# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_October 1861_S298
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Remarks on the Office. 298

Only that from this, indeed, the legitimacy of the requirement also
becomes clear at the same time: that everyone who asserts or denies the
divine institution of the preaching office must state himself definitely on
the matter — above all, then, must make wholly clear to himself what
usage of language he is following in doing so, in what sense he takes the
word "preaching office."

Let us now, so prepared, proceed on our part to the attempt to
ascertain whether, in the symbolical writings of the Lutheran Church, the
divine institution of the preaching office is stated also in some other sense
than that in which we found it stated in Art. V of the Augsburg
Confession, and in what other sense, perhaps — so it seems to me — it is
first worth a more exact investigation what relation Art. XIV of the same
confession bears to that Art. V, Art. XIV being well known to read as
follows: "Of Church Government (Latin text: 'de ordine ecclesiastico') it
is taught that no one should publicly teach or preach in the church (Latin
text simply: publice docere — not also 'aut praedicare') or administer the
sacraments without a regular call."

What strikes me as remarkable in this article is particularly the
expression "it is taught," especially by comparison with the fact that, for
example, in Art. XXV, concerning confession, it is said: "This custom is
kept among us, of not administering the sacrament to those who have not
first been examined and absolved." I think it is well worth considering
whether that expression is not meant to indicate that this "should," which,
as the confessors say, is "taught" among them, rests upon a divine will
revealed by God. To my knowledge this expression is used in the
confession only ever in statements about a particular churchly
understanding of divine revelations. But then that would amount to this:
that it rests upon divine institution, upon a revealed will, that only those
regularly called should publicly teach or preach or administer the
sacrament. Further, however, the question in any case still arises whether
the word "publicly" is also to be taken with "preach," or whether "preach"
is meant to be synonymous with "publicly teach" — on which point, as I
have already indicated, the Latin text gives us no information. It seems to
me that "preach" is added merely as an explanatory synonym of "teach,"
so that all that is meant to be said is that public preaching, not preaching
in general, belongs only to those regularly called. For surely the author
would also have called the proclamation of the message of salvation that
takes place in the domestic circle, or in writing, "preaching," and would
not have wished to designate a regular call (a rite vocari) as required for
that. In the parallel passage of the Apology it does indeed say simply:
"In Article XIV, where we say that no one is permitted to preach or
administer the sacraments in the church except those who are duly and
properly called, etc."; but already the placement of the words "in the
church" (likewise in the Latin text: concedendam esse administrationem
sacramentorum et verbi in ecclesia) at the end of the sentence suggests that
here special weight is placed on these words —