36. IT IS CERTAIN THAT THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST KNEW NOTHING OF THE VIEWS OF THE LORD’S SUPPER, THE ADOPTION OF WHICH SOME NOW MAKE THE CONDITION FOR CELEBRATING THAT SUPPER WITH THEM; HENCE, SUCH EXCLUSIVISTS WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE DISCIPLES THEMSELVES.

What right have these men to make conditions for celebrating the Lord’s Supper, which Jesus and his disciples did not make? How many thousands of true Christians they reject, simply because they cannot adopt their interpretation of scripture. Such persons give the most indubitable evidence, that they have not the spirit of Christ, but rather that of Anti-Christ. Truly, the men who lately at Hamilton, Ohio, raised their voice against communing with members, and inviting into their pulpits ministers of other denominations, must indeed be saints whose purity would be contaminated by contact with others. What will they do when they get to heaven? Will they pass their exclusive resolutions there? Pity that these men try to persuade the world that they are true Lutherans, for all who bear the name, must suffer the disgrace they cast upon it; make it odious in the eyes of truly spiritual men, and often drive the very best from the Church. And these same men want to admit into their hymn-book, only such hymns as are composed by orthodox Lutherans. This will no doubt lead to a profound symbolical investigation of hymnologists.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

37. TO BE EXCLUDED FROM A SECTARIAN TABLE, IS NO EVIDENCE THAT WE ARE EXCLUDED BY CHRIST, OR FROM HIS TABLE.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

38. HAD THE REFORMERS MADE HUMAN AUTHORITY, IN MATTERS OF FAITH, AS BINDING AS SOME OF THEIR PRETENDED FOLLOWERS DO, THE REFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE,

Had human authority been recognized as binding, what could the authority of a poor monk, with his few adherents, have accomplished against that of popes, councils and the almost universal practice of Christendom? Luther’s only hope against this authority was in the supremacy of the scriptures. And now men insult his memory by making his views and those of others authoritative, that is, in making human authority binding, the very thing he opposed during his whole life. Their whole course is a living and practical condemnation of Luther and the Reformation. It will not help these modern anti-Lutherans to claim that they have the truth; that their creeds are scriptural; that their Church is the true one and must be right; for the Papists claimed exactly the same. The very question was, who shall interpret the scriptures? Rome said, the Church; Luther said, scripture must be interpreted by scripture. Symbolists now say, the Reformers interpreted the scriptures; which interpretation the church has adopted, and which you must accept or be excommunicated. Does this sound like Rome or like Luther? Judge ye.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

39. LUTHER DID NOT DESTROY THE AUTHORITY OF THE ROMISH CHURCH, AND THEN SET HIMSELF UP AS AN AUTHORITY IN FAITH, GREATER THAN THAT OF THE POPE, THE CARDINALS, THE COUNCILS AND THE COMMON CONSENT OF THE CHURCH IN HIS DAY.

Yet many of his so-called followers make it seem as if he actually did destroy the authority of Rome, for the sake of establishing for himself still greater authority. What else mean their assertions that the Church is bound to his views unconditionally? Luther, in fact, claimed for himself no privilege which he did not cheerfully grant every other Christian.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

40. HAD LUTHER CLAIMED SUCH AUTHORITY FOR HIMSELF, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN AS TYRANNICAL, AND WOULD HAVE RENDERED HIMSELF AS DETESTABLE AS ANY POPE THAT EVER LIVED.

He would have been the greatest spiritual tyrant that ever lived, instead of restoring spiritual liberty. Luther’s work was not selfish. In destroying all mere human authority in matters pertaining to the faith, he destroyed his own, in order that the Bible might be elevated so as to become the only authority.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

41. THOSE WHO TREAT HIS WORDS AND WORKS AS IF HE ACTUALLY ARROGATED SUCH AUTHORITY TO HIMSELF, CAST MORE REPROACH ON HIS NAME, IN SPITE OF ALL THEIR PROTESTATIONS OF LOVE FOR HIS MEMORY, THAN ALL HIS ENEMIES CAN POSSIBLY DO; AND THEY ARE HIS WORST ENEMIES.

If Luther lived now he would have to regard as his worst foes the men who want to degrade him to the position of a pope; make his writings like papal bulls, his teachings like decrees of the councils, and the confessions of the Church as binding as the decisions of the council of Trent, in the Romish Church. Such men may differ from Rome in doctrine, but not in principle.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

42. THE FACT THAT LUTHER WAS DENOUNCED BY THE PAPACY FOR ADVOCATING SPIRITUAL LIBERTY, IN OPPOSITION TO THE ASSUMED AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, DID NOT PROVE HIM WRONG; NO MORE DOES THE FACT THAT TRUE LUTHERANS NOW, WHO ADHERE TO LUTHER’S PRINCIPLES AND FAVOR SPIRITUAL LIBERTY, ARE DENOUNCED BY THOSE WHO HAVE ADOPTED PAPISTICAL PRINCIPLES, PROVE THEM WRONG.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

43. LUTHER AND ALL THE OTHER REFORMERS AND CONFESSORS ARE REAL CHRISTIAN LIGHTS ONLY IN SO FAR AS THEY REFLECT THE LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL, AS THE MOON REFLECTS THE RAYS OF THE SUN: THE REFLECTED RAYS ARE GOOD, BUT THE ORIGINAL ARE BETTER, BEING BOTH BRIGHTER AND WARMER.

 

44. LUTHER DID NOT DO THE THINKING FOR MEN, BUT HE HELPED AND TAUGHT MEN TO THINK; NOR DID HE MAKE CREEDS FOR MEN TO WHICH THEY WERE TO BE BOUND, BUT HE TAUGHT THEM SO TO USE THE SCRIPTURE THAT THEY CAN DRAW FROM IT THEIR OWN CREED.

That is but a poor teacher who does all the thinking for his scholars, giving them conclusions only, instead of teaching them how to draw conclusions for themselves. That is a good teacher who teaches his scholars how to think, who really educates their minds, as well as giving them facts and results of reasoning, And the teacher who teaches his pupils how to think teaches them how they may test his own conclusions and decide for themselves whether they are true or false. This is just what Luther has done. He has taught us the true test of all doctrine, God’s Word, and how to use it, and thus try all human writings, his own not excepted. Hence the true Lutheran will test Luther’s views by the criterion laid down by Luther himself, and will accept and reject accordingly.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

45. IF TO BE A LUTHERAN ONE MUST BELIEVE ALL THE DOCTRINES THAT LUTHER BELIEVED, THEN LUTHER HIMSELF WAS THE ONLY LUTHERAN THAT EVER LIVED.

Luther frequently changed his views; if now we must agree with him, when must we take him, in order to get the true Lutheran doctrines, in 1517, 1520, 1530, 1540 or 1546?

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

46. IF TO BE A LUTHERAN ONE MUST DENOUNCE ALL WHO DIFFER FROM HIM IN THE FAITH; IF HE MUST REFUSE TO COMMUNE WITH SUCH; IF A LUTHERAN MINISTER MUST EXCLUDE FROM HIS PULPIT ALL WHO BELONG TO OTHER DENOMINATIONS, THEN IT IS A DISGRACE TO BE A LUTHERAN.

But these are not tests of the true Lutheran Church. And those who make it appear that such are Lutheran criteria cast reproach on the name, to which we who bear it must submit for Christ’s sake. It is but one of those attempts, so common, to pass a counterfeit as the genuine article; and those who make the attempt must necessarily make more show and noise than those who have the genuine article, whose genuineness is its own recommendation. It is one of the unmistakable evidences of this spurious Lutheranism, that it denounces all others who bear the same name; in order to palm itself off as genuine it must avoid a comparison with the true Lutheran Church, which it consequently attempts to crush out of existence.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

47. IF THE GOWN, THE LITURGY, THE BURNING OF CANDLES, EXTERNAL UNITY, THE BINDING AUTHORITY OF THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH, AND THE EXCLUSION AND DENUNCIATION OF ALL WHO CANNOT ADOPT THOSE CREEDS, MAKE A LUTHERAN, THEN THE PAPISTS ARE THE BEST AND MOST CONSISTENT LUTHERANS.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

48. THE THEORY OF “THE TRUE UNITY OF A PARTICULAR CHURCH,â€￾ AS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE II, OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL, IS MECHANICAL AND PERNICIOUS.

The article reads as follows:
“The true unity of a particular Church, in virtue of which men are truly members of one and the same Church, and by which any Church abides in real identity, and is entitled to a continuation of her name, is unity in doctrine, and faith, and in the sacraments, to wit: that she continues to teach and set forth, and that her true members embrace from the heart, and use the articles of faith and the sacraments, as they were held and administered when the Church came into distinctive being, and received a distinctive name.
According to this article, a Church to retain its identity and name, must forever retain all the articles of faith that were held when the Church had its origin; and all the true members of the Church, must hold these articles and use the Sacraments, as they were held and administered at that time. Not the slightest deviation is possible. The constitution of a land, the law of any body may be changed, but the creeds once adopted, and the forms once used in a Church, are more than constitution and law, for they are unalterable. If non-essentials are taught in those creeds, they must, nevertheless, be embraced from the heart, or one is not in unity with the Church; if there was anything in the administration of the sacraments, then that had no importance whatever, the Church is nevertheless bound to it; if mistakes and errors have unawares crept into the creed, they must forever remain there, for they are necessary to the unity, the identity and name of the Church; changes, reforms, progress are utterly impossible in the Church; for every change is a destruction of the identity and name of the Church, and is the organization of a new Church. All attempts at reform are rebellions. Non-essentials in doctrine and in practice as well as errors, are made permanent. The framers of the creeds and authors of the practices are tyrants, and the creeds and practices are the instruments of their tyranny.
Apply this theory to any other organization, and its absurdity will at once appear, to a country and its constitution, a Society and its laws, which are not unalterable. The children of this world, are wiser than the children of light, for they will not bind themselves hand and foot, so as to make change and progress impossible.
The theory is mechanical; a church is not treated as a living organism, a growth, but as a machine. Creeds and practices are the framework into which the Church must be set. If it requires some torture, then torture her; for into it she must be put. Those who set the machine in motion have forever determined its character. Improvements are impossible without destroying the mechanism itself.
How such an article can seriously be proposed, or adopted, is a mystery; unless the aim be to force on the Church certain creeds and practices. If that be the object then the article is perfectly clear, especially if the principle is adopted that the end justifies the means.

