"That the enforcing of the execution of the said act of Parliament by military power will have a necessary tendency to cause a civil war, thereby dissolving that union which has so long happily subsisted between the mother country and her colonies; and that we will most heartily and unanimously concur with our suffering brethren of Boston and every other part of North America that may be the immediate victim of tyranny, as promoting all proper measures to avert such dreadful calamities to procure a redress of our grievances and to secure our common liberties." After the Woodstock meeting Muhlenberg was elected a member of the House of Burgesses of Virginia and also of the State Convention. He was appointed colonel of the Eighth regiment, afterwards known as the German regiment, which he also raised. After receiving his commission, Muhlenberg preached the famous war sermon which Colonel Roosevelt, several years ago, repeated in _Collier's Weekly_, in his plea for fair play for the Germans. Beneath his black pulpit robe, which is to-day in the possession of the Henkel Brothers' Publishing House, Peter Muhlenberg wore his uniform. In his sermon he spoke of the duties citizens owe to their country. In closing he said: "There is a time for preaching and praying; but there is also a time of fighting; now this time has come!" The service ended, he retired to the sacristy and came out the colonel. He made a speech from the front steps of his church and began the enlistment, 300 signing. In the war he distinguished himself at Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, and Yorktown, and was advanced to the rank of Major-General. The war over, Peter Muhlenberg served as Speaker of the House in Congress and afterwards as United States Senator. (_Luth. Church Review_ 1919, 160 ff.)

82. Chr. Streit at Winchester, Henkel at New Market.--In 1785 Christian Streit, who had been active in New Hanover, Pa., since 1782, came to Winchester, Va., where he served till 1812. Here the foundations for a church had been laid in 1704. According to a doc.u.ment found in the cornerstone, the congregation, then numbering 33 members, declared: "This temple is dedicated to the Triune G.o.d and the Lutheran religion; all sects, whatsoever their names may be, departing from, or not fully agreeing with, the Evangelical Lutheran religion, shall forever be excluded from it." This doc.u.ment was signed by Caspar Kirchner, then pastor of the congregation, L. Adams, secretary, and Anton Ludi, schoolteacher. By the aid of a lottery the church was completed under Chr. Streit in 1787. William Carpenter, a scholar of Streit, labored in Madison Co., Va., from 1791 to 1813, when he removed to Kentucky.

Augusta County, in the Shenandoah Valley, was almost exclusively settled by Germans, the Koiner (Coyner, Koyner, Coiner, Kiner, Cuyner) family, hailing from Wuerttemberg, being especially numerous. New Market, Shenandoah County, was the home of Paul Henkel (1754--1825), who had studied German, Latin, Greek, and Theology under the direction of Pastor Krug in Pennsylvania, and was ordained at Philadelphia in 1792. A most zealous and energetic missionary, his journeys carried him into Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.

From 1800 to 1805 he was stationed in Rowan Co., N. C., and took part in the organization of the Synod of North Carolina in 1803. Returning to Virginia in 1805, he, together with his six sons, established a printery at New Market, which loyally served the cause of true Lutheranism. As the years rolled on, the Henkels became increasingly free from the prevailing doctrinal indifferentism, and arrived at an ever clearer understanding of Lutheran truth, and this at a time when all existing Lutheran synods were moving in the opposite direction. The Lutheran loyalty and determination of the Henkels over against the unionistic and Reformed tendencies within the North Carolina Synod led to the organization of the Tennessee Synod, July 17, 1820, a synod which espoused the cause of pure Lutheranism, and zealously opposed the enthusiastic, unionistic, and Reformed aberrations then prevalent in all other Lutheran synods of America. Two years prior, September 14, 1818, Paul Henkel had partic.i.p.ated in the organization of the Ohio Synod, at first called the General Conference of Evangelical Lutheran Pastors, etc.

On October 11, 1820, conferences, which had met since 1793, led to the organization of the Synod of Maryland and Virginia at Winchester, Va., by ten pastors and nine delegates. Nine years later the Virginia Synod was organized; and the Southwest Virginia Synod, September 20, 1841.

SPECIAL CONFERENCE IN VIRGINIA.

83. Minutes of 1805.--In the first decade of the nineteenth century a Special Conference was organized in Virginia: "Specialkonferenz der Evang.-Luth. Prediger (Lehrer) und Abgeordneten im Staat Virginien." At the meeting held on Sunday, October 7, 1805, in the newly built church at Millerstadt (Woodstock), five lay delegates (among them Doctor Solomon Henkel) and the following ministers were present: Chr. Streit, W. Carpenter, Paul Henkel, J. Foltz, A. Spintler. Streit delivered a touching sermon (eine ruehrende Rede) in the Lutheran church on Matt.

28, 20. In the afternoon Paul Henkel preached in the Reformed church on 2 Cor. 4, 5; in the evening, Carpenter on 1 Cor. 1, 23, also in the Reformed church. Monday morning they met in the schoolhouse. At 12 o'clock Spintler preached in the Reformed church on Eph. 1, 7. In the afternoon it was decided that an address to the congregations be added to the minutes "on better bringing up of the children and better order of the youth." On motion of Solomon Henkel it was resolved to add to the minutes also the 21 articles of the Augsburg Confession. Furthermore it was resolved that after the sermon the children should be instructed in the catechism. It was also approved to abolish as far as possible the custom of saying the individual lines of the hymns in public worship (die Lieder zeilenweise vorzusprechen). The address added to the minutes says, in part: "If children are to grow up well-bred and be reared to the honor of G.o.d, then the teachers in the churches, the schoolteachers in the school-houses, and the parents in their dwellings must perform their various duties toward the young plants in the vineyard of the Lord." "Generally men care for the bodily welfare of their children, which in itself is not wrong; why, then, should we not also, and indeed much more so, be concerned about their everlasting and eternal welfare?"

"O parents, parents! seek to save yourselves and, as much as is in you, also your children! Do not spare any trouble or expenses to have your children instructed in the fundamental truths of our holy religion. Send them, according to your ability and the circ.u.mstances, to school regularly, especially to such schools where they are trained, not only for this world, but for heaven also, where they are instructed in song, prayer, and the doctrine of the catechism." "In our corrupted times some parents permit their children to waste the whole day of the holy Sabbath in a disorderly and sinful manner rather than bring them to the teacher in order to have them instructed for half an hour to their temporal and eternal welfare. O parents, parents! is that the way to bring up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? O remember that, who knows how soon, you with your dear children will have to appear before G.o.d's judgment! O ponder what a fearful and terrible thing it would be, if at that great day your own children should have to accuse and condemn you there before the throne of G.o.d!" With respect to the grown-up youth the address complains: "We cannot, in truth, think of many of you without shedding tears. Many of you do not only despise your mother tongue, but with it your mother church. Many, at least among those of our acquaintance, born of Evangelical Lutheran parents, neglect the instruction which they could have so conveniently, neglect confirmation and the Lord's Supper, and frequently behave in public worship in a manner to make one feel almost ashamed of them, and thus they live in the world without religion and without G.o.d."

