schaffenen) and noblest books.""1 By these the others must be judged. These principles are observed by Luther in aU his utterances in regard to 3. The Separate Parts of Scripture. OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS MOSES AND THE LAW PROPHETS PSALMS PROVERBS ECCLESIASTES — SONG OF SOLOMON JOB — HISTORICAL BOOKS APOCRYPHA SUPERIORITY OF NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES OF PAUL ROMANS— GALATIANS EPHESIANS GOSPEL OF JOHN 1. JOHN 1. PETER SYNOPTIC GOSPELS— ACTS II. AND III. JOHN II. PETER HEBREWS JAMES JUDE REVELATION. It is their common relation to the one central point which con stitutes the Old and New Testaments one book. Christ and His apostles constantly refer us to the former as the basis of the latter; whilst the entire contents of the Old Testament itseK point directly forward to the New Testament revelation of salva tion. The former is a law-book ; but it is precisely through this Law that the race is to be prepared for the Gospel. Side by 1 Erl. Ed., lxiii, 157. (Luther thinks that by the "James "here spoken of is meant the son of Zebedee), 158; Iii, 272-3; lxiii, 154. 2 Erl. Ed., Ii, 237. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 23 I side, moreover, with the Law, and even from the history of the Fall onward, runs also the line of evangelical promises. Luther sees here, particularly in Moses, the herald and repre sentative of the revelation of the Law, and represents the teaching of the Law and the pointing out of sin as the " peculiar chief doctrine of the Old Testament." It is the " chief doctrine," however, only in that it is there most prominently presented, whereas even then already, and particularly in the books of Moses, the " much better article '' and " first article " is the promise. And so abundantly and fully does he find this (see, for further illustration, under the discussion of the Doctrine of Salvation) developed already under the old covenant, that he can say : In the Old Testament everything is already announced which was to come to pass in Christ in the future and to be preached con cerning Him. There is no word in the New Testament which does not point back to some place in the Old Testament where it is already announced. In this, therefore, consists, in his view, the chief value of the Old Testament Scriptures. The idea of a gradual historical development in the revelation of truth under the old covenant, although not altogether overlooked in his writings, falls far into the background, whilst we note a constant effort to discover everywhere, in as definite a form as possible, the great saving truths of the Gospel. In connection with the revealed Word, with its commandments and promises, we must consider also the significance of the divinely inspired histories of the Old Testament. The grace and justice of God are in these set before us as illustrated in particular examples. Especially do we see in God's dealings with His saints of old the eternal purpose of salvation, which was at length fully revealed in Christ, and which is to be accomplished in us all. We must not expect to find in Luther any such view of the course of Old Testament history, in its entire scope and in broad general outline, as is rightly demanded of modern theology. The partic ular narratives are rather used separately as illustrations. The value of the latter lies in their character as actual occurrences, and is not to be sought in any allegorical interpretation.1 All the above is applicable, as has been said, already to the 1 Erl Ed lxiii, 7 sqq. Briefe, ii, 650. (Many were at that time disposed to despise the Old Testament.) Erl. Ed., xlvii, 267 sqq.; iv, 196; xxix, 157 sq.; x, 163 sq. Op. Ex., xxii, 13. 232 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. Books of Moses, and, indeed, particularly to them. They take precedence, by virtue of their inner significance, of all the other books of the Bible. As Homer has been called the father of all poets, so Moses is, in fact, the source of all the sacred books and the father of all the prophets. He was himseK the greatest man and prophet before the birth of Christ, yea, from the beginning of time. God gave to him His commandments and the promise of Christ's coming, and all the prophets received the knowledge of these from him. Even the New Testament has " flowed out and distilled from Moses, like rain from the clouds, or dew from heaven" (Deut. xxxii. 2-4). ' Of Moses' proclamation of the Law, Luther says, indeed, it has only a subordinate authority (geringeren Befehl) . Moses received the Law from angels, and in it God does not HimseK speak. When we hear Moses exhorting to good works, it is as though we were listening to one who was carrying out the instructions of a prince : but this is not hearing God HimseK ; for when God HimseK speaks with men, they can hear nothing but pure grace, mercy and everything that is good, as He is in His very nature gracious, merciful and kind. /Thus God now speaks to us as He is in His very nature, not through a servant nor an angel, but through His own Son and the Holy Spirit.) Here we hear a paternal voice, which is pure, unfathomable and unspeakable love and grace. But this is said with reference to the character of the Law in so far as God has not as> yet revealed therein His own real nature, and with reference to the imparting of the Law through the human instrument in so far as. such revelation par takes also of the same imperfect character. It is perfectly con sistent with this representation, that the Law given through Moses and the angels and marked by the failure to exhibit properly the divine character, should nevertheless, as Luther everywhere else teaches, have its origin in the appointment and instructions of God Himself, (who desired at that time to reveal Himself only in this limited way. \flt is^iur-thei^characteristic of the revelation of the Law made by God through Moses, that this Law can bring to no hearer the Holy Spirit, although Moses himseK was already moved by the Spirit, and in the light of the Spirit bore his testi mony concerning the Law itself. In so far, indeed, as the Law briefe, ii, 650. Erl. Ed., lxiii, 22,(377; xlvii, 268; Iii, 290. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 233 was designed merely for the Jews, it was accordingly given through Moses by God Himself. God had thus ordained the Law as a special discipline for that nation and with a special regard to their inward spiritual state, and yet, at the same time, included in the outward ordinances also indications pointing for ward to Christ, until He should Himself appear in Christ. Thus Luther, despite the fact already emphasized, that God, in the sense indicated, does not Himself speak in the Law, yet says again, without qualification, of the Decalogue : Moses, the greatest preacher, received it from God Himself, who thereby testified that this is His eternal will. He says further, of the " forensic land judicial laws of Moses, which are not binding upon us": I Nevertheless it is a law divinely written and promulgated, — but again : I must give attention to this, when God says anything, whether it is intended for me} It will be observed how this conception of the revelation given in the Law differs from that found in Luther's First Exposition of the Psalms, where the Law of Moses appeared to be contrasted, as a human law, with the Law of the Lord.2 The exalted opinion which Luther entertained of the writings of Moses is manKest especially in his Commentary upon Genesis. No feature, even in the historical narratives, is esteemed of such small importance, that he does- not seek to trace in it a divinely- designed significance for our faith and IKe ; for we must ever bear in mind, as he so frequently reminds us, that the Holy Spirit was the original author ( Urheber) of this book.3 The great heralds of the Old Testament revelation, next to Moses, are, according to Luther, the Prophets. In accordance with the usage of the New Testament, he designates the ancient Scriptures briefly as " Moses and the prophets." The latter base their deliverances upon Moses, both in their enforcement of the Law and in their announcenieji^s_of_Jhe_Gpjjjd_jnessage. It was the design of God that, in their expositions of the Law, they should, according to the original divine purpose, " proclaim it- in love." But it is the message of salvation which is distinctly the principal thing in the prophets : Fjhey make His people in 1 Erl. Ed., xlvii, 357, 271. Briefe, ii, 650. Erl. Ed., xvi, 233 sqq.; i, 135. Op. Ex., vi, 14. Erl. Ed., xxxvi, 46; cf. supra, p. 36. 2 Vol. I., p. 115. 3Op. Ex., vii, 313. 234 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. their own day dependent upon the Christ to come."jj They all, as we. have heard, had recourse to Moses. But although Moses was thus helpful to them, yet the peculiar character and value of their testimony lay, for Luther, in the fact that the(Holy Spirit put it directly into their mouths j) the prophet has his under standing of the truth, without intervening means, from God — has no master but God. As to the relation of these two aspects of prophecy to one another, no further explanation is offered by Luther. He in one place discriminates as follows : The prophets, who are so called because they have received the Word from the Lord without any intervening medium, have, indeed, heard the Law ; put they have received the wisdom of the Gospel by reve lation from the Holy .Spirit) just as St. Paul also boasts that he has received the Gospel from Christ HimseK from heaven. Luther points, indeed, expressly to those evangelical revelations which the prophets found as well in the writings of Moses and David; but it is not their human meditation upon what they find thus already revealed, but an independent and superhuman inspiration, attaching itseK to the earlier revelations, which is the real source of their new and distinctive testimony concerning Christ.2 Among these propbetic testimonies, he regards that of \1ssl. liii. as the loftiest, richest and most specific : the entire (Scriptures, even the New Testament (outside of the writings of Paul), scarcely contain any passage which can equal this. It was, beyond question, fhe specific prophecies concerning ChristJ and especially concerning His death, contained in the prophecy of Daniel, which led the Reformer to designate that prophet as the most excellent after Isaiah.3 But the high regard which Luther thus entertained for the prophets did not restrain him from expressing adverse opinions concerning separate portions of their deliverances, f Hisrespect for them was based upon the testimony which they bear to Christ) It is this, which is the criterion by which all Scripture is to be estimated, which gives them their exalted place. But thev con tain also prophecies concerning other future things. This latter form of prophesying, he openly declares in the Church Postils, is 1 Erl. Ed., xiii, 130; xiv, 130. Op. Ex., xxii, 12. 2 Ibid., xxxv, 134; xiv, 59. 3 Op. Ex., xxiii, 441. Erl. Ed., iii, 266; Tischr., iv, 404. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 235 one of the most insignificant of prophetic gifts, and even comes sometimes from the devil. It is a form of prophesying which is not needed in the New Testament, and which makes faith no better. The prophets of the Old Testament are therefore so called, principally because they prophesied concerning Christ, and, by their expositions of the divine Word, guided the people aright in faith, " much rather than because they sometimes fore told things concerning kings and the course of earthly events, which (kind of prophesying) \f\efTJxercised also on their own account, and hence of ten failed in it% but the former kind of pro phecy they exercised daily, and never failed in it." As to the human, and therefore also humanly defective, intel lectual activity of the prophets, we have an open and candid expression, dating from the closing period of the Reformer's life (A. I). 1543). [He has recalled the divine injunction to search the Scriptures. I In this way, doubtless, says he, the prophets studied in Moses, and the later prophets in the earlier, and wrote down in a book the good thoughts then given them by the Holy Ghost ; for they were not such men as, like the spirits and vain rabble of modern times, to cast Moses asideand invent fabrica tions of their own. He then proceeds : \lBut although hay, wood and stubble were sometimes gathered along with the truth by these good and faithful teachers and students of Scripture, and not always pure silver, gold and precious stones, yet the foundation," etxX In this last quotation, Luther had in mind, indeed, all those who have taught upon the basis of the Scrip tures ; but, in view of its connection with the discussion which precedes it, we cannot avoid the application of it also, and par ticularly, to the prophets.1 In the collection of the utterances of the prophets in written form, finally, Luther, without hesitancy, allows the agency of other persons to us unknown — an agency, moreover, which is betrayed in the imperfect character of the work, and especially in the lack of proper arrangement. He notes this, for example, in the order of the different sections of Isaiah and Jeremiah, from which he infers, especially in the latter case, that the separate portions of their writings were not arranged as we have them by the prophet himseK, but " are taken piecemeal from his address as lErl. Ed., viii, 23; lxiii, 279. 236 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. delivered, and recorded in the book." It appears to him, like wise, that the prophecy of Hosea is not written in its full and entire form, but that certain sections and separate utterances are taken from his sermons and collected in a book.1 The Psalms constitute for Luther, in connection with Moses and the prophets (in the restricted sense of the term), by far the most important part of the Old Testament. They are to be classed with the prophets in view of their prophecies concerning Christ- and the congregation of believers, which Luther, to the end of his IKe, always delighted to trace. David he regards as essentially a -prophet. He expresses unbounded astonishment at the prophetic illumination of the Psalmist, as manifested par ticularly in Ps. ex., in which he almost transcends the attainments of the prophets themselves.2 Yet he now no longer, as in his First Exposition of the Psalms, thinks it necessary to find every where, if at all possible, (immediate reference to Christ) He finds, rather, the significance of the Psalms in general to lie in the fact that we have recorded in them at the same time what, according to the language and circumstances of the sacred singers, espe cially of David, all saints do and experience, and what Christ, the chief of all saints, has done and suffered. Particularly does he delight to trace in the trials of the pious a prefiguring of the Saviour's experiences ; and even when he finds in the text direct reference to the sufferings of Christ, he carries out the thought in application also to the circumstances of those who belong to Christ. He finds the death and resurrection of Christ so clearly foretold iff the Psalter, and the condition and essential nature of Christ's kingdom and of the whole Christian world so distinctly prefigured, that the Psalter might well be called a little Bible} He rejoices that we can in it, not only observe the works of the saints of old, but hear the very words which they employed, and still employ, in addressing God, and that their hearts and the inmost treasures of their souls are here revealed to us. In view of the prayers of the saints which they contain, he (classifies the Psalter with the Lord's Prayer. ) God has given them both to us, and taught us to use them in our own petitions.3 The traditional titles of the Psalms are commonly accepted by 1 Erl. Ed., lxiii, 57 ; lxi, 74 (1528 and 1532). 2 Ibid., xl, 40. 3 Ibid., lxiii, 27 sqq., 34. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 237 Luther as correct. But he frequently seeks also to establish the claims of the reputed authors by independent arguments, based upon the contents and language of the compositions themselves. Yet we find him describe the traditional ascription of Psalm cxxvii. to the authorship of Solomon, although the internal evidence appears to him to support the claim, merely as " quite probable " (sane verisimile) } Next to the books already mentioned, Luther placed the three which bear the name of Solomon, attributing to them a different and peculiar significance^ His view may be thus briefly stated : All tbree treat, in a general way, of th£_!moral life which all men should lead before God jtnd before the world, and not of the chief articles, i. e., Christ and justification through Him. \j3ut they do this in such a way as to refer our entire earthly life and all our earthly activities back to God, who rules in all things, and to faith in Him.^SThe first of these books, indeed, the Provexks. deals, for the most part, in its exhortations, with the (jfe of the individual in its relations to the world at large, to its own inter ests, and to the affairs of the family .J It is, in so far, a volume upon "economy" (liber oeconomicus). Solomon seeks in it especially to instruct and train the young. To this end, he con stantly cites the commandments and works of God, as, indeed, the commandments and works of God are the original source of all proverbs, and the proverbs of every language are, by virtue of this basis in the works of God (even where the Word of God is unknown), true and reliable. The contents of Ecclesiasles he thus describes : Just as we are from the Proverbs to learn obedi ence, as opposed to reckless folly and forwardness, so from this book we are to learn from life's trials and its failure to satisfy the heart the vanity of all human undertakings, in order that we may commit all things to the disposal of divine wisdom. The sub stance of the book is expressed in Matt. vi. 34. At a later period, Luther attributes to the book and its exhortations a special refer ence to the heads of families and to governments ; and, finally, a very specific reference to the latter : It might be called " politica vel oeconomica Solomonis "; it is a political volume (liber politicus) , not in the sense of establishing laws for human governments, which is the province of human reason, but as counseling the JOp. Ex., xix, 271; xx, 48. 238 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. rulers of the nations (and of separate families) to fear God in their various stations, and to endure with courage and fortitude the attendant burdens and anxieties. Of Solomon himself, Luther then remarks, in a general way, that he, in contrast with David, whose calling was to testify of his successor, Christ, and of justification, had been especially called to be a " doctor politicus," in the sense above indicated. The Song of Solomon he interprets in the same spirit. Here, he affirms, Solomon, as in the other books, celebrates th£ consoling truth that where obedience and good government are found, there God dwells, and with His Word, the kiss of His lips, kisses and fondles His beloved bride. ) Solomon had immediately in view his own king dom, which he, by the favor of God, governed in unbroken peace. The figure here employed is like that of Theuerdank, who brings to Maximilian his. bride, Ehrenreich. Luther does not ascribe the composition of Ecclesiastes directly to Solomon, but suggests that what the king had, after long and deep reflection upon human affairs, publicly expressed in an assembly, or at a feast, in the presence of some of his great men, was noted down and collected by others. Of the Song of Solomon he remarks, like wise, that it has the appearance of a book of extracts, consisting of utterances caught by others from the lips of Solomon.1 The Book of Job is to be classed, in Luther's judgment, in accordance with the nature of its contents, with those Psalms in which are revealed to us the inner emotions of God's persecuted saints and the dark ways of the divine dealings: with them. Job he considers as especially artgx&mple of that severest form of spiritual trial, which Christ was afterwards to endute^ namely, abandonment by God and the realization of the divine wrath and hell. He lays no stress, however, upon the actual historical character of the narrative. In the Church Postils, and that, too, in the portion which was added only at a later date, he says : The Book of Job presents us afgood illustration of what the devil can do against us, showing us, in an excellent romance composed by a poet, how Satan comes before Godjretc. His opinion, more accurately expressed, was, upon the testimony of the Tischreden : ¦Erl. Ed., xliii, 35-41, 91; xxii, 209. Op. Ex., xx, 48: xxi, 5 sq., 12 sq-, 273 sqq., 278, 284. Luther, in Tischr., iv, 400 sq , suggests that Ecclesi astes may have been first constructed as one volume by Sirach, who may have collected the material from many books, found perhaps in the Ptolemaic library. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 239 " The Book of Job is a history, afterwards cast into the form of a poem, recounting that which actually occurred in the experi ence of some person, but not in the very language in which it is here recorded." : The significance of the historicai^bqqks of the Old Testament is naturally determined for Luther by his estimate of the Old Testament historical narratives in general. To these books themselves he makes remarkably few references. It is, compara tively speaking, but quite infrequently that he looks to them even for illustrations of holy living, or of providential dealings, such as he is accustomed to introduce in his practical writings. The Old Testament characters to whom he chiefly refers are Abraham and the other patriarchs, especially Jacob, Moses and David ; from the period following the Pentateuch, it is principally David, and the materials for his life are drawn, to some extent, from the Books of Samuel, but mainly from the Psalms. The Book of (Kings he describes in the Tischreden as the register of the Jews, in which the history of their kings is regularly recorded ; and he regards it as more trustworthy than the Chronicles.2^ Yet all the books, with their significant narratives, continue to retain for him their place in the canon. He finds even in the Judges " excel lent heroes and saviors." Derogatory utterances concerning the apocryphal books of Ezra do not affect the canonical Hebrew book of that name. It is only in regard to (fcsther&hat he ex presses a different and, indeed, very decided judgment. He blames Erasmus severely for placing the canonical books of .Pro verbs and the Song of Solomon on the same level as the two (apocryphal) Books of Ezra, Judith, Susanna and Esther, adding in regard to the last named : ^which, although they have it in the canon, deserves beyond all the others to be kept out of the canon.' ^l Although we find this opinion positively expressed in only one passage (in the treatise, De servo arbitrio), yet the perfect silence as to Esther preserved in his other writings fully accords with it. His judgment was doubtless based upon the contents of the book. In one passage, he makes brief incidental comment upoiTJhe books of Ezra (Hebrew) and Nehemiah, as follows : " It is wonderful how he Estherizes and Mordecai-izes." ' ii i 1 Erl. Ed., lxiii, 25 sqq.; xxxix, 45 sqq.; ix, 366. Tischr., iii, 130; iv, 405. 2 Tischr., iv, 405. s Jena, iii, 388. * Jena, iv, 726 b (A. D. 1541). 240 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. The general severance of the apocryphal books from the Scrip tures of the Hebrew canon was~basecTtxpon the same principle which had led the Reformer at an earlier period to reject 2 Maccabees,1 and upon his judgment as to their internal character. In his German Bible of 1534, they appeared as an appendix to the Old Testament, with the explanation \" These are books which are not considered equal to the Sacred Scriptures, but which are yet good and useful to read." \ That he did not wish to have them left out of the published volumes of the Bible, is to be attributed partly to the good material which he still recognized in them ; yet we cannot but feel that he was influenced here also to some extent by theTgTadation in value and authority which he so distinctly recognized even among the canonical books them selves.^] How far, wejnust jnquirfi^wasj. deadline, of discrimina- tion yet possible for him between the least valuable books of Scripture and the best of the Apocrypha in regard tojhe one chief feature which must here pfb*ve_ decisive, i. e., the value and significance of theircontents? y Luther finds great differences, also, among the apocryphal books. He says that 1 Maccabees is, in style and language, almost like the other books of the Sacred Scriptures, and would not be un worthy to be included among them, since it is very necessary and useful in elucidating the prophet Daniel. He expounds the historical contents of the book in the same practical, religious way as those of the historcal books of the canon. Among the doctrinal books, his characterization of Sirach reminds us at once of the opinion expressed as to the writings of Solomon, especially the Proverbs. It aims, he declares, to make the citizen, or head of the household, God-fearing, pious and prudent, correct in his conduct toward God, the divine Word, his parents, wife, children, property, neighbors and all men. In the Tischreden, indeed, he observes that Sirach is no prophet, and neither teaches nor knows anything about Christ. The internal relationship with the books of Solomon, especially with Ecclesiastes, is indicated also by the supposition of the Tischreden, that the latter may also have been arranged by Sirach.2 In the Book of Wisdom Luther finds also much that is good and worth reading, yet it appears to him to Judaize very strongly, may have been the work of Philo, 1 Vol. !•• P- 3'7- 2 Supra, p. 238 note. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 24 1 and has been over-estimated in the Romish Church. From a comparison of the Book of Judith with the historical books of the canon, he concludes that the former is not historical, but an allegorical fiction. He regards it, nevertheless, as an excellent spiritual composition written by a holy and spiritually- minded man. The allegory he finds similar to that of the Song of Solomon. If it were historical, he says, it might properly have a place in the Bible. Very appreciative, too, are the comments of Luther upon the sections of Esther and Daniel not found in the Hebrew text — strikingly so, when compared with his estimate of the canonical Book of Esther, and yet not strangely, when we consider the religious and prayerful spirit pervading the former, but lacking in the latter. V The narratives of Susanna, Bel and Habakkuk he regards as further fictions^ Of Tobias the same may be said, he declares, as of Judith. It is a fiction — an excel lent comedy, whereas Judith is a tragedy. In the Tischreden, however, he agrees with Justas Jonas, who has been criticising Tobias, that the devil cannot be driven away so easily as the book represents. Of the "good Bai-uch," on the other hand, Luther thinks very little. Of 2 Maccabees he says, that it is, on the ground of i,ts contents, rightly excluded from the canon. He is willing to " allow it to go along, with the others," only because it nevertheless contains some good pieces. The so-called Third and Fourth Books of Ezra he did not include at all among the books " useful for reading." Neither were these books acknowledged as canonical by the Council of Trent, although they have been still circulated in the Roman Catholic Church as an appendix to the Vulgate. The Fourth appears in Luther's time to have been held in particularly high esteem by the Ana baptists on account of its prophecies.1 __ It is evident from the foregoing that, in Luther's view,)Christ is to be always regarded as the central point, even in the Old Testament Scriptures, and. that the latter already contain the most exalted and profound testimonies concerning Him*-I But the New Testament is superior to the Old, not only upon the ground that the former announces Christ as having already come, and ear- 1 Erl. Ed., lxiii, 104 sq., 107 sq., 101 sq., 93 sqq., 98 sqq., 103. Tischr., iv, 402 sqq. Op. Ex., ii, 302. In Tischr., iv, 402 (The Third Book of Esdras I cast into the Elbe), Aurifaber and Walch erroneously print "Esther" instead of "Esdras." 16 242 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. nestly offers Him to all as the Saviour ; but because, whilst the Gospel message appears in the Old Testament only in single promises and assurances of grace, in the midst of the prevalent presentation of the Law, here " grace and peace through the for giveness of sins in Christ " have become the special and peculiar doctrine, although, indeed, laws and commandments are here, too, incidentally given, jj^nd, however deeply some special passages in the Old Testament, as, for example, Isa. liii., revealed the very essence of the Gospel, it is only in the New Testament that the full, clear light shines everywhere. Although everything essential was already contained in the former, it is only in the latter that it is brought out into clear light. TheJ31d Testament is, as it were, a last will and testament of Christ, which can only now be properly read, and which is now to be everywhere made known. From the New Testament we must look" back to those passages in the Old upon which the discourses of the former are based, and to which they refer. On the other hand, it is only from the point of view of the manKested Christ that we are to interpret Moses lanctTxTe^prophets, for whose utterances He is as the centre to the circle.1 j Moreover, everything which the apostles have written consti tutes butjflue GospelA We cannot, with strict propriety, speak of " four gospels." The term "Gospel" expresses for Luther the conception, further,LoL,a living, public proclamation, sounding abroad through the whole world — not so much a word recorded in books and printed letters, but rather a spoken wordj There fore Christ HimseK did not write. That it should have been found necessary to write books manKests, in itseK, a great devia tion from the original method, and an infirmity of spirit. It is evident that a confinement^ trip T pttpr does not, to the mind of Luther, accord with the free spiritual character and agency of the essentially living and actively-operating Word of salvation. That the Old Testament announcement of Christ was committed to writing was to be accounted for by the fact, that itfj' only pointed to the future Christ," land was to be compared to a last will and testament not yet completed. Now that_Christ has come, He is to be vividly and publicly preached. Yet it was necessary, he adds, that books should be written ; . for, as false 1 Erl. Ed., lxiii, 9; x, 164; xlvi, 348. systematic review. 243 teachers arose, it was found needful at last toCresort to the pre paration of written testimonies^n order to furnish pasture for the sheep of the flock, in which they might themselves find ncjirislti ment, even though their shepherds should become wolves. Thus Paul wrote down what he had previously, and no doubt in much fuller form, orally taught. Thus the apostles in general sought to preserve the New Testament securely and certainly, as in a ^sacred ark.M Among the books of the New Testament we find Luther again discriminating, in view of their respective relations to the heart and centre of the Gospel. The precedence was, in harmony with his conception of saving truth, and with the course of his own spiritual development as well, accorded to the Epistles of St. Paul. They not only testify directly of Christ, but they carry the special message, that it isfonly in Him that salvation can be secured through faith. )He prefers particularly the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians — more specifically, the two first named, and, of these two, that to the Romans. ("From Romans and Galatians we should decide all questions, and in their light interpret dark passages in other portions of Scripture.^ {The real principal part of the New Testament, and the very purest (exhibition of the) Gospel, is the Epistle to the RomansN He praises, likewise, the Gospel of St. John, with which he would assign a place of equal dignity to the First Epistle of St. John on account of its exalted testimony concerning the Son of God, concerning God the Father, to whom it attributes all things and with whom it represents the Son as having all things in common, and concerning man's own inability and the mercy of God mani fested in Christ. [Among the four Gospels, he regards it as the one tender and real chief GospelTJ Special prominence is given, further, together with the writings of Paul and John, to the^TFiRST Epistle of St. Peter.) He assigns a lower position to the Gos-Mv pels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, inasmuch as they do not lay as much stress as the books above named upon the lofty articles ' concerning the^race which we possess in Christ and concerning faith in Him, but treat inQjQof the miracles of Christ and of the works aridlruits of faith. St John remains thus, for Luther, the foremost and chief of the Evangelists. Yet the significance 1 Erl. Ed., Ii, 326; x, 16, 366 sq.; Iii, 29; xxii, 183. 244 THE theology of luther. which attaches to the others likewise, with the emphasis laid by them upon works, is also recognized — more fully in the later than in the earlier writings of the Reformer. This phase of the truth he admits must also not be overlooked, and in this he acknowledges that the other Evangelists excel John— £3nly we must bear in mind, that the works must always be attributed to faith and proceed from it. ^The Acts of the Apostles is also held in peculiarly high esteem by Luther, on account of the testi mony which it bears to the chief article of Christian doctrine, that of justification by faith. CSe regards it as the constant aim of this book to teach that the Holy Spirit comes, not from the Law, but from the hearing of the GospelJJ The other books of the New Testament do not belong to the so-called " Homologoumenoi " of Eusebius, upon whose repre sentations as to the testimony of the early ages in behaK of the respective books Luther has relied. Nevertheless, he entertains no doubts concerning the three so-called Antilegonteuoi, i John, 2 John and 2 Peter. In the German Bible he allowed them to stand next to the first Epistles of John and Peter respectively, and thus to precede the Epistles to the Hebrews, those of James and Jude, and the Revelation. The four books last named he introduces, in his Preface of the Year 1522, with the words : f" Thus far we- have had the proper and certain chief books of the New Testament ; but the-four books which follow had in ancient times a different repute^) He does not therefore at all mean to indicate that he does not count 1 John, 2 John and 2 Peter as properly belonging among the principal books, or that he allows them to retain their place only because he does not wish to sever them from the earlier epistles of the same apostles. He published a commentary, also, upon the Second Epistle of Peter without even making mention of the Uncertainty of the ancient witnesses concerning the authorship. The explanation of his treatment of these books is doubtless to be found in the fact that thefiack of external testimony in their behaK appeared to him as of little moment when compared with the internal worth which he ascribed to them;iJjvhilst, at the same time, he found in them no such indications of later and non-apostolic authorship as in 1 Erl. Ed., lxiii, 115. Briefe, vi, 424. Erl. Ed., lxiii, 119, 153. Briefe, i, 224. Erl. Ed., Ii, 326 sq.; xliii, 81 : xlvii, 372; lxiii, 116. Comm. ad. Gal., i, 296 sqq. systematic review. 245 the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of Jude. In the Second and Third Epistles of John he sees illustrations of love and faith, and recognizes also in them, as in the First Epistle, a truly apostolic spirit. The Second Epistle of Peter he does not, indeed, acknowl edge, as he does the first, as among the noblest books, and refers to it much less frequently than to the latter. It appears to him, however, to display the same strictly evangelical, purpose which he had always had in view in his own teaching, i. e., it guards against the two opposite errors — urging that the power to make men pious and acceptable to God, which belongs only to faith, be not attributed to works, and that no one imagine that faith can exist without good works. LIn commenting, indeed, upon one passage of the epistle (iii. 15, 16), he remarks that, inasmuch as this indicates that the letter was written long after those of Paul, it might be inferred that its author was not St. Peter ; but he himseK does not draw such inference. He even says in regard to a doctrinal statement of the epistle, namely, that the Lord desires not that any should perish, etc. (iii. 9), that it might awaken suspicion as to the apostolic origin of the book ; and he himself thinks that Peter has here not quite maintained the standard of the apostolic spirit. His objection (expressed in 1524) was based upon his doctrine, developed especially in his controversy with Erasmus, concerning the grace of God and His gracious decree, against which the Papists, referring to this pass- .age and 1 Tim. ii. 4, maintained, that our obedience to the will of God does not; after all, depend upon God, but upon us.1 Nevertheless, he does not on this account discredit the apostolic origin of the epistle, but thinks that the apostle in this passage, in which he is writing not of faith but of love, has, as is the nature of love, stooped to the level of his neighbor, the future reader of his epistle. That Luther does not further examine the question as to the authorship of these three epistles, i. e., their human composers, is but a further and characteristic evidence of the nature of his critical principles as applied to the canon.2 {Tne four remaining books, as we have seen from the preface above cited, are not regarded by Luther as belonging properly to the scriptural canor|) So strongly did he feel it to be his duty 'Cf. Erl. Ed., Ii, 317. 2 Erl. Ed., xliii, 154; Hi, 213 sqq. ; li, 327 ; xliii, 115, 152; Iii, 271. 246 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. to call the attention of all readers of the Scriptures to the differ ence between the two classes of books, that he even altered in the German Bible the outward order of the books which had become universally prevalent in the Church, placing the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of James further back. We have already noticed how candidly he expressed, even in sermons, his opinion of the Epistle of James. His opinion as to the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews appears at first to have been not definitely settled. Although he, in a Christmas Sermon in the Church Postils, already pronounces as probably correct the view of a non-apostolic origin of this book, anfl men tions that some ascribe it to Luke and some to Apollos, yet, in another of the Christmas Sermons, and in a publication of A. D. 1523, he cites the epistle without further comment as a letter of Paul. But in the course of time he becomes, not more reserved, but more positive, in his_opinion. He says of Apollos, in a Ser mon of A. D. 1537 : /' The Epistle to the Hebrews is probably his" ; and, still later : "The author of Jie epistle, whoever it is, whether Paul or, as / think, Apollos."! In quoting from the epistle, he commonly speakTmerely of ""the author of the epistle", or of the " master of this Scripture " (Meisler der Schrift) } But while he thus, in forming his estimate of the four books in question, takes into view, along with the testimony of ancient writers as to their authorship, also both the external historical indications which they contain and the internal character of their teachings, , his opinion upon the last named point, which is for him the one of greatest moment, is by no means in every instance the same. In this respect, he esteemed the Epistle to the Hebrews much more highly than the other three. In his Preface of A. D. 1522, indeed, he instances against it the " hard knot," that in chapters vi. and x. repentance is absolutely denied for sins committed after baptism, as also the declaration in xi. 17 concerning Esau. These sound to him as contradictions of the Evangelists and Paul ¦ and he doubts whether the language will bear any other interpre tation than that which is apparent. Yet, despite this, he recog nizes in the book the very model of an excellent epistle, which treats in a masterful way of the foriesthood of Christ, and thus of the chief article of our faith, j At a later day, he not only con- 'Erl. Ed., vii, 181; x, 174; xxii, 133; xviii, 38. Op. Ex., xi 130; 1, 335; iii, 298. Erl. Ed., xi, 177. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 247 tinues to extol the epistle most highly on this account ; but he then finds the passages alluded to, if the text be but rightly understood, in harmony with the evangelical doctrine of salvation.1 From that time forward, accordingly, his only reasons for assign ing a/lower position to this epistle than to the other books of the New Testament were, that it had in earlier times " a different repute ^Jn a portion of the Church, and that it would seem, from internal evidences, such as chap, ii., v. 3, to have been com posed by a later disciple of the apostle. Luther never changed, however, his unfavorable opinion of the teachings of the Epistj-e_jdf_Ta_mes, touching the doctrine of justi fication. According to the Tischreden, he binds himself to put his leap upon the head of any man who can harmonize the doc trine of James on this subject with that of Paul, and to take the place of a fool in comparison.2} Yet, at the same time, even in the Preface of A. D. if 22, he regards the epistle as. worthy of praise, because it sets up no doctrine of men, but pays great stress on the commandment of God^ But, for himself, he cannot and will not — as he declares, though in a somewhat milder tone, even in the later editions of the Preface — place it among the real chief books of the Bible. He will not, however, hinder others from placing it wherever they wish, since it contains many good utterances upon other points. (j3.e attributes the contradiction of Paul's teaching to an intellectual inferiority- upon the part of the author, who wished to caution those who rely upon faith without works, but, in making the attempt, did not rise to the requirement of the task. In regard to the Epistle of Jude, Luther declared in 15 21, that it had formerly appeared to him unprofitable, but that he had come to see that, taken from the Epistle of Peter, it was intended to bear witness against the Pope (the antichristian intruders who were to appear) . In the Preface of A. D. 1522, he argues, further, in the way already indicated,3 that it does not come from an apostle. He • speaks in a similar way also in his exposition of the book in 1524. In the Church Postils, he says of it and the Epistle of James, that they are " not writings of the apostles." But nevertheless — evidently just on 'Erl. Ed., xl, 139; xliv, 126. Comm. ad Gal., i, 287. Op. Ex., vii, 70. 2 Tischr., iv, 399. 3 Supra, p. 230. 248 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. account of the testimony which he was able to deduce from them against the prevalent abuses under the Papacy — he considered them of sufficient importance to justify him in specially " preach ing and expounding " them together with the Second Epistle of Peter. He does not, in these expositions, adopt as his own the suspicions in regard to verses 9, 14 and 15, which ied some of the early Fathers to reject the book. In regard to verse 9, he expresses no opinion. To the argument against verses 14 and 15, that they contain a statement in regard to Enoch which occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures, he replies that neither do the names of Jannes and Jambres, found in 2 Tim. iii. 8, occur any where else in the Scriptures. He says : " Be it as it may, we let the matter go." At all events, God has from the beginning of the world permitted some men to proclaim His Word, and Father Enoch doubtless labored in that way. He afterwards, in the Commentary upon Genesis, says more definitely of Jude, that he does not know whence he derived this saying ; probably it had been preserved in the memory of the race, or some traditions of the patriarchs may have been recorded. He here names the apostle Jude as the author, without further comment. We may safely see in this favorable attitude of Luther toward the Epistle of Jude another illustration of the preponderating importance which he is accustomed to attach, in his criticism of the books of the Bible, to the value of their contents.1 Luther expresses, in A. D. 1522, a very unfavorableprjinion of the Revelajiqn_-OF_St^_J,ohn, basing it, again, upon the internal character of the book, with reference, however, also to the fact that many of the Fathers likewise rejected Jy We have already seen that he regarded the New Testament as essentially a free and open proclamation of Christ. In full harmony with this, we now find his opinion of the Apocalypse. It fits, he declares, the apostolic office, to speak and prophesy of Christ in clear, plain language, as Peter, Paul and Christ HimseK have done in the Gospel. This book, on the contrary — in contrast with the manner of the prophets even in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New — deals throughout so entirely in visions and pictures, that he is almost compelled to class it with the 'Jena, ii, 390 b. Erl. Ed., lxiii, 158; Hi, 272 sq.; x, 166; Hi, 277, 281. Op. Ex., ii, 96. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 249 Fourth Book of Ezra and cannot discover any evidence that it was indited by the Holy Spirit. Besides, it is enough for him, that Christ is not taught nor recognized in the book. He is, there fore, unable to consider it apostolic or prophetic. Yet he does not desire to bind others to his opinion. He merely expresses his own feelings in the matter. His mind cannot adapt itself to this book. In the same year, he appeals, in support of the priesthood of believers, to Rev. xx. 6, with the remark that the book is, indeed, " not of such a character as to be available in controversy " — " in the estimation of the ancients not of full authority in controversy." In a letter of A. D. 1523, he calls it " an obscure and uncertain book." The sermon of the Church Postils upon the Second Sunday in Epiphany contains, under Rom. xii. 6, the remark (with which may be compared the expression above cited [p. 235] concerning the utterances of the Old Testament prophets) : Paul does not here place a high esti mate upon the foretelling of future events, such as we find in the prophecies of Lichtenberger, the Abbot Joachim, and almost the whole of the Apocalypse. How derogatory to the character of the Apocalypse is this association may be inferred especially from the Reformer's opinion of Lichtenberger elsewhere expressed.1 But, despite the low estimate placed upon the book in gen eral, Luther had, in his answer to Catharinus2 maintained the /fulfilment of some of its most significant symbolical repre- sentations in the papal theology) At a later period, he labored more diligently to understand ' the prophecies of the volume, and, despite all the uncertainty attaching to them, to turn them to good account. He speaks with cordial appreciation of its portraiture of the kingdom of Christ at large, which, despite all the antagonism and assaults of hell, is to remain in possession of the divine promise. The most beautiful -of its figures seems to him to be that of the virgin and the dragon, which he em bodied in his hymn : " Sie ist mir lieb, die werthe Magd." He now no longer compares the Apocalypse with the prophecies of a Lichtenberger, but with those uttered by the 'holy apostles, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, after the ascension of Christ ; and the passage above cited is left out of the later edition of the Church Postils. Still, Revelations always remained for him a ' Erl. Ed., lxiii, 250 sqq., 257. 2 Vol. I., p. 207. 250 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. book of ("dark words and figures " — a " very obscure book " (liber obscurior) 7? Nor did he fail to observe how attractive it, together with-tne Fourth Book of Ezra, proved to be to the fanatical sects. The attitude which he now assumed toward the book is clearly revealed in the Preface which he substitutes for that of A. D. 1522. He acknowledges, on the one hand, that holy men do sometimes receive from the Holy Spirit prophetic revelations in bare pictures and figures, without any word or explanation, as Peter, quoting from Joel, speaks in Acts ii. 1 7 of visions and dreams. But he maintains, on the other hand, that without reliable interpretation they cannot prove beneficial or fruitful. As, therefore, no certain interpretation has yet been given of the Apocalypse, he has hitherto passed it by, especially as some of the Fathers did not consider it as apostolic in origin. For himseK, he can do no more than let the question rest in un certainty. Nevertheless, he not only does not desire to hinder any one else from accepting it as genuine, but he himseK still seeks to find explanations of its prophecies in the history of the Church, in the ancient heresies, in the Roman Empire, the Romish Church, etc. Thus, says he, we can still make use of the book — for consolation and warning. Those who are scandal ized at the abuses in the Christian world ought to read this book and learn to look upon such things with other eyes than those of reason. Jt will teach us to hold firmly the article of the Creed : " I believe in a holy Christian Church." To this extent, Luther's opinion of the book was changed — but not the general principles of his biblical criticism.1 4. Inspiration of the Sacred Writers. BIBLE GIVEN BY THE HOLY SPIRIT — PRIMARY INSPIRATION OF ORAL DELIVERANCES HUMAN AGENCY DISPARAGEMENT OF PORTIONS OF SACRED BOOKS. We have, in the above, gleaned the most important utterances of Luther touching the Scriptures at large and touching separate portions of the volume. But at what conclusion shall we arrive, 1 Erl. Ed., lxiii, 169 sq. ; viii, 36. Jena, ii, 468. Briefe, ii, 415. Erl. Ed., viii, 22. Op. Ex., xx, 152, 156 sq. Erl. Ed., Ivi, 359 (cf. Luther's Geist- liche Lieder von Ph. Wackernagel, p. 164). Erl. Ed., 1, 85. Op. Ex., ii, 302. Erl. Ed., Jxiii, 158 sqq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 25 I if it be now inquired, in view of all that has been said : In what sense can the Bible be called " a book given to the Church by the Holy Spirit," or, What does Luther understand precisely when speaking of the agency of the Holy Spirit? In reply to these questions, we are not able to produce any more precise explanations or definitions of Luther as to the nature and form of inspiration. Very important materials, however, for the con struction of a doctrine of inspiration in accordance with his peculiar view of the subject have been furnished by the foregoing review. Only upon the view of such an inspiration by the Holy Spirit as was peculiar to the Scriptures alone, in contradistinction from the productions of even the most pious and holy Christians of post-apostolic ages, could rest the lofty estimate which Luther entertained of the Bible as compared with the best of other books — only upon the conviction that its contents were of such a char acter as to make it, for all time, the One source of all truth.1 At this point, our attention is again fixed, so far as the Old Testa ment is concerned, especially upon Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. Luther confessed at the close of his life that he was still only an A B C scholar in the books of Moses, which no one had yet thoroughly learned to understand, and whose contents were deeper than any abyss ; and the writings of Moses have this character, because they are " a writing of the Holy Spirit," and because the Holy Spirit is the " author of the book " (libri auto?-) . The prophets, Luther asserts, are " also far_superipr to us " in their preaching of Christ, and they have received their message, as we have seen above, immediately from the. Holy Spirit. The Esalter not only contains testimonies^ to ^Christ of which the same may be said ; but for every prayer which a devout heart can wish to utter there may here be found words so £_gxact and precious that all men combined could not have invented such appropriate measure, language or thought.'"5^ Compared with it and the Lord's Prayer, our own poor attempts at prayer must seem cold, heartless and weak. For an explanation of this char acteristic of the Psalms, we must look again to the agency of the Holy Spirit in the work of the Psalmists. \To the apostles, finally, Christ Himself gave the promise of the Holy Spirit, who should 1 Cf. supra, p. 228. 252 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. teach them all things. They drew, as Luther often said, from the (fountain of the Old Testament} but even that which was derived from this source for their testimony to Christ they recognized only through the^jevealing agency of the Holy Spirit.} He himself, he declares, could, with the help of the same Spirit, make as good a New Testament out of Moses, the Psalter and Isaiah, as that which the apostles have written. But just because we do not enjoy such full and powerful aid from the Holy Spirit, we must learn from them, and drink out of their well. The Scriptures at large Luther calls directly " the Spirit's own writing" — in contrast with writings of the Fathers, from which, upon the theory of the Papists, the meaning of the Spirit in the Scripture must be learned.1 But we dare not interpret such expressions of Luther as indi cating that it was at all his idea, that the Holy Scriptures are the result of a unKorm divine inspiration, without the intervention of the human individuality and intellectual activity of their authors, or without any distinction between the various and diverse por tions of the Bible. It is to be observed, first of all, that, in the view of Luther, the agency of the Holy Spirit in the production of the written Word was in nowise more complete than that which He exercised in the Oral Deliverances of His human instruments. In the case of the New Testament heralds of the Gospel, we would be com pelled, as he teacheSgJo see in their witnessing through the written Word and Letter (a! form of activity beneath the dignity of the Spirit, if the special need of the Church had not required itJ) In the case jrfJheDrophets, Luther ascribes the agency of the Spirit, in the first instance, entirely to the oral deliverances, and he sup poses that these were, for the most part, afterwards committed to writing by other persons, of whose special endowment by the Spirit he says nothing. That the Spirit did not exert His energy with equal strength and fullness in all the recipients of the Word and authors of Sacred Scriptures, follows by necessity from the differences observed in the value of their writings. 1 Erl. Ed., lxiii, 378. Op. Ex., i, 4; vii, 313. Erl. Ed., xviii, 187; lxiii, 34; xii, 300 sqq; xi, 248; xxvii, 244. 2 Cf. supra, p. 242. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 253 Our attention is directed to the Co-operative Human Agency, even in the cases of the chief prophets and apostles, by the use which they make of the sacred Mosaic and prophetical writings already at hand, and the study to which especially the prophets devoted themselves, and in which they afford patterns for our imitation. It is no contradiction of this position to hold, as did Luther, that what was thus derived by them from earlier writings was revealed to their minds only through a specially clear and complete illumination by the Holy Spirit. The same is to be said even of the very first scriptural writer, Moses, from whom all the others derived so much. It was God who, through him, estab lished the Law and its outward ordinances. Yet, at the same time, Luther declares : jWe may even say that Moses took the Ten Commandments, wmch had been from the very beginning imprinted upon the hearts of men, from the fathers, as Jesus Himself says, in John vii. 21, of circumcision. He derived his judicial ordinances largely (plenaque) from more ancient customs, and he may have adopted many things from the practice of surrounding nations.1 We are led still further by observing the character of the highly- lauded Psalter, as in it the very heart of the believer and its inmost trials are revealed, Luther lays special emphasis upon the fact that thefinward and subjective experiences of which its writers treatfland th/earnestness with which they call upon God and testify of Himjare analogous to the experiences of God's saints in all ages. \The special agency of the Spirit is manifest only in the peculiar fervency and power>of their language ( Worm in which they are unapproachable. In the writings of Solomon, the chief stress is laid, so far as we can see, upon the pious human reflection of the king, walking in faith, and gaining wide experience of the ways of providence. But how stands the case with the Historical Books of the Old Testament? As far as the utterances of Luther upon the subject go, they fully justKy the inquiry, whether the sacred writers were not perhaps only impelled to their task, guided in their contem plation of the great divine realities, and directed in the choice and arrangement of their materials — but left in other respects to go about their work in precisely the same way as other historians ; ' Erl. Ed., ix, 253 sq. Op. Ex., iv, 259 sq. 254 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. and whether, consequently, their writings are not entitled to a place in the book which " God, the Holy Ghost, has given to the Church " only in view of their historical contents and such an influence of the Holy Spirit upon the manner of their presentation as above indicated. The Book of Esther, for example, could, con sistently with his expressed opinion as to its character, have been allowed to stand among the canonical books as presenting a further record of the history of the people of God — only, thus, on account of its contents, ^nd not on account of any recognized agency of the Spirit in its actual composition.} Its historical character Luther never called in question.1 In regard to the books of the New Testament, we need but recall the /gradation from a Paul or John} who themselves made use of the earlier books in pious human reflection, to the other Evangelists, and, finally, to James. Nor must we overlook the displacement of the Epistle to the Hebrews on the ground that it was not composed by an apostle. Luther felt himseK at liberty to allow its author, since he was not an apostle, only a lower degree of authority, and hence, also, doubtless but an inferior measure of spiritual inspiration ; whilst he by no means felt him self compelled on this account to exclude the book from the canon. In connection with the New Testament, however, we must take into special consideration those utterances of Luther according to which different portions of one and the same book are represented as related in different ways to the agency of the Holy Spirit. Even within the limits of particular books— and that, in the case of those to which he assigns the highest position — Luther does not attribute all utterances equally to the higher revelation. As this fact is of great importance in assisting us to form a more correct judgment as to $ae authority which he would attrib ute to the contents, of a book in view of the various elements which it contains, so also it leads to further conclusions as to the co-operation of the divine and human factors in theorigina- tion of the written Word. The most striking passages in this respect are the two already quoted in regard to the prophets, which are, indeed, only discon nected expressions, but which are publicly made without the least 1 Cf. the historical use to which he applies this book in his Supputatio anno- rum mundi, Jena, iv, 726. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 255 hesitancy ;hiamely, that concerning hay and stubble even in such excellent teachers, and that concerning secular prophecies, in which even they have been mistaken.^ A peculiar interest, however, attaches to the deliverances of the Reformer in regard to passages of Scripture which appear to be mutually contradictory. [We must here carefully discriminate between scriptural presentations of saving truth, which constitute for Luther the substance of Christian belief, and the narratives of external historical events^ Touching the former, it is to Luther inconceivable tbat there should be any contradiction whatsoever, or any error, in. the canonical Scriptures whose origin is to be traced to the Holy Spirit] It is only in the Epistle of James that he finds anything of the kind, and it is just on account of this that he so positively excludes that Epistle from the list of the chief books. If he, in some other connections, when arguing with opponents who appeal to scriptural passages in support of work- righteousness, exalts the One Christ who is Lord over the whole Scriptures — and if he says : " If the adversaries have urged Scrip ture against Christ, we urge Christ against Scripture " — he by no means designs thereby to acknowledge that the passages referred to are really at variance with the true doctrine, but, on the contrary, to assert that they, too, should, can and must be inter preted in harmony with the central point of all truth. When supposing, for the sake of argument, that his opponents should produce passages whose difficulties he could not solve, he at once adds : " although this is impossible for them."2 The case is different with statements of the second character. Here, too, indeed, he labors with conscientious assiduity and acumen to remove the difficulties. Of this, many examples may be' found in the discussion of the chronological data of Genesis in his commentary upon that book, and particularly in his Suppu- tatio annorum mundi, in which he rebukes those who are so ready to cry : " Here is an error." " But even apparent contradictions in the records of the Evangelists, such as those in regard to the time of the purification of the temple and the place in which Peter's denial occurred, occasion him no great concern. In regard to the latter case, he says that John here makes confusion, and may not have strictly observed the order of events. How- 1 Supra, p. 235. 2 Jena, i, 539 b sq. Comm. ad Gal., i, 387. 256 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. ever, he explains, no great importance attaches to such questions. He will not attempt to solve the difficulty. If we have the chief article of faith, i. ^./jhat Christ, the Son of God, has died for us, we will not be left in great distress, even though we cannot answer all other questions that may be asked3 Even K we should, in violation of the order given by John, locate Peter's denial entirely -in the house of Caiaphas, that will not take us either to heaven or to hell. He sees a departure from the proper order also, for example, in the eschatological discourses of Matt. xxiv. and Mark, as compared with those given by Luke. The two former have combined and commingled different discourses. In considering other difficulties, he supposes a corruption by a copyist, so that we no longer possess — not, at least, in our text — the original and historically-correct Word : as, for example, in the number of years given in Acts xiii. 20 and in the omission of Jakim, in Matt. i. 1 1. The chronological difficulties of Old Testament history after the time of Elijah and Elisha lead him to remark that, as the kingdom was at that time full of confusion, so also the record of the period is " confusissima." Nor did he hesitate, finally, to acknowledge even patent errors, finding such even upon the lips of a man who has just been declared full of the Holy Ghost as he spake, namely, Stephen. According to Stephen, Acts vii. 2, Abraham was called while still in Mesopotamia; according to Moses, not until his arrival in Haran. Luther is well aware that it is cus tomary to suppose a double call, but he does not seek to escape the difficulty in that way. He supposes, on the contrary, that it went with Stephen as it so often does with us when we make an incidental allusion without stopping to consider all the related circumstances, whereas Moses writes as a historian. He finds another error in the 14th verse of the same chapter, in which Stephen, following the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament, reports 75 souls instead of the 70 of the Hebrew text (Gen. xlvi. 27). He is in doubt as to whether the former figure crept into the Alexandrian text through the carelessness of the translator or that of the copyist, but he says candidly that Stephen derived the erroneous number from that source.1 Luther has nowhere more expressly defined the limitations 'Op. Ex., iii, 71. Erl. Ed., 1, 308 sqq., 325; xlvi, 174; xiv, 319, 324. Jena, iv, 718; cf. Briefe, v, 489. Jena, iv, 724 b, 749. Op. Ex., iii, 121; cf. Briefe, ii, 489, and Jena, iv, 749 b. Op. Ex., xi, 19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 257 within which such errors are possible in the case of even the most exalted instruments of the Holy Spirit and in the canonical Scrip tures. Nor does he think it necessary to make any further attempt to allay the fears which might thereby be awakened, lest the very substance of saving truth be rendered uncertain. His attitude upon these questions can, however, not cause us any perplexity, if we but consider what we have already had occasion to observe in regard to the origin and the central point of his own faith and the fixed and sure connection therewith of his entire doctrinal system. Nor can it appear to us to involve any real contradiction, that he who here expresses his mind so freely as to the reliability of books and their contents, should, under other circumstances, as especially in the sacramental controversy, cling so stubbornly to the very letter of the Scriptures. What has been said of the difference between various books of the Bible, and of subordinate statements concerning external matters, etc., could have no appli cation to the words employed in the institution of the Lord's Supper. Here, on the contrary, it remains, for him, beyond all controversy that the Lord and Master Himself speaks, and that He desires to embrace in these very words the substance of the true revelation of salvation. The relation of his attitude here to the freedom of his criticism elsewhere can therefore awaken no surprise. The only real question which may arise is, why Luther did not venture to interpret in any other way these words which his fundamental principles led him to esteem so highly. In explanation of this, we must refer to the reasons assigned by Luther himseK as above cited, to the remaining discussion of the present section, and ro the fuller treatment of the subject in our final review of the doctrine of the sacraments. 5. Exposition and Understanding of Scripture. SCRIPTURE CLEAR ILLUMINATION BY THE HOLY SPIRIT — INTERPRE TATION IN HARMONY WITH CHRIST ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION PRIVATE JUDGMENT. We come now to the important question : How are we to derive the truth from the language of Scripture? j We are already familiar with the leading principles of interpretation adopted by 17 258 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. Luther from our study of his publications appearing from A. D. 1520 to A. D. 1525.1 There are two features of the subject which come into view in connection with his general theory of revelation. God, on the one hand, in making the external, openly-proclaimed Word His organ, has in it presented to us the truth objectively and openly. The Scriptures are not in them selves obscure. We are not, in the first instance, to look for a deeper, hidden meaning instead of the natural and literal sense of the language ; but we are to accept the latter as determined by the principles of philology, and we shall never find this natural meaning obscured by any linguistic difficulties in the great scriptural presentations of saving truth. This position Luther maintained against the Papists, who sought to confine the privilege of interpretation to their traditions and tribunals, against the confusion introduced by the allegorizing of the ancient Fathers, and against the fanatical sects. He maintained, how ever, on the other hand, that the inborn stolidity and blindness of the natural heart militate against the true reception and spirit ual understanding of that which is objectively presented in the Word. Such reception and understanding are possible only when the Holy Spirit also exerts His illuminating power within the individual. He is " the proper Expositor and Revealer." Where He does not open the Scriptures, they cannot be understood, even though they be read, and however clear their doctrines in themselves may be. Since, therefore, the light of the Spirit, under varying times and circumstances, breaks upon the minds of men or is withdrawn from them, Luther can also compare the Scriptures, whose simplicity and clearness he so stoutly maintains, to a winding and deep stream, which cannot be taken and used everywhere and by everybody.2 All scriptural truth is, according to Luther, to be understood in the light of the one central point, the centre of the circle. Everything stands out in clear and objective reality as seen in its relation to this centre, Christ ; and, on the other hand, it is this same Christ, to whom the hearts of men must be inwardly drawn by the Holy Spirit. We are thus led by the clear scriptural testimony to Christ, the Centre, and by the illumination of the ' Vol. I., pp. 432 sqq., 503 sqq. 2 Erl. Ed., iii, 334; xlvii, 76. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 259 supreme Expositor and Interpreter, to apprehend in its entirety the fundamental basis of the Christian faith. And this is the faith in accordance with which thenceforth all separate utterances are to be interpreted. This is what Luther means when he says that we must so expound the Scriptures " that they may harmo nize with the doctrines of (the) faith " ; and that we should Lii teach that which accords with faith in Christ." ~~He here, in harmony with the dogmaticians, applies what is saidof prophesy ing in Rom. xii. 7, asserting that Paul there lays down rules to regulate the exposition of the Scriptures.1 In accordance with this we must understand also the statement above cited concern ing an urging of " Christ against Scripture." If any passage of reputed Scripture could not be without violence thus interpreted, he would no longer regard it as truly scriptural. " Scripture is to be understood in harmony with Christ (pro Christo) — there fore it must either be capable of reference to Him, or it is not to be considered as true Scripture." 2 If we look now for further deliverances concerning the Proier Sense of Scripture, as opposed to allegorical interpretations, we discover only a further development of the principles already reviewed.3 The traditional idea of a fourfold sense he re gards as utterly useless and impious. It mangles the Scrip tures and casts a shadow of uncertainty over everything which they contain, and it is then expected that men will resort to the papal chair to learn what is really true. The proper his torical sense is for him, on the contrary, the sensus capitalis, legitimus, genuinus, verus, solidus. He rejects, accordingly, the application of the Pauline conception of " spirit and let ter " to the distinctions between the different senses of scrip tural language. His explanation of this passage is in harmony \ with his declarations in controversy with Emser ' and in the Sermon on the Second Sunday in Advent, if 16} The Law with out grace, says he — and hence every law — is " letter." The Law has this character, moreover, not in itseK, but for us, in so far as it points to the Spirit, which it requires for its fulfilment. This, and not a mystical, anagogical sense, is to be understood by the " spiritual understanding " (spiritualis intelligentia) . Hence, no 1 Erl. Ed., xii, 137 ; xxv, 81. 2 Jena, i, 539 b. 8 Vol. I., p. 433 sq. * Ibid., pp. 188, 192. 260 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. dogmatic evidence of any kind can ever be deduced from an allegorical interpretation. It was a very difficult thing for him, he confesses, to tear himself loose from the prevalent method of allegorizing ; but he has now determined to have no more to do with it. He warns others against the perils connected with it. He hates it, as he himself has had a taste of its bitter fruit. Yet he would not condemn all use of allegory, for even Christ and the apostles at times employed it. He^aotes, on the other hand, the limitations under which it may not only be permissible, but may be employed to excellent effect/} He lays down the principles, that we must either have scriptuiaLfirecedent for the allegorical use of the matter in hand, or must be able in some other way to base the allegorical interpretation upon the analogy of firmly-established principles of Scripture, or articles of faith. The historical events which are to be allegorically employed must be, first of all, accepted as actualjjccurrences. Even then, alle gories cannot be used as arguments in discussion. They may, however, serve to clothe in picturesque garb doctrines previously proved and established ; and pictures of this kind, like parables, commonly make a powerful impression upon the multitude. They do not belong to the sphere of dialectics, which must do battle, and display the iron blade to the opponent, but to that of rhetoric, which is often sportive and brandishes a wooden sword. Thus, for example, St. Paul, in Gal. iv. 22 sq., after maintaining the doctrine in hand dialectically, and, as it were, with the sword in open combat, adds, for further elucidation and adornment of the subject, the allegory based on the relations of Sarah and Hagar to Abraham, which, on account of its departure from the historical sense of the original narrative, was less available for use in controversy. No distinction is made, in this respect, between allegory and anagogy, etc. Luther himseK, even in his latest writings, makes a free use of allegories. We may regard these, for the greater part, as sport ive inventions of the mind. c*At all events, he never uses them as proofs, but only playfully or ornamentally^ It is noticeable that after about A. D. 1525-1528 he does not make nearly so free nor frequent use of them. We may compare, for instance, the earlier sermons of the Church Postils with the later sermons of the same work and with those of the House Postils, and, particularly, the Latin Commentary upon Genesis with the Sermons upon the SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 26 I same book published in 1527. In the Commentary referred to, he follows strictly the plan of first fixing the^ proper and natural sense of every historical record, however trifling and insignificant it may appear to be, and then holding it up for the devout con templation of his readers in the significance which it may have, in this its historical sense, for the faith and IKe of the believer. Only after this has been done, does he sometimes add an alle gorical interpretation as a kind of appendix.1 In respect to the Right and Duty of the fndividual]fyA\h inner reliance upon the impulse and illumination of the Spirit, to derive the truth for himself from the clear Scriptures, and even to main tain it in opposition to the false teachings of the official leaders of the Church, the chief passage inThe writings of Luther is his, declaration upon the subject ThTTJ controversy with^Erasmus.2^ The section of the CEurch Postils published A. D. 1527 declares again : " that all Christians have the power and right to judge all doctrines and to separate~Triemselves fiom-false-teachers " ; for Christ says of His sheep, that~tKey~hear His voice, and not the voice of a stranger^, Luther knows, indeed, very well, that if we allow men thus to study the Scriptures for themselves, the devil will stir up the spirit of strife and faction, but — " K we seek to depend upon human councils and counsels, we lose the Scrip tures altogether and remain, hair and hide, the devil's prey " ; and, moreover, the Word of God alone stands fast forever, whilst errors are ever rising beside it and falling again.3 6. Study of the Scriptures. INWARD PREPARATION — MYSTICAL IDEAS — INABILITY OF REASON — REGENERATION ENLIGHTENS REASON — SCRIPTURES FURNISH ALL RELIGIOUS TRUTH HUMAN CONFESSIONS. The Scriptures are thus the rule according to which Christian 'Cf. upon the Subject of Allegorizing, Op. Ex., xvi, 316 sqq. Comm. ad Gal., iii, 344 sqq. Op. Ex., i, 295 sqq. Briefe, ii, 267. Op. Ex., vii, 305 sqq. ; ii, 302 sq. ; iv, 189 sqq. ; vi, 347. Erl. Ed., xvii, 164 sqq. Comm. ad Gal., 244 sqq. It is clear from the above that Luther, in designating Paul's allegory not tenable as an argument (nicht stichhaltig), did not mean to cast any reproach upon the apostle. 2Cf. Vol. I., p. 506 sqq. sErl. Ed., xii, 367; xxx, 19, 21 sq. 262 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. doctrine is to be framed — the source whence Christian knowl edge is to flow. To every one who desires to attain this knowl edge and impart it to others applies what Luther says of the theologian : " Let it be his first care to be a good textualist." To this end there is required, in the first place, an understanding of the primary sense of the words of Scripture, and, with this — not, indeed, for every Christian, but, at least, for every proper expositor of Scripture, or " prophet " — an understanding, also, of the languages in which the blade of the Spirit was originally encased as in a scabbard. To such a knowledge of the words, or grammatical proficiency, must be added also a knowledge of the subjects discussed, for it is not sufficient to know merely the names of religious verities. It is necessary, for this purpose, to gain a view of the inner relations of the truth presented, and thus, particularly, is a knowledge of the N£W Testament essential to a proper understanding of the Old. /But, as the spiritual blind ness of the natural man stands opposed to the clear light of the Word and hinders the true inward appropriation of the latter, it is, above all, requisite that man himseK be, with his own free consent, inwardly prepared to receive it by the influence of the Holy Spirit. Hence, Luther establishes the three rules for the proper study of the Scriptures : prayer, meditation, temptation (oratio, meditatio, tentatio). We must, first of all, die to our own seKhood, and to visible created things — must return to nothingness (redigi in nihilum). This comes to pass when we endure the cross and death. The " negative theology " does not consist in that in which it is located by Dionysius the Areopagite ; but in the holy cross and spiritual trials. " The cross alone is our theology." " Theology ought to be, from the beginning to the end, practical. It is by living, yea, by dying, that one becomes a- theologian, and not by knowing, reading and specu lating." x This terminology calls again to mind the relation of Luther to the theology of Mysticism, but, at the same time, sets forth clearly his opposition to the type of Mysticism which had been up to that time widely disseminated in the Roman Catholic Church, 'Op. Ex., xviii, 245. Erl. Ed., xxii, 183 sqq. (Cf. statements in regard to the lack of linguistic proficiency among the Bohemians, Ibid., xxviii, 420.) Op. Ex., iv, 36, 41. Erl. Ed., lxiii, 403. (i, 69 sqq.) Op. Ex., xiv, 261, 239; xviii, 302; xx, 15. