AMERICAN LUTHERANISM

Volume IEarly History of American LutheranismandThe Tennessee SynodByF. BENTESt. Louis, Mo. CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE1919

PREFACE. Essentially, _Christianity_ is the special divine faith in the truthrevealed by the Bible that we are saved, not by our own efforts, works, or merits, but alone by the pure and unmerited grace of God, secured byChrist Jesus and freely offered in the Gospel. And the Christian Churchis the sum total of all those who truly believe, and therefore confessand propagate this truth of the Gospel. 

Accordingly, the _history_ of Christianity and of the Christian Churchis essentially the record concerning this truth, _viz. , _ how, when, where, by whom, with what success and consistency, etc. , it has beenproclaimed, received, rejected, opposed, defended, corrupted, andrestored again to its original purity. 

_Lutheranism_ is not Christianity _plus_ several ideas or modificationsof ideas added by Luther, but simply Christianity, consistentChristianity, neither more nor less. And the Lutheran Church is not anew growth, but merely the restoration of the original Christian Churchwith its apostolic, pure confession of the only saving Christian truthand faith. 

The _history_ of Lutheranism and of the Lutheran Church, therefore, isessentially the story concerning the old Christian truth, restored byLuther, _viz. , _ how, by whom, where, when, etc. , this truth waspromulgated, embraced, rejected, condemned, defended, corrupted, andrestored again to pristine purity. 

As for _American Lutheranism, _ it is not a specific brand of Lutheranism, but simply Lutheranism in America; for doctrinally Lutheranism, likeChristianity, with which it is identical, is the same the world over. Neither is the American Lutheran Church a distinct species or variety ofthe Lutheran Church, but merely the Lutheran Church in America. 

The _modified_ Lutheranism advocated during the middle of the nineteenthcentury as "American Lutheranism" was a misnomer, for in reality it wasneither American nor Lutheran, but a sectarian corruption of both. 

Hence, also, the _history_ of American Lutheranism is but the record ofhow the Christian truth, restored by Luther, was preached and accepted, opposed and defended, corrupted and restored, in our country, at varioustimes, by various men, in various synods and congregations. 

In the history of American Lutheranism _four names_ are of specialsignificance: Muhlenberg, Schmucker, Walther, Krauth. 

H. M. Muhlenberg endeavored to transplant to America the modifiedLutheranism of the Halle Pietists. S. S. Schmucker's ambition was totransmogrify the Lutheran Church into an essentially unionistic Reformedbody. C. F. Walther labored most earnestly and consistently to purgeAmerican Lutheranism of its foreign elements, and to restore theAmerican Lutheran Church to its original purity, in doctrine as well asin practise. In a similar spirit Charles Porterfield Krauth devoted hisefforts to revive confessional Lutheranism within the English portionof our Church. 

The _first volume_ of our presentation of American Lutheranism dealswith the early history of Lutheranism in America. The second, whichappeared first, presents the history of the synods which in 1918 mergedinto the United Lutheran Church: the General Synod, the General Council, and the United Synod in the South. The third deals with the history ofthe Ohio, Iowa, Buffalo, and the Scandinavian synods, and, _Deovolente, _ will go to press as soon as Concordia Publishing House will beready for it. In the fourth volume we purpose to present the history anddoctrinal position of the Missouri, Wisconsin, and other synodsconnected with the Synodical Conference. 

As appears from the two volumes now in the market, _our chief object_ isto record the principal facts regarding the doctrinal position occupiedat various times, either by the different American Lutheran bodiesthemselves or by some of their representative men, such comment onlybeing added as we deemed indispensable. We have everywhere indicated oursources, primary as well as secondary, in order to facilitate what wedesire, _viz. , _ to hold us to strict accountability. Brackets found inpassages cited contain additions, comments, corrections, etc. , of ourown, not of the respective authors quoted. 

As collateral reading, especially to pages 1 to 147 of Vol. I, weurgently recommend the unique, thorough, and reliable work of oursainted colleague _Dr. A. Graebner:_ "Geschichte der LutherischenKirche in Amerika. Erster Teil. St. Louis, Mo. Concordia PublishingHouse, 1892. "

While, as stated, the immediate object of our presentation is simply tostate the facts concerning the questions, theologians, and synodsinvolved, it self-evidently was an _ulterior end_ of ours also, by thegrace of God, to be of some service in furthering and maintaining theunity of the Spirit, an interest always and everywhere essential tothe Lutheran Church. 

"May the almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus grant the grace ofHis Holy Spirit that we all may be One in Him and constantly abide insuch Christian unity, which is well-pleasing to Him! Amen. " (_Form, ofConc_. , Epit. , 11, § 23. )

F. Bente, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo. July 28, 1919. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

AMERICAN LUTHERANISM. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . PageIntroduction. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 1-10EARLY HISTORY OF AMERICAN LUTHERANISM. .. .. .. .. 11-147Lutheran Swedes in Delaware. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 11-16Salzburg Lutherans in Georgia. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 16-20Lutherans in New York. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 20-24Justus Falckner. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 24-29Joshua Kocherthal. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 29-32William Christopher Berkenmeyer. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 32-35Deterioration in New York. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 35-39New York Ministerium. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 39-42John Christopher Hartwick. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 42-46Germantown, Pennsylvania. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 46-50Slavery of Redemptioners. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 50-55Lutherans in Pennsylvania. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 55-59Henry Melchior Muhlenberg. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 59-64Further Activity and Death of Muhlenberg. .. .. .. 64-70Muhlenberg's Confessionalism. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 70-73Muhlenberg's Pietism. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 73-77Muhlenberg's Hierarchical Tendencies. .. .. .. .. .. 77-83Muhlenberg's Unionism. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 84-91Training of Ministers and Teachers Neglected. .. 91-99Deterioration of Mother Synod. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 99-103Unionism in the Ascendency. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 103-110Typical Representatives of Synod. .. .. .. .. .. .. 110-113Synod's Unlutheran Attitude Continued. .. .. .. . 113-116Lutherans in South Carolina. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 116-119The North Carolina Synod. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 119-122Critical Conventions. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 122-128Gottlieb Shober. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 129-131North Carolina Rupture. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 131-134Lutherans in Virginia. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 134-140Special Conference in Virginia. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 140-144Synod of Maryland and Virginia. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 144-147TENNESSEE SYNOD. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 148-237Organization. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 148-158Objections to General Synod. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 158-167Attitude as to Church-fellowship. .. .. .. .. .. .. 167-173Efforts at Unity and Peace. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 174-184Tennessee Justifying Her Procedure. .. .. .. .. .. 184-191Doctrinal Basis. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 192-195Confession Enforced. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 195-198Anti-Romanistic Attitude. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 198-207Anti-Methodistic Attitude. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 207-213Anti-Unionistic Attitude. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 213-217Tennessee and Missouri. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 217-221Peculiarities of Tennessee Synod. .. .. .. .. .. .. 221-232The Henkels. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 232-237

American Lutheranism. 

INTRODUCTION. 

1. Christianity the Only Real and True Religion. --Religion is man'sfilial relation to, and union with, God. Natural religion is theconcreated relation of Adam and Eve in their state of innocence towardtheir Creator. Fallen man, though he still lives, and moves, and has hisbeing in God, is, in consequence of his sinful nature, _atheos, _ withoutGod, and hence without true and real religion. His attitude toward Godis not that of a child to his father. Heathen religions are products ofthe futile efforts of men at reconciling God and restoring union withHim by their own penances and works. They are religions invented andmade by men. As such they are counterfeit religions, because theypersuade men to trust either in fictitious merits of their own or inGod's alleged indifference toward sin. Christianity is the divinerestoration of religion, _i. E. , _ of the true spiritual and filialrelation of fallen man toward God. Essentially, Christianity is thedivine trust and assurance that God, according to His own mercifulpromise in the Gospel, is, for the sake of Christ and His merits, mypardoning and loving Father. It is the religion of justification, restoration, and salvation, not by human efforts and works, but bydivine grace only. Paganism believes in man and his capacity forself-redemption; Christianity believes in the God-man and in salvationby His name and none other. From Mohammedanism, Buddhism, and all otherreligions of the world Christianity differs essentially, just as Jehovahdiffers from idols, as divine grace differs from human works. Christianity is not one of many species of generic religion, but theonly true and real religion. Nor is Christianity related to otherreligions as the highest stage of an evolutionary process is to itsantecedent lower stages. Christianity is divine revelation from above, not human evolution from below. Based, as it is, on special divineinterposition, revelation, and operation, Christianity is thesupernatural religion. And for fallen man it is the only availing andsaving religion, because it alone imparts real pardon, and engendersreal and divine assurance of such pardon; because it alone reallypacifies the conscience and fully satisfies the heart; and because italone bestows new spiritual powers of sanctification. Christianity isabsolute and final, it is the _non plus ultra, _ the Alpha and Omega, ofreligion, because its God is the only true God, its Mediator is theonly-begotten Son of God, its ransom is the blood of God, and its giftis perfect union with God. Compare John 8, 24; Acts 4, 12; John 14, 6;3, 36; Gal. 1, 8. 9. Romanism, Rationalism, Arminianism, Synergism, etc. , are heathen remnants within, and corruptions of, Christianity, elements absolutely foreign to, and _per se_ subversive of, the religionof divine grace and revelation. 

2. The Church and Its Manifestations. --The Christian Church is the sumtotal of all Christians, all true believers in the Gospel of salvationby Christ and His merits alone. Faith always, and it alone, makes one aChristian, a member of the Church. Essentially, then, the Church, isinvisible, because faith is a divine gift within the heart of man, hencebeyond human observation. _Dr. Walther:_ "The Church is invisible becausewe cannot see faith, the work of the Holy Spirit, which the members ofthis Church have in their hearts; for we can never with certaintydistinguish the true Christians, who, properly, alone constitute theChurch, from the hypocrites. " (_Lutheraner, _ 1, 21. ) _Luther:_ "Thispart, 'I believe a holy Christian Church, ' is an article of faith justas well as the others. Hence Reason, even when putting on ever so manyspectacles, cannot know her. She wants to be known not by seeing, but bybelieving; faith, however, deals with things which are not seen. Heb. 11, 1. A Christian may even be hidden from himself, so that he does notsee his own holiness and virtue, but observes in himself only fault andunholiness. " (Luther's Works. St. Louis, XIV, 139. ) In order to belongto the Church, it is essential to believe; but it is essential neitherto faith nor to the Church consciously to know yourself that youbelieve. Nor would it render the Church essentially visible, if, byspecial revelation or otherwise, we infallibly knew of a man that he isa believer indeed. Even the Word and the Sacraments are infallible marksof the Church only because, according to God's promise, the preaching ofthe Gospel shall not return without fruit. Wherever and only where theGospel is preached are we justified in assuming the existence ofChristians. Yet the Church remains essentially invisible, becauseneither the external act of preaching nor the external act of hearing, but inward, invisible believing alone makes one a Christian, a memberof the Church. Inasmuch, however, as faith _manifests_ itself in theconfession of the Christian truths and in outward works of love, theChurch, in a way, becomes visible and subject to human observation. Yetwe dare not infer that the Church is essentially visible because itseffects are visible. The human soul, though its effects may be seen, remains essentially invisible. God is invisible, though themanifestations of His invisible power and wisdom can be observed in theworld. Thus also faith and the Church remain essentially invisible, evenwhere they manifest their reality in visible effects and works. Apartfrom the confession and proclamation of the Gospel and a correspondingChristian conversation, the _chief visible effects_ and works of theChurch are the foundation of local congregations, the calling ofministers, the organization of representative bodies, etc. And whenthese manifestations and visible works of the Church are also calledchurches, the effects receive the name of the cause, or the whole, themixed body, is given the name which properly belongs to a part, the truebelievers, only. Visible congregations are called churches as quartz iscalled gold, and a field is called wheat. 

3. Visible Churches, True and False. --The objects for which Christians, in accordance with the will of God, unite, and should unite, in visiblechurches and local congregations, are mutual Christian acknowledgmentand edification, common Christian confession and labor, and especiallythe establishment of the communal office of the public ministry of thepure Gospel. This object involves, as a divine norm of Christianorganization, and fellowship, that such only be admitted as themselvesbelieve and confess the divine truths of the Bible, and who are notadvocates of doctrines contrary to the plain Word of God. Christianorganizations and unions must not be in violation of the Christian unityof the Spirit. Organizations effected in harmony with the divine objectand norm of Christian fellowship are true visible churches, _i. E. , _visible unions as God would have them. They are churches of the pureWord and Sacrament, professing the Gospel and deviating from none of itsdoctrines. Christians have no right to embrace, teach, and championerror. They are called upon and bound to believe, teach, and confessall, and only, Christian truths. Nor may they lawfully organize on adoctrinally false basis. Organizations persistently deviating from thedoctrines of the Bible and establishing a doctrinally false basis, aresects, _i. E. , _ false or impure visible Churches. Yet, though errornever saves, moreover, when consistently developed, has the tendency ofcorrupting the whole lump, false Churches may be instrumental in savingsouls, inasmuch as they retain essential parts of the Gospel-truths, and inasmuch as God's grace may neutralize the accompanying deadlyerror, or stay its leavening power. Indeed, individuals, by the grace ofGod, though errorists in their heads, may be truthists in their hearts;just as one who is orthodox in his head may, by his own fault, beheterodox in his heart. A Catholic may, by rote, call upon the saintswith his lips, and yet, by the grace of God, in his heart, put his trustin Christ. And a Lutheran may confess Christ and the doctrine of gracewith his lips, and yet in his heart rely on his own good character. False Churches as such, however, inasmuch as theirs is a banner ofrebellion in the kingdom of Christ, do not exist by God's approval, butmerely by His sufferance. It is their duty to reform on a basis ofdoctrinal purity and absolute conformity with the Word of God. 

4. The Lutheran Church the True Visible Church. --The Lutheran Churchis the only known religious body which, in the Book of Concord of 1580, confesses the truths of the Gospel without admixture of any doctrinescontrary to the Bible. Hence its organization is in perfect harmonywith the divine object and norm of Christian union and fellowship. Itsbasis of union is the pure Word and Sacrament. Indeed, the LutheranChurch is not the universal or only Christian Church, for there aremany believers belonging to other Christian bodies. Nor is it the onlysaving Church, because there are other Churches preaching Christiantruths, which, by the grace of God, prove sufficient and powerful tosave men. The Lutheran Church is the Church of the _pure_ Word and the_unadulterated_ Sacraments. It is the only Church proclaiming thealone-saving truth of the Gospel _in its purity_. It is the Church witha doctrinal basis which has the unqualified approval of the Scriptures, a basis which, materially, all Churches must accept if they wouldfollow the lead of the Bible. And being doctrinally the pure Church, theLutheran Church is the true visible Church of God on earth. While allsectarian churches corrupt God's Word and the Sacraments, it is thepeculiar glory of the Lutheran Church that it proclaims the Gospel inits purity, and administers the Sacraments without adulteration. Thisholds good with regard to all Lutheran organizations that are Lutheranin truth and reality. True and faithful Lutherans, however, are suchonly as, being convinced by actual comparison that the Concordia of 1580is in perfect agreement with the Holy Bible, subscribe to these symbols_ex animo_ and without mental reservation or doctrinal limitation, andearnestly strive to conform to them in practise as well as in theory. Subscription only to the Augustana or to Luther's Small Catechism is asufficient test of Lutheranism, provided that the limitation does notimply, and is not interpreted as, a rejection of the other Lutheransymbols or any of its doctrines. Lutheran churches or synods, however, deviating from, or doctrinally limiting their subscription to, thisbasis of 1580, or merely _pro forma, _ professing, but not seriously andreally living its principles and doctrines, are not truly Lutheran inthe adequate sense of the term, though not by any means un-Lutheran inevery sense of that term. 

5. Bible and Book of Concord on Christian Union and Fellowship. --Nothing is more frequently taught and stressed by the Bible than thetruth that church-fellowship presupposes, and must be preceded by, unityin the spirit, in doctrine. Amos 3, 3: "How can two walk together exceptthey be agreed?" According to the Bible the Word of God alone is to betaught, heard, and confessed in the Christian Church. Only true teachersare to preach, in the Church: Deut. 13, 6 ff. ; Jer. 23, 28. 31. 32;Matt. 5, 19; 28, 20; 2 Cor. 2, 17; Gal. 1, 8; 1 Tim. 4, 16; 1 Pet. 4, 11. Christians are to listen to true teachers only: Matt. 7, 15; John 8, 31;10, 27. 5; Acts 2, 42; Rom. 16, 17; 2 John 10; 1 Tim. 6, 3-5; Eph. 4, 14;Titus 3, 10; 2 Cor. 6, 14-18. In the Church the true doctrine, and onlythe true doctrine, is to be confessed, and that unanimously by all ofits members: 1 Cor. 1, 10; Eph. 4, 3-6. 13; 1 Tim. 5, 22; Matt. 10, 32. 33. Christian union and fellowship without the "same mind, " the"same judgment, " and the "same speech" with respect to the Christiantruths is in direct conflict with the clear Scriptures. The unity of theSpirit demanded Eph. 4, 3 requires that Christians be one in doctrine, one, not 50 or 75, but 100 per cent. With this attitude of the Bibletoward Christian union and fellowship the Lutheran symbols agree. TheEleventh [tr. Note: sic!] Article of the Augsburg Confession declares:"For this is sufficient to true unity of the Christian Church that theGospel be preached unanimously according to the pure understanding, andthat the Sacraments be administered in agreement with the divine Word. And it is not necessary to true unity of the Christian Church thatuniform ceremonies, instituted by men, be observed everywhere, as St. Paul says, Eph. 4, 4. 5: 'One body, one Spirit, even as ye are called inone hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one Baptism. '" "Pureunderstanding of the Gospel" is here contrasted with "ceremoniesinstituted by men. " Accordingly, with respect to everything that Godplainly teaches in the Bible unity is required, while liberty prevailsonly in such things as are instituted by men. In this sense the LutheranChurch understands the _"Satis est"_ of the Augustana, as appears fromthe Tenth Article of the Formula of Concord: "We believe, teach, andconfess also that no church should condemn another because one has lessor more external ceremonies not commanded by God than the other, ifotherwise there is agreement among them in doctrine and all itsarticles, as also in the right use of the Sacraments, according to thewell-known saying: 'Disagreement in fasting does not destroy agreementin faith. '" (Mueller 553, 7. ) It cannot, then, be maintainedsuccessfully that, according to the Lutheran symbols, some doctrines, though clearly taught in the Bible, are irrelevant and not necessary tochurch-fellowship. The Lutheran Confessions neither extend therequirements for Christian union to human teachings and institutions, nor do they limit them to merely a part of the divine doctrines of theBible. They err neither _in excessu_ nor _in defectu_. Accordingly, Lutherans, though not unmindful of the admonition to bear patientlywith the weak, the weak also in doctrine and knowledge, dare notcountenance any denial on principle of any of the Christian doctrines, nor sanction the unionistic attitude, which maintains that denial ofminor Christian truths does not and must not, in any way, affectChristian union and fellowship. In the "Treatise on the Power of thePope" the Book of Concord says: "It is a hard thing to want to separatefrom so many countries and people and maintain a separate doctrine. Buthere stands God's command that every one shall be separate from, and notbe agreed with, those who teach falsely, " etc. (§42. )

6. Misguided Efforts at Christian Union. --Perhaps never before hasChristendom been divided in as many sects as at present. Denominationalism, as advocated by Philip Schaff and many Unionists, defends this condition. It views the various sects as lawful specificdevelopments of generic Christianity, or as different varieties of thesame spiritual life of the Church, as regiments of the same army, marching separately, but attacking the same common foe. Judged in thelight of the Bible, however, the numerous sects, organized on variousaberrations from the plain Word of God, are, as such, not normaldevelopments, but corruptions, abnormal formations, and diseasedconditions of the Christian Church. Others, realizing the senselesswaste of moneys and men, and feeling the shame of the scandalouscontroversies, the bitter conflicts, and the dishonorable competition ofthe disrupted Christian sects, develop a feverish activity inengineering and promoting external ecclesiastical unions, regardless ofinternal doctrinal dissensions. For centuries the Pope has beenstretching out his arms to the Greek and Protestant Churches, evenmaking concessions to the Ruthenians and other Uniates as to thelanguage of the liturgy, the marriage of priests, the cup to be given tothe laity, etc. In order to present a united political front to the Popeand the Emperor, Zwingli, in 1529, offered Luther the hand of fellowshipin spite of doctrinal differences. In political interests, FrederickWilliam III of Prussia, in 1817, forced a union without unity on theLutherans and Reformed of his kingdom. In America this Prussian Unionwas advocated by the German Evangelical Synod of North America. TheChurch of England, in 1862, 1874, and 1914, endeavored to establish aunion with the Old Catholics and the Russian Church even at thesacrifice of the _Filioque_. (The Lutherans, when, in 1559 and again in1673 to 1681, negotiations were opened to bring about an understandingwith the Greek Church, insisted on unity in the doctrines ofJustification and of Free Will, to which Jeremiah II took exception. )Pierpont Morgan, a number of years ago, appropriated a quarter milliondollars in order to bring the Churches of America under the leadershipof the Protestant Episcopal Church, which demands as the only conditionof union the recognition of their "historical episcopate, " a fiction, historical as well as doctrinal. In 1919 three Protestant Episcopalbishops crossed the seas seeking a conference with the Pope and therepresentatives of the Greek Orthodox churches in the interest of aLeague of Churches. The Evangelical Alliance, organized 1846 at London, aimed to unite all Protestants against Rome on a basis of nine generalstatements, from which the distinctive doctrines were eliminated. TheFederal Council, embracing 30 Protestant denominations, was organizedwith the definite understanding that no Church, by joining, needsacrifice any of its peculiar doctrines. The unions effected between theCongregationalists and Methodists in Canada, and between the CalvinisticNorthern Presbyterians and the Arminian Cumberland Presbyterians in ourown country, were also unionistic. Since the beginning of the lastcentury the Campbellites and kindred sects were zealous in uniting theChurches by urging them to drop their distinctive names and confessions, call themselves "Christians" or "Disciples, " and accept as theirconfession the Bible only. Indeed, the number of physicians seeking toheal the schisms of Christendom is legion. But their cure is worse thanthe disease. Unionistic henotics cannot but fail utterly, because theirobject is not unity in the Spirit of truth, but union in the spirit ofdiversity and error. 

7. Lutherans Qualified to Head True Union Movement. --Most of theunion-efforts are failures _ab initio_. They seek outward union withoutinward unity. They proceed on a false diagnosis of the case. Theyobserve the symptoms, and outlook or intentionally ignore the hiddencause, the deviations from the Word of God, which disturb the unity ofthe Spirit. And doctrinal discussions, which alone can bring about areal cure, are intentionally omitted and expressly declared taboo, as, _e. G. _, by the Federal Council. The Church, suffering fromblood-poisoning, is pronounced cured when the sores have been covered. They put a plaster over the gap in Zion's wall, which may hide, but doesnot heal, the breach. Universally, sectarian henotics have proved to bespiritual quacks with false aims, false methods, and false diagnosis. Nowhere among the sects a single serious effort to cure the malady fromwithin and to restore to the Church of Christ real unity, unity in thetrue doctrine! Indeed, how could a genuine unity-union movementoriginate with the sects? Can the blind lead the blind? Can the beggarenrich the poor? Can the sects give to Christendom what they themselvesare in need of? The Lutheran Church is the only denomination qualifiedto head a true unity-union movement, because she alone is in fullpossession of those unadulterated truths without which there can beneither true Christian unity nor God-pleasing Christian union. Accordingly, the Lutheran Church has the mission to lead the way in theefforts at healing the ruptures of Christendom. But in order to do so, the Lutheran Church must be loyal to herself, loyal to her principles, and true to her truths. The mere Lutheran name is unavailing. TheAmerican Lutheran synods, in order successfully to steer a unity-unionmovement, must purge themselves thoroughly from the leaven of error, ofindifferentism and unionism. A complete and universal return to theLutheran symbols is the urgent need of the hour. Only when united inundivided loyalty to the divine truths of God's Word, will the AmericanLutheran Church be able to measure up to its peculiar calling ofrestoring to Christendom the truths of the Gospel in their pristinepurity, and in and with these truths the true unity of the Spirit and afellowship and union, both beneficial to man and well-pleasing to God. 

8. Lutheran Statistics. --God has blessed the Lutheran Church inAmerica abundantly, more than in any other country of the world. From afew scattered groups she has grown into a great people. In 1740 therewere in America about 50 Lutheran congregations. In 1820 the LutheranChurch numbered 6 synods, with almost 900 congregations, 40, 000communicants, and 175 pastors. In 1867 about 1, 750 pastors, 3, 100congregations, and 332, 000 communicants. Twenty-five years later, 60synods, with about 5, 000 pastors, 8, 390 congregations, and 1, 187, 000communicants. In the jubilee year, 1917, the Lutheran Church in Americaembraced (besides about 200 independent congregations) 65 synods, 24 ofwhich belonged to the General Synod (350, 000 communicants), 13 to theGeneral Council (500, 000 communicants), 8 to the United Synod South(53, 000 communicants), and 6 to the Synodical Conference (800, 000communicants). The entire Lutheran Church in America reported in 1917about 9, 700 pastors; 15, 200 congregations; 2, 450, 000 communicants; 28theological seminaries, with 112 professors and 1, 170 students; 41colleges, with 640 professors and 950 students; 59 academies, with 404teachers and 6, 700 pupils; 8 ladies' seminaries, with 72 instructors and340 pupils; 64 orphanages, with 4, 200 inmates; 12 home-finding andchildren's friend societies; 45 homes for the aged, with 1, 650 inmates;7 homes for defectives, with 430 inmates; 9 deaconess homes, with 370sisters; 50 hospitals; 19 hospices; 17 immigrant homes and seamen'smissions; and 10 miscellaneous institutions; a large number ofperiodicals of many kinds, printed in numerous Lutheran publishinghouses, in English, German, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish, Icelandic, Finnish, Slavonian, Lettish, Esthonian, Polish, Portuguese, Lithuanian, etc. , etc. 

Early History of American Lutheranism. 

LUTHERAN SWEDES IN DELAWARE. 

9. New Sweden. --The first Lutheran pastor who set his foot on Americansoil in August, 1619, was Rasmus Jensen of Denmark. He was chaplain ofa Danish expedition numbering 66 Lutherans under Captain Jens Munck, who took possession of the land about Hudson Bay in the name of theDanish crown. In his diary we read of the faithful pastoral work, thesermons, and the edifying death, on February 20, 1620, of this Lutheranpastor. However, the first Lutheran minister to serve a _Lutherancolony_ in America was Reorus Torkillus. He was born in 1609 atFaessberg, Sweden, educated at Linkoeping, and for a time was chaplainat Goeteborg. Gustavus Adolphus already had entertained the idea offounding a colony in America, chiefly for the purpose of carrying onmission-work among the Indians. Peter Minuit, a German, who had come toManhattan Island in 1626 to represent the interests of the Dutch WestIndia Company (organized in 1621), led also the first Swedish expeditionto Delaware in December, 1637. Nine expeditions followed, until theflourishing colony was captured by the Dutch in 1655. The work ofTorkillus, who died September 7, 1643, was continued by John Campanius(1601 to 1683), who arrived on February 15, 1643. Three years later, onehundred years after the death of Luther, he dedicated the first LutheranChurch in America at Christina (Wilmington). His translation of Luther'sSmall Catechism into the language of the Delaware Indians antedatesEliot's Indian Bible, but was not published till 1696. Returning toSweden in 1648, Campanius left about 200 souls in the charge of LarsLock (Lockenius), who served them until his end, in 1688. In 1654, Pastors Vertunius and Hjorst arrived with 350 additional souls. Both, however, returned to Sweden when Stuyvesant took possession of thecolony in 1655, permitting the Swedes in Delaware to retain only LarsLock as pastor. Jacob Fabricius, who, after rendering his stay in NewAmsterdam (New York) impossible, was laboring among the Dutch along theDelaware from 1671 to 1675, before long also began to do mission-workamong the Swedes and Finns, at the same time intriguing against Lock, whose cup of sorrow was already filled with family troubles and othergriefs. In 1677 Fabricius took charge of the Swedes at Wicaco(Philadelphia), where he, though blind since 1682, continued faithfullyto wait on his office until his death in 1693 (1696). He preached inDutch, which, as reported, the Swedes "spoke perfectly. "

10. Succored by the King of Sweden. --In 1692 the now orphanedLutherans in Delaware addressed themselves to Karl XI, who promised tohelp them. However, four years passed before Pastor Rudman arrived withtwo assistants, Bjoerk (Bioerck) and Auren, as well as with aconsignment of Bibles and other books. New life entered the Swedishcolony. In 1699 the new Trinity Church was erected at Christina, and in1700 Gloria Dei Church in Wicaco (Philadelphia). From the verybeginning, however, a spirit of legalism, hierarchy, and of unionismwormed its way into the promising harvest. The congregations were nottaught to govern themselves, but were ruled by provosts sent fromSweden. In the interest of discipline, Andreas Sandel, who arrived in1702, introduced a system of monetary penances. In his _History of theLutheran Church in America_ Dr. A. Graebner writes: "Whoever came tochurch tipsy, was to pay 40 shillings and do public penance. Blasphemyof the divine Word or the Sacraments carried with it a fine of 5 poundssterling and church penance; to sing at unseemly hours was punished bya fine of 6 shillings; such as refused to submit to the discipline wereto be excluded from the congregation and to be refused interment at itscemetery. " (86. ) Eric Unander, who returned to Sweden in 1760, employedthe same methods to keep order in the congregational meetings. A. Rudman, after his brief pastorate among the Dutch Lutherans in New Yorkduring 1702, returned to Philadelphia. From 1707 to his death, in 1708, he served an Episcopal church without severing his connection with theSwedes. His successors followed his footsteps. From 1737 to 1741 J. Dylander preached at Gloria Dei Church in German, Swedish, and Englishevery Sunday, served the Germans in Germantown and Lancaster, and, inthe absence of their pastor, ministered also to the Episcopalians. Thesame practise was observed by the provosts: Eric Bjoerk, who wasappointed the first provost in 1712, and returned to Sweden in 1714;A. Sandel, who also served Episcopalian congregations and returned in1719; A. Hesselius, who left in 1723, and in Sweden, 1725, published ashort report of the conditions prevailing in America; Peter Tranberg, who was stationed at Raccoon and Pennsneck, N. J. , from 1726 to 1740, and at Christina till his death in 1748; J. Sandin, who arrived in 1746, dying two years later; Israel Acrelius, who arrived in 1749, saw thelanguage question become acute, served Episcopalian congregations, andreturned to Sweden in 1756, where he published (1759) a description ofthe conditions in New Sweden; Olaf Parlin, who arrived in 1750 and diedin 1757; Dr. C. M. Wrangel, who was provost from 1759 to 1768, assistedin rejuvenating the Pennsylvania Synod in 1760, and began a seminarywith Peter Muhlenberg, Daniel Kuhn, and Christian Streit as students;Nils Collin, whose activity extended from 1770 to 1831, during whichtime he had eight Episcopalian assistant pastors in succession. 

11. Church-fellowship with Episcopalians. --In 1710 Pastor Sandelreported as follows on the unionism practised by the Swedes andEpiscopalians: "As pastors and teachers we have at all times maintainedfriendly relations and intimate converse with the English preachers, onealways availing himself of the help and advice of the other. At theirpastoral conferences we always consulted with them. We have repeatedlypreached English in their churches when the English preachers lacked thetime because of a journey or a death. If anywhere they laid thecorner-stone of a church, we were invited, and attended. When theirchurch in Philadelphia was enlarged, and the Presbyterians had invitedthem to worship in their church, they declined and asked permission tocome out to Wicaco and conduct their services in our church, which Igranted. This occurred three Sundays in succession, until their churchwas finished; and, in order to manifest the unity still more, Swedishhymns were sung during the English services. Also Bishop Swedberg [ofSweden], in his letters, encouraged us in such unity and intimacy withthe Anglicans; although there exists some difference between them and ustouching the Lord's Supper, etc. , yet he did not want that smalldifference to rend asunder the bond of peace. We enter upon nodiscussion of this point; neither do we touch upon such things whenpreaching in their churches; nor do they seek to win our people to theirview in this matter; on the contrary, we live in intimate and brotherlyfashion with one another, they also calling us brethren. They have thegovernment in their hands, we are under them; it is enough that theydesire to have such friendly intercourse with us; we can do nothing elsethan render them every service and fraternal intimacy as long as theyare so amiable and confiding, and have not sought in the least to drawour people into their churches. As our church is called by them 'thesister church of the Church of England, ' so we also live fraternallytogether. God grant that this may long continue!" (G. , 118. ) Thus fromthe very beginning the Swedish bishops encouraged and admonished theiremissaries to fraternize especially with the Episcopalians. And thesatisfaction with this state of affairs on the part of the Episcopalianministers appears from the following testimonial which they gave toHesselius and J. A. Lidenius in 1723: "They were ever welcome in ourpulpits, as we were also welcome in their pulpits. Such was our mutualagreement in doctrine and divine service, and so regularly did theyattend our conferences that, aside from the different languages in whichwe and they were called to officiate, no difference could be perceivedbetween us. " (131. )

12. Absorbed by the Episcopal Church. --The evil influence which theunionism practised by the Swedish provosts and ministers exercised uponthe Lutheran congregations appears from the resolution of thecongregation at Pennsneck, in 1742, henceforth to conduct Englishservices exclusively, and that, according to the Book of Common Prayer. In the same year Pastor Gabriel Naesman wrote to Sweden: "As to mycongregation, the people at first were scattered among othercongregations, and among the sects which are tolerated here, and it iswith difficulty that I gather them again to some extent. The great lackof harmony prevailing among the members makes my congregation seem likea kingdom not at one with itself, and therefore near its ruin. " (335. )The unionism indulged in also accounts for the trouble which the Swedesexperienced with the emissaries of Zinzendorf: L. T. Nyberg, Abr. Reinke, and P. D. Bryzelius (who severed his connection with theMoravians in 1760, became a member of the Pennsylvania Synod, and in1767 was ordained by the Bishop of London). Unionism paved the way, andnaturally led to the final undoing of the Lutheran Swedes in Delaware. It was but in keeping with the unionism advised from Sweden, practisedin Delaware, and indulged in to the limit by himself, when ProvostWrangel gave the final _coup de grace_ to the first Lutheran Church inAmerica. Dr. Wrangel, the bosom-friend of H. M. Muhlenberg, openly andextensively fraternized not only with the Episcopalians, but also withthe Reformed, the Presbyterians (in Princeton), and the Methodists, notably the revivalist Whitefield. And, evidently foreseeing the earlyand unavoidable _debacle_ of Swedish Lutheranism in Delaware, vonWrangel, at his departure for Sweden, suffered the Episcopalians to usehim as a tool to deliver the poor, weakened, and oppressedcongregations, whose leader he had been, into the hands of theAnglicans. (392. ) On his way home Wrangel carried with him an importantletter of introduction from the Episcopalian Richard Peters to theBishop of London, the ecclesiastical superior of the Anglican ministersand congregations in the American Colonies. The letter, dated August 30, 1768, reads, in part: "Now Dr. Wrangel intends to utilize properly thegeneral aversion [in Delaware] to the Presbyterians in order to unitethe great mass of Lutherans and Swedes with with the Church of England, which, as you know, is but small numerically and in humble circumstancesin this province; through union with the German Lutherans, however, weboth would become respectable. According to Dr. Smith's and my opinionthis could be effected through our Academy. In it we could establish atheological professorship; then German and English young men could beeducated, and as their training would embrace both languages, they couldpreach German as well as English at places where both nations are mixed. That would unite us all and make us one people in life and love. It is ahappy thought. I would desire your Excellency to speak with Dr. Wrangel, and encourage him as much as possible. In this matter I have written tothe two archbishops, asking them to consider it carefully together withyour Excellency. I am sure that now the opportunity is good to bringthis desirable affair to a happy conclusion. " (394. ) In a document datedJune 25, 1789, the Swedish government served official notice on thecongregations in America that in future they could no longer expect helpfrom Sweden, alleging that, whereas "the purpose, the Swedish tongue, "had come to an end, it was but just that in future also thedisbursements in Sweden should be discontinued. (401. ) The result wasthat one congregation after another united with the Episcopalians. By1846 the Lutheran name had disappeared from the last charter. Thus theentire Swedish mission territory, all of whose congregations exist tothe present day, was lost to the Lutheran Church. The chief causes ofthis loss were: unionism, hierarchical paternalism, interference fromSweden, the failure to provide for schools and for the training ofsuitable pastors, and the lack of Swedish and, later, of EnglishLutheran literature. The report of the Pennsylvania Ministerium of 1762remarks: "For several generations the Swedish schools unfortunately havebeen neglected in the Swedish congregations; Dr. Wrangel, however, hasorganized an English school in one of his parishes where Luther'sCatechism is read in an English translation. " From the very beginningthe foundations of the Lutheran structure along the Delaware were bothlaid insecurely and undermined by its builders. 

SALZBURG LUTHERANS IN GEORGIA. 

13. Banished by Archbishop Anton Firmian. --Like the Swedes inDelaware, so also the Salzburg Lutherans in Georgia, as a Church, havedisappeared in the course of years. The story of their vicissitudes andespecially of their colony Ebenezer, however, has retained a peculiarcharm. On Reformation Day of 1731 the cruel Archbishop Anton, Knight ofFirmian, issued a manifesto which ordered the Evangelicals of Salzburg, Austria, either to return to the bosom of the Catholic Church, or toemigrate, leaving their property and their young children behind them. Some eighteen thousand Lutherans chose banishment rather than deny thefaith that was in them. On their journey the exiles awakened livelysympathy by singing their _Exulantenlied_ (Hymn of the Exiles) whichJoseph Schaitberger had composed for those banished In 1685. The elevenstanzas of this hymn read in the original as follows: "1. I bin einarmer Exulant, A so tu i mi schreiba; Ma tuet mi aus dem Vaterland UmGottes Wort vertreiba. 2. Das wass i wohl, Herr Jesu Christ, Es is dir aso ganga. Itzt will i dein Nachfolger sein; Herr, mach's nach deimVerlanga! 3. A Pilgrim bin i halt numehr, Muss reise fremde Strossa; Dasbitt i di, mein Gott und Herr, Du wirst mi nit verlossa. 4. Den Glaubahob i frei bekennt, Des derf i mi nit schaema, Wenn ma mi glei einKetzer nennt Und tuet mir's Leba nehma. 5. Ketta und Banda wor mir enEhr Um Jesu willa z' dulda, Und dieses macht die Glaubenslehr Und nitmei boes Verschulda. 6. Muss i glei in das Elend fort, Will i mi do nitwehra; So hoff i do, Gott wird mir dort Och gute Fruend beschera. 7. Herr, wie du willt, i gib mi drein, Bei dir will i verbleiba; I will migern dem Wille dein Geduldig unterschreiba. 8. Muss i glei fort, inGottes Nam! Und wird mir ales g'nomma, So wass i wohl, die HimmelskronWer i amal bekomma. 9. So muss i heut von meinem Haus, Die Kinderl mussi lossa. Mei Gott, es treibt mir Zaehrel aus, Zu wandern fremde Strossa. 10. Mein Gott, fuehr mi in ene Stodt, Wo i dein Wort kann hoba, Darinwill i di frueh und spot In meinem Herzel loba. 11. Soll i in diesemJammertal Noch laenger in Armut leba, So hoff i do, Gott wird mir dortEin bessre Wohnung geba. "--The cruelly persecuted and banishedSalzburgers were hospitably received in Prussia and Holland, where manyfound a permanent home. Others resolved to emigrate to Georgia, where, through the mediation of Dr. Urlsperger of Augsburg and the courtpreacher Ziegenhagen of London, the British government promised themreligious liberty and other advantages. 

14. Ebenezer in Georgia. --The first ninety-one persons of theSalzburg colony, which later numbered about 1, 200 souls, landed atSavannah, March 10, 1734. They were accompanied by Pastors John MartinBolzius and Israel Christian Gronau, who had received their education atHalle. Governor Oglethorpe led the immigrants twenty-three milesnorthwest of their landing-place, where they erected a monument ofstones and called the settlement Ebenezer. Seven years later (1741)Jerusalem Church was built, for which also Whitefield had madecollections in Europe. In 1743 a second church was dedicated in thecountry. Dr. Graebner records the following statistics: "In 1743 thecongregation numbered 279 souls: 81 men, 70 married women, 6 widows, 52boys, 59 girls, and 11 maid-servants. " (554. ) In 1744 the Salzburgerscelebrated the tenth anniversary of their deliverance on the tenth ofMarch, a day which was annually observed by them as a day ofthanksgiving. Sorrow followed the joyous celebration, for in thefollowing year, January 11, 1745, their beloved Pastor Gronau was calledto his eternal reward. Dwelling on Gronau's edifying death, Bolziuswrote in a letter dated January 14, 1845: "His heart was in deepcommunion with the dear Savior. With profound desire he received theLord's Supper a few days before his dissolution. He distinctlyrecognized all who surrounded him [when he was dying], and exhorted themto praise God. It seemed, and such was also inferred from his words, asthough, like Stephen, he saw something extraordinarily beautiful andglorious. At last, after stretching forth his hands and taking leave ofall, he directed his folded hands toward heaven, praying and praisingGod. Finally, saying, 'Do come, Lord Jesus, Amen, Amen, Amen!' he closedhis eyes and mouth, and entered peacefully into the joy of God. " (556. )Gronau was succeeded by Pastor H. H. Lemke, of Schaumburg, whopreviously had been active in the institutions at Halle. His diploma ofvocation was signed by Samuel Urlsperger in the stead and name of theEnglish Society for the Promotion of the Knowledge of Christ. ThusEbenezer was actually the foundation of a mission society whose memberswere for the most part adherents of the Reformed Church. In 1742 PastorJohn Ulrich Driessler had been called to the congregation of Frederica, south of Savannah. He entered upon his labors in 1744, and died threeyears later. In the following years several ships arrived bringingemigrants from Swabia. To meet the growing needs Pastor Chr. Rabenhorstwas sent to the colony in 1753. In 1765 Pastor Bolzius died, sixty-twoyears old, repeating the words: "Father, I will that they also whomThou hast given Me be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glorywhich Thou hast given Me. " (John 17, 24. ) None of the three pastors, whowere easily able to minister to the spiritual needs of the colony, displayed a missionary spirit in any marked degree. 

15. Dissension and Disintegration. --While Bolzius, Lemke, andRabenhorst had labored together in harmony, dissension and strife beganto blast the blissful peace and quiet contentment of Ebenezer, when, after the death also of Lemke, Pastor C. F. Triebner arrived in 1773. The congregation was torn by factions, the minority siding with Triebnerin his bitter opposition to Rabenhorst. When the majority refusedTriebner permission to officiate in the church, the minority forced thedoors. After a new lock had been secured by the majority, the minoritybegan to conduct separate services in the home of John Wertsch, andentered suit before the Governor of Georgia. This brought about theloss of their church property, the Governor, in accordance with theexpress wording of the patent grant of April 2, 1771, deeding JerusalemChurch to the Episcopalians. The patent contained the provision: ". .. For the only proper use, benefit, and behoof of two ministers of theGospel, residents within the parish aforesaid, using and exercisingdivine service according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church ofEngland within the said parish and their successors forever. " (599. ) In1774 Muhlenberg arrived, commissioned by the "English Society" toconduct an investigation and restore peace. A reconciliation waseffected, and articles of agreement were signed by the pastors and themembers of the congregation. Before long, however, the old discord brokeout again and continued unabated until the death of Pastor Rabenhorst in1777. Triebner now secured a firm footing in the congregation. But newstorms were brewing for the poor people. In 1775 the War of Independencehad broken out, in which Triebner not only espoused the cause of Englandhimself, but urged his congregation to do the same, thereby bringinguntold misery upon Ebenezer. Triebner, taken captive and severely dealtwith, finally found his way back to Europe. After the war Ebenezerpresented a sad spectacle. Soldiers had used the church as a hospitaland stable; Rabenhorst's home had been given to the flames; fields werelaid waste; and the inhabitants were scattered and despoiled of theirproperty. The congregation, however, recovered, and through theendeavors of Urlsperger received a new pastor in the person of JohnErnest Bergmann, who had studied at Leipzig. In 1785 he assumed theduties at Ebenezer, formerly discharged by two and three pastors. But, though a diligent worker, Bergmann was not a faithful Lutheran, nor didhe build up a truly Lutheran congregation. There came a time when butvery little of Lutheranism was to be found in the old colony of theSalzburgers. (600. ) During Bergmann's long pastorate, which wasconducted in the German language exclusively until 1824, theAmericanized young people gradually began to drift away from the motherchurch. However, to the present day descendants of the Salzburgers arefound in the Lutheran congregations of Savannah and of the GeorgiaSynod. 

LUTHERANS IN NEW YORK. 

16. Persecuted in New Amsterdam. --In the first part of the seventeenthcentury the Lutheran Church was by law prohibited and oppressed in theUnited Netherlands. When the power of the papists had come to an end, Reformed tendencies gained the ascendency, and Calvinists reaped whereLutherans had sowed with tears. While claiming to be adherents of theAugsburg Confession, they persecuted the Lutherans, forbidding allLutheran worship in public meeting-houses as well as in privatedwellings. Nevertheless the Lutheran Church not only continued to exist, but even made some headway in Amsterdam, Antwerp, and other places. Thegreatest handicap, however, which also prevented the Dutch Lutheransfrom developing any missionary activity, was the lack of a nativeministry thoroughly conversant with the language of the people. Conditions similar to those in Holland obtained in the Americancolonies. Like the mother country, New Amsterdam had a law prohibitingthe exercise of any religion save that of the Reformed faith. Sanford H. Cobb, in his work _The Rise of Religious Liberty in America_, quotes thelaw as follows: "No other religion shall be publicly admitted in NewNetherland except the Reformed, as it is at present preached andpractised by public authority in the United Netherlands; and for thispurpose the [Dutch West India] Company shall provide and maintain goodand suitable preachers, schoolmasters, and comforters of the sick(Ziekentrooster). " (303, 321 f. ) However, the report of the JesuitJogues, who sojourned in the colony in about 1642, shows that this lawwas not strictly enforced during the first part of the century. Also theLutherans were permitted to conduct reading-services in their homes. Butwhen the Dutch and German Lutherans (the former having arrived in NewAmsterdam probably as early as 1624) had organized a congregation in1648, and in 1653 requested the authorities to grant them permission tocall a Lutheran pastor, they received a curt refusal at the hands of thegovernor, Peter Stuyvesant. The two Reformed domines, Megapolensis, whohad arrived in 1649, and Drisius, who came in 1652 (the successors toMichaelius, who came over in 1623, and Bogardus, who followed him in1632), proved to be the most bigoted and fanatical in the opposition tothe request of the Lutherans. Instead of their petition being granted, the Lutherans were now forced to have their children baptized in theReformed churches by Reformed pastors, and to promise to bring them upin the Confession of Dort; and private services in dwellings were madepunishable with severe penalties. Peter Stuyvesant, who was also deaconof the Reformed Church, declared at the close of a session of thechurch council, that, if any one ever dared to appeal from his decisionto the authorities in Holland, he would reduce his stature by thelength of his head and send him back to the old country in pieces. Butthe Lutherans were not intimidated. When Stuyvesant denied theirrequest for a Lutheran pastor, they appealed to the authoritiesoverseas. The two Reformed domines also sent a letter to Holland, setting forth the dire consequences which were bound to follow in thewake of such religious toleration. 

17. Moderation Advised. --The authorities in Holland agreed with theintolerant domines and directed Stuyvesant to allow none but theReformed religion. Yet, while denying the request of the Lutherans, they, at the same time, urged the governor to employ mildness andmoderate means in dealing with them. Cobb gives the followingtranslation of these instructions: "We have decided absolutely to denythe request made by some of our inhabitants, adherents of the AugsburgConfession, for a preacher and free exercise of their religion, pursuantto the custom hitherto observed by us and the West India Company, onaccount of the consequences arising therefrom; and we recommend to youalso not to receive any similar petitions, but rather to turn them offin the most civil and least offensive way, and to employ all possible, but moderate means to induce them to listen and finally join theReformed Church. " (313. ) The letter was dated February 26, 1654. Butnotwithstanding this rebuff, the Lutherans persisted in their demand, and held religious services in their houses without a minister, declaring that "Heaven was above law. " This excited the wrath of theautocratic governor, who was not accustomed to brook opposition, norknew how to employ mildness, wisdom, and "moderate means" in dealingwith anybody, least of all with the Lutherans. Instead of persuasion heemployed force; and instead of trying "the most civil and leastoffensive way, " he resorted to harsh and most offensive measures. OnFebruary 1, 1656, a stringent "Ordinance against Conventicles" wasposted, which ran: "Some unqualified persons in such meetings assume theministerial office, the expounding and explanation of the holy Word ofGod, without being called or appointed thereto by ecclesiastical orcivil authority, which is in direct contravention and opposition to thegeneral Civil and Ecclesiastical order of our Fatherland, besides thatmany dangerous heresies and schisms are to be apprehended. Therefore, the director-general and council . . . Absolutely and expressly forbidall such conventicles and meetings, whether public or private, differingfrom the customary, and not only lawful, but scripturally founded andordained meetings of the Reformed divine service, as this is observed. . . According to the Synod of Dordrecht. " The penalties imposed by theact were 100 _Flemish_ Pounds for the preacher and 25 Pounds for everyattendant at such services. (317. ) A number of Lutherans were cast intoprison. Realizing that such harsh measures would prove hurtful to theirbusiness interests, the authorities in Holland, in an order dated June14, 1656, rebuked Stuyvesant for his high-handed procedure, saying: "Weshould have gladly seen that your Honor had not posted up thetransmitted edict against the Lutherans, and had not punished them byimprisonment, . . . Inasmuch as it has always been our intention totreat them with all peaceableness and quietness. Wherefore, your Honorshall not cause any more such or similar edicts to be published withoutour previous knowledge, but suffer the matter to pass in silence, andpermit them their free worship in their houses. " (314. )

18. Johannes Ernestus Gutwasser. --Evidently, to the Lutherans the timeseemed favorable to renew their urgent requests for a pastor of theirown. And in July, 1657, Johannes Ernestus Gutwasser (not Goetwater, orGutwater, or Goetwasser), a German, sent by the Lutheran Consistory ofAmsterdam, arrived on Manhattan Island. Great was the fury of theReformed domines and vehement their clamor for his immediate return. They wrote a letter to the classis in Amsterdam in which, according toCobb, "they relate that 'a Lutheran preacher, Goetwater, arrived to thegreat joy of the Lutherans and the especial discontent anddisappointment of the congregation of this place, yea, of the wholeland, even the English. We went to the Director-General, ' who summonedGoetwater, and found that he had as credentials only a letter from aLutheran consistory in Europe to the Lutheran Church in New Amsterdam. The governor ordered him not to preach, even in a private house. Thedomines lament, 'We already have the snake in our bosom, ' and urgeStuyvesant to open the consistory's letter, which, oddly enough, herefused to do, but consented to the ministers' demand that Goetwater besent back in the ship that brought him. [']Now this Lutheran parson, 'the Dutch ministers conclude, 'is a man of a godless and scandalouslife; a rolling, rollicking, unseemly carl, who is more inclined tolook into the wine-can than to pore over the Bible, and would ratherdrink a can of brandy for two hours than preach one. '" (315. ) But, though maligned and persecuted, Gutwasser did not suffer himself to beintimidated, and even begun to preach. So great and persistent, however, was the fury of the fanatics that he was finally compelled to yield andreturn to Holland, in 1659. The second Lutheran pastor to arrive onManhattan Island while the Dutch were still in power was AbeliusZetskorn, whom Stuyvesant directed to the Dutch settlement of New Amstel(New Castle) on the Delaware. The tyranny of Stuyvesant, however, wasabruptly ended when in 1664 the English fleet sailed into the harbor andcompelled the surrender of New Amsterdam. In the Articles ofCapitulation it was specifically agreed that "the Dutch here shall enjoythe liberty of their consciences in divine worship and churchdiscipline. " And according to the proclamation of the Duke of York, alsothe Lutherans were granted religious liberty, "as long as His RoyalHighness shall not order otherwise. "

JUSTUS FALCKNER. 

19. Fabricius, Arensius, Falckner in New York. --In 1669, five yearsafter the fall of New Amsterdam, Magister Jacobus Fabricius was sentover by the Lutheran Consistory of Amsterdam to minister to theLutherans in New York and Albany. Being of a churlish and quarrelsomenature, he soon fell out with the authorities of Albany and was banishedfrom the town. The New York congregation was torn by factions, manydemanding the resignation of Fabricius on the ground of "deportmentunbecoming a pastor. " The matter was even carried before the governor. Asolution of the problem was brought about through the arrival of a newpastor from Holland in the person of Bernhardus Arensius (Arnzius). Fabricius obtained permission to install Arensius as his successor, andwent to Delaware, where he labored among the Dutch and SwedishLutherans. Arensius continued to serve the Lutherans in New York andAlbany from 1671 to 1691. The mildness and firmness which he displayedin trying circumstances repaired the harm done by Fabricius. Dr. Graebner says: "In Pastor Arnzius the Dutch Lutheran congregations onthe Hudson had an excellent preacher and pastor, a man of whom they hadno cause whatever to be ashamed. Above all he was a sound Lutheran, whose opposition to any and all church-fellowship with the Reformed wasso decided that he abstained even from cultivating social intercoursewith the pastor of the Dutch Reformed Church, although it would seemthat the existing conditions called for it. " (70. ) After the death ofPastor Arensius, in 1691, a long vacancy ensued, lasting till 1702, whenPastor Rudman, a Swede from Philadelphia, acceding to their repeatedrequests, took charge of the congregation in New York. But findinghimself unequal to the task of regulating their deranged affairs, heresigned in 1703. Rudman was succeeded by Justus Falckner, who wasordained November 25, 1703, in the Swedish Gloria Dei Church of Wicaco, by Rudman, Bjoerk, and Sandel, the first Lutheran ordination in America. The new pastor, who arrived in New York on December 2, 1703, proved tobe a true Lutheran, a faithful shepherd of the flock committed to hiscare, among which he labored with much blessing for a period of twentyyears. Graebner says: "It is a most pleasing, captivating figure thatwe behold in Pastor Justus Falckner during the twenty years of hisactivity, a man of excellent parts, of splendid knowledge, of a delicatedisposition, of a truly pious frame of mind, of a decidedly Lutheranstandpoint, of active and enduring diligence in his office, in short, anall-round pastor. He had assumed the duties of his office with theconsciousness that he was able to accomplish nothing without thegracious assistance of God; that God would grant him sufficiency was thefervent prayer of his heart. " (94. ) Justus Falckner, born November 22, 1672, was the fourth son of Daniel Falckner, Lutheran pastor atLangenreinsdorf, Crimmitschau, and Zwickau, Saxony. He entered theUniversity of Halle, January 20, 1693, and studied theology under A. H. Francke. He completed his course, but shrank from assuming thetremendous responsibility of the ministry. On April 23, 1700, heacquired the power of attorney for the sale of William Penn's lands inPennsylvania, and left with his older brother, Daniel, for America. In1701 ten thousand acres of Penn's lands were sold to Provost Rudman andother Swedes. Probably this transaction brought Rudman into closercontact with J. Falckner, who also had attended the Swedish church inPhiladelphia. The result was that Falckner was ordained and placed incharge of the congregations in New York and Albany. While a student atHalle, Falckner wrote the hymn: "Auf! ihr Christen, Christi Glieder--Rise, Ye Children of Salvation. " (_Dict. Of Hymnology_, 363. )

20. Falckner's Spirituality. --Falckner was of a spiritual and trulypastoral frame of mind. He was a faithful and humble shepherd, who lovedthe flock entrusted to him with all his heart. "God, the Father of allgoodness and Lord of great majesty, who hast thrust me into thisharvest, be with me, Thy humble and very weak laborer, with Thy specialgrace, without which I must needs perish under the burden of temptationswhich frequently descend upon me with violence. In Thee, Lord, have Iput my trust, let me not be confounded! Render me sufficient for mycalling. I have not run, but Thou hast sent, hast thrust me into thisoffice. Meanwhile forgive whatever, without my knowledge, my evil naturemay add; pardon me, who am humbly crying unto Thee, through our LordJesus Christ. Amen. " Such was the prayer with which, in classic Latin, Falckner prefaced his entries in the church register. Following are someof the prayers which he appended to his entries of baptisms: "O Lord, Lord, may this child, together with the three aforementioned Hackensackchildren, be and remain recorded in the Book of Life, through JesusChrist. Amen. " "God grant that also this child be and remain embraced inThy eternal grace and favor through Jesus Christ. Amen. " "O Lord, maythis child be commended unto Thee for its temporal and eternal welfare, through Jesus Christ. Amen. " "May this child also, O Lord God, be andremain an heiress of Thy Kingdom of Grace and of the glory which Christhas obtained for us. Amen. " "God grant that this child may overcomeSatan, the world, and its own corrupted nature, and with Christ reignand triumph eternally for Christ's sake. Amen. " "Lord Jesus, grant thatthis child may taste and enjoy Thy sweet love and grace in time andeternity. " In 1704 Falckner baptized in his congregation at New York"Maria, the daughter of Are of Guinea, a negro, and his wife Jora, bothChristians of our congregation. " To the record of this baptism he addedthe prayer: "Lord, merciful God, who regardest not the person of men, but in every nation, he that feareth Thee and doeth right is acceptedbefore Thee: let this child be clothed with the white garment ofinnocence and righteousness, and so remain, through Christ, the Redeemerand Savior of all men. Amen. " In later years, Falckner, after recordingthe baptisms of an entire year, would add a prayer like the following:"Lord, Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant ingoodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquitiesand transgressions and sin: do not let one of the names above written beblotted out of Thy Book, but let them be written and remain therein, through Jesus Christ, Thy dear Son. Amen. " One of the intercessionsrecorded with the entries of confirmations reads as follows: "Lord JesusChrist, should Satan seek to sift as wheat one or the other of thesemembers of Thy congregation, then do Thou pray for them to Thy heavenlyFather that their faith may not cease, for the sake of Thy holy merit. Amen. " Marriages are recorded with prayers like the following: "Grant, Lord God, that also this union may redound to the honor of Thy holyname, to the promotion of Thy kingdom, and to the temporal and eternalblessing of those united, through Jesus Christ. Amen. " Graebner remarks:"What a gifted and sincerely pious pastoral frame of mind appears in theentries of the noble man, whom God, in wonderful ways, led from far-awaySaxony to New York and here made a shepherd and teacher of the DutchLutherans!" (94 ff. )

21. Distinctive Doctrines Stressed. --Tender love for his flock did notsilence Falckner's confessional Lutheranism, nor did it induce him tokeep doctrinal differences in the background. He was no unionist. On thecontrary, in order to protect the souls committed to his care from theReformed errors with which they came into contact everywhere, and toenable them to confess and defend the Lutheran truth efficiently, heemphasized and preached also the distinctive doctrines of the LutheranChurch. Naturally, his congregation was imbued with the same spirit ofsound and determined Lutheranism. "The straitened circumstances of ourDutch Lutherans, " says Graebner, "might have suggested to their flesh toseek a better understanding with the Dutch and English Reformed of thecity, and to sacrifice some of their Lutheranism, in order to win thefriendship as well as the support of these people. Indeed, we hear thatthese Lutherans manfully confessed their Lutheran faith whenever theycame in contact with their Reformed compatriots. And Pastor Falckner wasrepeatedly urged by members of his congregation to compile a booklet forhis parishioners in which the chief doctrines, especially thedistinctive doctrines concerning which they were often called upon tomake confession, would be briefly set forth, together with the necessaryproof-passages. Falckner acceded to these requests. In 1708 he publisheda book entitled 'Thorough Instruction (Grondlycke Onderricht) concerningCertain Chief Articles of the True, Pure, Saving, Christian Doctrine, Based upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus ChristHimself Being the Chief Corner-stone. '" It was the first book to appearfrom the pen of a Lutheran pastor in America, and till the awakening ofConfessional Lutheranism the only uncompromising presentation ofLutheran doctrine. V. E. Loescher praised it as being an"Anti-Calvinistic Compend of Doctrine, Compendium DoctrinaeAnti-Calvinianum. " The chapter on the "Freedom of the Will, " which isembodied in Graebner's _History of the Lutheran Church in America_, bespeaks theological acumen and clarity on the part of the author. Insimple catechetical form, together with most appropriate Bible-passages, Falckner presents the following truths: Having lost the divine image, man, by his own natural free will, can neither understand, will, nor dothat which is spiritually right, good, and pleasing to God. Man isconverted to God and to all that is "thoroughly good" only by the graceand power of God. It is God's pleasure to work in every man in orderthat he may will and do that which is good. The reason why this is notaccomplished in all men is, because many wilfully resist the work ofGod's grace, despise the means of conversion, and thus, by their ownstubborn and evil wills, frustrate the good and gracious will of God. Man has a _free_ will; for he does the evil and rejects the good freelyand without constraint, without any compulsion on the part of God. Furthermore, in external matters, which reason comprehends, man also hasa free will, in a measure. The will of a regenerate Christian is setfree, inasmuch as he is able to will that which is pleasing to God, byfaith in Jesus Christ, although, in this world, he is not able perfectlyto do that which is good. Falckner says: "I conceive this doctrine offree will as follows: All the good which I will and do I ascribe to thegrace of God in Christ and to the working of His good Spirit within me, render thanks to Him for it, and watch that I may traffic with the poundof grace, Luke 19, which I have received, in order that more may begiven unto me, and that I may receive grace for grace out of the fulnessof grace in Jesus Christ. John 1, 16. On the contrary, all the evilwhich I will and do I ascribe to my own evil will alone, whichmaliciously deviates from God and His gracious will, and becomes onewith the will of the devil, the world, and sinful flesh. And I ampersuaded that if only my own will does not dishonestly, wilfully, andstubbornly resist the converting gracious will of God, He, by HisSpirit, will bend and turn it toward that which is good, and, for thesake of Christ's perfect obedience, will not regard, nor impute unto me, the obstinacy cleaving to me by nature. " In the introduction of thebook, which was written in the Dutch language, Falckner unequivocallyprofesses adherence to the Symbols of the Lutheran Church, theconfession of his fathers, "which confession and faith, " he says, "bythe grace of God and the convincing testimony of His Word and Spirit, also dwell in me, and shall continue to dwell in me until my last, blessed end. " (91 ff. )

JOSHUA KOCHERTHAL. 

