Intrepid Lutherans

Debating the Contemporary -vs- Lutheran Approaches to Textual Criticism: “Textual and Literary Judgments on the Biblical Text – What Happens to the Lutheran Commitment to Scriptural Inerrancy?”

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:00:00 +0000

Dr. John Warwick Montgomery

Dr. Jeffrey John Kloha

DEBATE
Textual and Literary Judgments on the Biblical Text
What Happens to the Lutheran Commitment to Scriptural Inerrancy?
Location: Chapel of Our Lord/Werner Auditorium at Concordia University-Chicago in River Forest
Date & Time: 9:30am ~2:00pm CDT, 10/15/2016
Cost: GRATISFor more information, see
Debate Announcement at Brothers of John the Steadfast

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 (tomorrow), at the campus of Concordia University – Chicago, will be publicly debated what I consider to be among the most important issues facing Christianity today: whether post-Modern theories of Textual Criticism are valid, and whether they militate against the perspicuity, inspiration and innerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. While readers of Intrepid Lutherans may be well aware of issues regarding post-Modern ideologies of translation, many of which impact the veracity of the NIV (especially the NIV 2011), what most may not be aware of is the nearly two-centuries-old drama regarding ideologies by which the Greek texts of the New Testament are gathered and collated, to produce an authoritative Greek document representing the original texts themselves.

In a series of comments to the July 2015 post, WELS Makes it Official: All WELS congregations shall use NIV2011, following some comments which questioned why the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) refused to even consider use of the New King James Version (NKJV) of the Bible in its recent synod-wide deliberations and adoption of an official translation of the Bible to be used in its publications (and had even refused to answer questions as to why they refused to consider it), I provided a summary of the two-centuries-old drama of textual criticism, as follows:

Evaluating Bible Translations: Alle Schrift von Gott eingegeben

Appendix A

Appendix B

History of the German Bible

Unrevedierte Ausgabe

Westcott and Hort

but a revision of the collection of underlying Greek texts as well

John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester

Volume One of the series, Unholy Hands on the Bible

The Traditional Text of the New Testament

The Causes of Corruption of the Holy Gospels

The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark

The Revision Revised

GOD Manifested in the Flesh

The Woman Taken in Adultery

The Secret Spanking of Westcott and Hort

Conflation and the “Neutral” Text

All of this may soon be a moot point, however, as the next edition of the Nestle-Aland “Critical Text” (28^th Edition) will follow an altogether different method than one can learn from Metzger, Robertson, Aland or Burgon. It follows a relatively newly devised “Geneological-Coherence Method” – something which I personally am only just becoming acquainted with. This new Method totally eliminates the idea of “text families,” and of using them as a basis for assigning authority to certain readings, and instead compares every known variant according to a variety of criteria, in order to determine their relationship and ultimately find what would statistically be the “initial copy”. And this is the critical aspect of this new Method. Beginning with the 28th Edition of the Nestle-Aland Critical Text, we will no long have, even in the original languages, anything that could be called “The Original” text, or even a representation of it. This new method is limited to producing what they call an “Initial Text” – which may be representative of a text existing in the Third of Fourth Centuries. A second critical aspect of this new Method is the reality of continuous updates to the Greek text. It is never fixed, nor can it be regarded as even theoretically fixed, but as continuously moving and shifting, dependent on the discovery of new texts, or other historical or linguistic facts that may impact the criteria used to analyze the body of collected texts. Bible versions descending from this Method will likewise be subject to continuous updating – and we’ve already been warned by the CBT (the NIV Committee on Bible Translation) of more frequent updates to the NIV (which reveals how monumentally stupid it is to standardize a hymnal project on the NIV family of translations, assuming the hymnal is going to be around for more than a few years...).

Due to the immense amount of data, computers will perform the analysis on the texts, while the whole project awaits the massive manpower necessary to enter the data. This eliminates the role of the individual pastor in selecting an authoritative reading during his study – the computer says what it is, and there is no arguing with the computer... But it will take some time to complete – around the year 2030, is what I recall. But already this new method has resulted in some fairly startling changes to the underlying Greek text, and it is expected to impact many of the references used as proof texts in our catechism, not only for Baptism (Mark 16), but also Headship, Church and Ministry, and others. No one really knows what the specific results will be, nor how broad their impact will be, which explains both the ambivalence of the Translation Evaluation Committee (TEC) [the WELS propaganda team for the NIV 2011] toward any specific translation, along with the rapidly changing practices of the WELS with respect to womens roles.

Text and Authority: Theological and Hermeneutical Reflections on a Plastic Text

Who knows what the Bible is going to say in fifteen years? We’ll just have to wait and see.

The paper, Text and Authority: Theological and Hermeneutical Reflections on a Plastic Text, noted in the paragraphs highlighted in blue, above, was written in 2013, by Dr. Jeffrey John Kloha (Provost and Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis), and it has created quite a stir among Lutherans of the Missouri Synod: Kloha has since been seated in front of a committee to answer accusations of doctrinal error, and agreed to submit a revision of his paper – which seems to have finally been published earlier this year, included in a collection of essays drawn from the Conference where his paper was originally submitted. The issues at stake being so startling and severe, Rev. Dr. John Warwick Montgomery (LCMS) – a world renowned Christian apologist, and key figure in the effort to uphold an orthodox Doctrine of the Word in the midst of Missouri’s “Crisis of the Word” in the 1970’s – was compelled to investigate the issues, and once again get involved. Two essays he has written in response to Kloha’s Plastic Text paper, are The Problem of a “Plastic Text”: the Kloha Essay on “Text and Authority”, published late the Summer of 2015, and Beyond the “Plastic Text”: the Plot Thickens, published in February of 2016 (note that BOTH essays are included in the single link here provided – the first paper being included as an Appendix to the second).

In the first of Montgomery’s essays, we learn, among other things, that, (a), the issues are NOT linguistic, but a failure to understand and apply the assumptions which underly secularist New Testament scholarship (with which most confessional Lutherans, it seems, have long become enamored) – assumptions, I might add, which are, indeed, accessible to the understanding of average conscientious Christians (whereas the minutia of linguistic theory may not be, without significant training in languages); and (b), that Kloha admits to a significant departure from historic Lutheran understanding of biblical inspiration, as articulated by Pieper as well as by dogmaticians from the Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy (like Quenstedt).

In the second of these two essays, we learn that Dr. Kloha adheres to the theory of “thoroughgoing eclecticism” – a theory espoused and propounded by Kloha's Doktorvater (mentor), Professor J. Keith Elliot. The method of “thoroughgoing eclecticism” does not select either majority or weighted/preferred readings from variant texts, but, in the words of Elliot himself, is a method in which the textual critic “feels able to select freely from among the available fund of variants and choose the one that best fits the internal criteria.” We learn from analysis of this method, that, as a result, the Biblical texts are treated as “constructed literary works,” variants of which are selected according to the critic’s understanding of literary style and organization of the text. Montgomery offers two examples to illustrate:

better

occurred historically

We also learn that according to this Method, revelation has nothing to do with innerancy, thus does not concern itself with textual and content errors in corrupt variants. “As long as the Bible ‘preaches Christ’, it is fine,” Montgomery quotes Kloha (...this sounds very much like the excrement spewed by the WELS Translation Evaluation Committee a few years ago, as they fed propaganda to trusting laymen supporting the wretched NIV 2011, does it not?). “This is, of course, the old Gospel Reductionism of Seminex and of the liberal Lutherans in general,” Montgomery further points out.

From both of these essays, it becomes apparent that “thoroughgoing eclecticism” threatens a renewed Crisis of the Word, as Montgomery also states directly at the head of his essay:

It is the conviction of the present essayist that this approach amounts to the destruction of the

commitment to scriptural inerrancy; returns biblical scholarship to the subjectivism of the higher criticism; and, if pursued, could cause that conservative church body to face again the theological difficulties that came close to destroying the LCMS in the Seminex controversy of the 1970’s.

The Debate
In an event sponsored by the Lutheran Concerns Association, along with co-sponsors, Balance-Concord, Inc., The Brothers of John the Steadfast, The Association of Confessing Evangelical Lutheran Congregations, Minnesota North Confessional Lutherans, and Texas Confessional Lutherans, Dr. Montgomery and Dr. Kloha will debate the question: “Textual and Literary Judgments on the Biblical Text – What Happens to the Lutheran Commitment to Scriptural Inerrancy?”. The debate will be held on Saturday, October 15, 2016 (tomorrow), at the Chapel of Our Lord/Werner Auditorium at Concordia University-Chicago in River Forest. Starting time for the debate will be 9:30 AM CDT; closing time will be ~2:00 PM. Since both my wife and I regard Dr. Montgomery among our most beloved teachers, since I am seriously delinquent in treating her to a nice little escape from the children, and since Chicago is not unreasonably far from where we live, we plan to be personally present for the debate on Saturday. However, the debate will also be live-streamed and later archived, courtesy of The Brothers of John the Steadfast.

For more information about this debate, please visit the Debate Announcement at Brothers of John the Steadfast. See also their listing of related articles:

NOTE: Portions of this post – the graphic in the header and the final two paragraphs in particular – are Reprinted with permission from SteadfastLutherans.org.

ERRATA and ADDENDUM (10/16/2016)
In the first paragraph colored in blue, above, I noted that the issues involved in the controversies of our day over textual criticism are “something which I personally am only just becoming acquainted with.” Having attended yesterday’s debate, I can attest to having learned something about “thoroughgoing eclecticism” and the “Geneological-Coherence Method,” which requires me to correct what I stated above: I had conflated “thoroughgoing eclecticism” and the “Geneological-Coherence Method,” when, in fact, they are two separate things. The “Geneological-Coherence Method” is the method being used to collate the New Testament via computer modeling, as described in the paragraphs in blue, above. While this may be an issue (Dr. Kloha seems to beware of it, while Dr. Montgomery seems to think it is a positive thing), this was NOT the issue in yesterday’s debate; the issue of “thoroughgoing eclecticism” was the issue – a very serious issue which has Dr. Kloha admitting in his works statements such as the following:

reading

Novum Testamentum Graece

Listening to the Word of God: Exegetical Approaches

Montgomery, in debate, labels this as “the Roman Catholic solution to textual problems” and “pure Schäwrmerei: the Holy Spirit, instead of working through the objective Word to ‘reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment’ (Jn. 16:8), becomes a deus ex machine to justify the subjective literary judgments of the textual critic as to the proper content of the biblical text” (Montgomery, J. [2016], “Textual and Literary Judgments on the Biblical Text – What Happens to the Lutheran Commitment to Scriptural Inerrancy?”, presented in debate with Dr. Kloha, at Concordia University Chicago on 15 October 2016. pg. 10.).

I plan a more thorough reaction to the debate I attended yesterday, but suffice it to say for now: Dr. Kloha did not come prepared at all to debate the very serious points at issue, refused to be corrected, and toward the end, very disgracefully, angrily and childishly dismissed Dr. Montgomery, repeatedly offering as his only defense, “Dr. Montgomery does not know what he is talking about... read my paper.” Unfortunately, none of those who were not in attendance will be able to read his paper, as he expressly forbids ANY reproduction, in whole or in part, without express written permission from him. His doctoral dissertation remains unpublished. And if one wants to read his revision of the “Plastic Text” essay, it is under copyright in an obscure European academic journal (as are nearly all of his writings) that costs ~$90 to obtain.

(And, of course, later today I learn that on the evening of October 13, soon after Dr. Montgomery had made his debate paper available online [which can be downloaded at this link], only a little more than a full day before the debate, Dr. Kloha provided a data dump on Concordia Theology Online, in order that those attending the debate may prepare themselves with his background material. This was announced on The Brothers of John the Steadfast on October 14, but had not been included on their debate information page when I accessed it that day. I’ve added that announcement to the body of this post, above. Dr. Kloha’s Concordia Theology post is The Text of the New Testament: October 15 Presentation. In that post are links to his paper, to his doctoral thesis, and to other background material. His paper can be downloaded from the link he provides in that post [be sure to note Footnote 2: “Distribution, in whole or part, is not permitted without written consent of author.”]. The site hosting his doctoral thesis can be accessed here [he stated during the debate that it was not yet published]. His internet post supplying further background material can be found here.)

Hausvater Project: The Father as Mentor to His Sons – Ten Topics for Man-to-Man Discussion

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Tue, 06 Sep 2016 03:30:00 +0000

As many readers may be aware, I have been a long-time advocate of Classical Education. Indeed, several essays and innumerable comments on these pages broach the topic of Education in a way that (a) identifies the errors of today's post-Modern learning theories (like Social Constructivism), as I was trained in them at one of the nation's top ten Colleges of Education (according to the NEA) back in the 1990's; (b) differentiates them from the errors of Progressive pedagogies that were introduced by John Dewey and which dominated most of the 20^th Century; and (c) as an alternative, promotes the ideologies and methods of The Great Tradition – an ideology of education which is:

––

Artes Liberalis

arts of the free man

––

doctrinal

––

the

The Great Tradition, known today as Classical Education, was the system of education that was crushed by the Educational Revolution of John Dewey, the utopian Industrialists who financed him desiring instead a labor pool of workers that were trained (not necessarily educated) in the Artes Servilis, or the arts of the slave. Those essays can be found by following the link, Classical Education, which is also a search label for this blog.

Many readers will also be aware of the fact that I have been an enthusiastic advocate of the Consortium for Classical Lutheran Education (CCLE). Having been a member of this organization for nearly ten years, and having attended its annual Conferences nearly every year, I remain convinced that the true brain-trust in Lutheran education is to be found among them. I know of nowhere else where a genuinely Lutheran ideology of education, that isn't mashed up and ruined with post-Modern drivel, is even attempted, nor of any truly compelling source of Lutheran educational ideology today, outside of the work of this organization, outside of the truly exciting rediscovery of The Great Tradition and efforts to reimplement it, in which the CCLE is engaged.

What many readers may not know is that, as parents of seven children, my wife and I have been committed Home Educators for well over a decade. My wife herself a graduate of home school, we were in agreement even before marriage – even while I was a graduate student studying Education at a public university – that we would educate our children in the home, and, already having adopted it in theory, that we would follow the ideology of Classical Education. Our life together from the beginning had this objective in view. Thus today, in addition to being a full time homemaker and wife, between the two of us Elizabeth being the true intellect, she is also Head Mistress of our “home-based educational program” (as we are obliged to refer to it in the State of Wisconsin), and lives the life she had dreamed of as a girl, and for which she prepared herself in college.

Sunday after Church
A Recent Photo

Her full time vocations as mother, wife and educator, being altogether as prodigious as they are (especially with seven children), we have very selectively sought supplemental assistance in the latter of these, especially for our older children whose subjects grow more demanding with each passing year.

We have been very pleased with the educational services of Wittenberg Academy, in this regard. This online school was started by Justin and Jocelyn Benson several years ago as an overtly Lutheran source of Classical Education, and today, after several years of hard work, they can boast (although I think they may be too humble to boast...) of having a highly qualified staff of teachers delivering an impressive array of course offerings, to those desiring supplemental coursework for their children (whether Home Educators like us, or otherwise), as well as to those who've enrolled their children in Wittenberg's fulltime high school degree program.

Even though I had been acquainted with the Bensons through our mutual association with the CCLE over the years, and with our children's involvement in Wittenberg Academy, I was still rather surprised to be asked by them to lead a discussion group last April, at their first annual Wittenberg Academy Family Retreat. We had been registered for some time already, were planning to attend, and were looking forward to taking in Dr. Ryan MacPherson's three-part presentation on Vocation, entitled Discovering Your Vocations in the Family, Church, and Society. We had met Dr. MacPherson and his wife several years ago, and though having only infrequently corresponded with him via email since then, we have always been interested in his work, and eager to read and hear what he has to say. A Professor of American History at Bethany Lutheran College, Dr. MacPherson is also President of the Hausvater Project – an organization that "seeks to equip Christian men and women for distinctive and complementary vocations in family, church, and society, by fostering research and education in light of Holy Scripture as proclaimed by the Lutheran Confessions." It was under the auspices of the Hausvater Project that he delivered the plenary sessions at the Family Retreat.

Seal of the Wittenberg Academy

What was requested of me, however, was that I compose a list of ten questions concerning the vocation of fatherhood and the unique challenges faced by concientious Christian fathers in our own post-Modern era, along with a bullet-pointed summary of an approximately 15 minute introduction that would preceed the 45 minute discussion that I would lead and moderate. The questions, along with the bullet-pointed summary, was to fit on a single sheet of paper, and would be handed out to those in attendance (and I made sure that only one single sheet was necessary, as long as the printer was capable of half-inch margins and could print on both sides of the paper!). In addition to the obvious challenges of rearing sons and preparing them for a lifetime of Christian adulthood (of holding on to their faith in a world that desperately seeks to rob them of it; of avoiding the pitfalls of sexual immorality and of seeking, instead, his own "lifelong helpmeet"; etc.), the specific context of the issues addressed in these questions was that of family entrepreneurialism and of re-introducing the father's role as mentor in this regard – which I interpreted as the role of equipping his sons with a trade, of training them for a life of entrepreneurialism, and modeling for them Christian business practices. In addition to the handout, I composed an approximately eight-page essay as background to those questions focusing on marraige and entrepreneurialism, invoking Natural Law to establish the relationship of the Natural Family to Property Ownership and entrepreneurialism, its importance to the continuance of political Liberty and American Society, and the vital role of a Liberal Arts education to this end. Far too long to read in only 15 minutes, I read only excerpts before proceeding to the discussion. Afterwards, Dr. MacPherson asked if he might have a copy of the essay to go along with the handout, consolidate them, and publish the result on the website of the Hausvater Project. Somewhat flattered, I obliged; and in July he posted his adaptation of those two works on the Hausvater Project, under the title, The Father as Mentor to His Sons: 10 Topics for Man-to-Man Discussion. I think Dr. MacPherson did a fine job of consolidating the handout and the essay, into the single concise article he produced for the Hausvater Project; and given that today is Labor Day here in the United States, and that the thoughts expressed in that brief work closely pertain to the Vocation of Fatherhood, and address the post-Modern challenges faced by today's Christian fathers, I thought it would be appropriate to preface it here on Intrepid Lutherans, and share a link to the article that he posted. For those interested in reading it, I also include, below, the Topic Headings he gave to each question:

The Father as Mentor to His Sons: 10 Topics for Man-to-Man Discussion
by Douglas Lindee
Fatherhood and Society
The Priority of Mentoring
Home Catechesis
Roles of Fathers and Mothers
Modeling a Christian Marriage
Recognizing Genuine Beauty
Industriousness
Diligence
Entrepreneurship
Generosity

When the Government Forbids Orthodox Pastors to Christian Congregations: The Sad Story of America’s First Lutheran Colonists

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Mon, 04 Jul 2016 09:00:00 +0000

New Amsterdam

Last year, our Fourth of July post, The Lutheran Conception of a Christian Commonwealth according to King Gustavus Adolphus, and its Mighty Impact on the Formation of our Great Republic, and on the State of Pennsylvania in particular, recounted the happy history of Swedish Lutheran colonists who originally settled New Sweden – an area that is now Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Wilmington, Delaware – under a Charter devised by the beloved Swedish King, Gustavus Adolphus, prior to his grizzly death at the Battle of Lützen in 1632, and later carried out by his successor, Axel Ostenstiern. A pious Lutheran aggrieved by the plight of Christians in the face of State sponsored religious persecution, who fought gallantly in the name of Religious Liberty, and died as a victorious leader in its cause, his plan for a colony in the New World, which would guarantee and protect the Fundamental Rights of the people, was defended by him for almost a decade as

“a Free State, where the laborer should reap the fruit of his toil, where the Rights of Conscience should be inviolate, and which should be open to the whole Protestant world... [where] all should be secure in their persons, their property, and their Rights of Conscience... [and] should be an asylum for the persecuted of all nations.”Under the plan of the Lutheran King, Gustavus Adolphus, the Swedes of New Sweden paved the way for the Quaker, William Penn, who would receive credit for most of the work they had accomplished under the plan of Gustavus Adolphus, prior to Penn’s arrival.

Although gratifying in some respect, last year’s post may have been disturbing, if not offensive, to today’s American Confessional Lutheran, whose germano-centric Lutheran universe may have him so deluded as to think that all positive Lutheran accomplishments must be only of direct German origin. Today’s post will heap coals upon those suffering such bigoted delusions; for the first Lutheran colonists in America were not German, nor were they Scandinavian: they were Dutch Lutherans. Yes. Lutherans in the Netherlands having been the first Protestants to obtain the crown of martyrdom, Lutherans from the same country were the first Protestants in America to have the honor of suffering solely for their religious opinions. In fact, Germany did not even have the sea-faring capability to mount colonizing expeditions to the New World, even in the 17^th Century.

In a 19^th Century history of The Lutherans in America, published in 1889, and endorsed by Henry Eyster Jacobs of the General Council, we read the sad story of Dutch Lutherans who traveled to America, and, although in Calvinist Holland nevertheless permitted the free exercise of Conscience, were forbidden such exercise in the Dutch colonies run by the Holland West India Company in New Amsterdam (New York) and Beverswycke (Albany). Not for a few years, but for a full generation, the Dutch Lutherans were forbidden, by name, the public exercise of religious Conscience, and were thus also forbidden a pastor by the governing authorities.

More than reading their sad story, however, we also learn a lesson from these Dutch Lutheran laymen. They publicly resisted. For a full generation. Forbidden public exercise of their religion, required to worship in the manner of the Calvinists, they refused to join them in worship, and instead held services in their homes. That’s right. These Lutherans, absent an orthodox pastor, did “home church” instead – a big no-no in today’s confessional Lutheran circles. At one point, all colonists were required to have their children baptized in the Reformed Churches, and to swear an oath to raise their children in the Reformed Confession. These Dutch Lutherans refused, and, it seems, baptized their children in their own homes as part of their regular worship.

More than mere resistance, however, we must emphasize that such resistance was not carried out in secret, but was known to the authorities, as these Lutherans continued to publicly defend evangelical Christianity and their Right of Free Conscience, openly writing petitions to be granted a pastor of their own Confession. Their continued practice of “home church,” flouted before the authorities, resulted in "anti-Conventicle" laws being passed in the Dutch colonies – laws which were openly disobeyed by the Dutch Lutherans. Theirs was not the practice of Lutheran Quietism, which is so popular today.

Eventually – after the Dutch colony on Manhattan Island had been without a Lutheran pastor for almost 35 years – the Classis of Amsterdam was persuaded to send the Lutherans a pastor of their own Confession. Upon his arrival, he was ordered by the colonial government to be returned on the same ship on which he had arrived, and forbidden to carry out the duties of his Office. Ten years later, another pastor would be sent – an angry drunk who was forcibly removed by the Dutch Lutherans themselves, after what must have been three long years. He was replaced by a third man, who, by all accounts, was a faithful servant of the Word. After almost fifty years since the founding of the Dutch colony in New Amsterdam and Beverswycke, the Lutherans there finally had a pastor, and finally enjoyed Freedom of Conscience. In the end, God brought this about through the use of tumultuous political events.

When governments and societies wage war against Christian conscience, the Lutheran Way has always been to openly resist, meeting our opponents on the battlefield of wits, wielding the Sword of Truth, publicly confessing with the mouth and the pen. Are American Christians prepared for a generation – or more – of open steadfast resistance in the face of continuous persecution? Do we have the fortitude, and the stamina, to undergo and endure it? Can we laymen survive without orthodox pastors, while waging battle after battle with the authorities, like these Dutch Lutherans did?

The Earliest Lutherans in America
Chapter Four of Rev. Edmund Jacob Wolf’s The Lutherans in America, 1889.
To the devout historian it was a notable coincidence that just at the time that Martin Luther was born into the world, Christopher Columbus was seized with the conviction that Heaven had commissioned him to discover a new world, and to find a new domain for the Christian Church. It devolved upon him, he believed in his heart, to plant the standard of the cross upon shores, concerning whose existence men had then as little knowledge as they had of the possibility of a Church of Christ outside the barriers of the Roman hierarchy. It was in 1483, the year of Luther’s birth, that the discoverer of America found for the first time an opportunity of laying his daring and visionary enterprise before a European court. And nine years later, while Luther was being taught in the schools of Mansfeldt the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, and was often unmercifully beaten by the schoolmaster, Christopher Columbus, after breaking the silence of ages over the trackless waters, offers the first Christian worship in this western world, falling upon his knees, and with tears of joy, giving thanks to God, kissing the new earth which He had given him, and consecrating it to His glory by naming the first islands discovered San Salvador and Santa Trinidata. (Click here for Part I of a history of the Life of Martin Luther, which contains links to Parts II and III following)

And just as all Europe is quaking from the commotion which the revived faith of the Gospel had produced, Hernán Cortés is marching his little band of heroic Spaniards into the gates of Mexico, overthrowing the most powerful tribes of the Aborigines, and opening the way for the conquest of the New World by the Missionaries of the Cross.

But heaven could not consent that the debased type of Christianity, which was represented by the bigoted and cruel Spaniards, and which was about to be overwhelmed in Europe by the outburst of a new life in the Church, should appropriate this virgin soil. This must be reserved for the spread and the sway of a purer faith. The inestimable treasures of truth, which had just been recovered from the debris of ages, were destined to find here a theater for their fullest expansion and for the unfolding of their noblest products. What a miscarriage of history it would have been, had a system, staggering under the fatal blows of the manifest hand of Providence, seized at the very crisis a new continent for its baleful triumphs. God never meant America to become Roman Catholic. This land was to be the home of the free. That power which has always been the enemy of freedom was not to acquire here an opportunity for strangling the genius of liberty when it took refuge in this western world.

The Gospel, in the glorious revelation it makes of the dignity of the human soul and the equality and brotherhood of all men, is the mighty liberator, and here it was foreordained to have a sphere, untrammeled by chains or bars, for creating a nation of freemen. It is from these shores that liberty is destined to enlighten the world. Roman Catholic governments, with their maritime ascendancy at the time, might serve as agents in the discovery and exploration of this vast continent, they might open the way across the sea for the grand march of colonization and immigration, but the establishment of institutions must be left to the hands of men who had learned in the school of Luther, who had imbibed the doctrines of the Reformation, and who knew to lay the foundations of a republic in which the Freedom of Conscience and the rights of the individual should be forever secure. An insolent and infamous Pope, Alexander VI, by a solemn decree gave, indeed, the whole New World to Spain, but one greater than the Pope gave it to a people who along with Luther had renounced all papal authority. Alexander’s infallibility must, about this time, have been nodding.

It is certainly noteworthy that while for a period of more than a hundred years after the discovery of this continent, the Roman Catholics of Spain and France and Portugal were planting their settlements and missionary stations over a vast area, extending from Florida to California, they were not permitted by Providence to lay the foundation on which the permanent institutions of a mighty Empire were to be erected. Their ideas and principles so far from leaving a permanent impress upon this country, contributed so little to the formation of its government that even the existence of these settlements is unknown except to the student of history.

Speaking of the Spaniards, Bryant, in his history remarks: “Fortunately for the progress of the human race and the future history of North America, all their efforts to gain a permanent foothold north of the Gulf of Mexico were in the main unsuccessful” (A popular history of the United States [1876]). And another eminent American historian, Dr. Dorchester, observes: “While thirst for gold, lust of power and love of daring adventure served the providential purpose of opening the New World to papal Europe, and Roman Catholic colonies were successfully planted in some portions, the territory originally comprised within the United States was mysteriously guarded and reserved for another – a prepared people” (Christianity in the United States from the First Settlement Down to the Present Time [1889]) – a people brought forth in the pangs of the Reformation, possessed of new ideas and loftier aims and intended by Providence to found in the New World a great Christian Republic, one of the mightiest agencies in human progress (Click here for a partial bibliography of works by Dr. Dorchester).

While the first Protestant colonists owed their religious faith and their convictions of civil polity to the Lutheran Reformation, the true adherents of the Lutheran Church could not, in the nature of things, take the leading part in the early settlement of this country. England and the Netherlands, and in some measure Sweden, were in the seventeenth century the only maritime nations among the Protestants of Europe, the only powers, accordingly, that were prepared to establish colonies beyond the sea. “The Reformation,” says Bancroft, “followed by collisions between English Dissenters and the Anglican Hierarchy colonized New England. The Reformation emancipating the United Provinces, led to European settlements on the Hudson” (History of the United States of America, Vol II [1888]).

But although debarred through lack of commercial equipments from having the ascendancy in the original colonization of America, it was in accordance with the fitness of things that Lutherans should form an element in some of the earliest Protestant settlements. Providence has in many instances employed them as the leaven where others held the more conspicuous place of the loaf. Their scriptural faith, their intelligence, their industry, thrift and sturdy moral principles constitute, it is well known, invaluable factors in a liberal and prosperous state, and it may be attributed to Providence that the earliest settlement of Lutherans in this land is almost coincident with its permanent settlement.

The first representatives of the Lutheran Church in this country came notably, not from Germany, the home of Lutheranism, but from Holland, the land which during the Reformation furnished the first martyrs for the evangelical faith, an event which called forth Luther’s well-known hymn “Ein neues Lied wir heben an,” said to have been his earliest hymnological composition. Although the Reformation in Holland assumed at an early period an extreme Calvinistic type, prosperous congregations of Lutherans maintained themselves in different parts of the country, the strongest of them being the Church at Amsterdam which afterward became “the foster mother of the Dutch Lutheran congregations in New York and New Jersey.” There is no evidence of their suffering persecution from the State Church prior to the rise of the Arminian party. From that time on, although they had no sympathy with Arminian doctrines, yet as they had along with their brethren in other lands always stoutly repudiated the extreme tenets of Calvinism, they became involved in the bitter and relentless persecution of the Arminians which followed the Synod of Dort in 1618. Intolerance did not stop to make any distinctions among the opponents of rigorous Calvinism, and Lutherans fell a prey to the same religious fury which beheaded a Barneveldt and imprisoned a Grotius.

To what extent their sufferings for conscience’ sake had a part in leading them to embark with others of their countrymen for the New World is not known, neither have we any evidence of opposition being offered to their coming. It seems quite probable that the religious oppressions as well as the political commotions which held sway in their native land, prompted them to go beyond the seas in quest of peace and worldly prosperity, if not primarily for the sake of religious freedom. Some of them appear, at all events, to have come with the first Dutch colony which in 1623 occupied Manhattan Island, the territory now comprised in the city of New York.

The prospect of commercial advantages had led the Holland West India Company to found this colony, and but little concern was consequently manifested for the religious interests of the settlers. At least five years elapsed before the first minister of the Reformed Church, Jonas Michaelius, came over and assumed pastoral care at New Amsterdam.

How early the Lutheran settlers took steps to organize a congregation or to celebrate worship according to the order of their Church, cannot be clearly determined, but when they moved to have the service of their own precious faith they at once encountered strong and persistent opposition from the Reformed, who represented the State Church of the fatherland.

And the first picture of Lutherans in America is that of a noble band suffering persecution: Lutherans in the Netherlands having been the first Protestants to obtain the crown of martyrdom, Lutherans from the same country were now destined to be the first Protestants in America to have the honor of suffering solely for their religious opinions. For although the English Calvinists in Massachusetts were engaged in whipping and hanging Quakers and banishing Baptists at the same time that the Dutch Calvinists were fining and imprisoning Lutherans on the Hudson, it is pretty clearly established now that Roger Williams, Ann Hutchinson, and the Quakers generally, who were so obnoxious to the Puritans, were not made to suffer for their religious views so much as for their disturbance of civil order, their menace to the peace and stability of the colony, their dangerous political tenets and their wanton defiance of the constituted civil authority. The Lutherans, on the other hand, never in all history employed their religious teachings for the subversion of government. They never figured as political agitators, and the little band on Manhattan Island sought only the enjoyment of their spiritual rights under their own vine and fig-tree.

In a section of his well-regarded monograph defending confessionalism against the charge of abrogating private judgment, by demonstrating that common confession is nothing other than private judgment held in common, Charles Porterfield Krauth eloquently distinguishes the Lutheran Confession from all other major Christian confessions in regard to the misuse of the State by heterodox confessions for religious purposes, while forcefully asserting the right of the Church to defend herself from heresy through moral rather than physical means:

It is the doctrine of the Reformation, not that there should be no checks upon the abuse of private judgment, but that those checks should be moral alone. The Romanists and un-Lutheran elements in the Reformation were agreed, that the truth must be maintained and heresy extirpated by the sword of government. Error is in affinity with the spirit of persecution. The first blood shed within the Christian Church, for opinion’s sake, was shed by the deniers of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Arians. So strong was the feeling in the primitive Church against violence toward errorists, that not a solitary instance occurs of capital punishment for heresy in its earlier era. The Bishops of Gaul, who ordered the execution of the Priscillianists – though the lives of these errorists were as immoral as their teachings were abominable, were excluded from the communion of the Church. As the Western Church grew corrupt, it grew more and more a persecuting Church, till it became drunken with the blood of the saints. The maxims and spirit of persecution went over to every part of the Churches of the Reformation, except the Lutheran Church. Ulrich Zwingli countenanced the penalty of death for heresy. What was the precise share of Calvin in the burning of Servetus is greatly mooted; but two facts are indisputable. One is, that, before the unhappy errorist took his fatal journey, John Calvin wrote, that, if Michael Servetus came to Geneva, he should not leave it alive, if his authority availed anything; the other is, that, after the burning of Servetus, Calvin wrote his dissertation defending the right of the magistrate to put heretics to death (1554). The Romish and Calvinistic writers stand as one man for the right and duty of magistrates to punish heresy with death, over against Luther and the entire body of our theologians, who maintain, without an exception, that heresy is never to be punished with death.

Charles Porterfield Krauth

The Reformed portion of Protestantism has put to death, at different times and in different ways, not only Romanists and Anabaptists, but its terrible energies have been turned into civil strife, and Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Independents put each other to death, especially in the great civil wars of England, whose origin was largely religious... The Lutheran Church alone, of all the great Churches that have had the power to persecute, has not upon her skirts one drop of blood shed for opinion’s sake. The glorious words of Luther were: “The pen, not the fire, is to put down heretics. The hangmen are not doctors of theology. This is not the place for force. Not the sword, but the Word, fits for this battle. If the Word does not put down error, error would stand, though the world were drenched with blood.”

By these just views, centuries in advance of the prevalent views, the Lutheran Church has stood, and will stand forever. But she is none the less earnest in just modes of shielding herself and her children from the teachings of error, which takes cover under the pretense of private judgment. She would not burn Servetus, nor, for opinion’s sake, touch a hair of his head; neither, however, would she permit him to bear her name, to “preach another Jesus” in her pulpits, to teach error in her Universities, or to approach with her children the table of their Lord, whom he denied. Her name, her confessions, her history, her very being, protest against the supposition of such “fellowship with the works of darkness,” such sympathy with heresy, such levity in regard to the faith. She never practiced thus. She never can do it. Those who imagine that the right of private judgment is the right of men, within the Lutheran Church, and bearing her hallowed name, to teach what they please in the face of her testimony, know not the nature of the right they claim, nor of the Church, whose very life involves her refusal to have fellowship with them in their error. It is not the right of private judgment which makes or marks a man Lutheran. A man may have the right to judge, and be a simpleton, as he may have the right to get rich, yet may remain a beggar. It is the judgment he reaches in exercising that right which determines what he is. By his abuse of the “inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” a man may make himself a miserable slave. The Right of Property Ownership belongs as much to the man who makes himself a beggar as to the man who has become a millionaire. Rights, in themselves, give nothing, and cannot change the nature of things. The right to to gather, gathers nothing; and if, under this right, the man gathers wood, hay, or stubble, neither the right nor its exercise makes them into gold, silver, and precious stones. The Church will not put any violence upon him who chooses to gather what will not endure the fire; but she will not accept them as jewels, nor permit her children to be cheated with them. The right of private judgment and the right of Church discipline are co-ordinate and harmonious rights, essential to the prevention, each of the abuse of the other. To uphold either intelligently, is to to uphold both. In maintaining, therefore, as Protestants, the right and duty of men, in the exercise of private judgment, to form their own convictions, unfettered by civil penalties in the State, or by inquisitorial powers in the Church, we maintain, also, the right and duty of the Church to shield herself from corruption in doctrine by setting forth the Truth in her Confession, by faithfully controverting heresy, by personal warning to those that err, and, finally, with the contumacious, by rejecting them from her communion, till, through grace, they are led to see and renounce the falsehood, for which they claimed the name of truth.

(Krauth, C.P. (1871). The Conservative Reformation and its Theology. Philadelphia: Lippincott. pp.173-175)

The first distinct mention of the Lutherans at New Amsterdam is from the pen of the Jesuit Missionary, Isaac Jogues, whom the Dutch had rescued from captivity among the Iroquois, and who spent the time from August, 1642, to November, 1643, in the colony. He says: “No religion is publicly exercised but the Calvinist, and orders are to admit none but Calvinists, but this is not observed, for there are beside Calvinists, in the colony, English Puritans, Lutherans, Anabaptists, here called Minists” (Mennonites).

The opposition to Lutheran worship appears to have been for awhile not so inexorable as to drive them from the colony or to prevent their assembling in private dwellings where religious services after the Lutheran form were conducted by one of their number. The little band in the wilderness, without bishop or priest, formed with God’s Word a true Church of Christ. They had a bitter grievance in connection with the baptism of their children. This sacrament had to be administered by the Reformed pastor who required of sponsors a profession of faith which to a Lutheran conscience must have been, to say the least, unsatisfactory and compromising.

The settlement of Rev. John Megapolensis as pastor of the Reformed Church of New Amsterdam, in 1649, was the signal of more rigorous measures against the Lutherans and all non-conformists. The congregation considered itself capable of maintaining a pastor and desired to call one from Holland, formally petitioning Governor Stuyvesant for the privilege of worshiping publicly in a church by themselves. The resistance offered by the Reformed pastors against this petition was so strenuous, that the Governor, who was himself a zealous Calvinist, refused his permission “for the reason that he was bound by his oath to tolerate openly no other religion than the Reformed.”

The Lutherans hereupon addressed themselves to the West India Company and to the Home Government. The Reformed Pastors made a counter-appeal to the Classis of Amsterdam, to which had been entrusted the office of supervision of ecclesiastical affairs in America, urging the dangerous consequences of making such concessions to the Lutherans, and entreating them to prevent their being made. It would be a dangerous precedent.

The instructions which came from Holland in response to these appeals, were “that they would encourage no other doctrine in New Netherlands than the true Reformed.” No violence, indeed, was sanctioned, but it was made incumbent on the Governor “to use all moderate exertions to allure the Lutherans to the Dutch Churches and to matriculate them in the Public Reformed religion.” The tolerance granted them in the fatherland is to be denied in free America, and this document, bearing date February 26, 1654, expresses the hope that the Reformed Religion would now “be preserved and maintained without hindrance from the Lutherans and other errors.”

The Lutherans have somehow always been considered a “hindrance” by their sister churches. They have always stood in their way. Their presence has been dreaded as a menace to sectarian ascendancy and an obstruction to sacerdotal power. Their popular worship, their evangelical doctrine, their childlike faith and spiritual freedom can never hope for a welcome among those who are still partial to the bonds of legalism and who look to works as well as to faith as a condition to salvation. Standing midway between the sensualizing ceremonials and dogmas of Rome and the pronounced subjectivity of the Reformed system, a position rendered impregnable by history as well as by the Scriptures, the Lutheran Church is no more likely to command favor with the denominations of the Reformed type than with the papal communion. Happily she has vitality enough not to be dependent on this favor. Woe to her if she ever courts it at the expense of her principles.

Sustained by the ecclesiastical authorities of the mother country, the Calvinist Governor of New Amsterdam and his intolerant preachers now resolved on crushing out the Lutherans. Failing in the effort “to allure” them into the Dutch churches, and by this means to absorb them, as they had been instructed by the Directors, they resolved that resort must be had to penalties and imprisonments. Persecution must be tried where persuasion failed. Parents were henceforth required on presenting their children for baptism to profess their belief in the doctrines of the Synod of Dort, the most extreme deliverances ever put forth by Calvinism, and they must even promise to train up their children in the same – that is, to teach their offspring tenets which in their hearts they abhorred, knowing them to be contrary to the Gospel. Rome never did greater violence to the conscience, never showed stronger determination to force error into the minds of the unwilling. Resistance to these oppressive and sinful demands was followed by arrest, by fines, and in default of payment the recusants were thrown into prison. They must by force be made to conform to Calvinism.

Steadfast in their convictions and with the courage of martyrs the Lutherans persisted in having their assemblies for worship, and as their numbers, in spite of their persecutions, were continually increasing and their spirit growing more resolute and defiant, the wrath of the Reformed Pastors became more bitter and violent. They lodged complaint with the Governor against their “Conventicles,” as meetings for worship not authorized by the government were then called. Such meetings, they claimed, were sure to breed disorder in Church and State, and they succeeded in having him issue a proclamation “for the promotion of the glory of God, the increase of the Reformed Religion,” etc., forbidding the holding of conventicles not in harmony with the established religion, as set forth by the Synod of Dort. A fine of one hundred Flemish pounds was imposed for every violation of this ordinance by the preaching of a sermon, and twenty-five pounds on all persons guilty of meeting in private dwellings for the purpose of worshiping together. The penalty for preaching the Gospel was accordingly one hundred pounds, the penalty for hearing it twenty-five pounds. Lutheran services, even in private houses were thus absolutely suppressed. Mennonites and Quakers shared with Lutherans the honors and the horrors of these persecutions, but the published placard at Albany (then Beverswycke), specifically singled out the Lutheran congregation there as the particular object of this prohibition of worship.

Note that this state-sponsored prohibition of “Conventicles” in America occurs decades prior to Philipp Jakob Spener’s publication of Pia Desideria (1675). Following the rise of Pietism that resulted (a hallmark of which was the “Conventicle”), governments in Europe enacted anti-Conventicle laws, in part due to a peculiar form of millennial teaching espoused by some pietists which motivated them to subversive political activity. One can read more about this, and some other aspects of German and Haugean Pietism, and their impact on American Lutheranism, in an early pair of Intrepid Lutheran blog posts from 2010: Lay Ministry: A Continuing Legacy of Pietism and C.F.W. Walther on the Layman’s Role in the Congregation’s Ministry.

The Lutheran people were not dismayed, nor disposed to surrender their precious rights to worship God according to the faith of their Church. They now had recurrence to their brethren in Holland and sought especially their intervention with the authorities of the established Church, with the Directors of the West India Company and with the States General, in regard to their grievances, entreating that there might be granted them, “the united members of the Church of the unaltered Augsburg Confession,” the same tolerance and right of worship here which the Lutherans enjoyed in Holland, and that an ordained minister of their faith might be sent over “to instruct them and take care of their souls.” A more favorable response was now vouchsafed. The “overprecise” and oppressive measures of Stuyvesant were rebuked, a more liberal policy was enjoined as being indeed indispensable to the promotion of emigration. The doctrine of the unaltered Augsburg Confession should have the same toleration in the New Netherlands which was accorded it in the fatherland and a pastor for them, it was promised, would arrive the following spring. After this these persecuted people certainly had reason to hope that they would no longer be denied the privileges of their religion, and in most humble terms they implored Stuyvesant to allow them at least the service of sacred reading and singing. But the Reformed pastors were only exasperated by the orders of the West India Company to adopt a milder and more Christian course of conduct. They were inexorable, and in defiance of these orders secured the continuance of oppressive measures and the further prohibition of conventicles until they could once more communicate with the home authorities. And they forthwith renewed their “importunities with their friends in the Classis of Amsterdam, to save them from so terrible an evil as the establishment of a Lutheran Church in the pious colony of New Netherlands.”

Notwithstanding the implacable and indefatigable opposition of the clerical bigots in New Amsterdam, and to their infinite chagrin and dismay, the long-suffering Lutherans had in June, 1657, the inexpressible joy of welcoming their promised pastor. It was the Rev. John Ernest Goetwater, who was the first Lutheran minister to visit the banks of the Hudson. He had been sent out by the Lutheran Consistory of Amsterdam to minister to their suffering brethren in the New Netherlands, two congregations having been by this time organized, one at New Amsterdam (New York), and one at Beverswycke (Albany).

The reception accorded by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities to this servant of Christ, coming into this vast wilderness on the sole peaceful mission of dispensing the Gospel to humble souls whose cry had gone across the sea, was infamous not to say inhuman, and, even for that day, without the shadow or an excuse or extenuation. And it is strange that while every popular history expatiates on the wrongs endured by the Quakers and Baptists of Massachusetts about this same time, so little reference is made to the more cruel, unrelenting and utterly indefensible persecutions inflicted upon the Lutherans on the Hudson. This anomaly may in a measure be accounted for by the quiet patience with which, according to the spirit of Christianity, they bore their sufferings, seeking redress with the general government rather than resorting to reckless agitation or revolution.

An impartial historian, Edmund Bailey O’Callaghan, gives the following account: “Religious excitement now took the place of political... The Dutch clergymen immediately informed the authorities. Dominie Goetwater was cited before them and forbidden to exercise his Calling. Messrs. Megapolensis and Drisius demanded that he should be sent back to Holland in the same ship in which he had arrived. He was ordered to quit the Province accordingly. Sickness, however, prevented his compliance with this harsh and unchristian mandate. He was therefore put ‘on the limits of the city,’ and finally forced to embark for Holland,” which decree went into execution October 16, the Lutherans protesting in vain (History of New Netherland, Vol I & Vol II [1846]).

Though not allowed to conduct any public services, the presence of a pastor for several months among the distressed and desolate flock of Lutherans, must have in various ways proved a blessing to them. It is doubtful, as he was not allowed to exercise his Calling, whether he could even baptize their children, as the law required these to be presented by their parents in the Reformed Church, and he was closely watched with the suspicion and fear bred of bigotry, yet he could not be prevented from visiting the people at their homes, holding domestic worship with them and in personal ministrations offering them the counsels and consolations of the Gospel. For even this boon the hearts of Lutheran confessors would feel unutterably grateful.

Their bitter persecutors were neither ashamed of their heartless procedure, nor content with the success of the efforts they had instigated to prevent the settlement of a Lutheran Pastor. An exulting report of it must be forwarded to the home authorities. In this they glory in their shame and gloat over the triumph by which it was crowned at the hands of the provincial government. No Lutheran minister should be allowed to preach the faith of the Reformation within the limits of their jurisdiction, nor even by his presence to pollute this soil sacred to Calvinism. This report, dated August 6, 1657, is preserved in Volume III of the “Documentary History of New York,” pages 103—108, and is an interesting specimen of the malignant spirit of persecution. It is addressed to the Classis of Amsterdam, “fathers and brothers in Christ Jesus.” It acknowledges their fatherly care “and the trouble taken by them to prevent the injuries which threaten this community from the encroachments of heretical spirits.” “We being animated and cheered by your letters,” it proceeds to state, “hoped for the best, though dreading the worst, which even now has arrived, to the especial discontent and disapprobation of the congregation of this place, yea of the whole land, even of the English.” “We have already the snake in our bosom.” They certainly had not warmed it. “We demanded also that the noble Lord’s Regent should send the Lutheran minister back in the same ship in which he arrived... in order to put a stop to their work, which they seemed disposed to push forward with a hard Lutheran pate.” To their credit be it recorded these malign zealots had some appreciation of the qualities of a Lutheran head, which may have been one cause of their consternation when a Lutheran minister set foot on Manhattan.

The Dutch West India Company, whatever may have been its previous concessions or promises to the Lutherans, evidently approved of the expulsion of Pastor Goetwater, and absorbed as they were in commercial pursuits and caring little for the interests of religion, they now declined to allow them any other privileges beyond “permission for individuals to pray and read the scriptures” – a slight improvement on Romish persecution – and the pastors of the Reformed were enjoined to so modify the baptismal formulary as to remove the greatest grievance complained of by the Lutherans, and to adopt in general a policy of moderation so that they might in time be “gained over.” The real ground of hostility to the Lutherans was apparently the fact that they would not unite with the dominant Church, an objection to them that has possibly not yet lost its force in some communities. Warning was, however, also given to these over-zealous pastors that “if their present course were persisted in, a separate Church must be allowed to the Lutherans.”

The death blow must have fallen upon the Lutheran Church in New Netherlands, one would suppose, when their pastor immediately upon his arrival was forcibly driven from the country. But with an irrepressible faith and that “hard Lutheran pate” they maintained some form of an organization despite the severe disabilities and oppressions under which they labored. In November, 1660, we read that “the Lutherans were promoting a subscription for a clergyman of their own.” A petition addressed to Governor Colden, in 1763, affirms that at the time New Amsterdam passed under English control, in 1664, “the Lutheran congregation was in organized existence and enjoyed the benefits of the terms of the compact made” – a claim which was admitted by the Colonial authorities. They based upon this their right to a charter and perfect toleration, in accordance with the terms of capitulation made by the English with the Dutch governor, whereby all their religious privileges were guaranteed to the inhabitants of the Province.

The Directors of the West India Company, realizing that the oppressive measures which had been employed were proving detrimental to the prosperity of the colony, resolved in April, 1663, on pursuing a more liberal and Christian policy. They administered a severe rebuke to Stuyvesant for the violence which had been offered to the consciences and rights of subjects in his colony and put an end once for all to persecution in New Netherland. About a year after the arrival of this decree, a British fleet appeared before New Amsterdam and the rule of the doughty Knickerbocker himself, as well as of persecution, came to a sudden termination.

It is the judgment of Dr. William Morton Reynolds (President Capital University [1850-1854] and Carthage College [1858-1862]) that the Lutherans proceeded with the erection of a house of worship in 1663, immediately upon learning of the changed policy of the Directors, but Dr. Beale Melanchthon Schmucker says: “The first proof I have found of any action connected with the erection of the first church is in June, 1671, when certain dissatisfied members were compelled to pay subscriptions made for that purpose.” These subscriptions, it is more than likely had been made some years previous, the protracted delay quite naturally giving rise to dissatisfaction.

Whenever it was built, this first church stood, for some reason, “on ground without the gate of the city” and, of a piece with the singular succession of adversities which so long harassed and tried the Lutheran Church in New York city, there came subsequently, during the brief restoration of the power of Holland, 1673-74, an order from Governor Colve that it must be torn down. The pretext offered for this destruction was that this building along with some others outside the wall interfered with the necessary defenses of the place, and this plea would, perhaps, not be disputed, but for the inflexible hostility which the Reformed colonists had for half a century borne to their Lutheran brethren. The property so destroyed was to be valued by impartial persons, lots of equal value within the city were to be conveyed to the owners, and reimbursement allowed for the loss of buildings. Of the exact location of this first church no evidence is to be found.

Governor Stuyvesant Surrenders to the British, 1664

Soon after the whole colony had passed into the hands of the English government, application was made by the Lutherans to Colonel Nicholls, the governor, for permission to call a minister of their Confession from Europe, which application was promptly granted “by an act under his hand and seal.” The successor of Nicholls, Lord Lovelace, made subsequently public proclamation that James, the Duke of York, had communicated to him by letter his pleasure that the Lutherans should be tolerated, but added also “as long as his Royal Highness shall not order otherwise.”

For some reason, unknown to us, a number of Dutch Lutherans saw fit to withdraw from Manhattan Island, shortly after it passed under the government of the British, and they formed a settlement on James Island, southwest of the Ashley River, in South Carolina. They were at that time the only adherents of the Lutheran Church in the Carolinas. Their industry is said to have triumphed over incredible hardships, but of their spiritual progress nothing is known beyond their sturdy protest against the impious and impudent bigotry, which in 1704, established the Church of England in the two Carolinas and provided for its support from the public treasury. The shameless injustice of such legislation, when the Episcopalians had but a single church in the Province, while the “Dissenters” had three in Charleston and one in the country, was resented by the people of other creeds, and they made common cause in endeavoring to obtain its repeal, the Lutherans bravely uniting in transmitting a statement of their grievances to the Lords-proprietors.

The Lutherans of New York, having obtained from the newly established English authorities permission to call a preacher of their faith, they forwarded their petition to the Classis of Amsterdam – the Dutch being still the dominant party in the congregation, though Lutherans from other countries had in the meantime united with it – but four long and gloomy years were yet to pass by before their earnest entreaties for a shepherd were granted.

And when, at last, in 1668, more than forty years after the first Lutherans had settled in New York, and ten years after the banishment of Rev. Goetwater, they were to see their petitions granted and their hopes realized, they alas! found the fruit of all their efforts, to be like the apples of Sodom, a most grievous disappointment. A more unhappy selection could scarcely have been made for them. The Lutheran Consistory must have been ignorant not only of the peculiar requirements of the situation in this New World, but they must have been totally unacquainted with the character of the man whom they commissioned. It would have been a sad day for the the early Christian Church, if the congregation at Antioch had made a similar mistake when they sent forth Barnabas and Saul on the mission to the Gentiles. The man’s name was Jacob Fabricius. He was a sorry excuse for the spiritual head of a congregation that had languished so long without pastoral oversight, and had suffered so much from adversity and persecution. He proved to be utterly unadapted to the position.

He had received university training and was a man of uncommon talents and eloquent as a preacher. But he was of a haughty and violent temper, had neither tact nor prudence, and, saddest of all, was a victim of intemperance.

At Albany, where, as well as in New York, Governor Lovelace had given him permission to exercise his Office, he became seriously involved with the civil authorities and also with his congregation. Refusing to sanction civil marriage, which was at that time the law of the Province, he proceeded, whether from conscience or from covetousness, to impose a fine of one thousand six dollars upon one of his members whose marriage had been solemnized by a civil official. The party complaining to the governor, the latter suspended the arbitrary preacher from his functions in Albany for one year, allowing him still to continue his ministrations in New York, though in the course of another year he was there also authorized to preach his farewell sermon.

The work of erecting a church building in the latter place, which had been inaugurated prior to his coming, received at first, naturally, quite an impetus from his presence, but he soon became an element of discord in the congregation and his offensive, domineering, behavior threw everything into confusion. The people became so much dissatisfied that they not only refused to contribute to his support but they even declined to pay their subscriptions to the building of the church. The civil authorities had to be invoked and it was ordered by the magistrates, that the subscriptions made for the church building and those for the salary of the pastor should be paid “up to the time of their late public disagreement.” Compliance with this order was of course inevitable, but shortly afterward certain members of the church, doubtless its trustees or office bearers, petitioned the governor to have their accounts settled, adding that they wished to have nothing more to do with the pastor Fabricius. His brief and most unfortunate pastorate came to an abrupt close on August 11, 1671.

Surely God must have watched over this straitened and struggling little band holding to the faith of the Augsburg Confession, or the infant would certainly have been strangled in its cradle. Cast down but not in despair the congregation proceeded to petition for a new pastor, and to their heartfelt joy they were in a short period permitted to greet him welcome. His name was Rev. Bernardus Antonius Arensius. He is described as “a gentle personage, and of a very agreeable behavior,” the exact reverse of his predecessor. It is not known by whose authority he was sent across, nor is the date of his arrival settled, but as the same order of Governor Lovelace which granted permission to Fabricius to preach his farewell sermon empowered him also “to install the new-come minister, according to the custom used by those of their religion,” he must presumably have arrived shortly before that date.

He served the congregation at Albany as well as the one in New York. But his career was of that peaceable, noiseless tenor which seldom attracts the attention of the historian, and hence but few notices of this servant of God appear in the contemporary records. Governor Dongan’s report of the state of the Province, April 13, 1687, mentions a Dutch Lutheran among the ministers then living in New York, and the editor of the Historical Documents, III, page 415, speaks in a note of Rev. Bernardus Arsenius who “succeeded Dominie Fabricius and was minister of the Church in 1688.”

What the membership of his two congregations numbered is nowhere reported, but from a letter dated September 28, 1715, and written by one of his successors, Rev. Justus Falckner, we learn that at that time four small congregations existed in the province of New York, “and all these four consist in all of about one hundred constant communicants, besides strangers going and coming in the city of New York.” The second church was erected in 1684, on the corner of Broadway and Rector Street, on the lot which had been allotted for this purpose by Governor Colve, in lieu of the one on which the first Church had stood without the wall.

How long Pastor Arensius continued to live and minister to these congregations has not, up to this time, been ascertained, but as there is no trace of the presence of any other Lutheran minister in the province prior to the year 1700, it is probable that he continued until about the close of the century. He was succeeded for a short period by the Rev. Andrew Rudman, Provost of the Swedish Churches on the Delaware, but this calls our attention to a settlement of Lutherans in another section, who came from a different country, and whose early history is irradiated with brighter scenes than those through which the devoted band in New York was called to pass.

(And of this latter group of Lutherans we learned much, in last year’s Fourth of July post.)

Previous Independance Day articles:

The Fourth of July is God’s day

“The focal point of all history [and of the future] is the birth of the man called ‘The Christ’, and the subsequent promulgation of His beautiful Gospel message, especially through the mediums created and put to use by the Anglo-American empires of the 19^th and 20^th Century’s... I believe that we could do no better today than to commit as much of history to memory as possible, and so prepare ourselves and our children to meet the new challenges that are sure to arise in the future. They are going to need the knowledge, understanding, insight, and courage that only a Christian view of history can give them. We will have to teach them. Only in this way will we preserve our civilization, and, more important, our freedom!”

We Are the Sons of Liberty

The Declaration of Independance is one of the greatest Enlightenment documents ever written, invoking the clear and irrefutable conclusions of Natural Law that establish the existence of a Creator, it appeals to this transcendant Authority in defense of the Rights of Man:

Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God

Creator

Supreme Judge of the world

Divine Providence

An Enlightenment document, but NOT a “Deistic” document. The god of the Deist is not a Creator in the sense it is used in the Declaration (i.e., of persons who have personal reference to “their” Creator), but is an impersonal force – an “uncaused cause” or “one prime mover”; the god of the Deist is not a Judge, but is benevolently uninvolved and uninterested; the god of the Deist has absolutely no involvement or interest in the affairs of man, that it would have a need to Providentially orchestrate them to achieve its interests for their benefit and its glory. On the contrary, these are all terms and usages unique to Christian theology.

