Full Text for The Meaning of Confessional Subscription (Text)

THE SPRINGFIELDER July 1974 Volume 38, Number 3 The Meaning of Confessional Subscription ELMER ~~OELLER The azitho~., forlll~1'1) (I p?.ofessor at the selizi7znr)~, is pastor of Aft. Zion i.uthernn Church, Castle Rock, Colorado. I N A HEAL SENSE, confessional subscription has to do with the outward framework and inner mechanisms of church polity of Lutheranism every\vhcre. Every Lutheran pastor is caught up personally in the signifi- cance' of the topic. We were individually ordained into the ministry of our church body. At that tinle we expressed faith in the canonical Scriptures as "the inspired FYord of Gocl and the only infallible rule of faith and practice." If7c pledged ourselves to the three Ecumenical Creeds "as faitl~ful testil~~onies 'to the truth of the Holv Scriptures" and rejected "all the errors which they condemn"; we sktcd that we "believc that the Unaltered Augsburg Confession is a true exposition of the \Vord of God" and that' the remainder of the Book of Con-. cord is "in agreement with this one Scriptural faith." \;17e also promised that all our teaching would "be in the conformity .ci~ith the Holy Scriptures and with the aforementioned Confession."' Furthermore, as members of our Synod wc have accepted "with- out reservation: . . . All the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lu- theran Church as a true and unadulteratecl statement and exposition of the Word of God . . ."2 If we are pastors of congregations, our congregations are comn~ittcd, as groups of Christ~ans and as indi- vidual members, to the sarr~c confessional writings. They called us as pastors specifically because the confession of our ordination and of our Synod membership assured them that we believed as they confess and that we would "preach and teach thc pure IVord of God in accordance with the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Ch~rch."~ This we pronlisecl them to do. To the members, then, of all of the congregations of Synod, confessionallv united, thc mat- ter under discussion is of essential significance. Thc very existence of the congregations, which alone give validity to our calls; the consensus of faith which prompted thc founding of Synod and which alone can justify its existence-all this in invoIved in our subject. It is perhaps a very commonplace observation that the con- fessional commitments to which we have referred involve a judg- ment and a basis for the judgment. Therc arc unexpressed pre- suppositions of a very radical nature. Any person who has thus ~onfessionalIv committed himself (we assume that he wishes to take him seriously, and not to regard his confession as merely a sig- nature on a union card entitling him to a job and a vote at meet- ings and implying in no wnv that he knows the union rules and their philosophy as fully as those who wrote them) must of neces- sity himself have o view of the Scriptures, an understanding of their character, a grasp of their content, of such a nature that he feels conlpelled to sign the Confessions, because the sylnbols to which he subscribes are in his estimation a necessary thing, with all their antitheses and rejections, and they correctly set forth, they "are a true and unadulterated statement" of, the MJord of God. This is the judgment of our confessor because he ulready knows ho\v one must set forth the truths of the IVord of God. LVhere do we find these presuppositions set forth? Not in the Forlllula of Concord or in the Book of Concord. Xntirnations we find. But for an articulated statement on Scripture which justifies the act and substance of confessing we must look to what the con- fessors say elsewhere. Rileanwhile, we search in vain today in Lutheranism for any sort of consensus in the area of confessional presuppositions. Within our own Synod we find views of Scripture which arc mutually ex- clusive. Our historic publica doctrilza of a verbally-inspired in- errant Scripture has been radically challenged by prominent theo- logians from among us. The exposition of what formerly were re- garded as clear passages speaking plainly has been called into ques- tion. Concl~~sions as. to