THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod 1962 Part Two _The Concept and Practice of Church Fellowship as Disclosed by Church History_ The teachings of Scripture concerning the fellowship of Christians with God through faith in Christ, and the fellowship with one another which inevitably follows from their mutual fellowship with God as His children, as set forth in Part I of _THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP_, are meant to be translated into practice. A study of the history of the Christian church shows that the church has sought to do this, both in the intimate circle of the local congregation and beyond, in what has commonly been called church fellowship, or _communicatio in sacris_, terms somewhat more inclusive than the expression "pulpit and altar fellowship." Pulpit and altar fellowship are, however, among the outstanding manifestations of church fellowship. During the early centuries of her existence the Christian church sought for sound principles to guide her in the practice of church fellowship. In the following we seek to set forth the understanding and practice of church fellowship which guided the church during three periods of her history: A. during the first four centuries of the Christian era; B. during the century following the Reformation; C. during the time of the Lutheran Church in America. A. _CHURCH FELLOWSHIP DURING THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA_ The first four centuries of the Christian era, extending to the time of St. Augustine, are of particular importance for an understanding of the subject of church fellowship. During these centuries which were marked by the rise of numerous THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod 1962 Part Two _The Concept and Practice of Church Fellowship as Disclosed by Church History_ The teachings of Scripture concerning the fellowship of Christians with God through faith in Christ, and the fellowship with one another which inevitably follows from their mutual fellowship with God as His children, as set forth in Part I of _THEOLOGY OF FELLOWSHIP_, are meant to be translated into practice. A study of the history of the Christian church shows that the church has sought to do this, both in the intimate circle of the local congregation and beyond, in what has commonly been called church fellowship, or _communicatio in sacris_, terms somewhat more inclusive than the expression "pulpit and altar fellowship." Pulpit and altar fellowship are, however, among the outstanding manifestations of church fellowship. During the early centuries of her existence the Christian church sought for sound principles to guide her in the practice of church fellowship. In the following we seek to set forth the understanding and practice of church fellowship which guided the church during three periods of her history: A. during the first four centuries of the Christian era; B. during the century following the Reformation; C. during the time of the Lutheran Church in America. A. _CHURCH FELLOWSHIP DURING THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES OF THE CHRISTIAN ERA_ The first four centuries of the Christian era, extending to the time of St. Augustine, are of particular importance for an understanding of the subject of church fellowship. During these centuries which were marked by the rise of numerous heresies and schisms, the church was obliged to think earnestly about her true nature in the light of Scripture. As she did so, she developed principles to guide her in the practice of church fellowship, and fashioned the instruments which would enable her to carry the accepted principles into practice. 1. _CHURCH FELLOWSHIP DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE APOSTLES_ So long as the apostles lived and personally supervised the churches, which were still few in number, the matter was relatively simple. Under the guidance of the apostles wicked persons were put out of the congregation (Acts 5:4-10; 1 Cor. 5:13); heretics were unmasked (Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Tim. 1:19, 20); and the activities of potential schismatics were restrained (1 Cor. 1:10ff.). However, as the church grew, the best efforts of the apostles no longer sufficed to exclude all gross sinners and heretics from the churches, as St. John's letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor show (Rev. 2 and 3). 2. _CHURCH FELLOWSHIP AFTER THE DEATH OF THE APOSTLES_ If the last decades of the apostolic age already indicate that the practice of church fellowship was beset by great difficulties from wicked men and from heretical teachers within Christian congregations, these difficulties increased greatly after the death of the apostles. The return of the Lord to judgment, which He Himself had foretold (Matt. 24:3ff.), and which the church appears to have expected as imminent (Phil. 4:5; 2 Thess. 2:1-3), was delayed. This was used by some as an excuse for a slackening of Christian living (2 Peter 3:3,4). Moreover, the church, even under persecution, experienced a phenomenal growth, penetrating ever more deeply into the farthest reaches of the Roman Empire and beyond. The church found it increasingly difficult to keep herself free of manifestly impenitent sinners. Also the problem of the so-called "lapsi," people who had denied their Lord during persecution but later repented and desired to be readmitted to the church, troubled the church throughout the period of the persecutions and beyond. While the church wrestled with these problems, she was constantly engaged in the struggle against heresy and schism. Of one thing the church was certain: no heretic and no schismatic could be a member of the church.[1] However, the definition of heresy and heretic, and of schism and schismatic was not simple. So long as the heretics were men like the Gnostics, who held fanciful and often revolting concepts of God, or Docetists, who taught that the Son of God had not really come in the flesh (1 John 4:2, 3), they could easily be identified and branded heretics. When, however, more subtle errors arose, or when heretics used language which appeared to differ but little from that employed by orthodox teachers of the church, it became possible for an Arius to mislead even bishops and emperor, and it was only with the greatest difficulty that this man was finally identified as a heretic and excommunicated. It is not possible to gain an unequivocal definition of heresy and heretic from the church fathers. The father who spoke most specifically on this question is Saint Augustine. 3. _ST. AUGUSTINE'S DEFINITION OF HERESY AND SCHISM_ St. Augustine admitted that the definition of heresy and heretic was anything but simple. When a deacon by the name of Quodvultdeus asked him "to write a compendium of all heresies which have spawned against the teaching of the Lord our Saviour since the time of His coming," Augustine responded that two learned bishops had compiled such lists, but that one had listed 128 heresies, the other 80. He concludes: This would surely not have happened if what appeared heresy to one of them had also appeared heresy to the other. . . . Undoubtedly, when there was a question of deciding what constitutes a heresy they did not see it in the same way. As a matter of fact, this is an extremely difficult definition to formulate, and when we try to enumerate all of them we have to be on our guard not to pass over some which are really heresies or to include some which are not.[2] Though St. Augustine admits that the definition of heresy and heretic is difficult, he clearly operates with a definition, and it is possible to show from his writings what that definition was. Augustine recognized in heresy an objective element which is common to all heresy, and he also recognized in heretics a number of subjective elements. a. _The Objective Element of Heresy_ The objective element which all heresies and heretics have in common is error in doctrine; that is, a departure from some phase of the rule of faith as it gradually took form amid the labors and struggles of the church, first in the so-called Baptismal Confession, and in time in the Apostles' Creed. In his interpretation of the tares among the wheat, Augustine says: . . .it may also be said, that the children of the evil one (_mali_) are heretics, who, though begotten out of the same seed of the Gospel and name of Christ, have been turned to wicked opinions and false dogmas.[4] In this understanding of the objective element of heresy Augustine is at one with the understanding of the church both before and after him. b. _The Subjective Elements of Heresy_ Among the subjective elements of heresy, which are to be found in the person of the heretic, Augustine lists obstinacy, perversity, intractability, and the desire for personal gain and glory. Writing to a friend, Honoratus, who was himself under the influence of heresy, and whom Augustine was seeking to win away from it, he writes: A heretic, as I suppose, is one who for some temporal advantage, and chiefly for his own glory and preeminence, begets or follows new and false opinions.