errors, and then labor to gloss over or defend these errors, because
they are there? This would be to descend to the level of corrupt
politicians, who professedly defend every measure of their party,
whether right or wrong.

Is it our duty to profess such creeds, then by arbitrary interpretations
to explain away these errors, and thus endeavor to hide them from the
public view? This would be injustice to the memory of their authors, and
cast reproach on the principles of the Reformation, the essence of which
was, that human errors must be rejected in favor of God's Word; and that
the standards or professed doctrines of the church, must in every age be
conformed to her views of Scripture truth.

Is it our duty, is it the Master's will, that we should try to believe
those tenets of a creed which the Scriptures condemn? This would be
treason to the Master, and be hearkening to the teachings of man rather
than of God! Yet how many are there from whose lips the phrase
confessional fidelity (Bekenntnisstreue,) is heard far oftener than
fidelity to God's word (Bibeltreue)!

Is it our duty to renounce the Augsburg Confession altogether? This
would be the case, _if its errors were fundamental_. But as they are few
in number, and all relate to non-fundamental points, this does not
necessarily follow. As nineteen twentieths of the creed are sustained by
Scripture, and embody a rich and ample exhibition of divine truth, ten
times as extended as that which was invested with normative authority in
the golden age, the first three centuries of the Christian church, and
used as a term of Christian fellowship, we may well retain the creed,
after in some way disavowing its several errors. And the historical
importance of the document, as the type of a renovated Christianity,