the meaning of Scripture which formcrly were esl~oused by those who attacked and rejected the Lutheran Confessions and our own lx.hlicly taught doctrine of Scripture- these conclusions are now being pushed in our own circles. There is 110 consensus in our clergy, at least none has bcen evident to me, as to the propriety and validitv of doctrinal statements which re- flect the same view of scriptures as do the Confessions and which are binding simply because a proper view of Scripture permits no other view. When we look farther afield in Lutheranism, today as well as in the past, we lilzewise do not find among those who say that they uphold the Confessions a uniformity of understanding as to what the Confessions actually say and why they say it. There is no such thing as a doctrine of Scripture which all uphold who subscribe to thc Lutheran Confessions, Confessions which presuppose pre- cisely such a doctrine. The doctrine of a verbally inspired inerrant Scripture, wl~ich we in the past have clainled is iinplicit in the confession^,^ not only is rejected by many other Lutherans, but is also labelled as un-Jxtheran, un-confessional, contrary to the teach- I ings of Rlartin Luther himself."n agreement with the proposition tllat the Lutheran Confessions are an exoosition or interpretation of Scripture, hut convinced that a prop& view of Scripture and proper interpretation is different from what it was in the sixteenth century, many Lutheran theologians explain their subscription to the Confessions as being a relative subscription, quatenzis, in so far as the Confessions agree with S~ripture.~ Because of the allegedly valid change in the interpretation of the Scriptures, Lutheran theo- logians in Germany in 195 7 found it possible to draw up the Amolds- hniner Ahendnzahlsthese~z in conjunction with Reformed and Union theologians, a doctrinal statement intended to set forth the Scrip- tural doctrine of the Lord's Supper in a way agreeable to all signer^.^ This is certainly not an overall picture of agreement among Lu- Confessional Subscription . .-. . -, . - . . . -. . . - . - -- - . - -- -- - . . - 19 5 therans on the Scriptures, a clear understanding and definition of which are, however, presupposed in the Confessions. One finds no difficulty, given the confusion on a doctrine of Scripture, in under- standing the growing prevalence of a quatcnus approach to the Con- fessions and a surging pressure for fellowship among Lutherans re- gardless of quia or 'qz~atenws. Just what are the basic issues for you and me in this whole matter? Let us attempt to find out. I. THE CONFESSIONS THEMSELVES Theoretically, not only do we who have signed the confession quia know that they correctly expound Scripture, but we ourselves how to identify such correct expostion. Shall we be simple and naive and check back on ourselves? Let us ask, What do the Con- fessions say? M7e do not intend to enumerate the doctrines handled I know, first, how correctly to expound the Scriptures, and, secondly, . by the Confessions in answering that question. But what were those who drew up the Confessions.and signed them saying about Scrip- ture and correct exposition? Anlong other things, the confessors asserted, directly or by implication, the following: 1. The canonical Scriptures alone are to be the source of what the Christian teaches about God.8 2. The Scriptures are clear and understandable. They are ut- terly truc and reliable in all which they say. One may grab right and left for examples in BiblicaI history to illus- trate doctrine. One may cite the quotations which occur in Scripture as the actual words of the individual who is ] quoted." 3. The Confessiorls are a correct understanding of the Scrip- tures. Others should accept the Confessions as such a cor- rec t exposition. 4. There arises the need for new confessions, yet there is no new doctrine. The most recent confession teaches the same as the first." 