84. Minutes of 1807, etc.--To the minutes of 1807 a formula for burial, furnished by Henkel, is added for the use of schoolteachers in the absence of a minister. At the meeting in the schoolhouse at Winchester, 1808, it was resolved that the congregations elect devout men to conduct reading-services and give catechetical instruction to the children on Sundays when ministers are absent. It was furthermore resolved that ministers should conduct, as often as possible, private meetings in their congregations in order to edify the members by prayer, song, and instruction. The admonition, written by Paul Henkel and Streit, and added to the minutes, in a simple and earnest manner urges the congregations to introduce the reading-services, the instruction of the young, and to attend the private meetings. "Coldness and indifference in religion," they say, "is so universal that we must employ all possible means to awaken men to a true and living Christianity." A special and fervent appeal is added not to abuse, but to keep, the Sabbath, the Day of the Lord, "the good, useful, holy day, which G.o.d especially has reserved for Himself for the furtherance of His honor and the welfare of our immortal souls." The appeal concludes: "Do you love your country?

Then sanctify the Sabbath. Do you love civic rest? Then sanctify the Sabbath. Do you love your neighbors? Then sanctify the Sabbath. Do you love your children? Then sanctify the Sabbath. Do you love your parents?

Then sanctify the Sabbath. Do you love your preachers, your Savior, and your souls? Then sanctify the Sabbath. Do you desire to escape h.e.l.l?

Then sanctify the Sabbath. Do you desire some day to celebrate the eternal Sabbath with the saints and the perfected just before the throne of G.o.d? Then sanctify the Sabbath here on earth, whereby you may be best prepared for those blissful occupations." At the meeting of the Special Conference in the school of Solomon's Church, Shenandoah County, 1809, it was resolved that the admonition to be added to the minutes of this year should take "special reference to the furtherance of the German language and schools." The admonition, written by Paul Henkel and Carpenter, complains that the ministers were not able to do their mission-duty, partly because they were rich and unable to undergo the hardships connected with traveling, partly because the congregations supporting them refused to let them go. They admonish the congregations to show their brotherly love in permitting their ministers to serve their forsaken and needy brethren. Respecting the cultivation of the German language, the admonition remarks, in part: "In the first place, we know that the English language is not as easily understood as the German. Even when the Germans are able to read and write it, they understand very little of it aright. Their parents, themselves not knowing the language, can hear their children read, and see them write, but cannot show them where they err, nor correct them. And just as little are they able to explain to them the contents of what they read; for [even] the English understand very little of what they read in some useful books, until they learn to understand it from their dictionaries." "If parents were really concerned about training their children for the general weal of the country, they would see to it that their sons be taught the Christian religion in their mother-tongue as well as be instructed in the English language to read, write, figure, etc. Then they might become truly useful men for the general welfare of their country. All the most useful men that one can point out in our country are, as a rule, of this cla.s.s. It cannot be expected that men who, for reasons of selfishness and pride, despise their language and church will stand for the welfare of their country." The admonition concludes: "We know how much good and wholesome instruction for the edification of our souls and for the comfort of our hearts we have derived from our German books, which are so easily understood, and which so plainly describe the simple way of life. From what we learned from them ever since our youth, we have obtained our only hope of salvation hereafter; why, then, should we, for any reason whatsoever, deprive our children of it?" According to the statistical appendix of the minutes of the Special Conference in 1809, there were, at that time, no less than 49 organized congregations in Virginia. It does not, however, appear that the interest in the German language and the consciousness of true Lutheranism made any marked progress in the following years. In 1817, at Culpeper, Pastors G. Riemenschneider, A Reck, Nicholas and Peter Schmucker, and Michael Meyerhoeffer, and five lay delegates were present. Four German and three English sermons were delivered. Among the resolutions is the following: "that only pious and, if possible, only converted men be chosen as elders of the congregations, and that they live piously both in their homes with family prayer in the evening and morning, and before the world respectably and honorably, receive the Lord's Supper frequently," etc. Instead of any reference to the tercentenary of the Reformation we find in the minutes of 1817 a resolution to the effect "that the proceedings of this year, together with a _Letter of a Traveling Jew_ appended, be printed."

SYNOD OF MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA.

85. Always Prominent and Liberal.--The Synod of Maryland and Virginia, organized October 11, 1820, has always been prominent in the General Synod. "The _Lutheran Observer_, the Pastors' Fund, the Lutheran Ministers' Insurance League, the Missionary Inst.i.tute, now Susquehanna University, were all born in this venerable Synod, which was also first to suggest the observance of Reformation Day. Lutherville and Hagerstown Female Seminaries are within its bounds. It has always been abreast of the most advanced, evangelical, and catholic life of the Church, giving no uncertain sound upon the divine obligation of the Lord's Day and the saloon." (J. G. Butler in the _Luth. Cycl_., 482.) Among its noted pastors were J. D. and B. Kurtz, J. G. Morris, F. W. Conrad, S. W.

Harkey, Theo. and C. A. Stork, D. F. Schaeffer, C. Philip and C.

Porterfield Krauth, S. S. Schmucker, H. L. Baugher, Sr., W. A.

Pa.s.savant, Sr., Ezra Keller. But men of this synod also led the van in doctrinal and practical liberalism. Harkey and Kurtz were New-measurists and enthusiastic revivalists. Harkey moved the publication of a monthly, _The Revivalist_, which Synod, however, declared "inexpedient." Through the endeavors of Kurtz a committee was appointed to bring in a report on the "New Measures," which was referred back to the committee. In 1844 Synod resolved to issue an "Abstract of the Doctrines and Practise of the Ev. Luth. Synod of Maryland." Fourteen doctrinal articles were prepared by H. L. Baugher, B. Kurtz, and S. W. Harkey, containing, among other statements, also the following: "We believe that the Scriptures teach that G.o.d has given to man, as a natural gift, the power of choice, and that, whilst he is influenced in his volitions by motives, he always possesses the ability to choose the opposite of that which was the object of his choice. G.o.d, in His providence and grace, places before man the evil and the good, urging him by the most powerful considerations to choose the latter and reject the former. When the sinner yields to G.o.d, that is regeneration." "We believe that the Scriptures teach that there are but two Sacraments, _viz_., Baptism and the Lord's Supper, in each of which truths essential to salvation are symbolically represented. We do not believe that they exert any influence _ex opere operato_, but only through the faith of the believer. Neither do the Scriptures warrant the belief that Christ is present in the Lord's Supper in any other than a spiritual manner." "We regard them [the Lutheran Symbols] as good and useful exhibitions of truth, but do not receive them as binding on the conscience, except so far as they agree with the Word of G.o.d." Evidently these articles of the Maryland "Abstract," as A. Spaeth puts it, "not only avoid or contradict the distinctive features of the Lutheran Confession, but have a decided savor of Arminianism and Pelagianism." (_C. P. Krauth_, 1, 111 f.) October 17, 1856, the Maryland Synod declared that every one is at liberty to accept or reject the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession which the "Definite Platform" rejected as false, provided that thereby the divine inst.i.tution of the Sabbath be not rejected, nor the doctrinal basis of the General Synod changed. (_L. u. W_. 1856, 382.)

