LutheranLectionary.org

It is not my intention to give a systematic treatment of the doctrine of the Law and the Gospel in these lectures. My aim is rather to show you how easy it is to work a great damage upon your hearers by confounding Law and Gospel in spite of their fundamental difference and thus to frustrate the aim of both doctrines. You will not begin to be interested in this point until you place before yourselves in clear outlines the points in which the Law and the Gospel differ.

The point of difference between the Law and the Gospel is not this, that the Gospel is a divine and the Law a human doctrine, resting on the reason of man. Not at all; whatever of either doctrine is contained in the Scriptures is the Word of the living God Himself.

Nor is the difference, that only the Gospel is necessary, not the Law, as if the latter were a mere addition that could be dispensed with in a strait. No, both are equally necessary. Without the Law the Gospel is not understood; without the Gospel the Law benefits us nothing.

Nor can this naïve, yet quite current, distinction be admitted, that the Law is the teaching of the Old while the Gospel is the teaching of the New Testament. By no means; there are Gospel contents in the Old and Law contents in the New Testament. Moreover, in the New Testament the Lord has broken the seal of the Law by purging it from Jewish ordinances.

Nor do the Law and the Gospel differ as regards their final aim, as though the Gospel aimed at men’s salvation, the Law at men’s condemnation. No, both have for their final aim man’s salvation; only the Law, ever since the Fall, cannot lead us to salvation; it can only prepare us for the Gospel. Furthermore, it is through the Gospel that we obtain the ability to fulfil the Law to a certain extent.

Nor can we establish a difference by claiming that the Law and the Gospel contradict each other. There are no contradictions in Scripture. Each is distinct from the other, but both are in the most perfect harmony with one another.

Finally, the difference is not this, that only one of these doctrines is meant for Christians. Even for the Christian the Law still retains its significance. Indeed, when a person ceases to employ either of these two doctrines, he is no longer a true Christian.

The true points of difference between the Law and the Gospel are the following: —

1. These two doctrines differ as regards the manner of their being revealed to man;

2. As regards their contents;

3. As regards the promises held out by either doctrine;

4. As regards their threatenings;

5. As regards the function and the effect of either doctrine;

6. As regards the persons to whom either the one or the other doctrine must be preached.

All other differences can be grouped under one of these six heads.

Now let us have the Scripture proof for what I have said.

In the first place, then, Law and Gospel differ as regards the manner of their being revealed to man. Man was created with the Law written in his heart. True, in consequence of the Fall this script in the heart has become quite dulled, but it has not been utterly wiped out. The Law may be preached to the most ungodly person and his conscience will tell him, That is true. But when the Gospel is preached to him, his conscience does not tell him the same. The preaching of the Gospel rather makes him angry. The worst slave of vice admits that he ought to do what is written in the Law. Why is this? Because the Law is written in his heart. The situation is different when the Gospel is preached. The Gospel reveals and proclaims nothing but free acts of divine grace; and these are not at all self-evident. What God has done according to the Gospel He was not obliged to do, as though He could not possibly have remained a just and loving God if He had not done it. God would still have been eternal Love if He had allowed all men to go to perdition.

Rom. 2, 14. 15 we read: When the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, these, having not the Law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. Here we have the apostle’s testimony that even the blind pagans bear the Moral Law with them in their heart and conscience. No supernatural revelation was needed to inform them concerning the Moral Law. The Ten Commandments were published only for the purpose of bringing out in bold outline the dulled script of the original Law written in men’s hearts.

On the other hand, we have from the same apostle, and in the same epistle, this statement concerning the Gospel, Rom. 16, 25. 26: To him that is of power to stablish you according to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith. In clear terms the apostle here testifies that it was impossible, since the beginning of the world, to discover the Gospel. It became known only through an act of the Holy Spirit, who inspired men to write its message.

Try and realize this important distinction. All religions contain portions of the Law. Some of the heathen, by their knowledge of the Law, have advanced so far that they have even perceived the necessity of an inner cleansing of the soul, a purification of the thoughts and desires. But of the Gospel not a particle is found anywhere except in the Christian religion.

Had the Law not been written in men’s hearts, no one would listen to the preaching of the Law. Everybody would turn away from it and say: “That is too cruel; nobody can keep commandments such as these.” But, my friends, do not hesitate to preach the Law. People may revile it, yet they do so only with their mouths. What you say when preaching the Law to people is something that their own conscience is preaching to them every day. Nor could we convert any person by preaching the Gospel to him unless we preached the Law to him first. It would be impossible to convert any one if the Law had not been written in men’s hearts. Of course, God could save all men by a mere act of His will. But He has not revealed to us that He intends to do so, and the definite order of salvation which He has appointed for us does not indicate any intention of this kind.

The second point of difference between the Law and the Gospel is shown by the contents of either. The Law tells us what we are to do. No such instruction is contained in the Gospel. On the contrary, the Gospel reveals to us only what God is doing. The Law is speaking concerning our works; the Gospel, concerning the great works of God. In the Law we hear the tenfold summons, “Thou shalt.” Beyond that the Law has nothing to say to us. The Gospel, on the other hand, makes no demands whatever.

But does not the Gospel demand faith? Yes; that, however, is just the same kind of command as when you say to a hungry person, “Come, sit down at my table and eat.” the hungry person will not reply: “Bosh! I will not take orders from you.” No, he will understand and accept your words as a kind invitation. That is what the Gospel is — a kind invitation to partake of heavenly blessings.

Gal. 3, 12 we read: The Law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. This is an exceedingly important passage. The Law has nothing to say about forgiveness, about grace. The Law does not say: “If you are contrite, if you begin to make amends, the remainder of your trespasses will be forgiven.” Not a word of this is found in the Law. The Law issues only commands and demands. The Gospel, on the other hand, only makes offers. It means, not to take anything, but only to give.

Accordingly we read, John 1, 17: The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. What a momentous statement this is: The Gospel contains nothing but grace and truth! When reading the Law, pondering it, and measuring our conduct against its teaching, we are terrified by the multitude of demands which it makes upon us. If nothing else were told us, we should be hurled into despair — we should be lost. God be praised! there is still another doctrine, the Gospel. To that we cling.

Law and Gospel differ, in the third place, by reason of their promises. What the Law promises is just as great a boon as what the Gospel promises, namely, everlasting life and salvation. But at this point we are confronted with a mighty difference: all promises of the Law are made on certain conditions, namely, on the condition that we fulfil the Law perfectly. Accordingly, the promises of the Law are the more disheartening, the greater they are. The Law offers us food, but does not hand it down to us where we can reach it. It offers us salvation in about the same manner as refreshments were offered to Tantalus in the hell of the pagan Greeks. It says to us indeed: “I will quench the thirst of your soul and appease your hunger.” But it is not able to accomplish this because it always adds: “All this you shall have if you do what I command.”

Over and against this note the lovely, sweet, and comforting language of the Gospel. It promises us the grace of God and salvation without any condition whatsoever. It is a promise of free grace. It asks nothing of us but this, “Take what I give, and you have it.” That is not a condition, but a kind invitation.

Through Moses, God says, Lev. 18, 5: Ye shall keep My statutes and My judgments; which, if a man do, he shall live in them. This means that only the person who keeps the Law, and no one else, shall be saved by the Law.

Luke 10, 26 ff. Christ meets the question of the self-righteous scribe with the counter-question: What is written in the Law? How readest thou? The scribe answers correctly: Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And now Christ says to him: This do, and thou shalt live. The Lord, on this occasion, testified that, if salvation is to come by way of the Law, only he who fulfils the Law can obtain it. (By the way, we are not to think that to those who do the will of God, salvation must come as a reward of their merit. By no means; their salvation, too, would be owing to the goodness of God.) But to return to our discussion, the aforementioned condition which is attached to the Law hurls us into despair.

On a certain occasion, when the Lord wished to instruct the disciples as to what they must preach, He said: Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Mark 16, 15. 16. This shows that no condition whatever is attached to the Gospel; it is a promise of grace.

Furthermore, we read Rom. 3, 22–24: There is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Again, Eph. 2, 8. 9: By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. Unconditional promises of grace and salvation — that is what we find in the Gospel. Verily, a precious difference! When the Law has laid us low, we can cheerfully raise our heads again because besides the Law we have another doctrine which proposes to us no demands of any kind. Were we to ask Christ, “What is expected of me in order that I may be saved?” He would answer: “No works; I have done all the works that had to be done. You need not drink one drop of the cup that I had to drink.”

A person entering fully into the meaning of this fact must be moved to leap for very joy that these glad tidings have been brought to him. A person who in spite of this message continues to be despondent and muses: “I am an abominable man; there is no forgiveness for me,” does nothing less than reject the Gospel — reject Christ. Though I had committed the grossest sins and had to say with Paul, “I am the chief of sinners”; though I had committed the sin of Judas or the sin of Cain, nevertheless I am to accept the Gospel because it demands nothing of us.

The fourth difference between the Law and the Gospel relates to threats. The Gospel contains no threats at all, but only words of consolation. Wherever in Scripture you come across a threat, you may be assured that that passage belongs in the Law. He would indeed be a blessed person who could fully realize this comforting truth. The Holy Spirit produces this knowledge wherever it exists. Without the Holy Ghost this knowledge cannot be attained .Every person remains an unbeliever unless the Holy Ghost works this knowledge in him.

However, we are not to imagine that the Gospel makes men secure because it has no threats to hurl at men. On the contrary, the Gospel removes from believers the desire to sin.

The Law, on the other hand, is nothing but threats. As Abraham sent Hagar away into the desert with a loaf of bread and a jug of water, so the Law hands us a piece of bread and then thrusts us into a desert.

Deut. 27, 26 God says through Moses: Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. Indeed, man is invited by the Law to pronounce a curse upon himself. Only a person engulfed by infernal darkness can believe that the Law will give him no trouble.

The Gospel proceeds in a entirely different fashion. Paul says, 1 Tim. 1, 15: This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. Hence even the foremost among sinners is not made to hear threats, but only the sweetest promise.

Luke 4, 16–21 we have this record: He [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as His custom was, He went into the synagog on the Sabbath-day and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto Him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor; He hath sent Me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And He closed the book, and He gave it to the minister and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagog were fastened on Him. And He began to say to them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. On this occasion the Lord announced the contents of his doctrine, or of the Gospel. He meant to say: “I am not come to bring a new Law, but to proclaim the Gospel.” Happy the man who realizes this fact! May God help us all to attain to this knowledge!

This thesis divides into two parts. The first part states a requisite of an orthodox teacher, viz., that he must present all the articles of faith in accordance with Scripture. This, in our day, is regarded as an unheard-of demand. Even in circles of so-called believers, people act as if they were shocked when they hear some one say: “I have found the truth; I am certain concerning every doctrine of revelation.” Such a claim is considered a piece of arrogance. Young students in particular dare not set up such a claim. In Germany they are told: “Whatever you do, do not believe that you have already found the truth. Keep on studying until you have reached the goal. Never say you have already reached it!” Even the German professors who speak thus to their students never reach the goal; if one of them claims that he has, he is immediately regarded with suspicion.

There are people who find their delight, not in eating and drinking or in hoarding up wealth or in a life of ease, but in quenching their thirst for knowledge. True, in theory this tendency is not approved, but that is practically what the professors are advising when they say warningly to their students: “Never speak of the Christian doctrine in terms of finality!” They are afraid that some one might speak with finality on an article of faith instead of ceaselessly rolling the stone of research, as Sisyphus in the Greek hell is rolling the stone that he wants to bring to a higher level and which always slips from him. That was the reason too, why Khanis, who had been a faithful Lutheran, sought to justify himself in the preface of his miserable Dogmatik by citing the Latin proverb: Dies diem docet (One day is the teacher of the next). He meant to say: “A year ago I believed this and that; but other thoughts came to me, and I found other doctrines.” That is a miserable, yes, an appalling position for a theologian to take. Scripture requires that we have the Word of God absolutely pure and unadulterated and that we be able to say when coming down from the pulpit: “I could take an oath upon it that I have rightly preached the Word of God. Even to an angel coming down from heaven I could say: My preaching has been correct.” That explains the paradox remark of Luther that a preacher must not pray the Lord’s Prayer when coming down from the pulpit, but that he should do so before the sermon. For an orthodox preacher need not pray after delivering his sermon: “Forgive me my trespasses,” since he can say: “I have proclaimed the pure truth.” In our day, men have become merged in skepticism to such an extent that they regard any one who sets up the aforementioned claim as a semilunatic.

The Word of God tells us in a passage where the Lord is introduced as speaking, Jer. 23, 28: He that hath My Word, let him speak My Word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. Our sermons, then, are to contain only wheat and no chaff.

The Apostle Paul warns the Galatians, chap. 5, 9: A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. He means to say: A single false teaching vitiates the entire doctrine.

The warning with which John concludes the last book of the Bible is sounded as far back as in the days of Moses, who says, Deut. 4, 2: Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it.

It is, then, a diabolical teaching to say: “You will never achieve the ability to give a Scriptural presentation of the articles of faith.” Especially when students hear a statement like this, it is as if some hellish poison were injected into their hearts; for after that they will no longer show any zeal to get to the bottom of the truth, to have clear conceptions of the truth.

But suppose some one could truthfully say, “There was no false teaching in my sermon,” still his entire sermon may have been wrong. Can that be true? The second part of our thesis says so. Only he is an orthodox teacher who, in addition to other requirements, rightly distinguishes Law and Gospel from each other. That is the final test of a proper sermon. The value of a sermon depends not only on this, that every statement in it be taken from the Word of God and be in agreement with the same, but also on this, whether Law and Gospel have been rightly divided. Of the same building materials furnished two architects one will construct a magnificent building, while the other, using the same materials, makes a botch of of it. Crack-brained man that he is, he may want to begin at the roof or place all windows in one room or pile up layers of stone or brick in such a fashion that a crooked wall will be the result. The one house will be out of plumb and such a bungling piece of work that it will collapse while the other stands firm and is a habitable and pleasant abode. In like manner all doctrines may be treated by sermons by two preachers: the one sermon may be a glorious and precious piece of work, while the other is wrong throughout. Note this well. When you hear some sectarian preach, you may say, “What he said was the truth,” and yet you do not feel satisfied. Here is the key for unlocking this mystery: the preacher did not rightly divide Law and Gospel, and hence everything went wrong. He preached Law where he should have preached Gospel, and he offered Gospel truth where he should have presented the Law. Now, any one following such a preacher goes astray; he does not arrive at the sure foundation of the divine truth; he does not attain to an assurance of grace and salvation. Not infrequently this happens in sermons of students. There are found in them comforting remarks like these: “It is all by grace,” and then we are told: “We must do good works,” and then again: “With our works we cannot gain salvation.” There is no order in a sermon of this kind; nobody understands it, least of all the person who needs it most. There must be a proper division of Law and Gospel. Be careful to follow this rule in writing your sermons. Perhaps, for once, the words veritably flowed into your pen. But I would advise you to read your sermon over and see whether you have rightly divided Law and Gospel; for then you may often discover that there is where you made a mistake. In that case your sermon is wrong although it contains no false doctrine.

Now let me also give you the Bible-texts which testify to the truths just stated. We read 2 Tim. 2, 15: Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. The term ὀρθοτομεῖν in this text, which has been rendered by “rightly dividing,” is plainly used in a metaphorical sense. It is derived either from the action of priests when dividing the sacrificial offerings or from that of the head of a family when he apportions food and drink to the members of his household. The latter meaning seems to be the correct one; however, many of our theologians adopt the former.

Luke 12, 42 the Lord says: Who, then, is that faithful and wise steward whom his lord shall make ruler over his household to give them their portion of meat in due season? Two things are here required of a good householder. In the first place, he must give to each individual his due portion, exactly what he or she needs. If a steward were to do no more than bring out of his larder and cellar all that is in them and put it on a pile, he would not act wisely; the children, probably, would grab large portions, and the rest might not get anything. He must give to each the right quantity, according to the amount of work that has been done. When children are at the table with adults, he would be foolish to set meat and wine before children and milk and light food before adults. But how difficult it is to perceive that these very mistakes are often made in sermons! A preacher must not throw all doctrines in a jumble before his hearers, just as they come into his mind, but cut for each of his hearers a portion such as he needs. He is to be like an apothecary, who must give that medicine to the sick which is for the particular ailment with which they are afflicted. In the same manner a preacher must give to each of his hearers his due: he must see to it that secure, care-free, and willful sinners hear the thunderings of the Law, contrite sinners, however, the sweet voice of the Savior’s grace. That is what it means to give to each hearer his due.

Ezek. 13, 18–22 we read: Thus saith the Lord God; Woe to them that sew pillows to all armholes and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of My people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you? And will ye pollute Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread to slay the souls that should not die and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to My people that hear your lies? Wherefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I am against your pillows wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly. Your kerchiefs also will I tear and deliver My people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I am the Lord, because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad and strengthened the hands of the wicked that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life. Here you have an instance of the execration of a preacher who knows that his congregation needs an application of the Law, but who for a piece of bread keep silent. Verily, let woe be cried, woe upon every one who furnishes soft pillows and cushions for secure sinners! They are lulling those to sleep with the Gospel who ought to be roused from their sleep by means of the Law. It is a wrong application of the Gospel to preach it to such as are not afraid of sinning. On the other hand, an even more horrible situation is created if the pastor is a legalistic teacher, who refuses to preach the Gospel to his congregation because he says: “These people will misuse it anyway.” Are poor sinners on that account to be deprived of the Gospel? Let the wicked perish; neveretheless the children of God shall know how near at hand their help is and how easily it is obtained. Any one withholding the Gospel from such as are in need of consolation fails to divide Law and Gospel. Woe and again woe to such a one!

Zechariah relates the following, chap. 11, 7: I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock. A real, spiritual shepherd has two staves, or rods. The rod Beauty is the Gospel, and the rod Bands is the Law. He must be well informed as to the persons to whom he is to apply either the one or the other of these staves. The Messiah — who is the Speaker in this passage — says that He used the rod Bands against the flock of slaughter, that is, against sheep which were to be slaughtered and not to be led to the pasture. The “poor of the flock” represent poor sinners. Among them He uses the comforting staff and rod of the Gospel. Most preachers make the mistake of hurling the rod Bands among the sheep and using the rod Beauty for wicked knaves.

(By the way, Luther’s translation of this passage is unexcelled. Would that the people who want to revise Luther’s Bible would stick to their private affairs!)

Even nature teaches that certain materials must not be mixed if they are to retain their salutary virtue. There are certain substances that are, by themselves, salutary; but when they are mixed, they are turned into poison. That is what happens when Law and Gospel are mingled. Or take an instance from colors: when you combine yellow and blue, it is neither yellow nor blue, but green. In like manner there arises a third substance (tertium genus), when Law and Gospel are confounded in a sermon. The new substance is entirely foreign to either original substance and causes both of them to lose their virtue.

In his Sermon on the Distinction between the Law and the Gospel (St. L. Ed. IX, 799 f.) Luther writes: “It is therefore a matter of utmost necessity that these two kinds of God’s Word be well and properly distinguished. Where this is not done, neither the Law nor the Gospel can be understood, and the consciences of men must perish with blindness and error. The Law has its goal fixed beyond which it cannot go or accomplish anything, namely, until the point is reached where Christ comes in. It must terrify the impenitent with threats of the wrath and displeasure of God. Likewise the Gospel has its peculiar function and task, vis., to proclaim forgiveness of sin to sorrowing souls. These two may not be commingled, nor the one substituted for the other, without a falsification of doctrine. For while the Law and the Gospel are indeed equally God’s Word, they are not the same doctrine.”

You may correctly state what the Law says and what the Gospel says. But when you frame your statement so as to commingle both, you produce poison for souls. Remember: Law and Gospel are God’s Word, but different kinds of doctrine.

A person who does not understand this difference, the true difference, has nothing whatever to offer people. But even the mere knowledge or memorizing of this difference does not prove helpful; for one can learn the facts of this difference in a few hours when preparing for an examination. This knowledge must be reinforced by experience. Not until that is done, will a person understand that the distinction between these two doctrines is a glorious one.

In the beginning of the sermon just referred to Luther says: “This is the meaning of St. Paul: Among Christians both preachers and hearers must adopt and teach a definite distinction between the Law and the Gospel, between works and faith. Accordingly, Paul enjoins this distinction upon Timothy when he exhorts him, 2 Tim. 2, 15, rightly to divide the Word of Truth, etc. This distinction between the Law and the Gospel is the supreme art among Christians. Each and all of those who glory in the name of Christian or have adopted it may and should understand this art. For wherever there is a deficiency in this respect, it is impossible to distinguish a Christian from a Gentile or Jew. So important is this distinction. For this reason Paul so strenuously insists that these two doctrines the Law and the Gospel be well and properly distinguished among Christians. Both the Law, or the Ten Commandments, and the Gospel are indeed God’s Word; the latter was given by God at the beginning, in Paradise, the former on Mount Sinai. But the matter of decisive importance is this, that these two words be properly distinguished and not commingled; otherwise the true meaning of neither will be known nor retained; yea, imagining that we have both, we shall find that we possess neither.”

Possibly some one among you is thinking, “Is this thesis really true? I have now heard five lectures on this subject, and it is perfectly clear to me. If this is the most difficult art, I know it.” But, my dear friend, you are greatly mistaken. Consider that the thesis does not mean that the doctrine of the Law and the Gospel is so difficult that it cannot be learned without the aid of the Holy Ghost. It is easy — easy enough for children to learn. Every child can comprehend this doctrine. It is contained in every catechism. It is not strong meat, but milk. It is the first letters of the alphabet, it belongs to the rudiments of Christianity; for without this doctrine no person can be a Christian. Even a small child soon learns these facts: “The First Part of the Catechism treats of the Ten Commandments, the Second Part of the Creed .We are first told what we are to do; next, that a person need only believe to be saved.” In other words, the child observes that the Second Part does not, like the First, make demands. This doctrine of the distinction of Law and Gospel is entirely different from the doctrine of the attributes by which the three persons in the Godhead are distinct from one another; or the doctrine of predestination with its many inscrutable mysteries, or the doctrine of the communication of the divine attributes to the human nature of Christ. These doctrines exceed the grasp of children and cannot be comprehended by them. But the doctrine of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is different. You know it now. But at the present time we are studying the application and the use of this doctrine. The practical application of this doctrine presents difficulties which no man can surmount by reasonable reflections. The Holy Spirit must teach men this in the school of experience. The difficulties of mastering this art confront the minister, in the first place, in so far as he is a Christian; in the second place, in so far as he is a minister.

In the first place, then, the proper distinction between the Law and the Gospel is a difficult and high art to the minister in so far as he is a Christian. Indeed, the proper distinction between the Law and the Gospel is the highest art which a person can learn.

We read Ps. 51, 10. 11: Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from Thy presence and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.

Here David prays God for a right (German: gewiss) spirit. After his horrible fall, the shedding of innocent blood and the sin of adultery, David had lost assurance of divine grace. Absolution was, indeed, pronounced to him when he had come to a penitent knowledge of his sin, but we do not hear that he forthwith became cheerful. On the contrary, many of his psalms plainly show that he was in very great misery and affliction. When the messenger of God approached him with the declaration: “The Lord hath put away thy sin,” his heart sighed, “Ah, no! That is not possible; my sin has been too great.” We behold him watering his couch with his tears, Ps. 6, 6, going about a bent and broken man, his body drying up like grass in the drought of summer. This exalted royal prophet knew the doctrine of the Law and the Gospel full well. All his psalms are full of references to the distinctions between the two. But when he fell into sin himself, he lacked the practical ability of applying his knowledge. He cried: “Renew a right spirit within me.”

It is a characteristic of Christians to regard the Scriptures as the true, infallible Word of God. But when they are in need of comfort, they find none; they cry for mercy; they supplicate God on their knees. God made David taste the bitterness of sin. In general, we behold David after his fall more frequently in sadness than in joyful spirits, and we see that one misfortune after the other befalls him. God did not permit these misfortunes to afflict David because He had not forgiven his sin, but in order to keep him from falling into another sin. It was nothing but love and mercy that prompted God to act thus. Naturally, a person still dead in sin thinks: “Why was David so foolish as to torment his mind with a sin that had been forgiven by God?” A person reasoning thus makes of the Gospel a pillow for his carnal mind to rest on; he continues his sinful life and imagines that he will, after all, land in heaven. His Gospel is a gospel for the flesh.

Luke 5, 8 we have the cry of Peter: Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord. Is not this a remarkable incident? The Lord comes to the disciples whom He had named Petros, a rock-man, and bids him and his fellow-fishermen, after an unsuccessful night on the lake, to drop their nets in deep water. Peter complied, most likely expecting, however, that he would catch nothing. But, lo! they caught such a multitude of fishes that their nets broke. Now Peter is seized with fear. He reflects: “That must be the almighty God Himself who has spoken to me That must be my Maker. He will one day be my Judge!” He falls down at Jesus’ knees and says: “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” He expects the Lord to say to him: “Look at the multitude of sins thou hast committed. Thou art worthy of everlasting death and damnation.” Whence, then, came Peter’s fright? Why did he not thank Jesus when he fell down at His knees? Because his many sins passed before his mind’s eye, and in that condition it was impossible for him to express cheerful gratitude, but had to drop trembling to his knees and cry to his Lord and Savior those awful words: “Depart from me, O Lord.” The devil had robbed him of all comfort and whispered to him that he must speak thus to Jesus. He expected nothing else than to be slain by the Lord. He was incapable of distinguishing Law and Gospel. If he had been able to do this, he could have approached Jesus cheerfully, remembering that He had forgiven all his sins. Many a time in his later life he probably said to himself: “Peter, you were a great simpleton on that occasion. Instead of what you did say to Jesus, you should have said: O Lord, abide with me, for I am a sinful man.” That is what he did on a later occasion when he had fallen into another sin. Then he was filled with joy unspeakable when Jesus gave him that look full of gracious compassion.

1 John 3, 19. 20 we read: Hereby we know that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts before Him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things. When our heart does not condemn us, it is easy to distinguish Law and Gospel. That is the state of a Christian. But he may get into a condition where his heart condemns him. Do what he will, he cannot silence the accusing voice within. It calls to him again and again, reminding him of former sins. The recollection of some long-forgotten sin may suddenly start up in him, and he is seized with a terrible fright. Now, if in that moment a person can rightly divide Law and Gospel, he will fall at Jesus’ feet and take comfort in Jesus’ merit. That, however, is not easy. One who is spiritually dead regards it as foolish to torment himself with former sins. He becomes increasingly indifferent towards all sins. A Christian, however, feels his sin and also the witness of his conscience against him.

But in the end, after Christians have learned to make the proper practical use of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel, they join St. John in saying: “God is greater than my heart; He has rendered a different verdict on men’s sinning, and that applies also to me.” Blessed are you if you have learned this difficult art. If you have learned it, do not imagine yourselves perfect. You will always be more than beginners in this art. Remember this: When the Law condemns you, then immediately lay hold upon the Gospel.

Since the days of the apostles there has not been a more glorious teacher of this art than Luther. Yet he confesses that in an effort to reduce his teaching to practise he was often defeated. Spite of the fact that he had led a decent life and was not guilty of gross sins, the devil often vexed him. He tormented him with the sins of his inner life. Nonplussed, Luther would often come to Bugenhagen, his confessor, with his worries and, kneeling, receive absolution, whereupon he would depart rejoicing.

Luther writes (St. L. Ed. IX, 806f.): “God has given us His Word in these two forms: the Law and the Gospel. The one is from Him as well as the other; and to both He has attached a distinct order: the Law is to require of every one perfect righteousness; the Gospel is to present gratis the righteousness demanded by the Law to those who have it not (that is, to all men). Now, then, whoever has not satisfied the demands of the Law and is captive under sin and the power of death, let him turn to the Gospel. Let him believe what is preached concerning Christ, viz., that He is verily the precious Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, that He has reconciled man with His Father in heaven, and from pure grace, freely and for nothing, gives to all who believe this everlasting righteousness, everlasting life and bliss. Let him cling solely to this message; let him call upon Christ, beseeching Him for grace and forgiveness of sin; and since this great gift is obtained by faith alone, let him firmly believe the message, and he shall receive according as he believes.

“This is the proper distinction, and, verily, it is of the utmost importance that it be correctly perceived. O yes, we can readily make the distinctions in words and preach about it, but to put it in to use and reduce it to practise, that is a high art and not easily attained. Papists and fanatics do not understand it at all. I observe in my own case and that of others, who know how to talk about this distinction in the very best fashion, how difficult it is. To talk about the Law’s being a different word and doctrine from the Gospel, that is a common achievement, soon accomplished. But to apply the distinction in our practical experience and to make this art operative, that is labor and sorrow.”

Again, Luther writes (St. L. Ed. IX, 808f.): “This distinction must be observed all the more when the Law wants to force me to abandon Christ and His Gospel boon. In that emergency I must abandon the Law and say: Dear Law, if I have not done the works I should have done, do them yourself. I will not, for your sake, allow myself to be plagued to death, taken captive, and kept under your thraldom and thus forget the Gospel. Whether I have sinned, done wrong, or failed in any duty, let that be your concern, O Law. Away with you and let my heart alone; I have no room for you in my heart. But if you require me to lead a godly life here on earth, that I shall gladly do. If, however, like a house-breaker, you want to climb in where you do not belong, causing me to lose what has been given me, I would rather not know you at all than abandon my gift.”

Like two hostile forces, Law and Gospel sometimes clash with each other in a person’s conscience. The Gospel says to him: “You have been received into God’s grace.” The Law says to him: “Do not believe it; for look at your past life. How many and grievous are your sins! Examine the thoughts and desires that you have harbored in your mind.” On an occasion like this it is difficult to divide Law and Gospel. When this happens to a person, he must say to the Law: “Away with you! Your demands have all been fully met, and you have nothing to demand of me. There is One who has paid my debt.” This difficulty does not occur to a person dead in his trespasses and sins; he is soon through with the Law. But the difficulty is quite real to a person who has been converted. He may run to the opposite extreme and come nigh to despair.

Luther says (St. L. Ed. IX, 802): “Place any person who is well versed in this art of dividing the Law from the Gospel at the head and call him a Doctor of Holy Writ; for without the Holy Ghost it is impossible to master this distinction. That is my personal experience; moreover, I observe in the case of other people how difficult it is to separate the teaching of the Law from that of the Gospel. The Holy Ghost is needed as Schoolmaster and Instructor in this task; otherwise no man on earth will be able to understand or learn it. That is the reason why no Pope, no false Christian, no fanatic, can divide these two from each other, especially in causa materiali et in objecto.” Luther means to say: It is not difficult to say what the contents of the Law and the Gospel are nor at what persons they are aiming. But it is difficult to say, on the one hand, whether this particular statement is part of the Law or of the Gospel, and, on the other hand, to whom in an individual case, the Law must be applied and to whom the Gospel. The greatest difficulty is encountered with the theologians themselves.

In his Table Talk, Luther says (Walch, XXII, 65): “There is not a man on earth who knows how properly to divide the Law from the Gospel. When we hear about it in a sermon, we imagine that we know how to do it, but we are greatly mistaken. I imagined I understood it because during so long a time I had written a great deal about it; but believe me, when I come to a pinch, I perceive that I have widely missed the mark. Accordingly, God the Holy Ghost alone must be regarded as Master of, and instructor in, this art.” Mark this confession of Luther, the man who had written large tomes on this subject in many years. — Let me remark, in passing, that we are always more inclined to give ear to the Law than to the Gospel.

In his commentary on Ps. 131 (St. L. Ed. IV, 2077) Luther writes: “There are some who imagine that they understand these matters quite well; but I warn you to beware of such a presumptuous thought and to remember that you must remain pupils of the Word. Satan is such an accomplished juggler that he can easily abolish the difference and make the Law force itself into the place of the Gospel ,and vice versa. We often meet with people in their last agony who with a stricken conscience seize a few sayings which they suppose to be Gospel, while in reality they are Law, and thus forfeit the consolation of the Gospel; for instance, the statement in Matt. 19, 17: ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments’; likewise this one in Matt. 7, 21: ‘Not every one that says unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ ” The devil approaches men who are in anguish of death and in their last hour seeks to pluck them away from the Gospel. When Christians are departing into eternity, they reflect whether they are worthy. They may review a multitude of texts and hit upon one like this: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Then their heart tells them: “You are not fit; you cannot be saved.” You see, they cannot distinguish between Law and Gospel. Therefore it is good for you to be taught this art while you are young. But you must not think: “I have been thoroughly grounded in this doctrine, and when I shall be in anguish of death, I shall simply cling to what I have been taught.” Ah, yes; if that were within our power! But the devil will throw you into such confusion that you will not find a way of escape out of your dilemma. Nor must you think: “Oh, I am still young.” Does not God frequently snatch one away in the flower of his youth in order to impress upon others how necessary it is for everybody to consider that he, too, must die?

Luther continues: “By tests like those cited the hearts of men are often led astray, so that they cannot think of anything except of what they have done and should have done; likewise, of what God commands and forbids. While keeping their minds on these things, they forget all that Christ has done and God has promised to do through Christ. Therefore no one should be so presumptuous as to imagine that he has attained to perfection in this matter.” You remember that the point we are discussing now is how a preacher, in as far as he is a Christian, is to divide Law and Gospel. For he must be a Christian, or else he ought not to be a preacher. Now, any one who fails to attain the knowledge of, and the practical ability to apply, this distinction is still a heathen or a Jew. The forma of a Christian, — that which makes a person a Christian — is that he knows how to seek salvation in Christ and thus to escape the Law.

I wish to cite Luther once more. He writes (St. L. Ed. IX, 161): “In your tribulations you will become aware that the Gospel is a rare guest in men’s consciences, while the Law is their daily and familiar companion. For man has by nature the knowledge of the Law.” Unless a person learns this by experience, he will not learn it at all. If you are Christians, you will admit that you are far oftener troubled and worried than comforted. When you feel the comfort of the Gospel in your heart, that is a glimpse of the light that may come to you on a certain day; but then several days may pass when you will not catch that glimpse again. Always keep this reflection present: “For such poor sinners as I am the Gospel — the sweet Gospel — has been provided. I have forgiveness of sins through Christ.”

Luther proceeds: “There is a time to die, and there is a time to live; there is a time for hearing the Law, and there is a time to be unconcerned about the Law; there is a time to hear the Gospel, and there is a time to be unconcerned about the Gospel. At this moment let the Law be gone and let the Gospel come; for that is not the time to hear the Law, but the Gospel. However, how about this: You have not done any good; on the contrary, you have committed grievous sins? I admit that, but I have forgiveness of sins through Christ, for whose sake all my sins have been remitted. However, while the conscience is not engaged in this conflict, while you are obliged to discharge the ordinary functions of your office, at a time when you must act as a minister of the Word, a magistrate, a husband, a teacher, a pupil, etc., it is not in season to hear the Gospel, but the Law. At such a time you are to perform the duties of your profession.,” etc.

Accordingly, when you are called upon to do what is right in public, that is not the time to hear the Gospel, but the Law, and to remember your calling or profession. Whenever your relation to God is not under review, you must act in accordance with the Law, yet not like a slave, but like a child.

Turning the leaves of the Holy Scriptures while still ignorant of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel, a person receives the impression that a great number of contradictions are contained in the Scriptures; in fact, the entire Scripture seems to be made up of contradictions, worse than the Koran of the Turks. Now the Scriptures pronounce one blessed, now they condemn him. When the rich youth asked the Lord: “What good things shall I do that I may have eternal life?” the Lord replied: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” When the jailer at Philippi addressed the identical question to Paul and Silas, he received this answer: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house.” On the one hand, we read in Hab. 2, 4: “The just shall live by his faith”; on the other hand, we note that John in his First Epistle, chap. 3, 7, says: “He that doeth righteousness is righteous.” Over and against this the Apostle Paul declares: “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” On the one hand, we note that Scripture declares God has no pleasure in sinners; on the other hand, we find that it states: “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” In one place Paul cries: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,” and Ps. 5, 4 we read: “Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness; neither shall evil dwell with Thee”; in another place we hear Peter saying: “Hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you.” On the one hand, we are told that all the world is under the wrath of God; on the other hand, we read: “God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Another remarkable passage is 1 Cor. 6, 9–11, where the apostles first makes this statement: “Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God,” and then adds: “And such were some of you. But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” Must not a person who knows nothing of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel be swallowed up in utter darkness when reading all this? Must he not indignantly cry out: “What? That is to be God’s Word? A book full of such contradictions?”

For the situation is not this, that the Old Testament reveals a wrathful, the New Testament a gracious God, or that the Old Testament teaches salvation by a person’s own works, the New Testament, by faith. No; we find both teachings in the Old as well as in the New Testament. But the moment we learn to know the distinction between the Law and the Gospel, it is as if the sun were rising upon the Scriptures, and we behold all the contents of the Scriptures in the most beautiful harmony. We see that the Law was not revealed to us to put that notion into our heads that we can become righteous by it, but to teach us that we are utterly unable to fulfil the Law. When we have learned this, we shall know what a sweet message, what a glorious doctrine, the Gospel is and shall receive it with exuberant joy.

The history of the Church, too, illustrates the importance of understanding this distinction. Corruption entered the Church when Law and Gospel began to be confounded. A perusal of the writings of the Church Fathers soon reveals the cause of the Church’s misery in those early days: people did not know how to distinguish properly between Law and Gospel. Up to the sixth century we still find glorious testimonies exhibiting this distinction, but from that time on we notice that this light is growing dim and that the distinction is gradually forgotten.

An instance illustrating this fact is the monastic life, which is seen to rise to ever greater distinction. The reply of the Lord to the rich young man was understood as showing what is necessary for a person’s salvation. The preachers in those days proclaimed the Law to people to whom they should have preached the Gospel.

Following the course of history to the time when the Papacy had become dominant, we find that the knowledge of this distinction became utterly extinct; a truly abysmal darkness settled upon the Church, and sheer paganism and idolatry gained their way into it.

Remember the agonies of our dear Luther! Considering the darkness which reigned in his day, we must say that, compared with others he had acquired a great deal of knowledge at the beginning of his career, but he did not know how to distinguish the Law from the Gospel. Oh, the toil and torments he had to undergo! His self-castigation and fasting brought him to the point of death. The most crushing, the most appalling statement in his estimation at that time was this, that the righteousness which is valid in the sight of God is revealed in the Gospel. “Alas!” he mused, “what a woeful state of affairs! First we are approached by the Law, which demands of us that we fulfil it; and now, in addition, we are to be made righteous by obeying the Gospel!” Luther confesses that there were times in his life when he was harassed with blasphemous thoughts. Suddenly a new light shone in upon him, showing him of what kind of righteousness the Gospel is speaking. He relates that from that moment he began to run through the whole Scriptures in an endeavor to obtain a clear understanding as to which portions of the Scriptures are Law and which Gospel. He says that he pried into every book in the Bible, and now all its parts became clear to him. The birth of the Reformer dates from the moment when Luther understood this distinction. The tremendous success of his public activity, moreover, is due to the same cause. By his new knowledge Luther liberated the poor people from the misery into which they had been driven by the Law-preaching of their priests.

You are to become pastors, my friends. Do you not sense the immense importance of this matter for your future vocation? Some one who is in anguish and distress will come to you. In every instance the cause of such anguish of soul will be that the Law has taken effect in your parishioner, and it does not occur to him that he can be saved by the Gospel. He does not think of that while he wails: “Alas! I am a poor sinner; I am worthy of damnation,” etc. To such a person you must say: “You are indeed a lost and condemned creature. But the passage of Scripture which has told you that is Law. There is, however, another teaching in Scripture. The Law has done its work in you; by the Law is to come the knowledge of sin. You must now quit Sinai and go to Golgotha. See yonder your Savior, bleeding and dying for you!” Not until you enter the ministry, will you realize the great importance of the distinction between Law and Gospel and the fact that only the knowledge of this distinction, and nothing else, will make you capable to discharge the office that is to save the world. The matter of paramount importance, of course, will always be this, that you have experienced this distinction upon yourself. I am not referring to those among you who have never been in anguish over your sins, who consider themselves orthodox because they have been reared in Christian homes. I am referring to those who are concerned about their salvation. There will be moments when such of you will imagine that you are God’s children. Again, there will be times when you think that your sins have not been forgiven you. If on such occasions you desire genuine peace, it can come to you only through the knowledge of the distinction between Law and Gospel.

In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (Mueller, p. 119; Triglot Concordia, p. 173) we read: “For rightly to understand the benefit of Christ and the great treasure of the Gospel (which Paul extols so greatly), we must separate as far as the heavens are from the earth the promise of God and the grace that is offered, on the one hand, from the Law, on the other.” The Word of God may preach the Gospel to us with ever so great comfort, we shall nevertheless not obtain the peace it offers unless we know that Holy Writ contains also the Law, from which we have escaped and that, being lost and doomed sinners, we have embraced the Gospel. We may hit upon a comforting passage and say to ourselves: “Aye, I have the forgiveness of sins,” and then we may strike another passage which makes us believe that we are lost, — all this because we do not know the distinction between Law and Gospel.

The Formula of Concord, in the Epitome (Mueller, p. 533; Triglot Concordia, p. 801), says: “We believe, teach, and confess that the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is to be maintained in the Church with great diligence as an especially brilliant light, by which, according to the admonition of St. Paul, the Word of God is rightly divided.” This is repeated in the Declaration of Art. V (Mueller, p. 633; Triglot Concordia, p. 951) as follows: “As the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is a special brilliant light, which serves to the end that God’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 grevious trials against the terrors of the Law.” If these two doctrines are not kept separate, the merit of Christ is obscured; for when I am afraid of the threatening of the Law, I have forgotten Christ, who says to me: “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. All ye that labor and are heavy laden, do but come, and you shall find rest unto yours souls.” These facts will not be rightly proclaimed by the preacher unless he has received an indelible impression of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. Only he, moreover, can lie down and die in peace. The devil may whisper all manner of insinuations to him, but he will say to him: “Your charges against me are quite correct; but I have another doctrine, which tells me something altogether different. I am glad that the Law has put me in such a woeful plight; for now I can relish the Gospel all the more.”

At the conclusion of Art. V we read in the Formula of Concord (Mueller, p. 639; Triglot Concordia, p. 961): “Now, 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 God to the Papacy, therefore the true and proper distinction between the Law and Gospel must with all diligence be inculcated and preserved, and whatever gives occasion for confusion iter legum et evangelium [between the Law and the Gospel], that is, whereby the two doctrines, Law and Gospel, may be confounded and mingled into one doctrine, should be diligently prevented.” — We, too, are in the great danger here sketched. Read the writings of those who claim to be the best preachers. They terrify, to be sure, but their incisiveness is due to the fact that they confound the Law with the Gospel. As a result, people who have read these writings are on their dying bed often harassed with doubts. Many a one among them dies with the thoughts in his heart: “I’ll see whether God will receive me.” Any one dying in such uncertainty does not depart in saving faith. Now, whose fault is it, at least in many instances? The preacher’s.

However, the preacher must also be careful not to say that the Law has been abolished; for that is not true. The Law remains in force; it is not abrogated. But we have another message besides that of the Law. God does not say: “By the Law is righteousness,” but: “By the Law is the knowledge of sin.” Yea, we read in the Epistle to the Romans: “To him that … believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Hence we are on the right way to salvation the moment we are convinced that we are ungodly.

Commenting on Gal. 3, 19, Luther says (St. L. Ed. IX, 415): “If the Gospel is not fundamentally and plainly set apart from the Law, it is impossible to keep the Christians doctrine unadulterated. Again, when this distinction has been correctly and firmly established, we can have a fine and correct knowledge of the manner how, and by what means, we are to become righteous in the sight of God. Where this illuminating knowledge prevails, it is easy to distinguish faith from works, Christ from Moses, the Gospel from the Law of Moses and all other secular laws, statutes and ordinances.”