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 263 and whose aberrations afterwards led to the Fanaticism of the age of the Reformation. The latter falls under the condemnation which he so frequently uttered against " speculations." He demands that all the cogitations of the renewed inner man attach themselves to the objective Word, and draw their support from it. This is already strikingly evident in his profoundly mystical tract, Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen. Nor are we, as the Mystics say, by our own " actus eliciti " to cast ourselves into the darkness, and to rise above existence and non-existence to God. Of such he says, in his Operationes in Psalmos, published so early as 15 19, that he doubts whether they understand them selves. In after years, he avoided the terms which they employed, as being liable to misconstruction. He makes use of one of Tauler's expressions, indeed — " redigi in nihilu?n " — in one of his later writings (the passage above quoted in which the words occur is from the Operationes), but immediately adds: Tauler here speaks, indeed, not in scriptural terms, but in a language un known to the inspired Word.1 If we now, with such conception of scriptural revelation, turn to consider the knowledge of God and of divine things to which Reason is able by its own power to lead, we shall find that Luther regards the " feeble " knowledge of God thus attainable as not a whit better than no knowledge at all. The real truth is not in it, and against the reception of this reason strives, just as the natural will is in rebellion against the divine. We have, in a former con nection, met the assertion of the Reformer, that only the light of Scripture, and not that of reason, can avail in matters of scriptural concern, although he still recognized a' certain natural knowledge of God which is within the province of reason. Returning now to the subject, and viewing it in the light of his theory of the authority and interpretation of Scripture, we must bear both of these principles in mind. (Reagoj^has still, according to Luther, and that, too, while man is yet in the state of sin, _a certain capacity for dealing with affairs of the higher spheje, is able to infer the existence, of an eternal divine Being, and has, also, by virtue of the Law written ^ojxJ&sJieart, a " legal_perception (cognitionem legalem), so that it knows what is right or wrong." But, inasmuch as it neither will nor can discover the very essence 'Op. Ex., xiv, 261 ; x, 7. 264 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. of divine truth, its feeble knowledge involves not only a lack, but a positive perversion, of the truth. This feature of the subject Luther constantly emphasizes, and we must explain it in this connection more closely. He very frequently asserts that reason is without any knowledge of what God is for us, or of the inmost heart of God in its thoughts concerning us — of those themes, therefore, which constitute the very core of scriptural truth. f. Reason apprehends not a particle of the knowledge of grace and Vtruth (John i. 14), of the depths of divine mercy, of the un fathomable depths of the divine wisdom and the divine wily The Law written upon the heart gives her only a left-handed knowledge of God. Her knowledge of the Law, likewise, is not the real knowledge of that which God demands of us ; for even in so far as she knows the contents of the Law, she still fails to understand it. She does not comprehend that love is the Law, nor does she, finally, at all apprehend the truth, that we are to attain eternal salvation by the will and commandment of God, but, at the very best, seeks to be saved by her own external righteousness. Of all the above she knows nothing at all, and is unwilling to learn, but strives with all her power against the acceptance of such truth. Hence, all that any heathen philoso phers have, however deftly, argued concerning God, and His providence, and His government of the world, is, in consequence of their ignorance of the scriptural relation of God in Christ, the Saviour, the greatest non-knowledge of God and simple blas phemy. Even the very particulars which fall within the range of the natural knowledge of God are so far from being thus appre hended in their real character, that Luther says in regard to them, and thus in regard to the entire sphere of religious truth, that reason understands nothing at all about them : " It is not possible to understand even the smallest article of faith by human reason ; so that no man on earth has ever been able to catch and grasp a proper idea, or certain knowledge, of God." Not even a spark of the knowledge of God has remained unperverted in man since the Fall. I A matters of faith, reason is stone blind, and cannot understand a single letter of divine wisdom. \ The sphere in which she can really comprehend anything, and in which she is entitled to be heard at all, does not extend beyond things secular, earthly and material. A discrimination may, indeed, be made between the lower and the higher reason (ratio inferior et SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 265 superior) ; but although, in that case, the former must be re garded as having to do with affairs of the home and the state (politia), and the latter with the sphere of religion, it still remains true that, in the last-named sphere, reason can of herseK neither accomplish nor see anything, but that we can here only learn and meditate upon that which is revealed in the Word. There fore, " Just shut your eyes and say : What Christ says must be true, though no man can understand how it can be true !" Just close up and blindfold reason, and give yourself up entirely to that which the Word from heaven reveals ! " In theology, so much must be heard, and believed, and established, in the heart. God is truthful, however absurd the things which He declares in His Word may appear to reason." Let him who desires to keep in the right path say, I believe — and not, I conclude, or judge — that this is right or wrong. The ability to comprehend the arti cles of faith revealed in the Word is purely a gift and grace of the Holy Spirit. Luther declares that he bears this testimony as one who has himseK had no little experience in the matter ; but it is with special reference to the Sacramentarians that he discusses the subject, and it was the conflict with them which brought out the doctrine into such clear outline.1 In regeneration, a new light dawns within the soul, the faith awakened by the Holy Spirit. Man lays aside his own light, his own thoughts, his own will. He becomes a new man, who regards everything in a different light, reasons, judges, wills, etc., otherwise than he had done before. Luther designates this a quenching of the light of reason ; that is, in so far as the latter was perverted — had transcended its appropriate sphere, and sought by itself to find the path to God. At the same time, he describes it also as merely a change of the man in his chief endowment, the natural light. Of the light of reason he says (A. D. 15 21), that it must be controlled by a spirit illumin ated by faith, as by a higher light : and (in the Tischreden) : Reason, which is before simple darkness, is in the regenerate en lightened and quickened by faith, and is now a glorious instrument of God, strives no longer against faith, but promotes and serves 'Supra, p. 218 sq. Erl. Ed., xlvi, 85 sqq.; x, 182; xiv, 144 sq. Op. Ex., ii. 167 sq. Erl. Ed., 1, 174. Op. Ex., ii, 268. - Erl. Ed., Ii, 400 ; xlvi, 291.' Op. Ex., i, 234. Erl. Ed., xx, 132 sqq. Op. Ex., xviii, 245. Erl. Ed., xviii, 1 1 1 sqq. 266 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. it.1 We find, however, no more precise discussion of the activity thus attributed to reason in the lives of the regenerate. The entire emphasis is constantly laid upon the fact, that to this enlightened reason the material of truth is given only in the Word. There is left, therefore, no sphere for the activity indicated, except in the formal treatment, in thought and speech, of the material thus furnished. We have several times found Luther demanding that the opin ions he was combating be established "by Scripture or reason." 2 Even when first used, as we attempted to show, this language was not intended to imply that the authority of Scripture and the judgments of reason are upon a fiar, or that the latter can ever be allowed to contradict the former. But it is very significant that in the later years of his life such expressions are no longer employed. But even more extreme in tendency than the above expression is one occurring in the tract, De votis monasticis, in which he appeals to the light of reason to prove that a vow is no longer binding when its fulfilment has become impossible.3 He there says : " The natural reason, that crude light of nature, although it cannot of itseK attain to the light and works of God, so that its judgment is fallacious in affirmative, is nevertheless certain in negative, conclusions ; for reason does not comprehend what God is, but nevertheless comprehends with the greatest certainty what God is not." Thus he thinks, further, reason does not know what is right before God (i. e., faith) , and yet knows very clearly that unbelief,, disobedience, etc., is wrong. To say nothing at present of the possibility of maintaining such a distinction, it is evident that the theory here advanced in such general terms might have been employed also by the Sacramen tarians ; for example, against Luther's doctrine of a God binding HimseK to visible signs. Such use of them, indeed, against any doctrine which the Scriptures seemed to him to clearly teach would doubtless have been at any time rejected by Luther; but it is scarcely conceivable that he would in later years under any circumstances have expressed himself in this way. Luther, in a special dissertation,4 discusses the question, whether ' Erl. Ed., x, 206 sq., 182 ; xiv, 221. Tischr., ii, 167 sq. ; cf. also Vol. I., p. 436 sq. (Erl. Ed., xxvii, 94). 1 Vol. I., pp. 279, 282, 436 sq. 3 Jena, ii, 527 b: cf. Vol. I., p. 453. 'Jena, i, 567 sq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 267 a thing can be false in philosophy, which he considers the science of mere reason, and at the same time true in theology, replying decidedly in the affirmative. Thus he says, /for example, that the declaration that the Word was made flesh,\true in theology, is in philosophy simply impossible and absurd ) for, according to the latter, the natural inference would be, that God had become a created substance. According to philosophy, again, we would be compelled to argue : God the Father begets ; God the Father is the divine Being (essentia) : therefore the divine Being begets. The solution of the contradiction involved he finds in the fact, that the conceptions of God, the divine nature, etc., have in theology a force and significance which are different from those attaching to the same terms in philosophy, and which lie beyond the range of philosophical thought and language. When philoso phy undertakes to pass judgment upon such propositions, or to draw inferences from them, it has, in his opinion, intruded upon a sphere for the realities of which it has no capacity, and finds its own conceptions and syllogisms much too contracted. In the same way, he proceeds to argue, the same thing does not always hold true in other differing spheres of knowledge. In the doc trine of weights, for example, it would be erroneous to claim that weights could be computed by the point and line of mathematics (point and line, belonging to another sphere, are here not at all applicable). Even in one sphere of philosophy, that may be true which in another sphere of the same science is false. Thus, it is true in the sphere of the earth's atmosphere, that moisture makes moist, but the same statement is false if applied to the (celestial) sphere of fire ' (i. e., the conception of moisture, with which one division of natural philosophy, or physics, sets out, does not extend to all other divisions) . From all of the above he draws the conclusion, that we should leave dialectics and lilosophy to their own appropriate spheres, and learn to speak in new tongues " (according to the new and peculiarly-consti- ited material furnished us in Christianity, and by the power of je Holy Spirit, who enables us to comprehend it) . It is not our task at present to inquire critically how we are, upon Luther's theory, to conceive of that very intimate relation which, in view of the unity of the human spirit in general and 'Cf. Op. Ex.,i, 35. 268 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. the identity of that spirit before and after regeneration, must exist between the old, feeble and perverted light whence we derive the natural knowledge of God and the new light ; or, further, between the entire capacity (light) for matters of the higher sphere and the " inferior reason." We can only say, in passing, that Luther does not furnish us the desired information upon this interesting point. In regard to the condition of man before regeneration, we must refer the reader to the entire doc trine concerning man in the state of sin and to the connection of the foregoing positions with the utterances of Luther in regard to the human will as enslaved by sin. Particularly worthy of notice, even in what has already fallen under our view, is the intimate connection in which the whole compass of religious knowledge is represented as standing with our personal moral and religious attitude toward God and with the inmost nature of God, i. e., His love, revealing itseK to us, and His consequent practical attitude toward us. It is regarded thus, as we have seen, by Luther as settled once for all that all religious truth is given us in the Holy Scriptures. Neither mere reason, nor even a so-called higher light of the Spirit, supposed to be granted to particular ""Believers or the official leaders of the Church, can be permitted to opjjose the revealed Word, or to go beyond it. Nevertheless, we have already heard him speak of a progressive development of doctrine, as constantly, and even in his own day, in progress. That which Christ and His apostles have said is to be further elaborated in all ways,1 and this is to be done by means of that continuous Christian prophesying through the Holy Spirit, whose special office is the exposition of the Scriptures. He acknowledges, also, that it is the privilege and duty of post-apostolic Chris tianity to epitomize the principal teachings of Scripture in brief confessions, and, when necessary, to employ in doctrinal defi nitions expressions not themselves found in the Scriptures. He says thus of the ancient symbols, that they are derived from the Bible, and that they embody in a brief summary that which is presented in a discursive form in the Holy Scriptures. There is, however, a noticeable difference between his earlier and later writings in this respect. He was at first, in his zeal for the ' Supra, p. 222 sq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 269 recognition of the simple divine Word, much more averse than afterward to the employment of any dogmatic terminology not derived directly from it. Even he, however, was led to recognize the necessity of such terms for the positive establishment of scriptural truth, especially as against heretics who sought to per vert it ; and he then availed himself of those which were already current in the Church. The former disposition is seen, as late as A. D. 15 2 1, in his Confutatio rationis Latomianae, in which he zealously maintains the simplicity of the Scriptures, and that no man should presume to express any thought in clearer or purer terms than God has employed; and, from 'this point of view, he criticises particularly the word 6/ioovcioc in the confessional definitions of the Trinity, although he himseK is in hearty and full accord with the positions maintained in the latter. In 1539, on the contrary (compare also statements in his work against Erasmus, Jena, iii, 218), he justifies the use of this word, .. and then remarks, in general, that the position, that no more, nor other, words than those found in the Scriptures are to be used, cannot be maintained, especially when engaged in controversy or seeking to refute heretics. He instances the employment of the terms, original sin and inherited depravity (Adamsseuche) . Thus, too, he availed himseK in his Christology, for example, of the scholastic terms " communicatio idiomatum." He had at an earlier day cited, as. a pure human invention without any scriptural authority, the maxim : " The essence of God neither is begotten nor begets" ; whereas he afterward, as we have seen in the disputation above referred to, acknowledges its validity.1 Among the ancient symbols, he prized above all others the simple, so-called Apostles' Creed. No one, he declares, could have better summarized the truth in so brief and clear a form. It was probably, he thinks, either composed by the apostles themselves, or arranged from their writings or sermons by the most competent of their pupils. In the Smalcald Articles, he expressly accepts also the so-called Athanasian Creed. In a manuscript of the year 1538, in seeking to establish the agree ment of his teaching with the doctrines of the entire true Chris tian Church, he combines, as the three symbols of the ecumenic Church, the Apostles' and Athanasian Creeds and that " attributed ' Erl. Ed., xiv, 83. Jena, ii, 430 b. Erl. Ed., xxv, 292. Op. Ex., xvi, 330 sq. Jena, i, 567 b. ; cf. also Jena, i, 572. 270 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. to Ambrose and Augustine," *. I2i5> 27&- 2 Op. Ex., i, 80, 48, 91, 96, 182, 260, 129. Erl. Ed., ix, 106 sq., 104. 3 Op. Ex., i, 82, 108, 127 sqq., 166. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 341 divine image which he bore, would have been called upon to lead. He was, " briefly stated, immersed in that which was good, and without any evil lust, just as God Himself, so that he was full of God." ' From the present life he would have been eventually transferred into life entirely spiritual, angelic, without eating or drinking or other bodily activities (cf. i Cor. xv. 45 sq.). Into this new phase of existence he would have been transported without pain, in the midst of a sweet sleep, similar to that which God had caused to fall upon him before the creation of Eve.2 The above is all embraced in Luther's conception of the divine image, as borne by Adam. It furnishes us at once his doctrine of Original Righteousness (justitia originalis), which may be briefly stated as follows : To man's original righteousness belong all the above elements, in so far as they affect his personal atti tude toward God — as, that he acknowledged God, obeyed Him, etc. ; that he, without being admonished from without, recognized and honored also the works of God in their true character ; that, as a further consequence, he lived in peace, without fear of death, etc. The more restricted idea of righteousness, as distinguished from the entire conception of the original state involved in the possession of the divine image, is not at all presented by Luther. The same condition of body and soul would have been inherited by the children of Adam, i. e., " inherited (original) righteous ness " instead of the now universal " inherited (original) sin." 3 Luther discriminates, in a supplementary paragraph, under Gen. v. 1, between "imago, D7V " and " similitude, fVlO"l," as follows : The former denotes the image in itself, which does not necessarily imply a full delineation of all the features ; the latter indicates the completeness of the image. Moses means to say : God is imaged in man, not only in that the latter pos sesses knowledge and will, but also to such an extent that he knows God and wills what God wills. In other passages, how ever, Luther combines both these ideas in a general conception, speaking of the "likeness or image" (Ebenbild oder imago). In the divine act, and in the original state of Adam, he thinks of both as really and directly one and the same.4 1 Op. Ex., i, 78. Erl. Ed., xxxiii, 55. 2Op. Ex., i, 163, 82, 288. 3 Op. Ex., i, 141 sqq. Erl. Ed., xxxiii, 55 ; xv. 47. ?Op. Ex., ii, 88. 342 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. In opposition to the dominant scholastic theology, Luther maintained, as a fundamental doctrine, that the entire image of God was in such a way impressed upon man in his creation that it belonged to his essential nature. He speaks of the theory, that the likeness (similitudo) , as discriminated from the image (imago), consists in gracious gifts by which nature is completed — that the image refers to knowledge and will in themselves con sidered, and the likeness to the illumination of knowledge through faith, and the adornment of the will with love. But even when he himself, under Gen. v. i, discriminates thus, he does so by no means in the spirit of the scholastic theologians ; that is, he does not mean to imply that it was only the elements of the " image " which belong to the essential nature of Adam, and that Adam received all else as a gKt over and above his natural endowment, either immediately at his creation or at some later moment. On the contrary, he says of the " likeness " (Ebenbild) , including all in the term : I think, in regard to the image of God, that Adam had this in his nature (substantia) — that he knew, believed, etc., God. He rejects with great emphasis the theory, that original righteousness (justitia) was not connate, etc., and to it he opposes the proposition : Righteousness was not some gift which came from without, separate from the nature of man, but it was truly natural, so that it was the nature of Adam to love and believe God, etc. This, he says, was just as natural for Adam as it is for the eye to receive the light.1 Luther could not, indeed, have taught otherwise, in view of his whole conception of morality, upon which, in turn, his final judg ment in regard to the state of sin depends. He knows no middle ground between a disposition of the will in harmony with God and one directly opposed to God. If God had not implanted the former in man at his creation, He must have then implanted the latter. It might still, however, have remained an open question, whether the possession of the divine image requires us to attribute to man in the original state such an entire, complete mental and corporeal equipment as Luther claims, or whether, even in connection with such perfectly correct disposition, we may not still think of distinctions in the degree and maturity of the moral and religious righteousness possessed. 'Op. Ex., i, 75, 78, 208 sq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 343 Adam did not yet, indeed, according to Luther, possess the perfection he was designed to attain. Not only was it alone by eating of the fruits of Paradise that he was to obtain actual immortality, and only at the end of his earthly life that he was to enter upon his truly immortal career ; but Luther calls even his innocence a " childish innocence," just as he had also as vet only a " childish glory" (gloria puerilis). It was still possible for him to be deceived by Satan and to fall. He still needed to be elevated, as to the glory of heaven, so also to mature manly innocence, such as the angels now possess, and as believers shall possess in the other life, i. e., to perfect innocence, from which it should be no longer possible to fall. 'The thought of a progress in moral development, which is thus acknowledged to have been imperfect, though pure, is no further pursued by Luther.1 He emphasizes only one further point in this connection, namely, that for Adam, as for the regenerate now, righteousness was, at all events, not to be attained by man's own works ; but, on the contrary, because Adam in his personality was created good, upright, pure and holy, his works also, even when he but ate, or drank, or caught birds, were right and good. The same idea lies beneath the saying of the Reformer, that Adam did not need to become more perfect, since he was already perfect by nature ; and he received the commandment from God«only to display and exercise his piety.2 Luther regarded also the general elements »of divine worship as essentially involved in the intercourse of man in his original state with God. He assumes that the seventh day was then already set apart to be kept holy, i. e., dedicated to God, for preaching of Him, praising Him, etc. He regards the tree of knowledge, with the commandment attached to it, as an outward sign. It was to be, as it were, a temple, at which Adam and his descendants were to assemble for divine worship. It was per haps, also, not a single tree, but an entire, grove. It is called " tree of the knowledge of good and evil " by Moses because of the unhappy sequel. Luther maintains it as a certainty, that the tree of life did not possess its peculiar properties by nature, but through the power of the divine Word. He thus finds in it already an analogy for the signs and sacraments afterward granted ' Op. Ex., i, 139 sq. 2 Erl. Ed., xlvi, 261 sq. ; xlix, 335. 344 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. to sinful man. In like manner, says he, the brazen serpent was appointed to heal, and baptismal water to make righteous. In this tree of knowledge, the Church also was in reality established — thus antedating the family or civil government, as Eve was at that time not yet created.1 But what is now conceived to be the relation between the inner life and outward conduct of man and the agency of God exerted directly upon him. We find no parallels to the sweeping dec larations of the Heidelberg Disputation? nor to the Reply to Eras mus? On the other hand, however, -we must point to the above- cited utterances touching the universal agency of God, scattered as they are through the whole course of his later writings. Luther still guards carefully, even in his comments upon the narrative of creation, against his opponents' conception of free will. By virtue of our very creation, he maintains, we are throughout our entire lives only clay in the hand of the potter ; we have free will only in regard to that which is beneath us, not in our relations with God, nor in that which is above us. Man possesses a mere passive, not an active, ability (potentia) . But the Fall is no longer, as in the pamphlet against Erasmus, traced to the doing or not doing of God, but simply to the decision of the will of man, who did not conform to the divine will. The question as to the rela tion of the universal agency of God to this decision Luther does not consider as a proper subject for investigation. The only con clusion upon this point, in its relation to the original state of man, which can be drawn from the writings of Luther, is the following : All good thought or deed could, even then, come to man only through the continual agency of God, who had implanted it in him by creation. Even then, he was not to aim at any seK- righteousness — was not to work actively, instead of allowing God to work in him — was to desire to be nothing but merely passive matter (materia mere passiva) } This original state endured until the first sin of the head of the race. The Original Sin from which we suffer then took the place of original righteousness. In discussing the fall, Luther simply and faithfully follows the Mosaic narrative. In the permission granted to Satan, in the ' Op. Ex., i, 117 sq., 99 sq., 288 sq., 129. 2 Vol. I., p. 284. 8 Vol. I., p. 488. * Comm. ad Gal., i, 374. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 345 form of the serpent, to tempt man, he recognizes the design of God to test man and exercise his powers ; in the actual fall of the first pair, simply their own fault. The sinning of men was only in so far conditioned upon their own nature, as the latter had not yet attained the maturity of " manly innocence." But Luther designs thus to attribute to men only a possibility of fall ing, and not an infirmity which would have made the Fall in any event unavoidable. He, in one passage, expresses the opinion that if the temptation had assailed Adam first, he would probably have overcome it ; but he does not even here mean to assert that a conquest would have been impossible for Eve with her lower power of resistance. It is characteristic of Luther, that he avoids all deeper inquiry into the questions here naturally suggesting themselves, especially that touching the relation ot the Fall to the divine counsel and operation. All the more earnestly does he strive to impress upon his readers precisely what constituted the sin in the conduct of Eve. She allowed herself to be led into doubt of the goodness of God, who had given the commandment, and presumed to pry into and pass judgment upon His will, which was concealed from her, whereas she should have been content to rest in believing resignation upon His Word. She became guilty of unbelief, which is the source of all sins. For getting, in her presumption, that she was a creature, she assumed the place of the Creator Himself, as Satan said : " Ye shall be as God." That the guilty pair discovered their nakedness, and it became a shame to them, was an evidence of the loss of their original righteousness and glory.1 In thus portraying the first sin, Luther has already expressed his idea as to what is the essential nature of sin in general. Sin is transgression of the divine Law — everything which is not in conformity with the Law of God. The Scriptures, he declares, never employ the word sin in any other sense. The fundamental sin is unbelief, which is a violation of the fundamental command ment, and thus of the entire Decalogue. The impelling force in unbelief is exaltation of self, in which man seeks himself to be God, and would have God to be nothing. The very same sin which there began in Adam repeats itself in our inborn tendency toward seK-righteousness. Man wishes to be God, since he ' Op. Ex., i, 182, 190, 184 sqq. ; iv, 122 sq. ; i, 209 sqq. 346 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. trusts to his own works and righteousness, and hopes to be saved by them. There is, in fact, no sin without this. Sin is, there fore, to Luther's mind, a fundamental perversion of the relation between Creator and creature, manifested in the human will. But sin is thus not only the external act, but everything in the inner nature of man which incites or impels him to the act, i. e., the inmost heart with all its energies. The root of all sin is unbelief in the depths of the heart. Luther expressly guards against the idea that sin lies in the very nature of the creature, as the latter was made out of nothing by the fiat of the Creator. There is nothing of the kind, he reminds us, in the angels, stars, or the entire firmament, which were created at the same time.1 Among the apostles, says Luther, St. Paul only has treated the subject of Original Sin expressly and with real seriousness. He himself designates the doctrine the most weighty of all contained in the Scriptures or in theology, and declares that without it a proper understanding of the Scriptures is impossible, as may be clearly seen from the idle dreams of teachers of the modern school.2 The nature of original sin may be directly inferred from what has been said of original righteousness. Luther, in his delinea tion of the subject, starts with the definition of Anselm, which he found also in the writings of Biel, at one time diligently studied by him, and which he describes as unanimously approved by all the doctors, i. e., that original sin is nothing else than a destitu tion (carentia) of original righteousness. He regards it, however, as a destitution of that which belonged to human nature, and a loss which involves the inward alienation of the entire man from his Creator and Lord. He then further asserts : Original sin is a complete fall of human nature — a darkening of the understanding, since we no longer recognize God and His will, nor cherish any regard for His works — a wondrous corruption of the will, so that we refuse to trust the mercy of God, do not fear Him, but, setting aside His Word and will, obey the impulses of the flesh. We begin to hate and revile Him, and our hatred of Him becomes passionate. We are simply turned away (aversi) from God. 'Jena, ii, 416 b. Erl. Ed., xliv, 79. Op. Ex., i, 185. Erl. Ed., 1, 56, 363. Ibid., lxiii, 122 sq. Jena, i, 575. 2 Op. Ex., xix, 73,75. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 347 This condition of the soul is the principal feature of the fallen state. To it is added, as an element of original sin, the subjec tion of the body to the power of vile and savage lust. Thus there is again brought to view the true reformatory element in the doc trine of Luther. He differs even from Augustine in this empha- . sizing of the most refined features of original sin, in contrast with the low and base " concupiscence." He continues, also, to contend for that higher view of the biblical conception of Flesh, which he very early advanced.1 He regards the entire man, with his inward and outward endowments, with his soul and reason, as flesh, according to John iii. 6. He explains this designation of man by asserting that in him all things are done to gratify the flesh, or to effect that which will minister to the benefit of the flesh and the temporal life. Under this conception he then, however, includes the whole scope of the tendency which stands in contrast with the aspiration of the soul toward heavenly things, the future life and God — the entire tendency toward seK and away from, or against, God. In Rom. viii. 3, we are to under stand, he says, chiefly unbelief, and, in general, all sin, under the term flesh. Similarly, he maintains, against Erasmus, that now even that which is most excellent in human nature is nothing else than flesh. He regards as included in the conception of this term especially self-righteousness, the wisdom of the flesh, and the notion of reason, that man may become righteous through the works of the Law. This sinfulness is inherited, or original, sin. We are infected with it from the womb. David says : " In sin was I conceived." He does not say : " My mother sinned when she conceived me," nor: " I sinned when I was conceived " — but he speaks of the yet unshapen seed itseK, and declares it to be full of sin and a mass of corruption. In meeting the question, by what means the material in the womb is already so corrupted, Luther falls back upon the lust of the parents connected with the act of generation, which always, in his view, retains some taint of sin, even in the case of the regenerate, although in the latter the sin is covered by the grace of God. In another connection, he even applies the above language of Ps. Ii. to sin in the conceiving ' Erl. Ed., xv, 46, 52. Op. Ex., i, 142 sqq. Comm. ad Gal., iii, 8 sq. Erl. Ed., lxiii, 126. Jena, iii, 215 b, 218. Comm. ad Gal., i, 205, 313; iii, 44. 348 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. mother. Upon the question as to the origin of the soul itself, he adopted decidedly the theory of Traducianism. In the year 1545, he asserted in formal propositions : The view that the soul is propagated (ex traduce esse) appears to be not altogether foreign to the Scriptures. Its adoption makes it easier to account for the propagation of sin. The character and spirit of -parents certainly reveal themselves in their children. Who has ever proved the thesis (of the Lombard) : " The intelligent soul is imparted by creation and the physical nature by propagation," or who shall prevent us from tracing the origin of every soul after the first to propagation? The thesis raises the difficult question, whether God is not unrighteous K He binds a pure soul to the flesh and defiles it from without. What shall prevent us, on the other hand, from maintaining that God might, in the first instance (at the creation), bring the " anima intellectiva" into being from nothing, and afterward from corrupted seed, just as He allows a rusty ear of wheat to grow from a diseased grain. At all events, the believer may, without peril, remain in uncer tainty upon this point.1 Another name applied by Luther to inherited sin, or "peccatum- originalis," is "sin of nature," i. e., the sin which we by nature, just as we are conceived and born by nature, bring with us into the world, distinguished thus from the actual sins (peccata actualia) which flow from it.2 This sin of nature Luther, however, regards as truly sin. For this estimate of it he contended especially in the discussion of the question, whether it was still sin in those who had been released from guilt in baptism or regeneration — opposing at this point the prevalent theory of original sin, according to which the term sin is here to be understood as meaning only penalty for sin (i. e., the sin of Adam), and only the " tinder " of sin remains, as a mere infirmity, in the baptized.3 Here, too, he firmly maintains, must be applied the axiom : " Sin is that which is not according to the Law of God." The supposed mere infirmity in question is " against God." God never lays down a Law in regard to any other infirmity — as, for example, a fever — forbid ding us to obey it. 1 Op. Ex., xix, 70. Erl. Ed., xv, 51 sq. ; x, 305 sq. Jena, i, 575. 2 Erl. Ed., a, 306; xix, 15. 8 Cf. Vol. I., p. 326. Also, very particularly, Confut. rat. Latom. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 349 From this view of original sin, it follows that it, of itself, makes us guilty before God. God establishes Law precisely for those things that involve guilt upon our part. As we are by nature sinners, so are we also by nature already the children of wrath. Hence, Luther demanded from Zwingli, and secured from him at Marburg, the acknowledgment that original sin is such a sin as to condemn all men to perdition. The Schwabach Articles declare : " That original sin is really and truly sin, and not only a failing or infirmity, but such a sin as would condemn and eter nally separate from God all men who come of Adam, K Christ had not interceded for us." 1 The scholastic theology attributed the sin of Adam directly to his descendants, who were regarded as having sinned with him, the head of the race ; but it did not regard the lust for sin, inherited from him, as in itself true and damnable sin. The question arises for us, whether Luther may not, together with the guilt which adheres to us because of indwelling sin, have accepted also the prevalent idea of an immediate transfer of Adam' s guilt to us. We can find no trace of such a view in his writings. In the sermon in which he defines original sin as a " destitution," etc., he proceeds to say : With this original sin we have been punished through (on account of) the sin of Adam. But he adds : This .original sin we bring with us, and it is attributed to us no less than if we had ourselves committed it. The assertion here, it will be observed, is that there is attributed to us just that which is now actually in us. He asserts, upon the authority of Rom. v. 12, that we are under sin and condemnation through Adam's transgression ; but he at once explains, that we would not sin and be condemned through his transgression if it were not our own, and that it becomes our own (not, in the first instance, by any action of our own, but) through our birth, in consequence of which the disposition hostile to God is dominant within us. He says again : Through the one man, Adam, and his sin, which seems so trifling in comparison with its consequences, it came to pass that we must all die, although we have not committed the offence, but have simply, because born of him, come under sin and death. In this passage again, it will be noted, he represents ' Jena, ii, 416 b, 424, 422. Op. Ex., i, 135 sq. ; x, 193. Erl. Ed., xix, 15; lxv, 89 ; xxiv, 324. 35 O THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. us as dying through Adam, just because we, through our birth from Adam, have also come into sin. He adds also expressly : " Although since the Fall, and when we are born, it is no more the sin of another, but becomes our own." On the other hand, we find nowhere in his writings any outline or basis for a theory of the transmission of guilt without such mediation as has been indicated.1 Let us now scrutinize more closely the general condition to WHICH MAN HAS THUS BEEN REDUCED BY THE LOSS OF HIS ORIGINAL righteousness — the extent of the sphere throughout which the corruption has spread. There is yet in man Understanding and Will, although these are most profoundly weakened and even utterly leprous and impure. There is still a great difference between him and the other living beings on the earth. Even the heathen have still been able to infer his exaltation above the latter from the fact that he walks erect, with his eyes directed towards the heavens. And there is yet reserved for him the possibility of restoration to the divine image, and even to a more complete reflection of that image, inasmuch as we are to be born anew through Christ unto eternal life, to the actual enjoyment of which Adam had not yet attained.2 Yet man is thoroughly corrupted in his very highest relations, i. e., to God and heavenly things. There is still possible to him a certain knowledge of God ; 3 but he can no longer rightly know anything at all of God, and, least of all, that which he most needs to know. This " feeble knowledge " * is thus, in truth, no knowledge at all. The best thoughts of the natural man, even those of the most famous heathen philosophers, concerning God and His will are nothing but Cimmerian darkness. Not a single spark of divine knowledge has remained uncorrupted in man. " Reason, without the Holy Spirit, is simply without the knowledge of God." The Law of God, in particular, is yet written upon the hearts of men. Otherwise, its proclamation would have as little effect upon them as upon horses and asses. But it lies in the heart in very dark and faded characters. The will is entirely and absolutely alienated from God, and in servi tude to sin and the devil. If we use the terms good and evil in 1 Erl. Ed., xv, 46. Jena, iii, 231 b. Erl. Ed., Ii, 144, 148. '¦ Op. Ex., i, 80, 77, 84, 107. 3 Supra, p. 219. « Supra, pp. 219, 263. systematic review. 351 the theological sense, and not merely in the sense of civil law — that is, as indicating that which is good in the sight of God, and not merely that which is outwardly good in the sight of men — we must confess that man without the Holy Spirit can do nothing but sin, and goes on from sin to sin.1 The scholastic maxim : " Natural things are complete as far as they go " (naturalia adhuc esse Integra), is therefore thoroughly false. The highest element in man, the spiritual (spiritualia), is corrupted, yea, entirely extinguished (prorsus extincta), so that there remains nothing but a corrupted knowledge (understanding) and a will that chooses only what is contrary to God. " Man, in divine things, has nothing but darkness, evil dispositions " (tenebras, malitias), etc. Luther is willing to assent to the above maxim only with the understanding that there shall be included under the term " naturalia Integra " nothing more than the simple fact that man, sunken in wickedness and under the dominion of the devil, still has free will and power to build houses, administer civil offices, and do other things of the kind within the sphere which has been, according to Gen. i. 26 sqq., made subject to him. The corrup tion which holds absolute sway in that portion of man's nature most directly related to things divine and truly good extends, furthermore, through the soul itseK and through the body. We have even lost almost entirely the original dominion over the lower creatures, retaining only the name, or empty title. We must acknowledge : " The natural powers are corrupted to the very last degree" (naturalia esse extreifie corrupta). Here is no trifling disease or defect, but utter disorder (" extrema &Ta^la ") , the like of which is found nowhere else in the whole creation, demons excepted.2 We can understand from the above how Luther could declare that the diving image (the " imago " as well as the " similitudo ") has been lost, and yet, again, that it has been " almost entirely lost" ; for that which yet remains to man was also a part of the original image of God. The evil within us, which has displaced the divine image, he calls an image of the devil himseK, which the latter has impressed upon us. The image of God has been 'Comm. ad Gal., iii, 8. Op. Ex., ii, 167, 268. Erl. Ed., xxxvi, 56 sq. Op. Ex., ii, 164 sqq., 265 sq. 2 Comm. ad Gal., i, 254 sq. Op. Ex., xix, 16 sqq.; i, 85; ii, 265. 352 the theology of luther. destroyed, and we have become like the devil. Man must be an image either of God or of the devil, for he becomes like the being in accordance with whose will he orders his life. But, inasmuch as this perversion does not extend so far as to exclude the possi ble restoration of the image of God, Luther, in accordance with Gen. ix. 6, allows so much significance to still attach to the original character of man, as created in the divine image, that God can, in view of it, yet acknowledge man as the noblest of creatures and forbid the wilful taking of human life.1 During the Flacian controversy the question arose, whether sin has, according to Luther, become (part of) the Substance, Essence, or Nature of Man. In the sense in which these terms are understood by the authors of the Formula of Concord, we must, with them, answer the question in the negative. We have already investigated the meaning of the term, " natural sin," used by Luther as a synonym for original sin. He means nothing more by the expression, "essential sin" (peccatum essentiale), employed, for example, in the Sermo de triplici justitia of the year 15 18.2 Original sin is so designated in contrast with actual sin (peccatum actuate) only in so far as the former is related to the latter as a native energy implanted in man to the resultant course of his outward life ; or in so far as it may be said that the entire natural activity of man produces only sin. That such is the meaning of the term is very clearly manifest from the significance of the contrasted conception of " essential righteous ness " (justitia essentialis) . The expression, "peccatum substan tiate," occurring in the Confutatio rationis Latomianae? has no •Nation whatever to the present question; since the subject there under discussion is not the relation of sin to the essential nature of man, but what is always and everywhere the essential nature of sin itseK, as discriminated from its possibly varying degrees, relations, working, etc. That the passage in the Com mentary upon Galatians? which declares that the sinner should feel himself a sinner and accursed not only " adjectively," but "substantively," yea, even as " sin itself and curse," is not to be interpreted as making the sin and man's nature one and the 1 Op. Ex., i, 77, 81 ; ii, 88; i, 84, 79. Erl. Ed., xxxiii, 55, 152. Op. Ex., ii, 291. 2 Jena, i, 177; cf. supra, Vol. I., p. 285. 3 Jena, ii, 418 b. » Comm. ad. Gal., ii, 31. systematic review. 353 same thing, is very evident from the application of the same language to Christ, who became sin and a curse (substantively) for us. The meaning is, therefore, only that the individual must feel himself entirely burdened down by sin. We must so feel because sin dwells within us : Christ so felt because, having no sin Himself, He took it upon Himself and His conscience. When Luther declares, in his Commentary upon Genesis? that sin is now part of the nature of man (de essentia hominis), just as the original righteousness was not merely a superadded endowment, but " de essentia hominis," he does not say that it has become that nature itself, and he immediately adds the remark, that man's nature (natura) remains, although in many ways corrupted (corrupta). In commenting upon Ps. Ii., Luther remarks : 2 We should know " that we are nothing but sin " ; and again : Sin is " that entirety (hoc totum) which is born from father and mother, before the man is of an age to be able to do anything or to think, but from which, as a root, nothing good in the sight of God can be produced." But he has here in view the inherited moral and religious tendency of man, as opposed to the scholastic concep tion of it — and not those elements of man's nature which he elsewhere always expressly represents as still preserved, though weakened. To the idea that sin may, according to Luther, be said to be the nature (substantia) of man, we may further, with perfect propriety, oppose the passage of his Commentary upon Psalm xc? in which he approves of the application of the term, "quality" (qualitas), or even " disease " (morbus), to original sin, in so far as it is thereby acknowledged as embracing the greatest possible evil, subjection to the divine wrath, etc. The thought, that it should be called our nature, is directly antago nized by the fact that Christ truly received His human nature from the defiled physical nature of His human progenitors through Mary. " It is truly human nature, not other than that in us " — only cleansed from the leaven of sin.4 The question may, however, still occur to us, whether, allowing that the nature of man in its other elements yet remained after the Fall, it may not have been the idea of Luther that, with the thorough corruption of his moral character, original sin has 1 Op. Ex., i, 210. 2 Ibid., xix, 16. 3 Ibid.,xviii, 320 sq. * Ibid.,ix, 174. 23 354 THE theology of luther. entirely usurped the place of the moral nature. Or, it may be asked how, according to Luther, the nature of fallen man yet differs from that of the devil. Has not that which-remains in man of his original higher nature remained likewise in the devil, just as, in the actual evil which has in man usurped the place of the lost higher character, he bears the image of the devil? We reply, that Luther never made any attempt to attribute to man such a corruption of the moral nature as he ascribes to the devil ; for with all the corruption of man's nature there is still associated a capacity for restoration, of which there can be no thought in the case of Satan. He says of the flesh and blood of fallen man : " It was corrupted, but in such a way that it could be restored." Thus the " mass of sin " (massa peccati) was purified when the Son of God received flesh and blood from the body of Mary : and thus, also, shall we be entirely purified on the day of our final redemption, for " sin ,and death are separable ills " (*. e., sepa rable from us) .' In the De servo arbitrio? he ascribes to men a passive aptitude (aptitudo passiva), by virtue of which they are yet capable of being apprehended and saved by the Spirit of God. We must acknowledge, however, that the term, " apti tude," does not throw any light whatever upon the question as to what it is in man that makes such a restoration possible in his case while impossible for Satan. The word is nothing more than another mode of expressing the asserted fact "without indicating its limitations — giving us only the " Dass," and not the " Wiefern " of the possibility. Nor do we find any further light upon the question in the writings of the Reformer. We can, it is true, clearly discover a difference between the fallen nature of man and that of Satan in that which Luther grants to the former in the sphere of civil righteousness and in the virtues often displayed among heathen nations, in which there is certainly not absolute Satanic corruption. But Luther himself does not seek to gain here a point of attachment for the possibility of restoration which he maintains, but at once fixes attention, as is his wont, upon the other side, i. e., the fundamental corruption which must be recognized even in this sphere of man's activity. We recall the "Synteresis" of Luther's earliest sermons,8 and observe how entirely he has abandoned that theory. He does not even now, ' Op. Ex., ix, 174. 2 Vol. I., p. 485. 8 Vol. I., p. 148. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 355 it is true, deny to man a desire to escape perdition. But in this he recognizes, not a secret disposition inclining toward true eternal life and the fellowship of God, but only dread of penalty and an outgrowth of self-love. True and real distress in view of hell and of the awful misery of the state of sin is, in his view, a product only of the renewing grace of God, which merely finds its point of attachment in man in the " aptitude " thus abstractly conceived. If we now inquire more closely as to the State of the Will in this total depravity, we shall find the strongest expressions ever made by Luther in regard to it still repeated and maintained. The free will is, said to be dead ; it is nothing ; it is, on the con trary, certainly the devil's will ; under its direction men are com pelled to live as captives of the devil.1 But in the method of establishing this position we now observe an important difference. The argument based upon the omnipotence of God and His foreknowledge has fallen entirely into the background, in com parison with that drawn from the character of fallen man as such, i. e., from the evil which dwells within us from birth in conse quence of the fall of our first parents. The chief interest of Luther always centres in the antagonism displayed against all claims of man to merit of his own, by which he may contribute to his own salvation, and against all unsettling of our assurance of salvation through Christ alone by representing it as obligatory upon us to contribute something to this end by our own efforts. He was compelled, in maintaining this fundamental position, to deal with the theories of the later Scholasticism, which sought, with equal boldness and artfulness, to combine a gross Pelagianizing view of the natural powers of the will with the assertion that we are saved only by grace. He often finds occasion to criticise the maxim which had been generally adopted by the Papists, that, " if man does his part (quod in se est), God then grants him grace " — that man, by works of his own good will, may merit for himself this grace (by which we are to understand a supernatural disposition imparted to the soul) de congruo, and may then, possessing this grace, perform a " work worthy and meritorious of eternal life " (opus condignum et meritorium vitae aeternae) . Into such great error, says he, do even the most pious among the Papists, such ' Erl. Ed., xxv, 73 sq. 356 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. as Gerson, fall. But he was called upon to combat errors still more extreme than these ; as, for example, that the natural man is able of himseK to fulfil the Law of God in the main — quoad substantiam facti — and, particularly, to love God above all things, and that he is unable of himseK alone to attain eternal IKe only because to this end the Law must be fulfilled also " according to the intention of the Giver," and this intention of the divine Law giver demands not only a fulfilling of the Law by love, but also a fulfilling of it in the supernatural disposition of grace and by a supernatural love. Thus, says Luther, do Scotus and Occam teach. It is not necessary for us to follow the course of his counter-arguments. The question was one of fundamental differ ence in the estimate of moral good in general.1 As to thsX free will which man still retains, and that righteous ness which he is still able to display in the operations of such free will, Luther's views remain the same as expressed in his earlier writings.2 The sphere of their activity lies in civil affairs, affairs subject to reason (res rationi subjectae), the things designated in Gen. i. 26, 28 — in brief, secular affairs, as contrasted with spiritual things, or with " free will toward God and in (regard to) the salvation of souls." The maxim, " naturalia Integra," cannot, indeed, be accepted even in regard to civil affairs (civilia). Great are everywhere the oversights of the men who establish laws in this sphere. Yet, within a certain compass, there is done in such matters what is in outward conformity to the Law. In this connection, we are led to think especially of the righteousness of the heathen. Luther does not always speak so disparagingly of this as in his strictures upon the theses of Zwingli.3 He too calls Zenophon, Themistocles, Regulus, Cicero, etc., great and excellent men, who, endowed with distinguished and truly heroic virtues, administered the affairs of state most wisely and achieved glorious results for the welfare of their nations. He recognizes in Regulus, Socrates and others, fidelity in fulfilling promises made, and truthfulness, designating the latter especially a most exalted virtue.* Nevertheless, all this kind of righteousness, he declares, 1 Comm. ad. Gal., I, 183-190, 253 sq. Op. Ex., ii, 270 sq. ; xix, 17. Erl. Ed., xxv, 72 sqq., 126 sq. 2 Cf. Vol. I., pp. 150, 430 sq., 484; also in De servo arbitrio. 8 Erl. Ed., xxxii, 400 ; cf. also, supra, p. 189. 'Op. Ex., ii, 166; xix, 18. Erl. Ed., xxv, 73. Comm. ad Gal., i, 255; ii, 130; i, 182 sq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 357 avails nothing before God. He says expressly, indeed, that God rewards also such works and virtues. It was in view of them, for example, that the Romans received from God their vast empire. Thus, in our own day, those nations which refrain from murder, adultery, etc., receive greater blessings from God ; while to men of such character are given riches, honor, etc.1 But such persons are yet by no means, on account of these secular virtues, good in the sight of God. They are not even thereby in any degree made capable of eternal life. They receive in out ward secular blessings the reward of their outward righteousness. For, says he, we must look upon the heart. And in the hearts of even the best men in heathen nations he finds the funda mental sin, pride ; in this he even discovers the deepest motive prompting them to their boasted good works. It was the desire to be held in honor by future generations which made them willing to die for their fatherland. Even in the men whom he himself applauds for their truthfulness, there was concealed, beneath an appearance of holiness and righteousness, hypocrisy in relation to God and alienation from Him. Theirs was not the truthfulness which lies in the hidden parts, and in which God takes pleasure (Ps. Ii. 6). They all seek to rob God of the glory and ascribe it to themselves. There is lacking everywhere among them the " right will (recta voluntas) toward God." Nowhere do we find the proper final cause inspiring their conduct, i. e., obedience toward God and love for others. We dare not inter pret these criticisms as indicating that Luther would trace all the good works of the heathen, or of the unregenerate, simply and directly to their underlying evil motive. On the contrary, he expressly says, in immediate connection with the above strictures, in regard to the virtues of the heathen as well as those of Chris tians : " It is true that the minds of both (classes) are divinely impelled " ; but " the desire for glory has subsequently corrupted these divine impulses among the heathen." The good, in such instances, he regards as coming from God, but from the personal inclination of man alone comes the evil ; and it is according to the latter entirely that the character borne in the sight of God by the man, with all his deeds and undertakings, is decided. In comparison with this attitude of the will, the differences observ- ' Jena, ii, 425. Op, Ex., ii, 47, 166 ; cf. supra, Vol. I., p. 285. 358 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. able, even in matters of morality and immorality, in the natural man, have no significance when viewed from a theological stand point. Before God all are simply sinners, idolaters, etc.1 It follows, that all have absolutely forfeited eternal life, and are absolutely condemned to perdition, unless saved by Christ. Zwingli's utterance as to the salvation of some among the heathen is a thoroughly pernicious and destructive error.2 In one pass age, indeed, Luther discriminates very decidedly between the degrees of guilt and damnableness attaching to simple original sin, before it has issued in any personal transgressions of the Law, and such actual transgressions themselves. In combating the opinion, that unbaptized children dying in infancy must be lost, he declares : " Although they bear inborn sin, nevertheless it is a great thing that they have never sinned against the Law.3 But he makes no distinction between a greater or less degree of damnableness as attaching to the varying extent of actual trans gressions. The result of guilt, or the judgment impending by divine appointment over the natural man, is commonly embraced by Luther under the terms, "damnation" (Verdammtsein) , or " death and hell." He lays great stress, in such connections, upon bodily death, in so far as the natural man in it experiences the wrath of God ; whereas believers, delivered from wrath, find in death only a gentle sleep, yea, pass blissfully away before realizing the presence of death. Thereafter, in hell, is really experienced the " eternal " death of those accursed of God. But the latter makes its presence felt already in this IKe. It is the terrors of eternal death which sinners, or the " spiritually " lost, " spiritually " dead, experience when the Law smites them to the heart.* In this condition are all the children of Adam, without excep tion, until they are delivered by grace in Christ. In regard to Mary, the mother of the Saviour, Luther had, when speaking of her in the Sermon in the Church Postils already referred to, not rejected the opinion that, in order to be pre pared for her high calling, she had been conceived without original sin, or without lust on the part of her parents, or had, at least, ¦Op. Ex.,ii, 272 sq., 266; xix, 18,79. » Ibid., xi, 76 sqq. 8 Ibid., iv, 78. * Ibid., xviii, 284. Erl. Ed., ix, 153; Iii, 363; iv, 166; xiv, 106. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 359 been sanctified in her mother's womb. He even himself sup poses that her soul was, at all events, at its " infusion " into the embryonic body, purified from original sin. The sermon passed, in this form, into the edition of the Postils published in 1527. Luther afterwards, however, taught, in regard to Mary, simply that she was herself born in sin from sinful parents, just as we are ; and that she also became blessed and free from sin by faith.1 Yet the possibility of being delivered from the state of sin by faith in Christ by no means dates, in Luther's view, from the time of the new covenant. It was included in the promises of God from the days of Adam (cf . the following section) . And even then already Luther looks beyond the immediate circle to whom the promises were directly given to the heathen, very many of whom, instructed by the Israelites, became partakers of salvation. As Naaman through the agency of Elisha, the Nine- vites through Jonah, the centurion Cornelius, so also many others — e. g., Egyptian princes in the days of Joseph, Babylonian kings, and other oriental nationalities — were doubtless permitted to enjoy with God's chosen people His Word and justification by faith. 2 The ardor with which Luther dwells upon this thought is very significant when viewed in connection with his earnestness in denying the possibility of salvation to all who have not received the Word of grace. He feels impelled to extend, at least as widely as possible, the revelation of grace, even before the time when it should be freely offered to all the world. Intermediate Section. Transition to the General Subject of Salvation in Christ. old and new testament revelations — word and visible sign — advantages under new covenant. We have found frequent occasion, even in the earlier stages of our investigations, to observe how decidedly Luther asserts an impartation of the salvation centering in Christ as realized already in the time preceding the Incarnation ; and it is, in fact, very difficult to discriminate, from his writings, between the New ' Erl. Ed., xv, 53 sqq. ; vi, 199, 189. 2 Cf. especially Comm. ad. Gal., i, 304 sqq. Op. Ex., xi, 78 sq. 360 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. Testament state of grace and that which had been previously possible. We long since met the declaration that, from the very time of the Fall, and then, more specifically, within the bounds of Israel, which was by no means under the dominion of the Law alone, the promises of divine grace have been proclaimed, by which all who have at any time believingly accepted them might be made right eous and saved. We have even been told that the forgiveness of sins was imparted through the Word of Christ just as well before His death as after it. By this it is not meant that salvation rests upon the Son of God, without reference to His incarnation and death. On the contrary, we are, from the very beginning, bidden to fix our eyes upon the incarnate Saviour. But God grants forgiveness before the work of Christ has been actually accom plished, just because, by virtue of His decree and the purpose of the Son Himself, the slain Lamb is before His view from the very beginning. And even among men in the earlier ages, not merely was grace announced in general terms, but the grace defi nitely associated with the person of the Son, who was to become incarnate and offer HimseK as a sacrifice ; and this announce ment was made, not only in figures, but in express, intelligible language. " Everything must, from the beginning to the end of the world, depend upon the bodily coming of Christ" (His coming into the flesh). But He had thus already come to the ancient Fathers of all the early ages in their faith. They had Him in spirit, and were saved through Him just as we are. Hence we say : " Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and to-day and forever." 1 Full forgiveness and the enjoyment of grace were offered to the first pair immediately after the Fall, in the promise concerning the seed of the woman. In faith upon this promise, they also hoped for eternal life and resurrection from the dead, as do we. God had further announced to them, also, that this seed of the woman was true God, as being Lord over the devil and his power, and, at the same time, that He was a person distinct from the One giving the promise. The promise was then made more definite, as given to Abraham: from his seed should come the Promised One, and in Him salvation to all nations. Luther then 1 Supra, p. 76. Erl. Ed., x, 277 sq. ; vii, 260 sq. Comm. ad. Gal.,ii, 138. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 36 1 quotes language employed by Jacob, which implies that he already knew " that the Son should come into the flesh, be cruci fied and rise again." It was further revealed to David, that from his flesh should descend Christ, the Son of God, who is like God, sitting upon the right hand of the Father. That He should spring, not from the union of man and woman, but from a virgin, was indicated by Isaiah (vii. 14). Eve had at first thought that her own first-born son might be the Saviour.1 The patriarchs prayed in the proper spirit and in faith, although their faith looked only to the Christ who was to come, whereas we now pray in the name of Him who has already come.2 The Trinity had also, in a general way, been revealed to them.3 God had, more over, then already affixed to His promise visible signs of His grace, to which faith was to cling, just as we now have " visible signs of grace " in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. He never left His Church without external signs, by which we might know where He is to be certainly found. The tree of knowledge in Paradise served this purpose. The sacrifice which we then find Abel offering to the Lord undoubtedly rested upon an appointment of the divine Word. God had probably given a new visible sign for the encouragement of divine worship at the time of the revival of the Church under Enos (Gen. iv. 26). After the flood appeared the rainbow. The people to whom the promise had been given finally received circumcision as a constant sign, to be perpetuated until the coming of Christ. Of this sign might be said, in relation to the children of Abraham, what is now true of baptism among Christians : It was effectual, brought with it righteousness — not as an external ceremony, but by virtue of the promise connected with it — and that, too, in such a way that even circumcised children had, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, the receptive faith (required) for (the accept ance of) the promise. Luther thus maintains the positions taken in his earlier writings as to the relation between the sacraments of the Old Testament and those of the New Testament.* We see already, in the above, what Luther regards as the 'Erl. Ed., xvi. 216. Pp. Ex., i, 241, 249 sqq.; iii, 67 sqq ; xi, 112; i, 24 sqq., 285. Supra, Vol. I., p. 348; Vol. II., p. 239. 2 Erl. Ed., 1, 121. 3Op. Ex., i, 285; v, 551; xi, 112. * Ibid., i, 315; ii, 78 sq.; iv, 75-84. Supra, Vol. I., pp. 246, 265, 396 sq.; Vol. II., pp. S3, 343- 362 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. essential requirement for the perpetuity of the Congregation, or Church, originating in Paradise: " These things being possessed, namely, the Word, and, after it, the visible sign divinely appointed, the Church is completed (conficitur) ." Adam and Eve were brought back to God by the Word, and thus : " This was the first Church, regenerated by the Word and preserved by faith in Christ." Already in the sons of Adam appeared the division of the infant society into the merely nominal, hypocritical Church and the true Church abiding beneath the cross. God has since then always preserved the latter, although often in great weakness and sometimes but a remnant, as His congregation.1 There is for the patriarchs of old and for us but one truth of divine promise, and hence, also, but one faith, one Spirit, one Christ, one Lord.2 But what further, then, does the time of fulfilment, or of the New Covenant, bring with it, in respect to the revelation and proffer of salvation? Luther speaks, in this connection, of the free proclamation of the message of grace throughout the whole world, of the general, public, fervent publication of the certified divine covenant. The objective material of faith was, moreover, as he says, by no means so clearly revealed to the children of Israel as it has been to us since the incarnation of Christ. Thus, for example, the patriarchs and prophets probably understood the doctrine of the Trinity, but the common people were left in their simple faith in the One God, and, even for the most favored holy men of ancient times, truth of great importance remained unrevealed. Even the announcement of the supernatural conception of Christ, made by Isaiah, was not perfectly clear, and was not rightly understood by many saints of old, but was to receive complete illumination only through the New Testament. But we have, in the New Covenant particularly, the abundant and very specific proffer of the forgiveness of sins and salvation, with all its bless ings, to each individual believer.3 The saints, from the beginning of the world, had been compelled to look for consolation to the general promises. Although David received private absolution 1 Op, Ex., ii, 79 ; xviii, 279 sqq. ; i, 320 sqq. ; iii, 68, 55 sq. Erl. Ed., xvi, 217. 2 Erl. Ed., xiv, 286. s Cf. Vol. L, pp. 266, 397 note. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 363 after one defection, for his other sins he was compelled to depend upon the general absolution and proclamation of the divine Word. But, now that the Gospel has been revealed, it announces forgiveness of sins in general and in particular. If we consider how freely the message of salvation is now pro claimed, how God Himself in His Word, in baptism, in the Lord's Supper, in the administration of the keys, speaks to us and assures us of forgiveness, as the minister of the Church, or any Christian brother, in God's name pronounces absolution and calls back from the very misery of hell the despairing soul, we must realize what exalted glory, what great power, what priceless miracles we possess in comparison with what the ancient saints enjoyed.1 The saints of the Old Covenant had also temporal promises, such as we no longer possess, since God has appointed no tem poral kingdom for us. We have enough, however, in the admo nition and assurance : " Seek ye first the kingdom of God," etc. The mention of the spiritual character of the kingdom of heaven brings at once into view the difference between the New Testa ment Church and that under the old economy. In the congre gation of Israel, and thus among true believers of that day, Christ had a temporal kingdom, with laws for eating, drinking, etc. In this kingdom prevailed the rule of natural succession, to which the priesthood in particular was bound. In the congregation of the New Covenant Christ has His spiritual kingdom. This is established by no law, but alone through the Gospel and faith, Christ with His peace reigning in hearts renewed by grace, and His Law being inscribed upon them. The Church is not a multi tude of persons, who must be held together by external govern ment. It is not bound to any outward succession. Unbound to places or persons, it is everywhere and only where the Word is — a congregation of the spiritual sons of Christ. Luther could con sistently say of the Church, as thus described, that it was just beginning to be actualized in its true character — that it began only with the New Covenant. The " people of Israel," or " the holy synagogue," was at its end in the time of Christ, and the Church in its beginning. 2 'Op. Ex., xi, 141. Supra, p. 243. Erl. Ed., vi, 225 sq. Op. Ex., i, 245, sq. Erl. Ed., xlvi, 269. Briefe, iv, 481. Op. Ex., iii, 217 sq ; xi, 135 sq., 293. 2 Op. Ex., xi, 141. Weimar. Pred. xliv, sq. Op. Ex. iii, 56. Erl. Ed., xviii, 233 sq.; xii, 49 ; x, 275. 364 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. We have, therefore, in the course of the investigations yet before us, to treat, with Luther, of salvation, as first clearly and freely offered in the New Covenant — as the incarnate Son of God has revealed it and achieved it in accordance with the decree of God and the antecedent promises — as it is now im parted to us in its entire fulness and in connection with the special means distinctive of the New Covenant. CHAPTER V. THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST. Introductory. — Intimate Relation Between the Person and the Work of Christ. Christ's work includes sacrifice and continued agency — involves both natures — mystical union its goal — " sacra- mentum " and " exemplum " contemplation of work leads to doctrine of person. The intimate and interchangeable relation existing between the doctrine of the Person and that of the Work of Christ is very clearly manifest in the theology of Luther. He is himself at great pains to impress it upon us. To this, attention has been called in connection with his presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity.1 In tracing the relation of the work of Christ to His person, we must, moreover, combine with the work completed once for all time in laying the foundations for the salvation of men, the continuous activity of the Saviour upon us and in us and that which is thereby effected within those who believe — inas much as the latter depend also upon the person of Christ as their necessary premise and permanent basis. We, too, are by grace to become, through Him, the sons of God in regeneration. There fore, despite all the specific difference between Him, as the eternal and natural Son of God, and us, who are originally sinful creatures, His own image is again to be impressed upon us. Of all that He has we may boast ; * and whatever He did on His 1 Supra, p. 311. 2 Erl. Ed. xiv, 5 ; xv, 392. Upon this point, and upon the general subject of Luther's Christology, compare the rich and fervent presentation in Dorner's Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, ii, 510 sqq., with which, however, as will be manifest in the following pages, I am not able in all points to agree. (365) 366 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. own account, or accomplished for us, is now, by virtue of His working in us, to find a copy in our own lives and conduct. This relation between our own conduct and the working of Christ, as the source and pattern of our Christian activity, will not only be more fully revealed in our review of the doctrine of the life of the regenerate, but will throw light also upon the doc trine of the work of Christ HimseK. The relation of the work of Christ to His person, or nature, is such as to involve equally His divine and His human nature, and that in such a way that the two must be conceived as combined in the most intimate personal unity. The object in view in the work of Christ is, as will be hereafter more explicitly set forth, the providing of a ransom for our sin. This must be one more exalted than could be furnished through angels or prophets, none less exalted than that to be rendered by the Son of God.1 The object was the conquest and removal of sin, law, death and hell, and the bestowal of eternal IKe and righteousness. For this was required an eternal, divine Person — one who should be by nature God, with invincible, eternal righteousness, power and grace.2 In order that sin and death may be outweighed, God HimseK must be included in the counter-weight of the scales. Thus, Christ not only lKts off the burden of sin and death, but gives also eternal life.3 This positive work especially, the giving of grace and life, the doing of that which Jesus promises in John xiv. 13, 14, belongs to Him alone, because He is God.* But the required ransom must be paid by Jesus, the conflict with sin, death and the devil waged in His death. His blood must be laid upon the scale of the balance. But it would be possible for Him to suffer and die only if He were truly a man. We must, moreover, have a Saviour who is also our brother, of our own flesh and blood, like to us in all things, save that He must be without sin. As such, He represents me at the right hand of God, as one who is also my flesh and blood, yea, my brother. It is only thus that He belongs to us, and that we can appropriate Him to our selves. Thus, having become like to us in all things, from His ' Erl. Ed., xiv, 316. 2 Comm. ad. Gal., ii, 20-25, '57 > CI- supra Vol. I., p. 414. 8 Erl. Ed., xlix, 3; xxv, 312 sq. 4 Comm. ad. Gal., i, 51 sq. Erl. Ed., xlix, 123. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 367 very conception in the womb, and having gone through the whole course of our human life, He has also purified and hallowed our entire human experience — all our natural acts, our eating, drink ing, sleeping, waking, toiling, etc. — so that, although our life is unclean by virtue of our flesh and blood, it becomes for His sake pleasing to God, yea, a veritable sanctuary. By mingling Himself with our flesh He has become, as it were, the divine leaven in the corrupted mass.1 We may include the entire content of Luther's doctrme of the work and person of Christ, and, indeed, the whole doctrine of salvation as he conceived it,2 under the language of one of his earliest letters, according to which the believer may say to Christ : " Thou hast taken me to ThyseK, and hast given Thyself to me ; thou hast taken to Thyself what Thou wast not, and hast given to me what I was not " — or under the declaration, found in the Freiheit eines Christenmenschen, that " what Christ has, becomes the property of the soul, and what the soul has, becomes the property of Christ." In order that there may come to us from Him righteousness, life and heavenly blessedness, and that our sins may in Him be blotted out, He must be the Son of God : in order that He might take our sins upon Himself and might really belong to us, He must be of our flesh and blood. In language the loftiest and boldest, the Church Postils assert : God empties out HimseK and Christ upon us, and pours Himself into us, and draws us up into Himself, so that He becomes entirely and completely humanized, and we become entirely and completely deified.3 In tracing the historical development of Luther's doctrine of the combined work and person of Christ, we must go back to the period of his special devotion to the study of Mysticism.