THE SPRINGFIELDER

April 1974 Volume 38, Number 2

Luther on Law, Gospel, and the Third Use of the Law

NE OF THE STRANGE ::ilNOhlAL,IF,S k11id the ironic tragedies 0 of our day is that within conscr\:;~ti\:cl,utlierai~ ~lleolog!. there should be a str~igglcover the subject of the La\\: and Gospel, and, more specifically, ovcr the third use of the Law. Strange and ironicl we say, because tlie Confessions, especially the Forniula of Coiicord (Articles IV, 17, and VI), have really spolien tllc definitive word 011 the subject. 13ecnuse these weye 111atters of scrious contention in the tro~iblcdperiod after 1.-uther's dcath, the fran~ersof the For~nula of Co~lcorclspelled ~LILver! carefull!. the Refo~:iiintio~~position, \\!hat: it meant to be 3 SII~ISCI-~~)CI-of tlic I,~ithc~:anpositio~l on Law a1.1(1 Gosl)el according to the Augsburg Confcssion. Thus wc inight j:ightl!; expect that the tlleological. dust \sould have remained settled, especially lor 3'Jissouri. ilftc~:all it nas shc that gave the wol:l(l C. F. TY. TL'althcr, thc 19th centur!; genius tvho lwoduced tlie famous lecture series, Iiiter piiblislietl in booli fo~ni,011 3'12.c Proper Distirrctio~r 13ct1reelr L(711: nlirl Gospc'l. I'd(: spol,c out of i~ riel-1 l~~cl<~roundof teacl.ling ant1 pnst-or:~lcspcricncc!; b~itahovc all lie hnd beliefitcd on 1-his subject- from his assicll~ousst~id~ of T-ut'lier's writings. not;-\bly thc (.;rrlntin~r Col~r/iret~tc~r!..

Jt Ivas LValthcr' wl~oempllasizctl anew on t'hc America11 sccnc: thougll his voice was heascl, in Europe, too, that Lniv i111t1 Gospel stand at ol>posil~glxlIes, iliametricall!/ ol~l)osite,mi~tui~lly cxcl~isivc. on the lnnttcr of. a man's justificatiol~1)efore God. Hcre tlicrc was 1x1 mean, or ~niddlegroul~tl, as Lutliel: p~~t.it 111 his Colntiari Cow- riler~inry.' Tlicre could be no co~np~:oiiiiscbet\vcen active r.igllti:ous- ]less, ~vliichis by thc I,nw, nntl passive rigl~tcousncss,\vl.~icli is 11); faith through thr Gospel. This Christian righteousness, as 1.utller also calls the latter, is thcre for faith's acceptance, for imputation to oul' acco~~ntbefore God in hcavcn, bccausc Christ nailed our trans- ~lressionsagainst the Law of God to the tree of the cross (Col. 2, 1 5). l'onards, or for, this rjghtcousness k2.e con tribute "11otl11og at all," says I,uther, for Christ "has been nladc for us \vistlanl, riu,lltco~~sncss, sanctification, and redemption" (1 Car. 1, 30); and, thcrcfore, "here one notices no sin and feels no terror or remorse of' coi~sciencc," sinrc "sin cannot happen in this Cliristian righteousness; for \rhel.e tliel-e is no Law, there cannot be anv transgression (Ron]. 4, 151."" This article is the hallmark of ~llristianit~,puts Sat-all :~ndhis accusations down, alone comforts troubled and aRicted consciences, cnal~lingthen1 "to tale hold of the 1,romise of grace nifcrcd in Christ, that is, this righteousness of faith, this passive or Lhristiao righte0~1~-- ness, . . . this righteousness of Christ and of the Holy Sl3irit ~vliich we (10 not perform but receive, which we do not 11avc but accept, 117hel1 Cod the Father grants it to ~1sthroli~h Jcsos Christ.".' This is so totally vital in the life of the believer indiviilually and of the cl~urchcorporately that, says Luther, if this "doctrine of-' justification is lost, the whole of Christian doctrine is lost."" 