Schmucker and Kurtz are the coryphaei." (Spaeth 1,179.) In 1873 _Lehre und Wehre_ wrote: "So-called American Lutheranism is but a new edition of Zwinglianism, which, in a dishonest fashion, appropriates the Lutheran name. The more one agrees with Zwingli and disagrees with the 16th century Lutheranism, the more genuine an American Lutheran he is."

(29.)

53. Spirit of the Movement.--The true inwardness of the "American Lutheranism" with which the General Synod was infected from its very birth, and which reached its crisis in the Definite Platform of 1855, was revealed in all its nakedness by the _American Lutheran,_ a paper into which the _Lutherische Kirchenbote_ of Selinsgrove, Pa., had been transformed in 1865. Its standpoint is characterized by _Lehre und Wehre_ as being beneath that of the _Observer_ "the hollowest so-called American Lutheranism, a concoction of rationalism and sentimentalism."

(1865,61.) When Prof. Sternberg, a fanatical anti-symbolist (opponent of the Lutheran Confessions), had been removed from Hartwick Seminary, the _American Lutheran_, June 22, 1865, wrote: "The days when compromises with and concessions to symbolism were made are pa.s.sed. If a clash between symbolism and American Lutheranism is unavoidable within the General Synod, the sooner it comes, the better it is." (_L. u, W._ 1865, 253.) In its issue of July 20, 1865, the _American Lutheran_ published a number of letters in which the hope is expressed that the day was near when the Lutheran Church in America would shake off the yoke of symbolism and step forward, recognized by the great Protestant world. "The attempt"--the correspondent continues--"to live in one and the same house with the symbolists is useless. We thank G.o.d that we have a paper which says in its first year: No compromise any longer with symbolism! Hallelujah! May the whole Church hear it." (_L. u. W._ 1865, 277.) Revealing both its ignorance and animus, the _American Lutheran_, Rev. Anstaedt then being the editor, said in its issue of January 24, 1867: "The difference between the symbolists [Lutherans true to their Confessions] and American Lutherans is a radical one, going down to the innermost heart of Christianity and involving eternal interests, the salvation and hope of immortal souls. The _American Lutheran_ believes that religion is a personal and individual matter, while the symbolist believes that it is but a congregational matter. Their articles of faith are: 1. All men are born in sin. 2. The Church must redeem us from sin.

3. The Church consists of the priests and the Sacraments. 4. The priests have the power on earth to administer the Sacraments and to forgive sins. 5. The Sacraments have in themselves the power to save. 6. Baptism regenerates the child. 7. The Lord's Supper nourishes the seed implanted in Baptism. 8. Hence man is not saved by the individual experience of something, but in a ma.s.s. I know that our symbolists will say that this is slander. But I affirm that it is a sincere and honest presentation of the matter.... The advocates of symbolism probably have never been converted, or they have backslidden again. This is a severe judgment. So it is. But must we not judge them by their fruits? How many souls have been converted by these symbolists? Go into their congregations and speak to their members on religion; what do they know of it? In 19 out of 20 cases their members, when awakened, seek Christ in other churches.

We have held back too long with our testimony. I fear that by our negligence souls have gone to h.e.l.l. And what have we won by our pusillanimity? The advocates of symbolism have grown and become more impudent by their success." (_L. u. W._ 1867, 88.) In a subsequent issue the same paper, after boldly defending the baldest Zwinglianism, remarked with respect to the symbolists that, in a way, their success involved a certain blessing, inasmuch as they would serve as "an ecclesiastical sewer into which sooner or later the dead formalism, the cold, heartless ritualism, and the lager-beer Lutheranism of this country would find its way." (_L. u. W._ 1867, 125.) Even the _Lutheran Observer_ was censured by the _American Lutheran_ for becoming too conservative. (_L. u. W._ 1875, 375.) But the difference was one of degree only. In its issue of October 3, 1873, the _Observer_ charged the Germans and Scandinavians, because of their adherence to the Lutheran Confessions, with sectarian presumption, enmity against other Christians, foreign bigotry, dead orthodoxy, cold dead faith, etc. "The position," the _Observer_ continued, "which these bigots a.s.sume in our enlightened land of churches, where the Lord Jesus is more universally honored than in any other country of the world, is ridiculous.... For while these short-sighted men set themselves against the liberal and enlightened spirit of the General Synod and against the times and the country in which they live, other churches annually lead away thousands of their most intelligent members." (_L. u. W._ 1873, 375.) Enmity against Lutheranism--such was the spirit of the counterfeit American Lutheranism championed by Schmucker and his compeers. Nor is the a.s.sumption warranted that this spirit died with its early protagonists.

In 1885 Dr. Butler characterized the Americanization of Lutherans in the _Lutheran Observer_ as follows: "It is a great mission of the _Observer_ to open the blind eyes and to convert our Teutonic people from the fetters of its language and customs to the light and to the liberty of this Bible-loving, Sabbath-keeping, water-drinking, church-going and G.o.d-fearing country." (_L. u. W._ 1885, 120.) As late as 1906 the _Observer_ wrote: The General Synod is in possession of the American spirit in the greatest measure. It is her mission to inject this spirit into the Lutheran Church in America. This spirit embraces: adoption of the English language; acknowledgment and toleration of the lodges; fellowship with the sects. "The American spirit is that of fellowship.

Failure to be American in this is sure to bring us into ridicule and even disrepute with the ma.s.s of the best Christian people of the land."

(_L. u. W._ 1906, 229.)

DEFINITE PLATFORM.

