# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1845 02 08_S47
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

sister sinning, and what does one do? One goes and regards the one whom one has seen sinning as no Christian at all, or at least despises him in one's heart as a poor Christian — and does not rebuke him; or else one even carries his sin abroad, speaks ill of him behind his back, slanders and defames him — and still does not rebuke him himself. Is that the love which Christians ought to have for one another, by which everyone can recognize that they are Christ's disciples? Ah, no; for God says through his servant Moses: "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him." Leviticus 19:17. Not to rebuke one's neighbor when one sees him sinning means, therefore, according to God's Word, to hate him.

(Submitted.)
On the Abolition of the Unlutheran Formula of Distribution at the Holy Supper: "Christ says," etc.

The Lutheran pastor, Dr. Sihler, together with three of his colleagues, submitted to the Lutheran Synod of Ohio a petition for the abolition of the aforementioned formula, which, in accordance with a resolution of that Synod, was included in No. 21 of the Lutherische Kirchenzeitung, and the main content of which was communicated in No. 9 of this paper.

As gratifying as it is, on the one hand, to see in this petition a new proof that the long-dormant zeal for the unadulterated Lutheran confession is gradually reawakening, so distressing, on the other hand, is the occasion for that petition, as well as much else connected with it.

When upright Lutherans who are unacquainted with the present state of the Lutheran church here — whether here or in Germany — read such a report, they must be astonished that Lutheran preachers in this land should still find it necessary to petition a Lutheran ministerial synod, with the presentation of four reasons, to abolish such an unlutheran formula of distribution. They will further be unable to explain to themselves why this Synod resolved and published only the public announcement of the petition it had received, but not at the same time the granting of the petition itself, so as thereby, without delay, to relieve the petitioners of their distress of conscience, and to free itself from the suspicion of such unionism and church indifference.

But it must seem still more striking to every Lutheran to learn that this formula has not merely crept in here and there, but that it has even received churchly authority through the prescription of the liturgy — and that not only in the older one of 1818, but even in the newest, so-called Evangelical Lutheran Liturgy for Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and the neighboring states, which appeared in the

47

year 1842 (Philadelphia, published by J. Böttcher). There it says, in the first Communion formulary, page 173:

"At the distribution of the bread the minister says: Jesus says: Take and eat; this is my body, which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. May this strengthen and preserve you in true faith unto everlasting life. At the giving of the cup he says: Jesus says: Take and drink ye all of it; this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins; may this strengthen," etc.

To this the following remark is also added: "It also serves greatly for the encouragement, comfort, and sustaining of devotion, if the minister adds a fitting verse, saying, or wish at the close of the words of distribution."

Quite apart from the unchurchly and disruptive additions between and after the words of distribution, it is most striking that in the three formularies which follow, reference is made back to this prescription, so that in not a single one is the correct formula found — that is, the one that agrees with Christ's words of institution and has therefore been in use in the Lutheran church for 300 years: Take and eat, this is the true body, etc.

Whoever now examines these four Communion formularies more closely, and tests them by the pattern of wholesome doctrine, will perceive in them, with ever-growing astonishment, an incredible mass of leaven — of false, namely Reformed, doctrine. Unfortunately, however, the entire liturgy is leavened with it; though it is put forth as evangelical-Lutheran, it is in fact and in truth no more so than many another new liturgy — for example, the Saxon, the Prussian, and others — and can therefore no more be tolerated by a Lutheran with a good conscience than these can. For a liturgy which deviates so often and so significantly, in the ordering of public worship and of the individual church rites and customs, from all the older Lutheran liturgies; a liturgy which contains so many essential falsifications of pure Lutheran doctrine in its most important articles, and so many errors condemned in the Symbolical Books; a liturgy which also, in its language, departs entirely from the pattern of the old Lutheran church language and contains so dangerous a mixture of unbiblical, unchurchly, and various other words and turns of phrase offensive in this place; a liturgy whose hidden purpose — though quite unmistakable, especially in the Communion formularies — is to bring about a false union between Lutherans and Reformed; a liturgy which in every formulary deviates from the pattern of the Lutheran church, whether in respect of customs, or of doctrine, or of language, or of unionistic intent — indeed, in some formularies, in all these respects at once — to declare such a liturgy Lutheran, to adopt and introduce it with general consent, to use it for three years and publicly commend it, and in that time to raise not the slightest objection to it — this, to put it mildly, presupposes so strong a blindness and self-deception, and is so unmistakable a sign of the deep decline of the Lutheran church, even here in this western land, that it can only be imperfectly described and lamented in words. From this it is plainly evident that the content of that petition confines itself, with all too great modesty, merely to the abolition of the unlutheran formula of distribution. It will, and must, also be demanded at the same time and consistently, with all earnestness and emphasis, that the Communion formularies — indeed the entire unlutheran liturgy itself — be abolished, and a new and unadulterated one composed. God grant to all who are involved in this holy courage, good counsel, and right works; and to those who undisturbed enjoy the benefit of one of the older, pure liturgies, but above all of the pure preaching of his Word, thankful hearts, that they too may serve him in pure faith through his grace!

E. G. W. Keyl,
Lutheran pastor in Perry Co., Mo.

Testimonies from the Previous Century Concerning the Hope Which Was Already Then Placed in America for the Lutheran Church.

Dr. Fresenius says, in the preface to the twentieth part of his Pastoralsammlungen, of the year 1756, which contains reports of the Lutheran congregations in Pennsylvania, the following:

"Let us pray for the better planting and spreading of the vineyard of God in America. Let us help promote its building in every possible way. Let us consider that perhaps this remote part of the world may, in time, when God visits the European Christians with severe judgments for their great ingratitude, become a region of refuge and deliverance for the few believers."

Deacon Uhrlandt in Gera declares himself, in the year 1784, in his writing "On the Signs of Our Time," after having spoken of the withdrawal of the true doctrine of Christ, as follows:

"As well founded as this fear is — which, through the consideration of many thousand other circumstances that exist, and which I know but cannot possibly cite here, gains even more weight — yet we need not fear for the church of Jesus Christ itself; it shall and will remain, even should it, since the earth is large, build itself up again outside of Europe. And for this, as I already expressed eight years ago in a printed work,