In conclusion, Chemnitz writes in his Chapters on Theology (Loci Theologici), in the chapter on Justification (fol. 206): “Paul states distinctly that the righteousness which is valid in the sight of God is revealed in the Gospel, apart from the Law. Hence the principal matter in this inquiry regarding justification is that the true and proper distinction between the Law and the Gospel be fixed and carefully maintained. … Is there any other light, besides the one furnished by the true distinction between the Law and the Gospel, that has so forcibly broken up the dense darkness of the Pope’s dominion?” The darkness of the Papacy has not been dispelled by any other light than the appearance of the teaching that there is a distinction to be made between the Law and the Gospel. Great councils of the Church wanted to make an attempt at reforming the Church; mighty emperors had undertaken this task. What did they accomplish? Nothing. Matters went from bad to worse. What is the reason why a poor, miserable monk succeeded in this work? No doubt it was because he put the candlestick of this doctrine back in the holy place. He might have preached in ever so evangelical a fashion, Christians would not have been comforted. For the moment they would have come across the Law, they would have exclaimed: “Ah, I have been in error after all! I have to keep the commandments of God if I want to enter into life.”

Here is the point where most of the reformers before the Reformation were at fault. Huss preached the Gospel exceedingly well, but he did not show his hearers the proper distinction between the Law and the Gospel. For that reason his work, his attempt at reformation, did not endure.

May God, then, who has kindled this light for us, preserve it unto us! I am thinking of you in particular when I say this. We, who are old, will soon be in our graves. The light began to shine once more in our time. See to it that it is not put out again. You are following a wrong track if you imagine that you have comprehended this whole teaching in these few hours. If this light is not carefully guarded, it will soon go out. For instance, we find that this light was still burning in the days when the earliest writings of the Church Fathers were composed. But in the writings of the ecclesiastical teachers who followed them no definite statement is found regarding the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. That is the reason why the Papacy, in a later age, made such rapid headway. The same danger is now threatening us.

The principal passage of Scripture establishing our thesis is Rom. 10, 2–4: For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth. To what ignorance of the Jews does the apostle refer in this passage when he says “not according to knowledge”? This: “They do not recognize the righteousness that is valid in the sight of God.” That is their lack of understanding. They imagined they must be zealots in behalf of the Law; for as it was most assuredly God’s Law, how might any one dare depart from it? If they had paid attention to Paul’s preaching, they would soon have observed that Paul allowed the Law to remain in force. Seeing that, they would not have become enemies of the Gospel, and the dreadful darkness which settled upon them like the pall of night would have been dispelled.

I offer two testimonies to show that the papists are doing what the thesis charges. Two months before Luther’s death, as you know, the Council of Trent was opened. It was to heal the mortal wounds that had been dealt the Papacy by the Reformation of Luther and rebuild the Papacy.

In its fourth session, in a preamble to a decree, the Council says: “The most holy, ecumenical, and universal Council of Trent, lawfully convened in the Holy Spirit, … always bearing in mind to remove errors and to preserve in the Church the purity of the Gospel, viz., that which was first promised by the holy prophets in their writings, then preached with His own mouth by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and then commanded to be preached to all creatures by His apostles, both as the source of all saving truth and a moral norm,” etc.

This preamble does not sound so awful. We hear this vermin of antichristian iniquity speaking of the Gospel as containing the doctrines of salvation. However, they add immediately that the Gospel also prescribes morals. That is the interpretation they put on the intention of Christ when He said: “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.” Mark 16, 15. They evidently do not intend to accept the Gospel in the true sense of the word. In the meaning in which they understand it, it is, at best, a law such as Moses proclaimed. Nor do they urge upon people only the commandments of God, but much more the commandments of the Church. They do not trouble a person who has transgressed the commandments of God; but if any one transgresses the commandments of their Church, for instance, if he has eaten meat on Friday, he is tortured until he acknowledges that he has committed a mortal sin.

In Canon 21, adopted at its sixth session, this synagog of Satan decrees: “If any one says that Christ Jesus has been given by God to men that He should be their Redeemer, in whom they are to trust, and not also their Lawgiver, whom they are to obey, let him be anathema.” This decree overthrows the Christian religion completely. If Christ came into the world to publish new laws to us, we should feel like saying that He might as well have stayed in heaven. Moses had already given us so perfect a Law that we could not fulfil it. Now, if Christ had given us additional laws, that would have had to drive us to despair.

The very term Gospel contradicts this view of the papists. We know that Christ Himself has called His Word Gospel; for He says in Mark 16, 15: “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.” In order that the meaning which He connected with the word Gospel might be understood, He states the contents of the Gospel in these concrete terms: “He that believeth and is baptized,” etc. If the teaching of Christ were a law, it would not be an εὐαγγέλιον a glad tiding, but a sad tiding.

Reverting to the Old Testament, we see even there what the character of the teaching of Christ is. We read in Gen. 3, 15: “It [the Woman’s Seed] shall bruise thy head.” What is the import of these words? It is this: The Messiah, the Redeemer, the Savior is not come for the purpose of telling us what we are to do, what works we are to perform in order to escape from the terrible dominion of darkness, sin, and death. These feats the Messiah is not going to leave for us to accomplish, but He will do all that Himself. “He shall bruise the serpent’s head,” that means nothing else than this, that He shall destroy the kingdom of the devil. All that man has to do is to know that he has been redeemed, that he has been set free from his prison, that he has no more to do than to believe and accept this message and rejoice over it with all his heart. If the text were to read: “He shall save you,” that would not be so comforting; or if it read: “You must believe in Him,” we should be at a loss to know what is meant by this faith. This protoevangelium, this First Gospel in Genesis, was the fountain from which the believers in the Old Testament drew their comfort. It was important for them to know: “There is One coming who will not only tell us what we must do to get to heaven. No, the Messiah will do all Himself to bring us there.” Now that the rule of the devil has been destroyed, anything that I must do cannot come into consideration. If the devil’s dominion is demolished, I am free. There is nothing for me to do but to appropriate this to myself. That is what Scripture means when it says, “Believe.” That means, Claim as your own what Christ has acquired.

Many additional prophecies might be cited to prove the correctness of this interpretation. Let me call your attention only to one, which shows clearly what the doctrine of the Gospel really is. Jer. 31, 31–34 we read: Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which My covenant they brake, although I was an Husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts and will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin on more. A new covenant, then, God is going to make. Note this well. This covenant is not to be a legal covenant like the one which He established with Israel on Mount Sinai. The Messiah will not say: “You must be people of such and such character; your manner of living must be after this or that fashion; you must do such and such works.” No such doctrine will be introduced by the Messiah. He writes His Law directly into the heart, so that person living under Him is a law unto himself. He is not coerced by a force from without, but is urged from within. “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more,” — these words state the reason for the preceding statement. They are a summary of the Gospel of Christ: forgiveness of sin by the free grace of God, for the sake of Jesus Christ. Any one, therefore, imagining that Christ is a new Lawgiver and has brought us new laws cancels the entire Christian religion. For he removes that by which the Christian religion differs from all other religions in the world. All other religions say to man: “You must become just so and so and do such and such works if you wish to go to heaven.” Over against this the Christian religion says: “You are a lost and condemned sinner; you cannot be your own Savior. But do not despair on that account. There is One who has acquired salvation for you. Christ has opened the portals to heaven to you and says to you: Come, for all things are ready. Come to the marriage of the Lamb.” That is the reason, too, why Christ says: “I heal the sick, not them that are whole. I am come to seek and save that which was lost. I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Everywhere in His conversation among men we see the Lord Jesus surrounded by sinners, and behind Him stand lurking the Pharisees. Sinners, hungering and thirsting, stand round about Him. He has won their hearts. Though the divine majesty shines forth from Him, they are not afraid to approach Him; they have confidence in Him. The Pharisees utter the bitter reproach: “This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them.” The Lord overhears the remark, and even if He had not heard it, He nevertheless would have known it. What does He do? He makes no apologies; He does not say: “I do not wish to have sinners, but only righteous people, about Me!” No, He confirms the truth of their statement, which by them was meant as a reproach, by continuing the censured action, as if He wished to say: “Yes, I want sinners about Me,” and then proceeds to prove this by telling the parable of the Lost Sheep. The shepherd picks up the lost sheep, no matter how torn and bruised it is. He places it on his shoulder and, rejoicing, carries it to the sheepfold. The Lord explains His conduct also by the parable of the Lost Piece of Silver. The woman seeks her lost coin throughout the house, searching for it even in the dirt. When she has found it, she calls her friends, saying: “Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.” Lastly, the Lord adds the incomparably beautiful parable of the Prodigal Son. Practically the Lord says by telling these parables: “There you have My doctrine. I am come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

If you take a survey of the entire life of Jesus, you behold Him going about, not like a proud philosopher, not like a moralist, surrounded by champions of virtuous endeavor, whom He teaches how to attain the highest degree of philosophic perfection. No, He goes about seeking lost sinners and does not hesitate to tell the proud Pharisees that harlots and publicans will enter the kingdom of heaven rather than they. Thus He shows us quite plainly what His Gospel really is.

All the apostles corroborate His teaching. John says in his gospel, chap. 1, 17: The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. He places the Law over against grace and truth. I need not explain what grace is. When John speaks of the “truth” that has come, he views Jesus as saying: “I teach the essence of the things which were foreshadowed in the Old Testament. The Old Testament presented emblems; I bring realities.” The entire Temple-service of the Levites was figurative. Christ actually brought what was typified in the Old Testament.

In chap. 3, 17 the same apostle says: God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. Quite plainly the thought that Christ came into the world to proclaim a new law is barred here. Had that been His object, He would have come to judge the world. For the Law passes judgment on sinners. However, God did not send his Son to pass judgment on the world, but to save the world through Him. By the term world the Lord refers to mankind in its apostate and lost condition, to the lost, accursed, and condemned sinners that make up the world. To these the Savior brings this blessed doctrine: “Though You have broken every commandment of God, do not despair; I am bringing you forgiveness and salvation here and hereafter.”

In language so plain that it requires no comment the apostle states in Romans, chap. 1, 16. 17: I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the Just shall live by faith.

1 Tim. 1, 15 we read: This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. In view of these plain passages, is it not a horrible teaching of the papists that what is called Gospel in the Scriptures according to them is nothing else than a new law?

In sundry other places of their confessions they explain their meaning more fully thus: Many laws were uttered by Christ of which Moses knew nothing; for instance, the law to love our enemies, the law not to seek private revenge, the law not to demand back what has been taken from us, etc. All these matters the papists declare to be “new laws.” This is wrong; for even Moses has said: “Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thine heart and with all thy soul and with all thy might,” Deut. 6, 5; and: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” Lev. 19, 18. Now, Christ did not abrogate this law of Moses, but neither did He publish any new laws. He only opened up the spiritual meaning of the Law. Accordingly, He says in Matt. 5, 17: “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” That means that He did not come to issue new laws, but to fulfil the Law for us, so that we may share His fulfilment.

In its sixth session the Council of Trent passed this decree: “If any one says that men are made righteous solely through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ or solely through the forgiveness of sin, to the exclusion of the grace and love which by the Holy Spirit is poured out in their hearts and is inherent in them; or that the grace by which we are made righteous is nothing else than the favor of God, — let him be accursed. … If any one says that the faith which makes men righteous is nothing else than trust in the divine mercy, which remits sin for Christ’s sake, or that it is only this trust that makes us righteous, — let him be accursed. … If any one says that a justified person does not, by reason of the good works which are done by him through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and the actual obtainment of eternal life, provided he dies in grace, — let him be accursed.” Unless you are utterly blind and know nothing of the Christian religion, I believe that a plainer proof that the Pope is the Antichrist cannot be offered you.

Everywhere the papists set up the cross and make the sign of the cross; but that is sheer hypocrisy. They have the cross, but without its meaning in connection with Christ. Again and again we read that they call upon Mary to keep the ship of Peter from perishing. they do not readily say: “Jesus is our Fortress, our Rock,” etc. Verily, the worst sects in the Christian Church are less harmful than the Pope. For all sects without exception admit that the only way in which a person may be saved is by faith in the grace of God in Christ Jesus. All sects, by their teaching, obscure the Gospel, but they do not, as the Pope does, anathematize and curse it. Inasmuch as all sects allow this thesis, that salvation is by the grace of God, through faith in Christ Jesus, to stand, they are incomparably superior to the Papacy. They are corrupted churches, but the Papacy is a false Church. Just as counterfeit money is no money, so the papal Church, being a false Church, is no Church. Compared with the corrupted sectarian churches, the papacy is a non-church, a denial of the Church of Christ. I am not speaking of the Roman Catholic, but of the papistic Church, the Church which submits to the Pope, accepts his decrees, and repeats his anathemas. This Church is the one which history knows as the ecclesia maligna, the malign, pernicious Church, and the synagog of Satan.

However, the objection is raised: Does not Christ say, Matt. 11, 28–30: “Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly of heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light”? Here we have it that Christ, too, lays a burden on His followers. Yea, the Romanists claim this yoke and burden of Christ, which they interpret to mean self-abnegation and cross-bearing, is much more grievous than the Law of Moses. Moses, they say, prohibited only gross outward acts. They think that the remark of Christ, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,” refers to Moses. What Christ really means to say is this: “Your elders have taught you by their traditions that you were keeping the Law when you refrain from the gross acts prohibited by the Law.” And then He proceeds to expound the true meaning of the Law.

Regarding this matter, Luther writes in his Glosses on the Gospel of Matthew (St. L. Ed. VII, 143): “Those are greatly in error who interpret ‘the yoke of Christ’ in this passage [Matt. 11, 29. 30] to mean the so-called evangelical law, that is, commands issued by Christ.” In the opinion of Romanists the Gospel and the evangelical law are synonymous. They also term it “the new law” (nova lex). Luther proceeds: “In expounding this text, the Sophists have been at great pains to show that the yoke of Christ is easier than the yoke of Moses, spite of their belief that Moses has prohibited merely the external act while Christ lays His injunction even on every useless word that men speak and on their whole heart.” By their contention that the yoke of Moses had been easier for the reason stated, the Sophists to whom Luther refers meant to prove that in the Old Testament people were saved by the Law because that was not hard to keep. The law in the Gospel, they say, is easy only in so far as it has abolished circumcision and the ceremonial ordinances. But the yoke and the burden of which Christ speaks is nothing else than the cross which His followers bear from love of Him.

Luther continues: “Finally, these blind people arrived at the conclusion that the Law and the Gospel were related to one another like the excedentia to the excessa [that which exceeds something to that which is exceeded], namely, this way: the Law is easier than the Gospel because it lays its injunctions, not on the heart, but on the hand, or the gross external act. On the other hand, the Gospel is easier than the Law in this respect, that it has done away with circumcision and the Mosaic ceremonies. That is indeed a blindness befitting people who despise the Gospel and refuse to read it. This is what they should have taught: The power of Christ is marvelous in His saints; for by faith in the hearts of these men, Christ changes death into laughter, punishment into joy, and hell into heaven. For those who believe in Him laugh to scorn all those ills which worldly and carnal minds dread and flee and abominate. That is what Christ calls a pleasant yoke and a light burden, namely, to bear the cross joyfully, even as Paul did, who says: ‘We glory in tribulations also.’ Rom. 5, 3.”

The moment a person through genuine repentance attains to a living faith, he has become a blessed man: he has arrived at the very gate of heaven. When death comes, the doors are opened, and he enters. But since it is dangerous for a Christian to pass his days in ease in this present life, the Savior has taken the precaution of putting the cross upon him. Whenever a Christian professes his faith by word and deed, people become hostile to him. Even where this enmity is not manifested publicly, it is still noticeable and vexes him not a little. How many have had to lay down their lives for Christ! But how light is the burden of Christ compared with that of the Law! Feeling the burden of the Law, a person will groan: “Oh, I am the most miserable of men!” It makes him despondent and fills him with despair.

Some spend their lives subject neither to the Law nor to the Gospel. Well, they live like animals. But, alas for them when their eyes are opened after death! A Christian is able to rejoice in the hope that God will deliver him from the misery and suffering of this life. He can even here sing hallelujahs. The examples of the martyrs shows this. They did not go weeping and wailing to their execution, but met their martyr’s fate with joy and exultation. In them the words of Christ were fulfilled: “My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.”

I pray God that my addressing these talks to you may not be labor misspent. Do apply what I say to yourselves. To advance you in your Christianity is the paramount object of these evening lectures.

Our object is to meditate upon the distinction between Law and Gospel, and on the ever-present danger and harm of mingling the one with the other. In our last lecture we began our review of the various occasions on which this danger confronts us. However, the commingling of both doctrines occurs also when Gospel elements are mingled with the Law, and vice versa. Let us investigate what Scripture says regarding this matter. To begin with, what does it say concerning the Law? How does it show us that we must not mingle any evangelical ingredient into the Law?

The principal passage yielding us the desired information is Gal. 3, 11. 12: But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God, it is evident; for, The just shall live by faith. And the Law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. A precious text! A person becomes righteous in the sight of God solely by faith. What conclusion must be drawn from this fact? This, that the Law cannot make any person righteous because it has not a word to say about justifying and saving faith. That information is found only in the Gospel. In other words, the Law has nothing to say about grace.

Rom. 4, 16 the apostle tells us: Therefore it [righteousness] is of faith that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. Faith is demanded of us, not in order that there might be at least some little work that we are to do, as otherwise there would be no difference between those who go to hell and those who go to heaven. No; righteousness is of faith in order that it may be of grace. Both statements are identical. When I say: “A person becomes righteous in the sight of God by faith,” I mean to say: “He becomes righteous gratuitously, by grace, by God’s making righteousness a gift to him.” Nothing is demanded of the person; he is only told: “Stretch out your hand, and you have it.” Just that is what faith is — reaching out the hand. Suppose a person had never heard a word concerning faith and, on being told the Gospel, would rejoice, accept it, put his confidence in it, and draw comfort from it, that person would have the true, genuine faith, although he may not have heard a word concerning faith.

No Gospel element, then, must be mingled with the Law. Any one expounding the Law shamefully perverts it by injecting into it grace, the grace, loving-kindness, and patience of God, who forgives sin. He acts like a sick-nurse, who fetches sugar to sweeten the bitter medicine, which the patient dislikes. What is the result? Why, the medicine does not take effect, and the patient remains feverish. In order that it might retain its strength the medicine should not have been sweetened. A preacher must proclaim the Law in such a manner that there remains in it nothing pleasant to lost and condemned sinners. Every sweet ingredient injected into the Law is poison; it renders this heavenly medicine ineffective, neutralizes its operation.

Matt. 5, 17–19 the Lord says: Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. When preaching the Law, you must ever bear in mind that the Law makes no concessions. That is utterly beside the character of the Law; it only makes demands. The Law says: “You must do this; if you fail to do it, you have no recourse to the patience, loving-kindness, and long-suffering of God; you will have to go to perdition for your wrong-doing.” To make this point quite plain to us, the Lord says: “Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” That does not mean, he shall have the lowest place assigned him in heaven, but he does not belong in the kingdom of heaven at all.

Gal. 3, 10 Paul writes: For as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are in the Book of the Law to do them. If you would direct men to do good works and for their comfort add a remark like this: “You should, indeed, be perfect; however, God does not demand the impossible from us. Do what you can in your weakness; only be sincere in your intention!” — I said, if you would speak thus, you would be preaching a damnable doctrine; for that is a shameful corruption of the Law. God never spoke like that from Sinai.

Rom. 7, 14 the same apostle writes: We know that the Law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. When a minister preaches the Law, he must by all means bear in mind that the Law is spiritual; it works on the spirit, not on some member of the body; it is directed to the spirit in man, to his will, heart, and affections. That is the way it operates in every instance. When the Law says: “Thou shalt not kill,” that sounds as if it applied only to the hand. But it applies to the heart, as we can see from the Ninth and Tenth Commandment, which prohibit evil desires of the heart.

A sermon on the Law which you deliver from your pulpit, to be a proper preaching of the Law, must measure up to these requirements: There is to be no ranting about abominable vices that may be rampant in the congregation. Continual ranting will prove useless. People may quit the practices that have been reproved, but in two weeks they will have relapsed into their old ways. You must, indeed, testify with great earnestness against transgressions of God’s commandments, but you must also tell the people: “Even if you were to quit your habitual cursing, swearing, and the like, that would not make you Christians. You might go to perdition for all that. God is concerned about the attitude of your heart.” You may explain this matter with the utmost composure, but you must state it quite plainly.

Let me illustrate. You may say: “Listen; when God says: ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ that does not mean that you are no murderers when your hand has slain no one, when you have not assaulted any one like a highway robber, nor put his life in jeopardy. Do not think that you have kept the Fifth Commandment if you have refrained from such outward acts. By no means; the Law aims at the heart, at the spirit in man.” If you say merely in passing: “The Law is spiritual,” the people will not catch the drift of your speech. You must explain the matter to them quite thoroughly. If you do this, you will be handling a sharp knife that cuts into the life of people, and your hearers will go home dazed. From the effect of your preaching they will go down on their knees at home and make this self-confession: “I am not as God would have me be. I shall have to become a different person.”

Rom. 3, 20 we read: By the Law is the knowledge of sin. God does not tell you to preach the Law in order thereby to make men godly. The Law makes no one godly; but when it begins to produce its proper effects, the person who is feeling its power begins to fume and rage against God. He hates the preacher who has shouted the Law into his heart, and he feels that he cannot slip off its coils. Where this has happened, you may hear people say: “We shall never again go to that church. Why, that preacher strikes terror into my soul. I prefer to attend the services of the Rev. So-and-so. He makes you feel good. While listening to him, you discover what a good man you really are.” Alas! in eternity these people will wish to take revenge on the preacher that preached them into perdition.

There was nothing pleasant, nothing comforting, at Sinai. On the previous day, Moses had announced to the people that God was going to come to them. He did come with thunder and lightning. At early dawn a terrible tempest swept up from the horizon. Finally, the mountain began to quake, and the people were thrown into a still greater fright by this trembling of the mountain. Flames of fire shot skyward; dense clouds of smoke began to form. Suddenly a loud trumpet began to blare terribly, hurling its echoes like thunderclaps through the valleys that start from the sides of the mountain and causing every one to shake with dread. But the climax of this terrible phenomenon came when the people heard the voice of Jehovah reciting to them the Ten Commandments with their regular refrain of Thou shalt! Thou shalt! Thou shalt! Moreover, the Speaker tells them: “I, the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children,” etc. Ex. 20, 5. Everywhere in the camp of Israel people went to pieces from dread and fright.

Do you think that the coming of this terrible tempest just on that day was an accident? Did not Moses have to set up a barrier around the mountain already on the preceding day lest anybody approach the mountain? Did he not issue a warning to the people telling them that they would drop dead if they crossed the barrier? In the wild tumult of the next day the people understood the truth of the warning; for no one could have come out alive from that fearful commotion. Only Moses was permitted to approach the mountain, under the protecting hand of God.

By this spectacle God has indicated to us how we are to preach the Law. True, we cannot reproduce the thunder and lightning of that day, except in a spiritual way. If we do, it will be a salutary sermon when the people sit in their pews and the preacher begins to preach the Law in its fulness and to expound its spiritual meaning. There may be many in the audience who will say to themselves, “If that man is right, I am lost.”

Some, indeed, may say: “That is not the way for an evangelical minister to preach.” But it certainly is; he could not be an evangelical preacher if he did not preach the Law thus. The Law must precede the preaching of the Gospel, otherwise the latter will have no effect. First came Moses, then Christ; or: First John the Baptist, the forerunner, then Christ. At first the people will exclaim, How terrible is all this! But presently the preacher, with shining eyes, passes over to the Gospel, and then the hearts of the people are cheered. They see the object of the preacher’s preceding remarks: he wanted to make them see how awfully contaminated with sins they were and how sorely they needed the Gospel.

For your catechizing you must adopt the same method. When explaining the Law, do not mingle Gospel elements with your catechization, except in the conclusion. Even little children have to pass through these experiences of anguish and terror in the presence of the Law. The reason why so many imagine that they can pass for really good Christians is because their parents reared them to be self-righteous Pharisees; they never made them aware of the fact that they are poor, miserable sinners. A person may have fallen into the most dreadful sins; but if he has been brought up properly, he says to himself when he hears the Law preached: “Surely I am an awful sinner!” A Pharisees who hears the same sermon may not repeat that confession, though he may have fallen into far greater sins.

The conversion of Pharisees is a far more difficult task than that of a person who acknowledges his sin. That was the deepest corruption of the Jews in the days of Christ, and it is that of the papists in our time. The Jews had mingled Gospel elements with the Law by telling the people: “If you do not actually slay somebody, you are not a murderer. If you do not commit manifest fornication, you are not guilty of adultery.” Even concupiscence was declared a natural sensation. The papists say the same. When forced to admit that in the exposition of the Law by Christ some things are named that cannot be classified with gross acts contrary to the Law, they claim that these things are meant merely as good counsels of Christ, which may be adopted by those who strive for an exceptionally exalted place in heaven. The good works resulting from following these good counsels of Christ they call supererogatory.

In his comment on the words of Christ: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill,” etc., Luther says (St. L. Ed. VII, 429 f.): “Christ takes up some of the Ten Commandments for the purpose of explaining them properly. He shows that the Pharisees and scribes, when teaching the Law, did not push their explanation and inculcation beyond the literal meaning of the commandments and made them applicable only to gross, external acts. For instance, in the Fifth Commandment (which He introduces first) they considered no more than the word kill, which they interpreted to mean actual slaying; and they allowed the people to stick to the notion that nothing else is forbidden in this commandment. Moreover, in order to escape the charge of manslaughter for delivering a person to the magistrates to be condemned to death, as they delivered Christ to the pagan Pontius Pilate, they framed a pretty pretense for keeping their own hands from being sullied with blood: they urged their ceremonial purity and sanctity to the point of refusing to enter the governor’s palace and forcing Pilate against his will to kill Jesus. John 18, 28 ff. Later, still pretending perfect purity and innocence, they even rebuked the apostles for preaching Christ and charged them with the intention of bringing ‘this man’s blood’ upon them. Acts 5, 28. They meant to say: Not we, but the heathen, killed Christ. A similar trick is recorded regarding King Saul in 1 Sam. 18, 25 ff. He was nursing a grudge against David and would have liked to kill him. But since he wished to pass for a holy man, he planned to do the killing not with his own hand, but to send him against the Philistines, who, he hoped, would slay him. Thus his hand would be innocent of murder!”

What the Jews accepted of the Fifth Commandment was the more literal and crass meaning of the terms. The teachers told the people: “If you omit such and such acts, you will pass for such as have well complied with the Fifth Commandment.” These famous doctors, who made their boast of the Law, had emptied the Law of its contents and retained the mere shell. Our modern rationalists are doing the same. Their aim is merely to preserve the reputation of probity in their lives, hence, not to rush into abominable vices of which any decent citizen would have to be ashamed. Upright conduct, too, is the sole object of their preaching. Even so-called Christian preachers are found to do this.

The practice of the Pharisees has been taken up by the papists. Papists and Pharisees resemble one another as closely as two eggs. The papists, when handling heretics over to the magistrates, declare: “Ecclesia not sitit sanguinem, that is, The Church does not thirst for blood. True, many of our heretical enemies have been slain. However, it was not we who did that, but the magistrates.” But if the magistrates refused to do it, they were excommunicated by the Church. Thus the papists want to wash their hands of the blood of the martyrs. But they will not succeed; some day they will have to appear before God stained with the damning witness of this blood. The case of the Jews is similar. Had they known the spiritual meaning of the Law, they would also have acknowledged: “Yes, we are the ones who killed Christ; for it was we who cried, ‘Crucify, crucify Him!’ ”

Luther proceeds: “Behold here the pretty sanctity of the Pharisees, which can whitewash itself and retain the reputation of godliness, provided it does not employ its own hand for killing, though the heart is filled with wrath, hatred, and envy and conceals malignant and murderous intrigues, while the mouth spouts forth curses and blasphemies. Of the same stripe is the sanctity of our papists, who have become past masters in these tricks. To guard their sanctity against censure and not to be bound by the Word of Christ, they found a fine subterfuge in the twelve [evangelical] counsels which they extracted from the teachings of Christ. They claimed that not all that Christ had taught was of the nature of a command and a necessary requisite [for discipleship], but some of His teachings were meant as a good counsel, the following of which was left to everybody’s discretion. These counsels were to be adopted by those who wished to achieve some especial merit before others. For the average person these counsels were a superfluous teaching that he could well do without. When you asked them their reason for framing these counsels from the teaching of Christ and how they proved their case, they would say: Well, you see it would be an excessive burdening of the Christian law (nimis onerativum legis Christianae); in other words, it would make Christianity too onerous an affair if all teachings of Christ were to be taken as actual commands. That is what the theologians of Paris unblushingly published in the treatise they directed against me. Forsooth, here we have some smart reasoning: being kind to your neighbor and not forsaking him in distress, as you would wish that people should treat you, that is to be an overgreat burden. And inasmuch as they deem it too onerous, they decree that it shall not be regarded as a command, but as a matter left to the option of such as would be glad to do it. Those, however, who are unwilling to do it are not to be burdened with it. That is the trick of directing Christ’s speech, lording it over His Word and construing its meaning to suit our fancy. But He will not permit Himself to be cheated thus, nor will He revoke the verdict which He has laid down when He said: Except you have a better kind of godliness to show, heaven will be closed against you, and you will be damned; or as He expresses it in a later statement: If you say to your brother, Thou fool, you shall be in danger of hell-fire. From this we can readily gather whether He offered counsels or issued commands.”

Christ says: “If any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.” The papists construe these words thus: “True, Christ did say that, but His words are merely evangelical counsels. If the question is how to get to heaven, you have to keep the Law. But if your object is to climb to a high place in heaven, you must carry out these counsels.”

In his Chapters in Theology (Loci Theol., Part II, fol. 104) Chemnitz enumerates these counsels. By the way, the supererogatory works resulting from following these counsels, you know, are the treasure from which the Pope distributes his indulgences. All told, there are twelve counsels: 1. Voluntary poverty. The words of Christ: “Sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven,” Matt. 19, 21, are understood by the papists as being merely a good counsel. In their view this counsel is followed by those who enter a monastery. 2. Celibacy. This counsel the papists extract from, Matt. 19, 12: “There are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother’s womb; and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs by men; and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” “Behold,” they say, “our monks and nuns have adopted this good counsel.” Or they put it this way: “They lead a life of chastity.” 3. Unconditional obedience to the superior of an order. This good counsel, too, is followed by monks and nuns. 4. Taking revenge. It seems almost beyond belief that any one should arise in the Church and declare the divine command not to take revenge to be merely a good counsel. That amounts to saying: You might revenge yourself, but if you decline to do so, that is a splendid good work. 5. Patiently suffering insult. 6. Giving alms. 7. Refraining from swearing. 8. Avoiding opportunities to commit sin. This is awful! It is not necessary, then, to avoid all opportunities for sinning; but if you do so, you climb to the top of perfection! 9. Having a right intention in whatever you do. This would mean that, no matter what prompts you to do a good work, it is in every case a good work in the sight of God. But if you are guided by a right motive, you are an exceptionally saintly person. 10. Doing what Christ says in Matt. 23, 3: “They say and do not,” and in Matt. 7, 5: “First cast out the beam out of thine own eye.” 11. Not being concerned about temporal affairs. In the view of papists this, too, is merely a good counsel. 12. Admonishing a brother. Imagine, this is not to be regarded as a real duty, not being a part of the Law!

You can see what an abominable perversion of the Law has been perpetrated by the papists. Verily, they have dissipated the inmost spirit of the Law. They imagine that it would be asking too much if everybody were required to obey all these teachings of Christ. Of course, all cannot enter a cloister. If they did, who would provide bread and meat? No, indeed; that would be asking too much! Oh, what an abomination!

The Jesuits came forward with the proclamation: Heretofore the poor Christians have been unduly oppressed with moral precepts. Hence we, the Jesuits, have formed a society for relieving Christians of the most grievous moral precepts. And they actually put their plan in operation, with this happy result that according to their ethical standards the most infamous scoundrel can still be a good Christian. Their moral code is the reverse of the Decalog: a person may commit the most horrible abominations, provided he does so from a good intention. He may poison his father if he has the good intention of becoming his heir. However, this entire ethical system of the papists and Jesuits has been overthrown by the words of Christ: “Whoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire.” This means that any one who fails to fulfil the Law in its spiritual meaning deserves to perish.

We are now to discuss a wrong division of the Word of God which occurs when the various doctrines are not presented in their order; when something that should come last is placed first. By this practise immense damage can be wrought in the hearts and the understanding of your auditors. Four types of this perverse sequence are possible.

In the first place, the order may be distorted if you preach the Gospel prior to the Law. You may think: “Can a person be so perverse? Why, every catechumen at school knows quite well that the Law comes first and then the Gospel.” However, this can easily happen. We have instances in history which show that even entire religious associations became addicted to this error. For instance, the Antinomians in Luther’s time, with Agricola, of Eisleben, as their leader; and the Herrnhuters (Moravians) in the eighteenth century. The latter preferred not to have the Law preached at all. Their chief tenet was: “The Gospel must be preached first; the suffering and bleeding of Christ must be presented, to start with.” This was fundamentally wrong. We shall readily admit that the Herrnhuters have made an impression on many, but it was a mere surface impression. Their hearers were never made aware of their deep sinful depravity; they were never made to realize that they were enemies of God, worthy to be cast down to perdition rather than to be saved. — By the way, when we use the term “Gospel” in this connection, we refer, of course, to the Gospel in the strict sense of the term, namely, as the opposite of the Law.

In Mark 1, 15 we read: Repent ye and believe the Gospel. “Repent ye” is plainly a Law utterance. In the preaching of our Lord this comes first, being followed by the Gospel summons: “Believe the Gospel.”

In this practise the holy apostles were followers of Christ. Paul goes on record describing his method of preaching in Acts 20, 21 thus: Testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. The apostle preached repentance first and then faith; the Law first and then the Gospel.

In his valedictory remarks to His disciples, before ascending to heaven, our Lord said repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. The Lord does not reverse the divine order, thus: “Remission of sins and repentance.” No; that would be a way that would absolutely not lead to salvation.

The second perversion of the true sequence occurs when sanctification of life is preached before justification, the preaching of forgiveness of sins; for justification by grace is nothing else than forgiveness of sins. I became righteous by appropriating the righteousness of Christ as my own.

Ps. 130, 4 David says: There is forgiveness with Thee, that Thou mayest be feared. The psalmist practically says to God: “First Thou must grant us remission of sins; after that we shall begin to reverence Thee, by walking in a new, sanctified life.” The term “fear” in this text does not signify merely awe in God’s presence, but the whole work of sanctification.

Ps. 119, 32 we read: I will run the way of Thy Commandments when Thou shalt enlarge my heart. First come the consolations of God, justification, the granting of pardon to the sinner, the remission of sins. After that the psalmist expects to “run the way of God’s commandments.” He means to say: “Because Thou, O God, receivest me into Thy grace, therefore, because of this gracious act of Thine, I conceive a love for Thy commandments. As long as my sins are still unforgiven, I cannot love Thee and Thy commandments; no, I hate Thee. But as soon as I have been pardoned, I have obtained a new heart and gladly quit the world, for I find with Thee something better than what the world can give me.”

The apostle tells the Corinthians in his First Epistle to them, chap. 1, 30: Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Sanctification, and Redemption. Here we have the true sequence. The first requisite to obtain wisdom, knowledge and the way of salvation. This is the primary step. Next comes righteousness, which we obtain by faith. Not until this has been attained, comes sanctification. I must first know that God has forgiven my sins, that He has cast them into the depth of the sea, before it affords me real joy to lead a sanctified life. Before that it was a grievous burden to me. At first I was angry with God; I hated Him for demanding so many things of me. I should have liked to cast Him from His throne. I mused in my heart, It would be better if there were no God. But when I had been pardoned and justified, I delighted, not only in the Gospel, but also in the Law.

John 15, 5 the Lord says to His disciples: I am the Vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in Me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without Me ye can do nothing. The Savior desires that we be grafted in Him like branches in a vine. That does not mean that we are to be physically incorporated in Him, but that we believe in Him with our whole heart, put our confidence and trust in Him, and embrace Him wholly with the arms of faith, so that we live only in Him, our Jesus, who has rescued us and saves us. When this takes place, we shall bear fruit. The Savior, then, shows that we must be justified before we can lead a sanctified life. If we become loose, severed branches, we wither and bear no fruit.

In His address before the apostles’ convention at Jerusalem, Peter, speaking of what God had done for the Gentiles, says, Acts 15, 9: He put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. After being justified by faith, I am also purified, renewed, and sanctified by the same faith.

To confound justification and sanctification is one of the most horrid errors. The most beautiful preaching is rendered useless by this error. Only by a strict separation of justification and sanctification a sinner is made to understand clearly and becomes certain that he has been received into grace by God; and this knowledge equips him with strength to walk in a new life.

The third perversion of the true sequence — first Law, then Gospel — occurs when faith is preached first and repentance next, as was done by the Antinomians and is still done by the Herrnhuters in our time. Their current teaching is: “Faith is the primary affair; after that you must become contrite and repent.” What a foolish direction! How can faith enter a heart that has not yet been crushed? How can a person feel hungry and thirsty while he loathes the food set before him? No, indeed; if you wish to believe in Christ, you must become sick; for Christ is a Physician only for those who are sick. He came to seek and to save that which is lost; therefore you must first become a lost and condemned sinner. He is the Good Shepherd, who goes in search of the lost sheep; therefore you must first realize that you are a lost sheep.

Acts 2, 38 the following incident at the conclusion of Peter’s Pentecostal sermon is recorded: Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. That is what Peter said in answer to the question of the Jews: “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” He preaches to them, first, repentance; next, the remission of sins. Faith, then, follows repentance.

Under this head belong also all the passages cited before, especially Acts 20, 21. All who pervert this order have their teaching disproved by the rule: “Repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” For a preacher these passages are the true guiding lights that keep him from straying from the right path.

Finally, the fourth perversion occurs when good works are preached first and then grace. The subjects mentioned in these four types are all analogous: one type is as bad as any of the others.

There is a golden text in Ephesians, chap. 2, 8–10: For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. The apostle does not say: “We must do good works in order to have a gracious God,” but the very opposite: “By grace are ye saved; but by grace ye are created unto good works.” When you have received grace, God has created you anew. In this new state you have to do good works; you can no longer remain under the dominion of sin.

Titus 2, 11. 12 we read: For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live righteously, soberly, and godly in this present world. Here we are told that grace is brought to us first, and then this grace begins a work of education upon us. We are placed under the divine pedagogy of grace. The moment a person accepts the grace which brought God down from heaven that grace begins to train him. The object of this training is to teach him how to do good works and lead an upright life.

The character of the Old Testament is chiefly legalistic although the Gospel is proclaimed also in that part of the Bible; the character of the New Testament is chiefly evangelical, although Law portions are not lacking in it. The solemn revelation of the Law took place in the Old Testament, that of the Gospel in the New Testament. The Gospel was indeed available as far back as the days of Paradise, but its solemn inauguration had not yet taken place. The full revelation of the Law occurred on Sinai amid thunder and lightning and during an earthquake. It seemed as if the end of the world had come. In the New Testament era, at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, there also appeared fire, but it did not consume anything. Tongues of fire were seen on the heads of the apostles, but their hair was not singed. A mighty wind came roaring out of the sky, but it destroyed nothing; not a thing was moved out of its place. The purpose of the phenomena was to indicate that at that moment an entirely different, a comforting, revelation was about to be made.

Let us pass on to the apostolic epistles, especially to that addressed to the Romans, which contains the Christian doctrine in its entirety. What do we find in the first three chapters? The sharpest preaching of the Law. This is followed, towards the end of the third chapter and in chapters 4 and 5, by the doctrine of justification — nothing but that. Beginning at chapter 6, the apostle treats of nothing else than sanctification. Here we have a true pattern of the correct sequence: first the Law, threatening men with the wrath of God. This is followed by an instruction regarding the things we are to do after we have become new men. The prophets, too, when they wished to convert people, began by preaching the Law to them. When the chastisings of the Law had taken effect, they comforted the poor sinners. As to the apostles, no sooner had their hearers shown that they were alarmed than they seemed to know nothing else to do for them than to comfort them and pronounce absolution to them. Not until that had been done, would they say to their people: “Now you must show your gratitude toward God.” They did not issue orders; they did not threaten when their orders were disregarded, but they pleaded and besought their hearers by the mercy of God to act like Christians.

That is genuine sanctification which follows upon justification; that is genuine justification which comes after repentance.

Let me illustrate by a few specimens of sermon outlines how you may even by these betray your ignorance of the distinction between Law and Gospel. I shall select very crass examples, as Luther was wont to do; for such examples readily help us to understand the matter under discussion. I love to do as Luther did; for if there is any good that I have achieved, I have learned it from him.

Incorrect Sermon Outlines.

First Subject: The Way of Salvation. It consists of 1) faith; 2) true repentance. A perversion of this kind would constitute you genuine Antinomians and Herrnhuters.

Second Subject: Good Works. We shall see 1) wherein they consist; 2) that they must be performed in faith. In such an outline you would state what good works are, without having spoken of faith. A description of good works requires a statement that they are performed by believers. Otherwise you would have to formulate your judgment on good works from the Law. But that is wrong; for viewed in the light of the Law, any good work even of a Christian, no matter how good it may appear, is damnable in the sight of God.

Third Subject: Concerning Prayer. 1) True Prayer is based on the certainty of our being heard; 2) true prayer consists in faith. According to this outline the first part of your sermon would be entirely wrong.

Fourth Subject: Promises and Threatenings in the Word of God. 1) Promises; 2) threatenings. When I hear these parts of the sermon announced, I say to myself: First the preacher is going to comfort me; then he will proceed to throw rocks at me, causing me to forget everything that he said at the start. No; first you must come down on your hearers with the Law and then bind up their wounds with the divine promises. When a preacher concludes his sermons with threatenings, he has gone far towards making that sermon unproductive.

Fifth Subject: True Christianity. It consists, 1) in Christian living; 2) in true faith; 3) in a blessed death. This outline is simply horrible.

Sixth Subject: What must a person do to become assured of salvation? 1) He must amend his life and become a different man; 2) he must repent of his sins; 3) he must also apprehend Christ by faith. How is it possible to lead a better life when I have not yet reached that stage where I abhor sin and abominate a wicked life? The worst part is Part 3; for there is nothing that gives my greater assurance of being saved than faith.

Accordingly the view of the Pietists is certainly wrong, when they claimed that the various stages of the order of salvation are described in the Sermon on the Mount. They were tempted to adopt this view by the fact that Christ at the opening of this great sermon says: “Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” But that view is untenable; for the phrase “poor in spirit” signifies “to have nothing to which the heart becomes attached.” A millionaire may be poor in spirit; if his heart has not become attached to his money and chattels, he does not really possess them. On the other hand, a beggar my be the very opposite when he puts his trust in the little money he still has. The former is a “blessed” man, the latter is not.

In the view of the Pietists the second beatitude which Christ pronounced: “Blessed are they that mourn; for they shall be comforted,” refers to mourning over sin. They called this the second stage of the order of salvation. But Christ refers to the sorrowing and cross-bearing which His followers have to do in this life for His name’s sake.

Continuing, Christ says: “Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth.” Here the Pietists have labored mightily to find a passable meaning. They were troubled by the fact that up to this point no mention has yet been made of justification by faith. That clogs their scheme of the order of salvation. They turn marvelous mental somersaults in an attempt to evolve their “stages” from the beatitudes; but their efforts are futile.

Next, Christ says: “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be filled.” This is to represent the fourth “stage.” Aye, but does meekness actually precede the other stages? — If you ever preach on the Beatitudes, have a care not to follow Pietistic preachers.

Luther was forced to declare his position over against the Antinomians. They contended that grace must be preached first and then repentance. Indeed, they insisted that in the churches the Law must not be preached at all. They claimed the Law belongs in the court-house and on the gallows; it is to be preached to thieves and murderers, not to honest people, least of all to Christians.

In his treatise Against the Antinomians, of the year 1539, Luther writes (St. L. Ed. XX, 1618): “The Antinomians have invented a new method by which grace is to be preached first and after that the wrath of God. The word Law is not to be spoken at all with in earshot of Christians. That is a pretty seesaw, which pleases them wonderfully, because by this trick they can turn the Scriptures up or down and think they have become lux mundi [a world’s marvel]. They force their notions upon the statement of St. Paul in Rom. 1.”

