The ORE of Religion will be available for subscription in late September. Speak to your Oxford representative or contact us to find out more.

Dismiss
Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, RELIGION (religion.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited. Please see applicable Privacy Policy and Legal Notice (for details see Privacy Policy).

date: 19 August 2017

Martin Luther and Lutheran Orthodoxy

Summary and Keywords

The theology of early modern Lutheranism was based on Martin Luther. From the mid-16th century to the start of the 18th, the theology developed and taught at Lutheran universities in Germany (in modern research called “Lutheran Orthodoxy”) centered on the Lutheran confession and took place within the institutional setting of church and university created by the Wittenberg Reformation. Luther’s theology was pervasive throughout early modern Lutheranism owing to basic confessional material such as the Luther Bible, Luther’s hymns, Luther’s Catechisms, Luther’s book of prayers, Luther’s liturgies, Luther’s homilies, Lutheran confessions, individual and complete editions of Luther’s works, Luther anthologies, and Luther memoria. This orientation reflects not so much an intensive preoccupation with his person and work and fundamental reflection on his authority, but rather stems from the natural presence of Luther in the Lutheran church and its theology.

This reception is tangible not only in intertextual references, such as when his work is mentioned, quoted, or paraphrased, but also in the approach, completion, and content of theological thinking. Lutheran Orthodoxy continued contributing to the theological work of the Lutheran Reformation, especially in biblical exegesis, soteriology, and Christology, but also in anthropology, ecclesiology, and ethics. Although Lutheran Orthodoxy at times abbreviated or went beyond some points of Luther’s thought, resulting in a broad spectrum of diverging theological positions, it largely remained within the framework created by the Wittenberg Reformation in the 16th century. In fact, many theological initiatives of the Reformation did not come to fruition until the post-Reformation period, and many theological problems that had remained unresolved were then clarified. Hence, Lutheran Orthodoxy must be regarded as the legitimate heir and authentic interpreter of the theological legacy of the Lutheran Reformation. Because the potential of the Lutheran Reformation can be seen in Lutheran Orthodoxy, examining it can bring a fresh perspective on the history of the Reformation.

Keywords: Martin Luther, Luther’s historical impact, reception of Luther, Lutheran Orthodoxy, Formula of Concord, Lutheran confessional culture

Current scholarship describes post-Reformation Lutheran theology as “Lutheran Orthodoxy.”1 The following examination will consider Lutheran theology in Germany from the mid-16th century to the beginning of the 18th, and the Lutheran confessional culture that supported it. The reception of Luther in the post-Reformation period has not yet been extensively investigated. However, several contexts, such as early biographies of Luther, the doctrinal conflicts during preparation of the Formula of Concord, and the 100th anniversary of the Reformation in 1617, have been more closely examined. The reception of Luther in the succeeding years, especially in the theology of confessional Lutheranism, has also scarcely been researched.2 In view of the richness of sources and the often unsatisfactory state of current scholarship, the following account can only provide a preliminary survey.

Luther and the Lutheran Confessional Culture in the Early Modern Period

Luther was ubiquitous in Lutheran confessional culture during the early modern period. This was so not only because of his theological works, but above all because of the basic confessional printed matter of Lutheranism as well as the Christian faith and living initiated by Luther. From the 1520s on, Luther’s Bible, hymns, and Catechisms were the basic printed building blocks of the emerging Lutheran confessional culture. Luther’s postils were widely used models for Protestant preaching. His liturgies and his prayer book influenced congregational and personal expressions of piety. During his lifetime, the Reformer from Wittenberg was an authority whose word carried great weight, whose approval one sought, and whose ideas and advice one implemented. During the second half of the 16th century, the confessional culture of the church arising from the Wittenberg Reformation so focused on Luther that it began to refer to itself as “Lutheran.”3 Although this practice was criticized by Luther himself, the church rightly labeled itself as his follower, and Lutheran theologians confidently rejected any criticism of this practice. In response to the Roman Catholic accusation that the Lutheran church was suspected of heresy because it had named itself after a human being,4 Johann Gerhard responded with two statements from Luther. First, for Luther his person was of no significance; rather, his teaching was what was important.5 Second, one must hold in high regard a person because of the doctrine she or he taught.6 Gerhard points to its doctrine when naming the church after Luther, but also to the person who stood for this teaching. But although Luther decisively influenced the Wittenberg Reformation and thereby significantly helped shape the emerging Lutheran confessional culture, we must stress that, strictly speaking, the Wittenberg Reformation was a collective undertaking. One cannot refer solely to the history of the impact and reception of Luther when writing of post-Reformation Lutheranism, but only to the history of the impact and reception of the Wittenberg Reformation, which would also have to recognize Melanchthon’s important and lasting influence on Lutheranism. Nonetheless, the following treatment will focus on Luther as the dominant influence in the Wittenberg Reformation.

The collected editions of Luther’s works which began to appear in Wittenberg and Jena at the end of the 1530s formed the basis of the early modern reception of Luther.7 Both offered his previously published work along with additional sources and materials.8 Various indices9 opened up the wealth of material that would remain the basis of reception of Luther and research on Luther well into the 18th century. These editions were supplemented by two volumes published by Johannes Aurifaber which contained, among others, the Table Talks. These works were reprinted until the beginning of the 17th century. No further reprints of his works or new editions appeared in the first half of the 17th century. Not until the 1660s did a new, comprehensive Luther edition (the Altenburg) appear, which was based on the 16th-century editions and did not succeed in replacing them.10 Editions of Luther’s selected works, which became widely available in the 19th and 20th centuries, were unknown in the early modern period. Aside from his catechisms and homilies, single works of Luther were seldom published in the second half of the 16th century and in the 17th, and then generally as part of a particular debate.11 However, Luther was represented in another genre of literature: excerpt collections. Those who studied Luther’s works in the original or used the collected editions excerpted notable material. These collections could be compiled for different purposes, and some were also published.12 For many, these collected Luther quotations were the only means of getting acquainted with his work beyond the Bible translation, Catechisms, hymns, and homilies.

In 1565 Joachim Mörlin published a small German-language pamphlet on the study of Luther. Along with extensive quotations of praise for Luther from other theologians, it contained a list of eleven suggestions for how “to profitably read Luther’s books and writings.”13 Although this advice at first appears to be somewhat simplistic, these suggestions were based on Mörlin’s extensive experience with Luther’s works and initial reflections on the interpretation of Luther gained from the debates about Lutheran doctrine during the 1550s and 1560s. Mörlin had come to appreciate Luther as the decisive authority in the contemporary controversies about the right understanding of the Lutheran confessions and their biblical basis. According to Mörlin, for Luther’s works to exercise their guiding influence, they were to be read in a particular way. It was essential to distinguish between his earlier and his later works.14 To begin with, the material from his last twenty years was important because it provided a fundamental perspective on the theological core of the Reformation that was important for all of Luther’s other writings. According to Mörlin, one should begin reading Luther’s works with the Small and Large Catechisms. Then, one should turn to the other confessions attributed to Luther: the Articles of Schwabach, the 1528 Confession concerning Christ’s Supper, the Smalkald Articles, the 1528 Instruction for the Visitors, and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.15 The next works to be read are Luther’s 1535 Commentary on Galatians (for considering the distinction between law and gospel), Luther’s interpretation of the last words of David (regarding Christology), On the Councils and the Churches, and Against Hanswurst. Once this extensive basis has been established, additional works can be read using the loci method. Luther’s Lectures on Genesis are especially recommended. To completely understand the significance of Luther’s role in the history of the church, which most importantly was in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, one can read Luther chronologically using the Jena edition, which orders the material according to the date written, in contrast with the Wittenberg edition, which is organized thematically. Mörlin’s selection of these works by Luther, with their focus on the major themes of Reformation theology, is typical of Reformation and post-Reformation Lutheranism.

A look at other advice for studying Luther, such as Konrad Porta’s 1571 Latin exhortation to read Luther’s work, confirms this approach.16 Porta adopts Mörlin’s recommendations for reading Luther, but supplements them with additional useful tips for an educated public. He explains in more detail the distinction between the earlier and later writing of Luther and, like Mörlin, recommends starting with the later works. He too points out the different genres and, like Mörlin, emphasizes the doctrinal works of Luther. Porta also mentions other strategies for study and leaves it to the reader to choose the most suitable. Thus, one might proceed according to the principles of Reformation theology and start with Luther’s exegetical works, followed by dogmatic ones, and then move on to review Luther’s advice regarding ecclesiastical practice. Or one could read Luther chronologically, which Porta only recommends to those already acquainted with his Reformation thinking. No matter how one reads Luther, Porta tells us that his works “are written by a teacher who was awakened and called by God and driven by the Holy Spirit”; they “transmit all the chapters of Christian teaching with singular accuracy”; they “express the matters treated with the most accurately and suitably ordered words”; “they surpass all books and commentary by scholars and authors of today in their authority and benefit”; and “they were affirmed and defended with singular and remarkable determination.” It is no surprise that—according to Porta—precisely these works and their author were wondrously protected by God when in extreme danger.17

In the post-Reformation era, Luther was not only present through editions of his work, but also through the many kinds of Luther memoria.18 During his lifetime, the reputation of the Wittenberg Reformer was established by memorable images of him that circulated: Luther the hero, the one who freed the church from the yoke of the pope and set the Reformation in motion; Luther the prophet, who powerfully proclaimed God’s word to Christendom; Luther the teacher, who taught the meaning of Christian faith and living. Luther’s presence was felt in many varied materials of Lutheran confessional culture—the Luther Bible, the Lutheran Confessions, the hymnals, the Catechisms, the homilies, excerpt collections with Luther quotations for various circumstances, visual representations, stage plays, and coins and medallions. Historical knowledge of Luther’s person and work was available in various forms. First of all, there were the recollections of his life and work published as individual pamphlets and sometimes printed in the Wittenberg Luther edition on the occasion of anniversaries of his death and burial. Also important for Luther memoria were the biographies written by Johannes Mathesius and Cyriakus Spangenberg in the form of sermons.19 Other descriptions of Luther were also available, partly as sermons, partly as historical portrayals.20 Those of the 16th and 17th centuries were shaped by particular interests. The picture of Luther they spread served to define and stabilize Lutheran confessional culture in times of internal disagreement and to defend Luther against Calvinism21 and Roman Catholicism.22 A first and subsequently long-unmatched high point of Luther commemoration was the anniversary year of 1617, which revealed nothing new but celebrated Luther as the dominant figure in post-Reformation Lutheranism with many events and publications.23

In the second half of the 16th century, Lutheran pastors formed an important audience for the flourishing Luther memoria. Luther was presented to them as a teacher and role model. A manual on homiletics which appeared in 1570 recommended studying Luther’s works to aid in preparing the form and content of a sermon:

Above all, the preacher should…. search, take account of and try to imitate Luther’s interpretations by following these three points: [i.] the true and original message of the Bible text being examined; [ii.] the most important and useful teachings in the text as well as its clear explanation and confirmation from the rest of Scripture; [iii.] applying Scripture and making it useful for faith, repentance, and Christian living. In showing how this is done Luther is a unique and admirable master.24

That was easier said than done. As for pastors’ knowledge and understanding of Luther, it is important to note that the printed material available only presented a particular Luther. As early modern church constitutions or visitation protocols show, many Lutheran parsonages and congregations had available and made use only of Luther’s Bible, the Catechisms, and the homilies.25 Complete editions, printed excerpt collections, and single editions were available only to few. The interest in reading Luther corresponded to the material available. What pastors could use for preaching and teaching was what was mostly in their hands. These basic materials were reliable sources for the fundamentals of Lutheran doctrine, such as the Bible and justification, faith and love, law and gospel. In addition, Luther was a source of advice and guidance for all the problems encountered in pastoral ministry, not just for sermon preparation. Pastors usually had what they required for sermons and instruction at hand. To make familiar the passages relevant to these aims, Konrad Porta published an exhaustive handbook of pastoral theology with numerous Luther quotations for use in the care of souls.26 In the 17th century, texts from Luther on church and theology that were relevant for ecclesiastical practice were also available in collections of theological counsels (“consilia”) published by theologians and theological faculties.27

Luther’s significance for Lutheran confessional culture also had an impact on the reception of Luther at Lutheran universities. Some university statutes declared Luther’s theology normative. In 1564, for instance, the statutes of the Rostock theological faculty stated that Rostock docents must base biblical interpretation on early church and Reformation confessions as well as on Luther’s works.28 The teaching and writing of Lutheran theologians leaves traces of intense engagement with Luther and testimony of the close examination of his material everywhere. It is remarkable, however, that neither guides for study nor the theological work itself reflect his central role in a way that one would expect. Although the study of Luther was advised in the numerous guides for theological study that appeared during the 17th century, practical advice for carrying this out was sparse in comparison to other studies deemed equally important.29 That pertains equally to other kinds of publications, for example disputations. Despite the close congruence of the content of disputations held at Wittenberg with Luther’s theology, few explicit references to his work are found.30 Even at the universities the study of Luther was not simple; the Wittenberg and Jena Luther editions were not readily available to all, and there were no editions of selected works. While students were familiar with Luther’s Bible translation, the hymns, Catechisms, and sermons, some also had excerpt collections or similar material at hand. Beyond that, his work was seldom well known even among theologians. Lectures or disputation seminars that dealt with Luther’s person, works, and theology were not part of the curriculum. At best, the Wittenberg Reformer was treated in academic speeches that would scarcely qualify as scholarly.31 Reports about the education and major areas of study by theology professors seldom indicate a particular interest in Luther.32 Thorough studies of Luther are only infrequently mentioned, such as one by the Strasbourg theology professor Johann Konrad Dannhauer (1603‒1666), who had read and excerpted Luther’s work several times and had complained about how unfamiliar theologians were with it.33