[5] To the subjective characteristics of the genuine heretic, in Augustine's opinion, belongs obstinacy in defending his error. Those. . .in the Church of Christ who savor anything morbid and depraved, and, on being corrected that they may savor what is wholesome and right, contumaciously resist, and will not mend their pestiferous and deadly dogmas, but persist in defending them become heretics, and going without [scil. the Church] are to be reckoned as enemies. . .[6] A clear recognition of the subjective elements which characterize the genuine heretic enables St. Augustine to draw a sharp line of distinction between a heretic and an erring person who is not a heretic. Not to be classed as heretics, according to Augustine, are persons who are deceived by a heretic, and in ignorance follow him. Writing to Honoratus, who was enmeshed in the toils of the Manichaean heresy, he writes: If I thought, Honoratus, that there was no difference between a heretic and one who follows heretics, I should judge that my tongue and my pen alike should remain quiescent in this matter. But there is a great difference. A heretic, as I sup- pose, is one who for some temporal advantage, and chiefly for his own glory and preeminence, begets or follows new and false opinions. He who trusts such men is deluded by some illusory appearance of truth and piety. This being so, I thought I ought not keep silent. . . .[7] Also not an heretic, according to St. Augustine, is a person in the Catholic church, who holds an heretical opinion, however in the erroneous persuasion that it is the teaching of the church. Concerning such a person Augustine says: I consider him as not yet a heretic unless, when the doctrine of the Catholic faith is made clear to him, he chooses to resist it, and prefers that which he already holds.[8] According to Augustine people who inherited error are not to be accounted heretics. . . .those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated their own error by bold presumption, but received it from parents, who had been led astray and had lapsed, those who seek truth with careful industry, ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics.[9] Less sharp is Augustine's definition of schism and schismatic, though he is firm on the proposition that neither heretics nor schismatics are true members of the church. Concerning the difference between a heretic and a schismatic he says: It is customary also to ask wherein schismatics differ from heretics, and to find that it is not a different faith which makes schismatics, but the fact that a group has broken fellowship.[10] When Cresconius, who was in the Donatist schism, resented having Donatists called heretics, he stated the difference between heresy and schism as follows: A heresy is a sect following different beliefs; a schism a separation following the same beliefs. Augustine accepted this. However, he adds a bit later: I can approve even more that distinction between schism and heresy, according to which a schism is said to be a recent dissension in the congregation from some diversity of opinion (for a schism cannot happen, unless those who make it follow something different); a heresy however, is a schism which has become old (_in veteratum_). He offers that if the Donatists will concede this, he will call them schismatics rather than heretics.[11] 4 _THE CONCEPT OF HERESY AND HERETIC IN LUTHER_ We consider it useful to append to this study of the concept of heresy and schism in St. Augustine a study of the concept of heresy and heretic in Luther, who owed so much in his theology initially to Augustine. Luther, even as Augustine, knows an objective an a subjective side in heresy add heretics. Essentially his statements agree with those of the Bishop of Hippo. On the objective side of heresy he says: A heretic is a person who does not believe those parts [scil. of the Christian doctrine] which are necessary believe.[12] Tetzel had called Luther a heretic because he had written against indulgences. That, countered Luther, not a heresy since the matter of indulgences is not an article of faith. Commenting on Acts 24:14 Luther says: Within Christendom all those are called heretics, who step outside the unity and common manner of the Christian faith. . .and believe in a manner peculiar to themselves, and choose ways for themselves; therefore the two words _catholicus_ and _haereticus_ are against each other. _Catholicus_ he is called who is with the multitude and agrees wholly with the entire congregation in faith and spirit; as St. Paul says to the Ephesians, ch.4, v. one baptism, one faith, one Lord, one Spirit, etc.; 1: _haereticus_ he is called who invents a way and party his own. Therefore _haereticus_ really means a man who has his own opinion in divine matters, a peculiar man (_ein Sonderling_) who knows something better, and chooses his own way to heaven.[13] Commenting on Ps. 11:1, Luther writes: The holy fathers understood this Psalm of the heretics and rightly so, only we must understand under heretics all those who teach a different righteousness than the righteousness which avails before God like the Jews and all those who urge works, or all who trust in their works of whom the Church today is full. . . .[14] Again Luther writes: This is a mark of all heretics, hypocrites, and enthusiasts that they invent their own picture of God.[l]5 Again he says: That man is not to be called a heretic who, contrary the commands of the Church omits ceremonies, even though he sins, because he does not keep what he promised. . . . That man must be called a heretic who stubbornly in an article of faith, and maintains error.[l6] Similar expressions could be multiplied on the objective side of heresy. However Luther, like Augustine, also knows a subjective side of heresy. On this subject he writes: . . .They [scil. heretics] are not conquered by the power of evidence, they do not permit themselves to be led by reason, also they are not won through the reputation of others, but are proud against all these things, and keep the upper hand, until the hand of the Highest changes them.[l7] He stresses in particular the love of honor on the part of heretics: Thus do commonly at all times all heretics, that they draw to themselves the honor, which is due the Church and the people of God, for each of them pretends to be closest to God.[18] Again: Heretics do not merely err, but refuse to be instructed defend their error as being right, and fight against the truth, which they know, and against their own conscience. Concerning such St. Paul says (Titus 3:10, 11): You are to avoid a heretic, when he has been admonished once or twice and you are to know, that such a man is perverted, and sins _autocatacritos_, that is, intentionally and against better knowledge, and wants to remain in his errors.[19] In the course of time Luther came to the conclusion that heresy is the sin against the Holy Ghost, because he had never seen or read of a heretic being converted. I have. . .never read, that the teachers who start heresies have been converted; they remain hardened in their opinion. . .they do not permit anyone to teach them or to hinder them. This is the sin against the Holy Ghost, for which there is no forgiveness. For it finds neither sorrow nor repentance, but defense and excuses as though it were a holy, precious thing, and as though the true Gospel, which is against it, were wholly of the devil.[20] In view of this essentially Augustinian concept of heresy and heretic in Luther we are not surprised to find Luther agreeing with Augustine also in his refusal to consider erring Christians heretics. Concerning a man who is ignorant of an article of faith he says: That man cannot be called a heretic, who is not acquainted with an article of faith.[21] In defense of himself against the charge that he is a heretic, he writes: The law [canon law is to be understood] defines and describes a heretic as a man who defends his error stubbornly. This we on our part have never done, but freely showed testimony from the Word of God and Scripture, and have gladly listened to the opinion of others.[22] Strong in its insistence on the difference between an erring Christian and a heretic is particularly the following statement, in which Luther uses the example of St. Augustine himself to establish and illustrate the difference: [The Holy Spirit] prophesies publicly and mightily that mingled among Holy Church there will be builders of wood, straw, and hay, that is, teachers who nevertheless remained on the foundation would suffer damage through fire but would nevertheless be saved. This cannot be understood of heretics. For these lay another foundation while those remain on the foundation, that is, in faith in Christ, are saved and are called God's saints, nevertheless have some hay, straw, and wood, which must be burnt through the fire of Holy Scripture, however without harm to their salvation. As St. Augustine says of himself: "Err I may; a heretic I will not be." The reason is that heretics do not merely err, but are not willing to be corrected, defend their error as being right and fight against the truth which they have come to know. . . . But St. Augustine will gladly confess his error, and be instructed. Therefore he cannot be a heretic, even though he should err. All other saints do likewise, and gladly give their hay, straw, and wood to the fire, that they may remain on the foundation of salvation.