# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juni 1863_S172
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

172 Dr. Hengstenberg's Position on the Questions of Office and Church Government.

...church-robbery and godlessness, against the plainest and most invincible Scripture of God. Therefore, if so great an error and such church-robbery has, for so long a time and with such a multitude of people — who either agreed rightly, or were led astray, or simply went along — prevailed against the truth of God, then I will here, for the good of all sophists and papists, pound their chief ground to powder at one stroke and thereby stop their mouths, so that they may see why God does not want us to believe in any creature, be it long, much, great, or broad, but in the Word of God alone, which is thus infallible. We hold this, then, as something beyond dispute, that the power to discern and judge — or to test — doctrine rests with us, and not with the councils, popes, fathers, or teachers; but it does not follow from this that we also have power to make laws. For that belongs to God alone; ours is rather to discern his law and word, to test it, to judge it, and to distinguish it from all other laws — not to give laws or to command them. For from Christ's word, "Beware of the false prophets," it does not follow: Therefore it is your part to prophesy. Indeed, as Peter says: No prophecy was ever produced by the will of man; holy men of God have spoken, etc. So too it does not follow: My sheep hear my voice, therefore my sheep will give or make my voice. Rather the opposite follows from it: I give my voice, but the sheep recognize it, test it, and follow it once I have given it. .. But here they will say: If everyone has power to judge and to test, how then is one to settle the matter, when the judges do not agree and each judges according to his own head? Therefore there must necessarily be one man at whose judgment the others let the matter rest and are content, so that the unity of the Church may be preserved. Answer: This idle talk suits no one better than the Thomists. For now I too ask: How does one come to a right conclusion nowadays, when everything stands under the pope's judgment? Where is unity preserved here? Is unity preserved unbroken when one unites oneself with the outward name of the pope" (among the pastors of Angermünde, and with Dr. H., it reads: with outward obedience to the Supreme Church Council) "? Where, then, is the unity of hearts? Who is assured in his conscience that the pope judges rightly? And where there is no certainty, there is also no unity. So indeed under the pope there is an outward appearance and show of unity; but inwardly there is nothing but the most abominable Babylon, so that not one stone remains upon another, nor is one heart in accord with another. Thus one sees how well human presumption, with its own statutes, knows how to counsel spiritual matters."

As romanizing as Hengstenberg and Stahl are in their opinions and views on church government, just as unreformational, unlutheran, and unbiblical are they also in their statements about the office [of the ministry]. H. says: "It is, furthermore, a merit of Stahl's that he the modern dream