54. Now or Never!--Believing that the Lutheran Confessions, though not an authority above, or alongside of, the Bible, are doctrinally in perfect agreement with the Word of G.o.d, Walther, Wyneken, Sihler, Craemer, and others, since 1840, boldly, aggressively, and victoriously unfurled the banner of Lutheran confessionalism. Gradually, though timidly and rather inconsistently, the same spirit began to enter, and manifest itself in, some of the Eastern synods. A conservative tendency was developing and increasing. Especially since the return of the Pennsylvania Ministerium in 1853 the number of the so-called conservatives in the General Synod, who refused to go all the lengths with Schmucker and Kurtz, was materially strengthened. Among these New School men the powerful growth of confessionalism in the West and the silent increase of the conservatives in the larger Eastern synods gradually began to cause alarm, fear, and consternation. They first despised and ridiculed the movement as chimerical and utterly futile in America, then feared, and finally hated and fanatically combated what they termed "foreign symbolism." They felt the fateful crisis drawing nearer and nearer. To be or not to be was the question. Nor was there any time to be lost in protecting the General Synod against what they regarded as the Western peril. "Now or never!" they whispered. Indeed, Schmucker and his friends had long ago decided that a new confessional standard was needed. As early as 1845, at Philadelphia, the General Synod had appointed Schmucker, Kurtz, Morris, Schmidt, and Pohlman to formulate and present to the next convention an abstract of the doctrines and usages of the American Lutheran Church on the order of the Abstract requested by the Maryland Synod, in 1844. And though, in 1850, at Charleston, the report of this committee was laid on the table and the committee discharged from further duty (27), Schmucker did not abandon the idea of subst.i.tuting a new "American Lutheran Creed" for the Augsburg Confession. Moreover, the conviction of the dire need of an American restatement of Lutheranism grew on him in the same proportion as confessionalism swept the West and threatened the East. His brother-in-law, S. Sprecher, was of the same opinion. In 1853 he wrote: "I hope that this unhappy condition of the Church will not continue long, and that the churches of the General Synod will do as the churches of the Augsburg Confession did in 1580--exercise their right to declare what they regard as doctrines of the sacred Scriptures in regard to all the points in dispute in the Church. I do not believe that the present position of the General Synod can long be maintained; it will either result in the Old-Lutheran men and synods gaining the control of the General Synod, and reintroducing those doctrines and practises of the symbols which the churches in this country and everywhere ought to abandon and condemn, _and say that they do;_ or the friends of the American Lutheran Church must define what doctrines they do hold, and what they do reject, and refuse to fraternize with, and to make themselves responsible for, and to give their influence as a Church in favor of, men and doctrines and practises which they hold to be anti-Scriptural and injurious to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. I do not see how we can do otherwise than adopt the Symbols of the Church, or form a new symbol, which shall embrace all that is fundamental to Christianity in them, rejecting what is unscriptural, and supplying what is defective. _A creed we must have_, or we can have no real church union, and we must have a catechism which shall be a standard in the catechetical instruction of our children, in which there shall be no doctrines which we do not want our children to believe, and which shall, notwithstanding, be thoroughly orthodox, so that our children may be made strong in the faith of the Gospel in these times of doctrinal looseness and confusion. As long as the General Synod regards with equal favor, and is ready to receive, the Old Lutheran as well as the American Lutheran Synods, the symbolical men have a vast advantage, and they, no doubt, regard it as a triumph when the General Synod, meeting after meeting, continues to hold out its arms to every Lutheran synod, and recommends as heartily the reviews and inst.i.tutions which are laboring to upturn its present foundations, as it does those which are known to hold the sentiments which it has. .h.i.therto fostered." (Spaeth 1, 347.) Five months before the readmission of the Pennsylvania Synod, Sprecher declared: "I fear there will be divisions, no matter what course is taken. As to the hope of gaining over the Symbolic Lutherans, I consider it altogether delusive. If they ever join the General Synod, it will be with the hope of controlling it eventually into their own views and for their own purposes." (353.) Thus, realizing the giant strides which Western confessionalism had already made, and the steady growth of the conservative element in the East, and, at the same time, fully understanding that Lutherans loyal to their Confessions would give no quarters to a counterfeit subst.i.tute of Lutheranism, Schmucker, Kurtz, Sprecher, and others decided on a _coup d'etat_ in order to force the issue, to create a test-question, to separate the parties, to eliminate the "symbolists," and thus forever to make the General Synod immune against genuine Old School Lutheran confessionalism and safe for their own mongrel Puritanic-Calvinistic-Methodistic-American Lutheranism.

55. Casting Off the Mask.--In the early part of September, 1855, leading ministers of the General Synod received a pamphlet: "Definite Platform, doctrinal and disciplinarian, for Evangelical Lutheran District Synods; constructed in accordance with the principles of the General Synod."

Spaeth: "The new Confession came without a confessor. It appeared as an anonymous doc.u.ment, proving by that very fact that the men who concocted it were not called by G.o.d to lead the Church on this Western Continent to a better, fuller, purer conception and statement of the faith of the Gospel than that of the Fathers." However, it was not long before Schmucker was generally known to be its author. Soon after its publication Krauth, Sr., wrote: "My colleague don't disclaim the authorship, so that it has a daddy." Ten years later Schmucker wrote: "Although my friend Dr. Kurtz and myself pa.s.sed it in review together, and changed a few words, every sentence of the work I acknowledge to have been written by myself." (Spaeth 1, 357.) Besides a brief Preface the Platform contains two parts: 1. "Preliminary Principles and the Doctrinal Basis or Creed to be subscribed"; 2. "Synodical Disclaimer, or List of Symbolic Errors, rejected by the Great Body of the Churches belonging to the General Synod." Part II was not to be individually subscribed to, but published by Synod as a Disclaimer of the symbolical errors often imputed to her. (Second edition, 2. 6.) Its chief object, as appears from the Platform itself, was to obviate the influences of confessional Lutheranism coming from the West, notably from the Missouri Synod. The Preface begins: "This Definite Synodical Platform was prepared and published by consultation and cooperation of ministers of different Eastern and Western synods, connected with the General Synod, at the special request of some Western brethren, whose churches desire a more specific expression of the General Synod's doctrinal basis, being surrounded by German churches, which profess the entire ma.s.s of former symbols." (2.) Part I expresses the same thought, stating that the "American Recension of the Augsburg Confession," as Schmucker called the Platform, had been prepared "at the special request of Western brethren, whose churches particularly need it, being intermingled with German churches, which avow the whole ma.s.s of the former symbols." (4.) Furthermore, according to the Platform, Lutherans who believe in private confession and absolution should not be admitted into the General Synod; and Part II makes it a point to state: "By the old Lutheran Synod of Missouri, consisting entirely of Europeans, this rite [private confession, etc.] is still observed." (25.) Accordingly, in order to check the progress of the Missouri Synod's Lutheranism, a more specific declaration of the General Synod's basis was deemed indispensable. In the interest of truth, they claimed, it was necessary to specify, without hesitation and reservation, the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession which were rejected, some by all, others by the great majority of the General Synod. To satisfy this alleged need of the Church, the Platform was offered to the District Synods with the direction, for the sake of uniformity, to adopt it without further alterations and with the resolution not to receive any minister who will not subscribe to it. Thus, in publishing the Platform, Schmucker and his compeers cast off the Lutheran mask and revealed the true inwardness of their intolerant Reformed spirit--a blunder which served to frustrate their own sinister objects. The reception which this doc.u.ment met was a sore disappointment to its author. In the commotion which followed the publication of the Platform the conservative element was strengthened, a fact which, a decade later, led to the great secession of 1866, and gradually also to the present ascendency of the conservatives within the General Synod, and the subsequent revision of its doctrinal basis, completed in 1913. H. J. Mann wrote in 1856: "The Platform controversy will, in the end, prove a blessing. The conservative party will arrive at a better understanding. In ten years Schmucker has not damaged himself so much in the public opinion as in the one last year." (Spaeth, 178.)

