# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1854 01 31_S90
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

90

rence was not exactly favorable to the guests from Buffalo; the passionateness with which they had hitherto conducted their church controversy had positively repelled some brethren and produced an aversion toward them; yet it seemed to us a duty to grant to the two delegates of an undoubtedly Lutheran Synod, whom we on that account had to acknowledge as brethren, room and time to set forth, according to their expressed wish, their ecclesiastical concerns before the conference. The very possibility of settling a strife among brethren, which was already beginning to give offense in wider circles, or at least of contributing something toward its settlement, made us inclined to give no room to personal injured feeling, and for the sake of the weighty cause to hear them attentively.

Since we knew that the difference of doctrine concerning the holy ministry had occasioned the practical offenses which have taken place between the brethren in Missouri and those in Buffalo, Pastor Grabau was first of all requested to communicate to us in brief outline the doctrine of the Office held among them. Not only Löhe and his more closely connected friends, but many other pastors and members of the Lutheran Church, among them 2 professors of theology, were present at this address, and although it was followed with the greatest suspense, yet after it no one felt called upon to oppose the declared view of the holy Office as contrary to Scripture or Romanizing. To this address was then joined the presentation of the practical questions and complaints which the two delegated pastors felt constrained to bring forward in the name of their Synod against the Missouri brethren. In order to give an insight into the whole conflict, Pastor Grabau read aloud the entire correspondence conducted between the two Synods, as it is published in the "Informatorium," volume 2, No. 16, word for word, and although the hostile tension of both Synods, which could be seen from the correspondence in spite of all attempts at an understanding, touched all the members of the conference very painfully, yet it could not be denied that the matter would never have become so bad if the ban pronounced by the Synod at Buffalo had been on your side, I will not say unconditionally approved, but only more respected. It is our firm conviction that persons duly banned by a synod acknowledged to be Lutheran ought not to be received as church members by another Lutheran synod without the most impartial investigation into the lawfulness of the ban, and that so altar should not be set up against altar. That sins may have been committed in Buffalo in the exercise of the ban was found by us very probable, and was also sincerely and humbly admitted by the two delegates; nevertheless your conduct, as regards the reception of the banned,—so far as we have until now insight into it—seems thereby not justified. On the other hand we sought also to move the brethren from Buffalo to milder demands, and so agreement was reached on the following points, formulated at once:

1.) We disapprove of it, if and that the Synod of Missouri has received those banned by the congregations of the Synod of Buffalo, without having first referred them to their own supreme church court, or even only having inquired of this church court the ground of the excommunication. We wish and request that this be recognized by all concerned as a wrong, publicly acknowledged, and avoided in future.

2.) In so far as the Synod of Missouri will agree to this, we beg and admonish the Synod of Buffalo that on its part it be content, not further attack the congregations arisen through secession, and let the whole strife over the reception of the banned rest.

3.) We unanimously recognize the question of the Office as an open one, and wish that it might also be regarded and treated so in North America.

4.) We disapprove and lament from the bottom of the soul that by both Synods the points of controversy existing between them have been treated, to the offense of the Church, in so harsh, bitter and passionate a tone, and we beg and admonish that the sin which they have thereby mutually committed against themselves and also against us be recognized, confessed and avoided in future.

The Pastors Grabau and von Rohr who were present agreed, for their own persons, with the above points and are ready to lay them before their Synod; if now you also, beloved brethren in Missouri! could be moved to accept these points as the basis of an ecclesiastical peace with the Synod in Buffalo, then it would be to be hoped that the separated members of One Body, to the joy of all believers on this side and beyond the ocean, yes, here and there, would be reunited. May especially the 3rd point not hinder you from accepting our proposals of peace. Because we regard the question of the Office as an open one, it has not become to us an indifferent question, but it seems to us worthy, under constant invocation of the Holy Spirit, on the ground of the divine Word to seek an ecclesiastical expression which shall be, above all, scriptural and shall exclude equally the Romish error and that of the enthusiasts. We doubt not,—if we only take the Word of God in all things as the sole rule, and understand our good Confessions according to the guidance of Scripture*) and in view of the opposite error in each case—that the Spirit of truth will lead His Church in this question also into all truth. The LORD knows our love for you, which has not become wavering; HE knows that we contradict you only out of love for you, where you seem to us to deviate more or less from His Word; while we would at once publicly confess our error in the question of the Office, as soon as we saw ourselves convinced by calm, clear proof from Scripture. May the LORD give to us all humble and believing hearts, that we may find peace in Him who is Himself the Truth, with all who with us in One Faith eat of One Bread and drink from One Cup. All the brethren, especially those personally known to you, greet you, reverend, dear brother, and all who are united with you, together with

Your sincerely loving

Eduard Stirner, Pastor.

Fürth, November 26, 1853.

*) We have hitherto believed that Lutherans are convinced that they must interpret their Symbols according to Scripture, but Scripture according to their Symbols, and that only Rationalists and Unionists, who are not convinced of the scripturalness or truth of the Confessions, say that one accepts the Confessions if one understands and interprets them "according to Scripture"; hence, as is well known, these people were willing to swear to the symbolical books, but not because (quia), but in so far as (quatenus) they agreed with the Holy Scripture. Even Spener writes: "As those who press so hard the Quia might make a not wholly vain objection, and do make it, that in such a way one could also subscribe to the Koran, the Tridentine canons, and so forth, in so far as they agreed with Scripture, because in all of them there is more or less divine truth to be found." (Theolog. Bedenken. 1 Th. 597.) We think that for this very reason the oath on the Symbols is demanded, so that one may thereby obtain a guarantee that he who has so sworn will understand and interpret the Holy Scripture not according to subjective views, but according to the ecclesiastical Confession.  Ed. of the L.

(From the Sächsisches Kirchen- und Schulblatt, published by Dr. Kahnis in Leipzig.)

The Conference at Leipzig,

on the 30th, 31st of Aug. and 1st of Sept. 1853.

They proceeded accordingly at once to the second *) subject of the conference, and heard the address of Prof. Dr. Kahnis on the modern Union doctrine. Since this address has meanwhile been printed in the Kirchen- und Schulblatt, we may refrain from a judgment upon it. On the basis of this address Dr. Kahnis put forward the following theses: 1) Whoever confesses the Lutheran Symbols cannot stand in church fellowship with the Reformed. 2) A state church which concedes to the Lutheran and Reformed church doctrine equal authority, acknowledges neither of them. 3) The Lutheran and Reformed Symbols diverge in essential points. 4) The distinguishing doctrines are not yet reconciled. 5) The modern Union doctrine is a shimmering syncretism. 6) We confess the doctrine of the Lord's Supper of Luther as the only one in accord with Scripture. 7) We do not hold the Lutheran Church to be the Church, but indeed the Church of the scriptural Confession. 8) We reject every Union, whether with the Roman, or with the

*) The first subject was the Mission.  Ed. of the L.