The Antinomians pointed to v. 16 in this chapter, where St. Paul says: “I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” “You see,” they said, “that the apostle begins with the Gospel.” But these words are preceded by the introduction. The sixteenth verse states the subject of the entire epistle. In v. 18 he begins his first part and concludes it by saying: “What I have demonstrated so far is that all men are sinners and come short of the glory of God.” Not until he enters upon his second part, does he preach the Gospel.

Luther proceeds: “They do not see that Paul teaches the very opposite: he begins by exhibiting, first, the wrath of God from heaven; he denounces all men as sinners and as guilty in the sight of God. After that he teaches those who have been made conscious of their sin how to obtain grace and become righteous in the sight of God. That is his powerful and plain argument in the first three chapters. It is an extraordinary blindness and stupidity of the Antinomians to imagine that the wrath of God is something distinct from the Law. That cannot be; for the revelation of God’s wrath is the Law and its operation upon the intellect and the will of man. Paul expresses this fact when he says: ‘The Law worketh wrath’ (lex iram operatur). Now, then, haven’t they scored a fine point by doing away with the Law, in consideration of the fact that, after all, they have to teach it when they teach the wrath of God? But they put the shoe on the foot the wrong way, trying to teach us the Law after the Gospel and wrath after grace. I am well aware of the devil’s aim. I see what abominable errors he is bent on introducing by means of this exegetical teeter-totter. But I cannot treat of them at this time.” What Luther means to say by calling the Scripture interpretation of the Antinomians a Katzenstühlchen (seesaw, teeter-totter) is this: They have fixed matters so that they can set up the Law or the Gospel as they please.

In his Commentary on Genesis (chap. 21, 12. 16) Luther writes (St. L. Ed. I, 1427 ff.): “It is indeed correct to say that people must be raised up and comforted. But an additional statement must be made, showing who the people are that are to be comforted, namely, those who, like Ishmael and his mother, have been thrust out of their home and fatherland, who are nearly famished with hunger and thirst in the desert, who groan and cry to the Lord, and are on the brink of despair. Such people are proper hearers of the Gospel.” Hagar and Ishmael had to be brought into misery before they could be freed from their pride.

Man is by nature a conceited being. He says: “What wrong have I done? I have committed neither manslaughter, nor adultery, nor fornication, nor larceny.” Wrapped in these miserable rags of his civil righteousness he purposes to make his stand before God. The spirit of pride in himself must be cast out. That requires an application of the hammer of the Law which will crush his stony heart.

Luther continues: “Therefore the Antinomians deserve to be hated by everybody, spite of the fact that they cite us as an example in order to defend their teaching.” The Antinomians pointed to the fact that Luther himself at first had preached nothing but comfort. They claimed that he had now departed from his former teaching and had become a legalist. That, they said, explained his opposition to them. But they misjudged Luther. When he began his public activity, he did not have to instruct the people at great length in the Law. The people were so crushed that hardly one among them dared to believe that he was in a state of grace with God. For in their best efforts at preaching the Roman priests preached the Law, placing alongside of the divine Law the laws of the Church and the statutes of former councils, theologians, and Popes. When Luther came forward, he had passed through the agony that harassed the people; he knew that no more effectual help could be provided for the people in their misery than the preaching of the Gospel. That was the reason why the entire Christian Church in those days experienced a sensation as if dew from heaven or life-giving spring showers were being poured out upon them.

Accordingly, Luther proceeds: “They cite us as an example to defend their teaching, while the reason why we had to start our teaching with the doctrine of divine grace is as plain as daylight. The accursed Pope had utterly crushed the poor consciences of men with his human ordinances. He had taken away all proper means for bringing aid and comfort to hearts in misery and despondency and rescuing them from despair. What else could we have done at that time?” If Luther had smitten these miserable people still more, he would have been the meanest kind of torturer.

Luther continues: “However, I know, too, that those who are surfeited, ease-loving, and overfed must be addressed in a different strain. We were all like castaways in those days and grievously tormented. The water in the jug was gone; that is, there was nothing to comfort men with. Like Ishmael, we all lay dying under the shrub. The kind of teachers we needed were such as made us behold the grace of God and taught us how to find refreshment. The Antinomians insist that the preaching of repentance must begin with the doctrine of grace. I have not followed that method. For I knew that Ishmael must first be cast out and made despondent before he can hear the comforting words of the Angel. Accordingly, I have followed the rule not to minister comfort to any person except to those who have become contrite and are sorrowing because of theirs sin, — those who have despaired of self-help, whom the Law has terrified like a leviathan that has pounced upon them and almost perplexed them. For these are the people for whose sake Christ came into the world, and He will not have a smoking flax to be quenched. Is. 42, 3. That is why He is calling: ‘Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden.’ Ishmael had not been reduced to this strait before he was expelled from Abraham’s home; he was proud and secure and an antinomistic epicurean. Because he had been born before Isaac, he would say: I am lord and heir in this house; Isaac and Sarah shall have to yield to me. Now, was this pride of his to be praised and tolerated, or was he to be rebuked for it? If the latter, in what other way could he have been rebuked than by being driven from the house with his mother and not being permitted to take anything with him out of Abraham’s house except the wages of the Law, bread and water? For that is the way the Law usually acts: it leads the thief handcuffed to the gallows; before he is throttled, it refreshes him with a draught of water. But at last there is no more water, and nothing remains to do but to die. More than this the Law never does. Let us learn the lesson, then, viz., that God is an enemy of every proud person; but those who have been humbled and have felt the power of the Law He comforts, either by men or by an angel from heaven; for He does not want such people to perish. On the other hand, He will not suffer the secure and proud to abide in Abraham’s house.

“Now, a teacher and preacher must be trained in these two things and possess skill and experience in them; viz., he must both rebuke and crush the obstinate, and again, he must be able to comfort those whom he has rebuked and crushed, let they despair utterly and be swallowed up by the Law.”

In the opening lecture on our series of theses we got acquainted with the six points of difference between the Law and the Gospel. They differ 1) as regards the manner of their being revealed to men; 2) as regards their contents; 3) as regards the promises held out by either doctrine; 4) as regards their threatenings; 5) as regards the function and the effect of either doctrine; 6) as regards the persons to whom either the one or the other doctrine must be preached. As a rule, point No. 6 is named last. The reason is not that it is less important; for this point introduces a difference of especially great importance. It is this: the Gospel must be preached only to bruised, contrite, miserable sinners; the Law, to secure sinners. Inverting this order means confounding both and, by confounding them, commingling both in the most dangerous manner. Of the truth of this we became convinced in our first lecture, from the statement in 1 Tim. 1, 8–10: We know that the Law is good if a man use it lawfully. Knowing this, that the Law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there by any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. No law is given to a person who is made righteous by Christ, but to the unrighteous and disobedient. These are the persons to whom the Law must be preached. To make a miserable, contrite sinner the subject of Law-preaching is to commit a grievous sin against him; for the Gospel ought to be preached to him.

Isaiah says, chap. 61, 1–3: The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord hath anointed Me to preach good tidings unto the meek. He hath sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness. The phrase “day of vengeance” does not signify a day of judgment on men; for to proclaim such a day would not be proclaiming an acceptable year. The meaning is this: The Son of God meant to take vengeance on Satan, who had hurled the human race into misery. For this reason the proclamation of “the day of vengeance” is a cheering, comforting message to us. If God had not avenged our Fall upon Satan, we should be lost. If Christ had not redeemed us from the devil, we could not rejoice, but would have to remain in sadness. The picturesque phrases which follow in this text must all be understood figuratively, as pointing to spiritual gifts of grace.

These texts show us that according to God’s Word not a drop of evangelical consolation is to be brought to those who are still living securely in their sins. On the other hand, to the broken-hearted not a syllable containing a threat or a rebuke is to be addressed, but only promises conveying consolation and grace, forgiveness of sin and righteousness, life and salvation.

That was the practise of our Lord and Savior. One day He was approached by a woman “which was a sinner” (Luke 7, 37), who in the presence of self-righteous Pharisees knelt down, washed His feet with her hot tears, and dried them with her hair, with which in former days, no doubt, she had frequently made a display of vanity. She was crushed when she came to Jesus; there was no one to comfort her. But she turned to Jesus, for she had realized that where He was, there was the throne of grace. What did the Lord do on that occasion? He did not utter one word of reproof because of the sins she had committed in darkness, – for she had, no doubt, lived in the wost sins of fornication, — no, not a word. He simply said to her: “Thy sins are forgiven.” In another, a similar instance He dismissed the guilty woman with the assurance: “Neither do I condemn thee,” and with the brief admonition: “Go and sin no more.”

The same treatment the Lord accorded to Zacchaeus, the nefarious publican, who had defrauded people throughout the land. He may have heard some things from Christ directly and many more things from the report of others. He had gained the conviction that he could not go on in his sinful ways, but must amend his conduct. When the Lord was about to pass in the neighborhood, he mounted a sycamore-tree, because he wanted to see this holy Man. What did the Lord do? Catching sight of him in the tree, He called to him: “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for to-day I must abide at thy house.” Zacchaeus surely expected that the Lord would go over the record of his sins with him and hold up to him all the evil he had done. But Jesus did nothing of the kind. On the contrary in the house of Zacchaeus He said: “This day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham.” It is Zacchaeus who says: “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.” The Lord did not demand this of him, but his own conscience, first alarmed, but now quieted, demanded this joyful act of generosity to the poor from him. No doubt, he kept his promise.

The parable of the prodigal is another illustration. The Lord pictures him to us, after he had wasted everything he had with harlots, as returning to his father with a contrite heart. The father receives him without a word of censure, but falls upon his neck, kisses him, and exclaims: “Let us be merry; for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.” A joyous banquet is prepared, but not a word of reproof is spoken.

This attitude the Lord maintains even while hanging on the cross. Next to Him hangs one who has led an infamous life. The patient suffering of Christ has given him a new understanding, which he voices in these words: “We, indeed, are justly in this condemnation; for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss.” Turning finally to the Lord, he says: “Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom.” He recognizes in Jesus the Messiah. And now observe that the Lord does not reply, “What! Thee I am to remember? Thee, who hast done so many wicked things?” No, He does not cast up his sins to him at all, but simply says: “To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise.”

By these incidents the Lord shows us what we are to do, even to-day, for a poor sinner who may have led a shameful life, but has become crushed and contrite, full of terror because of his sins. In such a case we should not lose any time in censuring and reproving him, but absolve and comfort him. That is the way to divide the Gospel from the Law.

The practise of the holy apostles was identical with that of the Lord.You will recall the incident of the jailer at Philippi. He was on the point of committing a shocking deed, the mortal sin of suicide, when Paul called to him: “Do thyself no harm, for we are all here.” All through the night he had heard Paul and Silas singing praises to God. No doubt a new knowledge had begun to dawn on him. When he heard Paul’s warning cry, he called for a light, came trembling and, falling down before Paul and Silas, said: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They do not tell him of a number of things that he will have to do first, for instance, to feel contrite. They simply say to him: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house.” They simply invite him to accept the mercy of God; for that is what faith is — accepting the divine mercy, or grace.

Let me now cite you from Luther’s writings, not so much passages in which he insists that the Gospel, pure and unalloyed, must be proclaimed to poor sinners, but rather a particular incident which illustrates how Luther brought consolation to a person who had fallen into a great and grievous sin. The party in question was that splendid man Spalatin (born 1482), who had a great share in the work of the Reformation. He became Ecclesiastical Counselor to the Elector of Saxony and lived at Altenburg. He was Luther’s intimate friend. He had been party to an advice given to a certain pastor to marry the stepmother of his deceased wife. The marriage was absolutely contrary to God’s Word, and the advice was the more appalling since the Apostle Paul, in dealing with a similar offense in 1 Cor. 5, had declared that it involved fornication such as is not so much as named among the Gentiles. When the truth dawned on good Spalatin, he refused to be comforted. Luther learned that he had fallen into melancholy. No comfort offered him would take effect. He imagined that no consolation of Scripture could apply to a man like him who had known the Word of God so well and had derived so much consolation from it.

How did Luther proceed to comfort this man? He wrote him a letter, which began as follows: (St. L. Ed. X, 1729 ff.): “Grace and peace from God in Christ and the consolations of the Holy Spirit to my worthy master in Christ, George Spalatin, superintendent of the churches in Misnia, most faithful pastor of Altenburg, my beloved in the Lord. Amen.

“My dearest Spalatin, I heartily sympathize with you and earnestly pray our Lord Jesus Christ to strengthen you and give you a cheerful heart. I should like to know, and am making diligent inquiries to find out, what your trouble may be or what has caused your breakdown. I am told by some that it is nothing else than depression and heaviness of heart, caused by the matrimonial affair of a parson who was publicly united in marriage to the stepmother of his deceased wife. If this is true, I beseech you most urgently not to become self-centered and heed the thoughts and sensations of your own heart, but to listen to me, your brother, who is speaking to you in the name of Christ. Otherwise your despendency will grow beyond endurance and kill you; for St. Paul says, 2 Cor. 7, 10: ‘The sorrow of the world worketh death.’ I have often passed through the same experience and witnessed the same in 1540, in the case of Magister Philip, who was nearly consumed by heaviness of heart and despondency on account of the landgrave’s affair. However, Christ used my tongue to raise him up again. I say this on the supposition that you have sinned and are partly to blame for the aforementioned marriage, because you approved it.”

Observe that Luther grants that Spalatin had committed a grievous wrong by approving the marriage, by advising in favor of it before it was contracted.

Luther proceeds: “Yea, I shall go further and say: Even if you had committed more numerous and grievous sins in this present and other instances than Manasseh, the king of Judah, whose offenses and crimes could not be eradicated throughout his posterity down to the time when Jerusalem was destroyed, while your offense is very light, because it concerns a temporal interest and can be easily remedied; nevertheless, I repeat it, granted you are to blame, are you going to worry yourself to death over it and by thus killing yourself commit a still more horrible sin against God?”

Luther means to say: This marriage can be dissolved, for it is not legitimate. It would be a greater sin now to despair of the mercy of God than it was to advise this marriage. For despairing of God’s mercy is always the most horrible sin, because it means that we declare God to be a liar.

Luther goes on: “It is bad enough to know that you made a mistake in this matter. Now do not let your sin stick in your mind, but get rid of it. Quit your despendency, which is a far greater sin. Listen to the blessed consolation which the Lord offers you by the prophet Ezekiel, who says, chap. 33, 11: ‘As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.’ Do you imagine that only in your case the Lord’s hand is shortened? Isa. 59, 1. Or has He in your case alone forgotten to be gracious and shut up His tender mercies? Ps. 77, 10. Or are you the first man to aggravate his sin so awfully that henceforth there is no longer a High Priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities? Heb. 4, 15. Do you consider it a new marvel when a person living this life in the flesh, with innumerable arrows of so many devils flying about him, is occasionally wounded and laid prostrate?”

Luther means to say: Why are you surprised at your grievous fall? That is a common occurrence. The terrible part is only that we refuse to rise again and, like miserable reprobates, crawl back to the throne of grace.

Luther continues: “It seems to me, my dear Spalatin, that you have still but a limited experience in battling against sin, an evil conscience, the Law, and the terrors of death. Or Satan has removend from your vision and memory every consolation which you have read in the Scriptures. In days when you were not afflicted, you were well fortified and knew very well what the office and benefits of Christ are. To be sure, the devil has now plucked from your heart all the beautiful Christian sermons concerning the grace and mercy of God in Christ by which you used to teach, admonish, and comfort others with a cheerful spirit and a great, buoyant courage. Or it must surely be that heretofore you have been only a trifling sinner, conscious only of paltry and insignificant faults and frailties.”

There are only two ways in which Luther can explain to himself why Spalatin refuses to be comforted. Either he has hitherto failed to perceive his misery and wretchedness unders sin; he has not been aware of the fact that he is a great sinner by nature; his grievous fall had to occur in order that his eyes might be opened to these facts. Or Satan must have hidden every consolation out of Spalatin’s sight. Practically Luther says to Spalatin: Had you fully realized the awful corruption of your heart in its relaiton to God, you would not be so inconsolable; for you would say to yourself: Alas! the fountain is so polluted; that is why such filth has to flow from it.

To return to Luther: “Therefore my faithful request and admonition is that you join our company and associate with us, who are real, great, and hard-boiled sinners. You must by no means make Christ to seem paltry and trifling to us, as though He could be our Helper only when we want to be rid from imaginary, nominal, and childish sins. No, no! That would not be good for us. He must rather be a Savior and Redeemer from real, great, grievous, and damnable transgressions and iniquities, yea, from the very greatest and most shocking sins; to be brief, from all sins added together in a grand total.”

To the company of real, great, abominable sinners to which Spalatin is invited Luther feels that he belongs himself. He argues that by making our sins small, we make Christ small. That would practically amount to saying: Christ can forgive small, but not great sins.

When a person has committed a great sin and is unconcerned about it, he is beyond help. But when he worries about it, his help has already come. Luther relates: “Dr. Staupitz comforted me on a certain occasion when I was a patient in the same hospital and suffering the same affliction as you, by addressing me thus: Aha! you want to be a painted sinner and, accordingly, expect to have in Christ a painted Savior. You will have to get used to the belief that Christ is a real Savior and you a real sinner. For God is neither jesting nor dealing in imaginary affairs, but He was greatly and most assuredly in earnest when He sent His own Son into the world and sacrificed Him for our sakes, etc. Rom. 8, 32; John 3, 16. These and similar reflections, drawn from consolatory Bible-texts, have been snatched from your memory by the accursed Satan, and hence you cannot recall them in your present great anguish and despondency. For God’s sake, then, turn your ears hither, brother, and hear me cheerfully singing — me, your brother, who at this time is not afflicted with the despondency and melancholy that is oppressing you and therefore is strong in faith, so that you, who are weak and harried and harrased by the devil, can lean on him for support until you have regained your old strength, can bid defiance to the devil, and cheerfully sing: ‘Thou hast thrust sore at me that I might fall; but the Lord helped me.’ Ps. 118, 13. Imagine now that I am Peter holding out my hand to you and saying to you; ‘In the name of Jesus Christ, rise up and walk.’ Acts 3, 6. For I know I am not mistaken, nor is the devil talking through me; but since I am laying the Word of Christ before you, it is Christ who speaks to you through me and bids you obey and trust your brother who is of the same household of faith. It is Christ that absolves you from this and all your sins, and I am a partaker of your sin by helping you to bear up under it.”

On the occasion to which Luther refers he had gone to Dr. Staupitz to pour out his sorrowful heart to him. He had not committed any gross and manifest sins, but he was worried over the sinful condition of his heart. God had granted Luther an extraordinary measure of knowledge that made him understand the corruption of human nature. His remark about a painted Savior is striking. If we do not want such a Savior, we must not be surprised when we discover ourselves to be real, actual sinners. Luther’s appeal to Spalatin to receive him, not for his person’s sake, but because he is laying the Word of God before him, is a fine touch. Spalatin is to see Christ standing before him and speaking to him in the person of Luther. Also the remark about Luther’s sharing Spalatin’s sin by helping him bear his burden is excellent. When a minister absolves a person who has confessed his sin to him, he takes that sin of the other on his own conscience. He can cheerfully do this, for the party that came to him to confess perhaps the most horrible sins came with a bruised heart. He may cheerfully pronounce absolution to such a person and say: “I shall assume the responsibility for what I am doing, for I know that on the great day of Judgment Christ will say to me: You did right; for he came to you with a bruised conscience, and it was proper that you ministered the Gospel to him.”

Luther concludes his letter with these urgent remarks: “See that you accept and appropriate to yourself the comfort I am offering you; for it is true, certain, and reliable, since the Lord has commanded me to communicate it to you and bidden you to accept it from me. For if even I am cut to the quick by seeing you in such awful distress because of your deep melancholy, it gives God a far greater displeasure to behold it; for ‘He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth Him of the evil.’ Joel 2, 13. Therefore do not turn away from him who is coming to comfort you and announce the will of God to you and who hates and abominates your despendency and melancholy as a plague of Satan. Do not by any means permit the devil to portray Christ to you differently from what He is in truth. Believe the Scripture, which testifies that He ‘was manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil.’ 1 John 3, 8. Your melancholy is a work of the devil, which Christ wants to destroy if you will only let Him. You have had your fill of anguish; you have sorrowed enough; you have exceeded your penance. Therefore, do not refuse my consolation; let me help you. Behold my faithful heart, dear Spalatin, in dealing with you and speaking to you. I shall consider it the greatest favor that I have ever received from you if you allow the comfort which I am offering you, or rather the absolution, pardon, and restoration of the Lord Christ, to abide in you. If you do this, you will, after your recovery, be forced to confess yourself that you have offered the most pleasing and acceptable sacrifice to the Lord by your obedience; for in Ps. 147, 11 it is written: ‘The Lord taketh plasure in them that fear Him, in those that hope in His mercy’; again, in Ps. 34, 18: ‘The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart and saveth such as are of a contrite spirit’; and in Ps. 51, 17: ‘The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.’ Therefore let the accursed devil with his despondency scamper away like a whipped dog. He wants to make me sad on your account; he wants to blast my joy in the Lord; yea, if he could, he would swallow us all up at one gulp. May Christ, our Lord, rebuke and chastise him, and may He strengthen, comfort, and preserve you by His Spirit! Amen. Comfort your wife with these and your own more effectual words. I have not the leisure to write also to her. Given at Zeitz, August 21, A.D. 1544. Your Martin Luther.”

Luther argues that sharing a brother’s sin entitles you to the claim that the brother must, in turn, share your comfort. God takes no pleasure in beholding a person stricken with remorse and laboring with might and main to remain thus stricken. When the hammer of His Law has crushed us, we are to flee from Moses to Christ. That is the right procedure. — Luther’s exegesis of 1 John 3, 8 is beautiful. The term “works of the devil” is commonly interpreted to signify horrible and gross sins, but Luther comprises in that term also doubt and melancholy as being the most grievous sin. Christ did not come to fill us with sadness, but with peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. — Luther wrote this letter to Spalatin while stopping during a journey at Zeitz. The only thanks which he craves for the task of composing this letter — no doubt, with heartfelt sighings to God — is that Spalatin accept his consolations.

I wanted to communicate this letter to you in its entirety, hoping that it may have pleased you so much that you will often read it again. Think of it particularly whenever a sorrowing, disconsolate sinner approaches you in your pastoral capacity. Read this letter as a preparation for the evangelical treatment which you are to accord such a sinner. Remember, Luther admits that Spalatin has sinned, but he realized that at that particular moment he must not, for God’s sake, say anything to Spalatin that might strike his friend’s heart like an arrow.

Let me read another letter to you which Luther wrote, as far back as 1516, to the Augustinian friar Spenlein, who was in great agony concerning his state of grace. Spenlein had been an inmate with Luther in the Augustinian monastery at Wittenberg. In the judgment of all who are familiar with Luther’s writings this letter is most excellent. One marvels that Luther could write such a letter even at that early date. It is sterling gold and pure honey.

“I wish to know,” Luther writes (ST. L. Ed. XXIa, 20f.), “the condition of your heart, whether you have at last come to loathe your own righteousness and desire to rejoice in the righteousness of Christ and to be of good cheer because of it. For in these days the temptation to presumptuousness is very strong, particularly in those who strive with might and main to be righteous and godly and do not know of the altogether immaculate righteousness of God which is freely given us in Christ. As a result of this they are searching for something good in themselves until they become confident that they can pass muster before God as people who are preperly adorned with virtuous and meritorious deeds, — all of which is impossible. While you were with us, you held this opinion, or rather this error, just as I did. For my part, I am still wrestling with this erorr and am not quite rid of it yet. Therefore, my dear brother, learn Christ — Christ Crucified. Learn to sing praises to Him and to despair utterly of your own works. Say to Him: Thou, my Lord Jesus, art my Righteousness; I am Thy sin. Thou hast taken from me what is mine and hast given to me what is Thine. Thou didst become what Thou wert not and madest me to be what I was not. Beware of your ceaseless striving after righteousness so great that you no longer appear as a sinner in your own eyes and do not want to be a sinner. For Christ dwells only in sinners. He came down from heaven, where He dwelt in the righteous, for the very purpose of dwelling in sinners also. Ponder this love of His, and you will realize His sweetest consolation. For if we must achieve rest of conscience by our own toil and worry, for what purpose did He die? Therefore, you are to find peace in Him by a hearty despair of yourself and your own works. And now that He has received you, made your sins His and His righteousness yours, learn also from Him firmly to believ ethis, as behooves you; for cursed is every one who does not believe this.”

We note that Luther tells Spenlein not to be surprised when he finds nothing meritorious in himself, but only sin. He must learn to sing praises to Christ and to despair of himself as of a person in whom nothing good is found except what the good God has done through him. He is not to strive after a righteousness of his own, which would make him seem no longer a sinner. For in one that knows what God’s Word says about this matter, that would be an impudent denial of his Redeemer. — The remark of Luther that Christ dwells only in sinners, Walch, the editer of Luther’s Works, has annotated by a gloss that limits Luther’s remark to poor sinners. That is self-evident. Bold sinners do not acknowledge that they are sinners. What others call sin they call human weakness and a natural, inborn disposition. Their occasional display of godliness is sheer hypocrisy. They may say: “We are such poor sinners,” but they do not mean that statement in the Scriptural sense. They say: “Well, we cannot help being weak mortals,” but one is a drunkard, another a fornicator, the third a thief, etc. All these vices are to pass for mere weaknesses. Verily, Christ dwells only in sinners who are such in their own estimation. He had dwelt among the angels, but came down on earth because He wanted to make His abode also with sinners. — Luther’s surprised query: Why, then, did Christ die? is an excellent point. Any one who is troubled on account of his sins is a fool for not promptly taking refuge with Christ and for imagining that his evil conscience is proof that he may not come to God. No; this is what the evil conscience states: You should come to Jesus; He will give you a cheerful conscience, causing you to praise God with a joyful heart when you rise in the morning and lie down to rest at night. For what does it mean that Christ died for you? Accordingly, when you have committed this, that, or the other sin and are perplexed about a way out of your sin, do not try to make a way yourself. Go to Him who alone knows a way — go to Christ. — It is a remarkable statement of Luther, but certainly true, that we are to find peace by wholly despairing of our own works. When a poor sinner regards himself, he does despair; when He looks at Jesus, he is made confident.

What Luther wrote to Spenlein is the most beautiful Gospel that can be preached. For it declares that Christ has come in behalf of everybody, that He has borne every man’s sin, that He calls on every one to believe in Him, to rejoice and rest assured that his sins are forgiven and that in the hour of death he will depart saved.

This evening we shall consider the first part of this thesis, which refers to a mingling of Law and Gospel that occurs chiefly in the Roman Church and which is the principal reason why that Church declines Luther and his doctrine. Luther, you know, taught that good works do not save a person, but only faith, without good works. From this rejection of good work, papists draw the inference that Luther must have been a wicked man because he taught that to get to heaven, man should only believe and need not do any good works. However, that is by no means Luther’s doctrine. Luther taught the exact contrary. True, he did not say that, to be saved, a person must have faith and, in addition to that, good works, or love; but he did teach that those who would be saved must have a faith that produces love spontaneously and is fruitful in good works. That does not mean that faith saves on account of love which springs from it, but that the faith which the Holy Spirit creates and which cannot but do good works justifies because it clings to the gracious promises of Christ and because it lays hold of Christ. It is active in good works because it is genuine faith. The believer need not at all be exhorted to do good works; his faith does them automatically. The believer engages in good works, not from a sense of duty, in return for the forgiveness of his sins, but chiefly because he cannot help doing them. It is altogether impossible that genuine faith should not break forth from the believer’s heart in works of love. But this is a matter of which papists have no inkling. They imagine a person may have true faith and yet live in mortal sin. Therefore they sneer at the teaching that faith saves and call it a “fine religion,” meaning that it is the worst and most wicked religion that has ever been invented.

However, it never entered Luther’s mind to teach a faith that believes what the Church believes, as the papists do. For they connect with the notion of faith the idea that it is a conviction that the teaching of their Church is right. Hence in their view any one who has that conviction has the true faith, although they add that such a person does not immediately enter heaven at his death. Among their members, people may be fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, thieves, and yet be good Christians.

Gal. 5, 6 we read: In Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love. The inefficiency of a faith that fails to work by love is not due to a lack of love, but to the fact that it is not real, honest faith. Love must not be added to faith but grow out of it. A fruitful tree does not produce fruit by somebody’s order, but because, while there is vitality in it and it is not dried up, it must produce fruit spontaneously. Faith is such a tree; it proves its vitality by bearing fruit. It is withered when it falls to bring forth fruit. The sun, likewise, need not be told to shine, it will continue shining till judgment Day without any one’s issuing orders to do it. Faith is such a sun.

Acts 15, 9 records an effect of the mission-work of the early Church thus: God put no difference between us [the Jews] and them [the Gentiles], purifying their hearts by faith. A person who claims to have a firm faith which he will never abandon, but who still has an impure heart, must be told that he is in great darkness; for he has no faith at all. You may regard all the doctrines that are preached in the Lutheran Church as true, but if your heart is still in its old condition, filled with the love of sin, if you still act contrary to your conscience, your whole faith is mere sham. Yours is not the faith of which the Holy Spirit speaks when He uses the word “faith” in the Scriptures; for that faith — the genuine article — purifies the heart.

Christ says, John 5, 44: How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another and seek not the honor that cometh from God only? An awful verdict is pronounced in these words by the Savior on those who seek honor from men: they have no faith. It is one of the fruits of faith that from the moment it begins to grow up in the heart it gives all honor to God alone. When the believer does receive honors from men, he is inwardly convinced that he has not merited them and says to God: —
Whate’er of good this life of mine
Has shown, is altogether Thine,
thus returning to God any honor bestowed upon him. A person without faith, on finding himself lowered or despised, at once becomes depressed and morose because he is not getting what he seeks. There are preachers of this sort who enter their pulpit under the dominant influence of an ambitious passion and feel tickled when people who may be altogether unqualified to appraise them admire the wonderful delivery of such a young preacher and predict a great future for him. He likes that better than when one slips him a ten-dollar bill, although he will accept that too. But jesting aside! We are all haughty, proud, and ambitious, and this noxious vice can be driven from our hearts only by the Holy Ghost. But we never become rid of it entirely; an evil root remains in the heart. A believer, when noticing this thing in himself, abominates it, reprobates himself, feels ashamed of himself, and asks God to deliver him from these abominable notions of pride.

The truth of this statement is beyond question; for the Savior’s words are in the form of a rhetorical question and signify: You cannot believe; for these two, seeking honor of men and believing, are simply incompatible. The entrance of faith into the heart has the effect of making the believer humble in the presence of God and men. Lest we despair when listening in occasionally on our own heart, we must not forget that a poison-root of vanity remains in our heart; but as soon as it begins to stir up vain thoughts in us, we must fight it. A person who does not fight his vanity has no faith and is not a Christian.

We read in I John 5, 4 Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world; and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Accordingly, a person in his old nature and not born of God, a person who still loves the world and seeks his heart’s satisfaction in its folly and vanity, has no faith; for faith overcomes the world.

Jas. 2, 1 the apostle says: My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. Preferring the rich, because of their wealth, to the poor means respecting people’s person, and that is something which faith will not tolerate. The tendency to do this leaves the heart with the entrance of faith; for the believer views every one, not as far as his personality is concerned, but in his relation to God. To him a poor beggar, having been redeemed by the blood of the Son of God, is worth as much as a king or an emperor.

Such are the miracles which faith works in our hearts.

Now, to represent justifying and saving faith as the inert mental act of regarding certain matters as true, which can coexist with mortal sin, means to treat faith as a work which man can produce in himself and preserve in himself even while sinning. True faith is a treasure which only the Holy Spirit can bestow.

The Council of Trent, you know, was convened a few months before Luther’s death for the purpose of healing the wounds which the Reformation had dealt the Papacy. The Council put its seal on all errors which in the course of time had been adopted by the Roman Church, but presented them in a subtler manner than had been done by most of the theologians of that age. The Roman theologian Smets reproduces the following decree which the Council of Trent passed in its sixth session: “In defense of the divine Law, which excommunicates not only unbelievers, but also believers, namely, such as are fornicators, adulterers, pederasts, drunkards, robbers, and all who commit mortal sin, it must be firmly maintained that the Gospel, grace, righteousness, and the forgiveness of sin may be lost, not only by unbelief, by which faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin, although faith is not lost by such sin.” The Council admits that a person who turns unbeliever loses faith. An egregious truth, indeed! It is inserted for the purpose of blinding and misleading men. It teaches that salvation may be forfeited while faith is not lost; which is quite correct when applied to the religion of papists; for the most depraved Catholic can be the best member of the Catholic Church. According to the religion of Rome there can be believing thieves, believing fornicators, believing adulterers and pederasts, believing misers, drunkards, blasphemers, and robbers. Observe that these unfortunate people have no conception of what faith is. If they had an inkling of it, they would see that wicked men cannot truly believe, cannot have a genuine faith. At the same time they would see that the Lutheran Church does not believe what they think it believes. Far from placing good works in the background, the doctrine of the Lutheran Church points to the true source from which good works must spring. For a person who by the Holy Spirit and the grace of God has obtained a living confidence in Christ cannot abide in sin. His faith changes and purifies his heart.

It is scarcely believable that from another angle the Calvinists have fallen into the same error. We read in the Decrees of the Synod of Dort, chap. V:3–8: “Because of the remnants of sin dwelling in them, moreover, because of the temptations of the world and Satan, the converted cannot abide in grace when left to their own natural resources. But God is faithful and mercifully confirms them in the grace bestowed on them and keeps them in the same until the end. However, although the power of God which confirms and keeps true believers in grace is too great to be overcome by their flesh, nevertheless the converted are not always urged and moved by God in such a manner that in certain, particular acts they do not depart from the guidance of grace nor are seduced by the lusts of the flesh to obey them. For this reason they must continually watch and pray lest they be led into temptation. If they fail to do this, they may not only by the flesh, the world, and Satan be hurried into grievous and awful sins, but occasionally they are hurried into such sins by a just permissive providence of God. Instances of this kind are the deplorable fall of David, Peter, and other saints, which are recorded in Scripture. However, by such heinous sins they greatly offend against God, incur mortal guilt, grieve the Holy Spirit, interrupt the exercise of faith [mark: only the exercise of faith, not faith itself], grossly violate their conscience, and occasionally lose the consciousness of their faith for a season; until they return to the right way by earnest repentance and God again makes His fatherly countenance to shine upon them. For because of His unalterable decree of predestination, God, who is rich in mercy, does not entirely take His Holy Spirit away from His own in such deplorable instances, nor does He permit them to lapse to a point where they would fall from the grace of the adoption to sonship and from the state of being justified. — For, in the first place, He preserves in them that imperishable seed of His out of which they were born again, so that it cannot be lost or driven out from them. Furthermore, He renews them certainly and effectually unto repentance by the Word and His Spirit, in order that in conformity with God they may heartily grieve over the sins they committed (by His permission), may with contrite heart pray for, and obtain by their faith, forgiveness in the blood of the Mediator, recover the feeling of the grace of God reconciled with them, worship His mercy by faith, and thereafter manifest greater zeal in working out their salvation with fear and trembling. Thus they obtain, not by their own merit and strength, but through the gracious compassion of God, this boon, that they do not entirely fall from faith and grace nor remain in their fall till the end and be lost.”

The first proof cited for this view is taken from I John 3, 9. “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin because he is born of God.” This does not mean that the converted cannot lose the seed. It means that, while the seed is in them, it has this effect that it keeps them from living in mortal sin.

The Calvinists, then, claim that, when David became an adulterer and even committed murder, he did not lose either his faith or the grace of God, but his faith merely withdrew somewhat, so that he could not exercise it. That was all. He did not fall from grace or lose his faith, they claim, so that he would have gone to perdition if he had died in that condition.

This is an awful doctrine. Men who believe it will not worry about repenting when they have committed such crimes as adultery and murder. When Cromwell, the miscreant, who sentenced his liege, the king, to death and instituted murderous and bloody trials throughout England, was at the point of death, he became alarmed. Summoning his chaplain, he asked him whether a person who had once been a believer could lose his faith, which the miserable chaplain negatived. Cromwell thereupon concluded that all was well with him, because he knew that once upon a time he had been a believer. Remembering the profound impressions which the Word of God had made upon him at certain times in his life, he relied on the abominable comfort which his chaplain offered him, viz., that, since he had had faith once, he still had it. This instance shows the awful effect of this doctrine of the Calvinists.

Let me now present a testimony from our own Confessions, namely, from the Smalcald Articles, Part III, Art. III, §§ 42–45 (Mueller, p. 324; Trigl. Conc., p. 491): “On the other hand, if certain sectarists would arise, some of whom are perhaps already extant and in the time of the insurrection [of the peasants] came to my own view, holding that those who had once received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins or had become believers, even though they should afterwards sin, would still remain in the faith and such sin would not harm them, and [hence] crying thus: ‘Do whatever you please; if you believe, it all amounts to nothing; faith blots out all sins,’ etc., — they say, besides, that if any one sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and faith: I have had before me many such insane men, and I fear that in some such a devil is still lurking. [Mark Luther says this view issues from the devil.]

“It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that, when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins [that is, sins which do not remain hidden in the heart], as David into adultery, murder and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them [they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost]. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand, so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it, so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are certainly not present. For St. John says, 1 Epistle. 3, 9: ‘Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin. . . . and he cannot sin.’ And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, I Epistle. 1, 8: ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.’ “

David had ceased to be a prophet enlightened by the Holy Spirit and a child of God when he fell into sin. Had he died in those days, he would have gone to perdition. Yea, that could have happened to him during the entire year before Nathan came to preach repentance to him; for David had pronounced the man who had committed the crime narrated by Nathan a doomed man, when Nathan told him, “Thou art the man,” and showed him that he had uttered his own sentence: if he did not turn from his iniquity, he would go to hell and be damned.

The light of faith can be extinguished not only by gross sins, but by any wilful, intentional sin. Accordingly, defection from faith occurs far oftener than we imagine. Faith ceases not only in those who lead a life of shame, but also in such as permit themselves to be led astray against their better knowledge and the warning of their conscience. They plan to do a certain thing and carry out their purpose, although they know that it is contrary to God’s Word. In such instances faith becomes extinct; however, the person caught in this snare promptly recovers his faith if he promptly arrests himself in his wrong-doing, as the instance of Peter shows. Peter did not harden himself. When the glance of Jesus met his eyes, he went out and wept bitterly. That glance made him repent of his sin, causing him to realize the enormity of his offense and the unspeakable greatness of his Lord’s mercy. It seemed to say, “Poor Peter, repent!” and pierced his heart like a dagger. Happy the man who, after falling, rises at once, immediately, and does not delay his repentance, lest he arrive at a stage where his heart is hardened.

In conclusion I shall submit a testimony from Luther’s writings. In 1536 a certain minister sent a commentary which he had written on the First Epistle of John to the faculty at Wittenberg with the request that it be examined as to its fitness for publication. The commentary contained the error that the elect do not lose the Holy Spirit even when they lapse into conscious sinning and gross vices. Luther declared himself opposed to the publication of the commentary and wrote a theological opinion on the point under review, which was signed by the other members of the faculty. It is found in his works, (St. L. Ed. X, 1706 ff.) Luther says: “When a person sins against his conscience, that is, when he knowingly and intentionally acts contrary to God, as, for instance, an adulterer or any other criminal, who knowingly does wrong, he is, while consciously persisting in his intention, without repentance and faith and does not please God. For example, while a person keeps the wife of another man, it is manifest that he is void of repentance, faith, and holiness. For the faith by which we are made righteous must be associated with a good conscience. It is absolutely impossible for these two things to coexist in a person, viz., faith that trusts in God and a wicked purpose, or, as it is also called, an evil conscience. Faith and the worship of God are delicate affairs; a very slight wound inflicted on the conscience may drive out faith and prayer. Every tried Christian frequently is put through this experience.

“Accordingly, Paul joins two requisites of a Christian in 1 Tim. 1, 5, saying: ‘Now, the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart and of a good conscience and of faith unfeigned’; again, in v. 19: ‘Holding faith and a good conscience’; again, chap.3, 9 ‘Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience,’ etc. These and kindred passages, to be cited anon, serve notice that where there is not a good conscience, there is no faith and no holiness.

“Therefore, while only faith in our Savior Jesus Christ obtains the grace of justification, i.e., while he who believes has forgiveness of his sins and is accepted with God, still he must drop his former evil intentions, so that there is in him the beginning of a good conscience. Now, where there is faith and a good conscience, there certainly is the Holy Spirit; and yet the justified do not rest their confidence on their own worthiness or good conscience, but on Christ. Hence we conclude from Christ’s promise that we have been received into grace for His sake and may offer our prayers to God acceptably, as John says, 1 Ep. 3, 20 ff.: ‘If our heart condemn us, … we have confidence toward God, and whatsoever we ask we receive of Him.’ Although there remains in the saints sin, inborn depravity, evil propensities; although they do not with full earnestness fear God and trust in Him, — which are indeed great sins and must not be regarded as trifling defects, — still these weaknesses are to be distinguished and placed far away from conscious and intentional sinning and wicked purposes, which make the conscience unclean. These latter sins do not coexist with holiness. In this connection we must not discuss predestination, but the wrath of God which is revealed in His Word, and then seek grace after our fall.

“The sins into which the elect fall take away their holiness and drive the Holy Spirit from them. This is quite evident, first, in Adam and Eve, who were elect, but miserably lost their holiness and the Holy Spirit nevertheless, so that by the discomfiture of these first men all their descendants have become feeble and sinful by nature. Had they not been raised up again, they would have remained damned forever. In the mean time they were verily under the wrath of God. These happenings are not sham events; for in clear terms St. Paul says, Rom. 5, 12: ‘By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin.’ Death plainly signifies damnation, and what that is everybody knows. Likewise, when David had slept with the wife of Uriah and had caused her godly husband to be slain, etc., he was under the wrath of God and had lost his holiness and the Holy Spirit until he was converted again. Many similar instances might be rehearsed.

“The truth of what I have stated is clearly established from the following passages: 1 John 3, 7 f.: ‘Let no man deceive you; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil.’ For instance, when David permitted his heart to be set on fire with the flames of inordinate desire and lost his stability, he was urged on by the devil, who, after conquering him through the first sin, drove him to still greater sins, murder, etc. That the Holy Spirit had been driven out of David’s heart is evident from the words of Paul in I Cor. 6, 9 f.: ‘Adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God.’ He is speaking of adultery that is still continuing; while an adulterer persists in his purpose, he is not an heir of the kingdom of Christ. Consequently, he is not righteous and holy, nor has he the Holy Spirit. ‘Because of these things,’ says Paul in Eph. 5, 6, ‘cometh the wrath of God on the children of disobedience.’ In Rom. 8, 13 Paul introduces a distinction that must be made among sins; he says: ‘If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.’ Now, it is manifest that Paul in this passage preaches for saints and teaches them how they may remain holy, namely, by resisting their evil inclinations. On the other hand, he says: ‘If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die’; that is, If you yield to your evil inclinations, you are again under the wrath of God; for that is what he means by dying. In Ezek. 33, 13 ff. we read, in effect: Whenever the righteous does evil, his righteousness shall not be remembered; and whenever the wicked turns and does good, his sins shall be forgotten. This is a clear text; it proves that the righteous, when falling into sin knowingly and intentionally, is no longer righteous. In Rev. 2, 14 the Holy Spirit reproves the church at Pergamos for tolerating false doctrine and fornication, of which things He says: ‘I hate them.’ Now, when God is angry with some one, that person is not holy and accepted with Him, etc. And among those who were rebuked at Pergamos there were, without doubt, elect and non-elect.”

