# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1855 01 30_S91
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

91

still imputes to us, as before, his old favorite and accustomed prejudices about our doctrine as really and truly existing; and this indeed would still be the best construction of his presentation of our doctrine, since in that case the injustice would proceed more from a delusion of the head and not from the disposition of the heart.

4. Pastor Löhe reports further, "this doctrine appeared one-sided and divergent from the Word of God not only to the Prussian Lutherans dwelling around Buffalo, Pastor Grabau at their head, but also to their more mature brethren, Großmann and Deindörfer, who believed they observed at close range many evil consequences of that conduct of the ministry for the life of the Lutheran congregations."

Now indeed, if we taught thus as he, in time-honored fashion, imputes to us, without our having been able, despite all pains, to free his blackened spectacles, through which he looks at us, from their soot, then all our opponents would be in good right to declare our doctrine one-sided, yes erroneous and contrary to the rule of faith of the divine Word; but it is not so, as has just now been shown in summary; and no one who has read and considered our printed testimony carefully, only without party interest and prejudice, will be able to bring this reproach upon us, that in an unseemly and clumsy emphasis on the one side of the doctrine (as for instance on the invisibility of the Church and the universal priesthood of all Christians) we have pressed down the other side (on the recognizability of the Church and on the ministry of the church) in favor of fanatical heresy; rather we are sure of this, and appeal to the judgment of every unprejudiced and discerning reader familiar with the Lutheran system of doctrine, whether in our theses on Church and Ministry, together with their grounding in the holy Scripture and their attestation from the symbolical books and the private writings of orthodox teachers, we have not just as much avoided and excluded the papistic and fanatical aberrations as we have likewise comprehended both sides of the doctrine.

On the other hand it is just as evident and clear to the same reader that, for instance, Pastors Löhe and Wucherer in their little books have abandoned the standpoint and the guidance of the Lutheran confessional writings and, as it were, undertaken voyages of discovery and Scripture-expounding cruises and forays into the ocean of the holy Scripture, to see whether they might not succeed in finding passages in which their favorite opinions might have a sort of support and foundation; and behold! they found them, although these are contrary to the connection of the evangelical doctrine, and therefore of no force of proof whatever, and are unable to do the least harm to the Lutheran system of doctrine, resting on this connection and firmly closed in itself. And since Pastor Löhe seems well to feel the powerlessness of his little cork-balls against the strong walls of the Lutheran fortress of confession, and yet to have no desire to withdraw again into this fortress, but would not gladly have powder and shot fired in vain before the eyes of his people, it has pleased him, strangely enough, to call the churchly Lutheran doctrine of Church and Ministry, attested throughout by the churchly symbols, here and there in his "kirchliche Mittheilungen," for some time now, "the individual-Lutheran view," that is, the personal private opinion of Luther, which the symbols, for the most part, have followed out of an excessive piety toward Luther's person and testimony, and out of a certain narrowness, since they, alas, had not yet had the light of the nineteenth century and its perfecters of the Reformation. By that expression, however, and its frequent repetition, it comes about, without doubt, with most readers, who moreover are enthusiastic adherents and admirers of the person of Pastor Löhe and for his sake also of his words and works, that the properly individual-Löhean view, or still more properly the episcopalianizing doctrine of Church and Ministry, settles in their hearts and understanding as the churchly Lutheran doctrine.

5. It is wonderful further to read that the then seminary director Mr. Großmann at Saginaw City and Pastor Deindörfer are called "more mature brethren" by Pastor Löhe; and why this? 1. because to them also our doctrine appears "one-sided and divergent from the Word of God;" and 2. "because they believed they observed at close range many evil consequences of that doctrine of the ministry for the life of the Lutheran congregations."

Against this vaunted maturity, however, speak very decidedly the historical facts and testimonies here, which can hardly be invalidated by the view through the enlarging and beautifying spectacles of Pastor Löhe.

Mr. Großmann namely, who has chosen the second edition of Löhe's Aphorisms for his symbolical book and makes no secret of it either, was heartily and urgently invited by one of ours to attend our synodical convention at Cleveland in 1853 and to bring forward there freely and openly his objections and scruples against our doctrine. Had he now really possessed that "maturity" of knowledge which he professed, or been at least tolerably unprejudiced and not held captive by faith in authority toward Löhe's person and Aphorisms, he would surely have followed the invitation and would have brought forward his scruples and objections openly and frankly, as formerly Pastor Schaller did, whether they would have been removed and set aside by us, and he with us have entered into the desired unity of doctrine, or whether he, "as a more mature brother," would have been able to convict us out of the Löhean Aphorisms of one-sidedness and error, and in this at the same time to furnish the grand proof that this his symbolical book stands upon the confession of the Lutheran Church, but the confession beside the holy Scripture. Mr. Großmann, however, excused himself with the open declaration that he was not yet clear with himself concerning those points of doctrine, must reflect further in quiet on the matter, feared in much that he had already gained to become again uncertain and wavering, and the like. What sort of "maturity" and firmness of knowledge is to be gathered from this evasive answer we leave, without further remark, to the judgment of the intelligent reader. So much, however, follows from his refusal beyond doubt: 1. that in his heart and conscience he was not yet firm and sure of the evangelical fundamental views in those articles of doctrine, as divine truth; 2. that he was held captive and bound by an erring conscience and a false piety toward the person and doctrinal opinion of Pastor Löhe and therefore feared, in a possible giving up of the latter through our proof, to wound piety toward the person of Pastor Löhe; — in sum, a lamentable immaturity, a most unlutheran confusion and mixing of the personal and the factual, follows undeniably from it; for otherwise he would gladly and willingly and uninvited have come, and would have dealt as openly, manfully and brotherly with us as we were minded to deal with him; for by what other means than by oral discussion, by oral speech and reply, by honest struggle, by mutual attack and defense in brotherly love and in sincerity of heart could he become sure of the matter, whether we or Pastor Löhe and his friends err? How could he in his solitary study in Saginaw obtain a substitute for our oral nearer explanations and elucidations in defense of our doctrine, which he could have had so easily at the synodical convention?

Pastor Deindörfer, on the other hand, came to the Synod already in 1852 at Fort Wayne, and we cannot judge otherwise, since he moreover in a certain respect at first looked at us, no doubt, with distrustful eyes through the Löhean spectacles, than that the divine truth, in the defense of our doctrine against Pastor Habel, removed his doubts and scruples and won the victory over his heart and conscience, so that he joined the Synod as a member. It is therefore a historical untruth when Pastor Löhe states that he too did not fully join the Synod; he did so as fully as he could; for since up to now his congregation has not yet joined, he could, for his own person, be received only as an advisory member. By his joining, namely, he declared naturally that he had entered with us into full unity of doctrine, whereas Pastor Löhe, contrary to the historical facts, asserts that he too, like Mr. Großmann, had not joined, in that he must "still persist in his view departing from that of the Missourians."

Later it then came to pass that Pastor Löhe offered to some members of our Synod in Michigan a so-called "church-law connection" — surely a strange demand — with himself, and indeed on the condition that they should accept, without his consent, no call to any other congregation outside of Michigan,