the apostolical fathers, especially in Hermas and Polycarp; and in
Justin Martyr there are passages evidently taken from it; but the
earliest author, who actually mentions St. Luke’s Gospel, is Irenæus;
and he cites so many peculiarities in it, all agreeing with the Gospel
which we now have, that he alone is sufficient to prove its genuineness.
We may however observe, that his testimony is supported by Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerom, Chrysostom, and many
others. Dr. Owen and Dr. Townson have compared many parallel passages of
St. Mark’s and St. Luke’s Gospels; and Dr. Townson has concluded that
St. Luke had seen St. Mark’s Gospel, and Dr. Owen, that St. Mark had
seen St. Luke’s; but there does not appear to be a sufficient similarity
of expression to justify either of these conclusions. There was among
the ancients a difference of opinion concerning the priority of these
two Gospels; and it must be acknowledged to be a very doubtful point.
There is also great doubt about the place where this Gospel was
published. It seems most probable that it was published in Greece, and
for the use of Gentile converts. Dr. Townson observes, that the
evangelist has inserted many explanations, particularly concerning the
scribes and Pharisees, which he would have omitted if he had been
writing for those who were acquainted with the customs and sects of the
Jews. We must conclude that the histories of our Saviour, referred to in
the preface to this Gospel, were inaccurate and defective, or St. Luke
would not have undertaken this work. It does not, however, appear that
they were written with any bad design; but being merely human
compositions, and perhaps put together in great haste, they were full of
errors. They are now entirely lost, and the names of their authors are
not known. When the four authentic Gospels were published, and came into
general use, all others were quickly disregarded and forgotten.
St. Luke’s Gospel is addressed to Theophilus; but there was a doubt,
even in the time of Epiphanius, whether a particular person, or any good
Christian in general, be intended by that name. Theophilus was probably
a real person, that opinion being more agreeable to the simplicity of
the sacred writings. We have seen that St. Luke was for several years
the companion of St. Paul; and many ancient writers consider this Gospel
as having the sanction of St. Paul, in the same manner as St. Mark’s had
that of St. Peter. Whoever will examine the evangelist’s and the
Apostle’s account of the eucharist in their respective original works,
will observe a great coincidence of expression, Luke xxii; 1 Cor. xi.
St. Luke seems to have had more learning than any other of the
evangelists, and his language is more varied, copious, and pure. This
superiority in style may perhaps be owing to his longer residence in
Greece, and greater acquaintance with Gentiles of good education, than
fell to the lot of the writers of the other three Gospels. This Gospel
contains many things which are not found in the other Gospels; among
which are the following: the birth of John the Baptist; the Roman census
in Judea; the circumstances attending Christ’s birth at Bethlehem; the
vision granted to the shepherds; the early testimony of Simeon and Anna;
Christ’s conversation with the doctors in the temple when he was twelve
years old; the parables of the good Samaritan, of the prodigal son, of
Dives and Lazarus, of the wicked judge, and of the publican and
Pharisee; the miraculous cure of the woman who had been bowed down by
illness eighteen years; the cleansing of the ten lepers; and the
restoring to life the son of a widow at Nain; the account of Zaccheus,
and of the penitent thief; and the particulars of the journey to Emmaus.
It is very satisfactory that so early a writer as Irenæus has noticed
most of these peculiarities; which proves not only that St. Luke’s
Gospel, but that the other Gospels also, are the same now that they were
in the second century.
LUNATICS, σεληνιαζομένους, _lunatici_, Matt. iv, 24. Thus those sick
persons were called, who were thought to suffer most severely at the
changes of the moon; for example, epileptical persons, or those who have
the falling sickness, insane persons, or those tormented with fits of
morbid melancholy. Mad people are still called lunatics, from an
ancient, but now almost exploded, opinion, that they are much influenced
by that planet. A sounder philosophy has taught us, that, if there be
any thing in it, it must be accounted for, not in the manner the
ancients imagined, nor otherwise than by what the moon has in common
with other heavenly bodies, occasioning various alterations in the
gravity of our atmosphere, and thereby affecting human bodies. However,
there is considerable reason to doubt the fact; and it is certain that
the moon has no perceivable influence on our most accurate barometers.
It has been the fashion to decry and ridicule the doctrine of demoniacal
possessions, and to represent the patients merely as lunatics or madmen.
