# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1845 12 22_S34
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

there can be no talk of any legally recognized and especially confirmed established state church, it is clear that the civil authority, even though it may be called Christian, can have and wishes to have no participation in the direction and administration of the church, or in church government. Only where, as a result of the fanatical outbreaks of this or that sect, the safety of persons or property is endangered, and thus the civil laws are violated, must the civil authority naturally intervene — the authority which represents the state as a legal institution and, through punishment, restores the right against the wrongdoers as violators of the civil order.

Through this complete separation of church and state in this country there arises, admittedly, the drawback that the wildest and most absurd sects are permitted to move about and spread here with the same freedom as the churches that are wholly or at least partly obedient to the Word of God, so long as the former do not violate the laws of the state. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that through such a principled separation of church and state a twofold evil is prevented and guarded against, an evil that has proven ruinous enough in the course of history and still does. The one evil is the encroachment of the church, or properly of priestly rule (hierarchy), upon the state and the states, and such reciprocal relations of the same as do not directly concern conscience toward God and faith. This godless encroachment was diligently practiced by the Roman-papist church, especially between the ninth and sixteenth centuries, in keeping with its abominable lust for dominion and tyranny; for the popes took away the rights of emperors and kings, deposed and installed them, and gave away land and people at will, forgetful of the word of Christ: "Who made me a divider over you?" And the devil's vassal, the pope, still holds the same disposition today, even though at present he lacks the power to put it into effect.

The other evil is the encroachment of the state, that is, of the civil authority, upon the church — that is, upon its administration and order that conform to the divine Word, or its church government — indeed even, in part, upon that right within its territory, previously confirmed to it by the secular government and territorial ruler, freely and unhindered to confess and practice its doctrine even in the common public worship service. (Caesaropapism.) Guilty of such encroachments have been, for example — incited by the papists — the King of France in his persecution of the Huguenots, with the terrible outcome of the Parisian Blood Wedding; further, the princes of Sardinia and Savoy in their persecution of the Waldensians; the English kings in forcing through the episcopal constitution; and so also, in more recent times, several princes of Germany, led by the late King of Prussia,*) in order to form out of Lutherans and Reformed a so-called United, or Evangelical, or Protestant church — forgetful of the word of Christ: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

It is therefore natural that the Lutheran church here cannot have a constitution such as, for example, in Germany; for there the so-called consistories are established, consisting half of clerical and half of secular members, which, together with the superintendents and general superintendents, are appointed and ordained by the highest civil authority, the territorial ruler, to conduct the church government.

Yet we here can hardly complain bitterly about this lack of a consistorial constitution; for it seems to us to be rather defective, indeed quite questionable, precisely in this: that the consistories, as the governing authorities of the church, are formally installed and ordained by the territorial ruler, as the head of the state, as his representatives who conduct the church government in his name. But this is, in fact, already an encroachment of the state upon the church, or of the civil government upon the spiritual, since here the territorial ruler appears as supreme bishop or as secular pope over the Lutheran church in his land. Now, in fact and in truth, he is only the secular ruler of this or that state, within which the Lutheran church has legal standing and guaranteed validity through the Peace of Augsburg of 1555 and the Peace of Westphalia of 1648; and considered as an individual Christian, even if he shares the Lutheran confession, he is only a member of the Lutheran church, like the least of his subjects. By right, then, nothing else would be due to him, as territorial ruler, than to confirm, by virtue of his princely authority, and to protect externally, the governing body chosen by the church itself as such — whether bishops and superintendents, or presbyteries, or synods within his territory — provided that particular provisions in these various constitutions of church government do not themselves in some way disruptively encroach upon the constitution of the state and violate its rights.

*) It is documented on record how these Prussian attempts at union were carried out. The refusal by Lutheran clergy and congregations to accept the newly fabricated united liturgy — because this liturgy, in the conduct of worship and of the particular churchly acts, did not express the confession and doctrine of their church, to which the servants of the church had, after all, sworn unconditional fidelity in their oath of office — was regarded as civil disobedience and defiance of the king, and was punished with fines and imprisonment; indeed, the faithful and steadfast witnesses among the Lutheran clergy against these violations of the right of their church and of their own conscience were deposed from their office as stubborn rebels against His Majesty the King, and thrown into prison or banished from the land. The superintendents, on the other hand, who partly themselves accepted the liturgy against right and conscience, and introduced it in their districts without resistance from the clergy — some of them ignorant, some intimidated — received, as reward for this willingness and their services, the Order of the Red Eagle.

Our church in this country, therefore, being in no way endangered or hampered by the state, is most naturally directed, for its government and guidance, toward the synodical constitution — so that here the synods are not merely deliberative and advisory assemblies, as for example in the Lutheran Baltic provinces of Russia, nor merely defenders of the pure doctrine of the Gospel and refuters of false teaching, like the synod of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem (Acts 15:5) and the four general synods or councils of the first four centuries — both of which kinds of synods consisted only of ministers of the church — but rather assemblies and bodies which, in the name of, that is, by the mandate and on behalf of, the church, that is, of the whole body of all adult and confirmed members, according to local and regional circumstances, are to direct, oversee, and administer the church in keeping with its nature and purpose.

It is therefore clear that the synods of our church here consist not merely of ministers of the Word, but also of such members of their congregations in whom the congregations place their trust as churchly minded, believing, and sensible people, and who are therefore elected as synodical members by majority vote of the congregations. These, then, elected for a shorter or longer term, together with the ministers of the church, form the synods, which now, partly in periodic — mostly annual — meetings (here consisting mostly of a president, secretary, and treasurer), have to order, direct, and administer everything that is useful and necessary to the church with regard to doctrine, life, worship, and discipline. All the means, then, which serve to maintain and promote our church on every side, in keeping with its nature and purpose, the synods are to set in motion as vigorously as their resources allow, and to oversee their harmonious and living cooperation.

So much for now. More on the particular constitution and the conduct of business of such synods later.

(To be continued.)

Pope Leo X.

When this Pope, who excommunicated Luther, once heard two philosophers disputing about the immortality of the soul, he said to the one who defended it: "You do indeed prove the immortality of the soul with excellent arguments, but I would rather side with the other one, because his opinion gives good courage." He added the verse of Cornelius Gallus: Et redit in nihilum, quod fuit ante nihil — that is, what arose from nothing also returns into its nothing.

*) We consider it good to have the present article printed in full first, without any remarks from our own side. Later we intend to take up once more the subjects touched upon in it and also to add our modest voice on the matter. — Editor of the Lutheraner.