Historical Introductions to the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church Part 23

In 1563 a collateral controversy concerning the obedience of Christ was raised by Parsimonius (George Karg). He was born 1512; studied under Luther in Wittenberg; 1547 he became pastor in Schwabach, and 1556 superintendent in Ansbach; 1563 he was deposed because of erroneous theses published in that year; he was opposed by Hesshusius and Ketzmann in Ansbach; 1570, having discussed his difference with the theologians in Wittenberg, Karg retracted and was restored to his office; he died 1576. In his theses on justification Parsimonius deviated from the Lutheran doctrine by teaching that Christ redeemed us by His pa.s.sive obedience only, and by denying that His active obedience had any vicarious merit, since as man He Himself owed such obedience to the Law of G.o.d,--a view afterwards defended also by such Reformed divines as John Piscator, John Camero, and perhaps Ursinus. (Schaff 1, 274.)

Over against this error the _Formula of Concord_ explains and declares: "Therefore the righteousness which is imputed to faith or to the believer out of pure grace is the obedience suffering, and resurrection of Christ, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law, and paid for our sins. For since Christ is not man alone, but G.o.d and man in one undivided person, He was as little subject to the Law (because He is the Lord of the Law) as He had to suffer and die as far as His person is concerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering and dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made under the Law and fulfilled it by this obedience, is imputed to us for righteousness, so that, on account of this complete obedience which He rendered His heavenly Father for us, by doing and suffering, in living and dying, G.o.d forgives our sins, regards us as G.o.dly and righteous, and eternally saves us." (919, 16.)--

In their zealous opposition to the doctrine of Osiander according to which the indwelling essential holiness of the divine nature of Christ is our righteousness before G.o.d, also the Hamburg ministers went a step too far in the opposite direction. They denied, or at any rate seemed to deny, the indwelling of the Holy Trinity as such in believers. In their _Response (Responsio)_ of 1552 they declared: "G.o.d is said to dwell where He is present by His grace and benevolence, where He gives the Word of His grace, and reveals His promises concerning His mercy and the remission of sins, where He works by His Spirit, etc." (Frank 2, 107.) Again: "That His indwelling pertains to His efficacy and operation appears from many pa.s.sages which describe without a figure the efficacy and operation of Christ and of the Holy Spirit dwelling in believers."

"The dwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers signifies that they are led by the Spirit of G.o.d." "But it cannot be proved by the Scripture that the fulness of G.o.d dwells bodily in us as it dwells in Christ Jesus. The inhabitation of G.o.d in us is a matter of grace, not of nature; of gift, not of property." (107.)

In 1551 Melanchthon had written: "It must be admitted that G.o.d dwells in our hearts, not only in such a manner that He there is efficacious, though not present with His own essence, but that He is both present and efficacious. A personal union, however, does not take place in us, but G.o.d is present in us in a separable manner as in a separable domicile."

(_C. R._ 7, 781.) This was the view of the Lutheran theologians generally. Article III of the _Formula of Concord_, too, is emphatic in disavowing a personal union of the deity and humanity in believers, as well as in a.s.serting that G.o.d Himself, not merely His gifts, dwell in Christians. (935, 54; 937, 65.) In addition to the aberrations enumerated, Article III rejects also some of the Roman and the Romanizing errors concerning justification in the Leipzig Interim, and some views entertained by Majorists which are extensively and _ex professo_ dealt with in Article IV. (CONC. TRIGL. 917, 5.)

XVII. The Antinomistic Controversy.

183. Distinction between Law and Gospel of Paramount Import.

Zwingli, who was a moralist and a Humanist rather than a truly evangelical reformer, taught: "In itself the Law is nothing else than a Gospel; that is, a good, certain message from G.o.d by means of which He instructs us concerning His will." (Frank 2, 312.) While Zwingli thus practically identified Law and Gospel, Luther, throughout his life, held that the difference between both is as great as that between life and death or the merits of Christ and our own sinful works; and that no one can be a true minister of the Christian Church who is unable properly to distinguish and apply them. For, according to Luther, a commingling of the Law and the Gospel necessarily leads to a corruption of the doctrine of justification, the very heart of Christianity. And as both must be carefully distinguished, so both must also be upheld and preached in the Church; for the Gospel presupposes the Law and is rendered meaningless without it. Wherever the Law is despised, disparaged, and corrupted, the Gospel, too, cannot be kept intact. Whenever the Law is a.s.sailed, even if this be done in the name of the Gospel, the latter is, in reality, hit harder than the former. The coc.o.o.n of antinomianism always bursts into antigospelism.

