On The Efficacy of the Divine Word
From Adolph Hoenecke’s Evangelische Lutherische-Dogmatik, 1909 edition.
Martin Chemnitz Press
New Ulm, MN
Translated by Martin Jackson
© 1997 by Translator, all rights reserved
The Efficacy of the Divine Word
God's Word in its essence consists not in the sounds, tones, letters,
syllables, words, and sentences, but in the divine truth contained in the Words.
Remarks: Many of our dogmaticians, for example, Quenstedt, deal with the Efficacy of the Word of God already in connection with the doctrine of Holy Scripture in the Prolegomena. But there, Scripture comes into consideration as the source of knowledge (organic foundation, causative norm) and measuring rod of doctrine (normative norm). Here it comes into consideration as the means of the Spirit for our conversion and salvation. From that we must now examine its efficacy. We do that in general here in the present paragraphs, and in particular on the paragraphs about the difference between Law and Gospel, for the particular efficacy of the Word falls together with this distinction.
Our first thesis deals with the essence (form) of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God. The syllables, sounds, and words are not the essence. If they were the essence, then:
1) the Scripture would contradict itself, since certainly according to Scripture itself words, syllables and letters can be destroyed (Jer. 36:27), but on the other hand, according to Scripture, God's word will remain forever (1 Pet. 1:23-25 and other passages).
2) If the sounds, tones, and words were not only the material but essence of the Divine Word, there would be no translation of the Old and New Testaments, because it would not contain the original words, God's Word.
3) In this case, the Apostles could not have preached the Gospel to all creatures, since Christ preached it to them in only one language.
Quenstedt: The name of Holy Scripture is employed either formally, for the divine sense and writing denoted by the words, or in which the Word is divine (in which sense of Scripture eternity is assigned, Isa. 40:8, 1 Pet. 1:23-25), or materially, for the words, letters, and characters themselves, or the writing itself, that is, by what it was consigned in writing. Note VIII: the formal of Scripture is the divinely revealed sense; the material, letters, words, and writing. – Thesis V: The internal form of Scripture is one thing, the external another. The internal form, or what it gives Scripture to be, namely, the Word of God (that is, constituted it and distinguished it from all other writings, is the God-breathed sense of Scripture, which in general is the concept of the divine, understood of divine mysteries and our salvation formed from eternity and revealed in time and communicated to us in writing, or the very God-breathing itself, or divine inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16), in as much as the Word is divinely constituted and distinguished from the human. The external form of Scripture is the character of speech, or style and idiom. Indeed, in the Old Testament, the idiom was of the Hebrew language (partly Aramaic), and in the New Testament, the Greek language.
This distinction between the internal and external form does not contradict the thesis that the syllables and words, therefore also the Hebrew and Greek, are not really the essence, but only the material of the Word of God. For on the basis of what was said above about the external form, not even the Hebrew and Greek words, but the Hebrew and Greek manner of speech, is explained as the external form, in which God once revealed the secret of salvation, or the Gospel (this is not a challenge to verbal inspiration).[MJ1]
Our dogmaticians wanted to give the absolutely necessary explanation through the above distinction of external form, that the Hebrew and Greek manner of speech does not stand in the same accidental relationship to the true essence of the Word, namely the divine, inspired sense, as some peculiarities of speech retain the same essence in translation, but inspiration may even be recognized in all altogether different manners of speech in such a tightly bound relationship that one could recognize very well the external form, adhering to the essence. Also, since Scripture is Word, and the essence of Word is its sense, the external, grammatical sense of Scripture can be designated as the external form of Scripture and the Word of God. But in so far as Scripture is not a completely ethnic word, but is God's Word, the internal essence of Scripture is not the grammatical, but the inner, spiritual sense (divine and internal sense), which is only given to those who have been born again of the Holy Spirit.
But here, regarding the material and formal of Holy Scripture as taught by God's Word, one would be completely wrong and in contradiction of Scripture itself if one wanted to drive apart the material and formal from one another, as all Fanatics do in consideration of the work of the Word of God. Immediately following is the next thesis, to deal with this question.
The whole Word of God has power, even outside the use, as in the use itself.
Remarks: It is customary to divide the power (strength, potency, efficacy) of the Word of God as representative power, excitative power, and collative or exhibitive power. The first is the power to give a clear presentation of divine matters, a teaching power, so to speak; the second is the power not only to give a presentation of repentance and faith, but to actually produce and work these things; the third is the power to distribute the real grace of God.
The present discussion is especially about the excitative or effective power, to be sure, more generally, that Scripture really has an effective power to carry out an effect, and to be sure, always. The collative power will be dealt with chiefly in paragraph 62, on the distinction between Law and Gospel.
Our thesis has clear proof in Scripture itself, which ascribes power and efficacy both to the whole Word of God (Heb 4:12) and to the individual parts, Law (Deu. 33:2; 2 Cor. 3:6; Rom. 7:10, 4:14-15) and Gospel (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18; Joh. 6:63-68).
According to the statements of Scripture, neither Law nor Gospel is a dead letter, which could first perhaps be given a certain efficacy from somewhere else, through the previous presence of the Spirit or through preachers. On the contrary, both have power in themselves to produce the appointed effects in the spirit and will of man.
Quenstedt: When we attribute divine power and efficacy for producing spiritual effects to the Word of God, or Holy Scripture, we want it understood not only of the Gospel, but also of the Law. Gerhard: The questions about the efficacy of the divine Word in general and the efficacy of the Gospel in particular are distinct…For although the Law is not the means or the organ through which God wants to kindle faith in Christ, nevertheless it by itself is not a dead letter, but it slays, as the Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:6), works wrath (Rom. 4:15), and thus in its own kind is not less efficacious than the Gospel. Since God's Word, both Law and Gospel, have power in and of themselves, its efficacy first cannot be made dependent on its use. The Word also has power outside the use. Proof:
1. Joh. 6:63: "The words which I speak are Spirit and truth." The power of proof lies in the connection with the preceding words: "The Spirit is the one who gives life." My words are Spirit; that means life, through which sinners can be made alive. They have the power the Spirit has. But what it has (as it is now with the Word), it has by the power of its nature also outside the use.
