78. Dr. Samuel Sprecher (1810-1905) was the brother-in-law and most devoted and enthusiastic supporter of Schmucker. From 1849 to 1884 he was president of Wittenberg College in Springfield, O., which was most advanced in the advocacy and development of Schmucker's brand of American Lutheranism. Again and again Sprecher urged the necessity of making a bold and honest statement setting forth the exact tenets of American Lutheranism. "I do not see," he said, "how we can do otherwise than adopt the symbols of the Church, or form a new symbol, which shall embrace all that is fundamental to Christianity in them, rejecting what is un-scriptural, and supplying what is defective." (Spaeth, 1, 347.) Determined in his blind opposition to "symbolism," Sprecher insisted that the General Synod refuse admission to such as adhered to the Lutheran symbols and their doctrines, and declined to subscribe to the Platform. In 1858 theReligious Telescopesaid in praise of Sprecher: "He is a Bible-Lutheran and does not cram the heads of his students with baptismal regeneration nonsense and similar semipapal imbecilities." (Observer, Feb. 25, 1858;L. u. W.1858, 126.) Toward the end of his life Sprecher receded from his former position. In theLutheran Evangelist, January 15, 1892, he wrote: "I can now say, as I could not formerly, that, like Spener, I can for myself accept the symbols of the Church without reserve…. It is true that I did once think 'The Definite Synodical Platform' (that modification of Lutheranism which perhaps has been properly called 'the culmination of Melanchthonianism') desirable and practicable, and that I now regard all such modifications of our creed as hopeless. In the mean time an increased knowledge of the spirit, methods, and literature of the Missouri Synod has convinced me that such alterations are undesirable, that the elements of true Pietism, that a sense of the necessity of personal religion, and the importance of personal assurance of salvation, can be maintained in connection with a Lutheranism modified 'by the Puritan element.'" (Jacobs, 369; Neve, 113.) In 1906 theObserverremarked: "It was Sprecher's fear that true evangelical piety and the certainty of faith could not be maintained so well under a strict orthodoxy that made him hesitate to embrace all of the symbolical books of the Lutheran Church in his system of faith…. This was one of the effects upon him of the New England theology with which he came in contact largely in his early life." (L. u. W.1906, 277.) But even after his manly retraction Sprecher was not completely cured of the virus of Reformed subjectivism. Sprecher was among the first who, within the General Synod, declared that "inspiration does not make a book free of … grammatical errors, rhetorical faults, and historical inaccuracies in minor and secondary matters." (L. u. W.1871, 126.)
79. Dr. James Allen Brown.—Brown, born 1821, was licensed in 1845 by the Maryland Synod; served as pastor in various congregations; as professor of theology in Newberry College, S.C., from 1859 to 1860; as chaplain in the U.S. Army; as professor of Systematic Theology at Gettysburg from 1864 to 1879; as editor of theLutheran Quarterlyfrom 1871; insane since 1880, he died June 19, 1882. During the Platform controversy Brown was a zealous opponent of Schmucker and regarded as a conservative. In theEvangelical Reviewhe charged Schmucker with teaching false doctrines concerning regeneration, justification, and inherited sin. Articles against Brown appeared in theObserverand in theEvangelical Review. (L. u. W.1858, 65.) Though an opponent of Schmucker, Brown shared practically all of his peculiarly Reformed and unionistic views. "To separate her from the great multitude of God's sacramental host, degrades the Lutheran Church, the Mother Church of the Reformation," Brown declared in his pamphlet against the assailants of the General Synod. (22.) And when asked, in 1868, in the lawsuit of Hebron Evangelical Lutheran Church in Leechburg: "Do you believe as Professor of Didactic Theology at the Seminary of the General Synod that the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession agree with Holy Scripture?" Brown answered under oath, "I hold the Augsburg Confession to be a correct exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of the divine Word." Asked again, "Do you believe as such Professor that the Augsburg Confession teaches some things which are not in harmony with the Bible?" he answered, "In certain points there are, according to what appears to be its true and original sense, some things taught in the Augsburg Confession which I do not consider as taught in the Bible or in agreement therewith." Requested to enumerate fundamental doctrines of the Word of God found in the Augsburg Confession to which the constitution of the General Synod referred, he mentioned seven of the twenty-one articles as fundamental, one as not fundamental, and all the others as containing doctrines of fundamental character, but not fundamental in their exact expression. In his pamphlet, "The General Synod and Her Assailants," Brown wrote: The Lutheran Church has its confessions, liturgies, etc., "but she enforces none of them upon her members in the form of rigorous and compulsatory law; … it does not lie in the genius of our Church to enforce her utterances, in all their details, as if they were indispensable, either to Christianity or herself." (12.)
80. Dr. J.G. Butler and the "Lutheran Evangelist."—Dr. Butler, pastor of the Lutheran Memorial Church in Washington, D.C., and editor of theLutheran Evangelist, was among the most liberal of the General Synod pastors and in every respect a unionistic-Reformed-Methodistic theologian, who rejected every doctrine distinctive of Lutheranism. (L. u. W.1908, 321.) In 1895 he wrote: "I have become almost entirely indifferent to theological and even to denominational differences of practise and belief." (1895, 251.) In 1899: "The things which separate us [evangelical denominations] are of a speculative nature and have nothing to do with the substance of that faith which saves souls and is the only hope of a lost world." (1899, 124.) At his fiftieth jubilee, in 1899, addresses were delivered by four pastors of the General Synod and seven representatives of other denominations; 250 men "of every creed, denomination, shade of religious faith, and political opinion" were invited to the banquet. (1900, 26.) In 1909 Butler gave the following advice to the Lutheran Church: "Adopt the name American Lutheran, and we may make it one of the stepping-stones toward the union of the entire Church…. The ideal is not uniformity in doctrine and life, but uniformity in love for Christ and the Kingdom." (1909, 228.) In 1909, after the death of Dr. Butler, theLutheran Evangelistwas merged with theLutheran Observer. The last number of theEvangelistspoke of Butler as "that true prophet of God." And theLutheran Observersaid in praise of theEvangelist: "It has been a power for good in their [its readers'] lives. Of its records they may well be proud. Founded in 1876, its career of thirty-three years has been one of achievement and honor. It has made a solid and enduring contribution to the developing history of the Lutheran Church in this country." (1909, 562.) Dr. Butler served twice as chaplain in the United States Congress.
81. Dr. J.D. Severinghaus (1834-1905) graduated 1861 in the Seminary at Springfield, O.; from 1873 to 1905 he was active in Chicago; in 1869 he foundedLutherischer Kirchenfreund(temporarily calledLutherischer Hausfreund); in 1875 he publishedDenkschrift der Generalsynode; he established connections with Chrischona, and in 1878 with Pastor C. Jensen in Breklum, to prepare candidates for the Wartburg Synod; in 1883 he founded the Chicago Seminary. Severinghaus was one of the most fanatical opponents of Lutheran confessionalism. "TheKirchenfreund," he declared, "intends to be genuinely Lutheran, hence not in the sense in which the name after the Reformation was so frequently abused in the interest of a quarrelsome exclusive faction (Rotte). In the Lutheran Church there have not only been, and have been tolerated, different opinions on non-essential articles, but it is of the very essence of the true liberty of the Lutheran Church that such differences must be tolerated." (L. u. W.1869, 58.) Severinghaus was an implacable enemy and unscrupulous detractor of Walther and the Missouri Synod. Of his numerous aspersions in theKirchenfreundthe following has attracted special attention: "Well, the Missourians are not Quakerish. They believe in fighting, even against their own Government. For during the time of war they had raised a rebel flag on their Preachers' College in St. Louis, a proof that they intended to tread the Constitution of our country under their feet, in order to enforce their own despotism the more easily." In Dr. Neve'sKurzgefasste Geschichteof 1915 Geo. Fritschel writes: "Walther sympathized with the South, and even had the Rebellion flag hoisted over the Seminary." (247.) However, theLutheranerof February 1, 1870, brands "the scribble" of theKirchenfreundas an "infamous slander" and Severinghaus as "a mendacious slanderer." "The truth is"—theLutheranercontinues—"that during the time of war never a Rebellion Flag, but repeatedly a Union flag was hoisted over our College in St. Louis." (26, 84. 150. 159; 25, 114. 190.) The General Synod approved of, and repeatedly endorsed, theKirchenfreund. In 1871, at Dayton, 0.: "TheKirchenfreundhas also proved that our principles are favorably received by a large portion of our brethren. Outside of our Church the paper is doing a good work in removing prejudices against the General Synod and in defending our principles." (21.) In 1873, at Canton, 0., the Committee on German Church paper reported: "The influence of the paper is seen in many things, but especially in the growing interest in the German work. There no longer can be any doubt that our type of Lutheranism commends itself to the Germans, and that it need but be understood to gain their favor. It is so clear that it needs no proof that the German and English work must go hand in hand in the General Synod. TheKirchenfreundis doing this twofold work of bringing us into closer sympathy with the Germans, and bringing them into closer union with ourselves." (40 f.; cf. 1875, 50.) In 1879, at Wooster, 0.: "TheKirchenfreundhas been published regularly in 24 numbers per year, since the last convention, and our report covers volumes IX and X. This has not been the most prosperous period of its history; on the contrary, we are obliged to report a very material loss of subscribers and proportionate diminution of receipts. We believe, however, that this loss is not attributable to any defects of the paper itself, nor to any circumstance whatsoever under our control, but rather to general causes, such as the continued and exhausting depression of the business interests of the country, change in the habits of our people, increase of good secular papers, and Sunday editions of local papers, westward removal of our people, etc." (37.) In the same year, 1879, Severinghaus declared that Missouri showed "all marks of the antichrist described in the Word of God." (L. u. W.1879, 55.)