The Lutheran Conception of a Christian Commonwealth according to King Gustavus Adolphus, and its Mighty Impact on the Formation of our Great Republic, and on the State of Pennsylvania in particular

Repressed history, forcefully demonstrating the fundamental influence of Christianity in the formation of our Free Nation, the United States of America. King Gustavus Adolphus, a pious Lutheran aggrieved by the plight of Christians in the face of State-sponsored religious persecution, who fought gallantly in the name of Religious Liberty, and died as a victorious leader in its cause, consulted with the Protestant leadership of Europe to establish a colony in the New World:

From the Presentation to the Final Days of Dr. Martin Luther

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:30:00 +0000

Dr. Martin Luther
Eisleben, Germany

On October 31, 2014, the 497^th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther’s famous posting of his Ninety-five Theses on the door of the Church in Wittenberg, and a day which Lutherans annually commemorate as the Festival of the Reformation, we published the first part of a history of Dr. Martin Luther with the post, Dr. Martin Luther, the Corruption of Rome, John Tetzel and Indulgences, and the Ninety-five Theses. It was taken from a work that was originally written by Rev. Dr. Joseph A. Seiss in 1888, Luther and the Reformation: The Life-Springs of Our Liberties. A co-founder of the General Council along with Charles Porterfield Krauth, Rev. Seiss was a 19^th Century Lutheran pastor, serving congregations in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. One can read more details about him in the introduction to our first part of Luther’s history. This first part emphasized the facts that Luther initially proceeded out of great concern for the Pope’s good reputation and the integrity of Christ’s Church, writing many personal letters to his bishops detailing the abuses he had witnessed; that when it became evident that his letters were largely ignored he then began to write and speak more openly of these abuses – even seeking open debate – in hopes that open dialog might help bring resolution to these issues and reformation in the Church; that though many agreed with him, they nevertheless advised him to relent and be silent about these abuses; that some even conspired against him; that in the end, his separation from the Church was neither planned nor desired, but necessary due to Rome’s obstinacy.

Following this, on June 25, 2015, a day which marks the anniversary of the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession in 1530, we published a second part to the history of Dr. Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany, with the post From the Ninety-five Theses to the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession. This second part emphasized the nature of Christian Confession, and its relation to Christian Conscience and Christian Martyrdom. It is growing ever more apparent that it is very necessary for Western Christians to once again be acquainted with what it truly means to Confess one’s faith in word and deed, as the consequences for doing so increasingly seem to invite discrimination, recrimination, financial and physical harm, and even death. Dr. Martin Luther, as he stood before Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521, was standing before his executioner when he refused to recant what he was convinced as a matter of Christian Conscience was the Truth, and instead emphatically Confessed the contrary, saying:

my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.

[Bainton, R. (1950). Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. New York, NY: Abingdon-Cokesbury. pg 185.]

With these words Dr. Martin Luther taught the world. Nine years later, eight German Princes and the leaders of two free cities (Nuremberg and Reutlingen) stood before the Emperor, refusing on the basis of Christian Conscience to make political peace with the Empire under the requirement of adopting a false religion, stood their ground, instead reading their public Confession before him and all the world. The Presentation of the Augsburg Confession in 1530, represents a monumental shift in the history of the West – in both religious as well as political terms – as with Augustana the convictions of conscience were placed at the center, and at the pinnacle, of civil liberty. It seems, though, that such a position is it not so irrevocable. From a survey of today’s political landscape, it is more than apparent that human conscience itself is under attack: words which can be in any way construed as offensive, as well as the thoughts behind those words, are now regulated and punished in many places, even in the United States; in Europe, with the current Refugee crisis, even words which are taken as politically inconvenient are reprimanded by the authorities; “freedom of religion” is being supplanted by “freedom of worship”; and more frequently, in the interest of advancing the so-called secular State, we see a perplexing willingness – veritably, an open desire in Academia and the Press – to ignore the manifold crimes committed against Christians worldwide, especially by Muslims, or to even blame Christians themselves for those crimes. Thus, it is vitally important that Christians be reacquainted with the true meaning of Christian Confession, and its connection to Christian Conscience and Martyrdom, as the day is swiftly approaching in the West – even in America – when all Christians will be called upon to stand before their executioners where they will either confess or recant, and henceforward think, speak and act – live and die – accordingly.

Today, February 18, is another special anniversary. Unlike Festival of the Reformation and the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession, it is not a Festival of the Church year – not that I am aware. It is on this day in 1546 that Dr. Martin Luther died – in the same town in which he was born in 1483: Eisleben Germany. In honor of this date, we publish the final part of our three-part series on the history of Dr. Martin Luther. It begins where we left off last June, briefly bringing to a close the history of events in which he was involved after the Presentation, then concluding by, in effect, eulogizing him, by discussing who he was as a person, his achievements and their broad and lasting impact on the world.

Click here for Part I of this series on the Life of Martin Luther

Click here for Part II of this series on the Life of Martin Luther

From the Presentation to the
Final Days of Dr. Martin Luther²²
THE LEAGUE OF SMALCALD.
The emperor’s edict appeared November 19th, and the Protestant princes at once proceeded to form a league for mutual protection against attempts to force their consciences in these sacred matters. It was with difficulty that the consent of Luther could be obtained for what, to him, looked like an arrangement to support the Gospel by the sword. But he yielded to a necessity forced by the intolerance of Rome. A convention was held at Smalcald at Christmas, 1530, and there was formed the League of Smalcald, which planted the political foundations of Religious Liberty for our modern world.

By the presentation of the great Confession of Augsburg, along with the formation of the League of Smalcald, the cause of Luther became embodied in the official life of nations, and the new era of Freedom had come safely to its birth. Long and terrible storms were yet to be passed, but the ship was launched which no thunders of emperors or popes could ever shatter.

Doors of the Schlosskirche in Wittenberg,
on which Dr. Luther nailed his Theses in 1517

When the months of probation ended, France had again become troublesome to the emperor, and the Turks were renewing their movements against his dominions. He also found that he could not count on the Catholic princes for the violent suppression of the Protestants. Luther’s doctrines had taken too deep hold upon their subjects to render it safe to join in a war of extermination against them. The Zwinglians also coalesced with the Lutherans in presenting a united front against the threatened bloody coercion. The Smalcald League, moreover, had grown to be a power which even the emperor could not despise. He therefore resolved to come to terms with the Protestant members of his empire, and a peace – at least a truce – was concluded at Nuremberg, which left things as they were to wait until a general council should settle the questions in dispute.

LUTHER’s LATER YEARS.
Luther lived nearly fifteen years after this grand crowning of his testimony, diligently laboring for Christ and his country. The most brilliant part of his career was over, but his labors still were great and important. Indeed, his whole life was intensely laborious. He was a busier man than the first Napoleon. His publications, as reckoned up by Seckendorf, amount to eleven hundred and thirty-seven. Large and small together, they number seven hundred and fifteen volumes – one for every two weeks that he lived after issuing the first. Even in the last six weeks of his life he issued thirty-one publications – more than five per week. If he had had no other cares and duties but to occupy himself with his pen, this would still prove him a very Hercules in authorship.²³

But his later years were saddened by many anxieties, afflictions, and trials. Under God, he had achieved a transcendent work, and his confidence in its necessity, divinity, and perpetuity never failed; but he was much distressed to see it marred and damaged, as it was, by the weaknesses and passions of men. His great influence created jealousies. His persistent conservatism gave offense. Those on whom he most relied betimes imperiled his cause by undue concessions and pusillanimity. The friends of the Reformation often looked more to political than Christian ends, or were more carnal than spiritual. Threatening civil commotions troubled him. Ultra reform attacked and blamed him. The agitations about a general council, which Rome now treacherously urged, and meant to pack for its own purposes, gave him much anxiety. It was with reference to such a council that one other great document – The Articles of Smalcald – issued from his pen, in which he defined the true and final Protestant position with regard to the hierarchy, and the fundamental organization of the Church of Christ. His bodily ailments also became frequent and severe.

Prematurely old, and worn out with cares, labors, and vexations – the common lot of great heroes and benefactor – he began to long for the heavenly rest. “I am weary of the world,” said he, “and it is time the world were weary of me. The parting will be easy, like a traveler leaving his inn.”

He lived to his sixty-third year, and peacefully died in the faith he so effectually preached, while on a mission of reconciliation at the place where he was born, honored and lamented in his death as few men have ever been. His remains repose in front of the chancel in the castle church of Wittenberg, on the door of which his own hand had nailed the Ninety-five Theses. ²⁴

PERSONALE OF LUTHER.
The personal appearance of this extraordinary man is but poorly given in the painted portraits of him. Written descriptions inform us that he was of medium size, handsomely proportioned, and somewhat darkly complected. His arched brows, high cheek-bones, and powerful jaws and chin gave to his face an outline of ruggedness; but his features were regular, and softened all over with benevolence and every refined feeling. He had remarkable eyes, large, full, deep, dark, and brilliant, with a sort of amber circle around the pupil, which made them seem to emit fire when under excitement. His hair was dark and waving, but became entirely white in his later years. His mouth was elegantly formed, expressive of determination, tenderness, affection, and humor. His countenance was elevated, open, brave, and unflinching. His neck was short and strong and his breast broad and full.

Though compactly built, he was generally spare and wasted from incessant studies, hard labor, and an abstemious life.

Mosellanus, the moderator at the Leipsic Disputation, describes him quite fully as he appeared at that time, and says that “his body, was so reduced by cares and study that one could almost count his bones.” He himself makes frequent allusion to his wasted and enfeebled body. His health was never robust. He was a small eater. Melanchthon says: “I have seen him, when he was in full health, absolutely neither eat nor drink for four days together. At other times I have seen him, for many days, content with the slightest allowance, a salt herring and a small hunch of bread per day.”

Mosellanus further says that his manners were cultured and friendly, with nothing of stoical severity or pride in him – that he was cheerful and full of wit in company, and at all times fresh, joyous, inspiring, and pleasant.

Honest naturalness, grand simplicity, and an unpretentious majesty of character breathed all about him. An indwelling vehemency, a powerful will, and a firm confidence could readily be seen, but calm and mellowed with generous kindness, without a trace of selfishness or vanity. He was jovial, free-spoken, open, easily approached, and at home with all classes.

Audin says of him that “his voice was clear and sonorous, his eye beaming with fire, his head of the antique cast, his hands beautiful, and his gesture graceful and abounding – at once Rabelais and Fontaine, with the droll humor of the one and the polished elegance of the other.” In society and in his home he was genial, playful, instructive, and often brilliant. His Table Talk, collected (not always judiciously) by his friends, is one of the most original and remarkable of productions. He loved children and young people, and brought up several in his house besides his own. He had an inexhaustible flow of ready wit and good-humor, prepared for everybody on all occasions. He was a frank and free correspondent, and let out his heart in his letters, six large volumes of which have been preserved.

He was specially fond of music, and cultivated it to a high degree. He could sing and play like a woman.²⁵ “I have no pleasure in any man,” said he, “who despises music. It is no invention of ours; it is the gift of God. I place it next to theology.”

Cast of Dr. Martin Luther’s face and hands,
made upon his death in 1546.

He was himself a great musician and hymnist. Handel confesses that he derived singular advantage from the study of his music; and Coleridge says: “He did as much for the Reformation by his hymns as by his translation of the Bible.” To this day he is the chief singer in a Church of pre-eminent song. Heine speaks of “those stirring songs which escaped from him in the very midst of his combats and necessities, like flowers making their way from between rough stones or moonbeams glittering among dark clouds.” Ein feste Burg welled from his great heart like the gushing of the waters from the smitten rock of Horeb to inspirit and refresh God’s faint and doubting people as long as the Church is in this earthly wilderness. There is a mighty soul in it which lifts one, as on eagles’ wings, high and triumphant over the blackest storms. And his whole life was a brilliantly enacted epic of marvelous grandeur and pathos.²⁶

Luther’s qualities of mind, heart, and attainment were transcendent. Though naturally meek and diffident, when it came to matters of duty and conviction he was courageous, self-sacrificing, and brave beyond any mere man known to history. Elijah fled before the threats of Jezebel, but no powers on earth could daunt the soul of Luther. Even the apparitions of the devil himself could not disconcert him.

Roman Catholic authors agree that “Nature gave him a German industry and strength and an Italian spirit and vivacity,” and that “nobody excelled him in philosophy and theology, and nobody equaled him in eloquence.”

His mental range was not confined to any one set of subjects. In the midst of his profound occupation with questions of divinity and the Church “his mind was literally worldwide. His eyes were for ever observant of what was around him. At a time when science was hardly out of its shell he had observed Nature with the liveliest curiosity. He studied human nature like a dramatist. Shakespeare himself drew from him. His memory was a museum of historical information, anecdotes of great men, and old German literature, songs, and proverbs, to the latter of which he made many rich additions from his own genius. Scarce a subject could be spoken of on which he had not thought and on which he had not something remarkable to say.”²⁷ In consultations upon public affairs, when the most important things hung in peril, his contemporaries speak with amazement of the gigantic strength of his mind, the unexampled acuteness of his intellect, the breadth and loftiness of his understanding and counsels.

But, though so great a genius, he laid great stress on sound and thorough learning and study. “The strength and glory of a town,” said he, “does not depend on its wealth, its walls, its great mansions, its powerful armaments, but in the number of its learned, serious, kind, and well-educated citizens.” He was himself a great scholar, far beyond what we would suspect in so perturbed a life, or what he cared to parade in his writings. He mastered the ancient languages, and insisted on the perpetual study of them as “the scabbard which holds the sword of the Spirit, the cases which enclose the precious jewels, the vessels which contain the old wine, the baskets which carry the loaves and the fishes for the feeding of the multitude.” His associates say of him that he was a great reader, eagerly perusing the Church Fathers, old and new, and all histories, well retaining what he read, and using the same with great skill as occasion called.

Melanchthon, who knew him well, and knew well how to judge of men’s powers and attainments, said of him: “He is too great, too wonderful, for me to describe. Whatever he writes, whatever he utters, goes to the soul and fixes itself like arrows in the heart. He is a miracle among men.”

Nor was he without the humility of true greatness. Newton’s comparison of himself to a child gathering shells and pebbles on the shore, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before him, has been much cited and lauded as an illustration of the modesty of true science. But long before Newton had Luther said of himself, in the midst of his mighty achievements, “Only a little of the first fruits of wisdom – only a few fragments of the boundless heights, breadths, and depths of truth – have I been able to gather.”

He was a man of amazing faith – that mighty principle which looks at things invisible, joins the soul to divine Omnipotence, and launches out unfalteringly upon eternal realities, and which is ever the chief factor in all God’s heroes of every age. He dwelt in constant nearness and communion with the Eternal Spirit, which reigns in the heavens and raises the willing and obedient into blessed instruments of itself for the actualizing of ends and ideals beyond and above the common course of things. With his feet ever planted on the promises, he could lay his hands upon the Throne, and thus was lifted into a sublimity of energy, endurance, and command which made him one of the phenomenal wonders of humanity. He was a very Samson in spiritual vigor, and another Hannah’s son in the strength and victory of his prayers.

Dr. Calvin E. Stowe says: “There was probably never created a more powerful human being, a more gigantic, full-proportioned MAN, in the highest sense of the term. All that belongs to human nature, all that goes to constitute a MAN, had a strongly-marked development in him. He was a model man, one that might be shown to other beings in other parts of the universe as a specimen of collective manhood in its maturest growth.”

As the guide and master of one of the greatest revolutions of time we look in vain for any one with whom to compare him, and as a revolutionary orator and preacher he had no equal. Richter says, “His words are half-battles.” Melanchthon likens them to thunderbolts. He was at once a Peter and a Paul, a Socrates and an Æsop, a Chrysostom and a Savonarola, a Shakespeare and a Whitefield, all condensed in one.

HIS ALLEGED COARSENESS.
Some blame him for not using kid gloves in handling the ferocious bulls, bears, and he-goats with whom he had to do. But what, otherwise, would have become of the Reformation? His age was savage, and the men he had to meet were savage, and the matters at stake touched the very life of the world. What would a Chesterfield or an Addison have been in such a contest? Erasmus said he had horns, and knew how to use them, but that Germany needed just such a master. He understood the situation. “These gnarled logs,” said he, “will not split without iron wedges and heavy malls. The air will not clear without lightning and thunder.”²⁸

But if he was rough betimes, he could be as gentle and tender as a maiden, and true to himself in both. He could fight monsters all day, and in the evening take his lute, gaze at the stars, sing psalms, and muse upon the clouds, the fields, the flowers, the birds, dissolved in melody and devotion. Feared by the mighty of the earth, the dictator and reprimander of kings, the children loved him, and his great heart was as playful among them as one of themselves. If he was harsh and unsparing upon hypocrites, malignants, and fools, he called things by their right names, and still was as loving as he was brave. Since King David’s lament over Absalom no more tender or pathetic scene has appeared in history or in fiction than his outpouring of paternal love and grief over the deathbed, coffin, and grave of his young and precious daughter Madeleine. “I know of few things more touching,” says Carlyle, “than those soft breathings of affection, soft as a child’s or a mother’s, in this great wild heart of Luther;” and adds: “I will call this Luther a true Great Man; great in intellect, in courage, affection, and integrity; one of our most lovable and precious men. Great not as a hewn obelisk, but as an Alpine mountain, so simple, honest, spontaneous; not setting up to be great at all; there for quite another purpose than being great. Ah, yes, unsubduable granite, piercing far and wide into the Heavens; yet, in the clefs of it, fountains, green, beautiful valleys with flowers. A right Spiritual Hero and Prophet; once more, a true Son of Nature and Fact, for whom these centuries, and many that are yet to come, will be thankful to Heaven.”

HIS MARVELOUS ACHIEVEMENTS.
A lone man, whose days were spent in poverty; who could withstand the mighty Vatican and all its flaming Bulls; whose influence evoked and swayed successive Diets of the empire; whom repeated edicts from the Imperial throne could not crush; whom the talent, eloquence, and towering authority of the Roman hierarchy assailed in vain; whom the attacks of kings of state and kings of literature could not disable; to offset whose opinions the greatest general council the Church of Rome ever held had to be convened, and, after sitting eighteen years, could not adjourn without conceding much to his positions; and whose name the greatest and most enlightened nations of the earth hail with glad acclaim – necessarily must have been a wonder of a man.²⁹

To begin with a minority consisting of one, and conquer kingdoms with the mere sword of his mouth; to bear the anathemas of Church and the ban of empire, and triumph in spite of them; to refuse to fall down before the golden image of the combined Nebuchadnezzars of his time, though threatened with the burning fires of earth and hell; to turn iconoclast of such magnitude and daring as to think of smiting the thing to pieces in the face of principalities and powers to whom it was as God – nay, to attempt this, and to succeed in it – here was sublimity of heroism and achievement explainable only in the will and providence of the Almighty, set to recover His Gospel to a perishing race.³⁰

HIS IMPRESS UPON THE WORLD.
To describe the fruits of Luther’s labors would require the writing of the whole history of modern civilization and the setting forth of the noblest characteristics of this our modern world.³¹

On the German nation he has left more of his impress than any other man has left on any nation. The German people love to speak of him as the creative master of their noble language and literature, the great prophet and glory of their country. There is nothing so consecrated in all his native land as the places which connect with his life, presence, and deeds.

But his mighty impress is not confined to Germany. “He grasped the iron trumpet of his mother-tongue and blew a blast that shook the nations from Rome to the Orkneys.” He is not only the central figure of Germany, but of Europe and of the whole modern world. Take Luther away, with the fruits of his life and deeds, and man today would cease to be what he is.

Frederick von Schlegel, though a Romanist, affirms that “it was upon him and his soul that the fate of Europe depended.” And on the fate of Europe then depended the fate of our race.

Michelet, also a Romanist, pronounces Luther “the restorer of liberty in modern times;” and adds: “If we at this day exercise in all its plenitude the first and highest privilege of human intelligence, it is to him we are indebted for it.”

“And that any faith,” says Froude, “any piety, is alive now, even in the Roman Church itself, whose insolent hypocrisy he humbled into shame, is due in large measure to the poor miner’s son.”

He certainly is to-day the most potently living man who has lived this side of the Middle Ages. The pulsations of his great heart are felt through the whole corpus of our civilization.

“Four potentates,” says the late Dr. Krauth, “ruled the mind of Europe in the Reformation: the emperor, Erasmus, the pope, and Luther. The pope wanes; Erasmus is little; the emperor is nothing; but Luther abides as a power for all time. His image casts itself upon the current of ages as the mountain mirrors itself in the, river which winds at its foot. He has monuments in marble and bronze, and medals in silver and gold, but his noblest monument is the best love of the best hearts, and the brightest and purest impression of his image has been left in the souls of regenerated nations.”

Many and glowing are the eulogies which have been pronounced upon him, but Frederick von Schlegel, speaking from the side of Rome, gives it as his conviction that “few, even of his own disciples, appreciate him highly enough.” Genius, learning, eloquence, and song have volunteered their noble efforts to do him justice; centuries have added their light and testimony; half the world in its enthusiasm has urged on the inspiration; but the story in its full dimensions has not yet been adequately told. The skill and energy of other generations will yet be taxed to give it, if, indeed, it ever can be given apart from the illuminations of eternity.³²

HIS ENEMIES AND REVILERS.
Rome has never forgotten nor forgiven him. She sought his life while living, and she curses him in his grave. Profited by his labors beyond what she ever could have been without him, she strains and chokes with anathemas upon his name and everything that savers of him. Her children are taught from infancy to hate and abhor him as they hope for salvation. Many are the false turns and garbled forms in which her writers hold up his words and deeds to revenge themselves on his memory. Again and again the oft-answered and exploded calumnies are revived afresh to throw dishonor on his cause. Even while the free peoples of the earth are making these grateful acknowledgments of the priceless boon that a has come to them through his life and labors, press and platform hiss with stale vituperations from the old enemy. And a puling Churchism outside of Rome takes an ill pleasure in following after her to gather and retail this vomit of malignity.

Luther was but a man. No one claims that he was perfection. But if those who sought his destruction while he lived had had no greater faults than he, with better grace their modern representatives might indulge their genius for his defamation. At best, as we might suppose, it is the little men, the men of narrow range and narrow heart – men dwarfed by egotism, bigotry, and self-conceit – who see the most of these defects. Nobler minds, contemplating him from loftier standpoints, observe but little of them, and even honor them above the excellencies of common men. “The proofs that he was in some things like other men,” says Leasing, “are to me as precious as the most dazzling of his virtues.”³³

And, with all, where is the gain or wisdom of blowing smoke upon a diamond? The sun itself has holes in it too large for half a dozen worlds like ours to fill, but wherein is that great luminary thereby unfitted to be the matchless centre of our system, the glorious source of day, and the sublime symbol of the Son of God?

If Luther married a beautiful woman, the proofs of which do not appear, it is what every other honest man would do if it suited him and he were free to do it.

If he broke his vows to get a wife, of which there is no evidence, when vows are taken by mistake, tending to dishonor God, work unrighteousness, and hinder virtuous example and proper life, they ought to be broken, the sooner the better.

And, whatever else may be alleged to his discredit, and whoever may arise to heap scandal on his name, the grand facts remain that it was chiefly through his marvelous qualities, word, and work that the towering dominion of the Papacy was humbled and broken for ever; that prophets and apostles were released from their prisons once more to preach and prophesy to men; that the Church of the early times was restored to the bereaved world; that the human mind was set free to read and follow God’s Word for itself; that the masses of neglected and downtrodden humanity were made into populations of live and thinking beings; and that the nations of the earth have become repossessed of their “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

them

------------
Endnotes:

Seiss, J. Luther and the Reformation: The Life-Springs of Our Liberties. Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1888. pp. 111-134. (return)
“Never before was the human mind more prolific.” “Luther holds a high and glorious place in German literature.” “In his manuscripts we nowhere discover the traces of fatigue or irritation, no embarrassment or erasures, no ill-applied epithet or unmanageable expression; and by the correctness of his writing we might imagine he was the copyist rather than the writer of the work.” – So says Audin, his Roman Catholic biographer.

Hallam’s flippant and disparaging remarks on Luther, contained in his Introduction to the Literature of Europe, are simply outrageous, “stupid and senseless paragraphs,” evidencing a presumption on the part of their author which deserves intensest rebuke. “Hallam knows nothing about Luther; he himself confesses his inability to read him in his native German; and this alone renders him incapable of judging intelligently respecting his merits as a writer; and, knowing nothing, it would have been honorable in him to say nothing, at least to say nothing disparagingly. And, by the way, it seems to us that writing a history of European literature without a knowledge of German is much like writing a history of metals without knowing anything of iron and steel...Luther’s language became, through his writings, and has ever since remained, the language of literature and general intercourse among educated men, and is that which is now understood universally to be meant when the German is spoken of. His translation of the Bible is still as much the standard of purity for that language as Homer is for the Greek.” – Dr. Galvin E. Stowe. (return)
“Nothing can be more edifying than the scene presented by the last days of Luther, of which we have the most authentic and detailed accounts. When dying he collected his last strength and offered up the following prayer: ‘Heavenly Father, eternal, merciful God, Thou hast revealed to me Thy dear Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Him I have taught, Him I have confessed, Him I love as my Saviour and Redeemer, whom the wicked persecute, dishonor, and reprove. Take my poor soul up to Thee!’

“Then two of his friends put to him the solemn question: ‘Reverend Father, do you die in Christ and in the doctrine you have constantly preached?’ He answered by an audible and joyful ‘Yes,’ and, repeating the vows, ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit,’ he expired peacefully, without a struggle.” – Encyclopædia Britannica. (return)
Mattähus Ratzenberger, in a passage of his biography preserved in the Bibliotheca Ducalais Gothana, says: “Lutherus had also this custom: as soon as he had eaten the evening meal with his table companions he would fetch out of his little writing-room his partes and hold a musicam with those of them who had a mind for music. Greatly was he delighted when a good composition of the old master fitted the responses or hymnos de tempore anni, and especially did he enjoy the cantu Gregoriana and chorale. But if at times he perceived in a new song that it was incorrectly copied he set it again upon the lines (that is, he brought the parts together and rectified it in continenti). Right gladly did he join in the singing when hymnus or responsorium de tempere had been set by the Musicus to a Cantum Gregorianum, as we have said, and his young sons, Martinus and Paulus, had also after table to sing the responsoria de tempore, as at Christmas, Verbum caro factum est, In principio erat verbum; at Easter, Christus resurgens ex mortuis, Vita sanctorum, Victimæ paschali laudes, etc. In these responsoria he always sang along with his sons, and in cantu figurali he sang the alto.”

The alto which Luther sang must not be confounded with the alto part of today. Here it means the cantus firmus, the melody around which the old composers wove their contrapuntal ornamentation.

Luther was the creator of German congregational singing. (return)
Luther’s first poetic publication seems to have been certain verses ode on the martyrdom of two young Christian monks, who were burned alive at Brussels in 1523 for their faithful confession of the evangelical doctrines. A translation of a part of this composition is given in D'Aubigné’s History of the Reformation in these beautiful and stirring words:
Audin, though a Romanist, says: “The hymns which he translated from the Latin into German may be unreservedly praised, as also those which he composed for the members of his own communion. He did not travesty the sacred Word nor set his anger to music. He is grave, simple, solemn, and grand. He was at once the poet and musician of a great number of his hymns.” (return)
Froude supplemented. (return)
It must be observed that the coarse vituperations which shock the reader in Luther’s controversial works were not peculiar to him, being commonly used by scholars and divines of the Middle Ages in their disputations. “The invectives of Valla, filelfo, Poggio, and other distinguished scholars against each other are notorious; and this bad taste continued in practice long after Luther, down to the seventeenth century, and traces of it are found in writers of the eighteenth, even in some of the works of the polished and courtly Voltaire.” – Cyclopædia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. (return)
“In no other instance have such great events depended upon the courage, sagacity, and energy of a single man, who, by his sole and unassisted efforts, made his solitary cell the heart and centre of the most wonderful and important commotion the world ever witnessed – who by the native force and vigor of his genius attacked and successfully resisted, and at length overthrew, the most awful and sacred authority that ever imposed its commands on mankind.” – A letter prefixed to Luther’s Table-Talk in the folio edition of 1652. (return)
“To overturn a system of religious belief founded on ancient and deep-rooted prejudices, supported by power and defended with no less art than industry – to establish in its room doctrines of the most contrary genius and tendency, and to accomplish all this, not by external violence or the force of arms, are operations which historians the least prone to credulity and superstition ascribe to that divine providence which with infinite ease can bring about events which to human sagacity appear impossible.” – Robertson’s Charles V. (return)
“From the commencement of the religious war in Germany to the Peace of Westphalia scarce anything great or memorable occurred in the European political world with which the Reformation was not essentially connected. Every event in the history of the world in this interval, if not directly occasioned, was nearly affected, by this religious revolution, and every state, great or small, remotely or immediately felt its influence.” – Schiller’s Thirty Years’ War, vol. i. p. 1 (return)
“Luther was as wonderful as he was great. His personal experience in divine things was as deep as his mind was mighty, large, and unbounded. Though called by the Most High, and continued by his appointment, in the midst of papal darknem, idolatry, and error, with no companions but the saints of the Bible, nor any other light but the lamp of the Word to guide his feet, his heaven-taught soul was ministerially fumished with as rich pasture for the sheep of Christ, as awful ammunition for the terror and destruction of the enemies by which he and they were perpetually surrounded. The sphere of his mighty ministry was not bounded by his defence of the truth against the great and powerful. No! He was as rich a pastor, as terrible a warrior. He fed the sheep in the fattest pastures, while be destroyed the wolves on any side. Nor will those pastures be dried up or lost until time, nations, and the churches of God shall be no more.” – Dr. Cole’s Preface to Luther on Genesis (return)
“It was by some of these qualities which we are now apt to blame that Luther was fitted for accomplishing the great work which he undertook. To rouse mankind when sunk in ignorance and superstition, and to encounter the rage of bigotry armed with power, required the utmost vehemenoe of zeal as well as temper daring to excess.” – Robertson’s Charles V. (return)

Called to “Test all things”

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 07:00:00 +0000

Eight days ago, we blogged about the opening of Faith Lutheran Church – a new, independant Lutheran congregation in the Portland, Oregon, area, formed by some 17 Lutherans who were recently compelled to leave WELS for a variety of reasons, and have now chosen to be served by pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). We also mentioned that these Lutherans now also feel compelled to provide a public explanation for their departure from the WELS. Last Monday, we posted the first such explanation: No Longer Alone: Perspective of a Confessional Lutheran Woman. Today, we post the second.

Called to “Test all things”
by Mr. Vernon Kneprath
The intent and agreement among those who chose to leave our WELS congregation was to leave peacefully and quietly. Concerns had already been expressed to the appropriate individuals over months and years, regarding what was being preached, taught and practiced throughout the synod. Most of those resigning their membership had stopped attending our local congregation weeks or months prior. When our common goal to return to confessional Lutheranism was realized, and a road to that end became available, it was determined to be prudent to resign our membership in our WELS congregation before working toward organizing a new congregation.

A simple, one sentence letter indicated the undersigned were resigning their membership. The letter was sent by certified mail to the pastor and president of the congregation. It was considered by our group to be more kind and considerate to send one letter rather than many, so that those receiving it would not be in a position of wondering when the next letter would arrive.

For nearly two months we generally avoided initiating dialogue. Some of us were contacted by various members and leaders of our local congregation. We listened carefully, and responded respectfully. Out of the communications that occurred during that time, there was a single individual who approached many of us in a respectful manner, and showed genuine care and concern for us.

The previous Intrepid post gave one individual’s reasons for leaving the WELS. While each of us had our own specific reasons for leaving, there were many shared concerns. Therefore, some of what follows may seem redundant. Unlike the author of the previous post, I had been a lifelong member of the WELS. I was instructed and confirmed with the Gausewitz edition of Luther’s Small Catechism, and remain convinced that it properly represents and teaches the truths of Scripture. But it had become increasingly clear in recent years that I was a confessional Lutheran in a Lutheran church body that seemed to no longer appreciate or desire to be confessional Lutheran.

The Bible teaches that we are to point out error where it exists, and to defend the truth of God’s Word at every opportunity.

”Test all things; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21 NKJV)Over time, and with a great deal of attention to what was going on among Lutherans in this country, it became apparent it wasn’t necessary to accept the deliberate changes being made to the teachings and practices of churches within the WELS. There is an alternative.

New Bible translations that glorify man and his wisdom rather than honoring God’s unchanging Word do not need to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that recognizes the potent efficacy of God’s Word in teaching AND in practice.

Contemporary worship, or blended worship, or whatever the latest worship fad, does not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that unabashedly uses the historic liturgy without change or reservation.

An obsession with money, and a link to Thrivent and Planned Parenthood does not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that focuses on teaching and preaching Law and Gospel, leaving it up to God to determine how and when the saints will be blessed.

Man-made gimmicks to fill the pews and the offering plates do not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that preaches the Means of Grace, and only the Means of Grace, as the way in which God grows the church.

Decisions to remove “Lutheran” from a church name, school or website, or other efforts to distance a church from the Lutheran Confessions need not be accepted or tolerated. There is a Lutheran church body that eagerly teaches the contents of the Book of Concord to its members.

The teaching of objective justification, which proclaims that “everyone has been justified, everyone has been forgiven, everyone has been saved,” does not have to be tolerated or accepted. There is a Lutheran church body that preaches, without hesitation or contradiction, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” (Acts 16:31 NKJV)

There is an alternative to a Lutheran church that no longer desires to be confessional Lutheran. The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America, (ELDoNA) is the Lutheran church that I have found to be unapologetically confessional Lutheran, in teaching AND in practice.

The Lutheran Hymnal - Hymn 260 verse 2 (verse omitted from the WELS hymnal, Christian Worship)

With fraud which they themselves invent
     Thy truth they have confounded;
Their hearts are not with one consent
     On Thy pure doctrine grounded.
While they parade with outward show,
They lead the people to and fro,
     In error's maze astounded.

No Longer Alone: Perspective of a Confessional Lutheran Woman

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:00:00 +0000

Yesterday, we blogged about the opening of Faith Lutheran Church – a new, independant Lutheran congregation in the Portland, Oregon, area, formed by some 17 Lutherans who were recently compelled to leave WELS for a variety of reasons, and have now chosen to be served by pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). We also mentioned that these Lutherans now also feel compelled to provide a public explanation for their departure from the WELS. Today’s post is the first such explanation.

No Longer Alone
Perspective of a Confessional Lutheran Woman
I felt so alone. Not from God. God had adopted me into His family at my baptism when I was only days old. My faith had been nourished and strengthened regularly with His Word and the Sacrament of Jesus’ body and blood. I knew God would never leave me nor forsake me. But I missed the fellowship of like-minded believers.

God’s House no longer felt like a sanctuary. It had the look and feel of an auditorium, the altar area dominated by a large screen. A steady stream of “announcements” and “not-so-hushed” conversations over cups of gourmet coffee made it difficult to prepare my heart for worship.

The historic liturgy had been deemed old fashioned. The use of hymnals was considered out of date. Music and text changed weekly, printed in “service folders” of greater and greater length.

It seemed that we had grown uncomfortable with God’s teaching on Holy Communion. So afraid to offend, we chose to forego Holy Communion on Easter Sunday out of fear that the Bible’s teaching of close/d communion would make us “look bad” to visitors.

Mid-week Bible studies became less frequent, then absent all together.

Vacation BIBLE School was marginalized with talk of replacing it with a soccer camp because “that’s what a lot of other churches do.” “The B-I-B-L-E” was replaced with songs about pinching cheeks and other things WE do.

A special “Mafia Night” activity was held for our youth on the night before Easter.

Sunday School was “updated,” and no longer focused on a Bible lesson and the memorization of Scripture. There was no offering basket with which to teach about stewardship.

Some things were worse.

Teaching justification by faith as “just as if I’d never done it” was replaced with the child-friendly terms of “objective justification” and “subjective justification.” If I finally understand it, “objective justification” means that everyone is declared “not guilty” regardless of faith, and “subjective justification” means that I believe I am part of everyone. Of course we need a special term to say that “I” am part of “everyone.” And never mind that this doesn’t fit with Scripture, “IT’S OUR SPECIAL MESSAGE THAT NO ONE ELSE HAS!!”

A special Reformation Sunday School lesson includes the text, “God’s Word says that all people are saved.” Where does the Bible say that?

A gender-neutral translation of the Bible is promoted for use in our churches because “no translation is perfect.” Yes, but some are less perfect than others.

I felt so alone. But I wasn’t silent. With each change, God provided the courage to express my concern to pastors, elders, and presidents of two congregations over the past 15 years. I wish I could say that I received assurance that my concerns were valid. I wish I could say that I was commended for “searching the Scriptures” for God’s will in my life. Instead, I was characterized as old fashioned, too critical, or as one simply refusing to appreciate our “Christian freedom.” The decisions had been made, and there was no turning back.

I felt so alone.

It wasn’t the first time. I had journeyed through the synods, each time moving toward one that was smaller, and in my viewpoint, more consistent in practice with what God’s Word taught. But I was at the end of the alphabet; seemingly, the end of the road. Where else was there? What was I supposed to do?

There are faithful Lutheran pastors who provide sermons and even conduct services online. But I wanted to meet together with like-minded believers. I wanted my children to keep the habit of attending church every Sunday.

God is so faithful.

Sometimes, when your faith is challenged, your eyes are opened to things you would not have otherwise seen. Through some of the issues mentioned above, I became aware of others in my congregation who felt the same. We connected with a group of confessional Lutherans who had traveled the same path prior to our experiences. They reached out with love, encouragement, support, and especially the promises of God’s Word as we organized as an independent Lutheran congregation. Pastors of the group made commitments to fly in for weekends of Bible study, instruction, visitations, and services.

God’s goodness and faithfulness is overwhelming. Thank you, God, for Your infinite grace, and thank You for the pastors and members of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA).

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He makes me to lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside the still waters. He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies; You anoint my head with oil; my cup runs over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

Faith Lutheran Church holds Divine Service Today for the First Time as a Congregation

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 04:30:00 +0000

Many readers may already know this, but just recently, some 17 people left WELS, for various reasons, to form an independent Lutheran congregation in the Portland, Oregon, area. Today, the Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity, 2015, was the first time they held Divine Service as a congregation. Bishop Heiser of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA), preached from the appointed Gospel text for the day, Matthew 6:24-34; and pastors from all over the Diocese will share in a weekly preaching rotation at Faith Lutheran, until a permanent pastor can be found for them.

As it so happens, the Lutherans who have formed this new congregation have also found themselves compelled to offer a public explanation for their departure from WELS. Apparently, following their departure in July, a troubling level of animosity has been directed toward them from various sources among WELS leadership and laity, in a way that they feel distorts the truth and damages their reputations. This reportedly includes the distribution of an area-wide letter that was written about them and the situation at their former congregation, that did not allow them the opportunity to include their side of the story.

In coming days, their stories shall be published here, on Intrepid Lutherans.

The Lutheran Conception of a Christian Commonwealth according to King Gustavus Adolphus, and its Mighty Impact on the Formation of our Great Republic, and on the State of Pennsylvania in particular

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 19:30:00 +0000

Gustavus Adolphus
King of Sweden, and Saviour of Germany
Progenitor of American Liberties

As has become our custom over the years, in honor of the American civic holiday, Independence Day, we on this day publish an important article forcefully demonstrating the fundamental influence of Christianity in the formation of our Free Nation, the United States of America. In this year’s post, we are made shockingly aware that the idea of

Dr. Martin Luther

At the Diet of Estates in 1627, there was formed an agreement among the Protestant aristocracy and many prominent businessmen on these principles, and a company was formed to begin carrying out the plan. That plan was interrupted by war, but shortly after the death of Gustavus, his faithful successor, Axel Oxenstiern, renewed the plan and carried it out.

What follows is nothing other than repressed history. It is taken from the second part of the book, Luther and the Reformation: The Life-Springs of Our Liberties, written in 1888, by Rev. Dr. Joseph A. Seiss. This is the same book from which we have been publishing our history of Dr. Martin Luther (), which is contained in the first part of the book. As Seiss intended to show with his broad narrative, forasmuch as there can be no doubt that the Thirty Years’ War was a direct result of the Reformation, indeed, a continuation of Christian suffering under Imperial persecution for their Confession of Free Conscience, so too it can be strongly argued that the early colonization of America, and the lasting principles established by those efforts, are also a direct continuation of Luther’s Reformation.

(NOTE: Rev. Joseph A. Seiss was a 19^th Century Lutheran pastor, serving congregations in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a co-founder of the very influential General Council along with Charles Porterfield Krauth. One can read more details about him in the introduction to our first part of Luther’s history.

The Lutheran Conception of a Christian Commonwealth
according to King Gustavus Adolphus
and its Mighty Impact on the Formation of our Great Republic
and on the State of Pennsylvania in Particular

THE FOUNDING OF PENNSYLVANIA

SECTION I: THE HISTORY AND THE MEN.
IT was in 1492, just nine years after Martin Luther’s birth, that the intrepid Genoese, Christopher Columbus, under the patronage of Ferdinand, king of Spain, made the discovery of land on this side of the Atlantic Ocean. A few years later the distinguished Florentine, Americus Vespucius, set foot on its more interior coasts, described their features, and imprinted his name on this Western Continent. But it was not until more than a century later that permanent settlements of civilized people upon these shores began to be made.

During the early part of the seventeenth century several such settlements were effected. A company of English adventurers planted themselves on the banks of the James River and founded Virginia (1607). The Dutch of Holland, impelled by the spirit of mercantile enterprise, established a colony on the Hudson, and founded what afterward became the city and State of New York (1614). Then a shipload of English Puritans, flying from religious oppression, landed at Plymouth Rock and made the beginning of New England (1620). A little later Lord Baltimore founded a colony on the Chesapeake and commenced the State of Maryland (1633). But it was not until 1637-38 that the first permanent settlement was made in what subsequently became the State of Pennsylvania.

MOVEMENTS IN SWEDEN.
From the year 1611 to 1632 there was upon the throne of Sweden one of the noblest of kings, a great champion of Religious Liberty, the lamented and ever-to-be-remembered GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS.

In his profound thinking to promote the glory of God and the good of men his attention rested on this vast domain of wild lands in America. He knew the sorrows and distresses which thousands all over Europe were suffering from the constant and devastating religious wars, and the purpose was kindled in his heart to plant here a colony as the beginning of a general asylum for these homeless and persecuted people, and determined to foster the same by his royal protection and care.

“To this end he sent forth letters patent, dated Stockholm, 2^nd of July, 1626, wherein all, both high and low, were invited to contribute something to the company according, to their means. The work was completed in the Diet of the Estates of the following year (1627), when the estates of the realm gave their assent and confirmed the measure. Those who took part in this company were: His Majesty’s mother, the queen-dowager Christina, the Prince John Casimir, the Royal Council, the most distinguished of the nobility, the highest officers of the army, the bishops and other clergymen, together with the burgo-masters and aldermen of the cities, as well as a large number of the people generally. For the management and working of the plan there were appointed an admiral, vice-admiral, chapman, under-chapman, assistants, and commissaries, also a body of soldiers duly officered.”¹ And a more beneficent, brilliant, and promising arrangement of the sort was perhaps never made. The devout king intended his grand scheme “for the honor of God,” for the welfare of his subjects and suffering Christians in general, and as a means “to extend the doctrines of Christ among the heathen.”

But when everything was complete and in full progress to go into effect, King Gustavus Adolphus was called to join and lead the allied armies of the Protestant kingdoms of Germany against the endeavors of the papal powers to crush out the cause of evangelical Christianity and Free Conscience.²

For the ensuing five years the attention and energies of Sweden were preoccupied, first with the Polish, and then with these wars, and the colonization scheme was interrupted.

Then came the famous Battle of Lützen, 1632, bringing glorious victory over the gigantic Wallenstein, but death to the victor, the royal Adolphus.³

Only a few days before that dreadful battle he spoke of his colonization plan, and commended it to the German people at Nuremberg as “the jewel of his kingdom;” but with the king’s death the company disbanded.

We could almost wish that Gustavus had lived to carry out his humane and magnificent proposals with reference to this colony as well as for Europe; but his work was done. What America lost by his death she more than regained in the final success and secure establishment of the holy cause for which he sacrificed his life.

THE SWEDISH PROPOSAL.
The plan of this illustrious king was to found here upon the Delaware River a Free State under his sovereign protection, where the laborer should enjoy the fruit of his toil, where the Rights of Conscience should be preserved inviolate, and which should be open to the whole Protestant world, then and for long time engaged in bloody conflict with the papal powers for the maintenance of its existence. Here all were to be secure in their persons, their property, and their religious convictions. It was to be a place of refuge and peace for the persecuted of all nations, of security for the honor of the wives and daughters of those fleeing from sword, fire, and rapine, and from homes made desolate by oppressive war. It was to be a land of universal liberty for all classes, the soil of which was never to be burdened with slaves.⁴ And in all the colonies of America there was not a more thoroughly digested system for the practical realization of these ideas than that which the great Gustavus Adolphus had thus arranged.

Axel Oxenstiern

Nor did it altogether die with his death. His mantle fell upon one of the best and greatest of men. Axel Oxenstiern, his friend and prime minister, and his successor in the administration of the affairs of the kingdom, was as competent as he was zealous to fulfill the wise plans and ideas of the slain king, not only with reference to Sweden and Europe, but also with regard to the contemplated colony in America.

Having taken the matter into his own hands, on the 10^th of April, 1633, only a few months after Gustavus’s death, Oxenstiern, renewed the movement which had been laid aside, and repeated the offer to Germany and other countries, inviting general co-operation in the noble enterprise.

Peter Minuit, a member of a distinguished family of Rhenish Prussia, who had been for years the able director and president of the Dutch mercantile establishment on the Hudson, presented himself in Sweden, and entered into the matter with great energy and enthusiasm. And by the end of 1637 or early in 1638 two ships were seen entering and ascending the Delaware, freighted with the elements and nucleus of the new State, such as Gustavus had projected.

These ships, under Minuit, landed their passengers but a few miles south of where Philadelphia now stands, and thus made the first beginning of what has since become the great and happy Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

This was six years before Penn was born.

WAS PENN AWARE OF THESE PLANS?
How far William Penn was illuminated and influenced by the ideas of the great and wise Gustavus Adolphus in reference to the founding of a Free State in America as an asylum for the persecuted and suffering people of God in the Old World, is nowhere told; but there is reason to believe that he knew of them, and took his own plans from them.

A few facts bearing on the point may here be noted.

One peculiarly striking is, that the same plan and principles with reference to such a colonial state which Penn brought hither in the ship Welcome in 1682 were already matured and widely propounded by the illustrious Swedish king more than half a century before they practically entered Penn’s mind.

Another is, that these proposals and principles were generally promulgated throughout Europe – first by Gustavus and those associated with him in the matter, and then again by Oxenstiern, in Germany, Holland, and other countries.

Still another is, that in 1677, Penn made a special tour of three months through Holland and various parts of Germany, visiting and conferring with many of the most pious and devoted people, including distinguished men and women, and clergy and laity of high standing, information, and influence. He made considerable stay in Frankfort,

William Penn
Riding the Coattails of Lutheran Ideas

where he says both Calvinists and Lutherans received him with gladness of heart. He visited Mayence, Worms, Mannheim, Mulheim, Düsseldorf, Herwerden, Embaden, Bremen, etc., etc., concerning which the editor of his Life and Writings says he had “interesting interviews with many persons eminent for their talents, learning, or social position.” Among them were such as Elizabeth, Princess Palatine, niece of Charles I of England and the daughter of the king of Bohemia, the special friend of Gustavus Adolphus, who died of horror on hearing that Gustavus was slain; Anna Maria, countess of Hornes; the countess and earl of Falkenstein and Brück; the president of the council of state at Embaden; the earl of Donau, and the like; among all of which it is hardly possible that he should have failed to meet with the proposals which had gone out over all Protestant Europe from the throne of Sweden. Nor is there any evidence that William Penn had thought of founding a Free Christian State in America until immediately after his return to England from this tour on the Continent.

Furthermore, the plans of Gustavus respecting his projected colony on the Delaware were well understood in official circles in England itself, especially in London, from 1634. John Oxenstiern, brother of the great chancellor, was at that time Swedish ambassador in London, and in that year he obtained from King Charles I a renunciation and cession to Sweden of all claims of the English to the country on the Delaware growing out of the rights of first discovery, and for the very purposes of this colonial Free State and asylum first projected by the Swedish king.

THE SWEDES IN ADVANCE OF PENN.
We are left to our own inferences from these facts. But, however much or little Penn may have been directly influenced and guided by what Gustavus Adolphus had conceived and elaborated on the subject, the wise and noble conception which he brought with him for practical realization in 1682 was known to the European peoples for more than fifty years before he laid hold on it. The same had also been one of the chief sources of the inspiration of Lord Baltimore in the founding of the colony of Maryland, of which Penn was not ignorant. And the same, not unknown to him, had already begun to be realized here in what is now called Pennsylvania a full forty-four years before his arrival.

Shipload after shipload of sturdy and devoted people, mostly Swedes, animated with the same grand ideas, had here been landed. And so successfully had they battled with the perils and hardships of the wilderness, and so justly had they treated and arranged to dwell in peace and love with the wild inhabitants of the forests, that when Penn came he found everything prepared to his hand. The Swedes alone already numbered about one thousand strong. They had conquered the wild woods, built them homes, and opened plantations; and “the eye of the stranger could begin to gaze with interest upon the signs of public improvement, ever regularly advancing, from the region of Wilmington to that of Philadelphia.”

When Penn landed he found a town and courthouse at New Castle, and a town and place of public assemblage at Upland, and a Christian and Free people in possession of the territory, with whom it was necessary for him to treat before his charter could avail for the planting of his colony. The land to which the Swedes had acquired title (by England’s release to Sweden of all claim from right of discovery, by charter from Sweden, by purchase from the Indians, first under Minuit, the first governor, and then under his successor, Governor Printz, and by other purchases or agreements) was the west bank of the Delaware River from Cape Henlopen to Trenton Falls, and thence westward to the great fall in the Susquehanna, near the mouth of the Conewaga Creek, which included nearly the whole of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware.

The fortunes of war, in Europe and between the colonies, in course of time complicated the titles to one and another portion of this territory, but the Swedes and Dutch occupied and held the most prominent parts of it by right of actual possession when and after Penn's charter was granted.

PENN’S CHARTER AND ARRIVAL.
But when Penn arrived he brought with him letters patent from Charles II, king of England, to this same district of country and the wilds indefinitely beyond it, having also obtained from his friend, the king’s brother, the duke of York, full releases of the claims vested in him to the “Lower Counties,” which now form the State of Delaware.

Penn was accompanied by from sixty to seventy colonists – all that survived the scourge which visited them in their passage across the sea. He landed first at New Castle, of which the Dutch of New York had by conquest obtained possession. To them he made known his grants and his plans, and succeeded in securing their acquiescence in them.

Thence he came to Upland (Chester), the head-quarters of the Swedes, who “received their new fellow-citizens with great friendliness, carried up their goods and furniture from the ships, and entertained them in their own houses without charge.” His proposals with regard to the establishment of a united commonwealth they also received with much favor. And immediately thereupon he convened a general assembly of the citizens, which sat for three days, by which an act was passed for the consolidation of the various interests and parties on the ground, a code of general regulations adopted, and the necessary features of a common government enacted; all of which together formed the basis of our present commonwealth.

HOW PENNSYLVANIA WAS NAMED.
The name which Penn had chosen for the territory of his grant was Sylvania, but the king prefixed the name of Penn and called it Penn’s Sylvania (Penn’s Woods), in honor of the recipient’s father, Sir William Penn, distinguished officer in the British navy. Penn sought to have the title changed so as to leave his own name out, as he thought it savored too much of personal vanity; but his efforts did not avail. And thus our great old commonwealth took the name of Pennsylvania, and the city of Philadelphia was laid out and named by Penn himself as its capital.

THE MEN OF THOSE TIMES.
In dwelling upon the founding of our happy commonwealth it is pleasant to contemplate how enlightened and exalted were the men whom Providence employed for the performance of this important work.

Many are apt to think ours the age of culminated enlightenment, dignity, wisdom, and intelligence, and look upon the fathers of two and three hundred years ago as mere pygmies, just emerging from an era of barbarism and ignorance, not at all to be compared with the proud wiseacres of our day. Never was there a greater mistake. The shallowness and flippancy of the leaders and politicians of this last quarter of the nineteenth [and twentieth...] century show them but little more than school-boys compared with the sturdy, sober-minded, deep-principled, dignified, and grand-spirited men who discovered and opened this continent and laid the foundations of our country’s greatness. And those who were most concerned in the founding of our own commonwealth suffer in no respect in comparison with the greatest and the best.

GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS.
I have named the illustrious GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS as the man, above all, who first conceived, sketched, and propounded the grand idea of such a state. What other colonies reached only through varied experiments and gradual developments, Pennsylvania had clear and mature, in ideal and in fact, from the very earliest beginning; and the royal heart and brain of Sweden were its source.

Gustavus Adolphus was born a prince in the regular line of Sweden’s ancient kings. His grandfather, Gustavus Vasa, was a man of thorough culture, excellent ability, and sterling moral qualities. When in Germany he was an earnest listener to Luther’s preaching, became his friend and correspondent, a devout confessor and patron of the evangelic faith, and the wise establisher of the Reformation in his kingdom.

Adolphus inherited all his grandfather’s high qualities. He was the idol of his father, Charles IX, and was devoutly trained from earliest childhood in the evangelic faith, educated in thorough princely style, familiarized with governmental affairs from the time he was a boy, and developed into an exemplary, wise, brave, and devoted Christian man and illustrious king.

He ascended the throne when but seventeen years of age, extricated his country from many internal and external troubles, organized for it a new system, and became the hero-sovereign of his age. He was one of the greatest of men, in cabinet and in field as well as in faith and humble devotion. He was a broad-minded statesman and patriot, one of the most beloved of rulers, and a philanthropist of the purest order and most comprehensive views. That evangelical Christianity which Luther and his coadjutors exhumed from the superincumbent rubbish of the Middle Ages was dearer to him than his throne or his life. The pure Gospel of Christ was to him the most precious of human possessions. For it he lived, and for it he died. One of his deep-souled hymns, sung along with Luther’s Ein Feste Burg at the head of his armies in his campaigns for Christian liberty, has its place in our Church-Book today. And the bright peculiar star which appeared in the heavens at the time he was born fitly heralded his royal career.

Cut off in the midst of a succession of victories in the thirty-eighth year of his age, the influence of his mind nevertheless served to give another constitution to the Germanic peoples, established the right and power of evangelical Christianity to be, and to be unmolested on the earth, and confirmed a new element in the development and progress of the European races and of mankind. With the loftiest conceptions of human life, a thorough acquaintance with the agencies which govern the world, a mind in all respects in thorough subjection to an enlightened Christian Conscience, a magnanimity and liberality of sentiment far in advance of his age, and an untarnished devotion which marked his history to its very end, his name stands at the head of the list of illustrious Christian kings and human benefactors.⁵

AXEL OXENSTIERN.
AXEL OXENSTIERN, his friend, companion, and prime minister, was of like mind and character with himself. He was high-born, religiously trained, and thoroughly educated in both theology and law in the best schools which the world then afforded. He was Sweden’s greatest and wisest counselor and diplomatist, liberal-minded, true-hearted, dignified, and devout. In religion, in patriotism, in earnest doing for the profoundest interests of man, he was one with his illustrious king. He negotiated the Peace of Kmered with Denmark, the Peace of Stolbowa with Russia, and the armistice with Poland. He accompanied his king in the campaigns in Germany, having charge of all diplomatic affairs and the devising of ways and means for the support of the army in the field, whilst the king commanded it. He won no victories of war, but he was a choice spirit in creating the means by which some of the most valuable of such victories were achieved, and conducted those victories to permanent peace.

When Gustavus Adolphus fell at Lützen a sacrifice to Religious Liberty, the whole administration of the kingdom was placed in Oxenstiern’s hands. The congress of foreign princes at Heilbronn elected him to the headship of their league against the papal power of Austria; and it was his wisdom and heroism alone which held the league together unto final triumph. Bauer, Torstensson, and Von Wrangle were the flaming swords which finally overwhelmed that power, but the brain which brought the fearful Thirty Years’ War to a final close, and established the evangelical cause upon its lasting basis of security by the Peace of Westphalia (1648), was that of Axel Oxenstiern, the very man who sent to Pennsylvania its original colonists as the founders of a Free State.

PETER MINUIT.

The Intrepid Peter Minuit

A kindred spirit was PETER MINUIT, the man whom Oxenstiern selected and commissioned to accompany these first colonists to the west bank of the Delaware, and to act as their president and governor. He too was a high-born, cultured, large-minded Christian man. He was an honored deacon in the Walloon church at Wesel. Removing to Holland, his high qualities led to his selection by the Dutch West India Company as the fittest man to be the first governor and director-general of the Dutch colonies on the Hudson. His great efficiency and public success in that capacity made him the subject of jealousies and accusations, resulting in his recall after five or six years of the most effective administration of the affairs of those colonies. Oxenstiern had the breadth and penetration to understand his real worth, and appointed him the first governor of the New Sweden which since has become the great State of Pennsylvania. He lived less than five years in this new position, and died in Fort Christina, which he built and held during his last years of service on earth. He was a wise, laborious, and far-seeing man, consecrated with all his powers to the formation of a Free commonwealth on this then wild territory. His name has largely sunk away from public attention, as the work of the Swedes in general in the founding and fashioning of our commonwealth; but he and they deserve far better than has been awarded them.

A few years ago (1876) some movement was for the first time made to erect a suitable monument to the memory of Minuit. Surely the founder of the greatest city in this Western World, and of the colonial possessions of two European nations, and the first president and governor of the two greatest States in the American Union, ranks among the great historic personages of his period; and his high qualities, noble spirit, and valuable services demand for him a grateful recognition which has been far too slow in coming. There is a debt owing to his name and memory which New York, Pennsylvania, and the American people have not yet duly discharged.

And to these grand men, first of all, are we under obligation of everlasting thanks for our Free and happy old commonwealth.

WILLIAM PENN.
But without WILLIAM PENN to reinforce and more fully execute the noble plans, ideas, and beginnings which went before him, things perhaps never would have come to the fortunate results which he was the honored instrument in bringing about.