“On the ground of these and many other testimonies the Church has always taught with unanimity that, when a saint knowingly and purposely acts contrary to God’s command, he is no longer a saint, but has lost the true faith and cast away the Holy Spirit. But if he turns again, God will keep the gracious oath which He has sworn, saying: ‘As I live, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.’ Accordingly, for Christ’s sake God takes those people who turn to Him back into His grace and rekindles in their hearts the true faith through the Gospel and His Holy Spirit. He has not commanded us to inquire first whether we have been predestinated, but it is sufficient for us to know that whosoever perseveres unto the end in repentance and faith is certainly elect and will be saved, as Christ says: ‘He that persevereth unto the end, the same shall be saved!”

How dare a person come before God with an evil conscience and praise Him in fulsome strains for the forgiveness of his sins? God will reject him together with his prayer. Such a person cares not for God, because he purposes to continue in his sin; how, then, can he engage in intimate converse with God? It is impossible. Suppose some one were to come to you and acknowledge that he has treated you shamefully. But he wants to continue treating you that way; and yet he desires that you forgive him. Would you do it? Of course not. We would consider a person insane who would talk like this: “I want to be forgiven, but I want to continue doing for what I am asking forgiveness. As often as I meet you, I shall insult you; but I want you to forgive me.” Now, that is just the way God is treated by men who want to take comfort in His mercy while continuing in sin.

Luther speaks of the impossibility of joining faith with an evil conscience. Conscience is a damaging witness, which makes us shut our mouth when we start to explain any intentional wrong-doing. We are all indeed poor sinners; but when we undertake to sin purposely, our conscience warns us that we are enemies of God and intend to remain such. It tells us when we start to call upon God that we do not mean to come to God at all. Faith is, in this respect, a very tender thing, which is easily wounded.

It is not the manifest enormity of their sin that casts such people out of their state of grace and puts out the heavenly light of their faith, but the attitude of their heart towards their sin. When I am suddenly overtaken by sin, God forgives me; He is not angry with me and does not charge that sin against me. Such acts do not extinguish faith. Or it may be that I am rushed into sin by my temperament. I do not want to sin, but I have been irritated to such an extent that, before I know it, I have sinned. That is not a mortal sin, which would take me out of the state of grace. But when a person persists in his sin against his conscience, though he knows it to be a sin, and continues sinning purposely for a long time, he no longer has faith and cannot truly pray to God; the Holy Spirit leaves his heart, for another spirit, the evil spirit, rules in it, whom the sinner has admitted into his heart. To him the Holy Spirit yields His place and departs.

A Christian can notice that, when he yields to sin in the very least, his trust in God is promptly diminished. He also feels that, if he does not turn back on the spot, sin will rule him and he will be unfit to believe. In such moments the Christian goes down on his knees and calls upon God with tears, — though that is not an essential part of repentance, — saying: “Thou knowest, Oh God, that I do not want to sin,” as Peter declared to Christ: “Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou knowest that I love Thee.” John 21, 17. Peter could call upon the Lord as his witness. Having a good conscience, be could say to Christ: “Thou canst look into my heart; is it not so? Why, then, dost Thou ask me?” That is the language every Christian must be able to use when speaking to God: “My God, Thou knowest that I do not want to sin, and yet I am sinning. Thou knowest that I have become an enemy to sin.”

Hence the second requisite which Paul wants to see in every Christian is true love, love that proceeds from faith unfeigned. Faith unfeigned is not a painted, but a real, living, genuine faith of the heart.

Faith and good conscience must be companions. A person that has no good conscience certainly is without faith. Of such people the apostle says that they have “made shipwreck concerning faith,” I Tim. 1, 19; they have cast the precious treasure of faith overboard.

Even after our conversion we lack the true fear of God, and all our sins are great sins. Even the so-called sins of weakness of which the righteous cannot rid themselves must not be regarded as a paltry matter. Although they do not extinguish faith, they are no jest.

Luther’s rejection of the sinner’s appeal to predestination is meant as a warning to us not to reason ourselves into a state of security on the ground that we simply shall have to go to heaven because we are predestinate The major of the syllogism is true: Whoever is predestinated will certainly go to heaven. But there is no evidence for the minor, viz., whether the party indulging in the above reasoning is predestinated. If a person lives in sin and continues that kind of life, this is a sign that he is not predestinated. Not as though God did not want to have him on any account, but because He foresaw that His grace would be misapplied by this or that wicked person.

Nobody can question that Adam and Eve were elect, and yet they fell, lost the image of God, the Holy Spirit, their holiness, in short, everything. But they repented and were thus restored to a state of grace.

As soon as faith is lost through some mortal sin, the grace of God is also lost, and such a person becomes a child of death and damnation. He may return to faith and ultimately be saved, but in the interval he was not a blessed, but an utterly miserable, lost creature.

A person with whom God is angry or whom He hates is not accepted with Him. There may have been elect persons in the congregation at Pergamos. But God hated also these elect persons and was angry with them because, for the time being, they had driven His grace, faith, and the Holy Spirit out of their hearts.

This thesis describes chiefly the method of the Roman Church; however, the same method is adopted by all fanatics and all Pietists within the so-called Protestant Church. If among these people a person is found who is alarmed over his sins and is in a state of contrition and sorrow because of them, he is asked to state the source of his contrition; particularly, whether he feels sorry for his sins merely because he knows that he is going to perdition and sees nothing above him but the wrath of God and nothing beneath him but the abyss of damnation. If he admits that such is his condition, the papists and fanatics tell him that contrition to be genuine and worthy of the name must proceed from love of God, and the Gospel cannot be proclaimed to him until he has such contrition. This is an appalling error, which can easily be shown to be such. Since the Fall the Law, you know, has but a single function, viz., to lead men to the knowledge of their sins. It has no power to renew them. That power is vested solely in the Gospel. Only faith worketh by love; we do not become spiritually active by love, by sorrow over our sins. On the contrary, while still ignorant of the fact that God has become our reconciled God and Father through Christ, we hate Him. An unconverted person who claims that he loves God is stating an untruth and is guilty of a miserable piece of hypocrisy, though he may not be conscious of it. He sets up a specious claim, because only faith in the Gospel regenerates a person. Accordingly, a person cannot love God while he is still without faith. To demand of a poor sinner that he must, from love of God, be alarmed on account of his sins and feel sorry for them is an abominable perversion of Law and Gospel.

Here is the Biblical doctrine: The sinner is to come to Jesus just as he is, even when he has to acknowledge that there is nothing but hatred of God in his heart, and he knows of no refuge to which he may flee for salvation. A genuine preacher of the Gospel will show such a person how easy his salvation is: Knowing himself a lost and condemned sinner and unable to find the help that he is seeking, he must come to Jesus with his evil heart and his hatred of God and God’s Law; and Jesus will receive him as he is. It is His glory that men say of Him: Jesus receives sinners. He is not to become a different being, he is not to become purified, he is not to amend his conduct, before coming to Jesus. He who alone is able to make him a better man is Jesus; and Jesus will do it for him if he will only believe.

The proof for this doctrine from God’s Word is contained in that most general statement Rom. 3, 20: By the Law is the knowledge of sin. Here the apostle states the function of the Law: it produces, not love, but the knowledge of sin. A person can, indeed, possess that knowledge without love of God.

Rom. 5, 20 we read: The Law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. The Greek text reads: (ἵνα πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτωμα,) that is, “that sin might be increased.” Many sins are slumbering in a person who is still ignorant of the Law. Let the Law be preached to such a person forcefully, let it strike his conscience with lightning force, and the person will not become better, but worse. He begins to rear up against God and say: “What! I am to be damned? True, I know that I am an enemy of God. But that is not my fault; I cannot help it.” That is the effect of the preaching of the Law. It drives men to desperation. Blessed the person who has been brought to this point: he has taken a great step forward on the way to his salvation. Such a person will receive the Gospel with joy, while another who has never passed through an experience of this kind yawns when he hears the Gospel preached and says: “That is an easy way to get to heaven!” Only a poor sinner, on the brink of despair, realizes what a message of joy the Gospel is and joyfully receives it.

Rom. 4, 15 the apostle writes: The Law worketh wrath. [Luther: wrath only.] It incites men, not to love of God, but only to hatred of Him.

Rom. 7, 7. 8 St. Paul says: What shall we say, then? Is the Law sin? God forbid! Nay, I had not known sin but by the Law; for I had not known lust except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the Law sin was dead. We always reach out for what has been definitely forbidden. Man is always tempted to act contrary to an injunction or a prohibition. Even filthy Ovid had made this experience when he wrote: Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata. To be sure, even a heathen could have an experience of this kind. Ovid was a genius, but a profligate person. Among other things, he turned his thought also upon himself.

Gal. 3, 21 the apostle writes: Is the Law, then, against the promises of God? God forbid! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily, righteousness should have been by the Law. Why this question and the hypothetical clause? The apostle, no doubt, means to make the intended negation stronger. Often when a question is raised concerning something which everybody knows is not so, the intention is to bring about a very strong negation. That is the case in this text: the apostle means to say: The Law certainly cannot save a person.

2 Cor. 3, 6 we read: The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. This precious text is horribly perverted by the Evangelical (Unierte) Church. These people argue: It is wrong to insist on the letter of Scripture. The spirit, general ideas drawn from Scripture, is what must be held fast. Luther’s action at Marburg, when he wrote the words: Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου, and pointed to these words again and again is regarded as not a Christian action by these people. Indeed, Luther’s action was not unionistic, but it was genuinely Christian. The meaning of the apostle in this text, as further study will show you, is: The Law killeth, but the Gospel giveth life.

These Bible-texts are illustrated by beautiful examples recorded in Scripture, which relate exactly the conduct of certain persons before their conversion and after they had become believers. There are not many of these instances recorded, but all of them show that contrition does not flow from love of God.

On the first Christian festival of Pentecost a multitude of people had gathered and heard the Apostle Peter preach. The gist of his remarks was that they were the murderers of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, and must tremble when thinking of the judgment. They had listened to Peter’s whole address, but when he reached the point where he raised this charge against them, they became alarmed by the Holy Spirit. The record says: “They were pricked in their heart.” They felt as if Peter had run a dagger into their heart. They reasoned: If we have done that, we are all doomed men. What will God say to us when we appear before His judgment-seat? He will charge us with the slaying of the Messiah. We are not told that they said: “Oh, we feel so sorry for having grieved our faithful God.” It was not love of God, but fright and terror that made them cry: “What shall we do?” Nor does the Apostle Peter say to them: “My dear people, we shall now have to investigate the quality of your contrition whether it flows from love of God or from fear of the punishment due you for your sins, from fear of hell.” Not a word of this. When they put their frightened and terrified question: “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” the apostle says: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Since these people were already in terror over their sins, the term repentance in this text refers not to what is called the first part of repentance, contrition, but to the second part, faith. We are told that they received Baptism immediately. Their μετάνοια, or change of mind, consisted in this, that they no longer desired to be murderers of Jesus, but wished to believe in Him. Accordingly, the apostles received them, and they were numbered with the congregation of those who were saved.

The example of the jailer at Philippi to which I have referred a number of times also illustrates the point now under discussion. I have to refer to it again and again because it is one of the most illuminating passages of Scripture. The jailer was a scoundrel, who relished the task of beating the servants of the Lord, casting them into the inner prison, or deepest dungeon, and putting their feet in the stocks, which he had not been commanded to do at all. When he imagined that all his prisoners had escaped during the earthquake, he was seized with despair and wanted to commit suicide. Paul cried to him: “Do thyself no harm, for we are all here”; and now the jailer fell writhing and trembling at the apostles’ feet and asked: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Nothing but his fright and terror moved him to do that. Now Paul does not say to him: “First you must become contrite from love of God,” but: “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved and thy house.”

Saul was put through the same experience. He had persecuted the Church of God, breathing threatenings and slaughter against all Christians. He was on the way to a place where he wanted to shed the blood of Christians, when the Lord Himself met him in a vision. He was hurled to the ground and was “astonished,” stunned, while Jesus said to him: “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” When the Gospel with its sweet heavenly power had entered into his heart, this wretched man was plucked out of his distress and misery. And now the Lord prescribed for this sinner, who had been terrified and crushed and then comforted, no other lesson than this, that instead of persecuting Him, he was to confess Him after he had received Baptism as a seal of the forgiveness of his sins.

When you preach, do not be stingy with the Gospel; bring its consolations to all, even to the greatest sinners. When they are terrified by the wrath of God and hell, they are fully prepared to receive the Gospel. True, this goes against our reason; we think it strange that such knaves are to be comforted immediately; we imagine they ought to be made to suffer much greater agony in their conscience. Fanatics adopt that method in dealing with alarmed sinners; but a genuine Bible theologian resolves to preach the Gospel and faith in Jesus Christ to a person whom God has prepared for such preaching by His Law.

There is a passage in Scripture that is frequently misunderstood, namely 2 Cor. 7, 10, which reads: For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of; but the sorrow of the world worketh death. “Godly sorrow” is supposed to mean sorrow of contrition from love of God. This is a mistake. The apostle refers to sorrow which man has not produced himself, but which God has caused in him by His Word. The Greek text reads: κατὰ θεὸν λύπη, sorrow in accordance with God or produced by God. It is another grievous perversion of the Christian doctrine to tell an alarmed sinner that he must first experience contrition, and when he asks how he must go about that, to tell him that he must sit down and meditate and try to draw, or elicit, repentance from his heart. That is what the papists teach. But their teaching is sheer hypocrisy. There is not in all the world a person who can produce contrition in himself. He may labor to bring it forth until he becomes dissolved in tears, but it is all a hypocritical sham. Godly sorrow is required because faith is required. God, by terrifying us, wants to produce this sorrow. We must not imagine that contrition is a good work which we do, but it is something that God works in us. God comes with the hammer of the Law and smites our soul. A person who wants to make himself sorrowful desires ever to increase his sorrow over sin. But a person merged in the right kind of sorrow yearns to be rid of it. He is tormented day and night. He may frequent saloons and make a futile attempt to drive away his sorrow by drink. Among his companions he may be a braggart, but when he is at home, his conscience tells him: You are damned; if you die to-night you will go to perdition. That is godly sorrow, produced not by man, but by God Himself. God has no regard for any miserable product of man.

Let me present two testimonies from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. We read (Mueller, p. 168; Trigl. Conc., p. 254): “Moreover, our adversaries teach and write many things that are still more inept and confusing. They teach that grace may be merited by contrition. When they are asked to explain why Saul and Judas, in whom there was quite an awful contrition, did not merit grace, they ought to answer that Judas and Saul lacked the Gospel and faith, that Judas did not comfort himself with the Gospel and did not believe. For faith constitutes the difference between the contrition of Peter and Judas. But our adversaries give no thought to the Gospel and faith, but to the Law. They say that Judas did not love God, but was afraid of the punishment. Is not this an uncertain and inept way of teaching repentance? In that real great distress described in the Psalms and Prophets, when will an alarmed conscience know whether it fears God as its God from love or whether it flees from, and hates, His wrath and eternal damnation? These people may not have experienced much of these anxieties because they juggle words and make distinctions according to their dreams. But in the heart, when the test is applied, the matter turns out quite differently, and the conscience cannot be set at rest with paltry syllables and words, as these nice, leisurely, and idle Sophists are dreaming.”

In the papists’ view the reason why Judas perished was, because his contrition did not flow from love of God; if it had, he would have acquired merit. Papists are always looking for some merit, either of the de congruo or of the de condigno kind.* [“The adversaries … infer that works merit grace, sometimes de congruo and at other times de condigno, namely, when love is added.” (Apology; Trigl. Conc., p. 223, § 265.)]

It is impossible to ascertain the motive of a person’s contrition. No matter what it is: when we behold some one in terror of hell, we are to comfort him. The love of God will surely be manifested by him later.

Papists talk about contrition as a blind man talks about color; they have never experienced a salutary terror on account of their sins. When a poor sinner comes to one of their learned theologians, he is asked: “What is the quality of this contrition that causes you distress?” The poor man may be unable to explain this point promptly, and he says that he knows nothing about it, but that he feels terribly distressed. Then the learned doctor may direct him to apply to a surgeon for a cupping; he will feel better when he is rid of his sluggish blood. Good Heavens, what great theologians! How can they speak properly of matters of which they have no experience and which are to them mere subjects of speculation?

Again, the Apology says (Mueller, p. 171 f.; Trigl. Conc., p. 259 f.): “When we speak de contritione, that is, regarding genuine contrition, we cut out those innumerable questions which they cast up, viz., whether a person’s contrition flows from love of God or from fear of punishment. For these are nothing but mere words and a useless babbling of persons who have never experienced the state of mind of a terrified conscience. But we say that contrition is the true terror of conscience, when it begins to feel its sin and the anger of God against sin and is sorry for having sinned. And this contrition takes place in this manner when our sins are censured by the Word of God. … Amidst these terrors the conscience feels the serious anger of God against sin, which is a matter entirely unknown to such idle and carnal men as the Sophists and their like. It is then that the conscience first becomes aware what a great disobedience to God sin is; it ‘is then that the terrible anger of God presses down on the conscience, and human nature cannot possibly bear up under it unless it is raised up by the Word of God. Thus says St. Paul: ‘By the Law I am dead to the Law.’ For the Law does nothing but accuse the conscience; it commands people what to do and terrifies them. In this connection the adversaries do not say a word concerning faith, hence they do not teach one word regarding the Gospel, or Christ, but their teaching is entirely from the Law. They tell people that with their pain, contrition, sorrow, and anguish they are meriting grace, provided their contrition is from love of God and provided they love God. Good Heavens, what kind of preaching is that to consciences that are in need of comfort! How can we love God when merged in such great distress and unutterable agony, when we feel the great and terrible earnestness and anger of God, which is stronger than any person could express by words? Why, it is nothing else than sheer despair that these preachers and doctors are teaching when they preach to poor consciences in distress, not the Gospel nor any comfort, but only the Law.”

The Lutheran Confessions offer to poor sinners this sweet comfort, that, when God has given them the grace to be alarmed on account of their sins, they are in a fit condition to approach the throne of grace, where they receive forgiveness — the true remedy for their ills. They must indeed have contrition; however, not to the end of acquiring some merit by it, but in order that they may gladly accept what Jesus offers them.

Even when there is love of God in a person’s heart, it will be spoiled by the devil. Under the influence of false teaching a dying person may be led into despair; he may have contrition, but he feels that it does not flow from love of God, but from his fear of the anger of God and of hell, into which he fears he is about to be hurled. But when instructed in the true doctrine he knows that he believes in the Lord Jesus and clings to Him, and hence the love of God will also enter his heart. You see, this teaching is no jest.

When our Lutheran theologians wrote our Confessions, they sat down to their work as true Christians and did not intend to construct a system of doctrine. They knew in what way a poor sinner is given rest and the consolation of salvation. In the Apology, Melanchthon has spoken like a simple Christian. What has made this Confession all the more precious is that he speaks all that he says from the fulness of Scripture and his own experience.

In 1545 an edition of the Latin writings of Luther was published. In the preface to the first part, Luther relates what was the condition of his heart before he had received the light of the Gospel. He makes a personal confession, saying that, while he was in bondage to the Law, he had read the words of the Apostle Paul that the righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel and had become terrified by that statement. Having been terrified previously by the Law and reading now that in the Gospel, too, the righteousness of God is revealed, he was in an awful dilemma. The Law had condemned him, and now God sent him the Gospel to do the same thing to him! In the Gospel, too, God demanded righteousnes of the sinner!

We cannot sufficiently thank and praise God for giving Luther, shortly before his departure, leisure to relate some of the inner experiences of his life which were to prepare and fit him for the work of the Reformation.

He writes (St. L. Ed. XIV, 446 ff.) : “I verily had a hearty desire, indeed, I was yearning, to understand the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. So far nothing had hindered me except only the single phrase justitia Dei [the righteousness of God] in v. 17 of the first chapter, where Paul says: ‘The righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel.’ I was very wroth at this term ‘righteousness of God’ because my training had been according to the usage and practise of all teachers at that time, and I had been told that I must understand this term after the manner of philosophers as signifying that righteousness by which God is righteous in His essence, does right, and works righteousness, and punishes all sinners and unrighteous persons, — what is called justitia formalis seu activa (essential, or active, righteousness). Now, my condition was this: Although I was leading the life of a holy and blameless monk, I discovered that in the sight of God I was a great sinner. Moreover, my conscience was troubled and distressed, nor did I venture to reconcile God with my own satisfactions and merits. For this reason I did not at all love this righteous and angry God, who punishes sinners, but I hated Him and was full of secret anger against Him, and that, in all seriousness. (I am afraid that this was, or may have to be accounted as, blasphemy.) Frequently I would say: Is God not satisfied with having loaded all manner of misery and affliction, besides the terrors and threatenings of the Law, on us poor, miserable sinners, who are already condemned to everlasting death on account of hereditary sin? Must He increase this misery and heartache still more by the Gospel and by its preaching and its message proclaim His righteousness and serious anger and add to our terror? In my confused conscience I was full of indignation. Nevertheless I continued my meditation on blessed Paul, endeavoring, with a great thirst for knowledge and a hearty desire, to ascertain his meaning in this passage. I spent days and nights in these musings, until by the grace of God I perceived the connection of these words in the passage, thus: The righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel, as is written: ‘The just shall live by his faith.’ From this connection I learned to understand that righteousness of God by which the righteous lives by the gracious gift of God, through faith alone, and I perceived this to be the apostle’s meaning: By the Gospel that righteousness is revealed which is valid in the sight of God and by which God, from grace and pure mercy, makes us righteous by faith. In Latin this righteousness is called justitia passiva, and to this righteousness the fact refers which says: ‘The just shall live by his faith.’ At this point I immediately felt that I had been entirely born anew and had found a door wide open, leading straight into paradise.”

Luther’s life as a monk had been irreproachable. He had tormented himself nigh unto death trying to keep his monastic vows, and spite of all his endeavors he had become broken-hearted; for the Holy Spirit, by the Law, had revealed to him the corruption of his heart. He did not regard this condition of his heart as a trifling matter; it filled him with anxiety and uncertainty. He desired to make full satisfaction for his sins and to keep not only the Ten Commandments, but also the commandments of the Church, which were not enjoined at all by God. Thus he lived on in papistic blindness. Occasionally he would doubt the validity of all his doings and ask himself, What does God care whether I am lying on a sack of straw or on a couch of velvet and satin?

Luther confesses that at that time God had become hateful to him. Now, ask any modern theologian whether he had loved God prior to his conversion, and he will say: “Why, yes; who would not love God? We have always been taught to do that.” But that shows their blindness. If we would watch ourselves, we would become aware that our condition, before faith was kindled in our hearts, has been identical with that of Luther. No one who has been smitten by the Law will be surprised at Luther’s confession.

While in terror and distress under the Law, Luther read in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans that also in the Gospel the righteousness of God is revealed. At that time he had no inkling of the sweet consolation contained in that statement. Nowadays every child knows that the text does not refer to that righteousness which God requires of us in the Law, but to the righteousness of Christ which God wants to give us and which Luther has well expressed by translating ἡ δικαιοσύνη τοῦ θεοῦ “the righteousness which is valid, or passes muster, in the sight of God.” By this translation even the simplest person can understand that the text does not refer to the righteous life which we have lived and according to which we shall be judged, but to the gracious righteousness which Christ acquired for us on the cross.

While Luther’s natural heart was raving against God, he was but a short step from the brink of despair. He picked up his Bible again and again and kept staring at Rom. 1, 17. He began to think that possibly the text had a different meaning, after all. During his persistent musing, reading, and meditating God helped him to see the light, and what happened to him when he had found the meaning of the text he has told us. The same man who had previously hated God and murmured against him now was filled with joy unspeakable. He began to love God with all his heart after hearing the most blessed tidings of joy: Christ, the Son of God, has acquired righteousness for the whole world. Only believe in this righteousness.

God grant to all of you, as He did to Luther, to see the gates of paradise wide open to receive you! Then your congregations will get a taste of your own happiness, and you will be kept from falling into dead orthodoxism.

In his Vindiciae Sacrae Scripturae, § 79, p. 125, Huelsemann, commenting on 2 Cor. 7, 10, writes: “Paul does not say: You have roused sorrow in yourselves from love of God, but you have been given by me a godly sorrow, that is, a sorrow which is in accordance with the will or commandment of God. … Accordingly, Paul interprets godly sorrow to signify a sorrow which had been roused in the Corinthians by the power and the command of God. On the other hand, the sorrow of the world signifies a sorrow which arises from worldly causes, such as the fear of temporal punishment, the loss of personal honor, an evil conscience, and other causes which produce sorrow over some crime even in heathens and unregenerate persons.”

This passage, then, refers to a sorrow in the presence of God on the part of the person who has become alarmed because of his sins. When I am terrified by the thought of my sins, hell, death, and damnation and perceive that God is angry with me and that, being under His wrath, I am damned on account of my sins, — that is godly sorrow, even though I may be in the same condition in which Luther was before he got the right knowledge of the Gospel. Such sorrow comes from God. On the other hand, when a fornicator, a rake, a drunkard, begins to sorrow because he has wasted the beautiful time of his youth, has ruined his body, and has become prematurely senile — that is a sorrow of this world. When a vain person is thrown into sorrow over his sins because he has lost somewhat of his prestige; when a thief sorrows over his thieving because it has also landed him in jail; — that is worldly sorrow. However, when a person grieves over his sins because he sees hell before him, where he will be punished for having insulted the most holy God, that is godly sorrow, provided that it has not been produced by imagination through a person’s own effort. Genuine godly sorrow can be of produced by God alone. May God grant us all such sorrow!

There is no question but that contrition is necessary if a person wishes to obtain forgiveness of his sins. At His first public exercise of the preaching function our Lord cried: “Repent and believe the Gospel.” He names repentance first. Whenever this term is placed in opposition to faith, it signifies nothing else than contrition. When Christ gathered the holy apostles about Him for the last time, at the moment when He was about to ascend to heaven and to withdraw His visible presence from the Church, He said to them: “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name.” Luke 24, 46–47. Why is repentance required as well as faith? Our Lord gives the reason in these words: “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. … I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” Matt. 9, 12–13. With these words the Lord testifies that the reason why contrition is absolutely necessary is that without it no one is fit to be made a believer. He is surfeited and spurns the invitation to the heavenly marriage feast. As far back as Solomon we find this proverb: “The full soul loatheth an honeycomb.” Prov. 27, 7. Where there is no spiritual hunger and thirst, the Lord Jesus is not received. As long as a person has not been reduced to the state of a poor, lost, and condemned sinner, he has no serious interest in the Savior of sinners.

However, while bearing this fact in mind, you must not forget that contrition is not a cause of the forgiveness of sins. Contrition is not necessary on account of the forgiveness of sin, but on account of faith, which apprehends the forgiveness of sin. Here are the reasons why we say that the doctrine that contrition is a cause of the forgiveness of sins is a mingling of Law and Gospel: —

1. Contrition is an effect solely of the Law. To regard contrition as a cause of the forgiveness of sins is equivalent to turning the Law into a message of grace and the Gospel into Law perversion which overthrows the entire Christian religion.

2. Contrition is not even a good work. For the contrition which precedes faith is nothing but suffering on the part of man. It consists of anguish, pain, torment, a feeling of being crushed; all of which God has wrought in man with the hammer of the Law. It is not an anguish which a person has produced in himself, for he would gladly be rid of it, but cannot, because God has come down on him with the Law, and he sees no way of escape from the ordeal. If a person sits down to meditate with a view to producing contrition in himself, he will never gain his object that way. He cannot produce contrition. Those who think they can are miserable hypocrites. They seek to persuade themselves that they have contrition, but it is not so. Genuine repentance is produced by God only when the Law is preached in all sternness and man does not wilfully resist its influence.

It is not likely that one who calls himself a Lutheran preacher will ever say outright that contrition is a cause of the forgiveness of sins. Only papists will say that, never a Protestant preacher who has some conception of the pure doctrine. Still it not infrequently happens that preachers who claim to be true Lutherans mingle Law and Gospel by the way in which they describe contrition. In two ways they may speak of contrition as if it were a cause of the forgiveness of sins: either by saying too little or by saying too much about contrition.

Owing to their lack of experience many preachers are afraid they might lead people to despair. They do preach, as they should, that contrition must precede faith, but they fear that, unless they add some saving clause to that statement, one or the other member of their congregation may become despondent. For that reason they qualify their statement by saying that the pain one feels in contrition need not be very great, and that a person will be received by God if he only desires to be contrite. A comforting qualification of this kind really presents contrition as the cause of the forgiveness of sins, which is a false comfort. What the preacher ought to say is this: “Listen! When you have come to the point where you are hungering and thirsting for the grace of God, you have the contrition which you need. God does not require contrition as a means by which you are to atone for your sins, but only to the end that you may be roused from your security and ask, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ “

Accordingly, Luther says that, when he had for the first time grasped the meaning of the term repentance (poenitentia), no word seemed sweeter to him than that, because he perceived that its meaning was not that he must do penance for his sins, but simply that he must be alarmed on account of his sins and desire the mercy of God. The term repentance was to him the very Gospel, because he knew that the moment he had been brought by God to the point where he acknowledged himself to be a poor and lost sinner, he was a proper subject for the attention of Jesus and could go to Him with the assurance that He would receive him as he was, with all his sins and anguish and misery.

A person must not inquire whether his contrition is sufficient for admitting him to Jesus. His very question about his fitness shows that he may come to Jesus. If one has the desire to come to Jesus, he has true contrition even if he does not feel it. It is the same as when a person begins to believe. I know from my personal experience that a person can have contrition without being aware of it. For years I had been genuinely contrite and on the brink of despair. I did not have the sweet consciousness that my heart was dissolved in sorrow for having grievously offended my Father in heaven, but I had the lively feeling that I was a lost sinner. At that time I applied to a person who was more experienced in these matters than I was, and in a few minutes he made me see the light. The statement, then, that God is satisfied with a person’s mere desire to have contrition is evidence of a mingling of Law and Gospel; for such a statement represents contrition as a merit on account of which God is gracious to a sinner and forgives him his sins.

The same mistake is made when a pastor is readily satisfied with a slight sign of contrition in his parishioners. In wicked men, who have lived a long time in sin and shame, the conscience may suddenly become aroused and charge them, for instance, with having perjured themselves. They are seized with palpitating fear because of the consequences. Or their conscience may reprove them with having soiled their hands with the blood of murder. However, these people are not alarmed because they regard themselves as poor sinners, but it is one particular sin that frightens them. Outside of that they imagine they are good at heart. I witnessed an instance of this kind in Germany. A wicked person had committed perjury. He would not admit it, but began to be agitated every time some one spoke to him about it. During a call which I made on him he had to take hold of the table to keep down his trembling, but he could not be induced to confess his sin. The result was that I could not preach the Gospel to him. There are many abandoned villains of this kind, who have already had their sentence of doom served on them. They may tell the pastor that they admit being at fault in this, that, or the other thing in which they slipped unavoidably, but they appeal to the fact that they are good at heart. If a pastor is satisfied with a partial contrition of this sort, he treats contrition as a merit, while it is nothing else than the bursting open of an ulcer. When a healing salve is spread on an open wound that still contains pus, the pus will eat deeper into the person, and the wound will not heal. The healing balm in spiritual therapy is the Gospel.

Others, again, probably say to their hearers that contrition is necessary, as Scripture testifies on every page, and that their own reason must tell them that God cannot forgive their sins which they treat so lightly. Then they proceed to describe to them what must be the quality of their contrition from texts like Ps. 38, 6–8: “I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long. For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease, and there is no soundness in my flesh. I am feeble and sore broken; I have roared by reason of the disquietness of my heart”; or Ps. 6, 7–8: “I am weary with groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears. Mine eye is consumed with grief; it waxeth old because of all mine enemies.” Legalistic pastors will ask their client whether he can say all these things concerning himself; whether he has ever gone bowed down and mourning for a whole day; whether there has been a time when his loins were dried up; whether he can say that there was no sound part in his whole body; whether he has wailed because of the unrest in his heart; whether he has watered his couch with his tears all night long; whether his friends have noticed that he looked as if he had grown fourteen years older in two weeks; etc. Unless he can point to these criteria of what they regard as genuine contrition, they tell him not to imagine that he has been truly contrite.

This method is utterly wrong. True, the texts cited describe David’s repentance. But where is there a text that prescribes the same degree of contrition for every one? There is no such text; on the contrary, we find that when the hearts of Peter’s hearers on the first Pentecost were pricked and they were moved to cry, “What shall we do?” the mercy of God was preached to them immediately. David’s own case serves as an illustration. He had lived in impenitence for an entire year when Nathan came to hold his awful sin up to him. With a contrite heart David cried: “I have sinned against the Lord.” That was all. The prophet Nathan noticed at once that David had been struck down and was crushed. Accordingly, he said to him: “The Lord also hath put away thy sin.” 2 Sam. 12, 13. The same thing we read about the jailer at Philippi. Only a few minutes before he had been so terribly agitated that he was about to take his own life. When he fell down before the apostles and cried, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved” he was not told that he must produce contrition in himself, and that, a profound, a serious one; he was not reminded of the penitential acts of David, but he was promptly told: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house.” The apostles saw plainly that the man was crushed and craved mercy, and they regarded that as sufficient. When a person has been made to hunger and thirst for mercy, contrition has done its full work in him.

The Pietists claim that faith must be preceded by a long time of penitence; yea, they have warned people not to believe too soon, telling them that they must allow the Holy Spirit to work them over thoroughly. A person, they said, cannot be converted in two weeks; sometimes it takes many months and years during which God prepares him for conversion. That is an awful doctrine. These preachers do not consider what a tremendous responsibility they assume when they warn a person against believing prematurely. What will become of such a one if he dies before he is ready to believe? I know the awful effect of this teaching from experience. A Pietistic candidate of theology had instructed me in the manner which I have described. I did everything to become truly penitent and finally fell into despair. When I came to him to tell him my condition, he said: “Now it is time for you to believe.” But I did not credit his advice; I thought that he was deceiving me because his last direction was out of keeping with the marks of penitence which he had described to me previously. Accordingly, I said to him: “If you knew my condition, you would not comfort me. What I want is rules for my further conduct.” He gave me them too; but it was useless.

If we may assume, in all reasonableness, that a person has been pried loose from his self-righteousness and wants to be saved by grace alone, we should for God’s sake confidently preach the Gospel to him. It will not be too soon. A person cannot possibly come to Jesus too soon. The trouble is that people frequently do not really go to Jesus; they call themselves poor sinners, but are not; they want to bring before God some merit of their own. It is sheer hypocrisy when they say they are going to Jesus; for as a matter of fact they do not come to Him as poor beggars with all their sins. A person whom God has granted grace to see himself crushed and broken, without any comfort anywhere, and looking about him anxiously for consolation, such a one is truly contrite. He must not be warned against going to Jesus, but to him the Gospel must be preached. He must be told not only that he may, but that he should boldly come to Jesus and not imagine that he is coming too soon. If such a person were to die after I had told him that he cannot yet come to Jesus, God would demand the soul of that sinner from me.

One of the principal reasons why many at this point mingle Law and Gospel is that they fail to distinguish the daily repentance of Christians from the repentance which precedes faith. Daily repentance is described in Ps. 51. David calls it a sacrifice which he brings before God and with which God is pleased. He does not speak of repentance which precedes faith, but of that which follows it. The great majority of sincere Christians who have the pure doctrine have a keener experience of repentance after faith than of repentance prior to faith. For, having good preachers, they have been led to Christ in no roundabout way. While they are with Christ, their former self-righteousness may make its appearance again, spite of the fact that it has been shattered for them many a time. God must smite these poor Christians again and again to keep them humble. David’s example may serve to illustrate this point. He had come to faith in a moment, but what misery did he have to pass through later! A prophet had spoken to him the word of the Lord, but to his dying day his heart was burdened with anguish, distress, and misery. God had ceased to prosper his undertakings; he met with one misfortune after the other, until God released him by death. But all that time David had contrition together with faith. That is, indeed, a sacrifice with which God is pleased. Contrition of this kind is not a mere effect of the Law, produced by the Law alone, but it is at the same time an operation of the Gospel. By the Gospel the love of God enters a person’s heart, and when contrition proceeds from love of God, it is indeed a truly sweet sorrow, acceptable to God. God is pleased with it; for we cannot accord Him greater honor than by casting ourselves in the dust before Him and confessing: “Thou art righteous, Oh Lord, but I am a poor sinner. Have mercy upon me for the sake of Jesus Christ.”

Let me submit a testimony from the Smalcald Articles, Part III, Art. III (Mueller, pp. 312–314; Trigl. Conc., pp. 479–488). It is a precious passage, one of the gems in our Confessions. For the true doctrine of contrition is not found in any of the sects, but only in our Lutheran Church, and it is laid down in this passage. Luther, you know, wrote the Smalcald Articles himself; we bless him even in his grave for having bequeathed to us this heritage. He says: —

“This office [of the Law] the New Testament retains and urges, as St. Paul, Rom. 1, 18, does, saying: ‘The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men’; again, 3, 19: ‘All the world is guilty before God. No man is righteous before Him.’ And Christ says, John 16, 8: ‘The Holy Ghost will reprove the world of sin.’

“This, then, is the thunderbolt of God by which He hurls to the ground both manifest sinners and false saints and suffers no one to be in the right, but drives them all together to terror and despair. This is the hammer, as Jeremiah says, 23, 29: ‘Is not My Word like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?’ This is not activa contritio or manufactured repentance, but passiva contritio, true sorrow of heart, suffering and sensation of death” [Manufactured repentance is nothing else than acting as though you were penitent.]

“This, then, is what it means to begin true repentance; and here man must hear such a sentence as this: You are all of no account, whether you be manifest sinners or saints (in your own opinion); you all must become different and do otherwise than you are now doing, no matter whether you are as great, wise, powerful, and holy as you may. Here no one is godly, etc.”

“But to this office the New Testament immediately adds the consolatory promise of grace through the Gospel, which must be believed, as Christ declares, Mark 1, 15: ‘Repent ye and believe the Gospel’; i.e., become different and do otherwise and believe My promise. And John, preceding Him, is called a preacher of repentance, however, for the remission of sins; i.e., John was to accuse a and convict them of being sinners that they might know what they were before God and might acknowledge that they were lost men and might thus be prepared for the Lord to receive grace and to expect and accept from Him the remission of sins. Thus also Christ Himself says, Luke 24, 47: ‘Repentance and remission of sins must be preached in My name among all nations.’

“But whenever the Law alone, without the Gospel’s being added, exercises this its office, there is nothing else than death and hell, and man must despair, like Saul and Judas; as St. Paul, Rom. 7, 10, says: ‘Through sin the Law killeth.’ On the other hand, the Gospel brings consolation and remission, not only in one way, but through the Word and Sacraments, and the like, as we shall hear afterward, in order that there is thus with the Lord plenteous redemption, as Ps. 130, 7 says, against the dreadful captivity of sin.

“However, we must now contrast the false repentance of the Sophists with true repentance in order that both may be the better understood.

“It was impossible that they should teach correctly concerning repentance, since they did not know the real sins. For, as has been shown above, they do not believe aright concerning original sin, but say that the natural powers of man have remained unimpaired and incorrupt; that reason can teach aright and the will can in accordance therewith do aright; that God certainly bestows His grace when a man does as much as is in him, according to his free will.

“It had to follow thence that they did penance only for actual sins, such as wicked thoughts to which a person yields (for according to them wicked emotions, lust, and improper dispositions are not sins), and for wicked words and wicked deeds, which free will could readily have omitted.

“And of such repentance they fix three parts: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, with this magnificent consolation and promise added: If man truly repent, confess, render satisfaction, he thereby would have merited forgiveness and paid for his sins before God. Thus in repentance they instructed men to repose confidence in their own works. Hence the expression originated, which was employed in the pulpit when public absolution was announced to the people: ‘Prolong, O God, my life, until I shall make satisfaction for my sins and amend my life.’

“There was here no mention of Christ nor faith; but men hoped by their own works to overcome and blot out sins before God. And with this intention we became priests and monks, that we might array ourselves against sin.

“As to contrition, this is the way it was done: Since no one could remember all his sins (especially as committed through an entire year), they inserted this provision, namely, that if an unknown sin should be remembered late, this also must be repented of and confessed, etc.”

Some went to Communion only once a year. They found out that they could not enumerate every sin which they had committed every day of the year. The priest would tell them that they must confess their unconfessed sins whenever they remembered them, if his absolution was to be of benefit to them.

“Meanwhile they were commended to the grace of God.”

This meant that their absolution actually was not yet in force; it would be in force whenever they made up what they were still in arrears regarding their confession. “To be commended to the grace of God” meant, for instance, that, if the person were to die the next day it would not be probable that he had gone to hell, but it could not be stated definitely whether he had gone to hell or into purgatory.

“Moreover, since no one could know how great the contrition ought to be in order to be sufficient before God, they gave this consolation: He who could not have contrition, at least ought to have attrition, which I might call half a contrition or the beginning of contrition; for they have themselves understood neither of these terms, nor do they understand them now, as little as I. Such attrition was reckoned as contrition when a person came to confession.”

Luther means to say: What they meant by attrition I do not know; but with them it was a sufficient contrition.

“And when it happened that any one said that he could not have contrition nor lament his sins (as might have occurred in illicit love or the desire for revenge, etc.), they asked whether he did not wish or desire to have contrition. When one would reply, Yes (for who, save the devil himself, would say no to such a question?), they accepted this as contrition and forgave him his sins on account of this good work of his. Here they cited the example of St. Bernard, etc.”

Ask a Roman Catholic priest or any true Catholic, and if he is sincere, he will admit that this practise still prevails in the Roman Church, that persons admit in the confessional they would like to have contrition, but when they think of their fornication, they feel they would like to continue that; likewise, they would like to inflict harm on their enemy. The papistic religion surely is a religion to make one shudder when its true inwardness is understood.

“Here we see how blind reason, in matters pertaining to God, gropes about and, according to its own imagination, seeks consolation in its own works and cannot think of Christ and faith. But if it be viewed in the light, this contrition is a manufactured and fictitious thought, derived from man’s own powers, without faith and without knowledge of Christ. And in it the poor sinner, when he reflected upon his own lust and desire for revenge, would sometimes have laughed rather than wept, except such as either had been truly struck by the Law or had been vainly vexed by the devil with a sorrowful spirit. Otherwise such contrition was certainly mere hypocrisy and did not mortify the lust for sins; for they had to grieve, while they would rather have continued to sin, if it had been free to them.”

The decrees of the Council of Trent prove that Luther has correctly depicted the Papacy. When he wrote these words, he undoubtedly remembered his own life among the papists. When engaged in his penitential exercises, he certainly did not feel like laughing. He took it so seriously, and he was filled with dread to such an extent that he sometimes swooned away in sheer terror during these penances. You know that at one time he locked himself into his cell for several days in order to do penance. When his convent brethren forced the door open, they found him unconscious, so great had been the anguish of his soul. They roused him with music. That is one reason why Luther esteemed music so highly: he had felt the powerful effect which music has on the minds of men.

This thesis does not score as an error the demand on the part of the pastor, be it ever so urgent, that his hearers believe the Gospel. That demand has been made by all the prophets, all the apostles, yea, by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. When demanding faith, we do not lay down a demand of the Law, but issue the sweetest invitation, practically saying to our hearers: “Come; for all things are now ready.” Luke 14, 17. When I invite a halfstarved person to sit down to a well-furnished board and to help himself to anything he likes, I do not expect him to tell me that he will take no orders from me. Even so the demand to believe is to be understood not as an order of the Law, but as an invitation of the Gospel.

The error against which this thesis is directed is this, that man can produce faith in himself. Such a demand would be an order of the Law and turn faith into a work of man. That would be plainly mingling Law and Gospel. A preacher must be able to preach a sermon on faith without ever using the term faith. It is not important that he din the word faith into the ears of his audience, but it is necessary for him to frame his address so as to arouse in every poor sinner the desire to lay the burden of his sins at the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ and say to Him: “Thou art mine, and I am Thine.”