 

The stated "Theses" here are basically commentaries by the "unknown writer" of this "Jubilee" of the original Ninety-Five Theses of Luther. What the writer is saying on this particular statement is that Luther was leaving it open for each person to decide what the Bible truly said as respect to their belief and position as a Christian. Luther did not want to be misunderstood as setting himself as a higher authority within the church. For Luther, these were “propositions put forward for consideration, especially ones to be discussed and proved, or to be maintained against objectionsâ€￾.

 

still enjoying these T ...

 

Here is the actual wording of thesis 39, copied from "First Principles of the Reformation, Or, The Ninety-five Theses and the Three Primary Works of Dr. Martin Luther." reprinted in 1883.

39. It is a most difficult thing, even for the most learned theologians, to exalt at the same time in the eyes of the people the ample effect of pardons and the necessity of true contrition.

 

49. THE TRUE UNITY OF A PARTICULAR CHURCH DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE CONTINUATION OF ALL THAT WAS BELIEVED AND PRACTICED WHEN THE CHURCH CAME INTO BEING, BUT ON THE HEARTY ADOPTION AND PRACTICE OF THOSE PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES WHICH GAVE THAT CHURCH ITS DISTINCTIVE BEING AND DISTINCTIVE NAME.

That is, “the true unity of a particular Church, in virtue of which men are truly members of one and the same Church, and by which any Church abides is real identity, and is entitled to a continuation of her name,†is unity in those principles and doctrines in virtue of which that. Church received its distinctive being and name. All that is essential to the distinctive being and distinctive name of a Church must be retained, otherwise it abides not in real identity, and is not entitled to a continuation of its distinctive name. But all that is merely accidental or secondary in faith or practice need not be continued. All that is essential to my personality must continue from birth to old age, or I am not the same; but all that is not essential, is merely accidental, need not continue. From the acorn in my hand to the matured oak that grows from it there is the most perfect unity; yet the oak does not retain the form, the size, the smell and the shell of the acorn; but its life and all that is essential to the development of an oak from the acorn. And much of what is believed and practiced by a Church when it comes into being may be merely accidental, the mere shell containing the seed whence the Church grows. Were a Church finished when it comes into being (like a machine) and perfect (so that all improvement would be impossible) then it would have to continue all that is believed and practiced. If it is however a living organism that is to grow, it will have two features; that which is essential, which must continue as long as the Church itself; these are the fundamental principles and doctrines which belong to the very being of the Church; the other that which is merely accidental, which belongs to a certain period or is the result of certain circumstances, which is not abiding, but which changes with the ages and with circumstances. In order that Article II, of the General Council may be rational, it must be proved that all the doctrines and all the practices in the use of the sacraments, as held and used when the Church came into being, are essential to the distinctive being and name of a Church, and must therefore be continued; if they are not, then let them change with the ages and circumstances and with the development of the Church. Those who have succeeded in compressing themselves into the shell of faith and practice, which in past ages surrounded the essential principles of their Church have just as much right to rail at those who in their growth have burst the shell and left it behind them, as the acorn has to rail at the full grown oak. The acorn may claim that the oak is not the same as the acorn, which is true, for it is an acorn developed; but the unity between the original acorn and the oak is beyond question, however much the acorn may rail. So with any Church, if it wants forever to remain the same it was at its origin, it must not grow, must reject nothing; but if its aim is true unity, let it grow, the more the better, and let every age slough off all that has become effete or useless and that can only impede its growth, which growth is but a development of unity in the midst of variety.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

50. TO BE A LUTHERAN ONE NEED NOT ADOPT ALL THE SYMBOLICAL BOOKS, NOR FOLLOW ALL THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICES OF ANY FORMER AGE, BUT HE NEED ONLY ADOPT THOSE GREAT AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES WHICH GAVE THE LUTHERAN CHURCH ITS DISTINCTIVE BEING AND NAME.

What gave the Lutheran Church its being and name? Surely not the symbolical books, nor all the doctrines contained in them, for many of them are no more distinctive of the Lutheran than they are of the Catholic or Presbyterian Churches. A few great fundamental principles and doctrines gave birth to the Lutheran Church. These and these only are essential to the Church, and those who hold them are genuine Lutherans. These are the soul of the Lutheran Church, all else is but body, which the soul moulds and changes to suit its purposes, so that at all times the body may best be adapted to perform the bidding of the soul. Some take the old body which died long ago, and embalm it and try to make the world believe that it and it only has the soul; just as if dead bodies could contain living souls!

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

51. LUTHER RESTORED THE LIBERTY OF THE GOSPEL IN OPPOSITION TO PHARISAICAL BIGOTRY AND INTOLERANCE AND TO THE PAPISTICAL THEORY OF HUMAN AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF FAITH.

And those who in opposition to this liberty of the Gospel, as restored by Luther, are now engaged in binding heavy burdens on men’s shoulders, such as creeds with obscure terms and scholastic distinctions, which must be unconditionally accepted, are no more Lutheran in principle than his worst enemies during the Reformation, the Papists. These men need Luther himself to break the fetters that bind them and with which they attempt to bind others.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

52. TO BE A LUTHERAN ONE MUST ADOPT AND CONSISTENTLY FOLLOW THE GREAT PRINCIPLE OF LUTHER, THAT THE BIBLE, ONLY, IS BINDING IN MATTERS OF FAITH, THAT CONSEQUENTLY NO HUMAN INTERPRETATION OR VIEW OF THE BIBLE IS BINDING FOR THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE CHURCH; THAT NO BODY OF MEN CAN DECIDE FOR OTHERS WHAT MUST BE BELIEVED, AND THAT ALL CHRISTIANS HAVE EQUAL RIGHT AND LIBERTY IN INTERPRETING THE SCRIPTURES.

With these principles of Luther, the “Fundamental Principles†of the General Council are in direct conflict, and therefore they are not Lutheran. For whoever makes human creeds a binding authority for the Church rejects one of the great and essential principles of the Lutheran Church. And if one adopts all Luther’s words, imitates his practices and endorses all the creeds of the Church, and still rejects Luther’s fundamental principles, then he is not a Lutheran.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

53. TO BE A LUTHERAN ONE MUST ALSO ADOPT, WITH LUTHER, THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, THE CARDINAL DOCTRINE OF THE REFORMATION.

This and the preceding Thesis contain the germ of the Reformation and the Lutheran Church. He who conscientiously holds both is a Lutheran; he who rejects either is not a Lutheran. This is the true and original use of the word Lutheran. All who rejected the Romish doctrine of the authority of the Church and the efficacy of work-holiness, and with Luther adopted these two Theses was called a Lutheran, however much he might differ from Luther in minor points. These gave the Lutheran Church its distinctive being and name, a being and name that indicated the distinction between it and the Romish Church. The name was thus originally synonymous with Evangelical.
This Lutheran basis is general, that of the whole christian Church, and not of a mere denomination. And this was the very thing Luther aimed at. He did not want to establish a denomination, nor to restore a denomination; but he wanted to reform what was called the Church, and to restore the primitive, pure, apostolical, christian Church. He was not the founder of any Church; that glory belongs only to Christ; he was a Reformer, not a reformer of a denomination, but of the Church itself. And the Reformed Church, that Church which placed itself again on the pure Word of God and rejected the errors of the Papacy, is the Lutheran Church; though it may have different denominational names.
But the use of the name Lutheran gradually changed, just as the word Catholic. After the Reformation the Evangelical Church was rent into various factions. Some who made the adoption of certain creeds the condition of fellowship with them, arrogated the name Lutheran to themselves. They found the grand Gospel-basis of the Lutheran Church too broad, because others who differed from them (often very little indeed) could also stand on this basis; therefore they made it narrower to suit themselves and organized the Lutheran sect (sectarian or symbolical Lutheranism.) They established this sect (secare to cut off) by cutting off all those who, though standing with them on the great Lutheran basis, could not accept and condemn just what they did. With this sect was introduced all the violence, the abusiveness and intolerance of sectarianism. And the name Lutheran as used by the sect did not only mark the difference between the Evangelical and the Romish Churches but also the difference between the Lutheran and the other Protestant sects. For the sect to claim to be the Lutheran Church itself is perfectly consistent with its sectarian character; but it is no more the Lutheran Church than the Catholic (Romish) is the christian Church.
It need hardly be said that the doctrine of justification by faith involves every other one that is essential. Christ is made the essence of the Gospel and faith is the means of making him ours. He who has Christ has the Gospel.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

54. TO BE A LUTHERAN ONE MUST THEREFORE REJECT, WITH OTHER ROMISH ERRORS, ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINE OF THE BINDING AUTHORITY OF ANY HUMAN DECREE OR DOCUMENT, AND THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY MERE WORKS.

It need not now be proved that some who call themselves Lutherans make human creeds binding authority. Look at Missouri, Ohio, Buffalo, the Council and the other Lutheran sects. Be their name what it may, those who make human creeds a binding authority accept the very essence of all the errors of the Papacy, which need but be developed to lead them directly to Rome. The only hope of these men is that inconsistency will save them—that they will remain evangelical in spite of their avowed principles.

 

So do I !

Sorry as I've been very busy with personal things lately and quite absent from the db but I want anyway to express my interest in and my appreciation for much of the stuff posted lately, here or in other threads...

 

Thanks for the thought, Utuna. There is much more to come.