82. Dr. Milton Valentine (1825-1906), for nineteen years professor of Dogmatic Theology in Gettysburg, opposed the confessional trend within the General Synod, and, in important distinctive doctrines, occupied a Reformed position. In hisChristian Theologyof 1906, Dr. Valentine sacrifices the inerrancy of the Scriptures in making concessions to modern geology, astronomy, and Evolution. He denies the total depravity of man; charges the Formula of Concord with Flacianism; teaches the humiliation of Christ's divine nature; denies that the divine majesty was communicated to His human nature; and questions the penal suffering of Christ. He teaches that Christ did not pay the full penalty for all sins, for then forgiveness of sin could not be spoken of; Christ's atonement merely made forgiveness possible for God, which followed under the condition that man consents thereto; faith precedes regeneration and conversion; God does not produce the act of faith, but only the ability to believe; the Holy Ghost merely enables man to fulfil the conditions of justification and to convert himself; God restores free choice, but man himself must make the choice and decide in favor of grace; the will of man is the third cause of conversion; children cannot believe, and are saved without faith of their own; Baptism does not work regeneration; heathen are saved if they follow their natural light; in the Eucharist Christ's body and blood are not received orally nor by unbelievers; close communion militates against the unity of the Church; a Church is orthodox so long as it adheres to the fundamental doctrines held in common by all Evangelical communions; deviation in other doctrines is no hindrance to church-fellowship; the government and officers of the State must acknowledge Jesus as Lord and His will as the highest law; legislation must be guided by the Bible; divorces not sanctioned in Scripture may not be granted by the State; the State must enforce the "divine Sabbath"; the Bible teaches a millennium in which the Gospel shall rule supreme, etc. (L. u. W.1908, 128.)
83. Dr. J.W. Richard (1843-1909), professor at Gettysburg since 1889, and editor of theLutheran Quarterlysince 1808, occupied practically the same position as Valentine, whoseChristian Theologyhe endorsed. In theLutheran Quarterlyand theLutheran Observer, as well as in hisConfessional History, Dr. Richard, following Heppe and similar German theologians, defended Melanchthonianism, and criticized the Form of Concord, the Second Article of which he branded as Calvinistic. He resisted the efforts on the part of the conservatives and theLutheran Worldat revising the doctrinal basis of the General Synod, and ignored the confessional resolutions of 1901 and 1905. (L. u. W.1908, 84 ff.; 1909, 179.) Following such German theologians as Dr. Hauck and others, Richard distinguished between "form and substance" of the Confessions, in a manner invalidating the subscription to the Augustana, and practically amounting to the old formula: "fundamentals substantially correct." As to the Lord's Supper Richard regarded the declaration, "that Christ is present in the Eucharist," as sufficient. (Confessional History, 610-618.) In 1909 Richard identified himself with Schleiermacher's definition of religion, and pronounced this father of modern subjectivism and rationalism "the renewer of theology and the greatest theologian since the Reformation." (L. u. W.1909, 421.)
84. Confessional Tendencies.—Apart from a number of minor causes the conservative movement within the General Synod is chiefly due to the awakening of confessional Lutheranism in Germany, the increase of Lutheran immigrants, and the powerful influence of the Lutherans in the West, especially the Missouri Synod. The rapidly multiplying German elements which entered the Pennsylvania and New York Ministeriums and other Lutheran synods during the second half of the nineteenth century were always farthest advanced in taking a confessional stand with respect to Lutheran doctrine and practise. Down to the present day the attitude of the German Districts of the now defunct General Synod toward lodges, altar- and pulpit-fellowship, and the Lutheran symbols has been much more conservative than that of the English District Synods. However, the early conservatives of the General Synod, besides being in the minority and having no organ in the English language to cope with theLutheran Observer, lacked the clearness, consistency, boldness, initiative, determination, and aggressiveness of their liberal opponents. And even later, when both their number and courage had increased materially, it was not in every respect the old genuine, but a modified Lutheranism which also their most pronounced representatives advocated—not whole-hearted, undivided loyalty to Lutheran doctrines and practises, but a Lutheranism tainted, more or less, with indifferentism and unionism, nor absolutely free even from elements of Pietism and Reformedism. For the cry of the conservative leaders who later organized the General Council was not, "Back to Luther!" but, "Back to Muhlenberg!" And the prominent conservatives that remained in the General Synod after the Fort Wayne rupture, they all, without exception, were outspoken unionists, ready to tolerate un-Lutheran doctrines in their own midst and pulpit-fellowship with the sects, some of them being disloyal even to doctrines distinctive of Lutheranism. During the Platform controversy some of the most influential conservatives differed from Schmucker not so much in theology as in their policy of mutual toleration and the refusal to mutilate and abandon the venerable Augsburg Confession. The lack of bold aggressiveness on the part of the most Lutheran of these conservatives is illustrated by the letter of H.J. Schmidt, already referred to: "If all open conflict is avoided, our cause, I mean the cause of truth and of the Church, will continue silently and surely to gain ground." (Spaeth, 1, 349;Lutheraner, April 12, 1852.) Their lack of Lutheran seriousness is exemplified by the cordial relation existing at Gettysburg between C.F. Schaeffer, who in his lectures in Catechetics endeavored to create an interest in, and respect for, the Lutheran symbols, and his brother-in-law S.S. Schmucker, who did everything in his power to discredit and misrepresent them. (L. u. W.1884, 357.)