* The Christ for us was never, for him, lost in the Christ in us. Although he represents that which we are to experience, undergo and suffer in Christ as analogous to the experiences of Christ HimseK, yet he always recognized in the latter, not a mere pattern, but, on the contrary, the immediate objective occasion 'Erl. Ed., xiv, 1. c; xxv, 1. e. Comm. ad. Gal., ii, 1. c. Erl. Ed., xiv, 318; xviii, 225; xx, 157 sqq. Op. Ex., vi, 35. 2 Supra, Vol. I., pp. 163, 170. 3 Briefe, i, 17. Supra, Vol. I., p. 414. Erl. Ed., xv, 238. «Cf. Vol. I., p. 169 sq. 368 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. for the former, and based upon them especially the canceling of guilt, upon which, for him, all else depended. But he very soon advanced to a sharper discrimination between the two. We may trace this process along the line of his proposition, that Christ and His sufferings for us are a "sacrament" and an " example." 1 The former he always places first, basing the latter upon it. In it, however, he combines directly the two concep tions, that in the death of Christ our sin is canceled, and that through His death our own inner crucifixion is to be accomplished in our fellowship with Him, and a new man to be awakened within us. In the power of the new life thus secured, we are then constantly to imitate the example of Christ. Thus, after all, the former conception is not as yet so fixed in its distinct significance as we find it at a later date. In a sermon of the year 15 18, entitled De passione Christi? Luther at first dwells only upon the idea that Christ by His death as a " sacramentum" proclaims our spiritual death, and HimseK slays our old man, that has lived so sinfully, and awakens the new man — although he afterwards asserts also, that Christ assumed for us the charges resting against us, and thus vanquished all our sins, and swallowed them up in Himself. We find a similar treatment of the subject in the passages above referred to.3 The less the work which Christ accomplished primarily and objectively for the cancelation of our sins is separately emphasized, and the more the eye is turned directly upon our own inner crucifixion with Him, the less readily could faith, as distinguished from seK- surrender or resignation, be clearly conceived in its peculiar and essential character, as simple trust in the Saviour. The " resig nation " here spoken of soon disappears, and we find no mention of it, for example, in the Freiheit eines Christenmenschen, where faith appears distinctly as a positive apprehension of Christ and His message of salvation. Yet here, too, that which Christ does for us and the positive force which He introduces into our lives are regarded as standing in the most intimate possible connec tion. Still later, in a sermon of Good Friday, 1522? Luther, while, indeed, first declaring that Christ in His death endured the torments which we had merited, proceeds, in attempting to 1 Vol. I., p. 173. '¦ Loscher ii, 587 sqq. ' Vol. I., p. 171 sq. «Erl. Ed., xvii, 74, 77. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 369 direct us in our fear of death, to speak chiefly of our surren dering ourselves willingly to death according to the example of Christ, declaring that God says to us : " Accept the punishment, and thou shalt thus become pure," and that death is thus no longer a punishment for us, but a sweet medicine. Luther still speaks in this way, although he had already long before 1 taught simply that we are to cling to Christ, and to believe firmly that in Him all things are overcome. The turning point is fully and finally reached only in antagonizing the mysticism of Carlstadt.2 An inner and harmonious conception of these two elements of the work of Christ we shall still find characteristic of Luther ; but, in this harmony, the distinct significance of each is hence forth more clearly seen. This will become further evident under the discussion of the application of salvation. We shall meet again the distinction between sacramentum and exemplum in that drawn between " donum " and " exemplum." 3 In the term " donum " are again included the benefits of salvation ; but of these, the first-mentioned is, that all the past sins committed by those who believe are, so far as their guilt is concerned, blotted out.* We have been speaking of the view of the Work of Christ revealed in the writings of Luther. But from the very nature of the case, with increasing clearness of apprehension as to His work, His Person, in its essential character as historically revealed, became the more distinctly and clearly apprehended by the eye of faith. And it was just in the midst of the conflicts aroused by the Carlstadt theories that Luther's doctrine of the Saviour's person assumed its more precise form, i. e., in the controversies upon the presence of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Throughout the entire discussion, however, the controlling motive in Luther's mind continued to be his desire to have a Saviour, in whose person, through a true union of the divine and the human natures, should be assured the needful prerequisites for the accomplishment of His saving work. It remains for us now to examine separately and in detail the allied doctrines of the person and the work of Christ. ' Cf. e. g., the dissertation of A, D. 1519. Erl. Ed., xxi, 260 sqq. 2 Supra, p. 31 sq. 3 Cf. also, Erl. Ed., viii, 3. « Comm. ad Gal., ii, 330. 24 370 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. I. The Person of Christ. DIVINITY AND HUMANITY RELATION OF TWO NATURES THE UNION A MYSTERY NECESSITATED BY THE FALL DIVINE NATURE NOT MODIFIED HUMAN NATURE DEVELOPED CAN DIVINE NATURE SUFFER? IS THE BODY OMNIPRESENT? INSEPARABLE UNION " COMMUNICATOR IDIOMATUM " DOES LUTHER TOO HIGHLY EXALT THE HUMAN NATURE? PECULIARITY OF HIS DOCTRINE. That Christ is " true God, born of the Father in eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary" (Smaller Catechism) , was ever for Luther a fundamental article of the Christian faith. In proof of the claim that Christ is not, as the Arians teach, " God in name," but a " natural, or essential" God, he appeals especially to the above-mentioned works which are attributed to the Saviour, and which presuppose a divine nature. The whole Godhead, says he, dwells in Christ bodily and completely. Whoso sees Him, sees the Father. Thus our faith is entirely comprehended in this Christ. I need now no longer flutter toward heaven in my thoughts. If I only hear that Christ is the true God, I find that better part which Mary (Lk. x. 42) chose, and need seek nothing more.1 This God I have truly, according to Luther, in my human flesh and blood. There is no difference whatever between His flesh and ours, except that His is without sin. Yea, the more pro foundly we can bring Him into our flesh, the better. He is much nearer to us than was Eve to Adam.2 It was needful for Him to be begotten, according to His human nature, without the inter vention of a man, in order that He might be free from original sin.3 Luther clung also to the opinion, prevalent in the Middle Ages, that, as Mary conceived without sin, so she brought forth also without pain or physical injury, and always remained a virgin. As a bee deftly extracts the honey from a flower with out injuring the latter, so the Holy Spirit caused Christ to emerge from the womb of the Virgin, because He brought with Him a true fleshly nature, but without sin. But Luther maintains most stoutly, that the Child in the womb of its mother received from 'Cf., e. g., Erl. Ed., xlix, 120-126. 2Erl. Ed., x, 131 sq.; vi, 155; i, 197. 'Cf. supra, p. 347. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 37 x her everything which any natural child receives from its mother, only without sin — that the Virgin " was required to contribute of her seed and natural blood " — that He did not pass through her like a reflection, or shadow, or as a ray of the sun passes through painted glass — that, in the act of delivery itself, the womb of Mary fulfilled its natural office (only without receiving any injury) — that a body was not made in heaven for Christ, and then passed through the body of Mary. In these specifications, he had in view Anabaptist and Schwenkfeld ian theories. He regards it, further, as significant that Christ's ancestor, Judah, to whom he traces the lineage of Mary also, was guilty of incest. It was appointed that Christ should receive His human nature from flesh thus fearfully defiled, in order thus, although it was for His own person purified in the act of conception, to become a sinner for us. Luther calls Christ, with reference to this human nature, also " created," and considers this as an expression inaccurate only when used — as in the ignorant ravings of Schwenkfeld — in the abstract title, " creature " ( Geschopf) } Among the elements which belong to the true humanity of Jesus, Luther emphasizes particularly the soul.2 And, as he ascribes to the Son of God, as He lived on earth, the truly human experiences of eating, drinking, waking, sleeping, etc., he, even more distinctly, represents Him as entering into the most profound agonies of soul which are endured by man when burdened with sin and distressed at heart. This is, indeed, the very chief element in his doctrine of the atoning work of Christ. But what is Luther's conception of tlu Mutual Relations of the Two Natures as united in the Person of Christ? This union he always regards as a mystery absolutely tran scending our powers of understanding. He designedly emphasizes the broad chasm separating humanity and divinity, in order the more to magnify the amazing grace displayed in the act of con descension by which God entered the former. There, says he, two diverse things, the Creator and creature, which are as far apart as nothing and something, or everything, are nevertheless united. " There a proportion has. been established, which was 'Erl. Ed., x, 305 sq. ; xxxvii, 71 ; xli, 191 ; xiv, 284. Op. Ex., xvi, 281. Erl. Ed., xv, 298; x, 131 ; xxix, 53; xiv, 317; xvi, 236 (A. D. 1546) ; xiv, 316 sq. ; lxiii, 339 sq. ; x, 131. Op. Ex., ix, 173 sq. Jena, i, 568 b, sq. 2 Erl. Ed., xxx, 364 ; xxiv, 323. 372 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. impossible (i. e., for reason), between the finite and the infinite." [ Of an incarnation of the Son of God, effected not merely in the interest of human redemption, but originally necessary for the realization of the ideal of manhood, he has no thought. The idea elsewhere expressed, that subsequent creations of God, after the completion of the original creative work, are consequences of the Fall, he applies also to the birth of God's Son from human flesh.2 When he represents LucKer as taking umbrage already at the incarnation of the Son, he means a prevision of the incarnation, as a fact which should contribute to the redemption of men from the sin and misery which were also foreseen.3 When he says that all words receive in Christ a new meaning, as, for example, " creature " indicates no more some thing separated from God, but something inseparably united with God, and that, accordingly, we must now learn to speak with new tongues, he does not mean thereby that we must receive new disclosures concerning created things in general, their specific nature and their relation to God : he speaks only of that special created thing which has in Christ become specifically so unified with God that we may acknowledge, despite the apparent contra diction in terms, even the maxim : " Christ is a creature." * The theophanies in human form in the days of the patriarchs have, in the view of Luther, a significant relation to the future incarna tion. In them appears the " Son of God (who is) to be incar nated " (incarnandus) ? But this by no means involves the idea that such theophanies, together with the actual incarnation, would have occurred had sin not entered. He regards, finally, as peculiarly significant, the creation after the likeness of God. He calls it an absurd proposition, or contradiction in terms, to assert that man, made in the image of God, does not differ in his animal life from the beasts. He finds, on the other hand, in this characteristic of man an indication that God would reveal Him self to the world in the man, Christ.6 But we must here be on our guard lest we attribute to Luther himself the conclusion, that what was already indicated at the creation, and even in the •Erl. Ed., xlvii, 2. Jena, i. 574 b. Op. Ex., vii, 148 sq. : cf. also supra, p. 145 sq. 2 Op. Ex., i, 98. 'Supra, p. 331. 4 Jena, i, 568 b, 569, 568 a. »Op. Ex., viii, 171. 6 Ibid., i, 109. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 373 original nature of man, would necessarily have come to pass even though sin had not appeared ; for he does not here carry out the idea to such a length, and he elsewhere decidedly rejects the conclusion in question. That there must lie in human nature itself some point of attachment for the impartation of divinity, we must infer from the impartation of divine life which is to be actually effected in the case of all believers. But the thoughts which may here occur to us, Luther himself does not thus pursue. The impartation of the divine has its eternal cause and possi bility entirely in God, by virtue of His love, which is in its very nature condescension. The " humility (humiliation) of the Son of God," at which the proud angels took offence,1 is an essential attribute of God. But Luther himseK knows of no necessity in the original nature of man which would have required God to condescend to the extent of incarnation in human form. Whilst declaring the occasion of the. greatest act of divine mercy, the birth of the Son of God, to have been the misery of our sinful state,2 he always, when speaking of the development which would have marked the career of man had sin not interfered, represents simply that man would then, after the divine life which he would have led even upon earth, have passed over into perfect spiritual life in manly innocence and heavenly glory.3 He still — despite the divine image in man, and notwithstanding the loving nature of God — regards the natural chasm between God and the creature as too great to allow the thought that, without the dire necessity introduced by sin, it would have been needful for the loving God to condescend to that union with the creature which has now been effected in the One Saviour, and which ever remains essentially different from the impartations of divine life granted to believers. In what light, then, are we to regard the two natures after their union has, by an inscrutable miracle, been actually accomplished in the incarnation of God, the Son? Luther always thought of the union as effected in such a way that, when Christ began to be man, He, at the same time, also began to be God.* Nor will he ever tolerate the idea that when God thus became incarnate any change whatever occurred in Him. He denies, especially, that this is to be inferred from the 1 Op. Ex., i, 141. 2 Ibid., i, 98. 3 Supra, pp. 340, 343. 4 Erl. Ed., vii, 196 (A. D. 1521). 374 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. declaration of Phil. ii. 5 sqq., in which Christ is said to have humbled — or emptied — HimseK. We have already considered the explanation of this passage which he adopted as early as A. D. 15 18.1 After having pronounced it a " dark " saying,2 he, in a sermon appearing in 15 25/ still further expounds it. The language of the entire passage has, in his view, no relation to the two natures in Christ, nor to His nature in general. Surely Christ did not become in nature, or kind, a servant. He under stands the " emptying Himself" as indicating only the deport ment of Christ — that He bore HimseK in humility and in the most menial services of love, and that, too, during His entire career on earth ; just as we Christians, who hold the most exalted possessions, should conduct ourselves toward our neighbors. Accordingly, Christ had the divine nature, even while thus de porting Himself. With the divine nature, He still had also the divine deportment. He was in the form of God — had this form naturally, as well as the essential divine nature. It properly belonged to Him from eternity. Of the form of a servant, Paul does not say that Christ was in it, but only that He " took it upon " Himself. Yet Christ did not deport HimseK outwardly as a God, did not take upon Himself the divine form in which He was (although it belonged to Him, and was involved in His very nature, yet He did not employ it in His intercourse with the men to whom He ministered) . Thus, we can say also of God Himself, when He is angry, that He hides Himself, does not permit us to see the divine deportment (which yet essentially characterizes Him). In general, Luther says: Whatever is said of the humiliation of Christ is to be attributed to the man ; for divine nature can be neither humbled nor exalted.* Upon this point we shall find no change in the later writings of the Re former. Even when he speaks of a participation of the divine nature in the sufferings of Christ, he by no means admits that any change whatever has been experienced by the divine nature itself. God " descends without change or alteration of His divinity," whilst He at the same time " remains eternally above." 5 The further development of Luther's doctrine after the contro versy with Carlstadt and the Sacramentarians is, however, at once brought into view when we inquire more closely as to the mutual 1 Vol. I., p. 416 sq. 2 Erl. Ed., vii, 196. > Ibid., viii, 156 sqq. *Ibid., vii, 185, A. D. 1521. s Ibid., xlvi, 328. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 375 relations existing between the two natures in the person and work of Christ. The first indication of more extended discrimination is seen in the fact that Luther, while always maintaining the possession of the true divinity and true humanity by Christ from the very beginning of His life, yet, in certain passages, appears to be chiefly concerned to decide when the Scriptures refer to the humanity and when to the divinity of Christ. This is noticeable in the passage of the year 1 5 2 1 above cited,1 and in the Sermon for St. James' Day? which, although first appearing in the Church Postils in 1527, undoubtedly, in view of expressions which it contains concerning the sufferings of Christ, appeared before A. D. 1525. His motive in these discussions is to guard against the opinion that, in view of such passages as Matt. xx. 23, Christ cannot be acknowledged as true God, while, at the same time, avoiding the conclusion of those who, to escape the former infer ence, so interpret the expressions referred to as to make of Christ an '•' omnipotent man," to the detriment of His true human nature. Concerning the humanity of Christ, he now says, further, that, as in the case of any other holy man, it did not at all times con sider, purpose, or observe all things ; that Christ did not in His heart always have all things in view, but looked upon them as God led Him and brought them to His notice. Although thus acknowledging that the all-knowing and all-seeing God was present in person in Christ, he infers from it for Christ as a man merely that He was full of grace and wisdom, that He might be able to judge and teach in regard to everything which came to His notice. Hence, we cannot substitute for the words " the Son knoweth not," in Mk. xiii. 22, the statement, " He does not wish to declare it." 3 The comments of A. D. 15 21 upon Luke ii. 52, are here in point: * The statement that Christ increased in spirit and wisdom is to be understood of His humanity, which was an instrument and house of the divinity. Although He was, indeed, at all times full of the Holy Spirit, yet the Holy Spirit did not at all times move Him, but, according to varying circum stances, aroused Him to this 01 that undertaking. Thus the Spirit ' Erl. Ed., vii, 185. 2 Ibid., xv, 420 sqq. 3 Ibid., vii. * Ibid., x, 300 sq. (A. D. 1521). 376 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. had been in Him also from the time of His conception, but had, just as His body grew, sunken ever deeper into His being and moved Him more and more. The declaration of Phil. ii. 7 is here cited in illustration. Just as all men naturally increase in body and spirit, so, it is said, did Christ also, having become man, deport Himself. According to these passages, the divine nature was also present in its entirety in the person of Christ from the time of His conception. But the humanity of Christ is not, therefore, to be thought of as already thoroughly permeated by the divinity, this permeation being accomplished only grad ually in the " sinking- in of the Spirit " ; and even the adult Christ is not always and absolutely, as to His humanity, impelled by the divinity that yet dwells within Him. How it is possible to actually conceive of this presence of the full divinity, prominent among whose attributes is that of omniscience, in connection with the development and presence of the humanity, and of the human soul, which is not omniscient, is a problem which Luther makes no attempt to solve. It is, finally, of the humanity of Jesus distinctively that he understands the scriptural declarations, that Christ has been appointed heir of all things. It is in His human nature, too, that He is above all things, and all things are subject to Him. This is inferred upon the ground that the divine nature cannot be exalted nor appointed heir.1 He had already, in 1 5 18, interpreted in a similar way of the humanity of Christ the language of Ps. ex. i.2 He does not, however, there apply the words to the Saviour's humanity in the period of His life on earth, but has in view simply the now exalted Lord. As to the divine nature, we have learned that it cannot be humbled, and particularly, also, that it cannot suffer. In one passage,3 he insists upon this so strenuously that he does not even make any reference to the communion of the divine and human which must even here be maintained, as involved in the unity of the. person of Christ, and necessary in order to give efficacy to His sufferings. " Where," says he, " the Scriptures declare that Christ has suffered, etc., no one is so stupid as not to understand that they are speaking of Him as a man ; for God cannot suffer and die." It is not here stated, as Luther main tained especially against Zwingli, that we may and must also say 1 Erl. Ed., vii, 186. 2 Ibid., xl, 7, 9. » Ibid., xv, 422. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 377 that God suffers. This we find, however, distinctly asserted before any thought of possible utility in meeting opposing argu ments can have been entertained,1 and the assertion is here as definite as in later years, and supported by the same illustrations : " Although the two natures are diverse, it is yet One person, so that everything which Christ does or suffers God has certainly done or suffered, although still the experience in question has befallen only One nature ; as, when I speak of a man's wounded leg, I say, ' the man is wounded,' although his soul is not wounded, nor his entire body," etc. In the great mutlitude of his utterances during this period con cerning Christ, Luther conducts us no farther in the discussion of such more precise questions in regard to the relation of the two natures. The occasion for more specific development of the doctrine was found only in the disputes which arose among the adherents of the evangelical party. There were two leading points which were brought into promi nence in the controversy, although both were directly connected with the one fundamental doctrine of the unity of the truly divine-human person of the Saviour. The first question was, Is it a mere form of speech to say, that the Son of God suffered? Was it, in reality, only the human nature that actually suffered? The reply which Luther gives in his Sermons of A. D. if2f? and, more particularly, in discussion with Zwingli,3 merely maintains the positions which he had before, as we have seen, asserted. How much importance he attached to the question, especially on account of the inner significance, or efficacy, of the sufferings of Christ, is most impressively revealed in his tract against Zwingli. The second point of discussion was the exaltation of Christ according to His humanity and the consequent omnipresence of His body. Starting with the position of the glorified Christ, Luther now claims expressly also for the period of His earthly life, even from the moment of His conception, that the Son of man is, with His body, at the right hand of God, and hence in all places.4 This claim — that such attributes are to be ascribed to the human nature and the body of Christ from the first ' Erl. Ed., vii, 186. 2 Supra, p. 82 sq. s Supra, p. 134 sq. * Supra, pp. 78, IIO sq., 117 sq., 135 sq. 378 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. moment of the incarnation — undeniably leads us beyond the earlier representations of Luther and aside from the path which he ' previously appeared to have chosen. How, upon this theory, shall it be possible to maintain such a development of the human nature, by the only gradual " sinking-in " of the divine, as was asserted in the earlier writings? But it will be observed that Luther, even at the earlier period referred to, did not further pur sue the theory then presented ; and that he, on the other hand, had already at that time asserted, as coincident with such a develop ment of the human nature of Christ, such a presence of God in connection with the humanity in the person of' Christ as itseK already manifested a lack of clearness in his conception of the human nature. It was the same anxiety to maintain that com plete and essential unity of the divine and human in Christ upon which the efficacy of the atonement depends which, having inspired the strong statements above noted concerning the " sufferings of God," now led him to the new utterances by which the reality of the human nature appears to us to be im periled. It was by no means an anxiety to maintain merely an acknowledgment of the divine as present in Christ, but rather the desire to gain assent to the claim, that the Son of God is present in the very man Christ, and that the divine is present nowhere without the man. But it is, at least, open to question whether, under the method pursued by Luther in his attempt to fortify this position, the man can really be still regarded as true man. If we would now epitomize the total result of the discussions of the person of Christ found in the controversial writings of the period, we must, first of all, recognize that the Subject here dis cussed is Christ in the fnseparable Union of the Two Natures. Whereas the Son of God " assumed " complete human nature, and is, therefore, Himself the active Subject in the actual process of incarnation,2 after the act of incarnation the Person is not God alone, but always " God and man," the " inseparable Person formed of God and man," 3 called also itseK, on account of the God incarnate in it, an " eternal " Person.* ' Vid. Sermons in Erl. Ed., vii, 185, and x, 300 sq. 2 As to the relation to the entire Trinity, vid. supra, p. 317. 3 Erl. Ed., xxx, 364. Cf. later, Erl. Ed., xxv, 318 ; xlvi, 366. *Ibid., xxx, 364. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 379 From this union it follows that we may truthfully say : the Son of God suffers. We may " ascribe to the entire person that which befalls one part of the person, inasmuch as both parts are One person." ' And to the person (to whichever side any property or experience in question may naturally in the first instance belong), we may indifferently apply the terms : Son of God or Son of man, God or man. Thus, says Luther, do all the ancient teachers and modern theologians teach, in harmony with the Scriptures. It may assist us in the more accurate analysis of the questions which arise concerning the teaching of Luther upon this subject, if we bear in mind the definitions of the later Lutheran dogmaticians. We find here in Luther what the latter designate as the genus idiomaticum and the genus apotelesmaticum of the communicatio idiomatum. What belongs to the one nature is attributed to the entire person, which is God and man, whether it be called God or be called man ; and the person is always present, with both its natures, in everything which it undertakes. Luther had not as yet, as we have seen, expressly asserted the omnipresence of the body.2 It was, however, for him, directly involved already in the position that God and man are insepar ably in Christ — that God is man. The question concerning the omnipresence of the body of Christ, he afterwards declared, has to do not with the works of the two natures, but with their essential character (nature) ; 3 where God is, there must also be the human nature of Christ.* If we now conceive of this omni presence of the body of Christ, in its co-existence with God, as an " attribute," the human nature in Christ itself appears to be thereby enriched with an essentially divine attribute. It is here not meant to declare only D that the Son of man is omnipresent, since His humanity, indeed, is not omnipresent ; yet the person who is human is omnipresent in a way analogous to that in which we are to understand the assertion that the Son of God suffers. We have here really what the dogmaticians call the genus tnafestaticum — a communication in which the human nature, in its union with the divine, secures for itself a participation in the loftiest preroga tives of the divine glory — a communication in which the relation •Erl. Ed., xxx, 204. Cf. supra, p. 134 sq. 2 Supra, p. 135 sq. ' Erl. Ed., xxx, 207. * Supra, p. 139 sq. 5 Supra, p. 137. 380 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. is not, as in the other two genera, a reciprocal one, since it can not be said, reversing the terms, that the divine nature is degraded. Yet Luther does not, when speaking of this " omni presence," proceed to treat of the communication of other divine attributes, as he does not even here call into requisition the con ception formally embodied in the term, " attribute." The infer ence is at once suggested to our minds, that, as the presence of God is one all-efficacious, so, likewise, must the body of Christ be present everywhere as all-efficacious ; and Luther goes at least so far as to say : Christ (and that not only as the ascended Savioin-) " also as a man " has all things under Him, and reigns over them.1 Yet he carries the deduction here no farther. He was content to maintain that which appeared to be immediately involved in the existence of the humanity of Christ in union with His divinity, and which was denied by his sacramentarian opponents. It is only in another connection, i. e., in the discussion of a special point having direct bearing upon the efficacious work of Christ in the securing of salvation, which arose in the treatment of the question of the benefit of the flesh of Christ, that we find the description of the human nature itself as being interpenetrated and adorned by an impartation of the divine. The flesh itself, it is then said, is full of divinity, of eternal mercy, life, etc.2 In support of such claims, Luther appeals to the union of the Son of God with humanity, and, with special emphasis, to the (agency of the) Holy Ghost, of whom this flesh was born, and who dwells in it and works through it.' Luther does not explain in how far it may be proper, under such a conception of the humanity of Christ, to speak of it as a true human nature. It is worthy of note that he calls attention to an " existence in heaven " and, at the same time, upon earth, as attributable also, according to the Scriptures, to other men, i. e., true Christians, but not, indeed, as involving for them an omnipresence.' It should be noted, also, that he disclaims any intention of making the body of Christ a " second infinite " (alterum infinitum)? but without offering any solution of the questions which here naturally arise. ¦Erl. Ed., xxx, 65. 2Supra, p. 125. 3 Erl. Ed., xxx, 99 sq., 131. 4 Supra, p. 140 sq. 6 Ibid. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 38 1 The most complete and profound union and communion of the two natures in the person of Christ is the point which Luther still endeavors, with all possible energy, to maintain in his exposi tions of this doctrine after the conflict with Zwingli. The formula for the person of the Saviour is briefly : " Deus et homo unus est Christus." Luther did not approve the proposed substitution (to harmonize with the logical demand for identical predication ') of, "The Son of God bearing (sustentans) human nature is God," for the simple, " The man is God." The expres sion, " sustentare," seems even monstrous to him ; yet he is willing to allow it, if it be correctly understood.2 He is fond of employing — following, as he says, the Fathers and the Scholastics3 — the expression, " communicatio idiomatum," to denote the relation of the two natures to one another. He defines " idioma " as : " what belongs to one nature, or is an attribute of it — as dying, suffering, eating, drinking, or being born — is an idioma of humanity; and an idioma of divinity, that it is immortal, omnipotent, or infinite, or that it is not born, does not eat, sleep," etc.* He now displays, however, much more earnestness when treat ing of this communication of attributes than was the case in his earlier employment of the term, insisting upon its completeness, its reality, and, with special emphasis, upon its reciprocity.5 The attributes of both natures are, as he says, by virtue of the union of the natures in Christ, given and ascribed to the entire person of Christ " in concreto," in consequence of which this person is to be described as God and as man. Luther here then reiterates at greater length his previous declarations upon this point. God suffers, he declares, and dies ; Mary is the mother of God. Conversely, that which belongs properly to the Son of God is, on account of the person, ascribed to the Son of the Virgin, and we rightly say: "This man created the stars." For this, he is not willing to substitute : " This Son of God, bearing ' Vid. supra, p. 145. 2 Briefe, vi, 285. Jena, i, 569 b. 3Erl. Ed., xlvi, 365. Comm. ad. Gal., i, 382. * Erl. Ed., xxv, 309. 5Compare, for the following, in addition to passages specially cited, Erl. Ed., xlvi, 330 sqq., 365 sqq. ; xlvii, 1 9q., 175 sqq ; xlix, 128, 135 sqq. ; xxxvii, 89 ; xxv, 309 sqq. Op. Ex., xxiii, 467 sqq. Jena, 1, 568 b. 382 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. (sustentans) human nature, is the Creator of the world." ' In meeting the misunderstanding of this language which would infer that the human nature had created, he himseK declares : " That person existing as man, or having an assumed human nature, created the heavens." 2 Nor does he only declare, that the attri butes of both natures are to be ascribed to the person, but he holds, also, that the attribute of one nature is ascribed to the other nature, that being attributed to the divine nature which belongs naturally to the human. He then, indeed, at once again substitutes the name of the person for " the divine nature," or, instead of the declaration that we are to ascribe attributes of the human nature, such as dying, to the divine nature, the simple statement: "The Son of God has died." The Church, he declares, believes that " not only the human, but also the divine nature, or the true God suffered for us." 3 And, in meeting the misunderstanding of this which would infer a " mortal divinity," he says more precisely : " The person existing as God, or having a divine nature, is mortal." * But, cautioning only against such misunderstandings, he designedly employs the above expression publicly and without hesitation. In one passage,5 he proceeds to speak of an impartation of all human attributes to the other nature. Melanchthon had reported to him a rumor that a certain pastor, Gilbert, " insolently and boldly maintains that the divinity suffered," and that a strife had arisen in the congregation of the latter as to whether the divine nature in Christ had suffered, whereupon he (Gilbert) had announced as his view the proposi tion : "That the whole Christ ( Christum integrum), consisting of two natures, suffered." To this Luther declared that he would object only if it were thereby meant " that the divinity was separate, and suffered separately because it was also in the humanity." He himself proposes, in order to avoid all misunder standing, to express the doctrine as follows : " That the person, consisting of a divine and a human nature, truly suffered." 6 We observe what great and very peculiar importance Luther attached to the communication from the human to the divine 1 Briefe, vi, 285. 2 Ibid., v, 483. 3 Erl. Ed., xlvi, 365, 330; xlix, 137. Briefe, vi, 292. 4 Briefe, v, 483. 5 Ibid( vi( 2g2_ 6 Ibid., vi, 499 ; v, 658 sq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 383 side ; and the most emphatic assertions of this, moreover, were made in the closing years of his IKe. As to the reality of the impartation, Luther sometimes speaks as though we, in our forms of Christian speech, should " impute, ascribe, attribute " these qualities, as though the " names " were combined in the one person; sometimes he asserts also that, with the two natures, their consequences and attributes themselves were combined— that, as God and man are combined and mingled in one person, so also are the attributes combined and mingled.' It is evidently meant, that it is only in view of the actual union of the attributes that the Scriptures authorize us thus to speak. With special reference to the impartation from the human to the divine, he employs again illustrations similar to those which he had used in the controversy with Zwingli,2 as of the wounding of the entire person by the wounding of any member of his body, etc. He now says expressly, that the whole man is smitten in soul and body when his leg is smitten.3 As in this case the whole man is, even with his soul, actually mvolved, so, evidently, would Luther conceive also, in the most real way possible, of the entire Christ, together with His divine nature, as concerned in the experiences of the human nature of the Saviour. If we examine still more critically, we shall, indeed, observe that the impartation is not even now represented as occurring equally in the two directions. The human is still by no means transferred to the divine in the same sense in which Luther here again represents the divine as being transferred to the human. As to the transfer of the divine to the human, Luther constantly applies directly to the human nature the declarations of Scrip ture according to which Christ has received power over all things, inasmuch as Christ, according to His divine nature, has not received, but eternally possessed, such power. At the same time, he places the fact, that the man, the Son of Mary, has divine power, in the same category as the description of Him as the Creator of all things, although we cannot think of such a partici pation of the human nature in the work of creation as was that of the divine nature in the sufferings of Christ. But that which he describes as received from the human nature must have been a ' Erl. Ed., xxv, 310. s Supra, p. 134. 8 Erl. Ed., xlvi, 331. 384 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. peculiar property of the human nature itself ; J and hence, when he speaks of the person, " Christ," or of the " Son of God," as being " set " over all things, he can do so only by using the language in a communicative sense, declaring of God and the divine nature that which is strictly true only of the human nature.2 As to the transfer, conversely, of the human to the divine, it is to be observed that Luther does not assign human suffering to the divine nature in the same sense in which he ascribes the possession of power to the human nature. On the contrary, notwithstanding the importance which he attaches to the participation of the divine nature in the sufferings of Christ, we nowhere find the idea of a real participation insisted upon, nor even expressed in any way more definitely than in the general form already cited. We find, in fact, nothing more than the general representation, that the divine nature is present in the sufferings of the human — as a weighty element, by virtue of which the latter receive their eternal validity in the sight of God.3 At all events, there is no room for the suspicion that the divine nature has, according to Luther, in consequence of the incarna tion, in any way laid aside anything of its own distinctive char acter. He now employs, indeed, with reference to Phil. ii. 6 sq., the expression : " That the Lord descended from heaven, emptied Himself of His divinity, and became a man for our sakes " ;* and in the Tischreden he says, referring to the same passage, " Christ is God, but He determines not to be so, but to be our servant." 5 But, in view of all his other definite doctrinal statements upon this point, he can "here have meant only what he had before described as an emptying HimseK of the divine form. He had, for example, said6 that Christ emptied Himself, according to Phil, ii., of His divine glory, and humbled Himself to a position beneath that of all men ; that He, in reference to this, in John xiv. 28, calls Himself less than the Father; that the "going to the Father " spoken of in John xiv. indicates the kingdom to which He goes from His earthly house of servitude, in order to 1 Cf., upon this point especially, Erl. Ed., xxxvii, 33. 'Op. Ex., xxiii, 469 sq. » Supra, p. 366. * Erl. Ed., iv, 4. 'Tischr., i, 376. Erl. Ed., lviii, 96. Those ancient editions of the Tisch reden, in which the words " not, but" are wanting, have doubtless omitted them because they were thought to sound too harshly. 6 Erl. Ed., xlix, 247. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 38 publicly receive the divine power and glory which He has had with the Father from eternity. In a similar way, Luther applies the emptying HimseK of the divine form to the sufferings cf Christ, declaring that He did not use His divine power nor mani fest (eraiigen) His almighty strength, but " drew it in." ' Fixing our attention again particularly upon the human nature of Christ, we shall find Luther constantly speaking of the transfer to it of divine power, and that from the very moment " when God and man were united in one person." 2 Ordinarily, indeed, as we should not fail to note, he now, as before the sacramentarian controversy, applies the scriptural declarations concerning the exaltation of Christ simply to the Saviour as already ascended to heaven, in harmony with Ps. viii. 4-8 (compare also Heb. ii. 7, 8) ? He even says directly : « "He began to sit there (at the right hand of God) after the ascension ; His human nature had before not been seated there." But he elsewhere5 says more definitely : Christ is here made Lord according to His human na ture through revelation and glorification after His ascension ; He was glorified (clearly and distinctly revealed for us) through the resurrection as Lord, that He might be also for us Lord over all things in heaven and on earth. According to this, the exaltation of Christ in His ascension appears (in harmony with the repre sentation in Erl. Ed., xxxvii, 33), after all, to have been only a i-evelation of that which had been previously transferred to the human nature. We no longer find expressions concerning the development of Jesus in His childhood in which the strictly human features are so distinctly recognized as in the passages already cited.6 Luther now merely says that he " deported Himself as any other child " (following Phil. ii. : "being found in fashion," etc.), and that the Scriptures wish thus to depict Him as a true, natural man ; 7 that He " conducted and deported (gestellet und gebaret) Him self like any other lad " ; ? that in the temple (Lk. ii. 46) He doubtless spoke with peculiar humility, and " conducted Himself 1 Erl. Ed., xxxix, 48. 2 Ibid., xxvii, 33. 'Op. Ex., xxiii, 469, 472. Erl. Ed., xlvi, 329 sq. ; xxxix, 55; xl, 49 sq. * Erl. Ed., xlvii, 177. 5 Ibid., xxx, 19, 55 ; cf. also, xl, 49 sq. 6 Ibid., x, 300 sq. ; supra, p. 375 sq. ' Ibid., vi, 129. 8 Ibid., xiv, 384. 25 386 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. as though He had heard (what He knew) from His mother or other pious persons." 1 It is again said, according to Lk. ii. 52, that He increased in wisdom; but this is no longer so explained as at an earlier period.2 How far, it may then be naturally asked, may we still understand the deportment ( Ge- barden) which Christ assumed as expressing actual and strictly human conditions of soul and spirit? We have seen that Luther previously applied the statements concerning the gradually in creasing knowledge of Christ, and His own statement recorded in Mk. xiii. 32, to His human nature, and understood them in their natural sense, attributing, in so far, a degree of ignorance to Christ. At a later date, however, if the Tischreden is to be trusted, he found refuge from the difficulty in an explanation similar to that which he had previously rejected, i. e., that Christ was, in the passage cited, speaking only of His office, not of His person.3 Yet, however much we may find in all this which to us may appear inconsistent with the preservation of the true human nature of Christ, Luther himself recognizes no such inconsistency, but, none the less, maintains most strenuously the position, that Christ is true man no less than true God. It is worthy of remark also that, in the period following the Zwinglian controversy, he at least refrained from any attempt to expand the thought of the further endowment of the human nature with the attributes of the divine ; and, still further, that we no longer find his earlier emphatic and express assertions of the omnipresence of the body, involved though this still was in his general -declarations concern ing the human nature, made the subject of express and specific discussion in any of his writings. We may again recall also, in this connection, the way in which he commonly speaks of the exaltation of Christ, although, as previously remarked, we are not at liberty to construe this as indicating any change in his dogmatic views themselves. In commenting upon John iii. 13, he declares simply, without any reservation, that the descending of Christ, while He still, according to His divine nature, remained forever at the right hand of God, " occurred only according to His human nature " ' — without at all asserting that His body had also been at the same time in heaven.6 The greatest weight must, ' Erl. Ed., ii, 7. 2 Ibid., x, 300. s Tischr., i, 349. 4 Erl. Ed., xlvi, 328, 330. 5 cf. supra, p. 118. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 3^7 finally, here be given to the utterances of Luther concerning the sufferings which Christ endured according to His human nature. He represents that the divine nature remains present with the human in the sufferings of the Saviour; that it is through the presence of the divine nature that the latter receive their proper value ; and it is by virtue of it that Christ triumphs over death and hell. But the divine nature here, he declares, refrains from manifestation, withdraws within itseK, lies concealed and quiet. Christ is forsaken of God and left without divine assistance. He hangs upon the cross as, simply and purely, a man in great weak ness. In a similar way, it was as simply and purely a man, that He once endured temptation (Matt, iv.) at the hand of Satan.1 In such connections, Luther habitually lays the chief stress directly upon the spiritual experiences of the man, Christ, in which He endured what any man must suffer when most sorely tempted and forsaken of God. It would be in vain to search in the writings of Luther for any harmonizing suggestions or definitions designed to make more intelligible to us the true persistence of the two natures, espe cially that of the human nature, in their union in the one person ality. He simply proclaims that which appears to him to be set forth in the Scriptures as the basis of our salvation. That which is thus set before his spiritual vision, he endeavors in his funda mental principles to combine in one view, yet avoiding all attempt to himself solve, or even to analyze more fully, the ques tions which are naturally thereby suggested to our minds. The characteristic peculiarity of his Christology, differentiating it from the previous doctrinal development in this direction, lies in its profound and earnest attempt to secure full recognition of the doctrine of the union of the truly divine and truly human natures — and, we may further add, especially in the peculiar stress which it lays upon the human element in this union. For, however the genuineness of the human nature may appear to be jeopardized in the above-cited passages, it would be a most egregious blunder to look for the fundamental characteristic and controlling prin ciple of his Christology in any such idea as that he endeavored to give but a subordinate significance to the humanity of Christ, or make it but a vanishing element as compared with the divinity, ' Op. Ex., xxiii, 469. Erl. Ed., iii, 302, 397 sq. ; xxxix, 45 sq., 47 ; ii, 136, 388 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. and thus merely followed to greater lengths a tendency already embodied in the preceding development of the doctrine. Upon the contrary, that very conception of the spiritual sufferings (Seelenleiden) of Christ, by which His true humanity is still, despite all that may seem to discredit it, most positively affirmed and emphasized, is quite specifically Lutheran, lying at the very heart of Luther's faith and theology. Even the most questionable of his utterances as to the omnipresence of the body, etc., are prompted not at all by indifference to the significance of the human side, but, on the contrary, as we long since had occasion to observe, by the earnest desire so to present the humanity itseK in closest unity with the divinity, that the former may furnish a firm point of attachment for faith. Thus does Luther himseK characterize his own knowledge of Christ, as contrasted with the theology of his predecessors : " This, says he, is what the most exalted theologians did in former times — they fled (flew) from the humanity of Christ to his divinity, and clung alone to this. I was also formerly such a doctor, and excluded the humanity. But we must ascend to the divinity, and hold fast to it, in such a way as not to abandon the humanity of Christ. Thou shouldst know nothing of any God, or Son of God, but Him who is declared to have been born of the Virgin Mary and to have become man." : 2. The Work of Christ. DELIVERANCE FROM SIN AND GUILT CONQUEST OF SIN — CHRIST'S PERFECT HOLINESS SUBJECTION TO LAW HUMAN GUILT BORNE A CURSE IN SIGHT OF MAN AND GOD UNDER WRATH OF GOD AND POWER OF DEVIL INNOCENCE RELATION OF DEVIL AND LAW TO CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS RESULTS FOR US —PECULIARITY OF LUTHER'S DOCTRINE VICARIOUS SUFFERING "DESCENSUS AD INFEROS" ASCENSION TEACHING OF CHRIST CHRIST AS PROPHET, PRIEST, KING.Luther briefly designates as the "Office and Work of Jesus Christ," "our redemption" (Erlosung). This is a. deliverance from sin, death, hell and all misery — from the entire state into which we have been brought by the sin of Adam. And Luther's foremost thought, when speaking of " deliverance from sin," is 1 Erl. Ed., xlvii, 362. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 389 always, as we long since observed, that the curse of sin, the guilt and consciousness of guilt, the sense of the divine wrath, are taken from us. That with this there was already really asso ciated in his mind a conquest of the power of sin and its impulses, we shall very clearly recognize in the course of our investigations in the present section, and, especially, in the sections following, in which the doctrine of justification will claim our attention. None the less marked, however, on this account is the precedence given to the first-named element when the state of sin is under consideration. Thus Luther says, when speaking of the " bond age of sin," that it makes a timid conscience ; but it becomes powerless through Christ to such an extent that it can no longer bring charges against us. The deliverance wrought by Christ is, according to Eph. i. 7, essentially the " forgiveness of sins." The most terrible thing about sin is that it involves the eternal wrath of God, and, in addition, the whole kingdom of Satan.1 To this Work of Christ belongs His entire continuous exertion of energy upon our souls through His Spirit. In the present section we shall have to do more particularly with the work which He accomplished once for all in His career as the Incarnate One from His birth to His. ascension, especially His sufferings, death and resurrection. The continuous activity of the Saviour, based upon this, will claim our attention in the following chapter. Luther's testimony upon this subject is exceedingly abundant and vivid. What the God-man in the work of redemption under took, endured and accomplished, he seeks to present to us in every light as impressively as possible, and he endeavors to set it before us in the most attractive and picturesque outlines. Yet we find him presenting, now one, now another, feature of the subject, just as the immediate occasion may suggest, and, particu larly, as his mind is influenced from time to time by the passages of Scripture which he may be seeking to elucidate. Thus, greater prominence is given at different times to the relation of the work of Christ to the sinful state of man in general, to the wrath of God before which the conscience trembles, to the devil, or to the Law — and to the latter, either as visiting its curse upon us or as standng over us, in consequence of the general prevalence of sin, as an oppressor and taskmaster. Similarly, in the work of 'Erl. Ed., xxv, 115; xxi, 13, 99; xli, 214; xlix, 140; x, 24; xviii, 177, 179; ix, 380. Comm. ad. Gal., i, 54. 390 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. Christ itself, the chief emphasis is laid from time to time upon His active ministry, upon His sufferings, upon His death, or upon His triumph in the resurrection, etc. Nowhere has Luther, in uniform statement, combined, expanded, or harmonized all these various elements. This may be partly accounted for by the fact, that, however peculiar to himseK, in contrast with the traditional theology, was his conception of the work of Christ, it was yet not that work itself, but only the significance to be attributed to it in contrast with all human efforts, which he found it neces sary, in the conflict with his enemies, to maintain and more care fully define. He himself, moreover, reminds us that strong meat cannot be furnished to all readers, but that some can endure only milk ; and he speaks of this especially with reference to the mysterious culmination of religious truth in the sufferings of the Saviour.1 Hence, when we find him dwelling less fully upon this subject than is his wont, we are by no means at liberty to con clude that he has come to attach less importance to it, or that he has formed another conception of its significance. In his pictur esque representations, it may at times be questioned to what extent he wishes his language to be understood literally or figura tively. It will aid us in reaching a conclusion in such cases to note in advance what he himseK declared with primary reference to the descent of Christ to hell, but yet, at the same time, in general terms : " We must at any rate conceive of all things which we cannot understand and know in pictures, even though they may not actually be just as the pictures represent them. I propose to keep close to the pictures, for with lofty thoughts and keen ques tions the devil would easily draw me off of the track. The picture really helps to gain the proper and correct understanding." 2 It will now be our task to set in a clear light, as far as possible, the significance of the separate elements of the work of Christ in their relation to one another, as conceived by Luther, acknowl edging, as we proceed, the points in which the utterances of the Reformer himself fail to afford us such further mediating sugges tions or definitions as may seem to be desirable.3 1 Op. Ex., xvi, 242, 248 sq. 2 Erl. Ed., iii, 286. 3 Held, in his " De opere Jesu Christi salutari," A. D. i860, has presented the doctrine very fully and vividly, but without bringing to view with suffi- ciennt accuracy the dogmatic questions which must, even in the interest of mere historic fidelity, be considered in connection with it. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 39 r 1 The fundamental prerequisite for the entire activity of Christ in the interest of human salvation — for His once-for-all completed work, and His continuous bestowal of salvation upon men — was always, for Luther, found in the Person of the Redeemer, with His Divine and Human Nature. The character of holiness belongs to Him by virtue of His very nature : He is pure already in His conception and birth. And as His purity and holiness, in general,- are to redound to our benefit, in order that we also, in our faith in Him and through union with Him,1 may become holy, or righteous, before God, so also is this purity of His birth to prove a source of blessing to us.'' But, in order that salvation may actually flow out from Him upon us, He, the Son of God, holy in His own nature, also, for our sakes put His own holiness, as a man, to the test throughout His entire earthly career in active moral living, and in His sufferings took upon Himself, endured and overcame that which rested as a heavy burden upon us, sinful men. We must, as when before treating of the subject,3 fix our attention at once upon both these features of His work. Christ brings deliverance, because He, holy as He was from His very birth, never sinned, but, on the contrary, in perfect obedience, fulfilled the Father's will. In view of this, His obedi ence, His piety, His holiness, we may be certain that God will for His sake be gracious to us. Therein He fulfilled the Law, or the " will of God " (Ps. xl. 7, 8) . Through His cheerful fulfilling of this divine will, we are sanctified (Heb. x. io), and through His obedience, righteous (Rom. v. 19). He has satisfied the Law, so that we, who were incapable of meeting its demands, are now no longer condemned by it. He fulfilled the Law, moreover, completely, because all His deeds were done in that love to God and His fellowmen in which the whole Law consists. Here come into view, also, especially His sufferings and death, and His bearing of our sins ; for these were prompted by love and obedi ence to the Father, and by love for His fellowmen. He thus fulfilled also the requirement of Matt. vii. 12; for every one would gladly have another do for him as Christ did for others. Thus has He entirely fulfilled the Law which we were in duty 'Cf. the following chapter and Vol. I., p. 4'45 Vol. II., p. 366 sq. 2 Erl. Ed., xx, 160 sqq. 3 Vol. I., p. 170. 392 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. bound to fulfil. If we be now asked in the presence of God, whether we have loved God and perfectly fulfilled the Law, He approaches and says : " O, Father, thou knowest I have done so; let this be set to their credit (ihnen zu Gute kommen), because they believe on me." 1 We have here a dogmatic pre sentation of the active obedience of Christ in our stead, in which His endurance for us is also included as a moral act. Precisely what He took upon HimseK in this endurance, and why it was necessary for Him so to do, are matters which will demand our attention in another connection. If we inquire more closely into the nature of the Law which Christ is said to have fulfilled, we are at once led, in Luther, from the thought of a doing of the Law by Christ to that of a bearing of it on His part — from the doing of that which we ought to have done, yet, on account of indwelling sin, could not have done, to a bearing of that which was laid upon us in our character as sinners. It is only from this point of view that we can rightly understand the often-quoted saying of Luther, that Christ in His person and His will was not under the Law, but free from it and Lord over all} What was, then, the nature of the Law under which Christ placed Himself? To it belong certainly the Mosaic ordinances, to which He is particularly said to have subjected Himself. To it belong also such commandments as that requiring obedience to parents, and, in general, all the commandments which are not purely ceremonial — the whole Law, including that written upon the hearts of all men. We have already been told that the will of the Father is the same thing as the Law.3 But when it is now said of Christ, that He is free from the Law, we dare not understand this in the sense in which Luther, in his well-known utterance of A. D. 1525, declares of God, as such, that we dare set no bounds to Him, etc. ; * but Luther has in view a freedom from the Law which may and should be trans ferred from the Son of God to us men. According to this, the 'Erl. Ed., xxvii, 183 (Vol. I., p. 414); iii, 311, 313 sq. Jena, i, 542 b. Briefe, v, 525. Erl. Ed., xlvi, 67; xv, 57; ii, 261; x, 25; xiv, 10, 16, *54- 2 Ibid., vii, 270 sq. 8 Ibid., vii, 270, i, 307 sq., 309; xv, 261. Op. Ex., xvi, 244. Erl. Ed., xiv, 10. 'Ibid., xlviii, 53. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 393 kind of Law which is here meant may be yet more narrowly defined. Believers, delivered by Christ, although living under the Law, are yet not subject to it. Christ, by the very act of subjecting Himself to the Law, has made them free from it. And by this is meant, not only that they are free from the curse of the Law, so that it can no more bring charges against them and con demn them, but that they now, being redeemed (delivered), no longer have in the Law a taskmaster, with threatenings and rewards. They now have themselves a free and cheerful will, and do all things in a natural way, as did Adam and Eve before the Fall ; and hence the Law has no further demands to make upon them. If they still have evil inclinations, yet the Law can no more threaten them, inasmuch as they look to Christ in faith, and His fulfilment of the Law is theirs. Just as little do they need to earn anything by the works of the Law, since they already certainly possess all blessedness in Christ. Now it is just the perfect pattern and original source of this liberty which, upon Luther's theory, is to be found in Christ. He has no Law and is above all Law, because He has of His own accord done all that the entire Law requires, so that it can neither command nor forbid Him to do anything — and because He is so full of all that is good that He can neither desire nor do anything but that which is good. He has in His person more righteousness, piety, holy desire and love than the Law could ever demand. Hence, the Law has no authority over Him. It cannot say to Him : " Do this, avoid that " ; but He might, on the contrary, say to the Law : " I do, and have done, what should be done ; and I have no need whatever of your requirements to that end." Thus He stands far above the Law, and is Lord of the Law. Nor was it necessary for Him, before attaining this liberty, to merit anything by means of His work upon our behalf or by His obedience to the Father. He might have remained in heaven and been equal to God, and, from the very moment of His conception, all things belonged to Him ; but He accomplished His great work for our benefit in free love and obedience.1 According to these princi ples, when Luther speaks of the subjection of Christ to the Law, from which He was free, he does not understand by the latter ¦Erl. Ed., xv, 294; vii, 266 sqq., 296; li, 2S8, 297; xiv, 155 ; xv, 259 sqq. Jena, i, 237 (Loscher ii, 886). Erl. Ed., xiv, 10. 394 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. simply the " will of God," but the divine will as presented in exernal commandments and prohibitions, with threatenings and promises of reward. He speaks, at the same time, of a doing of the divine loving will, as Jesus freely cherished it in His own heart; but he does not say that Jesus had also liberty from, and dominion over, the latter. He means, in the former case, the Law as it stands before us since we have become sinners, and as it is specially portrayed in the Mosaic requirements. " The Law," says he, " has to do only with sinners. But Christ is no sinner ; He is verily the Lord of the Law, because He is without any sin." ¦ But Christ retained His liberty, also, even when under the Law. In outward works, He was, indeed, like all those who do the latter unwillingly, ensnared as they are in the two fetters of the prison-house of the Law, i. e., the fear, or threatenings, of the Law, and the reward, or hope of reward. But in His will He was free ; He kept the Law voluntarily, neither seeking nor for Himself fearing anything from it. And it is just to such a liberty that He now desires to lead us out from the prison of the Law, into which He has come to find us.2 If we have correctly apprehended the conception of Luther, a discrimination must be made, in the positive activity of Christ of which we have been speaking, between two things which he him seK, indeed, does not clearly differentiate, and which coincide in the actual deeds of the Saviour, i. i'» S23 b- Erl. Ed., xii, 287; xlix, 105 sq; xiv, 290 ; xv, 248; xxxiv, 197; xxxv, 133. Supra, Vol. I., p. 415 ; Vol. II., p. 324. 456 the theology of luther. evil lust of original sin. This must, as is argued at length against Eck, and afterwards particularly in the Confutatio rationis Latomianae, even after baptism, in which forgiveness of it is bestowed, be still acknowledged as truly sin. For the principle must always be stoutly maintained, that sin is eveiything which is not in accordance with the divine Law. This sin is always in substance the same, even though differing in degree. A sinful character, moreover, still attaches even to all the good works which the Christian performs in the power of the Holy Spirit. He thus sins even in the doing of good, according to Eccl. vii. 20. Every good work may therefore even be called sin, since it cer tainly does not truly correspond with the commandments of God. But that which is yet sinful in the good works of the believer is, for Christ's sake, not now charged as sin against him. Sin in peculiar and general forms persists through every stage of IKe. We may even say that our IKe not only sins, but is sin itseK. And the sense of sin is yet deeper in Christian people than in others ; for the latter, living on in security, do not allow the thought of sin to trouble them.1 Under the consciousness of such persistent sin, the believer may yet always find comfort in the forgiveness which was bestowed upon him already in his baptism, which he continually enjoys in Christ, and for the appropriation of which in the future nothing more is required than faith in the Redeemer. Thus we may even, whilst saying on the one hand, " Every Christian has sin," also say, " No Christian has sin." But as, in view of this forgiveness, sin is already entirely blotted out, so must it also be continually more and more fully obliterated, in so far as the believer is inwardly cleansed from it. This the Holy Spirit desires to do. He must still daily cleanse the wounds, as without His care we would again become corrupt. To this same end, also, God works upon us, particularly through mortifications and sufferings of various kinds. It is, moreover, for the very purpose of enabling us to forsake sin and lead a better life that our sins have been remitted and we ourselves taken into the divine favor. The repentance of the Christian must therefore continue until 1 Erl. Ed., xvi, 141 ; xv, 50 sq. ; iii, 357. Op. Ex., x, 193. Vol. I., p. 325, sq. ; Vol. II., p. 348. Jena, ii, 406 sqq. Vol. I., pp. 177 sq., 286 sq. Erl. Ed , xxiv, 134 sqq. ; xxv, 142. Op. Ex., xxii, 404 sq. Comm. ad Gal., i, 275 sq. Erl. Ed., iii, 307. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 457 his death, since he has occasion throughout his whole life to reproach himself on account of the sin yet remaining in his flesh. The work of baptism must be carried still further, and continu ously, in a daily cleansing (sweeping out) and a continual decline of sin. This, too, belongs to the idea and to the nature of the holiness which distinguishes believers. They are called a holy nation, on account of the Holy Spirit, who daily sanctifies them, not only through the forgiveness of sins secured for them by Christ, but also through the cleansing and slaying of remaining sin. To this condition Christians can actually attain, and they do really attain to it, if they only do not themselves wantonly devote themselves again to sin. The " head and life of sin " are slain already in conversion and baptism. True Christians, how ever sin may yet stir within them, are therefore no longer subject to it, but rule over it. Whenever it stirs, they stop to reflect, recall the divine Word, strengthen their resolution by their faith in the forgiveness granted them, and thus resist the sin. Their condition is like that of ancient Israel, when the kings of Canaan had all been slain, and there were left to annoy them only the conquered and discontented remnant of the Canaanites. Whereas the non-Christian lives under the bondage (in the prison) of sin, the Christian has yet to do only with a captive sin. Christ has fettered it, that it may no longer impel or entice the believer to evil ; and if it now seeks to entice him, he says : You pipe very sweetly for me, and would like me to do evil, etc., but I propose to trample all such things under my feet. The regenerate man is therefore still called " flesh," but only in view of the remnants of the flesh which still war within him against the first-fruits of the Spirit.1 And as sin must be ever more and more fully driven out, so must the forces and virtues of the Spirit continually gain in strength. The gifts of the Holy Spirit can, from their very nature, never rest in repose. They increase continually in those who use them aright, or, when misused, continually diminish. It is in this sense that we are to understand the words of the Saviour : " To him that hath shall be given." Thus the Christian life as a whole is a constant activity — a constant progress — from 'Vol. I., p. 395. Op. Ex., xix., 43. Erl. Ed., xviii, 235 sq. ; xvi, 141, 103. Vol. I., pp. 226 sq., 351 sq. Erl. Ed., xxv, 135; xvi, 104 sq. Vol. Li P- 397- Erl. Ed., xxv, 353 sq. Supra, p. 441. Erl. Ed., ix, 151 sq., 170; xlvii, 48. Jena, ii, 418 b. Erl. Ed., iv, 29. Jena, iii, 219 b. 458 the theology of luther. vices to virtues and from one virtue to another. He who is not always engaged in such a course of advancement is no Christian. The life of the believer is not a fixed condition ( Wesen) , but a becoming (ein IVerden). "Christianus non est in facto, sed in fieri." In one view of his life, he is, it is true, already in heaven. Just because he strives to enter it, God regards him as though he were already there. His name is recorded among the citizens of heaven, and he has his wall; and conversation there in prayer, faith, the divine Word, the sacraments, etc. But, regarded from another point of view, he is still only striving to enter heaven, and he who thinks himself already there shall never enter. " The conclusion of the matter is, that we must go forward, and not stand still, nor lie down and snore." ' God works also, as we have learned, especially through crosses and sufferings for the purification and spiritual advancement of His people. This brings to our view again the " penalty " (Pein) which, in connection' with repentance, must continue until death, and which God still imposes upon true believers.2 Under this heading are to be classed particularly those inward assaults of temptation in which the Christian is often made to feel as though the grace of God had forsaken him. The face of God is turned away from him. He feels himseK abandoned of God. He beholds naught but wrath and terrors. He is, according to the emotions of his heart, actually in death and in hell.3 This is the heaviest " penalty," and this, too, the sorest temptation. The spirit of impious murmuring is aroused in his heart, so that he feels angry with God for not giving him deliverance. It is the devil who brings him into this terrible condition by hurling fiery darts into his heart ; but it is God who sends such trials through the agency of the devil.' Under such pains and conflicts Luther had himself groaned. In the endurance of them, the great saints, Abraham, Jacob, Job, David and Paul, were compelled to lead the way. Christ tasted them to the very dregs.5 That we yet experience them is a result of our sins. We feel therein the divine wrath, which is visited only upon sin. The assaults of Satan derive their power from the Law, which discovers to us our present sins. Even Christ suffered thus also under the burden 'Briefe, i, 487. Erl. Ed., xxiv, 73; xlvi, 156. Comm. ad Gal., iii. 315. Jena, iv, 343. 2 Vol. I., pp. 241,252. 3 Ibid., p. 58. * Supra, p. 290 sqq. 6 Ibid., p. 402sq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 459 of sins, inasmuch as He had taken ours upon Himself. All this must, however, not be understood as implying that those who are most grievously assailed by such temptations are therefore to be considered as the greatest sinners, nor that the magnitude of these spiritual trials in any case would justify the conclusion that the general status of the believer thus assailed must at least be pecu liar low and weak. On the contrary, it has been already declared that it is only by the Christian, or regenerate man, that sin is properly realized. It is precisely those Christians who have already attained a high standard of Christian chaiacter, i. e., the " lofty saints of God," who are, in the providence of God, most frequently assailed, alarmed and filled with fears. " It befalls only such as already have a strong faith and spirit, leading also a blameless life, doing much good and enduring much, so that they have no cause to fear the face of man." Others could not endure such cuffs. But why does God impose upon believers of this class, and upon them only, such special trials? Because they, too, need to be put to the test by terrors and distress, to prove whether they really believe and love. It is particularly necessary for them to be guarded against presumption, and frequently most profoundly humiliated, in order that, possessing as they do a peculiar measure of divine grace and blessing, they may not again learn to depend upon themselves. There must yet be thoroughly slain within them their own righteousness, the flesh, and their own reason. They must constantly learn anew and more thoroughly to seek real comfort only in Christ, His Word and the sacraments : and through the temptations which they thus endure God will grant them the greater courage and strength. They thus learn, also, to discover and experience the presence of the Spirit within, and then only become really full of the Spirit. Finally, it is also as an example for others that God permits them to pass through such trying experiences — as a warning for the unconcerned and impenitent, who may be thus led to consider how they could endure the trial if such distress were to- befall them ; and as a consolation for other distressed consciences, who thus see that God has similarly afflicted even the best saints. God will, more over, grant His saints all the assistance which they may need to endure all such assaults. Christ has made these sufferings harm less, and even beneficial, for them. God does not suffer His own 460 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. to be tempted above what they are able to bear (1 Cor. x. 13). Christ will come again to them, and cause His light to arise upon them. They shall now learn from their own experience how powerful is He, the Vanquisher of sin and death. Thus they are to be thoroughly convinced that, even when they are oppressed with the sense of divine wrath and of abandonment by God, His grace is still unrecalled, and that God, in truth, is especially present with them in these very trials — that they are being chastened in mercy.1 We have already remarked that Luther would not have us, in view of such considerations, call in question the reality of the divine wrath.2 This wrath is actually visited upon them, inasmuch as they still are sinful. But the profound est sentiment underlying the disposition and dealings of God with them, as those whom He has accepted as members of Christ, is still, although they now for a season do not realize it, His burning love. He is doing His " strange work," in order thereby to accomplish His " own work." They should meanwhile, even without feeling, if need be, cling to His Word of grace. And although, in other respects, they are just like lost sinners, they should still, just as God is still graciously inclined toward them, likewise also "maintain kindly feelings (Gunst) toward God," and be careful only that they do not forget to render praise and glory to Him. They may and should thus confront the devil with the bold assertion : " After all, it is not death and wrath ; after all, it is paternal discipline." Thus they may, without long parley, banish many distressing thoughts, just as we allow the birds to do no more than fly over our heads.3 We are now in a position to understand without difficulty the utterances of Luther concerning the blissful feelings which mark the IKe of the true believer — in how far they properly belong to Christian life, and how far, on the other hand, we must renounce them, and, in direct opposition to our own feelings, hold fast to our faith in the grace of God.* We have been told 5 that faith must feel the truth of the divine Word. Our own heart and 1 Supra, p. 402 sq. 2 Supra, p. 290 sqq. 3 Cf., besides a multitude of similar utterances, especially in the letters of the Reformer, Op. Ex., xvi, 249 sqq., 305 sq. ; xvii, 50 sqq., 57; iii, 277-284; ix, 90-99. Erl. Ed., xi, 19 sqq. ; ix 90sqq. ; xxxix, 44 sqq. ; xxxiv, 201 sqq.; xxxvii, 350 sq. ; xlix, 194 sqq ; xli, 68; xix, 401. Supra, p. 336. * Sup'a. PP- 43°. 443- 5 Ibid., p. 430. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 46 I conscience must feel that we are also numbered among the sinful, who, as such, can be saved only by grace. Enlightened and enflamed by the Holy Spirit, we must feel how God loved the world and gave His own Son. And, finally, every separate indi vidual must feel also the grace and forgiveness which have been individually bestowed upon him. Christ, the Good Samaritan, pours upon me the oil of His grace, so that I feel that His strong right arm is beneath me. This gives me an inner sense of supreme happiness. Every one must examine himself, and observe whether he also feels the Holy Spirit, and experiences in himself the voice of the Spirit, crying Abba, Father. He must be joyously, and without wavering, assured in his conscience of his adoption and his salvation. Even though there be yet a strife within, since he experiences God also as an angry Judge, yet this child-like confidence must at length prove triumphant. We then, because thus highly esteeming the Word of God, feel also the presence of Christ and of the holy angels in our hearts. And just because our heart, enflamed by the Spirit, feels the love of God, it then itself begins to love. We must know and experience also, in regard to our own faith, that it is a faith awakened within us by God. We must feel it, also, in that it manifests itself in our life.1 Nevertheless, it still remains true, that, just as soon as faith in the objective Word of forgiveness is awakened by the Spirit, who makes the preaching of the Word efficacious, we have really made forgiveness our own, even though we do not then at once, nor at all times, enjoy the blissful feeling of personal forgiveness.2 Indeed, in the spiritual temptations above spoken of, the recipient of grace must experience directly the opposite. Of the condition of such a soul Luther speaks with very special earnestness for the instruction and encouragement of believers. In such a case, he asserts, we should believe even without feeling, and in spite of that which is felt at the time. To this extent, faith is " insensi bility." The believer must here, without murmuiing, be content to know that God is good, even though he should never experi ence that goodness. He must not judge according to his own feeling, but simply hold himself to the Word and cling to it. He ' Briefe, iii, 355. Erl. Ed., xvi, 74; xiv, 16 sq. ; vii, 275, 326; xii, 260; xlvi, 163; xxix, 334; xii, 250 sq. ; xi, 185; xii, 260; xvi, 74; xix, 403. Briefe, vi, 20. '¦ Cf. supra, p. 443; Vol. I., p. 180 sq. 462 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. must thus, even when he most deeply feels his sins, yet say : I have the forgiveness of my sins. He must look only upon Christ, and, at least in weakness, believe in Him, and hold to Him, who says: "Be of good cheer; thy sins are forgiven thee."1 The first-cited utterances of Luther, in regard to the origination of faith in an awakened state of the heart and feelings, are not con tradicted by the views here presented. He promises to the believer, after such assaults shall have been endured, and through their very instrumentality, more exalted experience of blessedness and new and firmer assurance of acceptance. Those who endure shall feel the comfort of divine love and certainty shed abroad in (poured into) their hearts.2 To the expression above quoted, " even though he should never experience the goodness of God," he at once adds, " which is, however, impossible." 