 

55. THE TRUE LUTHERAN WILL NECESSARILY ACCEPT THE ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, THEY BEING DRAWN DIRECTLY FROM SCRIPTURE, AND BEING A LEGITIMATE DEDUCTION FROM THE PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINE, GIVEN IN THESES 52 AND 53.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

56. TO BE A LUTHERAN ONE NEED NOT UNCONDITIONALLY ADOPT THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION; ON THIS SUBJECT HE HAS THE SAME LIBERTY THAT WAS EXERCISED BY LUTHERANS DURING THE REFORMATION.
Surely, no one can claim that to be a Lutheran one must accept the Augsburg Confession as more authoritative than it was among Lutherans during the Reformation. Many err in thinking the Lutheran Church bound unconditionally to this by far the best of all modern creeds; but this is not the case. Luther was not bound by that Confession. He had objections to that Confession and freely expressed them. Must we then, to be Lutherans, make it more binding for ourselves than he did for himself? Melanchthon was not bound by that Confession, which is proved by his many and frequent alterations. The Confessors neither bound themselves nor their subjects to the Confession, for the altered editions were not only tolerated but took the place of the first edition in their countries. And during the whole Reformation the Augsburg Confession was not a binding authority, but was received with that liberty which the Lutheran Church has always asserted respecting human authority in matters of faith. The idea that to be a true Lutheran one must in every particular agree with the Confession was altogether foreign to the Church during the Reformation. It was introduced at a later period, when the spirit of the Reformation had to a great extent died, the period when the ancestors of the modern symbolists arose. And those who make the Augsburg Confession unconditionally binding on Lutherans, must un-Lutheranize Luther and the entire Lutheran Church during the Reformation. Such men, if Lutherans at all, are post-reformation Lutherans.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

57. THE TRUE LUTHERAN BASIS IS THEREFORE THE BASIS OF THE CHURCH, NOT MERELY OF A CHURCH; IT IS GENERAL, ON WHICH ALL EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS MUST REST, NOT MERELY THAT OF A DENOMINATION.

The nature of this basis has already been referred to, as well as the original sense of the term Lutheran, and the change of its use as a general term to the designation of a sect.
Even the Augsburg Confession makes no distinction between the Church in general and a particular Church; but only between the christian Church and sects which it condemns. And during the Reformation the Lutheran Church was regarded by Luther and his adherents as the christian Church, not as a particular Church. (To regard the difference between the general Church and particular churches laid down in the Fundamental Principles of the Council as Lutheran, requires a stretch of imagination which is much easier before than after studying the symbols of the Church.) The Lutheran basis is the one on which all Christians can unite to form one church. The true Lutheran Church (not the sect which claims the name and denies it to those to whom it truly belongs) is the true Evangelical Church. This Church is the hope of the future unity of all Christians; it is the Church into which all others will be merged, whether its name be retained or not.
The thesis demands unity in essentials (for the Lutheran basis gives the essentials) whilst in all other matters it grants liberty, just as the Gospel does.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

58. THOSE WHO DEPART FROM THIS GENERAL BASIS TO A NARROWER ONE, IN WHICH NON-ESSENTIALS ARE MADE A BINDING AUTHORITY, FORM A SECT.

The principles of the Lutheran Church respecting the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice, and the doctrine of justification by faith, must not only be held by every evangelical christian, but they must occupy that position which belongs to them. They must be made primary, not secondary. These principles respecting the authority of Scripture and the doctrine of justification by faith as the cardinal doctrine of the Gospel, if consistently followed, will lead every one to the great doctrines of the Gospel; for they are the germs of all that is essential. If now a Church accepts these great principles of the Gospel and of the Lutheran Church, but at the same time gives them a secondary place or makes other views not directly connected with them (non-essential doctrines) conditions of church-membership, that Church ceases to be Lutheran in the original and true sense of the word. It becomes a sect, and ceases to be the Church. The Presbyterian and Methodist and Baptist Churches are, for this very reason, not Lutheran, they have made a narrower basis for their members than the broad Gospel one given by the Lutheran Church. Those who call themselves Lutheran, but who have departed from this general basis to a more contracted one, laying other foundations than those laid by Christ himself, are the Lutheran sect. The effort to sectarianize the name Lutheran was successful in 1580, thirty-four years after Luther’s death, when the reception of the Book of Concord was made by some the test of Lutheranism. What had been fluid before was now congealed into a solid mass; creeds became stereotyped; the Lutheran basis was so narrowed that not all evangelical christians, but only part of them could stand on it; the birth throes of symbolism brought forth the Lutheran sect. And whenever the reception of all the symbolical books is made the condition of membership, you do not find the true, historical Lutheran Church, established by Luther and fostered during the . Reformation, but only the Lutheran sect. And if the hearts of the sectarians, in charity towards others, have shrunk to the narrow proportions of the basis adopted, it is no cause for surprise, but in perfect harmony with the spirit of sectarianism.
But may not persons now choose the Lutheranism of 1580, instead of that of the Reformation ? Certainly. Just as a Papist may choose the Romish Church, though it is better to go back to the Apostolical Church.

 

59. THE TENDENCY OF THE TRUE LUTHERAN CHURCH IS TO UNITE ALL CHRISTIANS; THE TENDENCY OF SECTARIAN LUTHERANISM IS TO PRODUCE ENDLESS SCHISMS.

The true Lutheran basis of the Reformation is the hope, the possibility, the condition for the union of all true christians. Broad as the Gospel itself, all who embrace the Gospel can stand on it. Broad as it is, it is yet distinct enough, avoiding both Romanism and infidelity. It is broad enough for all christians, yet too narrow for any but christians, for all who stand on it must be christians. Distinct as it is, it nevertheless grants liberty of conscience and leaves room for honest differences, such as the Gospel itself allows. And where the true Lutheran Church is found, there will also be found a tendency towards union among all followers of Jesus.
When the Lutheran sect was formed it was schismatic and has very consistently been so ever since. Many learned and pious men who were Lutherans, and had during and immediately after the Reformation been universally regarded as such, were deprived of that name in 1580, when they were denounced by the sect in true sectarian style. The Church was divided, Christ’s seamless garment was rent. And since then this sectarian and schismatic spirit has been actively at work, prosecuting the work then commenced. To-day the Lutheran sect is as schismatic as it was then. And the more sectarian it becomes (the more it narrows down the broad basis of the Lutheran Church, the more schismatic it will become. In this country as well as in Europe this sect, true to its origin and history, (abiding in real identity with both,) is very schismatic. There are sects within this sect, all pretending to have the same narrow basis, and yet the basis of each too narrow for the other to stand on. There is the Buffalo sect, denouncing all who do not stand with them. There is the Missouri sect, refusing fellowship with all christians, (why don’t they read the third article of the Apostles’ Creed?) who have a broader and more Lutheran basis and larger hearts than their own. This sect of course claims to be the Church; they only have the truth, all others are in the dark; they think themselves God’s peculiar people, just as the Jews did in Christ’s day. They orthodoxly denounce all who claim to be Lutherans but differ from them. Another sect within the sect is found in Ohio, which refuses fellowship with all other Christians and has attained a lofty orthodoxy from which it looks with a degree of contempt on all who have more liberal views. Besides other sects a new one is now being formed with the imposing title of General Council. This new sect makes the symbolical books the stocks into which its members are put, the principle being that the less movement and freedom allowed, the more perfect the stocks. It is still an unsolved problem, how the principles, which form the basis of this sect, could be called Lutheran by those proposing and adopting them, without either blushing or smiling. If these sects are examined, it will be found that they have all the genuine characteristics of sects, that contracted sectarian spirit which mercilessly abuses all who have not succeeded in shrinking themselves into their limited proportions which are mathematically fixed; that schismatic and intolerant spirit which can bear no tolerance in others, especially if they have the same name, probably because that tolerance places their intolerance in such an unfavorable light; that arrogant spirit which induces them to regard themselves as heaven’s special favorites, as if they only had the truth, the Church, etc., whilst all others are outcasts, on whom God may have mercy but they cannot. Throughout they are consistent as sects. Were they less narrow-hearted, less intolerant and less arrogant, they might indeed be more christian, but they would be less sectarian and less schismatic. Let them remember the words of the Master: “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.â€

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

60. THE GREAT PRINCIPLES OF LUTHER AND THE LUTHERAN CHURCH GIVE US RULES FOR INTERPRETING THE SCRIPTURES, AND ALSO GIVE US THE CARDINAL DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL, AND NOT CREEDS WITH ESSENTIALS AND NONESSENTIALS AS BINDING AUTHORITY; THEY CONSEQUENTLY LEAVE THE MIND FREE, THOUGH AIDING AND DIRECTING IT; WHILST THE SYMBOLICAL BOOKS, MADE UNCONDITIONALLY BINDING, ENSLAVE THE MIND.

If any should think that these theses against the binding authority of human creeds are useless, since no one in the Protestant Church would claim such authority for them, we respectfully refer him to the oft repeated declarations of the symbolists. We need here refer only to an article published by Dr. Seiss, in the Evangelical Review in 1852, and now being re-published in the “Lutheran and Missionary,†and endorsed by that paper. Page 33 we read one of the conclusions to which the author comes, as follows: “That those Church creeds which have received the sanction of the Church general, are binding upon each individual member of the Church.†(Exactly the principle of the Papists in their opposition to Luther.) But what creeds are binding on us as Lutherans? A little further on the answer is given: “And, accordingly, if we should be asked to state what we believe to be the binding creed of the Lutheran Church in this, and in every other country, we would promptly respond:†the whole Book of Concord, whose creeds are separately mentioned by the author, as binding authority for all Lutherans.
In direct opposition to these views, the principles of Luther lead us directly to the great fountain of spiritual truth, Christ, and to the stream flowing therefrom, the Gospel. Add to Luther’s great principle respecting the use of the Scriptures, the doctrine of justification by faith, and you have the very essence of the Gospel. It need not here be repeated how utterly at variance with Luther’s principles are all efforts to make the symbolical books a binding authority. And it seems like irony to call those, who make these efforts, by the name of the great reformer.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

61. THE PRINCIPLES OF LUTHER AND THE LUTHERAN CHURCH DEMAND THAT ALL THE DOCTRINES IN HIS WRITINGS AND IN THE SYMBOLICAL BOOKS WHICH CANNOT STAND THE TEST OF SCRIPTURE MUST BE REJECTED.