5. The confessions are for all time.I2 It was one thing for the confessors to speak thus. But were they right? What lies behind their statements? Nowadavs most ex- position of Scripture involves a prior definition which takks into con- sideration historical criticism, form criticism, and a rejection of the implications of verbal inspiration. Exposition involves not only a prior definition of tradition, history, and comnlunity theology, but also the epistemological viewpoint of the expositor. What do we mean when we say that the Confessions are a "true and unadulter- ated statement and exposition of the TYord of God?" Do we mean what the confessors meant? Do we kn,o~.v what the confessors meant? Do we say what the confessors said for the same reasons that the confessors said it? Or are our reasons different reasons? And if so, do we nonetheless have the right to say what the cohfessors said? It is evident that the confessors wrote and confessed from a prior viewpoint. What was their viewpoint which permitted-no, required- thc kind of all-cmbracin~ statements they nladc? Ob- viouslv, they had a viewpoint on Scr1pt:lre. J.3ut when ivc loolz into the ~hnfessions, we find that thel- quote ?'obit 2nd 2 5iaccabees witi~out denying canonicity to t1le;e two hooks. Did the confessors accept the Apocrypha as canonical? 'This raiscs the clucstion, "What were thc ca:ionical Scriptures fol: the collfcss~~rs?" 'To find the answer of the f!ra~.ners of the r:ormula of Concord, turn to the writing of "the second R/lartin," the Exnlnc~z Co7tcilii 'Il'ridentini of h'lartjn Chemnitz. There we find our answer-. Tllc prophe~ic Old Testament Scxipturcs arc the Pales- tinian canon, attested by Chrjst and the apostles.'" 'T%c apostolic Ne~v Testament Scriptures arc the boolts written or colnrnendecl by apostles, i.e., by thc apostles ant1 by Rlarlc and Lnlocrypha, not to be used f-or co~mfirnling the dognlas of the church.'TThc New Testanlent books receive their authority fronm the apostles who ~vrote thcnm or commendecl thel~l.~TTlhe church does not have the authority to make true scriptures out of false ones, nor sure, canonical, and legitilllate scriptures out of those that are tlouhtf~11 and In the instance of the New Testan-lent anti- legonlena, vvilhe11 the confessors do use them in the Confessions, they use tlmcm as Chemnitz himself uses them and as the councils of the fourth century used them, as nuthentic ~vritings from a Itno~xin apostle. Is Rot what about Luther? The hluenster theolopian Ilrunstaed, an~ou~~t; countless others, in his tlcnial of verbal inspiration as a yre- supposition of thc Confessions, asserts: "Luther's jilclgn~ents on- in- divjtlual bool~ of the Bible are irreconcilable with the acceptance of vcrbnl inspiration." But after referring to all of the constantly quoted statelmlcnts of Luther concerning canonical boolcs (of which the chief arc his rejections of Hcbreivs, James, Jude, and Revelation), J31:~instaed notes that "Lutlt~er in his rejection of the canonicity of one or the othcr books, calls also upon the ancicnt church and her debn te a hou t the canon ."'This is a most important ol~servation. W. G. I.. Perhaps I am oversimplifying. But this is the way the argument emerges in its practical application. If this is a correct approach to Scripture, ye can write off a literal acceptance of every miracle of our J,ord. Who has ever had experience with a vir- gin birth? Who has ever experienced a man raising another man fro111 thc dcad? To become really down-to-earth in our parish min- istry, who has ever experienced bread that is flesh and wine that is blood? Obviously, we cannot accept a doctrine of the Real Pres- ence. This question therefore cannot be shunted aside: If we bv virtue of the nature of Scripture must accept the plain, clear mean- ing in one place, can we refuse to accept it elsewhere? Or, if the nature of Scripture permits us to explain away its plain meaning in some places, can we confessionalIy insist on the plain meaning at the points that suit us? We dare not forget that a proper under- Co~zfessional Subscription 203 standing of the interpretation of all of Scripture precedes the Con- fessions, including the Snlall Catechism. Another argunlent involves literary form or genre. It is argued that because a type of literature is used in one of the ancient civ~liza- tions with which the Old Testament people of God had contact and because this ty e, used for a