Majorism, the mingling of sanctification and justification, and synergism, the mingling of nature and grace, were but veiled efforts to open once more the doors of the Lutheran Church to the Roman work-righteousness, which Luther had expelled. The same is true of antinomianism in all its forms. It amounts to nothing less than apostasy from true Evangelicalism and a return to Romanism. When Luther opposed Agricola, the father of the Antinomians in the days of the Reformation, he did so with the clear knowledge that the Gospel of Jesus Christ with its doctrine of justification by grace and faith alone was at stake and in need of defense. "By these spirits," said he, "the devil does not intend to rob us of the Law, but of Christ, who fulfilled the Law." (St.

L. 20, 1614; Pieper, _Dogm_. 3, 279; Frank 2, 268. 325.)

With the same interest in view, to save the Gospel from corruption, the _Formula of Concord_ opposes antinomianism and urges that the distinction between the Law and the Gospel be carefully preserved. The opening paragraph of Article V, "Of the Law and the Gospel," reads: "As the distinction between the Law and Gospel _is a special brilliant light_ which serves to the end that G.o.d's Word may be rightly divided, and the Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles may be properly explained and understood, we must guard it with especial care, in order that these two doctrines may not be mingled with one another, or a Law be made out of the Gospel, whereby the merit of Christ is obscured and troubled consciences are robbed of their comfort, which they otherwise have in the holy Gospel when it is preached genuinely and in its purity, and by which they can support themselves in their most grievous trials against the terrors of the Law." (951, 1.) The concluding paragraph of this article declares that the proper distinction between the Law and the Gospel must be preserved, "in order that both doctrines, that of the Law and that of the Gospel, be not mingled and confounded with one another, and what belongs to the one may not be ascribed to the other, _whereby the merit and benefits of Christ are easily obscured and the Gospel is again turned into a doctrine of the Law_, as has occurred in the Papacy, and thus Christians are deprived of the true comfort which they have in the Gospel against the terrors of the Law, and the door is again opened in the Church of G.o.d to the Papacy." (961, 27.) The blessed Gospel, our only comfort and consolation against the terrors of the Law, will be corrupted wherever the Law and the Gospel are not properly distinguished,--such, then, was the view also of the _Formula of Concord_.

Articles V and VI of the _Formula_ treat and dispose of the issues raised by the Antinomians. In both Luther's doctrine is maintained and reaffirmed. Article V, "Of the Law and Gospel," teaches that, in the proper sense of the term, everything is Law that reveals and rebukes sin, the sin of unbelief in Christ and the Gospel included; that Gospel, in the proper and narrow sense, is nothing but a proclamation and preaching of grace and forgiveness of sin, that, accordingly, the Law as well as the Gospel are needed and must be retained and preached in the Church. This was precisely what Luther had taught. In one of his theses against Agricola he says: "Whatever discloses sin, wrath, or death exercises the office of the Law; Law and the disclosing of sin or the revelation of wrath are convertible terms. _Quidquid ostendit peccatum, iram seu mortem, id exercet officium legis; lex et ostensio peccati seu revelatio irae sunt termini convertibiles_." Article VI "Of the Third Use of the Law," teaches that although Christians, in as far as they are regenerate, do the will of G.o.d spontaneously, the Law must nevertheless be preached to them on account of their Old Adam, not only as a mirror revealing their sins and as a check on the l.u.s.ts of the flesh, but also as a rule of their lives. This, too, is precisely what Luther had maintained against Agricola: "The Law," said he, "must be retained [in the Church], that the saints may know which are the works G.o.d requires."