2. Jam. 1:21: "Receive the Word which was planted in you with meekness, which can save your souls." According to this passage, the Word which is planted through preaching is a Word which has power to save, a power which it did not first receive through planting; even before the planting it was a capable Word, not first through planting, or preaching it into souls. And the admonition to receive this powerful word certainly shows that it was powerful before being received and also remains powerful without it. Luther writes exactly this way: "So, then, once more: here the power and the Word are not to be divided, but the Word and the power are one thing, not different things, for it is often said thus: As an effective or powerful Word, that the power is the essence and nature of the Word, which works in all things." In another place: "The Word of God, on which the believer depends, is all-powerful and the power of God (Rom. 1:16), which does not let him fall or sink...the Word is a divine and eternal power...therefore, it is definitely a divine power, indeed it is God himself...although the Word is trifling and appears to be nothing, because it proceeds from the mouth, there is such an overwhelming power in it that it makes those who depend on it children of God (Joh. 1:12)." In the last citation Luther places the essential power even outside the use side by side with the effects from the correct use. Our dogmaticians indicate this division of the efficacy of the Word as efficacy of the first act and second act; the first is the indwelling power, the second is the working, or effect from the correct use. Thus the Wittenberg theologians wrote in their theses against Rathmann: "We do not make a distinction between the power or first act and the divine effect, or second act of the external, read and preached Word without a reason. Per se and by itself it is always a power, or has in itself a power to move each and every hearer." Thus Tarnovius writes: The Word of God always has the power of illuminating, converting, sanctifying placed in it by God in the first act, because it is the ministry of the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:8) and the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16), even before and outside the use, although it does not convert in the second act or illuminate those who are contrary to it (De Libero Arbitrio, thes. 43). It does not chiefly work outside the legitimate use. It has all power outside the use, but is so ordained by God that its power should come to work (effect) only in the legitimate use, through preaching and reading and consideration of it. Therefore, it follows from this that it has power in and of itself, but not that it also fulfills its effect outside of the legitimate use. Indeed, the fact that this latter effect does not also follow each and every time is in spite of its indwelling power. We certainly do not understand as power the actual effects, but the ever-available ability to produce the effect. The Word does not work physically; the Word does not work irresistibly before all things. Quenstedt: The Word of God, by ordinance and will of God Himself, even before and outside the legitimate use, has intrinsic, divine, sufficient, and indifferent power and efficacy for immediately, truly and properly producing spiritual effects toward all men, both gracious and salvific effects, such as regeneration, conversion, illumination, salvation, and also punitive effects, such as shaking, mortification, and damnation. Quenstedt here demonstrates that it cannot be said that the Word has power in and of itself, as if it had this power only among the elect (Calvinistic doctrine), for then the efficacy would be dependent upon an absolute decree of God. A per se power of the Word could not be discussed if were not immediately, but worked mediated by another divine power; it would also not work truly, if it only described spiritual circumstances, but did not actually work; also, it would not work properly if it did not effect conversion itself, but only something preparatory to it. Therefore, we not only ascribe to the Word representative, objective, and significative power, but also effective, true, and real power.
Those whose doctrine we condemn in connection with the power and efficacy of the Word are:
1. Fanatics. Schwenkfeld: The life-giving Word is not the written Word, but Christ himself. Weigel: The Word of Scripture is a dead letter, which only hangs on paper and the ears.
2. Pietists. Andrew Osiander counts as forerunner. He said, “The Word which one preaches to us and calls God’s Word is only an external voice and human word, which has its beginning through a man’s mouth and soon comes to an end again in the air. The external word is not the internal, but it shows it and reveals it.” Rathmann: “The ax does not hew where the lumberjack does not first put power and force; Scripture does not convert where the Holy Spirit does not bring his gracious light and power to Scripture.” According to his opinion, the divine power first comes to Scripture through the legitimate use, preaching, and consideration, and is detachable from it every time. “Scripture has many times considered itself as Scripture, that it testifies, teaches, and proves objectively, as in a true testimony, picture, accurate representation or sign what the nature and will of God are, and what our obligation is.” Scripture, in and of itself, has only a historical and instrumental light, the so-called “light of Scripture,” not light of the subject or internal light and illuminating power. Kaspar Movius, a Lithuanian preacher and associate of Rathmann, took the same position.
3. The Socinians. The Racovian Catechism says, “The preached Word strikes only the ears.”
4. Most Calvinists also teach that one must distinguish between an external and internal Word, that that the external Word only signifies and brings no spiritual effect with it; conversion is only worked immediately through the Holy Spirit. Their doctrine of absolute predestination necessarily intrudes on such a doctrine. Calvin: It must be noted, that what the minister signifies and testifies by outward action, God completes internally, lest what God claims for himself alone be applied to a mortal man. Oecolampadius says in his writing from 1525: “The words of Scripture do not have the power and might to bring about what they indicate; if it were so, then we would make magic out of it; the human heart has the power of the words internally.”
According to all these explanations, Scripture only presents, but has no internal power of itself to work the spiritual operations presented, but first attains this power in the use, because then the Holy Spirit approaches it and works these effects.
The objections of this fanatical point of view are:
1. When Scripture speaks of the power of the Word, it refers to the essential Word, namely Christ. Against that: In Joh. 6:63, Christ himself distinguishes himself from his Word and contradicts that claim.
2. Of the words which Christ himself speaks, it is obvious that they are Spirit and life, but not of the Word that man preaches. Against that: The Lord says, “He who hears you hears me.”
3. If the Word had power of itself, a person would only have to hang the Gospel of John around his neck in order to be saved. Schwenkfeld and also Rathmann both bring this senseless objection. The Gospel of John, insofar as it is essentially God’s Word, namely, the divine truth, cannot be worn around the neck; one can only be saved through it by the legitimate use, through the preaching commanded by God.
4. Scripture could have power not of itself and outside the use, for according to Lutheran doctrine God’s Word and the Codex of Scripture are not identical; thus where God’s Word should properly be with its power outside the use is not to be disregarded. Quenstedt: Movius asks where the Word of God is outside the use? We respond: that originally it was in God, or the conception and mind of God; representatively in Bibles or the sacred books, subjectively and habitually in the minds of men, economically or dispensatively in divine order, predestination, and sanctification.