'I'llis is the liberty, Paul teaches so eloquently in his Galatian r,etter, in which we stand. None ~~nclerstooclthis better and shared it illore convincingly with the \vorlcl than Luthcr, who hail struggled through the deadening load of Romanist, nronastic, legalistic burdens. It was this song whlch he sang wit11 such delight and such light heart for Leo X, in 1520, to whom he dedicated his famous treatise 011 Th.c Freedom of thc Christin~~."The proposition that "a Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none," was grounded on God's promjsed forgiveness in Christ, the passive or imputecl right- eousness to faith, rvhikh brings pardon, endows with the riches of Cllrist, linltheology of the cross, C;liristian Gospel, "our highest comfort," says .I.,uthcr, "for just as Christ is wrapl~cdup in our f-lcsh and blood, so we must losc servecl I)\, the Law in this its civil function. Rut in 1:o wa); doc.s it fol1o1.i. &at, l~ccaoscthe Law successfull>- rcstruins sin, it can also rnaltc men rigl-itco1.1s. Just the opposite is the case. By the \:cry fact that it must restrain evil, the Law demonstrates not nlan's goodness I~utthe Oeptli ant1 extent of his unrighteousness. The Law's primary function now, ho.ivc\~er,is spiritual, or theological, as Luther states, "to re1:cal to man his sin, blindness, ~l~isery,nlickcdncss, ignorance, hate and contempt of God, death, hell, jiidgmen t, and the well-dcservecl \,vrath of God."" This is its proper :mtl principal function, in vie\%:of ~narl'ssinfulness, for Got1 needs to crush and llrlnl~nerto pieces the opinion or pretensioll of right- eousness which natural ma11 always has within him. There is no other way of getting at this "monster" than bv the Law. It is tlie "hammer of death, the th~lnderof hell, 2nd the lightning of divine wrath," that can crush the rebellious, stubborl~,self-righteous, sn7ol- len heart to the point of clcsl)air." That has al.cva\ls been its proper and first function since the Fall. That was its primary purpose already in the Old Testament, a!: R4t. Sinai, too, Luther points out. There the Israelites stood all "washed, righteous, purified and chaste," but they hntl to scc that none of their domestic, active righteousness or "purity hclped them then." In fact, "their sense of impurity, uni~orthiness,sin, jodgment, and wrath of God was so great that 'the51 fled from the prcsencc of thc TJord and were not abIc to hear His ~oice."" So, the existential truth is that unless the hard, r-~itan~antwall of prcsunlption and pretension of ri8hteo~1snessbe demolished, therc is 110 chalice that the yreaching oi the free remission of sins for CllristYssake can enter the human heart. \,\!hat: 11appencc'I to the IsracIites "is what finally happens to all. self-rigl~teouspeople who are tlrun]Law and Gospel, and the function each has, the Law to reveal sin, accuse, terrify before tlie tvrath of God- and there to hnvc 311 end!--ant1 the Gospel to quicl-sbe troubled by such as "boast and s\vc;lr that the): arc intent on nothing except the glory of Got1 and ~11cs;tlv:ttion of the brethren, and that they teach the Mrord of God I~LIJ.C~\:;Ixtt ill fact they disto.rt the LVorcl of God and twist it into an alic.11 r~lcani~~g,so that it. is forced to tell them whr~tthey themselves imagine," that is, "thejr own dreams," malChristian theology: "U:lless the Gospel is dearly dist.inguished from the Law, Christian doctrine cannot he Itcpt souncl. But when this distinction is recognized, the tri~c~ncaning of justificatioi~ is recognizecl. The11 it is easy to clis- tingi~ishfaith from worl