(Drews, _Disputationen Dr. Martin Luthers_, 418; _Herzog R._ I, 588; Frank 2, 272; Tschackert, 482.)

184. Agricola Breeding Trouble.

In the Lutheran Church antinomianism appeared in a double form: one chiefly before the other after the death of Luther. The first of these conflicts was originated by Agricola who spoke most contemptuously and disparagingly of the Law of G.o.d, teaching, in particular, that true knowledge of sin and genuine contrition is produced, not by the Law, but by the Gospel only, and that hence there is in the Church no use whatever for the Law of G.o.d. After Luther's death similar antinomistic errors were entertained and defended by the Philippists in Wittenberg, who maintained that the sin of unbelief is rebuked not by the Law, but by the Gospel. Poach, Otto, and others denied that, with respect to good works, the Law was of any service whatever to Christians after their conversion.

Barring Carlstadt and similar spirits, John Agricola (Schnitter, Kornschneider, Magister Islebius--Luther called him Grickel) was the first to strike a discordant note and breed trouble within the Lutheran Church. Born April 20, 1492, at Eisleben, he studied at Leipzig, and from 1515 to 1516 at Wittenberg. Here he became an enthusiastic adherent and a close friend of Luther and also of Melanchthon, after the latter's arrival in 1518. In 1539 Luther himself declared that Agricola had been "one of his best and closest friends." (St. L. 20, 1612.) In 1519 he accompanied both to the great debate in Leipzig. In 1525 he became teacher of the Latin school and though never ordained, pastor of the church in Eisleben. Being a speaker of some renown he was frequently engaged by the Elector of Saxony, especially on his journeys--to Speyer 1526 and 1529, to Augsburg 1530, to Vienna 1535. At Eisleben, Agricola was active also in a literary way, publis.h.i.+ng sermons, a catechism, and, 1526, a famous collection of 300 German proverbs (the Wittenberg edition of 1592 contains 750 proverbs).

When the new theological professors.h.i.+p created 1526 at Wittenberg was given to Melanchthon, Agricola felt slighted and much disappointed. In the following year he made his first antinomian attack upon Melanchthon.

The dispute was settled by Luther, but only for a time. In 1536 Agricola, through the influence of Luther (whose hospitality also he and his large family on their arrival in Wittenberg enjoyed for more than six weeks), received an appointment at the university. He rewarded his generous friend with intrigues and repeated renewals of the antinomian quarrels, now directing his attacks also against his benefactor. By 1540 matters had come to such a pa.s.s that the Elector felt constrained to inst.i.tute a formal trial against the secret plotter, which Agricola escaped only by accepting a call of Joachim II as courtpreacher and superintendent at Berlin. After Luther's death, Agricola, as described in a preceding chapter, degraded and discredited himself by helping Pflug and Sidonius to prepare the Augsburg Interim (1547), and by endeavoring to enforce this infamous doc.u.ment in Brandenburg. He died September 22, 1566.

Vanity, ambition, conceit, insincerity, impudence, arrogance, and ungratefulness were the outstanding traits of Agricola's character.

Luther said that Agricola, swelled with vanity and ambition, was more vexatious to him than any pope; that he was fit only for the profession of a jester, etc. December 6, 1540, Luther wrote to Jacob Stratner, courtpreacher in Berlin: "Master Grickel is not, nor ever will be, the man that he may appear, or the Margrave may consider him to be. For if you wish to know what vanity itself is you can recognize it in no surer image than that of Eisleben. _Si enim velis scire, quidnam ipsa vanitas sit, nulla certiore imagine cognosces quam Islebii._" (St. L. 21b, 2536.) Flacius reports that shortly before Luther's death, when some endeavored to excuse Agricola, the former answered angrily: "Why endeavor to excuse Eisleben? Eisleben is incited by the devil, who has taken possession of him entirely. You will see what a stir he will make after my death! _Ihr werdet wohl erfahren, was er nach meinem Tod fuer einen Laerm wird anrichten!_" (Preger 1, 119.)

