# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1846 12 22_S51
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

against Luther — who, after all, should almost be a doctor in this art; he has indeed preached, composed, spoken, written, sung, and read so much about it, and yet must remain a pupil in it, and at times is neither pupil nor master. Therefore let yourself be advised, and do not say, "Aha, I am standing firm" — rather watch, and do not fall. You can do it all — but watch, lest the art fail you. Fear, be humble, and pray that you may grow in this art and be kept safe from the crafty devil, nicknamed "Clever" or "Knowitall," who can do everything and learns in a flash.

Now if you wish or must deal with matters concerning the law, or works, or the sayings and examples of the fathers, then above all things take the chief article for yourself, and do not let yourself be found without this article, so that the dear sun, Christ, may shine on you in your heart; then you can freely and confidently judge through and above all laws, examples, sayings, and works, and say: Well then, if there is something good and right in this, I well know that it is good and right no further than for this life; for as regards grace and that life to come, Christ alone is good and right. And where you do not do this, you may be certain that the laws, sayings, examples, and works, with their fair appearance and with the great authority of their author, will lead you astray, so that you no longer know where you stand. I have seen this also in St. Bernard: when that same man begins to speak of Christ, it goes along in a way that is a delight; but when he is outside of this article and speaks of rules or works, it is no longer St. Bernard. And so it goes also with St. Augustine, Gregory, and all the others: when Christ is not present with them, they are nothing but worldly teachers, like the philosophers or the jurists.

That is why Scripture also calls Christ a cornerstone, upon which everything that is to stand before God must be built and founded. But whatever is built without him, or not founded upon him, must come to nothing and cannot stand. And what is lacking now in those mad saints and factions, other than that they have abandoned this cornerstone and have fallen back into works? There they cannot get free, but must go on, and even out of Baptism and the Sacrament (which are, after all, God's Word and command) make nothing but a work of their own devising.

For example, the Anabaptists say that Baptism is nothing if the person was not already righteous beforehand; they do not want to become righteous through and from Baptism, but rather want, through their own righteousness, to make Baptism holy and good. This means (I think) that they have utterly lost this cornerstone, and instead of becoming holy through Christ's grace, which Baptism gives, they want to become holy beforehand through themselves, so that Baptism gives nothing, effects nothing, brings nothing — but we bring and give everything to Baptism beforehand, so that it is nothing but a merely unnecessary sign, by which one might

51

recognize such holy people; whereas Baptism cannot even be such a lasting sign or mark by which one could recognize someone, since it happens only once, and afterward one can no longer tell it on anyone. The enthusiasts do the very same thing with their sacrament: it is not meant to make one righteous or to give grace, but only to show and testify how righteous and holy they are without such a sacrament.

And what has produced, within the papacy, such division, countless sects, factions, and idolatry of all sorts of mad saints, priests, monks, and nuns, other than that they have fallen away from Christ and sought to become righteous beforehand through works?

That is why St. Paul teaches the Ephesians and the Colossians so diligently that Christ is our head, and that we should indeed diligently hold fast to the head, and thus remain joined to one another as members of one body, and grow. For the devil does not rest and does not sleep; he would gladly tear us away from this head; he knows well that this article breaks his neck and crushes his serpent's head, as is promised in Genesis 3:15.

But may God, our dear eternal Father, who has so richly enlightened us through his beloved Son and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, also strengthen us through his Holy Spirit with full faith, and grant us power that we may follow such light faithfully and diligently, and, together with all the nations, praise and glorify him both in doctrine and in life. To him be thanks and honor for all his unspeakable grace and gifts, forever. Amen.

(Correspondence.)

And they had such a sharp disagreement that they parted from one another, etc. Acts 15:39. To these words a [illegible] preacher adds the remark: "This happened in that Paul no doubt pointed out what a hindrance it might be to them if they were again provided with Mark just as before, whereas Barnabas objected that Mark had meanwhile become stronger, had repented of his fault of faintheartedness, and the like."

Almost similar circumstances now prevail between the Synod of Michigan and the brethren who have withdrawn from it. Unfortunately, however, what is at issue here is something that does not seem to have been the case there among those disciples of the Lord. Especially striking to me, among other things, are the words quoted in an article by Mr. A. C. in the last issue of the "Lutheraner": "And yet all sincere Lutherans could rejoice most heartily in the pure, scriptural sermon on the Lord's Supper which H. delivered at one place during this year's synodical convention, since immediately afterward, with purely Reformed communion ceremonies, open mockery was made of the Lutheran character."

I would indeed have much to say about the whole letter of Mr. A. C., but I hope that the unnamed member of the Synod of Michigan who signed in the second-to-last issue, and whom I am not able to name, will himself specifically defend himself against this attack. Therefore, only this briefly for now: I take the liberty of telling these dear brethren who have withdrawn that — although Mr. A. C., in his reply to the Synod of Michigan, holds up the words: "Just as little do we allow it, when our confessions are interpreted according to subjective preference" — they themselves are not even in agreement among themselves as to the correct understanding of these confessions. These dear brothers themselves prove and testify to this by the very manner in which they took part in the solemnity of the communion service mentioned in Mr. A. C.'s article. For the sake of brevity I will only note provisionally that the communion ceremonies in question were carried out according to the Württemberg liturgy: instead of wafers, bread was used, and the body and blood of the Lord, under bread and wine, were taken to the mouth by hand.

One of these brethren himself took part in this holy sacrament, and three of them stayed away. Now one among them (Mr. A. C.) even goes so far as to say that thereby mockery was made of the Lutheran character, whereas the brother H. whom he praises — who "delighted the sincere Lutherans most heartily through the pure, scriptural sermon on the Lord's Supper" — was himself able to commune with a good conscience. — Yes, dear brother, you were able to go with a good conscience. For even though our fathers already confessed "that in time of persecution, when an unequivocal confession of faith is demanded of us, one ought not to yield to the enemies in such matters of indifference, as the Apostle writes in Galatians 5:1: 'Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,' etc." — they likewise taught in agreement: "For this is enough for the true unity of the Christian Church, that the Gospel be preached in harmony according to a pure understanding, and that the sacraments be administered in conformity with the divine Word; and it is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian Church that ceremonies instituted by men be observed uniformly everywhere, etc." And again: "We believe, teach, and confess that the congregation of God in every place and at every time has the power, according to its circumstances, to change such ceremonies in whatever way may be most useful and edifying to the congregations of God." Nor have they ever confessed or taught that only fixed ceremonies constitute a true sacrament, or, as Mr. A. C. teaches, that through certain ceremonies (which are, after all, not contrary to God's Word) mockery is made of the Lutheran character — otherwise they would certainly have established that the ceremonies of that time should remain forever and never be abolished.*) But you have, according to

*) Mr. Cronenwett, according to this, evidently misunderstands what is actually at issue here. For clarification on this matter we take the liberty of referring to our article, "Does Old Lutheranism Lead to Rome?" — Ed. H.