Here is where Luther reveals his true greatness. He rarely appeals to his hearers to believe, but he preaches concerning the work of Christ, salvation by grace, and the riches of God’s mercy in Jesus Christ in such a manner that the hearers get the impression that all they have to do is to take what is being offered them and find a resting-place in the lap of divine grace. That is the great act which you must seek to learn — to make your hearers reason that, if what you preach is true, they are blessed men; all their anguish and unrest has been useless; they have been redeemed perfectly, reconciled with God, and are numbered with the saved and those on whom God has made His gracious countenance to shine. The moment a person thinks these thoughts, he attains to faith.

Suppose you were picturing to a horde of Indians the Lord Jesus, telling them that He is the Son of God who came down from heaven to redeem men from their sins by taking the wrath of God upon Himself, overcoming death, devil, and hell in their stead and opening heaven to all men, and that every man can now be saved by merely accepting what our Lord Jesus Christ has brought to us. Suppose that you were suddenly struck down by the deadly bullet of a hostile Indian lying in ambush. It is possible that, dying, you would leave behind you a small congregation of Indians though you may not even once have pronounced the word faith to them. For every one in that audience who did not wantonly and wilfully resist divine grace would have to reason that he, too, has been redeemed.

On the other hand, you may spend a lot of time telling men that they must believe if they wish to be saved, and your hearers may get the impression that something is required of them which they must do. They will begin to worry whether they will be able to do it, and when they have tried to do it, whether it is exactly the thing that is required of them. Thus you may have preached a great deal about faith without delivering a real sermon on faith. Any one who has come to understand that it is up to him to accept what is offered him and actually accepts it, has faith. To be saved by faith means to acquiesce in God’s plan of salvation by simply accepting it.

I do not mean to say that you must not preach about faith. Our time particularly lacks a proper understanding of this matter. The best preachers imagine they have accomplished a great deal when they have rammed into their hearers the axiom: “Faith alone saves.” But by their preaching they have merely made their hearers sigh: “Oh, that I had faith! Faith must be something very difficult; for I have not obtained it.” These unfortunate hearers will go home from church with a sad heart. The word faith is echoing in their ears, but gives them no comfort. Even Luther complained that many in his day were preaching about faith without showing their hearers what faith really signifies and how to attain it. A preacher of this sort may labor for years and preach to a dead congregation. That explains why people talk in uncertain strains about their salvation. You can tell that they are driven to and fro with doubts and become awfully frightened and distressed when they are told that they are at death’s door. Whose fault is it? The preacher’s, because he preached wrong about faith.

To say that faith is required for salvation is not saying that man can produce faith himself. Scripture requires of man everything; every commandment is a demand crying: “Do this, and thou shalt live.” Scripture demands that we “purify our hearts.” Jas. 4, 8. We are told: “Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” Eph. 5, 14. The mere issuing of such demands does not prove that man can comply with them. An old and true maxim runs thus: A debito ad posse non valet consequentia. (No valid conclusion can be drawn from an obligation to the ability to meet it.) When a creditor demands payment, that does not prove that the debtor can pay. In ordinary daily life a creditor, knowing his debtor’s insolvency, may demand payment of a debt merely because he has observed that the debtor is a shiftless person and, moreover, full of vanity and conceit. The creditor’s object in making the demand is to get the debtor to quit his proud demeanor and to humble him. God deals with men the same way. By serving notice on me that I owe Him obedience to all His commandments, God leads me to realize that, even though I put forth my utmost endeavor, I cannot meet my obligations. Having humbled me, He then approaches me with His Gospel. This humbling of the natural heart is what is lacking in modern preaching. When a person says to a preacher: “Oh, but I cannot believe,” he is told: “Oh yes, you can; you must only have the earnest desire to believe. You can get rid of your sins; all you need do is to strive against them.” That is an abominable way to preach.

Alas; the synergists have put poison in the Gospel, denied the Lord Christ, and made His grace to be of none effect. Let me submit a few statements which reveal the synergism of Melanchthon. Modern theologians ought to be interested in these statements. Some who know them declare these very statements the good part in Melanchthon’s teaching. Orthodox Lutherans, however, decline to accept them.

Leonhard Hutter, the well-known orthodox theologian, wrote a book entitled Concordia Concors. It is a history of the Formula of Concord, showing what occasioned the writing of each article of this Confession of our Church. From it we see, among other things, that Melanchthon’s teaching was the cause why Article II was inserted in the Formula of Concord. As evidence, Hutter cites false statements that are found in Melanchthon’s writings. I am presenting these statements in order to show that it is not only we Missourians who, with our rigorous minds, are scenting synergism everywhere.

Melanchthon taught: 1. There is, and must be, a reason in men why some are predestinated unto salvation while others are reprobated and damned.”

This statement Hutter pronounces synergistic. Compare with this statement the publications of our opponents in the predestinarian controversy, and you will find that they are saying the same thing as Melanchthon, thereby proving that they are crass synergists, — for such Melanchthon was. The wrong part in Melanchthon’s statement is not the assertion that there must be a cause in man why he is reprobated and damned, but that there must be a cause in some men why they are predestinated unto salvation. There is no such cause in any person. All the saints in heaven will proclaim with heartfelt thanks that they have contributed nothing towards bringing themselves into heaven; that they have not been a cause of their own salvation; that there was sufficient cause in them why they should be in hell, but none why they should be in heaven.

Again, Melanchthon says: 2. “Since the promises of grace are universal and there cannot be contradictory wills in God, there must necessarily be some cause in us that accounts for the salvation of some and of the reprobation of others; in other words, there must be in each a different kind of action.”

The different kind of action is not the cause why any person finds himself in heaven. True, grace is universal. The reason why some are reprobated is that they wilfully resist grace. Here reason enters in with the claim that accordingly there must be a cause in the others why they are saved, and this must be because they did not resist grace. But we are at this point confronted with an inscrutable mystery, and any one who is unwilling to acknowledge this mystery is abandoning the Christian religion, the central teaching of which is that God has revealed to man a way of salvation which no man’s reason could have discovered nor is able to comprehend. When this plan of God for our salvation is presented to us, we are forced to exclaim with the Apostle Paul: “Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counselor, or who hath first given to Him and it shall be recompensed unto Him again? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things; to whom be glory forever.” Rom. 11, 33–36.

Again, Melanchthon says: 3. “The cause lies in men why some give their assent to the promises of grace while others do not.”

This is crass synergism; for Melanchthon refers to a real cause, to what is termed a causating or impelling cause (causa causans) . How can his assertion stand over against the truth that we are all by nature dead in sins and that we become new creatures in regeneration?

Lastly Melanchthon states: 4. “Three causes concur in a person’s conversion: the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father and the Son send to quicken our hearts, and the will of man, which gives assent to the Word of God and does not resist.”

Man’s faith comes under the same ruling as his contrition. I may sit down in a corner and indulge in melancholy thoughts in order to coax contrition out of myself; but I fail. If I am sincere, I am forced to admit my inability. While I imagine that my heart has been softened and I am repenting of my sin, I suddenly feel in me a craving for the very sin of which I have repented. If genuine contrition is to be produced in me, the thunders of the Law must roll over my head, and the lightnings of Sinai must strike my heart. The same holds good with regard to faith — I cannot produce it myself.

Let me submit one more citation, which Hutter has not quoted, but which is cognate to our subject. It is taken from Melanchthon’s Loci (Chapters in Theology) of the year 1552. On page 101 Melanchthon writes: “You say you are unable to obey the voice of the Gospel, to listen to the Son of God, and to accept Him as your Mediator?” This question Melanchthon answers: “Of course you can!” An awful answer, this! When a parishioner comes to you complaining of his inability to believe, you must tell him that you are not surprised at his statement; for no man can; he would be a marvel if he could. And you must instruct him to do nothing but listen to the Word of God, and God will give him faith. Furthermore, you may admonish him not to resist divine grace and not to extinguish the sparks which are beginning to glow in his heart. But your telling him-these things does not give him the strength he needs. When the Gospel enters his heart like a blessed water of life from heaven, faith is kindled there. It is at first feeble like a new-born babe, which sees, hears, tastes, moves, has a certain amount of strength, and can eat and drink. Not until this has taken place, may you urge the person to cooperate with divine grace. We do not by any means reject cooperation on the part of man after his regeneration; we rather urge it upon him lest he die again and incur the danger of being lost forever.

Melanchthon continues: “Raise yourself up by means of the Gospel, ask God to help you and to let the Holy Spirit make the consolations of the Gospel effective in you. You must understand that the grace of God proposes to convert us in this manner, viz., that, having been quickened by His promise, we wrestle with ourselves, call upon Him, and fight against our unbelief and other evil inclinations.”

Again, he says: “Free will in man is the ability to prepare oneself for grace” (facultas se applicandi ad Gratian). This is the notorious statement which is usually cited to prove that Melanchthon was a genuine synergist. The foregoing awful statements prove it indeed.

Lastly, Melanchthon says: “What I mean is this: man hears the promise, makes an attempt to give his assent to it, and puts sins against his conscience aside.” This is wrong; before a person is able to put aside sins against his conscience, he must be converted.

There are not a few people who imagine that a minister who constantly preaches that man is made righteous in the sight of God and saved by faith is manifestly a genuine evangelical preacher. For what else is to be required of him when everybody knows that salvation by faith is the marrow and essence of the Gospel and the entire Word of God? That is true. A minister who preaches that doctrine is certainly a genuine evangelical preacher. But that fact is not established merely from his use of these words: “Man is made righteous in the sight of God and saved by faith alone,” but from the proper sense that must be connected with these words. The preacher must mean by faith what Scripture means when it employs that term. But here is where many preachers are at fault. By faith they understand something different from what the prophets, the apostles, and our Lord and Savior understood by faith. I pass by the rationalists, who used to preach that man is indeed saved by faith; but by faith in Jesus Christ they understand nothing else than the acceptance of the excellent moral teachings which Christ proclaimed. By accepting these moral teachings, they held, a person becomes a true disciple of the Lord and is made righteous and saved. Take up any rationalistic book of the radical type that was published in the age of Rationalism, and you will see that such was the preaching of vulgar Rationalism.

Nor are the papists averse to saying that faith makes a person righteous in the sight of God and saves him. In an emergency they will even say that faith alone makes a person righteous and saves him. But by faith they understand fides formata, faith that is joined with love. Accordingly, they manage to say many excellent things about faith; but by faith they always mean something different from what Scripture teaches concerning faith.

Moreover, in the postils and devotional writings of all modern theologians you may find the doctrine that man is made righteous in the sight of God and saved by faith. But by faith they understand nothing but what man himself achieves and produces. Their faith is a product of human energy and resolution. Such teaching, however, subverts the entire Gospel.

What God’s Word really means when it says that man is justified and saved by faith alone is nothing else than this is: Man is not saved by his own acts, but solely by the doing and dying of his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the whole world. Over against this teaching modern theologians assert that in the salvation of man two kinds of activity must be noted: in the first place, there is something that God must do. His part is the most difficult, for He must accomplish the task of redeeming men. But in the second place, something is required that man must do. For it will not do to admit persons to heaven, after they have been redeemed, without further parley. Man must do something really great — he has to believe. This teaching overthrows the Gospel completely. It is a pity that many beautiful sermons of modern theologians ultimately reveal the fact that they mean something entirely different from the plain and clear teaching of Scripture that man is saved, not by what he himself does or achieves, but by what God does and achieves.

Hear, for instance, a statement from Luthardt, in his Compend of Theology, p. 202: “On the other hand, repentance and faith are required of man as that part which he is to render: μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε — at every stage of the history of salvation. The requirement of repentance can be met immediately by the person who is called by grace, Ps. 95, 7; Heb. 4, 7 ff., while faith is a free act of obedience which man renders.”

Note the term “renders”; it refers to the fulfilment of a duty for which a person expects a reward. But faith is not an achievement of man. If it were, it would meet a condition which God had proposed to man; as if God had said: “I have done My share; now you must do yours. I do not ask much of you, but I do require that you repent and believe.” Now, can you consider anything a present that is handed you on condition that you do something for it? No; it ceases to be a present when the donor stipulates one condition or another which the grantee must meet. Here in our country many donations are not valid; accordingly, to make a legally valid donation of something quite valuable, the donor will state that he has received one dollar for it. This is done in bills of sale by which property worth millions of dollars is conveyed. It is a circumvention of the law, which plainly shows the essential difference between giving and selling.

Believing the Gospel would be, in truth, an immeasurably great and difficult task for us if God were not to accomplish it in us. But suppose it were not so exceedingly great and difficult; even if it were an easy condition that God had proposed to us for our salvation, our salvation would not be a gift; God would not have given us His Son, but merely offered Him to us with a certain stipulation. That has not been God’s way. The Apostle Paul says: “Being justified freely (δωρεάν) by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Rom. 3, 24. We are justified δωρεάν, that is gratuitously, without anything, even the least thing, being required of us. Accordingly, we poor sinners praise God for the place of refuge He has prepared for us, where we can flee even when we have to come to Him as utterly lost, insolvent beggars, who have not the least ability to offer to God something that they have achieved. All that we can offer Him is our sins, nothing else. But for that very reason Jesus regards us as His proper clients. We honor Him as our faithful Savior by making His Gospel our refuge; but we deny Him if we come to Him offering Him something for what He gives us. In view of the statement of Peter: “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved,” Acts 4, 12, you must regard it as an awful perversion of the Gospel to treat the command to believe as a condition of man’s justification and salvation.

Suppose you say to a beggar who approaches you asking alms that you will give him something on one condition, and on his asking you what the condition is, you would tell him the condition is that he accept your gift. Would he not consider your condition a hoax and say, laughing: “Why, most gladly I shall meet your condition, and the more you give, the greater will become my joy in taking it”? True, if a person refuses to believe, nobody can help him. But he must not say that grace was offered with a condition attached to it which he could not meet. God attaches no condition to His grace when He proffers it to a sinner and asks him to accept it. It would be no gift if He were to attach a condition, just as little as it is a gift when I ask a tramp to work in my garden if he wants me to give him something to eat. Such a person I treat in accordance with 2 Thess. 3, 10: “If any would not work, neither should he eat,” and thus keep him from vagrancy. You see, then, what a perversion of the Gospel it is to treat faith as a condition of salvation.

Our recent predestinarian controversy shows how easy it is to err in this matter. Our adversaries stumble at our doctrine that God has not foreseen anything in the elect that could have prompted Him to elect them, but that His election is one of unconstrained mercy. They are shocked because, in accordance with the Formula of Concord, we teach that there are only two causes of salvation, namely, the mercy of God and the merit of Christ. They imagine that God is partial, saying He elects some and neglects others, reprobating them. This is an inference which they draw, and it is one for which they deserve no commendation. Instead of trying to save God from the charge of partiality by assuming a difference in the person whom He elects when compared with the others, they should consider that man is justified and saved by faith, not on account of faith. Our old theologians have said that people who charge God with being partial deserve to be whipped.

The German theologians come out more boldly with their opinion, while our adversaries here in America are more wary. The latter adhere to the formula intuitu fidei of the old dogmaticians and say that God elected men “in view of their faith.” They seek shelter behind the old dogmaticians; but their stratagem is futile, because they use the formula in a sense different from that in which the old dogmaticians employed it. Our adversaries state plainly that God has decreed to elect certain men in view of their conduct, or they use similar terms. Turn and twist as much as they will, they declare that something which man does is the cause of his salvation. If John Gerhard and Egidius Hunnius were to rise from the dead and see that our adversaries in the present controversy on predestination appeal to them as their authorities, they would be amazed; for it can be plainly shown that they have rejected and abominated the doctrine of our adversaries.

John Gerhard, in his Chapters in Theology, writes (Locus de Evang., § 26) : “We hold that the Law differs from the Gospel, in the third place, as regards the promises. Those of the Law are conditioned, for they stipulate perfect obedience and demand perfect obedience as the condition of their realization. … Lev. 18, 5: ‘Ye shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments; which if a man do, he shall live in them!” But the promises of the Gospel are gratuitous and are offered as gifts (donative). Accordingly, the Gospel is called the word of God’s grace, and Rom. 4, 16 states: ‘Therefore it [righteousness] is of faith that it might be by grace!”

This citation shows the reason why this thesis was embodied in the present series. A person teaching that “faith is a condition which the Gospel stipulates” makes the promises of the Gospel conditioned promises like those of the Law and removes the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. The Law promises no good thing except on condition that a person comply perfectly with its demands, while the Gospel promises everything unconditionally as a free gift. In short, the promises of grace demand nothing of man. When the Lord says, “Believe,” He does not utter a demand, but issues an urgent invitation to man to take, to apprehend, to appropriate what He is giving, without asking anything in return for it. The gift must, of course, be accepted. Non-acceptance forfeits the gift, but not because there was a condition attached to it.

Again, Gerhard says: “Faith is not placed in opposition to grace, even as the beggar’s act of accepting a gift is not placed in opposition to the free bounty of the giver.” A beggar would be insane if he were to say to the donor: “What? I am still to do the accepting?” and would be told to be gone with his silliness.

Gerhard continues: “The term ‘if’ is either etiological or syllogistic; that is, it signifies either a cause or a consequence. In the preaching of the Law the statement: ‘If you do this, you shall live,’ the term is etiological; it signifies the cause, or reason; for obedience is the reason why eternal life is given to those who keep the Law. But in evangelical promises the term ‘if’ is syllogistic; it signifies a. consequence; for it relates to the mode of application which God has appointed for these promises, and that is faith alone.”

If faith is called an achievement of man, the demand for it makes faith a condition that man must meet by his own effort. That is the reason why the aforementioned error of Luthardt is so great; it vitiates his entire theology.

Adam Osiander, in his Collegium Theologicum, tom. V, 140, writes: “Faith does not justify in so far as it is obedience in compliance with a command, — for thus viewed, it is an action, a work, and something required by Law, — but only in so far as it receives and is attached to justification after the manner of a passive instrument.”

This citation shows again that our thesis belongs in this series on the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. If faith is obedience, it is a work of the Law, and the Apostle Paul was altogether wrong when he declared that a person is justified without the deeds of the Law, by faith alone. However, it is not he that is wrong, but the modern theologians. Faith is merely a passive instrument, like a hand into which some one places a dollar. The person receives the dollar provided he does not withdraw his hand; beyond that he does not have to do anything. The donor is doing the essential part by putting the gift into the hand, not the other party, by holding out the hand. Let a beggar approach a miser and see what his holding out of the hand to him will help him; the miser may set his dogs upon him if he annoys him too much.

To cite Gerhard once more, he writes (Loc. de Justific., § 179): “It is one thing to be justified on account of faith and another to be justified by faith. In the former view, faith is the meritorious, in the latter, the instrumental cause. [There must be an organ by which I come into the possession and enjoyment of what some one offers me.] We are not justified on account of faith as a merit, but by faith which lays hold of the merit of Christ.” It is not my own merit that saves me, but the merit of Christ.

However, as regards the simile that has been adduced, the old axiom must be noted: Omne simile est dissimile (In every simile there is some element of dissimilarity). Otherwise it would not be a simile, but identity. When I hold out my hand, I make a motion. This point must not be pressed in the case of man’s faith. For it is God who prompts the holding out of the hand after He has prepared a sinner for the Gospel by means of the Law. Of course, God cannot prompt a person who continues, and is determined to continue, in his sinful life and makes a mockery of God’s Word.

John Olearlus, who completed that splendid treatise of Carpzov, Isagoge in Libros Symbolicos (Introduction to the Symbolical Books), says (p. 1361): “In relation to salvation, faith is not our work, but it belongs to the order of salvation which God has laid down, and for this reason it is not by any means a condition in the proper sense of the term, depending on man, but it is a blessing from our Father in heaven, or a requisite which is furnished to a person who merely suffers it to be furnished him, or an instrument which lays hold of salvation. It is in no way the active cause that proceeds from man and has an influence, after the manner of a cause properly so called, in bringing about a person’s salvation.” Remember this well: In a certain sense it might be said that faith is man’s work, because it is not God that believes, but man. However, this is liable to be misunderstood, and therefore we should not speak thus. Faith is not an achievement of ours, but is wrought in us by God without our contributing anything towards that end.

The old dogmaticians built up their dogmatic treatises by the causal method, considering everything from the viewpoint of a cause. It was a dangerous method. When they came to the element of faith, they were perplexed about what kind of cause to call it and hit upon the term causa instrumentalis, instrumental, or organic, cause. Now, you may run through the whole Bible, and you will not find a single passage which states that man is justified on account of his faith. Wherever the relation of faith to justification is spoken of, terms are used which declare faith a means, not a cause. That is evidence sufficient to show what the Bible doctrine on this point is. You will either have to put the Bible aside and choose a different calling, or if you must enter the ministry because God constrains you, this is what you will have to teach concerning faith in strict accordance with God’s Word.

The excellent Wurttemberg theologian Heerbrand wrote a compend of theology that was even translated into Greek and sent to the Patriarch of Constantinople. He says: “Faith is not a condition, nor is it, properly speaking, required as a condition, because justification is not promised and offered on account of the worth or meritoriousness of faith or in as far as faith is a work. For faith, too, is imperfect; however, it is a mode of receiving the blessing offered men through and on account of Christ.” Now, it would be silly to call faith a condition nevertheless; for, says Heerbrand, “the hand is not called the condition, but the organ and instrument, for receiving alms.”

To conclude, Calov, in his Biblia illustrata, commenting on Rom. 5, 10, says: “We have not been redeemed and reconciled, nor have our sins been atoned for, under a condition, but we have been absolutely redeemed in the most perfect and complete manner, as far as merit and efficacy of the act are concerned; although, as regards the actual enjoyment and appropriation of salvation, faith is necessary, which is nothing else than the appropriation of the atonement, satisfaction, and reconciliation of Christ; for, in the judgment of God, if One died for all, it is the same as if all had died. 2 Cor. 5, 14. This is a golden text, which shines with the radiance of the sun even in the luminous Scriptures. Since the death which Christ died for all is a death for the purpose of reconciliation, it is the same as if all had suffered death for this purpose. It follows, then, that, without entertaining the least doubt, I can say with perfect assurance: I am redeemed; I am reconciled; salvation has been acquired for me.”

To understand these words correctly, you will have to bear in mind that the term Gospel has a usage similar to that of the term repentance. In the Holy Scriptures the term repentance is used in a wide and in a narrow sense. In the wide sense it signifies conversion viewed in its entirety, embracing knowledge of sin, contrition, and faith. This meaning occurs in Acts 2, 38, where we read: “Repent and be baptized every one of you,” etc. The apostle does not say: “Repent and believe.” Accordingly, he refers to conversion in its entirety, inclusive of faith. Nor could he have said: “Be contrite and then be baptized.” He must have conceived of contrition as joined with faith. What he means to say is this: If you acknowledge your sins and believe in the Gospel which I have just preached to you, then be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

The term repentance is used in a narrow sense to signify the knowledge of sin and heartfelt sorrow and contrition. In Mark 1, 15 we read: “Repent ye and believe the Gospel.” In this statement Jesus evidently did not include faith in repentance, otherwise his statement would be tautological. In Acts 20, 21 Paul relates that he had been “testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Since faith is named separately in this text, the term repentance cannot embrace knowledge of sin, contrition, and faith. Likewise, the Lord says concerning the Jews that despite the preaching of John the Baptist they “repented not afterward that they might believe him,” Matt. 21, 32 (Luther translates: “tatet ihr dennoch nicht Buße, daß ihr ihm danach auch geglaubt hättet”). By repentance he refers to the effects of the Law and means to say that, since they had not become alarmed over their sins, it had not been possible for them to believe. For there will not be faith in a heart that has not first been terrified.

There is a similar usage as regards the term Gospel; sometimes it is used in a wide, then again in a narrow meaning. The narrow meaning is its proper sense; in its wide meaning it is used merely by way of synecdoche, signifying anything that Jesus preached, including even His very poignant preaching of the Law, as, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount and His reproving of wicked men. Besides the term Gospel is used in contradistinction to the Old Testament, which often signifies only the teaching of the Law.

Rom. 2, 16 we read: In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel. Here the apostle cannot refer to the Gospel in the narrow sense, for that has nothing to do with the Judgment, since Scripture declares: “He that believeth on Him is not condemned” — “shall not come into condemnation.” John 3, 18; 5, 24. By Gospel in this text, Paul understands the doctrine which he had proclaimed and which was composed of both Law and Gospel.

The term Gospel is unquestionably used in the narrow sense in Rom. 1, 16: I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. It is called, first, a Gospel of Jesus Christ; next, a Gospel that saves all that believe it. No such demand is made upon us by the Law, which requires that we keep it. Accordingly, the apostle is here speaking of God’s gift to the world and of faith, hence of the Gospel in the narrow sense, to the exclusion of the Law.

Another pertinent text is Eph. 6, 15, which speaks of “the Gospel of peace.” Since the Law does not bring peace, but only unrest, the apostle in this text is speaking of the Gospel in the narrow sense, that is, of the glad tidings that Jesus Christ is come into the world to save sinners.

Our Lutheran Confessions follow the Bible in using the term Gospel now in the wide, now in the narrow sense. That explains the statement which occurs in them, viz.: “The Gospel preaches repentance.” You will have to note this fact in order to understand our thesis correctly: a commingling of Law and Gospel takes place when the Gospel of Christ, that is, the Gospel in the narrow sense, is turned into a preaching of repentance.

In the Apology, Art. XII, § 29 (Mueller, p. 171; Trigl. Conc., p. 258), we read: “For the sum of the Gospel is comprehended in these two parts: First, it tells us to amend our lives, thus denouncing every one as a sinner. In the second place, it offers forgiveness of sin, everlasting life, salvation, every blessing, and the Holy Spirit through Christ, by whom we are born again.”

It is quite evident that in this passage Melanchthon is using the term Gospel in the wide sense. Luther does the same in ever so many places throughout his writings, whenever he speaks of the Gospel’s reproving men. But when he teaches what the Gospel really is, he speaks of nothing but consolation, mercy, forgiveness of sins; in short, of what the Gospel in the narrow sense proclaims.

Lest you think that Melanchthon, who is not always absolutely to be trusted, used a faulty diction even in our Confessions, let me submit another citation from the Apology, Art. XII, §§ 53.54 (Mueller, p. 175; Trigl. Conc., p. 264): “Accordingly, the entire Scriptures urge these two doctrines. The one is the Law, which reveals our misery and reproves sin. The other doctrine is the Gospel; for the promise of God, when He offers grace through Christ, the promise of grace, is repeated again and again throughout the Scriptures ever since the days of Adam. For at first the promise of grace, or the first Gospel, was given to Adam in these words: ‘I will put emnity,’ etc. Afterwards promises concerning the same Christ were made to Abraham and the patriarchs; later it was preached by the prophets, and lastly the same promise was preached among the Jews by Christ Himself when He had come into the world, and finally it was spread among the Gentiles throughout the world by the apostles. For by faith in the Gospel all patriarchs and all the saints since the beginning of the world have been made righteous in the sight of God, not on account of their contrition or sorrow or any other work.”

From this statement you can see that when Melanchthon, a few pages previous, says: “First, the Gospel says: Amend your lives,” he uses the term Gospel in the wider sense, referring to the tidings of grace together with the preaching of the Law, and vice versa. But in the last-quoted passage he speaks of “both parts” as contrasted with one another, naming the two doctrines into which the entire Scripture is divided.

It is not only extremely dangerous, but actually harmful to the souls of men for a minister to preach in such a manner as to lead men to believe that he regards the Gospel in its narrow and proper sense as a preaching of the Law and of the anger of God against sinners, calling them to repentance. Not to be cautious about the terms he uses is a great and serious fault even in a preacher whose personal faith may be correct. Accordingly, the Lutheran Church has from the beginning watched a speaker closely who was wont to say: “The Gospel is a preaching of repentance,” to see whether he was speaking of the Gospel in the wide or in the narrow sense. When Melanchthon published the Altered Augsburg Confession, he was looked upon with suspicion because of the new exposition he gave of this matter. He was immediately taken to task by Flacius, who never took false teaching lightly. Melanchthon receded from his position and admitted that he had indeed used inadequate, in fact, wrong terms. This was satisfactory to Flacius, who did not wish to quarrel about terms, since heresy is not so much in the terms one uses as in the matter which one teaches, although the terms are not to be treated as an indifferent matter. When using terms that do not correctly express a certain thought, we are not heretics, but careless speakers. Accordingly, Flacius did not rush at Melanchthon, exclaiming: “For God’s sake, look what you have done!”

The first to teach entirely false doctrine on this point was John Agricola, the antinomian fanatic. He was an untrustworthy, utterly careless person, who misused the Gospel. He was conceited to a high degree, but he was a learned man. During an illness which every one thought would prove fatal he remarked facetiously: “You cannot kill weeds.” He started out to gather prestige for himself when Luther began to preach stern Law sermons to secure sinners. He imagined that Luther had fallen away from his own teaching of the blessed Gospel which he had proclaimed at a time when he had an entirely different audience, namely, people who had been utterly crushed by the Law. He thought the time had come for him to show that he was the Reformer. He published anonymously eighteen Propositiones inter Fratres Sparsas (“Theses Spread among Brethren”). They are found in the St. Louis edition of Luther’s Works, Vol. XX, 1624 ff.

Thesis XVIII reads: “For the Gospel of Christ teaches the wrath of God from heaven and at the same time the righteousness that is valid in the sight of God. Rom. 1, 17. For it is a preaching unto repentance, attached to God’s promise, which reason does not grasp by nature, but only by a divine revelation.”

Rom. 1, 18 the apostle starts a new section of his treatise. After announcing the subject of his epistle, he takes up the Law and in the second half of the first, in the entire second, and in the first half of the third chapter urges its claim. This part of his teaching he begins with the word: “The wrath of God from heaven,” etc. He declares that everybody carries in his own bosom the judge that condemns him and feels and observes everywhere the judgments of the holy and righteous God. After preaching the Law, the apostle takes up the Gospel. Now, Agricola interprets the apostle’s words as signifying that the wrath of God is manifested in the Gospel, taking Gospel in the strict sense of the term. He indulges in foolish talk when he calls the Gospel “a preaching unto repentance attached to God’s promise, which reason does not grasp by nature, but only by a divine revelation.” He declares that it cannot be understood, yet he undertakes to preach it to people who have as yet not been crushed. That is self-contradictory, — but that is what heretics always are.

Afterwards the Philippists, the followers of Melanchthon, took up Agricola’s teaching. Good Melanchthon could not keep his fanatical followers from declaring Agricola’s teaching exactly orthodox instead of saying, as Melanchthon had done, that he had used inadequate terms, which did not express his real meaning.

The worst of these fanatics was Caspar Cruciger the Younger. His father had been an excellent theologian, and Luther had at one time desired him to become his successor. But this son of old Cruciger did not turn out well; he wrote a treatise on justification in 1570 in which he said: “In this office [of the Gospel] God wants to terrify men by the preaching of repentance, which reveals both, all the sins that are set forth in the Law and this saddest of all sins which is really shown up in the Gospel, namely, the failure to know the Son of God and the contempt of Him.” (Disp. de Justif. Hom. [1570], Thes. 10. See Hutter’s Expl. Conc., p. 472.) Cruciger contrasts the Gospel with the Law and claims that the Law does not show us the worst sins, but that this is done by the Gospel. — Some thought that Agricola was not altogether wrong, because the Law has nothing to say about the faith which justifies a sinner; hence the sin of unbelief must be revealed in the Gospel. This, however, is only apparently so. The Gospel is the preaching of consolation. Though we must conclude that contempt of the Gospel is the most horrible sin, still it is not the Gospel that teaches it, but it is an inference drawn from the Gospel. Certainly I can, by inverting it, turn the most comforting doctrine into a comfortless one. No; it is the Law that reproves unbelief. Where? In the First Commandment, which signifies that “we are to fear, love, and trust in God above all things.” Unbelief, no matter in what relation it is viewed, is forbidden in the First Commandment. When I commit the sin of unbelief, I sin because I break the Law, which requires me to trust in God and believe His Word. The Gospel did not come into the world to reveal the sin of unbelief; this sin had been previously revealed by the Law.

This point you will have to bear in mind, or you cannot prevail against Antinomians.

Agricola’s error had also been espoused by Pezel, who wrote a treatise against Wigand, in which he said: “The Gospel in the strict sense contains the sternest threatening and reproves sin, namely, the sin of unbelief, of refusing to know the Son, of despising the anger of God, and finally, of despair.” (Adversus Wigandum. Comp. Hutter’s Explic. Cond., p. 472.) It is gross nonsense when he says in this connection that the Law has not a word to say that despair is sin. Are we not to love and trust in God? That excludes despair. Hence despair must be the most abominable and horrible sin. The Gospel does say: “Believe, and you shall be saved.” From this the inference can be drawn: “If I do not believe, I shall not be saved.” But this is because the Law requires me to believe. You must rivet this fact on your mind, so as not to be deluded by the claim of Antinomians, which is a most horrible case of commingling Law and Gospel, to which you must never lend your ears. When preaching the Gospel, you must not present it with a black cloud hovering over it, but proclaim free grace and unconditioned consolation. When we are in the agony of death, we must have a sound cable of which we may take hold. We must know that what we grasp is not the Law.

The Antinomians who opposed Luther may have been well-intentioned men, but they were Pharisees. In their pitiful blindness they imagined that they were helping the world by their teaching, while they deprived the world of its only means of rescue.

Paul Crell’s treatise against Wigand in 1571, may also be noted in this connection. He says: “Since the greatest and chief sin is revealed, reproved, and condemned only by the Gospel, it is, strictly speaking, the Gospel alone which is really and truly the preaching that calls for repentance or conversion in the true and proper sense.” (Disp. adversus Job. Wigandum, 1571. Comp. Hutter’s Explic. Conc., p. 471 f.)

Let us hear now what our Confessions say about this matter, which had become involved in many obscurities. By the Formula of Concord, harmony was to be restored also in this point of doctrine. It says, in the Epitome, Art. V, §§ 6. 7. 11 (Mueller, p. 535; Trigl. Conc., p. 803): “If the Law and the Gospel, likewise also Moses himself, as a teacher of the Law, and Christ, as a Preacher of the Gospel, are contrasted with one another, we believe, teach, and confess that the Gospel is not a preaching of repentance or reproof, but properly nothing else than a preaching of consolation and a joyful message, which does not reprove or terrify, but comforts consciences against the terrors of the Law, points alone to the merit of Christ, and raises them up again by the lovely preaching of the grace and favor of God, obtained through Christ’s merit.

“As to the revelation of sin, because the veil of Moses hangs before the eyes of all men as long as they hear the bare preaching of the Law and nothing concerning Christ and therefore do not learn from the Law to perceive their sins aright, but either become presumptuous hypocrites, who swell with the opinion of their own righteousness, like the Pharisees, or despair like Judas, Christ takes the Law into His hands and explains it spiritually. Matt. 5, 21 ff.; Rom. 7, 14. And thus the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all sinners, Rom. 1, 18, how great it is; by this means they are directed to the Law and then first learn from it to know aright their sins — a knowledge which Moses never could have forced out of them. …

“Accordingly we reject and regard as incorrect and injurious the dogma that the Gospel is properly a preaching of repentance, or reproof, and not alone a preaching of grace; for thereby the Gospel is again converted into a doctrine of the Law, the merit of Christ and Holy Scripture are obscured, Christians robbed of true consolation, and the door is opened again to the errors and superstitions of the Papacy.”

In view of the fact that Scripture does not always employ the term Gospel in the same sense, the Antinomians had ascribed to the Gospel in the strict sense something that could be ascribed to the Gospel only in the wide sense. We must bear in mind that there is also a Gospel which does not reprove sin, but affords the only comfort to sinners. When reading the Scriptures, we must be able to tell whether the term Gospel in a certain passage is intended in the wide or in the strict sense, and we must be particularly careful to find the passages where it is used in the latter meaning.

The same teaching that has been rejected by the Formula of Concord was embodied in the Interim (the compromise effected between the Evangelicals and the Romanists) and in the Decrees of the Council of Trent.

Next Friday we shall try to ascertain in which passages of Scripture the term Gospel is clearly used in the strict sense. This matter is quite important, especially for young preachers, if they are to learn how to express their thoughts correctly.

The great importance of this thesis becomes apparent when you reflect that a worse commingling of Law and Gospel than that which is censured in this thesis is not possible. Woe to the minister who by his manner of preaching leads his hearers to imagine that they are good Christians if they have ceased robbing and stealing, and that by and by they will get rid of any weakness still remaining in them. They turn the Gospel into Law because they represent conversion as a work of man, while genuine conversion, which produces a living faith in a person, is effected only by the Gospel.

This grossest form of commingling Law and Gospel is the most grievous fault of rationalists. The essence of their religion is to teach men that they become different beings by putting away their vices and leading a virtuous life, while the Word of God teaches us that we must become different men first, and then we shall put away our particular sins and begin to exercise ourselves in good works. The doctrine which proposes to make men godly by their own works is the doctrine of pagans, Reformed Jews, and Turks. It proposes to empty a great river of iniquity by continually dipping up pails of water from it and expecting to reach the bottom some time. If a river of iniquity is to be dried up, the evil source from which it springs must first be stopped up, and then pure water can be led into it. Rationalists love to cite the well-known saying: Genuine repentance is to quit doing what you have been doing. The saying can be used in a right sense and has been so used by our forefathers. They meant to say: “You people who boast of having the right faith while you lead wicked lives, hush your prating about faith; quitting what you have been doing, that is genuine repentance.” The meaning which rationalists connect with the saying is this: “Do not worry; what God requires of a true Christian is that he quit doing what he has been doing. That is genuine repentance.” That is the abominable teaching of moralists. The Christian religion gives us the correct teaching in one word: μετανοεῖτε, which means: “Change your mind” or as Luther translates correctly: “Repent.” (If he had rendered this word etymologically, in accordance with its derivation, he would have amazed his readers.) With this word the Lord confronts the sinner, telling him that, first of all, a change of his innermost self must take place. What He requires is a new mind, a new heart, a new spirit; not quitting vice and doing good works. By making this the primary requisite for being a Christian, He puts the ax to the root of the evil tree. Rationalism and Romanism prune the noxious tree, but for every branch which they cut off new branches sprout forth, all of them still noxious. A tree of this kind must be grafted; sound branches must be inserted into it if it is to bear different fruit.

In proof of what I have said let me submit a few Bible texts. John 3, 3 we read: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus had approached the Lord with the statement: “Rabbi, we know that Thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that Thou doest except God be with him.” He expects, of course, that the Lord will be pleased with such a statement from a Pharisee and will say to him: “That is excellent. Continue as you have begun.” But not a word of this. Jesus slams the door of heaven shut in Nicodemus’s face and practically says to him: “I see you wish to curry favor with Me by flattery. But if you are still in your old mind, you cannot enter heaven. You will have to become a different being, you will have to be born again.” Now Nicodemus reveals his mind by exclaiming: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” But the Lord repeats His previous statement and enlarges upon it: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The Lord meant to say: “All that you undertake to do while still in your carnal nature is sin; you must become spiritual before genuine spiritual fruits will begin to show themselves in your life.”

Matt. 12, 33 we read: Either make the tree good and his fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by his fruits. Plant a good tree, and it will bear good fruit; plant a corrupt tree, and it will bear corrupt fruit. This means: Unless a person is completely changed, unless he has become a new creature, has been born anew, with a new mind, all his doings will be corrupt fruit; for by nature every man is a corrupt tree.

Matt. 15, 13 our Lord says: “Every plant which My heavenly Father hath not planted will be rooted up.” Those works only which God has wrought are good. Any work which a person has produced by the power of his reason and natural will is a plant that will have to be rooted up. God will not recognize it, but demand that it be removed out of His sight as a sin and an abomination, because it has sprung from a corrupt heart, a heart that cares nothing for God. It is polluted water, flowing from a stinking fountain. True Christians know full well and need not be told that this is so: no matter what they do, even if it be ever so beautiful a performance, they are aware that it was not right, since they did not do it from love of God and their fellow-men, but in a mechanical fashion or because they wished to show off their Christianity. A Christian is quick to discern whether any work of his has been planted by God or by Adam. Any person still unable to discern this may know that he has not yet experienced μετάνοια, a change of heart, and that the Holy Spirit is not yet in him. The moment the Holy Spirit has entered into him, he cannot do a thing because he wishes to comply with a demand of the Law but the Spirit will promptly inform him that the deed is worthless. He may give some one a thousand dollars, and the Spirit will urge him immediately to examine himself whether or not he was prompted toward his generous act by love of God or his fellow-man. If not, he will be told that his deed is worthless in the sight of God, nothing but sham, and that the blessing of God does not rest upon it.

Jeremiah writes, chap. 4, 3: Thus saith the Lord to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground and sow not among thorns. A remarkable declaration! We know its meaning well enough. Sowing wheat into ungrubbed land, soil still covered with brushwood, will not yield a harvest worth while. We must first clear the ground, remove all scrub growth, cut down the trees, or at least thin the forest sufficiently to give the sprouting seed the necessary air. That is a picturesque description of conversion. A person must first be given a new heart in conversion, and into this new heart the seed of every good work may then be sown.

1 Cor. 13, 3 the apostle says: Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though 1 give my body to be burned and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. This remarkable passage has a particular bearing on our thesis. What is all-important are not the works themselves, but the love from which they proceed. I may be so abjectly poor that I am not able to do anything, and yet, in God’s estimate I may abound in good works, if, while I am suffering poverty according to the will of God, love awakens in me the desire to do good unto all men. God takes the will for the deed. All depends on our inward love, not on our external works. Before his conversion, Paul was, “as touching the Law,” without reproach; nobody could profer a charge against him. Still he declared all his old righteousness to be dung. This does not apply to his really good works; for concerning them he says that he will receive a great reward of mercy for them.

Rom. 14, 23 Paul says: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. This momentous statement corroborates the declaration of the apostle quoted above that even surrendering one’s body to the flames is worthless if the act does not spring from love, hence from faith; for love does not enter a person’s heart except through faith. How blind, then, must a preacher be who proposes to make men godly by urging them to do good works! A person must first become godly before he can perform good works.

Even believing pastors may, without being aware of it, slip into a horrible commingling of Law and Gospel, not so much in their sermons as in their private ministrations and in the exercise of church discipline. Many pastors and congregations make mistakes in applying church discipline. They may be dealing with a drunkard who readily professes sorrow over his sins, as these people usually do. An inexperienced minister is easily deceived by such a profession. The drunkard may be suspended from church membership and placed under surveillance for three months. Presently some brother brings the good news that the drunkard has kept himself sober all that time, and the minister decides that the drunkard is now converted, while in reality he is still quite a godless person. Beware of being deceived thus! The same may happen when a habitually profane person who has been admonished by the congregation quits cursing for a while. Or take the case of a person who is negligent in church attendance, who, therefore, certainly is not a Christian. After he has been brought before the congregation he may come to church for several successive Sundays. But does this outward act alone make him a Christian? By no means; any godless person is able to do what such a one is doing. The aforementioned persons must be made to realize that no Christian acts like them; if he does, he cannot possibly be in a state of grace. But it requires labor on the part of the minister till these persons are reborn by the Word of God. If he is unwilling to perform this labor, he neglects the souls of such persons. — Or take the case of tardy communicants who will come to the Sacrament once again after the minister has reproved them. If he is satisfied with that, he is guilty of commingling Law and Gospel. Or take the sin of avarice. A congregation may be so stingy as to refuse to take up a collection; it may fail to pay the pastor his salary. In that case the pastor must not resolve to preach his people a sharp sermon in order to open their purses. Opening purses by means of the Law is no achievement at all. He must preach in a manner that will rouse them out of their spiritual sleep and death. If he does not do that, he falls under the censure of our sixteenth thesis.

On John 3, 3, which I just cited, Luther comments as follows (St. L. Ed. VII, 1854): “Our doctrine, then, denounces all works as worthless and futile if the person doing them has not been born again. [Mark you: this is not Pietism, as some orthodox preachers falsely termed it, but Christianism.] For this reason we consider this the principal part of the instruction which people must be given regarding the new birth: they must first be told that they are all spiritually dead and that any good that may be in their way of living, their monastic order, their fasting, and any other practise, will not help them a whit to obtain forgiveness of sins, until they are born again and made new creatures.” Remember, if you do not tell your people this truth, if you do not wield this trusty weapon in your ministry, you will gather about you a congregation of none but legalistic Pharisees.

