# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1848 11 14_S46
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

46

is sought in vain within the General Synod, and that a connection with it gives not the slightest guarantee (security) for the preservation and propagation of the Lutheran doctrine, so that he even believes he must, under No. 1 of his reasons, forestall the fear of a jeopardizing of the same. Nevertheless he comes forward as the advocate of this connection.

Does the Standard then really and earnestly believe that, according to God's Word, it is permissible, and therefore also well-pleasing to God, to enter upon a synodical, that is, churchly, and consequently also fellowship of faith with those who cause division and offence contrary to the doctrine received from the apostles, from whom Christians are to turn away according to God's Word, Rom. 16, 17.? Can the Standard deny that the General Synod has actually caused this division and this offence? Is not the first condition of a synodical union, which is to be a reflection of the apostolic unity in the Spirit, unanimity in faith, doctrine and confession, as St. Paul teaches us, Eph. 4, 3—6.? And what is a union to accomplish if its highest and chief purpose, the preservation and propagation of pure, wholesome doctrine, is not attained, if one must content oneself with the wretched assurance that no denial of the Lutheran doctrine, etc., will be demanded?*) If, furthermore, the Standard says under No. 2 of its reasons that a union with the General Synod does not necessarily include an approval or sanctioning of any peculiar doctrine or measure which is defended by individual members of it, then it plainly stands under the influence of a double illusion (self-deception), in that it finds the doctrine of the General Synod better than that of individual members of it, since it is indeed notorious (universally known and confirmed by facts) that the General Synod as a body has abandoned the ground of the Lutheran Confession in several important articles, and on the contrary it could be said with more ground of truth that the doctrine of individual members is better than that of the whole; and how this second reason can satisfy the conscience of a faithful Lutheran, it is impossible for us to see. For if "not approving and not sanctioning" is to mean euphemistically (by a softening expression), in the sense of the Lutheran Confessions, as much as: "to reject and condemn the false doctrine," and if anyone wished to make use of this liberty not to approve the false doctrines of the General Synod in this sense, it would soon become manifest that a Concordia discors (a discordant concord) had been concluded, and the breach would only become so much the worse. But if the Lutheran Standard understands the "not approving and sanctioning" in the sense of the Laodiceans, as a "being of another opinion" in certain doctrines which, however, are not essential doctrines (according to the favorite principle of the General Synod: unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, to which latter it also reckons the doctrine of the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper), then we are heartily sorry to see the Lutheran Standard on the side of this vulgar union; for between a union of Lutherans and Reformed and one of Lutherans and pseudo-Lutherans (sham or counterfeit Lutherans) we know how to make no essential difference.

*) Just so also His Majesty the King of Prussia spoke to the Lutherans when they would not let themselves be united; but of what help are the assurances of the founders of a union that no denial of the Lutheran faith is thereby demanded, if the same nevertheless takes place thereby? Ed.

If, finally, the Standard says that a synod could enter into a connection with the General Synod and yet retain its present constitution, this may well hold true of many synodical constitutions; but what can the Standard say to console us, who are called Old Lutherans, as to how we are to get through with our constitution? Will not the General Synod impose on us the obligation to alter several paragraphs offensive to it? Or, if that itself should not happen, how could we conceal before our own conscience the contradiction into which we should have fallen with our constitution?

In truth, we should have expected from the Standard a quite different reply to the proposals of union from the General Synod. Instead of wishing to prove with ten reasons the unconditional permissibility of such a union, it should have developed the indispensable conditions of a truly apostolic unity in the Spirit according to Eph. 4., and then have left it to the General Synod to decide whether it would extend the hand to it upon these. So, it seems to us, it would become a paper which has taken upon itself the calling of being a Lutheran Standard.

Afterword of the Editor. Since the Synod of Ohio, whose organ the Standard is, has only a short time ago publicly professed itself anew to all the symbolical books of our Church, we ask: How does this agree with a union with the General Synod? What is to be thought, according to our Confessions, of such a union, the following declarations show. First, it is said in the Augsburg Confession: "It is also taught that one holy Christian Church must be and remain forever, which is the assembly of all believers, among whom the Gospel is purely preached, and the holy Sacraments are administered according to the Gospel." (Art. 7.) Further it is said in the Apology: "Yet one ought not to receive or hear false teachers, for they are no longer in Christ's stead, but are antichrists." (Art. 8.) Further in the Small Catechism: "But he that teacheth and liveth otherwise than the Word of God teacheth, profaneth the name of God among us; from this preserve us, heavenly Father." (3rd Chief Part, 1st Petition.) Further in the Smalcald Articles: "Paul commands that false preachers be avoided and be cursed as an abomination. And 2 Cor. 6 he says: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath light with darkness? etc. It is hard to separate from so many lands and people and to lead a separate doctrine. But here stands God's command, that every man should be on his guard, and not be of one mind with those who lead false doctrine, etc." (See in the Appendix. New York edition of the Concordia, page 324.) Further it is said in the Formula of Concord itself concerning matters indifferent, that they are then not to be accepted: "when such ceremonies are so intended, so required or adopted (as though) thereby and thereby both opposing religions were reconciled and became one body." (C. B. p. 629.) Finally it is said in the same Confession: "I reckon them all in one lump, that is, for Sacramentarians and enthusiasts, as they also are, who will not believe that the Lord's bread in the Supper is His true natural body, which the godless and Judas receive orally just as well as St. Peter and all the saints: whoever (I say) will not believe this, let him just leave me in peace, and hope for no fellowship with me; nothing else will come of it." (p. 590.)

Unity.

Only that is true unity which consists in faith; where this is not, there disunity is good, unity ruinous. Gregory of Nazianzus.

Communication of Worldly Affairs.

The latest European news, which reaches to the 14th of October, is again and again of a very exciting character and gives room to still worse apprehensions. In Berlin the feared uprising has indeed not taken place, the King having yielded and done the will of the Reichstag; on the other hand, on the 6th of October a great revolution broke out in Vienna, in which the people's or democratic party carried off the victory. The Minister of War, Latour, was murdered in a barbarous manner, and even upon his corpse inhuman vengeance was wreaked. In consequence of this the Emperor has fled with the whole court and has left behind a manifesto in which he says he will soon return in order to come to the help of his people, subjugated by a small but bold party. The immediate cause of this uprising is the becoming manifest of the reactionary disposition of the court; the Emperor, namely, after great masses of troops had already been concentrated in the neighborhood of Vienna, had issued a proclamation in which the Hungarian Diet was dissolved and the hated Croatian chieftain Jellachich, who with his victorious hordes had advanced to the neighborhood of Pest, was appointed Governor-General of Hungary, and when now on the 6th of October even German grenadier regiments were to march out in order to move against the Hun-