5. A metonymy is offered in Rom. 1:16. Beza: This expression of the apostle is figurative and metanymic in particular, because the effect is set for the instrumental, subservient cause; the Gospel is the power of God for salvation, that is, (he says) the instrument which God uses effectively to make us serve.
As far as God’s Word is word, or speech, its power is one which works morally.
Remarks: 2 Peter 1:19 says about the Word: “You do well to consider it.” Therefore, the Word of God is directed towards man’s mind. In 2 Cor. 4:6 Paul indicates as the mission of the preaching office that the enlightenment of the clarity of God in the face of Jesus Christ originates through it. Therefore, this is also the power of the Word, that it gives knowledge. Psalm 119:104-130 and Eph. 3:6-19 state the same thing. According to the latter passage, the enlightening effect of preaching consists in the fact that it gives knowledge. Consequently, God’s Word remains without any fruit where it does not come to understanding (Mat. 13:19). According to Psalm 119:32 the moving power for the consolation of the mind consists in running in obedience towards God’s command. Finally, according to 2 Tim. 3:15, God’s Word has power for reproof and convincing.
This is taught with everything about Scripture’s way of working, that the mind and thoughts of man are pointed to Scripture, that his spirit may be fulfilled with knowledge of the truths brought forth in the Word, and in this way his heart and mind should be moved in many ways. Therefore, according to the statements of Scripture, the working of Scripture proceeds in a way tailored to the spiritual nature of man; it is mediated spiritually. The power of the Word is, as we express it, a psychologically, or, as our dogmaticians say, morally working power. Huelsemann: The Word of God, understood in its first institution, exercises the divine power of illustrating the shadowy minds of men with the knowledge of divine things, of bending wills from evil to good, from hate to trust towards God, etc. Applied to a suitable subject by mode of instrumental cause, it works not physically, by contact with the agent, like opium, rhubarb, venom, fire, etc. work physically on a suitable subject, but morally, by illustrating the mind, moving the will, cleansing emotions, etc. This morally must be understood not to oppose metaphysical movement and contact, but only is distinguished from physical contact and movement; See Baier, also Quenstedt in Observation 4:3, where he explains that the Word of God not only has a moral effect, therefore he adds that by all means it works morally, but not only in this way. He points to this moral effect in the chapter On Justification, thesis XII: The form of justification in general consists in the working of a certain change in a human sinner, indeed not a physical change, but a moral one. Huelsemann points out that Holy Scripture by all means has something particular, but also here has something common to every writing: It is common that just as the word of man is the character (expression) and index (notification) of the spirit, by which mediator men signify the senses of their spirit to another, or to ask what they want, or to share what they have, so also the Word of God is the index of the divine will by which he signified to us what he wants us to believe and do.
Together with our dogmaticians, we object on the basis of Scripture to every opinion of the working of Scripture (or God’s Word) according to which it works like a magic charm, like a potion, which works magically or mechanically-physically. Such opinions were found in the early church. For example, Quenstedt reports that already in the earliest church, there was a practice of wearing Scripture passages, or parts of Scripture to ward off sickness and other things. Regarding that, he says: Therefore, in this way foolishness advanced in the primitive church; certain ignorant and superstitious women, since they attributed apotropic or magical power to the letters, syllables, and words of Scripture themselves, and held that either pronunciation, or wearing, or hanging them up, or some other use would be able produce certain effects upon superhuman powers, for example putting to flight or driving away diseases, demons, ghosts, and other evil things. Similar abuse is also found among the rabble today. Many in the present day expect a magical working of the Spirit who only in the proper sense sit in on the preaching of the Word, without striving for an understanding of the preached Word.
Our dogmaticians give rich testimony, in which they object to a magical or physical working of the Spirit. Quenstedt: On that account, however, Holy Scripture does not work or operate physically or naturally, strictly speaking (He says strictly because in a certain sense, the dogmaticians speak of a physical or natural working of Scripture, but understand that as the working measured by the nature of the Word, and which follows from the nature of the Word), either in a natural and physical way, namely through physical contact, just as venom works physically. The Wittenberg Theologians, in the conflict with Rathmann, say: “In no way do we ascribe a heavenly, hidden, natural or magical, or supernatural power to the words, syllables, and letters as they are written on paper (that is, we do not say that power proceeds from the words as such, that it happens in a magical or other way.)” Loescher: One must diligently defend against the Naturalists (Rationalists) that conversion and the other effects of the plan of salvation do not occur mechanically, but by Him who gathers spirits and is above nature.
The true power on which the effects of the divine Word depend is a supernatural power, none other than the power of God himself; and the effects of Scripture which occur towards a sinner for salvation are as such supernatural in the fullest sense of the word.
Remarks: Scripture does not work mechanically, but morally (thesis III), but not only morally. Rather, Scripture itself teaches about its manner of working that:
1. In the Word of God, God Himself works (Rom. 1:16). If the Gospel is a power of God, then God himself works. There is and can be no divine power divorced from God and bound to something else. God and His power are identical.
2. The effects brought by the Word: rebirth, enlightening, salvation, and so on, are ascribed to God himself and particularly (through appropriation) to the Holy Sprit: Joh. 1:13, “Born of God;” Joh. 3:5, “Be born of water and the Spirit;” 1 Joh. 5:4, “What is born of God;” compare 4:7, 5:1, 1 Cor. 12:3: “No one can call Jesus Lord except through the Holy Spirit;” Jam. 1:18, “He has testified to the truth through the Word according to his will;” Joh. 3:6, “What is born of the Spirit.”
3. Man by nature can understand nothing of the nature of the Spirit of God, therefore of spiritual things, and so of Scripture itself.