religious purpose, does not convey factual truth, t R erefore the usage of this type of literary form in the Old Testament Scriptures implies likewise absence of factual truth and only religious or theological generalizations. We are all acquainted with this type of argumentation as applied, e.g., to Gene- sis 1-3 or 1- 1 1. At this point we shall allude onlv to the fact that in various instances of this sort other clear references in Scripture to the factuality of the section under discussion are simply ignored or denied. "By ~vllat principle of interpretation is this done?" one aslrs of the qziia confessor. But applicable again at this point is the argument of consequence. If one can on the basis of the argument of Iiterarv genre disregard the clear and plain statement of Scripture I i in one one cannot reject this kind of interpretation elsewhere, I even in those areas treated in the Confessions. To illustrate, we know .from. cuuntless examples that the literary genre of historical writing at the time of the New Testament did not include the pur- pose of recording the actual .words of a character. In fact, it is a mark of the literary product at that time that speeches were written by the historian and put jnto'the mouth of the character to convey what the historian thought ought to-have been said on the occasion. Many New Testament critics argue that this is exactly the case .with the Gospels and Acts. '('One has no right to assume that in any given instance we have the spoken words of Jesus or Peter or Paul. We have no right to expect or to demand this of the historical-literary form at that time in world's history. MJhen one has applied the argument of literary form so as to divest Genesis 1-1'1 of historical accuracy, if this method is valid, then it is also valid in the New Testament. At least one cannot deny the possibility of its validity. But what -happens to all the quotations of Jesus in the Confessions? What happens to the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, of Baptism? What happens to the Lord's Praver? What happens to the Gospel sermon texts we preach on? T; be very practical, we can note simply that .the pastor who teaches the Small Catechism as a cor- rect exposition of the Word of God but who applies the argument of literary form to get away from the historicity of Genesis 1-1 1 is apparently claiming a special charisma for picking out, by one way or another, exceptions to his own rules of interpretation, mean- while passing off his allegedly true understanding of the words of institution to his voung flock as a special gift of the Holy Spirit to some Lutherans. He should not be surprised to discover that various of his own flock learn from his example to disregard the clear word of Scripture about the cross and the resurrection. Another argunlent is being used in passages and doctrines not specifically treated in the Confessions to deny, avoid, or simply dis- regard the plain, ordinary meaning of a Scriptural StatCment. One can perhaps call this approach "exegesis of intent." One finds it used, in various circles and in our own as well, to arroici the appar- ent meaning of Jesus' stateinents abaut the historicity of various parts of the Old Testament recortl ancl al~o~it the ;iuthorship of various Old Testament books or sections of books. If the person who is pledgeil to a doctrine of verbal inspiration, inerrancy, arid in- fallibility, and to a quin confessional subscription wishes to a\.oid the charge of Biblicism and Fundamentalism in scholarly circles, he must find some way to square his acceptance of the cox~clusiox~s of historical-critical scholarship in the Old Testament with the plain and simple words of Jesus al~out the historicity of rldarn and Eve, Noah, and Jonah and about the authorship of the Pentateuch, Isaiah, and various psalms. "khe way out has been an exegcsis of in- tent. Jesus, so the argunlerlt goes, dicl not intend to prove the hlosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the historicity of tllc book of 1 Jonah, etc. He was intcnt, rather, on teaching a lesson in re- pentance or whatever else tbe context permits. So ]Icsus simpIv ac- cominodatetl hinlself to the current viciw with no implication is to its correctness. Therc are two aspects to this argi1111entatiOr1, onc thc ll~atter of intcnt, thi sccond the inatt-er of accommodati~n. In analyzing the argnrnent of intent, one notices that the interpreter hin~self has ar- bitrarily limited the intent of the spealcer and then has used the arbitrary limitation to djsregarcl parts' of thc statemlent which do not serve thc arbitrar!