# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_April 1859_S98
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

98	On the Language of the Church.

"cannot be construed in a foreign or heretical sense." (Exeg. art., Loc. III, § 39, 40.)

Now if, according to what has been said, the language of the Church certainly has its full warrant, then without doubt the individual Christian, and especially the servant of the Church, has a certain obligation to conform himself, in this respect, to the Church as a whole. What is absolutely necessary is, and remains, of course, the same faith. A stubborn person, who outwardly appeals to his Christian liberty against accepting the language of the Church, cannot, to be sure, be compelled by anyone to not only believe but also speak in agreement with the Church. In such a case it must be left to the Knower of Hearts whether a rogue is hiding behind this provocation. After Johann Gerhard has thus cited the objections of the Socinians against the Church's general technical terms, he goes on to say: "Should they grant us that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, and that nevertheless there is only one God, then we will not press them to use those churchly words either." (Loc. cit., § 42.) It is, however, in any case questionable when an individual refuses to speak in agreement with the Church. Scarcely could an example be produced of an individual who rejected the churchly expression and yet heartily accepted the churchly concept. Almost always the opposite has proven true, namely that those who did not wish to make the churchly manner of speech their own did so because they had already broken with the faith of the Church. Among the Socinians this is evident. The same holds true of the Sacramentarians. Scarcely had Karlstadt fallen away from the Church's faith regarding the sacraments when the churchly word "sacrament" itself became highly distasteful to him. He therefore writes in his "Dialogus" of the year 1524, among other things, as follows: "One or the other must follow: either that Christ was not wise, or not sufficiently willing, when he instituted his Supper, and did not leave it behind him, that his bread and cup should be called a sacrament." (Luther's Works, Halle ed., XX, 2883.) Zwingli expressed himself similarly, after he had abandoned the Church's doctrine of the sacraments. He writes in his work "On True Religion," among other things, as follows: "I could have wished very much that the word 'sacrament' had never been adopted by the Germans, except where it was rightly understood. For when people hear this word 'sacrament,' they understand by it something great and holy, which by its own power frees the conscience from sin." *) (p. 2.)

There are chiefly two reasons why an orthodox Christian should, together with the orthodox Church, not only believe but also

*) [I could have greatly wished that the word "sacrament" had never been received among the Germans, unless it had been rightly understood. For when they hear this word "sacrament," they at once understand something great and holy, which by its own force frees the conscience from sin.]