# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1844 09 29_S10
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

a bishop would thereby become a forerunner of the Antichrist. As long as the bishops of Rome still wrote in this way, as long as they still recoiled at the thought that, by the title of a universal bishop of all Christendom, Christ, the sole Head of the Church, would be robbed of his honor, there still existed a true Church, which called itself the catholic or universal one. But what meaning does the phrase "catholic Church" have now? — Now it is the fellowship of those who acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church, as the vicar of Christ and of God Himself,* regard him as infallible, and render unconditional obedience to his commands; who must therefore venerate as untouchable doctrines of the true Church all the countless papal errors, such as: the sacrifice of the Mass, the invocation of the saints, purgatory, the veneration of images and relics, papal indulgence, human satisfactions and the meritoriousness of self-chosen human works, the prohibition of the Bible and of marriage, the traditions or unwritten word of God, the compulsion of fasting, etc., etc. — as all the confessions and catechisms of the new Roman Catholic Church themselves attest in plain words, with the explicit declaration that outside this faith no one can be saved. (Professio fidei catholicae, extracted from the Council of Trent by His Holiness Pius IV, No. 28.) Since it is therefore clear from this that the name "Catholic" has received a new meaning — namely, that it now designates the Roman papacy with all its abominations, and by no means the universal Christian Church, but rather a sect — no one, surely, who still acknowledges God's Word as the sole rule of the Christian faith, can expect us to bear this name.

A third person will perhaps therefore say: Then call yourselves Reformed; for that is indeed what you wish to be, namely, the Church cleansed of all false teachings and abuses! — It is true that this name too, if we take it in its literal sense, describes admirably what the Lutheran Church claims to be, as it indeed calls itself in its own confessional writings. (Formula of Concord, Epitome, col. 256b.) But would it be honest to give ourselves a name which, though in its original meaning it once described what we would have in mind by it, has now acquired a wholly different meaning, and would therefore be understood in a wholly different way? Would we not thereby commit that sin of secret reservation, taking our own words in a different sense than everyone else takes them? God forbid! A truthful person must speak in such a way that through his words he reveals to others the true sense of his heart. The character of the true Church has therefore always been that of the most complete sincerity. Whereas all false churches have always, in their expressions, approached the orthodox confession as closely as they possibly could — that is, just so far as they could still craftily conceal and keep in reserve their erroneous opinion beneath it — the true Church, on the contrary, has always spoken all the more plainly, and drawn up and confessed its doctrines all the more precisely and definitely, the more this became necessary in the course of time, if it did not wish to be misunderstood.

But what does one now understand by the name "Reformed Church"? — The fellowship of all those who have adopted the opinions of a Zwingli and a Calvin. These so-called Reformed confess that man is not regenerated through Holy Baptism; that it is merely a sign and seal of grace, but not a means of grace. Reformed are further called those who confess that they hold the Holy Supper to be merely a memorial meal, in which the body and blood of Christ, according to the Zwinglians, are not received at all, and according to the Calvinists are received only spiritually — by no means, as Christ says, truly present, and therefore received sacramentally with the mouth.† Reformed are further those who confess that God, by an unconditional eternal decree, predestined some to salvation and some to damnation. For thus it is stated in the most important public confession of the Reformed churches, at the Synod of Dort: "The Reformed churches teach that the reason why God, after having elected some, passed by the rest" (that is, rejected them), "is not their impenitence and their unbelief, but solely God's good pleasure." (Synod of Dort, p. 535.) It further states in this confession: "It was the wholly free decree of God that Christ, through the blood of his cross, should truly redeem out of every people, tribe, kindred, and tongue all those — and indeed only those — who from eternity have been elected to salvation." (Ch. 2, Art. 8.) Who would not be terrified to read that this is truly the doctrine of the Reformed Church? Indeed, will not perhaps even some who call themselves Reformed be terrified when they read this, not having suspected that their church teaches such errors in its public confessions, sometimes openly, sometimes more covertly? The Reformed Church contradicts, first of all, the clear word of Christ concerning the Holy Sacraments, for Christ speaks plainly of both: "This is my body; this is my blood." "Truly, truly I say to you: unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." The Reformed Church further, through its doctrine of election by grace, denies the highest comfort of the Gospel, that God wills that all people be helped (1 Timothy 2:4); it tears sinners away from Christ, does not allow them to approach him with full confidence, and gives them nothing but the anxious uncertainty of whether they are elected or rejected by God. Indeed, through that doctrine the Reformed Church rolls onto God the blame that not all people are saved, and thus blasphemes his eternal mercy in Christ. How, then, since the name "Reformed" now designates this faith, could we Lutherans bear it — we who remain simply with God's clear Word, and recognize as the core and star of the Gospel the article that Christ is a Savior of all sinners, that he will not cast out whoever comes to him? — Far be it from us! — With this we also explain at the same time why we cannot call ourselves Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, and the like. For all these communions have, alongside many other gross errors, likewise adopted the false doctrine of the Reformed concerning the Holy Sacraments, and the Presbyterians and Baptists in particular have also adopted the doctrine of election by grace.

What, then — some others will perhaps now say — what can you object to the name "Evangelical"? With that you surely could and should fairly exchange the Lutheran name? You would not thereby be obliged to accept any doctrine you consider false? Do you not know that the Evangelicals constitute the fellowship of those who allow everyone full freedom in the articles in which the Lutheran and Reformed churches teach differently, and leave it to each person's conscience what he wishes to preach as the true meaning of Christ? — We do indeed know this; but that is precisely the reason why we can no longer call ourselves Evangelical. The name in itself is indeed glorious and precious; indeed, it was precisely the Lutheran Church that for a considerable time alone was called the evangelical one. Whoever, two or three hundred years ago, said, "I am an Evangelical," thereby confessed himself, as all the world knew, to be a Lutheran. It was Luther, after all, through whom God delivered his Gospel once more into every hand. But times have changed, and with them customs and the meanings of names. Whoever now says, "I am an Evangelical," thereby confesses that he is such a Christian of whom one cannot know what he believes concerning several of the chief articles of the Christian religion. Now I ask, whoever

* Mr. Oertel indeed denies — as we have read with astonishment in the Wahrheitsfreund (Vol. 7, No. 39, p. 309) — that according to Catholic doctrine the Pope is the vicar of God; and in so doing this man, whom we deeply pity, betrays that, without having seriously examined the doctrine of the Roman Church, he threw himself into her arms in the hour of temptation. For he always takes refuge in the decrees of the Tridentine Council whenever he is confronted with errors publicly taught by Catholic theologians, and declares that Catholic doctrine must be judged chiefly by the decisions of that council. Let Mr. Oertel therefore take the trouble to look up: Council of Trent, Session VI, Decree on Reform, ch. 1, Lyon edition, p. 52, where he will find that this Council calls the Pope, in plain words, "ipsius Dei in terris Vicarium" — "the vicar of God Himself on earth." Perhaps a more thorough study of the un-catholic doctrine of the Roman Church could yet open Mr. Oertel's eyes again. Mr. Oertel has himself expressly called us to combat in his Wahrheitsfreund; we shall not fail to appear on the field of battle.

† I refer here to the example of Calvin and of the Heidelberg Catechism, which speak of the Holy Supper almost like a Lutheran, but at bottom teach nothing different about it from Zwingli and his like.