3 The child like confidence must, as we have heard, at length prove triumphant. In harmony with all the above is the reply which Luther gives to the question, Whether and how the Christian, when living in the state of grace, may and should be certain of this g?-ace, and hence of His eternal salvation. Luther is horrified that the Pope " should have entirely prohibited the certainty and assurance of divine grace." * That God is graciously disposed toward me, as a believer, is already made perfectly certain by the very fact, that He graciously offers to me in Christ forgiveness and life, and makes this for me dependent upon nothing else whatsoever but simply upon my faith. In connection with faith, all my works are also pleasing in His sight — as proper, good and Christian fruits. And when He Himself desires me to believe in Him and in His Word, that which He would have me believe is precisely this — that I have in Him a gracious God, and that I, with my works, am an object of His good pleasure. I am to believe that Christ has suffered for us. I am to lay hold with firm confidence upon the Word of the Gospel. I am particularly to be certain that the word of absolution, which pledges forgiveness to me individually, is the Word of God.5 I am to be fully assured 1 Erl. Ed., i, 62; xii, 271 sq.; xiv, 229 sq. Op. Ex., xvi, 280. Briefe, iii, 532 sq. Erl. Ed., xii, 270, 308 sq. ; xiv, 270; xlvii, 324 sq. ; xi, 198 sq. 2 Erl. Ed., xii, 281, 299 ; xiv, 220; xlix, 196 sqq. » Ibid., xiv, 230. * Vol. I., p. 53. 5 Ibid., p. 259 sqq. For further expansion of this thought, see the follow ing chapter. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW, 463 that, since I am now in Christ and cleansed from sin by faith, my life is also pleasing to God. Moreover, of the fact that I so believe, I may and should now be certain. Luther does not dis countenance, but even encourages, this reflection of the Christian consciousness upon its own condition and its own faith. He quotes with approval the saying of Augustine : " Any one sees his faith very certainly, if he has any." Similarly, I should also be entirely certain that I have the Holy Spirit. In support of the position that the Christian may and should be certain of this, he appeals to the " inner witness " of which Paul speaks in Gal. iv. 6. He teaches, further, that we may infer our possession of the Spirit from the facts, that we now gladly hear of Christ, thank Him, acknowledge Him in our words and works, perform our duty cheerfully, no longer find pleasure in sin, etc.1 But we must now again take into consideration the spiritual temptations and infirmities which beset especially the saints of God. Under stress of these, we feel, indeed, only an extremely weak faith within us.2 The Spirit still, assuredly, intercedes for us with groanings that cannot be uttered ; but we hear no longer the voice of the Spirit, and it seems to us that our groaning cannot pierce the clouds. Here again Luther reminds those thus sorely tempted, that they still gladly hear the Word, desire the spread of the Gospel, etc. ; and he adds, we still feel, to some degree, our own weak groaning of spirit. But here, too, is again presented most earnestly, as of the first importance, the admoni tion that we simply lay hold directly upon the objective Word of grace. We have here, says he, the Word alone. Just because we lay hold upon it, we groan in spirit. We must not look upon our own imperfection, but upon the God Himself who extends to us the promise, and upon the Mediator, Christ. He refers us, further, to the power of the keys, to the sacraments, and, in general, to the countless evidences of loving-kindness which God has lavished upon us. Thus, amid all assaults of temptation, there yet stands fast for us the certainty of salvation ; and we should, therefore, also ever seek to rise again to a firm and joyous personal assurance of it.3 ' Cf., supra, p. 45 1. 2 Cf., supra, p. 428. 3 Cf., particularly Comm. ad Gal., ii, 161-181. Further, c. g., Op. Ex., xvi, 197 sq. ; xiv, 242; xi, 295. Erl. Ed., vii, 98; xliv, 123 sqq.; xlix, 284 sq. ; xxxi, 286. 464 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. The words of Eccl. ix. 1, to which1 the Papists appealed: " No man knoweth whether he is worthy of love or hatred," Luther had, in the first edition of the Church Postils? still ex plained as meaning that it is, at all events, uncertain at least whether any man will in the future be worthy of grace, i. e., whether he will endure under the assaults of temptation. He afterwards s no longer regards them as referring at all to the love or favor of God toward us, but to the gratitude or ingratitude which we have to expect from the world . " Although one may have done all things as well as possible, he yet does not know whether he may, by this, his diligence and fidelity, gain the hatred or the favor of his fellowmen." Whether the Christian, who may and should be now certain of his gracious state, shall con tinue in Christ, and thus also in grace, remains, indeed, according to, Luther, an open question : for he who now standeth must always take heed lest he fall.* Although the Christian should be sure that he is now a child of God and a partaker of salvation, it is yet uncertain and a matter for serious concern whether he shall remain a child and maintain his position, and hence he must yet ever walk in fear. This declaration is maintained even in the later editions of the Church Postils, although they in the same section omit the original comment upon Eccl. ix. i.5 Yet the Christian should still, according to Luther, cherish a firm confi dence that God, so far as the eternal salvation of the believer depends upon Him, desires that it be secured in Christ. If he is nevertheless finally lost, he must regard it as entirely his own fault, because he has failed to abide with Christ and secure ever renewed forgiveness in the Word of His grace. To the question, in how far the though tr of a foreknowledge of God, an eternal predestination, an absolute, arbitrary divine will, lying concealed behind the Word of grace and withholding from us future assist ance, might still disturb the confident outlook of the believer toward the future and the end of life, we have already heard the habitual reply of Luther. It appeared to him impossible to remove the difficulties which reason here suggests. But, in his practical admonitions, he sought to show how one may and ' Vol. I., p. 53. 2 Erl. Ed., vii, 243, note. 3 Comm. ad Gal., ii, 178 sq. * Infra, p. 465 sqq. 6 Briefe, ii, 276 sq. Erl. Ed., vii, 243. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 465 should, without the officious intermeddling of reason, in direct apprehension of Christ and His means of grace, be, until the very end of life, sure of his predestination and eternal salvation. We have thus reviewed, in a general way, the course of life which distinguishes the baptized, believing Christian. We must now examine more carefully the relation in which such a life con tinues to stand toward sin ; and then, still further, must observe the postive moral conduct, in which its new inner character must be manKested and developed. b. Life of the Believer in its Relation to Sin. SIN OF BELIEVERS — SINS OF WEAKNESS AND OF DELIBERATION — SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST — TRIUMPHANT EXPERIENCE OF GRACE. Sin yet clings to the Christian believer. Not only do evil lusts, which he can by the power of the Spirit withstand, yet stir within him and pollute even the fruits borne by the new life which springs from fellowship with Christ ; but, despite the presence of the Holy Spirit, he yet often falls into sin. He would not fall if he would always obey the Spirit ; but that is impossible for him, since the devil is too strong, the world too evil, and our flesh and blood too weak.1 Every sin, moreover, which the Christian commits after becom ing a believer is truly sin. God hates it. Every such sin is, in its actual character, a mortal sin. Though one may, indeed, be greater than another, yet even the lighter offences are too great and grievous for us to bear. In truth, we cannot sufficiently comprehend the magnitude of any sin. We should be utterly unable to endure them, if we were to properly see and feel their enormity. Our consolation must always be found in the grace of God alone ; and the^ difference between venial and mortal sins lies not in the different nature (Substanz) of the deeds them selves, but in difference in the persons committing them, since forgiveness is granted to him who believes on Christ.2 Viewed in the light of their origin, the sins which are still com mitted by the regenerate are of two kinds. The first class are ' Erl. Ed., iv, 72 sq. 2 Comm. ad Gal , iii, 24 sq. Erl. Ed., iii, 74; xlvi, 120. 3° 466 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. those in which one is in his weakness suddenly overtaken and overpowered by evil, so that he allows a profane oath to escape his lips, or commits some other wrong deed ; or that, at least, some sinful passion rises in his heart, such as thirst for revenge upon one who has injured him. Sins which originate in such sudden provocations, and by which we are thus overtaken, are " sins of ignorance." They do not obliterate faith. The believer at once struggles against such sins, repents of them, and finds in faith forgiveness. The case is different if he knotvingly and volun tarily, with an evil purpose, does wrong and acts against God,as, e. g., in the committing of adultery. We are, every day overtaken by sins of the first class ; but, according to Luther, the Christian is yet always liable to be betrayed into sins of the second class also. It is noticeable, indeed, that Luther's portraiture of these two classes of sins is somewhat vacillating. We find him, e. g., at one time : including David's adultery among the sins com mitted in ignorance, inasmuch as David, although conscious, indeed, of the wrong that he was committing, yet, impelled by the devil and evil lust, did not properly consider the character of the deed. The distinction between such sins and the daily involuntary sinful impulses is always, however, clearly maintained. When sins of the second class are committed, the Holy Spirit departs from the fallen Christian ; for He cannot abide where the devil dwells. The unfaithful Christian falls again under the wrath of God. He remains, if he be not again uplKted, under eternal condemnation. Nor dare we say in such a case : No fall can in any event injure him who has once been chosen of God, but he remains always in (the state of) grace. On the contrary, we must here again look entirely away from the mystery of the eternal election, and hold simply to the Word of God, in which He beyond all question reproves all sins. It is enough for us to know that he who finally perseveres in repentance and faith is certainly one of the elect. Luther maintains this position with great earnestness, in opposition to the reckless spirits then so numerous, who held that no sin could further injure him who had once become a believer in Christ, or that, if one should sin after his profession of faith, it would prove that he did not really have the Holy Spirit or true faith. Yet, at the same time, he con- 1 Erl. Ed., iii, 149. On the other hand, Briefe, v, 40-42. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 467 stantly1 re-asserts the principle, that faith itself is no longer present in and with sin voluntarily committed — maintaining this particularly in opposition to the Roman Catholic conception of faith. Faith, he insists, cannot exist where the Holy Spirit is no longer present — where there is no repentance, and hence also no forgiveness of sins, which faith always receives. Even a slight wound of the conscience may very easily cast away faith and the calling of God.2 But for sins of both kinds there still is, and remains, with Christ forgiveness. The unavoidable daily evil impulses and sins of infirmity are embraced in the " general (gemeine) forgiveness." They " vanish in the Lord's Prayer." As I daily commit such sins, J should also daily seek cleansing from them by recurring to my ever-valid baptism and by the use of God's Word, absolution, etc. But for sins of the second class also, a return is still possi ble — a return to repentance, to faith, to forgiveness. God then again fully accepts the one thus converted from his error. There is no measure nor limit to the divine kingdom of forgiveness. Luther emphatically rejects the opinion of the Novatians, that after baptism no mortal sin can be forgiven upon earth. He cites against them the doctrine of the power of the keys. The passages, Heb. x. 26 sq. and vi. 4 sq.,3 upon which they rely, he interprets as merely declaring that he who, deserting Christ, seeks to find another way to heaven shall never reach his goal.* We have already observed that Luther's conception of mortal sin is such as to leave the way still open for a return to the state of forgiveness. Sins of the second class above described are all regarded as mortal — " if any one with a kind of presumption, knowingly, deliberately, voluntarily offends and despises the threatenings of God." They are not, as yet, altogether the same as the sin against the Holy Ghost, of which we shall presently speak, although not far removed from it.5 Elsewhere, he under- 'Vol. I., p. 327. 2 Erl. Ed., xviii, 124 sq.; xix, 74; xliii, III sq. Briefe, v, 40 sqq. Erl. Ed., xxv, 135 sq. Comm. ad Gal., ii, 321. Erl. Ed., 1, 58. Op. Ex., iv, 227 sq. 3 Vid. p. 246 sq. 4 Erl. Ed., xviii, 19; xliii, 1. c, xxvii, 442; I, 406 sq. ; xi, 267. Briefe, v, 1. c. Erl. Ed., xxxi, 179, xviii, 237 sq. ; xliv, 120 sqq. ; 126 sq. 5 Op. Ex., x, 360. 468 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. stands by mortal sin, more precisely, boasting of one's own right eousness in contrast with the mercy of God, yielding to despair under the sense of sin, and thus, in general, resistance of the grace of God — in such cases identifying it with the sin against the Holy Ghost. Yet even here he still admits the possibility of restoration, and interprets the language of i John v. 16, which releases from the obligation of prayer for mortal sins, as meaning only that we are not to implore God to graciously accept such persons in their sins, but to convert them again from the latter.1 Finally, he declares — understanding now by " mortal sin " one actually leading to eternal destruction — that hatred of recognized truth is a sin unto death (i John v.) and against the Holy Ghost, if one persists in such conscious sin, does not confess it, nor forsake it, nor implore forgiveness for it.2 The conception of mortal sin last presented, or, what is the same thing, the sin against the Holy Ghost in its most extreme and distinctive form, .brings into view at length a sin for which there is no longer any prospect of forgiveness. We must, how ever, again discriminate between different conceptions of " the sin against the Holy Ghost " which occur in the writings of Luther. He regards it as, in general, a striving against grace, or against saving truth itself, in which it seeks to conceal its real character, and be accounted not as sin, but as an excellent good work.3 Thus, as we have seen, prayer for the conversion of those who are guilty of the sin in this general form is not ex cluded. Under this general conception of the sin in question Luther even includes the unwilling commission of sin against the Holy Ghost, as in the case of Paul, who afterwards received such peculiar tokens of the divine favor. There is in such cases " a yet concealed Holy Ghost." * But then, again, the sin against the Holy Ghost is described as that in which the heart resists the illuminating rays of the Spirit which have penetrated it like a flash of lightning — resists the recognized truth and the work of divine grace, and, under all warnings given, becomes but the more hardened.5 This is the special sin against the Holy Ghost, for which mortal sin, not in the wider sense of the term as em- ' Erl. Ed., xli, 346. 2Ibid., iii, 148. 3 Ibid., p. 254 ; xxiii, 74. * Ibid., xxiii, 74 sqq., 83. 5 Ibid., 76-84. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 469 ployed by Luther, but in the jiarrower sense last described, is a synonymous term. For this there is no longer forgiveness, just because the necessary subjective condition, i. e., penitence and faith, does not exist, but the direct opposite. Of such sinners Luther even declares, not only that they will not repent, but that they cannot ; and he then applies to them the above-cited pass ages from Hebrews.1 He even counts them among those for whom, according to 1 John v., we are not required to pray. He hears, says he, that the hardened Papists are actually in this condition; and he has resolved to withhold his prayers in their behalf, since they are but thrown away upon them.2 Upon the question, whether such as have already become true believers can yet fall into this worst of all sins, we find no direct nor complete expression of opinion in Luther's writings ; but, in accordance with his general declarations as to the possibility of falling which still remains even in the case of such, we cannot but answer the question in the affirmative. So seriously does Luther regard sin, even in the case of believers graciously accepted and rejoicing in their salvation. Even they must still feel it as a bitter reality. Ever anew must they take refuge in the grace of God alone, renouncing all claims of their own. They must, likewise, be ever willing to submit to the further inner cleansing of their lives from sin, and to the divine work of cleansing by means of crosses and spiritual temptations. But if we inquire what is the key-note in Luther's description of the present state of the true Christian, we shall find it to consist always and everywhere in the joyous consciousness of grace, which the believer already really experiences, and before whose radiance the depressing power of sin must, in every case, at length be vanquished. Of this he testifies most powerfully and boldly, particularly when it is his aim to snatch honest Christian brethren out of the gloom of spiritual distress. He exhorts such to find consolation in the reflection, that even a thousand sins, com mitted in one day, could not outweigh the value of the heavenly Paschal Lamb. He exhorts them especially to cast aside the scruples which lead them to make sin out of that which is not such in God's sight — foolish, empty sins, such as those with which ' Erl. Ed., xxiii, 81, 79. 2 Ibid., p. 78 sq. ; xxv, 3. Cf., also, reference to the Sacramentarians, supra, p. 189. 470 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. he had once " tormented himseK. .In this sense he could exclaim to a Melanchthon : " Be a sinner and sin bravely, but trust and rejoice more bravely in Christ, who is the Vanquisher of sin, death and the world." 2 c Positive Moral Deportment of the Believer in the Various Reiations of Life. attitude toward god government of the body treatment of fellowmen marriage and family life political rela- ti0ns civil government a hierarchy to be acknowledged preservation of peace christians may participate in gov ernment its sphere monarchical form right of resist ance duty of clemency endurance of wrong essential liberty of the christian. The true Christian has in his Faith a joyous confidence, a blessed experience and a power, which will sustain him in the midst of all the further strivings of sin within. Faith is now, and will remain, for him the unfailing source of his positive moral deportment. The proper attitude of the heart, as placing its dependence directly upon God, appears to Luther to be already embraced in the conception of faith itself. Whereas the soul should be con tent with nothing less than the supreme Good, by whom it has been created and who is the source of its life, and should cling to Him, this clinging is nothing else than faith itself. It is just in faith, too, that due glory is given to God. As w:e call that a God from which we are to expect everything good, so to have a God is simply to trust and believe in Him from the heart.3 But in immediate connection with this stands that Love in which I myself am also kindly and favorably disposed toward this good God, inasmuch as His love to me enkindles such a disposition in my heart. Thus my heart and inward feelings are to be entirely turned toward God, so that I accept with equal readiness what soever my God appoints for me. I am to be satisfied with His 'Vol. I., pp. 55, 69. 2 Briefe, i, 36 sq. Cf., also, particularly Briefe, iv, 188. 3 Erl. Ed., vii, 261 ; xxi, 35 sqq. Cf. supra, p. 285. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 47 1 goodness, even when I do not feel it. In this faith and love I am then to obey and serve Him— not from fear of punishment, nor for the sake of the reward, although the promise of the reward which is to naturally follow is designed to assist in stimu lating me and enflaming my desire for piety. I am permitted also to love created things, in so far as they have come from God and are good. But I dare not make them equal to God, nor depend upon them, but must, on the contrary, willingly renounce and cast from me .everything else, if He desires it.1 The Fear of God must also remain side by side with faith and love. It thus stands, according to Luther, just as in God holiness and punitive justice stand, side by side with love and mercy ; or as the Law, which rebukes and warns against the sin yet remain ing or again threatening to assert its power, stands side by side with the Gospel. The fear of God and confidence in Him are thus to stand together, in Order that man may not become pre sumptuous and carnally secure. Spiritual trials are particularly designed to assist in the cultivation of such a disposition. And as we should do everything, according to Luther, to please God, from love to Him and faith in Him ; so the heart, which prompts all our actions, should be at the same time a heart that fears God, accepts His Word as spoken with divine earnestness, and esteems it highly. There may and should here be cherished, at least side by side with thoughts of the divine promises, also thoughts of the threatenings and penalties of the divine Law. But the proper, Christian, filial feat is that in which we joyfully believe and hope, even in the midst of our fears, as we are ex horted in Ps. ii. 1 1 : " Rejoice with trembling." But of course the Christian, when under the stress of spiritual temptations, must realize that even the sense of this inward joy has vanished.2 We thus, with Luther, embrace all that is included in a proper bearing toward God in the three particulars : " We should fear, love and trust in God above all things." ' The relation and attitude of the believer toward God finds 'Erl. Ed., xiv, 4; xii, 260. Op. Ex., xiii, 144. Erl. Ed., xiv, 146, 6; xiv, 230. Supra, Vol. I., p. 138 sq. Erl. Ed., xiii, 240 ; xv, 469. Jena, ii, 343; cf., supra, p. 460. 2Ibid., xxi, 91 sq.; xi, 5. Op. Ex., xviii, 96, 103, 107 sq. Supra, Vol. I., p. 140. 3 Ibid., xxi, 10. 472 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. most profound utterance in Prayer, in which his heart and soul ' mount up to God, now in longing desire and aspiration, and again with praise and thanksgiving. In it are displayed, at the same time, the highest work and glory of the believer, /. e., the dignity and power which belong to him, as against the entire world, in his relations with God. For in prayer all things are promised to him — deliverance from present and future misery, holiness, liberty, life, and, besides all this, the beggar's portion on the earth — the the common necessaries of life. Prayer is " the only omnipotent empress in human affairs." It is the quite peculiar and the chief work of Christan believers. They engage in it because the promise is attached to it, and because it is commanded. They practice it without ceasing, since, even when the lips do not move, the heart still throbs and beats as it silently breathes the Lord's Prayer, just as the heart and arteries throb constantly in the body. As they always desire to be nothing, and to be con sidered as of no worthiness except only through God's grace and in Christ, they, in prayer, also cast away all thought of seK and depend alone upon the promise of grace, praying in Jesus' name alone. Hence it follows that they should not suffer themselves to be frightened into neglect of a proper approach to God by the sense of their own unworthiness or sinfulness.2 The entire deportment of the believer, thus depicted, in so far as it displays the attitude of his heart toward God, may be sum marized in what Luther has said primarily of faith,'' i. e., that he " rises above himseK to God." We must now also observe more closely how he " descends beneath himself," how he deports himself in the relations of his earthly life and surroundings. The prescriptions of Luther for moral discipline and the Gov erning of the Body and of the Flesh * are chiefly negative in char acter, and have in view the- continual crushing out and crucifixion ' Luther says (Op. Ex., xvii, 216) that prayer is not an ascending of the mind (mentis) but an uplifting of the sout (animal). Unfortunately, the Ger man version (Erl. Ed., xxxviii, 258) here translates " mens " by the word, " Herz." For the conception of the term, " heart," as used by Luther, see, on the other hand, Op. Ex., xix, 113. Erl. Ed., xiv, 4. 2 Erl. Ed., xxi, 166. Op. Ex., xvii, 217. Erl. Ed., xxxviii, 366; xlix, 113-116. Briefe, v, 276, 443. Erl. Ed., xliii, 284; xxi, 100, 107 ; 1, 114 sqq. 1 Vol. I., p. 418. •Cf. Vol. I., p. 415 sq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 473 of sin. It is to be observed that he still recognizes especially the practice of fasting as of great importance in its moral significance. Although he had long since rejected the ecclesiastically imposed fasts, as detrimental to liberty of conscience, and yet only chil dren's, or lying, fasts, he yet advises Christians to fast often, in order that the body may be " tamed." But he considers a real fast to mean, that one willingly — whether or not required by necessity or his own resolution— deprives his body, or any one of the five senses, of a desired gratification and governs it, or when he denies himself sleep, leisure, or any kind of recreation. Such fasting does not necessarily, in his view, require ail entire abstinence from meat or other kinds of food, but merely from such things as are not required by absolute necessity, in order that the body may be kept in subjection and in proper condition for work. This, says he, is indeed a fasting for which no general rules can be given, but which every one must impose upon him self in such measure as may,, in his own judgment, be necessary. He admonishes every one especially to willingly accept all the crosses and sufferings which God Himself may lay upon him.' He regards it, further, as allowable, and even desirable, that the civil government should sometimes, in order to restrain the excesses of the common people and not allow them to eat up all that they have, prohibit the eating or sale of meat on certain days. But such a regulation he would consider a purely secular ordinance. He would approve also the observance of a general fast upon the days preceding the great festivals ; but care must in such case be taken not to make such an observance an act of divine worship, as though we could thus merit anything at the hand of God. He recommends this, however, only as a means of external discipline and exercise for the young and simple, and discriminates carefully between everything of this character and that true Christian fasting of which Christ speaks, and which is a matter for the conscience of each individual.2 Upon the other hand, guided by the same general principle and the same fundamental conception of the Christian life, 'Erl. Ed.,lxv, 128; xliii, 194 sqq.; 200 sq. ; li, 15; xvii, 8sq. Cf. in re gard to Luther's own practice, Melanchthon's report in " Vitae Quatuor Refor- matorum, p. 5. 2 Erl. Ed., xxx, 406; xliii, 197 sq. 474 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. Luther would have the Christian, with faith in his deliverance through Christ and with joyous confidence in God, give even the body its rights and all due honor, and without any scruple enjoy the pleasures which he thus allows himself — as, for example, in matters of food, drink and clothing — only practicing proper moderation and each one observing the proprieties of his station. Particularly does he exhort those who are in spiritual distress and tempted to .despondency to resort even to such worldly means of exciting and cheering up both body and soul, in order to defy and mock the devil, who is always trying to awaken scruples about harmless things. If the devil prohibits drinking, we may drink all the more freely, in the name of the Lord Jesus.1 In particular, however earnestly he recommends . the subjugation of the flesh, he will yet hear nothing of the obliteration of purely natural emotions, or of stoical apathy. And, however strictly he requires the renunciation, upon occasion, of even the closest natural ties, he yet esteems very highly, in opposition to the Satanic teachings under the Papacy and the monastic life, the natural affection for husband, wife, parents, etc. The pious, says he " retain the oTopyeig or innate natural affections," because the Holy Spirit does not extinguish, but wonderfully reinforces, inflames and cherishes them.2 It will be in entire keeping with the general inner harmony of Luther's ethical views K we now, following still further the course of his Freiheit eines Christenmenschen, turn to consider how the Christian, " descending beneath himself " in love, Deports Himself toward his Neighbor. Here Christ is always presented as the pattern, frequently with especial reference to Phil. ii. 6 sqq.3 As Christ has given what is His to Christians, so they allow that which belongs to them, which they have received from and through Him, to overflow upon others. Their faith, indeed, and the blessings which it brings them, they cannot transfer to others ; yet they pray for others that they may also thus put on Christ. It is an error to define love as only " wishing good to any one " ; love is active, and displays its activity in serving others, comfort- 1 Erl- Ed., xi, 39 sqq ; viii, 290; xxxiv, 47 sq. Briefe, vi, 435. (In regard to dancing, see earlier expression in Op. Ex., xii, 177). Op. Ex., v,' 81 sq. Briefe, iv, 188, 543 sq. 2 Op. Ex., *, 167 sq., 234, 335 sq. 3 Cf. Vol. I., p. 416 sq. ; supra, pp. 365 sq., 374, 415. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 475 ing the distressed, helping to the extent of its ability, devoting itself unselfishly with tongue, mouth, earthly possessions, body and life, etc. There is, indeed, a certain knowledge of it im planted in men by nature; but no believer even has as yet sufficiently considered or put into practice all that it involves. It really springs from the love of God and of Christ which we our selves experience. The mote fully we ourselves enjoy and appre ciate the blessings of love, the more loving service do we render and the more love do we bestow upon our fellowmen. And it is just in the exercise of such love that Christians, as the followers of Christ, become like the God who, without ceasing, bestows upon the whole world all good things, and Chiist besides. They become God-lrke, even gods, for their fellowmen.' So directly is this disposition towards our fellowmen involved in the very conception of faith itself, that he calls faith the doer and love the deed, or faith the doer who perforins the works of love.2 In this love he then regards all other virtues as included, and all good works likewise. Thus it is also the summary and fulfilment of the Law. Referring to the endless expansion of the Law in books and in religious and secular ordinances, etc., he demands that all such laws be, in any event, administered in accordance with the supreme law, rule and measure of love. Thus, he de ¦ clares, the Scriptures also embrace all laws in that of love, and subordinate them to it.3 Luther would by no means assign to ihe preaching of works, as thus conceived, a subordinate place. " Both doctrines, that of faith and that of works, should be diligently taught and im pressed, yet in such a way that each is kept within its own limits." " I would not," says he, " for the wealth of the whole world give up the trifling works that I may have done ; for if I have done any good work, it was God who did it through me, and if God did it, what is the whole world in comparison with His work?" He held the first three Gospels as, from this point of view, superior to that of St. John.* But he nevertheless returns con- 'Cf. pp. 285 sq., 454 sq. Erl. Ed., xxvii, 195; vii, 159, 304 sq. ; xix, 381, 396. 2 Erl. Ed., vrii, 63. Jena i, 553. Cf. supra, p. 450 sq. 3 Comm. ad Gal., ii, 355. Erl. Ed., Ii, 284 sqq., 289, 292; viii, 50 sqq., 65 *qq-. 53 sq- * Comm ad Gal., iii, 5. Erl. Ed., lxiii, 295 ; xliii, 81. Cf. supra, p. 243. 476 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. stantly to the announcement of the fundamental principle, that works contribute nothing to the securing of eternal happiness. The Christian, in his state of blessedness, appears to him as com plete in himseK without works, just as Christ did not need to perform these for His own sake. They are necessary only because the Christian is yet living here in the flesh, from which he constantly longs to be transported entirely to that heaven to which he already in his real character belongs. The perform ance of works connected with our earthly life is contrasted with faith as is the flesh with the Spirit.' If we are to follow out more fully, in its concrete expansion and analysis, the doctrine of Luther concerning the moral life of the believer upon earth, it will be necessary for us to classKy his utterances in accordance with their relation to one or the other of the three conditions, orders or spheres of human life. There are, says he, three holy orders (Orden), or proper insti tutions (Stiffen) established by God (as opposed to the monastic orders humanly devised for the furtherance of holy living), i. e., the Priesthood, Marriage and Civil Government. Above all three is the universal order of Christian Love. Of the last named we have just treated. Under the second of the special orders, Luther includes the entire economy of family IKe. In all three, men are to serve God. He who meets his obligations in these relations performs works that are, in the full sense of the word, holy in the sight of God. At the same time, it is through them that God administers His government over the world and the human race. Thus, to the order of the family belong parents and masters as those divinely commissioned to exercise authority, and children and servants as, in accordance with the divine will, rendering obedience. To the third order belong those bearing civil authority, together with the lands and people over whom they rule. The first order has to do with spiritual government through the Word ; the other two, designated the " ordinationes oeconomicae et politicae," with temporal (leibliches) government and its external laws, power and penalties. But the special point upon which Luther insists, and which he maintains against all opposition, was that both the latter orders were also instituted and hallowed by God. They are, therefore, " hierarchies," as 'Op. Ex., xx, 77. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 477 well as the first. They are divine institutions, first of all, by virtue of their . original establishment. God ordained them and de clared them good, just as He did in the case of the sun and moon and the whole order of creation. Still further, God gave to them, in addition to the positon assured to them by His direct appointment, His sanctifying Word. Thus He Himself instructed Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, and gave command ment that children should honor their parents ; and He similarly authorized the exercise of authority over temporal things in gen eral, in the words of Gen. i. 28: " Have dominion," etc. He confirms the authority of secular government still further in Rom. xiii. 1 sqq. By means of all three orders God desires particularly to combat all that is evil ; and they remain " hier archies " by virtue of the position and character which He has assigned to them, although never so many evil men should share in their administration.1 Of the spiritual orders and government, we shall treat at large when reviewing the doctrine concerning the Church, in our eighth chapter. To present in detail all the teachings of Luther bearing upon the subject of marriage and civil government would carry us far beyond the limits of our present undertaking.2 We must content ourselves, therefore, with a brief presentation of the leading principles which he asserted in respect to the latter orders. Luther had already vigorously defended and lauded the dignity and sanctity of Marriage before he ever thought of sanctioning the renunciation of the monastic vow.3 How strongly we are inclined toward this state, in itself so good and noble, by neces sity, i. e., by the force of natural impulse, he had argued at length, especially in his discussions of the character of such vows.* He defines marriage as " the inseparable union of one male and one female person, not only by a law of nature (as the jurists ' Erl. Ed., xxx, 366 sq. ; xxv, 387. Op. Ex., vii, 51 ; x, 230; xx, 66; vi, 245. Erl. Ed., xxxi, 367; xi, 326; iv, 337 sqq., 355. Op. Ex., iv, 295. Briefe v, 399 sq. Comm. ad Gal., ii, 41. Cf. supra, p. 327 sq. (Connec tion of this doctrine with the general doctrine of God's relation to the world and its government.) 2 Particularly would the introduction of his position upon the question of di vorce (Cf. Vol. I , p. 405) compel us to a minute examination of special details. 3 Cf. Vol. I., p. 377. * Vol. I., p. 453 sq. 478 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. express it) but also, as we may say, by the divine will and pleas ure." Its object, or final cause, he holds to be the begetting of children, the "procreatio sobolis." In view of this purpose, we cannot condemn a marriage even when the " efficient cause," or the parents, are wicked ; for the "procreatio " itself is a " most excellent work of God and worthy of all admiration." It was with this object in view that God instituted marriage in Paradise before the Fall ; to this end, it was not good that the man should be alone. But this purpose is at once further defined by Luther as including the divine plan to thus furnish a constantly increas ing number of children for the service of the Lord and for His Church. The family, whose existence is involved in that of marriage, is, in his view, the place where chirdren are to be trained up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Husband and wife are also especially bound to labor together in the service of God. Children are, further, to be so reared in the family as to become worthy and competent leaders in state and Church. Thus mar riage and the family are not only the " fount and source of the human race," but are, at the same time, to serve as a preparatory school (paratio) of the Church and a fountain of the state. We are thus led to the definition : " Marriage is a lawful and divine union, ordained for the worship of God and for the preservation and education of posterity for the administration of the Church and state." 1 That God ordained marriage for the sake of affording carnal pleasure and delight, Luther denies. But he maintains, indeed, that, inasmuch as through the Fall unbridled sexual lust has been aroused, marriage has since then, in accordance with the divine will, had the further purpose of serving as a dam against the sinful outbreaks of such passion. He even calls this now the " first object," the original design being still regarded as the " greater and chief end." Even thus, however, carnal desire retains for him a sinful character,2 but — " the approval and good-pleasure of God covers over the miserable baseness of lust and removes the wrath of God impending over such concupiscence." 3 He con stantly appeals to the consciences of the false, but professedly 'Op. Ex., vi, 7; xix, 73; i, 129 sqq., 145 sqq., 213; iv, 11, 202. Erl. Ed., xliv, 25. Op. Ex,, xx, 65 sq. ; vii, no sqq. 2 Supra, p. 347. 3 Op. Ex,, vii, III; iv, 202 ; i, 145 ; vi, 7 sq., 284 sq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 479 pure and saintly celibates, to testify how very few indeed pre serve true chastity, or are free from vile inward carnal desires, etc. This, he declares, is and remains an extraordinarily rare gift of God. Those to whom it has been really granted he, with the Apostle Paul, advises to act prudently and avoid married life with all the responsibility and cares which it brings with it. He points out as among the advantages of such a course, that we can thus serve God so much the better and be less hampered in view of the peril of persecution which is always impending over the fol lowers of Christ. But he would not have celibacy regarded as a virtue, or as a meritorious work, but as a particular state ; whereas marriage is also just as well a divinely crdained state. We are by no means to give to the former the credit of representing the hundred-fold fruit-bearing of Matt. xiii. 8.' We dare not com pare the ranks, or orders, of human life to the fruits there spoken of, as we would in that case have to call dominion, childhood, etc., purely fruits of the Gospel. And, still further, Luther declares marriage and the family, with the toils and cares which they involve, an excellent place for the practice of faith, in which men are forced and driven to this most profound and sublime spiritual exercise, the faith which depends simply upon the Word of God. There can be no question that, comparing Luther's view of the cares and perils of married life upon the one hand, and its dignity and benefits upon the other, with that presented by the apostle in i Cor. vii., the preponderating advantage will be found in the two cases to be located upon opposite sides. Yet Luther advises impetuous youth nevertheless to at least exercise a little patience for a year or two, and hold the flesh in subjection, as such a mortification of fleshly lusts will be a salutary martyrdom.2 The above-cited fundamental definition of marriage, according to which its validity as a divine ordinance is to be acknowledged, even in the case of wicked and non-Christian partners or parents, makes it very manifest for what reason, and in how far, Luther always remands it to the sphere of the bodily and secular life. It is, accordingly, for him : " an external, bodily thing, which neither hinders nor promotes faith, and in which one party may 'Cf., on the other hand, Vol. I., p. 184. 2 Erl. Ed.,li, 17, 29; xxxiii, 122 sq. ; Ii, 59 sqq., 65; xi, 91 sqq.; Ii. 19, 21. Op. Ex., vi, 149. 480 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. very easily, according to 1 Cor. vii. 12, be a Christian and the other a non-Christian, just as a Christian may eat with a heathen, engage in business transactions with him, etc., or, as in our day, one party may be a true and pious Christian and the other a wicked and hypocritical Christian." The fundamental character of marriage is not in such instances destroyed, and we are not to sever the relation of the parties on such grounds.1 On the other hand, we are distinctly taught that married life is, according to the divine will, to be conducted upon this general, natural and bodily foundation as a holy and even spiritual state, although this is not essential to its validity as a genuine marriage. It should be entered upon with faith in the Word of God which authorizes it, and in the divine will which consummates it.2 By the very temporal cares which it involves, it should impel to constant and complete trust in God. With its outward existence and labors should be combined also a united calling upon God and education for Him and for His Church. It was only when maintaining the fundamental nature of 'marriage and combating the denial of its validity upon unauthorized grounds, as sanctioned by the Papacy, that Luther declared, in A. D. 1522,3 that a Christian may even marry a heathen or a Jew. This he would afterwards, according to later utterances, no longer have admitted — maintaining only that such a marriage, when once contracted, was valid, not that a Christian could enter into such a relation with a good con science. The further prescriptions in regard to marriage just alluded to involve also the solemnization of the union under the sanction of the Church. The parties contemplating marriage announce pub licly their entrance upon the state of holy matrimony in accord ance with the ordinance of God, and receive the blessing of the Church — and are, without doubt, also blessed by God. Even when thus giving instructions for the proper solemnization of marriage, however, he again calls the marriage ceremony a secular matter, and marriage itself a secular state, although one instituted by God and divine, which we may, therefore, also solemnize in a much more glorious way (than by mere secular authority). And in his discussions of matrimonial laws, he never makes the validity of marriage dependent upon an ecclesiastical sanction, but only ' Erl. Ed., Ii, 39. 2 Cf. also ibid., xxiii, 104 sq. » Ibid., xx, 65. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 48 1 upon a public espousal, since marriage is " a public state, which should be publicly adopted and acknowledged before the con gregation." He always firmly maintains that we dare not make a sacrament of marriage, since it is itself already a holy order.1 Luther had risen to a new and independent conception of secular authority, or the Sphere of the State, embraced by him commonly under the term, " politia," after arriving at a clear perception of the nature of the Church as a heavenly and spiritual institution, and of its government as an authority to be exercised through the Word and Spirit — after the claims of the Papacy to secular dominion had been accordingly recognized as anti-Chris tian presumption. He did not, therefore, regard a secular government as deprived of its lofty and sacred character because administered by purely secular princes, nor because, perchance, resting under the curse of the supposed earthly head of the Church. On the contrary, such a government, as a divine creature and institution, was regarded by him as in itself, equally with the Church, a holy order, a " hierarchy." We recall his utterances of A. D. 1519 and 1520.2 When, in 1521, Melanch thon was inclined to object to the approval of the sword as an instrument of civil government because the Gospel does not prescribe its use, Luther replied, that the Gospel as such has nothing to do with the administration of secular affairs. But he maintains, also, that the sword is not only tolerated, but that its office is even confirmed, in the New Testament, declaring the language of Rom. xiii. to be " words of God, proclaiming a grand truth" (magnum sonans).3 From the very first announcement of his view as to the divinely-ordained authority of secular law and the sword committed to it, he combined at once with it an acknowledgment of the divine sanction of the particular govern ments at any time in actual existence. This principle he applies at once impartially to such secular authorities as oppose the Gospel. Although we dare not listen to such secular rulers in matters of faith and conscience, yet we must allow them full scope, and offer no violent resistance to them, in secular affairs. Even the imperial princes who had accepted the doctrines of the ' Erl. Ed., xx, 52; xxvi, 105; xxiii, 208-214, 95 sq. ; xxx, 371 ; Ixv, 174. Cf. supra, Vol. I., p. 339. 2 Vol. I., pp. 308 sq., 371 sq. "Briefe, ii, 23 sq. 31 482 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. Gospel should submit patiently if their secular superior, the Emperor, should take their lands from them. When the Fanatics appealed to the Law of the Old Testament in justification of their violent measures of reform, Luther at once met them with a firm assertion of the exclusive authority of the civil rulers in such matters.1 If his enemies accused him of being himseK a pro moter of sedition, he could rightfully claim, in reply, that it was he who first taught men to give due honor to the secular power and to assign it its proper place of authority.2 The object, or " final cause," of the " politia " Luther briefly states as the preservation of peace (conservatio pacis), just as he found the final cause of marriage in the "procreatio sobolis." More precisely, he would have this object secured by the admin istration of external law and the infliction of external penalties upon evil-doers, who disturb the peace. He ascribes to them also the administration of justice in business affairs (justitia communicativa), according to which contracts are to be ratified, etc. The external administration of justice in general is thus included in the object of civil government. This power, pro tecting the right and preventing wrong, is further designed to prove particularly beneficial to the family and the Church, making it possible for all to peaceably pursue their respective callings. But,as the last purpose of civil government — of which even the philosophers who have rightly recognized the design already mentioned know nothing — over and beyond the pre servation of peace for our benefit, Luther would have us recognize the promotion of the glory of that God, whose mere instruments we are in the securing of the above- mentioned purpose, and through whose blessing and special illumination (singularis afflatus numinis) alone any civil administration can prosper.3 In such a kingdom then, as in a human body, the various functions of government should be so distributed that the preservation and power of the entire body may be promoted.* Accordingly, ' Erl. Ed., xxii, 63; xii, 19 sq. Weimar. Pred., 69. Erl. Ed., xxii, 43 sqq., 258 sqq. Briefe, ii, 240; vi, 39 sq. (Erl. Ed., lxiv, 277 sqq.), iii, 560. 2 Erl. Ed., xxii, 248; xxxi, 35, 236; xxxix, 226, 267. 3 Erl. Ed., xxii, 68 sq. Op. Ex., xix, 73 ; xx, 48 sqq., 57, 230. Erl. Ed., xliv, 25. Briefe, ii, 23. ' Op. Ex., iv, 137. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 483 Christians may and should also participate in the administration of secular government. The monastic notion, that we may and should renounce the duty of participation in such affairs, just as marriage is renounced, is to be rejected. Even some great philos ophers have erroneously supposed such a course to be praise worthy. The judgment of Aristotle is better, when he asserts : "A magistrate brings truth to light." The proverb says: "A solitary man is either a beast or a God " — from which it is to be inferred that a solitary man is of necessity a beast.1 Since, moreover, Luther regards the administration of restrictive and punitive laws as the aim of the secular power, he is accustomed also, although he found, indeed, in Gen. i. 28, traces of a govern ment exercised over temporal things from the very beginning of the world,2 to regard the establishment of secular power and " politia," in distinction from that of the family and Church, as a result of the introduction of sin into the world. Christians, as such, he affirms, would have needed no secular authority ; for the Holy Spirit teaches them to injure no one, to love all men, etc. No law has been given, according to i Tim. i. 9, for the righteous man.3 But in all the above descriptions of the secular power and authority as a holy ordinance of God, it is yet everywhere repre sented as merely secular and external in its character. It is an- earthly peace which it is to promote. It is temporal affairs only which it is to administer. This is the position maintained by Luther, even in his later years. He places the office of the preacher as far above that of the civil magistrate as eternal life transcends in dignity and importance the temporal life. The latter office he designates, indeed, a shadow — but only a shadow, or a figure — of the dominion of Christ.* Souls and consciences, he holds, are eternal things, which it would be shameful to attempt to govern with worldly laws. He denies, accordingly, that the Emperor has anything to do with the Commandments in the first table of the Decalogue, which treat of the attitude of the soul toward its God ; he can rise no higher than to the Fourth 1 Erl. Ed., xxii, 73 sqq., 80. Op. Ex., iii, 186. 2 Erl. Ed., xi, 326. Op. Ex., xx, 66; cf. supra, p. 476. 3Op. Ex., i, 130. Erl. Ed., xxii, 66 sq. * In regard to the Kingdom of Christ, cf. supra, p. 423 sq. 484 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. Commandment.- He refers the sphere of the secular power, as a secular sphere, to the domain of reason, and often cites heathen rulers as models for secular government. The reason and natural wisdom implanted by God have produced laws and institutions of justice and all fine arts. The Holy Spirit does not provide and establish secular ordinances, but merely approves of such laws, as He does of the fine arts, as the finest and noblest treasure of the temporal IKe of man.2 Accordingly, he condemns the Anabaptists, who think that the Holy Spirit changes political laws, and who therefore attempt to overthrow the existing secular government, and rejects likewise the revived Judaism which would substitute the laws of Moses for the imperial statutes.3 Yet he very soon after this approved, and even promoted, an intrusion of the secular government upon the sphere of ecclesiastical affairs in the interest of the Reformation. There was not, as might appear, an extension of the imperial authority over spiritual affairs, and that, too, in a broad general sense, involved already in the language of his Resol. super Propos. Xfff., etc., of A. D. 15 19 : " The Emperor outranks all others in temporal things and even in sacred things " (etiam sacris) ; for " sacris " here must evidently be interpreted in the light of the immediate context, which treats of the " person and affairs (property) of ecclesiastics," -and in which spiritual affairs, such as the administration of the Word and sacraments, are specifically mentioned in contrast with the matters said to be subject to the control of the Em peror.* But there was certainly a summons to such an intrusion into the spiritual sphere in the Address to the Nobility? We propose, however, to trace more carefully and elucidate the further development of these principles in Luther's teaching in connection with the presentation of his doctrine concerning the Church and ecclesiastical affairs. We will there observe that he yet always firmly maintains the distinction between the spiritual and the secular, or temporal. 1 Erl. Ed., xx, 24 sq. ; xii, 21 ; xxii, 82 sqq., 142 sq. ; xx, 268; xxvi, 27. 2Cf. supra, p. 216. Weimar. Pred., 59. Erl. Ed., xi, 326 sq. ; xx, 29; xxxv, 381. Op. Ex., xx, 66. 3 Op. Ex., xviii, 102 sq. Supra, p. 34 sqq. 4 L5scher, iii, 171, 173; cf. supra, Vol. I., p. 308 sq. (differing from Schenkel, Wesen des Protestantismus, Second Edition, p. 681 sq.). 5 Vol. I., p. 375. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 485 There remains but little of a special character which we need stop to notice, as having any significant bearing upon Luther's fundamental conception of the subject, in addition to his general apprehension of the proper status of the state, or civil govern ment, and the moral obligations involved. Whilst demanding obedience to every existing civil authority, and allowing full play for reason in the framing of laws, it is par ticularly noticeable that Luther does not regard the monarchical form of government as an absolutely essential one.1 And when we observe him applying his general principle specifically to Germany, and finding here established rather a certain form of " aristocratic " government, we have the clue to the explanation- of his declarations in regard to die resistance which he counts it lawful for the imperial princes to offer to the secular power of the Emperor. He had at first stoutly denied the right of such resistance, even in case the Emperor should treat the princes with manifest injustice ; but he afterwards — and that just when, after the formation of the Smalcald League, the matter had assumed a very practical form — granted the existence of such a right. When he then heard the jurists deducing the propriety and legality of such resistance directly from the existing imperial laws themselves, and from the very constitution of the Empire, he too acceded to the claim, casting the responsibility, however, upon those whose duty it is, by virtue of their special calling, to decide such legal questions. Together with the arguments thus adduced to justify resistance, appeal is also taken to the fact that the war which was then threatening the princes of the empire was being instigated, not really by the Emperor, but by the Pope.2 But the right of resistance thus granted was admitted in the case of the imperial princes only in view of their legal and constitutional position. The territorial nobility, who have no such legal rights as against their prince, could not, it was held, thus protect their subjects against the papal sovereigns. Indi vidual subjects are still always instructed to endure, for the sake of the Gospel, the violence and wrong perpetrated by their secular rulers. The maxim, that " wicked authority is still always ' Erl. Ed., xxvii, 92 sq. ; cf. supra, Vol. I., p. 363 sq. 2Cf. for instances after A. D., 153 1 : Briefe, iv, 213 (Erl. Ed., lxiv, 266 sq.) ; vi, 225 (Erl. Ed., Ixiv, 269 sq.) ; iv, 221 sq., 233 sq. Erl. Ed., xxv, 12 sqq. ; iii, 58. Briefe, vi, 223 sq., v, 139. Jena, i, 562 sq. 486 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. authority in the sight of God," is held to be universally applicable — in opposition to the opinion, that " he who so conducts himseK in the administration of government that men must fear him K they do right is no ruler in the sight of God." ' The positions asserted by Luther in a deliverance of A. D. 1539 would, indeed, have led us still further, if he had himseK carried them out to their natural consequences. To the question, whether the civil government was under obligation to protect its subjects even against the Emperor, the reply is there given : that the Gospel confirms also natural (and legal, positive) rights. Every father is, beyond doubt, under obligation to protect his wife and child against public murder by every means in his power ; and there is no difference between a private murderer and the Emperor, if the latter outside of his office undertakes to exercise illegal power, and, particularly, openly or notoriously illegal power — since open violence cancels all obligations between the subject and his ruler by the law of nature (jure naturae) ? Upon this theory, it would be necessary to inquire, first of all, how far the sphere of official jurisdiction in any particular case extends. Whenever any ruler should then be found overstepping the limits Of his authority with open violence, it would be the duty, of every person at least whose province it is to guard the interests of others, as, for example, a father, to oppose such usurpation ; and this would be but the exercise of a natural right. But, in announcing the above principle, Luther was concerned only for the establishment of the right of the princes of the empire to resist the encroachments of the imperial power, without stopping to carry out his theory to its natural consequences in other direc tions, or to note the limitations which it might be necessary to make in its general application. The law which is to be administered by secular rulers consists essentially, according to Luther, in particular, external ordi nances. In regard to its application, he frequently repeats the admonition, that, as no particular ordinance can foresee all the peculiar cases that may arise, the strict letter of the law must always be interpreted and tempered in accordance with the actual circumstances in any given case, and with the intention of the ' Briefe, iv, 428 sq. Erl. Ed., v, 266 sqq. Briefe, iv, 390. 2 Ibid., vi, 223. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 487 supposed transgressor. The same principle must control parents in the government of the family. Moderation, or clemency (cntetKeia) , should therefore always go hand in hand with law and justice. All conduct, finally, should, even in the sphere of the law, be prompted by love, which, as we have been told, is superior to legal enactments. In love, the individual is to be willing also to surrender his legal rights, a course which Luther commends as likewise demanded by Christian " moderation." ] Luther's conception of the constitution and authority of civil government, as ordained of God, determined also his views in regard to the enduring of wrong, to which Christians are exhorted in Matt. v. 39 sqq.2 The course there prescribed, it must be first of all observed, is not binding upon those entrusted with civil authority in so far as they are considered, not as simple Christians, but in their special and official calling. Still further, it is the province of the individual, in so far as he is not merely a Christian, but also a member of the secular political organiza tion, to make known the evil deeds of those in authority, in order to check abuses, and even, under the sanction of the govern ment, to himseK offer resistance when necessary. But the private citizen dare never under any circumstances take passionate revenge upon his own account ; and, in all cases, the first duty is that of considerate and long-suffering love. Thus, here again, we find no room for the traditional distinction between consilia and praecepta.3 We have now reviewed, in a general way, the entire sphere of activity within which the moral life of the believer moves on earth. His is not a monastic and contemplative, but a constantly active life. The works of the Christian within this sphere are holy and good, in so far as they are performed in faith and in accordance with the Word of God, who has instituted all the various orders of society. Christ has Himself, by His own life and deeds, purified and hallowed the entire earthly life of man.* ' Erl. Ed., vii, 112; xxii, 256 sqq. Op. Ex., xi, 121 sq., 125 ; iii, 198, 201. Erl. Ed., viii, 53. 'Vol. I., P.1I85 sq. 3 Erl. Ed., xxu, 72 sqq., 81; iii, 51 sqq.; xliii, 3 sqq., 14, 37 sq., 113, 124 sqq., 131, 135 sqq., 211; 1, 315 sqq. Op. Ex., v, 165 ; xxiii, 415 sqq. Jena, i, 562 b sq. * Comm. ad Gal., ii, 283, 29 sq. Erl. Ed., xxx, 367 ; iv, 337 ; xix, 352 sqq. ; cf. supra, p. 366 sq. 488 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. In the case of believers, moreover, who are new creatures, all good works are performed freely and naturally, even though they conform to the requirements of the external statutes. We cannot properly say that a believer ought to perform good works, just as we cannot rightly say that the sun ought to shine, or that a good tree ought to bear good fruit. The sun shines and the good tree bears good fruit as a matter of course (de facto). " Those legal phrases do not reach hither." 2 We are thus brought back again, from the contemplation of the general course of life in which the Christian manifests his char acter, to the recognition of his full, perfect and glorious liberty. He is free in his conscience from the curse of sin and the law. He stands free, exalted in his conscience before God above all laws, since no appointed work is needed to secure his salvation and he is bound to no particular work, but all works that call for his attention are alike to him. He remains free, likewise, in his relations with his fellowmen — free in the service to which he devotes himself ; free in his faith, in view of which no human ordinance can longer bind his conscience ; free in the love which subjects itself to laws, yet at the same time remains the mistress enthroned above all laws.2 2Tischr., ii, 152 (to Melanchthon). 'Coram, ad Gal., ii, 288 sq., 349. Erl. Ed., x, 160 ; viii, 54; cf. supra, Vol. I., pp. 398 sq., 410 sqq., 452 sq. The doctrine concerning Christian liberty, especially as related to the ordinances of the Church, remains precisely the same as defined in Vol. I., p. 418 sq. ; Vol. II., p. 34 sq. Cf., c. g., Erl. Ed., vii, 60 sqq., 113 sqq.; xix, 200 sqq., and, still further, in our Eighth Chapter. CHAPTER VII. THE MEANS OF GRACE. It is the Holy Spirit who begets in the believer the new life which we have been contemplating, and who, from the very beginning of his religious experience, awakens faith within him. It is precisely, also, in this faith, wrought by the Holy Spirit, that the Christian possesses, enjoys and puts into practice the new life, clinging constantly to Christ, the Reconciler, and ever learning to apprehend Him more fully. Christ is now, however, continually presented, and the blessings of His redemption im parted, in the objective, external Word and in the sacraments. The Spirit desires to work only through these Means of Grace. We have already, in the second chapter of our Third Book, found Luther treating prominently and expressly the questions, whether, and in how far, we are bound to these means, and with out them cannot come to God nor secure the salvation offered. His utterances upon this point have also claimed our attention in connection with his general doctrine of the relation between God, on the one hand, and the human race and the world upon the other. God is, indeed, in His essential nature, everywhere — in and above all things. But it does not follow from this that we yet have Him. If He is to have any existence for us, to be recog nized by us, and, still further, to impart to us His grace, and to enter Himself, through Christ and His Spirit, into our hearts, He must first make it possible for us to find Him : and for this purpose He commonly employs as means external, created things. Hence, the true and special revelation of His grace, with its life-giving power, must be sought precisely in the particular means in which it is offered to us. Even the special mediation of the announcement of salvation and the active agency of the Holy Spirit through these means of grace find their basis, still fur ther, in the fact, that it is the general plan of God to exert His (489) 490 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. energy in behaK of His creatures and for their preservation through the agency of other created things.1 The visible form (forma visibilis) in which God presents Himself is thus for us, in the New Testament, the incarnate Son. But Christ HimseK is now to be sought for by us precisely where He desires us to recognize and find Him, i. e., in the visible forms of His Word, baptism and the Lord's Supper. It is here that we are to have Him nearest to us, so that we may reach out to Him, touch Him, feel Him. We dare not despise these external things as mere created objects. It is " the Word, baptism, sacrament, of God Himself." Thus it is His design to deal with us, not in His clear and unclouded majesty, which our weak flesh could not endure for a single moment, but thiough endurable, appropriate and de lightful means, than which we could ourselves have selected no better. And as He in these means announces to us His pres ence, so He desires also through them to work effectually within us by His Holy Spirit. It is only as we hold faithfully to them that even our prayers are accepted.2 The first of these means is always represented to be I. The Word. CHANNEL FOR HOLY SPIRIT RELATION TO REJECTORS THE ORAL WORD AS PREACHED TO THE UNGODLY— THE LAW STILL TO BE PREACHED ITS SPECIFIC NATURE CIVIL AND SPIRITUAL USE CANNOT PRODUCE EVANGELICAL REPENTANCE OBLIGATION AND LIBERTY OF THE CHRISTIAN BLESSINGS CONFERRED BY THE WORD. After his experience with the fanatical agitators, Luther was accustomed to repeat over and over again, with the greatest pos- f sible emphasis, the assertion, that the Holy Spirit comes in no other way than through the Word. He even endeavors to trace a mediation of the divine call through the external Word in the case, for example, of Abraham, although the Scriptures do not so inform us. He thinks that the call may have been brought to Abraham by the patriarch Shem, or messengers sent by him.3 'Supra, pp. 213, 218 sq., 120, 327. 2 Op. Ex., iv, 84. Erl. Ed., xlvii, 2 sqq. ; xxv, 380 sq. ; iv, 70 sq. Supra, p. 44. 3 Op. Ex., iii, 84 sq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 491 He highly lauds, in the face of those who despise the Word, its significance and power, as being in its very outward simplicity and weakness the mighty instrument of the Spirit. He compares',! it to a conduit, through which the Spirit must enter the heart in order there to exercise His power, just as he had already, in thei First Commentary upon Galatians, called it the vehicle (vehicu-l turn) of grace. It is, when preached, says he, a stream that accomplishes many and great things. It is, according to Rom. i. 1 6, divine power itself. It is itself (according to John vi. 63) spiritual and spirit. In so far as one clings to it, he himself becomes and is spirit. Where the Word is employed, there God ¦* Himself is present in the mouth of the speaker, to obliterate j sin, death and hell. The divine power which is needful to - accomplish this cannot come to us in any other way than " in and through the Word.'' In order to indicate the power of this oral proclamation of the Gospel, St. John employs, in speaking of Christ, the figure of the Word (not, for example, that of the brightness, or divine image), and designates Him by the term which expresses the highest thing which He does and is.1 If, indeed, many fail to believe the Word which they hear, that fact, according to Luther, detracts nothing from the character of the , Word ; it is, none the less, only through the Word that faith can - enter the heart. So, likewise, the soil, can produce no fruit without the seed, although the seed does not always take root and grow, the fault, in that case, lying not in the seed, but in the soil. Yet the Word will always bring forth fruit in the lives of at least some of those who hear it, according to Isa. Iv. n. It produces results, even in the case of those who refuse to receive it : they are hardened by it, just as by the rays of the one sun good things are softened, but evil things, like dung, are made hard. For the ungodly, the Word is a stone of stumbling, a hail storm, a Word of perdition.2 It is difficult, however, to deduce from the writings of Luther any positive or more precise defini tion of the relation between the Spirit who works through the Word and the instrument thus employed. The explanation of 1 Erl. Ed., xxv, 138; xiv, 358; xlviii, 205 ; xv, 417. Comm. ad Gal., iii, 259. Supra, p. 44. Erl. Ed., xlviii, 70 sqq. ; xv, 140 sqq. ; cf. supra, Vol. I., pp. 126 sq , 187; Vol. II. p. 315. 2 Erl. Ed.., 1, 251; x, 250; li, 78; ii, 150; xvii, 35 sq. Op. Ex., xxii, 268 sq.; xviii, 88 sq. 492 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. this is to be found in his conception of the relation existing between the grace of God and the human subject, as presented in the above-cited passages. The latter represent the two as always most intimately associated. It is not merely the relation of a conduit to the water flowing through it, but that of the seed to the life- principle within it. As Luther says of the external Word, that it must always be with the Spirit, so he declares also of the Spirit, that He will always be with the Word.1 When he says that, along with (neben) the external announcement of the Gospel, the Spirit writes it also inwardly upon the heart,2 we must, according to the other utterances, understand that that which occurs thus along with the preaching of the Word takes place also through it as a means. When he says " that the external Word must precede, and that afterwards, if we have meanwhile received the Word with the ear and taken it to heart, the Holy Ghost comes and gives the Word power to take firm hold upon us, it must be added, in accordance with the declara tions immediately preceding in that passage, that faith itself — by which we are to understand precisely the true reception of the Word into the heart — is a work of the Holy Spirit accomplished through the agency of the Word. But how is it with those in whom the Spirit nevertheless does not exert His power to beget faith ? Is He, in such cases also, with and in the Word? Is the lack of faith, in such instances, really the fault of the individuals in question, who do not allow the energy which here approaches them as well as others in the Word to attain its designed result? We are thus brought again face to face with the questions which met us at an earlier point in our investigations.* In accordance with the positions taken in the treatise, De servo arbitrio, we should be compelled to answer : The cause of such lack of faith lies in the will of God, who, in these cases, certainly did not desire that His Spirit should work effectually, although the Word was there present.5 And 1 Eil. Ed., Ii, 98 ; ii, 150. 2 Ibid., xxiii, 250. 3 Ibid., xv, 415 sq. * Supra, pp. 290 sqq., 299 sqq. 6 Vol. I., pp. 487 sq., 500. 6Cf. also Erl. Ed., Ii, 297 (probably, A. D. 1524): "When this (the proclamation of the Gospel) sounds in the ears, the Holy Spirit enters the hearts (of men) with the Word where he will ; for He does not breathe upon all, and hence neither do all accept (fassen) it." SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 493 even in later periods, when Luther was accustomed so earnestly to invite his hearers to accept the salvation proffered to all in the Word, we still find, side by side with such exhortations, j the assertion repeated, that God by his Spirit through the Word '¦ works faith as and where He will} We still naturally inquire : Has God then, in those cases in which He does not choose to give faith, really dissolved the connection between His Spirit and the external Word — somewhat as the water may be withdrawn from a conduit? Or, are we to understand that there is always combined with the Word a divine power, a power, however, which works as a liberating and renewing Spirit only where God so determines, while in other cases itself leading to a rejection of the truth and a hardening of the heart — although Luther in his later years utterly refused to acknowledge the latter result as included in the purpose of God ? 2 To these questions the writings of Luther furnish no further reply. We are here, he acknowledges, in the presence of a mystery, and should not attempt to discover why some hear and others do not.3 We should be satisfied, he contends, with that which has a practical bearing upon our own lives— should see to it that we experience in ourselves the renewing power of that Word whose hour (in which to be impressed upon the heart by divine power) will certainly yet come to him who conscientiously perseveres* — with out worrying over the question whether God Himself may have determined to work in us the required spiritual energy and per severance. But we here again, as we for the last time touch upon this dark sphere of mystery unsolved in the writings of Luther, would lay particular stress upon the significant fact, that the positions which he assumed upon these perplexing questions had for their real and deepest basis, not any metaphysical or philosophical premises, but his religious interest for the mainte nance of that absolute supremacy of the simple grace of God which alone can bring to us, as sinful men, the possibility and assurance of salvation, and to which, therefore, even our faith, or our inward hearing and reception of the Word, must be absolutely and exclusively attributed. 1 Supra, p. 300, and especially, Briefe, v, 70. 2 Op. Ex., xxii, 269. 3 Supra, p. 299. Briefe, iii, 393 sq. *Erl. Ed., xlvii, 353 sq. ; cf. supra, p. 434. 494 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. We note a further characteristic feature of Luther's teaching in the importance which he attaches to the oral, or preached Word. We may see in this, primarily, a contrast to a lifeless holding of the divine Word in possession by the Church, without the employment or understanding of it, or to the much-lauded " inward word " of the fanatics. But he sets in contrast also with an intelligent and believing study of the Scriptures, the value of which he fully (following i Tim. iv. 3) acknowledges,' the entire and peculiar value and power of the Word when orally proclaimed. Only this does he find adequate to meet the requirements of the free, living, public administration of the Spirit under the new covenant. He remarks, that the living words cannot express themselves so accurately or well in writing as the spirit, or soul, of man can express them through the mouth — as Jerome has said . " The living voice has a mysterious quality (nescio quid) of latent energy." He lays particular emphasis, also, upon the divinely-chosen method, in accordance with which the Word is to be brought to us through the official ministrations of His servants in the Church and through the agency of Chris tian brethren in general. It is just in this form that we are to receive it with special confidence as a divine gift. And in this form, also, it is included in the general plan of God for the administration of His work and government through the medium of created things. It was thus, indeed, that the saving Word was first revealed to Luther himself and made effectual for him in the Erfurt monastery.2 The Word possesses and retains its power, therefore, even when proclaimed by ungodly men. Luther could even declare that it has a peculiar advantage under such circumstances, since the hearers can then depend only upon the Word itseK, and are not tempted to rely upon the personal sanctity of the preacher. Yet he also ardently maintains that it flows with special energy, like living water, from the lips of a believing brother, according to the words of Jesus : " From whose mouth shall flow streams of living water." 