85. Conservatives Unionistic.—In their reports in theLutheranerand inKirchliche Mitteilungenon the confessional awakening within the General Synod, Walther and Sihler joyfully mention Drs. Morris and Reynolds as the promising leaders of the movement. (Lutheraner6, 37.) "An opposition has arisen against Kurtz and Schmucker such as no one would have dared to hope for ten years ago," Loehe wrote in 1850. "Reynolds," he continued, "placed the Confession into the light again. Ministers ask for the wisdom of old. Students at Gettysburg purchase the Book of Concord." TheEvangelical Reviewwould contribute "to deliver the children of the Church and her teachers out of the Kurtz-Schmuckerian captivity." Similar progress was made in other synods. (Kirchl. Mitt. 1850, 57.) In a letter of October, 1847, Philip Schaff refers to Drs. Morris, Reynolds, Demme, and the two Krauths as prominent among the conservatives of the General Synod. (Spaeth,W. J. Mann, 38.) But what these men who at the middle of the nineteenth century thrilled many a Lutheran heart with joy and hope abandoned, was, at best, not unionism, but Reformedism. The most that can he said of Dr. C.R. Demme (1795-1863; studied in Halle and Goettingen; came to America in 1818), who was pastor in Philadelphia and prominent in the Pennsylvania Synod, is that he was a theologian of a mild confessional tendency. As late as 1852 he stood for the union distribution formula in the Lord's Supper. Dr. J.G. Morris (1803-1895; received his theological training at Nazareth, Princeton, and Gettysburg; founded theLutheran Observer; wroteLife Reminiscences of an Old Lutheran Minister, etc.) signed the notorious letter of 1845, which later he declared to be the greatest blunder of the General Synod. Morris approved of the unionistic practises of the General Synod. As late as 1885 he declared his position as follows: "I preach the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence of our glorified Lord in the blessed elements; but when a poor, penitent, praying, confessing, believing sinner comes and asks for permission to commune with us, I dare not ask him whether his views agree with mine," etc. (L. u. W.1885, 252.) Dr. Charles Philip Krauth (1797-1867; professor in Gettysburg and editor of theEvangelical Reviewfrom 1850 to 1860), though having a strong aversion to the Platform and being more in favor of a revision of the doctrinal basis of the General Synod than his son, signed the Pacific Overture and, in the Platform controversy, was an ardent advocate of mutual toleration. Dr. Charles Porterfield Krauth (1823-1883), prior to his manly retraction in 1864, was an out-and-out unionist, and, in more than one respect, infected also with Reformed views. As late as 1866, at Fort Wayne, he was apparently satisfied with the confessional basis of the General Synod as declared in the York Amendment and Resolution. Dr. L.A. Gotwald (1833-1900; professor in Wittenberg Seminary from 1888 to 1895) was, in 1893, charged with, and tried upon, charges, among others, of holding "to the type of Lutheranism characteristic of the General Council,"viz., "that all the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession are fundamental," and "that the doctrinal position of the General Synod, when rightly interpreted, is identical with that of the General Council." His acquittal strengthened the conservative, but unionistic, tendency of Wittenberg Seminary. (Jacobs, 510.) Dr. E.J. Wolf (1840-1905; since 1873 professor in Gettysburg Seminary) was perhaps the most Lutheran of the influential English members of the General Synod since the Fort Wayne disruption of 1866. In the Preface to hisLutherans in Americaof 1889 he expresses the conviction with respect to our "glorious Church," "that to know her is to love her, and that those knowing and loving her true character will consecrate themselves to the maintenance of her purity in faith and life, and the enlargement of her efficiency in extending the Word and kingdom of Christ." Dr. D.H. Bauslin, who served the cause of conservatism within the General Synod both as professor in Wittenberg College and as editor of theLutheran World(from 1901 to 1912, when it merged into theLutheran Church Work), was a champion of the unionistic practises of the General Synod. The same is true of other conservatives who contributed to the revision and restatement of the doctrinal basis of the General Synod as finally adopted in 1913—they all must be classified as unionists, tolerating, on principle, deviations from the doctrines and practises distinctive of Lutheranism. Thus, in the course of years, the unionistic Lutherans multiplied, while the Reformed radicals decreased within the General Synod. In 1896 theHeraldof the General Council, itself a mildly unionistic paper, wrote: "It is gradually getting better in the General Synod. True, with respect to some old gentlemen the word of 1815 is applicable: 'The old guard dies, but does not surrender.' And the younger lordings, who swear by the MethodisticLutheran Evangelist, exercise themselves in crying against the dead orthodoxists. But these as well as the former are no longer strong enough to stop the movement toward the right. 'Toward the right'—that means the General Council, which, strange to say, is more obnoxious to the radicals than Missouri." (L. u. W.1896, 154.)
86. Dr. William Morton Reynolds.—Reynolds (1812 to 1875) graduated at Gettysburg Seminary; served as professor in Pennsylvania College from 1833 to 1850; with an interruption of the year 1835 to 1836, when he was pastor at Deerfield, N.J.; was president of Capital University, Columbus, 0., from 1850 to 1853, and of Illinois State University at Springfield from 1857 to 1860; joined the Episcopalians in 1863; translated and published Acrelius'sHistory of New Swedenin 1874. In 1842 Reynolds left the Ministerium of Pennsylvania and organized the East Pennsylvania Synod. In the interest of conservative Lutheranism, Reynolds, in 1849, founded theEvangelical Review, which B. Kurtz promptly condemned as "the most sectarian periodical he ever read." In 1850, when asked whether he intended to adhere to the doctrinal basis of the General Synod, Reynolds stated in theLutheran Observer: "Well, I frankly confess and rejoice in being able to say that within the last two years I have changed my views with respect to several very important points. But this change has not cast me out of the Lutheran Church, but, moreover, led me into it," etc. Reynolds declared that he joyously adopted "old Lutheranism," "as plainly taught in the Augsburg Confession and Luther's Small Catechism." (Lutheraner, April 30, 1850.) In theLutheran Observerof January 25, 1856, Reynolds retracted his former endorsement of Kurtz'sWhy You Are a Lutheran, a booklet in which Kurtz affirmed that the present Lutheran Church, with a few exceptions, believed concerning the Lord's Supper what had been held by those whom Luther termed "Sacramentarians." (L. u. W.1870, 156.) Walther, in 1850, praised Reynolds as a man of substantial learning and a teacher true to the Lutheran Church and her confessions. (Lutheraner6, 139.) But Walther and other friends of true Lutheranism who staked great hopes on Reynolds, were sorely disappointed in their expectations. In spite of his retractions, Reynolds always was and remained a unionist. In 1857 Harkey gave the assurance that Reynolds was not a symbolist, but stood on the doctrinal basis of the General Synod. When Dr. G. Diehl, in theObserver, designated Reynolds as a strict confessionalist, Reynolds, in theObserverof October 2, 1857, protested that he was a General Synod man, whose primary object was not to divide, but to unite. (L. u. W.1857, 314.) In his Springfield inaugural address, 1858, Reynolds coordinated the evangelical denominations, and advocated extensive unionism, maintaining that they all base their doctrines on Holy Scripture. In order to justify his apostasy, Reynolds, in 1863, published the statement that, in part, he had been moved to unite with the Episcopalians on account of the bitter "sectarianism" of the Lutheran Church and the denunciations of the men of theObserverparty by theLutheran and Missionary. (L. u. W.1864, 25.) Later Reynolds was reported to have said that he left the Lutheran Church because he was without employment, and believed every door in the General Synod closed against himself. TheObserverof October 9, 1863, justified the propriety of Reynold's action by referring to the constitution which provides for the honorable dismissal from District Synods and the admittance of ministers from other denominations. (L. u. W.1863, 379.) In 1877 theObserverpublished an article in which the writer states: "When a pastor who depends for his support on his office does not succeed in obtaining a position in our Church and must suffer on account of this, he may accept a call from another denomination…. Several of such cases have happened, and no liberal-minded man will censure persons who have left us for such reasons." (L. u. W.1877, 186.)