22. Palatinates in Quassaic, East and West Camp. --Wearying of theafflictions which the Thirty Years' War, the persecutions of Louis XIV, and Elector John Wilhelm, who was a tool of the Jesuits, had broughtupon them, hosts of Palatinates came to America in quest of liberty andhappiness. The cruelties and barbarities which the French king, theFrench officers, and the French soldiers perpetrated against innocentmen, women, and children are described by Macaulay as follows: "TheFrench commander announced to near half a million of human beings thathe granted them three days of grace. Soon the roads and fields, whichthen lay deep in snow, were blackened by innumerable multitudes of men, women, and children flying from their homes. Many died of cold andhunger; but enough survived to fill the streets of all the cities ofEurope with lean and squalid beggars, who had once been thriving farmersand shopkeepers. Meanwhile the work of destruction began. The flameswent up from every marketplace, every hamlet, every parish church, everycountry seat, within the devoted provinces. The fields where the cornhad been sown were plowed up. The orchards were hewn down. No promise ofa harvest was left on the fertile plains where had once beenFrankenthal. Not a vine, not an almond tree, was to be seen on theslopes of the sunny hills round what had once been Heidelberg. " (Wolf, _Lutherans in America_, 175. ) Great numbers of emigrants from Hesse, Baden, and Wuerttemberg whose fate had been similar to that of thePalatinates, joined them. Permission to settle in the New World wassought from the authorities in London, where in 1709, according tovarious authorities, from ten to twenty thousand Palatines, as they wereall designated, were assembled, waiting for an opportunity to emigrate. Joshua Kocherthal, Lutheran pastor at Landau in Bavaria, was the leaderof the emigrants from the Palatinate. In 1704 he went to London to makethe necessary arrangements. Two years later he published a booklet onthe proposed emigration. In 1708 he sailed for the New World with thefirst fifty-three souls, landing in New York at the close of December, 1708, or the beginning of January, 1709, after a long and stormy voyagelasting about four months. It was the first German Lutheran congregationin the State of New York. After spending the winter in the city, theysettled on the right bank of the Hudson, near the mouth of the Quassaic, where Newburgh is now located. Every person received a grant of fiftyacres and the congregation five hundred acres of church land, which, however, the British Governor in 1750 awarded to the Episcopalians. InJuly, 1709, Kocherthal, entrusting his congregation to the care ofFalckner, whose acquaintance he had made during the winter in New York, returned to London to obtain, through a personal interview with theQueen, grants of money which were needed to supply the utterlydestitute colonists with the necessary means of subsistence until theland was made arable. He returned in June, 1710, with a multitude ofemigrants in eleven ships. But, while 3, 000 had sailed from London, only 2, 200 were destined to reach their homes in the New World, 800having died while en route and in quarantine on Governor's Island. Atract of land comprising 40 acres for each person was assigned to themat the foot of the Catskill Mountains, about 100 miles north of NewYork. They settled on both sides of the Hudson, naming their settlementsEast and West Camp, respectively. 

23. Hewing Their Way to the Mohawk Valley. --The immigrants had beenpromised prosperity; but the English officials were actuated by selfishmotives and shamefully exploited the colonists. They were ordered toengage in the production of tar and pitch, and were treated as slavesand Redemptioners, _i. E. _, emigrants, shamefully defrauded by "theNewlanders (Neulaender), " as Muhlenberg designated the consciencelessDutch agents who decoyed Germans from their homes and in America soldthem into slavery, at least temporarily. The contract for provisioningthe Palatinate colonists was let to Livingston, a cruel and greedy Scot, from whom (Governor Hunter had purchased the land on which thePalatinates were settled. Livingston now sought to enrich himself byreducing both the quantity and quality of the food furnished to thecolonists. Hunger was common among the settlers, becoming especiallyacute in winter, as they had not been given sufficient time to plantcrops for themselves. Dissatisfaction spread throughout the ranks of thePalatinates, and when the Governor refused to heed their appeal forrelief, fifty families left the settlement and hewed their way throughthe primeval forest to the Mohawk Valley, where they obtained fertilelands from the Indians and founded the Schoharie congregation in thewinter of 1712/13. The governor declared the fugitives rebels; but stillmore followed in March, making their way through three feet of snow. TheLutherans of Schoharie were the first white people to live at peace withthe Indians. In order to obtain a clear title to the lands in theSchoharie Valley, which the governor refused to grant them, John ConradWeiser was sent to England. On his way he was plundered by pirates; inEngland he was thrown into a sponging house on account of debts. Afterregaining his liberty, he was compelled to return to Schoharie broken inhealth and without accomplishing his purpose. The result was that 33families left Schoharie and settled in Tulpehocken, Pa. , in 1723. Amongthose who remained in West Camp was Pastor Kocherthal. He continuedfaithfully to serve his congregations, including Schoharie, until hisend, December 27, 1719. He lies buried in West Camp. A weather-beatenstone slab marks his resting-place. The inscription calls him "TheJoshua and pure Lutheran pastor of the High Germans in America on theeast and west bank of the Hudson. " In the original the epitaph readscomplete as follows: "Wisse Wandersman Unter diesem Steine ruht nebstseiner Sibylla Charlotte Ein rechter Wandersmann Der Hoch-Teutschen inAmerica ihr Josua Und derselben an Der ost und west seite Der HudsonRivier rein lutherischer Prediger Seine erste ankunft war mit L'dLovelace 1707/8 den 1. Januar Seine sweite mit Col. Hunter 1710 d. 14Juny Seine Englandische reise unterbrach Seine Seelen Himmlische reisean St. Johannis Tage 1719 Begherstu mehr zu wissen So unter Suche inWelanchtons vaterland Wer war de Kocherthal Wer Harschias WerWinchonbach B. Berkenmayer S Heurtein L Brevort MDCCXLII. " (111. ) Thesuccessors of Kocherthal were: Justus Falckner, until 1723; DanielFalckner, the brother of Justus, who had served several Germancongregations along the Raritan, till 1725; Berkenmeyer; and from 1743to 1788 Peter N. Sommer, who preached in thirteen other settlements andbaptized 84 Indians. He died October 27, 1795. Sommer's aversion to theHalle pastors probably was the reason why he took no part in theorganization of the New York Ministerium at Albany in 1786. 

WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER BERKENMEYER. 

24. Activity in New York. --In New York Falckner was succeeded by W. Ch. Berkenmeyer (1686-1751). Berkenmeyer was born in the duchy ofLueneburg and had studied theology at Altorf under Dr. Sontag, atheologian whose maxim was, "Quo propius Luthero, eo melior theologus, The closer to Luther, the better a theologian. " Upon request of the NewYork congregation the Lutheran Consistory of Amsterdam, in 1724, calledhim to serve the Dutch congregations in the Hudson Valley. While _enroute_ to his new charge, he was informed that a vagabond preacher bythe name of J. B. Von Dieren, a former tailor, had succeeded iningratiating himself with the New York Lutherans, and had been acceptedas their preacher. Nothing daunted, Berkenmeyer continued his journey, landing at New York in 1725. At the first meeting of the Church Councilhe won the hearts of all, even of those who had been instrumental infoisting von Dieren upon the congregation, who now stood convicted asan ignorant pretender, and therefore was dismissed. Dieren continued hisagitation in other Lutheran congregations until Berkenmeyer in 1728published a tract fully exposing the character of the impudent impostor. From the beginning Berkenmeyer's labors were blessed abundantly. Bringing with him money collected by the Lutherans in Amsterdam andreceiving additional financial help from London and the congregations ofDaniel Falckner, Berkenmeyer was enabled to resume the buildingoperations in New York begun as early as 1670 (1705). On June 29, 1729, the New Trinity Church was dedicated. Berkenmeyer's parish covered alarge territory. In addition to New York, Albany, and Loonenburg heserved the congregations at Hackensack, Raritan, Clavernack, Newton, West Camp, Tar Bush, Camp, Rheinbeck (where a new church was dedicatedon the First Sunday in Advent, 1728), Schenectady, Coxsackie, and in theSchoharie Valley. In Schoharie he baptized the infant daughter of ConradWeiser, who eighteen years later became the wife of Henry MelchiorMuhlenberg. In the absence of churches, Berkenmeyer preached in privatedwellings or, more frequently, in barns. At one of these servicesfourteen children were baptized in the "Lutheran barn" of Pieter Lassing. (176. ) This immense parish was divided in 1731, Berkenmeyer removing toLoonenburg. Pastor Christian Knoll of Holstein was called to take chargeof the southern congregations in and about New York. Berkenmeyerdelivered his farewell sermon November 26, 1732, and sixteen days laterKnoll preached his first sermon. In 1734 the Lutheran clergy received anaddition in the person of Magister Wolff, who succeeded the aged andinfirm Daniel Falckner at Raritan and five other congregations in NewJersey. In the same year the three Lutheran pastors and a number ofcongregations organized the first Lutheran Synod in America, withBerkenmeyer as chairman. Its first and only convention of which we haverecord was held at Raritan, August 20, 1735; nine congregations wererepresented by delegates. The chief business of Synod was to settle aquarrel between Wolff and his congregations, one of the chargespreferred against the pastor being that he read his sermons instead ofdelivering them from memory ("statt aus dem Haupte zu predigen"). Peacewas restored, but temporarily only. Berkenmeyer continued his ministryin Loonenburg for twenty years. Like other Lutheran divines of his day, the Swedes and Salzburgers not excepted, he kept two slaves, whom hehimself united in marriage in 1744. Also during his declining yearsBerkenmeyer experienced much sorrow. His end came on August 26, 1751. The closing words of his epitaph are: "He has elected us in Christbefore the foundation of the world; there is therefore now nocondemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. " In the same year Knoll, who, owing to disputes arising from the language question, had beencompelled to resign at New York, took charge of the Loonenburgcongregation and continued there until 1765. 

25. Berkenmeyer's Sturdy Lutheranism. --Though not clear in some pointsand, at times, rigorous in discipline, Berkenmeyer stood for a sound anddecided Lutheranism. His orthodoxy appears from the very library whichhe selected and brought with him for the congregation in New York, consisting of twenty folios, fifty-two quartos, twenty-three octavos, and six duodecimos, among them Calovius's _Biblia Illustrata_, Balduinus's _Commentarius in Epistolas S. Pauli_, Dedekennus's_Consilia_, Huelsemann's _De Auxiliis Gratiae_, Brochmand's _Systema, etc_. Owing to his staunch orthodoxy, Berkenmeyer also had an aversionto the Pietists, and refused to cooperate with Muhlenberg and hiscolaborers from Halle. He disapproved of, and opposed, the unionisticpractises of the Swedish and Halle pastors. Speaking of Berkenmeyer'spastorate in New York, Dr. Graebner remarks: "In a firm and faithfulmanner he had preserved for himself and his congregation, both indoctrine and practise, a staunch Lutheran character, which banished thevery thought of fraternizing with the heterodox. At the same time, though a German theologian and commanding an easy, flexible, andforceful Latin, he was a genial Dutchman among his Dutch parishioners, perfectly adapting himself to their manners. " (186. ) He was firm andconsistent, but not fanatical, bigoted, or narrow. "In 1746, when theReformed pastor Freylinghausen lay ill with the smallpox at Albany, Berkenmeyer visited him. But never did he establish an intimatelyfriendly intercourse with the Reformed pastors, and in church-mattershe was determined to keep himself and his people separate from theReformed. In the German congregations, such as those in and aboutNewton, where Lutherans lived among the Reformed, with whom, aftersuffering together with them, they had emigrated, warnings againstapostasy and unionistic practises were even more necessary than in theDutch congregations, especially, as the Reformed made concessions toLutherans uniting with them, _e. G. _, by having the Lutheran childrenrecite the Lutheran Catechism in the catechetical instructions ofchildren (Christenlehren). Berkenmeyer, however, knew how to keepawake the Lutheran conscience. When, in 1736, the Calvinists on theKatsbaan, several miles from Newton, forbade their lector henceforthto have the children recite the Lutheran Catechism, this led to adeclaration on the part of the Lutherans to the effect that they wouldno longer attend services at their church. At Schoharie, Berkenmeyerhad to preach in the Reformed church; but that did not prevent him fromtestifying against joint services. He declared that in such union, without unity in the faith, the pastor was required to become 'either adumb dog or a mameluke'; the theme of his sermon here was: 'Our Duty toDefend the Truth against the Gainsayers. '" (207. ) The same earnestnesscharacterized Berkenmeyer's dealings with pastors, whom he recognizedonly after they had confessed their Lutheranism in clear and unequivocalterms. 

DETERIORATION IN NEW YORK. 

26. Germans versus Dutch. --About 1742 the language question becameacute in New York. Dutch immigration had ceased, while Germans arrivedin ever increasing numbers. As a result the German communicants in NewYork outnumbered the Dutch about 8 to 1. As the spokesmen of the Germanelement made unreasonable demands and met with unreasonable oppositionon the part of the Dutch, frequent and stormy meetings became the orderof the day. Pastor M. C. Knoll had labored faithfully; but, difficultiesconstantly increasing, he lost control of the situation, and toward theclose of 1750 was compelled to resign his charge. Prior to this some ofthe Germans had withdrawn from Trinity Church, and organized as ChristChurch, suffering themselves to be served by unworthy characters, suchas J. L. Hofgut, J. P. Ries, P. H. Rapp, J. G. Wiesner, and J. M. Schaeffer. A better element having come into control, they called menwhom H. M. Muhlenberg recommended: I. N. Kurtz, who had been active inTulpehocken; I. G. Baugher (Bager), who came to America from Helmstedtin 1752, served New York from 1754 to 1767, and died in 1794; J. 8. Gerock, who was sent to America by the Consistory of Wuerttemberg in1755, served in Lancaster, then in New York from 1767 to 1773, and diedin 1787; F. C. A. Muhlenberg, educated in Halle, who served Tulpehockenin 1770, New York from 1773 to 1776, and (having fled from New York whenthe British captured the city in the Revolutionary War) New Hanover in1777. After 1779 F. C. A. Muhlenberg entered political life, beingelected a member of the Continental Congress and Speaker of thePennsylvania Legislature. He died in 1801. In the Dutch Trinity Churchpeace was restored by Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, who served as Knoll'ssuccessor from 1751 to 1753. Muhlenberg cultivated an intimate andfraternal intercourse with the Reformed and Episcopalian pastors, andinaugurated a period of pietism and unionism in New York. On hisdeparture he recommended Pastor J. A. Weygand, who had been serving theRaritan congregations since his arrival, in 1748, from Halle. Weygandremained in New York until 1767. In 1755 he published an Englishtranslation of the Augsburg Confession. During his pastorate a parochialschool was organized and housed in a building erected for that purpose. He died in 1770. Weygand's successor was Houseal (Hausihl), who hademigrated from Strassburg in 1752. In 1771 he conducted the last servicein the Dutch language. In 1776 the church was reduced to ashes by thegreat fire which destroyed about one-fourth of the city. Though losingall his personal property, he rescued the documents and records of theold congregation. Being an ardent loyalist, he received permission fromthe British commander to use the Presbyterian church, where his serviceswere also attended by the Hessian troops of the army. When peace wasconcluded, Houseal emigrated to Halifax, where he was ordained in theEpiscopal Church and made chaplain of the garrison. Here he died in1799. 

27. Union Lauded by Kunze and Schaeffer. --The two Lutherancongregations in New York reunited in 1783. The first pastor to servethem was J. C. Kunze. He was born in the vicinity of Mansfeld, receivedhis preparatory education at Halle and other schools, and studiedtheology at the University of Leipzig. After a brief service in Halle, Kunze was called to be third pastor in Philadelphia. He landed in NewYork, September 22, 1770, accompanied by two sons of Muhlenberg, whohad studied in Halle. In Philadelphia, where he married Muhlenberg'sdaughter, Kunze conducted a Seminary from 1773 till its close in 1776, and then successively occupied the chairs of Philosophy and of Orientallanguages at the University of Pennsylvania. In 1773 this institutionawarded him the title of Doctor of Divinity. In the following year hereceived the call from the reunited Lutheran congregation in New York, which he accepted. He entered upon his new labors with great zeal, andmet with no little success, confirming 87 persons in the first sixmonths. Kunze laid especial stress upon the English, which hitherto hadbeen greatly neglected. He also educated young men for the Englishministry. A year after his arrival in New York he published "TheRudiments of the Shorter Catechism of Dr. Martin Luther, " and ten yearslater, 1795, the first English Ev. Lutheran Hymn- and Prayer-book. Inthe same year he issued a new translation of the Small Catechism, containing, besides the six chief parts, also, the Christian Questions, 103 fundamental questions, and a "Systematic Presentation of the Orderof Salvation. " (527. ) Kunze was also the first president of the NewYork Ministerium, organized at Albany in 1786. At his burial, in 1807, the Reformed Pastor Runkel delivered the funeral oration. While alearned man, a hard worker, a man of great influence, a man also whosought to familiarize not only the German, but also the English elementof his church with the doctrines of the Catechism, Kunze was not asound and staunch Lutheran on the order of Berkenmeyer or Falckner. Hehad no adequate appreciation for the doctrinal differences whichseparate the Lutherans and the Reformed. In the appendix to his Hymn-and Prayer-book of 1795 Kunze wrote: "That the two Protestant Churcheshave often shown animosities against one another is true and to belamented. But that such times are past is a truth more joyful thananother, which likewise ought not to be concealed, and [_viz_. ] thattrue piety in the Evangelical Church stands highly in need of a new andenergetic revival, and that it is doubtful in many cases whether thepresent union of the two churches, which, however, every true Christianwill wish to be indissoluble, has its origin in enlightened ideas or inworldly interest, in brotherly love or in indifference. " (528. ) Kunze'spupil, G. Strebeck, who had been called to preach English in the OldCongregation, organized an English Lutheran Church instead, and in 1804, with a part of his English flock, united with the Episcopal Church. TheEnglish congregation now called as its pastor a man who had beenexcommunicated from the Presbyterian Church on account of Chiliasm, who, in turn, was succeeded by a former Methodist preacher, under whom, in1810, the entire congregation followed Strebeck into the Episcopalianfold. 

28. Reformation Jubilee in 1817. --In the mother congregation Kunze, who died 1807, was succeeded by F. W. Geissenhainer. When the latterwas no longer able to supply the growing need for English services, F. C. Schaeffer was called in his stead, with the duty expressly imposedupon him of preaching also in English. In 1817, at the tercentenary ofthe Reformation, Schaeffer arranged a great celebration in which he wasassisted by an Episcopalian, a Reformed, and a Moravian pastor. _Dr. Spaeth:_ "Here also [in America, as in Prussia] a great ReformationJubilee was celebrated in 1817. Here also it was, in the first place, of a unionistic character. The Ministerium of Pennsylvania invited theMoravians, Episcopalians, Reformed, and Presbyterians to unite withthem in this celebration. In the city of New York the eloquent Lutheranpastor, F. C. Schaeffer, having kept the jubilee in the morning with hisown congregation, delivered an English discourse in the afternoon in St. Paul's Episcopal Church on the text, 'I believe, therefore I havespoken. ' Thousands were unable to find admittance to the service, sogreat was the throng. " (_C. P. Krauth_, 1, 322. ) Rejoicing in thegrowth of unionism, Schaeffer said in his sermon: "In Germany, thecradle of the Reformation, the 'Protestants' are daily becoming moreunited in the bond of Christian charity. Whilst the asperities, whichindeed too often affected the Great Reformers themselves, no longergive umbrage; whilst the most laudable and beneficial exertions areuniversally made by evangelical Christians to remove every sectarianbarrier, the 'Evangelical Church, ' extending her pale, becomes morefirmly established. And though we have melancholy evidence that thestate and disposition of the present Romish Church calls loudly for areformation, we must not omit the pleasing fact that many of her worthymembers are conscientiously alive to the cause of truth and enlightenedChristianity. " (G. , 654. ) But, instead of more firmly establishing theLutheran Church, the indifferentism and unionism introduced into NewYork by the Halle Pietists soon opened wide her gates to a flood ofrationalism. 

NEW YORK MINISTERIUM. 

29. Eliminating Confession. --In 1786 the New York Ministerium wasorganized in Albany, N. Y. , by Pastors Kunze, of New York City, H. Moeller, of Albany, and J. S. Schwerdfeger, of Fellstown, and two laydelegates, one from New York, the other from Albany. Eight of the elevenpastors in this district took no part in the organization. Six yearselapsed before another meeting convened. The minutes of the firstconvention state: "In view of the fact that only three pastors and twodelegates appeared, those present considered it advisable to look uponthemselves only as a committee of the Lutheran Church in the State ofNew York. " The _Lutheran Cyclopaedia_ says: "Though no records priorto the meeting at Albany are extant, Dr. Kunze stated in 1795, andagain in 1800, that the New York Ministerium, revived in 1786, had beenorganized as early as 1773 by F. A. C. Muhlenberg, then pastor in NewYork. " (490. ) _Dr. Jacobs:_ "Concerning the fact that any meeting wasactually held, we are in ignorance; but Dr. Kunze, who ought to be mostcompetent authority, declares: 'To the late Dr. Henry Muhlenbergbelongs the immortal honor of having formed in Pennsylvania a regularministry, and, what is somewhat remarkable, to one of his sons, whoofficiated as Lutheran minister from the year 1773 to 1776 in the cityof New York, that of having formed the Evangelical Ministry of New YorkState. ' The thought was carried out in 1786. " (300. ) In a letter to hisfather, then visiting in Georgia, F. A. C. Muhlenberg mentions ameeting of the Lutheran ministers in the Province of New York, plannedfor April, 1774. (Graebner, 450. ) The Ministerium organized at Albanywas a duplicate of the Pennsylvania Ministerium. According to theMinutes a resolution was adopted to regard "the constitution of the Ev. Luth. Church of Pennsylvania as their law. " (469. ) In 1792 the New YorkMinisterium adopted the new constitution of the Pennsylvania Synod, which contained no reference to the Lutheran Confessions whatever, merely retaining the name Lutheran. At the convention in Rheinbeck, 1797, Dr. Kunze being the leading spirit and president, the New YorkMinisterium passed the notorious resolution: "Resolved, That, on accountof the intimate relation subsisting between the English Episcopalian andLutheran Churches, the identity of their doctrine, and the near approachof their church-discipline, this consistory will never acknowledge anewly erected Lutheran church in places where the members may partake ofthe services of the said English Episcopal Church. " (628. ) Seven yearslater this resolution was rescinded, not, indeed, for confessionalreasons, but in the interest of expediency and policy, because in 1804G. Strebeck, with a part of his English congregation in New York, hadbeen received by the Episcopalians. Spaeth remarks with respect to theRheinbeck resolution: "A fitting parallel to this resolution is found inthe advances made by the Mother Synod of Pennsylvania toward a unionwith the German Reformed Church, first in 1819 for the jointestablishment of a common Theological Seminary, and afterward, in 1822, for a general union with the Evangelical Reformed Church. See Minutes of1822. " (_C. P. Krauth, _ 1, 320. )

30. President Quitman the Rationalist. --The unionism and indifferentismof the New York Ministerium naturally developed and merged intoSocinianism and Rationalism under its liberal, but most able andinfluential leader, Dr. F. H. Quitman (1760-1832). "Quitman, " saysGraebner, "was a stately person, over six feet in height and ofcorrespondingly broad and powerful build. Already at his entrance inHalle, one of the professors greeted the nineteen-year-old giant withthe words, 'Quanta ossa! Quantum robur! What bones! What power!'" In hissubsequent intercourse with the polite world Quitman acquired a finetact and measured, dignified ways. At the same time he was a man ofexcellent parts, a master at repartee, with a keen intellect and a firmwill, and in every respect a born leader. " (532. ) He was the onlyLutheran minister who ever received, and perhaps desired [?] [tr. Note:sic!] to receive, the degree of D. D. From Harvard University. Quitman, a disciple of Teller and of Semler in Halle, was a determinedprotagonist of German Rationalism. In 1807 this outspoken and consistentSocinian was elected president of the New York Ministerium, remaining inthis office till 1825. When Quitman accepted the call to the Schohariecongregations, which he served beginning with the year 1795, he vowedthat he would preach the truth according to the Word of God and "ourSymbolical Books. " Before long, however, he began to reveal the trueinwardness of his character. In his revised edition of Kunze'scatechism, which appeared in 1804, authorized by Synod, the 94th of the"Fundamental Questions, " which treated of the real presence of the bodyand blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper, was omitted. Ten years later, 1814, in his own catechism, which was likewise published with theapproval of Synod, he omitted and denied such fundamental doctrines asthose of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Vicarious Atonement, Justification for the sake of Christ, etc. In this book Quitman and theNew York Ministerium declare: "The Gospel teaches us that Christsuffered and died in order to seal with His blood the doctrine which Hehad preached. " (533. ) Two years later a "Lutheran Hymn-book" appeared, containing an un-Lutheran order of service, the Union formula ofdistribution, a rationalistic order for the celebration of the Lord'sSupper, rationalistic prayers to the "great Father of the Universe, "etc. Also this book appeared "by order of the Ev. Luth. Ministerium ofthe State of New York, " and with a preface signed by President Quitmanand Pastor Wackerhagen. (535. ) When the tercentenary of the Reformationwas celebrated, Quitman, again by order of the New York Ministerium, published several sermons bearing on this event. Here he says: "Reasonand Revelation are the only sources from which religious knowledge canbe drawn, and the norms according to which all religious questions oughtto be decided. . . . Are not both, Reason and Revelation, from heaven, always in agreement and the one supporting the other?" Again: "The truesense which the Reformers connected with the term 'faith' is still moreapparent from the XX. Article of the Augsburg Confession, where theyexplicitly declare that faith 'which is productive of good worksjustifies man before God. '" (653. ) This rank Socinianism andRationalism of Quitman and the Ministerium became firmly intrenched andwas protected from attack by the constitution of 1816, which containedthe paragraph: "And we establish it as a fundamental rule of thisassociation that the person to be ordained shall not be required to makeany other engagement than this, that he will faithfully teach, as wellas perform all other ministerial duties, and regulate his walk andconversation, according to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ascontained in Holy Scriptures, and that he will observe this constitutionwhile he remains a member of this Ministerium. " (655. ) Within the NewYork Ministerium, therefore, ministers could no longer be required bytheir congregations to pledge themselves on the Lutheran Confessions. According to the constitution doctrinal discussions were permitted onthe floor of Synod, but only with the express proviso "that thefundamental principle of Protestantism, the right of free research, benot infringed upon, and that no endeavor be made to elevate theMinisterium to an inquisitorial tribunal. " (679. ) Thus the entireheritage of the Reformation, together with its Scriptural principle andcardinal doctrine of justification by faith, had gone by the board, theunionism and indifferentism of the Halle pastors having served as thefirst entering wedge--just as in Halle Pietism and subjectivism, anessentially Reformed growth, foreign to sound objective Lutheranism, hadgiven birth to the ugly child, afterwards, when grown up, named_Rationalismus Vulgaris_. 

JOHN CHRISTOPHER HARTWICK. 

31. The Eccentric Wandering Bachelor. --Hartwick (Hartwig, Hartwich, Hardwick) was born 1714 in Thuringia, Saxony. Coming to New York in1746, Berkenmeyer had him subscribe to the Loonenburg Churchconstitution. His parish included the congregations at Rheinbeck, Camp, Staatsburg, Ancrum, and Tar Bush. The capriciousness with whichHartwick, who remained an eccentric bachelor all his life, performed hispastoral duties soon gave rise to dissatisfaction. Complaints werelodged against him with Berkenmeyer, who finally wrote against himpublicly. In 1750 Muhlenberg conducted a visitation in Hartwick'scongregations, and reports as follows: "He went to Pennsylvania toooften, and that without the permission of his congregations, etc. Hedid not sufficiently prepare the young for confirmation, by simpleinstruction in the Catechism; is too austere in his dealings with thepeople; does not always permit them to see him; does not maintain orderat public worship; begins services an hour or two after the time fixed;has long hymns sung and preaches long, so that those who come from adistance must drive till late into the night and are compelled toneglect their cattle. He is headstrong (koppich), that is, self-willed, and will not allow any one to tell him anything or to give him advice. He says he did not come here to learn from the people, but to teachthem. Nor did he, said they, cultivate the friendship of the oldspiritual father Berkenmeyer, while pastors were to set a good example. Such and similar were the complaints made by his opponents. " (G. , 412. )The upshot of the deliberations was that Raus was appointed vicar of thecongregations, while Hartwick agreed to spend six months inPennsylvania, where he previously, 1748, had participated in theorganization of the Pennsylvania Synod. In 1752 Hartwick preached to theDutch congregation of New York, an honor that was denied him in 1750because of his hostility to Berkenmeyer. January 8, 1751, Hartwickaddressed a pastoral letter to his congregations, in which he not onlydisplays a lack of Lutheran knowledge, but also refers to Berkenmeyer as"brother Esau" and speaks of his opponents as "Edomites" and "Esauites. "In the spring of 1751 Hartwick returned to his congregations. When itbecame impossible for him to maintain his position any longer, he wentto Reading, in 1757. In the following year he returned to Columbia andDuchess Co. , N. Y. Subsequently, wandering about aimlessly, he was seen, now in Hackensack and Providence, now (1761) as Muhlenberg's successorin the country congregations, then in Maryland, 1763 in Philadelphia, then in Winchester, Va. , 1767 in New York, attending the unionisticchurch dedication, 1774 in Boston, and ten years later again in NewYork, whither he returned to ingratiate himself with the Lutherans whohad not emigrated to Nova Scotia with Houseal. Known everywhere, but athome nowhere, and usually an unwelcome guest, Hartwick died suddenly, July 16, 1796, at East Camp. The last lines of the dreary inscription onhis tombstone are: "The brief span of our days is seventy to eightyyears, and though it was ever so precious, its sum is trouble andsorrow. On the wings of time we hasten to a long eternity. " In theoriginal the epitaph reads as follows: "Hier ruhet Johann C. HartwichPrediger der Evangelisch Lutherischen Kirche. Gebohren in Sax Gotha de6 Jenner 1714 Gestorben den 16 Julius 1706 Seines alters 82 Jahre 6Monat. --Das kurzgesteckte Ziel der Tage Ist siebenzig is achtzig jahrEin innbegrif von muh und plage Auch wenn es noch so kostlich war. Geflugelt eilt mit uns die zeit In eine lange ewigkeit. " (657. )

32. Hartwick Seminary and Dr. Hazelius. --In 1754 Hartwick purchased21, 500 acres of land in Otsego Co. , N. Y. , which he endeavored tocolonize with a Lutheran congregation. "The lease was to contain aclause pledging every colonist to unite with the church within a year;to recognize Pastor Hartwick or his representative as his pastor andspiritual adviser; to attend his services regularly, decently, and withdevotion; to contribute to the maintenance of the church, school, andparsonage according to ability; to have his children baptized, and tosend them to school and confirmation instruction until they wereconfirmed. The validity of the lease was to depend on the fulfilment ofthese conditions. " (454. ) The plan failed, and Hartwick, in a will, executed shortly before his death, left his estate, valued at about$17, 000, to found a theological seminary. Among the conditions werethat heathen authors should never be read in this institution, and thata catechism be prepared and agreed upon by pastors of various churches, in which, all controversial points being avoided, the essentialquestions of the Christian religion were to be answered by classicBible-verses containing the Christian doctrines. A request was appendedto the will, in which Congress was asked to promote in every possibleway the undertaking planned by him "in the interest of humanizing, civilizing, moralizing, and Christianizing, not only the aborigines ofNorth America, but all other barbarous peoples with whom the UnitedStates may have connection or intercourse. " (658. ) In 1797 the incomeof Hartwick's estate was used to pay Dr. J. C. Kunze, of New York, forhis theological instruction, Rev. A. T. Braun, of Albany, forinstruction in the classics, and Rev. J. F. Ernst for teaching thechildren on the patent (Otsego County) where the seminary was to belocated. The foundation for a building was laid in 1812, which wasdedicated December 15, 1815, and opened by Dr. Hazelius and A. Quitman(later renowned as a lawyer, statesman, and general) with 19 students. A charter was obtained in 1816 containing the provision that thedirector must always be a Lutheran theologian, and that the majority ofthe trustees must be Lutherans. When the English congregations separatedfrom the New York Ministerium in 1867, Hartwick Seminary remained intheir hands. In 1871 the trustees requested the Franckean, Hartwick, NewYork, and New Jersey Synods each to nominate three trustees, theinstitution thus coming under the control of these synods. The firstdirector of Hartwick Seminary was Dr. Hazelius, who was born in Silesiain 1777, and educated at the institution of the Moravians in Germany. Hecame to America in 1800 and was made instructor in the classics at theMoravian institution at Nazareth, Pa. Before long he was employed in thetheological department. In 1809, Hazelius was ordained as Lutheranpastor of Germantown. He was connected with Hartwick Seminary forfifteen years, when he was called to Gettysburg Seminary. Three yearslater (1833) he accepted a call to the seminary of the South CarolinaSynod at Lexington, where he died in 1853. Hazelius, who did not leavethe Moravians for doctrinal reasons, held that Lutherans and Reformed donot differ fundamentally. Accordingly, he also approved of distributingthe Lord's Supper at the same altar, to Lutherans according to theirpractise, to others in the manner of the Reformed. The minutes of theproceedings of the General Synod held at Winchester, Va. , May 21, 1853, record the following: "Whereas, It has pleased the God of all and Headof the Church to remove from this transitory scene, and to take home toHimself, our venerable and beloved father in Christ, the Rev. ErnestLewis Hazelius, D. D. , we, who have been privileged to sit at his feet, and to be instructed by him in the various departments of sacredservice, desire to unite in a public expression of our grief at hisdeparture from among us, and of our high regard for his name and memory;therefore, Resolved, That we duly appreciate and gratefully acknowledgethe importance, efficiency, and happy results of his long, faithful, anduntiring labors as a minister of our Church; first a pastor, then, forfifteen years, as the first professor and principal of HartwickSeminary, afterwards as professor at the Theological Seminary of thisbody at Gettysburg, for two years, and, lastly, up to October, 1852, asProfessor of Theology at Lexington, in the Theological Seminary of theSynod of South Carolina. " (44. )

GERMANTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA. 

33. Early Germans in America. --In the Colonial days, next to theEnglish, the Germans were foremost in settling and developing ourcountry. Long before the Puritans thought of emigrating to America, Germans had landed in various parts of the New World. As early as 1538, J. Cromberger established a printing-office in the City of Mexico, fromwhich he issued numerous books. From 1528 to 1546 German explorers cameto Venezuela also with a printing-press and with fifty miners to explorethe mountains. A number of German craftsmen accompanied the firstEnglish settlers who came with Captain John Smith to Virginia. Soonafter Henry Hudson had discovered the river which bears his name, Christiansen, a German, became the explorer of that stream. He alsobuilt the first homes on Manhattan Island, 1613, and laid thefoundations of New Amsterdam and Fort Nassau, the present cities of NewYork and Albany. Peter Minuit (Minnewit), the first Director-General ofNew Netherland, was also a German, born in Wesel, on the lower Rhine. He arrived in New Amsterdam on May 4, 1626, and one of his first actswas the purchase of Manhattan Island, 22, 000 acres, from the Indiansfor trinkets valued at $24. He remained at his post till 1631, when he, soon after, became the founder and first director of New Sweden, at themouth of the Delaware River. He lost his life in the West Indies duringa hurricane. His successor in New Sweden was another German, Printz vonBuchau, during whose regime, from 1643 to 1654, the colony became verysuccessful and thereby aroused the jealousy of the Dutch, who, whileBuchau was on a trip to Europe, attacked the colony and annexed it toNew Netherland. When New Netherland, in 1664, fell a prey to theEnglish, the colony had among its citizens numerous Germans, most ofthem Lutherans. A native of Hamburg, Nicholaus de Meyer, becameburgomaster of New York in 1676. Another German, Augustin Herrman, madethe first reliable maps of Maryland and Virginia. J. Lederer, a youngGerman scholar, who came to Jamestown in 1668, was the first to exploreVirginia and part of South Carolina. Lederer's itinerary, written inLatin, was translated by Governor Talbot of Maryland into English andpublished 1672 in London; etc. However, it was at Germantown, atpresent a suburb of Philadelphia, that Germans broke ground for thefirst permanent German settlement in North America. A group ofMennonites, 33 persons, landed October 6, 1683. They were received byWilliam Penn and Franz Daniel Pastorius, a young lawyer from Frankforton the Main. In Germantown Gerhard Henkel preached before 1726, and St. Michael's Church was begun 1730 and dedicated by the Swede J. Dylanderin 1737. Pastorius had landed in America with several families onAugust 20 of the same year in advance of the Mennonite emigrants, inorder to prepare for their arrival. The official seal of Germantownbore the inscription: "Vinum, Linum et Textrinum, " the culture ofgrapes, flax-growing, and the textile industries being the principaloccupations of the colony. In 1690 W. Rittenhaus established inGermantown the first paper-mill in America. Here also Christopher Sauer, a native of Westphalia, published the first newspaper in German type, and in 1743 the first German Bible, antedating, by forty years, theprinting of any other Bible in America. The Germans in the cloisterEphrata, Pa. , established by the Tunker, or Dunkards, also owned aprinting-press, a paper-mill, and a bookbindery. They published, in1749, the _Maertyrer-Spiegel_, a folio of 1514 pages, the greatestliterary undertaking of the American Colonies. To the Germans enumeratedmust be added the German Reformed; the Moravians, who founded Bethlehemand Nazareth in Pennsylvania; the Salzburgers in Georgia; the Palatinesin New York; etc. And what may be said of Germantown, is true also withregard to Philadelphia. June 6, 1734, Baron von Reck wrote concerningthe conglomerate community of this city: "It is an abode of allreligions and sects, Lutherans, Reformed, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Catholics, Quakers, Dunkards, Mennonites, Sabbatarians, Seventh-dayBaptists, Separatists, Boehmists, Schwenkfeldians, Tuchfelder, Wohlwuenscher, Jews, heathen, etc. " (Jacobs, 191. ) Concerning thethrifty character and all-round good citizenship of the Germanimmigrants in Pennsylvania generally, McMaster remarks: "Wherever aGerman farmer lived, there were industry, order, and thrift. The size ofthe barns, the height the fences, the well-kept wheat fields andorchards, marked off the domain of such farmer from the lands of hisshiftless Irish neighbor. " "They were, " says Scharf in his _History ofMaryland_, 2, 423, "an industrious, frugal, temperate people, tillingtheir farms, accustomed to conflict with savage and other enemies onthe border, and distinguished for their bold and independent spirit. "(Jacobs, 235. ) Also in the cause of liberty and humanity the Germanimmigrants in America stood in the front ranks. 

34. First Anti-Slavery Declaration in America. --The importation ofnegro slaves to America was practised by the English and Dutch since thesixteenth century, without disapproval on the part of the Puritans andQuakers, who boasted of being the fathers of liberty and the defendersof human rights. The inhabitants of Germantown, led by Pastorius, werethe first to draw up, on February 18, 1688, a protest against this tradein human flesh and blood. The remarkable document, addressed to themeeting of the Quakers in Pennsylvania, reads as follows: "This is to yeMonthly Meeting held at Richard Warrel's. These are the reasons why weare against the traffick of men Body, as followeth: Is there any thatwould be done or handled at this manner? to be sold or made a slave forall the time of his life? How fearful and fainthearted are many on seawhen they see a strange vessel, being afraid it should be a Turk, andthey should be taken and sold for slaves into Turckey. Now what is thisbetter done as Turcks doe? Yea rather is it worse for them, which saythey are Christians; for we hear that ye most part of such Negers arebrought hither against their will and consent; and that many of them arestollen. Now, tho' they are black, we cannot conceive there is moreliberty to have them slaves, as it is to have other white ones. There isa saying, that we shall doe to all men, like as we will be done ourselves; making no difference of what generation, descent or colour theyare. And those who steal or robb men, and those who buy or purchasethem, are they not all alike? Here is liberty of conscience, which isright and reasonable; here ought to be likewise liberty of ye body, except of evildoers which is another case. But to bring men hither, orto robb and sell them against their will, we stand against. In Europethere are many oppressed for conscience sake; and here there are thoseoppressed which are of a black colour. And we, who know that men mustnot commit adultery, some doe commit adultery in others, separatingwifes from their husbands and giving them to others; and some sell thechildren of those poor creatures to other men. Oh! doe consider wellthis things, you who doe it; if you would be done at this manner? and ifit is done according to Christianity? You surpass Holland and Germany inthis thing. This makes an ill report in all those countries of Europe, where they hear off, that ye Quackers doe here handel men like theyhandel there ye cattel. And for that reason some have no mind orinclination to come hither, and who shall maintaine this your cause orplaid for it? Truly we can not do so, except you shall inform us betterhereoff, that Christians have liberty to practise this things. Pray!What thing on the world can be done worse towards us, then if men shouldrobb or steal us away, and sell us for slaves to strange countries, separating housbands from their wifes and children. Being now this isnot done at that manner, we will be done at, therefore we contradict andare against this traffick of menbody. And we who profess that it is notlawful to steal, must likewise avoid to purchase such are stollen butrather help to stop this robbing and stealing if possible; and such menought to be delivered out of ye hands of ye Robbers and sett free aswell as in Europe. Then is Pennsylvania to have a good report, insteadit hath now a bad one for this sacke in other countries. Especiallywhereas ye Europeans are desirous to know in what manner ye Quackers doerule in their Province; and most of them doe look upon us with anenvious eye. But if this is done well, what shall we say is done evill?If once these slaves (which they say are so wicked and stubborn men)should joint themselves, fight for their freedom and handel theirmasters and mastrisses as they did handel them before, will thesemasters and mastrisses tacke the sword at hand and warr against thesepoor slaves, like we are able to believe, some will not refuse to doe?Or have these Negers not as much right to fight for their freedom, asyou have to keep them slaves? Now consider well this thing, if it isgood or bad? and in case you find it to be good to handel these blacksat that manner, we desire and require you hereby lovingly, that you mayinform us here in, which at this time never was done, that Christianshave such a liberty to do so, to the end we shall be satisfied in thispoint, and satisfie lickewise our good friends and acquaintances in ournatif country, to whose it is a terrour or fairfull thing that menshould be handeld so in Pennsylvania. This is from our Meeting atGermantown held ye 18. Of the 2. Month 1688, to be delivered to themonthly meeting at Richard Warrel's. Gerret hendericks derick op degraeff Francis Daniell Pastorius Abraham op Den graeff. " (Cronau, _German Achievements_, 20. ) This protest was submitted at severalmeetings of the Quakers. But it was not before 1711 that the Quakersintroduced "an act to prevent the importation of Negroes and Indiansinto the province, " and still later that they declared againstslave-trading. Also the Salzburgers in Georgia were opposed to slavery, though Bolzius himself was compelled to buy slaves on account of thelack of white laborers. The Germans also were first and most emphaticin condemning the cruelties connected with the "white slavery" of theso-called Redemptioners. 

SLAVERY OF REDEMPTIONERS. 

35. Cruelly Deceived by the Newlanders. --Toward the middle of theeighteenth century there were some 80, 000 Germans in Pennsylvania, almost one-half of the entire inhabitants. In 1749 about 12, 000 arrived. Benjamin Franklin and others expressed the fear: "They come in suchnumbers that they will soon be able to enforce their laws and languageupon us, and, uniting with the French, drive all Englishmen out. " Manyof the Germans were so-called Redemptioners, who, in payment of theirfreight, were sold and treated as slaves for a stipulated number ofyears. Most of them had been shamefully deceived and decoyed into thehorrors of this "white slavery" by Dutch and English merchants andconscienceless agents whom Muhlenberg called Newlanders (Neulaender). In Holland they were called "soul-traders. " By means of stories of thefabulous wealth acquired in America they enticed Germans and otheremigrants into the signing of papers in the English language which notonly committed them and their children to slavery, but sometimesseparated husband and wife, parents and children. The following is aninstance of the revolting horrors connected with this trade: In 1793, when the yellow fever prevailed in Chester, a cargo of Redemptionerswas sent thither, and a market for nurses opened. (Jacobs, 236. ) InPennsylvania this kind of slavery continued from about 1740 to thesecond decade of the nineteenth century. Quakers and other "friends ofliberty and humanity" exploited the system. Foremost among those whoexposed and condemned it were Germans, notably Muhlenberg, who describedthe abominable business of the Newlanders as follows: "These Newlandersfirst make themselves acquainted with the merchants in the Netherlands. From them they receive, in addition to free freight, a certaingratification (_douceur_) for each family or each unmarried person whichthey enlist in Germany and bring to the traders in Holland. In order toattain their object, they resort to all manner of tricks. As long as thecomedy requires it, they make a great show in dress, frequently look attheir watches, and make a pretense of great wealth, in order to excite adesire within the hearts of people to emigrate to so happy and rich acountry. They give such descriptions of America as make one believe itto contain nothing but Elysian fields, bearing seed of themselves, without toil and labor, mountains full of solid gold and silver, andwells pouring forth nothing but milk and honey, etc. Who goes as aservant, becomes a lord; who goes as a maid, becomes a milady; a peasantbecomes a nobleman; a citizen and artisan, a baron!" Deceived andallured by such stories, Muhlenberg continues, "The families break up, sell what little they have, pay their debts, turn over what may be leftto the Newlanders for safe-keeping, and finally start on their journey. Already the trip on the Rhine is put to their account. In Holland theyare not always able to depart immediately, and frequently they get asmall amount of money, advanced by the traders, on their account. Theexpensive freight from Holland to America is added, also the head-money. Before they leave Holland, they must sign a contract in the Englishlanguage. The Newlanders persuade and reassure the people [who, notunderstanding the English, knew not what they were signing] that they, as impartial friends, would see to it that, in the contract, no wrongwas done their countrymen. The more freight in persons a merchant andcaptain can bring in a ship, the more profitable it is, provided thatthey do not die _en route_, for then it may be disadvantageous. For thisreason the ships are kept clean, and every means is employed to deliverhealthy ware to the market. For a year or so they may not have been ascareful, suffering to die what could not live. When parents die on theships and leave children, the captains and the most intelligent of theNewlanders, acting as guardians and orphan-fathers, take the chests andinheritance in their safe-keeping, and the orphans, arriving on theland, are sold for their own freight and the freight of their deceasedparents; the real little ones are given away, and the inheritance oftheir parents just about pays for the manifold troubles caused to theguardians. This crying deceit moved some well-disposed Germaninhabitants of Pennsylvania, especially in and about Philadelphia, toorganize a society, which, as much as possible, would see to it that, atthe arrival of the poor emigrants, they were dealt with according tojustice and equity. " When a ship of emigrants has arrived in the harborof Philadelphia, Muhlenberg proceeds, "the newcomers are led inprocession to the court-house, in order to take the oath of allegianceto the King of Great Britain; then they are led back to the ship. Hereupon the papers announce that so and so many German people are to besold for their freight. Whoever is able to pay his own freight receiveshis freedom. Those having wealthy friends endeavor to obtain a loan fromthem to pay the freight; but these are few. The ship is the market. Thebuyers pick out some and bargain with them as to the years and days ofservice, whereupon they make them bind themselves before the magistrateby a written instrument for a certain period as their property. Theyoung, unmarried people of both sexes sell first, their lot being a goodor a bad one, for better or worse, according to the character of thebuyer and God's providence or permission. We have frequently noted thatchildren who were disobedient to their parents, and left them stubbornlyand against their will, here found masters from whom they received theirreward. Old and married people, widows and the frail, nobody wants tobuy, because there is here already an abundance of poor and uselesspeople who become a burden to the state. But if they have healthychildren, then the freight of the old people is added to that of thechildren, and the children must serve so much longer, are sold so muchdearer, and scattered far and wide from each other, among all manner ofnations, languages, and tongues, so that they rarely see their oldparents or brothers and sisters again in this life; many also forgettheir mother-tongue. In this way the old people leave the ship free, butpoor, naked, and weak, looking as though they were coming from thegraves, and go begging in the city at the doors of the Germaninhabitants; for, as a rule, the English, afraid of infection, close thedoors on them. Such being the conditions, one's heart might bleed seeingand hearing how these poor human beings, who came from Christian landsinto the New World, partly moan, cry, lament, and throw up their armsbecause of the misery and separation which they had never imagined wouldbefall them, partly call upon and adjure all elements and sacraments, yea, all thunderbolts and the terrible inhabitants of hell to smash intonumberless fragments and torment the Newlanders and the Dutch merchants, who deceived them! Those who are far away hear nothing of it, and theproperly so-called Newlanders only laugh about it, and give them noother consolation beyond that given to Judas Iscariot by the Pharisees, Matt. 27, 4: 'What is that to us? See thou to that!' Even the children, when they are cruelly kept and learn that they must remain in bondageall the longer on account of their parents, conceive a hatred andbitterness toward them. " (G. , 474 ff. )

36. Mittelberger on Redemptioners. --Mittelberger, who, in 1750, brought to America the organ built at Heilbronn for the Lutheran churchin Philadelphia, and served Muhlenberg also as schoolteacher inProvidence, describes, in substance, the sad lot of the Redemptioners asfollows: "Healthy and strong young people were bound to serve from threeto six years, young people from their tenth to their twenty-first year. Many parents, in order to obtain their freedom, must themselves bargainabout and sell their own children like cattle. A wife must bear thefreight of her husband if he arrives sick; in like manner the husband isheld for his sick wife; thus he must serve not only for himself, but, inaddition, five or six years for his sick spouse. When both are sick, they are brought into the hospital, but only when no buyer is found. Assoon as they are well, they must serve in payment of their freight, orpay, if they have property. It frequently happens that a whole family, husband, wife, and children, being sold to different buyers, areseparated, especially if they are unable to pay anything on theirfreight themselves. When a spouse dies on the ocean after one-half ofthe voyage is completed, the remaining spouse must not only pay or servefor himself, but also for the freight of the deceased one. When bothparents die on the ocean, their children must serve for their own andtheir parents' freight till their twenty-first year. If anybody escapesa cruel master, he cannot get very far, since good provisions are madefor the certain and speedy recapture of escaped Redemptioners. A liberalreward is paid to him who holds or returns a deserter. If a deserter wasabsent for a day, he must serve a week for it; for a week, a month; andfor a month, half a year. Men of rank, skill, or learning, unable to paytheir freight, or to give any surety, must serve their masters by doingmanual labor like ordinary servants. While learning to perform theunaccustomed hard labor, they are treated with lashes like cattle. Manya suicide was the consequence of the abominable deceit of theNewlanders. Others sank into utter despair, or deserted, only to suffermore afterwards than before. Sometimes the merchants in Holland make asecret agreement to deliver their cargo of human beings not inPhiladelphia, where they wanted to go, but at some other place, wherethey expect a better market, thus robbing many of the assistance oftheir friends and relatives in Pennsylvania. Many entrust their money tothe Newlanders, who remain in Holland, and on their arrival in thiscountry they must either serve themselves, or sell their children toserve for them. " (477 ff. ) Like the negroes, the Redemptioners could beresold. The newspapers carried advertisements like the following fromthe _Staatsbote_ of Philadelphia: "The time of service of a bond-maid isfor sale. She is tall and strong enough to do any kind of work, and isable to perform work in the city as well as in the country. She is notsold on account of a physical defect, but only because her master hasmany women folks about. She has yet to serve for four and a half years. The name of her owner may be learned from the publisher of this paper. "(481. ) As with the negro slaves the lot of a Redemptioner was not inevery case physically a sad and cruel one. In Maryland the lawsprotected them by limiting the days of work in summer to five and a halfa week, and demanding for them three hours of rest in the middle of theday during the months of greatest heat. In 1773 Pastor Kunze wrote: "IfI should ever obtain 20 pounds, I would buy the first German studentlanding at our coast and owing freight, put him in my upper room, begina small Latin school, teach during the morning hours myself, and thenlet my servant teach and make my investment pay by charging a smallfee. " (481. ) Some of the honored names in American history are those ofRedemptioners, among them Charles Thomson, the Secretary of Congressduring the Revolution, Matthew Thornton, a signer of the Declaration ofIndependence, and the parents of Major-General Sullivan. (Jacobs, 235. )

LUTHERANS IN PENNSYLVANIA. 

