Volume I Early History of American Lutheranism and The Tennessee Synod By F. BENTE St. Louis, Mo. CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE 1919 (continued 3)

53. The Facts in the Case.—From the very beginning to the end of his activity in America the practise of Muhlenberg was not free from indifferentism and unionism. Already on his voyage across the ocean he had conducted services according to the Book of Common Prayer. (G., 322.) November 25, 1742, Muhlenberg had arrived in Philadelphia, and on December 28th of the same year he wrote in his journal: "In the afternoon I visited the English pastor of the Episcopal Church. He was very cordial, and informed me that he had always been a good friend of our Lutheran brethren, the Swedish missionaries, and desired to be on friendly terms also with me." (267.) In 1743 Muhlenberg signified his willingness to build a union church with the Reformed in case they were willing to shoulder their part of the expenses. (272.) In 1751 he reported from New York: "May 31, I visited Mr. Barclay, the most prominent pastor of the Anglican Church, whom the Archbishop has appointed commissioner of the province of New York. . . . The Dutch Reformed have at present four pastors. I called on the oldest of them, Mr. Du Bois, who received me cordially. Thereupon I visited the youngest of the Dutch Reformed Ministerium. I visited also the third member of this body, who, together with his wife, carried on a beautiful and edifying conversation, so that I was truly delighted." (421.) "June 28, I visited Mr. Pemberton, the pastor of the English Presbyterian congregation, for the first time. He was much pleased with my short call, and remarked that he had received a letter from Pastor Tennent in Philadelphia, who had mentioned my name and advised him to cultivate my company. Almost immediately he began to speak of the sainted Professor Francke, saying that he had read several of his Latin works. Besides this we had several other edifying conversations. Upon my departure he asked me to visit him frequently." (422.) "July 22, my host and I drove to the oldest Reformed pastor, who gave us a cordial reception. In the afternoon we visited one of the elders of my congregation. In the evening the younger Reformed pastor visited me." (425.) "On the 23d I again preached in Dutch on the opening verses of the fifth chapter of Matthew. The two Reformed pastors and a large number of people were present." (425.) "August 17, I preached a penitential sermon and had confession. The church was filled with Lutherans and Reformed, among whom was also the younger pastor." (428.) "August 21, the members of the congregation who live near by, several Reformed neighbors, and a number of friends of New York assembled to hear my farewell sermon at that place." (420.) "May 11, our Dutch congregation-members who live near by, and some Reformed neighbors, were invited to attend an hour of edification." (434.) "In the afternoon I bade farewell to the younger Reformed pastor." (439.) "Early on Tuesday morning the Reformed Pastor Schlatter came to my home and embraced me after the custom of our old and unfeigned love." (439.) "In the evening I was called to the six Reformed pastors who had arrived. I went and welcomed them with the words: 'Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.' July 30, I was taken to the pious English merchant, as he had some awakened souls with him. They sang a psalm, read a chapter from a devotional book, and in conclusion urged me to pray. After the dear souls had returned to their homes, I remained with him and had a very delightful and edifying conversation with him and his pious wife." (440.) Muhlenberg praises the Episcopalian Richard Peters as a "moderate theologian," possessed of a "catholic spirit," and reports in 1760: "On the ninth and tenth of August Mr. Richard Peters, secretary of the province and president of the Academy in Philadelphia, visited me in Providence. In the morning he attended our German service, with which, he said, he was greatly delighted. In the afternoon he himself delivered a very solid and edifying sermon to a large audience." (516.) After his removal to Philadelphia, in 1761, Muhlenberg wrote: "On Monday, March 16, I intended quietly to leave the city. However, Provost Wrangel as well as some of the elders accompanied me, the former as far as the home of Pastor Schlatter, where we were hospitably received and entertained for the night." (380.) On the services conducted at Barren Hill on Easter Monday, 1762, Muhlenberg reports as follows: "After my sermon Pastor Schlatter added a short admonition, impressing upon them what they had already heard." (517.) "On Monday, May 25, I went out in the forenoon to visit some English friends. As I happened to pass by the English High Church at eleven o'clock, I was called into the manse, where I found a numerous assembly of the honorable English missionaries, who were conducting their annual meeting. They took me to church with them, showed me unmerited honor, and permitted me to attend their session as a friend and witness." (380.) May 21, 1762, Muhlenberg noted in his diary: "At noon I was with Mr. R., who related with joy how he, Mr. D., and Provost Wrangel, together with the new Swedish pastor, Mr. Wicksel, and the Reformed pastor, Schlatter, had yesterday, on Ascension Day, attended the new church, where they had heard two splendid and edifying sermons in German and English delivered to two large audiences." (383.) October 16, 1763, he wrote: "Pastor Handschuh was called upon to bury a Reformed woman who died in childbirth; he delivered the sermon in the old Reformed church." On October 18, 1763, during the sessions of Synod, and at its request, Whitefield preached in the pulpit of Muhlenberg. In 1767 J. S. Gerock dedicated his new church in New York, "assisted by different High German and English Protestant pastors and teachers," H. M. Muhlenberg and Hartwick also preaching. (444.) When Muhlenberg dedicated his new Zion Church in Philadelphia, on June 25, 1769, the professors of the Academy as well as the Episcopalian and Presbyterian pastors were invited. The report says: "The second English pastor, Mr. Duchee, opened the services by reading the English prayers, the Prorector of the Academy offered an appropriate prayer, and Commissioner Peters delivered a splendid sermon on the song of the angels, Luke 2, whereupon Rector Muhlenberg, in the name of the corporation and congregation, thanked the honorable assembly, in English, for their favor and kindness in honoring this newly erected church and conducting a service there." May 27, 1770, Whitefield, upon invitation, also preached in the new church. (518.) Without a word of censure on the part of his father, or of protest on the part of Synod, Peter Muhlenberg, in 1772, at London, subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles and received Episcopal ordination, in order to be able to perform legal marriage ceremonies within his congregations in Virginia. Invited by the Presbyterian pastor, W. Tennent, Muhlenberg, Sr., preached in his church on two occasions while at Charleston, in 1774. (578.) At Savannah he preached in the union church of the Reformed Pastor Zuebli, and in the Lutheran church at Savannah he enjoyed the sermon of a Methodist pastor. (518.) At the church dedication in Pikestown, in 1775, he preached in German, and an Episcopalian, Mr. Currie, in English, etc.

54. Whitefield in Muhlenberg's Pulpit.—"The pastors of the first period of the Ministerium," says Dr. Jacobs, "were on friendly relations with Whitefield. Dr. Wrangel interested himself in securing for him an invitation to meet with the members of the Ministerium during the sessions of 1763. In urging this proposition, Wrangel did not forget the collections which Whitefield had made in Europe for the impoverished Salzburgers. The presence of a man who had pleaded eloquently in English pulpits for contributions to build Lutheran churches in Georgia, and with that eminent success which Benjamin Franklin has noted in a well-known passage in his autobiography, certainly deserved recognition, even apart from Whitefield's services in awakening life in the Church of England and in America. He was present at the examination of the children of St. Michael's Church before the synod, made a fervent prayer and an edifying address. On the next day he bade the synod farewell, and requested the prayers of its members. The next year he was in attendance at the funeral of Pastor Handschuh. In 1770 (May 27) he preached by special invitation in Zion Church." (286.) In his report, dated October 15, 1763, on the synod of the same year, Muhlenberg himself says: "It was also considered, whether we should not invite Mr. Whitefield and the two well-disposed preachers of the Episcopal Church for Monday and Tuesday, especially to the examination of the children. Among other reasons Dr. Wrangel mentioned the fact that Whitefield had assisted our poor suffering brethren in Georgia [Salzburgers] with collections. In the evening Dr. Wrangel took me to Mr. Whitefield, and in the name of the Ministerium we invited him together with the rector of the High Church, who was present." October 16, Muhlenberg wrote: "After the services Dr. Wrangel, Pastor Handschuh, and three trustees went to Mr. Whitefield and asked him if on the morrow he would attend our examination in the church, and speak a word of admonition to the children. He answered: Yes, if his weakness permitted, and such were God's gracious will." October 18, Muhlenberg wrote: "Mr. Whitefield ascended the pulpit, and said a hearty and powerful prayer. Hereupon he addressed himself to the children, delivering, with tears and deep emotion, a condescending sermon about pious children of the Old and New Testaments, together with some modern examples which he had himself experienced, and finally enjoined upon parents their duties. After this the children were examined by Dr. Wrangel, and then, in German, by me. Whitefield, however, being very weak in body, and the church being very crowded, we discontinued and closed with a piece of church music. The pastors and other delegates, the elders and deacons took dinner in the school, the old Mr. Tennent [Episcopalian], who was given the place of honor, delighting us with edifying conversation." October 19, Muhlenberg wrote: "At four o'clock Mr. George Whitefield visited our Ministerium in the school, bidding us an affectionate farewell, and requesting us to intercede for him before the throne of grace." Dr. Graebner remarks: "A misstep as serious as this, admitting an errorist like Whitefield to the pulpit of the local pastor and synodical president, such as was done at this synodical meeting, had, at least, not been made before the time of Wrangel." (383 ff.) Concerning his fellowship with Whitefield in 1770, Muhlenberg made the following entries in his journal: "Friday, May 25… Because I could not do otherwise, I wrote a few lines to Rev. Mr. Whitefield, stating that if he would preach for me on next Sunday night in Zion Church, it would be acceptable to me." "Sunday, May 27…. Early in the evening Zion Church was filled with people of all sorts of religion, both German and English. We two preachers went to Mr. Whitefield's lodging and took him with us to the church, which was so crowded that we had to take him in through the steeple-door…. He complained of a cold contracted at the morning service, and consequent hoarseness, but preached very acceptably from 2 Chron. 7, 1 on 'The Outer and the Inner Glory of the House of God.' He introduced some impressive remarks concerning our fathers—Francke and Ziegenhagen, etc." (Jacobs, 287.) At the First Lutheran Diet, Dr. C. P. Krauth explained: "Whitefield was an evangelist of forgotten or ignored doctrines of the Gospel; a witness excluded from many pulpits of his own church because of his earnestness in preaching the truth; in some sense a martyr. This invested him with interest in the eyes of our fathers, and his love to the Lutheran Church and his services to it made him very dear." (287.)