185. Agricola's Conflict with Melanchthon.

The antinomian views that repentance (contrition) is not wrought by the Law, but by the Gospel, and that hence there is no room for the Law and its preaching in the Christian Church, were uttered by Agricola as early as 1525. In his _Annotations to the Gospel of St. Luke_ of that year he had written: "The Decalog belongs in the courthouse, not in the pulpit.

All those who are occupied with Moses are bound to go to the devil. To the gallows with Moses!" (Tschackert 481; _Herzog R._ 1, 688; E. 4, 423.) The public dispute began two years later when Agricola criticized Melanchthon because in the latter's "Instructions to the Visitors of the Churches of Saxony" (Articles of Visitation, _Articuli, de quibus Egerunt per Visitatores in Regione Saxionae_, 1527) the ministers were urged first to preach the Law to their spiritually callous people in order to produce repentance (contrition), and thus to prepare them for saving faith in the Gospel the only source of truly good works.

Melanchthon had written: "Pastors must follow the example of Christ.

Since He taught repentance and remission of sins, pastors also must teach these to their churches. At present it is common to vociferate concerning faith, and yet one cannot understand what faith is, unless repentance is preached. Plainly they pour new wine into old bottles who preach faith without repentance, without the doctrine of the fear of G.o.d, without the doctrine of the Law, and accustom the people to a certain carnal security, which is worse than all former errors under the Pope have been." (_C. R._ 26, 9.) Agricola considered these and similar exhortations of Melanchthon unfriendly and Romanizing, and published his dissent in his _130 Questions for Young Children_, where he displayed a shocking contempt for the Old Testament and the Law of G.o.d. In particular, he stressed the doctrine that genuine repentance (contrition) is wrought, not by the Law, but by the Gospel only. In letters to his friends, Agricola at the same time charged Melanchthon with corrupting the evangelical doctrine. (Frank 2, 252.)

At a meeting held at Torgau, November 26 to 28, 1527, the differences were discussed by Agricola and Melanchthon in the presence of Luther and Bugenhagen. The exact issue was: Does faith presuppose contrition?

Melanchthon affirmed the question, and Agricola denied it. Luther finally effected an agreement by distinguis.h.i.+ng between general and justifying faith, and by explaining that repentance (contrition), indeed, presupposes a general faith in G.o.d, but that justifying faith presupposes the terrors of conscience (contrition) wrought by the Law.

His decision ran "that the term faith should be applied to justifying faith which consoles us in these terrors [produced by the threats of the Law] but that the word repentance correctly includes a general faith,"

_viz._, that there is a G.o.d who threatens transgressors, etc. (_C. R._ 1, 916.)

In agreement herewith Melanchthon wrote in the German _Unterricht der Visitatoren_, published 1528 at Wittenberg, that, in the wider and more general sense, the term "faith" embraces contrition and the Law, but that in the interest of the common people the word "faith" should be reserved for the special Christian or justifying faith in Christ. We read: "Denn wiewohl etliche achten, man solle nichts lehren vor dem Glauben, sondern die Busse aus und nach dem Glauben folgend lehren, auf da.s.s die Widersacher [Papisten] nicht sagen moegen, man widerrufe unsere vorige Lehre, so ist aber doch anzusehen, weil [da.s.s] die Busse und Gesetz auch zu dem gemeinen Glauben geh.o.e.ren. Denn man muss ja zuvor glauben, da.s.s Gott sei, der da drohe, gebiete, schrecke usw. So sei es fuer den gemeinen, groben Mann, da.s.s man solche Stuecke des Glaubens la.s.se bleiben unter dem Namen Busse, Gebot, Gesetz, Furcht usw., auf da.s.s sie desto unterschiedlicher den Glauben Christi verstehen, welchen die Apostel _iustificantem fidem_, das ist, der da gerecht macht und Suende vertilgt, nennen, welches der Glaube von dem Gebot und Busse nicht tut und doch der gemeine Mann ueber dem Wort Glauben irre wird und Fragen aufbringt ohne Nutzen." (_C. R._ 26, 51f.)