With all this, Scripture teaches that the power of the Word of God is not only one which works morally, such as every human writing has, but a supernatural power. The power of a speech which works morally presupposes that the hearer can completely understand its rationale and lines of argumentation. It also presupposes that the hearer can perceive its power to prove, that its diction can be understood, and that one can comply with its intention. If this presupposition does not apply, then the speech also cannot have even a moral effect. But this does not apply to God’s Word, for man by himself cannot understand Scripture. Now Scripture of course works morally, that is, that man understand its argumentations, deems it worthy, indeed inclines toward them with spirit and will and subjugates himself to them, but this only happens because Scripture has a higher power than only moral which works, namely a supernatural power, which is none other than the power of God Himself. The Wittenberg Theologians speak about this in their disputation with Rathmann: “Further, it must be known that its power does not only put natural power into the letters or words (as also perhaps another rationally written book has persuasive power (moral power) in itself), but we hold that such power is supernatural and to be sure is originally the power of the Holy Spirit, who communicates it to the Word, and it gives life when it is read, preached, and considered, that it become a Word of Life (Joh. 6:68), a Word of Salvation (Act. 11:14) a savor of life to life.” Huelsemann: The Word of God has a peculiar power before persuasive words of men, because it persuades hearers of things which are not analogs to either human understanding or intellect, which understands through senses, or to the will, which measures proportions of pleasant and unpleasant things by analogy with the senses. Valentin Loescher: However, when the best writers say that the act of conversion is natural, they do not speak in this sense (which we reject), to attribute a mechanical or any other physical mode to conversion, but are disputing against the Pelagians (who therefore apply the converting power of Scripture only towards those whose teaching about conversion is evident), who consider conversion only as moral persuasion, and only indicate this, that the powers, to which one is able to be compliant in moral persuasion, are not left out.
In the antitheses to all this stand all Pelagians and rationalists, whose names also may be added. Arminians, Socinians, and coarse and subtle synergists accept either only or partly a solely moral working power of the Word. Scripture works with convincing power and movingly towards men only through the clarity of their doctrine and through the impressiveness of their proof.
Also, those who to be sure ascribe to Scripture truly converting power working only the power of God in the Word, but in addition affirm that main by himself after the first hearing of the Word can have at least a wish and will to be converted (Melanchthon’s faculty of applying oneself to grace), fall into the same error. Here at least an only moral working of the Word is affirmed, if only such a fixed beginning.
The relationship in which the power of God Himself stands to the Word is this, that the Holy Spirit is the first cause of the effects of the divine Word, but the Word is the tool of the Holy Spirit.
Remarks: Since Scripture itself ascribes enlightening, conversion, all other effects of Scripture both to God Himself (Joh. 1:13, 1 Joh. 3:9, 1 Cor. 6:11, Rom. 8:33) and also to the Word of God (1 Pet. 1:23, 2 Cor. 3:9, 5:18), they are both bound together, only in the sense that Word and Scripture serve in the position of an instrument. Scripture expressly testifies this in Jam. 1:18: “He has testified to us through his Word of truth.”
Now the question is, what kind of tool is Scripture, if God works through it? Answer:
1. Scripture is not to be seen as a kind of tool in which the divine power is locked in, so to speak. There is no divine power besides God, which could be detachable from Him and would not be God Himself. In the same way, neither the grace nor the mercy of God may be thought of in such a way. Grace may not be thought of as something existing outside of God, and as a fund, gift, or treasure entrusted to the Church (so to speak) and locked into Word and Sacrament. That is papistic false doctrine. It hangs together with their doctrine of opus operatum and the magical working of both Word and Sacrament. Chemnitz nobly contrasts the papistic false doctrine with the opposing Scriptural doctrine: But it must be accurately and carefully guarded against, that when we dispute about the power and efficacy of the sacraments, we not take away things which are proper to the grace of the Father, the efficacy of the Spirit, and the merit of the Son, and transfer them to the sacraments, for that would be the crime of idolatry…therefore, just as the Gospel is the power of God for everyone who believers, but not magic (one can see quite clearly here what not magic properly means here: grace is not locked in), as if a certain power inhered in the characters, syllables, or sound of the words, but because it is the medium, organ, or instrument through which the Holy Spirit is efficacious, setting forth, offering, exhibiting, distributing, and applying the merit of Christ and the grace of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. So the power or efficacy is attributed also to the sacraments, not as if saving grace could be sought outside or beyond the merit of Christ, the mercy of the Father, and the efficacy of the Spirit…in this way, God’s glory remains His, in order that grace not be sought from anywhere else than God the Father, that the price or cause of remission of sins and eternal life be sought anywhere else than in the death and resurrection of Christ, that the efficacy of regeneration for salvation not be sought from anywhere else than in the operation of the Holy Spirit. What Chemnitz rejects here in respect to the Sacraments is also rejected in respect to Scripture and the Word of God, as if they were something working independently. When Scripture works regeneration and other things, then this is, as Chemnitz says, the operation of the Holy Spirit Himself. Therefore, with this doctrine we oppose not only the papists, but also the Socinians, Arminians, and Rationalists, who also certainly ascribe an independent and separate working to Scripture, but not according to the papistic way, divided from the power of God and placed in the means of grace, but through a moral power, residing in the clarity of Scripture.
2. But Scripture and the Word of God are not to an inherently dead tool of the Holy Spirit (as the fanatics say), so that the spiritual effects proceed only from the Holy Spirit without participation of Scripture. Scripture itself provides no basis for this erroneous opinion, since it compares the Word to a hammer (Jer. 23:29), a staff (Psa. 23:4), a scepter (Psa. 45:7), therefore with instruments which are inherently dead, which do not work of themselves, except when they are first moved through an acting cause. For the comparison with a hammer etc. does not point to the nature of the Word, but to the activity of its working and the power of its work. Indeed, the Word is not compared with a hammer at rest, but with a striking hammer, not with an unmoved sword, but a hewing sword. Therefore, these comparisons present the Word as a living tool (animated instrument). And even more immediately, they make comparisons to seed (1 Pet. 1:23), fire (Jer. 23:29), and light (2 Pet. 1:19). Against this fanatical opinion, which sees the word only as a dead instrument, speak all passages which declare a power of the Word (Joh. 6:63; 1 Pet. 1:23). The idea of instrument does not apply here chiefly in the usual sense, but in a wider sense, in which one considers things which do something themselves, but not from an original, independent power, but from an originally distributed and indivisibly bound power. In this sense, the Augsburg Confession already (and the dogmaticians who follow it) call the external Word an instrument. Quenstedt remarks that it is better suited to refer to the Word not as instrument but as means. Behm: By reason of external preaching or economy the Word of God is and can be spoken of as an instrument, yet the divine power internally communicated to the Word as instrument brings us in, in so far as it was religion…for the power of God which is predicated of the Gospel is never something other than the power of God himself, but is the very power of God. Who, then, would want to call this power of God an instrument? Of course, no one can want to call Scripture a dead tool, whose nature according to the divine sense is the divine truth which works powerfully. By itself, a purely human word, fulfilled in a human sense, cannot properly be considered a passive or inanimate instrument. From all of that follows the abomination of the fanatical thesis that the Spirit works without Scripture. Spirit not without Scripture, Scripture not without Spirit – that is sound doctrine.