3 'Cf. in Walch, ix, 1062, under the First Epistle of John. 2 Vol. I., p. 427. Erl. Ed., xxv, 360. Op. Ex., iv, 85. Erl. Ed, iv, 401 ; supra, p. 242; Erl. Ed., *, 367; xii, 156; xxxvii, 67. Op. Ex., xi, 27; cf. supra, Vol. I., pp. 62, 490 ; Vol. II., p. 328 sq. 3Erl. Ed., xxvi, 37; supra, p. 56. Erl. Ed., xlviii, 206 sq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 495 All that has thus far been said concerning the Word of God has primary and special reference to that Word as a proclamation of the Gospel message. It is as such that it begets faith, and brings with it the Holy Spirit and all heavenly blessings. We have frequently found Luther ascribing these effects directly to the Gospel.1 In the same connections,we have had occasion to note also the position of the Law as related to the Gospel. This was brought to our notice particularly as involved in the doctrine concerning the repentance which is always associated with faith.2 We must now examine more carefully the definitions concerning the Law, with special reference to the controversies which arose in the attempt to determine its precise relations to the righteous ness of faith. For the historical determination and exposition of Luther's doctrine of the Law, especial importance attaches to his relations with Carlstadt,3 and afterwards with Agricola, who originated the leading controversy upon the subject in A. D. 1537. There are various points at which utterances of Luther might have suggested the view, that, now that the Gospel had been promul gated, the preaching of the Law could no longer under any circumstances be justified. In terms absolutely universal — or apparently so, at least — Luther declares, for example : " The doctrine of the Law is to be omitted" ; * " If the Law is present, then is not the Holy Spirit present, nor any piety; if He is present, then can no Law be present";5 "He who is truly a Christian has no need of moral precepts." 6 But if the believer, or righteous man, is free from the Law, should not conversion also be accomplished without the aid of the Law, inasmuch as, upon the one hand, the Gospel itself also reveals the wrath of God against sin,' and, upon the other hand, repentance is not to be produced by fear of the penalties threatened in the Law, but is to spring from love toward God and righteousness?8 These objections were confirmed, finally, by the positive utterances of Luther as to the actual invalidity of the Old Testament, Mosaic ' Cf. supra, pp. 208 sq., 30 sq., 44. 2 Supra, p. 430 sq. 5 Supra, p. 30 sqq. * Jena., ",519, A. D. 1521. 6 Erl. Ed., Ii, 297, A. D. 1524. 6 Briefe, vi, 20. 7 Erl. Ed., lxiii, 127, to which passage Agricola appealed. Cf. Jena, i, 554. 8 Vol. I., pp. 162 sq., 190 sq., 264, 324. 496 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. Law as such, and even of the Decalogue itself.1 Agricola main tained, accordingly, that repentance must be taught " not from the Law, but from the violent treatment of the Son revealed in the Gospel." Luther would not admit any conclusions drawn from the sup posed fact that he had himseK at an earlier day expressed himseK as opposed to any preaching of the Law in the Church, as it was to be expected that he, like others, should make progress in his apprehension of the truth. But he denies that he ever taught such a doctrine, and claims that all his writings bear testimony to the contrary.2 We, too, can find in his utterances, from the very beginning of his labors as a Reformer, when fairly com pared with one another, no other principles than those which, as we shall now have occasion to observe, he afterwards still more clearly affirmed and illustrated in his controversies with the Antinomians. What is, in Luther's conception, the specific nature of the Law ? He had, it must be admitted, in the earliest of his pre-reforma tion writings, so conceived of the Law and the Gospel as to include under the latter reproofs designed to lead to repentance, and under the former the entire plan of salvation. Yet, even here, the Law is regarded as distinctively the demanding and commanding will of God, and that will, moreover, as addressing itself to men in their inward alienation from Him. Thus the Law appears as, in its own actual character, an announcement of punishment, wrath and perdition. If he then, indeed, again includes the revelation of this divine will under the Gospel, it is yet only as the " strange work " of the latter. Thus we must interpret, for example, the passage in Erl. Ed., lxiii, 127. Accord ingly, as the Gospel, or proclamation of grace, appears already under the old covenant, so we find Law also in the New Testa ment ; but we are not therefore to conclude that this Law has itseK become Gospel. It still, even here, remains a word of command, and particularly a word of rebuke, condemning sin, as, for example, even in the Lord's Prayer, and most strikingly in the revelation and sacrificial death of the Son of God. Nowhere, in fact, have we a more impressive revelation of the wrath of God than just here. Our sin and the wrath of God are brought to 'Supra, pp. 34, 37. 2 Erl. Ed., xxxii, 7. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 497 light, finally, by the manifold gifts of our merciful Heavenly Father— -in so far as we despise these, or receive them without due thankfulness. In all these instances we have then, in so far, not, as Agricola thought, the preaching of the Gospel, but the proclamation of wrath, or legal preaching. All preaching that announces our sins and the wrath of God is a preaching of the Law.1 Luther always maincains, further, that the Law is really from God — by Him implanted in our hearts, and by Him also given to Moses — and that it is therefore, in its essential nature, good and holy ; although we do not, it is true, in it as yet hear God speak according to His own real nature, or His character of love. That it becomes a tormentor to us, and brings death upon us, is a consequence of the attitude which we, as carnal, assume toward it. It is necessary for God thus to accomplish His " strange work " upon us through the agency of the Law that killeth. We dare draw no conclusions reflecting upon the divine character of the Law even from that which it does to Christ, or from the wrong which it perpetrates upon Him.2 The Law must by all means still be insisted upon, even though the Gospel has been so clearly announced. And what is here claimed has reference, moreover, particularly to the Law as con tained in the Old Testament and summarized in the Decalogue. That is to say, as we have heard Luther maintain, particularly when arguing against such an authority of the Mosaic statutes as the Fanatics ascribed to them, the portion of the Law of Moses which is identical with the law of nature must remain in force. And so excellently does Luther find the divine commandments, which carry in themselves their own credentials for the human heart, expressed in the Decalogue, that he confesses himself but a scholar who is ever but beginning to understand them. It would be utterly impossible, at any rate, to tear the Law, with its reproofs, out of the hearts and consciences of men, as may be strikingly seen by a study of the penitential Psalms.3 ' Vol. I., pp. no sq , 188 sq. ; Jena, ii, 358 sq., 507. Supra, p. 230. Erl. Ed., x, 86 sqq.; supra, p. 241 sq. ; Jena, i, 557. Erl. Ed., xxxii, 7 sq ; xiii, 115 sq. ; xxxii, 5 sqq.; cf. supra, p. 398. 2 Supra, p. 232. Erl. Ed., xxvii, 271. Comm. ad Gal., ii, 145. 3 Supra, p. 36 sq. Briefe, iv, 46. Erl. Ed., xiii, 115 ; xxxii, 5 sqq. 498 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. But in discussing the question as to the proper use of the Law, we must discriminate between the political or civil use and the theological or spiritual.1 In the former we have to do with the outward restraint to be imposed upon the wicked by the authority of governments, parents and teachers, for the preservation of public order and peace.2 We may here take into consideration, together with divine precepts, also the concrete, positive expression of the Law in the statutes framed by the exercise of mere human reason. We are at present concerned only with the second, which is the most necessary and really characteristic, use of the divine Law. Luther is accustomed to describe it briefly as that application of the divine precepts by which sin is revealed to men, i. e., whereas they would by mere external discipline be made only hypocrites, sin is, in such an application of the Law, set before their con sciousness and laid upon their consciences, together with the divine wrath impending over it. The Law thus reveals to man his sin and misery, death, hell, judgment, etc. And this is to be accomplished in order that the crushed, slain heart may be prepared for the reception of the Word of life, or Gospel. In this is to be already recognized, moreover, as Luther had long before taught and now reiterates with emphasis in his controversy with Agricola, the agency of the Holy Spirit, according to John xvi. 8. " And it is false (to say) that the Law convinces of sin without the Holy Spirit, since the Law was written by the finger of God." The Holy Spirit may be said to have no part in this Work only in the sense that He is not yet present in such a way as to impart HimseK — or to exercise His characteristic office of drawing the hearts of men to God and giving them the blissful sense of fellowship with Him. It is in this sense that we must interpret the statement above cited, that where the Law is the Spirit is not present.3 Even in the regenerate, also, the flesh still contends against the Spirit ; and since they still need to repent continually on account of their sins, they too still contin ually require the preaching of the Law. Luther had so main- ' Comm. ad Gal., ii, 60 sqq. (A leading passage also in elucidation of the points yet to be discussed in the following paragraphs.) 2 Briefe, ii, 532 sq. Erl. Ed., vii, 287. 8Vol. I., p. 90; Briefe, ii, 532 sq. Supra, p. 30. Erl. Ed., xxiii, 13 sqq.; xxv, 127 sq. ; supra, p. 44; Jena, i, 555 b, 556 b. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 499 tained already in his initial reformatory writing, i. e., his First Commentary upon Galatians, and not, as Agricola in his untem- pered zeal asserted, only in the Second Commentary upon that book.1 Yet Luther had maintained that true contrition and repentance arise only from love, although the latter can spring only from faith in the grace and love of God and from the inwardly imparted Spirit of grace. That this involves no contradiction to what has been above said may be understood if we recall our former solu tion of the same apparent difficulty by the citation of the perfectly clear later utterances of Luther upon the subject. At all events, that condition of heart which the Law, as such, produces by its denunciations is not as yet trueChristian contrition and repentance. Until the Word of grace, and faith, and the Spirit of grace appear, we have only a " Cain's repentance " : we are at enmity with God ; the Law awakens wrath in us, and makes our sin but the greater. Yet, on the other hand, the Word of grace would produce no fruit, the Spirit gain no foot-hold, good resolutions never be enkindled- — if the terms of the Law did hot prepare the way. It is evidently, therefore, but a partial statement of the truth to say that " repentance " must be wrought by the preaching of the Law.2 Luther teaches, finally, that the Law is now also to be fulfilled, i. e., by true believers, however incomplete and mingled with sin their obedience may yet actually be. We must yet make earnest effort to that end. We are to learn from it what we have been, what is now demanded of us, and what we are yet again to become.3 References to this phase of the subject are seldom met with in the earlier writings of Luther, although even there not entirely wanting ;* and even in his later writings, when urging the importance of the Law, he yet, at the same time, always insists most earnestly that it is not the Law, but the Spirit working ' Vol. I., p. 191. Comm. ad Gal., iii, 233 sq. ; i, 193 sq. ; ii, 60 sqq. Jena, '. 557> 559 sq. 2 Vol. I., pp. 162, 190 sq , 264, 324 sq. ; Vol. II., p. 431 sq. Erl. Ed., xxv, 128. Jena, i, 554 b; cf. also Erl. Ed., xxiii, 13. 3 Erl. Ed., xiii, 41, 115 ; xiv, 152 sqq. 4 Cf. in the previously cited passage, Jena ii, 519: OfEcium legis est non exigere nostra opera, sed ostendere peccatum et impossibilitatem nostram. On the other hand, see Vol. I., p. 191. 500 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. through the Gospel, that produces good works. The Law of itself without this Spirit, he maintains, remains for us a mere dead and killing letter. He goes so far as to declare that the Law, even in the case of believers, does not help, but only demands. The aim of our obedience to the Law is not the attainment of right eousness before God, but the preservation of peace in worldly relations, the expression of gratitude toward God, and the setting of a good example to others.1 We can see from this what Luther means when he speaks of the believer 's glorious freedom from the Law.' Above all, it is no longer to be at all taken into the account in the matter of our justification before God, or the relation of our conscience to God, which is to be determined by faith alone. Just as Luther holds that no works can here be at all considered, so is the Law like wise excluded. We are, through our baptism and the blood of Christ, absolutely free from all works of the Law and are righteous through pure grace, by which alone also we live before God. This position is confirmed by the citation of i Tim. i. 9. Yea, he declares, " the Law in the conscience is truly diabolical, although outside of the conscience we ought to make of it a God, to exalt it with the highest praises, and call it holy, good, spirit ual," etc.3 Furthermore, since for the believer the threatenings and terrors of the Law have no longer any force, it is no longer foi him a driver or taskmaster, but a good friend and companion. He is no longer under it, inasmuch as he now does good and avoids evil, not from fear, compulsion and necessity, at the dic tate of the Law, but out of free love and with a cheerful will, just as though the Law were not in existence and as though such conduct were perfectly natural to him. In this sense, also, are we to understand 1 Tim. i. 9.* But it is specifically the believing and regenerate as such whom Luther here has in view. It is in perfect keeping with the position here taken, that, so far as the weak and sinful flesh yet manifests its presence in the lives of such, they too must yet experience the compulsion of the Law, and may even be compelled, for the exercise of their faith, for a 'Jena, i, 555 b, 558 b. Erl. Ed., ix, 238 sq. Comm. ad Gal., ii, 157. 2Cf. supra, p. 392 sqq. 3 Jena, i, 555 b. Erl. Ed., xiii, 44 sqq., 288. Comm. ad Gal., ii, 144 sqq., 265 sq. 4 Erl. Ed., vii, 265 sqq., 296. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 501 season to realize anew, in assaults of spiritual temptation, its very bitterest terrors. We must yet, finally, endeavor to answer the question already touched upon,1 whether, accordingly, in the view of Luther, the divine will in general is no longer to approach the believer, in so far as he is really regenerate and spiritually-minded, in the form of objective requirements and precepts, or in the form of obliga tion (the ought). We might look, for a decision of the question, to his conception of the state of Adam before the Fall. It was, we know, the opinion of Luther that there was in Adam originally a pure spirit of free obedience, and yet there was imposed upon him, according to the Scriptures, an objective commandment with respect to the tree of knowledge. Luther was actually confronted with the question, how it was to be accounted for, if no Law is now any longer given to the righteous man, that one was yet imposed upon the righteous Adam. He replies : The Law since sin has entered is quite a different thing from the Law before the appearance of sin. It is the latter which Paul speaks of, and he understands it in the sense of a disciplinarian appointed to keep men from sin. Adam, had the devil not deceived him, would have kept the Law given to him willingly and with the greatest delight. That an objective commandment should thus, after all, be given to Adam does not at all disturb Luther. He regards its purpose to have been to furnish Adam an opportunity to engage in outward divine worship in connection with this tree, and to perform an outward work of obedience toward God.2 But Luther does not further pursue the question, whether it was the divine plan that the conduct of Adam should, in other particulars also, be regulated and his willing spirit guided by commandments of this character. In regard to the regene rate, we have already met the decided assertions of Luther, that they, in so far as the Spirit alone impels them, would naturally — like the shining sun or the fruit-tree — of themselves conform to the will of God.3 But, in these passages, we still do not find a specific recognition of the point upon which the question before us depends, i. e., the idea of a discrimination which might here 'Vol. I., p. 191 sq. 2 Op. Ex., i, 134 sqq. ; cf. supra, p. 343. 3 Tischr., ii, 152 (supra, p. 488). Erl. Ed., vii, 267. 502 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. be made — just as in the case of Adam — between a demand in accordance with the inward inclination of the individual and the imperative " ought " of a taskmaster. Such, then, in its entire scope, is the Divine Word which is to lead us to salvation. But how far, it might be asked, do the power and function of this Word extend when it is accepted in faith as a Word of grace? We must, according to Luther, with all possible emphasis reply : Already in the Word is proffered, and to believers granted, the full and complete blessing of salva tion, Christ Himself, with the life which is in Him. It is suffi cient to refer, in substantiation of this, to our review in the preceding chapter of the doctrine of the origination of faith and to the passages there cited, since it was there shown what faith already possesses when it draws its sustenance from the Word and holds firmly to it. Already by means of such faith Christ enters into us, and we, according to John vi., eat His flesh, which thoroughly deifies (durchgoftert) us and delivers us from the devil and from death. God includes Christ in the Word in order to distribute Him to the world; and he who lays hold of the Word, lays hold of Christ. " It brings and gives to us all things (Alles) —and Christ HimseK." ' 2. The Sacraments. a. General View. SIGNS AND SEALS OF THE WORD A GIFT POWER FROM THE WORD DIVINE APPOINTMENT NO BENEFIT WITHOUT FAITH GOD NOT BOUND — SIGNS BY WHICH THE CHURCH MAY BE RECOGNIZED SUPREMACY OF WORD. In a passage already cited Luther calls baptism, the Eucharist and the spoken Word visible forms (formas visibiles) . Such, in the stricter sense, are really but the two first mentioned. In them visible, really tangible objects are still presented to us along with the Word as signs, in connection with which we are to find 1 Supra, p. 426 sqq. Erl. Ed., xlvii, 390 sq. ; xi, 140; xii, 216; cf. supra, Vol. I., p. 191, and still further, Vol. II., p. 123. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 503 and lay hold upon God and Christ. They are such signs for us, however, simply because God Himself gives in connection with them His Word, that is, His commandment and promise, by which we are authorized to employ them. They are thus external, tangible signs, or created objects, through which God deals visibly with us, in order that we may be sure of His presence. God had already under the old covenant, and even in Paradise, attached such signs and seals to His Word, and He has now given us under the new covenant baptism and the Lord's Supper.1 Luther highly extols the inestimable value of these, not only in opposition to those who in their pride of heart despise these apparently weak sensuous things, of which we poor men yet so sorely stand in need, but, more particularly, asji means of strengthening believers in their hours of spiritual temptation.2 In defining them, he adopts the formula of Augustine : " that a sacrament is a visible form (forma) of invisible grace." He approves also, when properly understood, the other Augustinian maxim : " the Word is added (accedit : comes) to the element, and it becomes a sacrament." ' But the principal thing is here, not in any sense a work done by us, but a treasure which God gives to us and which faith grasps.* And the signs of which we speak are not such as merely represent the treasure, but such as, by virtue of the accom panying Word, themselves bring this treasure with them. God, together with His Word, " puts this visible thing before us, in which we might be able to grasp the treasure spoken of." Through the signs the Holy Spirit works. By virtue of the Word, the signs themselves become effective (kraftig). The insistence upon the mediation of divine saving energy through these signs themselves, and upon the very profound union of the divine power with them as effected by the Word, is character istic of Luther's teaching after his conflict with the " fanatical spirits." Faith does not, according to the uniform representa tions of the Reformer after this period, look to the Word essen tially belonging to the sacrament in such a way as to receive 1 Op. Ex., iv, 83 sqq. Erl. Ed., xvi, 48; Vol. I., p. 403 sq. ; Vol. II., pp. 343. 36t- 2 Supra, pp. 296 sqq., 459. 3 Op. Ex., iv, 83. Erl. Ed., xxi, 131, 143. 4 Erl. Ed., xxi, 134 sqq. 504 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. salvation directly from this Word as such, and as then to have the signs, in addition, only for the still further confirmation of faith ; but it is precisely through and in these signs that the blessings of salvation are extended to the believer, although the signs themselves are, it is true, qualified to serve this purpose only through the Word, and are, as such, exhibited to faith through the Word. The earthly elements are, as he was accustomed to express it, embraced in the Word (ins Wort gefasst) , or appre hended through the Word (creaturae apprehensae per verbum) ; and hence they themselves now do that which the Word promises. They are now powerful (effective) divine things.1 Hence, it follows, the sacraments retain their power and signifi cance, which rest upon the divine Word given at their institution, without any regard to the personal character of their human administ?-ator ; and it is not the latter, but God HimseK, who accomplishes the result achieved wherever they are celebrated in accordance with the divine appointment.2 Neither is it through the faith of the recipient that they gain their power and efficacy, which attaches to them simply by virtue of the Word. It is not through faith that the sacrament becomes a sacrament. We dare not confound the question as to what the sacrament is in itseK and can effect with the entirely different question, in what way the appropriation of its benefits (treasure) by the participant is to be accomplished. Neither is it his own faith upon which the recipient is to depend in order, in the reception of the sacra ment, to be sure of his salvation, but he is to rely upon the will and the Word of that God who has instituted the sacrament for him. This latter position Luther had occasion to maintain particularly in regard to baptism.3 It is to be further observed, however, that Luther did not recognize the mere utterance of a divine Word, or of the sacred name of God, above the elements as sufficient to make of them such a sacrament. The maxim : "Accedit verbum," etc., is not to be so interpreted. Otherwise, anything might be made a sacrament, just as men might fancy. A precise divine precept, or divine appointment, is essential. In exact accordance with ' Erl. Ed., iv, 71 ; xvi, 48; xxi, 133; xix, 80. Op. Ex., i, 290. Erl. Ed., viii, 94. 2 Supra, p. 56. Erl. Ed., xxi, 144; xix, 87. Briefe, v, 146. 3 Erl. Ed., xvi, 53, 92 sqq. ; supra, p. 55. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 505 such divine appointment, moreover, and in rightful use, must the sacraments be administered. Hence, what has been said of the union of the divine with the earthly is applicable only during the performance of the very acts which have been authorized at the institution of the sacrament. It is therefore rightly held " that sacraments are actions, not permanent creations (stantes factiones)" ; and Melanchthon properly maintains " that there is no sacrament outside of the sacramental action," from which it follows that the host is not to be enclosed in a casket and carried about.1 Although faith does not make the sacrament nor give to it its j efficacy, it must yet just as decidedly be maintained that the sacrament cannot benefit, or exert its power for us, unless we receive it in faith. Thus Luther always teaches, although he could now, indeed, no longer have said, as in his De captivitate Babylonica . " Baptism profits no one, but faith in the Word of promise," etc.2 Thus, he declares that the celebration of the sacrament, in which, indeed, even without our faith the body of Christ is partaken of, is without our faith profitless, and even injurious, to us. Hence, also, he regards the faith of infants as necessary, in order that infant baptism may be efficacious. Thus too, while contending on the one hand against the Anabaptists, he yet, at the same time, maintains, as against the Romish con ception of the sacrament, his former Augustinian maxim : " It is not the sacrament that justifies, but the faith of the sacrament." He at Marburg, in 1529, sanctions the framing of the article upon baptism in such a way as to assert that it is " a divine work, in which is required our faith, through which we are regenerated." Although he was then bearing testimony against Zwingli, not concerning faith, but concerning the sacrament as such, he yet even then was careful to designate faith, or the " right use of the sacrament ", as the best part (das Beste). And toward the close of his life he declared : " Whether it be the sacrament of the altar, or whether it be baptism, or whether it be the Word in the public assembly, thou truly hast just so much as thou believ- est." 3 But, on the other hand, he always taught that faith itself, ' Erl. Ed., xvi, 56, 59; lxv, 215 sq. Briefe, v, 573,577 sq. 2 Jena, ii, 286 b. 3 Erl. Ed., xxi, 133; xii, 179, 213 sq. Supra, p. 123; Vol. I., pp. 246, 265, 396 sq. ; Vol. II., p. 48. Erl. EH., xi, 60; lxv, 90. Vol. II., p. 109 sq. Op. Ex., xi, 137 (cf. Vol. I., p. 259J. 506 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. which easily grows weak, must be constantly excited afresh and nourished by means of the sacraments — by the reception of the Lord's Supper and by the devout remembrance of one's baptism.1 God has, moreover, as we shall find him asserting particularly with reference to baptism, not bound Himself to the sacraments, but can also save without them. He thus declares, especially for the purpose of quieting the consciences of those who may have been excluded from participation in the Lord's Supper, or even from baptism (and, at a still later date, frequently repeats the assertion) , that, for such, faith is sufficient and fully compen sates for the lack of bodily participation.2 Although the sacraments are thus, essentially and primarily, a work of God for us and upon us, we are yet always to conceive of them as also signs, by which the Christian Church is to be recognized, and as acts in which it is itseK to confess and praise, and that publicly, its God and Saviour. This finds illustration, in regard to the Lord's Supper, in passages already cited, but more particularly in what remains to be considered under the topic of private communion. A child to whom baptism has been privately administered in case of necessity is to be afterwards presented (vorgetragen) in the Church, "because baptism ought to be a sacrament, that is, a public sign of confession." 3 In connection with all these and similar utterances of Luther in regard to the sacraments, the Word retains the first place, as " the most necessary and the highest part in Christianity (the Christian Church)." For, says he, the latter could not exist without the Word, which alone gives it its power and which must make known to men its importance and significance, whereas the Word can exist without the Church, and it is possible, in case of emergency, to be saved without any sacrament, but not without the Word.* 'Loscher, ii, 581. Jena, ii, 285 b. Erl. Ed., xxiv, 326 sq. ; xii, 179; ii, 207 ; lxv, 91. ; xxiii, 193. 2 Vol. I., pp. 350, 395,424- Vol. II., p. 128. Erl. Ed., xxiv, 207; xii, 179; xxxi, 369. Briefe, v, 547, 39 (cf. Jena, ii, 577 b). 3 Erl. Ed., x, 303 sq.; xi, 182 sq.; xii, 212. Briefe, v, 146. Supra, pp. 82, 114. 4 Erl. Ed., xxi, 131 ; xii, 215 sq. ; xlvii, 207 sq.; xxxi, 351. Briefe, v, 547. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 507 b. Baptism. DOES NOT EFFACE ORIGINAL SIN FORGIVENESS ENDURING SIGNIFI CANCE OF SIGN AND PROMISE — FIRST EFFECT IS FORGIVENESS — NEW LIFE IMPLANTED DIPPING BENEATH WATER EFFICACIOUS THROUGH WORD — PERPETUAL OBLIGATION INFANT BAPTISM. It was the special task of Luther, in combating the theory of baptism embodied in the prevalent theology of the day, to estab lish and defend the two propositions : that original sin still clings as real sin to the baptized, and that, on the other hand, the for giveness imparted in baptism retains perpetual efficacy, and consequently repentance for sins subsequently committed must consist in nothing else but a return to this forgiveness. In view of this comprehensive and perpetual significance of baptism, the vow then assumed was to be regarded as taking precedence of all others by means of which a Christian might afterwards seek to work out his salvation. And the entire comprehensive liberty of the believer, his spiritual character, his priestly rank, etc., were traced back by Luther to his baptism as their source.1 It was in the defence, especially, of infant baptism that he contended against the " fanatical spirits." In the conflict with the latter, the entire objective character of baptism and the sacraments in general was clearly presented and maintained. In explaining the nature of baptism, Luther had at first taken as his starting point the significance of the visible sign, or the dipping of the body beneath the water. He afterwards selected, as the unvarying initial point in all discussions of baptism (as in the case of the Lord's Supper), the words of promise, i. e., " He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved," and, accordingly, makes the special significance of baptism to consist in this : " That we through it are to be saved, that is, to be delivered from sin, death and hell and from all evil, and to be righteous, holy, alive, and heirs of heaven." It is for him, in the language of Paul, a " washing of regeneration," just because we are through it born to the new spiritual life, in which we become righteous before God and heirs of heaven.2 1 Cf. Vol. I., pp. 326, 356 sq., 395. Erl. Ed., xvi, 88 sqq.; supra,' Vol. I., PP- 359 sq-, 372 s1 -. 398- 2 Vol. I., pp. 356, 395 sq. Erl. Ed., xvi, 87, 66 sqq.; xxi, 17; xix, 81 ; cf. supra, p. 454. 508 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. In this attainment of salvation, the first and fundamentally essential thing — in accordance with Luther's whole conception of the plan of redemption— is again the forgiveness of sins, secured through the blood of Christ ; and, in order that we may experi ence this justifying grace of God through faith, the Holy Spirit desires — in immediate connection with our baptism — to enlighten and inflame us with His fire. Through this forgiveness we become perfectly pure in the sight of God, notwithstanding the fact that sins yet cling to us and must be still further driven out of us. To our baptism, in which forgiveness is granted us for all sins, we must, whenever we fall, creep back again.1 But we are, in our baptism, also cleansed from sin in the sense, that it is inwardly overcome and put away ftom us. In that we are, according to the testimony of Paul in Rom. vi., baptized into the death of Christ, our flesh and blood are condemned and given over to death, to be entirely drowned, in order that our life on earth may thereafter be a constant dying to sin. And in that we are planted together with Christ into a similar death, this | our death becomes an implanting of life . This implantation of life 1 begins in baptism, and we must then make it manifest that such life abides in us and does not remain fruitless. Just in baptism do we receive the grace which cannot thereafter stand idle, but which continually contends against evil lust, arouses within us good desires, and prompts us to good works.2 The dipping under the water Luther still, as at first, considers as a picture, or symbol, of this progressive drowning of the old Adam in contrition and repentance ; but he generally under stands the cleansing thus signified very comprehensively, as embracing the whole fundamental work of deliverance, in which connection he then designates the washing of baptism as, first of all, a washing " through forgiveness of sins." 3 The part to be ascribed to the water in baptism we have already seen, when reviewing the doctrine of the sacraments in general. Baptism, says Luther, is entirely embedded (eingeleibt) in the name and Word of God, and permeated by them, so that ' Erl. Ed., xvi, 112 sq., 119 sqq., 74; xix, 83 sq. ; xxi, 135 ; Vol. I., p. 395. 2 Vol. I., pp. 326, 397; Vol. II., p. 462 sq. Erl. Ed., ix, 146-152; xvi, 104, 119 ; xv, 49. 3 Vol. I., pp. 356, 400. Erl. Ed., xxi, 17 ; xxx, 270 sq.; ix, 146. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 509 it has become quite a different thing from common water. He employs here again, as in setting forth the union of the bread with the body of Christ, the illustration of the iron thoroughly permeated by fire, and also the further figure of " water satur ated with herbs or sugar." This baptism has a purely spiritual significance, and brings spiritual blessing. Yea, God Himself, as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is present in it, as at the baptism of Jesus. The blood of Christ is even mingled with it, as water and blood once flowed from the pierced side of Jesus (cf. John xix. 34 sq. and 1 John v. 6).1 Referring to the fact, that the body is also involved in the act of administering baptism — that it is sprinkled with water while the Word is being spoken for the soul — Luther, in one passage, infers that " since water and Word are one baptism, so also both body and soul are saved." 2 But he constantly reiterates, in opposition to the \ scholastic theologians, the assertion, that it is only by virtue of the Word that the water is efficacious. Nothing but the Word, or the promise, dare be spoken of as the power given to the water. He even at times designates the Word alone as that by which we are ' saved. In the passage in which he refers to the participation of the body in this sacrament, he says : " The soul is saved through the Word, in which it believes ; but the body, because it is united with the soul, and also accepts (ergreifet) the baptism as well as it can." 3 In insisting upon the point, that the efficacy (Kraft) of the ' sacraments is involved already in and with the Word in order that it may thus be accessible to faith, and in opposition to the idea that it is imparted to them by the act of the person admin istering them, Luther goes so far as to hold — as did also the Papists — that even a baptism administered in play and for mere sport was to be considered a proper and valid baptism. In sup port of this position, he cites the instance of a baptism admin istered by Athanasius at one time in childish sport, which Bishop Alexander afterwards acknowledged as valid, and also that which, according to an old legend, some impious jester administered in ridicule of Christianity to a certain person, to whom, however, ' Erl. Ed., xvi, 64. Op. Ex, xix, 237. Erl. Ed., xvi, 73, 118; xiv, 114 sqq. ; xix, 83; cf. xvi, 74. 2Erl. Ed., xxi, 135. 3 Op. Ex., i, 290. Erl. Ed., xxi, 133, 135. 510 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. there was revealed, in the very act of his baptism, a divine inscription of the words of Eph. iv. 5 sqq., and who was thereby led to faith.1 We have already remarked that we are unable to reconcile with the position here taken some other utterances of Luljher, particularly those in which he holds that at celebrations of the Lord's Supper conducted by Sacramentarians even believing guests receive only bread and wine.2 From the contemplation of the blessing which baptism brings with it by virtue of the accompanying Word, our attention is directed, finally, as already, indeed, indicated in the above cita tions, to the perpetual obligation which it involves upon the part of the recipient. It is the duty, as well as the privilege, of the Christian to constantly recur to his baptism and the forgiveness of sins which it involved ; and he will always have enough still to learn and to do in order that he may finnly believe all that it promises and brings to him. He is, further, under special obli gation to persevere in the conflict which began at his baptism, and to manKest in his IKe the fruits which it should properly produce. He is thus by his daily walk to beautify and adorn the exalted treasure which he has received.3 The queston, whether, or in how far, the above specifications are to be actually exemplified in infant baptism, has been already discussed at length.* We may now call particular attention to the manner in which Luther, as then noted, advanced to the position, that the effectual divine power is to be located entirely in the baptism itself. This power lies in the baptism by virtue of the Word, although it can, indeed, even in the case of children, become efficacious only by means of faith. And, just as it has, in other connections, been held that faith is awakened directly through the sacraments and the Word of promise contained in them, so it is now said to be effected in children through the very act of baptism itseK and through the Word there announced. Christians are said to present their children with the believing prayer that the Lord may grant them faith ; but then the admin- ' Loscher, ii, 201 (in the Resol. disput., etc. : cf. Vol. I., pp. 262, 265) Jena, ii, 286. Erl. Ed., xxxi, 356; xliv, 113 sqq. 2 Supra, pp. 129, 157 sq., 161. 3 Vol. I., p. 138. Erl. Ed., xxi, 135 ; xvi, 104 sq. * Supra, p. 45 sq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 51 1 istrant, whose words and deeds are the words and deeds of Christ, and from whose lips they now hear the Gospel, gives them faith.1 In the case of those children who, by no fault of theirs, are over taken by death while yet unbaptized, Luther trusts to prayer addressed to the mercy of God, even without baptism. He does, indeed, in one passage of his earlier writings, inquire, as though there were no hope for the unbaptized children even ot Christian parents: "What prevents (in view of original sin) children unbaptized from being condemned to all eternity?" * But, on the other hand, he declares in the House Postils, that those children for whom parents, etc., earnestly pray, and whom they offer up to God, are beyond doubt graciously accepted by Him. He advises afterwards that death under such circumstances be repre sented to the wicked as a sign of the divine wrath ; and then further counsels us not to attempt to pry into such matters as God has not revealed to us. Nevertheless, he would have us represent to the pious and believing for their consolation, that God has not bound Himself to the sacraments ; that it is a great matter that such children, although defiled by inborn sin, have not yet actually transgressed the Law ; that it is the nature of God to pardon and have compassion. For such children we should therefore hope and believe — and not doubt.2 c. The Lord's Supper. THE GIFT IMPARTED THE CRUCIFIED AND GLORIFIED BODY SACRA MENTAL UNION VS. TRANSUBSTANTIATION — WORD OF CHRIST AND SPECIFIC APPOINTMENT ADORATION OF SACRAMENT — SACRAMENTAL UNION ONLY DURING CELEBRATION BENEFITS FOR 'IHE BODY SEAL AND PLEDGE OF PROMISE— FORGIVENESS OF SINS — ADHERENCE TO WORDS OF INSTITUTION MEMORIAL THANK-OFFERING FEL LOWSHIP WITH CHRIST AND FELLOW -BELIEVERS. Through baptism, says Luther, we are, in the first instance, born anew ; the Lord's Supper is then a food for souls which nourishes and strengthens the new man.3 'Vol. II., pp. 45 sq., 49, 51. 2Jena, ii, 433 (A. D. 1521). Erl. Ed., iii, 166 (A. D. 1534). Briefe, iv, 672 -q. (A. D., 1536.) Op. Ex., iv, 78, 121 sq , 129 289. Briefe, vi, 337 sqq. Erl. Ed., xxiii, 340 sqq. (A. D. 1542). 3 Erl. Ed., xxi, 145. 512 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. His doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper has been already — more fully even than that concerning baptism — explained in its particular details in the earlier portion of this work, especially in our Third Book. From the very first discussion of the subject, we recognized in the view of Luther, as we shall now again in our final review have occasion to note, above all else the most decided opposition to every theory which would substitute for the divinely impaired gift in this sacrament, which the communicant is to receive in simple faith, any human work, whether it be the sacrificial act of the officiating priest, or the meritorious deed or deeds of the communicants, or their devout religious ardor and self-mortifica tion. He rejects even that explanation of some of his papal antagonists which represented it as a thank-offering ; for even thus we would still make of it a work and merit of our own, and thus the grace of God toward us would not be magnified, but our work toward God.1 As the actual blessing, or gift, to be received in the sacrament, we have heard him designate, in the first instance, the fellowship of Christ and His saints, which is signified by the sacrament, regarding as the thing signifying, or the sign, not by any means the bare bread and wine, but, as well, the body itself given with the elements. We were then led to recognize the more advanced and permanent form of his doctrine in his designation of the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the words of institution, as the treasure which is bestowed upon us in the impartation of the true body and blood of Christ.2 But the presence of this true objective body itself had not been in the beginning specific ally maintained nor thoroughly discussed by Luther,3 although he never denied it— not even in his decided and open opposition to the doctrine of transubstantiation as based upon poor philosophy. It was only the contest with the Sacramentarians that led him to a careful examination of this phase of the doctrine. The pressing question now arose : What is the peculiar inner value of the body itself? Is any blessing, and if so, of what kind, bestowed in the body itself? 'Vol. I., pp. 341 sq., 348, 352, 392, 394, 458. Erl. Ed., xxiii, 185 sq. 2 Vol. I., pp. 358 sq., 347. 3 Supra, p. 109. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 513 If we now once more call to mind briefly the theory of the Lord's Supper, and particularly with respect to the body therein dispensed, as we find this theory exhibited in the polemical writings of Luther, and in his later practical works as well, we i will find present in the sacrament, according to it, that body of] Christ which was once crucified for our sins, which is now exaltedi to heaven and glorified, and which is, moreover, according to its | entire original nature, of a spiritual and divine kind.' In oppo sition to the antagonists who denied the possibility of an existence of the body in heaven and at the same time in the sacrament, Luther spoke of the different kinds of presence, and even of the omnipresence, of His body as involved in the personality of Christ. But we must again call attention to the fact that Luther regards the " definitive " presence as furnishing a sufficient explanation of the existence of the body in the sacrament. Not only in his practical and popular, but as well in his later polem ical writings, he no longer appealed to the " repletive," omni present existence of the body.2 And, still further, the real basis for our faith in the presence of the body in the Lord's Supper is not to be in any case our theory as to the various kinds of presence, but, on the contrary, simply the Word of the Lord and the omnipotence of God, who is able to do what he says.3 He bases the doctrine simply upon this Word, particularly in all his sermons and in the catechisms. There was, therefore, no need of the doctrine of transubstantia tion in order to make possible an acknowledgment of the pres ence of the body and blood in the elements as required by the language of Christ. Of this doctrine Luther always speaks with the greatest contempt as an empty and sophistical human inven tion, although he does not regard it as a matter of great concern that some should yet cling to it. Even Aristotle, to whom its advocates appealed, would, he says, have laughed at the coarse donkeys.* He himself regards the union of the body and the elements as one of a unique — specifically " sacramental kind," differing also from that existing between the two natures of Christ, with which he sometimes compares it — most fittingly, 1 Supra, p. 125. 2 Supra, pp. 142, 189. 3 Supra, p. 189. 4 Vol. I., pp. 381, 389 sqq., 462. Briefe, v. 362, 568 ; vi, 284 sq. Erl. Ed., xxv, 137 ; xxxi, 402. 33 5 14 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. perhaps, illustrated in the identity of the dove and the Holy Spirit.1 That even the figure of the glowing iron 2 does not suffice to express the characteristic nature of this union, is evident from the fact that he employs it also to illustrate the union of the Word with the water of baptism. That Christ says of the bread : " This is my body," is explained by the rhetorical figure, synec doche.3 We can thus speak even of a " tearing " of the body with the teeth, although the body cannot, of course, be itself masti cated or bitten into pieces.* It was possible, indeed, even with the recognition of a synecdoche, to still avoid the acknowledg ment of a proper bodily reception, as was actually the case with the theologians of Upper Germany. It may, therefore, not have been without reason that it was said that the latter at length also failed to satisfy Luther.5 Luther's response to the question, what it is that " brings into the bread " the body of Christ, corresponds perfectly with what has been observed in respect to the sacraments in general. The Word of God, uttered at the consecration of the elements, has this power. It has such power, however, only by virtue of the command and appointment of Christ: "Do this," etc. This binds the other two things, i. e., the Word and the elements, together. It is, then, Christ HimseK who there works and dis penses. We hear the words as though they fell from His own lips.6 Hence the sacrament is valid even though the administrant be an evil person or one not regularly authorized.7 But we must here bear in mind, on the other hand, the positions held by Luther, that the sacrament has validity only in the Church accepting the ordinance of Christ, and that the body of Christ is present neither in the celebrations of the Supper by the Sacra- 'Vol. I., p. 391 sq.; Vol. II., pp. 80 sq., 146. The term "dynamic union," at least in the ordinary sense of the term, would here be liable to misinterpretation, since Luther means to express an entrance of the body, not only in its power, but in its substance. Cf. Vol. II., p. 169. 2 Vol. I., p. 390 ; Vol. II., p. 80. 3 Vol. II., pp. 80 sqq., 146. 4 Supra, pp. 146, 163. Erl. Ed., xxx, 130. 5 Supra, p. 188. 6 Supra, pp. 67, 74, 81 sq. Erl. Ed., xvi, 59; xxxi, 361 sq. Briefe, iv, 652. 7 Erl. Ed., xxxi, 362. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 5J5 mentarians nor in the popish hedge-masses.1 Even in the public communion of the Papists, Luther refuses to recognize the pres ence of the blood of Christ in the wine, since the latter is, in defiance of the ordinance of Christ, withheld from the laity.2 As Luther now, in his simple holding to the words, " This is my body," ever strenuously maintained the real presence of the body, so he refused to hear of anything more than this. That, with the body, the soul of Christ and the entire Godhead must also be present, he regarded as merely a vain human inference.3 This distinction was of special importance in the defining of his view as to the participation of the ungodly, for whom he held that Christ " has nothing more than a body " ' in the Lord's Supper, since they do not at the same time receive Him also in faith. We should understand in the sacrament, he says in one passage,5 not the entire Christ, or His kingdom, but His body " as a part of His kingdom and of the entire Christ." Nor does he allow himself to be disturbed in this position by the fact that he also described the flesh of Christ as itself full of the Spirit and of divinity.6 He thus always rejects all suggestions of " con comitance," because no one has commanded us to put more into the sacrament than the clear words of Christ give us.' He even declines to approve the view, that the blood is also at least implied in the bread, and the flesh in the wine.8 On the con trary, appealing to i Cor. x. 16, he regards the communion of the body and that of the blood as distinct in the bodily form, although in spiritual communion (of which the Fanatics have so much to say) body and blood cannot be separated.9 He repels with scorn the notion of the Papists, who infer from the supposed " concomitance " of the body and blood that the reception of the bread alone is sufficient. Yet he does not directly deny the presence of the blood in connection with the body given in the bread. It suffices for him that we have no need of such artful theories in addition to the clear institution of the Lord. Even 'Supra, pp. 168, 170, 130, 157, 161,459. 2 Erl. Ed., xxxi, 367 sq. 3 Supra, p. 68 sq. 4 Erl. Ed., xxx, 355 sq. 6 Ibid., xxix, 295. "Ibid., xxx, 130; cf. supra, p. 128 sq. ' Ibid., xxx, 418 sq. 8 Cf. at earlier period, Vol. I. p. 424- 9 Erl. Ed., xxx, 361. 5 1 6 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. though there were as much under the one element as under both, the one element would still not be the whole ordinance of Christ, but we would receive in it only the haK, or a mutilated form, of His appointed ordinance.1 The adoration of the sacrament had become the prevalent custom in the Lutheran reformed churches in so far as this was involved in the reception of the elements by the communicant while in a kneeling posture. This Luther approved in view of the presence of the body of Christ and, at the same time, of the divine Word of promise, adding the remark that we should at all times hear the Word, if not on bended knees, yet with humble hearts.2 Luther always maintains that the union of the bread and body, resulting as it does simply from the appointment of Christ, endures only during the act of distribution and the reception by the com municant in whose behalf Christ has ordained it. The sacrament was given us, not to be preserved and carried about, but to be eaten and drunken. More precisely, he would extend the time of the sacrament, or the sacramental act, until all have communed, the cup has been drained and the bread eaten, and the altar is deserted. He warns against distracting questions which may here arise. He declares, accordingly, that we should not be at all concerned to know whether the body of Christ is still present in the wafer as enclosed in the sacristy and carried about. At a later date, he asserts most positively that " outside of the use, the sacrament is nothing." He yet always advises that, to avoid all offence, the consecrated elements unused by a sick person, or consecrated wafers which may have become mixed with those never consecrated, should be burned.3 But let us now inquire what particular blessing, or what kind of benefit, the body brings with it in addition to that already assured in the words of institution, which themselves already offer, and to the believing hearer impart, the forgiveness of sins, and, with it, eternal salvation?* Luther had at first described the body given in the external element simply as a sign, seal and pledge of 1 Erl. Ed., xxx, 401, 417 sqq. ; xxxi, 401 ; xxv, 137 ; cf. supra, Vol. I., p. 461. 2 Cf. supra, pp. 69, 70 sq. Op. Ex., xi, 89. Briefe, v, 363. Supra, Vol. II., p. 195. 3 Briefe, iv, 390, 652; v, 233, 573, 578, 608, 777. 4Cf., particularly, Vol. I., pp. 347, 351 ; Vol. II., pp. 69 sq., 76, %t. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 517 these spiritual blessings, just as in baptism and in connection with various promises of the Old Testament external elements were employed as signs and pledges. And it is a pledge of a most exalted and unique kind. That particular body is presented as a pledge, through the death of which forgiveness has been secured. The sacrament is thus, according to Luther, a certification of that Lord's Supper, which is, according to John vi., also elsewhere, in the Word, imparted to faith.1 We have been told, further, that this body itself is bestowed upon us for the forgiveness which has been secured through it,2 and hence the " given " of the words of institution is understood of the giving of the body to the communicants. And, finally, Luther attributed to the body, ( as flesh of the Spirit and flesh of God ( Geistesfleisch and Gottes- \ fleisch) , also a peculiar efficacy in the bodily reception of it,3 i. e., j a beatifying efficacy for the body of the believing recipients, who receive it also spiritually for their souls. But we must neverthe less yet ask : * Is it not still possible, according to Luther, for faith, even without this bodily reception of the body of Christ, through the Word alone to appropriate the entire Christ, with all His spiritual blessings, to the eternal salvation and life of the entire personality of man? This question presses upon us with the greater urgency, as we have noted, in the present and the preceding chapters, the complete efficacy ascribed to the Word and faith in general.5 It is, moreover, worthy of note in this connection, that the claims of special benefit for our bodies asserted in the controversy with Zwingli and CEcolampadius now fall in his other writings decidedly into the background. We find it but once more asserted, in the House Postils? that, as the holy Fathers also declare, our mortal bodies are to be here nourished into eternal life through the immortal food of the body and blood of Christ placed in our mouth.' And in his eschatology Luther makes no reference to the benefit of the body of Christ in the 'Erl. Ed., xii, 376. 2 Supra, p. 112 sq. 3 Supra, pp. 122, 125 sqq. 4Cf. supra, p. 128. 5 Supra, pp. 426 sq., 503, 506. 6 Erl. Ed.,vi, 476. 'Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, Vol. III., pp. 2, 100, says, indeed, that the view referred to still echoes occasionally in Luther's sermons, but, so far as as we can discover, knows only this one example (the page of which is not rightly given in his reference). erg THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. sacrament as specifically affecting the body of the recipient. The forgiveness of sins, which is, indeed, received already in the Word, appears again, even in the controversial writings against Zwingli, as the principal thing.1 The Larger Catechism describes the body of Christ as a treasure, through which just this same for giveness is secured. It is said to be appropriated by us in the distributed body ; and this body, it is asserted, cannot be a fruit less thing.2 It is here merely mentioned in an incidental way, that when our soul is restored to health our body is also at the ,same time benefited.3 The sermon, Vom hochwurdigen Sacra ment, of A. D. 1534, merely again says: Where Christ is, there is forgiveness : here is His body ; he who eats it and believes that it is given for him must surely have the forgiveness of sins.* In the Commentary upon Joel, first published in 1547, the relation of the body of Christ to the forgiveness of sins is briefly set forth, in the spirit of the earlier writings of the Reformer, as follows : God has, as it were, locked up (included) the Word of forgive ness in baptism and the Lord's Supper. The latter has the promise that the body of Christ is given for us, and, together with the promise, the body itseK is proffered to us with the bread, in order that our hearts may the more firmly lean upon the promise.5 We may, then, summarize our results as to Luther's conception of the significance of the distribution of the body of Christ in the sacrament as follows : It is, in the first place, a great matter for us that God desires to help us in so many ways.6 Here we have the advantage, that the blessing of forgiveness is also brought home specifically to the individual believer in a way more direct than in the general proclamation of the truth in preaching.' Here is, further, given (otherwise than in private absolution) the most exalted pledge, the body of Christ itself. Here the life residing in the body of Christ (yet otherwise than, as the Larger Catechism testifies, in baptism) is also imparted directly to our body, in order that it may become effectual in the believing recipient.8 We must, however, be careful, in attempting to 'Vol. II., p. 149 sq. 2 Erl. Ed., xxi, 145 sq. ; cf. Vol. II., pp. 113, 150. 8 Erl. Ed., xxi, 152 4 Ibid., ii, 208 sqq. 6 Jena, iv. 809 b ; cf. 806 b. "Vol. II., p. 129. 'Vol. II., p. 114; cf. Erl. Ed., xi, 186. 8Cf. Vol. II., pp. 1 26 sqq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 519 represent accurately the view of Luther, not to lay more stress upon the last-mentioned item than he himseK does, however important in itself it may appear to us. If we be now called upon to explain, in view of all the fore going, why Luther, in his interpretation of the words of institution, clung so pertinaciously and anxiously to the literal sense,1 we dare not look for the real reason in any entirely peculiar benefit, or blessing, as, in his view, proffered by the words only when so understood ; nor dare we trace it back to the inner impulse, inspired by mystical or theosophic tendencies, to find the divine and the material (kreatiirliche) as intimately united as possible, or, at least, to find the divine revealing and proffering itseK to us in things visible. Although his theory of the Lord's Supper did, indeed, harmonize very fully in the latter respect with his general view of the divine method of self-revelation, yet the former would not have been absolutely required by the latter, nor even secured by it against objections. The decisive reason for his pertinacity in maintaining the position in question was, and always remained, for him precisely that which he himseK uni formly gave, i. Steitz, die Privatbeichte und Privatabsolution in der luth. Kirche, Frankf., 1854, and, especially, Pfisterer, Luther's Lehre von der Beichte, Stuttg., 1857. 2 Vol. I., p. 255 sqq., especially p. 259 sqq.; also, Vol. I., pp. 402 (upon the Keys), 294, 303, 305. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 523 believe that his forgiveness is the forgiveness of God. Christ, he argues, did not say : " What I loose in heaven, shall ye also loose on earth " — so that it would be necessary for us first to discover what God looses in heaven ; but he says : " If ye do it, it shall be done — it is to be one work (einerlei), yours and mine, and not a double work — if ye loose, I have already loosed." The loosing by means of the power of the keys is therefore the " word and decision of God Himself," and we should trust in it most implicitly.' Thus, the power of the keys (German : the Key) is never an ineffectual nor a varying power (Key), but its " loosing " is always certain. This does not depend upon the personality of the administrant. Even if the devil should have , slipped into the pastoral office and pronounced absolution in the Church and administered the sacrament of the altar according to the command of Christ, we would in such case have received proper absolution, and the real sacrament of the body of Christ. Nor does the certainty of the forgiveness depend upon the dis position or deportment of the individual to whom it is announced. There must, indeed, be contrition in the individual if he is to appropriate the forgiveness in faith ; 2 and the appropriating J agency is faith itseK ; but even where this is wanting in the one to whom the absolution is given, the power of the keys has never theless done its part, and has neither erred nor lied. The gift j was there, but it was not accepted — just as a castle presented to/ me by a king, has been certainly given to me, even though I do not accept it; or as gold given to another retains its nature even though the latter despises it ; or as the sun truly shines and is the real sun even if we should crawl into some dark corner. In this sense, therefore, Luther will hear absolutely nothing of a " conditional key " (clavis conditionalis) ; that is, of a key which should assert that it loosed us if we were penitent and pious, but failed to do so if such were not the case. The abso lution is to be given unconditionally, although for its reception there is required the faith which is to lay hold upon this very same sure Word of forgiveness. But this faith, according to Luther, is under all circumstances absolutely necessary for the ' Erl. Ed., xxxi, 170 sq., 178. Op. Ex., vii, 52 sq. Erl. Ed., xxi, 17 sqq.; xxxi, 169 sq., 174. 2Cf. also, supra, p. 431 sq. 534 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. reception of the offered absolution, or, rather, it is the very recep tion itself. Without it, the gKt already bestowed is again lost. " If thou believest, thou hast it ; if thou believest not, thou hast nothing." To this extent, therefore, absolution is, after all, conditional : " Every absolution has the conditio of faith, for without faith it does not remit, and (yet) it is not on that ac count an errant key." ' If we now inquire upon what grounds absolution should be administered to particular individuals, we shall not find Luther depending upon the administrant's conviction of the contrition and faith of the person desiring to be absolved, or of his real inner attitude toward God. Of this, the administrant could, tor one thing, never be sure, and we would again have an errant key ; and, moreover, it is just through the Word of absolution itself that the faith required for its apprehension is to be rightly excited. It is necessary only, which is always assumed as a matter of course, to see to it that the persons applying do not live in open impenitence and sin (see fuller discussion below, in connection with the theory of excommunication), and that they themselves confess their sin and express sorrow for it. Nor is the administrant to be disturbed by the fear that the applicant may lack all proper understanding of the saving truth with which absolution has to do. Of this, however, we shall have occasion to speak further when discussing private confession.2 This, therefore — the special bestowal of the forgiveness of sins upon individuals through the permanent, established power of the keys — is, according to Luther, the exalted privilege granted to believers under the new covenant, but which had not been enjoyed by the saints under the old covenant.3 Luther's view of the objective certainty of the forgiveness im parted in absolution, even when faith is wanting, is in perfect analogy with his position as to the objective and real content of the sacraments. We may be disposed to ask whether forgiveness can, indeed, be conceived of as an entity objectively present and 1 Erl. Ed., xxxi, 362; viii, 303; xlvi. 123; xi, 367 sqq.; xxxi, 169, 142, 147 sq. Vol. I., p. 262. Erl. Ed., xxxi, 172; xliv, 165 sqq.; v, 176. Briefe, iv, 482. 2 Erl. Ed., xxxi, 162 sq. ; iii, 367. Supra, Vol. I., p. 264. 3 Vol. I., pp. 266, 397, note; Vol. II., p. 362 sq. Erl. Ed., xx, 192; xxvii, 339. Briefe, iv, 481. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 52$ independent of the faith which is to receive it, and whether God can reaUy bestow it, as a treasure, or gold, may be given, in cases where He finds no susceptibility for its reception. We may be inclined to interpret the utterances of Luther as meaning only that the possibility of attaining the forgiving grace of God is here presented to men in a special way (otherwise than in the general preaching of the Gospel). This would, however, be clearly a departure from the position which Luther himseK has assumed. He himself gives us no further reply to such questions, no further explanation of his teaching upon the subject. It is worthy of note, further, that he now no longer, as at first,' locates the actual forgiveness upon God's part before the formal absolution, regarding the latter then as serving only for the full subjective attestation of the former. On the contrary, God is represented as forgiving only with and in the remission consum mated in the act of absolution ; and not only the certainty of forgiveness, but forgiveness itself, is attained only by the indi vidual who confidently lays hold upon the Word of absolution. It is, according to the unvarying representation of Luther, only confident faith which has justifying power.2 The interpretation suggested above would not, indeed, be even thus excluded, but it has, as before observed, not been presented by him. Some additional considerations are necessary in immediate connection with the general subject of absolution as above pre sented. First of all, we observe that, according to Luther's habitual manner of dealing with the subject and his entire doc trine concerning the means of grace, forgiveness, or absolution in general, is by no means to be thought of as imparted only in the form of absolution here in question, i. e., that in which the sins of an individual are forgiven directly through the Word spoken above him. It takes place, on the other hand, also in baptism and the Lord's Supper, and, above all, according to Luther, in the simple proclamation of the Gospel message, and hence in every Christian sermon.3 Thus Luther applies the passage, John xx. 23, and attributes the power of the keys also to the office of the ministry at large, although usually referring them specifically • Vol. I., p. 257 sqq. 2 Vol. II., p. 426 sqq. 3 Erl. Ed., xi, 295, 156 sq. ; v, 170 sqq. ; xiv, 109. 526 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. to private absolution;1 and the latter is frequently included under the general conception of the administration of the Gospel, which embraces also preaching, or under the " oral Word." The Gospel is a general absolution. The same Word which is, in preaching, proclaimed publicly and in general terms is then addressed particularly, in (private) absolution, to such individuals as desire it. This is nothing more than declaring the Gospel to a single person, who thus receives comfort in view of the con fessed sin.2 At the same time, Luther by no means desired to ex clude the employment of the " public, general absolution," in which the forgiveness of sins is, in express and fixed terms, announced to the assembled congregation in connection with regular divine service, occupying, as it does, an intermediate position between public preaching and private absolution. He expressed his opinion in regard to this when a controversy had arisen on the subject among the clergy of Nuremberg, and himseK prepared a liturgical formula for use upon such occasions, in which he pre scribes the following language : " I declare * * * all who are now here * * * and with penitence * * * believe in Christ, free," etc. To the objection, that this was conditional, he replied that it was indeed so, just as is every general or private absolution.3 In the second place, we must again call attention to the fact that, according to Luther, not only the regularly appointed con fessor, or pastor, but every Christian brother, may pronounce for giveness with full authority and perfect validity. Luther repeats ¦this with extraordinary frequency even in his later and latest works. It is his custom, even when himseK assisting distressed souls to find the assurance of pardon, to direct them at the same time also to the lay brother. He rejoices that they can have forgiveness thus in the fellowship of believers, wherever two or three are gathered together (Matt, xviii. 19, 20), and that Christ has crowded every corner full of it. He most frequently (as at the very beginning *) says that we can secure it from the priest, or, if necessary, from any brother — though he not infrequently 'Jena, ii, 582 b (cf. supra, p. 86). Erl. Ed., vi, 296; iii, 371 ; xi, 294 sq. Jena, iv, 362. 2 Erl. Ed., xxxi. 171 ; xi, 294 sqq. Briefe, iv, 443 sqq., 481 sqq. 3 Briefe, iv, 445 ; vi, 176, 245. Cf. Corp. Reform., iii, 957. 4 Vid. Vol. I., p. 261. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 527 omits the conditional intermediate clause. By necessity, in this case, he by no means understands such extreme circumstances as sudden emergencies, the unexpected approach of death, etc., when no clergyman can be summoned, as in the somewhat similar instance of lay-baptism, which is thus carefully guarded. On the contrary, he includes, for example, under the term distress of conscience on account of such sins as one would be ashamed to acknowledge in the presence of the pastor, and would rather pour out in humble confession into the bosom of some other trustworthy, pious Christian.1 He speaks then of consolation given to the distressed one by his brother, of the comforting passages of Scripture which may be quoted, etc., discriminating between such ministrations and " absolution," or the formal official act of the pastor.2 But yet actual absolution, which in its essential character stands upon the same level, is here also, in his view, consummated. Upon the one hand, he often de scribes the act of the official confessor simply as a com forting of the distressed penitent ; whilst he represents the brother, on the other hand, as by his words of consolation pronouncing forgiveness itself, and even employs for the act of the latter the term " absolution." He himself with great earnestness calls upon Spalatin, when the latter was in distress, to receive absolu tion (by letter) from him, not as his regular spiritual adviser, but as a brother. " Christ," says he, " speaks through me — He Himself absolves thee." He declares, in general, that a brother's word is " yea " before God, is God's own Word, and just as good as that of the priest. To the section upon confession in the Visitationsunterricht for . Electoral Saxony, prepared in 1528, he himself in 1538 appended the remark: The reception off absolution from the confessor should be optional— for those who \ may perhaps prefer to receive it from their pastor, as a public officer of the Church, rather than from another person. So little does he recognize any specific difference between the formal ecclesiastical administration and that " through another." 3 In 'Erl. Ed., xxvii, 376; xliv, 107 sqq., 117, 125. Jena, ii, 566 b. Erl. Ed., iii, 366, 370 sqq. ; vi, 297; xi, 334 sq. ; vi, 34 1. Jena, iv, 362. Op. Ex., xi, 136, 239; ix, 23. 2 Erl. Ed., xliv, 108, 112 ; xlvi, 292. 3 Erl. Ed., vi, 164 sq. Vol. I., pp. 261, 402 sq. Erl. Ed., xliv, 107 sqq.; vi, 341 ; v, 170 sq.; xi, 319, 318, 156 sq. ; v, 165; xlvi, 123; xlvii, 217 sq. Briefe, v, 680 sq. Erl. Ed., xxiii, 40 sq. 528 -1HK THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. the Smalcald Articles, he places side by side with forgiveness through the power of the keys that " through mutual colloquy and the consolation of brethren," according to Matt, xviii. 20. But, in another passage, while citing Matt, xviii. 20 in illustration of ecclesiastical absolution, he deduces that pronounced by brethren also from the promise in John xx. 23 and from the power of the keys. The keys, he asserts, are distributed to every house ; we have " liberty lo administer the keys privately." l He even applies the term " office " (Ami) to the power which private mem bers of the Church possess to render service to one another in announcing the forgiveness of their sins (according to Matt. ix. 8) : " God has bound us together by this office, in order that one Christian may pronounce to another," etc.2 He can con sistently speak thus, since the keys have, according to his unvary ing teaching, been given to the entire Church, and hence also to individual members for their mutual fellowship. The declara tions in Matt, xviii. 18 and John xx. 21 sqq. apply to all disciples of Christ. All Christians have, wherever two or three of them are gathered together in Christ's name, " precisely all the power which St. Peter and all the apostles (possessed) ." 3 No one should, however, presume to exercise this common power publicly, unless publicly elected for such purpose by the congregation. I may, theiefore, pronounce an absolution for my neighbor, who reveals to me his peculiar trouble, but I must do so only " privately " (heimlich). I dare not seat myself in the Church to hear confession.* The position here taken is thus in complete harmony with the utterances of Luther, particularly in his later years, in denunciation of presumptuous exercise of the public ministry of the Word, or of official duties in the Church, without a proper call. The practice of private absolution may, indeed, when exercised without regard to the special neces sities of particular brethren or to their peculiar personal relations toward one another, become such an unauthorized assumption of authority. But, considered in itself, it naturally falls, not under 'Erl. Ed., xxv, 136; xiii, 334 sq. Jena, iv, 362. Erl. Ed., xi, 318; xliv, 107, 125. 2 Erl. Ed., v, 176; cf. also xi, 338. 3 Erl. Ed., xxviii, 309, 414. Jena, ii, 582 b. Erl. Ed., xiv, 173 sq. ; xi, 318, 339; xxxi, 371, and very especially, vi, 297 sq. ; xxvi, 165 sq. *Erl. Ed., xi, 318. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 529 the head of congregational, ecclesiastical acts, or public institu tions and ordinances, but it is similar to the private use of the Word in general, which it is the province of the brother to make in dealing with his brother, or of a father in relation to his house hold. It is to be observed, also, that Luther was never called upon by force of circumstances to bear specific testimony against any abuse of the privilege. The fanatical sects did not under take to hold confession, but would hear nothing of confession and private absolution. We recognize, upon the other hand, in the writings of the Reformer during the present period, the con stant effort to avoid the assumptions of the papal priesthood, with its confessional practices and its power of the keys. But, in additon to the public preaching of the Word and the absolution which it already involves, private absolution retains for Luther an exalted and peculiar value, from the fact that in it for giveness is imparted to me as one particular person — " privately, specially, individually." Thus I can here be right certain of it, as intended for me, and can grasp it for myself, whereas in the congregation it floats out over the whole assembly, and may, indeed, reach me with the rest, but I am still not so sure of it as when addressed to me alone. Hence, too, it follows that I should first unburden my heart to the person from whom I desire to receive absolution, telling him all the troubles which oppress me, seeking his advice, so that I may receive the absolution with direct reference to the particular emergency. Luther directs our attention here again to the significance which he ascribes in general to the mediation and application of the divine agency through human instrumentality (e. g., through the spoken Word ]), and, still further, to the special significance, even for the media tion and personal experience of salvation itself, which he attrib utes, within the Church, to the communion of the saints and their mutual influence upon one another in the service of Christ. In society, says Luther, among my neighbors and brethren, and not in a corner, nor in the wilderness, nor in a solitary cell, am I to seek for what I need. Hence he cites Matt, xviii. 20 in support, particularly of private absolution, but also of the formal ordinance of the Church, and often designedly designates the pastor as a neighbor, or brother. Nor are we to overlook the influence, in ' Supra, p. 494. 34 530 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. this personal interview of the pastor or brother with the candi date for absolution, of " the living voice," to which reference has been already made. And we recall, still further, Luther's own experience, especially while yet in the monastery.1 It was, therefore, not without a substantial reason that Luther, while allowing liberty for the exercise of the power of the keys by laymen in private, yet did not desire to see the public ordi nance of the confessional neglected, but, on the contrary, always represented the latter as the primary, orderly and regular method. Here, he held, we have particular persons, of whom we know that they have been especially, and for each one among us, entrusted by God with the ministry of the keys; and that they have, furthermore, as office-bearers in the Church of Christ, a " partic ular commandment " for the rendering of such service.2 It is especially timid persons and those in spiritual distress who are urgently advised to seek private absolution at the hands of the pastor or, in case of necessity, of any Christian brother. But he declares, also, that it is useful and necessary for every one, since we never rise to such a height as no longer to need the Word of forgiveness.3 It is chiefly for the sake of the absolution that Luther so earn estly commends the retention of private confession as an ordi nance of the Christian Church.* He himself interprets the word " beichten" (or " be-ich-len") as meaning "confess." There must be such a continual inward " confession " (Beichte) upon the part of the believer in the presence of God. There is in every repetition of the Lord's Prayer a constantly reiterated and also a public " confession." And every individual must likewise confess his sin to his neighbor whom he has injured. But we speak now of " that private confession (Beichte) in which one person takes another aside to a separate place and relates to him what his need and burden are, in order that he may receive from the latter a comforting word," etc.5 Under the term Beichte, 'Erl. Ed., xi, 157 sq. ; xxvi, 310 sq. Briefe, iv, 445. Jena, iv, 362 b; xliv, 108 sqq. ; xxvii, 369, 377; xi, 231; xxxi, 170. Supra, p. 494. Vol. I., p. 62. 2 Jena, iv, 362. Erl. Ed., v, 165, 170, 174. 5 Erl. Ed., xxv, 138, 363; xxvi, 310. 4Cf. Vol. I., pp. 402, 463 sq. 5 Erl. Ed., xxvi, 307 sq. ; xxix, 352 sqq. ; xxiii, 86 sqq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 53 1 he further explains, are included, according to the prevalent ecclesiastical usage, two things, i. e., our work, the confession and the seeking for consolation ; and God's work, the declaring free from sin.1 This technical confession is, indeed, not absolutely necessary, as is that first mentioned, but it is nevertheless an exceedingly valuable exercise, which none but unworthy Christians and coarse swine despise. It is such by virtue of the second element, which has been appointed to afford us just such comfort,- and which is the principal part of it and its special object. It is such, how ever, also by virtue of the personal confession which it involves, although the latter has not been specifically included in it by Christ in establishing the ordinance. The burden resting upon the heart must be revealed, the sin lamented, in order that the person applied to may declare forgiveness for it. The shame and self-humiliation connected with such confession are also very salutary. The formal confession affords an opportunity also for the instruction of plain, simple-minded people and for discovering whether they know the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, etc. Even the rehearsal of such parts of the Catechism belongs to the " Be- ich-ten." Particularly is the truth preached from the pulpit to be " brought into operation " properly, in individual cases, only through the confessional.2 Especially should confession be practiced before communion, not as a necessary or compulsory matter, but as very useful, in order that the people may be assisted in that self-examination which the apostle enjoins, and' may not approach the Table of the Lord without understanding, faith or penitence.3 But by no means shall this ordinance ever be again allowed to become an instrument of torture, requiring the enumeration of all particular sins. It is enough if the applicant confess himself a sinner, and mention the special sins in view of which he partic ularly desires absolution. Of such persons as already fully know what sin is, as, for example, ministers and Melanchthon, an enumeration of sins is not to be at all expected. " It must be 1 Erl. Ed., xxiii, 88. 