56. Viewed Historically.--In explanation and extenuation of the Platform blunder Dr. Mann remarked in 1856: "The more thoroughly we investigate the history of the Lutheran Church of this country, the better we will comprehend why all happened just so. No one is particularly guilty; it is a common misfortune of the times, of the conditions." (Spaeth, 175.) H. E. Jacobs explains: "The ministers, in most cases, did not obtain that thorough and many-sided liberal culture which a college course was supposed to represent, and this was felt also in their theological training. ... It may serve as a partial explanation of the confusion that prevailed that there was not a single professor of theology in the English seminaries in the North who had obtained the liberal training of a full college course, except the professor of German theology at Gettysburg. The controversy connected with the 'Definite Platform,'

prepared and published under a supervision characterized by the same defects, may be more readily understood when this in remembered."

(History, 436.) The explanation offered by Dr. Jacobs might be reenforced by the report of the Directors of the Seminary in 1839: "It is to be regretted that the students generally spend so short a time in theological studies. But few attend to the full course of studies as laid down in the Const.i.tution. The average time of the stay of the major part is only about two years. Thus the theological education of those who go out from the Seminary is necessarily defective." (23.) C. A.

Stork admitted with respect to the students at Gettysburg, notably the scholars of Prof. J. A. Brown (since 1864): "It is true, our young men did not know Lutheran theology thoroughly; on many minor points they were cloudy." (Wolf, _Lutherans_, 371.) Howbeit, explanation does not spell justification. Nor is it correct to view the Definite Platform as a mere derailment, a mere incidental blunder, of the General Synod. It was, on the contrary, the natural result and full development of the indifferentistic and unionistic germs which the General Synod inherited and zealously cultivated during the whole course of its history. Dr.

Neve: "If Schmucker and his friends had not made this mistake, now condemned by history, others would surely try to do so now. These men therefore have rendered our Church a service. We have learned much from their mistake." "Sic non canitur"--such indeed is the lesson which Lutherans may learn not only from the Platform movement, but also from the greater part of the history of the General Synod.

57. Platform Theology.--The Platform charges the Augsburg Confession with the following alleged errors: Approval of the ceremonies of the ma.s.s, private confession and absolution, denial of the divine obligation of the Sunday, baptismal regeneration, the real presence of the body and blood of the Savior in the Eucharist. Of the Augustana eleven articles are mutilated and eight (the eleventh and the last seven) entirely omitted. The following declaration takes the place of the Eleventh Article: "As private confession and absolution, which are inculcated in this Article, though in a modified form, have been universally rejected by the American Lutheran Church, the omission of this Article is demanded by the principle on which the American Recension of the A. C. is constructed; namely, to omit the several portions which are rejected by the great ma.s.s of our churches in this country, and to add nothing in their stead." (11.) In all the articles the condemnatory sections are omitted. Even the deniers of the Trinity are not rejected. The Apostles' Creed is purged of "He descended into h.e.l.l." The Athanasian Creed is omitted. The rest of the Lutheran symbols are rejected, on account of their length and alleged errors.

(5.) The Platform declares: "The extraordinary length of the other former symbolic books as a whole is sufficient reason for their rejection as a prescribed creed, even if all their contents were believed to be true.... The exaction of such an extended creed is subversive of all individual liberty of thought and freedom of Scriptural investigation." (20.) Part II of the Platform, the "Synodical Disclaimer," contains a list of the symbolic errors with extracts from the Lutheran symbols, "which are rejected by the great body of the American Lutheran Church," to wit: I. Ceremonies of the ma.s.s (A. C., Art. 24; Apology, Art. 12). 2. Exorcism (Luther's _Taufbuechlein_). 3. Private confession and absolution (A. C., Art.

11. 25. 28). 4. The denial of the divine inst.i.tution and obligation of the Christian Sabbath (A. C., Art. 28). 5. Baptismal regeneration (A.

C., Art. 2; Apology, Art. 9; Luther's Catechisms; Visitation Articles, Art. 3). 6. The outward form of baptism (Large Catechism, Smalcald Art.) 7. Errors concerning the personal or hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ (Form of Concord, Art. 8). 8. The supposed special sin-forgiving power of the Lord's Supper (Apol., Art. 12; Catechisms).

9. The real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist (A. C., Art. 10; Apol., Art. 7. 8; Smalcald Art., Art. 6; Small Catechism; Form of Concord, Art. 7). According to the Platform, believers in exorcism, in private confession and absolution, and in the ceremonies of the ma.s.s should not be tolerated in the General Synod. To believers in the real presence, baptismal regeneration, etc., liberty was to be granted, provided that they regard these doctrines as nonessential, cooperate peacefully with members rejecting them, and adopt the Platform. Dr. Mann was right when he characterized the Platform as "the emasculated Augsburg Confession." (Spaeth, 178.)

58. Spirit of "Synodical Disclaimer."--While the first part of the Platform eliminates the distinctively Lutheran doctrines, the second part emphatically condemns them and teaches the opposite tenets of the Reformed Church. On exorcism the Platform remarks: "In the American Lutheran Church it was never received, and is regarded as unscriptural, and highly objectionable, under the most favorable explanation that can be given it." (23.) On private confession and absolution: "How dangerous the entire doctrine of absolution and forgiving power of the ministry is to the spirituality of the Church and to the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ, is clearly evident." "John 20, 23: 'Whosesoever sins ...' either refers to a miraculous power bestowed on the apostles to discern the condition of the heart, and to announce pardon of G.o.d to truly penitent individuals; or it confers on the ministry, in all ages, the power to announce, in general, the conditions on which G.o.d will pardon sinners; but it contains no authority for applying these promises to individuals, as is done in private absolution." (26.) On baptismal regeneration: "If Baptism is not a converting ordinance in adults, it cannot be in infants. ... Of regeneration, in the proper sense of the term, infants are incapable; for it consists in a radical change in our religious views of the divine character, law, etc.; a change in our religious feelings, and in our religious purposes and habits of action; of none of which are children capable." Regeneration "must consist mainly in a change of that _increased_ predisposition to sin arising from action, of that preponderance of sinful habits formed by voluntary indulgence of our natural depravity, after we have reached years of moral agency. But infants have no such _increased_ predisposition, no _habits_ of sin prior to moral agency, consequently there can be no change of them, no regeneration in this meaning of the term." "Baptismal regeneration, either in infants or adults, is therefore a doctrine not taught in the Word of G.o.d, and fraught with much injury to the souls of men, although inculcated in the former Symbolical Books." (30f.) On the hypostatic union: "The chief error on this subject is the supposition that the human and divine natures of Christ, to a certain extent, interchange attributes. This, in common with all other Protestant churches, we regard as contrary to the Holy Volume." "The supposition that humanity in any case acquired some attributes of divinity tends to give plausibility to the apotheosis of heroes and the pagan worship of the Virgin Mary." The Platform emphatically condemns the doctrine of Article 8 of the Form of Concord: "Hence we believe, teach, and confess that the Virgin Mary did not conceive and bring forth simply a mere man, but _the true Son of G.o.d_; for which reason she is also rightly called, and _she is truly, the mother of G.o.d_. ... He consequently now, not only as G.o.d, but _as man_, knows all things, is able to do all things. ... His flesh is a true, vivifying food, and His blood is a true, vivifying drink." (35f.) The Platform furthermore rejects the doctrine that the Lord's Supper "offers forgiveness of sins," and "that the real body and blood of the Savior are present at the Eucharist, in some mysterious way, and are received by the mouth of every communicant, worthy or unworthy." (38f.) The Platform declares: "During the first quarter of this century the conviction that our Reformers did not purge away the whole of the Romish error from this doctrine gained ground universally, until the great ma.s.s of the whole Lutheran Church, before the year 1817, had rejected the doctrine of the real presence." (40.) With respect to the doctrine that the proper and natural body and blood of Christ are received in the Lord's Supper, the Platform remarks: "Now we cannot persuade ourselves that this is the view of a single minister of the General Synod or of many out of it." (42.)