37. Roaming About without Altar and Ministry. --Justus Falckner, in aletter to Dr. H. Muhlen, [tr. Note: sic!] dated August 1, 1701, describes the "spiritual wilderness" in and about Germantown as follows:"As much, then, as I was able to observe the conditions of the churchesin these parts and in particular in this province, they are still prettybad. Because of the lack of any good preparations the aborigines, orIndians, remain in their blindness and barbarism. In addition to thisthey are scandalized by the wicked life of the Christians, andespecially by the trade carried on with them, and merely acquire viceswhich were unknown to them before, such as drunkenness, theft, etc. Thefew Christians here are divided in almost in numerable sects, which kat'exochen [tr. Note: two words in Greek] may be called sects and rabbles, such as Quakers, Anabaptists, Naturalists, Libertinists, Independentists, Sabbatarians, and many others, especially secretlyspreading sects, regarding whom we are at a loss what to make of them. However, all of them agree in their beautiful principles (si Displacet): Abolish all good order, and live for yourself as you see fit. The Quakers are the most numerous because the Governor [William Penn]belongs to them, so that one might call this land an anatomicallaboratory of Quakers. For much as our theologians have labored todissect this cadaver and discover its entrails, they, nevertheless, havenot been able to do it as well as the Quakers are now doing itthemselves in this country. It would fill a whole tract if, as could bedone easily, I were to describe how they, by transgressing their ownprinciples, make it apparent what kind of a spirit is moving them, whilethey, by virtue of the foundation of such principles, are scoffers andIshmaels of all well-ordered church-life. _Hic Rhodus, hie saltant_(Here is Rhodes, here they dance). " "Also here" (as in Europe), Falcknerproceeds, "the Protestant Church is divided in three nations; for thereis here an English Protestant Church, a Swedish Protestant LutheranChurch, and people of the German nation belonging to the EvangelicalLutheran and the Reformed Churches. The Swedes have twocongregations. .. . But not without reason have I spoken of the Germansmerely as some Evangelical Lutheran Germans and not the GermanEvangelical Lutheran Church, inasmuch as they are roaming about in thisdesert without altar and the ministry (scilicet qui ara sacerdotuquedestituti vagantur hoc in deserto), a miserable condition, indeed. Otherwise there is a great number of Germans here. But a part of themhave joined the other sects, who use the English language, which islearned first by all who come here, and some of them are Quakers andAnabaptists. Another part of them are freethinkers, uniting with nobodyand letting their children grow up in the same way. In brief, there areGermans here, and probably the most of them, who despise God's Word andall good outward order, blaspheme and frightfully and publicly desecratethe Sacraments. Spiritus enim errorum et sectarum asylum sibi hicconstituit (For the spirit of errors and sects has here established hisasylum). And the chief fault and cause of this is the lack of provisionfor an external visible church-communion. For since, as it were, thefirst thesis of natural theology, inborn in all men, is 'Religiosumquendam cultum observandum, A certain religious cult must be observed, 'it happens that these people, when they come here and find no betterexternal service, elect any one rather than none. For though they areLibertinists, nevertheless also Libertinism is not without its outwardform, by which it makes itself a specific religion in none of them. "Falckner proceeds: "I and my brother [Daniel] attend the Swedish church, although, as yet, we understand little of the language. And by ourexample we have induced several Germans to come to their meetingsoccasionally, even though they did not understand the language, and forthe purpose only of gradually drawing them out of barbarism andaccustoming them to outward order, especially as one of the Swedishpastors, Mr. M. Rudman, for the sake of love and the glory of God, offered to go to the trouble of learning the German language andoccasionally to deliver a German address in the Swedish church, untilthe Germans could have a church of their own. " In the following Falcknerdwells on the great help it would afford in attracting the Indians andthe children of the Quakers and drawing the young Swedes to the servicesif an organ could be installed in the Swedish church. (G. Fritschel, _Geschichte_, 35 ff. ) The miserable condition spiritually of theLutherans in Pennsylvania appears from a letter of their representativesto Dr. Ziegenhagen in London, dated October, 1739, in which they state:"There is not one German Lutheran preacher in the whole land, exceptCaspar Stoever, now sixty miles distant from Philadelphia. " (Jacobs, 191. )

38. New Hanover, Philadelphia, Providence. --It was a motley crowd ofGermans that gathered in the land of the Quakers. Indeed, Pastorius, thefirst mayor of Germantown, was a rather moderate pietist from thecircles of Spener, but, as stated above, with him and after him cameMennonites, Tunkers, Moravians, Gichtelians, Schwenkfeldians, disciplesof the cobbler of Goerlitz, Jacob Boehme, and enthusiasts who as yet hadno name. (G. , 242. ) Before long, however, the Lutherans outnumbered allother German denominations (Moravians and German Reformed) and sects inthe Quaker State, to which they came in increasingly large numbers, especially after the sad experiences of the Palatinates in New York. By1750 the number of Germans in Pennsylvania was estimated at 60, 000, ofwhom about two-thirds were Lutherans by birth. Though imbued withapocalyptical and mystical ideas, H. B. Koester, who arrived in 1694with forty families, is said to have conducted the first German Lutheranservices in Germantown. Before long he united with the Episcopalians andfounded Christ Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, but returned to Germanyin 1700. Daniel Falckner, who had emigrated with Koester, opposed theQuakers in Germantown. In Falckner's Swamp (New Hanover), he organizedthe first German Lutheran congregation in Pennsylvania, and is said tohave erected a log church as early as 1704. In his struggle against themismanagement of Pastorius, Falckner, in 1708, fell a prey to intrigues. A disappointed man he went to New Jersey, where he served thecongregations at Raritan, Muehlstein, Rockaway, and other points, andfrom 1724 to 1725 also the settlements which Kocherthal had served alongthe Hudson. Owing to his increasing mental weakness, Daniel Falckner, in1731, resigned his field in favor of J. A. Wolff. He died at Raritan tenyears later. In New Hanover Gerhard Henkel, the first Lutheran pastor inVirginia, continued the work from 1717 to 1728. In Philadelphia J. C. Schulz, of Wuerttemberg, was the first Lutheran pastor of whom we haveany knowledge. Educated in Strassburg, Schulz arrived in Philadelphia onSeptember 25, 1732. He also served New Hanover and New Providence. Atthe latter place the first entries in the parish register date back to1729, and the congregation numbered about one hundred communicantmembers when Muhlenberg took charge. In 1732 Pastor Schulz, accompaniedby two lay delegates, left for Europe to collect money, and, above all, to secure laborers from Halle, for the mission-work in Pennsylvania. These efforts terminated when Schulz was arrested in Germany fordisorderly conduct. Before leaving Pennsylvania, Schulz had ordainedJohn Caspar Stoever, a relative of Pastor J. C. Stoever, Sr. , inSpottsylvania, Va. , and placed him in charge of his congregations. Stoever, Jr. , had studied theology in Germany, and after his arrival inAmerica, 1728, had been active in mission-work among the Lutherans inPennsylvania, a labor which he zealously continued till his sudden deathin 1779, while confirming a class at Lebanon. Stoever's aversion toPietism at first kept him from uniting with Muhlenberg. It was 1763, fifteen years after its organization, before he became a member of thePennsylvania Ministerium. Concerning Stoever and the Agenda of 1748, Muhlenberg relates the following: "We were minded to employ the verywords of our Lord Jesus: Take and eat; this is the body of Jesus Christ, etc. Take and drink, this cup is the New Testament in the blood ofChrist, etc. At the baptism of children it was our intention to ask thesponsors, or godparents: Do you renounce in the name of this child, etc. ? To this the opponents [Stoever, Wagner, and their adherents]objected strenuously before we had finished. We therefore made a changeimmediately and used the words which their terrified consciencesdesired, _viz_. : This is the _true body_, etc. ; this is the _trueblood_, etc. , and in the formula of baptism: Peter, Paul, or Maria, dostthou renounce, etc. ?" Graebner comments as follows: "If the Wagners andStoevers [whom Muhlenberg severely censured in 1748] had committed noother crimes but that of compelling the 'united preachers' [from Halle]to take a decided Lutheran position, one might wish that their influencehad extended still farther. " In the following year, 1749, however, thePennsylvania Synod changed the formula of baptism so that the sponsorswere asked, "Do you renounce (believe) in the name of this child, etc. ?"(Graebner, 327. )

HENRY MELCHIOR MUHLENBERG. 

39. Self-sacrificing Halle Emissaries. --The help which Pastor Schulzand his laymen had requested from Halle in 1734 arrived nine yearslater. Francke's hesitation with regard to questions of salary, etc. , drew the matter out until Muhlenberg declared himself willing to acceptthe call to America without further conditions. He was the instrumentwhereby it pleased God to preserve the Lutheran Church in America fromcomplete deterioration and disintegration and from the imminent dangerof apostasy through Zinzendorf. Muhlenberg (Muehlenberg) was born atEimbeck, Hannover, September 6, 1711. In 1738 he graduated fromGoettingen. He spent one year teaching in the Orphan Home at Halle, andserved a congregation in Upper Lusatia from 1739 to 1741. In 1741 healso published his only work, a defense of Pietism against B. Mentzer. In the same year he accepted the call to the congregations inPennsylvania: Philadelphia, Providence, and New Hanover. September 23, 1742, he landed at Charleston, visited Bolzius and the Salzburgers inEbenezer, and arrived in Philadelphia, November 25, 1742. From the verybeginning Muhlenberg was successful in his opposition to Zinzendorf, who had come to America in 1741 to convert the Indians and to merge thepious of all churches in the _Unitas Fratrum_. Pretending to be aLutheran, he had wormed his way into the Lutheran congregation atPhiladelphia, assuming the title and functions of Inspector-General ofall the Lutheran churches in America. However, unmasked by Muhlenberg, he now, January, 1743, returned to Germany in disgrace. In spite ofmany other difficulties, Muhlenberg rapidly won recognition from allthe congregations. In 1745 he dedicated his first church inPhiladelphia. The _Hallesche Nachrichten_ contain vivid pictures, fromthe pens of Muhlenberg and his assistants, of their untiring, self-sacrificing, blessed, and constantly increasing missionaryactivity, which at the same time served the purpose of encouraging Halleto send additional laborers. The close of January, 1745, saw the arrivalof Peter Brunnholtz (who took charge of Philadelphia and Germantown) andof the two catechists Nicholaus Kurtz and J. H. Schaum, who at firstserved as assistants and were later on ordained as pastors. Muhlenbergwrote to Halle: "To be brief: the church which must be planted here isat a very critical juncture (Hier ist ecclesia plantanda in einer rechtkritischen junctura). Hence we ought to have experienced and strong men, able to stand in the breach and to dare with patience and self-denial. You, highly venerable fathers, know full well that I am not the man. ButI regard my dear colleague Brunnholtz as such a man, and wish that hehad two or three colaborers like himself; that would help us. God wouldeasily direct me to some smaller corner. " (290. ) In 1743 Muhlenberg sentTobias Wagner to the Palatines in Tulpehocken Creek, where GerhardHenkel had already preached, and where, in 1745, Wagner solemnized themarriage of Muhlenberg and the daughter of J. C. Weiser. Services wereconducted at this time also in Ohly, Cohenzi, Indianfield, Chester, andReading (where the Lutherans and the Reformed had erected a churchtogether). In 1745 Muhlenberg conducted a visitation at Raritan, inducedWolff to resign, sent them Kurtz and 1747 Schaum as temporarysupply-pastors, and finally, in 1748, induced the congregation to callJ. A. Weygand. Following the track of the Moravian Nyberg, who createdconfusion wherever he went, Muhlenberg secured a foothold also atLancaster in 1746, at York, and Conewago, in 1747, as well as inMonocacy and Frederick, Md. J. F. Handschuh (Handschuch), who arrivedfrom Halle in 1748, was put in charge of Lancaster. L. H. Schrenck andL. Raus arrived in 1749. The former was stationed in Upper Milford andSaccum, the latter was appointed vicar in Rheinbeck and Camp. F. Schultzand Heintzelmann came in 1751. The latter received an appointment inPhiladelphia and married Muhlenberg's daughter. Baugher (Bager) arrivedin 1752, and Gerock the year following. --Pastors and congregationswere imbued with one and the same spirit, and considered themselvesparts of one and the same church, consisting of the "Collegium Pastorum"on the one hand and the "United Congregations" on the other. 

40. Organizing Pennsylvania Synod. --To stablish the congregations, Muhlenberg, with five pastors and ten congregations, on August 26, 1748, organized the Pennsylvania Synod, then generally called "The UnitedCongregations" or "The United Pastors. " This event has been designatedby Dr. Graebner "the most important in the history of the AmericanLutheran Church of the eighteenth century. " From the very beginningMuhlenberg's three original congregations were called "The UnitedCongregations. " This name was extended also to the congregationssubsequently organized or served by Muhlenberg and his colaborers atGermantown, Lancaster, Tulpehocken, York, etc. And pastors andcongregations being imbued, as they were, with one and the same spirit, and considering themselves parts of one and the same church, consistingof "The College of Pastors (Collegium Pastorum)" on the one hand and"The United Congregations" on the other, it was but natural that theyshould unite in a regular synod with regular meetings. The year 1748was most opportune and suggestive for such an organization. PastorHartwick of Rhinebeck had come to Philadelphia. Nicholas Kurtz hadarrived in order to be ordained as pastor for the congregation atTulpehocken. The dedication of St. Michael's Church in Philadelphiabrought other representative Lutherans to the city. The Swedes wererepresented by Provost Sandin and Peter Kock (Koch), a trustee ofGloria Dei Church, who zealously advocated synodical connection betweenthe Germans and Swedes. Before the public services, Pastors Brunnholtz, Handschuh, and Hartwick met to examine Kurtz. His answers were approvedof in Halle as creditable even to candidates in Germany. On thefollowing day, Sunday, St. Michael's was dedicated. Provost Sandinheaded the procession from Brunnholtz's parsonage to the new church. "Come, Holy Spirit, God and Lord, " was sung. A letter from the Swedishpastor Tranberg, regretting his absence and congratulating thecongregation in English, was then read. The address emphasized that "thefoundation of this church was laid with the intention that theEvangelical Lutheran doctrine should be taught therein according to thefoundation of the prophets and apostles, and according to the UnalteredAugsburg Confession and the other symbolical books. " After singinganother hymn, six prayers were offered, two in Swedish by the Swedishpastors, and four in German by Brunnholtz, Hartwick, Handschuh, and Mr. Kock. After another hymn a child was baptized, and a sermon preached byHandschuh. Hereupon the ministers, with a few of the congregation, received the Lord's Supper. In the afternoon Hartwick preached theordination sermon. Then, the lay delegates standing in a semicircleabout the altar, Provost Sandin and the four German pastors ordainedKurtz. Muhlenberg read the liturgical formula. On Monday, August 26 (15Old Style), 1748, the first session of Synod was held, N. Kurtz, thenewly ordained pastor, delivering the opening sermon. 

41. First Session of Synod. --According to the minutes, written byBrunnholtz and signed by the four German pastors residing inPennsylvania and a number of lay delegates, the synod consisted of sixministers (including Sandin and Hartwick) and twenty-four delegates, exclusive of the church council of the Philadelphia congregation: fourlay delegates from Germantown, three from Providence, three from NewHanover, two from Upper Milford, one from Saccum, three fromTulpehocken, one from Nordkiel, six from Lancaster, and one fromEarlingtown. Peter Kock represented the Swedish laity. The congregationat York, in a letter, regretted the absence of representatives. Theorganization proceeded without the adoption of any formulatedconstitution. Though not formally elected, Muhlenberg, by virtue of hisfirst call and commission by the authorities in Halle, was president ofthe synod. When, at the second meeting of the synod, in 1749, Brunnholtz, on motion of Muhlenberg, was elected overseer of all theUnited Congregations, this was ignored by the authorities in Halle, and, Brunnholtz's health failing, the office was soon transferred toMuhlenberg, who exercised it for many years. At the first meeting, afterthe hymn, "Du suesse Lieb', schenk' uns deine Gunst, " was sung, Muhlenberg addressed the assembly, saying, in part: This union wasdesired for a long time. The effort made five years ago in the Swedishchurch was frustrated by Nyberg. Unity among us is necessary. Everymember in the congregation has children. In their interest elders arerequired to assist in making a good church order. For this purpose weare here assembled, and, God willing, shall meet annually. "Wepreachers, here present, " Muhlenberg emphasized, "have not run ofourselves, but have been called here and urged to go. We are bound torender account to God and to our consciences. We maintain connectionwith our fathers in Europe. We must not only care for ourselves, butalso for our descendants. " In part, Muhlenberg's remarks reflected onStoever, Streit (Streiter, as he is called in the minutes), Andreae, and Wagner. These ministers had not been invited to participate in theorganization of the synod, because, as a declaration put on record bysynod explains, "1. They, without reason, decry us [Muhlenberg and hisadherents] as Pietists; 2. Are not sent and have neither an internalnor an external call; 3. Are unwilling to observe a uniform order ofservice with us, each following the ceremonies of his country; 4. Anexperience of six years had taught Muhlenberg that their object wasnothing but bread; 5. They were subject to no consistory and gave noaccount of the exercise of their office. " The lay delegates werecalled upon to give a report concerning the efficiency of theirpastors, and their opinion concerning the new liturgy, which theyregarded as too long. Also the condition of the parochial schools wasinquired into. The conference with the laymen was adjourned Mondayafternoon, after which they dined together. The pastors then attended tobusiness generally regarded as belonging to them. Hartwick addressed theelders, wishing their congregations every blessing. The Swedish provostexpressed his desire to be a member of the body. But Peter Kock havingdied, no Swede attended the meeting in the following year. Seven annualmeetings were held by the United Congregations, the last at New Hanoverin 1754. Revived by Dr. Wrangel and Muhlenberg in 1760, this oldestLutheran synod in America exists to the present day as "The EvangelicalLutheran Ministerium of Pennsylvania. " (Graebner, 301 ff. )

FURTHER ACTIVITY AND DEATH OF MUHLENBERG. 

42. Discouraging Conditions. --The joyous events of 1748 inPhiladelphia were followed by disappointments to such an extent thatafter 1754 the synodical meetings were abandoned till 1760, when, asstated, Provost Von Wrangel revived the synod in the interest ofestablishing a German-Swedish organization. The failure was caused byvarious discouragements: the deaths of Heintzelman and Brunnholtz; thetroubles in the congregations of Handschuh at Lancaster, Germantown, andPhiladelphia; the opposition of Stoever and other anti-Pietists, whomthe synod in 1748 marked as undesirables; charges against Muhlenberg andhis colaborers, that they were but secret agents of Zinzendorf, etc. ;and above all the entirely insufficient support in men and moneys fromHalle. The difficulties and discouraging conditions under whichMuhlenberg and his assistants were laboring, appear from the urgentappeal, signed by Muhlenberg, Brunnholtz, and Handschuh, adopted by thesynod in 1754, and sent to both London and Halle. Dr. Jacobs writes: "Itis one of the most important papers in the Halle 'Reports. ' The entirefield is surveyed, the history of German immigration traced, and thereligious condition of the immigrants described. The manner in whichother denominations and the Swedish Lutherans are aided by foreign helpis shown, and a very discouraging contrast is drawn. The condition ofeach parish is then candidly and at length set forth. Three greatdangers they see threatening the inner life of congregations, _viz_. :the assumption, by the leading men of particular parishes, of the rightto dictate, as a compensation for the perhaps greater amount expected ofthem for the pastor's support; the lawlessness of immigrants who abusethe freedom of the country, want to break through all rules, and revileall good order, the regular ministry, and divine service as papacyitself; the introduction of worthless men into the country as pretendedministers by the Newlanders, who sell their services from the ship toLutherans willing to be deceived in this way. The United Pastors, theyurge, are almost powerless to resist. The people are, as a rule, poor. In a congregation of three hundred members scarcely fifteen can be foundable to contribute toward the building of churches; and theresponsibility for debts incurred must, therefore, as a rule, fall uponthe pastors themselves. Many thousands of Lutheran people are scatteredthroughout North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, etc. No provision is made for the traveling expenses of the pastors orsupplies for their places, if these Lutherans are cared for. People comeoften one and even two hundred miles to hear a sermon and receive theSacrament, and weep bitterly over the destitution, which no oneendeavors to remove. They [the signers of the appeal] contrast thecondition of a pastor in the New with that of one in the Old World. Thelatter has the assurance of necessary support, of protection in hisoffice, of all needed buildings, of provision for the proper instructionof his people. The former has none of these. Among ten families there isscarcely one or two that contribute according to their promises. Thesects diffuse among the people the ideas, to which they lend too readyassent, that the pastors as well as their hearers ought to work at atrade, cut wood, sow and reap during the week, and then preach to themgratuitously on Sunday. They hear such things wherever they go--inpapers, in company, on their journeys, and at the taverns. The pictureis a very dark one. The pastors feel that they do not see how it ispossible for them to advance; and yet to recede or even to be stationarymust be fatal. " Jacobs continues: "Such representations probably hadsomething to do with the impression current for a while at Halle thatMuhlenberg was visionary and eccentric, so strange do his statementsseem to those incompetent from personal observation to appreciate theurgency of the situation in Pennsylvania. If there was any time when, even for a moment, Muhlenberg entertained the suggestion of transferringthe care of the Lutherans of Pennsylvania to the Church of England, itwas only at some such time when he and his associates in the synod wereallowed to struggle on under such burdens almost unaided, while unionwith the Church of England would at once have provided all missionariessent thither with an appropriation almost sufficient for support, andwith far better protection against the prevalent disorder. If theLutherans in Europe could not meet the demands of the hour, we canpardon the thought, which never became a fixed purpose, that, soonerthan have the thousands for whose care he felt himself responsibleneglected, some other mode of relief would have to be sought. " (246 ff. )

43. Further Activity and Death. --In May, 1751, as related above, Muhlenberg became pastor of the Dutch congregation in New York. From1753 to 1761 he once more labored in New Hanover and Providence. Duringthis period he made visits to Raritan (1757, 1758 for nine weeks, 1759with his family, again in October, 1759, and in January, 1760), hisassistant J. H. Schaum in the mean time representing him in Providence. October 29, 1761 Muhlenberg returned to Philadelphia to allay thestrife which had broken out. Here he lived in his own home, andmaintained an intimate intercourse with Dr. Wrangel. By the newcongregational constitution, which his congregation subscribed to in1762, and which, in the course of time, was adopted by nearly all thecongregations in Pennsylvania, Muhlenberg's influence was extended farand wide. In 1769 he dedicated the new Zion Church at Philadelphia. (The national memorial services of Benjamin Franklin [1790], ofWashington [1799], and of Abraham Lincoln [1865] were held in thischurch. ) September 8, 1774, he arrived in Charleston, accompanied byhis wife and daughter, where the congregation had requested him tosettle their quarrel, which he did with skill and success. His realgoal, however, was Ebenezer, where he, by order of the authorities inEurope, was to conduct a visitation and to repair the harm done byTriebner. Here he drafted a new constitution, which was adopted by theSalzburgers and resulted in a temporary peace. On February 6, 1775, hebegan his journey back to Pennsylvania. When the vestry of hiscongregation at Philadelphia in 1779, without further ado, elected Kunzeto be his successor, Muhlenberg conducted himself with dignity. Thecongregation rescinded her action, whereupon Muhlenberg resigned, andwas given a pension of 100 Pounds annually and granted permission topreach occasionally in the church. As early as 1748 Muhlenberg hadcompiled an Agenda, which at first was circulated in manuscript, and wasprinted in 1786 in a somewhat modified form. The only objection which, in 1748, the congregations raised to the Agenda was that "public worshipwould last too long, especially in the cold winter months"; wherefore"they requested that it be abbreviated. " In 1782 Muhlenberg also did thechief work in preparing the hymnal, which was printed in 1784. In thesame year Pennsylvania Academy conferred upon him the degree of Doctorof Divinity. Muhlenberg accepted the title, but requested his friendsnot to make any use of it in their intercourse with him. Muhlenberg diedOctober 7, 1787. Taking leave of his friend for this life, he spoke ofthe journey ahead to his true fatherland, repeating the words of thehymn: "Ich hab' vor mir ein' schwere Reis' Zu dir in's Himmels Paradeis, Das ist mein rechtes Vaterland, Darauf du hast dein Blut gewandt. "Shortly before his death he prayed the stanza: "Mach' End', o Herr, mach' Ende An aller unsrer Not, Staerk' unsre Fuess' und Haende Und lassbis in den Tod Uns allzeit deiner Pflege Und Treu' empfohlen sein, Sogehen unsre Wege Gewiss zum Himmel ein. " Muhlenberg's funeral wasattended by eight Lutheran pastors, the Reformed minister Schlatter, anda great concourse of people, so that Pastor J. L. Voigt was compelled todeliver his oration in the open. Memorial services were conducted in NewYork and in many other places, as well as in almost all congregationsbelonging to the synod. In Muhlenberg the greatest man whom God hadgiven to the Lutheran Church of America in the eighteenth century, "thepatriarch of the American Lutheran Church, " had passed away. His bodywas interred just outside the walls of the church in Trappe. A marbleslab over his grave bears the inscription: "Qualis et quantus fuerit, Non ignorabunt sine lapide Futura Saecula. (Future ages will know hischaracter and importance without a stone. )" (484. 521. )

44. Tributes to, and Estimates of, Muhlenberg. --In his letter to Dr. Freylinghausen in Halle, Muhlenberg himself reveals the pious and humbleframe of his mind as follows: "To-day, December 6, 1762, it is fortyyears since I set foot in Philadelphia for the first time; and I believethat my end is no longer removed very far. Had I during these fortyyears served my Lord as faithfully as Jeremiah, I could look forward toa more joyful end. But I must now account it grace and mercyunparalleled if the gracious Redeemer, for the sake of Hisall-sufficient merits, will not regard my mistakes and weaknesses, butreceive me graciously. " Speaking of Muhlenberg's faithfulness, Dr. E. A. W. Krauss remarks: "Muhlenberg continued faithful in things both smalland great, even after he had received assistance from Germany, and onecoworker after another began to labor at his side. Before long hisactivity had exceeded the sphere of his three congregations. On requesthe visited the scattered Lutherans in Germantown, Tulpehocken, Lancaster, York, Raritan, Frederick. He was the counselor of poorlyserved congregations, the judge in their quarrels. Confidence waseverywhere reposed in him. "By reason of his talent for organizing, hiserudition, but, above all, his unselfishness, his modesty, dignity, andpiety, he was in universal demand, and was compelled to take the lead, which he also kept till his blessed departure from this world. "(_Lebensbilder_, 694. ) Dr. H. E. Jacobs sketches Muhlenberg's characteras follows: "Depth of religious conviction, extraordinary inwardness ofcharacter, apostolic zeal for the spiritual welfare of individuals, absorbing devotion to his calling and all its details, were among hismost marked characteristics. These were combined with an intuitivepenetration and extended width of view, a statesmanlike grasp of everysituation in which he was placed, an almost prophetic foresight, coolness, and discrimination of judgment, and peculiar gifts fororganization and administration. " Dr. A. Graebner writes: "The taskwhich Muhlenberg found set before him when he entered upon the wild anddisordered field which had been allotted to him here, was such that, ifany one in Halle had been able to tell him and had told him what wasawaiting him in America, he would hardly have found the necessarycourage and cheerfulness to lay his hand to the plow which was toconvert this wild bramblepatch into an arable field. Still, where coulda second man have been found at that time who would have proven equalto the task in the same measure as Henry Melchior Muhlenberg? Richlyendowed with a robust physique and a pious mind, with faithfulness inmatters great and small, with cheerful, but firm courage, with restlessactivity and a spirit of progressive enterprise, with wisdom andprudence, with the ability to inform himself quickly and to accommodatehimself to the circumstances, and, in addition to this, with thenecessary independence of volition and action, --characteristicsseldom found combined in one and the same person, --Muhlenberg wassplendidly equipped, both as to degree and variety, with the giftswhich a missionary and an organizer has need of. And from the veryfirst day of his planting and watering God gave a rich increase to hislabors, so rich, that Muhlenberg could say with a grateful heart: 'Itseems as though now the time had come that God would visit us withspecial grace here in Pennsylvania. ' Furthermore, self-exaltation wasutterly foreign to him. 'God does not need me, ' he would say; 'He cancarry out His work also without me. ' Likewise, he was ever contentalthough he never saw much money. During the first half-year of hisstay in Philadelphia he earned his board by giving music lessons. "(279. ) Dr. A. Spaeth: "Though there were Lutheran congregations andpastors among the Dutch on the Hudson, and among the Swedes on theDelaware, as early as the first half of the seventeenth century, and, later on, among the numerous German immigrants, still the realorganization of the Lutheran Church in America, on the foundation of thefathers, only dates from the middle of the eighteenth century, and isdue to the Rev. Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, by common consent thepatriarch of the Lutheran Church on this continent, through whoseefforts the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, 'The Mother Synod, ' wasestablished in 1748. In missionary zeal, in pastoral tact and fidelity, in organizing ability and personal piety, he had no superior. " (_C. P. Krauth_, 1, 316. )

MUHLENBERG'S CONFESSIONALISM. 

45. Unqualified Subscription to Entire Book of Concord. --Like the"Fathers in Halle, " Muhlenberg, self-evidently, desired to be aLutheran and to build a Lutheran Church in America. He himself says, ina manner somewhat touchy: "I defy Satan and every lying spirit to lay atmy door anything which contradicts the teaching of our apostles or theSymbolical Books. I have often said and written that I have foundneither error, nor mistake, nor any defect in our Evangelical doctrine, based, as it is, on the apostles and prophets, and exhibited in ourSymbolical Books. " _Dr. Spaeth:_ "The standards of the Lutheran Churchof the sixteenth century were accepted and endorsed by Muhlenbergwithout reservation, and in his whole ministerial work he endeavored tocome up to this standard, as he had solemnly pledged himself in hisordination vow before the theological faculty of the university atLeipzig, on August 24, 1739, which committed to him the office of'teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments according to therule given in the writings of the prophets and apostles, the sum ofwhich is contained in those three symbols, the Apostolic, Nicene, andAthanasian, in the Augsburg Confession laid before Emperor Charles V, A. D. 1530, in the Apology of the same, in Dr. Luther's Large and SmallCatechism, in the Articles subscribed to in the Smalcald Convention, and in the Formula of Concord. He solemnly promised that he wouldpropose to his hearers what would be conformed and consentient to thesewritings, and that he would never depart from the sense which theygive. ' (Dr. W. J. Mann's _The Conservatism of Henry MelchiorMuehlenberg_, in the _Lutheran Church Review_, January, 1888. ) And thiswas the position not of the patriarch alone, but of his colaborers, ofthe whole Synod of Pennsylvania, which he organized, and of the sister-or daughter-synod of New York, during the lifetime of Muhlenberg andKunze. 'Those fathers were very far from giving the Lutheran Church, asthey organized it on this new field of labor, a form and character inany essential point different from what the Lutheran Church was in theOld World, and especially in Germany. They retained not only the olddoctrinal standards, but also the old traditional elements and forms ofworship; the church-year with its great festivals, its Gospel- andEpistle-lessons, the Liturgy, the rite of Confirmation, preparatoryservice for the Lord's Supper, connected with the confession of sinsand absolution. Their doctrinal position was unmistakably Lutheran, inthe sense in which Lutheranism is historically known, and is somethingindividual and distinct, and as such stands in opposition to Romanism onthe one hand, and to Zwingli, Calvin, and all other so-called Protestantparties on the other. Those fathers were admitted to the ministry oncondition of their own declaration that they were in harmony with theConfessio Augustana Invariata, and with all the other Symbolical Booksof the Lutheran Church. They demanded of those whom they admitted to thesacred office the same condition. They allowed no organization orconstitutions of congregations without demanding the acknowledgment ofall the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church as the doctrinalbasis. '" (1, 317. ) In a letter dated June 14, 1774, and addressed to oneof the members of the Lutheran congregation at Charleston, S. C. , someof whose troubles and difficulties he had endeavored to adjust, Muhlenberg stated the rule of his own personal course as follows:"During the thirty-two years of my sojourning in America, time and againoccasions were given me to join the Episcopal Church, and to receivefour or live times more salary than my poor German fellow-members of theLutheran faith gave me; but I preferred reproach in and with my peopleto the treasures in Egypt. " (Jacobs, 298. ) The confirmation form of theAgenda contained the question: "Do you intend to remain true to thetruth of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as you have learned to know itand solemnly confessed it?" (G. , 498. )

46. Pledge of Pastors and Congregations. --In like manner as Muhlenberghimself, all his colaborers and congregations were pledged to theLutheran confessions. The religious oath which Brunnholtz took reads, inpart, as follows: "I, Peter Brunnholtz, do solemnly swear and before GodAlmighty do take an oath upon my soul . . . That I will abide by thepure and unadulterated Word of God, as, according to the sense of theSpirit, it has been diligently compiled from Holy Scripture against allerrorists in the three chief Symbols, and especially also in the trueLutheran church-books, as the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, itsApology, the Smalcald Articles, the two Catechisms of Luther, and in thespecific Formula of Concord, and that I will teach according to them. "(G. , 283. ) In similar fashion, Kurtz, Weygand, and all pastors solemnlypromised to discharge their office "according to the pure doctrine ofthe apostles and prophets and all our Synodical Books. " (_Lehre u. Wehre_, 1856, 120. ) According to the Agenda of 1748 the catechumenspromised faithfulness unto death "to the truth of the EvangelicalLutheran Church which they had solemnly confessed. " (488. ) From the veryoutset, Muhlenberg also had the congregations subscribe to articles inwhich they confessed themselves to God's Word and the Lutheran Symbols. (299. ) The congregations, in agreement with the constitution of 1762, pledged their pastors to preach "the Word of God according to thefoundation of the apostles and prophets and in conformity with theUnaltered Augsburg Confession. " True, the Pennsylvania Synod, at itsorganization in 1748, did not draw up any special articles ofconfession, yet, according to the Agenda which had been previouslyadopted, it was regarded as self-evident that all pastors andcongregations subscribe to the Lutheran Symbols. The synodicalconstitution of 1778, which was entered in the official book of recordbegun in 1781, contained the following provisions: "As to his life andteaching, every pastor is to be found in consonance with the Word ofGod and our Symbolical Books. " "In case complaints are lodged againstteachers, the investigation must concern itself with: 1. Express errorsagainst the clear sense of Holy Writ and our Symbolical Books offaith. " (529. ) Muhlenberg's devotion to the Lutheran doctrine appearsalso from the interest and zeal which he showed in furthering theinstitution of catechetical instruction and in establishing parochialschools. One of the chief questions to engage the attention of thefirst convention of Synod in 1748 was, "What is the condition of theschools?" Yet, though Muhlenberg, in the manner described, stood forconfessional Lutheranism, it cannot be maintained convincingly that hisinfluence in this direction was sound and salubrious in every respect. His was not the genuine Lutheranism of Luther, but the modifiedLutheranism, then advocated in Europe and Germany generally, notably inHalle and the circles of the Pietists, a Lutheranism inoculated withlegalism, subjectivism, indifferentism, and unionism. Muhlenberg'sconfessionalism was of the historic kind, that is to say, reverence forthe venerable Lutheran symbols rather than the living power of Lutherantruth itself, directing, permeating, and shaping one's entireecclesiastical activity both as to teaching and practise. 

MUHLENBBERG'S PIETISM. 

47. Subjectivism of Halle Pietists. --Following are some of theaberrations of the Pietists in Halle: That doctrine was of minorimportance for, and as compared with, piety; that sanctification was notcontained in, but must be added to, faith; that repentance andconversion were urged in such a manner as if man himself could forcethem; that such Christians as could not tell of certain peculiarpenitential struggles and sensations of grace were regarded asunconverted; that the assurance of salvation was not based on theobjective Word of God, but on subjective marks, notably such us werefound in those converted in the circles of the Pietists; that theafflicted, instead of being comforted with the Gospel of theunconditional pardon of the entire world, were bidden to feel the pulseof their own piety; that such as did not manifest the symptoms ofconversion _a la_ Halle, were judged uncharitably and looked down uponas not being truly converted; that the "revived" and "awakened" wereregarded as the real church in the Church, the _ecclesiolae inecclesia_. And what of the pietism of the Halle emissaries inPennsylvania? Dr. Mann declared concerning Muhlenberg and his co-laborers: "Their pietism was truly Lutheran piety, a warm-hearted, devout, practical Lutheranism. " (Spaeth, 1, 318. ) However, traces of themorbid and infected Lutheranism cultivated by Pietists, were but tooapparent also in Muhlenberg and the associates carefully selected forhim by Francke and Freylinghausen in Halle. The piety for which theystrove so earnestly and zealously was, in more than one respect, neithertruly evangelical nor soundly Lutheran, but of a legalistic andsubjective nature. They delighted in evangelistic sermons designed toconvert men in the manner of Halle. They endeavored to ascertain whowere the truly converted in their congregations. As a standard theyapplied their own experiences and as models the Halle converts. Insteadof immediately comforting terrified sinners with the full consolation ofthe Gospel, they proved them "according to the marks of the state ofgrace. " _Graebner:_ "While Diaconus in Grosshennersdorf, Muhlenberg hadalready published a polemical tract against Dr. Balthasar Mentzer, whohad attacked Pietism, and had pictured the time before the rise ofPietism as a time of darkness, in which God had 'set up a true lighthere and there, until at last the faithful servants of the Lord, thesainted Spener, Francke, Breithaupt, Anton, and others arose' and 'againbrought forth the Bible. ' At that time Muhlenberg advocated privatemeetings for souls who had been 'awakened from the sleep of sin, ' towhich the Burgomaster of Eimbeck referred when he sent word toMuhlenberg 'to cease the pietistic conventicles, as they were againstthe law of the land. '" (315. )

48. Converts, Prayer-Meetings, Revivals. --Brunnholtz, whose work washighly praised by Muhlenberg, says of his parishioners, whom, nevertheless, he admitted to the Lord's Table, that, for the greaterpart, they were "totally blind and dead, " people who had not yetexperienced any "true change of heart"; that in present-daycongregations one must "be content with the gleanings while looking andwaiting for traces of divine activity, where, when, in whom, andwhether the Spirit can give a rich harvest. " It is only too true, hecontinues, "that the great multitude, both old and young, are stillburied in carnal-mindedness and in great ignorance, and stand in needof a true conversion. " "There are indeed a few, some also in my twocongregations, concerning whom I have the well-founded hope that theyhave been awakened from the spiritual sleep of sin and are being drawnto the Son by the Father. " "With regard to my congregation here inPhiladelphia, I am not able to boast very much of the majority and ofthe outwardly great number, since there is still much corruption amongthem. The Lord, however, has granted me a small remnant, who have beenawakened by the Word, and who earnestly seek after the paths of peace, permitting themselves quietly, but in earnestness, to be prepared forthe rest of God. " Muhlenberg says: "True repentance and conversionaccording to the Word of God is a difficult matter and a rareoccurrence. " "We continued our labors upon the inner and outwardupbuilding of the Church, because a small, divinely sanctified seed wasnoticed among them. " What Brunnholtz and Muhlenberg looked for in thecommunicant members of their congregations whom they regarded asunconverted were, no doubt, the Halle symptoms. In 1748 submissivenessto be guided by the pastor was numbered among these marks. When theelders of the congregation in Lancaster opposed their pastor andinsisted upon their opinion, which was not wrong by any means, they wereadmonished "to convert themselves with all their hearts, since otherwisethey could not properly wait on their office, and the pastor's trials inthe congregation would become too great. " (319. ) The "small remnant ofthe converted" were nurtured by the pastors in "special prayer-meetingsin the houses. " (320. ) This was the practise of Brunnholtz inPhiladelphia. And Muhlenberg wrote from New York in 1751: "I havelearned that among the Reformed here there is a small body of awakenedsouls who hunger and thirst after righteousness. It is said that thisawakening was brought about by the younger of the two Reformed pastors. My hostess also belongs to the Reformed congregation. Some years ago shewas so terrified by the opinion of the unconditional decree of God thata hysterical malady set in with which she is still somewhat afflicted. Isearched for the marks of the state of grace. She answered sensibly, which gave me hope that she is in a state of grace. My host desired meto go into a private chamber with him and his weak spouse, and to prayin secret, which we did. " "At the close of the day my dear host againdesired that I pray with him and his wife in private, since she therebyhad experienced strength and relief on the former occasion. On the 30thof July I was taken to the pious English merchant, who had some awakenedsouls with him. They sang a psalm, read a chapter from a devotionalbook, and urged me to pray at the close. After a time the dear soulsreturned to their homes, and I remained with him till eleven o'clock andemployed the time in pleasant and edifying conversation with him and hisgodly wife. " "August 1, Saturday evening, I preached penitential sermonsboth in the German and Dutch languages. . . . The church was well filledon this occasion, and the parting seemed to touch and sadden theawakened and well-meaning souls. " Weygand continued the work in thespirit of Muhlenberg, conducting "private hours" with the "awakenedsouls, " and finding particular delight in some souls who had beenawakened by Wesley. When Whitefield returned to Pennsylvania in 1702, Dr. Wrangel entered into relations with him and began to conductprayer-meetings in a private house in the city, and when the room inthat house could no longer contain the people, Muhlenberg's congregationgranted him the use of their church. When not prevented by other duties, Muhlenberg regularly attended these English devotional hours. Thecongregational constitution of 1762 especially reserved for the pastorthe right to "conduct hours of edification, exhortation, and prayer inchurches and schools, on week-days or evenings, as necessity mightdictate, and as strength and circumstances might permit. " (383. 425. 440. 485. ) Dr. J. H. C. Helmuth was the first to report on arevivalistic awakening in his congregation at Lancaster, in 1773. Lateron, 1811, Helmuth, in the name of the Pennsylvania Synod, wrote aletter to Paul Henkel, then on his missionary tours in Ohio, warninghim not to participate in camp-meetings, "if he should come into contactwith similar aberrations from our Lutheran ways. " But even at this timeSynod did not take a decided stand against revivalistic enthusiasm. Already in the first decades of the nineteenth century reports, comingout of the Synod, such as the following were heard: "Here the fire isalso burning. " "Here we behold miracles of God's grace; everywhere wefind the wounded, the weeping, the moaning, and those who are praying. Some cried out, 'My God, what shall I do that I may be saved?' Othersasked with tears, 'Can I still be saved?'" (549. ) In 1810 the NorthCarolina Synod resolved to have Philip Henkel try out a revival, sincesuch awakenings were also to be desired among Lutherans. During therevival agitation from 1830 to 1850, the English Lutheran churchescaught the contagion in great numbers. They introduced emotionalpreaching, the mourners' bench, protracted meetings, and, vying with thefanatical sects, denounced as spiritually dead formalists all whoadhered to the old ways of Lutheranism. In its issue of March 21, 1862, the _Lutheran Observer_ declared that the "Symbolism" of the OldLutherans in St. Louis meant the death of the Lutheran Church, whichnothing but revivals were able to save. (_L. U. W_. 1862, 152; 1917, 374. ) Muhlenberg's Pietism had helped to prepare the way for thisMethodistic aberration. 

MUHLENBERG'S HIERARCHICAL TENDENCIES. 

49. Government of and by the Ministers. --A clear conception of thedoctrines of the Church and of the holy ministry was somethingMuhlenberg did not possess. Hence his congregations also were noteducated to true independence and to the proper knowledge and exerciseof their priestly rights and duties. Dr. Mann says of Muhlenberg and hiscoworkers: "These fathers were very far from giving the Lutheran Church, as they organized it on this new field of labor, a form and character inany essential point different from what the Lutheran Church was in theOld World, and especially in Germany. " (Spaeth, _C. P. Krauth_, 1, 317. )The pastor ruled the elders; the pastor and the elders ruled thecongregation; the synod ruled the pastor, the elders, and thecongregation; the College of Pastors ruled the synod and the localpastor together with his elders and his congregation; and all of thesewere subject to, and ruled by, the authorities in Europe. The localcongregations were taught to view themselves, not as independent, but asparts of, and subject to, the body of United Congregations and Pastors. The constitution for congregations simply presupposed that acongregation was a member of, and subordinate to, Synod. (499. ) Thisappears also from a document signed by the elders of Tulpehocken andNorthkill (Nordkiel), August 24, 1748, two days before the organizationof the Pennsylvania Synod. In it the elders, in the name of thecongregations, state and promise: "In this it always remains presupposedthat we with the United Congregations constitute one whole Ev. Lutherancongregation, which acknowledges and respects as her lawful pastors allthe pastors who constitute the College of Pastors (Collegium Pastorum)and remains in the closest connection with them, as being our regularteachers. . . . Accordingly, we have the desire to be embodied andincorporated in the United Congregations in Pennsylvania, and to berecognized and received by them as brethren and members of a specialcongregation of the Ev. Lutheran Church, and consequently to share inthe pastoral care of the College of all the Rev. Pastors of the UnitedCongregations. In accordance herewith we most publicly and solemnlydesire, acknowledge and declare all the Rev. Pastors of the UnitedChurch-Congregations to be our pastors and ministers (Seelsorger undHirten); we also give them complete authority to provide for the welfareof our souls, how and through whom, also as long as, they choose. Wefurthermore promise to regard the Rev. College of Pastors of the Ev. Lutheran Congregations in Pennsylvania as a lawful and regularpresbyterium and ministerium and particularly as our pastors- andministers-in-chief, also to respect and regard, them as such, withoutwhose previously known advice and consent we do, order, resolve, orchange nothing; hence to have nothing to do with any [other] pastor, noreven, without their previously known advice and consent, to undertakeanything in important church-matters with the pastor whom they have sentto us; on the contrary, to approve of and with all our powers to observeand execute whatever, in church-matters of our own and thecongregations, the whole Rev. College of Pastors will resolve, andproperly indicate and make known to us. Furthermore we promise torecognize, receive, respect, honor and hear the teacher [minister] asour lawful and divinely called teacher as long as the Rev. College ofPastors will see fit to leave him with us; nor to make any opposition incase they should be pleased for important reasons to call him away andto put another in his place; moreover, to receive and regard hissuccessor with equal love and duty. We furthermore promise, if (whichGod forfend) a misunderstanding or separation should arise between thewhole congregation or part of it and the teacher, or between members ofthe congregation, to report this immediately to the Rev. College ofPastors, and to await their decision, and to abide by it. " (301 f. )_Graebner:_ "One's indignation is roused when reading how the elders ofthe Lancaster congregation were treated at the first synod. These mendefended the by no means improper demand of their congregation that suchas had fallen away to the sects and again returned should subscribe tothe constitution of the congregation before they once more wererecognized as members. In spite of the opinion of the assembly and theutterly wrong admonition 'to leave it to their pastor, ' the elders'adhered to their opinion. ' Immediately their conversion is questioned, and 'all the elders who have not yet been thoroughly converted areadmonished to convert themselves with all their heart. ' The remark ofthe minutes, 'They kept silence, ' conveys the impression that the rebukehad been merited, and that the cut was felt. " (320. ) According to theconstitution for congregations, subscribed to October 18, 1762, byMuhlenberg and Handschuh and 270 members of their congregations, thegrades of admonition and church discipline were: 1. Admonition by thepreacher alone; 2. Admonition by the preacher in the presence of theelders and wardens; 3. Expulsion before or by the whole church council. (402. ) The same constitution contains the provision: If any deacon orelder who has been elected to perform this arduous duty refuses toaccept the office without sufficient reasons, "he is not to be excuseduntil he has made a considerable contribution to the church treasury. "(490. ) At synod the pastors ruled supreme. The lay delegates, consistingof the elders of the congregations, merely reported to Synod, whenasked, concerning the work, fidelity, and efficiency of their pastors, the parochial schools, etc. , and presented requests to Synod. But theyhad no voice in her decisions. In the common assembly of the pastors andlaymen no vote was taken. The _Lutheran Cyclopedia_ says: "Thedeliberations were exclusively those of the pastors, while the laydelegates were present only to furnish the needed information concerninglocal conditions and the fidelity of pastors. " (493. ) Furthermore, theministerium, the college of pastors, conferred the office and madepastors through ordination, a rite considered essential to the ministry, and without which no one was regarded a lawful and full-fledged pastor. Thus, for instance, in the case of J. A. Weygand it was held that he wasgiven the right to perform all the functions pertaining to his office, not by the call of the congregation which he had accepted, but by hissubsequent ordination. (432. )

50. Obedience to Ministerium and Fathers in Halle. --In the ordinationthe pastors were pledged to obey the Ministerium. In Weygand's call theclause was embodied, "that he would submit to the investigation andjudgment of the United Pastors and the Venerable Fathers" in Halle. (452. ) The manner in which Kurtz was bound appears from the followingpoints of the "Revers" which he had to sign before his ordination in1748: "2. To consider my congregation nothing but a part of the UnitedCongregations. . .. 4. To introduce no ceremonies into the public worshipor into the administration of the Sacraments other than those which havebeen introduced by the College of Pastors of the United Congregations, also to use no other book of forms than the one which will be assignedto me by them. 5. To undertake nothing of importance alone nor with theassistance of the church-council, except it have been previouslycommunicated to the Reverend College of Pastors, and their opinion havebeen obtained, as well as to abide by their good counsel and advice. 6. To render a verbal or written account of my pastorate at the demand ofthe Reverend College of Pastors. 7. To keep a diary and daybook and torecord therein official acts and remarkable occurrences. 8. Should theycall me hence, to accept the call, and not to resist. " (305. ) Before hisordination Pastor J. H. Schaum had to sign a "Revers" and, with ahandclasp, seal the promise to the United Pastors that he as theiradjunct "would be faithful and obedient to them. " To the congregationsthe Ministerium did not only prescribe the liturgy, but appointed andremoved their pastors as they saw fit. Pastor Schaum's call to New Yorkwas signed by the four pastors, Muhlenberg, Brunnholtz, Handschuh, andKurtz as their own vocation, in their own name, not in the name of thecongregation. (327. ) The congregation at Lancaster desired Kurtz astheir pastor instead of Handschuh, whom the Ministerium was planning tosend to them. Muhlenberg, however, reports: "We bade them consider thisand demanded a short answer, giving them to understand that, if a singleone of them would be restive and dissatisfied with our advice andarrangement, we would consent to give them neither the one nor theother, but would turn to the other congregations still vacant and leavethe dust to them. They must consider it a special favor that we had cometo them first. " Graebner comments on this as follows: "One can safelysay that there could be found to-day in all America not a singleLutheran pastor or congregation who would consent to concede to a synodsuch powers as Pastor Kurtz and the congregation at Tulpehocken yieldedto the 'United Pastors' in 1748. " (321. ) The superiors of the UnitedPastors and their congregations were the "Fathers in Europe. " They hadcommissioned them, and to them they were responsible. All decisions ofSynod in doctrinal, liturgical, and governmental questions were subjectto the advice and approval of the authorities in Halle. When the churchcouncil of the congregation in Philadelphia sent a humble petition tothe Synod in 1750, requesting permission to retain the services ofPastor Brunnholtz for themselves, they received the answer: We have noright to make changes without the previous knowledge and permission ofthe "Fathers in Europe. " (330. ) In order to ordain Weygand, Muhlenberghad to get permission from the "Fathers in Europe. " (432. ) Even suchpastors as Stoever and Wagner, who did not unite with the Ministerium, were by Muhlenberg designated as "such as had run of themselves, " as"so-called pastors, " who had "neither an inner nor an outward call, " and"who were concerned about nothing but their daily bread. " And why?Because, according to Muhlenberg, they had not "been sent" (by theMinisterium or the Fathers); because they were not subject to aconsistory, did not render account of their pastorates, and would notobserve the same order with those who had come from Halle. (311. )Concerning Weygand, who arrived in 1748, Muhlenberg reports: "I askedhim what he was now going to do in Pennsylvania, whether he intended tobe for us or against us; if he desired to be with us, it would benecessary for us first to obtain permission from our Venerable Fathers. If, however, he intended to be against us, he might come on, weentertained no fear, as we had already encountered such as had run ofthemselves. He answered, 'God forfend!' He would not side with theMinisterium, to which men belonged like Valentine Kraft, Andrew Stoever, Wagner, and the like, though they had requested him to join them; that, on the other hand, he would not be in our way either, but rather goelsewhere and begin a school at some place or another. " (431. 322. )

51. Constitution of 1792. --The new constitution, adopted by thePennsylvania Synod in 1792, though granting a modified suffrage to laydelegates in all important questions, left the synod what it had been, abody governed by the clergy. Dr. Graebner says: "It has been pointed outhow this [hierarchical] trait plainly appeared already when thePennsylvania Synod was founded; later on we meet it everywhere and inall synods organized prior to the General Synod. According to theconception generally prevailing a synod had its real foundation, itsessential part, not in the congregations, but in the preachers. Thisidea governed their thinking and speaking. The 'preachers of the Stateof Ohio united with some of the preachers in Pennsylvania living nearestto them, and established a conference or synod of their own. ' Some'preachers west of the Susquehanna' were granted their petition of beingpermitted to form a synod. In agreement herewith they preferred to speakof a synod according to its chief and fundamental part, as a'ministerium. ' The constitution of the Pennsylvania Synod began: 'WeEvangelical Lutheran preachers in Pennsylvania and the neighboringStates, by our signatures to this constitution, acknowledging ourselvesas a body, name this union of ours The German Evangelical LutheranMinisterium in Pennsylvania and the neighboring States, and ourindividual meetings A Ministerial Assembly. ' Lay delegates of thecongregations, though admitted to the synodical conventions inPennsylvania and at other places, were nowhere recognized as membershaving equal rights with the ministers. It was as late as 1792 that thelay delegates obtained the right to vote in Pennsylvania, and even thenonly with restrictions. In the affairs of greatest import (doctrinalmatters, admission of new members, etc. ) they were privileged neither tospeak nor to vote. On this point the ministerial order of thePennsylvania Synod declared: 'Lay delegates who have a right to voteshall sit together at one place in the assembly; they are privileged tooffer motions, and to give their opinion and cast their votes in allquestions submitted for decision and determination, except in matterspertaining to the learning of a candidate or a catechist, to questionsof orthodoxy and heterodoxy, the admission to, and expulsion from, theministerium, and other, similar cases, for the ministerial assembly hascognizance of such as these. ' The constitution of the New YorkMinisterium contained the same provision, chap. 7, §4: 'Each laydelegate shall have a right to take part in the debates of the House, tooffer resolutions, and to vote on all questions, except the examining, licensing, or ordaining of candidates for the ministry, the admission ofministers into the association or their exclusion from it, and thediscussion of weighty articles of faith or cases of conscience. ' Theright of a layman to vote was regarded as grounded in that of theminister, not the right of both in the congregation. When a ministerlost his vote, the delegate of the congregation lost his too. " Theconstitution of the Pennsylvania Synod provided: Such lay delegates only"as have an ordained preacher or licensed candidate, and whose teacheris himself present, " shall have a right to vote. Accordingly, "no morelay delegates can cast their votes than the number of ordained preachersand licensed candidates present. " Furthermore, the resolutions of Synodwere regarded as binding on the congregations. The constitution of thePennsylvania Ministerium provided, chap. 6, §14: "Whereas the UnitedCongregations are represented in the synodical assembly by theirdelegates and have a seat and vote in it, they accordingly are boundwillingly to observe the decisions and resolutions of the synodicalassembly and of the ministerium. " Chap. 7, §5 of the constitution of theNew York Ministerium read: "Every congregation which is represented by adelegate in the synods of this body is bound to receive, and submit to, the resolutions and recommendations of the ministerium, and to bear itspart of all expenses and services necessary for the welfare of theassociated churches generally and the advancement of the common cause. And if any congregation perseveres in refusing such submission, it shallno longer be entitled to a representation in this body. " (693 ff. )

MUHLENBERG'S UNIONISM. 

52. Attitude toward Non-Lutherans. --In the _Lutheran Encyclopedia_ H. E. Jacobs says in praise of Muhlenberg: "He knew how to combine width ofview and cordiality of friendship towards those of other communions, with strict adherence to principle. " (331. ) Similar views had beenexpressed by Dr. W. J. Mann at the First Free Lutheran Diet atPhiladelphia. In his "Theses on the Lutheranism of the Fathers of theChurch in This Country" he said: "Their Lutheranism did not differ fromthe Lutheran orthodoxy of the preceding period, in the matter ofdoctrine, but to an extent in the manner of applying it. It wasorthodoxy practically vitalized. They were less polemical andtheoretical. Whilst tolerant toward those of other convictions, theywere, however, neither indifferent nor unionistically inclined, andnever conformed Lutheranism to any other form of Christianity, though intheir days the pressure in this direction was heavy. " (Spaeth, _C. P. Krauth_, 1, 318. ) However, though Muhlenberg's intentions undoubtedlywere to be and remain a Lutheran, his fraternal intercourse and intimatefellowship with the Reformed, Episcopalians, Methodists, and otherdenominations, was of a nature incompatible with true Lutheranism. Heevidently regarded the various Christian communions as sister churches, who had practically the same divine right to exist and to propagatetheir distinctive views as the Lutheran Church. Such was the principleof indifferentism on which Muhlenberg based his practise of fraternalrecognition and fellowship. The natural and inevitable result of hisrelations with the sects was that the free, open, and necessaryconfession of Lutheran truth over against Reformed error was weakenedand muffled, and finally smothered and entirely silenced and omitted. Nor can it be denied that Muhlenberg, by this unionism andindifferentism, wasted and corrupted much of the rich blessings whichGod bestowed, and purposed to bestow, on the American Lutheran Churchthrough him. Like Dr. Wrangel and the Swedes in Delaware generally, Muhlenberg and his associates entertained the opinion that especiallythe Lutherans and Episcopalians were not separated by any essentialdoctrinal differences. Indeed, the Germans in Pennsylvania, like theSwedes in Delaware, seem at times to have seriously considered a unionbetween the Episcopalians and the Lutherans. In brief, Muhlenberg'sattitude toward the Reformed and other sects was of a nature whichcannot be justified as Lutheran nor construed as non-unionistic incharacter. 

