# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1853 07 19_S165
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

165

the disputes face to face — Mr. P. Grabau has always sought evasions, and has at last induced his whole Synod to refuse, just as dishonorably as he, an open, honest contest. We have offered again and again, wherever only a wrong be demonstrated, to confess it willingly; yea, we have granted in advance that here and there, in individual cases, we may have erred; only the one thing have we refused, namely to condemn in advance our doctrine by rejecting our course of action founded upon it. — Mr. Pastor Grabau, on the other hand, has demanded of us blind obedience to his dictatorial requirement, that we first confess our wrong toward him before he can hold a religious colloquy with us*). — We ask accordingly: who is it to whom the word of God applies: "Every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved"? Is it we, who have begged again and again, imploringly, for a public investigation of the matter, and indeed first, as regards the doctrine, which furnishes the standard of judgment, and then, as regards the actions, which must be judged accordingly? — or is it not rather Mr. Pastor Grabau, who will by no means step out into the open and by no means stand in the sunlight of a public investigation before witnesses, but puts himself again and again under the shadow of conditions of which he knows that we cannot fulfil them without delivering up to him the jewel of the pure doctrine, which God has entrusted to us poor sinners, and for the faithful keeping of which he will one day require of us a heavy account? — Oh that Mr. Pastor Grabau would consider what he is doing! It is true, he has a dexterity, when he sees himself beaten by God's word, in playing the victor and in piercing and thundering into consciences, which hardly has its equal and by which he himself catches many honest hearts; but what does such a short victory avail? God, who trieth the hearts and reins, who hath eyes like a flame of fire, will not be caught thereby. He will let it succeed with the upright, and in His time will tear apart the spider's web of pious-seeming human arts. Let Mr. P. Grabau consider that even if he should succeed in reducing the Missouri Synod with its testimony to silence, he would not thereby have made the truth which it advocates dumb. Even if we ceased to lend it our mouth, it would soon have sought itself another and still more eloquent mouth. "Right must yet remain right, and all upright hearts will fall to it."

*) Mr. Pastor Winkler has shown himself just as shy of the light. He had written publicly that preachers of the Missouri Synod had themselves confessed to him that for years this Synod had been working to ruin the Synod of Buffalo, cost what it might, etc. He was thereupon publicly called upon in the "Lutheraner" (No. 10 of this volume) to name these "Missouri pastors," otherwise "the public reproach of falsehood should rest upon him." What did Mr. Pastor Winkler do? He gave an evasive answer. Our Synod therefore, having made inquiry among its pastors on this account at its last assembly, has now called upon Mr. Pastor Winkler in an official letter to name his "Missourian" authorities, and at the same time has requested the Synod of Buffalo to enjoin upon Mr. Winkler, its member, that he name publicly the pastors of our Synod who are said to have made that confession to him "freely and openly." And what has happened? — Both Mr. Pastor Winkler and the Reverend Synod of Buffalo have, up to this date, not let themselves be heard on this point with so much as a word? Ought not these gentlemen therefore apply that motto, John 3, 19, rather to themselves than to us?

What, then, is the final decision that Mr. P. Grabau gives in his latest reply? He writes first: "What one has not yet proved, one cannot build upon. Since now the Synod of Missouri has proved neither of the two, neither doctrine contrary to Scripture nor a practice burdensome to conscience, it cannot therefore found upon this, that it is against its conscience to dismiss again those excommunicated by us whom it has received; rather conscience demands this. For we have often and amply proved that our doctrine and practice agree with the holy Word of God and with the Symbols of the Church, as for example in the doctrine of the holy ministry, of the Church, of the office of the keys, of the spiritual priesthood, of Christian liberty, etc. For on our side so many proofs from God's Word have been set before the Synod of Missouri that it needs none at all from us any more."

Answer: Mr. Pastor Grabau could hardly have beaten himself more plainly than by this. He says that for this reason we must first dismiss those banned by him and deliver them into his hands before a colloquy can be thought of, because we have not yet proved the false doctrines and the practice burdensome to conscience of which we accuse him. He admits, then, that if we had proved this, it would indeed be against our conscience to give up to him those cast out by him. Since, however, we know, and herewith assert, and call all impartial readers capable of judgment to witness thereof, that we have furnished the proof, what shall now be done? Is it not, accordingly, irrefutably clear that the only remaining means of coming to a union is precisely a colloquy? Or is it perhaps to be enough that Mr. Pastor Grabau says: "No! no! it is not yet proved! but I have proved my case! What further need have we of witness? The Missourians are guilty of death! Sic volo, sic jubeo" etc.! — Moreover, it is itself false to assert that if someone has not yet proved the injustice of an action, it cannot be against his conscience to commit this action. If this were true, there could be no erring consciences. Rather have all colloquies been held by orthodox Christians for this very reason, because they proceeded from the principle that not all adversaries are so against their conscience, but many, from error and weakness, are opponents of the good cause without being able to furnish the necessary proof against it; that therefore a clear oral explanation might make the matter plain to them and, if God willed, win them. Supposing, then (though not granting it!), that we had not yet proved the false doctrine and the practice burdensome to conscience of Pastor Grabau, there would still by no means lie therein the proof that it is just, or even only reasonable, first to demand of us the admission of our wrong and only then to be willing to grant us a colloquy. If one did not wish to tyrannize over our conscience with dictates of authority, one would rather accept with joy the offer of a colloquy for the purpose of convincing us of our wrong and that our conscience errs herein; presupposing, of course, that our opponents themselves have a good conscience, hold their doctrine true and their cause good in their conscience, and therefore trust the power of the truth and of their good cause, against which presupposition the conduct of our opponents, to be sure, speaks only too loudly.

It says further in the public reply: "Disputes over Christian articles of doctrine have often occurred in the believing Church. From the mere dispute, as it now lies before us, there follows no schism or division of the Church; since the same, caeteris paribus, can from time to time be properly discussed and settled among those of one faith. This our Synod recognized already in 1845, and wrote in its synodical letter: We would not be separated from the Missourians on account of the difference in doctrine, if they would take away the sectarian preachers. Nevertheless the offensive and aggrieving practice of the Missouri Synod has never ceased, in that it, without further ado, set up factious counter-altars in our parishes in order thereby to disturb our congregations. Accordingly the Missouri Synod has brought about a division. In our eyes the doctrinal controversy, however just it was, should have produced no schism; only the Missouri Synod has wished to stamp it as the cause of a schism, by calumniously branding us as heretics, in order merely to excuse in appearance the counter-altars it had erected."

Answer: We scarcely trusted our eyes when we read this. What? Mr. Pastor Grabau can dare to write that in his eyes there lay in the differences of doctrine no ground for division, only we had branded him a heretic? and he does not blush? Where have we branded him a heretic? Has he not always known how to exploit, excellently for himself and against us, even in the course of this year, precisely our concession that we have not yet regarded him as a heretic and his Synod as a sect, but that they are regarded by us only as erring ones in the Lutheran Church, and has he not, on the other hand, for many years past treated us before all the world as heretics and our Synod as a shameful sect or faction