Those who do not sympathize with his conservatism yet admit that Luther's personal religious character was deep and consistent, and that in the sphere of conscience, and \vhere he stands on the verities of his own internal experience, he is the unshakable reformer. But it is said by these objectors that where his own immediate religious consciousness ceases he shows himself under the influence of his earlier views ; that, unknown to himself, he stands forth with the "'ineffaceable traces of the monk, the priest, and the scholastic theologian." By this supposition is solved the fact that, while he re- jected the mass as it embodied the idea that the Lord's Supper is a proper sacrifice, and rejected transubstantia- tion, he yet found it impossible to abandon the thought that the Lord's Supper veils the mystery of redemption, and is " more than an act in which a congregation imites in a pious and believing memorial." This it was, they think, which led him " to a conception of the sacrament obscure and indeterminate, and to a doctrine which maintains on a scholastic basis the presence of Christ, and the ubiquity, the omnipresence of his body." From the same direction comes the charge that, " blinded by the halo which to the eyes of the people invests the head of the imperial majesty, he overlooked the fact that it IS not only Christian for a great cause to go cheerfully to the scaffold, but that it is also Christian and manly for inalienable rights to resist imperial op- pression with the sword." Luther's holding back, and Luther's scruples, are charged as the main cause that the Evangelical States made so little use of the favora- ble opportunities which were so often presented in the political relations of the times; opportunities which, rightly used, would have enabled them to seize and to maintain the pre-eminence.
To these objections it may be answered that all that is of real importance in the judgment of Luther's posi- tion as to the Lord's Snpi)er hinges upon the question. Is his doctrine the BiWical one? If it be Biblical, the main objections vanish. They could at the worst fix no more than the charge of doing a right thing in a w^rong way. If we were to concede for Luther in these controversies what he confessed for himself at Worms, that he had fallen into personal expressions which did not become his character as a Christian, nor as a minis- ter of Christ, yet we could say for him, as he said for himself at the same great sera, the question is not con- cerning his person, but his doctrine. If the doctrine be unl)il(lical, the jiroof of that fact swallows up all minor questions. But those who \)n7.c the thing will at least forgive the mode. Loving Jiim for the '-re" in which he was " fortiter," they will absolve him for its sake for having carried the "fortiter" also into the "modo." Hero, as elsewhere, the estimate of Luther's character is properly made from the position of those who harmonize
with his views, not of those who differ from him, for the practical difference between the construction of firmness and obstinacy usually is, that firmness stands fast to what we cherish, and obstinacy holds stiffly to what we reject, or care nothing about. To the Komanist Luther was obstinate at Worms, firm at Marburg ; to the Zwin- glian portion of Protestants he was obstinate at Mar- burg, firm at Worms.
As regards Luther's political position, it may be said that it saved the Reformation in its infancy ; and when evU counsels of the friends of Protestantism harmonized with the cflbrts of the Komanists to drag the question of the ara into the arena of state-struggle, the Kcforma- tion was brought to the verge of ruin. Had Luther shared the political views of the Zwinglian side of the Keformation, the appeal to arms made in the Thirty Years' War might have come a century earlier, and might have ended in the overthrow of the Keformation. But once in his career did Luther yield to the pressure of political considerations (the bigamj' of the landgrave of Hesse), and in that yielding the Reformation received its severest blow, and the name of Luther its solitary blot. His simple trust in God was the highest princi- ple. It was, though Luther did not think of it as such, the highest policy.
A complete, comprehensive, and systematic statement of his doctrines was never given by Luther, not even in his confessional writings. Others have endeavored to arrange his views in systematic order: Kirchncr, The- saurus (in Latin, 15G6; in German, 15Gfi, 1570, 1578); Theodosius Fabricius, Loci Communes (Lond. 1593 ; 1G51, Latin ; and in German, 1597) ; Mains, M. L. Thcnloijia Pura (1709; with a Supplement, 1710); Beste, J/. Z.'s Glaithensk'hre (HaUe, 1845). In this general class may also be mentioned And. Musculus, Schaiz (1577), and Salzmann, Singularia Lutheri (1664, fol.). It was Lu- ther's work to restore doctrine, he left to others the ar- rangement of it. He made histon,-, others might write it. Luther's great aim constantly was to give promi- nence and strength to those doctrines which were denied, ignored, or cdrrupted. His plan of warfare was that of attack rather than of defence. He fought many battles, but underwent and conducted few sieges. " The ■wealth of his theological knowledge and teaching rests essen- tially upon his direct mig'nty grasp, intuition, and uni- fying view of truth. As the result of this, it is the peculiarity of his mind that there is a relative throwing into the background of that aspect and endowment of inteUigence wliich are directed to calm reflection upon the diverse individual elements and parts of the object, to notional formulating, to logical or dialectical syste- matizing" (Kiistlin, The Theology of Luther [1863]). The grand impulse of his life was to testify to the truth ; so to impart tlie knowledge in which his own soid had found healing and salvation that it might be to others health and life.