# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1848 02 08_S92
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

...he who has made them competent to carry out the ministry of the New Testament (2 Cor. 3:6). They must not, out of fear of man or desire to please men, renounce the very highest honor of being Christ's servants (Gal. 1:10) and God's fellow workers (1 Cor. 3:9). It is like a robbing of the church when the teaching office is robbed of what the Lord has granted it for the comfort of penitent and terrified consciences and for the terror of carnally secure and willful sinners. What the Lord has left to the church to order, let it order and alter according to its best knowledge and conscience, so that all things be done honestly and in order (1 Cor. 14:40); let it determine, by the weight of the sanctuary and by the rule of wisdom from above, the place, the time, and the manner of preparation — but over the power of the keys itself, and everything essential to its exercise, no power on earth extends, not even that of the church, unless it wishes to fall away from itself; rather, all who tamper with Christ's ordinance bring the curse upon themselves.

The faithful servant of the Lord will, without regard for human authority, fix his eye and heart unwaveringly and solely upon Jesus Christ and upon the account he must one day render before His judgment seat. But those who, for whatever reason and in whatever way, mutilate or diminish Christ's institution shall not receive the unfading crown promised to faithfulness when the Chief Shepherd appears (1 Peter 5:2–4).

(To be continued.)

*

(Submitted.)
Methodism.

(Continuation and conclusion. See No. 9.)

It is true that Luther expected little benefit from the Marburg Colloquy; he knew his opponents, and the outcome regrettably proves that he was not mistaken. Yet he nevertheless answered the Landgrave's invitation: "Although I have but poor hope for such a peace, still Your Serene Highness's diligence and care are highly and greatly to be praised, and for my part I am willing, with all diligence, to render Your Serene Highness this perhaps futile and perhaps even dangerous service, and to betake myself, according to Your Serene Highness's will and intention, wherever I am to go. For I will not truly leave to the other side the credit — God willing — of being more inclined toward peace and unity than I." From this we see how willing Luther was to make every sacrifice for the hope of peace with his opponents, however difficult the fulfillment of that hope might seem.

It is false, on the other hand, what d'Aubigné says: "These invitations were received very differently. Zwingli, whose heart was broad and brotherly, agreed to the Landgrave's proposal, but he was rejected by Luther, who believed he detected alliances and warlike struggles behind this ostensible union. ... Zwingli, on the contrary, who would have gone to the ends of the earth, made every effort to obtain from the Zurich magistrate permission to travel to Marburg." Against this, Hospinian and Hottinger, two Reformed writers, report that Zwingli had so little desire for this colloquy that he almost had to be compelled to attend it!

D'Aubigné denies that the Reformed yielded on any point at Marburg. We, however, have shown in Der Lutheraner, Volume 3, No. 15, that they retracted several significant errors concerning baptism, original sin, and the oral preaching of the divine Word — errors which they afterward, unfortunately, renewed.

Of Oecolampadius the same author relates that, after a conversation with Luther, he said into Zwingli's ear: "I have fallen a second time into the hands of Dr. Eck," and adds: "In the language of the reformer (Oecolampadius) nothing stronger could have been said." We have nothing further to say to this. The reformer Luther could indeed not have been more gravely misjudged and maligned than by this remark, if Oecolampadius really made it — which, however, for his honor's sake, we do not wish to believe.

But we will say nothing further of the other spiteful insinuations by which d'Aubigné seeks to bring the character and work of Dr. Luther into contempt. We thank the Lord that Luther and his companions, in those days, made a good confession and did not sacrifice the truth for the sake of human considerations, but preserved it for the church through their faithful testimony. They did not grant their erring opponents the brotherly fellowship demanded of them; they could not do so for conscience's sake, since the love of God and reverence for His holy Word bade them refuse the hand of brotherhood to those who denied their Lord and Savior in the weighty article of the Lord's Supper. Yet they proved themselves true disciples of the Lord by extending to those in error the hand of love and peace, granting them a friendly accord, and praying for them. In this they fully satisfied the royal law of love. The true Lutheran Church of the present day follows the same course. If, therefore, the Methodists continue to cast the stone of condemnation at Luther, this much has been shown, that every Lutheran can prove to them that their slanders are unfounded and unjust, and, as is to be feared, spring from an unconverted heart.

Hermann Fick.

Why are the words of institution, "This is my body; this is my blood," properly to be understood?*

(Continuation.)

After we endeavored, in the last installment of our answer to this question (see No. 5), to make it clear to our readers that in Holy Scripture (as in the writing of any sensible author) everything is to be taken literally, someone may perhaps now object that it is only too evident that in some passages of Holy Scripture one must of necessity depart from the literal, or verbal, sense, unless one wishes to accept manifest nonsense as the true sense of Holy Scripture. For instance, Holy Scripture says: "I am the vine, ye are the branches" (John 15:5). "They drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:4). Further: "I am the door of the sheep" (John 10:7). Further: "He (John) is Elias" (Matt. 11:14). Further: "Go and tell that fox" (Herod) (Luke 13:32). What would result, it is asked, if one wished to understand all this literally? — Now, since here one must quite obviously abandon the literal sense and take the word "is" for "signifies," why then should one not, in the words "This is my body; this is my blood," likewise abandon the literal understanding and be permitted to take them as though Christ had said, "This signifies my body; this signifies my blood"? It has now become quite habitual for the Methodists, whenever a Lutheran declares that one must not depart from the words of institution, "This is my body," etc., immediately to point to those sayings, "I am the vine," and so forth. And by this, not only do the adversaries suppose they have conclusively demonstrated that the Lutherans' simple faith in the written Word is manifest folly and have brought it into permanent disrepute, but unfortunately there are also not a few Lutherans who, when confronted with those passages, become embarrassed and do not know how to answer — who, indeed, when reminded of those passages for the first time, come to think that this Lutheran simple adherence to the word is, after all, not so very sure a matter, that in many Bible passages one must surely depart from the letter, and that it is by no means uncommon for the little word "is" to mean as much as "signifies."

But let no one be deceived. It is and remains settled that no reasonable person, in any language in the world, writes "is"

*) Having only now fully recovered from a bodily infirmity that, contrary to expectation, became protracted, and having cleared away other necessary business that had been left pending, we resume — contrary to our promise — treatment of the above-stated theme only with the present issue. We hope our readers will excuse us. — The Editor.