# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1854 05 09_S146
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

146

heart, must not be horrified when he reads that question and answer with attention and reflects on the conclusions which necessarily follow from it?

If the 10 Commandments are really only a prohibition of some of the harshest injustices, then they are a most imperfect piece of botched work, and it is impossible to comprehend how something whose origin is so dearly attested as divine should have turned out so imperfect, or how that which would be so imperfect should really be of divine origin.

If the 10 Commandments are only a prohibition of some of the harshest injustices, then Luther's exposition and the exposition of the most acknowledged devout and enlightened men is altogether false, for all these have found in them far more than the prohibition of some of the harshest injustices.

Then also—I say what the conclusion brings with it—it is not conceivable what Christ says, that on these should hang all the law and the prophets.

Then also Christ Himself is not absolutely necessary to all men for salvation, and the whole doctrine of the Law and the Gospel is perverted from the ground up.

That is—I think—enough to show whither it leads when propositions are set up such as the one under discussion:

"In the 10 Commandments some of the, etc., are named."

But we must take notice of the possible objections.

1.) The author appeals—so one may perhaps object—to the holy Scripture itself.

2.) He appeals to the Catechism.

3.) In his sentence he says not merely forbidden, but named and forbidden.

4.) He speaks only of the 5 last Commandments.

We answer

ad 1.) The Scripture passage was to prove that the author is right when he says:

In the 10 Commandments some of the harshest, etc., are named.

But the Scripture passage Exodus 20, 13-17 proves nothing else and nothing more than in what book and chapter of the holy Scripture the holy 10 Commandments are to be found and how they read.

ad 2.) The appeal to the Catechism was to prove that the author stands in unanimous faith with our Church. But then the author had to cite Luther's explanation. For the Lutheran Church confesses itself to Luther's Catechism in such a way that it acknowledges Luther's exposition as correct and in accord with Scripture, and will not have it separated from the text; for the bare text (that is, the 10 Commandments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer) was there before Luther also.

How now has the author acted?

1.) He has separated Luther's exposition from the text belonging to it as widely as possible, for the text stands on pp. 3-7, Luther's exposition however only on p. 181 and following. By this placing it is designated not even as an appendix to the textbook, but only as an appendix to the Religious History. Moreover, the former is printed in large type and provided with complete headings, the latter however printed in small type and provided with incomplete headings.**) That would be of no particular significance if the citations were so arranged that neither what stands in front nor what stands behind were thereby passed over and set back. But

**) In the front it says "the five chief parts," etc., and then in particular: the first chief part; the 10 Commandments. Likewise: The second chief part; the third chief part. In the back it says, without the chief part being given by number, simply: Explanation of the 10 Commandments. In the same way, in the case of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, etc., the word "chief part" and its number are omitted.

2.) he does not want at all that one should look up Luther's explanation. If he had wished to cite Luther, he would have had to write:

See Dr. Luther's Explanation of the 5th Chief Part, etc. Commandments 5-10.

But he has written: See Chief Part 1, Commandments 5-10.

So the author does not want at all that one should look in the back, but there where the designation applies, and that is in the front, where Luther's exposition is entirely left out.

What kind of proof now is that for the agreement of the author with the Lutheran Church?

But if the citation does not prove the agreement, what does it profit him that he thereby makes a vain show? He does not appear openly as Luther's disciple or fellow believer, but as one who wants to be Luther's master.

ad 3.) If the little word "named" were to have a justifying or mitigating meaning, the sentence would have to contain an indication that it was perhaps to be understood thus:

Named in the 10 Commandments are indeed only some of the harshest injustices, but to be understood under them are also the very finest.

Such an indication it would be if he had said: the harsh word, e.g. Killing, Adultery, gives only the class under which also the subtle and most subtle sins against the 5th and 6th Commandment belong, etc.

But such an indication is found nowhere, rather the author goes on:

named and forbidden.

What now is forbidden?

Just that which is named.

What is named?

Some of the harshest injustices.

Thus the expression

named and forbidden

can mean only as much as

they are not only named, but also forbidden;

but what remains is always no more and no less than:

some of the harshest injustices.

But where, then, do the evil desires belong? They are surely not only forbidden, but also named, and indeed in the 9th and 10th Commandments. How can the author now say that they are only some of the harshest injustices which are named in the 10 Commandments?

ad 4.) The author answers in Question 215: In the 10 Commandments;—but in the proof passages he cites both from the Bible and from the Catechism only from the 5th Commandment on.

If that is to be an objection, it would have to have approximately this sense:

It is not to be denied that the author says of the 2nd half of the 10 Commandments that only some of the harshest injustices are named and forbidden in them; but he does not say it of the 10 Commandments in general.

Answer: Whoever weakens One commandment has weakened the whole law. Moreover, the 10 Commandments do not stand in such a relation to one another that it could be said, the first four refer to the finer sins, the last six however to the coarser.

But we do not at all charge the author with this sense; we explain his citation rather thus:

The author speaks, in the section to which Question 215 belongs, of righteousness toward the neighbor. Since he now wants to have a transition to the next paragraph, where he treats of gross and fine murder, but the 4th Commandment does not fit there at all, he cites the last 6 Commandments, as those in which, as the author thinks, only the harshest injustices are forbidden, from the 5th on.

The author then does not teach that the finer murder is permitted, but his meaning goes to this, that the ten commandments do not contain so much as to be able to punish from them also the finer injustices.

But what does the author say—we ask—what does the author say, when the 10th Commandment alone already says: "Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's"? Is not life also his? and is not the evident sense of Scripture that whoever commits a subtle sin against the 5th Commandment shall be punished not by the 10th Commandment alone, but also by the 5th?***)

But the author's view of the 10 Commandments is far different from the churchly and scriptural one. Therefore the whole doctrine of duties is also not ar-

***) Hear what Luther says:

Dost thou think that He speaks only of the fist, when He says: Thou shalt not kill!? What does Thou[illegible] not only thy hand nor foot, tongue, nor any other single member, but all that thou art in body and soul. Therefore it is said so much, thou shalt not kill, as if He said: As many members as thou hast, in as many manners as thou mayest find to kill, be it with the hand, tongue, heart, or signs and gestures, looking sour and not grudging life, with the eyes or also the ears, when thou dost not gladly hear of thy neighbor—that is called all killed. For there is the heart and all that is in thee, so minded that it would wish he were already dead. (Starke Synops. N. T. 1. Th. p. 134.)