86. Maryland Abstract of Doctrines.--On the un-Lutheran, Reformed, and Arminian articles of the Maryland "Abstract" we quote Dr. A. Spaeth as follows: "This report was first recommitted, and, in 1846, was laid on the table and indefinitely postponed. The _Lutheran Observer_ referred to it in an extended editorial (November 27, 1846), and printed it in full, with a few slight alterations and omissions. We quote from this article as follows: 'When asked what Lutherans believe, the question is not always so easily answered to the satisfaction of the inquirer. We may refer him to books, confessions, catechisms, etc.; but the proponent, most probably, has neither inclination nor time to hunt up and examine such authorities. He desires to be told in a few words, distinctly and definitely, what is the prevailing belief in the Lutheran Church on all fundamental points of religious truth. A short tract, a page or two comprehending an epitome of the doctrines and usages of the ma.s.s of Lutheran Christians in the United States, is what would suit him. Is there anything of this kind to be found in the Church? The want of it has long been felt and expressed. From the North and the South, the East and the West, we have been asked for something of this nature.

The question a.s.sumed such importance that it was finally agitated some two years ago in the Synod of Maryland, and afterward in the General Synod (1846), held in Philadelphia. In both instances committees were appointed to draw up and report an abstract of our "doctrine and practise." The committee appointed by the Maryland Synod complied; and though the "Abstract" itself was approved, the Synod, for reasons which we have not time at present to explain, did not think proper to adopt the report and recommend it to the Church. The committee was composed of some of our most intelligent and valued ministers; when they had prepared it, they sent a copy to every minister of the Synod, soliciting his emendations on the margin, and after its final return it was reprinted with the benefit of these emendations; and it is in this improved form that we now present it. We find no difficulty in subscribing the doc.u.ment, and in presenting it as a fair, honest exhibition of Lutheran doctrine and practise as understood in the lat.i.tude in which we reside; and if we are not greatly mistaken, the great ma.s.s of our American ministers throughout the land would not make any material objection to it.'" Dr. Spaeth continues: "This attempt to subst.i.tute such an 'abstract' for the full and precise language of the Confession of the Church was a sort of forerunner of the famous 'Definite Platform,' which appeared about ten years afterward, and whose princ.i.p.al author, Prof. S. S. Schmucker in Gettysburg, was so much pleased with the 'abstract' that he referred to it again and again in his lectures and articles, and even made his students commit to memory its princ.i.p.al statements. In an article on the 'Vocation of the American Lutheran Church' (_Evangelical Review_, Vol. II, p. 510) he says: 'With the exception of several minor shades of doctrine, in which we are more symbolic than Dr. Baugher, we could not ourselves, in so few words, give a better description of the views taught in the Seminary [Gettysburg]

than that contained in his "Abstract of the Doctrines and Practise," etc.

No ground of apprehension as to our seminary, since the doctrines of our Symbols and the prevailing doctrines of our American Church are here faithfully taught.'" (112.)

THE TENNESSEE SYNOD.

ORGANIZATION.

87. "German Ev. Luth. Conference of Tennessee."--Although the Tennessee Synod has always been and is now only one of the smaller American Lutheran synods, its history reveals much that is gratifying, instructive, edifying, and interesting. The first report is ent.i.tled: "Report of the transactions of the first conference of the German Ev.

Luth. pastors and deputies held in the State of Tennessee, in Solomon's Church, Cove Creek, Green Co., on the 17th, 18th, and 19th of July, 1820." The conference was organized by Pastors Jacob Zink of Virginia, Paul Henkel of Virginia, Adam Miller of Tennessee, Philip Henkel of Tennessee, George Esterly of Tennessee, and David Henkel of North Carolina (who was unable to attend the first meeting), and 19 deputies of congregations in Tennessee. (_Bericht_ 1820, 3.) By 1827 the number of pastors had increased to 14, by 1856 to 32, and by 1900 to 40. At present the Tennessee Synod numbers about 130 congregations and 14,500 communicants. The name "Synod" appears for the first time in the English Report of 1825, and is found in the const.i.tution since 1827. In the minutes of 1820 we read: "Firstly, it was deemed necessary and good that all business and proceedings of this conference, or synod, shall be conducted in the German language. All written reports of the proceedings belonging to the whole shall also be published in the German language."

(4.) Synod also regarded it "as most necessary that we be as diligent as possible to acquaint our children with all our doctrines of faith in our German language, since in it we are able to instruct them in the easiest way." (9.) A footnote makes the following comment: "The reason why we desire a purely German-speaking conference: Experience has taught us that where a conference is German-English, either the one or the other party considers itself offended. When German is spoken, the English brethren understand little, and very frequently nothing at all. When English is spoken, many a German brother is unable to grasp the matter, and accordingly unable to judge in questions of the greatest importance.

Besides, at the present time there are very few purely English pastors who accept the doctrine of our Church and desire to preach it." (4.) The same sentiments are voiced in the following statement of this report: "False Lutherans prefer to seek entrance among the German church-people, because they still contribute most to the support of the ministry. Some Germans also of our day are of such a kind that if they are able to preach a little English, no matter how broken and jargonlike it is spoken, they are inflated with such senseless pride that they would no longer preach a thing in their mother-tongue nor care the least for the order of the Church, if it were not a question of bread and of keeping the good will of some obdurate Germans. They preach because they take pleasure in hearing themselves. Those who are really English and understand their language do not care to hear such, except at times, and then for their amus.e.m.e.nt only. The Germans therefore are under no obligations to the good will of such sirs, when they serve them in their language and according to their order." (31.) Originally, then, the Tennessee Synod was determined to be and to remain a purely German-speaking body.