186. Luther's First Disputation against the Antinomians.

At Wittenberg, in 1537, Agricola renewed his antinomianism by secretly and anonymously circulating a number of propositions (_Positiones inter Fratres Sparsae_) directed against both Luther and Melanchthon, whom he branded as "contortors of the words of Christ," urging all to resist them in order to preserve the pure doctrine. Quotations from Luther and Melanchthon were appended to the theses in order to show that their teaching concerning the "mode of justification (_modus iustificationis_)" was sometimes "pure," sometimes "impure." Agricola wrote: "Impure [among the statements of Melanchthon and Luther] are: 1.

In the _Saxon Visitation:_ 'Since Christ commands that repentance and remission of sins is to be preached in His name, hence the Decalog is to be taught,' 2. Again ... 'As the Gospel therefore teaches that the Law has been given to humiliate us, in order that we may seek Christ,'

etc. 3. In his _Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians_ Luther says that it is the office of the Law to torment and to terrify the conscience, that it may know Christ more readily. Many similar pa.s.sages are found in this commentary, which we reject as false, in order to maintain the purity of the doctrine." (E., v. a. 4, 422f.; St. L. 20, 1627.)

Luther answered by publis.h.i.+ng, December 1, 1537, the theses of Agricola together with _Other Antinomian Articles (Alii Articuli Antinomi)_, compiled from written and verbal expressions of Agricola and his followers. In his introductory remarks Luther not only disowned and emphatically condemned (_nos ab eiusmodi portentis prorsus abhorrere_) Agricola's _Positiones inter Fratres Sparsae_, but also announced a number of disputations against antinomianism. (E. 4, 420.) The first was held December 18, 1537, in which Luther maintained: Contrition is wrought by the preaching of the Law; but a man is able to make a good resolution and to hate sin out of love toward G.o.d only after the Gospel has comforted his alarmed conscience.

Following are some of the 39 theses discussed by Luther in his first disputation against the Antinomians: "4. The first part of repentance, contrition, is [wrought] by the Law alone. The other part, the good purpose, cannot be [wrought] by the Law. 24. And they [the Antinomians]

teach perniciously that the Law of G.o.d is simply to be removed from the church, which is blasphemous and sacrilegious. 25. For the entire Scripture teaches that repentance must begin from the Law, which also the order of the matter itself as well as experience shows. 31.

Necessarily, then, sin and death cannot be revealed by the Word of Grace and Solace, but by the Law. 32. Experience teaches that Adam is first reproved as a transgressor of the Law and afterwards cheered by the promised Seed of the woman. 33. Also David is first killed by the Law through Nathan, saying: 'Thou art the man,' etc.--afterwards he is saved by the Gospel, declaring: 'Thou shalt not die,' etc. [2 Sam. 12, 7. 13.]

34. Paul, prostrated by the Law, first hears: 'Why persecutest thou Me?'

Afterwards he is revived by the Gospel: 'Arise,' etc. [Acts 9, 4. 6.]

35. And Christ Himself says, Mark 1, 15: 'Repent ye and believe the Gospel, for the kingdom of G.o.d is at hand.' 36. Again: 'Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name,' [Luke 24, 47.] 37.

Likewise the Spirit first reproves the world of sin, in order to teach faith in Christ, _i.e._, forgiveness of sin. [John 16, 8.] 38. In the Epistle to the Romans Paul observes this method, first to teach that all are sinners, and thereupon, that they are to be justified solely through Christ." (Drews, 253ff.; St. L. 20, 1628ff.)

187. Luther's Second Disputation against the Antinomians.

Since Agricola did not appear at the first public disputation against the Antinomians, moreover secretly [_"im Winkel"_] continued his opposition and intrigues, Luther insisted that his privilege of lecturing at the university be withdrawn. Thus brought to terms Agricola, through his wife, sued for reconciliation. Luther demanded a retraction to be made at his next disputation, which was held January 12, 1538. (Drews, 248. 334f.; _C. R._ 25, 64; 3, 482f.) Here Luther explained that, though not necessary to justification, the Law must not be cast out of the church, its chief object being to reveal the guilt of sin; moreover, that the Law must be taught to maintain outward discipline, to reveal sin, and to show Christians what works are pleasing to G.o.d. (Drews, 418.)

