Anyone who has carefully read the preceding articles in this series, can very readily see that the following state ments of Mosheim are the exact truth:
"None of the famous Lutheran doctors attempted to give a regular system of morality." (Church History, 16th century, sec. 3, part 2, chap. 1, paragraph 17)
"The science of morals.was for a long time neglected among the Lutherans..Hence it happened that those who applied themselves to the business of resolving what are called cases of conscience, were holden in high esteem, and their tribunals were much frequented." (Id., 17th cent., sec. 2, part 2, chap. 1, paragraph 19)
He also gives an excellent reason for this. He says:
"Had not the number of adversaries with whom the Lutheran doctors had to contend given them perpetual employment in the field of controversy, and robbed them of that precious leisure which they might have consecrated to the advancement of real piety and virtue, they would certainly have been free from the defects now mentioned..All the divines of this century [the sixteenth] were educated in the school of controversy, and so trained up to spiritual war that an eminent theologian, and a bold and vehement disputant, were considered as synonymous terms.
"It could scarcely indeed be otherwise, in an age when foreign quarrels and intestine divisions of a religious nature threw all the countries of Europe into a state of agitation, and obliged the doctors of the contending churches to be perpetually in actions, or at least in a posture of defense." (Id.)
What was true of the Lutherans was also true of the Calvinists in this respect, as well as in others. The same writer says of these:
"The progress of morality among the Reformed [Calvinists] was obstructed by the very same means that retarded its improvement among the Lutherans. It was neglected amidst the tumult of controversy; and while every pen was drawn to maintain certain systems of doctrine, few were employed in cultivating or promoting that noblest of all sciences, which has virtue, life, and manners for its objects." (Id., cent. 16, sec. 2, part 2, chap. 2, paragraph 37)
This same course continued through the seventeenth century also. Says Mosheim, further:
"It must be acknowledged that, during the greater part of this century [the seventeenth], neither the discourses of the pulpit nor the instructions of the schools were adapted to promote among the people just ideas of religion, or to give them a competent knowledge of the doctrines and precepts of the gospel.
"The eloquence of the pulpit, as some ludicrously and too justly represent it, was reduced in many places to the noisy art of bawling (during a certain space of time measured by a sand-glass) upon various points of theology, which the orators understood very imperfectly, and which the people did not understand at all. .The ministers of the gospel had their heads full of sonorous and empty words of trivial distinctions and metaphysical subtleties, and very illy furnished with that kind of knowledge which is adapted to touch the heart, and to reform the life." (Id., 17th cent., sec. 2, part 2, chap. 1, paragraph 13)
The point in these quotations is illustrated in the necessity for the work of the Pietists, and is emphasized in the prohibi tion that was pronounced against that work.
There is another reason for the lack of the development of the genuine principles of morality. As shown above, in the very nature of the case, every leader in any reform was compelled to devote his whole attention to the discussion of the points which he was advancing. But the next great trouble was, that when the leader died, the followers utterly refused to take a single advance step. On this Mosheim says:
"The doctrine of the Lutheran church remained entire during this [the seventeenth] century; its fundamental principles received no alteration, no could any doctor of that church, who should have presumed to renounce or invalidate any of those theological points which are contained in the symbolical books of the Lutherans, have met with toleration and indulgence." (Id., 17th cent. sect. 2, part 2, chap. 1, paragraph 16)
And of the Calvinists, he says:
"The method.observed by Calvin.was followed, out of respect for his example, by almost all the divines of his communion, who looked upon him as their model and their guide." (Id., 16th cent., sec. 3, part 2, chap. 2, paragraph 37)
This has been true in almost every instance. Therefore, as there has been in the course of the reformation no definite re form on the principles of morality, we lay down the proposition:
If ever there is to be a clearly defined reformation upon the true principles of morality, those principles must be the one leading subject, above all others, set forth in that reform. Will anyone deny that the necessity of such a reform is as great as for any one of the ones that have been taken from the days of Luther to this day?
We do not say that absolutely none of the principles of morality have been believed in, nor practiced; for with the wide dissemination of the Scriptures consequent upon the Reformation, it were impossible but that some rays of light should be discernible in that direction.
But we do say that, until the present time, morality as a system has never had a place in the Reformation. What, then, must be the characteristic of such a reform when it shall come?
We answer, As the ten commandments presuppose the moral law; as they are the sum of all duty toward God or man (Ecclesiastes 12:13), when such reform shall have presented itself to the world, it must bear high and prominent upon its crest those same ten commandments, demanding obedience thereto as the supreme effort of moral obligation.
Now the Third Angel's Message does just that thing; for that message proclaims with a loud voice to every nation and kindred and tongue and people,
"Here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus."
Therefore, by thus tracing the reformation through its course of controversy, we have proved to a demonstration, the historical necessity of the Third Angel's Message.
Moreover, the truth of God is as much an exact science as any of those that are called the exact sciences. Therefore no true reform can deny, or be made independent of, any princi ple of true reform that may have gone before.
Consequently, when this reform upon the principles of morality shall have come, it will deny the truth and efficacy of no single step in the progress of the Reformation.
* With Luther, it will hold justification by faith;
* with Zwingli, it will hold the Lord's supper as a memorial of "the Lord's death, till he come;"
* with the genuine Anabaptist, it will hold that we are buried by baptism into the Lord's death;
* with Arminius, it will hold that the grace of God is free to all men;
* with Wesley, it will hold the genuine conversion of the soul, and the witness of the Holy Spirit;
* with the Puritan, it will hold simplicity of worship;
* with William Miller, it will hold, "Behold I come quickly," saith the Lord;
* with the general grand result of the Reformation as a whole, it will hold the most perfect toleration of religious belief, and the inestimable boon of freedom of thought and liberty of discussion.