# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1854 01 03_S76
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

76

God shall reveal even this unto you, nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, and be likeminded. Phil. 3, 15, 16.

As far as we see, the first ground of your sad dispute is indeed a difference of doctrine. In the doctrines of the Church, the spiritual office, ordination, etc., the two Synods hold very different teachings. Far be it from us to presume to pronounce a decision here. This only we would say, that if the Missouri Synod should extend the significance which it attaches to the general priesthood so far as to regard the spiritual office as an emanation of it, which the individual merely for the sake of common order surrenders in favor of the bearers of the office, this could not stand with Scripture and the doctrine of the Church, and especially on American soil would soon bear bitter enough fruits. Likewise we should have to reject, as leaning toward Romanism, it if the Buffalo Synod should so heighten the significance which it attaches to the spiritual office that it would regard Word and Sacrament as effectual only in the mouth and hand of the clergyman. Yet we would still believe that the opposition of the two Synods moves within these false extremes. The loci on the Church, on the ecclesiastical office, and what is connected therewith, are without doubt such as our Symbols, even if they contain the foundations for their development rightly and completely, have yet not carried to full theological elaboration and conclusion. This latter seems rather to constitute the task of our days. Therefore the divergent conceptions concerning these questions, of which, although only one is in accord with Scripture and the Symbols, yet both the one and the other can interpret individual statements of Scripture and the Symbols in its favor, neither the one nor the other being expressly condemned, so long as the Church has not yet spoken, should both find room side by side in this Church. At the same time we take the liberty of reminding the esteemed American brethren that, with all the recognition which we gladly accord to their Synods holding fast to the Confession, without regard to the small number of their members, we nevertheless can concede to one of them and to all of them together, just as little as to a single European state church or to any number of such, the right to answer questions like those named in a manner binding upon the whole Lutheran Church.

Why, honored brethren beloved in the Lord, has this unhappy discord now broken out among you, in which one often does not recognize at all that brethren are contending with one another, in which it has unhappily already come from words to deeds? Oh, permit us, in the humble consciousness of being nothing but poor fellow-sinners with you, to set before you what, in our conviction, is not rightly done before the Lord on both sides. The dear brethren of the Synod of Buffalo have themselves asked us to rebuke them, and have also willingly accepted it where we have already complied with the request. The honored members of the Synod of Missouri will not mean it otherwise.

Now, then, may all the dear members of the reverend Synod of Buffalo first permit us to say once more against them in what points, in our opinion, they have erred. It is made a reproach to you especially that in many cases the ban has been imposed by you unjustly. Here we must indeed confess, not only that without church discipline, and therefore also without the church ban, there can be no church, least of all an American one, which lacks the bridle of the Christian state, but also that we have found no case in the Records of your Synodal Letters, nor have we heard of one from Missionary Baierlein, as a former member of the Missouri Synod, or from anyone else, where we could have said with certainty: Here the ban is not imposed according to the order of Christ. But nevertheless, dear brethren, it is seldom the case that in the accusations of the opposing party there would not be at least something of truth. The application of the ban takes place so extraordinarily often among you. In contrast, in the great congregation at Corinth, in which also by far not everything was as it ought to have been, we meet only a single example where a man is delivered unto Satan. The ban should surely be only the very last resort. Should it not also, under American congregational conditions, with a sufficient measure of love, gentleness, patience and wisdom, here and there have been possible not to let it come to the point where then, to be sure, the ban could no longer be avoided? From your Records we believe we have gathered that you sometimes also give your admonitions in the exercise of church discipline in writing: there we should almost without exception far prefer the oral way. We cannot deny that in all your writings a tone has met us not only of a certain bureaucracy, but also of sharpness and acidity, which we can indeed explain to ourselves from the peculiarity of your course of life and your present situation, but can by no means approve. The sweet Gospel shall nevermore be driven as Law, the shepherd's staff of the Bishop of our souls not wielded as a driver's rod! We therefore beseech you once more urgently and brotherly in the name of our dear Savior, try henceforth still more than hitherto, full of long-suffering and wisdom, which He will give, everything before you proceed to the extremest means. Also hither belongs the word of the Apostle: Lest Satan should get an advantage of us, for we are not ignorant of his devices. 2 Cor. 2, 11. And now this also. Though we may in your doctrinal opposition to the Missouri Synod explain much to ourselves from the earnestness of a holy conviction, yet we cannot declare ourselves at all agreed with the manner of your contending and your self-defense. It occurs again and again that you charge your opponents with lying, hypocrisy, evil will, yea, perjury (3d Synodal Letter p. 15). Should it be perjury if it is left to the freedom of the congregations to have private confession or not to have it? Art. 11 of the Augustana says indeed: Of confession it is taught that private absolution ought to be retained in the churches and not allowed to fall. But should that be understood otherwise than what Art. 15 says of church ordinances, where it reads: Of church ordinances made by men it is taught that those should be kept (in Latin here: quod servandi sint, there: quod retinenda sit,) which may be kept without sin.—Dear brethren, it makes us shudder when we read the fearfully harsh judgments which you so lightly pass upon men of whose piety and Christian theological ability we have never doubted, as e. g. upon Löhe, p. 7 of your 4th Synodal Letter. Dear brethren, how does that agree with the love which believeth all things, hopeth all things? 1 Cor. 13, 7. So the Apostle does not will it, who commands: Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, ye which are spiritual; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Gal. 6, 1. One can go deeply astray, sin grievously, and yet it is not evil will.—The Lord grant you to amend what has hitherto been lacking here; without denying the truth, but yet in all mildness and gentleness, to pursue peace, judging only the matter according to 1 Cor. 2, 15, but not the persons according to Luke 6, 37. Thereby much will already be gained toward the healing of the sad breach.—

Also toward you, reverend and beloved brethren from the Synod of Missouri, etc., we cherish the confident trust that you will permit us to set before you that which we must regard as your wrong, and to beseech you most urgently for the abolition of the same. You know well what the reverend Synod of Buffalo has against you. The deputies of the latter have complained to us that you receive without further ado sinners excommunicated by them in the order of Christ, and are willing to go on receiving them until the present doctrinal controversy may at some time be ended; that you have sent into their congregations and parishes sectarian preachers and set up counter-altars there. We have not heard you on this accusation, and would have been very glad to see it if a few brethren from your midst also could have been present in Leipzig. But Missionary Baierlein, who has belonged to you, was present, and we have your latest correspondence with the Synod