[23] The similarity between the concept of heresy and heretic in Augustine and in Luther is unmistakeable. There is, however, also a difference, due to Luther's clearer understanding of the doctrine of justification and of the nature of the church. The conception of heresy and heretic here set forth from Augustine, and particularly from Luther, is traceable in the Lutheran dogmaticians of the 17th century and is plainly evident in some of the writings of Dr. C.F.W. Walther.[24] 5. _THE CONCEPT OF THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH_ The concept of heresy and schism as set forth from the writings of Augustine was intimately linked with Augustine's concept of the church, which was generally the concept in the Western Church during the Middle Ages, except that after Augustine the primacy of the pope tended to play an increasingly important role in that concept. Nor should it be overlooked that this concept aroused strong protest from men like William of Occam, John Wyclif, and John Hus. It has been properly said that there was no dogma[25] of the church before the Reformation. The doctrine had not been confessionally fixed. There were, to be sure, two creedal statements on the church. The Apostles' Creed says: "I believe in. . .the holy Christian church, the communion of saints," and the Nicene Creed: "I believe one holy catholic and apostolic church." Neither of these statements constitutes a developed doctrine of the church. Dr. Werner Elert, in his book Abendmahl and _Kirchengemein- schaft in der alten Kirche_ etc., presents evidence that the expression in the Apostles' Creed, "the communion of saints" may not have been understood originally as a synonym of the holy Christian church, but may have meant "participation in sacred things," in the sense of the Sacrament of the Altar.[26] The words of the Nicene Creed, "I believe one holy, catholic, and apostolic church" do not define the church by a dogmatic definition. Rather, they indicate what qualities Christians at the time of the Nicene Creed and thereafter ascribed to the church. These are, indeed, genuine qualities of the church. However, these qualities were not perfectly understood and defined by Augustine and other church fathers, because the doctrine of justification, which is basic for a proper understanding of the church, was not adequately understood by them. Augustine and other teachers before and in his day taught that the church is _one_ in the sense of one visible organization. Heretics and schismatics and their adherents did not belong to this _one_ church. They were considered to be without hope of salvation unless they left heresy and schism and joined the _one_ church. This _one_ church was _holy_, not so much through the forgiveness of sins (for as has been said, the doctrine of justification was obscured even in the theology of St. Augustine and other church fathers) but because it was the _one_ church; its unity guaranteed its holiness. This one, holy church was _catholic_, that is, it was diffused throughout the world. In Augustine's view a sect could not possibly be the church, because it was not _catholic_, not diffused throughout the world. Finally the church was _apostolic_, that is, linked to the apostles by the apostolic succession of bishops. In Augustine's view any church outside the apostolic succession could not be part of the true church. This one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church was understood to be a visible, tangible body of men. It became even more visible and tangible when the bishop of Rome achieved the primacy over the other bishops. Rome has been very slow to announce a definition of the church. Nevertheless she has operated through the centuries with a tacit definition that was understood both by herself and by her critics. Melanchthon was setting forth this tacit definition fairly when he said in the Apology: Perhaps our opponents demand some such definition of the church as the following. It is the supreme outward monarchy of the whole world in which the Roman pontiff must have unlimited power beyond question of censure. He may establish articles of faith, abolish the Scriptures by his leave, institute devotions and sacrifices, enact whatever laws he pleases, excuse and exempt men from any laws, divine, canonical, or civil, as he wishes. From him the emperor and all kings have received their power and right to rule, and this at Christ's command; for as the Father subjected everything to him, so now this right has been transferred to the pope. . . .[27] This is essentially the definition later set forth by Robert Cardinal Bellarmine and taught since his time to many generations of Roman Catholic priests in the dogmatics courses in their seminaries. The church is a union of men who are united by a profession of the same Christian faith, and by participation in the same sacraments under the direction of their lawful pastors, especially of the one representative of Christ on earth, the Pope of Rome.[28] With such a concept of the church the doctrine of justification, which is the heart and core of New Testament teaching, had of necessity been obscured and corrupted. The church was believed to consist of those who, within the visible limits of the Roman Catholic Church, gave allegiance to the pope, and agreed with the doctrines taught by that church. Those who separated from this church, no matter how faithful they were to the teachings of Scripture, were either heretics or schismatics, and were without hope of salvation unless they returned to Mother Church. Such was the development of the doctrine of the church, and such was the understanding of heresy and schism from the time of Augustine until the Reformation. The practice of church fellowship was determined by the understanding of the nature of the church, and of the nature of heresy and schism. Catalogs of heretics and heresies were drawn up time after time, beginning with St. Irenaeus, in order that Catholic Christians might know what doctrines and whose fellowship to avoid. Bishops gave letters of recommendation to cleric who traveled, in order that they might be accorded th privileges of fellowship. Being in fellowship with the one, holy, catholic, an apostolic church entitled the layman to participate in the sacraments; it enabled one cleric to officiate in the parish of another, with proper permission. But above all things, _church_ fellowship was _altar_ fellowship.[29] This understanding is still preserved centuries later by the prince of Lutheran dogmaticians, John Gerhard, when: he says in his _Loci_: So there is a threefold _koinonia_ (fellowship) laid down by the apostle: (1) the sacramental participation in Christ's body and blood, which takes place by way of the bread and wine that has been blessed 1 Cor. 10:16; (2) the spiritual apprehension of the entire Christ an all His benefits, which takes place by true faith, 1 Cor: 11:26, (3) the fellowship of the church as a body (_communio corporis ecclesiae_), 1 Cor. 10:17: "We many are one bread, one body, for we all partake of the one bread." The first fellowship (_koinonia_) is the foundation of the others, because the spiritual participation in Christ and His benefits is confirmed and sealed in the believer through the sacramental fellowship (_koinonia_). The fellowship of the church as a body can for the sake of teaching, be designated as twofold: namely, as external and as internal; the external fellowship exists among a: who embrace the same doctrine and make use of the same sacraments, the internal fellowship exists among those only who truly believe, who have the Spirit of Christ. The external fellowship of the church as a body arises from the sacramental fellowship (_koinonia_); the internal, however, arises from the spiritual fellowship (_koinonia_). (Volume V, Locus XXI, Cap. XI, ed. Preuss, p. 98) Other phases of fellowship, however, came in for some consideration. The Council or Synod of Laodicea of uncertain date, though falling into the latter half of the fourth century, therefore antedating St. Augustine somewhat, forbade among other things prayer with heretics and fellowship with Jews and heathen at their religious feasts. Canon VI of this synod states: It is not permitted to heretics to enter the house of God while they continue in