53. The Facts in the Case. --From the very beginning to the end of hisactivity in America the practise of Muhlenberg was not free fromindifferentism and unionism. Already on his voyage across the ocean hehad conducted services according to the Book of Common Prayer. (G. , 322. ) November 25, 1742, Muhlenberg had arrived in Philadelphia, and onDecember 28th of the same year he wrote in his journal: "In theafternoon I visited the English pastor of the Episcopal Church. He wasvery cordial, and informed me that he had always been a good friend ofour Lutheran brethren, the Swedish missionaries, and desired to be onfriendly terms also with me. " (267. ) In 1743 Muhlenberg signified hiswillingness to build a union church with the Reformed in case they werewilling to shoulder their part of the expenses. (272. ) In 1751 hereported from New York: "May 31, I visited Mr. Barclay, the mostprominent pastor of the Anglican Church, whom the Archbishop hasappointed commissioner of the province of New York. . . . The DutchReformed have at present four pastors. I called on the oldest of them, Mr. Du Bois, who received me cordially. Thereupon I visited the youngestof the Dutch Reformed Ministerium. I visited also the third member ofthis body, who, together with his wife, carried on a beautiful andedifying conversation, so that I was truly delighted. " (421. ) "June 28, I visited Mr. Pemberton, the pastor of the English Presbyteriancongregation, for the first time. He was much pleased with my shortcall, and remarked that he had received a letter from Pastor Tennent inPhiladelphia, who had mentioned my name and advised him to cultivate mycompany. Almost immediately he began to speak of the sainted ProfessorFrancke, saying that he had read several of his Latin works. Besidesthis we had several other edifying conversations. Upon my departure heasked me to visit him frequently. " (422. ) "July 22, my host and I droveto the oldest Reformed pastor, who gave us a cordial reception. In theafternoon we visited one of the elders of my congregation. In theevening the younger Reformed pastor visited me. " (425. ) "On the 23d Iagain preached in Dutch on the opening verses of the fifth chapter ofMatthew. The two Reformed pastors and a large number of people werepresent. " (425. ) "August 17, I preached a penitential sermon and hadconfession. The church was filled with Lutherans and Reformed, amongwhom was also the younger pastor. " (428. ) "August 21, the members ofthe congregation who live near by, several Reformed neighbors, and anumber of friends of New York assembled to hear my farewell sermon atthat place. " (420. ) "May 11, our Dutch congregation-members who livenear by, and some Reformed neighbors, were invited to attend an hour ofedification. " (434. ) "In the afternoon I bade farewell to the youngerReformed pastor. " (439. ) "Early on Tuesday morning the Reformed PastorSchlatter came to my home and embraced me after the custom of our oldand unfeigned love. " (439. ) "In the evening I was called to the sixReformed pastors who had arrived. I went and welcomed them with thewords: 'Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be yetherefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves. ' July 30, I was takento the pious English merchant, as he had some awakened souls with him. They sang a psalm, read a chapter from a devotional book, and inconclusion urged me to pray. After the dear souls had returned to theirhomes, I remained with him and had a very delightful and edifyingconversation with him and his pious wife. " (440. ) Muhlenberg praises theEpiscopalian Richard Peters as a "moderate theologian, " possessed of a"catholic spirit, " and reports in 1760: "On the ninth and tenth ofAugust Mr. Richard Peters, secretary of the province and president ofthe Academy in Philadelphia, visited me in Providence. In the morning heattended our German service, with which, he said, he was greatlydelighted. In the afternoon he himself delivered a very solid andedifying sermon to a large audience. " (516. ) After his removal toPhiladelphia, in 1761, Muhlenberg wrote: "On Monday, March 16, Iintended quietly to leave the city. However, Provost Wrangel as well assome of the elders accompanied me, the former as far as the home ofPastor Schlatter, where we were hospitably received and entertained forthe night. " (380. ) On the services conducted at Barren Hill on EasterMonday, 1762, Muhlenberg reports as follows: "After my sermon PastorSchlatter added a short admonition, impressing upon them what they hadalready heard. " (517. ) "On Monday, May 25, I went out in the forenoon tovisit some English friends. As I happened to pass by the English HighChurch at eleven o'clock, I was called into the manse, where I found anumerous assembly of the honorable English missionaries, who wereconducting their annual meeting. They took me to church with them, showed me unmerited honor, and permitted me to attend their session as afriend and witness. " (380. ) May 21, 1762, Muhlenberg noted in his diary:"At noon I was with Mr. R. , who related with joy how he, Mr. D. , andProvost Wrangel, together with the new Swedish pastor, Mr. Wicksel, andthe Reformed pastor, Schlatter, had yesterday, on Ascension Day, attended the new church, where they had heard two splendid and edifyingsermons in German and English delivered to two large audiences. " (383. )October 16, 1763, he wrote: "Pastor Handschuh was called upon to bury aReformed woman who died in childbirth; he delivered the sermon in theold Reformed church. " On October 18, 1763, during the sessions of Synod, and at its request, Whitefield preached in the pulpit of Muhlenberg. In1767 J. S. Gerock dedicated his new church in New York, "assisted bydifferent High German and English Protestant pastors and teachers, " H. M. Muhlenberg and Hartwick also preaching. (444. ) When Muhlenbergdedicated his new Zion Church in Philadelphia, on June 25, 1769, theprofessors of the Academy as well as the Episcopalian and Presbyterianpastors were invited. The report says: "The second English pastor, Mr. Duchee, opened the services by reading the English prayers, theProrector of the Academy offered an appropriate prayer, and CommissionerPeters delivered a splendid sermon on the song of the angels, Luke 2, whereupon Rector Muhlenberg, in the name of the corporation andcongregation, thanked the honorable assembly, in English, for theirfavor and kindness in honoring this newly erected church and conductinga service there. " May 27, 1770, Whitefield, upon invitation, alsopreached in the new church. (518. ) Without a word of censure on the partof his father, or of protest on the part of Synod, Peter Muhlenberg, in1772, at London, subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles and receivedEpiscopal ordination, in order to be able to perform legal marriageceremonies within his congregations in Virginia. Invited by thePresbyterian pastor, W. Tennent, Muhlenberg, Sr. , preached in his churchon two occasions while at Charleston, in 1774. (578. ) At Savannah hepreached in the union church of the Reformed Pastor Zuebli, and in theLutheran church at Savannah he enjoyed the sermon of a Methodist pastor. (518. ) At the church dedication in Pikestown, in 1775, he preached inGerman, and an Episcopalian, Mr. Currie, in English, etc. 

54. Whitefield in Muhlenberg's Pulpit. --"The pastors of the firstperiod of the Ministerium, " says Dr. Jacobs, "were on friendlyrelations with Whitefield. Dr. Wrangel interested himself in securingfor him an invitation to meet with the members of the Ministerium duringthe sessions of 1763. In urging this proposition, Wrangel did not forgetthe collections which Whitefield had made in Europe for the impoverishedSalzburgers. The presence of a man who had pleaded eloquently in Englishpulpits for contributions to build Lutheran churches in Georgia, andwith that eminent success which Benjamin Franklin has noted in awell-known passage in his autobiography, certainly deserved recognition, even apart from Whitefield's services in awakening life in the Church ofEngland and in America. He was present at the examination of thechildren of St. Michael's Church before the synod, made a fervent prayerand an edifying address. On the next day he bade the synod farewell, andrequested the prayers of its members. The next year he was in attendanceat the funeral of Pastor Handschuh. In 1770 (May 27) he preached byspecial invitation in Zion Church. " (286. ) In his report, dated October15, 1763, on the synod of the same year, Muhlenberg himself says: "Itwas also considered, whether we should not invite Mr. Whitefield and thetwo well-disposed preachers of the Episcopal Church for Monday andTuesday, especially to the examination of the children. Among otherreasons Dr. Wrangel mentioned the fact that Whitefield had assisted ourpoor suffering brethren in Georgia [Salzburgers] with collections. Inthe evening Dr. Wrangel took me to Mr. Whitefield, and in the name ofthe Ministerium we invited him together with the rector of the HighChurch, who was present. " October 16, Muhlenberg wrote: "After theservices Dr. Wrangel, Pastor Handschuh, and three trustees went to Mr. Whitefield and asked him if on the morrow he would attend ourexamination in the church, and speak a word of admonition to thechildren. He answered: Yes, if his weakness permitted, and such wereGod's gracious will. " October 18, Muhlenberg wrote: "Mr. Whitefieldascended the pulpit, and said a hearty and powerful prayer. Hereupon headdressed himself to the children, delivering, with tears and deepemotion, a condescending sermon about pious children of the Old and NewTestaments, together with some modern examples which he had himselfexperienced, and finally enjoined upon parents their duties. After thisthe children were examined by Dr. Wrangel, and then, in German, by me. Whitefield, however, being very weak in body, and the church being verycrowded, we discontinued and closed with a piece of church music. Thepastors and other delegates, the elders and deacons took dinner in theschool, the old Mr. Tennent [Episcopalian], who was given the place ofhonor, delighting us with edifying conversation. " October 19, Muhlenbergwrote: "At four o'clock Mr. George Whitefield visited our Ministerium inthe school, bidding us an affectionate farewell, and requesting us tointercede for him before the throne of grace. " Dr. Graebner remarks: "Amisstep as serious as this, admitting an errorist like Whitefield to thepulpit of the local pastor and synodical president, such as was done atthis synodical meeting, had, at least, not been made before the time ofWrangel. " (383 ff. ) Concerning his fellowship with Whitefield in 1770, Muhlenberg made the following entries in his journal: "Friday, May 25. .. Because I could not do otherwise, I wrote a few lines to Rev. Mr. Whitefield, stating that if he would preach for me on next Sunday nightin Zion Church, it would be acceptable to me. " "Sunday, May 27. .. . Earlyin the evening Zion Church was filled with people of all sorts ofreligion, both German and English. We two preachers went to Mr. Whitefield's lodging and took him with us to the church, which was socrowded that we had to take him in through the steeple-door. .. . Hecomplained of a cold contracted at the morning service, and consequenthoarseness, but preached very acceptably from 2 Chron. 7, 1 on 'TheOuter and the Inner Glory of the House of God. ' He introduced someimpressive remarks concerning our fathers--Francke and Ziegenhagen, etc. " (Jacobs, 287. ) At the First Lutheran Diet, Dr. C. P. Krauthexplained: "Whitefield was an evangelist of forgotten or ignoreddoctrines of the Gospel; a witness excluded from many pulpits of his ownchurch because of his earnestness in preaching the truth; in some sensea martyr. This invested him with interest in the eyes of our fathers, and his love to the Lutheran Church and his services to it made him verydear. " (287. )

55. Experiencing the Consequences. --From what has been said it isevident that Muhlenberg's relations with the sects was not withoutreprehensible unionism. Even where, in such fellowship, syncretism wasnot directly practised, the proper confession of Lutheran truth wasomitted. As with the Swedes in Delaware, fraternal intercourse proceededon the silent understanding that the sore spot of doctrinal differencesmust be carefully avoided. For Lutherans, however, this was tantamountto a denial of the truth. Muhlenberg set an example the influence ofwhich was all the more pernicious by reason of the high esteem in whichhe was held by the members of Synod, who revered him as a father. Aslate as 1866 the Pennsylvania Synod defended its intercourse with theReformed Synod "as a measure introduced by the fathers in the time ofMuhlenberg and Schlatter. " And the unionistic practises indulged in bythe General Synod throughout its history cannot but be viewed as thefruits of the tree first planted by the Halle emissaries. Nor could theyfail to see the abyss into which such unionism must finally lead, as itwas apparent already in the history of the Swedes. That Muhlenberg had apresentiment whither things were drifting appears from his warning in1783 to J. L. Voigt not to open his pulpit to Methodist preachers. (516. ) Indeed, Muhlenberg himself lived to see the first bitter fruitsof his dalliance with the sects. Four months before his end, June 6, 1787, Franklin College, at Lancaster, was solemnly opened as a GermanHigh School and a union theological seminary for Lutherans, Reformed, and a number of other sects. H. E. Muhlenberg delivered the sermon atthe opening exercises, which were attended by the entire synod. The nameof the institution was chosen in view of the virtues and merits ofBenjamin Franklin, who had contributed 200 Pounds. The College hadforty-five trustees, consisting of 15 Lutherans, 15 Reformed, and 15chosen from other communions. A director was to be chosen alternatelyfrom the Lutheran and from the Reformed Church. Among the first trusteeswere J. H. C. Helmuth and other Lutheran pastors. Two of the first fourteachers were Lutherans: Pastor H. E. Muhlenberg, the first director, and Pastor F. W. Melsheimer. (515. ) Dr. A. Spaeth, agreeing with W. J. Mann, says: "Sooner or later the whole Lutheran Church of America shouldand could unite on the position of Muhlenberg. " (252. ) We would notdetract from the merit of Muhlenberg. The slogan of the AmericanLutheran Church, however, dare never be: "Back to Muhlenberg!" "Back toHalle!" but "Back to Wittenberg!" "Back to Luther! Back to Lutheransincerity, determination, and consistency both in doctrine andpractise!"

TRAINING OF MINISTERS AND TEACHERS NEGLECTED. 

56. Parish Schools Cultivated. --One cannot possibly say too much inpraise of the missionary zeal on the part of Muhlenberg and hisassociates and of their unceasing efforts to establish new mission-postsand organize new congregations, and to obtain additional laborers fromEurope, notably from Halle. In a large measure this applies also totheir labors in the interest of establishing parochial schools. In fact, wherever we read of early Lutherans in America, especially GermanLutherans, there we also hear the cry for schools and schoolteachers toinstruct the children. Comparatively weak efforts to establish schoolsfor their children were made by the Swedes in Delaware. At Christina ateacher was employed in 1699; in Wicaco Teacher Hernboom began a schoolin 1713. The minutes of the Pennsylvania Synod of 1762 record: "In theSwedish congregations the Swedish schools have for several generationsbeen regrettably neglected; Dr. Wrangel, however, has started an Englishschool in one of his congregations in which the Lutheran Catechism isread in an English translation. " Acrelius, who had been provost of theSwedes in Delaware, wrote in 1759: "Forty years back our people scarcelyknew what a school was. The first Swedish and Holland settlers were apoor, weak, and ignorant people, who brought up their children in thesame ignorance. " The result was great ignorance among the Swedes. _Jacobs:_ "There seems to have been an entire dearth of laymen capableof intelligently participating in the administration of the affairs ofthe congregation until we come to Peter Kock. Eneberg found at Christinathat 'of the vestrymen and elders of the parish there was scarcely anyone who could write his own name. '" (104. ) The Salzburgers had a schoolin Ebenezer, and later a second school in the country. At the beginningBolzius and Gronau gave daily instruction in religion, the one four, theother three hours daily. In 1741 Ortmann and an English teacherinstructed the youth at Ebenezer. The Palatinates in New York beganwith the building, not only of a church, but also of a school in 1710, the very year in which they had settled at West Camp. In New York therewas a schoolhouse as well as a church, and a "schoolkeeper"(_Schulhalter_) was employed. When the teacher disappeared, theschoolhouse was rented out, but Berkenmeyer taught the children in hishome for five months in a year, three times a week. Also in NorthCarolina, Virginia, Tennessee, etc. , parish schools were established, and the great need of them explained to and urged upon the people by theconferences and ministers. In Pennsylvania there were several Germanschools even before the arrival of Muhlenberg; as a rule, however, theteachers were incompetent or immoral, or both. (247. ) When, in 1734, Daniel Weisiger, one of the representatives of the congregations atPhiladelphia, New Hanover, and Providence, made his appearance in Halle, he asked for both an able and pious preacher and a schoolteacher. In thebeginning Muhlenberg himself took charge of the school. In January, 1743, he wrote: "Because there is a great ignorance among the youth ofthis land and good schoolteachers are so very rare, I shall be compelledto take hold of the work myself. Those who possibly could teach theyouth to read are lazy and drunken, compile a sermon from all manner ofbooks, run about, preach, and administer the Lord's Supper for hardcash. Miserable and disgusting, indeed! I announced to the people [atProvidence] to send first their oldest children for instruction, as Iintended to remain with the congregation eight days at a time. On Mondaysome of the parents brought their children. It certainly looksdepressing when children of seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty yearscome with the Abc-Book. Yet I am delighted that they are possessed of sogreat a desire to learn something, " etc. "In Providence, " Muhlenbergwrote later on, "I have a splendid young man, who keeps school inwinter, and in summer earns his living by doing manual labor. " In 1745J. N. Kurtz and J. H. Schaum were sent from Halle to take charge of theyouth. One of the chief questions to engage the attention of the firstconvention of the Pennsylvania Synod, in 1748, was: "What is thecondition of the parish schools?" Brunnholtz reported: In his home atPhiladelphia, Schaum, whom he supported, had been keeping school forthree and a half years; since Easter there had been no school, as Schaumwas needed at another place; however, before winter would set in, he andhis elders would do their best in this matter. Germantown, continuedBrunnholtz, had two teachers, Doeling, a former Moravian, being one ofthem, whose schools were attended by many children, some of themnon-Lutherans. Another school near Germantown with twenty children hadbeen closed for lack of a teacher. Muhlenberg stated: In Providencethere had been a small school in the past year. New Hanover had a fairschool, Jacob Loeser being teacher. Though a teacher could be had forthe filials Saccum and Upper Milford, there were no schools there. Whenthe elders hereupon explained that the distances were too great, Synodadvised to change off monthly with the teacher, and demanded an answerin this matter in the near future. Kurtz promised to begin a school atTulpehocken in winter. Handschuh reported: In Lancaster the school wasflourishing; Teacher Schmidt and his assistant Vigera had instructed 70children. At the meeting of Synod in 1753 the pastors complained: "Theschools within our congregations are in a very poor state, since ableand faithful teachers are rare, salaries utterly insufficient, themembers too widely scattered and in most cases poor, roads too bad inwinter, and the children too urgently needed on the farms in summer. "(G. , 496. ) According to the report of the Synod held in 1762 there wereparochial schools in New Providence, one main school and several smallerones; in New Hanover; in Philadelphia, where a public examination duringthe sessions of Synod exhibited the efficiency of the school; in VincentTownship, a school with a good teacher and 60 children; in Reading, aschool with more than 80 children; in Tulpehocken, a school of 40children; in Heidelberg, a school of 30 children; in Northkeel, 30children, taught by Pastor Kurtz; in Lancaster, a school of 60 childrenin summer and 90 in winter, etc. (495. )

57. Dearth of Pastors and Schoolteachers. --From the very beginning oneof the greatest obstacles to the spread and healthy growth of theLutheran Church in America was the dearth of well-trained, able, andtruly Lutheran pastors and schoolteachers. And the greatest of allmistakes of the early builders of the American Zion was the failure toprovide for the crying need of laborers by the only proper and effectualmeans--the establishment of American seminaries for the training oftruly Lutheran pastors and teachers qualified to serve in Americansurroundings. The growing indifferentism and deterioration of theLutheran ministry as well as of the Lutheran congregations was anecessary consequence of this neglect, which resulted in an inadequateservice, rendered, to a large extent, by incompetent or heterodoxministers. Dr. Mann was right when he maintained in his _Plea for theAugsburg Confession_ of 1856, that the doctrinal aberrations of theDefinite Platform theologians were due, in part, to the fact that S. S. Schmucker and other ministers had received their theological educationat Princeton and other non-Lutheran schools. The constantly increasingneed, coupled with the insufficient preparation of the men willing toserve, led to the pernicious system of licensing, which for many decadesbecame a permanent institution in Pennsylvania and other States. In 1857the General Synod adopted the following report: "The committee on theLicensure System respectfully report that the action of this bodyrequesting the several District Synods to take into consideration andreport their judgment on the proposed alteration or abolition of ourLicensure System has been responded to by fifteen synods. Out of thisnumber all the synods, excepting three, have decided against a change. Your committee have to report the judgment of the Church to be decidedlyagainst any change of our long-established regulations on this subject, and therefore deem it unnecessary to enter on the discussion of themerits of the subject, in this report, and propose the adoption of thefollowing resolution: Resolved, That the great majority of our Synodshaving expressed their judgment against any change in our LicensureSystem, your committee be released from the further consideration of thesubject. " (20. ) The great dearth of ministers accounted for this action. Even before 1727 there were in Pennsylvania more than 50, 000 Germans. In1751 Benjamin Franklin expressed his apprehension that "the Palatineboors" would Germanize Pennsylvania. In 1749 more than 12, 000 Germanemigrants arrived. In 1750 the Germans in Pennsylvania numbered about80, 000, almost one-half of the inhabitants of the State. And more thanone-half of these were considered Lutherans. In 1811, however, when thisnumber had greatly increased, the Pennsylvania Synod reported only 64ministers, of whom 34 were ordained, 26 were licensed to preach, and 4were catechists. The number of ministers sent from Germany had beenaugmented by such as had been tutored by pastors in America. Chr. Streitand Peter Muhlenberg, for example, were instructed by Provost Wrangeland Muhlenberg, Sr. Another pupil of Muhlenberg was Jacob van Buskirk. H. Moeller, D. Lehman, and others had studied under J. C. Kunze. JacobGoering, J. Bachman, C. F. L. Endress, J. G. Schmucker, Miller, andBaetis were pupils of J. H. Ch. Helmuth. H. A. Muhlenberg, whosubsequently became prominent in politics, and B. Keller were educatedin Franklin College. Later on some attended Princeton and other Reformedschools to prepare themselves for the Lutheran ministry! To make mattersworse, the ministers who, toward the close of the eighteenth century, came from Germany were no longer adapted for their surroundings, whichwere rapidly becoming English. Besides, Halle and the other Germanuniversities had grown rationalistic. According to the Report of theGeneral Synod in 1823 the Lutheran Church in America numbered 900churches with only 175 ministers. (9. ) The same report states: "Theancient and venerable Synod of Pennsylvania is rapidly increasing bothin members and in ministers, and we trust that much good is doing in thename of our blessed Savior Jesus. From the minutes of the session of thepresent year, which was held at Lebanon, it appears that the bodyconsists of 74 ministers, who have the pastoral charge of upwards of 278churches; that between the session of 1822 and 1823 they admitted tomembership by baptism 6, 445, admitted to sacramental communion byconfirmation 2, 750, that the whole number of communicants is 24, 794, andthat there are under the superintendence of the different churches 208congregational schools. " (11. ) In 1843, according to the _LutheranAlmanac_ for that year, the General Synod numbered 424 ordained andlicensed pastors and 1, 374 congregations with 146, 303 communicants. Thisaveraged three congregations for every pastor, some serving as many assix, eight, or even twelve, giving the majority of the congregations oneservice every four weeks, and to many only one service every eightweeks. (_Kirchl. Mitt. 1843, No. 11. ) In 1853 about 9, 000 Lutherancongregations in the United States were served by only 900 pastors. (_Lutheraner, _ 10, 31. ) Thus, as the years rolled on, the questionbecame increasingly pressing: "Where shall we find pastors for ourchildren?" Yet, while the Lutheran ministers, as a rule, were mostzealous and self-sacrificing in their labors to serve and gather thescattered Lutherans, organize congregations, and establish parochialschools, the early history of American Lutheranism does not record asingle determined effort anywhere to provide in a systematic way for thetraining of preachers and teachers, such as were required by Americanconditions and surroundings. We hear of an orphan home founded by theSalzburgers in 1737 with three boys and eight girls, but nowhere of aseminary turning out preachers and teachers for the maintenance andupbuilding of the Church. It was in 1864, more than 120 years after thefirst appearance of Muhlenberg in Pennsylvania, that the "Mother Synod"of the Lutheran Church in America founded a seminary in Philadelphia. 

58. Hopeless Situation. --Several years after his arrival in America, Muhlenberg realized the need and conceived the thought of founding anorphan asylum with a preachers' seminary in connection; and in 1748 hehad acquired the ground for this purpose. In his letters to Halle herepeatedly declared that it would be impossible to supply "the almostinnumerable multitude of German Lutherans" with pastors for any lengthof time without a seminary in America. In one of these letters he says:"An institution of this kind does not appear to be impossible. And itseems to be necessary, because, as the past experience has taught us, the calling of well-tried and able preachers from Germany, thoughindeed of especial advantage, and needed also in the future, at leastfor a considerable time, is connected with so many difficulties andsuch great expense that it will be impossible to send over as manyfrom Germany as will be required in order to provide sufficiently forall congregations. " (504. ) In 1769 Muhlenberg broached the matter tothe convention of the Ministerium, and Synod repeatedly considered thequestion. But nothing materialized. Indeed, J. C. Kunze, who laterbecame Muhlenberg's son-in-law, finally did succeed in opening apreparatory school; lack of funds, however, compelled him to close itduring the Revolutionary War. Kunze, Helmuth, and J. F. Schmidt nowpinned their hopes to the "German Institute" of the PennsylvaniaUniversity, whose professors were Lutherans from 1779 to 1822. Helmuthinstructed every day from eight to twelve and from two to five o'clock. But the "German Institute" did not turn out any Lutheran pastors, asthe curriculum contained no course in theology. Kunze writes: "It istrue, I was professor of Oriental languages in Philadelphia. However, Ihad but six scholars, and I doubt if one of them will study theology. And who would instruct them, in case they should desire to studytheology? We did not have time to devote a single hour to this subjectin Philadelphia. " In 1785 Helmuth and Schmidt wrote: "There is nothingwe pastors desire more than a German educational institution, whereyoung men could be prepared directly for the service of the Church. Tobe sure, we have part in the university located here, and also make useof it. But languages and philosophy only are taught here, from which ourchurches and schools derive no benefit. " The hopelessness of thesituation is further revealed by the following letter which Helmuthaddressed to the synod assembled in Lancaster, Pa. , 1784: "Brethren, weare living in a sad time. My heart weeps over the awful decay ofChristendom. I readily acknowledge my share of the guilt that God seemsto hide His countenance from us, permitting the doors to stand wideopen, for the spirit of lies [rationalism] to enter and destroy thevineyard of the Lord. You will learn from the report from Halle how theswine are uprooting the garden of Christ in Germany. . . . Anotherthing, dearest brethren, how shall we in the future supply ourcongregations with pastors? Where shall we find ministers to meet ourneed, which will increase from time to time! From Germany? Possibly asecret Arian, Socinian, or Deist? For over there everything is full ofthis vermin. God forbid! Under present circumstances, no one fromGermany! We ourselves must put our hands to the plow. God will call usto account for it, and will let our children suffer for it, if we do notwake up, and hazard something for the weal of immortal souls. "--Andhow did they now seek to provide help? Franklin College was founded inconjunction with the German Reformed and other sects! Helmuth and otherLutheran pastors were among the trustees of the institution. In anappeal to the Lutheran congregations they say: "Where will you at lastfind pastors and teachers if you do not send your children to college?. . . Think you that your churches and schools can exist without them?Either your children will have to content themselves with the poorestkind of men, or else surrender language and religion, for which you havelaid the foundation, thus loading a great guilt upon yourselves. Dearfriends, German church-life can impossibly continue to exist as it hashitherto existed in many places. In a few years the churches you alreadyhave will be deserted. And what will then become of the increased numberof Germans dwelling in your midst? Are there not already a great numberof localities where the inhabitants hear no sermon for six to eightweeks, and where the young grow up like the savages?" (515. 530. ) TheSynod of 1818 also staked its hopes on Franklin College, which, however, was eking out a pitiable existence, and finally became the exclusiveproperty of the Reformed. The dire need was apparent to all; the trueway out of the difficulty, however, no one saw nor wanted to see. Andthe reason? Avarice on the part of the congregations, and a lack ofinitiative and Lutheran earnestness and determination on the part of thepastors. Nor did the seminaries founded in the first part of thenineteenth century (Hartwick Seminary, established in 1815; GettysburgSeminary, in 1825; and the seminary of the South Carolina Synod, in1829, at Lexington) meet the needs of the Church, either as to thequantity or the quality of the candidates required for the Lutheranministry. In a letter addressed to the General Synod, assembled 1827 atGettysburg, Dr. Hazelius wrote: "Our [Hartwick] Seminary has beenestablished since the year 1815; during which time 11 young men havereceived their theological education here, 10 of whom are now activelyengaged as laborers in the vineyard of our Lord; but one is prevented bydisease from participating in the labors of his brethren. " (20. ) Alltold, 10 preachers produced by Lutheran seminaries in the United Statestill 1827! Besides, in reality these seminaries were not Lutheran, butunionistic and, in a degree, Reformed schools. 

DETERIORATION OF MOTHER SYNOD. 

59. Descent Increasingly Swift. --The Lutheran Church has always heldthat, as faith cannot and must not be coerced, the broadest tolerance asto matters of conscience and religion should govern the policy of theState everywhere. On the other hand, the Lutheran Church maintains that, as truth is absolutely intolerant of error, and error is the directdenial of truth, the Christian Church dare not in any shape or mannergive recognition to false teaching, but, on the contrary, is boundalways to reject it and to confess God's truth alone. Indifferentism asto false doctrine and practise has ever proved to be the most deadlyfoe of true Lutheranism, which, essentially, is but another name forconsistent Christianity. Lutheranism and doctrinal indifferentism arejust as destructive mutually as are truth and falsehood. Also thehistory of the Pennsylvania Synod offers ample proof of this law. In thedays of Muhlenberg, Lutherans began to doubt that their doctrinalposition, as presented in the Lutheran Symbols, alone is of divine rightin the Christian Church, and alone in complete keeping with theScriptures. Then they began to defend themselves as also being in theright and standing for truth; then, to apologize for their presence inAmerica; then, to be ashamed of themselves and publicly to deny thedistinctive tenets of Lutheranism; and, finally, to oppose itsdoctrines, champion their counterpart, and practically embracesectarianism. Muhlenberg had lived to see the beginning of the end oftrue Lutheranism when Franklin College was opened. The descent wasincreasingly swift. In 1792 the confession of the Lutheran Symbols wasomitted in the new constitution of the Ministerium. And when, under theinfluence of Quitman, the New York Ministerium became rationalistic, thePennsylvania Synod made no protest, administered no rebuke, and did notsever its fraternal relations with it. Moreover, in a measure, theyopened their own doors to Rationalism; the German language was regardedas being of greater import than faithful adherence to the LutheranConfessions; and refuge against the inroads of Rationalism and theEnglish language was sought in a union with the German Reformed and theGerman Moravians. The utter degeneration of the Pennsylvania Synodappears from the new Agenda, concerning which Synod resolved in 1818that it be introduced in all German congregations of the Ministerium. In this Book there were embodied also forms designed to satisfy theRationalists. Two of the forms for administering the Sacrament ofBaptism contained no confession of faith. The confession to theLutheran Church was stricken from the form for Confirmation. In two ofthe forms for the administration of the Lord's Supper the Union formulaof distribution was employed, _viz_. , "Jesus says: Take and eat--Jesussays: Take and drink ye all of it, " etc. The second form contained thefollowing general invitation: "In the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord andMaster, I say to all who acknowledge Him as their Savior, and aredetermined to be His faithful followers: You are welcome at this Feastof Love. " (669. ) The second formula for burials had a rationalistictang. And the formulas of ordination and licensure no longer demandedadherence to the Lutheran Confessions. (669. )

60. Intrenching behind the German Language. --The Christian Church, hence also the Lutheran Church, views every language, Hebrew, Greek, andLatin, as well as German and English, not as an end, but always as ameans only toward furthering her real end, the regeneration andsalvation of souls. According to Loehe's _Kirchliche Mitteilungen_ of1845, No. 5, a German emigrant wrote shortly after his arrival inAmerica: "I cannot sufficiently thank God for the grace bestowed uponme; for when I for the first time heard the language of Canaan[English], the language of the New Jerusalem, I was immediately anddeeply moved by the Spirit of God and was caught like tinder. " This wascertainly not the attitude of the German Lutheran ministers of thePennsylvania Synod, some of whom, going to the other extreme, were indanger of viewing the English, as compared with the German, asimpregnated with the spirit of rationalism and infidelity. Riding, as itwere, on the language, rationalism had made its public entry into theNew York Ministerium. The real cause, however, was not the language, butthe indifferentism and unionism prevailing within this body, which longago had paved the way for, indeed, had itself bred, religious unbelief. However, mistaking what was merely accidental and a concomitant for thechief and real cause of the calamity in the New York Ministerium, prominent German ministers of the Pennsylvania Synod, in order to guardagainst a similar turn of events in their own midst, frantically opposedthe use of the English language in the Synod and her congregations, andplaced such emphasis on the German as made it an end _per se_ peculiarto the Lutheran Church rather than a means employed wherever andwhenever the conditions call for it in order to attain her real andsupreme object--the saving of souls. Men like J. H. C. Helmuth and J. F. Schmidt, in a way, identified English and Rationalism, German andLutheranism (that is to say, unionistic Evangelicalism). Lamenting theinroads that Rationalism was making also in Lutheran congregations, theywrote: "But now the Protestant churches are threatened by a terriblestorm, which is not the mere consequence of the natural course ofthings, but a _sign of this time_, and it will soon despoil them of thetreasures of their Church together with all their happiness, unlessteachers and parents will counteract it with united strength. Almostuniversally, especially in the cities and at the boundaries, they arebeginning to educate the children exclusively in the English language, and, in a manner for which they will not be able to answer, to neglectthem as regards the German services. This is the consequence of theindifference and the disregard of sound doctrine which, in the presenthour of great temptation, is spreading over the face of the earth. " Butinstead of stemming the tide of Rationalism by returning to Lutheranfaithfulness, they ignored the Lutheran Confessions and intrenchedthemselves behind the German language and the "brethren" in the GermanReformed and German Moravian churches. The general church-prayer of theAgenda of 1786, universally introduced in the congregations of thePennsylvania Synod, contained the passage: "And since it has pleasedThee [God] to transform this State [Pennsylvania] into a bloominggarden, the deserts into delightful meadows, grant that we may notforget our nation, but strive to have our dear youth educated in such amanner that German churches and schools may not only be maintained, butbrought to a flourishing condition, ever increasing. " (404. ) In 1812 the_Evangelisches Magazin_ appeared "under the auspices of the GermanEvangelical Lutheran Synod, " Pastors Helmuth and Schmidt being theeditors. Its avowed purpose, however, was not to represent Lutheranism, but specifically to bolster up the cause of the German and to oppose theintroduction of the English language. The "Proposal to Synod" concerningthe new German paper states: "1. We want to aid the German language asmuch as we can, because we are convinced that, with her language, ourChurch will lose unspeakably much, and, finally, for the most part, evenher very existence under her [Lutheran] name. 2. We know the days of thegreat apostasy in Europe. . . . Also this devouring monster could becounteracted by a well-arranged _Evangelisches Magazin_. " (544. ) In 1813the _Magazin_ contained a series of articles urging the Reformed andLutherans to stand together against all attempts at introducing English. The English language, it is said, is too poor to furnish an adequatetranslation of the German prayers and hymns and books of devotion. English congregations could not remain either Lutheran or Reformed, because "our religious writings are all German. " Revealing his Utopiandreams, the writer continues: "What would Philadelphia be in forty yearsif the Germans there were to remain German, and retain their languageand customs? It would not be forty years until Philadelphia would be aGerman city, just as York and Lancaster are German counties. . . . Whatwould be the result throughout Pennsylvania and Northern Maryland inforty or fifty years? An entirely German State, where, as formerly inGermantown, the beautiful German language would be used in thelegislative halls and the courts of justice. " (Jacobs, 330. ) In 1805 thePennsylvania Synod resolved that "this Ministerium must remain aGerman-speaking body"--a resolution which, especially in Philadelphia, merely served to increase the humiliating and damaging language-strifewhich had begun several decades before. 

UNIONISM IN THE ASCENDENCY. 

61. Seeking Refuge with the Reformed. --In their struggle againstRationalism and the English language the German Lutherans ofPennsylvania sought help in an alliance with the German Reformed and theMoravians. Fellowship between them became increasingly intimate. "Lutherand Zwingli, " they boasted harmoniously, "opened the eyes of the world!""After all, " they kept on saying, "there is but one faith, one Baptism, one Supper, no matter how much the Lutheran and Reformed views on it maybe at variance. " (539. ) One of the objects of the German _EvangelicalMagazine_ evidently was to bring about a more intimate union between allGerman Evangelical bodies. For this reason it was not called "Lutheran, "but "Evangelical. " The preface to the first volume declared: "Ourundertaking would be greatly furthered if the brethren of othercommunions would beautify it with their pious contributions, and alsosolicit subscriptions. The brethren of the Moravian Unity have expressedtheir satisfaction with this imperfect work, and assured us of theirabiding love in this point. " (544. ) In view of the celebration of theReformation Jubilee, the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, at York, June 2, 1817, resolved that the German Reformed, Moravian, Episcopal, andPresbyterian churches be invited by our President to take part with usin the festival of the Reformation. In the following year the unionisticand rationalistic Agenda characterized above was adopted by theMinisterium. A committee was also appointed to confer with the GermanReformed, and to devise plans for utilizing Franklin College as atheological seminary, in order to prepare ministers for bothdenominations. In 1819, at Lancaster, Pa. , Synod again considered theproposition of founding a joint seminary at Lancaster, and appropriatedthe sum of $100 for this purpose on condition that the Reformed Synodset aside an equal amount. A committee was also appointed to confer witha similar committee of the Reformed, and to draw up the necessary plansfor the seminary. During this time, especially in the period of 1817 to1825, prominent men of the Pennsylvania Synod considered and advocatedplans for an organic "general union of our Church in this country withthe Evangelical Reformed Church. " (685. ) The Pennsylvania minutes of1822 contain a notice according to which Endress and W. A. Muhlenbergwere among the chief advocates of this movement. Many, especially in thePennsylvania and North Carolina synods, regarded and zealously urged theunion of all Lutheran synods in a General Synod as a step in thisdirection, _viz_. , union with the Reformed. Graebner says: "When allthe Lutherans had been organized into one general body, and had grownaccustomed to marching together, one might also hope to experience thatwhen the command for the greater union would be given, the entireLutheran people, now freed from Lutheranism, would march in statelyprocession to the goal of Schober's Morning Star [union of allEvangelical churches]. This was evidently the policy and ulterior objectwhen, at Harrisburg, 1818, the Pennsylvania Synod resolved that 'theofficers of Synod be a standing correspondence committee to bring about, if possible, a union with the other Lutheran synods. '" (685. ) Viewed inits historical context (the favorable deliberations and resolutions onthe union seminary, the union hymn-book, etc. ), this resolution admitsof no other interpretation. When, therefore, the organization of theGeneral Synod seemed, in the opinion of many, to interfere with andthreaten the projected union with the Reformed, the Pennsylvania Synodpromptly withdrew from this body, in 1823. Says Jacobs: "The form of theopposition [to the General Synod] was that the General Synod interferedwith the plans that had been projected for a closer union with theReformed, and the establishment of a Lutheran-Reformed theologicalseminary. Congregations in Lehigh County petitioned the synod, for thisreason, to 'return to the old order of things'; and the synod, in thespirit of charity [?] toward its congregations, in order that nothingmight interrupt the mutual fraternal love that subsisted between thebrethren, consented, by a vote of seventy-two to nine, to desert thechild which it had brought into being. " (361. )

62. Union Reformation Jubilee of 1817. --At York, June 2, 1817, thePennsylvania Synod resolved to celebrate the tercentenary of theReformation together with the Reformed, the Episcopalians, etc. Invitations were extended accordingly. In his answer of October 14, 1817, Bishop William White of the Episcopal Church wrote to PastorLochman, expressing his delight at the prospect of taking part in theprospective celebration. He said: "I received the letter with which youhonored me, dated July 23, 1817. In answer I take occasion to inform youthat it will give me great satisfaction to join with the reverendministers and with the whole body of the Lutheran Church, in this city, on the day appointed, in returning thanks to Almighty God for thebeginning of the blessed Reformation in the three-hundredth yearpreceding, and in raising up for that purpose the great and good man whohas transmitted to your Church his name, and whose praise is in all thechurches of the Reformation. This occasion must, of course, be the morewelcome to me on account of the agreement in doctrine which has alwaysbeen considered as subsisting between the Lutheran churches and theChurch of England, the mother of that of which I am a minister. "(Jacobs, 356. ) In his sermon at Frederick, Md. , D. F. Schaeffer declaredthat it is noteworthy that both Luther and Calvin "were agreed on allpoints, with the exception of one which was of minor importance. " Thecongregation sang according to the tune of "Wie schoen leuchtet derMorgenstern": "One hundred years, thrice told this day, By heavenlygrace truth's radiant ray Beamed through the Reformation; Yea, gloriousas Aurora's light Dispels the gloomy mists of night, Dawn'd on the worldsalvation. Luther! Zwingli! Joined with Calvin! From error's sin Thechurch to free Restored religious liberty. " In Yorktown a German cantatawas sung from which we quote, according to the original, as follows:"Chor: Heute vor dreihundert Jahr, Strahlte Licht aus Gottesthron, Durchdie Reformation. Luther, Deutschlands hoechste Zier, Stund der KircheJesu fuer. Solo: Aber welch ein Widerstand! Solo: Luther war mit Gottverwandt. Duetto: Seiner Lehre heller Schein, Drang in tausend Herzenein, Drang in tausend Herzen ein. Pause: Zwingel kam Und Calvin, Tratenauf in Christi Sinn; Duetto: Und verbreiten Licht und Heil Segensvoll inihrem Teil. Ganzer Chor: Millionen feiern heut', Dankbar froh' imhoeh'ren Ton, Dieses Fest dem Menschensohn. " (G. , 665. )

63. Reformed and Lutheran Minutes on Lancaster Seminary. --From 1817 to1825 the Synod of Pennsylvania and the German Reformed Church wereengaged in devising plans and adopting measures looking to theestablishment of a united theological seminary for the education of theministers of both the Reformed and Lutheran Churches. According to theminutes of the two bodies the respective actions taken were as follows:Minutes of the German Reformed Synod, 1817: "The committee on thefounding of a literary institution reported further, recommending thattwo committees be appointed, consisting of three persons each, the oneto confer with a committee of the New York Synod [Dutch Reformed] andthe other with the Lutheran Synod. Resolved, That the Rev. Messrs. Pompand Saml. Helffenstein be the committee to the New York Synod, and theRev. Messrs. Hendel, Hoffmeier, and Wack, Sr. , the committee to theLutheran Synod. " (11. ) Minutes of Pennsylvania Synod, 1818: "At thispoint, Revs. H. Hoffmeier, E. Wack, and W. Hendel appeared before thesynod as a committee from the Reformed Synod of this State, andpresented the following communication in writing, namely: An extractfrom the minutes of the Reformed Synod held at York, September 9, 1817. Mr. Hoffmeier having explained this whole subject more particularly toSynod, it was thereupon resolved, That a committee be appointed toconfer with our esteemed brethren of the Reformed Synod in respect tothe subject under consideration. The Messrs. J. George Schmucker, Conrad Jaeger, and H. A. Muhlenberg were named as this committee. " "Thecommittee appointed yesterday to confer with the committee of theReformed Synod, and to make inquiry as to the way in which a unionseminary for the education of young men for the ministerial office inboth churches could be best established, presented the following report:'1. That they have attended to the duty assigned them, and have hadunder consideration the fact that in the city of Lancaster there is aninstitution already in existence, known by the name of Franklin College. . .. 2. That the committee greatly regret that this institution hashitherto been neglected, and consequently the object to which it wasoriginally devoted by the State has altogether failed of attainment. 3. That the committee has examined the charter of said institution withcare, and finds it necessary to recommend that the president thereof beinstructed to make arrangements for holding a meeting of all itstrustees. 4. That Messrs. Hoffmeier and Endress see to it that such ameeting be held. 5. That a committee be appointed by both synods, whoshall conjointly prepare a plan setting forth how this institution canbe best adapted to the accomplishment of the purpose aforementioned. 'The above report was received with general favor, and Messrs. Schmucker, Lochman, Geissenhainer, Sr. , Endress, and Muhlenberg were appointed thecommittee provided for in section five of the report. " (7. 8. ) Minutesof German Reformed Synod, 1818: "The committee which was appointed toconfer with a committee of the Lutheran Synod in reference to thefounding of a theological school reported that they attended theLutheran Synod of last year, and were received in a very fraternalmanner; and that that Synod has appointed a committee to confer afterthe present meeting with a committee of the Reformed Synod on anysubjects relating to the school, and to submit something definite; andthey proposed that a similar committee be appointed. The proposition ofthe committee was accepted, and Revs. J. W. Hoffmeier, F. Herman, Sr. , Wm. Hendel, Thos. Pomp, and S. Helffenstein were appointed suchcommittee. " At the same meeting a committee which had been appointed toconfer with a similar committee from the Reformed Dutch Church, inreference to uniting with it in establishing a theological seminary, reported, stating that, inasmuch as negotiations were in progress withreference to uniting with other Germans in Pennsylvania, who have acommon interest in property voted to them by the State Legislature forthe support of a German institution [at Lancaster], nothing definitecould at present be done in the matter. (6. ) Minutes of PennsylvaniaSynod, 1819: "Pastor Endress made a verbal report in behalf of thecommittee appointed the previous year to confer with a committee of theReformed Synod in regard to the matter of Franklin College in Lancaster. Resolved, That the sum of $100 be appropriated out of our synodicaltreasury toward the support of the college in Lancaster, provided thesame be done by the Reformed Synod. Resolved, That a committee beappointed on our part who shall, at the next meeting of the ReformedSynod in Lancaster, in conjunction with a committee from this latterbody, draw up a plan for a theological seminary. Resolved, That thePastors Schmucker, Endress, Lochman, Muhlenberg, and Ernst constitutesaid committee. Resolved, That, through Mr. Endress, fifty copies of theminutes of synod of this year be forwarded to the Reformed Synod, shortly to convene at Lancaster. " (15. ) Minutes of Reformed Synod, 1819:"Proposed and resolved that a committee of five be appointed to conferwith a committee of the Lutheran Synod in reference to the founding of aunion theological institution, with authority to devise the plannecessary for the purpose. The committee consists of Revs. Hoffmeier, Hendel, Pomp, Becker, and Saml. Helffenstein. " "The committee of theLutheran and Reformed Synods to consider the matter relating to atheological seminary have prepared a plan for this purpose, andcarefully examined the same, and found that such a theological seminarywould be not only exceedingly useful for our youth preparing for theministerial office, but also can easily be established. The committee, therefore, submit this plan to the Rev. Synod, and, at the same time, request the Rev. Synod to have the plan printed, in order that it may becirculated among the members of both synods, to afford each one anopportunity to examine it carefully for himself, because the time forthis purpose is at present too short. The committee of the Rev. LutheranSynod proposes to pay half the expenses of printing, and recommendedthat two hundred copies thereof be printed. " "It was proposed andresolved, that fifty copies of the proceedings of the present Synod betransmitted to the Rev. Lutheran Synod as an evidence of our gratitudeand mutual respect. " (7. 19. ) Minutes of Pennsylvania Synod, Lancaster, May 28, 1820: "The president of synod made a verbal report in behalf ofthe committee that had been appointed, in conjunction with a committeeof the Reformed Synod, last September at Lancaster to draw up andpublish a plan for a union seminary. From this report it appears thatthe members of our committee were not all present; that the jointcommittee did actually prepare a plan; that the printing of the samewas entrusted to Revs. Endress and Hoffmeier, but that this duty was notattended to. Dr. Endress arose and made a long speech in defense ofhimself, referring to a number of local reasons and certainmisunderstandings that influenced him to omit the publication of theplan. To this it was replied that the reasons given by him were notaltogether satisfactory. Candidate Schnee arose and gave synod anaccount of an institution located at Middletown, Pa. , known as 'TheFry's Orphans' Home. ' He awakened the joyful hope that by the blessingof the Lord it might be possible at some future time to establish atthat place a theological seminary for the Lutheran Church in thiscountry. Dr. Lochman arose and made a powerful speech in favor ofestablishment of a theological seminary, and of supporting the collegeat Lancaster. Resolved, That a committee be appointed to attend themeeting of the Reformed Synod shortly to be held at Hagerstown; thatRevs. D. F. Schaeffer and B. Kurtz constitute said committee. " (19. 20. )Minutes of Pennsylvania Synod, Chambersburg, 1821: "Revs. Hoffman andRahausen, deputies of the German Reformed Synod, took seats as advisorymembers. Resolved, That Rev. Mr. Denny, pastor of the Presbyterianchurch at Chambersburg, be acknowledged as an advisory member of thissynodical assembly. The committee to examine the protocol of the GermanReformed General Synod reported that they examined said protocol, andfound the following items which may require to be considered at thismeeting: 1. That Messrs. Schaeffer and Kurtz, appointed as our delegatesto the Reformed Synod at our last year's meeting, were received asadvisory members by the Reformed Synod. Resolved, That this Synod seesin this action evidence of the love of those whom we acknowledge asbrethren, and that it is prepared always, as heretofore, to reciprocatethis kindness. 2. That Revs. Hoffman and Rahausen were appointeddelegates by the Reformed Synod to attend our present synodical meeting. Resolved, That Pastors Muhlenberg and Knoske attend the next meeting ofthe Reformed Synod at Reading as delegates from this Synod. " (6. 16 f. )In 1820 the Pennsylvania Synod entered upon its wild scheme to found aseminary at Frederick, Md. , with Dr. Milledoller as professor, with$2, 000 salary. This stopped all other negotiations for the time being. Dr. Milledoller held the call under consideration two years, and thendeclined. He went to New Brunswick immediately after that, and Col. Rutger's money went with him to that place, which, it was understood, would go to whatever place Dr. Milledoller would go. (_LutheranObserver_, Sept. , 1881. ) The fact that nothing tangible resulted fromthe movement of uniting the Lutheran and Reformed synods and ofestablishing a union seminary was not due in the least to a growingconfessionalism on the part of the Pennsylvania Synod, for at that timesuch was not in evidence anywhere. 

TYPICAL REPRESENTATIVES OF SYNOD. 

64. C. F. L. Endress Denounces Form of Concord. --Among the betterclass of Lutherans prominent in the Pennsylvania Synod during thedecades immediately preceding and following the year 1800 were such menas J. B. Schmucker, H. A. Muhlenberg, Lochman, Probst, and Endress. Inthe Proceedings of the General Synod, 1827, Lochman and Endress arespoken of as belonging to "the Fathers of our General Synod, and ableministers of the Lord Jesus, " as the "oldest and most respected members"of the Synod of East Pennsylvania, as "men who were among the brightestornaments of the Lutheran Church, and whose departure is lamented noless by the synods in general than by that to which they moreimmediately belonged. " (12. 21. ) Yet they, too, were absolutelyindifferent as to the Lutheran Symbols. Dr. C. F. Endress, a pupil ofHelmuth, a leading spirit in the Pennsylvania Ministerium and mostprominent in the unionistic transactions with the German ReformedChurch, declared his theological position as follows: "We have theFormula Concordiae, in which expulsion, condemnation, anathema, were, in the most liberal manner, pronounced and poured forth against allthose who were of a different opinion, which, however, thank God, wasnever received universally by the Lutheran Church. I would suffer bothmy hands to be burned off before I would subscribe that instrument. " "Aswe have hitherto received the Augsburg Confession and Luther's Catechismand Melanchthon's Apology, so I have no objection that they should bekept in reverence and respect as our peculiar documents, but not tooverrule the Bible. For by this shall the Lutheran Church foreverdistinguish itself from all other religious connections, that the Bible, the Bible alone, shall remain the only sun in Christ Jesus, and that werest upon human declarations of faith only in so far as they receivetheir light more or less from that great light. " "What shall I answer onthe question, What is the confession of faith of the Lutheran Church?Answer: I will not dictate to you what you should say; but if I shouldbe asked, I would say, first, and principally, and solely, and alone:The Holy Word of God contained in the writings of the prophets andapostles. The confessions of faith by the Church of the first fourcenturies we hold in conformity with the Bible, and receive them, as faras I know, universally in the Lutheran Church. The confession of theprinces of the German Empire presented at the Diet of Augsburg is heldby all in honor and respect, and when we compare it with other humanconfessions, we give it a decided preference. Luther's Catechism is usedin all Lutheran churches, and no catechism of other religiousdenominations has that honor. The so-called Apology is in possession ofvery few Lutheran ministers; but whether they have read it or not, theyconsider it a good book. The Smalcald Articles I have often read. InGermany they are taken up among the Symbols. I know not whether anyother divine in the Lutheran Church in America ever read it exceptMuhlenberg and Lochman. In short, we hold firmly and steadfastly to ourbeloved Bible, when the one holds to Calvin, the other to Zwingli, athird to the Heidelberg Catechism, a fourth to the Confession of theSynod of Dort, a fifth to the Westminster Catechism, a sixth to theCommon-prayer Book, a seventh to the Solemn League and Covenant, and theeighth to the darkened and depraved reason per se, the ninth to reasonunder the name of Holy Spirit, and the tenth to the devil himself in theform of an angel of light. But I will cleave to my beloved Bible, andhereby it shall remain. Amen. " (_Luth. Observer_, Sept. , 1881. )

65. Rev. Probst Defending Union. --The _Lutheran Observer_, September, 1881, from whose columns we quoted the statements above concerning Dr. Endress, continues: Rev. Probst, who was a member of the PennsylvaniaSynod from 1813 until his death, and well acquainted with the sentimentsof his brethren, in a work published in 1826 for the express purpose ofpromoting a formal and complete union of the German Reformed andLutheran churches in America, entitled, _Reunion of the Lutherans andReformed_, says that there was no material difference of doctrinal viewsbetween them, the Lutherans having relinquished the bodily presence, andthe Reformed unconditional election. Speaking of the supposed obstaclesto such union, he remarks: "The doctrine of unconditional electioncannot be in the way. This doctrine has long since been abandoned; forthere can scarcely be a single German Reformed preacher found whoregards it as his duty to defend this doctrine. Zwingli's more liberal, rational, and Scriptural view of this doctrine, as well as of the Lord'sSupper, has become the prevailing one among Lutherans and Reformed, andit has been deemed proper to abandon the view of both Luther and Calvinon the subject of both these doctrines. " (74. ) "The whole mass of theold Confessions, occasioned by the peculiar circumstances of thosetroublous times, has become obsolete by the lapse of ages, and is yetvaluable only as matter of history. Those times and circumstances havepassed away, and our situation, both in regard to political andecclesiastical relations, is entirely changed. We are therefore notbound to these books, but only to the Bible. For what do the unlearnedknow of the Augsburg Confession, or the Form of Concord, or the Synod ofDort?" (76. ) "Both churches [the Lutheran and the Reformed] advocate theevangelical liberty of judging for themselves, and have one and the sameground of their faith--the Bible. Accordingly, both regard the Gospelas their exclusive rule of faith and practise, and are forever opposedto all violations of the liberty of conscience. " (76. ) "All enlightenedand intelligent preachers of both churches agree that there is much inthe former Symbolical Books that must be stricken out as antiquated andcontrary to common sense, and be made conformable with the Bible, andthat we have no right to pledge ourselves to the mere human opinions ofLuther, or Calvin, or Zwingli, and that we have but one Master, Christ. Nor is any evangelical Christian bound to the interpretations whichLuther, or Calvin, or any other person may place on the words of Christ;but each one has the right to interpret them according to the dictatesof his own conscience. " (80. ) "Inasmuch as all educated ministers of theLutheran and Reformed churches now entertain more reasonable and moreScriptural views on those doctrines which were formerly the subjects ofcontroversy, what necessity is there of a continued separation?" (81. )

SYNOD'S UN-LUTHERAN ATTITUDE CONTINUED. 

