# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1846 04 18_S66
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

secret Reformed, that is, of false belief, and regard Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper as merely outward husks and shells, without kernel or marrow; for if they were sincerely Lutheran in this — that is, rightly believing — and understood and taught these Holy means of grace simply and without artifice according to the words of institution of the Lord Jesus Christ, as they read, it would be impossible for them not to confess themselves gladly and willingly to the Evangelical Lutheran Church, since at present no other church believes, confesses, and teaches concerning the Holy Sacraments in accordance with Scripture except the evangelical Church of the Lutheran confession. —

4) They presume to regard the doctrines of Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper as secondary doctrines, and pretend that a union between Lutherans and Reformed is quite possible, even though the former hold a Lutheran (that is, scriptural) view of the Holy Sacraments, while the latter hold a Reformed (that is, fanatical) view. Against this, however, the following must be said:

a) It is, in general, human presumption to regard this or that link in the golden chain of pure doctrine as less important than the others. If one imagines that one may remove this or that link according to human opinion and arbitrary will, then the whole chain is broken in two — just as a bell that has a crack or flaw at one point will never again ring purely anywhere. The Apostle Paul says: "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" (Galatians 5:9); and that these warning words concern doctrine in particular is shown by the context, just as in Galatians 1:8 he pronounces a curse upon himself, or upon any other creature, who would falsify his Gospel or add to it or take away from it. But the Holy Sacraments are the divine seal upon the charter of grace of the Gospel. What man, then, may be so presumptuous and wicked as to regard this seal and its evangelical inscription with indifference and contempt, and yet at the same time pretend to have great respect for the word of grace above this seal?

b) It is not true that the doctrines of Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper are secondary doctrines. For, in the first place, they constitute half of the truth of salvation for the appropriation of salvation in Christ, since the Holy Spirit imparts to us Christ and His merit only through them and through the preaching of the Gospel; and in the second place, it is precisely the motley crowd of spiritual partisans and freebooters here in America — who deal so pitifully and so ruinously with poor souls — that teaches how important and essential the pure doctrine and administration of the Holy Sacraments is. For however much these spiritual party-leaders disagree among themselves, they are nevertheless all agreed in this: that, for example, 1) they thoroughly despise and hate the pure scriptural doctrine of the Lutheran Church concerning Holy Baptism, and in doing so 2) mix the Law into the Gospel. As for the first point, it is clear and evident that these leaders either make the time and manner of Holy Baptism the main issue — as, for example, the Baptists in all their branches and offshoots — or else let it stand outwardly as an empty form, administering it as such, while inwardly valuing the mourner's bench more highly, and setting their own self-chosen human inventions — such as particular manners of prayer, individual pangs of repentance, and feelings of grace, and so forth — in the place, as it were, of Holy Baptism, as the Methodists, United Brethren, and others do.

But what is this other than a shameful and harmful intermixing of the Law into the Gospel, to the ruin of souls? What is it other than the clouding and falsification of God's covenant of grace with man in Holy Baptism? What is it other than the production of a sickly, wavering, and uncertain faith of feeling, and the hindrance of the sound, firm, and certain faith of Scripture and the Church — a faith which, following prior, thorough, and sincere contrition and repentance in the face of the Law, is comforted like a child by the firm, unchangeable act of grace of God in Holy Baptism, that is, in the washing of regeneration? What is this other than legalistic trumpery and a darkening of the grace of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the means of grace of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel and Sacrament — on which man is to stand fast with a penitent and believing mind, and not on his inner feelings of repentance and faith, which are strong today, weak tomorrow, not felt at all the day after, and on the following day turn even into despair or false security? — Does this not mean despising God's Word and setting up one's own work in its place? Does it not mean abolishing, or at least weakening, the Gospel, which institutes Holy Baptism as an act of the triune God, while setting up alongside and against it the fine new legalistic trumpery of individual feelings of repentance and faith as a kind of cooperating merit? Is not the supremely important article of justification most grievously damaged by such legalistic, false sanctification? And are not thousands upon thousands of souls most shamefully cheated and robbed of their most glorious and firm comfort of grace, and cast instead into constant unrest, pointed to the patchwork of their sickly conversion? Indeed, truly! If one were to take genuine pearls and precious stones away from these souls and give them wax pearls and cut glass in their place, or, instead of piloting them into the harbor, left them out on the restless sea so that they could indeed see the land but could not land — that would be a small thing by comparison. — And should the doctrine of the Holy Sacraments, whose misapprehension and contempt bring all this misery upon so many souls, be a secondary doctrine?

c) A true union between Lutherans and Reformed is possible only if the latter abandon their proud rationalistic conceit concerning the Holy Sacraments and other matters connected with it, accept the words of institution simply and in faith, as they read, and thereby enter into the scriptural and original doctrine of the Church as the Lutheran Church holds and maintains it. Then, indeed, a true evangelical Church would exist and would need no further surname. We Lutherans would then gladly and joyfully let go of the epithet "Lutheran"; and surely the dear man of God, Dr. Martin Luther himself, would rejoice over this in heaven, if he could look down from the Church triumphant upon the Church militant. — But the matter presently stands quite otherwise. For the Reformed still stubbornly cling to their head-fanaticism concerning Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and however much Zwingli and Calvin disagree on this in other respects, they are nevertheless agreed on this: that in the water, bread, and wine no heavenly gift is imparted and received through the Word of God. —

How, then, can a true union between Lutherans and Reformed be possible, for the sake of agreement in other doctrines, out of a pure and sincere heart and with an unwounded conscience, both toward God and toward men? On the contrary, this present union and the disposition of today's so-called Evangelicals constitute a manifold violation of heart and conscience, particularly on the Lutheran side, and we ask our dear Lutheran fellow believers, near and far, to read what follows attentively and to consider it earnestly.

In the first place, "the pattern of sound words" (2 Timothy 1:13) — that is, the pure doctrine of salvation for the soul's blessedness — is not our own independent possession, such that we could deal and dispose of it as we please and add to or take away from it at our pleasure, holding this article to be important and that one unimportant; rather, this pure truth of salvation is entrusted to us by God in His Word in all its parts; it is His possession; we, on the other hand, are to be faithful stewards and managers of this treasure of grace. This happens, however, when we receive this doctrine of salvation of God's Word, in preaching and Sacrament, with repentance and faith, and then also, each according to his calling, testify to it and maintain it outwardly, orally and in writing, preserve it, and propagate it, as the "rule and like-mindedness" of which the Apostle speaks in Philippians 3:16.

How, then, could we here, against God's clear Word, yield to the opposing teacher even in a single point of this doctrine of salvation, and, for the sake of outward fellowship and unity, give up the truth on that point and allow ourselves to accept an erroneous interpretation of it? What would we say of a servant who gave away something of his master's possessions against his master's will? Or who calmly looked on while someone took away his master's gold and put brass in its place? Would he not in any case be a thief? (See Luke 16:10.) Does it not say, "We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth," come what may, however it pleases God? Should we not, for the proper preservation of Christian liberty, stake goods and blood — that is, that we, through