# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1850 04 30_S142
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

142

...anything else than that they put the love of God's pure and clear Word above every other love, rebuke the man-pleasing and fawning of the Unionists as contrary to Scripture, and zealously contend not against the persons but against their evil cause, since this runs contrary to God's Word and honor and turns out to the ruin of the uninstructed, yea, of the erring mixers of faiths themselves. —
W. Sihler, P.

(Sent in.)
Correspondence from Germany.

Perhaps it might not be unwelcome to the dear readers of the „Lutheraner“ to hear once more something of the ecclesiastical conditions of Germany. Since I have just now been gladdened, by a dear brother in this our old fatherland, with a letter especially rich in contents in this regard, and may hope that others also, but especially, because it treats chiefly of the ecclesiastical circumstances of Bavaria, those who honor this land as their fatherland, would read it with interest if it were at their disposal, I have resolved to publish it through the „Lutheraner,“ omitting what has reference to myself, in order thus to make it accessible to all readers of this paper. It runs as follows:

Matter for writing there is indeed enough and more than enough. For in a long series of years no time has been so important and full of significance for Europe as the last two years. At an outward, superficial glance one might indeed suppose that the upheaval which has taken place in these years was not so very significant. For in the first place comparatively little blood has been shed (for example in comparison with the French Revolution of 1789), and the insurgents have nowhere (at most a little in Hungary) won greater advantages over their enemies; and therefore, in the second place, the kingdoms, principalities, etc., continue to exist as before. But whoever will look at the matter more closely will find that the last upheaval is nevertheless no small one. For it is aimed not at isolated evils, not at individual institutions in the states or in the Church, not at consequences, but at principles. The principle of monarchy is attacked through the sovereignty of the people proclaimed everywhere — though not always with the desired success. No less did men go against the principle of the Church — but of course there still less could be accomplished than against the State. The gentlemen in the Frankfurt Diet supposed that if complete religious liberty were granted and the Church were separated from the State, the latter — deprived of its support — must necessarily fall to pieces. Whereas this is precisely a remedy for the injuries of the Church and is earnestly and fervently implored of the LORD JESUS by all her living members.

Yes, indeed, religious liberty we ought to have, the Church ought to be separated from the State, out of the shameful bondage of the State she ought to be delivered — then one might behold wonders, how she would develop, strong inwardly, mighty outwardly, believing — humble before her LORD, glorious in the eyes of all who see! And without doubt we shall also yet come to this religious liberty, since it already exists in many German states in any case; but as yet we do not have it fully in Bavaria, at least our Lutheran Church does not have it. And why not? Because the Right Reverend General Synod of the year 1848 (which, however, did not assemble until February 1849) did not deem it salutary that the supreme episcopate over the Lutheran Church should be taken from the Roman Catholic king; it thought it would fall into far too great confusion and disturbance if there were no „royal“ Supreme Consistory, Consistory, Deanery, and no „royal“ parish office any more. Yes, they assert stiffly and firmly that this is precisely genuinely Lutheran, that the sovereign of the land should have and exercise the government over the Church; and they knew how to boast much of the benefits which our Church has received from the supreme episcopate of the Roman king (the kneeling affair, Redenbacher's deposition and like trifles they did not, of course, think of in this connection). So they begged the king to retain the church government, but yet to leave the Supreme Consistory as free room as possible and to grant it real independence, as is stated in Appendix II to the Constitutional Charter. What is one to say to such a resolution of a Lutheran synod? But of course, whoever knows the State Church of Bavaria could not expect otherwise. It is a wonder that the General Synod conducted itself only as it did. Many of those who for their part are faithful to the Lutheran Church and therefore hold closely and firmly to our good Confessions believed no otherwise than that a division must take place in the General Synod, since the most extreme principles were represented in it. You know, for example, the former pastor Liek in Konradsreuth, who is now dean in Kirchenlamitz, a thoroughly vulgar Rationalist (and there were still worse Rationalists than he among them) — and Mr. Assessor Hommel: what divergence in their views! How should one not in so agitated a time expect the coming forth of what was inwardly already separated — especially when an occasion for it is so definitely given as in the address drawn up by Pastor Löhe and signed by nearly 300 persons of clerical and lay station? (This address demanded chiefly the actual introduction of the Lutheran Confessional writings, hitherto pushed aside, into the rights due to them.) We signers of the address thought thus: either the General Synod will take up several points of the address, and one thereby gains a material ground on which one can then proceed further, or the whole crowd must divide over the demand for actual recognition of the symbolical books, so that the one crowd remains Lutheran, the other turns elsewhere, and thus the Church is purified. But the General Synod found yet a third course, and just that suited it, namely not to hear the address at all. Only in the last two hours of the very last session, when they had already debated some hours and were quite weary, was our petition still deliberated, and of ten points one and a half of the less essential were half and half accepted. What now was to be done? That was naturally the next question of the signers, who were seriously concerned for the welfare of our Church, and who had not addressed that address to the General Synod for pastime. Three weeks before Easter (1849) they came together in Nuremberg to deliberate on this question. Pastor Löhe had thrown light upon the whole General Synod in its conduct toward our petition, and in this exposition had especially emphasized how in our Church so wholly different a faith is tolerated that they would not even exclude from church fellowship the crowd of Friends of Light who had expressed their mind quite openly in a petition to the General Synod, even after the General Synod had been most particularly and urgently asked by us to do so. These and other evils, held together with those clear passages of Holy Scripture where it is commanded to avoid a heretical man (Tit. 3, 10), to depart from those who cause division and offense (Rom. 16, 17; 2 John 10; 2 Cor. 6, 14 ff.; 1 Tim. 6, 3. 4. 5), etc., moved us to the resolution to withdraw from the Bavarian State Church. Yet it was thought good not to carry out the withdrawal at once, but to take some further time, in order to take counsel with one's God the more diligently, to become the more certain of one's cause, and to carry out the important step with proper joyfulness of conscience.

On the Wednesday after Quasimodogeniti they intended to come together again to make the final resolution and then at once to carry it out also, and they did come together again on the appointed day — but the withdrawal did not come about, since a quite unexpected incident had occurred. The Erlangen theological faculty had heard of our intention and resolved at once to intervene. Through Professor Thomasius a conference was arranged between him and Professor Hofmann on the one side and Löhe on the other (whom, however, Pastor Müller of Immeldorf accompanied), which was held shortly before our second meeting in Nuremberg in the house of Mr. v. Tucher. There Thomasius declared that he agreed wholly and entirely with Löhe, except as to the withdrawal; one should by no means withdraw, and in order that there might be no need of it, he and Prof. Hofmann would induce the faculty to present a petition to the Supreme Consistory,