55. Experiencing the Consequences.—From what has been said it is evident that Muhlenberg's relations with the sects was not without reprehensible unionism. Even where, in such fellowship, syncretism was not directly practised, the proper confession of Lutheran truth was omitted. As with the Swedes in Delaware, fraternal intercourse proceeded on the silent understanding that the sore spot of doctrinal differences must be carefully avoided. For Lutherans, however, this was tantamount to a denial of the truth. Muhlenberg set an example the influence of which was all the more pernicious by reason of the high esteem in which he was held by the members of Synod, who revered him as a father. As late as 1866 the Pennsylvania Synod defended its intercourse with the Reformed Synod "as a measure introduced by the fathers in the time of Muhlenberg and Schlatter." And the unionistic practises indulged in by the General Synod throughout its history cannot but be viewed as the fruits of the tree first planted by the Halle emissaries. Nor could they fail to see the abyss into which such unionism must finally lead, as it was apparent already in the history of the Swedes. That Muhlenberg had a presentiment whither things were drifting appears from his warning in 1783 to J. L. Voigt not to open his pulpit to Methodist preachers. (516.) Indeed, Muhlenberg himself lived to see the first bitter fruits of his dalliance with the sects. Four months before his end, June 6, 1787, Franklin College, at Lancaster, was solemnly opened as a German High School and a union theological seminary for Lutherans, Reformed, and a number of other sects. H. E. Muhlenberg delivered the sermon at the opening exercises, which were attended by the entire synod. The name of the institution was chosen in view of the virtues and merits of Benjamin Franklin, who had contributed 200 Pounds. The College had forty-five trustees, consisting of 15 Lutherans, 15 Reformed, and 15 chosen from other communions. A director was to be chosen alternately from the Lutheran and from the Reformed Church. Among the first trustees were J. H. C. Helmuth and other Lutheran pastors. Two of the first four teachers were Lutherans: Pastor H. E. Muhlenberg, the first director, and Pastor F. W. Melsheimer. (515.) Dr. A. Spaeth, agreeing with W. J. Mann, says: "Sooner or later the whole Lutheran Church of America should and could unite on the position of Muhlenberg." (252.) We would not detract from the merit of Muhlenberg. The slogan of the American Lutheran Church, however, dare never be: "Back to Muhlenberg!" "Back to Halle!" but "Back to Wittenberg!" "Back to Luther! Back to Lutheran sincerity, determination, and consistency both in doctrine and practise!"

TRAINING OF MINISTERS AND TEACHERS NEGLECTED.

56. Parish Schools Cultivated.—One cannot possibly say too much in praise of the missionary zeal on the part of Muhlenberg and his associates and of their unceasing efforts to establish new mission-posts and organize new congregations, and to obtain additional laborers from Europe, notably from Halle. In a large measure this applies also to their labors in the interest of establishing parochial schools. In fact, wherever we read of early Lutherans in America, especially German Lutherans, there we also hear the cry for schools and schoolteachers to instruct the children. Comparatively weak efforts to establish schools for their children were made by the Swedes in Delaware. At Christina a teacher was employed in 1699; in Wicaco Teacher Hernboom began a school in 1713. The minutes of the Pennsylvania Synod of 1762 record: "In the Swedish congregations the Swedish schools have for several generations been regrettably neglected; Dr. Wrangel, however, has started an English school in one of his congregations in which the Lutheran Catechism is read in an English translation." Acrelius, who had been provost of the Swedes in Delaware, wrote in 1759: "Forty years back our people scarcely knew what a school was. The first Swedish and Holland settlers were a poor, weak, and ignorant people, who brought up their children in the same ignorance." The result was great ignorance among the Swedes. Jacobs: "There seems to have been an entire dearth of laymen capable of intelligently participating in the administration of the affairs of the congregation until we come to Peter Kock. Eneberg found at Christina that 'of the vestrymen and elders of the parish there was scarcely any one who could write his own name.'" (104.) The Salzburgers had a school in Ebenezer, and later a second school in the country. At the beginning Bolzius and Gronau gave daily instruction in religion, the one four, the other three hours daily. In 1741 Ortmann and an English teacher instructed the youth at Ebenezer. The Palatinates in New York began with the building, not only of a church, but also of a school in 1710, the very year in which they had settled at West Camp. In New York there was a schoolhouse as well as a church, and a "schoolkeeper" (Schulhalter) was employed. When the teacher disappeared, the schoolhouse was rented out, but Berkenmeyer taught the children in his home for five months in a year, three times a week. Also in North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, etc., parish schools were established, and the great need of them explained to and urged upon the people by the conferences and ministers. In Pennsylvania there were several German schools even before the arrival of Muhlenberg; as a rule, however, the teachers were incompetent or immoral, or both. (247.) When, in 1734, Daniel Weisiger, one of the representatives of the congregations at Philadelphia, New Hanover, and Providence, made his appearance in Halle, he asked for both an able and pious preacher and a schoolteacher. In the beginning Muhlenberg himself took charge of the school. In January, 1743, he wrote: "Because there is a great ignorance among the youth of this land and good schoolteachers are so very rare, I shall be compelled to take hold of the work myself. Those who possibly could teach the youth to read are lazy and drunken, compile a sermon from all manner of books, run about, preach, and administer the Lord's Supper for hard cash. Miserable and disgusting, indeed! I announced to the people [at Providence] to send first their oldest children for instruction, as I intended to remain with the congregation eight days at a time. On Monday some of the parents brought their children. It certainly looks depressing when children of seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty years come with the Abc-Book. Yet I am delighted that they are possessed of so great a desire to learn something," etc. "In Providence," Muhlenberg wrote later on, "I have a splendid young man, who keeps school in winter, and in summer earns his living by doing manual labor." In 1745 J. N. Kurtz and J. H. Schaum were sent from Halle to take charge of the youth. One of the chief questions to engage the attention of the first convention of the Pennsylvania Synod, in 1748, was: "What is the condition of the parish schools?" Brunnholtz reported: In his home at Philadelphia, Schaum, whom he supported, had been keeping school for three and a half years; since Easter there had been no school, as Schaum was needed at another place; however, before winter would set in, he and his elders would do their best in this matter. Germantown, continued Brunnholtz, had two teachers, Doeling, a former Moravian, being one of them, whose schools were attended by many children, some of them non-Lutherans. Another school near Germantown with twenty children had been closed for lack of a teacher. Muhlenberg stated: In Providence there had been a small school in the past year. New Hanover had a fair school, Jacob Loeser being teacher. Though a teacher could be had for the filials Saccum and Upper Milford, there were no schools there. When the elders hereupon explained that the distances were too great, Synod advised to change off monthly with the teacher, and demanded an answer in this matter in the near future. Kurtz promised to begin a school at Tulpehocken in winter. Handschuh reported: In Lancaster the school was flourishing; Teacher Schmidt and his assistant Vigera had instructed 70 children. At the meeting of Synod in 1753 the pastors complained: "The schools within our congregations are in a very poor state, since able and faithful teachers are rare, salaries utterly insufficient, the members too widely scattered and in most cases poor, roads too bad in winter, and the children too urgently needed on the farms in summer." (G., 496.) According to the report of the Synod held in 1762 there were parochial schools in New Providence, one main school and several smaller ones; in New Hanover; in Philadelphia, where a public examination during the sessions of Synod exhibited the efficiency of the school; in Vincent Township, a school with a good teacher and 60 children; in Reading, a school with more than 80 children; in Tulpehocken, a school of 40 children; in Heidelberg, a school of 30 children; in Northkeel, 30 children, taught by Pastor Kurtz; in Lancaster, a school of 60 children in summer and 90 in winter, etc. (495.)