In the numerous and often voluminous works of Lutheran theologians from the second half of the 16th century into the 18th, Luther is frequently cited. Many references are made to him and his theology is clearly widely adopted, but the Wittenberg Reformer is less directly present than one might expect. Above all, Luther’s person, impact, and theology are seldom treated, and never extensively. Nor is his authority, which is codified in the confessions and decisively established in Lutheran theology, made the object of independent theological study. That Luther, whose presence was implicit everywhere in Lutheran Orthodoxy, still did not become a topic of scholarship can be shown by his reception in Johann Gerhard’s work (1582‒1637).34 Already Gerhard’s contemporaries were aware of his treatment of Luther as representative of Lutheranism of the 17th century.35 Gerhard was well acquainted with Luther’s life and work, as demonstrated by numerous references, quotations, and expositions based on Luther in his dogmatic, controversial, and inspirational works and by the entries in his personal copy of the Luther Bible. Luther was particularly important to Gerhard as a reformer of the Christian church and as a natural authority. Generally, Gerhard closely follows Luther’s theological program.36 Gerhard’s extensive work seldom focuses on Luther himself, and then with apologetic intent, namely to defuse the accusations of Roman Catholic controversialists against Luther’s Bible translation,37 his ethics,38 his role as prophet,39 the vocatio Lutheri,40 or the designation of the church as “Lutheran.”41 Many other theologians made similar observations indicating that Luther was esteemed as an authority, and that his work was known and his writing diligently studied, all without making him the focus. An example toward the end of the 17th century is Johann Andreas Quenstedt (1617‒1688).42

One wonders whether Luther was in fact much less often present at the university than the assertion of his authority and the Luther memoria would suggest. But even if Luther’s writings, aside from the confessions, were scarcely used in academic studies, he influenced the curriculum in other ways. The method of teaching and learning theology at Lutheran universities took its orientation from the Wittenberg model, which was largely determined by Luther, who focused on philological and dogmatic exegesis of the Bible with an existential emphasis. The triad of oratio, meditatio, and tentatio programmatically formulated by Luther43 was consistently passed along in early modern Lutheranism as the guiding ideal of theological study.44 Hence, although Luther’s person and writings were not the subject of teaching and learning, studies remained deeply influenced by the Wittenberg Reformer. Early modern Lutheranism showed that it followed Luther in that the Bible was placed at the center of theological study. Luther himself had expressly requested that his writings not become a “hindrance to studying the scriptures themselves.”45

The Reception of Luther in Lutheran Theology from the mid-16th to the Beginning of the 18th Century46

Establishing the presence of Luther in Lutheran confessional culture and his evident reception in post-Reformation Lutheran theology does not yet answer the key question regarding the relationship of Luther to Lutheran Orthodoxy: In theological essentials, how close to or far away from Luther himself does Lutheran theology in the post-Reformation era stand?47 Has the theology of post-Reformation Lutheranism duly absorbed and further developed the Wittenberg Reformer’s thinking, or has it adopted his legacy in a problematic way? Given the diversity of the theologies of post-Reformation Lutheranism, this question cannot be satisfactorily answered. Lutheran Orthodoxy continued to develop over several generations after the mid-16th century and reflected a multiplicity of different traditions, centers, and protagonists. To answer this question about the relationship of Luther and Lutheran Orthodoxy, one would have to focus separately on early, high, and late Orthodoxy, the theologies of Wittenberg, Strasbourg, and Helmstedt, or on Johann Gerhard, Georg Calixt, and Valentin Ernst Löscher. One would also need to investigate the relationship on the basis of particular themes. Since this is not possible here, an overview of the relationship between Lutheran Orthodoxy and Luther must suffice.

The Reception of Luther in the Context of the Lutheran Concord in the Second Half of the 16th Century

Clarification of Luther’s authority in intra-Lutheran doctrinal disputes in the second half of the 16th century was essential for the theological reception of Luther in Lutheranism in the early modern era.48 Even during Luther’s lifetime, different interpretations of various questions of doctrine had arisen inside the Wittenberg Reformation. After his death, a number of open disputes and newly arisen problems were clarified in a succession of debates. This process in some way always involved the entirety of Reformation theology, although each time turning on a particular point of controversy. The “interimistic and adiaphoristic” controversy focused on the relationship between personal faith and ecclesiastical order; the “majoristic and antinomist” controversy on the function of the law and the status of good works; the “synergistic” controversy on sin and election; and the “Osiandric” controversy on Christ and justification. Finally, the quarrels with Calvinism and a group of Melanchthon’s adherents tending toward Calvinism centered on Christ and the Lord’s Supper. From the start, Luther and his writings played an important role in these doctrinal disputes. In fact, reference to Luther helped significantly to clarify questions and settle conflicts.

Each of the various parties to the disputes asserted the authority of the Wittenberg Reformer and attempted to gird its claim with citations and texts from Luther. Since Luther was an authority for the churches that had emerged from the Wittenberg Reformation, an appeal was made to this authority to define Lutheran identity and stabilize the still nascent Lutheran confessional culture. The fact that Luther was seen as an authority is quite congruent with his self-understanding. While not necessarily for himself, Luther certainly had claimed this authority for his theology, as it reflected the principle of sola scriptura and was limited by it.49 Since biblical authority had to gain the upper hand and the truth of Christian faith was itself at stake, severe conflict and even irreversible ruptures were the result. Yet Luther had come in the 1520s to accept this as the inevitable consequence of the Reformation and had learned to make use of it as well.

Though seldom made explicit, his authority is seen throughout the Formula of Concord, completed in 1577. The key passage for Luther’s authority is the introduction.50 Here the Formula makes clear that the Bible alone is the basis for judging doctrine, but it also recommends as an aid in discernment ecclesiastical confessions that are in agreement with the Bible, and among those listed are Luther’s Catechisms, “the Bible of the laity.”51 Luther is expressly described as the decisive interpreter “of the pure teaching of God’s Word”52 and credited with having brought the truth of God’s Word “out from the abominable darkness of the Papacy … again into the light.”53 At the same time, Luther’s authority is seen as categorically different from that of the Bible and made subject to it in Luther’s own words. Although the Formula of Concord does refer to Luther’s Catechisms and his doctrinal and disputational writing as the authoritative commentary on the Lutheran confessions, it makes clear that Luther is an authority “in the way and extent as D. Luther himself expressly indicated in the Latin preface to the collected edition of his works, that God’s Word alone is and will remain the sole measure and rule of all doctrine to which no human work whatsoever is equal, but should rather be subservient.”54 This is the manner in which Luther is present in the articles of the Formula of Concord. Although not of equal rank to the Bible, he is a helpful and valued authority in understanding the Formula properly.55

In its substance, the Formula of Concord follows Luther. “Every article is … directly or indirectly an interpretation of the theology of Luther or a discussion of problems which had arisen as a result of an interpretation of Luther’s theology.”56 In a way, the Formula of Concord simplifies Luther’s position and accentuates and connects it with statements more strongly influenced by Melanchthon, but, as a whole, it operates within the framework established by Luther and variously shaped by the Wittenberg Reformation. What the Formula of Concord explicitly states about Luther’s authority and what is reflected throughout its discussion of doctrine was defended in the ensuing controversial debate about the Concordia project.57 At the beginning of the 17th century, Leonard Hütter summarized the results of this discussion on how Lutheranism, which held to the Formula of Concord, understood Luther’s authority:

Excluding those things he himself rejected which he had published shortly after leaving the synagogue of the Antichrist and do contain a number of errors, we are certain that Luther’s work contains and explains unshakable truth based on prophetic and apostolic works. Therefore, we hold them to be a witness of the certain and sound teaching which has been passed along in our church and schools up to the present.58

This appraisal of Luther was not only held by Lutheran churches that acknowledged the Formula of Concord but also by those that rejected it. Even the latter group depended upon confessions written by or attributed to Luther and used Luthers’s writing to aid in interpretation. In practice, well into the 17th century both groups seldom drew upon Lutheran confessions as normative for doctrine,59 and, accordingly, the works of Luther were not called upon for assurance and assistance in interpreting normative doctrine. Not until the second half of the 17th century did the Lutheran confessional documents begin to play their intended role, whereby they were drawn into polemical posturing both within Lutheran Orthodoxy and between Lutheran Orthodoxy and the other emerging streams within Lutheranism, rendering such references to confessional documents problematically apologetic. Luther’s writings scarcely play a role in that regard because they lack the significance ascribed to them in the Formula of Concord.60

The Reception of Luther at the End of the 16th Century

Several decades of peaceful theological work during which Luther faded into the background followed the turbulent phase of doctrinal discord that had come to an end with the Formula of Concord. His person and works were still present, of course. However, the impact of this presence on theological doctrine and discussion is for the most part only indirectly evident. The dogmatic instructional materials from around 1600 are based mostly on Luther’s theology and inspired by the biblical foundation and doctrinal treatment he gave it.61 Theologians who continued to work on the problematic issues of Lutheran theology raised by the Concordia project also dealt with the Wittenberg Reformer repeatedly—for example, Ägidius Hunnius in elaborating his Christology.62 During the more significant theological debates around the year 1600, references to Luther appeared to play no role, but the groundwork laid for Wittenberg theology from the 1520s through the 1540s had an impact. Thus, during the controversy with Huber over predestination, support continued for an open Lutheran doctrine of election which combined God’s goodwill with a personal involvement through faith and was not one-sided—either in the sense of Calvinist predestination doctrine or of humanistic synergism.63 In the controversy with Hofmann, Lutheran theologians defended the academic approach to theology and the resulting intellectually responsible understanding of theology with its corresponding methodology.64 Despite his understanding of theology as existential sapientia rather than intellectual scientia, Luther could not provide any convincing arguments against this approach. He knew theology to be in good hands in the university, for he himself had cultivated academic teaching and learning, since he held human reason in high esteem. Indeed, Luther himself had revived or strongly supported academic forms such as the scholastic disputation or the theological textbook, which would become very important for Lutheran Orthodoxy.

The Reception of Luther in the First Half of the 17th Century

In the first decades of the 17th century, a shift occurred in the academic theology of German Lutheranism.65 A new generation of theologians brought fresh ideas about how Lutheran theology understood itself and how its important themes were to be treated. In the process, the Melanchthonian tradition was replaced by a renewed emphasis on Luther and even on medieval traditions. Openness to the Aristotelian theory of science was of fundamental importance in the further development of Lutheran Orthodoxy. Theology was understood as practical knowledge (scientia practica) based on analytical ordering, making Aristotelian philosophy useful in theological reflection and Christian living.66 That was not meant to relinquish theology’s claim to truth to philosophy, but to employ philosophy to show the theological claim to truth in the sense of the Reformation—better, in fact, than the Lutheranism of the 16th century was able to do, with its heavy reliance on the Melanchthonian theory and practice of science. Two examples make especially clear the extent to which reliance on Aristotelian philosophy was meant to achieve adequate expression of Reformation theology: (1) in making the Bible the epistemological principle (principium cognoscendi) of theology67; and (2) in summarizing the fundamental doctrines into the basic articles (articuli fundamentales) derived from the Bible.68 Hence, this new Aristotelian approach involved a contemporary reformulation of the Reformation tenet regarding scripture (the Word alone) and the Reformation’s concentration on the evangelical core message of homo reus et perditus et deus iustificans vel salvator.69

In parallel with these clarifications of the understanding and methodology of theology—which did not result from examining Luther’s work but were still in the keeping with it—more intensive theological work on individual questions proceeded. Two foci, above all others, were important for Lutheran Orthodoxy in the 17th century and evolved with constant reference to Luther: the Bible and salvation.

The Reformation had made the Bible the focal point of the church and theology. The Wittenberg Reformers taught and demonstrated what that meant theoretically and how to deal with the Bible in theology and church practically. However, the hermeneutics and exegesis implied in the Reformation approach to the Bible were recognizable only in outline form by the mid-16th century. Not until the following generation had Lutheran theologians worked out Reformation hermeneutics and applied it to scripture.70 The starting point was the scripture principle. The Bible was the sole epistemological basis for theology which brought personal faith and ecclesiastical community. All theological doctrine and pronouncements of the church were to be based on the Bible and legitimized through it. The entire theological work of Lutheran Orthodoxy can be understood as the result of their examination of the Bible and the consequences of sola scriptura for faith and for the church. The special nature of the Bible was explained with the help of the doctrine of inspiration. It was God’s own Word that was normative, unequivocal, and complete. The biblical canon was read as a self-explanatory unity. Although Lutheran Orthodoxy evaluated the diversity of biblical writings according to their historical context and specific theology, its guiding expectation was that the Bible remained the sole, consistent, and divine revelation. Consequently, a hermeneutica sacra gradually developed as a theological system and exegetical technique for interpreting the Bible as the sole revelation. It combined existential faith in the Bible with comprehensive historical and philological knowledge. No amount of effort was spared in revealing the meaning of the text. Jewish, Roman Catholic, or Calvinist exegetes were called upon without reservation, and even the historical biblical criticism emerging in the 17th century was used. Naturally, patristic and Reformation exegesis was also used, wherein Luther’s interpretation of the Bible held a special place. Of course, the hermeneutica sacra developed by orthodox Lutheranism went beyond Luther in some points. The authority of scripture was taken more strictly. Luther’s hesitancy with respect to some New Testament scriptures was relativized, and Lutheran Orthodoxy introduced an openness to rabbinical exegesis. Yet this hermeneutica sacra remained within the boundaries established by Luther. This became apparent in the controversies of the 17th century, when the Bible was defended against the spiritualistic relativizing of Hermann Rahtmann, or attempts were made to shield the Bible from emerging historical criticism through a critica sacra that was developing into apologetics.