PLATFORM CONTROVERSY.

59. Champions of the Platform.--"The princ.i.p.al effect of the Definite Platform," says Dr. Spaeth, "was to open the eyes even of the indifferent and undecided ones, and to cause them to reflect and to realize the ultimate designs of the men at the helm of the General Synod. A storm of indignation burst against the perpetrators of this attack on the venerable Augustana. Many men who were before numbered with 'American Lutheranism,' and whose full sympathy with the movement was confidently expected, had nothing but stern rebuke for it." (1, 360.) Howbeit, the Platform was not in lack of ardent defenders. To some of the ministers it was not radical enough. Dr. Morris remarks: "Extremely un-Lutheran, un-churchly, and even rationalistic positions were a.s.sumed by some who defended the Platform." (Wolf, _Lutherans_, 364.) In the _Observer_, December 7, 1855, a correspondent maintained that it was incorrect to speak of the Augustana as "our confession,"

since of Lutheran theologians not one in twenty was governed in doctrine and practise by this Symbol. (_L. u. W._ 1856, 28.) In the following year the _Observer_ published a protest of Rev. Kitz, censuring the Platform for granting toleration to believers in baptismal regeneration and the real presence. (_L. u. W._ 1857, 27.) At Gettysburg Seminary, self-evidently, Schmucker zealously propagated his Reformed theology, while his brother-in-law, C. F. Schaeffer, who had entered 1856, was the exponent of a mild confessionalism. E. J. Wolf: "At Gettysburg, in the same building, one professor in almost every lecture disparaged and discredited the Confessions, while another one constantly inspired his students with the highest [?] veneration for them." (_Lutherans_, 441.) Jacobs: "The students were soon divided, but the gain was constantly upon the conservative side." (_History_, 427.) But while thus at Gettysburg conservative influences, in a measure, were counteracting the Platform theology, Wittenberg Seminary, at Springfield, 0., the theological center of the Western synods, was unanimous, decided, and most advanced in its advocacy. Sprecher, the leader of "American Lutheranism" in the West, wrote concerning the Platform: "It is the very thing we have long needed in our Church; it will require every man to declare that he is for or against us, and will secure our American Lutheran Church against the insidious efforts of the Old Lutherans to remodel her." "If the New School brethren do not soon decide whether they will give the Church the positive form which it must take in this country ere long, the Old School will decide it for them by making all their synods stand on the Unaltered Augsburg Confession. I do not see what difficulty can be in the way. If those five dogmas rejected [by the Platform] are errors at all, they are very serious errors, and I do not see why there should be so great a desire to be a.s.sociated with those who teach them. The difference between the Old School and the New School party is of such a nature that they cannot agree except by being silent or separate. If we did not intend to push this matter through, we should never have agitated it at all." (Spaeth, 1, 359.) It goes without saying that B. Kurtz acted the champion of the new confession. When, in 1855, prior to the publication of the Platform, the Synod of Northern Illinois, in its const.i.tution, declared the Augustana and Luther's Small Catechism a "correct" exhibition of the divine truth, Kurtz wrote in the _Observer_: "This is certainly a tremendous leap backward to the patriarchs of the American Lutheran Church. In this enlightened country of free thought and action such high-churchism cannot long maintain itself; its most peculiar fruit is bigotry, ostracism, strife, and separation." (_Lutheraner_, Feb. 13, 1855:) In the same spirit Kurtz edited the _Observer_ after the appearance of the Platform. In an issue of January, 1856, he maintained that the Platform offered nothing new; in the past every member of the General Synod had practised according to its principles; now one merely was to do openly and honestly what heretofore he had been doing with a _reservatio mentalis_. (_L. u. W._ 1856, 64.) Several months later Kurtz published the list of rejected errors of the Symbolical Books, and in a number of subsequent articles supported the Platform, and, at the same time, attacked the distinctive doctrines of Lutheranism, misrepresenting them in Calvinistic fashion.

(_L. u. W._ 1856, 140 ff.; 1857,61; 1862,152; 1917,375.) Nor did Kurtz in the following years repent of, or change, his att.i.tude. In the _Observer_ of June 29, 1860, he declared: "We are qualified to formulate a confession of faith not only just as well, but better than those who lived three hundred years ago. We now have men in our Church who understand just as much of the Bible and of theology as our fathers. If this were not the case, we must be stupid scholars, a degenerated generation." (_L. u. W_. 6, 252.) In the same year: "May those, then, who are opposed to the progress backwards, to liturgies, to priestly gowns, to bands, candles, crucifixes, baptismal regeneration, the real presence, priestly confession and absolution, and all other phases of the half-papists, stand firmly by the old _Observer_." (_L. u. W._ 1860, 318.) In the _Observer_, December 26, 1862, Kurtz said: Wisdom did not die with the Reformers; nor would it die with the present generation.

Giant strides had been made in science, history, chemistry, philology.

The progress in astronomy enabled us to understand the Bible better than our fathers. Geology taught us to explain the first chapter of Genesis more correctly than a hundred years ago. Even if we were dwarfs compared with the Reformers, with our increased advantages we ought to understand the Bible better than they. A dwarf, standing on the shoulders of a giant, can see farther than the giant himself. A confession of faith, therefore, ought not to be like the laws of the Medes and Persians, but subject to improvement and growing perfection. Luther and his colaborers explained the Bible more correctly than any like number of their contemporaries. But we do not believe that they understood it as well as G.o.d's enlightened people of the present. Indeed, an intelligent Sunday-school child has a clearer insight into the plan of salvation, etc., than John the Baptist, the greatest of prophets. Is it, then, to be a.s.sumed that since the middle of the sixteenth century no progress was made in Biblical learning? (_L. u. W._ 1863, 92.) However, always guided by expediency, and hence able also "to do otherwise," the _Observer_, April 13, 1866, wrote: "We have all agreed that the Unaltered Augsburg Confession is the only general platform upon which all of us can stand. There are some among us, to the number of whom the writer belongs, who have always believed and still think that an American Recension of this venerable doc.u.ment, as presented in the Definite Platform, would give us a faith more in harmony with the Scripture. But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, the greatest liberty compatible with the unity of true Evangelical Protestantism. To make concessions within reasonable limitations we have accordingly deemed our religious duty." (_L. u. W._ 1866, 185.) In its issue of January 17, 1908, the _Observer_ again claims the liberty of revising the confessions. (_L. u. W._ 1908, 90.) Self-evidently, the _American Lutheran_ was in sympathy with the Platform. In 1873 it declared its standpoint as follows: "We American Lutherans adopt the Augsburg Confession only in a qualified sense, _viz_., as teaching the fundamental truths of religion in a manner substantially correct, but containing also some inaccuracies with respect to the Sacraments, private confession, absolution, and the Christian Sabbath." (_L. u.