57. Dearth of Pastors and Schoolteachers.—From the very beginning one of the greatest obstacles to the spread and healthy growth of the Lutheran Church in America was the dearth of well-trained, able, and truly Lutheran pastors and schoolteachers. And the greatest of all mistakes of the early builders of the American Zion was the failure to provide for the crying need of laborers by the only proper and effectual means—the establishment of American seminaries for the training of truly Lutheran pastors and teachers qualified to serve in American surroundings. The growing indifferentism and deterioration of the Lutheran ministry as well as of the Lutheran congregations was a necessary consequence of this neglect, which resulted in an inadequate service, rendered, to a large extent, by incompetent or heterodox ministers. Dr. Mann was right when he maintained in his Plea for the Augsburg Confession of 1856, that the doctrinal aberrations of the Definite Platform theologians were due, in part, to the fact that S. S. Schmucker and other ministers had received their theological education at Princeton and other non-Lutheran schools. The constantly increasing need, coupled with the insufficient preparation of the men willing to serve, led to the pernicious system of licensing, which for many decades became a permanent institution in Pennsylvania and other States. In 1857 the General Synod adopted the following report: "The committee on the Licensure System respectfully report that the action of this body requesting the several District Synods to take into consideration and report their judgment on the proposed alteration or abolition of our Licensure System has been responded to by fifteen synods. Out of this number all the synods, excepting three, have decided against a change. Your committee have to report the judgment of the Church to be decidedly against any change of our long-established regulations on this subject, and therefore deem it unnecessary to enter on the discussion of the merits of the subject, in this report, and propose the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That the great majority of our Synods having expressed their judgment against any change in our Licensure System, your committee be released from the further consideration of the subject." (20.) The great dearth of ministers accounted for this action. Even before 1727 there were in Pennsylvania more than 50,000 Germans. In 1751 Benjamin Franklin expressed his apprehension that "the Palatine boors" would Germanize Pennsylvania. In 1749 more than 12,000 German emigrants arrived. In 1750 the Germans in Pennsylvania numbered about 80,000, almost one-half of the inhabitants of the State. And more than one-half of these were considered Lutherans. In 1811, however, when this number had greatly increased, the Pennsylvania Synod reported only 64 ministers, of whom 34 were ordained, 26 were licensed to preach, and 4 were catechists. The number of ministers sent from Germany had been augmented by such as had been tutored by pastors in America. Chr. Streit and Peter Muhlenberg, for example, were instructed by Provost Wrangel and Muhlenberg, Sr. Another pupil of Muhlenberg was Jacob van Buskirk. H. Moeller, D. Lehman, and others had studied under J. C. Kunze. Jacob Goering, J. Bachman, C. F. L. Endress, J. G. Schmucker, Miller, and Baetis were pupils of J. H. Ch. Helmuth. H. A. Muhlenberg, who subsequently became prominent in politics, and B. Keller were educated in Franklin College. Later on some attended Princeton and other Reformed schools to prepare themselves for the Lutheran ministry! To make matters worse, the ministers who, toward the close of the eighteenth century, came from Germany were no longer adapted for their surroundings, which were rapidly becoming English. Besides, Halle and the other German universities had grown rationalistic. According to the Report of the General Synod in 1823 the Lutheran Church in America numbered 900 churches with only 175 ministers. (9.) The same report states: "The ancient and venerable Synod of Pennsylvania is rapidly increasing both in members and in ministers, and we trust that much good is doing in the name of our blessed Savior Jesus. From the minutes of the session of the present year, which was held at Lebanon, it appears that the body consists of 74 ministers, who have the pastoral charge of upwards of 278 churches; that between the session of 1822 and 1823 they admitted to membership by baptism 6,445, admitted to sacramental communion by confirmation 2,750, that the whole number of communicants is 24,794, and that there are under the superintendence of the different churches 208 congregational schools." (11.) In 1843, according to the Lutheran Almanac for that year, the General Synod numbered 424 ordained and licensed pastors and 1,374 congregations with 146,303 communicants. This averaged three congregations for every pastor, some serving as many as six, eight, or even twelve, giving the majority of the congregations one service every four weeks, and to many only one service every eight weeks. (_Kirchl. Mitt. 1843, No. 11.) In 1853 about 9,000 Lutheran congregations in the United States were served by only 900 pastors. (Lutheraner, 10, 31.) Thus, as the years rolled on, the question became increasingly pressing: "Where shall we find pastors for our children?" Yet, while the Lutheran ministers, as a rule, were most zealous and self-sacrificing in their labors to serve and gather the scattered Lutherans, organize congregations, and establish parochial schools, the early history of American Lutheranism does not record a single determined effort anywhere to provide in a systematic way for the training of preachers and teachers, such as were required by American conditions and surroundings. We hear of an orphan home founded by the Salzburgers in 1737 with three boys and eight girls, but nowhere of a seminary turning out preachers and teachers for the maintenance and upbuilding of the Church. It was in 1864, more than 120 years after the first appearance of Muhlenberg in Pennsylvania, that the "Mother Synod" of the Lutheran Church in America founded a seminary in Philadelphia.

58. Hopeless Situation.—Several years after his arrival in America, Muhlenberg realized the need and conceived the thought of founding an orphan asylum with a preachers' seminary in connection; and in 1748 he had acquired the ground for this purpose. In his letters to Halle he repeatedly declared that it would be impossible to supply "the almost innumerable multitude of German Lutherans" with pastors for any length of time without a seminary in America. In one of these letters he says: "An institution of this kind does not appear to be impossible. And it seems to be necessary, because, as the past experience has taught us, the calling of well-tried and able preachers from Germany, though indeed of especial advantage, and needed also in the future, at least for a considerable time, is connected with so many difficulties and such great expense that it will be impossible to send over as many from Germany as will be required in order to provide sufficiently for all congregations." (504.) In 1769 Muhlenberg broached the matter to the convention of the Ministerium, and Synod repeatedly considered the question. But nothing materialized. Indeed, J. C. Kunze, who later became Muhlenberg's son-in-law, finally did succeed in opening a preparatory school; lack of funds, however, compelled him to close it during the Revolutionary War. Kunze, Helmuth, and J. F. Schmidt now pinned their hopes to the "German Institute" of the Pennsylvania University, whose professors were Lutherans from 1779 to 1822. Helmuth instructed every day from eight to twelve and from two to five o'clock. But the "German Institute" did not turn out any Lutheran pastors, as the curriculum contained no course in theology. Kunze writes: "It is true, I was professor of Oriental languages in Philadelphia. However, I had but six scholars, and I doubt if one of them will study theology. And who would instruct them, in case they should desire to study theology? We did not have time to devote a single hour to this subject in Philadelphia." In 1785 Helmuth and Schmidt wrote: "There is nothing we pastors desire more than a German educational institution, where young men could be prepared directly for the service of the Church. To be sure, we have part in the university located here, and also make use of it. But languages and philosophy only are taught here, from which our churches and schools derive no benefit." The hopelessness of the situation is further revealed by the following letter which Helmuth addressed to the synod assembled in Lancaster, Pa., 1784: "Brethren, we are living in a sad time. My heart weeps over the awful decay of Christendom. I readily acknowledge my share of the guilt that God seems to hide His countenance from us, permitting the doors to stand wide open, for the spirit of lies [rationalism] to enter and destroy the vineyard of the Lord. You will learn from the report from Halle how the swine are uprooting the garden of Christ in Germany. . . . Another thing, dearest brethren, how shall we in the future supply our congregations with pastors? Where shall we find ministers to meet our need, which will increase from time to time! From Germany? Possibly a secret Arian, Socinian, or Deist? For over there everything is full of this vermin. God forbid! Under present circumstances, no one from Germany! We ourselves must put our hands to the plow. God will call us to account for it, and will let our children suffer for it, if we do not wake up, and hazard something for the weal of immortal souls."—And how did they now seek to provide help? Franklin College was founded in conjunction with the German Reformed and other sects! Helmuth and other Lutheran pastors were among the trustees of the institution. In an appeal to the Lutheran congregations they say: "Where will you at last find pastors and teachers if you do not send your children to college? . . . Think you that your churches and schools can exist without them? Either your children will have to content themselves with the poorest kind of men, or else surrender language and religion, for which you have laid the foundation, thus loading a great guilt upon yourselves. Dear friends, German church-life can impossibly continue to exist as it has hitherto existed in many places. In a few years the churches you already have will be deserted. And what will then become of the increased number of Germans dwelling in your midst? Are there not already a great number of localities where the inhabitants hear no sermon for six to eight weeks, and where the young grow up like the savages?" (515. 530.) The Synod of 1818 also staked its hopes on Franklin College, which, however, was eking out a pitiable existence, and finally became the exclusive property of the Reformed. The dire need was apparent to all; the true way out of the difficulty, however, no one saw nor wanted to see. And the reason? Avarice on the part of the congregations, and a lack of initiative and Lutheran earnestness and determination on the part of the pastors. Nor did the seminaries founded in the first part of the nineteenth century (Hartwick Seminary, established in 1815; Gettysburg Seminary, in 1825; and the seminary of the South Carolina Synod, in 1829, at Lexington) meet the needs of the Church, either as to the quantity or the quality of the candidates required for the Lutheran ministry. In a letter addressed to the General Synod, assembled 1827 at Gettysburg, Dr. Hazelius wrote: "Our [Hartwick] Seminary has been established since the year 1815; during which time 11 young men have received their theological education here, 10 of whom are now actively engaged as laborers in the vineyard of our Lord; but one is prevented by disease from participating in the labors of his brethren." (20.) All told, 10 preachers produced by Lutheran seminaries in the United States till 1827! Besides, in reality these seminaries were not Lutheran, but unionistic and, in a degree, Reformed schools.

DETERIORATION OF MOTHER SYNOD.

59. Descent Increasingly Swift.—The Lutheran Church has always held that, as faith cannot and must not be coerced, the broadest tolerance as to matters of conscience and religion should govern the policy of the State everywhere. On the other hand, the Lutheran Church maintains that, as truth is absolutely intolerant of error, and error is the direct denial of truth, the Christian Church dare not in any shape or manner give recognition to false teaching, but, on the contrary, is bound always to reject it and to confess God's truth alone. Indifferentism as to false doctrine and practise has ever proved to be the most deadly foe of true Lutheranism, which, essentially, is but another name for consistent Christianity. Lutheranism and doctrinal indifferentism are just as destructive mutually as are truth and falsehood. Also the history of the Pennsylvania Synod offers ample proof of this law. In the days of Muhlenberg, Lutherans began to doubt that their doctrinal position, as presented in the Lutheran Symbols, alone is of divine right in the Christian Church, and alone in complete keeping with the Scriptures. Then they began to defend themselves as also being in the right and standing for truth; then, to apologize for their presence in America; then, to be ashamed of themselves and publicly to deny the distinctive tenets of Lutheranism; and, finally, to oppose its doctrines, champion their counterpart, and practically embrace sectarianism. Muhlenberg had lived to see the beginning of the end of true Lutheranism when Franklin College was opened. The descent was increasingly swift. In 1792 the confession of the Lutheran Symbols was omitted in the new constitution of the Ministerium. And when, under the influence of Quitman, the New York Ministerium became rationalistic, the Pennsylvania Synod made no protest, administered no rebuke, and did not sever its fraternal relations with it. Moreover, in a measure, they opened their own doors to Rationalism; the German language was regarded as being of greater import than faithful adherence to the Lutheran Confessions; and refuge against the inroads of Rationalism and the English language was sought in a union with the German Reformed and the German Moravians. The utter degeneration of the Pennsylvania Synod appears from the new Agenda, concerning which Synod resolved in 1818 that it be introduced in all German congregations of the Ministerium. In this Book there were embodied also forms designed to satisfy the Rationalists. Two of the forms for administering the Sacrament of Baptism contained no confession of faith. The confession to the Lutheran Church was stricken from the form for Confirmation. In two of the forms for the administration of the Lord's Supper the Union formula of distribution was employed, viz., "Jesus says: Take and eat—Jesus says: Take and drink ye all of it," etc. The second form contained the following general invitation: "In the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Master, I say to all who acknowledge Him as their Savior, and are determined to be His faithful followers: You are welcome at this Feast of Love." (669.) The second formula for burials had a rationalistic tang. And the formulas of ordination and licensure no longer demanded adherence to the Lutheran Confessions. (669.)