Luther himself teaches us that he, as well as all other men, is liable to err. And the other authors of the symbolical books are no exception to this general rule. Hence we have a right, yea, it is a necessity, as Lutherans, to reject all that is not found to be based directly on Scripture; for the Scriptures and not the symbolical books are the test of the true Lutheran Church. Luther’s system of doctrines is not even as authoritative as his translation of Scripture, for his translation is the simple transfer of ideas from one language into another, while his system of doctrines is simply a human deduction from these ideas. And if any work of Luther ought to be made a binding authority, that work is his translation of the Scripture. But not one can be found so foolish as to claim that his translation is binding on us, which would be equal to the Romish decree making the Vulgate authoritative. But if Luther’s translation, his immediate views of the original Scriptures, is not binding, how much less those doctrines which are but a deduction from these views of Scripture and whose relation to Scripture is so much more remote than his translation.
The Lutheran will, of necessity, as stated in a thesis above, according to the very principles he has adopted, accept the essential doctrines of Luther and the creeds, which are directly and beyond question drawn from the Scriptures; them he will regard as binding authority, but no others.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

62. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSORS AND THE REFORMERS NEITHER HAD NOR CLAIMED THE POWER OR RIGHT TO MAKE A CONFESSION FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH IN THEIR OWN AGE OR SUCCEEDING AGES, ANY MORE THAN THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE THE POWER AND RIGHT TO BELIEVE AND CONFESS FOR THAT CHURCH.

Such un-Lutheran claims were never made by them. What right then have men now to make such claims for them? The Confession itself was not even intended as a law or constitution, which is still alterable, but simply as an expression of the faith of the Confessors and their adherents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

63. IT IS NOT A CONFESSION THAT MAKES THE CHURCH, BUT IT IS THE CHURCH THAT MAKES THE CONFESSION; THEREFORE THE CHURCH IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE CONFESSION, BUT THE CONFESSION IS DEPENDENT ON THE CHURCH.

And if a Church is not yet perfect; if it has a right to grow, to cast off errors, to get new truths, then it is not unconditionally bound to the views of any past age. The Church owns the Confession and has power over it. The Church is dependent on the Bible, the Confession is dependent on the Church.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

64. IT WAS NOT THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, NOR ANY OTHER CREED OR CREEDS, THAT GAVE THE LUTHERAN CHURCH ITS DISTINCTIVE BEING AND NAME, BUT A FEW GREAT PRINCIPLES AND CARDINAL DOCTRINES.

Consequently these principles and cardinal doctrines are the only ones binding on the Church in order that it may abide in real identity and be entitled to a continuation of its name.

 

65. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION WAS NOT INTENDED, NOR DOES IT CLAIM TO BE AN AUTHORITATIVE DECLARATION OF WHAT THE LUTHERANS IN THAT OR ANY OTHER AGE MUST BELIEVE.

Nowhere does the Confession itself claim such authority; and the Confessors did not so signally disgrace themselves as to claim that they had a right to make a law of faith for the Lutheran Church; and during the Reformation such an authority was not ascribed to the Confession, either by the reformers or the Lutheran Church. Had the Confession, the Confessors or the Reformers claimed such an authority, they would have defeated their own purpose, for their very aim was to prove that they had a right to go directly to the scriptures, in spite of Rome and every other human authority. Those noble men were neither so inconsistent nor so foolish as to establish the very authority they labored so zealously to overthrow; that was reserved for other men, in other times, and with a very different spirit. If the question is asked, where do the symbolists of to-day stand in respect to the question of human authority in matters of faith ? With Rome or with Luther? If we want to tell the truth we must answer, with Rome. And though they denounce all who dare utter this truth; though they rave as did the Papists against Luther; though they howl, anathematize, and swear they cling to Luther’s skirts; it is nevertheless true that in this respect they are Rome’s disciples and not Luther’s. If any should think that the assertion that the Augsburg Confession was not authoritative and binding is incorrect; and that after all the symbolists may stand with the Lutheran Church of the Reformation, we take great pleasure in referring such to Mueller’s “Symbolical Books,†the standard symbolical authority on the Creeds of the Church, whose sound Lutheranism no symbolist will question. Page lxviii, Introduction, he says that at that time the Confession and Apology were indeed regarded as general confessions, but by no means as symbolical writings in our sense of the term. “Dass zu jener zeit die Confessio und Apologie zwar immerhin als, gemeinsame Bekenntnisse, aber keineswegs als symbolische Schriften in unserm Sinne betrachtet wurden.†What will symbolists do with such a fact which demonstrates most conclusively that they are totally at variance with the great principles of the Reformation? Simply ignore it, and shout “we are the only Lutherans,†and prove that while facts are stubborn things, prejudice may be still more stubborn.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

66. THOSE WHO WANT TO MAKE THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION (OR ANY OTHER HUMAN DOCUMENT) A BINDING AUTHORITY, ARE THE ENEMIES OF THE CONFESSION ITSELF, OF THE CONFESSORS, THE REFORMERS, THE REFORMATION AND OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH.

Simply because they are opposed to them.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

67. IN PREPARING THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION THE CONFESSORS ATTEMPTED TO PUT IN PRACTICE THE GREAT FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT, IN. SPITE OF ALL HUMAN AUTHORITY (OF POPE, COUNCIL, CREED OR CHURCH,) EVERY CHRISTIAN HAS A RIGHT TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE BIBLE FOR HIS DOCTRINES; THE CONFESSORS THUS EXERCISED A RIGHT WHICH THEY CLAIMED FOR ALL, AND WHICH ALL (AND LUTHERANS MOST OF ALL) ARE IN DUTY BOUND TO EXERCISE.

If the Confessors gained this point, that they had a right to go to scripture for their doctrines, then everything was gained; if this was lost, then all was lost. This principle, contended for by them, was followed in preparing the Confession, in which they gave what they believed to be the doctrines of the Bible.
In this they claimed no special privilege; the glory of their heroic act consists in claiming this privilege for all men. If they and the Reformers had said to their followers: you can exercise the same privilege that we do, but you must also come to the same conclusions that we do (as laid down in the symbolical books,) they would have said just what the symbolists say now and just exactly what Rome said then and now; for Rome never objected to the study of the scriptures, if the result was always perfect agreement with the Church.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

68. HAD THE CONFESSORS OR REFORMERS CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO FIX UNALTERABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH, THEY WOULD NOT ONLY HAVE ACTED VERY INCONSISTENTLY, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE RETAINED THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE ROMISH ERRORS, AND OUGHT TO BE REGARDED AS THE WORST SPIRITUAL TYRANTS; AND THOSE WHO MAKE IT SEEM AS IF THEY MADE SUCH CLAIMS, CAST ON THEM THE GREATEST REPROACH.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

69. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LUTHERANS AND SYMBOLISTS IS THIS: THE FORMER MAKE THE DOCTRINES THAT ARE ESSENTIAL AND DIRECTLY DRAWN FROM SCRIPTURE BINDING, WHILST THE LATTER MAKE ALL THE SYMBOLICAL BOOKS A BINDING AUTHORITY, WHETHER THE DOCTRINES ARE ESSENTIAL OR NON-ESSENTIAL, SCRIPTURAL OR UNSCRIPTURAL.

If these books are unconditionally binding, then I must unconditionally accept their doctrines, however unscriptural they may be. If I have the liberty to accept the symbolical books with the condition that they are to be binding only in so far as they agree with Scripture, then I and every christian can accept them. But this mental reservation, this conditional subscription, is the very thing so bitterly opposed by the symbolists.

 

As I have said earlier, you can replace “Luthernâ€￾ with the title of any other denomination or sect.
______________________________________

70. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE SYMBOLICAL BOOKS AND THE PRINCIPLES OF MODERN SYMBOLISTS IS THIS: THE FORMER MAKE THE SCRIPTURES THE TEST OF THEIR DOCTRINES. ACCORDING TO WHOSE DECISION THEY ARE EITHER TO BE ACCEPTED OR REJECTED; MODERN SYMBOLISTS MAKE ALL THE STATEMENTS OF THOSE BOOKS BINDING,

For proof that this is a correct view of the principles of the symbolical books, the preface to the Augsburg Confession and the Rule of Faith as laid down in the Formula of Concord need only be referred to. (Mueller, pp. 35, 37,517, 518, 568, 571.) Indeed, the symbolists are in direct conflict with the principle of the symbols. They ought therefore not to be called symbolists so long as they cling merely to the words of the symbolical books and ignore their principles. If a new word must be coined to express the true position of these men, perhaps the word authoritists would be as good as any.
According to the principles thus far developed it is easy to determine the status of the different parties in the Church. A Lutheran is one who adopts the principles laid down in the symbolical books, according to which he has a right to reject what he finds unscriptural; a so-called symbolist (authoritists) is one who makes the doctrines of these books binding, thus ignoring the very principles of the books; a true symbolist is one who adopts the principles of liberty, not making the symbolical books binding on any, but who nevertheless by following these principles happens to agree perfectly with the doctrines of the symbols. The General Synod agrees with the principles of the symbolical books, according to which principles it cannot possibly bind its members to all the doctrines of the symbolical books; the General Council and similar authoritists make the doctrines of the Creeds unconditionally binding, hence they adopt the doctrines and reject the principles of the symbolical books; a Church whose members have perfect liberty to go to the scriptures for their doctrines and yet in every instance agree exactly and throughout with the doctrines of the symbolical books, (which members would in principle and in doctrine be symbolists,) does not exist.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

71. IF IN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH THE UNALTERED AUGSBURG CONFESSION MUST BE MADE UNCONDITIONALLY BINDING ON ALL ITS MEMBERS, THEN THERE WAS NO LUTHERAN CHURCH DURING THE REFORMATION.

