# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1854 04 25_S139
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

139

Answer:

The little word "only" concedes to Christ a preeminence above all other men celebrated in Holy Scripture, but not equality with God.

The little words "expressly like the Father" do indeed attest the doctrine of Holy Scripture, but not the confession of the author.

In the sentence

"which belong wholly and alone to the one God"

the little word belong is to be noted. This the author uses of the one God, but of Christ only, they are ascribed to him.

Thus the author distinguishes his testimony concerning the Father from his testimony concerning the Son. The Father he really holds to be God; therefore he says they belong to him.— But whether he testifies to the Godhead of the Son, when in the same sentence, where it lay so near at hand to use the word belong of the one Person as of the other, he nevertheless inserts another, and moreover a less expressive and ambiguous one—let the reader answer that for himself.

Why does the author not say straight out in Qu. 63—He is.

in Qu. 65.—the Son and the Holy Ghost is truly God, even as etc.

in Qu. 66.—the divine attributes belong to the Son and the Holy Ghost.

in Qu. 67.—by the performance of divine works the Son and the Holy Ghost have revealed and proved their Godhead.

in Qu. 68.—divine honor and worship belongs to the Son and the Holy Ghost by right and is required——?

But everywhere, where the confession of the Godhead of Christ should come forward, the author draws back and says:

Holy Scripture teaches, names, ascribes, attributes, etc.

But should one then not say that Holy Scripture does so?

Why, certainly! But one should do more, one should confess; this the author does not do.

But does it not go without saying that the author, when he says that Holy Scripture teaches thus or so, without doubt himself agrees with it?

It would, if he had not called in question the inspiration in the case of Holy Scripture and the Godhead in the case of Christ, and had not in his Religious History departed from the facts of sacred history.

Therefore it does not help the author that he cites many passages of Scripture. These texts speak indeed for the Godhead of Christ, but not for the author's way of teaching, which is void of confession.

It does not help him that he points from one passage to another, for the one is as empty of confession as the other.

It does not help him either that he sets down many a sentence correct in itself, many an answer correct in itself, yes, even many a question and answer correct in itself. For he cannot clear himself of the reproach

that he shrinks from confessing the Godhead of Christ, but does not shrink from making it suspect.

But what does Holy Scripture say of him who, though he does not deny it in express words, merely omits the confession?

1 John 4:3. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.

The author of the Hanoverian Catechism does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh

for he does not confess

the pure holy birth of Christ of a virgin's womb.

Therefore this spirit is not of God.

And this is—St. John continues in the passage cited—the spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world.

To pass such a judgment we are admonished

V. 1. Try the spirits

and are admonished to accept it,

V. 6. He that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us.

Of the Holy Trinity.

He who would know how one ought rightly to teach of the Holy Trinity must take up the Athanasian Creed*)—a confession that has not its equal when it comes to unambiguousness, faithfulness to Scripture, safeguarding against error, completeness, clearness, brevity and precision—a confession to which the Lutheran Church also confesses*)—a confession that, precisely on account of its importance, was wont to be printed also for the common man as an appendix in the hymn-books—a confession, moreover, which the pious, orthodox Superintendent Sötefleisch, in a little book that, God be thanked, has remained known to the Hanoverian people, in his "Short Simple Questions and Answers from the Small Catechism of Dr. Luther, deemed worthy and needful to impress also upon the dear school youth.

*) Because acquaintance with this confession cannot be presupposed in all readers in equal measure, it may not be superfluous to append it here.

It reads, so far as it treats of the Holy Trinity, as follows:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the right Christian faith.

Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the right Christian faith is this, that we worship one God in three Persons and three Persons in one (single) Godhead.

Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the divine Being.

There is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost.

But the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is one only God, equal in glory, equal in eternal majesty.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, such also is the Holy Ghost.

The Father is not created, the Son is not created, the Holy Ghost is not created.

The Father is immeasurable, the Son is immeasurable, the Holy Ghost is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Ghost is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal.

As also there are not three uncreated, nor three immeasurables, but one uncreated and one immeasurable.

So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, the Holy Ghost is almighty.

And yet there are not three almighties, but one almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet there are not three Gods, but one God.

So the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Ghost is Lord.

And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord.

For like as we must, according to Christian truth, confess every single Person by himself to be God and Lord:

So we cannot in the Christian faith name three Gods or three Lords.

The Father is of none, neither made, nor created, nor begotten.

The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.

The Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son, not made, not created, not begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers, one Son, not three Sons, one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

And in this Trinity none is first, none last, none greatest, none least.

But all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.

So that in all things, as is aforesaid, three Persons in one Godhead and one God in three Persons is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the three Persons in God.

*) "Because in olden times the true Christian doctrine, in pure and sound understanding out of God's Word, was drawn together in short articles or chief parts against the corruption of the heretics, we confess ourselves to the three general Symbols, namely the Apostolic, the Nicene and that of the holy Athanasius, as to the short, Christian and in God's Word grounded glorious confessions of the faith, in which all those heresies that at that time arose in the Christian Church are plainly and steadfastly contradicted."

(See Christliches Concordienbuch by Walch. Histor. Einleit. p. 3.)

How wholly otherwise the spirit that speaks out of the so-called Larger Hanoverian Catechism!

There is no safeguarding against error there, no sincere speech, no faithfulness to Scripture, no confession.

When the discourse is of God as one, the author says "He is" in both question and answer *). But when the discourse is of the three Persons in this one God, he returns to his favorite phrase, "Holy Scripture names, teaches, ascribes, attributes, etc. **)

*) The question reads [Section 1. Qu. 65. p. 21.]

"Is there more than One God?" etc.

and the answer:

"There is only One only God."

Why does he not ask here also, as so often, whether Holy Scripture does not so teach?

The explanation of the altered manner of speech lies in this, that the author found no scruple in using the little word is. And why did he find no scruple, since he does find a scruple in speaking so in other cases? The expression "one only God" still admits of an interpretation according to which it need not necessarily be a triune God [as Christendom understands the word].

**) Cf. Qu. 63—69. pp. 21—23. Why does he put his questions