# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1855 08 14_S204
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

204

come."" But when 2. the symbolical books are called a norm (rule), and a form of doctrine, out of and according to which all other writings are to be judged, this is understood only in a certain respect, on account of a certain analogy (resemblance), namely an external one, which consists in this, that something is also judged and regulated by that (rule), although it is not the fundamental rule of that which is judged and regulated. And indeed 3. when an inquiry is instituted not so much concerning the truth of a doctrine, as concerning its acceptance, validity and approval in a certain church: whether, e. g., the Flacian assertion concerning original sin was ever accepted and approved in the Lutheran Church? Whether the doctrine of Flacius agrees with the doctrine handed down and approved in the Lutheran Church from the beginning of the Reformation? So that 4. the symbolical books are called a norm not of faith itself, but of the confession of faith, not in general, but only in relation to certain controverted principal doctrines, and indeed as that is to continue in certain churches.. That this is the meaning of our people is evident from their own clear words: ""So no one can blame us, they say, p. 517, that we also take explanation and decision of the controverted articles from the same (the Symbols); and as we lay God's Word, as the eternal truth, for a foundation, so also we introduce and cite these writings as a testimony of the truth and for the unanimous right understanding of our forefathers, who steadfastly held to the pure doctrine."" And so our people withdraw nothing from the Holy Scripture, which is called absolutely the norm of our doctrine, nor do they make the Symbols equal to it, but they ascribe to their Symbols only that which the nature and character of a symbolical book requires, and fall here into no extreme" (aberration).

Hereupon Carpzov briefly sums up what our fathers intended in the composition of the symbolical books, and describes their purpose thus: "They wished thereby 1. not only to testify their doctrine and faith, and how they publicly taught it as drawn from God's Word, but besides 2. also to set bounds and limits to arbitrariness in speaking and teaching, within which teachers especially must keep; and 3. they wished thereby also to give and establish a rule according to which the writings of others could be judged, not whether they are true or false? for on that point judgment is to be made from the Holy Scripture alone, but whether they agree with the doctrine accepted and handed down in the Lutheran Church from the beginning; so that thereby 4. the simple might be guarded against spurious writings disturbing the purity of the doctrine once accepted, and so that 5. in this way the holy legacy of the pure doctrine of Luther might be brought down to late posterity."

From the beginning, therefore, our Church has acknowledged her Symbols as the plumb-line of the doctrine valid in her. She therefore cannot possibly leave it to her preachers to decide how far they will bind themselves to the Symbols. For what would come of it if preachers were allowed, e. g., to accept the Symbols only so far as they agree, in their opinion, with the Holy Scripture? This could lead only to the downfall of pure Lutheranism. Very soon, namely, preachers would declare that this or that Lutheran doctrine contradicts the Holy Scripture in their view, would instead propound new, strange, false doctrines, and so in the end would snatch from their congregations this precious jewel of the pure Lutheran doctrine. Only ruin can result from it if our Church were to put it at the pleasure of her preachers how far they would conform to the Symbols. Thereby the congregations would be left wholly to their arbitrariness, thereby the preachers would be given a license to introduce new, false doctrines, yes, thereby the Church would declare that she herself no longer holds her Symbols to be true and in accord with Scripture.

Our Church must therefore have a security that her preachers also teach according to the model of her Symbols. This she has always recognized. She has therefore laid upon her preachers, through the ordination oath, the holy obligation to preach and expound the Word of God according to the Symbols, because they agree with the Holy Scripture. To such an oath no one is of course compelled. It is entirely voluntary. But with joy those take such an oath who recognize our Symbols as the pure, unfalsified explanation and exposition of the divine Word and will, and see in them only their own confession.

How seriously our Church has taken this obligation to the symbolical books, which was also made by signature, is proved by the example of the authors of the Formula of Concord. They testify namely at the close of the first part, p. 511: "That this is the doctrine, faith and confession of us all, which we will answer for at the last day before the righteous Judge, our Lord Christ, and against which we will neither secretly nor openly speak or write, but intend, by the grace of God, to abide therein, we have with deliberation, in true fear and invocation of God, subscribed with our own hands." And the dear Brentius declares of the Smalcald Articles, p. 333: "According to my poor judgment I judge that all this agrees with the Holy Scripture and with the opinion of the true and genuine catholic Church... I testify by this my signature that I will so think, confess and teach steadfastly through JESUS Christ, our LORD."

Concerning the benefit of such an obligation to the symbolical books the blessed Carpzov says, p. 1736, the following: "A special benefit extends to the servants of the Church and their hearers, namely that through the signature of this book the obligation to a definite norm of doctrine makes both the superiors and the hearers themselves more certain of the fidelity and agreement of the teachers, prevents divisions, and guards the Church from wolves. Since the symbolical books are a sum and public declaration of what one must believe, and therefore a rule, if not of faith itself, yet (a rule) in relation to the explanation, repetition, confession and public teaching of the faith for the confessors who have signed the symbolical books."

What our fathers, on the other hand, have judged of those who accept the symbolical books with a reservation, we learn from the following statement of Carpzov, p. 6: "No one is compelled by the Church to believe, nor is any one laid under a necessity of believing through the symbolical books, but all this which the Church seeks with these books among her members and from her members, relates to the outward confession of the faith and of the doctrine once drawn from Scripture and accepted, and to its preservation and unimpaired maintenance. Whoever therefore binds himself to the confession and defense of the symbolical books, cannot, if he wishes to act sincerely, bind himself or subscribe with a silent reservation or under the condition that they agree with Scripture and the ancient Church. For there is no question concerning the truth or falsity of the articles of faith comprehended in the symbolical books, for this (the truth) is presupposed by him who subscribes and binds himself to it, but it is a matter of the confession and preservation of this doctrine in the Church to which one pledges his service. To this confession he binds himself who sincerely subscribes the symbolical books. But whoever doubts the doctrine contained in the symbolical books, and either will not be better instructed about it, or opposes it, and departs from it in expression and manner of speech, oversteps the limits set him by the Church in which he teaches and boasts deceitfully of being a member of the Church whose Symbols he has subscribed."

In like manner testifies also Dr. J. G. Walch in his work: Historische und theologische Einleitung in die Religions-Streitigkeiten, welche sonderlich außer der ev.-luth. Kirche entstanden, p. 46: "It is evident also from this that with good right and conscience the oath upon the sam-