Following are some of the 48 theses discussed by Luther in his second disputation: "3. When treating of justification, one cannot say too much against the inability of the Law [to save] and against the most pernicious trust in the Law. 4. For the Law was not given to justify or vivify or help in any way toward righteousness. 5. But to reveal sin and work wrath, _i.e._, to render the conscience guilty. [Rom. 3, 20; 4, 15.] 8. In brief, as far as heaven is from the earth, so far must the Law be separated from justification. 9. And nothing is to be taught, said, or thought in the matter of justification but only the word of the grace exhibited in Christ. 10. From this, however, it does not follow that the Law is to be abolished and excluded from the preaching of [done in] the church. 11. Indeed, just for the reason that not only is it not necessary to justification, but also cannot effect it, it is the more necessary to teach and urge it. 12. In order that man, who is proud and trusts in his own powers, may be instructed that he cannot be justified by the Law. 18. Whatever reveals sin, wrath, or death exercises the office of the Law, whether it be in the Old or in the New Testament. 19.

For to reveal sin is nothing else, nor can it be anything else, than the Law or an effect and the peculiar power of the Law. 20. Law and revelation of sin or of wrath are convertible terms. 24. So that it is impossible for sin to be, or to be known, without the Law written or inscribed [in the heart]. 27. And since the Law of G.o.d requires our obedience toward G.o.d, these Antinomians (_nomomachi_) abolish also obedience toward G.o.d. 28. From this it is manifest that Satan through these his instruments teaches about sin, repentance, and Christ in words only (_verbaliter tantum_). 29. But in reality he takes away Christ, repentance, sin, and the entire Scripture, together with G.o.d, its Author. 46. For the Law, as it was before Christ, did indeed accuse us; but under Christ it is appeased through the forgiveness of sins, and thereafter it is to be fulfilled through the Spirit. 47. Therefore the Law will never, in all eternity, be abolished, but will remain, either to be fulfilled by the d.a.m.ned, or already fulfilled by the blessed. 48.

These pupils of the devil however, seem to think that the Law is temporary only, which ceased under Christ even as circ.u.mcision did."

(Drews, 336ff.; St. L. 20, 1632ff.)

Following is a summary of the views expressed by Luther in his second disputation: "Why is the Law to be taught? The Law is to be taught on account of discipline, according to the word of Paul, 1 Tim. 1, 9: 'The Law is made for the lawless,' and that by this pedagogy men might come to Christ as Paul says to the Galatians (3, 24): 'The Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ,' In the second place, the Law is to be taught to reveal sin, to accuse, terrify, and d.a.m.n the consciences, Rom. 3, 20: 'By the Law is the knowledge of sin;' again, chapter 4, 15: 'The Law worketh wrath,' In the third place, the Law is to be retained that the saints may know what kind of works G.o.d requires in which they may exercise their obedience toward G.o.d. _Lex est retinenda, ut sciant sancti, quaenam opera requirat Deus, in quibus obedientiam exercere erga Deum possint._" (Drews, 418; _Herzog R_. 1, 688.)

188. Third and Fourth Series of Luther's Theses against Antinomianism.

Having complied with the conditions, and publicly (also in two sermons delivered April 23) retracted his error, and declared his a.s.sent to the views expressed in Luther's second disputation, Agricola was again permitted to preach and teach. As a result, Luther also, though he had no faith in the sincerity of Agricola's retraction, did not carry out his original plan of discussing a third and fourth series of theses which he had prepared against antinomianism. (Drews, 419ff.; E. 4, 430ff.)

From the third series, comprising 40 theses, we quote the following: "1.

The repentance of the Papists, Turks, Jews, and of all unbelievers and hypocrites is alike in every respect. 2. It consists in this, that they are sorry and make satisfaction for one or several sins, and afterwards are secure as to other sins or original sin. 5. The repentance of believers in Christ goes beyond the actual sins, and continues throughout life, till death. 8. For the sin in our flesh remains during the entire time of our life, warring against the Spirit, who resists it.