This man, so renowned in the history of our State, and so specially honored by the peculiar Society of which he was a zealous apostle, was respectably descended. His grandfather was a captain in the English navy, and his father became a distinguished naval officer, who reached high promotion and gave his son the privileges of a good education.

Penn was for three years a student in the University of Oxford, until expelled, with others, for certain offensive non-conformities. He was not what we would call religiously trained, but he was endowed with a strong religious nature, even bordering on fanaticism, so that he needed only the application of the match to set his whole being aglow and active with the profoundest zeal, whether wise or otherwise. And that match was early applied.

When England had reached the summit of delirium under her usurping Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, there arose, among many other sects full of enthusiastic self-assertion, that of the Quakers, who were chiefly characterized by a profound religious, and oil: fanatical, opposition to the Established Church, as well as to the Crown. Coming in contact with one of their most zealous preachers, young Penn was inflamed with their spirit and became a vigorous propagator of their particular style of devotion.

As the Quaker tenets respected the state as well as religion, the bold avowal of them brought him into collision with the laws, and several times into prison and banishment. But, so far from intimidating him, this only the more confirmed him in his convictions and fervency. By his familiarity with able theologians, such as Dr. Owen and Bishop Tillotson, as well as from his own studies of the Scriptures, he was deeply grounded in the main principles of the evangelic faith. Indeed, he was in many things, in his later life, much less a Quaker than many who glory in his name, and all his sons after him found their religious home in the Church of England, which, to Quakers generally, was a very Babylon. But he was an honest-minded, pure, and cultured Christian believer, holding firmly to the inward elements of the orthodox faith in God and Christ, in Revelation and Eternal Judgment, in the Rights of Man and the Claims of Justice. If some of his friends and representatives did not deal as honorably with the Swedes in respect to their prior titles to their improved lands as right and charity would require, it is not to be set down to his personal reproach. And his zeal for his sect and his genuine devotion to God and Religious Liberty, together with a large-hearted philanthropy, were the springs which moved him to seize the opportunity which offered in the settlement of his deceased father’s claim on the government to secure a grant of territory and privilege to form a Free State in America – first for his own, and then for all other persecuted people.

AN ESTIMATE OF PENN.
It may be that Penn has been betimes a little overrated. He has, and deserves, a high place in the history of our commonwealth, but he was not the real founder of it; for its foundations were laid years before he was born and more than forty years before he received his charter. He founded Pennsylvania only as Americus Vespucius discovered America. Neither was he the author of those elements of Free Government, Equal Rights, and Religious Liberty which have characterized our commonwealth. They were the common principles of Luther and the Reformation, and were already largely embodied for this very territory⁶ long before Penn’s endeavors, as also, in measure, in the Roman Catholic colony of Maryland from the same source.

Nor was he, in his own strength, possessed of so much wise forethought and profound legislative and executive ability as that with which he is sometimes credited. But he was a conscientious, earnest, and God-fearing man, cultured by education and grace, gifted with admirable address, sincere and philanthropic in his aims, and guided and impelled by circumstances and a peculiar religious zeal which Providence overruled to ends far greater than his own intentions or thoughts.

PENN AND THE INDIANS.
What is called Penn's particular policy toward the Indians, and the means of his successes in that regard, existed in practical force scores of years before he arrived. His celebrated treaties with them, as far as they were fact, were but continuations

Peter Minuit
Negotiating with Native Americans

and repetitions between them and the English, which had long before been made between them and the Swedes, who did more for these barbarian peoples than he, and who helped him in the matter more than he helped himself.

We are not fully informed respecting all the first instructions given to Governor Minuit when he came hither with Pennsylvania’s original colony in 1637-38, but there is every reason to infer that they strictly corresponded to those given to his successor, Governor Printz, five years afterward, on his appointment in 1642, about which there can be no question. Minuit entered into negotiations with the Indians the very first thing on his landing, and purchased from them, as the rightful proprietors, all the land on the western side of the river from Henlopen to Trenton Falls; a deed for which was regularly drawn up, to which the Indians subscribed their hands and marks. Posts were also driven into the ground as landmarks of this treaty, which were still visible in their places sixty years afterward.

In the appointment and commission of Governor Printz it was commanded him to “bear in mind the articles of contract entered into with the wild inhabitants of the country as its rightful lords.”

“The wild nations bordering on all other sides the governor shall understand how to treat with all humanity and respect, that no violence or wrong be done them; but he shall rather at every opportunity exert himself that the same wild people may gradually be instructed in the truths and worship of the Christian religion, and in other ways brought to civilization and good government, and in this manner properly guided. Especially shall he seek to gain their confidence, and impress upon their minds that neither he, the governor, nor his people and subordinates, are come into those parts to do them any wrong or injury.”This policy was not a thing of mere coincidence. It was the express stipulation and command of the throne of Sweden, August 15, 1642, which was two years before William Penn was born; and

⁷

Governor Printz arrived in this country in 1642, and with him came Rev. John Campanius as chaplain and pastor of the Swedish colony. His grandson, Thomas Campanius Holm, many years after published numerous items put on record by the elder Campanius, in which it appears that the commands to Printz respecting the Indians were very scrupulously carried out.

According to these records, the Indians were very familiar at the house of the elder Campanius, and he did much to teach and Christianize them. “He generally succeeded in making them understand that there is one Lord God, self-existent and one in three Persons; how the same God made the world, and made man, from whom all other men have descended; how Adam afterward disobeyed, sinned against his Creator and involved all his descendants in condemnation; how God sent His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ into the world, who was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered for the saving of men; how He died upon the cross, and was raised again the third day; and, lastly, how, after forty days, He ascended into heaven, whence He will return at a future day to judge the living and the dead,” etc. And so much interest did they take in these instructions, and seemed so well disposed to embrace Christianity, that Campanius was induced to study and master their language, that he might the more effectually teach them the religion of Christ. He also translated into the Indian language the Catechism of Luther, perhaps the very first book ever put into the Indian tongue.

Campanius began his work of evangelizing these wild people four years before John Eliot, who is sometimes called “the morning star of missionary enterprise,” but who first commenced his labors in New England only in 1646. Hence Dr. Clay remarks that “the Swedish Lutherans may claim the honor of having been the first missionaries among the Indians, at least in Pennsylvania.”⁸ “It was, in fact, the Swedes who inaugurated the peaceful policy of William Penn. This was not an accidental circumstance in the Swedish policy, but was deliberately adopted and always carefully observed.”⁹

When Mr. Rising became governor of the Swedish colony he invited ten Indian chiefs, or kings, to a friendly conference with him. It was held at Tinicum, on the Delaware, June 17, 1654, when the governor saluted them, in the name of the Swedish queen, with assurances of every kindness toward them, and proposed to them a firm renewal of the old friendship. Campanius has given a minute account of this conference, and recites the speech in which one of the chiefs, named Naaman, testified how good the Swedes had been to them; that the Swedes and Indians had been in the time of Governor Printz as one body and one heart; that they would henceforward be as one head, like the calabash, which has neither rent nor seam, but one piece without a crack; and that in case of danger to the Swedes they would ever serve and defend them. It was at the same time further arranged and agreed that if any trespasses were committed by any of their people upon the property of the Swedes, the matter should be investigated by men chosen from both sides, and the person found guilty “should be punished for it as a warning to others.”¹⁰ This occurred when William Penn was but ten years of age, and twenty-eight years before his arrival in America.

And upon the subject of the help which the Swedes rendered to Penn in his dealings with these people in the long after years, Acrelius writes: “The Proprietor ingratiated himself with the Indians. The Swedes acted as his interpreters, especially Captain Lars (Lawrence) Kock, who was a great favorite among the Indians. He was sent to New York to buy goods suitable for traffic. He did all he could to give them a good opinion of their new ruler”¹¹; and it was by means of the aid and endeavors of the Swedes, more than by any influence of his own, that Penn came to the standing with these people to which he attained, and on which his fame in that regard rests.

PENN’s WORK.
But still, as a man, a colonist, a governor, and a friend of the race, we owe to William Penn great honor and respect, and his arrival here is amply worthy of our grateful commemoration. The location and framing of this goodly city [Philadelphia], and a united and consolidated Pennsylvania established finally in its original principles of common rights and common freedom, are his lasting monument. If he was not the spring of our colonial existence, he was its reinforcement by a strong and fortunate stream, which more fully determined the channel of its history. If the Doctrine of Liberty of Conscience and Religion, the Principles of Toleration and Common Rights, and the embodying of them in a Free State open to all sufferers for conscience’ sake, did not originate with him, he performed a noble work and contributed a powerful influence toward their final triumph and permanent establishment on this territory. And his career, taken all in all, connects his name with an illustrious service to the cause of freedom, humanity, and even Christianity, especially in its more practical and ethical bearings.

THE GREATNESS OF FAITH.
Such, then, were the men most concerned in founding and framing our grand old commonwealth. They were men of faith, men of thorough culture, men of mark by birth and station, men who had learned to grapple with the great problem of human rights, human happiness, human needs, and human relations to heaven and earth. They believed in God, in the revelation of God, in the Gospel of Christ, in the responsibility of the soul to its Maker, and in the demands of a living charity toward God and all His creatures. And their religious faith and convictions constituted the fire which set them in motion and sustained and directed their exertions for the noble ends which it is ours so richly to enjoy. Had they not been the earnest Christians that they were, they never could have been the men they proved themselves, nor ever have thought the thoughts or achieved the glorious works for ever connected with their names.

We are apt to contemplate Christian faith and devotion only in its more private and personal effects on individual souls, the light and peace it brings to the true believer, and the purification and hope it works in the hearts of those who receive it, whilst we overlook its force upon the great world outside and its shapings of the facts and currents of history. We think of Luther wrestling with his sins, despairing and dying under the impossible task of working out for himself an availing righteousness, and rejoice with him in the light and peace which came to his agonized soul through the grand and all-conditioning Doctrine of Justification by simple Faith in an ll-sufficient Redeemer; but we do not always realize how the breaking of that evangelic principle into his earnest heart was the incarnation of a power which divided the Christian ages, brought the world over the summit of the watershed, and turned the gravitation of the laboring nations toward a new era of liberty and happiness. And so we refer to the spiritual training of a Gustavus Adolphus and an Axel Oxenstiern in the simple truths of Luther’s Catechism and the restored Gospel, and to the opening of the heart of a William Penn to the exhortations of Friend Loe to forsake the follies of the corrupt world and seek his portion with the pure in heaven, and mark the unfoldings of their better nature which those blessed instructions wrought; whilst we fail to note that therein lay the springs and germs which have given us our grand commonwealth and established for us the Free institutions of Church and State in which we so much glory and rejoice.

Ah, yes; there is greatness and good and blessing untold for man and for the world in the personal hearing, believing, and heeding of the Word and testimony of God. No man can tell to what new impulses in human history, or to what new currents of benediction and continents of national glory, it may lead for souls in the school of Christ to open themselves meekly to the inflowings of Heaven’s free grace. It was the sowing of God’s truth and the planting of God’s Spirit in these men’s hearts that most of all grew for us our country and our blessed liberties.

SECTION II. THE PRINCIPLES ENTHRONED.
THE religious element in man is the deepest and most powerful in his nature. It is that also which asserts and claims the greatest independence from external constraints. It is therefore the height of unwisdom, not to say tyranny, for earthly magistracy to interfere by penalty and sword with the religious opinions and movements of the people, so long as civil authority and public order are not invaded and the rights of others are not infringed. In such cases it is always best to combat only with the Word of God. If of men it will come to naught, and if of God it cannot be suppressed. Reaction against wrongs done to Truth and Right is sure to come, and will push through to revolution and victory in spite of all unrighteous power. It is vain for any human governments to think to chain up the honest convictions of the soul. God made it Free, and sooner or later it will be Free, in spite of everything.

It was largely the weight and current of such reaction against arbitrary interference with the religious convictions and Free Conscience of man that furnished the impulse to the original peopling of our State and country, and gave shape to the constitution and laws of this commonwealth for the last two hundred years. Nor will our inquiries and showings with regard to the founding of Pennsylvania be complete without something more respecting the leading principles which governed in that fortunate movement.

Part I: OUR STATE THE PRODUCT OF FAITH.
It is a matter of indisputable fact that the founding of our commonwealth was one of the direct fruits of the revived Gospel of Christ. But a little searching into the influences most active in the history is required to show that it was religious conviction and faith, more than anything else, that had to do with the case.

Changes had come. Luther had found the Bible chained, and set it free. Apostolic Christianity had reappeared, and was re-uttering itself with great power among the nations. Its quickening truths and growing victories were undermining the gigantic usurpations and falsehoods which for ages had been oppressing our world. Conscience, illuminated and revived by the Word of God, had risen up to assert its Rights of Free Judgment and Free Worship, and resentful power had drawn the sword to put it down. Continental Europe was being deluged with blood and devastated by relentless religious wars to crush out the evangelic faith, whose Confessors held up the Bible over all popes and secular powers, and would not consent to part with their inalienable charter from the Throne of Heaven to worship God according to His Word. And amid these woeful struggles the good providence of the Almighty opened up to the attention of the nations the vast new territories of this Western World.

From various motives, indeed, were the several original colonies of America founded. Some of the colonists came from a spirit of adventure. Some came for territorial aggrandizement and national enrichment. Some came as mercantile speculators. And each of these considerations may have entered somewhat into the most of these colonization schemes. But it was mainly flight from oppression on account of religious convictions which influenced the first colony of New England, and a still freer religious motive induced the colonization of Pennsylvania.

All the men most concerned in the matter were profoundly religious men and thorough and active believers in revived Christianity; and it was most of all from these religious feelings and impulses that they acted in the case.

GUSTAVUS AND THE SWEDES.
The first presentation to the king of Sweden, by William Usselinx, touching the planting of a colony on the west bank of the Delaware, looked to the establishment of a trading company with unlimited trading privileges; and the argument for it was the great source of revenue it would be to the kingdom. But when Gustavus Adolphus entered into the subject and gave his royal favor to it, quite other motives and considerations came in to determine his course. As the history records, and quite aside from the prospect of establishing his power in these parts of the world, “the king, whose zeal for the honor of God was not less ardent than for the welfare of his subjects, availed himself of this opportunity to extend the Doctrines of Christ among the heathen,”¹² and to this end granted letters patent, in which it was further provided that a Free State should be formed, guaranteeing all Personal Rights of Property, Honor, and Religion, and forming an asylum and place of security for the persecuted people of all nations. And when these gracious intentions of the king were revived after his death, the same ideas and provisions were carefully maintained, specially stipulating

for every human respect toward the Indians – to wit, that the governors of the colony should deal justly with them as the rightful lords of the land, and exert themselves at every opportunity “that the same wild people may be instructed in the Truths and Worship of the Christian religion, and in other ways brought to civilization and good government, and in this manner properly guided;”
“above all things to consider and see to it that Divine Service be duly maintained and zealously performed according to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession;” and,
to protect those of a different confession in the free exercise of their own forms.¹³

It is plain, therefore, that the spirit of religion, the spirit of evangelical missions, the spirit of Christian charity, and the spirit of devotion to the protection of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Conscience were the dominating motives on the part of those who founded the first permanent settlement on the territory of Pennsylvania.

THE FEELINGS OF WILLIAM PENN.
Bating somewhat the missionary character of the enterprise, the same may be said of William Penn and his great reinforcement to what had thus been successfully begun long before his time. He was himself a very zealous preacher of religion, though more in the line of protest against the world and the existing Church than in the line of positive Christianity and the conversion and evangelization of the heathen. He had himself been a great sufferer for his religious convictions, along with the people whose cause he had espoused and made his own. His controlling desire was to honor and glorify God in the founding of a commonwealth in which those of his way of thinking might have a secure home of their own and worship their Creator as best agreed with their feelings and convictions, without being molested or disturbed; offering at the same time the same precious boon to others in like constraints willing to share the lot of his endeavors.

The motives of Charles II in granting his charter were, first of all, to discharge a heavy pecuniary claim of Penn against the government on account of his father; next, to honor the memory and merits of the late Admiral Penn; and, finally, at the same time, to “favor William Penn in his laudable efforts to enlarge the British empire, to promote the trade and prosperity of the kingdom, and to reduce the savage nations by just and gentle measures to the love of civilized life and the Christian religion.” Penn’s idea, as stated by his memorialist, was “to obtain the grant of a territory on the west side of the Delaware, in which he might not only furnish an asylum to Friends (Quakers), and others who were persecuted on account of their religious persuasion, but might erect a government upon principles approaching much nearer the standard of evangelical purity than any which had been previously raised.”

His own account of the matter is: “For my country I eyed the Lord in obtaining it; and more was I drawn inward to look to him, and to owe it to his hand and power, than to any other way. I have so obtained it, and desire to keep it, that I may not be unworthy of his love, but do that which may answer his kind providence and serve his truth and people, that an example may be set up to the nations. There may be room there, though not here, for such an holy experiment.” “I do therefore desire the Lord’s wisdom to guide me and those that may be concerned with me, that we may do the thing that is truly wise and just.” And with these aims and this spirit he invited people to join him, came to the territory which had been granted him, conferred with the Swedish and Dutch colonists already on the ground, and together with them established the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Part II: RECOGNITION OF THE DIVINE BEING.
Accordingly, also, the chief cornerstone in the constitutional fabric of our State was the united official acknowledgment of the being and supremacy of one eternal and ever-living God, the Judge of all men and the Lord of nations.

The self-existence and government of Almighty God is the foundation of all things. Nothing is without Him. And the devout and dutiful recognition of Him and the absolute supremacy of His laws are the basis and chief element of everything good and stable in human affairs. He who denies this or fails in its acknowledgment is so far practically self-stultified, beside himself, outside the sphere of sound rationality, and incapable of rightly understanding or directing himself or anything else. Nor could those who founded our commonwealth have been moved as they were, or achieved the happy success they did, had it not been for their clear, profound, and practical acknowledgment of the being and government of that good and almighty One who fills immensity and eternity, and from Whom, and by Whom, and to Whom are all things.

Some feel and act as if it were an imbecility, or a thing only for the weak, timid, and helpless, to be concerned about an Almighty God. But greater, braver, and more manly men did not then exist than those who were most prominent and active in founding and framing our commonwealth; and of a11 men then making themselves felt in the affairs of our world, they were among the most honest and devout in the practical confession of the eternal being and providence of Jehovah.

The great Gustavus Adolphus and the equally great Axel Oxenstiern held and confessed from their deepest souls and in all their thoughts and doings that there is an eternal God, infinite in power, wisdom, and goodness, the Creator, Preserver, and Judge of all things, visible and invisible, and that on Him and His favor alone all good and prosperity in this world and the next depends. This they ever formally and devoutly set forth in all their state papers and in all their undertakings and doings, whether as men or as rulers. The sound of songs and prayers to this almighty and ever-present God was heard at every sunrise through all the army of Gustavus in the field, as well as in the tent and closet of its great commander. And all the instructions given to the governors of the colony on the Delaware were meekly conditioned to the will of God, with specific emphasis on the provision:

“Above all things, shall the governor consider and see to it that a True and due Worship, becoming honor, land, and praise be paid to the Most High in all things.”The same is true of William Penn. From early life he was always a zealous exhorter to the devout worship of Almighty God as the only Illuminator and Helper of men. What he averred in his letter to the Indians was the great root-principle of his life:

“There is a great God and Power, which hath made the world and all things therein, to whom you and I and all people owe their being and well-being, and to whom you and I must one day give an amount for all that we have done in this world.”And what was thus wrought into the texture of his being he also wove into the original constitution of our State.

ENACTMENTS ON THE SUBJECT.
All the articles of government and regulation ordained by the first General Assembly, held at Upland (Chester) from the seventh to the tenth day of December, 1682, were fundamentally grounded on this express

“Whereas, the glory of Almighty God and the good of mankind is the reason and end of government, and therefore government itself is a valuable ordinance of God; and forasmuch as it is principally desired to make and establish such laws as shall best preserve true Christian and civil Liberty, in opposition to all unchristian, licentious, and unjust practices, whereby God may have His due, Caesar his due, and the people their due, from tyranny and oppression on the one side, and insolence and licentiousness on the other; so that the best and firmest foundation may be laid for the present and future happiness of both the governor and the people of this province and their posterity;”for it was deemed and believed on all hands that neither permanence nor happiness, enduring order nor prosperity, could come from any other principle than that of the recognition of the supremacy and laws of Him from Whom all things proceed and on Whom all creatures depend.

On this wise also ran the very first of the sixty-one laws ordained by that Assembly:

“Almighty God being the Lord of Conscience, Father of lights, and the Author as well as Object of all divine knowledge, faith, and worship, who alone can enlighten the mind and convince the understanding of people in due reverence to His sovereignty over the souls of mankind,”the rights of citizenship, protection, and liberty should be to every person, then or thereafter residing in this province,

“who shall confess one Almighty God to be the Creator, Upholder, and Ruler of the world, and profess himself obliged in conscience to live peaceably and justly under the civil government;”provided, further, that no person antagonizing this confession, or refusing to profess the same, or convicted of unsober or dishonest conversation, should ever hold office in this commonwealth. And so entirely did this, and what else was then and there enacted and ordained, fall in with the teachings, feelings, and beliefs of the hardy and devoted Swedish Lutherans, who had here been professing and fulfilling the same for two scores of years preceding, that they not only joined in the making of these enactments, but sent a special deputation to the governor formally to assure him that, on these principles and the faithful administration of them, they would love, serve, and obey him with all they possessed.

IMPORTANCE OF THIS PRINCIPLE.
Nor can it ever be known in this world how much of the success, prosperity, and happy conservatism which have marked this commonwealth in all the days and years since, have come directly from this planting of it on the grand corner-stone of all national stability, order, and happiness. Surely, a widely different course and condition of things would have come but for this secure anchoring of the ship on the everlasting Rock. And a thousand pities it is that the influence of French atheism was allowed to exclude so wholesome a principle from the Declaration of our national Independence and from our national Constitution. Whilst such recognition of Jehovah’s supremacy and government abides in living force in the hearts of the people, the absence of its official formulation may be of no material disadvantage; but for the better preservation of it in men’s minds, and for the obstruction of the insidious growth of what strikes at the foundation of all government and order, it would have been well had the same been put in place as the grand corner-stone of our whole national fabric, as it was in the original organization of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and kept in both clear and unchangeable forever. We might then hope for better things than are indicated by the present drift, and the outlook for those to come after us would be less dark and doubtful than it is.

But, since weakenings and degeneration in these respects have come into the enactments of public power, it is all the more needful for every true and patriotic citizen to be earnest and firm in witnessing for God and His everlasting laws, that the people may be better than the later expressions of their state documents. The example of the fathers makes appeal to the consciences of their children not to let go from our hearts and lives the deep and abiding recognition and confession of that almighty Governor of all things from Whose righteous tribunal no one living can escape, and before Whom no contemner of His authority can stand.

Part III: RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
Another great and precious principle enthroned in the founding of our commonwealth was that of Religious Liberty.

One of the saddest chapters in human history is that of persecution on account of religious convictions – the imposition of penalties, torture, and death by the sword of government on worthy people because of their honest opinions of duty to Almighty God. For the punishment of the lawless, the wicked, and the intractable, and for the praise, peace, and protection of them that do well, the civil magistrate is truly the authorized representative of God, and fails in his office and duty where the powers he wields are not studiously and vigorously exercised to these ends. But God hath reserved to Himself, and hath not committed to any creature hands, the power and dominion to interfere with the realm of conscience. As He alone can instruct and govern it, and as its sphere is that of the recognition of His will and law and the soul’s direct amenability to His judgment-bar, it is a gross usurpation and a wicked presumption for any other authority or power to undertake to force obedience contrary to the soul’s persuasion of what its Maker demands of it as a condition of His favor.

It is a principle of human action and obligation recognized in both Testaments, that when the requirements of human authority conflict with those of the Father of spirits we must obey God rather than man. The Rights of Conscience and the rights of God thus coincide, and to trample on the one is to deny the other. And when earthly governments invade this sacred territory they invade the exclusive domain of God and make war upon the very Authority from which they have their right to be.

The plea of its necessity for the support of orthodoxy, the maintenance of the Truth, and the glory of God will not avail for its justification, for God has not ordained civil government to inflict imprisonment, exile, and death upon religious dissenters, or even heretics; and His truth and glory He has arranged to take care of in quite another fashion. What Justin Martyr and Tertullian in the early Church and Luther in the Reformation-time declared, must forever stand among the settled verities of Heaven: that it is not right to murder, burn, and afflict people because they feel in conscience bound to a belief and course of life which they have found and embraced as the certain will and requirement of their Maker. We must ward off heresy with the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, and not with the sword of the state and with fire.

PERSECUTION FOR OPINION’S SAKE.
And yet such abuses of power have been staining and darkening all the ages of human administration, and, unfortunately, among professing Christians as well as among pagans and Jews. Intolerance is so rooted in the selfishness and ambition of human nature that it has ever been one of the most difficult of practical problems to curb and regulate it. Those who have most complained of it whilst feeling it, often only needed to have the circumstances reversed in order to fall into similar wickedness. The Puritans, who fled from it as from the Dragon himself, soon had their Star-Chamber too, their whipping-posts, their death-scaffolds, and their sentences of exile for those who dissented from their orthodoxy and their order. Even infidelity and atheism, always the most blatant for freedom when in the minority, have shown in the philosophy of Hobbes and in the Reign of Terror in France that they are as liable to be intolerant, fanatical, and oppressive when they have the mastery as the strongest faith and the most assured religionism. And the Quakers themselves, who make Freedom of Conscience one of the chief cornerstones of their religion, have not always been free from offensive and disorderly aggressions upon the rightful sphere of government and the rightful Religious Freedom of other worshipers. Even so treacherous is the human heart on the subject of just and equal religious toleration.

SPIRIT OF THE FOUNDERS.
It is therefore a matter of everlasting gratitude and thanksgiving that all the men most concerned in the founding of our commonwealth were so clear and well-balanced on the subject of Religious Liberty, and so thoroughly inwove the same into its organic constitution.

Gustavus Adolphus and Axel Oxenstiern were the heroes of their time in the cause of Religious Liberty in continental Europe. Though intensely troubled in their administration by the Roman Catholics and the Anabaptists, the most intolerant of intolerants in those days, they never opposed force against the beliefs or worships of either; and when force was used against the papal powers, it was only so far as to preserve unto themselves and their fellow-confessors the inalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences without molestation or disturbance. In their scheme of colonization in this Western World, first and last, the invitation was to all classes of Christians in suffering and persecution for conscience’ sake, who were favorable to a Free State where they could have the free enjoyment of their property and religion, to cast in their lot. In the first charter, confirmed by all the authorities of the kingdom and rehearsed in the instructions given by the throne for the execution of the intention, special provision was made for the protection of the convictions and worship of those not of the same confession with that for which the government provided. Though a Lutheran colony, under a Lutheran king, sustained and protected by a Lutheran government, the Calvinists had place and equal protection in it from the very beginning; and when the Quakers came, they were at once and as freely welcomed on the same free principles, as also the representatives of the Church of England.

As to William Penn, though contemplating above all the well-being and furtherance of the particular Society of which he was an eminent ornament and preacher, consistency with himself, as well as the established situation of affairs, demanded of him the free toleration of the Church, however unpalatable to his Society, and with it of all religious sects and orders of worship. From his prison at Newgate he had written that the enaction of laws restraining persons from the free exercise of their consciences in matters of religion was but “the knotting of whipcord on the part of the enactors to lash their own posterity, whom they could never promise to be conformed for ages to come to a national religion.” Again and again had he preached and proclaimed the folly and wickedness of attempting to change the religious opinions of men by the application of force – the utter unreasonableness of persecuting orderly people in this world about things which belong to the next – the gross injustice of sacrificing anyone’s liberty or property on account of creed if not found breaking the laws relating to natural and civil things.

Hence, from principle as well as from necessity, when he came to formulate a political constitution for his colony, he laid it down as the primordial principle:

“I do, for me and mine, declare and establish for the first fundamental of the government of my province that every person that doth and shall reside therein shall have and enjoy the free possession of his or her faith and exercise of worship toward God, in such way and manner as every such person shall in conscience believe is most acceptable to God. And so long as such person useth not this Christian liberty to licentiousness or the destruction of others – that is, to speak loosely and profanely or contemptuously of God, Christ, the Holy Scriptures, or religion, or commit any moral evil or injury against others in their conversation – he or she shall be protected in the enjoyment of the aforesaid Christian liberty by the civil magistrate.”CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.
This was in exact accord with the principles and provisions under which the original colony had been formed, and had already been living and prospering for more than forty years preceding. Everything, therefore, was in full readiness and condition for the universal and hearty adoption of the grand first article enacted by the first General Assembly, to wit:

“That no person now or hereafter residing in this province, who shall confess one Almighty God to be the Creator, Upholder, and Ruler of the world, and profess himself obliged in conscience to live peaceably and justly under the civil government, shall in any wise be molested or prejudiced on account of his conscientious persuasion or practice; nor shall he be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place, or ministry contrary to his mind, but shall freely enjoy his liberty in that respect, without interruption or reflection.”In these specific provisions all classes in the colony at the time heartily united. And thus was secured and guaranteed to every good citizen that full, rightful, and precious religious freedom which is the birthright of all Americans, for which the oppressed of all the ages sighed, and which had to make its way through a Red Sea of human tears and blood and many a sorrowful wilderness before reaching its place of rest.

Part IV: SAFEGUARDS TO TRUE LIBERTY.
But the Religious Liberty which our fathers thus sought to secure and to transmit to their posterity was not a licentious libertinism. They knew the value of religious principles and good morals to the individual and to the state, and they did not leave it an open matter, under plea of Free Conscience, for men to conduct themselves as they please with regard to virtue and religion.

To be disrespectful toward divine worship, to interfere with its free exercise as honest men are moved to render it, or to set at naught the moral code of honorable behavior in human society, is never the dictate of honest conviction of duty, and, in the nature of things, cannot be. It is not conscience, but the overriding of conscience; nay, rebellion against the whole code of conscience, against the foundations of all government, against the very existence of civil society. Liberty to blaspheme Almighty God, to profane His name and ordinances, to destroy His worship, and to set common morality at naught, is not Religious Liberty, but disorderly wickedness, a cloak of maliciousness, the licensing of the devil as an angel of light. It belongs to mere brute liberty, which must be restrained and brought under bonds in order to render true liberty possible. Wild and lawless freedom must come under the restraints and limits of defined order, peace, and essential morality, or somebody’s freedom must suffer, and social happiness is out of the question. And it is one of the inherent aims and offices of government to enforce this very constraint, without which it totally fails of its end and forfeits its right to be. Where people are otherwise law-abiding, orderly, submissive to the requisites for the being and well-being of a state, and abstain from encroachments upon the liberties of others, they are not to be molested, forced, or compelled in spiritual matters contrary to their honest convictions; but public blasphemy, open profanity, disorderly interference with divine worship and reverence, and the hindrance of what tends to the preservation of good morals, it pertains to the existence and Office of a state to restrain and punish. Severity upon such disorders is not tyrannical abridgment of the Rights of Conscience, for no proper citizen’s conscience can ever prompt or constrain him to any such things. And everything which tends to weaken and destroy regard for the eternal Power on which all things depend, to relax the sense of accountability to the Divine Judgment, and to trample on the laws of eternal morality, is the worst enemy of the state, which it cannot allow without peril to its own existence.

On the other hand, the state is bound for the same reasons to protect and defend religion in general and the cultivation of the religious sentiments, in so far, at least, as the laws of virtue and order are not transgressed in the name of religion. It may not interfere to decide between different religious societies or churches, as they may be equally conscientious and honest in their diversities; but where the tendency is to good and reverence, and the training of the community to right, and orderly life, it belongs to the Office and being of the state not only to tolerate, but to protect them all alike. In the fatherly care of its subjects, the people consenting, the state may also recommend and provide support for some particular and approved order of faith and worship, just as it provides for public education. And though the civil power may not rightfully punish, fine, imprison, and oppress orderly and honest citizens for conscientious non-conformity to any one specific system of belief and worship, it may, and must, provide for and protect what tends to its rightful conservation, and also condemn, punish, and restrain whatsoever tends to unseat it and undermine its existence and peace. These are fundamental requirements in all sound political economy.

LAWS ON RELIGION AND MORALS.
Our fathers, in their wisdom, understood this, and fashioned their state provisions and laws accordingly.

The thing specified as the supreme concern of the public authorities in the original settlement of this territory by the Swedes was,

to “consider and see to it that a True and due Worship, becoming honor, laud, and praise be paid to the most high God in all things,” and
that “all persons, but especially the young, shall be duly instructed in the articles of their Christian faith.”

But if public worship and religious instruction are to be fostered and preserved by the State, there must be set times for it, the people released at those times from hindering occupations and engagements, and whatever may interfere therewith restrained and put under bonds against interruption. In other words, the Lord’s proper worship demands and requires a protected “Lord’s Day.” Such appointed and sacred times for these holy purposes have been from the foundation of the world. Under all dispensations one day in every seven was a day unto the Lord, protected and preserved for such sacred uses, on which secular occupations should cease, and nothing allowed which would interfere with the public worship of Almighty God and the handling of His Word. And “because it was requisite to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Christian Church [and so all Christian States] did for that purpose appoint the Lord’s Day,” our weekly Sunday.

This William Penn found in existence and observance by the Swedes and the Dutch on this territory when he arrived. He therefore advised, and the first General Assembly of Pennsylvania justly ordained,

“that, according to the good example of the primitive Christians and the ease of the creation, every first day of the week, called the “Lord’s Day,” people shall abstain from their common daily labor, that they may the better dispose themselves to Worship God according to their understandings” – a provision so necessary and important that the statute laws of our commonwealth have always guarded its observance with penalties which the State cannot in justice to itself allow to go unenforced, and which no good citizen should refuse strictly to obey.And to the same end was it provided and ordained by the first General Assembly that

“if any person shall abuse or deride another for his different persuasion or practice in religion, such shall be looked upon as disturbers of the peace, and be punished accordingly.”And in the line of the same wholesome and necessary policy it was also further provided and ordained that

¹⁴

Such were the good and righteous provisions made for the restraint of the licentiousness and brutishness of man in the primeval days of our commonwealth; and wherein it has since sunk away from these original organic laws the people have only weakened and degraded themselves, and hindered that virtuous and happy prosperity which would otherwise in far larger degree than now be our inheritance.

Part V: FORMS OF GOVERNMENT.
And yet again, as the fathers of our commonwealth gave us religion without compulsion, so they also gave us a State without a king.

There is nothing necessarily wrong or necessarily right in this particular. Monarchy, aristocracy, republicanism, or pure democracy cannot claim Divine Right the one over against the other. Either may be good, or either may be bad, as the situation and the chances may be. There has been as much bloody wrong and ruin wrought in the name of Liberty as in the establishment of thrones. There have been as good and happy governments by kings as by any other methods of human administration. Civil authority is essential to man, and the power for it must lie somewhere. The only question is as to the safest depository of it. The mere form of the government is no great matter. It has been justly said,

“There is hardly a government in the world so ill designed that in good hands would not do well enough, nor any so good that in ill hands can do aught great and good.”Governments depend on men, not men on governments. Let men be good, and the government will not be bad; but if men are bad, no government will hold for good. If government be bad, good men will cure it; and if the government be good, bad men will warp and spoil it. Nor is there any form of government known to man that is not liable to abuse, prostitution, tyranny, unrighteousness, and oppression.

The best government is that which most efficiently conserves the true ends of government, be the form what it may. Anything differing from this is worthless sentimentalism, undeserving of sober regard. And to meet the true ends of government there must be power to enforce obedience, and there must be checks upon that power to secure its subjects against its abuse; for

“liberty without obedience is confusion, and obedience without liberty is slavery.”But there may be liberty under monarchy, as well as reverence and obedience under democracy, whilst there may be oppression and bloody tyranny under either.

Amid the varied experiments of the ages the human mind is more and more settling itself in favor of mixed forms of government, in which the rights of the people and the limitations of authority are set down in fixed constitutions, taking the direct rule from the multitude, but still holding the rulers accountable to the people.¹⁵ Such were more or less the forms under which the founders of our commonwealth were tutored.

A REPUBLICAN STATE.
But they went a degree further than the precedents before them. They believed the safest depository of power to be with the people themselves, under constitutions ordained by those intending to live under them and administered by persons of their own choice. “Where the laws rule, and the people are a party to those laws,” was believed to be the true ideal and realization of civil liberty – the way “to support power in reverence with the people, and to secure the people from the abuse of power, that they may be free by their just obedience, and the magistrates honorable for their just administration.”

And with these ideas, “with reverence to God and good conscience to men,” the first General Assembly in 1682 enacted a common code of sixty-one laws, in which the foundation-stones of the civil and criminal jurisprudence of this broad commonwealth were laid, and a style of government ordained so reasonable, moderate, just, and equal in its provisions that no one yet has found just cause to deny the wisdom and beneficence of its structure, whilst Montesquieu pronounces it “an instance unparalleled in the world’s history of the foundation of a great state laid in peace, justice, and equality.”

THE LAST TWO HUNDRED YEARS.
Two hundred years have gone by since this completed organization of our noble commonwealth. Her free and liberal principles then still remained in large measure to be learned by some of the other American colonies. From the very start she was the chief conservator of what was to be the model for all this grand Union of Free States – a character which she has never lost in all the history of our national existence. Six generations of stalwart freemen has she reared beneath her shielding care to people her own vast territory and that of many other States, no one of which has ever failed in truthfulness to the great principles in which she was born. Always more solid than noisy, and more reserved than obtrusive, she has ever served as the great balance-wheel in the mighty engine of our national organization. Her life, commingled with other lives attempered to her own, now pulsates from ocean to ocean and from the frozen lakes to the warm Gulf waters, all glad and glorious in the unity and sunshine of constitutional government in the hands of a Free people. With her population drawn from all nationalities to learn from her lips the sacred lessons of independent self-rule, she has sent it forth as freely to the westward to build co-equal States in the beauty of her own image, whilst four millions of her children still abide in growing happiness under her maternal care. Verily, it was the spirit of prophecy which said, two hundred years ago, “God will bless that ground.”

That blessing we have lived to see. May it continue for yet many centennials, and grow as it endures! May the faith and spirit of the men through whose piety and wisdom it has come still warm and animate the hearts of their successors to the latest generations! May no careless or corrupt administration of justice or “looseness” or infidelities of the people come in to bring down the wrath of Heaven for its interruption! May the sterling principles of our happy freedom be made good to us and our posterity by the good keeping of them in honest virtue and obedience, and in due reverence of Him who gave them, and who is the God and Judge of nations! May those sacred conditions of the divine favor “which descend not with Worldly inheritances” be so embedded in the training and education of our youth that the spirit of the children may not be a libel on the faith and devotion of their fathers!

Centuries have passed, but the God of Gustavus Adolphus, of the Pilgrims of Plymouth Rock, of William Penn, and of the hero-saints of every age and country still lives and reigns. Men may deny it, but that does not alter it. His government and Gospel are the same now that they have ever been. What he most approved and blessed in their days he most approves and blesses in ours. And may their fear and love of him be to us and our children a copy and a guide, to steer in safety amid the dangerous rapids of these doubtful times!

“And thou, Philadelphia, the virgin settlement of this province, named before thou wert born! what love, what care, what service, and what travail has there been to bring thee forth and preserve thee from such as would abuse and defile thee! My soul prays to God for thee, that thou mayest stand in the day of trial, that thy children may be blessed of the Lord, and thy people saved by his power.”THE END.

Previous Independance Day articles:

The Fourth of July is God’s day

We Are the Sons of Liberty

Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God

Creator

Supreme Judge of the world

Divine Providence

------------
Endnotes:

Acrelius’s History, p. 21. (return)
“When he now beheld that the cause of Protestantism was menaced more seriously than ever throughout the whole of Germany, he took the decisive step, and, formally declaring war against the emperor, he, on the 24^th of June, 1630, landed on the coast of Pomerania with fifteen thousand Swedes. As soon as he stepped upon shore he dropped on his knees in prayer, while his example was followed by his whole army. Truly he had undertaken, with but small and limited means, a great and mighty enterprise.” “The Swedes, so steady and strict in their discipline, appeared as protecting angels, and as the king advanced the belief spread far and near throughout the land that he was sent from heaven as its preserver.” — History of Germany, by Kohlrausch, pp. 328, 329.

“Bavaria and the Tyrol excepted, every province throughout Germany had battled for Liberty of Conscience, and yet the whole of Germany, notwithstanding her universal inclination for the Reformation, had been deceived in her hopes: a second Imperial edict seemed likely to crush the few remaining privileges spared by the edict of restitution... Gustavus, urged by his sincere piety, resolved to take up arms in defense of Protestantism and to free Germany from the yoke imposed by the Jesuits.” — Menzel’s History of Germany, vol. ii. pp. 345, 346.

“The party of the Catholics were carrying all before them, and everything seemed to promise that Ferdinand (the Roman Catholic emperor) would become absolute through the whole of Germany, and succeed in that scheme which he seemed to meditate, of entirely abolishing the Protestant religion in the empire. But this miserable prospect, both of political and religious thralldom, was dissolved by the great Gustavus Adolphus being invited by the Protestant princes of Germany to espouse the cause of the Reformed religion, being himself of that persuasion.” — Tytler’s Universal History, vol. ii. p. 451. (return)
The death of Gustavus Adolphus is thus described by Kohlrausch: “The king spent the cold autumnal night in his carriage, and advised with his generals about the battle. The morning dawned, and a thick fog covered the entire plain; the troops were drawn up in battle-array, and the Swedes sang, accompanied with trumpets and drums, Luther’s hymn, Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (‘A Mighty Fortress is our God’), together with the hymn composed by the king himself, Verzage nicht, du Häuﬂein klein (‘Fear not the Foe, thou Little Flock’). Just after eleven o’clock, when the sun was emerging from behind the clouds, and after a short prayer, the king mounted his horse, placed himself at the head of the right wing – the left being commanded by Bernard of Weimar – and cried, ‘Now, onward! May our God direct us! – Lord, Lord! help me this day to fight for the glory of thy name!’ and, throwing away his cuirass with the words, ‘God is my shield!’ he led his troops to the front of the Imperialists, who were well entrenched on the paved road which leads from Lützen to Leipsic, and stationed in the deep trenches on either side. A deadly cannonade saluted the Swedes, and many here met their death; but their places were filled by others, who leaped over the trench, and the troops of Wallenstein retreated.

“In the mean time, Pappenheim came up with his cavalry from Halle and the battle was renewed with the utmost fury. The Swedish infantry fled behind the trenches. To assist them, the king hastened to the spot with a company of horse, and rode in full speed considerably in advance to descry the weak points of the enemy; only a few of his attendants, and Francis, duke of Saxe-Lauenberg, rode with him. His short-sightedness led him too near a squadron of Imperial horse; he received a shot in his arm, which nearly precipitated him to the ground; and just as he was turning to be led away from the tumultuous scene he received a second shot in the back. With the exclamation, ‘My God! my God!’ he fell from his horse, which also was shot in the neck, and was dragged for some distance, hanging by the stirrup. The duke abandoned him, but his faithful page tried to raise him, when the Imperial horsemen shot him also, killed the king, and completely plundered him.” Pappenheim was also mortally wounded, Wallenstein retreated, and the victory was with the Swedes, but their noble king was no more. (return)
The description of the features of this plan is taken from Geijer’s Svenska Folkets Historia, vol. iii. p. 128, given by Dr. Reynolds in his Introduction to Israel Acrelius’s History of New Sweden, published by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. It was first propounded by Gustavus Adolphus in 1624. Also referred to in Argonautica Gustaviana, pp. 3 and 22. [DL - And I add the details from Dr. Reynolds’ Introduction, as follows:]
(return)
Count Galeazzo Gualdo, a Venetian Roman Catholic, who spent some years in both the Imperial and the Swedish armies, says of Gustavus Adolphus that “he was tall, stout, and of such truly royal demeanor that he universally commanded veneration, admiration, love, and fear. His hair and beard were of a light-brown color, his eyes large, but not far-sighted. Eloquence dwelt upon his tongue. He spoke German, the native language of his mother, the Swedish, the Latin, the French, and the Italian languages, and his discourse was agreeable and lively. There never was a general served with so much cheerfulness and devotion as he. He was of an affable and friendly disposition, readily expressing commendation, and noble actions were indelibly fixed upon his memory; on the other hand, excessive politeness and flattery he hated, and if any person approached him in that way he never trusted him.” (return)
See sketch of the plan of Gustavus Adolphus for his colony, page 143, and the instructions given to Governor Printz in 1642. (return)
Introduction to Acrelius’s History. (return)
Swedish Annals, p. 26. (return)
Dr. Reynolds’ Introduction to Acrelius, p. 14. (return)
See Acrelius’ History, pp. 64-65, and Clay’s Swedish Annals, pp. 24-25. (return)
History of New Sweden, pg. 114. (return)
Ibid., p. 21. (return)
Rehearsed in the commission to Governor Printz. 1642, sections 9 and 26. (return)
Dr. Phillip Schaff had much to say about this in his little book, Church and State in the United States: Or the American Idea of Religious Liberty and it Practical Effects; with Official Documents. It is a marvelous little book, an indispensable civics guide for the American Christian. We at Intrepid Lutherans published select sections from this book, pp 53-56 and 69-78, in out post A Civics Lesson for American Christians: “Church and State in the United States,” by Dr. Philip Schaffwhich discuss and defend these kinds of laws as they had been observed in other States of our Nation. (return)
The document credited with fixing this idea in the mind’s of the governed, and eventually making this idea a fixture in the political traditions of Western nations was the Magna Carta of A.D. 1215. Even in recent times, it has been described as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.” It guaranteed certain Fundamental Liberties to the governed, including the following:
1. Freedom of the Church from the Regulation of the State.
2. Establishment of the Rule of Law, and Subjection of Governing Authorities to that Rule.
3. The Right of the Governed to Material Participation, through Representation, in the Governing Process.
4. The Right of the Accused to Trial by Jury.
5. The Guarantee of Speedy Trial and Swift Justice
We at Intrepid Lutherans published the Magna Carta of A.D. 1215, and its predecessor document, the Charter of Liberties of A.D. 1100, in our recent post, Octocentennial of the “Magna Carta” and the Independence of the Church from the State. (return)

Conscience, Confession and Martyrdom: A New Reality for Christians in the “Land of the Free”

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 01:00:00 +0000

Christianity Squelched

Yesterday, we posted the second part of our history of the German Reformation under Dr. Martin Luther. The third paragraph provided an important, though short, definition of the terms in the title of today’s post: Conscience, Confession and Martydom. With this morning’s nationally celebrated events, it has become clear that orthodox Christianity will once again be entering a period of open persecution, even here in our own Nation. Not merely the ideas and teaching of orthodoxy, but True Believers individually – who dare to open their mouths to reveal what they are convinced as a matter of Christian Conscience is the Truth. But Christianity has endured on the grounds of eternal conviction, and a consequent REFUSAL to recant the immutable teachings of God’s Word, and a REFUSAL to act contrary to them. Though today’s American Christian – a soft-hearted, weak-willed post-Modernist for whom friendship with the World and consilience with its moral and social standards is the highest virtue – is generally unprepared to do so – indeed, even averse to the dreadful thought of it! – it is vitally important, now, to dwell on these terms and their meaning for the Christian.

What is Conscience?
Yesterday, we briefly defined this as follows:

“Conscience” is the seat of an individual’s identity, and is composed of what the individual is convinced is True as inseparable from the reality of his own existence. To deny conscience is to separate oneself from that reality. It is unthinkable for the person with a genuine connection to his own identity; he would rather die than suffer such separation.

On March 27, 2014, in our post The Descent of the Contemporary Church into Cultural Narcissism, however, we discussed the term in greater detail, tying it Dr. Martin Luther’s historic Stand at the Diet of Worms. That post featured a recording entitled, Growing in Grace & Knowledge, a title taken from St. Peter’s admonition to “Grow in the Grace and Knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pe. 3:18), admonition which is impossible to heed without deliberately engaging the intellect.

But many Christians, including many Lutherans, have been taught to distrust the intellect – “Reason is the enemy of faith,” after all. Even though Luther meant by this the use of Reason over and against the clear teaching of Scripture, many, in my recent experience, choose to chuck reason entirely out the window rather than give it a foothold, and immediately resort to the accusation “But that’s reason,” when one of their cherished falsehoods is challenged by a thoughtful, Scripturally sound and persuasive argument. They forget that Luther more famously said
“Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason... I am bound by the Scriptures... my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God, and I am neither able nor willing to recant, since it is neither safe nor right to act against conscience.”

(Schwiebert, E. (1950). Luther and His Times. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 504-505.)
Conscience. We’ve used that term many many times here on Intrepid Lutherans. Indeed, three titles worth reviewing with respect to this term include the following:
– The Theological Disciplines, and the nature of theological discourse...
– Theological Discourse in the post-Modern Era
– “Relevance,” and Mockery of the Holy Martyrs – Conclusion.
In these posts, and others, it is emphasized that Conscience is the seat of human identity and the source of one’s Public Confession. Conscience comprises those Truths from which one cannot be separated without ceasing to be who he is, those Truths which one is compelled to cling to, even in the face of his executioner.
Iranian Christians
Continuing to Live by Conscience
Luther emphasizes this fact as well, as he faced the Emperor and certain death, by calling upon human conscience – what he was convinced was True – as the basis for standing in the face of error and refusing to recant that Truth. And Christian conscience is founded on what God has given to mankind: His Word and human faculty, coordinate, the latter in submission to the former.

“What have you to live for?” is supposed to be the question one is encouraged to consider as he counts his blessings and in them finds the motivation to continue onward in life. But it is a question which cannot be sufficiently considered at all apart from the more serious question, “What are you willing to die for?” It is only in this latter question that one is brought into direct contact with his conscience and fully engages his self-identity, as he is forced to grapple with Truth and Falsehood in their grandest conception, in their most objective and meaningful reality. For the true Christian, that identity is defined by his identity in Christ, baptized (Ga. 3:26-29) and redeemed (Ga. 3:11-14), standing, through faith alone, within the shelter of God’s Saving Grace (Ro. 5:1-2).

Grace. Knowledge. Growth. As the Church not only succumbs to post-Modernism, and other forms of Cultural Narcissism, but fully embraces worldly thinking, it is being denied a collective Christian conscience with the courage, confidence and capacity to identify, confront and repudiate the errors hurled at it by the world, and individual Christians are being robbed of the cultivated faculties necessary to adequately consider and react to the withering attacks of the world against Christ, the Church, and against them, individually.

Unless Christians are in touch with their Christian Conscience – unless they know specifically what they believe is immutably True, why they believe it and how it impacts their thinking, speaking and doing – they are unable, ultimately, to issue any sort of meaningful public Confession.

What is Confession?
Yesterday, we briefly defined this essentially as follows:

Confession is issued by a person who, called upon by his persecutors to deny his own Conscience, REFUSES, and who, instead, gives a clear defense for his convictions and submits himself to their persecution.

HERE I STAND!
Luther at the Diet of Worms

Confession, in this sense, is NOT something a person does anonymously, or in the privacy of a little box called a “confessional”; rather, Confession is issued IN PUBLIC, and IN THE FACE OF CERTAIN EXECUTION. The person who issues a Confession is referred to as a Confessor – and to such we Lutherans refer, for example, when we speak of those who presented the Augsburg Confession to Emperor Charles V as being Confessors.

On December 8, 2011, in our post “Relevance,” and Mockery of the Holy Martyrs – Conclusion, we discussed the term Confession in greater detail, citing the example of the Holy Martyrs from the First Ten Persecutions of the Church, and demonstrating how individual Christians engaged in a lifestyle of living Confession, multiplied across society, have tremendously positive, civilization-defining impact:

Make no mistake, the World venomously hates Christians, and has waged war against the New Testament Church ever since the time of Christ. It is only the dominant and civilizing influence of Christianity in Western Society that prevents the unregenerate from killing us today. Christians living in societies which have not so benefited from Christianity know this all too well: in many places even today, Christians are being murdered, sometimes in large numbers, in some cases with the same wanton disregard for humanity displayed by the pagan Romans. Groups like Voice of the Martyrs and Open Doors, monitor and report such activity as it occurs throughout the world – from these sources, and others, one can find more information about Christian persecution and martyrdom in our own era.

The example of the Holy Martyrs: Standing firm in the face of enticements and persecution
But how could Christianity have possibly risen to such stature in the the West as to “civilize” it, and make it tolerant of, and even favor, Christianity? Did expert marketing agents of the early Church gather together in conference to cast the Bishop’s vision for the Church into a one-sentence slogan, or develop mission statements simple and memorable enough for lay Christians to recall on command, understand and execute?
Jan Hus at the Council of Constance, 1415
“I call God to witness, that I have never taught nor written those things which on false testimony they impute to me; but my declarations, teachings, writings in fine, all my works, have been intendd and shaped toward the object of rescuing dying men from the tyranny of sin. Wherefore I will this day gladly seal that truth which I have taught, written, and proclaimed – established by divine law, and by holy teachers – by the pledge of my death”
Did the deacons of the congregations, setting out to “grow the church,” do a SWOT analysis, plan, and proceed accordingly? If they did, wouldn’t the most reasonable course of action, in the face of certain extinction, have been to preserve Christian lives wherever possible by making their self-representation more palatable to the pagans, have been to befriend the persecutors of Christianity by placating them with words and behaviour the pagans didn’t misunderstand, weren’t offended by, or which were even calculated to attract them according to their own standards, rather than remain estranged from them through doctrinal rigidity, other-worldly practice, out of touch lifestyles and a message that made no worldly sense? What was the example of St. Timothy, of Saturninus, the pious orthodox Bishop of Toulouse, or of St. Lawrence the Martyr – who was one of the deacons of the Church in Rome? Did they find that keeping their Christian confession a virtual secret, while virtually behaving like the pagans, was a more effective way to “grow the church,” to be a more evangelical course of action? No. Not at all. They stood according the convictions of quickened conscience; by their doctrine they boldly asserted in the face of paganism what they were convinced was False and what was True; they demonstrated their doctrine in their Church practice and daily lives; and they suffered the temporal consequences. This course of action could not have been the design of any rational human. Could it? Death is so impractical, and so permanent – and so unnecessary for the creative thinker. It would have been so easy, and so easily justifiable, to do just the opposite! Yet, despite the irrationality of unswerving devotion to God’s Word and the exercise of “other-worldly” Church practices and unpopular “prudish” lifestyles, we observe after the fact that God used the persecutions to drive heterodoxy out of the Church and to strengthen its unity in doctrine and practice, while the words and living examples of the martyrs – attesting to their immoveable faith in the certainty of God’s promises – served to draw the unregenerate into relationship with Him and into His Church:
“To these protracted and cruel persecutions the church opposed no revolutionary violence, to carnal resistance, but the moral heroism of suffering and dying for the truth. But this very heroism was her fairest ornament and stanchest weapon. In this very heroism she proved herself worthy of her divine founder, who submitted to the death of the cross for the salvation of the world, and even prayed that his murderers might be forgiven.... In those hard times, men had to make earnest of the words of the Lord: Whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. (Lu. 14:27). ‘He, that loveth father and mother more than me, is not worthy of me’ (Mt. 10:37-38). But then also the promise daily proved itself true: ‘Blessed are they, who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt. 5:1). ‘He, that loseth his life for my sake, shall find it’ (Mt. 10:39). And it applied not only to the martyrs themselves, who exchanged the troubled life of earth for the blessedness of heaven, but also to the church as a whole, which came forth purer and stronger from every persecution, and thus attested her indestructible vitality.

“These suffering virtues are among the sweetest and noblest fruits of the Christian religion. It is not so much the amount of suffering which challenges our admiration, although it was terrible enough, as the spirit with which the early Christians bore it. Men and women of all classes, noble senators and learned bishops, illiterate artisans and poor slaves, loving mothers and delicate virgins, hoary-headed pastors and innocent children approached their tortures in no temper of unfeeling indifference and obstinate defiance, but, like their divine Master, with calm self-possession, humble resignation, gentle meekness, cheerful faith, triumphant hope, and forgiving charity. Such spectacles must have often overcome even the inhuman murderer. ‘Go on,’ says Tertullian tauntingly to the heathen governors, ‘rack, torture, grind us to powder: our numbers increase in proportion as ye mow us down. The blood of Christians is their harvest seed. Your very obstinacy is a teacher. For who is not incited by the contemplation of it to inquire what there is in the core of the matter? And who, after having joined us, does not long to suffer?’

“Unquestionably there were also during this period, especially after considerable seasons of quiet, many superficial or hypocritical Christians, who, the moment the storm of persecution broke forth, flew like chaff from the wheat, and either offered incense to the gods (thurificati, sacrificati), or procured false witness of their return to paganism (libellatici, from libellum), or gave up the sacred books (traditores). Tertullian relates with righteous indignation that whole congregations, with the clergy at the head, would at times resort to dishonorable bribes in order to avert the persecution of heathen magistrates. But these were certainly cases of rare exception. Generally speaking the three sorts of apostates (lapsi) were at once excommunicated, and in many churches, through excessive rigor, were even refused restoration.”

Schaff, P. (1996). History of the Christian Church (Vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Christianity). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. (Reprinted from the fifth edition of Volume 2, originally published in 1889). pp. 75-76.
Christian Education and the Christianization of society
But the accumulation of raw numbers, by the Holy Spirit’s work through potent public witness to the Truth of God’s Word and the certainty of His promises, was not the only factor in the Christianization of pagan Rome.
John Wycliff defends his Confession before the Bishop of London, 1377
For new converts must be catechized, and for sufficient catechesis, they must be educated. And this is what the Church did, for old and young, male and female alike:
“[B]y about A.D. 150, Justin Martyr, often called the first great scholar of the Christian Church, established such catechetical schools, one in Ephesus and one in Rome. Soon these schools appeared in other regions. Some became well known... Although the teaching of Christian doctrine was the primary focus of these schools, some, such as the schools in Alexandria, also taught mathematics and medicine; and when Origen (‘the prince of Christian learning’) succeeded Clement at Alexandria, he added grammar classes to the curriculum... Their existence, says William Boyd, had far reaching effects. Through them, ‘Christianity became for the first time a definite factor in the culture of the World. [For example], Christians... appear to have been the first to teach both genders in the same setting... Instructing both men and women, as the early Christians did, was rather revolutionary... [In contrast, Roman] schools, says one educational historian, apparently only taught boys – and then only boys from the privileged class – in their gymnasia, while girls were excluded. In light of this ancient practice, Tatian, once a student in one of Justin Martyr’s catechetical schools, proclaimed that Christians taught everybody, including girls and women. W. M. Ramsay states that Christianity’s aim was ‘universal education, not education confined to the rich, as among the Greeks and Romans... and it [made] no distinction of gender.’’ This practice produced results, for by the early fifth century, St. Augustine said that Christian women were often better informed in divine matters than the pagan male philosophers.”