“Let us now hear what this new birth must be like. We base our teaching concerning it on the fact that Christ twice affirms it by an oath, saying: ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again,’ etc. He means to say: You must not imagine, Nicodemus, that you will be saved because you are an honest, pious man. True, we are to lead an honest, decent, and peaceable life in this world. If we fail to live thus, Master Hans the Hangman will come along with his sword and noose and will enforce the commandments which you have broken by putting you where you can no longer break them, thus teaching you that, if you will not obey, you will have to suffer. But your good works are worthless when you begin to put this estimate on them, that they are to earn heaven for you. For these works, this goodly conduct, gain for you merely a proper living here in time and keep you out of the executioner’s hands and from the gallows or from being expelled from your house and home and being separated from your wife and children. Thus, the fact that you are an honorable citizen of Jerusalem secures your life, honor, and distinction in this city. But if you wish to get to heaven and into the Church and kingdom of Christ, you must understand that you will have to become a new man. You must consider yourself an unborn infant, who is not only unable to do a single good work, but has not even attained to life and being as yet. That is what Christians preach. The Christian doctrine teaches us that we must first become different people, that is, we must be born again. How is this done? By the Holy Spirit and by the water of Baptism. After I have been born again and have been made godly and God-fearing, I begin a new life, and what I do now, in my regenerate state, is good. If Adam had remained in the state of innocence in which he had been created, he could have spent his life doing anything he pleased: fishing for trout, catching robins, or planting trees. All his doings would have been good and holy works, and there would have been no sin in them. Eve would have nursed and tended her babies, and her works, too, would have been altogether precious and good. For her person had been created good, upright, pure, and holy, and hence all her works, her eating and drinking and everything would have been right and good. But now that man has strayed into sin and fallen from his first estate, nothing that he does is good; he sins in all that he does, even when he prays; for he does everything as a sinner. Whatever he does is wrong, even when he fasts and prays, leads the strict life of a Carthusian, puts on a monk’s garb, and goes barefoot. All these things are sin because the person is evil, not having been born again; and nothing that such a person does avails him [before God].

“Accordingly, Christ tells Nicodemus practically this: I am come to preach a different doctrine about the way how to become good: you must be born again. This doctrine has been written into the Scripture aforetime, but you do not read it, or if you read it, you do not understand it; to wit, that in order to do good works a person must be born again; for sinners, being corrupt themselves, cannot but beget more sinners. Matt. 7 the Lord says: If the tree is corrupt, it does not bear good fruit. Thistles do not bear figs nor thorns, grapes.”

Luther insists that in a regenerate person everything that he does is God’s work. Even when he treats himself to a hearty meal, eats or sleeps, he is doing a good work, not only when he engages in hard labor. A servant of the Law may slave and slave, but all his activities are a martyrdom that is preparing him for perdition. A Christian has the right mind in all that he does; therefore all his actions are God pleasing. From a pure fountain nothing but good, sweet water can flow.

Luther’s reference to the monastic life in this connection means that, when a monk became a believer, all his doings, also his wearing of a friar’s cloak, became good, because he was then acting from a right motive, being convinced that God wished him to serve in his calling.

Also the Old Testament is full of this teaching, that men must obtain a new heart and a new spirit, that their hearts must be circumcised before they can be acceptable to God. The gist of all this teaching is that Christ wants to make us godly from the root upward.

Let me give you another testimony of Luther from his Sermon on the Liberty of a Christian Man, of the year 1520. This is the treatise which Luther dedicated to the Pope. He undertook to enlighten the Pope and told him the truth in an amazing fashion. Luther, you know, was not afraid of men, not even of the devil. During his exile at the Wartburg he was one day startled by a terrible racket, as if a hundred thousand barrels were being hurled downstairs. He exclaimed, “What is the matter?” but checked himself immediately, saying: “Ah, it’s you, devil! If I had known that, I should not even have stepped out of my room.” Any other person would have been seized with a deadly fright at the thought that he was heing harassed by the devil, but Luther treated the devil with contempt, knowing that he is a haughty spirit, to whom nothing is more intolerable than contempt.

Luther writes (St. L. Ed. XIX, 1003 f.): “Good and pious works never produce a good and pious person; but a good and pious person produces good and pious works. In every instance the person must first be good and pious before he can do any good work. Good works follow, and proceed from, a pious and good person, as Christ says, Matt. 7, 18: ‘A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.’ Now it is evident that fruits do not bear the tree, nor does the tree grow on the fruit, but the reverse — trees bear fruits, and fruits grow on trees. As there must be trees before there can be fruits, and as the fruits do not make the tree either good or corrupt, but the tree produces the fruits, even so man must first be either good or corrupt before he does good or corrupt works. His works do not make him either good or corrupt, but he does either good or corrupt works.

“We observe this in all the crafts. A good or a bad house does not make a good or a bad carpenter, but a good or bad carpenter builds a good or bad house. No work produces a master corresponding to it, but as the master, so his work. Man’s works come under the same rule; according as man is either a believer or an unbeliever, his works are either good or evil, not vice versa, so that he would be godly and a believer according to his works. Since works do not make men believers, they do not make him godly either. But faith, which makes men godly, likewise produces good works.”

These are matters which are readily understood by us now, but before Luther could sing a song like this, he had to pass through many severe conflicts. It is surprising that as early as 1520 he was able to picture the relation of works to faith as he does in the passage which I have cited.

Young ministers who are still without great experience frequently make this mistake. They desire to make an impression on their people and rouse them out of their natural security. They imagine that, in order to prevent hypocrites from regarding themselves as Christians, they cannot raise the demands which they make upon those who are Christians too high. However, here is a point where the minister must be careful not to go beyond the Word of God, or by reason of his zeal he will inflict awful harm on the souls of his hearers. Alas! Christians are in many respects quite different from the descriptions, bona-fide descriptions, at that, which are given of them in sermons. The minister wants to rouse his people and warn them against self-deception. However, that cannot be his ultimate aim. His ultimate aim must be to lead his hearers to the assurance that they have forgiveness of sins with God, the hope of the future blessed life, and confidence to meet death cheerfully. Any one who does not make these things his ultimate aim is not an evangelical minister. For this reason he must be careful, for God’s sake, not to say: “Any one who does this or that is not a Christian,’ unless he is quite sure of his ground. Frequently a Christian may act in a very unchristian manner.

Rom. 7, 18 Paul says: I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not. It is plain that in this passage the apostle describes a Christian. How a person becomes a Christian he had described before. Next, he proceeded to show how a Christian ought to walk and to please God. In the section of his epistle from which the above passage is taken he begins to discuss the doctrine of spiritual tribulations in which Christians frequently are merged, in order to comfort them. He describes a Christian as a double being. The true Christian, he says, always desires what is good, but frequently he does not accomplish it. Now, then, if a preacher describes a Christian in such a manner as to deny that, unless he accomplishes all that is good, he does not really will what is good, the description is unbiblical. To will what is good is the main trait of a Christian. Frequently he does not progress beyond the good will to do something. Before he is aware of it, he has gone astray; the sin within him has come forth, and he is ashamed of himself. But for that reason he has not by any means fallen from grace.

Rom. 7, 14 Paul says: For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. He means to say: “Who would not gladly be rid of sin? As for me, I am like a slave sold to a master. I cannot get away from him; I am always being tyrannized by him.’ That is the condition of a Christian: he feels like a slave, with this difference, however, that he does not obey his master gladly as a Christian slave must obey. He renders obedience with the utmost reluctance. Accordingly, the apostle cries in v. 24: “O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?’ Remember this, partly for your own comfort, partly for the task of comforting the members of your future congregation. The prevailing spiritual malady of our time is lack of assurance on the part of Christians. This is because they are not given any reliable teaching. Now, when a real Christian is shown what a miserable sinner he is, he clings to Christ all the more firmly and spurns the whispering of the devil, who tells him that he is fallen from grace and has lost God.

Phil. 3, 12 Paul says: Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect; but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. In this life we follow after, but we do not apprehend. It may seem to a Christian that there were times when he was holier and could overcome sin better. That may actually have been the case, and his present condition may be due to his spiritual retrogression. But the correct explanation of his present state may also be this, that he sees much more plainly now what a frail being he is. A young Christian may imagine that his heart at that particular moment is altogether pure, that he has forsaken the world, and has heaven in his heart. But he is not aware of the ravenous beasts that lie in wait for him. When the sweetmeats of his spiritual childhood cease and tribulations arise for him, he imagines that he can no longer fight against sin as he used to do. The truth is, however, that he is being attacked much more violently than before and is more keenly aware of his sinful cravings.

Gal. 5, 17 the apostle writes: The flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. According to this text a minister has no right to denounce a person as an unchristian because he is not doing all that he should, as long as the person maintains that he does not will his imperfections. If he commits sin from weakness or in rashness, he can still be a Christian.

St. James writes, chap. 3, 2: For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man and able also to bridle the whole body. He means to say that there is no such things as a perfect man, and by the use of the pronoun we he includes himself, all the apostles, and all the saints in this estimate. A Christian sins not only in thoughts, desires, gestures, and words, but also in his actions, which makes it evident to all the world that he is still a poor, weak man.

Heb. 12, 1 we read: Wherefore, seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily beset us and let us run with patience the race that is set before us. According to this text a Christian is always putting away sin, which besets him continually. He cannot get it out of his heart, and it makes him so very sluggish. His conduct would be quite different, he would walk cheerfully with his God like a hero, if he did not have to lug his carnal mind with him.

Is. 64, 6 we read: We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. The prophet does not say: All righteousnesses of the natural man are as filthy rags, but: “all our righteousnesses.” Hence in God’s eyes the life of a true Christian cannot look very beautiful. If God would not spread the cloak of Christ’s righteousness over us, we should have to be eternally damned and lost, spite of the fact that we have become true Christians.

A text that requires no comment is Job 14, 4: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.

Ps. 32, 6 we read: For this shall everyone that is godly pray unto Thee in a time when Thou mayest be found. Immediately before this text the psalmist speaks of the forgiveness of sin. He says that it is just the genuinely godly people who need to pray every day for the forgiveness of sins.

But why spend much time searching the Scriptures for proof-texts? Our Savior taught all Christians to offer up this daily petition in the Lord’s Prayer: “Forgive us our trespasses.” Every day, then, puts a new burden of guilt on our heart and conscience. Now, to represent a Christian as he is not, namely, perfect, — one need not be a Methodist to do that, — or to enumerate marks of a true Christian which are not found in all Christians, means to misrepresent a Christian and will do infinite harm. For from such characterizations, Christians with a very live conscience will draw the conclusion that they are no Christians; the remarks of the minister, they say, have opened their eyes to their former delusion. This impression may become so firmly lodged in their hearts that nobody will be able to remove it. They torment themselves till their dying day with efforts to keep from falling into this or that sin, and still they commit it again and again. Therefore the minister must furnish Christians the proper remedy when they sin, namely, this, promptly to rise from their fall, provided their sin is not intentional; for an intentional sin would indeed drive the Holy Spirit from them. But a Christian learns by experience to sense danger; and when he has sinned, he feels himself urged promptly to seek his Father in heaven, confess his sin, and ask to be forgiven for Jesus’ sake. He also feels inwardly assured that he has been forgiven, and even if he has no such feeling, he will say with the poet: —

Oh, my faith shall e’er enfold Him,
Till I come where I behold Him,
Till my Bridegroom calls for me.

Some preachers describe the Christians as having nothing but pleasant feelings. Frequently I have observed this feature in your sermons. You will say: “Indeed, an unchristian is a miserable being. While serving the world and sin, he is pursued by furies.’ Now, that is not true. Many unchristians live without any qualms of conscience. “On the other hand,’ you will say, “a Christian — oh, what a happy being he is! He is free from all anxiety, free from doubt,’ etc. All this is not so. Thousands upon thousands of Christians are, on the contrary, filled with anguish and despondency and are continually fighting with themselves and crying: “Oh, wretched man that I am!’

In your sermons you like to treat subjects like these: “The blessed state of a Christian,” and the like. Well, do not forget that the blessedness of Christians does not consist in pleasant feelings, but in their assurance that in spite of the bitterest feelings imaginable they are accepted with God and in their dying hour will be received into heaven. That is indeed a great blessedness.

You can easily make a mistake here without being aware of it. You must resolve never to utter anything that is contradictory to the experience of Christians. You must search your own minds and imagine yourselves sitting among your hearers and listening to your own sermon. Suppose you were listening to another preacher, how would his question whether you are a Christians alarm you if the true state of a Christian were made contingent upon pleasant feelings and you would have to admit that you know of no such pleasant feelings? Now, is it not an awful experience for a pastor to write a sermon in condemnation of himself? to feel that he would be deadly frightened if some one were to preach to him what he purposes to preach to others? It is, indeed, proper that in your sermons you depict the happy moments which occasionally come to Christians when they are given a foretaste of their future bliss; but you must tell your hearers at the same time that these are merely passing moments in the lives of Christians, sun-rays which once in a while find their way into their hearts. If the description of such moments of bliss is given in a proper manner, it produces neither anguish and grief nor doubt regarding one’s being in the faith, but a heartfelt longing for an experience such as the preacher is describing. Especially such Christians as have fought their fight faithfully will feel that way. They lay prostrate in their spiritual distress and imagined that they were rejected by God, and, lo, then their heavenly Father was pleased to pour such celestial joy into their hearts that in their ecstasy they believed they were no longer on earth, but in heaven.

Furthermore, you must bear in mind that a Christian retains his natural temperament even after his conversion. A person with an irritable temper keeps that disposition, and it may frequently get the better of him. You must not say, then, that when a person becomes a Christian, he is turned from a bear into a lamb, in the sense that he is willing to take scolding and scorn from everybody and is always ready to forgive his fellow-men. On the contrary, a Christian often has great trouble in keeping down his temper, and frequently he cannot control it, and nobody can quiet him. He is completely in the power of his temperament. We must not think that if this person were to die that night, he would go to perdition. While a Christian who is critically inclined indulges that thought about his brother, that brother may be on his knees in his closet, pleading with God for forgiveness and for strength to subdue his wrathful temper. He may meet the Christian who has judged him so uncharitably the next morning and sincerely ask to be forgiven for his lack of self-control.

Frequently the Christian is pictured as patient as Job. The preacher will say: “You may take everything away from a Christian, and he will cheerfully say: ‘The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord’” (Job 1, 21), and the preacher may think that his remarks have been quite Biblical. Job did indeed say those words, but not all Christians say them. It is not consistent with truth to set up such a claim in a sermon. Many a Christian grows impatient in trouble. His impatience may become violent even over trifling matters. When he spiritually comes to again, as it were, he is ashamed of himself.

It cannot be said to be a criterion of a Christian that he never commits a gross sin. That does happen occasionally; but whenever this is the case, the Christian surrenders unconditionally to the Word of God, even though he may not do so immediately. He may at first be so blinded by the devil that he believes he is right. Finally, however, God’s Word convinces him that he was wrong, and then he humbly asks forgiveness, while a hypocrite persists as long as he can in the claim that he has done right.

Many preachers picture the Christian as a person who does not fear death. That is a serious misrepresentation, because the great majority of Christians are afraid to die. If a Christian does not fear death and declares that he is ready to die at any time, God has bestowed a special grace upon him. Some have expressed this sentiment before their physician told them that they would not live another night, but after that they were seized with a terrible fear.

Do not, for God’s sake, draw a false picture of a Christian; but whenever you have drawn the picture of a Christian, see whether you can recognize yourself in that picture.

Even pride in a very pronounced form can crop out in a Christian, and that is one of the worst vices, because it is a transgression of the First Commandment. By nature we are all proud; only one is more strongly inclined to that sin than another. Persons of a choleric temperament, possessing what is called a strong will and great energy, as a rule, have a great deal of self-confidence and expect others to show them reverential regard — a result of abominable pride. This sin sometimes crops out even in true Christians. Observe the disciples of the Lord quarreling with one another about who was the greatest among them. If this incident had not been recorded in the Bible, we could hardly believe that the apostles quarreled like children about their superiority and that the mother of Zebedee’s sons requested that one of them be placed at the right and the other at the left hand of the Lord. From the account in Luke we gather that the disciples were ill at ease during this quarrel because they knew that their conduct was shameful, and when the Lord rebuked them, they felt so deeply ashamed that they would have liked to hide themselves.

Again, it is wholly incorrect and false to picture the Christian as being always fervent in prayer and as if praying were his most cherished occupation. It is not so; it takes much struggling on the part of the Christian to make him fit for prayer, fervent in it, and confident that he will really obtain from God what he is praying for. That is the reason why the Lord’s Prayer, which is recited so often, has been called the greatest martyr on earth. Christians are no exception to the rule. True, if a person, as a rule, merely babbles the Lord’s Prayer, without knowing what he is saying, he is certainly not a Christian. A Christian who becomes aware of his lack of attention during prayer feels deeply humiliated and promptly starts the Lord’s Prayer over again. Though there are times when the Christians’ flesh and blood are forced into the background and they feel as if they were dissolving in happiness, as if they were in heaven and conversing with God, they nevertheless retain their natural flesh and blood.

Christians are even tempted with the desire to grow rich. Merchants, in particular, are in great danger of turning misers. If they were not warned and admonished, they would be dragged into perdition as if caught in a snare, and would be lost forever.

In judging any person, it is of decisive importance to know whether he loves the Word of God and his Savior or whether he is hardened and leads a shameful life. There are people who want to make a show of great sanctity by avoiding conversation, raising their eyes piously to heaven, citing Scripture continually, and reading their Bible in leisure hours, preferably in retirement, in order to impress people with their exemplary Christianity. By this show “the heavenly prophets” succeeded in deceiving good Melanchthon. We must not think that only those are true Christians who make a display of godliness. I do not assert that every one of these people is an unchristian, but I am sure that such as are wholly given to the aforementioned practises are miserable hypocrites. Read the gospels and note how the disciples conversed with the Lord and how they acted in His presence. They expressed their minds plainly, even John, the beloved disciple. Christ did not for that reason denounce them as unconverted, but treated them as converted people who, however, still carried a pretty vigorous portion of the Old Adam with them.

You may, in your sermons, refer to actions of strong or exceptionally faithful Christians. It will not harm your hearers to think that they have not yet attained to such a degree of faithfulness; it will rather prove an incentive to them to make better progress in their Christianity.

When new members are to be received into the congregation and you have to talk to them, you must not regard them as godless, unconverted people if they do not immediately engage in a religious conversation with you. There are people who cling to their Savior, but are unable to talk much about their faith, although on other topics they may be ready talkers. Others, again, may not have much experience as regards spiritual affairs and for that reason may not be able to say much.

In conclusion let me submit a citation from Luther’s Church Postil. He says (St. L. Ed. XII, 911 ff.): “That explains why St. Paul admonishes his Christians to such an extent as to make it appear as though he were overdoing it; for in all his epistles he is so determined about inculcating these matters upon them as if they were so stupid and ignorant, so inattentive and forgetful, that of themselves they did not know them and would not do them, but only on being told and urged to do them. He knows that, although Christians have made a beginning of faith and are at that stage where they are to show forth the fruits of their faith, still they have not yet done so, nor have they finished their task. Accordingly, it will not do to think and say that it is sufficient to preach the doctrine to them and that, where the Spirit and faith are at work, the fruits of faith and good works will follow of themselves. For though the Spirit is present and, as Christ says, operates in believers and makes them willing, still the flesh, on the other hand, is also present, and the flesh is always weak and tardy; moreover, the devil never rests, but tries, by tribulations and temptations, to cause the Christian to slip and fall because of the weakness of his flesh, etc.

“For this reason we must not treat our hearers as if they were in no need of being admonished and urged by God’s Word to lead a godly life. Beware of negligence and laziness in discharging this duty! For the flesh is slothful enough to obey the spirit, as Paul says, Gal. 5, 17: ‘The flesh lusteth against the spirit, … so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.’ Therefore God must act like a good and diligent manager of an estate or magistrate who has a lazy servant or slothful officials under him, although in other respects they are not unfaithful or wicked. Such a one must not think that, when he has issued one or two orders, the task that he wants done is accomplished; he must be continually after his workmen and urge them to do their work.

“Likewise, we have not yet reached the point where our flesh and blood would be active and leap forward with sheer joy and delight to do good works and obey God, such as our spirit desires and our faith demands; on the contrary, with all our incessant urging and prodding we can scarcely get them to move. What would happen if we were to quit our admonitions and our urging and assume — as many secure spirits do — that everybody knows well enough what he has to do, having heard his duties recited to him so many years and having even taught them to others, etc.? I believe that, if preaching and admonition were to cease for a year, we should become worse than the worst heathen.”

You will observe that I am speaking of the claim that the universal corruption of mankind embraces living in dominant and wilful sins on the part of believers. No one who is conversant with the pure doctrine will make the unqualified assertion that a Christian can be a fornicator and an adulterer. Such a thought would not enter the mind of a true teacher of the Word of God. but a preacher trying to give a very drastic description of the universal corruption of mankind is easily tempted to deviate from the pure doctrine. I am speaking of mistakes that are frequently made by zealous ministers and also by theological students. In their first sermons submitted for review they quite frequently say that all mankind lives in this or that sin, mentioning manifest sins unto death as though Christians also were living in sins of that kind. What damage can be done when people are made to hear that we human beings are living in every abomination, shame, and vice, without the qualifying statement: “as we are by nature” or “as long as a person is still in the state of natural depravity and is unregenerate.” With these qualifiers, of course, you cannot overdraw the horrible qualities of man’s natural condition. However, when addressing a Christian congregation, you will have to be very careful not to speak as if also all Christians were living in shame and vice. It was a harmful and dangerous attempt on the part of the Pietists to divide mankind into so many classes that nobody was able to tell in which class he belonged. But this must not keep us from pointing out in our sermons the two great classes into which mankind is really divided, viz., believers and unbelievers, godly and ungodly, converted and unconverted, regenerate and unregenerate persons. This classification is current throughout the Scriptures. Christ always preached: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16, 16. “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” Matt. 9, 13. God “maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Matt. 5, 45. In each one of these texts Christ recognizes only two classes of human beings. Matt. 13, 38 He speaks of “the children of the Kingdom” and “the children of the Wicked One,” of wheat and tares. This thorough division, this aut-aut, either-or, must appear in every sermon of a sincere preacher. This is what your hearers must learn, viz., that they are either spiritually dead or spiritually alive, either converted or unconverted, either under the wrath of God or in a state of grace, either Christians or unchristians, either asleep in sin or quickened unto a new life in God, subjects in either the devil’s or God’s kingdom. It is a damnable heresy to speak of Hades, as modern theologians do, where man will have another chance to be converted. Incalculable harm is done by this doctrine. May God keep you from embracing it!

Make plain to your hearers in all your sermons that there are but two goals at the end of this life — heaven and hell. There will be only two sentences pronounced on men, either unto damnation or unto eternal life. Accordingly, there are only two classes of men in the present life; those of the one class are headed direct for hell, those of the other, straight for heaven. For Christ says distinctly: “Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Matt. 7, 13–14. There are but two gates, two roads, and two terminals. To confound the two classes of men that are concerned in these two ways is an abominable mingling of Law and Gospel. The Law produces reprobate sinners, the Gospel free and blessed men.

Although the matter is as clear as daylight, still, since it is so easy, when one pictures “what abominable sinners we are who need the Savior,” to fall into error in spite of our good intention, let us hear a few Bible-texts on this subject. When you speak of “abominable” sinners, you must not refer to Christians, in whom we find, on the one hand, weaknesses, which are covered with the righteousness of Christ, and, on the other hand, good deeds, which God does through them and which are pleasing to Him. Every Christian may apply to himself the declaration of God: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matt. 3, 17.

Rom. 6, 14 we read: For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the Law, but under grace. What the apostle actually says in this text is that sin shall not be able to dominate Christians. It is absolutely impossible that a person who is in a state of grace should be ruled by sin. A pilgrim traveling on a lonely road, when attacked by a highway man, escapes from him at the first opportunity. He does not want to be overcome and slain. Christians are pilgrims through this world on their way to heaven. The devil, like a highway robber, assaults them, and they go down before him because of their weakness, not because they meant to go down. To a true Christian his fall is forgiven because he turns to God in daily repentance with tears or at least heartfelt sighings for pardon. If a person allows sin to rule him, this is a sure sign that he is not a Christian, but a hypocrite, no matter how pious he pretends to be.

I Cor. 6, 7–11 we read: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. No one, then, who falls into the aforementioned sins and fails to repent of them shall inherit the kingdom of God. The Christian’s repentance shows itself in this, that he desires to commit these sins no more. Whoever commits these sins intentionally has, by that token, a proof that he is not a Christian, but a reprobate, who is moved, not by the Spirit of God, but by the hellish spirit.

2 Pet. 2, 20–22 the apostle writes: For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb. The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire. With this important passage we confront the Calvinists, in particular, who say that a person who has once obtained faith can never lose it. The Apostle Peter is here speaking of persons who had been children of God, had had a living knowledge of the Lord Jesus, and had been in a state of divine grace. How, then, can any one be so bold as to assert that a person who had been truly converted, stays converted even when, like Peter and David, he falls into some particular sin?

Rom. 8, 13. 14 we are told: If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. The apostle does not say: “Never mind your sinning. God will keep you in His grace and bring you around again”; but he says: “If you live after the flesh, you shall die. As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” That means, per contra, that those who are not led by the Spirit of God, but by their flesh, are not the children of God, but servants of Satan.

Gal. 5, 19–21 Paul writes: Now, the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, sedition;, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like; of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in times past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Stop and consider this passage. In view of this text, is it not shocking in men who want to pass for Christian theologians to say that men can be in a state of grace while living in abominable sins such as are named in this text? This text locks the kingdom of God against them and announces to them the judgment of God.

Eph. 5, 5–6 the same apostle writes: For this ye know, that no whoremonger nor unclean person nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words; for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. The apostle’s warning, “Let no man deceive you,” means: Do not listen to those who tell you the contrary. Unbelievers will be damned for the reason that they live in sins like the above. Consider, then, that, if you were to live in the same sins, you would share their fate in perdition. — This Paul asks the Ephesians to ponder.

I wish to call your attention to the fact that passages like those which I quoted, are found in the pericopes. They should prove valuable to you when you use them for a lively presentation of the doctrine now under discussion. I am always pained when I attend church and find that these splendid texts are not used for the sermon. You ought to form the resolution that, when the particular time for a pericope containing these texts arrives, you will expound them to your hearers and tell them that, as God lives, they will be damned if they live in this or that sin. If you only tell them that Christians remain sinners until they die, you will frequently be misunderstood. Some will lull themselves to sleep with the reflection that they are poor and frail human beings, but that they have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, — however, a lip faith.

Let me urge upon you in general to take a survey of the pericopes on which you are going to preach and to note beforehand particular passages that suggest subjects to you on which you feel you ought to preach. If you wait till Wednesday or Thursday with looking up the pericope for the coming Sunday and after a superficial reading decide on some topic which will yield you eight pages of manuscript, sufficient for a talk of forty-five minutes, you act like an abominable hireling. A faithful pastor begins on Sunday evening to consider the subject of his sermon for the coming Sunday and determines fully to redeem the precious minutes during which he will face his congregation. The only thing that will keep him from following this practise is a visit he has to make or receive on Sunday evening. He delights in storming now this, now that stronghold of the devil. True, he will not achieve the overthrow of every one of these strongholds, but it must be his earnest intention to do so; otherwise many will continue in their spiritual misery under sin, and he will have himself to blame for it. If you do what divine grace enables you to do, the Savior will not put you to shame on account of your deficiencies, but will graciously reward you in the end with the crown of glory. To strengthen the conviction which I am trying to produce in you, let me cite a testimony from the Smalcald Articles, Part III, Art. 4, §§ 42–43 (Mueller, p. 319; Trigl. Conc., p. 491): “On the other hand, if certain sectarists were to arise, some of whom are perhaps already extant, and in the time of the insurrection of the peasants came under my own observation, holding that all those who had once received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins or had become believers, even though they should afterwards sin, would still remain in the faith and such sin would not harm them, and hence crying thus: ‘Do whatever you please; if you believe, it all amounts to nothing; faith blots out all sins,’ etc., — they say, besides, that, if any one sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit of faith: I have had before me, seen and heard, many such insane men, and I fear that in some such a devil is still remaining.

“It is, accordingly, necessary to know and teach that, when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins [mortal sins, which everybody recognizes as such], as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Spirit has departed from them. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand, so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it, so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are certainly not present. For St. John says, First Epistle 3, 9: ‘Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, … and he cannot sin.’ And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, First Epistle 1, 8: ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.’ ”

Now, lest you think that we are vainly arguing about self-evident matters and to prove that the Calvinists have received into their doctrinal system the error rejected in our thesis, I wish to cite from the decrees of the Synod of Dort the following statement: “God, who is rich in mercy, according to His immutable purpose of election, does not wholly remove the Holy Spirit from His own even when they sin grievously, nor does He permit them to fall entirely out of the grace of adoption as children of God and out of the state of justification.” Now, any one who falls into a mortal sin slips back entirely into the state of sin. According to the confession of the Reformed, then, Peter, David, and others were justified sinners while they committed mortal sins, remained in a state of grace as children of God, and retained the Holy Spirit. This we reject, while we indeed assert that the elect cannot until their death remain in a reprobate state, otherwise they could not be elect.

Unless you ponder the highly important matter now before us well, you will lack much of the clear vision that you ought to have for the proper discharge of the ministerial office.

We have already seen that a distinction must be made between mortal and venial sins. A person failing to make this distinction does not rightly divide Law and Gospel. But the distinction between these two kinds of sin must be made with great care. It must be clearly shown that the distinction is made for the purpose of proving that certain sins expel the Holy Ghost from the believer. When the Holy Spirit is driven out, faith, too, is ejected; for no one can come to faith nor retain it without the Holy Ghost. Sins which expel the Holy Ghost and bring on spiritual death are called mortal sins. Any one who has been a Christian will readily perceive when the Holy Spirit has departed from him by his inability to offer up childlike prayers to God and to resist sin stoutly and bravely as he used to do. He will feel as if he had become chained to sin, like a slave. It is a good thing if he has at least this knowledge of his condition, for thus he may be brought back to God. But while this condition endures, he is not in communion with God.

Venial sins are termed such as a Christian commits without forfeiting the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They are sins of weakness or rashness; frequently they are called the daily sins of Christians.

While inculcating this distinction upon our hearers, we must be scrupulously careful not to create the notion in them that venial sins are sins about which a person need not be greatly concerned and for which he does not have to ask forgiveness. A preacher who leads his hearers to entertain this view becomes the cause of their perdition. He makes them carnally secure and drives the fear of God from their hearts. That is not the true evangelical way of preaching about these sins, nor is it, in general, a true evangelical notion that only he is a real evangelical preacher who does not preach the Law a great deal. Both the Law and the Gospel must be preached, the one in its sternness, the other in its sweetness. A preacher who does not preach both does not deserve the name of an evangelical minister, but is a false leader and is sowing the Gospel as if he were casting wheat into the ocean, where no crop can be raised. It happens only too often that preachers, when speaking of the distinction between venial and mortal sins, create the impression that to Christians venial sins are matters over which they need not worry. Since all are sinners and no one ever gets rid of sin entirely, there is no reason why one should feel disturbed because of these sins. A talk of that kind is really awful and ungodly.

Matt. 5, 18–19 the Lord says: Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break, one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. This is one of the most awful sayings found in Scripture. The Lord does not say: “He shall be the least,” but: “He shall be called the least.” “The least” means the most reprobate, or one whom God does not acknowledge as His own. That will be the sentence passed on him in the kingdom of God and Christ. Therefore you should with trembling approach the task of preaching both the Gospel and the Law. Do not speak of one jot of the Law, of one of the so-called least commandments, as of something about which a Christian need not be greatly concerned.

The connection in which the Lord uttered these words is worthy of note. In the words preceding them He states that He is come to fulfil the Law. Now, inasmuch as the Lord had to fulfil every law and every commandment in our stead, it is shocking in any man, poor, sinful worm that he is, to want to dispense with a single law of God and to treat it as a matter of no importance. Those who entertain notions of this kind are no Christians. If any man has manufactured for himself some secret comfort from this notion, he has miserably belied and cheated himself. Also in this matter a true Christian manifests himself as a person who fears to commit a single sin.

The Lord also speaks of a person “who shall teach men so.” It is bad enough when a person for his own part disregards some law and leads a careless life; but it is much worse when he preaches his lax views and leads men to perdition by his preaching. He will have to render an account to God of his preaching, and on that day he may not excuse himself by claiming that it was only trifling matters which he had represented as so unimportant that no one need grieve over them. A Christian grieves even over trifles, but unchristians imagine that they can “escape by iniquities,” Ps. 56, 7. [Luther: “What evil we do is already forgiven.”] That is the slogan of the wicked, just as it is the easy-going way of unconverted people to speak of their iniquities thus: “Well, I can easily make amends, and grass will soon grow over it.” No grass will ever grow over anything for which forgiveness has not been asked of God.

Matt. 12, 36 Christ says: I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the Day of Judgment. By a concrete example we are shown in this text how abominable it is to speak of sins which are in themselves venial and are automatically remitted by God, because He does not regard them as a great evil. Those who speak thus represent God, the Holy and Righteous, as a feeble, old man, like Eli, who saw his sons sin and merely said, “Nay, my sons!” I Sam. 2, 24, thinking that therewith he had done his full duty. True, God is Love, but He is also Holiness and Righteousness. To the person who rises up against Him God becomes a terrible fire, and His fiery wrath pursues the sinner into the lowest hell. Let men of the world ridicule and scorn this teaching, they will have to pay dearly for their laughter, like the people of Sodom, Gen. 19. Any evil word for which a sinner is tried on Judgment Day is sufficient for his condemnation. Now, is there a Christian who can say at the end of a day on which he has spoken much that he has not uttered a single idle word? Few Christians will be able to say that. Even for an idle word Christians must ask God’s pardon with a contrite heart and promise to guard their lips better in the future. If God were not to forgive their idle words, these alone would damn them. There is no sin venial in itself; but there are such sins as will not hinder a person from still believing in Jesus Christ with all his heart.

Jas. 2, 10 we read: Whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Let us assume that Scripture contained a thousand commandments. In reality there are more than a thousand, because those that have been recorded state only general principles, for which we are to find the applications. Now, according to this text, if a person had kept nine hundred and ninety-nine out of the thousand commandments, he would be guilty of the whole Law. That applies to every one of the so-called venial sins. Unless a Christian clearly understands this fact, he ceases to be a Christian. What constitutes a person a Christian is this believing knowledge, that he is, in the first place, a miserable, accursed sinner, who would be lost forever if Christ had not died for him; and that, in the second place, Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father in eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, has redeemed him, a lost and condemned creature, purchased and won him from all sins, from death and from the power of the devil. A Christian must regard himself as a lost and condemned sinner, or all his talk about faith is vain and worthless.

Gal. 3, 10 Paul writes: For as many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse; for it is written. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them. The curse recorded in this clear passage will descend on every one that does not continue to do all things that are written in the Book of the Law. Hence there can be no sin that is venial by its nature. Sins are venial only for Christ’s sake.

I John 1, 7 we read: The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin. The apostle says “from all sin,” not “from all mortal sins, all grievous sins, all gross sins.” Hence, the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, must have been required also for canceling the so-called venial sins. That being so, venial sins in themselves must also be mortal sins. Sin is something awful, because it is ἀνομία, lawlessness. It is rebellion against the holy, omnipotent God, our supreme, heavenly Lawgiver. When a sinner adds wilfulness to his act, he tears down the manifesto which a king has had posted in public and tramples upon it. In an unlimited monarchy the punishment for such a crime is death. We may not have torn down the Law of God publicly, but are daily acting contrary to it. For this we are to express our heartfelt regret. A true Christian is not like a brazen criminal who carries his head high; he is not hard-hearted, but contrite. If he is reminded of any word that God has spoken, he accepts it immediately with due humility. Anybody may utter a warning or a rebuke to a Christian, and it will be accepted. Occasionally he may resist for a moment and, as Luther puts it, allow the devil to ride him, but unless he is beside himself and for a while does not see that his conduct is unchristian and ungodly, he soon feels a fire burning in him, and it will not take long before he begs God and men for forgiveness. Without a broken spirit a person may talk ever so much about the Christian faith; it is all worthless, as he is in the power of sin. Let us, then, continue to believe that sin, no matter what its character may be, is never venial in itself. For anything that has been done contrary to the Law, the Law has to condemn the doer.

A cognate text is Matt.5, 21–22: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time. Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the Judgment. But I say unto you. That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the Judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire. Is there a Christian who need not blame himself for having been angry at his brother, even though it was not for a long time? It was done in weakness; nevertheless he has committed a sin of which he has to be ashamed. When Christ says: “He is in danger of the Judgment,” He treats anger and murder alike. The term “raca” signifies that anger in the heart breaks forth in angry words and gestures. It reaches its worst stage when the angry person cries, “Thou fool!’’ The Law promptly consigns such an angry person to hell-fire.

All these texts prove that the so-called venial sins are not venial in themselves, in their nature, but damnable, mortal sins. Only of the believer it is written: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,” Rom. 8, 1; but a believer is the very person who regards sin as a very serious matter.

Lest you imagine that no one could possibly preach this false doctrine concerning venial sins, let me cite what the papists teach in the Roman Catechism (II, 5, Qu. 46): “All mortal sins must be told to the priest. For venial sins, which do not separate us from divine grace and into which we fall rather frequently, may be properly confessed for a person’s ease of mind; … but they may also be withheld from the priest with impunity and may be atoned for in many different ways. Mortal sins, however, … must be rehearsed one by one; … for it is their nature to inflict a more grievous wound on the soul than those sins which men are in the habit of committing freely and publicly.” Here you have the anti-christian doctrine that no absolution is required for venial sins. It is naively expressed, but it reveals an abysmal iniquity and draws down upon the papists the sentence of the Lord: “He shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. 5, 19.

Over against this teaching Kromayer writes (Theol. posit.-polem. I, p. 511): “There is no sin that in its nature is venial. We must steer a middle course between the Roman Scylla and the Calvinistic Charybdis.”

Among venial sins the Romanists number sinful desires that do not materialize in acts. However, shameful libertines may not carry into action the abominable fantasies in which they delight while lying in their beds; they may shrink from executing them because of the notoriety that would follow, but they must be told that they are living in mortal sins. Trifles, such as stealing a pin, are treated by Romanists as venial sins. I remember that my parents impressed on us children that we must not even steal a pin. It is well if parents train their children to a scrupulous fear of the least wrong-doing, because it would be regarded as a serious matter by their father and might rouse his anger.

Let me cite a statement of Socius in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (p. 448): “It seems to be certain that in a person who otherwise confesses the faith of Christ with his heart one sinful act cannot have the effect of consigning him’ to eternal death. When we are told concerning sins unto death, the reference cannot be to a single sin, but to habitual sinning.” According to Socinian teaching we need not ask God’s forgiveness for an occasional sinful slip. Sin, according to this view, does not exclude a person from the kingdom of God unless it becomes a vicious habit.

Let me submit a few testimonies from the writings of Luther. I shall cite, first, a passage from his Exposition of the Theses Discussed at Leipzig (St. L. Ed. XVIII, 833 ff.). The second thesis which Luther maintained reads: “To deny that a person sins even in his good deeds, that venial sins are such not by their nature, but solely by the mercy of God, or that sin remains in an infant also after baptism, means to trample Paul and Christ under foot.” Luther comments on this thesis as follows: “Accordingly, it is another grievous error of the theologians that they manifest hardly any concern about venial sins and prate that a venial sin does not offend God, at least only to a pardonable degree. If venial sins are such trifling sins, why is it that even the righteous are scarcely saved? Why can the righteous not endure the judgment of God and be declared righteous? Why are we urged with such earnestness, and in no trifling or figurative sense, to pray: ‘Forgive us our trespasses; Thy will be done; Thy kingdom come; Hallowed be Thy name’? Is it not manifest that these miserable theologasters first extinguish the fear of God in men and then make soft pillows for people’s arms and heads, as Ezekiel says (chap. 13, 18), dispense them from this prayer, and quench the Spirit? Spite of all they may say, it is not a trifling matter to depart from the Law and will of God a hairbreadth, nor is the mercy of God which pardons venial sins a trifling matter. These people, then, treat the Law and the will and the mercy of God as something ineffectual, and the result is that the prayer of the righteous is not fervent, nor is their gratitude kindled. Let us beware of this pharisaical leaven!”

Again, Luther writes, in his exposition of the Theses Concerning Indulgences, against Tetzel, of the year 1518, in his comment on Thesis 76 (St. L. Ed. XVIII, 260): “Here I should have expatiated on venial sin, which is lightly regarded nowadays, as if it were not a sin at all, to the great harm of many people, I fear, who are securely snoring away in their sins and are not aware that they are committing gross sins. I confess that during all my reading of the scholastic teachers I have never understood what a venial sin is, nor how great it is. I do not know whether they understand these things themselves. I want to state briefly: Any person who is not in constant fear of being full of mortal sins and does not act accordingly, will scarcely be saved. For Scripture says, Ps. 143, 2: ‘Enter not into judgment with Thy servant.’ Not only venial sins, as they are nowadays called by everybody, but even good works cannot bear the scrutiny of God’s judgment, but are in need of pardoning mercy. For the psalmist does not say: Enter not into judgment with Thine enemy, but: ‘with Thy servant’ and Thy child that is serving Thee. This fear ought to teach us to sigh for the mercy of God and to trust in it. Where this fear is lacking, we trust not so much in the mercy of God as in our own conscience and in the fact that we are not conscious of having committed any gross sins. Such people will meet with a fearful judgment.”

Evangelical preaching means that sin must be magnified. The minister must pronounce a severe judgment on sin, for He is to proclaim the judgment of God. Also venial sins you must not regard lightly. You must remember that you sin so much every day that God would have to cast you into hell, but that He will not do it because you believe in Christ. Always remind yourselves that, if God were to deal with you according to His justice, you would belong in hell, not on a pleasant couch. You are to be in such fear and behave in such a way as if you were full of deadly trespasses. It is awful to hear one say nonchalantly: “Now my conscience is at ease.” It is certainly a pitiful condition for a person to be in, viz., to have an unconcerned conscience while the Word of God pronounces condemnation upon him.

Dannhauer, in his Hodosophia (p.195), uttered an important axiomatic truth by saying: “Sin is as great as He is who is offended by it.” Since God is offended by sin, there is in sin an immeasurable wickedness and an immeasurable guilt.

Finally, Christian experience also proves that in its nature no sin is venial. Any true Christian will tell you this to be his experience, that, as soon as he had sinned, he felt an unrest, which continued until he had asked God for forgiveness. In every true Christian the conscience promptly rings an alarm. A Christian merchant becomes restless over five cents in his receipts that do not belong to him. A Christian is reproved by his conscience for wrongdoing when he has treated a brother discourteously or in loveless fashion. For the slightest offense which he has given by his sinful conduct he apologizes, and he has no rest until he has done so. Is not that remarkable? It shows that venial sins, too, are something evil, a fire that may be kindled for our perdition. Small sins become great when they are regarded as small.

It seems strange, indeed, that after such a long time during which Rationalism and the greatest religious indifference were prevalent, men should have hit upon the doctrine that the visible Lutheran Church is the Church κατ᾽ ἑξοχήν outside of which there is no salvation. However, although this seems to be incomprehensible on first blush, it is easily explained by the prolific nature of error. The mother of the awful error which we are studying is the doctrine that the Church is a visible institute which Christ has established on earth, differing in no way from a religious state. Its governing offices are, indeed, not in the hands of kings, emperors, generals, and burgomasters, but in their place there are superintendents, bishops, church councils, pastors, deacons, synods, and the like. That this view is erroneous, every one who is at least somewhat conversant with God’s Word knows. Does not the Savior say: “Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? Matt. 16, 18. This rock is Christ. No one is a member of the Church except he who is built upon Christ. Being built upon Christ does not mean connecting oneself mechanically with the Church, but putting one’s confidence in Christ and hoping to obtain righteousness and salvation from Him alone. Whoever fails to do this is not built on this rock, hence is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Paul says to the Ephesians, chap. 2, 19–22: Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Corner-stone, in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. No one is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets who does not believingly cling to their word. Hence, no one is a member of the Church who is without a living faith.

