# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1847 07 13_S126
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

But the fault lies with the congregations themselves, who forgot God's command, "do not become the servants of men," and did not depose such false prophets, even though by the Lord's Word they have both the right and the duty to do so.

E. Precisely for that reason I think that, in order to escape the danger of priestly rule, it would be best not to join any synod.

S. Then no congregation could call a pastor either, for that danger would still remain even then. But that would mean abolishing God's ordinance and the holy office of the ministry out of fear of men, and would be manifest wrong.

E. That is true. But does a congregation that joins the synod still retain the right to install and depose its teachers?

S. Certainly, fully so. It states expressly: the protection and preservation of the rights and duties of pastors and congregations.

E. How is it, then, with the right of election? Must a congregation, should it become without a pastor, accept the first candidate the synod happens to send it?

S. Never; we choose our own pastor ourselves and will not let this right be taken from us.

E. But great danger threatens your rights from another side. The synod issues laws, and these impose an unbearable compulsion upon the congregations — so there is a consistory again after all.

S. But this threatening danger exists only in your imagination. It is the congregations themselves who, through their pastors and delegates, form the synod — and should they now enslave themselves? Oh no! The synod is a free Christian assembly, a merely advisory body, which, to the best of its judgment, gives the congregations such counsel as aims at their good.

E. Call it counsel, or whatever you like — the congregations must still accept it, and that remains compulsion all the same.

S. Such counsel as concerns the internal affairs of a congregation gains validity only when the congregations, after prior deliberation, adopt it voluntarily.

E. Ah, that is something different.

S. In general, the synod has as little desire to rob the congregations of their precious rights and liberties, which are their rightful property, as an upright Christian has to steal something of his neighbor's goods and possessions.

E. That is a reassuring assurance to me. But how does it stand with the matter of cost? Surely the synod needs considerable funds in order to achieve its purposes.

S. Certainly, particularly for the founding and maintenance of church institutions, in which future preachers and teachers are trained.

E. Poor congregations, taxed by the synod to raise all the money required for that! So then it is true, what I have heard, that in the congregations which have joined the synod, everyone, man for man, must pay 10 dollars?

S. Not at all. Rather, we have agreed among ourselves that the congregations shall, where possible, contribute annually a voluntary collection toward it. The preachers and teachers, on the other hand, who are members of the synod, are each to pay at least one dollar annually into the synodical treasury.

E. So that rumor was false.

S. But every Lutheran will surely, to the best of his ability, zealously cooperate, since it is our most sacred duty to provide, through such institutions, for the preservation of pure doctrine among our descendants.

E. It is true — had the Lutheran Church of North America had capable preachers from the beginning, it would now be flourishing, whereas now false doctrine and sectarian spirit have made inroads and many have fallen away from the true faith.

S. Therefore we Lutherans, just as we are one in faith, must also unite in love for common action and zealously seek the best interest of our Church.

E. This purpose of the synod is indeed truly Christian. But what if a congregation considers a synodical resolution unsuitable for its circumstances and does not adopt it — is it then immediately expelled?

S. No, that is left to its own conscience.

E. But I could also imagine the case that a congregation might have cause to wish to give up its connection with the synod again. Does it retain the freedom to do so, or is it bound to the synod forever?

S. Our constitution says: whoever stays away twice in succession without a well-founded written excuse thereby has his membership connection with the synod dissolved. A congregation that no longer wishes to belong to the synod therefore need only fail twice to send a delegate and a letter of excuse, and its connection with the synod ceases of itself.

E. That is quite simple, indeed. But do you not still regard those who do not join your synod — provided they are sound in doctrine — as orthodox Lutherans?

S. Certainly. Nor do we persuade anyone to join with us; but whoever comes to us voluntarily, him we receive with joy.

E. I must confess to you that my misgivings regarding the synod, as far as I now know it, have vanished. It is indeed not a consistory.

S. In order to get to know our synod, do read our constitution, in which our congregations have publicly set down the principles by which they order their common action.

E. That I will do. But allow me now to leave you, to go about my work.

(To be continued.)

The Doctrine of the Early Church Concerning the Holy Lord's Supper.
A Contribution to Exposing Methodist Falsification of History.
(Conclusion.)

The two clear testimonies of the apostolic father Ignatius, that in the Holy Supper Christ is bodily present, which we shared with our readers in the previous issue, might well suffice to refute the Methodist claim that "the early churches taught the spiritual presence of Christ but never his bodily presence." Yet, for the greater and well-deserved shaming of those falsifiers of history, and for the strengthening of faith of such Christians as humble themselves under the word of their Savior, let a few more fine confessions of Christians of the first centuries find a place here, from which it becomes irrefutably clear that the Lutheran doctrine of the Holy Supper has been the doctrine of the true Church of all ages.

The oldest church teacher after the apostolic fathers is Justin Martyr. He was born at Shechem in Samaria, and from a heathen philosopher became a zealous evangelist, and finally, because he steadfastly refused to sacrifice to the gods, had to die a martyr's death around the year 163, after enduring scourging (he was beheaded).

He writes in one of his writings in defense of Christianity, concerning the celebration of the Supper among the first Christians: "This food is called among us the Eucharist. But no one may partake of it except one who believes that what is taught by us is true, and who has been washed in the bath of regeneration" (hear that, you Methodists!) "unto the forgiveness of sins, and who so lives as Christ has taught. For we do not receive this as common bread or common drink; but just as our Redeemer Jesus Christ, through the Word (Logos) of God, became flesh, and took on flesh and blood for our salvation's sake, so we are taught that this food also — blessed through the prayer of the word that comes from him, the food by which, after the change,*) our flesh and blood are nourished — is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. For the apostles, in the memoirs they left behind, which are called Gospels..."

*) The Roman Catholics indeed cite this passage in their own favor, to prove that the early Church already taught, as they do, an essential change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ — a transubstantiation — but wrongly so. By "change" the church fathers understand rather a transposition of the elements into such a state in which they retain their nature but are now sacramental symbols, in, with, and under which the body and blood of Christ are given — or, as Paul puts it, "a communion of the body of Christ." That this is so appears from the fact that they compare the sacramental union of the bread and wine with the personal union of the two natures in Christ, of which, after all, neither has been changed into the other, and because they also speak of such a change of the water of baptism, of which even the Roman Catholics do not teach that it is essentially changed or transubstantiated.