A Brief His Tory of the Lutheran Church in Amer Ica

Home , Christian Keyser, Christoph Ernst Luthardt, Claus Harms, Hans Nielsen Hauge, Henry Louis Baugher, John Campanius

A Brief His tory of the Lutheran Church in Amer ica

1 Also Avail able from Luther an Li brary.org

Churches And Sects Of Christen dom by J. L. Neve. The Ref orm a tion and the Lutheran Church: Sermons and Ad dresses by Ameri can Lutheran Pas tors.

2 About The Lutheran Li brary

The Lutheran Library is a non-profit pub lisher of good Chris tian books. All are avail able in a vari ety of formats for use by any one for free or at very lit tle cost. There are never any licens- ing fees. We are Bible believ ing Chris tians who sub scribe whole heartedly to the Augs burg Con fession as an ac curate sum mary of Scrip ture, the chief arti cle of which is Jus tifi ca tion by Faith. Our pur pose is to make avail able solid and encour ag ing mate rial to strengthen believ ers in Christ. Prayers are requested for the next gen era tion, that the Lord will plant in them a love of the truth, such that the hard-learned lessons of the past will not be forgot ten. Please let others know of these books and this completely volun teer endeavor . May God bless you and keep you, help you, defend you, and lead you to know the depths of His kindness and love.

3 A Brief His tory of the Lutheran Church in Amer ica

By Juer gen L. Neve. PRO FES SOR OF SYM BOL ICS AND HIS TORY OF THE DOC TRINES IN WIT TEN BERG SEM I NARY, SPRING FIELD, OHIO.

Lutheran Li brary.org

4 Contents

Also Available from Luther anLi brary.org About The Lutheran Li brary Con tents Pref ace by Lutheran Li brar ian Liter ature. Im portant Sources. Presen ta tions of the History of the Luth. Church in America as a Whole: Histo ries of In divid ual Syn ods: Biogra phies: With Refer ence to Doc tri nal Differ ences: With Refer ence to the Dis cussion on Pre desti nation: Foreword. In tro ductory . Mode of Treatment. The First Pe riod. Origin Of In divid ual Con grega tions. 1. Prelim inary His tory Of The Lutheran Syn ods Of America. § 1. The Dutch Luther ans. § 2. The Swedish Luther ans. § 3. The Ger man Luther ans. The Second Pe riod. Con grega tions Orga nized Into Syn ods. 2. Muhlen berg And The Founding Of The First Lutheran Synod. § 4. Muhlen berg and His Work. 3. Further De vel op ment Of Muhlen berg’s Orga ni za tion. § 5. Origin of Other Synods. § 6. Charac ter is tics of This Period. The Third Pe riod. Syn ods Orga nized Into Larger Bodies. 4. The Gen eral Synod. § 7. The Found ing of the General Synod. § 8. The Sig nif icance of the Gen eral Synod for the Lutheran Church of that Pe riod.

5 § 9. Aber ra tions. § 10. Disrup tion of the Gen eral Synod and Origin of the Gen eral Coun cil. § 11. The Charac ter of the Gen eral Synod. § 12. The Work of the Gen eral Synod. § 13. Obser vations on Sta tistics. 5. The United Synod Of The South. § 14. The Origin of the Synod. § 15. Charac ter iza tion. § 16. Insti tu tions and Work. 6. The Gen eral Coun cil. § 17. Orga ni za tion. § 18. Charac ter of the Coun cil. § 19. Present Sta tus. § 20. Insti tu tions and Missions. 7. The Syn od ical Con fer ence. § 21. Intro ductory . § 22. How It Came Into Ex is tence. § 23. Doc tri nal Con tro versies of Missouri. § 24. Its Work. The Other Parts Of The Synod ical Con fer ence. § 25. The Gen eral Synod of Wis consin, Min nesota, Michi gan and Other States § 26. The Slo vak Synod. § 27. Practice of the Synod ical Con fer ence. 8. Inde pen dent Syn ods. § 28. The Joint Synod of Ohio. § 29. The Iowa Synod. § 30. The Buffalo Synod. 9. The Nor we gians And Danes. § 31. The Nor we gians. § 32. Dan ish Luther ans in America. 10. Small Syn ods of Differ ent Lan guages. § 33. Small Syn ods of Differ ent Lan guages. 11. Con stitu tional Forms of the Lutheran Church in Amer ica. § 34. Con stitu tional Forms of the Lutheran Church in Amer ica. 12. Gen eral Re view.

6 § 35. A Discus s ion of the De vel op ment of the Lutheran Church in America. § 36. Re view of the Ex ten sion of the Lutheran Church in Amer ica. 37. Appen dices. Copy right No tice How Can You Find Peace With God? Bene dic tion Ba sic Bibli cal Chris tianity | Books to Down load Es sential The ology | Books to Download De vo tional Clas sics | Books to Download

7 Pref ace by Lutheran Li brar ian

In re pub lishing this book, we seek to intro duce this author to a new gener ation of those seek ing au then tic spiri tu al ity. The Lutheran Li brary Pub lishing Ministry finds, re stores and re pub lishes good, readable books from Lutheran authors and those of other sound Chris tian tra diti ons. All ti tles are avail able at lit tle to no cost in proof read and freshly type set edi tions. Many free e-books are avail able at our web site Luther anLi brary.org. Please enjoy this book and let oth ers know about this com pletely vol un teer ser vice to God’s people. May the Lord bless you and bring you peace.

A Note about Ty pos [Ty po graph i cal Er rors]

Please have pati ence with us when you come across typos. Over time we are re vis ing the books to make them bet ter and bet ter. If you would like to send the errors you come across to us, we’ll make sure they are cor rected.

8 Lit er a ture.

Im por tant Sources.

Hallesche Nach richten. Halle, 1744. 1750. 1778. Eng lish edi tion, Phil- adel phia, 1894. Muehlen berg’s eigene Lebensbeschrei bung, heraus ge beben von W. Ger mann, Al len town, Pa., 1881. Urisperger, S., Sammlung ausfuehrlicher Nach richten von den Sals- burger Em igranten. Halle, 1735-1746. Kirchliche Mitteilun gen aus and ueber Nor damerika 1843-1866 (being docu men tary ma te rial for the ori gin of Mis souri and Iowa syn ods). Ochsen ford, S. E., Doc u men tary History of the Gen eral Coun cil. Phil- adel phia, 1912. Doc u men tary His tory of the Ev. Luth. Min is terium of the Gen eral Coun cil. Phil adel phia, 1898. Fritschel, Geo. J., Quellen und Dokumente zur Geschichte und Lehrstel lung der Iowa Syn ode. Chicago, 1916. Sachse, J. F., Ger man Pietists of Provin cial Penn syl vania (1694-1708), 1895. Finck, W. J., Lutheran Land marks and Pi o neers in America. Phila del- phia. 1913.

Pre sen ta tions of the His tory of the Luth. Church in Amer ica as a Whole:

Ja cobs, H. E., His tory of the Ev. Luth. Church in the U. S. Phil adel- phia, 1893. Fritschel, Geo. J., Geschichte der lutherischen Kirche in Amerika auf grund von Ja cobs’ His tory (translated and en larged) Gueter sloh, 1896.

9 Wolf, E. J., The Luther ans in America (out of print; new edi tion un der consid er ation). New York, 1891. Graeb ner, A., Geschichte der luth. Kirche Amerikas (up to 1820) St. Louis, 1892.

His to ries of In di vid ual Syn ods:

Nicum, J., Geschichte des New York Min is teri ums. Read ing, Pa., 1888. Hochstet ter, C, Geschichte der Mis souri-Synode. Dres den, 1885. Deindo er fer, J., Geschichte der lowa-Syn ode. Chicago, 1897. Pe ter-Schmidt, Geschichte der Ohio-Syn ode. Columbus, 1900. Bergh, J. A., Den Norsk Luterske Kirke i Nor damerika. Min ne apo lis, 1914. Tra bert, G. H., Eng lish Lutheranism in the Northwest. Phila del phia, 1914. Bernheim, G. D., Ger man Set tlements and the Luth. Church in the Caroli nas. Phila del phia, 1872. Schmauk, Theo. E., History of the Luth. Church in Penn sylva nia (1638-1820), Phil adel phia. 1903.

Bi ogra phies:

Sachse, J. F.. Justus Falck ner . Mann, W J.. Life and Times of Muehlen berg. Phila del phia, 1888. Mann, W. J., Heinrich Mel chior Muehlen berg. Spaeth, A., Dr. W. J. Mann — In Memoriam. Spaeth, A., Dr. Chas. Porterfield Krauth. Phila del phia. 1898-1909. Spaeth, A., Memo rial of B. M. Schmucker. Ger berding, G. H., Wm. A. Pas sa vant. Greenville, 1911. Sih ler, W., Auto bi o graphic. St. Louis. Wyneken, Friedrich. St. Louis. Guen ther, M., Ein Lebens bild von Dr. Walther. St. Louis. Fuerbringer , L., Briefe Dr. Walthers. St. Louis, 1915.

With Ref er ence to Doc tri nal Dif fer ences:

10 Distinc tive Doc trines and Us ages of the Syn ods of the Lutheran Church. Phila del phia, 1914. Schmidt, F. A., Die lowaschen Missverstaend nisse uiui Be maen telungen. St. Louis. (Also the re ply to this: Fritschel, S. & G. Iowa and Mis- souri. Mendota, Ill., 1878). Neve, J. L., Die wichtigsteii Unter schei dui igsinerk male der Luth. Syn- odten Amerikas. Second enlar ged edi tion. Burling ton. 1915. Grosse, J., Unter schei dungslehren. St. Louis, 1909. (The replies to this: Nicum. J.. Notgedrun gene Abwehr . Rochester. 1890. Fritschel. S.. Unter schei dungslehren. Chicago. 1893. Neve, J. L.. Thoughts on Con- fes sional Questions. Burling ton, 1911.)

With Ref er ence to the Dis cus sion on Pre des‐ ti na tion:

Zorn, C. M.. Bekehrung & Gnadenwahl. Tres sel, E. L. S., The Error of Modern Mis souri. (Contri bu tions by Dr. F. W. Stell horn. Dr. F. A. Schmidt and oth ers). Colum bus, 1897. Pieper, E.. Con version and Elec tion. St. Louis, 1915. Fritschel, Geo. J., Zur Einigung der lutherischen Kirchc. Dubuque, 1914. Keyser, L. S.. Elec tion and Conver sion. Burling ton, 1914. Schuette. C. H. L.. Tes ti monies in Further ance of a Union and Peace in the Truth. Colum bus. 1914. Ja cobs-Haas. Lutheran Cy clo pedia. New York, 1899.

11 Fore word.

THE “Brief History of the Lutheran Church in America,” pub lished in 1903, which has been kindly ad mit ted as a textbook in al most all the o log i- cal sem inar ies of the Lutheran Church in this country , here with makes its appear ance in a second edi tion. It is dou ble the size of the orig i nal vol ume. It has been thought best to omit the sta tistics, which occu pied thir teen pages of the first edi tion.1 Yet, al though we present a larger book, we have held fast to the orig in al ti tle, “Brief His tory,” because a com plete, or even an ap- proxi mately com plete, his tory of the Lutheran Church in America would re- quire at least three vol umes of the size of this one. As in the previ ous edi tion, so in this one, it has been our aim to fur nish a textbook that would serve as a guide for instruc tion in the o log ical sem inar - ies. Stu dents and teach ers alike prefer a book that is easily read. Even a seem ing confu sion of facts tries their patience. For this rea son our “Brief History” views the ma te rial from the viewpoint of exten sion and orga ni zation rather than from that of confes sional de vel op ment.2 The nu mer ous divi- sions and the use of heavy type even in the body of the text have been made in the in ter est of perspicu ity, and to aid the teacher and stu dent alike read ily to catch the lead ing thoughts. QUI BENE DIS TIN GUIT, BENE DO CET. [ He who dis tinguishes well, teaches well.] In pre sent ing the his tory of the differ ent synods, the author has sin cerely aimed at impar tial ity. He has not inten tionally mag nified the work of one synod or mini m ized the mer its of another . In present ing the his tory of his own synod, he has not tried to cover up the short-com ings of the past. True, the conf es sional his tory of the General Synod has been treated very exten- sively, but it must not be overlo oked that this is the com mon his tory of a num ber of syn ods.3 In the case of the doctri nal contro versies between the synods of Mis- souri, Buffalo, Iowa and Ohio the task was es pecially diffi cult. In the first edi tion the author himself wrote this chapter . Con sid er ing the fact, however , that nei ther the Mis souri Synod nor its op po nents have a docu men tary his-

12 tory and that it is im possi ble for an out sider cor rectly to in ter pret the con tro- versies in all their phases, he invited Prof. Geo. J. Fritschel, who has made these matters a special study, to fur nish the chapter in question. He endeav- ored to se cure a repre senta tive of the Mis souri Synod to agree with Prof. Fritschel on what must be re garded as incon testable his tor i cal facts, or at least to add correc tions, if such were needed, in or der to put before students the AL TERA PARS; but he did not succeed. Ev ery synod should pub lish a docu men tary his tory. The Gen eral Coun cil has such a work, com piled by Dr. S. E. Ochsen ford. The Gen eral Synod took a step in this dir ection at its last conven tion at Akron, Ohio (1915). Prof. Geo. J. Fritschel is now at work pre paring one of the Iowa Synod. A sugges tion of Dr. O. Zoeckler , who re viewed the Ger man edi tion of this work in the Evan gelis che Kirchenzeitung , caused the auth or to add bio- graphi cal notes of men still livi ng, who by special initia tive have contrib- uted to the progress of the Lutheran Church in this country . In the for mer edi tions these notes were re stricted to the great men who had passed to their re ward. A special fea ture of the present vol ume is the more re li able pre senta tion of the history of the Nor we gians and Danes. The Rev. Theo. Eggen. edi tor of “Luther aneren,” the offi cial organ of the United Nor we gian Church, kindly ar ranged for out lines of the his tory of the several Nor we gian bod ies to be writ ten by repre senta tive men as fol lows: Prof. E. Hove for the Nor- we gian Lutheran Synod, the Rev. J. A. Bergh for the United Nor we gian Church. Prof. G. M. Bruce for Hauge’s Synod, Prof. Geo. Sverdrup for the Nor we gian Free Church. These out lines were devel oped into a whole, and then again submit ted to lead ing church men of the Nor we gians for approval. Those of us who are un able to read Nor we gian can feel that in this chapter we have some thing that may be depended on for accu racy . Prof. P. S. Vig has fur nished the history of the Danish Lutheran Church. The Rev. O. En gel. of the Wis con sin Synod, sent us such an excel lently writ ten re view of the his tory of the Synod of Wis consin, Min ne sota. Michi- gan and Ne braska that we did not hesi tate to incor po rate it ver batim in the book. The special his tory of the Ger man Iowa Synod was fur nished by Prof. Geo. J. Fritschel. For valu able sugges tions and con tri bu tions of which we have made more or less use, we are indebted to the fol low ing well-known schol ars: Prof. O. Lincke and Dr. H. Offer mann (Gen eral Coun cil), Dr. A. G. Voigt (United

13 Synod of the South), Prof. L. Fuerbringer (Missouri Synod), Dr. G. A. Schodde (Joint Synod of Ohio), Dr. J. K. Nikander (Suomi Synod), Dr. B. E. Jon sson (Ice landic Synod). Much valuable ser vice has been rendered by Prof. Geo. J. Fritschel, of the Wart burg Semi nary at Dubuque, Ia. While using the “Brief History” in his classes he made, at our special re quest, vari ous re visions and addi tions, which have been used to great advan tage in the prepa ra tion of this second edi tion. The inde xes at the end of the book were prepared by the Rev. G. Bessler, of Spencer, South Dakota. May it please God to use this “Brief History” as an inspi ra tion among Luther ans in America, es pecially to increase their loy alty to their Church! The Lutheran Church has a mis sion in Amer ica. At the time of the World-War, 1916. J. L. NEVE.

1. Aside from the fact that sta tistics are subject to change, they are found in the year books of the vari ous synods up-to-date. Brief re views of the sta tisti cal sta tus of synods are given in connec tion with their history .↩ 2. See in tro ductory remarks on page 17↩ 3. Compare re marks on page 88. [Section: Syn ods Orga nized Into Larger Bod ies.]↩

14 In tro ductory . Mode of Treat‐ ment.

RE VIEW ING the 250 years of Lutheran his tory in America, the his torian faces the questi on: HOW IS THE MA TE RIAL TO BE TREATED? Shall he simply enumer ate the lead ing events, and by coor dinat ing them sacri fice the real his tor ical char acter of the work? This was too much the case in the first at- tempt that was made in our coun try, in Dr. E. J. Wolf’s “Luther ans in Amer- ica.” Or shall we (like Ja cobs and Fritschel) trace the devel op ment chiefly from the viewpoint of confes sional progress? This plan would cer tainly be inter est ing; but it is easily confus ing for the begin ner, and this book is to be a hand book of the his tory of the Lutheran Church in America for stu dents who first want to find their bear ings before they inves ti gate more exten- sively. So we purpose to present the his tory here simply from the viewpoint of orga ni za tion and growth. Fol low ing this plan, we shall divid e the ma te- rial into three parts:

1. Origin of in divid ual con grega tions; 2. Con grega tions orga nized into synods; 3. Syn ods orga nized into large bodies.

Of these three parts, the last is not only the most exten sive, but also the most com plicate d, because the his tory of the three lead ing Lutheran bod ies runs par al lel to the his tory of the smaller syn ods. We have tried to over come this diffi culty by some intro ductory re marks viewing the subject as a whole and by some clos ing state ments pointing to com mon ground held by these appar ently disjointed el ements.

15 The First Period. Origin Of In di‐ vid ual Congre ga tions.

THE BE GIN NING of the Lutheran Church can be traced in the orga ni za tion of inde pen dent Dutch and Swedish congre ga tions. The Ger mans who first immi grated to New York founded churches along the Hudson and in the Schoharie Val ley. Af ter wards we hear of Ger man Lutheran orga ni za tions in Penn syl vania and all along the coast as far south as Ebenezer in Georgia. The Dutch congre ga tions were absorbed by the Ger man and Eng lish churches, while the Swedish Luther ans even tually united with the Episco pal Church. It is char acter is tic of this epoch that (except ing the Swedes) we can find no trace of synod ical connec tion whatever among these scat tered con- grega tions.

1. Pre lim i nary His tory Of The Lutheran Syn‐ ods Of Amer ica.

§ 1. The Dutch Lutherans.

Af ter 1583 Lutheranism in Holland was pushed into the back ground by Calvinism. New Nether land owes its ori gin to an expe di tion of HENRY HUD- SON (1619), an En glish man, who, in the ser vice of Hol land, tried to dis cover the North-west passage. En couraged by his re ports, some Am ste r dam spec- u la tors sent fur-trading ships to the Hudson and orga nized the West In dia Company . Thus orig inated the first perma nent set tlement (1623) in the neigh borhood of Al bany (then called Ft. Or ange), consist ing of some forty fam ilies. In 1625 fol lowed the founding of New Am ster dam by a set tlement of two hun dred persons. The first two gov er nors. May and Ver hulst, soon lost courage and re turned home. But PE TER MINEWIT (Mi nuit), a Ger man,

16 looked into the fu ture. On May 4, 1626, he purchased Manhat tan Is land from the In dians for a trade consid er ation of some $24.00, and then proceeded to erect for the protec tion of set tlers the stone fort of Am ster dam. Fur-trading soon as sumed large propor tions. To induce immi grants to come to this colony, a system of patro n age was worked out (1629); who ever secured fifty set tlers was enti tled to a feudal do main 16 miles long and 8 miles deep (later only one-half of this area) fronting a navi ga bl e river. This mea sure proved very prof itable to wealthy specu la tors, but it caused dis satis fac tion in the colony. The gov er nor, who was merely act ing in obedi ence to instru ctions, was held re sponsi ble for this po lit ical er ror, and was re called from his conge nial sphere of ac tivity .1 But he had laid his founda tion for a grow ing Common wealth. How ever, we must not think of Man hat tan as a large city; it con tained only 30 houses and 270 people. Minewit was succeeded by Wm. Kieft and af ter wards (1644-64) by PE- TER STUYVESANT, an ener getic veteran, who too largely fig ures in the his tory of Lutheranism in New Nether land. There may have been some Luther ans among the ear li est set tlers. But they are first men tioned by Joques, the Je- suit fa ther, who came to New Ams ter dam as a fugi tive in 1643.2 How ever, there was no trace of orga ni za tion. As far as orga ni za tions were concerned, the Swedes, who prac ti cally immi grated as congre ga tions, ante dated the Dutch. It was long af ter the Re formed Church, as sisted by the gov ernment and by contri bu tions from their native land, had erected buildings and secured clergy men, before the Luther ans thought they were strong enough to erect their own place of wor ship and to call a minis ter. They, therefore, sent a peti tion to the gov er nor and also to the West In dia Company in Am ster - dam, asking permis sion to call a Lutheran pastor . This peti tion was re newed in 1653. But Stuyvesant, being a strong Calvinist and being pledged by his oath of office to toler ate no re li gion but the Re formed, also influ enced by two Re formed minis ters (Megapolensis and Drisius), re fused to grant the re quest, and insisted that only those of Calvin’s creed should be toler ated in the new colonies. Simi lar protests were stirred up by Megapolen sis and Dri- sius among the Re formed auth or ities in Hol land, who in turn prevailed upon the direc tors of the com pany to re ject this appli ca tion. Thus the peti- tion of the Luther ans was re jected. The Luther ans had to take their children to the Re formed minis ters to be baptized. This, to be sure, had been a custom in Hol land wher ever a Lutheran clergy man could not be secured. But now Stuyvesant and his cleri cal advis ers insisted that Lutheran parents and

17 god-par ents must prom ise to train their children in the Chris tian faith as inter preted by the Dort Con fes sion. It was this inno vation es pecia lly that vio- lated the conscience of the Luther ans. But their desire to becom e inde pendent as a church was only met with harsh mea sures and a gen eral op pres- sion. Stuyvesant even inter fered with pri vate ser vices. Whoever dared to read a ser mon at such a pri vate ser vice was fined one hun dred pounds of Flemish gold, and whoever listened to it, twenty-five pounds. In cer tain in- stances the offender was cast into prison. Such tyranny caused the Luther- ans to appeal to the author ities in Am ster dam, but while Stuyvesant was re- proved for his se vere methods, he did not consider the situ ation se ri ous enough to dis continue his per se cutions alto gether . On June 6, 1657, the REV. JOHN ERNEST GUT WASSER ar rived, being an emis sary of the Lutheran Con sis tory of Am ster dam. He was gratefully received by the Dutch Luther ans among whom he was to do his work. But the Re formed el ement hastened to inter fere. Im me diately af ter his ar rival he was sum moned to court, and was instructed un der penalty not to perform any minis te rial acts. The gov ern ment of Hol land, while advis ing that re li- gious toler ation was desir able from a po lit ical point of view, did not wish to encour age Lutheranism, and, af ter all, approved of Stuyvesant’s methods. Gut wasser was or dered to re turn home on the first vessel leav ing the colonies. But this or der had to be given re peat edly before it was fi nally (after a quiet activ ity for two years) obeyed.3 Thus the un welcome Lutheran preacher was got ten out of the way. Not un til the year 1663 was re li gious toler ance effected. A Quaker, pun ished by Stuyvesant, brought this about by demon strat ing to the gov er nor that any other pol icy would se ri ously inter - fere with finan cial de vel op ments. As to NA TIONAL COM PO SI TION in this congre ga tion, we offer the fol low ing quo ta tion: “The first Dutch congre ga tion in the new world was truly cos- mopoli tan: it consisted of a num ber of Dutch fam ilies, but the ma jor ity of the mem bers were Dan ish, Swedish, Nor we gian and Ger man people. The lead ing man of this congre ga tion was a Ger man, Paulus Schrick, of Nurem- berg (Ec cle si as ti cal Records of the State of New York, 1901, p. 425): and the man who was suspected by the Re formed preach ers of Am ster dam as shel ter ing during the whole win ter the first Dutch Lutheran minis ter of the new world, John Gut wasser, was a Nor we gian, Lau rence Noor man (1 c. 430).” Evjen, in Hauck R. E., XXIV, 539.

18 In 1664 New Am ster dam, having a pop u la tion of fifteen hun dred people, fell into the hands of ENG LAND and was named New York in honor of its new propri etor, the Duke of York (later James II of Eng land). Colonel Nicolls, the conqueror , became gov er nor. This event se cured Lutheran free- dom, inasmuch as, accord ing to the rules of the new gov ernment, no person was to be mo lested, pun ished or impris oned on account of re li gious pref er- ences. The Luther ans appealed to the gov er nor for the right of call ing a pastor. This was cheer fully granted, but only af ter an interim of several years did they se cure one in the person of Magis ter JA COB FABRI CIUS. Their choice was un for tunate . The new minis ter proved so despotic and hot-headed that he was com pelled to give up his work first in Al bany and af ter wards in New York, where the first church was in construc tion. 4 (Later he took up work among the Swedes). He was succeeded by BERN HARD AREN SIUS (1671-1691), a gentle personal ity with a pleas ing pres ence, who worked faith fully during a period of un- rest (war betwee n Hol land and Eng land, re bel lions against un pop u lar gover nors, and against the Catholic king).5 Af ter his death the two congre gations of Al bany and New York had to prove their sta bility by being with out a pastor for ten years. The New York congre ga tion in 1695 con sisted of about thirty fam ilies; the Al bany congre ga tion of about twelve, while the Re formed church had twenty-nine buildings and seven teen hun dred and fifty-four members. Fi nally Magis ter RUD MAN, who had been in the ser vice of the Swedes, accepted a call (1702), and al though his pastorate was short, he proved to be a man of constru ctive and orga niz ing talents. In 1703 he entrusted the parish, now largely Ger man, to JUS TUS FAL CK NER. At this junc- tion the his tory of the Dutch Luther ans merges into the begin ning of Ger- man Lutheranism. We, therefore, inter rupt our nar ra tive at this place.

§ 2. The Swedish Lutherans.

Cor rectly es ti mating the com mer cial possi bili ties of America and inter ested in the project of Us selink, a Dutchman, GUS TAVUS ADOL PHUS conceived the plan of es tab lishing colonies on this conti nent. All classes of the Swedish people were ent hu si as tic. On June 14, 1626, a char ter for the “South Com- pany” was signed at Stock holm, one fea ture of which was the propa ga tion of the true Gospel. How ever, the plan did not ma ture un til af ter the death of the great king. In the year 1638, un der the com mand of Pe ter Mi nuit, for-

19 mer Di rec tor Gen eral of New Am ster dam, two Swedish vessels, the “Grypen” and the “Kah nar Nykel,” dropped anchor , af ter a six months’ jour ney, at LEWES in the State of DEL A WARE. Among the passen gers of the second expe di tion (1639) was RE ORUS TORKIL LUS, the first Lutheran minis ter who set foot upon Ameri can soil.6 These immi grants, many of whom were Ger mans, purchased land from the In dians which was ceded to the Swedish crown “for all time.” On a cer tain site of the present Wilm ing ton, Del., they erected Fort Christina, where they also conducted their ser vices.7 The first churches they built with the view of using them as possi ble for ti fi cations against the In dia ns. How ever, this precau tion proved un neces sary, since, by treat ing the In dians kindly, they gave no occa sion for any hostil ities. The Rev. JOHN CAM PA NIUS, who ar rived with a third expe di tion in 1643, even conducted a mission among the In dians and translated Luther’s Cat echism into their na tive tongue. He also conse crated the first Lutheran church of the new world (1646), which was built on the is land of Tinicum not far from the present site of Phila del phia. The pop u la tion com prised some five hundred and fifty people. How ever, the neigh boring DUTCH COLONY re sented the Swedish enter - prise, which offered se ri ous com peti tion to their trade with the In dians. Sev- enteen years af ter wards hostil ities began because of differ ence with re spect to the bound ary line. The Swedish army — consist ing of twenty men — went to war, and conquered without blood shed the Dutch fort.8 But the wooden-legged Stuyvesant re venged his country men by mo biliz ing seven hun dred men who em barked on five vessels and QUICKLY TER MI NATED SWEDISH RULE on Ameri can soil. Thus in 1655 this flourish ing colony fell into the hands of the Dutch who held it for nine years. Af ter the surren der of Tinicum the Swedes were permit ted to re tain the Augs burg Con fes sion, but the immi gra tion from Swed en ceased and the Lutheran min is ters, with the excep tion of the REV. LARS LOCK, returne d to their native land. Only with the greatest diffi culty could this sole re maining pastor carry on his work among the scat tered set tlem ents. He went up and down the river in an impro vised canoe, risk ing his life in woods that swarmed with hostile In- dian tribes. The REV. JA COB FABRI CIUS came to his as sis tance in 1677, but when this wor thy clergy man grew totally blind, af ter five years of useful work, the minis te rial ser vices rendered to the Swedes became al together in- suffi cient.

20 Lars Lock died in 1688, Fabri cius in 1696, and the Swedish Luther ans found themselves in a DES PER ATE SIT U A TION. Their appli ca tions for preach ers addressed to the Con sis tories of Am ster dam and of their home country (of which they knew only by hearsay) were of no avail. They had noth ing with which to nourish their spir itual life, with the excep tion of a few Bibles and books of wor ship. These vol umes were so constantly used that they threat- ened to fall to pieces. But in God’s wise provi dence one of their appeals fell into the hands of CHARLES XI., king of Sweden. It contained the re quest of one hun dred and eighty-eight fam ilies, repre sent ing nine hun dred and forty- two souls, for a minis ter, twelve Bibles, three ser mon books, forty-two books of wor ship, one hun dred hym nals and two hun dred cat echisms. This letter greatly im pressed the king. In many copies he cir culated it among the eccle si as ti cal au thor ities and the aristoc racy of the country , and fi nally (1696) EQUIPPED A SAIL ING VES SEL on which the books, as well as Pastors Rud man, Bjoerk and Au ren started on the jour ney to their anx iously waiting country men in Dela ware with the books which were desired. 9 Rud man became minis ter of a congre ga tion at WICACO (the present Phila del phia), where he built the old Glo ria Dei Church (36x66, 20 ft. high, at a cost of eight hun dred pounds). The Ger man hermits of the Kissahikon val ley took part in the dedi ca tion, render ing a mu si cal program of choral and instru- men tal selec tions. Bjoerk took charge of the congre ga tion at WILM ING TON where he built Holy Trin ity Church (to day known as the Old Swede Church). It is to be re gret ted that these two his toric churches, made sa cred to us by the pure teach ing of those old, true, Swedish Lutheran preach ers, in which sev eral of these Lutheran pio neers are buried, should now be in the hands of the Epis copalians. Hence forth we no tice a contin ued influx of Swedish Lutheran minis ters, who soon made their influ ence felt, not only because of their thor ough edu- cation, but also be cause of the liter ary attain ments on the part of quite a few. Among the most influ ential we men tion John Dylan der, the Provost Acre- lius (author of a valu able his tory of “Swedes in America”), and Provost DR. WRANGEL, a most em inen t divine, who also sustained close re la tionship with Muhlen berg and the Ger mans. But the fact that these clergy men remained un der the super vi sion and control of the Swedish gov ernment, which would of ten re call them at the time when they were most needed, proved fa tal to the devel op ment of the strug gling congre ga tions. 10 Some of the Swedish pastors had acquired the Eng lish lan guage (the use of which

21 was dem anded more and more by the young people), and their place could not eas ily be filled. The re call of Dr. Wrangel, who had done a great work and whose pres ence could not be spared, caused bitter re sent ment among the congre ga tions. They demanded more consid er ation from the author ities abroad and called for Eng lish-speak ing minis ters. This re sulted in the re- fusal of the Swedish gov ernmen t to send any more clergy men and the subse quent affil ia tion of these Lutheran congre ga tions with the Epis copal church.11 Here then we have the expla nation why the old his toric church buildings men tioned above are no longer a part of the Lutheran Church.

Hav ing briefly re viewed the his tory of the Swedish Luther ans from the time of their set tleme nt in Dela ware (1638) to the end of the 18th century , when they entered the Epis copal deno mi na tion, we must add a few re marks rel a- tive to cer tain features in their devel op ment which we previ ously omit ted for rea sons of per spicu ity. Among the minis ters supply ing these congre ga tions there was al ways a Pastor Su perior (Provost) who presided, vis ited the churches and sent reports to the church author ities in Sweden. The fact that the Swedish minis- ters rec og nized the spir itual supremacy of their king and had to submit the affairs of their parishes to his judg ment, produced not only ex tra or dinary , but detri men tal effects. 1) The con grega tion did not suffi ciently partake in the re spon si bili ties of church work. The pastors bore the whole burden, not only in a spir itu al sense, but also in the admin is tra tion of the church property. Since the congre ga tions were sel dom consulted, they became lax in the fi nancial support of the pastor . 2) This again re sulted in short pastorates. The o log ical can didates consid ered their parishes as tempo rary step ping- stones to some thing bet ter at home, while oth ers who might have liked to re main and who could have se cured the consent of the Swedish king for a perma nent stay, felt that the mea ger salary and their increas ing fam ilies did not jus tify them in fol low ing their incli na tions. Certain it is that minis ters who looked upon the charge of these churches as a tempo rary engage ment lacked zeal and inspi ra tion to do their work well. 3) Perhaps this is the reason why even the ablest of the Swedish pastors never suggested an inde pendent devel op ment of the Lutheran Church in America. Such a possi bility seemed too remote even to be thought of.

22 The question of the lan guage also presented a diffi cult problem. Most Swedish pastors have al ways offi ci ated in two lan guages, the Eng lish and the Swedish. The Provost Dylan der held three ser vices every Sun day, preach ing in Ger man at the early morn ing ser vice, in Swedish at the main ser vice and in Eng lish in the af ter noon. Provost Acre lius, whose book on “The History of New Sweden” gives us a clear pic ture of the situ ation, says (page 361): “There are times when the church council decide s that there shall be no more Eng lish ser vices in the fu ture, and that no more fu nerals shall be conducted in the Eng lish lan guage. This re sults in a general denun- ci ation of the church offi cers, who are accused of consid er ing all Eng lish people as heathe n. They are told that it is a se ri ous dis re gard of duty to look af ter one part of the vine yard and to neglect the other. Thus the deci sion is re versed. One person wants to have the child baptized in Eng lish, another in Swedish, and both to have it done in the same church and at the same time. Some refuse to serve as god-par ents if the children are not baptized in Swedish, while other god-par ents do not even un derstand this lan guage. One woman wishes to be churched12 in Swedish, another in Eng lish, and both want the ser vice at the same time. Dur ing the fu nerals we have an Eng- lish-speak ing con grega tion of a mixed char acter , yet our people are not sure whether they want Eng lish or Swedish ser vices, even while the pastor is enter ing the building.” (Rel ative to the lan guage problem in the Lutheran church of America see § 6, 2). The close re la tionship between the Swedes and other nation al i ties, and es pecially their way of coop er at ing with the Dutch and Ger mans, offer a most at tractive pic ture. Dur ing their time of need the Swedes had been served by Fabri cius, the German min is ter sent to the Dutch. Justus Falck ner , a Ger man, was or dained for work among the Dutch by Swedish pastors (Rud man, Bjoerk and Sandel). Rud man, the Swede, had served this Dutch congre ga tion before Fal ckner . We have al ready men tioned the friendly re la- tionship between Wrangel and the patri arch Muhlen berg. The Swedish provost Sandin took part in the orga ni za tion of the Penn syl vania Synod (§ 4, 5). From this we gather that in those days of small begin nings one depended upon the other, and each was willing to contrib ute his ser vices to the general welfare.

§ 3. The Ger man Luther ans.

23 1. First Traces of Ger man Lutherans in Amer ica.

Not un til the begin ning of the 18th century were there suffi cient Ger mans in this coun try to jus tify the idea of orga ni za tion. The chief rea son for this late immi gra tion is to be sought in the deplorable condi tion in which Ger many found her self fol low ing the Thirty Years’ War. Without a united govern ment and utterly devas tated, this country could enter tain no thoughts of col o niza- tion. In divid u als and small expe di tions which eventu ally found their way to America were not Luther ans but Quak ers, Mennon ites, mys tics of every de- scription, who sought refuge from the perse cutions of the Ger man State Church in the colonies of William Penn. It is to be noted, however , that among these el ements which in Ger many had leaned toward sectar ian ism, Lutheran ten dencies were not al together extin guished. Hav ing at tained ab solute free dom of wor ship, they helped in the founding of Lutheran churches. Dr. Julius Sachse was the first to describe in his vol ume on “Ger man Pietists” and other his tor ical writ ings the re li gious life of these early set tlers, and Dr. Theodore E. Schmauk, on the basis of this infor ma tion, is pub lishing a very excel lent his tory on “The Lutheran Church in America,” of which the first vol ume has appeared (585 pages). We shall use this vol ume as an author ity at a num ber of places in the succeed ing paragraphs. On a visit to Ger many WILLIAM PENN had caused the orga ni za tion of the Frankfort Land Company . To this corpo ra tion he sold large tracts of land in the vicinity of the present Ger man town, where in 1683 the Frankfort jurist, FRANZ DANIEL PAS TO RIUS, ar riv ing with twenty Ger man fam ilies, founded “Ger man Township” (Ger man town). In a letter writ ten by Pasto rius to his fa ther (1686) we are told that a house of wor ship had been built in Ger man town. Hith erto it has been believed that this church was a Lutheran structure, but consid er ing that Pasto- rius and his fel low-settlers had shown sectar ian ten dencies in Ger many, from which country they had em igrated for the purpose of start ing a Quaker colony and that Pasto rius as a personal friend of William Penn had ever used his influ ence for the bene f it of Quak erism, we are forced to the conclu sion that this church was nothing else than a Quaker meet ing house. The FIRST GER MAN LUTHERAN SER VICE in Ger mantown, in fact, in Amer- ica, was conducted by the Rev. Heinrich Bernhard KOESTER in 1694. It took place in the home of a Mennon ite by the name of Van Beb ber. Koester, the

24 first Ger man Lutheran minis ter, had ar rived with forty immi gr ants, six of whom were the o log ical stu dents (Daniel Fal ckner , one of them), for the purpose of await ing the end of the world in the quiet of the Wis sahikon Val ley. This event was expected in 1697. Al though op posed by Pasto rius, the Luther ans contin ued to hold ser vices in Van Beb ber’s home. Koester com- bined with mys ti cal ten dencies strong Lutheran convic tions. He al ways car- ried with him a copy of the Augs burg Con fes sion, and while cross ing the ocean, he cautio ned his com panions against the here sies of the Quak ers. As a preacher he at tained such high re pute that even Eng lish speak ing people flocked to hear him. He soon decide d to preach in Eng lish, left the hermits and moved to Phila del phia. The re sult of his labors in this city, however , was the founding of the FIRST EPIS CO PAL CHURCH on Ameri can soil, known as Christ Church. Soon af ter wards (1700) Koester re turned to Ger many. His chief merit was his strong Lutheran po si tion re garding the person of Christ and the means of grace which he powe r fully em phasized against the ra tional iz ing influ ences of Quak erism. Thus he sowed the seed of truth in the soil of Penn syl vania and counter acted in a mea sure the supremacy of the Quak ers in the province of Penn syl vani a. A biog ra phy of this eccen tri c char acter , who died in Hannover in 1749, is found in Rath lef’s book, “Geschichte jetzt leben der Gelehrter” (History of Present Day Schol ars), 6th Part (Han nover, 1743). J. F. Sachse, in his vol ume on “Ger man Pietists,” treats his activ ity very fully, and Th. E. Schmauk, in the fourth chapter on “The Lutheran Church in Penn syl vania” (pages 79 to 101), gives a com plete de scription of both the man and his work. Be fore go ing fur ther, we should add that, while Koester held the first Ger man Lutheran ser vice on Ameri can soil, he did not found any Lutheran Church. The FIRST LUTHERAN CON GRE GA TION was orga nized by Cas par Sto- ever, and the FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH BUILD ING WAS ERECTED by Muhlen berg. One of those who immi grated with Koester was DANIEL FAL CK NER, whom we just mentioned, the old est brother of Justus Fal ckner (com pare § 1 at the close), and to whom we shall re fer later on. These two Fal ckn ers were the sons of a Lutheran past or in Lan gen-Reins dorf near Zwickau, Sax- ony, which parish had also been served by their grand fa ther. Daniel (born 1666), as also his broth ers Chris tian and Justus (born 1672), had stud ied the ology and was or dained ei ther before his em igra tion to America or, what seems more likely, during a later visit in Ger many,

25 1698-1700. When he was a Li centi ate to the Uni versity of Erfurt, we find him in the Pietis tic cir cle which gath ered around August Her mann Francke, tak ing an active part in the COL LE GIA PIETATIS. While in Ger man town, he sided with Koester against Quak erism, and protested against the malad minis tra tion of the alYairs of the Frankfort Land Company un der Pas torius. On account of his ex ecu tive abili ties and his fear less at ti tude, he at tained such a repu ta tion in the colony that he was sent to Eu rope on a mission of high im- portance: he was to inform the direc tors of the Land Company of the misman agement of their affairs and also to call at ten tion to the spir i tual neglect of the province. For this purpose he vis ited Hol land, Eng land and Ger many, and by his vivid descrip tions of Penn syl vania encour aged large num bers to cross the sea. Accom panied by his brother Justus and several the o log ical stu dents, he re turned to Ger man town in 1700. In his posses sio n he had a docu ment, signed by every direc tor of the Land Company , dis charg ing Pas- torius and confer ring upon himself the agency of the colony. This or der nat- u rally led to a bitter cam paign between Pasto rius and Fal ckne r, which re- sulted in varying successes. But eventu ally (1708) Fal ckner , who had bought some 22,000 acres of land (Man atawny, the present Mont gomery County), becam e a vic tim of the intrigues of his own busi ness part ners. He was impris oned and lost all he had. Bro ken in spirit, he left Penn syl vania, and went to his brother in New Jer sey, serv ing several congre ga tions along the Rari tan River where his name is fre quently men tioned in connec tion with the work of Berkenmeyer (§ 3, 4). He survived Kocherthal, also his own brother, and car ried on, as far as his age permit ted, the work so faith- fully beg un by these two mission ar ies. He was still living in 1741, but the time of his death and his fi nal rest ing place are unknown. Af ter thus learning of the first Ger man set tlement in connec tion with the names of Pasto rius, Fal ckner and Koester, let us get a brief view of Fal ckner’s Swamp (New Hanover, Pa.). This local ity is note wor thy because here we find the FIRST GER MAN LUTHERAN CHURCH and the FIRST GER MAN LUTHERAN CON GRE GA TION. It is gener ally believed that the largest part of the set tlers of the Man- atawny dis trict immi grated with Daniel Fal ckner in 1700, were orga nized by him into a congre ga tion and re ceived un til 1708 his pastor al ser vices. We have not the exact date of the erec tion of the first church, which accord- ing to Sandel (§ 2) was in exis tence in 1704. It was no doubt a log church, which had to be re placed by an other log building in 1721. The present

26 church of this his tor ical congre ga tion, al though com pletely re mod eled, was built in 1767. From 1717-1728 it was in charge of the Rev. Ger hard Henkel (see § 3, 6). Later it was served by the Rev. Johann Casper Sto ever (§ 3, 6), who in 1742 was suc ceeded by Muh len berg (§ 4, 1 and 2). True to our purpose to treat of the first Ger man Luther ans in America, we must not forget that there were some Ger mans in the Dutch congre gations of New York, who were con stantly increas ing their num bers through influx of immi g ra tion. This congre ga tion, as we said before (§ 1, at the close), had called the REV. JUS TUS FAL CK NER (1703), and we take this op por- tunity to add a few re marks concern ing this em inent divine. We have spoken about his parent age. He was one of the stu dents who went to Halle with Profes sor Thomasius af ter this noted teacher had been expelled from Leipzig (1690). He sat at the feet of August Her mann Francke. As a stu dent he com posed the hymn well known in both Ger man and Eng lish, “Auf, ihr Chris ten, Christi Glieder” (Rise, ye children of sal vation). Dread ing the re- sponsi bili ties of the minis te rial office, he set tled with his brother Daniel in the quiet woods of Ger man town as a land agent of William Penn. But he was called out of his seclu sion by Pastor Rud man, and became minis ter of the Dutch congre ga tion in New York. In 1701 he was or dained in the Glo ria Dei Church of Wicaco by Swedish clergy men (the first Lutheran ordi na tion in Amer ica). His parish com prised some two hun dred miles, includ ing all the ter ri tory on the banks of the Hudson from New York to Albany , also Long Is land. He re tained his vigor un til he died (1723). As we read the short but soul ful prayers which he used to add to entries of offi cial acts in his parish records13 we can heartily endorse the words of Graeb ner: “In his activ ity of twenty years, the Rev. Justus Fal ckner impresses us as a man of charming and capti vat ing person al ity. Richly endowed, highly cul tured, devout in spirit, en ergetic and tact ful, com bin ing with strong Lutheran convic- tions a soul of un usual ten derness, he was an ideal pas tor.”

2. New Stage of German Immi gra tion.

Be fore the first decade of the century had passed, we no tice a new stage of Ger man im migra tion. No part of Ger many had suffered as much as THE PALATI NATE of the Rhine. It had to pay the penalty for the am bitions of its Elec tor, who by accept ing the crown of Bo hemia caused the Thirty Years’ War. This ter ri tory

27 was first invaded by Spinola (1620), af ter wards by the Lutheran Mansfield and fi nally by the Bavarian Tilly. What one left un touched, the other destroyed. Says Ries dorf, the states man: “The Palati nate re sem bles an Ara- bian desert.” Famine and pesti lence fol lowed the devas tating armies. Not even for the length of a hu man life could peace be se cured. As early as 1673 Louis XIV. began his war of conquest. The third inva sion (1688-97) aimed to place a vast desert bet ween the Ger man and French bor ders. The cam paign of Melac and Monte las has not been surpassed in vandal ism since the days of the Huns and Mongols. 14 Louis XIV., re al iz ing that he could not re tain this provi nce, decided to ravage it with fire and sword. His Gen eral informed its inhab i tants, num ber ing 500,000, that they were to leave within three days if they desired to es cape death. Thus in mid-win ter the snow-clad hills were black with fugi tives who, look ing back, dis covered their posses- sions, their cities, vil lages, their or chards and vine yards in smoke and ru ins. Some of these fugi tives found a tempo rary refuge in Eng land, where QUEEN ANNE ar ranged for their em igra tion to America. They were joined by large num bers who em igrated from Wurtem berg, Baden, and Hesse. Led by their pastors, these war-stricken Ger mans left the shores of Eu rope to partake in the greatest specta cle of em igra tion the world has ever witnessed.

3. Ger man Lutheran set tle ments in New York.

Ger man Lutheran set tlements in the State of New York fol lowed as a re sult of this gigan tic expe di tion ar ranged by the Eng lish Crown. On New Year’s day of the year 1701 one of the first immi grant trains ar rived in New York un der the lead er ship of the REV. JOSHUA KOCHERTHAL, a Lutheran minis ter from Lan dau in the Lower Palatinate. By an or der of Queen Anne this con- grega tion, consist ing of sixty-one people, set tled on the western banks of the Hudson (near New burgh). The Queen granted them two thou sand acres of land, and promised to pay twenty pounds annu ally for the support of their pastor , who was also to have the use of five hun dred acres. The con- tract was made “for all time.” How com pletely this program has been changed! But Ger man immi gra tion had now properly begun. On July 10, 1710, there ar rived in New York ELEVEN SHIPS car ry ing 3,000 immi grants, 700 of whom had died during the stormy voy age or while placed un der quaran tine. The surv ivors settled in the Catskill hills on the banks of the HUD SON. Here

28 they were to pay heavily with the hardest kind of la bor for the bene fits they had re ceived from the Eng lish crown. Avari cious gov er nors took advan tage of them and used them for purp oses of get ting rich quick. The set tlers soon suffered from hunger and want. They went westward into the SCHOHARIE VAL LEY, where they pur chased land from the In dians at the price of $300. Im migrants who ar rived later set tled all along the Hudson. This meant a num ber of new congre ga tions (Rhinebeck one of them). In all of these parishes KOCHERTHAL WAS THE PAS TOR. Un ceas ingly, un til his death, he bore the tem po ral and spir itual welfa re of his scat tered flock on faith ful shoul- ders. On one occ asion he went to Eng land to plead with the gov ernment for bet ter con ditions for his maltreated country men.15 His burial place is in West Camp. There on a plain tomb-stone you can read the fol low ing in- scription:

"Know thou, O wanderer , ’Neath this stone there sleeps Be side his Sibylla Char lotte A pilgrim true. For the High-Germans in America; A Joshua: And for those East and West Of the Hud son River A true Lutheran Pastor: He first arrived on the L’d Lovelace 1707 — 8, Janu ary 1 And again with Col. Hunter 1710 June 14. His trip to Eng land in ter rupted By the soul’s jour ney to Heaven St. John’s Day. 1719; And would’st thou know more In quire at the home of Melanchthon Who Kocherthal was Who Harschias and Who Winchenbach.

B. Berken mayer, S. Heurtien, L. Brevort MD CCXLII

Rev. Geo. J. Ket ner, the present pastor of the old congre ga tion of Kocherthal at West Camp, writes in a his tor ical sketch of St. Paul’s church: “Tenderly his beloved people laid his weary frame to rest beside the re-

29 mains of Sibylla Charlotte, his devoted wife. …But in the year 1898 their re mains were exhumed and placed in a crypt in the church, and the tablet contain ing its quaint inscrip tion which once rested on his grave was placed in the vestibule of the church over their re mains.” Af ter the depar ture of Pastor Kocherthal in 1719 Justus Fal ckner served them up to the time of his death in 1723. He was fol lowed by Daniel Fal ckner in 1724. Then came Berkenmeyer , the son-in-law of Kocherthal, who vis ited them un til his death in 1751. Rev. M. C. Knoll also served for a time. He vis ited them three times a year and re ceived as salary thirty bushels of wheat. Rev. Ketner writes: “St. Paul’s Ev. Lutheran Church at West Camp is one of the old est Lutheran churches in America. It ante dates every Lutheran body in this country . It is 38 years older than the Min is terium of Penn syl vania. Its people wor shipped in their lit tle log church before Muhlen berg, the patri arch of the Lutheran Church in America, was born. It is 66 years older than the Dec la ra tion of In depen dence, and 110 years older than the Gen eral Synod to which it be longs.” NOTE: Among the em igrants of the Rhen ish Palati nate who ar rived from Eng land in 1710 was JOHN CON RAD WEISER, SEN., for merly a mag is trate of Gross-As pach, Wurtem berg, who soon dis tinguished himself by look ing after the wel fare of his suffer ing coun try men. To protect property rights of the new set tle ment in the Schoharie Val ley he jour neyed to Eng land, but was robbed by pirates, impris oned in Eng land and re turned home broken in health. He died in 1746. Even bet ter known and closely con nected with, the history of the coun try is his son JOHN CON RAD WEISER, JUN. Born 1696, he ar rived with his fa ther in New York. When seven teen years old he fol lowed an In dian chief who had been vis it ing in his fa ther’s house and whom he greatly admired. He was with the In dians eight months and later fifteen years, acquir ing their lan guage and study ing their customs. This enabled him to rende r most useful ser vices to his country men at the time when he became head of the In- dian bu reau of the Eng lish gov ern ment of Penn syl vania, serv ing from 1732 to the year of his death 1760. Dur ing the In dian war and at the conclu sion of peace he looked af ter the inter ests of the Ger man colony. His daughter , Anna Maria, became the wife of the patri arch Muhlen berg. See § 4, 2, anno ta tion.

30 4. Pas tor Berken meyer and his Cir cle.

Af ter the death of Fal ckner , the first Dutch congre ga tion of New York (among whom were many Ger mans) peti tioned the Lutheran Con sis tory of Am ster dam for a pastor . Thus a call was extended to Wil helm Christoph BERKEN MEYER, then a the o log ical candi date in Hambur g, who, af ter some hesi ta tion, accepted. In 1725 he was or dained in Am ster dam, and imme diately left for New York. He was a man of thor ough cul ture, strict Lutheran convic tions and of a pleas ing pres ence. He soon had the confi dence of his people. This was evi denced by a spirit of enter prise which re sulted in the building of a NEW CHURCH, In June, 1739, it was conse crated, and was known as Holy Trin ity (“Dreieinigkeit skirche”) of New York. Later, however, Berkenmeyer made LUNEN BURG the headquar ters of his work. He was succeeded by Pastor Chr. KNOLL, a native of Hol stein, who on the strength of some rec om men dations from Hambur g was called by the Con sis tory of Lon don (see foot notes § 3, 7). He was soon fol lowed by Magis ter WOLFF, a native of Hambur g, who, af ter a brief pastorate, had to be dis ci plined on account of charges of improper conduct. The Rev. Pe ter Nic. SOM MER, also a native of Hambur g, was chiefly engaged in work in the Schoharie Val ley. He was an able, yet mod est man. Though blind for twenty years, he performed his du ties faith fully to the end. In this cir cle of minis ters Berken- meyer (who died in 1753) was not only the oldest but the most tal ented. The period of their activ ity runs paral lel with that of Muhlen berg and his cowork ers in Penn syl vania; also with that of the Salzburg mission ar ies along the Sa vannah River in Georgia (§ 3, 5). But Berken meyer and his cir cle persis tently re fused to have fel low ship with the cir cle that had come from Halle, ow ing, no doubt, to the Pietis tic contro versies which at that time agi- tated the the o log ical world of Ger many and in which contro versy Berken- meyer took a strong po si tion on the side of stricter Lutheranism.

5. The Salzburgers.

Among the early Lutheran set tlers of the South ern States the Salzburg im- migrants of Georgia play a prom inent part. The fa nat ical arch bishop, Leopold Anton of Salzburg (Baron von Fir mian), having tried in vain to exter minate the Lutheran Church in his dio cese, re sorted to mea sures of in- trigue. He claimed to be toler ant, and asked every one to put their confes-

31 sional pref er ences on record. Thus he dis covered that there were twenty thou sand “Evan gel icals” who had deliv ered themselves into his hands. Re- al iz ing that they had been trapped, three hun dred of them formed the “Salzbund” (Salt-Con feder acy), vowing that, though they were forced to a diet of salt and bread, they would not prove un true to their re li gious convic- tions. This actio n fur nished the founda tion for the charge that the Evan gel i- cals had decided upon the overthrow of the Catholic Church. On Oc tober 31, 1731, there was is sued a dec ree of em igra tion: all those re fusing to become Catholics were or dered to em igrate and to leave at home their children not of age. In vain the Salzburg ers appealed to the Em peror and to the Protes tant princes. Only Freder ick William of Prussia pleaded their cause and invi ted 20,000 of them to set tle in Lithuania. The King of Eng land or- dered a col lec tion for them which amounted to some $200,000. The ma jor- ity of rulers were fa nat ical and mer ci less. Thus these perse cuted Evan gel i- cals had to leave their children to be edu cated in Catholic insti tu tions. With wounded hearts, but with hymns of praise on their lips, they wan dered through the cities and villages of Ger many singing the song com posed by Schaitber ger, the leader of a for mer exile:

"I bin ein armer Ex u lant, A so thu i mi schreiba, — Ma thuet mi aus dem Vaterland Um Gottes Wort vertreiba.

Des was i wohl, Herr Jesu mein, Es ist dir a so ganga, Jetzt will i dein Nach fol ger sein, Herr! mach’s na dein Verlanga.

So muss i heut von meinem Haus, Die Kindel muss i losa, Mei Gott, es treibt mir Zährel aus, Zu wandern fremde Strossa.

Mein Gott, führ mi in ane Stadt Wo i dein Wort kann hoba, Darin i di will früh und spat In meinem Herzen loba."

32 "An exile poor, and nothing more, This is my sole pro fession; Ban ished from home, of God’s pure word To make a clear con fession.

O Je sus mine, I know full well This is the way Thou wen test. Thy steps we’ll fol low, dear est Lord, And bear what Thou hast sent us.

So forth I go from my dear home. Lord, the tears are start ing; As through strange streets I press my way I think of the sad parting.

A country , Lord, I ask of Thee, Where I Thy Word may cherish. Where, day and night, within my heart The fruits of faith may flourish."