The proof is given above (see note to 65.) How could Melanchthon have altered every edition of the Confession if the unaltered Confession was unconditionally binding? And how then could these altered editions have gained such universal favor and have superseded the original edition during the Reformation The General Council must un-Lutheranize the whole Lutheran Church of that pure period in which the Church would have spurned as papistical and tyrannical every attempt to make any human authority binding.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

72. IF A CHURCH IN ORDER TO BE LUTHERAN MUST RECEIVE IN THE ORIGINAL AUGSBURG CONFESSION EVERY STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE IN ITS “OWN TRUE, NATIVE, ORIGINAL, AND ONLY SENSE,â€￾ THEN A LUTHERAN CHURCH IS IMPOSSIBLE.

In order that the original Augsburg Confession may be so received there must either be the original Confession itself or an exact copy of it. Even if there were any doubt merely as to the original, a Lutheran Church would be impossible, because there would be no means of determining the exact meaning of the original. “Surely a judge is not competent to pronounce in a cause, so long as he admits his not being sure of having in his possession the exact text, or a faithful translation of the law.â€￾ Now it happens, to the great grief of the General Council, that there is no original Augsburg Confession extant; nor is there an authentic copy of the original; nor can it be decided which of the various manuscripts extant comes nearest the original. The German copy in the Book of Concord is acknowledged to be very defective. See Mueller, (we prefer the authority acknowledged by every symbolist,) Introduction, pp. 62, 67. But the loss of the original and the absence of an authentic copy of the same does not prevent some men now from believing the exact original. Though they have not got it they know that what it taught (whatever that may have been) was perfectly scriptural. Wonderful men indeed! Read articles 6 and 7 of the Reading Convention. Some may say that we have not the original Bible, nor an exact copy. That is true; and for that very reason, if for no other, we would treat as a hypocrite or lunatic the man who should say that he understood and believed every statement of the original scriptures in its “own true, original, native and only sense.â€￾ If to be a christian one must thus understand the Bible, then it is just as impossible to be a christian as it is to be a Lutheran, according to the conditions of the General Council. We thank our heavenly Father, that it was not left to these men to decide, who should be regarded as a christian.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

73. IF. TO BE A LUTHERAN ONE MUST ADOPT THE SMALCALD ARTICLES, THEN THERE WAS NO LUTHERAN BEFORE 1537, WHEN THOSE ARTICLES WERE WRITTEN; IF ONE MUST REGARD THESE ARTICLES AS AN INTERPRETATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION, THEN THERE WERE NO LUTHERANS UNTIL AFTER THE REFORMATION, WHEN THE THEORY WAS INVENTED THAT THE SMALCALD ARTICLES WERE SUCH AN INTERPRETATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

After the Reformation some feared that the Augsburg Confession alone was not enough to insure sound Lutheranism, and consequently insisted on the adoption of the Smalcald Articles as a confession of faith. But unfortunately the General Council cannot receive these Articles as Luther published them, for he did not publish a copy of the original, but took the liberty of altering them, a proof of what kind of binding authority was attached by him to the original. The fact that Luther and the entire Lutheran Church during the Reformation did not make the Smalcald Articles binding, is of course a calamity for which, however, neither the Ohio, nor the Missouri Synod, nor the General Council is to blame.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

74. IF TO BE A LUTHERAN ONE MUST ADOPT THE FORMULA OF CONCORD, THEN LUTHER WAS NO LUTHERAN, AND THERE WAS NO LUTHERAN CHURCH BEFORE 1580.

And even since that time many of the most pious and learned men, universally regarded as Lutherans, and an ornament to the Church, were not Lutherans. It is well known that neither in 1580 nor since then was the Formula universally adopted, and in many places where it was adopted it proved a Formula of Discord rather than of Concord. It cannot consequently be made a test of Lutheranism. And it is a debatable question, whether it is not more Lutheran to reject than to accept that Formula.

 

75. THOSE WHO MAKE THE ADOPTION OF THE WHOLE BOOK OF CONCORD THE CONDITION OF CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP ARE NOT IN UNITY WITH THE LUTHERAN CHURCH AND THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORMATION, BUT WITH THE SECTARIAN CHURCH OF THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD WHEN THIS BOOK WAS ADOPTED, (1580.) AND WHEN THE FAITH, THE LIFE AND THE SPIRIT OF THE REFORMATION HAD, TO A GREAT EXTENT, BEEN LOST.

How can men who impose on members conditions utterly at variance with those of the Reformation, still persist in calling themselves Lutherans? The Book of Concord did not exist until long after the Reformation; consequently to make its acceptance the condition of membership is a direct departure from the position occupied by the Lutheran Church during the Reformation. They impose on men conditions hostile to the Reformation, and the wonder is that any can be found to submit to the imposition.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

76. THOSE WHO MAKE THE ADOPTION OF ALL THE CREEDS IN THE BOOK OF CONCORD THE CONDITION OF CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP, AND MAKE THESE CREEDS A BINDING AUTHORITY, SUSTAIN TO THE PURE, FREE, SPIRITUAL AND SCRIPTURAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE REFORMATION THE SAME RELATION THAT THE PHARISEES, IN CHRIST’S DAY, SUSTAINED TO THE ANCIENT HEBREW CHURCH OF MOSES AND THE PROPHETS, AND THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME IN LUTHER’S DAY SUSTAINED TO THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

We do not charge these Book-of-Concord Lutherans with the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, or the doctrinal errors of Rome. But they date their origin to a corrupt period of the Church, after the Reformation; just as the Pharisees had their origin in a corrupt period of the Jewish Church, when the voice of prophecy was hushed; and just as the Romish Church dates its origin to a corrupt period in the Catholic Church, long after the days of the Apostles. These men loudly proclaim themselves the genuine and only Lutherans, just as the Pharisees claimed to be the genuine and only Jews, and the Papists to be the genuine and only Apostolic Church. These men fiercely denounce all who do not say credo and damno when they do, exactly as did the Pharisees and Romanists. These men claim to be the only ones who have the truth, and all others are denounced as heretics and errorists, just like the Pharisees and Papists again. In these three parties we find much that is similar—the same adherence to human authority (tradition of the elders, decrees and traditions of Rome, symbolical books,) the same boastful, denunciatory and intolerant spirit; though the symbolists are far superior to the others in morality, spirituality and purity of doctrine.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

77. IF TO BE A MEMBER OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH ONE MUST BELIEVE ALL THE DOCTRINES TAUGHT IN THE BOOK OF CONCORD, THEN A LUTHERAN CHURCH IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY.

The Book of Concord contains the following creeds: The Apostolic, the Nicene and the Athanasian; the Augsburg Confession and the Apology; the Smalcald Articles and Luther’s Catechisms, and the Formula of Concord, covering in Mueller’s edition of the Book of Concord, (German and Latin,) 786 pages. No one can say that he believes all the doctrines of the Book unless he understands every article in its original and only sense. But where can the man be found in or out of the Church who can with certainty say that he thus understands every article? To require all to study this Book before they can be Church members, is requiring too much ; but if they can be received without this, then the belief of the doctrines of the Book of Concord is not the condition of church-membership To require that all must understand all the teachings of this Book, is requiring an impossibility; therefore a Lutheran church is an impossibility, if all must believe the Book of Concord. To require that all must understand all the doctrines alike (and in order to believe the Book all must not only use the same words, but must understand them in the same sense, and that must be the original and only sense) is requiring that human minds shall be like machines, all of which work exactly alike. To demand that every member must believe every article in this large Book, just as the authors did, if it were possible in every instance to find the exact sense of the authors, is too severe a tax on the credulity of sane minds. A church may indeed be possible if it only requires its members to say that they adopt and believe these creeds, (whether they know anything about them or not,) but to make a belief of these creeds the condition of membership, makes a church utterly impossible.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

78. A CHURCH THAT REQUIRES ITS MEMBERS To DECLARE THAT THEY UNCONDITIONALLY ACCEPT AND BELIEVE CREEDS WHICH THEY HAVE NOT EVEN READ, AND DO NOT UNDERSTAND, REQUIRES THEM TO TELL AN UNCONDITIONAL FALSEHOOD.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

79. THE MEN WHO TEACH THAT NONE CAN BE LUTHERANS UNLESS THEY BELIEVE ALL THE SYMBOLICAL Books, AND THEN TOLERATE PREACHERS AND LAYMEN WHO HAVE NEVER READ THOSE BOOKS, AND DO NOT KNOW THEIR CONTENTS, AND RECEIVE INTO THEIR CHURCHES CHILDREN WHO KNOW LITTLE OR NOTHING ABOUT THE TEACHINGS OF THOSE BOOKS, AND CANNOT COMPREHEND THEM, NEED NOT MAKE BROADER THEIR PHYLACTERIES AND ENLARGE THE BORDERS OF THEIR GARMENTS IN ORDER THAT MEN AND ANGELS MAY UNDERSTAND THEIR REAL CHARACTER.

And yet such are the very ones to denounce in the most violent manner all who do not swear by the same formulas with themselves!

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

80. THE BEST WAY TO MAKE HYPOCRITES AND INFIDELS, AND LEAD MEN TO LOOK WITH CONTEMPT ON A CHURCH, IS TO PRETEND TO MAKE THE ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN CREEDS THE CONDITION OF CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP, WHEN BUT VERY FEW OF THE PREACHERS, MUCH LESS THE LAITY, HAVE READ THOSE CREEDS AND UNDERSTAND THEM.

 

81. THE PREACHER WHO WOWS TO TEACH NOTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS IN HARMONY WITH CERTAIN CREEDS, VOWS TO DO AN IMPOSSIBILITY, UNLESS HE PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDS THOSE CREEDS; AND HE WHO VOWS NEVER TO DEPART FROM THE TEACHINGS OF THOSE SYMBOLS, MUST EITHER DETERMINE THAT HE WILL GET NO NEW LIGHT THAT CAN CHANGE HIS VIEWS, (MENTAL STAGNATION,) OR THAT HE WILL NOR CHANGE HIS VIEWS IF HE DOES GET NEW LIGHT, (FOOLISH PREJUDICE) OR THAT THE HUMAN CREEDS ADOPTED BY HIM SHALL UNCONDITIONALLY REGULATE HIS THOUGHTS AND EXPERIENCES, (SELF IMPOSED MENTAL AND SPIRITUAL SLAVERY.)

