# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1851 06 10_S165
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

165

spurious. Porphyry, for example, one of the most considerable opponents of Christianity in the second half of the third century, did indeed endeavor to prove that Peter and Paul were not in agreement in doctrine, but there is no trace that he ever declared the writings of the one or the other, or of both, to be spurious. Does it not follow from this, again, that they perceived that Christianity was, on this side, wholly unassailable among their contemporaries, since it lay too clearly before the eyes of all that the Holy Scriptures were genuine?

Whoever, then, in the face of such historical testimonies, joined with the general ecclesiastical tradition reaching down to the present day, will deny the genuineness of the books of the New Testament, must have made up his mind to take leave of the rules of sound common sense, and, on the other hand, to believe and again to deny whatever pleases him. Such a one, then, ought not to be blamed if he denies that the Augsburg Confession was written by Melanchthon, and the Small and Large Catechism of Luther by Luther; yes, if he denies everything of which he was not an eye- and ear-witness, and of which one can have knowledge only through tradition, history and documents, therefore also, for example, that America was once discovered by Europeans; for he, to be sure, was not there either.

Finally Mr. S. says further: "Moreover, in the original language also, there stands over no Gospel at all that an apostle or disciple of the apostles is the actual author himself; but the superscriptions, exactly and linguistically correctly translated, read: Gospel according to Luke, John, Thomas, etc., but not: Gospel of Matthew, of Luke, etc." Here Mr. S. gives his readers, in his own person, an example (of which, by the way, one sees many) of how it goes with the half-learned, namely, that they want to jump over the brook, and plump into it.

Indeed, one may translate the superscriptions of the Gospels, since they read kata Mattaion etc., "according to"; but it is for that reason by no means exact, nor to that extent linguistically correct. Whoever has occupied himself even a little with languages, no matter whether ancient or modern, will have had the experience that for a word in one language one cannot always put the same word in another; if one did so, one would at times express oneself not only very inexactly, but also very incorrectly; likewise, that one must at times use two or more words in one language in order to render the sense of one word in another language. This now applies, in a certain way, precisely to the word kata. Its fundamental meaning is indeed "according to"; but besides this it also means "of," so far as the author is indicated by "of." To adduce but one proof of the latter, the church father Epiphanius calls the 5 Books of Moses (of which he believes that Moses wrote them): the 5 books kata Moysen. This twofold sense was then also evidently the one which the Christian age, which gave the Gospels that superscription, connected with it. For if it had not meant "according to," it would have said simply "of Matthew, etc.," which can be said in ancient languages as well as in modern; if it had not also meant besides "of" in the sense of author, it is impossible to see how the Gospels could have received such a title at a time (namely in the course of the second century) when, as is proved by clear, irrefutable evidence, it was universally believed that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were their authors; to which it must be added that very ancient translations, for example the Syriac from the third century, have rendered the superscriptions of the Gospels by "Gospel of Matthew, etc. (as they indeed can also be translated). So there seems to lie also in the superscriptions of the Gospels, as they read in the original language, a deep, glorious meaning, such as is at home only in the Church; namely, in the consciousness that there is only One Gospel, that of Christ the Crucified, according to the word of the Apostle: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed," so that also all 4 Gospels proclaim only One Gospel, which 4 together the Church calls the "fourfold Gospel"; in the consciousness of this the Church uses a word in which the idea "according to" prevails, but in which "of" also has a place. It did not matter so much to the Church, after all, that the 4 Gospels were written by those men, for what are men other than instruments! but that in the Gospels, written by those men, she had the Gospel that is able to save all who believe it. And so it is, God be thanked, at all times. Although it is as certain as anything in the world that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of the 4 Gospels, yet it is not this that saves us, but that in the Gospels, written by them, we have God's precious Word, which regenerates us, and introduces us into a new world, wholly unknown to this world, namely the kingdom of God, which is the joy and comfort of our souls, a light upon our ways in life, and our strength and our victory in death. O that those who know it according to name and letter, and squander time and strength in so pitiable a manner in setting themselves against it, might learn to know it also according to its power and its Spirit!

Papistical Faithlessness

Thus writes the Spaniard Didacus Simancas in his book "On the Catholic Institutions" (Chap. 46, No. 52): "To heretics one may in no, no, no way keep the promise given, even if the same had been confirmed by an oath." And one must not suppose that it is only this or that crafty Jesuit who so judges, from whose heart, through the training of his superiors, the natural feeling for justice itself has been systematically eradicated. The Catholic jurist Tiberius Decianus rather testifies: "Although it is generally accepted that one must keep the promise given even to an enemy, yet this, by the unanimous opinion of all, suffers no application to a heretic, because to him also the promise given is not to be kept; which the Council of Constance observed, in that it condemned John Huss and Jerome of Prague contrary to the promise given," etc. (Tract. crim. l. 5., c. 20., n. 55.). For as concerns the two holy martyrs of Christ just named, the Emperor Sigismund had, after they had been cited before the council assembled at Constance, at the request of the King of Bohemia, Wenzel, given them an imperial safe-conduct and the assurance that they should come home again safe and unmolested. Nevertheless Huss, who had appeared commending himself to God's protection, was first of all condemned as a heretic and sentenced to death by fire. To be sure, already when Huss had been cast into prison, the Emperor, mindful of his promise, sent to Constance the command to set Huss free, otherwise he would have the prison broken open; the command, however, was not obeyed; and when the Emperor himself came to Constance, he declared that it was neither right to break the word given to the King, nor to violate the public security; but a deputation of the council represented to him that he, as a layman, must not meddle in this matter, and that a word given to a heretic is not binding. Yes, the fathers of the council drew up the following remarkable decree: "The present holy (?) Synod declares that by no safe-conduct whatever, which the Emperor, kings and other temporal princes give to heretics or to persons defamed for heresy, however highly they may have bound themselves thereto, in the opinion of thereby recalling them from their errors, etc., can anything be surrendered of, or any hindrance be made to, the Catholic faith and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, so that the competent and ecclesiastical judge should not, notwithstanding the safe-conduct given, be permitted to institute an inquiry into the errors of such persons, to proceed against them as they have deserved, and to punish them, according as justice may counsel, if they obstinately refuse to recant their errors, ha-