# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1850 06 11_S164
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

164

still, in order to vent their spleen, basely abuse and revile it. Here in this country, on the other hand, it appears that it will have to run its course of battle anew. Well then, in God's name!

Against this Formula of Concord are directed, then, the four arrows of the Missionsbote, which we will now look at more closely without further ado.

1. "The condemnations of the Formula of Concord are against the spirit of the Gospel," so says the Missionsbote. But since Gal. 1, 8. stands rather too strongly in his way, he adds: "Indeed the Apostle Paul says: If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." But in order to escape the impression of these words, he thinks, "we must distinguish the Gospel as the glad tidings that we alone through JEsus are justified and saved, and the different conceptions of articles of faith. Two can be at one in the Gospel, but in the conception of articles of faith they are different." — O dear Missionsbote, si tacuisses etc., but since you do speak, and speak so unsalted a speech, one recognizes only too well who you are. According to your "conviction" the Gospel is then nothing further than "the glad tidings that we alone through JEsus are justified and saved." Now in that, to be sure, all Christian sects are at one, even the sect of the Neo-Catholics which arose some years ago in Germany, whose blasphemous doctrine has long been manifest. It, too, teaches that man is justified and saved by JEsus alone, because, namely, JEsus first and alone showed men the way of righteousness and of life, upon which they now had only (to be sure, in their own strength and wisdom) to walk on joyfully. In this Gospel, to be sure, not only two but all sects, even the maddest, are at one, but "in the conception of articles of faith they are different." But what harm should that do? "The Reformed Church also confesses the Gospel from the heart," what harm should it do, therefore, that it blasphemes God and teaches: He (God) is actually the author of sin, He willed and predestined the fall into sin! God does not have mercy on all His creatures, He does not will that all men should be helped and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2, 4.), but He has mercy only on a part, and all the rest He has predestined to eternal damnation! What harm does it do that it teaches: our eternal High Priest, who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, being tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4, 15.), is not with us always, even unto the end of the world (Matthew 28, 20.), is not in the midst of us wherever we are gathered together in His name (Matt. 18, 20.), but is very far from us up in heaven, and only a part of Him, the Undivided, His Godhead, namely, is everywhere! What harm does it do that it teaches: Christ did indeed say: Take, eat, this is my body, which is given for you, etc., but this must not be understood as the mouth of eternal Truth has spoken it; for here below one enjoys only bread and wine; if one wants to have something more, one must by faith lift oneself up into heaven and enjoy Christ there in the spirit! What harm does it do that it teaches that holy Baptism is not the washing of regeneration (Tit. 3, 5.), that in holy Baptism our sins are not washed away (Acts 22, 16.), but that Baptism is only "a divine sign and assurance of the washing away of sin," which takes place wholly independently of Baptism in the spirit! — What harm does all this blasphemous, and comfortless, and false doctrine do, if only the Gospel is confessed! O holy Apostle Paul, how couldst thou deliver a Hymenaeus to Satan at once, because he taught "differently" only in the one article of faith concerning the resurrection of the dead! Surely he, too, confessed the Gospel, that one is "justified and saved by JEsus alone." And thou, holy disciple of love, St. John, O that thou hadst had no American union-love, but wast so harsh that thou didst command not to receive a false believer into the house nor to greet him, and wouldst have no fellowship at all with a Cerinthus, although he, too, was at one with thee in the Gospel, that one is "justified and saved by JEsus alone." Truly, hadst thou had American union-love, thou wouldst have been "at one" not only with Cerinthus, but also with Basilides, with Valentinus and all the Gnostics, and with Arius besides. For this love can love everything, even what God and His apostles hate and reject. This love can rejoice over everything, even over untruth and unrighteousness. Its union-mantle is wide enough to wrap all sects, and its syncretistic hat broad enough to cover all. Only for the Church of pure Word and pure Sacrament and withal Scriptural confession has it no heart and no toleration. And therefore it cannot suffer the "condemnations," that is, the Scriptural rejection of false doctrine. — Besides, it must surprise us that the Missionsbote does not for the same reason also reject the Augsburg Confession, since it, too, contains "condemnations," as he is pleased to call them.

2. The Missionsbote thinks: "It cannot be proved from Scripture that the properties of the two natures in Christ (communicatio idiomatum) are related as it is set forth in the Formula of Concord, but that it is as the Augsburg Confession says: ""Christ is true God and man in personal unity."" This is now a mighty accusation against the poor Formula of Concord; it will have a hard time of it; for it is accused of standing in contradiction to the Holy Scripture and to the Augsburg Confession. And, truly, were that so, it would be all over with it, and we should gladly leave it undefended ourselves and not presume to call black white. But meanwhile we still keep good courage; for to accuse, any one can do that, but to prove, dear Missionsbote, to prove, that is the thing. And with what have you then proved your accusation? Not even with a little word. The Formula of Concord has proved and established its doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum from the Holy Scripture, and besides has adduced very many testimonies of the oldest teachers of the Church which agree with it; therefore be pleased, dear Missionsbote, you also, first to prove that the Formula of Concord and the Fathers of the first Christian centuries have erred, and do not attempt with empty accusations to "throw sand in our eyes." You demand "thorough proofs from the Holy Scripture"; well then, do give them also for your "conviction," and then we shall not remain debtors of "thorough proofs from the Holy Scripture" to you. But so long as our proofs in the Formula of Concord are untouched, it would be just as foolish to want to bring you new ones as it is foolish to demand them. Meanwhile we give you the well-meant counsel to study the Formula of Concord first thoroughly; for if you do that, and call upon God therein to lead you into all truth, you will of yourself perceive the error of your way, and carry away from the knowledge of the pure doctrine not only much instruction but also much comfort and joy. The study of the Augsburg Confession also we would herewith have recommended to you; then it will not occur to you to set the Formula of Concord in contradiction to the Augsburg Confession, nor to cite the latter so incorrectly.

3. It says: "It cannot be proved from the Holy Scripture that we receive in, under and with the bread and wine and with the mouth the body and blood of Christ, as the Formula of Concord sets forth, for such an enjoyment can be only bodily."

And 4. "It is undemonstrable from Scripture that the doctrine of Ubiquity of the Formula of Concord is right." — These two points also we beg you to prove for us, and not to assert so at random: "It cannot be proved." Our doctrine has long been proved. The Formula of Concord asserts nothing anywhere, but proves it irrefutably from the Word of God. Therefore it is for you, my dear Missionsbote, to prove that the Formula of Concord errs and that you are right. But with such unsalted accusations and foolish assertions do not come to us again, or if you cannot after all leave off, then expect no answer.

So much concerning the four unproved accusations against the Formula of Concord. As for the remaining absurdities of this article of the Missionsbote, it would be a pity about the time,