# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1848_S55
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 55 —

...does not thereby become invalid itself. It is more advisable, however, if
the pastor is informed beforehand who those are who are to be invited to
this act. — But if the question is asked whether the erring in faith are also
to be admitted, one must carefully distinguish whether they are
incorrigible, blasphemers, and open scoffers, or whether they will let
themselves be taught and instructed. Not the former but the latter we
hold to be admissible, for by their presence they approve our baptism, and
thereby acknowledge the church's presence among us, and can be won
over. In this case, too, the child is not thereby bound to the erring
religion; rather, the sponsor of erring faith obligates himself instead to the
faith and confession of the Apostles' Creed. If, accordingly, the observance
of a custom which in itself belongs among the things indifferent
[adiaphora] neither adds anything to nor takes anything from baptism
itself — and if, further, the worthiness or unworthiness of the baptizer
himself neither helps nor harms — then still less can the error of the
sponsors do the sacrament any injury. One should therefore have regard
for the simple, the weak, and those in whom there is hope of improvement,
and not always let sharpness and the strictest right prevail, especially
where time, place, person, and other circumstances speak for it and there
is no danger of giving offense."

Regarding weddings, the committee is convinced that, barring forbidden
degrees of kinship that would render a marriage altogether impermissible
(which is not the question here), a minister of the church cannot refuse the
blessing of marriage even to those who do not belong to the church,
because marriage is not a means of grace that Christ gave only to his
church, but a divine institution for all people, and because God has
pronounced his blessing on this estate in general.

The committee appends a relevant "opinion" [Bedenken] of Spener's on
this, Book 4, p. 694: "Thus it (the minister's act at a wedding) consists in
nothing other than that, in God's name, the marriage which the persons
have contracted between themselves is thereby confirmed, so that they
shall live together undivided all their days, and their cohabitation be
distinguished from other unmarried commingling and vaga libidine [vague
lust]; and that it — provided it otherwise takes place in reverence for
Him — is not displeasing to God. This I cannot, in itself, regard as an
evangelical means of grace; for God wills such a separation of marriage
from other extramarital commingling among the whole human race, and
so willingly lends his name to the execution of his own institution —
though I readily admit that this general divine order is [additionally]
sanctified among believers. Meanwhile the first point alone is enough,
that I may, without profaning the divine name, marry couples who stand
outside of grace as well. As for the blessing, it is offered in the name of
the Lord; if the people then render themselves incapable [of receiving it],
the fault is theirs, and our peace returns to us. Matt. 10:13."

Now, as Pastor Hattstädt further asks how funeral sermons are to be
handled, the committee sets forth the following as its conviction: those
heretics who obstinately defend and spread their errors and revile the
truth should, according to the general judgment of our old theologians,
not be buried with our church ceremonies. But if the erring in faith are
such as have erred in some points of Christian truth out of mere
ignorance, yet at their death relied on Christ and his merit alone, then a
Christian...