Lutlle~: steered thc ship of the church expertly through the straits betmeen the Scglla of synergism and the Charybdis of anti- nomianisill. Only a hclmsm;~~~~vho Imew well and abided steadfastly by the careful (listiiictio~~1)etn;een La\+?and Gospel could have done J..l,tth~!~On Third Use 159 ------...... s~lclnsliillful piloting. It was no easy matter. Subtle synergisn~has a way of insinuating itself at ever!; corner of Christiail doctrine. Froiltal attack, on thc central article of the Gospel, is hardly cver synergisln's way. Lutl.ler had to show that even n illail like iiugustine, the re- (loubtable hero of thc churcll in its struggle against I'elagianism, did not have tlle matter of faith and worlis, or charity, straight. By tcaclling that faith is foi:rned or ailorned by charity, he was con- fusing Law and Gospcl, thus justiticntion and sanctilication, and was gisi~~pthe blessing to and the raison d'etr-e for the whole monastic systcn~ot discipline. Just the reverse of what Augustine hacl tauoht is the truth, L~itherj~lsistecl upoil the basis of Galatians 2, 16; h,for it is faith that forms or adorns charity. Gooil worlis flow out of justi- fying faith. "Thercfore, this gloss (that unless faith is formed and ado~:ned b.lovc, it is nothing) is to be avoiilecl as a hellish poison, and wc must conclucle with Paul: By faith alone, not b): faith forn~ed [I\; love, arc we ju~tified."::~Thc prepositions, or usclusivc particles, tell the story: "Tliis faith justifies 117ithozrt1ox.c and before love.":" 1,uther faced ~nucht'he sal.ne tendency ill h~lelanchtl~oi~who insi~~unteclsynergistic notions into thc doctrine of conversion. ?"he .volul.ztas ~zonrcp~,ig~znlts, the non-resisting ~~~jll,which klclanchtholl saw as the third efficient cause in man's regeneration, or conversion, was subtle synergism. As long ;IS 1,~1therwas alive, his eood friend's faulty theology, ~vhichreally was also a failure to clist~nguish ant1 Gospel correctly, remai~ieclsubdued. I3ut h~lelanchthon's .views shoolz the church in the Synergistic Controversv after Luther's dcnth, ;~ndit was not finally settled u11til the onn nu la of Concord in its articles on original. sin (I) and free will (TI), laid the un'Scriptura1 and disturbing teaching to rest. 'rl.le antinomians threatened f~:on~the other flank, arguing that continuing repentance in believers was worked by the Gospel (so John Agricola), not by the Law, and, as a matter of fact, that the Law was of no further use to the Christian, the truly regenerate, 13ot cven as a guide or 11orm for godly conduct (so l'oach and Otto). That the Law, in its principal, theological fuilctioil (accus- atory) was still valid far Christiak believers, the New Testament malzes very plain; for example, in the classic passage in Paul's Letter to the Romans, chapter 7. Paul .cvoulcI not write this way, Luther shows, if it were not so, that each Christian, from his own experience, standing under the Law, knew that the old Inan in hiin clashes col~stantl~with the new man whom the Spirit anin~atesand prompts. Would Paul be censuring Peter, Luther asks on the basis of Gala- tians 2, 14, if it were not true that Peter had confused thc proper distinction hetween Law and Gosl-~el?~~ The Law has its necessary and abiding place in the life of each sinner and the preaching of the church, not because it reconstructs the old man or' constrrlcts the new, but because it beats down the old man's pretension of righteousness, and does so incessantly. UPoll this old man, as upon an ass, there must be laic1 the b~lrdenof the Law's demands;?' and this situation never changes, T.ut11er states. as long as life goes on, not until and when "the new man by faith" is put on in all perfection ant1 "this cloes not happen fully in this life,":" So, also tlic regenerate man continues to require 110th the preaching of the law, that thc old man may be put hvn and re- pentance be worlted, and also the preaching of the Gospel, for the ivorlting of the forgiveness of sins and faith's acceptance of God's gracc. Fail to preach the Law fully, and you fail to prepare the way for thc Gospel; you prevent it from talcing hold or effect. "This is thc theme," statcs F. Pieper, ''~vhichLuther developed and thoroughly presented from Inany angles in his offensive against Antinomian- is11l.":'~T11e Gospel cannot be lnade to clo what only the Law can, nor vice versa. "'I'here is n time to bear the Laiv and a time to despise the I,aw. 'T11et-e is a time to hear the Gospel ant1 a tinlc to l