66. Decades of Indifferentism. --After the abortive efforts atestablishing a union seminary and uniting with the Reformed organically, and after her withdrawal from the General Synod in 1823, thePennsylvania Synod passed through a long period of indifferentism beforethe spirit of Lutheran confessionalism once more began to manifestitself, chiefly in consequence of influences from German Lutheranimmigrants and by the activity of such men as Drs. Krauth and Mann. However, even till the middle of the nineteenth century the symptoms ofreviving Lutheranism in the Pennsylvania Synod were but relatively weak, few, and far between. The Agenda of 1842 still contained the unionformula of distribution in the Lord's Supper and revealed a unionisticand Reformed spirit everywhere. A form of Baptism savors of Pelagianismand Rationalism. The Agenda does not contain a single clear andunequivocal confession of the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence. The second form for celebrating the Lord's Supper states: "As we aresensual creatures, He [Christ] has appointed two external, visibleelements, bread and wine, as tokens (Pfaender), as it were, in order bythem to assure us that with, in, and under them (mit, bei und unterdenselben) we should become partakers of His body and blood, that is, of His entire grace of atonement. As surely, therefore, as a penitentcommunicant receives the blessed bread and the blessed cup, so surelyhe, in a manner invisible, will also receive from his Savior a share inHis body and blood. " (_Lutheraner_ 1844, 47; 1846, 61. 81. ) In 1848 Rev. Weyl, of Baltimore, the arch-enemy of confessional Lutheranism andunscrupulous slanderer of Wyneken, Reynolds, etc. , declared in hischurch-paper that within the whole Synod of Pennsylvania there werehardly ten preachers who, in their faith and teaching regarding thedoctrine of the Lord's Supper, deviated from the views of the GeneralSynod. Dr. Walther remarked with respect to this statement, which he wasinclined to regard as mendacious: "Since the [Pennsylvania] Synod wasnot ashamed to conclude its Centennial Jubilee by declaring thismiserable paper [of Weyl] its organ and thereby publishing to the worldits spiritual death [as a Lutheran Church], it serves her right to havethis man write her epitaph. " (_L_. 1848, 31. ) Concerning the newhymn-book of the Pennsylvania Synod, Rev. Hoyer wrote in _KirchlicheMitteilungen:_ "After a closer inspection I found that this hymn-bookwas compiled for three classes of people, Orthodox, Unionists, andSupranaturalists. Here we find, besides 'Es ist das Heil uns kommenher, ' also 'Religion, von Gott gegeben, ' as well as a hymn for thenational holiday, the 4th of July, imploring the Lord to give us thespirit of Washington. " (1850, 91; _L_. 7, 65. ) _Der Lutherische Herold_, which, edited by H. Ludwig, appeared since April, 1851, in New York, represented the class of German Lutherans within the Ministeriums ofPennsylvania and New York then most advanced in their protestations ofLutheranism. But what kind of Lutheranism it was that Ludwig and hispaper advocated appears from the following quotation: "We expect littlesympathy from the Old Lutherans; yet, our endeavor shall always be tobanish from our columns everything that might increase the breach, _forin doctrine we are one, we only differ in the form, of the dress_, thatis to say, in practise, and in the mode and manner of spreading thedoctrine. " (_L. _ 1, 151; 8, 143. ) In January, 1855, the same paper wascomplimented by the _Reformierte Kirchenzeitung_ as follows: "The_Lutherische Herold_, published by H. Ludwig, endeavors to mediatebetween the two extremes in the Lutheran Church of this country, andrepresents the milder Melanchthonian conception of the Sacraments. Weread the _Herold_ with joy, and wish it a recognition and encouragementcommensurate with its services. " (_L_. 11, 102. ) As late as 1851 thePennsylvania Synod, according to the report of the convention in thatyear, 51 ministers being present, maintained fraternal intercourse withthe Reformed, United, Methodists, and Moravians. She admitted Reformedand Presbyterian preachers as advisory members. Synod had also receiveda Reformed minister as such into her ministerium. She assembled inReformed and Presbyterian churches for union services, and attended theservice in a Methodist church. She also adopted the resolution to enterinto more intimate relations with the Moravians. (_L_. 1852, 138. ) Inthe following year Synod returned to its original confessional positionin the days of Muhlenberg, though in a somewhat equivocal manner. (Spaeth, _W. J. Mann_, 171. ) In 1853, however, at the same timeappealing to all Lutheran synods to follow her example, the PennsylvaniaSynod resolved, by a vote of 54 to 28, to reunite with the GeneralSynod, then rapidly approaching its lowest water-mark, doctrinally andconfessionally, its leading men openly and uninterruptedly denouncingthe doctrines distinctive of Lutheranism and zealously preparing the wayfor the Definite Platform as a substitute for the Augsburg Confession. Indeed, the Pennsylvania Synod added to its resolution on the reunionthat, "should the General Synod violate its constitution, and require ofour Synod assent to anything conflicting with the old andlong-established faith of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, then ourdelegates are hereby required to protest against such action, towithdraw from its sessions, and to report to this body. " (Penn. Minutes1853, 18. ) However, the action as such was tantamount to a violation anddenial of the Lutheran Confession. Dr. Walther remarked with respect tothe union: "This event will be hailed by many with great joy, a joy, however, that we are unable to share in in any measure. . . . For whodoes not see that the Synod [of Pennsylvania], by entering intoecclesiastical union with a body notoriously heterodox, has alreadydeparted from, and actually denied, the good Confession of our Church?"(_L_. 9, 122. ) Confirming the correctness of this statement, thePennsylvania Synod, thirteen years later, when the ranks of herconservatives had materially increased, severed her connection with theGeneral Synod. 

67. Dr. Sihler's Estimate. --In 1858 Dr. Sihler wrote concerning thePennsylvania Synod: "When the writer of this article, more than fourteenyears ago, came to this country and gradually informed himself on theAmerican conditions of the Lutheran Church, he had to observe withheartfelt sorrow that the Pennsylvania Synod, then still undivided andvery numerous, in whose territory or vicinity the leaders of theso-called Lutheran General Synod have their field of labor was socompletely indifferent toward the shameful apostasy of the latter fromthe faith and the Confession of the Lutheran Church. For in vain onelooked for a strong and decided testimony in any of the synodicalreports of this church-body against the pseudo-Lutherans of the GeneralSynod. Nor was there to be found within the Pennsylvania Synod, or inother synods not belonging to the General Synod, so much earnest zealand love for the truth of God's Word and of the Confessions of theChurch, nor did it have any men among its theologians who were able toexpose thoroughly in the English language the error, the hollowness andshallowness of the miserable productions of a Schmucker and Kurtz, whowere made Doctors of Theology by God in His wrath and by Satan as a jokeand for the purpose of ridicule. On the contrary, they seemed to be nota little impressed with the theological learning and dogmatical scienceof these two so-called Doctors, who, in rare self-satisfaction, foundlife and complete happiness in Reinhard's supernaturalism. In short, these open counterfeiters, Calvinists, Methodists, and Unionists, thesebase traitors and destroyers of the Lutheran Church, were and alwaysremained the dear brethren, who contributed not a little to theprosperity and welfare of the dear 'Lutheran Zion. ' Accordingly, it didnot require a gift of prophecy when the writer of this article, as earlyas 1844, foretold in the _Lutherische Kirchenzeitung_ [edited by Schmidtin Pittsburgh] that, in differently observing, as they did, theanticonfessional, church-destroying activities of the so-called GeneralSynod, yea, fraternizing with their leaders, they would become theirprey, as was actually the case several years ago. " (_Lehre u. Wehre_1858, 137. )

LUTHERANS IN SOUTH CAROLINA. 

68. Pioneer Pastors in South Carolina. --In 1735 colonists from Germanyand Switzerland had settled in Orangeburg Co. , S. C. Their first residentpastor was J. U. Giessendanner, who arrived in 1737 with new emigrants, but died the following year. He was succeeded by his son, who wasordained first by the Presbyterians and then by the Bishop of London, in1849. [tr. Note: sic!] Orangeburg was thus lost to the Lutheran Church. At Charleston, S. C. , Bolzius conducted the first Lutheran services andadministered the Lord's Supper in 1734. Muhlenberg preached there in1742. The first pastor who, in 1755, organized the Lutherans atCharleston into a congregation (St. John's) was J. G. Friedrichs(Friederichs). In 1759 he was succeeded by H. B. G. Wordman (Wartmann), who had labored in Pennsylvania. In 1763 Wordman was succeeded by J. N. Martin. He dedicated the church begun in 1759. J. S. Hahnbaum, who camefrom Germany with his family in 1767, was, according to the churchrecords, forbidden to "be addicted to the English Articles" and toattack the Church of England. The gown, wafers, festivals, gospels andepistles, and the use of the litany on Sunday afternoons, are required. (Jacobs, 297. ) Hahnbaum died in 1770. His successor, who also marriedhis daughter, was Magister F. Daser. He had arrived in Charleston, soldas a redemptioner, and had been redeemed by one of the elders of theLutheran congregation. (G. , 574. ) In 1774 H. M. Muhlenberg advised thecongregation and adjusted some of her difficulties. In the same yearMartin returned and served till 1778, when he was succeeded by ChristianStreit, who labored until he was driven away in the vicissitudes of theRevolutionary War, there being a tradition of his arrest by the Britishin 1780. (Jacobs, 297. ) Pastor Martin served a third term in Charlestonfrom 1786 to 1787, when he was succeeded by J. C. Faber, who wrote toGermany, from where he had arrived in 1787: His congregation wasgrowing; it was a model of Christian unity; it consisted of Lutherans, German Reformed, and Catholics; they all lived together most peacefully, attending the same services and sharing in the support of their pastor, who had brought about such a union. No wonder that the congregation wassatisfied with the service of the Episcopalian Pogson when Faber hadresigned on account of ill health. (G. , 582 f. )

69. "Unio Ecclesiastica" in South Carolina. --In 1788 fifteen Germancongregations were incorporated in the State of South Carolina, nine ofthem being Lutheran and six Reformed or United. The Lutherancongregations were served by F. Daser, J. G. Bamberg, F. A. Wallberg, F. J. Wallern, and C. Binnicher; the rest, by the Reformed Pastors Theusand Froelich. In 1787 these ministers and congregations had united as a"corpus evangelicum" under the following title: "Unio Ecclesiastica ofthe German Protestant Churches in the State of South Carolina. " PastorDaser was chosen _Senior Ministerii_. At the following convention, January 8, 1788, all Lutheran ministers present pledged themselves onthe Symbolical Books. A third meeting was held August 12, 1788;President Daser presented a constitution, which was adopted. Among otherthings it provided: 1. The intention of this union was not that anymember should deny his own confession. 2. A Directorium, composed of theministers and two laymen, should remain in power as long as a majorityof the 15 congregations would be in favor of it. 3. The Directoriumshould be entrusted with all church affairs: the admission, dismissal, election, examination, ordination, and induction of ministers; theestablishment of new churches and schools; the order of divine service, collections, etc. 4. Any member of any of the congregations was bound toappear before the Directorium when cited by this body. 5. Where themajority of a congregation was Reformed, a Reformed Agenda and Catechismwere to be used. 6. The ministers should be faithful in the discharge oftheir pastoral duties, . . . Visiting the schools frequently, admonishing the parents to give their children a Christian training, etc. 7. A copy of this constitution should be deposited in everycongregation and subscribed by its members. 8. Complaints against thepastor which the vestry failed to settle should be reported to thePresident immediately. 9. The brethren in Europe should be petitioned toprovide the congregations with preachers and schoolteachers. --It isself-evident that this anomalous union with a Directorium invested withgoverning and judicial powers, to whose decisions Lutheran as well asReformed pastors and congregations had to submit, lacked vitality, and, apart from flagrant denials of the truth, was bound to lead todestructive frictions. After an existence of several years the "UnioEcclesiastica" died a natural death, the Directorium, as far as has beentraced, holding its last meeting in 1794. By 1804, the ministers who hadorganized this union body, all save one, were dead. The congregationseked out a miserable existence, becoming, in part, a prey to theMethodists and Baptists. Thus also the promising Lutheran field of SouthCarolina was finally turned into a desert, chiefly in consequence of thedearth of Lutheran preachers, who really could have been produced fromthis very field. (G. , 601 ff. )

THE NORTH CAROLINA SYNOD. 

70. Unionistic from the Beginning. --Most of the Germans in NorthCarolina came from Pennsylvania. In 1771 the congregation at Salisbury(which was in existence as early as 1768, and soon thereafter erected achurch), together with the congregations in Rowan Co. And in MecklenburgCo. , sent a delegation to England, Holland, and Germany, asking forassistance. The result was that Pastor A. Ruessmann, who died in 1794, and Teacher J. G. Arends (Ahrends), who soon officiated as pastor, weresent in 1773. In 1787 Pastor Chr. E. Bernhardt arrived, followed by C. A. G. Stork (Storch) in 1788, and A. Roschen, who returned to Germany in1800. But it was not genuine Lutheranism which was cultivated by theseGerman emissaries. Many of the books coming from Helmstedt were of arationalistic character. Also the North Carolina Catechism("Nordkarolingischer Katechismus . . . , entworfen von Johann KasparVelthusen, Doktor und ordentlichem Lehrer der Theologie, erstem Predigerin Helmstedt und Generalsuperintendent") savored of rationalism. Theconfessional and doctrinal degeneration of the pastors in North Carolinaappears from, and is attested by, the fact that in his ordination, in1794, R. J. Miller was pledged to the Thirty-nine Articles of theEpiscopalians. The Synod of North Carolina experienced a rapid growth, receiving 19 congregations into membership in 1813. According to theReport of 1815, twenty lay delegates were present at the meeting of thatyear. In 1823, after the separation of the Tennessee Synod, the NorthCarolina Synod reported 19 ministers with about 1, 360 communicants. Itsfirst convention had been held in Salisbury, May 2, 1803. Besides thelay delegates, this meeting was attended by Pastor Arends, Miller, Stork, and Paul Henkel. From the very beginning the Articles of Synodmade no mention of the Lutheran Confessions. At the meeting of 1804 aReformed minister delivered the sermon. In 1810 a resolution was passedpermitting every pastor to administer communion to those of anotherfaith. It was furthermore resolved: "Whereas it is evident thatawakenings occur in our day by means of preaching for three consecutivedays, and whereas this is to be desired among our brethren in the faith, it was resolved, on motion of Mr. Philip Henkel, to make a trial in allour churches next spring. " In the same year the North Carolina Synodordered the ordination of the Moravian G. Shober (Schober). The minutesof 1815 record the following: "Since the church council of a newly builtReformed church in Guilford County expressly desires that our next synodbe held in their church, it was resolved that synod shall be held insaid church on the third Sunday in October, 1816. " As in the otherLutheran bodies of that time, pulpit- and altar-fellowship, Reformedteaching, and Methodistic enthusiasm became increasingly rampant inSynod. In 1817 Synod declared that it would continue to bear theLutheran name, and became demonstrative over the Reformationtercentenary. The same convention, however, passed a resolution withregard to the joint hymn-book published by Schaeffer and Maund inBaltimore, as follows: "We hereby tender the aforementioned gentlemenour heartiest thanks, and rejoice that we are able to accede fully tothe aforementioned recommendations for its use both at church and inprivate among all our congregations. At the same time we humblypetition the God of love and unity to crown it with blessings in Hiskingdom and temple. It was also resolved that the English Agenda whichQuitman had introduced in New York "be adopted as one of our symbolicalbooks, and as such be recommended for use. " (G. , 647. )

71. Shober's Jubilee Book. --In 1817 Synod also approved of, andresolved to publish, Shober's jubilee book, "A Comprehensive Account ofthe Rise and Progress of the Blessed Reformation of the ChristianChurch by Doctor Martin Luther, begun on the thirty-first of October, A. D. 1517; interspersed with views of his character and doctrine, extracted from his book; and how the Church established by him arrivedand progressed in North America, as also the Constitution and Rules ofthat Church, in North Carolina and adjoining States, as existing inOctober, 1817. " In the Preface, Shober gives utterance to the hope thatall Protestant churches and their individual members would, by readinghis book, be moved "to pray to God that He would awaken the spirit oflove and union in all who believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, the onlyMediator between God and men, in order to attain the happy timeprophesied, when we shall blissfully live as one flock under oneShepherd. " On page 208 ff. He says: "Why are we not all united in loveand union? Why these distances, controversies, disputes, mutualcondemnations, why these splittings of formulas? Why cannot the Churchof Christ be one flock under one Shepherd? My friends, at the propertime the Lord will unite us all. Thank God, we see the morning starrising; the Union approaches, in Europe through Bible-societies, inAmerica, too, through mission-societies, through the efforts of the richand poor in sending out religious tracts, through the hundred thousandchildren who now learn to know their God and Savior in theSunday-schools. Through frequent revivals and many other signs itbecomes apparent that the earth will soon be filled with the knowledgeof the Lord. Among all classes of those who adore Jesus as God I seenothing of importance which could prevent a cordial union; and what afortunate event would it be if all churches would unite and senddelegates to a general convention of all denominations and there couldsettle down on Christ, the Rock, while at the same time eachdenomination would be permitted to retain its peculiar ways and forms. This would have the influence on all Christians that, wherever andwhenever they met each other, they would love one another and keepfellowship with each other. " Synod declared: This book "will give to ourfellow-Christians in other denominations a clear view of what theLutheran Church really is. " Yet, in this jubilee-gift Shober practicallydenied the Lutheran doctrines of the Lord's Supper and of Absolution, and, as shown, enthusiastically advocated a universal union of allChristian denominations. Previously Shober had written: "I havecarefully examined the doctrine of the Episcopal Church, have read manyexcellent writers of the Presbyterians, know the doctrine of theMethodists from their book _Portraiture of Methodism_, and am acquaintedwith the doctrine of the Baptists, as far as they receive and adoreJesus the Savior. Among all classes of those who adore Jesus as God, Ifind nothing of importance which could prevent a cordial union. " (647 f. 682. )

CRITICAL CONVENTIONS. 

72. "Untimely Synod" of 1819. --The leaders of the North CarolinaSynod, Stork, Shober, Jacob Scherer, Daniel Scherer, Miller, and others, cherished a sanguine hope of uniting all churches into a nationalAmerican Church, despite doctrinal differences. What could be moredelightful, and what in all the world could be more desired, theydeclared in 1820, than "to bring about a general union of all religiousparties throughout the entire land, that the glorious prophecy might befulfilled: that they might all be one flock who are all under oneShepherd. " (_Tennessee Report_ 1820, 25. ) The scheme also of organizinga Lutheran General Synod (for which purpose the Pennsylvania Synod hadinvited all other Lutheran bodies to attend its meetings at Baltimorein 1819 in order to discuss plans for this projected Pan-Lutheranunion) was exultantly hailed as a step in this direction by leaders ofthe North Carolina Synod, notably by Shober. Accordingly, in order toenable the North Carolina Synod to take part in the meeting atBaltimore, the officers of Synod autocratically convened that body fiveweeks before the time fixed by the constitution. Shober was sent toBaltimore as delegate, and took a prominent part in drawing up the"Planentwurf, " the tentative constitution for the organization of aGeneral Synod. This irregular meeting of the North Carolina Synod waslater on known as the "Untimely Synod. " It provoked much ill feeling andled to the organization of the Tennessee Synod in 1820. (_Tenn. Rep_. 1820, 49. ) At this "Untimely Synod" David Henkel was charged withteaching transubstantiation, because he had preached the Lutherandoctrine of the Lord's Supper to his congregations. Synod found himguilty, and degraded him to the rank of catechist for a period of sixmonths. Says the Report of the Tennessee Synod, 1820: "David Henkel wasto be entitled to his former rank in office only when, after a period ofsix months, sufficient written evidence should have been submitted tothe President that peace obtained in his congregations, and that noimportant accusation was lodged against him by others, especially by theReformed [Presbyterians], whereupon the President would be empowered toconfer on him the privileges of a candidate until the next synod. " (18. )The following statement of the same Report characterizes the doctrinalattitude of President Stork and other leaders of Synod: "We [theHenkels] have written evidence that, when a paper was read at said'Untimely Synod' containing the statement that the human nature of JesusChrist had been received into the divine nature (dass die MenschheitJesu Christi in die Gottheit sei aufgenommen worden), and that thereforeHe possessed all the divine attributes, the President [Stork] declaredthat he could not believe this. And when it was said that such was theteaching of the Bible, he answered: 'Even if five hundred Bibles shouldsay so, he would not believe it!' And to our knowledge he was nevercalled to account for this statement. " (20. ) The autocratic actions ofthe leaders of the North Carolina Synod and their adherents virtuallyresulted in a rupture of Synod in the same year. For the dissatisfiedparty held a synod of their own at Buffalo Creek, at the time specifiedby the constitution, and ordained Bell and David Henkel. 

73. "Synod of Strife" (Streitsynode). --The meeting at Lincolnton, N. C. , 1820, which followed the "Untimely Synod, " was marked by painfulscenes and altercations and the final breach between the majority, whowere resolved to unite with the General Synod, and the minority, whoopposed the union and accused the leader not only of high-handed, autocratic procedure and usurpation of power in contravention of theconstitution, but also of false doctrine, and publicly refused torecognize them as Lutherans. On Sunday, May 28, Synod was opened with aservice in which Stork preached German and Bell English. Monday morningthe preachers, delegates, and a great multitude of people from theneighborhood returned to the church. They found it occupied by PastorsPaul Henkel, Philip Henkel, David Henkel, and Bell, who refusedadmission to the rest. After some parliamenteering, written and verbal, both parties entered the church. The Henkels report as follows: "They[the opponents] took their stand on the fact that the majority was ontheir side and according to it everything should be decided. Accordingly, before they came to us in the church, they first delegatedone of their preachers with two questions directed to one of ourpreachers. The first was: 'Whether he intended to separate from theNorth Carolina Synod?' The second: 'Whether he was willing to begoverned by a majority of preachers and delegates in the mattersdisputed?' He, giving him no decisive answer, came to the rest of us andtold us. We answered in writing: 'That we neither intend to separateourselves from Synod, nor would suffer ourselves to be governed by amajority; but that we wanted everything investigated and decidedaccording to the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession and according tothe constitution or order of our church, nothing else. ' In the mean timethe minister delegated came to us where we were gathered and demanded averbal answer to the same questions. We then gave this answer alsoverbally, whereupon he said with an arrogant gesture and autocratictone: 'That is not the point; I only ask, Do you want to, or do you notwant to?' We answered: 'We did not want to. ' He declared, 'That is all Idesire to know'; and saying which he rapidly turned about and hastilyran away from us. In the mean time the multitude of our opponents movedtoward us, proposing the same questions. We answered as before. Theleaders among them endeavored to maintain that, in order to decide thedispute, we were not bound to the constitution, but only to the majorityof the votes of the preachers and delegates, which majority they had;and that it was reasonable and fair for us to act according to it inthis dispute. But we thought that the doctrine of the AugsburgConfession (being assured, as we were, that it can be proved by thedoctrine of the Bible) should be of a greater weight to us than thevoice of a majority of men who are opposed to the doctrine and order ofour Church. After a brief altercation of this kind they went into thechurch, and we followed. Here the President [Stork], in a long speech inGerman, endeavored to prove what he had asserted before. The Secretary[Shober] made a still longer speech in English, in which he endeavoredto prove that we were not at all bound to act according to theconstitution or order of our Church; although he himself, with theapproval of Synod, had written the constitution and had it printed, thiswas not done with the intention of making it a rule or norm by which we, as members of Synod, were to be guided in our transactions; it wasmerely a sort of draft or model according to which, in course of time, one might formulate a good constitution, if in the future such shouldbecome necessary. However, it was proved [by the Henkels] from theconstitution itself that it had been received as just such an [official]document, sanctioned, after previous examination and approval by severalministers, by Synod and ordered to be printed. To this he [Shober]answered that such had not been the intention of Synod. Haste and lackof time had caused him to write it thus without previous carefulconsideration; therefore, now everything had to be governed and judgedaccording to the majority. But we were of the opinion that it wouldprove to be a very unreasonable action to reject a constitution which afew years ago, according to a resolution of Synod, had been printed andbound in 1, 500 copies, the money being taken from the synodicaltreasury, and sold at 75 cts. A copy. " (_Tenn. Rep_. 1820, 24. ) Thequestion concerning the violation of the constitution would, no doubt, have been settled in favor of the Henkels, if they had not opposed theleaders in their union schemes and charged them with false doctrine andapostasy from the Lutheran Church. Says the aforementioned TennesseeReport: "Even though the officers with their adherents (die alten HerrnBeamten mit ihrem Zugehoer) could perhaps themselves have thought so far[as to realize the arbitrariness of their procedure with reference tothe 'Untimely Synod'], yet the desire to organize the General Synod andto bring about a union with all religious bodies, especially with thePresbyterians, was so strong as to outweigh everything else" [even animminent breach]. The leaders finally admitted that both parties haderred, and declared their willingness to pardon everything if theminority would reunite with them. The Henkels, however, declared thatthey could have no fellowship with people who were addicted to falsedoctrines concerning Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and rejected thedoctrine of the Augsburg Confession. They also declared their impatiencewith the contemplated "general union of all religious denominations, "saying that such a union was no more possible than to bring together asone peaceful flock into one fold "sheep, goats, lambs, cows, oxen, horses, bears, wolves, wild cats, foxes, and swine. " At this junctureone of the officers, dissolving the meeting and leaving the church, exclaimed: "Whoever is a _true Lutheran_, may he come with us to thehotel of J. H. ; there we will begin our Synod!" The minority answered:"Whoever wants to be a true fanatic (Schwaermer), may he go along; foryou are no real Lutheran preachers: you are fanatics (Schwaermer) andto them you belong!" A young teacher added: "According to the testimonyof Holy Scripture, it is impossible for us to regard you as anything butfalse teachers. " Then one of the old ministers, turning toward theassembly, said: "Now you yourselves have heard the boldness andimpertinence of this young man, who charges us, old and respectableministers that we are, with false doctrine. " Similar utterances weremade by others. The report concludes: "However, they left the churchwithout defending themselves against such accusations, except that oneof the old ministers said at the exit of the church that he was muchastonished. But we could not help that. " (_Tenn. Report_ 1820, 27. ) AsBell joined the Shober party, his ordination at Buffalo Creek wasdeclared constitutional and ratified as valid. Shober now reported onhis cordial reception by the Pennsylvania Synod and on the transactionwhich led to the adoption of the "Planentwurf" for the contemplatedorganization of the General Synod. The document, after its individualparagraphs had been read and discussed, was adopted by the NorthCarolina Synod by a majority of 15 to 6--a result which Shober hadforestalled in a letter to the Pennsylvania Synod assembled atLancaster, stating "that the greatest part of the members of the NorthCarolina Synod had adopted the so-called Planentwurf, " and expressingthe hope that the General Synod might be established. After adopting the"Planentwurf, " the North Carolina Synod elected Pastors Shober and PeterSchmucker delegates to the convention of the General Synod, which was toconvene at Hagerstown, Md. , October 22, 1820. Only a few ministers fromTennessee being present, the Henkels resolved not to transact anybusiness at this time. (27. )

74. Doctrinal Dispute at Lincolnton. --The points disputed atLincolnton did not only refer to the autocratic actions of the leadersof the Synod and their union schemes, but also to the doctrines ofBaptism and the Lord's Supper, regarding which the minority chargedStork, Shober, and their followers with holding un-Lutheran andanticonfessional views. The discussions on these doctrines caused JamesHill, a Methodist preacher who was present, to address a letter toSynod in which he said: "For almost thirteen years which I have spent inthis county [Lincoln Co. , N. C. , where David Henkel preached], I haveunderstood that the greatest number of your preachers in the county havetaught that the baptism of water effects regeneration, and that the bodyand blood of Christ is received bodily with the bread and wine in theLord's Supper, so that these doctrines, being so generally taught andconfessedly believed, confirmed me in the conviction that they are theorthodox doctrines of the Lutheran Church. Last Monday [at thediscussion on floor of Synod], however, I discovered, or believed todiscover, that some members of your Rev. Synod entertained differentviews. . . . Now, in order that I may know how to conduct myself in thefuture toward so respectable a part of the Church of Christ [NorthCarolina Synod], I request the opinion of your Synod on the abovepoints. " The answer, formulated by R. J. Miller and Peter Schmucker, andapproved of by the ministerium, was: "We do not say that all who arebaptized with water are regenerated and converted to God, so that theyare saved without the operation of the Holy Spirit, or in other words, without faith in Christ. " "We do not believe and teach that the body andblood of our Lord Jesus Christ are bodily received with the bread andwine in the Holy Supper, but that the true believer receives and enjoysit spiritually together with all saving gifts of His suffering anddeath, by faith in Jesus Christ. " (681. ) According to the report of theHenkels, the doctrine of predestination as taught by the Presbyterianswas also touched upon, for in it we read: "One of the members declared, and sought to maintain, that it was impossible for a man to fall fromthe grace of God after he had once been truly converted. Another deniedthe doctrine of Baptism as laid down in our catechism and in the Secondand Ninth Articles of the Augsburg Confession. The offer was made to athird to prove to him from his own handwriting that he denied thedoctrine of the Lord's Supper as set forth in the Tenth Article [of theAugsburg Confession]. They offered to have the letter read; but ouropponents did not agree to this. A book was placed before him and apassage was pointed out to him, in order that he might read what Luther, of blessed memory, himself teaches on this question. He closed itangrily and pushed it away. A fourth put the question: 'Can I not be a[Presbyterian] predestinarian and also a Lutheran?' For he believed thatthe [Presbyterian] doctrine of predestination could be proven from theBible. He received the answer: 'If he believed as the Predestinariansbelieve, then he belonged to them, and might go to them, it did notconcern us. '--For these reasons we believed to be all the more certainthat they were not true Evangelical Lutheran preachers, and this we alsotold them without reservation. " (_Tenn. Rep_. 1820, 24 f. ) In connectionwith the doctrine of regeneration by Baptism, the Henkels also referredto the error of the enthusiasts, gaining ground increasingly within theNorth Carolina Synod, _viz_. , that conversion and regeneration waseffected by anxious shrieking, united praying, and the exertion of allpowers of the body and soul. (32 f. ) The rupture, then, was inevitable:the doctrinal and spiritual gap between Shober and his compeers on theone hand and the Henkels and their adherents on the other hand beingjust as wide and insurmountable as that between Zwingli and Luther atMarburg 1529. The leaders of the North Carolina Synod were not onlyunionistic, but, in more than one respect, Reformed theologians. Theministers who soon after united in organizing the Tennessee Synoddeclared with respect to the North Carolina Synod: "If they would adoptthe name of what we believe they really are, and in this way withdrawfrom us, then we and other people would know what our relation wastoward them. But if they intend to remain in our household, they shallalso submit to its authority [Augsburg Confession], or we will havenothing to do with them. " (31. )

GOTTLIEB SHOBER. 

75. Harbors Reformed Views on Lord's Supper. --The charges againstDavid Henkel as to his teaching the Romish doctrine oftransubstantiation, referred to above, had been lodged with PastorShober, then secretary of the North Carolina Synod. When David Henkelcomplained that his accusers were not named, Shober, who had neverforsaken his Moravian views, wrote him a letter, dated October 20, 1818, which at the same time reveals that, as to the Lord's Supper, his werethe views of the Reformed. For here we read: "Your very long epistle, proving that Christ is with His body every where present, is excellenton paper, but not so in the pulpit, where seven-eighths of the hearerswill gaze at the profound erudition and one-eighth of such as reasonwill shake heads at a thing to be believed, but not explainable, and tonone will it effect conviction of the necessity of spiritualregeneration and of adopting Him as their God and Savior crucified. " "Imust assure you that creditable people of our Church and the Reformedhave not only heard you advance that whosoever is baptized and partakesof the Supper wants no other and further repentance, but also thatwhosoever teaches other doctrine, he is a false teacher. This, my dearsir, is making people secure in forms and not in realities. How easy isit to go to heaven, for an adulterous heart to be absolved by Mr. Henkel, and as a seal to receive from Mr. Henkel the Sacrament, who byhis few words made bread body and wine blood--and such a holy divinebody, without limitation of space, as is compelled to enter into allsubstances and beings, whether they will or not, so that a Belial, whenhe receives it, must thereby be made an heir of heaven. No, no, I cannotbelieve in such theories, and as I told you once at my home when youreturned from Virginia and asked me on that subject, so I think yet, andsay that when Mr. Henkel consecrates bread and wine, it is the body andblood of our Savior to such with whom He can unite; but to those who arenot of pure heart and yet partake, and that with reverence, thespirituality of the true essence does not unite with their souls; theyeat bread and wine, for they have not such a faith, love, and humilityas enables them to possess the divine essence. And those that partakewithout reverence, light-minded, and during the ceremony disdain thesimplicity of the institution, mock and deride it, they bring judgmentupon themselves for eating and drinking the consecrated elements, butnot for partaking [the] body and blood of Jesus, for they have notpartaken thereof. God and Belial cannot unite. Do, pray, reflect deeplyon the subject, and assure to all peace in heart, and those of contritespirit that the Lord in the Sacrament will unite with them spirituallyand seal their heavenly inheritance. But invite them all to come andpartake that revere the Savior as God, and assure them that, if theyapproach with reverence, it may be made the means of viewing thecondescending love of God ready to unite with them, and their owndepravity, which will or may make them cry, and, if pure in heart, obtain mercy. "

76. Slandering David Henkel. --What the Henkels, as early as 1809, hadtaught on the Lord's Supper, appears from a pamphlet published in thatyear at New Market, in the printery of Henkel. Here we read as follows:"But Paul teaches us that the bread which we break in the Lord's Supperis the communion of the body of Christ, and the cup of blessing withwhich we bless is the communion of the blood of Christ. If our breadand wine has communion with the body and blood of Christ, then it alsomust be what our dear Lord Himself calls it in the institution: Hisbody and His blood. " (680. ) This genuinely Lutheran doctrine it wasthat also David Henkel had been preaching, and which his opponents whocharged him with Roman aberrations called transubstantiation, impanation, or consubstantiation. And true to his Reformed traditions, Shober continued in his endeavors to slander David Henkel as aCrypto-Papist. This compelled Henkel to make the following explanationin 1827: "The ministry of the North Carolina Synod are charged withdenying the most important doctrine of the Lutheran Church, and havebeen requested to come to a reciprocal trial, which they haveobstinately refused. . . . Those ministers, as it plainly appears, entertain a strong personal prejudice against me, and have assertedmany charges with respect to my personal conduct, as well as withrespect to my doctrines. What shall I say? Have I not heretoforeoffered them a reciprocal trial, even as it respects personal conduct?Why did they not accede to it? They are truly injuring their ownreputation when they speak many evil things of me, in order to renderme ridiculous, and an object of persecution, and yet are unwilling toconfront me and prove their accusations by legal testimony. . . . I wisha reciprocal forgiveness. But as it respects the difference with respectto doctrines, it is necessary to be discussed, as that respects theLutheran community. Mr. Shober has most confidently charged me withteaching 'that if a man only is baptized and partakes of the Lord'sSupper, [he] is safe; and that I call those enthusiasts and bigots whoinsist upon further repentance and conversion. ' Again he charges me withopenly supporting the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, and offorgiving sins like the papists pretend to do. Now I positively denythese charges as being true, and if Mr. Shober does not confront me andprove these charges by a legal testimony or testimonies, what can Iotherwise, agreeably to the truth, call him but a calumniator, or onewho bears false witness against his neighbor? I do not believe that anyman in the United States (or, at least, I have never heard of any)teaches that, if a person only is baptized and receives the Lord'sSupper, [he] is safe exclusive of repentance. What a puerile conductsome men manifest in trying to prove that the doctrine with which Mr. Shober has charged me is erroneous, when no man nor class of men contendfor it! They are all the while fighting their own shadows. If the readerwill take the trouble to read my book entitled, '_Answer to Mr. JosephMoore, the Methodist;_ with a Few Fragments on the Doctrine ofJustification, ' he may readily see whether I maintain the doctrines withwhich I am charged, or whether I deny regeneration and the influence ofthe Holy Spirit. Again, as little as I believe the doctrine oftransubstantiation, so little do I believe that of consubstantiation. Aperusal of the book just now mentioned will also satisfy the reader onthis subject. " (_Tenn. Rep_. 1827, 48. )

NORTH CAROLINA RUPTURE. 

77. Charges Preferred by Tennessee Synod. --The report of the committeewhich the Tennessee Synod appointed in 1824 to discuss the doctrinaldifferences with the North Carolina Synod charged them with thefollowing statements of un-Lutheran doctrine which they quoted fromtheir writings: "1. 'Jesus says, without being baptized; and furthermoreHe says: He that believeth not shall be damned--hence, baptized or notbaptized, faith saves us. ' See the committee's appendix to theproceedings of said North Carolina connection of the year 1822, p. 4, §2. The President of said connection [Stork] says in his _English Review_, p. 46, 'that none but idiots could believe that the body of Christ fillsall space. ' See also their proceedings of 1820, p. 18. " (_Tenn. Rep_. 1824, Appendix. ) Accordingly the charges lodged by Tennessee against theNorth Carolina Synod were that they rejected the distinctive doctrinesof Lutheranism. In keeping herewith Tennessee refused to acknowledge theNorth Carolina Synod as Lutheran, and declined to grant her this title, speaking of her as a connection "which _calls_ itself a Lutheran synod. "In 1825 the Tennessee Synod declared: "We must here observe that wecannot consistently grant to the Synod of North Carolina this title[Lutheran], because we maintain that they departed from the Lutherandoctrine. " (6. ) The same convention headed a letter addressed to theNorth Carolina Synod as follows: "To the Reverend Synod of NorthCarolina, who assume the title Lutheran, but which we at this time, forreason aforesaid, dispute. Well beloved in the Lord, according to yourpersons!" etc. (7. ) According to a letter of Ambrosius Henkel, March 24, 1824, Riemenschneider declared: "The North Carolina Synod must havedeviated not only from the Lutheran doctrine, but from the very words ofChrist as well, as I have lately, in one of their publications, read thehorrible words: Baptized or not baptized, faith saves us. What is thatexcept to declare Baptism unnecessary? One would think that these peoplewere crazy (man sollte denken, diese Menschen waeren verrueckt). " TheNorth Carolina Synod, however, in spite of their avowed unionistic andessentially Reformed attitude, boldly insisted that they were the "trueLutherans"--a bit of bravado imitated several decades later byBenjamin Kurtz, one of the Reformed theologians of the General Synod, over against Missouri and other synods loyal to the Lutheran Confessions. 

78. "Lutheraner" on Division of North Carolina Synod. --The firstunbiased Lutheran estimate and, in all essential points, correctpresentation of the division in the North Carolina Synod is found in the_Lutheraner_ of June 5, 1855. Here Theo. Brohm, who attended thethirty-fourth convention of the Tennessee Synod in 1854 as therepresentative of the Missouri Synod, writes as follows: "GermanLutheran congregations had been organized in the State of North Carolinaas early as the middle of the preceding century. About 1798 the firstattempts were made to unite these congregations by a regulated synodicalbond. However, the removal of a number of pastors resulted in the decayof the church life in this field. After a number of years thecongregations increased again, and so the foundation for the Ev. Luth. Synod of North Carolina was laid in 1803. Paul Henkel was among thecharter members. The beginning was weak, but the good cause progressed. Gradually Lutheran congregations were organized also in Virginia, SouthCarolina, and in Tennessee, uniting with this synod. As most of thepastors had come from Pennsylvania, cordial unity obtained between thePennsylvania Synod and the Synod of North Carolina. In the course oftime, however, Satan succeeded in sowing tares among the wheat. Twoopposing parties sprang up in the synod. The one, to which the greatmajority belonged, found its expression and embodiment in the GeneralSynod, and is too well known to our readers to require furthercharacterization at this place. The other was the staunch and trulyLutheran party, to which, indeed, but a small minority adhered. Themajority, in agreement with a number of influential men in thePennsylvania Synod, proposed the idea of a General Synod, which, according to their view, was to embody not only the various Lutheransynods of this country, but, if possible, all other religious bodies aswell. While the true Lutherans could see nothing but mischief arisingfrom this General Synod, the majority entered upon this unhappy schemewith great enthusiasm. And, in order to carry out their plan, withoutthe let or hindrance of the staunch Lutherans, the friends of theGeneral Synod convened a meeting of synod in 1819 at an unlawful time, and also without notifying all pastors, especially those of Tennessee. Delegates were elected to the convention of the Pennsylvania Synod inBaltimore, where the plan for the General Synod was to be matured. Inorder to destroy the influence of one of the most decided opponents, theyoung David Henkel, he was suspended from office for a period of sixmonths, ostensibly because he was spreading Roman Catholic doctrines, which in reality, however, were none but pure Lutheran doctrines, especially those of the power of Baptism and of the presence of the truebody and blood in the Lord's Supper. When the Synod met at Lincolnton, N. C. , in the following year, those members of Synod who weredissatisfied with the resolutions of the previous year demanded athorough investigation of the mooted questions. In answer reference wasmade to the majority vote, which decision was to be final. Hostility tothe Augsburg Confession and especially to the doctrines of Baptism andof the Lord's Supper, as well as the tendency to unite with allreligious bodies, became more and more apparent. And when the plan ofthe General Synod met with the determined opposition of the staunchLutherans, the other party dissolved the meeting and made the beginningof the General Synod. Those pastors who remained faithful to theLutheran Confessions, six in number, now united and organized theso-called Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod. " (11, 165. )

LUTHERANS IN VIBGINIA. 

79. G. Henkel, Stoever, Klug at Spottsylvania. --In 1754 Muhlenberg andthe Pennsylvania Synod sent an appeal to both London and Halle in whichthey state: "Many thousands of Lutheran people are scattered throughNorth Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, etc. " When theIndians attacked New Bern, N. C. , shortly after it had been founded in1710 by 650 Palatines and Swiss, twelve Lutheran families escaped fromthe massacre and sought refuge in Virginia. Here Governor Spottwoodallotted them homes in Spottsylvania County. Gerhard Henkel is said tohave been their first pastor; but he served them for a short time only. Their number was increased by a colony of Alsatians and Palatinates. They had started for Pennsylvania, but, after various hardships on thevoyage, in which many of their companions died, were purchased byGovernor Spottwood, and sent by him to his lands in the same locality, on the upper Rappahannock, "twelve German miles from the sea. " (Jacobs, 184. ) In 1728, after a vacancy of sixteen years, Henkel was succeeded byJohn Caspar Stoever, Sr. , born in Frankenberg, Hesse, who came toAmerica with his younger relative of the same name, the latter beingactive for many years as a missionary in Pennsylvania. Stoever's salaryin Virginia was three thousand pounds of tobacco a year. In 1734 he andtwo members of his congregation, Michael Schmidt and Michael Holden, went to Europe to collect a fund for the endowment of their church. "Because the congregation, " as an old report has it, "ardently desiresthat the Evangelical truth should not be extinguished with his death, but be preserved to them and their descendants, the said preacher, Rev. Stoever, toward the close of the year 1734, . . . Undertook a voyage toEurope to collect a fund for the continuance of their service, thebuilding of a church and school, and the endowment of the ministry. "(G. , 115. ) In London they were cordially received by Ziegenhagen, andrecommended to Germany and Holland. Besides a large amount of money, they procured a library of theological books. George Samuel Klug offeredhis services as a pastor, and, after his ordination at Danzig, August 30, 1736, proceeded to Virginia with one of the laymen. After completing hiscollections, Stoever returned, in 1838, but died at sea. Thecontributions which Stoever had collected amounted to three thousandpounds, one-third of which paid the expenses, and the rest the buildingof a chapel (Hebron Church) and the purchase of farmlands and slaves. Muhlenberg, Sr. , wrote: "It is said to be a profitable plantation, andowns several slaves to till the land. " (G. , 606. ) Pastor Klug, who, inorder to relieve the monotony of his isolation, made occasional visitsto the Lutheran ministers in Pennsylvania, wrote in 1749 that "thecongregation was not in the least burdened by his support. " However, theendowment of the church seems to have been a hindrance rather than anadvantage. The congregation lost many members to the Dunkards. Klugcontinued his ministry till 1761, when he was succeeded by Schwarbach, and later by Frank, both of whom were licensed at Culpeper, the latterfor three years, beginning with 1775. Probably also Peter Muhlenbergpreached in the old Hebron Church. Later on Paul Henkel, when active asa missionary in Virginia, had the congregation under his supervision. 

80. Peter Muhlenberg and J. N. Schmucker at Woodstock. --Many of themore enterprising of the Germans in Pennsylvania, notably in Montgomery, Berks, Lancaster, and York Counties, pressed toward the frontiers oftheir State, and then followed the Cumberland Valley into Maryland andfar beyond into the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, their number beingconstantly increased by immigrants from Germany. To supply their needs, Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, in 1772, was sent to Virginia, Woodstock(Muellerstadt) being his home and the center of his field. Thoughserving practically none but German Lutherans, he sought and securedthe ordination of the Episcopal Church in order to obtain legalrecognition of his marriages. In Virginia the Protestant EpiscopalChurch was firmly established, and dissenters were compelled to pay anannual tribute to the established preachers. Says Muhlenberg, Sr. : "Ifdissenting parties were married by their own pastors, this was notlegal, and they could not get off any cheaper than by paying themarriage dues to the established county preacher and obtaining amarriage certificate from him. " (G. , 606. ) Together with W. White, afterward Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Pennsylvania, Peter Muhlenberg was ordained by the Bishop of London, after he had beenexamined and had subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles. By theindifferentistic Germans and Swedes of those days such ordinations weregenerally regarded as a favor and comity from the Episcopalians ratherthan a humiliation and denial on the part of the Lutherans. Dr. Kunzesays: "The bishops of London have never made a difficulty to ordainLutheran divines, when called to congregations which, on account ofbeing connected with English Episcopalians, made this ordinationrequisite. Thus by bishops of London the following Lutheran ministerswere ordained: Bryselius, Peter Muhlenberg, Illing, Houseal, and Wagner. The last-mentioned was called, after having obtained this ordination, toan Ev. Lutheran congregation in the Margraviate of Anspach in Germany. "(Jacobs, 285. ) Peter Muhlenberg viewed his Episcopal ordination as apurely civil affair, and, though claimed by the Episcopalians, he alwaysregarded himself as a Lutheran. He died (1807) with the conviction thathe had never been anything but a Lutheran. In a circular to the Lutheranchurches of Philadelphia, dated March 14, 1804, he said: "Brethren, wehave been born, baptized, and brought up in the Evangelical LutheranChurch. Many of us have vowed before God and the congregation, at ourconfirmation, to live and die by this doctrine of our Church. In thedoctrine of our Church we have our joy, our brightest joy; we prize itthe more highly since, in our opinion, it agrees most with the doctrineof the faithful and true witness of our Savior Jesus Christ. We wishnothing more than that we and our children and our children's childrenand all our posterity may remain faithful to this doctrine. " (284. )Among the friends of Peter Muhlenberg at Woodstock were GeorgeWashington and the orator of the Revolution, Patrick Henry. The story iswell known how, after preaching a sermon on the seriousness of the timesand pronouncing the benediction, he cast off his clerical robe, appearing before his congregation in the glittering uniform of a colonel. During the long vacancy which followed Wildbahn, Goering, and J. D. Kurtz preached occasionally in the old church at Woodstock. In 1805 JohnNicholas Schmucker took charge of the field. He was a popular preacher, using, almost exclusively, also in the pulpit, the Pennsylvania German. "Zu so Kinner, " he said, "muss mer so preddige. " (G. , 608. )

81. Patriotic Activity of Peter Muhlenberg. --Peter was the oldest sonof H. M. Muhlenberg. He was sent to the University of Halle for histheological training, where his independent spirit soon brought him intotrouble. At one occasion he resented an insult on the part of hisinstructor with a blow. Forestalling expulsion, the young man enlistedin a German regiment, in which he was known as "Teufel Piet. " After twoyears of military training he returned to America, and consented tostudy theology under his father. After a short pastorate in New Jerseyhe was transferred to Woodstock. He traveled extensively through theShenandoah Valley and the mountains to the west, preaching whereverLutherans could be found. When the Revolution began, Peter Muhlenbergroused the patriotism of his fellow-Germans in Virginia, who were muchbetter established and in closer touch with their English neighbors thanthose in North Carolina, many of them being acquainted with Lord Fairfaxand George Washington and holding civil offices in their communities. Muhlenberg brought about, and was chairman of, the Woodstock Convention, June 16, 1774, at which the Germans united with their Scotch-Irishneighbors in a declaration against British tyranny, nearly a year beforethe famous Mecklenburg Declaration in May, 1775. The resolutions adoptedat Woodstock were prepared by a committee, of which Muhlenberg waschairman. They read, in part, as follows: "That we will pay duesubmission to such acts of government as His Majesty has a right by lawto exercise over his subjects, and to such only. " "That it is theinherent right of British subjects to be governed and taxed byrepresentatives chosen by themselves only, and that every act of theBritish Parliament respecting the internal policy of America is adangerous and unconstitutional invasion of our rights and privileges. ""That the enforcing of the execution of the said act of Parliament bymilitary power will have a necessary tendency to cause a civil war, thereby dissolving that union which has so long happily subsistedbetween the mother country and her colonies; and that we will mostheartily and unanimously concur with our suffering brethren of Bostonand every other part of North America that may be the immediate victimof tyranny, as promoting all proper measures to avert such dreadfulcalamities to procure a redress of our grievances and to secure ourcommon liberties. " After the Woodstock meeting Muhlenberg was elected amember of the House of Burgesses of Virginia and also of the StateConvention. He was appointed colonel of the Eighth regiment, afterwardsknown as the German regiment, which he also raised. After receiving hiscommission, Muhlenberg preached the famous war sermon which ColonelRoosevelt, several years ago, repeated in _Collier's Weekly_, in hisplea for fair play for the Germans. Beneath his black pulpit robe, whichis to-day in the possession of the Henkel Brothers' Publishing House, Peter Muhlenberg wore his uniform. In his sermon he spoke of the dutiescitizens owe to their country. In closing he said: "There is a time forpreaching and praying; but there is also a time of fighting; now thistime has come!" The service ended, he retired to the sacristy and cameout the colonel. He made a speech from the front steps of his church andbegan the enlistment, 300 signing. In the war he distinguished himselfat Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, and Yorktown, and was advanced tothe rank of Major-General. The war over, Peter Muhlenberg served asSpeaker of the House in Congress and afterwards as United StatesSenator. (_Luth. Church Review_ 1919, 160 ff. )

82. Chr. Streit at Winchester, Henkel at New Market. --In 1785Christian Streit, who had been active in New Hanover, Pa. , since 1782, came to Winchester, Va. , where he served till 1812. Here the foundationsfor a church had been laid in 1704. According to a document found in thecornerstone, the congregation, then numbering 33 members, declared:"This temple is dedicated to the Triune God and the Lutheran religion;all sects, whatsoever their names may be, departing from, or not fullyagreeing with, the Evangelical Lutheran religion, shall forever beexcluded from it. " This document was signed by Caspar Kirchner, thenpastor of the congregation, L. Adams, secretary, and Anton Ludi, schoolteacher. By the aid of a lottery the church was completed underChr. Streit in 1787. William Carpenter, a scholar of Streit, labored inMadison Co. , Va. , from 1791 to 1813, when he removed to Kentucky. Augusta County, in the Shenandoah Valley, was almost exclusively settledby 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 hadstudied German, Latin, Greek, and Theology under the direction of PastorKrug in Pennsylvania, and was ordained at Philadelphia in 1792. A mostzealous 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 inthe organization of the Synod of North Carolina in 1803. Returning toVirginia in 1805, he, together with his six sons, established a printeryat New Market, which loyally served the cause of true Lutheranism. Asthe years rolled on, the Henkels became increasingly free from theprevailing doctrinal indifferentism, and arrived at an ever clearerunderstanding of Lutheran truth, and this at a time when all existingLutheran synods were moving in the opposite direction. The Lutheranloyalty and determination of the Henkels over against the unionistic andReformed tendencies within the North Carolina Synod led to theorganization of the Tennessee Synod, July 17, 1820, a synod whichespoused the cause of pure Lutheranism, and zealously opposed theenthusiastic, unionistic, and Reformed aberrations then prevalent in allother Lutheran synods of America. Two years prior, September 14, 1818, Paul Henkel had participated in the organization of the Ohio Synod, atfirst called the General Conference of Evangelical Lutheran Pastors, etc. On October 11, 1820, conferences, which had met since 1793, led to theorganization of the Synod of Maryland and Virginia at Winchester, Va. , by ten pastors and nine delegates. Nine years later the Virginia Synodwas 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 aSpecial Conference was organized in Virginia: "Specialkonferenz derEvang. -Luth. Prediger (Lehrer) und Abgeordneten im Staat Virginien. " Atthe meeting held on Sunday, October 7, 1805, in the newly built churchat Millerstadt (Woodstock), five lay delegates (among them DoctorSolomon Henkel) and the following ministers were present: Chr. Streit, W. Carpenter, Paul Henkel, J. Foltz, A. Spintler. Streit delivered atouching sermon (eine ruehrende Rede) in the Lutheran church on Matt. 28, 20. In the afternoon Paul Henkel preached in the Reformed church on2 Cor. 4, 5; in the evening, Carpenter on 1 Cor. 1, 23, also in theReformed church. Monday morning they met in the schoolhouse. At 12o'clock Spintler preached in the Reformed church on Eph. 1, 7. In theafternoon it was decided that an address to the congregations be addedto the minutes "on better bringing up of the children and better orderof the youth. " On motion of Solomon Henkel it was resolved to add to theminutes also the 21 articles of the Augsburg Confession. Furthermore itwas resolved that after the sermon the children should be instructed inthe catechism. It was also approved to abolish as far as possible thecustom of saying the individual lines of the hymns in public worship(die Lieder zeilenweise vorzusprechen). The address added to the minutessays, in part: "If children are to grow up well-bred and be reared tothe honor of God, then the teachers in the churches, the schoolteachersin the school-houses, and the parents in their dwellings must performtheir various duties toward the young plants in the vineyard of theLord. " "Generally men care for the bodily welfare of their children, which in itself is not wrong; why, then, should we not also, and indeedmuch 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 yourchildren instructed in the fundamental truths of our holy religion. Sendthem, according to your ability and the circumstances, to schoolregularly, especially to such schools where they are trained, not onlyfor this world, but for heaven also, where they are instructed in song, prayer, and the doctrine of the catechism. " "In our corrupted times someparents permit their children to waste the whole day of the holy Sabbathin a disorderly and sinful manner rather than bring them to the teacherin order to have them instructed for half an hour to their temporal andeternal welfare. O parents, parents! is that the way to bring up yourchildren in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? O remember that, whoknows how soon, you with your dear children will have to appear beforeGod'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 condemnyou there before the throne of God!" With respect to the grown-up youththe address complains: "We cannot, in truth, think of many of youwithout shedding tears. Many of you do not only despise your mothertongue, but with it your mother church. Many, at least among those ofour acquaintance, born of Evangelical Lutheran parents, neglect theinstruction which they could have so conveniently, neglect confirmationand the Lord's Supper, and frequently behave in public worship in amanner to make one feel almost ashamed of them, and thus they live inthe world without religion and without God. "

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 theabsence of a minister. At the meeting in the schoolhouse at Winchester, 1808, it was resolved that the congregations elect devout men to conductreading-services and give catechetical instruction to the children onSundays when ministers are absent. It was furthermore resolved thatministers should conduct, as often as possible, private meetings intheir congregations in order to edify the members by prayer, song, andinstruction. The admonition, written by Paul Henkel and Streit, andadded to the minutes, in a simple and earnest manner urges thecongregations to introduce the reading-services, the instruction of theyoung, and to attend the private meetings. "Coldness and indifference inreligion, " they say, "is so universal that we must employ all possiblemeans to awaken men to a true and living Christianity. " A special andfervent appeal is added not to abuse, but to keep, the Sabbath, the Dayof the Lord, "the good, useful, holy day, which God especially hasreserved for Himself for the furtherance of His honor and the welfare ofour immortal souls. " The appeal concludes: "Do you love your country?Then sanctify the Sabbath. Do you love civic rest? Then sanctify theSabbath. Do you love your neighbors? Then sanctify the Sabbath. Do youlove your children? Then sanctify the Sabbath. Do you love your parents?Then sanctify the Sabbath. Do you love your preachers, your Savior, andyour souls? Then sanctify the Sabbath. Do you desire to escape hell?Then sanctify the Sabbath. Do you desire some day to celebrate theeternal Sabbath with the saints and the perfected just before the throneof God? Then sanctify the Sabbath here on earth, whereby you may be bestprepared for those blissful occupations. " At the meeting of the SpecialConference in the school of Solomon's Church, Shenandoah County, 1809, it was resolved that the admonition to be added to the minutes of thisyear should take "special reference to the furtherance of the Germanlanguage and schools. " The admonition, written by Paul Henkel andCarpenter, complains that the ministers were not able to do theirmission-duty, partly because they were rich and unable to undergo thehardships connected with traveling, partly because the congregationssupporting them refused to let them go. They admonish the congregationsto show their brotherly love in permitting their ministers to servetheir forsaken and needy brethren. Respecting the cultivation of theGerman language, the admonition remarks, in part: "In the first place, we know that the English language is not as easily understood as theGerman. Even when the Germans are able to read and write it, theyunderstand very little of it aright. Their parents, themselves notknowing the language, can hear their children read, and see them write, but cannot show them where they err, nor correct them. And just aslittle 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 someuseful books, until they learn to understand it from theirdictionaries. " "If parents were really concerned about training theirchildren for the general weal of the country, they would see to it thattheir sons be taught the Christian religion in their mother-tongue aswell as be instructed in the English language to read, write, figure, etc. Then they might become truly useful men for the general welfare oftheir country. All the most useful men that one can point out in ourcountry are, as a rule, of this class. It cannot be expected that menwho, for reasons of selfishness and pride, despise their language andchurch will stand for the welfare of their country. " The admonitionconcludes: "We know how much good and wholesome instruction for theedification of our souls and for the comfort of our hearts we havederived from our German books, which are so easily understood, and whichso plainly describe the simple way of life. From what we learned fromthem ever since our youth, we have obtained our only hope of salvationhereafter; why, then, should we, for any reason whatsoever, deprive ourchildren of it?" According to the statistical appendix of the minutes ofthe Special Conference in 1809, there were, at that time, no less than49 organized congregations in Virginia. It does not, however, appearthat the interest in the German language and the consciousness of trueLutheranism made any marked progress in the following years. In 1817, atCulpeper, Pastors G. Riemenschneider, A Reck, Nicholas and PeterSchmucker, and Michael Meyerhoeffer, and five lay delegates werepresent. Four German and three English sermons were delivered. Among theresolutions is the following: "that only pious and, if possible, onlyconverted men be chosen as elders of the congregations, and that theylive piously both in their homes with family prayer in the evening andmorning, and before the world respectably and honorably, receive theLord's Supper frequently, " etc. Instead of any reference to thetercentenary of the Reformation we find in the minutes of 1817 aresolution to the effect "that the proceedings of this year, togetherwith 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 GeneralSynod. "The _Lutheran Observer_, the Pastors' Fund, the LutheranMinisters' Insurance League, the Missionary Institute, now SusquehannaUniversity, were all born in this venerable Synod, which was also firstto suggest the observance of Reformation Day. Lutherville and HagerstownFemale Seminaries are within its bounds. It has always been abreast ofthe most advanced, evangelical, and catholic life of the Church, givingno uncertain sound upon the divine obligation of the Lord's Day and thesaloon. " (J. G. Butler in the _Luth. Cycl_. , 482. ) Among its notedpastors 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. Passavant, Sr. , Ezra Keller. But men of this synod also led the van indoctrinal and practical liberalism. Harkey and Kurtz were New-measuristsand enthusiastic revivalists. Harkey moved the publication of a monthly, _The Revivalist_, which Synod, however, declared "inexpedient. " Throughthe endeavors of Kurtz a committee was appointed to bring in a report onthe "New Measures, " which was referred back to the committee. In 1844Synod resolved to issue an "Abstract of the Doctrines and Practise ofthe Ev. Luth. Synod of Maryland. " Fourteen doctrinal articles wereprepared by H. L. Baugher, B. Kurtz, and S. W. Harkey, containing, amongother statements, also the following: "We believe that the Scripturesteach that God has given to man, as a natural gift, the power of choice, and that, whilst he is influenced in his volitions by motives, he alwayspossesses the ability to choose the opposite of that which was theobject of his choice. God, in His providence and grace, places beforeman the evil and the good, urging him by the most powerfulconsiderations to choose the latter and reject the former. When thesinner yields to God, that is regeneration. " "We believe that theScriptures teach that there are but two Sacraments, _viz_. , Baptism andthe Lord's Supper, in each of which truths essential to salvation aresymbolically represented. We do not believe that they exert anyinfluence _ex opere operato_, but only through the faith of thebeliever. Neither do the Scriptures warrant the belief that Christ ispresent in the Lord's Supper in any other than a spiritual manner. " "Weregard them [the Lutheran Symbols] as good and useful exhibitions oftruth, but do not receive them as binding on the conscience, except sofar as they agree with the Word of God. " Evidently these articles of theMaryland "Abstract, " as A. Spaeth puts it, "not only avoid or contradictthe distinctive features of the Lutheran Confession, but have a decidedsavor of Arminianism and Pelagianism. " (_C. P. Krauth_, 1, 111 f. )October 17, 1856, the Maryland Synod declared that every one is atliberty to accept or reject the doctrines of the Augsburg Confessionwhich the "Definite Platform" rejected as false, provided that therebythe divine institution of the Sabbath be not rejected, nor the doctrinalbasis of the General Synod changed. (_L. U. W_. 1856, 382. )

86. Maryland Abstract of Doctrines. --On the un-Lutheran, Reformed, andArminian articles of the Maryland "Abstract" we quote Dr. A. Spaeth asfollows: "This report was first recommitted, and, in 1846, was laid onthe table and indefinitely postponed. The _Lutheran Observer_ referredto it in an extended editorial (November 27, 1846), and printed it infull, with a few slight alterations and omissions. We quote from thisarticle as follows: 'When asked what Lutherans believe, the question isnot always so easily answered to the satisfaction of the inquirer. Wemay refer him to books, confessions, catechisms, etc. ; but theproponent, most probably, has neither inclination nor time to hunt upand examine such authorities. He desires to be told in a few words, distinctly and definitely, what is the prevailing belief in the LutheranChurch on all fundamental points of religious truth. A short tract, apage or two comprehending an epitome of the doctrines and usages of themass of Lutheran Christians in the United States, is what would suithim. Is there anything of this kind to be found in the Church? The wantof 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 assumed such importance that it was finally agitated sometwo years ago in the Synod of Maryland, and afterward in the GeneralSynod (1846), held in Philadelphia. In both instances committees wereappointed to draw up and report an abstract of our "doctrine andpractise. " The committee appointed by the Maryland Synod complied; andthough the "Abstract" itself was approved, the Synod, for reasons whichwe have not time at present to explain, did not think proper to adoptthe report and recommend it to the Church. The committee was composed ofsome of our most intelligent and valued ministers; when they hadprepared it, they sent a copy to every minister of the Synod, solicitinghis emendations on the margin, and after its final return it wasreprinted with the benefit of these emendations; and it is in thisimproved form that we now present it. We find no difficulty insubscribing the document, and in presenting it as a fair, honestexhibition of Lutheran doctrine and practise as understood in thelatitude in which we reside; and if we are not greatly mistaken, thegreat mass of our American ministers throughout the land would not makeany material objection to it. '" Dr. Spaeth continues: "This attempt tosubstitute such an 'abstract' for the full and precise language of theConfession of the Church was a sort of forerunner of the famous'Definite Platform, ' which appeared about ten years afterward, and whoseprincipal author, Prof. S. S. Schmucker in Gettysburg, was so muchpleased with the 'abstract' that he referred to it again and again inhis lectures and articles, and even made his students commit to memoryits principal statements. In an article on the 'Vocation of the AmericanLutheran Church' (_Evangelical Review_, Vol. II, p. 510) he says: 'Withthe exception of several minor shades of doctrine, in which we are moresymbolic than Dr. Baugher, we could not ourselves, in so few words, givea 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 ourSymbols and the prevailing doctrines of our American Church are herefaithfully taught. '" (112. )

THE TENNESSEE SYNOD. 