A large num ber of these Salzburg exiles immi grated to America. The REV. DR. SAMUEL URLSPERGER, of Augs burg, in ter ceding for them at London, prevailed on the Eng lish gov ernment to give them free passage to Georgia, to take care of them for a year, to let them and their children have free use of cer tain lands for a period of ten years (af ter that at a nom inal rental), and to confe r on them the rights of Eng lish citi zen ship and also free dom to wor- ship God. All of these prom ises have been faith fully kept. The ocean voy- age of the Salzburg ers and their ar rival in Georgia have been charmingly described by the Ameri can his torian BAN CROFT in his third vol ume on the “History of the United States” (22 ed. 1873, p. 424):

33 “In Janu ary, 1734, they set sail for their new homes. The majesty of the ocean quickened their sense of God’s omnipo tence and wisdom; and as they lost sight of land, they broke out into a hymn to His glory. The set ting sun, after a calm, so kindled the sea and sky, that words could not expr ess their rapture, and they cried out, ‘How lovely the cre ation! How in fin itely lovely the Cre ator!’ When the wind was adverse they prayed; and, as it changed, one opened his mind to the other on the power of prayer, even the prayer ‘of a man sub ject to like passions as we are.’ A devout lis tener con fessed him self to be an un con verted man; and they re minded him of the prom ise to him that is poor and of a con trite spirit, and trem- bleth at the Word. As they sailed pleas antly with a favor ing breeze, at the hour of evening prayer they made a covenant with each other, like Ja cob of old, and resolved by the grace of Christ to cast all strange gods into the depth of the sea. In Feb ru ary a storm grew so high that not a sail could be set; and they raised their voices in prayer and song amid the tem- pest; for to love the Lord Je sus as a brother gave con sola tion. AT CHARLES TON, OGLETHORPE ON THE 18TH OF MARCH, 1734, BADE THEM WEL COME: AND IN FIVE DAYS MORE the wayfar ers, whose home was be yond the skies, pitched their tents near Savan nah.”

Grate fully rec og niz ing God’s gracious guid ance, they called the place of their set tlement EBENEZER. Three other ships, loaded chiefly with Salzburg- ers,16 ar rived during the fol low ing year, thus increas ing the pop u la tion of the colony to 1200. It was not diffi cult to fore see that these people would prosper in their new home. Under their thrifty hands the virgin for est became a blos som ing garden. The four churches, Jerusalem, Zion, Bethany and Goshen, served their spir itual wants, and their minis ters, BOLTZ IUS and GRONAU, who had been trained in Halle and had accom panied them across the sea, were pastors in the true sense of the word. Ev ery Sun day they held three ser vices, and every evening, their tasks done and supper over, the people gath ered in their churches to re ceive some reli gious instruc tion, the children in the Cat- echism, the grown-ups in the Bible. Dur ing the first baptism all the children of the con grega tion were called to the al tar to have this sacra ment explained to them. From the minis te rial re ports sent to Halle we gather that every- where in this set tlement Bibli cal teach ing produced glo ri ous re sults. The people freely forgave those who had wronged them; scenes of death were transfig ured with rays of tri umph, and even young children fought the good fight of faith. No secu lar author ity was needed. All contro versi es were settled by their spir itual lead ers, who were uni versally rec og nized as fa thers. The com mu nity of Ebenezer re mained free from the pol luting influ ences of the outside world. It was truly ruled by the Christ. The DE SCEN DANTS OF THE SALZBURG ERS are still in that vicinity . In Sa vannah they have a flourish ing Eng lish Lutheran church, a large per cent age of whose members are Ger mans. In Eff ing ham County they repre sent the vital

34 el ement of the eight churches of the Georgia Synod, which at present is a part of the United Synod of the South (§ 14). OTHER LUTHER ANS IN THE SOUTH. Be sides this congre ga tion we dis cover a num ber of other colonies all along the coast. While these Luther ans did not play a very prom inent part in the his tory of that time, we should men tion them, be cause from these set tlements emerged those synods and congre gations which tod ay form the United Synod of the South: New berry, N. C, near Perrys bur g, S. C, Charles ton, St. Si mon Is land, Con gress (Saxe- Gotha), Rowan and Cabarrass County (Pastor Nuess man), S. C, and Spott- syl vania Co., Va. (Pas tor Klug 1736-61).

6. Lutheran Settle ments in Pennsyl va nia.

We have men tioned the congre ga tions of GER MAN TOWN, of FAL CK NER’S SWAMP and of PHIL A DEL PHIA (§ 3, 1). AN OTHER LUTHERAN OR GA NI ZA TION was effected, when the immi grants from the Rhen ish Palati nate moved out of the Schoharie Val ley (§ 3, 3). As soon as these thrifty set tlers, af ter es caping from the extor tions of the New York gov er nors, had cul ti vated their new posses sions and made the wilder- ness blos som like the rose, they were informed that the CON TRACTS they had made with the In dians concern ing the transfer of land were null and void. The gov ernmen t would not rec og nize the owner ship of the In dians. Un- scrupu lous specu la tors of New York had fraud u lently acquired ti tle to these lands, and the help less set tlers were forced ei ther to rent from the land- sharks or to seek other quarters. Many of them decided to em igrate again and to accept the invi ta tion of Gover nor Keith of Penn syl van ia. Led by friendly Indi ans, they jour neyed three hundred miles along the Sus quehanna River, and set tled in the vicini ty of Read ing, Pa. (TULPE HO KEN, the place where Mill Creek flows into the Tulpe ho ken). News of their expe ri ence reach ing Ger many caused the great stream of em igra tion from that country to be diverted from New York to Penn syl vania. This is said to account for the fact that Pennsyl vania is a stronger Lutheran state than New York. At this partic u lar time Ger man immi gra tion had reached a high wa ter mark. It was largely caused by men called “NEW LAN DERS” who had been in America and made it a busi ness by glow ing descrip tions and golden prom- ises to induce oth ers to start for the new country . They were gener ally em- ployed by Dutch fi nanciers who made money out of em igra tio n. The em i-

35 grants ar riv ing in Hol land by the river route had gener ally spent all their money on the trip. Pen niless and friendless, they had to sign contracts printed in Eng lish (therefore un in telli gible to them) which placed them al together into the hands of these slave-dealers. Thus they em barked on ships which first made for British ports, where their papers were made out and freight was taken aboard. In crowded vessels and af ter a long jour ney, they ar rived at Phila del phia. But no one was al lowed to go ashore. They were landed in small groups and had to swear al le giance to the British Crown. Af ter that only they who had paid for their passage were permit ted to leave the ship. Those un able to do this were hired out (prac ti cally sold) to Dutch, Eng lish or Ger man land-sharks, and had to work out their debt in long years of toil. This white slav ery was instru men tal in break ing up fam ilies. Some were forced into condi tions of hardship, oth ers found good po si tions. Even- tually the law reg u lated these transac tions, which, however , were not pro- hib ited until 1817. The peo ple sold were known as “Re demp tioners.” 17 In the year 1750, accord ing to Zinzen dorf, there were about SIXTY THOU- SAND GER MANS in Penn syl vania, the Luther ans out num bering the Re formed two to one. We hear of the fol low ing CON GRE GA TIONS (preach ing places): Phila del phia, Fal ckner ’s Swamp or New Hanover, Provi dence or Trappe, Ger man town, Lan caster , New Hol land or Earl town, Tulpe ho ken, In dian- field, Old Goshopen, Orange County. This large ter ri tory was served by but FEW MIN IS TERS, of whom we mention Ger hard Henkel, Daniel Fal ckner (brother of Justus, § 3, 1) and Johann Cas par Sto ever, Jun. No wonder RE LI GIOUS DE GEN ER A TION was soon in evi- dence. Zinzen dorf tells us that blas phemers were accused of having “the Penn syl vania reli gion.” THE TWO STO EV ERS, father and son, came to Ameri ca in 1728. They were close rel atives of Johann Philipp Frese nius, who took a warm inter est in the founding of the Lutheran church of Amer ica. JO HANN CAS PAR STO EVER, SEN., who is supposed to have orga nized the noted St. Michael’s congre ga tion of Phila del phia (see § 3, 7; 4, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6; 6, 2), was or dained in 1732 as Lutheran pastor of Spottsyl van ia, Virginia (Madison County), where Henkel had preached before him. Sto ever’s annual salary consisted of three thou sand pounds of tobacco. In 1734 the con- grega tion sent him on a fund rais ing trip to Ger many. He col lected three thou sand pounds of sterling for church building purposes and in duced a the- o log ical stu dent, by name of Klug, to be or dained for the ministry in Amer-

36 ica. On his way back to Americ a Sto ever died (1738). His body was buried in the sea. Of greater inter est is the name of his son, JO HANN CAS PAR STO EVER. He was only twenty-one years old when he ar rived in America (1728). Though not or dained, he performed many minis te rial acts simply because at that time there was a scarcity of or dained minis ters. In the year 1731 he went to Rari tan, N. J., and asked the ag ing Daniel Fal ckner (§3,1) to or dain him. Fal ckner decline d. Two years later he was or dained by Pastor Schulze, of Phila del phia, whose congre ga tion he was to serve during the latter ’s trip to Ger many. This was the SEC OND LUTHERAN OR DI NA TION ON AMER I CAN SOIL and took place in Provi dence in a sta ble which was part of the congre ga tional property . Sto ever trav eled through the length and breadth of Penn syl vania, and wher ever he found any scat tered Luther ans, he orga nized them into congre ga tions. Al most all the preach ing places men tioned above were estab lished by him, and when ever he performed any minis te rial acts he recorded them in church regis ters, so that the his torian of today has no diffi- culty in tracing his un ceas ing ac tivity . He did not stand on good terms with Muhlen berg and his fol low ers. Not un til 1768 did he join the synod they or- ganized (§ 4, 5). Al though devoted to his work and a loyal Lutheran and in spite of his self-denying mission ary trips, we dis cern in him a some what mer cenary view of the minis te rial office. He lacked the deep devo tion, the passion for souls and the far-see ing eye of Muhlen berg, who ever urged beyond a mere loc al activ ity the greater goal of Lutheran orga ni za tion (§ 4, 9). He was pastor at Lebanon, Pa., when he died suddenly in 1779 during a service of confir ma tion at the age of seventy-five years. His life was event ful, and re vealed the strong fea tures of the Lutheran pio neer. (See Dr. Schmauk, “The Luth. Church of Penn syl vania,” I, p. 244-275.)

7. An Event ful Step.

While thus the minis te rial supp ly was at a very low ebb, THREE CON GRE GA- TIONS JOINED in an en ter prise which in God’s wise Provi dence re sulted in the immi gra tion of a man whose person al ity has meant innu mer able bless ings for the Lutheran church of America. A DEL E GA TION was sent from PHIL A DEL- PHIA, PROV I DENCE (Trappe) and NEW HANOVER (Fal ckner ’s Swamp) to Pastor ZIEGEN HAGEN, court-preacher at Lon don,18 and to Prof. Dr. A. G. Francke (son of August Her mann Francke) of Halle, for the purpose of raising

37 church building funds. More partic u larly they were to se cure an able clergy- man (1734). These nego ti ations extended over a long period. Francke and Ziegen hagen insisted that the question of SALARY would have to be set tled; the del eg ates explained that this could not be done un til the mini ster had entered the field. The case was argued for several years. But fi nally the author ities of Halle decided to act. They sent the very man needed for the work among the Luther ans of Penn syl vania, the Rev erend HEIN RICH MEL- CHIOR MUH LEN BERG. This man was destined to bec ome the real founder of the Lutheran Church of America. The rea son why this sudden action was taken is partly due to the appear ance on Ameri can soil of a spir itual leader who had accom plished great good in Ger many, but whose work wrought confu sion among the Luther ans of Penn syl vania.

8. This was Count Von Zinzen dorf.

Hav ing been exiled from Sax ony, he had decided to use the time of his ex- patri ation to do mission ary work among the In dians of America. Thus engaged, he heard of the spir itua l needs of the Penn syl vania Luther ans. He made Ger man town his head-quar ters, and thence he tra versed the country in every direc tion. He met in a con fer ence (1742) with four Sev enth-day Bap- tists (of Ephrata), some other Bap tists and Mennon ites, some Luther ans and Re formed. His aim was to unite them all. He at tracted the at ten tion of the Phila del phia Luther ans. They called him and he accepted. He preached for them, admin is tered the sacra ments, and accept ing their call he became their pastor . He gave up his ti tle as a Count, called himself Herr von Thuernstein (af ter one of his es tates), and as sumed the ti tle “Evangel ical Lutheran In- spector and Pastor of Phila del phia.” At the same time he looked af ter the Re formed, or dained a pastor and prepared a cat echism for them just as he had previ ously pub lished Luther’s Cat echism for the Luther ans. Al together he held eight CON FER ENCES FOR THE PUR POSE OF UNIT ING THE VAR I OUS CHURCHES. But the more he la bored, the worse the confu sion. The Re formed Pastor Boehme warned against him in a special pam phlet of some ninety pages. Zinzen dorf fi nally re al ized that in or der to at tain re sults he would have to orga nize his fol low ers. He founded the Mora vian Broth er hood. Even today in cer tain parts of Penn syl vania — Beth le hem, for instance — we can find Mora vian congr ega tions whose ori gin can be traced back to the work of Zinzen dorf.

38 The the olo gians of Halle were deter mined op po nents of Zinzen dorf. While they rec og nized the fact that he was the god-child of Spener, the pupil of Francke, edu cated in the school of Pietism, the Halle School of the- ology , though not ul tra-conser vatively Lutheran, feared Zinzendorf ’s way of confus ing earnest souls. More over, they did not wish to be held re sponsi ble by their op po nents (dur ing the Pietis tic contro versies) for the eccen tric ities of their pupil. Not with out appre hen sion they had seen him enter upon his for eign mis sion, and when they heard that, instead of preach ing to the In dians, he was as sum ing lead er ship among the Penn syl vania Ger mans, they hastened to com ply with the wishes of the Ameri can del ega tion and sent Muhlen berg.

9. Review .

Look ing back over the his tory of Lutheranism thus far recorded, we no tice one out stand ing fact — that, while scat tered congre ga tions were start ing here and there, there was no sign, except ing among the Swedes, of a gen eral orga ni za tion. The mission of this period was to GATHER LUTHERAN FAM I LIES INTO CON- GRE GA TIONS, and this mission had been partly accom plished. In the affairs of the Swedes the home church took an active inter est from the begin ning. In the case of the em igrants of the Palati nate, Kocherthal, aided by Eng land, had done this work. The Salzburg ers were taken care of by the Ger man Luther ans and the Eng lish gov ernment. But a great num ber had to help themselves. In divid u als got together , and appeal ing to their native land, tried to se cure minis ters. Since clergy men were scarce, spir itual vagabonds and men of the low est charac ter took ad vantage of the situ ation. A small num ber of congre ga tion s came into exis tence (50 or more in the year 1740). But there was no thought of incor po rat ing them into a larger body. The TEN DENCY WAS TO WARD DIS PER SION AND CM EVEN TUAL AB SORP TION OF THESE SCAT TERED FLOCKS BY DE NOM I NA TIONAL CHURCHES. Zinzen dorf, though person ally devout, saw a chance of building up his own church over the ru- ins of Lutheranism. It was most es sen tial for the Lutheran Church that the scat tered congre- gations should be gath ered into a larger orga ni za tion, that they should rally around the bann er of the Lutheran faith, and that they should be supplied with wor thy and re li able minis ters. The time had come for the OR GA NI ZA TION

39 OF THE CHURCH. This supreme duty of the second period of Lutheran develop ment was clearly rec og nized and admirably performed by — Heinrich Mel chior Muhlen berg.

1. He then entered the ser vice of Swe den, and un til his death (1641) was the first gov er nor of New Sweden. Here he made use of his expe ri ence (ac quired in New Nether land) of deal ing with the In dians, and se cured a large percent age of the fur trade for the Swedes, much to the ir ri tation of the avaricious Dutch.↩ 2. Isaac Joques, or Jogues, was a French mission ary of the prov ince of Que bec. Two years af ter his visit to New Am ster dam he was killed by the In dians. ↩ 3. An entry in the records of Al bany, dated May 20, 1658, reads as follows: “Lutheran pastor and some bad women were deported to Hol- land.” Ec cle si as ti cal Records of New York, I, 423. Colonial Record of N. Y., XIV, 417. But accord ing to a letter in the Ec cle si as ti cal Records (I, p. 433) we know that Gut wasser man aged to get around this depor - ta tion. In the spring of the fol low ing year (1659) he was still there. Af- ter wards, however , he was arrested and sent home on the “Bruyn visch” (the Brown Fish) sailing for Ams ter dam.↩ 4. The church was erected on the present site of Bat tery Park.↩ 5. About his work, Dr. Nicum has dis covered valu able ma te rial in the ar- chives of Hol land. When these ar chives are pub lished, we may get some new light on this pe riod, hitherto ob scured.↩ 6. We are speaking of pastors who came for purposes of perma nent activ- ity; oth er wise we should have to men tion the Rev. Ras mus Jensen, who ar rived 1619 in the Hudson Bay as chaplain of a Dan ish expe dition, which un der com mand of Cap tain Munk took charge of the land for the Dan ish crown (Schmauk, “Lutheran Church in Penn syl vania,” I, 17).↩ 7. The Rev. John Cam panius, whom we shall shortly men tion, informs us that Ger man immi grants, consi st ing of fifty colonists, ar rived on the ship “Der Vo gel Greif” to take part in the founding of the Dela ware colony. Gus tavus Adol phus, even a few days before his death at Luet- zen, char acter ized his Ameri can project as the “pearl of his king dom”

40 and begged the Protes tant rulers to permit their subjects to take part in it. Gover nor Printz, who was later com missioned for that purpose, was a Ger man no ble man himself, a native of Hol stein, who induced some fifty-four Ger man fam ilies, mostly Pomera nians, to fol low him across the sea. (See L. P. Hen ning hausen, “The first Im migrants to North America,” pp. 160-1&2).↩ 8. See the hu mor ous descrip tion of this event in Washing ton Irv ing, “Knicker bocker’s History of New York.”↩ 9. Thirty Bibles, six books of ser mons, one hun dred books of wor ship, one hun dred hym nals, two books on Min is te rial Acts, one hun dred Larger and Smaller Cat echisms, four hun dred primers, five hun dred In dian Cate chisms by Campa nius arrived as presents from the king.↩ 10. We should note, however , that the Swedish and Dutch Lutheran churches looked af ter their immi grant country men, while the Ger man Lutheran State churches left this care in charge of char ita ble soci- eties.↩ 11. See also § 4, 9.↩ 12. The church ing of women was a ser vice to which the Swedes ad hered with great tenac ity.↩ 13. The fol lowing prayer is added to the record of a baptism: “O Lord God, let the name of this infant be inscribed in the book of life and never be erased therefrom! Through Je sus Christ. Amen!” Af ter bap- tizing a black child, he com ments: “O Lord, mer ci ful Fa ther, who art no respecter of persons, but con sid er est accept able among all people those who do right and fear Thee, clothe this child with the white robe of right eousness, and keep it in the same through Je sus Christ, the Re- deemer and Sav ior of all mankind. Amen.” How appro pri ate, too, the baptismal prayer for five infan ts born on mid-ocean to imm igrant mothers from the Rhen ish Palati nate (§ 3, 3): “O Lord, Almighty God and Fa ther of our Lord Je sus Christ, whose wondrous power has safely called these children into life even amid the storms of the sea and has guided them safely to the shore, lead them also through the tem pestu- ous sea of this world un til they safely ar rive in the harbor of the new heavenly Jerusalem where all tyranny and all false and tyran nical mercy shall have an end, through Je sus Christ, Amen.”↩ 14. Add to this the horri ble misman agement of princes who imi tated the extrav agant life of the French court — at the expense of the country . A

41 dis as trous fail ure of crops and a win ter (1709) of such un usual sever ity that birds froze in the air filled the mea sure of misery to overflow- ing.↩ 15. From this jour ney he re turned in 1710. Rev. Geo. J. M. Ketner writes at the bicen ten nial anniver sary of St. Paul’s Luth. Church at West Camp: “Unwill ingly they bound themselves for years to the British Gover nor, Robt. Hunter, to pay for their voy age by mak ing tar for the British navy. Perse cuted by Hunter and fleeced by Liv ing stone, their suffer ings from 1710-1712 were inde scrib able. The pine trees at West Camp were not the kind for mak ing naval stores. The gov er nor kept clam or ing for tar, and the Palatines said,”Give us the right kind of trees." It was mak ing brick with out straw. In a howl ing wilder ness, in log cabi ns and bark huts, with scant clothes and lit tle food, they suffered and shiv ered in the win ter’s cold, and strug gled to keep soul and body tog ether. The cries of their lit tle ones, the tears of their wives made the strong men weep. Gov er nor Hunter disputed the ti tles to their homes and perse cuted them inces santly . So neglected were they at one time by the man who was sworn to be their protec tor that much against their wills they had to throw themselves on the mercy of the In dians, or starve. Some, weary of this intol er able slav ery, cut their way to Schoharie (of. § 3, 6). Oth ers forged their way to the head-wa ters of the Sus quehanna. The ma jor ity, however , re mained at West Camp. It was not un til 1717 that the aw ful traces of poverty began to dis appear among them. The or phan child ren and those of surviv ing wid ows, whose husbands died in that aw ful voy age cf 1710, were by the inex- orable Hunter appren ticed among strangers. Some were never seen again. Think what this means! No wonder they com plained and started a mutiny. The only place where for the time being they forgot their sorrows and wrongs, was in the lit tle log church where pastor Kocherthal com forted them with such conso la tions which the holy reli- gion of Jesus Christ alone could give."↩ 16. In this second edi tion we will have to deny ourselves the telling of the charming story which Stro bel re lates re garding the influ ence of the Salzburg ers on the Wes leys. The his toric ity of the beauti ful story is doubt ful. Stro bel admits that Wes ley men tions only “Mora vians,” but claims that this is due to the fact that Wes ley did not know the differ - ence between the Mora vians and the Salzburg ers. Dr. A. G. Voigt,

42 Presi dent of the Sem inary of the United Synod of the South in Co lumbia, S. C, wrote us: “I once made a care ful com pari son of Urlsperger’s Nach richten and Wes ley’s Journal , and found no evi dence that there were Salzburg ers on the ship on which Wes ley was.”↩ 17. See Hal lische Nach richten: Friederich Kapp, Gesch. der Deutschen in New York.↩ 18. See Ger mann’s Au tobi og ra phy, pages 37-104.↩

43 The Sec ond Pe riod. Congre ga‐ tions Or ga nized Into Synods.

DUR ING THE PE RIOD which we are now to study the scat tered flocks were gath ered into organic unity. A part of the Lutheran Church became orga- nized un der Muhlen berg. It fur nished the founda tion for ulti mate success. It absorbed the Dutch church and later the congre ga tions of Berkenmeyer . It would have as simi lated the Swedish churches, if the orga niz ing forces had been large enough. With the ad vent of the Penn syl vania Min is terium, the Lutheran Church steps out of the stage of scat tered congre ga ti ons into the stage of a system atized eccle si as ti cal body. This orga ni za tion, in its fi nal anal y sis, was the work of the Ger man mother-church. She supplied the largest num ber of men and also their fi nancial support. Withou t her as sis- tance the Lutheran Church of America would have been lost beyond re- demp tion. It is to be re gret ted that the War of In depen dence ter minated this re la tion with the mother-church before the Ameri can off spring had grown strong enough to look entirely af ter its own inter ests. The new devel op ment cre ated new problems which were only partially solved in this period. We re fer to the question of lan guage, the look ing af ter new ter ri tory and the train ing of com petent min is ters.

44 2. Muh len berg And The Found ing Of The First Lutheran Synod.

§ 4. Muhlen berg and His Work.

1. Muhlen berg’ s Call and Arrival.

Heinrich Mel chior Muhlen berg (born at EIM BECK, Hanover, Sept. 6, 1711), descended from a fam ily which had lost ti tle and es tate during the Thirty Years’ War. Under such dis advan tages he had re ceived his prepara tory edu- cation, strug gling all along the line. As a stu dent of the ology , he entered the Uni versity of GOET TIN GEN, where he gradu ated in 1738. Hav ing come in contact with the influ ences of Halle which decided his fu ture career , he intended to be sent as mission ary to East In dia. But for the time being this plan did not seem to be fea si ble, and he accepted (Au gust, 1739) a call to Grosshen ners dorf, not far from Her rn hut, the es tate of Zinzen dorf. On Sept 6, 1741, he paid a VISIT TO FRANCKE, who asked him whether he would accept a call to the three congre ga tions of Penn syl vania: Phila del phia. Provi- dence and New Hanover (§ 3, 7). Muhlen berg, consid er ing this a divine call, acc epted. “The dear spouse of Dr. Francke was so elated that she made a present to the poor deacon in the form of a Schlafrock” (a long, loose coat used in Eu rope for com fort at home). On Dec. 17th he went to Lon don, where he prepared him self for his new work by taking a two months’ course in Eng lish. Dur ing his ocean trip, last ing 110 days, passen ger s and crew were transformed into a congre ga tion, which Muhlen berg served with won- derful zeal both as pastor and preacher. He LANDED AT CHARLES TON Sept. 23, 1742, and thence vis ited Ebenezer, the home of the Salzburg ers (§ 3, 5). Af- ter a short stay of eight days, he proceeded to Penn syl vania. Taking leave, he sang: “So lasst uns denn dem lieben Herrn mit Leib und Seel’ nachge- hen; und wohlge mut, get rost und gern bei Ihm in Lei den ste hen.” (“We offer, O beloved Lord, body and soul to Thee; made strong by Thy as suring word, e’en in Geth se mane”). Af ter a jour ney of the most inten se hardship, his clothes soaked with water, while he lay ill among curs ing fel low-patients, he AR RIVED AT PHIL A DEL- PHIA, Nov. 25, 1742. Here Zinzen dorf claimed to be pastor of the congre ga-

45 tion (§ 3, 8), but no welcome was given to the ar riv ing minis ter. A meet ing was called with Zinzen dorf as chairman, during which Muhlen berg was questioned, in a man ner very hu mil iat ing to him as to the le giti macy of the call which had been extended to him through Ziegen hagen in Lon don. But the calm dig nity of the new minis ter, who convinced his hear ers that he was the called pastor , soon indi cated that the time of Zinzen dorf’s control of the situ ation was ter minated. Shortly af ter wards (about New Year, 1743) Zinzen dorf re turned to Eu rope.1

2. Muhlen berg as a Mis sionary .

We can only touch upon his self-sac ri fic ing and far-reach ing activ ity as a mission ary. The matter has been treated more fully by Ja cobs and Graeb ner. There was not much of a salary. One congre ga tion contrib uted a horse, another noth ing:, and a third barely enough to pay rent. MUH LEN BERG’S MEET- ING PLACE at Phila del phia was a car penter shop, at Provi dence a barn, and at New Hanover a half-finished church. Journey ing over al most impass able roads, bro ken in places by rivers with out bridges, he was not infre quently in danger of death. For Muhlen berg did not confine, himself to the three con- grega tions. Sym pathy with the or phaned Luther ans caused him to make mission ary jour neys in every direc tion. In this way he came to GER MAN- TOWN, TULPE HO KEN, LAN CAS TER, FRED ER ICKS, YORK, etc. At these places he gath ered those hun gering for the Word in open fields. The ser vices were usually of long du ra tion. First the children were cat echised; baptisms followed; these were succeeded by a ser mon and fi nally by the Lord’s Sup per. Muhlen berg’s zeal was inde fati gable. Out side of the work men tioned he un- dertook the building of churches, vis ited the scat tered fam ilies, set tled contro versies, rec on ciled contend ing parties and made his influ ence felt in every direc tion. Wher ever he went, doors were opened to him. He possessed in an extra or dinary degree the grace of find ing “fa vor with men.” With a bear ing marked by a com bina tion of nat u ral dig nity and genuine Chris tian hu mil ity, there was united a char acter to which learning, exec u tive ability , and deep piety lent an ir re sistible charm, so that he was gladly re ceived on all sides as leader.

Anno ta tion.

46 The con grega tion of Tulpe ho ken, men tioned above and in previ ous chapters (§ 3, 6), had been handi capped since 1734, by inter nal confu sion, which was not ter mina ted un til un der the guid ing hand of Muhlen berg it re sulted in a solu tion fa vorable to the Lutheran Church. While it is not our inten tion to give detailed accounts of any one congre ga tion, we wish to make an ex- ception of this church, because its his tory gives a vivid pic ture of the Lutheran situ ation at the time of Muhlen berg’s ar rival. In his work, “The Lutheran Church in Penn syl vani a”, Dr. Schmauk, begin ning with page 485, devotes no less than 90 pages to the descrip tion of this pic ture. The story is char acter is tic of Ameri can church life and typ ical of many local ities where it has been repeated with more or less vari ation. Con rad Weiser, Jun. (§ 3, 4), who came into this vicinity from the Schoharie Val ley (1729), was serv ing as “reader” in a church re cently (1727) built by the set tlers. He had re ceived his re li gious ten dencies through the lit er ature of Spener and Francke, and for that rea son did not read ily assim i late the for mal church man ship of Johann Cas par Sto ever (§ 3, 6), who also had come into the neigh borhood. In behalf of the congre ga tion Weiser tried to se cure a minis ter from Halle by appeal ing to Ziegenhagen (§ 3, 8) and Francke. This call was entrusted to the care of a man by the name of Leut becker, a school teacher and for merly a tailor , who had been converted un der Boehme, Court preacher at Lon don, and had been sent to America for mission ary purposes. This “wor thy” brother soon in formed the people that the del egated pastor had died at sea, and he succeede d in get ting himself elected. Weiser suspected fraud, but the ma jor ity of the church members sided with Leut becker. This caused Weiser to with draw (1732) from the con grega tion. Now he came in contact with Pe ter Miller, the talented but fa nati cal Re- formed pastor of the local ity, together with whom he fell un der the spell of the ecce n tric Sab batarian Bap tist preach ers of Ephrata. He was re baptized by Beis sel, moved into seclu sion, burned Luther’s Cat echism and other re li- gious books that had hitherto been his guide, and became re li giously un bal- anced. Meanwhile the Lutheran congre ga tion of Tulpe ho ken was contam i- nated by the influ ence of Ephrata. Soon, however , a re action set in among the Lutheran converts. Weiser emerged from his seclu sion and entered upon his well known po lit ical career (§ 3, 4). The op po nents of Leut becker now extended a call to Johann Cas par Sto- ever, who had gained a cer tain influ ence in this neigh borhood by perform-

47 ing mini ste rial acts which Leut becker had declined. Thus the name of Sto- ever is closely inter woven with the trou bles in Tulpe ho ken, which extended from 1735 to 1743. Sto ever first tried to get posses sion of the church building. But the op po si tion put a lock on the door. Sto ever’s fol low ers broke the lock, and eventu ally forced the Leut becker fac tion to hold ser vices in the parson age. The question of property rights overshad owed all oth ers. Dis- cover ing that the transac tion of busi ness, dat ing back to the In dians, did not convey a clear ti tle to his people, Leut becker le gal ized his claims, and at- tached to the church door a legally protected lock. But Sto ever’s fol low ers sawed a hole through the wooden wall of the building, and went in and held a commu nion ser vice. Leut becker’s life was threat ened, and so his parson- age was guarded day and night. He died in 1739. The fu neral ser vice was conducted by the Mora vian Bishop Span genber g. who had been in Penn syl- vania for two years and had occa sion ally visited at Tulpe ho ken. At this junc ture Con rad Weiser stepped into the fore ground. He had out- grown his Ephrata fol lies, and was now not only engaged in prac ti cal work, but was an office holder of some impor tance. He aimed to unite the war ring fac tions. He went to Ger man town and induced Zinzen dorf, who had just arrived and was hold ing his first con fer ence (1742; § 3, 8), to come to Tulpe- ho ken. The Count preached a ser mon on the second Ar ti cle of the Apos tles’ Creed, in which he proved that he was a good Lutheran. Upon leav ing, he promised to se cure for them a pas tor from Halle, and re ceived from the con- grega tion papers contain ing a for mal call. It was agreed that Pastor Buet- tner, who had just been or dained by Zinzen dorf, should serve in the interim and with out any salary. Buet tner preached his first ser mon on the subject of “Peace”, but six weeks had hardly elapsed, when he wrote a letter to Sto- ever asking him who had or dained him, before whom he had passed his exam ina tions, whether those who or dained him had author ity to do so and whether he had any right to orga nize a church council. Soon thereafter Zinzen dorf held “a re li gious con fer ence of the children of God” at Phila del- phia, ap pointing himself, Buet tner, Pyrlaeus and Bryzelius as “the consis- tory of the Lutheran Church in Pennsyl vania”. The first action taken by this body was the suspen sion of Johann Cas par Sto ever, who, however , contin- ued his work with out inter ruption. Sto ever’s fol low ers, in fact, built a new church that was to be Lutheran in prin ci ple, and called it Christ Church (1743). For some un known rea son, Sto ever did not lay the corner stone, but

48 it was done by a cer tain Valentin Kraft. The latter was not a success, and stayed but a short time. Not long af ter this corner stone lay ing, Muhlen berg entered the field and exerted his help ful and orga niz ing influ ence. He came to Tulpe ho ken in 1743, vis it ing at the home of Weiser, whose daughter he mar ried two years later. At Muhlen berg’s sugges tion the congre ga tion called To bias Wagner , who proved a fail ure, and af ter wards Nicholas Kurtz, un der whom all storms sub sided. The Leut becker fac tion, served by Zinzen dorf’s fol low ers, also built a new church (1744), and called a num ber of minis ters in rapid succes sion. But its member ship dimin ished. It fi nally died when their Pastor (Brueck- ner) declined to offi ci ate at the fu neral of one of the church members, and would not open the doors of the church to Pastor Kurtz. This action caused another split among the membe rs, some jus ti fy ing their pastor , oth ers condemn ing him. A great ma jor ity re membered that they were Luther ans and not Mora- vians. Con rad Weiser in formed them that the prop erty had been con veyed to the Lutheran Church, that Zinzen dorf had only acquired it by fraud u lently repre sent ing himself as a Lutheran and that whatever part of the members would adhere to Lutheranism were enti tled to the posses sion of the building. He demanded that the keys of the church be handed over to the Lutheran el emen t, and when his re quest was re fused, changed the old lock for a new one. This ended Mora vian activ ity in Tulpe ho ken. Kurtz preached in both churches, which were about two miles apart. This is an inter est ing bit of local church his tory. Dr. Schmauk, in his “History of the Lutheran Church in Penn syl vania from 1638-1820,” has writ ten it up in a most inter est ing man ner with the aid of much his tor ical ma te rial in the form of letters that have been preserved. They show us in a touch ing way all the partic u lars of these trou bles, the mov ings of the hu man heart in its struggle for the right, and also its errors and failings. We also gather from it the fact that Con rad Weiser, af ter tempo rary lapses, re turned to Lutheranism. Those are in er ror who have claimed that this em i nent man of affairs, the fa ther-in-law of Muhlen berg, died as a member of some non-Lutheran church.

3. The Halle Re ports.

49 The “HAL LIS CHE NACH RICHTEN” (Halle Reports), which Muhlen berg and his as sociates sent regu larly to the fa thers in Halle, give a very clear view of their activ ity . These re ports were printed from time to time, and cre ated such a general in ter est that a sec ond edi tion was soon called for. It was published, to gether with valu able geo graphi cal and his tor ical details, by Dr. W. J. Mann. Dr. B. M. Schmucker and Dr. W. Ger mann. This vol ume was not fin ished, however . Dr. F. Wis chan editing the un- fin ished part with out anno ta tions. Dr. C. W. Schaefer ’s Eng lish transla tion has not been published on ac count of fi nancial diffi cul ties. On read ing Muhlen berg’s ar ti cles in these Halle Re ports, many clergy- men in the Fa ther land were moved to cross the sea to become mission ar ies among the Luther ans. How impor tant this was may be gath ered from the sta tistics on the rapid increase of immi gra tion; in 1749 twelve thou sand Ger man em igran ts ar rived at Phila del phia. The super vi sion over the congre- gations up to the time of the War of In depen dence was in the hands of the Francke In stitute at Halle and of Dr. Ziegen hagen of Lon don. They en- dorsed Muh len berg’s proposi tions and gave gen eral advice.

4. Addi tional Work ers from Halle.

Addi tional work ers ar rived from Halle, no tably Rev. Pe ter Brunnholtz and the two cat echists, Johann Nic. Kurtz and Joh. H. Schaum. An agree ment was made accor d ing to which Brunnholtz with Schaum took charge of the congre ga tions in Phila del phia and Ger man town, while Muhlen berg, with Kurtz as his as sis tant, confined their labors to the congre ga tio ns in Provi- dence and New Hanover. Other helpers sent from Halle were Pastors Hand- schuh and Hartwig. Later we find the names of Gerok (from Wuertem berg), Ea ger (ances tor to Profes sor Baugher of Gettys burg), Heinzel mann, Schultze, Hel muth, Schmidt, Voigt, Krug, Weygardt, Krauss, Schrenk, etc.

5. The Ori gin of the Penn sylva nia Synod.

To coun ter act the influ ence of Zinzen dorf and his fol low ers and also to get rid of un wor thy minis ters, who sought to force themselves upon the congre- gations, the founding of an eccl esi as ti cal orga ni za tion was becom ing more and more neces sary. As early as 1644 TWO IN FLU EN TIAL LAY MEN OF PHIL A DEL- PHIA, Kock of the Swedish and Schleidorn of the Ger man congre ga tion, thought of orga niz ing a Swedish-Ger man synod; but this at tempt failed be-

50 cause the Swedish Pastor Nyber g insisted that such an orga ni za tion should include the fol low ers of Zinzen dorf. To this Muhlen berg ob jected. How- ever, Aug. 26, 1748, on the occa sion of a DOU BLE CEL E BRA TION (the dedi cation of the newly built St. Michael’s Church and the ordi na tion of Candi date Kurtz) six clergy men (Muhlen berg, Hartwig, of New York, Brunnholtz. Hand schuh, Kurtz and the Swedish Provost, Sandin) and twenty-four laymen, rep re sent ing ten Phila del phia congre ga tions, orga nized the Penn syl vania Synod.2 We find, indeed , as yet no for mal orga ni za tion and no consti tution, but from this time on those who com posed the synod were re garded as “United Pastors ” and their parishes as “United Con grega tions” 3 who held seven con fer ences up to the year 1754. Af ter that we no tice a LULL in the synod ical activ i ty, no conven tion being recorded between 1754 and 1760. One rea son for this was proba bly the fact that Muhlen berg, who was the soul of all these enter prises, was engaged in work around New York (Rari- tan and New- York), where his orga niz ing talents were re quired.4 It also seems that the founders had got ten some what DIS COUR AGED. Their vision grew dim in the pres ence of tow er ing tides of immi gra tion for whose spir i- tual wel fare Ger many did but lit tle and whose fu ture was endan gered by minis te rial frauds. Provost Dr. Wrangel (§ 2) caused the RE SUMP TION OF SYN OD I CAL WORK. He called on Muh len berg, and in vited him to take part in a Swedish confer ence. Muhlen berg accepted, and re ceived so many help ful sugges tions at this meet ing that he wrote to the differ ent minis ters (Sept. 24, 1760), invit ing them to at tend a PAS TORAL CON FER ENCE to be held at Prov idence, Oct. 19th and 20th. We should not un deres ti mate this confer ence, for it signi fies the re vival of synod ical inter ests af ter a period of inac tiv ity . Even here we do not dis cover any kind of a const itu tion; but we note that a Presi dent is chosen from year to year. We find the name “The Annual Min is te rial Con fer- ence of the United Swedish and Lutheran Min is ters.” In deed, in 1781, in a minute-book of that date, we find the text of a CON STI TU TION, which had no doubt existed for several years. This consti tu tion, which has served as a proto type for so many synod ica l consti tu tions of later times, is printed by Ja cobs on p, 261. Here the name of the synod is given as “The Evan gel ical Lutheran Min is terium of North America.” Later the name was changed into “The Ger man Evan gel ical Lutheran Min is terium of Penn syl vania and Ad- joining States.” Not before 1882 was the word Ger man dropped.

51 6. First Con gre ga tional Con sti tution.

The first congre ga tional consti tu tion of the Lutheran Church of America is also the gift of Muh len berg. The framing of this consti tu tion was, in fact, a matter of far-reach ing impor tan ce. Dr. Mann avers that if Muhlen berg had done noth ing but com pose this consti tu tion, he would be enti tled to the last- ing grat i tude of the Lutheran Church. It was used by the minis ters who or- ganized churches in Penn syl vania and adja cent states; it served as a founda- tion for the cong re gational consti tu tion of the Gen eral Synod, and was thus the basis for the congre ga tional consti tu tions of all synods un til 1840 (cf. § 35). In this consti tu tion (see Graeb ner. 484- 493) we have the fin ished PROD- UCT of twenty-eight years’ (1734-1762) expe ri ence. It was writ ten to meet the needs of St. Michael’s Church, Phila del phia, and bore the marks of ma- ture study and ob ser vation. Muhlen berg incor po rated into it, not only what he had person ally ob served as a guide and adviser of vari ous con grega tions, but also the EX PE RI ENCES OF THE SWEDISH AND DUTCH LUTHER ANS. Dur ing a solemn ser vice and after fer vent prayer it was submit ted to the people.

7. A Com mon Liturgy.

A COM MON LITURGY to be used by all minis ters had al ready been thought of by Muh len berg and his cowork ers during the founding of the first synod (1748). This or der of ser vice was submit ted to the synod in 1754 and for- warded to Halle for approval. It seems to have been drawn from a num ber of Saxon and North-German liturgies which were used in those parts of Ger many where Muhlen berg had lived and worked.5 The RE VISED EDI TION of this liturgy, A. D. 1786 (See Fritschel. I. 178-187). is to be cons idered a de- te ri o ra tion from the stand point of Lutheran liturgies.

8. Doctri nal Views of Muhlen berg and his Co work ers.

Dr. Jacobs has correctly stated the case when he says that the pietistic ten- dencies of these men gave a cer tain color to their Lutheranism, but did not dis place it. They were TRUE LUTHER ANS in preach ing and prac tice. Says Dr. Mann: “Their Lutheranism did not differ from the Lutheran or tho doxy of the preced ing period, in the matter of doctrine, but to an extent in the man ner of apply ing it. It was or tho doxy prac ti cally vital ized. They were less polemi cal and the o ret ical. They actu al ized their own Lutheran convic-

52 tions through a no ble, exem plary life and ser vice. Their pietism was truly Lutheran piety, a warm-hearted, devout, active, prac ti cal Lutheranism.” (Dr. W. J. Mann’s “Theses on the Lutheranism of the Fa thers of the Church in this Coun try,” First Free Lutheran Diet, p. 281-283). There was no depart ing from Lutheran stan dards. That is proved by their whole activ ity as recorded in the “Hallis che Nach richten.” To his accusers Muhlen berg truthfully replied: “I ask Sa tan and all his lying spir its to prove anything against me which is not in harmony with the teach ing of the apos tles or of our Sym- bol ical Books. I have stated fre quently that there is nei ther fault nor er ror nor any kind of defect in our evan gel ical doctrines, founded on the teach ing of the prophets and the apos tles, and set forth in our Sym bol ical Books.” It is true that they exchanged pul pits with minis ters of the de nom ina- tions. Muh len berg at times preached for the Epis copalians, and in turn invited the Epis copal pastor Pe ters, White field, the evange list, and the Re- formed Pastor Schlatter to occupy his pul pit. At Phila del phia, he preached the fu neral ser mon for the Re formed Pastor Steiner. White field was invited to the as sem bled Min is terium of Phila del phia (1763) and took part in their ser vice. At the conse cra tion of Zion’s Lutheran Church of Phila del phia the whole non-Lutheran clergy of that city was invited. Epis copal minis ters de- livered addresses, and Muhlen berg thanked them pub licly for the part they had taken. But all of this, says Ja cobs, is no evi dence that these men had union is tic ten den cies. Their un com promis ing at ti tude toward Zinzen dorf and his fol low ers clearly shows their funda men tal op po si tion to a church union based on doctri nal indif fer entism. They dis liked Zinzen dorf, not merely on accou nt of his church pol itics, but also because of the union is tic prin ci ples which he openly proclaimed, if they as soci ated with members of other churches, they did so beca use they admired loy alty of each to their re- spective Con fes sions and wished to em phasize the funda men tal truths they held in com mon. “How ever, they never denied their confes sional point of view. Ev erywhere and at all times they taught and preached as true Luther- ans. They never for friendship’ s sake would be silent concern ing a Lutheran doctrine or deny the full conse quences of the teach ings of their confes- sions.”6 A UNION WITH THE EPIS CO PALIANS seems, it is true, to have been consid- ered. Not only Swedish and Ger man Luther ans, but the Epis copalians sought such a union. Muhlen berg and Wrangel believed that there were no se ri ous differ ences of doctrine. We cannot account for this strange delu sion,

53 but it is partly ex plained by the cordial re la tionship that had been sustained by the Epis copalians and partly by the fact that the royal fam ily of Eng land was Lutheran (§ 3, 7) and that the only two rec og nized churches of Eng land were the Lutheran and the Epis copalian. These consid er ations proba bly clouded the view of Muhlen berg and his cowork ers concern ing the Epis copal Church.7 It must be re membered also that Lutheran minis ters fre quently went to Lon don to re ceive the Epis copal or dina tion (for instance Pe ter, oldest son of Muhlen berg, who later was Major Gen eral of the army). This, however , was not done because the Epis copal or dina tion was re garded by them as the only true or dina tion, but because they were do ing work in the South ern States where only the Episco pal or dina tion was recog nized by the law.

9. The Death of Muh lenberg.

At the time of Muhlen berg’s Death the Penn syl vania Synod included in round num bers forty minis ters. As he was kept confined to his house at the Trappe (Provi de nce) on account of physi cal weak ness, he held a ser vice in his own house ev ery Sun day with his fam ily. His sick ness dev el oped into dropsy, and during the last weeks he had days of great suffer ing. He died on Oct. 7, 1787, with this prayer on his lips: “Mach End, O Herr, mach Ende,” etc. All the congre ga tions of the synod held memorial ser vices in his honor, and called to mind the bless ings which the Lutheran Church of Amer ica had re ceived from God through this prince in Is rael. A ser mon was deliv ered in New York by Dr. Kunze, which was printed by or der of the church council and dis trib uted among the members of the congre ga tion. The same was done with a ser mon deliv ered at Phila del phia by Dr. Helmuth in memory of the deceased. The GRAVE OF MUH LEN BERG is near the his toric church of New Provi dence (Trappe). At the conclu sion of this chapte r we ask: Why was Muhlen berg supe rior to his co-work ers and why is he gener ally named the PA TRI ARCH OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF AMER ICA? The answer is found in his fa vorite motto: “Eccle sia plan tanda” (a church must be planted). While other minis ters were pre-emi ne ntly parochial clergy men and special ized in work for the narrower cir cle, Muhlen berg’s eye took in the whole Lutheran mission field of Amer ica, and he was conscious of lay ing the founda tions for a great fu- ture. In this sense he cre ated the first congre ga tional consti tu t ion and the

54 first liturgy. For this task he was well endowed and sin gu larly fit ted. He possessed a thor ough edu cation , was a man of large hori zons, em inently prac ti cal, a man of fine tact. With all his ener gy he was mod er ate, and possessed talents for orga ni za tion such as are only found in great men. And all these natu ral gifts were conse crated by a living faith in Je sus Christ, a faith that was sound to the core. To sum up: Muhlen berg was a born leader; the gift of Almighty God to the Lutheran Church of Amer ica at a time when orga ni za tion was the supreme need of the hour and the Church was in need of such a leader. His- tory bears wit ness that he nobly ful filled his mission — the orga ni za tion of indi vid ual congre ga tions into the larger Church. The fur ther devel op ment of his work and the task of extend ing his plan, together with the prob lems arising from such a task, per tain to another period of this history .

1. In Dr. W. Ger mann’s “Au tobi og ra phy” we have the question ing of Muhlen berg before Zinzen dorf and his fol low ers. These questions and replies explain to us the decided antag o nism of Muhlen berg to Zinzen- dorf and his ad herents. ↩ 2. The prot o col contains an expla nation why other minis ters supposed to be Luther ans (Tob. Wagner and J. Cas par Sto ever) were not invited. They were accused of having called the minis ters of the synod pietists, of not having been properly called, of having re fused to acc ept the com mon liturgy, and of not bein g re sponsi ble to any author ity for their conduct in the ministry .↩ 3. Not un til 1792 did the congre ga tional del egates re ceive the right to vote. Up to that time the clergy men simply re ceived re ports and appli- cations from the lay del egates, but re served the final de ci sion for themselves. At this the lay men took no offense. ↩ 4. In New York City he served an old Dutch church, which, on acc ount of the lan guage question, was in danger of dis ruption. Muhlen berg preached here in Dutch, Ger man and Eng lish. At this time he also came in contact with Berkenmeyer , who, however , was not desirous of having fel low ship with a min is ter from Halle (§ 3, 4).↩ 5. The Luenebur g Liturgy (1643) which was used at his home in Eim- beck; the Calen berg ser vice (1569) which he knew at Goettin gen dur-

55 ing his uni versity days; the Branden bur g-Magde burg ar range ment of 1739 with which he became fa mil iar in Halle; and the Saxon or der of ser vice of 1712 which he used as pas tor in Grosshen ners dorf.↩ 6. See Gottfried Fritschel, “Die Praxis der Vaeter und Gru ender der Lutherischen Kirche Amerikas bei der Ver waltung des heili gen Abendmahls,” Brobst’s Monat shefte, XI, 12. Muhlen berg had solemnly pledged himself in his or dina tion vow before the the o log ical fac ulty of the uni versity of Leipzig, Aug. 24, 1739, which com mit ted to him the office of “teaching the Gospel and admin is ter ing the Sacra- ments ac cording to the rule given in the writ ings of the Prophets and Apos tles, the sum of which is contained in these three sym bols, the Apos tolic, Nicene and Athanasian, in the Augs burg Con fes sion laid before Emperor Charles V., A. D. 1530, in the Apol ogy of the same, in Dr. Luther’s Large and Small Cate chisms, in the Ar ti cles subscribed to in the Smalcald Con vention, and in the Formula of Con cord. He solemnly promised that he would propose to his hear ers what would be conformed and consen tient to these writ ings and that he would never depart from the sense which they give.” (Dr. W. J. Mann, “The Con ser- vatism of Henry Mel chior Muhlen berg” in Lutheran Church Re view, Janu ary, 1888.)↩ 7. Rud man, the Swede, of whom we read in §§ 1 and 2 and who was consid ered a more consis tent Lutheran, served the Epis copalians in Phila- del phia. Bjoerk and Sandel, Swedish minis ters, exchanged pul pits with the Epis copalians. An expla nation of this is offered by Provost Sandel (see Graeb ner, p. 118): “Although there is a slight differ ence between them and us re garding the Lord’s Sup per, the Bishop would not al low this differ ence to inter fere with the general peace. We cannot be drawn into any argu ment. Neither do we touch upon these matters when we preach to them, nor do they try to convert our people to their belief. We call each other brethren and live peace ably together . They control the gov ernment; we are un der them; it is suffi cient that they are such pleas ant as sociates, and that they make no at tempt to prose lyte among our peop le. They call our church ‘the sis ter Church of the Church of Eng land.’ So we live fra ter nally together . May God continue to grant this.”↩

56 3. Fur ther De vel op ment Of Muh len berg’s Or‐ ga ni za tion.

§ 5. Ori gin of Other Synods.

1. The New York Minis terium.

Not un til the Dutch congre ga tio ns located on the banks of the Hud son were a hun dred years old and the Palati nate churches had existed for half a century, do we hear of any synod in the ter ri tory of New York. This may be partly ac counted for by the fact that the stream of Ger man immi gra tion had been di verted from New York to Penn syl vania (§ 3, 6), and partly by the exclu sive ten dencies of the Berkenmeyer cir cle, which would not enter into fel lowship with the mission ar ies from Halle (§ 3, 4). At last, in the year 1763. the Rev. F. A. C. Muhlen berg, a son of the patri arch, invite d a num ber of clergy men and repre senta tives of differ ent congre ga tions to at tend a meet ing in the Ger man Lutheran Christ Church of New York for the purpose of orga niz ing a second synod. The matter , however , does not seem to have suc ceeded, for no synod ical gath er ing is on record un til 1786. when, at the in stance of the Rev. Dr. Kunze,1 and the occa sion of a Lutheran Church dedi ca tion at Al bany, the FIRST CON FER ENCE at tended by three minis ters and their CON GRE GA TIONAL DEL E GATES was held. Eight pastors who were engaged in work in this ter ri tory did not come. Be fore another meet ing was called six years elapsed. But af ter that, devel op ments were more no tice able. An- other decade gives us a synod consist ing of thir teen minis ters. Dr. Kunze, in whom sur vived the spirit of Muh len berg, died in 1807, and the New York Min is terium was controlled for twenty years by the em inently gifted, though ra tional is tic DR. QUIT MAN (§ 6, 3), un der whose lead er ship it took part in the found ing of the General Synod.

2. The North Car olina Synod.

The North Carolina Synod, mother of all the South ern synods, was orga- nized by four clergy men (C. A. G. Storch and Paul Henkel among them) and four teen lay del egates at Sal is bury, N. C, in 1803. Other congre ga tions

57 of North Carolina soon united with them. Three came in 1810, nine from Tennes see in 1811, and five from Virginia in 1812. From 1810 on, this synod appointed yearly a mission ary who was to look af ter newly ar riv ing immi grants. These mission ar ies vis ited North Carolina, Virginia, Tennes see, South Carolina and even came to Ohio. All this took place before the rupture which re sulted in the orga ni za tion of the Synod of Tennes see (§ 5, 5).

3. The Joint Synod of Ohio.

The Joint Synod of Ohio, which al ready existed in 1820 when the question of a Gen eral Synod was being agi tated, had its begin ning as far back as 1812. In that year we hear of a num ber of Ohio pastors who were then still members of the Penn syl vania Synod. (Rev. Paul Henkel had tra versed, as itin er ant preacher, the whole Ohio ter ri tory in a two-wheeled cart.) Without re ceiv ing the re quested permis sion from the mother-synod, these four teen minis ters orga nized the Joint Synod of Ohio, which is today so influ ential, on the 14th of Sep tember . 1818. at SOM ER SET, OHIO. (See also § 28.)

4. The Synod of Mary land and Vir ginia.

The Synod of Mary land and Virginia was orga nized Oct. 11, 1820, with the consent of the mother-synod of Penn syl vania. Among the ten clergy men of which it consisted we men tion Drs. Dan. Kurtz, D. F. Schaef fer and Chas. P. Krauth, Sen.

5. The Ten nes see Synod

The Tennes see Synod was founded at Cove Creek, Tenn., July 17, 1820. It was a branch of the Synod of North Carolina. The founders of this orga ni- zation (among whom were Philip and Daniel Henkel, sens of Paul Henkel), could not agree with their synod ical brethren concern ing the question of THE LI CENS ING OF CLER GY MEN. They also ob jected strenu ously to the forming of a Gen eral Synod, a plan which was warmly advo cated by the Synod of North Carolina. For a long time af ter wards the synod of Tennes see was AN TAG O NIS- TIC TO THE GEN ERAL SYNOD. It dis tin guished it self by being the only synod at that time which stood squarely on the Augs burg Con fes sion. Among its prom inent members were the Henkels, the Stier walds and the Foxes.

58 Anno tation.

As branch synods of the Synod of Tennes see, which was never large, we should name: 1. The SYNOD OF IN DI ANA (now known as the Chicago Synod of the Gen eral Coun cil, § 17, 7); 2. The HOL STON SYNOD (§ 14, 1, 3); 3. The ENG LISH CON FER ENCE OF THE MIS SOURI SYNOD. The Ten nessee Synod is now a part of the United Synod of the South, together with its for mer antag o nist, the synod of North Carolina. When in Oc tober , 1820, the matter of a Gen eral Synod was being dis- cussed, there ex isted only the Penn syl vania Synod (Min is terium of Penn syl- vania) and those just men tioned, six al together . At that time the Lutheran Church of America had one hun dred and seventy-five clergy men and nine hun dred con grega tions, di vided as fol lows: Clergy men. Com mu ni cants. Penn syl vania 74 (278 Congs.) 24,794 New York 20 3,114 Mary land, Va. 22 4,935 North Carolina 19 1,358 Ohio had twenty-six clergy men, Tennes see six pastors and four deacons. Since these two synods were not a part of the Gen eral Synod (Ev. Rev. V, 245),2 we have no further sta tistics.

§ 6. Char acter is tics of This Pe riod.