~ limitation. One could discourse at length 011 thc failrire to let the text speak for itself. But to the quin subscriber to the Confessions one can only state that, if such arbitrary interpreta- tion is valid in the instances referred to, it is valid c\~cryulhere, also in the words of institution. There is no dificnltv in proving by this splxoach that Jcsus wanted to institute only a li~ernorial meal. ?'he whole context can be forced to illustrate this idea. Furtllermore, Paltl's emphasis in Colossians 2: 16-17, on the unilnportance of meat and drink reinforces the approach that Jesus .would not want to stickle on thc meaning of bread-body and wine-blood. 13ut how call the quicr. subscriber then insist on the Lutheran doctrine of the Real I'rescnce? If exegesis of intent is valid, then he has to renege on thc doctrine of the Hcal Presence. IVith regard to the argument of accommodation, it is argued that ~erhaps Jesus, in his state of humiliation, did not ltnow any more abor~ t Mosaic authorship, etc., than His contemporaries. One notes that one must first prove that I-Te and His contemporaries were wrong. One notes also that in applying the argument of henosis here, .the exegete is himself choosing the areas of Jesus' ignorance, and this for extra-Biblical reasons. E'Ie is not permitting Jesus to indicate His own limitations. Let us appl!,, then, the argument of consequence. While the quia subscriber at' this point introtluces lesus' kenosis in order to avoid Mosiac authorship of the Pentateuch or the historicity of Jonah, he has no a priori reason for refusing some non-Lutheran exegete the right to apply the kenosis argulnent anywhere he chooses. A liberal critic can, and does, easily find the source of some doctrine in Mandaean circles, shows the acceptance of the doctrine by Jesus' contemporaries, ancl then points out that Jesus in ignorance uses the sr~mc doctrine. rl good example is tile doctrine of the angels. Critics trace it fro111 Persian influence into various of the Old Testanlent books, into tl-~e intertestamental literature (to which a part of the Oltl Testal~~ent, thev allege,) really belongs, and thence into Jewish thougl~t at the tini'c of Christ. The fact that Jesus in ignorance accepted the doctrine or that tlle later Christian com- munity in its later con~munity theoiogy perpetuated it does not snake it true. 'rhus, we must clisregard Jesus' statement about the angels. He did not know ans- better on account of His Jte~~osis. Besides, how do ive know what FIG actual1)- said anyway? But the argument of consequence cuts a still broader swath. If Jesus was ignorantly accepting the conten~porar)~ view, a wrong onc, on certain aspects of the Old Testament, why was Jesus not wrong in other areas of Iinowlcdge about the Old Testamcnt? Jesus could have bec.11 -cvrong, and the Palestiniarl 'Jews wrong, on the extent of the Old Testalllent canon. At this point the argument has already supposedlv proved that the Jewish communitv of inter- testaments1 tinles 'recognized as inspired boolcs that rvece allegedly written d~!ri17g that 1x1-iod, i.e., Daniel, R.laccabaean psalms, and the lilte. \Vli\~ should hot the Tewisll conlmunitv of believers in Alex- andria, as well as that in ~ibylania, be led by the Holy Spirit to acknowledge various books not used in l'alestinc but used in Grceli Jewry as irlspired M'ord of God? Jcsus does not sav that these books are not God's Word. Moreover, one can argue that Jesus did not intenc! to clelineate the Oltl Testament canon. 'The believing coin- munity of intertestanle~~tal tinles and of thc New 'Testament post- Ventecost period was supposetl to do t11;lt. For the argun~cnt of the Spirit-lcd community recognizing inspired \~iritings, the argument which IIILIS~ be used bi- the verbal inspiratiol-list who wants to he acceptable in OId Tcstkent historical critical circles, this argument is exactly thc arguinel~t used to provc that nutllenticity is not neces- sary when the New? 