Schmidt, A. (2004). How Christianity Changed the World. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. pp. 171-172.
This cultural influence, through a system of catechesis and general education which not only enabled the early Christians to read and understand their Greek and Latin Scriptures and to thus stand with all confidence in their teaching, but which also cultivated their intellect and trained them for a productive life in service toward their neighbor, had, by the time of Constantine the Great, yielded a tremendous change in Roman society:
“The Church had extended to all parts of the Empire... [and] had gained a high social position... Christian leaders, especially the teachers and the writers, had culture and education superior to that of the pagans. And the Christian literature of this period presupposed a well-educated Christian public... The Graeco-Roman world was Christianized...”

Qualben, L. (1964). A History of the Christian Church (4^th Ed.). New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons. pg. 114.
This was the apex of religious and cultural change, not to mention economic and political strife, at which Constantine stood in 308 A.D., and from which he oversaw some of the most dramatic changes that the Empire would endure. Requiring a stable, patriotic, productive and cultured citizenry, and himself predisposed toward Christianity, Constantine made the following changes, many of which are considered inviolable in the West even today, all of which are still of great and positive impact:
“Constantine effected one of the greatest transformations in history. Before his death the Roman empire had largely emancipated itself from the old, pagan religions... While Christianity was not formally adopted by Constantine as the religion of the State, he virtually gave it this position. The privileges that had belonged to the religious institutions of old Rome were given to the Church, with several new ones added. He exempted the Christian clergy from military and municipal duties and their property from taxation (313 A.D.). He abolished various customs and ordinances offensive to Christians (315 A.D.). He gave the Catholic but not the heretical churches right to receive legacies (321 A.D.). He enjoined the civil observance of Sunday (321 A.D.). He contributed liberally to the building of churches, to the circulation of the Scriptures, and to the support of the clergy. The Catholic churches were given the privilege of asylum. He preferred Christians to fill the chief offices, surrounded himself with Christian councilors, and gave his sons a Christian education... He tried in every way to strengthen and to unify the Church. In 314 A.D. He called the Council of Arles to settle the Donatist controversy, and in 325 A.D. He called the first General Œcumenical Council of the Church, held at Nicæa in Asia Minor.”

Qualben, L. (1964). A History of the Christian Church (4^th Ed.). New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons. pp. 117-118.
And in summary, through the persecutions suffered by Christians that resulted from continuing to make a living Confession of their Christian Conscience, the following was accomplished by God in Society, and remains at the foundation of Western Civilization:
“Under the inspiring influence of the spotless purity of Christ’s teaching and example... the Christian Church from the beginning asserted the individual rights of man, recognized the divine image in every rational being, taught the common creation and common redemption, the destination of all for immortality and glory, raised the humble and the lowly, comforted the prisoner and captive, the stranger and the exile, proclaimed chastity as a fundamental virtue, elevated woman to dignity and equality with man, upheld the sanctity and inviolability of the marriage tie, laid the foundation of a Christian family and happy home, moderated the evils and undermined the foundations of slavery, opposed polygamy and concubinage, emancipated the children from the tyrannical control of parents, denounced the exposure of children as murder, made relentless war upon the bloody games of the arena and the circus, and the shocking indecencies of the theater, upon cruelty and oppression and every vice, infused into a heartless and loveless world the spirit of love and brotherhood, transformed sinners into saints, frail women into heroines, and lit up the darkness of the tomb by the bright ray of unending bliss in heaven.

“Christianity reformed society from the bottom, and built upwards until it reached the middle and higher classes, and at last the emperor himself. Then, soon after the conversion of Constantine it began to influence legislation, abolished cruel institutions, and enacted laws which breathe the spirit of justice and humanity. We may deplore the evils which followed in the train of the union of church and state, but we must not over look its many wholesome effects upon the Justinian code which gave Christian ideas an institutional form and educational power for whole generations to this day. From that time on also began the series of charitable institutions for widows and orphans, for the poor and the sick, the blind and the deaf, the intemperate and criminal, and for the care of all unfortunate – institutions which we search for in vain in any other but Christian countries.”

Schaff, P. (1996). History of the Christian Church (Vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Christianity). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. (Reprinted from the fifth edition of Volume 2, originally published in 1889). pp. 385-386.

Modern Day Martyrdom
Coming to America, as the Enemies of Christ continue to be Empowered

What is Martyrdom?
Yesterday, we briefly defined this essentially as follows:

Martyrdom is the fate suffered by the Confessor at the hands of his persecutors.

Many American Christians believe the illusion that no one in the World suffers for their Christian faith. This is not true. Throughout the world there are those who are not only free, but encouraged to act on their hatred of Christ and His followers. Such hatred is growing in America, as well; and it is encouraged by the most powerful institutions of our Nation: the media, academia and the State.

Many others believe the lie that their public confession ought to have no impact on the society in which they live, have no voice in public affairs, have no consideration whatsoever in the legal and political structures of their civilization, and that their voiceless Christian Quietism will afford them the luxury of believing as they please, in peace and quiet, unmolested by a world that would hate them, if they only knew that they existed. It sticks in their craw that the Holy Martyrs dared open their mouths in public, offended their pagan neighbors with their religion, openly disobeyed the governing authorities who ordered them to stop, and worse, that across the growing mass of believers over the first few centuries, a consistent public Confession and a REFUSAL to submit to the will of their unbelieving enemies formed the civilization known as Christendom – which we now today refer to as Western Civilization.

Most, however, are oblivious. Living in a world wrought for them through millenia of Christian persecution, they leach from society the benefits won for them by others, neither thinking of their obligation to struggle on behalf of the generations which will follow, nor willing to do so even if the thought occurred to them.

In the opening post of our series on the Martyrs and the mockery the memory of their sacrifices suffer at the hands of those who prefer the “Relevance” that friendship with the World buys them, “Relevance,” and Mockery of the Holy Martyrs – Introduction, we introduced the topic of Martyrdom and the source of the Christian’s willingness to suffer persecution, torture and death: the precious Word of Truth, the Message of the Gospel to a Fallen and destitute race.

How easy it would have been for the Blessed Martyrs of the early Church to acquiesce to the World's overtures of friendship, which often meant the difference between life and tortuous death. Yet all the while, theirs was truly a Crisis of the Word, of God's Word, the Bible, which was still in the process of being canonized.
Genocide of Armenian Christians, 1915
Irenæus, Polycarp, Justin and others valiantly fought against the teachers of Gnosticism and the authors of apocryphal and pseudepigraphal Gospels and Epistles, and they along with many others were Martyred in the process. But this was the key to maintaining orthodoxy in the face of false teachers, their fraudulent scriptures and their resulting heresies: validating (a) one’s Scripture sources as having come directly from the apostles, and (b) one’s teaching as having descended only from those very Scripture sources.

They could have made friends with the world, if they weren't so dogmatic. They could have made friends with the world, if only they were willing to overlook some corruption in their Bibles. But they resisted this temptation. They were followers of Christ, hanging on to the very words which proceeded from the mouth of God. And they were hated for it, with a venomous hatred. The Ten Persecutions of the Early Church demonstrate this most ably. And make no mistake, the World has essentially held its venom in store for almost one-and-a-half millenia since – at least in the West – reminding us only every now and then that it still hates us...
“[T]he martyrdom of the first three centuries... remains one of the grandest phenomena of history, and an evidence of the indestructible, divine nature of Christianity.

“No other religion could have stood for so long a period the combined opposition of Jewish bigotry, Greek philosophy, and Roman policy and power; no other could have triumphed at last over so many foes by purely moral and spiritual force, without calling any carnal weapons to its aid. This comprehensive and long-continued martyrdom is the peculiar crown and glory of the early church; it pervaded its entire literature and gave it a predominantly apologetic character; it entered deeply into its organization and discipline and the development of Christian doctrine; it affected the public worship and private devotions; it produced a legendary poetry... The sufferings, moreover, of the church during this period are of course not to be measured merely by the number of actual executions, but by the far more numerous insults, slanders, vexations, and tortures, which the cruelty of heartless heathens and barbarians could devise, or any sort of instrument could inflict on the human body, and which were in a thousand cases worse than death.

“Finally, while the Christian religion, has at all times suffered more or less persecution, bloody or unbloody, from the ungodly world, and always has its witnesses ready for any sacrifice; yet at no period since the first three centuries was the whole church denied the right of a peaceful legal existence, and the profession of Christianity itself universally declared and punished as a political crime. Before Constantine the Christians were a helpless and proscribed minority in an essentially heathen world, and under a heathen government. Then they died not simply for particular doctrines, but for the facts of Christianity. Then it was a conflict, not for a denomination or sect, but for Christianity itself. The importance of ancient martyrdom does not rest so much on the number of victims and the cruelty of their sufferings as on the great antithesis and the ultimate result in saving the Christian religion for all time to come. Hence, the first three centuries are the classical period of heathen persecution and of Christian martyrdom. The martyrs and confessors of the ante-Nicene age suffered for the common cause of all Christian denominations and sects, and hence are justly held in reverence and gratitude by all.”

Schaff, P. (1996). History of the Christian Church (Vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Christianity). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. (Reprinted from the fifth edition of Volume 2, originally published in 1889). pp. 77-80.

And, in the final post of that series, “Relevance,” and Mockery of the Holy Martyrs – Conclusion, we concluded with the following words:

Confessors become Martyrs
The more the Church inches toward the World in her doctrine and practice, and in ideologies which impact them, the more we abdicate our distinctiveness, consign ourselves (at first) to Worldly thinking and practice for the sake of self-preservation (which swiftly turns to the desire of Worldliness), the closer we come to giving the World dominion over the Church, and inviting, once again, its violent persecution against us. But shouldn’t the Church’s teaching, like the Christian’s faith, be immoveable? Why should it “inch toward” anything at all?

We Christians are Confessors, and as such stand facing the World in a state of Confession. If this confession is to be regarded as meaningful in any respect, it is required that we maintain our distinctiveness in teaching and practice. And make no mistake, as Confessors we are always one step away from Martyrdom, for the two words are closely related. Dr. Philip Schaff explains:
“Those who cheerfully confessed Christ before the heathen magistrate at peril of life, but were not executed, were honored as confessors. Those who suffered abuse of all kinds, and death itself, for their faith, were called martyrs or blood-witnesses.”

Schaff, P. (1996). History of the Christian Church (Vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Christianity). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. (Reprinted from the fifth edition of Volume 2, originally published in 1889). pg. 76.
The Martyrdom of Dr. Robert Barnes, 1540
The Confessor is the one who stands in the face of death, publicly holding to his faith in Christ. The Martyr is the one who meets the death he is threatened with. For the Confessor who goes on living, his life, in word and deed, immovably remains a living example of the confession he clinged to, even on threat of death, avoiding any speech or behaviour which would cause him to be seen as viewing his own life so cheaply as to give a false confession and be regarded a liar and hypocrite.

And this Christian State of Confession with respect to the World, and with respect to false teachers and religious sects, along with its close connection to potential martyrdom, is recognized by confessional Lutheranism as well. Each one of our confirmands takes the following oath:
“Do you, as a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, intend to continue steadfast in the confession of this Church, and suffer all, even death, rather than fall away from it?“

The Lutheran Agenda. (1946). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pg. 24

The World is still the Christian’s Great Enemy
The World is still our enemy. The World still hates the followers of Christ. It always has. And it has always schemed and struggled to eradicate the World of Christianity. It attacks our Bible. It attacks the facts and teaching it contains. It mocks Christ. It mocks those who imitate Him. It erects barriers against Christians – in the realm of politics, business, and even social life. It destroys our education, vaunting the evolving priorities of society over the unchanging needs of Christianity – to read and understand the unalloyed words of God in order that one may confidently stand on them, and to serve one’s neighbor through Vocation for the sake of Christ. The World entices the Church, as a Syren in the shallows, that we may wreck our ship of faith on the shoals. In these ways, and in many others, the World seeks to rid itself of Christ’s influence. What shall be the response of a true Confessor? Our response ought to follow the example of the early Christian Martyrs. First, simply stand on the “odd,” “irrelevant,” and mightily hated Word of God, in all of its Truth and purity, regardless of what the World thinks of us or threatens to do to us on account of it. Second, retain our distinctive practices and lifestyles, and commitment to true and valid Christian Education, always standing ready to give a defense for the faith that is in us while working diligently in our Vocations in the interest of our neighbor, for the sake of Christ. Third, rid ourselves of those who would compromise God’s Word or its teaching, no matter how subtly, who would have us conduct ourselves in a more Worldly and “relevant” fashion, and who would have God’s faithful follow them. Fourth, gracefully accept the consequences, even if it appears to mean the extinction of the Church itself. God, not us, rules His Church, and He providentially governs Creation for the benefit of the Church, His Bride. We need not worry over its demise.

From the Ninety-five Theses to the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession: The history of Dr. Martin Luther, continued...

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 07:30:00 +0000

The Augsburg Confession, 1530

On October 31, 2014, the 497^th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther’s famous posting of his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the Church in Wittenberg, and a day which Lutherans annually commemorate as the Festival of the Reformation, we published the first part of a history of Dr. Martin Luther with the post, Dr. Martin Luther, the Corruption of Rome, John Tetzel and Indulgences, and the Ninety-five Theses. It was taken from a work that was originally written by Rev. Dr. Joseph A. Seiss in 1888, Luther and the Reformation: The Life-Springs of Our Liberties. A co-founder of the General Council along with Charles Porterfield Krauth, Rev. Seiss was a 19^th Century Lutheran pastor, serving congregations in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. One can read more details about him in the introduction to our first part of Luther’s history.

Today, however, is June 25, and this day marks the anniversary of the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession to Emperor Charles V, in 1530. Like the Festival of the Reformation, today is prominently marked on the Lutheran calendar as a minor festival of the Church Year, though it is not nearly as widely commemorated with special services, church plays, lectures, social events and other activities as Reformation is. Nevertheless, the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession represents a monumental shift in the history of the West – in both religious as well as political terms – as with Augustana the convictions of conscience were irrevocably placed at the center, and at the pinnacle, of civil liberty.

Conscience – that term has been referred to on our pages on numerous occasions – is the seat of an individual’s identity, is composed of what the individual is convinced is true as inseparable from the reality of his own existence. To deny conscience is to separate oneself form that reality. It is unthinkable for the person with a genuine connection to his own identity; he would rather die than suffer such separation. The Confessor – another term has been frequently used on our pages – is such a person who, called upon by his executioners to deny his own conscience, refuses, and who, instead, gives a clear defense for his convictions and submits himself to their sentence. The Martyr, is the person who suffers the fate promised by his executioners.

As Dr. Martin Luther stood against doctrinal error on the basis of Christian Conscience, and was called upon time and again, or otherwise compelled to make his Confession in his published writings and public disputations, he was giving ever more clear and compelling witness to the truth that he was convinced of, and giving ever wider broadcast of that Confession. And as a result, others were convinced of the Truth in the process. The people, from peasants up through the nobility, both in Germany and abroad, were swayed, and a movement grew to thunderous support of the Biblical doctrines he taught over against those held by the Papacy and enforced by the Empire.

These wicked authorities responded with all they had to offer: threats, punishments and condemnations. Did the Confessors of True Scripture Doctrine shrink back as a result, grow silent and recant their “bold convictions”? Perhaps many did, though it seems no historian has thought any of them deserved a single paragraph in the annals of history. What we do know, rather, is what historians have been moved to record: that those who were obliged by Conscience to live out their Christian convictions continued to give bold witness, in word and deed, Confessing that which they were convinced as a matter of Christian Conscience was True, that which was inseparable from their identity in Christ. Many of them found themselves in the company of fellows, while others found themselves in the company of martyrs. When finally ordered by the Empire to submit to the Pope’s decrees in opposition to Luther and the doctrines of Scripture, many businessmen and landowners, and even several of the German Princes who supported Luther, refused. Thus in a state of Protest against the the Emperor, he then called upon them to make their Confession before him at the Diet of Augsburg. They presented to him on June 25, 1530.

The following history begins where we left off in October of last year, with immediate after-effects of the posting of Luther’s Ninety-five Theses through the events leading to the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession, and its immediate political and religious impact.

Click here for Part I of this series on the Life of Martin Luther

Click here for Part III of this series on the Life of Martin Luther

Dr. Martin Luther
From the Ninety-five Theses to the
Presentation of the Augsburg Confession¹¹
LUTHER’s GROWING INFLUENCE.
Six months after the nailing up of the Theses, Luther was the hero of a general convention of the Augustinians in Heidelberg. He there submitted a series of propositions on philosophy and theology, which he defended with such convincing clarity and tact that he won for himself and his university great honor and renown. Better still, four learned young men who there heard him saw the truth of his positions, and afterward became distinguished defenders of the Reformation.

His cause, meanwhile, was rapidly gaining friends. His replies to Tetzel, Prierias, Hochstrat, and Eck had gone forth to deepen the favorable impression made by the Ninety-five Theses. Truth had once more lifted up its head in Europe, and Rome would find it no child’s play to put it down. The skirmish lines of the hierarchy had been met and driven in. The tug of serious battle was now to come.

HIS APPEAL TO THE POPE.

Dr. Martin Luther

Luther made the advance. He wrote out explanations (or “Resolutions”) of his Theses, and sent them, with a letter, to the pope. With great confidence, point, and elegance, but with equal submissiveness and humility, he spoke of the completeness of Christ for the salvation of every true believer, without room or need for penances and other satisfactions; of the evilness of the times, and the pressing necessity for a general reform; of the damaging complaints everywhere resounding against the traffic in indulgences; of his unsuccessful appeals to the ecclesiastical princes; and of the unjust censures being heaped upon him for what he had done, entreating His Holiness to instruct his humble petitioner, and condemn or approve, kill or preserve, as the voice of Christ through him might be. He then believed that God’s sanction had to come through the high clergy and heads of the Church. Many good Christians had approved his Theses, but he did not recognize in that the divine answer to his testimony. He said afterward: “I looked only to the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the theologians, the jurisconsults, the monks, the priests, from Whom I expected the breathing of the Spirit.” He had not yet learned what a bloody dragon claimed to impersonate the Lamb of God.

CITATION TO ANSWER FOR HERESY.
While, in open frankness, Luther was thus meekly committing himself to the powers at Rome, they were meditating his destruction. Insidiously they sought to deprive him of the Elector’s protection, and answered his humble and confiding appeal with a citation to appear before them to answer for heresy.

Things now were ominous of evil. Wittenberg was filled with consternation. If Luther obeyed, it was evident he would perish like so many faithful men before him; if he refused, he would be charged with contumacy and involve his prince. One and another expedient were proposed to meet the perplexity; but to secure a hearing in Germany was all Luther asked.

To this the pope proved more willing than was thought. He was not sure of gaining by the public trial and execution of a man so deeply planted in the esteem of his countrymen, and by bringing him before a prudent legate he might induce him to retract and the trouble be ended; if not, it would be a less disturbing way of getting possession of the accused man. Orders were therefore issued for Luther to appear before Cardinal Cajetan at Augsburg.

LUTHER BEFORE CAJETAN.

Luther, interviewed by Cajetan

On foot he undertook the journey, believed by all to be a journey to his death. But Maximilian, then in the neighborhood of Augsburg, gave him a safe-conduct, and Cajetan was obliged to receive him with civility. He even embraced him with tokens of affection, thinking to win him to retraction. Luther was much softened by these kindly manifestations, and was disposed to comply with almost anything if not required to deny the truth of God.

The interviews were numerous. Luther was told that it was useless to think that the civil powers would go to war for his protection; and where would he then be? His answer was: “I will be, as now, under the broad heavens of the Almighty.” Remonstrances, entreaties, threatenings, and proposals of high distinction were addressed to him; but he wanted no cardinal’s hat, and for nothing in Rome’s power would he consent to retract what he believed to be the Gospel truth till shown wherein it was at variance with the divine Word. Cajetan’s arguments tripped and failed at every point, and he could only reiterate that he had been sent to receive a retraction, not to debate the questions. Luther as often promised this when shown from the Scriptures to be in the wrong, but not till then.

CAJETAN’s MORTIFICATION.
Foiled and disappointed in his designs, and astounded and impatient that a poor monk should thus set at naught all the prayers and powers of the sovereign of face no more until he had repented of his stubbornness.

At this the friends of the Reformer, fearing for his safety, clandestinely hurried him out of Augsburg, literally grappling him up from his bed only half dressed, and brought him away to his university. He had answered the pope’s summons, and yet was free!

Cajetan was mortified at the result, and was upbraided for his failure. In his chagrin he wrote angrily to the Elector not to soil his name and lineage by sheltering a heretic, but to surrender Luther at once, on pain of an interdict. The Elector was troubled. Luther had not been proven a heretic, neither did he believe him to be one; but he feared collision with the pope.

Luther said if he were in the Elector’s place he would answer the cardinal as he deserved for thus insulting an honest man; but, not to be an embarrassment to his prince, he agreed to leave the Elector’s dominions if he said so. But Frederick would not surrender his distinguished subject to the legate, neither would he send him out of the country. It is hard to say which was here the nobler man, Luther or his illustrious protector.

PROGRESS OF EVENTS.

Charles V., Age 16

The minds of men by this time were much aroused, and Luther’s cause grew and strengthened. The learned Melanchthon, Reuchlin’s relative and pupil, was added to the faculty at Wittenberg, and became Luther’s chief co-laborer. The number of students in the university swelled to thousands, including the sons of noblemen and princes from all parts, who listened with admiration to Luther's lectures and sermons and spread his fame and doctrines. And the feeling was deep and general that a new and marvelous light had arisen upon the world.¹²

It was now that Maximilian died (January 17, 1519), and Charles V., his grandson, a Spanish prince of nineteen years, succeeded to his place. The Imperial crown was laid at the feet of the Elector Frederick, Luther's friend, but he declined it in favor of Charles, only exacting a solemn pledge that he would not disturb the liberties of Germany. Civil freedom is one of the glorious fruits of the Reformation, and here already it began to raise barricades against despotic power.

THE LEIPSIC DISPUTATION.
Up to this time, however, there had been no questioning of the divine rights claimed by the hierarchy. Luther was still a Papist, and thought to grow his plants of evangelic faith under the shadow of the Upas of ecclesiasticism. He had not yet been brought to see how his Augustinian theology concerning sin and grace ran afoul of the entire round of the mediaeval system and methods of holiness. It was only the famous Leipsic Disputation between him and Dr. John Eck that showed him the remoter and deeper relations of his position touching indulgences.

This otherwise fruitless debate had the effect of making the nature and bearings of the controversy clear to both sides. Eck now distinctly saw that Luther must be forcibly put down or the whole papal system must fall; and Luther was made to realize that he must surrender his doctrine of salvation through simple faith in Christ or break with the pope and the hierarchical system.

Luther and Eck debate at the
Leipsic Disputation

Accepting the pontifical doctrines as true, Eck claimed the victory, because he had driven Luther to expressions at variance with those doctrines. On the other hand, Luther had shown that the pontifical claims were without foundation in primitive Christianity or the Holy Scriptures; that the Papacy was not of divine authority or of the essence of the Church; that the Church existed before and beyond the papal hierarchy, as well as under it; that the only Head of the universal Christian Church is Christ Himself; that wherever there is true faith in God’s Word, there the Church is, whatever the form of external organization; that the popes could err and had erred, and councils likewise; and that neither separately nor together could they rightfully decree or ordain contrary to the Scriptures, the only infallible Rule.

To all this Eck could make no answer except that it was Hussism over again, which the Council of Constance had condemned, and that, from the standpoint of the hierarchy, Luther was a heretic and ought to be dealt with accordingly.

RESULTS FROM THE DEBATE.
Luther now realized that the true Gospel of God’s salvation and the pontifical system were vitally and irreconcilably antagonistic; that the one could never be held in consistency with the other; and that there must come a final break between him and Rome. This much depressed him. He showed his spiritual anguish by his deep dejection. But he soon rose above it. If he had the truth of God, as he verily believed, what were the pope and all devils against Jehovah? And so he went on lecturing, preaching, writing, and publishing with his greatest power, brilliancy, and effectiveness.

Some of the best and most telling products of his pen now went forth to multitudes of eager readers. The glowing energy of his faith acted like a spreading fire, kindling the souls of men as they seldom have been kindled in any cause in any age. His Address to the Nobility electrified all Germany, and first fired the patriotic spirit of Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer. His book on The Babylonian Captivity of the Church sounded a bugle-note which thrilled through all the German heart, gave Bugenhagen to the Reformation, and sent a shudder through the hierarchy.¹³ Already, at Maximilian’s Imperial Diet at Augsburg (1518) to take measures against the Turk, a Latin pamphlet was openly circulated among the members which said that the Turk to be resisted was living in Italy; and Miltitz, the pope’s nuncio and chamberlain, confessed that from Rome to Altenberg he had found those greatly in the minority who did not side with Luther.

LUTHER’s EXCOMMUNICATION.
But the tempest waxed fiercer and louder every day. Luther’s growing influence all the more inflamed his enemies. Hochstrat had induced two universities to condemn his doctrines. In sundry places his books were burned by the public hangman. Eck had gone to Italy, and was “moving the depths of hell” to secure the excommunication of the prejudged heretic. And could his bloodthirsty enemies have had their way, this would long since have come. But Leo seems to have had more respect for Luther than for them. Learning and talent were more to him than any doctrines of the faith. The monks complained of him as too much given to luxury and pleasure to do his duty in defending the Church. Perhaps he had conscience enough to be ashamed to enforce his traffic in paper pardons by destroying the most honest and heroic man in Germany. Perhaps he did not like to stain his reign with so foul a record, even if dangerous complications should not attend it. Whatever the cause, he was slow to respond to these clamors for blood. Eck had almost as much trouble to get him to issue the Bull of Luther’s excommunication as he had to answer Luther’s arguments in the Leipsic Discussion. But he eventually procured it, and undertook to enforce it.

And yet, with all his zealous personal endeavors and high authority, he could hardly get it posted, promulgated, or at all respected in Germany. His parchment thunder lost its power in coming across the Alps. Miltitz also was in his way, who, with equal authority from the pope, was endeavoring to supersede the Bull by attempts at reconciliation. It came to Wittenberg in such a sorry plight that Luther laughed at it as having the appearance of a forgery by Dr. Eck. He knew the pope had been bullied into the issuing of it, but this was the biting irony, by which he indicated the character of the men by whom it was moved and the pitiable weakness to which such thunders had been reduced.

But it was a Bull of excommunication nevertheless. Luther and his doctrines were condemned by the chief of Christendom.¹⁴ Multitudes were thrown into anxious perturbation. If the strong arm of the emperor should be given to sustain the pope, who would be able to stand? Adrian, one of the faculty of Wittenberg, was so frightened that he threw down his office and hastened to join the enemy.

Amid the perils which surrounded Luther powerful knights offered to defend him by force of arms; but he answered, “No; by the Word the world was conquered, by the Word the Church was saved, and by the Word it must be restored.” The thoughts of his soul were not on human power, but centered on the throne of Him who lives for ever. It was Christ’s Gospel that was in peril, and he was sure Jehovah would not abandon His own cause.

Germany waited to see what he would do. Nor was it long kept in suspense.

LUTHER AND THE POPE’s BULL.
In a month he discharged a terrific volley of artillery upon the Papacy by his book Against the Bull of Antichrist.

In thirteen days later he brought formal charges against the pope – first, as an unjust judge, who condemns without giving a hearing; second, as a heretic and apostate, who requires denial that faith is necessary; third, as an Antichrist, who sets himself against the Holy Scriptures and usurps their authority; and fourth, as a blasphemer of the Church and its free councils, who declares them nothing without himself.

This was carrying the war into Africa. Appealing to a future general council and the Scriptures as superior to popes, he now called upon the emperor, electors, princes, and all classes and estates in the whole German empire, as they valued the Gospel and the favor of Christ, to stand by him in this demonstration.

And, that all might be certified in due form, he called a notary and five witnesses to hear and attest the same as verily the solemn act and deed of Martin Luther, done in behalf of himself and all who stood or should stand with him.

Luther Burns the Papal Bull

Rome persisted in forcing a schism, and this was Luther's bill of divorcement.

Nay, more; as Rome had sealed its condemnation of him by burning his books, he built a stack of fagots on the refuse piles outside the Elster Gate of Wittenberg, invited thither the whole university, and when the fires were kindled and the flames were high, he cast into them, one by one, the books of the canon law, the Decretals, the Clementines, the Papal Extravagants, and all that lay at the base of the religion of the hierarchy! And when these were consumed he took Leo's Bull of excommunication, held it aloft, exclaiming with a loud voice, “Since thou hast afflicted the saints of God, be thou consumed with fire unquenchable!” and dashed the impious document into the flames.

Well done was that! Luther considered it the best act of his life. It was a brave heart, the bravest then living in this world, that dared to do it. But it was done then and forever. Wittenberg looked on with shoutings. The whole modern world of civilized man has ever since been looking on with thrilling wonder. And myriads of the sons of God and liberty are shouting over it yet.

The miner’s son had come up full abreast with the triple-crowned descendant of the Medici. The monk of Wittenberg had matched the proudest monarch in the world. Henceforth the question was, Which of them should sway the nations in the time to come?

THE DIET OF WORMS.
The young emperor sided with the religion of the pope. The venerable Elector Frederick determined to stand by Luther, at least till his case was fairly adjudged. He said it was not just to condemn a good and honest man unheard and unconvicted, and that “Justice must take precedence even of the pope.”

Conferences of state now became numerous and exciting, and the efforts of Rome to have Luther’s excommunication recognized and enforced were many and various, but nothing short of a Diet of the empire could settle the disturbance.¹⁵

Such a Diet was convoked by the young emperor for January, 1521. It was the first of his reign, and the grandest ever held on German soil. Philip of Hesse came to it with a train of six hundred cavaliers. The electors, dukes, archbishops, landgraves, margraves, counts, bishops, barons, lords, deputies, legates, and ambassadors from foreign courts came in corresponding style. They felt it important to show their consequence at this first Diet, and were all the more moved to be there in force because the exciting matter of Reform was specified as one of the chief things to be considered. The result was one of the most august and illustrious assemblies of which modern history tells, and one which presented a spectacle of lasting wonder that a poor lone monk should thus have moved all the powers of the earth.

DOINGS OF THE ROMANISTS.
For three months the Diet wrangled over the affair of Luther without reaching anything decided. The friends of Rome were the chief actors, struggling in every way and hesitating at nothing to induce the Diet and the emperor to acknowledge and enforce the pope’s decree. But the influence of the German princes, especially that of the Elector Frederick, stood in the way; Charles would not act, as he had no right to act, without the concurrence of the states, and the princes of Germany held it unjust that Luther should be condemned on charges which had never been fairly tried, on books which were not proven to be his, and especially since the sentence itself presented conditions with reference to which no answer had been legally ascertained.

To overcome these oppositions different resorts were tried. Leo issued a second Bull, excommunicating Luther absolutely, and anathematizing him and all his friends and abettors. The pope’s legate called for money to buy up influence for the Romanists: “We must have money. Send us money. Money! Money! or Germany, is lost!” The money came; but the Reformer’s friends could not be bought with bribes, however much the agents of Rome needed such stimulation. Trickery was brought into requisition to entrap Luther’s defenders by a secret proposal to compromise. Luther was given great credit and right, except that he had gone a little too far, and it was only necessary to restrain him from further demonstrations. Rome compromise with a man she had doubly excommunicated and anathematized! Rome make terms with an outlaw whom she had infallibly doomed to eternal execration! Yet with these proposals the emperor’s confessor approached Chancellor Brück. But the chancellor’s head was too clear to be caught by such treachery.

Then it was moved to refer the matter to a commission of arbitrators. This met with so much favor that the pope’s legate, Aleander, was alarmed lest Luther should thereby escape, and hence set himself with unwonted energy to incite the emperor to decisive measures.

Charles was persuaded to make a demonstration, but demanded that the legate should first “convince the Diet.” Aleander was the most famous orator Rome had, and he rejoiced in his opportunity. He went before the assembly in a prepared speech of three hours in length to show up Luther as a pestilent heretic, and the necessity of getting rid of him and his books and principles at once to prevent the world from being plunged into barbarism and utter desolation. He made a deep impression by his effort. It was only by the unexpected and crushing speech of Duke George of Saxony, Luther’s bitter personal enemy, that the train of things, so energetically wrought up, was turned.

Not in defense of Luther, whom he disliked, but in defense of the German nation, he piled up before the door of the hierarchy such an overwhelming array of its oppressions, robberies, and scandals, and exposed with such an unsparing hand the falsities, profligacies, cupidity, and beastly indecencies of the Roman clergy and officials, that the emperor hastened to recall the edict he had already signed, and yielded consent for Luther to be called to answer for himself.

LUTHER SUMMONED.
In vain the pope's legate protested that it was not lawful thus to bring the decrees of the sovereign pontiff into question, or pleaded that Luther’s daring genius, flashing eyes, electric speech, and thrilling spirit would engender tumult and violence. On March 6^th the emperor signed a summons and safe-conduct for the Reformer to appear in Worms within twenty-one days, to answer concerning his doctrines and writings.

So far the thunders of the Vatican were blank.

With all the anxious fears which such a summons would naturally engender, Luther resolved to obey it.

The pope’s adherents fumed in their helplessness when they learned that he was coming – coming, too, under the safe-conduct of the empire, coming to have a hearing before the Diet! – he whom the infallible Vicar of Heaven had condemned and anathematized! Whither was the world drifting?

Luther’s friends trembled lest he should share the fate of Huss; his enemies trembled lest he should escape it; and both, in their several ways, tried to keep him back.

Placards of his condemnation were placed before him on the way, and spectacles to indicate his certain execution were enacted in his sight; but he was not the man to be deterred by the prospect of being burnt alive if God called for the sacrifice.

Lying fraud was also tried to seduce and betray him. Glapio, the emperor’s confessor, who had tried a similar trick upon the Elector Frederick, conceived the idea that if Franz von Sickingen and Martin Bucer could be won for the plot, a proposal to compromise the whole matter amicably might serve to beguile him to the chateau of his friend at Ebernburg till his safe-conduct should expire, and then the liars could throw off the mask and dispose of him with credit in the eyes of Rome. The glib and wily Glapio led in the attempt. Von Sickingen and Bucer were entrapped by his bland hypocrisy, and lent themselves to the execution of the specious proposition. But when they came to Luther with it, he turned his back, saying, “If the emperor’s confessor has anything to say to me he will find me at Worms.”

But even his friends were alarmed at his coming. It was feared that he would be destroyed. The Elector’s confidential adviser sent a servant out to meet him, beseeching him by no means to enter the city. “Go tell your master,” said Luther, “I will enter Worms though as many devils should be there as tiles upon its houses!” And he did enter, with nobles, cavaliers, and gentry for his escort, and attended through the streets by a larger concourse than had greeted the entry of the emperor himself.¹⁶

LUTHER AT THE DIET.
Charles hurried to convene his council, saying, “Luther is come; what shall we do with him?”

A chancellor and bishop of Flanders urged that he be dispatched at once, and this scandalous humiliation of the Holy See terminated. He said Sigismund had allowed Huss to be burned, and no one was bound to keep faith with a heretic. But the emperor was more moral than the teachings of his Church, and said, “Not so; we have given our promise, and we ought to keep it.”

On the morrow Luther was conducted to the Diet by the marshal of the empire. The excited people so crowded the gates and jammed about the doors that the soldiers had to use their halberds to open a way for him. An instinct not yet interpreted drew their hearts and allied them with the hero. From the thronged streets, windows, and housetops came voices as he passed – voices of petition and encouragement – voices of benediction on the brave and true-voices of sympathy and adjuration to be firm in God and in the power of His might. It was Germany, Scandinavia, England, Scotland, and Holland; it was the Americas and hundreds of young republics yet unborn; it was the whole world of all after-time, with its free Gospel, free conscience, free speech, free government, free science, and free schoo1s – uttering themselves in those half-smothered voices. Luther heard them and was strengthened.

But there was no danger he would betray the momentous trust. That morning, amid great rugged prayers which broke from him like massive rock-fragments hot and burning from a volcano of mingled faith and agony, laying one hand on the open Bible and lifting the other to heaven, he cast his soul on Omnipotence, in pledge unspeakable to obey only his conscience and his God. Whether for life or death, his heart was fixed.

A few steps more and he stood before Imperial majesty, encompassed by the powers and dignitaries of the earth, so brave, calm, and true a man that thrones and kings looked on in silent awe and admiration, and even malignant scorn for the moment retreated into darkness. Since He who wore the crown of thorns stood before Pontius Pilate there had not been a parallel to this scene.¹⁷

HERE I STAND!
Luther at the Diet of Worms

LUTHER’s REFUSAL TO RECANT.
A weak, poor man, arraigned and alone before the assembled powers of the earth, with only the grace of God and his cause on which to lean, had demand made of him whether or not he would retract his books or any part of them, Yes or No. But he did not shrink, neither did he falter.

“Since Your Imperial Majesty and Your Excellencies require of me a direct and simple answer, I will give it. To the pope or councils I cannot submit my faith, for it is clear that they have erred and contradicted one another. Therefore, unless I am convinced by proofs from Holy Scripture or by sound reasons, and my judgment by this means is commanded by God’s Word, I cannot and will not retract anything: for a Christian cannot safely go contrary to his Conscience.”And, glancing over the august assembly, on whose will his life hung, he added in deep solemnity, those immortal words:

“HERE I STAND. I CAN DO N0 OTHERWISE. SO HELP ME GOD! AMEN.”¹⁸
Simple were the facts. Luther afterward wrote to a friend: “I expected His Majesty would bring fifty doctors to convict the monk outright; but it was not so. The whole history is this: Are these your books? Yes. —Will you retract them? No. —Well, then, begone.” He said the truth, but he could not then know all that was involved in what he reduced to such a simple colloquy. With that Yes and No the wheel of ages made another revolution. The breath which spoke them turned the balances in which the whole subsequent history of civilization hung. It was the Yes and No which applied the brakes to the Juggernaut of usurpation, whose ponderous wheels had been crushing through the centuries. It was the Yes and No which evidenced the reality of a power above all popes and empires. It was the Yes and No which spoke the supreme obligation of the human soul to obey God and conscience, and started once more the pulsations of liberty in the arteries of man. It was the Yes and No which divided eras, and marked the summit whence the streams began to form and flow to give back to this world a Church without a pope and a State without an Inquisition.

Charles had the happiness at Worms to hear the tidings that Fernando Cortés had added Mexico to his dominions. The emancipated peoples of the earth in the generations since have had the happiness to know that at Worms, through the inflexible steadfastness of Martin Luther, God gave the inspirations of a new and better life for them!

LUTHER’s CONDEMNATION.
After Luther and his friends left Worms the emperor issued an edict putting him and all his adherents under the ban of the empire, forbidding any one to give him food or shelter, calling on all who found him to arrest him, commanding all his books to be burned, and ordering the seizure of his friends and the confiscation of their possessions.

It was what Germany got for putting an Austro-Spanish bigot on the Imperial throne.

LUTHER IN THE WARTBURG.

Luther in the Wartburg Castle
translating the Scriptures into the Vernacular

But the cause of Rome was not helped by it. Luther’s person was made safe by the Elector, who arranged a friendly capture by which he was concealed in the Wartburg in the charge of the knights.

No one knew what had become of him.

His mysterious disappearance was naturally referred to some foul play of the Romanists, and the feeling of resentment was intense and deep. Indeed, Germany was now bent on throwing off the religion of the hierarchy. No matter what it may once have been, no matter what service it may have rendered in helping Europe through the Dark Ages, it had become gangrened, perverted, rotten, offensive, unbearable. The very means Rome took to defend it increased revolt against it. It had come to be an oppressive lie, and it had to go. No Bulls of popes or edicts of emperors could alter the decree of destiny.

And a great and blessed fortune it was that Luther still lived to guide and counsel in the momentous transition. But Providence had endowed him for the purpose, and so preserved him for its execution. What was born with the Ninety-five Theses, and baptized before the Imperial Diet at Worms, he was now to nourish, educate, catechize, and prepare for glorious confirmation before a similar Diet in the after years.

TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.
While in the Wartburg he was forbidden to issue any writings. Leisure was thus afforded for one of the most important things connected with the Reformation. Those ten months he utilized to prepare for Germany and for the world a translation of the Holy Scriptures, which itself was enough to immortalize the Reformer’s name. Great intellectual monuments have come down to us from the sixteenth century. It was an age in which the human mind put forth some of its noblest demonstrations. Great communions still look back to its Confessions as their rallying-centers, and millions of worshipers still render their devotions in the forms which then were cast. But pre-eminent over all the achievements of that sublime century was the giving of God’s Word to the people in their own language, which had its chief center and impulse in the production of Luther's German Bible. Well has it been said, “He who takes up that, grasps a whole world in his hand – a world which will perish only when this green earth itself shall pass away.”

It was the Word that kindled the heart of Luther to the work of Reformation, and the Word alone could bring it to its consummation. With the Word the whole Church of Christ and the entire fabric of our civilization must stand or fall. Undermine the Bible and you undermine the world. It is the one, true, and only Charter of Faith, Liberty, and salvation for man, without which this race of ours is a hopeless and abandoned wreck. And when Luther gave forth his German Bible, it was not only a transcendent literary achievement, which created and fixed the classic forms of his country’s language,¹⁹ but an act of supremest wisdom and devotion; for the hope of the world is forever cabled to the free and open Word of God.

LUTHER’s CONSERVATISM.
Up to the time of Luther's residence in the Wartburg nothing had been done toward changing the outward forms, ceremonies, and organization of the Church. The great thing with him had been to get the inward, central doctrine right, believing that all else would then naturally come right in due time. But while he was hidden and silent certain fanatics thrust themselves into this field, and were on the eve of precipitating everything to destruction. Tidings of the violent revolutionary spirit which had broken out reached him in his retreat and stirred him with sorrowful indignation, for it was the most damaging blow inflicted on the Reformation.

It is hard for men to keep their footing amid deep and vast commotions and not drift into ruinous excesses. Storch, and Müntzer, and Carlstadt, and Melanchthon himself, were dangerously affected by the whirl of things. Even good men sometimes forget that society cannot be conserved by mere negations; that wild and lawless revolution can never work a wholesome and abiding reformation; that the perpetuity of the Church is an historic chain, each new link of which depends on those which have gone before.

There was precious gold in the old conglomerate, which needed to be discriminated, extracted, and preserved. The divine foundations were not to be confounded with the rubbish heaped upon them. There was still a Church of Christ under the hierarchy, although the hierarchy was no part of its life or essence. The Zwickau prophets (led by Nicholas Storch), with their new revelations and revolts against civil authority; the Wittenberg iconoclasts (led by Andreas Carlstadt), with their repudiation of study and learning and all proper church order; and the Sacramentarians (also led by Carlstadt, and later, in Geneva, by Ulrich Zwingli), with their insidious rationalism against the plain Word, were not to be entrusted with the momentous interests with which the cause of the Reformation was freighted. And hence, at the risk of the Elector’s displeasure and at the peril of his life, Luther came forth from his covert to withstand the violence which was putting everything in jeopardy. Grandly also did he reason out the genuine Gospel principles against all these parties. He comprehended his ground from center to circumference, and he held it alike against erring friends and menacing foes. The swollen torrent of events never once obscured his prophetic insight, never disturbed the balance of his judgment, never shook his hold upon the right. With a master-power he held revolutions and wars in check, while he revised and purified the Liturgy and Order of the Church, wrought out the evangelic truth in its applications to existing things, and reared the renewed habilitation of the pure Word and Sacraments.

GROWTH OF THE REFORMATION.
It was now that Pope Leo died. His glory lasted but eight years. His successor, Adrian VI, was a moderate man, of good intentions, though he could not see what evil there was in indulgences. He exhorted Germany to get rid of Luther, but said the Church must be reformed, that the Holy See had been for years horribly polluted, and that the evils had affected head and members. He was in solemn earnest this time, and began to change and purify the papal court. To some this was as if the voice of Luther were being echoed from St. Peter’s chair, and Adrian suddenly died, no man knows of what,²⁰ and Clement VII, a relative of Leo X., was put upon the papal throne.

In 1524 a Diet was convened at Nuremberg with reference to these same matters. Campeggio, the pope’s legate, thought it prudent to make his way thither without letting himself be known, and wrote back to his master that he had to be very cautious, as the majority of the Diet consisted of “great Lutherans.” At this Diet the Edict of Worms was virtually annulled, and it was plain enough that “great Lutherans ” had become very numerous and powerful.

Luther himself had become of sufficient consequence for Henry VIII, king of England, to write a book against him, for which the pope gave him the title of “Defender of the Faith,” and for which Luther repaid him in his own coin. Erasmus also, long the prince of the whole literary world, was dogged into the writing of a book against the great Reformer. Poor Erasmus found his match, and was overwhelmed with the result. He afterward sadly wrote: “My troops of friends are turned to enemies. Everywhere scandal pursues me and calumny defiles my name. Every goose now hisses at Erasmus.”

In 1525, Luther’s friend and protector, the Elector Frederick, died. This would have been a sad blow for the Reformation had there been no one of like mind to take his place. But God had the man in readiness. “Frederick the Wise” was succeeded by his brother, “John the Constant.”

In Hesse, in Holland, in Scandinavia, in Prussia, in Poland, in Switzerland, in France, everywhere, the Reformation advanced. Duke George of Saxony raged, got up an alliance against the growing cause, and beheaded citizens of Leipsic for having Luther’s writings in their houses. Eck still howled from Ingolstadt for fire and fagots. The dukes of Bavaria were fierce with persecutions. The archbishop of Mainz punished cities because they would not have his priests for pastors. The emperor from Spain announced his purpose to crush and exterminate “the wickedness of Lutheranism.” But it was all in vain. The sun had risen, the new era had come!

Luther now issued his Catechisms, which proved a great and glorious aid to the true Gospel. Henceforth the children were to be bred up in the pure faith. Matthesius says: “If Luther in his lifetime had achieved no other work but that of bringing his two Catechisms into use, the whole world could not sufficiently thank and repay him.” A quarrel between the emperor and the pope also contributed to the progress of the Reformation. A Diet at Speyer in 1526 had interposed a check to the persecuting spirit of the Romanists, and granted toleration to those of Luther’s mind in all the states where his doctrines were approved. The respite lasted for three years, until Charles and Clement composed their difference and united to wreak their wrath upon Luther and his adherents.

PROTESTANTS AND WAR.
A second Diet at Speyer, in 1529, revoked the former act of toleration, and demanded of all the princes and estates an unconditional surrender to the pope’s decrees. This called forth the heroic Protest of those who stood with Luther. They refused to submit, claiming that in matters of divine service and the sou1’s salvation conscience and God must be obeyed rather than earthly powers. It was from this that the name of Protestants originated – a name which half the world now honors and accepts.

The signers of this Protest also pledged to each other their mutual support in defending their position. Zwingli urged them to make war upon the emperor. He himself afterward took the sword, and perished by it. Calvin, Cranmer, Knox, and even the Puritan Fathers as far as they had power and occasion, resorted to physical force and the civil arm to punish the rejecters of their creed. Luther repudiated all such coercion. The sword was at his command, but he opposed its use for any purposes of religion. All the weight of his great influence was given to prevent his friends from mixing external force with what should ever have its seat only in the calm conviction of the soul. He thus practically anticipated Roger Williams and William Penn and the most lauded results of modern freedom – not from constraint of circumstances and personal interests, but from his own clear insight into Gospel principles. Bloody religious wars came after he was dead, the prospect of which filled his soul with horror, and to which he could hardly give consent even in case of direst necessity for self-defense; but it is a transcendent fact that while he lived they were held in abeyance, most of all by his prayers and endeavors. He fought, indeed, as few men ever fought, but the only sword he wielded was “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.”

THE CONFESSION OF AUGSBURG.
And yet another Imperial Diet was convened with reference to these religious disturbances. It was held in Augsburg in the spring of 1530. The emperor was in the zenith of his power. He had overcome his French rival. He had spoiled Rome, humbled the pope, and reorganized Italy. The Turks had withdrawn their armies. And the only thing in the way of a consolidated empire was the Reformation in Germany. To crush this was now his avowed purpose, and he anticipated no great hardship in doing it. He entered Augsburg with unwonted magnificence and pomp. He had spoken very graciously in his invitation to the princes, but it was in his heart to compel their submission to his former Edict of Worms. It behooved them to be prepared to make a full exhibit of their principles, giving the ultimatum on which they proposed to stand.

Luther had been formulating articles embodying the points adhered to in his reformatory teachings. He had prepared one set for the Marburg Conference with the Swiss divines (the Marburg Articles). He had revised and elaborated these into the Seventeen Articles of Schwabach. He had also prepared another series on abuses, submitted to the Elector John at Torgau (the Torgau Articles). All these were now committed to Melanchthon for careful elaboration into complete style and harmony for use at the Diet. Luther assisted in this work up to the time when the Diet convened, and what remained to be done was completed in Augsburg by Melanchthon and the Lutheran divines present with him. Luther himself could not be there, as he was a dead man to the law, and by command of his prince was detained at Coburg while the Diet was in session.

The first act of the emperor was to summon the protesting princes before him, asking of them the withdrawal of their Protest. This they refused. They felt that they had constitutional right, founded on the decision of Speyer, to resist the emperor’s demand; and they did not intend to surrender the just principles put forth in their noble Protest. They celebrated divine service in their quarters, led by their own clergy, and refused to join in the procession at the Roman festival of Corpus Christi. This gave much offense, and for the sake of peace they discontinued their services during the Diet.

At length they were asked to make their doctrinal presentation. Melanchthon had admirably performed the work assigned him in the making up of the Confession, and on the 25th day of June, 1530, the document, duly signed, was read aloud to the emperor in the hearing of many.

Diet of Augsburg
Presentation of the Augsburg Confession

The effect of it upon the assembly was indescribable. Many of the prejudices and false notions against the Reformers were effectually dissipated. The enemies of the Reformation felt that they had solemn realities to deal with which they had never imagined. Others said that this was a more effectual preaching than that which had been suppressed. “Christ is in the Diet,” said Justus Jonas, “and He does not keep silence. God’s Word cannot be bound.” In a word, the world now had added to it one of its greatest treasures – the renowned and imperishable AUGSBURG CONFESSION.

Luther was eager for tidings of what transpired at the Diet. And when the Confession came, as signed and delivered, he wrote: “I thrill with joy that I have lived to see the hour in which Christ is preached by so many confessors to an assembly so illustrious in a form so beautiful.”

Even Reformed authors, from Calvin down, have cheerfully added their testimony to the worth and excellence of this magnificent Confession – the first since the Athanasian Creed. A late writer of this class says of it that “it best exhibits the prevailing genius of the German Reformation, and will ever be cherished as one of the noblest monuments of faith from the pentecostal period of Protestantism.” The Romanists attempted to answer the noble Confession, but would not make their Confutation public. Compromises were proposed, but they came to naught. The Imperial troops were called into the city and the gates closed to intimidate the princes, but it resulted in greater alarm to the Romanists than to them. The confessors had taken their stand, and they were not to be moved from it. The Diet ended with the decision that they should have until the following Spring to determine whether they would submit to the Roman Church or not, and, if not, that measures would then be taken for their extermination.

THE LEAGUE OF SMALCALD.
The emperor’s edict appeared November 19th, and the Protestant princes at once proceeded to form a league for mutual protection against attempts to force their consciences in these sacred matters. It was with difficulty that the consent of Luther could be obtained for what, to him, looked like an arrangement to support the Gospel by the sword. But he yielded to a necessity forced by the intolerance of Rome. A convention was held at Smalcald at Christmas, 1530, and there was formed the League of Smalcald, which planted the political foundations of Religious Liberty for our modern world.

By the presentation of the great Confession of Augsburg, along with the formation of the League of Smalcald, the cause of Luther became embodied in the official life of nations, and the new era of Freedom had come safely to its birth. Long and terrible storms were yet to be passed, but the ship was launched which no thunders of emperors or popes could ever shatter.²¹

When the months of probation ended, France had again become troublesome to the emperor, and the Turks were renewing their movements against his dominions. He also found that he could not count on the Catholic princes for the violent suppression of the Protestants. Luther’s doctrines had taken too deep hold upon their subjects to render it safe to join in a war of extermination against them. The Zwinglians also coalesced with the Lutherans in presenting a united front against the threatened bloody coercion. The Smalcald League, moreover, had grown to be a power which even the emperor could not despise. He therefore resolved to come to terms with the Protestant members of his empire, and a peace – at least a truce – was concluded at Nuremberg, which left things as they were to wait until a general council should settle the questions in dispute.

------------
Endnotes:

Seiss, J. Luther and the Reformation: The Life-Springs of Our Liberties. Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1888. pp. 68-111. (return)
A writer of the Roman Church, in a. vein of somewhat mingled sarcasm and seriousness, remarks: “The university had reason to be proud of Luther, whose oral lectures attracted a multitude of strangers; these pilgrims from distant quarters joined their hands and bowed their heads at the sight of the towers of the city, like other travelers before Jerusalem. Wittenberg was like a new Zion, whence the light of truth expanded to neighboring kingdoms, as of old from the Holy City to pagan nations.” (return)
Glupio, the confessor of Charles V., stated to Chancellor [of Saxony] Brück at the Diet of Worms: “The alarm which I felt when I read the first pages of the Captivity cannot be expressed; they might be said to be lashes which scourged me from head to foot.” (return)
The Bull was issued June 15, 1520. It specified forty-one propositions out of Luther's works which it condemned as heretical, scandalous, and offensive to pious ears. It forbade all persons to read his writings, upon pain of excommunication. Such as had any of his books in their possession were commanded to burn them. He himself, if he did not publicly recant his errors and burn his books within sixty days, was pronounced an obstinate heretic, excommunicated and delivered over to Satan. And it enjoined upon all secular princes, under pain of incurring the same censure, to seize his person and deliver him up to be punished as his crimes deserved; that is, to be burnt as a heretic. (return)
Audin, in his Life of Luther, says: “A monk who wore a cassock out at the elbows had caused to the most powerful emperor in the world greater embarrassments than those which Francis I., his unsuccessful rival at Frankfort, threatened to raise against him in Italy. With the cannon from his arsenal at Ghent and his lances from Namur, Charles could beat the king of France between sunrise and sunset; but lances and cannon were impotent to subdue the religious revolution, which, like some of the glaciers which he crossed in coming from Spain, acquired daily a new quantity of soil” (Vol. i., chap. 25). Again, in chap. 30, he says of the emperor: “The thought of measuring his strength with the hero of Marignan was far from alarming him, but a struggle with the monk of Wittenberg disturbed his sleep. He wished that they should try to overcome his obstinacy.” (return)
“The reception which he met with at Worms was such as he might have reckoned a full reward of all his labors if vanity and the love of applause had been the principles by which he was influenced. Greater crowds assembled to behold him than had appeared at the emperor's public entry; his apartments were daily filled with princes and personages of the highest rank; and he was treated with all the respect paid to those who possess the power of directing the understanding and sentiments of other men – a homage more sincere, as well as more flattering, than any which preeminence in birth or condition command.” —Robertson’s Charles V., vol. 1. p. 510. (return)
A Romanist thus describes the picture: “When the approach of Luther was heard there ensued one of those deep silences in which the heart alone, by its hurried pulsations, gives sign of life. Attention was diverted from the emperor to the monk. On the appearance of Luther everyone rose, regardless of the sovereign’s presence. It inspired Werner with one of the finest acts of his tragedy... Heine has glorified the appearance at Worms. The Catholic himself loves to contemplate that black gown in the presence of those lords and barons caparisoned in iron and armed with helmet and spear, and is moved by the voice of ‘that young friar’ who comes to defy all the powers of the earth.” —Audin’s Life of Luther.

“All parties must unite in admiring and venerating the man who, undaunted and alone, could stand before such an assembly, and vindicate with unshaken courage what be conceived to be the cause of religion, of liberty, and of truth, fearless of any reproaches but those of his own conscience, or of any disapprobation but that of his God.” —Roscoe’s Life of Leo X., vol. iv. p. 36.

Luther himself, afterward recalling the event, said: “It must indeed have been God who gave me my boldness of heart; I doubt if I could show such courage again.” (return)
“With this noble protest was laid the keystone of the Reformation. The pontifical hierarchy shook to its center, and the great cause of truth and regenerate religion spread with electric speed. The marble tomb of ignorance and error gave way, as it were, of a sudden; a thousand glorious events and magnificent discoveries thronged upon each other with pressing haste to behold and congratulate the mighty birth, the new creation, of which they were the harbingers, when, with a steady and triumphant step, the peerless form of human intellect rose erect, and, throwing off from its freshening limbs the death-shade and the grave-clothes by which it was enshrouded, ascended to the glorious resurrection of that noontide luster which irradiates the horizon of our own day, rejoicing like a giant to run his race.” —John Mason Good’s Book of Nature, p. 321. (return)
Chevalier Bunsen says: “It is Luther’s genius applied to the Bible which has preserved the only unity which is, in our days, remaining to the German nation – that of language, literature, and thought. There is no similar instance in the known history of the world of a single man achieving such a work.” (return)
The death of Adrian VI, on the 14th of September, 1523, was a subject of general rejoicing in Rome. There was a crown of flowers hung to the door of his physician, with a card appended which read, “To the saviour of his country.” (return)
“The Reformation of Luther kindled up the minds of men afresh, leading to new habits of thought and awakening in individuals energies before unknown to themselves. The religious controversies of this period changed society, as well as religion, and to a considerable extent, where they did not change the religion of the state, they changed man himself in his modes of thought, his consciousness of his own powers, and his desire of intellectual attainment. The spirit of commercial and foreign adventure on the one hand and, on the other the assertion and maintenance of religious liberty, having their source in the Reformation, and this love of religious liberty drawing after it or bringing along with it, as it always does, an ardent devotion to the principle of civil liberty also, were the powerful influences under which character was formed and men trained for the great work of introducing English civilization, English law, and, what is more than all, Anglo-Saxon blood, into the wilderness of North America.” —Daniel Webster, Works, vol. i. pg. 94. (return)

Octocentennial of the “Magna Carta” and the Independence of the Church from the State.