In accord with the task of Reformation theology, biblical study focused above all on Christian salvation. The doctrines of justification and Christology were therefore two major topics of theological study in Lutheran Orthodoxy. Above all, the Reformation heritage of the nature of salvation and of Christ was reflected and systematized in the first half of the 17th century. The close connection between soteriology and Christology shows the enduring impact of Luther’s Reformation recognition of justification through Christ’s righteousness. For both Luther and Lutheran Orthodoxy, Christ and justification were closely related and, strictly speaking, two sides of the same coin. Lutheran theologians constantly sought to understand Christ’s person and work correctly and, in particular, to address the paradoxes of Christology, including the inadequacy of human language for describing Christ and his work.71 Luther’s views were always present in discussions of Christology and inspired many contributions to the discussion with its questions and answers. The benefits of the Aristotelian reception were seen especially here, in that Christology was examined with the means of philosophy and evaluated in its theological particularity.72 This Christological discourse has been exhaustively researched, showing the fundamental importance of Luther’s Christology for all subsequent developments, but also identifying the doctrinal contributions that go beyond Luther and critically examining them with respect to him.73

Lutheran Orthodoxy also reviewed and systemized the Reformation legacy in the thematic complex of soteriology. In contrast to Calvinism, Luther’s teaching on predestination linked God’s universal divine plan, despite all logical inconsistencies, to the faith of the individual as created by the divine Word.74 Lutheran soteriology sometimes went beyond Luther, leading even to a “rationalization of free will and predestination,”75 which led Helmstedt theologians to come very close to a problematic synergism. While basically agreeing with Luther, wrestling with his sharply worded statements sometimes led Lutheran Orthodoxy to interpretations that understated them, as when dealing with De servo arbitrio.76 A similar struggle to preserve the Reformation legacy while incorporating further developments resulting from later theological controversy can be seen in the thematic context of anthropology and hamartiology.77 Taking into account the various ways the Bible speaks about salvation, justification propter Christum per fidem (“through faith on account of Christ,” CA 4) was expounded by pointing to its various aspects (ordo salutis): calling, rebirth, conversion, repentance, justification, mystical union with God, and renewal.78 Particular attention was given to the individual adoption of justification and its existential dimension, which was considered in the teaching on the unio mystica cum Christo (“mystical union with Christ”).79 Among the existential effects of belief in justification were the practice of piety,80 the Christian life,81 and the church,82 which were also important topics in theology and for which Luther’s theology was utilized but also conceptually refined and further elaborated. For Luther and Lutheran Orthodoxy, Christian faith required handholds in daily life and institutional structures: Bible study, prayer, meditation, worship, good works, ministry, and so on. In fact, calling theology a scientia practica made its practice toward God and world the goal of all theological reflection. Therefore, in keeping with Luther, the result of Lutheran Orthodoxy’s focus on Christ and justification was an interest in the Christian’s relationship to the world. Moreover, a Lutheran “theology of nature”—which must not be confused with “natural theology”—played a role that should not be underestimated.83

The theology that Lutheran Orthodoxy produced in the first half of the 17th century should be seen as the adoption and further development of the legacy of the Reformation, but the variety of its positions and the extent to which it went beyond the discourse of the Reformation must also be acknowledged. Despite the allegiance to the legacy of the Reformation claimed by all sides, there were bitter disagreements within Lutheran Orthodoxy, as a consequence of which the theologians involved continually struck out in new directions that might go well beyond Luther and stretch his theology. What the pluralism of the Wittenberg Reformation in the 16th century had shown was confirmed in the history of post-Reformation Lutheranism. Luther’s Reformation theology could be variously interpreted and further elaborated. Whether and to what extent one did justice to Luther must be explored in each case. Along with basic continuity, one must reckon with interruptions and leaps in development.

Luther’s Reception in the Second Half of the 17th and the First Third of the 18th Century

Theological innovations and productive controversies marked the theological work of the second half of the 17th century and the first third of the 18th century far less than in the previous period. Collecting and applying the theological work of the first half of the 17th century was the primary focus, as documented by the publications of high and late Orthodoxy. If one examines one of the most widely distributed and longest-used textbook of dogmatics in this period—Johann Friedrich König’s (1619‒1664) Theologia positiva acroamatica from 1664—it is clear that, though seldom cited, Luther is largely responsible for the theological doctrine presented there.84

Moreover, a gradual shift began during this period which initially was scarcely noticeable but nevertheless would deeply alter the intellectual world. After the Thirty Years’ War, the uniformity and coherence of Lutheran confessional culture started to loosen, and a new openness to developments in the academic theology of Lutheranism arose as a result. The reception of Luther changed as well. On one hand, the earlier natural orientation toward the Wittenberg Reformer began to dwindle, as can be seen in the development of the Helmstedt theology and the rise of movements of spiritual renewal. On the other hand, Luther began to be studied in a new way as a source of reassurance. There were some indicators of the approaching shift in the relationship to Luther in high and late orthodox theology. Some study guides were now devoting greater space to the study of Luther.85 Theological publications now more clearly addressed the orientation to Luther that had previously been tacitly assumed. Luther apologetics were strengthened, and Luther’s life and work were upgraded to an independent subject of study.86 New editions of his work were published for different requirements.87 Greater emphasis was placed on the historical research of Luther and the Reformation.88 Practical reference materials became increasingly available for Luther studies.89 Finally, those who broke with the common consensus of Reformation and post-Reformation Lutheranism regarding certain points (such as Spener) were well advised to study Luther to strengthen their position and to be prepared to meet objections.90 With the growing historical distance, a phase of new interest in Luther and the Reformation was emerging. In summary, one could say that Luther became a focus of theology just as his direct impact was getting weaker.

Review of the Literature

Luther’s impact and reception during early modern Lutheranism has not been uniformly researched, and our knowledge still is lacking in many areas. Luther’s presence in Lutheran confessional culture up until 1617 and his importance in resolving the Lutheran controversies up until 1577 have been well established.91 However, scholars have scarcely explored the history of Luther’s impact and reception by subsequent Lutheran confessional culture and theology. One still must refer to antiquated and, in some respects, problematic literature,92 and yet the older 17th- and 18th-century bibliographic reviews prove to be useful.93 The more recent literature on the history of theology and piety of early modern Lutheranism that was examined for this article normally treats the reception of Luther only in passing.94

One of the key questions for research in the history of the impact and reception of Luther in Lutheran Orthodoxy is the question regarding the relationship of Luther to Lutheran Orthodoxy. There are two95 competing point of views. An earlier scholarly approach contrasts Luther with Lutheran Orthodoxy and finds the reception and further development of the Reformation legacy in post-Reformation Lutheranism to be problematic. This view is rooted in the pietistic critique of Lutheran Orthodoxy. Claiming Luther for their renewal movement, the Pietists lamented that post-Reformation Lutheranism had fallen away from the Reformation at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th.96 Contrasting Luther with Lutheran Orthodoxy and claiming the Reformation for one’s own theological position is also repeatedly found in the 19th and 20th centuries. Let two authors serve as examples: Werner Elert97 and Hans Emil Weber.98 In the middle of the 20th century they explored the thesis of discontinuity in their descriptions of the history of early modern Lutheran theology and utilized the contrast between Luther and Lutheran Orthodoxy to advantage in their own theological positions. Elert postulates that the “creative dynamism” (gestaltende Dynamis) and the “finished shape” (fertige Morphe) of Lutheranism (namely, the “evangelical approach” and its expression in “dogma,” “church,” and “world view”) are closely connected but can be clearly differentiated. Regarding the relationship between Luther and Lutheran Orthodoxy, Elert emphasizes the historical and theological connection of Luther’s dynamism with the ever more apparent shape of Lutheranism, whereas he makes Luther’s evangelical approach the critical measure of the historical embodiment of the shape of Lutheranism. Elert makes critical judgments about post-Reformation Lutheranism, which he accuses of displacing Luther’s dialectic of law and gospel with a problematic biblicism, and of an “alarmingly great distance from Luther’s vital personal knowledge of God.”99 Hans Emil Weber takes an even more critical view of Lutheran Orthodoxy than Elert because he believes it represents an intermediate link in the erroneous development from Reformation to rationalism. In his opinion, post-Reformation Lutheranism connects the evangelical perspective on Christian faith with a rational perspective that goes down the wrong path toward rationalizing, objectifying, and doctrinalizing the Reformation legacy. Weber and Elert promote both returning to the Reformation as the starting point and appropriating Luther selectively and creatively for modern times.

A more recent focus of research is directed at the close historical relationship of Luther with Lutheran Orthodoxy and emphasizes theological continuities. Such scholarship also has a prehistory: the rediscovery of Lutheran Orthodoxy under the banner of 19th-century neo-Lutheran confessionalism in both the United States and Germany. However, the continuity between Luther and Lutheran Orthodoxy in this milieu has long been claimed to be more than convincingly shown from sources. Thus, Robert D. Preus, in his standard text on the theology of Lutheran Orthodoxy, points out the close historical and factual relationship between Luther and Lutheran Orthodoxy and relativizes the “differences in emphasis and methodology”100 without giving further explanation.

Scandinavian and German research has developed this continuity thesis further. Bengt Hägglund, for instance, has examined connections between the Reformation and post-Reformation Lutheranism in his writings.101 Focusing on “Luther and his classical heirs” in many of his works on the history of theology, Jörg Baur is able to make the continuity thesis plausible on the basis of many sources.102 He illustrates the close theological relationship of Lutheran Orthodoxy with Luther regarding various points—for instance, with respect to the understanding of reason or to Christology—without withholding critical remarks on deviations of Lutheran Orthodoxy from Luther. Robert Kolb’s research also supports the continuity thesis. He has particularly focused on Lutheran theology in the second half of the 16th century, thereby taking into account the transitional phase between Luther and Lutheran Orthodoxy. Kolb not only establishes the presence of Luther in Lutheran confessional culture but also explores the reception of Luther’s theology. He finds that “no doubt Luther shaped in a nearly extraordinary manner the theology of his pupils and of the following generations who claimed his name.”103 Kolb also recognizes changes and shifts, such as the loss of interest in the basic distinctions of law and gospel or of divine and human righteousness so important to Luther: “The way in which theology was done dampened Luther’s voice even if it could not suppress its melody entirely.”104 Johann Anselm Steiger has demonstrated and further developed the continuity thesis using additional source material and themes.105 For Steiger, “Lutheran Orthodoxy … developed ex post the program required to describe what had already been accomplished in Luther’s theology, namely, the reconciliation of monastic and scholastic theology around the doctrine of man’s justification sola gratia.”106 For him, the “era of Orthodoxy is the performative period of Protestantism during which [Lutheranism] succeeded in reviewing the Reformation heritage so as to secure its results for the future, make it teachable and learnable and convert it into a workable systematic theology.”107 According to Steiger, we have to assume as long as possible that the claim of Luther’s heirs to be Luther’s genuine interpreters is correct108 and so make Lutheran Orthodoxy useful for interpreting Luther’s theology.

Research is still discussing the issue, and the two competing emphases each find important reasons in support of their perspective. Even so, the continuity thesis is more likely to be fruitful for research than the discontinuity thesis, which has not been sufficiently grounded in historical research and has been exploited for other purposes.

