# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1876_S38
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 38 —

gregation everything is topsy-turvy, he should remain all the more. Then his presence is most needed.

As to the question again, whether the temporal limitation of the call is not only a great defect and a grave sin, but whether thereby the divineness of the call is called into question at all, — it is indeed to be noted that many kinds of defects may creep into a call without the divineness of the call being by any means thereby abolished. So, for example, among the Reformed and all sects which obligate their preachers to their false confessions, the call is nevertheless to be regarded as a divine one (provided it is not otherwise also a temporary one), since the preachers are obligated in it to preach God's Word clearly and purely, and thereby that obligation to the errors is rectified. Now this appears of course much worse than the temporal limitation of the call, and yet the former is a divine call, the temporary one is not. This is evident from all passages of Holy Scripture from which we see what makes the call to the preaching office a divine one. All Christians have the general call of love, to comfort, to rebuke, to admonish from God's Word. But they are therefore by no means preachers. The question is now this: what distinguishes me as a preacher from the other Christians? Answer: that I am in an office which was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preaching the Gospel publicly on behalf of the congregation and administering the holy sacraments. Already in the divine call it is stated that no man can know how long I have to carry it out. God alone knows how long I am to serve him. If, then, a time is fixed in the call, I intrude upon God's right and make the call a human contract.

If the heterodox called a preacher only with an obligation to their errors, then it would indeed be no divine call. But all sects demand that God's Word be preached to them clearly and purely. By this what they have added of falsehood is corrected. If, for example, a Methodist preacher came to the knowledge of the truth, he should make himself no scruples because of his call, but say: You required of me that I should preach God's Word purely and clearly to you; that I will do. But that I should preach "entire sanctification" [*vollkommene Heiligung*], the devil has imposed on me and it is no concern of mine; on the contrary I must testify against it according to God's Word.

So also Luther was quite confident in his stand against the Roman Church after he had come to right knowledge. He comforted himself with his call, since as Doctor of Holy Scripture he had sworn to preach and defend the Bible unto death. With that he defended himself. To be sure, he had also let himself be obligated to read the Mass, but that now counted for nothing with him; he held to what was right in his call.