# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1850 04 30_S140
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

140

exposed, nor do I believe that anyone who is worthy of the name of a Lutheran will regard me with suspicion or displeasure when I say that the result of my researches has led me to a joyful and decided acceptance of the doctrines of the Church, as they are plainly set forth in the Augsburg Confession and in the Small Catechism (of Luther), which I hold to be faithful expositions of the true sense of the Word of God, as regards the doctrines of faith and duty laid down therein. That is without doubt ""Old Lutheranism,"" for that has been the faith of the Church, not merely for three, but for nineteen centuries. And I hope that I shall be tolerated in the confession of this faith, not only for the sake of its venerable antiquity, but also, and still much more, because it is the only authentic (that is, legally valid and genuine) presentation of the doctrines of the Lutheran Church which I have so far become acquainted with.

"As for ""the basis or foundation of the General Synod,"" I can only say that I know nothing of such a basis except so far as it is set forth in its Constitution. — But this Constitution lays down no system of doctrine, presents no confession of faith. On the contrary, it itself declares that it was ""drawn up only for the purposes of government and discipline,"" and expressly ""denies to any General Synod the right to make alterations in matters of faith which might in any way burden the consciences of the brethren""! While they declare themselves for Lutheran synods, one part of the synodical members united by this Constitution has accepted the Augsburg Confession, and another part will know nothing at all of any confession. But neither in the one case nor in the other has the General Synod power to set up anything whatever as a ""doctrinal basis,"" ""if the conscience of the brethren raises objection against it""! — As regards, then, the ""doctrinal basis"" which S. S. S. falsely ascribes to the General Synod, in that this body has never set up such a system of doctrine, and that system is only a caricature and a vilification of Lutheranism (inasmuch as it is thereby represented as if it harbored opinions and doctrines which it never had, and rejected others which it solemnly believes and confesses,) I reject ""such a doctrinal basis"" unequivocally, and would lose all confidence in the General Synod if it should seek to place itself upon so uncertain a basis, and one so opposed to that Church of which it yet wishes to be a part.

"The chief purpose of the second article of the ""Defence"" seems to be an attempt to show or to determine how much of the Lutheran system one may reject and still call himself a Lutheran, or: how much one may take from the truth, weaken it, and yet sell it for sound doctrine. Now, it would be useless to defend the remaining symbolical books against one who, like S. S. S., rejects the Augsburg Confession itself. We have never called in question that people who call themselves Lutherans have fallen away from the faith and have harbored and defended the most terrible, most dangerous errors, which by their nature destroy not only Lutheranism, but Christianity. That has happened and still happens in Germany, Sweden and Denmark, and happens also in this country. But this does not change the truth and the essence of the Lutheran doctrine, any more than that of the Bible and of Christianity, with which men have also played and wantonly trifled, have dealt deceitfully and craftily, and at last have openly rejected, while such people nevertheless always called themselves believers and Christians. Yet no sensible man will maintain that a man who rejects the Bible is a Christian. Has, then, anyone more right and claim to the name of a Lutheran who rejects the documents in which the kernel and sum of the doctrine of the Lutheran Church is laid down, namely our confessions of faith? If he can reject one of them, why not all? If he can reject one article of the Augsburg Confession, with the same right he rejects the whole Confession. Therefore, even if it were true, which it is not, that the various countries to which he appeals had rejected the confessions of our Church, this would prove only that they had ceased to be Lutherans, nothing more, and instead of glorying and exulting over it, he ought, if he wished to be a true Lutheran, to make the lamentation of the prophet his own: ""How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!"" But as regards the countries which he cites as having rejected one or another of the symbolical books, we must remark the following: first, that among the countries which are said to have done this, he cites some which have done exactly the opposite, as for example Pomerania; second, that he himself shows that this happened in Denmark (in the face of royal tyranny); and finally, that he has not demonstrated that any one of these countries has rejected any of the doctrines of the Lutheran Church which he is so zealous to bring into suspicion and contempt. Thus, as regards Sweden, Schubert, to whom he appeals, himself gives the ordination oath, in which the candidates for ordination bind themselves to the Augsburg Confession and the other symbolical books (together called the Book of Concord).

"No. 3 of the Defence is an attempt to prove that the fathers of the Lutheran Church (in this country) soon held laxer views concerning the obligation to the symbolical books, etc. A proof of this is said to be that ""the symbolical books are not even named in their synodical constitution,"" etc. But we have shown in our ""Memoranda"" (Denkwürdigkeiten) that they repeatedly and constantly used them at the granting of candidacy (permission to preach, licensure) and at the ordination of ministers, and I am now convinced that their original synodical and ministerial constitution also required subscription and obligation to the same; further, that they were presupposed and made the foundation in the drafting and arranging of the discipline and constitution which the great body of the ""United Evangelical Lutheran Churches"" adopted, out of which the organization of our churches in this country now existing afterwards arose. In the Hallische Nachrichten there are two passages, which I had overlooked in my earlier search of this work, which prove this in the most conclusive manner; it says there, namely: ""He (Mr. Kurtz, at his examination and ordination) laid before us (the first Lutheran Synod) a written declaration (revers, promise), that he would abide by the pure doctrine of our Evangelical Lutheran Church according to the Word of God and our confessions of faith, and would not depart from it. This took place on the 13th of August 1748; on the following day (Trinity Sunday) the St. Michael's Church (in Philadelphia) was dedicated. On this solemn occasion Mühlenberg, in his address to the assembly, expressed himself thus: The cornerstone of this church has been laid with the intention that in it the Evangelical Lutheran doctrine shall be taught on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, according to the unaltered Augsburg Confession and all the other symbolical books."" Let whoever will have rejected any one of these symbolical books; so much is certain, that Mühlenberg was none of them, neither then, nor in any other period of his life. This is proved and placed beyond all reach of doubt by the Constitution which he (almost thirty years afterward) drew up in the year 1774 for the churches at Ebenezer in Georgia. Here an attempt to bring the church property into the hands of the Episcopal Church made it necessary to determine the character of the Church with the greatest care and exactness. This he does in Chapter 5, § 1, which reads thus: ""The teachers and pastors are bound to teach in their congregations, publicly and privately, the doctrines of our Evangelical Protestant religion, as also the holy sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, purely and unadulterated, and indeed according to the foundation of the apostles and prophets, as they are contained in the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament (in which Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone), in accordance with the unaltered Augsburg Confession and the other symbolical books."" This Constitution is evidently modeled upon that which Mühlenberg drew up for the ""United Evangelical Con-