Further Reading

Rublack, Hans-Christoph, ed. Die lutherische Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland. Heidelberg: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1992.Find this resource:

Dingel, Irene. “Luther’s Authority in the Late Reformation and Protestant Orthodoxy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology. Edited by Robert Kolb and Irene Dingel, 525–539. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.Find this resource:

Kolb, Robert. Luther’s Heirs Define His Legacy: Studies on Lutheran Confessionalization. Aldershot, U.K.: Variorum, 1996.Find this resource:

Kolb, Robert. Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher and Hero: Images of the Reformer 1520‒1620. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.Find this resource:

Kolb, Robert, ed. Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture 1550‒1675. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2008.Find this resource:

Matthias, Markus. “Orthodoxie I. Lutherische Orthodoxie.” In Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. 25, 464‒485. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995.Find this resource:

Preus, Robert D.The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism, vol. 1: A Study of Theological Prolegomena; vol. 2, God and His Creation. St. Louis: Concordia, 1970‒1972.Find this resource:

Steiger, Johann Anselm. Fünf Zentralthemen der Theologie Luthers und seiner Erben: Communicatio—Imago—Figura—Maria—Exempla. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2002.Find this resource:

Zeeden, Ernst Walter. Martin Luther und die Reformation im Urteil des deutschen Luthertums, vol. 1: Darstellung; vol. 2, Dokumente zur inneren Entwicklung des deutschen Protestantismus von Luthers Tode bis zum Beginn der Goethezeit. Freiburg: Herder, 1950–1952.Find this resource:

Notes:

(1.) Johannes Wallmann, “Orthodoxie. II. Christentum. 2. Historisch. a. Lutherische Orthodoxie,” in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Hans D. Betz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), vol. 6, 696‒702. Wallmann gave an overview of the history and the state of reseach on Lutheran Orthodoxy in two research reports: “Lutherische Konfessionalisierung: Ein Überblick,” in Die lutherische Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland, ed. Hans-Christoph Rublack (Heidelberg: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1992), 33‒53; and “Die lutherische Orthodoxie zur Zeit Ernst Salomo Cyprians. Stand der Forschung,” in Ernst Salomo Cyprian (1673‒1745) zwischen Orthodoxie, Pietismus und Frühaufklärung, eds. Ernst Koch and Johannes Wallmann (Gotha: Forschungs- und Landesbibliothek Gotha, 1996), 9‒21. For the self-description of early modern Lutheranism as “orthodoxia Lutherana” see Jörg Baur, “‘Orthodox’ im Sprachgebrauch der ‘altprotestantischen Orthodoxie’,” in Jörg Baur: Lutherische Gestalten—heterodoxe Orthodoxien: Historisch-systematische Studien (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 263‒269.

(2.) Johannes Schilling is right in assessing that “there is need for further research as to how present Luther really was in the 17th and 18th centuries”; Johannes Schilling, “Lutherausgaben,” in Theologische Realenzyklopädie (henceforth TRE) (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991), vol. 21, 594‒599, 598.

(3.) Thomas Kaufmann, “‘Wie die Bücher und Schriften … Lutheri nützlich zu lesen’: Joachim Mörlins Anweisung zum Lutherstudium von 1565 und ihr historischer Kontext” in Luthers Erben: Studien zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der reformatorischen Theologie Luthers, eds. Notger Slenczka and Walter Sparn (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005), 25‒72, 63f., note 162.

(4.) “nostram Ecclesiam esse haereticam, cum a Luthero denominetur Lutherana”: Johann Gerhard, Confessionis catholicae, in qua doctrina catholica et evangelica, quam ecclesiae Augustanae Confessionis addictae profitentur, ex romano-catholicorum scriptorum suffragiis confirmaturlibri II. Specialis pars prima, continens articulos, I. de verbo Dei, II. de Christo, III. de Pontifice Romano, IV. de conciliis & V. de ecclesia (Jena: Steinmann, 1634, VD17 12:121675M), 1295. “VD” refers to “Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke” (see note 8).

(5.) “Lutherus ipse monuit, ne a se, tanquam primo autore, Lutherana denominaretur. Sic enim scripsit tom. 2. Jen. fol. 62. [‘]Sunt, qui se Lutheranos esse gaudent. Non sic, o fatue, non sic. Oro, ut meum nomen taceatur, & nemo Lutheranus, sed Christianus appelletur. Quid est Lutherus? doctrina non est mea, neque ego pro vobis crucifixus sum. D. Paulus 1. Corinth. 3. nolebat pati, ut Christiani dicerentur a Paulo, sed a Christo. Unde igitur mihi foetido vermium sacco acciderit, ut filii Christi a meo vilissimo nomine denominarentur? absit, o amice. Deleamus Schismatica nomina & nominetur Christus, cujus doctrinam habemus. Papistae merito habent nomen Schismaticum, quia non sunt contenti Christi doctrina, sed nominari etiam volunt Papistae. Sint ergo Papae, qui ipsorum Magister est: ego nec sum, nec volo esse alicujus Magister. Ego cum Ecclesia habeo unam Christi doctrinam, qui omnium nostrum Magister est[’]”: Gerhard, Confessionis catholicae […] libri duo, 1295seq. (Translation of WA 8:684, 4‒15).

(6.) “A ministerio autem Lutheri, quo doctrinam Christianam a fermento Papistico repurgavit, Ecclesias Lutheranas appellari nullam haereseos probationem includit, qua de re idem Lutherus sic scribit tom. 2. Jen. Germ. de sumtione Sacramenti sub utraque specie parte 2. fol. 29. §. 4. [‘]Verum, quod non debeas (ita tibi salus animae & corporis tui cordi sit) dicere. Ego sum Lutheranus aut Papista, quia nullus horum, a quibus sic fit denominatio, pro te mortuus, aut tuus Magister est, sed unus Christus: ideoque te profiteri debes Christianum. Sed cum tibi persuades, Lutheri doctrinam esse Evangelicam, Papae autem non esse Evangelicam, tunc non oportet te Lutherum prorsus repudiare, alias repudias una doctrinam ejus, quam tamen agnoscis & fateris esse Christi doctrinam. Sed ita te oportet dicere. Lutherus sit vel nefarius, vel sanctus, parum mea refert, doctrina autem non est ipsius, sed Christi. Vides enim hoc agere Tyrannos, non ut Lutherum tantum e medio tollant, sed doctrinam volunt esse extirpatam & propter doctrinam te adoriuntur & interrogant, an sis Lutheranus. Hic certe oportet te non arundineis verbis, sed firmiter & libere Christum confiteri, sive illum Lutherus, sive Nicolaus, sive Georgius praedicavit. Personam horum mitte, sed doctrinam profitere. Ita scribit Paulus 2. Timoth. 1. Noli erubescere testimonium Dei nostri, neque me vinctum eius. Si hic Timotheo satis fuisset, ut Evangelium confiteretur, non praecipisset ei Paulus, ne ipsum puderet Pauli, non quidem quoad personam, sed ut propter Evangelium vincti. Si ergo Timotheus dixisset, Ego non assentior Paulo, nec Petro, sed Christo, non ignarus, quod Petrus & Paulus Christum docerent, hoc ipso Christum abnegasset, quia Christus de illis, qui eum praedicant, inquit Luc. 10. v. 16. Qui vos suscipit, me suscipit; qui vos spernit, me spernit. Cur hoc? quia ut nuncios ejus, qui verbum ejus afferunt, tractant, perinde est, ac si ipse & verbum ejus tractetur[’]”: Gerhard, Confessionis catholicaelibri duo, 1296 (translation of WA 10/II:40, 5‒29).

(7.) Eike Wolgast, Die Wittenberger Luther-Ausgabe: Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Werke Luthers im 16. Jahrhundert (Nieuwkoop: de Graaf, 1971); Hans Volz and Eike Wolgast, “Geschichte der Luther-Ausgaben vom 16. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert,” in WA 60:1980, 427‒637); Johannes Schilling, “Bibliographie der Tischreden-Ausgaben,” in: WA 59:1983, 747‒780); Johannes Schilling, Lutherausgaben, in TRE 21, 1991, 594‒599; and Stefan Michel, Die Kanonisierung der Werke Martin Luther sim 16. Jahrhundert (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016). References for most of Luther’s works published in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries (there are thousands of editions and millions of copies, including his German translation of the Bible and the Catechisms) can be found in Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts, eds. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in München in cooperation with the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel, section 1, vol. 12 (Stuttgart, 1988), 3‒557, L 3307‒L 7642; Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des 17. Jahrhunderts; Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachraum erschienenen Drucke des 18. Jahrhunderts.

(8.) The Wittenberg edition (published between 1539 and 1559) comprised two series with 19 volumes in total (repeatedly reprinted until 1603). The Jena edition (published between 1555 and 1558) comprised two series with 12 volumes altogether (repeatedly reprinted until 1615). All in all, about 130 volumes of the Wittenberg and Jena editions were printed. Because we know that the number of copies of every volume of the Jena edition was about 1,500 (about the Wittenberg we do not have comparable information), we get a sense of the total number of copies sold in Europe over nearly seventy years.

(9.) The Wittenberg and Jena editions were both completed with detailed indices in separate volumes: Christoph Walther, Register aller Bücher und Schrifften des Ehrnwirdigen Herrn Doctoris Mart. Lutheri / seliger gedechtnis / Welche in die acht deudsche Teil / und in die sechs latinische Tomos / zu Wittemberg durch Hans Lufft gedruckt sind / denen zum bericht / in welchem Teil vnd Tomo ein jglich Buch Lutheri zu finden / von nöten / welche solche Bücher zuuor gekaufft (Wittenberg: Hans Lufft, 1556, VD16 L 3451); Timotheus Kirchner, Index oder Register uber die Acht deudsche Tomos / ersten und andern Drucks / aller Bücher und Schrifften des thewern und seligen Mans Gottes / Doctor Martini Lutheri (Jena: Donatus Richtzenhan, 1564, VD16 L 3445). Kirchner also published as a supplement to his index a systematic overview: Thesaurus explicationum omnium articulorum ac capitum catholicae, orthodoxae, verae, ac piae doctrinae Christianae, quae hac aetate controversa sunt, ex reverendi, vereque Dei viri, ac summi Theologi, D. Martini Lutheri, syncerae Euangelicae doctrinae instauratoris fidelissimi, operibuscollectus, & in ordinem convenientissimum digestus (Frankfurt a. M.: Sigmund Feyerabend & Thomas Rebart, 1566, VD16 L 3511). In addition, Sigismund Schwab published an index volume that could be used for both editions: Register aller Schrifften des Ehrwirdigen Herrn D. Martini Lutheri / gerichtet zu gleich auff die XIX. Wittenbergischen / und XII. Jhenischen Tomos / beyders des Alten vnnd Newen Drucks / allen Liebhabern der Bücher Lutheri gantz nützlich zu gebrauchen. Index omnium scriptorum Reverendi Patris D. Martini Lutheri: accomodatus & ad 19. Tomos Vitebergenses & 12. Ihenenses, tum veteris tum recentioris Editionis: Studiosis Librorum Lutheri perutilis (Breslau: Scharffenberg, 1563, VD16 L 3453).

(10.) The Altenburg edition was completed with an extensive index volume: Johann Christfried Sagittarius, Haupt-Register über Herrn D. Mart. Lutheri Seel. Gesampte Teutsche Schrifften / Wie sie aus denen Witteb. Jenisch- und Eißlebischen Tomis in Neun Theile zusammen getragen (Altenburg: Fürstlich Sächsische Offizin, 1664, VD17 3:610344W).

(11.) Especially during the debates preceding the Formula of Concord, some texts of Luther were published in special editions; e.g., Luther’s writings on the sacraments directed against the actual “Sacramentsfeinde und Schwermer” were printed in 1575 by the Wittenberg theological faculty (VD16 L 3536, vgl. VD16 L 3545). Likewise, the editions of single writings of Luther in the 17th century went back directly or indirectly to certain occasions: in 1601 Aegidius Hunnius (cf. Markus Matthias, Theologie und Konfession. Der Beitrag von Ägidius Hunnius (1550‒1603) zur Entstehung einer lutherischen Religionskultur (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2004), 161‒165) published a collection of Luther texts about Christology (VD17 1:050607K) related to the discussions between Lutheranism and Calvinism at that time; in 1613 und 1617 Luther’s writings against the Jews were published in Frankfurt (VD17 3:610346M, VD17 3:306053V) with the intention to change the toleration politics regarding the Jews; and in 1664 a edition of Luther’s De servo arbitrio with commentaries was published in Strasbourg (VD17 12:116961K) that has to do with the discussion about predestination and election inside Lutheranism.

(12.) Johann Georg Walch, Bibliotheca theologica selecta litterariis adnotationibus instructa, vol. 1 (Jena: Croecker, 1757), 31f.; Ernst Koch, “Lutherflorilegien zwischen 1550 und 1600: Zum Lutherbild der ersten nachreformatorischen Generation,” in Ernst Koch: Studien zur Theologie- und Frömmigkeitsgeschichte des Luthertums im 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert (Waltrop: Hartmut Spenner, 2005), 123‒143; and Thomas Kaufmann, Das Ende der Reformation: Magdeburgs “Herrgotts Kanzlei” (1548‒1551/2) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 367‒381.

(13.) Joachim Mörlin, Wie die Bücher und Schrifften / des tewren und Seligen Manns Gottes D. Martini Lutheri nützlich zulesen. Für einfältige frome Pfarherrn und andere Christen Liebhaber und Leser / der Bücher d. Martini Lutheri (Eisleben: Petri, [1565], VD16 M 5896); and Mörlin’s own contribution is Wie die Bücher Lutheri zu lesen / für Einfeltige frome Pfarherren kurtzer bericht, ib. fol. A 2r‒B 1v; remarks of other theologians on Luther: ib. fol. B 2r‒E 7v). About the context, origins, and content of Mörlin’s manual for studying Luther see Kaufmann “Wie die Bücher und Schrifften … Lutheri nützlich zu lesen.”

(14.) Luther himself makes this distinction (WA 38:134, 9‒13).

(15.) The Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and the Tractatus de potestate papae (supplement to the Schmalkald Articles)—all three texts written wholly or mostly by Melanchthon—were seen in post-Reformation Lutheranism as an expression of Luther’s theology and were sometimes directly attributed to him.