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 20:15:00 +0000

Today is the Octocentennial of one of the most important documents in Western history, the Magna Carta, or the “Great Charter”. On the field of Runnymede, June 15, 1215, King John Lackland was forced by his Barons to sign a document that guaranteed certain Fundamental Liberties – protections from a monarchical system that so easily drifted into tyranny – that have endured to this day and are enshrined in our own U.S. Constitution. Indeed, Lord Alfred Denning described the Magna Carta as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”

Those Fundamental Liberties include the following:

Freedom of the Church from the Regulation of the State.
Establishment of the Rule of Law, and Subjection of Governing Authorities to that Rule.
The Right of the Governed to Material Participation, through Representation, in the Governing Process.
The Right of the Accused to Trial by Jury.
The Guarantee of Speedy Trial and Swift Justice

The Magna Carta was drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, and was based on an earlier document, the Charter of Liberties, issued by King Henry I on the date of his coronation, August 5, 1100. Much like the Declaration of Independence, both of these documents establish their authority by an appeal to God, and begin with the Foundation of all Civil Liberties: the Freedom of the Church from Regulation of the State which is inextricably tied to the Freedom of Conscience.

The Magna Carta begins, as follows:

Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of His holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers

In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate

And it reiterates this Foundational Liberty in its final sentences:

Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free

Likewise, the Charter of Liberties begins with this same Fundamental Liberty:

Know that by the mercy of God

I, through fear of God and the love which I have toward you all, in the first place make the holy church of God free

Throughout history, the governed have generally found the true Christian Church to be their greatest advocate against the tyranny of government. It is truly a pity that in our day and age the people would rather cry, “We have no God but Caesar!”

So today, as the idea of Christianity as Liberty’s Foundation seems to be drifting entirely from social consciousness, let’s revive, for a moment, its memory, thank our Lord for those He has sent in defiance of tyranny, who, publicly appealing to Him, have established enduring principles of freedom, and pray that He not forget us in our current time, and raise to prominent status courageous souls who, not fearing to appeal to Him for authority in their claims, would once again sound the bells of Liberty.

The Charter of Liberties, A.D. 1100
(The Coronation Charter of Henry I)
Henry, king of the English, to Bishop Samson and Urso de Abetot and all his barons and faithful, both French and English, of Worcestershire, greeting.

1. Know that by the mercy of God and the common counsel of the barons of the whole kingdom of England I have been crowned king of said kingdom; and because the kingdom had been oppressed by unjust exactions, I, through fear of god and the love which I have toward you all, in the first place make the holy church of God free, so that I will neither sell nor put to farm, nor on the death of archbishop or bishop or abbot will I take anything from the church's demesne or from its men until the successor shall enter it. And I take away all the bad customs by which the kingdom of England was unjustly oppressed; which bad customs I here set down in part:

2. If any of my barons, earls, or others who hold of me shall have died, his heir shall not buy back his land as he used to do in the time of my brother, but he shall relieve it by a just and lawful relief. Likewise also the men of my barons shall relieve their lands from their lords by a just and lawful relief.

3. And if any of my barons or other men should wish to give his daughter, sister, niece, or kinswoman in marriage, let him speak with me about it; but I will neither take anything from him for this permission nor prevent his giving her unless he should be minded to join her to my enemy. And if, upon the death of a baron or other of my men, a daughter is left as heir, I will give her with her land by the advice of my barons. And if, on the death of her husband, the wife is left and without children, she shall have her dowry and right of marriage, and I will not give her to a husband unless according to her will.

4. But if a wife be left with children, she shall indeed have her dowry and right of marriage so long as she shall keep her body lawfully, and I will not give her unless according to her will. And the guardian of the land and children shall be either the wife or another of the relatives who more justly ought to be. And I command that my barons restrain themselves similarly in dealing with the sons and daughters or wives of their men.

5. The common seigniorage, which has been taken through the cities and counties, but which was not taken in the time of King Edward I absolutely forbid henceforth. If any one, whether a moneyer or other, be taken with false money, let due justice be done for it.

6. I remit all pleas and all debts which were owing to my brother, except my lawful fixed revenues and except those amounts which had been agreed upon for the inheritances of others or for things which more justly concerned others. And if any one had pledged anything for his own inheritance, I remit it; also all reliefs which had been agreed upon for just inheritances.

7. And if any of my barons or men shall grow feeble, as he shall give or arrange to give his money, I grant that it be so given. But if, prevented by arms or sickness, he shall not have given or arranged to give his money, his wife, children, relatives, or lawful men shall distribute it for the good of his soul as shall seem best to them.

8. If any of my barons or men commit a crime, he shall not bind himself to a payment at the king's mercy as he has been doing in the time of my father or my brother; but he shall make amends according to the extent of the crime as he would have done before the time of my father in the time of my other predecessors. But if he be convicted of treachery or heinous crime, he shall make amends as is just.

9. I forgive all murders committed before the day I was crowned king; and those which shall be committed in the future shall be justly compensated according to the law of King Edward.

10. By the common consent of my barons I have kept in my hands forests as my father had them.

11. To those knights who render military service for their lands I grant of my own gift that the lands of their demesne ploughs be free from all payments and all labor, so that, having been released from so great a burden, they may equip themselves well with horses and arms and be fully prepared for my service and the defense of my kingdom.

12. I impose a strict peace upon my whole kingdom and command that it be maintained henceforth.

13. I restore to you the law of King Edward with those amendments introduced into it by my father with the advice of his barons.

14. If any one, since the death of King William my brother, has taken anything belonging to me or to any one else, the whole is to be quickly restored without fine; but if any one keep anything of it, he upon whom it shall be found shall pay me a heavy fine.

Witnesses Maurice bishop of London, and William bishop elect of Winchester, and Gerard bishop of Hereford, and earl Henry, and earl Simon, and Walter Giffard,and Robert de Montfort, and Roger Bigot, and Eudo the steward, and Robert son of Hamo, and Robert Malet. At London when I was crowned. Farewell.

Source Problems in English History

Select Charters

^th

The MAGNA CARTA of A.D. 1215
(The Great Charter)
Preamble: John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry, archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, Benedict of Rochester, bishops; of Master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of our lord the Pope, of brother Aymeric (master of the Knights of the Temple in England), and of the illustrious men William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, William, earl of Salisbury, William, earl of Warenne, William, earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway (constable of Scotland), Waren Fitz Gerold, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert De Burgh (seneschal of Poitou), Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d'Aubigny, Robert of Roppesley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and others, our liegemen.

1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.

2. If any of our earls or barons, or others holding of us in chief by military service shall have died, and at the time of his death his heir shall be full of age and owe “relief”, he shall have his inheritance by the old relief, to wit, the heir or heirs of an earl, for the whole barony of an earl by £100; the heir or heirs of a baron, £100 for a whole barony; the heir or heirs of a knight, 100s, at most, and whoever owes less let him give less, according to the ancient custom of fees.

3. If, however, the heir of any one of the aforesaid has been under age and in wardship, let him have his inheritance without relief and without fine when he comes of age.

4. The guardian of the land of an heir who is thus under age, shall take from the land of the heir nothing but reasonable produce, reasonable customs, and reasonable services, and that without destruction or waste of men or goods; and if we have committed the wardship of the lands of any such minor to the sheriff, or to any other who is responsible to us for its issues, and he has made destruction or waster of what he holds in wardship, we will take of him amends, and the land shall be committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fee, who shall be responsible for the issues to us or to him to whom we shall assign them; and if we have given or sold the wardship of any such land to anyone and he has therein made destruction or waste, he shall lose that wardship, and it shall be transferred to two lawful and discreet men of that fief, who shall be responsible to us in like manner as aforesaid.

5. The guardian, moreover, so long as he has the wardship of the land, shall keep up the houses, parks, fishponds, stanks, mills, and other things pertaining to the land, out of the issues of the same land; and he shall restore to the heir, when he has come to full age, all his land, stocked with ploughs and wainage, according as the season of husbandry shall require, and the issues of the land can reasonable bear.

6. Heirs shall be married without disparagement, yet so that before the marriage takes place the nearest in blood to that heir shall have notice.

7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her marriage portion and inheritance; nor shall she give anything for her dower, or for her marriage portion, or for the inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of the death of that husband; and she may remain in the house of her husband for forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall be assigned to her.

8. No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she prefers to live without a husband; provided always that she gives security not to marry without our consent, if she holds of us, or without the consent of the lord of whom she holds, if she holds of another.

9. Neither we nor our bailiffs will seize any land or rent for any debt, as long as the chattels of the debtor are sufficient to repay the debt; nor shall the sureties of the debtor be distrained so long as the principal debtor is able to satisfy the debt; and if the principal debtor shall fail to pay the debt, having nothing wherewith to pay it, then the sureties shall answer for the debt; and let them have the lands and rents of the debtor, if they desire them, until they are indemnified for the debt which they have paid for him, unless the principal debtor can show proof that he is discharged thereof as against the said sureties.

10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.

11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

12. No scutage not aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be done concerning aids from the city of London.

13. And the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.

14. And for obtaining the common counsel of the kingdom anent the assessing of an aid (except in the three cases aforesaid) or of a scutage, we will cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons, severally by our letters; and we will moreover cause to be summoned generally, through our sheriffs and bailiffs, and others who hold of us in chief, for a fixed date, namely, after the expiry of at least forty days, and at a fixed place; and in all letters of such summons we will specify the reason of the summons. And when the summons has thus been made, the business shall proceed on the day appointed, according to the counsel of such as are present, although not all who were summoned have come.

15. We will not for the future grant to anyone license to take an aid from his own free tenants, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and once to marry his eldest daughter; and on each of these occasions there shall be levied only a reasonable aid.

16. No one shall be distrained for performance of greater service for a knight’s fee, or for any other free tenement, than is due therefrom.

17. Common pleas shall not follow our court, but shall be held in some fixed place.

18. Inquests of novel disseisin, of mort d'ancestor, and of darrein presentment shall not be held elsewhere than in their own county courts, and that in manner following; – We, or, if we should be out of the realm, our chief justiciar, will send two justiciaries through every county four times a year, who shall alone with four knights of the county chosen by the county, hold the said assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place of meeting of that court.

19. And if any of the said assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, let there remain of the knights and freeholders, who were present at the county court on that day, as many as may be required for the efficient making of judgments, according as the business be more or less.

20. A freeman shall not be amerced for a slight offense, except in accordance with the degree of the offense; and for a grave offense he shall be amerced in accordance with the gravity of the offense, yet saving always his “contentment”; and a merchant in the same way, saving his “merchandise”; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way, saving his “wainage” if they have fallen into our mercy: and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of honest men of the neighborhood.

21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced except through their peers, and only in accordance with the degree of the offense.

22. A clerk shall not be amerced in respect of his lay holding except after the manner of the others aforesaid; further, he shall not be amerced in accordance with the extent of his ecclesiastical benefice.

23. No village or individual shall be compelled to make bridges at river banks, except those who from of old were legally bound to do so.

24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or others of our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our Crown.

25. All counties, hundred, wapentakes, and trithings (except our demesne manors) shall remain at the old rents, and without any additional payment.

26. If anyone holding of us a lay fief shall die, and our sheriff or bailiff shall exhibit our letters patent of summons for a debt which the deceased owed us, it shall be lawful for our sheriff or bailiff to attach and enroll the chattels of the deceased, found upon the lay fief, to the value of that debt, at the sight of law worthy men, provided always that nothing whatever be thence removed until the debt which is evident shall be fully paid to us; and the residue shall be left to the executors to fulfill the will of the deceased; and if there be nothing due from him to us, all the chattels shall go to the deceased, saving to his wife and children their reasonable shares.

27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands of his nearest kinsfolk and friends, under supervision of the Church, saving to every one the debts which the deceased owed to him.

28. No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take corn or other provisions from anyone without immediately tendering money therefor, unless he can have postponement thereof by permission of the seller.

29. No constable shall compel any knight to give money in lieu of castle-guard, when he is willing to perform it in his own person, or (if he himself cannot do it from any reasonable cause) then by another responsible man. Further, if we have led or sent him upon military service, he shall be relieved from guard in proportion to the time during which he has been on service because of us.

30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or other person, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport duty, against the will of the said freeman.

31. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall take, for our castles or for any other work of ours, wood which is not ours, against the will of the owner of that wood.

32. We will not retain beyond one year and one day, the lands those who have been convicted of felony, and the lands shall thereafter be handed over to the lords of the fiefs.

33. All kiddles for the future shall be removed altogether from Thames and Medway, and throughout all England, except upon the seashore.

34. The writ which is called praecipe shall not for the future be issued to anyone, regarding any tenement whereby a freeman may lose his court.

35. Let there be one measure of wine throughout our whole realm; and one measure of ale; and one measure of corn, to wit, “the London quarter”; and one width of cloth (whether dyed, or russet, or “halberget”), to wit, two ells within the selvedges; of weights also let it be as of measures.

36. Nothing in future shall be given or taken for a writ of inquisition of life or limbs, but freely it shall be granted, and never denied.

37. If anyone holds of us by fee-farm, either by socage or by burage, or of any other land by knight’s service, we will not (by reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage), have the wardship of the heir, or of such land of his as if of the fief of that other; nor shall we have wardship of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage, unless such fee-farm owes knight’s service. We will not by reason of any small serjeanty which anyone may hold of us by the service of rendering to us knives, arrows, or the like, have wardship of his heir or of the land which he holds of another lord by knight’s service.

38. No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put anyone to his “law”, without credible witnesses brought for this purposes.

39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.

41. All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England, and entry to England, with the right to tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs, quit from all evil tolls, except (in time of war) such merchants as are of the land at war with us. And if such are found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be detained, without injury to their bodies or goods, until information be received by us, or by our chief justiciar, how the merchants of our land found in the land at war with us are treated; and if our men are safe there, the others shall be safe in our land.

42. It shall be lawful in future for anyone (excepting always those imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the kingdom, and natives of any country at war with us, and merchants, who shall be treated as if above provided) to leave our kingdom and to return, safe and secure by land and water, except for a short period in time of war, on grounds of public policy- reserving always the allegiance due to us.

43. If anyone holding of some escheat (such as the honor of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other escheats which are in our hands and are baronies) shall die, his heir shall give no other relief, and perform no other service to us than he would have done to the baron if that barony had been in the baron’s hand; and we shall hold it in the same manner in which the baron held it.

44. Men who dwell without the forest need not henceforth come before our justiciaries of the forest upon a general summons, unless they are in plea, or sureties of one or more, who are attached for the forest.

45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.

46. All barons who have founded abbeys, concerning which they hold charters from the kings of England, or of which they have long continued possession, shall have the wardship of them, when vacant, as they ought to have.

47. All forests that have been made such in our time shall forthwith be disafforested; and a similar course shall be followed with regard to river banks that have been placed “in defense” by us in our time.

48. All evil customs connected with forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, river banks and their wardens, shall immediately by inquired into in each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county chosen by the honest men of the same county, and shall, within forty days of the said inquest, be utterly abolished, so as never to be restored, provided always that we previously have intimation thereof, or our justiciar, if we should not be in England.

49. We will immediately restore all hostages and charters delivered to us by Englishmen, as sureties of the peace of faithful service.

50. We will entirely remove from their bailiwicks, the relations of Gerard of Athee (so that in future they shall have no bailiwick in England); namely, Engelard of Cigogne, Peter, Guy, and Andrew of Chanceaux, Guy of Cigogne, Geoffrey of Martigny with his brothers, Philip Mark with his brothers and his nephew Geoffrey, and the whole brood of the same.

51. As soon as peace is restored, we will banish from the kingdom all foreign born knights, crossbowmen, serjeants, and mercenary soldiers who have come with horses and arms to the kingdom’s hurt.

52. If anyone has been dispossessed or removed by us, without the legal judgment of his peers, from his lands, castles, franchises, or from his right, we will immediately restore them to him; and if a dispute arise over this, then let it be decided by the five and twenty barons of whom mention is made below in the clause for securing the peace. Moreover, for all those possessions, from which anyone has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or removed, by our father, King Henry, or by our brother, King Richard, and which we retain in our hand (or which as possessed by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them) we shall have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised, or an inquest made by our order, before our taking of the cross; but as soon as we return from the expedition, we will immediately grant full justice therein.

53. We shall have, moreover, the same respite and in the same manner in rendering justice concerning the disafforestation or retention of those forests which Henry our father and Richard our brother afforested, and concerning the wardship of lands which are of the fief of another (namely, such wardships as we have hitherto had by reason of a fief which anyone held of us by knight’s service), and concerning abbeys founded on other fiefs than our own, in which the lord of the fee claims to have right; and when we have returned, or if we desist from our expedition, we will immediately grant full justice to all who complain of such things.

54. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.

55. All fines made with us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all amercements, imposed unjustly and against the law of the land, shall be entirely remitted, or else it shall be done concerning them according to the decision of the five and twenty barons whom mention is made below in the clause for securing the peace, or according to the judgment of the majority of the same, along with the aforesaid Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he may wish to bring with him for this purpose, and if he cannot be present the business shall nevertheless proceed without him, provided always that if any one or more of the aforesaid five and twenty barons are in a similar suit, they shall be removed as far as concerns this particular judgment, others being substituted in their places after having been selected by the rest of the same five and twenty for this purpose only, and after having been sworn.

56. If we have disseised or removed Welshmen from lands or liberties, or other things, without the legal judgment of their peers in England or in Wales, they shall be immediately restored to them; and if a dispute arise over this, then let it be decided in the marches by the judgment of their peers; for the tenements in England according to the law of England, for tenements in Wales according to the law of Wales, and for tenements in the marches according to the law of the marches. Welshmen shall do the same to us and ours.

57. Further, for all those possessions from which any Welshman has, without the lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or removed by King Henry our father, or King Richard our brother, and which we retain in our hand (or which are possessed by others, and which we ought to warrant), we will have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a plea has been raised or an inquest made by our order before we took the cross; but as soon as we return (or if perchance we desist from our expedition), we will immediately grant full justice in accordance with the laws of the Welsh and in relation to the foresaid regions.

58. We will immediately give up the son of Llywelyn and all the hostages of Wales, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.

59. We will do towards Alexander, king of Scots, concerning the return of his sisters and his hostages, and concerning his franchises, and his right, in the same manner as we shall do towards our other barons of England, unless it ought to be otherwise according to the charters which we hold from William his father, formerly king of Scots; and this shall be according to the judgment of his peers in our court.

60. Moreover, all these aforesaid customs and liberties, the observances of which we have granted in our kingdom as far as pertains to us towards our men, shall be observed b all of our kingdom, as well clergy as laymen, as far as pertains to them towards their men.

61. Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five and twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to everyone who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moreover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of the five and twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is entrusted,to these twenty five barons, if perchance these twenty five are present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty five had concurred in this; and the said twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such things has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.

62. And all the will, hatreds, and bitterness that have arisen between us and our men, clergy and lay, from the date of the quarrel, we have completely remitted and pardoned to everyone. Moreover, all trespasses occasioned by the said quarrel, from Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign till the restoration of peace, we have fully remitted to all, both clergy and laymen, and completely forgiven, as far as pertains to us. And on this head, we have caused to be made for them letters testimonial patent of the lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord Henry, archbishop of Dublin, of the bishops aforesaid, and of Master Pandulf as touching this security and the concessions aforesaid.

63. Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent.

Given under our hand – the above named and many others being witnesses – in the meadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.

Source Problems in English History

Magna Carta

^nd

passim.

Treatise on Justification, by Rev. Dr. Robert Barnes – Lutheran Reformer, Ambassador to the Smalcaldic Princes, and Christian Martyr

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 06:30:00 +0000

In March of 2012, we introduced an important Reformation figure, Rev. Dr. Robert Barnes, with the post Lutheran Martyr: The story of Dr. Robert Barnes as a lesson in the realities of “Political Unity”. In that post, we learned that

Cambridge Reformers

St. Edward’s Church

Upon arriving in Wittenberg, Dr. Barnes lived with Rev. Johannes Bugenhagen – the pastor and confessor of Martin Luther, collaborator with Luther on the translation of the Bible into German, and later, Doctor of Theology at the University of Wittenberg – and even before he formally matriculated at the University, was frequently in the company of both Martin Luther and Dr. Philip Melanchthon. Indeed, it is said that even Katherine Luther (Martin Luther’s wife) attempted to teach Dr. Barnes the German language.⁰

While a student of Luther’s in Wittenberg, Dr. Barnes wrote two books. The first was a collection of proof texts for theologians entitled, Sententia Ex Doctoribus Collectae, Quas Papistae Valde Impudenter Hodie Damnant (“Sentences collected from the doctors which the papists today impudently condemn”). His second book was a protest to the King of England for the condemnation he suffered at the hands of the Bishops. It was entitled, Supplication to Henry VIII. It contained several essays. One of them is the essay, Treatise on Justification, reproduced below from a collection works by Dr. Barnes, along with works by William Tyndale and John Frith, that was first published in America in 1842. The title of that collection was Writings of Tindal, Frith and Barnes, and the selections it contains (including the prefacing biographies of these martyrs) were taken from the full collection of their writings compiled in John Foxe’s Actes and Monuments.

On the basis of his Supplication, and his intimate association with the German Reformers, Dr. Barnes was recalled to England and placed in the service of the King, as Ambassador to the Smalcaldic Princes – an appointment which positioned him to greatly influence the doctrinal stances of the early Anglican Church. One can read more about this episode of history in the post Lutheran Martyr: The story of Dr. Robert Barnes as a lesson in the realities of “Political Unity”, including the events leading up to the martyrdom of Dr. Barnes at the hands of King Henry VIII.

I won’t say much about his essay, Treatise on Justification, other than to point out the following:

Regarding the false doctrine of Universal Justification – a relatively recent innovation among Lutherans that is now widely confessed among the majority of America’s Lutheran church bodies, and a doctrine which has been very frequently discussed, both at length and in depth, on Intrepid Lutherans (most recently in the post, What do you do with a Certified Letter? Here is one idea... ) – one will not find any support whatsoever in Dr. Barnes’ Treatise for this false teaching . At no point does Barnes confess the doctrine of Universal Justification, nor does he imply it, nor is there a shred of evidence suggesting that such a doctrine is “implicit” in his Treatise. Rather, over and over and over again we read Barnes’ emphatic confession that BEFORE GOD we are JUSTIFIED ONLY BY FAITH!.

It’s almost as if he had read the Augsburg Confession (AC:IV; AC VI; AC:XXIV:28ff) and its Apology (AP:II(IV):48ff; AP:II(IV):86ff; AP:III:61; AP:III:93ff ;AP:III:171ff; AP:III:177; AP:III:265; AP:V(XII):36) and actively discussed in depth with Luther and Melanchthon the doctrines they confessed! Both of those confessional documents were published during his tenure with Luther and Melanchthon in Wittenberg, and they make a confession that is identical to that of Dr. Barnes in his Treatise. That is the evidence I see in what follows, below.

Dr. Barnes, like Luther, does not regard faith as an idle or passive thing, but as something that is active.

Dr. Barnes, like Luther, sees two different kinds of “faith,” one that does not save and one that does. In one place, he uses this distinction in the manner of Augustana, as “that which merely acknowledges or believes the historical facts of Jesus Christ” and “that which believes we have grace, righteousness, and forgiveness of sins through Christ” (AC:XX:23), but in another place he adduces St. Athanasius to defend the idea that there is one kind of faith that is a gift of God which “justifies,” and that there is a second kind which is also a gift of God “whereby miracles are done.” Unable to find the source and context from the writings of St. Athanasius in English, I note this in footnote 16. I’m not sure if this is a doctrine that has been formally rejected, or a line of thinking that was never developed, but I note it here to alert the reader, because I have never heard this teaching before and thought it was rather curious.

Dr. Barnes directly addresses the accusation that “Faith is a work, and therefore cannot justify,” and rejects it. Faith does not justify because it is either “work” or “merit,” rather “faith alone justifies, because it is that thing alone whereby I do depend upon Christ.”

Regarding the formatting of the text, there was no bold or italics in the text of the 1842 document from which this was taken. I added these elements of formatting to signify the quotation of Scripture and of the Church Fathers, and to aid in the emphases and distinctions being made by Barnes.

Regarding the footnotes, all of the footnotes from the 1842 document are reproduced here (with more explanatory text in most cases), except for one: in many places, the term “justice” was footnoted as “righteousness” for clarification. In those places, I simply substituted the word “righteousness” and omitted the footnote. In addition, I have added several other footnotes directing the reader to sources of quotations from the Church Fathers used by Dr. Barnes, and added one explanatory footnote.

The main heading was in the original document, I added the subheadings to help break up the essay a bit, due to its length.

Finally, this has got to be the clearest, most direct, most complete and most efficient defense of Justification by Faith Alone that I have yet read. It utterly devastates the works righteousness of the Romans and of other Synergists and Pelagians, and leaves no doubt as to the clarity of Scripture on the issue: apart from faith, there is no Justification whatsoever.

“Faith, however, reconciles and justifies BEFORE GOD the moment we apprehend the promise by faith. And throughout our entire life we are to pray God and be diligent, to receive faith and to grow in faith. For, as stated before, faith is where repentance is, and it is not in those who walk after the flesh. This faith is to grow and increase throughout our life by all manner of afflictions. Those who obtain faith are regenerated, so that they lead a new life and do good works.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Chapter III, para. 212)

“Then, again, [the word regeneratio, that is, ‘regeneration’] is sometimes used pro remissione peccatorum et adoptione in filios Dei, that is, so as to mean only the remission of sins, and that we are adopted as sons of God. And in this latter sense the word is much and often used in the Apology, where it is written: Iustificatio est regeneratio, that is, Justification BEFORE GOD is regeneration.” (Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration, Part III, para. 19)

TREATISE ON JUSTIFICATION

This Tract is appended to a Supplication
unto the most gracious prince, King Henry VIII

by Robert Barnes, D.D.

ONLY FAITH JUSTIFIETH BEFORE GOD
If your grace do not take upon you to hear the disputation and the probation of this article, out of the ground of the Holy Scripture, my lords the bishops will condemn it, before they read it, as their manner is to do with all things that please them not, and which they understand not; and then cry they, “Heresy, heresy, a heretic, a heretic, he ought not to be heard, for his matters are condemned by the church, and by his holy fathers, and by all long customs, and by all manner of laws.”

Christ Alone
Unto whom, with your grace’s favour, I make this answer; I would know of them, if all these things that they have reckoned, can overcome Christ, and His holy Word, or set the Holy Ghost to school? And if they cannot, why should not I then be heard, who do require it in the name of Christ? and also bring for me His holy Word, and the holy fathers, which have understood God’s Word, as I do? Therefore, though they will not hear me, yet must they needs hear them. In Holy Scripture, Christ is nothing else but a Saviour, a Redeemer, a Justifier, and a perfect peacemaker between God and man. This testimony did the angel give of Him in these words, “He shall save His people from their sins” (Mt. 1:21). And also St. Paul: “Christ is made our righteousness, our satisfaction, and our redemption” (1 Co. 1:30). Moreover, the prophet witnesses the same, saying, “For the wretchedness of my people, have I stricken Him” (Is. 53:8); so that here have we Christ with His properties.

Now, if we will truly confess Christ, then must we grant with our hearts, that Christ is all our justice, all our redemption, all our wisdom, all our holiness, all alone the purchaser of grace, alone the peacemaker between God and man. Briefly, all goodness that we have, that it is of Him, by Him, and for His sake only. And that we have need of nothing towards our salvation, but of Him only, and we desire no other salvation, nor any other satisfaction, nor any help of any other creature, either heavenly or earthly, but of Him only; for as St. Peter saith: “There is no other name given unto men, wherein they must be saved” (Ac. 4;12). And also St. Paul saith: “By Him are all that believe justified from all things” (Ac. 13:39). Moreover St. John witnesses the same, in these words: “He it is that hath obtained grace for our sins” (1 Jn. 2:2 [Tyndale]). And in another place: “He sent His Son to make agreement for our sins” (1 Jn. 4:10).

Now, my lords, here have you Christ, and His very nature full and whole. And he that denies any thing, or any part of these things, or takes any part of them, and applies them, or gives the glory of them to any other person, than to Christ only, the same man robs Christ of His honour, and denies Christ, and is very antichrist. Wherefore, my lords, First, What say you to this, and unto the properties of Christ? If you grant them, then are we at a point. For they prove that only faith in Jesus Christ justifieth before God. Secondly, If you deny it, as I am sure you will, for you had rather deny your creed, than grant it, how can you then avoid, but that you are the very antichrist of whom St. John speaks? For now have we tried your spirits, that they be not of God, for you deny Christ, that is, you deny the very nature and property of Christ. You grant the name; but you deny the virtue. You grant that He descended from heaven; but you deny the profit thereof. For He descended for our salvation, this you deny; and yet it is your creed. You grant that He was born; but you deny the purpose. You grant that He is risen from death; but you deny the profit thereof, for He rose to justify us. You grant that He is a Saviour; but you deny that He alone is the Saviour. I pray you, wherefore was He born? Was it to justify us in part, to redeem us in part; to do satisfaction for part of our sins? so that we must set a pair of old shoes, a lump of bread and cheese, or a filthy gray coat to make satisfaction, for the other part?¹ Say what you will, if you give not all, and fully, and only to one Christ, then you deny Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and St. John declares you to be contrary to Christ. This may also be proved by a plain scripture of the Holy Ghost, which is this: “No man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, or to look on the book, till the Lamb came, unto whom the elders spake on this manner: Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof, for Thou wast killed, and hast redeemed us by Thy blood” (Re. 5:9).
Read more »

WELS Makes it Official: All WELS congregations shall use NIV2011

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Thu, 21 May 2015 04:00:00 +0000

If they intend to use the new hymnal, that is.
As pointed out by commenters earlier this week, in our post Washington Post Editorial: “The trick isn’t to make church cool; it’s to keep worship weird.”, by Dr. Jackson late yesterday on his blog, Ichabod, the Glory has Departed, and to me personally by concerned WELS laymen, the WELS Hymnal Project has standardized the new WELS hymnal on the NIV 2011. The Spring 2015 Director’s Update of the WELS Hymnal Project, issued May 10, 2015, by Project Director Michael Schultz, states this directly in the section entitled “Scripture Committee (SC)” – a committee of the Project chaired by Rev. Jonathan Schroeder – in the following words:

he Scripture Committee drafted a translation rubric that was approved at the first meeting of the XC

in September of 2013. Their rubric followed the eclectic choice method which was approved at the 2013 synod convention. The primary working translation of the project is NIV2011, with NIV1984 serving as the backup choice where there are weaknesses or deficiencies that require changes. Since the time that resolution was approved, it has been established that NIV1984 won’t be available as a backup choice, so the committee will be bringing an updated recommendation for a backup translation... The SC reviewed all scripture references or strong scriptural allusions in the CW line of products (not including psalms). Of just under 200 instances, it identified four instances where it recommended replacing NIV2011 with NIV1984. Similarly, the PC has compared both of the NIV translations of all CW/NSS/CWOS/CWS psalmody, marking those places where changes may be necessary.

For those readers wondering what the term “eclectic” might possibly mean when applied to a Synod publication project, the statistic presented here, in Schultz’ Spring Update, ought to make that clear. Firstly, “eclectic” means either NIV2011 or NIV1984. Period. Recall, however, that the NIV2011 was touted by the Translation Evaluation Committee (TEC) – not to be confused with the Translation Committee (XC) mentioned in the Update – as being “92% identical to the NIV1984”; so, one has every right ask “How ‘eclectic’ is it, really, to limit oneself to these two choices?” (and for more helpful statistics on NIV2011 vs NIV1984, look at the Slowley and Dyer links under the ISSUES WITH NIV 2011 resources in the right hand column).

But secondly, “eclectic” apparently requires that, if the balance is cited entirely from NIV2011, only four out of 200 “scriptural allusions” contained in a Synod publication need to be cited from NIV1984. Let’s see... if only (4 ÷ 200) x 100 = 2% of all “scriptural allusions” come from a non-NIV2011 source, even the same non-NIV2011 source, well then, the “threshold of eclecticism” has been reached, and thus also full compliance with the resolutions of Synod in Convention. Yes. Two Percent is, without a doubt, manifest eclecticism according to WELS publishers... And it is very consistent with the “eclectic choice method which was approved at the 2013 Synod convention” – which turned out to be only the first step toward eliminating choices other than NIV2011 altogether. Literally. Five percent is the general threshold of statistical significance. Two percent, however, isn’t statistically significant at all. In fact, it might just as well be zero.

Thus, for those congregations choosing to use the new hymnal (apparently estimated at around 95% of WELS congregations, according to the Update), there will be no way to avoid using “Today’s” NIV2011 as a basis of their worship, even if they want to.

To be fair, the Update didn’t exactly say that only four verses would be sourced from NIV1984 instead of NIV2011, it said that of the 200 verses used in the current hymnal, NIV2011 did such an unacceptable job translating four of them, that, out of the gate, they recommended a different translation be used in those specific cases. They are apparently ambivalent about the rest, so, perhaps, of the remaining 196 verses, maybe they will cite 50% from NIV1984 and 50% from NIV2011. Again, given that NIV1984 and NIV2011 are “92% identical,” how eclectic would a 50/50 split be, in reality?

The Missional Hymnal.
It's already been done...

The Update also said that these numbers only accounted for “scriptural allusions” in the hymnal, and specifically excluded the Psalter. Now, this is something worth salivating over. Perhaps they are actively debating the return of the greatest poetry ever published in the English language to contemporary Lutheran hymnals? Perhaps they will shock the Lutheran world by actually rendering the Psalms in the memorable cadences and phraseology of the mighty King James Version? Now THAT would be eclectic, would it not? Perhaps... But, alas!, it shall never be. The Update, under the section entitled “Psalmody Committee (PC),” indicates that NIV1984 and NIV2011 are the only two versions they are inclined to consider for the Psalter:

his review has included looking at all the differences between NIV2011 and NIV1984. Beyond that, the thinking of the Psalmody Committee has been shaped to the point that the members have come to a general consensus as far as their approach is concerned... The PC’s consensus is to [retain] the musically stronger refrains and tones and “[freshen] up” (tweaking or replacing) refrains and tones that have perhaps become tired or haven’t gained much traction.

At the same time, the Update, under the section entitled “Scripture Committee (SC),” suggests that a Psalter may not even be included with the new hymnal:

Something that has not been determined is how much of the scriptures will actually be published in connection with the hymnal project. If a complete Psalter is published... then all the psalms would be in play.

Finally, it should be noted (again, according to the Update), the publication of the new WELS hymnal is planned to roughly coincide with the 500^th Anniversary of the first Lutheran hymnal ever published – a collection of eight hymns, canticles and a Psalm, four of them by Luther – as some sort of commemoration, one would suppose. A hymnal based on a gender-inclusive post-Modern translation of the Bible that cannot be quoted throughout because of its apparent deficiencies. A hymnal that may or may not include a Psalter. A hymnal that will include who knows what else... I guess the Lutheran world will just have to wait and see.

Washington Post Editorial: “The trick isn’t to make church cool; it’s to keep worship weird.”

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Mon, 04 May 2015 16:45:00 +0000

On April 30, 2015, the Washington Post published an editorial by Episcopalian blogger and author, Rachel Held Evans, entitled “Want millennials back in the pews? Stop trying to make church ‘cool.’” This editorial points to mounting evidence of what should have been predicted by Lutherans all along, who — already knowing that the Holy Spirit works only by His appointed Means (i.e., the “Means of Grace,” the “Gospel in Word and Sacrament”), calling, gathering and enlightening His elect, and through these Means also keeps them in the faith — should have known that the Holy Spirit does NOT work by means of the false doctrines and false practices of the Church Growth Movement (CGM); thus it is no wonder that $500 billion of investment in the manipulative gimmicks of CGM, over the course of a full generation, have produced no evidence of His working, especially in terms of the one thing so ardently sought by those who practice them: numerical growth in the Christian church. Instead, among Millennials, “a solid quarter claim no religious affiliation at all, making [Millennials] more disconnected from faith than members of Generation X were at a comparable point in their lives and twice as detached as baby boomers were as young adults.”

The author of this editorial cites, in a few paragraphs, recent statistics and compelling thoughts and quotations, no doubt drawn from and expounded upon in her recent book, “Searching for Sunday: Loving, Leaving, and Finding the Church”, which forcefully suggest that, far from drawing people to the Church, CGM is actually driving them away from the Church. Using the same recent statistics, along with elements of her own story of leaving and returning to the Church (and those of others), the author further points out that, if Church practice is any aspect of drawing the unchurched, especially Millennials, into the Church, then “what works” is simply what the Church has been doing for the past 2000 years: “What finally brought me back... was the sacraments... you know, those strange rituals and traditions Christians have been practicing for the past 2,000 years. The sacraments are what make the Church relevant, no matter the culture or era. They don’t need to be repackaged or rebranded; they just need to be practiced, offered and explained...”

Some excerpts from this editorial follow. Headings and emphasis are all mine. Hyper-links appeared in the editorial. Readers are encouraged to read the editorial in full. Noticing, of course, how some of the political concerns of the author may have colored her judgment and influenced her choice to join the Episcopalians, notice also how (in the editorial, at least) this is separate from the influence of the sacraments.

[NOTE: And I see now that Dr. Gene Veith has picked up on this article today (5/4/2015), too: Church growth tactics don’t work with Millennials. And again, today (5/5/2015): “The sacraments are what make the church relevant”.]

Disillusionment continues to Skyrocket, Church Growth Gimmickry continues to Fail...
“Church attendance has plummeted among young adults. In the United States, 59 percent of people ages 18 to 29 with a Christian background have, at some point, dropped out. According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, among those of us who came of age around the year 2000, a solid quarter claim no religious affiliation at all, making my generation significantly more disconnected from faith than members of Generation X were at a comparable point in their lives and twice as detached as baby boomers were as young adults.

“In response, many churches have sought to lure millennials back by focusing on style points: cooler bands, hipper worship, edgier programming, impressive technology. Yet while these aren’t inherently bad ideas and might in some cases be effective, they are not the key to drawing millennials back to God in a lasting and meaningful way. Young people don’t simply want a better show. And trying to be cool might be making things worse... [A]ttendance among young people remains flat.”

Are Millenials leaving the Church because of Church Growth Gimmickry?
“Recent research from Barna Group and the Cornerstone Knowledge Network found that 67 percent of millennials prefer a ‘classic’ church over a ‘trendy’ one, and 77 percent would choose a ‘sanctuary’ over an ‘auditorium.’ While we have yet to warm to the word ‘traditional’ (only 40 percent favor it over ‘modern’), millennials exhibit an increasing aversion to exclusive, closed-minded religious communities masquerading as the hip new places in town. For a generation bombarded with advertising and sales pitches, and for whom the charge of ‘inauthentic’ is as cutting an insult as any, church rebranding efforts can actually backfire, especially when young people sense that there is more emphasis on marketing Jesus than actually following Him. Millennials ‘are not disillusioned with tradition; they are frustrated with slick or shallow expressions of religion,’ argues David Kinnaman, who interviewed hundreds of them for Barna Group and compiled his research in You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church... and Rethinking Faith...”

Insightful Quotations from Millennials
“I want a service that is not sensational, flashy, or particularly ‘relevant.’ I can be entertained anywhere. At church, I do not want to be entertained. I do not want to be the target of anyone’s marketing. I want to be asked to participate in the life of an ancient-future community...” (friend of author and blogger, Amy Peterson)

“When a church tells me how I should feel (‘Clap if you’re excited about Jesus!’), it smacks of inauthenticity. Sometimes I don’t feel like clapping. Sometimes I need to worship in the midst of my brokenness and confusion — not in spite of it and certainly not in denial of it.” (millennial blogger, Ben Irwin)

“When I left church at age 29, full of doubt and disillusionment, I wasn’t looking for a better-produced Christianity. I was looking for a truer Christianity, a more authentic Christianity... I felt lonely in my doubts. And, contrary to popular belief, the fog machines and light shows at those slick evangelical conferences didn’t make things better for me. They made the whole endeavor feel shallow, forced and fake.” (the author, Rachel Held Evans)

Church Growth Gimmickry: Announcing to Prospects that you Think they are Shallow.
“While no two faith stories are exactly the same, I’m not the only millennial whose faith couldn’t be saved by lacquering on a hipper veneer. According to Barna Group, among young people who don’t go to church, 87 percent say they see Christians as judgmental, and 85 percent see them as hypocritical. A similar study found that ‘only 8% say they don’t attend because church is “out of date,” undercutting the notion that all churches need to do for Millennials is to make worship “cooler”’... Our reasons for leaving have less to do with style and image and more to do with substantive questions about life, faith and community. We’re not as shallow as you might think.”

What “works” now is what has always “worked”: Authentic Christianity
“If young people are looking for congregations that authentically practice the teachings of Jesus in an open and inclusive way, then the good news is the church already knows how to do that. The trick isn’t to make church cool; it’s to keep worship weird.

“[C]hurch is the only place you can get ashes smudged on your forehead as a reminder of your mortality... [C]hurch is the only place that fills a sanctuary with candlelight and hymns on Christmas Eve... [C]hurch is the only place where you are named a beloved child of God with a cold plunge into the water... [O]nly the church teaches that a shared meal brings us into the very presence of God.

“What finally brought me back, after years of running away, wasn’t lattes or skinny jeans; it was the sacraments. Baptism, confession, Communion, preaching the Word, anointing the sick — you know, those strange rituals and traditions Christians have been practicing for the past 2,000 years. The sacraments are what make the church relevant, no matter the culture or era. They don’t need to be repackaged or rebranded; they just need to be practiced, offered and explained in the context of a loving, authentic and inclusive community.

“Church attendance may be dipping, but God can survive the Internet age. After all, He knows a thing or two about resurrection.”

What do you do with a Certified Letter? Here is one idea...

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:59:00 +0000

Certified Letter to Faith Church

The following letter was sent, Certified Mail, in response to the receipt of a Certified Letter from a Lutheran Congregation. While such letters are an official way for a congregation to terminate relationships with individuals and families they are releasing from membership, and an entirely appropriate form of rebuke when an estranged member cuts himself off from the congregation and refuses to respond to their overtures of evangelical concern, they are nothing but a callous expedient for the congregation which makes no attempt whatsoever to reach out to its members (who up to that point were supposedly considered their brothers/sisters in Christ) or to otherwise contact the intended recipient ahead of time to determine with certainty what their situation is; thus, such Certified Letters belie the congregation’s evangelical confession. That is what happened to the family, below. So perturbed were they with this callous expedient, that they returned the Certified Letter, unopened, along with a personally handwritten letter of their own that extended nine full pages of legal-sized paper. They had much to say, which they found important enough to deliver to their former congregation via Certified Mail. It is worth reading. As many readers may find it difficult to read human handwriting, rather than posting images of the handwritten letter, it has been transcribed, below (edited, of course, for public consumption).

Lxxxxx
1234 Anystreet Road
Nowhere, WI 54000

Faith Church
5678 Anyotherstreet Road
Next to Nowhere, WI 54000

To Whom It May Concern:

We received a piece of certified mail from you, postmarked March 11, 2015. We are returning it to you, unopened. We have very little interest in hearing what you may have to say in such a letter, that you could not preface with a demonstration of evangelical concern, or even basic courtesy, by making a simple phone call or sending an email. But, to be honest, it would have been difficult for us to imagine that you would have done otherwise.

At one point in time we were considered by the members of Faith Church to be Christian brothers. At least, we are pretty sure that we were. Feeling welcomed when we first joined, we were immediately drawn by them into the ministry of the congregation and put to work, and labouring closely with them, had established what we had considered to be close and meaningful relationships. This all came to an end after nearly seven years, when, in mid-2007, without explanation, we were shunned by the congregation. It was difficult to discern precisely, at first, as Mr. Lxxxxx was heavily involved with Church leadership, and was in constant communication with many of those who are now counted as our former friends. But by the end of 2007, his final year in any leadership capacity at Faith Church, it had become clear that the only communication being initiated by those “friends” was strictly related to church business. Beginning in 2008, the reality was unmistakable. Not just a few people, but everyone, including the Pastor, remained mysteriously aloof. He waited week after week for his friends to initiate with him some form of personal conversation. Weeks turned into months. Months turned into years. Nothing. All the while, the women of the congregation pretended to carry on as normal with Mrs. Lxxxxx, but she saw very clearly what was going on, and refusing to be socially separated by them from her husband, remained by his side. She was quickly disfavored, as well. By the time Pastor Sxxxxxxxx passed away in 2009, those former friendships were regarded by us as completely severed. As the years continued to pass, however, we once again began to enjoy some social involvement in the congregation, as other marginalized members of Faith Church recognized our situation and reached out to us in various ways. We also enjoyed conversation with new members, who had not yet been fully received into the labours of the congregation.

Accordingly, Mr. Lxxxxx’s last face-to-face meeting with the Rev. Wxxxx was unfortunate, but predictable. Having had to travel for work, he was unable to attend the October 2013 Voters’ Meeting, but discovered some weeks afterward – quite by accident – that there was some concern regarding the issue of Bible translations, and that the Board of Elders had been asked by the congregation to look into it. There was no hint that this was intended as any kind of formal investigation. Nevertheless, having himself been rather notoriously engaged in research and writing on the topic, he forwarded to the Rev. Wxxxx a number of articles and resources for the Board to consider. When, at the following Voters’ Meeting in January 2014, Mr. Lxxxxx was surprised to see that the issue of Bible translations was on the agenda, he enquired of the Rev. Wxxxx regarding the nature of the Elders’ report – as he was again unable to to attend due to business travel. He was stunned to learn that the Elders would not only be reporting their findings, but would move to officially adopt the NIV 2011. “Did the Board study any of the documents I forwarded to you, for them to consider?” he asked the Reverend.

Now incredulous, Mr. Lxxxxx proceeded to make clear, in sharp and conclusive terms, that he would allow neither himself nor his family to knowingly sit under teaching that proceeded from a document descending directly from post-Modern philosophies known to be perverting human language, and, along with it, human thought patterns; a document which is nothing more than the translators’ paraphrasing of the original languages (paraphrasing which is further edited downstream in the publication process by “readability committees”); a document which deliberately twists thousands of words of Scripture in ways that purposely accommodates liberal theology (feminism, in particular); and a document which, rather than clarifying the Scriptures for English readers, ultimately obscures their meaning by intentionally gutting the Bible of significant vocabulary and grammatical forms found in the original languages – that do have English parallels, if translators care to take into consideration not just the limits of “conversational English,” but the full capacity of the English language to carry objective meaning – making it ever more difficult for the English reader to find and rely on “direct positive statements of Scripture,” and thus also statements that are, by definition, clear. Such translation ideologies gravely endanger the Perspicuity of Scripture in the name of making it accessible for the marginally literate English reader, they threaten to drive the laity of the Church ever deeper into a general illiteracy and intellectual incapacity such as was common in medieval times, and they certainly ought not be vaunted in Christ’s Church as the standard English form of Holy Writ in all teaching and publications.

Nevertheless, Faith Church proceeded to officially adopt the NIV 2011 as the congregation’s translation.

This was not the reason we left Faith Church and the WELS, however; it was merely the straw that broke the camels back.

A few months prior, we were warned by the Rev. Wxxxx to “prepare” our sixth grade boy, who had just entered Catechism, for a discussion of the Sixth Commandment. Finding it a bit ridiculous to rush him through “sex-ed” just to prepare him for Catechism class, we refused to go to such lengths, insisting that such matters need to be handled delicately with children his age, that discussion of sexual activity in any direct terms would be entirely out of bounds, and that there is very little basis for understanding the Sixth Commandment anyway, without a thorough positive grounding in biblical courtship and marriage – deviation from which would itself serve as a glaring example of something that is sinful.

Then we read the catechism that would be used by the Reverend to instruct our young boy, which was written by one Rev. David Kuske. In comparison with the catechism resources we afterward recommended he use instead for the Sixth Commandment lesson (Gausewitz or Koehler), Kuske goes into excessively lurid detail of sexual intercourse, including what kind of sex to have, when to have it, and how enjoyable it should be. The Rev. Wxxxx forcefully rejected use of the alternative resources we suggested (which were, in our opinion, better by orders of magnitude, without all of the direct sex-talk and associated imagery), and when we opted to keep our son home rather than attend his lesson, were indirectly criticized by him for our parenting decisions. In retrospect, given all of the sexual scandals in WELS that have been made public over the past year, and the many more that are roiling just under the surface, we wonder now whether Kuske’s catechism might have something to do with it – whether, in our over-sexed day and age, introducing direct sex-talk with sixth-grade boys and girls is a bit premature for these youngsters, and puts images in their minds that they might otherwise be inclined to struggle against, had their pastor not been the one who put them there using Synod materials that carry the approval of the Church. Given this, it is no wonder the current generation of WELS theologians prefers the NIV 2011’s use of the phrases “make love” (Ge. 4:1,17,25; 29:21,23,30; 38:2; Ru. 4:13; 1 Sa. 1:19; 2 Sa. 11:11; 12:24; 1 Ch. 2:21; 7:23; Is. 8:3; etc.) and “have sex” (Ge. 19:5; Jud. 19:22; 1 Co. 6:9) – phrases and imagery thought in previous generations to be far too indelicate to implant in the minds of pious Christians, who were probably also averse to using such terms for fear that they would indirectly reinforce immoral standards cherished by the world and ignite fleshly desires, against which Christians already struggle.

About a month after Mr. Lxxxxx’s final face-to-face conversation with the Rev. Wxxxx, he was called by the Reverend on the telephone. Mr. Lxxxxx made clear that he meant what he had said in January, and that we were looking for another congregation. He told him that we were, at that time, investigating other WELS congregations, along with LCMS congregations. The Reverend assured him that we remained members in good standing, that if we found a suitable WELS congregation he would be glad to transfer us, and if not, then we would be simply released from membership. We never heard from him again. In all of this time, we were contacted by no one from the congregation out of evangelical concern, or even curiosity, over our extended absence, save one person. We received from the congregation what we had come to expect since 2008: near deafening silence.

We quickly found that there were no suitable WELS congregations within reasonable traveling distance. In the end, we found that among those WELS congregations which seemed intent upon demonstrating their Confession through a wholesome liturgical practice, seemed uncorrupted by ambitions of glory, seemed unwilling to give place to worldly entertainment standards in their worship chambers, seemed confident in the Holy Spirit’s work through the Means of Grace to Call, Gather and Enlighten His Elect, and seemed content to allow Him to work in His way, through His Means, in His time, unaugmented by their own innovations, Faith Church was to be most commended in regard to its NIV 2011 deliberations: where Faith Church actually had the courage to at least publicly identify “Bible translation” as an issue, and to go through the motions of publicly addressing that issue (although, with a predetermined outcome, given that a single source of admittedly biased materials was all that they consulted), all of the other WELS congregations we visited simply started using the NIV 2011 without discussion, without the people even knowing it – when we asked, we learned that the new Bibles just showed up in the pews one Sunday, and no one knew the difference. We could not abide such cowardice.

Of all the other options in our area, there was one ELS congregation and two LCMS congregations that were in many ways very suitable. But we ultimately decided that we were unwilling to dance around the issue of Universal Justification, merely for the convenience of attending those congregations.

“Universal Justification” is the teaching espoused by name in the WELS, and with one name or another by ELS and LCMS, as the centerpiece of Christian teaching – the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. It asserts that all mankind, including every individual, is righteous before God, and forgiven of his sins, whether he has faith or not. The natural, and fully accepted and confessed, consequence of this teaching is that those who die without faith, though they are righteous and forgiven by God, nevertheless spend an eternity barking in hell – not as punishment for their sins (since no one bears sin before God under the teaching of Universal Justification), but merely for their lack of faith. Thus they are willing to accept the teaching that righteous and forgiven saints spend an eternity in hell. The doctrine of Universal Justification, however, is nowhere named, described, or articulated in the Scriptures. It is a purely derived doctrine, without a single word of direct positive attestation in the entirety of Holy Writ.

In all, however, according to the Rev. Dr. Siegbert Becker in his essay Universal Justification, there are a total of three distinct doctrines of Justification taught by WELS. The first is Universal Justification. The second distinct doctrine of Justification, which is merely a corollary of Universal Justification, is “Objective Justification.” It teaches that God, and not man, is entirely responsible for man’s Justification. Such a teaching is not peculiar to WELS, or to Lutherans for that matter; for even the Calvinists do not deny that Justification is objective in this sense. However, WELS, ELS and LCMS seem to assert that Objective Justification also defines “faith” as “man’s work”, and therefore insist that claiming Justification comes by faith is thus to assert a doctrine of synergism. Normally, Universal and Objective Justification are conflated by them, and referred to as “Universal Objective Justification,” but, Becker makes clear, they are, in fact, distinct doctrines, with Objective Justification merely a happy consequence of Universal Justification.

The third distinct doctrine of Justification espoused by the old Synodical Conference Lutherans is so-called “Subjective Justification” – the only doctrine of Justification spoken of and articulated in the Scriptures, and the doctrine identified in the Lutheran Confessions as the main doctrine of Christianity. Except, the Scriptures don’t name it “Subjective Justification”; the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions refer to this doctrine interchangeably as “Justification” and “Justification by Faith Alone.” According to WELS, “Subjective Justification” is entirely superfluous. All of mankind is already righteous and forgiven before God (they say); Justification does NOT come though faith, since that is man’s work, and to suggest that faith is in any way the cause of Justification (even an “instrumental cause”, as it was defined by Leyser and Gerhard) only robs God of the glory He is due for the work He has already accomplished. Subjective Justification (they say), isn’t “Justification” at all, properly speaking – it’s merely “the reception of faith,” and with it merely “receiving the benefit” of the righteous and forgiven standing they, and all men, have had in the eyes of God since the time of Christ’s death and resurrection. Prior to faith (they say), all of mankind is already Justified – fully righteous and forgiven before God – but individuals are denied “enjoyment” of this Justification until God gives them faith.

According to the Bible and the Confessions, however, “Justification by Faith Alone” is the only doctrine of Justification that is taught; mankind (including every individual) is NOT already Justified before God, he is already Condemned; the unbeliever is NOT already righteous and forgiven before God, but stands before God in the filth of his own sin, in need of righteousness and forgiveness; this Justification was earned by Christ in His Passion, and is now offered to mankind in the Message of the Gospel, via which the Holy Spirit works to produce faith; and a person is said to be Justified when the promise of Salvation has been appropriated to himself through the faith God gives him, and not before.

Frankly, it was a shock to us to learn that WELS, ELS and (it seems) LCMS all believe, teach and confess a doctrine of Universal Justification. This fact was withheld from us during Bible Information Class (adult catechism). The fact is:

We reject the doctrine of Universal Justification as without a scintilla of Scriptural or Confessional support;
We reject as Scripturally unfounded and as entirely fallacious reasoning the assertion that Justification must be Universal in order for it to be objective, or to be accomplished entirely outside of man;
We, rather, fully embrace and confess the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone;
We, further, confess and insist that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the only doctrine of Justification taught by the Scriptures in direct positive terms, and that it is therefore the only Scripturally defensible doctrine of Justification that Christians may confess;
We fully reject the assertion that faith is in any way man’s work (the Scriptures directly forbid this notion), and we therefore reject the assertion that Justification by Faith Alone is a doctrine of synergism;
We reject the assertion that “Objective Justification” is a doctrine of Scripture which is taught in distinction from Justification by Faith Alone, and find it impermissible to define “Objective Justification” as any kind of justification at all;
We, rather, confess that the objectivity of Justification is a defining attribute of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, and insist that Justification by Faith Alone does, indeed, constitute a fully objective Justification – that is, our Justification is accomplished fully outside of us, without any merit or participation of our own in any sense;
We confess with confidence and rejoicing that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit;
We reject as flippant hyperbole the assertion that saving faith, under the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, is reduced to merely “a profound hope that man conjures within himself”;
We further confess in this regard, that it is fully biblical to speak of faith being active (i.e., receiving, appropriating, trusting, etc.), without it also being considered volitional and thus synergistic;
We recognize that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the only doctrine of Justification confessed in the Lutheran Confessions, and was the only doctrine of Justification directly named and taught by the orthodox Confessors and Concordists;
We further recognize that a form of Universal Justification was asserted by a heterodox member of the Wittenberg Faculty, a teacher whose doctrine was roundly condemned by his orthodox peers, and who was dismissed in 1595 for clinging to his false doctrine – for denying that Justification is restricted to believers;
We therefore reject as unfounded fiction and utterly preposterous all claims that Universal Justification is “implicitly taught in the Lutheran Confessions,” that it was understood, embraced and taught by the Confessors and Concordists without ever being named or articulated by them, and that it must therefore bind the consciences of any Christian today who would lay claim to an orthodox confession;
We recognize the introduction of Universal Justification and its corollary teachings in American Lutheranism, as a biblically indefensible innovation of the old Synodical Conference.

Putting the best construction on our experiences, and despite any appearances that might cause some to conclude otherwise, we assume, Faith Church, that you are, in fact, possessed of great evangelical concern over our plight, and though, over the course of a full year, you exerted no effort to find out from us directly, we also assume that you are nevertheless deeply interested to know how we fare today.

