# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1850 09 17_S12
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

12

out of every people, tribe, family and language, all those, and indeed those alone, who from eternity were chosen unto salvation and given to Him by the Father, effectually redeemed." (Chap. 2, Art. 8.) Therefore Heidegger, already mentioned above, writes: "Not all are so bound to believe in Christ that they must be convinced that Christ died for them." (Medulla theologiae lib. II, p. 80.) "The reprobate are by no means bound to believe in Christ as in their Savior who died for them." (Ib. p. 126.) Further the renowned Reformed theologian Spanhemius writes: "From this universality of Christ's death, as from a Hydra (a hundred-headed serpent), new monsters of errors spring forth." (Tom. III. opp. coll. p. 1178.) Further Beza writes: "I say once more, and confess it before the whole Church, that it is false, blasphemous and ungodly to say that Christ, be it according to the counsel of God or according to the efficacy, has made satisfaction no less for the sins of those who are to be damned than for the sins of Paul, Peter," etc. (Resp. alt. ad colloq. p. 222.). Zanchius writes: "That Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, is to be understood thus, that the word 'world' be taken for the best part of the world, namely for the elect alone." (Miscell. I, p. 280.). Piscator, professor at Herborn, writes: "Not for every single man has Christ died, but only for some." (Disput. de praedest. thes. 3.) Beza: "I say this, that there never was a time, or is, or will be, in which God has willed, wills, or will will to have mercy upon all men." (P. II. resp. ad coll. p. 194.)

"In the eighth place, they teach that Christ is not to be worshipped according to both natures; *) this runs contrary to the true knowledge of our only Mediator and High Priest, and is a dissolution and severance of the person, and is contrary to the honor and love of Christ."

*) Danaeus, this zealous champion in the ranks of the Reformed (died 1596), writes: "It is not necessary to think of the flesh or of the human nature of Christ (in invoking Him); yea, it is to be wholly excluded from the religious worship of God and of the divine nature in Christ. Because this honor belongs to God alone." (Assertio p. 38.) "Worship is not to be directed to the flesh (the human nature) of Christ itself, not even in so far as it abides in the person of the Son of God." Zach. Ursinus, author of the Heidelberg Catechism, writes in the Neustadt Admonition: "He (Christ) does not hear all, saves not all, gives not His Holy Spirit through His manhood; this is proper to the Godhead alone, and therefore these things belong to the man Christ, not in so far as He is man, but in so far as He is God." (p. 79.)

"In the ninth place, they teach that children who are baptized are not all regenerated. Where remains then what St. Paul says: 'As many of you as have been baptized have put on Christ, are baptized into Christ's death; and that baptism is a washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost? Is not the beautiful comfort hereby made void which we have from holy baptism, that God cleanses us by the washing of water with the word, receives us as children in baptism, makes us members of Christ, seals us with the Holy Spirit, assures us of His grace, establishes with us a new covenant of a good conscience, bestows upon us all the benefits of Christ, inasmuch as we put Him on in baptism!"

*) Thus Zwingli writes in his Confession, which he intended to deliver in 1530 to the Emperor Charles V: "I believe, yea, I know, that all sacraments, so far from imparting grace, do not even convey it .. To the Holy Spirit no guide or vehicle is necessary .. The sacraments are given as a public testimony of that grace which every one has already beforehand .. The Church therefore receives by baptism him who has previously been received through grace. Baptism therefore does not bring grace, but it testifies to the Church that grace has already come to him to whom it is given. I believe therefore, O Emperor, that the sacrament is a sign of the holy thing, namely of the grace received .. He who receives baptism testifies that he belongs to the Church .. If one were to think otherwise of the sacraments, namely that, outwardly applied, they cleanse inwardly, then Judaism would already have returned thereby." (p. 19. sq.) The same writes: "Baptism is an external ceremony which signifies the thing, but does not effect it." (Opp. III, 1, 576.) Further Calvin writes: "Paul teaches that the children of believers are born holy; for they do not become children of God through baptism, but because they are heirs of the adoption through the promise, therefore the Church admits them to baptism." (Antidotum artic. Paris. p. 256.) Zach. Ursinus writes: "Not all, either, who are baptized with water, be they adults or little children, are partakers of the grace of Christ. For God's eternal election and calling to the kingdom of Christ is free." (Compend. p. 515.) The same: "These are improper and figurative modes of speech: 1. Baptism is the washing away of sins. 2. Baptism washes away sin. The proper mode of speech is that it is a sign of the washing away of sin." (Ib. p. 532.) Beza writes: "But does this take place in all the baptized? By no means. For God the LORD is wont to give the gift of faith and what follows from it only to the elect, at His own well-pleasing time." (1 Resp. ad act. Colloq. p. 25.) Further writes Melchior Leidecker (professor at Utrecht, died 1721) in his extensive Latin exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, published in 1694: "The faith (that the children of Christians become members of the Church in baptism) is not false or vain, although this and that does not belong to election, because it (this faith) agrees with the promise, which is always true, although not all children obtain the inward baptism." (De veritate fidei Reformatae. p. 328.) The non-elect children, therefore, according to the doctrine of the Heidelberg Catechism, are not regenerated by baptism. Finally Beza writes: "Those children who belong to the number of the reprobate are not regenerated, even if they be baptized a thousand times." (Coll. p. 479.)