But antinomiailism surfaces at another point, viz., in tlcnying that. the Law is of any furtl~eruse to tlle Christian as regards holiness of living, sanctification, or good worlts. The Formula of Concord t1edic:ited a separatc article (171) to this notion and gave what should bc-at least for Lutherans- the definitive answer: the Law is useful, in thc third place, and specifically and alone for regenerate Christians \vho "hnvc I~eenborn anew by the Spirit of God, converted to the L:ortl, ant1 thus (have) the veil of hiloses . . . lifted from tl~em," tllat "they live ant1 wall< in the Lai~."';~ On tlic basis of 110111. 8, 2; 7, 23; ;\nO I COL..9, 21, the lormula rccognizcs fully that such good works "are not properly ~vorksof tlic Laiv, but ~vorksant1 fruits of the Spirit," done "from a free, cheerful spirit," but: nonetheless works "according to the inllliutable will of Cod comprised in the I,aw.""Wo one cnn mistake t-l~cForli~tila's lncaning in this simple, artless sumnlar).: Althoilgh the truly believing are vcrily moved I)).; God's Spirit, 311d ~IILIS ii~~ordi11gto the jnner man, do God's ~vill fro111 a free spirit, vet it is just the Holy Ghost ~vhouses the ~vriltcn law for instruction wit11 them, by \vhicIi the truly believillg also learn tc serve God, not according to their ocvrl tho~lghts,but according to the written Law and \Alord, which is ii sure ~:uleand standard of a godly life and ivall<, 1101~to ordcl- it in accordancc lvith the eternal ancl in~mut;~blewill of god.":^" 'Tlic f'ran~crsof the Formula of Concord, it should be remem- Iwrcd, co~lccivccl of their task, in the midst of the controversics, to statc thcticall~.ant1 nntithetically, what it nlcant to he loyal sub- scribers of the Augsburg Confession, Lutheran theology's nzagna ctlrtn. At Augsburg the Confessors had stated that good works in the belie\ler's life flow out of his justification and are those corn- inanded bv God:'O Lest there be anv doubt as to what was in their minds at Aogsburg when the\ spoke about things "con~niandedby God," the Confessors pointed*to the Ten Commandments." In his Lztthcr Olz Third Usc 161 .. .--~

Apology to the Augsburg Confession, in article (111) on "Love and the Fulfilling of the T-:l.irl," R~t~l.;lnchthonspelled out the same trLltll, that Christian X~clicversin striving after holiness of life jive out of thc content of the 'l-'en Co~ll~nandments.Liltc I.,uther he stressed tile close, inevit;lblc connectio~i,the Itexus ixdi17alsus, betLI:eell jLlstifi- catioll and sanctification, and thus between the Lam and the Gospel in the believer's life. do otherwise ~vouldhave been to deny the holiness and goodness of the divine will of God. Though Law Gospel were poles apart on the sinner's justificatio~l before God; absolutel, divergent; scparatetl from each other further than op- posites, to use Luther's figure; accomplishing absolutely different things-even in his sanctification of life thc believer lives out of the power of the Gospel, not the Law!--yet the\ n-el-c to be taugllt side side in the church and by the ~huchto the end of time. L~~therrepeated over and over again that his emphasis 011 justification by faith alone nn7er meant a lessening of emphasis on quest for holiness in the believer's life. One can onlr be strL1cli by the frequency with which hc states this. Kew ol)cdiei;ce, or good \;or]Christian ethics. It is a beautiful exl~ositjo~~ of the Ten Comnlandnlents in the life of a believer. Naturally, 1,uther never loolar,v arc apart, as far as thc 1,aw fro111 tll~Gospel. 