heresy. Canon IX forbids catholics to worship with heretics The members of the Church are not allowed to meet in the cemeteries, nor attend the so-called martyries of the heretics, for prayer service; but such as do, if they be communicants, shall be excommunicated for a time; but if they repent, and confess that they have sinned the shall be received. Concerning prayer with heretics, Canon XXXII says: No one shall join in prayer with heretics or schismatics. Canon XXXVII concerns itself with fellowship between Christians and Jews: It is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feast [religious feasts are meant] of the Jews or heretics, no to feast together with them. We note in Canon XXXVII that Jews and heretic are linked together, as being under the same condemnation. Both were outside the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, and therefore without hope of salvation Canon XXXVIII, still concerned with the Jews, says: It is not lawful to receive unleavened bread[30] from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety. Finally, Canon XXXIX addresses itself to the question on religious fellowship with heathen: It is not lawful to feast together with the heathen, and to be partakers of their godlessness. It is evident that heretics, Jews, and heathen, were all excluded from fellowship with Catholics, all were considered outside the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, and therefore not members of the body of Christ, outside the kingdom of God. They were darkness, while the church was light, and, as the Synod of Laodicea declares, "Light hath no communion with darkness."[31] B. _THE REFORMATION AND THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS IN THEIR BEARING ON THE QUESTION OF CHURCH FELLOWSHIP_ The Reformation began as an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church, which, as pious men had complained long before Luther, was in need of a reformation in head and in members. The attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church as a body failed, and Luther and his adherents were excommunicated as heretics. The Lutherans drew up the Augsburg Confession, which they believed to be wholly in harmony with the teachings of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, but at variance, as they well knew, with the Church of Rome. The Augsburg Confession, and the remaining confessions which were in time drawn up to explain and to defend the Augsburg Confession, departed from Roman Catholic doctrine most visibly in this, that they set forth the Biblical doctrine of justification by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith, and declared it to be the central article of the Christian faith. This departure from Roman Catholic doctrine was inevitably accompanied by a doctrine of the church which differed markedly from the Roman Catholic conception. Instead of stressing membership in a visible organization under the rule of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the Lutheran Confession says: The church is the assembly of saints in which the Gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly.[32] Properly speaking, the church is the assembly of saints and true believers.[33] We do not concede to the papists that they are the church, for they are not. Nor shall we pay any attention to what they command or forbid in the name of the church, for, thank God, a seven-year-old child knows what the church is, namely, holy believers and sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd.[34] 1. _THE MARKS OF THE CHURCH (Notae Ecclesiae)_ Of the greatest importance for the understanding of the historical Lutheran position on pulpit and altar fellowship is what the Lutheran Confessions say concerning the marks by which this church, which consists of "saints," "true believers," "the holy believers and sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd" may be recognized. These marks, or _notae ecclesia_e, are "the pure teaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments in harmony with the Gospel of Christ." The church is not merely an association of outward ties and rites like other civic governments, however, but it is mainly an association of faith and of the Holy Spirit in men's hearts. To make it recognizable, this association has outward marks, the pure teaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments in harmony with the Gospel of Christ.[35] These marks of the church, though without this specific designation, are already referred to in Augustana, Art. VII. It is taught also among us that one holy Christian church will be and remain forever. This is the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel. For it is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian church that the Gospel be preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it and that the sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine Word.[36] These _notae_, or marks of the church, to be sure, describe the church of the pure Word, and the unadulterated sacraments. They are not, however, meant to deny that the church can exist also where the Gospel is partly obscured by error. Nevertheless they have throughout the history of orthodox Lutheranism served to establish the limits of pulpit and altar fellowship, and to distinguish the Lutheran Church from other churches. Simultaneously with the Lutheran Church and its confessions the Reformed Church, an outgrowth of Zwingli's reformatory efforts, came into being with confessions of its own. All efforts to unite the Lutherans and the Reformed in doctrine failed. A little later the Roman Catholic Church acquired a Roman Catholic confession in the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. The so-called left wing of the Reformation produced a number of sects which did not identify themselves with either of the three chief divisions in western Christendom. In the Preface to the _Book of Concord_ the Lutheran confessors first of all affirm their continued adherence to the Augsburg Confession, which according to their conviction presents nothing but the pure teaching of the orthodox Christian church and of the ancient ecumenical creeds: They (the Lutherans) have held fast and loyally to the doctrine that is contained in it (the Augsburg Confession), that is based solidly on the divine Scriptures, and that is also briefly summarized in the approved ancient symbols, recognizing the doctrine as the ancient consensus which the universal and orthodox church of Christ has believed, fought for against many heresies and errors, and repeatedly affirmed.[37] In the Preface to the _Book of Concord_ the Lutheran confessors also define their attitude toward other churches, particularly the Reformed, and toward heresy and heretics. It is evident from the following quotation that they did not hereticize whole churches in which error was taught, but only "false and seductive doctrines and their stiff-necked proponents and blasphemers." With reference to the condemnations censures, and rejections of false and adulterated doctrine, especially in the article of the Lord's Supper, these have to be set forth expressly and distinctly in this explanation and thorough settlement of the controverted articles in order that everybody may know that he must guard himself against them. There are also many other reasons why condemnations cannot by any means be avoided. However, it is not our purpose and intention to mean thereby those persons who err ingenuously and who do not blaspheme the truth of the divine Word, and far less do we mean entire churches inside or outside the Holy Empire of the German Nation. On the contrary, we mean specifically to condemn only false and seductive doctrines and their stiff-necked proponents and blasphemers. . .inasmuch as such teachings are contrary to the expressed Word of God and cannot coexist with it. . . .But we have no doubt at all that one can find many pious, innocent people even in those churches which have up to now admittedly not come to agreement with us. These people go their way in the simplicity of their hearts, do not understand the issues, and take no pleasure in blasphemies against the Holy Supper as it is celebrated in our churches. . . .Consequently the responsibility devolves upon the theologians and ministers duly to remind even those who err ingenuously and ignorantly of the danger to their souls and to warn them against it, lest one blind person let himself be misled by another.[38] The Lutheran confessors in the same preface to the _Book of Concord_ express their warm love and concern for the Reformed Christians, who were at that time undergoing persecution in some places, in the words: For just as Christian charity causes us to have special sympathy with them, so we entertain a corresponding loathing for and a cordial disapproval of the raging of their persecutors.