# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1848 03 01_S118
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

...God. On the day of Nicolaus Episcopi he delivered two sermons, the first on the Gospel of Luke 19:12: "A certain nobleman, etc.," the other on Hebrews 7:23: "And they truly were many priests, etc." On the day of the Conception of Mary he likewise delivered two sermons on the Gospel of Matthew 1:1ff., in which he explained the promise that had been given to the fathers concerning Christ and what faith they had had, and at the same time showed how we too must be saved through such faith, without any merit of our own. And all this with such spirit that everyone marveled and thanked God for having sent them such a preacher, and earnestly begged him to leave him with them for a long time yet, for they now saw clearly how they had been led astray by the priests and monks. They also urged him with heartfelt pleading to remain with them through the Christmas season and to preach to them twice every day, for they feared that he might yet be called to another place.

Meanwhile the prior Torneborch, together with Master Johann Snicken, did not rest. For when the prior saw that his wickedness had not succeeded, he went with Doctor Wilhelmus, of the Preaching order at Lunden, to the gray monks, who were called Barefoot Friars or Minorites, to seek counsel and help from them. For those monks were especially skilled at deceiving the poor, wretched people with their hypocrisy. At once the gray monks sent for some of the Regents, namely Peter Nannen, Peter Swin, and Claus Roden, before whom they complained bitterly how the heretic was preaching and leading the people astray, who already in part clung to him; and that if they did not kill the heretic, the honor of Mary, together with both holy cloisters, would perish. When the poor, ignorant men heard this, they grew angry. Peter Swin replied: "They had already written to the pastor and to Heinricus how they were to conduct themselves; if it were necessary, they would write once more." "No," answered the prior, "you must go about the matter differently. For if you write to the heretic, he will answer you, and you would without doubt fall into heresy along with him before you were even aware of it; for if he were allowed to speak, no one could lay a hand on him."

So they resolved that Heinricus should be secretly seized at night and immediately burned, before the land learned of it and before he could speak. This counsel pleased everyone well, especially the gray monks. At an assembly of captains and others at Neuenkirchen this counsel was considered still more closely, and it was determined that on the day after the Conception of Mary they would gather at Hemmingstedt, half a mile from Meldorf. The roads to Meldorf were, with great diligence, blocked, so that no one there might give warning.

(Conclusion to follow.)

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

(Continuation.)

Since we have now first shown that there is no compelling reason to take the words of institution improperly, we have thereby already fully justified why we wish to remain with the proper sense of the same. For if someone has no reason to depart from the customary highway, is it not folly to call him to account for staying on it and not rather taking some other, unusual path?

In addition to this — that there is no cause why we should abandon the proper sense of the words in question and take them improperly — there now comes also:

II. That there are, on the other hand, many important reasons which advise against departing from the proper sense of the words of institution, and which show that they must necessarily be understood properly.

1.) One such reason against abandoning the proper sense of our words is: that the holy Lord's Supper was instituted by Christ as his testament. Christ says not only, according to Matthew (26:28) and Mark (14:24): "This is my blood of the new testament," but also, according to Luke (22:20), expressly: "This is the cup, the new testament in my blood"; and according to St. Paul (1 Cor. 11:25): "This cup is the new testament in my blood."

But what is a testament, and what purpose does it serve? It is, as is well known, the usually written declaration of a dying person, in which certain persons are appointed as his heirs, certain goods are bequeathed to them, and as a rule certain duties are also imposed. Such a testament is drawn up so that, after the death of the testator, no dispute may arise concerning his will regarding his estate. Since the testator can no longer, after his death, be asked about his actual meaning, but his will can be gathered only from the words used in the testament, one naturally takes no words anywhere more precisely than, first, already in the drafting, and then, naturally, also in the interpretation of a testament.

First: when a testament is drawn up, every word to be used in it is carefully weighed, all ambiguous expressions are avoided, and one speaks as clearly and definitely as is at all possible. — Now then! Should dying men, out of concern that after their death no dispute arise and that their last will be rightly carried out, use the very clearest words — and should we not credit the wisdom and careful love of Christ, the dying Son of God, with having spoken so clearly that no doubt could remain about his true sense and will? Should he have used uncertain, ambiguous, veiled language in his testament? No! If it has ever, anywhere in the world, been the case that every word was taken precisely in the drawing up of a testament, so that after the opening of the testament it might be unmistakably clear what the testator's true meaning was, then this was without doubt the case in the drawing up of the testament of Jesus Christ.

Now, just as carefully as one proceeds in drawing up a human testament, just as precisely, accordingly, one takes it also in the interpretation of the same. Every honest man considers it a sacred duty never to depart from the words of a testament and to interpret them arbitrarily; everyone regards it as an outrage committed against the deceased to want, in interpreting his testament, to take now this word, now that, otherwise than it reads. Among all civilized peoples the last disposition of a dying person is held sacred, and it is seen to with the greatest conscientiousness that it be carried out according to the very expressions used in it. Suppose it were found in a testament that the deceased father had bequeathed his remaining dwelling house precisely to that one of his sons who, during his lifetime, had caused him the most grief and had wrung from him the most tears and sighs — what would the authorities say if the other sons came forward and reasoned thus: it does indeed stand there, "That which this my disobedient son shall inherit is my former dwelling house," but since this brother obviously deserves anything but the best part of the inheritance, the father without doubt did not mean the actual dwelling house, but only its image! Would not such interpreters of a testament be rejected as frauds? — How, then, is it not appalling to want to show less conscientiousness toward the words of the divine testament than toward the words of a human deed of inheritance? If it is already an outrage to twist the words therein according to one's own sense, must it not then be an outrage beyond all outrages to want to tamper with the words of the testament of God himself, and, regarding the words: "This is my body; this is my blood," to interpret them thus: this signifies my body, or this is a sign, an image, a symbol of my body, and the like? —

One could indeed imagine that even in a testament, in stating some incidental circumstance, a figurative, improper manner of speech might occur, since this occurs so frequently that one not seldom makes use of it even in everyday speech; but it is unthinkable that even a reasonable man should use figurative expressions in his testament precisely where he names the items of inheritance that he bequeaths to his heirs. Who