We have found a Lutheran congregation. It is a congregation affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). Of this congregation, we are happy to say:

They are confessional – that is, they understand the dire need for a clear Christian confession in a sinful world where otherwise well-meaning believers, as victims of sin’s corruption, everywhere misunderstand and pervert the Scripture’s teaching;
They fully subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions, as articulated in the Christian Book of Concord, not insofar as they are a correct presentation and exposition of the pure doctrine of the Word of God, but boldly confessing before the world and other Christians, that they are so;
- They positively reject the doctrine of Universal Justification, and instead, believe, teach and confess the single Scriptural and Confessional doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone – the very doctrine for which Luther and his fellow confessors struggled so mightily, risking their lives that it would be preserved to the Church for the eternal benefit of mankind;
- They do not confuse laity with clergy – that is, laymen are NOT considered Ministers of the Word, and are NOT tasked with carrying out the functions of the pastoral Office;
- They fully trust the Holy Spirit to work through His appointed Means, and being confident in the efficacy of those Means and content with His timing, do not feel compelled to augment His work with their own innovations;
- Not merely mouthing the words of their confession, they endeavor to make manifest this confession, maintaining in the Divine Service a wholesome liturgical practice that unmistakably demonstrates Lutheran catholicity, rather than supplanting it with the obnoxious sectarian practices of pop-church evangelicalism.
They are conservative – that is, rather than dispose of their Lutheran birthright (which, in order to keep it, requires much honour, trust, patience and a keen awareness of the past) for an immediately satisfying bowl of sectarian and worldly porridge (which, if it satisfies at all, does so merely for the moment, soon afterward requiring the satiation of new and different cravings), they endeavor to carry into the future that great deposit of wisdom wrought of Christian experience over the millenia. Thus they endeavor to conserve the past, rather than discard it as quaint, passé and irrelevant in favor of the wisdom of the day;
- They reject (as far as we can tell) the post-Modern philosophies of contemporary times, which represent a full frontal attack on the very morality of language itself, mightily threatening the Church, not by changing the words She confesses before the world, but by dramatically altering that Confession in place – altering the meaning of Her Confession by altering the structures of language employed to express it;
- They have chosen to use and promote a wholesome translation of the Scriptures which not just theoretically, but manifestly honours the doctrine of inspiration, retaining in English as much as practicable, both the grammatical forms and the vocabulary found in the Greek and Hebrew originals, and which honours the tradition of English ecclesiastical thought and expression by maintaining continuity with the English translation Received by English speaking peoples over 400 years ago as the Bible in English, and that continues to this day as a dominant Bible translation preferred by English speakers;
- They hold that it is wise practice for the Church to maintain a sharp distinction from the world in Her practice, including the use of terminology in their catechesis and during the Divine Service, which maintains a continuity with the past and which reinforces the “other worldly” reality of the believer’s citizenship in the Kingdom of Grace.

And to top it all off:

They – like Lutherans across the globe (in our experience) – are just plain nice folks.

Unfortunately, this congregation, being a two-hour drive for us, is not very conveniently located. We are not able to attend weekly, as we would like, but endeavor to attend at least twice monthly. When we are unable to attend, however, we do take time to worship as a family in our home, following a modified form of “The Order of Morning Service” from The Lutheran Hymnal (pg. 5), and reading from Luther’s Postils for the Sermon. This works very nicely.

If the truth be told, however, we started this practice of home worship years before finally leaving the WELS. We began to notice that there was a consistent dearth of Law in the preaching and teaching, not only of Faith Church, but in every WELS church we visited. The emphasis on the Gospel was so smothering that the Law, if present at all, was virtually indiscernible. While both of us had grown up within pop-church Evanglicalism and among confessing Pietists, were fully acquainted with the Law, and personally found Law-less Gospel preaching a sufficient (and welcome) balance to the smotheringly Gospel-less Law preaching we had been reared with, the impact on our children, who, over a decade had only become familiar with the Gospel, was unmistakably negative. Having literally no acquaintance with the Law, they failed to place any real significance on the Gospel, taking for granted that they were already forgiven and righteous regardless of what they do, as if they were entitled to it. The result was behaviour issues of various kinds, a general disregard for God’s Word, and a failure to respond to correction which was drawn from it. We appealed at various times to our WELS pastors for more Law in their preaching, so that there would be a more discernible balance between Law and Gospel, but when our requests were dismissed – sometimes with ridicule for being “lovers of the Law” – we realized that there would be no changing their nearly Law-less Gospel preaching. Mrs. Lxxxxx had finally grown so fed up with the fact that our children had not imbibed the Law in any significant way from our association with WELS, that she began taking them through the Book of Proverbs every month, and visiting with them other sections of the Bible that emphasize Law – like the Book of James. This had quite an impact. As the the older children would read the Proverbs, they would stop, read it again, gulp, and say things like, “Oh, boy...” They had no idea. At one point, Mrs. Lxxxxx even suggested, somewhat facetiously, that we leave Lutheranism entirely, and go back to Pietism, just so that our children could be acquainted with the Law through the teaching of the Church, and finally come to appreciate the Gospel. Needless to say, that is not what we did. Instead, we started reading Luther’s sermons for semi-regular family worship, in place of attending Faith Church every Sunday. Luther is very direct in his preaching of the Law, and equally so in his preaching of the Gospel, nearly every sermon being very well balanced between the two. It is unlike any preaching we had heard over the past four decades, including the last fifteen years of association with WELS. Acquaintance with the Law has helped with discipline in the home, too, and improved our family’s appreciation for the Gospel.

Finally – you may be interested to know – there is informal, though very serious, discussion of opening a Lutheran mission congregation in our area (River Falls, Hudson, New Richmond, Baldwin, etc.), of confessional and conservative character similar to the congregation in which we currently enjoy membership. The intent would be to use our family, and perhaps other interested individuals, to seed this mission. Efforts are underway, now, to investigate possible meeting places.

Ta Ta for Now,

Lxxxxx

A Devotion and Prayer for Thanksgiving Day

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:30:00 +0000

Rev. Johann Friedrich Starck
successor to Philipp Jakob Spener – the “Father of Pietism” – in Frankfurt, DE (early 18^th Century)

The following devotion and prayer was written by noted devotional author and poet, Rev. Johann Friedrich Starck, of Frankfurt am Mainz, in his mightily influential devotional work, Daily Handbook in Good and Evil Days, first published in 1728, here translated into English by Rev. Joseph A. Stump in 1904, from the posthumous and final edition of 1776. Starck was also a noted pietist, the successor of Philipp Jakob Spener (d. 1705) in Frankfurt, and evidently a preferred devotional author of Rev. Dr. Franz Pieper (LCMS): in 1900, Concordia Publishing House (CPH) – the publishing organ of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) – published a German edition of Starck’s devotional work that had been “Missouri-ized” by Pieper; and in 1921, Concordia subsequently published an English edition in two separate volumes, entitled, Starck’s Prayer-Book and Starck’s Motherhood Prayers. Both can be purchased today in a single volume from Emanuel Press as Stark’s Prayer-Book: Concordia Edition.

Regarding Stump’s translation, the translator of the 1921 Concordia Edition (W.H.T. Dau), had this to say in his Preface: “The translation is made from the German edition of Dr. Pieper of 1900. Comparison was possible to the translator only with the editions published by Kohler and the German Literary Board. Each of these editions has its distinct merit, the latter excelling by its faithful adherence to the original, its apt renderings, and happy paraphrases.” Regarding Starck, his Prayer-Book and Pieper’s endorsement of it, Dau comments further in his Preface, as follows:

“Johann Friedrich Starck, a favorite author of evangelical Germany in the era of Pietism, has more than other writer of devotional literature maintained his hold on the hearts of practising (not merely professing!) Christians. Even Arnd’s True Christianity booksellers assert, does not equal the incluence which Starck still exerts on thousands of Christians by his Prayer-Book...

Rev. Dr. Franz Pieper (LCMS)
published a German edition of Starck’s Prayer-Book for LCMS Lutherans

“Starck’s predecessor in Frankfurt had been Spener, ‘the father of Pietism,’ and it fell on Starck’s lot to water what Spener had sowed. For thirty years he conducted ‘private’ devotional exercised on Sunday afternoons. These exercises, which were attended by a number of earnest souls, were private only in as far as they were distinct from the regular publis services at the church. At these exercised Starck endeavored to impress the evangelical truths of Christianity, the priceless privileges of the grace of Christ and the Christian ordinances, and the practical duties of a consistent Christian life on his individual hearerswith true pastoral tact...

“Starck loved nothing sensational, nothing that was for mere display in matters of religion. Christian life, to him, was real and earnest, to be conducted in a sober mind... While he maintained the confessional position of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and rejoiced to be a member of it, his teaching was tinged with the peculiarities of the Pietistic tendency... However, this defect occurs only occasionally, perhaps least in the Prayer-Book, and there are so many sections in Starck’s writings that are entirely free from error that Starck himself supplies the needed correction for his occasional deviations from the straight path of the sound doctrine.

“When Dr. F. Pieper, years ago, examined the Prayer-Book with a view to applying, wherever needed, this self-correction of Starck, this was done with no sacrilegious hand, but really to secure for Starck a fuller reward of his faithful labors for a sincere and zealous Christian life. The revisor really helped Starck to speak his full Christian mind everywhere, and to discard what was of inferior value or even misleading in his presentation of Christian truths...”

Both Stump’s and Dau’s English editions included English hymns. I preferred neither that were included with the following devotion, so concluded it with my own selection from The Lutheran Hymnal.

JOHN FREDERICK STARCK’S
“DAILY HAND-BOOK IN GOOD AND EVIL DAYS”

CONTAINING ALL THE MEDITATIONS AND PRAYERS OF THE
COMPLETE GERMAN ORIGINAL EDITION
TOGETHER WITH AN APPROPRIATE SELECTION OF STANDARD ENGLISH HYMNS
FOR GENERAL USE, FOR THE AFFLICTED, THE SICK, AND THE DYING

TRANSLATED BY
REV. JOSEPH A. STUMP, A.M.
Pastor of Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church, Phillipsburg, NJ

Burlington, Iowa
German Literary Board

THE CHRISTIAN THANKS GOD
AFTER THE HARVEST HAS BEEN GATHERED.

MEDITATION.
For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal. Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in the time thereof, and my wine in the season thereof, and will recover my wool and my flax given to cover her nakedness (Ho. 2:8-9).

IF there be a striking manifestation of God’s goodness which is apparent to all men, it is undoubtedly the annual harvest, when God, after having guarded the seed throughout the winter in the earth, having let it bloom and grow and bear fruit in the summer, and having warded off hail and damage by storm, fills barn and cellar with His blessings. But if there be a benefit of which the world makes light and for which it is least thankful to God, it is this very harvest. For ungrateful men imagine that it must be so; that according to the course of nature things must grow, and that God has nothing to do with it. For this reason God in just anger sometimes makes the harvest a failure, in order that all men may see that the ground cannot produce if He does not make it do so, and that nothing can grow without His blessing.

A Christian views the matter differently. When he beholds the full ears of grain, and the vines heavily laden with grapes, (1) he lifts his eyes to heaven, and praises the almighty Creator, Giver, and Preserver of these blessings, who from one grain has produced so many grains, and from an insignificant vine has brought forth such precious fruit. (2) He praises God’s Providence, which has sent the early and the latter rains in their seasons, warded off hurtful thunderstorms, drought, hail, and floods, and preserved the harvest. And when he now sees the grain harvested and hauled into the barn, and the grapes crushed in the wine-press, (3) he receives all these gifts with grateful heart and hands. (4) He uses them and enjoys them with thanksgiving. He acknowledges that God nourishes, sustains, and preserves him. (5) He lets the goodness of God lead him to repentance. If men are thankful to their fellow-men for the gift of clothing or food, and avoid offending their benefactors, why should not we give thanks to our greatest Benefactor, who gives us all things?

PRAYER.
O give thanks unto the Lord; for He is good: and His mercy endureth for ever. Thus I say, O my God, now that I have seen another blessed harvest gathered. O gracious God, how great is Thy mercy to us! Thou hast laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed forever. And in this earth Thou hast laid Thy glorious treasures, and makest it bring forth the fruits which nourish and sustain us. Thou hast crowned this year abundantly with Thy goodness; and Thy paths drop fatness. Thou hast watered the hills from Thy chambers; the earth is satisfied with the fruit of Thy works. Thou hast caused the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that Thou mightest bring forth food out of the earth.

O faithful Father! Thou hast this year again bestowed upon us. Thy unthankful children, food and drink; Thou hast preserved the harvest. Heaven has heard the cry of the earth; and the earth has brought forth corn and wine. Thou hast given us the early and the latter rains in their seasons. And now our fields have bloomed and offered us the bounty with which Thy blessing covered them. Our trees have brought forth all manner of beautiful fruit, and the vine has made us glad. Loving God and Father, Thou hast spread the wings of Thy mercy over all the land: Thou hast let the sunshine ripen the crops, and hast protected them from hail and blight and drought and flood. When we slept. Thou didst wake; Thou wast Guardian and Keeper over our fields. O Lord, how manifold are Thy works! In wisdom hast Thou made them all: the earth is full of Thy riches. All creatures, men and beasts, wait upon Thee, that Thou mayest give them their meat in due season. That Thou givest them, they gather; Thou openest Thine hand, they are filled with good.

Yes, abundantly indeed hast Thou, O God, blessed us this year with Thy gifts. And now we thank Thee from our inmost soul. O come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord our Maker. Let us enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise. Let us say with grateful heart: The Lord hath done great things for us; yea, the Lord hath done great things for us; whereof we are glad. O Lord, Lord, grant us grace not to misuse these gifts and benefits which Thou hast bestowed, but to learn from them to appreciate Thy love and faithfulness toward us. And if, O God, some unthankful souls should abuse Thy gifts by gluttony or intoxication, do not on that account withdraw Thy blessing from us, but preserve it unto us according to Thy mercy.

O Father, who hast loved us with an everlasting love, and who through these bodily blessings also hast drawn us with loving-kindness, desiring that in the gifts we may recognize the Giver, and in the benefits the Benefactor; grant, that Thy goodness may lead us to repentance, and that, whenever we see Thy gifts before us on the table or take them into our hands or mouth, we may lift up our eyes to Thee, the Fountain of all blessings. And as by these gifts Thou dost sustain our body, so let us be nourished and strengthened in the inward man, and increase in faith and love and holiness through the means of grace which Thou hast ordained; that we may grow in all goodness, and be changed from glory to glory, till at last we shall be admitted to the enjoyment of the heavenly blessings of eternal life through Jesus Christ. Amen.

HYMN.

The Lutheran Hymnal (1941)

Ps. 65:9

Dr. Martin Luther, the Corruption of Rome, John Tetzel and Indulgences, and the Ninety-five Theses

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:00:00 +0000

Rev. Dr. Joseph A. Seiss

Today, October 31, the Festival of the Reformation, is the anniversary of the opening of the Reformation in Germany. On this day in 1517, Martin Luther, out of concern for the souls of those entrusted to his spiritual care, having been ignored by the bishops to whom he had sent letters requesting that they take action against the false teaching and practices of John Tetzel, and urgently desiring that the issue be brought forth for discussion, announced his intention to hold a disputation on the topic of Indulgences by posting his Ninety-five Theses and inviting disputants to debate them. The following post is a brief history of events leading up to that event, followed by the Theses themselves – including the introductory letter that Luther used to preface the copy sent to his Archbishop. The history is taken from a work authored by Rev. Dr. Joseph A. Seiss in 1888: Luther and the Reformation: The Life-Springs of Our Liberties. Seiss, a co-founder of the General Council along with Charles Porterfield Krauth, was known as a very eloquent preacher, he was the author of many works influential in his time, including a full series of Postils. One peculiarity worth noting about Seiss, was his hold to the doctrine of premillenialism, a doctrine for which he is probably most well known, and disliked by Lutherans, even today. Indeed, of the doctrinal issues unresolved by the Council, and preventing the Council from reaching the general Doctrinal Unity toward which it strived, the question of millenialism was among the chiefest, along with several issues related to Church Fellowship. Regardless of his millenialism, his Reformation narrative, from which the post below is drawn, is concise yet also full of information that is not commonly shared in shorter narratives such as this, it is engaging, swiftly moving and very well-written.

An English translation of Luther’s Ninety-five Thesis follows Seiss’ narrative. A work produced by Anglicans, it was published in 1885. What I found particularly interesting about this version of the Thesis is that, in addition to just the Ninety-five Thesis that Luther affixed to the door of the Schlosskirche in Wittenberg – which is what one normally is presented with on the Festival of the Reformation – this version also includes the Introductory Letter that was included by Luther in the copy that was sent to his Archbishop. This letter is a clear witness to Luther’s humility and devotion as a loyal son of the Church. He was not acting out of rebellion against the Church or those in authority over him, but against false doctrine and practice which, being committed in the name of the Church and of Christ, soiled Her image and blasphemed Her Bridegroom. Luther only sought to restore concord and peace in the Church under its teachings. This is very important context to the Theses themselves, which are too often described or pictured as some act of defiant heroism, when this isn’t really the case.

It is my hope that the reader finds these works edifying. It is also my hope that, in reviewing history more closely, modern readers may be more well-equipped to see exactly how history has a way of repeating itself, even in the Church. As one reads the history printed below, he should take notice of the following:

Clergy, viewing and conducting themselves as a separate and superior class of Christian from the laity, grow corrupt, tolerating and at times encouraging gross immorality in their midst
Extravagance and corruption bankrupt the Church
The Church in its corruption calls upon false teachers, and embraces false practices, to refill and maintain its coffers
True “sons of the church,” out of growing concern over increasingly manifest corruption and tolerance of false doctrine and practice, write letters to their bishops
The bishops ignore their letters
Corruption, false doctrine and practice, and tolerance for them, continue to fester and grow
Concerned now for the eternal welfare of souls in their midst, loyal “sons of the church” begin to speak openly of the problems, and voice opposition against corruption, false doctrine and false practice:
Corruption, false doctrine and practice, and tolerance for them, continue to fester and grow
With the problems resulting from corruption and false doctrine growing acute, loyal “sons of the church” announce their intention to have public discussion and debate over the issues
No one shows up
Corruption, false doctrine and practice, and tolerance for them, continue to fester and grow
In lieu of formal public discussion and debate, which will not be enjoined by those who stand to lose material wealth or position, loyal “sons of the church” publish and disseminate their writings
With the complicity of their silent friends, their enemies continue to rave against them, “denouncing them as heresiarchs, heretics, and schismatics”
These loyal “sons of the church” are eventually excommunicated or driven out, along with a small following.

But where is the true Church? Martin Luther preaches in his Sermon on the Epistle text for the Fifth Sunday after Trinity that, “When unity becomes division, certainly two sects cannot both be the true Church. If one is godly, the other must be the devil’s own.” Are such excommunicates outside the Church? Martin Luther, in his Sermon on the Epistle text for the Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity, further elucidates:

“Above all things, then, the effort must be to preserve, in the Church, the doctrine of the Scriptures, pure and in its unity.

“One of the wickedest offenses possible to commit against the Church is the stirring up of doctrinal discord and division, a thing the devil encourages to the utmost. This sin usually has its rise with certain haughty, conceited, self-seeking leaders who desire peculiar distinction for themselves and strive for personal honor and glory. They harmonize with none and would think themselves disgraced were they not honored as superior and more learned individuals than their fellows, a distinction they do not merit. They will give honor to no one, even when they have to recognize the superiority of his gifts over their own. In their envy, anger, hatred and vengefulness, they seek occasion to create factions and to draw people to themselves. Therefore Saint Paul exhorts first to the necessary virtue of love, the having of which will enable men to exercise humility, patience and forbearance toward one another.

“The character of the evils resulting to the Church from divisions and discords in doctrine is evident from the facts. Many are deceived; the masses immediately respond to new doctrine brilliantly presented in specious words by presumptuous individuals thirsting for fame. More than that, many weak but well-meaning ones fall to doubting, uncertain where to stand or with whom to hold. Consequently men reject and blaspheme the Christian doctrine and seek occasion to dispute it... Of so much disturbance in the Church, and of the resulting injuries to souls, are guilty those conceited, factious leaders who do not adhere to the true doctrine, preserving the ‘unity of the Spirit,’ but seek to institute something new for the sake of advancing their own ideas and their own honor, or gratifying their revenge. They thus bring upon themselves damnation infinitely more intolerable than others suffer...

“But they are not members of the true Church of Christ who, instead of preserving unity of doctrine and oneness of Christian faith, cause divisions and offenses – as Saint Paul says in Romans 16:17 – by the human doctrines and self-appointed works for which they contend, imposing them upon all Christians as necessary for salvation. They are perverters and destroyers of the Church, as we have elsewhere frequently shown. The consolation of the true doctrine is ours, and we hold it in opposition to Popedom, which accuses us of having withdrawn from them, and so condemns us as apostates from the Church. They are, however, themselves the real apostates, persecuting the Truth and destroying the ‘unity of the Spirit’ under the name and title of the Church and of Christ. Therefore, according to the command of God, all men are under obligation to shun them and withdraw from them.”

Concord, or unity under pure doctrine, is vitally important to the life of the Church. It was the reason for the Ninety-five Theses, and consequently the Reformation; and it will remain the reason for the necessity of continuing division in the Church here on earth.

Click here for Part II of this series on the Life of Martin Luther

Click here for Part III of this series on the Life of Martin Luther

Dr. Martin Luther
the Corruption of Rome
John Tetzel and Indulgences
and the Ninety-five Theses¹
Some men are colossal. Their characters are so massive, and their position in history is so towering, that other men can hardly get high enough to take their measure. An overruling Providence so endows and places them that they affect the world, turn its course into new channels, impart to it a new spirit, and leave their impress on all the ages after them. Even humble individuals, without titles, crowns, or physical armaments, have wrought themselves into the very life of the race and built their memorials in the characteristics of epochs.

History tells of a certain Saul of Tarsus, a lone and friendless man, stripped of all earthly possessions, forced into battle with a universe of enthroned superstition, encompassed by perils which threatened every hour to dissolve him, who, pressing his way over mountains of difficulty and through seas of suffering, and dying a martyr to his cause, gave to Europe a living God and to the nations another and an everlasting King.

We likewise read of a certain Christopher Columbus, brooding in lowly retirement upon the structure of the physical universe, ridiculed, frowned on by the learned, repulsed by court after court, yet launching out into the unknown seas to find an undiscovered hemisphere, and opening the way for persecuted Liberty to cradle the grand empire of popular rule amid the golden hills of a new and independent continent.

Dr. Martin Luther

And in this category stands the name of MARTIN LUTHER.

He was a poor, plain man, only a doctor of divinity, without place except as a teacher in a university, without power or authority except in the convictions and qualities of his own soul, and with no implements save his Bible, tongue, and pen; but with him the ages divided and human history took a new departure.

Two pre-eminent revolutions have passed over Europe since the beginning of the Christian era. The one struck the Rome and rule of emperors; the other struck the Rome and rule of popes. The one brought the Dark Ages; the other ended them. The one overwhelmed the dominion of the Caesars; the other humiliated a more than imperial dominion reared in Caesar’s place. Alaric, Radagaisus, Genseric, and Attila were the chief instruments and embodiment of the first; Martin Luther was the chief instrument and embodiment of the second. The one wrought bloody desolation; the other brought blessed renovation, under which humanity has bloomed its happiest and its best.

LUTHER THE CHOSEN INSTRUMENT.
We may not limit Providence. The work was to be done. Every interest of the world and of the kingdom of God demanded it. And if there had been no Luther at hand, someone else would have been raised up to serve in his place. But there was a Luther, and, as far as human insight can determine, he was the only man on earth competent to achieve the Reformation. And he it was who did achieve it.

Looked at in advance, perhaps no one would have thought of him for such an office. He was so humbly born, so lowly in station, so destitute of fortune, and withal so honest a Papist, that not the slightest tokens presented to mark him out as the chosen instrument to grapple with the magnitudinous tyranny by which Europe was enthralled.

But “God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty.” Moses was the son of a slave. The founder of the Hebrew monarchy was a shepherd-boy. The Redeemer-King of the world was born in a stable and reared in the family of a village carpenter. And we need not wonder that the hero-prophet of the modern ages was the son of a poor toiler for his daily bread, and compelled to sing upon the street for alms to keep body and soul together while struggling for an education.

It has been the common order of Providence that the greatest lights and benefactors of the race, the men who rose the highest above the level of their kind and stood as beacons to the world, were not such as would have been thought of in advance for the mighty services which render their names immortal. And that the master spirit of the great Reformation was no exception all the more surely identifies that marvelous achievement as the work of an overruling God.

LUTHER’s ORIGIN.
Luther was a Saxon German – a German of the Germans – born of that blood out of which, with but few exceptions, have sprung the ruling powers of the West since the last of the old Roman emperors. He came out of the bosom of the freshest, strongest, and hardiest peoples then existing – the direct descendants of those wild Cimbrian and Teutonic tribes who, even in their heathenism, were the most virtuous, brave, and true of all the Gentiles.

Nor was he the offspring of enfeebled, gouty, aristocratic blood. He was the son of the sinewy and sturdy yeomanry. Though tradition reports one of his remote ancestors in something of imperial place among the chieftains of the semi-savage tribes from which he was descended, when the period of the Reformation came his family was in like condition with that of the house of David when the Christ was born. His father and grandfather and great-grandfather, he says himself, were true Thuringian peasants.

LUTHER’s EARLY TRAINING.
In the early periods of the mediæval Church her missionaries came to these fiery warriors of the North and followed the conquests of Charlemagne, to teach them that they had souls, that there is a living and all-knowing God at whose judgment-bar all must one day stand to give account, and that it would then be well with the believing, brave, honest, true, and good, and ill with cowards, profligates, and liars. It was a simple creed, but it took fast hold on the Germanic heart, to show itself in sturdy power in the long after years.

This creed, in unabated force, descended to Luther’s parents, and lived and wrought in them as a controlling principle. They were also strict to render it the same in their children.

Hans Luther was a hard and stern disciplinarian, unsparing in the enforcement of every virtue.

Margaret Luther² was noted among her neighbors as a model woman, and was so earnest in her inculcations of right that she preferred to see her son bleed beneath the rod rather than that he should do a questionable thing even respecting so small a matter as a nut.

From his childhood Luther was thus trained and attempered to fear God, reverence truth and honesty, and hate hypocrisy and lies. Possibly his parents were severer with him than was necessary, but it was well for him, as the prospective prophet of a new era, to learn absolute obedience to those who were to him the representatives of that divine authority which he was to teach the world supremely to obey.

But no birth, or blood, or parental drilling, or any mere human culture, could give the qualities necessary to a successful Reformer. The Church had fallen into all manner of evils, because it had drifted away from the apostolic doctrine as to how a man shall be just with God, which is the all-conditioning question of all right religion. There could then be no cure for those evils except by the bringing of the Church back to that doctrine. But to do anything effectual toward such a recovery it was pre-eminently required that the Reformer himself should first be brought to an experimental knowledge of what was to be witnessed and taught.

On two different theatres, therefore, the Reformation had to be wrought out: first, in the Reformer’s own soul, and then on the field of the world outside of him.

WHAT THE REFORMATION WAS.
It is hard to take in the depth and magnitude of what is called The Great Reformation. It stands out in history like a range of Himalayan mountains, whose roots reach down into the heart of the world and whose summits pierce beyond the clouds.

To Bossuet and Voltaire it was a mere squabble of the monks; to others it was the cupidity of secular sovereigns and lay nobility grasping for the power, estates, and riches of the Church. Some treat of it as a simple reaction against religious scandals, with no great depths of principle or meaning except to illustrate the recuperative power of human society to cure itself of oppressive ills. Guizot, describes it as “a vast effort of the human mind to achieve its freedom – a great endeavor to emancipate human reason.” Lord Bacon takes it as the reawakening of antiquity and the recall of former times to reshape and fashion our own.

Whatever of truth some of these estimates may contain, they fall far short of a correct idea of what the Reformation was, or wherein lay the vital spring of that wondrous revolution. Its historic and philosophic centre was vastly deeper and more potent than either or all of these conceptions would make it. Many influences contributed to its accomplishment, but its inmost principle was unique. The real nerve of the Reformation was religious. Its life was something different from mere earthly interests, utilities, aims, or passions. Its seat was in the conscience. Its true spring was the soul, confronted by eternal judgment, trembling for its estate before divine A1mightiness, and, on pain of banishment from every immortal good, forced to condition and dispose itself according to the clear revelations of God. It was not mere negation to an oppressive hierarchy, except as it was first positive and evangelic touching the direct and indefeasible relations and obligations of the soul to its Maker. Only when the hierarchy claimed to qualify these direct relations and obligations, thrust itself between the soul and its Redeemer, and by eternal penalties sought to hold the conscience bound to human authorities and traditions, did the Reformation protest and take issue. Had the inalienable right and duty to obey God rather than man been conceded, the hierarchy, as such, might have remained, the same as monarchical government. But this the hierarchy negatived, condemned, and would by no means tolerate. Hence the mighty contest. And the heart, sum, and essence of the whole struggle was the maintenance and the working out into living fact of this direct obligation of the soul to God and the supreme authority of His clear and unadulterated word.

SPIRITUAL TRAINING.
How Luther came to these principles, and the fiery trials by which they were burnt into him as part of his inmost self, is one of the most vital chapters in the history.

His father had designed him for the law. To this end he had gone through the best schools of Germany, taken his master’s degree, and was advancing in the particular studies relating to his intended profession, when a sudden change came over his life.

Religious in his temper and training, and educated in a creed which worked mainly on man’s fears, without emphasizing the only basis of spiritual peace, he fell into great terrors of conscience. Several occurrences contributed to this: (1) He fell sick, and was likely to die. (2) He accidentally severed an artery, and came near bleeding to death. (3) A bosom friend of his was suddenly killed. All this made him think how it would be with him if called to stand before God in judgment, and filled him with alarm. Then (4) he was one day overtaken by a thunderstorm of unwonted violence. The terrific scene presented to his vivid fancy all the horrors of a mediæval picture of the Last Day, and himself about to be plunged into eternal fire. Overwhelmed with terror, he cried to Heaven for help, and vowed, if spared, to devote himself to the salvation of his soul by becoming a monk. His father hated monkery, and he shared the feeling; but, if it would save him, why hesitate? What was a father’s displeasure or the loss of all the favors of the world to his safety against a hopeless perdition?

Call it superstition, call it religious melancholy, call it morbid hallucination, it was a most serious matter to the young Luther, and out of it ultimately grew the Reformation. False ideas underlay the resolve, but it was profoundly sincere and according to the ideas of ages. It was wrong, but he could not correct the error until he had tested it. And thus, by what he took as the unmistakable call of God, he entered the cloister.

Never a man went into a monastery with purer motives. Never a man went through the duties, drudgeries, and humiliations of the novitiate of convent-life with more unshrinking fidelity. Never a man endured more painful mental and bodily agonies that he might secure for himself an assured spiritual peace. Romanists have expressed their wonder that so pure a man thought himself so great a sinner. But a sinner he Was, as we all; and to avert the just anger of God he fasted, prayed, and mortified himself like an anchorite of the Thebaid. And yet no peace or comfort came.

A chained Bible lay in the monastery. He had previously found a copy of it in the library of the university. Day and night he read it, along with the writings of St. Augustine. In both he found the same pictures of man’s depravity which he realized in himself, but God’s remedy for sin he had not found. In the earnestness of his studies the prescribed devotions were betimes crowded out, and then he punished himself without mercy to redeem his failures. Whole nights and days together he lay upon his face crying to God, till he swooned in his agony. Everything his brother – monks could tell him he tried, but all the resources of their religion were powerless to comfort him or to beget a righteousness in which his anguished soul could trust.

It happened that one of the exceptionally enlightened and spiritual-minded monks of his time, John Staupitz, was then the vicar-general of the Augustinians in Saxony. On his tour of inspection he came to Erfurt, and there found Luther, a walking skeleton, more dead than alive. He was specially drawn to the haggard young brother. The genial and sympathizing spirit of the vicar-general made Luther feel at home in his presence, and to him he freely opened his whole heart, telling of his feelings, failures, and fears – his heartaches, his endeavors, his disappointments, and his despair. And God put the right words into the vicar-general’s mouth.

“Look to the wounds of Jesus,” said he, “and to the blood he shed for you, and there see the mercy of God. Cast yourself into the Redeemer’s arms, and trust in his righteous life and sacrificial death. He loved you first; love him in return, and let your penances and mortifications go.”

The oppressed and captive spirit began to feel its burden lighten under such discourse. God a God of love! Piety a life of love! Salvation by loving trust in a God already reconciled in Christ! This was a new revelation. It brought the sorrowing young Luther to the study of the Scriptures with a new object of search. He read and meditated, and began to see the truth of what his vicar said. But doubts would come, and often his gloom returned.

One day an aged monk came to his cell to comfort him. He said he only knew his Creed, but in that he rested, reciting, “I believe in the forgiveness of sins.” – “And do I not believe that?” said Luther. – “ Ah,” said the old monk, “you believe in the forgiveness of sins for David and Peter and the thief on the cross, but you do not believe in the forgiveness of sins for yourself. St. Bernard says the Holy Ghost speaks it to your own soul, Thy sins are forgiven thee.”

And so at last the right nerve was touched. The true word of God’s deliverance was brought home to Luther’s understanding. He was penitent and in earnest, and needed only this great Gospel hope to lift him from the horrible pit and the miry clay. As a light from heaven it came to his soul, and there remained, a comfort and a joy. The glad conclusion flashed upon him, never more to be shaken, “If God, for Christ’s sake, takes away our sins, then they are not taken away by any works of ours.”

The foundation-rock of a new world was reached.

Luther saw not yet what all this discovery meant, nor whither it would lead. He was as innocent of all thought of being a Reformer as a new-born babe is of commanding an army on the battlefield. But the Gospel principle of deliverance and salvation for his oppressed and anxious soul was found, and it was found for all the world. The anchor had taken hold on a new continent. In essence the Great Reformation was born – born in Luther’s soul.

LUTHER’s DEVELOPMENT.
More than ten years passed before this new principle began to work off the putrid carcass of mediæval religion which lay stretched over the stifled and suffocating Church of Christ. There were yet many steps and stages in the preparation for what was to come. But from that time forward everything moved toward general regeneration by means of that marrow doctrine of the Gospel: Salvation by loving faith, in the merit and mediation of Jesus alone.

Johann von Staupitz

Staupitz counseled the young monk to study the Scriptures well and whatever could aid him in their right understanding, and gave orders to the monastery not to interfere with his studies.

On May 2, 1507, he was consecrated to the priesthood.

Within the year following, at the insistance of Staupitz, Frederick the Wise appointed him professor in the new University of Wittenberg.

May 9, 1509, he took his degree of bachelor of divinity. From that time he began to use his place to attack the falsehoods of the prevailing philosophy and to explore and expose the absurdities of Scholasticism, dwelling much on the great Gospel treasure of God’s free amnesty to sinful man through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, on which his own soul was planted.

Staupitz was astounded at the young brother’s thorough mastery of the sacred Word, the minuteness of his knowledge of it, and the power with which he expounded and defended the great principles of the evangelic faith. So able a teacher of the doctrines of the cross must at once begin to preach. Luther remonstrated, for it was not then the custom for all priests to preach. He insisted that he would die under the weight of such responsibilities. “Die, then,” said Staupitz; “God has plenty to do for intelligent young men in heaven.”

A little old wooden chapel, daubed with clay, twenty by thirty feet in size, with a crude platform of rough boards at one end and a small sooty gallery for scarce twenty persons at the other, and propped on all sides to keep it from tumbling down, was assigned him as his cathedral. Myconius likens it to the stable of Bethlehem, as there Christ was born anew for the souls which now crowded to it. And when the thronging audiences required his transfer to the parish church, it was called the bringing of Christ into the temple.

The fame of this young theologian and preacher spread fast and far. The common people and the learned were alike impressed by his originality and power, and rejoiced in the electrifying clearness of his expositions and teachings. The Elector was delighted, for he began to see his devout wishes realized. Staupitz, who had drunk in the more pious spirit of the Mystic theologians, shared the same feeling, and saw in Luther’s fresh, biblical, and energetic preaching what he felt the whole Church needed. “He spared neither counsel nor applause,” for he believed him the man of God for the times. He sent him to neighboring monasteries to preach to the monks. He gave him every opportunity to study, observe, and exercise his great talents. He even sent him on a mission to Rome, more to acquaint him with that city, which he longed to see, than for any difficult or pressing business with the pope.

LUTHER’s VISIT TO ROME.
Luther performed the journey on foot, passing from monastery to monastery, noting the extravagances, indolence, gluttony, and infidelity of the monks, and sometimes in danger of his life, both from the changes of climate and from the murderous resentments of some of these cloister-saints which his rebukes of their vices engendered.

When Rome first broke upon his sight, he hailed it reverently as the city of saints and holy martyrs. He almost envied those whose parents were dead, and who had it in their power to offer prayers for the repose of their souls by the side of such holy shrines. But when he beheld the vulgarities, profanities, paganism, and unconcealed unbelief which pervaded even the ecclesiastical circles of that city, his soul sunk within him.

There was much to be seen in Rome; and the Roman Catholic writers find great fault with Luther for being so dull and unappreciative as to move amid it without being touched with a single spark of poetic fire. They tell of the glory of the cardinals, in litters, on horseback, in glittering carriages, blazing with jewels and shaded with gorgeous canopies; of marble palaces, grand walks, alabaster columns, gigantic obelisks, villas, gardens, grottoes, flowers, fountains, cascades; of churches adorned with polished pillars, gilded soffits, mosaic floors, altars sparkling with diamonds, and gorgeous pictures from master-hands looking down from every wall; of monuments, statues, images, and holy relics; and they blame Luther that he could gaze upon it all without a stir of admiration, that he could look upon the sculpture and statuary and see nothing but pagan devices, the gods of Demosthenes and Praxiteles, the feasts and pomps of Delos, and the idle scenes of the heathen Forum, that no gleam from the crown of Perugino or Michaelangelo dazzled his eyes, and no strain of Virgil or of Dante, which the people sung in the streets, attracted his ear, that he was only cold and dumb before all the treasures and glories of art and all the grandeur of the high dignitaries of the Church, seeing nothing, feeling nothing, exclaiming over nothing but the licentious impurities of the priests, the pagan pomps of the pontiff, the profane jests of the ministers of religion, the bare shoulders of the Roman ladies.

Luther was not dead to the aesthetic, but to see faith and righteousness thus smothered and buried under a godless Epicurean life was an offense to his honest German conscience. It looked to him as if the popes had reversed the Saviour’s choice, and accepted the devil’s bid for Christ to worship him. From what his own eyes and ears had now seen and heard, he knew what to believe concerning the state of things in the metropolis of Christendom, and was satisfied that, as surely as there is a hell, the Rome of those days was its mouth.³

LUTHER AS TOWN-PREACHER.
On his return the Senate of Wittenberg elected him town-preacher. In the cloister, in the castle chapel, and in the collegiate church he alternately exercised his gifts. Romanists admit that “his success was great. He said he would not imitate his predecessors, and he kept his word. For the first time a Christian preacher was seen to abandon the Schoolmen and draw his texts and illustrations from the Writings of Inspiration. He was the originator and restorer of expository preaching in modern times.”

The Elector heard him, and was filled with admiration. An old professor, whom the people called “the light of the world,” listened to him, and was struck with his wonderful insight, his marvelous imagination, and his massive solidity. And Wittenberg sprang into great renown because of him, for never before had been heard in Saxony such a luminous expositor of God’s holy Word.

LUTHER MADE A DOCTOR.
On all hands it was agreed and insisted that he should be made a doctor of divinity. The costs were heavy, for simony was the order of the day and the pope exacted high prices for all church promotions; but the Elector paid the charges.

On the 18th of October, 1512, the degree was conferred. It was no empty title to Luther. It gave him liberties and rights which his enemies could not gainsay, and it laid on him obligations and duties which he never forgot. The obedience to the canons and the hierarchy which it exacted he afterward found inimical to Christ and the Gospel, and, as in duty bound, he threw it off, with other swaddling-bands of Popery. But there was in it the pledge “to devote his whole life to the study, exposition, and defense of the Holy Scriptures.” This he accepted, and ever referred to as his sacred charter and commission. Nor was it without significance that the great bell of Wittenberg was rung when proclamation of this investiture was made. As the ringing of the bell on the old Statehouse when the Declaration of Independence was passed proclaimed the coming liberties of the American colonies, so this sounding of the great bell of Wittenberg when Luther was made doctor of divinity proclaimed and heralded to the nations of the earth the coming deliverance of the enslaved Church. God’s chosen servant had received his commission, and the better day was soon to dawn.

Henceforth Luther’s labors and studies went forward with a new impulse and inspiration. Hebrew and Greek were thoroughly mastered. The Fathers of the Church, ancient and modern, were carefully read. The systems of the Schoolmen, the Book of Sentences, the Commentaries, the Decretals – everything relating to his department as a doctor of theology – were examined, and brought to the test of Holy Scripture.

In his sermons, lectures, and disquisitions the results of these incessant studies came out with a depth of penetration, a clearness of statement, a simplicity of utterance, a devoutness of spirit, and a convincing power of eloquence which, with the eminent sanctity of his life, won for him unbounded praise. The common feeling was that the earth did not contain another such a doctor and had not seen his equal for many ages. Envy and jealousy themselves, those green-eyed monsters which gather about the paths of great qualities and successes, seemed for the time to be paralyzed before a brilliancy which rested on such humility, conscientiousness, fidelity, and merit.

LUTHER’s LABORS.
Years of fruitful labor passed. The Decalogue was expounded. Paul’s letter to the Romans and the penitential Psalms were explained. The lectures on the Epistle to the Galatians were nearly completed. But no book from Luther had yet been published.

In 1515 he was chosen district vicar of the Augustinian monasteries of Meissen and Thuringia. It was a laborious office, but it gave him new experiences, familiarized him still more with the monks, brought him into executive administrations, and developed his tact in dealing with men.

One other particular served greatly to establish him in the hearts of the people. A deadly plague broke out in Wittenberg. Citizens were dying by dozens and scores. At a later period a like scourge visited Geneva, and so terrified Calvin and his ministerial associates that they appealed to the Supreme Council, entreating, “Mighty lords, release us from attending these infected people, for our lives are in peril.” Not so Luther. His friends said, “Fly! fly!” lest he should fall by the plague and be lost to the world. “Fly?” said he. “No, no, my God. If I die, I die. The world will not perish because a monk has fallen. I am not St. Paul, not to fear death, but God will sustain me.” And as an angel of mercy he remained, ministering to the sick and dying and caring for the orphans and widows of the dead.

COLLISION WITH THE HIERARCHY.
Such was Luther up to the time of his rupture with Rome. He knew something of the shams and falsities that prevailed, and he had assailed and exposed many of them in his lectures and sermons; but to lead a general reformation was the farthest from his thoughts. Indeed, he still had such confidence in the integrity of the Roman Church that he did not yet realize how greatly a thorough general reformation was needed. Humble in mind, peaceable in disposition, reverent toward authority, loving privacy, and fully occupied with his daily studies and duties, it was not in him to think of making war with powers whose claims he had not yet learned to question.

But it was not possible that so brave, honest, and self-sacrificing a man should long pursue his convictions without coming into collision with the Roman high priesthood. Though far off at Wittenberg, and trying to do his own duty well in his own legitimate sphere, it soon came athwart his path in a form so foul and offensive that it forced him to assault it. Either he had to let go his sincerest convictions and dearest hopes, or protest had to come. His personal salvation and that of his flock were at stake, and he could in no way remain a true man and not remonstrate. Driven to this extremity, and struck at for his honest faithfulness, he struck again; and so came the battle which shook and revolutionized the world.

THE SELLING OF INDULGENCES.
Luther’s first encounter with the hierarchy was on the traffic in indulgences. It was a good fortune that it there began. That traffic was so obnoxious to every sense of propriety that any vigorous attack upon it would command the approval of many honest and pious people. The central heresy of hierarchical religion was likewise embodied in it, so that a stab there, if logically followed up, would necessarily reach the very heart of the oppressive monster. And Providence arranged that there the conflict should begin.

Pope Leo X

Leo X had but recently ascended the papal throne. Reared amid lavish wealth and culture, he was eager that his reign should equal that of Solomon and the Caesars. He sought to aggrandize his relatives, to honor and enrich men of genius, and to surround himself with costly splendors and pleasures. These demanded extraordinary revenues. The projects of his ambitious predecessors had depleted the papal coffers. He needed to do something on a grand scale in order adequately to replenish his exchequer.

As early as the eleventh century the popes had betimes resorted to the selling of pardons and the issuing of free passes to heaven on consideration of certain services or payments to the Church. From Urban II to Leo X this was more or less in vogue – first, to get soldiers for the holy wars,⁴ and then as a means of wealth to the Church. If one wished to eat meat on fast-days, marry within prohibited degrees of relationship, or indulge in forbidden pleasures, he could do it without offense by rendering certain satisfactions before or after, which satisfactions could mostly be made by payments of money.⁵ In the same way he could buy remission of sins in general, or exemption for so many days, years, or centuries from the pains of Purgatory. Bulls of authority were given, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to issue certificates of exemption from all penalties to such as did the service or paid the equivalent. Immense incomes were thus realized. Even to the present this facile invention for raising money has not been entirely discontinued. Papal indulgences can be bought today in the shops of Spain and elsewhere.

Leo seized upon this system with all the vigor and unscrupulousness characteristic of the Medici. Had he been asked whether he really believed in these pardons, he would have said that the Church always believed the pope had power to grant them. Had he spoken his real mind in the matter, he would have said that if the people chose to be such fools, it was not for him to find fault with them. And thus, under plea of raising funds to finish St. Peter’s Basilica, he instituted a grand trade in indulgences, and thereby laid the capstone of hierarchical iniquity which crushed the whole fabric to its base. The right to sell these wares in Germany was awarded to Albert, the gay young prince-archbishop of Mainz. He was over head and ears in debt to the pope for his pallium, and Leo gave him this chance to get out.⁶ Half the proceeds of the trade in his territory were to go to his credit. But the work of proclaiming and distributing the pardons was committed to John Tetzel, Dominican prior who had long experience in the business, and who achieved “a forlorn notoriety in European history” by his zeal in prosecuting it.

TETZEL’s PERFORMANCES.
Tetzel entered the towns with noise and pomp, amid waving of flags, singing, and the ringing of bells. Clergy, choristers, monks, and nuns moved in procession before and after him. He himself sat in a gilded chariot, with the Bull of his authority spread out on a velvet cushion before him.

John Tetzel

The churches were his sales-rooms, lighted and decorated for the occasion as in highest festival. From the pulpits his boisterous oratory rang, telling the virtues of indulgences, the wonderful power of the keys, and the unexampled grace of which he was the bearer from the holy lord and father at Rome.

He called on all – robbers, adulterers, murderers, everybody – to draw near, pay down their money, and receive from him letters, duly sealed, by which all their sins, past and future, should be pardoned and done away.

Not for the living only, but also for the dead, he proposed full and instantaneous deliverance from all future punishments on the payment of the price. And any wretch who dared to doubt or question the saving power of these certificates he in advance doomed to excommunication and the wrath of God.⁷ Catholic divines have labored hard to white-wash or explain away this stupendous iniquity; but, with all they have said or may say, such were the presentations made by the hawkers of these wares and such was the text of the diplomas they issued.

A dispensation or indulgence was nothing more nor less than a pretended letter of credit on Heaven, drawn at will by the pope out of the superabundant merits of Christ and all saints, to count so much on the books of God for so many murders, robberies, frauds, lies, slanders, or debaucheries. As the matter practically worked, a more profane and devilish traffic never had place in our world than that which the Roman hierarchy thus carried on in the name of the Triune God.

LUTHER ON INDULGENCES.
Luther was on a tour of inspection as district vicar of the Augustinians when he first heard of these shameful doings. As yet he understood but little of the system, and could not believe it possible that the fathers at Rome could countenance, much less appoint and commission, such iniquities. Boiling with indignation for the honor of the Church, he threatened to make a hole in Tetzel’s drum, and wrote to the authorities to refuse passports to the hucksters of these shameful deceptions.

But Tetzel soon came near to Wittenberg. Some of Luther’s parishioners heard him, and bought absolutions. They afterward came to confession, acknowledging great irregularities of life. Luther rebuked their wickedness, and would not promise them forgiveness unless contrite for their sins and earnestly endeavoring to amend their evil ways. They remonstrated, and brought out their certificates of plenary pardon. “I have nothing to do with your papers,” said he. “God’s Word says you must repent and lead better lives, or you will perish.”

His words were at once carried to the ears of Tetzel, who fumed with rage at such impudence toward the authority of the Church. He ascended the pulpit and hurled the curses of God upon the Saxon monk.

Thus an honest pastor finds some of his flock on the way to ruin, and tries to guide them right. He is not thinking of attacking Rome. He is ready to fight and die for holy Mother Church. His very protests are in her behalf. He is on his own rightful field, in faithful pursuit of his own rightful duty. Here the erring hierarchy seeks him out and attacks him. Shall he yield to timid fears and weak advisers, keep silence in his own house, and let the souls he is placed to guard become a prey to the destroyer? Is he not sworn to defend God’s holy Word and Gospel? What will be his eternal fate and that of his people should he now hold his peace?

LUTHER’s SERMON ON INDULGENCES.
Without conferring with flesh and blood his resolve was made – a resolve on which hung all the better future of the world – a resolve to take the pulpit against the lying indulgences.

For several days he shut himself in his cell to make sure of his ground and to elaborate what he would say. With eminent modesty and moderation his sentences were wrought, but with a perspicuity and clearness which no one could mistake. A crowded church awaited their delivery. He entered with his brother-monks, and joined in all the service with his usual voice and gravity. Nothing in his countenance or manner betrayed the slightest agitation of his soul. It was a solemn and momentous step for himself and for mankind that he was about to take, but he was as calmly made up to it as to any other duty of his life. The moment came for him to speak; and he spoke.

So Luther preached, and his word went out to the ends of the earth. It was no jest, like Ulric von Huetten’s Epistles of Obscure Men, or like the ridicule which Reuchlin and Erasmus heaped upon the stupid monks. It raised no laugh, but penetrated, like a rifle-shot, into the very heart of things.

Those who listened were deeply affected by the serious boldness of the preacher. The audience was with him in conviction, but many trembled for the result. “Dear doctor, you have been very rash; what trouble may come of this!” said a venerable father as he pulled the sleeve of Luther’s gown and shook his head with misgivings. “If this is not rightly done in God’s name,” said Luther, “it will come to nothing; if it is, let come what will.”

It was honest duty to God, truth, and the salvation of men that moved him. Cowardly policy or timid expediency in such a matter was totally foreign to his soul.

In a few days the substance of the sermon was in print. Tetzel raved over it. Melanchthon says he burnt it in the market-place of Jueterbock. In the name of God and the pope he bade defiance to its author, and challenged him by fire and water. Luther laughed at him for braying so loud at a distance, yet declining to come to Wittenberg to argue out the matter in close lists.

LUTHER’s APPEAL TO THE BISHOPS.
Anxious to vindicate the Church from what he believed to be an unwarranted liberty in the use of her name, Luther wrote to the bishop of Brandenburg and the archbishop of Mainz, He made his points, and appealed to these his superiors to put down the scandalous falsities advanced by Tetzel. They failed to answer in any decisive way. The one timidly advised silence, and the other had too much pecuniary interest in the business to notice the letter.

Thus, as a pastor, Luther had taken his ground before his parishioners in the confessional. As a preacher he had uttered himself in earnest admonition from the pulpit. As a loyal son he had made his presentation and appeal to those in authority over him. Was he right? or was he wrong? No commanding answer came, and there remained one other way of testing the question. As a doctor of divinity he could lawfully, as custom had been, demand an open and fair discussion of the matter with teachers and theologians. And upon this he now resolved.

THE NINETY-FIVE THESES.
He framed a list of propositions on the points in question. They were in Latin, for his appeal was to theologians, and not yet to the common heart and mind of Germany. To make them public, he took advantage of a great festival at Wittenberg, when the town was full of visitors and strangers, and nailed them to the door of the new castle church, October 31, 1517.

These were the famous Ninety-five Theses. They were plainly-worded statements of the same points he had made in the confessional and in his sermon. They contained no assault upon the Church, no arraignment of the pope, no personal attack on any one. Neither were they given as necessarily true, but as what Luther believed to be true, and the real truth or falsity of which he desired to have decided in the only way questions of faith and salvation can be rightly decided.

The whole matter was fairly, humbly, and legitimately put [as we read below, particularly in the Introductory Letter to the Ninety-five Theses]. “I, Martin Luther, Doctor, of the Order of Monks at Wittenberg,” he added at the end, “desire to testify publicly that certain propositions against pontifical indulgences, as they call them, have been put forth by me. Now although, up to the present time, neither this most celebrated and renowned school of ours, nor any civil or ecclesiastical power has condemned me, yet there are, as I hear, some men of headlong and audacious spirit, who dare to pronounce me a heretic, as though the matter had been thoroughly looked into and studied. But on my part, as I have often done before, so now too I implore all men, by the faith of Christ, either to point out to me a better way, if such a way has been divinely revealed to any, or at least to submit their opinion to the judgment of God and of the Church. For I am neither so rash as to wish that my sole opinion should be preferred to that of all other men, nor so senseless as to be willing that the Word of God should be made to give place to fables, devised by human reason.”

It is from the nailing up of these Theses that the history of The Great Reformation dates; for the hammer-strokes which fixed that parchment started the Alpine avalanche which overwhelmed the pride of Rome and broke the stubborn power which had reigned supreme for a thousand years.

EFFECT OF THE THESES.
As no one came forward to discuss his Theses, Luther resolved to publish them to the world.

In fourteen days they overspread Germany. In a month they ran through all Christendom. One historian says it seemed as if the angels of God were engaged in spreading them.

At a single stroke, made in modesty and faith, Luther had become the most noted person in Germany, the man most talked of in all the world, the mouthpiece of the best people in Christendom, the leader of a mighty revolution.

Reuchlin read, and thanked God.

Erasmus read, and rejoiced, only counseling moderation and prudence.

The Emperor Maximilian read, and wrote to the Saxon Elector: “Take care of the monk Luther, for the time may come when we will need him.”

The bishop of Wuerzburg read, and was filled with gladness, and wrote to the Elector Frederick to hold on to Luther as a preacher of the truth of God.

The prior of Steinlausitz read, and could not suppress his joy. “See here,” said he to his monks: “the long-waited-for has come; he tells the truth. Berg means mountain, and Wittenberg is the mountain whither all the world will come to seek wisdom, and will find it.”

A student of Annaberg read, and said, “This Luther is the reaper in my dream, whom the voice bade me follow and gather in the bread of life;” and from that hour he was a fast friend of Luther and his cause, and became the distinguished Myconius.

The pope himself read the Theses, and did not think unfavorably of their author. He saw in Luther a man of learning and brilliant genius, and that pleased him. The questions mooted he referred to as mere monkish jealousy – an unsober gust of passion which would soon blow over. He did not then realize the seriousness which was in the matter. His sphere was heathen art and worldly magnificence, not searching into the ways of God’s salvation.

The great German heart was moved, and the brave daring of him whose voice was thus lifted up against the abominations which were draining the country to fill the pope’s coffers was hailed with enthusiasm. Had Luther been a smaller man he would have been swept away by his vast and sudden fame.

But not all was sunshine. Erasmus wittily said, Luther committed two unpardonable sins: he touched the pope’s crown and the monks’ bellies. Such effrontery would needs raise a mighty outcry.

Prierias, the master of the sacred palace, pronounced Luther a heretic. Hochstrat of Cologne, Reuchlin’s enemy, clamored for fire to burn him. The indulgence-venders thundered their anathemas, promising a speedy holocaust of Luther’s body. The monasteries took on the form of so many kennels of enraged hounds howling to each other across the spiritual waste. And even some who pronounced the Theses scriptural and orthodox shook their heads and sought to quash such dangerous proceedings.

But Luther remained firm at his post. He honestly believed what he had written, and he was not afraid of the truth. If the powers of the world should come down upon him and kill him, he was prepared for the slaughter. In all the mighty controversy he was ever ready to serve the Gospel with his life or with his death.

TETZEL’s END.
Tetzel continued to bray and fume against him from pulpit and press, denouncing him as a heresiarch, heretic, and schismatic. By Wimpina’s aid he issued a reply to Luther’s sermon, and also counter-theses on Luther’s propositions. But the tide was turning in the sea of human thinking. Luther’s utterances had turned it. The people were ready to tear the mountebank to pieces. Two years later he imploringly complained to the pope’s nuncio, Miltitz, that such fury pursued him in Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, and Poland that he was nowhere safe. Even the representative of the pope gave the wretch no sympathy. When Luther heard of his illness he sent him a letter to tell him that he had forgiven him all. He died in Leipsic, neglected, smitten in soul, and full of misery, July 14, 1519.

LUTHER’s GROWING INFLUENCE.
Six months after the nailing up of the Theses, Luther was the hero of a general convention of the Augustinians in Heidelberg. He there submitted a series of propositions on philosophy and theology, which he defended with such convincing clarity and tact that he won for himself and his university great honor and renown. Better still, four learned young men who there heard him saw the truth of his positions, and afterward became distinguished defenders of the Reformation.

His cause, meanwhile, was rapidly gaining friends. His replies to Tetzel, Prierias, Hochstrat, and Eck had gone forth to deepen the favorable impression made by the Ninety-five Theses. Truth had once more lifted up its head in Europe, and Rome would find it no child’s play to put it down. The skirmishlines of the hierarchy had been met and driven in. The tug of serious battle was now to come.

THE Ninety-five Theses.⁸

INTRODUCTORY LETTER.
To the most Reverend Father in Christ and most illustrious Lord, Albert, Archbishop and Primate of the Churches of Magdeburg and Mentz, Marquis of Brandenburg, etc., his lord and pastor in Christ, most gracious and worthy of all fear and reverence––
JESUS.
The grace of God be with you, and whatsoever it is and can do.

Spare me, most reverend Father in Christ, most illustrious Prince, if I, the very dregs of humanity, have dared to think of addressing a letter to the eminence of your sublimity. The Lord Jesus is my witness that, in the consciousness of my own pettiness and baseness, I have long put off the doing of that which I have now hardened my forehead to perform, moved thereto most especially by the sense of that faithful duty which I feel that I owe to your most reverend Fatherhood in Christ. May your Highness then in the meanwhile deign to cast your eyes upon one grain of dust, and, in your pontifical clemency, to understand my prayer.