[30] In all these expressions in the Preface to the _Book of Concord_ the Lutheran confessors are reaffirming the necessary distinction between heretics, who are outside the body of Christ, and erring Christians, who are and by God's grace remain children of God, even though troubled by error. They are also reaffirming their understanding of the church; "Properly speaking, the church is the assembly of saints and true believers."[40] 2. _PULPIT AND ALTAR FELLOWSHIP IN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH_ The subject of pulpit and altar fellowship is not discussed _expressis verbis_ in the Lutheran Confessions. However, the basis for pulpit and altar fellowship, as it has been understood in the Lutheran Church where it was loyal to its confessions, is set forth in Augustana, Art. VII: And to the true unity of the church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments. The doctrine of the Gospel is not here to be understood as one doctrine among many, or as a bare recital of John 3:16, but rather as a doctrine composed of a number of articles of faith. For the doctrine of the Gospel cannot be understood or preached without the Article of God, which the Lutheran confessors say they teach _magno consensu_, (AC, I), the Article of Original Sin, which shows man's need for the Gospel, the Article of the Son of God, who became incarnate and redeemed man. The true understanding of Article VII of the Augsburg Confession is correctly set forth by Herbert J. A. Bouman as follows: This does not mean that the specific _locus "de justificatione"_ considered by itself is all that the Lutherans consider indispensable. Rather they regard the entire _corpus doctrinae_ as bound up inextricably with justification. All doctrines have their place in this doctrine. All doctrines stand or fall with the doctrine of justification.[41] This is also the meaning of the Formula of Concord when it says, Epitome, Art. X: We believe, teach, and confess that no church should condemn another because it has fewer or more external ceremonies not commanded by God, _as long as there is mutual agreement in [the] doctrine and in all its articles. . . ._[42] should be noted here that doctrine is singular, but that this doctrine consists of a number of articles. It should furthermore be noted that our Confessions use the terms _doctrina_ and _evangelium_ as synonyms: . . .the assembly of saints who share the association of _the same_ Gospel or teaching.[43] Though the subject of pulpit and altar fellowship is not discussed _expressis verbis_ in the Lutheran Confessions, these confessions themselves became the effective limits for pulpit and altar fellowship for Lutherans. Those who subscribed to them were automatically in pulpit and altar fellowship with one another. Those who did not subscribe to them, but adhered to other confessions, were, according to the Preface to the Book of Concord, not condemned as heretics; the Lutherans could even "have special sympathy with them." However, church fellowship, _communicatio in sacris_, with them was impossible. This followed inevitably from the doctrine of the church as it is contained in the Lutheran Confessions, which demand for true unity of the church "that the Gospel be preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it and that the sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine Word."[44] However, while _communicatio in sacris_ was impossible with men who were not considered heretics but erring Christians, the Preface to the _Book of Concord_ recognizes a responsibility of Lutherans toward such erring Christians: . . . the responsibility devolves upon the theologians and ministers to remind even those who err ingenuously and ignorantly of the danger to their souls and to warn their against it, lest one blind person be misled by another.[45] In line with this responsibility so-called colloquies (_Religions- gespraeche_) were repeatedly held by Lutheran theologians with Roman Catholic and also with Reformed theologians. At the colloquy of Regensburg in 1601 neither Lutherans nor Roman Catholics appear to have considered it improper to open the colloquy and the individual sessions of the colloquy with prayer. Numerous passages in the official minutes of this colloquy state that all meetings were opened with liturgical prayers and that representatives of both sides changed off in conducting the opening devotions.[46] At the Colloquy of Thorn in 1645 where Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed met, the Lutherans asked that the same procedure be followed. When the Catholics refused, and insisted that they alone conduct the opening devotions the Lutherans refused to attend the devotions under these conditions.[47] From these cases it appears that the Lutherans, during the period of orthodoxy, did not refuse, as a matter of principle, to pray with Reformed and even with Roman Catholics. They did refuse when they themselves were treated as heretics. C. _CHURCH FELLOWSHIP IN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA_ In Europe during the centuries following the doctrinal agreement established among Lutherans by the Formula of Concord, church fellowship was established by subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. Though European nations in which the Lutheran church had found a place, and particularly Germany, were divided into many relatively small principalities, each with its own territorial church, nevertheless, subscription to the Lutheran Confessions assured full church fellowship to all, and both pastors and laymen could move freely from one territory or land to another and enjoy pulpit and altar fellowship with Lutherans wherever they found them. However, when the Lutheran Church came to America, where territorial churches were nonexistent, new units of fellowship came into existence, the so-called ministeria, and the synods. The ministerium began as an organization of ministers who generally worked in one and the same area, and who practiced pulpit and altar fellowship with one another. The synods, which were organized somewhat later, were not, as had been the synods before the Reformation, councils of clergymen called together to deal with doctrinal or practical problems but more or less permanent organizations of congregations with their pastors for the purpose of work and fellowship. Various factors were responsible for the proliferation of synods which is observable in the Lutheran Church in America during the 19th century. The country was still relatively new; distances were great, and the means of communication and transportation were rather primitive; differences in language and customs complicated the formation of one Lutheran Church in America still further. Another very persistent obstacle was difference in doctrine. Some Lutherans in America had come out of circles which had been greatly influenced by rationalism, others bore the stamp of pietistic influence, and yet others were so-called Old Lutherans, who were very loyal to the Lutheran Confessions. Still others held mediating positions. The question which these synods had to face was whether, in view of their doctrinal differences they could be in church fellowship with one another. The struggles of the various synods for church union, whether by merger, or at least by the establishment of pulpit and altar fellowship, were long and arduous. The meaning of subscription to the Lutheran Confessions became a matter of debate. The degree to which Lutheran pastors and Lutheran congregations were to be bound by the Lutheran Confessions was not understood in the same way by all. Moreover, individual synods tended to change their attitudes in this matter with the passage of time. Sometimes a group would grow more conservative, sometimes more liberal in the understanding and application of its obligation to the Lutheran Confessions. In every case the under standing on the part of a synod of its confessional obligation had a strong influence on its understanding and practice of church fellowship.[48] 1. _CONFESSIONALISM AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP IN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH--MISSOURI SYNOD AND IN THE SYNODICAL CONFERENCE_ The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod came into being as a strictly confessional Lutheran body. Its pastors subscribed to the whole _Book of Concord_, not insofar as (_quatenus_), but because (_quia_) it is a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God. The Missouri Synod was not, however, separatistic, but its leaders sought to draw all Lutherans in America together on the basis of the Lutheran Confessions. They tried to achieve this in accord with the pattern of the colloquies held in Germany and other European countries during the decades following the Reformation. This was in harmony with the previously quoted statement in the Preface to the _Book of Concord_ (see above, pp. 17f.). Dr. C.F.W. Walther and his co-workers were fully cognizant of the difference between erring Christians and erring churches on the one hand, and heretics on the other. In this they were in agreement with the understanding of heretic and heresy as previously set forth from the writings of St. Augustine and Luther."