87. Conservative Periodicals.—In 1849 the English Lutherans in New York declared that theLutheran Observerwas opposed to the spirit and character of the Lutheran Church, and appointed a committee to bring about a radical change in the editorship, or, in case this should fail, to advocate the establishment of a new church-paper at the next General Synod. "Thus one funeral song after the other is chanted to our friend at Baltimore, and partly by his own former adherents," remarked theLutheraner. (6, 47.) It was but another of the numerous symptoms of awakening confessionalism in the East, when, at New York, June 8, 1853, a conference of the New York Ministerium, in a resolution, declared that they were utterly dissatisfied with the unevangelical and unsymbolical position of theLutheran Observeras a church-paper, dissatisfied also with the miserable stuff which it contained, and that, in place of it, they recommend theLutheran Standard. (Lutheraner9, 175.)—The first German paper within the General Synod which occasionally raised its voice against the apostasy of theObserverwas theLutherische Kirchenzeitungof Pittsburgh, published from 1838 to 1846 by Prof. Schmidt of Lafayette College, Easton, Pa., at a great personal sacrifice. (Kirchl. Mitt.1843, No. 10.) At Chambersburg, 1839, the General Synod resolved "that we continue to view theLutheran Observerpublished by Dr. Kurtz, at Baltimore, Md., and theLutherische Kirchenzeitung, published by Prof. Schmidt, at Easton, Pa., as able advocates of the cause of evangelical religion in our Church, and that we recommend them to the cordial support of our people." (16.) But the German paper soon proved a thorn in the flesh of the liberals. In 1841 "a Lutheran of Ohio" wrote in theKirchenzeitung:"It is astounding that the Lutheran Church should support a paper like theObserverand nurse an enemy in its midst; the editor [Kurtz] himself ought to be honest enough to leave the Church whose doctrines and customs he does not love, but regards as false." Because of this critical attitude the Synod of the West, in the same year, declared that it was unable to recommend theKirchenzeitungto its members. The charges were that theKirchenzeitungwas directly opposed to theLutheran Observer; that it revealed an improper spirit with respect to revivals and charitable institutions; that it had declared theLutheran Observerto be anti-Lutheran, and directed its influence against this excellent paper. The Pennsylvania Synod, however, to which Pastor Schmidt submitted the resolution of the Synod of the West, decided in favor of theKirchenzeitung. In 1849, the same year in which theMercersburg Reviewappeared, theEvangelical Reviewwas published at Gettysburg by W. M. Reynolds, whom Charles Philip Krauth succeeded as editor. Both Reynolds and Krauth were prominent among the leaders of the conservatives. What theEvangelical Review, however, really stood for was not unqualified Lutheranism, but unionism. (L. u. W.1858, 272 f.) On principle theReviewopened its pages to both the advocates and the opponents of the Lutheran symbols and its doctrines. (Lutheraner1852, 136.) Walther's report in theLutheraneron his trip to Germany in the interest of an agreement with Loehe appeared English in theEvangelical Reviewof 1853. (L.9, 134.) The career of theEvangelical Reviewwas closed in 1870. It was succeeded by theLutheran Quarterly, first edited by Drs. Brown and Valentine, both of whom were not essentially Lutheran, but unionistic and Reformed theologians.—In 1845, Dr. W. A. Passavant began a small missionary periodical which grew into a large family weekly, theMissionary. Though one of its objects was to oppose the un-Lutheran tendency of theObserver, theMissionaryitself was free neither of unionism nor even of Reformedism. According to its issue of February 28, 1861, for instance, communicants at the Lord's Supper partake of Christ's body and blood by faith. TheMissionarywas a champion also of the Reformed doctrine of the Sunday. (L. u. W.1861, 123. 350.) In 1861 theMissionarymerged into theLutheran and Missionary, with Drs. Krauth and Passavant as editors—a paper which took a decided stand in favor of a modified confessional Lutheranism. In 1861 the editors declared with respect to pulpit- and altar-fellowship: "We do not want to refuse the sweet bond of Christian fellowship to those who sincerely love our Lord Jesus Christ." (L. u. W.1861, 379; 1862, 19 ff.) TheLutheran World, serving the cause of the conservatives till 1912, when it was merged into theLutheran Church Work(established 1911 as the official organ of the General Synod), always defended the unionistic practises of the General Synod, and violently attacked Missouri for disapproving of her fellowship with the sects. (L. u. W.1901, 54; 1904, 564.) In 1901 theLutheran Worldwrote: "Perhaps we shall always have three great church bodies, lest any truth concerning the Trinity be lost. Perhaps there will always be Calvinists to emphasize the sovereignty of God, Arminians to emphasize the freedom of man and the work of the Holy Spirit, and Lutherans who place the emphasis on God in Christ and justification by faith in Him." (L. u. W.1901, 154.) In 1905 theWorlddefended the affiliation of the General Synod with the Federal Council, and attacked theLutheranfor criticizing the Federal Council as unionistic. (L. u. W.1906, 32.) Without a word of criticism theWorld, in 1903, published the news: "Rev. Eli Miller, of St. Mark's church, Allegheny, Pa., recently addressed the I. O. O. F. in his church on 'We be brethren'." (L. u. W.1903, 184.) In the same year theWorlddesignated the doctrine that every word of the Bible was inspired as an orthodox exaggeration and an astonishing assertion, at the same time declaring that it was time to formulate a theory of inspiration, and that, in this matter, all eyes in America were directed on the Lutheran church. (L. u. W.1904, 39; 1903, 307.) In 1901 theLutheran Worldwrote that one must not imagine that man cannot do anything toward his own salvation; that grace must not be viewed as such a supernatural operation which effects a change in the moral nature of man while his own exertions contribute nothing; that man must cooperate with God when the machinery is set into motion. (L. u. W.1901, 234.) TheLutherische Zionsbote, the organ of the German Nebraska and the Wartburg Synods, as well as of the German congregations in other District Synods, was much more moderate and conservative than its predecessor, theLutherische Kirchenfreund.
88. Light Coming from the West.—In 1845, at the convention of the General Synod in Philadelphia, Wyneken, a delegate of the Synod of the West, made a bold, determined, and consistent stand for genuine Lutheranism against the prevailing unionistic and Reformed tendencies of the leaders of the General Synod. Wyneken, who, in his pamphletThe Distress of the German Lutherans in North America, had characterized the General Synod as Reformed in doctrine, Methodistic in practise, and Lutheran in name only, demanded at Philadelphia that Synod either renounce the name Lutheran, or reject as utterly un-Lutheran Schmucker'sPopular Theology, Appeal, Portraiture of Lutheranism, etc., Kurtz'sOn Infant Baptism, Why You Are a Lutheran, and theLutheran Observer, as well as theHirtenstimmeof Weyl. But on floor of Synod not a single voice was heard that understood him, and was in sympathy with him. On the contrary, inLutherische Hirtenstimme, July 1, 1845, Rev. Weyl began to decry Wyneken as a masked Romanist, an enemy of Lutheran doctrines, usages, books, and periodicals, and to ridicule his zeal for true Lutheranism at Philadelphia as a "ludicrous motion (spasshafte Motion)" which the General Synod had tabled "good-naturedly." (L.1845, 96; 3, 32; 7, 133. 153.) Wyneken was a strange figure on the floor of the General Synod—without predecessors, without successors. Down to the Merger in 1918 there was not found a single prominent General Synodist walking in his steps. In an address delivered March 10, 1846, Dr. Philip Schaff (Schaaf was his original name) declared that it was impossible to build a confessional Lutheran Church (not to speak of the exclusive Lutheranism of the Form of Concord) on the Reformed English soil of America. It would be easier to direct the course of the Mississippi to Bavaria and to convert the Chinese through German sermons. The emissaries from Germany would soon be convinced of the folly of their undertaking, etc.—This was the view also of the leaders of the General Synod. But, though fully aware of the difficulties ahead, nothing was able to daunt the courage of the men of the West, or shake their faith in the truth and final success of their cause. And their faith did not fail them. Throughout the United States and far beyond its bounds the fact of Missouri's powerful rise was felt as an encouragement and incentive to true Lutheranism everywhere. Indeed, the confessional influence of the West on the East was much greater than is usually acknowledged. As early as 1846 Dr. Walther felt justified in stating in theLutheraner(Sept. 5): "No doubt but God has arisen in order to remove the rubbish under which our precious Evangelical Lutheran Church was buried for a long time, also here in America." (3, 1.) TheObserver, reporting on the organization of the Missouri Synod in 1847, ridiculed: "This new Synod is composed of genuine Old Lutherans, the true, spotless orthodox ones, whose theology is as strong and straight as the symbolical books can make it, and whose religious usages are as stiff as such thoroughbred old-school men can wish them." (L.4, 30.) But while B. Kurtz and his compeers indulged in mockery and ridicule, the men of Missouri were clear-sighted, serious, and determined. The consequence was that a decade later the hearts of the General Synod's anti-confessionalists were filled with fear and consternation. Schmucker's chief object in writing the Definite Platform, as appears from this document itself, was to stem the tide of the confessional wave coming from the West, and to make the General Synod immune against Misouri. [tr. note: sic!]
