# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_April 1858_S99
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Answer to a Voice from the Lutheran Church of Germany, etc.    99

...to heap burning coals upon the adversary's head: to this we take leave to
reply, that one need only pursue the now years-long controversy with some
degree of impartiality in order to recognize fully how Grabau and his
followers, through their invented, manifest lies against us and through
their immoderate scolding and reviling, have compelled us no longer to
spare them, but to rebuke them sharply and to expose their dishonesty
unashamedly, and this indeed out of great necessity, that the weak be not
vexed any longer. If ever, then certainly in the face of such senseless
conduct as Grabau and v. Rohr have exhibited in ever-increasing degree,
holy mockery has its place, and has for itself the example of the prophets
and apostles, who truly were not concerned with mere contention and
wrangling.

Now when you, beloved brother, in regard to the doctrine of church and
ministry, make honoring mention of Walther's book "The Voice of Our
Church," when you declare that you owe it much, and that you did not rest
until you had made the doctrine of the fathers contained in it wholly your
own; when you further say that you believe yourself in agreement with
Walther on all the principles of the doctrine, a single thesis excepted:
this could of course, in this latest troubled time of utmost disruption,
when even the Lutheran Church is being shaken to its innermost foundations
by the earnest and consequential controversy over church and ministry,
only be most gratifying and refreshing to us. But we cannot and may not
conceal from you that our joy was greatly dampened when we had read and
weighed, again and again, what you remarked concerning and against Thesis
VII of Part 2*), because from it there forced itself upon us the painful
conviction that here, even though perhaps unknown to you, there exists a
difference in principle that cuts deeply into the whole doctrinal matter
concerned. You do allow for the possibility of a misunderstanding, and
such a one does indeed occur if you suppose that this thesis could also be
understood to mean that the preacher speaks merely on behalf of the
congregation; but it is in truth incomprehensible to us how the thesis in
question and its extensive elaboration could have occasioned this
misunderstanding, and what possible obscurity of expression could obtain
in so clear a presentation. Yet indeed, when you say that the thesis is
correct as regards the derivation of the preaching office from the
universal priesthood of all believers, but false as regards Thesis II,
which says that the preaching office is an institution, then you have
thereby given us the key that unlocks for us the source of your
misunderstandings and misgivings. You believe, then, that the derivation
of the preaching office from the universal priesthood of all believers,
and the assertion that the preaching office

*) "The holy preaching office is the authority conferred by God, through
the congregation as holder of the priesthood and of all church power, to
exercise the rights of the spiritual priesthood in a public office on
behalf of the congregation."