# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1854 01 31_S91
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

91

Reformed Church, in which our Confession is not what it ought to be (Augsb. Conf. Art. 7), the point of unity of church fellowship.

After a personal declaration of Dr. Philippi, called forth by a newspaper article, which stated that he would not appear at the approaching Kirchentag in Berlin, since it rested on entirely different principles from those that had been heard, and had invited only his friends, he put to the assembly the question whether it was not inclined to adopt the proposed theses at once by acclamation. This, however, did not find unanimous approval, but it did find approval that, as it were, as an echo to what had been heard, they should signify by rising that they agreed with the substance of the address. Thereupon the whole assembly rose as one man. They then went on to the discussion of the individual theses and, after some debate, agreed to change the word "church fellowship" into "communion fellowship," as the highest expression of church fellowship, in which the same culminates, as it were, and the word "can" into "may." The second thesis was adopted at once, as not open to dispute. In the third thesis the concept of "essential points" was explained more exactly and defined to mean everything on which the Word of God has already decided. The fourth thesis was adopted at once, as clear in itself and self-evident. In the fifth thesis much offense was taken at the expression "shimmering"; it was wished that instead of "shimmering syncretism" it should read "reprehensible syncretism," but they later returned to the expression "shimmering syncretism" as rightly descriptive. The sixth thesis was adopted by general acclamation; it was wished, however, that it be placed after the first thesis, but they later returned to the order in which it had been placed from the beginning by the author of the theses. The greatest difference of conviction showed itself in the seventh thesis, and, as the time had already elapsed, it was resolved to continue the discussion of it in the afternoon session. Pastor von der Trenck, who had meanwhile taken the chair, closed the conference with a fitting prayer, in which he thanked the Lord for His aid and help during this conference.

They now betook themselves again to the Hotel de Prusse for the common midday meal and then, after 3 o'clock, began the conference anew in the former place. Dr. Philippi took the chair again himself and called on Pastor Mahn of Mecklenburg to begin with a prayer. When they were about to continue the discussion on the seventh thesis, Superintendent Münchmeyer informed the assembly that this thesis, according to its content, would also come up in his theses, which he would lay before the conference, and that the discussion of it might be postponed until then. This moved Prof. Dr. Kahnis to withdraw the seventh thesis, with which the conference also agreed. The same fate befell the eighth thesis, so that of the conference only the first six theses, with the modifications indicated above, were adopted. So the address of Sup. Münchmeyer could follow at once, which according to the program was properly set for the next day, and which was also necessary in so far as a new subject had been added to those already at hand, as we shall see later. This rich address treated of our attitude toward the Roman question. We communicate only some of it: 1) It would be little suited to our good cause if one wished to dispute with our opponents [the Catholics] also that which is really worthy of acknowledgment among them, as was done at the Kirchentag in Bremen by Sander and Ledderhose. Sentences such as "the Pope is the Antichrist, the Roman Church a spawn of hell" we do not subscribe to, yes, we hold them to be an actual blasphemy. The Protestant Church has indeed proceeded from it, as have men like Sailer, Diepenbrock, etc. On the other hand we confess that the claim of divine right which the Pope makes is antichristian, which Luther also only meant when he calls the Pope Antichrist. The Catholic Church has even now a considerable treasure of Christian truth, though greatly disfigured. 2) Just as decidedly, however, we must also decline to appear as Protestant panegyrists of the Catholic Church, as lately Heinrich Leo and others. The Reformation is fully justified to us: there was no milder means for the rebirth of the Church of Christ; Luther would gladly have remained in the Catholic Church, but they thrust him out for the truth's sake, the Pope put him under the ban. Neither did the Reformation cause the first schism in the Catholic Church: the Greek Church had already separated from it. In this let us not be deceived by the pomp of its worship, by its apparent unity, by the pretense that the last remnant of Rationalism is first being expelled in the Roman Church. Though it is not impossible to be saved in the Catholic Church, yet being saved in it is made difficult. A union with it is not to be thought of so long as it holds fast to the Tridentinum. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 3) Most of the converts in recent times seem to have been won for the Catholic Church by seeing in the Reformation a revolution, and now believe that something of this plant has remained in our Church. This we must decidedly contradict: The Reformers did not want to break with the church government, but were only forced to it because they recognized that one must obey God rather than men. Our Church is by its nature not revolutionary. Just as little do we wish to say this of the Roman Church, although in it there lies more of the tendency to contradict the power of the State, as history teaches. 4) In respect of the inner Christian life it is to be acknowledged that the Catholic Church, as it shared in the sleep in former times, so also has taken some part in the Christian life awakened in more recent times. Besides, however, externalism is the signature of this Church; Jesuitism its incarnation. The new revival had therefore to make it more papal again, for Jansenism would have led it into the arms of Protestantism. Polemics also have thereby become more bitter again. — Thereupon the speaker passed to the question: How shall the Lutheran Church place itself toward Rome? We shall keep our position pure — not flirt with the Roman Church, but also not be unjust and bitter against it. The great main thing is that the Word, the Word become subjective for us in the Confession, again become firm and living among us, truly the soul of our Lutheran Church; only then are we invincible. Our Confession is to us identical with the Word (because it is to us the scriptural, adequate expression of it. Ref.) The negative Protestantism must fall as Rome's first prey. But how is it to be achieved that the Confession again become firm and living among us? That is God's gift, which wants to be begged of Him; but the Lord grants this petition through means and wants to use us as His instruments in it. On the ground of this exposition the speaker put forward the following four theses, which he left to the discussion: 1) The Roman Church is not a spawn of hell and the Pope not the Antichrist, only of the error of the Roman Church can it be said that it is antichristian. 2) The separation from the Roman Church is fully justified and is to be regarded as the will of God. 3) The Roman Church offers the State no better guarantees than the Lutheran. 4) The highest wisdom is that we make our scriptural Confession again our ground of life.

They now went over to the discussion. Prof. Dr. Lindner, Sr., spoke first in general on this subject and maintained: the position of Luther toward the Catholic Church 300 years ago must also be our position at the present day. He entered the apostolic-catholic Church and went back to the Word of God. The Lutheran Church, rejuvenated into the apostolic Church, accordingly deserves with right the name "catholic," which the Roman bears with wrong. They agreed with this in general and now went on to the discussion of the first thesis. It met with manifold contradiction. It was maintained on the other side that it is no blasphemy to call the Pope Antichrist