1. Lack of Cler gy men.

The dem and for the o log ical sem inar ies was keenly felt. Dr. Kunze and his succes sor Dr. Helmuth, pastors of St. Michael’s, served as profes sors of the UNI VER SITY OF PENN SYL VA NIA, and in this way prepared some young men for the ministry , no tably G. Lochman, Chr. En dress, Dav. F. Schaef f er and S. S. Schmucker. — FRANKLIN COL LEGE of Lan caster , Pa., was founded at the sug- gestion of Ben jamin Franklin in 1787. Here Re formed and Lutheran clergy- men col lab o rated, each try ing to se cure candi dates for the ministry . The Lutheran Church, however , succeeded in get ting but few, among whom we men tion H. A. Muh len berg and Ben. Keller.3 Quite a num ber of Lutheran stu dents at tended the sem inar ies of other denom ina tions. PRINCE TON (Re-

59 formed) was partic u larly pop u lar. — HARTWICK SEM I NARY, in the State of New York, the corner stone of which was laid in 1815. was founded by Hartwick, a Lutheran pastor who, being un mar ried, left his large es tate (consist ing in valu able lands) to this insti tu tion. Its first pres ident was DR. E. HAZELIUS, un der whom many able Lutheran minis ters re ceived their train ing. These men. however , from the viewpoint of their grasp of the Lutheran confes sions, were children of the age. PROF. ERNST LUD WIG HAZELIUS (born at Neusalz in 1777, died in 1853) was a descen dan t of the court-preacher of the same name. His fa ther was a Mora vian, and he re ceived his train ing at Barby and Niesky. In 1800 he was called to the Mora vian sem inary of Nazareth, Pa. But his Lutheran ten dencies prevailed, and he accepted the pastorate of the Lutheran Church of New Jer sey. He became profes sor at Hartwick Sem inary (1815); profes sor of church his tory at Gettys burg (1830); profes sor in the sem i nary of the Synod of South Carolina (1833). See the ar ti cle of Dr. F. G. Got wald in Jan- u ary issue of Lutheran Quarterly , 1916.

2. The lan guage ques tion.

The lan guage question (for the first time in the his tory of Ameri can Lutheranism) reached a crit ical stage during this period. Muhlen berg, Berkenmeyer and other Ger man and Swedish pastors had hitherto preached in the Eng lish tongue with out meet ing se ri ous op po si tion, but now the situ- ation had changed. The Church of St. Michael’s, Phila del phia, fur nished the ARENA for the com bat ants. Led by Gen eral Pe ter Muhlen berg, the Eng lish part of the congre ga tion demanded that an English speak ing pas tor be called to supp le ment the work of the two Ger man minis ters (Helmuth and Schmidt). How ever, at the annual meet ing in 1806, at which four teen hundred votes were cast, THE GER MAN PARTY WON, with a plu ral ity of one hundred and thirty votes. The Eng lish party left and founded ST. JOHN’S CHURCH. Ten years af ter wards another contro versy on the same subject, which was even car ried into the secu lar courts, caused another em igra tion of mem bers and the subse quent founding of the Eng lish Lutheran ST. MATTHEW’S CON GRE GA TION. Simi lar contro versies took place in other churches, es peci ally in New York. Dur ing this time in congre ga tional meet- ings such state ments as the fol low ing were put on record: “As long as the grass grows green and as long as the wa ter will not run up hill, this is to re-

60 main a Ger man speaking congr ega tion.” And again: “Even in Paradise the Lord spoke to Adam in Ger man, for do we not read in the third chapter of Gen esis: ‘The Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him, “Wo bist du?” (Where art thou?).’” While such re marks are not to be taken too se riously, they indi cate the BLIND FA NATI CISM dis played during the dis cussion. The Ger mans were still in the ma jor ity and they gener ally car ried their point, but hun dreds of young people drifted into the churches of the sur- rounding denom ina tions, a fact which explains the ori gin of some of the strong est Methodist, Presby te rian and Epis copal congre ga tions of present times.

3. Ratio nalis tic In flu ences.

Says Dr. Spaeth (Hauck’s R. E. XIV, 191): “The re li gious life of America, like that of Eu rope, was in a stage of decadence at the end of the 18th and at the begin ning of the 19th century . The French Rev o lution and the Ameri can War of In depen dence had the im me diate effect of shat ter ing re li gious and po lit ical ideals. The close al liance between France and the new Ameri can re pub lic opened the door for a vast influx of French infi del lit er ature, and the com plaint of decay ing faith was heard on all sides.” Muhlen berg and his cowork ers had feared this devel op ment. They had watched the the o log ical dis cussions at Halle, and drew the ominous conclu sion that Ra tional ism would sooner or later degrade the pul pits of America. Their fear was jus ti- fied. At the end of the 18th cen tury Uni tar ian congre ga tions were founded at Bos ton b Socinian fugi tives from Eng land. Their influ ence was soon extended, partic u larly among the Con grega tion al ists. Ger many, too, contrib- uted its sb.are of Ra tional ism. Min is ters ar riv ing from Halle had been trained by profes sors of the new school of the ology . Af ter the death of Dr. Kunze (1807) DR. F. H. QUIT MAN, of Rhinebeck, N. Y.. a dis ci ple of Sem ler, was made pres ident of the New York Min is terium. and held that office for twenty-one years. A man of com mand ing person al ity, equally elo- quent in Eng lish and Ger man, and intel lec tually supe rior to his col leagues, he was bound to have a far-reaching influ ence. In behalf of the synod he wrote a CAT E CHISM full of ra tional is tic doctrines (1812) and an Eng lish LITURGY and HYM NAL in which God was addressed as “the great Fa ther of the uni verse.” All were based upon the speech of the older Ra tiona lism (Ratio- nal is mus Vulgar is), in which the “higher rea son of Chris tianity” was substi-

61 tuted for the Holy Spirit; the “lax ity of mod ern life” for the sin ful heart; “the begin ning of no bler impulses” for re gener ation; “the el eva tion of human ity” for Christ’s as cension, and “cor po rate immor tality” for personal immor tality . It should be stated, however , that the influ ences of Ger man Ra- tional ism were mostly confined to Eng lish speaking congre ga tions. Ger man churches adher ing to Luther’s cat echism gener ally es caped. Those who would form a fair judg ment of the linguis tic contro versies men tioned above must not lose sight of the fact that many church-members of the Penn syl vania Synod fought as they did because to them the GER MAN LAN GUAGE WAS THE BUL WARK behind which they sought refuge against the dangers of Ra tional ism.

4. Shat tering of confes sional convic tions.

These control ling ra tional is tic in flu ences were bound to shatter confes sional convic tions. Some do not un derstand why so much em phasis is placed in the his tory of the Lutheran Church of America on firm adher ence to the confes sion of faith, and why from this viewpoint we mea sure success and fail ure; but it must ever be re membered that the Ameri can Lutheran Church is a FREE CHURCH, i.e., not un der State author ity. “As a free church she must be pre em inently a CON FES SIONAL CHURCH. For those who unite with a congre- gation with out com pul sion or enter into any re la tionship with synods, must first of all have a very clear idea what is the com mon basis of their faith.” Con fes sional convic tions grew dim, and the founda tion laid by Muhlen berg began to crum ble. In 1792 the con stitu tion of the Min is terium of Penn syl vania was changed, and all ref er ences to the Lutheran Con fes sion elim inated. We no tice a ten dency to ob scure points of differ ence between Lutheranism and Epis copalian ism. When this ten dency was previ ously recorded (§ 4, 8; § 5, 2), it appeared in a more or less harm less char acter , but a res o lution passed by the New York Min is terium in 1797 bodes ill for the Lutheran Church: “Be cause of the close re la tion between the Epis copal and Lutheran churches and because of the sim ilar ity of doctrine and dis ci pline, the consis tory will not rec og nize any newly orga nized Eng lish Lutheran church in places where the members can com mune in the Epis copal fold.” For tunately this res o lution was canceled in 1804. The Penn syl vania Synod at tempted a union with the Re formed Church. In this connec tion we call at ten tion to § 6.

62 1: also to Franklin College, which was supported by Luther ans and Re- formed, and to the many churches built by and used by both. It was a time when the very exis tence of Lutheranism was at stake. The general confu sion threat ened to lead its members into other den om ina tions. Far-see ing men rec og nized that these dangers could be met only by special efforts. Lutheran lit er ature and a thor oughly trained ministry — these were the imme diate needs of the hour. To face the cri sis success fully the differ ent synods would have to coop er ate.

1. Dr. Joh. Christoph Kunze stud ied the ology at Leipzig, and taught for several years in a school of higher learning; together with two sons of Muhlen berg who had been trained at Halle, he came to America in 1770. He mar ried Muhlen berg’s daughter , became a second preacher of St. Michael’s, Phila del phia, and also Profes sor of Orien t al languages in the newly founded uni versity of Penn syl vania. In 1783 he accepted a call to a Lutheran Church in New York in the hope that he might ar range a course for the o log ical stu dents in connec tion with Co- lumbia College. This hope failed on account of the war.↩ 2. Ac cording to sta tistics submit ted to the second conven tion of the Gen- eral Synod at Fred er icks burg, Md., in 1823.↩ 3. Franklin College and the many churches erected by the com mon enter - prise of both Re formed and Lutheran people fur nish an il lus tra tion of the union is tic ten dencies then prevalent. Plain church members had an idea that there was re ally no differ ence except that some opened the Lord’s prayer with “Unser Vater,” oth ers with “Vater unser.” Neve, Kurzge fasste Geschichte.↩

63 The Third Period. Synods Or ga‐ nized Into Larger Bodies.

THE FOUND ING OF THE CHURCH (“ec cle sia plan tanda”) was Muhlen berg’s great aim. When he closed his eyes, he had reached the goal. Speaking hu- manly, he had es tab lished the Lutheran Church. He had been a chosen instru ment in the hand of God. But NEW PROB LEMS had now arisen. The transplanted seed re quired care in or der to produce fruit. An ever extend ing ter ri- tory and a gradual growth nece ssi tated the founding of NEW SYN ODS. Now there was dange r that the church formed by Muhlen berg would be SPLIT UP into con fer ences and as soci ations, with no bond of union among them. The tran si tion of a large part of the Lutheran Church into the Eng lish and many move ments of that day in the so cial and re li gious life of the Ameri can people, put the Lutheran Church to a se vere test. It was es sentia l that there should be a BOND OF UNION for the purpose of gath er ing the scat tered threads of the Church. Such a bond of union was to be defi nite enough to insure organic con nection, but also elas tic enough to admit of a cer tain free dom of move ment for its differ ent units. In brief, A BA SIS was to be found for the coop er ation of Lutheran synods. The at tempt to bring this about will be his tor- ically pre sented in the picture of this pe riod. We should DI RECT OUR AT TEN TION, 1) to ter ri toria l expan sion; 2) to the problem of minis te rial edu catio n; 3) to the orga ni za tion of synods into larger bodies. [1] As IM MI GRA TION PRO CEEDED west ward, the Lutheran Church reached the shores of the Pacific. Moreover , A VAST STREAM OF EU RO PEAN IM MI GRA TION flooded all parts of the country . The care tor these multi tudes would have been impos si ble, had not the churches of Ger many and Scandi navia faith- fully coo p er ated with the Luther ans of America. In depen dent of Ameri can tra ditions and influ ences, A LARGE NUM BER OF SYN ODS sprang up in the West. [2] As the church grew stronger, edu cational insti tu tions (semi nar ies, col leges and acade mies) were founded for the purpose of train ing minis ters,

64 so that the Church of this country would not be depen dent upon the Fa ther- land. [3] The orga ni z ation of a united Ameri can Lutheran Church was prevented by the sepa ra tion of the mother-synod from the Gen eral Synod, her own off spring, (cf. §35). The ori gin of the FOUR “GEN ERAL SYN ODS” is closely as soci ated with the confes sional devel op ment which we shall trace through the book and re view in the clos ing pages. We shall no tice the suc- cessive orga ni za tions of the Gen eral Synod, the Gen eral Synod of the South (later United Synod of the South), the Gen eral Coun cil and the Syn od ical Con fer ence. As we re view their devel op ment, we shall also con sider indi- vid ual syn ods whose his tory runs par al lel with that of the larger bodies. AU THOR’S NOTE: The reader will proba bly dis cover that we have dealt very fully with the records of the Gen eral Synod. At times it would seem that we have in this re spect proven un true to our announced pur pose of present ing only “A BRIEF HIS TORY.” How ever, this was not done to fa vor this synod — surely our way of show ing the many mistakes in its ear lier develop ment will tes tify to that — but because the evolu tion of this synod (which of ten ap pears rather as a re versi on) includes the com mon his tory of a large num ber of other synods. The inner growth of the Gen eral Synod is prehis- tor ical to the records of the Gen eral Coun cil and also to those of the United Synod of the South. The his tory of the Joint Synod of Ohio comes re peat- edly in contact with it. And many a po si tion taken by the Syn od ical Con fer- ence bec omes in telli gible only when seen in contrast with that of the Gen- eral Synod.

4. The Gen eral Synod.

§ 7. The Founding of the Gen eral Synod.

1. First suggested.

The mat ter was first suggested by two pastors of the Synod of North Car- olina, the Revs. C. A. G. Storch and Got tlieb Schober, who spoke of the desir abi hty of forming a Gen eral Synod as early as 1811. They pro posed that their synod should confer with the “mother synod” of Penn syl vania to this end. At its conven tion in Har ris burg (1818) the Min is terium of Penn syl va-

65 nia placed it self on record as fa voring this move ment. When in 1819 the synod met at Bal ti more, Md., the Rev. G. Schober submit ted A PRO POSED PLAN (Pla nentwurf) for the consti tu tion of such a gen eral body.

2. The Idea Takes Shape.

In many re spects Schober’s prop osed consti tu tion was mod eled af ter that of the Gen eral As sem bly of the Pres by te rian Church. The mother synod appointed a com mit tee to make fur ther sugges tions, which re sulted in the elim ina tion of some ob jec tiona ble fea tures and the adding of other el e- ments, chiefly of a congre ga tional char acter . Thus in its al tered form the proposed plan1 was adopted, it being un derstood that, if three-fourths of the exist ing synods would adopt it in its funda men tal fea tures. Dr. J. G. Schmucker, then pres ident of the Penn syl vania Synod,2 should call a con- vention of del egates. 3 This most impor tant conven tion was held in HAGER- STOWN, MD., Oct. 22, 1820. The Penn syl vania Min is terium, the New York Min is terium, the North Carolina Synod and the Syn ods of Mary land and Virginia were repre sented. The Tennes see Synod, just founded, and the Joint Synod of Ohio did not at tend. The TEN NES SEE SYNOD ob jected on doctri nal grounds, as serting that the proposed plan made no men tion of ei ther the Bible or the Augs burg Con fes sion;4 also that synods should not be ruled by majori ties. More over Christ, had never said anything about a church gov ernment. 5 The JOINT SYNOD OF OHIO re jected the plan for a num ber of prac ti cal reasons. 6 PAS TOR J. G. SCHMUCKER, D. D., born at Michaelsstadt, Ger many, in 1771, immi grated to this country with his parents (1785), who set tled near Wood stock, Va. The re li gious at mos phere of his home bore fruit in the talented youth who prepared him self for the ministry . When eigh teen years old, he stud ied the ology un der Pastor Paul Henckel. He went to the Uni versity of Penn syl vania, and, af ter tak ing a two years’ course in the clas sics, contin ued his the o log ical stud ies un der Drs. Helmuth and Schmidt. He became a member of the Penn syl vania Synod (1792), and served the congre- gations of Hager stown, York and vicinity . He died in 1854. He was a man of un tir ing dili gence in study, and pub lished a num ber of books, mostly in Ger man. He left a man u script on a prac ti cal exe ge sis of the epis tles to the He brews. He was fre quently elected pres ident of his synod, which found in him an enthu si astic advo cate of mission ary activ ity . He had a large fam ily.

66 Four of his daughters mar ried Lutheran clergy men, and one of his sons, Dr. S. S. Schmucker. was for many years profes sor at Gettys burg.

3. Dis cour age ments.

The condi tion that at least three synods would have to adopt the proposed consti tu tion before a general body could be rec og nized was barely ful filled. The NEW YORK MIN IS TERIUM with drew, declaring the plan “im prac ti cal.”7 At the second conven tion even the PENN SYL VA NIA SYNOD, hithert o lead ing the move ment, re fused to coop er ate. This was due not to doctri nal dis sensions or to dis agree ment of the lead ers, but to cer tain prej u dices that had arisen among the congre ga tions. Po lit ical dem agogues, inspired by mo tives of self-in ter est, men antag o nis tic to the Church, Ger mans dread ing author ity, cir culated re ports that the Gen eral Synod, Bible soci eties and the o log ical sem inar ies were part of a se cret scheme to es tab lish a union between the State and the Church and to intro duce the com pul sory re li gion of the old country . A Re formed teacher, Carl Gock, had by his writ ings aroused a storm of op po si tion.8 So strong was this prej u dice that the pastors consid- ered it pol icy to yield to it, hop ing that eventu ally they might overcome it. But not un til 1853 did the Pennsyl vania Synod re trace this step.9

4. Growth.

The prej u dice just men tioned did not, however , extend to those congre gations of the Penn syl vania Min is terium which were located west of the Sus- quehanna River. These sep arated from the mother synod, and in 1823 joined the Gen eral Synod as the WEST PENN SYL VA NIA SYNOD. The man who saved the Gen eral Synod at this crit ical point of its devel op ment was a young man of twenty-five, just or dained, the REV. S. S. SCHMUCKER, of New Mar ket, Va. Ac cording to Dr. Diehl and Dr. Beal M. Schmucker (the son) this ener getic clergy man by corre spondence or per sonal calls inspired the dis couraged and prevailed on them to send del eg ates to the synod. He saw to it that the West Penn syl vania Synod was orga nized early enough to be repre sented as the third synod at Fred er ick, Md., in 1823.10 And NOW THE GEN ERAL SYNOD MADE SOME RAPID STRIDES. New syn ods were founded and affil iated with the Gen- eral Synod: the Hartwick Synod in 1831 (a synod founded in op po si tion to the New York Min is terium and now dis solved into the New York Synod which was formed in 1908); 1835 the South Carolina Synod; 1837 the New

67 York Min is terium; 1842 the Eng lish-speak ing dis trict of the Joint Synod of Ohio (the present East Ohio Synod, which was instru men tal in founding Wit ten berg College); the East Penn syl vania Synod and the Al leghany Synod in the same year; in 1845 the Mi ami Synod; in 1848 the Illinois Synod11 and the Wit ten berg Synod; in 1850 the Olive Branch Synod; in 1853 the Penn syl vania Min is terium (af ter an inde pen dent exis tence for thirty years); in the same year the Texas Synod12 and the Synod of Northern Illinois; the Pitts burgh Synod (§ 19, 3); in 1857 the Synod of Northern In diana; also the Synod of South ern Illinois and the Eng lish-speak ing Synod of Iowa; in 1859 the Melanchthon Synod;13 in 1864 the Franckean Synod.14 Further dis tricts which united with the Gen eral Synod will be men tioned later (§ 10, 3, Anno ta tion). It should be borne in mind, howeve r, that those enumer ated above only include synods now in exis tence or his tor ically prom inent. (Some of these synods were branches of other synods, a fact which accounts for the smallnes s of cer tain dis trict synods belong ing to the Gen eral Synod). In course of time other synods united with the Gen eral Synod, no tably the Synod of the South west, the Synod of Ken tucky, the Cen tral Synod of Penn syl vania , etc., which were later merged into other dis tricts.15

5. The First Sem inary of the General Synod.

The Gen eral Synod re al ized at an early date the neces sity of the o log ical train ing schools. While Hartwick Sem inary in the State of New York offered a the o log ical course, it fur nished few candi dates for the ministry . Nor did Hartwick Synod join the Gen eral Synod un til 1831. Dur ing the third conven tion, held at Freder ick, Md., res o lutions were passed for the founding of a the o log ical sem inary at Gettys burg, Pa. REV. S. S. SCHMUCKER was elected profes sor. Like Dr. Lochman, Dr. D. F. Schaef fer and oth ers, this clergy man, when only twenty-six, had been prepar ing young men for the ministry , one of whom was the Rev. G. J. Morris. We shall later see what kind of a confes sional obliga tio n was re quired of the profes sor for the new sem inary (§ 11, 1). In Sep tem ber, 1826, the Gettys burg insti tu tion was opened with an enroll ment of ten stu dents. Commis sioned by the synod, Dr. Ben jamin Kurtz, on a two years’ trip through Ger many, col lected some $8,000 and a large num ber of books with which to start a li brary. On his jour ney Kurtz suggested immi g ra tion to the noted Pastor Stephan of Dres-

68 den, who later became prom inent in connec tion with the Mis souri Synod (§ 22, 3). Profes sor Schmucker col lected $17,500 (a year’s work) in Phila del- phia. Rev. E. L. Hazelius (§6, 1) in 1830 became the second profes sor. He was suc ceeded (1833) by Charles Philip Krauth.16

6. The First Church Pa pers.

As our source of in forma tion we mention the valuable con tribu tion to the Lutheran Quar- terly, Get tysbur g, Pa. (April, 1912), Vol. XLII, No. 2, by Dr. F. G. Got wald, General Sec re- tary of the Board of Ed u ca tion of the General Synod and edi tor of Lutheran Church Work, enti tled “Pio neer Amer i can Lutheran Journal ism, 1812-1850.”

Even be fore 1812 the Mosheim So ci ety of Zion’s and St. Michael’s Phila- del phia, had pub lished a Ht tle Ger man paper full of mission ary news. In 1812, by a res o lution of the Penn syl vania Synod, passed at its 64th conven- tion, “Das Evan gelis che Maga zin” (THE EVAN GEL I CAL MAG A ZINE), a quarterly of two hun dred and fifty pages (annu ally), was pub lished, with Dr. Helm uth as edi tor -in-chief. But in 1817 it was dis contin ued , having appeared merely as a year-book during the preced ing three years. The next at- tempt of this char acter was an Eng lish monthly com pris ing some twenty- eight pages, called “THE EVAN GEL I CAL LUTHERAN IN TEL LI GENCER.” It was published by the Synod of Mary land and Virginia, and appeared for the first time in 1826. It contained an im portant letter (written in Eng lish) by Profes- sor Planck of Goettin gen, addressed to the Gen eral Synod.17 Dur ing its brief career of five years it was edited by the Rev. D. F. Schaef fer of Freder ick, Md., who found an able col lab o ra tor in the Rev. Charles Philip Krauth. Both men are known as fa thers of the Gen eral Synod, and dis tinguished themselves by their consis tent Lutheranism. It was this Dr. Schaef fer who, in the in stal la tion of Prof. S. S. Schmucker as teacher of Gettys burg Sem i- nary, used the fol low ing lan guage: “Be cause the faith of our Lutheran Church is based on the Bible and its strong est ene mies have been un able to prove any incon gruity to speak of between its teach ing and that of the Scrip tures, just as the foes of truth at the Diet of Worms were un able to de- tect any er rors in the writ ings of the immor tal Luther: therefore this church, entrust ing you with the train ing of its minis ters (and in its name I demand this solemn vow) ob li gates you to instruct them in the doctrines which dis- tinguish this church from all oth ers.” It is a matter of re gret that the ably edited “LUTHERAN IN TEL LI GENCER” was dis contin ued in 1831; the enter prise

69 closed with a deficit of $500, which was paid by the synods of Mary land and Virginia. “THE LUTHERAN MAG A ZINE,” also an Eng lish monthly, was pub lished by a com mit tee of the West ern Con fer ence of the New York Min- is terium, and edited by the Rev. Dr. G. A. Lin tener, pastor at Schoharie, N. Y. The first num ber ap peared in Febru ary, 1827, the last in April, 1831. This was fol lowed by the “EVAN GE LIS CHES MAG A ZIN,” a monthly of thirty-two pages. It was edited in the inter est of the West Penn syl vania Synod by the Rev. John Herbst of Gettys burg and super vised by the Revs. J. G. Schmucker, J. F. Heyer and W. Yeager . Its Life was short. It was dis contin- ued in April, 1829. Af ter the second year of its exis tence it was edited by the fac ulty of the Gettys burg sem inary , Profs. Schmucker and Hazelius. Charac ter is tic of the the o log ical ten dencies then prevail ing at Gettys burg is the fol low ing sen tence taken from an ar ti cle of the year 1830: “No one, though he be a layman or a clergy man in the Church, is enti tled to the name Lutheran, un less he stands squarely on the funda men tal teach ings of the Holy Scrip tures as contained in our Con fes sions.” With an ap peal to the subscribers to pay an accu mu lated debt of $500, this pub li cation , too, had to be dis contin ued. Limited re ceipts and heavy print ing expenses accounted for the short life of all these enter prises. From Feb ru ary un til August, 1831, the Church in the East, al though largely Eng lish-speak ing, had no Eng lish pub li cation. But in 1832 THE LUTHERAN OB SERVER was founded by the Rev. J. G. Morris and pub lished in Bal ti more, Md. A year later, the Rev. Ben jamin Kurtz was made edi tor -in-chief and devoted his entire time to it. At first it appeared once in two weeks, but soon became a weekly publi cation. Until 1861, i.e., for twenty-eight years, Dr. Kurtz re tained the edi- tor ship. He was a bril liant writer, and promi nently im pressed upon the pa per his strong person al ity. It is to be re gret ted that he lacked appre ci ation of histor ical Lutheranism — a matter we shall re fer to later.18 Says Dr. Got wald: “No ed itor , cer tainly not in the Church of the East, has ex erted as strong and last ing an influ ence as Dr. Ben jamin Kurtz.”

7. Rela tions to the Lutheran Church Out side of the Gen eral Synod.

Be cause the general orga ni za tion of 1820 sin cerely aimed to serve as a connect ing link among all Lutheran synods, it KEPT ITS EYE ON EX IST ING AND RIS- ING SYN ODS, invit ing them to join the al liance. Thus for four years the Gen-

70 eral Synod conf erred with the Joint Synod of Ohio. In 1839 the Penn syl vania Synod consid ered re union with the Gen eral Synod, but the time did not seem to be ripe for such a move ment. (See foot note 36.) At the tenth con- vention, held at Cham bers burg. Pa., 1839, Drs. C. F. Scha effer , S. S. Schmucker and B. Kurtz were ap pointed “to enter into corre spondence with Lutheran soci eties of re cent immi gra tion and repre sented by the Rev. Mr. Stephan.19”This meant the ar rivals from Sax ony, now the Mis- souri ans. At the four teenth conv ention, held at New York City (1848). the Gen eral Synod got in touch with iso lated Luther ans in Nova Sco tia and Canada. It also invited the Evan gel ical Synod of the West, hop ing, no doubt, that this body would adopt a Lutheran platform. 20 At its second con- vention (Fred er ick, Md.) it named a com mit tee of COR RE SPON DENCE WITH FOR EIGN COUN TRIES. This com mit tee was autho rized to com mu nicate with the Lutheran Church of Ger many, Den mark, Sweden, also with the Or- phans’ Home of Halle and with the Rec tor of the Uni versity of Goettin gen. The purpose was to convey to these countries an impres sion of Lutheran progress in America and to stim u late coop er ation for the growth of Christ’s king dom.21 Such a “COM MIT TEE OF FOR EIGN COR RE SPON DENCE,” com mu nicat- ing with em inent church men abroad, es pecially in Ger many, occu pies even now a place on the program of the Gen eral Synod.

8. Wit ten berg College.

Im portant for the inner devel op ment of the Gen eral Synod was the founding at Spring field, Ohio, of WIT TEN BERG COL LEGE (1845), which also offered a the o log ical course. Its first pres ident was DR. EZRA KELLER (see bio graphi- cal sketch). He was succeeded by DR. SAMUEL SPRECHER, a man of frail physique but of great ability and far-reach ing influ ence (§ 12, 1). Keller and Sprecher had been trained by Dr. S. S. Schmucker. While Sprecher adopted the the o log ical and confes sional po si tion of his teacher, he lived long enough to re al ize that the fu ture of the Lutheran Church in this country was not to be found in the ideals which were then preva lent at Get tys burg and Spring field.22

§ 8. The Signif i cance of the Gen eral Synod for the Lutheran Church of that Period.

71 1. Irenic Ten den cies.

We have previ ously stated that the confes sional po si tion of the Lutheran Church in America, and so also that of the Gen eral Synod, dur ing this period was not what it should have been. The founding of the Gen eral Synod was contem po ra neous with the founding of the Prussian Union. In Ger many there was a reap proach ment of the Re formed and the Lutheran parties and a general set ting aside of confes sional dis tinctions. It is only nat u ral that under such influ ences from the Fa ther land, the Gen eral Synod also failed to appre ci ate suffi ciently the dis tinguish ing doctrines of the Luther ans and the Re formed. Muhlen berg had clearly dis cerned the neces sity of adher ing to his tor ical Lutheranism, which can never be sacri ficed, es pecially in Amer- ica, with out se ri ous conse quences (cf. § 6, 4). He had, however , shown his Pietis tic train ing by occa sion ally prac ticing pul pit fel low ship with the Re- formed denom ina tions. His succes sors went even fur ther, not hesi tat ing to make a regu lar prac tice of it. From this prac tice to a general confes sional confu sion was but a sin gle step (cf. § 9, 3).

2. Op posed to Union with the Reformed.

But THE GEN ERAL SYNOD WAS FUN DA MEN TALLY OP POSED TO OR GANIC UNION WITH THE RE FORMED. The joint Synod of Ohio in 1839 did not ob ject to such a union.23 The pastors of the PENN SYL VA NIA MIN IS TERIUM looked upon it as a cher ished hope,24 though not yet prac ti cal because of op po si tion on the part of the laity, who suspected in ev ery move ment toward synod ical concen tra- tion hier ar chi cal am bitions. 25 One rea son why many pastors of the Penn syl- vania Synod wished to with draw from the Gen eral Synod was the fact that they preferred to give their support to a Re formed-Lutheran sem inary at Lancas ter rather than to that at Gettys burg, projected by the Gen eral Synod.26 To all at tempts at organic union with the Re formed the Gen eral Synod was radi cally op posed. Says Dr. Ja cobs: “The Gen eral Synod must be re garded as a very impor tant for ward move ment, and its influ ence as bene fi cial… The Gen eral Synod was a protest against the schemes of a union with the Re formed in Penn syl vania (see § 6, 3) and with the Epis copalians in North Carolina (see § 6, 1). It stood for the inde pen dent exis tence of the Lutheran Church in Amer ica and the clear and un equiv o cal confes- sion of a posi tive faith.”27 Org anic union with other churches was consis-

72 tently op posed by the Gen eral Synod, strik ingly so at the seventh conven- tion, held at Bal ti more, 1833.28 At the conven tion at Day ton, Ohio, in 1855, res o lutions were adopted condemn ing the prac tice, then pop u lar in Penn syl- vania, of building churches for the com mon wor ship of the Luther ans and the Re formed.29

3. Protest against Socini an izing Ten den cies.

The Gen eral Synod was also A PROTEST AGAINST THE SOCINI AN IZ ING TEN DEN- CIES which endan gered Lutheranism in New York. Says Dr. Ja cobs: “The Gen eral Synod saved the Church, as it be came angli cised, from the calamity of the type of doctrine which, within the New York Min is terium, had been intro duced into the Eng lish lan guage.”30 The ma jor ity of minis ters belong- ing to the New York Min is terium preached ra tional is tic ser mons. None but men of this type were permit ted to fill the pul pit of Dr. Quit man, pres ident of this body.31 Ratio na lism and lati tu di nar ism were in the air. Among the cul tured this ten dency found expres sion in Tom Paine’s “Age of Rea son.” Thus the Gen eral Synod, with its strong po si tion against those Socinian izing ele ments which had been imported from Eu rope to New York, became a source of bless ing for the Lutheran Church of Amer ica.

4. The Gen eral Synod’s In flu ence.

The infl u ence of the Gen eral Synod on this period is thus char acter ized by Dr. Spaeth: “With this power ful influx of ra tional ism, and with the ten dency of the re maining posi tive el eme nts of our church to as simi late and to unite themselves with the surround ing ‘Evangel ical denom ina tions,’ there was evi dent danger for the Lutheran Church in America of los ing the his tor ical connec tion with the fa thers, and surren der ing the dis tinctive fea tures for which they contended, and as a re li gious soci ety, becom ing simply a member of the Re formed fam ily. At this point of threat ening dis inte gration and dilap ida tion, the first steps were taken toward the es tab lishment of the Gen- eral Synod, which was cer tainly an hon est effort to improve the state of affairs, to gather the scat tered members of our Lutheran Church, and to preserve her as such on this West ern conti nent.” In this sense Dr. Krauth calls the Gen eral Synod “the off spring of re viv ing Lutheranism.”32 It watched jeal ously over the inde pen dence of the Lutheran Church from other denom- ina tions. Church papers to be pub lished had to be Lutheran papers (§ 7, 5;

73 cf. § 9, 1, on Lutheran Observer), while the Penn syl vania Synod, even as late as 1838, looked with fa vor on a paper offi cially to be pub lished in common by the Re formed and the Luther ans.33 Equally impor tant is the stand taken by the Gen eral Synod against Socinian iz ing influ ences, of which not even the Penn syl vania Synod, though less affected by it than New York, had re mained free. In “Lutheran and Mis sion ary” (May 3, 1866) Dr. Krauth writes con cern ing the Penn syl vania Synod: “It felt the lati tu d inar ian ten- dency of the day; some of its clergy and an immense propor tion of its people were averse to the Gen eral Synod on the ground of its grow ing Lutheran char acter .”34

5. Could not go be yond the Age.

And still the Gen eral Synod did not succeed in find ing the conf es sional posi tion on which it might, as a leading orga ni za tion, have been sure of a devel op ment with out inner dis sensions. The fact was simply this that the GEN- ERAL SYNOD COULD NOT GO BE YOND IT SELF AND ITS AGE. Af ter char acter iz ing the exis tence of the Gen eral Synod as “a very impor tant for ward movement”35 and praising “its influ ence as bene fi cial,” Dr. Ja cobs contin ues: “It neces sar ily was not with out the weak nesses that char acter ized the Lutheran Church in Amer ica at that time. One who ignores the entire his tor ical develop ment will find much to crit ic ize and condemn, when exam ined from the stand point of what is demanded by consis tency with accu rate the o log ical defi ni tions and clear concep tions of church polity. But he will find just as much that incur s the same judg ment in the proceed ings of the synods that united to form it. The faults pecu liar to each synod were lost, while only the com mon faults of them all re mained.” As we proceed fin the fol low ing chapter) to view the mistakes of the Eng lish part of the Lutheran Church in America, we shall try to account also for them in the light of the age and its general ten dencies.

§ 9. Aber rations.

1. In troduc tory Re marks.

That the Gen eral Synod did not develop along the lines of consis tent Lutheranism, to which it swung back only af ter a se ries of con flicts and

74 contro versies, is best explained by the cir cum stances surround ing its history. THE ENG LISH LAN GUAGE reached ever widening cir cles at a time when there was not yet an En gUsh lit er ature breathing the Lutheran spirit. Eng- lish speak ing Lutheran lay men had to re sort to a devo tional lit er ature full of Methodis tic and Pu ri tanic sugges tions; 36 while minis ters, barely fa mil iar with the German tongue, filled the shelves of their library with books of Re- formed author ship and as simi lated er ro neous viewpoints. Thus many lost the sense of con sis tent Lutheranism. They rec og nized as funda m ental those fea tures which all denom ina tion s held in com mon, and consid ered as non- funda men tal the special her itage from the Church of Luther. In the pop u lar DIS TINC TION BE TWEEN FUN DA MEN TAL AND NON-FUN DA MEN TAL DOC TRINES with ref er ence to the differ ences between the denom ina tions, there is fre quently an un detected fal lacy. The Re formed Church believes with us in jus ti fi cation by faith, but — apart from other dis tinctions — it fails to as sign to this dogma the central po si tion which it occu pies in the Lutheran view. It ob scures its com forting fea tures with sugges tions of a reli gious le gal ism. Again, both the Lutheran and Re formed churches believe in the work of the Holy Spirit; but an entirely differ ent idea of this work is conveyed when seen in the light of predes ti nation as taught by the Re- formed. It is im possi ble to sepa rate the teach ings, held in com mon by all churches, from those which sep arate the differ ent denom ina tion s by clas si- fy ing the for mer as es sential and the latter as non-es sential. The dis tinctive doctrines of ten — and es pecially in case of the great funda men tals — ma teri ally affect the whole system of thought. That there are funda men tal and non-fun damen tal doctrines is not denied, but the mistake consisted in the wrong ap plica tion of this dis tinction. The mistake usually begins with asking: What is fun damen tal for sal vation? The question should be for mu lated in this way: What is funda men tal for Lutheranism in its work of saving souls? Then it will be found that the spe cial her itage of the Lutheran Church has every thing to do with the success of this church in its prac ti cal work of win ning souls for Christ. THE FOUNDERS OF THE GEN ERAL SYNOD, while eager to preserve the in- tegrity of the Lutheran Church, were very cordial with other denom ina tions. Pa tri arch Muh len berg himself, as we have observed, ex changed pul pits with the Re formed and the Epis copalians. 37 Af ter that a friendly re la tion with other churches became a tra ditional Lutheran pol icy. The exclu sive at ti tude

75 of Berken meyer, who would not coop er ate with Muhlen berg, in whom he saw noth ing but a Pietist from Halle (§ 3, 4), had thus far affected only the Synod of Tennes see. The prac tice of fel low ship was fur ther strength ened by the fact that the Eng lish Lutheran Church was weak and had a ten dency to lean on other de nom ina tions whose work had begun in Eng lish and which had now at tained a mea sure of success. This is strik ingly il lus trated by an inci dent re lated by Dr. J. G. Morris, the first edi tor of “The Lutheran Ob- server.” This paper was to be pub lished at Gettys burg and to be edited by the fac ulty of Get tys burg sem inary , but fear ing that the name Lutheran might offend the Presby te ri ans re sid ing there, who had supported the Luther ans in building a church, yet desirous of re taining this name, the com mit tee decided to transfer the edi tor ship to Dr. Morris and the place of pub li cation to Bal ti more, Md., where the Presby te ri ans would not have to be consid ered.38 The question of CHURCH FEL LOW SHIP between Luther ans and non-Luther- ans has been much dis cussed. The prin ci ple that fel low ship at the Lord’s table should be permit ted only where there is fel low ship of faith was proclaimed by Luther, Melanchthon, the other Lutheran re formers, also by Spener, and is gener ally adhered to through out the Lutheran Church. The same prin ci ple applies to pul pit fel low ship in the REG U LAR CHURCH SER VICE.39 On other occa sions, side meet ings, or semi-reli gious gath er ings of an inter - denom ina tional char acter , minis ters should be at liberty to use their dis cre- tion. Those who are strong in Lutheran convic tions can make use of such liberty with less detri ment to the Lutheran cause than those who are not thor oughly grounded in the Lutheran faith. A chief consid er ation, however , should always be the possi ble in flu ence on the com mu nity of such union meet ings. Truth should not make conces sion to er ror, and our prac tice should tes tify to the faith ful ness in stand ing for our convic tions. Even in cases where our partic i pa tion in a union meet ing as such may be defen si ble, the ques tion may have to be consid ered whether our action does not promote and encour age a union ism that cannot be defended by a faithful minis- ter of the Word. Certain it is that the inti mate re la tions between the Gen eral Synod, then becom ing angli cized, and other denom ina tions PROVED DETRI MEN TAL to Lutheranism. It was a time when the Church was in danger of losing its special heri tage. The Lutheran view of the Sacra ments became ob scured. Peo- ple grew suspi c ious of the spirit of the Lutheran Church, its teach ers, its

76 confes sions and its his tory. Church ideals that had sprung from the soil of the Re formed Church and had ma tured in an at mos phere of le gal ism, clouded the Lutheran viewpoint. There was as yet, as we have re marked, no Lutheran lit er ature in the Eng lish lan guage. The lead ing minis ters of the Gen eral Synod had been largely edu cated in non-Lutheran schools (prefer- ably Prince ton). While a re action had been felt in Ger many against the Prussian Union, the Eng lish speaking Luther ans of America were un able (on account of the lan guage) to study this the o log ical move ment. In short, the ZEIT GEIST was inter confes sional. Re vivals found their way into the Lutheran Church. In the Gen eral Synod a school of men grew up whose aim it was to cre ate for the “Amer ican Lutheran Church,” a platform so broadly evangel ical that the essen tials of Lutheranism were lost sight of.

2. Vis it ing with the Methodists.

The first of the great re vivals to which we have just re ferred took place between 1727 and 1750. It fol lowed a period of gross infi delity. Atheism had come from the Old World and dom inated large cir cles of soci ety. The New Eng land States re placed their Pu ri tanism with un belief and frivol ity. But the re li gious wants of the hu man soul caused a re action in the form of re vivals. Whole sections of the country , espe cially in the East, recorded a tidal wave of “conv er sions.” But when the War of In depen dence fol lowed (1776-83), the country became demor al ized. Rank un belief and a shocking athe ism — imported from France — swayed the mul ti tude. Says Graeb ner:

“This in fi delity was in scribed in books that were sold; it was culti vated in schools and soci- eties, carved into mar ble, painted on can vas, sung in pop u lar airs, prac ticed in life and clung to in death. …Washing ton was idol ized, but God blas phemed, the Church and its services scorned, the min iste rial office despised, all things sa cred tra duced. …But in striking con trast with this gen eral in fi delity there arose, during the last decade of the cen tury, a fire of reli gious fer vor which, flam ing through the spir i tual wilder ness, took hold of thousands with vi o lent force. …Al most simul tane ously it sprang up in differ ent sections of the country. One great wave came from the South west, from the further side of the Cumb erland mountains where in Kentucky and Tennes see in fi delity had reached the acme of defi ance. …A number of Pres by terian and Methodist preach ers went from place to place impress ing thousands with their reli gious eloquence. Meanwhile things were stirring in New Eng land. The pendu lum swung hither and thither.”

This was the time when Wes ley’s Method ism formed it self into an inde pendent church, and soon became a power through out the land. Camp-meet ings

77 were the craze of the day. They took posses sion of large parts of the country. The harvest was neglected. Whole set tlements were deserted, their in- habi tants trav el ing fifty miles to take part in the revival. At Cane Ridge fifty thou sand people, gath ered out of all churches, at tended such a meet ing. “They preached, prayed and sang by day and by night when innu mer able torches, candles and lanterns, at tached to wag ons and trees, would light up the darkness. Holy com mu nion was admin is tered on a large scale. Amid the mingled sounds of sigh ing, groaning and lamenting, the preach ers impressed their audi ences.” (Graebner .) The strangest prac tices were looked upon without surprise. Little children preached ser mons. Men and women dropped from their seats and lay un conscious on the ground. Says McMas- ter: “At no time was less than half the floor covered. Some were lying still, un able to move or speak, oth ers kicked the floor with their heels, still oth ers screamed in agony and squirmed like fishes pulled out of the water . Many were lyi ng on the ground rolling around for hours at a time. Oth ers jumped wildly over the stumps of trees and rushed into the woods cry ing: ‘Lost, lost!’” The purpose of it all was the new birth. This being accom plished, singing and re joicing were in or der. The “holy laugh ter” and the “jumping- fit” re vealed an extra or dinary state of grace and were at trib uted to a special activ ity of the Holy Spirit. The central fig ures in the re vivals of 1827-32 were the evange lists Finney and Nettle ton. But the mighti est specta cle of this char acter was offered in 1858 when again, af ter a period of moral degen er ation which had affected all classes of people, a wave of re vivalism, start ing at New York, swept the whole country . These move ments were invari ably preceded by peri ods of re li gious indif fer ence and moral decay . Rut re vivals, in turn, were usually fol lowed by spir itu al apa thy . Peo ple who had been converted in a vio lent way were no longer impressed with the plain preach ing of the Word. They re quired the same high-pressure methods over and over again. Thus we read that Finney’s re vival took place af ter a fifty year period of spir itual decay “which fol lowed in the wake of the awak ening.” 40 Of a certain lo cal ity, vis ited by Finney where re vival tires had burned fre quently, we are told that the preacher found it “so blistered by constant re vival flame that no sprout, no blade of spir i tual life, could be caused to grow. Only the apples of Sodom flourished in the form of igno rance, intol er ance, a boasted sin less ness and a ten dency to free love and spir itual affini ties.” Even today

78 people speak of “burnt dis tricts,” mean ing those local ities where by fre- quent re vivals re li gious indif fer ence has taken the place of un nat u ral fer vor and where simp le preach ing fails to make an appeal. A book en ti tled “The Anxious Bench,” writ ten by the Reformed pro fes sor. Dr. J. W. Nevin, vig or- ously at tacked the methods of re vivalism. This prac tice, however , found a cham pion in “The Lutheran Ob server,” edited by Dr. B. Kurtz. In the No- vem ber is sue of 1834, he says: “What ever Prof. Nevin may have writ ten in the abstrac tion of his study, I am never the less strongly convinced, as a pastor, that the so-called ‘anxious bench’ is the lever of Archimedes, which by the bless ing of God can raise our Ger man churches to that degree of re- spectability in the re li gious world which they ought to enjoy .” We must admit, therefore, that the LUTHERAN CHURCH DID NOT RE MAIN UN- TOUCHED. This was un for tunate. For surely the method of the re vivalist is not in harmony with Lutheran teach ing. Says Dr. Nevin: “A low Pela gian izing the ory runs through it from begin ning to the end.” It is Arminian, and is based on the denial of the Scrip tural truth that it is God who converts the hu man heart. (Ar ti cle V. of the Augs burg Con fes sion.) By ar ti ficial means (sen sa tional ser mons, enrap tured prayers, hyster ical songs and stir ring appeals) the re vival preacher aims to re place the work of the Holy Spirit and to force the new birth.41 Nat u rally enough, re li gious instruc tion lost its im- portance. The Cat echism was neglected. Peo ple spoke with more or less scorn of “head Chris tians,” “mem ory Chris tians” and “Cat echism Chris- tians.” Since many Lutheran congre ga tions took part in these re vivals and since Lutheran minis ters of ten acted as re vival preach ers, the ten dency of the move ment was toward union iza tion of the churches. The books of Bax- ter, Bun yan, Wes ley, Ed wards, Howe and Dwight re placed Lutheran lit er a- ture, and cre ated a taste which could be sat is fied only when the ser mon harmo nized with the ideals of Method ism. The Eng lish Lutheran Church was caught in this current. THE GER MAN LUTHER ANS were not so greatly affected. It is nat u ral that the ma jor ity of the Eng lish Luther ans were members of the Gen eral Synod, simply because the larger num ber of Eng lish Luther ans belonged to this body. How ever, it should be borne in mind that the men who later founded the Gen eral Coun- cil were no exc eptions. Even a man like Dr. Passa vant in that day car ried “the new mea sures” to an extre me.42 For many years the synod ical re ports spoke of congre gational awak en ings and of “in gath er ings from the world.”

79 A very vivid pic ture of such a revival (1839) is given by Dr. S. L. Harkey. himself an ar dent ad vo cate of this method. He says: “One of the most re mark able demon strations of which I have ever heard occurred at this synod ical conven tion… In an instant every soul in the house was upon the knees, and re mained there weep ing and praying for mercy.” Again we read in the proto col of the synod: “Si lence reigned through the house, save the speaker’s voice only, and here and there a half suppressed sigh or groan, which burst invol un tar ily forth from the breasts of deeply convicte d sin ners. The whole congre ga tion became more or less moved. The place became truly aw ful and glo ri ous, and it seemed that the time had come when a decided effort must be made upon the king dom of darkness, and that un der such cir cum stances to shrink from the task and through fear of pro ducing a lit tle tempo rary dis or der, to refuse to go heartily into the work would have been noth ing short of downright spir i tual mur der. This meet ing contin ued un til it was neces sary to give place for the transac- tion of synod ical busi ness. But the tardy move ments of the people, and es- pecially of the dis tressed, and their linger ing looks as they with drew, clearly indi cated that they felt themselv es still un willing to leave the house of the Lord.” An other writer adds: “At one time during the meet ing it was found neces sary to invite the mourn ers to with draw from the church and re move to the parson age that the synod might have an op portu nity to proceed to its close with the trans action of the busi ness be fore it.” It can not be den ied that by the methods of re vivalism the Gen eral Synod re ceived many new members who af ter wards acquired an appre ci ation of Lutheran teach ing. But the end does not al ways jus tify the means. As a whole, the move ment proved detri men tal to the devel op ment of the Eng lish Lutheran Church of Amer ica.43

3. “A Lutheranism mod ified by the Pu ri tan ele ment.”

We now come to another misstep recorded in the annals of the Gen eral Synod. The two extremes with which the Gen eral Synod (rapidly becom ing angli cized) came in constant con tact were Ameri can Pu ri tanism and Ger- man indif fer entism. 44 That of these two extremes it pre ferred the for mer is read ily un derstood when we consider the re li gious earnestness of the Pu ri- tans, on the one hand, and the worldly, unchurchly at ti tude of cul tured Ger- mans, on the other. For the great goal of the founders of the Gen eral Synod

80 had been personal piety and the propa ga tion of a posi tive the ology . This goal had been consis tently kept in view. Thus when the abuse of al coholic drinks, which char acter ized the life of anti-re li gious cir cles, was op posed by temper ance move ments,45 it is not diffi cult to fore see on which side of the strug gle the Gen eral Synod would take its stand. Also re gardin g the ob ser- vance of the Sun day,46 it joined hands with the Pu ri tans. In both cases it opposed the Ger mans. Thus it grad u ally leaned toward Pu ri tanism, with which it also shared the Eng lish lan guage. A Lutheranism mod ified by Pu ri tan el e- ments was looked upon as bein g desir able for America. In this sense we speak of an “AMER I CAN LUTHERANISM.” We now ar rive at a period when the inti mate re la tions of the Gen eral Synod to the other denom ina tions were to bear fruit. The dis tinctive doctrines of Lutheranism had become ob scured. The devel op ment might be traced in the doctri nal evolu tion of a man like Dr. S. S. Schmucker. At the time of the founding of the Gen eral Synod, then quite a young men, he belonged to the most conser vative class of his contem po raries.47 But eventu- ally we find him not only an enthu si as tic advo cate of the “Evangel ical Al- liance,” but author of an elab o rate and com prehen sive scheme of an “Apos- tolic Protes tant Union,” with the fol low ing fea tures: “Unity of name; unity in funda men tal doctrines, 48 while diver sity in nonessen tials (sic) was conceded; mu tual acknowl edgmen t of each other’s acts of dis ci pline; sacra- men tal and minis te rial inter -com mu nion; conven tion of the differ ent churches of the land in synod or council for mu tual consul ta tion or eccle si- as ti cal regu la tion.” This was en dorsed by the Gen eral Synod at its meet ing in New York, 1848. The worst blun der of this kind, however , is contained in a letter for- warded (1845) by a com mit tee of the Gen eral Synod to the Church in Ger- many. The letter says: “In most of our church prin ci ples we stand on common ground with the Union Church of Ger many. The dis tinctive doctrines which sepa rate the Lutheran and the Re formed churches we do not consider es sential. The ten dency of the so called old Lutheran party seems to us to be behind the times. Luther’s pecu liar views concern ing the pres ence of the Lord’s body in the com mu nion have long been abandoned by the ma jor ity of our minis ters.” (Spaeth, C. P. Krauth I, 333.) While this letter was for- warded with out the sanction of the Gen eral Synod, it was signed by the follow ing repre senta tive men: S. S. Schmucker, J. G. Morris, H. J. Schmidt, H. N. Pohlman, B. Kurtz. Who would think it possi ble that these men would

81 all sign so radi c al a letter? Dr. Schmidt, then a member of the New York Min is terium, author of a vol ume on “The Doc trine of the Lord’s Sup per” and of valu able contri bu tions to the “Evangel ical Re view,” was soon a most pronounced op po nent of the Def inite Syn od ical Platform, and wrote to Dr. C. P. Krauth, Sen., as fol lows: “The Lutheran doctrine of the Sacra- ments is so com pletely inter wo ven with our whole view of the scheme of sal vation and re demp tion; that concern ing the Eu charist grows so directly and neces sar ily out of the great doctrine of Christ’s person that for me to give up those doctri nal points, al leged to be non-es sential, is to give up all, to give up the whole Gospel.”49 Nor did Dr. Mor ris share the view of the Lord’s Sup per as stated in that letter to Ger many.50 He char acter ized it as “the greatest blun der ever com mit ted.” Only Drs. Schmucker and Kurtz re- ally agreed with the tenets of that cir cular; the oth ers must have signed their names thought lessly. Further more, since the letter before send ing it was never sub mit ted to the Gen eral Synod, but was the expres sion merely of a com mit tee, this body cannot se riously be held re sponsi ble for its contents. 51 But together with other docu ments of a simi lar nature, that cir cular re veals the fact that there were men in the Gen eral Synod who aimed at “a Lutheranism mod ified by the Pu ri tan el ement.” We have tried to show (§ 9, 1) WHAT CAUSED THIS DE VEL OP MENT. We re- ferred to the lack of an Eng lish Lutheran lit er ature; to the influ ence on Ameri can thought of the Prussian Union; to the fel low-feeling with non- Lutheran churches; to the Methodist re vivals; to the anti-re li gious char acter of Ger mans controlled by the immi grants of 1848, which, by way of re action, caused the men of the Gen eral Synod to choose this Pu ri tan type of reli gion. But to all these causes we must add another — the re action against a move ment. A whole se ries of cir cum stances, which we shall presently enumer ate, worked together toward the orig inat ing within the Gen eral Synod of a party which in its confes sional rigid ity exceeded indeed the Lutheranism on which the Gen eral Synod had been founded. The Tennes see Synod had always, al though at times not in the most tact ful man ner, insisted on the im- portance of a con fes sional Lutheranism (§ 7, 2). The Henkels translated the Book of Con cord into Eng lish. The Buffalo Synod (§ 30) was founded in 1845, the Mis souri Synod (§ 21) in 1847. Walther edited the “Luther aner,” the cont ents of which were made the subject of general dis cussion causing many to re al ize that the his tor ical platform of Lutheranism had been aban-

82 doned. From 1842 un til 1866 Pastor Loehe of Neuen det telsau pub lished the “Kirch liche Mitteilun gen aus und ueber Nord-Amerika.” This monthly not only con tained news about mission work in Ohio and the work of men like Wyneken, but un dertook to crit i cize the un-Lutheran char acter of the Gen- eral Synod and to laud the ris ing party of conser vative Luther ans. Says Dr. Ja cobs:52 “Even though this jour nal some times was misled in its polemics, and fell into er ror from the nat u ral ten dency of those imper fectly acquainted with the field to give accu rate re ports, it could not fail to influ- ence the progress of events in this country .” The writ ings of Charles Porter- field Krauth, later com piled in the “Con ser vative Refor ma tion.” stirred the Lutheran world (see bio graphi cal note). Im portant was also the transla tion of Schmid’s Doc tri nal The ology . The re action against the Prussian Union. orig inat ing in Breslau (Prof. Scheibel), inspired thou sands of pens and greatly affected Ameri can Lutheran minis ters who were able to read Ger- man. The writ ings of Heng sten berg, Sarto rius, Rudel bach, Guer icke. Thoma sius, Har less and Kliefoth were eagerly read and re pub lished in the Evan gel ical Re view. Some young the olo gians, trained in this school, arrived from Ger many and as sumed lead er ship even in the synods of the Gen- eral Synod. One bene fit re sulting from the close al liance between the Luther ans and the Re formed of that time was the strong stand taken by the Re formed against Methodis tic re vivalism, which had caused such a com- mo tion in Penn syl vania (the “Mer cer burg the ology”). 53 An inst reaming im- migra tion filled the emp tied churches with sound Lutheran stock. Dr. Phil. Schaff, though himself Re formed, spoke during a course of lec tures, deliv- ered at a conve n tion in Frankfort (1845), of a left wing in the Gen eral Synod and also of salu tary influ ences exerted by the Lutheran minis ters of the East ern States who had stud ied Ger man the ology . This re mark about “a left wing in the Gen eral Synod” made a painful impres sion in America on those who had hitherto consid ered Dr. Schaff an advo cate of Ameri can Lutheranism. The “Deutscher Kirchen fre und,” edited by Schaff (1848) and contin ued by Rev. W. J. Mann, al though an organ for Ger man-Ameri can churches, proved a valu able support to the Evan gel ical Re view,54 and a mighty strong hold against the extrav agances which threat ened to demor al- ize the Luther ans as well as the Re formed. All these fac tors contrib uted toward cre at ing and strength ening a conser vative Lutheran party within the Gen eral Synod.

