# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juli 1855_S207
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Lutheran-Theological Pastors’ Library. 207

concedes nothing, says in the dedication that Flacius had explained himself in such a way that “his opinion could readily be approved and admitted by peace-loving people without danger to heavenly doctrine.” Thaburnus (whom Gesnerus numbers among the most steadfast and sincere Lutherans) writes of him: “Dr. Matthias (Flacius) also confesses that he is a pupil and follower of Luther, and in that confession he demonstrates the fidelity and steadfastness required of him. Nor is he at variance with me, as he has indeed demonstrated his agreement in writings.” My opinion is also strengthened considerably by the fact that the excellent Dr. Fecht, in Apparatu ad Ed. Marbach. c. 4. p. 75, assures us that some distinguished theologians shared this opinion, since they could not believe a man of Flacius’s great learning capable of so dreadful an error. I also ask that consideration be given to how Luther’s statements on this article are explained by Gerh. disp. isag. p. 385. disp. 24. What is cited in Luther’s favor applies equally to Flacius’s words, if only one is willing to examine them a little. Oh, how good it would be if people did not sometimes demand an excessively precise accounting of words, but always sought, as far as possible, to interpret them favorably!” (Unschuld. Nachr., year 1706, pp. 245–47.) Carpzov had already expressed himself in the same way in his introduction to the Symbolical Books. He writes there: “Just as Flacius himself afterward sought in various writings to defend what had once escaped him in the heat of disputation, so his followers were no less diligent in doing so; yet they became far harsher, more shameless, and more absurd than their teacher himself, whose meaning they did not sufficiently understand. If at the outset he had been willing to improve his manner of speaking ..., he would never have caused such great unrest, and the orthodox could easily have agreed with him ... In his answer to Jacob Andreä’s epistle, he wrote significantly: ‘When I commonly say that the heart itself, considered theologically, is original sin, does he, along with Nicodemus, falsely attribute to me the claim that the heart itself, considered absolutely and physically, insofar as it is a certain kind of flesh, is original sin?’” (p. 1160 ff.) The entire thorough account of Flacianism in that passage should be compared. Finally, as for our Glossa compendiaria itself, it will suffice to present here an older testimony concerning it. Löscher writes of it: “It is an excellent work for investigating the literal sense and is to be preferred to many lengthy commentaries. It is only to be regretted that his Glossa Veteris Testamenti was not also published.” (Unschuld. Nachr. 1712, p. 76.) The honored reader will forgive us for making this digression. We hold that it was a great stratagem of the devil to plunge a man such as Flacius into error and thereby attach a blemish to him. Everyone can readily imagine what the devil intended by this: namely, to bring that dear man’s otherwise so valuable writings under the suspicion of all orthodox believers and to deprive the church of the benefit that God had intended for it through them. That this hellish plan