3. The true relationship between Spirit and Word and of the Word to the Spirit as means or instrument of the Spirit is this, that Spirit and Word are indivisibly bound and constantly work together in an inseparable act. That follows from the previously related Scriptural truths. It is proven that Scripture does not work without the Spirit, and that the Spirit does not work without Scripture. The effects of the Spirit are also constantly works of Scripture. Spirit and Scripture are inseparably bound in their work, namely on the basis of the free, gracious will of God. Scripture teaches this in 1 Cor. 1:21: “It pleased God, through the foolishness of preaching, to save those who believe in it.” This passage does not speak historically, of a given situation, but of the order which God has made according to his good pleasure. God does not will to give faith in another way than through the Word, or: the Spirit works faith in no other way than through the Word. Now it follows from this, not only that the Spirit does not work in another way that through the Word, but also this, that wherever the Word is preached, there the Spirit works. For without this one could not state an invariable collaboration of Word and Spirit. But Scripture teaches this expressly in Rom. 10:17: “So faith comes from preaching.” Also, here not a particular situation is meant, but the general order (compare v. 14). But according to many passages, for example 1 Cor. 12:3, the Spirit works faith. And in Isaiah 55:11, God makes a parallel between rain and the Word. Now rain is always wet and always inherently fruitful. Therefore, according to God’s will, the Word should also work something, or it is God’s order according to his good pleasure that His Word should always have power to accomplish something, and the Holy Spirit who works, once in man, is properly the principal efficient cause. Therefore, it is also stated through Isa. 55:11, in connection with Rom. 10:17 and 1 Cor. 12:3, that Word and Spirit always be bound together, and that the Spirit always works where the Word sounds forth. Quenstedt: The power of converting is proper and natural for the Holy Spirit, and belongs principally to Him, however with the Word as means, in its way, is shared really and inseparably by divine ordinance…and several of our theologians desire nothing other when they say that the power of illuminating and converting by the Word of God is essential, than that the power itself is internal or intrinsic, perpetual, inseparable, necessary by necessity of divine ordinance; that the power pertains to the integrity and internal perfection of the divine Word, however graciously, mystically, communicatively, and by dependence upon divine ordinance. Joh. Musaeus: “I have stated, namely that the principal formal motive of divine faith, or chief moving cause, is God as the first truth, the independent, changeless truth, but Holy Scripture is the is instrumental motive or mediate moving cause, and God works the supernatural result, or faith, in the hearts of man not without and outside of Scripture, but through it; and Scripture also works it, but not by itself, or outside and without God, but through the power of God, that both (God and Scripture) are an indivisible working.” Joh. Gerhard: It is one thing to distinguish; it is another to separate or divide. Scripture, and we, distinguish these external means of salvation from the internal power and operation of God, not so that preaching and hearing the Word is one thing, and inner conversion is another; not so that in baptism the application of water is one thing, and internal regeneration is another, etc. But from that distinction, (namely the proper distinction between the external means and the internal operation of God) an abominable separation or divulsion must not be inferred, since by the very ordinance of God the external means of salvation and that internal power of God are joined. For it pleased God to confer his spiritual and heavenly benefits on us through means. It would be a godless separation, if someone said that Scripture had only a moral working and the working of God were a parallel, accidental, divisible working, coming to Scripture from outside and also not working together with its work at the same time. That kind of godless doctrine is not by any means taught in our Confessional Writings, when they confess: “Who [namely, the Holy Spirit] works faith, where and when he wills.” With that, they only confess that cause is the principal cause, and that it does not lie in the will or striving of man when he comes to faith.
Since Spirit and Word constantly work together, it follows:
1. That Scripture works in no other way than as Spirit. Scripture states that, since it knows only one enlightenment, one regeneration, one conversion. It ascribes these works in their fullness and essential character to the Spirit as to Scripture. It does not teach that God’s Word only begins something and the Spirit fulfills it or turns back. The effects of Scripture and Spirit are the same in their entire process. The Wittenberg Theologians, in their dispute with Rathmann, say in their censure: “In the principal question in this place, the censure does not acknowledge a conjunction or union of two actions, but a unity of action, not two kinds, but one kind of enlightenment. For the Holy Spirit in and of Himself does not enlighten or convert in a place, but it is one kind of enlightenment and conversion, which proceeds from and is made capable by the Holy Spirit through the Word as a holy, suitable means.”…”There is not one enlightenment, conversion, and salvation which proceeds from the Holy Spirit as consequence, and another enlightenment, conversion and salvation which proceeds from the Word as a consequence, but the enlightenment, conversion, and salvation of the Word is the enlightenment, conversion, and salvation of the Holy Spirit, which the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of man through the Word.
2. The Spirit does not work before Scripture, Scripture does not work before the Spirit, but both work together, just as effect follows cause. Quenstedt: To be sure, the Holy Spirit is prior by nature to the divine Word, but its nature does not work prior. For they are not only joined, but they even work and operate conjunctively. Therefore, the action is plainly numerically one and indivisible, which is from the Holy Spirit efficiently as principal cause, and from the Word itself as instrumental cause, or more powerful means. The Wittenberg Theologians: “Rathmann does not want to stand for it, therefore he writes in his renewal: ‘Whoever wants to insist that the working of the Holy Spirit and Scripture is numerically one action must also concede that the Holy Spirit and Scripture are one essence and one nature.’ But that conclusion is evil. To be sure, the working of the Holy Spirit and Scripture are not one kind of working, for the Holy Spirit works as chief cause, Holy Scripture as mediate cause, but it is and remains one working, for the Holy Spirit and Holy Scripture work conjunctively, as to the subordinated cause united as chief, and mediate cause through divine ordinance. Therefore, illumination is attributed equally to the Word or Holy Spirit, but not equally.”