83 The lead ing spir its in the Gen eral Synod RE ACTED AGAINST THIS MOVE- MENT. Un der influ ences which we have previ ously described, these had devel oped in an op po site direc tion. Reared in the at mos phere of re vivalism and closely as soci at ing with Pu ri tan cir cles, their ideal of piety had gradu- ally become differ ent from that of the Lutheran Church. Nor was it in harmony with that of Muh len berg. His piety was that of the finest types of Ger- man Pietism (§ 4, 8), while the new liber als were draw ing their inspi ra tion from Eng lish mod els like Bax ter, Bun yan, Wes ley, Ed wards, Howe and Dwight. The vig or ous polemics of the ris ing Mis souri Synod, which were proto typed by those of the Tennes see Synod and now car ried on in the “Luther aner,” edited by Prof. Walther, served the party of “Amer ican Lutheranism” as a con stant warning against an ul tra conser vatism. They fre- quently re ferred to the “Sym bol ists” within and with out the Gen eral Synod and pic tured them as extrem ists of the most danger ous sort. They persuaded themselves that the Lutheranism imported from Ger many was largely col- ored with local pecu liar ities which should be abandoned on Ameri can soil. Their ideal was the es tab lishment of a home made product. Thus they presented a program to the Gen eral Synod which insisted on a Lutheranism seasoned with the lead ing views of the surround ing denom ina tions. The lead ers in this move ment were par ticu larly Schmucker, Sprecher and Kurtz, with their great in flu ence upon the Lutheran Church of that day.55 “AMER I CAN LUTHERANISM” AND ITS CRIT ICS. Says Dr. W. J. Mann in the “Deutscher Kirchen fre und:” “Grad u ally a desire man ifested it self to gain pop u lar ity for the Lutheran Church in this country . The hard dog mati cal knots of the old Lutheran oak were to give way un der the Pu ri tan plane. The body was deprived of its bones and its heart, and the empty skin might be filled with what ever was most pleas ing, if only the Lutheran name was retained. The state ment of the sev enth ar ti cle of the Augs burg Con fes sion, that ‘unto the true unity of the Church it is not neces sary that hu man tra ditions, rites or cer emonies, insti tuted by men should be every where alike,’ was most exten sively used, and in the desire to make the Lutheran Church as much as poss ible like oth ers, her lead ers were much more ready to adopt for eign el ements than to re tain her own dis tinctive fea tures. Thus the liturgy, the ancie nt lessons of the Gospels and Epis tles, the fes ti vals of the Church Year, the gown and other usages were given up, in or der that as little as possi ble might be seen of these Lutheran pecu liar ities. Hop ing to gain oth ers, they lost themselves. The Lutheran Church had given away her own

84 spirit, her own orig inal life and char acter .”56 Prof. W. M. Reynolds, writ ing to Dr. Krauth, char acter izes “Amer ican Lutheranism” as a “kind of mon grel Methodis tic Pres by te ri anism.” 57 Such harsh crit i cisms were plen ti ful during this pe riod. Yet we feel that there should be a word of apol ogy for the fa thers of the Gen eral Synod. It is not fair to speak contemp tu ously of those men, as has become the cus tom in many quar ters, for they were abso lutely sin cere. They had convic tions which were perfectly in harmony with their train ing,58 their time and their en viron ment. The question how Lutheranism can have a national de vel op ment on Ameri can soil and how it can adjust it self to its envi- ronment, is even today a proble m for our Eng lish speaking Luther ans.59 It was cer tainly not surpris ing that the lead ers of the Gen eral Synod at a time when large parts of the Lutheran Church became Eng lish, consid ered the question, es peci ally at the time of union ism in the Fa ther land, whether it was not the sa cred duty of the Lutheran Church of this country to accom- mo date it self to the Ameri can spirit by mak ing some conces sions to the teach ing of the sur rounding de nom ina tions. THEY MADE A MIS STEP by dis card ing his tor ical Lutheranism. But if Schmucker and his col leagues had succeeded in avoid ing their mistake, their very pol icy would have been tried by oth ers some time in the his tory of our Church, because of a real problem present. In this sense these men have done a ser vice to the Church. We have learned from their mistake. This opin ion is also shared by Dr. Mann, whose ar ti cle in the “Kirchen fre- und” contin ues thus: “The more we study the his tory of Lutheranism in this country the more nat u ral appear the differ ent stages of its devel op ment. No one is partic u larly to blame. The age and its ten dencies fully explain it. Least of all should we belit tle the merit of those men who, by es tab lishing edu cational insti tu tions for the Lutheran Church, tried to make sure of its fu ture progress. It was a begin ning such as cir cum stances permit ted. But whoso ever will at this time refuse to unite with the change for the bet ter which has taken place or op pose the re covered self-re spect of Lutheranism, its God-given indi vid u al ity — he is guilty in deed.”60 THE DEF I NITE PLAT FORM. In Sep tem ber, 1855, a docu ment was pub lished enti tled, “Defi nite Synod ical Platform ,” which, when closely viewed, was a re cension of the Augs burg Con fes sion. In its pref ace the minis ters of differ - ent syno ds were re quested to accept this “Platform” as their confes sional basis. Though pub lished anonymously , it was soon known that the three

85 men men tioned above, es peciall y the first profes sor at Gettys burg, were its authors. This re vised edi tion of the Augus tana, in connec tion with the preface given, presented an appeal to adopt the platform of an “Amer ican Lutheranism” that had rid ded it self of some er rors said to be con tained in the old his tor ical docu ment. The sanction of cer emonies during the Mass is struck from the 24th ar ti cle of the Augus tana. This was absurd, because by Mass in that ar ti cle Melanchthon simply meant the Commu nion ser vice pu- ri fied from the Ro man abuses. Elim inated from Ar ti cle II was the sentence stat ing that the new birth takes place through Bap tism and the Holy Ghost; from Ar ti cle VIII the decla ra tion that the bless ings of the Lord’s Sup per are not depen dent on the wor thiness of the offi ci at ing minis ter; from Ar ti cle IX the state ment that through Bap tism grace is offered. Ar ti cle X reads in its re vised edi tion: “In re gard to the Lord’s Sup per they teach that Christ is present with the com mu nicants in the Lord’s Sup per, ‘under the em blem of bread and wine.’” (A foot note called at ten tion to the last phrase as being the Ger man read ing, but the Ger man has also the truly present, “wahrhaftiglich… gegenwaer tig,” and it says of the true body and blood that they are dis trib uted and re ceived). Ar ti cle XI had been dropped entirely because it com mended pri vate con fes sion. THE ORI GIN OF THE DEF I NITE PLAT FORM. Even ten years previ ous to the pub li cation of this docu ment in flu ential men in the Gen eral Synod had thought of a condensed platform on which Ameri can Lutheranism could build its fu ture. Dur ing a conven tion of the Mary land Synod, 1814, Prof. H. L. Baugher, Dr. B. Kurtz and Rev. S. W. Harkey were appointed a com mit- tee of three for the purpose of forming an “Ab stract of the Doc trines and Practice of the Evan gel ical Lutheran Synod of Mary land.” The es sential points were presented in four teen ar ti cles. All dis tinctive Lutheran teachings were omit ted or re pu diated. The re port was re turned to the com mit tee and laid on the ta ble.61 The matter was submit ted to the conven tion of the Gen eral Synod at Phila del phia, 1845. Says “The Evan gel ical Re view:” “At this meet ing Drs. Schmucker, Morris, Schmidt, Pohlman and Kurtz were appointe d to prepare and re port to the next conven tion a clear and concise view of the doctrines and prac tice of the Ameri can Lutheran Church. The com mit tee had the subject un der consid er ation un til the meet ing held in Charles ton, S. C, in 1850. The re port presented by them was laid on the ta ble, and they were dis- charged from fur ther duty. The opin ion prevailed among the com mit tee and

86 in the con vention that this was a subject upon which it was inex pe di ent to leg is late. Differ ences on unimpor tant points, it was acknowl edged, did exist in the Church, but it was not the province of the Gen eral Synod to adopt a platform or es tab lish any test, which would neces sar ily exclude from its connec tion many whose recog nition as Luther ans could not be questioned.”62 Drs. Schmucker, Kurtz and Sprecher had a partic u larly vital inter est in this confes sional “Ab stract.” The com mit tee, even before the docu ment had been dis posed of by the Charles ton conven tion, had sent a printed copy of it to ev ery pastor of the Gen eral Synod, invit ing them to express their opin ion by anno tations and marginal notes. Af ter the copies were re turned, a re vised edi tion, em body ing differ ent sugges tions, was sent the second time for the purpose of fur ther consid er ation. 63 Says Dr. Kurtz: “The want of it has long been felt and expressed. From the North and the South, the East and the West we have been asked for some thing of this nature… We find no diffi- culty in subscrib ing the docu ment and present ing it as a fair, hon est exhi bi- tion of Lutheran doctrine and prac tice as un derstood in the lati tude in which we re side; and if we are not greatly mistaken, the great mass of our Ameri- can min is ters through out the land would not make any ma te rial ob jec tion to it.”64 Dr. S. S. Schmucker was so pleased with the “Ab stract” that he re- ferred to it again and again in his lec tures and ar ti cles, and even made his stu dents com mit to memory its prin ci ples and state ments set ting forth the exact tenets of Ameri can Lutheranism.65 Also Dr. S. Sprecher urged the neces sity of mak ing a bold and an hon est state ment, in a writ ing of 1853 he un derscored the words “a creed we must have” and wrote: “I hope that this un happy condi tion of the Church will not continue long, and that the churches of the Gen eral Synod will do as the churches of the Augs burg Con fession did in 1580 — exer cise their right to declare what they re gard as the doctrines of the Sa cred Scrip tures in re gard to all the points in dis pute in the Church. I do not believe that the present po si tion of the Gen eral Synod can long be maintained; it will ei ther re sult in the Old Lutheran men and synods gain ing the control of the Gen eral Synod, and intro ducing the doctrines and prac tices of the sym bols which the churches in this country ought to abandon… or the friends of the Ameri can Lutheran Church must define the doctrines which they do hold and what they re ject, and refuse to frater nize with and to make themselv es re sponsi- ble for, and to give their influ ence as a church in fa vor of men and doctrines

87 and prac tices which they hold to be anti-scrip tural and inju ri ous to the spir i- tual king dom of Christ. I do not see how we can do oth er wise than to adopt the Sym bols of the Church or form a new sym bol which shall em brace all that is funda men tal to Chris tian ity in them, re ject ing what is un scriptural and supply ing what is de fec tive.”66 These were the dis cussions and consid er ations of the men repr esent ing Ameri can Lutheranism at the time of the prepa ra tion of the Def inite Plat- form. Dr. S. S. Schmucker, its real author , with his facile pen for such work, gave to it the fin ished form. The docu ment appeared anonymou sly, but ac- cording to Schmucker’s own ad mission (made ten years later) he had written ev ery sentence himself and had merely submit ted it for approval to his friend, Dr. Kurtz, im me diately be fore its pub li cation. 67 THE RE CEP TION OF THE DEF I NITE PLAT FORM. The docu ment found lit tle response. Only three small dis trict synods in the Ohio ter ri tory accepted it tempo rar ily (East Ohio, Olive Branch and Wit ten berg Syn ods). Ev erywhere else it was vig or ously re jected, not only by men and synods which af ter- wards formed the Gen eral Coun cil, but also by oth ers who re mained with the Gen eral Synod. Only now it became evi dent that the advo cates of Ameri can Lutheranism were few in num ber. Dr. Schmucker and his as sociates ex peri enced a dis appoint m ent from which they (with the excep tion of Dr. Sprecher, cf. bio graphi cal sketch) did not read ily re cover. Men who every one expecte d to affil iate with Ameri can Lutheranism con demned the move ment in strong est lan guage. They saw in it not only an at tempt to mu- ti late the vener a ble Augs burg Con fes sion, but also a plan of exclud ing the stricter Luther ans (the “Sym bol ists”) from the General Synod. The strong est lit er ary refu ta tion was writ ten by J. W. Mann, pastor of the Ger man Lutheran Church of Phila del phia. It was enti tled, “A Plea for the Augs burg Con fes sion,” and was pub lished by the Gen eral Synod’s Lutheran Board of Pub lica tion. Dr. Schmucker op posed to it his “Amer ican Lutheranism Vindi cated,” a book of two hun dred pages, which the Pub li cation So ciety of the Gen eral Synod re fused to pub lish and for which he had to find a pri vate pub lisher. We have al ready stated that the Gen eral Synod would not permit the com mit tee to proceed fur ther with the “Ab stract.” One of the chief ob jec tions persis tently urged was the charge that the Def inite Platform, once adopted, would drive from the Gen eral Synod a num ber of Luther ans now con nected with it.68

88 Among the refu ta tions of indi vi d ual synods we men tion that of the East Penn syl vania Synod, which at its conven tion in Lebanon, Pa., passed the fol low ing res o lution on mo tion of Dr. J. A. Brown: “Re solved that we hereby ex press our un qual ified dis appro ba tion of this most danger ous at- tempt to change the doctri nal ba sis and revo lution ize the exist ing char acter of the Lutheran Churches now united in the Gen eral Synod and that we hereby most solemnly warn our sis ter synods,” etc. The mover of this res o- lution eventu ally went so far as to for mu late charges against S. S. Schmucker for hereti cal teach ing (later also against Dr. Sprecher). And it was through the influ ence of Dr. C. P. Krauth, Jun., that these charges were not taken up by the Board of Di rec tors at the Gettys burg Sem inary . When Dr. Schmucker re signed his profes sor’s chair in the sem inary in 1864, Dr. Brown was elected as his suc cessor (see below foot note 116). All of this proves that the Gen eral Synod, as a body, cannot be held re- sponsi ble for the “Def inite Platform.” It is true that the mistake was made by prom inent members of the General Synod, but it is also a fact that the pop u lar ity of these men suffere d greatly af ter the pub li cation of the Plat- form. Dr. Krauth wrote that this er ror consisted in the fact that they “mis- took a ten dency, half devel oped, for a fi nal re sult.”[^hC] [^hC]: Dr. Krauth’s necro log ical com ment on Dr. Kurtz as edi tor of the Lutheran Observer . Spaeth, 11, 85. AN NO TA TION. Con tinued from Chap ter IV, § 7, 6. THE FIRST CHURCH PA- PERS. The “EVAN GEL I CAL RE VIEW” was founded in 1849 by Profes sor William M. Reynolds (of the fac ulty of the Penn syl vania College in Gettys burg). The aim of this paper was to op pose the “Lutheran Observer” edited by Dr. Kurtz, and at that time serv ing as the chief organ of the Ameri can Lutheranism. Soon, however , Reynolds was called to the pres idency of Cap ital Uni versity , Colum bus, O., and now Dr. Charles Philip Krauth, of the Get tys burg Sem inary , becam e his succes sor . For many years Dr. Charles Philip Krauth im pressed upon the Evan gel ical Re view his supe rior personal ity. This Quar terly was a repos itory of ar ti cles of perma nent value. In deed the ar ti cles in that Re view seem to be as impor tant today as they were when the first num bers were is sued, at least for the Ameri can stu dent of Lutheran The ology . It served this period as a bridge between the Lutheran the ology of Ger many and the Lutheran Church of America, so much in need of sound the ology at this crit ical period of tran si tion to the Eng lish language.“69 In 1871 the Ev. Re view became the Quar terly Re view of the

89 Evan gel ical Lutheran Church and in 1878 the present”Lutheran Quar terly“. Dr. W. A. Passa vant started the”MIS SION ARY," and, while his chief inter est was that of missions, yet, through the coop er ation of Dr. Krauth, Jun., it received quite a the o log ical char acter . Dr. Ja cobs says that while his the o log i- cal arti cles were at the time heavy reading for a weekly, they had a power ful and perma nent influ ence upon the edu cated ministry .“70 The”LUTHERAN STAN DARD“, edited by Dr. Green wald, had been with all mild ness but firm- ness pleading for fi delity to the confes sions.”THE EVAN GEL I CAL LUTHERAN“, edited by Rev. L. W. Con rad repre sented the inter ests of Spring field, O., and the”OLIVE BRANCH" pub lished by Dr. S. W. Harkey, the inter ests of the insti tu tion at Spring field, Ill.

Bi o graph ical Notes.

PROF. S. S. SCHMUCKER, D. D., son of Dr. J. G. Schmucker, a Pietist of the Spener school and chief founder of the Gen eral Synod, began his stud ies at the Pennsyl vania Uni versity and fin ished them at the Presby te rian sem inary at Prince ton. When only twenty-six years old, he was called to the newly founded sem inar y at Gettys burg, where he re mained for forty years. He was never an at tractive preacher because he was too didac ti cal. But he was admired for his tremen dous capac ity for work. His lit er ary activ ity was un- ceas ing. He wrote forty-four books and pam phlets. And never did the Lutheran Church of America have greater exec u tive talents at its dis posal. With clear eye he could look through the most com plicated situ ations and bring or der out of chaos. He was un excelled in work ing out con stitu tions for synods, congre ga tions and insti tu tions. To all of this he added a genuine piety. He com posed the 356th hymn in the “Wollen we bers Gesangbuch”: “Come ye sorro w ing, heavy laden, with the burden of your sins.” Through one of his writ ings (1831) he gave the impulse for the founding of the Evan gel ical Al liance. At the first conven tion in Lon don (1846) Dr. King of Ire land called him the fa ther of the Al liance. Dur ing the first part of his pastorate he was more Lutheran than the ma jor ity of his contem po raries. This is il lus trated in a letter which at the end of his stu dent days at Prince ton he wrote on a vaca tion trip to his father .“71 As an an ti dote against the reign of Ra tional ism in the New York Minis terium, he demanded that the Augs burg Con fes sion be res ur rected and its ar ti cles be subscribed to with a QUIA. Later, however , when confes sional Lutheranism came into its own, he was

90 one of its strong est op po nents, fight ing the”Symbol ists" with speech and pen. DR. BEN JAMIN KURTZ, D. D., grands on of Pastor J. N. Kurtz (Muhlen- berg’s as sis tant), born in 1775, was edi tor of the Lutheran Observer (1833- 61); he stud ied theol ogy un der Dr. G. Lochmann. He was a man of extra or- dinary talents and a zeal ous ad vo cate of “Amer ican Lutheranism”, the “New Measures ” and the “Def inite Platform”. As edi tor he exerted a tremen dous influ ence on a large portion of the Ameri can Lutheran Church. All of his work was manly. His pen was feared. He never wrote bet ter than when re ply ing to an at tack or when chal leng ing the op po si tion. He sharply at tacked the “Sym bol ists” and Dr. Krauth. He founded the Melanchthon Synod (§ 10, 3). For a short time he was pro fes sor at Selins grove. PROF. S. SPRECHER, D. D., LL.D., was born at Williamsport, Md., in 1810. He stud ied un der Dr. S. S. Schmucker at Gettys burg, and minis tered to the congre ga tions at Har ris burg, Mar tinsbur g and Cham bers burg, Pa. From 1849 to 1884 he was pres ident of Wit ten berg College . He was a teacher of great ability , having special talent for work of a philo sophic and system atic char acter . “The Ground work of a Sys tem of Evan gel ical Lutheran The ology”, though writ ten from the viewpoint of the “Def inite Syn od ical Platfo rm”, is his most impor tant contri bu tion to Lutheran lit er a- ture. Later, af ter years of re tire ment and physi cal suffer ing in San Diego, Cal., he re voked, to a large extent, his for mer po si tion. In the “Lutheran Evan gelist” he says: “It is true that I did once think the Def inite Syn od ical Platform — that mod ifi cation of Lutheranism which perhaps has been properly called the cul mina tion of Melanchtho nian ism — desir able and prac tical, and that I now re gard all such mod ifi cation of our creed as hopeless. In the meantime an increased knowledge of the spirit, methods and lit er ature of the Mis souri Synod has convinced me that such al ter ations are un desir - able; that the el ements of true Pietism — that a sense of the neces sity of personal re li gion and the impor tance of personal as surance of sal vation — can be maintained in connec tion with a Lutheranism un mod ified by the Pu- ri tan el e ment.” (See “Lutheran Evan gelist,” May 1, 1891. Also, Trial of L. A. Got wald, p. 72.) Dr. Sprecher com bined with a frail body a very great mind. He died in 1906, having reached the age of ninety-five years. PROF. CHAS. PHILLIP KRAUTH, D. D., born in 1797, was the fa ther of a still greater son, the Rev. Chas. Porterfield Krauth. His fine talents he placed in the ser vice of the Church, partly as edi tor of the Evan gel ical Re view and

91 partly as Profes sor at Gettys burg. In 1834 he was elected pres ident of Penn- syl vania College. Af ter 1850 he devoted himself exclu sively (though con- tinu ing as edi tor of the Ev. Re view) to his work in the sem inary . The o log i- cally he was classed among the conser vative Luther ans. He held, however , that a united Lutheran Church of America could be hoped for only on the basis of the Augs burg Con fes sion, leav ing free dom to all to accept of the rest of sym bol ic al writ ings what they pleased. An aristo cratic style char acter izes his lit er ary ac tivity . He died May 30, 1867. PROF. CHARLES PORTER FIELD KRAUTH, D. D., L.L.D., son of the for mer, was born in 1823 and died in 1883. He was edu cated for the ministry at Penn syl vania College and at the the o log ical sem inary at Gettys burg. A care ful study of church his tory and dog matics gave him a fine appre ci ation of his tor ical Lutheranism. While the bat tle was raging about the “Def inite Syn od ical Platform”, he was in the midst of his the o log ical devel op ment, which cannot be consid ered fin ished before 1865. He fought “Amer ican Lutheranism,” and his crit ical contri bu tions to the “Mis sion ary”, to the “Evangel ical Re view” and af ter wards to the “Lutheran and Mis sion ary” greatly helped to clear the the o log ical at mos phere and strengthen the cause of conser vative Lutheranism. Af ter read ing one of these fine lit er ary pro- ductions, his op po nent, Dr. Kurtz exclaimed, in the “Lutheran Observer”: “How many such ar ti cles would it take to convert a soul? Poor Charley! What a prosti tution of talent!” 72 In 1861 he became edi tor of the “Lutheran and Mis sion ary”, and in 1864 Profes sor of the ology at the newly founded sem inary of the Penn syl vania Synod in Phila del phia (§ 20, 1; § 9, 3). He was one of those who, with the Min is terium of Penn syl vania, left the Gen- eral Synod (§ 10, 3). Dr. Spaeth has writ ten his biog ra phy in two vol umes enti tled “Charles Porterfield Krauth” (Gen eral Coun cil Pub li cation House, Phila del phia, 1909). Krauth was a vo lumi nous writer. His men tal activ ity was inde fati gable. Notewor thy among his writ ings are Fleming’ s “Vo cabu- lary of Phi los o phy” edited with In tro duction, etc. (Phila del phia, 1860; New York, Shel don & Co., 1878): Berkeley’ s “Prin ci ples, Prole gom ena”, etc. (Phila del phia, 1874). We should also men tion his “Augs burg Con fes sion, translated with In tro duction, Notes, and In dex” (Phila del phia, 1868). Of high est impor tance is his work, “The Con ser vative Refor ma tion and its The ology” (Phil adel phia, J. B. Lippin cott & Co., 1872), which, in spite of its imper fect form — it consists of a se ries of ar ti cles — will influ ence Lutheran thought in America for years to come.

92 PROF. J. A. BROWN, D. D., was born in Lan caster Co., Pa., in 1821. De- scending from the Quak ers, as an un baptized youth, he came to Gettys burg (1841), where he entered the se nior class of the col lege. He was baptized in the Presby te rian Church. His men tal gifts were extra or dinary . He gradu ated from col lege in 1842, and became a teacher. He contin ued his stud ies, and served the cong re gations of Bal ti more, York and Read ing. In 1859 he was called to New berry College, S. C, as profes sor of the ology . He left there during the Civil War, his sym pathies being with the North. In 1864 he became Dr. S. S. Schmucker’s succes sor at Gettys burg. He was an able preacher, an enthu si as tic teacher, a dis cern ing writer and a strong pub lic debater. In 1879 he had a par alytic stroke, and died in 1882.

§ 10. Dis rup tion of the General Synod and Ori gin of the Gen eral Council.

In troduc tory Re view.

The pub li cation of the Def inite Platform was a se ri ous blow to Ameri can Lutheranism. Its advo cates did not win the applause they had looked for. Dr. S. S. Schmucker es pecially lost much of his for mer pres tige. The conser vative wing, on the other hand, felt encour aged, and saw in the events that had taken place an indi ca tion that the Lutheranism of the fu ture would increas ingly adh ere to his tor ical tra ditions. But the “Def inite Platform” the- ology had been stim u lated for more than a decade by coop er ation of pul pit, press and sem in ary, and by many mea sures that had been passed at synod i- cal conv entions. Ex ter nally viewed, the situ ation seemed to take a fa vorable turn. Dr. Kurtz re signed the edi tor ship of the “Lutheran Observer” (1861). In 1864 Dr. Schmucker re signed his profes sorship at Gettys burg, and Dr. Brown, his strong oppo nent, be came his suc cessor . But in re al ity things were lit tle improved. A glance at the ar ti cles published in the Lutheran Observer of this period will make this painfully clear. While the Def inite Plat form had been re jected, its spirit contin ued to perme- ate the ology . Lib er als played fast and loose with es sentials and non-es sentials, and car ried this old method of shift ing is sues into the heart of the Au- gustana. It was left to the indi vid ual to decide which doctrines were funda- men tal and which non-fun dame n tal. Only those fea tures in the Augus tana were re tained which were held in com mon by all denom ina tio ns. The aim

93 was to unite all Luther ans in America on a basis of suffi cient breadth. The word “Un al tered,” as applied to the Augs burg Con fes sion, was not toler ated because it seemed to clip the wings of a liber al iz ing Melanchtho nian ism. The Formula of Con cord and all other Lutheran sym bols, with the possi ble excep tion of Luther’s Small Cat echism, were excluded from the o log ical consid er ation. To show that the accep tance of the whole Book of Con cord did not set tle contro versies, the Lib er als pointed to the conten tions of the Old Luther ans (Missouri, Buffal o, Iowa Syn ods), who had not ar rived at the much-sought harmony , al though adopt ing all the sym bol ical writ ings. A broad ba sis was demanded on the ground that not only would Lib er als find it sat is fac tory, but the Sym bol ists also would find room for their views on such a platform . It would, of course, be re quired of them that they should not enter upon con tro versy with their more liberal brethren. The Lutheran Observer (Au gust 4, 1865), demand ing a Lutheranism broad enough to embrace both partie s, would have each vital ize and bless the other and supply mu tual de fects. But such a pol icy is not prac ti cal un der free church condi tions. It might work in a country like Ger many, where State and Church are united and where con trary currents are held in the same channel by the strong arm of the gov ernment, al though even there the at tempted amal gama tion of het ero- geneous el ements has only produced sepa rate soci eties exist ing along side of each other. But surely in the land of free churches wa ter and oil would not mix. To demand that the “Sym bolist” should not form a party with men of conge nial mind in defense of his convic tions is not only impos si ble, but un- just and unchris tian.73 It was, therefore, the most nat u ral thing in the world that a smaller confes sional party formed it self within the Gen eral Synod, which stood opposed to the ma jor ity. Stim u lated by out side influ ences and strength ened by its vic tory over the Def inite Platform, it em ployed the braini est the olo gians to plead its cause. Its greatest leader was Dr. Charles Porterfield Krauth. In 1865 this bril liant thinker, an out spoken op po nent of the Def inite Platform the ology , abandoned the last rem nants of the confes sional views un der which he had grown up, and the contro versy between the two par ties of the Gen eral Synod as sumed the pro portions of a fi nal and deci sive conflict. 74 This great confl ict was preceded by two other ruptures which we will now describe.

94 1. The Exo dus of the Swedes.

In the Synod of Northern Illinois, a District Synod of the Gen eral Synod, there were a large num ber of Swedes. In 1859 they formed about one-half of the whole synod. They were divided into three confer ences: Chicago, Mis sis sippi and Min nesota. At Spring field, Ill., they coop er ated with the Eng lish part of their synod in the man agement of the Illinois State Uni versity. There W. M. Reynolds was pres ident and Dr. S. W. Harkey profes sor of the ology . In 1856 Prof. L. P. Es b joern took charge of its Scandi na vian depart ment. These Scandi na vians did not re ally agree doctri nally with their Eng lish-speak ing brethren, but they did not know where else to turn for the edu cation of a ministry . They, however , had the sat is fac tion, of causing the Northern Illinois Synod to speak of the Augs burg Con fes sion as “a correct and true sum mary of the teach ings of the Chris tian re li gion.”75 But soon they came to the parting of the ways. In the Ju bilee edition of the Au gustana Synod, we read the fol low ing re mark: “Dur ing subse quent years a num ber of ‘new Luther ans’ were re ceived who rec og nized no stan dards of doctrine and who did all in their power to tear down every barrier which might hinder the instream of free thought.” Es b joern and Has selquist, as del egates to the General Synod at Pitts burg (1857), re turned with sore hearts over the re- ception of the Melanchthon Synod (§ 10, 3, a). The plan to withdraw was ma tur ing among the Scandi na vians, when trou bles arose between Es b joern and some profes sors at Spring field, Ill. Es b joern re signed suddenly April, 1860, and moved to Chicago. The Scandi na vian stu dents, with the excep- tion of two, went with him.76 At a gather ing in Chicago this step was jus ti- fied by the Scan dina vians who, dis solv ing their connec tion with the Synod of Northern Illinois, formed the Augus tana Synod, then largely com posed of Swedes, Danes and Nor we gians. (Comp. § 19, 5, b; § 32, III 3; § 33, 3.) The new body eventu ally united with the Gen eral Coun cil (§ 19, 5). The Spring field school ceased to serve the Gen eral Synod and was purchased (1868) by the Mis souri ans, who use it today as their prac ti cal sem inary (§ 24, 1).

2. The Exo dus of the Southern Lutherans (1863).

This was the begin ning of a larger se cession which shall presently be mentioned. From 1861 to 1864 the North and the South were rent apart by the

95 ter ri ble CIVIL WAR. The hatred thus caused extended into the cir cles of the Church. It cul minated in the exo dus of FOUR SYN ODS from the Gen eral Synod, viz., the synods of North Carolina. South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. They formed a new general orga ni za tion known today as THE UNITED SYNOD OF THE SOUTH (Chapter V).

3. The Disrup tion Lead ing to the Found ing of the Gen eral Coun‐ cil.

A. Pre limi nary.

[a] Un der the lead er ship of Dr. B. Kurtz the MELANCHTHON SYNOD was formed in Mary land (1857).77 The exi stence of a new dis trict synod of the Gen eral Synod in the ter ri tory of the Mary land Synod was jus ti fied on the prin ci ple of “elective affin ity”. Ev erybody should have the lib erty of belong ing to an orga ni za tion that was conge nial. The advanced Ameri can Lutheranism of this synod was heralded as its chief at traction. It had been closely mod eled af ter the doctr inal stan dards of the Evan gel ical Al liance. While accept ing the Augs burg Con fes sion, it re pu diated cer tain er rors which were said by some (sic) to be contained in said confes sion: “1. The approval of the cer emonies of the Mass; 2. Pri vate confes sion and abso lution; 3. De nial of the divine obli gation of the Chris tian Sab bath; 4. Bap- tismal re gener ation; 5. The real pres ence of the body and blood of the Sav- ior in the Sacra ment of the Al tar.” At the meet ing at Pitts burg (1857) the Melanchthon Synod asked to be received into the Gen eral Synod. A con flict seemed immi nent. The liberal party, nu mer ically supe rior , was vig or ously op posed by a con ser vative el em ent. Dr. Krauth, Jun., served as a me dia tor . He favored the re ception of the synod, but “affec tionately re quested” the brethren of that body to erase the implied charges against the Augs burg Con fes sion. The votes stood 98 to 26 in fa vor of admis sion. The del egates of the Penn syl vania Synod, also the Scandi na vians of the Synod of North- ern Illi nois,78 were recorded in the nega tive. This contro versy helped (as we have just seen. § 10, 1) to cause the sepa ra tion of the Swedes from the Gen- eral Synod, 1860. [b] At the conven tion of the General Synod at York, Pa. (1864). the FRANCK EAN SYNOD applied for admis sion. This body, founded in 1837 as a branch of the Hartwick Synod, had never accepted the Augs burg Con fession. It had adopted a few general prin ci ples,79 and had is sued a “Dec la ra-

96 tion” in which the Lord’s Sup per is spoken of “as a token of faith in the atone ment of Christ, and of broth erly love.”80 A res o lution of the Gen eral Synod, passed as early as 1839, had men tioned the Tennes see Synod and the Franckean Synod as two extremes endan ger ing the unity of Lutheranism. But in 1857 the General Synod, wishing to re tract this res o lution re gard ing the Tennes see Synod, found it diffi cult to decline simi lar action con cern ing the Franckean Synod. This caused the Franckean Synod to seek adm is sion into the Gen eral Synod, hop ing, no doubt, that since the Melanchthon Synod had encoun tered no ob sta cles in the way of such a step, it might be equally suc cess ful. At the 21st conven tion of the Gen eral Synod (York, Pa., May 5, 1864) the ad mission of the Franckean Synod was argued on the very first day. A com mit tee un der the chairman ship of Dr. H. N. Pohlman re ported as follows: “That the Franckean Synod be admit ted as an inte gral portion of the Gen eral Synod, as soon as it shall give for mal expres sion to its adoption of the Augsbur g Con fes sion as re ceived by the Gen eral Synod.” This was satis fac tory to the Con ser vatives, who were contend ing for the prin ci ple that no synod should become a part of the Gen eral Synod which did not accept for mally the Augs burg Con fes sion. They held that if this rule was not to be applied, the dis tricts of the gene ral body would be kept in a feel ing of un- cer tainty as to the fu ture se curity of their confes sional po si tion. But the adoption of the res o lution was not the end of the affair . The del e gates of the Franckean Synod, on the fol low ing day, asked for its re con sid er ation, declaring that by accept ing the consti tu tion of the Gen eral Synod, they thought that they had also accepted its confes sion of faith. Af ter a lengthy and earnest debate, the Franckean Synod was accepted with the un derstand- ing that it should, at its next conven tion, adopt the Augs burg Con fes sion as its doctri nal basis. The votes stood 97 to 40. This was taken to mean that a synod might ent er the Gen eral Synod, even though it had not yet accepted the Augus tana, but had merely in dicated its in ten tion to do so. Mat ters were even more com plicated because the Franckean Synod had al ready adopted, in place of the Augs burg Con fes sion, an inde pen dent decla ra tion of faith, exclud ing seve ral fea tures of Lutheranism. And why did it not adopt the Augs burg Con fes sion at the same meet ing at which it sought admis sion into the Gen eral Synod? This was the contention of the Con ser- vatives. The Lib er als, on the other hand, and those who had been won over to their viewpoint, argued that the Franckean Synod, while not for mally

97 com ply ing with condi tions of admis sion, had done so to all intents and purposes; that other synods had been re ceived un der simi lar cir cum stances; that the consti tu tion admit ted of varied inter preta tions. As a matter of fact, the Gen eral Synod, at the time of its orga ni za tion (1820), had not dared to be too rigid in its doctri nal demands. Partic u larly the New York Min is terium and also the Min is terium of Pennsyl vania would, at that time, have been op posed to in corpo rat ing a con fes sional paragraph, such as the Gen eral Synod gave to its dis trict synods (1829). into the consti tu tion of the general body (§ 11. 1, a). At that time the sep arate synods were too jeal ous of their rights. In 1835 the Gen eral Synod fi nally took courage to declare that only those synods should be accepted which believed in the funda men tal doc trines of the Bible “as taught by our Church.” Upon this re mark, and also upon the state ment of the consti tu tion that “all regu larly con stituted Lutheran syn ods can be admit ted if they accept the cons ti tution and send del egates, etc.,” the Con ser vatives, now chiefly led by the Penn syl vania Synod, based their argu ments. The chairman of the com mit tee of the Min is terium of Penn syl vania read a protest against the ad- mission of the Franck ean Synod. He called it a vio la tion of the consti tu tion, which speaks of only “Lutheran” synods to be admit ted. Lutheran synods were those which accepted the funda men tal doctrines of the Bible “as taught by our church.” This meant the Augus tana. But at no time in its history had the Franckean Synod adopted the Augs burg Con fes sion. For this rea son it could not be re garded as a properly consti tuted Lutheran synod. By ad mit ting it, vio lence was being done to the consti tu tion of the Gen eral Synod. This protest was signed by the entire del ega tion of the Pennsyl vania Synod, and also by del egates of the fol low ing synods: Pitts burg (4), New York (4), Illinois (3), Mary land (2), East Penn syl vania (1), Olive Branch (1), North ern Illi nois (1), Iowa (1), num bering twenty-eight sig natures. At the same time another docu ment was submit ted in which the Penn syl- vania Synod de clared its withdrawal from the ses sions of the General Synod on the ground that the condi tions of affil ia tion orig inally agreed upon (1853) had been broken. Among the res o lutions passed at the time of the re- union of the Penn syl vania Synod with the Gen eral Synod, it was clearly stated “that, should the Gen eral Synod vio late its consti tu tion, and re quire of our synod, or of any synod, as a con dition of ad mission or contin u ance of member ship, as sent to anything conflict ing with the old and long-estab- lished faith of the Lutheran Evangel ical Church, then our del egates are

98 hereby re quired to protest against such action, to with draw from its sessions and to report to this body.”81 AN NO TA TION. Under simi lar condi tions the Pitts burg Synod had united with the Gen eral Synod,82 and its del egates were in perfect accord with those of the Penn syl vania Synod in this matter . A minor ity in both synods had op posed the proposed union with the Gen eral Synod. In the Min is- terium of Penn sylva nia the votes stood 217 cleri cal and 15 lay men for and 14 cler ical and 14 lay men against the res o lution. In the Pitts burg Synod 10 minis ters and 7 lay men voted for it, 9 pas tors and 3 lay men against it. A spirit differ ent from that of the Gen eral Synod pervaded the Min is- terium of Penn syl vania. In 1853, the year of its ad mission into the General Synod, the Penn syl vania Synod acknowl edged “the col lec tive body of the Sym bol ical Books as the con fes sional writ ings of the Evan gel ical Lutheran Church, and accorded to the Unal tered Augs burg Con fes sion and Luther’s Small Cat echism an es- pecial impor tan ce among the sym bol ical books gener ally”83 Con sid er ing fur ther the cauti ous lan guage used in connec tion with its step into the Gen- eral Synod, we get some idea how doctri nal matters had changed in the Penn syl vania Synod (§ 8, 2). We read in a res o lution preced ing the contem- plated affil ia tion : “That this synod re gards the Gen eral Synod as an as soci a- tion of Evan gel ical Lutheran syn ods, enter taining the same views of the funda men tal doc trines of the Gospel as these are expressed in the confes- sional writ ings of our Evan gel i cal Lutheran Church and es pecially in the Unal tered Augs burg Con fes sion, and that we advert to the fact that the Gen- eral Synod is denied the right by its consti tu tion of mak ing any inno vations or al ter ation of this faith. See Arti cle 3, Sec tion 2, 3.” The surpris ing change of view in the Penn syl vania Synod, for merly so conspic u ous for its willing ness to make com mon cause with the Re formed (§ 6, 4; § 8, 2, 3; § 11, 1, a), is a his tor ical phenom enon that calls for an inter preta tion. In our judg ment the expla nation is contained in the fol low ing consid er ations: 1) The Min is terium of Penn syl vania was pre dom inantly Ger man, and as such would have a nat u ral aver sion against the re vival move ments which did so much to oblit er ate the spirit of Lutheranism in the Eng lish parts of the Lutheran Church. Here the Min is terium was on common ground with the Re formed. Note that the strong est protest against re- vivalism came from the Mer cers burg Sem inary (Dr. Nevin).84 2) When the Lutheran Church in Ger many expe ri enced its great re action against the

99 Prussian Union in the ris ing of men like Claus Harms, Scheibel, Stahl, Gu- er icke, Rudel bach, Lud wig Harms, Loehe, Besser, Wangemann and many oth ers, a great lit er ature sprang up, which re vived Lutheran conscious ness in the Fa ther land. Such influ ences must have been felt more in a Ger man body like the Min is terium of Penn syl vania than in the more Ang li cized districts of the Gen eral Synod. Also the minis ters who came over from Ger- many during this period un der the influ ence of a re vived Lutheran conscious ness would nat u rally go into the bod ies where the Ger man lan guage was es pecially used. So gradu ally the minis te rial body of the Penn syl vania Synod began to grow in Lutheran convic tions, and became op posed to the for merly cher ished idea of a fu ture union with the Re formed. 3) And then it must be re membered that in the Penn syl vania Synod there had al ways been the use of Luther’s cat echism and the thor oughly evangel ical hymns of the Lutheran Church, while in the Eng lish synods the cat echism went partly out of use, or was greatly depre ci ated, and the strong Ger man hymns were re- placed by the sen ti ments of Method ism and Pu ri tanism. Here all the Ger- man syn ods (Tennes see, Joint Ohio and Penn syl vania Syn ods) had an ad- vantage over the rapidly Angli ci zing parts of the Lutheran Church. 4) In ad- dition to all this, we must re member the strong orga niz ing influ ence of such great men as Drs. C. F. Schaef fer , W. J. Mann, G. F. Kro tel. C. P. Krauth. Jun., W. A. Pas sa vant, Beale M. Schmucker and oth ers. AN NO TA TION. While the with drawal of the Penn syl vania del ega tion was keenly felt, it had a salu tary eff ect on the fu ture of the Gen eral Synod. At the very conven tion which caused this rupture, res o lutions were passed for a clearer defi ni tion of the confes sional basis to be rec og nized by synods desir ing to unite with the Gen eral Synod. Ar ti cle III, § 3, was made more explicit (cf. § 11, 1, b). In its orig inal form it stated that “all regu larly consti- tuted Lutheran synods hold ing the funda men tal doctrines of the Bible as taught by our church, not now in connec tion with the Gen eral Synod, may at any time become as soci ated with it, by adopt ing this consti tu tion and sending del egates,” etc.; but the amended version went much fur ther: “All regu larly consti t uted Lutheran synods, not now in connec tion with the Gen- eral Synod, re ceiv ing and hold ing, with the Evan gel ical Lutheran church of our fa thers, the Word of God as contained in the Canon ical Scrip tures of the Old and New Tes ta ments, as the only infal li ble rule of faith and prac tice, and the Augs burg Con fes sion as a correct exhi bi tion of the funda men tal doctrines of the divine Word, and of the faith of our church, founded upon

100 the Word, may, at any time,” etc. This amend ment was sent to the differ ent dis trict syn ods, and having been adopted by them was made a part of the consti tu tion of the Gen eral Synod.“85 An other decla ra tion was accepted at this time (1864) known as the York Res o lution. This was one of a num ber of proposi tions made by Dr. Charles Porterfield Krauth at the con vention of the Pitts burg Synod at Zelienopl e (1856), and was directed against the Def i- nite Platform. It aimed to meet current prej u dices against the Augs burg Con fes sion. (See”York Res o lution," § 11, 1, c.) It was never more than a res o lution, lack ing the sanction of the dis trict synods which is re quired by the con stitu tion, and was therefore incor po rated in the new confes sional formula rec om mended at Washing ton and re ported at Atchi son as having been adopted by all the dis trict synods. [c] THE FOUND ING OF THE SEM I NARY AT PHIL A DEL PHIA was another link in the chain of events which were work ing towards the dis ruption of the Gen- eral Synod. At the 117th conv ention of the Penn syl vania Synod, held at Pottstown, Pa., May 25, 1864 (a few days af ter the re turn of the York del e- gates who had with drawn from the sessions of the Gen eral Synod), it was decided to es tab lish a sepa rate The o log ical Sem inary of the Penn syl vania Synod. This was no new idea. As early as 1846 Dr. C. R. Demme, a Phila- del phia clergy man, had been del egated by the synod to col lect a li brary and to ed u cate young men for the ministry . This was done to counter act Dr. Schmucker’s influ ence at Gettys burg. While the Ger mans (Pastor S. K. Brobst. edi tor of The olo gis che Monat shefte) had been urg ing the movement, the Eng lish Luther ans delayed action, hop ing that things might become more hope ful at Get tys burg. Dr. Schmucker re signed in Feb ru ary, 1864. The Con ser vatives wanted Dr. C. P. Krauth as his succes sor . This, however , seemed out of the question, es pecially af ter the con flict at York.86 A schism seemed immi nent in the Gen eral Synod. Dr. C. W. Schaef fer , in his opening speech as Presi dent of the Penn syl vania Synod (May 25, 1864), urged the founding of a sepa rate sem inar}-. His proposi tion was unani mously adopted. In a special meet ing at Al len town (July 26th and 27th) the details were worked out. Drs. C. P. Krauth, W. J. Mann and C. F. Schaef fer were elected profes sors ordi narii , and C. W. Schaef fer and G. F. Kro tel as profes sors extraor di narii . The sem inary was to be founded on the un condi tional accep tance of all the sym bols of the Evan gel ical Lutheran Church. It was opened on Oc tober 5th. Sev eral Gettys burg stu dents went to

101 Phila del phia. Prof. C. F. Schaef f er of Gettys burg (the profes sor of the Penn- syl vania Synod) accepted a chair in Phila del phia. The re la tions between the two inst itu tions became strained. A lit er ary war was car ried on between Dr. Krauth and Dr. Brown. When Dr. Charles Philip Krauth, fa ther of Charles Porterfie ld Krauth, heard of the founding of the new sem inary , he is said to have exclaimed with a heavy heart: “Now a divi sion of the church cannot be avoided.”87 In the light of this action the with drawal of the del e- gates of the Penn syl vania Synod at York appeared as the climax of a long contem plated movement on the part of that body to op pose a new confes- sional ten dency to the doctri nal basis of the Gen eral Synod. The question was asked: Is the Penn syl vania Synod still a part of the Gen eral Synod? When, at the meet ing of the board of direc tors of the Gettys burg Sem inary , the repre senta tives of the Penn syl vania Synod wished to take part, they were not rec og nized because their synod had ceased, by its action at York, to be a part of the Gen eral Synod. This point of view was not shared by the Penn syl vania dele gates, who as serted that a break from the Gen eral Synod had not been int ended. Dr. Spaeth says: “It must be admit ted that the clearer judg ment and more consis tent logic was on the side of the radi cal wing of the Gen eral Synod. They showed a thor ough appre ci ation of the real situ a- tion,” etc. (C. P. K. II, 154). AN NO TA TION. Not all of the men of the Gen eral Synod who failed to jus- tify the action of the Penn syl vania Synod should be classed among the Rad- icals. There were some, to be sure, who might have sacri ficed every dis tinctive fea ture of Lutheranism. But men like Chas. Phil. Krauth, Chas. A. Hay, J. G. Morris. J. A. Brown. H. N. Pohlman, T. Storck and many oth ers, whose power ful influ ence becam e appar ent in their success ful op po si tion to the Def i nite Platform, were far from being radi cal. Neither can we dis pose of them as “mid dle-of-the-road” men af ter the witty words of Dr. Krauth: “Moral weak lings who deem themselves mir acles of gentle ness, prudence and mod er ation, snaky doves, or dove-like ser pents, re fusing to be re duced to a class. …They now go with the one side, now with the other, but take a path exactly midway between them, as sum ing that wher ever the extremes of opin ion are due North and South, the precise line of truth is exactly due East or West; and that, suppos ing what claims to be true one yard oflF from the alleged er ror, you infal li bly keep the golden mean by hold ing yourself eigh teen inches aloof from both.” (Spaeth II, 136). Men thus described no doubt existed then as ever. But the men in the middle-of-the-road in the

102 Gen eral Synod were of a differ ent type. They had not yet reached the end of their the o log ical devel op ment, and eventu ally became success ful lead ers together with oth ers who fol lowed them (Profes sors E. J. Wolf, H. L. Baugher, S. P. Breck enridge, L. A. Got wald. S. A. Ort, D. H. Bauslin, et al.). Their early train ing fell in the period of “Amer ican Lutheranism” and Methodis tic ten dencies. They were not yet prepared to dis card the past. They loved the Gen eral Synod, and saw in the exo dus of the Penn syl vani- ans and in the found ing of the new sem inary an at tempt to dis rupt the orga- niza tion. While they re pu diated the Def inite Platform, they were accus- tomed to dis tinguish ing between funda men tals and non-fun damen tals in the Augs burg Con fes sion. They feared the Formula of Con cord against which they had been prej u diced. The polemi cal methods of the Con cor dia-Luther- ans in those years deterred them from the ten dencies of the “Sym bol ists”. And yet they were not with out ap preci ation of the po si tion which men like Dr. Krauth and others were taking in confes sional re spects.

Bi o graph ical Notes.

PAS TOR C. R. DEMME, D. D. (born in 1795, died in 1863) was the son of the Gen eral Su perin ten dent of Al tenburg in Ger many. He came with a full clas- si cal and the o log ical edu cation from Ger many and became pastor in Phila- del phia. He was among the most em inent preach ers and the profound est schol ars of his time, some what me diat ing in his the o log ical po si tion. He was a born leader, a man of imp osing pres ence and al together the most influ ential membe r of the Penn sylva nia Synod. As a hym nol o gist and an author ity in liturgi cal matters he ranks very high. The hym nal of the Penn syl- vania Synod (1849) and its rit ual (1849) are largely his work. PROF. C. F. SCHA EF FER, D. D., born 1807 in Ger man town, Pa., edu cated in the Uni versity of Penn syl van ia (in the ology by his fa ther Dr. F. D. Scha- effer and Dr. Demme), became Pastor at Carlisle, Pa., Hager stown, Md., Lancas ter , O., Red Hook, N. Y., and Easton, Pa. He was Profes sor of the ology in the sem in ary of the Joint Synod of Ohio in Colum bus (1840-46, see § 28), in Gettys burg, Pa. (1857-64), in Phila del phia (1864-79). He was active as a writer, having translated the treatise on the Book of Acts by Lange, the Sacred History of Kurtz and Arndt’s True Chris tianity . He was also author of a com men tary on Matthew and of impor tant contri bu tions to the Evan gel ical Re view. He died in 1898.

103 PROF. C. W. SCHA EF FER. D. D., LL.D., born in Hager stown, Md., in 1813, edu cated at the Uni versity of Penn syl vania and at Gettys burg. He served the congre ga tion of Barren Hill (1834-40), Har ris burg (1840-49) and Ger mantown, Pa., (1849-64), became profes sor at the sem inary of Phila del phia (1864) and was for many years pres ident of synod. He dis tinguished himself as an au thor (“Early History of the Lutheran Church in Amer ica”, 1857, and many ar ti cles in the Evan gel ical Re view) and as a leader in the Church. He died in 1898.

B. The Conven tion at Fort Wayne, 1866.

[a] IN TRO DUC TORY. The twenty-second conven tion of the Gen eral Synod was opened at Ft. Wayne, Ind., on the morn ing of May 17, 1866. At that time this body com prised two-thirds of the Luther ans in America. Those who had fol lowed devel op ments during the preced ing two years had rea son to look for ward to this no table gath er ing with a feeling of fear that some thing se ri ous might take place. Af ter the conven tion at York, “The Lutheran Ob- server” had viewed the situ atio n from every point of the com pass. In the edi tion of Oc tob er 21, 1864, it pub lished an ar ti cle on the “Com ing The o- log ical Con flict,” in which the fear is expressed that the Church might be increas ingly dom inated by the minor ity . It would not be the first time in history that the few would sway the many. The ultra-con ser vatives would now op er ate un der the sanction of the Penn syl vania Synod, and drive home their claims by means of “The Lutheran and Mis sion ary,” the new sem inary and a num ber of liturgi cal pub li cations. Should the Lib er als cease their activ ity and dis play less sagac ity and zeal in advo cat ing their side of the question, the result could be eas ily fore seen. In tense bitter ness was felt against the Penn syl vania Synod on account of the with drawal of its del ega tion and the founding of the Phila del phia Sem i- nary. Dr. Krauth, Jun., had exposed the shal low ness of “Amer ican Lutheranism” in many able ar ti cles in the “Lutheran and Mis sion ary,” of which he was ed itor from 1861 to 1867.88 The extreme Lib er al ists in the Gen eral Synod, who, however , had not such a ma jor ity of votes that they could carry any mea sure with out the aid of oth ers with whom they were often at swords’ points, aimed to exclude the Penn syl vania Synod at this con- vention, if it could be done. The “Lutheran Observer” present ed the view that since the Penn syl vania Synod had with drawn from the Gen eral Synod, it would have to be regu larly re instated before it could be rec og nized. It ar-

104 gued that the dele gates from this synod would have to pay their own expenses to Fort Wayne, that their cre dentials would be laid on the ta ble un til af ter org ani za tion and that their case would be submit ted to a com mit tee which, at the close of the conve n tion, would re port that, if the del egates of the Penn syl vania Synod were to at tend on the same basis as the del egates of other synods, they would be admit ted, but not oth er wise.89 The “Lutheran” knew90 (through a note directed by Dr. S. S. Schmucker to his son, Beal M. Schmucker, a del egate to synod) that an exten sive corre spondence had been car ried on between prom inent men of the Gen eral Synod, many of whom were del egates to the Fort Wayne conven tion, to the effect that the Penn syl- vania Synod should no longer be re garded as a part of the General Synod. But in or der to speak impar tially , we should add to these state ments which Dr. Spaeth has col lected in his “Life of Krauth,” the fol low ing: Dr. S. K. Brobst, in the “Lutherische Zeitschrift,” pub lished at Al len town, Pa., replied to the papers of Colum bus and St. Louis, which expressed re gret that the Penn syl vania Synod had not, imme diately af ter the expe ri ence in York (at its meet ing in Pottstown, Pa.), with drawn from the Gen eral Synod: that the mother-synod should be given time to proceed slowly. He added that the Penn syl vania Synod would have sepa rated from the Gen eral Synod years ago if it had not been for its invest ments and rights at Gettys burg. This had been the real crux of the matter at Pottstown, and had caused the delay which the western brethren had failed to un derstand. The problem would soon be solved, however , by the es tab lishment of a new edu cational insti tu tion. “There fore, dear brethren, have patience a lit tle longer.”91 Dr. Brown, in a speech last ing an hour, which he deliv ered at Fort Wayne in re ply to Dr. Pas sa vant, declared that nego ti ations had taken place and that “noses had been counted” by the op po si tion, re sulting in the infor ma tion that four teen syn ods were ready to se cede and to build over the ru ins of the Gen eral Synod a new orga ni za tion. We want to tell both sides of the story. In ter arma silent leges, i.e., laws are silent in the din of bat tle. Syn od ical pol itics played a prom inent part all around. At all events, the Penn syl vania Synod elected regu lar del egat es to the conven tion at Fort Wayne. Its cleri cal repre senta tives were J. A. Seiss, chairman, 92 C. P. Krauth, G. F. Kro tel, C. W. Schaef fer , S. K. Brobst, B. M. Schmucker. The lead ing edi to ria l in the Lutheran Observer (May 11), published in connec tion with the conven tion, gave a general re view of the

105 whole situ ation. It stated that the founding of a new sem inary , close to Get- tys burg, yet doctri nally antag o nis tic to it, prac ti cally amounted to a schism. It called at ten tion to the fact that the Penn syl vania Synod demanded its own hym nal, liturgy and cat echism, contrary to the rights accorded other dis trict synods belong ing to the Gen eral Synod. Further more, the special priv ilege by which the Penn syl vania del egates as sumed author ity to judge the consti- tution al ity of the Gen eral Synod’s proceed ings and to with draw from its sessions with out los ing member ship was al together un ten able.93 The ar ti cle closes by saying it would be fair for the Gen eral Synod to declare that if the Penn syl vania Minis terium would come like any other del ega tion , willing to coop er ate and to construct the fu ture pol icy of all concerned, it would be heartily welcom ed; but should it come as a foe or even in a spirit of antag o- nism to the funda men tal ideals of the Gen eral Synod and deter mined to overthrow its doctri nal basis, to re place its lit er ature and to dis turb its insti- tutions, then it should be re fused admis sion. Apart from the question whether the Gen eral Synod had the for mal right of re ject ing the Penn syl vania Synod, since it had been admit ted with that ob jec tionable priv ilege (1853), we cannot help agree ing with “The Lutheran Observer .” The Penn- syl vania Synod, on the other hand, could not very well re cede from its po sition. It stood for a great prin ci ple: the prin ci ple of com mit ting the Lutheran Church of America to his tor ical founda tions, whence it had been shifted by the ac tions of the ad vo cates of Amer ican Lutheranism. The question has been asked: Why did the Penn syl vania Synod send del- egates to Fort Wayne? Dr. Spaeth quotes Dr. Chas. Philip Krauth as having declared that the Penn syl vania Synod was right in with draw ing at York, but wrong in again sending del egates to Fort Wayne.94 In deed its actio n is diffi- cult to un derstan d. It stated that it was encour aged by the inten tion of the Gen eral Synod, expressed at York, to em body in its consti tu tion a confes- sional para graph which would be bind ing upon all synods belong ing to it (com. § 10, 3, a, page 145). But the op po nents suspected that a del ega tion had been sent to Fort Wayne to place the odium of schism on the Gen eral Synod.95 When there is mu tual dis trust there is easily a lack of char ity in inter pret ing the mo tives for an action. We do not believe that there was entire unity of view in the Penn syl vania Synod. The Ger mans, to be sure, were united in their deter mina tion to sepa rate, but many of the Eng lish, like Dr. Krauth himself, 96 felt at tached to the Gen eral Synod with many ten der ties and did not want to leave it un less the step was abso lutely neces sary.

