# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1853 05 10_S122
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

122

fore the obedience itself is not yet abolished." (Hirtenbrief, p. 55.)

26. "They" (the Missourians) teach, contrary to the 28th Article of the Augsb. Confession, that the congregation owes obedience to its pastors only when and in so far as he preaches God's Word to it; but if he merely exhorts*) or demands something in churchly matters that is not contrary to God's Word (e. g. a school building), it may refuse obedience. But the 28th Article teaches: Such ordinances (which are not contrary to God's Word) it behoves the Christian assembly to keep for love and peace's sake, and to be obedient to the bishops and pastors in these cases." (2nd Synodalbrief, p. 14.)

*) It goes without saying that we do not deny that the congregation must obey when the preacher exhorts it out of God's Word; we deny only that the congregation owes its preacher obedience in and of itself when he exhorts it to something that is not commanded in God's Word, that is, when it concerns matters indifferent, which belong under Christian liberty and, according to circumstances, may be done or left undone. We deny that the congregation in these cases must regard as wise and necessary precisely what its preacher regards as such. We deny, naturally, still more, that in such cases, where the congregation cannot carry out what is required of it by its preacher, it must nevertheless acknowledge itself bound in its conscience to obey (cf. the preceding No. 25), since we know that where the ability is lacking, even the Emperor, how much more a little parson! has lost his right, that only God with full right can command us fallen creatures what we are no longer able to perform, and that we therefore remain indebted to God alone for obedience.

The Synod of Pennsylvania.

The readers of the "Lutheraner" will still remember from the first number of the current volume that the Synod named in the heading, at its penultimate session, left it to its members to consider whether it would not be advisable for it to unite again with the General Synod. The assembly in which this was to be decided has now been held, and from the 'Lutheran Observer' we learn that on the vote upon this matter 54 voted for and 28 against the reunion. The incorporation of the Pennsylvania Synod into the General Synod is thus resolved upon. The following members of the former have been chosen delegates to the latter: the Pastors Dr. Demme of Philadelphia, Dr. Becker of the same place, Dr. Schäfer of Easton, Geissenhainer of New York, Hay of Harrisburg, Mann of Philadelphia and Dr. Richards of Reading. On the part of influential members of the General Synod it has already been declared that it will receive with open arms, unanimously, the body that petitions for admission. However great the joy this event will arouse in many, we nevertheless cannot by any means share this joy. The Synod of Pennsylvania has indeed resolved to hold fast to the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession

as a heresy: "No man has the right to impose the least thing upon a Christian man where it does not take place with his consent; but what is done otherwise proceeds from a tyrannical spirit." (Opp. Hal. XIX, 1258.)

26. In the so-called "Confutation" (Refutation) of the Augsburg Confession, which the Papists drew up in 1530 while the Diet at Augsburg was still in session, the Papists complain that the Augsb. Confession in the 28th Article does not teach precisely what Pastor Grabau teaches with them. For thus it says in the would-be Confutation of that very 28th Article to which Pastor Grabau appeals: "From which (namely from 1 Cor. 4, 21, 1 Tim. 5, 19.) it is evident enough that the bishops have not alone power in the office of the divine Word, but also have authority to rule, to constrain and to punish, to the end that they may lead their subjects to eternal salvation. But to the power of government belong the authority to judge, to determine and to order the things which are serviceable and useful to the end aforesaid. Therefore it is all vain and void, whatever has been alleged by the opposite party against the immunity of priests and churches." (See Luther's Werke, Halle edition, XVI, 1265.)

the General Synod no right to prescribe a change in respect of the articles of faith: but who does not see that the Synod, by entering into an ecclesiastical connection with avowedly erring communions, has already forsaken and in fact denied the good confession of our Church? Does it not stand in clear words in the 10th Article of the Augsb. Confession, on the Holy Supper: "Therefore the contrary doctrine is also rejected"? or, as it reads in the Latin copy: Secus docentes, that is, "those who teach otherwise"? Upon what other principles is the Prussian United Church built than upon this, that the Lutheran and the Reformed may well remain by their faith and yet enter into a union with those of another belief? — So we can only express the wish that those members of the Pennsylvania Synod who were unwilling and unable to give their Yes to a union with the General Synod may prove steadfast, and not allow themselves to be moved to yield out of false love, but that in them the old truly Lutheran Pennsylvania mother synod may regenerate itself and arise again.

hearken to them that have the rule over you, etc. This passage demands that one shall be obedient to the Gospel, for it gives the bishops not an own lordship or lordly power apart from the Gospel."

26. In the 28th Article of the Augsb. Confession it says, among other things, thus: "Whether also bishops have power to set up ceremonies in the churches? . . To this ours give this answer: That the bishops or pastors may make order, that things may proceed in an orderly manner in the church . . Such order it behoves the Christian assembly to keep for the sake of love and peace, and to be obedient to the bishops and pastors in these cases." — To this Carpzov gives the following explanation: "It is to be noted, when the Augsb. Conf. at this place concedes to the bishops the right to order ceremonies, that this happens, 1st, according to the circumstances of that time, when this too belonged to them by human right, as it had said: 'that otherwise, however, the bishops have power,' etc.; 2nd, that thereby nothing shall be taken away from the right of the whole Church, as the Augsb. Conf. at the same time not obscurely indicates." (See Carpzov's Einleitung in die symbol. Bücher der ev. luth. Kirche, p. 750.) Already in what precedes, Carpzov had made the remark: "We give answer that the power of church jurisdiction is not the concern of one estate of the Church alone, but of the whole Church . . And all this" (the making of ordinances) "yet does not exclude the consent of the Church, but rather includes it, so that here the bishops always have the Church agreeing with them, and are not to make such ordinances without the consent of the Church and against the will of the Church." (The same, pp. 742, 74[illegible].) Moreover, when Melanchthon himself, while still at Augsburg, became wavering on this point and asked Luther about it in a letter, the latter answered: "A bishop, as bishop, has no power to lay upon his churches any statute or ceremony without the consent of the churches, in express words or in tacit manner. For the Church is free and is a mistress (lady)." (Opp. XVI, 1207.)

What About the Rhythmic Chorales?

Of rhythmic chorales much is said and disputed in these days. And although it is not a matter that directly concerns the holy Christian doctrine or the salvation of souls, yet it may at times be of importance, for individuals as for whole congregations, to get clear what the real state of the case is with the rhythmic chorales. That it is I in particular who write about it has its ground not in my understanding the matter better than others, or believing that I understand it, of which the one is as little the case as the other, but in this, that I have been commissioned to do so; and this my writing, as a mere act of obedience, shall hinder no one from doing it better.

So be it, then, first of all assured, dear reader, that rhythm is a thing which you know very well, however strange and unfamiliar the name borrowed from a foreign language may sound to you. For all the arts that sound and ring cannot be without rhythm. Therefore rhythm is not only in pleasing verses and songs that have an agreeable cadence, but also in every good speech. And even if you are not able to describe so exactly what properly