Johann Mathesius judges as follows: "Because in the papacy the Sunday Gospels, for the sake of legends, were often omitted, and few postils, outside of the Tauleri, were available, from which children and silly laymen could be told how to live Christianly and die blessedly, D. Luther wrote a German church postil. Luther wrote a German church postilla, in which he interprets the Sunday Epistles and Gospels, and faithfully exhorts to blessed faith and brotherly love, patience under the cross and Christian submission, and seriously warns against idolatry and humanity, which Doctor Creuziger subsequently shortened with the master's counsel and will." (Sermons from the Life of Luther, p. 30.)
Hieronymus Weller writes: "I wish that the church superintendents and visitators would diligently induce and exhort the pastors and preachers to read the excellent works of Doctor Luther diligently, but especially his exegetical and doctrinal writings: the two postils, both the larger or church postil, and the smaller one, which is commonly called the home postil." (Lat. Werke sect. IV, p. 168.) - By
When Johann Arndt wants to cite a passage from the church postilion, which he often uses, about the blessedness that comes from union with Christ, he says: one should plant it as a noble flower in the pleasure garden of one's heart, and then adds against his opponents: "Let no pious Christian therefore be robbed of this glory by lying mouths. It is shameful and to be lamented that man, I let alone a Christian, should hostile, blaspheme, and heresy such comforting doctrine." (Repet, apol. of the other book of true Christianity.) - If
Phil. Jakob Spener should suggest books to a preacher for his use, he says: "Before others, I wanted to have special books for him.
lich rathen unsers lieben Lutheri Kirchenpostille." (In the former theological concerns P. III, p. 605.) Further: "It was especially dear to me to hear that the writings of our dear Luther are not unknown, especially his valuable Church Postil, which we have to esteem so much more highly not only because God, through his ministry, has brought forth the light of the Gospel from the darknesses of the papacy and made it rise again for us in our forefathers, but also because he has put such a rich measure of the Spirit in him; but also because He has placed in him such a rich measure of the Spirit that his writings are full of power, and especially after the time of the apostles, few will have equally recognized and described the living power of faith, as the Lord made him see and show it to others. Among his entire writings, his church postilion is probably one of the best, as he himself called it his favorite book, in which he presented divine truth with a richer spirit, and as much less as he shows the arts and eloquence otherwise often found in sermons, so much more power does a devout reader feel from it." (Ibid. p. 828.)
Aug. Herm. Francke: "Thus it is no less often my heartfelt wish that Luther's postils be read more diligently by teachers as well as other people, as there is certainly more spirit, strength and life in them than in today's artistic Methodists, who with all their art do not hold a candle to Luther's, indeed, have nothing but stolen water themselves, preach to others and have never themselves been concerned about true repentance from the heart. (Note on some oters of sacred Scripture p. 254 f. Cf. Monita past. theol. p. 42.)
Joh. G. Walch says: "The sermons in it (namely in the church postilion) are simple and not arranged according to the rules of a vain and affected art, that as he recommends the simple way of preaching to others, so he himself has many masters of it.
They have left behind many samples to be imitated. *They are rich in spirit; they contain the most precious and important truths of our blessedness; they are based solely on the holy Scriptures and often present the meaning of the spirit in a very real and profound way. They are emphatic and present thorough refutations to the erring, awakening exhortations to the weak, penetrating warnings to the wicked, and powerful consolation to the afflicted. The presentation and expression correspond to the importance of the matters. There is more evidence of the spirit and power than art and persuasion of human wisdom. In short, they are core sermons. This could not be otherwise. Luther was mighty in the Scriptures; he wrote and spoke from the heart; he stood by the power of faith in the denial of himself, as a main characteristic of a truly good preacher; he sought not his own, but that which was of the Lord Jesus, and thus looked only to edification." (Luther's Writings, Hall. ed. XI, Preface p. 25.)
He also writes: "Luther's books have been subjected to much abuse, which has also been encountered in this church postilla in particular. Those who speak the word of the usual dancing, think to have found here a splendid testimony, which would benefit their cause. For in it he asks: Whether it is a sin to whistle and dance at weddings, since it is said that much sin comes from dancing," and answers: "Whether among the Jews
*The method found in Luther's sermons is called methodum heroicam. This is done with good reason. He did not bind himself to any human rule; but used a free, but to the matter as well as to his instinct appropriate and emphatic speech and proved to be a great master in speaking. But one must not think that this method was so peculiar to him that no one after him should or could present and preach the word of truth and the gospel of Jesus Christ in such a free, simple and yet powerful way or method. The reason for this conceit has been explained by Gottfried Arnold in the preface of his evangelical speeches on the Sunday and feast day gospels. Those who think that Luther does not use any method at all in sermons are also mistaken, as Johann Benedict Carpzov shows in hodegetic. p. 16, to which Joh. Albert. Fabrrcius in centifol. Luther. p. 816. is to be added.
