# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_October 1863_S301
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Some Remarks on a New Apology of the Reformed Church. 301

-tations,*) editions of the same, which, besides six different editions of Luther's Collected Works that also include the little book, have appeared;**) this is also clear from the fact that the Formula of Concord appeals precisely to that book of Luther's for its doctrine of the free will, when it says: "As Dr. Luther, too, wrote well and thoroughly on this matter, and carried it through, in the book De servo arbitrio, that is, on the captive will of man, against Erasmus." That the Lutheran Church, however, has nonetheless "completely departed" from the doctrine of the free will contained in that writing is an empty assertion, for which, should it deserve consideration, the proof would first have to be attempted by our opponent. The proof, on the other hand, that Luther's doctrine in the articles on the free will, on the gracious will of God, on redemption, on calling, on predestination, etc., is worlds apart from Calvin's doctrine on these articles — despite all the occasionally apparent agreement in expression — has already often been conducted irrefutably.†) That, as Mr. Kr. says, there are very few Lutherans who have

*) Fabricius, in his Centifolium Lutheranum, already makes mention of a considerable number of these. P. 435, 822, 823.

**) Among the eight German and Latin editions of Luther's works, only the Jena German edition — like all his other writings originally written in Latin — does not include the book De servo arbitrio, and the Erlangen edition, which is nearing its completion, has unfortunately not yet progressed far enough to include this writing as well. — Calvin's collected works — this only in passing — have seen only two editions, of which the latter is the Amsterdam edition of 1671.

†) We recall here only the following work: "Defensio pro theologis evangelicis seculo reformationis, sigillatim Luthero, Melanchthone, Bugenhagio, Sarcerio, Regio, Althamero, Corvino, Flacio, Heshusio, Sim. Pauli, Jac. Andreae, Brentio, Heerbrando, Balth. Bidembachio, L. Osiandro sen., Chemnitio, Kornero, Musculo, Kirchnero; adversus dicam particularismi ipsis impactam. Autore Gust. Lisseo. 1724." (4to), in which work, as the title itself attests, not only Luther but all the more prominent Lutheran theologians of the sixteenth century are cogently defended — by citations from their own writings — against the charges of particularism, after certain Tübingen theologians (J. C. Klemm, C. M. Pfaff) had, in the interest of the Union, attributed this Calvinistic error to them. Lisse draws his evidence mostly from Luther's other writings. We recall here the following passages from his work De servo arbitrio: "God does not grieve over the death of the sinner, which he himself brings about, but grieves over the misery and death he finds in man, and would gladly take it away. He wills that all men should be saved, 1 Tim. 2:4, since through the word of the Spirit he comes to all; and it is the fault of our will that we do not receive him, as the Lord Christ says, Matt. 23:37: How often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not!" Why, then, the divine Majesty does not remove or alter the defect of our will in all men — though the will is not in our power or might — or why God imputes the fault to our will, though man can neither lay it aside nor is able to lay it aside: that no one should search into or ask. And though you ask long, you will nevertheless never find it out, as Paul says to the Romans, 9:20: Who then are you, who would answer back to God? (We add: a Calvinist knows all this excellently well, he