The Savior calls Himself a Bridegroom. Let no one who is not betrothed to Christ with the innermost affection of his heart claim to be a true Christian and a member of the Church. As regards his relation to Christ, he is an alien; the Church, however, is the bride of Christ.

Again, Christ is called the Head of the Church. Hence only he can be a member of the Church into whom there flows from Christ, the Head, light, life, strength, and grace. Whoever is not in this spiritual connection with Christ has not Christ for his Head. Whoever is his own ruler and is not governed by Christ does not belong to the Church.

In another place the apostle calls the Church the body of Christ. This has prompted many even of the most faithful Lutherans to say that, since a body is visible, the Church, too, must be visible. But that is an abominable piece of exegesis. The point of comparison (tertium comparationis) in the aforementioned phrase is not the visibility of the Church, but that, instead of being composed of many dead instruments, it is a vital organism of members in whom one faith and one energy of faith is pulsating. This proves beyond contradiction that the Church is not visible, but invisible. Only he is a member of the Church who experiences the constant outflowing of energy from Christ, the Head of the Church.

Again, Christ calls the Church His flock. Hence no one is a member of the Church who does not belong to the flock of Christ, is not one of His sheep, pastured by Him and obeying His voice.

The objection is raised that Christ compares the Church to a field in which wheat and tares are growing. But the objection is owing to a wrong interpretation of the parable. Christ has given us the key that unlocks its meaning. He does not say: “The field is My kingdom.” In that case the Church would be a society composed of good and evil members. But He says: “The field is the world.” Matt 13, 38. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession emphasizes this fact. The Savior likens His Church to a field in which tares grow together with the wheat; to a net in which good and bad fishes are caught; to a marriage feast to which foolish virgins come with others; and to which, according to another parable, one gained entrance who is not dressed in the proper wedding garment. By means of all these parables Christ does not mean to describe the essence of the Church, but the outward form in which it appears in this world and its lot among the men of this world: although it is composed only of good sheep, only of regenerate persons, still it never presents itself in the form of a congregation that is made up of none but true Christians. In its visible form the Church can never purge itself of hypocrites and ungodly persons, who find their way into it. Not until its consummation in the life eternal will the Church appear triumphant, entirely purified, and without blemish, separated from those who were not honestly and sincerely joined to it, but only sought their own secular interest in an outward union with the Church. While hypocrites and sham Christians profess Christ with their lips, their heart is far from him. They are serving their carnal lusts and not the Lord alone. In Luke 14, 26 the Lord says: “If any man come to Me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” In this passage Christ passes judgement on all who do not want to renounce what they have. But not until all are gathered before the judgment-seat of Christ will these people become known as hypocrites. We may see people going to church, but we cannot see whether they belong to the Church. It is impossible to declare regarding individuals that they are true members of the Church. No man, but only God, knows whether thy are. To the eyes of God alone the Church is visible; to the eyes of men it is invisible.

The error which we are now discussing is the primary falsehood (πρῶτον ψεῦδος) of our time. It is an awful error. For those who are addicted to this error pretend to be good Lutherans, opposed to the papists, and yet they have only changed weapons with the papists. Formerly the papists defended the false doctrine now under review; now Lutherans dare to set up the claim against them that the Lutherans, aye, the Lutherans, are the Church outside of which there is no salvation. Lutherans of this stripe become and object of ridicule to the papists. They take over the part formerly acted by the Pope and his rabble. The only inferences that can be drawn from this state of affairs would be, either that the Pope’s Church is the true Church or that the true Church had perished before Luther came. But Scripture says that the true Church cannot perish; it shall continue until the end of time. Now, until the sixteenth century there was no Church denominated “Lutheran.” In fact, no Church since the days of the apostles has had the pure doctrine as our fathers had it. Hence, either Scripture has lied or the Roman Church was the true Church and Luther’s reformation was rebellion. That is the vexing dilemma in which all those are placed who wish to maintain the false doctrine concerning the Church sketched above.

Its worst feature, however, is undeniably this: Making a person’s salvation depend on this membership in, and communion with, the visible orthodox Church means to overthrow the doctrine of justification by faith. True faith has been obtained by people before they join the Lutheran Church. It is a fatal mistake to think that Luther before becoming a Lutheran — sit venia verbo! — did not have the true faith. Though we esteem our Church highly, may this abominable fanatical notion be far from us, that our Lutheran Church is the alone-saving Church! The true Church extends throughout the world and is found in all sects; for it is not an external organism with peculiar arrangements to which a person must adapt himself in order to become a member of the Church. Any one who believes in Jesus Christ and is a member of His spiritual body is a member of the Church. This Church, moreover, is never divided; although its members are separated from one another by space and time, the Church is ever one.

A false inference is drawn from the fact that Scripture speaks of external ecclesiastical communities, such as those at Rome, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, in Galatia, and those in Asia Minor to whom the Lord issued letters through St. John. All these visible communities are called churches. Hence it is claimed that the Church is visible. — Now, Luther, in order to keep people from imagining that the Pope is the Church, has translated ἐκκλησία by “congregation,” which is a correct rendering. The inference drawn from the use of this term when applied to local churches is wrong, because the Scriptures, as a rule, employ this term when referring to no local congregation, but to the Church in the absolute sense, and that is an invisible community. The term is applied to local organizations because the invisible Church is contained in them. In a similar manner we speak of a stack of wheat, although it is not all wheat, but a good deal of hay and straw is in the pile. Or we speak of a glass of wine, although water has been mixed with it. In such instances the object is denominated a potiore parte, from its principal content. Thus visible communities are called “churches” because the invisible Church is in them, because they contain a heavenly seed. False Christians and hypocrites are given the name of “members of the congregation,” when in reality they are not members. Since they confess the name of Jesus, we apply to them this title charitably, assuming that they believe what they confess. We cannot look into their hearts. We leave that to God. We do not judge them, except when they become manifest as ungodly persons. In that case we cease applying the title to them, but put them away from us and call them heathen men and publicans.

Now, the Lutheran Church, too, as a visible community, is called a “church” in a synecdochical sense. It is, therefore, an awful mistake to claim that men can be saved only in the Lutheran Church. No one must be induced to join the Lutheran Church because he thinks that only in that way he can get into the Church of God. There are still Christians in the Reformed Church, among the Methodists, yea, among the papists. We have this precious promise in Is. 55, 11: “My Word shall not return unto Me void.” Wherever the Word of God is proclaimed and confessed or even recited during the service, the Lord is gathering a people for Himself. The Roman Church, for instance, still confesses that Christ is the Son of God and that He died on the cross to redeem the world. That is truth sufficient to bring a man to the knowledge of salvation. Whoever denies this fact is forced to deny also that there are Christians in some Lutheran communities in which errors have cropped out. But there are always some children of God in these communities because they have the Word of God, which is always bearing fruit in converting some souls to God.

The false doctrine concerning the Church which we are studying involves a fatal confounding of Law and Gospel. While the Gospel requires faith in Jesus Christ, the Law makes all sorts of demands upon men. Setting up a demand of some kind as necessary to salvation in addition to faith, the acceptance of the Gospel promises, means to commingle Law and Gospel. I belong to the Lutheran Church for the sole reason that I want to side with the truth. I quit the Church to which I belong when I find that it harbors errors with which I do not wish to be contaminated. I do not wish to become a partaker of other men’s sins, and by quitting a heretical community I confess the pure and unadulterated truth. For Christ says: “Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven.” Matt. 10, 32–33. Again, Paul writes distinctly to Timothy: “Be not thou ashamed of the testimony of our Lord nor of me, his prisoner.” 2 Tim. 1, 8.

From the fact that men may be saved in all the sects and that in all sectarian churches there are children of God, it by no means follows that one can remain in communion with a sect. Many people cannot comprehend this; they imagine it is an utterly unionistic principle to hold that a person can be saved in any of the sects. But it is true, and the reason is that we are saved by faith, which some members of sectarian churches may have. However, if I perceive the error of my heretical community and do not forsake it, I shall be lost because, though seeing the error, I would not abandon it. I can still remember the time when I became a believer. Then I also joined the unionists. Some persons approached me with the intention of bringing me into the Lutheran Church. But I told them that I was a believer and did not choose to belong to a Church that claimed to be the alone-saving Church. Afterwards I found some good writings, which showed me that the Lutheran Church claims to be the only Church that has the pure doctrine, but does not claim to be the alone-saving Church, and admits that men can be saved in the sects if they are not aware of their error. As soon as I learned this, I quit the unionistic community and joined the Lutherans. I had long known that the Lutheran Church has the truth, but I refused to endorse the aforementioned papistic principle. Then I understood that one does not have to condemn any one who is in error regarding some article of the Creed, but only those who have seen their error and still want to abide in it.

Let me show you that this is indeed the doctrine of our Church. In the Preface to the Book of Concord (Mueller, p. 16. 17; Trigl. Conc., pp. 19. 21) we read: “As to the condemnations, censures, and rejections of godless doctrines, and especially of that which has arisen concerning the Lord’s Supper, these indeed had to be expressly set forth in this our declaration and thorough explanation and decision of controverted articles, not only that all should guard against these condemned doctrines, but also for certain other reasons they could in no way have been passed by. Thus, as it is in no way our design and purpose to condemn those men who err from a certain simplicity of mind, but are not blasphemers against the truth of the heavenly doctrine, much less, indeed, entire churches, which are either under the Roman Empire of the German Nation or elsewhere; nay, rather has it been our intention and disposition in this manner openly to censure and condemn only the fanatical opinions and their obstinate and blasphemous teachers (which, we judge, should in no way be tolerated in our dominions, churches, and schools), because these errors conflict with the express Word of God, and that, too, in such a way that they cannot be reconciled with it. We have undertaken this also for this reason, viz., that all godly persons might be warned diligently to avoid them. For we have no doubt whatever that even in those churches which have hitherto not agreed with us in all things many godly and by no means wicked men are found who follow their own simplicity, and do not understand aright the matter itself, but in no way approve of the blasphemies which are cast forth against the Holy Supper as it is administered in our churches, according to Christ’s institution, and, with the unanimous approval of all good men, is taught in accordance with the words of the testament itself. We are also in great hope that, if they would be taught aright concerning all these things, the Spirit of the Lord aiding them, they would agree with us, and with our churches and schools, to the infallible truth of God’s Word. And assuredly, the duty is especially incumbent upon all the theologians and ministers of the Church, that with such moderation as is becoming they teach from the Word of God also those who either from a certain simplicity or ignorance have erred from the truth, concerning the danger to their salvation, and that they fortify them against corruptions, lest perhaps, while the blind are leaders of the blind, all might perish.”

You may cite this fine passage if you meet with such as reproachingly say that the Lutheran Church claims to be the alone-saving Church. True, the Formula of Concord has condemned the doctrine of the Reformed, but this condemnation does not apply to those who err in the simplicity of their hearts, but only to obstinate false teachers and blasphemers. People who admit that Christ has said this or that, but refuse to believe, people who begin to utter shocking blasphemies against the true doctrine, are not to be regarded as children of God. Yet there are others who have been reared from a child in a certain error, but are holding fast their Savior; these are not wicked persons, though they may promptly turn away a Lutheran who approaches them.

The preface continues: “Wherefore, by this writing of ours we testify in the sight of Almighty God and the entire Church that it has never been our purpose, by means of this godly formula for union to create trouble or danger to the godly who to-day are suffering persecution. For, as we have already entered into the fellowship of grief with them, moved by Christian love, so we are shocked at the persecution and most grievous tyranny which is exercised with such severity against these poor men, and sincerely detest it. For in no way do we consent to the shedding of that innocent blood, which undoubtedly will be required with great severity from the persecutors at the awful Judgment of the Lord and before the tribunal of Christ, and they will then certainly have to render a very strict account and suffer fearful punishment.”

The Lutheran confessors here refer to a rumor that was being spread by the Calvinists that the Lutherans in Germany would imitate the Romanists in France and institute a St. Bartholomew’s night of their own. The Lutherans asseverate [assert] in this passage that they are not planning to persecute anybody. The blood of the Huguenots will be only on papists’ hands. In general, the Lutherans condemn none but those who condemn themselves by resisting the known truth.

From the preface which Luther wrote to the theses against indulgences which he had published previously we can see what a grievous task it was for him to forge his way to the true knowledge. He writes (St. L. Ed. XIV, 452 f.) : “Of the manifold sufferings and trials through which I passed that first year and the year following, of the great humiliation that I had to undergo, — and that was genuine and not feigned, for it reached the degree of despair, — of all these things little is known to these self-confident spirits who, after me, have attacked the majesty of the Pope with great bluster and audacity. Still, with all their skill they would not have been able to harm a hair on the Pope’s head if Christ had not previously inflicted a deep, irremediable wound on him through me, his puny and unworthy instrument. Nevertheless, they carry off the glory and the honor as if they had done it, — to which honor they are welcome for all I care. But while they were looking on at my loneliness and jeopardy, I was not very cheerful, confident, and certain of my affair. For many things which I know now — God be praised! — I did not know at that time. Verily, I did not understand, nor did all the papists together understand, the character of an indulgence; it was revered merely oft account of long-established usage and custom. My object in inviting men to a disputation concerning it was not to reject it, but really to find out its virtue from others, since I knew absolutely nothing about it myself. Since the dead and dumb masters — I mean, the books of theologians and jurists — could not give me sufficient information, I desired to seek counsel from the living and to hear the Church of God itself, asking such godly persons as might be enlightened by the Holy Spirit regarding this matter to take pity on me — and not only on me, but on the entire Christian Church — and give us a true and reliable account of indulgences. Many godly men were greatly pleased with my theses and thought highly of them. But I found it impossible to regard and acknowledge them as members of the Church, endowed with the Holy Spirit. I only regarded the Pope, the cardinals, bishops, theologians, jurists, monks, and priests and was waiting for the Spirit from them. So eagerly had I taken in their doctrine, or, I might say, devoured it and guzzled it, that I had been filled to bursting with it and was not sure whether I was awake or sleeping.”

To this day the papists seek to keep the people with their Church by telling them: “You know that we are the true Church. No matter what the Church teaches, if you want to be a true disciple of Christ, you must hear the Church. If the Pope decrees that he is infallible, or that Mary was conceived without sin, or that the saints must be adored, you must accept these dogmas. You may not consult your reason. The true Church has set up these dogmas, and it cannot err. If you fall away from the Roman Catholic Church, you fall away from the true Church.” This is the bait with which they hook the people.

Luther continues: “When I had disproved all the arguments against me with Scripture and thus overcome them, I scarcely succeeded, by the grace of Christ, in overcoming, with great anxiety, trouble, and labor, this one final argument, that I must hear the Church. For with all my heart I was much more in earnest and much more reverent in regarding the Pope’s Church as the true Church than these abominable and blasphemous perverters, who are now opposing me boastfully with the Pope’s Church. If I had despised the Pope as those despise him nowadays who are praising him highly with their lips, I should have been afraid to see the earth open and devour me as it did Korah and his mob.”

Luther had already discovered the untenableness of nearly every papistic teaching, except this one point, which, he says, troubled him greatly at the beginning and kept him from becoming really assured of the truth and being cheerful. The papists themselves cooked the soup which they had to eat later. God’s hour had come for revealing the Antichrist.

May God keep you from becoming entangled with this false teaching concerning the Church, viz., that the Lutheran Church is the true visible Church of Jesus Christ in the sense that one can be saved only in this Church! The Lutheran Church is indeed the true visible Church; however, only in this sense, that it has the pure, unadulterated truth. As soon as you add the qualification “alone-saving” to the Lutheran Church, you detract from the doctrine of justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and confound Law and Gospel. May God keep you from this error for the sake of your own soul and those that will be entrusted to your care!

The grave error which is scored by this thesis is held by the papists, who teach men that they will derive some benefit by merely are still unbelievers, provided they are not actually living in mortal sins. That mere act is said to bring them God’s favor or make God gracious to them. They teach the same regarding the Mass and the Lord’s Supper, viz., that grace is obtained by the mere act of attending these rites. This impious and abominable teaching contradicts pointblank the Word of God, in particular, the Gospel, which teaches that aperson is justified before God and saved by grace alone, and that he cannot perform any good work until he has been thus justified.

Rom. 3, 28 Paul writes: Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. If I am justified, if I obtain grace by my act of submitting to baptizing or by my act of going to Communion, I am justified by works, and that, altogether paltry works, scarcely worth mentioning. For that is what Baptism and Holy Communion are when viewed as works that we perform. It is a horrible doctrine, wholly contradicting the Bible, that divine grace is obtained if a person at least makes external use of the sacraments. The truth is that Baptism and Holy Commmunion place any person under condemnation who does not approach them with faith in his heart. They are means of grace only for the reason that a divine promise has been attached to an external symbol. Having water poured on me is of no benefit to me. Nor am I benefited by actually receiving the body and blood of the Lord in the Holy Supper. Yea, I am rather harmed by going to Communion without faith, because I become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. It is of paramount importance that I believe, that I regard, not the water in Baptism, but the promise which Christ has attached to the water. It is this promise that requires the water; for only to it has the promise been attached. The same applies to the Holy Supper; it is impious to imagine that the act of approaching the Lord’s Table, doing something that the Lord wants done, is one more merit that He will have to credit to our account. The Lord says: “Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you.” “Drink ye all of it; this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for the remission of sins.” These words open up a heaven full of divine grace to the communicant, and to these words he must direct his faith. The mere act of eating the bread with the body of Christ and of drinking the wine with the bood of Christ produces no good effect in us. Grace does not operate in a chemical or in a mechanical manner, but only by the Word, by virtue of God’s saying continually: “Thy sins are forgiven thee.” To this word I must cling by faith. If I do that, I can confidently meet God on the Last Day; and if He were preparing to condemn me, I could say to Him: “Thou canst not condemn me without making Thyself a liar. Thou hast invited me to place my entire confidence in Thy promise. I have done that and therefore I cannot be condemned, and I know thou wilt not do it.” If God were to try the faith of His Christians even on the Last Day, all His saints would cry: “It is impossible that we should be consigned to perdition. Here is Christ, our Surety and Mediator. Thou wilt have to acknowledge, O God, the ransom which Thy Son has given as payment in full for our sin and guilt.”

Rom. 14, 23 we read: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. How, then, can a person who uses the Sacraments without faith become acceptable to God by that act or obtain God’s grace by it, since he is committing a sin by doing something that does not proceed from faith?

In this connection the statement, too, deserves to be pondered that is recorded concerning the working of God’s Word on the inner powers of man, Heb. 4, 12 For the Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

False teachers admit that preaching, unless it is received by faith, does not benefit the hearers, but rather increases their responsibility. However, they claim, the situation is different as regards the Sacraments, since these have, they say, this great advantage over the preached Word, that God operates with His grace through them whenever men merely use them. That is an impious doctrine, because the Sacraments are nothing else than the Word of God attached to a symbol. Augustine beautifully calls them verbum visibile, the visible Word. The Word of God does not benefit a person who does not believe. Even so an unbeliever is not benefited by going through the action of being baptized. When we urge men to believe in their Baptism, the meaning is that they are to believe their heavenly Father, who has attached such a glorious promise to Baptism. The idea that God is highly pleased when a person offers his head to have water sprinkled on it is an abominable misuse of the verbum visibile. As the Word does not benefit a person who does not believe, even so the Sacraments help only those who embrace them by faith.

Therefore the charge of fanatics that Lutherans do not urge conversion is baseless. The charge rests on the assumption that Lutherans teach men to rely on the fact that they have been baptized and received Holy Communion. But that is not at all what we teach. This is our doctrine: There is a certain promise of God attached to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which is to be embraced without doubting. That can be done only by men who have become poor sinners. To say to a person “You must take comfort in your Baptism” and “You must turn to Jesus Christ” is identical. A person may imagine that he is a believer, but a brief affliction will suffice to dissipate that notion. Only the Holy Spirit can give a person true faith.

During the first half of the eighteenth century those who were guilty before others of this serious confusion of Law and Gospel were the so-called Pietists. To these belonged, among others, such theologians of Halle as August Herman Francke, Breithaupt, Anastasius Freylinghausen, Rambach, Joachim Lange, and those who had publicly adopted their views, like Bogatsky, Fresenius, and many others. These men were guilty of that more refined way of confounding Law and Gospel, namely, of keeping men away from Christ. They did this by making a false distinction between spiritual awakening and conversion; for they declared that, as regards the way of obtaining salvation, all men must be divided into three classes: 1. those still unconverted; 2. those who have been awakened; 3. those who have been converted.

Admitting that these Pietists were well-intentioned men and by no means wished to depart from the right doctrine, still their classification was utterly wrong. They would have been right if by people who have been awakened they had understood such persons as occasionally receive a powerful impression the Word of God, of the Law and of the Gospel, but promptly stifle the impression, so that it is rendered ineffectual. For there are, indeed, men who can no longer continue to live in their carnal security, but suppress their unrest until God smites them again with the hammer of His Law and then makes them taste the sweetness of the Gospel. But the awakened persons to whom the Pietists referred are no longer to be numbered with the unconverted. According to Scripture we can assume only two classes: those who are converted and those who are not.

True, there are people who, when contrasted with true Christians, could be called awakened if they are not measured by the pattern of Holy Scripture. A great number of instances of such people are found in the Scriptures. Herod Antipas was one of them. We are told that he heard John the Baptist gladly because John preached many comforting sermons in which he pointed to the promised Messiah. He also asked John’s advice occasionally and followed it. Nevertheless he remained the Herod he had always been. By this King’s order John had to lose his head to please a miserable dancing girl.

Another instance is that of Felix the governor. Paul preached to him with great zest concerning righteousness, temperance (chastity), and judgment to come. Paul’s sermons struck home, and his own conscience convicted Felix of being a reprobate, and if Paul preached the truth, which he did, Felix would be lost, fornicator, unjust judge, and adulterer that he was. But he stifled the conviction immediately and dismissed Paul, saying: “Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.” Acts 24, 25. But he never did call for him; he was unwilling to hear that reproving voice again.

A similar instance is that of Festus. When Paul had thundered at him, preaching the Law to him, and then had proclaimed the good tidings of the Gospel, he cried: “Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.” Acts 26, 24 In spite of the deep impression which the preaching of Paul had made on him, he declared Paul a fanatic.

Another instance is that of Agrippa, who even said to Paul: “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Acts 26, 28. What a powerful impression the apostle’s address must have made on the king to wrest this public profession from him that it would not take much to make him one of the despised and maligned Christians! What was lacking to make him a Christian? Nothing else than this, that he would not cease his willful, stubborn resistance and allow the Lord to overcome him. On the contrary, he tried to conquer the Lord and remained in his unconverted state.

People like these must not be numbered with the converted. But it is wrong to call them awakened. When Scripture speaks of awakening, it always means conversion. You must bear this in mind when reading writings of Pietists, which contain a great deal of good. You must divide men into only two classes. The following passages will show you that by awakening Scripture means conversion: —

Eph 5, 14 Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead and Christ shall give thee light. This is evidently a call to genuine conversion and repentance. We are to awake from spiritual sleep and arise from spiritual death. Any one who is thus awakened is roused, not from spiritual sleep, but from spiritual sleep, and being awake, he has become alive,, which means nothing else than that he is a Christian.

Eph 2, 4–6 But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace are ye saved) and hath raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ. According to this passage being awakened and being quickened are identical. Anyone who has been awakened is in a blessed state: he has been translated into a heavenly life the moment he was awakened by the Holy Spirit.

Col 2, 12 Buried with Him in Baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead. The event described in this text took place “through faith”. Accordingly, no one can be awakened unless he has faith. That means, he must be a Christian.

However, Pietists object that a person who has not experienced a genuine, thorough contrition in his heart is not yet converted, but merely awakened. By thorough contrition they mean a contrition like that of David, who spent whole nights crying and weeping in his bed and walked almost bowed down with grief for days. Anyone who has not passed through these experiences, who has not yet been sealed with the Holy Spirit, is not quite assured of his state of grace and of salvation, is always wavering or shows himself uncharitable, lacking genuine patience, and the proper willingness to serve his fellow-men; such a person, they claim, is certainly not a Christian, still unconverted and only awakened. This is an erroneous assumption. A person may have become a true Christian without experiencing the great and terrible anguish of David. For although David really passed through these experiences, the bible does not say that everyone must pass through the same experiences and suffer in the same degree. As regards the sealing with the Holy Spirit, we read in Eph 1, 13: “In whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.” The sealing presupposes faith, although it may be a very weak faith, a faith that is constantly struggling with anxieties and doubts. God does not grant to every one immediately boldness of faith and heroic courage. That this is the pure unadulterated truth can be seen in every record we have of people that were converted. Take, for instance, the first Pentecostal audience. We are told that these people were pricked in their hearts and asked the apostles: “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Peter does not say to them: “Wait a while; first you must pass through a severe penitential struggle; you will have to wrestle with God and cry to Him for a long time until the Holy Spirit gives you the inward assurance that you have obtained grace and are saved.” No; the apostle merely says: “Repent and be baptized,” and immediately they received baptism. “Repent” means: “turn to your Lord Jesus, believe in Him, and as a seal of your faith receive Baptism, and everything will be right.” Of these newly converted people we are told further on: “they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship and in braking of bread and in prayers.” Acts 2, 37, 38, 42 Hence they had become truly converted in a few moments.

The same observation meets us in the case of the Ethiopian treasurer. Philip merely says to him: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest,” namely, be baptized. When the treasurer answered: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” Philip was fully satisfied; for he know what the treasurer meant by his confession, namely, that he believed in the Messiah, God and man. After he had been baptized, they parted and probably never saw each other again. Philip was not worried in the least whether the man was actually converted; he was quite certain of his conversion because he had declared: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Acts 8, 37ff.

The jailer at Philippi was in despair, not on account of his sins, but because he feared that he would be executed for allowing all his prisoners to escape. Paul arrested the jailer’s hand as he was about to stab himself and cried: “Do thyself no harm, for we are all here.” The jailer was thunderstruck. He recalled the thoughts that had stirred his heart during the night while he had heard the prisoners whom he had subjected to such cruel treatment praising and glorifying God. Convicted of the wickedness of his heart and the magnitude of his sin, he fell at the apostle’s feet, crying: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul did not say to him: “That cannot be done tonight. We shall first have to give you instruction and ascertain the condition of your heart. We admit that you have been awakened, but you are far from being converted.” No; he simply said: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house.” Acts 16, 27 ff. The jailer believed and was filled with joy that he had become a believer. That is all that Paul and Silas did. They left him, and when they had been given their liberty, they proceeded on their journey.

Try to find a single instance in the Scriptures where a prophet, apostle, or any other saint pointed the people another way to conversion, telling them that they could not expect to be converted speedily and that they would have to pass through such and such experiences. They always preached in a manner so as to terrify their hearers, and as soon as their hearers realized that there was no refuge for them, as soon as they condemned themselves, and cried, “Is there no help for us?” they told them: “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and all will be well with you.”

Fanatics declare that this is not the proper order of conversion. It is not the order of fanatics indeed, but it is God’s order. As soon as the Gospel sounded in the ears of the persons aforementioned, it went through their hearts, and they became believers. We read that David, after receiving absolution, still had to suffer a great deal of anguish. But his penitential psalms are at the same time a confession of his assurance that God was gracious to him. It is sheer labor lost when a minister leads a person who has become alarmed over his sins a long way for months and years before that person can say, “Yes, I believe.” Such a minister is a spiritual quack; he has not led that soul to Jesus, but to reliance on its own works. In a certain sense the Pietists have been guilty of this awful sin. it is just those ministers who are manifesting great zeal that are in danger of committing this great and grievous sin. They are sincere and well-intentioned, but they accomplish no more than tormenting souls. To every sinner who has become spiritually bankrupt and asks you: What must I do to be saved? You must say: “That is very simple: Believe in Jesus, your Savior, and all is well.”

Consider that according to the Scriptures it is not at all difficult to be converted, but to remain in a converted state, that is difficult. Accordingly, it is a false interpretation to refer the words of the Savior: “Enter ye in at the strait gate”, Matt 7, 13, to repentance. Repentance is not a strait gate through which a person has to squeeze. Repentance is something that God Himself must produce in a person. Any kind of repentance which man produces by his own effort is counterfeit and an abomination in the sight of God. We need not worry about our inability to produce repentance in ourselves. We must only apply to ourselves the keen Word of God, and we have the first part of repentance. After that an application of the unqualified Gospel will produce faith in us. All that a person has to do when he hears the Gospel is to accept it. But this is immediately followed by an inward conflict. The error of false teachers in regard to this matter is that they place this conflict before conversion. For such a conflict an unconverted person is not qualified. The conflict comes at a later stage, and it is severe. The narrow way is the cross which Christians have to bear, namely, that they have to mortify their own flesh, suffer ridicule, scorn, and ignominy heaped upon them by the world, fight against the devil, and renounce the world with its vanities, treasures, and pleasures. That is a task which causes many to fall away again soon after their conversion and to lose their faith. Wherever the Word of God is proclaimed with the manifestation of the Spirit and power of God, many more people are converted than we imagine. If we could look into the hearts of worshipers in a church where the Word is thus forcefully proclaimed and no works of men are mingled with the teaching of saving grace, we should observe many framing there solution by the grace of God to become Christians; for they are convinced that the preacher is right. But many suppress these sensations the moment they leave the church and seek to persuade themselves that they have been listening to a discourse of a fanatic. Such persons harden themselves Sunday after Sunday and get into almost dangerous condition, past conversion. The Savior Himself says that many “receive the Word with joy,” Matt 13, 20, but smother the sprouting germ when tribulations arise. This does not necessarily refer to severe diabolical afflictions, but, in general, to tedium as regards spiritual affairs, sluggishness in prayer, negligence in hearing the Word of God, contempt which Christians have to suffer from worldly men, etc. All these things may dissipate the impressions which had been made on the Christians’ hearts. In cases like these Pietists declare that there had been no conversion. But does not the Lord say: “For a while they believe”? Luke 8, 13. Hence this second class of hearers, who quickly accept the Gospel, begin to believe; however, they do not permit the Word to strike root in their hearts, but at the next temptation to which they are exposed they again surrender to the world and their own flesh, and all they had gained is lost.

Beware, then, of the illusion that men may become secure if they are told how quickly they may be led to repentance and conversion. On the contrary, consider the greatness of God’s mercy. After a person has been converted, he must be told that henceforth he will have to be engaged in daily struggles and must think of making spiritual progress day by day, exercising himself in love, patience, and meekness and wrestling with sin. That is a lesson for converted Christians, who begin to cooperate with divine grace in them. But by the utterly abominable teaching of fanatics these spiritual conflicts are placed before conversion, and God is robbed of the honor due Him.

Our Church declares in the Formula of Concord, Sol. Decl., Art II §87 (Mueller, p. 609; Trigl. Conc., p. 913 f.): “The conversion of our corrupt will, which is nothing else than a resuscitation of it from spiritual death, is only and solely the work of God (just as also the resuscitation in the resurrection of the body must be ascribed to God alone), as has been fully set forth above and proved by manifest testimonies of Holy Scripture”

Again, the same confession states (Mueller, p. 591; Trigl. Conc., p. 885): “In a word, it remains eternally true what the Son of God says, John 15, 5: ‘Without Me ye can do nothing,’ and Paul, Phil 2, 13: ‘It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.’ To all godly Christians who feel and experience in their hearts a small spark or longing for divine grace and eternal salvation this precious passage is very comforting; for they know that God has kindled in their hearts this beginning of true godliness and that he will further strengthen and help them in their great weakness to persevere in true faith unto the end.”

Where there is a spark of longing for mercy, there is faith; for faith is nothing else than longing for mercy. A person in whom this takes place is not merely awakened in the false sense of the word, but he is converted. it is remarkable that in Phil 2, 12–13 the apostle says, first: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” and then continues: “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling for the very reason that our heavenly Father must do everything that is necessary for our salvation. That is what the apostle tells people who have been converted. A person who is hardened, blind, dead, cannot work out his own salvation, but a converted person can, and actually does, work out his own salvation. If he fails to do it, he is again stricken with spiritual blindness and relapses into spiritual death.

Our opponents claim that God first awakens a person and in that act gives him the power to decide whether he will be converted or not. That is a rehash of a false doctrine of former times; it overlooks the fact that a person is either spiritually dead or spiritually alive. They claim that a person must first be given a liberated will, which means that he must be quickened before he is converted.

We can see from Luther in what condition those must be who are to be brought to true faith. He says (St. L. Ed. XVIII, 1715): “To begin with, God has given a sure promise to those who have been humbled, that is, to those who bewail their sin and despair of self-help. However, no person can thoroughly humble himself until he knows that, regardless of his own strength, counsel, striving, willing, and working, his salvation depends wholly on the good pleasure, counsel, willing, and working of another, namely of God alone.”

Man must be reduced to this strait, that he is convinced of the necessity of his surrendering to God unconditionally because he cannot lift himself out of the mire of his sins. When he is in that condition, he is, in dogmatic terminology, the materia (the subject) that is to be converted. It is nothing but labor lost and means robbing God of His honor to urge men to rely on their own efforts towards conversion. That is frequently done by men who are quite serious about their Christianity.

Luther continues: “For as long as a person is convinced that he has some ability, even if it is altogether trifling, to work out his salvation, he continues to trust in himself and does not at all despair of his own efforts. Accordingly, he does not humble himself before God, and he selects a certain place, time, and work by which he hopes, or at least desires, ultimately to obtain salvation, but a person who entertains no doubt whatever that everything depends on the will of God, utterly despairs of his own effort, does not do any choosing, but expects God to work in him, such a person is closest to divine grace and salvation. Therefore these things are publicly taught for the sake of the elect, in order that they may be saved after having been humbled and crushed in the manner aforestated. The rest resist this humbling; yea, they reject the teaching that a person must despair of his own efforts and demand that some ability be left them, even though it be quite paltry. These remain secretly proud and enemies of the grace of God. This, I say, is the one reason for teaching the godly who have been humbled to know, to pray for, and to accept the promise of mercy.”

Unless a person is reduced to this condition, it is useless to preach the Gospel to him. He is lost as long as he takes comfort in himself or thinks that he can help himself over his difficulties. Accordingly, a minister must first cause people to hear the thundering of the Law and immediately after that the Gospel. Otherwise many a precious soul may be led to despair and be lost. These souls would one day be demanded of the minister; for God will not suffer Himself to be mocked in this matter.

The attempt to make men godly by means of the Law and to induce even those who are already believers in Christ to do good by holding up the Law and issuing commands to them, is a very gross confounding of Law and Gospel. This is altogether contrary to the purpose which the Law is to serve after the Fall. This will very readily become manifest when we examine, among others, the following passages of Scripture: —

Jer 31, 31–34. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt; which covenant they brake, although I was a Husband unto them, saith Lord; but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. This precious, valuable text is like a sun that rose suddenly upon the gray dawn of the Old Testament. We see from it that, while the Law was written into the hearts of men even before the Fall, it did not serve the purpose of making men godly; for man had been created godly and righteous in the sight of God. The only reason why men had to have the Law in their hearts was that they might know what is pleasing to God. No special command was needed to inform them on that point. They simply willed whatever was God-pleasing; their will was in perfect harmony with the will of God. This condition was changed by the Fall. True, God, after the exodus of the Israelites form Egypt, repeated the Law and reestablished a legal covenant with the Jews. However, what did the Lord tell them by the prophet Jeremiah? This, that the legal covenant had not improved their condition, because God had to force them to comply with his will, — and forced obedience simply is no obedience. Accordingly he speaks to them prophetically of a time when he will make an entirely different arrangement. That does not mean that the new arrangement was not in force even in the time of the Old Testament. The covenant, so far as it had been established with the Israelites, was a legal covenant. Yet during the time of this covenant the prophets were continually preaching the Gospel and pointing to the Messiah. Concerning the new covenant which God purposes to establish he says that he is not going to issue any commandments, but is going to write the Law directly onto their mind and give them a new and pure heart, so that they shall not need to be plagued with the Law, with enforcements and urgings: Thou shalt do this! Thou shalt do that! Because that will not help matters at all. We cannot fulfill the Law either. We are by nature carnal, and manifestations of the spirit are not forced from us by the Law. God says: “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” That is why the Law is written into our hearts. That means nothing else than this, that what the Law could not effect is accomplished by the Gospel, by the message of the forgiveness of sins. All that were saved in the Old Testament were saved in no other way, as Peter expressly declared at the first apostolic council. Now, then, what are those doing who make such a perverse use of the Law in the time of the New Testament? They turn Christians into Jews, and that, Jews of the worst kind, who regard only the letter of the Law and not the promise of the Redeemer. Not only do they mingle the Law with the Gospel, but they substitute the Law for the Gospel.

Rom 3, 20: Therefore by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in His sight; for by the Law is the knowledge of sin. The plain meaning of the remarkable reason which the apostle offers for his statement is this: At the present time the Law has no other purpose than to reveal men’s sins, not to remove them. Instead of removing them, it rather increases them; for when a person conceives evil lust in his heart, the Law calls to him: “Thou shalt not covet.” That causes man to regard God as cruel in demanding what man cannot accomplish. Thus the law increases sin; it does not slay sin, but rather makes it alive.

Rom 7, 7–13 What shall we say, then? Is the Law sin? God forbid! Nay, I had not known sin but by the Laws; for I had not known lust except the Law had said, Thou shalt not cover. This is the most appalling feature of our condition, that, as we are by nature, we do not know hereditary sin and imagine, when evil lusts arise in us and we do not exactly delight in them, that God will not lay them to our charge. However the Law serves notice on us that evil lust renders us damnable in the sight of God. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. Even pagans, the wicked Ovid among them have declared: “Nitimur in vetitum, semper cupimusque negata.” That means: We desire the very things which are forbidden. If they had not been forbidden, we might not desire them. The prohibition rouses our desire and a rebellious thought like this in us: “What? Is this to be denied us?” The fall of Adam proves this: The devil had quickly turn him to his side when he said: “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree in the garden?” Gen 3, 1 That brought about the fall of our first parents. For without the Law sin was dead. While the spiritual meaning of the Law remains unperceived by man, sin lies dormant in his heart, like a frozen serpent. Man does not observe what an utterly corrupt creature he is, and while this condition lasts, he may not break forth in gross crimes. But as soon as the Law is proclaimed to him in its spiritual meaning, he becomes malicious and cries: “What? Am I to be damned because sin is stirring within me?” Yes, indeed; the Law damns him; if he refuses to believe it, he will learn by experience that this is so. That is all the Law can do. For I was alive without the Law once. Paul means to say that he did not know the Law because he was so blind that he regarded himself as being without the Law. It is of no benefit, then, that people know the Ten Commandments if they do not understand their spiritual meaning. But when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. and the commandment which was ordained to life I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me and by it slew me. Wherefore the Law is holy and the commandment holy and just and good. Was, then, that which is good made death unto me? God forbid! But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good, that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

1 Cor 3, 6: For the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. If the Law kills, how can it make a person godly? For these words do not mean: “The letter of the Holy Scriptures kills.” That is usually the way rationalists and also the Evangelicals (Unierte) interpret them. In consequence of this ungodly and abominable perversion of the words, these people say: One must not stick to the mere words. The context shows that by the term “letter” the apostle means nothing else than the Law. That kills and therefore cannot make anyone godly. It may accomplish this much, that on account of it we quit this or that vice, but it cannot change our heart.

Ps 119, 32 I will run the way of Thy commandments when Thou shalt enlarge my heart. The psalmist does not say; “When Thou smitest me with the thunder of Thy Law, I shall run the way of Thy commandments. No; in that case I do not run. But when Thou comfortest me so that my cramped heart is made large, I become cheerful and willing to walk the strait, the narrow, way to heaven.”

That is an experience which you may have made personally. After a long season of sluggishness and lukewarmness, during which you began to hate yourself because you saw no way to change your condition, you happen to hear a real Gospel sermon, and you leave the church a changed man and rejoice in the fact that you may believe and are a child of God. You suddenly become aware of the fact that it is not difficult to walk in the way of God’s commandments; you seem to walk in it of your own accord. How foolish, then, is a preacher who thinks that conditions in his congregation will improve if he thunders at his people with the Law and paints hell and damnation for them. That will not at all improve the people. Indeed, there is a time for such preaching of the law in order to alarm secure sinners and make them contrite, but a change of heart and love of God and one’s fellow-men is not produced by the Law. If any one is prompted by the Law to do certain good works, he does them only because he is coerced, even as the Israelites had to be coerced by the covenant of the Law.

Gal 3, 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law or by the hearing of faith? The Galatians had suffered themselves to be misled into regarding Paul’s preaching of salvation by faith, through the Grace of Christ alone, as very imperfect, to say the least, and hence as a dangerous doctrine by which a person might easily be led into perdition. Accordingly, they accepted the false prophets’ doctrine of the Law. With great sadness Paul learned that these congregations, which he had founded himself and which had flourished wonderfully, were being disrupted and devastated by false teachers. Accordingly, he asked them the question in our text, his object being to remind them of the great change which had taken place in them when he preached to them the sweet Gospel of God’s mercy. He called to their minds that they had received the spirit, namely the spirit of rest, of peace, of faith, of joy. He asks them: “Where is the blessedness ye spake of?” Yea, he says: “If it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes and have given them to me.” Gal 4, 15 So thoroughly had they been seized by the grace of God, and so vividly had they perceived what a glorious, heavenly, precious doctrine Paul’s was. They were transformed in heart, soul, and mind. The apostle wants them now to tell him whether they had received this new, heavenly peace in their hearts, this spiritual joy, this exceedingly great confidence, through the false teachers who had dragged them back into bondage under the Law. The apostle knew that the members of the congregations in Galatia went about sad and depressed, uncertain of their salvation. They were like men bewitched. They imagined, since salvation was such a great treasure, they must do something great for it, and their later teachers impressed this upon them as their duty. They regarded their misery, their unfitness for everything good, as something for which they had themselves to blame and not the false doctrine that had been put in their hearts.

Remember what the apostle is saying in this text. If you want to revive your future congregations and cause the spirit of peace, joy, faith, and confidence, the childlike spirit, the Spirit of soul-rest, to take up His abode among the members of your congregation, you must, for God’s sake, not employ the Law to bring that about. If you find your congregations in the worst condition imaginable, you must, indeed, preach the Law to them, but follow it up immediately with the Gospel. You may not present the Law to them today and postpone preaching the Gospel to them until a later time. As soon as the Law has done it work, the Gospel must take its place.

This abominable confounding of Law and Gospel is practiced in the grossest form by rationalists. There really are rationalistic preachers who regard the Gospel as a dangerous doctrine, a doctrine that makes men secure and unwilling to strive after godliness, because they are constantly being told that a person is made righteous and saved by faith alone. To make people godly, they preach ethics with great earnestness. What do these rationalists accomplish? The most zealous of them accomplish no more than this, that some of their hearers adopt a certain kind of probity and abstain from gross, shameful vices and crimes, but regard it as something not to be thought of that they must obtain a new heart and love God and their fellow-men. If some one were to arise in a congregation of such people and declare with great joy that he is loving God above all things and that God is his all, that he is everything to him, he would be regarded as speaking out of his mind. Such people have not the least inkling that it is possible to love God above all things. The Second Table of the Law receives no better treatment from them than the First. Little it is that a member of a so-call “free” congregation knows of the Second Table, in spite of the zealous preaching of virtue and piety by his minister. When he returns from church, he proceeds to cheat people in enormous fashion and calls that ‘business”. He may be merged in sin and shame and pass for an honorable man. On occasion he may show himself liberal and give a hundred dollars today, but cheat people out of a thousand tomorrow. His maxim is: Charity begins at home. When he is reproved for not conducting his business in the interest of his fellow-men, but for the purpose of making a lot of money, he considers that fanaticism. You see, by means of the Law we cannot raise anything better than miserable hypocrites.