ORGANIZATION. 

87. "German Ev. Luth. Conference of Tennessee. "--Although theTennessee Synod has always been and is now only one of the smallerAmerican Lutheran synods, its history reveals much that is gratifying, instructive, edifying, and interesting. The first report is entitled:"Report of the transactions of the first conference of the German Ev. Luth. Pastors and deputies held in the State of Tennessee, in Solomon'sChurch, 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 ofTennessee, George Esterly of Tennessee, and David Henkel of NorthCarolina (who was unable to attend the first meeting), and 19 deputiesof congregations in Tennessee. (_Bericht_ 1820, 3. ) By 1827 the numberof pastors had increased to 14, by 1856 to 32, and by 1900 to 40. Atpresent the Tennessee Synod numbers about 130 congregations and 14, 500communicants. The name "Synod" appears for the first time in the EnglishReport of 1825, and is found in the constitution since 1827. In theminutes of 1820 we read: "Firstly, it was deemed necessary and good thatall business and proceedings of this conference, or synod, shall beconducted in the German language. All written reports of the proceedingsbelonging to the whole shall also be published in the German language. "(4. ) Synod also regarded it "as most necessary that we be as diligent aspossible to acquaint our children with all our doctrines of faith in ourGerman language, since in it we are able to instruct them in the easiestway. " (9. ) A footnote makes the following comment: "The reason why wedesire a purely German-speaking conference: Experience has taught usthat where a conference is German-English, either the one or the otherparty considers itself offended. When German is spoken, the Englishbrethren understand little, and very frequently nothing at all. WhenEnglish 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 pastorswho accept the doctrine of our Church and desire to preach it. " (4. ) Thesame 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. SomeGermans also of our day are of such a kind that if they are able topreach a little English, no matter how broken and jargonlike it isspoken, they are inflated with such senseless pride that they would nolonger preach a thing in their mother-tongue nor care the least for theorder of the Church, if it were not a question of bread and of keepingthe good will of some obdurate Germans. They preach because they takepleasure in hearing themselves. Those who are really English andunderstand their language do not care to hear such, except at times, andthen for their amusement only. The Germans therefore are under noobligations to the good will of such sirs, when they serve them in theirlanguage and according to their order. " (31. ) Originally, then, theTennessee Synod was determined to be and to remain a purelyGerman-speaking body. 

88. Attitude toward the English Language. --That the interestmanifested by the Tennessee Synod in the German language was not due toany unreasonable prejudice or hatred toward the English language assuch, appears from the fact that since 1821 the minutes of Synod wereprinted both in English and German. Moreover, in the minutes of thesecond convention, 1821, we read: "At the request of some of ourbrethren of North Carolina it was resolved that there be annually asynod held in North Carolina, or in an adjoining State in the Englishlanguage. The members of the German Tennessee Synod may also help tocompose this Synod. It shall be governed agreeably to the sameconstitution as that of the German Tennessee Synod (the languageexcepted). Those who compose this Synod may appoint the place and timeof the meeting, when and where they may deem it expedient. " (Report1821, 7. ) The Report of 1822 records: "Resolved: Because this Synod isGerman-speaking, and Mr. Blalock not understanding this language, hecannot therefore have a seat and vote in this body. Yet, the Revs. Pauland David Henkel are allowed as individual ministers to examine him, andin 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, whichhe 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 otherministers, who walk agreeably to the doctrines and rules of the Germansynod, organize an English-speaking synod, in conformity to a resolutionpassed last year. " (5. ) In 1826 the resolution was adopted: "Whereasthere are sundry members belonging to this Synod who do not understandthe German language, and yet do not wish to form a separate body, it wasresolved that the Secretary, during this session, shall act as aninterpreter between the German and English brethren. It was furtherresolved that at the next session, during the three first days, all thebusiness shall be transacted in the German language, _i. E. _, if so muchtime shall be requisite; after which the business shall be resumed inthe English language. " (3. ) The anxiety caused by the language-questionappears from the following letter of Philip Henkel, dated October 19, 1826: "After my return from Synod, I found our Germancongregation-members very much dissatisfied because they believed thatwe had violated the constitution, and I am afraid that a separation willbe the result. For the old Germans will never suffer the Tennessee Synodto become a German-English-speaking body. We must certainly actcarefully in this matter, otherwise our Synod will be ruined. . . . Theysaid that they were willing to sacrifice the constitution, provided thatwe remain an exclusively German-speaking body. I also am willing torelinquish the constitution, provided that the Augsburg Confession ismade the constitution of this synod. We shall find that we shall not beable to keep the Germans and English together, even when we conductsynod at the same place three days in the German and three days in theEnglish language, for the Germans will have to suffer the burden. TheEnglish will always want to attend; then they are coarsely treated bythe Germans; the English complain; thus the matter will be ruined. Myadvice, therefore, is: Let us always hold a German-speaking synod, andafterwards an English-speaking one. In this way we shall be able toexist. For my part, I am willing to attend both. Every constitutionexcept the Augsburg Confession may then be set aside. If the Germansrefuse to maintain their language, we can't help it, and we are not atfault if they perish. If you approve the plan of holding first anexclusively German-speaking synod and then an exclusivelyEnglish-speaking synod, and also of abolishing every constitution exceptthe Augsburg Confession, advise me at your earliest convenience. I willthen write to the rest of the preachers, and appoint the time and placefor 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 themtogether. After the constitution has been transgressed, everybody feelsfree. But if the Augsburg Confession were the constitution, every memberwould readily agree to it. These are my thoughts. Write soon. PhilipHenkel. " (_L. U. W_. 60, 63. ) In the minutes of 1827 we read: "14. Somemembers 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 donot understand the English. The Synod was convinced of the justice ofthe complaint, and considered it highly necessary that these brethrenshould be served in the German language. Mr. Miller, in defense of hisconduct, said that he did not understand the German language accuratelyand therefore could not officiate in it, and that hitherto he has nothad an opportunity of learning it. But he promised to acquire a moreaccurate knowledge of this language, provided his congregations werewilling to spare him from their service for one year. He intends tostudy this language with David Henkel. The members of his congregationswho were present agreed for him to do so, but requested to be visited afew times by some of the other ministers during the time they should bevacant. The Synod highly approved Mr. Miller's resolution, and wishedhim to persevere in this laudable undertaking. " (12. ) The Synod of 1827was confronted by conflicting petitions as to the language-question. Thefollowing memorials were read: "1. A memorial from St. James's Church inGreene County, Tenn. , subscribed by 23 persons. They pray this Synod notto alter the constitution. Further, that this body remain exclusivelyGerman, and that some measures be taken to establish a separate EnglishSynod. .. . 4. In a letter in which the Rev. Adam Miller, Sr. , states thereasons of his absence, he prays this body to allow the English brethrenequal privileges, so that they may not be under the necessity ofestablishing a separate Synod. " (14. ) The constitution, which wasproposed at this meeting and accepted in the following year, disposed ofthis question as follows: "All debates shall first be held in the Germanlanguage, whereupon the same shall be resumed in the English; providedthere shall be both German and English members present. After thedebates on a subject shall have been ended, then the decision shall bemade. " (R. 1827, 24; B. 1828, 28. ) In the following years the Englishlanguage rapidly gained the ascendency, until finally the Germandisappeared entirely. (R. 1831, 9; B. 1841, 8. 9. ) Rev. Th. Brohm, aftervisiting the Tennessee Synod, wrote in the _Lutheraner_ of January 2, 1855: "Though of German origin, the Tennessee Synod in the course oftime has lost its German element, and has become a purely English synod. "

89. Born of Lutheran Loyalty. --The organization of the Tennessee Synodcame as a protest against the projected General Synod, and especiallyagainst existing conditions in the Synod of North Carolina, to which theTennessee pastors belonged until their secession in 1820. March 14, 1820, Philip Henkel had written to his brother: "If I am spared, I shallattend synod. . . . If the old ministers will not act agreeably to theAugsburg Confession, we will erect a synod in Tennessee. " The "oldministers" were Stork, Shober, Jacob and Daniel Sherer, and otherpastors of the North Carolina Synod who advocated a union with the sectsand the connection with the General Synod, and sought to suppress suchtestimony on behalf of Lutheran truth and consistency as the Henkels hadbegun to bear publicly. Aversion to faithful confessional Lutheranismwas the real reason why the Synod of North Carolina in 1816 refused toordain the young, but able David Henkel, which, even at that time, almost resulted in a withdrawal of the Henkels and their delegates. Thetension was greatly increased when the Synod of 1819 degraded DavidHenkel to the rank of catechist, on the false charge that he hadpreached transubstantiation and other papistic heresies and therebygiven offense to the "Reformed brethren. " As a matter of fact, he hadproclaimed the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The NorthCarolina Synod made the entry into their minutes. "He [David Henkel] istherefore no preacher of the Lutheran Church of North Carolina andadjacent States. " (G. , 696. ) A source of additional ill will was theautocratic procedure of the officers in arbitrarily convening the Synodof 1819, five weeks before the constitutional time (whence known as the"Untimely Synod"), and that without sending out notices sufficientlyearly, and for a purpose most odious to the Henkels and their adherents, _viz_. , to elect a delegate (Shober was chosen) to the convention ofthe Pennsylvania Synod at Baltimore in order to participate in theframing of a tentative constitution for the projected General Synod. Resenting the arrogance and unconstitutional action of the officers aswell as the obnoxious resolutions of the "Untimely Synod, " those membersof 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 theconstitution, held a synod of their own at Buffalo Creek, in Stork'scongregation, where the "Untimely Synod" had been held, under the oaks, near the church, Stork having refused them the use of the church forthis purpose. "The Synod, " Stork declared, "has been held; and there isno need of holding it again. " He ordered his elders not to open thechurch, but finally permitted them to hold services there, with theexpress proviso, however, that no business was to be transacted in it. (B. 1820, 21. ) Philip Henkel was elected president, and Bell and DavidHenkel were ordained. (21. ) In the following year, a few months afterthe so-called "Quarreling Synod" ("Streitsynode"), where the majority ofthe North Carolina Synod decided in favor of a union with the GeneralSynod, the minority, as related above, organized the Tennessee Synod. (15. ) In the minutes (Bericht) of 1820, the members of the new synodjustify their withdrawal and organization as a separate body by callingattention especially to the following points: 1. The officers and someof the members of the North Carolina Synod had proven by their wordsand actions that they "could no longer be regarded as truly EvangelicalLutheran pastors. " (12. 15. ) 2. The "Untimely Synod" had declared theexcommunication of a member of David Henkel's congregation to beinvalid, without investigating the matter in that congregation, therebyinfringing upon the rights of the congregation. (20. ) 3. The same synodhad not rebuked its president, Rev. Stork, when he made the statementthat he could not believe the Lutheran doctrine that Christ as man wasin possession of all divine attributes, and that he would not believe itif 500 Bibles should say so. 4. The Synod of 1820 had declared DavidHenkel's ordination "under the oaks" invalid, and had published a sortof letter of excommunication against him. (22. ) 5. Synod had refused tosettle the mooted questions according to the Augsburg Confession and thesynodical constitution, but, instead, had demanded that the minorityshould yield to the majority. "We, however, thought, " says the Report, "that the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession (concerning which we wereconvinced that it could be proven by the doctrine of the Bible) shouldhave greater weight with us than the voice of a majority of men who areopposed to the doctrine and ordinance of our Church. " (23. ) 6. Synod hadpermitted the un-Lutheran remarks made at the convention and elsewhereon Baptism, the Eucharist, Election, Conversion, and the certainty ofthe state of grace, as well as on union with all religious parties, topass unreproved. --Stating the causes of the deplorable schism, DavidHenkel wrote in 1827: "A most unhappy difference exists between thisbody and the North Carolina Synod. Previous to the year 1820 somemembers of the former and some of the latter constituted one Synod. Inthis year the North Carolina Synod entered into the connection of aGeneral Synod with some other synods. This is a connection andinstitution which heretofore did not exist in the Lutheran community, and to which the Tennessee Synod object as an institution calculated tosubvert ecclesiastical liberty, and to prepare the way for innovations. This, together with the difference in regard to some of the fundamentaldoctrines of the Christian religion, are the principal reasons of thedivision. " (R. 1827, 32. ) In brief, the organization of the TennesseeSynod was a solemn protest against synodical tyranny andanticonfessional teaching then prevailing in the North Carolina Synodand in all other Lutheran bodies in America. Accordingly, as comparedwith her contemporaries, it remains the peculiar glory of the TennesseeSynod that she was born of Lutheran loyalty. 

90. Back to Luther! Back to the Lutheran Symbols!--Such, in substanceand effect, was the slogan sounded by the Tennessee Synod, for the firsttime in the history of the Lutheran Church in America, after long yearsof confessional disloyalty and of doctrinal and practical deterioration. By dint of earnest and conscientious study of the Lutheran Symbols andof 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 allteachings in Christendom the Lutheran doctrine alone is in full accordwith 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 13folio volumes and cost $100. I purchased the books. " To penetrate deeperand deeper into the writings of Luther, to persuade others to do thesame, and to make this possible to them, such was the ardent desire andearnest endeavor of the Tennessee pastors. Evidently with this purposein view, Paul Henkel had established a printery at New Market, Va. , where books and tracts breathing a Lutheran spirit were published. Synodical colporteurs diligently canvassed them among the congregations. Sound Lutheran works, _e. G. _, the Augsburg Confession, sermons by Lutherand Arndt, the article on Good Works from the Formula of Concord, werefrom time to time, by resolution of Synod, appended to the synodicalreports. (1831, 11. ) Nor was their zeal satisfied with fostering trueLutheranism in their own midst. In order to acquaint theEnglish-speaking public with the truths and treasures of our Church, they issued translations of standard Lutheran works. Besides an agendaand a hymnal, the New Market printery published in 1829 an Englishtranslation of Luther's Small Catechism with notes by David Henkel; in1834, a translation of the Augsburg Confession with a preface by KarlHenkel (in 1827 David Henkel had already been commissioned to prepare acorrect translation); in 1851, an English version of the entire Book ofConcord, of which a second and improved edition appeared in 1854; in1852, "Luther on the Sacraments, " being translations of some writings ofLuther by Jos. Salyards and Solomon D. Henkel, 423 pages octavo; in1869, Luther's Epistle Sermons, an English edition of which had beendetermined 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 nodoctrine right and pure but the Lutheran; the other thinks that also theMethodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists are equally right and pure; andsuch Lutherans are very hurtful to others. " The Tennessee Synod belongedto the first class. They were conscious Lutherans, who knew what theywere and what they stood for. The fact is that in those days Tennesseewas the only synod with a true Lutheran heart and an honest Lutheranface. 

91. Despised and Ostracized. --Their return to Luther and the LutheranSymbols brought the Henkels and the Tennessee Synod into directopposition to, and sharp conflict with, all other Lutheran synods ofthat day. For, though still bearing, and priding themselves on, theLutheran name, they all had long ago begun to abandon the confessionsand distinctive doctrines of the Church which the cherished and covetedname of Luther stood for. Their leaders had become indifferentists, unionists, and Reformed and Methodistic enthusiasts. Over against thislack of Lutheran faithfulness and apostasy from the Confessions theHenkels gave no uncertain testimony. Being Lutherans in their hearts aswell as in their heads, they boldly confessed the truths, and mostenergetically championed the cause of genuine Lutheranism. And theysquared their actions with their words and convictions. Consistent alsoin their practise, they refused to fellowship and recognize theerrorists everywhere, even when found in Lutheran synods. No wonder, then, that the Henkels and their uncompromising attitude met with nosympathy on the part of the Lutheran synods then found in America. And, being, as they were, a standing protest against the apostasy of thesesynods, it was but natural, carnally, that the Tenneesee [tr. Note: sic]confessors were avoided, ignored, despised, hated, maligned, andostracized by their opponents. Tennessee was decried and stigmatized asthe "Quarreling Conference" ("Streitkonferenz"). The "Henkelites, " itwas said, had been convicted of error at the "Quarreling Synod"; therethey had not been able to prove their doctrine; they were falseLutherans; some of them had been excluded from Synod, therefore they hadno authority to officiate as ministers; their synod was not a lawfulsynod; its transactions were invalid, etc. (1820, 22. 30; 1824, App. 3;1827, 43 f. ) All endeavors on the part of the Tennessee Synod to bringabout an understanding and a unification in the truth were spurned bythe other synods "with silent contempt, " says David Henkel. (1827, 6. 25. ) In the Maryland Synod the prediction was heard: "This TennesseeSynod will go to pieces finally. " The Address of the General Synod of1823 states: "Our Church, which was originally embraced in twoindependent synods [Ministeriums of Pennsylvania and New York], hasspread over so extensive a portion of the United States that at presentwe have _five_ synods [North Carolina, Ohio, Maryland and Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York Synods], and shall shortly have severalmore. " (3. 9. 14. ) The General Synod, then, refused to recognizeTennessee as a Lutheran synod in America. In a letter, dated January 23, 1826, and addressed to Solomon Henkel, H. Muhlenberg remarked that theTennessee Synod "had as yet not been recognized as a synod by the otherLutheran synods. " In 1839 the General Synod censured both the Franckeanand Tennessee Synods as the two extremes "causing disturbances anddivisions in our churches" and standing in the way of a union of theLutheran Church in America--a resolution which was rescinded in 1864. Thus universal contempt and proscription was the reward which Tennesseereceived for her endeavors to lead the Lutheran Church out of the mireof 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 sevenyears, made repeated attempts to persuade her opponents [in the NorthCarolina Synod] to discuss the mooted doctrines, offering themconditions most just and most acceptable . . . . But with exasperatingindifference all these offers were stubbornly despised and rejected. Tennessee directed various questions also to the Pennsylvania Synod inorder to learn their views on the pending doctrinal controversies. Butthis body, too, did not even deign to answer. The Tennessee Synod, however, though rebuffed on all sides and stigmatized as a fanaticalsect, quietly went its way, without suffering itself to be confused orled astray. Unanimity and love reigned among its members. The number ofcongregations which united with them and desired pastors from themconstantly increased, so that the Synod was not able to satisfy allrequests. The synodical resolutions offer ample evidence of the livelyinterest and diligence of their pastors to appropriate more and morefully the riches of the Reformation, and to make their congregationspartakers thereof. " (11, 166. ) The first request for a minister camefrom Cape Girardeau, Mo. The minutes record: "At the earnest request anddesire of a number of German inhabitants in Cape Girardeau ("CapeCheredo"), Mo. , through H. Johannes Schmidt and Georg Klemmer, whoearnestly pray that they might be visited, it was resolved that H. JacobZink should make a journey thither, as soon as possible, to preach theGospel to them and to perform all other official acts that may berequired. For this laudable undertaking we wish him the rich blessing ofthe Lord. " (B. 1820, 10. )

OBJECTIONS TO GENERAL SYNOD. 

92. Critique of So-called "Planentwurf. "--The formation of a LutheranGeneral Synod, warmly advocated by the Synods of Pennsylvania and NorthCarolina, met with the earnest and zealous, though not in every respectjudicious, opposition of the Tennessee Synod. Her Report of 1820contains a criticism of the _Planentwurf_, which in 1819 had beenproposed by the Pennsylvania Synod as a tentative constitution for theprojected General Synod. Among the objections enumerated are thefollowing: 1. Whosoever desired to be recognized as a pastor would becompelled to pursue his studies at the proposed seminary of the GeneralSynod. 2. Of those entitled to cast a vote there were two pastors toevery lay delegate. "It would therefore be vain for a lay deputy to makethe journey, except he desired the honor of being a servant of twomasters. " 3. The General Synod arrogated to itself the exclusive rightto introduce new books for public worship. 4. Luther's Catechism alsowas to remain only _until_ the Synod would introduce other books. 5. According to the _Planentwurf_, the General Synod could reject allarticles of faith or omit them entirely. 6. Neither the AugsburgConfession nor the Bible was designated as the foundation of the GeneralSynod, nor even so much as mentioned in the _Planentwurf_. (52 f. ) 7. TheGeneral Synod was striving to establish a dominion over all Ministeriums, as appeared from the statement: "Until the permission or approval of theGeneral Synod shall have been formally obtained, no newly establishedbody shall be regarded as a Ministerium, nor shall an ordinationconferred by them be considered valid. " "Accordingly, " they said, "onehad as much liberty as the rope permitted. " (54 f. ; 1822, 10. ) 8. TheGeneral Synod claimed the right to specify the "ranks universally validfor the ministry. " "Catechist, " as the Report of 1820 has it, "candidate, dean, and pastor will no longer suffice; who knows butsomething higher will be required, such as bishop, archbishop, cardinal, or even pope!" 9. Pastors were granted the right to appeal from thedecision of their synod to the General Synod. "Accordingly the case of apastor, be he ever so bad, may drag on for years; and if, owing toextreme distances or other circumstances, the witnesses are not able toattend, he may finally even win it. This provision renders the mattersimilar to a temporal government, where appeals are commonly made from alower to a higher court. " 10. "One cannot be sure that a spirit desiringas much power as appears to be granted by this _Planentwurf_ will beable to rest and not seek further power. " 11. No one was able toguarantee that this Lutheran General Synod would not later on unite withthe General Synods of the sects to form a National Synod, in which themajority would then determine all articles of faith and allchurch-customs. 12. Such a National Synod would be able also to changethe Constitution of the United States and compel every one to unite withthis National Synod, impose taxes, etc. (50 f. ) By resolution of Synodthe reasons why some pastors in Ohio, influenced in their action by PaulHenkel, rejected the _Planentwurf_ were also appended to the Report of1820. Among them were: 1. The fear "of falling into the hands of astrong hierarchy" by accepting this _Planentwurf_, since they knew fromchurch history that the Papacy had developed rapidly along similarlines. (64. ) 2. The General Synod would soon become English, whereas, according to its ministerial order, the Ohio Synod "must remain aGerman-speaking ministerium. " (65. ) 3. Every meeting of the GeneralSynod would mean for them a traveling expense of $168. 4. As the_Planentwurf_ was subject to change, union with the General Synod wouldbe tantamount "'to buying the cat in the bag, ' as the proverb has it. "These scruples reveal the fact that the Tennessee Synod viewed theGeneral Synod as a body which was hierarchical in its polity andthoroughly un-Lutheran in its doctrinal position, an opinion wellfounded, even though the objections advanced are not equally valid. 

93. General Synod's Constitution Criticized. --The critique of the_Planentwurf_ was not devoid of fruit in every respect. Due to thetestimony of the Henkels, its hierarchical features were toned downconsiderably in the constitution finally adopted at Hagerstown, Md. , 1820. Thus, _e. G. _, the odious passage regarding the establishment ofnew ministeriums and the validity of their ordinations was omitted. Still Tennessee was far from being satisfied with the constitution asamended. Moreover, a committee was appointed to draw up their remainingobjections, and the report submitted was appended to the minutes of 1821and printed by order of Synod. It subjects the constitution to a severeexamination, and makes a number of important strictures. 1. The firstobjection was raised against the words of the Preamble: "Whereas JesusChrist, the great Head of the Church, hath not given her any particularprescriptions how church-government should be regulated, she thereforeenjoys the privilege in all her departments to make such regulations asmay appear best, agreeably to situation and circumstances. " Whilerecognizing that Christ has given no prescriptions "for the regulationof some things not essential to the Church, " they objected to thesweeping statement of the Preamble whereby the government of the Churchwould 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 areprescribed; 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 accusationagainst an elder; and that 2 Tim. 2, 3-6 Paul shows that ministersshould not be entangled with the things of this world. "From these andmany more passages that might be quoted, it is evident that Christ andHis inspired apostles have given the Church sufficient prescriptions ofher government in all her various branches. They are general rules, andyet applicable to every particular case that may occur, so that they arealso particular prescriptions. But that the constitution of the GeneralSynod saith, Christ has not left such particular prescriptions, appearsa strange, unwarranted, and arbitrary assertion. " (14 f. ) 2. The secondobjection asserted that the General Synod was a yoke of commandments ofmen, hence could not serve the purpose of true peace. According to theconstitution the purpose of the General Synod was "the exercise ofbrotherly love, the furtherance of Christian harmony, and thepreservation of the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace. " But theReport maintained: "The attempt of the establishment of this GeneralSynod has not produced any brotherly love, nor harmony, nor peace; buton the contrary, divisions, contentions, and confusion. Thisestablishment is nothing but self-invented rules and traditions of men, and such as love Christian liberty cannot suffer themselves to bebrought into bondage; hence the confusion. O ye watchmen of Zion, pityand spare the flock!" (17 f. ) A "note" added by David Henkel, the "clerkof the committee, " explains: "That this institution of General Synod'spromotes unity in spirit is contrary to constant experience. ThePresbyterians, Methodists, and other churches are governed by GeneralSynods, and have many human rules and regulations; but yet from time totime many disputes and factions have arisen among them, so that they aresplit into many sects and parties. The Lutheran Church never heretoforewas governed by a General Synod, yet she never was divided until thisnovel system was introduced. . . . The first Lutheran ministersemigrated from Germany and Sweden. . . . Being few in number, noparticular synods were formed for many years; yet they were united. TheAugsburg Confession of Faith, containing the principal doctrines of theHoly Scriptures, was their standard of union. It was unalterable; theyhad no novel system, produced by a majority of votes, to expect. . . . Each of these synods, before the General Constitution was formed, wereindependent, and not amenable to any superior tribunal, except that ofChrist. Differences in local and temporary regulations, the formation ofnew synods, etc. , were not considered as divisions of the Church; theirstandard of unity was far more noble, and exalted: the pure Scripturaldoctrines of the Augsburg Confession of Faith was their meridian sun, which they viewed with united eyes; and anything less, such as local andtemporary regulations, never influenced their minds, even to think ofdivisions. The Church proceeded peaceably, until the unhappy and fatalperiod of 1819 arrived, when a meeting was called to Baltimore, consisting of some of the Synod of Pennsylvania and an individual fromNorth Carolina, for the purpose of devising a plan for the establishmentof the General Synod, etc. (17 f. ) Article III, Sec. V, which providedthat "the General Synod shall take good care not to burden theconsciences of ministers with human traditions, " called forth thefollowing comment: "The General Synod shall not burden the consciencesof ministers with human traditions, yet at the same time the veryinstitution of the General Synod is nothing but human laws andtraditions! How vehemently our Savior upbraided the Pharisees for theirhuman laws and the traditions they imposed upon the common people! Bymeans of human laws and traditions popery was established. --Why arepreparations made now again to introduce that horrid beast? How carefulindividual synods should be not to impose human traditions upon theChurch, but to remember that they do 'not assemble for the purpose ofmaking laws for the Church, but only to devise means to execute thosealready made by Christ. " (B. 1821, 26; R. 1821, 28. 29. ) In anadditional "note" David Henkel remarks: "The unity of the LutheranChurch doth not consist in any external forms or ceremonies, orgovernment established by men. It is independent of any general headexcept Christ. The Seventh Article of the Augsburg Confession of Faithpoints out the true nature of her unity. . . . It is the same as if ithad said: the Church of Christ is but one united body, consisting ofinnumerable members; but what unites them? All believers believe in oneinvisible Lord, by whom they are governed, for He is their King; theyare anointed by the same Holy Ghost, for He is their Comforter andGuide. This is an invisible, godlike union, not discerned by the carnaleye, nor doth it imitate the unity of the kingdom of this world. Christis its polar star, the Bible its charter, ministers who proclaim sweetwords of peace, its heralds, Baptism and the Lord's Supper its seal, bond, token, and security. This union is independent of all humanceremonies, traditions, general synods, or anything of the kind, and hasexisted ever since the promulgation of the Gospel in all realms andclimes. . . . A union which consists of human laws, ceremonies, anddiscipline may be termed a political union--a union peculiar to civilgovernment of this world. Now, even were it the case that all who callthemselves Christians would be united in this manner, it would by nomeans prove their spiritual unity. For many may conform to one externalrule, and yet be divided in heart, for they are not all Israelites thatare of Israel. It is evident, because the General Synod is but theinvention of men, that they make much more necessary to Christian unitythan the pure preaching of the Gospel and the proper administration ofthe Sacraments, commanded by Christ. Thus, this establishment of theGeneral Synod must be contrary to the Seventh Article of our Confessionof Faith. True Christianity is thereby blended with human laws andpolicy--the true lineaments of popery. . . . If no man is to judgeChristians in respect to meat and drink or of an holy day, or of the newmoon, or of the Sabbath-days, who, then, has a right to judge them inrespect of forming books for the public use in churches, or in respectof meeting as a synod, without a formal permission, or in respect ofperforming ordinations? The General Synod have arrogated this right ofjudging and oppressing Christians in these respects. These areprerogatives they claim, contrary to the doctrines of the apostle. "(R. 1821, 28. )

94. Criticism of Constitution Continued. --3. The third objectionmaintained that the General Synod was Lutheran in name only. Says theReport: "This body, indeed, may call itself Evangelical Lutheran, andyet not be such. The constitution does nowhere say that the AugsburgConfession of Faith, or Luther's Catechism, or the Bible shall be thefoundation of doctrine and discipline of the General Synod. It is wellknown that they always have been the standard of the Lutheran Church. Why does the constitution not once name them?" "Had the framers of thisconstitution been zealous advocates of Lutheran doctrine, they wouldhave been careful to insert a clause to compel the General Synod alwaysto act according to our standard books. It is an easy thing to provethat some of the founders of this General Synod have openly denied someof the important doctrines of the Augsburg Confession of Faith and ofLuther's Catechism. " (B. 1821, 18; R. 1821, 19. ) 4. The fourth objectionwas based on the proposed membership of the new body, which, accordingto Article II, was to consist "of deputies of the different EvangelicalSynodical and Ministerial Connections in the United States. " Tennesseecommented: "This body [General Synod] may consist of deputies from thedifferent evangelical connections. It is not said of the severalEvangelical _Lutheran_ connections. If this body may consist of thedifferent 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 assuch by some who call themselves Lutherans. Thus it is manifest that alldenominations who call themselves Evangelical may have seats and votesin this body, forasmuch as there is nothing to prohibit them from it. "(R. 1821, 22. ) The German version adds the following: "The constitutionhas opened a door where all manner of sects and parties may creep intothe Lutheran Church and extirpate her doctrine. " (B. 1821, 20. ) Theseapprehensions of Tennessee were no mere products of their ownimagination, for just such a union of all Evangelical denominationsShober and his compeers had been ardently advocating in the NorthCarolina Synod, especially since 1817. 5. The fifth objection was thatthe General Synod proposed to curtail the exercise of Christian libertyin regard to ceremonies. Article III, Section II, provided that no synodor ministry in connection with the General Synod shall publish any newcatechism, liturgy, compilation of hymns, or confession of faith"without having first handed a complete copy thereof to the GeneralSynod, and having received their sentiments, or admonitions, or advice. "The Tennessee Synod held this to be against the Seventh Article of theAugsburg Confession and said: "Why shall individual societies be robbedof the liberty to introduce such books us suit them best, when ourConfession of Faith grants every person liberty in this case?" (23. ) 6. A further objection was raised against this article (III, 2) of theconstitution because its language permitted the introduction of a newconfession of faith. Tennessee remarked: "An opportunity is here givento introduce a new confession of faith. This appears a conclusive proofthat the General Synod do not intend to be governed by (the AugsburgConfession of Faith, nor vindicate the Lutheran doctrines containedtherein; for if they did, they would not by this clause have givenliberty to form other confessions of faith. Perhaps this may be one ofthe reasons why they have nowhere promised in the constitution thatLuther's Catechism, the Augsburg Confession of Faith, nor the Bibleshould be the guide of their body. They wish to have power to form a newconfession; perhaps more popular, and suited to the newfangled opinionsof this present age of infidelity. Were not the men such as Luther, Melanchthon, etc. , who formed the Augsburg Confession of Faith, as atestimony against popery and other heresies, godly and enlightened men, and to whose instrumentality we owe our light of the Gospel? Will any ofthe votaries of the General Synod presume to say that this confession iserroneous, heretical, and wicked? Can they form a better one? If theyanswer in the affirmative, they are no Lutherans, as they callthemselves. If they answer in the negative, why, then, have they notpositively specified in the constitution that such should remain thestandard of the Church? Why have they given an opportunity to introducea new confession? It is known that all Lutheran ministers, when they areordained, are solemnly pledged as by an oath to maintain the doctrine ofthe Augsburg Confession of Faith. But when there is an opportunity givento 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 alreadyhas, for almost three hundred years, a confession of faith, to wit, theAugsburg Confession. To this confession all Lutheran ministers arepledged by an oath when they are ordained. Since the constitutionnowhere states that the Augsburg Confession shall be retained, and otherconfessions of faith may be proposed, it is apparent that the GeneralSynod has the power to abrogate the Augsburg Confession entirely, and tointroduce a new and erroneous confession of faith, and consequently toset aside the oath of ordination. " (B. 1821, 22. ) 7. A further objectionto the General Synod was based on Article III, Section V, whichprovided, among other things, that the General Synod shall take goodcare "not to oppress any person on account of differences in opinion. "After pointing out that this can only be understood as referring todoctrinal differences, Tennessee made the following arraignment: "Whatan 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 wickeddoctrine. One might deny the Holy Trinity, and encourage any system ofinfidelity, and yet, agreeably to this constitution, no one could berebuked nor suspended. One might plead this article in defense, and saythe 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 indifferentwhether true or false opinions are maintained. " (27. ) That also theseapprehensions were not purely imaginary appears from the fact that twodelegates of the Ministerium of New York, then identifying itself withthe rationalism of Quitman, were permitted to participate in theorganization of the General Synod. 8. Finally, Article III, SectionVIII, provided that the General Synod should "be sedulously andincessantly regardful of the circumstances of the times, and of everycasual rise and progress of unity of opinions among Christians ingeneral, in order that the blessed opportunities to promote concord andunity, and the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom, may not pass byneglected and unavailing. " In this, too, Tennessee saw but "anotheropportunity to extirpate the Lutheran doctrine. " "For, " said they, "howis it possible that the opinions of Lutherans can ever become agreedwith those of Calvinists and other parties so long as they do not denytheir teachings?" (B. 1821, 30. ) The English Report merely states: "Allthat we can understand from this [Section VIII] is a desire to unitewith all denominations. " (34. ) Thus the Tennessee Synod, with the utmostcandor, exposed and rebuked the un-Lutheran features of the constitutionof the General Synod, which substituted external organization and unionfor true internal Christian unity in the Spirit. David Henkel remarked:"Is the General Synod a plant which has been planted by the heavenlyFather? No. It was planted by a majority of votes. . . . It is toolamentable a fact that among the most denominations human laws, discipline, and ceremonies are made the rallying point of unity!" (R. 1821, 30; 1832, 17. ) It was in the spirit of truth and conscientiousnessthat Tennessee had made her objections to the constitution of theGeneral Synod. "We conclude, " they say, "hoping that the friends of theGeneral Synod will not view us as enemies. We would freely join in withthem if we could do it with a good conscience . . . ; it is much easierto swim with than against the current. " (34. )

ATTITUDE AS TO CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP. 

95. Refusing to Join in with General Synod. --The practise of theTennessee Synod squared with her doctrinal position. Alsochurch-fellowship was regarded as a matter, not of expediency andpolicy, but of conscience. In the conclusion to their "Objectionsagainst the Constitution of the General Synod" the committee declared:Since a general connection of all ministers in a General Synod wouldexalt the clerical state to a high degree above the people; sincegreater burdens might then be imposed on the people, and ministers couldthereby live more comfortably; since our widows and orphans also mightthen live with much ease and our missionary services would be amplyremunerated; and since the union with the General Synod would increaseour popularity and decrease our burdensome labors, --"we, therefore, would freely join in with them if we could do it with a goodconscience, " and "if we could justify such conduct before the judgmentthrone of Christ. " (R. 34; B. 30. ) In accordance herewith Tennessee, ather first meeting, resolved: "It cannot be tolerated that a teacher ofour conference have any connection with the so-called Central or GeneralSynod, for the reason which will be adduced afterwards. " (5. ) Theminutes of 1826 record: "Whereas there is a report in circulation, bothverbally and in print, that some of us, members of the TennesseeConference, should have said that we now regard the General Synod as auseful institution; that we disapprove the turbulent conduct of acertain member of this body; that we (some of us) pledged ourselves toleave this body if we cannot succeed in having said member expelled, wedeem it our duty hereby to inform the public that we are unanimouslyagreed in viewing the General Synod as an anti-Lutheran institution, andhighly disapprove it, and are the longer, the more confirmed in thisopinion; and that we know of no member among us whose conduct isturbulent or immoral, and hence have no desire either to expel any one, nor do any of us intend to withdraw from this body. Neither do we knowof any member among us who is not legally ordained. We testify that welive in brotherly love and harmony. September 5, 1826. " (6. ) In 1839 theGeneral Synod publicly denounced the Tennessee Synod, charging her withun-Lutheran as well as unchristian doctrine and conduct. The matter, brought to the attention of Tennessee by a petition from thecongregation at New Market and from Coiner's Church, was disposed of bythe following resolutions: "1. Resolved, That it is to us a matter ofsmall importance whether the General Synod recognizes us as anEvangelical Lutheran Synod or not, since our orthodoxy and our existenceas a Lutheran body in no wise depends on their judgment. 2. Resolved, That we cannot recognize the General Synod as an Evangelical Lutheranbody, forasmuch as they have departed from the doctrines and practisesof the Lutheran Church. 3. Resolved, That under present circumstances wehave no inclination whatsoever to unite with the General Synod, and cannever unite with them, except they return once more to the primitivedoctrine and usages of the Lutheran Church. 4. Resolved, That PastorBraun be appointed to draw up our objections to the General Synod, andto show from its own publications wherein that body has departed fromthe doctrine and usages of the Lutheran Church, and submit hismanuscript to this Synod at its next session for examination; and that, if approved, it be printed. " (B. 1841, 11; R. 1842, 8. ) In thisconnection the Tennessee Synod likewise resolved in no wise to take partin the centenary of the Lutherans in America as recommended by theGeneral Synod. (15. ) At the next session of Synod the committee reportedthat they had examined the manuscript submitted by Rev. Braun, and thatit was "well calculated to place in their proper light the views andpractises of the General Synod and expose its corruptions and departuresfrom Lutheranism, as well as to evince the fact that the Tennessee Synodstill retain in their primitive purity the doctrines, and adhere to theusages of the Lutheran Church. " (10. ) When, in 1853, the PennsylvaniaSynod called upon all Lutheran synods to follow their example and unitewith the General Synod, Tennessee took cognizance of this matter in thefollowing resolution: "Whereas we regard the Unaltered AugsburgConfession as the authorized and universally acknowledged Symbol of theEvangelical Lutheran Church, and consequently the belief andacknowledgment of it, in its entireness, as essential to the existenceof Lutheranism in its integrity; and whereas we profess, in oursynodical constitution, to believe the doctrines of the Christian systemas exhibited in this symbol, and have pledged ourselves to teachaccording to it; and whereas the doctrinal position of the GeneralSynod, as we understand it, is only a qualified acknowledgment of theAugsburg Confession, as we think it evident, a) from the constitution ofthis body, in which there is no clause binding its members to teachaccording to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, and not even a distinctmention of this instrument; b) from the constitution recommended by theGeneral Synod to the District Synods connected with it; c) from the formof oath required of professors in its Theological Seminary, wheninducted into office; d) from the construction placed upon itsConstitution by the framer of that instrument, and other prominentmembers of it; e) from the various publications made by distinguishedmembers of the General Synod, in which distinctive doctrines of ourChurch confessions are openly assailed, and for doing which they havenever been called to account: be it therefore 1. Resolved, That wecannot, under existing circumstances, take any steps toward a union withthe General Synod. " (8. )

96. Attitude toward North Carolina Synod. --In her relations with theNorth Carolina Synod the practise of Tennessee was in perfect keepingwith her doctrine, her actions tallying with her words. In 1820 theydeclared: "No teacher of our Conference may take seat and vote in thepresent Synod of North Carolina, since we cannot look upon them as atruly Evangelical Lutheran synod. " (B. 1820, 9. ) Neither was ittolerated that a member of the Tennessee Synod at the same time be amember of the North Carolina Synod; witness the case of Seechrist. (R. 1826, 4. ) Furthermore, Tennessee declared that steps looking to a unionwith the North Carolina Synod would be contemplated only if therespective pastors of that synod were to "revoke their doctrine in printas publicly as they had disseminated the same, and would give entireassent to the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession. " (1824, 11; 1825, 6. )At the sixth convention, 1825, the committee previously appointed tonegotiate with the North Carolina Synod reported that the ministers ofthat connection had refused to deal with them, 1. Because this"committee did not entitle them as a genuine Lutheran body; and 2. Because we appointed farmers to constitute the committee. " (6. ) Withrespect to the first grievance Tennessee declared: "We must here observethat we cannot consistently grant to the Synod of North Carolina thistitle, because we maintain that they departed from the Lutherandoctrine. This is the very design in preferring the questions, in orderto ascertain whether they adopted different views, since they publishedtheir doctrines. We, therefore, entreat them not to be offended when atthis time we cannot grant the desired title, but to be contented untila union with respect to doctrine shall have been effected. " (R. 1825, 6. ) Thus Tennessee was careful to avoid even the appearance of denyingher convictions. Dissimulation was not in her nature. True to herconvictions she formulated the address of her second petition fornegotiations as follows: "To the Rev. Synod of North Carolina, _whoassume the title Lutheran_, but which we, at this time, for the reasonaforesaid, dispute. Well-beloved in the Lord, according to yourpersons, " etc. (R. 1825, 6. ) Similar language was employed in theinvitation of December, 1826, which the Tennessee committee (DanielMoser and David Henkel) sent to Pastors Stork, Shober, Sherer, and otherpastors of the North Carolina Synod to conduct a public debate, thatevery one might be enabled to decide for himself "who are the genuineand who the spurious Lutherans. " The invitation reveals a spirit oflove, fairness, and willingness to yield in every point which was not amatter of conscience, as well as true Lutheran conscientiousness anddetermination not to yield a single point in violation of the Scripturesand the Lutheran Symbols. Here Daniel Moser and David Henkel who wrotethe letter of invitation state with true Christian frankness: "You callyourselves Lutherans, and we call ourselves the same; notwithstandingthere is a division. You have accused us with teaching erroneousdoctrines, and we, notwithstanding the appellation you give yourselves, deny that your doctrines correspond with the same or with the HolyScriptures. " (27. ) "We are willing to forgive all private conduct whichwe conceive erroneous and criminal in you. You ought also to be willingto forgive what you conceive to be the same in us. But as we differ withyou in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion, anecclesiastical union is impracticable, until the one or the other partybe clearly refuted and convinced. " (29. ) The following were mentioned asthe chief points of difference which ought to be discussed: "1. Theperson and incarnation of Christ, etc. 2. Justification. 3. Repentance. 4. Good Works. 5. Holy Baptism. 6. The Lord's Supper. 7. ChurchGovernment. " (R. 1827, 26. ) An offer of union made by the North CarolinaSynod, in 1847, was answered by Tennessee as follows: "Resolved, That weaccede to a union with the said Synod only on the platform of pure andunadulterated Evangelical Lutheranism--a union which we shall heartilyrejoice to form, as is evident from the repeated overtures we made tobring about such a desirable state of things. " (R. 1847, 9. )

97. Attitude toward Other Southern Synods. --Tennessee was conscious ofrepresenting nothing but the pure truth of unadulterated Lutheranismalso over against the Synods of South Carolina, Virginia, and South WestVirginia. Despite enmity, contempt, and slander, they were unwilling toenter into any unionistic compromise at the expense of the truth as theysaw it. As for the Synod of South Carolina (organized 1824), theTennessee Report of 1838 recorded the following protest: "Whereas theSynod of South Carolina has recently employed various scandalous meansin order to bring the Ev. Luth. Tennessee Synod into disrepute, inparticular by the annotations contained in a sermon delivered by PastorJohannes Bachman, D. D. , which was published with the approval and bythe support of said Synod (the aforementioned sermon, unless its evilinfluence is hindered, is well calculated to make a false and unfavorableimpression upon otherwise honest minds, and to represent our doctrine, synod, and pastors as being the objects of scorn, disdain, and constantpersecution); and whereas we believe that we stand on the primitiveground of the Lutheran Church, and that the doctrine of the glorious andmemorable Reformation, which was wrought through the especial mediationof the Saxon Reformers, Dr. Martin Luther and his immortal assistants, exactly agrees with the Word of God, which we regard as the onlyinfallible norm of faith and life: 1. Therefore be it Resolved, That weregard the actions of the South Carolina Synod toward us as impolite, ignoble, dishonest, and uncharitable. 2. Resolved, That we look upon theassertions in Dr. Bachman's sermon as utterly unfounded and without theslightest approach to the truth, but as base calumniations, wellcalculated to insult (beschimpfen) our Synod. " At the same time PastorsBraun and Miller were appointed a committee to publish a refutation ofBachman's sermon. (B. 1838, 11. ) In his address delivered on November12, 1837, Bachman, as President of the South Carolina Synod, had voiced, with a squint toward Tennessee, among others, the following sentiments:"We have never boasted of being an exclusive church, whose doctrines aremore Scriptural or whose confessors are purer than those of otherdenominations round about us. . . . We will gladly unite with everyfriend of the Gospel in producing the downfall of sectarianism, thoughnot the obliteration of sects. Our pulpits have ever been open to theservants of every Christian communion, and we invite to our communiontables the followers of Jesus regardless of what particular denominationthey may belong to. " Dr. Bachman, in direct contravention to what theHenkels had maintained over against Stork and Shober of the NorthCarolina Synod, expressed his own indifferentistic and Reformeddoctrinal position as follows: "If Baptism is regeneration, why, then, does not every one who has been baptized in infancy walk with God fromhis Baptism? Why does not every one lead a pious life? Evidently, suchis not the case!" "As a matter of fact, for a hundred years the LutheranChurch has abandoned the moot question of the body of Christ, etc. , andhas left it to the consciences of its members to decide what they mustbelieve according to Holy Writ. This we may do without deviating fromthe faith of our Church, since at our ordination, especially in thiscountry, we confess nothing more than that the fundamental articles ofthe divine Word are, in a manner substantially correct, presented in thedoctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession. " (_Kirchl. Mitt_. 1846, 34 f. ) In the same year (1838) the Tennessee Synod instructed itssecretary to inquire of the president of the Virginia Synod (organized1829 at Woodstock) why, according to the resolution passed at their lastmeeting, they do "not recognize the members of the Tennessee Conferenceas Evangelical Lutheran pastors. " (B. 1838 12. ) And, when, in 1848, theWestern Virginia Synod (Southwest Virginia Synod, organized 1841)requested an exchange of delegates, Tennessee answered: "Resolved, That, although it would afford us the highest gratification, and we mostsincerely desire to see those who are one with us in name also united indoctrine and practise, and in that case would most cheerfully unite andcooperate with them in such measures as are calculated to advance andpromote the cause of truth, yet we wish it to be distinctly understoodthat, however much a union is desired, it can only be effected upon theassurance of a strict adherence to the doctrines and usages of ourChurch as set forth in its Symbols; and until we can have thisassurance, we, on our part, can consent to no such union. " (R. 1848, 8. )

EFFORTS AT UNITY AND PEACE. 