106 [b] Let us try to describe THE PRO CEED INGS AT FORT WAYNE. Dr. Samuel Sprecher, head of the College and Sem inary at Spring field, O., presided. Eleven synods had handed in creden tials for their del ega tions and had been rec og nized, when the Penn sylva nia Synod was re fused admis sion. Dr. Sprecher, af ter stat ing that he was ful filling a painful duty, offered the fol low ing rea son: Since the del egates of the Penn syl vania Synod had severed their connec tion with the Gen eral Synod at York, he was forced to rule that by such action the Penn syl vania Synod had with drawn from the part- nership of the syn ods in the gov erning functions of the Gen eral Synod, and therefore for feited its right of tak ing part in the elec tion of offi cers; he added that he would not ask for cre dentials from its del egates nor give recog nition to them un til af ter the cre dentials of synods whose stand ing was not questioned had been passed upon; at that time an op portu nity would be given for any appeal against the deci sion of the chair.97 Dr. Seiss persis- tently submit ted the cre dentials of his del ega tion, but Dr. Sprecher, with the same persis tency, re fused to consider them. Dr. Krauth wished to know on what author ity the pres ident was basing his deci sion. Dr. Sprecher replied that it was not a question of aut hority by which he could exclude the Penn- syl vania Synod, but a question of lack of author ity for admit ting it.98 Dele- gates of other synods, fa voring the Penn syl vania Synod, asked to be heard, but were ruled out of or der. The conven tion adjourned. At the opening of the af ter noon session. Dr. Sprecher gave his deci sion, which is on record, as fol lows: “The chair re gards the acts of the del egates of the Pennsyl vania Synod, by which they severed their prac ti cal re la tions with the Gen eral Synod, and with drew from the part nership of the synods in the gov erning functions of the Gen eral Synod, as the act of the Synod of Penn syl vania, and that conse quently that synod was out of prac ti cal union with the Gen- eral Synod up to the adjourn ment of the last conven tion, and we cannot know offi cially what the action of that synod has been since; so she must be consid ered as in that state of practi cal with drawal from the gov erning functions of the Gen eral Synod, un til the Gen eral Synod can re ceive the re port of an act restoring her prac ti cal re la tions to the Gen eral Synod; and as no such re port can be re ceived un til said synod is orga nized, the chair cannot rec og nize any paper offered at this stage of the proceed ings of the synod, as a cer tificate of del ega tion to this body.”99 No dis cussion was permit ted at this point. Af ter the roll call of the synods and before the elec tion of offi- cers, the chairm an of the Penn sylva nia Synod once more submit ted the cre-

107 dentials of his del ega tion, but with out success. The del egate of another synod appealed from the deci sion of the chair. The vote taken on this appeal sustained the pres ident by 17 to 24. Offi cers were elected. Dr. J. A. Brown, the succes sor to Dr. S. S. Schmucker at Gettys burg, was elected pres ident. The del ega tion of the Penn syl vania Synod had with- drawn, and was deter mined not to make another at tempt at recog nition. They held that the with drawal of their del ega tion at York (1864) did not affect their right to be repre sented in the orga ni za tion of the Gen eral Synod. A com mit tee which, at the close of the conven tion, was instructed to draw up a re ply to a “protest from del egates of other syn ods” (see Dr. Ochsen ford, Doc u men tary History , p. 84), declared on this point: “In the ex er cise of their or dinary and le giti mate rights, the inte gral members of such a body may speak against the passage of any res o lution, 100 may vote against it, when the question is put, and by call ing for the ayes and noes may have their votes recorded; but if they find themselves in the minor ity , loy alty still re quires them to sub mit to the will of the ma jor ity. If they regard the adoption of a res o lution as involv ing a vio la tion of the consti tu tion of the body, they have still another right — that of protest. They may demand that a re spect ful protest against the res o lution be recorded in the minutes; thus exon er at ing themselv es from all re sponsi bility for the passage of the res o lution; but loy alty re quires them still to submit. These are all the rights of the inte gral parts of any orga nized body which may be exer cised consis tently with full and com plete member ship. If the members of a body feel that they can not submit even un der protest to its action, they may withdraw from it, but this act is the begin ning of a revo lution, which in its very incip iency severs the prac ti cal re la tions of the revo lution ists, and for feits their share in the gov erning power or functions of the body; in its com ple- tion, it severs all their re la tions to the body and all their rights in it.”101 This expressed the view of the ma jor ity in the General Synod. But the del egates of the Penn syl vania Synod em phasized the fact that, when it united with the Gen eral Synod in 1853, it had been done with the reser vation of having the right to with draw from sessions and to re port to the synod, should the Gen eral Synod at any time do any thing contrary to the faith of the Lutheran Church, be it in the matter of admis sion of new synods or of the preser vation of member ship. They fur ther more102 dec lared that the Penn syl vania Synod was entirel y jus ti fied in speci fy ing this condi tion. Says the reply: “There were those, how ever, in the Synod of Penn sylva nia who,

108 al though a minor ity , consti tuted an earnest and influ ential mino r ity, had re- sisted the re sump tion of an activ e connec tion with the Gen eral Synod, princi pally on the ground of doctri nal diffi cul ties, and who were un willing to reen ter with out some guaran tees that this union should not endan ger the faith and op press their conscience. To re move all doubts and diffi cul ties, and to give all the brethren, es pecially those who were dis sat is fied with the doctri nal po si tion of portions of the Gen eral Synod, some se curity for the fu ture, the Synod adopted the in structions which appear to be offen sive to many on this floor.”103 It is of inter est to know whether the Gen eral Synod was fa miliar with this at ti tude of the Penn syl vania Synod at the time of affil ia tion. The del e- gates as sert that these res o lutions were pub lished even before the meet ing at Winches ter , Va., in 1853,104 The Penn syl vania Synod105 recorded the fol lowing re port of its com mit tee: “For whether they (the Gen eral Synod) gladly re ceived the del egates of our synod at the conven tion of the Gen eral Synod at Winches ter , in 1853, from mo tives of Chris tian for bear ance, as they al- lege, or from whatever other cause, we were re ceived upon these terms, and they were never re pealed, and un til that has been done in a le giti mate way our right to repr esen ta tion cann ot be justly questioned.” 106 Be fore the con- vention at Fort Wayne, Dr. Sprecher wrote to Dr. S. S. Schmucker: “While other syn ods whose del egates appeared at Winches ter had to make regu lar appli ca tion before their del egate s could take their seats, those of the Penn- syl vania Synod were re ceived with out such appli ca tion, and treated as if their synod had never left the Gen eral Synod.” “107 Says Dr. Spaeth;”Most cordially were the dele gates of the Min is terium of Penn syl vania received by the Gen eral Synod, and re quested to hand in their cre dentials before the body pro ceeded to the elec tion of offi cers.“108 It seems that any ir regu lar i- ties in the proce edings had been purposely overlooked, because a partic u lar rever ence was felt for the old est Lutheran Synod in America, founded by Muhlen berg. It was known as the”mother synod," and had been instru mental in forming the Gen eral Synod (§ 7, 2). Af ter its with drawal (§ 7, 3) repeated attempts had been made to win it back. In this connec tion it is sig nif- icant that, in the minutes of the conven tion at Winches ter (1853), there is no record of those res o lutions of the Penn syl vania Synod, al though at the time they were pub licly read. What did the Gen eral Synod say concern ing the right claimed by the Penn syl vania Synod for its action at York? The commit tee re ports as fol lows: “If such right was conceded upon their re-ad mis-

109 sion at Winches ter, the re tir ing Pres ident, in orga niz ing the present conven- tion, could not offi cially know the fact, for it is not recorded in the minutes of this body, and the Gen eral Synod cannot now offi cially know it, for she can know that only as her offi cial action which is recorded in her minutes. If the Penn syl va nia Synod believed she had the right to which she has at- tached so much impor tance, and which she has exer cised at the risk of destroy ing this body, and yet did not care to have it recorded, that is the fault of the Synod of Penn syl vania, and she has no right to hold the re tir ing Pres- ident of the Gen eral Synod re sponsi ble for the conse quences to herself. In the absence of any offi cial evi dence of any such conces sion to the Penn syl- vania Synod on the part of the Gen eral Synod, and having al ready show^n that the right claimed is es sentially revo lution ary , we conclude that the Gen- eral Synod could not be un ders tood to have conceded it even tac itly as of any other char acter than revo lut ion ary, and conse quently that she meant to treat the Penn syl vania Synod, in case she exer cised that right, as being in a state of revo luti on — that is, out of prac ti cal re la tions with the Gen eral Synod.”109 Af ter the elec tion of offi cers and the exo dus of the Penn syl van ia del ega tion, the case of the Penn syl vania Synod was thor oughly dis cussed. Argu ments, last ing two days and a half, were presented and the fol low ing res o lutions for warded through Secre tary M. Sheeleigh to the del egates of the Penn syl vania Synod, still in the city: “1) That this synod re gards the condi tion annexed by the Synod of Penn syl vania to the appoint m ent of their del egates 110 as cont rary to that equal ity among the synods com posing this body, pro vided for by the Con stitu tion of this Synod. 2) That whatever mo- tives of Chris tian for bear ance may have induced this synod to re ceive the Penn syl vania del egates, in 1853, with this condi tion, the un fa vorable influ- ence since exerted by it render it very desir able that the said con dition be re scinded by the Synod of Penn syl vania. 3) That the synod hereby expresses its entire willing ness to re ceive the del egates of the Synod of Penn- syl vania. 4) That the del egates from the Penn syl vania Synod be re quested to waive what may seem to them an ir regu lar orga ni za tion of this body and to acqui esce in the present orga ni za tion.” (Doc u men tary History , p. 83. The fourth point was added later). Af ter a lengthy dis cussion of this proposi tion the del egates of the Penn- syl vania Synod appeared for the first time, af ter their with drawal, on the floor of the conven tion to read their re ply.111 They were asked to present their cre dentials. This they re fused, but they handed in a copy of their syn-

110 od ical proto col contain ing a list of del egates. They re fused, on prin ci ple, to hand in their real cre dentials because these had been previ ously re jected by the orga ni za tion . At the conclu sion of their explicit re ply, they declared: “What ever impr es sion our course may have made upon some minds, and whatever ru mors may have been cir culated in ref er ence to factious and schis matic movements of the Synod of Penn syl vania, we can say with a good con science that we have not sought divi sion, but have waited for union and are ready to coop er ate in the Gen eral Synod — pro vided: That this body shall now declare that the Synod of Penn syl vania had, as it claimed to have, the consti tu tional right to be repre sented before the election of offi cers and take part in it and might now justly claim the right of cast ing its vote. If the conven tio n will so declare, we are perfectly willing to waive the right of vot ing, will acqui esce in the present orga ni za tion, and will take our seats in this body, equals among equals.”112 It is inter est ing to know that af ter dis cussing this re ply the chair man, Dr. Brown, left the chair and offered this res o lution: “RE SOLVED, That, having heard the state ment and expla nation of the del ega tion of the Synod of Penn syl vania, we rec og nize said synod as a consti tu tional part of this body and direct the names of the del eg ates to be entered upon the roll.” Af ter dis- cussing this res o lution the conve n tion adjourned till the next morn ing. Says Dr. Ja cobs: “The purpose of the ma jor ity was not to exclude the Min is- terium of Penn syl vania, but to com pel its del egates to apply for re-ad mission, and then to read mit the Min is terium, with the condi tion which the Min is terium at tached to its admi ssion in 1853 annulled, or the re quest made that the Min is terium should it self annul it. The right of del egates to withdraw and re port to their synod when an act which seemed to them un consti- tutional was passed, was no longer to be admit ted. This was the point of contention during the days of de bate that followed.” 113 It should be added that the del egates of the Penn syl vania Synod were elected at Easton , in 1865, with the un derstand ing “that this synod has in no sense ceased to approve of the protest and the with drawal of its del egates from the conven tion at York;” and that it “still re serves the privi lege (expressed in the res o lutions passed on the occa sion of the elec tion of del e- gates to the Gen eral Synod, in 1853) which prompted the action of its del e- gation at the conven tion of York, in 1864.” Such strong em phasis, show ing the un yielding spirit of the Penn syl vania Synod in this re spect, caused alarm among the ma jor ity party of the Gen eral Synod. It was re garded as

111 exceed ingly dan gerous at this time of restless ness in the Gen eral Synod to leave such a dy namite box un der the del icate structure of the orga ni za tion. The Rev. Joel Schwartz finally offered the follow ing amend ment: “RE SOLVED, That, af ter hear ing the re sponse of the del egates of the Penn- syl vania Synod, we cannot consci entiously re cede from the action taken by this body, believ ing, af ter full and care ful delib er ation, said act ion to have been regu lar and consti tu tional : but that we reaffirm our readiness to receive the del egates of said synod as soon as they present their cre dentials in due form.” We shall close the recital of this epoch-making strug gle by quot ing from the pam phlet, “The Penn syl vania Synod”: “The res o lution (of Rev. J. Schwartz) was brought before the house, and on mo tion it was agreed to vote with out debate. The yeas and nays were called, and there were seventy-six who voted for the res o lution and thirty-two who voted against it, while seven declined to vote. Af ter the adoption of the res o lution, a mo tion was made to re consider the vote just taken, fol lowed by another to lay this mo tion to re consider on the ta ble, the effect of which was, and was proclaimed to be, to prevent the conven tion from again consid er ing the subject. Thus did the major ity firmly and pos itively burn the bridge be hind them.”114 The chairman of the Penn syl van ia Synod arose and declared that he consid ered the deci sion of the conven tion as fi nal, and that there was noth ing left for his del ega tion but to with draw and re port to their synod. He added, however , that in accord with the po si tion orig inally taken, such a step had no bear ing on the re la tion of the Penn syl vania Synod to the Gen eral Synod. Dr. J. A. Brown, the Presi dent of the Gen eral Synod, replied that the Gen- eral Synod by no means consid ered the Penn syl vania Synod as being out of the orga niza tion (Doc u men tary History , p. 84). But the ruptur e had been made, and, as the sequel proved, could not be healed. The Penn syl vania Synod had many friends among other synods, with whom they had held vari ous meet ings re garding possi ble steps that might have to be taken should the Penn syl vania Synod se cede. It was agreed first to is sue a protest against the act ion of the Gen eral Synod. This protest, read by Dr. W. A. Passa vant, was signed by twenty-two del egates of differ ent synods: New York (4), Pitts burg (5), Engl. Synod of Ohio (4), Iowa (3), Northern Illinois (3), Northern In diana (3), Min nesota (1), Hartwick (1), Illinois (1). The protest closed with these words: “Its inevitable conse-

112 quences will be felt in the fu ture, and will make a deep impres sion upon the char acter and devel op ment of the church.”115 [c] A RE VIEW OF THE PRO CEED INGS AT FORT WAYNE. The Gen eral Synod was no doubt jus ti fied in its desire not to have affil iated with it a synod claiming for its dele ga tion the prerog a tive of withdraw ing without there with for feit ing its member ship. Nowadays no synod would be admi tted on that basis, neither to the Gen eral Synod nor to any other large body. The reser- vation with which the Min is terium of Penn syl vania had entered was more hurt ful to the Gen eral Synod than it was needed as a protec tion for the Penn syl vania Synod. At any time in the fu ture the Penn syl vania Synod might withdraw from the Gen eral Synod, just as later a num ber of synods left the Gen eral Coun cil when they found their ideals un re al ized. The reser- vation of the Penn syl vania Synod left it to the col lec tive wisdom of just a del ega tion to intro duce the consid er ation of a far-reach ing schism; the synod then might decide ei ther to se cede or to re main in the Gen eral Synod un til it had col lected enough sym pathiz ers to effect the orga n iza tion of a new gen eral body. Such proceed ings might eventu ally dy namit e the whole orga ni za tion. Fair ness demands that the diffi cult and crit ical po si tion of the Gen eral Synod at Fort Wayne be fully appre ci ated. Ever af ter the conven- tion at York sepa ra tion had been in the air: and when imme diately af ter- wards the Phila del phia Sem inar y was founded, even the men in the middle of the road, who would not have been averse to re ceiv ing the o log ical inspi- ra tion from the men of the Penn syl vania Synod, were justly alarmed. It must fur ther be admit ted that the Penn syl vania Synod, es pecially in its in- struction to the del ega tion elected at Easton (1865), used lan guage not cal- culated to pre vent the pos si bility of a rup ture. But was the Gen eral Synod al together right? Its mistake of 1853 was not to be denied. The Penn syl vania Synod had been admit ted with that reser vation. It was true, and it may serve to explain the rul ing of Dr. Sprecher, that there was no record of it in the proto col of 1853. Still it re mains doubt ful that the exclu sion of the del egat es of the Penn syl vania Synod was a jus ti fi- able act.116 It should have been borne in mind that the conven tion was a re li- gious one and that parlia men tary tac tics were clearly out of place at a mo- ment when it was the great problem how Eng lish Lutheranism could be kept from being rent into two hostile camps. The Penn syl vania Synod should have been admit ted, and the argu ments on the ob jec tionable clause re served for later dis cussion.

113 Much has been said as to whether or not the conflict at Fort Wayne was of a confes sional char acter at all. This is both as serted and den ied.117 What are the facts in the case? Con sid er ing the long-drawn-out conflicts with “Amer ican Lutheranism,” the cor re spondence car ried on by the lead ing men of that period (Charles Philip Krauth’s letters to his son; Schmucker’s to Sprecher; Passa vant’s to C. W. Schaef fer); also the edi to r ials and contri bu tions in the “Lutheran Ob- server” and the “Lutheran and Mis sion ary,” and re viewing the contro versial interim between the York and Fort Wayne conven tions (1864-66), we cannot but admit that confes sional differ ences were at the bot tom of this whole strug gle. This was the crux of the mat ter al ways and ev erywhere. But anot her is sue crept into the dis cussion. The old Penn syl van ia Synod had ever been jealous of its inde pen dence. Fear ing the loss of it, she had left the General Synod in 1823, and not with out appre hen sion that her indi vid u- al ity might be absorbed by the larger body, had she re turned in 1853. At Fort Wayne two dis sent ing views of church gov ernment stood op posed to each other. The ma jor ity wanted a general church author ity whose deci sions were to regu late the dis trict synods. But the Penn syl vania Synod would concede noth ing but advi sory functions to the Gen eral Synod. The founding of sem in ar ies, the defi ni tion of doctri nal stan dards and the editing of hym- nals and rit u als were to re main the busi ness of the dis trict syno ds. The old mother synod refused to lose its au ton omy.118 The problem of polity then became aggra vated by that of the confes- sional question. The Penn syl vania Synod demanded a sem inary whose faculty was pledged to all the Sym bol ical Books, because the his tory of Get- tys burg had proved that the recog nition of the Augus tana and of the Cat e- chism was not suffi cient guara n tee for Lutheran teach ing. More over, she was not sat is fied with the liturgy of the Gen eral Synod, which at that time was by no means as clearly Lutheran as we find it in the “Min is te rial Acts” of today .119 It is true that at the time of the conven tion at Fort Wayne the Penn syl vania Synod was still sat is fied with only the Augus tana as the doctri nal ba sis of the general body.120 And yet it is also true that at the conven- tion in Fort Wayne, Dr. Krauth was al ready of a differ ent turn of mind. In the “Lutheran and Mis sion ary” (July 13, 1865,) he at tacked the po si tion (held by the Gen eral Synod and for merly also by himself) which differ enti- ates between funda men tals and non-fun damen tals in the Augus tana. Dr. Spaeth explains this change of front as the re sult of consci en tious study,

114 and says that Dr. Krauth had learned to see through the utter incon sis tency and shal low ness of the “Amer ican Lutheranism.”121 Yet there were men in the Gen eral Synod who even then had not out grown the “Def inite Plat- form.” This we see when we read the Lutheran Observer about the time of the conven tion at Fort Wayne.122 And while the ma jor ity in that body did not approve of the at tacks on the vener able docu ment of the Ref or ma tion, they were not ready to consider all parts of the Augus tana of funda men tal value. But which parts are es sential and which non-es sential? Would not ev- erybody accept or re ject whate ver he pleased? This would have been the burden of argu ment at Fort Wayne had the conven tion proceeded far enough. But parlia men tary rules and matters of church gov ernment overshad- owed this is sue to such an extent that the meet ing at Fort Wayne appears un nat u ral, forced and al together un sat is fac tory. Nor should we at tribute too much impor tanc e to the votes cast at this conven tion. Some voted against the Penn syl vania Synod for treasons of doctrine, but oth ers were merely concerned about the gov ernmen tal fea ture of the question. The fi nal deci- sion by no means sig nified a vic tory for “Amer ican Lutheranism.” The Con ser vatives of the Gen eral Synod soon again began to gain influ ence. They contin ued the devel op ment in the right direc tion, and thus rendered ser vices to the Lutheran Church of America which fu ture his tor ians will be forced to rec og nize. [d] FUR THER RUP TURES (THE FORM ING OF THE GEN ERAL COUN CIL). The vote cast by the conven tion at Fort Wayne meant dis ruption. A few weeks af ter- wards, at its 119th annual meeting, the Min is terium of Penn syl vania severed its connec ti on with the Gen eral Synod and sent out an invi ta tion to all Lutheran synods to partic i pate in the orga ni za tion of a new general body. In the fol low ing year (1867), at Fort Wayne, Ind., the new orga ni za tion known as the General Coun cil123 came into exis tence. The new York Min is terium, the Pitts burg Synod, the Eng lish Synod of Ohio, the Illinois Synod and the Min nesota Synod also left the General Synod and took part in the new orga- niza tion. Some of these synods suffered a dis ruption. The New York Min is- terium lost seven teen minis ters and ten congre ga tions, which in turn formed the New York Synod and as such joined the Gen eral Synod. Seven minis ters had left the New York Min is terium al ready in 1859, and formed the New Jer sey Synod.124 This small orga ni za tion united with the New York Synod in 1872. Af ter that the whole synod was known as the Synod of New York

115 and New Jer sey. But when it was joined by the Hartwick and Franckean Syn ods (1908), it adopted the general name of New York Synod, which today is one of the largest dis trict synods of the Gen eral Synod.125 A dis ruption also occurr ed in the Illinoi s Synod. At its meet ing at Mount Pu laski, Ill., a minor ity re fused to abide by the deci sion of the ma jor ity, and remained wath the Gen eral Synod as the Synod of Cen tral Illinois. 126 Ten minis ters left the Pitts burg Synod, and, re taining the name of the synod, remained with the Gen eral Synod. Even congre ga tions were rent asunder . Their pastors would choose one way or the other, and in subse quent lit iga- tions, vio lent and expen sive, church proper ties were vari ously dis posed of. no tably in Pitts burg, Leechbur g, Williamsport and Al len town. The Gen eral Coun cil fac tion would gener ally contend that the Gen eral Synod did not rec og nize with out reser vation the Augus tana nor the other confes sional writ ings of the Lutheran Church, and that, therefore, the Gen eral Synod fac- tion was not Lutheran. But such argu ments did not carry in court. Al though the po si tion of the Gen eral Synod was based on the prin ci ple that there were es sential and non-es sential el ements in the Augus tana (see § 11, 1, b), yet no court could be moved to declare the Gen eral Synod non-Lutheran on that account. This is a question of _esse_and bene esse, and a secu lar court can decide only in re gard to the esse. The Gen eral Synod invari ably won the contest wher ever confes sional is sues were at stake.127 The tes ti mony on both sides, usu ally given by the olo gians of em inence, always offered a great dis play of schol ar ship and sagac ity. Dr. J. A. Brown mostly repre sented the Gen eral Synod and Dr. C. P. Krauth the Gen eral Coun cil. In the case of the Leechbur g Church, Dr. Brown was on the wit ness stand for five days, half a day on direct ex am ina tion and four days and a half on cross-ex am ina tion. Notewor thy is also the case of Al len town, re ported by Master (Quar terly Re view, vol. VIII.). Krauth, Schaef fer and Brobst repre sented the minor ity claiming the church property; Hay, Brown and Baum the Gen eral Synod. The min or ity lost. While we must not at tribute too much impor tance to the deci sion of secu lar courts in mat ters of a re li gious char acter , because in things spir itual there is more to be taken account of than the letter of the law, yet we find in the jurist’ s viewpoint, which at times was confirmed by the high est author ities, an addi ti onal evi dence for our as ser tion that the differ ence between the Lutheranism of the two sides was, with re gard to the form of con fes sional obli gation a ques tion of _esse_and bene esse.

116 The losses of the Gen eral Synod between 1860 and 1870 were enor- mous. Counting the with drawal of the Swedes and of the south ern Luther- ans, they amounted to two hun dred and seven teen clergy men and seventy- six thou sand one hun dred and forty-nine com mu nicants. In 1860 the Gen- eral Synod com prised two-thirds of the Luther ans in America, and at this period of our his tory only one-fourth. But that it re tained its vital ity may be gath ered from the fact that today (1915) it repre sents one thou sand three hun dred and sixty-six minis ters, one thou sand, eight hun dred and thirty-one congre ga tions and three hun dred and twenty-nine thou sand six hun dred and ninety-nine commu nicants. AN NO TA TION. In late years the fol low ing synods have united with the Gen eral Synod: 1867 the Sus quehanna Synod, 1868 the Kan sas Synod, 1861 the (English) Ne braska Synod, 1877 the Wart burg Synod, 1891 the Synod of Cal ifor nia, the Rocky Mountain Synod and the Ger man Ne braska Synod. The last named synod was formed by Ger man minis ters of the increas ingly Eng lish Ne braska Synod, and com prises, accord ing to its latest re ports, eighty-three minis ters and one hun dred fifteen congre ga tions. In the ter ri tories of Kan sas, Okla homa, Ne braska and the two Dako tas the Ger- mans of the Gen eral Synod seem to have good prospects. The first minis te- rial supp ly for Ne braska was fur nished by the Chicago sem inar y (Dr. J. D. Sev er ing haus); later the work was chiefly car ried on by the West ern The o- log ical Sem inary (Dr. J. L. Neve, Dean of the Ger man Depart ment), whence whole classes of candi dates went into the Ne braska field. In 1913 the synod founded its own sem inary in Lin coln, Neb. The New York Synod joined the Gen eral Synod in 1908, but this was merely a case where synod s which for- merly had belonged to the Gen eral Synod (Hartwick, Franckean , New York and New Jer sey) now formed a larger orga ni za tion.

§ 11. The Char acter of the General Synod.

1. Gen eral Review of Doc tri nal Devel op ment.

To ar rive at a proper perspec tive we have to re fer to some facts which have been pre viously men tioned. [a] The first con stitu tion of the Gen eral Synod (given in detail by Fritschel, Vol. II, p. 40) contained NO EX PLICIT DEC LA RA TION OF AD HER ENCE TO THE AUGS BURG CON FES SION.

117 This def ect is explained by the ten dency of that period, which was one in which the neces sity of a clearly stated doctri nal basis was not yet re al ized. Con sid er ation, espe cially for the New York Min is terium and the Penn syl vania Synod, prevailed upon the Gen eral Synod at its for ma tion to re frain from incor po rat ing doctri nal decla ra tions, even re garding the Augus tana, in its con stitu tion. As early as 1792 the Min is terium of Penn syl vania had adopted a new consti tu tion in which every ref er ence to the Lutheran confes sions had been care fully avoided (§ 6, 4). The gates were to be left open for a union with the Re formed. In 1819 it was decided to found a the o log ical sem inary together with the Re formed, and in 1822 the desire was expressed to unite with that denom ina tion. (For a his tor ical inter preta tion of the situ ation in the Pennsyl vania Synod see § 10, 3, b, page 144 sq.) Socinian is m was ram- pant in the New York Min is terium, whose pres ident, Dr. Quit man, was one of the founders of the Gen eral Synod. This explains why the Gen eral Synod could not men tion the Augs burg Con fes sion in its consti tu tion of 1820. At that time Dr. S. S. Schmucker was a more posi tive the olo gian than the major ity of his contem po raries. In view of the ra tional is tic ten den cies in the New York Min is terium, he de manded that the Augs burg Con fes sion be raised from the dust and that ev ery clergy man sign the twenty-one ar ti cles of faith, and declare before God that they were in harmony with the Bible, not quatenus, but quia.128 Not un til 1835 was A PARA GRAPH ADDED TO THE CON STI TU TION OF THE GEN- ERAL SYNOD, re quir ing that syn ods desir ing to unite with it should accept the funda men tal doc trines of the Bible as taught by our Church. But this fact does not autho rize us to say that the Gen eral Synod remained all those years with out a confes sional obliga tion. For in 1829 it adopted a CON STI TU TION FOR ITS DIS TRICT SYN ODS, which in its for mula for or- dina tion re quired an affir ma tive an swer to the follow ing ques tions:

1. Do you believe the Scrip tures of the Old and New Tes tament to be the Word of God, and the only infal lible rule of faith and prac tice?

2. Do you believe that the funda men tal doc trines of the Word of God are taught in a manner substan tially cor rect in the doc trinal arti cles of the Augs burg Con fession?

118 Even ear lier than this, in 1825, the confes sional basis of the THE O LOG I CAL SEM I NARY AT GET TYS BURG was ex pressed as fol lows:

In this Semi nary the funda men tal doc trines of the Holy Scrip tures, as found in the Augs- burg Con fession, shall be taught in the Ger man and Eng lish lan guages:

When the profes sors were in ducted into office they were required to affirm:

I believe that the Augs burg Con fession and the Cate chisms of Luther are a sum mary and correct exhi bi tion of the fun damen tal doc trines of God’s Word.

A closer exam ina tion of these confes sional obliga tions, partic u larly that contained in the for mula of or dina tion, re veals a lack of the nece ssary clearness and defi nite ness. The expr es sion “SUB STAN TIALLY COR RECT” was inter - preted by the repre senta tives of the so-called “Amer ican Lutheranism” to mean that the Au gustana was not through out in accor dance with the Scrip- tures, and that they had the right, therefore, to re ject such ar ti cles as they chose. [b] At the conven tion at YORK, PA. (1864), the very one from which the del egates of the Penn syl vania Min is terium had with drawn in conse quence of the re ception of the Franckean Synod (§ 10, 3), the Gen eral Synod rec- om mended to its dis trict synod s the incor po ra tion of the fol low ing paragraph in the con stitu tion of the general body:129

“All regu larly con sti tuted Lutheran synods, not now in con nec tion with the General Synod, receiv ing and holding, with the Evan geli cal Lutheran Church of our fathers, the Word of God as con tained in the canon i cal Scrip tures of the Old and New Tes taments as the only infal lible rule of faith and prac tice, and the Augs burg Con fession as a correct exhi bi tion of the fun damen tal doc trines of the di vine Word, and of the faith of our Church founded upon that Word, may at any time become as soci ated with the General Synod by comply ing with the requi sitions of this con sti tu tion and send ing del egates,” etc.

It is to be noted that, instead of “substan tially correct,” we here read “a correct exhi bi tion of the funda men tal doctrines of the divine Word.” This clause was taken from the con stitu tion of the New York Min is terium. [c] At the SAME CON VEN TION (York, 1864), in or der to inter pret dis puted points of the Augs burg Con fes sion and to bear tes ti mony to its un equiv o cal adher ence to that symbol, the Gen eral Synod resolved:

119 “This synod, rest ing on the Word of God as the sole author ity in mat ters of faith, on its infal lible war rant reject s the Romish doc trines of the real presence of tran substan tia tion, and with it the doc trine of con substan tia tion; rejects the mass, and all cer emonies dis tinc tive of the mass; denies any power in the Sacra ment as an opus op era tum, or that the bless ings of bap tism and of the Lord’s Sup per can be re ceived without faith; re jects au ric u lar confes sion and priestly abso lu tion; holds that there is no priesthood on earth except that of all believ- ers, and that God only can forgive sins; and main tains the sa cred obli gation of the Lord’s Day; and while we would with our whole heart reject any part of any con fession which taught doc trines in con flict with this our tes timony , nev erthe less, before God and His Church, we declare that, in our judgment, the Augs burg Con fession, prop erly in ter preted, is in perfect con sis tence with this our tes timony and with Holy Scrip ture as regards the errors speci fied.”

This dec la ra tion was orig inally prepared by Dr. Charles Porterfield Krauth (see § 9, 2, bio graphi cal sketches), and adopted by the Pitts burg Synod, which now belongs to the Gen eral Coun cil, in 1856 at Zelienople. Pa., in connec tion with res o lutions directed against the “Def inite Platform.” (Com- pare § 10, 3, b, an no ta tion.) On mo tion of Dr. Passa vant, who was an active member of the Gen eral Coun cil from its incep tion, it was adopted by the Gen eral Synod at York. This so-called “York Res o lution,” as belong ing to a period which had not as yet ar rived at confes sional clearness, was not repeated, when in 1913 the present doctri nal basis of the Gen eral Synod was being de fined (see § 11, 1, f). [d] At HAGER STOWN, MD (1895), the Gen eral Synod adopted another res- o lution which must be taken into consid er ation in judg ing of its confes- sional standpoint. It will be nece ssary to go back a few years in or der to un- derstand the mo tive un derly ing that res o lution. The re sult of the rupture which led to the for ma tion of the Gen eral Coun cil was BY NO MEANS A CLEAR CLEAV AGE between the confes sional and the non-confes sional el ements (§ 10, 3, c, close). Many men who re mained in the General Synod had com bat- ted the Def inite Platform with as much deter mina tion as those who left it. For them the diffi culty with the Penn syl vania Min is terium re solved it self chiefly into a question of polity. These men of a confes sional ten dency constantly increased in num bers and influ ence, and the RE LA TIONS between them and the men of the op po site party grew more and more STRAINED.130 The former, the so-called “CON SER VA TIVES,” com plained that many men on the other side wrongly inter preted the clause of the consti tu tion which reads, “the Augs burg Con fes sion is a correct exhi bi tion of the FUN DA MEN TAL DOC TRINES of the divine Word,” inter pret ing it as bind ing them only on those points of doctrine in which the Augus tana exhibits funda men tal truths of the Bible,

120 but not bind ing them on non-fun damen tal doctrines. The latter class of persons who, with an un mistak able lean ing toward the Def inite Platform, aimed at an Amer ican Lutheranism severed from its his tor ical past, accused the most influ ential men on the conser vatively Lutheran side of seeking to change the confes sional basis of the Gen eral Synod and to make, not the Augs burg Con fes sion alone, but all the other confes sions of the Book of Con cord, the doctri nal basis of the Gen eral Synod. The Gen eral Synod, therefore, at its conven tion at Hager stown, Md. (1895), passed the fol lowing reso lution as an inter preta tion of its con stitu tion:

“This con vention of the General Synod ex presses its entire sat isfac tion with the present form of doc trinal basi s and con fessional sub scrip tion, which is the Word of God, as the infal lible rule of faith and prac tice, and the Un altered Augs burg Con fession as through out in perfect consis tence with it — noth ing more, nothing less.”

Here for the first time the “UN AL TERED” Augs burg Con fes sion is men tioned, al though no other than this was meant at York in 1864. Then, too, this res o- lution expressly declares that the Augus tana is through out in per fect consis- tence with God’s Word. [e] But the fricti on between these two parties did not cease. Of this fact the minutes of the conven tion at DES MOINES, IA. (1901), bear wit ness. For there we read:

“We re-affirm our un reserved alle giance to the present basis of the General Synod, and we hold that to make any dis tinc tion between funda men tal and so-called non-funda men tal doctrines in the Augs burg Con fession is con trary to that basis as set forth in our formula of con fessional subscrip tion.”

These were the years when Dr. J. G. Butler of Washing ton, D. C, edited “The Lutheran Evan gelist.” He and men of a simi lar viewpoint persis tently declared that the Gen eral Synod had purposely demanded noth ing but fi- delity to the funda men tals of the Augus tana. The Con ser vatives ob jected to this, be cause it left ev ery one to decide for him self what is funda men tal, and so the General Synod passed the above men tioned res o lution. [f] But the res o lu tions of Hager stown and Des Moines were NOT RE ALLY CON STI TU TIONAL. They had not been submit ted to the District Syn ods for approval, but were un expect edly brought to the at ten tion of the Gen eral Synod and thus unani mously adopted. In or der to become consti tu tional cer tain

121 rec om men dations would have to be sent to the District Syn ods in advance, and only af ter two-thirds of these District Syn ods had consid ered them fa- vorably , could they be incor po rated in the con stitu tion. Meanwhile a CON VEN TION OF THE GEN ERAL COUN CIL was held at Buffalo, N. Y. (1907). Here, on mo tion of the Canada Synod and on the basis of certain the ses writ ten by Dr. H. E. Ja cobs, the question of exchange of del e- gates with the General Synod was un der dis cussion. Objec tions were raised on the ground that the Gen eral Synod was still stand ing on an am bigu ous confes sional basis. In ref er ence to this cer tain RES O LU TIONS WERE ADOPTED at the con vention of the Gen eral Synod at Rich mond, Ind. (1909). These res o- lutions had been care fully worked out by Dr. L. S. Keyser, with the as sis- tance of the faculty of Wit ten berg Sem inary . He had been the Gen eral Synod’s offi cial del egate at the Buffalo meet ing of the Gen eral Coun cil; hence his special inter est in the confes sional is sues. (Min utes of the Gen eral Synod for 1909, pp. 53-61.) The state ments re it er ated in a vig or ous way the decla ra tions at Hager stown and Des Moines, em phasiz ing the fact that the Gen eral Synod did rec og nize the Unal tered Augs burg Con fes sion, and that, as far as confes sional obliga tion was concerned, it made no dis tinction between points es sential and non-es sential in the sense of re ject ing anything of con fes sional substance. Surely this was some progress since 1866! At that time even the most con ser vative would have re fused to accept this posi- tion. The Rich mond conven tion went even fur ther. It expressed its appre ci a- tion also of the other Lutheran sym bols, char acter iz ing them as “a most valu able body of Lutheran belief, explain ing and un fold ing the doctrines of the Augsbur g Con fes sion.”131 These impor tant res o lutions were fol lowed by a mo tion by Dr. J. A. Clutz, of Gettys burg, that a COM MIT TEE BE AP POINTED for the pur pose of gather ing into concise form the var ious doctri nal state ments of the Gen eral Synod in the past and to make these part of the consti tu tion. Two years after wards, in the very church of which Dr. Butler had been past or for many years, Washing ton, D. C, the new doctri nal basis was defined and re ferred to the District Syn ods. In another two years, at the CON VEN TION AT ATCHI SON, KAN. (1913), the Secre tary of the Gen eral Synod re ported that all the Dis- trict Syn ods had declared in fa vor of this res o lution, thus mak ing it part of the con stitu tion. The re vised arti cles are as fol lows:

AR TI CLE II. DOC TRI NAL BA SIS.

122 “With the Evan geli cal Lutheran Church of the Fa thers, the General Synod receives and holds the Canon i cal Scrip tures of the Old and New^ Tes taments as the Word of God, and the only in fal lible rule of faith and prac tice; and it receives and holds the Un altered Augs- burg Con fession as a correct exhi bi tion of the faith and doc trine of our church as founded upon that Word.”

AR TI CLE III. THE SEC ONDARY SYM BOLS.

“While the General Synod regards the Augs burg Con fession as a suffi cient and alto gether ade quate doctri nal ba sis for the coop era t ion of Lutheran Synods, it also rec og nizes the Apol ogy of the Augs burg Con fession, the Smal kald Arti cles, the Small Cate chism of Luther, the Large Cate chism of Luther, and the Formula of Con cord as expo sitio ns of Lutheran doc trine of great his tor i cal and in ter preta tive value, and es pecially commen ds the Small Cat echism as a book of in struc tion.”

This was a splen did for ward move ment in re gard to doctri nal preci sion. The nam ing of the “Un al tered” Augsbur g Con fes sion meant an open protest against Melanchtho nian ism and the the ology of the Def inite Platform known as “Amer ican Lutheranism.”132 The omis sion of the old phrase “fun- damen tal.” which had wrought such havoc in the Gen eral Synod, cleared the con fes sional atmos phere.133 [2] ITS PRAC TICE. The admis sion of a cer tain amount of fel low ship with other denom ina tions has al ways been a prac tice in the Gen eral Synod. It had the exam ple of Muhlen berg (cf. § 4, 8). In the days when “Amer ican Lutheranism” had the dom inat ing influ ence it was car ried so far that it became a men ace to the char acter of the Lutheran Church in Amer ica (§ 9). But great changes have taken place in this di rec tion. The old PRAC TICE OF EX CHANG ING DEL E GATES at synod ical conven tions with prac ti cally all evangel ical deno mi na tions has gradu ally re duced it self to a merely occa sional exchange of greetings with the Presby te ri ans and the Re- formed.134 The Gen eral Synod re fused to exchange del egates with denom i- nations of a prose lyt ing char acter . Quite a num ber of years ago it was cus- tomary also to re ceive a del egat e from the United Brethren; but at the con- vention of the synod at Mansfield, Ohio (1897), the del egate from that body was so un for tun ate as to re fer to the fact that his church was sending mission ar ies to Ger many. This gave offense, and the Gen eral Synod passed a res o lution to dis continue the exchange of dele gates. Also as re gards pul pit and al tar fel low ship the Gen eral Synod has more and more com mit ted it self to an elim ina tion of abuses.

123 The prac tice with re spect to EX CHANGE OF PUL PITS is far from being uni- form. But the leading minis ters of the Gen eral Synod have been set tling down more and more upon the prin ci ple that the regu lar ser vices of the sanctu ary in the Lutheran Church are to be conducted by minis ters who have taken their confes sional vow in that church.135 Even the custom ary union meet ings on Na tional Thanksgiv ing days are less and less partic i- pated in by the minis ters of the Gen eral Synod for the simple reason that a ser vice in the Lutheran Church is al ways bet ter at tended. At the dedi ca tion of churches, at corner stone-lay ing, etc., there is fre quently an exchange of good wishes, but al ways in side-meet ings.136 Re garding AL TAR FEL LOW SHIP the Gen eral Synod used to extend an invi tation to all present to com mune, pro vided they were in good stand ing in their own churches. But this general in vita tion, which was an exceed ingly ob jec- tionable expres sion of indif fer entism as to the ob jec tive faith con cern ing the Lord’s Sup per, was elim inated from the Min is te rial Acts of the Gen eral Synod at the con vention at York in 1899.137 The Ger mans of the Gen eral Synod (Wart burg and Ger man Ne braska Syn ods) have by special res o lutions adopted a posi tion equal to the so-called Akron Res o lutions (see § 18). At this place, the author may be permit ted to insert the fol low ing from a tract (“Thoughts on Con fes sional Ques tions,” Ger man Liter ary Board, Burlington, Ia.) which he pub lished a few years ago (as a re print from the Lutheran Quar terly, Janu ary, 1909):

124 Here in the Lord’s Sup per where we have the culmi na tion of di vine service, the Lutheran Church has always been es pecially care ful that such only as can agree in the doc trine of the sacrament should commune to gether; and she would not admit such from other churches who con sciously reject the Lutheran con ception. When Luther and Melanchthon at Mar- burg were in con fer ence with Zwingli and his adher ents, the Swiss reform ers suggest ed the cele bra tion of the com munion before part ing. But Luther and Melanchthon both reg ret ted that they could not. Be cause of Luther’s remark: “You have another spirit than we,” it has of ten been thought that it must have been a stormy con fer ence. But it was not. In recent in- vesti ga tions (comp. Schu bert in the Zeitschrift fuer Kirchengeschichte, 1908, p. 354) it has been pointed out in what a peaceful mood es pecially Luther was. In all his let ters, for instance, to his wife, he is full of hope for a perfect union. Yet his con science forbids him the cele bra tion of the commu nion, because an agree ment has not yet been reached. The mild Melanchthon takes the same po sition, and won ders in his corre spon dence and can not explain it to his own sat isfac tion, why the Zwinglians wanted a cele bra tion of the comm u nion in spite of the fail ure to reach an agree ment on this very doc trine (Realen cyclopaedi e, 3rd ed., XII, 254. Corp. Ref. II, 1108). I quote this simply to show his tor i cally that this con viction, on which there has been so much discus sion, existed in our Church from the begin- ning. This was in 1529. And in 1536 there was another occa sion when Luther showed exactly the same atti tud e. Not before an agree ment had been reached with Bucer and the others from Strassbur g, in the Witten ber g Con cord, did Luther cele brate with them the Lord’s Supper . And turn ing some leaves of his tory, let me point to another man whom we will be in clined to regard as an author ity on this question, because we know that he was not narrow, but had a wide and warm heart for all chil dren of God. I mean Spener. These are his words; “Be cause the commu nion with a con grega tion in cludes that one approves of the doc trine of this same con grega tion, es pecia lly in the arti cle of such sacrament …therefore I can not see how we can take the commu nio n in those churches whose doc trine of the com- munion we ourselves believe and profess not to be correct, thus giving one tes timony with our mouth and another with our act …There fore is this doc trine the most mani fest parti- tion-wall between the two churches. How can we then have a commu nion (gemeines Mahl) to gether?” (Letzte theol o gis che Be denken, II, 43 seq.. Ill, 81. 83 seq.) Of course, it must be admit ted, that even regard ing the Lord’s Supper (do not overlook that .Spener speaks of Lutherans seeking the commu nion in other churches) cases must be con sid ered in di vidu- ally. There may be good Lutherans outside of the Lutheran Church who hap pen to be in other churches, but who are one with us in faith, and who, even if they can not give a clear defi ni tion of our doc trine, yet do not ob ject to the Real Pres ence and posi tively regard the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace. But the con sci entious min ister feels that there is some- thing wrong if some of the commu ni cants believe in the Real Pres ence of the glori fied God-Man and his body be given to the pen i tent and believ ing soul for the forgive n ess of sins, and others pos i tively reject such doc trine, holding that the el ements are nothing but re- mem brances of an absent Sav ior and sym bols of a grace received before, or that may be received some time in the fu ture. Such would be no real commu nion. And I am glad that the General Synod, in the adop tion of her “Min iste rial Acts” in 1899 at York, omitted that general in vi tation to all mem bers of other churches in good stand ing or to all who love the Lord Je sus, which marked our old formu las as expres sions of in differ entism on so impor - tant a doctrine.

[3] ITS POLITY. The Gen eral Synod, like all the synods of America, rests on THE EQUAL ITY OF AJL OR DAINED MIN IS TERS AND THE CO OP ER A TION OF PAS TORS AND LAY MEN in church-work. The del egates to the Gen eral Synod, which meets

125 bien ni ally , consi st of pastors and lay men in the propor tion of one pastor and one lay men for every ten pastors of the dis trict synods. The AU THOR ITY of the General Synod over its dis trict synods is largely of an advi s ory char acter . The exec u tive and juris dic tional power rests in the hands of the dis trict synods. The latter , however , must not pass any or dinances that are in conflict with the “Formula for the Govern ment and Disci- pline of the Evangel ical Lutheran Church.”138 Among the SPE CIAL PRE ROG A TIVES OF THE GEN ERAL SYNOD is that of provid ing the books and lit er ature to be used in the pub lic ser vices (agen das, hymn books, cat echisms). The mission ary and benevo lent op er ations of the synod are also un der the direct super vi sion of the general body. This is con- stitu tional. There may be some truth in the as ser tion that since the conv ention at Fort Wayne (1866) the rights of the District Syn ods, at least in prac tice, have been dimin ished and the rights of the Gen eral Synod increased. While accord ing to the letter of the law the delib er ations of the general body are merely ad visory , they are held in such es teem as to be equiv ale nt to a deci- sion. The Boards of Home and Foreign Mis sions, the Board of Ed u cation and the Board of Pub li cation, all appointed by the Gen eral Synod, have much influ ence.139 [4] THE LAN GUAGE SIT U A TION. Among all the Lutheran eccle si as ti cal bodies of this country , the Gen eral Synod is THE MOST AMER I CAN IZED, and therefore the most Eng lish. The first offi cial organ (English) of the Gen eral Synod was “Lutheran Church Work,” founded by the conven tion of the Gen eral Synod at Washing ton, D. C. (1911), and al ready (1916) num bering thir teen thou sand subscribers. The “Lutheran Observer” was controlled by a corpo ra tion and therefore not re spon si ble to the Gen eral Synod. On Oct. 23, 1915, however , the “Lutheran Observer” was merged with the Gen eral Synod’s offi cial organ, which now appears un der the name “Lutheran Church Work and Ob server.” About one-eighth of its pastors and congre ga tions (more correctly one- seventh) uses THE GER MAN LAN GUAGE. The Ger mans of the Gen eral Synod are found largely in the al most exclu sively Ger man dis tricts of the Wart burg Synod (42 pastors) and the Ger man Ne braska Synod (84 pastors). The Synod of New York has also a Ger man Con fer ence, and there are some Ger mans in al most all the dis tricts of the Gen eral Synod. Their offi cial

126 church paper is the “Lutherischer Zions bote,” with some four thou sand subscribers.

§ 12. The Work of the General Synod.

1. The o logi cal Sem inar ies and Colleges.

The old est of the the o log ical sem inar ies of the Gen eral Synod is HARTWICK SEM I NARY in New York State. Dr. J. G. Travers, Pres. — The largest sem i- nary of the Gen eral Synod is located at GET TYS BURG, PA. Founded in 1826 (§ 7, 5), it has sent forth more than one thou sand pastors. At the present time the insti tu tion has five well endowed profes sorships. It possesses a library which is extremely valu able for the his tory of the Lutheran Church in America. The value of its property aggre gates $160,000. For a long period of years, un til 1903, its pres ident was Dr. M. Valen tine; now it is Dr. J. A. Singmaster . The other profes sors are: Dr. M. Coover, Dr. L. Kuhlman. Dr. J. A. Clutz, Dr. H. C. Alle man. — The Hamma Di vin ity School at SPRING- FIELD, O., was founded in 1845, and stands in close connec tion with a largely at tended col lege (about one thou sand stu dents) founded at the same time and place. Dr. Charles G. Heck ert is pres ident. The Dean of the the o- log ical sem inary is Dr. D. H. Bauslin. The other profes sors of the sem inary are: Dr. V. G. A. Tressler, Dr. L. H. Larimer, Dr. J. L. Neve, Dr. L. S. Keyser. — Sus quehanna Uni ver sity at SEL INGS GROVE, PA., was founded in 1858 by Dr. B. Kurtz. It was intended at first as a sort of missio n ary insti tution, in which older men, who could not ob tain a clas si cal edu cation, might be given an op portu nity to prepare themselves for work in the king dom of God, es pecially in the for eign mis sion ary field. But since 1894, having received very consid er able endow ments and increased its fac ulty, it has es tab- lished it self as a full col lege, with a the o log ical sem inary in conn ection with it, and has as sumed the name given above. The head of this insti tute for many years was Dr. H. Ziegler. Now it is Dr. C. T. Aikens. The chief pro fes- sor in the ology is Dr. F. P. Manhart. — The “West ern The o log ical Sem i- nary” at ATCHI SON, KANS., was founded in 1893 and opened in the rooms of Mid land College , with Dr. F. D. Alt man as its first pres ident. It is now a depart ment of Midland College, Rev. Dr. R. B. Peery is Pres ident. The Dean is Dr. Holmes W. Dysinger. This insti tu tion became es pecially impor tant to the Ger mans by rea son of the fact that the Ger man the o log ica l sem inary ,

127 founded in Chicago by Dr. J. D. Sev er ing haus and conducted by him for thir teen years amid many diffi cul ties, was dis contin ued in 1898 and com- bined with this Eng lish insti tu tion as a Ger man depart ment un der the care of Prof. J. L. Neve (1892-1909). He was succeeded by Dr. J. F. Krueger. — The youngest sem inary in the Gen eral Synod is the Mar tin Luther (Os ter- loh) Sem inary of the Ger man Ne braska Synod, founded in 1913 by the Ger- man Ne braska Synod at LIN COLN, NEBR. Its pres ident is Dr. F. Wup per, who is as sisted by the profes sors E. Klotsche and Dr. H. Wellhausen. All sem i- naries of the Gen eral Synod re ceive stu dents from the sem inary at Breklum. Ger many, a school un der contro l of the Gen eral Synod and supported by its Board of Edu cation as well as by the dis trict synods. The Gen eral Synod has six Colleges: PENN SYL VA NIA COL LEGE at Gettys- burg, Pa. (Dr. W. A. Granville); WIT TEN BERG COL LEGE at Spring field, O. (Dr. C. G. Heck ert); SUS QUE HANNA UNI VER SITY at Selinsgrove. Pa. (Dr. C. T. Aikens), whose chief work is col le giate; HARTWICK, N. Y. (Dr. J. G. Travers), which in part gives edu cation in the clas sics; CARTHAGE COL LEGE at Carthage, Ill. (Dr. H. D. Hoover); and MID LAND COL LEGE at Atchi son, Kans. (Dr. R. B. Peery). In or der to as sist its younger and weaker edu cational insti tu tions, the Gen eral Synod has orga nized a BOARD OF ED U CA TION. From benevo lent contri bu tions raised on the so-called appor tion ment plan, this Board as sists in the payment of debts incurred by its insti tu tions or of defi cien cies of salary for the profes sors. — The PAR ENT ED U CA TION SO CI ETY has for its ob ject the giv ing of fi nancial aid to such stu dents for the ministry as are in need of help, by means of funds derived from benevo lent contri bu tions or inter est- bear ing invest ments. At present, however , the support of bene fi ciary students of the ology lies more in the hands of the indi vid ual synod s, which annu ally appoint a BEN E FI CIARY COM MIT TEE, au tho rizing it to re ceive contri bu- tions, and to appor tion cer tain sums among worthy students.

2. Mis sionary Enter prises.

[a] FOR EIGN MIS SIONS. Althou gh the Gen eral Synod at the time of its orga ni- zation at Hager stown al ready purposed to do mission ary work among the heathen, the plan was not put into prac ti cal op er ation till 1842, when Mis- sion ary C. G. HEYER was sent by the Min is terium of Penn syl vania to GUN- TUR, IN DIA, north of Madras. The Gen eral Synod supplied him with as sis-

128 tants, and as sumed the re sponsi bility for this work begun by the Penn syl vania Min is terium (comp. § 20, 3). In the year 1903 the Guntur Mis sion contained twenty Ameri can missio n ar ies, male and fe male (not count ing the wives of the mission ar ies), 506 native work ers, and 28,862 baptized members. WATTS MEMO RIAL COL LEGE in Madras (founded by means of a do nation of $10,000, to which the Eng lish gov ernment in In dia added $11,250) is an insti tu tion meant for the train ing of helpers, and fur nishes at the same time a Chris tian edu cation to other stu dents in In dia. A WOMAN’S MIS SION ARY HOS PI TAL exists un der the di rec tion of Dr. Anna Ku gler. In LIBERIA, on the west coast of Africa, the Gen eral Synod has another mission, known as MUH LEN BERG MIS SION. On acc ount of the deadly climate, however , the mission ar ies have all been able to re main there only a short time, and many of the mission ar ies and their wives have died there af ter a brief period. The name of DR. DAVID A. DAY will al ways re main closely as- soci ated with the his torv of this mission. He and his wife survived the climate longer than any oth ers; but at last, af ter la boring for twenty years, and burying his wife and three children, he was car ried oil by the African fever. His influ ence over the heathen was so great that for a hun dred miles around the tribes came to him to decid e their dis putes. Dr. Day was cer tainly the greatest foreign mission ary of the Lutheran Church of Amer ica. In 1913 the Gen eral Synod had re ceived during the preced ing bien nium the sum of $246,953.80 for for eign missions. [b] THE HOME MIS SION WORK of the Gen eral Synod falls into two divi- sions: “Home Mis sions” proper and “Church Ex ten sion.” By the HOME MIS- SION WORK the Gen eral Synod un derstand s the provid ing of a pastor for young and weak con grega tions, and the payment of his salary in whole or in part from the Home Mis sion trea sury. The CHURCH EX TEN SION so ciety has to do chiefly with the church prope rty of young and poor congre ga tions. From its trea sury a cer tain amount is do nated or loaned with out inter est to a needy congre ga tion for the erec tion of a church. For its Church Ex ten sion work the Gen eral Synod had in 1913 a fund of $804,573.00. These depart ments are in charge of a special Board appointed by the Gen eral Synod (Dr. H. L. Yarger, Supt.) The for mer has three and the latter two trav el ing mission ar ies in the field. For these two branches of home mission ary work the re ceipts for the bi ennium ending in 1913 were $294,860. [c] IN STI TU TIONS OF MERCY. While it is gener ally conceded that among all the Lutheran eccle si as ti cal bod ies of America the Gen eral Synod possesses

129 the best orga ni za tion for mission ary work, it must be admit ted that its insti- tutions of mercy cannot bear a com pari son with those of the other general bod ies. Yet it now possesses four Or phanages (at Loysville, Pa., Nachusa, Ill., Spring field, O., and Lin coln, Nebr.). The Gen eral Synod has a DEA- CONESS IN STI TU TION in Bal ti more, Aid. Its provi sion for the support of SU PER- AN NU ATED MIN IS TERS and widows of min is ters through the “Pas tors’ Fund So- ci ety” and the “Home for the Aged” in Washing ton, is a work of impor - tance.

