# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1851 05 27_S157
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

157

In conclusion, a few remarks on particular points in the Report. The praise which the author seems to wish to claim for his former defense of the Ohio Synod on account of its decided confession of all our Symbols was asked of him by no one; and if he expects that the Synod will thank him for an ambiguous speech in defense, in which he so pedantically wishes to read it a lesson in morals, it will oblige him only so far as to decline with thanks, for his praise and his blame are altogether a matter of indifference to it. But if he flatters himself greatly on having taken any notice at all of the Synod (for in such a tone does he speak), then it knows still less how to thank him. If the conscience of individual members permits them, in mixed congregations, to administer the Holy Supper to such as are indeed Lutheran not in name but in fact, and who acknowledge the Lutheran doctrine as the truth, then it may be said in their justification that they act unlutheranly only when such acknowledgment is refused. That the Synod regards the existence of such congregations (of which, moreover, there are only a few among us) as an evil, it has surely declared plainly enough; and that it earnestly strives, in moderation and patience, but not in the violent spirit of the iconoclasts, to abolish the existing evil, shows only that we are striving after the same goal, but in a different manner. By the slow but right way of conviction, without force and pressure upon conscience, it wishes to attain its end. Besides, many a one might well ask with reason, who has appointed Dr. Sihler judge over his conscience? His professorial language will convince no one of it. "Earnest and thorough preachers," who honestly seek to fulfil the demands of their conscience, there may perhaps be also, without having been formed after his model.

Dr. Sihler further accuses the Synod of "admitting even such preachers as declare themselves quite openly in a unionistic sense, and declare themselves against the churchly Symbols in their practical application." This assertion can never be proved. The admission of Pastor Gockelen cannot serve him here, for he did indeed confess all the symbolical books. So then he is unionistic for this reason, that in practice he does not agree with the other? True, he serves congregations which Pastor Heid gave up for conscience' sake. But this can be no proof for us that Pastor Gokelen was at fault, for (without wishing here to judge of Pastor Heid's circumstances) there are cases enough in which, under the pretext of conscientiousness, preachers have, by arbitrary, domineering conduct, broken up whole congregations which might have been saved for our Church by judicious labor, without in the least giving up the truth, and which by the domineering spirit of their preachers were driven into the arms of the sects. That is tearing down, not building up. True, Dr. Sihler says that those congregations "wanted only a preacher-for-hire, but no pastor"; but with him an empty conjecture often passes for fact; his conceit is not yet proof. Further, he asserts that those congregations "under the pretense of their American liberty resisted the church discipline ordained by the Lord Christ (Matth. 18, 15-17), and in spite of all instruction would on no account allow their pastor to question them individually before the partaking of even the first Supper." If we should accept this, without proof, merely on his word, then perhaps also those who do not "lay the yoke upon the neck of the disciples," and let themselves be forced to an (not private, but) auricular confession, might be condemned. Not all pastors know how to distinguish between use and abuse. What a blunder! that the Synod, which through its President heard the statement of Pastor Heid, as also, on the other hand, that of Pastor Gockelen, itself a

as the serpents, if these gentlemen do not sharply and earnestly rebuke the prevailing popular sins in their congregations, desire no regular call, help with their congregations to leave the poor youth neglected in the church, do not press with all earnestness for the church discipline prescribed in Matth. 18, 15 — 17, etc., — whether this be "harmless as doves," that I leave to the conscience of Mr. L. and his people to judge, and I wish from my heart that they may enter into judgment with themselves sooner than God does it in their dying hour, when He shall inspect their feeding of His lambs and sheep. — To let grievous hurts go on from fear of men is surely not "bearing with the weak in patience" either.

But since Mr. L. finally thinks that I, poor zealot, have to do with tearing down, but not with building up, I request him quite kindly to come hither at vacation time, and in every way to look at our Seminary and my congregation. It might after all turn out, if he can master his heart and brings no blackened spectacles, that he would find a beginning, wrought by God's grace, of a sound upbuilding. Also in our congregational meetings he would find neither "hierarchical despotism" nor democratic caprice, but the dominion of the divine Word and a harmonious cooperation of teacher and hearers upon the ground of this Word.

In the first part of the Conclusion Mr. L. seeks once more to justify their superficial practice toward the Reformed, in regard to the administration of the Holy Supper, as thorough and sufficient, against which I refer to No. 14, page 109, column 3; it is again simply declaiming and reasoning; for Mr. L. would have to prove that and how that procedure, which is in fact alone right, really springs "from the violent spirit of the iconoclasts," and not rather from Christian conscientiousness.

The Professor seems in general to be still somewhat unclear about the nature of conscience, and not yet to perceive that its delicacy and keenness depend upon the degree of knowledge of the divine Word. Whoever, then, has not become thoroughly clear from this about the gross and soul-destroying false doctrines of the Reformed, and also still has but very slight insight into the present Union and the connection between confession and practice of the Lutheran Church, may indeed at the beginning think that it is enough if the Reformed do not reject the Lutheran doctrine laid before them, or even openly acknowledge it, and in so thinking he does not yet act against his (as yet not wholly purified from God's Word) conscience. But when he gains from God's Word, and other writings founded upon it, a thorough knowledge also of the pure doctrine of the Sacrament of the Lutheran Church and of the false doctrine of the Reformed Church, and at the same time becomes clearer about the present Union and the connection between confession and practice, then naturally by both his confessional conscience also is sharpened, and he cannot then, unless by evil will he violently suppress the now sharpened voice of his conscience, act according to his former unclear conscience in regard to the giving of the Holy Supper to the Reformed, but cannot do otherwise than as stated above. — Now there have appeared, however, in the "Lutheraner," which Professor Lehmann also and other pastors take, from less hated pens than mine, repeatedly essays also upon the above points, so that one must fairly assume that Mr. Lehmann ought now to have been instructed better. Nevertheless he wishes, as before, to hold fast the former practice, yes, calls it "force and pressure upon conscience" to require of the Reformed, after they have been thoroughly instructed from God's Word concerning truth and error, to disapprove their doctrine of the Supper as false, and accordingly to acknowledge their partaking of the Supper from a minister of the Lutheran Church and with a Lutheran congregation as a membership-entrance into the Lutheran Church and an actual departure from their former church-fellowship. Now this is, however, beyond doubt true before God and men; but some perhaps think it wiser to make the above demand of the Reformed only later and by degrees; but this would not be "harmless as doves," nor even "wise as serpents," but conduct as impure as it is unwise; for with right would the Reformed then later be vexed and say: Why did you conceal it from us at the beginning, and give us the Holy Supper oftentimes, without our needing to confess our Reformed faith