(16.) Konrad Porta, Adhortatio ad assiduam lectionem librorum Lutheri (Jena: Richtzenhan, 1571). Reprinted in Michael Neander, Theologia Megalandri Lutheri: Sive aphorismi breves et sententiosi de omnibus doctrinae christianae capitibus, de fide & dilectione, spe & patientia in cruce, pietate & sanctis moribus praecepta, de ipsius monumentis ordine tomorum primae editionis Ihenensis descripti. Item theologia Bernhardi et Tauleri (Eisleben: Gaubisch, 1581, VD16 ZV 10150 [edition of 1584]), fol. o 1r‒s 5v. Porta’s manual for studying Luther was also published in 1708 in Helmstedt (VD18 14536951).

(17.) The citations are taken from an enumeration of the six main causes for reading Luther: “graves causas quare Lutheri scripta assidue legenda sint … sex potissimum reperio: Unam, quod a Doctore divinitus excitato & vocato, & a Spiritu sancto impulso & agitato edita sint. Alteram, quod omnia capita Doctrinae Christianae singulari dexteritate tradant, & consolationes efficacissimas contineant. Tertiam, quod verbis propriissimis, & selectissimis ordine optimo, de rebus propositis dicant. Quartam, quod omnium nostri temporis doctorum & scriptorum libros, & commentaria, autoritatis pondere, & utilitatis ubertate superent. Quintam, quod miraculose tam autor quam scripta, in summis & gravissimis periculis conservata sint. Postremam quod singulari & admiranda constantia asserta & vindicate sint” (Porta, “Adhortatio ad assiduam lectionem librorum Lutheri” in Theologia Megalandri Lutheri, fol. o 6r/v). Porta explains these six points in detail afterward.

(18.) Robert Kolb, “Die Umgestaltung und theologische Bedeutung des Lutherbildes im späten 16. Jahrhundert,” in Die lutherische Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland, ed. Hans-Christoph Rublack (Heidelberg: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1992), 202‒231; Robert Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher and Hero: Images of the Reformer 1520‒1620 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999); and Irene Dingel, ed., Memoria—theologische Synthese—Autoritätenkonflikt: Die Rezeption Luthers und Melanchthons in der Schülergeneration (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016).

(19.) Susan R. Boettcher, “Martin Luthers Leben in Predigten: Cyriakus Spangenberg und Johannes Mathesius,” in Martin Luther und der Bergbau im Mansfelder Land, ed. Rosemarie Knape (Eisleben: Stiftung Luthergedenstätten in Sachsen-Anhalt, 2000), 163‒187.

(20.) Examples are the works of Paul Seidel (1581, VD16 S 5354), Georg Glocker (1586, VD16 G 2256), Valerius Herberger (1609, VD17 23:283176X), or Matthias Hoë von Hoënegg (1610, VD17 23:270716Z).

(21.) The defenders of the Formula of Concord answered the Calvinist critique of the overestimation of Luther (in connection with the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper) in the following way: “Wie wir dann zu Lutheri lehr … uns keines wegs darumb bekennen / das er sie geleret / oder das sie von jme herkommen sey: Sondern weil wir befinden / das er sie aus den worten Christi … genommen / und auf dieselbige alleine gegründet hat” („Warhafftige Bericht / von der Autoritet und Ansehen Doct. Lutheri,” in Widerlegung/ Aller Lesterungen und Calumnien/ welche in öffenen Druck von den Newstedtischen/ Bremischen und Anhaldischen Theologen/ wider das Christliche und Heilsame Concordien Buch sind außgesprenget worden/ Die Lehre und Ansehen desselbigen/ bey den Einfeltigen und Unerfahrnen/ verdechtig/ Ihrer Calvinischen/ Sacramentirischen und Widerteufferischen Lere aber Beyfall zu machen. Auff anordenung und bitte der fürnempsten Stenden Augspurgischer Confession/ Durch Hochgelarte reine Theologen gestellet und publiciret (Magdeburg: Francke, 1593, VD16 ZV 29166, fol. 273v‒288v, here: fol. 277r). Another example of a controversy about Luther is Bodo Nischan, “Reformation or Deformation? Lutheran and Reformed Views of Martin Luther in Brandenburg’s ‘Second Reformation’,” in Pietas et Societas: New Trends in Reformation Social History, eds. Kyle C. Sessions and Phillip N. Bebb (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century, 1985), 202–215.

(22.) Attacking Luther was an important task for Roman Catholic controversialists in the early modern era: Adolf Herte, Das katholische Lutherbild im Bann der Lutherkommentare des Cochläus, vol. 1: Von der Mitte des 16. Bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts: Inland und Ausland (Münster: Aschendorff, 1943). Many Lutheran authors answered this critique with a defense of Luther and counterattacks, e.g., Theodor Thumm, Discursus de reformatione B. Lutheri in quo contra Pontificiorum calumnias ostenditur, eam non ausu privato temerario & inordinato, sed instinctu & jure divino susceptam fuisse (Tübingen: Werlin, 1619, VD17 12:187639M), or Johannes Müller, Lutherus Defensus Das ist Gründliche Wiederlegung dessen / was die Bäpstler D. Lutheri Persohn fürwerffen (Hamburg: Rebenlein, 1634, VD17 1:072579E).

(23.) Hans-Jürgen Schönstädt, Antichrist, Weltheilsgeschehen und Gottes Werkzeug: Römische Kirche, Reformation und Luther im Spiegel des Reformationsjubiläums 1617 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978), 254‒304; Hans-Jürgen Schönstädt, “Das Reformationsjubiläum 1617: Geschichtliche Herkunft und geistige Prägung,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 93 (1982): 5‒57; Thomas Kaufmann, Dreißigjähriger Krieg und Westfälischer Friede: Kirchengeschichtliche Studien zur lutherischen Konfessionskultur (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 10‒23; and Thomas Kaufmann, “Reformationsgedenken in der Frühen Neuzeit: Bemerkungen zum 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 107 (2010): 285‒324.

(24.) “Et concionator quidem cum ad populum sermo haec maxime in Lutheri enarrationibus quaeret, observabit, & imitari aliquo modo in suis concionibus studebit: Veram genuinam textus enarrandi sententiam: Praecipuas & in primis utiles in eo textu doctrinas, & harum disertam explicationem ac confirmationem ex reliqua scriptura: Accomodationem doctrinae, seu usum ad exercitia fidei, poenitentia, & totius vitae Christianae, in quo usu monstrando singularis et admirabilis artifex est Lutherus”: Lucas Bacmeister, De modo concionandi (Rostock: Lucius, 1570, VD16 B 78), fol. 34r. While emphasizing the usefulness of Luther’s writings for every preacher (ibid. fol. 33v‒34v) Bacmeister also touches on the problem of the accessibility of these writings (including the postils). He recommends reading Luther at least in the form of florilegia or similar collections of selected material.

(25.) Ernst Koch, “Dorfpfarrer als Leser: Beobachtungen an Visitationsakten des 18. Jahrhunderts im Herzogtum Sachsen-Gotha,” in Ernst Koch: Studien zur Theologie- und Frömmigkeitsgeschichte, 329‒361; and Luise Schorn-Schütte, Evangelische Geistlichkeit in der Frühneuzeit: Deren Anteil an der Entfaltung frühmoderner Staatlichkeit und Gesellschaft. Dargestellt am Beispiel des Fürstentums Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel, der Landgrafschaft Hessen-Kassel und der Stadt Braunschweig (Heidelberg: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996), 213‒225, 564‒568.

(26.) Konrad Porta, Pastorale Lutheri. Das ist / Nutzlicher unnd nötiger Unterricht / von den fürnembsten Stücken zum heiligen Ministerio gehörig / Unnd richtige Antwort auff mancherley wichtige Fragen / von schweren und gefehrlichen Casibus, so in demselbigen fürfallen mögen. Für anfahende Kirchendiener und Prediger zusamen bracht / Und auf beyderley Edition aller seiner Bücher / Zu Wittenberg und Jehna gedruckt/ auch die Eisleb. und andern Schrifften gerichtet (Eisleben: Petri, 1582, VD16 L 3559).

(27.) Texts of Luther can be found in two collections: Thesaurus consiliorum et decisionum, ed. Georg Dedekenn, vol. 1: Ecclesiastica, vol. 2: Politica, vol. 3: Mixta et inprimis matrimonialia, Anhang; Thesauri consiliorum et decisionum appendix nova, continens quaedam inserenda operi Dedekenno-Gerhardiano, ed. Christian Grübel (Hamburg: Hertel; Jena: Nisius, 1671, VD17 23:244918H/ 23:244920D/ 23:244922U/ 23:244924K; first edition of the three main volumes in 1623: VD17 1:083778R/ 1:083780M/ 1:083784S/ 1:083787Q); Consilia Theologica Witebergensia, Das ist/ Wittenbergische Geistliche Rathschläge Des theuren Mannes Gottes/ D. Martini Lutheri, seiner Collegen, und treuen Nachfolger/ von dem heiligen Reformations-Anfang/ biß auf jetzige Zeit/ in dem Namen der gesampten Theologischen Facultät außgestellete Urtheil/ Bedencken/ und offentliche Schrifften/ In Vier Theilen/ Von Religion- Lehr- und Glaubens- Ministerial- und Kirchen- Moral- und Policey Matrimonial- und Ehe-sachen/ Und allerhand darbey vorfallenden Casibus, ordentlich zusammengebracht/ Und zur Ehre Gottes/ Erhaltung der reinen Lehre/ und Nutz der Evangelischen Lutherischen Kirchen/ auff vielfältiges Begehren abgefertiget/ Von Der Theologischen Facultät daselbsten (Frankfurt a. M.: Endter, 1664, VD17 3:610307T). On this genre see Udo Sträter, “Wittenberger Responsen zur Zeit der Orthodoxie: Eine Quelle zur Fakultätsgeschichte,” in 700 Jahre Wittenberg. Stadt—Universität—Reformation, ed. Stefan Oehmig (Weimar: Böhlau, 1995), 289–302.

(28.) “Doctores Collegii Facultatis Theologicae in Academia Rostochiensi explicabunt scripta Prophetica et Apostologica in ea sententia, quae expressa est in Symbolis, Apostolico, Niceno, Athanasiano, in confessione exhibita Carolo V. Imperatori, Augustae, anno 1530, in Smalcaldicis Articulis, et libris divini illius Lutheri, omnium Theologorum Principis, quem DEUS ad instaurationem totius doctrinae coelestis excitavit”: Thomas Kaufmann, Universität und lutherische Konfessionalisierung: Die Rostocker Theologieprofessoren und ihr Beitrag zur theologischen Bildung und kirchlichen Gestaltung im Herzogtum Mecklenburg zwischen 1550 und 1675 (Heidelberg: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1997, 705). Kaufmann’s portrayal of the Rostock theological faculty shows in what way this basic orientation by Luther was practiced: Luther was present as a point of reference without being treated as a special topic of theological teaching or learning.

(29.) Marcel Nieden, Die Erfindung des Theologen: Wittenberger Anweisungen zum Theologiestudium im Zeitalter von Reformation und Konfessionalisierung (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 171, 182, 207, 235. Quite detailed are the proposals for structuring Luther studies (with recommendations of single works worth reading) by Johannes Förster, “ConsiliumDe Studio Theologico rite instituendo & absolvendo,” in Joh. Hulsemanni, Doctoris Theologi in Academia Wittebergensi, Methodus Concionandi, auctior edita. Cui accesserunt Ejusdem Autoris Methodus Studii Theologici, in privatum quorundam usum conscripta; nec non Doctoris Johannis Forsteri, Methodus ac formulae concionandi, Ejusdemque & D. D. Leonharti Hutteri, ac Balthasaris Meisneri Celeberrimorum quondam in eadem Academia Doctorum & Profeßorum. Consilia De studio Theologico, & lectione Biblica recte instituendis, Ob argumenti similitudinem in unum volumen collecta (Wittenberg: Berger, 1648, VD17 23:669097R), 418‒435, here 426‒428. Quite similar is Johann Gerhard’s manual for study, Methodus studii theologici (Jena: Steinmann, 1622, VD17 14:669556K), 241‒244. In addition, Gerhard refers to Luther on several occasions: the first section about the requisita generalia of studying theology starts with a reference to Luther’s triad of oratio, meditatio, and tentatio (13f., explained in more detail on 15‒38); citations of Luther recommend studying Hebrew (53‒55), show the usefulness of natural reason in philosophy (106), and warn about superficial Bible study (146f.).

(30.) Kenneth G. Appold, Orthodoxie als Konsensbildung: Das theologische Disputationswesen an der Universität Wittenberg zwischen 1570 und 1710 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 134ff.

(31.) In the 17th and 18th centuries there were many academic speeches and disputations about Luther’s life and work, for example on the occasion of Luther’s birthday or another anniversary (a collection of such speeches can be found in the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin: Cn 4011‒1/2/3/4/5). The titles contain wording like “Historia Lutheri,” “Vita Lutheri,” etc. These texts depend normally on other works about Luther; they do not go back to the sources and present only an overview. They indeed show that people knew the basics about Luther’s life and work and passed this knowledge on to the next generation.