W._ 1873, 29.)

60. Opponents of the Platform.--S. S. Schmucker boasted with respect to the Platform that all intelligent Americans were on his side. However, his opponents proved to be much stronger and more numerous than he had antic.i.p.ated, though most of them were in essential agreement with his un-Lutheran theology, merely resenting his intolerant spirit and public a.s.sault on the "venerable Augustana." Among the men who fiercely denounced the new confession was J. A. Brown, who also followed up his attack with charges for Schmucker's impeachment at Gettysburg, and in 1857, with a book, _The New Theology_. Yet Dr. Brown's theological views and the views of the Platform were not nearly so far apart as his a.s.saults on Schmucker seemed to warrant. Brown was a Reformed theologian and just as determined an opponent of genuine Lutheranism as Schmucker and Kurtz. Dr. Wolf: "Brown contended with might and main against what he considered the revival of the Old Lutheran Theology." (370.) And Brown's case was also that of F. W. Conrad (professor of Homiletics in Wittenberg College from 1850 to 1855, and part owner and editor of the _Observer_ from 1863 to 1898), who in 1855, when required by the Wittenberg Synod to defend the Platform, resigned as professor and as editor of the _Evangelical Lutheran_, stating that he, too, considered the "errors" enumerated in the Platform as real errors, but was able neither to find all of them in the Augustana nor to identify himself with the intolerance of the Platform men. (_L. u. W._ 1856, 94.) Occupying a unionistic position similar to that of Dr. Conrad, H. W.

Harkey, in his _Olive Branch_, published at Springfield, Ill., also opposed the fanaticism of Kurtz, Schmucker, Sprecher, etc., but not their Reformed theology, which, indeed, he shared essentially. (_L. u.

W._ 1857, 313; 1858, 28.) The man who disappointed Schmucker perhaps more than any one else was his colleague Charles Philip Krauth, who made no secret of his aversion to the Platform. In a letter to his son he wrote: "The American Recension of the Augsburg Confession doesn't seem to go down well. It has received many hard blows. ... A more stupid thing could hardly have been originated. _Quem Deus vult perdere prius dementat._ How will it end? I have thought, in smoke. But I have all along had fears, and they are strengthened of late, that it will divide the General Synod. It is said that my colleague is determined to press the matter to the utmost. ... I regret exceedingly the injury which the Church is sure to sustain. Mr. Pa.s.savant's idea of a paper in opposition to the _Observer_ I approve. There ought to be an antidote to the _Observer_ somewhere." In the _Observer_ of February 15, 1856, Krauth, Sr., published nine reasons why he opposed the Platform; the chief grievance, however, its Reformed theology, was hardly hinted at.

Krauth's plea was for peace and mutual toleration. "I feel deeply solicitous that our prospering Church may not be divided," said he. "I shall do all that I can to hold it together. I will pray for the peace of our Zion," etc. His main argument against the Platform was that it proscribed brethren who were received with the understanding that they were to occupy a position coordinate with that of others, and asked every symbolical Lutheran to withdraw or dishonor himself. (Spaeth, 1, 372f.) Pacification of the Church by mutual toleration--such was the solution of the Platform controversy offered and advocated by his son, Charles Porterfield. To this Krauth, Sr., agreed. April 2, 1857, he wrote to his son: "I am decidedly of opinion that the General Synod ought to do something effectual for the pacification of the Church. I concur in the views you express, and believe, unless such views prevail, the Church must ere long be rent into fragments. Whilst I am anxious for such an agreement in regard to a doctrinal basis as will embrace all the wings of Lutheranism in our country, I very much wish we could agree on forms of worship in accordance with the liturgical character of our Church, and erect a barrier against the fanaticism and Methodism which so powerfully control some of our ministers and people." (380.) W. M.

Reynolds, in the _Evangelical Review_ which he had established 1849 (1870 succeeded by the _Lutheran Quarterly_), denounced the Platform as a declaration of "separation from the whole Lutheran Church of the past." "We trust," said he, "that no Lutheran synod will be beguiled into the awful movement here so abruptly, yet so confidently proposed to them--to revolutionize their whole previous history, and declare separation from the whole Lutheran Church of the past, and all their brethren in the present who hold to the faith of their fathers, 'the faith once delivered to the saints.'" (360.) Reynolds, who publicly renounced his former un-Lutheran views and withdrew his endors.e.m.e.nt of Kurtz, was hailed by many as the leader of the conservatives in the General Synod. But, his confessional endeavors being vitiated and neutralized by his fundamental unionistic att.i.tude, he, too, disappointed and failed the friends of true Lutheranism. He opened the pages of the _Evangelical Review_ to both, liberals as well as conservatives, to the advocates as well as the opponents of the Platform and its theology. Reynolds stood for mutual toleration, and in 1864--turned Episcopalian. (_L. u. W._ 1857, 314; 1870, 156.) J. N.

Hoffmann entered the controversy with his "Broken Platform," and W. J.

Mann with his pamphlet "A Plea for the Augsburg Confession," according to Spaeth "the strongest refutation of the Definite Platform." (_L. u.

W._ 1856, 75; 1857, 283.) Dr. Mann wrote, May 7, 1856: "If Schmucker had not the _Observer_ as an ally, he would accomplish absolutely nothing.

As it is, however, the two gentlemen fabricate a public opinion, supported by a mult.i.tude of uninformed members of the Lutheran Church.

The ma.s.s of all influential, well-meaning members, preachers as well as laymen, whatever their views may otherwise be, are indignant at Schmucker, Kurtz, _Observer_, and the whole Platform affair. I would not be astonished if the matter should lead to a breach between us and the General Synod. The consequence will be that involuntarily we shall be brought closer to the strict Lutheranism, all the more so as the Missourians of late seem to become milder." But Dr. Mann was rudely awakened from his optimism when, in the following year, his "Lutheranism in America: an essay on the present condition of the Lutheran Church in the United States," was severely criticized even by Charles Philip Krauth, in the _Evangelical Review_. And the result? "I have no desire at all to make any further concessions to Old Lutheranism," Mann meekly declared in a letter of April 15, 1857, in which he referred to the cold reception and stern rebuke which his book had received by the press within the General Synod. (Spaeth, 179 f.) Thus even the most conservative men within the General Synod rendered the cause of true Lutheranism but little service in the Platform emergency. Being in the minority and without a clear insight into the nature of Lutheranism, also without an organ, except, in part, the _Evangelical Review_, they lacked the courage and seriousness to take a determined and open stand against the corrupters and a.s.sailants of Lutheranism. They favored a policy of silent, watchful waiting. H. I. Schmidt, who, in the _Evangelical Review_, had defended the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, wrote in a letter dated February 4, 1853: "We Lutherans had better keep perfectly quiet at the next General Synod, and say nothing at all about 'Doctrinal Basis.' ... If all open conflict is avoided, our cause will continue silently and surely to gain ground, and thus the character of the General Synod will gradually be changed and righted."