As a Christian I can vow to believe the doctrines of Scripture and be guided by them, because it is God’s Word. But as long as I love Him who makes us free, and cherish the freedom of the Gospel, and remember the name of Luther, and adopt the principles of the Lutheran Church, I will never vow to bind my mind and soul unconditionally to any human authority in matters of faith. And to all the modern tendencies to enslave the soul as in former ages, I will oppose the spirit and words of Luther and the language of the Apostle: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.â€
The “Fundamental Principles†of the Reading Convention bind men to human authority, just as a bull of Pius IV, fixing the oath to be taken by ecclesiastics, one clause of which was as follows: “I admit holy Scripture according to the sense which said (Catholic) Church holds and has held, to which Church it appertains to judge.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

82. SYNODS AND CHURCHES REQUIRING OF THEIR MEMBERS THE ADOPTION OF ART. IX of THE “FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF FAITH,†PROPOSED BY THE READING CONVENTION, SHOULD LAY TO HEART THE SAVIOUR’S WORDS RESPECTING THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES: “THEY BIND HEAVY BURDENS AND GRIEVOUS TO BE BORNE, AND LAY THEM ON MEN’S SHOULDERS.â€

In that article, (see Appendix,) not only all the creeds in the Book of Concord, but also all “the other Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church†are pronounced “of necessity pure and Scriptural,†“inasmuch as they set forth none other than its (the Augsburg Confession’s) system of doctrines.†Here is taken for granted the very thing that needs proof, that all the other Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church are in perfect harmony with the Augsburg Confession. And even if they are, that does not make them “of necessity pure and scriptural.†But why not specify all the Confessions of which the above assertion is made? Those in the Book of Concord are declared to be only the “pre-eminent†ones; which are the others? Surely, it cannot be expected that a rational being shall make such a declaration respecting creeds of which he knows nothing, not even the name.
The preachers and delegates who adopted this article will allow us a few questions: How many of you have read all the symbolical books and the other confessions referred to in this article? How many of you understood them perfectly, and heartily believed all their doctrines? How many of you compared these creeds with each other and with the Scriptures? How many of you really knew what you were doing? Indeed, it must remain a mystery how so many could be induced to vote all these creeds into “the perfect harmony of one and the same Scriptural faith,†who knew little or nothing about these creeds, had never read them, did not understand them and had probably never heard even the names of all the creeds they thus adopted. And such men have the effrontery to call themselves Lutherans. O Luther, what outrages are committed in thy name ! But this article is said by its advocates not to put the other symbolical books on a level with the Augsburg Confession. A very ingenious device indeed to sugar-coat the pill which would otherwise be so nauseous that few could be found to swallow it. But look at the article itself. These symbolical books are declared to be “of necessity pure and Scriptural,†and “in the perfect harmony of one and the same scriptural faith,†and yet these men say they are not on a level with the Augsburg Confession. Then, that Confession must be more than in perfect harmony with the Scriptures, it must be above Scripture. This is what is meant, otherwise the assertion that the Confession is placed higher than the other symbolical books is nonsense. He who through this multitude of creeds can yet see the pure, simple word of God, deserves great credit; for the authoritists do not place their creeds under the Bible and through it read them; but on the Bible and through their symbols see, if they can, God’s Word.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

83. THE CHURCH OF ROME NEVER BOUND ITS MEMBERS MORE UNCONDITIONALLY TO HUMAN AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF FAITH, THAN THE SO-CALLED GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH ATTEMPTS TO BIND ITS MEMBERS BY ITS “FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF FAITH.â€

According to these Fundamental Principles, Article II, a church must continue to hold the articles of faith, and to use the sacraments as they were held and administered when the church came into distinctive being. All deviation from the views of certain men at certain times is impossible, and all progress in their articles of faith is made utterly impossible, except in developing what has already been unalterably fixed for eternity. The men who lived when the church came into being, made a Procrustean bed into which the church of all future ages must be tortured. But the principle of enslaving the members of the church is still more fully developed in Article IV, so as not to leave even the slightest degree of liberty in interpreting those articles of faith. They are not to be interpreted by the Bible, but they must be understood in “their own true, original, native and only sense.†All the members of the church “must not only agree to use the same words, but must use and understand those words in one and the same sense.†The church is thus fettered in the most absolute manner possible to certain human authority. Even the liberty of interpreting this authority must be taken away. Such an attempt to force on the church and its members the most absolute slavery was never equaled, even in the Romish Church before the meeting of the Council of Trent; even in Luther’s days there was more freedom among the Papists than these Fundamental Principles grant; for many doctrines were still floating, and liberty was granted in them until the Council of Trent fixed them into unalterable decrees. Before that time the Romish Church left more doctrines unsettled than the symbolical books, and hence it granted more freedom. In the Church of Rome nothing except the Council of Trent so absolutely enslaves the minds of men as do the “Fundamental Principles†of this more modern Council. Such a view of creeds simply serves to make them odious in the sight of honest men; for if it is their office to enslave men and the Church, then they are a positive curse, and the sooner they are banished from the Church the better. But a rational, Scriptural and Lutheran view of creeds and human authority in general, will give Confessions of faith their proper position in the Church, and will make them more respected and more powerful. The strongest bow when bent too much will break. The enemies of the General Council can wish it nothing worse than consistency with its Fundamental Principles. To it inconsistency will be a jewel. Some may think the name “General Council,†not very appropriate for the body designated thereby. It is at least very suggestive, historically, and may prove to be pre-eminently proper.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

84. THE GENERAL COUNCIL, AND ALL OTHER BODIES MAKING ALL THE SYMBOLICAL BOOKS A BINDING AUTHORITY, HAVE THEIR JUBILEE IN 1880, THE ORIGIN OF SYMBOLISM IN THE CHURCH; AND THEY CANNOT CONSISTENTLY CELEBRATE THE PRESENT JUBILEE, WHICH COMMEMORATES THE ORIGIN OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE REFORMATION, AND THE DAWN OF MENTAL AND SPIRITUAL FREEDOM.

What have these men in common with that great epoch which marks the beginning of the destruction of human authority and the establishment of the divine. What have those men to do with this Jubilee who make human authority unconditionally binding, who compel those that join their Churches to accept scholastic definitions and distinctions similar to those which Luther supplanted by God’s word; whose principles are a direct condemnation of Luther’s opposition to human authority in faith, and which, if adhered to, make a reformation like that of the sixteenth century impossible? Let them wait for their Jubilee in 1880.

 

I can't even begin to tell you how much I've learned from these.
I was over browsing on the Carm forum this am and went to read
the evangelical requirements/creeds you must believe to become
included in the private "musings" of those taking part in those
private threads ...must say I failed the 1st "few" as I think I would
most any creed . Considering myself a student , instead of a
teacher keeps me in the position that learning can be done on an
"eternity" level and that everything that God has done is "past finding"
out , and the works of Jesus if they could all be written could not be
fitted into a "man sized" book .So many of these have hammered the
nail on the head , and I just want to take the time to let you know
how much I appreciate this thread , as rather than as a teacher but
a presentation with an examination of those things we hold true
and treasure along with encouraging a further examination of "dogma"
and how we choose to present it ...

 

Hi Poetry of Providence,
Thanks for letting me know that you enjoy this. It’s been a chore for me because every time I post, this crazy system causes problems. Lately it’s been changing a few letters to lower case from upper case, randomly. Every once in a while it will drop the numbers, or insert a number where it shouldn’t be. I have 11 more, so it will be about 2 more posts.
And, now it lost this post when I tried to post. It didn't remember that I had already logged in, even though I checked "remember me".

The other day, two friends were talking with me and they asked who I would vote for. I said, “To be honest with you, I am apolitical. I consider myself as a Christian and a citizen under Christ’s rule. I don’t belong to any man-made organization claiming to represent Jesus Christ. I’m rather a “Free Range Christianâ€. The only fences or boundaries are what is written in the Bible. If something is said that I can’t find in the Bible, it isn’t of much value to me.†They said, “What will you do when they say you will go to jail or be executed if you don’t vote?†I said, “Jesus told us what would happen. I will die rather than break my vows to follow him. I know who the ruler of this world is. And I don’t fear death as Paul wrote to the Hebrews, [Christ will] “free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.†(Heb. 2:15 NIV)

From what you say, you can be a “Free Range Christianâ€. As for that “man sized†book, John said, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.†( Joh 21:25 NASB )

I am also a student. There is much more to learn. What we don’t know, or are kept from knowing is called musterion in Greek = mystery in English. It comes from a derivative of muo (to shut the mouth). Musterion = hidden thing, secret, mystery. In Aramaic it is raz = secret, mystery and only appear 8 times in the book of Daniel.

Somewhere in the future, those secrets or mysteries will be revealed by Jehovah or Jesus at the property time.

 

85. THE ONE THING NEEDFUL FOR THE CHURCH AND THE AGE, WHICH EVANGELICAL LUTHERANS SHOULD ENCOURAGE DURING THIS JUBILEE, IS NOT A RETURN TO HUMAN AUTHORITY AND ENSLAVEMENT TO THE VIEWS OF MERE MEN OF FORMER AGES, BUT TO SIT WITH MARY AT THE FEET OF JESUS.