§ 13. Ob ser vations on Statis tics.

The Gen eral Synod num bers 1,366 pastors, 1,831 congre ga tions and preach ing-points, and 329,690 com mu nicants, accord ing to the sta tistics for 1915. In connec tion with the num ber of com mu nicants, which, com pared with that of other general bod ies, is strik ingly small, it must be borne in mind that in the Gen eral Synod not only the head of the fam ily, but every com mu nicant member is expected to give a cer tain sum for synod ical and benevo lent purposes (appor tion ment system), and that conse quently there is a dis po si tion on the part of congre ga tions and pastors to re port the num ber of com mu nicant s as low as possi ble, in or der to make sure of raising the amount appor tioned to them. Ac cordingly the num ber of com mu nicants given above must be un derstood as mean ing contribut ing com mu nicants. On the other hand, in the Syn od ical Con fer ence, for exam ple, with its pro- portion ally greater num ber of mem bers re ported, all the contin ued members are counted, as they rightly should be. Another sta tisti cal phenom enon needs expla nation. It appears from the parochial re ports of the purely Eng lish dis tricts that the baptism s of adults are of ten as nu mer ous as the bap tisms of children. From this fact some have drawn the conclu sion that IN FANT BAP TISM is neglected in the Gen eral Synod. But here the differ ence between the work in Eng lish and in Ger man congre- gations is to be borne in mind. The ma jor ity of the other Lutheran bod ies have to do largely with immi grants, who have nearly all been baptized, and who, as a rule, have their children baptized, even if they themse lves are not members of the Church. Thus it happens that among the Ger mans of the Gen eral Synod there are scarcely any adult baptisms. But the Gen eral Synod is seven-eighths Eng lish, and in its mission ary work has to deal largely with such persons as have, in the course of their Ameri can iza tion,

130 cast aside the customs of their fathers, and have let their children grow up un baptized. In deed, it has to deal with such persons as have been un der the influ ence of denom ina tions which re ject or make light of infant baptism. If such per sons are to become mem bers of the Lutheran Church, they must be baptized as adults. Con se quently THE LARGER THE NUM BER OF ADULT BAP TISMS IN AN ENG LISH LUTHERAN SYNOD, THE STRONGER THIS FACT BEARS WIT NESS TO ITS MIS SION ARY AND EVAN GE LIZ ING SPIRIT. And if in some of the east ern synods the num ber of infant baptisms is actu ally very small, it is to be borne in mind, 1) that among the Eng lish large fam ilies are un for tunately (!) rare, and 2) that in the East ern States many of the young people, when grown, obey the advice, “Young man, go West.”

Bi o graph ical Notes.

PAS TOR J. G. MOR RIS, D. D., LL. D, born in York, Pa., 1803, died in 1895. He received his prepara tory edu cation at Prince ton, stud ied the ology un der S. S. Schmucker (before Schmucker was called to Gettys burg), af ter wards at Nazareth (Mora vian), Prince ton and Gettys burg. For thirty-three years he served the First Lutheran Church of Bal ti more, and for a few years preced- ing his death the church of Lutherville, Md. He was the founder of the “Lutheran Observer”, a prolific writer and re peat edly pres ident of the Gen- eral Synod, in whose devel op ment he took a prom inent part. His best known lit er ary products are “Fifty years in the Lutheran Min istry” and “Life Rem inis cences of an old Lutheran Min is ter”. In the latter vol ume we find a list of his many writ ings. PAS TOR F. W. CON RAD, D. D. (1816-1898), was born in Pine grove, Pa., stud ied the ology at Gettys burg and was or dained in 1840. He served the congre ga tions of Waynes boro, Pa., and Hager stown, Md. In 1855 he was profes sor of mod ern lan guages and Homilet ics at Wit ten berg College, Spring field, O. In 1855 he was called by the First Lutheran Church of Day- ton, O., in 1864 by Trin ity Church, Lan caster , Pa., and in 1864 by the con- grega tion of Cham bers burg. Pa. At that time he was a zeal ous re vivalist. In 1863 he became part owner of the Lutheran Observer and its edi tor in chief. He held this po si tion un til he died. He took part in all the greater movements of the Gen eral Synod (edu cational work, mission ary enter prises). He was a contrib u tor to the Evan gel ical Re view and the Lutheran Quar terly.

131 His cat echism had a large cir cu la tion. Notewor thy is also his “Lutheran Manual and Guide”. PROF. L. A. GOT WALD, D. D., son of Pas tor D. Gotwald, was born Janu ary 31, 1833, in York Springs, Pa. He at tended Wit ten berg Colleg e and af ter- wards the Penn syl vania College at Gettys burg, Pa., where he gradu ated in 1857. In the Gettys burg Sem inary he finished his theo log ical stud ies (1859). He served the fol low ing congre ga tions: Ship pensbur g, Pa. (1859-63), Lebanon. Pa. (1863-65), Day ton, O. (1865- 69), Cham bers burg, Pa. (1870- 74), St. Paul’s, York, Pa. (1874- 85), and the Second Lutheran Church. Spring field, O. (1885- 1888). Af ter wards he was called to the chair of Prac- ti cal The ology in Wit ten berg Sem inary . Here he was active un til he was dis- abled by a para lytic stroke in 1895. He lived five years longer. His trial before the direc tors of Wit ten berg College (1893), on the charge of having departed from the doctri nal basis of the Gen eral Synod, re sulted in his com- plete exon er ation, and greatly helped to es tab lish conser vative Lutheranism more firmly at Wit ten berg College and in the synods connected therewith. (A re sult of this expe ri ence was his book: “Trial of L. A. Got wald.”) Dr. Got wald was a fre quent contrib u tor to the “Lutheran Quar terly” and other church peri od icals, and pub lished two vol umes of ser mons (“Ser mons for Fes ti val Days” and “Joy in the Di vine Govern ment”, Ger man Liter ary Board, Burlington, la.). PROF. E. J. WOLF, D. D., LL. D., born in Cen ter Co.. Pa., stud ied at Get- tys burg (Col lege and Sem inary ), and contin ued his stud ies in Tuebin gen and Erlan gen. Af ter a pastorate in Bal ti more he was called to the chair of Church History and New Tes ta ment Ex ege sis at Gettys burg (1873). This was done at the sugges tion of Dr. Brown, who rec og nized his extra or dinary talents. He held this po si tion un til his death. Be ing an earnest stu dent of the doctri nal lit er atu re of the Lutheran Church, he helped to es tab lish sound doctri nal founda tions for the Gen eral Synod af ter the dis ruption at Fort Wayne. His trum pet sounded a clear note at all conven tions of the Gen eral Synod, and his lit er ary contri bu tions were marked by strong convic tions. He pub lished a his tory of the Lutheran Church in America, and translated three vol umes of Nebe’s “Sermo ns on the Peri copes” into a condensed Eng- lish edition. He died Jan u ary 10. 1905. PROF. M. VALEN TINE, D. D., LL. D., was born Janu ary 1, 1825, at Union- town, Md. He entered Penn syl vania College, Gettys burg (1844), whence he gradu ated with hon ors in 1850, deliv er ing on that occa sion the Greek ora-

132 tion. He served congre ga tions at Winches ter , Va., Pitts burg, Pa., and Read- ing, Pa., un til 1866. When only forty-one years old, he was called to the chair of Church History and New Tes ta ment Ex ege sis at Gettys burg. Soon af ter wards, at the death of Dr. H. L. Baugher, Sen., he was made pres ident of Penn sylva nia College, and held this po si tion for six teen years. Here he dis tinguished himself by his thor ough ness as a teacher in phi los o phy. He was an author of works of philos o phy, and was lucid in exp ress ing his thoughts. He pub lished three vol umes: “Theo ret ical Ethics,” “Natu ral The- ology” and “Chris tian Faith and Life”. His baccalau re ate addresses (published) are mas ter pieces of ma ture thought. Af ter the death of Dr. C. A. Stork (succes sor to to Dr. Brown) Dr. Valen tine became profes sor of Sys- tematic The ology in the sem inary (1884). He was a posi tive the olo gian, with a lean ing, however , to a Melanchtho nian type of Lutheranism, and conse quently re fusing to accept cer tain fea tures of the Formula of Con cord. He vigor ously protested against the doctri nal course of the Gen eral Coun cil. His conc eption of “What the Gen eral Synod has to stand for” was ably set forth in his cont ri bu tion to the lit tle vol ume on “Distinc tive Doctrines and Us ages”, etc. (first edi tion). His “Chris tian The ology”, pub lished in two vol umes: imme diately af ter his death, shows us a the olo gian highly endowed as a philosophic thinker, who has put upon a work of Dogmat ics the stamp of his own in divid u al ity. PROF. J. W. RICHARD, D. D., LL. D., was born Feb ru ary 14, 1843, near Winches ter , Va., re ceived his prepara tory ed u cation at Roanoke College, entered Penn syl vania College in 1865, and gradu ated from the the o log ical sem inary at Gettys burg in 1871. He became profes sor at Carthage College (Carthage, Ill.) in 1873 and secre tary of the Board of Church Ex ten sion in 1883. In 1885 he was called as profes sor of the ology to Wit ten berg Sem i- nary. In 1889 he accepted a chair at Gettys burg, where he died March 7, 1909. He was es pecially inter ested in his tor ical re searches and centered his at ten tion upon the confes sional questions of the Lutheran Church. He wrote a biog ra phy of Melanchthon. From 1898 to 1909 (the year of his death) he was edi tor of the “Lutheran Quar terly”, to which he made many contri bu- tions. In its is sue of Oct., 1909, was given a list of his writ ings. He leaned toward Melanchtho nian ism and in op po si tion to the ten dencies of the Gen- eral Coun cil, he aimed to crys tal lize into a perma nent platform the un set tled confes sional con dition of the Gen eral Synod between 1864 (York, Pa.) and 1908 (Rich mond Res o lutions). See in this connec tion his “Con fes sional

133 History of the General Synod” (Luth. Quar terly, Oct. 1895), “Melanchthon and the Augsb. Conf.” (Ar ti cles in Lutheran Quar terly, Oct. 1899, also Jan- u ary, July and Oc tober 1900). His ar ti cles concern ing the Augs burg Con fession, together with other doctri nal contri bu tions, are found in his most notewor thy book on “The Con fes sional His tory of the Lutheran Church” (1909). PROF. J. D. SEV ER ING HAUS, D. D., born July 22, 1834, near Sev er ing- hausen, Han nover (Ger many), emi grated when six teen years old and came to Cincinnati, O. He entered the College of Spring field, O., and gradu ated from the the o log ical sem inary in 1861. His first charge was at St. Paris, O. He af ter wards served congre ga tions at Ur bana, O., Wakefield , O., Rich- mond, Ind., and Os wego, N. Y. In 1873 he went to Chicago where he was engaged in exten sive labors for the Church for a quarter of a century . In 1869, im me diately preced ing his transfer from Rich mond to Os wego, he founded the “Lutherischer Kirchen fre und”. This was shortly af ter the rupture at Fort Wayne, when the Ger man el ements of the Gen eral Synod were also in a state of confu sion. Around the “Kirchen fre und” he gath ered the Ger mans of the Gen eral Synod. Through his Ger man work he became known far and wide. He also ent ered into nego ti ations with Pastor Jensen of Breklum (1878) and made ar range ments whereby the stu dents of Breklum entered the field of the Wart burg and Ger man Ne braska Syn ods, just as he had for merly ar ranged with In spector Rap pard of the St. Chrischona-In stitute near Basel to send gradu ates of that school into the West ern fields of the Gen eral Synod. In 1883 he founded a sem inary in Chicago which he conducted un der great diffi cul ties for thir teen years. All of this covers a period of impor tan t his tory (recorded in the “Lutherischer Kirchen fre und”, at one time named “Lutherischer Haus fre und”) which we can barely men tion here. The Ger man work of Dr. Sev er ing haus was much crit icized out side of the Gen eral Synod and within. Fi nally the Wart burg Synod, together with the Ger man Ne braska Synod (founded in 1891), took hold of the situ ation, edited the “Lutherischer Zions bote” (which eventu ally ab sorbed the “Lutherischer Kirchen fre und”), es tab lished the Ger man Liter ary Board in Burlington, Iowa, and caused the Gen eral Synod to transfer the Chicago sem inary to Atchi son, Kans. Dr. Sev er ing haus did much valu able work for the Ger mans of the Gen eral Synod. Two of his books deserve men tioning: “Denkschrift der Gen eral-Synode,” 1875; and “Das Formel buch fuer die Deutschen der Gen eral- Syn ode”, 1870, 81, 94. In Chicago he was pastor of Trin ity Church (now connected with the Iowa Synod) and af ter wards of

134 St. Mark’s. But his real work was out side of the pastorate. He died Oct. 14, 1905, at the age of 71. PROF. S. A. ORT, D. D., LL. D., born in Lewistown, Pa., in 1843, was ed- u cated at Wit ten berg College, from which he gradu ated with high est hon- ors. He fin ished his the o log ical stud ies at Wit ten berg Sem inary in 1863. Al- most his entire work (until 1911) was done in Wit ten berg College, where he was first teacher of Math emat ic s in the College and af ter wards profes sor of Phi los o phy and Sys tematic The ology in the sem inary . From 1882 to 1900 he was pres iden t of this school. He was a man of fine men tality , keen per- ception and an or ator of note. To his stu dents he was an inspir ing teacher. He took part in the work of the larger Church. But he did not write much. How ever, some idea of the kind of the ology for which he stood, which was conser vatively Lutheran, may be gath ered from a vol ume pub lished af ter his death: “Selected Sermons and Addresses” (Ger man Liter ary Board, Burlington, la.) PAS TOR M. W. HAMMA, D. D., LL. D., born in Richland County, O., 1836, gradu ated from Wit ten berg College, 1861, and from the sem inary in 1862. He served the congre ga tions of Eu phemia, O., Bucyrus, O., Read ing. Pa., Spring field, O., and Al toona, Pa. He was an em inent preacher. Be ing a man of means he do nated $200,000 to Hamma Di vin ity School, thus becom ing its greatest benefac tor. Through his many trav els he acquired a many-sided edu cation. While living at Bal ti more, he was for several years pres ident of the Board of Home Missions. He died in Spring field, O., in 1913. PROF. D. H. BAUSLIN, D. D., born in Winches ter , Va., Janu ary 21, 1854, stud ied in Wit ten berg College and Sem inary and entered the ministry in 1878. He served the congre ga tions of Tippeca noe City, O. (1878-81); Bucyrus, O. (1881-9), Spring field, O. (1889-93 and Can ton, O. (1893-95). He became profes sor of Practi cal The ology and Church History at Wit ten- berg Sem inary , succeed ing Dr. L. A. Got wald. In 1901 he became edi tor of “The Lutheran World”, and contin ued in this work un til 1912 when this conser vative organ of the Gen eral Synod was merged into “Lutheran Church Work” (offi cial organ of the Gen eral Synod). Dr. Bauslin ranks first among the lead ing minis ters of the Gen eral Synod. He has writ ten valu able ar ti cles, mostly pub lished in the “Lutheran Quar terly”. Very pop u lar is his lit tle vol ume: “Is the Ministry an at tractive Vo cation?” REV. GEO. U. WEN NER, D. D., born at Beth le hem, Pa.. May 17th, 1844, stud ied at Yale, Gettys burg and gradu ated from Union Theol. Sem inary

135 1868. From that time on he has been pastor of Christ Church in New York. Since 1883 he served as chairman of the liturgi cal com mit tee of the Gen eral Synod, and has done valu able work in the cre ation of the “Common Ser- vice” and the “Min is te rial Acts”. He has been a fre quent contrib u tor to the church papers (es pecially Lutheran Quar terly) on liturgi cal subjects. He wrote a book, “Re li gious Ed u cation and the Pub lic School” (1907), in which he proposed that Wednesdays should be given free for re li gious in- struction. PROF. JOHN A. SINGMAS TER, D. D., who at the time of this writ ing is pres i- dent of the Gen eral Synod, was born in Macungie, Lehigh Co.. Pa., Aug. 31, 1852, and gradu ated from College (1873) and Sem ina ry (1876) at Gettys burg. He served congre ga tions at Schuylkill Haven, Pa. (1876-82), Macungie, Pa. (1882-6), Brook lyn, N. Y. (1887-90), AUen town, Pa. (1890- 1900). Since 1900 he has been Pro fes sor of Sys tematic The ology and since 1906 (af ter the re tire ment of Dr. Valen tine) Presi dent of the Gen eral Synod’s the o log ical sem inary at Gettys burg. He is edi tor in chief of the “Lutheran Quar terly;” also author of the ar ti cle on the Gen eral Synod in the fourth edition of “Distinc tive Doc trines and Us ages of the Gen eral Bod ies of the Ev. Luth. Church in the United States” (cf. Liter ature, p. 4).

1. See Doc u men tary History of the Penn syl vania Synod, pp. 541-44; also Lutheran Church Re view, XI, 46.↩ 2. This synod had at that time sev enty-four minis ters and two hun dred and seventy-eight con grega tions. ↩ 3. See Evan gel ical Re view, V, 240 sq. P. Anstadt, Life and Times of Schmucker, 118 sq.↩ 4. This was true. On account of the many ten dencies then preva lent in the New York Min is terium and in the Penn syl vania Synod, it was diffi cult to ar rive at a com mon confes sional basis. The problem was to be solved later by rec om men dations for a confes sion which was to be in- corpo rated in a consti tu tion for the dis trict synods. This took place in 1829. (See § 11, 1, a.)↩ 5. Anstadt, Life and Times, etc., p. 154.↩ 6. Dr. Ja cobs, ut supra, 358; Anstadt, as quoted, 153; Pe ter and Schmidt, Geschichte der Syn ode von Ohio, pp. 23-27.↩

136 7. It joined nine years af ter wards, 1837.↩ 8. Dr. A. Spaeth, C. P. Krauth. I, 325; Anstadt ut supra, 149; Dr. Ja cobs, History , etc., p. 360.↩ 9. An at tempt made in 1839 to cause the re union of the Penn sylva nia Synod with the Gen eral Synod failed on account of the op po si tion of cer tain congre ga tions (Reading among them). Ja cob Miller, History of Trin ity Church, Reading, Pa.↩ 10. Anstadt, pp. 124, 132 sq.↩ 11. It se ceded at the time of the rupture in the Gen eral Synod which caused the ori gin of the Gen eral Coun cil (1867). It passed from the Coun cil into the Missouri Synod where it lost its identity (§ 22, 7, d).↩ 12. United with the Gen eral Coun cil in 1868,but af ter wards became the Texas district of the Iowa Synod.↩ 13. No longer in exis tence. See § 10, 3, a.↩ 14. The Franckean Synod, which, like the Hartwick Synod, op posed the New York Min is terium, merged into the New York Synod (Gen eral Synod) in 1908. Comp. § 10, 3. b.↩ 15. Evan gel ical Re view, VII, 413.↩ 16. See Spaeth, C. P. Krauth, I, 11. About the Gettys burg Sem inary in general see § 12, 1.↩ 17. Reprinted from min utes of synod, Fred er ick, Md., 1825.↩ 18. See bio graphi cal note at the end of §9; also note on Evan gel ical Re- view, § 9, 2; 2nd an no ta tion.↩ 19. Ev. Re view. V. 261.↩ 20. Ev. Re view, V, 271.↩ 21. Ev. Re view, V, 244.↩ 22. See bi o graphi cal note at the end of § 9.↩ 23. History of the Joint Synod of Ohio (Ger man) by Pe ter and Schmidt, p. 77. Compare §28, 2, a. What brought the Joint Synod of Ohio back into the right track and cured it of union ism was the strug gle against the re vival move ment, which again and again threat ened the exis tence of that body.↩ 24. See the trans actions of 1822.↩ 25. Spaeth, C. P. Krauth, I, 325.↩ 26. See transac tions of 1819. Dr. Theodore E. Schmauk, a stu dent of Lutheranism in Penn syl vania, writes us: “The lead ing tempta tion to

137 union in the Min is terium were ex ter nal and not inter nal, viz., the question of lan guage and the mak ing of com mon cause with the Re formed Church in the preser vation of congre ga tional schools, as over against the en croach ments of the pub lic school system.” As to the confes sional side of judg ing the atti tude of the Min is terium cf. § 10, 3, 1.↩ 27. History , p. 362.↩ 28. Ev. Re view, V, 255.↩ 29. Ev. Re view, VII, 418.↩ 30. History , p. 362.↩ 31. See the letters of S. S. Schmucker to his fa ther in Anstadt, Life and Times of S. S. Schmucker. p. 69.↩ 32. Spaeth, C. P. Krauth. I, 320.↩ 33. Prof. Fred er ick Schmidt of Lafayette College, Easton, Pa., was edi tor . He kept the pape r in exis tence un til 1846. See F. G. Cotwald, ut supra, p. 193.↩ 34. Spaeth, ut supra, I, 328. How ever, we should not go too far in charg ing the Min is terium of Penn syl vania with Socinian ism. The synod es pecially affected was the New York Min is terium. And since the denom i- nations round about the Penn syl vania Synod were hon eycombed with Ra tional ism and much of the liter ature from the Fa ther land bore the same stamp, it was no wonder that Lutheranism in the Min is terium was also dragged down. Neither were the lati tu di nar ian senti ments al- together absent in the dis tricts of the Gen eral Synod, but the general body as such in its influ ential men was on its guard against this danger.↩ 35. History , p. 362.↩ 36. See what we said § 7, 5 about the first begin nings of the church press; note also Dr. Jacob’ s com ment (His tory, p. 340 sq.) on the first editions of hym nals and prayer books.↩ 37. See § 4, 8. There is in Muhlen berg’s his tory no evi dence of al tar fellow ship with other denom ina tions. His the o log ical po si tion would not have permit ted this. As to his prac tice, com pare G. Fritschel in an ar ticle in Brobst’s Monatschefte, Nov. and Dec, 1868.↩ 38. Dr. J. G. Mor ris, “Fifty Years in the Lutheran Ministry .”↩ 39. Galesbur g Rule, § 18.↩

138 40. Our descrip tion is largely borrow ed from Dr. D. H. Bauslin’s excel lent ar ti cle (Lutheran Quar terly, July, 1910, “The Gen esis of the New Mea- sure Move ment.”↩ 41. Most of these re vival ser vices dis play the driv ing method. Where they merely offered the Gospel, the Lord no doubt has blessed them with His Spirit.↩ 42. So his biog ra pher, Dr. G. H. Ger berding, says in “Life and Letters of W. A. Pas sa vant,” p. 99.↩ 43. Dr. Bauslin, ut supra, p. 371.↩ 44. “Ger man immi g ra tion was greatly stim u lated by the exo dus from Ger- many of the Rev o lution ists of 1848. They had left Ger many for po lit i- cal reasons, and now of ten com bined with their po lit ical radi cal ism a revo lution ary at ti tude to matters of re li gion, because in the Fa ther land they had ob served that the al tars supported the thrones. The Ger man press, which in many of the larger cities came un der the influ ence of those highly edu cated forty-eighters, also car ried on a cam paign against living Chris tianity , in which they could see noth ing but cant and hypocrisy, while Ger man soci eties, such as”Turner" and “Gesangvereine” were gen er ally anti-reli gious.↩ 45. Min utes of Con vention of Gen eral Synod, Bal ti more, Md., 1833. See Ev. Re view, p. 256.↩ 46. Re view, V, 266, 270. Min utes of Con ventions of 1842, and 1845 at Bal ti more and Phila del phia, etc.↩ 47. See bi o graphi cal notes, § 9.↩ 48. Compare our remarks, § 9, 1.↩ 49. Spaeth. C. P. K. I. 363.↩ 50. See his book, “Fifty Years in the Lutheran Ministry .”↩ 51. Va. J. T. Grosse, “Un ter schei dungslehren,” St. Louis, 1909, p. 66. To quote this case, which has merely his tor ical value, as an expres sion of the Gen eral Synod is abso lutely un fair. It is merely the action of a com mit tee, and the contents of that letter mean less than, for in stance, the res o lutions passed at one time by the Joint Synod of Ohio and Penn syl vania Synod re garding a union with the Re formed. Since these ten dencies have changed, they admit of no polemi cal use. They are merely matters of record, of in ter est for the his torian. ↩ 52. History , p. 419.↩

139 53. We have es pecially in mind Dr. Nevin’s book on “The Anxious Bench,” 1843. Says Dr. Ja cobs: “The debt of grat itude which was due him for this and other efforts found a for mal expres sion when Dr. C. P. Krauth, Jr., intro duced him to the Min is terium of Penn syl vania in session at Lan caster , Pa., 1874.”↩ 54. Ja cobs’ His tory, p. 417.↩ 55. The strong organ of the Lib er als was the Lutheran Observer . The “Sym bol ists” spoke through the col umns of the Ev. Re view, edited for a long time by Dr. Charles Phillip Krauth, pro fes sor at Gettys burg; also through the Lutheran and Mis sion ary, edited by his son, Charles Porterfield Krauth.↩ 56. Kirchen fre und, VIII, p. 386 sq. Trans la tion af ter Dr. Spaeth in C. P. K., I, 354 sq.↩ 57. Spaeth, C. P. K., I, 179.↩ 58. There being no Lutheran sem inary , Dr. Schmucker re ceived his the o- log ical train ing at Princeton. ↩ 59. See J. L. Neve, “Lutheranism in America and the Problem of its Ac- com mo dation to the Anglo-Saxo n Spirit,” in the second num ber of the Ameri can Lutheran Survey , Nov. 2, 1914.↩ 60. In the “Deutscher Kirchen fre und,” also in Spaeth’s “W. J. Mann, Erin- nerungs blaet ter,” 157.↩ 61. Spaeth, I, Ill.↩ 62. Ev. Re view, V. 269.↩ 63. Luth. Ob server, Nov. 27, 1846.↩ 64. Luth. Ob server, ut supra.↩ 65. See his arti cle in Ev. Re view II, 510.↩ 66. Quoted by Dr. Spaeth in his Charles Port. Krauth, I, 347. A large part of the cor re spondence between Drs. Schmucker and Sprecher has gone into the posses sion of the Krauth Memo rial Li brary at Mt. Airy Sem i- nary. Among these letters is also the one quoted.↩ 67. Luth. Ob server, May 4, 1866. Lutheran and Mis sion ary, May 10, 1886. Anstadt, “Life and Times of Schmucker,” 315 sq. Spaeth ut supra, I. 357.↩ 68. See H. J. Schmidt’s letter to C. P. Krauth, Sen., pub lished by Spaeth, C. P. K., I, 363.↩

140 69. A like ser vice was rendered later to those who could read Ger man by the The olo gis che Monatshefte, edited by Rev. S. K. Brobst, Al len town, Pa.↩ 70. "Ja cobs’ His tory, p. 441.↩ 71. Anstadt, Life and Times of Schmucker, p. 61 sq.↩ 72. Spaeth, C. P. K., I, 179.↩ 73. On the other hand, it was putting: a premium on indif fer entism, which car ries with it self the danger of devel op ing into a nega tive libe r al ism, thus invit ing disas trous devel op ments for the fu ture.↩ 74. True it is that the Con cordia Luther ans were engaged in vio lent contro- versies, but it must be admit ted that they have set tled their differ ences with the excep tion of a few points. These doctri nal contro versies should not have been taken as a jus ti fi cation of the Gen eral Synod for keeping its doctri nal basis general and indef i nite. It is in the very nature of Lutheranism to strive to wards an expres sion of the prin ci ples em bod ied in its confes sion. This is the case es pecially in America where these prin ci ples become the flag which minis ters and con grega- tions must fol low out of their own free choice. In a Lutheran body with a broad and inde f inite doctri nal basis, one party to which the fu ture belongs because of its adher ing to the his tor ically genuine thing will op- pose it self to another more union is tic party. So the Synod has strife in its own camp. Ver ily, the al together too broad doctri nal basis has been the dy namite box un der the structure of the Gen eral Synod up to re cent times. It will be found that the Rich mond Res o lutions, together with the new doctri nal basis (comp. § n, 1 f), in which the “unal tered” Augs burg Con fes sion and the old lim ita tions of the obliga tion to the “funda men tal doctrines” was re moved, has inau gu rated a more peaceful pe riod in the his tory of the General Synod.↩ 75. See “The Augus tana Synod, a brief Re view of its History ,” 1860- 1910, Rock Island, Ill., Au gustana Book Concern, p. 31.↩ 76. R. G. Linker’s contri bu tion to “The Lutheran Observer ,” Feb. 14. 1913.↩ 77. Lutheran Observer , Dec. 11, 1857.↩ 78. Es b joern, Has selquist, see § 10, 1.↩ 79. Reprinted in Jacobs’ His tory, p. 457.↩ 80. An inter est ing case in court was the argu ment concern ing property rights between the Hartwick and Franckean synods. The Rev. Philip

141 Wiet ing left the Hartwick Synod to unite with the Franckean Synod. He wished to take his congre ga tions (St. Pe ter’s, Rhinebeck, and St. John’s. Sharon, both in Schoharie Co.) into the more liberal orga ni- zation. But while the ma jor ity of the members were with him, a minor - ity op posed the move. The case was com plicated because the bequest of one hun dred acres made by Pastor Som mer to these congre ga tions stipu lated that they should adhere to the Augs burg Con fes sion. This raised the dis cussion into the sphere of the ology . Since the Franckean Synod had not accepted the Augs burg Con fes sion, Vice Chan cel lor L. H. Sandford ruled in fa vor of the minor ity which re tained land, church and par sonage. (J. Nicum, New York Min is terium, p. 149.)↩ 81. Ja cobs’ His tory, p. 421; Fritschel, II., 83.↩ 82. There was, however , this differ ence that, while the Pitts burg Synod reserved to it self the right to se cede, the Penn syl vania Min is terium conferred it in the form of a duty upon its del egates. Sec (Lutheran Ob- server, June 15, 1866) Buehler’s address. ↩ 83. Ja cobs, p. 422; Fritschel, II, 84.↩ 84. §9, 2.↩ 85. This para graph was an encour ag ing improve ment even on the or dina- tion vow prescri bed by the cons ti tution for the dis trict synods (§ 11, 1, a), which now accepted this para graph of the Gen eral Synod’s Con sti- tution. Later, af ter the conven tions at Rich mond, 1909, and Washing- ton, 1911, the phrase ology was changed into the form now adopted (at Atchi son, 1913).↩ 86. Not un til August did Dr. Brown become profes sor of system atic the ology at Gettys burg. We have aimed to be accu rate concern ing above dates, be cause it is of ten said that if Dr. Krauth instead of Dr. Brown had become profes sor at Gettys burg, the break with the Penn syl vania Synod might have been prevented. But Dr. Krauth was elected to the profes sorship in the Phila del phia Sem inary at a special meet ing of the Min is terium at Al len town, July 26, 1864, while the direc tors of the Gettys burg Sem inary did not meet un til August for the purpose of se- lect ing a succes sor to Dr. Schmucker. So then Dr. Krauth was no longer avail able for Gettys burg. See Spaeth, 11, 139 f; Dr. Anstadt. 336 tf.↩ 87. Spaeth, II. 154.↩

142 88. To gain a clear impres sion of Dr. Krauth’s activ ity in this re spect, see Spaeth. C. P. K.. H, 28; also pp. 77 to 126.↩ 89. Lutheran Observer , June 30, 1865.↩ 90. 1884, Dec. 27.↩ 91. Eng lish trans la tion in Lutheran Observer , July 21, 1865.↩ 92. The East Penn sylva nia Synod and the Penn syl vania Synod were storm centers at this time. Dr. Seiss had been a member of the East Penn syl- vania Synod, but had sought ad mission into the Penn syl vania Synod against the protest of the pres ident and with out a letter dimis sory from the East Penn syl vania Synod, which at its next meet ing declar ed this action “ir regu lar, vio lent, and in plain dis re gard of proper inter syn od i- cal or der and comity” (Lutheran Observer , Oct. 13, 1865). We can imagine how it impressed the East Penn syl vania Synod that Dr. Seiss appeared as the chairman of the del ega tion of the Penn syl vania Synod. Since we have men tioned this inci dent the fol low ing may be added: The chief point on which the East Penn syl vania Synod had based its re fusal to dis miss Dr. Seiss was that the congre ga tion un der his care was yet connect ed with that synod. The Min is terium of Penn syl vania, in session at Easton, Pa., June 11-16, 1865, defended it self by declaring that there was no “law upon this subject, ei ther in the Con stitu tion of the Synod of East Penn syl vania or in the Con stitu tion of the congre- gation of which Dr. Seiss is pastor” (Engl. Min utes of the Min ist. of Pa., Easton, Pa., 1865, p. 17).↩ 93. While the Pitts burg Synod and the New York Min is terium had also reserved cer tain rights when join ing the Gen eral Synod, these rights were not claimed for their del eg ations inde pen dent of the Synod’s in- struction. ↩ 94. C. P. K., II. 132.↩ 95. Lutheran Observer , May 11, 1866.↩ 96. It must be kept in mind that even as late as 1864 Dr. Chas. Porterfield Krauth defended the po si tion of the Gen eral Synod re garding funda- men tals and non-fun damen tals in the Augs burg Con fes sion, and also that the confes sional obliga tion had ref er ence only to funda men tals. See Lutheran and Mis sion ary, March 31 and April 21, 1864. For an exten sive dis cussio n of Dr. Krauth’s po si tion, see J. L. Neve’s Address of In augu ra tion, 1911: “The Formu la tion of the Gen eral Synod’s Con fessional Ba sis,” p. 19. Not before the sum mer of 1865 did Dr. Krauth

143 change his views rel ative to what is obliga tory in the Augs burg Con- fes sion. See Lutheran and Mis sion ary, July 13, 1865; also Spaeth, II, 115.↩ 97. Quoted from a German pam phlet published by the Pennsyl vania Synod enti tled in transla tion, “The Synod of Penn syl vania and the last Con- vention of the General Synod at Fort Wayne, In diana, 1866.” Phil adel- phia. 1866.↩ 98. Spaeth, II, 160.↩ 99. See “The Synod of Penn syl va nia,” etc., p. 6; Min utes of Gen eral Synod, Fort Wayne, 1866, p. 4. Also Dr. S. E. Ochsen ford, Doc u men- tary History , p. 81.↩ 100. Like that concern ing the ad mission of the Franckean Synod.↩ 101. See Synod of Pennsyl vania Synod, p. 31.↩ 102. In a for mal re ply of which we shall speak later.↩ 103. Synod of Pennsyl vania, p. 14.↩ 104. Synod of Pennsyl vania, p. 16.↩ 105. Dur ing the meet ing at Lan caster , Pa., when re ceiv ing the re port of its del ega tion. ↩ 106. Synod of Pennsyl vania, p. 36.↩ 107. Spaeth, II, 155. Other synods re ceived at the same time were Pitts burg, Texas and North ern Illi nois.↩ 108. I. 352.↩ 109. See min utes of conven tion at Fort Wayne; also minutes of Synod of Penn syl vania. ↩ 110. At the con vention at Easton, Pa., 1865.↩ 111. This re port contains 11 pages and cannot be reprinted here. We have given ex tracts from it.↩ 112. This “re ply” is not found in the proto col of the conven tion but in the proto col of 119th annual conv ention of the Penn syl vania Synod at Lan caster , Pa. (1866). Reprinted also in Ochsen ford’s Doc u men tary History of the General Coun cil, p. 117.↩ 113. History , p. 464.↩ 114. The Penn syl vania Synod, p. 23. See also minutes of Gen eral Synod.↩ 115. The protest is to be found in the pam phlet, “The Penn syl vania Synod,” p. 29; also in the minutes of the Fort Wayne Con vention, and in Dr. Ochsen ford, “Docu men tary History ,” p. 84 ff. ↩

144 116. This was also admit ted by Dr. Brown in the address we have mentioned.↩ 117. In the Al len town Church Case the view of the judge is given with refer ence to a pam phlet of which we have made fre quent use, en ti tled “The Penn syl vania Synod and the last Con vention of the Gen eral Synod at Fort Wayne,” which appeared as an appen dix to the minutes of the Penn syl vania Synod of 1866 and from which we have quoted much: “This book com ing from the Min is terium, would be expected to show the doctri nal char acter of the with drawal from the Gen eral Synod; but it shows just the contrary . It shows that the dis pute was a mixture of parlia men tary law and dig nity… From that point, when the del egates from the Min is terium were not rec og nized at Fort Wayne, on through all this contro versy, not one word of doctrine appears. It is parlia men tary law, the Presi dent ’s rul ing of the Gen eral Synod in sus- taining, from begin ning to end… On pp. 18 and 19 is ‘a clear and suc- cinct state ment’ of their griev ances. This state ment com prises nine heads, and there is not in them a line of com plaint on matters of doctrine.” (See Quar terly Re view, 1878, p. 15 sq.). Also the Mis souri Synod at that time deplored that when the Penn syl vania Synod se- ceded, it did not make doctri nal differ ence the cause of the rup ture. (See Denkschrift, pub lished by the conven tion held at Fort Wayne, 1871, Nov. 14 to 16, repre sent ing members of the synods of Ohio, Mis souri, Wis consin, Illinois, Min nesota and also of the Nor we gian Lutheran Synod, p. 19). Dr. Spaeth in his biog ra phy of Dr. Krauth put too much stress on the doctri nal side of the question, while Ja cobs’ History presents a view more moder ate.↩ 118. See Jacobs’ His tory, p. 468, sq.; Geo. J. Fritschel, 2, 109 sq.↩ 119. At that time bread and wine were called “outward sym bols of His body and blood,” “memo ri als of our Saviour’s suffer ing and death.” Most ob jec tionable phrases were mingled with those of sound Lutheran char acter .↩ 120. Those who believe that the differ ence between the Gen eral Synod and the Penn syl vania Synod at the con vention at Fort Wayne, consisted in the fact that the for mer rec og nized only the Augs burg Con fes sion, while the latter accepted all the Sym bol ical Books, are much mistaken. The idea of mak ing the accep t ation of the whole Book of Con cord obliga tory for the Synod as such (with the The o log ical Sem inary it is a

145 differ ent thing) did not become a matter of se ri ous consid er ation un til af ter the sepa ra tion from the Gen eral Synod had taken place and a new orga ni za tion was thought of with Mis souri and Ohio and other bod ies as possi ble partic i pants. Just a few weeks before the conven tion at York Dr. Krauth stated in the Lutheran and Mis sion ary: “The Augs- burg Con fes sion is the sym bol of Lutheran catholicity , all other parts of the Book of Con cord are sym bols of Lutheran partic u lar ity, confes- sions of the Lutheran faith, but not in the indis putable sense of the Lutheran church as such.” (Lutheran and Mis sion ary, March 24, 1864.) He also defended the phrase “sub stan tially correct” which formed the old doctri nal basis of the Gen eral Synod, but which was to be re jected by that body a few weeks later (Lutheran and Mis sion ary, March 31, 1864). His fa ther. Dr. C. Philip Krauth, had protested as early as 1850 against the old doctri nal obliga tion: “We ob ject to the liberty allowed in that subscrip tion… it is li able to great abuse… it is evi dent that a creed thus presented is no creed, that it is anything or noth ing, that its subscrip tion is a solemn farce.” (Ev. Re view, H.) But in the Lutheran and Mis sion ary (April 7, 1864) the son takes the po si tion: “Let the old for mula stand and be defined.” It is cer tain that if doctri nal mat ters would have been dis cussed at Fort Wayne, the del ega tion of the Penn- syl vania Synod would have demanded noth ing but fi delity to the Au- gustana. ↩ 121. Spaeth, II, 113.↩ 122. Lutheran Observ er, May 4, 1866. A close inves ti gation of condi tions at that time will re veal many un-Lutheran influ ences in the General Synod. Dr. H. A. Ott, in his “History of the Kan sas Synod,” writes concern ing the time when the found ing of this synod was taken un der consid er ation: ’The Def inite Syn od ical Platform had been before the Church for ten years and had pretty thor oughly leav ened the West with its doctr ines." If it had not been for the protest of the vener able Rev. D. Earhardt, the Kan sas Synod, even af ter the conven tion at Fort Wayne, would have accepted the Def inite Platform as its doctri nal basis. The fol low ing res o lution was passed: “Re solved, That we orga nize ourselves into a synod on the basis of the Def inite Syn od ical Platform, provided Rev. Earhardt will unite with us, and if he does not, we do not” (p. 28, 29).↩ 123. See founding of General Coun cil, S 17, N.↩

146 124. See cause of this schism in T. Nic tim’s “History of the New York Min- is terium,” p. 254 sq.↩ 125. Records of 1914 show 139 pastors, 151 congre ga tions, 33,999 commu- nicants. ↩ 126. The Ger man Wart burg Synod sprang from the Synod of Cen tral Illi- nois. At first the Ger mans of this synod formed a confer ence which eventu ally (1876) became the Wart burg Synod. (See bioRr aphi cal notes of Dr. Sev er ing haus, § 13). The Illinois Synod later left the Gen- eral Coun cil and became a part of the Mis souri Synod in which it was dis solved.↩ 127. The case of the Frauckean Synod in 1864 was differ cnt. There not even the Augus tana was mentioned as a doc tri nal ba sis.↩ 128. See letter to his fa ther in Anstadt, “Life and Times of Dr. S. S. Schmucker.”↩ 129. This para graph was for mally adopted at Washing ton in 1869, having been pre viously ac cepted by the dis trict synods. ↩ 130. This strained re la tion reached its climax in the conflict over the Com- mon Ser vice. The United Synod of the South, the General Coun cil, and the Gen eral Synod had, through a joint com mit tee from the three bodies, prepared a com mon or der of ser vice on the basis of the Lutheran liturgies of the six teenth century . The efforts to adopt this liturgy re- sulted in a conflict between the two ten dencies in the Gen eral Synod, last ing for a num ber of years. The Common Service was fi nally adopted.↩ 131. See minutes of Gen eral Synod, 1909, p. 57.↩ 132. Dr. Sprecher at a later date, when he had re ceded from his old po si tion, accu rately described the Def inite Platform as “that mod ifi cation of Lutheranism which has perhaps been properly called the cul mina tion of Melanchtho nian ism.” See letter to “The Lutheran Evan gelist” (1891); cf. bio graphi cal sketch of Dr. Sprecher, p. 130.↩ 133. “The Augs burg Con fes sion, the correct inter preta tion of the funda mental doctrines of the Word of God” — these words of the old doctri nal basis might mean that the most impor tant doctrines of the Bible have found an ade quate expres sion in this Con fes sion. Thus the Con ser vatives un derstood them. But they might also mean that the adoption of the Au gustana is lim ited to the parts where it deals with funda men tal doctrines. This was the version of the Liber als. See J. L. Neve (In augu-

147 ral Address), “The Formu la tion of the Gen eral Synod’s Con fes sional Ba sis,” Burlington, (1911).↩ 134. Other Lutheran bod ies that are known for stricter conser vatism exchange greetings with the repre senta tives of non-Lutheran churches at occa sions such as dedi ca tion, of the o log ical sem inar ies, anniver saries of the o log ical insti tu tions, instal la tion of profes sors, etc. Such prac tice, to which there should be no ob jec tion so long as it does not deg ener ate into a courte ous expres sion of union is tic senti ment, is not es sen tially differ ent from that of the Gen eral Synod in the point men tioned. The partic i pants simply rec og nize each other as churches that have a right to ex ist.↩ 135. It may be admit ted that this is not yet the uni versal prac tice. But in the older, the larger and the more set tled congre ga tions the prin ciple is more and more rec og nized. In the congre ga tion in which the writer of this his tory has held his member ship for a good many years one can hardly quote a sin gle ex ception. ↩ 136. It was on such occa sions that Muhlen berg prac ticed pul pit fel lowship with the sur rounding de nom ina tions (§ 4, 8).↩ 137. There are minis ters who at present extend the fol low ing invi ta tion: “All those who believe with our church that in the Lord’s Sup per the true Body and Blood of Christ are given for the forgive ness of sins, may now with the congre ga tion come to the ta ble of the Lord.” This proves that among Eng lish Luther ans of the Gen eral Synod there is an increas ing convic tion that the Bibli cal doctrine concern ing the Lord’s Sup per is insep a ra bly connecte d with faith demanded for a proper prepa ra tion for re ceiv ing the Sacra ment. The “improbant se cus do- centes” (they dis approve of those that teach oth er wise) of the Augus- tana (Ar ti cle X) cannot be ignor ed by those who claim to stand on the Unal tered Augs burg Con fes sion.↩ 138. This “Ba sis of Church Govern ment” (Kirchen regi mentliches Grundge- setz) is found in the “Formel buch fuer die Deutschcn in der Gener al- synode” by Dr. J. D. Sev er ing haus. p. 81; also in the Book of Wor- ship.↩ 139. Dr. Ja cobs’ History , p. 467, cf.; also Dr. Ochsen ford. Doc u men tary History of the General Coun cil, p. 166 i.↩

148 5. The United Synod Of The South.

§ 14. The Ori gin of the Synod.

This general body, com pris ing the Lutheran synods of the South ern States, bears its present name only since the year 1886. [1] An account of the ori gin of the Lutheran synods in the South has al- ready been given in § 5, 2, 5. The NORTH CAR OLINA SYNOD was org anized in 1803. From this synod the TEN NES SEE SYNOD went out in 1820, because the members of the latter were of a posi tive Lutheran ten dency, and dis approved of the pur pose of the North Carolina Synod to take part in the orga- niza tion of the Gen eral Synod (§ 5, 5). The SOUTH CAR OLINA SYNOD was formed in 1824, and united with the Gen eral Synod in 1835. The VIR GINIA SYNOD was orga nized in 1829. (From its midst came such men as Drs. S. S. Schmucker, J. G. Morris, C. P. Krauth). In 1841 a SOUTH WEST VIR GINIA SYNOD, and in 1846 the MIS SIS SIPPI SYNOD, which at present num bers only seven pastors and twelve churches, were formed. The SYNOD OF GEOR GIA, em brac ing the States of Georgia and Flor ida, came into exis tence in 1860. In the same year the HOL STON SYNOD (so called af ter the Hol ston River in Tennes see), an off shoot of the Tennes see Synod, was orga nized. [2] Four of these synods, namely, the North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, left the Gen eral Synod in 1863, and in the follow ing year (in conjunc tion with the Synod of Georgia) at Con cord, N. C, orga nized the Gen eral Synod of the Ev. Luth. Church in the Con feder ate States of America (§ 10, 2). The rea son for this action was as fol lows : In 1861 the South ern States se ceded, and the Civil War with its horrors began. The Gen eral Synod passed RES O LU TIONS con demn ing the orig ina tors and advo cates of the war. The south ern pastors and congre ga tions re garded the res o lutions as being aimed at them. They believed that the po lit ical sepa ration betw een the South and the North would be perma nent. They therefore re solved upon an eccle si as ti cal SEP A RA TION also. But when the newly formed body met again two years later, the war was over and the Union of the States re stored. It was a question now whether the two synod ical bod ies should unite again. Since at this time the Gen eral Synod was dis tracted by the confes sional contro versies, and the Penn syl vania Synod had with drawn

149 from it; and since the south ern synods desired to place themselves upon a more posi tive con fes sional basis than that held by the Gen eral Synod, it was re solved to continue as a sepa rate body, and simply to change the name to corre spond with the change in po lit ical re la tions. The name adopted was, “The Evang. Luth. Gen eral Synod in North America,” which was, however , soon changed to “The Gen eral Synod of the Evang. Luth. Church of the South.” The rea sons which induced it to as sume the name which it now bears will be given in the fol low ing paragraph. [3] Two of the syn ods enumer ated above (§ 14, 1 ), namely, the TEN NES- SEE SYNOD and the HOL STON SYNOD, had, as a matter of prin ci ple, refrained from joining the Gen eral Synod, and did not unite with this general body in the South.1 Their confes sional stand point had caused them to hold themselves aloof. Af ter their sepa ra tion from the north ern Gen eral Synod, the other synods of the South deve loped a more decided Lutheran conscious- ness. Their antithe sis to the Ten nessee Synod dis appeared more and more. More over, the synods south of the Po tomac became convinced , that, in order to enjoy the ines timable advan tages of concen tra tion, they must ei ther unite in the orga ni za tion of a body which should include the great est possi- ble num ber of south ern synods, or else as indi vid ual synods seek union with the larger eccle si as ti cal bod ies of the North. Since the confes sional differ - ences had al most entirely dis appeared, the way was open for the for mer course. In 1867 the Tennes see Synod al ready sent a repre sent ative to the conven tion of the South ern Gen eral Synod, to enter into nego ti ations re- spect ing a union. Al though this approach was hailed with joy, nine teen years elapsed be fore a union ac tually took place. On Novem ber 12 and 13, 1884, del egates from all the South ern syn ods fi nally came to gether to a confer ence at Sal is bury, N. C, in or der to delib er ate on the question of an organic union. This time there was a posi tive re sult. A DOC TRI NAL BA SIS was agreed upon, in accor dance with which the Holy Scrip tures were accepted as the only rule of faith and life, and the ecu menical sym bols, together with the un al tered Augs burg Con fes sion as a correct and faith ful exhi bi tion of the doct rines of Holy Scrip ture in matters of faith and prac tice. The other confes sions of the Book of Con cord were declared to be a correct and scriptural inter preta tion of the doctrines taught by the Augs burg Con fes sion, and in full har mony with one and the same scriptural faith. Af ter an un derstand- ing was reached on this impor tant point, only the for mali ties re mained to be ar ranged. This was done at the next meet ing, June 23, 1886. From this time

150 on we have the “United Synod of the South,” this being the name which the new general body adopted. It numbers 274 pastors, with 488 con grega tions and preach ing-points, and 52,188 com mu nicants.

§ 15. Charac ter i za tion.

[1] In its DOC TRI NAL TEN DENCY this body stands about midway between the Gen eral Synod and the Gen eral Coun cil. In 1878 it ar ranged for an exchange of del egates with the Gen eral Synod, af ter having as sured it self by a for mal inquiry that the res o lutio ns passed at the time of the civil war (§ 14, 2) were not meant to question the Chris tian char acter of the south ern pastors. [2] In the matter of CHURCH POLITY the cons ti tution of the Gen eral Synod of the South had decided that the general body should have leg isla tive and judi cial prerog a tives. This was changed so as to read that in the IN TER NAL AF FAIRS of the dis trict synods the new general body, namely, the United Synod of the South, should have only advi sory author ity; but that on GEN- ERAL MAT TERS of the Church, such as provid ing its lit er ature, conduct ing its the o log ical sem i naries and its for eign and home mission ary work, it should have leg isla tive power (comp. §§ 11, 3; 27, 1; 29. 3a). [3] The United Synod of the South deserves special credit for the prepara tion of the COM MON SER VICE for the Lutheran Church of this country . The first action look ing toward the prepa ra tion of such an or der of ser vice as a liturgi cal bond of union among the Lutheran synods of America , was taken by the General Synod of the South. Dr. Bach mann having, as early as 1870, re ferred to the im portance of this matter for the Eng lish speakin g Lutheran Church of America, the Synod in 1876 appointed a com mit tee which, in conjunc tion with simi lar com mit tees from the Gen eral Synod and the Gen- eral Coun cil, should, on the ba sis of the consen sus of the pure Lutheran liturgies of the six teenth century , prepare a uni form or der of ser vice for the three bodies. The fi nal result of this action was the “Common Ser vice.”

§ 16. In stitu tions and Work.

1. Ed u ca tional Insti tutions.

151 [a] The THE O LOG I CAL SEM I NARY of the United Synod of the South is located at Mt. Pleas ant, S. C, near Charles ton. Al though this insti tu tion is still in its for ma tive period , it has behind it a long and some what com plicated his tory. As early as 1830 the South Carolina Synod founded a the o log ic al sem inary at Lex ing ton, S. C, with Dr. Hazelius (§ 6, 1) at its head from 1833 till his death in 1853. Then the South Carolina Synod car ried on the work in con- nection with its col lege at New berry, S. C. (see below). In the year 1872 it com bined the work of its the o log ical sem inary with that of the Gen eral Synod of the South at Salem, Va. When this sem inary was abol ished in 1884, the South Carolina Synod again inau gu rated a the o log ical depart ment in conne ction with its col lege at New berry. In 1892 it gave the work over into the hands of the United Synod of the South, which contin ued it for a while longer at New berry, and then transferred it, in 1898, to MT. PLEAS ANT, near Charleston, thence to Co lumbia, S. C, where the sem inary is conducted at the present time un der the di rec tion of Dr. A. G. Voigt, who has as soci- ated with him as fel low-pro fes sors. Dr. L. G. M. Miller and Dr. J. G. Seegers. [b] COL LEGES. NEW BERRY COL LEGE, which was begun in 1832 at Lexing- ton, S. C, by the South Carolina Synod, and opened as a regu lar col lege in 1859 at New berry, S. C, suffere d heavily during the civil war, its buildings being al most tot ally destroyed. In 1868 it was transferred to Wal halla, S. C, but was brought back to New berry again in 1877. Con gress granted the in- stitu tion an indem nity of $15,000 in 1878. It is at tended by about 160 students. — ROANOKE COL LEGE was founded by the Virginia Synod in 1842 near Mt. Tabor , Va. In 1847 it was re moved to Salem, Va. Dr. D. F. Bit tle was presi dent of the insti tu tion for twenty-three years. In 1878 Dr. J. D. Dreher became pres ident, and in 1903 Dr. J. A. More head. It num bers 300 stu dents. — LENOIR COL LEGE, founded in 1891, is meant chiefly to meet the wants of the Tennes see Synod. It has 250 students.

2. Mis sion Work.

The HOME MIS SION ARY WORK of the United Synod of the South is un der the direc tion of a “Board of Mis sions and Church Ex ten sion.” Since 1893 a FOR EIGN MIS SION has been condu cted by the United Synod in Japan (Saga), which is now extended to other cities on the is land of Kiushiu.