98. Attempts at Union with North Carolina. --Though universally decriedas the "Quarreling Conference, " Tennessee enjoyed and cultivated unityand harmony within, and zealously also sought peace and unity with otherLutheran synods. In 1826 all of the Tennessee ministers signed adocument, denying a report circulated by their enemies, according towhich Tennessee was disagreed as to its attitude toward the GeneralSynod, and declaring: "We testify that we live in brotherly love andharmony. " The minutes add: "Thus it is evident that all the ministers ofthis body live in brotherly love, and entertain uniform sentiments. "(7. ) Nor did the staunch, unbending doctrinal position of Tennesseeprove to be a hindrance of, and a check upon, their efforts at unity andpeace, but rather a spur to most earnest endeavors in this direction. Moreover, after having themselves fully realized that the LutheranConfessions contain nothing but God's eternal truth over against themanifest errors of the Roman and other churches, it was, as shown above, the ambition and prayer of the Henkels to lead the American Lutheransynods out of the mire of sectarian aberrations back to theunadulterated Lutheranism of Luther and the Lutheran Symbols. When, in1824, some members of the North Carolina Synod made proposals for aunion of the two synods, Tennessee forthwith appointed a committee tonegotiate with them. (10. ) This committee was instructed to compile thecontroverted points of doctrine from the writings of the two parties, "and to put into one column what the ministers of the North CarolinaSynod teach, and in an adjoining column what the Tennessee Synodteaches, so that every one may immediately perceive the difference. " Inthis way they hoped to enable every one to decide for himself whichparty taught according to the Augsburg Confession. In the interest oftruth the committee was also authorized to direct such questions to theNorth Carolina Synod as they might see fit. (11. ) It was, however, resolved that any further arrangements for union were not to be madeuntil "said pastors, in case they would be convinced, recall theirdoctrine in print as publicly as they had disseminated it, and fullyassent to the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession and to Lutheran orderas it obtained before the institution of the General Synod arose. " (11. )Following are the questions which were directed "to the Messrs. C. Stork, G. Shober, Jacob Sherer, Daniel Sherer, Jacob Miller, MartinWalter, and to all other men belonging to this connection" (NorthCarolina Synod): "1. Do ye intend for the future to maintain what youhave asserted, _viz_. : 'Baptized or not baptized, faith saves us?' Orupon mature deliberation, have ye concluded publicly to revoke the sameas erroneous? 2. Will ye also maintain that the Christian Church mayconsist of twenty different opinions? 3. Do ye deny that the true bodyand blood of Jesus Christ are really present in the Lord's Supper, andadministered and received under the external signs of bread and wine?and that also the unbelieving communicants do eat and drink His body andblood? Further, do ye deny that Jesus Christ, agreeably to both natures, as God and man, inseparably connected in one person, is omnipresent, andthus an object of supreme worship? 4. Do ye intend to relinquish theGeneral Synod, if in case ye cannot prove the same to be founded in theHoly Scriptures?" (R. 1825, 8; B. 1824, Appendix, 2. ) However, theCarolina Synod declined to answer. The Tennessee committee reported1825: "The ministers of said connection [Carolina Synod] refused toanswer the committee that was appointed last year to negotiate withthem. The reasons of their refusal shall here be inserted: Saidministers assign the following reasons which we learn from Mr. J. Sherer's letter and their minutes: 1. That the committee did not entitlethem as a genuine Lutheran body; and 2. Because we appointed farmers toconstitute the committee. " (R. 1825, 6. ) David Henkel wrote in 1827: "Inthe year 1822 I addressed a letter to them [North Carolina Synod]. . . . But they refused to accept the letter because they got offended with theaddress which was, 'The Lutheran Synod of North Carolina and adjoiningStates, _so called_. ' The Tennessee Synod have since, at several oftheir sessions, made sundry propositions to them for a reciprocal trial, and have proposed some questions to them which they were requested toanswer. But as they were not addressed in such manner as to recognizethem as genuine Lutherans, they rejected every proposition. It must, however, be observed that they were not thus addressed through contempt, but rather through, necessity. One of the charges against them is thatthey deviated from the Lutheran doctrines; hence had we addressed themin such manner as to have recognized them as genuine Lutherans, theymight easily have justified themselves under the covert of the address, and have produced it as an evidence against our charge. " (R. 1827, 35. )However, though North Carolina had not even answered their letter, Tennessee did not relinquish her efforts at peace and harmony. In thefollowing year, 1825, a memorial subscribed by nine persons wassubmitted, requesting Synod "to make another attempt to effect a unionwith the ministers of the North Carolina Synod; yet so that the genuineLutheran doctrine be not thereby suppressed. " (R. 1825, 6. ) Pursuant tothis request, "it was resolved that the questions again should bepreferred in a friendly manner; and provided their answer should provesatisfactory, all the necessary regulations shall be made to effectpeace and harmony. " (7. ) At the same time Tennessee explained andjustified their action of withholding from the North Carolina Synod thetitle Lutheran, and of appointing laymen, "farmers, " as they were styledby North Carolina, to constitute the committee. "It was believed, " DavidHenkel declared with respect to the latter point, "laymen would act moreimpartially, since the ministers are more immediately concerned in thiscontroversy. Neither can I discover that all the farmers are socontemptible a class of people that Mr. Sherer could possibly beoffended at the appointment!" (R. 1825, 7. ) Regarding the first pointSynod declared: "We must here observe that we cannot consistently grantto the Synod of North Carolina this title [Lutheran], because wemaintain that they departed from the Lutheran doctrine. . . . Wetherefore entreat them not to be offended when at this time we cannotgrant the desired title, but to be contented until a union with respectto doctrine shall have been effected. " (R. 1825, 7. ) In accordanceherewith the letter to the North Carolina Synod was addressed asfollows: "To the Rev. Synod of North Carolina who assume the titleLutheran; but which we at this time, for the reason aforesaid, dispute. Well-beloved in the Lord, according to your persons!" (R. 1825, 7. )

99. Debates at Organ and St. Paul's Churches. --According to herresolutions of 1825, Tennessee was ready to establish peace and harmonywith the North Carolina Synod. But one proviso had been added byTennessee, limiting this action as follows: "Provided their [NorthCarolina's] answer should prove satisfactory. " If such, however, shouldnot be the case, they proposed public discussions of the differences. The minutes continue: "But if in case their answers should not provesatisfactory, that we propose to them to appoint a certain time andplace, and that each party appoint a speaker, for the purpose ofexhibiting the disputed doctrines, so that the assembly, which may bepresent, may discover the difference; and that also all the arguments, on both sides, may afterwards be published. " (R. 1825, 7. ) In thefollowing year, when the questions preferred were still unanswered byNorth Carolina, Tennessee resolved: "This Synod have made sundryproposals to the North Carolina connection for the purpose of amicablyadjusting the difference which exists with respect to doctrine and otherdifferences, but said connection have hitherto refused to comply withany of the proposals. Although it seems to be in vain to make anyfurther propositions, yet this Synod deem it their duty to adopt thefollowing resolutions: 1. That the Revs. Adam Miller, Daniel Moser, andDavid Henkel be authorized to proclaim and hold a public meeting at ornear the Organ Church, Rowan Co. , N. C. They shall continue said meetingat least three days, and preach on the disputed points of doctrine. 2. That they invite the Revs. C. A. Stork and Daniel Sherer, who residenear said Organ Church, to attend said meeting, and give them anopportunity of alleging their objections and proving their doctrines. Further, that as many of the other ministers belonging to the NorthCarolina connection as may be conveniently notified be also invited toattend for the same purpose. This will afford an opportunity to a numberof people to ascertain which party have deviated from the Lutherandoctrine. This meeting shall, if God permit, commence on the 4th day ofnext November. " (R. 1826, 5. ) The public meeting was duly proclaimed atOrgan Church in Rowan Co. , N. C. , on the 4th of November. A notice wasinserted into the weekly paper, and some of the ministers wereindividually requested to attend. However, not one of the North CarolinaSynod ministers put in his appearance, or made any official statement oftheir reasons for not attending. Persons who had visited Rev. Storkquoted him as having said: "Let them [the committee] come to our Synod, which is the proper place to discuss these points. " (R. 1827, 5. )Stork's remark suggested the arrangement of a second debate inconnection with the prospective meeting of the North Carolina Synod inSt. Paul's Church, Lincoln Co. , beginning May 7, 1827. The TennesseeReport of 1827 records: "On the day appointed [November 4, 1826], Messrs. Moser and Henkel attended [the meeting at the Organ Church]; butnone of the ministers whom they had invited. Whereupon sundryrespectable members of the Lutheran community [in Lincoln Co. ] requestedthe committee [of the Tennessee Synod, Moser and Henkel] to renew thisinvitation, and to make another appointment. The same request was alsomade by the Lutheran Joint Committee of this county [composed of membersof several Lutheran congregations in Lincoln County], at their sessionon the 9th of last December [1826]. Accordingly, Messrs. Moser andHenkel renewed the invitation, and proclaimed another meeting. " (25. )The request of the Lutheran Joint Committee reads as follows: "ToLutherans. The Lutheran Tennessee Synod had appointed a committee forthe purpose of publicly debating some points of doctrine, which are indispute between the aforesaid Synod, and that which is commonly calledthe Synod of North Carolina and adjoining States. Some members of thelatter were invited and notified by the committee to attend at OrganChurch, on the 4th ult. , for the purpose of reciprocally discussing theaforesaid points of doctrine. Two of the committee attended, but none ofthe ministers of the North Carolina Synod. Whatever reasons they mayhave had for not attending, we, the members of several Lutherancongregations in this county, being assembled and constituting a jointcommittee for the purpose of regulating the internal government of thesame, request said committee to proclaim another public meeting at aconvenient place for the aforesaid purpose, and to invite the membersof the North Carolina Synod to attend the same. We also hereby requestthe members of the North Carolina Synod to meet the committee [ofTennessee] in a friendly manner, in order to discuss the doctrines indispute. " Moser and Henkel responded: "We . . . Acquiesce in yourrequest, and deem it pertinent to the manifestation of the truth. " (26. )They also published a proclamation, inviting the ministers of the NorthCarolina Synod to attend a public meeting to be held in St. Paul'sChurch, Lincoln Co. , "to commence on the day after you shall haveadjourned, and to continue at least three days. " (R. 1827, 27. ) Againinvitations and notices of the projected meeting were printed, and acopy was sent to each of the ministers of the North Carolina Synod afew months prior to their session. And when the North Carolina Synod wasconvened, by special messenger, a letter was sent to the president forpresentation to Synod, inviting them to attend the proposed debate, atthe same time asking them to give their reasons in case they shouldrefuse to comply with the request. On the following day the messenger, Mr. Rudisill, applied for an answer, and again on the day ofadjournment; but in vain. The Report of 1827 records: "Mr. Rudisillhanded this letter to the president, who, taking it, replied that it wasnot properly directed to them; notwithstanding it should be given to acommittee appointed by this Synod, who should report on the same. On thenext day Mr. Rudisill applied for an answer, but he received none. OnWednesday, the day of their adjournment, Mr. Rudisill again requested ananswer, but he again received none. Neither did the Synod assign anyreason for their refusal. Whereupon Mr. Rudisill publicly proclaimedthat Messrs. Moser and Henkel would attend on the next day, _i. E. _, onThursday, and discourse upon these disputed topics, and invited all whowere present to attend. Accordingly, Messrs. Moser and Henkel attended, but none of the ministerium of the North Carolina Synod appeared. Themost of them, or perhaps all, had started on their way home. Themembers of the church who were present requested David Henkel todiscourse on a few of those disputed points, with which he complied. After his discourse was ended, it was concluded that it was notnecessary then to pursue the subject any further. The congregation, whowere present, nominated a majority of the members of this committee todraw up the above statements. It was resolved that this report shall belaid before the next session of the Tennessee Synod and that the sameshall be requested to annex it to the report of their transactions. Itwas further resolved that David Henkel be requested to write a treatise, in order to show the propriety and Scriptural grounds for the debate onthe disputed points of doctrine, which was offered to the ministers ofthe North Carolina Synod. " (R. 1827, 31 f. ) Thus the repeated andcordial offers on the part of the Tennessee Synod to discuss and settlethe differences were ignored and spurned by the North Carolina Synod. David Henkel wrote: "As the committee, who gave them the last invitationto attend to public debate, knew from past experience that to addressthe North Carolina Synod with the addition 'so called' was offensive, and was made a plea to evade a public trial, they addressed some of theprincipal ministers thereof agreeably to etiquette, by their personalnames, and including all the others, believing that no rational manwould be offended to be called by his own name. Neither did I hear thatany of them objected to the address as offensive, nor to any of thepropositions for the manner of conducting the debate. Notwithstandingthis, and although they accepted a letter directed to them also by thecommittee, and promised the bearer to return an answer, yet theytreated both the invitation and letter with silent contempt. " (35. ) Therepeated endeavors of the Tennessee Synod to draw the false Lutheransout of their holes failed. The Lutheran Church of America was destinedto sink even deeper into the mire of indifferentism, unionism, andsectarianism. 

100. Characteristic Address of Moser and Henkel. --The truly Lutheranspirit in which Tennessee endeavored to bring about unity and peacewith the North Carolina Synod appears from the following letter, published in connection with the debates proposed in the interest ofunion, and dated, "Lincoln Co. , N. C. , December 10, 1826": "To the Revs. Charles A. Stork, G. Shober, Jacob Sherer, and Daniel Sherer, and allother ministers belonging to their Synod. --Sirs! You call yourselvesLutherans, and we call ourselves the same; notwithstanding there is adivision. You have accused us of teaching erroneous doctrines, and we, notwithstanding the appellation you give yourselves, deny that yourdoctrines correspond with the same or with the Holy Scriptures. It ishence somewhat difficult for some professors of Lutheranism to determinewith which party to associate, as they have not sufficient informationon the subject. We know no method which would be better calculated toafford the people information and an opportunity for both parties toprove their accusations than to meet each other, and debate the pointsin dispute publicly, according to the rules of decorum. --Whereas weare informed that you intend to hold your next synod in St. Paul'sChurch in this county, on the first Sunday in next May, why we wish totry your doctrines, and why we wish you to try ours by the AugustanConfession and the aforesaid symbolical books, is because the importantquestion in the dispute is, Who are the genuine and who the spuriousLutherans? For it is known that Lutheran ministers are pledged tomaintain the Augustan Confession. But if you should at said meetingdeclare that the Augustan Confession contains false doctrine, and thatDr. Luther erred in any of the doctrines which are here proposed fordiscussion, we shall then, in that case, be willing to appealexclusively to the Holy Scriptures. --Whatever private misunderstandingmay have existed between us heretofore, we notwithstanding intend tomeet you in a friendly manner, without attempting to wound your feelingsby personal reflections. That we intend publicly to contradict yourdoctrines as erroneous we beg you not to consider as an insult, as weexpect and are willing for you to treat ours in the same manner. We prayyou as our former brethren, do not despise and reject those proposals, as a compliance with them may have the salutary effect to convinceeither the one or the other party of the truth, and we are confident itwill be beneficial to many of the hearers. --We are willing to forgiveall private conduct which we conceive erroneous and criminal in you. Youought also to be willing to forgive what you consider the same in us. But as we differ with you in the fundamental doctrines of the Christianreligion, an ecclesiastical union is impracticable until the one or theother party be clearly refuted and convinced. --We remain yours, respectfully, Daniel Moser. David Henkel. " (R. 1827, 27. )

101. Probing Orthodoxy of Pennsylvania Synod. --In the interest ofdoctrinal clarity and Christian unity the Tennessee Synod, in 1823, addressed to the Pennsylvania Synod the following questions: "1. Do yebelieve that Holy Baptism performed with water, in the name of the HolyTrinity, effects remission for sins, delivers from death and Satan, andgives admittance into everlasting life to all such as believe, accordingto God's promises? 2. Do ye believe that the true body and blood ofChrist are present, administered, and received under the external signsof bread and wine? Do ye believe that the unbelieving communicants alsoeat and drink the body and blood of Christ? We do not ask whether theyreceive remission for their sins, but simply, whether they also eat anddrink the body and blood of Christ. 3. Ought Jesus Christ to beworshiped as true God and man in one person? 4. Ought the EvangelicLutheran Church, endeavor to be united with any religious denomination, whose doctrines are contrary to the Augustan Confession of faith? Or, is it proper for Lutherans to commune with such?" (R. 1825, 9. ) ThePennsylvania Synod, which immediately prior to that time had beenplanning to establish a union seminary with the German Reformed and toenter into organic union with that body, treated the request with silentcontempt. Two years later Tennessee, patiently and humbly, renewed thequestions with the following preamble: "In the year of our Lord 1823, afew questions were preferred to your honorable body by this Synod, butas no answers have been received, and as the reasons thereof are notknown, we [Daniel Moser, Ambrose Henkel, John Ramsauer, Peter Hoyle]were appointed by our Synod to renew the request, and to solicit you tocomply with the same. We most humbly beseech you to make known thereasons of your hope that is in you, because we believe if this be done, it will contribute towards restoring peace and tranquillity [tr. Note:sic] among all genuine Lutherans. We, therefore, renew the followingquestions, " etc. (R. 1825, 8 f. ) "It was also resolved, " the Report of1825 continues, "that the Secretary of this Synod be ordered to addressa friendly letter to the Rev. Muhlenberg, member of the Synod ofPennsylvania, for the purpose of obtaining his counsel relative to thepresent affairs of the Church. " (9. ) However, these letters alsoremained unanswered. But, even this did not exasperate, nor exhaust thepatience of, Tennessee, as appears from the following entry in theminutes of 1826: "At our last session a few theological questions weresubmitted to the reverend Synod of East Pennsylvania, and a letter tothe Rev. Muhlenberg; but we received no answer, neither from the Synodnor from Mr. Muhlenberg. The cause of this delay we do not know; but weindulge the hope of receiving satisfactory answers before our nextsession. " (R. 1826, 6. ) In the same Report we read: "Several lettersfrom Pennsylvania [not the Synod] were read in which David Henkel isparticularly requested to visit that State for the purpose of preaching, and arguing the peculiar doctrines of the Lutheran Church. Resolved, That this Synod also solicit him to undertake this task. He agreed to doso, provided he can arrange his other business so as to be enabled. "(9. ) In the following year, however, as no answer had arrived from thePennsylvania Synod, Tennessee made the following declaration, which wasdirected also against the North Carolina Synod: "Whereas there aresundry ministers who appear under the disguise of Lutherans, notwithstanding [they] deny the Lutheran doctrines, and as they arepatronized by several synods, this body deemed it expedient and to havea Scriptural privilege to demand of other bodies answers to sometheological questions, in order to ascertain whether they differ inpoints of doctrine from this body. Accordingly, they submitted a fewtheological questions to the reverend Synod of Pennsylvania (now EastPennsylvania), and have waited patiently four years for an answer. Butno answer was received. The secretary was also ordered by the sessionof 1825 to address a friendly letter on the subject to the Rev. Muhlenberg. The secrtary [tr. Note: sic] complied with this order; butMr. Muhlenberg has not as yet returned an answer. In order, therefore, to ascertain the sentiments of the several synods, as well as ofindividual ministers on sundry points of doctrine, it was resolved, 1. That there shall be a pastoral address directed to the Lutherancommunity, in which shall be shown what this body deem to be thegenuine Lutheran doctrines relative to such points as are in dispute. 2. That the several Synods, as well as individual ministers shall berequested, in the preface of the aforesaid contemplated address, toperuse and examine it; and then, in a formal manner, either justify itas correct, or condemn it as erroneous. That every synod and ministerwho shall be silent after having had an opportunity of perusing it shallbe considered as fully sanctioning all its contents as correct, althoughthey should teach or patronize a contrary doctrine. 3. That David Henkelshall compile and prepare said book for publication, and that the otherministers of this body shall assist him in it. . . . This address isintended to be published both in the German and English languages. " (R. 1827, 6 f. ) Also from the Ohio Synod, which at that time practicallyidentified itself with the indifferentistic attitude of the PennsylvaniaSynod, Tennessee received but little encouragement in her efforts atpurifying the Lutheran Church from the leaven of sectarianism. SaysSheatsley: "The minutes [of the Ohio Synod of 1825] report that DavidHenkel of the Tennessee Synod placed several theological questionsbefore Synod. These were discussed in the ministerial meeting andanswered, but as many of the older heads were absent, the answersshould first be sent to them and then forwarded to Pastor Henkel. Whatthe questions were we have no means of determining [no doubt, they werethe same questions asked the Pennsylvania Synod], but, judging from theability and bent of the doughty David Henkel, we may surmise that thequestions involved some difficulties. In the following year Synodresolved that it could not answer these questions, since it is not ourpurpose at our meetings to discuss theological questions, but toconsider the general welfare of the Church. This did not betokenindifference [?] [tr. Note: sic] to doctrine, but it was then like itis now a Joint Synod; there was little or no time for the discussionof these matters. " (_History_, 73. )

TENNESSEE JUSTIFYING HER PROCEDURE. 

102. Confession of Truth a Christian Duty. --It appears from theprocedure of the Tennessee Synod, as well as from the resolution of1827, quoted in the preceding paragraph, that Tennessee felt justifiedin demanding a showdown on the part of the American Lutheran synods, which had persistently refused to reveal their colors. However, beingunionists, indifferentists, and masked or open Calvinists, these falseLutherans resented such a demand as obtrusive, arrogant, and impudent. Hence their contemptuous silence. However, also in this matter Tennesseerealized that they were only asking what, according to the Word of God, it was their solemn duty to demand. For to confess the faith which is inhim is not only the privilege of a Christian, but also an obligation anda debt which he owes his brethren. Accordingly, when, in 1827, thecommittee reported how all efforts to induce the Carolina andPennsylvania Synods to reveal their colors and to give testimony oftheir faith as to the doctrines of Baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc. , hadbeen rebuked with silent contempt, Tennessee passed the resolutionsquoted in the preceding paragraph. They felt called upon publicly tojustify their procedure; and this all the more so because a member ofthe North Carolina Synod had declared "that it was not only improper, but also sinful to argue publicly on religious subjects. " (R. 1827, 36. )David Henkel, therefore, in a treatise appended to the Report of 1827, endeavored to show the propriety and the Scriptural grounds for thepublic debate proposed to the ministers of the North Carolina Synod. HowTennessee justified her actions appears from the following quotationsculled from this treatise: "The members of the Lutheran Church, " saysDavid Henkel, "are pledged by their confirmation vows to support and toadhere to her doctrines and discipline. Now as it is not a matter oflittle importance to break such vows, it is therefore highly interestingfor every member to know who of the ministers and which of the synodshave departed from the confession of faith they have vowed to maintain, as a connection with such would be a partaking of their errors. " (33. )"Because all Lutherans are pledged to maintain the doctrines of theirconfession of faith, it may therefore be legally required of any one tostand an examination, if it be believed that he has deviated from thesame. " (36. ) "The members of the Lutheran Church at the time of theirconfirmation declare that they believe the doctrines as held by thesame, and every minister is solemnly pledged to maintain the AugustanConfession. Independently of Synods, the Augustan Confession of Faith isthe point of union of all Lutherans, and by which they are distinguishedfrom other denominations. As all bear the same name, and are pledged tomaintain the same creed, they are viewed as one body. Therefore onemember is accountable to another, and it is one minister's duty to watchthe other's official conduct, as the doctrines taught by one areascribed to the others, because they constitute one body. How does a manbecome partaker of another's guilt but by being in connection with him, and not reproving it? 1 Tim. 5, 22. " (37. ) "Now as one Lutheranminister's doctrine is ascribed to another, why should the one not havethe right to bring the other to an account, provided he believes that hedeviates from the confession they are both pledged to maintain? Theministers of the North Carolina Synod call themselves Lutherans, but aswe believe that they propagate doctrines contrary to the AugustanConfession, we considered it necessary to require of them to stand anexamination. It is necessary to correct a wrong opinion, which is, thatLutheran ministers are at liberty to deviate from the AugustanConfession whereinsoever they conceive it as erroneous. Some ministershave declared that they did not care what the Augustan Confessionteaches, that they simply taught the doctrines of the Scriptures;further, that Luther was only a man, and was therefore liable to err. Inanswer to this, I observe that Lutheran ministers have no right todeviate from any article of this Confession because the whole of it isviewed by the Lutheran community as true and Scriptural. Let themremember their solemn vows! Such as think proper to deviate, infringeupon the rights of the community. It must, however, be admitted that ifany one should discover that this confession is unscriptural, he wouldbe justifiable in renouncing it. By doing so no one would be deceived. If there are errors in this confession, why should any man who hasdiscovered them yet pretend to preach under its covert? Such as believethat this Confession contains errors practise a twofold fraud. The oneis, that they cause Lutherans to think that they hold the same doctrinesas they do themselves, when yet they do not. The other is (provided itbe true what they affirm), that they encourage the people in thoseerrors, because they pretend to support the very confession whichcontains them. That the Bible is the proper rule of doctrine must beconfessed; yet the question is, Does the Augustan Confession contradictit? That Luther was a man, and therefore liable to err, is not denied;but that he did err with regard to the doctrines contained in theAugustan Confession remains to be proven. But if he erred, why do suchas believe this call themselves Lutherans? Such practise a fraud bybeing called Lutherans, when they affirm that Luther taught erroneousdoctrines; or else [they] must own that, by being called after him, theysanction such errors. " (37 f. )

103. Truth Always Seeks the Light. --In his justification of theprocedure of the Tennessee Synod, David Henkel continues as follows:"The intention of the public debate which was offered to the ministersof the North Carolina Synod was to afford them an opportunity ofmanifesting the doctrines we teach, and to prove them as erroneous. Thesame [opportunity] we would also had to have treated theirs in likemanner. The propositions which were made were calculated to have broughtall these things to light. They would not only have offered the hearerswho might have been present the opportunity of knowing the difference, and arguments on each side, but the debates might also have beencommitted to paper and published, and thus the whole Lutheran communitymight have been judges in this controversy. When a doctrine is indispute between two parties, how shall the public decide when they neverheard the opposite arguments? Is it rational to condemn either partywithout a trial? Whilst the deeds of men are to be concealed, there arejust grounds for believing that they are evil. Our blessed Savior says, 'For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to thelight, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth the truthcometh to the light that his deeds may be made manifest that they arewrought in God. ' John 3, 20. 21. No man who is confident that he has thetruth on his side will ever evade coming to the light; for he is notashamed to profess and vindicate the truth; and though it should bescrutinized to the utmost, yet he knows that thereby, like gold passingthrough the fire, it shall become more brilliant. Even the man who isdiffident with respect to his doctrines, yet having an honestdisposition, never objects to be brought to the light; for he considersthat no greater favor could be shown him than that his errors beoverthrown, and he be led into the paths of truth. But the man who knowsthat he cannot defend his doctrines upon Scriptural grounds, and yetpossesses too high an estimation of himself, hates to be brought to thelight, for he knows that his errors will be unmasked; 'for every onethat doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest hisdeeds should be reproved. ' Why do men make so many shifts to evade apublic trial of the doctrines, but a consciousness of being in an errorwhich their pride does not suffer to be publicly exposed? Many a man ina hasty ill humor condemns a doctrine merely because the man whom heconsiders his enemy vindicates it; and though he should afterwards beclearly convinced, yet he believes it to be beneath his dignity to makea recantation, and thus throughout all his days he is tormented with aguilty conscience. In the days of the Reformation public debates werehighly conducive to manifest the errors of the papists. When Lutherconfronted his opponents in the presence of multitudes, it was that manysouls got convinced of the truth, which before were kept in ignorance. Had he refused to appear, especially before the Diet at Worms, whatwould have been the result? Though he knew that his life was in danger, if he appeared, yet he also knew that the cause he had espoused wouldhave suffered, provided he evaded a public test of his doctrines. ThePapists having been taught by experience that the public debates withLuther proved injurious to their party, they avoided them as much asthey could and employed various stratagems to destroy him and his cause. Luther says: 'The court of Rome most horribly fears, and shamefullyflees from, a Christian council. ' Had this principle been uniformlyfollowed in the days of Luther that it is sinful to dispute on points ofdoctrine, the errors of the Papish Church could have been impregnable;and those who bear the name of Christian might perhaps yet groan underpapal superstition and tyranny. . . . Thousands have joined churcheswith whose peculiar doctrines they are not acquainted, and even do notknow whether their government is republican, aristocratical, ormonarchical. They are satisfied with what they hear from theirministers, without even examining their creeds or forms of government. Such being ignorant, they are already prepared for a state of slavery. They who so easily submit to an ecclesiastical slavery may also bydegrees, by the same means, be led to sacrifice their civil liberty. Howis it possible that people can with any degree of safety be inconnection with such ministers as are publicly impeached with erroneousdoctrines, and yet are not willing to be brought to light? Ought notevery person conclude: If such ministers believed that they had nothingbut the truth on their side, they would freely embrace every opportunityof coming to the light, so that they might show that their works arewrought in God, and refute their opponents' calumnies? That a publicdebate would create animosity is no reason that it should be omitted. Would it offend real Christians? By no means. It indeed might offendfalse teachers and their votaries, who for the want of argument wouldsubstitute the ebullitions of their anger. But what Christian canimagine that no error should be exposed, lest the persons who are guiltymight be offended?" (38 ff. )

104. Arguments Continued. --David Henkel furthermore showed from Phil. 2, 15; 1 Pet. 2, 9; 1 Pet. 3, 15. 16, that it is the duty of Christiansto shine as lights in the world, to instruct the ignorant, to give ananswer to every man who asks them a reason of the hope that is in them, and then proceeds to the following conclusion: "Now if it be everyChristian's duty to answer those who interrogate them respecting thegrounds of their faith, how contrary to the Word of God do such synodsand ministers act when they refuse answering some important theologicalquestions either by writing or public interview! Do they refuse becausethey consider the persons who interrogate them too far beneath theirnotice? Does not this (if it be the case) indicate that they arepossessed with the pride of the devil? What! poor sinful mortals, dothey exalt themselves above their fellowmen? Or are they ashamed to lettheir sentiments be known? Are they sensible that they cannotrationally defend their doctrines if they were scrutinized? Or, indeed, have they the truth on their side, and yet fear to let it be known thatthey believe it, lest they should become unpopular? Alas! there are toomany whose sentiments may be correct, yet through fear of getting theill will of some others will not answer the most important questions. Let such men remember, that, whilst they wish to keep the truth indarkness, with a view to please opposite parties, that they are vilehypocrites; and let them tremble! St. Paul says: 'For if I yet pleasedmen, I should not be the servant of Christ. ' Gal. 1, 10. We have askedthe ministers of the North Carolina Synod for the reasons of the hopethat is in them, or properly, for the proofs of their doctrines; and, agreeably to the last invitation given them, they might have had theopportunity of showing the reasonableness of their doctrines. Now asthey have neglected to endeavor to convince us, why do they warn thepeople against us, especially since they are not willing to confront usin a public debate?" (42 f. ) Henkel continues: "We, as it has beenalready said, are represented by the ministers of the North CarolinaSynod as enemies of the promulgation of the Gospel. Particularly I amcharged with teaching the most dangerous heresies, as may be seen froma scurrilous pamphlet written by their president, Mr. Shober. How issuch a dangerous man to be treated by Christian pastors? Is he to be atliberty without reproof? Is he to be opposed behind his back, anddefeated by arguments, or rather invectives, to which he has noopportunity of replying? No. For such treatment has rather a tendency tostrengthen him in his errors, and cause such as are led by him toconclude that his doctrines are incontestable; otherwise the learned andpious clergy would confront him in a public interview. St. Pauldescribes the duty of a bishop in this respect: that he should 'holdfast the faithful Word as he hath been taught, that he may be able bysound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. ' He adds:'For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, speciallythey of the circumcision, whose mouth must be stopped, who subvert wholehouses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 'Titus 1, 9. 11. As these show that it is the duty of a bishop to exhortand convince the gainsayer, and to stop his mouth, the question may beasked, How is this to be done? It cannot be done otherwise than topropose to the gainsayer an interview, and if he attend to it, to refutehis arguments. But if he refuses to attend, the bishop has dischargedhis duty; for the gainsayer thereby shows that he is, already convinced, and his mouth stopped, because, if he believed that he could not berefuted, he would by no means avoid the light. Again, when the gainsayerin a public debate is closely pursued by the truth, he uses invectivesinstead of arguments, which is a plain indication of his mouth beingstopped. A false teacher is said to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, whichsignifies to be under the covert of a servant of God. . . . Now, indeedis it possible that the ministers of the North Carolina Synod representme as the most dangerous wolf, and yet can see me come among theircongregations, and gain a goodly number of their people, without evenbeing willing to confront me in a public debate, which would becalculated to show me in mine originality. Why do they flee? Do they notfeel for their flocks? To pronounce them hirelings would seemuncharitable. How could I otherwise acquit them of such a charge, unlessI would suppose that they in reality do not consider me as a falseteacher? Otherwise they would not flee, but stand public test. But thatthey have called me a false teacher is perhaps owing to the violence ofthe old man in them, whom they have not yet crucified through theSpirit. " (44 ff. ) Finally, in defending the propriety of the procedureof the Tennessee Synod, David Henkel refers to the example of Christ, who "answered the questions of the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, andthe devil. Now, as Christ debated with wicked men, yea, with the devilhimself, with what face can any man say, It is wrong to dispute ondoctrinal topics?" (45 f. ) David Henkel concludes: "Whereas allLutherans are pledged to their creed by a solemn vow, it must be amatter of great importance for every one to know the sentiments of theministers under whose care he may be; for whosoever supports such as areinimical to the doctrines of the Church acts contrary to his vow. EveryLutheran ought to be certain, and able to prove by texts of Scripture, that his creed contains erroneous doctrine, before he adopts a contraryone, lest he incur the crime of perjury. The ministry of the NorthCarolina Synod are charged with denying the most important doctrine ofthe Lutheran Church, and have been requested to come to a reciprocaltrial, which they have obstinately refused. Now, what is the duty of thepeople under their care? Ought they not to urge them to come to areciprocal trial? How can they consider themselves safe under a ministrywho are not willing to come to the light!" (47. )

DOCTRINAL BASIS. 

105. Attitude toward the Scriptures. --Regarding the constitution ofthe Tennessee Synod we read in the Report of 1827: "Whereas theconstitution [of 1820] of this Synod is blended with the transactions ofthe session at which it was formed, and as the unalterable articles arenot distinguished from those that are local and of a temporary nature, and as the language is not sufficiently explicit, it was deemednecessary, in order to supply those defects, to supply another. Consequently a committee was appointed to draw up one for examination. "The committee complied with the order, drew up a constitution, and laidit before the body. Every one of its articles having been criticallyexamined, Synod resolved: "1. That this constitution shall be annexedto this journal [Report]; but it shall not now be adopted nor ratified, so that the absent ministers, as well as the congregations may have theopportunity of alleging their probable objections, or of proposingnecessary amendments. This also affords an opportunity for the membersof the present session to reexamine it. 2. But that, if no objection ofimportance shall be alleged, or necessary amendments proposed by anymember of this body, or by any congregation, and be laid before the nextsession, it shall then be considered as the adopted and ratifiedconstitution of this Synod. " (9. ) In the following year the newconstitution was adopted and ratified in a somewhat revised form, andappended to the minutes of the same year. The English version is foundalso in the Report of 1853. The First Article of this constitution readsas follows: "The Holy Scriptures, or the inspired writings of the Oldand New Testaments, shall be the only rule of doctrine andchurch-discipline. The correctness or incorrectness of any translationsis to be judged according to the original tongues, in which theScriptures were first written. " (B. 1828, 13; R. 1853, 20. ) TheIntroduction declared: "Nothing relative to doctrines andchurch-discipline ought to be transacted according to the mere will ofthe majority or minority, but in strict conformity with Holy Writ. " (B. 1828, 12; R. 1853, 19. ) According to the constitution of 1828, therefore, Tennessee recognized the Holy Scriptures as the only norm andrule of doctrine and life. This had been the position of the TennesseeSynod from the very beginning. As early as 1822 they declared:"Forasmuch as the Holy Bible is the only rule of matters respectingfaith and church-discipline, and because the Augsburg Confession ofFaith is a pure emanation from the Bible, and comprises the mostimportant doctrines of faith and discipline, hence it must always remainvalid. Therefore our Synod can neither be governed by a majority nor aminority, now nor ever hereafter, with respect to doctrine anddiscipline. This is the reason why nothing can be introduced among us, now nor at any time hereafter, which may be repugnant to the Bible andthe Augsburg Confession of Faith. Neither the majority nor the minorityshall determine what our doctrine and discipline are, because they arealready determined in the above-named rule. But that we assemble fromtime to time is neither to form new rules, doctrines, nor traditions, but as united instruments in the hand of God we wish to promulgate thedoctrine of the Bible, and to execute the rules already laid down in theHoly Scriptures. But with respect to local and temporary regulations, such as the place and time of meeting, and such like things, which donot interfere with matters of faith and discipline, the Synod suitthemselves to the conveniences of the most of their members. We referthe reader to the Seventh, Fifteenth, and Twenty-eighth Articles of theAugsburg Confession of Faith, where he may find more satisfactoryinstructions with respect to these things. " (R. 1822, 9 f. )

106. Augsburg Confession Adopted with a "Quia. "--From the verybeginning the Tennessee Synod regarded the Book of Concord as a correctexhibition of the teachings of Holy Writ, although at first only theAugsburg Confession was officially received into the constitution. Atits organization in 1820 Synod declared: "All doctrines of faith and thedoctrine of the Christian Life, as well as all books which are used forpublic worship in the Church, shall, as far as possible, be arranged andobserved according to the Holy Scriptures and the Augsburg Confession. Especially shall the youth and others who have need thereof in ourChurch be instructed according to the Small Catechism of Dr. Luther, ashas been the custom hitherto. Said Catechism shall always be the chiefcatechism of our Church. " (4. ) "Whoever will be a teacher shall solemnlypromise that he will teach according to the Word of God, and theAugsburg Confession, and the doctrine of our Church. " (5. ) The minutesof 1821 record: "On motion made by Mr. Peter Boger, it was resolved thata copy of the Augsburg Confession of Faith, likewise a copy of theminutes of the Synod, shall be deposited in every church. " (8. ) TheSecond Article of the new constitution, adopted 1828, reads as follows:"The Augustan Confession of Faith, comprised in twenty-eight articles, as it is extant in the book entitled 'The Christian Concordia, ' isacknowledged and received by this body, _because_ it is atrue declaration of the principal doctrines of faith and ofchurch-discipline. Neither does it contain anything contrary to theScriptures. No minister shall therefore be allowed to teach anything, nor shall this body transact anything that may be repugnant to anyarticle of this Confession. Luther's Smaller Catechism is alsoacknowledged and received, because it contains a compendium ofScriptural doctrines, and is of great utility in the catechising ofyouth. " (R. 1853, 21. ) The "Remarks" appended to this article explain:"Creeds fraught with human tradition and opinions are rejected by thisbody. Neither is the authority of a general council considered as valid, or sufficient to establish any point of doctrine. . . . Now there is aconsiderable difference when a body of Christians receive a humancomposition [symbol] as an unerring guide in addition to the Scriptures, or when they receive it to show their views as respecting points ofdoctrine. Lutherans acknowledge the Holy Scriptures as the only rule ofdoctrine and discipline; nevertheless they receive the AugustanConfession _because_ it exhibits the same views they have on theScriptures, and is a formal declaration of what they believe. But if itwere possible to prove that the views on the points of doctrinecontained in the Augustan Confession were erroneous, it would be theduty of this body to renounce it; nevertheless, in that case they couldby no means be Lutherans, as they would have rejected the views ofLutherans. As there have been various editions of the AugustanConfession, this body have chosen the one which is extant in the bookentitled 'The Christian Concordia, ' because they are well assured thatthat is genuine. " (22. ) The revised constitution of 1866 recognized theentire Book of Concord as being the doctrinal basis of the TennesseeSynod, thereby merely giving expression to the position which theTennessee Synod had actually occupied from the very beginning. In theirletter of December 10, 1826, addressed to the pastors of the NorthCarolina Synod, Daniel Moser and David Henkel declared: "We also wish toappeal to the book called 'Concordia, ' as it is one of the principalsymbolical books of the Lutheran Church. " (R. 1827, 28. ) The sixth ofthe "Alterable Articles" of the proposed constitution submitted to synodin 1827 reads: "The book entitled 'Concordia, ' which contains theSymbolical Books of the Lutheran Church, shall be viewed as a directoryin Theology. " (24. ) After visiting the Tennessee Synod in 1855, Brohmwrote: "Creditable witnesses have given me the assurance that, as far astheir persons are concerned, all the pastors of the Synod adhere to theentire Concordia. " (_Lutheraner_ 11, 78. ) When the Tennessee Synod wasorganized, it was the only American Lutheran synod which was pledged tothe Lutheran Confession, not merely with a _quatenus, i. E. _, as far asit agrees with the Bible, but with an honest _quia, i. E. _, because itagrees with the Bible. 

CONFESSION ENFORCED. 

107. Confession No Mere Dead Letter. --That Tennessee did not regardthe Lutheran Confession a mere dead document appears from her attitudetoward the Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and other unfaithful Lutheransynods, as delineated above. The treatise appended to the Report of 1827declared: It is necessary to correct the wrong opinion that Lutheranministers are at liberty to deviate from the Augustan Confessionwhereinsoever they conceive it as erroneous. As long as a ministerpretends to be a Lutheran minister, he has no right to deviate from anyarticle of this Confession. Let him remember his vows! If any one shoulddiscover that the Augsburg Confession is unscriptural, he is justifiedand bound to renounce it. But if he continues to preach under its cover, he is guilty of a twofold fraud. He deceives the Church by causingLutherans to believe that he agrees with them. And he deceives theChristians by failing to warn them against what he regards erroneousteaching. If Luther and the Lutheran Confessions erred, "why do such asbelieve this call themselves Lutherans? Such practise a fraud by beingcalled Lutherans, when they affirm that Luther taught erroneousdoctrines; or else must own that, by being called after him, theysanction such errors. " (38. ) Tennessee was not satisfied with being_called_ Lutheran. They were seriously determined to _be_ Lutherans. The Lutheran Confessions were the living norm of both their preachingand their practise. In publishing books, receiving pastors and teachers, examining candidates, in negotiating with other synods, Tennessee wasscrupulously guided and governed by the Lutheran Symbols. In 1821 theyresolved on a Liturgy to be prepared by Paul Henkel "according to theAugsburg Confession of Faith and the Bible. " (7. ) In 1826 it wasresolved that Luther's Smaller Catechism should be translated into theEnglish language, and that Ambrose Henkel was to provide both for an_accurate translation_ and for the publication of the Catechism. (7. )Numerous instances where pastors were carefully examined with respect todoctrine before they were admitted to membership are recorded in thesynodical minutes. In the Report of 1831, _e. G. _, we read: "Mr. Rankin[who previously had been a member of the Presbyterian Church] presentedhimself to the committee. He was first made a full member of theLutheran Church by confirmation. Then, having taken the most solemnpledge, he was ordained a pastor of the same Church with prayer andlaying on of hands. " (8. ) The Report of 1832 records: "Whereas Mr. Rankin, as appears from a letter of Mr. Bonham, addressed to Synod, andfrom other trustworthy sources from Green County, Tenn. , _has departedfrom the Augsburg Confession_, both as to doctrine and discipline, itwas resolved that Mr. Rankin be requested to attend the next session ofour Synod, and there defend himself against the above-mentioned charges, otherwise we can regard him as member of this Synod no longer. " (9. 16. )In the Report of 1827 we find the following entry: "It was considerednecessary that one of the pastors should visit all the other pastors, and their congregations, and examine whether there be any who deviatefrom the doctrines and rules of our Church. But as none of the pastorswho were present could undertake this visit, it was resolved that any ofthe absent ministers who may volunteer his services shall hereby beauthorized to make this visit, and to reprove all errors that may comewithin his knowledge. Whatever pastor may undertake this visit isrequested to inform the secretary of his intention, and to hand in areport of his journey at the next session. " (12. )

108. Symbols Regarded as Necessary. --In the "Remarks, " appended to theSecond Article of the constitution, adopted 1828, the necessity ofsymbols in explained as follows: "Now the question may be put, Is notthe Augustan Confession a human composition? Why is it adopted by thisbody? Answer: The Apostle Peter exhorts Christians to 'be ready alwaysto give an answer to every man that asketh them a reason of the hopethat is in them, ' etc. 1 Pet. 3, 15. 16. From the history of theReformation it is evident that the Protestants were called upon todeliver their confession of faith before the diet assembled at Augsburg. Every Christian is not only privileged, but also commanded to confesswhat he believes. Although the Scriptures be a sufficient guide withoutany other, and though there be but one explanation of them which can becorrect, yet not all who profess Christianity explain them alike, fortheir views are widely different. Hence, as all do not explain theScriptures alike, it could but be known what each body of Christiansbelieved; consequently others could not know whether they shouldfellowship them, provided they had not a formal declaration of theirviews on the points of doctrine contained in the Scriptures. But when abody of Christians make a formal declaration of their views on the HolyScriptures, others are enabled to judge whether they be correct, andthus may know with whom to hold Christian fellowship. . . . Lutheransacknowledge the Holy Scriptures as the only rule of doctrine anddiscipline; nevertheless they receive the Augustan Confession because itexhibits the same views they have on the Scriptures, and is a formaldeclaration of what they believe. " (22. ) According to his own report ofa conversation with a pastor of the General Synod, dated December 2, 1824, Andrew Henkel answered as follows the objection that theScriptures are sufficient, and that for that reason symbols aresuperfluous: "I told him then that he had departed from the AugsburgConfession, and, of course, from the Lutheran Church. He then told methat the Bible was his creed, and not the Augsburg Confession, and thatthe said Confession contained things which were not in the Scriptures. I then replied and said that every fanatic and sectarian said so, andthat Lutherans as much considered the Scriptures to be the only guide indoctrines as he or any other person did, but that it was necessary tohave some standard by which men could know how the Scriptures wereunderstood by this or the other denominations, as men varied materiallyin their explanations of the Scriptures. I then demanded of him to showwherein the Confession did not correspond with the Scriptures. Hereferred me to the word 'real' in the article of the Lord's Supper, andadded that that word was inserted by the hotheaded Luther. "

ANTI-ROMANISTIC ATTITUDE. 

109. Church Governed by Word of God Alone. --The Tennessee Synod didnot only realize the importance of the Symbols for the Lutheran Church, but had correctly apprehended also their spirit and doctrinal content. This appears from her uncompromising attitude toward the Romanistic, Reformed, Methodistic, and unionistic tendencies prevailing in theLutheran synods and congregations at the time of her organization. As topolity, the cast of the first American Lutheran synods and congregationswas of the hierarchical type. The congregations were subordinate totheir pastors, the pastors and congregations to their respective synods, as a rule called ministeriums, because, essentially, they were bodiescomposed of ministers. David Henkel had experienced the tyranny to whichsuch an order would naturally lead and lend itself. The Tennessee Synodmust be credited with being the first, in a large measure, to recognize, confess, and defend the inalienable rights of all Christians andChristian congregations. The Henkels must be regarded as champions alsoof the basic truth of all normal church-government, _viz. _, that no oneis to govern the Christian Church, save Christ and His Word alone, notthe pastor, nor the ministerium, nor the synod, nor any sort ofmajority. (1820, 23; 1828, 12. ) In 1820, when the leaders of the NorthCarolina Synod, in matters of right and wrong, demanded subjection tothe majority of votes, the Henkels maintained: "We thought the doctrineof the Augsburg Confession, of which we were assured that it can beproved by the doctrine of the Bible, ought to be of greater authorityto us than the voice of a majority of men who are opposed to thedoctrine and order of our Church. " (1820, 23. ) Nothing short of clearproof and conviction from the Word of God and the Augsburg Confessionwould satisfy the Henkels. In 1822 Tennessee declared: "Our Synod canneither be governed by a majority nor a minority, now nor everhereafter, with respect to doctrine and discipline. . . . Neither themajority nor the minority shall determine what our doctrine anddiscipline are to be, because they are already determined in theabove-named rule. . . . But with respect to local and temporaryregulations, such as the place and time of meeting, and such likethings, which do not interfere with matters of faith and discipline, theSynod suit themselves to the conveniences of the most of their members. "(R. 1822, 9. ) In a "Note" appended to the above declaration, DavidHenkel defines the position of Tennessee as follows: "Herein is thedifference between the government of the pure Evangelical LutheranChurch and the government of the General Synod. The established rule ofthe pure Christian Church is the Holy Scriptures and her supreme Head, Jesus Christ. Christ, by His Word, governs the Church in the doctrinesof faith and discipline; there needeth no majority of votes todetermine. In such matters as do not immediately interfere with thedoctrines of faith and government of the Church, as, for instance, toappoint the time and place for the meeting of a synod, or the erectionof a synod, and such like things, herein our Church doth not seek toexercise any authority, but granteth liberty to each congregation and toeach of her ministers to act and do as they judge it most convenient forthemselves. No one is despised for not joining with us in our Synod; noone is oppressed who is not in conformity with us in matters which arenot essential to the doctrine of faith. Nothing can separate our unionor break our peace with any, only when they deviate from the puredoctrine of the Gospel, and when they compose traditions of their ownand impose them on others. A majority is not to have authority over anyone, because they have no power to impose traditions of men on otherswith regard to religion. The government of the General Synod isaltogether otherwise. . . . It is plainly to be seen in her constitutionthat her aim is to impose a number of human traditions on the Church, as, for instance, that no synod shall be erected in any State, unlessthere are six ordained ministers living therein, and not even thenunless they are authorized by the General Synod. The General Synod is tobe governed by a majority; if it were not so, she would admit that everycongregation and every minister should act agreeably to their ownadvantage in matters not interfering with the doctrines of faith, andnot seek such universal power, by which they may compel men to actaccording to the will of a majority. The Church of God on earth wasnever constantly governed right by a majority. In the times of theprophets the Church was oppressed by a majority. . . . How was it in thetime of Christ? How did the majority act against the Savior? Who wasright? The great council of Jerusalem and thousands of their adherents, or Jesus of Nazareth, and the few of His disciples who were despised bythe world? How was it in the days of Luther? What was he againstmillions of the Papist Church? And yet every Protestant will confessthat Luther's cause was just, and is thankful to God that the light ofthe Gospel was set up by Luther. But supposing that Luther had yieldedto be governed by a majority as the advocates for a General Synodinsist, or wish that the Church should be governed by a majority, mightwe not have remained in the ignorance of blind popery to the presentday? The government of the world is supported by a majority, and thus, many imagine to themselves, it ought so to be in the Church; but theyare greatly mistaken! Jesus saith, 'My kingdom is not of this world, 'and consequently not His manner of government. . . . Jesus Himself hathalready prescribed all things respecting the doctrine and discipline ofHis Church, therefore we need no General Synod to give us prescriptions!As touching matters not essential, as appointing the time and place of aconvention or the like, whereof no prescription is given, no one isjustifiable to give any prescription or direction, much less to compelany one thereto, whereas all are to enjoy Christian liberty. See Rom. 14; Col. 2. But those of the General Synod undertake to erect universaldirections in these matters, or else they would not name their SynodUniversal. Whosoever submits himself to be governed by a majority mustbe such as trust to a majority. The Scripture saith: 'Cursed is the manwho putteth his trust in man. ' Jer. 17. " (R. 1822, 11 f. ) These viewswere embodied also in the constitution of 1828. In the explanatory"Remarks" to the Fourth Article we read: "As the aforesaid duties [tosupply laborers, detect false teachers, examine and ordain ministerialcandidates, etc. ] devolve on all churches and ministers, theyundoubtedly have the privilege to perform them jointly, _i. E. _ they mayconstitute a synod. But no Christian synod can have legislative powers, consequently have no right to make rules for churches. All necessaryand salutary rules pertaining to the government of the Church areprescribed in the Scriptures; therefore every body of men who make rulesfor the Church are in opposition to Christ. To make rules for the Churchis one thing, but to execute these rules already made, and to employ theproper means for the promulgation of the Gospel, is another. The latter, but by no means the former, is the business of this body. That thereought to be no appeals from the decisions of congregations is evidentfrom Matt. 18, 15-20. " (B. 1828, 20; R. 1853, 25. ) Of course, appealsfrom the congregation to the synod as a higher authority, to which thecongregation is subordinated, were meant. The Introduction to theconstitution says: "The rules and principles of church-government arecontained in the Holy Scriptures. Therefore no body of Christians haveauthority to dispense with, or alter or transact, anything contrary tothem. Human traditions or rules impressed upon the Church as necessaryfor Christian fellowship, which have no foundation in the Scriptures, are rejected by our Savior. Matt. 15, 9. 13. 14. " Although, in executingthe rules of the Church, different times, persons, and localcircumstances intervene, as, for instance, in one age and country onelanguage is prevalent, but not in another age, and perhaps not in thesame country . . . , nevertheless, Christ being omniscient, and Hisall-wise Spirit having inspired His apostles, they have provided theChurch with salutary rules, which are applicable to all persons in allplaces, times, and circumstances. Nothing relative to doctrines andchurch-discipline ought to be transacted according to mere will of themajority or minority, but in strict conformity to the Scriptures. Localand temporary regulations, such as the time and place of the meeting ofthe synod, the ratio of representatives from congregations, etc. , may bevaried for the sake of convenience, hence are subject to be altered, amended, or abolished by the majority; yet they ought not to attempt tomake their decisions in such cases absolutely obligatory upon the wholecommunity, because such regulations are only subservient to theexecution of the rules which are founded upon the Scriptures. " (19. )

110. Antihierarchical Principles Practised. --The organization of, andconnection with, a synod was regarded by Tennessee as a matter not ofdivine obligation, but of Christian wisdom and liberty. No congregationwas condemned or refused fellowship merely because it refused to uniteorganically with their synod. In the "Remarks" to the Fourth Article ofher constitution Tennessee explains: "When ministers and lay-delegatesare assembled, they may have a more accurate knowledge of the exigenciesof the whole connection they represent, hence are the better enabled toimpart their counsel. By their simultaneous efforts, vacant churches maybe supplied with ministerial labors, and others formed and organized. Indeed, the same end may also be obtained by individual ministers andchurches; nevertheless, as it frequently becomes necessary for such toreceive cooperation from their brethren, this end may be obtained withmore facility by the meeting of a Synod. " (1853, 25. ) According toTennessee, then, the organization of, and connection with, a synod is amatter of Christian liberty, wisdom, and expediency. But, while notopposed to synods as such, Tennessee most strenuously objected to anykind of human autocracy within the synods and congregations. When, in aletter, several members of the North Carolina Synod designated PaulHenkel "the head" of the Tennessee Synod, the latter declared, and coulddo so truthfully, that their Synod "confesses no man as its head savethe one and only God-man, Jesus Christ. " (B. 1824, 10. ) The fact is that, in the beginning, Tennessee was even without standing officers. Thechairmen were elected and changed at pleasure even during the sessionsof the same convention. (B. 1820, 7. ) Largely, her opposition to theGeneral Synod also was rooted in her determined hostility to every formof Romanism. (R. 1820, 55; 1821, 17. ) "If you will consider, " they saidto the North Carolina Synod, which had joined the General Synod, "whatpertains to true Christianity, you certainly cannot reasonably desirethat a government, shall be forced upon the Church, of which no tracecan be found in the Bible. " (B. 1824, Anhang 2. ) Indeed, in theiraversion to any and every form of synodical dominion over thecongregations Tennessee frequently went so far as to create theimpression that they viewed with suspicion and as questionable, ifindeed not as directly objectionable and sinful, every form oforganization of synods into a _general_ body. On this point, also inher criticism of the General Synod, Tennessee frequently ran riot. But, though occasionally losing her balance and making a wrong application ofher antihierarchical doctrine, the principle as such was sound to thecore and truly Lutheran. When the North Carolina Synod, without furtherinvestigation, annulled a ban of excommunication which David Henkel'scongregation had imposed, Tennessee repudiated the action as aninfringement on the rights of the congregation. "For, " said they, "itcannot be proven anywhere that a synod has authority to break thedecision made by the church council and the congregation. In suchmatters a congregation has greater power than any synod. " (B. 1820, 20. )In agreement herewith the Fourth Article of the constitution submittedin 1827 provided: "But this Synod shall have no power to receive appealsfrom the decision of congregations, with respect to the excommunicationor receiving of members. For every congregation in this respect isindependent of the Synod. " The German version adds: "Hence Synod cannotchange or annul a decision of any congregation pertaining to theexclusion or the acceptance of a member. " (R. 1827, 22; B. , 21. ) Theform in which this article was finally adopted (1828) reads: "But thisSynod shall have no power to receive appeals from the decisions of, norto make rules nor regulations for, congregations. " (B. 1828, 19; R. 1853, 25. ) Neither did the Tennessee Synod arrogate to itself the rightto appoint pastors to the congregations or to remove them. The Report of1824 records concerning Adam Miller: "This young man displays stronginclination for preaching; but since he has produced _no regular callfrom a congregation_, he could not be ordained. " (14. ) The TennesseeSynod claimed no power whatever over the individual congregations. Theminutes of 1825 record: "It is reported that this Synod, in 1821, ordered all the congregations not to suffer any minister who isconnected with the General Synod to preach in their meeting-houses. Beit therefore known to all whom it may concern that there was no such aresolution adopted; although, there was a petition handed in, subscribed by three congregations in Tennessee, in which they statedthat they had adopted a resolution among themselves not to suffer aminister belonging to the General Synod to preach in theirmeeting-houses, and also petitioned the Synod to admonish all thecongregations to concur with their resolution. But the Synod sanctionedtheir resolution only in part, in so far as not to be connected with theGeneral Synod; yet the Synod do not arrogate to themselves any authorityto prescribe to any congregation, whom they shall suffer to preach intheir meeting-houses. All congregations in this respect are independentof the Synod. " (R. 1825, 11; 1821, 7. ) The Report of 1832 declared:"This body arrogates to itself no power to make laws and rules for thecongregations, because it is against their rights and liberties, as wellas also against the Fourth Article of our constitution. " Indeed, suchwas their care not to exceed their authority that, _e. G. _, Synod, superscrupulously, refrained even from making a declaration how tofurther the instruction of the young, but contented itself with merelyadvising "the diverse church councils and congregations to make suchrules and arrangements how they might most fittingly and conveniently(wie es fuer sie am schicklichsten und bequemsten sei) instruct theiryoung. " (B. 1832, 9. ) According to the Fourth Article of theconstitution it was the business of Synod "to detect and expose falsedoctrines and false teachers. " But the "Remarks" appended to thisarticle are careful to explain: "That it shall be the duty of this bodyto detect erroneous doctrines and false teachers does by no meanssuppose that the same does not also devolve upon individual churches andministers, for this body does not claim it as their prerogative. But itis believed that this duty may be performed more advantageously by asynod. " (R. 1853, 25; B. 1828, 19. ) Even the right of examining andordaining ministers was not denied to the congregation. The draft of theconstitution published 1827 declared: "The business of this body shallbe . . . To examine (_if requested_) candidates for the ministry who maybe called by congregations, and, if they be found qualified, toconsecrate them with the imposition of hands and prayer. " (R. 1827, 22. )The reading adopted in 1828 ran thus: "The business of this body shallbe to impart their useful advice . . . And, _upon application_, toexamine candidates for the ministry. " (1853, 24. ) The "Remarks" appendedthis explanation: "Neither does this body claim the exclusive right ofexamining and ordaining candidates for the ministry. For everycongregation has the privilege of choosing fit persons for theirministers, and individual pastors have the authority to perform theirordination. This is evident from the practise of the primitiveChristians, as well as from the Scriptures. But when any congregationshall _request_ this body to examine and ordain the person of theirchoice, it then devolves on this body to perform this duty. As theaforenamed duties devolve on all churches and ministers, theyundoubtedly have the privilege to perform them jointly, _i. E. _, they mayconstitute a synod. But no Christian synod can have legislative powers, consequently have no right to make rules for churches. " (1853, 25. )

111. Rights of Laymen Recognized. --From the very beginning theTennessee Synod vindicated to the deputies of the congregations theright not merely to listen, to witness, and to testify, when called uponto do so by the ministers, as had been the custom in the PennsylvaniaSynod, but also, on equal terms with the pastors, to deliberate, decide, and vote on all matters submitted to Synod. (_ Lutheraner_ 11, 166. )Article Three of the Constitution declared: "It shall not be allowedeither for the ministers to transact any business exclusively of the laydelegates, or for the lay delegates exclusively of the ministers;provided there shall be both ministers and lay delegates present. " (B. 1828, 16; R. 1853, 23. ) The "Remarks" appended, add the following: "Itis not the privilege and duty of the clergy alone to impart theircounsel in ecclesiastical matters, and to employ means for thepromulgation of the Gospel, but also of other Christians. The firstChristian council was convened in Jerusalem, and consisted of theapostles, the elders, and the other brethren. They decided the questionwhether it was necessary to be circumcised. See Acts 15, 1-31. Theapostles were inspired, hence could have made the decision, without theassistance of the lay brethren; but it appears they desired no suchprerogative. This precedent justifies the laity in being in council withthe clergy for the purpose of deliberating on the most importantecclesiastical matters. Christians, in common, are called 'a chosengeneration, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, ' andthey are 'to show forth the praises of Him who hath called them out ofdarkness into His marvelous light. ' 1 Pet. 2, 9. Now, since Christiansin common have such honorable titles, sustain such a high dignity, andare to manifest the praises of God, it may be concluded that they havethe same rights in church-government as the clergy. St. Paul, in writingto the Corinthians, said: 'Do ye not know that the saints shall judgethe world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy tojudge the smallest matters? Know ye not that ye shall judge angels? howmuch more things that pertain to this life?' 1 Cor. 6, 2. 3. Not onlythe believing ministers, but also the laity are saints. . . . Now, ifsaints shall judge the world, even the angels, why should they not alsobe capable and privileged to transact the most important matterspertaining to the Church? That laymen should exercise equal rights withclergymen in church-government, is not only Scriptural, but alsoconducive to the preservation both of civil and ecclesiastical liberty. . . . From the history of the Church it appears that whenever the clergygoverned without the laity, they enslaved the people, grasped civilauthority, and persecuted those who detected or opposed their aspiringviews. This not only has been the case under the reign of Popery, butalso some of the clergymen who called themselves Protestants have beenthe most bloody persecutors. " (B. 1828, 17; R. 1853, 23. ) In accordancewith these principles, laymen in the Tennessee Synod were alsorepresented on, or even exclusively composed, most important committees. Thus, in 1824, three laymen were elected members of the committee whichwas to confer with the North Carolina Synod in an effort to remove thedoctrinal differences separating them. "They appointed farmers, " JacobSherer of the North Carolina Synod, in a letter, remarked contemptuously, "to instruct us, who in public print have slandered us, and treated usscornfully when it is known to them that the priests' lips are topreserve the doctrine. " David Henkel, then secretary of the TennesseeSynod, however, in a "Note, " recorded in the Report of 1825, justifiedthe action of Tennessee. Here he wrote: "I conceive it to be my duty toobserve that it is truly astonishing that farmers should not also, aswell as ministers, be capable of judging the Christian doctrine. Whenever it shall be proved that farmers are not to read the HolyScriptures, then only ought they to be excluded from this importantbusiness. It is well known that in the dark ages of Popery the laymanwas not permitted to judge in religious controversies, and it seems veryalarming that Mr. Sherer has expressed a similar sentiment, inasmuch ashe considers himself much offended because the Synod appointed laymenor, as he says, farmers to constitute the committee. That the priests'lips are to preserve the doctrine does not prove that it is inexpedientor wrong to appoint laymen to assist on deciding a dispute. It wasbelieved laymen would act more impartially, since the ministers are moreimmediately concerned in this controversy. Neither can I discover thatall farmers are so contemptible a class of people (so niedertraechtigeLeute) that Mr. Sherer could possibly be offended at the appointment! Ifin case the committee have published anything, which is contrary totruth, Mr. Sherer is at liberty to make it appear. " (R. 1825, 6. )

ANTI-METHODISTIC ATTITUDE. 