88. Att.i.tude toward the English Language.--That the interest manifested by the Tennessee Synod in the German language was not due to any unreasonable prejudice or hatred toward the English language as such, appears from the fact that since 1821 the minutes of Synod were printed both in English and German. Moreover, in the minutes of the second convention, 1821, we read: "At the request of some of our brethren of North Carolina it was resolved that there be annually a synod held in North Carolina, or in an adjoining State in the English language. The members of the German Tennessee Synod may also help to compose this Synod. It shall be governed agreeably to the same const.i.tution as that of the German Tennessee Synod (the language excepted). Those who compose this Synod may appoint the place and time of the meeting, when and where they may deem it expedient." (Report 1821, 7.) The Report of 1822 records: "Resolved: Because this Synod is German-speaking, and Mr. Blalock not understanding this language, he cannot therefore have a seat and vote in this body. Yet, the Revs. Paul and David Henkel are allowed as individual ministers to examine him, and in case he is qualified, to ordain him. It is to be understood that Mr.

Blalock is to be ordained a minister of the Evangelical Lutheran Church; but in case he should acquire a knowledge of the German language, which he expects to do, he can then have a seat and vote in the German synod.

But whilst he understands the English language only, he may with other ministers, who walk agreeably to the doctrines and rules of the German synod, organize an English-speaking synod, in conformity to a resolution pa.s.sed last year." (5.) In 1826 the resolution was adopted: "Whereas there are sundry members belonging to this Synod who do not understand the German language, and yet do not wish to form a separate body, it was resolved that the Secretary, during this session, shall act as an interpreter between the German and English brethren. It was further resolved that at the next session, during the three first days, all the business shall be transacted in the German language, _i.e._, if so much time shall be requisite; after which the business shall be resumed in the English language." (3.) The anxiety caused by the language-question appears from the following letter of Philip Henkel, dated October 19, 1826: "After my return from Synod, I found our German congregation-members very much dissatisfied because they believed that we had violated the const.i.tution, and I am afraid that a separation will be the result. For the old Germans will never suffer the Tennessee Synod to become a German-English-speaking body. We must certainly act carefully in this matter, otherwise our Synod will be ruined. . . . They said that they were willing to sacrifice the const.i.tution, provided that we remain an exclusively German-speaking body. I also am willing to relinquish the const.i.tution, provided that the Augsburg Confession is made the const.i.tution of this synod. We shall find that we shall not be able to keep the Germans and English together, even when we conduct synod at the same place three days in the German and three days in the English language, for the Germans will have to suffer the burden. The English will always want to attend; then they are coa.r.s.ely treated by the Germans; the English complain; thus the matter will be ruined. My advice, therefore, is: Let us always hold a German-speaking synod, and afterwards an English-speaking one. In this way we shall be able to exist. For my part, I am willing to attend both. Every const.i.tution except the Augsburg Confession may then be set aside. If the Germans refuse to maintain their language, we can't help it, and we are not at fault if they perish. If you approve the plan of holding first an exclusively German-speaking synod and then an exclusively English-speaking synod, and also of abolishing every const.i.tution except the Augsburg Confession, advise me at your earliest convenience. I will then write to the rest of the preachers, and appoint the time and place for synod. This seems to be the only means of keeping our people united, for at present they are apart, and who knows how we may bring them together. After the const.i.tution has been transgressed, everybody feels free. But if the Augsburg Confession were the const.i.tution, every member would readily agree to it. These are my thoughts. Write soon. Philip Henkel." (_L. u. W_. 60, 63.) In the minutes of 1827 we read: "14. Some members of this congregation alleged the following charge against Mr.

Adam Miller, Jr.: that he neglected to officiate in the German language, and thus deprived those of religious instructions and edification who do not understand the English. The Synod was convinced of the justice of the complaint, and considered it highly necessary that these brethren should be served in the German language. Mr. Miller, in defense of his conduct, said that he did not understand the German language accurately and therefore could not officiate in it, and that hitherto he has not had an opportunity of learning it. But he promised to acquire a more accurate knowledge of this language, provided his congregations were willing to spare him from their service for one year. He intends to study this language with David Henkel. The members of his congregations who were present agreed for him to do so, but requested to be visited a few times by some of the other ministers during the time they should be vacant. The Synod highly approved Mr. Miller's resolution, and wished him to persevere in this laudable undertaking." (12.) The Synod of 1827 was confronted by conflicting pet.i.tions as to the language-question. The following memorials were read: "1. A memorial from St. James's Church in Greene County, Tenn., subscribed by 23 persons. They pray this Synod not to alter the const.i.tution. Further, that this body remain exclusively German, and that some measures be taken to establish a separate English Synod.... 4. In a letter in which the Rev. Adam Miller, Sr., states the reasons of his absence, he prays this body to allow the English brethren equal privileges, so that they may not be under the necessity of establishing a separate Synod." (14.) The const.i.tution, which was proposed at this meeting and accepted in the following year, disposed of this question as follows: "All debates shall first be held in the German language, whereupon the same shall be resumed in the English; provided there shall be both German and English members present. After the debates on a subject shall have been ended, then the decision shall be made." (R. 1827, 24; B. 1828, 28.) In the following years the English language rapidly gained the ascendency, until finally the German disappeared entirely. (R. 1831, 9; B. 1841, 8. 9.) Rev. Th. Brohm, after visiting the Tennessee Synod, wrote in the _Lutheraner_ of January 2, 1855: "Though of German origin, the Tennessee Synod in the course of time has lost its German element, and has become a purely English synod."

89. Born of Lutheran Loyalty.--The organization of the Tennessee Synod came as a protest against the projected General Synod, and especially against existing conditions in the Synod of North Carolina, to which the Tennessee pastors belonged until their secession in 1820. March 14, 1820, Philip Henkel had written to his brother: "If I am spared, I shall attend synod. . . . If the old ministers will not act agreeably to the Augsburg Confession, we will erect a synod in Tennessee." The "old ministers" were Stork, Shober, Jacob and Daniel Sherer, and other pastors of the North Carolina Synod who advocated a union with the sects and the connection with the General Synod, and sought to suppress such testimony on behalf of Lutheran truth and consistency as the Henkels had begun to bear publicly. Aversion to faithful confessional Lutheranism was the real reason why the Synod of North Carolina in 1816 refused to ordain the young, but able David Henkel, which, even at that time, almost resulted in a withdrawal of the Henkels and their delegates. The tension was greatly increased when the Synod of 1819 degraded David Henkel to the rank of catechist, on the false charge that he had preached transubstantiation and other papistic heresies and thereby given offense to the "Reformed brethren." As a matter of fact, he had proclaimed the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The North Carolina Synod made the entry into their minutes. "He [David Henkel] is therefore no preacher of the Lutheran Church of North Carolina and adjacent States." (G., 696.) A source of additional ill will was the autocratic procedure of the officers in arbitrarily convening the Synod of 1819, five weeks before the const.i.tutional time (whence known as the "Untimely Synod"), and that without sending out notices sufficiently early, and for a purpose most odious to the Henkels and their adherents, _viz_., to elect a delegate (Shober was chosen) to the convention of the Pennsylvania Synod at Baltimore in order to partic.i.p.ate in the framing of a tentative const.i.tution for the projected General Synod.