60. Intrenching behind the German Language.—The Christian Church, hence also the Lutheran Church, views every language, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, as well as German and English, not as an end, but always as a means only toward furthering her real end, the regeneration and salvation of souls. According to Loehe's Kirchliche Mitteilungen of 1845, No. 5, a German emigrant wrote shortly after his arrival in America: "I cannot sufficiently thank God for the grace bestowed upon me; for when I for the first time heard the language of Canaan [English], the language of the New Jerusalem, I was immediately and deeply moved by the Spirit of God and was caught like tinder." This was certainly not the attitude of the German Lutheran ministers of the Pennsylvania Synod, some of whom, going to the other extreme, were in danger of viewing the English, as compared with the German, as impregnated with the spirit of rationalism and infidelity. Riding, as it were, on the language, rationalism had made its public entry into the New York Ministerium. The real cause, however, was not the language, but the indifferentism and unionism prevailing within this body, which long ago had paved the way for, indeed, had itself bred, religious unbelief. However, mistaking what was merely accidental and a concomitant for the chief and real cause of the calamity in the New York Ministerium, prominent German ministers of the Pennsylvania Synod, in order to guard against a similar turn of events in their own midst, frantically opposed the use of the English language in the Synod and her congregations, and placed such emphasis on the German as made it an end per se peculiar to the Lutheran Church rather than a means employed wherever and whenever the conditions call for it in order to attain her real and supreme object—the saving of souls. Men like J. H. C. Helmuth and J. F. Schmidt, in a way, identified English and Rationalism, German and Lutheranism (that is to say, unionistic Evangelicalism). Lamenting the inroads that Rationalism was making also in Lutheran congregations, they wrote: "But now the Protestant churches are threatened by a terrible storm, which is not the mere consequence of the natural course of things, but a sign of this time, and it will soon despoil them of the treasures of their Church together with all their happiness, unless teachers and parents will counteract it with united strength. Almost universally, especially in the cities and at the boundaries, they are beginning to educate the children exclusively in the English language, and, in a manner for which they will not be able to answer, to neglect them as regards the German services. This is the consequence of the indifference and the disregard of sound doctrine which, in the present hour of great temptation, is spreading over the face of the earth." But instead of stemming the tide of Rationalism by returning to Lutheran faithfulness, they ignored the Lutheran Confessions and intrenched themselves behind the German language and the "brethren" in the German Reformed and German Moravian churches. The general church-prayer of the Agenda of 1786, universally introduced in the congregations of the Pennsylvania Synod, contained the passage: "And since it has pleased Thee [God] to transform this State [Pennsylvania] into a blooming garden, the deserts into delightful meadows, grant that we may not forget our nation, but strive to have our dear youth educated in such a manner that German churches and schools may not only be maintained, but brought to a flourishing condition, ever increasing." (404.) In 1812 the Evangelisches Magazin appeared "under the auspices of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod," Pastors Helmuth and Schmidt being the editors. Its avowed purpose, however, was not to represent Lutheranism, but specifically to bolster up the cause of the German and to oppose the introduction of the English language. The "Proposal to Synod" concerning the new German paper states: "1. We want to aid the German language as much as we can, because we are convinced that, with her language, our Church will lose unspeakably much, and, finally, for the most part, even her very existence under her [Lutheran] name. 2. We know the days of the great apostasy in Europe. . . . Also this devouring monster could be counteracted by a well-arranged Evangelisches Magazin." (544.) In 1813 the Magazin contained a series of articles urging the Reformed and Lutherans to stand together against all attempts at introducing English. The English language, it is said, is too poor to furnish an adequate translation of the German prayers and hymns and books of devotion. English congregations could not remain either Lutheran or Reformed, because "our religious writings are all German." Revealing his Utopian dreams, the writer continues: "What would Philadelphia be in forty years if the Germans there were to remain German, and retain their language and customs? It would not be forty years until Philadelphia would be a German city, just as York and Lancaster are German counties. . . . What would be the result throughout Pennsylvania and Northern Maryland in forty or fifty years? An entirely German State, where, as formerly in Germantown, the beautiful German language would be used in the legislative halls and the courts of justice." (Jacobs, 330.) In 1805 the Pennsylvania Synod resolved that "this Ministerium must remain a German-speaking body"—a resolution which, especially in Philadelphia, merely served to increase the humiliating and damaging language-strife which had begun several decades before.

UNIONISM IN THE ASCENDENCY.

61. Seeking Refuge with the Reformed.—In their struggle against Rationalism and the English language the German Lutherans of Pennsylvania sought help in an alliance with the German Reformed and the Moravians. Fellowship between them became increasingly intimate. "Luther and Zwingli," they boasted harmoniously, "opened the eyes of the world!" "After all," they kept on saying, "there is but one faith, one Baptism, one Supper, no matter how much the Lutheran and Reformed views on it may be at variance." (539.) One of the objects of the German Evangelical Magazine evidently was to bring about a more intimate union between all German Evangelical bodies. For this reason it was not called "Lutheran," but "Evangelical." The preface to the first volume declared: "Our undertaking would be greatly furthered if the brethren of other communions would beautify it with their pious contributions, and also solicit subscriptions. The brethren of the Moravian Unity have expressed their satisfaction with this imperfect work, and assured us of their abiding love in this point." (544.) In view of the celebration of the Reformation Jubilee, the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, at York, June 2, 1817, resolved that the German Reformed, Moravian, Episcopal, and Presbyterian churches be invited by our President to take part with us in the festival of the Reformation. In the following year the unionistic and rationalistic Agenda characterized above was adopted by the Ministerium. A committee was also appointed to confer with the German Reformed, and to devise plans for utilizing Franklin College as a theological seminary, in order to prepare ministers for both denominations. In 1819, at Lancaster, Pa., Synod again considered the proposition of founding a joint seminary at Lancaster, and appropriated the sum of $100 for this purpose on condition that the Reformed Synod set aside an equal amount. A committee was also appointed to confer with a similar committee of the Reformed, and to draw up the necessary plans for the seminary. During this time, especially in the period of 1817 to 1825, prominent men of the Pennsylvania Synod considered and advocated plans for an organic "general union of our Church in this country with the Evangelical Reformed Church." (685.) The Pennsylvania minutes of 1822 contain a notice according to which Endress and W. A. Muhlenberg were among the chief advocates of this movement. Many, especially in the Pennsylvania and North Carolina synods, regarded and zealously urged the union of all Lutheran synods in a General Synod as a step in this direction, viz., union with the Reformed. Graebner says: "When all the Lutherans had been organized into one general body, and had grown accustomed to marching together, one might also hope to experience that when the command for the greater union would be given, the entire Lutheran people, now freed from Lutheranism, would march in stately procession to the goal of Schober's Morning Star [union of all Evangelical churches]. This was evidently the policy and ulterior object when, at Harrisburg, 1818, the Pennsylvania Synod resolved that 'the officers of Synod be a standing correspondence committee to bring about, if possible, a union with the other Lutheran synods.'" (685.) Viewed in its historical context (the favorable deliberations and resolutions on the union seminary, the union hymn-book, etc.), this resolution admits of no other interpretation. When, therefore, the organization of the General Synod seemed, in the opinion of many, to interfere with and threaten the projected union with the Reformed, the Pennsylvania Synod promptly withdrew from this body, in 1823. Says Jacobs: "The form of the opposition [to the General Synod] was that the General Synod interfered with the plans that had been projected for a closer union with the Reformed, and the establishment of a Lutheran-Reformed theological seminary. Congregations in Lehigh County petitioned the synod, for this reason, to 'return to the old order of things'; and the synod, in the spirit of charity [?] toward its congregations, in order that nothing might interrupt the mutual fraternal love that subsisted between the brethren, consented, by a vote of seventy-two to nine, to desert the child which it had brought into being." (361.)

62. Union Reformation Jubilee of 1817.—At York, June 2, 1817, the Pennsylvania Synod resolved to celebrate the tercentenary of the Reformation together with the Reformed, the Episcopalians, etc. Invitations were extended accordingly. In his answer of October 14, 1817, Bishop William White of the Episcopal Church wrote to Pastor Lochman, expressing his delight at the prospect of taking part in the prospective celebration. He said: "I received the letter with which you honored me, dated July 23, 1817. In answer I take occasion to inform you that it will give me great satisfaction to join with the reverend ministers and with the whole body of the Lutheran Church, in this city, on the day appointed, in returning thanks to Almighty God for the beginning of the blessed Reformation in the three-hundredth year preceding, and in raising up for that purpose the great and good man who has transmitted to your Church his name, and whose praise is in all the churches of the Reformation. This occasion must, of course, be the more welcome to me on account of the agreement in doctrine which has always been considered as subsisting between the Lutheran churches and the Church of England, the mother of that of which I am a minister." (Jacobs, 356.) In his sermon at Frederick, Md., D. F. Schaeffer declared that it is noteworthy that both Luther and Calvin "were agreed on all points, with the exception of one which was of minor importance." The congregation sang according to the tune of "Wie schoen leuchtet der Morgenstern": "One hundred years, thrice told this day, By heavenly grace truth's radiant ray Beamed through the Reformation; Yea, glorious as Aurora's light Dispels the gloomy mists of night, Dawn'd on the world salvation. Luther! Zwingli! Joined with Calvin! From error's sin The church to free Restored religious liberty." In Yorktown a German cantata was sung from which we quote, according to the original, as follows: "Chor: Heute vor dreihundert Jahr, Strahlte Licht aus Gottesthron, Durch die Reformation. Luther, Deutschlands hoechste Zier, Stund der Kirche Jesu fuer. Solo: Aber welch ein Widerstand! Solo: Luther war mit Gott verwandt. Duetto: Seiner Lehre heller Schein, Drang in tausend Herzen ein, Drang in tausend Herzen ein. Pause: Zwingel kam Und Calvin, Traten auf in Christi Sinn; Duetto: Und verbreiten Licht und Heil Segensvoll in ihrem Teil. Ganzer Chor: Millionen feiern heut', Dankbar froh' im hoeh'ren Ton, Dieses Fest dem Menschensohn." (G., 665.)

