# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Mai 1863_S159
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Church and Contemporary History. 159

is appointed or subsequently transferred, administer his office according to the confession to which this congregation belongs, and according to the norms prevailing there."

Thankfully as this latter assurance was received, one could nevertheless not be set at ease by it. There followed, on the part of the patrons, a second petition, which contained a decided assertion of right on behalf of the Lutheran congregations of their patronage. At the same time two petitions from clergy were submitted, one to the Superior Consistory, the other directly to the Grand Duke, in which the ecclesiastical incorrectness of the ordination formulary, as well as the contradiction in which it stands with the documented, chartered right of the Lutheran church, was demonstrated, the scruples of conscience of the clergy were voiced, and an addition to the ordination formulary was requested that would secure the legal standing of the confession. But these petitions too were rejected, with the explanation that the scruples expressed in them were unfounded. Thereupon, in the past year, a final petition from the clergy followed, which, like the last petition of the patrons, likewise contains a solemn assertion of right against the new ordination formulary. This petition, which had previously been examined and approved, both in content and form, by one of the most eminent canon-law scholars of Germany, held to be an authority, is signed by more than 70 clergymen — considerably more than had taken part in the first petitions requesting a change, a proof that decisive action wins fellow confessors. The petition states, among other things: To be sure, the Grand Ducal Superior Consistory has further added to its declaration "that it is by no means excluded — indeed, it is self-evident — that the distinguishing doctrines of the Lutheran and Reformed confession would be presented in Lutheran congregations in a manner corresponding to the Lutheran confession." We do indeed recognize and accept here the acknowledgment by the church government — expressed in spite of the above declaration — that in future too the Lutheran confession shall have the right to be presented in its full integrity in the Lutheran congregations and to be regarded as the churchly norm of this presentation; yet so long as the contradictory ordination formulary is held fast alongside it, we cannot attach any real worth to this acknowledgment. For how can it be guaranteed that a Lutheran understanding of the distinguishing doctrines will actually be presented in the Lutheran congregations, when the one presenting them is equally bound to the doctrinal presentation of the Reformed understanding? How can one restrain him from preaching in a wholly un-Lutheran manner to his Lutheran congregation, if he is not obligated to teach in a Lutheran manner at all? — The so-called general confession that is supposed to be contained in the new ordination formulary belongs merely to modern theologizing, that is, to a changeable usage of language. The sum of so-called "fundamental truths" that one has in mind here can, in the end, be shaped and delimited by the ordinand however he pleases according to his own liking. He can, as far as we can discern, on the basis of this ordination formulary, teach what he wishes; and the Lutheran confession is not thereby secured even against the extremes of rationalist doctrinal confusion.

Hanover. The Royal Hanoverian Ministry of Culture has, under date of January 30, forwarded to the consistories a decree in which the faithful pastors in particular are taken to task, while the enemies are let off remarkably lightly. It states therein: "We by no means fail to recognize how much blame in this matter lies on the side of the congregations, how many unfounded claims and reproaches have been raised from that quarter, partly out of error and misunderstanding, partly also from a standpoint that has no right whatsoever in the church. Yet We cannot at the same time close Our eyes to the fact that fault has also been found, here and there, on the part of individual clergy, and is still being found. But the higher We hold the significance and dignity of this office, and the more firmly We are resolved to support it vigorously, the more weight We must place upon everything being done, on its part, toward the restoration of true peace in the harmony of faith