And some think that this is countenanced by the calumny of the
unbelieving Jews concerning Christ, He hath a demon, and is mad,” John
x, 20; both possession and madness often producing the same symptoms of
convulsions, paralysis, &c, Matt. xvii, 15–18. But that they were
distinct diseases, may be collected from the following considerations:
1. The evangelists, enumerating the various descriptions of patients,
distinguish δαιμονιζόμενοι, _demoniacs_, σεληνιαζόμενοι, _lunatics_, and
ϖαραλυτικοί, _paralytics_, from persons afflicted with other kinds of
diseases, Matt. iv, 24; Mark i, 34; Luke vi, 17, 18. 2. That a real
dispossession took place, seems to follow from the number of these
impure inmates. Mary of Magdala, or the Magdalene, was afflicted with
seven demons, Mark xvi, 9. A legion” besought Christ’s permission to
enter into a numerous herd of two thousand swine; which they did, and
drove the whole herd down a precipice into the sea, where they were all
drowned. This remarkable case is noticed by the three evangelists most
circumstantially, Matt. viii, 28; Mark v, 1; Luke viii, 26. 3. The
testimony of the demoniacs to Christ was not that of madmen or idiots.
It evinced an intimate knowledge both of his person and character, which
was hidden from the wise and prudent” of the nation, the chief priests,
scribes, and Pharisees. Their language was, What hast thou to do with
us, Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to torment us before the time?” I
know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God:” thou art the Christ, the
Son of God, the Son of the most high God,” Matt. viii, 29; Mark i, 24;
iii, 11; Luke iv, 34–41. And they repeatedly besought him not to torment
them, not to order them to depart into the abyss, Luke viii, 28–31. See
DEMONIACS.
LUTHERANS, or the LUTHERAN CHURCH, the disciples and followers of Martin
Luther, an Augustine friar, who was born at Isleben, in Upper Saxony, in
the year 1483. He possessed an invincible magnanimity, and uncommon
vigour and acuteness of genius. He first took offence at the indulgences
which were granted in 1517, by Pope Leo X., to those who contributed
toward finishing St. Peter’s church at Rome, Luther being then professor
of divinity at Wittemberg. Those indulgences promised remission of all
sins, past, present, and to come, however enormous their nature, to all
who were rich enough to purchase them. At this Luther raised his warning
voice; and in ninety-five propositions, which he maintained publicly at
Wittemberg, September 30, 1517, exposed the doctrine of indulgences,
which led him to attack also the authority of the pope. This was the
commencement of that memorable revolution in the church which is styled
the Reformation; though Mosheim fixes the era of the Reformation from
1520, when Luther was excommunicated by the pope.
In 1523 Luther drew up a liturgy, that, in many things, differed but
little from the Mass Book; but he left his followers to make farther
reforms, as they saw them necessary; and, in consequence, the forms of
worship in the Lutheran churches vary in points of minor importance: but
they agree in reading the Scriptures publicly, in offering prayers and
praises to God through the Mediator in their own language, in popular
addresses to the congregation, and the reverend administration of the
sacraments.
The Augsburgh Confession (see _Confessions_) forms the established creed
of the Lutheran church. The following are a few of the principal points
of doctrine maintained by this great reformer, and a few of the
Scriptures by which he supported them.
1. That the Holy Scriptures are the only source whence we are to draw
our religious sentiments, whether they relate to faith or practice, John
v, 39; 1 Cor. iv, 16; 2 Tim. iii, 15–17. Reason also confirms the
sufficiency of the Scriptures; for, if the written word be allowed to be
a rule in one case, how can it be denied to be a rule in another?
2. That justification is the effect of faith exclusive of good works;
and that faith ought to produce good works purely in obedience to God,
and not in order to our justification; for St. Paul, in his Epistle to
the Galatians, strenuously opposed those who ascribed our justification,
though but in part, to works: If righteousness come by the law, then
Christ is dead in vain,” Gal. ii, 21. Therefore it is evident we are not
justified by the law, or by our works; but to him that believeth, sin is
pardoned, and Christ’s righteousness imputed. This article of
justification by faith alone, Luther used frequently to call _articulus
stantis vel cadentis ecclesiæ_;” that by which the church must stand or
fall.
3. That no man is able to make satisfaction for his sins; for our Lord
teaches us to say, when we have done all things that are commanded us,
We are unprofitable servants,” Luke xvii, 10. Christ’s sacrifice is
alone sufficient to satisfy for sin, and nothing need be added to the
infinite value of his atonement.