89. Cloud, like the Hand of a Man, in the West.—Admitting the tremendous influence of the Lutherans in the West, theObserver, February 19, 1864, wrote, in his usual subjective fashion: "There was a time when our Church had peace. From 1830 to 1840 she enjoyed a universal peace and flourished greatly. This flourishing condition extended far into the following decade. In these days, and already somewhat earlier, the transition from the German into English caused some friction. Nevertheless, it was a time of revivals and of great bloom. The number of our churches increased. Our seminary at Gettysburg was filled with students…. Between 1845 and 1850 a change took place with a part of our Church. A little cloud, like the hand of a man, appeared in the West. The Germans came in ever greater multitudes and in more rapid succession. They no longer joined the American Lutheran congregations generally. An Old Lutheran in Bavaria [Loehe] turned his eyes on this country, sending colonies of hyper-Lutherans. These opposed the revivals. Some of them were pious men, but their religious type differed from the American. They were surrounded by influences which hindered their amalgamation with American Christians. They had been imbued with mistrust against the General Synod. Their system was such as not to encourage spiritual life and progress…. These children of a foreign soil had been sent over with a bitter prejudice against the liberal Lutheranism of America. In the year 1845 there were probably no more than one or two dozen old-Lutheran congregations in this country. Now there are perhaps no less than 700 symbol-Lutheran congregations of the old school in the country, whose preachers—numbering almost 500— are all symbol- and hyper-Lutherans who profess to believe that the real body and blood of Christ are orally received in the Lord's Supper, and that the unbelieving communicant as well as the believing partakes of the true body and blood of the Savior. They also believe in regeneration by Baptism, and some of them also in private confession, in exorcism, in beautifying the church with pictures and crucifixes; some of them also, in bright daylight, light wax candles at Communion…. This German, anti-Biblical, anti-American element could have been checked and absorbed by the American Church if another element had not been added. But during the rise of the great revivals of the fourth decade of this century in our own Church unfortunately a class of people arose who are far more dangerous and more powerful for mischief than the European preachers. These American preachers became disloyal to the basis of the General Synod, and began to raise a banner against the revivals and against a spiritual Lutheranism…. They began a systematic persecution of the most prominent men of the General Synod. In order to execute their plans, they began to curry favor with the German symbolists. They succeeded in adding tenfold bitterness to the prejudice and suspicion in the hearts of the foreigners, until finally an almost unsurmountable abyss seems to be fastened between the foreign high-church party and our General Synod…. Every Lutheran of this country should have endeavored to lead our foreign brethren to the General Synod, showing them that the pure spiritual Lutheranism of this land is so much better than the leather-bound symbolism of the Bavarian autocrat, as our political institutions are better than those of the old Fatherland. But, instead of this work of love, our benighted symbolists have strengthened the prejudices of the foreigners in saying to them that the Lutheranism of the General Synod is a pseudo-Lutheranism."—The origin, then, of the confessional commotion within the Lutheran Church of America must be traced chiefly to such men as Wyneken, Sihler, and especially to Walther, who since 1839 had been zealous in unfurling the banner of true Lutheranism, seriously, determinately, aggressively, victoriously. If the confessional movement was wrong, Missouri, above all, must be condemned as the great disturber of the peace, but Lutheranism itself must go down with it. (L. u. W.1864, 59.) The sincerity, seriousness, and determination of the men of Missouri in applying the principles of Lutheranism as they saw it, commanded the admiration even of an opponent like S.S. Schmucker, who wrote in theObserver, September 21, 1860: "Would it not reveal a lack of self-respect if the General Synod were to receive men who seem to believe that she has departed so far from the Lutheran doctrine that she could no further lay any just claim to the name Lutheran? The opposite way of the Missourians is much more honorable and has won the respect not only of the General Synod, but of the Church everywhere."(L. u. W.1860, p. 353.)
90. Improved Conditions.—In the issue of theLutheranerdated August 31, 1852, Walther declared: "Since the last eight years, conditions have really improved in many respects, and to this end, according to many testimonies which have been made against us, God has used and blessed also our humble testimony." (9, 1.) The enmity which Missouri met everywhere was indeed a significant symptom of conditions changing for the better. It proved that the leaven of "foreign symbolism," as Schmucker pleased to style it, was doing its work. Foremost among the men that witnessed to the powerful influence of Missouri by testifying against her was B. Kurtz, who again and again denounced all confessionalists, especially those of the West, as "resurrectionists of elemental, undeveloped, halting, stumbling, and staggering humanity," as priests ready "to immolate bright meridian splendor on the altar of misty, musky dust," men bent on going backward, and consequently, of necessity, going downward! (Spaeth, 1, 344.) In 1859 theObserverwrote: "It is true that there are some small factions who call themselves Lutherans, but they are not of us, and there is no hope that the Missourians, or Buffaloans, and other small communions will ever become wiser in their generation. But it is to be expected that their children and children's children will outgrow the prejudices of their fathers, and become sensible and useful Christians. As said before, we do not regard these factions as Lutherans; they have stolen a part of Luther's livery, but they lack his spirit, and would be disowned by the great Reformer if he were on earth now." (L. u. W.1859, 227.) "The symbolists have forgotten that Luther had a soul, and that they are only quarreling over his old hat, coat, and boots," theObserverdeclared in its issue of April 1, 1864. It was a great shame for them that they made the doctrine concerning the reception of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper also by the wicked an essential part of the Lutheran system. "The Lutheran Church of this country," theObservercontinued, "moving forward gloriously on the basis of the General Synod, had gradually forgotten everything pertaining to the old boots, coats, and hats, until this extreme party [Missouri] rose, gathered the old rags, tied them to a stick, and now calls upon all Lutherans to agree with them on pain of excommunication." (Kirchl. Mitt.1864, 56.) In May of the following year Dr. Conrad wrote, in a similar strain: "The extreme symbolical standpoint, adopted anew in America and Europe and demanding an unconditional subscription to the whole [doctrinal] content of the Symbolical Books, is historically hyper-Lutheran, essentially schismatic, practically disastrous, and providentially condemned." (L. u. W.1865, 217.) Referring to Kurtz's tirade on "Luther's old boots," etc., theLutheranremarked: "Is there no one in the General Synod who will call to account such a blasphemous slanderer?" However, it was but the language of a foe who began to realize that defeat was imminent.
91. Resolutions of 1895, 1901, and 1909.—Owing to the efforts of the conservatives in the interest of bringing about a closer union with the General Council and the United Synod in the South, the General Synod passed a number of resolutions affecting its confessional basis: 1895 in Hagerstown, Md.; 1901 in Des Moines, Iowa; 1909 in Richmond, Ind.; 1911 in Washington, D.C.; and 1913 in Atchison, Kans. The resolution adopted at Hagerstown, June 15, 1895, defines the "Unaltered Augsburg Confession as throughout in perfect consistence" with the Word of God. It reads: "Resolved, That in order to remove all fear and misapprehension, this convention of the General Synod hereby expresses its entire satisfaction with the present form of doctrinal basis and confessional subscription, which is the Word of God, the infallible rule of faith and practise, and the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as throughout in perfect consistence with it—nothing more, nothing less." The resolution adopted June 6, 1901, at Des Moines objects to any distinction made between fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines in the Augustana. It reads: "Resolved, That, in these days of doctrinal unrest in many quarters, we rejoice to find ourselves unshaken in our spiritual and historic faith, and therefore reaffirm our unreserved allegiance to the present basis of the General Synod; and we hold that to make any distinction between fundamental and so-called non-fundamental doctrines in the Augsburg Confession is contrary to that basis as set forth in our formula of confessional subscription." Concerning the other symbols of the Book of Concord the convention at Richmond declared, June 8, 1909: "Resolved, That, inasmuch as the Augsburg Confession is the original, generic confession of the Lutheran Church, accepted by Luther and his coadjutors, and subscribed to by all Lutheran bodies the world over, we therefore deem it an adequate and sufficient standard of Lutheran doctrine. In making this statement, however, the General Synod in no wise means to imply that she ignores, rejects, repudiates, or antagonizes the Secondary Symbols of the Book of Concord, nor forbids any of her members from accepting or teaching all of them, in strict accordance with the Lutheran regulating principle of justifying faith. On the contrary, she holds those Symbols in high esteem, regards them as a most valuable body of Lutheran belief, explaining and unfolding the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, and she hereby recommends that they be diligently and faithfully studied by our ministers and laymen." With respect to the phrase in the Amendment of 1864, "the Word of God as contained in the canonical Scriptures," the Richmond convention resolved, "That we herewith declare our adherence to the satement, [tr. note: sic!] 'The Bible is the Word of God,' and reject the error implied in the statement, 'The Bible contains the Word of God.'"
