# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1848 03 01_S119
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

...could therefore, without blasphemy, ascribe such perversity to Christ?

In addition to all this, there is the further fact that those who take the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" improperly thereby arrive at a sense by which the holy Lord's Supper is entirely robbed of the nature of a testament. For what kind of testament would that be, in which the heirs are bequeathed no inheritance at all, but are merely commanded to celebrate the memory of the deceased and to delight themselves in certain images and signs of an inheritance? Such a testament a man might indeed have drawn up who, even in the face of death, cannot cease his mockery — but never the dying Savior.

Let no one, finally, suppose that these are merely human notions when one holds that the proper meaning of the words of the Supper may not be abandoned because the holy Lord's Supper is called a testament. From the Epistle to the Galatians we see that the Holy Spirit himself taught the holy apostle Paul to draw just such a conclusion. For in order to convince the Jews that one must hold firmly to the words of the blessing which God once promised through the seed of Abraham, the apostle reminds them that those words of blessing contained a divine testament, and says: "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: though it be but a man's testament, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto," etc. (Gal. 3:15–17).

Moreover, we have in the Old Testament of God an actual proof that the words of the divine testaments are to be understood properly; for are not the words: "Behold, this is the blood of the covenant (or of the testament) which the Lord has made with you" (Exod. 24:8) — at which words Moses actually sprinkled the people with blood and confirmed the Old Testament — clearly to be understood properly?

Also St. Augustine, who in his exposition of Psalm 22 presents the whole Bible as the testament of the heavenly Father, seeks from this presentation to demonstrate how foolish it is not to follow the words of Scripture without further ado. He writes, in his vivid way: "We are brothers, why do we quarrel? Our Father did not die without a testament. He made his testament, and so he died; indeed, he died and rose again from the dead. So long there is dispute over the inheritance, until the testament is published, and when it is to be published, all fall silent, so that the document may be opened and read aloud. The judge listens attentively, the advocates fall silent, the court officers command silence, the whole people wait with strained attention for the words of the deceased — who, resting in his grave, knows nothing of it — to be read aloud. He lies unconscious in his grave, and yet his words hold good: how then, when Christ sits in heaven, is his testament contradicted? Let us open it and read. We are brothers, why do we quarrel? Be still — our Father has not left us without a testament. He who made the testament lives forever; he hears our words and acknowledges his own. Why then do we wish to quarrel? Let us read! If we find the bequeathed inheritance, let us accept it." (Opp. Ed. Basil. A. 1542. Tom. VII. fol. 114.)

To these testamentary words of the Old Covenant, Christ plainly refers back when, at the institution of the holy Lord's Supper, he says: "This is my blood of the new testament." The entire difference between these words and the words of Moses is this, that Christ adds the words "my" and "new." Now, as surely as those words of Moses, which dealt with the Old Testament, were to be understood properly, just as surely are the words of Christ, which deal with the New Testament, to be understood properly. It is therefore beyond dispute: since the holy Lord's Supper is the New Testament, the testament of the true and almighty Son of God, the testament of dying, eternal love, it is a greater outrage than one commonly supposes to abandon the proper sense of the words of institution and give them a figurative interpretation.

(Continuation to follow.)

*

(Sent in to the editor.)

New York, March 9, 1848.

Beloved brother in the Lord!

I take the liberty of addressing you by this name, since, although I was with you only twice, I have thereby come to love and esteem you. And just as you then received me with love, so I hope you will also receive, in love, what I now have to write to you, and if possible grant the request I am about to make of you.

When I came here from Germany a year and a half ago, my desire and resolve were directed toward preaching Christ crucified, and regarding all those who believed in him as brethren, even where there was difference of opinion on this or that point of doctrine or principle of church polity. I had at that time an open, broad heart, which gladly acknowledged the work of the Holy Spirit and rejoiced in it, wherever this work might be found.

Here in this country I then found various church parties, and saw them, sadly, standing in many places in a relationship of great tension and bitterness toward one another. For a long time I sought to keep myself free from this and not to let myself be carried away by the surging waves of party spirit that flowed around me. But at last I was swept away by it; this happened in part under the influence of a physical irritability connected with a severe chill-ailment (or lingering low fever) that had befallen me.

During the months of February and March of last year I lay miserably ill with the aforementioned sickness, could not travel about and work, and yet did not wish to be idle. So I resolved to write to Germany, in order to lay upon the hearts of my friends there the preacherless condition of the Germans here in this country. My intention was good, but in carrying it out I allowed myself, under the influences named above, unfortunately to be carried away into passing a very harsh judgment on two church bodies of this country, and thereby to act against brotherly love. These two church bodies are the Old Lutherans and the Methodists.

It was at that time my wish that what I wrote against these two should come back from Germany and reach the hands of those concerned. In case they should thereupon attack me, I intended to use this as a welcome opportunity to carry out and substantiate my accusations against them further. But in the meantime my whole mood and disposition in this regard has changed. I have recognized that the Christian who involves himself in party quarrels enters, as it were, into a dry, sultry air, where the sap of inner life dries up and the heart becomes desolate and rigid. This I have experienced in myself, and it has seemed to me as though many others, both among the ranks of the Old Lutherans and of the Methodists, as well as of the United Evangelicals, etc., likewise stood in the same danger. I therefore now very much regret having, through my pamphlet "The Night of the West," which I wrote at that time, given occasion for the fire of party strife perhaps to blaze up still more brightly and the spiritual air here to become still more sultry.

I therefore consider it my duty to do everything to forestall or counteract this. To this end I have declared, in the letter enclosed in copy to the editor of the "Apologist," that I withdraw my judgment of Methodism in "The Night of the West," on account of the many harsh and in part unjust accusations contained therein, and that I regret ever having written it. Likewise I now declare to you that I withdraw my judgment of the Old Lutheran direction in "The Night of the West," on account of the many harsh and in part unjust accusations contained therein, and regret ever having written it. And I earnestly ask you to grant a place in your "Lutheraner" both to the enclosed letter from me to Mr. Nast and to the present letter to you.

I well know that the step I have taken through this letter to you and through the one to Mr. Nast will be misconstrued by many, and perhaps judged unfavorably by men of all parties. Consistency is one of the fashionable virtues of this country, and inconsistency is, in the eyes of most, a greater sin than hostility, bitterness, and vehemence, however great these may be. But I would rather violate consistency than violate love; I would rather try to retract a wrong step already here on earth than let its consequences continue and perhaps carry over into that other life; I would rather lose the esteem of some men than lose peace with God. My principle will henceforth be this: that, without giving up my own conviction, I will treat the conviction of others, even when I cannot share it, with respect, or at least with forbearance and gentleness.

With the request that you continue to extend to me your love, and that you include me in your intercession, I close for now.

Your humble fellow brother

A. Rauschenbusch.

To Pastor Walther

in St. Louis.

Note by the editor.

We have considered it our duty to communicate the foregoing declaration to our readers, in accordance with its author's wish. We consider it superfluous, however, to include also the aforementioned letter addressed to Mr. Nast, since the essential content of that letter is already given in what has been communicated.