152 Bi o graph ical Sketches.

[1] THE HENKELS. GER HARD HENKEL, the head of the Ameri can branch of this fam ily of pastor s, was chaplain of Duke Maurice of Sax ony, and was exiled when the Duke went over to the Ro man Catholic Church. He was the first Lutheran preacher in Virginia, go ing from there to Penn syl vania (§ 3, 6). His grand son was PAUL HENKEL, whose imme diate descen dants consti tute the well-known fam ily of Lutheran minis ters. He was or dained in 1792 by the Min is terium of Penn syl vania, and be came pastor at New Mar ket, Va. He took part in the orga ni za tion of the North Carolina Synod (§ 5, 2), and the Ohio Synod (§ 5, 2). He was the author of some excel lent books, both in Ger man and in Eng lish, and died at New Mar ket, Va., in 1825. The second and fourth of his sons, PHILIP and DAVID, took part in the orga ni za tion of the Tennes see Synod (§ 5, 5). David was es pecially gifted, and wrote a num ber of valu able works. His third son, AM BRO SIUS, also a minis ter, conducted the cel ebrated Lutheran pub lishing house in New Mar ket. His fourth and sixth sons, AN DREW and CHARLES, were pastors in Ohio. The Henkels knew how to em ploy the press in the ser vice of the Lutheran Church. The old est son of Paul Henkel, Solomon, a physi cian of note, had al ready possessed a print- ing press, by means of which he placed Lutheran books on the mar ket. His son, ano ther physi cian, conceive d the idea of translat ing and pub lishing the Book of Con cord — a plan which was car ried out un der the dire ction of his un cle, the Rev. Am brosius Henkel men tioned above. Up to 1903 the pub- lishing house in New Mar ket was in the hands of Dr. SOCRATES HENKEL, a son of the Rev. David Henkel previ ously men tioned. The ma jor ity of the sons of the Henkels that have been enumer ated here also entered the ministry. Bap tismal names like “Eu se bius,” “Poly carp,” “Ire naeus,” “Ambro- sius,” re veal the spirit of conse cra tion to the ser vice of the Church which must have pre vailed in this hon or able fam ily for gen er ations. [2] DR. JOHN BACH MAN, dis ting uished for his learning and prac ti cal talent, was born in 1790 in Rhinebeck, N. Y. His the o log ical stud ies were pursued un der the direc tion of Dr. Quitman (§ 6, 3). But, un like his teacher, he was a posi tive Lutheran. From the time of his or dina tion till his death in 1874, a period of fifty-six years, he was pastor of St. John’s Church in Charles ton, S. C. In all impor tant transac tions of his time he took part as a leader. Dur ing the Civil War, in which he was an enthu si as tic supporter of the South, his con grega tion beca me scat tered. But he soon built it up again.

153 He was prom ine nt in the field of nat u ral sci ence and wrote books on Ameri- can birds and quadrupeds which se cured for him the friendship of Hum- boldt and Agas siz, and the degre e of Doc tor of Phi los o phy from the Uni versity of Berlin. A valu able sci entific col lec tion was destroyed and he himself maltreated durin g the war by some regi ments of Sherman’ s army. He wrote a book on “The Unity of the Hu man Race,” and, during the con flict over the Lutheran confes sion, a “De fense of Luther.” PROF. A. G. VOIGT, D. D., LL. D., was born in Phila del phia, Janu ary 22, 1850. He re ceived his edu cation at the Uni versity of Penn syl vania, also at Mount Airy, the sem inary of the Gen eral Coun cil, and at Erlan gen. He entered the ministry in 1883, and served the congre ga tions of Mt. Holly, N. J. (1883-85) and of Wilm ing ton, N. C. (1898-1903). From 1885 to 1889, and also from 1891-98, he was the o log ical profes sor at New berry, S. C. He served as profes sor at Thiel Col lege from 1889-91. Since 1906 he has been dean of the Sem inary of the United Synod of the South, now located at Co- lumbia, S. C. He is one of the au thors of the “Lutheran Com men tary”. PAS TOR W. H. GREEVER, D. D., born Decem ber 18, 1870, in Burke’s Gar- den, Va., stud ied in Roanoke College and in the sem inary of the Coun cil in Mount Airy, Pa. He was or dained in 1896, and served the congre ga tions of Blue field, W. Va. (1894-01) and Co lumbia, S. C. (1901-08). From 1904- 1914 he was edi tor of “The Lutheran Vis itor”, the offi cial organ of the United Synod of the South. Since 1914 he has been edi tor -in-chief of “Amer ican Lutheran Survey ,” a weekly mag azine of inter synod ical sig nif i- cance, the “Lit er ary Digest” of the Lutheran church in America.

1. The lit tle Mis sis sippi Synod also did not join till later, but this was not due to con sci entious scru ples.↩

154 6. The Gen eral Coun cil.

§ 17. Or gani za tion.

[1] The WITH DRAWAL of the del egates of the Min is terium of Penn syl vania from the Gen eral Synod occurred in May, 1866, at Fort Wayne, In diana (§ 19, 3). A few weeks later the Min is terium of Penn syl vania met at Lan caster , Pa., rat ified the action of the del egates, and FOR MALLY SEV ERED ITS CON NEC- TION with the Gen eral Synod. At the same conven tion, the Min is terium autho rized the is suing of a call to all synods which confess the Unal tered Augs burg Con fes sion, for the purpose of orga niz ing a new general body upon dis tinctively Lutheran prin ci ples. This CALL was prepared by Dr. C. P. Krauth.1 In re sponse to this call a conve n tion was held at READ ING, PA., De- cem ber 12-14, 1866, attended by del egates of thir teen syn ods.2 Profes sor M. Loy, of the Joint Synod of Ohio, preached the opening ser mon, which was pub lished in the proceed ings of this his tor ical conven tion. It was based on the text, 1 Cor. 1:10. The theme was: “The Con ditions of Chris tian Union.” These are: 1. The same faith in the same truth. 2. The same confes sion of the same faith. 3. The same judg ment under the same confes sion.3 [2] The prin ci pal work of this conven tion was the dis cussion and adoption of the The ses on “The Fun damen tal Prin ci ples of Faith and Church Polity,” prepared by Dr. C. P. Krauth. These The ses were unani mously adopted, and it was re solved that, af ter ten of the partic i pat ing synods had adopted these ar ti cles, in whole or in part, the Presi dent, Pastor G. Bassler, should is sue a call for the first conven tion of the new body, un der the ti tle of the“General Coun cil of the Evangel ical Lutheran Church of North Amer- ica.”

Fun da men tal Prin ci ples.

"We hold the fol low ing prin ci ples touch ing the faith of the Church and its polity4 to be fun damen tal and of ne cessity presup posed in any gen uine Union of Evangel ical Lutheran Syn ods:

155 "I. There must be and abide through all time one holy Chris tian Church, which is the as- sem bly of all believ ers, among whom the Gospel is purely preached, and the Holy Sacra- ments are ad min istered, as the Gospel de mands.

"To the true Unity of the Church it is suffi cient that there be agree ment touching the doctrine of the Gospel, that it be preached in one ac cord, in its pure sense, and that the Sacra- ments be ad min istered conformably to God’s Word.

"II. The true Unity of a partic u lar Church, in virtue of which men are truly mem bers of one and the same Church, and by which any Church abides in real identity , and is enti tled to a con tinu ation of her name, is unity in doc trine and faith and in the Sacra ments, to wit: That she con tinue to teach and to set forth, and that her true mem bers embrace from the heart and use the arti cles of faith and the Sacra ments as they were held and admin istered when the Church came into dis tinc tive be ing and received a dis tinc tive name.

"III. The Unity of the Church is witnessed to, and made mani fest in the solemn, pub lic, and offi cial Con fessions which are set forth, to wit: The generic Unity of the Chris tian Church in the gen eral Creeds, and the specific Unity of pure parts of the Chris tian Church in their specific Creeds, one chief ob ject of both classes of which Creeds is, that Chris tians who are in the Unity of faith may know each other as such, and may have a vis i ble bond of fel lowship.

"IV. That Con fessions may be such a tes timony of Unity and bond of Union they must be ac cepted in every statement of doc trine in their own true, native, orig i nal and only sense. Those who set them forth and subscribe them must not only agree to use the same words, but must use and un derstand these words in one and the same sense.

"V. The Unity of the Evan geli cal Lutheran Church, as a portion of the holy Chris tian Church, depends upon her abiding in one and the same faith, in con fess ing which she ob- tained her distinc tive be ing and name, her po lit i cal recogni tion and her his tory.

"VI. The Un altered Augsbur g Con fession is by preem i nence the con fession of that faith. The ac cep tance of its doc trines and the avowal of them without equivo ca tion or mental reserva tion make, mark and identify that Church which alone in the true, orig i nal, his tor i- cal, and hon est sense of the term is the Evan geli cal Lutheran Church.

"VII. The only churches, therefore, of any land which are properly in the Unity of that Commu nion, and by con se quence enti tled to its name, Evan geli cal Lutheran, are those which sin cerely hold and truthfully con fess the doc trines of the Un altered Augs burg Con- fession.

156 "VIII. We ac cept and ac knowl edge the doc trines of the Un altered Augs burg Con fession in its orig i nal sense as through out in con form ity with the pure truth of which God’s Word is the only rule. We ac cept its state ments of truth as in perfect ac cordance with the Canon i cal Scrip tures: we reject the errors it con demns, and believe that all which it commits to the liberty of the Church of right be longs to that lib erty.

“IX. In thus formally ac cepting and ac knowl edg ing the Un altered Augs burg Con fession, we declare our con viction that the other Con fessions of the Evan geli cal Lutheran Church, inas much as they set forth none other than its sys tem of doc trine and arti cles of faith, are of neces sity pure and scrip tural. Preem i nent among such ac cordant pure and scrip tural statements of doc trine, by their in trinsic excel l ence, by the great and nec es sary ends for which they were prepared, by their his tor i cal po si tion, and by the gen eral judgment of the Church, are these: The Apol ogy of the Augs burg Con fession, the Smal cald Arti cles, the Cate c hisms of Luther, and the For mula of Con cord, all of which are, with the Unal tered Augsbur g Con- fession, in the per fect harmony of one and the same scrip tural faith.”

[3] The first con vention of the Gen eral Coun cil, tempo rar ily orga nized at Read ing, was held at FORT WAYNE, Novem ber, 1867, where, in the previ ous year, the breach had occurred, and where a few years later (1871) the members of the syn ods of Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, Min nesota, and of the Nor wegians held the conven tion that re sulted in the orga ni za tion of the Syn od ical Con fer ence. At this conven tion it was shown that the fol low ing synods had adopted the Con fes sional Ba sis of the Read ing conven tion, and thereby acknowl edged themselves as members of the Gen eral Coun cil: 1. The Min is- terium of Penn sylva nia (three-fourths Eng lish); 2. The New York Min is- terium (Ger man); 3. The Pitts burgh Synod (three-fourths Eng lish); 4. The Eng lish Synod of Ohio; 5. The Synod of Wis consin (Ger man); 6. The Eng- lish District Synod of Ohio; 7. The Michi gan Synod (Ger man); 8. The Swedish Augus tana Synod; 9. The Min nesota Synod (Ger man); 10. The Canada Synod (Ger man); 11. The Synod of Illinois (Ger man); 12. The Iowa Synod (Ger man).5 The MIS SOURI SYNOD was not repre sented at this conven- tion. Dr. Walther and Dr. Sih ler, in a letter addressed to the con vention at Read ing (1866), had advised against the orga ni za tion of a new Gen eral Body at that time.6 They argued in fa vor of free confer ences. The JOINT SYNOD OF OHIO had sent del ega tes, but was not prepared to unite fully with the new body, because they claimed that, despite the adoption of the Con- fes sional Ba sis, there still existed un-Lutheran prac tices in vari ous synods. The Synod asked the Gen eral Coun cil for a decla ra tion on the fol low ing “FOUR POINTS,” namely: 1. Con cern ing Chil iasm. 2. Con cern ing al tar fellow ship (“Mixed Commu nion”). 3. Con cern ing pul pit fel low ship. 4. Con-

157 cern ing se cret soci eties. Con cern ing the last three points, the SYNOD OF IOWA also desired a decla ra tion.7 Be cause the Coun cil was not prepared to give a deci sive answer to the question of pul pit and al tar fel low ship,8 the del egates of the Joint Synod of Ohio declined to join the Coun cil, and be fore the close of the conven tion the del egates of the Iowa Synod (Prof. Got tfr. Fritschel, the Ger man secre tary) also declared that their Synod could not fully unite with the body.9 Nev er the less, this Synod, since it had accepted the Con fessional Basis, was granted A SEAT AND VOICE in the Gen eral Coun cil. A spe cial diffi culty in connec tion with the Joint Synod of Ohio existed in the fact that the Eng lish District Synod of Ohio was admit ted into the Coun cil against the wish of Ohio. Af ter the next conven tion of the Gen eral Coun cil, at Pitts- burg, Pa., 1868, when the “Four Points” were again dis cussed and action taken, the WIS CON SIN SYNOD WITH DREW (§§ 21 and 25, 1); af ter the conven- tion at Akron, Ohio, 1871 (see below), the Synod of MIN NE SOTA (§§ 21 and 25, 2) and the ILLI NOIS SYNOD with drew. These synods were incor po rated in the Mis souri Synod (§ 10, 3). In the year 1887, the MICHI GAN SYNOD also severed its connec tion with the Coun cil. The TEXAS SYNOD, admit ted in 1868, became a District of the Iowa Synod in 1895. Con cern ing the other synods which have in later years united with the Coun cil see § 19, 7-12. AN NO TA TION. An offi cial corre spondence between the Gen eral Coun cil and the Mis souri Synod was car ried on un til the year 1869. Mis souri had desired free confer ences as prepara tory to the orga ni za tion of a Gen eral Body. There upon the Gen eral Coun cil adopted the fol low ing res o lution at the Read ing conven tion, in 1866: “That the synods repre sented in this con- vention, which prefer a Free Con fer ence to an imme diate orga ni za tion, be and hereby are invited to send repre senta tives to the next meet ing, with the un derstand ing that they have in it all the privi leges of debate, and a fra ter nal com pari son of views.”10 To this the Mis souri Synod replied, at its conven- tion in Chicago, 1867, that the po si tion of del egates from the Mis souri Synod at a regu lar conven tion of the Gen eral Coun cil would be pecu liarly li able to miscon ception, and that therefore it must insist on re ally free confer ences."11 The Gen eral Coun cil, at the Pitts burg conven tion, 1868, repeated its for mer invi ta tion. Mis souri again replied (Fort Wayne, 1869), that it was not the desire of the Mis souri Synod to deal with the Gen eral Coun cil as such and during the session s of the same, for the rea son that it enter - tained the fear that, by such a side-dealing with the matter , jus tice would not be done. A Free Con fer ence was desired, such as had been prop osed before

158 the Gen eral Coun cil was orga nized. But even in such a Free Con fer ence, Mis souri ans could partic i pate only as indi vid u als, not as repre senta tives of the Synod.12 The Gen eral Coun cil (1869) expressed its re gret, in a fi nal reply, that the Mis souri Synod saw fit to decline all offi cial deal ing with the Gen eral Coun cil and even all non-offi cial deal ing with it in connec tion with its regu lar conven tions. It declared it self willing to re ceive fur ther propos- als, look ing tow ard an organic union of all true Luther ans in this country .13 Since then there have been no offi cial com mu nica tions between the two bod ies.

§ 18. Charac ter of the Council.

[1] The “Four Points,” concern ing which the synods of Ohio and of Iowa desired a decla ra tion al ready at the first conven tion of the Coun cil, occu- pied a prom inen t place in the subse quent his tory of the Gen eral Coun cil, so that it may be said, that THE FIRST TEN YEARS OF THE BODY CON STI TUTED A HIS- TORY OF THESE “FOUR POINTS.” The Coun cil’s answer to the peti tion of the Joint Synod for a decla ra tion on the desig nated “Four Points” (§ 17, 3) sets forth the differ ence between the Gen eral Coun cil, on the one hand, and such synods as Ohio and Mis souri, on the other.14 The aim of the Gen eral Coun- cil was to be gradu ally edu catio nal; the other synods desired thor ough-go- ing dis ciplinary regu la tions. It was no light matter for the newly orga nized body to find a way out of the diffi culty. The desire was to build upon un- equiv o cal Lutheran prin ci ples; but what the Ger man synods of the West perempto rily demanded, the more Ameri can ized synods of the East, whose congre ga tions and minis ters had an entirely differ ent his tory back of them, could not carry out.15 The mat ter of the rule concern ing pul pit and al tar fel low ship, or the so- called GALES BURG RULE, gave the Gen eral Coun cil special concern. Briefly the his tory of this matter is as fol lows: At the conven tion at Lan caster , Ohio, in 1870, Pres ident Krauth, prompted by a question on the part of the Min nesota Synod, made the decla ra tion: THE RULE IS: LUTHERAN PUL PITS FOR LUTHERAN MIN IS TERS; LUTHERAN AL TARS FOR LUTHERAN COM MU NI CANTS. At the next conven tion, at AKRON, OHIO, in 1872, the del egates of the Iowa Synod desired that this decla ra tion should be made the offi cial action of the Coun- cil. In re ply the Council gave the follow ing dec la ra tion:16

159 "1. The RULE is: Lutheran pulpits are for Lutheran min isters only. Lutheran altars are for Lutheran commu ni cants only.

"2. The EX CEP TIONS to this rule belong to the sphere of privi lege, not of right.

"3. The DE TER MI NA TION of the EX CEP TIONS is to be made in con sonance with these prin ciples by the consci entious judg ment of the pastors as the cases arise.

At GALES BURG, ILLI NOIS (1875), the FIRST AR TI CLE of the Akron decla ra tion, due to res o lution s of the Augus tana Synod of a simi lar import, 17 was reaf- firmed, but noth ing was done in ref er ence to points two and three.18 The Galesbur g decla ra tion was se verely crit icized in the pub lic press and caused consid er able dis tur bance in the Church for a num ber of years, prin ci pally because points two and three appeared to have been set aside. Fi nally, the Gen eral Coun cil declared (at the Pitts burg conven tion, 1889, in re ply to a question present ed by the New York Min is terium), “that at the time of the passage of the Gales burg Rule by the Gen eral Coun cil, the dis tinct statement was made that all preced i ng action of the Gen eral Coun cil on Pul pit and Al tar Fel low ship was un changed.” The for mal action, taken at the Pitts- burg con vention, is as fol lows: “Inas much as the Gen eral Coun cil has never annulled, re scinded or re consid ered the decla ra tions made at Akron, Ohio, in the year 1872, they still re main in all their parts and provi sions, the action and rule of the Gen eral Coun cil.”19 It is therefore an er ror to say, as is gener ally done, that the Gen eral Coun cil rests upon the Galesbu rg Rule; ac- cording to its fi nal action it rests upon the Akron res o lutions. Dr. Ja cobs therefore says correctly in “Lutheran Cy clopae dia,” un der “Gales burg Rule:” “What is gener ally known as the Galesbur g Rule is properly the Akron Rule of 1872.” (p. 189). There were then and there are now TWO PAR- TIES in the Coun cil. The one, to which belonged the Ger mans (es pecially the New York Min is terium and the Canada Synod) and largely also the Swedes, DE MAND THE EX CLU SIVE IN TER PRE TA TION OF THE GALES BURG RULE. The other party, to which the Eng lish portion very .gener ally belongs, insists that regard must be had to THE PRIN CI PLES SET FORTH IN POINTS TWO AND THREE OF THE AKRON DEC LA RA TION, and that stress must be laid on the fact that these were not re scinded by the Galesbur g Rule.20 [2] Con cerning the matter of “SE CRET SO CI ETIES,” the Gen eral Coun cil set forth the fol low ing decla ra tion, in 1868: “Any and all soci eties for moral

160 and re li gious ends which do not rest on the supreme author ity of God’s Holy Word, as contained in the Old and New Tes ta ments — which do not rec og nize our Lord Je sus Christ as the true God and the only Medi a tor between God and man — which teach doctrines or have usages or forms of wor ship condemned in God’s Word and in the Con fes sions of His Church — which as sume to themselves what God has given to His Church and its Min is ters — which re quire un defined obliga tions to be as sumed by oath, are unchris tian, and we solemnly warn our members and minis ters against all fellow ship with or con nivance at as soci ations which have this charac ter .” And fur ther: “All connec tion with infi del and immoral as soci ations we consider as re quir ing the exer cise of prompt and deci sive dis ci pline, and af ter faith ful and patient admo nition and teach ing from God’s Word, the cut ting off the persis tent and ob stinate offender from com mu nion of the Church until he abandons them and shows a true re pentance.” 21 [3] CHIL IASM. DR. J. A. SEISS, chair man of the del ega tion of the Min is- terium of Penn syl vania in 1866, when the synod left the Gen eral Synod, prom inent autho r and minis ter, was one of the lead ers in the org ani za tion of the General Coun cil. He was deeply in ter ested in ques tions on the subject of the last things and was the autho r of a book enti tled: “The Last Times.” He mod ified his views from time to time; but he was gener ally re garded as a chiliast. and this proba bly acco unted for the fact that the JOINT SYNOD OF OHIO, at the first reg u lar conven tion of the Gen eral Coun cil, dem anded, among other things, a DEC LA RA TION of the Coun cil as to the po si tion it occu- pied re garding Chiliasm (§ 17, 3). In the year 1868, at the Pitts burg conven- tion, the Coun cil adopted the fol low ing dec la ra tion on this sub ject:22

"1. This Coun cil holds firmly the doc trine of our Lord’s coming and the as soci ated Ar ticles touching the Last Things, as they are set forth in the General Creeds and in the Augs burg Con fession, in that sense of them which has been undis puted among all who have made a cred i ble pro fession of un reserved ac cep tance of the Lutheran faith.

"2. The General Coun cil has neither had, nor would con sent to have, fel low ship with any Synod which toler ates the ‘Jew ish opinions’ or ‘Chil ias tic opinions’ con demned in the XVII. Arti cle of the Augs burg Con fession.

161 “3. The points on which our Con fession has not been explicit, or on which its tes timony is not at present in ter preted in precisely the same way by persons equally in tel ligent and hon- est, and equally un res erved and wor thy of belief in the profes sion of adher ence to the Con- fession, should continue to be the sub ject of calm, thorough, scrip tural, and prayer ful inves- tiga tion, un til we shall see perfectly eye to eye both as regards the teach ing of God’s Word and the tes timony of our Church.”

[4] WITH RE SPECT TO LAN GUAGE the Gen eral Coun cil is a poly glot body. At the time of its orga ni za tion the Ger man and Swedish lan guages largely prevailed. But a large num ber es pecially of Ger man synods (Wis consin, Illi- nois, Min nesota , Michi gan) gradu ally with drew. Nev er the less, the Ger man el ement is still strong in the Gen eral Coun cil (es pecially through the New York Min is terium, which, on account of the with drawal of the Eng lish el e- ment and the orga ni za tion of a new dis trict synod un der the ti tle of the Synod of New York and New Eng land, has become again an en tirely Ger- man body; through the Mani toba Synod and the Synod of Canada). The Au- gustana Synod is a large and influ ential synod in the Coun cil. The Coun cil also labors among the Slav nati on al ities in this country . But the use of the Eng lish lan guage has constantly been gain ing ground, because from the begin ning the Min is terium of Penn syl vania and the Pitts burgh Synod exer - cised no small influ ence in Ohio and In diana, es pecially since the most influ ential men (Krauth, Schaef fer , Kro tel, Seiss, Mann, Schmucker, Roth, and oth ers) wrote in Eng lish. It has in “The Lutheran” (for many years edited by Dr. G. F. Kro tel, now by Dr. G. W. Sandt) a good Eng lish organ, which is read by many out side of the bound aries of the Coun cil; also a well edited Ger man organ in “DER DEUTSCHE LUTHER ANER” (of which Dr. G. C. Berkemeier is edi tor -in-chief). Con cern ing peri od icals pub lished by the Au- gustana Synod, see § 19, 5. In the “Lutheran Church Re view” (edited by Dr. Theodore E. Schmauk) the General Coun cil has an excel lent the o log ical quarterly . [5] WITH RE GARD TO EC CLE SI AS TI CAL POLITY the Gen eral Coun cil is an or- gani za tion which permits the indi vid ual synods a large free dom in the regu- la tion of their own affairs. But the orga ni za tion of synods on the ter ri tory of the Coun cil, which in the inter est of the whole body have been more and more es tab lished as dis trict synods on geo graphi cal lines, and which have been dir ected in their vari ous op er ations by the advice and help of the general body, has gradu ally given the Gen eral Coun cil the char acte r of a body with more or less central ized powers over the indi vid ual synod s. This con-

162 dition of things has brought about the danger of a CON FLICT, ES PE CIALLY WITH THE AU GUS TANA SYNOD, which on account of linguis tic condi tions that prevent all geo graphi cal lim ita tions, has felt the need of preserv ing its free dom of movement. At the meet ing of the Gen eral Coun cil at Min nea p o lis, Minn. (1909), this matter came up in connec tion with res o lutions offered by Dr. E. Nore lius, which were rati fied by the Augus tana Synod;23 and two years later (Lancas ter , Pa., 1911) THE MAT TER WAS SO AR RANGED that the functions of such bod ies as the Augus tana Synod shall be free from all out side inter fer- ence. This decla ra tion was not intended to touch the re la tion of those district synods whose activ i ties are guided by the more direct aid on the part of the general body. At the same time, these res o lutions were intended to fa cil- itate the organic union of the Iowa Synod with the Gen eral Coun cil, with out any fear that it might thereby surren der its own iden tity.

§ 19. Present Sta tus.

The Gen eral Coun cil em braces the fol low ing FOUR TEEN SYN ODS: Minis terium of Pennsyl vania, Min is terium of New York, Pitts burgh Synod, Texas Synod (admit ted again, 1915), District Synod of Ohio, Augus tana Synod, Synod of Canada, Chicago Synod, Eng lish Synod of the Northwest, Mani toba Synod, Pa cific Synod, Synod of New York and New Eng land, Nova Sco tia Synod, and Synod of Central Canada. [1] THE MIN IS TERIUM OF PENN SYL VA NIA, also called Penn syl vania Synod, the “Mother Synod,” has been men tioned fre quently (§§ 4:5, 8; 7:1, 2, 3; 8:2,; 9:2, 3; 19:3; 11:1a; 16:1), so that lit tle more need be said in this con- nection. It is, except the Augus tana Synod, the LARGEST of the synods connected with the Coun cil. Ac cord ing to the sta tistics of 1915, it num bers 406 minis ters, 575 congre ga tions, and 159,137 com mu nicants. It is divided into ten Con fer ence dis tricts, one of which is the Mis sion Con fer ence in In dia. Only one of these Confer ences is entirely Ger man. The Synod main tains the The o log ical Sem inary at Mt. Airy, Phila del phia, and Muhlen berg College, Al len town, Pa. [2] MIN IS TERIUM OF NEW YORK has also been so fre quently men tioned (§§ 5:1; 8:3; 9:2, 3; 11:1a; 17:1 that lit tle more need be said here. This synod has in many re spects had a VAR IED HIS TORY. Un der the long pres idency of DR. QUIT MANN it was influ enced by Ra tional ism. Later, un der the influ ence of Dr. Hazelius, the Presi dent of Hartwick Sem inary , the synod re turned to

163 the faith; yet because even he, who had come from the Mora vians, failed to com prehend the teach ings pecu l iar to the Lutheran Church, the ten dency of the synod was towards METHODIS TIC PRAC TICES, which flourished among all denom ina tions in the first half of the nine teenth century . The re action against this ten dency led the synod, in the sixth decade, upon a FIRM LUTHERAN BA SIS. In 1859 the synod adopted the confes sional basis which the Gen eral Synod, in 1869, in Washing ton, D. C. (§ 11, 1 b;, made its own. Fol low ing the Min is terium of Penn syl vania, it with drew from the Gen eral Synod in 1867, and since it then adopted the confes sional basis of the Gen- eral Coun cil (§17, 2), it placed it self upon the col lec tive writings of the Book of Con cord. Equally varied has been the his tory of the New York Min is terium WITH RE GARD TO LAN GUAGE. At the time of its orga ni za tion it was a GER MAN body, and re mained so for twenty-five years. For fifty years af ter wards the synod ical busi ness was transacted in THE ENG LISH LAN GUAGE. Af ter 1867 it AGAIN BE CAME A GER MAN BODY, for in that year the Eng lish- speaking members with drew from it (§ 10, 3). But thanks to large immi gration, many new Ger man congre g ations were orga nized during the years imme diately fol low ing this period. But soon Eng lish congre ga tions again began to be orga nized, es pecially af ter 1888, which led fi nally to the for ma- tion of A STRONG ENG LISH CON FER ENCE. In 1902 the Eng lish members sepa- rated peace ably from the Ger man, and orga nized the “SYNOD OF NEW YORK AND NEW ENG LAND,” and thus the New York Min is terium again became A PURELY GER MAN BODY. Since that time, however , the Eng lish lan guage has again en tered congre ga tions, so that the num ber of con grega tions us ing both lan guages is today quite large. Besides the synod just men tioned, other synods have come into exis tence from this body: HARTWICK SYNOD, THE ENG LISH SYNOD OF NEW YORK, and the small SYNOD OF NEW JER SEY, which were later com bined, and un der the ti tle of the Synod of New York and New Jer sey united with the Gen eral Synod (§ 10:3 d). When the New York Min is terium with drew from the Gen eral Synod, in 1867, HARTWICK Sem inary (§§ 6:1; 12:1) re mained in the posses sion of the se ceding minor ity of Eng lish members. Since 1885, the synod has in Wagner College, Rochester, N. Y. (§ 201 b, 3), a clas si cal school, most of whose gradu ates re ceive their the o log ical train ing in the Sem inary at Mt. Airy; oth ers in the Sem inary at Water loo, Ontario. The Min is terium supp orts a Ger man profes sor in the Mt. Airy Sem inary .

164 [3] THE PITTS BURGH SYNOD (§§ 7:4; 10:B, d; 17:1, 3) was orga nized in 1845 by eight minis ters, who were pastors of forty congre ga tion s. It entered the General Synod in 1853. In the years of the cri sis at Fort Wayne, In diana, 1866, the Pitts burgh Synod with drew, and partic i pated in the orga ni za tion of the Gen eral Coun cil, in conse quence of which ten pastors severed their connec tion with it. Its present nu mer ical strength (1915) is 152 minis ters, 196 congre ga tio ns, and 26,872 com mu nicants. This synod, on account of its activ ity in mission work, which from the begin ning it car ried on very exten- sively, has been gener ally desig nated as “MIS SION ARY SYNOD.” It sent mission ar ies to Canada, Texas and Min nesota, and laid the fouun dation for the synods that have since been orga nized in these States. The lead ing spirit of this body was for many years DR. W. A. PAS SA VANT (see Bio graphi cal Notes). With the name of this man are connected a num ber of IN STI TU TIONS OF MERCY, which today are an or nament to the Lutheran Church in this country — the Or phans’ Home at Rochester, Pa., the Dea coness Home and Hos pital at Milwau kee, Wis., and a Hos pital at Pitts burgh, Pa., etc. The clas si cal school of this synod is Thiel Col lege, Greenville, Pa. [4] THE DIS TRICT SYNOD OF OHIO, or, accord ing to its ear lier ti tle, “Eng- lish Evan gel ical Lutheran Distri ct Synod of Ohio and other States,” was or- ganized in 1857. Its entrance into the Gen eral Coun cil became the cause of the po si tion of the Joint Synod of Ohio against the Coun cil, which is still felt. Dr. G. W. Mechling, an old member of the synod, writes: “Without oppo si tion on the part of the Joint Synod of Ohio, this synod was repre sented at the Read ing con vention. But at the orga ni za tion of the Gen eral Coun cil the repre senta tive of the Joint Synod agi tated the matter of the well known Four Points, with the re sult that Ohio failed to unite with the Coun cil. Two members of the Joint Synod of Ohio protested against the re ception of the Eng lish District Synod into the Coun cil. But this protest was again with- drawn, and the District Synod became an inte gral part of the Gen eral Coun- cil, with out, however , desir ing to sever its connec tion with the Joint Synod of Ohio. The Joint Synod ended this anoma lous condi tion by a res o lution that the District Synod could no longer be re garded as a member of that Synod.” Ac cording to the STA TIS TICS of 1915, the synod num bers 56 minis- ters, 89 congre ga tions and 13,939 com mu nicants. This synod would be stronger nu mer i cally, but it has from time to time dis missed a consid er able num ber of its larger congre ga tions to two of its sis ter synods (Pittsbur gh and In diana, now Chicago Synod), with out thereby re ceiv ing any increase

165 from other sources. To the Pittsbur gh Synod it dis missed large congre gations in West more land County, Pa. The hope was enter tained that in re turn congre ga tions of the Pitts burgh Synod in Ohio would connect themselves with the Ohio Synod, but this hope was not re al ized. The cong re gations in In diana were dis missed to the Chicago Synod with out re ceiv ing any bene- fits in re turn. This ex plains the present nu mer ical con dition of the synod. [5] THE AU GUS TANA SYNOD was orga nized by Swedes and Nor we gians at Clin ton, Wis consin, in 1860. [a] The EARLY HIS TORY of this synod con tains many points of inter est. In 1850, shortly af ter his ar rival from Sweden in com pany with a band of his country men, PAS TOR L. P. ES B JORN orga nized the Swedish Lutheran congre- gation at AN DOVER, Illi nois, and in the same year also the congre ga tion at GALES BURG, ILLI NOIS, together with other congre ga tions, which he served as pastor . He entered into re la tions with some Nor we gians, and with these he partic i pated in the for ma tion of the Northern Illinois Synod in 1851, which united with the Gen eral Synod in 1853. Pastor T. N. HAS SELQUIST ar rived from Sweden in 1852, and took charge of the congre ga tion at Galesbur g, and in the fol low ing year Pastor E. CARLS SON ar rived, and became pastor of a Swedish congre ga tion in Chicago; both these were men who, with Es b- jorn, were destined to exer cise a far-reach ing influ ence. The stream of Scandi na vian immi gra tion was extraor di nar ily strong in those years, es pecially to Min nesota, where tod ay the Swedes consti tute one-sixth of the pop u la tion. The labors of these men grew rapidly, and the Scandi na vians soon formed three confer ences: Chicago, Mis sis sippi and Min ne sota. In the year 1857 a Scandi na vian profes sorship was founded in the Illinois State Uni versity , at SPRING FIELD, ILL., then un der the control of the Northern Illi- nois Synod, the incum bent of which was Pastor Es b jorn. But al ready in 1860, dur ing the confu sion within the Gen eral Synod (§ 10, 2), Esb jorn severed his connec tion with the in stitu tion, and took his stu dents wMth him, and on June 5th of the same year the Scandi na vian Con fer ence orga nized the “Scandi na vian Evan gel ical Lutheran Augus tana Synod of North Amer- ica,” at Clinton, Wis consin, with Has selquist as its first pres ide nt, and with Es b jorn as profes sor in the Sem inary in Chicago, which was then man aged as an in depen dent insti tu tion, [b] The DE VEL OP MENT of the Augus tana Synod has been re mark able. In the year of its orga ni za tion it num bered 27 minis ters, 49 congre gations, and 4,967 com mu nicants, consist ing of Swedes and Nor we gians; and al though

166 ten years later (1870) the Nor we gians with drew, in or der to orga nize a synod of their own (§ 33), and al though it was forced to pass through a bitter conflict, from 1872-1875, with the WALDEN STRO MIAN ten dency,24 this synod now (1915) num bers 692 minis ters, 1,204 congre ga tions, and 184,056 com mu nicants. In 1894 this synod was re orga nized as a del egate body; and its eight con fer ences were given larger pow ers, without, how ever, giv ing the con fer ences au thor ity to ordain min is ters. [c] Its IN STI TU TIONS are nu mer ous, at the head of which is AU GUS TANA COL LEGE AND SEM I NARY at ROCK IS LAND, ILLI NOIS. The Sem inary in Chicago, al ready men tioned, was re moved to Pax ton, Ill., in 1863, and when Es b jorn re turned to Sweden, Has selquist became the head of the insti tu tion, a po sition he held un til the end of his life (1891). The Sem inary and College were re moved to Rock Is land in 1865, where they now exist as one of the most effi cient insti tu ti ons of the Lutheran Church in this country . The the o log ical fac ulty at present (1916) consists of the fol low ing: Rev. Gus tav Andreen, Ph. D., R. N. O., K. V. O., Presi dent — Con rad Emil Lind berg, D. D., LL. D., R. N. O. — Rev. Carl August Blom gren, Ph. D. — Rev. Carl Johannes Soed ergren, A. M., Rev. Adolf Hult, B. D. BETHANY COL LEGE, Linds borg, Kan sas, was founded by Dr. C. A. Swens son in 1881. GUS TAVUS ADOL PHUS COL LEGE, un der the man agement of the Min nesota Con fer ence, was founded in 1862, at Red Wing, Minn. At first it was known as the “Min nesota El e- men tary School;” in 1863 it was re moved to Union, Minn., and called “Ans gar Acad emy;” fi nally, in 1876, it was re moved to St. Pe ter, Minn., and re ceived its present name. LUTHER ACAD EMY, Wahoo, Ne braska, founded in 1883, beloiig-s to the Ne braska Con fer ence. Be sides these, the Augus tana Synod supports five addi tional ACAD E MIES, twelve OR PHANS’ HOMES, and five HOS PI TALS, in connec tion with which the Deaconess Moth- er house, Omaha, Neb., de serves spe cial mention.

Bi o graph ical Notes.

PROF. LARS PAUL ES B JORN, the vener able pio neer and pastor of the Augus- tana Synod, was born in the Delsboro congre ga tion, Helsing land Province, Sweden, Oc tobe r 16, 1808. He was edu cated in the schools at Hudiksvall and Gefle, stud ied the ology at Upsala, and was or dained at that place in 1832. Af ter his or dina tion he served as as sis tant pastor at Os tra Wahla, Os- tattsfors and Hille, in the arch dio cese of Upsala. In his early years he took

167 an active part in the temper ance agi ta tion of north ern Sweden. Sup ported l)y the Swedish Mis sion ary So ci ety of Stock holm, he came to America in 1849, and at once began his earnest and active labors among the newly arrived im migrants at Andover , Henry County, Illinois. He orga nized the Swedish Lutheran congre ga tions at Andover and Moline (1850), Galcsbur g (1851), and Prince ton (1856). Then fol lowed his activ ity as the o log ical profes sor at Spring field, Ill., as al ready stated. Af ter his with drawal from this insti tu tion, he served the Augu stana Synod as the o log ical profes sor un til 1863, when he re turned to Sweden, where he la bored as pastor at Os tra Wahla, and where he died, July 2, 1870. PROF. TUVE NILS SON HAS SELQUIST, D. D. (Muhlen berg College, 1871), patri arch of the Augus tana Synod, was born March 2, 1816, at Onsby, Dio cese of Lund, Sweden. He was edu cated at Lund and or dained in 1839. He served a num ber of congre ga tions in Sweden, and was known as an earnest evangel ical preacher. In 1852 he re ceived a call from the re cently orga nized Swedish Lutheran congre ga tion at Galesbur g, Ill., which he accepted and became its pastor in the same year. Under many self-de nials, but with great zeal he served this congre ga tion for eleven years. In addi tion, he made many mission ary jour neys to nu mer ous places. In 1855 he began the pub li- cation of “Hemlan det,” the first Swedish po lit ical paper in America, and also “Ratta Hemlan det,” the first Swedish church paper in this country , which in 1869, un der the ti tle “Au gustana,” became the offi cial organ of the Augus tana Synod. He contin ued as edi tor of this paper un til his death. He prepared an excel lent com men tary on the Epis tle to the Eph esians. He became Pres ident of Augus tana College, and at the same time was a profes sor in the The o log ic al Sem inary , where in the later years of his life he taught Practi cal The olo gy. In addi tion to his activ ity as a teacher, he was pastor of the Swedish Lutheran congre ga t ion, first at Pax ton, and af ter wards at Rock Is land, in which capac ity he served un til his death, Feb ru ary 4, 1891. Dr. Has selquist was a model of deep personal piety and had an earnest zeal for Chris tianity and for his Church. As a the olo gian he belonged to the conser vative and Bibli cal school of Ben gel. He is properly re garded as the most dis tinguished preacher and Bible expos i tor which the Augus tana Synod has had. [6] THE CANADA SYNOD was un til re cently an entirely Ger man Synod, although in later years several city congre ga tions have intro duced the Eng lish lan guage. Al though there were iso lated Ger man congre ga tions in Canada

168 — as early as 1789 a Ger man Lutheran Church was conse crated at Williamsbur g — yet the orga ni za tion of a synod came only as a re sult of the mission ary activ ity of the Pitts burgh Synod (§ 19:3), which first sent to Canada Pastor G. BASSLER, and af ter wards, as trav el ing mission ary, Pastor C. F. DIEHL. In 1859 a Con fer ence of the Pitts burgh Synod was formed in Canada, and in 1861 this Con fer ence was orga nized as the “Evan gel ical Lutheran Synod of Canada.” The Synod’s pastors have largely been supplied by KROPP Sem ina ry, Ger many (§ 20); yet since the year 1911 this source of supply has been largely with drawn. In the latter year the synod founded its OWN THE O LOG I CAL SEM I NARY at Water loo, which it supports in conjunc tion with the “Synod of Cen tral Canada.” The Canada Synod numbers 43 min is ters, 74 congre ga tions, and 14,050 commu nicants. [7] THE CHICAGO SYNOD is the present ti tle of a small synod, which in 1871 was orga nized as the In dia na Synod. Sev eral pastors of the Tennes see Synod (§ 5:5), sta tioned in In diana, as early as 1835 orga nized a Synod of In diana; but in conse quence of doctri nal diffi cul ties and personal differ - ences it ceased to exist in 1859, and was re orga nized as “Union Synod,” with the hope that all the Luther ans in the State could be led to unite with it. This hope was never re al ized. When the Gen eral Coun cil was orga nized the synod applied for admis sion to this body; but doctri nal and prac ti cal diffi- cul ties were in the way. Fearing that other congre ga tions of the Coun cil, which un til then had belonged to the Eng lish District Synod of Ohio (see above), might unite with the con grega tions of the Union Synod, this synod was dis banded in 1871, and in the same year the ear lier “IN DI ANA SYNOD” was re orga nized . In later )ears the name of the synod was changed to “CHICAGO SYNOD.” The synod num bers 46 minis ters, 55 congre ga tions and 8,284 com mu nicants. [8] THE ENG LISH SYNOD OF THE NORTH WEST was orga nized Sep tember 23, 1891, at St. Paul, Min nesota. At strate gical points in the Northwest the Gen- eral Coun cil had es tab lished missions — in Min nesota, Wis consin, Dakota, Utah and Washing ton. This synod was orga nized in or der to es tab lish a com mon center for these missi ons. The synod’s active op er ations caused consid er able off ense in the Augus tana Synod, es pecially in the Min nesota Con fer ence, since the Au gustana Synod con sid ered that it could take care of its cong re gations desir ing Eng lish, while the Synod of the Northwest re- garded itself specially called to engage in work among Eng lish-speak ing Luther ans. In later years this matter has been sat is fac torily adju sted, and all

169 differ ences have been laid aside. The synod num bers 40 minis ters, 46 con- grega tions, and 10,921 com mu nicants. One of the chief aims of the two last named synods is the mainte nance and support of the Chicago Sem inary , from which it draws its min is te rial sup plies. [9] THE MAN I TOBA SYNOD was orga nized in 1897 by the pastors and con- grega tions of the Ger man Mis sion Board of the Gen eral Coun cil, es tab- lished in the Canadian Northwes t, and in the same year it was admit ted into the Coun cil. It num bers 31 minis ters, 62 congre ga tions and nu mer ous preach ing sta tions, and 4,981 com mu nicants. Since 1912 the synod maintains a col lege at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, which is partic u larly engaged in pre paring young men for the study of theol ogy . [10] THE PA CIFIC SYNOD was orga nized in 1901, and num bers 21 minis- ters, 23 congre ga tions, and 1,906 com mu nicants, scat tered over the west coast. The synod is bi-lingual, and is divided into a Ger man and an Eng lish Con fer ence. In the year 1910 it founded a The o log ical Sem in ary at Port- land, Ore gon, which has since been re moved to Seattle, Washing ton. [11] THE SYNOD OF NEW YORK AND NEW ENG LAND is the ti tle of the new synod which was orga nized by for mer members of the New York Min is- terium at Utica, N. Y., Sep temb er 24, 1902 (cf. § 19, 2). Al though in the year 1909 a num ber of pastors and congre ga tions were dis missed for the purpose of uniting with the newly orga nized “Synod of Cen tral Canada” (cf. § 19, 13), the synod has enj oyed an un usually rapid growth. It num bers at present 62 minis ters, 55 congre ga tions, and 14,479 commu nicants. [12] NOVA SCO TIA SYNOD. At its 75th annual conven tion, July 3, 1903, the Nova Sco tia Con fer ence of the Pitts burgh Synod was orga nized as the Nova Sco tia Synod, with 6 mini sters, 24 congre ga tions, and 2,439 com mu- nicants. Unfa vorable condi tions have prevented the synod from enjoy ing a rapid growth. The synod now num bers 7 minis ters, 28 congre ga tions, and 2.918 com mu nicants. [13] THE SYNOD OF CEN TRAL CANADA, the youngest in the Coun cil, is the re sult of Eng lish mission ary activ i ties in Canada, which the Board of Eng- lish Mis sions of the Gen eral Coun cil began in the year 1904. The synod was org anized in 1909, in Toronto, and now num bers 9 minis ters, 16 con- grega tions, and 1,781 com mu nicants. It supports, in conjunc tion with the Ger man Canada Synod (§ 19:6), the The o log ical Sem inary at Water loo. On- tario.

170 [14] THE FIRST EVAN GEL I CAL LUTHERAN SYNOD OF TEXAS was orga nized Novem ber 8, 1851, became a member of the Gen eral Coun cil in 1868; in 1895 it with drew in or der to become a dis trict of the Iowa Synod, but in 1915 it re-en tered the Coun cil. It num bers 8 minis ters, 14 congre ga tions, and 3,000 com mu nicants.

§ 20. In stitu tions and Mis sions.

Note: This section has been revised on the basis of the first edition with great care by Prof. Dr. H. Offer mann.

1. The o logi cal Sem inar ies.

[a] THE PHIL A DEL PHIA SEM I NARY, at Mt. Airy, Phila del phia (prop erty of the Min is terium of Penn syl vania), a pium desiderium of Muhlen berg, was opened in 1864, in the rooms of the Pub li cation House, Phila del phia, and later occu pied its own building on Franklin street. In 1889 it was re moved to Mt. Airy. The first profes sors were Doc tors C. F. Schae ffer , Mann, Krauth, C. W. Schaef Jer, and Kro tel. Dr. Spaeth became a member of the fac ulty in 1873, and Dr. Ja cobs in 1883. For a short time (1892-1896) the fa mous As syri olo gist, Dr. Hil precht, was connected with the insti tu tion. Dr. G. F. Spieker was profes sor of Church History , 1894-1913. The present fac ulty con sists of the Dean, Dr. H. E. Ja cobs, and Doc tors J. Fry, H. Offer - mann, T. E. Schmauk, L. D. Reed, C. M. Ja cobs, and C. T. Benze. About 850 past ors have gone forth from this sem inary . In one year it had 92 students. The insti tu tion possesses a valu able property , with com modious buildings, endow ment amounting to nearly $350,000, and one of the most valu able li braries in the Lutheran Church in America, housed in a mag nif i- cent building, erected in memory of Dr. Krauth. The Presi dent of the Board of Direc tors is Dr. Schmauk. [b] THE EVAN GEL I CAL LUTHERAN SEM I NARY AT MAY WOOD, ILLI NOIS, founded through the activ ity of Dr. Passa vant, was opened in 1891. In the year 1910 it was re moved from Lake View, Chicago, to Maywood, a suburb of the city. Largely sup ported by the Chicago Synod and the Eng lish Synod of the Northwest (see above), its aim is to supply this ter ri tory with Eng lish Lutheran pastors. Nev er the less, among its stu dents are those who prepare for the ministry in other Lutheran synods. About 250 pastors have ob tained

171 their the o log ical train ing here. Dr. R. F. Wei d ner. Dr. Passa vant’s choice for this po si tion, re mained at the head of the insti tu tion un til his death (1915). Be sides the present head of the insti tu tion. Dr. E. F. Krauss, the members of the faculty are Doctors G. F. Ger berding. A. Ram say, and T. Stump. [c] THE AU GUS TANA SEM I NARY of the Swedes at Rock Is land (cf. above) was founded in Chicago in 1860, and re moved to Rock Is land in 1875. The Presi dent is Dr. G. A. Andreen. It has trained more than 700 minis ters. [d] THE THE O LOG I CAL SEM I NARY AT WA TER LOO, Canada, is the youngest of the Coun cil’s the o log ical insti tu tions. It was opened in 1911, and is supported by the two Canada synods, the Ger man and Eng lish, and is intended to sup ply minis ters for ser vice on the ter ri tory of these bod ies. Be sides the two regu lar Profes sors, C. Linke and P. A. Laury, D. D., the latter of whom is the Di rec tor, a num ber of neigh boring pastors render as sis tance as teachers.

2. Clas si cal In sti tutions.

[a] MUH LEN BERG COL LEGE, Allen town, Pa. (belong ing to the Penn syl vania Min is terium), was founded in 1867. It grew out of the “Allen town Sem i- nary,” which has existed since the year 1848. Its first Presi dent was Dr. F, A. Muhlen berg, w^ho, af ter an admin is tra tion of ten years, was fol lowed by Doc tors Sadler and Seip. Under the present Presi dent, Dr. John A. W. Haas, who be gan his labors in 1904, the col lege has made most grat ify ing progress. [b] WAG NER COL LEGE, Rochester, N. Y. (founded in 1883 by the Rev. Alexander Richter, as a Pro- Sem inary af ter the model of a Ger man gym nasium, with special ref er ence to Ameri can condi tions), is car ried on in the in ter est of the New York Min is terium. Dr. J. Steinhaeuser was its Presi- dent for a num ber of years, who was succeeded by Dr. J. Nicum. In the year 1904 Pastor H. D. Krael ing became Di rec tor. Af ter a success ful ser vice of ten years he was succeeded by the present Direc tor, Pastor J. A. W. Kirsch. [c] THIEL COL LEGE, Greenville, Pa., is the insti tu tion of the Pitts burgh Synod, and af ter small begin nings (Dr. H. E. Giese first Presi dent), was finally es tab lished, un der its present ti tle, in 1870. In the early years of the present century there arose differ ences of opin ion in the synod concern ing the change of the loca tion of the insti tu tion, from Greenville to some other place. The re sult of this was that the insti tu tion was closed for four years,

172 and only in 1907 re opened, un der the pres idency of Dr. C. Theodore Benze, who has since been called to Mt. Airy. [d] Con cern ing the COL LEGES OF THE SWEDES (Bethany at Linds borg, Kan- sas; Gus tavus Adol phus at St. Pe ter, Minn.; Luther Acad emy at Wahoo, Neb., and others), see § 19, 5 c.

3. In sti tutions of Mercy — Inner Mission Insti tutions.

Within the Gen eral Coun cil 18 OR PHANS’ HOMES are maintained, which are partly in direct connec tion with indi vid ual synods, and partly have the char- acter of pri vate insti tu tions. Homes for the Aged are connected with a number of these ins ti tutions. The most impor tant insti tu tions of this kind are WART BURG OR PHANS’ HOME at Mt. Ver non, near New York, a widely known insti tu tion for the train ing of or phans, which, un der the model admin is tra- tion of its Di rec tor for many years. Dr. G. C. Berkemeier , has at tained great prosper ity; the Or phans’ Home and Asy lum for the Aged, Phila del phia, and another at Top ton, Pa., both supported by the Penn syl vania Min is terium; the Or phans’ Home at Zelienople, Pa.; St. John’s Or phans’ Home at Buffalo, N. Y., as also the Swedish Or phans’ Homes at Jamestown, N. Y.; Joliet, Ill.; Stan ton, la.; Vasa, Minn.; Andover . 111.; Om aha, Neb.: Cle burne, Kans.; Avon, Mass.; Stromberg, Neb. Through Dr. Passa vant, the Gen eral Coun cil has taken a prom inent place in THE WORK OF DEA CONESSES. He founded hos- pitals at Pitts burgh, Milwau kee, Chicago and Jacksonville, Ill. For the churchly direc tion and the fu ture devel op ment of the fe male dia conate. Dr. A. Spaeth ren dered valu able ser vices. Chiefly through his influ ence, a Ger man-Ameri can, a native of Bremen, John Diedrich Lankenau, es tab- lished in 1888, in Phila del phia, THE MARY J. DREXEL MOTH ER HOUSE, in memory of his deceased wife, as the first Dea coness Moth er house, the largest and most mag nif icent insti tu tio n of its kind in the Lutheran Church in America. The first Di rec tor was Pastor A. Cordes (now super in ten dent and city past or in Leipzig) who, af ter three years’ activ ity , re turned to Ger many. He was succeeded by Pastor C. Godel (now in Montreux, Switzer land). The present rector , for more than eight years, is Dr. E. F. Bach mann. In connec- tion with the Moth er house there are a home for the aged, a children’ s hospi- tal, and the Lankenau School for Girls. The splen didly equipped Ger man Hos pitaT in Phila del phia is also un der the care of deaconesses. Judge William H. Staake is Presi dent of the Board of Di rec tors. The Augus tana

173 Synod has a Dea coness Moth er house at Om aha, Neb. THE LUTHERAN EM I- GRANT HOUSE in New York, whose founder and direc tor un til his death (1899) was Pastor W. Berkemeie r, serv ing it for twenty-five years, rendered un til recently valuable services to thousands of German im migrants. A short time ago the house was sold, but mission ary activ ity among immi grants is to be contin ued in the fu ture. A Ger man SEA MEN’S HOME, whose pastor is appointed by the Penn syl vania Min is terium, has existed for a num ber of years in Phila de lphia, and is sup ported by a local soci ety, whilst a simi lar un dertak ing, the Ger man Seaman’ s Home in Hoboken, is connected with the Ger man Lutheran Union for the care of seamen in Han nover. The Gen- eral Coun cil has devel oped help ful activ ity in the sphere of In ner Mis sion, in or der to rende r aid to social and spir itual needs in the large cities of New York and Phila del phia. In Phila del phia CITY MIS SION work has been car ried on for years, under the di rec tion of the Rev. Dr. J. F. Ohl, in con nection with the Penn syl vani a Min is terium. The Rev. Dr. F. F. Buermeier labors as city mission ary in New York City. In both cities CHRIS TIAN HOS PICES for young men are maintai ned, and efforts in vari ous direc tions are made in the service of the Church.

4. For eign Mis sion Work.

The his tory of the Foreign Mis sion work of the Coun cil is closely connected with that of the Gen eral Synod (§ 12:2). In conse quence of the sepa- ra tion at Fort Wayne in 1866, and the subse quent orga ni za tion of the Gen- eral Coun cil, the Gen eral Synod found it impos si ble to continue the work in In dia to the same extent as it had been begun. It decided, therefo re, to transfer a part of the ter ri tory (Raj ahmundry and Samulkot Districts) to the Church Mis sion ary So ci ety (Episco pal) of Eng land. When FA THER HEYER, a re turned mission ary, heard of the contem plated transfer while on a visit to Ger many, he re turned hastily to America, went to the Penn syl vania Min is- terium, then in session at Lan cas ter (spring of 1866), and influ enced the Min is terium, which was then en gaged in ar ranging for the is sui ng of a call look ing to the for ma tion of the Gen eral Coun cil, to take over these mission sta tions and save them for the Lutheran Church. Al though sixty-seven years of age, he declared himself ready to re turn to In dia and to orga nize the work. He went. He had brought with him to America a young man edu cated for miss ion work, H. C. SCHMIDT, of Flensbur g, Schleswig, who fol lowed

174 him to Ra jah mundry in 1870. In the fol low ing year, af ter having com pleted the work of org ani za tion, Fa ther Heyer re turned to America. Schmidt remained at the head of the mission un til 1902, when he re signed his po si tion, and in re cent years died in In dia. DR. HARP STER, of the Gen eral Synod, succeeded him. De spite many diffi cul ties, which at times threat ened the welfare of the miss ion, the work has enjoyed a steady growth. In 1913 eleven mission ar ies were on the field, in addi tion to nine Zenana Sis ters and many native helpers. The number of Christians were 19,377. The contri bu tions for Foreign Mis sions in the last bien nium amounted to $159,743. In addi tion to the work among the Tel u gus, work was begun in Japan in 1911, which the Gen eral Coun cil supports in com mon with the United Synod of the South, al though the latter work is still in its incip ient stage. The en tire Foreign Mis sion op er ations of the Gen eral Coun cil are conducted by a central board, which has its place of meet ing in Phila del phia, and of which the Rev. G. Drach is the General Secre tary.