92. Objectionable Features of Resolutions.—Among the weak points of the resolutions of 1895 and 1901 are the following. First: It implied a contradiction when the General Synod in her new resolutions, which give an unqualified assent to the Augsburg Confession, at the same time declared herself fully satisfied with, reaffirmed and set its seal of approval on, the qualified basis of 1864. From the very outset the leaders of the new confessional movement dodged the open acknowledgment that the doctrinal basis of the General Synod, also that of 1864, was misleading and un-Lutheran. In the resolution of 1895, Synod expressed her "entire satisfaction" with the doctrinal basis of 1864. In the resolution of 1901 she reaffirmed her "unreserved allegiance" to this basis. In 1909 Synod declared: "We reiterate our firm belief that our confessional basis [of 1864] is adequate and satisfactory." (58.) Again: "The confessional resolutions referred to [of 1895 and 1901] are not alterations of the constitution, and contemplate no alterations; they are simply explanations of the meaning of the General Synod's confessional basis. Therefore, it is not necessary to submit them to the District Synods of the General Synod" (for adoption). (58.) The Report of Dr. L.S. Keyser, delegate to the General Council in 1907, which was adopted by the Richmond convention, urged Synod to defend, vindicate, and maintain her doctrinal basis of 1864. Also theLutheran World, the organ of the conservatives, maintained that the General Synod's resolutions of 1895 to 1909 were but "a restatement of its confessional basis in harmony with all its previous statements." (L. u. W.1909, 370.) Secondly: When the resolution of 1901 declared it contrary to the basis of 1864 to make any distinction between fundamental and so-called non-fundamental doctrines in the Augsburg Confession, this, too, was an unwarranted assertion. The Richmond convention stated: "When the General Synod says, in her formula of confessional subscription, that she accepts 'the Augsburg Confession as a correct exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of the divine Word, and of the faith of our Church founded upon the Word,' she means precisely what she says, namely, that the fundamental doctrines of God's Word are correctly set forth in the Confession. She does not mean that some of the doctrines set forth in the Confession are non-fundamental, and, therefore, may be accepted or rejected; she means that they are all fundamental, and their exhibition in the Confession is to be accepted by those who subscribe to the Confession." This interpretation placed on the York Amendment by the resolution of 1901 was unknown to the General Synod and her theologians before as well as after its adoption in 1864. As shown above, the phrase "fundamental doctrines" of the York Amendment, historically interpreted, has but one meaning,viz., that some of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession are fundamental, while others are not. Besides, while it is certainly correct to regard all doctrines of the Augustana as Scriptural and binding, it is theologically false to declare all of them,e.g., the doctrine of the Sunday, fundamental doctrines.—Thirdly: The convention at Richmond adopted the statement: "While the General Synod's formula of confessional subscription mentions only the Augsburg Confession, without specifying the terms 'altered' or 'unaltered,' yet it is a historical fact that the General Synod has never subscribed to any edition of the Confession save the 'unaltered' form, and does not now subscribe to any other edition." (56.) If this means that the General Synod ever subscribed,e.g., to the rejection in the Tenth Article, an essential feature in the unaltered edition, but omitted in the edition of 1540, the statement is not borne out by the facts. —Fourthly: The resolution of 1909, by stating that every member may accept the Secondary Symbols "in strict accordance with the Lutheran regulating principle of justifying faith" (60), insinuates that these symbols are in need of such an interpretation, thus placing them below par. The self-evident fact that the Secondary Symbols should be tried also according to the Augsburg Confession and the doctrine of justification did not justify a limitation, which could be interpreted as a justification,e.g., of the professors in Gettysburg Seminary, who, from Schmucker down to Richard, maintained that the Secondary Symbols were not in agreement with the Augsburg Confession.
93. Atchison Amendments.—The resolutions of 1891 to 1909 were not submitted to the District Synods for adoption, nor subsequently embodied in the constitution of the General Synod. Instead, the convention at Richmond, 1909, instructed the Common Service Committee "to codify the several resolutions and statements explanatory of the Doctrinal Basis of the General Synod, adopted at York, Pa., in 1864; at Hagerstown, Md., in 1895; at Des Moines, Iowa, in 1901; and at the present session of the General Synod, and incorporate the substance of the same into one clear and definite statement of our Doctrinal Basis, and to report the same at the next meeting of the General Synod with a view to placing it in the Constitution of the General Synod by amendment in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself, there being no intention in this action in any way to change our present Doctrinal Basis" of 1864. (115.) Accordingly, two new articles were presented to the assembly in Washington, D.C., 1911, which were subsequently referred to the District Synods for action. The articles submitted for approval read as follows: "Article II. Doctrinal Basis. With the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Fathers, the General Synod receives and holds the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practise; and it receives and holds the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a correct exhibition of the faith and doctrine of our Church as founded upon the Word. Article III. The Secondary Symbols. While the General Synod regards the Augsburg Confession as a sufficient and altogether adequate doctrinal basis for the cooperation of Lutheran synods, it also recognizes the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Small Catechism of Luther, the Large Catechism of Luther, and the Formula of Concord as expositions of Lutheran doctrine of great historical and interpretative value, and especially commends the Small Catechism as a book of instruction." (Proceedings1913, 126.) Two years later, all District Synods having approved the articles, the convention at Atchison declared "that the said amendments have been adopted, and are parts of the Constitution of this body." (L. u. W.1916, 6.)
94. A Stride Forward Officially.—Considered by themselves, no criticism will be offered by any Lutheran on the new articles embodied in the General Synod's constitution. Even the blemishes still adhering to the resolutions of 1891 and 1909 have disappeared. Specific reference to the York basis of 1864 is omitted; likewise the limitation with reference to the adoption of the Secondary Symbols, etc. True, the new articles contain a confession of the Augustana only, while in our day, also in our country, it is certainly of special import for Lutherans to acknowledge all Lutheran symbols in order to show at the very outset that they occupy a correct position also with respect to the controversies after Luther's death, which, in part, have been revived in our own country. Indeed, the second of the new articles has been interpreted by some as involving a confession also of the Secondary Articles. But Dr. Singmaster is right in declaring with reference to the new formula: "The General Synod does not require subscription to the Secondary Symbols as a condition to membership in that body. Their formal acceptance is a matter of liberty with the individual synod." However, since the confessional formula of 1913 contains neither a limitation as to the adoption of the Augustana, nor any criticism of the other Lutheran symbols, the present doctrinal basis of the General Synod, as stated in the new articles, must be viewed as satisfactory—caeteris paribus. By adopting the Atchison Amendments, the General Synod in reality, at least formally and officially, did not merely reaffirm and reiterate, but corrected and changed its former qualified confessional basis. As it reads, the formula of 1913 is tantamount to a rejection of all former doctrinal deliverances of the General Synod, the resolutions of Synod and asseverations of her theologians to the contrary notwithstanding. Dr. Neve admits as much when he says: "Thus the General Synod took a great stride forward in the direction of confessional correctness. The express mention of the 'Unaltered' Augsburg Confession constitutes an outspoken confession against Melanchthonianism, that is, against the Definite Platform theology, or American Lutheranism. And the removal of the old formula concerning the fundamental doctrines means the removal of an expression which has done much harm in the General Synod." (158.) In part, this progress was a result of the testimony of Walther and the Missouri Synod, whose fidelity to the Lutheran Confessions had been stigmatized for decades by the theologians of the General Synod, even such men as Charles Porterfield Krauth (in 1857), as "rigid symbolism," "German Lutheranism," "deformities of a Pharisaic exclusiveness," etc. Dr. Neve remarks: "The close unity coupled with its size (for Missouri soon became by far the largest synod) exercised a powerful influence on those without, strengthening, especially in the Eastern synods, the already awakened confessional consciousness."