(32.) A collection of biographies of academic theologians—the Memoriae theologorum nostri seculi clarissimorum renovataecurante M. Henningo Witten (Decas 1‒16, Frankfurt a. M.: Hallervord, 1674‒1685, VD17 23:243027D), whose biographical sketches go back to the deceased themselves, contains only few vague hints on Luther studies. Other biographical sources remain almost silent too. A typical example is the autobiography of Johann Valentin Andreae. He stresses the importance of Luther for him but does not explain how and to what extent he studied his works: Johann Valentin Andreae, Autobiographie. Bücher 1 bis 5, ed. Frank Böhling, in Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann, vol. I/1 (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2012), 20–136.

(33.) A memorial speech describes Dannhauer’s Luther studies in the following way: “Quam ho makarítēs noster diligentissimus fuit in suo Luthero! Omnes omnino libros, nec semel, sed iterum, tertiumque & pluries a capite ad calcem summa cura perlegit; perlectos excerpsit; excerptos in suos libros, velut in areoloas, disseminavit, ea dexteritate, ut Redonatum Lutherum merito dixisses Dannhauerum: Saepius ille inter familiares conquerebatur de neglectis viri incomparabilis libris, negabatque sese mirari, rariores esse praestantiores Theologos, cum vix centesimus quisque sit, qui Lutherus legerit, cum tamen post Apostolos inter Christianos Doctores nemo Exegeta profundior, aut Catecheta felicior Luthero extitisset”: Balthasar Bebel, Epitaphium aeternae memoriae et honori intergerrimi patris desideratissimi Dn. Iohannis Conradi Dannhaweri (Strasbourg: Staedel, 1667, VD17 39:110810N), fol. R 2v. About Dannhauer’s Luther studies see Johannes Wallmann, Philipp Jakob Spener und die Anfänge des Pietismus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 115‒121.

(34.) The reception of Luther in Gerhard’s dogmatical magnum opus—the Loci theologici—is concisely treated in Georg Hoffmann, “Die Beurteilung und Einschätzung Luthers in der altlutherischen Theologie,” Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie 16 (1939): 505‒515, here 509‒514. The extensive indices of the several editions of the Loci show where Luther is mentioned: Io. Gerhardi Theologi Jenensis Locorum Theologicorum XX Tomis comprehensorum ex recensione Io. Frid. Cottae Cancellarii Tubing. Index Generalis pars secunda exhibens res atque auctores memorabiles, ed. Georg Heinrich Müller (Tübingen: Cotta, 1789); Ioannis Gerhardi Loci Theologici. Indices (Berlin: Schlawitz, 1885); Theological Commonplaces, trans. Richard J. Dinda (St. Louis: Concordia, 2007–), indices to the single volumes. Helpful for the examination of Gerhard’s reception of Luther are also the editions of single works, the catalogue of his works, and the catalogue of the “Bibliotheca Gerhardiana” in Doctrina et Pietas: Zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung. Texte und Untersuchungen, ed. Johann Anselm Steiger (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1997–). About Gerhard’s personal Bible that he transformed into a sort of manual for Luther study see Johann Anselm Steiger, “Die Luther-Bibel des Barocktheologen Johann Gerhard: Die Charakteristik eines Handexemplars und ein Erschließungsprojekt,” Editio 19 (2005): 99–105, here 103.

(35.) Georg Dedekenn begins his Thesaurus consiliorum et decisionum (first published in 1626; see note 27) with a chapter “De Luthero & Ecclesia Lutherana” (vol. 1, 1‒29) where he cites extensively Gerhard’s statements on Luther and Lutheranism. Here can be found an excerpt from a disputation of Gerhard on the question “An Beatus Lutherus fuerit organon Spiritus Sancti in opere Reformationis” (vol. 1, 1‒8) and a letter from Gerhard that deals with Luther’s importance for the Lutheran church. Gerhard’s explanation of the vocatio Lutheri taken from the Loci (see note 40) is reprinted elsewhere (vol. 1, 735‒742).

(36.) For example, in connection with Lutheran Orthodoxy’s central doctrine of the unio mystica cum Christo, see Matti Vaahtoranta, “Unio und Rechtfertigung bei Johann Gerhard,” in Unio: Gott und Mensch in der nachreformatorischen Theologie, eds. Matti Repo and Rainer Vinke (Helsinki: Suomalainen Teologinen Kirjallisuusseura, Luther Agricola-Seura, 1996), 200‒248, here 230‒235.

(37.) Gerhard, Loci theologici, vol. 2, Uberior Exegesis ad loc. 1 (Tübingen: Cotta, 1763), 416‒421.

(38.) Gerhard, Loci theologici, vol. 8, loc. 18, cap. 5, §§ 32‒42, (Tübingen: Cotta, 1768), 25‒32.

(39.) Gerhard, Loci theologici, vol. 12, loc. 23, cap. 11, sect. 12, §§ 290‒292 (Tübingen: Cotta, 1774), 134‒142 [fol. R 3v‒S 3v].

(40.) Gerhard, Loci theologici, vol. 12, loc. 24, cap. 3, sect. 8, §§ 118‒126, 125‒135 [fol. q 3r‒r 4r]. These paragraphs go back to a disputation in commemoration of the beginnings of the Reformation in 1617:Johann Gerhard, Beati Lutheri ad Ministerium et Reformationem legitima vocatio (Jena: Steinmann, 1617), VD17 23:245834Q; cf. Ernst Walter Zeeden, Martin Luther und die Reformation im Urteil des deutschen Luthertums, vol. 1: Darstellung (Freiburg: Herder, 1950), vol. 1, 85‒96. Zeeden and other researchers focus their description of the history of the Lutheran reception of Luther in the 17th century on this source without realizing that Gerhard’s disputation is not about Luther’s authority for Lutheranism but about defending the Lutheran doctrine of the ecclesiastical ministry against Roman Catholic controversialists.

(41.) See notes 4‒6.

(42.) Jörg Baur, Die Vernunft zwischen Ontologie und Evangelium: Eine Untersuchung zur Theologie Johann Andreas Quenstedts (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1962), 185f., notes 93‒95. The most extensive treatment of Luther can be found in connection with the question “An B. Lutheri vocatione ad Ministerium docendi in Ecclesia fuerit legitima & ordinaria”: Johann Andreas Quenstedt, Theologia didactico-polemica, sive systema theologicum in duas sectiones didacticam et polemicam divisum (Leipzig: Fritsch, 1715, VD18 11442603), pars 4, cap. 12, sect. 2, quaestio 3, 1515‒1519.

(43.) Martin Luther, “Vorrede zum ersten Band der Wittenberger Ausgabe der deutschen Schriften,” in WA 50:658, 29‒660, 30.

(44.) Cf. Matthias Hafenreffer, Loci theologici (Tübingen: Gruppenbach, 1603, VD17 12:122348C), 1‒22. This triad can also be found in the manuals of Gerhard (see note 29) and Abraham Calov, Isagoges Ad SS. Theologiam Libri Duo, De Natura Theologiae, Et Methodo Studii Theologici, Pie, Dextre, Ac Feliciter Tractandi (Wittenberg: Hartmann, 1666, VD17 39:145763U), lib. 2, 4‒9. In Calov’s manual Luther’s triad follows the “monita ipsius Spiritus S.” showing the relationship of norma normans and norma normata.

(45.) WA 50:658, 15.

(46.) The notes to the following sketch refer mostly to more recent research literature. Besides these titles, older literature and additional articles in journals, handbooks and encyclopedias can be found. Indispensable are three extensive overviews of the history of Lutheran theology in the early modern era: Otto Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus (4 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1908‒1927); Hans Emil Weber, Reformation, Orthodoxie und Rationalismus, part 1: Von der Reformation zur Orthodoxie, vols. 1 and 2 (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1937‒1940), and part 2: Der Geist der Orthodoxie (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1951); and Werner Elert, Morphologie des Luthertums, vol. 1: Theologie und Weltanschauung des Luthertums hauptsächlich im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1931). All this literature points to the reception of Luther in Reformation and post-Reformation theology—mostly without taking a closer look.

(47.) Baur, Vernunft, 186 (Frage nach “der Nähe oder Ferne, in der das orthodoxe Denken der theologischen Sache nach zu Luther steht”).

(48.) A very helpful selection of sources for examining the reception of Luther in the course of the doctrinal struggles inside Lutheranism in the second half of the 16th century is Irene Dingel, ed., Controversia et confessio: Theologische Kontroversen 1548‒1577/80; Kritische Auswahledition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008–). Important contributions to the question of Luther’s authority for Lutheranism in the 16th century are Reinhard Schwarz, “Lehrnorm und Lehrkontinuität: Das Selbstverständnis der lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften,” in Bekenntnis und Einheit der Kirche: Studien zum Konkordienbuch, eds. Martin Brecht and Reinhard Schwarz (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1980), 253‒270; Robert Kolb, “‘Perilous Events and Troublesome Disturbances’: The Role of Controversy in the Tradition of Luther to Lutheran Orthodoxy,” in Pietas et Societas: New Trends in Reformation Social History, eds. Kyle C. Sessions and Phillip N. Bebb (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century, 1985), 181‒201; Ernst Koch, “Auseinandersetzungen um die Autorität von Philipp Melanchthon und Martin Luther in Kursachsen im Vorfeld der Konkordienformel,” Lutherjahrbuch 59 (1992): 128‒159; Irene Dingel, “Ablehnung und Aneignung: Die Bewertung der Autorität Martin Luthers in den Auseinandersetzungen um die Konkordienformel,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 105 (1994): 35‒57; Hans-Peter Hasse, “Die Lutherbiographie von Nikolaus Selnecker: Selneckers Berufung auf die Autorität Luthers im Normenstreit der Konfessionalisierung in Kursachsen,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 86 (1995): 91‒123; Kaufmann, “Wie die Bücher und Schrifften,” 25‒59; and Robert Kolb, Die Konkordienformel: Eine Einführung in ihre Geschichte und Theologie (Göttingen: Ruprecht, 2011).

(49.) Karl Holl, “Luthers Urteile über sich selbst,” in Karl Holl, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, vol. 1: Luther (Tübingen: Mohr, 1932), 381‒419.

(50.) “Compendiaria regula atque norma, ad quam omnia dogmata exigenda et quae inciderunt certamina pie declaranda et componenda sunt” (quoted in Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche, ed. Irene Dingel (Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 1216‒1219, 1308‒1319.

(51.) “Der Leyen Bibel,” ibid., 1218, 6; cf. 1312, 26‒33.

(52.) “Der reinen Lere Göttlichs Worts,” ibid., 1310, 4.

(53.) “Aus der greulichen finsternus des Bapsthumbs … wider ans liecht gebracht,” ibid., 1310, 4‒6.

(54.) “Auff weis und mass, wie D. Luther in der Lateinischen Vorrede uber seine zusamen gedruckte Bücher von seinen Schrifften selbst ausdrückenlich gesetzet hat, das alleine Gottes Wort die einige Richtschnur und Regel aller Lehr sein und bleiben solle, welchem keines Menschen Schrifften gleich geachtet, sondern demselben alles unterworffen werden sol,” ibid., 1314, 4‒8.

(55.) E.g., in the context of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, ibid., 1466‒1471.

(56.) Bengt Hägglund, “Die Rezeption Luthers in der Konkordienformel,” in Luther und die Bekenntnisschriften (Veröffentlichungen der Luther-Akademie Ratzeburg 2; Erlangen: Martin-Luther-Verlag, 1981), 107‒120, here 108.

(57.) Irene Dingel, Concordia controversa: Die öffentliche Diskussion um das lutherische Konkordienwerk am Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts (Heidelberg: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996), 607‒619.

(58.) “Certo statuimus, in scriptis B. Lutheri (semper autem excipimus ea scripta, quae Lutherus ipse improbavit, quaeque vix egressus e Synagoga Antichristi, nonnullis adhuc erroribus imbutus in lucem edidit) immotam veritatem e fundamentis Prophetarum & Apostolorum repetitam & explicatam contineri & proponi. Proinde Testimonium ea esse statuimus sincerae & sanae doctrinae, uti illa in nostris Ecclesiis & Scholis hactenus fuit tradita”: Leonhard Hütter, Concordia Concors: De origine et progressu Formulae Concordiae ecclesiarum Confessionis Augustanae (Wittenberg: Berger, 1614, VD17 3:605696D), fol. 97r. While relativizing Melanchthon’s and stressing Luther’s authority (fol. 92r‒97v), Hütter points to the distinction of norma primaria (Bible) and norma secundaria (Luther) and underlines, against the reformed critics of the Formula of Concord, that Luther has to be judged by the Bible.

(59.) Robert D. Preus, “The Influence of the Formula of Concord on the Later Lutheran Orthodoxy,” in Discord, Dialogue, and Concord: Studies in the Lutheran Reformation’s Formula of Concord, eds. Lewis W. Spitz and Wenzel Lohff (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 86‒101; Johannes Wallmann, “Die Rolle der Bekenntnisschriften im älteren Luthertum,” in Johannes Wallmann: Theologie und Frömmigkeit im Zeitalter des Barock: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 46‒60; and Thomas Kaufmann, “Das Bekenntnis im Luthertum des konfessionellen Zeitalters,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 105 (2008): 281‒314.

(60.) An example for this phenomenon can be seen in the Consensus repetitus fidei vere Lutheranae in Consilia Theologica Witebergensia (see note 27), 928‒995, directed from Wittenberg against the Helmstedt theological faculty, which refers to the Augsburg Confession but not to Luther.