Luther also rejected tradition, purgatory, penance, auricular
confession, masses, invocation of saints, monastic vows, and other
doctrines of the church of Rome. Luther differed widely from Calvin on
matters of church discipline; and on the presence of Christ’s body in
the sacrament. His followers also deviated from him in some things;
but the following may be considered as a fair statement of their
principles, and the difference between them and the Calvinists: 1. The
Lutherans in Germany reject both Episcopacy and Presbyterianism, but
appoint superintendents for the government of the church, who preside
in their consistories, when that office is not supplied by a delegate
from the civil government; and they hold meetings in the different
towns and villages, to inquire into the state of the congregations and
the schools. The appointment of superintendents, and the presentation
to livings, is generally in the prince, or ecclesiastical courts. The
Swedes and Danes have an ecclesiastical hierarchy, similar to that of
England. 2. They differ in their views of the sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper. All the Lutherans reject _trans_-substantiation, but affirm
that the body and blood of Christ are _materially_ present in the
sacrament, though in an incomprehensible manner: this they called
_con-_substantiation. The Calvinists hold, on the contrary, that Jesus
Christ is only _spiritually_ present in the ordinance, by the external
signs of bread and wine. 3. They differ as to the doctrine of the
eternal decrees of God respecting man’s salvation. The modern
Lutherans maintain that the divine decrees, respecting the salvation
and misery of men, are founded upon the divine prescience. The
Calvinists, on the contrary, consider these decrees as absolute and
unconditional.
The Lutherans are generally divided into the moderate and the rigid. The
moderate Lutherans are those who submitted to the _Interim_ published by
the Emperor Charles V. Melancthon was the head of this party, and they
were called Adiaphorists. The rigid Lutherans are those who would not
endure any change in their master’s sentiments, of whom M. Flaccius was
the head. The Lutherans are partial to the use of instrumental music in
their churches, and admit statues and paintings, as the church of
England does, without allowing them any religious veneration; but the
rigid Calvinists reject these, and allow only the simplest forms of
psalmody. The modern Lutherans, about the close of the seventeenth
century, enlarged their liberality toward other sects, and gave up the
supposed right of persecution; confessing that Christians are
accountable to God only for their religious faith. They admit, also,
into their sacred canon the Epistle of St. James, which Luther rashly
rejected, because he could not reconcile it with St. Paul’s doctrine of
justification; and the Revelation of St. John, which Luther also
rejected, because he could not explain it.
On some of the doctrines of the early German reformers the
following remarks by Archbishop Laurence are entitled to high
consideration:--Against the church of Rome, which always, when
attacked, fled for protection to the shield of scholastical
sophistry, Luther had waged a dauntless, unwearied, and effectual
warfare. He entered the field of contest without distrust or
apprehension, under a rooted persuasion that the victory over
superstition would prove easy at an era when learning had already
begun to extend itself in every direction, and was become closely
allied to theological attainments. When the light of day appeared,
the genuine doctrines of Scripture and the primitive opinions of
antiquity began to be more distinctly perceived, and more
accurately investigated. With an attachment to classical pursuits
arose a zeal for Biblical inquiries. Taste and truth went hand in
hand. Luther, than whom no one was more capable of infusing energy
into the cause in which he had embarked, was of all men the worst
adapted to conduct it with moderation: he was calculated to
commence, but not to complete, reformation. Prompt, resolute, and
impetuous, he laboured with distinguished success in the
demolition of long established error; he also hastily threw
together the rough and cumbrous materials of a better system. But
the office of selecting, modelling, and arranging them was
consigned to a correcter hand. Melancthon was of a character
directly opposite to that of Luther, possessing every requisite to
render truth alluring and reformation respectable; and hence upon
him, in preference, the princes of Germany conferred the honour of
compiling the public profession of their faith. But it ought not
to be concealed, that, previously to the time when Lutheranism
first became settled upon a permanent basis, and added public
esteem to public notice, tenets were advanced, which retarded the
progress of truth more than all the subtleties of scholastic
argument, or the terrors of papal anathema. At the beginning of
the Reformation, as Melancthon frankly observed to Cranmer, there
existed among its advocates stoical disputations respecting fate,
offensive in their nature, and noxious in their tendency. The
duration, however, of these stoical disputations was but short;
and the substitution of a more rational as well as practical
system, for the space of more than twenty years before the
appearance of our Articles, prevented the founders of our church
from mistaking, for the doctrines of the Lutherans, those which
they themselves wished to forget, and were anxious to obliterate.