95. Remaining Contradictions.—Even apart from the actual conditions prevailing in the General Synod as to Lutheran doctrine and practise, one cannot maintain successfully that the General Synod, in adopting the new articles, fully and satisfactorily cleared the situation as to its doctrinal attitude. For in more than one respect also the official confessional movement inaugurated in 1891 was contradictory of itself. First: In a previous paragraph we have already referred to the contradiction contained in the fact that the General Synod, while adopting the new resolutions, at the same time reaffirmed and endorsed the York Amendment of 1864. This endorsement, which practically invalidates the adoption of the new articles, was not withdrawn at the subsequent conventions in 1911 and 1913. The York Amendment still bears the official seal of the General Synod. Dr. Singmaster says inDistinctive Doctrinesof 1914: "The doctrinal basis, as amended in 1866 [1864], remained unchanged for nearly fifty years. Various deliverances made at the convention of the General Synod during this period repudiate false charges, and affirm the Lutheran character and confessional fidelity of the body…. The doctrinal basis as it now exists, means to the members of the General Synod exactly what it meant before its verbal amendment. For a generation it has been interpreted to mean an unequivocal subscription to the Augsburg Confession." (57.) Secondly: The so-called York Resolution, which, as shown above (No. 71), rejects the Lutheran doctrines of the real presence, absolution, and the Sunday, thus openly conflicting with the Atchison Amendments of 1913, which give an unqualified assent to the Augsburg Confession, was not rescinded by the General Synod. The report of the delegate to the General Council, adopted by the General Synod in 1909, states: "In our address before the General Council [1907] as your representative, we defended, with all the courtesy, clearness, and positiveness we could command, the confessional position of the General Synod. This we did by referring to our official declarations, namely, the York Resolution of 1864, our revised formula of confessional subscription of 1869 [1864], in which this body planted itself unequivocally on the Augustana, and our confessional resolutions of 1895 and 1901." (54.) At the same convention the General Synod declared: "Those official resolutions [of 1895 and 1901], together with the well-known York Resolution, adopted in 1864, bind the General Synod to the Augsburg Confession in its entirety." (57.) In keeping herewith the General Synod provided that, in all future editions of the Augsburg Confession published by the General Synod, the confessional declarations of the General Synod (the York Amendment and the resolutions of 1895, 1901, and 1909) "be inserted immediately after the York Resolution." (59.) Nor was the York Resolution disavowed at the convention at Washington, 1911, as appears from the following recommendation of the Common Service Committee adopted by Synod: "With these amendments [finally adopted at Atchison] there remains only the York Resolution of 1864, concerning alleged errors, to be disposed of. As this is simply of an explanatory and apologetic character, it cannot well be incorporated in the constitution. It seems to your committee that this resolution has served its purpose, and needs no further repetition,especially as it remains on record for reference. We believe that both the constitution and the confession will appear more dignified, and will inspire greater confidence, unbuttressed by subsidiary statements." Accordingly, the York Resolution "remained on record for reference." (24.) Thirdly: The amendments of 1913 are in a hopeless conflict also with Art. IV, Sec. 8, of the General Synod's constitution, reading as follows: "They [Synod] shall, however, be extremely careful that the consciences of ministers of the Gospel be not burdened with human inventions, laws, or devices, and that no one be oppressed by reason of differences of opinion on non-fundamental doctrines." Accordingly, while the Atchison formula calls for an unqualified subscription to all doctrines of the Augustana, Art. IV, Sec. 8, of the same constitution grants liberty in "non-fundamental doctrines,"i.e., interpreted historically, liberty in the articles which distinguish the Lutheran Church from the Reformed and other Evangelical Churches.—The convention at Richmond, 1909, maintained: "It is only by her [General Synod's] official declarations that her doctrinal position is to be tested and judged." (58.) If this contention, though facts frequently speak louder and much more convincingly than formulas, be granted—according to which set of contradictory "official declarations" was one to test and judge the true attitude of the General Synod?
96. Long Stride from Formula to Fact.—Formal adoption of a correct Lutheran basis does not necessarily imply actual agreement with such basis. To pass a good resolution is easy. All Christian sects protest that they accept the Bible. But they say, and do not. "What youare," said Emerson, "speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what yousay." In a measure this also applies when the actual conditions prevailing in the General Synod before and after 1913 are compared with the doctrinal basis adopted in that year. In 1866, in a letter to Pastor Brunn, Walther wrote with reference to the synods then uniting to form the General Council: "As far as the latter are concerned, it is true that our testimony extending over a period of twenty years has by the grace of God cooperated in causing some synods to speak again of the Confession, and to base and pledge themselves upon it, at least formally; but it is a long stride from the formal acknowledgment of the symbols to a true knowledge of them, and a truly Lutheran spirit, and the consequent discipline of doctrine and life." (Letters, 2, 36.) Now, the General Synod did not adopt its present basis as a result of any doctrinal discussions of, and subsequent agreements in, the Lutheran doctrines. The confessional movement was a formal affair, without any special effort to arrive at a thorough understanding of, and true unity in, the doctrinal content of the Augustana. But what value is there in adopting a confession without a correct knowledge of, and agreement in, its doctrines? Furthermore, the Atchison Amendments were submitted to the District Synods for approval by majority vote, not to the individual ministers and congregations. Adoption, accordingly, did not mean unanimous acknowledgment. Moreover, the liberal party of the General Synod, as represented by theLutheran Observer, openly denounced the new confessional resolutions. (L. u. W.1916, 58.) Others who submitted to the new formula, no doubt felt justified, in accordance with the repeated approvals on the part of the General Synod of the basis of 1864, to interpret the former according to the latter.
97. Doctrinal Confusion.—The General Synod has always been a babel of doctrinal confusion. In it unity did not even prevail as to the doctrines which distinguish the Lutheran Church from the Reformed. From 1820 down to 1918 the General Synod, in its periodicals and by its representative men, and in part also as such and officially, defended and supported indifferentism, unionism, synergism, chiliasm, abstinence, the divine obligation of the Sabbath, and other un-Lutheran and distinctively Reformed doctrines. (L. u. W.1917, 471; 1918, 43.) Doctrinal discipline never has had as much as a shadow of an existence within the General Synod. Nor did the Atchison Amendments effect any apparent and marked change in the spirit and attitude of doctrinal indifferentism. Reformed errorists were tolerated after as well as before 1913. In its issue of September 12, 1918, theLutheran Church Work and Observerdeclared: "Our body breathes the free atmosphere of America, and is not so legalistic and Puritanical as to think that every person who offends must be brought before the judgment-bar of the church for discipline." After as well as before 1913 some of the General Synodists continued to indulge in dreams of a millennium and union of all Evangelical denominations in America. (L. u. W.1918, 87;Luth. Wit.1918, 373.) The Sabbath-day was declared to be "of perpetual authority," and its observance as "binding on all by divine requirement." In 1918 theLutheran Church Workasked for state legislation to enforce the Sabbath, because the "Almighty Jehovah is 'the Lord of the Sabbath,' and has given us an indication of the importance which He places on His holy day by having put it even before the commandment in the Decalog which says: 'Honor thy father and thy mother.'" (L. u. W.1918, 336; cf. 1915, 397; 1911, 510.) The same old Puritanical attitude was maintained by the General Synod also with respect to the prohibition movement. (Proceedings1917, 140 ff.)
98. Tolerating Modern Liberalism.—The General Synod never did, nor intended to, exercise church-discipline with respect to Reformed aberrations. Nor is there a single case of church-discipline against any form of liberalism recorded. Yet practically from its very beginning the General Synod declared herself against Socinianism. And in 1909 theLutheran Quarterlystated that the General Synod, though not exercising church-discipline with respect to Reformed errors, does exclude Unitarians, Universalists, and Christian Scientists. (15.) In 1917 theLutheranasserted: The Lutheran Church in America "stands as a unit in protest against the creed of Reason, known as the ever-variable 'New Theology,' and presents an unbroken front in loyalty to the Gospel." (L. u. W.1917, 562.) But is this claim really borne out by the facts? The theory of evolution, which vitiates every Christian doctrine when applied to theology, has been defended again and again in theLutheran Observer, theLutheran Quarterly, theLutheran Church Work, and other publications of the General Synod. Endorsing the evolution doctrine, theObserverwrote in 1909: "That a law of development runs through all nature, life, and history, is one of the ruling postulates in present-day investigations. That the continuity of nature, life, and history which this implies is not inconsistent with theistic and Christian belief is also clearly recognized, and consequently the impression of a panicky feeling which pervaded so much of the discussion of evolution which immediately followed the publication of theOrigin of Species[of Darwin], is to-day conspicuous by its absence." (L. u. W.1909, 279.) In 1901: "Originally, all was soft and plastic. The granite foundations were mortar and ashes or cinders and water. Cosmic forces have since been crystallizing rocks out of the same elements which exist in the soil, or float in the streams and exhale in the atmosphere." (L. u. W.1901, 185.) In 1917 theLutheran Quarterlydeclared that the doctrine of evolution can be accepted "in so far as it is descriptive of God's method with the world." (96.) Dr. L.S. Keyser, of Wittenberg Seminary, philosophizes: "God created the primordial material. Without losing His transcendence, He became immanent in His creation, developing it through secondary causes for, doubtless, long eras; at certain crucial steps, as was necessary, He added new creations and injected new forces; such epochs were the introduction of life, sentiency, and man. This world-view should be called 'creation and evolution,' with as marked an emphasis on the former as on the latter." (Syst. of Nat. Theol., 114.) Furthermore, in 1891 theLutheran Observereditorially defended Dr. Briggs, whom the Presbyterians expelled because of his liberalism, as an innocently persecuted man. (L. u. W.1901, 214.) In 1901 theLutheran Quarterlysaid of Harnack that in hisEssence of Christianityhe assigns a position to Christ "which must have made a deep impression on his hearers." (L. u. W.1901, 370.) In 1909: "Even if we should in the end have to acknowledge that Jesus had a human father as well as a human mother, that would simply teach us what we are confessing and believing even now: Jesus is not alone true God, but likewise true man. His divinity would not be affected thereby." (L. u. W.1909, 228.) In 1918 theLutheran Church Work and Observerrecommended Dr. James Denney's book,The Atonement and the Modern Mind, in which Denney practically rejects the authority of the Scriptures and departs from the Christian doctrine of satisfaction made by Christ. (L. u. W.1918, 482.) In theLutheran Church Work and Observer, April 4, 1918, Rev. W.R. Goff maintained: "The writer cannot find one passage in Scripture that definitely and positively asserts a visible return of the Lord." (L. u. W.1918, 423.)