"In the tenth place, they deny the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper *) contrary to the clear plain words, contrary to the harmonious consent of the Evangelists and Apostles, contrary to the Finem [aim] and end for which Christ instituted His Supper, namely, that He wished to establish the most powerful memorial of His death and of His love. And let every believing heart now ask itself wherein the best comfort consists in this article, and the greatest love of Christ: whether it consists in this, that by bread and wine in the Supper the body and blood of Christ are signified, and that Christ by bread and wine wished to establish the memorial of His death and blood-shedding and of His great love? Or whether He wished to establish the memorial of His death and of His love by the imparting of His body and blood? Yea, let every Christian ask his own heart whether it is not rightly and comfortingly concluded:

"Christ instituted His holy Supper to this end, that He might give and impart the greatest pledge of His love and assurance of the forgiveness of sins. But there is no greater pledge of His love and of the forgiveness of sins than His holy body given for us. Therefore He also gives and imparts to us in the Supper His true body and blood. And further: No more powerful memorial of death can be established than through the imparting of that which was given for us unto death; therefore through the imparting of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper the most powerful memorial of the death of Christ is established. Likewise: That is given us in the Supper which is the greatest pledge of the love of Christ, the most powerful memorial of His death, the mightiest witness of our redemption and strongest assurance and seal of the forgiveness of sins; the body and blood of Christ in the Supper is the greatest pledge of the love of Christ, the most powerful memorial of His death, the mightiest witness of our redemption, the strongest assurance and seal of the forgiveness of sins: therefore the body and blood of Christ are also given us in the Supper."

*) Zwingli writes: "Christ has not commanded us to eat His body in remembrance of His body, but to eat the significative (symbolicum) bread together with the cup in remembrance of His body." (Amica exegesis. Opp. II, p. 329.) Further Zwingli writes in his Confession of 1530, already mentioned: "That the body of Christ is present in the Supper according to essence and really, that is, His natural body, as the Papists and certain people who look back to the fleshpots of Egypt assert: this we not only deny, but constantly maintain that it is an error which contradicts the Word of God .. Those words: 'This is my body,' are not to be taken naturally, but significatively." (p. 24.) Calvin writes: "Those who, in the solemn words of the Supper, 'This is my body,' press straight upon the literal sense, as they call it, these we reject as perverse expositors. For we put it beyond dispute that they are to be understood figuratively (figurate), so that the words, 'Wine and bread is,' mean as much as, 'signifies.'" (So it is said in the "Consensus mutuus in re sacramentaria, art. 22.," a document of agreement by which Calvin publicly united himself with those of Zwinglian sentiments.) The same writes: "Christ seems to those (the Lutherans) not to be present unless He comes down to us. As though, if He lifts us up to Himself, we were not just as much partakers of His presence. The question concerns, therefore, only the manner and mode (?), since they place Christ in the bread, but we hold that it does not become us to draw Him down from heaven." (Institut IV, 17, 31.) The same: "The matter of the bread and wine by no means offers us Christ, nor does it make us capable of His spiritual goods, but faith makes us partakers of Christ." (Consensus Tigur. art. 10.) The same, after he has wearied himself to bring out a difference between his doctrine and the suspected doctrine of Zwingli concerning the presence and enjoyment of the body of Christ, and to persuade his readers of it, concludes at last with these words: "Meanwhile, however, we confess that this enjoyment is no other than an enjoyment of faith, as indeed no other can be conceived." (Insitut. IV, 17, 5.) Beza writes: "The body of Christ is now indeed so far removed from our eyes, and therefore from the place where we celebrate the Lord's Supper, as far as heaven is from earth; yet because this is a heavenly action and our faith is raised up into heaven, that it may lay hold on Christ most effectually, you empty the Lord's Supper if you do not confess that in this respect the flesh of Christ is indeed wholly present." (Vol. 3. tract. th. p. 304.) Zach. Ursinus: "They (the Lutherans) complain that a Capernaitic eating of the body is ascribed to them by us, whereby one tears the body of Christ with the teeth. But it has often been answered them that we do not dispute with them over such an eating, but that we all