[by C. F. W. Walther; Part 7]
By the way, it is assumed that the misapprehension of Preuss's Lutheran doctrine of justification would have had a part in Preuss's decision to resign, 7) but then it cannot be explained at all that Preuss had articles printed on the first of December 1871 in which he, with great zeal, declares the pure Lutheran doctrine of justification for the supreme article, to which all other doctrines would have to be addressed. And in these he does not only oppose a chief doctrine of the Papal Church, purgatory [Mittelort], but also declared the Pope to be the “Antichrist” and “Firstborn of Satan” and confirmed this historically, — and that in the same month he had approached a papist bishop (who in addition to having only recently declared the infallibility of the Pope, which he confessed with his mouth, yet in a public council with the same mouth declared this ridiculous) “for the resolution of some doubts, as well as (at the same time!) for instruction in the Catholic religion” and already in the next month had himself <column 2> rebaptized and received into the papal bosom, in order now to defend all abominations of the same with the same zeal with which he previously defended the evangelical truth recognized by him, but now to fight this truth with the same zeal with which he formerly fought the abominations of the papacy known exactly by him! 8)
————————
7) Already in the spring of last year [1871], when in the Lutheran Church Friend the most horrible accusations had appeared as coming from the mouths of Professors Tholuck and [Julius] Köstlin against Preuss, he wanted to resign himself, to edit the Abendschule and in addition to hold only a few more hours in the seminary free of charge, but with the explanation that this was only in order not to tarnish the Synod with a disgrace, not because of doubts about the doctrine, but rather because he never let any of it be noticed. When the supervisory authority and all the presidents voted to hold this in abeyance until Tholuck and Köstlin had confessed to what they had allegedly said, he [Preuss] therefore remained until the materialization of a clause of a contract, which he had deliberately kept secret, came to light. Through this he had sought to seize the appointment of a synod publication, but now he saw with horror every foothold in our fellowship disappear under his feet, his face displaying this in that hour.
8) Now Preuss can show even more his gift of presenting evidences. To prove the truth is an easy thing, but to prove the error, namely to prove it seemingly and plausibly, requires art, great art. Thus, for example, in the constitution of the wicked Jesuit mob, [Jesuit gang] is written: “That no determination, explanation, or orders of any kind to live to a commitment can lead to a mortal sin or a venial [forgivable] sin: except when the superior commanded it in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, or in the power of obedience. (See the Constitution of the Jesuits, according to the Prague edition, which they themselves provided: Institutum societatis Jesu autoritate congregationis generalis XVIII recusum. Pragae 1757. Vol. I, fol. 415.) The Jesuits themselves refer to this passage in the index of this edition under the title: “Obedientia et obedire” as the determination of their principle: “The superiors can make it binding to sin in the power of obedience, if this brings many benefits”. — Now Preuss has a wonderful opportunity to show his art, namely to prove that this wicked diabolical Jesuit principle, which everyone must swear by when he conjures up the Constitution of the Jesuits, is a good divine Christian principle. For this he will be worthy of merit in this world by the Pope and a Jesuit and once in that world by the devil and his angels, if he does not truly repent before his death.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.