'Testanlent comlnunity is allegedly led by the Spirit to ackrlowledge various books as inspired \\lord of God. And it is the New Tcstament co~nlnunity that :~ccepts the Alexandrian I canon as God's Old Testament TVord. Quite an interesting de- velol~n~ent! The argunlcn ts of jn ten t and henosis simplv prove in legitimate fashion that the Old Testament canon of oma an Ca- tholocism is correct. And having proved that, we are readv for quite a few conclusions which arc alien to the I2utheran SymboIs. There is anothcr argument used to avoid the meaning of clear passages not handlecl 11;; the Confessions. It is argued that Scripture is clear, is infallible, but in the areas of L,aw and Gospel only. In areas of historv, no. A part of this argument is the use of 2 Tirnothy 3 : 15 : ". . . tl;e holy Scriptures . . . ;,re able to make you wise unto salvation through faith ~vhich is in Christ Jesus . . .'! Since one ma): be ignorant of how the ~vorld came into being ancl yet know Jesus as Savior, the historicity of Genesis 1-1 1 is irrele\.ant to the purpose of the Scriptures, and one ma)- interpret as he will. Genesis 1-1 1 is not r~ecessarilv a part of the preaching of the Law or of the Gospel. Several comments are in order. In the first place, when the Apology speaks of the two great to ics (Stueche in German, loci in <' f Latin);" it expressly states that a 1 Scripture" (u?zivc~rsn Scrd~.?t7.ira, die ganze Schrift) is divided or ought to be divided into Law and the promises. There is nothing here of a two-fold principle of her- nleneutics which rules on the factuality of historical statements within Scripture. Furthermore, Melanchton, further on,, points out where the Law-Gospel rule applies, namely, to "all the passages that are cited concerning the La141 and worlinions. That is ~-ouglll!, the gist of this account by Heinrich SchIier, which anlnzingly, has gone unnoticed, although it represents a theo- logical challenge of the first ~-anl<.~ ' To 1~~irase t11c m;ittel- differently, if we :Ire trusting in the Holy Spirit to g~~idcr us, in~mediately, to picl< out and to co~lfess what is true from an erring Scripturc, which is the theology of so- calIe(l 1)elieving commur~ities, we had hest turn to the largest nu- ~ncrical groul? of Ct~r.istians today that represent the guidance of thc same Holv Spirit in choosing their teachings, rather than to sn~aller splint& groups scattered throughout visible Christendo~n, one suc'l~ group of n711ich is the Missouri Synod. Tlnis ch;~llcnge faces The Lutheran Church-R,lissouri Synod. The cpiu confessional subscription which the Svnod demands in reality requires that- cnch nlclnbcr of the ~vnod; everv cclr8yman and congregation, understand, beforc subscrhing, the aefinitlon of Scripture, its sourcc and its proper exposition. Such an understanding recjuires of the conuinccd Christian not only a quin subscription, but the consecjuences of such a silbscription. When errors in teaching the content of Scripture arise, i~tlclitional confessional statements must: bc drawn up in order to ],reserve the truth of God's Word. But practical considerations demantl that the yroper understand- ing of Scripturct must: first be confessionally delineated. \Vc mav 1hc1.e rcfcr to the significance of the quin subscription to the binding force of Synodical doctrinal statements. It is im- portant that we be realists. As realists ~vho understand the past, we lmow that tlie Formula of Concord was possible oilly because there was a common ~ir~clcrstanding of the identity of, the meaning of, and the ;iuthority of Scripture. 