# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1846 09 19_S9
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

...more legitimate. Should the one called, however, later fall into false doctrine or offensive conduct, or into both, and persist therein, such that the steps of admonition according to Matthew 18:15–17 prove ineffective on him — both first within the congregation and then also on the part of the synod — then it is not only the synod's duty to remove him from its fellowship, and thereby to declare him unfit for the continued exercise of the holy office, but the congregation also has the right to dismiss him thereafter without any further compensation.

Thus, even in this worst case, the welfare of the congregation is better safeguarded than it would be by a trial acceptance of the preacher for a fixed period. On the other hand, the divine order and the dignity of the holy preaching office are duly upheld.

On Chapter V, § 11, "licenses" (2.)

2) It is indeed true that, to our knowledge, among the old, already-established synods, the practice exists of granting to unexamined candidates for the holy preaching office, if they are called by one or more congregations, a license — that is, a certificate of permission — to administer the holy office for one year in the congregations concerned. Without doubt this practice arose because some of the previously ordained preachers later proved unfit, and perhaps taught and lived so falsely that they had to leave their congregations. The synods then believed they had to guard, in such cases, against the possible misuse of the certificate of ordination by such persons among unsuspecting, isolated congregations, and accordingly hit upon the measure of granting these licenses. Yet the possible misuse just mentioned could also be met, even without this arrangement, in two ways: first, by proceeding as thoroughly and carefully as possible in examining candidates and investigating their doctrinal and moral standing; and second, by making the fact of the final, necessary expulsion of a stubbornly godless preacher from the synod as widely known as possible, so that pastorless and abandoned congregations might be on their guard against him — although such congregations should also, quite properly, ask after his certificate of withdrawal from the synod and after the testimonials of the congregations he had previously served, rather than relying merely on his bare certificate of ordination.

The possible advantage of licenses could thus also be attained by these means. On the other hand, the following weighty reasons speak decisively against them:

1) They are wholly contrary to apostolic and ecclesiastical practice, which knows only of ordination.

2) They presuppose a distrust of the licentiates' disposition, even though one nevertheless entrusts them with all the functions of the holy office. Now the matter stands thus, that on the part of the synod,

[p. 9]

one ought not surrender one's own heart to unfounded distrust, but should not surrender the holy office to distrust that is well-founded.

3) They introduce an improper distinction between the ordained and the licensed (the latter, here and there, may not even attend the sessions of the ministerium, or at least have no vote), even though both administer the same office with equal independence; and under certain circumstances they can also easily generate and nourish a strained relationship between the two.

4) They hinder in the licensed a firm, joyful conscience regarding their office, since they can rightly find in their licenses no confirmation of their office and calling ordered according to apostolic and ecclesiastical practice.

On Chapter V, § 14, "is compelled" (3.)

3) It is historically known that the Reformed, in their reforming zeal against the Romanists, went astray not only in individual articles of doctrine — as, for example, in those concerning divine predestination and the holy sacraments and the office of the keys — but also fell into the opposite error in ecclesiastical practice; for they abolished all sorts of ecclesiastical customs, habits, and usages, some of which had already been introduced into the church before the rise of the papacy, and some of which stood in no relation whatsoever to Roman false doctrine. Among these innocuous, pleasant, and edifying ecclesiastical customs and usages belong, among others, the observance of the church festivals, preaching on the Sunday Gospel and Epistle lessons of Holy Scripture (the pericopes), the service at the altar, the use of the host, the sign of the cross, the organ, bells, candles, etc. Now although these ceremonies were, to be sure, not commanded by God, but rather left to the church's freedom, the Reformed nevertheless sinned against weak consciences by abolishing these ecclesiastical customs too hastily and violently, and thereby abused their Christian liberty contrary to Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8:9. But not only that — they set up this abolition of theirs, as it were, as a new law, and demanded that the Lutherans adopt the same, on pain of otherwise still being considered papist. For this reason the Lutheran Church could not comply with them in this, since otherwise she would have sold the precious article of her Christian liberty and forged herself new, false fetters of law. Still less, however, could she yield in such matters and adopt those new ceremonies of the Reformed which stood in connection with their new false doctrine and were, as it were, an act confessing the false teaching — as, for example, the breaking of the bread at the Holy Supper, which was meant to depict the breaking of Christ's body on the cross, although, according to John 19:36, this had, properly speaking, not happened at all. To this also belonged the taking of the blessed bread and cup with the hand, which the Reformed likewise regard as essential, as though — again contrary to John 19:30 — no other manner of taking were possible than that with the hand, and as though this outward manner of giving and receiving were of the utmost importance, while it mattered less whether one is to believe the words of institution of the almighty and true Son of God, "This is my body," childlike and simply, just as they read, or whether one is to regard them as ambiguous and indefinite. To this belonged, further, the use of bread instead of the host, although the latter, too, consists of nothing other than flour and water; likewise the adoption of the words used in the distribution of the Holy Supper, "Christ says, this is," etc., which the so-called Evangelicals or Unionists have now also adopted, and which correspond to the answer to Questions 78 and 79 in the Heidelberg Catechism. In all these and similar matters the Lutheran Church neither could nor can yield to the Reformed, nor adopt their ecclesiastical forms and customs — partly, as has been said, in order to maintain her Christian liberty and not allow anything to be forced upon her as essential and necessary (Galatians 5:1) which God has left free, that is, neither commanded nor forbidden; and partly in order to avoid the evil appearance of not being in great and holy earnest about upholding the pure doctrine and refuting the false one, by adopting the ceremonies of the false teachers precisely where she ought most strictly to avoid them — namely, where, as for example at the Holy Supper, the false doctrine passes into ecclesiastical act and usage; and partly so as not to give offense to her own children by just such an adoption.

On Chapter V, § 15, "so-called new measures" (4.)

4) By this we understand the institutions that have arisen here mostly in the wake of Methodism, aimed at producing as rapid and forcible, eye-catching a conversion as possible. To these belong, for example, the field assemblies (camp meetings), the protracted meetings, the so-called anxious bench, and the like. Since this is neither the time nor the place to go into particulars, we content ourselves with testifying to our decided disapproval and rejection of this extra-ecclesiastical and unchurchly practice, and that for the following reasons:

1) Because these so-called new measures wish to be and to work as something special alongside and above the simple preaching of the divine Word and the right administration of the holy sacraments together with the office of the keys;

2) because they displace and disturb the divine order of salvation, in that, in their essential character, they set themselves in the place of Holy Baptism, denying it, in good Reformed fashion, without actually saying so, the status of being the essential and effective means of grace of the Holy Spirit for regeneration, although Titus 3:5 and John 3:5 teach this beyond doubt.

3) because, at best, they one-sidedly stir up feeling into isolated emotions and agitations, without producing a thorough