(Spaeth, 1, 349.)

61. "Pacific Overture."--The storm caused by the Platform was hardly brewing, when Old and New School men united in pouring oil on the troubled waters. Instead of holding Schmucker to strict accountability, 41 prominent ministers and laymen published in the _Observer_ of February 15, 1856, a "Pacific Overture," in which they "deprecate the further prosecution of this controversy, and hereby agree to unite and abide on the doctrinal basis of the General Synod, of absolute a.s.sent to the "Word of G.o.d, as the only infallible rule of faith and practise, and fundamental agreement with the Augsburg Confession." This doc.u.ment was signed by such men as H.L. Baugher, M. Jacobs, M.L. Stoever, S.S.

Schmucker, Krauth, Sr., E.W. Hutter, T. Stork, C.A. Hay, W.H. Lochman, M. Valentine, B. Sadtler, and J.A. Brown. The pledge of the "Overture"

involved the obligation of abstinence from newspaper controversy. Kurtz did not sign the doc.u.ment, and Schmucker reserved for himself the right of replying to Mann's "Plea," which he did in _American Lutheranism Vindicated_. This book, according to the _Observer_, proves that the Augustana does teach baptismal regeneration, the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, private confession and absolution, and denial of the divine inst.i.tution of the Lord's Day, and that all of these doctrines are errors conflicting with the Scriptures. (_L. u. W._ 1856, 320.) Thus Kurtz and Schmucker, who had kindled the conflagration, persisted in pouring oil into the flames, while the rest were shouting, "Extinguish the fire!" H.I. Schmidt wrote from New York: "I can see no use in signing that 'Overture'; the compromise which it proposes cannot preserve the peace of the Church or prevent a disruption. Schmucker has got up that 'Overture' simply because he was utterly disappointed in the effect produced by his proposed Platform; because he saw that he had raised a conflagration that was very likely to burn him up. And now, after doing all he could to disrupt the Church, after getting up a platform, the adoption of which would have expelled all of us confessional Lutherans from the Lutheran Church; after laboring with all his might to fasten the charge of serious errors upon our venerable Confession, he very coolly comes forward and asks us to sign a compromise, in which, forsooth, we are to declare the points of difference between us to be non-essential.... No, indeed. Those points are not non-essential: the Lutheran doctrine of the Sacraments is so completely interwoven with our whole view of the scheme of redemption and salvation, that concerning the Eucharist grows so directly and necessarily out of the great doctrine of Christ's Person, that for me to give up those doctrinal points alleged to be non-essential is to give up all, to give up the whole Gospel. And what good would come of patching up such a hollow peace? At the first favorable opportunity Schmucker would break it, and even if he seemed to keep quiet, he would be secretly and incessantly working and machinating against our side of the house. And, what is more, the editor of the _Observer_ refuses to sign the 'Overture'; he will keep his hands unfettered, to knock us on the head right and left, as soon and as often as he pleases." Schmidt added: "Not a soul here in New York is willing to touch the 'Overture.'"

(Spaeth, 1, 363.) But no determined action followed on the part of Schmidt and the conservatives in New York who agreed with him.

62. Krauth, Jr., and Schmucker.--The fact that the conservatives failed to take a decided stand against Schmucker and his Platform theology was due, apart from their general policy of silent waiting, chiefly to Charles Porterfield Krauth, who was in complete agreement with the unionistic "Overture," and whose influence soon became paramount in the General Synod. Krauth counseled mutual toleration. On January 1, 1856, he had written to his father: "I have written down a few thoughts on the 'Platform,' but I do not know that I will ever prepare anything for the press on that subject. My thoughts all have an irenical direction."

(376.) In the following year Krauth prepared a series of articles for the _Missionary_ (published by W. A. Pa.s.savant in Pittsburgh), in which he pleaded the cause of the General Synod, and defended and justified its doctrinal basis, requiring subscription only to the "fundamentals"

of the Augustana as "substantially correct." Krauth insisted that, while the Augustana must remain unmutilated and unchanged, liberty should be granted to such as, _e. g._, deny the real presence in the Lord's Supper. The Lutheran and the other churches of the Reformation, he argued, agree as to the divine inst.i.tution and perpetual obligation of the Eucharist, the administration in both kinds, the necessity of a living faith for enjoying its blessings, and the rejection of transubstantiation and the ma.s.s. And securing these points of the Tenth Article of the Augsburg Confession, Krauth continued: "Let the General Synod allow perfect freedom, as she has. .h.i.therto done, to reject or receive the rest of the article." (Jacobs, 431.) Spaeth remarks with respect to the articles published by Krauth in defense of the General Synod: "In looking over the articles, we do not wonder that the leader in the Platform movement was willing to have, and actually proposed and drew up, a compromise on the basis laid down there. For while the articles kept the Confession intact in form, they abandoned it in fact.

They absolutely coordinated truth and error on the disputed points and said: 'Tolerate us in holding the truth[?], and we will tolerate you in holding the error.'" "There was evidently," Dr. Spaeth continues, "in those days a singular approach between the leader of American Lutheranism and Charles Porterfield Krauth, which even inspired the New School men with a hope of ultimately 'seeing Charles right,' for whom they personally had nothing but the kindest feelings. 'I think,' wrote his father after the Reading Convention of the General Synod, 'you have become pretty much of a favorite with Dr. S. S. Schmucker. He does not think you so hard a Lutheran, and your zeal for the General Synod was quite to his taste. I hope you will continue, as you have heretofore done, to treat him with respect.'" (1, 409.) What Dr. Krauth objected to was not so much the theology of the Platform as, on the one hand, the intolerance which it demanded, and, on the other hand, the mutilation of the venerable Augustana, the Magna Charta of Lutheranism. Also in the controversy between J. A. Brown and Schmucker, in which the latter's teaching on natural depravity, regeneration, and justification was declared unsound, Krauth, Jr., defended his former teacher with the result that the impeachment proceedings, contemplated at Gettysburg against Schmucker, were arrested. (411.) Thus, as far as the leading theologians were concerned, the commotion caused by the Platform ended in an agreement to disagree.

POSITION OF DISTRICT SYNODS.