'Those who did not accept the con- sequences of such n vie1.11 of Scripture ancl who, although tl~ey had signed the Augshorg Confcssion, coulcl not now sign the Formula, were not permlttcd within the fcllo\vship of those who signed. JVe in our day havc signed the Formula, and all the Confessions. But we have not necessarily done so ivith the same convictioil and con- sensus concerning the Scriptures. In fact, a realistic appraisal gives ample evidence that such a consensus does not now exist in our Svnod. Since such is the case, the presupposition and prerequisite for any additional confessional staten~ents beyond the Book of Con- cord which shoulcl be binding is non-existent. Because they do not agree on a c'loctrinc of Scripture, the aggregate of the individual lnembers of Svnod actually cannot achieve a statement of exposition of Biblical truth u) which all the members feel coll~pelled to sub- 1 scribe ancl which limits fellowship to the subscribers. I am con- : vinced that unless and until Synod, or an over~vhelmi~~g majority of its members, arrives at a consensus on the doctrine of Scripture, Synod will rrlore and more become a divided camp, doctrinallv speak- ing. In m). opinion, then, the thing that is most necessary, in con- trast to the encroachment of historical-critical scholarship ancl all that it involves jn denial of God's Word (and, therefore, of the Gospel, the message of the forgiveness of sin in Christ Jesus), is the recapturing under God's nlerci; bv each of us of the proper under- standing of the Scriptures, their idehtity and qonlities, their exposi- tion and our obcdient response in faith, even as this faith and under- standing ivas held by the Lutheran confessors. This understanding we must articulate in binding confession, or we shall gradually lose all that ive havc previouslv confessed. Then, ]laving con fessecl the doctrine of the ~driptures in the contest of the ~i~llificance of his- .. torical criticism, we shall be readv to speak confessiollally on con- troverted doctrines In the companj. of ;he early church and in re- sponse to the dcnlands of the Scriptures and the 1,ord who speaks to us jn than and reveals to fallen man His salvation, we shall then use as nonnative in all doctrincs and life, in faith and practicc, these samc sacred writings, writings written or commended by apostles, writings in which the Lord of the Church and of the apostles, Redeemer of the world, identified His Old Testament \q70rd, writings to ivliich we answer with jovful obeclience, "Speak, Lord, Thp servant hearcth." Elmer Moeller, Castle Rock, Colorado, January 17, 1973. FOOI'NO'I'FS The Lzrtlzertlrz Agcnda, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing I-Iouse, n.d.), pp. 104ff. I.lalzdbook of ?'he Lzrtlzerrc~z Chzrrclz-hlissouti Synod, 1966 Editiov, p. 15. The I,zitheran Agcnda, p. 1 12. Cf. Fred Kraincr, "Sacm Scriptu~a and Vcrbzi7n Dei in thc Luthcran Con- fessions," Concol-din ThcoZogical Monthly, XXVI, pp. 81.ff.; Franz Peiper, CIzristliclzc Dogmatik (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House), I, pp. 322ff; A. C. Piepkorn, "The Position of Thc Church and Her Symbols," Concordin Theological Monthly, XXV, pp. 738ff. Cf. Friedrich Urunstacd, Theologie dcr lut7tel-isclzen Bc%,cnl.ztnisschriftcn (Muenster: C. nertelsmann Verlag, 1951)) pp. 20ff. lbid. Cf. Pieper, pp. 427ff. Paul M. Bretscher, "The Amoldhain Theses on the Lord's Supper," Corzcordia Thi.ologictl1 .Monthly, XXX, pp. 8 3ff. All quotations from the Confessions, unless otherwise noted, are cited according to Friedrich Bcnte, cd., Concordia Triglot.tn, (St. Louis: Con- corclia I'ublishing House, 1921). Cf. Triglotta, pp. 72, 21, 101, 105, 109, 225, 331, 441, 451, 987, 1005. Ibid., pp. 437, 439, 507, 537, 589, 635, 787, 891, 1055, 1057; 47, 53, 55, 59, 61, 89, 193, 215, 113, 139, 157, 163,'221, 227, 231, 233, 259, 263, 267. Ibid., pp. 11, 19. Ibid., pp, 777, 847, 851, 853, 857, 859, 1095, 1097. Ibid., pp. 1103; 7, 15, 21. hiartin Chemnitz, Exanzen Concilii Tridentini (Frankfurt: S. Feyrabend, 1596), p. 11. Ibid., pp. 13ff. Ibid.,'p. 48. Chemnitz quotes Jerome and Cyprian (or Rufinus). Ibid.,pp. 45ff.;cf. p. 17. It Ibid., pp. 49ff.; . . . ex falsis scripta Vera . . . ex dubiis & incertis facere certa, canonica, Sr: legitima . . .," p. 49. lbid., p. 38, Jude and Peter. Triglotta, p. 196 (Paulus in the German of the Apology), p. 872 (apostolus in the Latin of the Formula), p. 946, the samc for Heb. 3:6 (cf. pp. 955 and 965 where "the apostle" is not namcd for 2 Cor. 3 or Rom. 7). Brunstaed, pp. 22ff. (translation our own). W. G. I