112. Fanatics Described. --At the time of the organization of theTennessee Synod the Lutheran Church of America generally was sufferingwith a threefold malady: Unionism, Reformedism, and Methodism. Methodismmay be defined as a diseased condition of Christianity, causingChristians to base their assurance of salvation not on the graciouspromises of God in the objective means of grace, the Word andSacraments, but on feelings and experiences produced by their ownefforts and according to their own methods. As the years rolled on, theearly Lutheran Church in America became increasingly infected with thispoison of subjectivism and enthusiasm, especially its English portions. Rev. Larros of Eaton, 0. , said in a letter to Paul Henkel, dated August2, 1821: "I remember when eighteen or twenty years ago many among theGermans in North Carolina were awakened as to their salvation, and we, in joyful hope, spared no trouble teaching and instructing, in order tomake of them men for the kingdom of Jesus, preserving the Bible-religion, that even then one could notice how some were flushed and puffed up withpride. This was evident especially at the time of the great revival ofthe English Church, when, at the large meetings, their novices["Neulinge, " young English preachers] admonished the people, and, to thedetriment of the Church and the depreciation of the older ministers, bytheir bold and arrogant actions indicated, that they understood thebusiness of converting the people better than the old preachers, andthis without being called to order by their superiors. Since that timeimpudence and lust of ruling have greatly increased, so that the fruitof it appears at public synods. " (B. 1821, 35. ) The Methodistic doctrineof conversion, as related above, was a point of dispute also between theNorth Carolina and Tennessee Synods. The Tennessee Report of 1820 statesthis difference as follows: "Since our opponents [of the North CarolinaSynod] refuse to admit that regeneration is wrought in the manner taughtby our Church, we infer that they believe it must be effected in analtogether different way. For almost all religionists of this time teachmost frequently and diligently and urge most earnestly that one must_experience_ regeneration, or be eternally lost. We are also accused bymany that we deny the doctrine of regeneration. Our answer is: We do notdeny the doctrine of regeneration at all; moreover, we teach it as wellas our opponents. But that regeneration is effected in the manner and bythe means such as they teach and pretend, this we cannot believe, nor dowe admit that it is possible in this way. Some of them teach andmaintain that regeneration cannot be wrought in any other way than byfear and terror, when one, experiencing true contrition and sorrow ofsin, is moved to pray and cry anxiously, beseeching the Holy Ghost toperform in him the work of regeneration. They hold that the Holy Ghostcan operate this in such only as are previously brought into this stateof fear and terror. As a natural birth cannot be effected without pain, in like manner, they argue, no one could be born anew withoutpreviously, through anguish and fear, having experienced pains of thesoul, more or less. Such teachers, however, fail to observe that by thisexample they contradict themselves. For in a natural birth, as everybodyknows, only the mother has pain, not the child, while according to theirdoctrine the child ought to have the pain. Who, therefore, does not seethat their teaching is most absurd and questionable? Now, in order tobring about regeneration in the manner they teach, it is the rule topreach the Law and its curse. To produce the required pangs of the soul, the poor people are threatened with the devil, eternal death, and hell. The intention is to cause a sinner to pray earnestly in order, by suchprayer, to receive the Holy Spirit. To produce this result, jointprayers are said to contribute the most, _viz. _, when a number ofpeople gather and strain every power of body and soul in crying andscreaming to move the Holy Spirit, or even to force Him, to finish thework of regeneration. They imagine that, by their own exercises inprayer, and especially by their joint prayers, they have advanced thematter and earned and obtained the Holy Ghost, and that, He [the HolyGhost] having united with their exercises and labor, the work ofregeneration was finished through the combined operation of theirprayers and the gifts of the Holy Spirit acquired by them. They mistakeimaginations for divine revelations. And the sensation rising from suchimaginations they regard as effects of the Holy Spirit. They apply tothemselves what the Apostle Paul writes Rom. 8, 16: 'The Spirit itselfbeareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. ' Theydeclare: We are born anew, and we know indeed that it is so, for theSpirit of God has given testimony to our spirit. But if one desires tolearn how He had given this testimony, whether they had seen Him orheard Him, or in what manner or whereby He had given such assurance, they appeal to their imaginations and sensations, from which alsosomething peculiar, like an apparition, may come to them; but whateverthis is we do not know. One can be absolutely sure, however, that it isnot the Holy Spirit. For as soon as you let them understand that youbelieve that they have been deceived and you endeavor to lead theirattention to the testimonies of Holy Scripture in order to obtain fromit reliable testimonies, immediately their anger begins to rise, theircountenance becomes disfigured, and, alas, with some already a fist isclenching with which they strike the table or their knees and declaredefiantly: 'I don't care anything for what you say; it is none of yourbusiness; I know that I am born of God, and will suffer it to be takenaway from me by nobody, by no learned man, nor by any devil; what I knowI do know. ' There is a reason, why such a person will not suffer hisopinion to be taken from him by anybody, and he need not fear that anydevil will rob him of it, especially when he is ready to use his fist indefense of his opinion. " (B. 1820, 32 ff. )

113. Sober Attitude of Tennessee Synod. --In opposition to thesubjectivism of the Methodistic enthusiasts within the Lutheran synods, Tennessee based the certainty of salvation on the objective means ofgrace, placing especial emphasis on the well-known comforting passagesof Holy Writ concerning Baptism, such as John 3, 5; Eph. 5, 23. 25. 26;Titus 3, 5; 1 Pet. 3, 20. 21; Rom. 6, 3-5; Acts 2, 38; 22, 16; Gal. 3, 26. 27; Mark 16, 16. "These passages of the Bible, " they said, "show usthat we are not to seek salvation in any work which we ourselves cancreate or perform, no matter whatever its nature may be, but onlythrough faith on the Lord and Savior Christ, who alone has doneeverything for us, and through the grace which He bestows and conferson us in Holy Baptism, whereby we are regenerated. " (B. 1820, 34. )Again: "From the passages here quoted the attentive reader is able tosee and comprehend that regeneration is not effected in the manner assome teach. " It was evident from the Scriptures, they maintained, thatChrist referred to Baptism when He declared that no one can enter thekingdom of God unless he was born again of the water and the Spirit. They explained: Self-evidently it is not a natural power or effect ofthe water to wash away sin. "Yet we see that the washing and cleansingfrom sin is effected alone [?] [tr. Note: sic!] through Baptism, andthat by faith alone such grace is appropriated. Accordingly, whoeverbelieves and is baptized shall be saved. Mark 16, 16. " (38. ) In thispassage, Mark 16, 16, Tennessee declared, "Christ in a few and clearwords indicates the whole condition under which a man can be saved. Itconsists in this, that he believes that, for the sake of Christ and whatHe has done and suffered for us, God will forgive all our sins, and thatby faith, in Baptism, he appropriates such promises of all the gifts ofsalvation which God imparts to man for Jesus' sake. This also shows usthat man cannot be saved by his own work or merit, but alone by what Godpresents and imparts to him. He obtains faith through preaching, whichis by th. Word of God, as Paul writes, Rom. 10, 17. Baptism isadministered by the command of Jesus Christ, Matt. 28, 19, through theservice of the minister of the Church. In this way God, through means, seeks man before man seeks Him. Accordingly, for having been translatedinto the state of salvation, man is to thank God and His ordinancesalone, not himself, his merit, his own works, or his experiences. ""Because we understand and teach this matter in the manner indicated, weare said to despise prayer, declare it unnecessary, and teach men thatit is sufficient for salvation if they are baptized and attend theLord's Supper, and that nothing else is needed. To this we answer:Whoever is baptized and has _true faith_ in Christ, is in need ofnothing else in order to die a blessed death; if he should die thus, hewould be saved, for whosoever believeth and is baptized shall be saved. And Paul writes to the Galatians: 'Ye are all children of God throughfaith in Christ Jesus; for as many of you as have been baptized intoChrist have put on Christ. ' However, if they are possessed of the truefaith, they will also acknowledge the grace of God, for which they thankHim heartily. Whoever truly believes, loves his neighbor; indeed, heloves all men, he prays for all, being moved to do so by love andcompassion toward all. Such a one will also experience many temptationsand tribulations by the devil, the world, and his own flesh againstwhich he will have to fight and strive daily. This will cause himtrouble and teach him to pray of his own accord. Such people we adviseto pray heartily, and give them instruction therein. And this we do forthe reason that God in His Word promises to hear them, and that they maybe strengthened in faith, to continue faithfully to the end, but not inorder that thereby they may be born anew. " (36 f. ) The question, "Howdoes the Spirit give testimony?" was answered by David Henkel asfollows: "When an evil-doer condemned to death receives a document withthe name and seal of the Governor affixed, that his crime is pardoned, and that he shall be set free, then he is in possession of somethingupon which he may firmly rely. By it he cannot be deceived, as would bethe case when such a thing merely appeared to him in his thoughts, or hehad dreamt that he was set free. In like manner he cannot be deceivedwho firmly believes the assurances given him in the Word of God thatGod, for the sake of Christ, has forgiven all his sins. The Spirit isthen giving him, through the Word, firm assurance of the forgiveness ofhis sins. And if he remains in faith, he always has this firm assurancein the Gospel which proclaims the forgiveness of sins. All men couldhave such an assurance if by faith they were obedient to the Gospel. The Romans had it, but only for the reason that, in accordance with theordinance of Jesus Christ, they were baptized and believed in Him. Thatthis text [Rom. 8, 16] does not, though always misinterpreted in thisway, prove that one must have been favored with a certain heavenlyvision in order to know that one's sins are forgiven, every intelligentman will see without further explanation. The Prince of Darkness alwaysendeavors to lead men away from the ordinances and promises of God, andcauses them to rely on all manner of works and merits of their own, inorder, finally, to make the poor creatures believe as all Deists do, _viz. _, that Christianity is nothing but a nursery-tale. There isreason also to believe that wily Satan presents some illusion to suchas, in an overwrought frame of mind, are in great expectations ofseeing a vision, and that they regard it as sent from heaven, and buildon it their assurance of the forgiveness of their sins. " (43. ) In theletter, appended to the Report of 1821, from which we quoted above, Jacob Larros says: "If I can again, after falling from baptismal grace, appropriate to myself from Holy Scripture the blessed marks of a stateof grace and of regeneration, then it truly is no new grace, produced bythe storming of men; but it most assuredly is the same grace promised inBaptism which has been found once more. The grace secured by storm [diegestuermte Gnade] may also have its marks, drawn from the air or out ofthe head, not from the Bible, but from the majority of false voices. "(B. 1821, 35. ) Concerning the "new measures" (die "neuen Massregeln")the Report of 1841 records the following: "Now the 'new measures' weretaken under advisement [by Synod], and after a carefully considereddiscussion it was unanimously Resolved, That we disapprove most stronglyof the 'new measures' which have been introduced into the LutheranChurch by modern enthusiasts, because we believe that they are inconflict with the Word of God, with the doctrine of the AugsburgConfession, with the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church, and withthe usages of the Church in her best and purest era, and are calculatedto arouse discord and contention between the members of the Church. " (B. 1841, 10. ) However, though strenuously opposed to Methodisticenthusiasm, Tennessee, at the same time, was very considerate ofChristians who were pietistically inclined, and care fully avoidedjudging their hearts. In the Report of 1820 we read: "It is indeed truethat some men of honest mind do err in this matter; they do not perceivethe difference and seek in their own exercise and experience what inreality they have already received in Baptism. However, if they are butfaithful, they will advance in holiness by the thing wherein they seekregeneration, and thus it cannot, harm their salvation. The harm, however, is this, that the Price of Darkness misleads many who are insuch error to believe that, since they seek to be regenerated by theirown works and doings, Baptism is unnecessary; and, remaining unbaptizedthemselves, they will not permit their children to be baptized. " (43. )

ANTI-UNIONISTIC ATTITUDE. 

114. Refusing Fellowship to Non-Lutherans. --The purpose of the GeneralSynod was an external union of all bodies bearing the Lutheran name, irrespective of their differences as to doctrine and practise, and tocultivate intimate fraternal relations with other Evangelicaldenominations. The Tennessee Synod, on the contrary, was not onlyopposed to any kind of union with non-Lutheran churches, but also soughtto bring about a separation of the true Lutherans from the spuriousLutherans, and to unite the former in defense of true Lutheranismagainst Reformed and other corruptions then prevailing in the Lutheransynods. Unity in the spirit, unity in doctrine, unity in faith andconfession, was viewed by Tennessee as the _sine qua non_, theabsolutely necessary condition, of all church-fellowship, church union, and cooperation. This appears from their attitude toward the NorthCarolina and other synods, as described above. While Stork, Shober, andothers advocated a union not only with the General Synod, but with allreligious bodies in America, the Henkels and their adherents declared atthe "Quarreling Synod, " 1820: "The general union of the numerousreligious parties, though a very desirable matter, is not to be hopedfor, as we can clearly see that such a thing is impossible at this time. How should it be possible? Some teach: Christ died on the cross for allmen to redeem all. Others teach: This is not true; He died only for thesmall number of those who, according to the holy will and the wisecounsel of God, are elected from eternity and are compelled to be saved;the rest of mankind, also according to His wise counsel, God, frometernity, has ordained and elected unto damnation, and they must belost. Again, some teach: Baptism is necessary to salvation, becauseChrist and His apostles teach thus. Others hold: This is not true;Baptism is a mere outward sign indicating obedience toward the commandof the Lord and nothing more; Baptism is not at all necessary untoregeneration, as regeneration is wrought by the Holy Spirit without anymeans whatever. Some say: It is right to baptize children. Othersmaintain: Infant Baptism is an institution of the Pope. Others: It is ofthe devil. Some reject every kind of baptism. Such and similar are thepeople who constitute the present so-called Christendom: opinions, opposing one another, and that always will be opposed to each other! Allthese are supposed to be united in one church, and to become onecongregation and one flock, all under the care of one shepherd. Thatwould be like stabling together sheep, goats, lambs, cows, oxen, horses, bears, wolves, wildcats, foxes, and swine, and putting them under thecare of one shepherd, saying, 'Here you have a united flock which nowyou may feed and pasture in peace; you have many heads under one hat, take your place among them. ' That some were much displeased by thisobjection to the general union is not to be wondered at, for some ofthat stripe were present. There were also some of almost all religiousparties in attendance. " (B. 1820, 26. ) It is apparent from thesestatements that a general union of all denominations, irrespective oftheir doctrinal differences, was certainly not relished by Tennessee in1820. Twenty years later Synod still occupied the same position. In1841, after discussing an appeal which had gone out to unite all thedifferent religious parties in one big body, Tennessee "resolved thatwhereas the Church of Christ is a gathering of all true believers, andis not now, nor ever has been, divided; and whereas it is impossiblethat all the different, contradictory teachings should agree with theWord of God; and whereas it is also impossible to bring about aChristian union of all the different denominations without the unity ofopinions; and whereas the teachers do greatly differ in their views onreligion and the form of church-government: a union of all the variousdenominations in one large body is both impossible and improper; andeven if brought about, instead of furthering the kingdom of ourRedeemer, it would harm the welfare thereof and jeopardize the religiousliberty of our happy land. " (B. 1841, 11. )

115. Refusing Fellowship to False Lutherans. --That the attitude ofTennessee also over against those whom they regarded as false Lutheranswas of a most determined and consistent nature, and free from allunionism, has been shown above. Nor did they regard this a mere matterof policy, but of conscience. With respect to their public testimonyagainst the errorists of the North Carolina Synod the men of Tennesseedeclared: "Should any one raise the accusation that it was unbecomingfor us as teachers of the Gospel to publish and reveal this matter here[in the Report of 1820], to him we give the answer: The prophets in theOld Testament did also contend against every erroneous doctrine, and theApostles Paul, Peter, and John marked all such as taught false doctrine, and warned the Christians against them. If, however, it can be provenfrom Holy Writ that we proclaim erroneous or false doctrine, we willsuffer ourselves to be corrected. We cannot, however, for the sake ofkeeping the peace, let everything pass and approve of everything theypreach, for we know that it does not agree with the Holy Scriptures. Itis certainly our desire to be able to live and continue to work in peaceand union with all members of the entire Synod. We cannot, however, unite with them at present [because they were not agreed doctrinally]. We consider it our supreme duty and obligation to defend the doctrinesof our Church against all false teachings; and though they proceed fromsuch as call themselves Lutheran preachers, we cannot on that accountspare them nor keep silence in this matter, even if we could thereby wintheir favor and the favor of all great men on earth. " (1820, 31. ) Withspecial reference to Shober, Stork, and their compeers Tennesseedeclared: "Should we help them to cover such bold things as you havehere read [errors concerning Baptism, Lord's Supper, etc. ], because theybelong to our organization and bear the name Lutheran? Can we do thiswith a good conscience?" (1820, 31. ) True, at the "Quarreling Synod, "1820, the Henkels were charged with having served all religious partieswith the Word and Sacrament. They admitted that this was true, andexpressed their confidence that it had not been without blessing, atleast, for some. But they added: "This, however, must also be taken intoconsideration, that they [the Henkels] had always taught such peoplewhat our Church teaches, and that they had never preached anything elsein deference to them, or to please them. Now, if any one was agreed withour doctrine, and hence felt free to hear our doctrine and to communewith us, we could not hinder him. We do not regard the name of suchpeople, but what they believe. " (1820, 25. ) However, one will admit thatthe practise of Tennessee at this early date does not appear to havebeen fully consistent. The Report of 1820, for example, records: "Withthe Evangelical Reformed David Henkel had no quarrel that we know of, for many of them, who are members in good standing, receive Communionfrom him. " (18. ) The following remark of the same Report uncovers asimilar inconsistency: "Should any one who has been baptized accordingto Christ's command, and who has been confirmed in another church, desire to commune with us and to be in fellowship with our Church, itshall be permitted him, and he may be looked upon as a member of theChurch without being baptized or confirmed for the second time. " (5;1831, 8. ) These shortcomings, how ever, do not dispute the fact that theTennessee Synod, in a manner most energetic and persistent, endeavoredto steer clear of, and opposed every kind of, unionism with the sects, as well as with unfaithful Lutherans. In 1886, however, Tennessee, untrue to its noble traditions, participated in the unionisticorganization of the United Synod in the South, and in 1918 she joinedthe Lutheran Merger, which brought her into complete fellowship with allthe unionistic synods that constituted the General Synod, opposition towhich having been the primary cause of her separate organization in 1820. 

TENNESSEE AND MISSOURI. 

116. Mutual Attraction. --The doctrinal, confessional, and practicalposition of the Tennessee Synod being such as described, it was butnatural that, as soon as Missouri and Tennessee became acquainted witheach other, both should sense their kindred spirits, and feel attractedmutually. And such was the case in spite of the fact that Tennessee atthis time had practically sloughed off the German language, whileMissouri was thoroughly German, and continued so for many decades. Immediately after the first contact with Tennessee, Missouri displayed alively interest in these early protagonists of genuine confessionalLutheranism. They rejoiced in having found in the Tennessee confessorsflesh of their flesh and bone of their bone. With great satisfactionthey reported on the antiunionistic position which Tennessee held overagainst the old, apostate synods. In Loehe's _Kirchliche Mitteilungen_of 1847 we find the following: "Several Virginians came to St. Louis tothe Lutheran Pastor Buenger, and asked him whether he still adhered tothe old Lutheran faith, which he affirmed to their joy. Thereupon theytold of Henkel. . . . They had protested against an edition of Luther'sSmall Catechism in which, with reference to Baptism, the words 'whobelieve _it_' (die _es_ glauben) had been made to read 'who believe'(die _da_ glauben). " (94. ) The _Lutheraner_ of February 22, 1848, published the Tennessee resolution, stating that they could unite withthe Synod of North Carolina "only on the ground of pure andunadulterated Evangelical Lutheranism, " and added the comment: "Weconfess that a closer acquaintance has filled us with the bestprepossessions for this Synod. As far as we can see from the Report, they are earnestly striving to preserve the treasure of pure Lutheranteaching. " At the convention of the Missouri Synod at Fort Wayne, in1849, Dr. Sihler was elected a delegate to the Tennessee Synod. He wroteto Loehe that "according to its Reports and confessions, this Synodmaintains an upright churchly position. " "It would be a great joy, "Sihler adds, "if we could enter into definite church-fellowship withthem, especially, as we, above all others, have been stigmatized as the'exclusive Lutherans. '" (_Kirchl. Mitt. _ 1849, 92. ) Reviewing theTennessee Report of 1848, Walther remarked in the _Lutheraner_ ofJanuary 23, 1849: "Like its predecessor, this Report proves that thisSynod belongs to the small number of those who are determined not onlyto be _called_ Lutherans, but also to _be_ and to remain Lutherans. "After reporting their chief resolutions, including the one expressingtheir delight over the organization of the Missouri Synod, andrecommending the _Lutheraner_ to their German-speaking members, Walthercontinues as follows: "We close this extract with the sincere wish thatthe Lord would continue to bless this Synod, which for almost thirtyyears, in spite of much shame and persecution, has faithfully testifiedand fought against the apostasy of the so-called American LutheranChurch, especially against the General Synod, and which, as far as weknow, of all the older Lutheran synods, alone has preserved in this lastevil time the treasures of our Lutheran Church; and we also wish thatthe Lord would make this Synod a salt of the earth to stay the growingspiritual corruption in other synods. " (5, 84. ) At the meeting of theTennessee Synod in 1853, a letter dated October 6, 1853, and signed byTheo. Brohm and A. Hoyer, delegates appointed by Missouri, but unable toattend personally, was read, stating, in part: "We are highly rejoicedin this vast desert and wilderness to meet a whole Lutheran synodsteadfastly holding to the precious Confession of our beloved Church, and zealously engaged in divulging the unaltered doctrines andprinciples of the Reformation among the English portion of Lutherans, bytranslating the standard writings of the Fathers, at the same timefirmly resisting the allurements of those who say they are Lutherans andare not. Our Synod extends, through our instrumentality, the hand offraternity to you, not fearing to be refused, and ardently desires, however separated from you by a different language and local interests, to cooperate with you, hand in hand, in rebuilding the walls of ourdilapidated Zion. We are authorized to beseech your venerable Synod todelegate as many of your members as you may deem proper to our synodicalmeeting to be held next year at St. Louis, promising hereby a friendlyand hospitable reception. Should your Synod next year assemble at aplace more easily accessible, and more convenient, to us, we, or theywhom our Synod may appoint, shall not fail to attend. " (1853, 18. ) Withspecial reference to a letter of Rev. A. Biewend, also a delegateappointed by the Missouri Synod, but prevented from attending, in whichhe expressed "the hope and desire that a more intimate acquaintance maybe formed between both synods, " Tennessee adopted the resolution, "Thatwe duly appreciate the kind regard of the Missouri Synod, and that wealso desire a more intimate acquaintance with them, and that we appointRev. J. R. Moser a delegate to the next session of that Synod. " (1853, 13. ) In the Tennessee minutes of 1854 we read: "The Rev. Theodore Brohm, of the Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States, was introduced toSynod, and received as a corresponding member of this body. " (5. )"During recess, Rev. Th. Brohm preached from Rev. 14, 6. 7. " (11. ) "TheRev. Theodore Brohm, of the Missouri Synod, being present, the followingpreamble and resolutions were unanimously adopted: Whereas the Rev. Theodore Brohm, of the city of New York, delegate of the Synod ofMissouri, Ohio, and Other States, has appeared amongst us, and we areassured from personal interviews with him, as well as from other sourcesof information, that the Synod which he represents adhere strictly tothe doctrines of the Ev. Lutheran Church, as exhibited in herconfessional standards, and are zealously and actively engaged inpromoting the interests of the Redeemer's kingdom, be it therefore 1. Resolved, That we are highly gratified to see Brother Brohm in ourmidst. 2. Resolved, That we fully and cheerfully reciprocate the kindand fraternal feelings expressed and manifested towards us by theMissouri Synod. 3. Resolved, That we endeavor to cultivate a moreintimate acquaintance and a closer union with the Missouri Synod. 4. Resolved, That, for this purpose, Rev. Socrates Henkel be appointed adelegate from this body to the Eastern division of the Missouri Synod, to be holden in Baltimore; and that Rev. J. R. Moser be appointed ourdelegate to the Western division of said Synod, at its next session. "(12; _Lutheraner_ 11, 77. ) Moser attended and reported to his Synod inthe following year. (1856, 23. ) Brohm, relating in the _Lutheraner_ hisvisit to the Tennessee Synod, said, in part: "Let the assurance heresuffice that, among the pastors in attendance, I have found a faithfuladherence to our common Mother Church, and that I have not met with anyessential doctrinal differences. It gave me great pleasure to observehow these men, in spite of the great dearth of English-Lutheranliterature, have preserved such a living consciousness of Lutheranorthodoxy and such a firm Lutheran character. " (11, 78. )

117. Tributes from Dr. Walther. --When, in 1852, the book, _Luther onthe Sacraments_, published by the Tennessee Synod, came to Walther'sattention, he wrote: "We praise God that He has caused this gloriouswork to succeed. The importance of the appearance of this work in thiscountry, where the great majority of the English-speaking Lutherans havefallen into Reformed errors regarding the articles of the holySacraments, and are ignorant of, yea, do not even suspect, the goodfoundation on which the Lutheran doctrine of the Sacraments is built, cannot be estimated at its true value. After the Book of Concord hadbeen presented to the English-speaking Lutherans in their own language, no better selection could have been made for them than theabove-mentioned three writings [Sermon on Holy Baptism, of 1535; Letteron Anabaptism, of 1528; Confession of the Lord's Supper, of 1528 ofLuther, the chosen vessel of God for the reformation of the Church. These two books, now rendered into English, are gracious visitationsindeed for the English Lutheran Church of this country. May it know thetime of its visitation! . . . And the right reverend Tennessee Synod, which has issued both works (the Book of Concord and Luther on theSacraments) in the English language, as well as the dear men who movedby love for the truth and the Church of their fathers, have regardedneither the unspeakable labor nor the great expense connected with thisundertaking--may God reward them by showering His blessings upon themin abundant measure!" (9, 115. ) When the second edition of the _Book ofConcord_ appeared, Walther wrote: "We thank God for the unspeakableblessing which He has conferred upon the Church of our adoptedfatherland [through the publication of this book], and in our hearts webless the faithful publishers. It is surprising as well asfaith-strengthening to learn that already in the first year a secondedition has become necessary. May many hands reach out for it, and may athird edition soon become necessary!" (L. 11, 63. ) Walther's joy andenthusiasm over these works published by Tennessee in the Englishlanguage will be understood when we remember that it was the time whenthe Definite Platform was preparing, and Benjamin Kurtz and others, inorder to discredit the "Old Lutherans, " who still adhered to theLutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, were boldly repeating theHeidelberg Lie (die Heidelberger Landluege), according to which Luther, shortly before his death, disavowed his doctrine regarding the Lord'sSupper. (L. 12, 31. )

PECULIARITIES OF TENNESSEE SYNOD. 

118. Opposed to Incorporation. --The peculiarities of the TennesseeSynod, several of which have already been alluded to, may be accountedfor partly by the lack, on their part, of correct logical distinctionsand clear conceptions, partly by their fear of synodical tyranny overthe individual ministers and congregations. Conspicuous among theseabnormalities is the rejection of civil incorporation us a reprehensiblecommingling of State and Church. Article 5 of the Constitution declares:"This Synod shall never be incorporated by civil government, nor haveany incorporated Theological Seminary under their care. " (B. 1828, 20;1827, 22; 1853, 26. ) The "Remarks" appended explain: "This articleprohibits this body ever from being incorporated by civil government. That the government of the Church ought not to be blended (vereinbart)with the State, is a tenet of the Augustan Confession, amply supportedby the Scriptures. See 28th Article. Our Lord declared that His kingdomwas not of this world. John 18, 36. That the Church ought not to beblended with the State is also according to the Constitution of theUnited States, whose spirit and design is to secure to every person fullliberty with respect to spiritual matters. The kingdom of Christ admitsof no bondage, for 'it is righteousness and peace and joy in the HolyGhost, ' Rom. 14, 17; 'and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there isliberty, ' 2 Cor. 3, 17. But when the Church is identified with theState, it is also fettered by human traditions, aspiring priests obtainthe power to tyrannize men's consciences. However, an ecclesiasticalbody may be incorporated by civil authority, and yet not be theestablished Church of the nation; and so far as I am acquainted with ourcivil constitutions there is nothing contained in them to prohibit alegislative body from incorporating any society. But when a Church isincorporated, _it approximates to a State coalition_. The Church, by anact of incorporation, if I am not greatly misinformed, would have powerto enact laws and regulations binding upon all their members, and couldrecover by a civil suit at law any property, or its value, bequeathed tothem. Thus empowered, could they not also borrow money upon the creditof their whole community for the establishment of any institution? Anincorporated Church may not only preserve their funds, but they may alsolend out their money on usury, and obtain a vast increase. The aspiringpriests of such a body, knowing that the wealth of the Church is theirinterest, they invent many schemes to enlarge the so-called treasury ofGod, lest it should ever get exhausted. They fetter the conscience ofsome persons, by telling them that they ought to promote the cause ofGod, by casting their donations into the sacred treasury, so that theyyield to their request, whilst they denounce those who refuse to complywith their importunities as foes to Christ and His holy Gospel. Theycontrive to obtain testamentary devices to the injury (in many cases) ofwidows and orphans; they condescend to flatter the female sex until theyhave begged all that they are able to bestow. Thus by theinstrumentality of those clerical beggars, and by the cause of Christbeing made a pander, the Church becomes wealthy; and wealth createspower, and power, tyranny and oppression. That many of the clergymen ofthe day possess an aspiring spirit is evident from the several attemptsthey have made to get some of their institutions incorporated by civilauthority. If a few of the most numerous denominations in the UnitedStates were to unite, join their funds, in one, and could succeed inobtaining an incorporation act, they would not only be extremely wealthyalready; but they might also increase in wealth to such a degree aswould endanger our civil as well as ecclesiastical liberty. But if it beasked in what manner this could be effected, I answer: In various ways, as, for instance, such a gigantic body might by means of their wealthestablish so great a number of printing-offices as would enable them toprint and sell Bibles at so reduced a price that they would engross thesales of all the Bibles wanted in America, which would be an annualrevenue of millions. They would be enabled to educate thousands for theministry who otherwise had no inclination to embark in that office; andthey, tutored in the principles of aristocracy, and the churches filledwith them, those principles might be disseminated among millions; theycould also supply the most of the common schools with their teachers, and thus the rising generation would imbibe the same perniciousprinciples, until at length persons of this description would occupy allthe civil offices in our country, which would ultimately effect thedestruction of civil liberty. In a similar manner the Roman Churchbecame elevated above the State. By testamentary devises from thepeople, as well as from noblemen and kings, by the sales of indulgencesand other inventions, the Church became exceedingly wealthy; cloisterswere erected, and they occupied by friars and nuns supported at theexpense of the people, it was their interest to support the power anddignity of the Roman pontiff. The same causes will produce the sameeffects. If the Church should ever acquire great wealth, aspiringpriests will grasp great power. Whereas this body know these things, andwish to preserve both spiritual and civil liberty, and to prevent theirsuccessors from attempting to blend the Church with the State, they haveby this article prohibited an incorporation of this body, and of anytheological seminary under their care, and from accumulating funds forthe support of such a seminary and of missionaries. " (1853, 27. )

119. Establishment of Seminaries Discouraged. --Tennessee did not onlyoppose the incorporation of seminaries, but, strangely enough, never didencourage the establishment of any kind of theological school whatever. According to their views, theological and literary schools, supported bythe Church, were superfluous, since the languages might be studied inthe secular academies of the country, and a course of theology could bepursued with some able divine. The Fifth Article of the TennesseeConstitution provides: "Neither shall they have any particular treasuryfor the purpose of supporting . . . Theological seminaries. " (1853, 26. )The "Remarks" appended to this article explain: "Although this bodyshall have no incorporated theological seminary under their care, norany particular treasury for its support, nevertheless they consider ithighly beneficial to the Church for every minister to understand theoriginal tongues of the Scriptures, and to be well skilled in theology. But such qualifications may be acquired without an incorporatedtheological seminary. There are already a goodly number of academiesdispersed throughout our country which are not under the care of anyparticular denomination, in which the student may acquire a classicaleducation. He, in like manner, may have the opportunity of studyingtheology with some able divine. " (1853, 26. ) However, though Tennesseein no way encouraged the establishment of a theological seminary, theconclusion must not be drawn that they underestimated or despised awell-educated ministry. The minutes of 1821 record: "A motion was madeby Rev. David Henkel that no person shall be ordained a pastor of ourChurch unless he understands as much of the Greek language as willenable him to translate the New Testament. But no resolution respectingit was passed. It remains postponed until the next Synod, when it shallbe taken into contemplation. " (1821, 8. ) In 1827 Tennessee made thefollowing recommendations and declarations with, respect to the German, Greek, and Hebrew languages: "Whereas the Symbolical Books of ourChurch, particularly Luther's works, are extant in the German language, and as sundry extracts have been made out of them, and most erroneouslytranslated into the English; and as it is probable that such frauds maybe practised in future, this body recommend the study of the Germanlanguage to all the members of the Church. This would enable them todetect the glaring frauds practised by men under the garb of Lutherans. It was resolved that a more strict attention shall be paid to theliterary qualifications of those who enter the ministry than has beendone heretofore. A deacon should at least understand the language inwhich he officiates with some degree of accuracy, and be able to makethe logical compositions in writing. A pastor ought, in addition tothese qualifications, be acquainted with the Greek, the original tongueof the New Testament. Also an acquaintance with the Hebrew, the originaltongue of the Old Testament, would the more amply qualify him for thesacred ministry. The Synod, however, do not think that there are notalso useful men in the ministry who do not possess all thosequalifications. For there are men whose manifold experience suppliessome literary defects. But when a whole body of ministers areilliterate, they are not able to defend the truth of the Gospel againstthe subtile attacks of enemies. Suppose false teachers were to make aspurious translation of the Scriptures, how could such an illiteratebody of ministers detect the forgery? If the knowledge of the originaltongues should ever become extinct, the Gospel might soon become forgedand corrupted. It is to be lamented that there are too many young menwho wish to be ministers; notwithstanding, they are too indolent toacquire a knowledge of the original tongues. They are infatuated tothink that they are immediately inspired from heaven, and that, therefore, they need no literary qualifications. In order to check thisgrowing evil, and to oppose this fanaticism, it was resolved that everycandidate for the ministry shall stand a literary as well as atheological examination, and be promoted agreeably to his industry. Thisresolution principally respects young men. " (11. )

120. General Mission Treasury Regarded Dangerous. --The Report of 1824records: "Synod has not, and does not want to have, a treasury to paytraveling missionaries. " (8. ) The "Remarks" appended to the FifthArticle of the constitution, rejecting "any particular treasury for thepurpose of supporting missionaries and theological seminaries, " explainas follows: "There are but few, if any, young men in our country who arenot able to defray the expenses of their education either by means oftheir property or industry. Yet if there be such whose indolence is thecause why they are not able to defray the expenses of their education, they should by no means embark in the ministry, as the faithfuldischarge of ministerial duties requires men of great industry. It mustalso be observed that this article does not limit the charities ofliberal Christians who wish to encourage the promulgation of the Gospel;for they may, if they deem it expedient, assist any student in gettinghis education, or any indigent congregation in getting ministeriallabors. Nor does it prohibit individual congregations from having fundsunder their own care, for the purpose of defraying their own expenses, and assisting any of their indigent brethren. It would be expedient forevery congregation to have a fund, yet by no means to hold such under anact of incorporation. Again, although this article prohibits this bodyfrom having any particular treasury for the purpose of supportingmissionaries, yet some of the ministers of this body annually performmissionary labors. Now if it be asked how they are supported, it mayagain be asked, How were the apostles of Christ supported when they wentinto all the world to preach the Gospel? Did Christ recommend theestablishment of a general fund by begging donations, and obtainingtestamentary devises from dying men to remunerate His apostles formissionary labors? By no means. He said unto them that they should'first seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness, ' and that 'allthese things should be added unto them. ' Matt. 6, 33. See also vv. 25-31. Thus they had the promise of being supported whilst they labored in theLord's vineyard. Every faithful minister may rely upon these promises. If he be industrious in preaching the Gospel and instructing theignorant, he will turn many unto righteousness, who will consider ittheir duty and privilege to manifest their gratitude in contributingtowards his support. But such people as manifest an avariciousdisposition, so that they will suffer faithful ministers to serve themwithout contributing something towards their support, prove themselvesunworthy of the Gospel, and minister to others, who will receive themwith gratitude. " (1853, 26. ) In their "Objections" to the constitutionof the General Synod, Tennessee declared: "We cannot conceive thepropriety of paying missionaries out of a general fund. How many piousministers heretofore have preached the Gospel in remote parts, withoutsuch a provision. Men who are commissioned by Christ to preach theGospel, 'take no thought, saying, What shall we eat, or what shall wedrink, or wherewithal shall we be clothed?' Matt. 6, 31-34. Their dailyemployment is to teach and admonish the people--for their supportthey depend on the faithful promise of our Lord who said: 'All thesethings shall be added unto you. ' Men who are sent of God shall profitthe people; the Lord, therefore, who feeds the winged songsters, thoughthey toil not, and arrays the lilies of the field, stirreth up thehearts of the people, and fills them with gratitude, so that theyfreely honor Him with their substance in supporting His ministers. Thusthe promise of Christ shall evermore be verified. But hirelings andwolves do not believe this promise. They are either entangled with sometemporal employment to secure their support, or else must know what theyare to have from a general fund before they go forth to labor in theLord's vineyard. When men know what they shall get from a general fund, before they preach, they have no need to exercise faith in the promiseof Christ, for their trust is in the general fund! The country isalready filled with such hired circuit-riders, whose trust for a supportis not in the promise of our Lord; because they first bargain with theirsuperiors or general synods what they are to have per month or year fromthe general fund. Was the mission of the primitive apostles conducted inthis manner? Had Christ established a general treasury, out of which Hehad hired His apostles by the month or year? No. Is it not degrading forChristians to depart so far from the paths of Christ and His apostles?Is it not enough that we have His promise? Genuine ministers have noneed of a general fund to support them; their mission is profitable tothe people, whose hearts, being moved by the Lord, will support theirteachers--but such men, who are not called of God do not profit thepeople; they therefore do not expect to be be supported by the promiseof Christ, hence they must look to the general treasury. What is bettercalculated to induce hirelings to enter into the holy orders than theirsure wages, by a general fund?" (1821, 31. ) The German Report of 1821concludes these remarks as follows: "Give an itinerant preacher 40 to 50dollars a month, as some already receive, and it will prove to be averitable bait to lead all manner of evil men into the ministry, whetherthey are called of God or not; for the salary calls them!" (28. )

121. Funds for Widows and Orphans of Pastors Denounced. --RegardingChristian benevolence and charity, Tennessee admonished the Christiansto be liberal, and also to establish a congregational treasury to meettheir needs. General treasuries, however, were denounced as leading tosynodical tyranny and worldly-mindedness. This was applied also to theestablishment of general funds for the support of widows and orphans ofpastors. In the Report of 1821 we read: "Why are ministers' widows andorphans, and poor ministers only, to be supported by a general fund, andnot also the poor members of the church? Are the families of ministers anobler race than other people, so that extraordinary provisions must bemade for them in preference to others? Would it not be better if everycongregation had a fund of its own to support their needy at home? Eachcongregation are best acquainted with their own poor, and know whodeserves help. Is it necessary that the congregations should send theirmoney several hundred miles from home, into the general fund, and thatthe poor should receive it from thence? Pious ministers accustom theirfamilies to honest labor, so that they may know how to supportthemselves when they need it. Who supports the people's widows andorphans? It is too lamentable a fact that too many ministers do notaccustom their children to labor, but indulge them in their pride, vanity, indolence, and in the imitation of rich, proud, and pompouspeople of the world. Behold how many ministers with their wives, in ourtime, surpassing humility--how grand their attire, how lofty theirappearance, how great their association with the wealthy of this world!With what contempt do they view the poor! How numerous their waiters, and how little do they expose themselves to preach the Gospel unto thepoor! There is no similarity between them and Christ, whose ministersthey affect to be--for He was poor; He appeared lowly and in the formof a servant. Such vain, arrogant, and indolent families truly cannotsupport themselves in such style after their fathers' decease; a generaltreasury indeed might be considered necessary to support such in theirvanity. The farmers and mechanics may labor hard to procure money tofill this treasury, of which, though, their widows and orphans in theirstraits could expect no assistance. Have we any nobility in America whomthe people must bear upon their hands? What a constant tax is herebyimposed upon the congregations! How frequently the ministers orchurch-council must admonish the people to cast their mites into thegeneral fund, lest it should be exhausted! There would be no end tobegging and expostulating with the people for money. Howbeit, it is saidthat no person is compelled to contribute towards the general fund. Wegrant it in one sense, but not in another; for such as did not freelycontribute would be viewed with a contemptible eye, and frequentlyreproved as avaricious, hardened wretches, so that at last they wouldfind themselves obliged to contribute. Such widows and orphans who bysome misfortune are rendered unable to support themselves generally findbenefactors, in addition to those means civil government hath alreadyprovided. " (33. ) The "Remarks" to the Third Article of the constitutionconclude as follows: "Can it be believed that the majority of the clergyof the day are true shepherds? and that they do not cherish the mostaspiring views? Why are there so many attempts made to identify theChurch with the State? Why are so many petitions sent to legislativebodies for incorporation? Why is there such an insatiable thirst forcreating funds of immense sums for churches under incorporation acts, ifthe clergy of the day did not cherish the most aspiring views, and didnot wish to acquire a spiritual dominion blended with civil power?"(1853, 24. ) It was in keeping with these views on general funds whenTennessee, in 1841, resolved not to participate in the Lutherancentenary jubilee advocated by the General Synod, also for the reasonthat they were opposed to the plan of collecting $150, 000 as anendowment fund for its literary and other institutions. (15. )

122. Doctrinal Peculiarities. --Evidently at the time of itsorganization, the views prevailing in the Tennessee Synod concerning"The Last Things" were not as yet sufficiently clarified. They believedthat by the organization of the General Synod the way was prepared for"the great falling away, " spoken of in the Bible, when "the_ Antichrist_ prophesied 2 Thess. 2 would set himself in the temple ofGod. " In the "Conclusion" of his "Objections" to the constitution of theGeneral Synod, David Henkel said: "We do not expect finally to preventthe establishment of this General Synod by publishing our objections, because we believe, agreeably to the divine predictions, that the greatfalling away is approaching, so that Antichrist will set himself intothe temple of God. 2 Thess. 2 We also believe that the establishment ofGeneral Synods are preparing the way for him. Antichrist will not, norcannot, get into power without a general union, which is not effected bya divine harmony of godly doctrines, but by common temporal interestsand the power of a majority. Notwithstanding, we consider it our duty tomake the people attentive to those things, and to instruct such as arenot wilfully [tr. Note: sic] blind. But should we be deceived in ouropinion, and clearly be convinced of it, we shall not be ashamed torecant. In vain people dream of the Millennium before crosses andtribulations shall have visited the Christian world by the rage ofAntichrist. His kingdom is reared under a good garb; if this were notthe case, no person would be deceived. Men who are notoriously immoraland vicious cannot deceive, but they only who appear like innocentlambs. May God preserve all His people against every temptation, forJesus' sake! Amen. " (1821, 35. ) In a letter of Jacob Larros, appended tothe German Report of 1821, we read: "O that our dear brethren in officewould recognize the prophecies of Holy Writ concerning the kingdom ofAntichrist which . . . Soon will undergo a great change and appear inits highest stage; for then they would be on their guard. Of him it iswritten: 'And it was given him to make war with the saints, and toovercome them; and power was given him over all kindreds and tongues andnations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him. ' Hedesires a universal communion (Universalgemeinschaft) to reach hispurpose. This he neither can nor denies to attain by [bringing them allinto] agreement with the Scriptures, but by the majority of votes. Oh, how it will grieve our brethren when they, having by their well-meant_Planentwurf_ [constitution of the General Synod] organized a universalcommunion, behold that, as forerunners, they have only prepared the wayfor Antichrist to reach his goal and obtain his dominion. From this, Lord God, preserve our Church and our dear brethren in the ministry!Amen. " (36. )--Concerning the _ministry_ the Sixth Article of theconstitution, adopted 1828, declares: "The grades of the ministry aretwo: pastor and deacon, or, as St. Paul calls them, bishop and deacon. They must possess the qualifications which are described by St. Paul 1Tim. 3, 1-14; Titus 1, 4-9. " (1853, 25. ) Both of these offices, as wellas ordination, were regarded as necessary. Says the Report of 1820: "Asconcerning the states and grades of the ministry (des Lehramts), we donot recognize more than two, to wit, pastor and deacon, as necessary forthe preservation and propagation of the Church. A pastor is anevangelical teacher who discharges the office fully, in all its parts, or who performs all ministerial acts. He must be ordained andconsecrated to this office by prayer and the imposition of hands by oneor more pastors, when he also solemnly promises faithfully to dischargesuch office according to the Word of God and the doctrine of our Church. A deacon is indeed also a minister of the Word of God, but he does notdischarge this office fully, like a pastor, but conducts catecheticalinstruction, reads sermons, conducts funerals, exhorts and, in theabsence of a pastor, also baptizes children, where such is desired. Hemust be a regular member of the church and possess the testimony of aChristian conversation. At the request of the church-council he is to beexamined at the synod as to his qualifications. If he is found able, heis dedicated [gewidmet] to such service by one or more pastors by prayerand laying on of hands either at the conference or in one of thecongregations which he serves. And in the presence of the wholecongregation he is, at the same time, to make the solemn promise that hewill faithfully discharge his office according to his instructions. Ifsuch a deacon proves to be diligent in his office and acquires theknowledge and ability needed for the discharge of the office of apastor, and also receives a regular call from one or more congregationswho are without a minister, he may be consecrated and ordained a pastorin the manner indicated before. " (1820, 6. )--In the _celebration ofthe Lord's Supper_ the Tennessee Synod adhered to the custom ofbreaking the bread, instead of using wafers. When questioned by Missouriconcerning this practise, they appealed to 1 Cor. 10, 16 and to passagesof the Confessions which speak of a "breaking of the bread. " In 1856Synod declared: "With all due deference to the learning and highcharacter of the Missouri Synod for orthodoxy, we have been unable tosee sufficient reason to make any change in our manner of administeringthe Lord's Supper. We are influenced in our practise in this respect bythe authority of both the Holy Scriptures and the Symbolical Books ofthe Lutheran Church. . . . For the present, therefore, we feel fullyjustified in our present practise. " (R. 1856, 23 f. ) Self-evidently, Tennessee did not adhere to this practise in the interest of Reformed orunionistic views. 

THE HENKELS. 

123. A Most Influential Family. --The Henkels were by far the mostprominent and influential of the men composing the Tennessee Synod. Because of their bold and uncompromising attitude toward the sects aswell as all others deviating from the Christian doctrine, as taught bythe Lutheran Confessions, they, together with their adherents, wereuniversally, by false Lutherans as well as Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and other sects, hated and ostracized, and stigmatized as"the Henkelites, " Paul Henkel being designated as their "head. " (B. 1824, 10. ) The sire of the American branch of the Henkel family wasGerhard Henkel. For a time he was court chaplain to the Duke Moritz ofSaxony. But when the duke turned Roman Catholic, Henkel was banished. Heleft for America and served the first Lutherans in Virginia and later onLutheran congregations in Pennsylvania, notably in New Hanover andGermantown. James Henkel, the grandson of G. Henkel, was the father ofMoses, Paul, Isaac, and John Henkel. Thus Paul Henkel, born 1754, wasthe great-grandson of Gerhard Henkel. He was educated by J. A. Krug andordained by the Pennsylvania Ministerium in 1702. For many years heserved as missionary, laboring especially in Virginia, North Carolina, and Ohio. He was pastor at New Market, Va. , at Salisbury, Va. , and againat New Market, where he died, November 17, 1825. He participated in theorganization of the North Carolina Synod, in 1803, of the Ohio Synod, in1818, of the Tennessee Synod, in 1820. In New Market, Paul Henkel, together with his sons, established a printery for the purpose ofsupplying the Lutheran Church with the books, German and English, whichthey were in need of so sorely: Luther's Catechism, the AugsburgConfession, a Liturgy, hymn-books, etc. Paul Henkel was the father ofsix sons: Solomon, Philip, Ambrose, Andrew, David, and Carl. Solomon wasa physician and manager of the printing-establishment. Philip was pastorin Green County, Tenn. , and a member of the North Carolina Synod. Together with Bell, who was later ordained a minister, he opened a UnionSeminary which, however, soon passed out of existence. He was one of thefounders of the Tennessee Synod. Two of his sons, Irenaeus and Eusebius, were Lutheran ministers. Ambrose was minister at New Market, and amember of the New Market publishing firm. Under him the Book of Concordand other important works were issued. He was joint translator of theAugsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, the Appendix, and the Articles of Visitation. Andrew, the fourth son, was pastor inOhio. David, the fifth son, was the most gifted of the Henkel family. Aclear, able, and undaunted theologian, he was preeminent in zealouslydefending the Lutheran truth. He died 1831, at the early age ofthirty-six years. His two sons, Polycarp and Socrates, entered theministry. The latter was pastor in New Market for more than fortyyears; he also assisted in the publication of the Book of Concord. Charles, the youngest son, was pastor in Ohio and published atranslation of the Augsburg Confession in 1834. Dr. Graebner remarkswith respect to the publishing house established by the Henkels at NewMarket: "From this printery, which is in existence today as the oldestLutheran publishing house in America, were issued numerous large andmall publications in both the English and German languages, abc-books, catechisms, hymnals, theological dissertations and polemical writings, books for pastime and for instruction for young and old, Christmasbooklets, such as _Das Virginische Kinderbuch_ of 1809, a paperentitled, _Der Virginische Volksberichter und NeuMarketer Wochenschrift_bearing the motto: '_Ich bring' das Neu's, So gut ich's weiss!_' TheHenkels were a busy and skilful [tr. Note: sic] people. When in need ofmanuscript for their press, they wrote it; when in need of verses, theycomposed them; when in need of woodcuts, they cut in wood; after thebooks were printed, they bound them; and when the bindings had dried, they, in part themselves, canvassed the finished product throughout thecountry. " (611. )

124. Paul Henkel. --"My father, " says Andrew Henkel, "was a large man, within half an inch of six feet in height, well developed, with a keenblack eye, as erect as an Indian; somewhat inclined to corpulency, andyet athletic and rapid in his movements. Though his health was notalways good, yet he was almost constantly employed either in reading, writing, preaching, or traveling; and when necessary he did not hesitateto labor with his hands. He had no desire for this world's goods beyondwhat was wanting for daily use; whatever savored of ostentation wasforeign to his nature. His manner of living was frugal, and his dressplain, and yet in performing the services of the sanctuary, he uniformlywore a gown of rich black silk. He had great equanimity and serenity oftemper, and his friendships were sincere and constant, and his friendsnumerous. In the social circle he always rendered himself agreeable, andoften communicated important instruction by means of some pertinent and, sometimes, humorous anecdote. As a preacher he possessed much more thanordinary power. In the commencement of his discourse he was slow andsomewhat blundering, but, as his subject opened before him, he wouldbecome animated and eloquent, with a full flow of appropriate thoughtand glowing language. His illustrations were lucid and forceful, simpleand natural. He assisted in training a goodly number of young men forthe ministry, some of whom have occupied responsible stations with greatfidelity and usefulness. " (Sheatsley, _History_, 40; _L. U. W. _ 43, 106ff. ) The obituary notice of "Father Paul Henkel of blessed memory, "appended to the Tennessee Report of 1826, says, in, part: "During hisillness his greatest concern was that we might all remain faithful tothe pure Evangelical Lutheran doctrine, and with meekness and patience, yet manfully contend for the truth for which he had contended soearnestly. " (B. 1825, 16. ) He expressed the same sentiments in a messageto Pastor Riemenschneider, by whom also desired to be buried. AmbroseHenkel, in a letter, November 30, 1825, reports concerning the death ofhis father: "I then asked him whether I should inform also all mybrothers to this effect concerning him. He said: 'O yes; write to all ofthem, that by all means they should remain steadfast. ' I furthermoreasked him whether he still stood on the faith which he had hithertodefended. He said: 'Yes, indeed; on this faith I have lived, and on it Iwill now die. ' I was also careful to call in several neighbors to listento his words, fearing that enemies might contradict my report of hisstatements. " In his last letter, written to his son David, and datedAugust 20, 1825, Paul Henkel wrote: "If the doctrine is right and it isthe will of the Lord that it should be taught publicly, He will alsofind and show ways and means to do it. . . . How our mendax-priestswould rejoice if they could accuse some of us that we deviated in asingle article from the teaching of the Augsburg Confession of Faith. "(_L. U. W. _ 60, 62. )

125. David and Philip Henkel. --As for David Henkel, the Report of 1831enumerates his publications and speaks of him as "this much-esteemed andvenerable fellow-laborer. " "His last illness, " says the notice of hisdeath, "was dyspepsia, which disabled him from officiating in a publiccapacity for the term of nine months. He bore his afflictions with aperfect resignation to the will of his divine Redeemer. He embarked inthe cause of his blessed Savior when a youth (1812). And we are happy tosay, to the praise of this worthy servant of Christ, that his assiduityand vigilance to study and deep researches into the truth of divinerevelation have seldom been equaled by any. He remained immovable in thedoctrines he promulgated to the end of his life. This venerable servantof the Lord had to endure many trials, crosses, and temptations, but hemaintained his integrity through them all, trusting to the promises ofhis Redeemer; and notwithstanding the difficulties he had to encounter, he left a bright example to succeeding pilgrims. His ardent desire forthe promotion of his Redeemer's kingdom and his love of truth caused himto submit cheerfully to the difficulties connected with his officiallabors. When on his death-bed, being interrogated by his friends whetherhe still remained steadfast in the doctrines which he had taught, heconfidently answered in the affirmative. Being again asked whether hefeared death, he replied in the negative. The last words which he washeard to utter, were, 'O Lord Jesus, Thou Son of God, receive myspirit!' and in a few moments expired. " "The perishable remains of thisworthy brother were followed to the grave by his loving companion andseven children, together with a numerous train of mourners, who wereleft to lament the loss of a kind father, an affectionate husband, afriend and benefactor. The body is deposited at St. John's Church, Lincoln County, N. C. The funeral sermon was delivered by the Rev. DanielMoser, from Phil. 1, 21: 'For to me to live is Christ, and to die isgain. '" From 1812 to 1830 David Henkel preached 3, 200 sermons, baptized2, 997 infants and 243 adults, and confirmed 1, 105 persons. The wholecourse of his ministry was distinguished for industry and perseverance. He traveled in all seasons, even the most inclement, and frequentlypreached two and three times in a day, in the German and Englishlanguages. Besides, he maintained an extensive correspondence and wasquite active also in a literary way. (1831, 15. )--Concerning PhilipHenkel we read in the obituary notice, appended to the Tennessee Reportof 1833: "Already in his youth he was a confessor and defender of theChristian religion, and began in 1800 to consecrate his services to theLord, in whose vineyard he labored incessantly for 33 years and 3months. During this time he preached 4, 350 sermons, of which 125 werefuneral sermons. He baptized 4, 115 children and 325 adults, andconfirmed 1, 650 persons into the Christian Church. . . . Shortly beforehis end he declared, if it were the will of God to take him home, he waswilling, and prayed the verse, which were also the last words he washeard to utter: 'For me to live is Jesus, To die is gain for me, To HimI gladly yield me, And die right cheerfully. '" (B. 1833, 24. ) PhilipHenkel was the first to conceive the plan of organizing the TennesseeSynod. In a letter to his brother David, dated December 9, 1819, hewrote that he would do his utmost to induce Pastor Zink and Miller tojoin them. "But, " he added, "do not say a word of it to anybody, noteven to your best friend, lest they get wind of it. In a second letter, dated March 14, 1820, Philip declared: "If the old ministers will notact agreeably to the Augsburg Confession, we will erect a synod inTennessee. " (_L. U. W. _ 59, 481. )

THE END OF VOLUME I.