2 Vol. I., p. 463. Erl. Ed., xxix, 357 sq. ; xxvi, 305 sqq.; xi, 294 sq., 157 sqq ; xxiii, 86, 40; xxviii, 283; xxvii, 367 sqq.; xxv, 138; xxvi, 311. 3 Jena, ii, 591. Erl. Ed., xxiii, 35 ; xi, 180 sq., 185 ; vi, 342 ; xxv, 138. Briefe, iv, 283 sq. 532 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. sufficient," said Luther already in 15 18, "for the priest that I desire confession and absolution, without its being necessary for him to have a positive assurance (certainty) of my penitence and my faith." ' Confession must, moreover, always be left optional, dependent upon the needs of the individual — even that preceding the com munion. He himseK, says Luther, unwilling as he would be to surrender the privilege of confession, yet once in a while takes the communion without first confessing, in order that he may not be tempted to exalt the custom into a necessary matter of conscience, and in order to show his contempt for the devil.2 If we inquire, finally, what is the relation of absolution to the other means of grace, we will naturally recall what has been said above of the analogy between it and the sacraments ; and we must now further add that not only does Luther frequently ' associate it with the latter, but that in it, as a special act applied to us through the external Word, Christ seems to him to be peculiarly tangible, or within the range of our powers of appre hension; and hence he includes it among "visible things and signs." He is even willing now to concede : " We must confess that repentance is a sacrament, inasmuch as the absolution of the Keys and the faith of the penitent belong to it ; for it has within it the promise and faith of forgiveness," etc.3 But he still fails to find in it a peculiar visible sign, or any sign in addition to the Word of promise itself. The Word pronounced in private abso lution he regards, as we have seen, as falling under the general conception of the Word ; and even the spoken Word itself he regards as, in a wider sense, a "forma visibilis." He therefore now always speaks, in other connections, adopting the strict conception of a " sacrament," of but two sacraments, and in connection with them, of the Word, including the Word of abso lution.* But it is proper that, in immediate connection with absolution, ' Erl. Ed., xi, 160, 295 ; xxiii, 85 ; xxvii, 3741 xxi, 18; xxvi, 306; xxxi, 162 sq. ; xx, 186. 2 Erl. Ed., xxvii. 353 sqq.; xvii, 148 sq. Jena, ii, 591. Erl. Ed., xxiii, 40, 35. '95;". 251. 3 Erl. Ed., xlvii, 82; xlvi, 295 ; lxv, 173. Jena, i, 578. Cf. Vol. I., p. 403, upon sacraments in the wider sense. 4Vol. I., p. 403. Erl. Ed., xxviii, 418; xxx, 371. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 533 or the loosing key, we should consider also the nature and office of the other, or binding key, i. e., Christian excommunication; not only because the two keys are closely attached to one another in the designating term and in their significance, but also because the binding likewise belongs, as we shall see, to the administration of the means of grace in the congregation. " Binding " and " retaining " sin are in Luther's conception (compare Matt. xvi. 19 with John xx. 23) perfectly synonymous terms. He says : " Binding and loosing represent sin retained and remitted " — to which he adds the remark, that a key serves principally for opening, and so Christ and the Church are more inclined to loose than to bind.1 The binding power of the keys is represented as exercised already in the general preaching of the Gospel,, which is said to bind all the unbelieving.2 Luther even in one passage, when • commenting upon Matt. xvi. 19, speaks of a private condemna tion (privata damnatio) by a brother. This consists, in his view, in fraternal remonstrance (arguere), just as the fraternal absolution consists in the administering of consolation.3 But, in other passages, he always understands by it the excommuni cation administered in accordance with the instructions of Christ as found in Matt, xviii. 15 sqq., i. e., " that special function of the keys which is, by its very nature, public." * This binding is, however, designed to be exercised only in case of public sins, which are clearly manKest to the Church, and of which the offender, despite all fraternal and ecclesiastical admonition, refuses to make penitent confession or to repent. It must therefore, from its very nature, be administered as a public, congregational act, as Christ has commanded. The open sinner is to be first fraternally admonished; then the matter is to be brought before the congregation, in order that here every one may condemn the crime. If the offender does not then heed, he is to be excommunicated, and treated as a heathen and a publican.5 He is hereby excluded also frqmtiie outward fellowship of the congregation, dare not act as sponsor 'Erl. Ed., iii, 364. Jena, iv, 362. sBriefe, iv, 482. Jena, iv, 362 b. 8 Jena, iv, 362; cf. 362 b. 4 Jena, iv, 362 b. 6 Erl. Ed., iii, 364; xxvii, 363 sq. ; xliv, 80 sq. ; xxxi, 175 sqq. 534 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. at the baptism of a child, nor receive the communion. But this verdict of the Church involves, above all, for the excommuni cated person, that his sin will now bring upon him death and perdition. He is deprived of all the grace to which Christians are entitled, of aU the gKts and grace of the Hply Spirit, is not delivered from sin and death by the blood of Christ, etc. Thus Luther now embraces both the outer and the inner excommuni cation ' in the act, when properly administered in accordance with Matt, xviii. This he designates a " spiritual " excommuni cation. The act of the Church in pronouncing excommunication no longer consists for him in the bare outward exclusion, or the mere withdrawal of outward fellowship, regarded as only a sign that the soul of the offender has been given over to the devil ; z but the Church itseK pronounces upon the sinner the verdict of eternal death. And of this verdict Luther most emphatically declares, just as of the absolving proclamation of the loosing key, that it is thereby pronounced by God HimseK, and is valid before Him. The binding key dare no more than the other be con sidered an errant key.3 This condemnation is, of course, as is abundantly manifest from other utterances of Luther, not to be construed as leading absolutely and unconditionally to eternal death The sinner is to continue given over to death only upon the supposition that he peisists in his impenitence instead of seeking again deliverance from his sin. Of this we shall hereafter have occasion to speak further. But, with all this acknowledgment of the Church's authority, Luther was still as far as ever from making salvation dependent upon human mediation or human caprice, after the manner of Roman Catholicism. The verdict spoken of dare be pronounced only upon the ground of sin and impenitence plainly manKested by the sinner himself. To the declaration, that God binds Him seK also to the verdict of the Church, Luther adds : " if it is rightly employed " (that is, according to the prescribed method and only in the case of such open offenders). Otherwise he asserts, not that the binding key errs, but that the parties pro nouncing excommunication do not at all have the right key. There remained, therefore, for all true believers who suffered ' Vol. I., pp. 277, 343. » Vol. I., p. 277. 3 Erl. Ed., xliv, 81 sqq., 86 sq.; xxxi, 178, 169, 172; xxv, 140. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 535 injustice at the hands of the priests, the completely-consoling assurance that their excommunication was not at all regarded as such by God, and that they might still be sure of their absolution in His sight.1 And even in the case of those rightfully excom municated, the divine verdict of death is, according to Luther's entire teaching in regard to the forgiveness of sins, at once can celed, whenever the excluded person again penitently lays hold of the Word of forgiveness as presented even in the public preaching of the Gospel.2 The question now arises very naturally, what peculiar signifi cance then actually attaches to the verdict whose validity has been so strongly asserted, or what effect does it actually produce ? Sins are, in any event, '•' retained " only because they have been " bound " ; but would they not be so bound even without the official declaration of the Church? Luther himseK says that the excommunicated sinner " remains " in a lost condition.3 He is, accordingly, already in such a condition before the verdict is pro nounced against him by the Church. Moreover, sinners are said to be already bound through the ordinary preaching of the Gos pel. They are even, as Luther says, bound already before God by their very sins, and in consequence of their refusal to come to receive the Word of forgiveness.* Yet Luther certainly means to teach that excommunication produces a real effect, and that, too, with respect to the relation of the individual under discipline to God, and God's attitude toward him. We may attempt to express the idea of Luther as follows : The measure of the sin and guilt of such transgressors becomes in God's sight entirely full, and the verdict of the hitherto long-suffering God upon them entirely fixed, only after they have cast to the winds His sorest threatening in the verdict of the binding key and His admonitions presented through the mouth of their brethren and the congregation. We look in vain, however, in the writings of Luther himseK for any special elucidation of the question. 1 Erl. Ed., xliv, 88; xxxi, 175 ; xxiv, 205 sq. 2 Briefe, iv, 482 1 "In case the person bound by the ban of the Church (die Jurisdiktion) comes again through the preaching of the Gospel to obe dience and faith, he is already forgiven by God, but should then also seek again reconciliation with the Church." 3 Erl. Ed., xliv, 81. 4Cf. Erl. Ed., xi, 329; iii, 170. 536 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. We shall have occasion to speak further of excommunication as a public, congregational act of discipline, in connection with the doctrine concerning the Church. But we must now, finally, trace the significance of the " Bann," or binding thus effected, to its appropriate and designed result ; and it is only as we do so that the relation of the binding key to the subjects considered in the present chapter will become manKest. This ordinance also is always designed, in the special and gracious purpose of God in its appointment, to lead, and that in a peculiarly startling and powerful way, to repentance — by pronouncing the verdict of death, to open the way for the terrified conscience back again to life — to become a wholesome medicine and help in escaping from sin. We have found in absolution a special exercise and application of the Gospel ; the office of the binding key is but a prosecution of the work of the Law. The two keys combined are " ' executores? executors and active employers of the Gospel, which preaches precisely these two things, repentance and the forgiveness of sins." l To the further ecclesiastical acts which the Romish Church designates as sacraments Luther still denied that character, and for the same reason which he had adduced in the Praeludium de captivitate Babylonica.- Marriage and the priesthood " are orders otherwise holy enough in themselves," but we dare not make sacra ments out of them. The former has already been discussed,3 and in regard to ordination, we shall speak in the succeeding chapter. Of the Romish confirmation and extreme unction the Gospels, he says, know nothing, and he expressly denies the applicability of Acts viii. 17 to the former. While regarding it, at all events, an excel lent custom to visit the sick, and admonish and pray with them, he would leave the anointing with oil optional : only insisting that it be not regarded as a sacrament. He thus, at the first attempted reformation in Electoral Brandenburg, in which it was the aim to retain old customs as far as possible, gave his consent to the retention of an anointing of the sick ; for it was at the same retention of an anointing of the sick ; for it was at the same time distinctly denied that this was a sacrament, and no consciences were burdened by it. He expresses himseK in the same way at that time in regard to confirmation, which was there likewise 'Erl. Ed., xxxi, 130, 178 sq; cf. also xi, 329. 2Vol. I., p. 403 sqq. 'Cf. supra, p. 481. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 537 retained. Yet he advised against the recognition of the custom of anointing in the printed order, since this professed to furnish a reformation based upon the Scriptures. In regard to the sup posed connection between the ceremony and Jas. v. 14 sq. and Mk. vi. 13, he expressed himself as heretofore.1 We have, with the practices last mentioned, entered the sphere of those outward customs 2 of which Luther declares, that they do not make any one holy and have not been appointed by God, but may never theless be useful and very appropriate.3 Upon one occasion he thus allowed feet-washing to pass as an appropriate and ancient Christian custom, when it had been recognized in the order of the Church at Sonnewald under a certain Lord of Minkwitz. He objects only to calling it, as is there done, a " soul-bath." In other connections, he sees the true feet-washing, which the Lord commanded, in the continual ministry of Christian love toward one's brethren.* ' Vol. L, p. 406 sq. Upon Confirmation: Erl. Ed., xx, 64 ; vii, 172; xxv, 71; lxv, 173. Briefe, ii, 240, 490; v, 307. Upon Unction: Erl. Ed., xxv, 71 ; xxx, 371. Briefe, v, 233 sq., 307. 2 Vol. I., p. 404. 3Cf. Erl. Ed., xxv, 378, 383 sq. 4 Briefe, ii, 620: Cf. Seckendorf, Hist. Luth., I., § 157, Add. I. Erl. Ed., ii, 227 sq. CHAPTER VIII. THE CHURCH. THE COMMUNITY OF BELIEVERS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY' WORD AND SACRAMENTS THE KEYS THE MINISTRY PRAYER ENDURANCE OF CROSS PIETY OF MEMBERS— EXTERNAL CEREMONIES FORM OF PASTORAL OFFICE THE CHURCH HOLY EMBRACES BELIEVERS IN ALL PLACES PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH OBJECT OF FAITH RELATION OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT TO CHURCH MAY EN COURAGE PREACHING OF THE WORD AND FORBID BLASPHEMOUS PRACTICES SHOULD PRESERVE HARMONY" LIMITS OF AUTHORITY IN THIS SPHERE CONGREGATIONAL CHARACTER AND RIGHTS LUTHER'S MISSION NOT IN SECULAR ORGANIZATION. What that Church really is in which God dispenses His means of grace, and into which He gathers His believing and redeemed people, had been already recognized by Luther with remarkable clearness at the time when he was repelled and cast out by the Romish hierarchy. From that time forward, he did not deviate in the least from his general conception of the Church nor from the main outlines of his doctrine in regard to it, however impos sible it may be to overlook certain important modifications of his view upon separate points as new practical questions and neces sities were forced upon his attention.1 The Church is, for Luther, nothing more nor less than the community ( Gemeine) of the saints ; and this means simply the community of believers, who are sanctified by faith in Christ — the assembly, or people (nation), of Christians who have Christ as their Head. It exists, however, and can exist, only where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments rightly administered. By these, as by outward signs, the Christian congregation is recognized. In the preaching of the Word and in the celebration of the sacraments it acknowledges its relation to its Lord ; and ' Cf. my work, " Luthers Lehre von der Kirche." (538) systematic review. 539 through these same means of grace all the saints secure the new life in Christ and their constant strengthening and renewal. After the conflict with the fanatical sects, the sacraments received, in addition to the Word, further and very special recognition in their significance for the Christian IKe, and thus also for the stability and life of the Church. But, even when treating specifi cally of the Church, the principal thing always remains, for Luther, the Word of God, without which, indeed, the sacraments are nothing, which in cases of necessity brings men, even without the latter, into the fellowship of salvation, and which must be continually employed and continually operative in its divine power. Through it the Church at large ( Gemeine) is conceived, born, nourished, etc. " Wherever the Gospel is, there (da) must also be a holy Christian Church." * In the possession and dispensation of the means of grace, the Church stands related to the individual believer as an objective reality. It is his mother. It conceives, bears and trains up an innumerable host of children through the Gospel and the Holy Spirit.2 Yet the Church itself is always simply the community ,of existing believers. It is "the holy believers, and the sheep who hear their shepherd's voice." The term, " communion of saints," in the Apostles' Creed is simply intended to declare what " the Church " is, and it would be better if the word "Gemeine" (community) were to stand in the German version instead of "Gemeinschaft" (fellowship). It is just to this com munity of believers that we are to go to secure the forgiveness of sins. In this Church, i. e., in the Christian community at large, sins are daily and abundantly forgiven.3 These principles define also the conception of individual churches. " Church means the number of believers in a city, country, or the whole world." * And this Church, or Christian community, is nothing less exalted than the gate of heaven itself. It is the place, or the people (nation), where God dwells in order, through His Word and His sacraments, to lead us to heaven.5 That the Church, or Christian community, is to be recognized 'Vol. I., pp. 295 sqq., 364 sqq., 427 sq. Erl. Ed., xxiv, 327; vi, 67. Op. Ex., xviii, 280. Erl. Ed., xliv, 24; xxxi, 374; xxxv, 338, 359 sqq. 2 Erl. Ed., xxi, 101 ; xliv, 5. Comm. ad Gal., ii, 257, 261. 3 Ibid., xxi, 162; xxiii, 249, 254; xxv, 142; xxi, 13. 4 Ibid., xliv, 24; xxxi, 123. 6 Op. Ex., vii, 181 188. 540 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. by the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacra ments may be proved yet more distinctly, according to Luther, as follows : It does not follow, upon the one hand, that, because persons are by baptism, even when received in infancy, regener ated, sanctified, and admitted to the community in which salvation is experienced, all the baptized will always be members of that community. Such persons cease to be really members, and are so yet only in name, if they become impenitent sinners and enemies of the truth. They thus inwardly sever themselves from the community. They are not only branches that must be cast out, but are already cast out. They are no more members of the Church, the bride of Christ, but a rebellious whore — a horde of the devil.1 Luther makes no reference here to that return to the recognition of the baptismal covenant which he regards as possible to the penitent; but he recognizes also a falling away upon the part of baptized Christians so complete as to leave no further hope of a return. Yet, upon the other hand, although not all baptized persons really belong to the Church, still, he holds, where baptism and the Word are found, there are at least some " saints," and hence certainly a Church. He points, in extreme cases, to the children yet in their cradles, and appeals particularly to the maxim, that the Word is nowhere entirely without fruit, a maxim which, indeed, when asserted with such assurance, leads us back to the obscure questions as to the agency of the Spirit in connection with the Word.2 Where the means of grace are entirely wanting, he sees, on the contrary, no possibility of a Church or of a fellowship in the blessings of salvation, and, in this sense, approves the statement, that outside of the Church there is no salvation.3 The question here arises, in how far the means of grace are yet present in their power and blessing where the Word is preached in a corrupted form and the sacraments improperly administered. Luther acknowledged that the Lord's Supper was received effec tually in the Church of the- Middle Ages, despite the mutilation of the ordinance of Christ by the withholding of the cup from the laity. The Word he holds to be still effective for the gener ation and preservation of saints, although some have it in a 'Vol. I., pp. 364, 367, 428. Erl. Ed., xlix, 262 sqq., 310; xxvi, 26; lxv, 174; i, 12. Op. Ex., xx, 165. 2 Vol. I., p. 366 ; Vol. II., p. 491 sq. » Erl. Ed., ix, 292. systematic review. 541 perfectly pure, and others in a somewhat corrupted form. He saw evidences of its effectual working, by means of its central doctrine of salvation in Christ alone, in the case of particular individuals even under the Papacy — in a decisive way, at least in the hour of death.1 He has, however, left us no further defini tions, or distinctions, as to the limitations of the agency of the Word under such circumstances. Considerable interest attaches also to the question, which of the external associations of professed believers calling themselves " churches " are entitled to be so called. Luther refuses to allow the name of " Church," or " people of God," despite the continued presence of the means of grace, to any community which has become, in its general, dominant spirit, government or confession, perverted from the truth. Of this he finds an illustration in the Papal Church (see below). Yet even in such a church he joyfully recognizes such individuals as are, through the means of grace, kept in fellowship with Christ, and thus even in a church which is only improperly and falsely so called he yet recognizes the continued presence of a little company which is not called, but really is, a Church.2 The above are, according to Luther, the fundamental elements which constitute the Church and the signs by which it is to be recognized. We have seen in the preceding chapter that salvation, or for giveness, is to be imparted or denied in the Church in a very special way to individuals through the specific employment of the keys which have been entrusted to the Church. Luther, in this spirit, further says, that believers constitute the Christian Church because they have the sacraments and absolution.3 And in one of the finest and richest of his expositions of the signs by which the people of God are to be recognized, and of the saving instrumentalities by which the Holy Spirit effects their sanctifi cation and vivification,* he adds to the Word, baptism and the Lord's Supper, as a fourth means, the employment of the loosing and binding keys. They should be made use of wherever the Church of Christ exists. That he does not, however, include this ' Erl. Ed., xxv, 359 ; supra, p. 270 sqq. 2 Erl. Ed., 1, 9 sqq. ; xxvi, 28. Op. Ex., iii, 56 ; v, 101 sq , 105. 3 Erl. Ed., xlvii, 161. 4Ibid., xxv, 363; cf. 376. 542 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. in his fundamental definitions of the Church, is to be explained by the fact that this exercise of the keys is, for one thing, already embraced in the proper and complete dispensing of the Word, and that it is, on the other hand, at least not so necessary and essential that believers and saints could not be generated and preserved without it. Furthermore, the outward discipline ad ministered through the binding key could not, inasmuch as it is an act of believers themselves and an enjoined sign of their sanctification, be included among the constituent elements of the Church (cf., on the contrary, confessions of the Reformed Church) ; for he was concerned, above all else, to recognize the objective realities which God bestows, and through which He generates and nourishes, and not any deed or service performed by man himself. In the Christian community at large, or Church, these means of grace are, together with the keys, to be administered publicly and regularly by ministers (Diener) expressly called for the pur pose, who are to feed the congregation with the Word of God. The sacraments are likewise, as we have seen, by their very nature, public acts, and the Word of God requires to be pro claimed by word of mouth, and hence also publicly for all. Private absolution is proffered to all, since the individual does not find himself directed simply, or in the first instance, to seek out a brother who may administer it to him ; but the keys, which have been given to the Church in its totality, have also, on account of, and for the benefit of, the entire body, specially-called administrants (Diener) to whom each separate member of the body may apply. This brings us to the doctrine of the ecclesiastical office (Amt) . The conception of the " office " is here a narrower one than that attaching to the term in those separate passages in which Luther calls the authority and administration of the keys which belong to every Christian an office.1 It is a term indicating public functions in general, and with it is always associated, in Luther's use of it, the idea of regular, permanent and formal appointment. " Office," says he, " means something appointed, such as there must be in every orderly administration of affairs among men, in order that it may accomplish various appointed and enjoined 'Vol. II., p. 527. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 543 tasks in the name of Him who holds the supreme authority, or in the interest of an entire congregation, that through it the other members may be benefited.1 That such special officials, pastors, and bishops are to admin ister the means of grace, and to this end must be regularly called, Luther taught from the very beginning. He insisted most strenuously upon this requirement in his polemical writings against the Fanatics, declaring that no one should under any circumstances presume to preach publicly who could not produce a mediate call from God, or — which was of course never to be looked for — an immediate call attested by miracles. Thus the community of believers falls for him into two sections, preachers and the laity.2 If we now more closely scrutinize his entire theory of this office and calling, we shall observe that, whilst he now felt himself called upon to emphasize chiefly the authority and dignity of the office, yet it also remained for him in its main features unchanged. The fundamental doctrine of the priestly character of all Chris tians, as, in their baptism, incorporated (eingeleibt) in Christ, the Priest, through faith, remains unaltered, and includes, indeed, particularly the right and authority to teach the Word of God. We have been already told that thus the keys also belong to the Church at large and all its members ; and it is even said that the " preaching-office " belongs to all.3 But it is then at once argued further : But not all can preach, but one must speak for the whole multitude. What would be the result, he asks, if every one wanted to talk and no one would yield to his neighbor? " They must commit it," says he, " or allow it to be committed, to one person." " There must be one who conducts the (preach ing of) the Word upon the instructions, and with the consent, of the others, who yet all, by their hearing of the message preached, bear testimony to the Word, and thus also instruct others. " For this purpose, therefore, particular individuals, to whom God has, as Paul says in Eph. iv. 1 1 sqq., given special gifts and adapted- ness for such office, should be selected from the body at large. It is, indeed, mainly to meet the requirements of this office that 1 Erl. Ed., ix, 219 sq. 2 Supra, pp. 90 sqq., 94. 3 Vol. I., pp. 353, 361, 415; Vol. II., p. 86. Erl. Ed., xxviii, 33; xxxi, 349; xl, 172 sq. ; xlvii, 169 sqq , 161. 544 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. the gifts and powers spoken of have been bestowed.1 And when ever such individuals have been regularly called out of the general body of priests for this particular ministry, they have already, in this their call, the " proper ordination "( Weihe), since the latter is nothing more than " a commandment, commission and calling to the office of the Christian Church." " Clerical rank is a min istry and calling of ministers of the Church " ( Ordo est mini- stei'ium et vocatio ministrorum ecclesiae) . " We shall see how we pastors can, on the ground of our baptism and the Word of God, be ordained and confirmed (in our office) without their (the Papists') chrism, by being elected and called." For this purpose, as was the custom of the apostles, the laying on of hands may be employed, in connection with prayer ; and there is no doubt that such prayer will bear fruit, in accordance with Matt, xviii. 19. The laying on of hands serves also to publicly ratify and attest the union between the pastor, or bishop, and his Church — that they will listen to him and that he will teach them — as a notary public attests secular matters, or as a pastor, in solemnizing a marriage, thereby ratifies, or attests, the union of the parties concerned.2 If, at any time thereafter, one so called shall cease to preach and exercise the office of the ministry, he takes his place again in the common ranks and is nothing more than any ordinary Christian.3 Of the particular forms to be observed in the calling of men to this office, and of the persons properly authorized to represent the entire body of the Church in the transaction, we shall here after have occasion to speak. At this point we stop only to remark, that the calling mediated through governments, princes, cities, etc., is regarded by Luther just as truly a proper calling as that of the first bishops by the apostles, and of modern bishops by their predecessors. The Church is " not at all bound to a regular succession of bishops, as claimed by the Papacy." He admonishes the person receiving such a call : " Thou shalt consider the voice of the community (reipublicae) the voice of God and shalt obey." 4 1 Erl. Ed., xl, 170 sq., 174 ; xlvii, 161 ; xvii, 250, 241 ; xv, 364 sq. ; ix, 220. 2 Vol. I., pp. 361, 373, 405 sq. Erl. Ed., xxxi, 348, 356 sq., 359. Jena, i, 578 b. Erl. Ed., lxv, 174; vi, 9; xxvi, 105. Upon the form of ordination, Tischr., ii, 383 sq. Erl. Ed., lxiv, 290 sqq. 3 Erl. Ed., xi, 171 sq. 4 Comm. ad Gal., i, 30 sq. Erl. Ed., xii, 49; xxxi, 356. Op. Ex., iii, 114. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 545 The office of the ministry, however, though having the basis and origin indicated, has been instituted by God Himself. Who ever has been inducted into it in the manner described must be regarded as one whom God Himself has called and consecrated. The rank, or order ("Stand"), which "has the ministry of the Word and of the sacraments," or (as Luther, adopting the tradi tional term, calls it) the " spiritual rank," has been established and instituted by God.1 Luther so maintains, even when explain ing the nature and basis of the office by means of the logical deduction of its necessity to which we have above referred. We may, however, in accordance with all the preceding, summarize his entire view in regard to this divine institution in the following particulars : The Word, together with the sacraments, has been bestowed upon and committed to the Church by God and Christ. It is the gracious will and the requirement of God that the latter, and particularly also the Word, be publicly employed.2 Preachers are needed, through whom the divine Word may be proclaimed everywhere and constantly, may reach posterity, and may, espe cially, be presented to the minds of uninstructed youth and the common people.3 To this end, the very nature of the case abso lutely requires, in order that all things may be done in becoming order,* and the work of God not come to nought in the midst of disgraceful confusion, that there be distinct individuals to attend to the public preaching of the Word, etc. In order that we may have such, God Himself endows some men with peculiar talent for such work and points them out to us as suitable persons to undertake it. Thus Christ Himself sent out His first great preachers, the inspired apostles, and they, in accordance with the divine will, appointed others to the preaching-office. Thus, also, is this office always to continue in the congregation. Such persons, therefore, as are called by the Church, upon her recogni tion of the divine will and the divine gifts, are really appointed by God. It was only in his later writings that Luther so strenuously maintained that such persons should therefore be received as the called of God, although he then still explained the mediation of the divine through the human calling in the same way as before. 'Erl. Ed., xxxi, 219; xl, 171; xxv, 346; ix, 2204 xx, 8 sq. 2 In regard to the Word, cf. supra, pp. 242, 494. 3 Erl. Ed., viii, 224. * I Cor. xiv. 40. Erl. Ed., xii, 346. 35 546 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. We find special emphasis laid also in the later, as compared with the earlier, utterances of Luther upon the gifts, or talents, by the bestowal of which God Himself provides for the congregation, or those who control its affairs, men properly endowed. Thus, for example, he acknowledges the evangelical preachers of Erfurt as real ministers of Christ HimseK, and the Church at that place as a properly-constituted one, because the former have been called by the council and are learned and highly gifted men, anointed with the Holy Spirit.1 He always insisted, moreover, that men rightly called, even though lacking the proper spirit, should be recog nized as regular ministers on account of the call which they have received and the divine means of grace which they administer. " Let him be what '.e may and such as he can be. Since he is in office, and is tolerated by the majority, do thou, too, be con tent. His personality does not make the Word of God and the sacraments either worse or better for thee ; for what he says and does is not anything of his own, but Christ says and does it all, in so far as he continues to rightly teach and perform his official acts — although, of course, the Church should not tolerate open vices. But do thou thyself be satisfied, and let the matter go, since thou alone canst not be the whole multitude." 2 The special blessing of God accompanies, in Luther's view, the exercise of the preaching-office by men properly called to it ; for in the possession and certainty of their divine calling they are able to achieve large results, whereas those who force themselves into such positions in a disorderly way and against the will of God, as intruders and leaders of factions, must lack, in their undertakings, the grace of God and the success that comes from Him. "Although they proclaim some salutary things, yet they do not edify." 3 Even the reading of the divine Word in private is, as we have heard, not so productive of results as the Word upon the lips of the public and specially authorized preacher.* The charge was brought against this teaching of Luther by those who despised the preaching-office, that its advocates " would thus establish again a spiritual tyranny over the Church, and place themselves in seats of authority and power, as the Pope formerly did." In response to this, he confesses that he is him- ' Briefe, vi, 181 sq., 180. 2Erl. Ed., xxv, 366. 3 Op. Ex., xvi, 199 sq. Erl. Ed., viii, 300; xv, 4, 9. Comm. ad Gal., i, 34. 4 Vol. II., 494. Erl. Ed., iv, 401. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 547 self afraid that such may be the case ; but, he adds, the beginning of such a calamity will be seen in the despising and banishment of true preachers of the Word, which may lead God in His anger to raise up veritable tyrants.1 Thus, in the passage in which Luther speaks of the three means of grace and of the keys as the fourth, he proceeds to say, that the Church may be known, in the fifth place, by the fact that it ordains, or calls, ministers (Kirchendiener) and has offices to fill.2 He even, in one passage, defines the Church as the " the whole multitude (Haufen) of the baptized and believing who belong to a pastor or bishop." 3 He insists particularly, also, that the pastors or bishops already in office shall participate in the induc tion of every new candidate into the ministry. As publicly and regularly appointed witnesses of the divine Word they are thus especially to approve the doctrine of the candidate so ordained, to receive him into their fellowship, and to confirm his appoint ment by the laying on of hands.* Yet the pastor is, for Luther, never anything more than the public administrant of that which belongs to the entire congregation, appointed by the congregation and ordained of God. It is only by a misuse of language that he is called a priest, by which term, when used, we should understand, in accordance with the original meaning of the word, not what is now meant by a priest, but an " elder" (irpeo-fSvrepos) } He exercises spiritual authority publicly and officially — not in outward dominion, of which there should be nothing in the Church, but in administering the Word and through it nourishing the flock. He administers the keys, but they have to do with spiritual loosing and binding, and should never presume to establish commandments and prohibitions. He rules, but only through preaching, admonition and oversight exer cised by means of the Word. Thus he is a bishop, or overseer, watchman, etc., and still, at the same time, a servant, and his power a ministry.6 ' Erl. Ed., xliii, 281. ¦ Ibid., xxv, 364. 3 Ibid., xxi, 123. 4 Cf. supra, p. 88. Erl. Ed., xxvi, 105. Briefe, vi, 180, 182. 6Vol. I., pp. 362, 425 sq. Erl. Ed., xxxi, 350; xl, 170. 6 Vol. I., pp. 304 sq., 425. Vol. II., 476. Erl. Ed., xliv, 3 sqq., 13; xxxi, 127 sqq., 156 sqq.; xxi, 438; xxxviii, 434; vi, 377 sqq. Church "govern ment" and spiritual power here become synonomous terms with Luther ; even 548 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. Luther habitually represents the pastor as exercising his office for the sake of the congregation, upon commission from it, and in its name. Of the preacher who is offensive to his parishioners, it is said, that " the people tolerate " him. The priest, errone ously so called, is, upon Luther's theory, not only a servant of Christ, but also " a servant of all the others " from whose midst he has been chosen. The listening congregation is even said, as we have seen, itself to teach to a certain extent with him ; and even when speaking of the celebration of the Lord's Supper, or the " proper mass," Luther declares : We do not allow him to utter the appointed words by himself, as though for his own person, but he is mouth for all of us, and we all utter them from the heart with him, etc.1 It is manKest from what has been previously said that the position just stated is in entire harmony with the principle, asserted with equal positiveness, that the pastor acts as a servant of Christ, under divine commission, and even in the Lord's stead. His peculiar functions are, above all else, the handling of the Word and the dispensing of the sacra ments directly appointed by Christ, who HimseK works in these, even when administered by unworthy men. That he, the ap pointed pastor, is to employ the Word and sacraments, must, in view of the call which he has received, be firmly maintained as the divine will and appointment ; and this the congregation is now also in duty bound to acknowledge. Referring at once to the divine institution of the means of grace and the divine authorization of those who are to administer and dispense them, Luther says : They, the preachers, are to proffer these — for the sake and in the name of the Church — but, much rather, by virtue of Christ's institution} Thus, the office of the ministry and its regular occupants are not to be left subject to every whim or wanton exercise of power upon the part of the congregation or rulers. The latter are not lords over pastors and their office, and, especially, dare not attempt to shield themselves from the rebukes which these are divinely authorized to administer.3 when he discriminates between governing power and the power of the kevs (supra, Vol. I., p. 368. Erl. Ed., xxi, 287), the former is credited with cnly general spiritual functions. 'Erl. Ed., xxx, 369; xl, 171 sq. ; xxv, 364; xvii, 250; xxxi, 350, 371. 2 Erl. Ed., xxv, 364. 3 Cf. also, especially, Briefe, v, 535 sqq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 549 Yet congregations and individual believers are, on the other hand, not under obligation to submit to the authority of those who bear this exalted office, if the latter attempt to force upon them doctrines or commandments of their own, instead of the Word of God alone. The public endorsement or condemnation of doctrines and spirits is, indeed — in the sense above explained — the province of the preaching-office. But yet, at the same time, the private members of the congregation may and should form their own judgment in regard to the truth, upon the basis of the Scriptures, which are themselves plain to the understanding of all. They not only, therefore, have the right, but it is their solemn duty, to forsake false shepherds and teachers. The declarations of Christ : " Whoso despiseth you despiseth me," and " Whoso heareth you heareth me," apply only to those preachers who really teach the Word of God in accordance with the Scriptures. In fact, these very words of Christ, interpreted according to their true intent, compel us to refuse to listen to the doctrines of men. It is possible, moreover, for even the body of assembled bishops to err and forsake the truth,, just as it is for any other public or private persons. Even the great mass of Christians in the world may, with their leaders, fall away.1 Luther, accordingly, always fully justified the course of those separate congregations which, without the sanction of their former priests and with an open declaration of their independence of the latter, followed their own convictions in espousing the cause of the pure Gospel, and called new ministers upon their own authority ; and he always recognized the calls thus extended as perfectly valid. Luther maintained, further, that laymen should be associated with the clergy, in a regular way and according to standing regulations, in passing judgment upon matters of faith referred to councils. In the organization of the latter there should be included a number of intelligent, true-hearted men of secular callings, for they also- have an interest in the matters to be considered. To the theologian, Marbach, to the correctness of whose doctrinal view he afterwaids bore testimony, he assigned, as the topic for his disputation preparatory to the reception of the doctor's degree (A.D. 1543), the question: "Whether in a synod 1 Vol. I., pp. 505 sqq , 261 sq. Briefe, v, 535. Erl. Ed., xxviii, 336; xxv, 366. Jena, i, 552 b; Vol. I., p. 506. 550 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. (Synode) the bishops alone have the decisive suffrage in deter mining dogmas." The conclusion was : " Therefore, since it is the supreme decision of the Church, which consists of doctors and the rest of the community (coetu), it is necessary that judges be selected from both parties."1 Excommunication, we have been already told, should not be administered except with the co operation of the congregation and with its endorsement. The latter is not to be a handmaiden, but an associate judge and bosom-companion (wife).2 In addition to the public administration of the Word and the keys thus provided for, there remains, finally, for every member of the congregation, by virtue of his priestly office, the authority and duty of instiucting, comforting, or admonishing his neighbor through the Word of God, as necessity may require. Thus fathers and mothers are to teach their children and their servants, and brothers, neighbors, fellow-citizens, etc., one another. We recall what has been said in regard to absolution received at the hand of a brother. Of this private, personal announcement of the Word, as for its public proclamation, it is said : " I hear only the voice of the pastor, or of my brother or father ; but if I were to conclude, further, that the works of my father or pastor were not his, but the words of our God HimseK, I would judge rightly." 3 Luther thus assigns to the regularly-constituted office of the ministry a place by the side of the means of grace which are granted to the Church, and in the use of which her IKe is perpe tuated. But he assigns to it such a position only as a service rendered in their administration, whereas the spirit of life is not in it, but in the means of grace themselves. And, however ear nestly the constitution of the office by the congregation and the cherishing of a proper respect for it are insisted upon, it is still, according to Luther, possible for souls to be incorporated into Christ and the common body of His saints merely through the private use of the Word. Where the public preaching of the Gospel is entirely prohibited, as among the Turks and heathen and even under papal tyrants, there this private use of the Word ' Erl. Ed., xxv, 350 sq., 346. Seckendorf, Hist. Luth., Ill, \ 112. Briefe v> 543- 2 Erl. Ed., xxxi, 177. 3 Ibid., xl, 172 sq.; xvii, 241. Briefe, iv, 674; v, 38 sq. Erl. Ed., xlvii, 221. Supra, p. 527. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 55 I is sufficient for all essential purposes. Even in such places the Christian Church truly exists. When the regular office of the ministry has disappeared through the apostasy of its incumbents, the Church, or Christian community, has not therefore perished, but can and should constitute the office anew by summoning men from its own membership to the ministry. It is manifest from all the foregoing why Luther, despite his high estimate for the office in question, never included, nor could include, it with the Word in his ordinary utterances concerning the fundamental nature of the Church. In the comprehensive enumeration of the signs of the Church (by which it is recognized) which we have been following, we find mentioned, as the sixth and seventh, prayer and the holy cross, which must be laid particularly upon the true Church in consequence of the hatred of the world, and whose divine pur pose is to lead the latter to cling firmly to Christ and the Word of God.1 Thus we have " seven redemptive agencies " (Heilthiimer • sanctities), or " the proper seven -principal parts of the exalted redemptive agency " (Heilthum) by which the Holy Spirit accomplishes the daily sanctification and vivification of believers. Luther would even like to call them the seven sacraments,2 if that word had not been so misused by the Papists, besides being otherwise employed in the Scriptures. The sanctification which God thus effects in His people must now also bear fruit in their lives, by means of which the character of His saints becomes manifest. Hence all the fruits displayed in the moral life of believers are further external signs by which the Church may be known.3 But, adds Luther, they are not as reliable as those previously mentioned ; for such works are often performed likewise, and that with an appearance of greater sanctity than among Christians, by the heathen, although they are then not done sincerely from the heart and for God's sake, but with some other object in view. And, not only in their signifi cance as signs, but also in their relation to the perpetuity and character of the Church itself, Luther always expressly subordi nates them to the pure preaching of the Word, or to pure doctrine, which alone can produce an amendment of the life, and whose ' Erl. Ed., xxv, 374 sqq. 2 Vol. I., p. 403 sq. 3 Erl. Ed., xxv, 376 sqq. ; vi, 67 ; 1, 40. 552 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. corruption contaminates the whole multitude, whereas the corrupt life of the individual injures commonly only himself.1 The necessity for such a constant insistence upon the diligent use of the objective, beatifying and sanctifying Word arises inevitably from Luther's entire conception of salvation and the Christian life. At the same time, there remains, it is true, some ground for the question upon our part, whether this general position of Luther really of necessity involves such an exaltation of the doctrine expressed in fixed formulae as we find in his writings, and whether — as Luther recognizes a reacting influence exerted by the moral deportment of the individual upon his inner spiritual apprehen sions — he might and should not have recognized, also, a retro active influence of the moral condition of the congregation upon its inner apprehension of the truth and upon the effective procla mation of the living Word within its bounds.2 j Besides these saving instrumentalities, which are cherished in the Church as divine institutions, and which are regarded as effectual through the accompanying power of the Spirit, there are, still further, various external customs, or modes of administration, which have no sanctifying power, and have not been commanded or instituted by God, but which " are outwardly necessary or useful, are proper and becoming, and which produce an orderly discipline and church economy" (i Cor. xiv. 40). They are the orderly and appropriate forms in which the dispensing and administration of the means of grace in the congregation, prayer, etc., are to be clothed. They embrace chiefly such matters as the appointed order of divine worship, the celebration of particular days and hours, the use of altars, priestly vestments, etc., and further, for example, the observance of fasting, as a religious ceremony, by the congregation at large. We have here no longer to do with matters appointed by God, but with human arrangement, precept or tradition. In regard to all things of this kind, Luther's unvarying testimony is, that they are not to be again exalted to the position of essential matters, Yior regarded as binding upon the conscience. He expresses himself with great discrimination as follows : To the work which God ordains 'Erl. Ed., xxv, 375; xvii, 35. (Thus already in A. D. 1523; cf. also Loscher, i, 225, 231. Supra, Vol. I., p. 205 sq., before A. D. 15 17) ; xliv, 95; xvi, 100 sq. ; xxxiv, 241, 351. 2 Cf., upon this doctrine, also our remarks, supra, p. 429. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 553 — preaching, prayer, the discipline of the flesh — tradition dare not append a new compulsory work. Its province, on the con trary, is merely to lay hold of the work divinely prescribed, and to presuppose, as it were, the appointment of the essential thing in question, which it then solemnizes, as they say, and invests with quantity, quality, the where, the when, and the special end in any case. For example, the giving of thanks is a work * * * of divine precept, but becomes also a work of tra dition when the latter dictates: We wish it to be performed at such an hour, in such a place, in such a posture. But these appointments of accidental matters in his works God wishes to be free and truly " accidentia." 1 We recall our earlier notice of the toleration of " tradition " in this sense.2 He habitually represents even the observance of Sunday in this light.3 Nor is it the province of the pastor or bishop to appoint such customs and methods, but that of the Church, i. e., the whole body of baptized and believing persons belonging to the pastor or bishop. The pastor may exhort the Church to approve fasts, prayers, festivals, etc., but he dare impose no ceremonies — " unless by the consent of the Church, either expressed or tacit. " * Individual believers should submit to wholesome ordinances. " Yet if any one be sometimes unable, on account of distress, sickness, hindrances of various kinds, to observe such ordinances, it must not be accounted a sin." Such ordinances may be also omitted without sin, unless, indeed, the omission should give offence to the weak.5 The conception of the " spiritual power," or that of the keys themselves, Luther never applied to the arrangement of such forms. Just in view, however, of the liberty which we enjoy in regard 'Erl. Ed., xxv, 383 sqq, 393 sqq. Briefe, iv, 122, 125. 2 Vol. I., p. 502. 3 Vol. I., pp. 207, 358; II., p. 38 sqq. Erl. Ed., xxi, 48 sqq.; xxiii, 52; xxv, 275; .xvii, 247 sqq. Although Luther declares in a passage already cited (supra, p. 343) that the Seventh day was hallowed in Paradise, he still says (Erl. Ed., xxxi, 443, A. D. 1538), that " Moses now names the seventh day (in the Third Commandment), and the injunction to do no work on that day because God created the world in six days is the temporary dress in which Moses clothes this commandment for his people particularly for that time ; for previously we find nothing of this kind recorded either of Abraham or of the times of the patriarchs." Cf. further, supra, p. 39 sq. 4 Erl. Ed., xxxi, 123 sq. Briefe, iv, 106. 5 Erl. Ed., xxv, 340 sq. Comm. ad Gal., ii, 167. 554 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. to ceremonies, Luther would have those who are inwardly free and strong display the greatest possible consideration for the weak and simple-minded in the transformation of ancient customs. No offence should be given them in their weakness, and the new measure should be made specially helpful in furnishing to such the stimulus, instruction and discipline which they may particu larly need.1 But, beyond this, not only should no further attention be paid to the opposition of members of the congregation hope lessly attached to papal customs, but the wanton insubordination of reckless characters, who never will agree to anything of a general nature or for the common interest, should be restrained, in order that the new measure may find general acceptance. In the same connection, Luther warns also against too many and needless differences in the customs of the various individual churches.2 But he always lays by far the greatest stress upon his testimony against every ancient or modern attempt at compul sion, against all legality in matters of this kind, and ail passion for conformity. He will never hear of the compromise, suggested in the interest of church unity, whose advocates sought to inter pret the customs of the Romish Church in as unobjectionable way as possible, and appealed to the duty of Christian love. He says : " It will not do (nihil est) to boast of love in order to attack liberty. If the devil crowds in a finger, he will overturn everything." Even when presenting the liturgy which he him seK prepared especially for Wittenberg, he expressly disowned all intention of urging it upon other churches. He advises against the holding of an evangelical council for the establish ment of common forms for the Churches of the Reformation, because he foresees the danger of awakening a new zeal for human ordinances, and because he regarded the true unity of the Church as already sufficiently guarded in the faith of the divine Word. He declares : " Necessity itself requires that ceremonies be diverse." If there but remain unity of doctrine, harmony may easily be attained in the midst of such diversity, just as in music different voices beautifully blend. He would, further, allow the new liturgies, before being published in the form of statutes, to be first developed in actual practice, and as though spontaneously ¦ 1 Vol. I., pp. 418, 464. Vol. II., p. 34. 2 Erl. Ed., xxiii, 9. Briefe, iii, 353; iv, 2S2. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 555 in the separate localities. They should then be published, not as strict requirements, but as matters of historical record. Their liability to change should always be acknowledged, and further future revisions be constantly kept in view.1 The whole matter of ceremonial agitation is so distasteful to him, that, when asked by the prince of Anhalt for advice in regard to ecclesiastical cus toms, he bluntly declares (A. D. 1545) : "I am impatient of even necessary ceremonies, but hostile to those which are not necessary ; for it is easy for ceremonies to grow into laws, and, once established as laws, they soon become snares for the con science." 2 The motives, finally, by which Luther was controlled, in changing or leaving unchanged the traditional forms of the Church, were still of the same nature as those which had guided him in his earlier years. The natural conservatism which was thus manifested was reinforced after the Carlstadt controversy by his abhorrence of the new legal, and at the same time disorderly, spirit then evoked, which made necessary requirements again out of optional matters, and, still further, by his dread of the opening of needless questions among the rude populace, which might easily become the means of leading them to despise the Word itself. Yet we have already seen 3 how he proceeded at a later date, e. g., in abolishing the elevation of the host, when there seemed to be no further occasion for such precautionary delay. He always kept in view, moreover, as the class to whom chiefly forms are to be adapted, not eminent Christians, but the young of the Church. He says in the German Mass, which appeared in 1526, that if we had an assemblage of only such as earnestly desired to be Christians, we would there have no need of " much and great singing," and would require only a short and suitable form in administering baptism and the Lord's Supper. The liturgy which he now himseK offers is designed, he says, for plain people, some of whom are not yet Christians, but of whom the greater number only stand and gape after something new, and who must have in divine service, first of all, some public incite ment toward Christian living. He later says, in the same spirit, 1 Briefe, iii, 197 ; v, 260 sqq. Erl. Ed., xxii, 227. Briefe, ii, 563 ; iv, 600 ; v, 539. Erl. Ed., xxiii, 9. Briefe, vi, 81 ; iv, 528, 106. Erl. Ed., xxxi, 124. 2 Briefe, vi, 379. 3 Supra, p. 184. 556 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. that Christians of the right kind need no pulpit, altar, etc., but that we should follow the established order, with certain places, hours, etc., for the sake of the children and the plain multitude.1 " Some ceremonies are useful to the multitude in arousing their dull souls." 2 In regard to the relation of the present form of divine worship to that of the apostles, we have already1 heard him declare, that the mode pursued by the latter would not be possible with the present arrangement of congregations and pastors, and was not made obligatory by the apostles themselves. Under this same point of view — as in itseK optional, yet useful, salutary, and demanded by a duejegard for order and discipline — we must, with Luther, include also the particular concrete form of the one preaching, or pastoral, office. All who hold this office have in equal measure the commission and ministerial calling to rule through the Word ; and the Scriptures understand by bishops nothing more than presbyters. But, just as they differ from one another in natural endowments, so may and should also some be placed over others by human appointment for the better dis charge of the duties of the office. Thus Luther, in his letter to the Bohemians, already suggested the introduction of superin tendents and visitors, and even the establishment of an archi- episcopate ; and he thus, also, assisted in the establishment of the plan of church visitations in Saxony. He then applies the terms, " bishops," or " overseers," or — according to Rom. xii. 8 — " rulers " (Regierer) , in a narrower sense to those only who " are to watch over all offices, that they are properly administered." * On the other hand, he gave no sanction to the idea of a new primacy over the entire Church, which should not, like that of the Papacy, claim " divine right," but which should be introduced upon mere human authority, simply for the better preservation of unity. He sees that it would be impossible for the Pope to accede to such a plan, and he foresees that it would, in any event, soon be treated with contempt, would retain the allegiance of none, and would lead to widespread disorders. But the Pope, as he now is, he always with great earnestness represents as Anti- 'In A. D. 1539. 2 Briefe, iii, 294. Erl. Ed., xxii, 229 sqq. ; xxv, 384. Briefe, iv, 210, 282. 8 Supra, p. 95. 4Vol. I., pp. 302, 426 sq., 368. Vol. II., p. 88. Erl. Ed., vi, 377 sqq.; xxiii, 4 sqq. ; viii, 26. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 557 christ, who, as the man of sin, sets himseK up in his presumption against all that is called God.1 In possession thus of the divine means of grace, in the employ ment of them, embracing also the various human forms in which they are administered, in faith upon Christ and sanctification through His Spirit, the genuine Christian world is the community, or Church, of Christ — the people of God. In it Christ has His spiritual kingdom and dominion.2 For the sake of His Church, and from within it, He allows His blessings to flow out upon the whole world.3 This Church is the Holy Church — hallowed through its Head and His Word and sacraments — in Christ, even perfectly right eous, holy and without spot — hallowed, also, through the daily purifying power of the Spirit working in its members, although in them ever stained by much sin and hence constantly im ploring forgiveness. Nor is it made unholy by the many false Christians yet within it. Open sinners it makes holy, or by excommunication casts them out from participation in the saving ordinances. Yet the unholy in its communion are always only like boils and ulcers upon a sound body. The little company of God's children is a vigorous, healthy body, although mingled with it may be found filth and stench which must be cast out.* All believers and saints are, moreover, despite all outward divisions and difference in their human customs, bound together under the One Plead, through the One Spirit, the Word, baptism, etc., in one faith, heart and mind — with manifold gifts, but yet harmonious in Christian love. It is One Church.5 Thus the Church, in its character as universal, embraces the believing of all places, even under the Pope, among the Turks, etc.6 It extends none the less, as the One Catholic Church, through all ages. Even under the Papacy this true community of Christ continued to exist, and the present evangelical Church ' Vol. I., pp. 293 sqq., 309, 426 sq. Erl. Ed., xxv, 123 sq. ; xli, 295 sqq. 2 Supra, p. 423. 3 Supra, p. 324. Briefe, v, 443. 4 Vol. I., p. 306. Comm. ad Gal., iii, 38 sqq. Op. Ex., xviii, 176, 215. Erl. Ed., xxv, 354; supra, p. 457. Erl. Ed., xxv, 363; xvi, 246 sqq., 259 sq. ; ii, 53, 58 ; xlix, 268. 5 Vol. I., pp. 303 sq., 364. Erl. Ed., xxi, 103. Cf. what has been said above in regard to ceremonies. 6 Vol. I., p. 308. Erl. Ed., xxx, 369; ix, 263. 558 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. is one with it. Despite all the corruptions of the Romish Church, there were still preserved in it by God not only the Word, baptism, the Lord's Supper, absolution, prayer, the office of the ministry, etc., but ever also, together with these, a number of believers and saints, although, indeed, " everything went feebly " there.1 Still further, the Church of God was already in existence throughout Old Testament times, under the old carnal forms appointed for Israel, and, particularly, with an outward priest hood and natural succession, in the posterity of Abraham and the family of Aaron.2 It originated with Adam in Paradise.3 This Church, ruled by the Holy Spirit, was and is also ever the "pillar and ground of the truth" (i Tim. iii. 15). It cannot err, because it abides by the word of Scripture, which is essen tially clear. God has also always preserved to Himself some believing souls, whom He has, at least before their death, made sound in their faith. It is not possible that the whole Church, i. e., all Christians, should have fallen into error in leading articles of faith, as, e. g., that of baptism, or of the presence of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper. That Church, it is true, which is generally thought of under the term, i. e., the visible Church, may and does err. The true Church, or community of Christ, cannot be brought together at one place, and it is often found in places where we would be least' likely to expect it. And even it, or, in other words, the genuine believers or saints who compose it, falls at least temporarily into errors, by allowing itseK to be drawn from the Word, and hence it always needs the article upon forgiveness. But it is one thing to err, and another thing to remain in error : the Church of Christ cannot remain in error. In considering the liability of the Church and saints to error, we must therefore always regard them in a two-fold light : first, according to the Spirit, and secondly, according to the flesh — and consider whether even their worship and employment of the Word do not smack of the flesh.* 1 Vol. I., p. 421 sq. Erl. Ed., I, 7 sqq. , 13 sq. Op. Ex., iii, 56. Erl. Ed., xxxi, 320, 339 sqq. ; xxvi, 10 sqq. 2 Supra, pp. 361, 363. Op. Ex., iii, 55 sqq. 3 Supra, pp. 343 sq., 361, 363. 4 Vol. I., pp. 317, 319, 408 sq., 422, 505. Vol. II., pp. 53sq., 160 sq., 163. Jena, iii, 181 b. Erl. Ed., xxxi, 332; xxvi, 35 sqq., 1, 9 (vid. supra, p. 270 sqq ) ; xlvi, 229 sqq. ; 1, 304; xlvi, 234; xl, 235 ; xi, 10; xxv, 59 sqq.; xxxi, 332 ; xlvi, 247. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 559 Although Luther, in defending infant baptism and the bodily presence in the Lord's Supper, so eagerly appeals to the univer sality of the custom and doctrine advocated in the Church, which cannot, in its totality and perpetually, err, it is yet here again manifest, on the other hand, how impossible it would be, in his view, for any external decision of the Church to give certainty in regard to the true doctrine, since there must always remain room to inquire, whether the true saints are represented in the assembly in question, and, further still, whether the flesh may not, in the particular instance at hand, have temporarily beclouded the vision of even the true believers present. With such a conception of the nature of the Church, it remains for Luther always an object of faith, and not of sight — to be recog nized, indeed, by the signs above enumerated in so far that we may know the circuit within which the saints are to be found, and may, to a certain extent, form conclusions in regard to indi vidual members from the fruits borne in their lives — but not so clearly as to discriminate with certainty between such individual saints, or the true people of God, and the unholy, nor to see the holiness of the former. The difficulty of such discernment is increased by the outward insignificance of the true Church, the overwhelming preponderance of the false church in comparison, and the subjection to shame and tribulation, beneath which the former lies hidden like the treasure in the field, although it, in reality, has its hidden life with Christ in God.1 This is, it will be observed, still Luther's original view of the Church as the little company of holy believers, actually existing, living in the world, and yet, in its real nature, invisible. We have here again heard him declaring, that impenitent sinners and enemies of the Gospel, even though not formally excluded from the fellowship of the sacraments, no longer belong to the Church in the true sense of the word. Nevertheless, he still without hesitancy applies the name " Church " also, in the traditional wa}', to the collective body of those who stand in the outward fellow ship of the means of grace, the confession and the ecclesiastical ordinances — to the whole field, upon which the tares are growing 'Vol. I., pp. 365 sq. (cf. with this also Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, III, ii, 391, Note against Munchmeyer), 426 sq. Erl. Ed., xxv, 376. Comm. ad Gal., iii, 38. Briefe, iv, 316. Erl. Ed., xviii, 139; xxxv, 338. Op. Ex., xviii, 177 ; xxiii, 23 sq. ; viii, 193 sqq. Jena, iv, 342 b. 560 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. with the wheat — to the body, including the boils found upon it. Even Paul, he says, thus still addresses the degenerate Galatians as congregations. In one of his latest books, he even says that the Scriptures apply the name " Church," in the first place, to all those who confess one doctrine and participate in the same sacraments, despite the commingling of many hypocrites and ungodly ; and, then also, to that pure portion, or the elect, who embrace the Word with true faith and receive the Holy Spirit. He grants that we may thus yet speak even of a " holy Romish Church." Yet in such a use of the word he sees only the figure of speech, synecdoche. Peculiarly and properly, as he now again asserts, the name, " Holy Church," belongs only to the pure portion of the visible communion.1 The doctrine of Luther concerning the Church has now been viewed in all its fundamental elements, and has been seen to constitute a complete whole, itseK truly harmonious in form, and standing, likewise, in profound and clear mutual relations with his entire view of saving truth in general. There yet remains for us the task of consideiing more carefully this "community of saints" in all its relations to that ordinance, or power, to which the secu lar life has been as such subjected, and which must now also be, and is, administered by Christians, namely, the " secular power?' or " civil government." We must then, further, observe how these general principles of Luther in regard to the nature and life of the Church, and especially in regard to the preaching-office and the relation of the congregation to the latter, were applied, in accordance with his own suggestions, to the actual circum stances of the age, and thus attained a concrete development. These two lines of investigation can be best pursued together ; for it was only after Luther had been called upon as a Reformer to deal with these practical and already existing conditions that we find clearly and constantly brought into prominence those views of the relation of the civil government to the Church which ever remained characteristic of his teaching. The theory thus developed as to the province of the civil government exercised also the greatest influence upon the form assumed by the Church, 1 Erl. Ed., xvi, 247 ; ii, 53 ; supra, p. 80. Op. Ex., xx, 7 sq. Comm. ad Gal. i, 40 sq. Jena, iv, 817. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 561 or community of believers, wherever his doctrines penetrated. It is worthy of very particular attention, also, that we find the views referred to far less fully expressed in his own formal doctrinal writings than in letters and expressions of opinion drawn from him in the course of outward events. In this sphere also, we shall find in Luther fixed general principles and doctrines. But, at the same time, we cannot fail to observe frequent wavering and danger of falling into contradictions. The cause of this is to be sought, not only in the difficulties which the existing state of affairs usually interposes to the actual realization of the clearest and most practical ideas ; but we must acknowledge that he did not so profoundly investigate the questions which arose in regard to the relation of the civil government to ecclesiastical matters as he had done in the case of those relating to the doctrine of salvation and the inner nature of the Church, but, on the con trary, remained here more largely under the influence of tradi tional general premises. To what extent, it was inquired, and in what way, could the Church, despite all the carnal infirmities and impure members which still inevitably cling to it, nevertheless be actually exem plified in the world as the holy congregation of Christ? Luther constantly reiterated the demand that open sinners be cast out. Must it not, in the end, result in the establishment of a com munity such as that of which he speaks in his German Mass, which should consist only of such members as earnestly desire to be Christians, exercise discipline properly against unchristian members according to Matt, xviii., and need for themselves few external forms? J Still further, in what form should the partici pation of the congregation, as such, be concretely realized in the exercise of discipline ; in the calling of ministers, who must, it has been claimed, receive from it their commission ; in the confirma tion of ecclesiastical laws, which, it was taught, must have its approval ; and even in passing judgment upon teachers already ordained and their teaching, inasmuch as it is charged, above all things else, to be on its guard against shepherds who prove un faithful to the Gospel? And how, finally, should all this be accomplished if the congregation is still to retain among its members so many who have as yet no personal experience of ' Erl. Ed., xxii, 230 sq. 36 562 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. true Christian life, or who are strongly disposed to disorderly conduct? It will be necessary for us to follow the course of historical events and circumstances in order to discover Luther's attitude upon these questions ; and we shall find that it was his conception of the province of the civil authorities which here exercised the controlling influence. We have already seen that it was among the original funda mental principles of Luther, that the secular sphere belongs to the domain of the civil authorities, but not the spiritual sphere in which the Church lives and moves. The civil government has to do with the latter only in so far as this also requires for its continuation in the world the preservation of peace in the land.1 But, since the existing, secularized ecclesiastical authorities of the Papal Church now refused to render any relief to the Church in its distressed condition, Luther called upon those who wielded the secular authority to render assistance, as fellow-citizens and fellow-priests, just because they, by reason of this their civil authority, were in position to do so most effectively.2 We have here, primarily, nothing more than the idea of assistance to be tendered in an emergency, as against the encroachments of the unchristian power of the corrupt Church authorities, and, at the same time, as against the disorderly intrusion of individuals uncalled. The aim was merely to open the way for a proper representation of the Church in a council, which might, when once assembled, adopt such measures as required by the circum stances. Nor was it proposed at all that the authority of such a council should then make the acceptance of the new evangelical ordinances a matter of commandment or compulsion. Luther thus, in his tract, published early in the year 1523, Von weltlicher Obrigkeit, etc., still says, in opposing the prohibition of evan gelical books by the government, that not only has the civil government no authority to exercise any compulsion in matters of faith, but that it lies, not within its province, but in that of the bishops, to guard against false, deceptive doctrine and heresy.3 Since, then, there could evidently be no thought of a reformation through a free evangelical council, Luther's next idea was that, 1 Supra, p. 482 sq. 2 Vol. I., p. 375. 3 Erl. Ed., xxii, 90. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 563 in the various countries and cities, the civil authorities should allow, under their protection, the free preaching of the Word, which would then conquer by its own inherent power, and should assist and confirm the new measures introduced by any Christian community under their jurisdiction which may have been aroused to spiritual activity by the Word thus preached. In this spirit he wrote, for example, to the council of Prague, A. D. 1523, advising that the decision of the question, whether the new form (of worship) should be introduced throughout all Bohemia, be referred to the existing estates of the land, but that no compul sion be employed in any separate districts.1 Yet, as early as A. D. 1522, he had already gone farther in his utterances in relation to the ecclesiastical affairs of Saxony (and also Schwartzburg) , in which he was, of course, most directly interested. He now not only maintained that the civil ruler may secure the pure p?-eaching of the Word, but that he may guard his people against the false and stubborn papal preachers, and, instead of the latter, who have forfeited their official character by opposing the Gospel, may help to appoint, or himself appoint, new pastors. In contrast with the quotation in the preceding paragraph from the tract, Von weltlicher Obrigkeit, we must cite also from the Treue Vermahnung — vor Aufruhr, etc., published in 1522, the declaration, that we should not, indeed, kill the miserable priests, as did Elijah, but we should prohibit by word of mouth and restrain by force their machinations against the Gospel. Princes and rulers must in this way do their part, in order to avert the wrath of God. In A. D. 1525, we reach at length the completely developed view of the matter, which, from that time on, remained the controlling principle for the theologians and princes of the Reformation, namely : that open blasphemies against the divine name, such as, for example, that perpetrated in the abomination of the mass, are to be accounted a public dis grace, which the civil authorities should take proper means to prevent. It is the province of the latter to prohibit " externas abominationes." Luther makes the further broad assertion, that it is the duty of the civil government, as such, to honor the Word of God, to demand that it be taught, etc.2 This was essentially 1 Supra, p. 88. Jena, ii, 586 b. 2 Briefe, ii, 192 sq., 258. Erl. Ed., xxii, 49. Briefe, iii, 50, 89; iv, 93 sq. Erl. Ed., xxxix, 244, 250. 564 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. the same view as that which the opposing party also maintained, and which held sway in the entire traditional theory, legislation and practice.1 The only distinction lay in the fact, that Luther released the princes from the dependence upon the judgment of the Papal Church as to what is really the teaching of the Word of God, and summoned them to act according to their own inde pendent convictions as to the contents of the Scriptures. They received also, through the edicts of the Diet of Spires in 1526, lawful authority to act for the time being in external matters of this kind upon their own territories. As to the false evangelical errorists, the Anabaptists and Fanatics, Luther was at first very anxious, in the interest of the Word itself, that the latter should be allowed to assert its power and thus itseK vanquish its opponents, and that the disorderly spirits should be permitted to fight among themselves without interference. So late as February, 1525, he endeavored to regard certain Fanatics who appeared in Nuremburg " as not yet blas phemers," but only misguided Christians.2 But his judgment in the premises was quite different, so soon as, in his opinion, the free Word had borne sufficiently clear testimony against their folly. Even the apologetic utterance last cited suggests the category of blasphemers as that under which the Fanatics were naturally included. He now further justifies active measures against the Fanatics, on the one hand, and the Papists, upon the other, upon the ground that it is the duty of the civil government to preserve harmony in the land and to prevent all schisms and quarrels. Otherwise, says he, we should have to expect insurrection at length in consequence of the teachings of these " perverse " preachers. The government dare never tolerate any schismatic doctrine. He combines both points of view in the declaration, that the government must with its sword guard against the offence of false doctrine and improper divine worship ; otherwise all authority would be undermined and all manner of calamities would ensue.3 We must, finally, not overlook the assertion of Luther, that " all things which we adorn with ceremonies, as vestments, postures, 1 Cf. also Briefe, iv, 93 sq. 2 Briefe, ii, 135, 547, 622. 