[49] Colloquies were held between members of the Missouri Synod and members of the Buffalo Synod at Buffalo N.Y., in 1866, and between representatives of the Missouri Synod and of the Iowa Synod in Milwaukee, Wis., in 1867. At the Milwaukee Colloquy all sessions were opened with a liturgical service." Free conferences for members from all Lutheran groups who "subscribed to the Augsburg Confession without reservation" were held for the purpose of discussion of doctrine at Columbus, Ohio, in 1856; at Pittsburgh, Pa., in 1857; at Cleveland, Ohio, in 1858; and at Fort Wayne, Ind., in 1859.[51] These free conferences were all opened and closed with liturgical services.[52] While the free Lutheran conferences among Lutherans who subscribed to the Augsburg Confession without reservation did not succeed in uniting all the synods which were represented at the free conferences, they were instrumental in bringing about the organization of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America in 1872. 2. _THE CONFESSIONAL PRINCIPLE IN THE LUTHERAN CHURCH--MISSOURI SYNOD AND IN THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SYNODICAL CONFERENCE OF NORTH AMERICA_ Missouri, which had come into being as a body strictly loyal to the Lutheran Confessions, had for decades stressed: a. That the Confessions must be subscribed to _quia_, not _quatenus_, i.e. because, not merely insofar as, they are correct expositions of the Scripture; b. That all doctrines taught in the Confessions are binding; c. That subscription to the Confessions must be implemented by corresponding public teaching (_publica doctrina_) in pulpit, instruction room, seminary, and in the church's publications, and that all who departed from this norm were to be disciplined. i. _Evaluation of This Principle_ Point a. of the above position which calls for unqualified subscription to the Lutheran Confessions, is necessary in order that a congregation may have the assurance that its pastor is really a Lutheran pastor, who will preach the Lutheran doctrine. The so-called quatenus subscription would open the floodgates to arbitrariness in doctrine.[53] Point b. is necessary for the same reason. Point c. which stresses that Lutheran doctrine must not merely be subscribed to on paper, but must actually be taught in pulpit, instruction room, and in the church's seminaries and publications, is wholly in accord with the Augsburg Confession, which, according to the German version, lays the stress on _publica doctrina_ when it says: it is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian church that the Gospel be preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it. . .[54] ii. _Churchly Practice As a Criterion for Church Fellowship_ Along with unqualified subscription to the Lutheran Confessions as well as public teaching in accord with the Confessions a third principle of church fellowship is stressed in the writings of the fathers of the Missouri Synod. It is this that also the churchly practice must be in harmony with the confessions. Principles basic in the thinking of the fathers of the Synodical Conference with respect to churchly practice and its relationship to church fellowship were laid down in the 18 Theses, the first sixteen of which were discussed at the meetings of the Synodical Conference from 1873-1879.[55] The third of these theses reads: The sole external bond of fellowship between individual Lutheran congregations among different peoples and languages is the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. Thesis four says: Therefore that is not an orthodox Lutheran congregation or Lutheran church body which does not accept the doctrinal and polemic words of this confession as it reads. Thesis five says: Also he who denies the deductions which properly follow from the words of this confession is not a true member of the Lutheran Church even though contrary to all right, he clings to the name Lutheran. An example of such a deduction or conclusion is given in the sixth thesis: From the character and nature of this orthodox confession it follows of necessity that churchly practice must be conformed to it. For every churchly action is either an immediate expression and actual carrying out of the confession, or at least such an activity which, even though it may lie in the area of Christian liberty, nevertheless dare not actually contradict the confession. Because they were persuaded that churchly practice must be in conformity with the church's confession the fathers of the Synodical Conference concluded that churchly practice may become a criterion for the granting or denial of church fellowship. Thesis 7: From this necessary connection between the confession and the church's practice it follows logically that a Lutheran Synod in which the reigning practice is in accord with the confession, dare not unite with another Synod which calls itself Lutheran, but in which the reigning practice is contrary to the confession. Subsequent theses show that the fathers considered the following to be practice contrary to the confession, and therefore a bar to church fellowship: toleration on the part of Lutheran pastors of pulpit and altar fellowship with non-Lutherans; lack of firm testimony against membership in secret societies; the serving of united (_unierte_: referring to the kind of 'union' of Reformed and Lutheran churches first established in Prussia in 1817) congregations by Lutheran pastors; the toleration of temporary calls for pastors; lack of earnestness in the establishing of parochial schools; lack of proper care in seeing to it that only orthodox books were used in church, school, and home; and the absence of doctrinal and church discipline.[56] Essays and articles from the pens of Professors A.L. Graebner, George Stoeckhardt, and Martin Guenther provide evidence that the importance of churchly practice in harmony with the Lutheran Confessions continued to occupy the thinking of the leading theologians in the Missouri Synod also after 1879 and that they continued to consider practice in harmony with the Confessions necessary for church fellowship. Dr. Graebner was careful to define what he meant by churchly practice: Churchly practice is the sum total of the formal actions (_Verrichtungen_) and institutions (_Einrichtungen_) which belong to the life of the Church as such.[57] The fathers sought to distinguish between the life of sanctification of individual Christians and churchly practice. In an article entitled _"Lutherische Praxis"_ in _Der Lutheraner_, signed G (Prof. Martin Guenther) this sentence appears: When we speak of Lutheran practice, we do not mean the personal life of the individual members of a congregation, or of a church body, but that which the congregation does as a body, or what it tolerates in its midst, its activity, its institutions, its regulations.[58] Yet the same article draws an analogy between the faith and life of the individual Christian on the one hand, and the church s confession and churchly practice on the other, and says: Even as that man is not a Christian whose life contradicts the confession: I am a Christian, so also that is not a Lutheran congregation, not a Lutheran body, whose churchly activity (_kirchliches Tun_) contradicts the Lutheran Confession. An essay by Dr. George Stoeckhardt, delivered in the Central District in 1895, indicates that theologians of other Lutheran bodies often spoke critically of the confessional position and the resulting practice in the Missouri Synod. He writes: As the doctrinal position of the Missouri Synod, so also Missourian practice has, as it were, become proverbial. Our ecclesiastical opponents understand by it a harsh, rigoristic, legalistic practice. The same accusation is also made against our doctrine. . . .This accusation does not fit. . . .Some call our practice legalistic for the very reason that it is in accord with the Word of God, in particular with the Gospel.[59] The synodical fathers who insisted that the practice of the church should flow from, and be in harmony with the church's confession, were by no means unaware of the fact that there are some matters in the area of churchly practice which are not established by the Word of God. On this point Dr. A. L. Graebner says: Churchly practice is in part established by the norm of God's Word, in part subject to the free judgment of the Christian congregation.