[Rom. 7, 23.] 9. Therefore all works after justification are nothing else than a continuous repentance, or a good purpose against sin. 10.

For nothing else is done than that sin, revealed by the Law and forgiven in Christ, is swept out. 17. The Lord's Prayer, taught by the Lord Himself to the saints and believers, is a part of repentance, containing much of the doctrine of the Law. 18. For whoever prays it aright confesses with his own mouth that he sins against the Law and repents.

27. Therefore also the Lord's Prayer itself teaches that the Law is before, below, and after the Gospel (_legem esse ante, sub et post evangelium_), and that from it repentance must begin. 30. From this it follows that these enemies of the Law [Antinomians] must abolish also the Lord's Prayer if they abolish the Law. 31. Indeed, they are compelled to expunge the greatest part of the sermons of Christ Himself from the Gospel-story. 32. For Matt. 5, 17ff. He does not only recite the Law of Moses, but explains it perfectly, and teaches that it must not be destroyed. 34. Everywhere throughout the Gospel He also reproves, rebukes, threatens, and exercises similar offices of the Law. 35. So that there never has been nor ever will be more impudent men than those who teach that the Law should be abolished." (St. L. 20, 1636ff.; E. 4, 430ff.)

From the fourth series of 41 theses directed by Luther against the Antinomians we quote: "12. Therefore we must beware of the doctrine of the Papists concerning repentance as of h.e.l.l and the devil himself. 13.

Much more, however, must we avoid those who leave no repentance whatever in the Church. 14. For those who deny that the Law is to be taught in reality simply wish that there be no repentance. 15. The argument: 'Whatever is not necessary to justification, neither in the beginning, nor in the middle, nor in the end, must not be taught,' etc., amounts to nothing. 17. It is the same as though you would argue: The truth that man is dead in sin is not necessary to justification, neither in the beginning, nor in the middle, nor in the end; hence it must not be taught. 18. To honor parents, to live chaste, to abstain from murders, adulteries, and thefts is not necessary to justification; hence such things must not be taught. 22. Although the Law helps nothing toward justification it does not follow therefrom that it ought to be abolished and not to be taught. 26. Everywhere in Paul [the phrase] 'without the Law' must be understood (as Augustine correctly explains) 'without the a.s.sistance of the Law,' as we have always done. 27. For the Law demands fulfilment, but helps nothing toward its own fulfilment. 35. But faith in Christ alone justifies, alone fulfils the Law, alone does good works, without the Law. 37. It is true that after justification good works follow spontaneously, without the Law, _i.e._, without the help or coercion of the Law. 38. In brief, the Law is neither useful nor necessary for justification, nor for any good works, much less for salvation. 39. On the contrary, justification, good works, and salvation are necessary for the fulfilment of the Law. 40. For Christ came to save that which was lost [Luke 19, 10], and for the rest.i.tution of all things, as St. Peter says [Acts 3, 21]. 41. Therefore the Law is not destroyed by Christ, but established, in order that Adam may become such as he was, and even better." (St. L. 20. 1639ff.; E. 4. 433.)

189. Luther's Third Public Disputation against the Antinomians.

Soon after his second disputation Luther obtained evidence of Agricola's relapse into his former errors and ways. The upshot was another disputation on a fifth series of theses held September 13, 1538, in which Luther denounced the Antinomians as deceivers, who lulled their hearers into carnal security. He also explained that the pa.s.sages culled from his own writings were torn from their historical context, and hence misinterpreted. His former statements, said Luther, had been addressed to consciences already alarmed, and therefore in immediate need of the consolation of the Gospel; while now the Antinomians applied them to secure consciences, who, first of all, were in need of the terrifying power of the Law. (Drews, 421f.; Tschackert, 482.)

From the 70 theses treated by Luther in his third disputation, we submit the following: "1. The Law has dominion over man as long as he lives.

[Rom. 7, 1.] 2. But he is freed from the Law when he dies. 3.

Necessarily, therefore, man must die if he would be free from the Law.

7. These three: Law, sin, and death, are inseparable. 8. Accordingly so far as death is still in man, in so far sin and the Law are in man. 9.