3 Briefe, iii, 89, 489. Erl. Ed., xxiii, 9; ii, 59 sq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 565 fasts, festivals," are secular, earthly matters, under the supervision of reason, and hence reason here may act and control.1 He says this, it is true, only in attempting to prove that the fasts and festivals demanded by the Papists might be regarded as merely a sort of secular ordinances established by the civil authorities,2 and not with any thought of furnishing the evangelical princes an argument to justify the adoption on their part of measures affect ing the cultus of the Church. But, in the actual measures adopted under the official sanction of the civil authorities of the day, the two points of view were not kept clearly distinct in the minds of the people. The evangelical civil rulers, accordingly, now abolished masses, appointed new preachers, threatening the recalcitrant with expatri ation, and before long began to prepare comprehensive new liturgical forms for the conduct of divine worship and the regu lation of the pastoral office, introducing the latter under civil protection and instruction. That such a course was in itself not justified either by the peculiar calling of the civil government or by the nature of the Church, Luther, indeed, expressly declares in his preface to the Saxon Visitationsunterricht of 1528. Since, he there says, there was a pressing necessity for the re-establish ment of the proper episcopal and visitatorial office, and yet no one of us had a calling, or clear commission, for its exercise * * * "we have endeavored to keep upon sure ground,3 and, confining ourselves to the office of love (which is common and commanded to all Christians), have humbly implored His Elec toral Grace, out of love (for it could not be required on the basis of his worldly authority) and for God's sake, * * * to call and ordain persons for this office." He declares, in a similar way, in connection with the installation of an evangelical bishop at Naumburg, that the chapter at that place should itself properly have undertaken the election of the one to fill this office ; but that, since the incumbents of the office refuse to discharge their duty, the secular officers must be emergency- bishops, and protect the true preachers and assist them to preach. He appeals also to Isa. xlix. 23 (kings shall be thy nursing-fathers), which the church-orders often apply directly to the participation of the ' Briefe, iv, 143. 2Cf. supra, p. 473. 3" Des Gewissen wollen spielen"; cf. Erl. Ed., xxxi, 59, 325. 566 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. secular princes in the affairs of the Church. Only thus, indeed, could his principle, that the government should tolerate only the One Church of the pure Word, be perfectly carried out ; but care must be exercised that the inward regulation of the Church be left in the hands of purely ecclesiastical agencies. It is to be regarded, furthermore, as the actual duty of Christian rulers, according to other utterances of Luther, to render this service of love in such cases of necessity. The Preface above referred to declares further, that, although the prince is not commanded to teach and to exercise spiritual sway, he must yet, as a secular ruler, see to it that strife and faction do not break out in his realm.1 Luther then describes as teaching not to be tolerated, and as blasphemy, every denial of any article clearly based upon the Scriptures and believed by the whole Christian Church. In this category he includes, for example, the Romish doctrine of satis faction for sin rendered by man himseK, and the Zwinglian doc trine upon the Lord's Supper. In disputes between Papists and evangelical Christians, the government shall investigate, and im pose silence upon the party whose principles do not agree with the Scriptures. Effective measures should be taken against cor ner-preachers because, in the first place, they come uncalled and create discord ; and, further, because of their disposition to encourage Anabaptistic insurrection against the established seculax- order. All such persons should be commanded to keep silence, and, K they do not obey, driven out of the land. Slanderers of the Lutheran doctrine and of the office of the ministry are threat ened with imprisonment.2 Yet Luther always expresses himself most decidedly against the infliction of the death-penalty upon false teachers ; fearing that there might otherwise be among the adherents of the Gospel a repetition of the papal abuse of power. It was another matter entirely when he sanctioned the use of the sword, although "a cruel thing to see," against Anabaptists, since they undertake even to destroy the " kingdoms of the world." 3 But, with all these concessions to the civil authority, he repeat edly declares, that no one dare, nor can, be driven to faith itself. 'Erl. Ed., xxiii, 5 sq. ; xxvi, 103; xxiii, 9; cf. Richter, Kirchenordnun- gen, i, 77. 2Erl. Ed., xxxix, 250 sqq ; xxxi, 217; xliii, 313. Briefe, iii, 263; iv, 407. 355 5 v> '. 5°7- 3 Briefe, iii, 347 sq. Erl. Ed., xxvi, 256 ; xvi, 259 sqq. Briefe, vi, 291. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 567 Every one may in private blaspheme, conduct divine worship, or, read books, as much as he pleases.1 Yet, on the other hand, he goes so far as to say that, without attempting to drive slan derers of true doctrine to faith, we should compel them to attend preaching for the sake of the Ten Commandments, in order that they may at least learn the outward works of obedience — and, with reference to the ignorant (what might, however, be only too readily applied also to errorists), that we should require pastors and the children of the Church, under penalty, to make proper use of the Catechism, in order that those who want to be called Christians may at least be compelled to learn what a Christian ought to know, whether or not they will then believe it.2 In view of the above principles, it is easy to explain the actual character of the congregations which were formed as evangelical organizations under such activity and instructions on the part of the civil authorities, and under the preaching thus provided. We have already presented the idea advanced by Luther in 1526 in regard to a congregation composed entirely of genuine Christians. He adds, when suggesting this, that he cannot, however, and would not, attempt as yet to organize such a congregation, since he had not the people needed for the purpose ; but that, if the time should ever come when he could no longer with a good conscience refuse to make such an attempt, he will do the best that he can to accomplish it. He had expressed the same thought in the part of the Church Postils which appeared in 1525, together with the remark, that he would gladly have done so long ago, but the matter had not yet been sufficiently preached and urged. Against the Homberg plan of reformation, of the year 1525, which sought to carry out this idea, he raised no objection on the ground of its essential character, but merely held that such an order should and could not be at once introduced as a law.3 In March of the following year, he is still in hopes that by means of the Church Visitation there may be established, instead of the "theatrical assemblage" (concio theatralis), of Christians and non-christians together, a " gathering of Chris- 1 Erl. Ed., xxxix, 250 sq., 253. Briefe, iii, 90, 498 ; iv, 94 (Prohibition of the printing of books.) Briefe, iii, 528 sq. Seidem, Lutherbriefe, 39. 2 Briefe, iii, 498 ; cf. i, 327 ; iv, 308. 3 Cf. supra, p. 554 sq. Eil. Ed., xxxii, 231 ; xi, 185 sqq. Briefe, vi, 8osq. 568 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. tians " in which it will be possible to exercise discipline according to Matt, xviii.1 Long afterwards he still declares most positively, at least in regard to the openly sinful, however little the actual practice may have corresponded with the principle, that the Church does not tolerate such in its midst, but casts them out.2 He at a still later day spoke appreciatively of the discipline exer cised in the Swiss churches, and particularly of that among the Bohemian Brethren.3 But the great bulk of the congregations of the Lutheran reformation continued to embrace, in largely pre ponderating numbers, the " simple-minded people," and even the "coarse crowd"; for these, therefore, the public worship must still be essentially " a public incitement to Christian IKe " (Reizung zum Christenthum), and Luther was compelled to bitterly lament that even the most necessary exercise of discipline was unattainable. All the more, however, did he rejoice that the Word was here at least so widely proclaimed and carried its message to so many, and that the Church was, nevertheless, in possession of the means of grace and, with the multitude of true believers within its bounds, remained a holy congregation and dwelling place of God. In accord also with the general principles which we have traced, we find developed the theory of the independent participation of individual congregations in the administration of the Church. The pastors, who are to exercise the public ministry of the Word of Christ " on account of the congregation," Luther frequently describes simply as " called by the civil authorities" (Obrigkeit) .* He declares, for example, in A. D. 1536, with reference to the above-mentioned establishment of the pastoral office at Erfurt, that the calling of pastors is not properly the business of the civil ruler or magistrate, but that of the congregation (ecclesia), and that the magistrate therefore extends the call, not as a magistrate, but as a member of the Church. He then recognizes the Erfurt preachers, since they have been called, " not only by the people and the congregation, but by the chief magistrate," thus still speaking also of the call as extended by the congregation itself ; and he relies, still further, upon the recognition accorded them ' Briefe, iii, 166 sq. ; cf. 154. 2 Erl. Ed., xxv, 363. 3 Briefe, v, 86. Comenii, Historia fratrum, Halae, 1702, pp. 23, 25. 4 Erl. Ed., vi, 9. Comm. ad Gal., i, 31 sq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 569 by the preachers of the other congregations. In his Exempel einen rechten Bischof zu weihen (Model for the ordination of a true bishop), published in 1542, he demands, likewise, as we have heard, that the Church and the bishop be one, and that the Church (evidently the congregation) be willing to give heed to the bishop.1 But, although he elsewhere also urges the formal recognition of the candidate by his brethren already in the min istry, in actual practice the reception of the preacher by the con gregation,2 in connection with its civil rulers, always appears to have consisted in mere passive and silent consent. Ecclesiastical laws, moreover, are framed by the civil rulers, under the advice of the theologians, without any effort to secure the consent of the remaining members of the congregation. Of the laity, none take active part in this work except the princes and their secular counselors. For the infliction of excommunication Luther habitually, with great earnestness, demanded the co-operation of the congregation. After having, in the absence of any formal provision for this, first of all exhorted pastors to at least exclude the stubbornly wicked from the communion,3 he finally (A. D. 1539) expresses his desire for the introduction of the following order : " I send," says he, " to the sinner, after I have admonished him, two per sons, such as chaplains, or others. Afterwards, I add to these two of the council and overseers (Kastenherrn) and two honor able men of the congregation. Finally, if he remains obstinate, I announce it publicly to the Church — with the request : ' Help to counsel, kneel down, help to pray against him and give him over to the devil,' " etc.* We observe that he here again includes also the civil officers, although he protested vigorously 5 against wanton interference upon their part. In 1540, he sends to Nuremberg by Melanchthon, Jonas and Bugenhagen, a statement of his views in regard to excommunication, in which he sanctions its administration " in any congregation, the elders having been called into consultation." 6 The so-called Wittenberg Reforma tion of 1545, which met with his approval, recommends, further, •Briefe, vi, 179 sq. Erl. Ed., xxvi, 105. 2Cf. especially Briefe, v, 8. Erl. Ed., xxiii, 64. 'Briefe, iv, 497. Cf. Luther's own course, Tischr., ii, 350 sq. Briefe, vi, 213 sq. 4 Tischr., iii, 352 sqq. 5 Briefe, iii, 538. 6 Ibid., v, 266. 570 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. that " honorable and learned men — as honorable members of the congregation among the laity — from the other ranks of the people " be invited to participate. Still further, he speaks in high terms, in 1543, of the Hessian form of excommunication, which was based upon a formal elders' institute, and wishes that it were possible to introduce it also at other places.1 But he was never able to put into actual practice his suggestion of A. D. 1539, nor anything of a similar nature. In Electoral Saxony, although proposals of excommunication were to come from the pastors themselves, the decision in regard to them was placed in the hands of consistories. Luther bewails, in general, the fact that there is no zeal whatever among church members themselves for the exercise of discipline in the spirit of Christ's instructions ; that no one was willing to make a beginning in admonishing his neighbor on account of his vices and transgressions and then bringing the matter before the Church.2 With all the functions and duties which Luther thus granted and commended to the civil authorities in ecclesiastical affairs, he yet always insisted upon his fundamental principle as to the strict distinction which must be preserved between the secular and the spiritual authorities, if both were not to be involved in confusion and disorder.3 To those who saw in the steps taken with his approval by the evangelical princes an assumption of spiritual authority, he replied, that the princes only assent to the preaching and do not themselves preach, and that the abuses which they seek to correct are external matters, etc. ; * and it is certainly true that he would never consent to the exercise of directly spiritual functions, or direct compulsion in spiritual matters, upon their part. With the activity of the princes, how- evei, very grave perils at once began to menace the very churches whose patrons they had been invited to become. Luther de clares : " It does not belong to princes to confirm even the true doctrine, but to be subject to and serve it as the Word of God." Nevertheless, their decision as to what is true doctrine was absolutely prescriptive for all teaching upon their territory, although those who did not agree with their decisions might con- ' Briefe, v, 551. 2 Jena, iv, 818. Tischr., ii, 357. 3 Cf. supra, p. 483 sq. Briefe, iv., 105 sqq. ; v, 8. Op. Ex., xxiii, 383 sqq. 4Briefe, iv, 142; vi, 119 sq. ; iii, 50. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 57 I tinue to privately cherish their own opinions, or leave the district.' Very soon the Papists began to appeal to the example thus set by the evangelical princes when protest was made against the suppression of the new doctrines in their territory. It was said : The Emperor is also certain that the doctrine of the Roinan Catholic Church is right, and he must hence exert all his power to banish the heretical Lutheran teaching from the kingdom. Luther, upon one occasion, gave to a nobleman of Ducal Saxony, who had been commanded by his prince to expel the evangelical preachers, the advice, in undeniable conflict with his utterances upon other occasions, to decline the undertaking upon the ground, that the divine commandment bound him to the exercise of only secular, and not spiritual, dominion. In regard to the Emperor, Luther says : " We know that he is not sure of it (i. e., the correctness of the papal doctrine) and cannot be." He found, also, an additional support here in his conception of the constitu tional rights of the imperial princes as against the Emperor. Beyond this, his only reply to the claim of the papal persecutors, that they, too, are bound by their office and conscience to adopt the course taken by them, is : " What do I care for that?" It is evident enough, he says, that they, in other cases also, use their power wantonly.2 But, especially within the bounds of his own congregation, Luther soon found occasion for the bitterest laments over the conduct of the princes and their courts, who now sought to rule as they pleased within the Church as well, and to inter pose difficulties in the way of its proper work. He observed among them particularly the greatest opposition to the introduc tion of a true ecclesiastical discipline. " Satan continues to be Satan. Under the Pope, he mixed up the Church with politics ; in our times, he seeks to mix up politics with the Church." 3 The peculiar mission of Luther, however, did not lie at all within the sphere of concrete, practical organization. His great fundamental principles as to the nature of the Church, to which due prominence was given at the opening of the present chapter, 'Jena, i, 579 b. Erl. Ed., lxv, 177. As to the course to be pursued by the civil authorities in doctrinal disputes, cf. supra, p. 566. Erl. Ed., xxxix, 252. 2 Briefe, iv, 93 sq. ; iii, 267. Erl. Ed., xxxix, 257 sq. 3 Ibid., v, 596. 551, 575 ; iv, 399. Erl. Ed., xlvi, 184 sqq.; xlvii, 16. 572 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. still stand out in their full force and unclouded light, despite all criticisms which may be suggested by the later utterances cited in respect to doctrine or practice. He himself found consolation in the reflection, that the Church, the community of saints, with the Word of God and the sacraments, will assuredly still be preserved, and will arise from time to time with fresh energy, even despite the weakness and obscurity of its earthly existence. CHAPTER IX. THE LAST THINGS. NOT THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED BY LUTHER — CHILIASM CHRIST'S COM ING EXPECTED — INTERMEDIATE STATE — AN INCOMPLETE CONDITION A STATE OF SLEEP TORMENTS OF THE WICKED — SIN EXPELLED AT DEATH LOCALITY DAY OF JUDGMENT VISIBLE ADVENT OF CHRIST — HELL — FINAL BLESSEDNESS OF BELIEVERS — THE GLORI FIED BODY TRANSFORMATION OF EXTERNAL WORLD ETERNAL SABBATH. * Under nearly all the topics embraced in the theology of Luther, we find it difficult to present in concise form the full wealth of his independent ideas and views. It may appear very strange that the case should be so entirely different in regard to the subject of our present chapter — that there should here, on the c«ntrary, be a dearth of positive ideas peculiar to himself, intro duced anew by him into Christian theology, or quickened by his energy into fresh vigor. His principal achievement in this sphere was, in fact, chiefly negative in character, i. e., the opposing and rejection of the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory, and that, too, upon the basis of the fundamental evangelical doctrine of the plan of salvation, against which the theory of purgatory had arrayed itself. The views which he himself adopts concerning the condition of departed souls are but slightly developed. In regard to the final state of man and of the world after the Day of Judgment, he makes no attempt to secure new information from the Scriptures, however freshly and vividly he draws upon their resources. This phenomenon is certainly not to be explained by the sup position that — in consequence, perhaps, of the newly-achieved Christian liberty and his glowing sense of the blessedness already enjoyed by the believer — he felt himself altogether too much at home in the present world to be greatly disposed to more (573) 574 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. thorough investigations in regard to that which is to come. Upon the contrary, as a direct result of the full assurance of sal vation which he now cherished, the deepest longing of his soul was directed toward those scenes in which alone the spirit of the believer, here continually engaged in a struggle with sin and the world, and leading a life hidden with God, can attain at length to a true knowledge of its own treasures and endowments, and to that general condition of things which is demanded by the deepest requirements of its own nature. Although he teaches Christians, while pursuing their regular callings in the present world, to rejoice in the blessings vouchsafed by the Creator, he yet continually longs, hopes for, and promises the approach of the Great Day which shall bring the world to an end. We must, first of all, make due allowance for the very marked influ ence exerted upon his attitude toward the doctrines in question by his anxiety not to be carried by human theorizing and imagi nation beyond the bounds which the Scriptures themselves have set to our knowledge. He saw impressive warnings against this peril, not only in the mischievous invention of a purgatory, but, as well, in the Anabaptist theory of an earthly kingdom of Christ, in the interest of which the present divinely-ordained civil ordi nances were to be overturned. To these influences must be added, also, the inward and spiritual nature of his view of Chris tian salvation, in consequence of which the theory that this earth is yet to become the scene of an outwardly victorious kingdom of Christ had no attraction for him ; and, further, his holding of such a conception of the deliverance and renewal already essen tially effected in the case of the believing followers of Christ as appeared to him to leave no necessity for a further moral develop ment of their souls in the intermediate state before the resurrec tion. But, as has been said, the longing desire of his heart was directed simply toward the time when that which has been already secured by them shall be fully revealed in an entirely new world.1 This he would have made the aim, likewise, of all Christian preaching : " Whatever we teach, appoint or establish, is done to the end that the pious may look forward to the coming of their Saviour in the Last Day." 2 As to the general course of events before the coming of the 1 Cf. also our remarks, p. 476. 2 Op. Ex., xxii, 12. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 575 Day of Judgment, he rejects absolutely, therefore, the doctrine of the modern anabaptistic Chiliasts and the ancient Tertulliani, etc., of an earthly kingdom which Christ is to establish with His saints before that day. He rejects the dream — " as though such a Church should yet be gathered before the Day of Judgment, in which none but pious persons and Christians, all their enemies having been beforehand even bodily destroyed by them, should reign peacefully without any opposition or strife." He knows no ground for any other view than that as long as Christ shall reign upon this earth we shall have to expect continually in His king dom, which is here a spiritual one, instead of worldly peace and quiet life, enemies, factions and outward disturbances.1 But, from the very beginning of his reformatory preaching, we find Luther expressing the confident hope that the Day of Judg ment itself may be near at hand} He endeavors, also, to find in the Scriptures sure evidence of this, and believes himseK to have discovered it, especially in Daniel. He explains, that the fourth world-kingdom is the Roman Empire, at the end of which, therefore, will come the end of the world. And we are now standing at the end of this kingdom, which has only in name been merged into the German kingdom. In its decadence, the pro phesied Antichrist, the Pope, forced himself into prominence, but he is even now already falling. The little horn of Dan. vii. 8, which is to overturn three of the ten horns of the fourth kingdom, has already appeared. It is the Turk, who now possesses Egypt, Asia and Greece. But, with all his power, a limit has been set * to his advance. His power dare not become so great as that of the Roman Empire, since the way would then be opened for a fifth world-kingdom. These are the two great tyrants and dragons who were to appear before the Day of Judgment — the one with doctrine, the other with the sword ; and the Turk is the last.3 In the same spirit, Luther seeks to interpret also the Revelation of St. John. The thousand years there spoken of he proposes to estimate from the time when the book was composed, but sometimes * counts them from the birth of Christ. He ob- ' Erl Ed., xi, 85 ; xiv, 1 10 sq. 2 Briefe, ii, 522. Erl. Ed., xxxi, 328. Weimar. Pred., 82 3 Vol. I., p. 423. Erl. Ed., xli, 233, 243 sqq. ; xxxi, 83 sqq Briefe, iii, 427. 5'7> 524 sq. 4Jena, iv, 741. 576 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. serves, that it is not necessary to strike the very minute in our reckoning. In Gog and Magog, whom Satan brings upon the scene after the lapse of the thousand years, he sees again the Turks. He declares, also, that, at the time when Satan was loosed, the Romish Antichrist arose likewise with the power of the sword.' We have already seen that Luther regarded also other prophecies of the Apocalypse as having already found their fulfilment in the Middle Ages.2 The increased licentiousness, luxury and carnal security, etc., of his own day were to him a further evi dence that the end of the world was at hand. He was also upon the watch for signs in the heavens. In the first section of the Church Postils, he had expressed the hope that a conjunction of the planets expected to occur in A. D. 1524 might be a sign of the Last Day. He suggests also the idea, that the end may come in the middle of the sixth millennium of the world (his own age) , just as the three days during which Christ was to remain in the grave ended with the middle of the third day.3 He warns expressly, meanwhile, against more precise reckoning and prying to discover the exact time of the great event.* The " saying common among Christians," that, according to Mal. iv. 5, Elias must first come, he rejects because that prophecy has been already completely fulfilled in John the Baptist. That, as some say, Enoch, or the evangelist John, must yet appear, is for him mere empty talk.5 In the Church Postils, he expresses his ex pectation, based upon Matt, xxiii. 39 and in accordance likewise with Deut. iv. 30 sq., Hos. iii. 4 sq., and Rom. xi. 25 sq., of a great general conversion of the Jews before the end of the world, and hopes that it may be near at hand. He had thought, he says, that the new light of the Gospel might now win many of them.6 We find no traces of such expectations in his later writings, but, on the contrary, vigorous denunciations and threaten ings of punishment for their persistent contempt and blasphemy. As to the state of the dead between the time of their death and the Day of Judgment, we have already' cited Luther's positive declarations in rejection of the doctrine of purgatory, 'Erl. Ed., lxiii, 166; Ixiv, 256. Jena, iv, 471. "Vol. I., p. 423. 3 Ibid., x, 52 sqq., 64. Jena, iv, 746, 746 b. 4 Briefe, iv, 463, 474. 6 Erl. Ed., x, 108, 1 10. 6 Erl. Ed., *, 231 sq. Briefe, ii, 451. 'Vol. I., p. 468 sqq. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 577 and also his view in regard to prayer for the dead. The state of the departed is for Luther, upon the one hand, a yet incomplete intermediate condition, since the body is an essential requirement for the re-establishment of the complete human personality ; but it is one in which, upon the other hand, the final decision as to the salvation of the soul has been already pronounced. When referring to the intermediate state, he has always chiefly in view the condition of the pious. He habitually describes the departed, and particularly the pious, as sleeping? finding his authority for the designation in the language of Scripture. The term, when applied to the pious, embraces for him the idea that they are sleeping quietly and peacefully, without tasting death. But he regards this sleep also as a condition in which actual conscious ness has ceased. When the souls of men shall be awakened at the Last Day, it will occur unexpectedly to themselves. They will not know how they have passed through death, will think that they have been lying in their unconscious state for scarcely an hour. The soul has in that state no consciousness of its life or faculties.2 Luther still teaches thus even in his Latin Com mentary upon Genesis. The soul, he there says, does not in that state feel its own sleep. Although it is with Christ, it does not reign as does He, but rests. To it may be applied the language of Isa. Ixiv 16. But he now adds, that the soul does not, how ever, sleep as in a natural bodily sleep. Although its sleep is deeper than the latter, it is, at the same time, awake, and gains views, and hears conversations, of the angels and of God, in whose presence it lives. It may be regarded as especially char acteristic of his representation of this state, that he compares it with the condition of those who during their earthly life fall into trances.3 Yet he disclaims all thought of gaining an actual understanding of this resting of the soul in its God. It tran scends our power of comprehension. We cannot tell what is the actual condition of entranced persons, or even of those wrapped in ordinary slumber. He warns against impertinent questionings, and himself, in a later sermon upon Lazarus and Dives, does not 'Supra, p. 471. 2 Erl. Ed., x, 75 ; xi, 141 sq. ; Hi, 269; xli, 373; xiv, 315. Op. Ex., xvii, 125 sq. ; xxi, 198. 3Op. Ex., vi, 116-124, 329. 37 578 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER.. enter at all upon the discussion of the intermediate state, but at once makes the application to the separation to be effected upon the Last Day.1 It is, moreover, very far from his thoughts to establish any dogma upon the subject. The matter of chief importance is, and always remains for him, that the souls of the pious certainly yet live, are free from all distress and temptation, and have, in the presence of God and in the hand of Christ, se cure and blessed rest.2 He speaks very seldom indeed specifically of the intermediate state of the ungodly. In the Church Postils, he calls the hell which the rich man experienced the evil con science in which his soul was " bound up " (verfassf). At other times (as in the Latin Commentary upon Genesis) , he does not venture to express a positive opinion as to whether the torments of hell begin at once after death, or whether the wicked may not perhaps sleep and rest, although their course immediately after death leads only to perdition. It is certainly Only in the future, at the resurrection, according to Rom. xiv. 10 and John v. 29 (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 4), that they are to be summoned before the judgment-seat of Christ. Yet, on the other side, he cites again Lk. xvi. 23 sq. He acknowledges that he knows nothing about the matter, which belongs only to God.3 Of a continuous moral development in the intermediate state there can, accordingly, be no further thought. It appeared at first, in Luther's contention against the theory of purgatory, as though the latter would, in his general system of doctrine, be merely transformed, and become a state of progressive, strictly moral purification. But, even in this form, he found it uncon firmed by Scripture and not required by the other articles of Christian doctrine. The greatest importance for the completed expulsion of sin from the hearts of the pious, or believing, attaches, accordingly, to the moment of their bodily death, however little Luther may have thought of sin as still cleaving only to their corporeal life. " When we die," says he, " then will our sins all be perfectly cured." * In considering the objection to the view, that men to whom in their earthly life there had been granted 1 Op. Ex., vi, 1. c. Jena, iv, 315 b. Erl. Ed., iv, 214. 2 Thus already, Erl. Ed., xv, 351 ; cf. also Op. Ex., ii, 95, 100, 102. 'Ibid., xiii, 11. Op. Ex., vi, 122, 124 ; x, 208, 213. 4 Ibid., xv, 50; cf. supra, p. 455. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 579 no opportunity of exercising faith and thus attaining salvation must nevertheless pass directly into perdition, he himseK ' raises the question, whether God may not give faith to some in the very moment of death, or after death. He replies at once: That God can do so cannot be denied — that He does so cannot be proved. He habitually, moreover, evidently upon principle, leaves untouched this whole sphere of objections and question ings. It belonged, in his view, to the secrets which God has retained in His own power. We may cite, in this connection, yet one solitary passage,2 in which he recognizes a preaching of Christ for departed souls (i Pet. iii. 18). But it does not here occur to him to advance upon the basis of the language of the apostle, which is applied only to the souls of the Noachian age, to any further conclusions of his own. Questions of locality Luther does not at all consider in con nection with the condition of departed souls, since they have laid aside that corporeal nature which can exist only by occupying space. Thus, for example, he declares the hell of Dives to have been the evil conscience in which his soul was " bound up," or even " buried." 3 When it is said of the pious before the time of Christ, that fney were taken to Abraham's bosom, the expres sion means, for him, that they fell asleep in unwavering faith in the promises given to Abraham, and are " embraced " (gefasst) and preserved in this Word of God.* Even Paradise (Lk. xxiii. 43 and 2 Cor. xii. 4) he understands not of a material place, but of a condition such as that enjoyed by Adam in Paradise, with freedom from sin, security from death, etc.5 We have already seen 6 what is his conception of " Sheol," in the citation from the Enarratio of Psalm xvi., of A. D. 1530 : " Everything that there is in the existence upon which we enter (da wir hinfahren) after life." It includes the fire into which the rich man was cast, and the " bosom of Abraham " for the pious.1 What has been said above in regard to locality applies here also with equal force. Yet, at the same time, Luther continues to employ local terms, such as " the grave of souls " (Seelengrab, ' Briefe, ii, 455- 2 Supra, p. 419 sq. 3 Erl. Ed., xiii, n ; xviii, 267. 4 Ibid., xiii, 10; xviii, 266. Op. Ex., i, ill; vi, 116. 5 Op. Ex., i, no sq. 6 Supra, p. 418. ' Ibid., xvii, 125 sq. ; xli, 378; x, 206 sqq. 580 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. receptaculum animarum) ; but he explains, again, these " recep- tacula " as " the Word of God, or His promises, in which we fall asleep." ! The condition of the dead in its relation to out con ception of the Where? is for him also a state that is beyond the reach of our comprehension or speech. If it is a place, it is certainly not a corporeal place. Thus, in one passage, he says : " The soul goes to its place, whatever kind of a place that may be, for it cannot be corporeal : it is a sort of sepulchre of the soul, outside of this corporeal world" ; and again : " What Para dise is (i. e., the ' place ' of John xiv. 2) I do not know. It is enough for us to believe that God has a place (Raum : space), where He perhaps preserves also the angels. Things are not (in that life) as they are here (' es geht nicht also zu'). He is such a God that He can also preserve any one outside of the world," etc.2 Even the conception of time appears to Luther so wrapped up with that of earthly, corporeal existence that he does not venture to apply it even to the intermediate state. There is there no time, just as with God a thousand years are less than one day. Hence, also, it will appear to the pious of the early ages, when awakened on the Last Day, as though they had been living on earth but a half-hour before.3 Luther ventured to say but very little about this intermediate state. He quotes abundantly, and with delight and confidence, from the Scriptures in preaching of the Last Great Day and of the new world which is then to be ushered in. Yet, even here, he is conscious of attempting to describe things which lie far above the reach of our earthly powers of comprehension ; and he endeavors, therefore, in his representations and illustrations upon the subject, to simply repeat the declarations of Scripture. He depicts the Lord as descending from heaven openly, visibly, even locally, or "sensibly" (begreiflich)? He vividly portrays His coming to awaken the dead with the voice of the archangel, with trumpets and shouting, as when an army rushes to battle — not, however, without adding the remark, that the apostle here employs " purely allegorical words." 5 'Op. Ex., x, 208; xi, 302; vi, 121. 2 Ibid., xxi, 198 sq. Erl. Ed., xxxiii, 156 sq. 3 Erl. Ed., xviii, 267; xiii, 12; cf. Op. Ex., xxi, 199. 4 Ibid., 344. Supra, p. 137. sIli'l„ xix, 153 sqq. ; xviii, 342 sqq , 383. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 581 With the resurrection is to begin that kingdom of Christ in which His saints shall reign with Him in the presence of all the world, and all the ungodly be excluded. The latter shall now be cast into the real hell} As early as 1523, Luther had referred to those who, like Origen and others of his class, think it entirely too harsh a judgment, and inconsistent with the divine mercy, that men should incur eternal punishment, and who would there fore maintain a final restoration of all men, and even of the devil. He now, and always afterwards, refused to give any countenance to such teachers or their presumptuous notions. We have already cited one of his earlier utterances, i. e., that God, by virtue of the righteousness (justice) which He exercises upon the souls in perdition, makes even hell full of Himself and of the supreme good. We have also observed his declaration, that the ungodly, while feeling there nothing but the wrath of God, are punished only by their own consciences. He warns against any further prying into the mysteries of the subject.2 But the glance of Luther is, here also, always directed chiefly upon that which believers are taught to anticipate. To them, the terrible Judge will be a brother, father and patron. They are, according to i Thes. iv. 17, to meet the Lord in the air, and unite with Him in pronouncing judgment upon the wicked, who will stand trembling beneath them.3 Now the veil is taken away from before their eyes.* This king dom of Christ is no longer a kingdom of the Word and of faith ; but they see Christ face to face. They look openly upon the bare (naked) Godhead in itself, no longer enshrouded in words.5 There, locality and temporality cease. " After the resurrection we shall be exempted from places and times" : thus Christ also is without place.6 Now is restored again, according to Acts iii. 21, all that the devil has destroyed from the beginning, and yet more ; for, in place of the childish innocence of Adam, there now 1 Supra, p. 418. 2 Briefe, ii, 453 sq. ; cf. Vol. I„ pp. 477, 499- Erl. Ed., xxx, 372. Jena, iv, 482 b. ; supra, p. 277. Erl. Ed., xxxiv, 207 ; supra, p. 291. 3 Erl. Ed., xviii, 343; xix> 345; '. Il8- 4 Supra, p. 423. 5 Op. Ex., xviii, 260. Erl. Ed., xxxii, 307; x, 198. 6 Ibid., xxi, 199; ', 125. 582 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. appears manly, perfect innocence and complete glory ; in place of animal life, spiritual life.1 But in the new, perfect state, the bodily life is also to bear a very essential part. Luther is concerned, on the one hand, to maintain the true and complete reality of the corporeal life, and, on the other hand, its exaltation above all limitations, liability to change, weakness or capacity for suffering, in order that in it he may enjoy the blessedness and glory of his life in God. He is especially fond of applying to the transformation of the human body the apostle's figure of the grain of corn. It shall be restored with all its members, and even with a renovated " flesh and blood." The distinction between the sexes shall also be perpetu ated, just as the various grains in their development retain each its own nature, the grain of wheat producing a blade of wheat, the grain of barley a barley blade. But there will be a wonderful and glorious transformation in the form of the body, just as in the case of the grain. The body will no longer possess the former needy character and feeble powers, but it will flourish and glow in beauty, without sin or evil lust, eternally healthy and vigorous, without eating, drinking or woiking, without weariness or any of the necessities which press upon it in the present IKe. Each one shall be a perfect human being, and shall have in God everything which his nature may demand. This body is called spiritual, because it is spiritually fed and preserved by God, and has its life entirely in union with Him (an ihm)? There we shall, in the body as now in thought, pass quickly from place to place, as did the risen Saviour, who in a moment passed through closed doors and was now in this place, now in that. The body will have sharp eyes that can look through a mountain, and open ears that can hear from one end of the world to the other. We can therefore travel in the body like a flash, yea, like the sun in the heavens, so that we can at will in a moment be upon the earth beneath or in heaven above.3 We thus see that, by the existence outside of localities of which Luther speaks, he means a freedom from all the restraints of locality. 'Erl. Ed., xiv, 159; supra, p. 343. Op. Ex., i, 125. 2 Ibid., xix, 133 sq., 143 sq. ; iv, 2; 1, 411; li, 243, 183 sq.; xviii, 346; A, 74. 3 Ibid., iv, 2 sq. ; xix, 134; li, 183. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. 583 All of this, says he, is, indeed, haid for us human beings now to believe — is, in fact, the most difficult to believe of all the articles of faith ; for there is no other which is so directly con trary to our own experience and the appearance of things. But God is everywhere in nature, in our fields and gardens, etc., constantly displaying before us such wonderful works — in the green summer, which He brings back again out of the dead winter ; in the grain and the developing blade ; in the growth of the branches out of the dry, bare tree ; in the coming forth of the bird from the dead and motionless egg. It is alone through the power of His Word that this all comes to pass — that Word which called forth all things out of nothing.1 But our resurrec tion is fully assured, above all, by that of Christ, our Head. The latter has been most securely attested for us by God in the report of the apostles. Nor did Christ rise from the dead for His own personal benefit alone ; but, as He was brought to death only through us, so must we be brought back again from death to life by Him. If the Head lives above, then must we also, who cling to Him, follow Him thither. More than half of the resurrection of the dead, i. e., the principal part of it, the resurrection of our Head, has thus been already accomplished ; and that which yet remains of death is to be regarded only as a deep sleep from which we shall suddenly awake.2 A similar transfiguration will be at length experienced, accord ing to the teachings of Scripture — and that by fire, as testified in 2 Pet. iii. 10 — by the whole external world. Heaven and earth shall be changed like a garment (Ps. cii. 26). Instead o£ their work-day clothing, they shall put on an Easter mantle and a Pentecostal robe. Luther beholds in imagination the whole universe of created things lifted up at the same time into this new life. He sees there a new sun shining seven-fold more brightly than the present one, together with a new moon and new stars; also water, trees and grass far more beautiful- according to the Tischreden, also new animals — little dogs with golden hair, etc.— all harmless, beautiful and playful.3 The text, 'Erl. Ed., xix, 128-142; xviii, 381. 2 Ibid., 1, 410 sqq. ; li, 138 sqq. 3 Erl. Ed., x, 74. Op. Ex., x, 392. Erl. Ed., xxxix, 35 ; li, 243; ix, 106; li, 183. Tischr., iv, 289 sq. 584 THE THEOLOGY OF LUTHER. 2 Pet. iii. 13, sounds to him as though we should then also live upon the earth. But heaven and earth, says he, will be a new Paradise, wherein God shall dwell ; God dwells in all places, and the elect shall be where He is. He afterwards says further : We shall be where we wish to be — in heaven or on earth, above or beneath.1 There shall be fulfilled the longing desire of the whole creation to be no more compelled to minister to the present shameful order of affairs on earth, to the devil and the wicked. And there shall man, while spiritually living in God, go forth also through heaven and earth to play with the sun and the moon and all other created things, shall have his joy and pleasure in them, and be perfectly contented and happy.2 This is " the spiritual life of the entire man, with body and soul, which shall spring from the Spirit (aus dem Geist entspringen) and proceed without mediation (ohne Mittel) from, or through, God. Thus, the redeemed shall celebrate " an eternal Sabbath and festival ; shall be eternally satisfied in God, eternally joyful, free and secure from all sorrow ; shall eternally behold God and His works, no longer hidden behind a veil, but with open coun tenance.3 When I know and believe this, then, says Luther,* have my heart and soul already passed through death and the grave, and are with Christ in heaven, living and rejoicing in their happy lot. We have, therefore, not only the principal part of the resur rection, but we have already passed the two best parts of it. Since Christ vivifies and renews the heart through faith, He will assuredly draw after it its tardy partner, the body, that we may look upon Him with our eyes and live with Him. Of this we are certain, for it is His Word and "work, upon which we have been baptized, and in dependence upon which we live and die. 1 Erl. Ed., Hi, 270 ; xxxix, 37 sq. ; li, 183. 2 Ibid., ix, 116; li, 243. 3 Ibid., li, 243 ; xxxix, 37. 4 Ibid., li, 140 sq. INDEX. [The Roman numeral refers to the volume, the ordinary numeral to the page.] Ability, human. See " Man, will of." Absolution. Divine authority for, i, 216; relation of to means of grace, ii, 521, 525, 532; embraced under Word, ii, 542; derives its power from Word, i, 245, 259 sq., 402; ii, 522; an objective reality, i, 259, 262; ii, 522-525 ; validity of, not dependent upon administrant, ii, 522> 523! "or upon recipient, ii, 523, 524; de mands faith, i, 245, 259, 262; ii, 521, 523, 525 ; strengthens faith, ii, 522; administered publicly by per sons authorized, ii, 528, 542! do. privately by any Christian, i, 260, 277 ; ii, 403, 522, 526; proper sub jects for, ii, 524; God acts through, ii, 527; imparts forgiveness of sin, ii, 522; announces grace to individ ual, ii, 362, 522-524 ; a special privilege under new covenant, ii, 524; antecedent confession, ii, 530 (see " Confession"); offered in many ways, ii, 525 ; traditional theory of, stated, i, 235; summary, ii, 520- 532. See " Keys, power of the.'' Absolution, private, value of, ii, 529 ; especially for the timid, ii, 530. Abstraction (mystical). See " Resig nation." Abuses, secular, i, 385 ; relation of pope to, i, 234. 4og. Acedia, not subject for confessional, i, 205. Aquinas, Luther's study of, 1, 52. Acts of the Apostles, ii, 244. Adam, before the fall, ii, 338 sq. ; not righteous through works, i, 416 ; not able to keep commandments, i, 488 ; permitted to fall, i, 496 ; why commandments given to, ii, 5°'- . Adoration of sacrament. See " Host." Advent of Christ, the second, ii, 580. Affections, natural, sanctioned, ii, 474. Agricola, aw law and gospel, ii, 431, 496. (s Albrecht, Archbishop, instructions of to venders of indulgences, i, 224. Allceosis, Zwingli's theory of, ii, 134 sq. Altar fellowship, ii, 161. See "Sac ramentarians." Alveld, argument of for papacy, i, 363. Amsdorf, as student, etc., at Witten berg, i, 82; inquiry of, touching in termediate state, i, 471 ; criticism of Cologne formula by, ii, 185. Anabaptism, Luther's tract on, ii, 48, 52 sq. Anabaptists. See " Fanatics." Angels, present definitively at will, ii, 138; creation and fall of, ii, 324; agents of providence, ii, 324, 325 ; subordinate to direct divine agency, ii, 327 ; essentially spirits, ii, 325 ; original moral character of, ib.; exalted knowledge of, ib., mirac ulous power of, ib.; activity of, in man's behalf, ib.; special guar dian, ib.; differences among, ii, 326. Angels, evil, the, ii, 331 sq. ; cause of their fall, ii, 332 ; differences among, ib.; authors of human misfortunes, ib.; always near us, ii, 333. Anhalt, begging prince of, i, 33. Annates, i, 376. Annotations of Psalms. See " Psalms, first exposition of." Anselm, on works of satisfaction, i, 235 ; on original sin, ii. 346. Antichrist. See " Pope." Antilegomenoi, the, ii, 244 sq., 255. Antinomianism, ii, 496 sq. Antwerp, letter to men of, i, 499. Apocryphal books, the, ii, 225, 240 sq. Appai-itions, of departed souls, i, 470; of the devil, ii, 333, 334. Aptitude for restoration, man's, i, 150, 485 ; ii, 354. Archangels, ii, 326. Aristotle, Luther's acquaintance with, i, 79; the latter's aversion to, i, 94, 119, 133, 134,382; philosophy of ap- ss) 586 INDEX. plied in setting forth Eternal Word, i, 126-132; on attainment of right eousness, i, 155; on identical predi cation, i, 391. Ascension. See " Christ." Ascetic exercises, benefits of, i, I57> 208, 416 ; ii, 30, 472 ; dangers of, i, 158; no merit in, i, 158, 207; lib erty in observing, i, 358, 473. Assertio omnium articulorum (Grand und Ursach), on burning of papal bull, i, 420; on free-will, i, 429, 431, 432, 475, 480; on charge of presumption, i, 433 ; on purgatory, i, 429. Assurance, rests on promise of God, ii, 462 ; gained from Word in absolu tion, i, 246, 258; increased through trials, ii, 460, 462 ; may not always be felt, i, 181 ; 1^443,463 ; should be felt, it, 462,463,465,469; the Pope declares impossible, ii, 469; sins of weakness should not destroy, ib. Asterisci, reply to Eck, entitled, i, 249 — cited, i, 249-282 passim. Astrology. Luther's view of, ii, 331. Astronomy. Luther's view of, ii, 331. Atonement, the, ii, 495 sq. ; prevalent term, " satisfaction," too narrow for Luther, ii, 496; do., supplemented by "conquest," ii, 409; the two ideas intimately blended, ii, 412; extent of the, see " Grace." Attributes, divine. See " God, attri butes of." Attritio, i, 246, 256, 264, 402. Augsburg Confession, the, on the church, i, 366 ; on faith and election, ii, 300; on bodily presence, i, 154; signed by cities of Southern Ger many, ii. 159. Augsburg, letters to, ii, 1 55, 520. Augusta, Luther's friendly attitude to ward, ii, 194. Augustine, influence of upon Luther, ', 72. 73. 74, 75. 99. >°3, >°9. »'4. 119, 135, 197 ; tract of, on spirit and letter, i, 73, 74, 75 et passim; his exposition of the Psalms, i, 75; Ms humility in prayer, i, 506; com mended for adherence to historical interpretation of scriptures, i, 192; on justification, i, 181, 327; on books of Maccabees, i, 317; on free-will, i, 284 ; on original sin, ii, 347 ; on relation of church and scriptures, i, 320; ii, 224; on Lord's Supper, ii, 5°3- Authority, in matters of faith, i, 278- 283,321,408,432,436,501 sq. ; ii, 222, 223-230. Babylonian Captivity, prelude upon, i. 334, 388-409; cited, i, 137,411, 424, 434, 43°, 4°2! », 43, 5«, 68, 145, 505 ; relation of the document to bull of excommunica tion, i, 388, 409. Baptism, Romish theory of, i, 53, 326; Luther's do., i, 356 ; ii, 45-57 ; Lu ther's thesis of A. D. 1516 upon, i, 194; Marburg thesis upon, ii, 57, 505 ; objective validity of as means of grace, ii, 54, 507,509; not depend ent upon character of administrant, ii, 506, 509 ; nor on faith of recipi ent, ii, 55 ; benefits of, ii, 507, 508; is a washing of regeneration, ii, 57, 507 ; personal faith essential to re ception of benefits of, ii, 48 ; imparts forgiveness of sins, i, 326; ii, 508; implants life, ii, 508; promotes faith, ii, 57 ; relation of to repent ance, i, 355; chief stress on words of promise, i, 394; ii, 55, 507, 509; may be observed by faith alone, i, 351,398; and church membership, i, 367, 540; perpetual validity of, i, 395, 397, 398. S°7 5 perpetual obli gation of, ii, 510; vow of, outranks all other vows, ii, 359, 395 ; sins and penitence after, i, 395 ; ii, 355. 507 ; compared with circumcision, i, 396; an effectual sign, ib.; ii, 510; significance of, i, 397 sq.; do. of water in, ii, 507, 508 ; do. of dip ping in, i, 395; ii, 5°8; mode of, i, 398 ; Anabaptist theory upon in volves work-righteousness, ii, 56 ; Zwingli's theory of, ib.; summary. ii, 507-S>>- Baptism, infant,an&]ogy in circumci sion, ii, 47, 52; upon faith of others, i, 399; ii, 45,510; child-faith in, i, 399, 400; ii, 46, 47. 57, 454, 5°5, 510; faith granted upon prayers of ihe ciiurch in, i, 400; ii, 47, 49; faith granted through Word in. ii, 47, 5°, 57 ! assailed by Zwickau pro phets, i, 443; ii. 22,23, 45 5 1 Cor. cited for apostolic practice of, ii, 47 ; testimony of ciiurch to, ii, 53. en dorsed by divine blessing, ii, 53, r^. if wrong, no church for centuries ib. ; dissertation upon, i, 355, 360 397. 4°°- INDEX. 587 Baptism, monastic, i, 54. Baruch, the book of, ii, 241. Basle, convention at, A. D. 1536, i, 173; confession of (Helvetic), ii, 167, 172, 176; Luther's letter to burgomaster of, ii, 174-176, 177, 300. Believer, the, exaltation (" deification") of, i, 131, 167; ii, 367, 454- a child of God, ii, 455 ; likeness of to God, ii, 454 ; present blessedness of, ii, 154, 460, 469,470; future do., ii, 584. Benefices, bestowal of, i, 376. Benevolence, a fruit of faith, ii, 474. Berangar, on oral manducation, ii, 146. Bernhard, frequently cited by Lu ther, i, 119; celibacy of, i, 45 1 , 455 ; humility of in prayer, i, 506 ; saved from error, ii, 272. Biel, Luther's study of, i, 51 ; on orig inal sin, ii, 346. Bishops, identical with elders or priests, i, 302, 3°5, 426, 556. See " Cleri cal Office." Bishops, as superior officers, as ac knowledged by Luther, i, 123, 205, 302 ; authority of, only by human ap pointment, i, 302; ii, 556; voice of congregation in electing, i, 302 ; con firmation of, i, 376; preaching the chief duty of, i, 205 ; right of, in appointing pastors, ii, 88. See "Or dination," " Laity." Body, the, government of (see " Ascetic exercises") ; proper indulgence of, ii, 474 ; receives special blessing in the Lord's Supper, ii, 125, 517 ; re ceives benefit in baptism, ii, 509; ihe glorified, ii, 582; essential to perfect humanity, ii, 557. Body of Christ, the, created and truly human, ii, 371 ; relation of to Mary, ii, 370; spiritual, ii, 513; omnipres ence (ubiquity) of, ii, 77, 107, 115 sq., 119, 135, 145, 377, 379, 386, 513; not an alterum infinitum, ii, 140, 380. See " Real Presence." Body of Christ, the (in the Lord's Supper), the crucified and glorified body, ii, 513; relation of to the Word, ii, 514; do. to elements (sacramental union), ii, 68, 79 sq., 146,513; do. only during celebra tion, ii, 171, 516; spiritual flesh, ii, 122, 125; a seal attached to the words, ii, 347, 350, 393, 503, 516; a sign of the real, spiritual benefit, i, 340; ii, 70, 512; signifies commun ion of saints, i, 340, 341 ; given for forgiveness of sins, ii, 149, 512; re ceived by all communicants, ii, 67 ; (see " Lord's Supper, reception of by unworthy"); the unworthy re ceive only orally, ii, 515 ; oral man ducation of, ii, 514; bodily recep tion of, ii, 105, 112, 121, 125 sq., 157; special benefit of for body of communicant, ii, 125, 126, 518; also conveys benefit to spirit, ii, 126 ; the mouth eats for the heart, and vice versa, ii, 127; adoration of, see " Host." Bohemian Brethren, Luther's relations with, i, 362, 380; ii, 88, 192, 193 sq ; his conversation with senior of, i, 194; denounced as schismatics, i, 311, 355; course of, approved, i, 202, 313, 468; on purgatory, i, 275; on cup for laity, i, 381 ; on bodily presence, ib.j on infant baptism, ii, 48 ; on Lord's Supper, ii, 59, 64, 65, 193; celibacy of priests among, i, 447 ; rejection of saint- worship by, i, 202, 468; Luther's preface to confession of, ii, 192; Comenius on, ii, 194, 568; ^jindely on, ii, 55; Lasicius on, ii, 61, 64, '93, '94- Bonaventura, consulted by Luther, i, 119. Brentz, question of, on justifying faith, ii, 447, 449- Briick, letters to, ii, 186. Bt other in monastery, counsel of, i, 62. Brotherhoods (of the Body of Christ, etc.), i, 335, 337, 343. Bucer, negotiations with, at Coburg, ii, '55, 156; at Cassel, i, 164; at Wittenberg Colloquy, i, 168 sq.; endeavors to persuade the Swiss, ii, 159 ; do. to conciliate Luther, ii, 162; letter of to Landgrave of Hesse, i, 158; do. to Luther and Melanch thon, i, 159; letters of Luther to, ii, 157, 177; on child-faith, ii, 57. Bull, of Clement VI., on treasure of church, i, 272, 280. Bull, excommunicating Luther, i, 419; Luther's response to. i. 420, 426. Bullinger, correspondence with, ii, 177 ; opposes Luther, ii, 183. Cabala, of the divine name, ii, 278. 588 INDEX. Cajetan, Luther summoned before, i, 250; points of discussion with, i, 266, 271. Calvin, Luther's judgment of, ii, 182; tract of upon Lord's Supper, i, 191 ; ii, 182 ; doctrine o( resembles that of the Syngramma, ii, 108. Campanus, theory of on Lord's Sup per, ii, 189. Canonicity, of books of scripture, i, 317, 322- Canonization of saints, ii, 360. Capacity for salvation, i, 485. Capito, in Wittenberg Colloquy, ii, 167; labors of for harmony, ii, 176. Carlstadt, as student and teacher, i, 82; as agitator, ii, 21-23; as pastor at Orlamund, ii, 91; on marriage of monks, i, 447 ; on baptism, ii, 23 ; on real presence, ib.; on for giveness of sins, ii, 23, 27; on theory of Lord's Supper, ii, 23, 26, 58, 71, 84; on lay preaching, ii, 24; on images, ib.; on polygamy, ib.; justifies violence, ib.; mysticism of, ii, 25, 26; on means of grace, ii, 25; on work of Christ, ii, 26; on faith, ib.; on remembrance of Christ, ii, 27, 72 ; new legality of, ii, 28; on monastic celibacy, i, 447, 449 ; fundamental defects in teach ing of, ib. Cassiodorus, quoted by Luther, i, 119. Cassel, Colloquy at, ii, 162 sq. Catechism, compulsory study of the, ii, 567. Catechism, the larger, on infant bap tism, ii, 54, 56 ; on the Lord's Sup per, ii, 518; Luther's estimate of, ii, 301. Catharinus, Luther against, ii, 421, 423 ; do., cited, 424, 426, 470. Celibacy, not the divine order, i, 455 ; commended, i, 122, 184, 455; not meritorious, i, 455 ; ii, 479 ; a mat ter of free choice, i, 45 1, 455 ; moral effect of, i, 328, 377; advantages of, ii, 479. Celibacy, monastic, i, 447 ; Carlstadt upon, i, 447,449; vows of, i, 401, 447 ; advantages of, ii, 479 ; no pledge of chastity, i, 329; ii, 479; haste in forsaking discouraged, i, 456. Celibacy of priesthood, i, 424, 446. Ceremonies, subordinate place of, i, 419; Luther's dislike of, ii, 555. See " Ordinances." Chastity. See " Celibacy." Cherubim, ii, 326. Child-faith, i, 26. See " Baptism, infant." Chiliasm, condemned, ii, 574, 575. Clement V., Pope, and the papal de cretals, i, 299. Clement VI., Pope, the bull of, i, 272, 279. Christ, as a stern judge, i, 29, 54 ; our pattern, i, 173; ii, 365; do., Carl stadt on, i, 27; ii, 415, 474; our substitute, i, 163, 168, 170; ii, 391 sq., 397 sq., 406 sq., 415; only head of the church, i, 304 ; as prophet, ii, 422, 424; as priest, i, 304; ii, 422; as king, 422, 423; omnipresence of (see " Right Hand of God ") ; inno cence of, ii, 401 ; holinessof, ii, 391 ; preaching of, ii, 421 ; do. to antedilu vians, ii, 419; sympathy of, ii, 371, 416; resurrection of, ii, 409, 583; ascension of, ii, 385, 412, 421 ; inter cession of, ii, 411, 421 ; doctrine of, as chief doctrine, i, 213; historic character of, depreciated, ii, 26. See "Kingdom." Christ, oneness with, i, 168, 285, 414; ii, 429. Christ, relation to, as test of Scrip tures, ii, 227, 241, 243. Christ, the body of. See " Body." Christ, the merits of, i, 172; ii, 324, 414. See "Christ, the work of." Christ, the person of, i, 105, 108 sq.; ii, 83, 115 sq., 154, 366, 369, 370- 388 ; Dorner on, ii, 365 ; and work of, as related, ii, 365-369, 391 ; Thomasius on do., ii, 413, 517, 559. — Divinity in, i, 105, 168; ii, 370; humiliated in the incarnation, i, 416 ; >>, 374, 384 ; cannot suffer, ii, 376, 380, 384 ; concealed in sufferings of the human nature, ii, 367, 401 — Humanity in, i, 105; ii, 370; sin less conception of, ii, 370; devel oped, ii, 375, 385 ; exaltation of, ii, 376, 379, 385; attributes of, i, 380. — Union of divinity and humanity in, a mystery, ,i, 371, 373; divinity unchanged in, ii, 374, 383 ; import ance of observing, ii, 378, 381, 387 ; humanity maintained in, ii, 386, 388 ; the person suffers, ii, 377, Tflq, _ 381 sq ; do., rules, ii, 381. Christ, the sufferings of, relation of to law and devil, i, 171 ; ii, 394, 3g6, 400 sq.; triumphant issue of, ii,4Q2 ; INDEX. 589 benefits of, i, 285 ; the believer's fellowship in, i, 107 ; ii, 406. See " Christ, the work of." Christ, the work of, i, 105, 170-174; i', 3^7, 388-424 ; Luther's broad conception of, i, 269; ii, 413; con tinuous, ii, 365, 389, 411; as ex emplum and sacramentum, i, 173, 270, 285, 344, 403; ii, 368, 369; as donum, ii, 369 ; vividly conceived as redemption, ii, 389; embracing obedience to law, i, 170; ii, 391 sq., 407 ; assumption of human guilt, ii, 395 ; subjection to curse of law, i, 394-396, 408 ; endurance of divine wrath, i, 105, 106; ii, 396 sq., 416; do., of divine abandonment, ii, 399, 402 ; do., of assaults of the devil, ii, 400; overcoming of opposing forces, 402, 409 sq.; descent into hell, ii, 417 sq.; benefits of, i, 285; made atonement (satisfaction), ii, 406; secured" gifts of grace, i, 407 ; Held on, ii, 390. Chronicles, the books of, ii, 239. Chiwch, the, as communion of saints, i, 295, 3°3, 3°6, 313, 360, 364; ii, 538, 539, 557; under old covenant, ii, 344, 361, 363, 558; originated in Eden, ii, 344; chief signs of (Word and sacraments), i, 4 27 ; ii. 362,506, 538, 540; other signs of, ii, 541 (keys), ii, 547 (ministry), ii, 551 (prayer and the cross), ib. (works of believers); relation of to the script ures, i, 320, 421, 428; ii, 224, 539; rests on faith, i 303, 306; infallible, i, 200, 208, 319, 408 ; ii, 558 ; can ori ginate no new articles of faith, i, 316, 320, 408, 501 ; medium of salvation, i, 276, ii, 540; mother of believers, ii, 539; pillar of truth, ii, 558; a monarchy under Christ, i. 304, 367, 422; visible and invisible, i, 364, 367, 426 ; ii, 559 ; unity and univer sality of, i, 303, 307, 308, 364; ii, 557 ; holiness of, i, 306 ; ii, 557 ; au thority of, i, 123, 200, 208; do. in ferior to that of the Scriptures, i, 317, 503, 506; government and discipline in, i, 305, 306; ii, 47°, 533, 547, 56l> 568, 569 ; moral conniption in, i, 206, 410, ii, 540, 560; relation of to civil government, i, 308, ii, 560, 562; place of doctrines of, in Lutheran theology, ii, 213, 560; summary, ii, 538-572. See " Congregation ," " C 1 e r i cal office." Church Postils, ii, 260, 413 ; cited, passim. Church of Rome, the, hierarchy and or dinances of acknowledged, i, 122, 123, 205 ; should be respected, 291 ; in Luther's youth, i, 28 sq.; harmony with teachings of, claimed by Luther, i, 99, 228, 237, 250, 278, 421; ii, 160, 163; little stress laid upon ex ternal features of, i, 123, 124; moral corruption in, i, 206, 410 ; neglects and defects of preaching in, i, 206; true believers within, i, 506; ii, 272, 540, 557; supremacy of, i, 290, 292 sqq.; infallibility of, i, 208, K78, 408. Church, Eastern, the, to be acknowl edged, i, 300, 307 ; independent oi Rome, i, 312. Church fathers, fallible, i, 314, 504. Churches, true, ii, 538-541; false, ii, 541,362. Churches, national, i, 376. Clemency, in divine government, ii, 329; in family and state, ii, 487. Clerical office, the, a ministry, i, 295, 362, 415, 425; ii, 544, 547, 548; divinely instituted, ii, 545 ; a sign of the church, ii, 547; rests on uni versal priesthood, i, 373; ii, 543! not a distinct ordtr, i, 372; neces sity of, i, 373 ; ii, 543, 545 ; sphere of, i, 205, 374; special call to, nec essary, i, 372,406; ii, 85, 87, 542, 543 ; do. may be mediate or immedi ate, i, 92 ;mediate call to may be ten dered by congregation, i, 87 Sq., 372 — or by government, i, 544, 568; induction into (see "Ordination"); local authority of, ii, 93, 96 ; respect due to, ii, 545, 546, 548; special blessings attending, i, 546; no in delible character, i, 373, 406; ii, 544; laity associated with, ii, 549; subject to judgment of laity, ib.; does not exempt laity from personal ministrations, ii, 550; women ex cluded from, ii, 87, 94; the church may exist without, ii, 550; concrete form of, ii, 556; tract upon per verted form of, i, 455. See " Bish ops," " Priests," " Ordination." Coburg, colloquy at, ii, 1 56 sq. Collect, origin of the term, i, 339, 394 ; peculiar use of do., i, 349, 352. Cologne Constitution, on Lord's Supper, ii, 183, 185; Luther's indignation at, ii, 185. 590 Commandments, the ten, Luther's sermons upon, i, 90. See " Law," "Precepts," "Decalogue." Commandments vs. promises, i, 413, 416. Communicatio idiomatum, ii, 379, 381. Communion of saints, spiritual vs. ex ternal, i, 277; mutual, i, 344, 417; ii, 415, 529 ; includes the imperfect, ii, 272; signified and enjoyed in Lord's Supper, i, 335, 338, 340, 342, 344; ii, 6b, 67, 114, 149, 521. See " Church," " Excommunication." Communion, private, ii, 520. Conception of Christ, supernatural, ii, no, 122, 370, 520. Concomitance, i, 424; ii, 68, 51 5- Concupiscence, none in original state, ii, 539; sinful, ii, 478: not the chief token of depravity, ii, 347. Conference at Basle. See " Basle." Confession, as element of repentance, ii, 215, 402. Confession, auricular, scriptural war rant for, i, 242, 357, 463 ; Luther's conception of, i, 357, 402, 463; benefits of, ii, 530, 531 ; optional, ii, 532 ; opportunity for pastoral coun sel, i, 531; the pope's power to de mand (tract of Luther upon), i, 463; acedia not a proper subject of, i, 205 ; protest against enumeration of sins in, i, 204, 264, 356, 463; ii, 531 ; oc casional omission of, i, 357 ; aban doned by Carlstadt, ii, 21; treatise of Luther upon, Confitendi ratio, i, 357, 3°°. 4°o ; do. upon pope's power to command, ii, 463. See "Absolution," "Keys." Confessions, place of in the church, ii, 26; not confined to scriptural lan guage, ii, 269. Confirmation, allowed as a ceremony, i, 404; not a sacrament, ii, 536. Congregations, rights of, ii, 568, 569 ; voice in election of bishops, i, 302; do. of pastor, 302, 372 ; ii, 86, 87, 569; do. in synods, ii, 550; do. in discipline, ii, 568-570 (see "Gov ernment" and "Excommunica tion"); do. in ceremonies adopted, "> 553 5 represented by official mem bers, ii, 568 ; character of new evan gelical, ii, 567; the ideal, ii, ib. See " Church," " Laity." Conquest. See " Christ." Constance, Council of, i, 437. Contrition (penitence), as element in repentance, i, 215, 226, 244, 402; vs. attrition, i, 246, 256, 264, 402 ; awakened by God, i, 245 ; begins with love of righteousness, i, 263, 244 ; to be continuous, i, 246, 325 ; accepts penalty, i, 227, 233 ; appro priates forgiveness of sin, i, 233, 237; presupposes faith, i, 238, 402; no confidence to be placed in, ii, 263, 402; ineffectual, ii, 432; lack of does not invalidate absolu tion, ii, 523 ; not demanded in sale of indulgences, i, 224. See " Re pentance." Co-operation , of man with God, i, 327, 485, 490. See " Mediation." Cotta, Ursula, i, 28. Council, at Jerusalem, i, 375 ; at Nice, ib., 299; at Constance, i, 437. Councils and churches, tract upon, ii, 182. Councils, general, authority of acknowl edged, i, 278; Luther's appeal to, i, 278; ii,420; fallible, i, 280, 315- 317; not called only by pope, i, 375 ; subjects to be considered by, i, 206, 372 sq. ; contain laymen, ii, 549; not to enforce uniform cere monies, ii, 554. Covenant, the New, advantages of, ii, 362; particular in application, ib.; spiritual, ii, 363; universal, ib. Created things, essential relation of to God, ii, 214; as media of divine agency, ii, 321, 324, 327, 328, 490, 494- Creation, out of nothing, ii, 321 ; time began with, ib. ; in six literal days, ii, 322; finished, ib. ; perfection of, ii, 323; modifications of caused by sin, ii, 322; man the chief work of, ii, 324; subject to believers,^.; of angels, ib.; summary on, ii, 321-337. Creed, Apostles' , the, ii, 210, 269. Creed, Athanasian, the. ii, 269, 270. Creed, Nicene, the, ii, 270. Crotus Rubianus, at Erfurt, i, 37; letter of to Luther, ib. ; helps Hutten to escape from monastery, i, 41 ; later subserviency of to Catholic authorities, i, 42. Crucifixion, of the body, i, 226, 238 ; ii, 231. See « Resignation," " Body," " Discipline." Cup, withheld from laity, i, 338, 354, 381,388, 423, 459 sq.; ii, 515. Cyprian, upon election of bishops, i, 302. INDEX. 59' D'Ailly, Luther's study of, i, 52 ; upon Lord's Supper, i, 389, 390. Dancing, ii, 474. Daniel, the book of, ii, 234 ; prophe cies of, i, 383, 423; ii, 575. David, a prophet, ii, 236 ; experience of, parallel with Christ's, ib.; per sonal relation of to Christ foretold, ii, 361. Dead, State of the. See " Intermedi ate State." Dead, Prayer for the, i, 470, 472, 473 ; not commanded, i, 472 ; allowable, i, 470, 472, 473, 474, 503 ; no need of, i, 474; sermons upon, i, 472; Augustine upon, i, 474. See " Masses." Death, as penalty for sin, ii, 358. Death, preparation for, dissertation upon, on sufferings of Christ, i, 332, 344; do. on saint- worship, i, 360; do. on unction, etc., i, 350, 406 ; do. on Lord's Supper, i, 345. Decalogue, the, treated in Praecep- torium, i, 90; sermons upon, i, 91- 93 ; how far yet binding, ii, 35 sq., 495 sq.; short form of, ii, 417. See " Law, Mosaic." Decrees, eternal. See " Divine Will." Decretals, ihe papal, collected, i, 299; denounced, i, 314; burned, i, 420, 436. Demons, ii, 331-334. See "Devils." Depravity, human, i, 429. See " Sin." Descent into hell, the, ii, 417 sq., 579 ; Seckendorf on, criticised, ii, 421. Devil, the, has dominion over man, i, 484, 499; », 333; employed by God as agent, ii, 292 ; as Lucifer, ii, 332 ; inspires evil thoughts, ib ; spiritual assaults of, ii, 333 ; appar itions of, ii, 334 ; practices sorcery, ii, 334; all misfortunes come from, ii, 332, 334; relation of to human depravity, ii, 336: Christians freed from dominion of, ib ; tortured Christ, 400, 403 ; vanquished by Christ, ii, 409 sqq.; held in subjec tion by God, ii, 292, 335 ; Christians may mock, ii, 474. Devils, nature of, ii, 331; fall of, ii, 332 ; sin of, ib.; realm of, ib.; au thors of all misfortunes, ii, 332, 334. Diaconate, the, proper conception of, i, 406. Dionysius, ihe Areopagite, discred ited, i, 237 ; ii, 262. Discipline, lack of in church, ii, 533, 547, 561, 568. See "Church, government in." Dispensations, papal, i, 379. Disputations, of Luther, i, 94. Divorce, the question of, ii, 477 ; grounds for, i, 405 ; liberty to marry after, i, 495. Doctorate of theology, responsibility and authority of, i, 89, 371 ; ii, 96. Doctrine, importance of pure, ii, 551 ; elaboration in statement of, ii, 268 ; do. confined to scriptural termin ology, ii, 268, 313, 314; relation of to life, 11,55!; Lutheran concep tion of, ii, 208. See " Principles." Doctrines of men, tract of Luther upon, i, 502. Donation, of Constantine, i, 383. Donatists, error of, touching the min istry, i, 296. Donum and exemplum, ii, 369. Donum superadditum, ii, 342. Drunkenness, government should re strain, i, 385. Duengersheim, reports incident con cerning Luther, i, 57; records testi mony of Natin, i, 59; Luther's dis pute with, i, 314. Ecclesiastes, the book of, ii, 237, 238, 240. Eck, controversy of with Luther, ii, 292-317; theses of, i, 292; Obelisci of, i, 249; on indulgences vs. char ity, i, 269. Eisenach, Luther at, i, 25. Elders, m Hessian church, ii, 570. See " Bishops," " Clerical Office." Elements in Lord's Supper, reception of by hand or mouth, ii, 21, 33 ; not necessary to spiritual participation, i, 342, 35o, 393, See "Cup," " Lord's Supper." Emergency-bishops, ii, 565. Empire, Roman, of the German Na tion, origin of, i, 383 ; constitution of, ii, 485 ; Germans should govern, i, 3^3; foretold in Apocalypse, ii, 575- Emser, publications of, i, 293, 421 ; Luther's do. against, i, 293, 421, 425, 426. Enthusiasm , of fanatics and pope, ii, 220. Eperies, letter to clergy at, ii, 184,188. Ephesians, the epistle to the, ii, 243. Epistolae obscurorum virorum, i, 211. Erasmus, Luther's regard for, i, 210; 592 INDEX. criticism of, i, 445 ; discussion of Luther with, i, 479 sq.; ii, 475; on obscurity of Scriptures, ii, 504. Erfurt, Luther's letter to Christians at, i, 467, 472. Erfurt, University of, faithful to tra ditions of the church, i, 43; Luther enters, i, 32 ; his experience at, 32- 48 ; his studies at, ii, 34 sq., 37 ; his teachers at, i, 36 sq.; Humanists at, i. 38; Luther's relations with do., i, 40, 44, 45 ; confers degrees upon Luther, ',35,83,89; Kampschulte upon, i, 38. Ernst, Duke of Liineberg, letter to, ii, •57- Eschatology, dearth of peculiar ideas upon, ii, 573; summary on, ii, 573— 584. Esther, the book of, ii, 239, 254. Evangelical tendency, perverted; i, 442. Eve, comparative weakness of, ii, 345 ; the sin of, ib. Evil, origin of, i, 198, 488; ii. 332. Excommunication, defined, i, 335 ; ii. 533 ; efficacy of, i, 277, 336 ; ii, 533- 535 ; not feared, i, 283, 313 ; cannot exclude from spiritual communion, ', 343; >i, 535 ! designed to produce repentance, ii, 536 ; withdrawn upon do., ii, 535 ; congregation must par ticipate in, ii, 569; form for, ib.; Hessian do., ii, 570; Saxon do., ib.; Latin dissertation upon the virtue of, i, 277, 279, 288, 343 ; German dis sertation upon, i, 335-346. See " Key, the binding." Faith, the cardinal doctrine, ii. 212; Staupitz on, i. 65 sq.; a gift of God, i, 108; ii, 427, 433; dependent on divine election, ii, 300, 434; awak ened by Holy Spirit, i, 321, 500; ii, 433, 493; do. through the Word, i, 320; ii, 224; nature of, i, 159- 165 ; ii, 425-435 ; general and spec ial, ii, 427, 428; implicit and expli cit, ii, 427 ; acquired and infused, ii, 426, 434; formed and unformed, '. 99; ii. 435. 443. 44° ; an element of repentance, ii, 431 sq.; a personal assurance, ii, 426 ; a service rendered to God, i, 175 ; ii, 444; negative as- pectof, i, 159, 244; ii, 31, 425; as longing and imploring, i, 205 ; ii, 437; positive character of, i, 161, 163 sq., 178; ii, 31, 425, 426, 427, 470; object of, i, 170-173; ii, 109, 426, 428, 445, 449 ; rests on Christ as Redeemer, i, 170 sq.; three stages of, i, 162; follows conviction of sin, ii, 431; precedes contrition, i, 402; precedes gift of Holy Spirit, ii, 446 ; after regeneration, ii, 448, 450 ; with out feeling, ii, 430, 443, 460, 461 ; relation of to intellect and will, ii, 430 ; places in right relation to God, i, 139; essential to benefit from means of grace, i, 246, 265, 266, 400 ; do. in baptism, i, 395 sq.; ii, 48; do. in Lord's Supper, i, 195, 287, 33°. 341, 342, 35°, 393; 'i, '°9; es sential to salvation, i, 262-264; makes righteous, i, 97, 179 et pas sim; alone justifies, ii, 211,435, 443, 445, 447. 448, 45°, 45 ' ; tlie sh°" path to salvation, i, 98, 175; power of, i, 410, 413 sq.; ii, 438; clings to Word, i, 413 ; ii, 426; glorifies God, i, 443 ; unites to Christ, i, 414 ; ii, 428-449 passim, 489 ; brings Christ into the heart, i, 167, 169, 176; ii. 438 ; produces good works, i, 327 ; ii, 450, 474, 475 ; fulfils command ments, i, 414 ; blessings attained by, i, 165—169; and love as constituting Christian life, ii, 210, 212, 443, 452; in extremis, ii, 45 1 ; of infants (see " Baptism," "Child-faith"); of patri archs, ii, 361; tract on, Fidei ratio, cited, ii, 153. False teachers, civil action against, ii, 566. Falsely evangelical spirit, the, ii, 19. Family, the, place of in divine econ omy, ii, 478; gives exercise to faith, ii, 479- Fanatics, the (Anabaptists, etc.), first outbreak of, i, 442; ii, 21; relation of to Zwinglianism, ii, 19, 42, 98 ; do. to mysticism, ii, 25 ; principles of, ii, 42, 484, 575 ; violence justi fied by, ii, 22; intrusions of, ii, 91, 92; rejected call to the ministry, ii, 85 ; exalted inner word, i, 435 ; ii. 220 ; resemble Roman Catholics in contempt for Word, i, 436, 509 ; to be vanquished only by Word, ii, 564; active measures against finally justified, ib.; characterized by the author, ii, 24; do. by Luther, ii, 21, 189; publications of Luther against, ii, 109 sq., 115 sq. Fasting, not obligatory, i, 358, 379, 464; useful for the weak, i, 157, 208; opposed by Carlstadt, ii, 22; INDEX. 593 proper, benefits of, ii, 473 ; do., pos sible only after acceptance of Gospel, ii, 30 ; Luther's practice in, ii, 473. Fatalism, fanatical, ii, 281. See " Predestination." Favor of God, the, vain efforts to secure, i, 46, 48, 54 sq., 57, 60, 72. Fear of God, i, 471 ; servile, i, 140. 325; filial, i, 100, 140, 143, 325; ii, 471. Feeling the truth, ii, 430, 460. See " Faith." Feet-washing, allowed as a custom, ii, 537- Fellowship, with Christ, i, 107, 165, i°7, 33°, 414, 41 7 ; ii, 428, 54' ; of believers, see " Communion of Saints." Festival days, too numerous, i, 380 ; why still observed, i, 207. Field-chapels, i, 379. Figurative language, use of, ii, 390, 409. See " Scripture, interpretation of." Figures of the law, i, 266, 396. Flesh, the, mystical conception of, i, 138, 145 ; later view of, ii, 347 ; in the regenerate, ii, 121, 457; disci pline of (see "Asceticism"); use of term in Jn. vi., ii, 77, 115, 121 sq. See " Body of Christ." Florence, the Council of, on repen tance, i, 215. Forbearance, with the uninstructed, i, 458-467 ; ii, 28, 554. Foreknowledge, divine, i, 481 sq., 497; ii, 283, 305. Foreordination. See " Predestina tion." Frankfurt, Luther's letter to, ii, 161. Frederick, Elector of Saxony, rev erence of for scriptures, i, 71 ; hears Luther preach, i, 83 ; relics collected by, 1, 219; displeased at Luther's assault upon indulgences, ib.; ad vised by Luther upon civil ordi nances, ii, 35. Free-will, defined, i, 483 ; disputation upon at Heidelberg, i, 284 ; denied, i, 326, 428-432, 475-498 et passim; in conflict with doctrine of grace, i, 483, 496 ; in regard to lower things, i, 150, 431, 484, 501 ; ", 356; 'rev ise on, " De servo arbitrio" re viewed, i, 480-498 ; do. cited, ii, 216, 239, 268, 297, 301, 309, 333, 344, 354, 35°, 392- See "Predesti nation." 