[60] He adds: Insofar as churchly practice is established by the Word of God, the oneness of the norm demands unity of churchly practice as a divine command to the whole church. So far as churchly practice is subject to the free judgment of the congregation, unified churchly practice dare not be demanded as though it were a divine command. It was only of ecclesiastical practice clearly demanded by the Word of God and by the Scriptural confession of the church that the fathers held that it was a norm for the granting or withholding of church fellowship. iii. _EVALUATION OF CHURCHLY PRACTICE AS A CRITERION FOR CHURCH FELLOWSHIP_ On the positive side it should be said that the founders of the Synodical Conference were deeply concerned to be and to remain loyal to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. They believed that this could be achieved only if churchly practice flowed from and was regulated by the church's confession. On this point G. writes in _Der Lutheraner_: The Confession is not to be a mere empty formula, is not to remain a dead letter on the paper of the constitution, but the Confession must regulate the whole activity of a church body, its churchly actions must be in harmony with the Confession and permeated by the Confession.[61] It must be said that while the fathers emphasize time and time again that what they said about churchly practice as a criterion for church fellowship concerning only practice demanded by the Word of God and the Lutheran Confession, it appears that at times they demanded for church fellowship more with respect to churchly practice than is warranted by the Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions. The following theses from the 18 theses on church fellowship, which were discussed and accepted during the early years of the Synodical Conference may serve as examples: Thesis eleven: It is a contradiction of the Confession, when a church body is content that her pastors do not have a proper but only a temporary call from their congregations, or if the church body itself encourages this disorder through the custom of licensing. Thesis twelve: It is a crying contradiction of the Confession when a church body which calls itself Lutheran and desires to be Lutheran does not show earnest zeal so far as it is able, to start orthodox parochial schools where these are not in existence.[62] Furthermore, such demands in matters of practice coupled with charges of laxity in discipline were a major factor in disturbing the relations of the synods in the Synodical Conference particularly in the decades preceding the year 1960, leading finally to the withdrawal, first of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and then of the Wisconsin Synod from the Synodical Conference. What appeared to some not only allowable but perhaps even necessary in the light of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions was pronounced sinful unionism by others. While at the organization of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America in 1872 the founding fathers appear to have been able to agree on the "Theses on Church Fellowship," as time went on it became increasingly impossible for all at all times to agree on "the deductions which properly follow from the words of this confession" or on the precise churchly practice which would in a given situation conform to the confession. _ABBREVIATIONS_ BC-_The Book of Concord_, trans. Theodore G. Tappert et al. Philadelphia, 1959. NPF-_A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers_, eds. Ph. Schaff and H. Wace. Buffalo and New York 1886-1900; reprint, Grand Rapids, 1952ff. PG-_Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca_, ed. J.P. Migne. Paris, 1857-66. PL-_Patrologiae curses completus, series Latina_, ed. J. P. Migne. Paris, 1844-55. WA-_D. Martin Luthers Werke_. Weimar, 1883ff. _Tischreden_ (WA TR). ______________________________________________________________________ ENDNOTES [1] Cf. Canons VI, XXXII, XXXIII of the Synod of Laodicea, and Canon VI of the Council of Constantinople (NPF, Second Series, XIV, 127. 149. 183). See also Werner Elert, _Abendmahl and Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche hauptsaechlich ties Ostens_ (Berlin, 1954), pp. 93- 96, and Tom Hardt, _"Keine Kirchengemeinschaft mit Haeretikern!"_ _Lutherische Blaetter_, XII, 65 (July, 1960), pp. 62ff. [2] _Epist._ 222, 2 (PL 33, 999): trans. in Roy J. Deferrari ed., _Fathers of the Church_ (New York, 1956), XIII, 114f. [3] Cf. Heinz Brunotte and Otto Weber, eds., _Evangelisches Handlexikon_ (Goettingen, 1956), I, 950: _"Neben der Bildung des Kanons der Hi. Schrift entstanden schon sehr frueh in den Gemeinden Glaubensbekenntnisse zum liturgischen and katechetischen Gebrauch, die allmaehlig im Apostolikum ibre eigentliche Gestalt fanden und in dieser Form zur Glaubensregel (regula fidei) wurden."_ [4] _Quaestionum Septemdecim in Matthaeum Liber Unus_, xi, 1 (PL 35, 1367). The English translation is by Fred Kramer, as also in subsequent quotations unless otherwise noted. [5] _De Utilitate Credendi_, 1 (PL 42, 65), trans. in J. H. S. Burleigh, ea., _Library of Christian Classics_ (Philadelphia, 1953), Vl, 291. [6] _De Civitate Dei_, xviii, 51 (PL 41, 613); translated in NPF, First Series, II, 392. [7] _De Utilitate Credendi_, 1. See footnote 5. [8] _De Baptismo Contra Donatistas_, iv, 16 (PL 43, 169) translated in NPF, First Series, IV, 457. [9] _Epist._ 43 (PL 33, 160); trans. in Roy J. Deferrari, ea., _Fathers of the Church_ (New York, 1951), XII, 182. [10] _Quaestionum Septemdecim_, etc. See endnote [4]. [11] _Contra Cresconium Donatistam_ (PL 43, 469ff.). [12] _Eine Freikeit des Sermons papstlichen Ablass und Gnade belangend_ (WA 1, 391). [13] _Evangelium von den zehn Aussaetzigen_. 1521. (WA 8, 389). [14] _Operationes in Psalmos_ (WA 5, 352). [15] _Enarratio Psalmi II_. 1532 [1546] (WA 40, II, 252). [16] _Propositiones. . .adversus totem synagogam Sathanae et universas portas inferorum_ (WA 30, II, 422). [17] _Operationes in Psalmos_ (WA 5, 327). [18] _Vorlesungen ueber 1. Mose von 1535-45_ (WA 43, 213). [19] _Von den Conciliis und Kirchen_ (WA 50, 545). [20] _Vier troestliche Psalmen an die Koenigin zu Ungarn_ (WA 19, 610). [21] _Propositiones_, etc. See endnote [16]. [22] WA TR 4, No, 4637. [23] _Von den Conciliis_, etc. (WA 50, 544f.). [24] John Gerhard discusses the question of heresy and heretics at the end of the section on "The Ecclesiastical Ministry" (_Loci Theologici_, ed. E Preuss [Berlin, 1867] VI, 261-264). He begins with a discussion of the terms for heresy and heretic in Greek, Hebrew, and German, and shows what the concept of heresy and heretic was, first in the church fathers, then under Roman Catholicism. His discussion indicates that the definition was never fixed, and that many foolish views were expressed on the subject, particularly under the papacy. He quotes with approval statements on the subject by Augustine, and then states his own view. From his treatment of the subject, which covers six closely printed columns, we quote what amounts to his conclusion: Not all who err with respect to the faith or the interpretation of Scripture are immediately heretics. For all heretics err with respect to the faith, but not all who err are immediately heretics, which Augustine, in the preface of the book _Concerning Heresies to Quodvultdeus_ expresses thus: Not every error is a heresy, although no heresy, which has its foundation in corruption, could be a heresy without some error. And elsewhere he writes: Err I may, a heretic I will not be. So certain teachers of the church, in explaining certain sayings of the Scripture, erred from the proper and genuine sense, whom nevertheless we cannot at once place in the list of heretics, since in this life we "know in part and prophesy in part," I Cor. 13:19. Consider Augustine. . .where he shows that it is one thing to miss the genuine sense of some passage, and another thing to depart from the rule of faith. Moreover some, with their error, do not impinge directly on the foundation of the faith itself but, holding fast to the foundation of the church, which is Christ in His person and office, build on this foundation hay and stubble, 1 Cor. 3:11ff., of which kind was the error of Cyprian concerning rebaptizing those who had been baptized by heretics and the error of Augustine that infants should be given the eucharist, etc. To consider such at once heretics is by no means proper since heretics seek a different foundation outside of Christ, while these build on the foundation the stubble of erroneous opinions. Some also number among the heretics those who in their faith cherish private errors, although they do not disseminate them, nor labor to draw others to their side. But although such err with great danger to their souls, nevertheless, speaking accurately and properly, they are not heretics, for these are de scribed thus in Holy Scripture, that they come to seduce others, Matt. 7:15; that they come to the Lord's sheepfold in order to steal to hurt, and to destroy, John 10:10: that they stir up divisions and offenses, Rom. 16:17; that not only they themselves depart from the truth, but also subvert the faith of others, 2 Tim. 3:13: that they bring in damnable sects, 2 Peter 2:1; that they are