13i1t all things arc new for the man in, ~vhonlthe Spirit: of Got1 dwclls and' ~vorks.The IZpitonle of the Fol-mula of Co~~cordput it this way: Fruits of tllc Spirit, l~owcver,arc tllc \vorlich the Spirit of God who d~vellsin the belic.crers \\~0~1isthrough the regencrate, anil ~vhicharc done bv believers so far as the): are rcgei~cratc,as tho~rghtllev ltncw no command, threat, or re- ward; for in this manner the children of Gocl li-ve in the La\v and ~~~;llkakcortling to the law of God.';' Necdlcss to say, whcn J,i~ther and the Confessions speak of tJic spiritual use of the Law by believers, they always repent the conlicction l~etwec'njustjfication and sanctif-ication as an inevitable ~.clat.ionshil),and that \vhat thc rcgencratc marl docs in confonr~ity ~vitlithe TJoly Law of God flows out of the power of the Gospel. In ili~ct.,tlic.1-c ~voultlbe no talking of the third use of the Law at all \wrc it not for tllc Gospel and the siilrler's justification througll Cltrist.. Ihpon~c~:eclbv faith and thc Gospel, thc regenerate sinner \\:;~ll;sin the I',anl of Cot1 not as nn cnd in itself, as thoug1.i under tllrcat ancl cocrcio~i,or in quest for re.it.ard, but out of Iovi for God ancl, siit~ult~~~~eousl!:,out of love for his neighbor, I>oth bei11g 1'ruits ol' fi.litl1 \.c~ortliyof repentance. "These arc thc exhortations," 'T2uther slates, ~vl~icl~.arc so frctlucntlv fount1 in tltc Netv Testament, "and tl~cyarc i~~tcndeclto stir up those who hnvc obtained mercv and have bccrl justificcl a1reatl!., to be energetic ill bringing fol-th tl~cfruits of thc Spirit- and of tllc righteousness givc~ithcm, to cxe~.cisetheniselr~es i 12 lovcl ant1 gootl \.c~o~.l(s."'~~

-l'l~cthird use of the Ca\v, I~othas taugllt in the Iutheran C;olifcssjons ancl in Luther, h:~s cxlxrienced serious ~nisllant'lling in modern thcolog!;, illso by Lutheran theology's erstwhile friends. Notable scllolars like Werner IIlert :~ndGerhard Ebcling have argued that thc third LISC of the Law is foreign to and out of character with Lutllcr's thinking and writing: Eheling insists that the Law in its twofold sense, r!ulllex I.LSZLS 7egzs, is as far as Luther goes or allows.G2 Elert has tlcvoted a separate monograph to thc matter, Jmv nwd Gos~)elfi:',hcsidcs touchil~gupon the same key points in his larger ~vorli,The Chl-istinlr Ethos."" 'rhc tern-I "third 11sc of the Law" must be attributed to Wlel- anchton; :Luther never used it, Elert argues. With consiclerable vchel.ne11cehc contends that the words attributed to Luther, "Thirdlv, the law is to bc retained so that the saints inav know which worlts God requires," were intcrl>olated into the conclusion of T~ther's Secmnrl Dislmt~fitio~rAgni~lst the A~ztinomians,January 13, 153 8. G6 Elert's basic contention is that for Luther, ns for Paul, "the moment never arrives in the life of the Christiar~when the law has nothing more tllan an informatory signifcancc for him," and that, if under- stood on that basis, "we shall have to agree wit11 the Scandinavian Finnish theologians 'cvho have pronounced the doctrine of n third use incompatible with thc I-uthcran understanding of the law alld gosl'"l .""; ElertJs is that theologicallv he is involved in the rvronp ball game when he claims that ~uthernever tatlgllt tile I.,.TI,Ls triplex legis, and, moreover, without even Itnowing it, he is not ellen in the right ball park, when he implies that orthodox J,l~tl~erantheology by its contending for the thircl use of the 1,alv llns in fact cvcr denied or separated the second, accusatory Eunctioll of the Law, fro111 consitlcration in t11c Chrislian's Life. Elcrt is right wllen hc accuses rationalisnl, Schleierinacher, ant1 ]lis theological clesce~~tlants,includil~g his antipode, Ipietism, and not Lutheran orthodox theology, whjch introduced legalism, moralism, subjec- livis111, and wrongful "freedom in the Gospel" into the church, all of it being or verging on simple Antinomianism, with denial of the J4nn.'s second or accusatory function. F. Bente tilarns wit11 justice: (Barthian and Lunclensian), on the one hand, and against liberalism, on the other. Elert follows the Iine of his Erlangen f-orebears who tried to wed Hcilsgeschichte, saving history, or the Bible's saving, Gospel con tent, with higher critical methodology of Scril~tore'stext. Like Don Quixote he is fighting an imaginary foe in orthodoxy and hdds it guilty on two counts: slavish subservirnce to the sacred, inerrant text of the Bible, or "the Holv Spirit's book" (I,utherls phrase), antl legalistic dependence upon tl.1~L,aw, as tho~1g11it were a clearer manifestation of the Gospel. in sense. 'The tragedy is that Elert ends up misusing L~~tlier011 the subject of the Larv and the Gospel, in addition to misjutlging Con- fessional, conservative 1,utheran 'theology. Obsessecl \vitll the notion that all who upholtl a position in defense of the third use of the .Il.,aw must be g~~ilty,on the one ]land, of Calvinism's sill (see above), anti, on thc other hand, of obliterating the accusatory antl principal function of the I,aw because of their emphasis also on the informatory function as n guide, Jllert simply "reads" Article VI of tllc Forll~ula of Concortl accortling to his onln pres~~ppositionalprejutlices, drives a difl'ercnce hctween Luthcr ant1 even the early Melanclithon on the sul~jcctof thc 1-aw's third use, and makes capital of the fact that J,~~t-llcrilever used the term "third use." \\llletl~crLutlicr tiitl, or did not, use thc term, can be dcbated, as IJII plicd above. Above all, however, Luther's position docs not stand or fall with thc teml. As thc Reformer so often stated in conilectiol~.tvith .tvord hassles (e.g., "frec will" ill his tlisputc with Erasnrus), it was uot the term, bzrt thc thing ter?rzctl \vhich was of thc csser~cca~~tl the fulcrunl of the argumcnt. So, here, it must bc st;~tetl agai~~stElcrt that he closes his c! cs arbitrarily against the \olumil2o~1sevidcnce in T>uthcr's writings in support of thc thircl usc of the T,a.iv. /\pparently llc does so, in order to lay :I charge against conscrvnti\rc, Confessional Lutheran thcologv of being more In 1lnc with hlclancl~tlioninn and Calvinist thinking on tllc third ~iscof thc r2a\v than with Luther. ilis accusation has moi-c. liolcs than a sieve. 11: docs not really lie within the province of this cssav to tr!: to ~xobcJ'LI~~~IcI- thro~~gll Elert's thinking anti motives, nor of' thosc - - ivho follow in his train.',' Nor is that necessary. It is a blintl spot ~.i>Iiicl.lsiml>lv occupictl his attention. Other notable Luther scholars - - like Helnlut "~l~iclicke,'~~)~i~lAltha~s,~~ ;~ntlFI. H. I

1. Wcl:ncr Elcrt stalcs tliat TValthc~:\\.;IS allnost alonc nrllong 19tl1 century 1,uthcr-intvptctcrs \\;lie correctly cilught thc Paulinc-Txtheran untlcr- st;lnding ot. the distinction bct~vecnLaw and Gospcl. cf. Lmv rl11rl Gosl~el, Fort-rcss, I'l~ilndc.lphia, 1.967, 1). 2. 2. LW 26, 9. 3. Xbill., 8. 4. !bid., 51:. 5. Ihid., 9. 6. LIV 31, 3271f. 7. L\Y 26, 6. 8. l$)i(l. 9. lbirl., 132. 10. !bid. 11. L\1/ 31, 33. 12. lbid., 53. 13. lbid., 54. 11. LW 26, 312. 15. LW 31, 56. Tl~csjs26 at Hcidclbcrg. 16. LW 26, 157. 1'7. lbiri., 163. 18. lbid., 277. 19. Ibid., 278. 20. lbiri., 280. 21. Ibid., 309. 22. Ibid., 3 10. 23. Jbid,,311. 24. ]bid., 312. 25. Ibici. 26. Ibid. 27. IbiJ. 28. lbici., 313. 29. cf. Gesctz zr. Evongelizrnz, Co~~corctia,St. Louis, 1917, 3. 30. Ibid., 137.