63. Reformed and Lutheran Minutes on Lancaster Seminary.—From 1817 to 1825 the Synod of Pennsylvania and the German Reformed Church were engaged in devising plans and adopting measures looking to the establishment of a united theological seminary for the education of the ministers of both the Reformed and Lutheran Churches. According to the minutes of the two bodies the respective actions taken were as follows: Minutes of the German Reformed Synod, 1817: "The committee on the founding of a literary institution reported further, recommending that two committees be appointed, consisting of three persons each, the one to confer with a committee of the New York Synod [Dutch Reformed] and the other with the Lutheran Synod. Resolved, That the Rev. Messrs. Pomp and Saml. Helffenstein be the committee to the New York Synod, and the Rev. Messrs. Hendel, Hoffmeier, and Wack, Sr., the committee to the Lutheran Synod." (11.) Minutes of Pennsylvania Synod, 1818: "At this point, Revs. H. Hoffmeier, E. Wack, and W. Hendel appeared before the synod as a committee from the Reformed Synod of this State, and presented the following communication in writing, namely: An extract from the minutes of the Reformed Synod held at York, September 9, 1817. Mr. Hoffmeier having explained this whole subject more particularly to Synod, it was thereupon resolved, That a committee be appointed to confer with our esteemed brethren of the Reformed Synod in respect to the subject under consideration. The Messrs. J. George Schmucker, Conrad Jaeger, and H. A. Muhlenberg were named as this committee." "The committee appointed yesterday to confer with the committee of the Reformed Synod, and to make inquiry as to the way in which a union seminary for the education of young men for the ministerial office in both churches could be best established, presented the following report: '1. That they have attended to the duty assigned them, and have had under consideration the fact that in the city of Lancaster there is an institution already in existence, known by the name of Franklin College. … 2. That the committee greatly regret that this institution has hitherto been neglected, and consequently the object to which it was originally devoted by the State has altogether failed of attainment. 3. That the committee has examined the charter of said institution with care, and finds it necessary to recommend that the president thereof be instructed to make arrangements for holding a meeting of all its trustees. 4. That Messrs. Hoffmeier and Endress see to it that such a meeting be held. 5. That a committee be appointed by both synods, who shall conjointly prepare a plan setting forth how this institution can be best adapted to the accomplishment of the purpose aforementioned.' The above report was received with general favor, and Messrs. Schmucker, Lochman, Geissenhainer, Sr., Endress, and Muhlenberg were appointed the committee provided for in section five of the report." (7. 8.) Minutes of German Reformed Synod, 1818: "The committee which was appointed to confer with a committee of the Lutheran Synod in reference to the founding of a theological school reported that they attended the Lutheran Synod of last year, and were received in a very fraternal manner; and that that Synod has appointed a committee to confer after the present meeting with a committee of the Reformed Synod on any subjects relating to the school, and to submit something definite; and they proposed that a similar committee be appointed. The proposition of the committee was accepted, and Revs. J. W. Hoffmeier, F. Herman, Sr., Wm. Hendel, Thos. Pomp, and S. Helffenstein were appointed such committee." At the same meeting a committee which had been appointed to confer with a similar committee from the Reformed Dutch Church, in reference to uniting with it in establishing a theological seminary, reported, stating that, inasmuch as negotiations were in progress with reference to uniting with other Germans in Pennsylvania, who have a common interest in property voted to them by the State Legislature for the support of a German institution [at Lancaster], nothing definite could at present be done in the matter. (6.) Minutes of Pennsylvania Synod, 1819: "Pastor Endress made a verbal report in behalf of the committee appointed the previous year to confer with a committee of the Reformed Synod in regard to the matter of Franklin College in Lancaster. Resolved, That the sum of $100 be appropriated out of our synodical treasury toward the support of the college in Lancaster, provided the same be done by the Reformed Synod. Resolved, That a committee be appointed on our part who shall, at the next meeting of the Reformed Synod in Lancaster, in conjunction with a committee from this latter body, draw up a plan for a theological seminary. Resolved, That the Pastors Schmucker, Endress, Lochman, Muhlenberg, and Ernst constitute said committee. Resolved, That, through Mr. Endress, fifty copies of the minutes of synod of this year be forwarded to the Reformed Synod, shortly to convene at Lancaster." (15.) Minutes of Reformed Synod, 1819: "Proposed and resolved that a committee of five be appointed to confer with a committee of the Lutheran Synod in reference to the founding of a union theological institution, with authority to devise the plan necessary for the purpose. The committee consists of Revs. Hoffmeier, Hendel, Pomp, Becker, and Saml. Helffenstein." "The committee of the Lutheran and Reformed Synods to consider the matter relating to a theological seminary have prepared a plan for this purpose, and carefully examined the same, and found that such a theological seminary would be not only exceedingly useful for our youth preparing for the ministerial office, but also can easily be established. The committee, therefore, submit this plan to the Rev. Synod, and, at the same time, request the Rev. Synod to have the plan printed, in order that it may be circulated among the members of both synods, to afford each one an opportunity to examine it carefully for himself, because the time for this purpose is at present too short. The committee of the Rev. Lutheran Synod proposes to pay half the expenses of printing, and recommended that two hundred copies thereof be printed." "It was proposed and resolved, that fifty copies of the proceedings of the present Synod be transmitted to the Rev. Lutheran Synod as an evidence of our gratitude and mutual respect." (7. 19.) Minutes of Pennsylvania Synod, Lancaster, May 28, 1820: "The president of synod made a verbal report in behalf of the committee that had been appointed, in conjunction with a committee of the Reformed Synod, last September at Lancaster to draw up and publish a plan for a union seminary. From this report it appears that the members of our committee were not all present; that the joint committee did actually prepare a plan; that the printing of the same was entrusted to Revs. Endress and Hoffmeier, but that this duty was not attended to. Dr. Endress arose and made a long speech in defense of himself, referring to a number of local reasons and certain misunderstandings that influenced him to omit the publication of the plan. To this it was replied that the reasons given by him were not altogether satisfactory. Candidate Schnee arose and gave synod an account of an institution located at Middletown, Pa., known as 'The Fry's Orphans' Home.' He awakened the joyful hope that by the blessing of the Lord it might be possible at some future time to establish at that place a theological seminary for the Lutheran Church in this country. Dr. Lochman arose and made a powerful speech in favor of establishment of a theological seminary, and of supporting the college at Lancaster. Resolved, That a committee be appointed to attend the meeting of the Reformed Synod shortly to be held at Hagerstown; that Revs. D. F. Schaeffer and B. Kurtz constitute said committee." (19. 20.) Minutes of Pennsylvania Synod, Chambersburg, 1821: "Revs. Hoffman and Rahausen, deputies of the German Reformed Synod, took seats as advisory members. Resolved, That Rev. Mr. Denny, pastor of the Presbyterian church at Chambersburg, be acknowledged as an advisory member of this synodical assembly. The committee to examine the protocol of the German Reformed General Synod reported that they examined said protocol, and found the following items which may require to be considered at this meeting: 1. That Messrs. Schaeffer and Kurtz, appointed as our delegates to the Reformed Synod at our last year's meeting, were received as advisory members by the Reformed Synod. Resolved, That this Synod sees in this action evidence of the love of those whom we acknowledge as brethren, and that it is prepared always, as heretofore, to reciprocate this kindness. 2. That Revs. Hoffman and Rahausen were appointed delegates by the Reformed Synod to attend our present synodical meeting. Resolved, That Pastors Muhlenberg and Knoske attend the next meeting of the Reformed Synod at Reading as delegates from this Synod." (6. 16 f.) In 1820 the Pennsylvania Synod entered upon its wild scheme to found a seminary at Frederick, Md., with Dr. Milledoller as professor, with $2,000 salary. This stopped all other negotiations for the time being. Dr. Milledoller held the call under consideration two years, and then declined. He went to New Brunswick immediately after that, and Col. Rutger's money went with him to that place, which, it was understood, would go to whatever place Dr. Milledoller would go. (Lutheran Observer, Sept., 1881.) The fact that nothing tangible resulted from the movement of uniting the Lutheran and Reformed synods and of establishing a union seminary was not due in the least to a growing confessionalism on the part of the Pennsylvania Synod, for at that time such was not in evidence anywhere.

TYPICAL REPRESENTATIVES OF SYNOD.

64. C. F. L. Endress Denounces Form of Concord.—Among the better class of Lutherans prominent in the Pennsylvania Synod during the decades immediately preceding and following the year 1800 were such men as J. B. Schmucker, H. A. Muhlenberg, Lochman, Probst, and Endress. In the Proceedings of the General Synod, 1827, Lochman and Endress are spoken of as belonging to "the Fathers of our General Synod, and able ministers of the Lord Jesus," as the "oldest and most respected members" of the Synod of East Pennsylvania, as "men who were among the brightest ornaments of the Lutheran Church, and whose departure is lamented no less by the synods in general than by that to which they more immediately belonged." (12. 21.) Yet they, too, were absolutely indifferent as to the Lutheran Symbols. Dr. C. F. Endress, a pupil of Helmuth, a leading spirit in the Pennsylvania Ministerium and most prominent in the unionistic transactions with the German Reformed Church, declared his theological position as follows: "We have the Formula Concordiae, in which expulsion, condemnation, anathema, were, in the most liberal manner, pronounced and poured forth against all those who were of a different opinion, which, however, thank God, was never received universally by the Lutheran Church. I would suffer both my hands to be burned off before I would subscribe that instrument." "As we have hitherto received the Augsburg Confession and Luther's Catechism and Melanchthon's Apology, so I have no objection that they should be kept in reverence and respect as our peculiar documents, but not to overrule the Bible. For by this shall the Lutheran Church forever distinguish itself from all other religious connections, that the Bible, the Bible alone, shall remain the only sun in Christ Jesus, and that we rest upon human declarations of faith only in so far as they receive their light more or less from that great light." "What shall I answer on the question, What is the confession of faith of the Lutheran Church? Answer: I will not dictate to you what you should say; but if I should be asked, I would say, first, and principally, and solely, and alone: The Holy Word of God contained in the writings of the prophets and apostles. The confessions of faith by the Church of the first four centuries we hold in conformity with the Bible, and receive them, as far as I know, universally in the Lutheran Church. The confession of the princes of the German Empire presented at the Diet of Augsburg is held by all in honor and respect, and when we compare it with other human confessions, we give it a decided preference. Luther's Catechism is used in all Lutheran churches, and no catechism of other religious denominations has that honor. The so-called Apology is in possession of very few Lutheran ministers; but whether they have read it or not, they consider it a good book. The Smalcald Articles I have often read. In Germany they are taken up among the Symbols. I know not whether any other divine in the Lutheran Church in America ever read it except Muhlenberg and Lochman. In short, we hold firmly and steadfastly to our beloved Bible, when the one holds to Calvin, the other to Zwingli, a third to the Heidelberg Catechism, a fourth to the Confession of the Synod of Dort, a fifth to the Westminster Catechism, a sixth to the Common-prayer Book, a seventh to the Solemn League and Covenant, and the eighth to the darkened and depraved reason per se, the ninth to reason under the name of Holy Spirit, and the tenth to the devil himself in the form of an angel of light. But I will cleave to my beloved Bible, and hereby it shall remain. Amen." (Luth. Observer, Sept., 1881.)