63. For and Against the Platform.--Dr. E. J. Wolf, 1889: "The Platform was indignantly and universally rejected by the Eastern synods." (365.) Dr. Jacobs, 1893: "It was endorsed by one of the smaller synods in Ohio, but everywhere else it aroused intense indignation, as a misrepresentation and detraction of the Lutheran Church." (426.) Dr.

Neve, 1915: "Only three smaller District Synods in Ohio adopted the Platform temporarily, the East Ohio, the Olive Branch, and the Wittenberg Synods. At all other places it was most decidedly rejected, not only by men of the synods under whose leadership, soon after, the General Council was organized, but just as decidedly by such as remained in the General Synod."--Among the facts in the case are the following.

The Wittenberg Synod (organized 1847 in Ohio and led by Ezra Keller and S. Sprecher, professors of Wittenberg College), claiming to be "wholly loyal to the doctrines and interests of the General Synod," adopted the Platform in September, 1855, stating that the General Synod in the past had given the Augustana only a limited recognition without specifying the doctrines which were to be omitted, and that now the Platform, in the interest of truth, had pointed out the five errors of the Augustana which the great majority of the General Synod had long ago viewed as unscriptural and Roman. Synod resolved not to receive any pastor who would not accept the Platform as his own confession. (_L. u. W._ 1855, 319. 336.) In September, 1855, the Olive Branch Synod of Indiana adopted the Platform unanimously, and, in October of the same year, the East Ohio Synod, with but one dissenting vote. (350. 381.) In June, 1856, the Miami Synod declared its allegiance to the Augustana, with the limitation that they reject as errors contained in this Confession the approval of certain ceremonies of the ma.s.s, private confession and absolution, the denial of the divine obligation of the Sabbath, the doctrines of baptismal regeneration and of the real presence in the Eucharist. (1856, 349.) In September, 1856, the Wittenberg Synod recommended the Platform for adoption to its congregations, and at the same time expressed satisfaction and joy that the Platform had been adopted by the English Synod of Ohio, the Olive Branch Synod of Indiana, the Northern Synod of the same State, and by the Kentucky Synod; that the Miami Synod had accepted the Augsburg Confession in the sense of the Platform; and that the Pittsburgh Synod, through influence of the Platform, was now immune against "symbolism." (1856, 380.) The Synod of Southern Illinois (organized 1856, and in 1897 united with the Synod of Central Illinois under the name of Synod of Central and Southern Illinois), in October, 1857, unanimously approved of the Platform as a measure against the insidious tendencies of symbolism. (1857,352.) It was a sore disappointment to the Platform men when the Synod of East Pennsylvania, in 1855, at the motion of J. A. Brown (who was in essential agreement with Schmucker, doctrinally), unanimously condemned, and "most solemnly warned" against, the Platform as a "most dangerous attempt to change the doctrinal basis and revolutionize the existing character of the Lutheran churches now united in the General Synod."

(1855, 337.) The Synod of West Pennsylvania, urged by the Synod of East Pennsylvania to endorse its resolutions, refused to enter the controversy or pa.s.s on the Platform, declaring that they were satisfied with their present const.i.tution and unwilling to add new test-questions.

(1855, 320.) It came as a relief to Kurtz and the Platform men when the Synod of Central Pennsylvania, in May, 1856, unanimously and solemnly, by a rising vote, adopted the Platform. (1856, 223.) In October, 1856, the Synod of Maryland declared that every member was at liberty to accept or reject the alleged errors of the Augsburg Confession, enumerated by the Platform, provided that thereby the divine inst.i.tution of the Sabbath was not rejected, nor the doctrinal basis of the General Synod subverted. (1856, 382.) In October, 1856, the Allegheny Synod declared its adherence to the doctrinal basis of the General Synod, but, at the same time, rejected the doctrines enumerated by the Platform as errors contained in the Augsburg Confession. (1856, 27; 1857, 156.) A similar compromise was adopted by the Pittsburgh Synod. The knock-out blow to the Platform came from the older, larger, and conservative synods. In May, 1856, the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, then numbering 98 pastors, condemned the Platform and reaffirmed its own basis of faith. (1856, 224; 1857, 252.) The New York Ministerium instructed its delegates for the convention of the General Synod in 1857 to vote against the Platform. Whence the wind was blowing was apparent also from the fact that representative men of both the New York and Pennsylvania synods partic.i.p.ated in the Free Evangelical Lutheran Conferences (1856-1859), advocated and led by Walther (1856, 348).

64. Pittsburgh and Hartwick Synods.--In the _Observer_, February 15, 1856, Kurtz suggested with respect to the Platform controversy that a District Synod adopt a resolution to the effect that the Augustana did not contain the errors charged with by the Platform, and that respecting these doctrines every member of Synod was at liberty to follow his own judgment. In accordance with this advice the Pittsburgh Synod, in the same year, compromised the differences of the Old and New School men in a number of resolutions framed by Charles Porterfield Krauth, who then was still spending his efforts in trying to mediate between the adherents and opponents of the Definite Platform. Among these resolutions are the following: "II. Resolved, That while the basis of our General Synod has allowed of diversity in regard to some parts of the Augsburg Confession, that basis never was designed to imply the right to alter, amend, or curtail the Confession itself." "III.

Resolved, That while this Synod, resting on the Word of G.o.d as the sole authority in matters of faith, on its infallible warrant rejects the Romish doctrine of the real presence of transubstantiation, and with it the doctrine of consubstantiation; rejects the Ma.s.s, and all ceremonies distinctive of the Ma.s.s; denies any power in the Sacraments as an _opus operatum_, or that the blessings of Baptism and the Lord's Supper can be received without faith; rejects auricular confession and priestly absolution; holds that there is no priesthood on earth except that of all believers, and that G.o.d only can forgive sins; and maintains the sacred obligation of the Lord's Day; and while we would with our whole heart reject any part of any confession which taught doctrines in conflict with this our testimony, nevertheless, before G.o.d and His Church, we declare that in our judgment the Augsburg Confession, properly interpreted, is in perfect consistence with this our testimony and with Holy Scripture as regards the errors specified." "IV. Resolved, That while we do not wish to conceal the fact that some parts of the doctrine of our Confession in regard to the Sacraments are received in different degrees by different brethren, yet that even in these points, wherein we as brethren in Christ agree to differ, till the Holy Ghost shall make us see eye to eye, the differences are not such as to destroy the foundation of faith, our unity in labor, our mutual confidence, and our tender love." "VI. Resolved, That if we have indulged harsh thoughts and groundless suspicions, if we have without reason criminated and recriminated, we here humbly confess our fault before our adorable Redeemer, beseeching pardon of Him and of each other," etc. "VII.

Resolved, That we will resist all efforts to sow dissensions among us on the ground of minor differences, all efforts, on the one hand, to restrict the liberty which Christ has given us, or, on the other, to impair the purity of the 'faith once delivered to the saints,' and that with new ardor we will devote ourselves to the work of the Gospel," etc.