Resenting the arrogance and unconst.i.tutional action of the officers as well as the obnoxious resolutions of the "Untimely Synod," those members of the North Carolina Synod who had been either unwilling or unable (having been notified too late) to take part in the deliberations of the "Untimely Synod," five weeks later, at the time prescribed by the const.i.tution, held a synod of their own at Buffalo Creek, in Stork's congregation, where the "Untimely Synod" had been held, under the oaks, near the church, Stork having refused them the use of the church for this purpose. "The Synod," Stork declared, "has been held; and there is no need of holding it again." He ordered his elders not to open the church, but finally permitted them to hold services there, with the express proviso, however, that no business was to be transacted in it.

(B. 1820, 21.) Philip Henkel was elected president, and Bell and David Henkel were ordained. (21.) In the following year, a few months after the so-called "Quarreling Synod" ("Streitsynode"), where the majority of the North Carolina Synod decided in favor of a union with the General Synod, the minority, as related above, organized the Tennessee Synod.

(15.) In the minutes (Bericht) of 1820, the members of the new synod justify their withdrawal and organization as a separate body by calling attention especially to the following points: 1. The officers and some of the members of the North Carolina Synod had proven by their words and actions that they "could no longer be regarded as truly Evangelical Lutheran pastors." (12. 15.) 2. The "Untimely Synod" had declared the excommunication of a member of David Henkel's congregation to be invalid, without investigating the matter in that congregation, thereby infringing upon the rights of the congregation. (20.) 3. The same synod had not rebuked its president, Rev. Stork, when he made the statement that he could not believe the Lutheran doctrine that Christ as man was in possession of all divine attributes, and that he would not believe it if 500 Bibles should say so. 4. The Synod of 1820 had declared David Henkel's ordination "under the oaks" invalid, and had published a sort of letter of excommunication against him. (22.) 5. Synod had refused to settle the mooted questions according to the Augsburg Confession and the synodical const.i.tution, but, instead, had demanded that the minority should yield to the majority. "We, however, thought," says the Report, "that the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession (concerning which we were convinced that it could be proven by the doctrine of the Bible) should have greater weight with us than the voice of a majority of men who are opposed to the doctrine and ordinance of our Church." (23.) 6. Synod had permitted the un-Lutheran remarks made at the convention and elsewhere on Baptism, the Eucharist, Election, Conversion, and the certainty of the state of grace, as well as on union with all religious parties, to pa.s.s unreproved.--Stating the causes of the deplorable schism, David Henkel wrote in 1827: "A most unhappy difference exists between this body and the North Carolina Synod. Previous to the year 1820 some members of the former and some of the latter const.i.tuted one Synod. In this year the North Carolina Synod entered into the connection of a General Synod with some other synods. This is a connection and inst.i.tution which heretofore did not exist in the Lutheran community, and to which the Tennessee Synod object as an inst.i.tution calculated to subvert ecclesiastical liberty, and to prepare the way for innovations.

This, together with the difference in regard to some of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion, are the princ.i.p.al reasons of the division." (R. 1827, 32.) In brief, the organization of the Tennessee Synod was a solemn protest against synodical tyranny and anticonfessional teaching then prevailing in the North Carolina Synod and in all other Lutheran bodies in America. Accordingly, as compared with her contemporaries, it remains the peculiar glory of the Tennessee Synod that she was born of Lutheran loyalty.

90. Back to Luther! Back to the Lutheran Symbols!--Such, in substance and effect, was the slogan sounded by the Tennessee Synod, for the first time in the history of the Lutheran Church in America, after long years of confessional disloyalty and of doctrinal and practical deterioration.

By dint of earnest and conscientious study of the Lutheran Symbols and of Luther's writings, the Tennessee pastors, in particular the Henkels, had attained to a clear knowledge of Lutheran truth and practise, thereby, at the same time, becoming fully convinced that of all teachings in Christendom the Lutheran doctrine alone is in full accord with Holy Writ. March 13, 1823, Solomon Henkel wrote: "A week ago Mr.

York was here, bringing with him Luther's Works. They are bound in 13 folio volumes and cost $100. I purchased the books." To penetrate deeper and deeper into the writings of Luther, to persuade others to do the same, and to make this possible to them, such was the ardent desire and earnest endeavor of the Tennessee pastors. Evidently with this purpose in view, Paul Henkel had established a printery at New Market, Va., where books and tracts breathing a Lutheran spirit were published.

Synodical colporteurs diligently canva.s.sed them among the congregations.

Sound Lutheran works, _e.g._, the Augsburg Confession, sermons by Luther and Arndt, the article on Good Works from the Formula of Concord, were from time to time, by resolution of Synod, appended to the synodical reports. (1831, 11.) Nor was their zeal satisfied with fostering true Lutheranism in their own midst. In order to acquaint the English-speaking public with the truths and treasures of our Church, they issued translations of standard Lutheran works. Besides an agenda and a hymnal, the New Market printery published in 1829 an English translation of Luther's Small Catechism with notes by David Henkel; in 1834, a translation of the Augsburg Confession with a preface by Karl Henkel (in 1827 David Henkel had already been commissioned to prepare a correct translation); in 1851, an English version of the entire Book of Concord, of which a second and improved edition appeared in 1854; in 1852, "Luther on the Sacraments," being translations of some writings of Luther by Jos. Salyards and Solomon D. Henkel, 423 pages octavo; in 1869, Luther's Epistle Sermons, an English edition of which had been determined upon in 1855. (Rep. 1826, 7; 1830, 17; 1841, 15; 1855, 14.) On March 1, 1824, a certain Sam Blankenbecker wrote to David Henkel: "There are two sorts of Lutherans: the one sort believes there is no doctrine right and pure but the Lutheran; the other thinks that also the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists are equally right and pure; and such Lutherans are very hurtful to others." The Tennessee Synod belonged to the first cla.s.s. They were conscious Lutherans, who knew what they were and what they stood for. The fact is that in those days Tennessee was the only synod with a true Lutheran heart and an honest Lutheran face.

