# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1847 01 26_S61
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

of all such ceremonies, and by no means practices it herself, but rather confirms this teaching of hers all the more by deed, in that under certain circumstances she has decidedly rejected some ceremonies, and just as decidedly retained others.

The question now arises: does the old Lutheran Church indeed hold a different doctrine concerning ceremonies than the Roman Church, yet does she show — precisely by standing nearer to the Roman Church than the other Protestant denominations — that she has retained ceremonies which conflict with God's Word, or which are indeed genuinely papistic? The remarkable Zion's watchman in Baltimore, Mr. Weyl, asserts this; he writes: "To make a threefold cross over the baptized child,*) the erection of a crucifix in the church, and the burning of wax candles on the altar in broad daylight at the time of the Lord's Supper, etc., etc. — does that not smell of Rome?"

We now proceed to the examination of this point, by presenting to the reader individually the ceremonies which the Lutheran Church has carried over from the Roman Church, and by inquiring whether the one or the other truly conflicts with God's Word, or may indeed be called a papal leftover. We begin with those which Mr. Weyl has cited, since we must assume that these in particular give the greatest offense.

The first ceremony of our Church alleged to be papistic is the marking, used by her in many cases, with the sign of the holy cross. It is indeed true that in our time — in which even the servants of the Church of the crucified Son of God are ashamed of him — this practice has become so rare that even simple, upright Christians, who now encounter it almost only among Catholics, are led to think that it is a badge of the vassals of the Pope. But we ask: can there be a more innocent ceremony, one bearing a meaning so plainly evident and lovely to everyone, than this? Suppose this ceremony had come into use only after the rise of the papacy — would not everyone who believes in the crucified Savior, loves him, and therefore gladly lets himself be reminded of him, have to call it a very lovely and edifying ceremony? But whoever is even a little familiar with the history of the early Church will know that this beautiful, meaningful ceremony is ancient, and was already in use long before the rise of the papacy — indeed, still in the time of the Christians' first love, in a time when hundreds of thousands still died as martyrs for the Crucified One. Already the first teacher of the Church after the apostolic fathers, Justin Martyr, makes mention of this Christian custom in his second Apology, and by the time of the church father Tertullian, who was born in the year 160, the marking with the holy cross was already so common among Christians that he could write: "At every step and movement, at every entrance and exit, at the putting on of clothes and shoes, at washing, at meals, at the lighting of lamps, at lying down and sitting — in short, at all our daily activities — we mark the forehead with the sign of the cross." (Lib. de corona militis, c. III.) The same Tertullian, in interpreting the ceremonies of baptism, writes among other things: "The flesh is marked (with the cross), so that the soul may be guarded." (De resurr. carnis, cap. 8.) From this we see that already in Tertullian's time the sign of the cross was used not only in ordinary life but also in the Church. And indeed, at that time one by no means yet connected with it the superstitious notion that a special magical power lay in the sign of the cross itself, as was later taught in the papacy, and is still taught.*) To the reproach which the heathen made against the Christians in those days, that they worshiped the cross, Tertullian therefore answered them: "Whoever among you thinks that we worship the cross will have the same object of worship as we do. Wood is wood; the shape makes no difference." (Apologet., c. 16.) What, then, is one to say to the fact that now even Lutheran preachers and newspaper writers cast suspicion on the marking with the cross as something papistic? Is not thereby the most innocent thing of all, a lovely, simple sign in remembrance of the crucified Savior, branded an abomination? Are not thereby the Christians of the best age of Christianity, together with many thousands of holy martyrs, made into superstitious papists? If the Lutheran Church had the right — as no reasonable person denies — to retain innocent ceremonies which had remained in the Christian Church, even under the rule of the papacy, from the good old times, was she then permitted to abolish the sign of the cross, this loveliest of all symbols that a believer can have? — Yes, says Mr. Weyl, "the time of children's games is past, and the worship of God in spirit and in truth has been ordained for us." We answer: we truly do not envy this man such childish and ridiculous notions of maturity and spirit; indeed, we can only pity as an unhappy man one who, by his own admission, is ashamed of childlike Christian simplicity (cf. Matt. 18:3). Another, however, may perhaps say: should not the Lutheran Church have abolished the making of the cross, since so much superstition is practiced with it by the Papists? We answer: abuse does not abolish proper use. A true reformation is not an abolition of all existing customs, but a cleansing of the good ones from abuse and false addition, according to the apostle's rule: "Test everything, and hold fast what is good!" — it does not say "abolish," but "hold fast." But as to why the Lutheran Church retained precisely this sign, we will let the great Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard speak on that point. He writes as follows: "One forms the sign of the cross on the forehead and breast of the child (about to be baptized); this is done not out of superstition, or for the sake of some supposed supernatural power, but is meant to testify that the baptized child is received into grace, and reborn to eternal life, solely through the merit of the crucified Christ; it also serves as a reminder that the child is received into the number of those who believe in the crucified Christ, that the old Adam in him must be crucified through baptism, Rom. 6:6, and that he will be subject to the cross in this life. According to Gen. 48:14, the patriarch Jacob, by crossing his hands over one another and thus laying them upon his grandsons Ephraim and Manasseh, forms as it were a cross, and reminds them of the cross of Christ. To this some of the ancients also reckon the mark on the foreheads of the servants of God, Ezek. 9:4; Rev. 7:3. Christ the crucified was once foolishness to the heathen, 1 Cor. 1:23; therefore they mockingly called the Christians cross-worshippers (crucicolas), as Tertullian attests; the Christians, in order to show that they were not ashamed of the cross of Christ, therefore marked themselves with it in the middle of the forehead. Cyril of Jerusalem writes (Catech. 13): 'Be not ashamed of his cross. If you wish to dispute about it with unbelievers, first make with your hand the sign of the cross ... It is the sign of the believers ... Do not deny the Crucified One, or the whole multitude of witnesses to his cross and his sufferings will rise up against you, down to the very rocks which, as one can still see, were split at the death of Jesus.' Augustine 1) writes (Serm. 8, de verb. Dom.): 'The wise of this world mock us on account of the cross of Christ, and say: What sort of heart do you have, you who worship a crucified God? One marks the cross on the forehead, where the seat of shame is,'"

*) The words about an invocation of Mary, which Mr. Weyl allows to slip in here, we omit, since we have already dealt with the disgraceful lie expressed therein in No. 5.

*) In the catechism of the Jesuit Canisius, held in such high regard by all Catholics, it says: "What use is the sign of the cross? Answer: chiefly to drive away evil spirits and to destroy their power, their assaults, and their devilish arts." Compare with this Eph. 6:16. — The Catholics will say: do not the church fathers also speak this way of the cross? We answer: here 1 Thess. 5:21 applies. The Bible is not to be corrected by the church fathers, but the church fathers by the Bible. Moreover, it is also a different matter when the church fathers speak of a thing in bold rhetorical figures, and when one then forges new doctrines out of such figures.

*) It is known of Felix and Narcissus that their heathen host recognized them as Christians by the fact that, as often as the sundial gave the signal, they marked themselves with the sign of the cross.

1) This church father boasts, before God, in his "Confessions" (Bk. 1, ch. 11), that his devout mother Monica, when he was still an infant, blessed him with the sign of the cross.