(Spaeth, 1, 378.) A stand similar to the one of the Pittsburgh Synod was taken in the same year, 1856, by the Hartwick Synod, in declaring, on the one hand, that they adopt the fundamental doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, other articles of this Confession, however, only when rightly understood and interpreted, and in rejecting, on the other hand, the doctrines enumerated in the third of the Pittsburgh resolutions.

(_L. u. W._ 1856, 349.) On the part of the Franckean Synod this caused a declaration to the effect that they would not have withdrawn (1837) if Hartwick had taken this stand earlier. Hartwick answered, 1857, that they had not adopted a new platform, but merely the General Synod's "interpretation of the Augustana." (_L. u. W._ 1857, 352; 1864, 314; 1866, 119.)

65. The Pittsburgh Compromise.--The Pittsburgh resolutions, notably the third (adopted also in 1864 at York by the General Synod, and since known as the York Resolution), breathe a unionistic and, in part, a Reformed spirit. Conspicuous among their un-Lutheran features are the following. With respect to the Lutheran doctrines rejected by Schmucker and his compeers, the Pittsburgh compromise declares in general: "We as brethren in Christ agree to differ." The theological att.i.tude of the notorious union letter of 1845 was thus practically reaffirmed and the doctrines distinctive of Lutheranism declared irrelevant. Every Lutheran synod, according to the Pittsburgh agreement, was, indeed, to recognize the Augustana unmutilated, but, on the other hand, grant complete liberty to deviate from its doctrines in the manner of the supporters of the Platform. In addition to this unionistic feature the Pittsburgh compromise, at least in three important points, makes concessions to the Reformed tenets of the Platform theology. It does not only fail to confess the Lutheran doctrines of the Lord's Supper, absolution, and the Sunday, at a time when these doctrines were universally denied and a.s.sailed also within the General Synod, and when, accordingly, a failure to confess them was tantamount to an open denial, but itself rejects them. Concerning the Sunday, Article 28 of the Augsburg Confession declares: "For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord's Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day." Over against this plain teaching the General Synod always held that "the observance of the Sunday is binding on all by divine requirement." (_Lutheran Observer_, Oct. 1, 1915.) Siding with this un-Lutheran position, the third of the Pittsburgh resolutions declares: "We adhere to the divine authority of the Sabbath as the Lord's Day."

Again, absolution by Christians, and especially the minister of a Christian congregation, was one of the doctrines abhorred by the Platform men. As late as 1864 even C.P. Krauth regarded the Eleventh Article of the Augustana as excluded from the confessional subscription of the General Synod. The Pittsburgh compromise rejects "priestly absolution" and maintains "that G.o.d only can forgive sins" on earth, thus openly disavowing a specific Lutheran doctrine and coinciding with Schmucker and Kurtz, Zwingli, and Calvin. Furthermore, the Lutheran Church most emphatically teaches "the real presence" of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. And in the days of Schmucker, and later, this doctrine, openly a.s.sailed and denied by the leaders of the General Synod, was generally, though erroneously, identified with, and termed, "consubstantiation," without as well as within the General Synod. The _Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge_, of 1854, edited by J.

Newton Brown, describes "consubstantiation" as "a tenet of the Lutheran Church respecting the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Luther denied that the elements were changed after consecration, and therefore taught that the bread and wine indeed remain, but that, together with them, there is present the substance of the body and blood of Christ, which is literally received by communicants." As late as 1899 Philip Schaff wrote in his _Creeds of Christendom_: "The Lutheran Church, as represented in Luther's writings and in the Form of Concord, rejects transubstantiation, and also the doctrine of impanation, _i. e._, a local inclusion of Christ's body and blood in the elements (_localis inclusio in pane_), or a permanent and extrasacramental conjunction of the two substances (_durabilis aliqua conjunctio extra usum sacramenti_); _but it teaches consubstantiation_ in the sense of a sacramental conjunction of the two substances effected by the consecration, or a real presence of Christ's very body and blood in, with, and under (_in, c.u.m, et sub_) bread and wine. The word consubstantiation, however, is not found in the Lutheran symbols, and is rejected by Lutheran theologians if used in the sense of impanation." (1, 232.) Down to the present day the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence has been universally designated by its opponents as "consubstantiation." (_L. u.

W._ 1856, 33. 115. 255.) Respecting this use of the term outside of the Lutheran Church, compare also Worcester's Dictionary; _Cyclopedia_, Harper and Brothers, 1894; Century Dictionary, 1906; Heyse, _Fremdwoerterbuch_; etc. And as to the use made of the term within the General Synod, S. S. Schmucker, B. Kurtz, B. Sprecher, and the rest of the Platform theologians always designated the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence as consubstantiation. As late as 1880 Dr. Helwig wrote in the _Lutheran Evangelist_: "The Missouri Lutherans adhere as closely as possible to the doctrines of Martin Luther, even his consubstantiation theory with respect to the Holy Eucharist according to the words: in, with, and under the bread." (_L. u. W._ 1880, 246.) Viewed, then, in its historical context, the third of the Pittsburgh resolutions, instead of plainly stating and boldly confessing the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence, disavows it, at least indirectly, declaring: This Synod "rejects the Romish doctrine of the real presence or transubstantiation, and with it the doctrine of consubstantiation." To cap the climax, the compromise proceeds: "Before G.o.d and His Church we declare that in our judgment the Augsburg Confession, properly interpreted, is in perfect consistence with this our testimony and with Holy Scripture as regards the errors specified." How Charles Porterfield Krauth was able thinkingly to write as he did is a problem which still awaits a satisfactory explanation. Thus, then, though formally acknowledging the Augustana and denying the right "to alter, amend, or curtail the Confession itself," the Pittsburgh compromise cannot but be viewed as a distinctly unionistic and anti-Lutheran doc.u.ment. It was a surrender, if not to the Platform as such, at least to its theology.

GENERAL SYNOD'S ATt.i.tUDE.

66. Ignoring Platform, But Endorsing Its Theology.--No formal action was taken by the conventions of the General Synod with respect either to the Definite Platform itself or its authors, abettors, and endorsers. Apart from the doctrinal indifference prevailing within the General Synod also among the conservatives, this was chiefly due to the articles published by Krauth, Jr., in defense of the General Synod in the _Missionary_.

"Silently," says Dr. Spaeth, "yet no less surely, the brethren gave the most unmistakable evidence that the views therein expressed met their concurrence." (1, 409.) However, Krauth himself, in advocating mutual toleration, merely acted on the old principles of the General Synod. His policy was in keeping with its unionistic traditions of "agreeing to disagree and not to settle disputed points, but to omit them and declare them free--_quieta non movere et mota quiescere!_" Well satisfied with the course of the General Synod at its conventions in 1857 and 1859, the _Observer_ wrote: "The convention at Pittsburgh has strengthened the bond of our union and shown that no question of doctrine or discipline can disrupt us. We are one and inseparable. Our union is based on mutual concession. We have learned a lesson which our fathers could not learn: to give and to take." (_L. u. W._ 1859, 285.