65. Rev. Probst Defending Union.—The Lutheran Observer, September, 1881, from whose columns we quoted the statements above concerning Dr. Endress, continues: Rev. Probst, who was a member of the Pennsylvania Synod from 1813 until his death, and well acquainted with the sentiments of his brethren, in a work published in 1826 for the express purpose of promoting a formal and complete union of the German Reformed and Lutheran churches in America, entitled, Reunion of the Lutherans and Reformed, says that there was no material difference of doctrinal views between them, the Lutherans having relinquished the bodily presence, and the Reformed unconditional election. Speaking of the supposed obstacles to such union, he remarks: "The doctrine of unconditional election cannot be in the way. This doctrine has long since been abandoned; for there can scarcely be a single German Reformed preacher found who regards it as his duty to defend this doctrine. Zwingli's more liberal, rational, and Scriptural view of this doctrine, as well as of the Lord's Supper, has become the prevailing one among Lutherans and Reformed, and it has been deemed proper to abandon the view of both Luther and Calvin on the subject of both these doctrines." (74.) "The whole mass of the old Confessions, occasioned by the peculiar circumstances of those troublous times, has become obsolete by the lapse of ages, and is yet valuable only as matter of history. Those times and circumstances have passed away, and our situation, both in regard to political and ecclesiastical relations, is entirely changed. We are therefore not bound to these books, but only to the Bible. For what do the unlearned know of the Augsburg Confession, or the Form of Concord, or the Synod of Dort?" (76.) "Both churches [the Lutheran and the Reformed] advocate the evangelical liberty of judging for themselves, and have one and the same ground of their faith—the Bible. Accordingly, both regard the Gospel as their exclusive rule of faith and practise, and are forever opposed to all violations of the liberty of conscience." (76.) "All enlightened and intelligent preachers of both churches agree that there is much in the former Symbolical Books that must be stricken out as antiquated and contrary to common sense, and be made conformable with the Bible, and that we have no right to pledge ourselves to the mere human opinions of Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli, and that we have but one Master, Christ. Nor is any evangelical Christian bound to the interpretations which Luther, or Calvin, or any other person may place on the words of Christ; but each one has the right to interpret them according to the dictates of his own conscience." (80.) "Inasmuch as all educated ministers of the Lutheran and Reformed churches now entertain more reasonable and more Scriptural views on those doctrines which were formerly the subjects of controversy, what necessity is there of a continued separation?" (81.)

SYNOD'S UN-LUTHERAN ATTITUDE CONTINUED.

66. Decades of Indifferentism.—After the abortive efforts at establishing a union seminary and uniting with the Reformed organically, and after her withdrawal from the General Synod in 1823, the Pennsylvania Synod passed through a long period of indifferentism before the spirit of Lutheran confessionalism once more began to manifest itself, chiefly in consequence of influences from German Lutheran immigrants and by the activity of such men as Drs. Krauth and Mann. However, even till the middle of the nineteenth century the symptoms of reviving Lutheranism in the Pennsylvania Synod were but relatively weak, few, and far between. The Agenda of 1842 still contained the union formula of distribution in the Lord's Supper and revealed a unionistic and Reformed spirit everywhere. A form of Baptism savors of Pelagianism and Rationalism. The Agenda does not contain a single clear and unequivocal confession of the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence. The second form for celebrating the Lord's Supper states: "As we are sensual creatures, He [Christ] has appointed two external, visible elements, bread and wine, as tokens (Pfaender), as it were, in order by them to assure us that with, in, and under them (mit, bei und unter denselben) we should become partakers of His body and blood, that is, of His entire grace of atonement. As surely, therefore, as a penitent communicant receives the blessed bread and the blessed cup, so surely he, in a manner invisible, will also receive from his Savior a share in His body and blood." (Lutheraner 1844,47; 1846,61.81.) In 1848 Rev. Weyl, of Baltimore, the arch-enemy of confessional Lutheranism and unscrupulous slanderer of Wyneken, Reynolds, etc., declared in his church-paper that within the whole Synod of Pennsylvania there were hardly ten preachers who, in their faith and teaching regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, deviated from the views of the General Synod. Dr. Walther remarked with respect to this statement, which he was inclined to regard as mendacious: "Since the [Pennsylvania] Synod was not ashamed to conclude its Centennial Jubilee by declaring this miserable paper [of Weyl] its organ and thereby publishing to the world its spiritual death [as a Lutheran Church], it serves her right to have this man write her epitaph." (L. 1848, 31.) Concerning the new hymn-book of the Pennsylvania Synod, Rev. Hoyer wrote in Kirchliche Mitteilungen: "After a closer inspection I found that this hymn-book was compiled for three classes of people, Orthodox, Unionists, and Supranaturalists. Here we find, besides 'Es ist das Heil uns kommen her,' also 'Religion, von Gott gegeben,' as well as a hymn for the national holiday, the 4th of July, imploring the Lord to give us the spirit of Washington." (1850, 91; L. 7, 65.) Der Lutherische Herold, which, edited by H. Ludwig, appeared since April, 1851, in New York, represented the class of German Lutherans within the Ministeriums of Pennsylvania and New York then most advanced in their protestations of Lutheranism. But what kind of Lutheranism it was that Ludwig and his paper advocated appears from the following quotation: "We expect little sympathy from the Old Lutherans; yet, our endeavor shall always be to banish from our columns everything that might increase the breach, for in doctrine we are one, we only differ in the form, of the dress, that is to say, in practise, and in the mode and manner of spreading the doctrine." (L. 1, 151; 8, 143.) In January, 1855, the same paper was complimented by the Reformierte Kirchenzeitung as follows: "The Lutherische Herold, published by H. Ludwig, endeavors to mediate between the two extremes in the Lutheran Church of this country, and represents the milder Melanchthonian conception of the Sacraments. We read the Herold with joy, and wish it a recognition and encouragement commensurate with its services." (L. 11, 102.) As late as 1851 the Pennsylvania Synod, according to the report of the convention in that year, 51 ministers being present, maintained fraternal intercourse with the Reformed, United, Methodists, and Moravians. She admitted Reformed and Presbyterian preachers as advisory members. Synod had also received a Reformed minister as such into her ministerium. She assembled in Reformed and Presbyterian churches for union services, and attended the service in a Methodist church. She also adopted the resolution to enter into more intimate relations with the Moravians. (L. 1852, 138.) In the following year Synod returned to its original confessional position in the days of Muhlenberg, though in a somewhat equivocal manner. (Spaeth, W. J. Mann, 171.) In 1853, however, at the same time appealing to all Lutheran synods to follow her example, the Pennsylvania Synod resolved, by a vote of 54 to 28, to reunite with the General Synod, then rapidly approaching its lowest water-mark, doctrinally and confessionally, its leading men openly and uninterruptedly denouncing the doctrines distinctive of Lutheranism and zealously preparing the way for the Definite Platform as a substitute for the Augsburg Confession. Indeed, the Pennsylvania Synod added to its resolution on the reunion that, "should the General Synod violate its constitution, and require of our Synod assent to anything conflicting with the old and long-established faith of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, then our delegates are hereby required to protest against such action, to withdraw from its sessions, and to report to this body." (Penn. Minutes 1853, 18.) However, the action as such was tantamount to a violation and denial of the Lutheran Confession. Dr. Walther remarked with respect to the union: "This event will be hailed by many with great joy, a joy, however, that we are unable to share in in any measure. . . . For who does not see that the Synod [of Pennsylvania], by entering into ecclesiastical union with a body notoriously heterodox, has already departed from, and actually denied, the good Confession of our Church?" (L. 9, 122.) Confirming the correctness of this statement, the Pennsylvania Synod, thirteen years later, when the ranks of her conservatives had materially increased, severed her connection with the General Synod.