Papal indulgences are being carried about, under your most distinguished authority, for the building of St. Peter’s. In respect of these I do not so much accuse the extravagant sayings of the preachers, which I have not heard, but I grieve at the very false ideas which the people conceive from them, and which are spread abroad in common talk on every side – namely, that unhappy souls believe that, if they buy letters of indulgences, they are sure of their salvation; also, that, as soon as they have thrown their contribution into the chest, souls forthwith fly out of purgatory; and furthermore, that so great is the grace thus conferred, that there is no sin so great – even, as they say, if, by an impossibility, any one had violated the Mother of God – but that it may be pardoned; and again, that by these indulgences a man is freed from all punishment and guilt.

O gracious God! it is thus that the souls committed to your care, most excellent Father, are being taught unto their death, and a most severe account, which you will have to render for all of them, is growing and increasing. Hence I have not been able to keep silence any longer on this subject, for by no function of a bishop’s office can a man become sure of salvation, since he does not even become sure through the grace of God infused into him, but the Apostle bids us to be ever working out our salvation in fear and trembling (Ph. 2:12). Even the righteous man – says Peter – shall scarcely be saved (1 Pe. 4:18). In fine, so narrow is the way which leads unto life, that the Lord, speaking by the prophets Amos and Zachariah, calls those who are to be saved brands snatched from the burning, and our Lord everywhere declares the difficulty of salvation.

Why then, by these false stories and promises of pardon, do the preachers of them make the people to feel secure and without fear? since indulgences confer absolutely no good on souls as regards salvation or holiness, but only take away the outward penalty which was wont of old to be canonically imposed.

Lastly, works of piety and charity are infinitely better than indulgences, and yet they do not preach these with such display or so much zeal; nay, they keep silence about them for the sake of preaching pardons. And yet it is the first and sole duty of all bishops, that the people should learn the Gospel and Christian charity: for Christ nowhere commands that indulgences should be preached. What a dreadful thing it is then, what peril to a bishop, if, while the Gospel is passed over in silence, he permits nothing but the noisy outcry of indulgences to be spread among his people, and bestows more care on these than on the Gospel! Will not Christ say to them: “Straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel”? Besides all this, most reverend Father in the Lord, in that instruction to the commissaries which has been put forth under the name of your most reverend Fatherhood it is stated – doubtless without the knowledge and consent of your most reverend Fatherhood – that one of the principal graces conveyed by indulgences is that inestimable gift of God, by which man is reconciled to God, and all the pains of purgatory are done away with; and further, that contrition is not necessary for those who thus redeem souls or buy confessional licenses.

But what can I do, excellent Primate and most illustrious Prince, save to entreat your reverend Fatherhood, through the Lord Jesus Christ, to deign to turn on us the eye of fatherly care, and to suppress that advertisement altogether and impose on the preachers of pardons another form of preaching, lest perchance some one should at length arise who will put forth writings in confutation of them and of their advertisements, to the deepest reproach of your most illustrious Highness. It is intensely abhorrent to me that this should be done, and yet I fear that it will happen, unless the evil be speedily remedied. This faithful discharge of my humble duty I entreat that your most illustrious Grace will deign to receive in a princely and bishoplike spirit – that is, with all clemency – even as I offer it with a most faithful heart, and one most devoted to your most reverend Fatherhood, since I too am part of your flock. May the Lord Jesus keep your most reverend Fatherhood for ever and ever. Amen.

From Wittenberg, on the eve of All Saints, in the year 1517.

If it so please your most reverend Fatherhood, you may look at these Disputations, that you may perceive how dubious a matter is that opinion about indulgences, which they disseminate as if it were most certain.

To your most reverend Fatherhood, Martin Luther.

DISPUTATION OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER CONCERNING PENITENCE AND INDULGENCES.
In the desire and with the purpose of elucidating the truth, a disputation will be held on the underwritten propositions at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Monk of the Order of St. Augustine, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and ordinary Reader of the same in that place. He therefore asks those who cannot be present and discuss the subject with us orally, to do so by letter in their absence. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in saying: “Repent ye,”⁹ etc., intended that the whole life of believers should be penitence.
This word cannot be understood of sacramental penance, that is, of the confession and satisfaction which are performed under the ministry of priests.
It does not, however, refer solely to inward penitence; nay such inward penitence is naught, unless it outwardly produces various mortifications of the flesh.
The penalty¹⁰ thus continues as long as the hatred of self – that is, true inward penitence – continues; namely, till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties, except those which he has imposed by his own authority, or by that of the canons.
The Pope has no power to remit any guilt, except by declaring and warranting it to have been remitted by God; or at most by remitting cases reserved for himself; in which cases, if his power were despised, guilt would certainly remain.
God never remits any man’s guilt, without at the same time subjecting him, humbled in all things, to the authority of his representative the priest.
The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and no burden ought to be imposed on the dying, according to them.
Hence the Holy Spirit acting in the Pope does well for us, in that, in his decrees, he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
Those priests act wrongly and unlearnedly, who, in the case of the dying, reserve the canonical penances for purgatory.
Those tares about changing of the canonical penalty into the penalty of purgatory seem surely to have been sown while the bishops were asleep.
Formerly the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
The dying pay all penalties by death, and are already dead to the canon laws, and are by right relieved from them.
The imperfect soundness or charity of a dying person necessarily brings with it great fear, and the less it is, the greater the fear it brings.
This fear and horror is sufficient by itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the pains of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
Hell, purgatory, and heaven appear to differ as despair, almost despair, and peace of mind differ.
With souls in purgatory it seems that it must needs be that, as horror diminishes, so charity increases.
Nor does it seem to be proved by any reasoning or any scriptures, that they are outside of the state of merit or of the increase of charity.
Nor does this appear to be proved, that they are sure and confident of their own blessedness, at least all of them, though we may be very sure of it.
Therefore the Pope, when he speaks of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean simply of all, but only of those imposed by himself.
Thus those preachers of indulgences are in error who say that, by the indulgences of the Pope, a man is loosed and saved from all punishment
For in fact he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which they would have had to pay in this life according to the canons.
If any entire remission of all penalties can be granted to any one, it is certain that it is granted to none but the most perfect, that is, to very few.
Hence the greater part of the people must needs be deceived by this indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalties.
Such power as the Pope has over purgatory in general, such has every bishop in his own diocese, and every curate in his own parish, in particular.
The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls, not by the power of the keys (which is of no avail in this case) but by the way of suffrage.
They preach man, who say that the soul flies out of purgatory as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles.
It is certain that, when the money rattles in the chest, avarice and gain may be increased, but the suffrage of the Church depends on the will of God alone.
Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory desire to be redeemed from it, according to the story told of Saints Severinus and Paschal.
No man is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of the attainment of plenary remission.
Rare as is a true penitent, so rare is one who truly buys indulgences – that is to say, most rare.
Those who believe that, through letters of pardon, they are made sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned along with their teachers.
We must especially beware of those who say that these pardons from the Pope are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to God.
For the grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only to the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of human appointment.
They preach no Christian doctrine, who teach that contrition is not necessary for those who buy souls out of purgatory or buy confessional licenses.
Every Christian who feels true compunction has of right plenary remission of pain and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has a share in all the benefits of Christ and of the Church, given him by God, even without letters of pardon.
The remission, however, imparted by the Pope is by no means to be despised, since it is, as I have said, a declaration of the Divine remission.
It is a most difficult thing, even for the most learned theologians, to exalt at the same time in the eyes of the people the ample effect of pardons and the necessity of true contrition.
True contrition seeks and loves punishment; while the ampleness of pardons relaxes it, and causes men to hate it, or at least gives occasion for them to do so.
Apostolical pardons ought to be proclaimed with caution, lest the people should falsely suppose that they are placed before other good works of charity.
Christians should be taught that it is not the mind of the Pope that the buying of pardons is to be in any way compared to works of mercy.
Christians should be taught that he who gives to a poor man, or lends to a needy man, does better than if he bought pardons.
Because, by a work of charity, charity increases, and the man becomes better ; while, by means of pardons, he does not become better, but only freer from punishment.
Christians should be taught that he who sees any one in need, and, passing him by, gives money for pardons, is not purchasing for himself the indulgences of the Pope, but the anger of God.
Christians should be taught that, unless they have superfluous wealth, they are bound to keep what is necessary for the use of their own households, and by no means to lavish it on pardons.
Christians should be taught that, while they are free to buy pardons, they are not commanded to do so.
Christians should be taught that the Pope, in granting pardons, has both more need and more desire that devout prayer should be made for him, than that money should be readily paid.
Christians should be taught that the Pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them, but most hurtful, if through them they lose the fear of God.
Christians should be taught that, if the Pope were acquainted with the exactions of the preachers of pardons, he would prefer that the Basilica of St. Peter should be burnt to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.
Christians should be taught that, as it would be the duty, so it would be the wish of the Pope, even to sell, if necessary, the Basilica of St. Peter, and to give of his own money to very many of those from whom the preachers of pardons extract money.
Vain is the hope of salvation through letters of pardon, even if a commissary – nay, the Pope himself – were to pledge his own soul for them.
They are enemies of Christ and of the Pope, who, in order that pardons may be preached, condemn the word of God to utter silence in other churches.
Wrong is done to the word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is spent on pardons than on it.
The mind of the Pope necessarily is that, if pardons, which are a very small matter, are celebrated with single bells, single processions, and single ceremonies, the Gospel, which is a very great matter, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred ceremonies.
The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among the people of Christ.
It is clear that they are at least not temporal treasures, for these are not so readily lavished, but only accumulated, by many of the preachers.
Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for these, independently of the Pope, are always working grace to the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell to the outer man.
St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church are the poor of the Church, but he spoke according to the use of the word in his time.
We are not speaking rashly when we say that the keys of the Church, bestowed through the merits of Christ, are that treasure.
For it is clear that the power of the Pope is alone sufficient for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases.
The true treasure of the Church is the Holy Gospel of the glory and grace of God.
This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful, because it makes the first to be last.
While the treasure of indulgences is deservedly most acceptable, because it makes the last to be first.
Hence the treasures of the Gospel are nets, wherewith of old they fished for the men of riches.
The treasures of indulgences are nets, wherewith they now fish for the riches of men.
Those indulgences, which the preachers loudly proclaim to be the greatest graces, are seen to be truly such as regards the promotion of gain.
Yet they are in reality in no degree to be compared to the grace of God and the piety of the cross.
Bishops and curates are bound to receive the commissaries of apostolical pardons with all reverence.
But they are still more bound to see to it with all their eyes, and take heed with all their ears, that these men do not preach their own dreams in place of the Pope’s commission.
He who speaks against the truth of apostolical pardons, let him be anathema and accursed.
But he, on the other hand, who exerts himself against the wantonness and license of speech of the preachers of pardons, let him be blessed.
As the Pope justly thunders against those who use any kind of contrivance to the injury of the traffic in pardons,
Much more is it his intention to thunder against those who, under the pretext of pardons, use contrivances to the injury of holy charity and of truth.
To think that Papal pardons have such power that they could absolve a man even if – by an impossibility – he had violated the Mother of God, is madness.
We affirm on the contrary that Papal pardons cannot take away even the least of venial sins, as regards its guilt.
The saying that, even if St. Peter were now Pope, he could grant no greater graces, is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope.
We affirm on the contrary that both he and any other Pope has greater graces to grant, namely, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc. (1 Co. 22:9)
To say that the cross set up among the insignia of the Papal arms is of equal power with the cross of Christ, is blasphemy.
Those bishops, curates, and theologians who allow such discourses to have currency among the people, will have to render an account.
This license in the preaching of pardons makes it no easy thing, even for learned men, to protect the reverence due to the Pope against the calumnies, or, at all events, the keen questionings of the laity.
As for instance: Why does not the Pope empty purgatory for the sake of most holy charity and of the supreme necessity of souls – this being the most just of all reasons – if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most fatal thing money, to be spent on building a basilica – this being a very slight reason?
Again; why do funeral masses and anniversary masses for the deceased continue, and why does not the Pope return, or permit the withdrawal of the funds bequeathed for this purpose, since it is a wrong to pray for those who are already redeemed?
Again; what is this new kindness of God and the Pope, in that, for money’s sake, they permit an impious man and an enemy of God to redeem a pious soul which loves God, and yet do not redeem that same pious and beloved soul, out of free charity, on account of its own need?
Again; why is it that the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in themselves in very fact and not only by usage, are yet still redeemed with money, through the granting of indulgences, as if they were full of life?
Again; why does not the Pope, whose riches are at this day more ample than those of the wealthiest of the wealthy, build the one Basilica of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with that of poor believers?
Again; what does the Pope remit or impart to those who, through perfect contrition, have a right to plenary remission and participation?
Again; what greater good would the Church receive if the Pope, instead of once, as he does now, were to bestow these remissions and participations a hundred times a day on any one of the faithful?
Since it is the salvation of souls, rather than money, that the Pope seeks by his pardons, why does he suspend the letters and pardons granted long ago, since they are equally efficacious.
To repress these scruples and arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to solve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the Pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian men unhappy.
If then pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the Pope, all these questions would be resolved with ease; nay, would not exist.
Away then with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ: “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace.
Blessed be all those prophets, who say to the people of Christ: “The cross, the cross,” and there is no cross.
Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow Christ their head through pains, deaths, and hells.
And thus trust to enter heaven through many tribulations, rather than in the security of peace.

Protestation.
I, Martin Luther, Doctor, of the Order of Monks at Wittenberg, desire to testify publicly that certain propositions against pontifical indulgences, as they call them, have been put forth by me. Now although, up to the present time, neither this most celebrated and renowned school of ours, nor any civil or ecclesiastical power has condemned me, yet there are, as I hear, some men of headlong and audacious spirit, who dare to pronounce me a heretic, as though the matter had been thoroughly looked into and studied. But on my part, as I have often done before, so now too I implore all men, by the faith of Christ, either to point out to me a better way, if such a way has been divinely revealed to any, or at least to submit their opinion to the judgment of God and of the Church. For I am neither so rash as to wish that my sole opinion should be preferred to that of all other men, nor so senseless as to be willing that the Word of God should be made to give place to fables, devised by human reason.

------------
Endnotes:

Seiss, J. Luther and the Reformation: The Life-Springs of Our Liberties. Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1888. pp. 9-11, 27-69.
The maiden name of Margaret Luther, the mother of Martin, was Margaret Ziegler. There has been a traditional belief that her name was Margaret Lindeman. The mistake originated in confounding Luther’s grandmother, whose name was Lindeman, with Luther’s mother, whose name was Ziegler. Prof. Julius Koestlin, in his Life of Luther, after a thorough examination of original records and documents, gives this explanation.
Bellarmine, an honored author of the Roman Church, one competent to judge concerning the state of things at that time, and not over-forward to confess it, says: “For some years before the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresies were published there was not (as contemporary authors testify) any rigor in ecclesiastical judicatories, any discipline with regard to morals, any knowledge of sacred literature, any reverence for divine things: THERE WAS ALMOST NO RELIGION REMAINING.” – Bellarm., Concio xviii., Opera, tom. vi. col. 296, edit. Colon., 1617, apud Gerdesii Hist. Evan. Renovati, vol. i. p. 25.
In the famous Bull of Pope Gregory IX, published in 1234, that pope exhorts and commands all good Christians to take up the cross and join the expedition to recover the Holy Land. The language is: “The service to which mankind are now invited is an effectual atonement for the miscarriages of a negligent life. The discipline of a regular penance would have discouraged many offenders so much that they would have had no heart to venture upon it; but the holy war is a compendious method of discharging men from guilt and restoring them to the divine favor. Even if they die on their march, the intention will be taken for the deed, and many in this way may be crowned without fighting.” – Given in Collier’s Eccl., vol. i.
The Roman Chancery once put forth a book, which went through many editions, giving the exact prices for the pardon of each particular sin. A deacon guilty of murder was absolved for twenty pounds. A bishop or abbot might assassinate for three hundred livres. Any ecclesiastic might violate his vows of chastity for the third part of that sum, etc., etc. – See Robertson’ Charles V.
The pallium, or pall, was a narrow band of white wool to go over the shoulders in the form of a circle, from which hung bands of similar size before and behind, finished at the ends with pieces of sheet lead and embroidered with crosses. It was the mark of the dignity and rank of archbishops. Albert owed Pope Leo X forty-five thousand thalers for his right and appointment to wear the archbishop’s pallium.

It was in this way that the Roman Church was accustomed to sell out benefices as a divine right. Even expectative graces, or mandates nominating a person to succeed to a benefice upon the first vacancy, were thus sold. Companies existed in Germany which made a business of buying up the benefices of particular sections and districts and retailing them at advanced rates. The selling of pardons was simply a lower kind of simoniacal bartering which pervaded the whole hierarchical establishment.
Many of the sayings which Tetzel gave out in his addresses to the people have been preserved, and are amply attested by those who listened to his harangues.
In the certificates which Tetzel gave to those who bought these pardons he declared that “by the authority of Jesus Christ, and of his apostles Peter and Paul, and of the most holy pope, I do absolve thee first from all ecclesiastical censures, in whatever manner they have been incurred, and then from all thy aim, transgressions, and excesses, however enormous soever they may be. I remit to you all punishment which you deserve in Purgatory on their account, and I restore you to the holy sacraments of the Church, union with the faithful, and to that innocence and purity possessed at baptism; so that when you die the gates of punishment shall be shut and the gates of the happy Paradise shall be opened; and if your death shall be delayed, this grace shall remain in full force when you are at the point of death.”

The sums required for these passports to glory varied according to the rank and wealth of the applicant. For ordinary indulgence a king, queen, or bishop was to pay twenty-five ducats (a ducat being about a dollar of our money); abbots, counts, barons, and the like were charged ten ducats; other nobles and all who enjoyed annual incomes of five hundred florins were charged six ducats; and so down to half a florin, or twenty-five cents.

But the commissioner also had a special scale for taxes on particular sins. Sodomy was charged twelve ducats; sacrilege and perjury, nine; murder, seven or eight; witchcraft and polygamy, from two to six; taking the life of a parent, brother, sister or an infant, from one to six.
Bucheim, C.A. & Wace, H. First Principle of the Reformation, or the Ninety-five Theses and Three Primary Works of Dr. Martin Luther. Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society. 1885. pp. 3-14.
In the Latin, from the Vulgate, “agite poenitentiam,” sometimes translated “Do penance.” The effect of the following theses depends to some extent on the double meaning of “poenitentia” – penitence and penance.
i.e. “Poena” the connection between “poena” and “poenitentia” again suggestive.

“I need a poor person in my life, so that I can grow in holiness...” --AND-- A Nice Story about the Efficacy of the Word from an Historic Lutheran Source

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 07:00:00 +0000

Frequent Travel and Christian Radio in Wisconsin
In contrast to the past four or five years, which had me working with clients primarily from my home office, these days are filled with a great deal of travel – I put nearly one thousand miles on my car, per week, mostly between Chicago and Minneapolis. To keep me company during my travels, I do have an iPod filled with the finest music, and with many edifying podcasts, lectures and readings from important Christian works (like the Bible, of course, and the Book of Concord). However, use of this type of gadgetry seems to be more of a distraction and frustration for me while I am trying to focus on driving, so I find myself doing what I learned to do before the advent of Satellite Radio, iPods and even CDs: flipping through radio stations. With only one button required to advance to the next station, it is easy to do and there is very little to think about while doing it; and if I rest my hand on the shifter (as I often do), that button is within the lazy reach of my index finger.

And, of course, there is alot of variety on the radio between Minneapolis and Chicago. There is always plenty of pop, rock and country of various flavors, most of which I can hardly tolerate for more than a few minutes at a time (although there is a local station in the Black River Falls area that plays old Country Western and Polka music as I am passing through at about 4am – that’s kind of fun to listen to). Unfortunately, there is a great gaping hole in Wisconsin, between Eau Claire and Madison, with no radio stations dedicated to Classical Music programming. However, one can travel virtually the whole distance with continuous Christian programming of one kind or another. From Minneapolis to Eau Claire, and picking up again in Madison, there are the Evangelical stations – strategically placed, of course, as with their suburban church-plants, to reach out to a target audience with the highest numbers of wealthy middle-to-upper class listeners – while between Eau Claire and Madison, there are at least a couple of Fundamentalist stations.

Fundamentalist Radio
I like listening to these latter stations, as the music tends to be far more tasteful and reverent (even if it is Baptist), and the preaching is nearly always from the King James Version of the Bible. In fact, the language of the KJV falls so naturally from the experienced lips of these Fundamentalist preachers, that one hardly recognizes that it is Elizabethan language they are using. Contrary to what our post-Modern NNIV defenders would require us to think, it’s not those Pastors who habitually use the KJV that have a problem reading and using it in public, it’s the dunderheads with limited literary exposure who stumble and bumble over fine language as something completely foreign to them, and so torture themselves and others in their public use of it as to draw negative attention to the Word of God. I remember thinking this many years ago, as my then-future-wife and I were investigating the peculiarities of the various Christian confessions, and found ourselves visiting Fundamentalist churches for awhile. While we found ourselves “fundamentally disagreeing” with many of their doctrinal positions, we were delighted by their use of English, and their effortless and very natural use of the King James Version of the Bible in their preaching.

Where are the Lutherans?
I’ve found myself re-appreciating the sound of the King James as I’ve listened to these radio preachers over the past months make use of it in such a natural way that I don't even realize that “Nobody talks that way anymore.” There is no occasion to realize it, since, despite the fact that such words are not part of vulgar everyday-parlance, they are nevertheless simple, very easily understood English words. One preacher that seems to be on the radio as I am normally passing into the signal of that particular station, is Dr. J. Vernon McGee. It is always nice to hear a pious Christian speak directly from the text of the Bible in a way which makes it plain that he has the utmost respect for the inspiration, authority and perspicuity of God’s Word, and rather than suggest, through use of clever syllogisms or analogies, that the Bible is inadequate or unclear by preaching what it does not plainly say, merely relies on the text in front of him. In this respect, McGee’s Through the Bible series, though far from perfect, is alot of fun to listen to. He’s not trying to make the Bible sound or speak any differently than how it plainly reads. And so it had me wondering, “Confessional Lutherans, with all of the lip service they pay to the importance of the Word of God, and their utmost reliance upon it, surely must have produced a ‘Through the Bible’ audio commentary series, much like McGee did, for use on Lutheran radio.” So I looked. Not only have I not found any such thing produced by Lutherans in a wholesome Bible translation like the KJV, NKJV or even the NASB, I couldn’t even find any such thing in the wretched NIV.

Of course, maybe it is actually because Lutherans have done market studies and SWOT analyses and, calculating the ROI of such an effort, reasoned that the return on broadcasting the Bible simply wouldn’t justify the expense. How could it? In a route traveled along interstates and major state highways, cutting a path from Minneapolis, between Madison and Milwaukee, and into northern Illinois – the “Trail through the Lutheran Fatherland of the mid-western United States” if there ever was one – not a single Lutheran voice can be heard on the radio in any segment of the route. Not a one. Of course, I may be mistaken. Maybe one of the “Evangelical” stations I usually skip past is actually a Lutheran station, but I just don’t recognize it as Lutheran based on its programming. Yes, that’s entirely possible.

Roman Radio
But there is another category of Christian radio which can be heard, nearly continuously, from Eau Claire to Chicago – which brings me to the quote in the title of today’s post: Catholic radio. It’s everywhere. It’s as proliferate as all of the protestant stations combined, and it isn’t weak-kneed, bland, “ecumenical,” soft-peddling-the-message-to-win-converts programming. It’s full-throated high-church, even creepy at times, Roman Catholicism. Most often, I find myself listening to one of these stations. Why? Because they have the best music, for starters. It’s the only source of classical music from Eau Claire to Madison, and they also frequently play hymns and even allow the organ to be heard over the airwaves (Baptists and Evangelicals don’t use organs). They also have the most interesting commentators. Nearly always very conservative, they feature keenly insightful political pundits and intelligent scholars. Interestingly, one of the programs dedicated to disaffected Catholics who have wandered through Protestantism and are now returning to Rome, frequently features laymen and clergymen who have returned to Rome and speak the language of Evangelicalism and of Rome very well. This is in contrast to Roman priests, who’ve always been nothing but Roman priests, who think they understand Evangelicalism and venture to lecture or even merely question these (former) Evangelicals on Evangelicalism: they have no idea what they are talking about, and are usually called to account and corrected by the laymen and clergymen who know better.

One program I heard last week featured the quote in the title of today’s post: “I need a poor person in my life, so that I can grow in holiness.” The priest who said it was quoting a Cardinal, who offered this as an explanation to the priest after returning to the dinner table following an interruption from a beggar who routinely visited asking for handouts. “Why do you always give this man money?” the priest had asked.

As I heard the answer I thought, “What? Poor people are for the use of the clergy to gain merit in their own minds before God and/or man?” As I was thinking this, the priest, practically swooning with admiration for the Cardinal, commented further, “But you have to be a Valliscaulian to truly understand and appreciate his wisdom here” (Hmmm... contextual theology again. Well, I’m not a “Valliscaulian,” thank you, so I’ll take his words as they stand). His fellow commentator, a nun, let a little air out of his bag, however, when she replied, “Only if you love the poor can they forgive you your gifts to them.”

Again, I thought, “What?”, and was immediately joined by the priest, who asked, “Uh, what? Can you repeat that please?”, which request the nun obliged, adding (and I paraphrase): “The Right to Food is a Natural Right, all of humanity is entitled to food. If the rich have it in abundance, they are obligated to give it to the poor. It is the Right of the poor to have food, so it is a sin to withhold it from them. And it is a sin for anyone to think of their obligation to give as merely a gift that they voluntarily give. But if given in true love and concern for the poor, and no other motivation, the poor can, and should, forgive them this sin.”

There is a need for Lutheran Radio in the Midwest
This exchange brought to mind a story I had recently read in an old edition of the Lutheran Witness. It is a story about the efficacy of the Word, and its simple, yet central message of the forgiveness of sins and peace with God. Offered in the manner and language in which the old Lutherans used to speak, it is a reminder of the need for the Lutheran message, the true simple message of the Scriptures, to once again be heard.

The Story of a Bible.
from The Lutheran Witness, Vol. 6, No. 6. August 21, 1887

      “Did he leave any message for me?”
      “Yes, and he cursed the day he ever saw you.”
      This was the answer given by a nun to a lady in London under the following circumstances, which were related to me by a gentleman of culture and piety, as we were sailing along the coast of Norway, from Trowdhjem to Bergen, in and out among the beautiful fjords and snow-capped mountains: Monsignor Capel was asked by a lady of position in London, “How can I find peace of mind?” Instead of pointing her to Christ and telling her that He atoned for our sins on the cross, he bade her dismiss such unwelcome thoughts and attend places of amusement. One day she followed a crowd of people into Exeter Hall, expecting to have her mind diverted from serious thoughts about the future by a musical entertainment. She was surprised when she found herself in a great religious meeting. Annoyed at this, she attempted to get out, but in doing so she knocked some umbrellas on to the floor, and abashed took her seat. Her attention was soon riveted upon the speaker. He explained our relation to God, as under condemnation already, and spoke of Christ’s suffering on the cross as an atoning sacrifice, of God’s willingness, for His sake, to pardon us. She was deeply moved, and at the close she said to some one near her. “Can I speak to the gentleman who has just addressed us?”
      Soon after, in conversation with her, he said: “You will find the truth which I have mentioned often repeated in the Bible.”
      “But I have no Bible,” she replied.
      He quickly handed her his own, saying: “I have pleasure in giving you mine.”
      Some time after this the high Catholic dignitary, remembering the advice he had given this lady, sent the priest to inquire about the state of her mind. Instead of needing his help he soon found that she was able to direct him in the way of life. Before leaving she gave him the Bible that had been given her at Exeter Hall, and begged him to read it with prayer, and to trust alone in Him who “bore our sins in His own body on the tree.” Some time after she received a note from the priest asking her to call upon him. As she was about to take her son to Eton College, she did not accept the invitation at the time.
      When she called some weeks after, she was shown into a room where there was a coffin, and in it the body of the priest. Beside it a nun was kneeling in prayer. The lady approached and asked: “Did he leave any message for me?”
      “Yes,” was the reply. “He wished me to say, if you called, that he died in the full faith of the Catholic Church, and that he cursed the day he ever saw you.” The poor lady turned away, greatly distressed, saying to herself: “If I had gone to his bedside when he sent for me, I might have pointed him to Christ, and he might have been saved through faith in Him, and now, alas! it is too late, I fear through my negligence he is lost forever;” This reflection produced such an effect upon her that it destroyed her peace of mind, which she sought to overcome by foreign travel. One day in Rome a lady approached her and said: “Do you remember standing by the coffin of Father -—-—, and the dreadful message delivered to you?”
      “Yes,” she replied, “and it has followed me night and day.”
      “But it was not a true message. The words he bade me deliver to you were these: ‘Tell her that I bless the day I ever saw her, and that I die in the full faith of Jesus Christ. Tell her that the Bible she gave me was the means of leading me to trust alone in Him for pardon. Tell her I shall meet her in heaven.’ And then,” added the nun, “he gave me that precious Bible, which has also been the means of leading me to see myself as a lost sinner and Christ as my only Saviour. Will you forgive me for telling that falsehood?”

      Dear reader, are you a Christian? If so, may the recital of these facts strengthen your faith in the promise of God, “My word shall not return to me void,” and lead you with more faith and determination to assist in putting the Bible into every sinner’s hand. If you are not a Christian, I pray that these striking incidents may lead you to feel your need of Jesus, and that you can never have lasting peace and joy till you come as a lost soul and believe in Him. He has suffered that dreadful death on the cross in your stead that you might be forgiven and fitted for heaven. Will you confess your sins, and believe in Him? “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:6). You see how he saved this lady, this priest and the nun. He is willing to save you.

Gnostic America: A Reading of Comtemporary American Culture & Religion according to Christianity's Oldest Heresy – by Rev. Peter M. Burfeind (LCMS)

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 20:00:00 +0000

From the paper,
Why is this Happening to Us? How the culture wars become religious wars among us
delivered at the
2012 Conference of Intrepid Lutherans
“As is continuously the case even in our own age, already before the first generation of post-Apostolic Christianity had come to an end, heterodox interpretations of New Testament teaching were being disseminated by false teachers, along with fraudulent writings purported to be those of the Apostles. Therefore, in addition to preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ, the task soon fell upon those descending from direct contact with the Apostles to defend orthodox teaching and differentiate between genuine and false Scriptures. An early example of one such false teacher is Valentinus (d. A.D. 160) – the most influential Gnostic teacher in history, who received his training in Alexandria before coming to Rome. Another early Gnostic teacher, based in Rome, was Cerdon – he was a disciple of Simon Magus (mentioned in Acts 8:9-24).

When gnosticism came in touch with Christianity, it rapidly adopted the outward garb of the latter (1) by using the Christian forms of thought, (2) by borrowing its nomenclature, (3) by acknowledging Christ dualistically as the Saviour of the world, (4) by simulating the Christian sacraments, (5) by pretending to be an esoteric revelation of Christ and his apostles, (6) by producing a great number of apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Revelations (apocalypses). Although gnosticism was utterly the opposite of Christianity, it was so well camouflaged by this borrowed garb that it appeared to the unwary as a modification or refinement of Christianity. In fact it soon claimed to be the only true form of Christianity, set apart for the elect, unfit for the vulgar crowd. Gnosticism, highly aggressive, became so widely diffused throughout the Christian churches that for several centuries, especially from the second to the fourth, it threatened to stifle Christianity altogether. Many of the early Church Fathers, especially Irenæus, made great effort to suppress and uproot it. The gnostic leaders were excluded from membership in churches, while gnosticism was denounced as heresy by the Church as a whole.

“However, it was the teaching of Cerdon’s student, Marcion of Pontus (d. A.D. 160), being closely related to that of Gnosticism, which was regarded as enormously and immediately dangerous to Christianity. According to the 4^th Century church historian, Eusebius of Cæsarea (d. A.D. 339), Justin Martyr defended against the heresies of Marcion in writing, from which Irenæus (d. A.D. 202), a disciple of Polycarp, quotes in one of his own works, as well. And Polycarp himself was active against the Gnostic heretics. Irenæus recounted the mission of Polycarp to Rome in order to defend orthodoxy in the face of Valentinus and Marcion, as follows:

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth... a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles – that, namely, which he also handed down to the Church.

“And this was the key to maintaining orthodoxy in the face of false teachers, their fraudulent scriptures and their resulting heresy:

validating one’s Scripture sources as having come directly from the apostles, and
validating one’s teaching as descending only from those Scriptures.

“...These works of polemic – defenses of orthodoxy and documentation of the Scripture’s sources – were required of Irenæus, Polycarp and others, as a result of pressure from the world and from worldly heterodox teachers.

Amid the general confusion ushered in by the gnostics, the Church was obliged to set up certain standards to be acknowledged by anyone who claimed to be Christian. These standards included the Apostles’ Creed, the formation of the New Testament Canon, and the Apostolic Office, or the historic Episcopate... [while] the defense of the Christian faith lead to the formation of Christian dogma...

“So, very early in the life of the New Testament church, in order to protect the Scriptures and the Christian message from corruption, the genuine apostolic writings had to be identified and defended as genuine.”

As readers of Intrepid Lutherans may be aware, the philosophy of post-Modernism is a relatively frequent topic on these pages. A related, and perhaps more important topic, is the re-emergence of a religious movement which seems to share in some sort of symbiosis with post-Modernism: the rise of Gnosticism in the West. In the words quoted above (and as they were expanded in the footnotes of that paper), the false religion of Gnosticism received brief treatment, and later in that paper, under headings such as “Gnosticism and Pagan Teaching, Monasticism and Aristocratic Merit before God” and “Gnostic Challenges, Pragmatic Issues of Governance, and the Romanization of the Church,” was identified as a primary cause of lasting corruption in the Church. To my knowledge, this is the extent of attention Gnosticism has received from Intrepid Lutherans. But it hasn’t been otherwise unknown to us.

More than once in the recent past has the fact been impressed upon me that the ideal of a secular society – often argued by Christian quietists who’d prefer that Christians squelch their religious convictions and disregard their Christian identity in the public square – is pure myth, long disproven by demographics studies since the early 1980’s, not much more than one decade after Western (and Lutheran) social scientists issued its initial hypothesis. This fact veritably forces one to admit that, like it or not, religious conviction and practice is fundamental to the establishment of any social order, and thus also forces one question: what affirmative and ascendant religious motivation stands behind the radical social changes we witness today, and behind the popular, near-militant anti-Christian sentiment we now experience in Western society? That is, since religion WILL function as a primary ordering force in society, which religion does it look likely to be, going forward? In answer to this, more than once have I heard Lutherans and other Christians forcefully warn of the re-emergence of Gnosticism.

Gnostic America
A Reading of Contemporary American Culture & Religion
according to Christianity’s Oldest Heresy

by Rev. Peter M. Burfeind
Rev. Peter M. Burfeind (LCMS) is one of those Lutherans who has personally warned me of this re-emergence. And now he is warning more broadly in his new book, Gnostic America: A Reading of Contemporary American Culture & Religion according to Christianity’s Oldest Heresy. An operator of Pax Domini Press, many of our readers may be familiar with his involvement with Sunday School curricula like A.D. The Acceptable Year of the Lord (a curriculum for ages 4-12 on the Gospel texts from the Historic Lectionary) or A New Song unto the Lord (a curriculum on the Biblical texts supporting the liturgy), and several Vacation Bible School programs. Pax Domini Press is one of those publishers that has been on our list of publishers since we first put that list in the column on the right. Having met him personally on a number of occasions, I recall the conversation we had the last time we had met. It was a broad conversation on the topic of gnostic manifestations in the church and in society today, which lasted into the early morning hours. It was during this conversation that he not only made apparent to me his concern, but revealed to me his ongoing research on the topic, mentioning that he had composed some material that he had shown to another pastor, who then encouraged him to continue developing his work into a book. Since then, I’ve thought of our conversation that evening, and as recently as this Summer, wondered if he had continued working or even completed his work. I received an email in late August announcing that his book, Gnostic America, is finally complete. I purchased a copy as soon as it was available on Amazon, and am currently about one-third of the way through it. At 362 pages, 16 chapters and 915 endnotes, one may expect that this book is rendered in painfully academic prose. Quite the opposite, however, being written by a parish pastor with a living concern for the laity (rather than a professional theologian, who daily functions outside of that environment), it is very accessibly written, without also being so “accessible” as to be insulting or condescending to literate adults – Rev. Burfeind is having a very serious conversation with his readers. I can say, even at only one-third through the book, that Gnostic America is a book which every Christian layman in America must read, especially if he wants a fuller understanding of currents in American and Western culture in terms of religious influence. With the influence of Christianity at a sharply contracting ebb, the influence of Gnosticism, which has always been a strong undercurrent, has risen to the surface again, and seems to now be directing the course of society. To give readers of Intrepid Lutherans a brief view into the subtle yet pernicious and pervasive influence that Gnosticism now has in Western Society (and with written permission from Rev. Burfeind), I quote extensively from the Introduction of Gnostic America:

Spiritual Artifacts of our Times

four minutes forty-three seconds til the service...

Three...two...one...

ooooo ahhhhhh oooo ooooo ooooo.

Orphic, referring to the ancient mystery cult where flutists worked initiates into an emotional froth, and then priests leveraged the emotion toward the desired goal

That tradition is the Gnostic one.

Catcher in the Rye

Is there anyone who is truly authentic?

Authentic.

pious

piety

authenticity

Being ‘true to my Self’ replaces ‘deny yourself’... Authenticity, or creating one’s Self, is the chief piety [of Existentialism, ‘the atheist's religion’]. Choice is [this religion’s] sacrament. It’s how creation of Self happens.

authenticity, choice, freedom, Self, culture, values

Why don’t we question their premises? Because that’s how faith works. It’s premises just are.

Faith is far from on the decline in America. It’s held more fervently than ever, and its premises are more blindly adhered to and more absolutely grounded on thin air than Christianity ever was

no one notices the smell of the house they live in

Gnosticism 101

gnosis

The gnostic is ever in rebellion against nature and... natural forms. Such naturally-arising concepts as gender, national boundaries, the cold hard realities of economics, cultural institutions like family and church (especially its rituals), marriage, even language, are deceptive impositions, says that Gnostic, of a foreign God upon which should be the authentic Self liberated from all impositions of form, freed to transcend them altogether

The Judeo-Christian orientation [however] centers on created forms.

language arose out of the creation of forms... Gnostics reject this entire premise.

Precisely because Gnosticism doesn’t have marked doctrines or creedal statements, being more a ‘spiritual orientation,’ it can easily be co-opted in non-religious arenas – in politics, marketing and media – without fear of being accused of religious imposition, when in fact this is exactly what it is

Irony & Nihilism
De-constructing Western mores & institutions; Re-constructing with the religion of Gnosticism

Nihilism is the view that nothing matters... [it] is the wrecking ball of society, an iconoclastic force tearing down traditional institutions, traditional moralities, traditional rituals, traditional habits, traditional customs, traditional grammar, traditional language and traditional reasoning

Nihilism often masquerades as a bitter sense of irony. Irony fits nihilism because it discharges any challenge to nihilism. Irony can cut anything good and beautiful down to size. It also raises the bad and ugly just enough to prove the high and great weren’t that high or great in the first place. Irony levels everything so that nothing has meaning

Something must fill the vacated domain. Something must be re-constructed. Hollywood understands this.

fantastical

accepted conduits of reconstructed truth

must

being

revelation

recognition

revelation

the point of nihilistic breakdown is also the point of new possibilities

The Structure of this Book

An important work on a subject little understood in our era, and almost never mentioned, I encourage our readers to purchase and read it.

Published: Gerhard's Commentary on Romans 1-6

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Paul A. Rydecki) — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 12:43:00 +0000

It has been almost two years since I began translating and posting excerpts here on Intrepid Lutherans from Johann Gerhard's much-quoted (and oft misquoted) commentary on Romans. The entire work has finally been translated and edited, and is now available from Amazon, published by Repristination Press.

Annotations on the First Six Chapters of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans

Amazon's summary:

Romans 1:16—For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (KJV)

“The ‘power of God’ is the divine and efficacious means which God uses to save men, (1) because in it the benefits obtained by the suffering and death of Christ are offered, among which are also life and eternal salvation; (2) because through the preaching of the Gospel, God works the faith in hearts through which they embrace the good things offered in the Gospel and apply them to themselves; (3) because through the Gospel faith is preserved and increased, so that we are thus ‘guarded for salvation by the power of God, through faith’ (1 Pet. 1:5); (4) because, in all adversities and temptations, it furnishes a life-giving consolation, so that we may be preserved to eternal life under the weight of the cross.”

Gerhard's Annotations were incomplete at the time of his death; his son, Johann Ernst Gerhard, published them several years after his death. However, the Annotations are of enduring value and significance to the Church because in these first six chapters, Gerhard gives a clear treatment of the doctrine of Justification, and a model of Lutheran exegesis. Modern students of Holy Scripture will benefit from Gerhard's scholarship.

Honestly, the book is full of memorable quotations. In this one Gerhard summarizes the main theme that runs through the entire Epistle to the Romans:

“[Romans 1:17] explains the principal proposition of the entire Epistle, as a favorable opportunity presents itself at the end of the introduction. This principal proposition is that there is no other way to be justified before God except by faith in Christ, whom the Gospel sets before us, as confirmed by the prophetic testimony.”

Dr. Martin Luther: God’s Curse of Eternal and Temporal Calamity is Upon the People who, though they had been Given the Gospel, have Rejected it.

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:46:00 +0000

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom He hath chosen for his own inheritance... There is no king saved by the multitude of an host: a mighty man is not delivered by much strength. An horse is a vain thing for safety: neither shall he deliver any by his great strength. Behold, the eye of the Lord is upon them that fear Him, upon them that hope in His mercy; to deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine. Our soul waiteth for the Lord: He is our help and our shield. For our heart shall rejoice in Him, because we have trusted in His holy name. Let Thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us, according as we hope in Thee.” (Psalm 33:12,16-22)

Lutherans are not unique in teaching that these words from Psalm 33 apply to an invisible ‘spiritual nation’ of true believers, to the Holy Nation – the people who have been made holy by God. There is great comfort in this fact, for individual believers, who know that there is no earthly nation which is holy before God, but who, through the Holy Spirit's gift of faith, have themselves been forgiven and stand before God in the righteousness of Christ. They, along with all true believers, and they alone, stand holy and righteous before God on the basis Christ’s full blood and merit, they alone stand in the company of the holy, and thus they alone can derive comfort from this text.

The following sermon, preached by Dr. Martin Luther in 1525, however, teaches not only the spiritual, but the temporal calamity brought upon a real people, a real nation, to whom has been brought the Gospel, but who reject it. God had visited the Jews with the Gospel, to their eternal and spiritual benefit. Their collective rejection of the Gospel, however, brought upon them a calamity which was not only spiritual, but which was also directed at them, collectively, in their physical earthly lives.

The text Luther preaches from is Luke 19:41-48, and the subject is Christ’s prophecy of Jerusalem’s physical destruction. God had visited them with the Gospel – Jesus Christ, the Living Word Himself! – that through it He would make them an Holy Nation (1 Pet. 2:9); but they, “knowing not the time of their visitation,” rejected Him. The consequence was His curse of national calamity, the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in A.D. 70 and was followed by their dispersal throughout Europe and persecution for the following two millenia.

But Luther does not limit the application of this text to the Jewish nation. In his own time, Germany had been visited with the Gospel, but, he feared, had rejected it. Luther applies Christ’s prophecy of national calamity to the Germany of his own day in a most remarkable way, indeed, to any people of whom it can be collectively said: “They have rejected the Gospel. God had given them the Gospel, but they no longer believe it” – as, it seems, can be said of Western Civilization, and specifically, America, today. Indeed, many of the political, social and religious circumstances he recounts should sound very familiar to us in our own time.

So, today, as we remember the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York, thirteen years ago, by the arch-enemies of Christianity and of the West, let us consider Luther’s understanding of Christ’s prophecy: is there a genuine connection between the rapid decline of the Church in the West and the correlating escalation of strife that we face today? Is God warning us? Are these a harbinger, or “a foretaste of things to come,” as Luther puts it? If so, is there any avoiding it? How?

Dr. Martin Luther’s Sermon on Luke 19:41-48
The Gospel Lesson for the Tenth Sunday after Trinity

Luke 19:41-48: And when He was come near, He beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. And He went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought; saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves. And He taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy Him, and could not find what they might do: for all the people were very attentive to hear Him.

PART I.
THE PROPHECY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.

THIS Gospel presents that which took place on Palm Sunday, when Christ rode into Jerusalem. On this occasion, He preached two or three days in the temple, which was more than He ever did before at one time. The sum and substance of this Gospel is, that Christ grieves and laments over the afflictions of those who despise God’s Word.

Now you have often heard what the Word of God is, what it brings us, and what kind of scholars it has. Of all this nothing is said here. Only the punishment and distress which shall come upon the Jews because they would not recognize the time of their visitation, are here described. And let us well consider this, because the time of their visitation also deeply concerns us. If they who do not know the time of their visitation are punished, what will be done to those who maliciously persecute, blaspheme and disgrace the Gospel and the Word of God? However, here Jesus only speaks of those who do not know it.

There are two methods of preaching against the despisers of God’s Word. The first is by threats, as Christ threatens them in Matthew 11:21-24: “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And thou, Capernaum (which was His own city, where He performed most of His mighty works), shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt go down unto hell; for if the mighty works had been done in Sodom which were done in thee, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.” With such threatening words He would frighten them to their senses, not to cast to the wind the Word which God sends them.

The other method the Lord gives here when He weeps, and shows His sympathy for the poor blinded people, rebuking and threatening them, not as He does the hardened and stubbornly blind, but melting in love and compassion over His enemies, and with great heart-rending cries of pity, telling them what shall befall them, which He would gladly prevent – but knowing it is all in vain. In the passage just quoted, where He rebukes those who despise God’s Word, He does not treat them in love, but with severity. However here, in our Gospel text, it is all sincere love and mercy. This is worthy of our consideration.

First, as He approached the city, the people went before Him, and also followed Him, with songs of great joy, saying: “Hosanna to the Son of David,” spreading their garments and cutting branches from the trees to strew them in the way; the whole scene was most glorious. But in the midst of all this joy He begins to weep. He permits all the world to be joyful, while He Himself was bowed with grief, when He beheld the city and said:

“If thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the things that belong unto peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.”

As though He would say: Oh, if you only knew what belongs to your peace, that you might not be destroyed, but be preserved with both temporal and eternal peace, you would yet this day consider, and redeem the time! And now it is high time for you to know what is for your highest welfare. But you are blind, and will neglect the opportunity, until there shall be neither help nor counsel. As though to say: Here you stand, firmly built, and within you are strong and mighty men, who, secure and happy, think there is no danger! Yet, about forty years more, and you shall be utterly destroyed. The Lord plainly says this in these words:

“For the days shall come upon thee, when thy enemies shall cast up a bank about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side and shall dash thee to the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knowest not the time of thy visitation.”

But the Jews were stubborn, and depended on God’s promises, which they thought meant nothing else than that they should continue forever. They were secure, and vainly thought: God will not do such things to us. We own the temple; here God Himself dwells; besides we have mighty men, money and treasures enough to defy all our enemies! For even the Romans, and the emperor after he had conquered the city, confessed that the city was so well and firmly built, that it would have been impossible to take it, had God not especially willed it. Therefore they trusted in their own glory, and built their confidence on a false delusion, which finally deceived them.

The Lord, however, saw deeper into the future than they when He said: O, Jerusalem! if thou hadst known what I know, thou wouldst seek thy peace. “Peace” in the Scriptures means, when all things go well with us. You now think you have pleasant days, but if you knew how your enemies will encamp round about you, compass you about and hedge you in on every side, crush you to the ground and demolish all your beautiful buildings, and leave not one stone upon another; you would eagerly accept the Word, which brings to you solid peace and every blessing.

God caused His threats to be executed even thus, that the city was besieged at the time of the Easter festival, when the Jews were assembled within the walls of Jerusalem from every land, and as the historian Josephus writes, there were together at that time about three million people. This was an enormous multitude. Only one hundred thousand people would have been enough to crowd the city. But all this great multitude God in His wrath intended to bake, melt and weld together into one mass of ruin. Yet, the Apostles and Christians were all out of the city, they had withdrawn into the land of Herod, Samaria, Galilee, and were scattered among the heathen. Thus God separated and saved the good grain and poured the chaff into one place. There was such an immense multitude of Jews present, that they were sufficient to devour a whole kingdom, to say nothing of only one city. They also fell into such distress and famine, that they devoured everything and had nothing left, until they were at last compelled to eat their leather bow-strings, shoe latchets and shoe leather; and finally mothers moved by their distress butchered their own children, which the soldiers snatched from them, for they smelt the odor of the boiling meat through the squares of the city. They used dove’s dung for salt, which commanded a high price. In short, there was distress and bloodshed enough to melt a rock to tears; so that no one could have believed that God’s wrath could be so horrible and that He would so unmercifully martyr a people. The buildings and the streets were piled full of the dead, who perished from starvation, and yet the Jews were so raging that they defied God and refused to yield, until the emperor was compelled to use force and capture the city, when they could no longer maintain their ground (Josephus, History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Books 5 & 6, A.D. 75).

And as some Jews were such rogues as to swallow their money so that it could not be taken from them, the soldiers thought that they all had swallowed their money; therefore they cut them open by the thousands, hunting for it. The slaughter and destruction were so great, that even the heathen were moved to compassion, and the emperor was forced to give orders no longer to destroy them, but to take them prisoners and sell them as slaves. The Jews then became so cheap, that thirty were sold for a penny; and thus they were scattered throughout the whole world, and were everywhere despised as the vilest people on earth, and thus they are everywhere regarded at the present day, everywhere dispersed, without a city or a country of their own, and they can never meet again as they vainly believe to establish their priesthood and kingdom. Thus God avenged the death of Christ and all his prophets, and paid them back because they knew not the day of their visitation.

APPLICATION TO GERMANY.
[And, remarkably to the United States of America, and the West itself, in this, our own time of the early 21^st Century]

Here let us learn a lesson, for this concerns us, not us alone who are here present, but the whole nation. It is not a mere jest, nor should we think that it will go different with us. The Jews would not believe until they experienced it and became conscious of it. God has now also visited us, and has opened the precious treasures of His holy Gospel unto us, by which we can learn God’s will, and see how we were held by the power of the devil. Yet no one will earnestly believe it, yea, we much more despise it and make light of it. No city, no officer of the government is thankful for the Gospel; and what is still worse the great majority persecute and blaspheme it. God has great patience; He waits to see how we will deal with His Gospel; but when we once let the opportunity slip, He will take His Word from us, and then the wrath which consumed the Jews will also consume us. For it is one and the selfsame Word, the very same God, and the identical Christ, that the Jews themselves had; therefore the punishment in body and soul will also most certainly be the same. We, of course, regard it as mockery, and care nothing for it. This is only an evidence of our own blindness. We ought to perceive that God is hardening us; for there is not a single city that is concerned about it; no officer of the law shows any zeal in its favor. It is most deplorable. And I fear the time will yet come when our country will lay in a heap of ruins. The evil winds have already begun to blow destruction in our Peasant War (1525). We have already lost many people. Nearly one hundred thousand men, only between Easter and Pentecost! It is an awful work of God, and I fear it will not stop at this. It is only a foretaste of a threat to frighten us, that we may prepare ourselves for the coming ordeal. So far it is but a fox’s tail, but God will soon come with a terrible scourge, and lash us to pieces.

But we will act just like the Jews, and care nothing for it, until all help and counsel are lost forever. Now we might check it, for now it is high time for us to know what is best for us, and accept the Gospel in peace, while grace is brought, and peace is offered unto us. But we permit one day after another, one year after another to pass, and do even less than formerly. No one prays now, no one is in earnest. When the time is past, prayers will be of no avail. We do not lay it to heart, and think we are safe, and do not see the awful calamity which has already begun, and are not aware that God so dreadfully punishes us with false prophets and sects, which He sends to us everywhere, and who preach so securely as though they had swallowed the Holy Spirit, feathers and all. Those whom we had thought were the very best among us, go to work and lead the people astray, until they scarcely know what to do or leave undone.

But this is only a beginning, although it is frightful and terrible enough. For there is no greater distress and calamity than when God sends us sects and false spirits, because they are so impudent and daringly bold, that they are really to be pitied. On the other hand the Word of God is such a great treasure, that no one can sufficiently comprehend its worth. For God Himself considers His treasure immensely great, and when He visits us with His grace, He earnestly desires that we should gladly and freely accept it, and does not compel us as He is able to do, but it is His will that we should gladly obey it from choice and love. For He does not wait until we come to Him, but He comes first to us. He comes into the world, becomes man, serves us, dies for us, rises again from the dead, sends us His Holy Spirit, gives us His Word, and opens heaven so wide that all men can enter; besides He gives us rich promises and assurances that He will care for us in time and in eternity, here and there, and pours out into our bosoms all the fullness of His grace. Therefore the acceptable time of grace is now at hand. Yet, we neglect it, and cast it to the winds, so that He will not and cannot give it to us.

For when we fall and sin in other ways, He can better spare us and be lenient, He of course will spare us and forgive; but when we despise His Word, it calls for punishment, and He will also punish us, even if He delays a hundred years. But He will not wait that long. And the clearer the Word is preached the greater the punishment will be. I fear it will be the entire destruction of our nation. Would to God I were a false prophet in this matter. Yet it will most certainly take place. God cannot permit this shameful disregard of His Word to go unpunished, nor will He wait long, for the Gospel is so abundantly proclaimed that it has never been as plainly and clearly taught since the days of the Apostles, as it is at present. God be praised! Hence it applies to Germany, as I fear it will be destroyed, unless we act differently.

We, who have heard the Gospel for a long time, ought earnestly to pray God that He continue to grant us peace. The princes and officers want to settle everything with the sword, and too impudently interfere with God’s office, until God Himself shall smite them down. So it is high time faithfully to beseech God to permit His Gospel to be further spread through Germany, to those who have not yet heard it. For if the punishment came suddenly upon us, all will be lost, and many souls will be taken before the Gospel comes to them. Therefore I wish that we would not so terribly despise the Gospel, the costly treasure, not only for our own sakes, but also for the sake of those who have not yet heard it. It has, presently, become more quiet; God grant that it may so continue, and that both the princes and the citizens may become more sane; for if it should begin afresh, I fear it would have no end.

But we act just like the Jews did, who cared more for the belly than for God. They were more concerned how to fill their stomachs than how to be saved. For this reason they have lost both. They immediately put forth the excuse, just as our own people do today: We would of course gladly accept the Gospel, if it would not place our bodies and property in jeopardy, and if thereby we would not hazard the loss of our wives and children. For the Jews said, if we believe in him, the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation (Jn. 11:48). Yet, nothing will happen sooner than what the wicked fear, as Solomon says: “The fear of the wicked, it shall come upon him” (Pr. 10:24).

This prevented the Jews from believing God, so they did not consider the great and rich promises God bestowed upon them. And so we also pass them by, and are not aware of the all powerful and comfortable promises Christ gives when He says: Ye shall receive an hundredfold here, and there ye shall inherit eternal life. Let wife and child go, I will care for them, and restore them again to you. Only courageously trust in Me. [Do you not think that I can build you another house? Do you regard Me as being a hard man: Yet I will give you heaven; will you not risk it on My Word?] If you are robbed of your treasures, blessed are ye, heaven and earth are mine, I will reward you an hundredfold (Mt. 19:29).

We pass over these and many like passages, and despise them besides, and depend only on what we have in our banks and how we may keep our purses filled, not considering that God has also given us what we have, and will still give us more; nor do we consider that when we lose God, the stomach will also be lost. Therefore we are served just right in losing both the Creator and the creature besides.

But believers in God risk all in Him and transfer all things into His care, for Him to do according to His pleasure, and think thus: God has given you your home and wife, you have not produced them yourself; now because they are God’s, I will entrust them all to His care, He will keep them from all harm. I must otherwise leave all at any rate, therefore I will bravely trust Him with them, and for His sake give up all I have. If God wants me here, He will give me other treasures, for He has promised to give enough for this life and for the life to come. If He does not want me here, I owe Him a death, which will bring me into eternal life; when He calls me, I will go trusting in His Word.

Whoever is not thus disposed, denies God, and must at the same time lose both the present and the eternal life. The belly with its foul odors is our god, and prevents us from clinging to God’s Word. First, I will be certain how I shall feed, and where my supplies are. The Gospel says: Trust in God; and your stomach shall most certainly be provided for, and have enough (without believing or trusting in it). But if I have only five dollars, it gives me so much courage that I think I have enough food for ten days, so that I trust in such limited provisions and do not trust God who has fed me hitherto, and that He will care for me tomorrow.

Is it not a shameful vexation or calamity that I trust in a penny to provide something to eat tomorrow? How contemptible this carcass of mine! Shall a penny have more weight in my heart and give me more courage than God Himself, who holds heaven and earth in His power, who gives us the air we breathe and the water we drink, who makes our corn to grow and gives us all things? It is so scandalous that it cannot be uttered, that God should not amount to as much with us as an hundred guilders. Why not think that God, who has created me, will surely feed me, if He wants me to live? If He does not want this, very well, I shall be satisfied.

Yes, says the stomach, I find no God in my chest! You silly ass, who assures you that you will live tomorrow? You are not certain whether you will have a belly to-morrow, and you want to know where to find the bread and the food! Yes, you have a fine assurance! When our hearts are thus prompted, we see what a government of hell there would be on earth; yes, it would be the devil himself. Is it not a thing most abominable, that God who feeds such ninny mouths, should be held in such low esteem by me, that I will not trust Him to feed me? Yea, that a guilder, thirty-eight cents, should be valued more highly than God, who pours out His treasures everywhere in rich profusion? For the world is full of God and His works, He is everywhere present with His gifts, and yet we will not trust in Him, nor accept His visitation! Shame on thee, thou accursed world! What kind of a child is that, who cannot trust in God for a single day, but trusts in a guilder?