(61.) Andreas Ohlemacher, Lateinische Katechetik der frühen lutherischen Orthodoxie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). Ohlemacher, 309–317 and 405–409, shows that two of the most influential theological textbooks of the late 16th century (Heerbrand’s and Hafenreffer’s) were based on the Bible as the decisive authority and that Luther—although mentioned as authority—had no important role.

(62.) Markus Matthias, Theologie und Konfession: Der Beitrag von Ägidius Hunnius (1550‒1603) zur Entstehung einer lutherischen Religionskultur (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2004), 161‒165.

(63.) Gottfried Adam, Der Streit um die Prädestination im ausgehenden 16. Jahrhundert: Eine Untersuchung zu den Entwürfen von Samuel Huber und Aegidius Hunnius (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970).

(64.) Markus Friedrich, Die Grenzen der Vernunft: Theologie, Philosophie und gelehrte Konflikte am Beispiel des Helmstedter Hofmannstreits und seiner Wirkungen auf das Luthertum um 1600 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004).

(65.) Walter Sparn, “Zweite Reformation und Traditionalismus: Die Stabilisierung des Protestantismus im Übergang zum 17. Jahrhundert,” in Retrospektive Tendenzen in Kunst, Musik und Theologie um 1600, ed. Kurt Löcher (Nürnberg: Hans Carl, 1991), 117‒131; and Walter Sparn, “Die Krise der Frömmigkeit und ihr Reflex im nachreformatorischen Luthertum,” in Die lutherische Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland, ed. Hans-Christoph Rublack (Heidelberg: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1992), 54‒82.

(66.) On the reception of Aristotelian philosophy in post-Reformation Lutheranism see Walter Sparn, “Die Schulphilosophie in den lutherischen Territorien,” in Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, begründet von Friedrich Überweg, völlig neubearbeitete Ausgabe, vol. 4/1: Die Philosophie des 17. Jahrhunderts: Das Heilige Römische Reiche Deutscher Nation; Nord- und Ostmitteleuropa, eds. Helmut Holzhey and Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann (Basel: Schwabe, 2001), 475‒587.

(67.) Bengt Hägglund, Die Heilige Schrift und ihre Deutung in der Theologie Johann Gerhards: Eine Untersuchung über das altlutherische Schriftverständnis (Lund: Gleerup, 1951).

(68.) The doctrine of fundamental articles (cf. Wilfried Joest, “Fundamentalartikel,” in Theologische Realenzyklopedie (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1983), vol. 11, 727‒732) goes back to Luther: Max Keller-Hüschemenger, Das Problem der Fundamentalartikel bei Johannes Hülsemann in seinem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang (Gütersloh: Rufer Evangelischer Verlag, 1939), 37‒46. With its focus on dogmatics and controversial theology on the question of theological principles, it corresponds to Luther’s interest in essentials and the clear and unmistakable formulation of these essentials.

(69.) WA 40/II:328, 1f.

(70.) Reinhard Kirste, Das Zeugnis des Geistes und das Zeugnis der Schrift: Das testimonium spiritus sancti internum als hermeneutisch-polemischer Zentralbegriff bei Johann Gerhard in der Auseinandersetzung mit Robert Bellarmins Schriftverständnis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976); Volker Jung, Das Ganze der Heiligen Schrift: Hermeneutik und Schriftauslegung bei Abraham Calov (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1999); Michael Coors, Scriptura efficax: Die biblisch-dogmatische Grundlegung des theologischen Systems bei Johann Andreas Quenstedt; Ein dogmatischer Beitrag zu Theorie und Auslegung des biblischen Kanons als Heiliger Schrift (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009); and Johann Anselm Steiger, Philologia Sacra: Zur Exegese der Heiligen Schrift im Protestantismus des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2011).

(71.) Theodor Mahlmann, Das neue Dogma der lutherischen Christologie: Problem und Geschichte seiner Begründung (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1969); Bengt Hägglund, “‘Majestas hominis Christi’: Wie hat Martin Chemnitz die Christologie Luthers gedeutet?” Lutherjahrbuch 47 (1980): 71‒88; Richard Schröder, Johann Gerhards lutherische Christologie und die aristotelische Metaphysik (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983); Jörg Baur, Luther und seine klassischen Erben. Theologische Aufsätze und Forschungen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 115‒289; Hans Christian Brandy, Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991); Karin Bornkamm, Christus—König und Priester: Das Amt Christi bei Luther im Verhältnis zur Vor- und Nachgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); Thilo Krüger, Empfangene Allmacht: Die Christologie Tilemann Heshusens (1527‒1588) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004); Stephan Schaede, Stellvertretung: Begriffsgeschichtliche Studien zur Soteriologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); Matthias, Theologie und Konfession; Johannes Hund, Das Wort ward Fleisch: Eine systematisch-theologische Untersuchung zur Debatte um die Wittenberger Christologie und Abendmahlslehre in den Jahren 1567 und 1574 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006); Ulrich Wiedenroth, Krypsis und Kenosis: Studien zu Thema und Genese der Tübinger Christologie im 17. Jahrhundert (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011); Joar Haga, Was there a Lutheran Metaphysics? The Interpretation of communicatio idiomatum in Early Modern Lutheranism (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012); and Hendrik Klinge, Verheißene Gegenwart: Die Christologie des Martin Chemnitz (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015).

(72.) Walter Sparn, Wiederkehr der Metaphysik: Die ontologische Frage in der lutherischen Theologie des frühen 17. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1976).

(73.) Schröder, Johann Gerhards lutherische Christologie, 3‒5, 213, et passim; Brand, Brenz, 255‒262; and Bornkamm, Christus—König und Priester, 325‒341.

(74.) Rune Söderlund, Ex praevisa fide: Zum Verständnis der Prädestinationslehre in der lutherischen Orthodoxie (Hannover: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1983); Andreas Stegmann, “Das Lehrstück der benevolentia universalis in den Textgattungen des akademischen Unterrichts im Luthertum des 17. Jahrhunderts am Beispiel Johann Friedrich König,” in Prädestination und Willensfreiheit: Luther, Erasmus, Calvin und ihre Wirkungsgeschichte, eds. Wilfried Härle and Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2009), 194‒210.

(75.) Söderlund, Ex praevisa fide, 175.

(76.) Bengt Hägglund, “Wie hat Martin Chemnitz zu Luthers De servo arbitrio Stellung genommen?” in Bengt Hägglund: Chemnitz—Gerhard—Arndt—Rudbeckius: Aufsätze zum Studium der altlutherischen Theologie (Waltrop: Hartmut Spenner, 2003), 65‒76; Robert Kolb, Bound Choice, Election, and Wittenberg Theological Method: From Martin Luther to the Formula of Concord (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005); and Theodor Mahlmann, “Die Interpretation von Luthers De servo arbitrio bei orthodoxen lutherischen Theologen, vor allem bei Sebastian Schmidt (1617‒1696),” in Luthers Erben: Studien zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der reformatorischen Theologie Luthers, eds. Notger Slenczka and Walter Sparn (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 73‒136.

(77.) Hermann Fischer, “Die altprotestantische Lehre vom Menschen als Problem und Aufgabe einer theologischen Anthropologie,” Kerygma und Dogma 11 (1965): 256‒276; and Anselm Schubert, Das Ende der Sünde: Anthropologie und Erbsünde zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002).

(78.) Johann Anselm Steiger, “Ordo salutis” in Theologische Realenzyklopedie (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), vol. 25, 371‒376; and Markus Matthias, “Ordo salutis: Zur Geschichte eines dogmatischen Begriffs,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 115 (2004): 318‒346.

(79.) Jörg Baur, Salus Christiana: Die Rechtfertigungslehre in der Geschichte des christlichen Heilsverständnisses, vol. 1: Von der christlichen Antike bis zur Theologie der deutschen Aufklärung (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1968), 68‒86; Theodor Mahlmann, “Die Stellung der unio cum Christo in der lutherischen Theologie des 17. Jahrhunderts,” in Unio: Gott und Mensch in der nachreformatorischen Theologie, eds. Matti Repo and Rainer Vinke (Helsinki: Luther-Agricolo-Seura, 1996), 72‒199; Matti Vaahtoranta, Restauratio imaginis divinae: Die Vereinigung von Gott und Mensch, ihre Voraussetzungen und Implikationen bei Johann Gerhard (Helsinki: Luther-Agricolo-Seura, 1998); Kenneth G. Appold, Abraham Calov’s Doctrine of Vocatio in its Systematic Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); Friederike Nüssel, Allein aus Glaube: Zur Entwicklung der Rechtfertigungslehre in der konkordistischen und frühen nachkonkordistischen Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000); Udo Sträter, ed., Zur Rechtfertigungslehre in der Lutherischen Orthodoxie (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2003); and Olli-Pekka Vainio, Justification and Participation in Christ: The Development of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification from Luther to the Formula of Concord (1580) (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2008).

(80.) Karl-Hermann Kandler, “Die Abendmahlslehre in der lutherischen Orthodoxie,” Kerygma und Dogma 33 (1987): 2‒22; and Udo Sträter, ed., Pietas in der Lutherischen Orthodoxie, (Wittenberg: Hans Lufft, 1998).

(81.) Renatus Hupfeld, Die Ethik Johann Gerhards: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der lutherischen Ethik (Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1908); Ernst Uhl, Die Sozialethik Johann Gerhards (Munich: Christian Kaiser, 1932); Inge Mager, Georg Calixts theologische Ethik und ihre Nachwirkungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969); and Wolfgang Sommer, Gottesfurcht und Fürstenherrschaft: Studien zum Obrigkeitsverständnis Johann Arndts und lutherischer Hofprediger zur Zeit der altprotestantischen Orthodoxie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988).

(82.) Martin Honecker, Cura religionis Magistratus Christiani: Studien zum Kirchenrecht im Luthertum des 17. Jahrhunderts, insbesondere bei Johann Gerhard (Munich: Claudius-Verlag, 1968); Christoph Böttigheimer, Zwischen Polemik und Irenik: Die Theologie der einen Kirche bei Georg Calixt (Münster: Lit Verlag, 1995); Harry Mathias Albrecht, Wesen und Einheit der Kirche nach der Lehre des Johannes Musäus (1613‒1681): Lutherische Orthodoxie und kirchliche Wiedervereinigung (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2003); and Appold, Orthodoxie als Konsensbildung, part 3.

(83.) Cf. Johann Anselm Steiger’s severals works on this topic cited in note 105.

(84.) Johann Friedrich König, Theologia positiva acroamatica (Rostock 1664), eds. Andreas Stegmann (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006).

(85.) Calov links his request of Luther study with a list of important writings of Luther: Abraham Calov, Isagoges Ad SS. Theologiam Libri Duo, De Natura Theologiae, Et Methodo Studii Theologici, Pie, Dextre, Ac Feliciter Tractandi (Wittenberg: Hartmann, 1666, VD17 39:145763U), lib. 2, 334‒337 and Yy 1r‒8r. Erasmus Gruber expanded his selection of Luther citations (published in 1657) with some citations of Lutheran theologians who recommended studying Luther, including Mörlin’s recommendation published almost 100 years earlier, Theologia Lutheri (see note 87), fol. [c] 1v‒8v und fol. Nn 3v‒Qq 2r.

(86.) All three points can be found in Dannhauer’s writings. Over time Dannhauer referred more and more often to Luther; e.g., in the second edition of his Hodosophia Christiana seu Theologia Positiva (Strasbourg: Spoor, 1666, , VD17 1:074562D), he defended Luther against Roman Catholic critics (Alethea sancta sui vindex contra defensionem miraculorum Ecclesiae Catholicae a Melchiore Cornaeo Loiolita Moguntino vane jactatam; Strasbourg: Stedel, 1653, VD17 39:132056F, 95‒154), and he presented a Luther biography in the form of an academic disputation, Memoria Thaumasiandri Lutheri renovata (Strasbourg: Spoor, 1661, VD17 12:140220W), reprinted in Johann Konrad Dannhauer, Disputationes theologicae (Leipzig: Reinhold, 1707), 999‒1099; the author of this disputation is more likely Dannhauer himself than the respondens, Johann Friedrich von der Strass.