67. Dr. Sihler's Estimate.—In 1858 Dr. Sihler wrote concerning the Pennsylvania Synod: "When the writer of this article, more than fourteen years ago, came to this country and gradually informed himself on the American conditions of the Lutheran Church, he had to observe with heartfelt sorrow that the Pennsylvania Synod, then still undivided and very numerous, in whose territory or vicinity the leaders of the so-called Lutheran General Synod have their field of labor was so completely indifferent toward the shameful apostasy of the latter from the faith and the Confession of the Lutheran Church. For in vain one looked for a strong and decided testimony in any of the synodical reports of this church-body against the pseudo-Lutherans of the General Synod. Nor was there to be found within the Pennsylvania Synod, or in other synods not belonging to the General Synod, so much earnest zeal and love for the truth of God's Word and of the Confessions of the Church, nor did it have any men among its theologians who were able to expose thoroughly in the English language the error, the hollowness and shallowness of the miserable productions of a Schmucker and Kurtz, who were made Doctors of Theology by God in His wrath and by Satan as a joke and for the purpose of ridicule. On the contrary, they seemed to be not a little impressed with the theological learning and dogmatical science of these two so-called Doctors, who, in rare self-satisfaction, found life and complete happiness in Reinhard's supernaturalism. In short, these open counterfeiters, Calvinists, Methodists, and Unionists, these base traitors and destroyers of the Lutheran Church, were and always remained the dear brethren, who contributed not a little to the prosperity and welfare of the dear 'Lutheran Zion.' Accordingly, it did not require a gift of prophecy when the writer of this article, as early as 1844, foretold in the Lutherische Kirchenzeitung [edited by Schmidt in Pittsburgh] that, in differently observing, as they did, the anticonfessional, church-destroying activities of the so-called General Synod, yea, fraternizing with their leaders, they would become their prey, as was actually the case several years ago." (Lehre u. Wehre 1858, 137.)

LUTHERANS IN SOUTH CAROLINA.

68. Pioneer Pastors in South Carolina.—In 1735 colonists from Germany and Switzerland had settled in Orangeburg Co., S.C. Their first resident pastor was J. U. Giessendanner, who arrived in 1737 with new emigrants, but died the following year. He was succeeded by his son, who was ordained first by the Presbyterians and then by the Bishop of London, in 1849. [tr. note: sic!] Orangeburg was thus lost to the Lutheran Church. At Charleston, S.C., Bolzius conducted the first Lutheran services and administered the Lord's Supper in 1734. Muhlenberg preached there in 1742. The first pastor who, in 1755, organized the Lutherans at Charleston into a congregation (St. John's) was J. G. Friedrichs (Friederichs). In 1759 he was succeeded by H. B. G. Wordman (Wartmann), who had labored in Pennsylvania. In 1763 Wordman was succeeded by J. N. Martin. He dedicated the church begun in 1759. J. S. Hahnbaum, who came from Germany with his family in 1767, was, according to the church records, forbidden to "be addicted to the English Articles" and to attack the Church of England. The gown, wafers, festivals, gospels and epistles, and the use of the litany on Sunday afternoons, are required. (Jacobs, 297.) Hahnbaum died in 1770. His successor, who also married his daughter, was Magister F. Daser. He had arrived in Charleston, sold as a redemptioner, and had been redeemed by one of the elders of the Lutheran congregation. (G., 574.) In 1774 H. M. Muhlenberg advised the congregation and adjusted some of her difficulties. In the same year Martin returned and served till 1778, when he was succeeded by Christian Streit, who labored until he was driven away in the vicissitudes of the Revolutionary War, there being a tradition of his arrest by the British in 1780. (Jacobs, 297.) Pastor Martin served a third term in Charleston from 1786 to 1787, when he was succeeded by J. C. Faber, who wrote to Germany, from where he had arrived in 1787: His congregation was growing; it was a model of Christian unity; it consisted of Lutherans, German Reformed, and Catholics; they all lived together most peacefully, attending the same services and sharing in the support of their pastor, who had brought about such a union. No wonder that the congregation was satisfied with the service of the Episcopalian Pogson when Faber had resigned on account of ill health. (G., 582 f.)

69. "Unio Ecclesiastica" in South Carolina.—In 1788 fifteen German congregations were incorporated in the State of South Carolina, nine of them being Lutheran and six Reformed or United. The Lutheran congregations were served by F. Daser, J. G. Bamberg, F. A. Wallberg, F. J. Wallern, and C. Binnicher; the rest, by the Reformed Pastors Theus and Froelich. In 1787 these ministers and congregations had united as a "corpus evangelicum" under the following title: "Unio Ecclesiastica of the German Protestant Churches in the State of South Carolina." Pastor Daser was chosen Senior Ministerii. At the following convention, January 8, 1788, all Lutheran ministers present pledged themselves on the Symbolical Books. A third meeting was held August 12, 1788; President Daser presented a constitution, which was adopted. Among other things it provided: 1. The intention of this union was not that any member should deny his own confession. 2. A Directorium, composed of the ministers and two laymen, should remain in power as long as a majority of the 15 congregations would be in favor of it. 3. The Directorium should be entrusted with all church affairs: the admission, dismissal, election, examination, ordination, and induction of ministers; the establishment of new churches and schools; the order of divine service, collections, etc. 4. Any member of any of the congregations was bound to appear before the Directorium when cited by this body. 5. Where the majority of a congregation was Reformed, a Reformed Agenda and Catechism were to be used. 6. The ministers should be faithful in the discharge of their pastoral duties, . . . visiting the schools frequently, admonishing the parents to give their children a Christian training, etc. 7. A copy of this constitution should be deposited in every congregation and subscribed by its members. 8. Complaints against the pastor which the vestry failed to settle should be reported to the President immediately. 9. The brethren in Europe should be petitioned to provide the congregations with preachers and schoolteachers.—It is self-evident that this anomalous union with a Directorium invested with governing and judicial powers, to whose decisions Lutheran as well as Reformed pastors and congregations had to submit, lacked vitality, and, apart from flagrant denials of the truth, was bound to lead to destructive frictions. After an existence of several years the "Unio Ecclesiastica" died a natural death, the Directorium, as far as has been traced, holding its last meeting in 1794. By 1804, the ministers who had organized this union body, all save one, were dead. The congregations eked out a miserable existence, becoming, in part, a prey to the Methodists and Baptists. Thus also the promising Lutheran field of South Carolina was finally turned into a desert, chiefly in consequence of the dearth of Lutheran preachers, who really could have been produced from this very field. (G., 601 ff.)

THE NORTH CAROLINA SYNOD.

70. Unionistic from the Beginning.—Most of the Germans in North Carolina came from Pennsylvania. In 1771 the congregation at Salisbury (which was in existence as early as 1768, and soon thereafter erected a church), together with the congregations in Rowan Co. and in Mecklenburg Co., sent a delegation to England, Holland, and Germany, asking for assistance. The result was that Pastor A. Ruessmann, who died in 1794, and Teacher J. G. Arends (Ahrends), who soon officiated as pastor, were sent in 1773. In 1787 Pastor Chr. E. Bernhardt arrived, followed by C. A. G. Stork (Storch) in 1788, and A. Roschen, who returned to Germany in 1800. But it was not genuine Lutheranism which was cultivated by these German emissaries. Many of the books coming from Helmstedt were of a rationalistic character. Also the North Carolina Catechism ("Nordkarolingischer Katechismus . . ., entworfen von Johann Kaspar Velthusen, Doktor und ordentlichem Lehrer der Theologie, erstem Prediger in Helmstedt und Generalsuperintendent") savored of rationalism. The confessional and doctrinal degeneration of the pastors in North Carolina appears from, and is attested by, the fact that in his ordination, in 1794, R. J. Miller was pledged to the Thirty-nine Articles of the Episcopalians. The Synod of North Carolina experienced a rapid growth, receiving 19 congregations into membership in 1813. According to the Report of 1815, twenty lay delegates were present at the meeting of that year. In 1823, after the separation of the Tennessee Synod, the North Carolina Synod reported 19 ministers with about 1,360 communicants. Its first convention had been held in Salisbury, May 2, 1803. Besides the lay delegates, this meeting was attended by Pastor Arends, Miller, Stork, and Paul Henkel. From the very beginning the Articles of Synod made no mention of the Lutheran Confessions. At the meeting of 1804 a Reformed minister delivered the sermon. In 1810 a resolution was passed permitting every pastor to administer communion to those of another faith. It was furthermore resolved: "Whereas it is evident that awakenings occur in our day by means of preaching for three consecutive days, and whereas this is to be desired among our brethren in the faith, it was resolved, on motion of Mr. Philip Henkel, to make a trial in all our churches next spring." In the same year the North Carolina Synod ordered the ordination of the Moravian G. Shober (Schober). The minutes of 1815 record the following: "Since the church council of a newly built Reformed church in Guilford County expressly desires that our next synod be held in their church, it was resolved that synod shall be held in said church on the third Sunday in October, 1816." As in the other Lutheran bodies of that time, pulpit- and altar-fellowship, Reformed teaching, and Methodistic enthusiasm became increasingly rampant in Synod. In 1817 Synod declared that it would continue to bear the Lutheran name, and became demonstrative over the Reformation tercentenary. The same convention, however, passed a resolution with regard to the joint hymn-book published by Schaeffer and Maund in Baltimore, as follows: "We hereby tender the aforementioned gentlemen our heartiest thanks, and rejoice that we are able to accede fully to the aforementioned recommendations for its use both at church and in private among all our congregations. At the same time we humbly petition the God of love and unity to crown it with blessings in His kingdom and temple. It was also resolved that the English Agenda which Quitman had introduced in New York "be adopted as one of our symbolical books, and as such be recommended for use." (G., 647.)

71. Shober's Jubilee Book.—In 1817 Synod also approved of, and resolved to publish, Shober's jubilee book, "A Comprehensive Account of the Rise and Progress of the Blessed Reformation of the Christian Church by Doctor Martin Luther, begun on the thirty-first of October, A. D. 1517; interspersed with views of his character and doctrine, extracted from his book; and how the Church established by him arrived and progressed in North America, as also the Constitution and Rules of that Church, in North Carolina and adjoining States, as existing in October, 1817." In the Preface, Shober gives utterance to the hope that all Protestant churches and their individual members would, by reading his book, be moved "to pray to God that He would awaken the spirit of love and union in all who believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and men, in order to attain the happy time prophesied, when we shall blissfully live as one flock under one Shepherd." On page 208 ff. he says: "Why are we not all united in love and union? Why these distances, controversies, disputes, mutual condemnations, why these splittings of formulas? Why cannot the Church of Christ be one flock under one Shepherd? My friends, at the proper time the Lord will unite us all. Thank God, we see the morning star rising; the Union approaches, in Europe through Bible-societies, in America, too, through mission-societies, through the efforts of the rich and poor in sending out religious tracts, through the hundred thousand children who now learn to know their God and Savior in the Sunday-schools. Through frequent revivals and many other signs it becomes apparent that the earth will soon be filled with the knowledge of the Lord. Among all classes of those who adore Jesus as God I see nothing of importance which could prevent a cordial union; and what a fortunate event would it be if all churches would unite and send delegates to a general convention of all denominations and there could settle down on Christ, the Rock, while at the same time each denomination would be permitted to retain its peculiar ways and forms. This would have the influence on all Christians that, wherever and whenever they met each other, they would love one another and keep fellowship with each other." Synod declared: This book "will give to our fellow-Christians in other denominations a clear view of what the Lutheran Church really is." Yet, in this jubilee-gift Shober practically denied the Lutheran doctrines of the Lord's Supper and of Absolution, and, as shown, enthusiastically advocated a universal union of all Christian denominations. Previously Shober had written: "I have carefully examined the doctrine of the Episcopal Church, have read many excellent writers of the Presbyterians, know the doctrine of the Methodists from their book Portraiture of Methodism, and am acquainted with the doctrine of the Baptists, as far as they receive and adore Jesus the Savior. Among all classes of those who adore Jesus as God, I find nothing of importance which could prevent a cordial union." (647 f. 682.)

