“God giveth the law to the end we may thereby be roused up and made pliant; for the commandments do go and proceed against the proud and haughty, which contemn God’s gifts; now a gift or present cannot be a commandment.”

“Therefore we must answer according to this rule, ’Verba sunt accipienda secundum subjectam materiam.’ * * St. Paul calleth that the work of the law, which is done and acted through the knowledge of the law by a constrained will without the holy Spirit; so that the same is a work of the law, which the law earnestly requireth and strictly will have done; it is not a voluntary work, but a forced work of the rod.”

And wherein did Carlestad and Luther differ?  Not at all, or essentially and irreconcilably, according as the feeling of Carlestad was.  If he meant the particular deed, the latter; if the total act, the agent included, then the former.

Chap.  XIV. p. 230.

  “The love towards the neighbour (said Luther) must be like a pure
  chaste love between bride and bridegroom, where all faults are
  connived at, covered and borne with, and only the virtues regarded.”

In how many little escapes and corner-holes does the sensibility, the fineness, (that of which refinement is but a counterfeit, at best but a reflex,) the geniality of nature appear in this ‘son of thunder!’ O for a Luther in the present age!  Why, Charles! [3] with the very handcuffs of his prejudices he would knock out the brains (nay, that is impossible, but,) he would split the skulls of our ‘Cristo-galli’, translate the word as you like:—­French Christians, or coxcombs!

Ib. p. 231-2.

“Let Witzell know, (said Luther) that David’s wars and battles, which he fought, were more pleasing to God than the fastings and prayings of the best, of the honestest, and of the holiest monks and friars; much more than the works of our new ridiculous and superstitious friars.”

A cordial, rich and juicy speech, such as shaped itself into, and lived anew in, the Gustavus Adolphuses.

Chap.  XV. p. 233-4.

“God most certainly heareth them that pray in faith, and granteth when and how he pleaseth, and knoweth most profitable for them.  We must also know, that when our prayers tend to the sanctifying of his name, and to the increase and honor of his kingdom (also that we pray according to his will) then most certainly he heareth.  But when we pray contrary to these points, then we are not heard; for God doth nothing against his Name, his kingdom, and his will.”

Then (saith the understanding, [Greek:  To phronaema sarkos]) what doth prayer effect?  If A—­prayer = B., and A + prayer = B, prayer = O. The attempt to answer this argument by admitting its invalidity relatively to God, but asserting the efficacy of prayer relatively to the pray-er or precant himself, is merely staving off the objection a single step.  For this effect on the devout soul is produced by an act of God.  The true answer is, prayer is an idea, and ‘ens spirituale’, out of the cognizance of the understanding.