deceivers, going out into the world and bringing in strange doctrines, 2 John 7, 10. Finally, unless there is added to error, which attacks the foundation, stubbornness it cannot yet be judged to be and to be called heresy in the proper sense. For this evil is to be sought neither wholly in the intellect, nor only In the will. For even as the true and saving faith embraces at the same time knowledge in the mind, and assent and trust in the will, so heresy embraces at the same time error in the intellect, and, in the will, stubbornness. . . .Augustine says, 1.18, _De Civitate Dei_, c. 51: "Those in the Church of Christ who savor anything morbid and depraved, and, on being corrected that they may savor what is wholesome and right, contumaciously resist, and will not mend their pestiferous and deadly dogmas, but persist in defending them, are heretics." On the other hand, as the same man writes (Epist 1621: "Those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will especially those who have not originated their own error by bold presumption but received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed, those who seek truth with careful industry ready to be corrected when they have found it, are by no means to be rated among heretics. . . ." Finally Gerhard gives his own view concerning what is to be considered heresy, and who is to be called a heretic: From all this it is possible to establish the fact that the following factors must be present if a person is properly to be called a heretic: 1. He must be a member of the visible church, received through the sacrament of baptism; 2. He must err in the faith, either that he introduces a new error, or that he embraces an error which he has accepted from another (although the former seems to fit the heresiarch, the latter the heretic). . . 3. That the error impinge directly on the very foundation of the faith; 4. That to the error is joined malice and stubbornness, through which he, although admonished repeatedly, nevertheless defends his error obstinately; 5. That he stirs up dissensions and offenses in the church, and splits its unity. It is to heretics thus defined that Gerhard then applies the Scripture passages which have traditionally been quoted in the Synodical Conference against every form of unionism. It appears that Dr. C.F.W. Walther, the diligent and astute student of Gerhard's _Loci_, had such a concept of heretic in mind when in 1852 he formulated the second thesis of his book, _Die Stimme unserer Kirche in der Frage non Kirche and Amt_ (Erlangen, 1875): "Zu der Kirche im eigentlichen Sinne des Wortes gehoert kein Gottloser, kein Heuchler, kein Unwiedergeborener, kein Ketzer." [25] In theological parlance a dogma is a teaching established by divine revelation and formally defined by the church through a council or a pope. Cf. Marvin Halverson and Arthur A. Cohen, eds., _A Handbook of Christian Theology_ (New York, 1958), pp. 80f. [26] Werner Elert, _Abendmaltl und Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche hauptsaechlich des Ostens_ (Berlin, 1954), PP. 5-22. [27] Apology, VII-VIII, 23. [28] Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, _De ecclesia militants_, 2, quoted in Ludwig Ott, _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_ (St. Louis, 1954), p. 269. [29] Elert, _Abendmahl and Kirchengemeinschaft_, pp. 132 f. [30] Unleavened bread was the bread eaten at the Jewish Passover celebration. [31] NPF, Second Series, XIV, 123-160. [32] Augsburg Confession, VII. This and all following citations of the Confessions are according to the translation in BC. [33] Ibid., VIII. [34] Smalcald Articles, XII. [33] Apology, VII-VIII, 5. [34] Augsburg Confession, VII. [37] BC, Preface, p. 3. [38] Ibid., p. 11f. [39] Ibid., p. 12. The Latin reads: _"Quemadmodum enim christiana caritate moti in societatem doloris cum eius dudum venimus. . . ."_ [40] Augsburg Confession, VIII. [41] Herbert J.A. Bouman, "The Doctrine of Justification in the Lutheran Confessions, _Concordia Theological Monthly_, XXVI, 11 (Nov., 1955), 804. [41] Formula of Concord, Epitome, X, 7. [43] Apology, VII-VIII, 8. [44] Augsburg Confession, VII. [45] BC, Preface, p. 12. [46] Cf. Jac. Heinbronner, _Acta Colloquii Ratisbonensis (Regensburg, 1602), pp. 25, 27, 71, 102, 131, 170, 224, 350f. A similar occasion was the common worship at the opening of the synod of Sandomierz in 1570, in which representatives of Polish Calvinism, Polish Lutheranism, and the Unity of Bohemian Brethren participated. Cf. Jaroslav Pelikan, _Obedient Rebels_ (New York, 1964), p. 147. [47] Cf. Albert Hauck ed., _Herzogs Realenzyklopaedie fuer protestantische Theologie und Kirche_ (Leipzig, 1907), XLX, s. v., "_Thorn, Religionsgespraech_": "_Wieder eine andere Differenz betraf die Gebete am Anfange der Sitzungen; die Katholiken beanspruchten die Abhaltung der gemeinsamen Eroeffnungsgebete fuer sich, waehrend die Lutheraner_ [Huelsemann and Abraham Calov were among them] _verlangten, class die Parteien darin abwechseln sollten; die Reformierten gaben den. . .Katholiken each, die Lutheraner aber beteten vor jeder Sitzung in ihrer Stube besonders; dock muss bemerkt werden, class die Gebetsformel der Katholiken sich in allgemein-christlichen Ausdruecken hielt und z. B. die Anrufung Marias und der Heiligen vermied._" [48] Cf. Robert H. Fischer, "The Confessionalism of American Church Bodies of German Background," in Vilmos Vajta and Hans Weissgerber, _The Church and the Confessions_ (Philadelphia, 1963), pp. 73-83. [49] For statements of Walther in _Der Lutheraner_ that bear this out, see the article by Erwin Lueker, "Walther and the Free Lutheran Conferences," _Concordia Theological Monthly_, XV, 8 (Aug., 1944), 537 f. [50] Cf. J. P. Beyer, _Stenographisch Aufgezeichnetes Colloquium der Vertreter der Synode_, etc. (Chicago, 1868), p. 1: "_Begonnen wurde mit einem liturgischen Gottesdienste, den Pastor F. Lochner als Pastor loci leitete, auf welche Weise auch alle folgenden Sitzungen eroeffnet wurden._" [51] Cf. Erwin Lueker, ea., _Lutheran Cyclopedia_ (Saint Louis, 1954), s.v., "Free Conferences," p. 390. [52] Cf. Lueker, "Walther and the Free Lutheran Conferences," op. cit., pp. 543-559. [53] C.F.W. Walther, "_Warum sind die symbolischen Buecher unserer Kirche von denen, welche Diener derselben werden wollen, nicht bedingt, sondern unbedingt zu unterschreiben?_" _Der Lutheraner_, XIV (1858), pp. 201ff. [54] Augsburg Confession, VII, 2 I. [55] The importance of churchly practice (_kirchliche Praxis_) also for church fellowship was discussed on the basis of Eighteen Theses on Church Fellowship drawn up by Wilhelm Sibler at meetings of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference in the years 1873-77 and 1879. Sixteen of the 18 theses were discussed at length and approved almost unanimously. See _Verhandlungen der Ev.-luth. Synodal-Conferenz_ (St. Louis, 1874ff.) for the years indicated except 1873, for which see _Verhandlungen der zweiten Versammlung der Ev.-luth. Synodal-Conferenz von Nordamerika_ (Columbus, 1873), pp. 5ff. Subsequently there was an essay by A. L. Graebner, "_Die kirchliche Praxis_," _Verhandlunge der sechzehnten Versamlung_, etc. (St. Louis, 1896); an article, "_Lutherische Praxis_," in _Der Lutheraner_, XLVII (1891), pp. 91f., signed "G." [Martin Guenther?], and an essay delivered by George Stoeckhardt before the Central District, "_Unsere Missourisynode ist eine wahrhaft evangelisch-lutherische Gemeinschaft, denn sie schoepft alle ibre Lehren aus dem klaren Schriftwort," Verhandlungen der dreinddreissigsten Jahresversammlung des Mittleren Distriktes_ (St. Louis, 1895), pp. 9-96. [56] Cf. _Verhandlungen_, 1873, pp. 7ff.; and see below, footnote 62. [57] Graebner, "_Die kirchliche Praxis_," p. 5. [58] G., "_Lutherische Praxis_," pp. 9ff. [59] Stoeckhardt, "_Unsere Missourisynode_, etc.," p. 45. [60] Graebner (note 55), p. 7. [61] ----, p. 91. [62] Cf. _Verhandlungen_ [Synod. Conf.] 1873, pp. 5-8: Thesis 11 _Es widerspricht ferner dem Bekenntnis, wenn die kirchliche Koerperschaft es sich gefallen laesst, dass ihre Pastoren keinen ordentlichen, sondern nur einen zeitweiligen Beruf von ihren Gemeinden haben, oder sie gar selber diese Unordnung durch das Licenzwesen staerkt._ Thesis 12 _Es ist ein schreiender Widerspruch wider das Bekenntnis, wenn eine lutherisch sich nennende und lutherisch sein wollende kirchliche Koerperschaft keinen Ernst und Eifer beweist, rechtglaeubige Gemeindeschulen, was an ihr liegt, in Gang zu bringen, wo sie nicht vorhanden sind._ ______________________________________________________________ This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by Mark A. French and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary. E-mail: CFWLibrary@CRF.CUIS.EDU Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St.,Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA Phone: (219) 481-2123 Fax: (219) 452-2126 ______________________________________________________________