(J. G. Walch.)
I do not know if there have been dances, but because it is the custom of the country to invite guests, decorate, eat, drink and be merry, I do not know how to condemn it without the excess, if it is lewd or too much. But that sins are committed is not the fault of dancing alone, since such things also happen over the table and in church; just as it is not the fault of eating and drinking that some become sows over it. But where it is chaste, I let the wedding have its right and use, and dance all the time. Faith and love cannot be danced out, nor can they be sat out, if you are chaste and moderate in them. Young children dance without sin; do the same and become a child, and the dance will not harm you. Otherwise, if dancing were a sin in itself, one should not allow children to dance. It is true that these words are in the church postilion" (p. Columne 467 ff. of this volume); "but I cannot see what is gained by it. If one thinks that from this one can see that the usual dancing is not sinful, and therefore also not to be rejected and condemned, as some have done, then this conclusion has no reason at all. We are not directed to Luther either for faith or for life and conduct. Scripture alone must tell us Christians what is true or false, good or evil. We accept Luther's teachings and opinions if they are based on divine reason. If it is objected that this testimony is not used to prove that the customary dancing is not sinful, but only to show how Luther, who had such profound insight into matters of faith and life and who is held in high esteem in our church, was indeed of this opinion and confirmed it with his statement, then I say that this testimony is of no avail even with this intention. For once Luther's Lutherum can be opposed. You mean that Luther here approved of the customary dancing: but how, if one were to bring in other passages from his writings in which he rejects such a thing altogether? They are, however, there. Behold, when he wishes to show who transgresses the third commandment, he says, 'He that eateth, drinketh, danceth, idleth, unlearneth, doth not eat, drink, drink, dance, idleth, unlearneth, doth not dance.
chastity.' He derives the origin of today's dancing from the ancient Cainites, and writes of Jubal: The third son of the other woman went about dancing, jumping and courting: he set his date on good days, pleasure and joy. This is the course of the world. This is how it is with each other: to seek great food and wealth; to subdue land and people; to have power and honor, and to live in pleasure and prosperity. Assuming that these passages of Luther's that have now been cited would be omitted, the above statement would be of little use: one would not think that one could support the usual dancing with it and find something in it that would be beneficial to the sinful desire to dance. For I must now remind you that the words of Luther do not contain what you imagine to have found in them. You undoubtedly speak of dancing as it is really done by people and is customary among them: but consider what kind of dancing Luther approves of; hold it up against the dancing that is customary and artistic today, and see whether his statement can be interpreted to mean the same. I do not think so. When I look at the whole passage in its context, I find something quite different. Johann Christian Lange (in his concern about the disputes over dancing, p. 52) notes that no kind of people was more repugnant to the blessed Luther than the sour-faced hypocrites and self-grown saints he called, who, according to their Pharisaic ways, could not tolerate the least thing that they did not recognize as right; who put the essence of godliness into external things; who revolted against all civil and tolerable customs;
condemned all people who did not immediately conform to their sense, and wanted to have the impression that they sought nothing but God's honor and did everything out of the impulse of the Holy Spirit. He rightly contrasted this with Christ's example, when he himself went with his disciples to the wedding at Cana, endured the customs introduced there with wisdom and patience, sanctified the wedding assembly by his presence, and thus taught that it was not the right kind of Christian reformation if one wanted to begin with such meager external things, which, considered in themselves, could neither give nor take away anything from the essence of faith and love. Luther subsequently applies this in particular to wedding dances, stating that if they are considered without intentional or knowingly sinful circumstances, they cannot be considered a damnable sin by those who do them in discipline and respectability, in childlike simplicity and innocence, out of an irreproachable instinct of mind. This is also what is consistent with Luther's words and their context. He does not speak of dancing in general, but of chastening: of such dancing that is done according to childlike simplicity, and he expressly says: Young children dance without sin: do the same and become a child, and the dance will not harm you.' With this, however, it is an abuse if one wants to draw and interpret this passage in such a bad way with respect to the dancing that is common today; although I agree with those who wish that this noble man, for the sake of offense and abuse, had considered this matter more carefully and expressed it more cautiously." (Luther's Writings, Hall. ed. XI, Preface p. 26. ff.)