The working of the Holy Spirit through the Word as its means consists in a constant influence for the creation of all salutary effects, which influence, according to Scripture, has its root in a once-for-all established unity of Spirit with the Word.
Remarks: According to the statements of Scripture itself, the Spirit works through Scripture. Therefore the question is asked: how should one present this again in accord with Scripture itself? Then this presentation is presentation is only in accord with Scripture if it remains in accord with Christian truth, that the Holy Spirit principally works enlightenment etc.
The following presentations are false:
1. The Word intervenes so to speak, between the converted sinner and the Holy Spirit out of an indwelling power, and by itself creates an entrance into the heart, enlightens, converts, and guards. If one teaches this way about the working of the Word, then one does not leave anything over for the Holy Spirit to work, and overthrows Scripture, which teaches a true working of the Holy Spirit. For Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:4 that his preaching occurred with proof of the Spirit and power; and 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 3:6; and 2 Cor. 4:6 ascribe the spiritual effects to God, especially the Holy Spirit. Here, our dogmaticians provide evidence of their Scriptural presentation of doctrine with the well-known dogmatic axiom, that the power to convert is not imprisoned in the in the Word, also insofar as it is considered according to its nature, the internal sense. Gerhard: In no way do we state that the Word of God is in this way the instrumental cause or conversion and salvation, as if some other natural power for producing this effect subjectively inhering in it, is in it, but because it pleased God to provide the external Word as a cause working instrumentally for that divine effect of conversion and salvation, to deal not immediately, but mediately in the business of salvation with men. Therefore, whatever is attributed to the external word in this part, that completely and totally depends on divine ordinance. Martin Chemnitz expresses himself about this in his Enchiridion: Outside of conversion it is true that this virtue and power is not in the syllables or characters. Nor do we desire this, that the vanishing voice of an orator is as capable, as if it could do this of itself. For inflaming and converting hearts, beginning and effecting penitence, faith, and new obedience, are the efficacious operations of God alone, which he works in man with his omnipotent power. And apart from that power of the Spirit, Scripture is only a dead letter. But the Holy Spirit does not want to work that power without means, but decreed that Word and Sacraments are the ordinary means, which He uses instrumentally and as His external organs, and through those things which were mentioned, operates, increases, and preserves faith in the hearts of men. Chemnitz is not speaking of the Word here as the fanatics, who say that the Word, as we have it, is a dead letter and does nothing unless the Holy Spirit comes in from outside; Chemnitz is speaking hypothetically, logically distinguishing from the nature of the of the Word, if the Spirit were not, as He actually is, indivisibly bound with it according to the good pleasure of God, and says the same as Gerhard with his words, that the Holy Spirit Himself works in the Word.
Now someone might object that the nature of Scripture is the revealed sense, and it must have an inherent, independent power, since it is the thing itself according to the sense and counsel of God. And so it could be claimed, it seems, that for the sake of its nature, Scripture in and of itself, subjectively and inherently, possesses the power of conversion. To this objection it is answered that there is a difference between an archetypical mind and an ectypical mind. The divine sense, which dwells in Scripture as nature, is rightly considered according to the content, with the sense dwelling in God Himself, but not the essence. Therefore, an independent working of the Spirit is also not to be based on the nature of the Word. --- This rebuttal is not completely satisfying, for once it takes God’s Word only as a presentation (signifying) of the divine sense, then it is fully considered as divine sense. Also, it is not supported by the right point, which is not even the distinction between archetypal mind and ectypal mind, but this, that the thoughts of God, which are one in truth with God, are not even to be divided from him, so that in all real framing of the nature of Scripture, it is not separate from God, and Scripture can immediately thought of as working independently. Scripture constantly works dependently, in constant dependent relationship on the principle cause, the Holy Spirit.
Many times, our dogmaticians say rightly, that the power of conversion comes to the word essentially or formally, that it belongs to its nature; but with that they do not mean that the power of conversion belongs to the Word as an accident to its subject, but rather they are saying this in opposition to the fanatics, who let the power come to the Word from outside first in the use. Also, when our theologians say that the power of conversion pertains to the Word per se, they are not saying this in opposition to through something, -- for certainly Scripture has its power through something, namely through the Holy Spirit – but they are speaking in opposition to through accident and contingently, because Scripture works not only under circumstances, but because of its constant connection with the Holy Spirit.
2. It is also false when it is said that Scripture works from its independent power and at the same time, the Spirit also works, and that both work together in parallel next to one another at the same time and for the same purpose. This presentation is false, because:
a. Chiefly, Scripture does not work independently, even as it was proved above;
b. and then, because the basic axiom of Scripture remains, that the Holy Spirit works through Scripture and the Word, not his prestige. By itself, then, if the working of Holy Spirit were such a parallel, which would have to deepen the independent working of Scripture in some way in the occurrence of conversion, then it would still not be a working through Scripture. And Scripture itself teaches that.
We want to present the relationship between Spirit and Scripture for ourselves the best we can, so that the Holy Spirit constantly fills Word and Scripture. For then the Word remains working as the power of God according to its nature, which is the divine sense, and in truth works all salutary acts in men; at the same time, the Holy Spirit remains truly working and even through Scripture works those salutary acts. Our theologians wrote similarly. Wernsdorf: Therefore, Scripture instructs us about the essence and will of God and instructs us for salvation. Which, in order to perform, is armed with singular efficacy, which stretches forth for enticing, drawing, bending, and inducing the spirits of men to faith and love. For neither are we only instructed and taught through the Word, but we are also regenerated, emended, and changed, so that it not only has the power of warning and persuading, but of effecting and operating, because of the perpetual influence of the Holy Spirit, by which, even as the word is animated, it is also rendered very efficacious. By way of this endued power, it is spoken of as Spirit and Truth, Joh. 6:63-68. Compare Baier: And for this reason Rom. 1:16ff is said.
