# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1851 05 27_S158
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

158

passed judgment, and did not most submissively ask Dr. Sihler for his counsel.

Even the conduct of business does not escape the censure of our critic. Before any member had so much as heard his name, the Synod had continued its business, and this will in all probability remain unchanged, even though he should not forget to let himself be heard from time to time upon it.

His reference to the incident with Candidate Kleinegees shows once more how, according to pleasure or displeasure, he straightway extols or condemns. Of this matter Dr. Sihler knew next to nothing; at least he was, as is clear enough from his remarks, unacquainted with the state of the case, and yet, presto, as usual, a "palpable" judgment is ready. That he may not, however, remain wholly ignorant of that affair, he is hereby informed that the inquiry of Mr. Kleinegees took place at the instance of the President, who has fallen into disfavor with Dr. Sihler and is of unionistic mind, who had already earlier earnestly forbidden him to found a mixed congregation, but who, notwithstanding this, could not dissuade him from his purpose. Later, after maturer reflection, Candidate K. came to a better conviction, which he declared both to the Reverend President and before the Synod. It is especially noteworthy for Dr. Sihler that this took place at the instance of the unionistic President of our unionistic Synod. This puts the counsel to Cand. Kl. in a quite different light from what he supposes, and shows that he declares himself against the founding of mixed congregations, and plainly only for Lutheran doctrine and Lutheran administration of the Sacraments and of the ministerial office. The obscurity of the resolution has its ground solely in this, that one purposely shuts one's eyes and will not understand it.

The remark about the Synod's rule concerning licentiates and their exclusion from the Ministerial Assembly proves that one often meddles in matters which concern one not at all, and of which one knows nothing at all; for in two different places in our Ministerial Order the candidates are entitled, yea obliged, to attend the ministerial sessions.

With the "angry rebuff" to a pertinent question by the Reverend Father, Pastor Heinecke, the matter stands thus. Dr. Sihler received, namely, when he, who was after all only a guest of the Synod, in unseemly fashion wished to catechize Father Heinecke about his conduct of his office, the answer given in righteous indignation: "For that I am responsible to my God, not to you." One needs only to know with what boldness Dr. S. sought to force reproof and counsel upon the Synod, while the Synod of Missouri does not even recognize us as advisory members, and the whole proceeding will be well understood. Incidentally it may be remarked that the rumor also, which people sought to spread with so great diligence, that the whole Synod had been silenced by the questions of Dr. Sihler, is throughout false; but it was indeed not a little astonished at their immodesty. The only silencing known to the undersigned was that which took place, on his own part, upon a not indistinct hint from the Synod to Dr. S. that his services were not needed.

and Church? As soon, then, as a Lutheran pastor attains to better knowledge in this matter, so, according to his now purified and sharpened conscience, he owes it to himself, to his Lutheran congregation and to the Reformed, now also to adopt the other, thorough procedure, and gladly and willingly to confess his former ignorance to those concerned.

But also with regard to the Gockelen-Heid affair the truth of my accusation stands, that the Synod acted unjustly, and therefore also unchristianly; for it has, after all, not heard the complainant, Pastor Held, over against Pastor Gockelen, nor done anything else to gain an impartial knowledge of the state of the case, but without further ado gave full credence to the one-sided reports of Mr. Gockelen, whereas every just heathen judge would have acted otherwise. — But why this? Mr. Lehmann gives information upon it; for according to his, and probably also the Reverend Synod's, opinion it is already "to lay a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, and to force them to auricular confession," that Pastor Heid at his assumption of that congregation was unwilling to administer the holy Supper to any one who refused to be questioned by him about the state of his Christian knowledge. Here one must indeed stand still in astonishment; for one is in perplexity whether to ascribe these words of the poor man, who considers himself a confession-true Lutheran, to his head or to his heart, to speak in the mildest and most decent manner. At all events it becomes clear anew to every honest Lutheran from this that Mr. L. (and his people) confess the churchly Symbols only with the mouth and in [illegible], since it is almost impossible to suppose that his understanding is still so darkened here also. So, then, that which the absolution to be imparted, also according to Art. 11 of the Augsburg Conf., necessarily presupposes, which the most approved teachers of the Church make a matter of the most earnest conscience to the Lutheran pastors, which even the so-called Lutheran General Synod (in which there is indeed life, though a sickly one) has testified, in the "luth. observer," to be at least salutary and desirable, whereby alone the servant of the Lutheran Church can sufficiently secure his conscience that he at least, through no fault of his, that is, by omitting to question his individual church-children, may give the holy Supper to no one to his judgment — this Mr. Lehmann calls "to lay a yoke upon the neck of the disciples," this he calls "to force to auricular confession." Have hatred and wrath and the smitten conscience then really so blinded him, that he speaks so foolishly and unjustly? Or should the Professor in fact not know that the papistical auricular confession is the enumeration of all sins, which among us no one demands? Should he really hold him for a believer, for a "disciple of Christ," who refuses, after he has been sufficiently instructed about what is salutary and necessary therein, to answer his pastor when he wishes to question him upon the state of his Christian knowledge? — And I ask him upon his conscience: are people who persist in such stubborn opinion, and on that account separate themselves from the congregation, after they have been instructed anew, admonished, warned, also a congregation of the LORD, or not rather wilful separatists? I ask him further: has "domineering spirit" on the part of the preacher caused the division in this case, or the wicked self-will of the people? — And finally: can a pastor true to the confession regard and serve such men as a congregation of God?

The case, finally, with Past. Heinecke is not correctly set forth. The resolution was namely passed: "that the preachers of the Ohio Synod should serve mixed congregations only as Lutheran preachers," and because, naturally, by such a general formula no counsel was given to Mr. Kleinegees for his particular cases, I took the liberty, by way of example, and connecting with his circumstances, of putting the question what he, as a Lutheran preacher, should then do if this or that Reformed father should insist upon the confirmation instruction of his son according to the Heidelberg Catechism. And Mr. L. will doubtless recollect that neither he nor Pastor Heinecke gave a definite answer to it.

In conclusion, finally, I call upon every impartial, upright Lutheran reader, after he has read the "Denkwürdigkeiten in No. 14., Mr. Lehmann's accusations and this my reply, to decide whether I have really acted "falsely, unjustly, uncharitably, presumptuously, slanderously, carnally and unlutheranly," and