91. Despised and Ostracized.--Their return to Luther and the Lutheran Symbols brought the Henkels and the Tennessee Synod into direct opposition to, and sharp conflict with, all other Lutheran synods of that day. For, though still bearing, and priding themselves on, the Lutheran name, they all had long ago begun to abandon the confessions and distinctive doctrines of the Church which the cherished and coveted name of Luther stood for. Their leaders had become indifferentists, unionists, and Reformed and Methodistic enthusiasts. Over against this lack of Lutheran faithfulness and apostasy from the Confessions the Henkels gave no uncertain testimony. Being Lutherans in their hearts as well as in their heads, they boldly confessed the truths, and most energetically championed the cause of genuine Lutheranism. And they squared their actions with their words and convictions. Consistent also in their practise, they refused to fellowship and recognize the errorists everywhere, even when found in Lutheran synods. No wonder, then, that the Henkels and their uncompromising att.i.tude met with no sympathy on the part of the Lutheran synods then found in America. And, being, as they were, a standing protest against the apostasy of these synods, it was but natural, carnally, that the Tenneesee [tr. note: sic]

confessors were avoided, ignored, despised, hated, maligned, and ostracized by their opponents. Tennessee was decried and stigmatized as the "Quarreling Conference" ("Streitkonferenz"). The "Henkelites," it was said, had been convicted of error at the "Quarreling Synod"; there they had not been able to prove their doctrine; they were false Lutherans; some of them had been excluded from Synod, therefore they had no authority to officiate as ministers; their synod was not a lawful synod; its transactions were invalid, etc. (1820, 22.30; 1824, App. 3; 1827, 43 f.) All endeavors on the part of the Tennessee Synod to bring about an understanding and a unification in the truth were spurned by the other synods "with silent contempt," says David Henkel. (1827, 6.

25.) In the Maryland Synod the prediction was heard: "This Tennessee Synod will go to pieces finally." The Address of the General Synod of 1823 states: "Our Church, which was originally embraced in two independent synods [Ministeriums of Pennsylvania and New York], has spread over so extensive a portion of the United States that at present we have _five_ synods [North Carolina, Ohio, Maryland and Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York Synods], and shall shortly have several more." (3. 9. 14.) The General Synod, then, refused to recognize Tennessee as a Lutheran synod in America. In a letter, dated January 23, 1826, and addressed to Solomon Henkel, H. Muhlenberg remarked that the Tennessee Synod "had as yet not been recognized as a synod by the other Lutheran synods." In 1839 the General Synod censured both the Franckean and Tennessee Synods as the two extremes "causing disturbances and divisions in our churches" and standing in the way of a union of the Lutheran Church in America--a resolution which was rescinded in 1864.

Thus universal contempt and proscription was the reward which Tennessee received for her endeavors to lead the Lutheran Church out of the mire of sectarian aberrations back to Luther and the Lutheran Symbols. Rev.

Brohm, after his visit with the Tennessee Synod, wrote in the _Lutheraner_ of June 5, 1855: "In order to heal, if in any way possible, the deplorable breach, the Tennessee Synod, in the course of seven years, made repeated attempts to persuade her opponents [in the North Carolina Synod] to discuss the mooted doctrines, offering them conditions most just and most acceptable . . . . But with exasperating indifference all these offers were stubbornly despised and rejected.

Tennessee directed various questions also to the Pennsylvania Synod in order to learn their views on the pending doctrinal controversies. But this body, too, did not even deign to answer. The Tennessee Synod, however, though rebuffed on all sides and stigmatized as a fanatical sect, quietly went its way, without suffering itself to be confused or led astray. Unanimity and love reigned among its members. The number of congregations which united with them and desired pastors from them constantly increased, so that the Synod was not able to satisfy all requests. The synodical resolutions offer ample evidence of the lively interest and diligence of their pastors to appropriate more and more fully the riches of the Reformation, and to make their congregations partakers thereof." (11, 166.) The first request for a minister came from Cape Girardeau, Mo. The minutes record: "At the earnest request and desire of a number of German inhabitants in Cape Girardeau ("Cape Cheredo"), Mo., through H. Johannes Schmidt and Georg Klemmer, who earnestly pray that they might be visited, it was resolved that H. Jacob Zink should make a journey thither, as soon as possible, to preach the Gospel to them and to perform all other official acts that may be required. For this laudable undertaking we wish him the rich blessing of the Lord." (B. 1820, 10.)

OBJECTIONS TO GENERAL SYNOD.

92. Critique of So-called "Planentwurf."--The formation of a Lutheran General Synod, warmly advocated by the Synods of Pennsylvania and North Carolina, met with the earnest and zealous, though not in every respect judicious, opposition of the Tennessee Synod. Her Report of 1820 contains a criticism of the _Planentwurf_, which in 1819 had been proposed by the Pennsylvania Synod as a tentative const.i.tution for the projected General Synod. Among the objections enumerated are the following: 1. Whosoever desired to be recognized as a pastor would be compelled to pursue his studies at the proposed seminary of the General Synod. 2. Of those ent.i.tled to cast a vote there were two pastors to every lay delegate. "It would therefore be vain for a lay deputy to make the journey, except he desired the honor of being a servant of two masters." 3. The General Synod arrogated to itself the exclusive right to introduce new books for public worship. 4. Luther's Catechism also was to remain only _until_ the Synod would introduce other books. 5.

According to the _Planentwurf_, the General Synod could reject all articles of faith or omit them entirely. 6. Neither the Augsburg Confession nor the Bible was designated as the foundation of the General Synod, nor even so much as mentioned in the _Planentwurf_. (52 f.) 7. The General Synod was striving to establish a dominion over all Ministeriums, as appeared from the statement: "Until the permission or approval of the General Synod shall have been formally obtained, no newly established body shall be regarded as a Ministerium, nor shall an ordination conferred by them be considered valid." "Accordingly," they said, "one had as much liberty as the rope permitted." (54 f.; 1822, 10.) 8. The General Synod claimed the right to specify the "ranks universally valid for the ministry." "Catechist," as the Report of 1820 has it, "candidate, dean, and pastor will no longer suffice; who knows but something higher will be required, such as bishop, archbishop, cardinal, or even pope!" 9. Pastors were granted the right to appeal from the decision of their synod to the General Synod. "Accordingly the case of a pastor, be he ever so bad, may drag on for years; and if, owing to extreme distances or other circ.u.mstances, the witnesses are not able to attend, he may finally even win it. This provision renders the matter similar to a temporal government, where appeals are commonly made from a lower to a higher court." 10. "One cannot be sure that a spirit desiring as much power as appears to be granted by this _Planentwurf_ will be able to rest and not seek further power." 11. No one was able to guarantee that this Lutheran General Synod would not later on unite with the General Synods of the sects to form a National Synod, in which the majority would then determine all articles of faith and all church-customs. 12. Such a National Synod would be able also to change the Const.i.tution of the United States and compel every one to unite with this National Synod, impose taxes, etc. (50 f.) By resolution of Synod the reasons why some pastors in Ohio, influenced in their action by Paul Henkel, rejected the _Planentwurf_ were also appended to the Report of 1820. Among them were: 1. The fear "of falling into the hands of a strong hierarchy" by accepting this _Planentwurf_, since they knew from church history that the Papacy had developed rapidly along similar lines. (64.) 2. The General Synod would soon become English, whereas, according to its ministerial order, the Ohio Synod "must remain a German-speaking ministerium." (65.) 3. Every meeting of the General Synod would mean for them a traveling expense of $168. 4. As the _Planentwurf_ was subject to change, union with the General Synod would be tantamount "'to buying the cat in the bag,' as the proverb has it."