The objection, that the Word then again can be presented as dead in and of itself, can only be raised when one overlooks the axiom oft-repeated above, that we chiefly speak of no other Word than that which the Spirit is distributed with and present with at all times. Like a running together in physical matters, so also there is a constant presence of the Spirit with the Word. As little as the one is remarkable to us, so little the other. We know no Word of God without the constant presence and influence through the Spirit; and therefore we also know no Word which is dead in and of itself. Wernsdorf continues in is Disputation in the previous citation: For not only does the Word teach and warn that we ought to be illuminated, regenerated, converted, justified, renewed, reunited with God, etc., but also produces all these things and regenerates (1 Pet. 1:23; Jam. 1:18) and illuminates (Psa. 19:9) man, unless impeded by the insolence and resistance of men… It is the cause of this thing because as B. Hunnius says, the Holy Spirit is constantly present with it, coexists with it, communicates his infinite virtue and power to this purpose, and both animates and arms His Word with the perpetual influence. Other theologians have not used influence as Wernsdorf has, but they express this doctrine of the relationship of the Spirit to Scripture and the Word with other expressions, for example elevate or provide. Chemnitz, in his disputation about the gracious justification of a sinful man before God, paragraph XVIII, says: Granted, the Word does not attain the effect by itself and of its own power, yet it is elevated beyond its natural power to produce the effect by the principal cause. Gerhard: It pleased God to provide the external Word as a cause working instrumentally for that divine effect of conversion and salvation.
This influence of the Spirit over the Word resides once and for all, according to the will of God, in the unity which occurred in inspiration, and continues unbroken since then; therefore, since the moment when there was Scripture and Word, there were both only as such, over which the Holy Spirit exercises his influence. 1 Cor. 2:7 therefore testifies that it is ordained (compare with verse 5). The Word of Paul is in the proof of the Spirit, and this follows the eternal ordinance of God. In consideration of this entire section, see E. A. Bertling: Preface.
 fundmentum organicum, norma causativa
 norma normative
 Wesen, forma. Translator’s note: Hoenecke uses these terms interchangeably; “Wesen” usually means “character” or “essence;” depending on whether the German or Latin is used, I have rendered it both as “essence” and “form,” respectively. The terms are borrowed from Aristotle’s causes, of which there were four: formal, material, final, and efficient; the this, what, why, and who, so to speak of a given thing or idea. Of the four causes, the formal and material were most important. The form is what makes something unique, the material is what it is made of. Lutheran theologians from Chemnitz to Hoenecke used Aristotelian terminology extensively.
 materia, forma
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Theol. Did. Pol. (Theologica Didactica-Polemica), part I, chapter IV, thesis I, note VII, p. 54.”
 Quenstedt here has Qeo,pneustoj or theopneustos
 Quenstedt here has qeopneusti,a or theopneustia
 forma interna, externa
 forma externa
 forma externa
 inspiration verbalis
 forma externa
 forma externa
 sensus grammaticus et externus
 forma externa
 sensus divinus et internus
 materiale, formale, here and below
 materiale, formale
 vis, potentia, efficacia
 vis representativa, excitativa, collativa, exhibitiva, here and below
 vis excitativa, effectiva
 vis effectiva
 vis collativa
 Hoenecke’s footnote: Theol. Did. Pol., part I, chapter IV, section II, question XVI, observation II, p. 170.
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Loci, tom. XIII, locus XXIV, chapter VI, section I, paragraph CCLIII.10, p. 74.”
 extra usum
 du,namij, or dynamis, Greek for “power.”
 ante usum, before the use. Functionally equivalent to extra usum, which is more common.
 lo,goj duna,menoj, or logos dynamenos, Greek for “word which is able”
 extra usum here and below
 efficacia actu primo
 actu secundo
 actum primum
 actum secundum
 Hoenecke adds the following footnote: “Tarnovius, an excellent dogmatician, was professor at Rostock; he died in 1633. His works include: De sacrosancto ministerio (On the Holy Ministry), de libero arbitrio (On Free Will), and other writings about individual articles. Although he was judged a pietist, he stood correctly in relation to the power and efficacy of the Word. His explanation is all the more weighty.”
 extra usum legitimum
 extra usum
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “L.c., qu. XVI, thesis, p. 169.”
 Immediate, vere, proprie. I bolded them because Hoenecke describes each in his comment on this citation.
 vis repraesentativa, objectiva, significative; effectiva, vera, realis
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “In Quenstedt, l.c. antithes. P. 173.”
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Remembered also on pp. 13, 44, 49; in Quenstedt, l.c. – Herm. Rathmann, b. 1585, died as Pastor in Danzig 1626. He was condemned as a heretic by his colleague Corvinus because of his writing “The Gracious Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the King of all Kings and the Lord of all Lords,” in which he maintained that the Word has no inner power without the previous coming of the Holy Spirit. The faculty opinions requested by the town council of Danzig from the universities of Koenigsberg, Jena, and Wittenberg came down against Rathmann.” Translator’s note: Rathmann was also mentioned on the previous page, where the Wittenberg faculty opinion against him is cited. In our translation, he is cited on pages: 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 19.
 Meinung is a term of contempt in Lutheran theology.
 Hoenecke’s fotnote: “From the preface to Rathmann’s ‘Gracious Kingdom,’ B. 1, p.1, in Quenstedt, 1. C.”
 lumen historicum et instrumentale
 lumen subjecti
 lumen internum
 vis illuminandi
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Instit., tom. II, book IV, chapter XIV, paragraph 17, p. 361.”
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Cf. Huelsemann, De auxiliis gratiae, ed. II, p. 174.”
 Translator’s note: Luke 10:16.
 extra usum
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “L.c., fontes solut. 17, p. 186.”
 The Latin text includes the exression “ex mente nostratium” which I don’t get.
 Oivkonomikw/j in Quenstedt
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Cf. Quenstedt, l.c., evkdi,khsij 2, p. 181.”
 Translator’s note: The German words for “work” and “effect,” wirken, (including the related nouns, verbs, and modifiers) are almost interchangeable. In many cases it was a judgment call on my part which to use. They are closely related to Wirksamheit, his word for “efficacy.”
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Prelection to the Formula of Concord, sect. 1, part 2, paragraph 2; cf. Quenstedt, part I, p. 172.”
 Translator’s note: The point here is that each of the items in the list effects a physical change in the object: fire burns, venom poisons, etc. The “rhubarb” (rhubarba) was unclear; perhaps this term refers to a medicinal herb in common use.
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Compendium, proleg. Chapter II, paragraph XXXIX, note, p. 85.”