In this and in this only, is the hope of a genuine revival in the church. What is needed is simply the Gospel of Jesus. Not that part merely which is generally embraced in creeds, but the whole Gospel in all its depth and comprehensiveness; not tortured into scholastic definitions, and stereotyped into human formulas, and frozen into a dead orthodoxy, (the mother of infidelity) but the Gospel in Jesus’ words—clear, beautiful, powerful, spiritual and divine; the pure Gospel with all its simplicity, its freedom and its unction; the Gospel as it flowed from the Master’s lips, thrilling the disciples and revolutionizing the world, through which God’s Spirit can work according to his own laws, without being bound to those laid down in human creeds. There is but one hope for the church in this skeptical, superficial and formal age, and that is the imitation of the beautiful example of Mary sitting at the feet of her Master.
Let the worshipers of human authority busy themselves about many things; let them blame those who sit with Mary rather than at the feet of the author’s of the symbolical books; let them settle exactly how Christ must be present and received in the Eucharist; how baptismal regeneration is not regeneration; who must be condemned mercilessly and who can be received as a Lutheran brother; who can be allowed to commune and enter the pulpit—these are life questions with them, and they must decide them in order that they may get to heaven. The true Lutheran and the entire Christian Church has a nobler work, which is embraced in these words—â€Search the Scriptures.â€

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

86. THE TRUE POSITION FOR THE LUTHERAN CHURCH TO OCCUPY IN THIS COUNTRY, LIES BETWEEN THE TWO EXTREMES, ONE OF WHICH NEGLECTS THE CONFESSIONS OF THE CHURCH, AND FROM SHEER IGNORANCE AND PREJUDICE TREATS THEM WITH RIDICULE AND CONTEMPT, WHILE THE OTHER MAKES THEM A BINDING AUTHORITY FOR THE CHURCH.

The former extreme is that of some in the General Synod. They reject and ridicule what they do not clearly understand; they know not what they do. Their opposition to the creeds is anything else rather than intelligent and conscientious. They do not receive their views from the General Synod but, in spite of its charitable principles, they are as fanatical and intolerant as the men they denounce. They have zeal without knowledge; and to their fanaticism we are much indebted for the unhappy divisions in our Church, since their extreme views excited and promoted the opposite extreme. This opposite extreme is that of those who make the creeds unconditionally binding, and who in intolerance, bigotry and fanaticism, go arm in arm with the very men they despise the most. This symbolical extreme, schismatic in its very nature, revealed its intolerance in its secession at Fort Wayne; for in spite of all the efforts of the symbolists, the world will not believe that they were so wicked and lost to all the Christian principles of forgiveness, as to divide the Church simply because they believed that a rule of order had been violated. They wanted to form a body whose basis was too narrow for any but those who were as extreme as themselves.
The great majority of the General Synod occupy the position between these two extremes, and they are the Synod, for they stand fairly on its basis, which avoids those extremes. The hope of the Church is not in the fanatics, claiming to belong to the General Synod, but in the true Lutheran and Scriptural principles of the Synod and the men who adhere to these principles.
Some also have entered, blindly, we believe, the General Council, who in heart occupy this medium and true Lutheran position. They do not heartily adopt the “Fundamental Principles.†Before they can subscribe to them they must be interpreted by men with special gifts for the task, to mean something else than their words indicate. But in spite of the good men in it, the hope of the Church is not in the General Council. The reason all is dark and hopeless there is, that the General Council has made one of the extremes indicated in the thesis, its very basis. It is extreme and intolerant from principle. And if in practice it becomes tolerant and Lutheran, it will be in spite of its principles. If the Council in its practice is consistent with its principles, the tolerant men, the true Lutherans, will leave it, as Luther did the Romish Church, which had become intolerant both in theory and in practice.
What a pity, that in the Lutheran Church the very extremes, which need each other most, irreconcilably repel each other!

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

87. THE TRUE LUTHERAN CHURCH WILL MAKE THE JUBILEE YEAR ONE OF GROWTH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRINCIPLES, DOCTRINES AND HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, AND WILL FOSTER THAT, FREEDOM IN REFERENCE TO HUMAN AUTHORITY IN SPIRITUAL THINGS WHICH LUTHER CLAIMED FOR HIMSELF AND HIS ADHERENTS.

Here is the remedy for the two dangerous extremes. A thorough knowledge of the symbolical books will do much to remove the prejudice and contempt with which they have so often been treated. And a thorough knowledge of the principles and history of the Church, especially during the Reformation, will convince all that the advocates of the binding authority of creeds are not Lutheran, but anti-Lutheran.
The Confessions of the Church ought by all means to be more thoroughly understood, especially the Augsburg Confession, which we sincerely believe to be the best and noblest human Confession ever produced. These theses are intended to elevate the real value of the symbolical books by the very destruction of that papistical principle which makes them a binding authority, and consequently odious. Therefore this principle is attacked, not the creeds themselves; for it is the enslavement to all human authority in faith that is opposed, not only an enslavement to the symbolical books. Establish the genuine Protestant principle, and creeds will be more studied and better appreciated than with the papistical principle. In ecclesiastical as well as political affairs, an undue assumption of authority is dangerous to the powers making them.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

88. THE GENERAL SYNOD HAS THE TRUE LUTHERAN BASIS, BUT IN ORDER THAT IT MAY ACCOMPLISH ITS MISSION, IT NEEDS MEN OF PRINCIPLE, WHO SHALL WITH CHRISTIAN CHARITY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WITH UNFLINCHING CHRISTIAN FIRMNESS, ADVOCATE ITS PRINCIPLES.

The principles of the General Synod do not bind its members unconditionally to all the views held during the Reformation, but only to the fundamental principles and cardinal doctrines. They consequently have the liberty to deviate from some of the views of the Reformers. Even if a member of the General Synod heartily adopts the entire Augsburg Confession, consistency itself would require him to spurn every attempt to make that Confession a binding authority. He has the liberty to accept all the symbolical books, and he has the liberty to reject non-essentials, if he finds them inconsistent with scripture. Let this position be fearlessly maintained as that which God has given us through Luther. And let us not pretend to adopt the entire Augsburg Confession, even as a General Synod; we have the right as Lutherans to exercise liberty in this respect, and no man shall take it from us. To disagree with the symbolical books when they disagree with the word of God, is perfectly consistent in the General Synod; but in the General Council, it would be inconsistent, because it would be a violation of its principles.
The lack of principle now, when it is so much needed, will be followed by the most disastrous consequences. Those halting between two opinions are apt to be drawn to that side which manifests the most principle; for men of principle, even if wrong, are always men of strength. To maintain its Lutheran principles, the General Synod wants Luthers.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

89. REVIVALS OF RELIGION ARE MUCH NEEDED; BUT THEY SHOULD BE MORE SCRIPTURAL AND LESS FANATICAL THAN MUCH THAT IS CALLED REVIVAL IN OUR DAY.

No christian can condemn genuine Pentecostal revivals of religion; it is only the ungodly who will mock, as was the case on the day of Pentecost. But much that is called revival now is born of earth rather than of heaven, is mere excitement without a proper Scriptural basis or an impulse from God’s Spirit. The sensational element, so prominent in many revivals, is often very injurious. We are much in need of revivals, but the fanatical element must be left out. To make them lasting in effect and genuine, more Scriptural substance and more of God’s Spirit are needed, and less incendiary matter. The fact that the Divine Spirit works on the heart through God’s Word, should not be forgotten.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

90. ALL TRUE LUTHERANS CAN UNITE ON THE LIBERAL BASIS OF THE GENERAL SYNOD, IF THEY ARE WILLING TO EXERCISE CHRISTIAN CHARITY TO THOSE FROM WHOM THEY DIFFER; BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ALL LUTHERANS TO UNITE ON THE INTOLERANT PRINCIPLES OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL.

For tolerant men the General Synod basis is not too wide. That intolerant men should feel uncomfortable in standing side by side with others who differ from them, is natural. It was exactly so in 1580, the more intolerant men become, the narrower they make the basis on which they stand, and the narrower they make the basis, the more schismatic and sectarian they become.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

91. THE GERMAN LUTHERANS OF THIS COUNTRY NEED THE PRACTICAL SPIRIT, THE ENERGY AND ZEAL OF AMERICANS: WHILST THE AMERICANS NEED GERMAN DEPTH AND THOROUGHNESS.

The one is too slow, the other too fast. The one is apt to cling to the old because it is old, and to reject the new simply because it is new; whilst the other is too apt to reject the old because it is old, and to adopt the new simply because it is new. German depth and American energy and enterprise—what a grand combination.

 

92. THE GENERAL SYNOD OUGHT TO PLACE ITSELF INTO A MORE INTIMATE RELATION TO THE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GERMANY., AND APPROPRIATE MORE OF ITS SPIRITUAL LIFE AND THEOLOGICAL LOVE.

Many Americans in the Lutheran Church seem to fear German influence in the Church. Perhaps the reason is, that so many German Lutherans in this country do not fairly represent the Lutheran Church in Germany. Many Lutherans in Germany, men of high position, of piety and scholarship, stand on the General Synod basis, and would never disgrace themselves by acknowledging that human creeds are a binding authority.
With such men our Church in this country should be placed in a tangible relation.
Of the rich theological lore of our Church in Germany, its extent, depth and spirituality, it is not necessary to speak. All denominations are drawing from that treasure, and some of them seem to appreciate it much more than the American portion of the Lutheran Church. We cannot afford to lose German Lutheran philosophy and theology; they are too much needed here where there is so much trash and superficiality. And many evangelical, pious and scholarly preachers might be brought from Germany to supply the destitute Germans of our land with the Gospel, men who could heartily co-operate with the General Synod. To true German Lutherans the papistical principles of the General Council are repugnant, simply because they love Luther and his principles.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

93. THE PROBLEM WHICH THE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN THIS COUNTRY IS NOW CALLED ON TO SOLVE IS, HOW CAN THE MOST PERFECT ORGANIC UNITY BE SECURED WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LIBERTY GRANTED BY THE GOSPEL AND LYING AT THE BASIS OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH.

The great desideratum is not an external bond of union, such as that of name, formulas of faith and ceremonies, but real organic unity, whose bond is internal; not a unity which destroys liberty, but which demands the greatest possible liberty consistent with the Gospel. That is not true unity which robs man of his freedom or conflicts with the legitimate exercise of any of his faculties; and that, on the other hand, is not true liberty in a Church which destroys its unity. The greater the liberty in unity, the stronger and more perfect an organization will be. If all the members are alike, without individualities, peculiarities, etc., they can be of but little benefit to each other. But if there is diversity, they may greatly aid each other, the one supplying what the other lacks. Were all alike, sameness and sheer monotony would kill any organization. Diversity (in unity) is necessary to life. It also prevents those one sided tendencies, the extremes, to which all are so prone; for the different tendencies will serve to correct each other. A mind though a unit, is imperfect if developed in only one direction, but it becomes more perfect the greater its development in all directions, the greater the variety in unity. The same is true in an organization. But in this diversity (not contrariety, which admits of no unity) there must be unity, otherwise the diverse elements will repel each other, fly apart and destroy the organization. The proper solution of the problem given in the thesis, is of the greatest importance for the Lutheran Church in this country. In its different nationalities it has greater diversity than any other Protestant Church. If now this diversity could be grown into perfect organic unity, one inner bond (spirit) uniting all the members into one body, the Lutheran Church would be the most powerful and the most perfect Church in the land. Our country is trying to solve the problem of unity in diversity and liberty, and it is the most perfect of all governments. The problem is yet unsolved by our Church, and it must solve it, for it is a life-question, on which its very existence depends. And great will be its triumph when it can write on its banner “E pluribus unum."