These scruples reveal the fact that the Tennessee Synod viewed the General Synod as a body which was hierarchical in its polity and thoroughly un-Lutheran in its doctrinal position, an opinion well founded, even though the objections advanced are not equally valid.

93. General Synod's Const.i.tution Criticized.--The critique of the _Planentwurf_ was not devoid of fruit in every respect. Due to the testimony of the Henkels, its hierarchical features were toned down considerably in the const.i.tution finally adopted at Hagerstown, Md., 1820. Thus, _e.g._, the odious pa.s.sage regarding the establishment of new ministeriums and the validity of their ordinations was omitted.

Still Tennessee was far from being satisfied with the const.i.tution as amended. Moreover, a committee was appointed to draw up their remaining objections, and the report submitted was appended to the minutes of 1821 and printed by order of Synod. It subjects the const.i.tution to a severe examination, and makes a number of important strictures. 1. The first objection was raised against the words of the Preamble: "Whereas Jesus Christ, the great Head of the Church, hath not given her any particular prescriptions how church-government should be regulated, she therefore enjoys the privilege in all her departments to make such regulations as may appear best, agreeably to situation and circ.u.mstances." While recognizing that Christ has given no prescriptions "for the regulation of some things not essential to the Church," they objected to the sweeping statement of the Preamble whereby the government of the Church would be left to a majority of votes. Tennessee maintained that Matt. 18, 16 Christ prescribes to the Church how discipline is to be exercised; that 1 Cor. 11, 4-11 sufficient rules with respect to public worship are prescribed; that 1 Tim. 3, 1-3 the grades of ministers are described; that 1 Tim. 5, 19-22 instructions are given how to receive an accusation against an elder; and that 2 Tim. 2, 3-6 Paul shows that ministers should not be entangled with the things of this world. "From these and many more pa.s.sages that might be quoted, it is evident that Christ and His inspired apostles have given the Church sufficient prescriptions of her government in all her various branches. They are general rules, and yet applicable to every particular case that may occur, so that they are also particular prescriptions. But that the const.i.tution of the General Synod saith, Christ has not left such particular prescriptions, appears a strange, unwarranted, and arbitrary a.s.sertion." (14 f.) 2. The second objection a.s.serted that the General Synod was a yoke of commandments of men, hence could not serve the purpose of true peace. According to the const.i.tution the purpose of the General Synod was "the exercise of brotherly love, the furtherance of Christian harmony, and the preservation of the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace." But the Report maintained: "The attempt of the establishment of this General Synod has not produced any brotherly love, nor harmony, nor peace; but on the contrary, divisions, contentions, and confusion. This establishment is nothing but self-invented rules and traditions of men, and such as love Christian liberty cannot suffer themselves to be brought into bondage; hence the confusion. O ye watchmen of Zion, pity and spare the flock!" (17 f.) A "note" added by David Henkel, the "clerk of the committee," explains: "That this inst.i.tution of General Synod's promotes unity in spirit is contrary to constant experience. The Presbyterians, Methodists, and other churches are governed by General Synods, and have many human rules and regulations; but yet from time to time many disputes and factions have arisen among them, so that they are split into many sects and parties. The Lutheran Church never heretofore was governed by a General Synod, yet she never was divided until this novel system was introduced. . . . The first Lutheran ministers emigrated from Germany and Sweden. . . . Being few in number, no particular synods were formed for many years; yet they were united. The Augsburg Confession of Faith, containing the princ.i.p.al doctrines of the Holy Scriptures, was their standard of union. It was unalterable; they had no novel system, produced by a majority of votes, to expect. . . .

Each of these synods, before the General Const.i.tution was formed, were independent, and not amenable to any superior tribunal, except that of Christ. Differences in local and temporary regulations, the formation of new synods, etc., were not considered as divisions of the Church; their standard of unity was far more n.o.ble, and exalted: the pure Scriptural doctrines of the Augsburg Confession of Faith was their meridian sun, which they viewed with united eyes; and anything less, such as local and temporary regulations, never influenced their minds, even to think of divisions. The Church proceeded peaceably, until the unhappy and fatal period of 1819 arrived, when a meeting was called to Baltimore, consisting of some of the Synod of Pennsylvania and an individual from North Carolina, for the purpose of devising a plan for the establishment of the General Synod, etc. (17 f.) Article III, Sec. V, which provided that "the General Synod shall take good care not to burden the consciences of ministers with human traditions," called forth the following comment: "The General Synod shall not burden the consciences of ministers with human traditions, yet at the same time the very inst.i.tution of the General Synod is nothing but human laws and traditions! How vehemently our Savior upbraided the Pharisees for their human laws and the traditions they imposed upon the common people! By means of human laws and traditions popery was established.--Why are preparations made now again to introduce that horrid beast? How careful individual synods should be not to impose human traditions upon the Church, but to remember that they do 'not a.s.semble for the purpose of making laws for the Church, but only to devise means to execute those already made by Christ." (B. 1821, 26; R. 1821, 28. 29.) In an additional "note" David Henkel remarks: "The unity of the Lutheran Church doth not consist in any external forms or ceremonies, or government established by men. It is independent of any general head except Christ. The Seventh Article of the Augsburg Confession of Faith points out the true nature of her unity. . . . It is the same as if it had said: the Church of Christ is but one united body, consisting of innumerable members; but what unites them? All believers believe in one invisible Lord, by whom they are governed, for He is their King; they are anointed by the same Holy Ghost, for He is their Comforter and Guide. This is an invisible, G.o.dlike union, not discerned by the carnal eye, nor doth it imitate the unity of the kingdom of this world. Christ is its polar star, the Bible its charter, ministers who proclaim sweet words of peace, its heralds, Baptism and the Lord's Supper its seal, bond, token, and security. This union is independent of all human ceremonies, traditions, general synods, or anything of the kind, and has existed ever since the promulgation of the Gospel in all realms and climes. . . . A union which consists of human laws, ceremonies, and discipline may be termed a political union--a union peculiar to civil government of this world. Now, even were it the case that all who call themselves Christians would be united in this manner, it would by no means prove their spiritual unity. For many may conform to one external rule, and yet be divided in heart, for they are not all Israelites that are of Israel. It is evident, because the General Synod is but the invention of men, that they make much more necessary to Christian unity than the pure preaching of the Gospel and the proper administration of the Sacraments, commanded by Christ. Thus, this establishment of the General Synod must be contrary to the Seventh Article of our Confession of Faith. True Christianity is thereby blended with human laws and policy--the true lineaments of popery. . . . If no man is to judge Christians in respect to meat and drink or of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days, who, then, has a right to judge them in respect of forming books for the public use in churches, or in respect of meeting as a synod, without a formal permission, or in respect of performing ordinations? The General Synod have arrogated this right of judging and oppressing Christians in these respects. These are prerogatives they claim, contrary to the doctrines of the apostle."