Now, I think, we see what the world is, how on account of the belly the world despises God, and yet must lose the belly together with body and soul. Oh, what godless people we are. If one would consider that he is such a godless wretch, that he cannot trust in God, then he would not wish to live, but only choke away. The world is hell in prospect, yea, the real kingdom of Satan, a courtyard in hell, except that the body is still here, otherwise it is true hell.

For this reason Christ admonishes us with tears to know our salvation and accept His visitation, that the calamity may not follow, which will surely come upon those who do not accept it, who are secure, until swift and sudden destruction comes upon them. May God give us grace, that we may know ourselves!

The Gospel further reads:

“And He entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold, saying unto them: It is written, ‘And my house shall be a house of prayer’; but ye have made it a den of robbers.”

PART II.
THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE.

This is the second part of our Gospel, where the Lord takes hold of matters in earnest with His powerful hand, when He goes into the temple and casts out those who bought and sold there. For the first part was nothing but an admonition and incentive unto faith. Here the Lord now tells us what the temple of God is, and quotes passages from the Scriptures, and especially from the prophet Isaiah, where God says: “For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples” (Is. 56:7). You, however, have made it a house of merchandise. This is a strong passage which the prophet utters: “for all peoples, for all Gentiles,” is against the Jews, who trusted in the temple of God at Jerusalem, and thought that this material house in Jerusalem would stand forever, and that it was impossible for God to demolish this temple or destroy this city. The Word of God does not lie. For this reason they also murdered Stephen, because he spoke against that holy place and said: “Jesus shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered unto us” (Ac. 6:14). And they said: have not the prophets praised this house, and Christ Himself says here, that it is “a house of prayer,” and you Apostles say, He will destroy it?

But we must rightly understand this expression, that the city of Jerusalem, the temple and the people, should remain until the time of Christ. With this agree all the prophets, who have given all things into the hands of Christ; as He would then dispose of it, so it should be and remain. Hence the passage in Isaiah goes no further than unto the times of Christ, as also all the prophets say, that after that there shall come a kingdom extending over the whole world: “For from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same My name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto My name, and a pure offering; for My name shall be great among the Gentiles, saith Jehovah of hosts” (Mt. 1:10-11). Here the prophet speaks of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, who shall build Himself a house of prayer as extensive as the whole world.

It is true that God Himself has established the temple at Jerusalem, not because it consisted of beautiful stones and costly buildings, or because it was consecrated by bishops, as at present men employ such foolery and juggling tricks; but God Himself had consecrated and sanctified it with his Word, when He said: This house is My house: for His Word was preached in it. Now, wherever God’s Word is preached, there is God’s own true house, there God most certainly dwells with His grace. Wherever His Gospel is, there is a house of prayer, there men shall and may truly pray, and God will also hear their prayer, as Christ says: “If ye shall ask anything of the Father, He will give it you in My name. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in My name; ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be made full” (Jn. 16:23-24). Here again, where the Word is not found, there the devil has full sway.

That we have imitated the Jews and built so many churches, would be well enough, if we had done it in order that the Word of God might be preached there; for where the Word goes there God is present, and looks down from heaven and pours out His grace. Therefore He says to the Jews here: It is not My will that you should make out of My house a den of robbers. For there were money changers in it who sold sheep and oxen, that strangers might buy them for their offerings in divine service. Why then does He call it a den of robbers? Surely, He gives it a scandalous name. He does it however because they no longer appreciate the house as the house of God, but as a market house; that is, the priests did not inquire how the Word of God was preached in it, although they sang, they babbled and read the prophets and Moses; but God cares nothing for such a murmuring of Psalms; for such belongs to children.

They did just as our priests and monks do now, who have also made of our churches and cloisters dens of robbers, and have preached poison, and held Masses only that the people might give them money and presents for holding them, that they might thus fill their stomachs. They made the church a market house, in which they carried on their idle talk, corrupted and destroyed the sheep of God’s pastures by their scandalous false doctrine, that it may well be called a robber’s den for the soul. This title we should write on all churches in which the Gospel is not preached, for there they mock God, destroy souls, banish the pure Word and establish dens of murder; for he who listens to their words must die. Oh, how shamefully we have been deceived! Now, however, we should praise God, that this Word again brings us life, drives out the murderers of souls, and teaches us how to pray aright; for an honest heart must pray, not with the mouth, but with the heart.

THE CONCLUSION.

Thus we have heard the second part of our Gospel, how Christ drove out the merchants that pandered to base appetites, and made room for His Word. It would be a good thing, in this same way to cleanse our cloisters, and turn them into schools or preaching places; if this is not done they will be, and continue to be nothing but dens of robbers; for if Christ calls His own house a den of robbers, how much more will our churches and temples, not consecrated by God, be so called?

I have often requested that you to pray God to turn His wrath and restrain the devil now in the world. For you have undoubtedly heard of the great calamity, how many have been slain in the insurrection (the Peasants War). We fear they have all been lost, for God requires obedience, and has Himself pronounced the sentence: “For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Mt. 26:52). The devil has taken possession of the world, so who knows when our turn will come? Therefore let us pray that God’s kingdom may come and Christians may be multiplied, that He would send wise and intelligent ministers to care for the people and listen to their wants and needs. He who knows the gift of God prays for others who have not yet heard the Word; it is high time to do so.

Well, wherever this calamity begins and prevails, that the people maliciously despise the day God visits us with His Word and grace, for the sake of the belly and a little temporal benefit and advantage; there must follow as a consequence of such treatment the final punishment and wrath of God, who will utterly destroy them, remove the foundation of their trust, and overthrow the country and the people, so that both temporal and eternal interests go down together. For how shall He otherwise treat us, because of our scandalous ingratitude for His great love and mercy which He publicly declared unto us by His gracious visitation? How shall or can He do more for us, while we with wantonness and defiance spurn His help, and ever struggle and strive after wrath and destruction? For if they are not free of punishment who transgress the law and sin against the Ten Commandments, how much less will He permit those to go unpunished who blaspheme and despise the Gospel of His grace, seeing as the Law by far does not bring as many good things as the Gospel?

If we will not wish to enjoy this happy day which He gives us unto grace and our salvation, He can instead permit us to see and experience nothing but the dark and terrible night of all affliction and misfortune. And since we will not hear this precious Word and the proclamation of peace, we will be forced to hear the devil’s cry of murder ring in our ears from every direction. Now is the time for us to know the day, and well employ the rich and golden year, while the annual fair is before our very doors, and acknowledge that He has severely punished us. If we neglect it and allow it to pass, we can never hope for a better day or expect any peace; for the Lord, who is the Lord of peace, will be with us no longer.

But if Christ be no longer with us, our hope will vanish; and wherever this beloved Guest is rejected, and His Christians no longer tolerated, government, peace and everything shall perish, for He too desires to eat with us, to rule and to provide bountifully. However, He desires also to be known as such a Lord, in order that we may be thankful to Him, and also permit this Guest and His Christians to eat with us, and give Him His due tribute; if not, we will then be forced to give it to another, who will so thank and reward us for it, that we shall not be able to retain a bite of bread or a penny in peace. But the world will not believe this, just as the Jews also would not believe it, until they experienced it, and faith came to their assistance. For God has ordained that this Christ shall be Lord and King upon the earth, under whose feet He has put all things, and whoever would have peace and good days, must be kind and obedient to Him, or he will be dashed to pieces like a potter’s vessel (Ps. 2:9). Amen.

Preached by Dr. Martin Luther, ~1525
From the English translation of his Church Postils by J.N. Lenker (Lenker Edition, 1909).

Bible Readers Prefer ‘Sacred Dialect’ Over ‘Contemporary Language’

noreply@blogger.com (Intrepid Lutherans) — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 23:40:00 +0000

Bible Readers Prefer ‘Sacred Dialect’ Over ‘Contemporary Language’
by Mr. Vernon Kneprath

The WELS Translation Evaluation Committee (TEC) put a lot of emphasis on “readability” in their advocacy of the 2011 New International Version Bible translation (NIV). In Forward in Christ, “Evaluating Translations”¹, Professor Wendland made the following statements:

We expect, with Luther, that a translation will communicate in the language of the people, using idioms and expressions that are understandable and in common, current use.

We expect that the translation will be aimed at native English speakers who can handle Standard American English at a late primary school or early high school level, people who are neither professional theologians nor biblical illiterates.

We believe that a translation should sound good when read aloud.

In Forward in Christ, “Translation Evaluation Committee Present Two Options”²:

The NIV 2011 was frequently mentioned as the most polished of the three translations, the one that communicates in the smoothest and clearest way.

According to the Christian Booksellers Association, the NIV translation continues to hold the #1 position on their CBA Best Sellers list for Bible Translations³. Interestingly, the dated King James Version Bible translation (KJV) continues to be a consistent #2 on the list, and the New King James Version Bible translation (NKJV) is frequently #3. But does the #1 top seller status of a Bible translation identify a translation that people actually read? Two recent reports, “The Bible in American Life”⁴ and “The State of the Bible, 2013”⁵ suggest otherwise.

Consider first “The Bible in American Life.”⁶ Here it was found that among self-identified Bible readers, 55% used the KJV, while 19% used the NIV. Some conclusions regarding the KJV in this report:

Although the bookstores are now crowded with alternative versions, and although several different translations are now widely used in church services and for preaching, the large presence of the KJV testifies to the extraordinary power of this one classic English text,

Professor Noll commented.

It also raises most interesting questions about the role of religious and linguistic tradition in the make-up of contemporary American culture.

Project advisor Sylvester Johnson also remarked on the peculiar cultural power of the King James Bible, noting that its language seems to function for many Americans as “a type of lingua sacra or sacred dialect.

“The State of the Bible, 2013”⁷ reported similar findings. Of adults who read the Bible at least 3-4 times a year, the KJV was the translation of choice by 38%, the NKJV was selected by 14%, and the NIV was third at 11%.

These findings, relating to a translation 400 years old, belie the claims that a 30-year-old translation is too outdated to be useful.

In Christianity Today, Zylstra⁸, discussed these findings, and reported yet another interesting piece of information regarding the KJV vs. the NIV:

The KJV also received almost 45 percent of the Bible translation-related searches on Google, compared with almost 24 percent for the NIV, according to Bible Gateway's Stephen Smith.

In fact, searches for the KJV seem to be rising distinctly since 2005, while most other English translations are staying flat or are declining, according to Smith's Google research.

In light of this information, it is unfortunate that the WELS TEC didn’t include the KJV for consideration as the translation for use in WELS publications. The TEC’s great concern with “readability” biased them toward the NIV translation, a translation respectful of human concerns such as gender neutrality. But most Bible readers express a different preference in their choice of a translation that they actually read. In the KJV they have a translation that has stood the test of time for centuries. In the KJV they find a translation with a language that communicates a respect for God and His Word. And finally, but most importantly, with the Holy Spirit working faith through reading of God’s Word, readers of the Bible become mindful that they are reading God’s Word, not the daily edition of a current newspaper.

Endnotes:

Paul O. Wendland, “Evaluating Translations,” Forward in Christ, Volume 98, Number 12, December 2011.
“Translation Evaluation Committee Present Two Options,” Forward in Christ, Volume 100, Number 3, March 2013.
“CBA Best Sellers list for Bible translations” at the hyperlink
Philip Goff, Arthur E. Farnsley II, Peter J. Thuesen, “The Bible in American Life”, The Center for Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University, March 6, 2014.
The Barna Group, “The State of the Bible, 2013”, American Bible Society, 2013.
Goff, Farnsley, Thuesen, p. 12-14.
The Barna Group, p. 17.
Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra, “The Most Popular and Fastest Growing Bible Translation Isn't What You Think It Is”, Christianity Today, posted 3/13/2014 11:17AM

Dr. Martin Luther: Christian Unity needs Harmony among Individuals; however, Ecclesial Unity requires that False Teachers be publicly Admonished and Rebuked by Fellow Pastors

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:45:00 +0000

In commentary following a recent post by anonymous blogger "Matthias Flach" entitled, A Travesty Examined, Part Nine , it was suggested that "Matthias" contact the President of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), and complain to him about all the problems he sees – the idea being that the Synod President, having enough complainers behind him, would be emboldened to, say, acknowledge these problems publicly, maybe even repudiate them... possibly, like Synod President Matt Harrison of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS), even use the publishing power of his office (the only power the WELS SP really has) to consistently expose the errors of false teachers in the WELS Ministerium who are apparently prized, protected and promoted by the entirety of the WELS Praesidium, warn against them, and rebuke those fellow pastors who embrace these teachings and practices.

Maybe such would happen... Assuming the best of the WELS SP, perhaps it can also be asserted that he needs numbers behind him, not for courage, but for factual corroboration. Quite honestly, however, even having the corroboration, I don’t think that any sort of public acknowledgement or admonishment would be forthcoming. At least nothing with any sort of impact that wouldn’t be immediately overcome by a swift, unanimous and well-coordinated action of the Twelve District Presidents who evidently oppose him. One primary reason, in my opinion, is how very close-knit WELS has become. It has grown unhealthy. For instance, when a person names a given WELS pastor, the instinct (in my personal experience) seems to be toward immediately calculating ones degree of familial relation to the man, and then recalling his direct and indirect experience with him. While this is perfectly natural in small old organizations, there now seems to be an inability to distinguish between individual and Office among them. Any just criticism of a pastor’s doctrine or practice seems to be interpreted as an attack against him personally or against his extended family and classmates, an arrogant elevation of the person issuing the criticism, and a disruption of the harmony necessary for unity to persist among them. The example currently found in the LCMS, of pastors exhibiting the courage to name false doctrines and practices among them, and, increasingly, the pastors who embrace and promote those teachings and practices, seems to be a cultural impossibility in WELS, unless it is already a family squabble of some sort, a matter of personal history or conflict between individual pastors going back, say, to high-school, college or seminary, or an internal political issue within the ministerium where lines have already been drawn.

Martin Luther preached, however, that recognizing a distinction between individual and Office is necessary, that Christian duty to cherish and preserve harmony – to be “compassionate and loving as ‘brethren, tenderhearted, and "friendly" or "humble-minded"’” – extends to the manner in which individuals carry on with one another. It is not, however, necessarily characteristic of the Office, the function of which includes the preachment of the Law in a way that cuts to the bone and exposes sin – which, to the person offended by the Law, does not seem like a very friendly thing to do – and as God’s representative, even extends to the withholding of forgiveness from the unrepentant (Matt. 16:19; John 20:23) – which does not seem to the unforgiven to be a very friendly thing to do, either. He preached further that it is a function of the Office, and thus of the pastor who is responsible to “represent not [his] own but God’s dignity,” to admonish and rebuke false teachers – i.e., fellow Office holders, saying:

But if one dishonors the Baptism, Sacrament, or Ministry committed to me by God, and so opposes not me but God Himself, then it is my duty not to be silent nor merciful and friendly, but to use my God-ordained Office to admonish, threaten and rebuke, with all earnestness, both in season and out of season – as Paul admonishes Timothy – those who err in doctrine or faith or who do not amend their lives; and this regardless of who they are or how it pleases them.

All of this – the duty to cherish harmony among Christians, the duty to rebuke false teachers in the Church (which appears disharmonious but preserves pure doctrine, which is necessary for true harmony), and drawing the distinction between these duties – is found in his Sermon on the Epistle Lesson for the Fifth Sunday after Trinity (1 Pet. 3:8-15), pertinent excerpts from which follow:

From Dr. Martin Luther’s Sermon on 1 Peter 3:8-15
The Epistle Lesson for the Fifth Sunday after Trinity

On the Duty to Cherish Christian Harmony
No one has a different baptism or sacrament, a different Christ, from mine, or grace and salvation other than I have. And no individual can have another faith than have Christians in general, nor does he hear any other Gospel or receive a different absolution, be he lord or servant, noble or ignoble, poor or rich, young or old, Italian or German. When one imagines himself different from or better than his fellows, desiring to exalt and glorify himself above others, he is truly no longer a Christian; because he is no longer in that unity of mind and faith essential to Christians. Christ with His grace is always the same, and cannot be divided or apportioned within Himself.

Not without reason did the beloved apostles urge this point. They clearly saw how much depends upon it, and what evil and harm result from disregard of the commandment. Where this commandment is dishonored, schisms and factions will necessarily arise to corrupt pure doctrine and faith, and the devil will sow his seed, which afterwards can be eradicated only with difficulty. When once self-conceit rules, and one, pretending more learning, wisdom, goodness and holiness than his fellows, begins to despise others and to draw men to himself, away from the unity of mind which makes us one in Christ, and when he desires the first praise and commendation for his own doctrine and works, his own preaching, then the harm is already done; faith is overthrown and the Church is rent. When unity becomes division, certainly two sects cannot both be the true Church. If one is godly, the other must be the devil’s own. On the other hand, so long as unity of faith and oneness of mind survives, the true Church of God abides, notwithstanding there may be some weakness in other points. Of this fact the devil is well aware; hence his hostility to Christian unity. His chief effort is to destroy harmony. “Having that to contend with,” he tells himself, “my task will be a hard and wearisome one.”

Therefore, Christians should be all the more careful to cherish the virtue of harmony, both in the Church and in secular government. In each instance there is of necessity much inequality. God would have such dissimilarity balanced by love and unity of mind. Let everyone be content, then, with what God has given or ordained for him, and let him take pleasure in another’s gifts, knowing that in eternal blessings he is equally rich, having the same God and Christ, the same grace and salvation; and that although his standing before God may differ from that of his fellows, he is nevertheless in no way inferior to them, nor is anyone for the same reason at all better than or superior to himself.

...

The other virtues enjoined by Peter are easily recognized – compassionate, loving as “brethren, tenderhearted, and ‘friendly’ or ‘humble-minded’.” These particularly teach how Christians should esteem one another. God has subjected them all to love and has united them, with the design that they shall be of one heart and soul, and each care for the other as for himself. Peter’s exhortation was especially called for at that time, when Christians were terribly persecuted. Here a pastor, there a citizen, was thrown into prison, driven from wife, child, house and home, and finally executed. Such things happen even now, and may become yet more frequent considering that unfortunate people are harassed by tyrants, or led away by the Turks [Muhammadans], and Christians are thus dispersed in exile here and there. Wherever by His Word and faith God has gathered a church, and that spiritual unity, the bond of Christianity, exists in any measure, there the devil has no peace. If he cannot effect the destruction of that church by factiousness, he furiously persecutes it. Then it is that body, life and everything we have must be jeopardized – put to the stake – for the sake of the Church.

On the Duty to Admonish and Rebuke False Teachers
The lesson teaches the duty of each individual toward all other individuals, not toward the God-ordained Office. Office and person must be clearly distinguished. The officer or ruler in his official capacity is a different man from what he is as John or Frederick. The apostle or preacher differs from the individual Peter or Paul. The preacher has not his Office by virtue of his own personality; he represents it in God’s stead. Now, if any person be unjustly persecuted, slandered and cursed, I ought to and will say: “Deo gratias;” for in God I am richly rewarded for it. But if one dishonors the Baptism, Sacrament, or Ministry committed to me by God, and so opposes not me but God Himself, then it is my duty not to be silent nor merciful and friendly, but to use my God-ordained Office to admonish, threaten and rebuke, with all earnestness, both in season and out of season – as Paul admonishes Timothy (2 Tim. 4:2) – those who err in doctrine or faith or who do not amend their lives; and this regardless of who they are or how it pleases them.

But the censured may say: “Nevertheless you publicly impugn my honor; you give me a bad reputation.” I answer: Why do you not complain to Him who committed the Office to me? My honor is likewise dear to me, but the honor of my Office must be more sacred still. If I am silent where I ought to rebuke, I sully my own honor, which I should maintain before God in the proper execution of my Office; hence I with you deserve to be hanged in mid-day, to the utter extinguishment of my honor and yours. No, the Gospel does not give you authority to say the preacher shall not, by the Word of God, tell you of your sin and shame. What does God care for the honor you seek from the world when you defy His Word with it? To the world you may seem to defend your honor with God and a good conscience, but in reality you have nothing to boast of before God but your shame. This very fact you must confess if you would retain your honor before Him; you must place His honor above that of all creatures. The highest distinction you can achieve for yourself is that of honoring God’s Word and suffering rebuke.

“Yes, but still you attack the Office to which I am appointed.” No, dear brother, our Office is not assailed when I and you are reminded of our failure to do right, to conduct the Office as we should. But the Word of God rebukes us for dishonoring that divinely ordained appointment and abusing it in violation of His commandment. Therefore you cannot call me to account for reproving you. However, were I not a pastor or preacher, and had I no authority to rebuke you, then it would be my duty and my pleasure to leave your honor and that of every other man unscathed. But if I am to fill a divine Office and to represent not my own but God’s dignity, then for your own sake I must not and will not be silent. If you do wrong, and disgrace and dishonor come upon you, blame yourself: “Thy blood shall be upon thine own head,” says Scripture (1 Kings. 2:37). Certainly when a judge sentences a thief to the gallows, that man’s honor is impugned. Who robs you of your honor but yourself, by your own theft, your contempt of God, disobedience, murder, and so on? God must give you what you deserve. If you consider it a disgrace to be punished, then consider it also no honor to rob, steal, practice usury and do public wrong; you disgrace yourself by dishonoring God’s commandment.

Notice that Luther preaches the following:

However, were I not a pastor or preacher, and had I no authority to rebuke you, then it would be my duty and my pleasure to leave your honor and that of every other man unscathed.

This is a note to us laymen. We don’t have the Office of rebuking and correcting. It’s not our job. It is for this reason that I, for one (and I think, perhaps, many laymen along with me), have been very reluctant to name specific situations or pastors, and have preferred to speak in general. IT’S NOT MY JOB! This makes the silence of pastors who see the error and yet remain silent all the more distressing, as it drives the laity, of necessity, to enter in where they would otherwise have no place. And to their shame, they seem content to allow the laity to do it, unaided. IT IS THEIR JOB! But they seem to either be derelict or cowards.

And to those WELS pastors who boldly speak behind the cloak of anonymity – you help no one other than rumour mongers and gossipers. You complain, “What of my family? What of my livelihood! I can’t let anyone know who I am, my adversaries might find out and cause me grief and woe!” But you are more than willing to name them publicly, to cause them grief and woe. Luther preaches above,

It is my duty NOT to be silent nor merciful and friendly, but to use my God-ordained Office to admonish, threaten and rebuke, with all earnestness, both in season and out of season

and in times of persecution,

body, life and everything we have must be jeopardized – put to the stake – for the sake of the Church

Your adversaries have the courage to openly preach and promote falsehood, but you do not have the courage to correct them with the Truth, to act in the interest of preserving their disciples and the Church from the impact of their false doctrine and practice? How strong, then, is your doctrine? Indeed, how eminently valuable is it if you are not willing to sign your name to it? Is it truly Christian Conscience and Confessional Integrity that drives you to “anonymously voice your deep concerns,” or is it sport? Tinged with a touch of schadenfreude?

You saw the hurricane approaching far in the distance, and you’ve waited only till landfall to begin preparing yourselves, your families, and your congregations for the inevitable? You have only yourselves to blame for the disaster you have brought upon them: “Thy blood shall be upon thine own head.” The time to act was in May of 2010, if not before. Where were you? Still deciding to prepare? Where are you now? Just beginning to prepare? Must you “first go bury your father” (Matt. 8:21-22)? I’ve got news for you – it’s way too late now to weather the storm intact. Your Leaders are unanimous: they are busy excommunicating the likes of Rev. Rydecki, while coddling the likes of Rev. Skorzewski and publicly endorsing events like the 2015 Christian Leadership Experience. In my opinion, the only way to survive now with pure teaching and faith intact is to evacuate, to leave everything behind and start anew on higher ground.

Spewing the Doctrines of “Christian Hedonism”

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 02:00:00 +0000

Earlier today, “Matthias Flach” of the blog, Polluted WELS posted an article critical of a Contemporary Lutheran Church in Minneapolis, MN – Pilgrim Lutheran – its praise band, SON Band, and of lay pastor Dr. Scott Gostchock (WELS), who preaches during the band's worship performances. Says “Matthias”:

SON Message

It isn't good enough to preach God's Word from the Bible because that's just “words on a page”.
We must somehow “experience” God's presence apart from those words on a page.
It's not the job of the church to condemn sin.

Keep in mind that the good Doctor is from the Twin Cities, Minnesota, home of Dr. John Piper (of the former “Baptist General Conference,” which has adopted a “new missional name, Converge Worldwide”) and his theology of Christian Hedonism. We briefly reviewed the theology of Dr. Piper, and its connection to the requirements of Christian worship and Christian experience, in our post, Post-Modernism, Pop-culture, Transcendence, and the Church Militant :

Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist

happiness

into a Christian Hedonist

The pursuit of joy in God is not optional

It is not saving faith

⁴

⁵

⁶

⁷

⁸

⁹

¹⁰

more

¹¹

¹²

It is not surprising that Dr. Gostchock and “SON Band”¹³ would be echoing Dr. Piper's theology, even if only in some muted and truncated fashion -- I live in the same area, and having friends and relatives deeply involved in the Contemporary Worship scene in the Twin Cities, I know for a fact that (a) the Christian entertainment racket is a fairly close knit group of people¹⁴, and (b) if they have one at all, Piper's Christian Hedonism is their Confessional document. Piper is very influential around here -- indeed, I've long considered the late Rev. Klemet Preus' book, The Fire and the Staff, (whose church was actually fairly near to Piper's), as a highly needed Lutheran rebuttal to Piper's Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. More rebuttal is necessary, in my opinion.

Dr. Piper's experientialist doctrine of “Christian Hedonism”, like the doctrine preached by the lay pastor Dr. Scott Gostchock (WELS), is not only enthusiasm, as Rev. “Matthias Flach” points out, it is also rank synergism. It is also a fundamental aspect of what seems to be the greatest and most insidious worldly threat to invade the Church in our day, one that attacks objectivity in all forms, and empties language of all definite meaning: Post-Modernism. We've blogged about this in the past, as well:

Experientialism: The post-Modern Church's way of “Becoming the Culture”
(from The Health of the Church has more than just religious significance)
The philosophy of Materialistic Rationalism, with which Western man was equipped as he entered the 20^th Century, was a very optimistic philosophy – the pinnacle of Modernistic thought. Declaring the future equivalent to progress, and limiting reality to the scientifically observable, it confidently identified man's capacity for scientific achievement as the source of that progress, and with this as foundation for the ordering of society, held high-expectations for cultural advancement. Yet, the 20^th Century is on record as the bloodiest in history. Indeed, it took less than two decades for serious doubt to develop, as the destruction and human suffering of World War I simply galvanized the sensibilities of modern Westerners. Man was indeed powerful, yet demonstrated that he was not powerful enough to restrain his own inbred evil. The horrors of World War II sealed the fate of Modernism, and the West has increasingly advanced beyond it, into post-Modernism – an essentially experiential philosophy questioning the adequacy of formal language as a vessel sufficient to carry the message of Truth, which is thus utterly dismissive of objective truth-claims and ambivalent toward the future...

It was stated above, that the Church “has struggled mightily and in various ways against the withering onslaught of man's great enemy – the World – yet has been forced into retreat.” Following this, a litany of false teaching, in which some truth and great struggle is evident, was produced to show how the Church has conducted its struggle: from within the context of having “become the culture.” In point of fact, the recent history of the Christian Church is littered with the theological ruins of Christian movements which have, in a flailing desperation for the “survival of the church,” become the culture, either not realizing, forgetting or rejecting the fact that the World is one of the Christian's Great Enemies. In the modern West, doing so has meant adopting one of two perspectives: that of rationalistic Empiricism or of mystical Existentialism. In reality, neither perspective is acceptable; both place mankind at the center of truth, and argue their way to God and for man's relationship with Him from (a) the intellectual (objective), or (b) experiential (subjective) attributes of man's existence – the historical record of God's Special Revelation of Himself to mankind no longer being relevant for this purpose, by the World's standards...

That the Church must “become the culture” is a lie. That it has increasingly “become the culture” is the manifest reason Western Christianity has slowly disintegrated over the past three centuries. Taking on the culture of the World has produced a vacillating imbalance between emphasis on intellect and emotion in the Church, between reason and experience, objectivity and subjectivity – and not just an imbalance, but a thrashing between these emphases that has drawn the attention of the Church away from the saving events and message of the Gospel, away from the centrality of Christ, and instead upon man and the dual fundamental characteristics of his existence. No, Christianity must not “become the culture” any more than it should it cut itself off from society. No, the Church must not abdicate in the face of its great enemy, the World, either by joining it or by running from it. Rather, as an historical institution, with an historical and saving message, it must stand and face the World on the basis of its confession, it must earnestly contend for the faith (Jude 3), by (a) holding on to the specific and historic truths of Scripture in its doctrine, and (b) defending and proclaiming this truth in its practice...

post-Modern Experientialism and Doctrinal Ambiguity
(from “Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part One)
Man naturally pursues a “Theology of Glory.” The consequences of this with respect to God’s many gifts to mankind are clearly stated by Dr. Martin Luther, who stated in his 24^th Thesis at the Heidelberg Disputation, “without the 'Theology of the Cross' man misuses the best in the worst manner.” It should come as no surprise, therefore, that where man permits himself the freedom and authority to arbitrate God’s Revelation, he does so with the force and finality of God Himself. It should also come as no surprise that man, according to his nature, does work toward this very end – whether deliberately or quite unconsciously – and that he revels in the glory assigned to him for his efforts.

It seems most charitable to assume that no confessing Christian would deliberately seek a place of judgment over God’s Word, and to leave it at that – remaining oblivious to its likelihood and limiting ourselves to the messy job of first recognizing when it happens and then reacting to it long after the fact. This is, however, a dangerously pollyanna attitude, since the tactic of arguing for the abstruseness of Scripture, in order to deliberately accumulate authority and glory to man, is not unknown in the history of the Church. In fact, this is exactly how, and why, Erasmus, in his Freedom of the Will (a.k.a. De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio, or Diatribe), and later supporting works, argued for the ambiguity of the Scriptures – to maintain the freedom and authority of man over against Scripture. And Erasmus’ arguments have remained active as a dominant force in Western Society and, through it, the Christian Church – more so today, perhaps, than ever before.

(from “Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part Two)
Dear reader, we ought to thank Dr. Nestingen for alerting us to the tactic of asserting Scripture’s ambiguity as opportunity for supposed liberty, and for locating the modern source of this tactic in Erasmus – who opposed Luther in this regard. It seems, in our post-Modern age, when ALL truth and meaning are self-referentially experiential, that the “discovery” of ambiguity in the Scriptures, having become great sport, has accelerated to an alarming rate!

post-Modern Experientialism governs Ideology of Language... and Bible Translation
(from The NIV 2011 and the Importance of Translation Ideology)
As Mr. Peeler pointed out, Dynamic Equivalency (the translation ideology of the CBT) is related to post-Modernism in its understanding of meaning in language as a social construction (“grammar follows usage”) – an understanding which is a very recent innovation. According to it, social experience is the vehicle for, and social context the arbiter of, meaning. Language is merely a social experience by which meaning is conveyed, and it is the immediate social context which dictates both usage and meaning, not the structure of the language itself. As a result, post-Modernism teaches that meaning is always subjective and relative (resulting in a lack of clarity... terms and phrases of otherwise objective meaning become “slippery”). This is why post-Modernists will insist that there is no truth – not because there actually is or is not Truth, but because even if Truth does exist, it cannot be expressed since language is insufficient to convey it.

But what is “Dynamic Equivalency?”

To use a very widely used (and seriously discussed) example, the post-Modern adherent of Dynamic Equivalency will complain that the passage in Isaiah which reads “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow,” cannot be understood by a person who has never seen snow. It has no meaning because it is not part of his experience. As a result, instead of actually using the word “snow” to communicate “white-ness,” a more effective translation for, say, a resident of the Caribbean may be “the sands of St. Thomas Beach.” But that wouldn’t communicate to someone outside the Caribbean, so another translation would be needed for those groups of people who have seen neither white snow nor white sand, but which is common to their unique experience – fields of cotton, for instance, or even milk. These are all naturally occurring examples of the color white, and communicate the idea of “white-ness” just as effectively. It doesn’t matter that the word in the original is “snow.” This is Dynamic Equivalency, and the job of the translator under this ideology is to (a) interpret the meaning of the source language, and (b) choose his own words in the target language that communicate this same idea.

Only, notice in the case of “snow” used above, that the translator, while communicating “white-ness” through the use of alternative words, fails to communicate the idea of a “covering” which descends from above, and also fails to communicate the idea of “cleansing,” which is precisely what snow does for the landscape as it melts (and is also part of the meaning directly intended by Isaiah). Thus, under the ideology of Dynamic Equivalency, the translator, in choosing his “alternative phraseology,” is said to “pick and choose” from the source language what meaning he will include in his translation – not because he is forced by inadequacies in either source or target languages, but because he is ideologically (a) given license to do so in order that he may engage in the task of interpretation, and (b) constrained by his own ideas of what constitutes “meaning” within a given social or cultural construct and of what patterns of words can be legitimately used in association with that meaning...

Experientialism always a Bridge to Open Ecumenism, accelerates in the post-Modern Era under Church Growth Movement
(from The Church Growth Movement: A brief synopsis of its history and influences in American Christianity)
A primary purpose of the Evangelical Movement, as a reaction against Fundamentalism, was ecumenism, and this Evangelical purpose was seriously supported and engaged at Fuller. Enter “Mr. Pentecost,” David J. du Plessis, who had been active through the 1950’s as an ardent proponent of ecumenism on behalf of the Pentecostals, convinced that the Pentecostal “experience” could serve as an effective ecumenical bridge to non-Pentecostals (namely, the historic mainline denominations) and help bring unity to Christianity worldwide.

That “experience” had its modern genesis partly in the Brethren movements of Europe¹⁵ in the early/mid-1800's (the left-overs of Scandinavian and German Pietism), but especially in the practices of the Scottish Irvingites with whom John Nelson Darby (Plymouth Brethren) spent much time during their outbreaks of agalliasis (“manifestations of the Holy Spirit,” which, among the Irvingites at that time and place, included practices such as automatic writing, levitation, and communication with the dead¹⁶) and whose practice and theology (including the foundations of Dispensationalism) influenced him greatly. Passing from Darby to James H. Brooks and Cyrus I. Scofield in America, his teaching has continued to see development over the years and is still disseminated by Dallas Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, Bob Jones University and others.

These experiential practices began finding their way to America at about the same time that a charlatan known as Charles Finney exploited the use of these “New Methods,” as they were called, during America's “Second Great Awakening,” fueling the fever of “revivalism” and captivating Christians with the allure of the “Anxious Bench” as a means of saving souls¹⁷. Widespread use of such practices strengthened the Brethren movements and touched off the Holiness Movements within Methodism (which later developed into [and at Azusa Street, Los Angeles in 1906, was confirmed as] full-blown Pentecostalism). By the mid- to late-1800's, such radical practices defined “American Worship” – and it was precisely these forms that Walther notoriously condemned. Even the Old Norwegian Synod, in the 1916 edition of its Lutheran Hymnary, Junior stated its warning against Sectarian “American Worship” forms... By engaging in such forms, the Old Norwegian Synod insisted, Lutherans will wind up singing their way out of their own Confession. A sound application of lex orandi, lex credendi.

With widespread criticism against these experiential “American Worship” forms, and, let’s face it, their rather shallow substance, infantile antics, and transparently manipulative purposes, such practices fell out of fashion by the early 1900's (as “contemporary” forms have a habit of doing anyway). Nevertheless, Pentecostals continued to cling to them, and continued to develop them alongside their theology. Accordingly, such worship forms have come to mean much of the following:

the actions of the worshiper are themselves Means of Grace, or means through which the Holy Spirit supposedly comes to, and works in, the worshiper;
the Holy Spirit's work in and through the worshiper’s actions is generally regarded as a function of the zeal with which the worshiper engages in them;
the purpose of these acts is human centered, “to draw near to God in the act of worship,” that He would reciprocate by drawing near to the worshiper and experientially confirm for the worshiper that the Holy Spirit is with him, and that he is therefore accepted and loved by God;
these acts of “drawing near to God” are really acts of man's yearning, tarrying, and striving, of wrestling with God through worship and prayer with the expectation that He give the blessing of spiritual experience in return;
the assurance of one's salvation is measured by the magnitude of the blessing which proceeds from successfully wrestling with God – in the experience of God Himself through worship;
such experience of the Holy Spirit's presence in worship or prayer, or “the Baptism of the Holy Spirit,” is public confirmation of an individual's “spiritual anointing,” of his salvation and approval before God, and serves as divine qualification and appointment for ministerial authority in the congregation (creating levels of Christians in the congregation based on relative “spirituality”);
apart from such visible experiences, the individual is naturally prompted to introspection regarding why God does not bless him with His presence (with the usual explanations being sin or doubt, or not really being saved, or even demonic possession), and is looked upon with suspicion by fellow worshipers as one who is not visibly accepted and blessed by God – both factors leading individual worshipers who lack spiritual experiences to guilt and dismay;
as a result, many of those who have habituated themselves to the “Pentecostal Experience,” also have a keenly developed ability to whip themselves into a frothy lather (to avoid introspection and the suspicion of others, and to vaunt their spirituality in the eyes of others); if they cannot, or do not, or are unable to reach a pinnacle of spiritual euphoria according to their own expectations, or those of their peers, they just blame it on the band for “not doing it right;”
worship accompaniment must therefore serve the need of the worshipers to have particular spiritual experiences, by manufacturing those experiences for them;
and these experiences are referred to as “the working of the Holy Spirit,” even though they are little more than the cooperative effort of human worshipers seeking hard after emotional/psychological “spiritual experiences,” and of human entertainers, mounted on stages in classic entertainment-oriented venues, who are skilled at providing those experiences for their audiences;
thus, the “Pentecostal Experience,” and all of its derivatives (including contemporary “Sectarian Worship”), are the epitome of anthropocentric worship practice, which, as stated above, remove Christ and His service to man from the center of the Divine Service, and instead place man, his interests and his entertainment needs at the center... and blaspheme God by crediting the results of man’s work, outside of and apart from the direct use of the Means of Grace, to the Holy Spirit..

post-Modern Experientialism, and its experiential language forms, thriving in WELS
(from A Sermon for Sunday of Holy Week, or 'Palm Sunday': “Stand Ye in the Ways, and Find Rest for Your Souls” — Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann)
There is much value in the words of those Christians who've preceded us, particularly these days, as those words come down to us from a time when post-Modernism was unknown, from a time when language still carried objective meaning. In such words, we find the full force of objective conviction and confident passion, words that are chosen for their direct and unequivocal clarity – as well they ought to be, given that the receptor of language is the human mind. This is in contrast to words chosen by contemporary Christian writers and speakers, who are apparently under the illusion that words are not received principally by the mind, but by the entire human body. Words, even the words of Scripture, result not principally in thought from which meaning is derived, but primarily in a human experience from which meaning is derived. One prominent contemporary Lutheran has even stated as much, in writing, regarding the public reading of Scripture:

We expect that the primary way in which most WELS people experience most of the Bible, most of the time, is by hearing it read in the context of the public worship service

¹⁸

The speech patterns of post-Modernism are unmistakable in references such as this. The message of the Bible is to be primarily experienced not contemplated; it is more important that the masses have a feeling for what the Bible says, and have a positive experience in relation to that feeling, rather than understand the Scriptures as precisely as possible, especially if the process of understanding is a negative experience of mental struggle.

In the words of Christians who've preceded us, we also find the comfort of discovering that they faced the same issues we face today. Christians have always been concerned about the health of the Church, and, certainly, this is not necessarily a bad thing; but in connection with this concern, they have also been known to take great pride in counting their numbers as a show of growth, as a show of power and influence over others, and as a show of what they've accomplished for Christ...

18:

Forward in Christ 98

NOTE: President Wendland is here naming and defending criteria for the choice of a new translation for Synod. This particular criterion plainly trumps the claim that Synod's choice of standard translation is only meant to be the translation used by NPH in its publications, that it does not represent the Synod's recommendation or requirement for use in the local congregation. On the contrary, by establishing this as a relevant and primary criterion, President Wendland directly states “it is expected” that Synod's choice of standard translation will also be the standard translation used in every congregation, will be the translation generally read in public during the Divine Service. It is “expected,” and is therefore a primary criterion in the selection of a standard translation.

Some may be tempted to dismiss President Wendland's emphasis of the term “expectation” in connection with the translation used in WELS parishes, yet, even this month, this point was again emphasized Rev. John Braun, who writes:

Which Bible should you choose? ...We may prefer to use the translation we have used most often, but which Bible will be the best choice for the next generation? ...My pastor had a good answer to that question. He suggested that we purchase the Bible our children have used in their instruction classes

That makes good sense. Passages that were memorized came from that version. Most of today's confirmands have grown familiar with the NIV 1984 in the same way I became comfortable with the King James Version. God willing, they will continue to read their confirmation Bibles and treasure them for the truths of God's Word.

Forward in Christ 100

Hence, it is known, indeed, it is “expected,” that the version of the Bible used in catechism materials and other publications distributed by NPH will be the version from which WELS children, and members of all WELS congregations, will be indoctrinated; it will be the version they memorize, contemplate and repeat to one another for the rest of their lives. If Synod in Convention chooses the NIV 2011 this Summer as the “translation used in WELS publications,” then “IT WILL BE EXPECTED” that (a) an egalitarian version of the Bible, that is (b) rendered at the sixth-grade reading level, will be that which our children will (c) “memorize, contemplate and repeat to one another” for the rest of their lives. For the rest of their lives, they will be “memorizing, contemplating and repeating to one another” a translation of the Bible rendered in terms that are (a) twisted to comply with the cultural standards of militant feminism that has been in a state of open war against the Church and Christian teaching from the start, in (b) terms no more sophisticated than a sixth grader.

This is the form of indoctrination that awaits our children, should the NIV 2011 be chosen this Summer by Synod in Convention, and it will impact them long into adulthood. Their thinking in matters of religion, as they will have been taught from childhood, will not equip them for their lives as adults, it will only equip them with the thinking capacity of twelve-year-old child. At the same time, they will receive instruction in the ideas of the world from their schools, colleges and workplaces, and from the acquaintances and friends they meet through their lives, in terms suitable for adults. Moreover, the word patterns they repeat to one another from childhood will prepare them to receive with gladness the false teaching of the feminists. The juvenile thinking patterns taught them by their NIV Bibles will render them impotent against not only worldliness, but from direct attacks of the World. We see it now, among those adults who've been taught to think about their faith in the simplistic terms of the NIV 1984. Indeed, I am convinced that blame for the appalling state of American Christianity today can be attributed, at least in part, to the popularity of the NIV 1984 over the past generation. It's users are notoriously unprepared for anything but an “experiential” religious life, and decry anything that is not a “positive experience” as false, or of the devil. They are helpless, and mostly worthless as defenders of the Truth. What else is to be expected? Clumsily wielding a dull Sword, they're not dependable partners in battle. I've witnessed the shamefulness of their easily-avoided defeat many times. They look like fools, and make all other Christians look like fools right along with them, for the sole reason that they transparently think and reason like fools, they articulate their thoughts with the shallow predictability of children. To prepare children for adulthood, they must be prepared with thoughts and words that will actually serve them in adulthood, as adults. They must be prepared for adulthood by equipping them with words and thought patterns with respect to their religion that are suitable for adults. This is accomplished by having them “memorize, contemplate and repeat to one another” the Scriptures according to the standards of adult literacy -- adult speech and thought patterns, not those of a sixth grader. The difference between childishness and adulthood that is suggested by St. Paul in this regard is stark:

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1 Cor. 13:11

Likewise, the Proverbs tell us:

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Pr. 22:15

The Bible says in these verses, and in others, that childish ways and thinking are habits and behaviours which the adult IS EXPECTED to put behind him, not retain throughout his life, and which he must be trained to put behind him from childhood. Training Christians to think and speak like twelve-year-olds for the rest of their lives is no way to prepare them for the rigours of Christian adulthood. The NIV, whether the 1984 or the 2011 edition, DOES NOT ADEQUATELY PREPARE CHILDREN FOR CHRISTIAN ADULTHOOD.

So let's have no more talk of dismissing the importance of Synod's choice “translation used in WELS publications,” as if it weren't intended to have, indeed, if it weren't “THE EXPECTATION” that it have, wider and deeper impact than merely the “translation used in WELS publications.” It is clearly “expected” to be far more than just this. And it undoubtedly will be.

Surrender, Retreat or Die! The Prison of Pedologia that awaits post-Modern Experientialists
(from Impressions from My Visit with ELDoNA at their 2013 Colloquium and Synod – PART V.5 (FINAL))
There were two problems. FIRST, most young adults entering college were totally unequipped to think about their faith in complex or abstract terms – in the same types of terms in which they were absorbing ideas from their college professors, textbooks and other coursework. This was a language problem – and it included students who were raised in conservative Christian homes, who studied their Bibles on a regular basis. They certainly had the raw ability to think about their faith in such terms – they just had no training or practice. But not everyone was so ill-equipped. There was one major difference between those of us who were practiced at thinking about our faith in complex or abstract terms, and those who were not: for the most part, we had been reared on Bibles having a faithfully complex grammar and vocabulary.

---------------
I was a little boy when my father started teaching me how to shoot. He refused to put a “child's gun” in my hands: “A gun is a man's tool. It is not a cute child's toy, but a tool that requires the utmost responsibility, a man's responsibility, to use safely and effectively.” He put a man's shotgun in my hands, never allowing me to think of a gun as anything other than something for adults. It was heavy, at first. I could hardly hold it up, and when I fired it I entirely missed, and my shoulder hurt. But over time, with practice and maturity, I grew into it. By the time I had entered adulthood, I was proficient in its use, ready to independently take on the adult responsibilities that go along with the use of a tool meant for a grown man. It was never a toy in my mind, it was always very serious business.

The same was true of my Bible. When I became a proficient reader, I was given an adult's Bible – the NASB. It was too big for me. Too heavy. I didn't know how to use it right. But with practice and maturity, I grew into it, and by the time I had entered adulthood I was proficient in its use. I was able to reason alongside the author as he developed his point, and, understanding a given teaching from the standpoint of the various nuances that went into its development (many of which are grammatical), I was able to apply it, or aspects of it, to challenges that faced me, and to use the form of reasoning taught me by the inspired authors to engage in more complex patterns of thought on my own. My parents, in choosing to put an adult Bible in my hands, preserved me from a lifetime of Christian pedologia. The majority of Christians I met while at college (and since) have not been spared this fate.

---------------
That was the case with most of us who were practiced at thinking about our faith in complex or abstract terms. Most used the NASB or the NKJV, some used the RSV, and only a couple still using the KJV. But many of us knew that when someone showed up to Bible study with an NIV or with a Living Bible, they were much more likely to struggle with Biblical concepts, and were going to have greater difficulty using their Bibles to respond to the complex challenges hurled at them by the secular World that surrounded us. This was because, reading the NIV or the Living Bible, they never had the opportunity to struggle through the text to understand the nuanced teachings of Scripture – they had no practice at it; they had never learned to follow the complex reasoning of the inspired authors, and to think alongside them. All that the text offered was simplistic prose, stripped of nuance, reduced for readers of the sixth grade level. Let me tell you, there isn't a single translation of Hegel, Marx, Darwin, Kant, Hume, Descartes or any of the other great thinkers of World history, that has been reduced for a sixth grade reader! And when a college student sets his NIV or Living Bible next to one of these authors, or even next to one of his recently published textbooks – which also aren't rendered for sixth graders! – he sees that his Bible is just what his classmates and professors tell him it is: a book of children's stories invented to scare people into submission. Bibles like the NIV or the Living Bible certainly aren't books for adults – not like the books they are reading in college, which, instead of the Bible (unfortunately), are the books that are teaching them to think and reason as adults for the first time.

And so this is the problem with equipping children with children's Bibles, instead of adult Bibles. I know. I witnessed it. I was there. For over ten years. When the enemy is swinging a Claymore over your head, you better have something more substantial than a butter knife to parry it with! If you don't, you are left with two alternatives: (a) surrender, or (b) turn tail and run. And the NIV, along with the Living Bible, has – in the heat of battle when it really counts – shown itself to be little more than a butter knife. I was never so thankful for having been trained in my faith, from childhood, using an adult Bible, than when I was in college and had to use it to combat complex false ideas and defend the simple truth. I even tried using the NIV for awhile in college, but threw it away fearing that my mind would get flabby from using it. Many fellow students switched to adult-grade Bibles, too – mostly on their own, after studying their Bibles, but we did have a couple of Bible study methods that I think provided some indirect encouragement toward that decision, as well.

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther on the Meaning of Christian Experience
To be fair, Dr. Martin Luther DID preach about the impact of “Christian Experience”, but hardly devoid of the Word, at the expense of the Word, or as a necessary addition to it. In his Epistle sermon for the Eighth Sunday after Trinity on Romans 8:12-17, he preaches of the experience of comfort from the objective message of the Gospel (the mere words on a page denigrated by the lay pastor Dr. Scott Gostchock [WELS], above), teaching that the experience of this comfort reinforces what the Word already teaches and the knowledge that we can rely on divine assistance when we call on Him in faith:

The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God

WELS has quite evidently become a voice-box for full-throated post-Modernism. There is no discernible level of protest, much less concern, over the adoption of these ideologies and the governing authority they have attained. WELS schools seem to be fully vested in the philosophies of this world, and the leaders fully captive to them. Most of the parishes seem to uncritically accept whatever is handed down to them. True, one hears squeaks and gurgles of protest from time to time, but I've come to believe that these are just the noises made as the chest of a dying body heaves its final gasps of air. But I have a feeling this one isn't going to go peacefully, and anticipate violent spasms as the end draws even nearer.

Endnotes:

Piper, J. (2003). Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian hedonist (2003 ed.). Sisters, Or: Multnomah Publishers. pg. 19.
Ibid. pp. 9, 24-25.
Ibid. pg. 55. (emphasis mine)
Ibid. pg. 73. (emphasis mine)
Ibid. pg. 81.
Ibid. pg. 94.
Ibid. pg. 100.
Ibid. pg. 98.
Ibid. pg. 90.
Ibid. pg. 92.
Ibid. pg. 97. (emphasis mine)
Ibid. pg. 82.
Why does the name “SON Band” remind me of the band SONSEED (top video)... ?
Many of the Sunday-morning entertainment groups, especially if they have been around for awhile, know, or know of, each other, jam/worship together, exchange bandmates and gigs, practice on each other justifying their own existence, etc... In fact, there was a minor flap a few years ago involving WELS contemporary worship entertainers practicing with/gigging with/standing in for musicians from non-WELS bands -- the issue with practicing together being that the Evangelicals usually combine practice with some sort of group prayer and study of the Scriptures...
Gerstner, J. (2000). Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism, 2^nd Edition. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications. pp. 17-59.
Please see following works:
For more information on the errors of Charles Finney, see the following article written by Michael Horton almost two decades ago:

UPDATED! — Organizer of 2015 Christian Leadership Experience (allegedly): “The only thing wrong with Lutheran churches is pastors who want to be Lutheran.”

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 07:00:00 +0000

On July 12, 2014, we featured content that was referred to in a post on the blog Polluted WELS. This blog was created in the middle of June 2014 by a WELS pastor writing under the pseudonym “Matthias Flach”, who was evidently frustrated with rapidly disappearing Confessionalism in WELS, with false unity among the clergy, threats from leadership, and overbearing laity in his congregation who boasted of “family connections.” The title of that June 12 post was Time to Spill the Beans, and we introduced his blog, as follows:

I stumbled across the following, rather old, exposé this morning while visiting the blog

Polluted WELS

The author of that blog, a current WELS pastor who, understandably, finds it necessary to remain anonymous, included a link to

in his post,

'Conformity over Confession'

While the details are dated, as a WELS pastor, he indicates that

all of the basics are absolutely accurate,

and that he

can personally verify that it’s true...

Yesterday afternoon, after ~20 posts since mid-June, one of which received over 150 comments, and over 20,000 page reads, Polluted WELS turned up missing.

Or deleted, rather.

He had been running a multi-part series critical of the 2015 Christian Leadership Experience -- which features Rev. Mark Jeske (WES) as the star of the conference, but who is also joined by many of his friends, followers, collaborators and other supporters in far less prominent speaking roles -- under the title “A Travesty Examined.” Many of these posts, now deleted from the blog Polluted WELS, have been preserved by Dr. Jackson on his blog, Ichabod, the Glory has Departed, at the following links:

A Travesty Examined, Part 1

A Travesty Examined, Parts 2 & 3

A Travesty Interrupted

A Travesty Examined, Part 5

Yet another pock marring what was once a reasonably sound Lutheran church body, this Conference, which bears none of the standards or identity of Confessional Lutheranism, is not only decidedly favorable to the Church Growth Movement, but drives Lutheran and Confessional thresholds even further south by swinging doors wide open to the teaching authority of women over men, inviting open ecumenism with heterodox who entirely reject the Lutheran Confession, and even flirting with pagan religiosity. In our recent post, What is the 2015 Christian Leadership Experience?, we exposed and concluded many of these points.

The final post of “Mathias Flach,” the author of Polluted WELS, was a response to one of his critics. In it, we discover the attitude of a person connected with one of the Organizers of Experience; it is exactly the attitude that we at Intrepid Lutherans have been describing and warning of since 2010, exactly the attitude our critics have denied exists, exactly the attitude which is now, in fact, normative in the Wisconsin Evangelical Synod, that is, if “pastors who want to be Lutheran” are those pastors who desire to demonstrate their Confession through church practice which is, in fact, manifestly “Lutheran” and decidedly non-Sectarian -- i.e., historical, liturgical, catholic and evangelical. We include his final post below, Kelm'ed from Dr. Jackson's blog (Proof That I Am Not the Author of the Polluted WELS Blog), following which we include links to other articles related to the Church Growth Movement for the interested reader.

My Response
(the final post from the now deleted blog, Polluted WELS)
Here's a comment I received, with my responses interspersed.

First, I am not sure who Lillo is, but this comment did not come from him. I do not know if your post can be edited, but that false testimony should be removed.

Lillo is Joel Lillo, a pastor from the Appleton area who (like you) wanted me to shut-up but (like you) didn't want to discuss the actual issues. I never said that you were Lillo, I said that I was reproducing your comments in pink in honor of Lillo. It's a joke from about a month ago on this blog about how colors are adiaphora. Before you start accusing people of sinning against the Eighth Commandment, you should get your facts straight, lest you yourself break that very commandment.

Matthias, I am your brother in Christ. It is also true (regardless of whether or not you want to admit it) that the leaders and presenters of this conference are your brother and sisters in that same Lord. Yes, I know many of the leaders of this conference personally.

No, the organizers of this conference are not my brothers. See, I know them personally too. One of the speakers at this conference, when he still with Parish Assistance, sowed discord in my home congregation and almost caused it to split. Another of the speakers has made attempts to personally undermine my ministry. Another person associated with one of the sponsoring organizations once said, in my presence, "The only thing wrong with Lutheran churches is pastors who want to be Lutheran."

These men are not my brothers. They are enemies of the gospel. They actively work to thwart the preaching of the gospel. I don't care how personally you know them. Jesus said, "By their fruit you will know them." These are wolves in sheep's clothing.

It is easy to know who is organizing - the hosting organizations are listed in numerous places.

That's not the same thing. How can I personally contact an organization?

This blog has become a tabloid because you are more concerned with sensationalism than truth.

What have I said that's not true? All of my posts on this conference have included direct quotations from the conference's own website.

I do not know what the Matthew 18 maneuver is. I know the chapter well, but I did not quote it.

Oh, come on. You know exactly what it is -- trying to shut down public debate by claiming that one must speak privately to a person first. As I said, Matthew 18 is about private sin, not public sin.

You are a WELS pastor with legitimate concerns about this conference. You chose to blog rather than speak to anyone.

Yeah, you better believe it. These sponsoring organizations own the DPs. Two of the DP who are supposed to be the most Confessional are preaching at this conference. If I dared to voice my concerns, I would [be] automatically labeled "divisive" and blackballed. Anonymous blogging is the only recourse Confessional Lutheran pastors have.

Fine. But why do you choose to be the Enquirer?

How am I being the Enquirer? I'm not exposing personal information. I'm not calling people aliens.

Why not open a conversation by sharing legitimate concerns and asking the blogging community if they have more information or if they share the same concerns?

That's exactly what I am doing.

You had an opportunity to establish the style and substance of this blog a couple weeks ago. You slid into sensationalism and snide judgment. Any opportunity for positive influence or change slips right down that same slope. Your posters from now on will be the few who already share your thoughts. The inflated view count will be those who enjoy the guilty pleasure of a Lutheran tabloid.

Here's another tactic of the "synod-minders" -- whine about the tone. Guess what? When you're exposing false doctrine, you can't do it gently. The Law cuts and destroys. These are all grown men that I'm talking about, and they most certainly know how to dish out the "snide judgment" against others. They should be able to take some too.

Mathias, the members of your church need the love, instruction, and shepherding that you are trained and called to provide. My hope is that you pour abundantly more energy into that call than you expend in this online endeavor.

Why would you assume anything else? Are you trying to undermine my ministry too?

Here are some additional posts related to the Church Growth Movement, the real meaning of Change in the Church, and the recourse of laity, from previous posts on Intrepid Lutherans:

Rev. Rydecki was once personally criticized by one of the Experience speakers for his post, A refreshing church growth strategy: Get smaller and die. In that post, he concludes:

So, God save us from the successful church. Give us churches who shun sentimentality and pragmatism and aren't afraid to face the inevitable shrinkage which comes as a result of following Jesus. God save us from church leadership strategies. After all, it takes zero faith to follow a strategy, but incredible faith to pursue the kingdom of God and leave the rest in God's hands. If I've learned anything as a pastor, it is this: faithfulness flies in the face of sentimentality and pragmatism, and if you pursue it you have to expect small numbers.

And so do we.

UPDATE 8/4/2014, approx 2:21pm: The blog Polluted WELS is back online. The author's explanation follows:

I'm Back