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

94. THE GENERAL SYNOD, WITH ITS DIVERSITY AND LIBERTY, IS IN DANGER OF LOSING ITS ORGANIC UNITY, WHILST OTHER BODIES (SYMBOLISTS,) IN ESTABLISHING A FALSE BOND OF UNION, DESTROY DIVERSITY AND LIBERTY.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
​

95. THE MISSION OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN THIS COUNTRY IS, TO UNITE GERMAN DEPTH AND THOROUGHNESS IN SCRIPTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND THEOLOGY WITH AMERICAN ZEAL AND ENERGY IN PRACTICAL LIFE, SO AS TO CORRECT THE EVILS OF INFIDELITY AND OF THE SUPERFICIAL TENDENCIES IN RELIGION, AND TO COUNTERACT THE EXTREMES OF PURITANISM AND FANATICISM.

The Lutheran Church has the very elements which are the hope of religion in this country. The German thoroughness in scholarship and depth in piety, combined with the practical spirit of Americans, is the very best and strongest combination. The German and American Churches need each other. Each has something the other lacks and greatly needs. Whilst the German Lutheran Churches of the land need more of the American energy and enterprise, the American Churches are much in need of the German practice of thoroughly instructing the children and youth in the doctrines of the Bible, thus laying a deep and strong foundation for a lasting and glorious superstructure.
Our Church has the best elements to counteract the superficial, infidel and fanatical tendencies of the age and the extremes of Puritanism; for its principles always lead it, not to one-sided sectarian creeds, but to the whole Gospel, which necessarily corrects these errors; and it has by far the deepest, the most numerous, the most comprehensive and the most Scriptural works of theology extant, so that from the Lutheran fountains flow streams that bless all other Churches. All her Protestant children still sit at the feet of the mother of Protestantism.

 

APPENDIX
​

“The Fundamental Principles of Faith’’ proposed by the Reading Convention and now forming the basis of the General Council, should be carefully studied by all. None who candidly examine them can fail to see that they give to human creeds an authority unconditionally binding, which is really Papistical and not Protestant. In proof of this assertion, we invite all to study these Principles thoroughly.

They are as follows:
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF FAITH.

We hold the following Principles touching the Faith of the Church and Church Polity, to be Fundamental and of necessity pre-supposed in any genuine Union of Evangelical Lutheran Synods:

I. There must be and abide through all time, one holy Christian Church, which is the assembly of all believers, among whom the Gospel is purely preached, and the Holy Sacraments are administered, as the Gospel demands.
To the true Unity of the Church, it is sufficient that there be agreement touching the doctrine of the Gospel, that it be preached in one accord, in its pure sense, and that the Sacraments be administered conformably to God’s Word.

II. The true Unity of a particular Church, in virtue of which men are truly members of one and the same Church, and by which any Church abides in real identity, and is entitled to a continuation of her name, is Unity in doctrine and faith and in the Sacraments, to wit:
That she continues to teach and to set forth, and that her true members embrace from the heart, and use, the articles of faith and the Sacraments as they were held and administered, when the Church came into distinctive being and received a distinctive name.

III. The Unity of the Church is witnessed to, and made manifest in, the solemn, public and official Confessions which are set forth, to wit: The generic Unity of the Christian Church in the general Creeds, and the specific Unity of pure parts of the Christian Church in their specific Creeds; one chief object of both classes of which Creeds is, that Christians who are in the Unity of faith, may know each other as such, and may have a visible bond of fellowship. t

That Confessions may be such a testimony of Unity and bond of Union, they must be accepted in every statement of doctrine, in their own true, native, original and only sense. Those who set them forth and subscribe them, must not only agree to use the same words, but must use and understand those words in one and the same sense.

The Unity of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as a portion of the holy Christian Church, depends upon her abiding in one and the same faith, in confessing which she obtained her distinctive being and name, her political recognition, and her history.

The Unaltered Augsburg Confession is by pre-eminence the confession of that faith. The acceptance of its doctrines and the avowal of them without equivocation or mental reservation, make, mark and identify that Church which alone in the true, original, historical and honest sense of the terms is the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

The only Churches, therefore, of any land, which are properly in the Unity of that Communion, and by consequence entitled to its name, Evangelical Lutheran, are those which sincerely hold and truthfully confess the doctrines of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.

VIII. We accept and acknowledge the doctrines of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession in its original sense as throughout in conformity with the pure truth of which God’s word is the only rule. We accept its statements of truth as in perfect accordance with the Canonical Scriptures: we reject the errors it condemns, and believe that all which it commits to the liberty of the Church, of right belongs to that liberty.

IX. In thus formally accepting and acknowledging the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, we declare our conviction, that the other Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, inasmuch as they set forth none other than its system of doctrine, and articles of faith, are of necessity pure and scriptural. Pre-eminent among such accordant, pure and scriptural statements of doctrine, by their intrinsic excellence, by the great and necessary ends for which they were prepared, by their historical position, and by the general judgment of. the Church, are these: the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Catechisms of Luther and the Formula of Concord, all of which are, with the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, in the perfect harmony of one and the same scriptural faith. The attempt in these “Fundamental Principlesâ€￾ to make human authority unconditionally binding, we oppose in the name of the whole Protestant Church, and in the language of the immortal protest which gave that Church its name. The essential part of the protest reads as follows: “Moreover, the new edict declaring the Ministers shall preach the Gospel, explaining it according to the writings accepted by the holy Christian Church, we think that for this regulation to have any value, we should first agree on what is meant by the true and holy Church. Now, seeing that there is great diversity of opinion in this respect; that there is no sure doctrine but such as is conformable to the word of God; that the Lord forbids the teaching of any other doctrine; that each text of the holy Scriptures ought to be explained by other and clearer texts; that this holy Book is in all things necessary for the Christian, easy of understanding, and calculated to scatter the darkness, we are resolved, with the grace of God, to maintain the pure and exclusive preaching of his only Word, such as it is contained in the biblical books of the Old and New Testament, without adding anything thereto that may be contrary to it. This Word is the only truth; it is the sure rule of all doctrine and of all life, and can never fail or deceive us. He who builds on this foundation shall stand against all the powers of hell, while all the human vanities that are set up against it shall fall before the face of God.â€￾ D’Aubigne iv., p. 75. Luther’s views, so totally at variance with the “Fundamental Principles,â€￾ are well known. Julius Koestlin, whose authority no symbolist will question, in Herzog’s Encyclo., Art. “Luther,â€￾ p. 611, gives Luther’s views as follows: “That the word of God itself, which is accessible to all and by no means ambiguous, is decisive for every believer, and every layman by virtue of the spirit imparted to him, is to judge all things as a spiritual man and yet is to be judged by none. If thus there is to exist no decisive external human authority in spiritual things, the door seems to be opened to strife and factions; this Luther knows: by this means the devil wants to make us tired again of the Scriptures; if now men want to build on the Councils, the fathers and human decrees, then the Scriptures will be entirely lost, and men will be the devil’s altogether (mit haut und haaren God only can prevent this and help.â€￾ Thus the difference between the Protestant view of Creeds and that of the “Fundamental Principlesâ€￾ is apparent. No one can fail to see that the latter establish the very principles which Luther and the protest opposed. Bungener in his history of the Council of Trent (American Translation, p. 74) gives the difference between the Romish and Protestant Church on this subject, and it actually seems as if he gave the exact difference between the “Fundamental Principlesâ€￾ and the protest; for the former as clearly make human authority in spiritual things binding, as the latter aims to destroy that binding authority. He says, “with liberty, any party whatever—individual, congregation, or people, that momentarily loses the true doctrines of the Bible, never loses, at least, the thread by which it may be led back to them. The Roman Catholic, if he reject one single error of his Church, must break with a past, extending over twelve centuries—must repudiate a whole world. of traditions, and sever ties of every kind. The child of the Reformation, should his ancestors have erred, is not riveted by any such chains to their errors; these had not at their side, like the Roman Catholic’s ancestors, an immutable power ready to stereotype all their imaginations. In all Churches it may constantly happen that Christianity may be mingled with more or less alloy, according to time and places. With authority, the alloy and the metal are thrown into one; it would be rebellion and sacrilege to separate them. “With liberty, the alloy, should any remain, ever lies in the crucible of the Bible, and is ever subject to the action of that divine fire which alone is capable of separating it and expelling it.â€￾ This writer in opposing the binding authority of the decisions of the Council of Trent, so directly opposes the binding authority of human creeds as established by the modern General Council, that we cannot refrain from quoting a few more passages. “Yes, doubtless, an authority was necessary, absolutely necessary, for the preservation of so many things, which reason, conscience, and most of all, the Gospel, would so soon have exploded; but would that same Gospel, abandoned to itself, delivered into men’s hands as it came from the Apostles, with nothing but its divine beauty to defend it, without other means of constraint than are to be found in the majesty of its doctrines, and the resistless charm of its morality—would that Gospel run any risk of being lost? Would it not always have been there, an inspired guide, an immutable regulator, to keep people in the way of truth, or to bring them back to it? . . . . With authority the Bible was eclipsed: with liberty never, whatever some men may have said or done, never have men’s eyes ceased to be fixed on it.â€￾ “Established for the purpose of conservation, authority behooves to preserve everything, and this is the greatest evil she has done to religion and to herself.â€￾