Luther and Melanchthon, on the other hand, after discarding the popish excrescences, believed that the scriptural doctrine which the early form involved or suggested, authorized the retention of the practice, when restricted to a very plain and simple formula, expressive of a scriptural truth.—Now, at that period, as it is well known, unfriendly feelings, engendered by various causes, existed to a certain extent, between the heads respectively of the Reformed and the Lutheran churches, in consequence of which even harmless customs which none would, under ordinary circumstances, either advocate or condemn with partisan feeling, assumed a confessional character. Such was the case with the purified and simple Lutheran baptismal sentence containing the “exorcism.” § 7. Arndt’s course in this matter has often been misunderstood; as it, however, demonstrates him to have been alike a very firm and conscientious man, and also an uncompromising supporter of the distinctive doctrines and usages of the Lutheran Church, the following details may be appropriately furnished.—The language which Luther retained in his form for Baptism (_Taufbüchlein_), after omitting all popish and superstitious practices, was the following. Between the prayer and the reading of Mark 10:13-16, the pastor says: “I adjure thee, thou unclean spirit, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that thou go out and depart from this servant of Jesus Christ, Amen.”—Luther understood the form to be a declaration or distinct confession of the doctrine of Original Sin, and a renunciation of Satan. Still, the Lutheran Church, as such, never recognized the _necessity_ of this ancient form, and its confessional writings never allude to it. After the excitement of feeling peculiar to Arndt’s age, had been allayed by time, the Lutheran Church regarded the whole as a mere _adiaphoron_, that is, a “thing indifferent,” not essentially involving any principle whatever, inasmuch as the doctrine of Original Sin had already been very explicitly set forth and confessed in her Symbolical Books. Such was the opinion of the eminent Lutheran dogmatical writers, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Hollaz, etc.; and men like Baier and Baumgarten even advocated the discontinuance of the practice. It is no longer retained in any prominent manner in the Lutheran Church.—But in the age in which Arndt lived, who was not a man that would obstinately cling to a mere form, the _rejection_ of the formula of Exorcism _did_ involve a principle; for, under the peculiar circumstances, that rejection might be understood to be, first, a rejection of the doctrine of Original Sin, and, secondly, an affirmation that the children of believing parents were in the kingdom of heaven, even before they had received Baptism. But all this seemed to conflict with the Pauline doctrine that all are “by nature the children of wrath.” Eph. 2:3. While, then, J. Ben. Carpzov, the