99. A Second Edition of Quitman.—For quite a number of years Dr. E.H. Delk, a prominent member of the General Synod, has been an ardent advocate of modern rationalism and evolutionism. He denies the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, rejects the Lutheran doctrine of the union of the divine and human natures in Christ, attacks the dogma that the death of Christ was a ransom and a substitutional sacrifice for the sins of the world, corrupts every Christian doctrine, and demands that all of them be restated in order to bring them into harmony with modern evolutionistic science and philosophy. "The Bible and our Confession do not ask man to throw away his reason in the reception of truth and in thejudgmentof the theological problems," Delk declared in 1903. (L. u. W.1903, 185.) A number of years ago, Dr. Delk was permitted to present his radical views to the students of Gettysburg Seminary; and theLutheran Quarterlypublished the lecture without a word of criticism. At Atchison, 1913, when resolutions were offered rejecting the doctrines of Delk, the General Synod refused to take definite action. TheLutheran Observerboasted that Synod was not ready to sacrifice liberty of thought and speech. (L. u. W.1901, 370; 1902, 136; 1903, 185; 1913, 145; 1916, 67.) In 1916 theLutheran Church Work and Observer, the official organ of the General Synod, opened its columns to Delk and his theology. In 1917 Delk continued his propaganda by publishing his views in a booklet,The Need of a Restatement of Theology. In 1918 theLutheran Church Work and Observerendorsed and advertised the book. Identifying himself with some of the views of modern German liberalism on Luther and his theology, Delk wrote in theLutheran Church Work and Observerof November 1, 1917: "We see now in the light of a fuller history of the man [Luther] that he was a child of his age and carried over into his Protestant thinking traits of medieval thinking…. Luther was not the end, but the beginning of new advances in the political and religious ideals of the world…. We are separated by a millennium of thought from the critical thought-standpoint of Luther." (L. u. W.1918, 43.) Also by Drs. Keyser and Voigt, Delk has been charged with substituting the teachings of philosophy and science for Christianity, and with propagating heretical doctrine concerning the inspiration of the Bible and the deity and atonement of Christ. The advocacy of evolutionistic theology, as tolerated by the General Synod, however, cannot but be regarded as a return to the rationalism of Quitman and Velthusen.
100. Unionism Unabated.—In 1917 Dr. Neve wrote in theLutheran Church Review: "The different Protestant Churches, that is, the leading ones, are not arbitrary developments with no right to exist, but they represent the historical endeavors to bring to an expression within the Church of Christ the truth of Scripture." (167.) This view was at the bottom of the pulpit, altar, and church-work fellowship indulged in by the General Synod throughout the course of its history from 1820 down to its exit in 1918. This attitude of indifferentism naturally led to the exchange of fraternal delegates with the Reformed and other Churches. It resulted in a cooperation of the General Synod with the Federal Council, the Home Missions Council, the Foreign Mission Conference, the International Sunday-school Association, the Sunday-school Council of Evangelical Denominations, the Inter-Church Federation, the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A., the W.C.T.U., The Anti-Saloon League, etc. And the new confessional resolutions brought no change in this practise. With respect to the action of the Wartburg Synod, excluding other than Lutheran ministers from its pulpits and other than Lutherans from its altars, Dr. J.A. Singmaster, at the convention in Richmond, 1909, offered the resolution "that the General Synod, while allowing all congregations and individuals connected with it the fullest Christian liberty, does not approve of synodical enactments which in any way narrow its confessional basis or abridge intersynodical fellowship and transfers." (Proceedings1909, 128; Neve,Gesch., 73.) TheLutheran Observerremained the same enthusiast for "interdenominational fraternal cooperation and work in the Federation of Churches," etc. (L. u. W.1916, 63.) The ministers of the General Synod continued to exchange pulpits and to arrange for joint celebrations with sectarian preachers. (Witness1918, 404; 1919, 14.) Despite the new basis of 1913, the General Synod remained a member of the Federal Council, which Dr. Delk in 1912 extolled as the "Twentieth Century Ecumenical Council." In 1909 the report of the delegates to the Federal Council was adopted, stating: "We heartily endorse the work of the Council, and we welcome the opportunity of cooperating with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in promoting the work of His kingdom…. We recommend that nine delegates be sent, and that an annual contribution of $450 be paid out of the treasury of the General Synod for the support of the Federal Council." (115.) Again, in 1917, a report of the delegates to the Third Quadrennial Meeting of the Federal Council was adopted, which said, in part: "The Federal Council is mobilizing the forces of Protestantism against any and every foe of evangelical principles and practises. A committee has been appointed to arrange a Pan-Protestant Reformation celebration for 1917…. It was a great privilege to have participated in this historic council. As the federation idea originated in the United States in the mind and heart of a learned and devout Lutheran, Dr. Samuel S. Schmucker, it was a great joy and satisfaction to see and participate in this consummation of Dr. Schmucker's hope of all Protestant bodies in council and cooperation in the one common task of propagating the kingdom of God in society and throughout the world." (27.) Dr. MacFarland, the General Secretary of the Federal Council, was introduced, and addressed the General Synod. (131.) In the same year the General Synod appointed Dr. Delk, Dr. Wolford, Rev. Russell, and three laymen as "delegates to the Federal Council," and Dr. Bell as "representative to General Assembly of Presbyterian Church." (372.)
101. Fellowshiping [tr. note: sic] Jews and Unitarians.—Universally General Synodists, down to the Merger in 1918, have defended and practised church-fellowship with the Evangelical denominations. Regarding religious communion with Jews and Unitarians, however, Dr. Neve wrote in 1909: "Such is a rare occurrence and always would meet with the disapproval of nearly all members of the General Synod." (Lutheran Quarterly1909, 12. 19.) According to Neve, then, there are members of the General Synod who do approve of church-fellowship even with Jews and Unitarians. Commenting in theLutheran Church Work and Observer, of October 31, 1918, on a Communion service in which Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Reformed, Unitarians, etc., united, Dr. L.E. Keyser declared: "Such a conglomeration of beliefs and creeds would be impossible in the Lutheran Church. To stand or kneel at the altar with people who even deny the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the need of atonement for sin, is impossible with Lutherans who are serious in their convictions." But what of the facts? In 1903 theLutheran Observerdeclared: "When, at the great Parliament of Religions in Chicago, men of all beliefs united in the Lord's Prayer, who shall say that they had no right to do it, even though it was not with full understanding of its meaning? God is the All-Father. All men are His children." (L. u. W.1903, 184.) At the World's Fair in St. Louis, 1904, Dr. Rhodes of the General Synod celebrated a union Thanksgiving Service in Festival Hall with Archbishop Glennon, Rabbi Harrison, etc. (L. u. W.1904, 565.) In 1909 Dr. Delk indulged in religious fellowship with the Reformed Jews in a Jewish temple. (L. u. W.1909, 558 f.) On November 28, 1918, Rev. A. Homrighaus united in a Thanksgiving service, in which a Jewish rabbi and a Unitarian participated, etc. (Luth. Witness1919, 14.)