CRITICAL CONVENTIONS.

72. "Untimely Synod" of 1819.—The leaders of the North Carolina Synod, Stork, Shober, Jacob Scherer, Daniel Scherer, Miller, and others, cherished a sanguine hope of uniting all churches into a national American Church, despite doctrinal differences. What could be more delightful, and what in all the world could be more desired, they declared in 1820, than "to bring about a general union of all religious parties throughout the entire land, that the glorious prophecy might be fulfilled: that they might all be one flock who are all under one Shepherd." (Tennessee Report 1820, 25.) The scheme also of organizing a Lutheran General Synod (for which purpose the Pennsylvania Synod had invited all other Lutheran bodies to attend its meetings at Baltimore in 1819 in order to discuss plans for this projected Pan-Lutheran union) was exultantly hailed as a step in this direction by leaders of the North Carolina Synod, notably by Shober. Accordingly, in order to enable the North Carolina Synod to take part in the meeting at Baltimore, the officers of Synod autocratically convened that body five weeks before the time fixed by the constitution. Shober was sent to Baltimore as delegate, and took a prominent part in drawing up the "Planentwurf," the tentative constitution for the organization of a General Synod. This irregular meeting of the North Carolina Synod was later on known as the "Untimely Synod." It provoked much ill feeling and led to the organization of the Tennessee Synod in 1820. (Tenn. Rep. 1820, 49.) At this "Untimely Synod" David Henkel was charged with teaching transubstantiation, because he had preached the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper to his congregations. Synod found him guilty, and degraded him to the rank of catechist for a period of six months. Says the Report of the Tennessee Synod, 1820: "David Henkel was to be entitled to his former rank in office only when, after a period of six months, sufficient written evidence should have been submitted to the President that peace obtained in his congregations, and that no important accusation was lodged against him by others, especially by the Reformed [Presbyterians], whereupon the President would be empowered to confer on him the privileges of a candidate until the next synod." (18.) The following statement of the same Report characterizes the doctrinal attitude of President Stork and other leaders of Synod: "We [the Henkels] have written evidence that, when a paper was read at said 'Untimely Synod' containing the statement that the human nature of Jesus Christ had been received into the divine nature (dass die Menschheit Jesu Christi in die Gottheit sei aufgenommen worden), and that therefore He possessed all the divine attributes, the President [Stork] declared that he could not believe this. And when it was said that such was the teaching of the Bible, he answered: 'Even if five hundred Bibles should say so, he would not believe it!' And to our knowledge he was never called to account for this statement." (20.) The autocratic actions of the leaders of the North Carolina Synod and their adherents virtually resulted in a rupture of Synod in the same year. For the dissatisfied party held a synod of their own at Buffalo Creek, at the time specified by the constitution, and ordained Bell and David Henkel.

73. "Synod of Strife" (Streitsynode).—The meeting at Lincolnton, N. C., 1820, which followed the "Untimely Synod," was marked by painful scenes and altercations and the final breach between the majority, who were resolved to unite with the General Synod, and the minority, who opposed the union and accused the leader not only of high-handed, autocratic procedure and usurpation of power in contravention of the constitution, but also of false doctrine, and publicly refused to recognize them as Lutherans. On Sunday, May 28, Synod was opened with a service in which Stork preached German and Bell English. Monday morning the preachers, delegates, and a great multitude of people from the neighborhood returned to the church. They found it occupied by Pastors Paul Henkel, Philip Henkel, David Henkel, and Bell, who refused admission to the rest. After some parliamenteering, written and verbal, both parties entered the church. The Henkels report as follows: "They [the opponents] took their stand on the fact that the majority was on their side and according to it everything should be decided. Accordingly, before they came to us in the church, they first delegated one of their preachers with two questions directed to one of our preachers. The first was: 'Whether he intended to separate from the North Carolina Synod?' The second: 'Whether he was willing to be governed by a majority of preachers and delegates in the matters disputed?' He, giving him no decisive answer, came to the rest of us and told us. We answered in writing: 'That we neither intend to separate ourselves from Synod, nor would suffer ourselves to be governed by a majority; but that we wanted everything investigated and decided according to the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession and according to the constitution or order of our church, nothing else.' In the mean time the minister delegated came to us where we were gathered and demanded a verbal answer to the same questions. We then gave this answer also verbally, whereupon he said with an arrogant gesture and autocratic tone: 'That is not the point; I only ask, Do you want to, or do you not want to?' We answered: 'We did not want to.' He declared, 'That is all I desire to know'; and saying which he rapidly turned about and hastily ran away from us. In the mean time the multitude of our opponents moved toward us, proposing the same questions. We answered as before. The leaders among them endeavored to maintain that, in order to decide the dispute, we were not bound to the constitution, but only to the majority of the votes of the preachers and delegates, which majority they had; and that it was reasonable and fair for us to act according to it in this dispute. But we thought that the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession (being assured, as we were, that it can be proved by the doctrine of the Bible) should be of a greater weight to us than the voice of a majority of men who are opposed to the doctrine and order of our Church. After a brief altercation of this kind they went into the church, and we followed. Here the President [Stork], in a long speech in German, endeavored to prove what he had asserted before. The Secretary [Shober] made a still longer speech in English, in which he endeavored to prove that we were not at all bound to act according to the constitution or order of our Church; although he himself, with the approval of Synod, had written the constitution and had it printed, this was not done with the intention of making it a rule or norm by which we, as members of Synod, were to be guided in our transactions; it was merely a sort of draft or model according to which, in course of time, one might formulate a good constitution, if in the future such should become necessary. However, it was proved [by the Henkels] from the constitution itself that it had been received as just such an [official] document, sanctioned, after previous examination and approval by several ministers, by Synod and ordered to be printed. To this he [Shober] answered that such had not been the intention of Synod. Haste and lack of time had caused him to write it thus without previous careful consideration; therefore, now everything had to be governed and judged according to the majority. But we were of the opinion that it would prove to be a very unreasonable action to reject a constitution which a few years ago, according to a resolution of Synod, had been printed and bound in 1,500 copies, the money being taken from the synodical treasury, and sold at 75 cts. a copy." (Tenn. Rep. 1820, 24.) The question concerning the violation of the constitution would, no doubt, have been settled in favor of the Henkels, if they had not opposed the leaders in their union schemes and charged them with false doctrine and apostasy from the Lutheran Church. Says the aforementioned Tennessee Report: "Even though the officers with their adherents (die alten Herrn Beamten mit ihrem Zugehoer) could perhaps themselves have thought so far [as to realize the arbitrariness of their procedure with reference to the 'Untimely Synod'], yet the desire to organize the General Synod and to bring about a union with all religious bodies, especially with the Presbyterians, was so strong as to outweigh everything else" [even an imminent breach]. The leaders finally admitted that both parties had erred, and declared their willingness to pardon everything if the minority would reunite with them. The Henkels, however, declared that they could have no fellowship with people who were addicted to false doctrines concerning Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and rejected the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession. They also declared their impatience with the contemplated "general union of all religious denominations," saying that such a union was no more possible than to bring together as one peaceful flock into one fold "sheep, goats, lambs, cows, oxen, horses, bears, wolves, wild cats, foxes, and swine." At this juncture one of the officers, dissolving the meeting and leaving the church, exclaimed: "Whoever is a true Lutheran, may he come with us to the hotel of J. H.; there we will begin our Synod!" The minority answered: "Whoever wants to be a true fanatic (Schwaermer), may he go along; for you are no real Lutheran preachers: you are fanatics (Schwaermer) and to them you belong!" A young teacher added: "According to the testimony of Holy Scripture, it is impossible for us to regard you as anything but false teachers." Then one of the old ministers, turning toward the assembly, said: "Now you yourselves have heard the boldness and impertinence of this young man, who charges us, old and respectable ministers that we are, with false doctrine." Similar utterances were made by others. The report concludes: "However, they left the church without defending themselves against such accusations, except that one of the old ministers said at the exit of the church that he was much astonished. But we could not help that." (Tenn. Report 1820, 27.) As Bell joined the Shober party, his ordination at Buffalo Creek was declared constitutional and ratified as valid. Shober now reported on his cordial reception by the Pennsylvania Synod and on the transaction which led to the adoption of the "Planentwurf" for the contemplated organization of the General Synod. The document, after its individual paragraphs had been read and discussed, was adopted by the North Carolina Synod by a majority of 15 to 6—a result which Shober had forestalled in a letter to the Pennsylvania Synod assembled at Lancaster, stating "that the greatest part of the members of the North Carolina Synod had adopted the so-called Planentwurf," and expressing the hope that the General Synod might be established. After adopting the "Planentwurf," the North Carolina Synod elected Pastors Shober and Peter Schmucker delegates to the convention of the General Synod, which was to convene at Hagerstown, Md., October 22, 1820. Only a few ministers from Tennessee being present, the Henkels resolved not to transact any business at this time. (27.)