(R. 1821, 28.)

94. Criticism of Const.i.tution Continued.--3. The third objection maintained that the General Synod was Lutheran in name only. Says the Report: "This body, indeed, may call itself Evangelical Lutheran, and yet not be such. The const.i.tution does nowhere say that the Augsburg Confession of Faith, or Luther's Catechism, or the Bible shall be the foundation of doctrine and discipline of the General Synod. It is well known that they always have been the standard of the Lutheran Church.

Why does the const.i.tution not once name them?" "Had the framers of this const.i.tution been zealous advocates of Lutheran doctrine, they would have been careful to insert a clause to compel the General Synod always to act according to our standard books. It is an easy thing to prove that some of the founders of this General Synod have openly denied some of the important doctrines of the Augsburg Confession of Faith and of Luther's Catechism." (B. 1821, 18; R. 1821, 19.) 4. The fourth objection was based on the proposed membership of the new body, which, according to Article II, was to consist "of deputies of the different Evangelical Synodical and Ministerial Connections in the United States." Tennessee commented: "This body [General Synod] may consist of deputies from the different evangelical connections. It is not said of the several Evangelical _Lutheran_ connections. If this body may consist of the different connections, then it is evident that it may be composed of _all_ denominations, such as Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, etc.

These all denominate themselves Evangelical, and are even recognized as such by some who call themselves Lutherans. Thus it is manifest that all denominations who call themselves Evangelical may have seats and votes in this body, forasmuch as there is nothing to prohibit them from it."

(R. 1821, 22.) The German version adds the following: "The const.i.tution has opened a door where all manner of sects and parties may creep into the Lutheran Church and extirpate her doctrine." (B. 1821, 20.) These apprehensions of Tennessee were no mere products of their own imagination, for just such a union of all Evangelical denominations Shober and his compeers had been ardently advocating in the North Carolina Synod, especially since 1817. 5. The fifth objection was that the General Synod proposed to curtail the exercise of Christian liberty in regard to ceremonies. Article III, Section II, provided that no synod or ministry in connection with the General Synod shall publish any new catechism, liturgy, compilation of hymns, or confession of faith "without having first handed a complete copy thereof to the General Synod, and having received their sentiments, or admonitions, or advice."

The Tennessee Synod held this to be against the Seventh Article of the Augsburg Confession and said: "Why shall individual societies be robbed of the liberty to introduce such books us suit them best, when our Confession of Faith grants every person liberty in this case?" (23.) 6.

A further objection was raised against this article (III, 2) of the const.i.tution because its language permitted the introduction of a new confession of faith. Tennessee remarked: "An opportunity is here given to introduce a new confession of faith. This appears a conclusive proof that the General Synod do not intend to be governed by (the Augsburg Confession of Faith, nor vindicate the Lutheran doctrines contained therein; for if they did, they would not by this clause have given liberty to form other confessions of faith. Perhaps this may be one of the reasons why they have nowhere promised in the const.i.tution that Luther's Catechism, the Augsburg Confession of Faith, nor the Bible should be the guide of their body. They wish to have power to form a new confession; perhaps more popular, and suited to the newfangled opinions of this present age of infidelity. Were not the men such as Luther, Melanchthon, etc., who formed the Augsburg Confession of Faith, as a testimony against popery and other heresies, G.o.dly and enlightened men, and to whose instrumentality we owe our light of the Gospel? Will any of the votaries of the General Synod presume to say that this confession is erroneous, heretical, and wicked? Can they form a better one? If they answer in the affirmative, they are no Lutherans, as they call themselves. If they answer in the negative, why, then, have they not positively specified in the const.i.tution that such should remain the standard of the Church? Why have they given an opportunity to introduce a new confession? It is known that all Lutheran ministers, when they are ordained, are solemnly pledged as by an oath to maintain the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession of Faith. But when there is an opportunity given to propose and introduce other confessions, perhaps the very reverse, what shall become of all the oaths made at the time of ordination?"

(24.) The German Report argues: "The Evangelical Lutheran Church already has, for almost three hundred years, a confession of faith, to wit, the Augsburg Confession. To this confession all Lutheran ministers are pledged by an oath when they are ordained. Since the const.i.tution nowhere states that the Augsburg Confession shall be retained, and other confessions of faith may be proposed, it is apparent that the General Synod has the power to abrogate the Augsburg Confession entirely, and to introduce a new and erroneous confession of faith, and consequently to set aside the oath of ordination." (B. 1821, 22.) 7. A further objection to the General Synod was based on Article III, Section V, which provided, among other things, that the General Synod shall take good care "not to oppress any person on account of differences in opinion."

After pointing out that this can only be understood as referring to doctrinal differences, Tennessee made the following arraignment: "What an opportunity is here given to introduce all manner of false doctrines!

If no person is to be afflicted in respect to difference in opinion, then no person can be excommunicated for propagating any false or wicked doctrine. One might deny the Holy Trinity, and encourage any system of infidelity, and yet, agreeably to this const.i.tution, no one could be rebuked nor suspended. One might plead this article in defense, and say the General Synod have no right to oppress me for my different opinion."

(R. 1821, 30; B. 1821, 25.) The German report concludes as follows: "This is nourishment for the lukewarm spirit, where men are indifferent whether true or false opinions are maintained." (27.) That also these apprehensions were not purely imaginary appears from the fact that two delegates of the Ministerium of New York, then identifying itself with the rationalism of Quitman, were permitted to partic.i.p.ate in the organization of the General Synod. 8. Finally, Article III, Section VIII, provided that the General Synod should "be sedulously and incessantly regardful of the circ.u.mstances of the times, and of every casual rise and progress of unity of opinions among Christians in general, in order that the blessed opportunities to promote concord and unit