# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_August 1911_S368
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

368 Literatur.

remain“ (336). Man versteht es darum auch, wenn Emith daraus einen Vor⸗
wurf macht, daß Luther noch an einen persönlichen Teufel glaubte und an das
nahe Bevorstehen des Jüngsten Tages (339. 341). Luthers Lehre vom Abend⸗
mahl bezeichnet Smith als consubstantiation“ (90. 238), obwohl Luther allen
Lokalismus aus der Gegenwart des Leibes und Blutes Christi im Abendmahl
ausschloß. Zwar lehrte Luther auch die Allgegenwart Christi nach seiner mensch⸗
lichen Natur, aber nicht, wie Smith behauptet: that Christ's body may be
extended through space“ (241). Eine Ausspannung des Leibes Christi durch
den Raum hin lehrt Luther nicht. Von Philipp von Hessen behauptet Smith:
„He had Uàa clearer comprehension of Zwingli's opinion than had Luther,
and was, perhaps, inclined to adopt it himself“ (243), wovon das zweite
richtig ist, aber nicht das erste. über Luthers Taufformular schreibt Smith:
„The baptismal service is strikingly diflerent from that in use in most
churches now. The evilespirit was first exoreised from the child, who was
then asked a number of questions on its religious attitude, answered by
the sponsors, of Wwhom there were a cçonsiderable number“ (235). Smith
scheint das heutige lutherische Taufformular nicht zu kennen und übersieht auch
wohl, daß Luther zwar eine geistliche Besessenheit lehrte, aber keine leibliche.
Die Lehre Luthers vom freien Willen im Jahre 1520 und 1521 betreffend sagt
Smith: „Since the fall of man, says the Wittenberg professor, free will
is simply a name; when a man does wlat is in him, hensins mortally. He
eites Augustine to the effeet that free will without grace is able to do
nothing but sin“ (101). Ferner: Luther argues at length, in the 36th Ar-
ticle, for his opinion that freée will is but a name. The Reformer himself
had selected this as the foundation of all his theology, being. in fact, no
moreé than another form of the famous doctrine of justification by faith
alone“ (204). Und über Luthers Schrift vom Jahre 1525 wider Erasmus lesen.
wir: This bulky volume has been acclaimed by most Protestant biogra⸗
phers of Luther as his ablest polemie and a work of extraordinary power.
It is néedless to remark that much of this abilite is wasted on a genera⸗
tion for which the question then so passionatels disputed has sunk almost
into oblivion. In point of earnestness he is a striking contrast to Erasmus.
What for the latter is the subject of an inteéresting discussion is to him
matter of life and death. It is in this sense that he attributes eloquence
and mastery of speech to his opponent, but to himself substance and real
understanding of the issue. Luther takes his former stand for extreme
preédestinarianism. His determinism is not foundeéd, as that of a modern
philosopher might be, on any conception of the immutability of natural
law, but is simply and solely the logical deduction from his doctrine of
justification by faith alone, or, as it is technically ealled, of the moner-
gism of grace. Man is a simple instrument in God's hands, and the Al-
mighty arbitrarily saves whom He wills, and damns Wwhom He wills“ (207).
Für seine Behauptung läßt Smith dann etliche Stellen aus Luthers Schrift
folgen. Eine gerechte und richtige Darstellung der Lehre Luthers vom freien
Willen läßt sich aber in etlichen einseitigen Zitaten nicht geben. Sie will vom
Ganzen aus verstanden, erfaßt und dargestellt sein. Die entgegengesetzte Lehre
des Erasmus charakterisiert Smith kurz also: Finally he sums up, those
please me whio attribute something to free will, but much to grace; both
must cçooperate to save a man; one may assign as small à part as one
likes to the former factor, only it must be some part“ (207). Und von
Erasmus selber urteilt Smith: Erasmus is an evolutionist and a rationalist,
ο Wwhom all rtruth does not come through the Bible, but much from reason.
Ie believes, moreover, that men have a natural trend to the good““ (210).
Über Luthers Stellung zur Bigamie in dem Rat an Heinrich VIII. und an Phi⸗
lipp von Hessen sagt Smith: The proposal to commit bigamy, rather than
t0 divorce, shocks an age aceustomed to regard the latter as the Preferable
alternative. The genéeral opinion of the sixteenth century was exactly op-
posite to that of the twentieth on this point. for the simple reason that
polygamy. practiced in the Old Testament, was never expressly forbidden
by the New, wlich discountenances divoree. Luther's good conscience in
giving this advice is shoun by its disintérestedness — for by complying
with the king's wish for divorce he miglit have won a powerful convert —