The situation among the papists is similar. They know nothing of the free grace of God in Jesus Christ. They preach ethics continually, interspersed with all sorts of references to Mary and the saints, but not a word of the Gospel. They do not direct the poor sinner to Christ, but represent Christ as the Judge of all the world and urge men to seek help from the saints who are to intercede for them with Christ and make Christ gracious to them. That is the diabolical teaching of the antichristian Papacy. What do they accomplish? What is the fruit of their teaching? Read the reports from countries in which the papists are dominant and are not be watched by the Protestants. Conditions in those countries and the lives of the priests are most abominable. The people know that their priest is the father of a number of illegitimate children; but since he has received ordination, they believe that one can obtain forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation from him. The most faithful Catholics are the Irish, a vulgar people who practice all kinds of knavery and go to confession at Easter, where they recite their wrong doings to the priest, have a money fine imposed on them, or are told to fast or eat fish on such and such days — and their account is settled. What an abominable practice!

However, this confounding of Law and Gospel occurs not only among rationalists and papists, but also in the orthodox Church, in numerous instances. It is committed, in the first place, by such as have arrived at the assurance of their state of grace only after much struggling and great anguish. They may have struggled for many years, refusing to be comforted, because they did not know the pure doctrine. When such people start out to proclaim the pure doctrine, they always intersperse their Gospel-preaching with remarks which cause their hearers to say to themselves that the preacher must be a godly man, but that he does not know what poor men his hearers are; for they are sure that they cannot meet the requirements laid down by the preacher. These preachers represent the best type among errors of this kind.

In the second place, this confounding of Law and Gospel occurs when ministers become aware that all their Gospel-preaching is useless because gross sins of the flesh still occur among their hearers. There may be drunkards among them or people who indulge in fist-fights, etc. These people come to church occasionally, but rarely to Communion and refuse to contribute when a collection is taken up. Now, the preacher may come to the conclusion that he has preached too much Gospel to them and must adopt a different policy; he must hush the Gospel for a while and preach nothing but the Law, and conditions will improve. But he is mistaken; the people do not change, except that they will become very angry with their minister for not permitting them to do what they very much like to do. A collection is taken up, which nets twenty cents, when he had expected twenty dollars. He resolves to give these people hell and damnation next Sunday. Possibly he may increase the collection by a few dollars, but the offering is worthless in the sight of God, because it was made under coercion. Would a planter be pleased with slaves whom he sees, as a rule, lazily lounging about the plantation working only at the crack of a whip? Certainly not. Neither does God love service rendered under coercion. Preachers who have succeeded in abolishing certain evils by the preaching of the Law must not think that they have achieved something great. Even the most corrupt congregation can be improved, however, by nothing else than the preaching of the Gospel in all its sweetness. The reason why congregations are corrupt is invariably this, that its ministers have not sufficiently preached the Gospel to the people. It is not to be wondered at that nothing has been accomplished by them: for the Law kills, but the Spirit, that is, the Gospel makes alive.

Let me submit Luther’s comments on Rom 12, 1 (“I beseech you, brethren, by the mercies of God.”). He writes (St. L. Ed. XII, 318): “Paul does not say: I command you; for he is preaching to such as are already Christians and godly by faith, in newness of life. These must not be coerced by means of commandments, but admonished to do willingly what has to be done with the old sinful man in them. For any person who does not do this willingly, simply in answer to kind admonitions, is not a Christian; and any person who wants to achieve this result by force applied to such as are unwilling is not a Christian preacher or ruler, but a worldly jailer. A preacher of the Law comes down on men with threats and punishments; a preacher of divine grace coaxes and urges men by reminding them of the goodness and mercy which God has shown them. For He would have no unwilling workers nor heedless service; He wants men to be glad and cheerful in the service of God. Any person who will not permit himself to be coaxed and urged with sweet and pleasant words, which remind him of the mercy of God abundantly bestowed upon him in Christ, to do good joyfully and lovingly to the honor of God and for the benefit of his fellow men, is worthless, and all that is done for him is labor lost. If he is not melted and dissolved in the fire of heavenly love and grace, how can he be softened and made cheerful by laws and threats? It is not a man’s mercy, but the mercy of God that is bestowed on us; and this mercy Paul wants us to consider in order that we may be incited and moved by it to serve God.”

It is a shocking sight to see a preacher do all he can to produce dead works and turn the members of his congregation into hypocrites in the sight of God. When good works are forced from men by the threats or even the promises of the Law, they are not good works. Only those are good works which a person does freely and from the heart. Everybody knows that. When a person whose funds are low is approached by a beggar and he reluctantly gives him an alms, his conscience tells him that the deed was worthless because it was done from constraint and not willingly. Or if some one makes you a present and you notice that he does it only to obtain a favor from you, you will not relish the present. You rejoice over a gift only when you know that it has been given from love. Even the most beautiful present is loathed when it is given under constraint. To our Father in heaven, likewise, forced gifts are repulsive.

An enforcer of laws, like a jailer, is not concerned about the condition of the heart of the person with whom he must deal, but only about enforcing that person’s obedience. He stands before his victim with a scourge and tells him that the scourge will come down on his back if he does not obey. The jailer is not concerned about godly motives among his prisoners. The prisoners, on the other hand, while they are fast in stocks and in their cells and are forced to obey, are revolving plans in their minds how to avoid being caught at their next theft. That is what a preacher of the law does to the members of a Christian congregation: he puts them in stocks and fetters them.

Let no minister think that he cannot induce the unwilling to do God’s will by preaching the Gospel to them and that he must rather preach the Law and proclaim the threatenings of God to them. If that is all he can do, he will only lead his people to perdition. Rather than act the policeman in his congregation, he ought to change the hearts of his members in order that they may without constraint do what is pleasing to God with a glad and cheerful heart. A person who has a real understanding of the love of God in Christ Jesus is astonished at its fire, which is able to melt anything in heaven and on earth. The moment he believes in this love he cannot but love God and from gratitude for his salvation do anything from love of God and for His glory. It is a useless effort to try to soften with laws and threatenings such hearts as are not melted by having the love of God in Christ Jesus presented to them. The best preachers are those who in this respect do as Luther did, such as preach the Law only accomplish nothing. In such measure as you exhibit the Law in its spiritual meaning, in that measure you sink your hearers into despair, but do not make them willing to serve God.

In conclusion, let me cite to you what Luther says in explanation of the words in Ps 110, 3: “Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power, in the beauty of holiness.” The prophet means to say: “At the present time, sacrifices are not offered to God willingly, but in dread terror of hell and from fear. But when thou shalt have conquered, after the completion of thy redeeming work, then people shall offer willing sacrifices.” Luther writes (St. L. Ed. V 988 f.): “Furthermore, when the point is reached where preachers purpose to teach the people what God requires of us and preach the Law, or Ten Commandments, with their threats of punishment, and their promises of blessings to incite and urge men to godliness, it is possible that some may be moved to attempt being godly and serving God and exercising themselves diligently and earnestly in the works of the Law, as St. Paul did before he was converted and became a Christian.” Saul was quite earnest in his efforts, but all his doings were hypocritical; for the Law accomplishes no more than to make people perform outward acts, in which their hearts do not cooperate. It leads men to a pharisaical knowledge of the Law and to pharisaical activities. “However, all this is sheer hypocrisy and mere external piety, under constraint of the law, and does not pass muster in the sight of God. There is not yet any cordial love for the Law in it nor any cheerfulness of heart to do the Law; no genuine inward obedience, fear, trust, or knowledge of God. Yea, such people do not know or understand that the law requires perfect obedience of the heart; they do not recognize their sins and disobedience; they behold the Law only through a veil and continue in their blindness, never understanding what God requires from them and how far they are from rendering it. But when the Law reaches its culmination and puts forth its best and principal effort, by bringing man to a clear knowledge and understanding that God requires of him perfect obedience with all his heart, that he is not rendering, and cannot render, such obedience, and hence feels in and about himself nothing than sins and the anger of God, then it is that the real, horrible disobedience against God begins to stir in him, and he realizes the utter inability of his nature to render such obedience and the futility of forcing from him cordial and willing obedience to God by the Law. He finds that the very opposite effect is produced in him: sentenced by the Law, subjected to the anger of God, and condemned to hell, his nature begins to hate the Law and conceives a horrible anger and bitter hatred against God, sin is becoming very sinful in him, and he falls into blasphemy, despair, and eternal death, unless he is rescued out of this condition by the Gospel of Christ.”

This current description of the unpardonable sin is a horrid confounding of Law and Gospel.

Only the Law condemns sin; the Gospel absolves the sinner from all sins without an exception. The prophet writes; “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white a snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” Is 1, 18. The Apostle Paul writes, Rom 5, 20: “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” Accordingly, Luther sings out in a glorious strain: —

Though great our sins and sore our woes,
  His grace much more boundeth;
His helping love no limit knows,
  Our utmost need it soundeth.

Now, then, what does Holy Scripture say regarding the sin against the Holy Ghost? Concerning this sin we have three parallel passages in the synoptic gospels, a passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and one in the First Epistle of St. John. These passages are the real seat of doctrine for the sin against the Holy Ghost.

Matt. 12, 30–32: He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the basphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. This is the principal passage. It states, to begin with, that all blasphemy against the Father and the Son shall be forgiven; only the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. Now, it is certain that the Holy Spirit is not a more glorious and exalted person than the Father and the Son, but He is coequal with them. Accordingly, the meaning of this passage cannot be that the unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the person of the Holy Spirit; for blasphemy against the Father and the Son is exactly the same sin. The blasphemy to which our text refers is directed against the office, or operation of the Holy Spirit; whoever spurns the office of the Holy Spirit, his sin cannot be forgiven. The office of the Holy Spirit is to call men to Christ and to keep them with Him.

The text mentions in particular, that the person committing this sin “speaketh against the Holy Ghost”. This shows that the sin in question is not committed by blasphemous thoughts that arise in the heart. Not infrequently dear Christians imagine they have committeed this sin when they are visited with horrid thoughts of which they cannot rid themselves. Our Lord Christ foresaw this, and for that reason He informed us that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost that is not forgiven must have been uttered by the mouth. The devil shoots his fiery darts into the hearts of the best Christians, causing them to revolve in their hearts the most horrible thoughts against their heavenly Father and against the Holy Spirit, however, against their will. Earnest Christans have complained that, while going to Communion, they have been harassed with the most horrible htoguhts against the Holy Ghost. Such thoughts are the devil’s filth. When I am sitting in a beautiful room with windows open and a bad boy throws dirt into the room, I am not responsible for this. In His wise providence God permits His dear children to be vexed day and night with such thoughts. The best preachers have met with such instances among the members of their congregations. But that is not the sin against the Holy Ghost, which consists in blasphemy that is pronounced orally.

I have had to treat spiritually a girl who even uttered thoughts of this kind, but at the same time fell on the ground, weeping and moaning tobe delivered from her affliction by God. She did not come to rest until she realized that it was not she that was uttering those thoughts. Satan had taken possession of her lips. of course, Modernists, who deny such power of the devil, call this explanation a superstitious notion.

Mark 3, 28–30: Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blasphemed; but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost has never forgivenenss, but is in danger of eternal damnation; because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. Here we have the record of an actual blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. When Christ, by the finger of God, cast out devils, the Pharisees, who had come down from Jerusalem, declared this operation of theholy Spirit a work of the devil. They were convinced in their hearts that it was a divine work, but since the Saviaor had rebuked them for their hypocrisy and mien of sanctimoniousness they conceivced a deadly hatred against Christ, and that incited them to blasphemy against the holy Ghost.

Accordingly we have here this explanation offered us: to declare a work of the Holy Ghost a work of the devil when one is convinced that it is a work of the Holy Ghost, that is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. This shows us what a serious matter this is. There are no Christians that do not occasionally resist the operations of divine grace and then try to persuade themselves that they were only chasing away gloomy thoughts. Does this mean anything but that such thoughts are of the devil? The doctrine now before us warns us that, if we wish to be saved, we must yield promptly to the operation of the Holy Spirit as soon as we feel it and not resist it. For in the next stage the person who resists may find himself saying: “This operation is not by the Holy Spirit.” The following stage will be that he begins to hate the way by which God wants to lead him to slavation, and ultimately he will blaspheme that way. Accordingly, let us be on our guard. Let us open the door to the Holy Spirit whenever He knocks and not take the view of wordly men who regard these sensations as symptom of melancholia.

This is not a jesting matter; for unless the Holy Spirit brings us to faith, we shall never attain it. Whoever rejects the Holy Spirit is beyond help, even by God. God wants the order maintained which he has ordained for our salvation. He brings no one into heaven by force. On the occasion to which our text refers Christ had just healed the man with the withered hand and had driven out a devil. Everybody saw that the power of God was making an inroad into the kingdom of Satan. But the reprobates who stood by said: “Ah! Beelzebub is in this Jesus; that is why He can cast out inferior devils.” The very action which they had witnessed, the works and the words of Christ, showed that He was arrayed against the devil and was destroying the devil’s kingdom. It was wholly out of reason to imagine that the devil would help Christ in that work.

Luke 12, 10: Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. Again we see that it is essential to the sin against the Holy Ghost that the blasphemy is uttered, and that, knowingly and purposely.

We have a very important statement regarding this sin in Heb 6, 4–8: For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost and have tasted of the good Word of God and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh and put Him to an open shame. For the earth that drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed receiveth blessing from God; but that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. It is characteristic of the sin against the Holy Ghost that the person who has committed it cannot be restored to repentance. That is simply impossible. It is not God who puts man into this condition, but the sinner by his own fault produces this state of irretrievable impenitence. When this condition has reached a certain degree, God ceases to operate upon him, and there is no further possibility for the person to be saved. Why? Because he cannot be induced to repent. The soil of his heart has been finally blasted and is no longer fructified by the dew and rain of divine grace.

1 John 5, 16: If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and He shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is sin unto death. I do not say that he shall pray for it. This passage contains important information for us, but we cannot act upon it. For we can say of no person before his death that he has committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. Even when his mouth utters blasphemies, we do not know to what extent his heart is implicated, or whether the phenomenon is not perhaps an operation of the devil, or whether he is acting in great blindness, and whether he may not be renewed unto repentance. The Christians in the days of the apostles had the gift to discern the spirits. Accordingly, St. John here means to say: “When you see that God has ceased to be gracious to such or such an individual who has committed this sin, you are not to wish either that God should be gracious to him, and you are to cease praying for him.” Neither may we say to God: “Save those who have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost.”

This is a shocking statement, and yet it contains a great comfort. Some one may come to you and say: “I am a wretched man — I have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. I am quite certain of it.” The afflicted may tell you of the evil he has done, the evil he has spoken, and the evil he has thought. It may really look as if he had blasphemed against the Holy Ghost. Now remember the weapon which Heb 6 furnishes for attacking a case like this: “The person is not at all rejoicing over what he tells you; it is all so awfully horrid to him. This shows that God has at least begun to lead him to repentance; all that he need do is to lay hold of the promise of the Gospel. When you ask him whether he has been doing all those evil thing intentionally, he may affirm that involuntarily because Satan makes him affirm the question. When you ask him whether he wishes he had not done those evil things, he will answer: “Yes, indeed; these things are causing me to most awful worry.” That is a sure sign that God has begun the work of repentance in that person. A case like this is indeed not to be treated lightly; the sufferer must be shown that, since there is in him the beginning of repentance he has an indubitable proof that he has not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. In general, when preaching on this subject, the minister must aim at convincing his hearers that they have not committed this sin rather than warn them not to commit it. To a person who has really committed this sin preaching is of no benefit. Whoever is sorry for his sins and craves forgiveness should be told that he is a dear child of God, butis passing through a terrible tribulation.

Acts 7, 51 we read that Stephen said to his hearers: “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumscised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye.” Had these people committed the sin against the Holy Ghost? No; for Stephen died praying for them: “Lord lay not this sin to their charge” V. 60. This shows that, although the Jews had committed wilful sins, they had not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost; otherwise the martyr would not have prayed for them. He was, when praying for them, thinking that an hour might come when they would no longer resist the Holy Ghost.

Let us now hear Luther’s comment on 1 John 5, 16. He writes (St. Louis Ed. IX, 1519): “By the term ‘sin unto death’ I understand heresy which these people set up in the place of the truth. If they do not repent after the first and second admonition (Titus 3, 10), their sin is a sin unto death. However, we may number with this class such as sin from stubbornness and indefiance, like Judas, who had been given ample warning, but because of his obstinate wickedness was beyond help; also Saul, who died in his sins because he would not trust in the Lord. But the highest degree of obstinancy is found in those who insist on maintaining and defending their known error.”

The sin is not unpardonable because of its magnitude, — for the apostle, as we heard, has distinctly declared: “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound,“ — but because the person committing this sin rejects the only means by which he can be brought to repentance, fiath, and steadfastness in faith. Luther here refers to men whose sin consists in this, that they obstinately defend against their better knowledge and conscience an error which they have recognized as such.

Luther continues: “Of this kind is also the sin against the Holy Ghost, or hardening in wickedness, fighting against the known truth, and final impenitence.”

It is undoubtedly incorrect to regard impenitence unto the end as the sin against the Holy Ghost, as Luther does; for in that case most men would have committed this sin. However, final impenitence is a feature of this sin. The special peculiarity of this sin is that it opposes the office, the operation, of the Holy Ghost.

To return to Luther: “There is another kind of sin which is not unto death. Of this kind was the sin of paul, to which he refers in 1 Tim 1, 13, saying: ‘I was before a blasphemer and a persecutor and injurious; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.’” Paul had committed the awful sin of blaspheming and trying to force Christians to blaspheme; but he as acting in appalling blindness: he had no inkling that he was fighting against God. “Of this sin Christ speaks in Matt 12, 32, saying: ‘Whosever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him.’ Likewise, the sin of the men who crucified Christ was not unto death, for Peter says to them: ‘And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it.’ Acts 3, 17. And Paul says; ‘Had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.’ 1 Cor. 2, 8. However, this sin is unto death when it is defended after having been sufficiently revealed and recognized as a sin, because it resists the grace of God, the means of grace, and the forgiveness of sin. Where there is no knowledge of sin, there is no forgiveness. For the forgiveness of sin preached to those who feel their sin and are seeking the grace of God. But these persons [who have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost] are not frightened by any scruples of conscience, nor do they recognize and feel their sin.”

Let every one beware of resisting the Holy Ghost. When a sin has been revealed to him and his own heart affirms that it is a sin, let not his mouth deny the fact. That may not yet be the sin against the Holy Ghost, but it may be a step in that direction. There are many people who admit that we all sin in many ways every day, but when they are reproved, they claim that they never harmed a child.

As regards people who are distressed because they think they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, they would not feel distressed if they really had committed that sin and were in that awful conditon of heart, but they would find their constant delight in blaspheming the Gospel. However, Christians in distress still have faith, and the Spirit of God is working in them; and if the Spirit of God is working in them, they have not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost.

An excellent exposition of this matter is found in Baier’s Latin Compend of Positive Theology. He says in Part II, Chap III §24: “The most grievous of all actual sins, which is called the sin against the Holy Ghost,a) consistsb) in a malicious renunciationd) and blasphemouse) and obstinatef) assaults upon the heavenly truth which had once upon a time been knownc) by the person committing this sin.

“a) The manner of denominating this sin thus is derived from its object, which is the Holy Ghost. The term ‘Holy Ghost’ in this place is understood metonymically; it stands for the office which the Hoy Ghost discharges in converting the souls of men by the ministry of the Word. This meaning of the term is also found in 2 Cor 3, 6. The sin against the holy Ghost, then, is a sin which is committed against the office and ministry of the Holy Ghost and against the heavenly truth which is revealed by that office and ministry. [To blaspheme the Holy Ghost means to baspheme His ministry, to declare the operations of the Holy Ghost operations of the devil, and to offer resistance to His office.] It is also called a sin unto death, this denomination being derived from the effect of this sin, because it leads quite definitely to eternal death, or damnation. I John 5, 16. [”Sin unto death” must not be confused with “mortal sin.”]

“b) The seat of doctrine for this sin is found in Matt 12, 30 ff; Mark 3, 28; Luke 12, 10.

“c) The doctrine of heavenly truth may either have been approved once upon a time with an assent of divine faith and by public profession, or it may have only been perceived so clearly that the heart of the individual was convinced and had no argument to set up against it. In the former manner the sin against the Holy Ghost is committed by those apostles who renounce and vilify the truth which they had once known and believed, such as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews describes in ‘chapter 6, 4 ff. In the later class belong the Pharisees and scribes, who never approved the doctrine of Christ by their profession, although they were convinced of its truth in their heart by the Scripture and the miracles of Christ, and had nothing but calumnies to set up against it. [There are Lutheran theologians who claim that only a truly regenerate person can commit the sin against the Holy Ghost. But that is going too far; for nobody will believe the Pharisees to whom the Lord speaks of this sin had ben truly converted at some previous time; they had simply grown up in their wickedness. It is true, however, that a person can commit this sin even after his regeneration, a fact that is to be maintained over against the Calvinists. It is probable the Judas had been a believer. One can scarcely believe that the Savior would have called him while he was under the wrath of God. Judas fell away later, and Satan took possession not only of his body, but also of his mind.]

“d) In other words, the renunciation of, and asaults upon, the heavenly doctirne must be made ἑκουσίως, ‘wilfully’. Heb 10, 26 in such a manner that the source of this renunciation and assault is pure, downright malice. However, those who renounce their faith from ignorance or fear of death are not on that account sinners against the Holy Ghost, but can obtain remission of their sin. See the examples of Paul in 1 Tim 1, 13, and of Peter in Matt 26, 70 ff. [When the Word of God has been clearly and plainly presented to a person and it is evident that he has been impressed by it, because he is abashed, he begins to tremble, and feels that God is appraching him, it is a shocking thing in such a case to hear the person saying: “No, I do not believe that! I do not believe that! You misinterpret Scripture!”] That may not be the sin against the Holy Ghost, but it is a step in that direction. I say, a step in that direction; for the person may reconsider this act and be saved. Peter had taken three steps towards the sin against the Holy Ghost; however, he acted not from hatred against Christ, but from fear. He expected to be put in prison if he were to admit that he was a disciple of Jesus. That fear of Peter gave the devil an opportunity to overthrow this great and solid pillar of the Church. But the Holy Spirit reentered the heart of Peter, and Peter repented of his sin.

“e) In the passages cited under b) this sin is called ‘speaking a word against the Holy Ghost.’ or ‘blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.’ Accordingly, the form which this sin takes is a reviling talk that is aimed against the office of the Holy Spirit, for instance, when His teaching and the wonderful works that were performed in support of it are ascribed to the power and operation of Satan, as was done by the Pharisees.

“f) Accordingly, it is in its very nature a sin of such a character that it cannot be forgiven, and never is forgiven to any one, according to the passages in Matthew and Mark, because by its very nature it blocks the way to repentance. The reason, however, why final impenitence is so closely connected with this sin is that the men who commit it directly and with full malice oppose the means for their conversion and that God therefore withdraaws His grace from them and gives them over to a reprobate mind.”

A person who has committed the sin against the Holy Ghost is condemned not so much on account of this sin as rather on account of his unbelief. Unbelief is the general cause (causa communis) and malicious and constant vilification of the truth the particular cause (causa singularis), of his damnation. It is not due to an absoute decree of reprobation, as the Calvinists teach, who maintain the really diabolical error that such men cannot be saved for the reason that Christ did not suffer and atone for their sins and did not redeem them.

There is a current opinion that a certain Spiera had committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. He had come to know the evangelical truth, but renounced it twice, the second time under oath. He got into an awful condition of mind: everybody could see that he was suffering the torments of hell. All attempts to comfort him failed. Paul Vergerious attended him in his illness and ministered the consolation of the Gospel to him. However, all our theologians hold that Spiera did not commit the sin against the Holy Ghost because he condemned that sin and was fully convinced that he had merited eternal perdition. His sin was despair of the mercy of God. Moreover, the reason why Spiera renounced the truth was that he feared he would be burned by the Romanists.

Quenstedt’s account of Spiera is cited in Baier’s Compend, part II, p. 328.

The case of Spiera is an important, solemn warning for all time. It furnished Vergerius the final impulse for quitting the Papacy when he beheld the infernal agony which a person had to suffer who had renounced the evangelical truth.

It is an exceedingly important subject that we are taking up in this our concluding study. For we are told in this thesis that Law and Gospel are confounded and perverted for the hearers of the Word, not only when the Law predominates in the preaching, but also when Law and Gospel, as a rule, are equally balanced and the gospel is not predominant in the preaching. In view of the precious character of this subject I am seized with fear lest I spoil it by my manner of presentation. The longer I have meditated this subject, the more inadequate does the expression that I can give it; so precious is this matter.

Let us return to the Holy Scriptures and become convinced that, in a general way, the Gospel must predominate in the preaching of a Christian minister. The first proof of this claim is furnished by the first preacher after Christ had been born into this world. He was an angel; he preached to the shepherds, who were terrified by his celestial splendor: “Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.” Luke 2, 10. In his address there is not the least trace of the Law, of injunctions, of demands that God makes upon men, but he preaches the very opposite: concerning the good will and mercy of God to all men. He is joined by the heavenly host, who sing exultingly: “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men.” Luke 2, 14. Again, we hear nothing but a sweet, pleasant message of joy. Our Father in heaven has had His honor restored to Him. He had created a race of men of whom He knew that they would fall, but he did everything possible to save men. The Infant born in the stable at Bethlehem has established peace between God and mankind. The only thing that God requires is that men be pleased with His arrangement for their salvation and take comfort and rejoice in this Infant.

This heavenly preacher gave us an illustration of how we are to preach. True, we have to preach the law, only, however, as a preparation for the Gospel. The ultimate aim in our preaching of the law must be to preach the Gospel. Whoever does not adopt this aim is not a true minister of the Gospel.

Mark 16, 15–16 we read: Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. When these words were spoken, the time had arrived for Christ to proclaim in clear and distinct terms the basic facts of His religion. For He was about the ascend to heaven and must now give His apostles instruction how to continue His work. What does he say to them? He tells them to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. The mere term Gospel serves notice on them that their message must be a message of joy. Lest they think that His word is so infinitely great that nobody will grasp its meaning, He adds these words immediately: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” to let them know that this is what He understands by the word Gospel. He proceeds: “He that believeth not shall be damned.” This, too, is sweet word; for He does not say: “He that has sinned much for a long time shall be damned,” but states no other reason for man’s damnation than his unbelief. Humanly speaking, one might say that these last worlds are the very sweetest and most comforting. Ponder the meaning of this statement: “He that believeth not shall be damned.” No matter what a person’s character is and how grievously he has sinned, nothing in his past record shall damn him. But, naturally, when a person refuses to believe the words, the message, of Jesus, he has to go to perdition. The Lord never makes mention of hell except for the purpose of bringing men to heaven. So in this passage; the alarming reference to damnation is merely to prompt men to accept His gracious message and not to put it from them. These last words of the Lord should not be emphasized thus: “He that believeth not shall be damned,” but thus: “He that believeth not shall be damned,” He means to say: “Your damnation has already been removed from you; your sin has been taken away; hell has already been overcome for you. I have rendered sufficient atonement for everything. It is now for you to believe this, and you will be saved forevermore.”

2 Tim 4, 5 Paul writes: But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist (ἔργον εὐαγγελιστοῦ), make full proof of thy ministry. Granted that the term “evangelist” may refer to a special office, that does not weaken our argument. Those who were not apostles, but evangelists were such because there were to preach nothing but the Gospel, that is, only the doctrine by which they were to save men.

True, if you meet with people who are merged in self-righteousness, in sins and vices, and in carnal security, you must first crush their stony hearts: but that is merely preparatory work. The waters of grace cannot penetrate a stony heart. But the Law is merely an auxiliary doctrine; it is not the real doctrine of Christ. “The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” John 1, 17. By Christ came only grace, the Gospel, not a new Law, as the miserable papists claim in their blindness. He preached the law merely to prepare men for the sweet comfort which he had to offer them.

2 Cor 3, 5–6 Paul writes: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God, who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. The apostle speaks of this apostolic activity. Preachers of this Christian era must bear in mind that they are preachers, not of the Old Covenant, but of the New. That is the reason why the apostle refers to the letter, that is, the Law, which kills, and to the spirit, this is, the Gospel, which gives life. A New Testament preacher as such has to preach nothing less than the Gospel. He is really discharging an alien function when he preaches the law. It is due to the horrible blindness that papists assert that in the Scriptures two doctrines must be distinguished, the old Law and the evangelical law. The latter term is self-contradiction. How can there be glad tidings in a law? Add to this that the Antichrist goes so far as to contend that the evangelical law is the more grievous of the two: for the Mosaic Law had been satisfied with external obedience, while the evangelical law lays its injunctions on men’s innermost heart.

1 Cor 2, 2 Paul writes: For I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and Him crucified. It is remarkable that during his sojourn at Corinth, Paul was day and night wrestling with the problem how to bring Christ into people’s heart and how to lay a solid foundation for their faith in Christ and their joy in Him. Jesus Christ was the marrow and substance of all his preaching, the golden thread that ran though all his sermons. He wrote this fact down for our benefit. When saying farewell to our congregations, we can do so with a good conscience only if we can repeat the statement of Paul that has just been cited. Woe to the preacher that preaches other things! Woe to him if, in order to make men godly, he has preached the law because he imagined that the pure, unadulterated grace of God would not save men. If he has done that, he has been an unfaithful servant.

I Cor 15, 3 Paul writes: For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for your sins according to the Scriptures. The apostle says: “first of all,” ἐν πρώτοις, imprimis. He regarded all other matters as subordinate to this primary subject for preaching, namely, the Gospel concerning Christ.

Now, do not merely listen to this statement of the apostle, but think of the time when you will be the pastor of a congregation and make a vow to God that you will adopt the apostle’s method, that you will not stand in your pulpits sad-faced, as if you were bidding men to come to a funeral, but like men that go wooing a bride or announcing a wedding. If you do not mingle Law with the Gospel you will always mount your pulpit with joy. People will notice that you are filled with joy because you are bringing the blessed message of joy to your congregation. They will furthermore notice that wonderful things are happening among them. Alas! Many ministers do not meet with those wonderful experiences; their hearers remain sleepy; their misers stay stingy. What is the reason? Not sufficient Gospel has been preached to them. The people who go to church in America really want to hear the Word of God. We are living in a free country, where it is nobody’s concern whether one goes to church or not. In accordance with God’s will it should be the preacher’s aim to proclaim the Gospel to his hearers till their hearts are melted, till they give up their resistance and confess that the Lord has been too strong for them, and hence forth they wish to abide with Jesus. It is not sufficient for you to be conscious of your orthodoxy and your ability to present the pure doctrine correctly. These are, indeed, important matters; however, no one will be benefited by them if you confound Law and Gospel. The very finest form of confounding both occurs when the Gospel is preached along with the Law, but is not the predominating element in the sermon. The preacher may think that he has proclaimed the evangelical truth quite often. His hearers, however, remember on that on some occasions he preached quite comfortingly and told them to believe in Jesus Christ. Without telling them how to attain to faith in Christ, your hearers will be spiritually starved to death if you do not allow the Gospel to predominate in your preaching. They will be spiritually underfed because the bread of life is not the Law, but the Gospel.

2 Cor 1, 24 we read: Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy; for by faith ye stand. This is a fine text for your initial sermon. Remember this word of the apostle well: when you become ministers, you become helpers of the Christians’ joy. Do not become ministers who vex and torture the people, filling them with uncertainty and causing them to go home from church heavy-hearted. Write your sermons so that you can say: “If anyone hears this sermon and is not converted, it is his own fault if he goes home from church unconverted and hardened.” Do not worry when you hear fanatics say that you are not truly converted, otherwise you would come down on your people with the Law much more forcefully and that you are preaching your people into hell, etc. Let fanatics say about you what they please. You may rest assured that your method is the correct one because you are to be helpers of joy to Christians; you are not to put them on the rack of the Law. The longer you preach to your people after this method, the more they will praise God for having given them such a pastor. You may believe me when I say that in the entire course of history of the Church there will be found few communions that have such achievements to show as our Synod spite of its weaknesses and defects. That is not due to our prudence, our hard work our self-denial. The true reason is that we have really preached the genuine Gospel to the people.

As soon as there arises in the hearts of hearers a desire for God’s grace and mercy and the cheerful assurance that they, too, will be saved, they are believers. Many remain in their sins because they think that they will never get to be so that they can go to heaven, since they can never become as godly as their godly pastor is. Do not hesitate to preach the Gospel of the grace of God in Christ Jesus frankly and cheerfully, and such gloomy thoughts will soon vanish from the hearts of your hearers.

Let me offer you two quotations from the Symbolical Books which show that our Church, too, has in its confessional writings declared that the doctrine of the grace of God in Christ Jesus is a matter of primary importance. In the Augsburg Confession, Art. IV, we read (Mueller, p. 39; Trigl Conc., p. 45): “Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who by His death has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in his sight. Rom 3 & 4.”

In the Smalcald Articles, Part II, Art I, we read (Mueller, p. 300; Trigl. Conc., p. 461): “Of this article nothing can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink into ruin. For there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved, says Peter. Acts 4, 12 And with His stripes we are healed. Is 53, 5. And upon this article all things depend which we teach and practice in opposition to the Pope, the devil, and the world. Therefore we must be sure concerning this doctrine and not doubt; for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and the devil and all things gain the victory and suit over us.”

Let me offer you a quotation from Luther which you ought to commit to memory and of which you should make diligent use. It is found in his Preface to the Epistle to the Galatians (St. L. Ed. IX, 9) and reads: “In my heart there reigns, and shall ever reign, this one article, namely, faith in my dear Lord Christ, which is the sole beginning, middle, and end of all spiritual and godly thoughts which I may have at any time, day or night.”

Luther might as well have said “in my sermons and writings”, instead of “in my heart,” for his sermons and writings conform to the above rule. No one can preach the Gospel more sweetly and gloriously than our beloved Luther did. He does not only offer great comfort in his sermons, but he preaches so as to lay hold of any doubting hearer and drag him out of his doubts, compelling him to believe that he is a child of God and would die saved if were to die that night. Would to God that this testimony could be offered concerning you when you have entered the ministry! Pray to God on your knees for His help in order that you may repeat Luther’s confession. Would to God that this confession could be repeated by all ministers, and I must add, alas! also by all ministers in the Missouri Synod! For they are not all alike; in some there is a legalistic trend, which does great injury to the owner and to their hearers’ souls. They do not administer their office with genuine cheerfulness and do not make their people cheerful Christians. But that is what you will have to do to achieve wonderful results. If you preach the Gospel abundantly, you need not fear that your people will leave your church when some spiritual mountebank comes along and starts and unseemly exhibition in his pulpit. Your people will say: “Our minister has given us what we could not get anywhere else. He is a true Lutheran minister and pours out a great treasure for us every Sunday.

Commenting on John 17, 10, Luther writes (St. L. Ed. VIII, 798): “Let every one, then, see for himself how Christ is glorified in him. For there are many who boast of the Gospel and know how to talk a great deal about it; but having Christ glorified in oneself is not such a common event that it takes place in everybody. For, as we were told, glorifying Christ, or believing in Him, is nothing else than being assured that whosoever has him has the Father and all grace, divine blessings, and life eternal. That is something which the saints of this world, the Pope and the sectarian spirits cannot achieve. For, although some talk about Christ and manage to utter these words that He is the Son of God, that He has redeemed us, etc., yet they never learn by their own experience how He is received, used, sought, found, and held fast and how the Father is apprehended in and through Him. Meanwhile they are soaring up into the clouds and busy themselves with their own imaginations. You can observe this in some of the sectarian spirits, who have learned from us to speak of Christ and of faith, how rarely they treat this doctrine, yea, how cold and inept they are whenever they have to treat this chief point of doctrine, and how they rush over such texts as these and merely skim their surface, regarding this matter as a paltry thing that everybody is able to do quite well.”

On examining your sermon for both its Law and its Gospel contents, you may find that you have given the Gospel very little space. Now remember, if you come out of your pulpit without having preached enough Gospel to save some poor sinner who may have come to church for the first and the last time, his blood will be required of you.

Luther continues: “To sum up, they are filled altogether with other thoughts, and even when they hit upon something worth while, as will happen occasionally, they have no real understanding of it and promptly skip on to their dreams. A true minister, however, urges this article most of all, yea, without ceasing, since on it is based everything that pertains to the knowledge of God and our salvation, as you see in this evangelist John and throughout the epistles of Paul.”

It is of paramount importance that your heart be full of this subject and that you speak of it from personal experience, so that, when you reach this point in your sermons, you are forced to confess to your hearers that you cannot fully express all that you have experienced, that it baffles all efforts to describe it in words, and that you can merely stammer forth a few inadequate words about it. A preacher of this sort will soon notice that streams of the Holy Spirit are being poured out upon his congregation and that even the most hardened sinners are for once brought around to Christ by the comforting preaching which they have heard. We must not imagine that saving knowledge is produced in the hearers invariably by powerful preaching of the Law. Many hearers of such preaching become convinced that they would perish if they had to die immediately. When they hear a real Gospel sermon, full of the richest consolation, it may readily happen that they are brought around to Christ.

In Luther’s House Postil (St. L. Ed. XIII, p. 2014) we find this comment on Ps 68, 18: “What a King is this who has ascended on high, sat down beyond the clouds, at the right hand of Majesty in heaven, and has led captivity captive! While on earth, He was not engaged in child’s play and worthless things, but captured an everlasting enemy and a great prison: He made captives of sin and the devil, who had made captives of the entire world. Hence sin and the devil, though they are my adversaries and want to torment me, yet cannot harm me in the least if I hold fast Christ.” How foolish are ministers who, after preaching a long time without having any success, decide to preach nothing but the law for a while in order to rouse their people from their spiritual sleep! By that method they will accomplish nothing. “This does not mean that the people are to remain lazy and not do good works, as the papists say when they revile our preaching and sarcastically call us ‘sweet preachers’”. Luther is willing to bear the reproach of being called a “sweet”, that is, a comforting, preacher. He will regard that as a very trifling charge when people say that his preaching prevents men from doing good works, because he is sure by his preaching he is changing men’s hearts, so that they will do good works. “However, they would talk in a different strain if they had ever been in this prison. When they shall be placed at the left hand of the Judge and anguish and terror lay hold on them, they shall experience what this prison means. Accordingly, this is not a subject that may be preached to men’s flesh and blood, as if they were given liberty to do according to their lust. But the story of Christ’s ascension and His rule is to the end that sin may be made captive and eternal death may not shackle us and keep us in bondage. Now, if sin is to be made captive, I (who believe in Christ, must so live that I am not overcome by hatred and envy of my fellowmen or by other sins, but must fight against sin and say: “Listen, sin! You want to incite me to become angry, to envy, to commit adultery, to steal, to be unfaithful, etc. I will not do it.” Likewise, if sin wants to assail me from the other side and fill me with terror, I must say: “No, sin. You are my servant, and I am your lord. Have you never heard the pretty song about my Lord Jesus Christ which David sang, saying: ‘Thou hast ascended on high,’ etc.” Hitherto you have been a hangman and a devil to me; you have held me captive; but now that I believe in Christ you shall be my hangman no longer. I shall not permit you to accuse me, for you are a captive of my Lord and King, who has put you in the stocks and cast you beneath my feet.” Understand this matter right: By His ascension and by the preaching of faith, Christ does not purpose to rear lazy and sluggish Christians, who say: “We shall now live according to our pleasure, not doing good works, remain sinners, and following sin like captive slaves.” Those who talk thus have never had a right understanding of the preaching of faith. Christ and His mercy are not preached to the end that men should remain in their sins. On the contrary, this is what the Christian doctrine proclaims: “The captivity is to leave you go free, not that you may do whatever you desire, but that you sin no more.”

Luther means to tell us to preach the real Gospel with its comfort without hesitation and not to fear that we shall preach people into hell with the Gospel. True, some may derive a carnal comfort from our Gospel-preaching, but we must not think that they will have an easy death with their false comfort. In the presence of death their comfort will vanish like snow before the sun in March. We are not responsible for false comfort which a hearer draws from our preaching. He lives in security and imagines that, since he is not so awfully wicked and has many good traits to show and his getting drunk occasionally and his cursing are merely bad habits that cling to him, he will undoubtedly go to heaven. Such a person never has received the Gospel that was preached to him in his heart. We must not allow occurrences of this kind to disturb us. We must cheerfully preach the Gospel, since Christ has commanded us: “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.” Often times all hope seems to vanish from those who have lived in a false comfort and imagined that they were resting their confidence on what their faithful minister has preached. The minister may have an awful time with such people when preparing them for their departure from this world; they seem to despair of salvation. God grant that some day people may say about you that you are preaching well, but too sweetly! Do not hold forth with the Law too long; let the Gospel follow promptly. When the law has made the iron to flow, apply the Gospel immediately to shape it into a proper form; if the iron is allowed to cool, nothing can be done with it.

Lastly, Luther writes in his House Postil (St. L. Ed. XIII, 800 ff.) “This, then, is the other rule laid down by the Lord: we are to disregard specious displays and look for fruits. He says: ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ He illustrates his meaning by a parable. No one is so foolish as to go into a field full of thorns and thistles and look for grapes and figs. Such fruits we seek on a different plant, which is not so full of barbs and prickles. The same thing happens in our gardens. Seeing a tree full of apples or pears, everybody exclaims: ‘Ah, what a fine tree that is!’ Again, where there is no fruit on a tree or he fruit is worm-eaten, cracked, and misshapen, everybody says the tree is worthless, fit to be cut down and cast into the fire, so that a better tree may be planted in its place. These tests, the Lord says, you must apply to the false prophets, and you will not make a mistake, no matter how good their appearance may be. If a wolf had put on twenty sheepskins, still you must know him to be a wolf and not be deceived by him.

“Now, what is the fruit of a true prophet or preacher by which we can know that he is not a wolf, but a good sheep? It is not his way of living, his title, and office, nor his peculiar gifts of grace. For our Lord testifies, and our own experience corroborates His testimony, that people are often duped and deluded by these external marks. The genuine fruit — as the Lord states at the end of His parable — is the doing of the will of the Father in heaven.

“Note that the Lord in this place is not speaking of Christians in general, but of prophets. True all Christians are to do the will of the Father and are to be saved through doing it.” We are frequently misunderstood. People imagine they can know a true prophet by the fruit of his godly life and by his great success in the ministry. But Christ says: “Not everyone that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven.” Matt 7, 21. “Now, ‘doing the will of the Father’ refers not only to that which is expressed in the Ten Commandments and to the obedience which God demands in His Law. For, since we cannot do this will of God perfectly in the present life, it would be impossible for us to glory in having done the will of the Father, and hence we could not go to heaven. But the will of the Father has been expressed in John 6, 40, where Christ says: ‘This is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the Last Day!’ That is the only way in which we all, both preachers and hearers, are to walk if we are to be saved.

“Now, the Lord in this passage speaks, in particular, of preachers or prophets, whose real and proper fruit is nothing else than this, that they diligently proclaim this will of God to the people and teach them that God is gracious and merciful and has no pleasure in the death of a sinner, but wants him to live, moreover, that God has manifested His mercy by having His only begotten Son become man. Whoever, now, receives Him and believes in Him, that is, whoever takes comfort in the fact that for the sake of His son, God will be merciful to him, will forgive his sins, and grant him eternal salvation, etc., — whoever is engaged in this preaching of the pure Gospel and thus direct men to Christ, the only Mediator between God and men, he, as a preacher, is doing the will of God. That is the genuine fruit by which no one is deceived or duped. For if it were possible that the devil were to preach this truth, the preaching would not be false or made up of lies and a person believing it would have what it promises. — After this fruit, which is the principal and most reliable one and cannot deceive, there follow in the course of time other fruits, namely, a life in beautiful harmony with this doctrine and in no way contrary to it. But these fruits are to be regarded as genuine fruits only where the first fruit, namely, the doctrine of Christ, already exists.”