(87.) E.g., the Altenburg edition (see note 10). This extensive and expensive edition did not match the needs of contemporaries. More useful were the editions of the Regensburger preacher Erasmus Gruber, which were easy to handle and much cheaper. With his editions Gruber became the most important Luther editor of the second half of the 17th century. He started with the revision of a selection of Luther sayings of the 16th century (Neander, Theologia Megalandri Lutheri [see note 16], fol. C 5v‒m 8r): Theologia Lutheri, Das ist: Kurtze/ Geist- Lehr- und trostreiche Sprüche/ genommen auß den Lateinischen und Teutschen des seeligen Mannes D. Martini Lutheri, Von den Articuln Christlicher Lehr/ Erstesmahls in den Druck außgelassen von Michaele NeandroNachgehends in die teutsche Sprach alle übersetzt/ und unter gewisse Articul Christlicher Lehr/ eingetheilt/ durch drey Evangelische Prediger in der Hochlöblichen Graffschaft Waldeck. Nunmehr aber Auff begehren von newem übersehen/ gebessert/ und zu dem Druck zubereitet. Durch Erasmum Gruberum, Evangelischen Prediger zu Regenspurg (Regensburg: Fischer, 1657, VD17 12:121906Q). Neander grouped his Luther citations not according to a theological system but simply following the order of the volumes of the Jena edition. Gruber took over Neander’s citations but inserted them into a theological framework. Neander himself published a systematic description of Lutheran theology referring to Luther: Theologia Christiana. S. Scripturae patrum graecorum graecis, et latinorum latinis, e fontibus ipsorum, & tandem Theandri Lutheri dictis & testimoniis illustrata & exposita (Leipzig: Apelius, 1595, VD16 ZV 11414). In the mid-17th century there was a great need for such collections, especially for the benefit of Lutheran pastors. Gruber therefore expanded his collection and published in 1665 his Lutherus redivivus in eight volumes, one index volume, and six additional volumes based on the German series of the Jena edition (VD17 3:302695B); cf. Frieder Schulz, Die Gebete Luthers: Edition, Bibliographie und Wirkungsgeschichte (Heidelberg: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1976), 29‒32. Another collection of Gruber was based on the Wittenberg edition: Zwölff Geistliche Brod-Körbe/ Mit allerley heylsamen Bröcklein nutzlicher erbaulicher Materien angefüllet/ Und Auß der reichen Brod-Kammer der Zwölff Wittenbergischen Teutschen Theilen Deß theuren Manns Gottes D. Martini Lutheri […] zuhauff gesamlet/ Zu jedermans Erbauung/ allermeist aber dieses treuen und theuren Lehrers herzliche Geistreiche Schrifften/ als ein edles Kleinod und Beylag der Kirchen Gottes/ bekannt/ beliebt und annehmlich zu machen: In gleicher Ordnung und Form/ wie mit den Acht Theolog. Schatz-Kästlein deß Lutheri Redivivi geschehen (Frankfurt a. M.: Humm, 1670, VD17 32:719271D). Gruber was not the only one trying to give access to Luther’s work. Several other books were published under the title Lutherus redivivus, e.g., by the Swabian preacher Johannes Zeller, Lutherus Redivivus, Oder Theologisches Schatzkästlein/ Von zwölff unterschiedlichen Fächlein/ darinnen allerhand nutzliche und denkwürdige Materien/ in guter Ordnung/ eingetragen/ auß der Hauß-Postill Jenischen Trucks D. Martini Lutheri (Stuttgart: Rösslin, 1667, VD17 39:135655U). Making Luther’s works useful for practical purposes was also the aim of books about Luther’s interpretation of the Bible, e.g., Michael Bergmann, Lutherus Iconologus, Oder Gleichniß-Reden D. Martin Luthers (Leipzig: Hahn, 1663, VD17 23:323852Z). We also know about a Bible commentary made from Luther citations (with the help of Philipp Jakob Spener) that never was printed: Wallmann, Spener (see note 33), 249‒264. Abraham Calov presented in 1681/1682 such a commentary in the form of a German translation of the Bible explained by citations taken out of Luther’s works: Die Heilige Bibel nach S. Herrn D. Martini Lutheri Deutscher Dolmetschung/ und Erklärung/ vermöge des Heil. Geistes / im Grund-Text / Richtiger Anleitung der Cohaerentz Und der gantzen Handlung eines jeglichen Texts / Auch Vergleichung der gleichlautenden Sprüche / enthaltenen eigenen Sinn und Meinung / Nechst ordentliche Eintheilung eines jeden Buches und Capitels / und Erwegung der nachdrücklichen Wort / und Redens-Art in der Heil. Sprache / sonderlich aber Der Evangelischen allein seligmachenden Warheit / gründ- und deutlich erörtert / und mit Anführung Herrn Lutheri deutschen / und verdeutschten Schrifften / also abgefasset / daß der eigentliche Buchstäbliche Verstand / und gutes Theils auch der heilsame Gebrauch der Heil. Schrifft fürgestellet ist / Mit grossem Fleiß / und Kosten ausgearbeitet / und verfasset / von D. Abraham Calovio, 5 vols. (Wittenberg: Schrödter, 1681‒1682, VD17 3:004769V). In Calov’s own Bible commentary for the academic public—the Biblia Illustrata (cf. Jung, Das Ganze der Heiligen Schrift, 129‒226)—Luther is recommended as an exegetical authority but not extensively cited (here Calov is primarily interested in the exegetical controversies of his own time).

(88.) Johann Friedrich Mayer (1650‒1712) dealt in a number of works with Luther, e.g., Vitam Divi Lutheri a B. D. Nic. Selneccero scriptam, ex B. Lutheri Cathedrea VIII. Disputationibus subject, atque Commentationes addidit Jo. Frid. Mayer (Wittenberg: Schrödter, 1687, VD17 12:632333X), and Historia versionis germanicae Bibliorum D. Martini Lutheri (Hamburg: Liebezeit, 1701, VD18 11046295). The work of Ernst Salomo Cyprian (1673‒1745) on Reformation history stimulated an approach to research on Reformation and Luther that no longer served the purposes of stabilizing and defending Lutheran confessional culture; cf. Gustav Adolf Benrath, “Ernst Salomo Cyprian als Reformationshistoriker,” in Ernst Salomo Cyprian zwischen Orthodoxie, Pietismus und Frühaufklärung, 36‒48.

(89.) Anyone who was interested in a solid and concise description of Reformation history could read a textbook like the Historiae Ecclesiasticae, in Compendium redactae, liber II. A nato Christo ad nostra usque tempora, compiled by Veit Ludwig von Seckendorff and others (Gotha: Reyher, 1665, VD17 39:151094U), cap. 5, sect. 1; cf. Klaus Wetzel, Theologische Kirchengeschichtsschreibung im deutschen Protestantismus 1660‒1760 (Giessen: Brunnen, 1983). An extensive list of publications on Luther from the 16th to the early 18th century (in 200 chapters concerning the various topics of Luther’s life and work) was made by Johann Albert Fabricius and held in high regard throughout the 18th century: Centifolium Lutheranum sive Notitia litteraria scriptorum omnis generis de B. D. Luthero ejusque vita, scriptis, et reformatione ecclesiae, in lucem ab amicis et inimicis editorum digesta sub titulis C.C., 2 vols. (Hamburg: König und Richter, 1728‒1730, VD18 80300189-001/VD18 80300197-001).

(90.) Martin Brecht, “Philipp Jakob Speners Verhältnis zu Martin Luther,” in Philipp Jakob Spener: Leben, Werk, Bedeutung; Bilanz der Forschung nach 300 Jahren, ed. Dorothea Wendebourg (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2007), 187‒204.

(91.) Cf. the magisterial overview by Robert Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher and Hero.

(92.) Hoffmann, “Die Beurteilung und Einschätzung Luthers in der altlutherischen Theologie”; Horst Stephan, Luther in den Wandlungen seiner Kirche (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1951), 11‒22; and Ernst Walter Zeeden, Martin Luther und die Reformation im Urteil des deutschen Luthertums, vol. 1: Darstellung (Freiburg: Herder, 1950), 47‒110, and vol. 2: Dokumente zur inneren Entwicklung des deutschen Protestantismus von Luthers Tode bis zum Beginn der Goethezeit (Freiburg: Herder, 1952), 41‒138.

(93.) Martin Lipenius, Bibliotheca realis theologica omnium materiarum, rerum et titulorum (Frankfurt a. M.: Johannes Friedrich, 1685, VD17 3:305368B), vol. 2, 200‒209; Fabricius, Centifolium; and Johann Georg Walch, Bibliotheca theologica selecta litterariis adnotationibus instructa (Jena: Croecker, 1762, VD18 90403517), vol. 3, 618‒638.

(94.) Two articles from 1991 and 2014 clearly demonstrate how greatly research has progressed on the reception of Luther in the Lutheran Orthodoxy since the 1980s: Walter Mostert, “Luther III: Wirkungsgeschichte,” in Theologische Realenzyklopedie (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991), vol. 21, 567‒594, here 568‒570; and Johann Anselm Steiger, “Lutherrezeption in der lutherischen Orthodoxie,” in Das Luther-Lexikon, eds. Volker Leppin and Gury Schneider-Ludorff (Regensburg: Bückle & Böhm, 2014), 455‒457.

(95.) I have excluded from discussion the contention that Lutheran Orthodoxy developed “its own theology that cannot be traced back to medieval scholasticism nor to Luther” (Markus Matthias, “Orthodoxie I. Lutherische Orthodoxie” in Theologische Realenzyklopedie (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), vol. 25, 1995, 464‒485, here 474), since it is historically and systematically unconvincing. Rather we have to state that there are numerous connections to medieval scholasticism as well as Luther. Both traditions were known or even familiar to the Lutheran theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries.

(96.) One example is a book (today better known because of its foreword, in which Philipp Jakob Spener explains his relationship to Luther) that tries to contradict Pietist criticism on Luther with Luther himself: Christoph Matthäus Seidel, Lutherus Redivivus Oder Des fürnehmsten Lehrers der Augspurgischen Confession Herrn D. Martin Luthers Theologi zu Wittenberg / Hinterlassene Schrifftliche Erklärungen Aus welchen ungezweifelt zu vernehmen / Was der Augspurgischen Confession eigentliche Meinung und Verstand in allen Articuln allezeit gewesen / und noch sey / Bey Durchlesung Der durch die jetzigen Herren Theologen zu Wittenberg publicirten Schrifft: Tit. Christ-Lutherische Vorstellung auffrichtigen Lehrsätzen etc. nach sonderl. der Augsp. Confession etc. Zusammen getragen Und in 30. Darüber gehaltenen Gesprächen Zu Prüfung gedachter Schrifft Der Evangelischen Kirchen übergeben Durch einen Liebhaber Des noch in seinen Schrifften lebenden Lutheri (Halle a. S.: Salfeld, 1697, VD17 14:009626N). Beside this basically positive interpretation of Luther by Lutheran Pietism there was also a more reserved attitude in nonconformist circles that could contrast Lutheranism with Luther: Erich Seeberg, Gottfried Arnold: Die Wissenschaft und die Mystik seiner Zeit; Studien zur Historiographie und Mystik (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964), 108‒139, 397‒409.

(97.) Werner Elert, Morphologie des Luthertums, vol. 1: Theologie und Weltanschauung des Luthertums hauptsächlich im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1931).

(98.) Hans Emil Weber, Reformation, Orthodoxie und Rationalismus, part 1: Von der Reformation zur Orthodoxie, vols. 1 and 2 (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1937‒1940), part 2: Der Geist der Orthodoxie (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1951).

(99.) Elert, Morphologie, 51, 195.

(100.) Robert D. Preus, The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism, vol. 1: A Study of Theological Prolegomena (St. Louis: Concordia, 1970), and vol. 2: God and His Creation (St. Louis: Concordia, 1972). Concerning Luther and Lutheran Orthodoxy see vol. 1, 40‒42.

(101.) Hägglund, Die Heilige Schrift und ihre Deutung in der Theologie Johann Gerhards; and Bengt Hägglund, Chemnitz—Gerhard—Arndt—Rudbeckius. Aufsätze zum Studium der altlutherischen Theologie (Waltrop: Hartmut Spenner, 2003).

(102.) Baur, Die Vernunft zwischen Ontologie und Evangelium; Baur, Salus Christiana (see note 79); Jörg Baur, Einsicht und Glaube: Aufsätze (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978); Jörg Baur, Luther und seine klassischen Erben: Theologische Aufsätze und Forschungen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993); Jörg Baur, “Orthodoxie, Genese und Struktur,” in Theologische Realenzyklopedie (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), vol. 25, 498‒507; Jörg Baur, “Ubiquität,” in Creator est Creatura: Luthers Christologie als Lehre von der Idiomenkommunikation, eds. Oswald Bayer and Benjamin Gleede (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2007), 186‒301; and Jörg Baur, Lutherische Gestalten—heterodoxe Orthodoxien: Historisch-systematische Studien (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010).

(103.) Kolb, Die Umgestaltung und theologische Bedeutung des Lutherbildes im späten 16. Jahrhundert, 217.

(104.) Ibid., 230.

(105.) Here is only a selection of Steiger’s publications: Johann Anselm Steiger, Johann Gerhard (1582‒1637): Studien zu Theologie und Frömmigkeit des Kirchenvaters der lutherischen Orthodoxie (Stuttgart and Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1997); Fünf Zentralthemen der Theologie Luthers und seiner Erben: Communicatio—Imago—Figura—Maria—Exempla (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2002); Medizinische Theologie: Christus medicus und theologia medicinalis bei Martin Luther und im Luthertum der Barockzeit (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2005); “The Development of the Reformation Legacy: Hermeneutics and Interpretation of the Sacred Scripture in the Age of Orthodoxy,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, vol. 2: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, ed. Magne Sæbø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 691‒757; Philologia Sacra (see note 70); and Das Gebet im Zeitalter der Reformation und des Barock: Ein Beitrag zu Martin Luther und Heinrich Müller sowie zur Bildtradition des armen Lazarus (Neuendettelsau: Freimund, 2013).

(106.) Steiger, Fünf Zentralthemen, xv.

(107.) Ibid., xvii.

(108.) Ibid., xvi (“den Erben Luthers möglichst lange zu unterstellen, daß ihr Anspruch, die eigentlichen Rezipienten Luthers zu sein, zutreffend ist”).