# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juli 1855_S201
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The Erlangen “Journal for Protestantism and the Church.” 201

[illegible]; thus it is also known how, a few years ago in this country, the little Calvinist rabble betrayed itself when they claimed to have signed the Formula of Concord, but only in genere, in summa rei, in fundamento, in a scriptural sense, and whatever other expressions there were—by which method many an unscrupulous fellow might also sign the Turkish Koran and the Jewish Talmud and accept such writings in genere.” (Consil. theol. Witeberg. 1664, fol. 479.) The old, honest Württemberg General Superintendent Heilbruner had reported and judged precisely the same thing even earlier. Thus he writes in his Synopsis doctrinae Calv. altera of 1595: “If the Calvinists were not convicted by their own conscience that they falsely boast of adhering to the Augsburg Confession, they would not so often add ‘the scriptural sense,’ that is, the sense which they wish to have regarded as scriptural. With such an exception, a person could sign the Turkish Koran and other books of lies, even though he himself would not approve of them . . . But what purpose can such deceit serve in such important matters of religion and faith? It is certainly not an indication of the Holy Spirit, but of a cunning, deceitful spirit that shuns the light. For pure Christian teachers do not practice deceit, nor do they falsify God’s Word, but by openly declaring the truth they commend themselves before God to every person’s conscience. 2 Corinthians 4.” (P. 364.) Dr. G. Wornsdorf, formerly professor and General Superintendent at Wittenberg, reports and assesses in his Bericht von dem Indifferentismo religionum that in later times it was again precisely the Calvinists who employed that qualification when they wished to assure the Lutherans of their alleged consensus in doctrine. According to a German translation published in 1734 with a preface by V. E. Löscher, it states: “The teachers must first examine the confession according to Holy Scripture. An examination, I say. For it is one thing to explain the confessions from Scripture, but quite another to test and examine them according to Scripture. For the Zwinglians formerly offered—and only recently Heideggerus did so as well (in his Introd. in Viam Concord. Protestant.)—to sign the Augsburg Confession, provided only that they were permitted to interpret and understand it according to Scripture. Although this condition has some appearance of fairness, it is in fact deceptive and entails no small danger. For all heretics are accustomed, under the pretext of explanation and interpretation, to introduce their own meaning into Holy Scripture . . . If they were therefore permitted to interpret the confessions according to Scripture, they would, through a falsified understanding of Scripture, also falsify the confessions themselves . . . The interpretation of the confessional writings must therefore nowhere else