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “L.c., part III, chapter VIII, section I, p. 519.”
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “De auxiliis gratiae, disp. III, IV, p. 178.”
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “L.c., part I, chapter IV, section II, question XVI, ecthesis I, p. 160.”
 Quenstedt’s word here is avpotro,paian
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “L.c., ecthesis, 12, p. 172.”
 Quenstedt’s word: fusikw/j
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Theol. In causa Rathmanni by Bertling, “What the Lutheran Church teaches and does not teach about the Power of Holy Scripture,” page 4.
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Praenotiones theologicae Ed. 1708, p. 223, in Bertling, a.a. O., p. 5. – Valentin Ernst Loescher was born in 1673 in Sonderhausen. Until 1702 he was Professor at Wittenberg, then Superintendent and Consistory councilman in Dresden. He was the most notable opponent of the Pietists and as excellent a scholar as he was a Christian. His chief works are: Timotheus verinus, Historia motuum, Acts of the Reformation. He was also the editor of “Unschuldigen Nachrichten” [“Innocent News”]. He died on Dec. 12, 1749.” Translator’s note: Pastor Pastor James Langebartels, 1950 S Almont Ave, Imlay City, MI 48444 (WELS) has translated part of Timotheus verinus.
 Per appropriationem
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “cf. Bertling, Preface, p. 5.”
 Translator’s note: 2 Cor. 2:16.
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “De auxilliis gratiae, disp. III, qu. VI, paragraph 9, p. 255.”
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Praenotiones theologicae, p. 223, compare Bertling, a. a. O.”
 For clarification, see the next paragraph, on antitheses.
 Facultas applicandi se ad gratiam
 Hoenecke has ov,rganon here, Greek for organ or instrument
 This is one Latin expression which would actually be more familiar in Latin, so I kept it that way. Its technical meaning, “the work which is worked,” is not terribly helpful. Hoenecke explains it as a magical working of Word and Sacrament, which he rejected in the last thesis.
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Examen [Examination of the Council of Trent], on the efficacy and use of the sacraments, p. 19.”
 causa agens
 instrumentum animatum
 instrumentum, medium
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Quenstedt, Theol. Did. Pol., part 1, chapter Iv, section II, question XVI, font. Sol. 15, p. 185…Michael Behm, born in Koenigsberg, 1612, was Professor of theology in Koenigsberg, later court preacher of the widowed Queen of Sweden. His father was the esteemed lawyer Johann Behm. He died in 1650.
 Oivkonomi,aj in the text
 instrumenta passiva, inanimata
 Hoenecke inserts ordinatio, oivkonomi,a
 Translator’s note: Many English translations have “Faith comes from hearing” or something like it here. In the previous verse, Paul cites Isaiah 53:1 (NASB: “Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?” where the word for “message” or “preaching” is Wnte['muv. in Hebrew, rendered in Greek with avko,h, which can also either be rendered either “hearing” or “preaching.” Paul’s word in 10:17 is avko,h, clearly an allusion to the previous verse and its rendering of the Hebrew word. Of the major modern translations on Romans 10:17, only the NIV and RSV and NRSV lay the stress on the message rather than the act of hearing the message. Oddly, of the major translations, only RSV and NRSV lay the stress on the act of hearing in Isaiah 53:1. The oldest edition of Luther’s German available to me, from 1912, has “Predigt” in both Isaiah 53:1 and Romans 10:17. “Predigt” may only be rendered as “preaching,” never as the act of hearing. All data in this note taken from BibleWorks for Windows, from Hermeneutika Software, copyright 1996.
 Causa efficiens principalis
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “L.c., font. Solut., VI, p. 184.”
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Ausfueherliche Erklaerungen, p. 62, compare Bertling, Preface, p. 44.”
 Motivum formale fidei divinae principale
 prima veritas
 motivum instrumentale
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Loci, tom. XIII, loc. XXIV, chapter VI, section I, paragraph CCLIII, 8, p. 74.”
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Augsburg Confession, article V.”
 causa principalis
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “compare Bertling, a. a. O., page 288 and 293.”
 Conjunctionem, unionem duarum actionum, sed unitatem actionis
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “L.c., font. Solu., IV, p. 183.”
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “In Bertling, a. a. O., p. 293.”
 Translator’s note: Perhaps a reissue of his work?
 Numero, actio. These are the same terms used by Quenstedt in the previous quote.
 Conjunctim, tanquam causae subordinatae
 approximative. “Approximately” did not appear correct.
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Loci, tom. XIII, the goal of the ministry, loc. XXIV, chapter VI, section 1, paragraph CCLIII, 5, p. 74.”
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Enchiridion of chief heads of heavenly doctrine etc., 1569, compare Bertling, Preface, p. 320.”
 Subjective, inhaesive
 mens avrce,tupoj, mens ev,ktupoj. Translator’s Note: Archetypal theology is as it is in the mind of God, ectypal as it is revealed to us in Scripture. For a longer discussion, see R. Preus, The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism, v. 1. St. Louis: CPH 1970, pp. 112-114.
 see footnote 90.
 causa principalis
 essentialiter, formaliter
 per aliud, used again in the same line
 per accidens, contingenter
 Translator’s note: in the sense of his bare majesty, or immediately.
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Disputation on the Word of God, paragraph 47, in Bertling, a. a. O., p. 278. – Gottlieb Wernsdorf, Professor in Wittenberg, born 1668, died 1729.”
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Compendium, proleg., chapter II, paragraph XXXIX, d., p. 86.”
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “paragraph 54, 55; compare Bertling, a. a. O., p. 279.”
 elevare, evehere
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “Confer Baier’s Compendium, l.c., p. 92.”
 Hoenecke’s footnote: “l.c.”
 Hoenecke has “[dingbat] 61” where I put “section.” He is referring to the entire section translated here. Hoenecke’s footnote: “With clear and the very words of the orthodox theologians he drew up a presentation of what the Lutheran church teaches and does not teach about the power of Holy Scripture.” Danzig 1756 – Ernst A. Bertling, a capable orthodox Lutheran theologian, born 1721, died 1769 in Danzig. He had an exciting, sensational, multi-year dispute with Prof. Schubert (University of Helmstaedt) about the power of the Word.