(:I!I.~.cTI~sill '~'~Ico/o;(!'~itd >li.i~j~t~,. Scn~inc~'~ "C;"[fiI," ~01%1. &o. 1. )\11g. 19'74, js ;-i case in l~oillt."Is thc La\\. a G~~idcfor Good Works?"thC ])ilot. article ;IS~\S.It a pilgc OLI~of 1:lcrt's l~c,uli. setting Lllther ;1g;tilIst h/lcl;incht-llon, thc 170~muln of Concol-tl rcally ;iq;~instjtsplf ( ilntl ;,gainst h:lissou~-i'sand Walthcr's thcolog)l>? ;111d.\\:hat is nlor(: tjmclY, "lnodcr;ttcs" in hilisso~~ri;\gainst co.ns~r\.ati.c-cs.011 the last sc01:c: thc ;ir-iclc is prohab]!. right. l'hel-c is a ~~roLlcn~in Xlissortri. This essay presents ;I str;t~.~gc., j~icristic. itlc;~lisric I1if~~cali01101' tlic (:li~isti:l~i. ;IS t110~1g11lIe \\-trc not sin11c.r and si~intin t11c salnc sliin at tll~saille tilll~.;I p(\rson \\.hC)fintls thr. olcl i~ndlie\\. nlilll \\jtlii~ihill1 j11 constant (c,nsion. It f;~ilsto oLsc!rvc. \\rllat 12uthcr il~lcl~IIC COI~~CSS~OI~S llliili~\.cry plain. rhnt t11c Christian man, l>cc;~uscof tllc COII[~IILIC~inl~crc~~cc of ~IIC olcl i\di~~.ii,rcquircs thc ji~~itlan~~ of 1.11~ La\\ in sanctific;~tio~lnlltl yooti \\:orl\s, lcst 11c folio\\: aftcr ;I sell‘- ;~ppoi~ltcc.l~~l-ogr:im of llolillcss. .;\ccordirigly. the i~rtjclcsiin~?ly concludes on tltc. note hat !]I(: 1)~itlst;~t.enlcnt tlii~t tllc I,ni\ sc~:\.cs;IS ;I guiilc ol.nl f'or tlic ~ood\\.orl\s of the Chl.isti;ln strilic:.q ;I llotct !hilt icl" is not ;I c:o\-c'1.-\111Sol: ;~nti~iolllianis~i>.\\'hich h;~s;~l\\,ii,.s ri~ox.cd \\-it11 ;I s~ll,jccti\.c, ~~ictislicfrcctlom from thc o1)jcctivc \Vord of God ns gl\cn in ljol!. \V~,it.rl~~~r~t's thc st-(>I:!. i\.llicl~ hislor\ \v~..itcsso pl;\inI),, nncl i\/lisso[~ri'sconc~cl.1). csl~rc'srcd at he\\. Orlcatis. is thitt thc. cocoon 01' ;~ntiiiom.i;~nis~~i\\..ill opcli I.IF 10 i~~~tigoil~ciisll~. '?.l~col~,gicfiiliil1ic.s. \ol. I. I~or~rt:ss,,l'l~il;~~~c~~l~i~~~ 1966, 1 q4f. 711c llzoolog? of ;\lrrltill Li~tllc)..SO~.~J.CSS? L'l~~iI~idcl~~lii;~~ 1966, 272. ~\ltl>il~rsis ~lc,t;rl\\.iiys cnl1sistc:nt. In his 711c Ili~.inc~nwltt~(i~rii 11c stilt^^: "\\;c fintl it imposiil)lc to 1.ct;iin tliic concc,1>1.." (1). 45 > 7-11? 'Fl~~o/o:!.of fi l(~r!i,~J.,~ttl1~1~. 1;11ncs (:1;1~1;(! (.:o., l-,o~~cIo~i~I 94 7> 61 .