38 Froschauer, Luther's letter to, ii, 183. Fundamental doctrines, as held by Luther, ii, 28-32, 208-215; moder ate view of, ii, 108; rigid view of, ii, 189; special discussion of, ii, 270 273 ; reception of necessary to sal. vation, ii, 271 ; confession of as duty of church, ii, 272. Galatians, the epistle to the, Luther's estimate of, ii, 243 ; Luther's first commentary upon, characterized, 1, 293 ; do. on purily of church, i, 306 ; do. on external ordinances, i, 312, 358; do. on infant baptism, i, 399; Luther's second commentary upon, on work of Christ, ii, 414. Generation, eternal, of the Son, ii, 316. Genesis, commentary upon, ii, 233, 260. German Nation, Roman Empire of the. (See " Empire.") German theology, i, 94, 135, 144, 146, 251 ;ii, 25. Germany, oppression of by papacy, i, 37°, 384. Germany, Upper, theologians of, con fession of, ii, 155 ; adopt Augsburg Confession, ii, 159, 160; Luther's attitude toward, ii, 162, 167, 170- 181, 191. Gerson, Luther's opinion of, i, 71 ; against over-scrupulousness, i, 357. God, as hidden, i, 491 ; ii, 277, 280, 292, 293, 301 sq. See " Predes tination." God, as revealed, ii, 279-292; do. in works of nature, ii, 218; partial revelation of, trustworthy, ii, 275. God, the attribtites of, Luther does not classify, ii, 274; do. empha sizes the moral, i, 143. God, the doctrine of, ii, 274-326; place of do. in Luther's system, ii, 213- God, the eternity of, ii, 282. God, the glory of, prominent in Lu ther's theology, ii, 208 ; displayed in condescension, ii, 286; exalted by faith, li, 444. God, the heart of, in illustration of the trinity, i, 127, 131 ; revealed in Christ, ii, 213, 283; essentially love, ib. God, the immutability of, ii, 283 ; as a ground of confidence, ii, 298, 494. God, the love 'goodness) of, a favorite theme of Luther, ii, 284, 309 ; indi- 594 INDEX. cated in name, ii, 285 ; his very na ture, ib.; revealed in Christ, ii, 303 ; immutable, i, 481 ; as related to wrath, ii, 390 sq.; not to be ques tioned, i, 493 ; ii, 277 ; treatise of Staupitz upon, i, 64-68. God, the mercy (grace) of, a promi nent divine trait, i, 102 ; as love in exercise, i, 102 ; ii, 276 ; a free divine impulse, i, 103 ; ii, 408 ; dimly seen in works of nature, ii, 208 ; fully revealed in Christ, ii, 285 ; displayed in word and sacra ments, ii. 280; works effectually through the gospel, i, 108 ; extent of, ii, 287 ; enjoyed before the com ing of Christ, ii, 76, 359. God, the nature of, cannot be defined by logic, i, 137; ii, 375; indicated in title, Jehovah, ii, 279; Luther depicts only in relation to man's needs, i, 141 sq. God, the omnipotence of, contracted conception of, ii, 278 ; is his essen tial nature, i, 141 ; mystical idea, i, 481 ; ii, 293; everywhere active, i, 116, 481; ii, 276; as related to secret counsel, ii, 281. God, the omnipresence of, contracted conception of, ii, 116, 139; natural, or repletive, ii, 116, 139; do. vs. spiritual, ii, 282. See under " Christ." God, the omniscience of, ii, 283. See " Foreknowledge." God, the relation of to evil, i, 198, 485, 488, 499 ; ii, 290, 292, 344. God, the right hand of, ii, 78, 107, 115 sq., 141,377. God, the righteousness (justice, holi ness) of, as divine attribute, i, 103 ; ii, 283, 286, 406, 440, 492; general and special, ii, 96; as threatening the sinner, i, 72 ; as " passive," i. e., attributed and imparted, i, 72, 73, 74, 96, 100, 104 et passim (see "Righteousness of Man"); term thus used by Augustine, i, 73. God, the trinity of, a scriptural doctrine, ii, 311 sq.; scholastically expounded, i, 126-130 ; terminology concerning imperfect, ii, 270; manifested in the incarnation, ii, 219, 311,422; un divided, ii, 31 1; inexplicable, ii, 313; work of each person of, ii, 318 ; all the persons of engaged in do.,ii, 317; attributes of each person of, ii, 318; analogies of, i, 219; ii, 316, 319; summary upon, ii, 310-320. God, the unity of, ii, 312. God, the universal agency of, mediate or ordinate, ii, 328; immediate, ib. See " Will of God." God, the will of , absolute, i, 103, 475 ; equivalent to divine power, i, 481 (cf. "fate" among heathen, p. 482); eternal, i, 103 ; ii, 293 sq.; inscrut able, i, 476, 492, 493 ; to be con sidered by us, i, 480 ; immutable, i, 481; ii, 281, 283; controls all things (see " Universal Agency), i, 103, 140, 480, 481 ; ii, 276, 281 ; do. with relation to human agency, i, 140, 142, 151,429, 480,481; ii, 276, 277, 281 ; hidden and revealed (beneplaciti et signi), i, 491; ii, 277-292, 301 sq., 316; always right, i, 476, 497 ; ordains evil, i, 499 ; relation of to divine goodness, i, 491 ; a loving-will, ii, 289 ; duty of sub mission to, i, 476; decrees destruc tion, i, 476, 477, 492, 495 ; did it ever really desire salvation of repro bate, i, 477 ; impels the ungodly to activity, i, 429, 481, 485, 486, 498, 499; hardens the wicked, i, 486; withholds renewing grace, i, 487 ; mystery of should impel us to Christ, i, 478, 492, 499 ; occasion for Luther's treatment of, i, 457 ; discussion with Erasmus upon, i, 479-498. See " Predestination," " God, universal agency of." God, the work of, his own and his strange, i, 143, 189, 257, 271 ; ii, 289, 405, 460. God, the wrath of, furious, but mercy beneath, i, 103 ; expression of his righteousness, ii, 284; protects di vine honor, ii, 290; simulated, ii, 291 ; his strange work, ii, 289; visited upon believers, ii, 458, 460; do. upon Christ, ii, 395, 398 sq. God, the Father, pre-eminence of, ii, 317- God, the Holy Spirit, as a person of the Trinity, i, 130; divinity of, ii, 31 1 ; procession of from Father and Son, ii, 311, 312, 316; related to Son as hearer to word, ii, 315 ; at tests truth, i, 408 ; ii, 224, 226 ; is the author of the scriptures, ii, 223 ; leads men to do., ii, 220; interprets rfo-> 433, 5°4, 5°9; works only through word and sacraments, i, "7,435,490; ii, 44, 220, 224,489, 490, 492; does not always make INDEX. 595 truth effectual, i, 118, 196,487,492; ii, 300 ; dwells in believers, i, 485 ; ii, 438: applies the law, ii, 498; awakens faith, i, 321 ; ii, 433; the sin against, ii, 468. God . the Son, eternity and divinity of, ii, 311; as the Word, ii, 314; do. speaking in the gospel, ii, 315, 422 ; as likeness of the Father, ii, 315; as creative Wisdom, ib.; begotten, ii, 316; as revealerof the Father, ii, 422. Goede, Henning, at Erfurt, i, 43 ; at Wittenberg, i, 82. Gog and Magog, ii, 576. Gospel, the, first proclamation of, i, 348; ii, 360; a divine call preced ing all human effort, i, 348 ; pro claims the mercy of God, i, 108 ; ii, 208, 209; as embracing law, i, no, 188; awakens penitence and faith, ib., ib., ii, 495; alone brings life and salvation, i, 115, 191; ii, 30 sq ; imparts the Holy Spirit, ii, 44, 495 ; a work vs. Old Testament word, i, III ; speaks in excommuni cation, ii, 536; as a" letter" with out the Spirit, i, 117 ; oral proclam ation of, ii, 242, 494. See "Law and gospel." Gotha, conference with Bucer at, ii, 174. Government, church. See " Church," " Bishops," " Laity." Government, civil, divine right of, i, 308, 371; ii, 481; callings and duties of, sacred, i, 401 ; the existing to be recognized, ii, 481 ; duty of submission to, i, 186; monarchical form of not essential, i, 363 ; ii, 485 ; object of is administration of justice, i, 1 86 ; ii, 482 ; do. is preservation of peace, ii, 482, 566 ; do. is promo tion of God's glory, ii, 482 ; limited to external things, ii, 483, 570 ; au thority of over church in secular affairs, i, 308, 374; authority of in spiritual matters, ii, 98 ; do. to call a council, i, 375 ; ii, 562 ; power of invoked against external abuses, i, 372, 385; ii, 562, 563; do. in de fense of the truth, i, 372; ii, 563, 566; Christians should participate in, ii, 483; may compel church at tendance, etc., ii, 567 ; cannot drive to faith, ib.; intrusions of upon spir itual sphere, ii, 565, 571 ; opposing discipline in the church, ii, 571 ; clemency a duty of, ii, 487; may not inflict death penalty upon false teachers, ii, 566 ; resistance of, when allowable, 11,485 ; tracts upon, cited, ii, 562, 563, et al.; Schenkel on, ii, 484. Grace, the cardinal doctrine, ii, 208, 210, 437 ; intrinsic and extrinsic, i, 220; infused, ii, 437; gives pardon, ii, 210 (see "Forgiveness of sin"); universal proffer of, ii, 287. Grace, the means of, not prominent in Luther's early writings, i, 194; de fended, ii, 41 sq.; objective validity of, ii, 54; place of in divine plan, ii, 44, 213; ii, 489; God speaks only through, ii, 43 sq.; prominence of the Word in, ii, 44 (see " Word," " Sacraments," etc.) ; as visible forms, ii, 490; necessary forms, ii, 76 ; effectual, ii, 490 ; doctrine of affects conception of divine agency, ii, 309; Luther's changed attitude toward, ii, 43; summary upon, ii, 489-537- Grace, the slate of. See " Man." Grefenstein, denounces persecutors of Hess, i, 34. Gregory I., and the papal supremacy, i, 292, 301. Gregory /Jf.,and the papal decretals, i, 299. Gronenberg. prepares copies of Psalms, etc., for Luther's use, i, 91. Guilt, i, 152; ii, 349, 395. Hardenberg, report of concerning Luther, ii, 196. Heathen, the, virtues of, acknowledged by Tauler, i, 154; do. by Luther, ii, 356; do. defective, ii, 357; do. bring only temporal blessings, i, 285; ii, 357, 358; converts from among, ii, 359; salvation of, Zwingli upon, ii, 189, 358. Heaven, not local, ii, 152, 579, 584; will finally embrace heaven and earth, ii, 584; an eternal Sabbath, ib., sure prospect of, ib.; what it is to be in, ii, 140. Heaven, experiences of: vision of Christ, ii, 581 ; complete restoration of all things, ii, 581, 583; temporal restrictions removed, ii, 581; the body sharing blessedness, ii, 582, 584; do. spiritual, ii, 582; distinc tion of the sexes perpetuated, ib.; rapid transit, ib., 584; quickened senses, ii, 582. 596 INDEX. Heavenly Prophets, treatise against the, ii, 30-155 passim. Hebrews, the epistle to the, ii, 225, 230, 246, 254. Hedge-masses. See " Masses, private" Heidelberg Disputation, upon free will, i, 199, 284, 432; ii, 344; upon right eousness, 286, 287. Hell, eternal, ii, 581 ; relation of God to, ib. ; not a locality, ii, 579; fig urative representation of, ii, 418; compared with purgatory, i, 230 ; as spiritual torment, i, 58; ii, 399, 403,419; do., endured by Christ, i, 399; ii, 401, 403; Christ's des cent into, ii, 417 sq., 579; van quished,!, 291; ii, 409, 411,417. Helvetic Confession, ii, 172, 176. Henry VIII., tract against, on Luther's confidence in his own views, ii, 445 ; on external usuages, ii, 502 ; onreliance upon antiquity of dogmas, ii, 505 ; on cup for laity, ii, 459 ; on transubstantiation, ii, 462. Herder, his estimate of Luther, ii, 206. Heresy, has never controlled the whole church, ii, 53; restraint of by civil authorities, ii, 563-566; not to be vanquished with fire, i, 381 ; ii, 566. Hess, Coban, at Erfurt, i, 38. Hierarchies, the true, ii, 476. Hierarchy, the Romish, acknowledged i, 123, 205 ; authority of denied, i, 305 ; not essential to the church, i, 3'3- Hillary, upon the Lord's Supper, ii, 1 26. Hilten, prophecy of, i, 31. Historical Books, the, of the Old Testa ment, ii, 239; of the New Testa ment, ii, 253. Holiness, general conception of, ii, 441 ; of the believer, ii, 441,457; progressive, ii, 457 ; becomes mani fest, ii, 551 ; a sign of the church, ib. Homberg, plan of reform, the, ii, 567. Hovioousios, criticism of the term, ii, 269. Honius, against the real presence, ii, 62, 64. Hope, relation of to fail h , i, 98 ; spring ing from meritorious deeds, i, 186 sq., 329; source of do. i, 331. Hosea, the book of, ii, 236. Host, elevation (adoration) of, i, 348, 352, 394! ii, 21, 33, 59, 60, 69, 70, '95, 5l6> 555 ; at Wittenberg, ii, 33, 184; tract of Luther upon, ii, 49, 60, 62, 64-71, 101. Hugo of St. Victor, works of, consulted by Luther, i, 119, Humanism, Luther's sympathy with, i, 38, 210; beneficial influence of upon Luther, i, 41-44: did not af fect his theological views, i, 38, 44 sq., 84, 210; method of warfare of, disapproved, i, 211. Huss, innocence of maintained, i, 36; sermons of, read by Luther, i, 51 ; theses of upon the church, i, 307, 437 ; other theses of defended by Luther, i, 315, 381, 428; Luther's admiiation of, i, 362. Hutten, Ulrich von, at Erfurt, i, 40; correspondence of with Luther, ib. ; slight influence of upon do., i, 387; published works of, cited, i, 39. Iconoclasm, ii, 38. Identical predication, not available in defence of transubstantiation, i, 391 ; does not bear against Luther's theory, ii, 145, 148. Idioma, definition of, ii, 381. Image, the divine in man, i, 150 ; ii, 331, 339 s1-> vs- likeness, ii 341 sq., 35l,372- Images and pictures, worship of, i, 464; among temporal ceremonies, ii, 35; allowable, i, 464, 465; ma ters of indifference, ii, 34, 36; as sailed by Carlstadt, ii, 22, 24. Immorality, at Rome, i, 88 ; gross, denounced, i, 385. Imputation, of Adam's sin, ii, 349. See " Righteousness, imparted." Incarnation. See under " Christ." Jndtilgences, granted at Wittenberg, i, 219; proclaimed by Tetzel, 1, 223; archbishop's instructions for sale of, i, 224; external interests affected by, i, 217; authority of the pope to grant, i, 255 ; fundamental princi ples involved in, i, 215 sq., 218, 235; relation of to works of satisfaction, i, 216, 227, 238, 239, 243; based on the merits of Christ and the saints, i, 220, 324 ; abuses of, i, 220, 228 ; Luther at first assailed only do., 1, 217, 220, 224, 225 ; Luther ignorant of earlier assaults upon, i, 218; his difficulties in regard to theory of, 1, 221, 233, 235; valid for the livintr, i, 222 ; of doubtful efficacy for the dead, i, 241 ; only for weak Chris tians, i, 223, 240, 269; must not promote carnal security i, 222, 233 ; INDEX. 597 Cultivate servile righteousness, ib., ib., unnecessary, but tolerated, i, 240, 291 ; benefits of, insignificant, i, 232, 240; inferior to works of love, i. 227, 232, 269, 291 ; cannot re move the guilt of sin, i, 227, 228; may remit canonical penalties, i, 255, 268; danger in proclamation of, 233, 268; undermine respect for pope, i, 233 ; destructive of good works, i, 324; utterly denounced, i, 428; dissertation upon, i, 225, 239- 242, 253, 323; sermon upon abuses of, i, 203. Infants, unbaptized, i, 153; ii, 511. See "Baptism," " Child-faith." Influence, divine upon man, general vs. special, i, 430. Innocent III., Pope, upon independ ence of clergy,- i, 308. Inspiration, of sacred writers, ii, 250- 257 ; various degrees of, ii, 252 sq ; to be attributed primarily to oral deliverances, ii, 252; cooperative human agency in connection with, ii, 253. See "Scriptures." "Instructions upon Certain Points," etc., general contents of, i, 291 ; on dignity of Romish church, i, 302 ; on adoration of the Virgin Mary, i, 466. Instructions to Saxon Visitors on Lord's Supper, i, 461 ; ii, 149, 191 ; on absolution, ii. 527 ; on ordination, etc., ii, 565; on civil government and the church, ii, 565, 566 Insurrection, warning against (tract), ii, 98, 563. Intellectus vs. ratio, i, 127, 151. Intercession. See " Dead, prayer for the." Intercession of Christ, ii, 411, 421. Intermediate state, an obscure condi tion, ii, 418, 579; no conception of time in, ii, 580; a sleep, i, 471 ; ii, 577, 583 ; torments in, ii, 578 , moral development in, ii, 578; preaching to souls in, it, 579; prayer for do., ii, 577; Luther reticent upon, ii, 580. See " Purgatory." Irenaus, upon the Lord's Supper, ii, 126. Isaiah, the prophecy of, ii, 234, 235 ; do. upon Christ, ii, 377. Italy, papal possessions in, i, 383. Jacob, the wrestling of, ii, 402. James, the epistle of, i, 322, 406; ii, 225, 229, 247, 255. Jehovah, the name, significance of, ii, 279. Jeremiah, the prophecy of, ii, 235. Jerom^, cited by Luther on exegetical points, i, 119; on authority of scrip ture, i, 317; on spiritual sense of do., i, 435 ; on historical do , i, 192; on power of the keys, i, 294; on equality of elders and bishops, i, 302, 426 ; on marks of the true church, i, 306. Jerusalem, the Council of, i, 375. Jews, the conversion of, anticipated, ii, 576. Job, the book of, ii, 238; the suffer ings of, ii, 236, 238, 402, 458. John, the epistles of, ii, 243, 244, 245; the gospel of, ii, 243. Jubilee, the year of, commended by Luther, ii, 40; to be re-instated, ii, 23- Judae, Leo, on the Lord s Supper, ii, 7'- Jude, the book of, ii, 225, 230, 245, 247. Judges, the book of, ii, 239. Judgment, the day of, near, ii, 575 ; anticipated with longing, ii, 574; do. with delight, ii, 580, 581 ; events of, ii, 581 ; open vision of Christ upon, ib. Judgment, the right of private, i, 279 ; ii, 261. Judith, the book of, ii, 241. Justification by faith, Luther's early apprehension of, i, 63, 72, 96, 98, 246, 256 sq., 285, 327, 411, 500; his realization of upon Pilate's stair case, i, 88 ; his wavering conception of, i, 76, 328 ; use of the term in his early writings (comprehensive, progressive), i, 166, 167, 328, 411 sq.; his view contrasted with those of Augustine and the Mystics, i, 181 sq., 327 ; first element of is forgiveness of sins, ii, 436, 44 1; not based on works (see "Faith"); does not always bring assurance, ii, 442; relation of to the means of grace, ii, 213; includes the entire new life of- the believer, i, 155— 183; ii, 435, 439; cardinal place of the doctrine of in theology, ii, 211, 213; summary on, ii, 435- 414- Jitter bog, the Minorites of, assault of upon Luther, i, 328 ; reply of do. to, i, 293- 598 Key, the binding, private exercise of, ii, 533 ; employed in public preach ing, ib.; method of official exercise of, ib.; to be employed properly, i, 379, 533, 534, 557; do. only for public sins, ii, 533; effects of, ii, 533-535; "°l errant, ii, 534; not final, ib.; designed to produce re pentance, ii, 536. See " Church, gov ernment in," "Excommunication." Keys, the ptnoer of the, belongs to the whole church, but administered by pope and priests, i, 260, 294, 297, 303, 306; ii, 86; may be exercised by any Christian brother, i, 260, 277; ii, 403, 522, 526; a mark of the church, ii, 541 ; a service of love, i, 297,- 305 ; a sacramental sign, i, 363, 397 note ; changes attrition into contrition (R. C. theory), i, 256; imparts forgiveness, ii, 525 ; gives as surance to the penitent,i, 246, 257 sq., 259, 261 ; gives authority to rule, i, 123; does not do., i, 368; condi- ditional, ii, 553, 526; not errant, "> 523, 53+ ; public administration of, ii, 526; private do., ii, 525. Kingdom of Christ, the, universal, ii, 423; spiritual, ii, 363, 423; con trasted with Old Testament econ omy, ii, 363; blessings of, ii, 557; in the future, ii, 571, 575. Kings, the books of the, ii, 239. Kingship of the believer, i, 4 15. Laity, the, judges of truth, ii, 549 ; should be associated in church gov ernment, ib.; right of to call pastors, ib., 86; do exercised through magis trates, ii, 568 ; duty of when ministry unfaithful, ii, 89, 90, 549. See " Priesthood, the universal." Landgrave of Hesse, the, Luther's letter to, ii, 165; Bucer's do., i, 158. Lange, John, at Erfurfh, i, 39 ; evan gelical character of, i, 44. Lasicius, on the Bohemian Brethren, ii, 61, 64, 193, 194. Latomus, Luther's tract against, on justification, i, 500; on the nature of sin, ii, 348, 352, 456; on scrip tural terminology, ii, 269. Law and gospel, clearly discriminated, i, no, 188; ii, 209; the chief arti cles of Christian doctrine, i, 30 ; dis pute with Agricola upon, ii, 495 sq.; discussion of, i, 110-118, 187-192. Law, the, given by God, ii, 232, 497 ; employed by the Holy Spirit, ii, 44, 498 , nature of, ii, 496 sq.; its de mands absolute, i, 98, 328 ; an nounces wrath, ii, 496, 497, 500> may include the gospel, i, no, 188, 189; place of in the New Testa ment, ii, 496 ; through it God ac complishes His strange work, ii, 497 ; awakens fear and penitence, i, 57, 60, 189, 190; ii, 30, 208, 209, 49S, 536 ; cannot bring the Holy Spirit, ii, 232 ; cannot produce obedi ence, i, 112, 189; freedom of Christ and His followers from, ii, 392 sq.; 495, 500> 5°' ; Christ's conquest of, ii, 409 sq!; useful for the regenerate, i, 191, 497, 49s, 499, 5°' 5 propriety of still preaching, ii, 30, 495 sq.; fulfilled by love, ii, 480; works of do not justify, ii, 500; personifica tion of as an opposing power, ii, 405 ; associated with the devil, ii, 292, 404; Agricola upon, ii, 495 sq. Law, the Mosaic, peculiar conception of, i, 192; subordinate authority of, ii, 232; regarded as letter, i, 113 sq; foreshadowed the gospel, i, 1 12 ; va lidity in secular sphere, ii, 22 ; abro gated, ii, 35, 36, 37 ; moral require ments of remain as natural law, 11,36 ; civil do. not binding, ii, 34, 233 ; the latter may serve as models, ii, 37, 40; needful for the rude, ii, 30, 36 ; designed especially for the Jews, ii, 232 ; adopted ideas from other nations, ii, 253. Laws, civil, criticised, i, 384. Law, ecclesiastical, (canonical). See Ordinances. Laying on of hands, ii, 88. Lazarus and Dives, sermon of Luther upon, i, 472. Legality, fanatical, of Carlstadt, ii, 28. Leipzig Disputation, the, i, 292—322 ; theses presented at, i, 325. Letter vs. spirit, i, 96, 110-118, 125, 192, 434; », 259. Liberty, in non-essentials, i, 502. Liberty, Christian, relation of to divine law, ii, 488, soo, 501 ; do., to works, i. 358,416; ii, 488, 491 ; do., to ordinances, i, 358,358; ii, 488; basis of, i, 410, 411 sq. ; dig nity conferred by, i, 415 ; implies consideration for the weak, i, 410, 418; ii, 28, 488; submits to dis cipline, i, 415, 419 ; in judgment of doctrine, i, 319; ii, 549; abuse of, i, 418 ; ii, 28. INDEX. 599 Liberty, Christian, treatise upon, re viewed, i, 409-419; estimate of, i, 410; cited, i, 67, 168, 344, 349; ii. 29, 32, 43, 263, 367, 368, 417, 425, 474- Licentiousness, the restraint of, i, 385 ; at Rome, i, 88. Life of the believer, on earth (see " Man, in state of grace"); in the future world, ii, 583. Locality. See " Presence," " Heaven" " Hell." Loci, of Melanchthon, on divine sov ereignty, i, 479; on Lord's Supper, i, 190; on free-will, ii, 431; Luth er's estimate of, ii, 229. Lombard, Peter, maxim of concerning hope, i, 156 sq.; 177. Lord's Supper, the, a praise-offering, i, izi, 352; ii, 520, 572; an incentive to love, i, 339, 341, 342 ; ii, 1 14 ; a proclamation of the gospel, i, 394 ; a last will and testament, i, 347, 392; a memorial, ii, 23, 82, 1 14, 188, 190, 520; food for the soul, ii, 156, 157, 511; called a communion, i, 335 ; public celebration of urged, ii, 520; clinical do. discouraged, ii, 520; not a sacrifice, i, 352, 393, 458 ; ii, 512; not a good work (satisfaction ), i, 392, 393; no opus operatum, i, 342 ; detrimen tal to the unbelieving, ii, 128; a sign of communion with Christ and saints, i, 335, 338, 344, 345 ; '», °5, °7, >°7. 512, 521 ; not discussed in John vi., i, 393; ii, 77, 121, 148; benefits of, ii, 112 sq; 124, 512, 516, 518; do , for the body, ii, 122, 125 sq., 517, 51S; conveysagift, ii, 61, 62, 102,156, 178, 503, 512; the gift of is forgiveness of sins, i, 347, 349, 392 ; ii, 75, 81, 103, 113,149,512,517,518; applies for giveness individually, ii, 113, 5'8; bestowed through outward signs, ii, 504; relation of to Word, i, 195, 287,345; ii, 102 sq., in, 120, 514; the object of faith in, ii, 109, 123; bodily participation in, ii, 105, 112, 121, 125 sq., 157; spiritual do., ii, 122 sq., 127; reception of by the unworthy, ii, 67, 74, 104, 153, 157, 159, 164, 167, 173, 176, 190, 195 ; taken with the hand, ii, 21, 33 ; separate significance of bread and wine in, i, 340 ; breaking and giv ing of the bread in, significance of, ii, 66, 74, 133; adoration of ele ments in (see " Host, elevation of"); faith necessary for appropriation of benefits of, i, 195, 287, 336. 341, 342, 35°. 393; ». 5'2, 5*5; par taken of by faith alone, i, 342, 350, 393; strengthens faith, i, 351; in volves the doctrine of the person of Christ, ii, 20, 82, 83, 115, 134 sq. ; subtle questions upon, discouraged, i, 342 ; ii, 63, 68 ; theory of concomit ance in, ii, 68, 515; do., of Carlstadt upon, ii, 23, 71, 72; do., of Bohem ian Brethren upon, ii, 60 sq. ; do., of Honius upon, ii, 62 sq. ; do., of Campanus .upon, ii, 189; do., of Zwingli upon — (a) general, ii, 62, t52, '55 — (u) " significat," ii, 62, 64, 101, 131 — (c) "allceosis," ii, 134 sq.; do., of CEcolampadius upon, ii, 148; views of the church fathers upon, ii, 129; Large Confession upon, ii, 115, 130-151, 391 ; Short do. upon, ii, 188, 194; Melanchthon's Loci upon ii.igo; the Cologne Constitution upon, ii, 185; the Wittenberg Re formation upon, ii, 191 ; the Tetra- politan Confession upon, ii, 155; the Augsburg ministers upon, ii, 164, 170; Dieckhoff upon, i, 341; ii, 23 ; Luther's view briefly stated, ii, 150, 163; do., merely suggestive, ii, 120, 142; first intimations of do i, 350; do., maintained with fidelity, ii, 63; discussion of Scripture pass ages quoted against do., ii, 64, 66,- 74, 77, III, 115, 121; summary upon, ii, 511-521. See " Body of Christ," " Real Presence," " Words of Institution." Lord's Supper, Works of Luther upon the: on preparation for the sacra ment, i, 276, 287, 344, 357; ii, 76; of the most worthy sacrament of the holy true body of Christ, and of the brotherhoods, i, 335-346, 349, 354, 355; "> ^5, '49, 5T8; of the new testament, i. e. , of the holy mass, i, 346-354. 355. 359, 3.61. 395; ema nation of certain articles in the dis sertation upon the holy sacrament, i, 354; prelude upon the Babylonian captivity (see "Bab. Capt.") ; of both elements of the sacrament, etc., i, 442; ii, 67, 460; of the abuse of the sacrament, i, 457, 470; ii, 68, 73, 86; of the abrogation of private masses, i, 457; of the adoration of the sacrament, ii, 49, 60, 62, 64-71, 101 ; Large Confession upon the 6oo INDEX. Lord's Supper, ii, 83, 115, 130-151, 201 ; Short do., ii, 188, 194; pre face to the Syngramma, ii, Iol|; of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, against the fanatics, ii, 109-114, 140; that these words, this is my body, etc.. stand fast, against the fanatics, ii, 115— 130, 140; of hedge -masses and conse cration of priests, ii, 161 ; Luther on his book upon hedge masses, ib.; the German mass, ii, 555, 561. Louvain, reply to theologians at, ii, 195. Love of God, the. See " God." Love of neighbor, a characteristic of the new life, i, 183 sq , 416; ii, 418, 455, 474: makes god-like, i, 416; ii, 455; endures injuries, i, 186; ii, 210, 212, 487; fulfills the law, i, 183 ; ii, 210, 488; embraces all men, i, 183 ; serves in little things, ib.; consists in renunciation (mysti cal idea) ib.; leaves 110 room for works of superogation, i, 235 ; works of, as related to inaulgences, i, 236. Love of righteousness, repentance be gins with, i, 68, 163 sq , 324; ii, 431 ; treatise of Staupitz on, i, 64-68. Love io God, its relation to faith, i, 99 ; 162 sq., 418; ii, 443 ; repentance be gins with, i, 68, 163 sq ; more than delight in divine gifts, i, 139 ; prime element of the believer's life, ii, 470. Luke, the gospel of, ii, 243. Luther, John, character of, i, 26; principles of, i, 30; relation of to the church, i, 31; comment of upon his son's supposed miraculous call to the monastery, i, 55. Luther, Martin, childhood of, i, 25 ; parents of. i, 26, 31 ; at school, i, 27, 32, 33 ; kindness of Ursula Cotta to, i, 28 ; influenced by the religious life of the age, i, 28 sq,; enters Er furt university, i, 34; studies classi cal authors, i, 35, 37, 38 ; observes contents rather than form of do., i, 35, 38, 41 ; receives academic de grees, i, 35, 83, 89; influence of Wesel upon, i, 35 ; do of Truttvet ter and Grefenstein, i, 136; do. of hu manism, i, 38 sq.; confidence of in the church, i, 45; do shaken, i, 123, 124, 199 ; inner religious life of at university, i, 46, 47 ; enters mon astery, i, 47 ; reasons of for the step, i, 49 ; fidelity of in monastic duties, i, 50, 59, 69, 73; finds sermons of Huss, i, 51 ; studies scholasfc authors, i, 51, 80; influ ence of do. upon, i, 52 ; his distress of miud, i, 52-63; prays to saints, ', 47, 57, *2i ; bis dread of Christ, i, 55; ordained priest, ib.; his sense of responsibility, i, 56; worried upon predestination, i, 57; receives aid from the scriptures, i, 61 ; do. from Christian brethren, i, 62, 63; do. from Staupitz, i, 64; studies St Taul and Augustine, i, 72, 75 ; his views of divine righteous ness, i. 72, 76 ; called to Witten berg, i, 79 ; teaches philosophy, ib.; aversion of to Romish teachings, ':, 81 ; associates of, at Wittenberg, i, 82, 83: preaches, i, 83; studies Greek and Hebrew, i, 84; journey of to Rome, i, 84-88 ; publishes first work, i, 89; lectures upon Psalms and Romans, i, 89—93 ; preaches upon pericopes and decalogue, i, 93; expounds the Lord's Prayer, ib.; en gages in disputations, i, 94 ; pub lishes " German Theology," ib.; nu merous letters of, ib.; his first ex position of the Psalms, i, 95-1 19; his early teaching against indulgences, i, 218-226: publishes 9s tiieses, i, 225 ; his general position at this time, i, 285 sq ; contemporaneous deliver ances of, i, 23c— 247 ; teaching of in 1518, i, 248-288; negotiations of with Miltitz, i, 289 sq., 409; contro versy of with Kck, i. 292 sq.; pub lications of 1 519 and 1520 upon Lord's Supper and church, i, 334- 369 ; three great reformatory writ ings of, i, 369-419; further pub lications of in this period, i, 420, 435; his defiance of the pope, i, 370; excommunicated, i, 419; appeals to a general council, i, 420; defends himself against charge of presump tion, i, 433; ii, 96; do. of incon sistency, i, 446 ; at the Wartburg, i, 441 ; further opposition of against the Romish Church, i, 441-511; complete emancipation of from do., i, 445 ; leniency of toward Bohemian Brethren and Upper German and Swiss theologians, ii, 59, 61, 63, 108, 157, 162-193; refuses compromise with do., ii, 163 ; persistent hostility of toward sacramentarians, ii, 56, 62, °5, 75, 100, 129-134, 151, 160, INDEX. 6qi 183-189, 194, 195 ; reported aban donment of his own doctrine upon the Lord's Supper, ii, 184; threat ened breach with Melanchthon, i, 184, 186, 188, 189; objects to pub lication of his writings, ii, 301 ; longs for heaven, ii, 574; death of, ii, 196. See " Luther, the man," etc. Luther, commentaries of Upon the Decalogue (sermons), i, 38, 91, 93 et passim ; ii, 38 do. Upon Exodus, i, 498 ; ii, 37, 38, 83, 92. Upon Galatians (Smaller, 1519), i, 285, 293 et passim ; ii, 47 do. ; dedication of, i, 371; preface to, i, 384- Upon Galatians (Larger, 1535), ii, 400 et passim. Upon Genesis, ii, 37, 207 et passim. Upon Joel, ii, 518. Upon John, gospel of, ii, 429, cited. Upon John, epistle and gospel of, ii, 446. Upon Jonah, ii, 417. Upon Lord's Prayer, i, 93, 191, 195, 196, 198. Upon 1 Peter, iii, 18 ; ii, 419. Upon Psalms (Annotations), i, 73, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95-124 et passim ; ii, 233 do. Upon Psalms (Operationes), i, 74, 90, 92, 137 et passim ; ii, 263 do. Upon Psalms, the penitential, i, 74, 91, 93, 168, 193, 210. Upon Romans, i, 89, 90, 124,470, 500 ; preface to do., i, 497 ; ii, 446, 450. Luther, letter of, in sympathy with Reuchlin, i, 84. do. for Truttvetter, i, 133. do. to pope, i, 249 ; do., i, 290; do., i, 4°9- do. to Minorites of Juterbog, i, 293, 328. do. to Melanchthon, i, 458, 459, 460; do., ii, 45. do. to Erfurt, i, 467, 472. do. to Hans of Rechenberg, i, 477. do. to Antwerp, i, 499. do. to Spalatin, i, 310; do., ii, 47. do. to Speratus, ii, 59; do., ib., 67. do. of June 13, 1522, ii, 68. do. criticising Zwingli, ii, IOO. do. to the Council of Prague, ii, 85- 87. do. to Strassburg, ii, 62; do., ii, 101, 115, 156. Luther, letter of, to Augsburg, ii, 155 ; ii, 52o. do. to Duke Ernst of Liineberg, ii, •57- do. to Bucer, ib.; do. ii, 177. do. to Landgrave of Hesse, ii, 165. do. to Burgomaster of Basle, ii, 1 74- 176, 300; do., ii, 177. do. 10 Duke of Prussia, ii, 178. do. to Venetians, ii, 183 ; do., ii, 184, 190, 191. do. to Clergy of Eperies, ii, 184, 188. do. to Briick, ii, 186. do. to Augusta, ii, 194. do. to Count of Mansfeld, ii, 296. Luther, letters of, value of, i, 94; edited by De Wette, cited, i, 27 et passim; ii, 24 et passim ; edited by Seidemann, cited, i, 58, 59; ii, 193, 4'9- Lulher, preface io Latin works of (1522), ii, 229, 244, 245, 246, 247; do- ('545).". !90- Luther, sermons of Upon pericopes, two series, i, 93. Eight at Wittenberg, on monastic vows, i, 4S3. At Weimar, on prayer for the dead, i, 472; on universal priesthood, ii, 90; on miracles, ii, 330; on civil authority, ii, 482 ; on day of judgment, ii, 575. % On Jn. v. 4, for Tropst, of Litzka, 1, 94- Of St. Martin's Day, 1515, on in terpretation of Scripture, i, 125. Of Christmas, I515, on wings of the hen, i, 126, 151 Of Christmas, 15 15, on Eternal Word, i, 126-132, 140, 167, 168, 169, 187, 191, 196; ii, 203, 313, 3«4- Of St. Stephen's Day, 15 15, on rela tion to God, i, 138; do to Christ, i, 170; on human inability, i, 147, 148, 152; on persecution,!, 209. Of Easter, i5i5,on Samson's riddle, i, 171, 188, 192. Of Assumption Day, 1516,011 divine agency, i, 140, 197. Of Day of Circumcision, on grace and works, i, 155, 157. Of Bartholomew's Day, on grace and works, i, 156. Of nth and 14th Sundays after Trinity, on hope and meritorious deeds, i, 156, 157. 602 INDEX. Luther, sermons of Of St. Andrew's Day, on leaving nets, i, 159, 162, 163. Of St. Laurentius' Day, 1 5 16, on sufferings of Christ, i, 172, 173. Upon Sirach xv. 1 , 2, on clinging to Christ, i, 177. Of 15 1 5, upon fear of God, on monastic exercises, i, 185. Of Second Sunday in Advent, 1516, on law and gospel, i, 188, 191, 192; ii, 259; on saint-worship, i, 466, 469. Of St. Thomas' Day, 15 16, on God's own and strange work, i, 188. Of Epiphany Sunday, 1517, on di vine agency in the Word, i, 196. Of St James' Day, 1517, at Dresden, on foreordination, i, 197. Of Day of St. Peter's chains, 1516, - on authority of clergv, i, 200. Of 1516, on narrative of resurrection, i, 201 Of Tenth Sunday after Trinity, 15 16, on indulgences, i, 203, 205, 220, 225, 229, 238. Of St. Matthias' Day, 15 17, on in dulgences, i, 220, 222, 240. Of Oct. 3 1 , 15 1 7, at Wittenberg, on re pentance, 225, 239, 242-244, 247. Of Maundy Thursday, 15 15, on pre paration for sacrament, i, 276, 287, 344; », 7°- Of 1518, on two-fold and three-fold righteousness, i, 2S5. Of Day of Three Kings, on monas tic vows, i, 451. Of New Year's Day, on monastic vows, i, 456, 470. Of Day of John the Baptist, on saint-worship, i, 467 Of 1522, on saint-worship, i, 468. Of Christmas, 1522, on purgatory, i, 471 ; employing mystical express ions, ii, 425. Upon Lazarus and Dives (Church Postils), on prayer for the dead, i, 472- Of All Saints' Day, on prayer for the dead, i,472. Upon Dives (House-Postils), silent on purgatory, i, 474. Of Church Postils upon Matt, xxiii, 37, on freedom of will, i, 477. Of Third Sunday in Epiphany, 1522, on infant baptism, ii, 48. Of Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity, on faith of sponsors, ii, 49. Luther, sermons of Of Eighth Sunday after Trinity, on call to ministry, ii, 92. Of St. Andrew's Day, on call to ministry, ii, 92. Upon Jn. iii, 1-15 in Church Postils, on Christ at the right hand of God, ii, 118; substitute (at, ib. Of January 17, 1846, against sacra mentarians, ii, 195. Of Christmas in Church Postils, on Epistle to Hebrews, ii, 246; do., ib. Of 1537, on Epistle to Hebrews, ii, 246. Of Second Sunday in Epiphany, on O. T. prophets, ii, 249. Of House Postils, on free grace, ii, 289. Of Church Postils, on immaculate conception, ii, 358, 359. Of 1518, on the sufferings of Christ, i, 285 ; ii, 368. Of Good Friday, 1522, on the suffer ings of Christ, ii, 308 Of 1525, upon the humiliation of Christ, ii, 374, 377. Of St. James' Day (before 1525), on relation of two natures in Christ, 'i, 375- Of House Postils, on descent into hell, ii, 418. Of Torgau, 1533, on descent into hell, ib. Luther, the mati and his teaching, characterized by the author, i, 77 ; ii, 202-217; ^o. by Herder, ii, 206; speculative capacity, ii, 203; lack of systematizing talent, i, 136; ii, 204; doctrinal views permeate all his writings, ii, 207 ; cardinal points of do., ii, 208-214; g'ory °f God ex alted as truly as in the Reformed system, i, 138; ii, 208; no attempt to cover the whole field of theology, ii, 206 ; right to advance maintained, ii, 496 ; practical tendency apparent, i, 137 ; distaste for ceremonies, ii, 555 ; caution in outward reforms, i, 4l8; ii, 33, 184,555; n0 peculiar talent for practical organization, ii, 571 ; claims accord with the church, i, 160, 163, 228, 237; 25°, 278, 421 ; appeals to ancient fathers, i, 241, 250; relies upon the Scriptures, i, 118, 237, 242, 278, 281, 282, 407. Lyra, works of, consulted by Luther, i, 119; an authority in philology, i, 321. INDEX. 603 Maccabees, the books of the ii, 317; fir»t book of, ii, 317; second book of, ii, 240, 241. Magdeburg, Luther at, i, 27 Majesty, the divine. See " God." Man, the chief work of creation, ii, 324; fundamental relation of to God, i, 138; ii, 214; do. is a moral relation, i, 142; the outward and the inward, i, 411. Man, in the original state, bore divine image, ii, 338, 341, 372; possessed a right will, ii, 339, 357 ; do. directly subject to divine will,ii, 344 ; had no actual ability to do good, i, 284 ; had true knowledge of God, ii, 339; pure, ii, 339; peaceable, ib.; bodily and spiritual perfections of, ib.; access of to the tree of life, ii, 340; dominion of over nature, ib.; righteousness of, ii, 341 sq.; ele mental worship of God by, ii, 343, 344; painless transfer of to higher life, ii, 341 sq.; possibility of falling, ii, 345; summary upon, ii, 338-344. Man, in the present state of nature, has feeble knowledge of God, ii, 350 ; understanding and will of, de praved, ii, 346, 350, 355; divine image lost in, ii, 351 ; opposed to law of God, ii, 348 ; moral inability of, i, 147, 187 sq ; has capacity only for evil, i, 284 ; outward righteous ness of, defective, ii, 357 ; self-will of, i, 146; self-righteousness of, ii, 345; depravity inherited by, i, 146; cannot overcome do., i, 147, 152, 153; cannot gain "fitness" for grace, i, 156; ii, 355; sin of, not part of essential nature, i, 145; ii, 346, 352; do. yet inborn, i, 145; ii, 349 ; dominion of, over nature lost, ii, 35 1 ; body of, subject to lust, ii, 347 ; remnant of original righteous ness in, i, 148; ii, 354; ability of for civil affairs (See " Righteous ness, secular"); guilt of, i, 152; ii, 395; condemned to eternal death, ii, 349, 358; summary upon, i, 144- 154; b, 344-359- See "Sin." Man, in the state of grace, must en dure conflict and suffering, i, 121 ; ii, 458, 459, 463 ; is thus under dis cipline, i, 137. 184; ii.472; devoted to loving service, i, 183; endures wrong patiently, i, 185, 186; may pursue secular calling, 185; guided by the Word, i, 187; do. by the Spirit, ii, 457 ; still commits sin, ii, '79, 455, 45°, 4°5; repents daily, i, 226, 244, 252, 325; ii, 457, 498 ; finds continual forgiveness, i, 180; ii, 456; implanted life unfolds in, ii, 454 ; fellowship of, in the divine nature, ib.; exercises fear, love and trust, ii, 470 ; prayerful, ii, 472 ; natural affection of, strengthened, ii, 474! gives due honor to body, ib.; independent of monastic works, i, 184; produces genuine good works, ii, 450, 474, 475 ; conduct of, in family life, ii, 476-481 ; do. in political relations, ii, 481-487 ; leads an active life, ii, 487; free (see " Liberty, Christian ") ; heav enly citizenship of, ii, 458; bliss ful feelings of, i, 157 ; ii, 460, 470; liable to hours of darkness, i, 180 sq.; ii, 461 ; summary upon, ii, 454— 458. Man, the fall of, permitted, i, 489 ; caused by unbelief, presumption and self-righteousness, ii, 345 ; do. by violation of divine law, ib.; deprav ity resultant from, propagated, ii, 346-350 ; not so complete as that of Satan, ii, 354. Man, the righteousness of, secular, i, I5i,'53,285,484,486; ii, 216, 356; original, ii, 341 ; two fold and three fold, (sermons upon) i, 285 ; ii, 440 sq.; granted to faith, i, 97, 156, 179; ii,443 (see " Faith," "Justification," etc.;) bestowed, as "righteousness of God," i, 72, 73. 97-137, 165- 183 passim, 285, 286, 412; ii, 435- 453 ; actual, thus secured, i, 286, 327, 328, 413 sq. ; ii, 435 sq., 440 sq., 463, 475, 488; as source of right conduct, i, 176, 177, 179, 183 sq ; ii, 436, 438-441 443"445 ! ac tive and passive, ii, 440; explicit and implicit, ii, 427; acquired and infused, ii, 426. Man, the will of, in original state, i, 284, 432, 488; subject as creature to divine sovereignty, i, 430, 480, 495 ; ii, 281, 344; aptitude of for receiv ing divine impulse ; i, 485 ; remnant of good inclination in (tinder, seed), i, 148, 149; do. causes misery in hell, i, 148; no moral element in do., i, '49; do. overlooked by Luth eran theologians, i, 150; co-opera tion of divine will with, i, 485 ; alienated from God, i, 146, 486 ; ii, 604 INDEX. 344; centred in self, i, 146, 430, 432; enslaved, i, 147, 150, 284; ii, 355 ; cannot cease evil or love and do good, i, 147, 149, 150, 152, 284, 326 j ii, 355, 356 ; cannot love God, i, 148; cannot prepare itself for grace, i, 430, 432 ; ii, 355 ; law re veals inabitiy of, i, 490 ; passive in hand of God or devil, i, 326, 484, 486 ; free to act with respect to lower things (see "Res infriores"); even the latter denied, i, 430; ii, 356 ; in state of grace free, i, 429 ; yet absolutely dependent upon grace, ii, 442; discussion on in Heidelberg monastery, i, 284; controversy with Erasmus on, i, 475 sq.; treatise of Luther on (see "Free Will"); Melanchthon's Loci on, i, 431. Manachceism, avoided, ii, 292. Manduealion, oral, ii, 146, 163, 186, 514. Mansfeld, Luther at, i, 27; letter to Count of, ii, 296. Marbach, disputation at, on rights of the laity, ii, 549. Marburg, colloquy at, on baptism, ii, 57; on the Lord's Supper, ii, 152 sq. Marburg Articles, on Christology and the Lord's Supper, ii, 154; on faith and election, ii, 300. Mark, the gospel of, ii, 243. Marriage, defined, ii, 477 ; exalted, i, 377 ; objects of, ii, 478 ; not a sacra ment, i, 404; ii, 481, 536; a secular ordinance, ii, 479; holy, ii, 480; to be solemnized by the church, ib.; laws upon, 379, 405 ; of priests, i, 377, 378, 424; levirate, ii, 40; with unbelievers, ii, 480. Marschalk, Nicholas, at Erfurt, i, 38. Mary, the virgin, immaculate concep tion of, ii, 358; purity of, i, 200; humility of, i, 466 ; praise of, i, 201 ; painless parturition of, ii, 370; preg nancy of, illustrating the Lord's Sup per, ii, no, 117, 122; adoration of, i, 29, 200, 201 ; ii, 47, 360, 466. Mass, the, Luther trembles in celebrat ing, i, 56 ; canon of, approved, i, 204; inaudible reading of, com mended, i, 204 ; do. condemned, i, 348 ; errs in emphasizing human ser vices, ib.; sacrifice of, i, 121, 204, 351, 392; ii, 512, 520; blasphemous practices in, to be abolished, ii, 563 ; formula for, cited, ii, 33. Mass, Luther's German dissertation upon, on theory of sacrifice, i, 351 sq ; on private masses, i, 354 ; on frequent celebrations, ib.; on eleva tion of host, ii, 33 ; on the ideal church, ii, 555, 561, 567. Masses, annual, should be limited, i, 379- Masses, for the dead, i, 353, 354, 470. Masses, private, (hedge-masses), i, 353, 458 ; dissertations upon, i, 457 ; ii, 161- Matthew, the gospel of, ii, 243. Means of grace. See " Grace." Mediation. See " Revelation," " God, ordinate agency of." Melanchthon, at Wittenberg, i, 83 • commends Luther's exposition of the Psalms, i, 124 ; alarmed at Anabap- tism, i, 443 ; endorses Cologne con stitution, ii, 185 ; differs from Luther on the Lord's Supper, ii, 190; re ported defection of, ii, 184, 186, 188; Luther's continued regard for, ii, 184, 189; prepares Wittenberg Con cord, ii, 191 ; reply of to Brentz, ii, 447 ; question of upon justifying faith, ii, 448 ; Loci of, Luther's es timate of, ii, 229; do. on free will, etc., i, 41 1 , 479 ; ii, 43 1 ; do. on the Lord's Supper, ii, 190. Medicancy, Luther's aversion to, i, 378; restriction of, suggested, i, 379; should be abolished, i, 380. Merit, man has neither de congruo nor de condigno, i, 148, 156, 327 ; ii, 355, 453- Merit, ill the sense of " secure," i, 101, 254. Merits of Ch rist. See " Christ. " Merits of saints, i. c, deeds accepted for Christ's sake, i, 286 ; ii, 453 ; form no real ground of hope, i, 156, 271, 329 ; bring reward of glory, ii, 453. See " Treasure of the church." Metanoia, ii, 224, 226, 242. Millennium, time of, estimated, ii, 5 75 j carnal conceptions of, rejected, 574, 575- Miltitz, negotiations with, i, 289 sq., 409 sq. Ministry, the. See " Clerical office." Miracles, Luther's broad view of, ii, 329; believers may still perform, ii, 221. 330; to be tested by previous revelations, ii, 221; nolonger needed, ii, 22r, 330; Luther desired no, ii, 221 ; salvation the best, ii, 329; INDEX. 605 invisible, ii, 151 ; papal, fraudulent or diabolical, ii, 221 ; of the devil, i, 380, 466; ii, 334. Moderation. See " Clemency." Monarchy , in the church, i, 304, 367, 422; in the state, i, 363; ii, 485. Monasteries, should be subject to their own bishops, i, 376 ; should be re stricted to their original character, i, 378 ; continuance in should be op tional, ib. Monastery at Erfurt, Luther's en trance of, i, 47, 49. Monastic exercises, Luther's ob servance of, i, 50, 59, 69, 73; his low estimate of, i, 46, 184 sq. See "Ascetic exercises." Monastic vows. See " Vows."' Monasticism, should lie restricted,i,378. Moses, the books of, ii, 232; Luther's estimate of, ib. Mutianus, Rufus, at Gotha, i, 38 ; re lation of to Luther, i, 40 ; do. to the church, i, 43. Munzer, violence of, i, 19, 22, 24; mysticism of, ii, 25 ; on work of Christ, ii, 26; on means of grace, ii, 25, 26. Myconius, on Wittenberg Colloquv, ii, 167, 168. Mysticism, influence of upon Luther, i, 71, 94, 119, 135, 137 sq.; colors his conception of man's relation to God, 138-146; deepens his sense of oneness with Christ, i, 168; ii, 367 ; Luther's divergence from in his view of the world, i, 141 ; do. on sin and grace, i, 142, 154; do. in apprehension of Christ, i, 169; ii, 26, 367 ; do. on inward experience and faith, i, 181, 182;' ii, 425 ; do. on fidelity to Scriptures, ii, 263. Mysticism of Carlstadt and Munzer, the, ii, 25 sq.; as related to person ality of the Holy Ghost, ii, 26. Natin, John, reports incident con cerning Luther, i, 58; testifies to spirituality of do., i, 59. Naturalia integra, ii, 35 1 • Nature, the works of, dimly reveal God, ii, 218, 219. Necessity, of all things, i, 431 ; ii, 276, 294, 299; of human actions, i, 480, 482, 483, 497; ii, 281, 294, 299, 303 ; consequentis vs. consequentine, i, 482; immutabilitatis. i, 484; does not involve compulsion, ib. Nehemiah, the book of, ii, 239. Neoplatonism, influence of upon Lu ther, i, 141. Nobility, address to the, reviewed, i, 369-388; purpose of, i, 371; prin ciples of, modified, ii, 389 ; do. carried to excess by others, ii, 23 ; estimates of, i, 370, 386; cited, i, 388, 389, 399, 4°t, 4°°, 4H, 42°; ii, 23, 43, 198,484. Nobility, the, urged to call a general council, i, 420; offer protection to Luther, i, 370. Nominalism, Luther's relations with, i, 51. Novatians, on sins after baptism, i, 473. Obedience, vows of, ii, 453. See " Vows." Obelisci, of Eck, i, 249; do. on sacra ments of Old and New Testament, i, 265. Objective reality, of the sacraments, i, 442 ; ii, 41] 42, 504, 539. Obstacle, theory concerning in doc trine of the sacraments, i, 246, 265, 396- Occam, Luther's study of, i, 52. QScolampadius, view of upon the Lord's Supper, ii, 102, 148 sq., 153 ; Luther regrets death of, ii, 1 77. Office, in the church. See " Clerical Office." Oldekop, criticises Luther's style, \,8\. Omnipotence. See "God." Omnipresence. See " God," " Christ." Omniscience. See " God," " Christ," " Foreknowledge." Opus operatum, acknowdedged in the Lord's Supper, i, 121 ; rejected, i, 342. 400. Oral manducation, ii, 146, 163, 186, 514. Orders, holy. See "Hierarchies." Ordinances, human, to be appointed by the whole church, ii, 553 ; should not be multiplied, i, 123; burden some, i, 283; diversities allowable in, ii, 554; always open to change, ii, 555 ; under supervision of reason, ii, 565 ; no compulsion in the use of, ii, 554 ; in how far to be ob served, i, 123, 208, 312, 358, 398, 464, 502; ii, 30, 34, 42, 80, 84, 552,553; called sacraments in the Romish church, ii, 536; Jn. xvi, 12 does not apply to, ii, 222; chiefly lor the young, ii, 555 ; Luther's 6o6 INDEX. distaste for, ib.; appointed by princes and theologians, ii, 569. Ordination, nature of, i, 373, 406 ; ii. 544; not a sacrament, i, 362; ii, 536; model for, ii, 569. Ought, the term does not apply to be lievers, ii, 491, 501. Panormitanus, on independence in matters of faith, i, 280, 315, 316, 319. Papacy, the, historical basis of, i, 299 sq.; scriptural supports of, i, 294- 298, 368; divine right of, investi gated, i, 293 ; do. denied, i, 294, 300, 301, 303, 309, 311; subordi nate to secular government, i, 308 ; tyranny of, i, 382, 388 sq , 420; allied to fanaticism, ii, 220; fall of foretold, ii, 575. See " Pope." Paradise, divine worship in, ii, 343. See " Heaven." Patience, under oppression, i, 312, 355, 359, 389, 399, 4°o, 5°2; ii, 481, 485, 487- Paul, the espistles of, ii, 243; Luther compared with, i, 77- Peace, a fruit of faith, i, 100; preser vation of, the aim of civil govern ment, ii, 482, 566. Peasants, Twelve Articles of the, on call of a pastor, ii, 90. Penalty (poena), Luther notes five kinds of, i, 253; the church may impose, i, 254; canonical only for the living, i, 230, 273 ; do. does not determine man's relation to God, i, ;'55 ; the pope can remit only tem poral, i, 228, 255 ; do. remits such by his own power, i, 255, 272 ; all true borne by Christ, i, 105 ; ii, 395 sq. (see " Christ, the work of"); do. remitted for the believer, i, 253 ; the divinely imposed, contrition and cross-bearing, i, 226, 238, 240. Penitence. See " Contrition." Peter, ranks with the other apostles, i, 367 ; was he ever in Rome, i, 422 ; as the head of the church, i, 96, 295-299 ; primacy of honor con ceded to, i, 302 ; the two swords of, i, 283. Peter, the epistles of, ii, 243, 244, 245, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, urges harmony, ii, 162 ; letter of Luther to, ii, 165 ; do. of Bucer to, i, 158. Philosophy vs. theology, i, 35, 79; ii, 267. Pictures, use of, i, 465. See " Images." Picus, of Mirandola, persecuted, i, 283. Pilgrimages, no special merit in, 1, 202; home duties more important than, i, 202, 379; to be discouraged, i, 379- Pisloris, Maternus, at Erfurth, i, f&; friendly attitude of toward the church, i, 43. Poenitentia, rei et signi, i, 242. See " Repentance." Pollich, influence of at Wittenberg, i, 81 ; liberal views of, ib.; prophecy of, ib. Pope, the, authority of, in matters of doctrine, i, 279, 369 ; do. in calling of councils, i, 374 ; subordinate 10 councils, i, 279 ; do. to the scrip tures, i, 280, 282, 316, 369, 374; authority of in imposing and remit ting penalty, i, 205, 228, 255 ; lemits only penalties imposed by himself, i, 228, 268, 272 ; applies the merits of Christ only by intercession, i, 221, 231,236; announces divine remis sion, i, 228 ; dispenses divine gifts, i, 276; temporal power of, i, 283, 369, 383; as heretic, i, 420; as Antichrist, i, 290, 309, 355, 369, 383, 399- 4IO, 42o, 422; ii, 556, 575; resistance of justified, i, 420; extortion for the support of, i, 376, 384; defiance of, i, 370; letters of Luther to, i, 249, 290, 409. See " Papacy," " Pope, supremacy of." Pope, Boniface VIII., and papal de cretals, i, 299. Pope, Clement V., and papal decretals, i, 299. Pope, Clement VI, bull of, upon in dulgences, i, 272, 280. Pope, Gregory I., and papal suprem acy, i, 292, 301. Pope, Gregory IX., and papal decre tals, i, 299. Pope, Leo X., Luther's opinion of, i, 314,410,445. Pope, supremacy of the, opposed by Occam and D'Ailly, i, 52; Luther's early acknowledgment of, i, 123; his growing distrust of, i, 290 ; Eck's theses upon, i, 292, 293; his argu ment for, i, 304; Alveld's do., i, 363 ; necessity of, denied, i, 422 ; on what grounds conceded, i, 310; as a primacy of honor, i, 302, 368; tract of Luther upon, i, 363-369,436. Portents, ii, 330. Postils, the Church, on lay preaching, INDEX. 607 ii, 90; on call to the ministry, ii, 92 ; use of allegory in, ii, 260; on right of private judgment, ii, 261 ; on the work of Christ, ii, 413 ; on Christian assurance, ii, 464; on ideal con gregation, ii, 567 ; on end of the world, ii, 576. See " Luther, ser mons of." Postils, the House, use of allegory in, ii, 260; on body of Christ, ii, 517. Poverty. See "Mendicancy," " Vows." Praeceplorium, of Luther, i, 90. Prague, letter to council of, on uni versal priesthood and clerical office, ii, 85-87. Prayer, scholastic conception of, i, 53 ; power and benefits of, i, 472; in the name of Christ, ii, 472; a mark of the church, ii, 551 ; of the patriarchs, ii, 360; Luther's fervor in, i, 77. Prayer, the Lord's, Luther's exposi tion of, i, 93; do. on the Lord's Sup per, i, 195; do. on application and re ception of the Word, i, 191, 196, 198 Precepts. See "Commandments,'' " Counsels." Predestination, Luther's anxiety in re gard to, i, 57; development of his theory of, i, 141, 329 sq., 475, 500; ii, 294-310; should be preached, i, 494; ii, 295; grounds of individual, ii, 300; does not remove human re sponsibility, ii, 289; maintained in the interest of doctrine of grace, i, 432, 495, 497 ; a ground of hope, i, 332, 494; relation of to the means of grace, i, 196-198, 490; ii, 297, 302; prying questions about, i, 330, 332, 492, 497 ; ii, 307 ; counsel to those distressed about, i, 330, 476; ii, 277, 281, 295, 297, 298; abuse of the doctrine of, ii, 296, 466; to destruction, i, 476, 477, 492, 495; ii, 277, 278; riow reconcile do. with gospel call, i, 491; do. with divine goodness, 1,478,497; to salvation, i, 108, 289; mysteries of, should drive to Christ, i, 478, 492, 499. See "God, the will of," do. "ihe universal agency of," "Free-will." Presence, three possible modes of, ii, 137 sq.; local, ii, 137, 139, 163; definitive, ii, 138, 142, 513; re pletive, ii, 139, 513. See "Real Presence." Prierias, objects to Luther's first thesis, i, 252 ; on the pope's remis sion of sins, ii, 256; on indulgen ces vs. charity, i, 269; on council and pope, i, 279, 282; the Dia. logus of and Luther's Responsio, 1,249. Priesthood, Luther's tract upon per version of the, i, 455. Priesthood of believers, the universal, first announcement of, i, 353, 361 ; stimulating influence of, ii. 84; dig nity of, i, 415; equality of clergy and laity in, i, 372, 426 ; functions of, i, 415; ii, 86, 543; restrictions upon public exercise of, i, 406 ; ii, 87, 94, 95 ; Emser on, i, 425 ; Carl stadt on, ii, 24. Priestly vestments, assailed, ii, 21 ; a matter of indifference, ii, 35. Priests, are but ministers, i, 295, 406; special duties of are mere cere monies, i, 361 ; at liberty to marry, i, 377; Luther's early traditional estimate of, i, 123, 205. See " Bishops," " Clerical Office." Primacy, a new proposed, ii, 556. See " Pope." Principle of the Reformation, i. e., the formal, i, 208, 278; ii, 214; the material, i, 208, 278. Private judgment, the right of, i, 282, 3'9. 321, 374, 408, 433, 506; ii, 261. Proles, Andreas, at Magdeburg, i, 32. Prophesying, the scriptural conception of, ii, 94, 223. Prophets, the, inspiration of, ii, 234; teachings of based on Moses, ii, 233; human agency of, ii, 235; messages of committed to writing, ii, 235 ; judged by their relation to Christ, ii, 234. Propst, of Liizka, Luther's sermon for, i, 94. Prostitution, the civil government should take measures against, i,38s. Proverbs, in all nations based upon the works of God, i, 237 ; the book of, ii, 237. Providence, a continuous creation, ii, 323 ; special, over believers, ii, 324; mediate and immediate ex ercise of, ii, 327. See "God, or dinate agency of." Prussia, the Duke of, letter to, ii, 178. Psalms, the, prophetic illumination of, ii, 236, 253 ; references of to Christ, ii, 236; record experiences of Christ and the saints, ib.; liturgical use of, 6o8 INDEX. ii, 236, 261 ; critical judgment of, ii, 237; Luther's high estimate of, ii, 236. Psalms,_first exposition of Ihe, (Anno tations), i, 73, 89, 90, 91, 92 et passim; review of, i, 95-124; Me- lanchthon's estimate of, i, 124. Psalms, second exposition of the, (Oper ationes), i, 74, 90, 92, 137, 329, 358; ii, 263 et passim. Psalms, the penitential, exposition of, i, 74, 91, 93; depicts union of be lievers with Christ, i, 168 ; use of allegory in, i, 193; quotes from Reuchlin, i, 210. Purgatory, existence of conceded, i, 273, 291, 353, 361 ; do. as a possi bility, i, 473, 503; scripture used in support of, i, 275, 318, 323, 361, 374; do. not applicable to, i, 469, 474; a condition vs. place, i, 471 ; for believers only, i, 216 ; pains of, similar to those in this life, i, 58, 230, 274, 275, 470, 471, 472, 473; disciplinary, i, 230, 274, 323; ii, 578; canonical penalties do not ex tend to, i, 230, 273; for satisfactions not rendered, i, 216; souls in may be aided, i, 273; 291 ; do. by the pope, i, 231 ; do. by prayers of the church, i, 231, 275, 29I, J23 ; do. by masses, i, 353, 470 ; money will not avail for souls in, i, 275 ; pastor's power in behalf of his parish equals pope's, i, 231 ; only the contrite can deliver others, i, 231, 275; not all souls desire deliverance from, i, 231, 274; doctrine of, gradually aban doned, i, 324, 4°9-475 ; '', 573, 57°; Smalcald articles on, i, 474; treatise of Luther upon, i, 473. Ratio, vs. intellectus, i, 127, 151. Real Presence, of Christ's body in the Lords Supper, i. e., the crucified and glorified body, ii, 513 ; held be fore Carlstadt's assault, i, 389 ; ii, 58, 71 ; defended against Carlstadt, ii, 71-83; do. against Zwingli, ii, 153 sq.; do. against others, ii, 164 note; acknowledged by Swabians ii, 102; do. by Bohemians, ii, 192; objec tions to the doctrine of, answered — (a) unsuitable, ii, no; (b) unneces sary, ii, no, 112, 124, 153; different from ubiquity, ii, III ; discussion of should be avoided, ii, 155; do. should be encouraged, ii, 101; can not be comprehended, ii, 63, 64, 119; mode of, ii, 77; not local, ii, '37, *39, 1D3, J- 89; definitive, ii, 138, 142, 189, 513; repletive, ii, 139, 189, 513; illustrated, i, 390, 39'. 392>4°3; ", °5, °8,79, no, 1 '9, 5'3 ! does not conflict with the presence of the body in .heaven, ii, 78, 107, in, 115 sq., 134 sq., 140 sq., 173; does not depend upon worthiness of administrant or recip ient, ii, 169, 515; is not found in celebrations of the Supper among sac ramentarians, ii, 129, 157, 161, 168, 183, 5'4- Reason, the sphere of, ii, 216, 264, 484; dim light of, 263 sq., 266; may reach negative conclusions, ii, 266; enlightened in regeneration, ii, 265; still dependent upon the VVord, ii, 266; as common sense, i. 453, 5°9 ! presumptions of, ii, 75, 114, 134, 195; the reliance of Romanists and Fanatics, ii, 220; de spised, ii, 195; proof from, i, 279, 282, 436, 437", 509. Rechtnberg. Hans of, letter of, upon universal salvation, i, 477. Reconciliation, through the atonement, ii, 284 sq , 311, 406 sq. Redemption, Christ's work of, ii, 388- 421, 365 sq.; content of, as proffered to man, ii, 2IO sq., 388. Redress of wrongs, allowable to rulers, ii, 487. Reformation, the need of. i, 283; to be effected only by the power of the Word, ii, 97 ; do. through constituted authorities, ib. Reformation, the Homberg plan of, ii, 567- Regeneration, broad view of, ii, 440. See "Baptism," "Faith," "Man, in state of grace." Regensburg, the compromise of, ii, 447. Religion, the sphere of, ii, 215. Remembrance of Christ in the Lord's Supper, ii, 82, 1 14, 188, 190, 520; Carlstadt's theory of ii, 23, 26, 72. Remnant, of original character, i, 148- i52;", 354- Repentance, medieval theory of, i, 215, 239, 241, 402; a sacrament, i, 264, 355, 4°3'> related to other sacra ments, i, 265, 356, 401; ii, 532; do. to Word, i, 401, 404; ii, 532 ; do. to baptism, i, 355; two principal parts of, i, 242; Carlstadt's view of, ii, 27; INDEX. 609 an inward experience, i, 67, 224, 226, 235, 242; springs from love, i, 68, 163, 190, 244, 324; ii, 499; moral element of, i, 226; continued through life, i, 226, 244, 252, 325 ; ii, 498 ; do. in purgatory, i, 230 ; a work of grace, i, 324 ; office of the law to produce, i, 190, 416; ii, 431, 496 sq.; Latin dissertation upon, i, 239, 244-247, 256— cited, 259, 262, 263, 264, 267; German dissertation upon, i, 250, 256, 260, 267. Res superiores et inferiores, i, 150, 285, 431, 484, 501 ; ii, 216, 356. Resignation (self-renunciation), i, 25, 26, 158, 138, 139, 141, 159-161; contrasted with positive faith, ii, 31 sq., 368. Resistance, the right of, denied, ii, 97, 48 1; granted, under restrictions, ii, 485. Resolutio, upon thesis xiii. of Eck i, i^-SH passim, 371, 373, 384. Resolutiones, to ninety-five theses, i, 23 1 , 249-292 passim, 344 ; to Leipzig theses, i, 392-328 passim, 406. Restoration, of all things, li, 582 s q.; of the wicked, ii, 581. Resurrection of Christ, completed- his victory, ii, 409 sq.; relation of to the atonement. 412; assures that of be lievers, ii, 583. Resurrection of the dead, a hard doc trine to believe, ii, 583; prefigured in nature, ib.; in part already ac complished, ii, 583 ; the general, ii, 580; assured by that of Christ, ii, 583 ; relation of the Lord's Supper to, ii, 22, 125, 126, 127,517,518; state after, ii, 518 (see "Heaven," "Hell"). Reuchlin, Luther defends, i, 84; do. quotes as linguistic authority, i, 119, 210; Luther's regard for, i, 210. Revelation, divine, methods of, ii, 218 ; under sensible forms, general, 218; do. special — in Old Testament times, ib.; do. still possible, ii, 221 ; in har mony with Word, ib.; Luther did not desire, ib.; general and special contrasted, ii, 219; special inward only through the scriptures, ii, 220; scriptural, ii, 279 ; reliability of do., ii, 293 ; in Old and New Testaments compared, ii, 360; place of doctrine of in Luther's system, ii, 214. Revelation, the book of, ii, 225, 248; do. on world kingdoms, ii, 575 ; in 39 terpretation of ninth chapter of do., i, 375- Rewards, of righteous conduct, tem poral, i, 285; ii, 357, 452; eternal, ii, 452. See " Heaven." Rhegius, Urban, advised to abandon saint-worship, i, 468. Right hand. See "God," "Christ." Righteous, broad usage of the term, ii, 286. Righteousness. See "God," " Man." Rock, on which the church is builded, i, 295, 298, 368; ii, 64, 73. Romans, the epistle to the, studied by Luther, i, 73 ; Luther's estimate of, ii, 243. Romans, the epistle to the, Luther's exposition of, i, 89, 90, 124; Me- lanchthon's estimate of, i, 124; preface to, on justification, ii, 446, 450; do. on predestination, i, 479, 497, 5°°- Rome, Luther's journey to, i, 84-88. Sabbath, the, in Paradise, ii, 343 ; pre served by the church, ii, 38; as a tradition, i, 208 ; ii, 553 ; for hear ing the Word, ii, 39 ; for rest and order, ib.; for the weak, i, 358; ii, 36, 38 ; may be observed on other day of week, ii, 40 ; spiritual celebra tion of, ii, 38; obligation of, denied, i, 207, 358; ii, 35, 36, 37, 38; con tinuous (mystical conception) , i, 140 ; eternal, in heaven, ii, 584, Sacrament and example. See " Christ, the work of." Sacrament and sacrifice, i, 394. Sacramentarians, six leaders of, desig nated, ii, 100 ; seven leading spirits of, ii, 188; views of, widely diver gent from Luther's, ii, 101; upon bap tism, original sin, etc., ii, 183; their celebration of the Lord's Supper, ii, 129, 157, 161, 510; charged with insincerity, ii, 189. Sacraments, the, in general, ii, 502- 506; Carlstadt's contempt for, ii, 24; marks of, i, 355, 4°3 ; ", 5°4, 532; number of, i, 264, 355, 403 sq.; ii, 532, 536 ; as marks of the church, i, 427 ; ii, 506, 538 ; typify some thing, ii, 146; convey a treasure, ii, 503 ; effectual signs of grace, i, 246, 395, 397; "• 5°2> 5°3; show forth and promise Christ, i, 345 ; do not benefit without faith (wherever no obstacle), i, 246, 265, 266, 287, 355, 6io INDEX. 396; ii, 48, 505; confirm faith, i, 351; ii, 506,539; objective reality of not dependent upon faith, i, 265 ; ii, 54 ; do. upon character of adminis trant or recipient, ii, 504; relation of to the Word (see " Word ") ; di vine power with, only during cele bration, ii, 505 ; God can save with out, ii, 506, 511 ; of Old and New Testaments contrasted, i, 265, 396 ; ii, 343, 361 ; wider sense of the term, ii, 532 ; summary upon, ii, 502—537. Saints. See " Communion," " Merits," " Temptations." Saint-worship, by Luther, i, 29, 47, 54; his faith in, i, 200, 360, 466; his infrequent allusion to, i, 121; his final adandonment of, i, 467 ; abuses connected with, i, 202, 206, 466; modified to intercession, i, 468; letter of Luther to Erfurt upon i, 467; sermon of do. upon, i, 468; treatise of do. upon, ib.; Smalcald Articles on, i, 469. See " Mary." Salvation, announced under Old Tes tament, ii, 377 sq.; assurance of per sonal, i, 330; ii, 302; imparted only through Word, ii, 421 ; appro priation of, ii, 425-488. See " Faith." Sanctification, Luther's conception of, ii, 441 ; progressive, ii, 457. Sanctities, of the church, ii, 541, 551. Satisfaction, as element of repentance, i, 215, 241, 247, 255, 267; as re lated to indulgences, i, 238, 243 ; better to render than to secure re mission of, i, 225, 268; works of displaced by works of love, i, 267; true, ii, 240, 241, 403 ; rendered bv Christ, ii, 406. See ' Penalty," " Christ, the work of." Scheurl, Christoph,at Wittenberg, i, 82. Scholasticism, Luther studies at Er furt, i, 51 ; do. indifferent toward, i, 119; do. seeks to discredit, i, 133; skeptical tendencies in, i, 52; criti cism of papal supremacy in, i, 52 ; nominalism in, i, 52 ; hinders re formation, i, 283 ; at the universi ties, i, 384; Luther's acquaintance with, displayed in sermon upon Eternal Word, i, 133; final breach with, i, 420. Schools, Scriptures should be text-book in, i, 382; for girls, ib. Schurff, Hieronymus, at Wittenberg, i, 82. Schwabach Articles, on baptism and the sacraments, ii, 57; on person of Christ, ii, 154; on Lord's Supper, ib.; on faith and election, ii, 300. Schwenkfeld, assault of upon Luther, ii, 187; as sacramentarian leader, ii, IOO; on person of Christ, ii, 371. Science, the sphere of, ii, 216. Scotus, Duns, Luther's study of, i, 52; on the Trinity, ii, 313. Scriptures, the, canon of, i, 317, 322; ii, 224—230; ground of faith in, ii, 223-230; authority of, i, 314, 316, 318, 319, 501 ; ii, 223 sq ; the only rule of faith and practice, i, 316, 320, 501, 509; ii, 220; not dependent upon the church, i, 320; ii, 224; at tested by antiquity, ii, 224; reveal all religious truth, ii, 218 sq., 268; errors in, ii, 255 sq.; study of, com mended, i, 322, 504 ; clearness of, i, 503; ii, 258; inner witness to,i, 500; ii, 224, 226, 227; accepted in Lu ther's day, ii, 226 ; dangers of preach ing, i, 5'°; assaults upon, ii, 511; valued for relation to Christ, i, 125 ; ii, 277 sq.; self-interpreting, i, 322. See " Word." Scriptures, the, inspiration of, ii, 223, 224, 226, 250, 257 ; degrees of, ii, 252. Scriptures, the, interpretation of, pro per spirit in, i, 125 ; freedom in, i, 321; in harmony with Christ, ii, 258 ; by any believer, i, 374, 506, 507 sq.; ii, 261 ; by the Spirit, i, 433; ii, 225, 258, 262; three-fold and four-fold sense in, i, 96, 192, 435; ii, 258; allegorical, i, gi , 125, 434; ii, 260; examples of do., i, 125, 171, 193; tropological,!, 96; mystical, ib.; literal, i, 96,434; ii, 27, 258, 259, 262; spiritual, i, 435. Secular life, sanctity of, i, 185 ; sphere of, ii, 215. Self-righteousness, condemned, i, 97, 126, 138 sq., 146 sq., 152 sq., 284 sq., 326, 495 ; ii, 344, 345, 351, 355, 442-455 passim, 465, 469. Sense, common, see " Reason." Seraphim, ii, 326. Sheol, ii, 418, 579. Sickingen, Francis of, offers Luther a refuge, i, 370. " Signifies" as interpretation for " is," ii, 131 sq. Sin, the nature of, i, 98, 144 sq., 326 ; ii, 345, 346, 465 ; entrance of into INDEX. 611 the world, i, 198, 488; the first, ii, 344; do. prompted by unbelief and presumption, ii, 345 ; original, i, 146, 326; ii, 348, 352, 456; do. truly sin, ii, 348; Zwingli on do., ii, 100; universality and propagation of, i, 146, 147 ; ii, 348 ; not directly imputed, ii, 349 ; not part of essen tial nature of man, i, 145; ii, 353; located in the will, i, 146; man cannot himself escape from, i, 147 ; conviction of, ii, 358; penalty of, ib.; vanquished by Chi ist, ii, 409 sq.; remitted in baptism, i, 326; ii,456; overcome in daily conflict, ii, 456; against the Holy Ghost, ii, 468; in mockery of the devil ii, 337, 474; with confidence in Christ, ii, 470 ; man in state of, ii, 350-359 Sins, actual, ii, 348 ; of weakness, ii, 466; voluntary, ib., mortal, ii, 465, 467 ; of omission, i, 55, 69 ; ii, 469; of the flesh, i, 145; imaginary, ii, 469. Sins, forgiveness of, effected by bap tism and satisfaction (R. C. theory), i, 53! granted by God only, i, 227; pope merely announces, ib., 228; the church not a necessary agency in, i, 237, 262, 277; embraced in conception of righteousness, i, 99, 180; do. of justification, ii, 436; upon contrition without indulgences, i, 227; the whole content of the gospel, ii, 210; announced to the individual, ii, 363 ; to be daily sought, ii, 467; a second, i, 181; final, with expulsion, at death, ii, 578, See "Absolution,'' "Lord's Supper." Sirach, the book of, ii, 240. Smalcald Articles, on saint-worship, i, 469; on purgatory, i, 474; on the Lord's Supper, ii, 176, 179, 273; on lay absolution, ii, 528. Sneak-preachers, ii, 92, 93, 546; dis sertation on, ii, 92. Solomon, the books of, ii, 237, 253. Solomon, the Song of, ii, 238. Sou/, sleep of the, i, 471 ; ii, 577, 583- Spalatin, at Erfurt, i, 39; religious fervor of, i, 43; letters of Luther to, i, 310; ii, 47. Spen/ein, letter of Luther to, 1, 163, 168. Speratus, letter of, on the Lord's Supper among the Bohemian Breth ren, ii, 58; Luther's reply to, i, 59, 63; letter of, on the words of con secration and Luther's reply, i, 67. Spires, the diet at, ii, 564. Spirit and letter. See " Letter, etc." Sponsors in baptism, the faith of, i, 399; », 45>48. State, original — of sin — of grace. See "Man." Staupitz, paternal interest of in Luther, i, 64 ; publications of, i, 64, 68, 70, 118, 250; view of on origin of repentance, i, 68 ; skill of in guid ing the distressed, ib.; reproves Luther's morbid sensitiveness, i, 69 ; urges to diligent study of the scrip tures, i, 70; conservatism of at Wittenberg, i, 82. Stein, Ministir, against usury, ii, 23. Stoicism, condemned, ii, 474. Stolpe, answer to official at, i, 354. Strassburg, letter to, on bodily presence, ii, 62 ; on arguments of Zwingli and CEcolampadius, ii, 101, 115,156. Strauss, Minister, 011 usury and year of jubilee, ii, 23. Sufferings of the righteous. See "Temptations," "Man, in state of grace." Sunday, i, 358. See " Sabbath." Supererogation, works of, i, 235, 271. Superintendents, among the Bohem ians, ii, 89, 556. Sweating-bath of the law, i, 60. Swiss Theologians, adherence of to Zwingli, ii, 173; Bucer's negotia tions with, ii, 159, 162, 167, 173; letters of to Luther, ii, 173, 177; reply of Luther to, ii, 177; attitude of Luther toward, ii, 17S, 180, 183; assault of upon Luther in 1545, ii. 194- Synecdoche, in words of institution, ii, 80, 147, 188, 514; in definition of the church, ii, 560. Syngramma, the, emphasizes the gift in the Lord's Supper, ii, 102; ac knowledges real presence, ib.; holds that the Word brings the body, ib.; do. that the gift is forgiveness of sins, ii, 103 ; do. that the Supper is a sign of the unity of believers ii, 107; on reception by believers, ii, 104 ; do. not bodily, ib.; holds more than ideal participation, ii, 106; on rela tion of presence in Supper to do. in heaven, ii, 107; divergence of from Luther's view, ii, 103; Luther's altitude toward, ii, 108, 181 ; his 6l2 prefaces to, ii, 102-109; relation of to Calvin's position, ii, 108, 181. Synods, participation of laity in, ii, 55°- Synteresis, see " Remnant.' Table Talk of Luther, the published, quoted with reserve, i, 207; cited, i, 25, 26 et passim. Tauler, Luther's first acquaintance with, i, 119; laudation of, i, 135 ; in fluence of upon Luther, i, 136, 138, 140, 149, 250, 263; on remnant of good inclination, i, 149; on believ er's joy amid trials, i, 182; on bro therly love, i, 183 ; on monastic life, i, 184; his sense of divine wrath, i, 154 ; treatise of upon the poor life of Christ, i, 149, 154. Te Deum, the, accepted as a symbol, ii. 170- Temptations, spiritual, portrayed, ii, 458 ; similar to those of purgatory or hell, i, 274, 473; disciplinary, i, 274, 459; illustrated in Job, 236, 238, 402, 458 ; do. in Luther, 1, 52 sq., 57-60; ii, 208, 333; parallel with those of Christ, ii, 236, 402 ; assail the best saints, ii, 459 ; counsel for those enduring, i, 330, 476 ; ii, 277, 281, 295, 297, 298, 460, 474. Terminology, doctrinal, how far to be scriptural, ii, 269. Tertulliani, the, chiliasm of, rejected, ii, 575- ' . . ' Tessaradecas consolotoria, i, 344—346; ii, 276. Testament, the New, superior to the Old, ii, 242. Testament, the Old, a law-book with promises, ii, 230; value of historic narratives of, ii, 23 1 ; contains germs of the New, ib. Testaments, the Old and New com pared, i, III; ii, 230; transition from one to the other, ii. 359 sq. Tetrapolitan Confession, Ihe, prepara tion of, i, 155, 156; on the Lord's Supper, i. 155, 157, 172; Bucer's interpretation of, i, 159; Luther's opinion of, i, 157, 176. Tetzel, Luther first hears of, i, 219; traffic of in indulgences, i, 223, 231 ; publications of and Luther's replv to, i, 236, 249, 252-266; Luther'., pity for, i, 219. Textual familiarity with the scrip tures, i, 61, 70; ii, 262. Theology, the sphere of, ii, 215; vs. philosophy, li, 267 ; vs. logic, 1,137; of Luther, Christocentric, ii, 241 ; Luther's devotion to, i, 61, 135, 382; false, i, 52,423. Theses at Leipzig, i, 325, 326, 327. Theses for disputations (A. D. 15 16, 1517), i, 94, 137 ; cited, i, 138, 147, 150, 152, 160, 166, 178, 184, 194, •97, 199, 201, 255, 450; (A. D. 1518), i, 255, 260, 263, 265, 488. Theses, the ninety -five, object of, i, 225 ; analysis of, i, 226—239 ; mod - eration of, i, 23 1 ; earnest moral tone of, i, 237 ; presuppose faith, i, 237 sq.; cited, i, 239-276 passim, 313, 423; dissertation accompany ing, i, 225; resolutiones upon,i, 231, 249- 292 passim, 344. Tinder, of sin (fomes), i, 149, 326. Tobias, the book of, ii, 241. Tongues, speaking with, in apostolic church, ii, 94; in modern do., ii, 234. 313- Traditions, not justified by mere an tiquity, i, 505 ; weight of, if univer sal, ii, 53, 54 ; to be tested by scrip ture, i, 506; rejected in favor of do , i, 501 ; danger of, 503 ; allowable in lower sphere only, i, 501, 502; not sanctioned by Jn. xvi. 12, ii, 222; may be voluntarily honored, i, 502, 503, 552. See "Ordinances." Traducianism , maintained, ii, 348. Transubstantiation, taught, i, 340; objections to, stated, i, 389 sq.; de nied, i, 381, 462; tolerated, i, 503 ; unnecessary, ii, 513. Treasure of the church, the, consists in merits of Christ and the saints, i, 221, 269, 270, 272, 324; bull of Clement upon, i, 272; discussed at Leipzig and Augsburg, ib.; every Christian shares in, i, 233; consists of the gospel, i, 229 ; do. of keys of the church, ib.; do. of the church's poor, ib.; doctrine of, in volves power of pope and church, i, 273- Trinity, the. See " God." Truth, intuition of, ii, 430, 460. See " Revelation." Truttvetter, teaches superiority of the scriptures, i, 36 ; at Wittenberg, i. 82 ; wqrks of, i, 37 ; letters of Luther to, i. 133. Turks, prophecies concerning the, ii, 575- INDEX. 613 Ubiquity. See " Christ." Unction, extreme, not a sacrament, ii, 536 ; not appointed by Christ, i, 406 ; for restoration, not as prepara tion for death, i, 407 ; tolerated as usage, ii, 536. Uniformity, of ceremonies, ii, 554. Unity, forms of, including sacramental, ii, 146, 513. Universalisi/i, rejected, ii, 581. Universities, the course of study in, illustrated in Luther's case, i, 35, 37,41 sq; to be revolutionized, i,382. Univorthy communicants, vs. ungodly, ii, 169. See under " Lord's Sup per." Usury, condemned in practice and principle, i, 385 ; tithing more just than, ii, 40 ; Mosaic law upon, an example, ii, 40; extreme agitation against, ii, 23 ; dissertation upon, cited, i, 380, 385. Valla, Laurentius, persecuted, i, 283 ; publication of, upon Donation of Constantine, i, 383. I 'cnelians, letter to the, ii, 183; do., 184, 190, 191- Vestments, priestly, ii, 21, 33. Violence, deprecated, i, 420, 458. Visitors, Saxon. See " Instructions," etc. Vtnv, the baptismal, superior to all others, i, 359, 395. Vows, monastic, the introduction of, i, 378 ; dishonor the baptismal vow, i, 360, 400; no scriptural authority for, i, 400, 451 ; interfere with faith and love, i, 400, 451, 452, 453- 456; do. with Christian liberty, i, 452; do. with filial duty, i, 45 1; contrary to divine commandments, i, 453; perilous to souls, i, 400; diabolic, i, 401 ; binding force of, i, 360, 378, 425, 447; the pope trifles with (dis pensations), i,40l; Luther person ally ignores, i, 425 ; to be rescinded a priori, i, 447 sq.; Carlstadt upon, i, 447, 449; theses of Luther upon, i, 450; Latin treatise of do. upon, i, 451 ; German sermon of do. upon, ib. Voivs of chastity (celibacy), among the fathers, i, 377; evil results of, ib.; invalid if taken before puberty, i, 360; diabolic, i, 377; open disre gard of, advised, i, 378, 424. Vows of obedience and poverty, subject to general objections as above, i, 456.457- Waldenses, ii, 193. See " Bohemian Brethren." Warning against Insurrection, trea tise of Luther entitled, ii, 98, 563. Wartburg, Luther at the, i, 441 sq. Wad, relormatory ideas of, i, 33 ; on indulgences, i, 231 ; persecuted, i, 283. Wickliffe, upon the Lord's Supper, ii, 145- Will. See "God," "Man," "Free will." Wisdom, the book of, ii, 240. Witches, Luther's belief in, ii, 334. Witness, inner, should be experienced, i, 181 ; ii, 461,463,469; faiih not dependent upon, i, 182; ii, 443, 460, 461 ; will be finally attained by the faithful, i, 181 ; ii, 462. Wittenberg, fanatical outbreak at, ii, 21 sq. Wittenberg, colloquy at, ii, 167 sq.; 170. Wittenberg Concord, the, preparation of, ii, 169; rejected by the Swiss, ii, 173; on child-faith, ii, 57; on the Lord's Supper, ii, 167 sq. Wittenberg Reformation, the, on the Lord's Supper, ii, 190; on rights of congregations, ii, 570. Wittenberg university, general char acter of, i, 81, 83 ; teachers at, i, 81 ; students at, i, 82 ; Luther's call to, i, Women, why preaching of prohibited, ii, 87, 94. Word, the Eternal. See " Christ." Word of God, the, the only reliable source of truth, \(l&p, ii, 200, 223 ; above tradition rtncT human ordi nances, ii, 222; above pope and councils, i, 280, 282, 316, 318 sq., 369, 374, 501 ; ii, 222 ; contained in the scriptures, ii, 223 sq.; sufficiency of, attested by its light and power, i, 62 ; brings comfort to Lulher, i, 60; Staupitz urges the study of, i, 7°, 71 ; Luther relies only upon, i, 237, 242, 278, 316; do. testifies to im portance of before discussion upon the sacraments arose, i, 194 ; ground of faith in, it. 223, 230; power of, i, 420; ii, 221, 491, 493, 502, 539; God works only through, i, 412, 490; essential to faith, i, 614 INDEX. 266; ii, 44; as letter, i, 117; de pendence of upon the Holy Spirit, i, 117, 490; ii, 44, 220, 490, 492; to be proclaimed by men, i, 490; ii, 494; as preached by the ungodly, ib.; a stumbling-stone to the un godly, ii, 491 ; an essential mark of the church, i, 427; ii, 506; em braces law and gospel (see do.); the general means of grace, ii, 214, 220 ; the chief do., ii, 43 ; objective certainty of its offer of pardon, i, 262 ; relation of to the sacraments, i, 287. 345 ; ii, 70, 81, 86, 503, 504, 506; do. to baptism, i, 394; ii, 55, 507, 509, 539 ; do. to the Lord's Supper, i, 195, 287, 348; ii, 67, 113, 124, 128, 506, 514, 539; de spised by Fanatics, ii, 22, 26 ; in wardly spoken, i, 500; ii, 224. Words of institution (in the Lord's Supper), the chief part of the sacra ment, ii, 70 ; significance of, i, 347, 348,350,392; 11,64,67,70,73,75,81, 115, 134 sq., 503, 504, 519 ; whence their power derived, ii, 67 ; Luther's adherence to, i, 462; ii, 257, 513, 519; rule of identical predication applied to, ii, 148; synecdoche in, ii, 80, 147, 188, 514. Works, cannot make righteous, i, 101, 153, '54, 155, 158, 416, 45', 500, et passim; of supererogation, i, 235, 271 ; of wonhiness and merit, ii, 355 ; character of depends upon motive, i, 184, 416; of love better than purchase of indulgences, i, 227, 232, 269; do. discredited by Eck and Prierias, i, 269; do. should be abundant, i, 417. Works, good, appointed by the church, i. 359; in ordinary calling, i, 202; for self-discipline, i, 157, 208,415; ii, 30, 473 ; follow forgiveness, i, 267 ; a fruit of faith, i, 286, 358; ii, 450, 474, 475, 487; do. of love, i, 416; necessary, i, 358, 450, 451, 452, 476, 499; a mark of the church, ii, 551 ; accepted only through grace, i, IOO ; ii, 450 ; strengthen Christian assurance, i, 177; ii, 451; receive -reward from God, i, 452, 453 ; dissertation upon, reviewed, i, 346-354; do. cited, i, 357, 375,38o, 385; ii, 38. World, ihe, created out of nothing, ii, 321 ; has actual existence, i, 144; ii, 321 ; under direct and medi ate divine control, ii, 321 ; to be transformed, ii, 583 ; we may here.- after live upon, ii, 584. World- kingdoms, the four, i, 423 ; ii, 575- Worldly affairs, Luther's limited ac quaintance with, i, 387. Worms, Luther at, i, 437. Worship, divine, only in appointed way, ii, 468; forms of, optional, i, 503, 552 ; do. required chiefly for the un educated, i, 568; ii, 556; apostolic modes of, ii, 95, 556; in paradise, ii, 343- Wrong, endurance of. See "Patience." Young, instruction of the, i, 382. Zwickau Prophets, the, i, 443; ii, 22 ; on infant baptism, ii, 45. See " Fanatics." Zwingli, fundamental errors of, on original sin, ii, 100 ; do. in accept ance of Nestorian principles, ii, 182; do. on righteousness and salvation of heathen, i, 177, 189,358, 374; do. on Lord's Supper, ii, 131, 153, r55, '77, '82; treatise of, upon Christian faith, cited, ii, 177 ; Lu ther's opinion of, i, IOO, 160, 178, 188. Zwinglianism, general spirit of, char acterized, ii, 98; relation of to Fanaticism, ii, 19, 42, 98, IOO; Lu ther's opinion of, ii, g8 sq., 151, 161, 182-188, 195; his tli eses against, ii, 20; his temporary forbearance with, ii, 182-194. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 02454 3994 .