# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Februar 1908_S90
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

9⁰ Kirchlich⸗Zeitgeschichtliches.

wollen ein „generisches“, ein spezifisch unbestimmtes, unionistisches Symbol.
Singmaster schreibt von der Augustana: It is the most generic expression
of the Lutheran conception of the Word. It carefully avoids what is
particularistic or of minor importance, dealing only with great truths.
The Augsburg Confession, says Krauth, is the symbol of Lutheran
catholicity; all the other distinetive portions of the Book of Concord are
symbols of Lutheran partieularity, creeds of Lutheran churches, but not
in an undisputeéd sense of the Lutheran Church.“ It is the broadest plat⸗
form of union and of co-operation, not only for Lutherans but for all
evangelical Protestants. Well did the great historian Gieseler say, If the
question be, Which, among Protestant Confessions, is best adapted for
forming the foundation of a union among Protestant churches, we declare
ourselves unreservedly for the Augsburg Confession.“ It has commended
itself always to devout and earnest men, like Zinzendorf. Dr. Schaff de-
elared that with some reservation on a single artiele he could heartily
subseribe our Confession. We believe that if thereé ever shall be a great
united Church on earth, the Augsburg Confession will need less revision
than any other creed.“ In sich selber aber ist die Auguftana kein solches
unbestimmtes Ding, wie die Generalsynodisten es wünschen, das jedermann
unterschreiben könnte. Wohl aber wird sie dazu gemißbraucht, wenn man
sie mit der generalsynodistischen Formel unterschreibt as a correct exhibi-
tion of the fundamental doctrines of the divine Wordꝰ. Die liberale
Stellung der Generalsynode zur Schrift und zur Augustana bringt der
Lutheran Observer in seiner Nummer vom 17. Januar also zum Ausdruck:
„If the Reformation won for us the right of private judgment in the
critieism and interpretation of the Bible, surely it gave us moderns the
right to re-examine and restate the confessions of faith made by our fore-
fathers. The Church in every age is bound to rethink its theological
belief in order to make it truly her oun. To go on simply repeating the
ereeds and symbols of our faith makes dogmatie parrots of what God
intended to be thinking men. If the symbols of a denomination do not
truly express the faith of that denomination, it is ineumbent upon it to
revise, or rewrite its confession of faith. The right and duty to re-
examine and revise such a symbol of the denomination is unquestioned
among intelligent Protestants.“ Wie unsere Väter die Symbole unter⸗
schrieben haben, geht hervor aus folgenden Unterschriften. Johannes Brenz
sagt in seiner Unterschrift zu den Schmalkaldischen Artikeln: „Legi et iterum
atque iterum relegi Confessionem et Apologiam.. .. Legi etiam Formu-
lam Concordiae in re Sacramentaria Wittebergae cum D. Bucero et aliis
institutam. Legi etiam articulos à D. Martino Luthero, Praeceptore nostro
observandissimo, in Smalcaldensi Conventu germanica lingua cçonseriptos,
et libellum de papatu et de potestate et jurisdictione episcoporum. Ac
pro mediocritate mea judico haee omnia convenire cum saera seriptura
et cum sententia verae 4ποε vννοανναε catholicae ecclesiaea.. Me enim
ita sentire, confiteri et perpetuo docturum esse per Jesum Christum,
Dominum nostrum, hoc meo chirographo testor.“ (Müller, S. 346.) Eine
andere Unterschrift lautet: „Ego Chunradus Figenbotz pro gloria Dei sub-
scribo, meé ita credidisse, et adhue praedico et credo firmiter, uti supra.“
(Müller, S. 326.) Und Brixius unterschreibt: „Subscribo articulis reve-
rendi Patris M. Lutheri, et fateor me bhactenus ita credidisse et docuisse,