As we descend to particulars, it will be necessary to keep our eye
upon one prominent doctrine, which was eminently conspicuous in
all the controversies of the Lutherans,--the doctrine of COMPLETE
REDEMPTION BY CHRIST, which in their idea their adversaries (the
Papists) disregarded, who denied in effect the depravity of our
nature, believed the favour of Heaven in this life recoverable by
what was denominated _merit of congruity_, and, in the life to
come, by that which was termed _merit of condignity_, and founded
predestination upon merits of such a description; thus in every
instance, while retaining the name of Christians, rendering
Christianity itself superfluous. In opposition to opinions so
repugnant in many respects to reason, and in almost all so
subversive of Scripture, the Lutherans constantly pressed the
unsophisticated tenet of the atonement, not contractedly in a
Calvinistical, but comprehensively in a Christian, point of
view,--in one in which both Calvinists and Arminians alike embrace
it.
Upon original sin the doctrine of the schoolmen was no less fanciful and
remote from every Scriptural idea, than flattering to human pride. They
contended that the infection of our nature is not a mental but a mere
corporeal taint; that the body alone receives and transmits the
contagion, while the soul in all instances proceeds immaculate from the
hands of her Creator. This disposition to disease, such as they allowed
it to be, was considered by some of them as the effect of a peculiar
quality in the forbidden fruit; by others, as having been contracted
from the poisonous breath of the infernal spirit which inhabited the
serpent’s body. On one point they were all united; by preserving to the
soul the bright traces of her divine origin unimpaired, they founded on
a deceitful basis an arrogant creed, which, in declaring peace and
pardon to the sinner, rested more upon personal merit than the
satisfaction of a Saviour. In commenting upon the celebrated _Book of
Sentences_, a work once not much less revered than the Scriptures
themselves, the disciples of Lombard never failed to improve every hint
which tended to degrade the grace of God and exalt the pride of man.
Original sin the Romish schoolmen directly opposed to original
righteousness; and this they considered not as something connatural with
man, but as a superinduced habit or adventitious ornament, the removal
of which could not prove detrimental to the native powers of his mind.
When, therefore, they contemplated the effects of the fall, by confining
the evil to a corporeal taint, and not extending it to the nobler
faculties of the soul, they regarded man as an object of divine
displeasure, not because he possessed that which was offensive, but
because he was defective in that which was pleasing to the Almighty.
Adam, they said, received for himself and his posterity the gift of
righteousness, which he subsequently forfeited; in his loins we were
included, and by him were virtually represented: his will was ours, and
hence the consequence of his lapse is justly imputable to us his
descendants. By our natural birth, therefore, under this idea, we are
alienated from God, _innocent_ in our individual persons, but _guilty_
in that of him from whom we derived our existence; a guilt which,
although contracted through the fault of another, yet so closely adheres
to us that it effectually precludes our entrance at the gate of
everlasting life, until the reception of a new birth in baptism. Thus
they contended, that the sin of Adam conveys to us solely imputed guilt;
the corporeal infection which they admitted not being sin itself, but
only the subject matter of it,--not _peccatum_, but, according to their
phraseology, _fomes peccati_, a kind of fuel which the human will
kindles or not at pleasure. Such was the outline of the doctrine
maintained in the church of Rome. The tenet of the Lutherans, on the
other hand, is remarkable for its simplicity and perspicuity. Avoiding
all intricate questions upon the subject, they taught that original sin
is a corruption of our nature in a general sense, a depravation of the
mental faculties and the corporeal appetites; that the resplendent image
of the Deity, which man received at the creation of the world, although
not annihilated, is nevertheless greatly impaired; and that, in
consequence, the bright characters of unspotted sanctity, once deeply
engraven on his mind by the hand of the living God, are become
obliterated, the injury extending to his intellect, and affecting as
well his reason and his will as his affections and passions. To conceive
that inclination to evil incurs not in itself the disapprobation of
Heaven, appeared to them little better than an apology for crime, or at
least a dangerous palliation of that which the Christian’s duty compels
him not only to repress but abhor.