5. Home Mis sions.

While all parts of the Gen eral Coun cil are in com mon engaged in prose cut- ing Foreign Mis sions, the man agement of Home Mis sion work rests on a some what differ ent ba sis. Until 1888 each synod man aged the mission work on its own ter ri tory; but then efforts began to be made to CEN TRAL IZE THE WORK to the ex tent that the Coun cil appointed sepa rate com mit tees, respec- tively, for the ENG LISH, the Ger man, and the Swedish work. The Board of Eng lish Mis sions, un der the ener getic Su perin ten dent, Dr. Kunz man, has been excep tion a lly active and has been very success ful, and has expended large sums of money for the es tab lishment of mission congre ga tions, es pecially in the West and Northw est (the income during the last bien nium amounted to more than $83,000). A Church Ex ten sion So ci ety, which has at its dis posal a consid er able amount of money and which it loans to poor con- grega tions with out inter est for the erec tion of churches, is an es sential aid to this work. The Board of GER MAN Mis sions, the soul of which for many years was the extraor di nar ily active and farsee ing PAS TOR F. WIS CHAN (d. 1905), entered into re la tions with PAS TOR J. PAULSEN, Kropp, Schleswig, encour aged him, in 1882, to es tab lish a The o log ical Sem inary for the prepara tion of men for this work, and re ceived from him many capa ble men. The Coun cil, howev er, soon demanded that the stu dents com ing from Kropp

175 should spend the last year of their course in the Phila del phia Sem inary . Pas- tor Paulsen re fused to com ply with this demand. This led to a spir ited conflict, which was inten si fied by per sonal differ ences between indi vid u als in the Coun cil, and re sulted, in 1888, in the action of the Coun cil that it was inex pe di ent to continue the offi cial connec tion with the insti tu tion at Kropp, and all re la tions with it ceased. Pastor Paulsen, however , contin ued to prepare men for the German syn ods of the Coun cil. De spite many finan cial diffi cul ties, his Sem inary contin ue d to exist, and re ceived fi nancial support from many Ger man congre ga tio ns and pastors. In 1909 the inter rupted re lations be tween Kropp and the Coun cil were again re stored, and the mu tual re la tions re-es tab lished un der the super vi sion of a special com mission, of which the Presi dent, Dr. Schmauk, is the chairman. The The o log ical Sem i- nary at Kropp re ceives annu ally a defi nite sum of money from the Coun cil, and in re turn places its gradu ates at the dis posal of the Board of Ger man Mis sions. The Rev. A. Hell wege is the treasurer of the Kropp Com mission. From 1913 to 1915 the Coun cil has placed an Ameri can pro fes sor (the Rev. Dr. C. T. Benze) at Kropp. The Board of Ger man Mis sions, with limited means at its com mand (in come for 1911-1913 amounted to $18,625), has accom plished much. The Ger man Mani toba Synod, which was orga- nized in 1897, and now (1916) num bers 31 minis ters, 62 congre ga tions, and 4,981 commu nicants, is one of the fruits of its labors. The monthly paper , “Siloah,” seeks to keep alive the mission ary inter est in the Ger man congre- gations. New York is the seat of the Board. The Board of SWEDISH Mis sions re ports to the Coun cil, but car ries on its extended mission ary op er ations in- depen dently and appar ently with much success. A part of the Home Mis- sion activ ity of the Coun cil is the work among the SLAV and HUN GAR IAN and al lied nation al ities, as also the mission work in PORTO RICO, which was begun af ter the cessa tion of the Spanish-Amer i can war. The Rev. Dr. A. L. Ramer is the Su perin ten dent of the Slav mission work. He spent two years in Hung ary before he entered upon his labors at home. The lack of suitable la borers is partic u larly felt in this work, and explains why the work has not yet gone beyond the bound ary of promis ing begin nings. In Porto Rico there are now eight missions, with nine congre ga tions and six preach ing sta tions. Even here the work is still in its begin ning, but it has splen did prospects for fu ture success.

Bi o graph ical Notes.

176 PROF. W. J. MANN, D. D., born, May 29, 1819, at Stutt gart. Wuertem berg. equipped with an excel lent the o log ical train ing, came to America in 1845, through the influ ence of his inti mate friend, Dr. Philip Schaff. At first he was pastor of a Re formed congr ega tion, coop er ated with Dr. SchafF in editing the “Deutsche Kirchen fre und,” later becom ing edi tor -in-chief. In 1850 he joined the Lutheran Church, was re ceived into the Penn syl vania Min is- terium, served Zion’s congre ga tion in Phila del phia, and in 1864 became Ger man profes sor in the Phila del phia Sem inary . He also took part in com- bat ing “Amer ican Lutheranism,” through two excel lent books, “A Plea for the Augs burg Con fes sion” (1856) and “Lutheranism in America” (1859). He was a very prolific writer, and pub lished, among other things, a biog ra- phy of Muhlen berg in Ger man and Eng lish. He rendered the Church an ex- ception ally valu able ser vice in editing a new edi tion of the “Hallesche Nach richten.” This noted Ger man-Ameri can the olo gian, with his rich the o- log ical ideal ism, is repre sented to us in a pleas ing man ner by Dr. A. Spaeth in his “Erinnerungs blaet ter.” He died in 1892. REV. W. A. PASAA VANT, D. D., of Huguenot ances try , was born at Zelienople. Pa.. Octo ber 9, 1821, re ceived his the o log ical train ing at Get tys- burg, and while yet a stu dent he pub lished the first Lutheran Al manac is- sued in America: served congre ga tions in Bal ti more and Pitts burg; published “The Mis sion ary,” which was merged into “The Lutheran and Mis- sion ary” in 1861; founded the “Workman” in 1880, the edi tor of which he re mained un til his death. In coo p er ation with Fliedner of Kaiser swerth, he es tab lished the deaconess work in the Lutheran Church in America (§20:2); founded or phanages, and hospi tals; was instru men tal in founding Thiel Col- lege and the Chicago Sem inary . He died in 1894. REV. B. M. SCHMUCKER, D. D., son of Dr. S. S. Schmucker, re ceived his train ing at Gettys burg College and Sem inary . Through the influ ence of Dr. Krauth he was led to becom e iden ti fied with the conser vative party in the Lutheran Church, and became a member of the Gen eral Coun cil. He was the fore most liturgi cal scholar of the Lutheran Church in America, and the Church Book of the Gen eral Coun cil, the Eng lish as well as the Ger- man, is pri mar ily the product of his em inent liturgi cal and hym no log ical stud ies. He was a member of the Joint Commit tee for the prepa ra tion of the Common Servic e, and the pref ace is the work of his facile pen. He died in 1888.

177 REV. G. F. KRO TEL, D. D., LL. D., born Feb ru ary 4, 1826, in Alsfeld, Wuertem berg, came with his parents to Phila del phia in 1830. For a num ber of years he at tended an acad emy in Phila del phia connected with the parochial school of St. Michael’s and Zion’s congre ga tions. In 1842 he entered the Uni versity of Penn syl vania and gradu ated in 1846. He stud ied the- ology un der Dr. Demme, and en tered the office of the ministry in 1850. He served congre ga tions in Phila del phia, Lebanon, Lan caster , Pa., again in Phila del phia, 1861, at the same time serv ing as a member of the fac ulty of the Phila del phia Sem inary . He was fre quently elected to the pres idency of the Penn syl vania Min is terium, and was Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil in 1869. He was widely known as a pul pit or ator . Af ter Dr. Krauth’s res igna- tion he became edi tor of the “Lutheran,” a po si tion in which he man ifested excel lent gifts. He was a prolific writer, and was one of the most influ ential men of the General Coun cil. He died in 1907. REV. J. A. SEISS, D. D., LL. D., born in Freder ick County, Mary land, ed- u cated at Gettys burg College, stud ied the ology and entered the office of the ministry in 1842. He served con grega tions in Mar tinsbur g and Shep herd- stown, W. Va., Cumber land, Md., Freder ick, Md., and Bal ti more. In 1858 he became pastor of St. John’s Eng lish Lutheran Church, Phila del phia, which he served for six teen years, when out of this congre ga tion the Church of the Holy Com mu nion was orga nized, which he served un til his death in 1904. Dr. Seiss exer cised a strong influ ence as a member of the Penn syl vania Minis terium, whose pres ident he was for many years, and as a member of the Gen eral Coun cil, whose pres ident he also was. As a pul pit or ator and a writer he was widely known. Partic u larly well known are his writ ings on the Last Things (The Last Times; Lectures on the Apoc alypse, 3 vol umes), which caused him to be charged with the intro duction of chilias tic er rors. He pub lished many books, most of which are expo si tions of Scrip ture and dis cussions of var ious eccle si as ti cal questions. PROF. A. SPAETH, D. D., LL. D., born Decem ber 29, 1839, in Esslin gen, Wuertem berg, was edu cated in the Latin School of his native place, in the Pro-Sem inary at Blaubeuren, and in the Uni versity of Tuebin gen. He was as sis tant pastor and was or dained in 1861; pri vate tutor in Italy, France, and Scot land, un til 1864, when he fol lowed a call as as sociate pastor , with Dr. W. J. Mann, of Zion’s Lutheran congre ga tion in Phila del phia. In 1867 he becam e pasto r of the newly orga nized St. Johan nis congre ga tion in Phil- adel phia. In 1873 he became pro fes sor in the Phila del phia Sem inary . He

178 was Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil (1880-1888), and of the Penn syl vania Min is terium (1892- 1895). He re mained pastor of St. Johan nis congre ga tion un til his death, serv ing that congre ga tion in addi tion to his labors in the Sem inary . He was a fine liturgi cal and hym no log ical scholar, as well as in the province of church mu sic. He also approved himself as a histo rian (Bi- og ra phy of Dr. W. J. Mann; es pecially of Charles Porterfield Krauth. in 2 vol umes). He is the author of the ar ti cle on the Lutheran Church in America in Hauck, Realen cyclo pediae. He also pub lished a num ber of homilet ical works: Ser mons for Children, Gospels of the Church Year, Seed Thoughts. He had special gifts as a pul pit or ator . He took a deep inter est in the deaconess work, and to his efforts it is due that the Ger man Hos pital in Phila- del phia was brought into the exi st ing re la tion with the Phila del phia Moth er- house for Dea conesses, and that the entire work has at tained its present churchly founda tion. He died June 25, 1910. PROF. R. F. WEI D NER, D. D., LL. D., was born in Cen ter Val ley, Lehigh County, Pa., Novem ber 22, 1851, and was edu cated at Muhlen berg College, Al len town, and the The o log ical Sem inary at Phila del phia. He was or dained in 1873, and bec ame pastor of Grace Church, Phillips burg, N. J., in connec- tion with which he served as profes sor of Eng lish and Log ics in Muhlen- berg College un til 1877. From 1878- 1882 he was profes sor of Dogmat ics and Ex e gesis in the The o log ical Sem inary of the Augus tana Synod, Rock Is land. He was pastor of St. Luke’s Church, Phila del phia, and assis tant pastor of the Church of the Holy Commu nion, Phila del phia, for a num ber of years. In the year 1891 he was elected Presi dent of the newly founded The- o log ical Sem ina ry of the Gen eral Coun cil in Chicago, and at the same time as pro fes sor of Dogmat ics and He brew. All his ener gies were directed towards the building up of the Sem inary , which through his lead er ship has at- tained an influ ential po si tion in the Church. He was a prolific writer and pub lished nu mer ous books, many of which were valu able works of Ger man the olo gians, freely elab o rated by him in Eng lish. Zock ler, on this account, once prop erly called him a pon tifex, i.e., a builder of bridges for the transfer of Ger man the ology into the garb of the Eng lish lan guage. He pub lished: Commen tary on the Gospel of Mark, 1881; The o log ical En cyclo pedia and Method ology (3 vols.), 1885-1891; Bibli cal The ology of the Old Tes ta ment, 1886; In tro duction to Dogmatic The ology , 1888; An In tro ductory New Tes- ta ment Greek Method, 1889; Stud ies in the Book, — New Tes ta ment (3 vols.), 1890; Old Tes ta ment, Gen esis (1 vol.), 1892; Bibli cal The ology of

179 the New Tes ta ment, 1891; Chris tian Ethics, 1891; Ex am ina tion Ques tions in Church History and Chris tian Ar chaeol ogy , 1893; Anno ta tions on the Gen eral Epis tles, 1897; Comme n tary on Rev ela tion, 1898 (Vols. XI and XII of Lutheran Commen tary); The ologia, or Doc trine of God, 1903; Ec cle si ology, or the Doc trine of the Church, 1903; The Doc trine of the Min istry, 1907; The Doc trine of Man, 1912; Chris tology , or the Doc trine of the Per- son of Christ, 1913; So te ri ology , 1914; Pneu ma tology , 1915. While engaged in writ ing this note, the re port has reached us of the death of this untir ing la borer. Untir ing activ ity , re mark able devo tion to his life-work (the building up of the Sem inary), firm adher ence to the prin ci ples of the Lutheran Church (in spi ra tion of the Bible and jus ti fi cation by faith alone), fine men tal gifts coupled with personal mag netism, through which he drew stu dents to himself and influ enced them, — all these, together with a living faith, consti tuted the prin ci pal char acter is tics of this great man in Is rael. For a num ber of years he had been physi cally weak ened by paraly sis, but he lost no time in his lec tures, and his vast lit er ary labors contin ue d un abated, so that at the time of his death (Jan u ary 6, 1915) two of his books were passing through the press. PROF. E. T. HORN, D. D., was born in Easton, Pa., June 10. 1850. He gradu ated from Penn syl vania College at Gettys burg in 1869 and from the Sem inary in 1872. He served as pastor in Phila del phia (1872-96), in Charles ton, S. C. (1876-97), in Read ing, Pa. (1897-1911). Then he was called as Profes sor of Ethics and of The ory and Practice of Mis sions at the Lutheran The o log ical Sem inary of the Gen eral Coun cil in Phila del phia, where he died in 1915. He was author of a num ber of works: The Chris tian Year, 1876; Old Matin and Ves per Services of the Lutheran Church, 1882; The Evan gel ical Pastor , 1887; Out line of Liturgies, 1890; Lutheran Sources of the Common Service, 1890; Trans la tion of Loehe’s Cat echism, 1893; Commen tary on Philip pians, Colos sians, I and II Thessa loni ans and Phile- mon, 1896; The Appli ca tion of Lutheran Prin ci ples to the Church Build ing, 1905; Sum mer Sermons, 1908; Trans la tion of Loehe’s Three Books on the Church, 1908. PROF. G. H. GER BERD ING, D. D., was born, August 21, 1847. Pitts burg, Pa. He re ceived his clas si cal train ing at Thiel College, Greenville, and Muhlen berg College, Al len town, Pa., and his the o log ical train ing at the Phila del phia Sem inary . He was or dained in 1876, and served congre ga tions in Alle gheny City, Pa., 1876-1881; Jew ett, Ohio, 1881-1887; Fargo, N.

180 Dak., 1887-1894, from which he was called to Chicago Sem inar y as profes- sor of Practi cal The ology . He is the author of the fol low ing valu able works: The Way of Sal vation in the Lutheran Church, 1887 (a book that has passed through many edi tions and enjoy s a wide cir cula tion); New Tes tament Con- versions, 1889; The Lutheran Pastor , 1902; Life and Let ters of Passa vant, 1906; The Lutheran Cat echist, 1910; Problems and Pos si bili ties, Se ri ous Con sid er ations for all Lutherans, 1914. PROF. J. A. W. HAAS, D. D., was born in Phil adel phia, August 31, 1862. Hav ing re ceived his train ing in the Uni versity of Penn syl vania, the Phila- del phia Sem inary , and in Leipzig, he was or dained in 1888. He served con- grega tions in New York un til 1904, when he accepted a call as Presi dent of Muhlen berg College, Al len town, Pa., and as profes sor of Phi los o phy, a posi tion which he holds at present. He is the author of Commen tary on the Gospel of Mark, in Lutheran Com men tary, 1895; Bible Liter ature, 1903; Bibli cal Criti cism, 1903; with Dr. Ja cobs, edi tor of the Lutheran Cy clo pedia, 1899; Trends of Thought and Christian Truth, 1915. PROF. H. E. JA COBS, D. D., LL. D., S. T. D., was born at Gettys burg, Pa., Novem ber 10, 1844. He re ceived his train ing in the College and Sem inary at Gettys burg, gradu at ing from the Sem inary in 1865, and was profes sor in the Coll ege at Gettys burg, 1864-1867. He served a mission congre ga tion in Pitts burg, 1867-1868. He was re called to Gettys burg as profes sor of Latin and Hist ory, 1870-1880; from 1880-1883, he taught exclu sively the ancient lan guages. In the latter year he accepted a call as profes sor of Sys tematic The ology in the Phila del phia Sem inary , a po si tion he still holds. From 1882-1896, he was also edi tor of the Lutheran Church Re view. Under his edi to rial super vi sion the Lutheran Commen tary became a possi bility , 1895- 1898, as also the Lutheran Cy clo pedia, 1899. He is the author of the fol lowing works: The Lutheran Movement in Eng land, 1899; History of the Lutheran Church in America, 1893; El ements of Re li gion, 1894; Commen- tary on Ro mans, 1896; Commen tary on First Corinthi ans, 1897; Life of Mar tin Luther, 1898; The Ger man Em igra tion to America, 1709-1740, 1899; Summary of the Chris tian Faith, 1905. PROF. THEODORE E. SCHMAUK, D. D., LL. D., was born at Lan caster , Pa., 1860, ed u cated at the Uni versity of Penn syl vania and the Phila del phia Sem- inary , and was or dained in 1882. Since 1895 he has been the edi tor of the Lutheran Church Re view; since 1896, edi tor of the graded Sun day-School Lessons of the Gen eral Coun cil; and since 1911 profes sor of Apolo get ics in

181 the Phil adel phia Sem inary . In addi tion, he serves his congre ga tion at Lebanon, Pa. Since 1903, he has been Presi dent of the Gen eral Coun cil. He is the author of the fol low ing works: The Neg ative Criti cism of the O. T.. 1894; Cat echet i cal Out lines. 1892; History of Old Salem and Lebanon. 1898; The Early History of the Lebanon Val ley, 1902; History of the Lutheran Church in Penn syl vania. 1903; The Con fes sions and the Con fessional Prin ci ple of the Lutheran Church, 1909; Anno tated Edi tion of Ben- jamin Rush’s Ac count of the Ger man In habi tants of Penn syl vania, 1910: Chris tianity and Christian Union, 1913.

1. Reprinted in Doc u men tary History of the Gen eral Coun cil, by Dr. S. E. Ochsen ford, Gen eral Coun cil Pub li cation Board, Phila del phia, 1912, p. 128 ff. ↩ 2. The fol low ing synods were repre sented: The Min is terium of Penn syl- vania, New York Min is terium, Pitts burgh Synod, Min nesota Synod, and the Eng lish Synod of Ohio. Be sides these, all of which had previ- ously belonged to the Gen eral Synod, del egates were present from the Joint Synod of Ohio, Eng lish Dis trict Synod of Ohio, Synod of Wis- consin, Synod of Michi gan, Iowa, Canada, Nor we gian, and even from the Mis souri Synod. These synods repre sented 891 minis ters, 1,612 congre ga tions and 209,707 com mu nicants. These sta tistics indi cate how strong nu mer ically Lutheranism then was out side of the Gen eral Synod. If only these could have been united into one body. Hope was enter tained that this would be possi ble, but it was shown shortly af ter- wards that this aim could not be at tained.↩ 3. See Doc u men tary History , p. 131. A Ger man transla tion of the ser mon is also found in the Ger man Min utes, pp. 22-33.↩ 4. The para graphs re fer ring to “Eccle si as ti cal Power and Church Polity” are not reprinted in this conne ction. They are found in Fritschel II, 313-319; in Eng lish in Dr. Ja cobs’ History , p. 474 f; and in Doc u men- tary History of the General Coun cil, p. 136 ff. ↩ 5. The Texas Synod (German) was ad mit ted the follow ing year.↩ 6. Lutherische Herold, 29 De cem ber, 1866.↩ 7. Why not also con cern ing the first point? See §23, IL, 5.↩ 8. For the reasons, see § 18.↩

182 9. The Iowa Synod demanded that the Gen eral Coun cil should expressly condemn “all church fel low ship with such as are not Luther ans; for exam ple, minis ters serv ing congre ga tions that are mixed and not purely Lutheran, receiv ing such con grega tions and their pastors into synod ical connec tion, the admis sion of those of a differ ent faith to the priv ilege of com mu nion, the permis sion of those not Lutheran to occupy our pul pits,” etc. The Coun cil was asked to declare that “accord ing to the Word of (lod, church dis ci pline be exer cised, es pecially at the cel ebra- tion of the Holy Commu nion, and be likewise exer cised towards those who are members of se cret so ci eties.” See Ger man Min utes, p. 13. Doc u men tary History , p. 161. The fol low ing offi cial answer was given by the Coun cil: “That the Gen eral Coun cil is not prepared to en dorse the dec la ra tion of the Synod of Iowa, as a correct log ical de duction and appli ca tion of the nega tive part of our Con fes sional Books, and that we re fer the matter to the District Syn oils. un til such time as by the bless- ings of God’s Holy Spirit, and the lead ings of His Provi dence, we shall be enabl ed through out the whole Gen eral Coun cil and all its churches, to see eye to eye in all the details of prac tice and usage, towa rds the consum ma tion of which we will direct our un ceas ing prayers.” Ibi- dem.↩ 10. Ger man Min utes, p. 20. Docu men tary History , p. 157.↩ 11. Ibi dem.↩ 12. Cf. Doc u men tary History , p. 158.↩ 13. Doc u men tary History , p. 160.↩ 14. The matter re ferred to here is pre sented in the fol low ing para graphs: “That this Coun cil is aware of noth ing in its ‘Funda men tal Prin ci ples of Faith and Church Polity’ and Con stitu tion, nor in the re la tion it sus- tains to the four questions raised, which jus ti fies a doubt whether its deci sions on them all, when they are brought up in the man ner prescribed in the Con stitu tion, will be in harmony with Holy Scrip ture and the Con fes sions of the Church.” “That as soon as offi cial evi dence shall be presente d to this body, in the man ner prescribed in the Con sti- tution, that un-Lutheran doctrine s or prac tices are autho rized by the action of any of its synods, or by their re fusal to act, it will weigh that evi dence, and, if it finds they ex ist, use all its consti tu tional power to convince the minds of men in re gard to them, and as speedily as possi- ble to re move them.” Doc u men tary History , p. 156.↩

183 15. Dr. Spaeth, “Gen eral Coun cil,” p. 25. Doc u men tary History , p. 163 ff. ↩ 16. Doc u men tary History , p. 216.↩ 17. See Fritschel, 3:326.↩ 18. Doc u men tary History , p. 217.↩ 19. Doc u men tary History , p. 219. See also Lutheran Cy clopae dia, p. 189.↩ 20. The most thor ough treat ment of this whole matter , in its his tor ical and dog matic bear ings, is the work of Dr. C. P. Krauth, and was presented at the First Free Lutheran Diet in America, held at Pitts burg, Pa., 1877, and part ic ipated in by large num bers of members of the Gen eral Coun- cil and Gen eral Synod. Reprinted in Proceed ings of the “First Free Lutheran Diet in America,” pp. 27-69.↩ 21. These are sections 2 and 3 of the decla ra tion on this sub ject. See Docu- men tary History , p. 208.↩ 22. See Ger man Min utes, p. 16. Doc u men tary History , p. 207. The read ing of this re port by the Chair man of the Commit tee, Dr. C. P. Krauth, was fol lowed by a minor ity re port, signed by J. Bad ing, R. Adelbe rg, and S. Kling man, in which they say: “We re ject each and every form of Chil iasm, as contrary to the Scriptures and the Con fes sions.” Cf. Ger- man Min utes, p. 30; Eng lish Min utes, p. 25. Pastor Bad ing was a del e- gate of the Wis consin Synod, Pastor Adelber g of the New York Min is- terium, and Pastor Kling mann of the Michi gan Synod. It should be stated, in this connec tion, that Pastor J. Grosse, in his book, “Un ter- schei dungslehren,” etc., in his ref er ence to the char acter is tics of the Gen eral Coun cil, quotes nu mer ous passages from the above named book of Dr. Seiss, but fails al tog ether to re fer to the decla ra tions of the Gen eral Coun cil it self. Since the death of Dr. Seiss noth ing at all is heard of Chil iasm in the General Coun cil.↩ 23. See Min utes of Aug. Synod of 1909, p. 197.↩ 24. Walden strom, head-master of the Latin School at Gefle, Sweden, vio- lently at tacked the churchly doctrines of the atone ment and justi fi cation, es pecially Christ’s vicar iou s death, and fur ther ignored the minis- te rial call, inas much as he permit ted lay men to admin is ter the sacra- ments. While on a visit to America, as in Sweden, he cre ated a great sensa tion through his writ ings and addresses, so much so that the Con- grega tion al ists, who es pecially frater nized with him, gave him the ti tle

184 of Doc tor of Di vin ity. His fol low ers are called “Mis sion Friends,” but they are not in creas ing rapidly in num bers.↩

185 7. The Syn od i cal Con fer ence.

§ 21. In tro duc tory.

The Syn od ical Con fer ence, the largest body of Luther ans in Amer ica,1 was OR GA NIZED in 1872 at Milwau kee, Wis., by the union of the Mis souri, Wis- consin, Min nesota, Illinois, Nor we gian and Ohio Syn ods. The Joint Synod of Ohio with drew in 1881 on account of the PRE DES TI NA TION CON TRO VERSY (§ 28, 2, c). The NOR WE GIANS (§ 32, III, 2) with drew in 1883, hop ing to set tle the same contro versy by being inde pen dent. The Illinois Synod (§ 7, 4; 10, 3, A. d; 17, 1, 3; 22, 7, d) was absorbed by the Mis souri Synod in 1880. Since the WIS CON SIN (§ 25, 1) and the MIN NE SOTA SYN ODS (§25, 11), toget her with the MICHI GAN Synod, (§25), which had left the Gen eral Coun cil, were merged into one body (§ 25, III, 4, 5; 17, 3); since the DIS TRICT of NE BRASKA became an inde pen dent synod (§ 25, IV), and since the SLO VAK Evan gel ical Lutheran Synod of Penn syl vania and other States (§ 26) has united with the Syn od ical Con fer ence, it is now COM POSED of the fol low ing synods: 1. The Mis souri Synod;2 2. The Syn ods of Wis consin, Min nesota, Michi gan and Ne braska; 3. The Slo vak Evan gel ical Synod of Penn syl vania and other States.

§ 22. How It Came Into Exis tence.

The Mis souri Synod.

1. The Saxons.

The Rev. MAR TIN STEPHAN, pas tor of St. John’s Church, Pirna (a suburb near Dres den, Ger many), from 1810 to 1837, was the man whose strange personal ity was to become a fac tor in the early his tory of the Mis souri Synod. Born of poor Chris tian parents at Stram berg, Moravia, in 1777. he came, while in Breslau. un der the influ ence of Scheibel, a Lutheran profes sor of strong con vic tions. Stephan fin ished his the o log ical stud ies at Halle and Leipzig, and, as a minis ter who preached Christ cruci fied in an age of ra tional ism, he exerted a re mark able influ ence on all with whom he came in contact. Out of the depth of his spir itual expe ri ences and on ac count of his

186 thor ough fa mil iar ity with the work ings of the hu man heart, he had a pecu- liar gift of com bat ing doubts and inner conflicts with timely and appro pri ate advice. He cared lit tle for mere or ator ical effects, but stated, in the plainest speech he could command, the gospel of grace. His hearers, un less contam i- nated with the spirit of the scoffer, were invari ably greatly affected. Hun- gering souls sought his coun sel. Among those who were at tracted to him was CARL FER DI NAND WIL HELM WALTHER, then (1829) a theo log ical stu dent at Leipzig, whose influ ence on the Mis souri Synod was to be fraught with such great bless ings. He was born in Lan genchurs dorf, Sax ony, Oct. 25, 1811, and was the son of a minis ter. Hav ing gradu ated from the Gym nasium, he intended to study mu sic, but owin g to his fa ther’s ob jec tions, he abandoned this idea. When he became a stu dent at Leipzig, he was utterly igno rant of spir itual matters, but his mind was a-thirst for knowl edge. The minis ters and profes sors at Leipzig were all repre senta tives of ra tional ism, and could not sat isfy the hunger of the young man’s heart. Walther spent his last penny for the purchase of a Bible, not knowing where he was to get his next meal. He took part in the re li gious meet ings of groups of stu dents who as sem bled for common prayer and the study of the Bible and the writ ings of Arndt, Francke. Scriver, Bo gatzki, etc. These stu dents had found Christ through the guid- ance of a shoem aker and a re tired old candi date of the ology by the name of Kuehn. The latter was the leader of this cir cle. Other Saxon em igrants who partic i pated in the meet ings were Brohm, Buenger and Fuerbringer . Franz Delitsch, too, belonged to this cir cle. In his book, “Con cern ing the House of God and the Church,” he refers to these devo tional meet ings with deep emo tion. It is only nat u ral that at a time of such spir itual dearth, Walther and his friends should have heard of Pastor Stephan. In his great perplex ity Walther address ed a letter to the Pirna pastor , the re ply to which, as well as the words of the wife of a Leipzig tax-col lec tor, helped him to find the peace of God in the forgive ness of his sins. But on account of these inner conflicts, which were accom panied by constant pri vation, his health gave way. Suffer ing with an affe ction of the lungs, he had to leave the uni versity and re turn home. But this was evi- dently a part of God’s plan for him; for in his fa ther’s li brary he found the works of Luther, and stud ied them with un wea ried appli ca tion, and thus laid the basis fur that thor ough acquain tance with the writ ings of Luther and the old dog mati cians which af ter wards dis tinguished him. In 1834 he com-

187 pleted his stud ies, became a pri vate teacher un til 1836, and was or dained as pastor at BRAE UNS DORF. Sax ony, in 1837. For more than forty years the word of the cross had not been proclaimed in this place. Re li gious and moral in- differ ence reigned. The or der of ser vice, the hymn-book and the cat echism were ra tional is tic. The super in ten dent, who was placed over him and the school-mas ter who was placed un der him, both were ra tional ists. His efforts to intro duce Lutheran doctrine and prac tice met with deter mined op po sition. Other mem bers of the cir cle of Bible stu dents at Leipzig, who had mean while entered the ministry , met with a like expe ri ence. These therefore, as well as Walther, gladly sig nified their consent when Stephan called on them to leave Ger many with him in or der to found an ideal Church in America. The DE TER MI NA TION TO EM I GRATE had grown stronger in the mind of Stephan ever since Dr. Kurtz vis ited Ger many in the inter est of the Sem i- nary at Gettys burg (§ 7. 4). The imme diate occa sion for car ry ing out this deter mina tion was as fol lows: By his earnest activ ity in Dres den, Stephan had gained an ever-in creas ing fol low ing. But the love of those to whom he had been the guide to the Sav ior partook more and more of the nature of idola try . He did not re sist the temp ta tions which this fact involved. He grad- u ally be gan to imagine that he was infal li ble; he became impe ri ous; at last his un excelled gifts for pas toral min is tra tion became a snare of the flesh. All sorts of ru mors touch ing his char acter began to be cir culated. More than once they were inves ti gated; but as these efforts failed to prove him guilty, the charges were looked upon as at tempts to black mail the repre senta tive of posi tive Lutheranism. While this may have been partly true, it must be admit ted that Stephan’s way of do ing things jus ti fied cer tain suspi- cions. He made provi sion for prom enades on sum mer evenings for his follow ers of both sexes, and these usually lasted un til morn ing. In spite of the warn ings of his supe ri ors; indeed, in spite of the express prohi bi tion of the civil author ities, he contin ued them un til at last he was ar rested by the po- lice un der sus picious cir cum stances. At the same time the Bo hemian congre ga tion com plained of gross neglect. Al though an offense against moral ity could not be clearly proved against him, he was DE POSED FROM HIS OF FICE. His fol low ers re garded this as perse cution endured for Christ’s sake, and conse quently waited only for a word from him to em igrate. A com mon fund, to which $125,000 had been contrib uted, was entrusted to his care. Then when the em igra nts, 750 in

188 num ber, had departed in several groups, Stephan se cretly left Dres den in the middle of the night, with out tak ing leave of his wife and chil dren, and joined his fol low ers at Bremen. On FIVE VES SELS the em igrants, includ ing six minis ters, ten candi dates of the ology and tour school-teachers, set out for America. One of the ships, the “Amalie,” went down; the oth ers reached New Or leans. On Feb ru ary 19, 1839, the last of the immi grants ar rived at the ap pointed station, St. Louis. On the way over Stephan had al ready permit ted himself to be elected by his fol low ers, both men and women, as their BISHOP, to whom they swore un condi tional obedi ence. At the com mand of the bishop, who all the while dealt with the funds of the com pany in the most ir re sponsi ble way, and of course greatly depleted them, they re moved to PERRY COUNTY, 110 miles south of St. Louis. Stephan ruled like a pasha. The plans were al ready un der way for the erection of an epis copal palace for him, when the colonists were scandal ized by a shocking dis cov ery. Among the em igrants who had remained behind in St. Louis were several girls, who confessed that, during the voy age across the ocean Stephan had, by an abuse of God’s holy name and Word, led them from the path of virtue. Walther came to the set tlement from St. Louis, ar riv ing in the dead of night, and bring ing with him the proofs of Stephan’s guilt. Speaking in the Latin lan guage, he made known to a candi date of the ology , who re clined beside him on the straw in the sleep ing apartment, what he expected to make known to the whole company on the mor row, namely, that Stephan, un der the mask of a pastor , had been leading a life of sin. A for mal court was convened, and Stephan was deposed from his office. He was transpo rted across the Mis sis sippi River in a boat, supplied with suffi cient provi sions, and set ashore near the “Devil’s Bake Oven,” a fantas- ti cally shaped rock. This was in 1839. Not far from there, a few miles from Red Bud, Ran dolph County, Ill., he soon found a small congre ga tion. A few years later he died at the age of 69, with out giv ing any signs of real re pentance. The colonists now suffered great WANT. The GEN ERAL TREA SURY, as they now dis covered, was empty, owing to Stephan’s extrav agance. As the land had to be made arable before any crops could be raised, the direst poverty stared the colony in the face. Still more se ri ous was the SPIR I TUAL CON FU SION that re sulted from their sad exp eri ence with their once trusted leader. They now rec og nized that they had done wrong in fol low ing him so blindly; that

189 they had been guilty of mak ing an idol of him, and that they had become the occa sion of giv ing offense in the eyes of the world. In deed, it now seemed to them that they had commit ted a great sin in thus fol low ing their own ways and dis solv ing their connec tion with the Church at home. The pastors themselves imagined that their offi cial acts were invalid, because they had for saken their call ing in the Fa ther land. Con sciences were con- fused and dis tressed. Di visions began to appear . Some openly re nounced the pub lic ser vices. Pastor Buenger re signed his office from con sci entious scru ples. The confu sion lasted through the entire sum mer. The matter finally re solved it self into the crucial QUES TION: “Does the true Chris tian Church re ally exist or not among those who em igrated with Stephan?” To this ques tion some answered yes, oth ers no. (Fritschel, Vol. II, p. 172.) IT WAS WALTHER3 whom God used to console the tempted ones and to save them from despair .[^k7] Through contin ued study of the works of Luther and the Lutheran fa thers, he rec og nized the er rors of Stephan in re- spect to the Church and the ministry At the same time he becam e convinced that, acc ording to the seventh ar ti cle of the Augs burg Con fes sion, THE CHURCH CON SISTED OF THE IN VIS I BLE COM MU NION OF SAINTS; that where two or three are gath ered together in Christ’s name, there is the Church; that, conse quently, these congre ga tions of the colonists were to be re garded as a part of the true Church of Christ, with full author ity to call pastors. These convic tions Walther success fully main tained in a dis pu ta tion in 1841. In this way he qui eted the minds of the colonists, and brought about the orga ni zation of congre g ations which called their pastors. Meanwhile the out ward condi tion of the set tlers had also improved, and a num ber of flourish ing villages rose in the wilder ness. A log cabin, which was the hum ble begin ning of CON COR DIA SEM I NARY, was erected to serve as a boys^ train ing school. This oc curred in 1839. Walther accepted a call to the congre ga tion in St. Louis. There he began in 1844 to pub lish "DER LUTHER ANER. The sem i- nary was also soon af ter wards transferred to St. Louis, where it was destined to play so prom inent a part in the up building and guidingof the Mis- souri Synod.

2. Wyneken and His Appeal For Help. Freder ick Con rad Diedrich Wyneken was a man whose name will al ways be men tioned with re spect in any his tory of the Lutheran Church of America. Six months before the “Saxons” had reached the Mis sis sippi Val ley he had

190 landed in BAL TI MORE as a candi date of the ology . He might appro pri ately be named the Muhlen berg of the western synods — at least, so far as re gards mission ary work. There are many points of re sem blance between him and his great fel low country man who la bored a century before him. Like Muh- len berg, he came from Hanover, and stud ied in Goettin gen and Halle. At Halle he was pow er fully impressed by Tholuck, whose influ ence, com bined with that of pious fam ilies in which he was af ter wards engaged as pri vate tutor , led him to the accep tance of Christ as his personal Sav ior. As the tutor of wealthy young men, he trav eled through France and Italy, and acquired the use of the Eng lish lan guage. For a time he was prin ci pal of the Latin School in Bremer vo erde. Here he read a mission ary re port telling of the spir itual needs of West ern Amer ica; so he deter mined to serve the Lord in the New World. In his second ex am ina tion before a ra tional is tic prelate he made such an impres sion by his em phatic tes ti mony for the Holy Scrip tures that he received, in spite of his or tho dox po si tion, the very high est mark. The pious Cap tain Stuerje took him to Bal ti more free of charge. Here he looked for Luther ans, but happened to get into the cir cle of the “Otter beinari ans,” and in this way made acquain tance with the ways of Method ism. Fi nally, however, he found a Lutheran cong re gation served by Pastor Haes bart.4 At the sugges tion of this pastor , the Penn syl vania Min is terium sent him to IN DI ANA for the purpose of gath er ing into congre ga tions the scat tered “Protestants.” He started on this trip in Sep tem ber, trav el ing to Pitts burgh by boat and rail, and through Ohio on horse back. In Ohio he found large set tlements that had no pastor for years. He baptized and confirmed many persons. But, much as he cher ished the people there, he would not re main. In Adams County he dis covered a deserted congre ga tion and began his mission ary labors there. In every re spect he was an IDEAL MIS SION ARY. This was his main work, es pecially during the first part of his Ameri can labors. At FORT WAYNE he found a hand ful of Lutherans whose minis ter had re cently died. They did not even have a church. These people urged him to become their pastor . He re ferred them to the mission board that had sent him. The board agreed, but insisted that he give part of his time to the duties of a trav el ing mis sion ary. Thus he extended his work even into central Michi gan. He was inde fati- gable, and, like Muhlen berg, had an extra or dinary consti tu tion. But amid un num bered hardships, trav el ing through woods and swamps, he contracted an affec tion of the throat. He would not seek med ical aid from the poor doc-

191 tors of that vicin ity, but decided to RE TURN TO EU ROPE, hop ing to have his health re stored, and earnestly de sir ing to arouse the Church of Ger many to greater mis sion ary zeal. Hav ing been relieved by a sub stitute from Germany in 1841, he re turned to his native land to inter est the friends of missions in his work in Amer ica. He trav eled through all parts of Ger many, and was ev- erywhere cordially re ceived, and entered into nego ti ations with repre senta- tive men. But it was no easy task to get the right kind of labor ers for the dis- tant vine yard. In accor dance with a cher ished desire, he went to Bavaria to meet LOEHE, who, having read his re ports, had become deeply inter ested in the Amer ican mis sion ary enter prise. There he met the first two helpers instructed by Loehe. At Erlan gen he was welcomed by Pastor Raumer. He vis ited Dres den, Leipzig and the vicinity . His addresses re sulted in the forma tion of SO CI ETIES which promised help. Es pecially effec tive was his PAM- PHLET en ti tled, “The Des ti tution of the Ger man Luther ans m North Amer- ica,”5 in the prepa ra tion of which he was as sisted by Raumer and Loehe.6 All this shows the great impor tance of Wyneken’s efforts in both Amer- ica and Ger many. His value to the immi grants of that time can hardly be overes ti mated. When he re turned to America in 1843, the DAWN OF A BET TER TIME was break ing. That this came about was the re sult, in a large measure, of his earnest and well directed appeals for aid. Mis sion ary zeal had been kin dled; the Mother Church was willing to do her duty to her em igrat ing; children. The only task now was to keep the fire burning. Ways and means had to be found to deserve by good deeds the good will that had been created. The contin u ation of this task fell to the lot of WILLIAM LOEHE, who came into the fore ground as Wyneken re tired into the backgro und; for the latter was not em inently fit ted for lead er ship, but for solid and endur ing, though hum ble, work. Wyneken also soon left the mission held and became pastor of Haes bart’s congre ga tion.

3. Loehe and His In sti tutions.

In the “No erdlinger Son ntags blatt” Loehe7 had pub lished an AP PEAL for funds to re lieve the great dearth of minis ters in America; and in a short time he re ceived 700 florins. At the same time two young me chanics announced their willing ness to be trained for the work. Other orga ni za tion s promised their sup port, and accord ingly Loehe un dertook, in a very mod est way at first, the work of train ing men. In Sep tember , 1842, his FIRST MIS SION AR IES (Burger and Ernst) ar rived in New York. Their instruc tions were to seek po-

192 si tions as lay read ers and teach ers. In New York they met the REV. MR. WIN KLER, who had been called as profe ssor in the The o log ical Sem inary of the Ohio Svnod at Colum bus, Ohio, and was on his way there. He induced both of them to go with him to Colum bus to prepare themselves for the ministry . They accom pa nied him, and this fact was the occa sion of the TEM PO RARY UNION BE TWEEN LOEHE AND THE OHIO SYNOD. The synod re quested him to send more stu dents who had re ceived a prelim inary train ing. Such men were sent in rapid succes sion, among them some who had re ceived a univer sity edu cation. One of the latter was DR. SIH LER, who af ter wards became the suc cessor of Dr. Wyneken as pasto r in FORT WAYNE, IN DI ANA, and around whom the other men sent by Loehe grouped them selves as their leader. At that time TWO TEN DEN CIES were striving for the up per hand in the Ohio Synod: an ENG LISH tend ency, which desired to make the Eng lish the prevalent language in the Semi nary at Columbus, and which rep re sented the laxer form of Lutheranism; and a GER MAN ten dency, which insisted on the supremacy of the Ger man lan guage in the Sem inary , because, for the present at least, the Ger man lan guage was es sential to the mainte nance of a posi tive Lutheranism. Both parties were repre sented in the Sem inary , the Ger man by Profes sor Winkler , the Eng lish by Profes sor C. F. Schaef fer .8 In the outcome the ENG LISH PRE VAILED, and all the Loehe men, ten in num ber, left the synod. LOEHE SEV ERED HIS RE LA TIONS WITH THE OHIO SYNOD, and decided to bring about the orga ni za tion of a new synod on a strictly Lutheran ba sis. Some other men whom Loehe had sent to America had gone to MICHI- GAN, in com pany with a consid er able num ber of immi grants af ter 1845. Here a Michi gan Synod had ex isted since 1840, but as early as 1846 the conser vative el ement had with drawn from it. Here the PVanco nian colonies, “Franken mut,” “Frankentrost,” “Franken lust,” and “Franken hilf,” were estab lished in Sag inaw County, and here Loehe founded a sem in ary for the edu cation of teach ers. Among the pastors who came to this colony was A. CRAE MER, who had been or dained by Dr. Kliefoth in the cathe dral in Schw- erin, and who, later, was pres ident for many years of the Practi cal Sem inary of the Mis souri Synod at Spring field, Ill. Be sides him may be men tioned Pastors SIEV ERS and GRAEB NER; Baier lein, a mission ary;9 and later pastors Deindo er fer and Gross mann.10

4. Or ga niza tion and Growth of the Mis souri Synod.

193 All the men whom we have men tioned in the preced ing passages were men of the same kind — the “SAX ONS”; WYNEKEN, who in 1845 withdrew from the General Synod af ter protest ing against its non- Lutheran fea tures at the Phila del phia conven tion, and the FOL LOW ERS OF LOEHE, who did not feel at home in the Ohio and Michi gan Syn ods. These groups — the small one in the West and the large one in the East — merely needed com bina tion. In Sep tember , 1845, the ad herents of Loehe met at CLEVE LAND, OHIO, and withdrew from the Ohio Synod. At the same time they sent a del ega t ion, headed by Dr. Sih ler, to the “Saxons” in St. Louis for the purpose of dis cussing closer affil ia tion (1846). Walther out lined a consti tu tion, which the Loehe people de clared satis fac tory. In the month of July of the same year repre senta tives of both sides convened at Fort Wayne, Ind. Here the cons ti tution was again dis cussed, and a res o lution was passed for the call ing of the first con- vention of the “Synod of Mis souri, Ohio and other States,” to be held at CHICAGO in April, 1847.11 Meanw hile Loehe had al ready founded a SEM I- NARY at FORT WAYNE, IND., where stu dents, trained in Ger many, were to fin- ish their stud ies for the Ameri can ministry . Dr. Sih ler was made the head of this insti tu tion, which became a school of the synod. “DER LUTHER ANER,” edited by Walther, was made the synod ical paper . The exceed ingly RAPID GROWTH of the new synod — from 1847 to 1851 it increased from 15 minis- ters and 12 cong re gations to 81 minis ters and 95 congre ga tions — is due to a se ries of for tunate cir cum stances. The FOL LOW ERS OF LOEHE, who al most with out excep tio n had united with it, repre sented a goodly num ber. At the Fort Wayne conven tion (1846) 24 of the Loehe people were present, and more were constantly ar riv ing, un til the contri bu tion of minis ters from Neuen det telsau to the Mis souri Synod amounted to 84. The synod fur ther- more had two Theo log ical Sem inar ies (Fort Wayne and St. Louis), which were soon filled with stu dents sent from all parts of Ger many,12 where the Mis souri Synod was re garded as the only Ger man and Lutheran Synod of America. The Sem inary at Fort Wayne alone grad u ated forty-eight min is ters between 1846 and 1854. It must also be borne in mind that at this time GER- MAN IM MI GRA TION WAS VERY LARGE. Among the min is ters, a num ber of GER- MAN UNI VER SITY MEN13 were actively engaged with Walther in the mission ary activ i ties of this ris ing synod in the ever-widening ter ri tory of the West. These circum stances explain the phenom enal growth of this body.14

5. Walther’s em i nence, espe cially at the found ing of the Mis souri Synod, is very ap‐ parent.

194 Says Pro fes sor L. Fuerbringer: “All the fac tors, namely, Sax ons, Loehe and Wyneken, must be em phasized. I am far from un der-es ti mating the merit of Wyneken and Loehe. Wyneken, to be sure, was the first on the ground, but was iso lated. More over, he was not es pecially gifted as an orga nizer . He was a mission ary. The his torian must not overlook or un der-es ti mate the founding of ‘Der Luther aner.’ Its first num ber was pub lished when Loehe’s fol low ers were still in the Ohio and Michi gan Syn ods (Sept. 7, 1844). Wyneken, upon re ceiv ing this num ber, exclaimed: ‘Thank God, there are still real Luther ans in the coun try!’” Sih ler, in his auto bi og ra phy, com ments as fol lows: “It was a great joy to me when the first num ber of the ‘Lutheraner ’ was pub lished in 1844, and af ter re ceiv ing sub se quent num bers, I did not hesi tate to com mend it to my congre ga tions and to cir culate them. Wyneken, too, was highly elated; both of us hoped for the sound enliven ing and strength ening of our Church from the Saxon brethren, for we both read ily saw that greater clearness and preci- sion of doctri nal teach ing than we had must be present with them.” For this very rea son Sih ler, Lochner and Ernst went for consul ta tion concern ing the new synod to St. Louis. Certain it is that Loehe, by es tab lishing a prac ti cal sem inary , etc., rendered the most em inent ser vices. But the pree mi nence of Walther cannot be denied. Says Sih ler concern ing the confer ence with the Sax ons: “The most po tent impr es sion was made upon us beyon d doubt by Walther. He was also, above all oth ers, the vital iz ing and orga n iz ing genius in out lining the prin ci ples for an or tho dox (i.e., Lutheran) union of congre- gations or a synod,” etc. The promi nence of the man can be dis cerned through out the devel op ment of the Mis souri Synod. Spaeth gives a correct es ti mate of his talents when he says: “Con tinued doctri nal dis cussions at synods and confer ences, yes, even at the congre ga tional meet ings, regu lar parish vis ita tions, care ful es tab lishment of parochial schools, coop er ated, not only toward the cre ation of a com mon synod ical spirit, but also toward its power ful propa ga tion in new ter ri tory. Walther’s wise and steady lead er- ship had a mag netic effect, conquer ing, win ning and as simi lat ing antag o nis- tic ele ments.” 15 More than most other men in the his tory of the Church. Walther knew how to impress his mind upon his fol low ers. The impos ing unity of the Mis souri Synod, together with its size (for it soon grew to be the largest Lutheran synod), exerted a mighty influ ence every where, and es pecially in

195 the East ern synods strength ened the confes sional conscious ness which had al ready awakened from its slumber .

6. Rup ture With Loehe. Soon af ter the founding of the Mis souri Synod, dis agree ment with Loehe became more and more appar e nt. Loehe consid ered the orga ni za tion too DEMO CRATIC. He desired a greater influ ence of the minis ters in church matters than seemed to be provided for. The expe ri ences of his fol low ers among the un ruly congre ga tions of Ohio and In diana filled him with fear, lest un wor thy lay men might gain control by means of a ma jor ity of votes on all questions. WALTHER’S THE ORY OF THE MIN IS TE RIAL OF FICE, der ived from the prin ci ple of the uni versal priest hood, was crit icized by him. Fi nally, upon the urgent re quest of the Franco nian congre ga tions, it was decided that Presi dent Wyneken and Profes sor Walther should go to Ger many (1857), to set tle these differ ences by a PER SONAL IN TER VIEW. Walther stated to Loehe that he was perfectly sat is fied with his expla nations; he hoped, however , to convince his protag o nist by his book, then being pub lished, on the church and the ministry . Loehe, to show his agree ment in es sentials, decided to estab lish a teach ers’ train ing school at Sag inaw (^by sending Gross mann and a number of stu dents) in the int er est of the synod, as he had done with the the o log ical sem i nary at Fort Wayne, Ind. But he contin ued to dis agree with Walther’s doctri ne of the ministry , even af ter the pub li cation of Walther’s book, and thus at length the RUP TURE took place. In 1853, af ter a con fer ence in Michi gan, Loehe was asked by Wyneken, then pres ident of the synod, to give up his work at Sag inaw . As harmo nious coop er ation had become im- possi ble, Loehe was forced to seek for himself and his fol low ers a new field of work. Only two of his dis ci ples (Grossmann and Deindo er fer) re mained with him. They formed the IOWA SYNOD (§ 29).

7. Re lations to Other Syn ods.

[a] THE IOWA SYNOD. The con flict with Loehe and the exo dus of Gross mann and Deindo er fer cre ated an early antag o nism between the Mis souri and Iowa Syn ods. See his tory of Iowa Synod (§ 29). Soon a doctri nal contro- versy arose which has not been set tled even at the present date. We shall speak of it further in § 23, II. [b] THE BUF FALO SYNOD. The prin ci ples of Grabau, founder of the Buf- falo Synod, prop osed in a “past oral letter” (§ 23, 30), were vig or ously op-

196 posed by Walther, who had beco me aware of their danger ous conse quences by the Stephanist confu sion. Of this contro versy we shall speak in § 23. The Mis souri Synod gained much in the contention, for, af ter a pub lic dis cussion in 1866 with the Grabau party, twelve pastors 16 of the Buffalo Synod joined Missouri. See also his tory of the Buffalo Synod, § 30. [c] THE GEN ERAL COUN CIL. In 1866 the Penn syl vania Synod, af ter sepa- rat ing from the Gen eral Synod, called a confer ence at Read ing, Pa., to dis- cuss a possi ble union of all true Luther ans. To this meet ing Mis souri also sent del e gates, who advised that an orga ni za tion should not imme diately be effected, but that free confer ences should be ar ranged for the purpose of as- cer taining points of differ ence and agree ment among the vari ous synods. Their advice not being heeded, the Mis souri del egates with drew, and no repre senta tives of Mis souri appeared at the next conven tion at Fort Wayne in 1867 (see § 17. 3). In this connec tion we might add a word concern ing the PARTY OF PROTEST in the New York Min is terium. Says Profes sor L. Fuerbringer: “Several pastors and congre ga tions of New York and vicinity (between 1875 and 1880) protested against synod ical rule as applied to congre ga tions. This was the time when Sieker was called to St. Matthew’s Church of New York, and, with A. E. Frey of Brook lyn, assumed lead er ship in this re volt. The party founded a paper , ‘Zeuge der Wahrheit,’ which existed for some time. The matter ended with the se cessio n of several minis ters: Frey, Half man (not Sieker, who never belonged), and later their congre ga tions, St. Matthew’s, Frey’s, etc. These min is ters and their con grega tions had been influ ential.” [d] THE AB SORP TION OF THE ILLI NOIS SYNOD. The Illinois Synod, at first a part of the Gen eral Synod (§ 7, 4) and later of the Gen eral Coun cil (§ 17, 1, 3), left the Coun cil in 1870, and united with the Syn od ical Con fer ence. Even tually (1880) it was absorb ed by the Mis souri Synod. This gave Mis- souri a strong hold in Illinois, where it has today a Northern, a South ern and a Cen tral Synod, with more than 300 pas tors. [e] OR GA NI ZA TION OF THE SYN OD I CAL CON FER ENCE. As has been said, the Mis souri Synod declined to take part in the orga ni za tion of the Gen eral Coun cil (§ 17, 3). Ohio had also with drawn. In 1868 the Wis con sin Synod also stepped out. The Min nesota Synod seemed to be ready to do the same. All of them wanted a dec la ra tion on the subject of church-fel low ship, which the Gen eral Coun cil, on account of its East ern com po si tion, was not prepared to give (see § 18). These synods, therefore, opened nego ti ations with

197 Mis souri. In 1871 a conven tion took place at CHICAGO, to which Mis souri, Wis consin, Ohio and the Nor we gian Syn ods (§ 32, III, 2) sent del egates. At this time the org ani za tion of a Syn od ical Con fer ence was sugg ested. At a later confer ence at Fort Wayne, to which the Min nesota and Illinois Syn ods also sent del egates, the matter was fur ther dis cussed, cul minat ing in the forma tion of the Synod ical Con fer ence, the largest body of Luther ans in Amer- ica. Its FIRST REG U LAR CON VEN TION took place at Milwau kee in 1872. Ev ery synod of less than 80 pastors is repre sented by two pastors and two lay men; for ever y addi ti onal 40 pastors there is one cleri cal and one lay del egate. From 1872 to 1879 it held annual con ventions. Since 1879 it has been meeting ev ery two years. It is merely an advi sory body, and is chiefly concerned with ques tions of doc trine.17 Dr. Walther planned that STATE SYN ODS should be formed out of all synods, which were expected to main tain their own col leges, and also to support one grand central sem inary with a tri-lin guis tic (Ger man, Eng lish. Nor- we gian) fac ulty and one teach ers’ sem inary . Ohio was prepared to give up its sem in ary, even though the orga ni za tion of state synods was not car ried out; Min nesota also consented. But Wis consin was radi cally op posed to the plan, called its stu dents from St. Louis, and founded its own sem inary at Milwau kee, Wis. (now in Wauwatosa, near Milwau kee). In 1914 the plan was again con sid ered by the Synods of Missouri and Wis consin. [f] WITH DRAWAL OF THE OHIO AND NOR WE GIAN SYN ODS. In 1881 the OHIO SYNOD with drew from the Syn od ical Con fer ence. The question of pre desti- nation having arisen, the del egat es of Mis souri to the Syn od ical Con fer ence were instructed not to coop er ate with Stell horn and the Ohio del egates. See the his tory of the Ohio Synod and the biog ra phy of All wardt (§ 28, conclu- sion). Pastors A. All wardt and H. Ernst, with a small num ber of adher ents, fi nally left Mis souri and joined Ohio. The NOR WE GIANS, too, whose minis- ters were divided on the doctrin e of predes ti nation, sepa rated in 1883 from the Syn od ical Con fer ence, hop ing in this way to reach a solu tion of the problem more quickly.18 But in spite of these with drawals, the Syn od ical Con fer ence, and es pecially the Mis souri Synod, grew rapidly, al most dou- bling its mem bership from 1878 to 1888. NOTE 1. The sta tistics of 1914 give to the Mis souri Synod 2282 pastor s, 1746 con grega tions directly con nected with it, and 1232 inde pen dents; a total of 1,283,720 com mu nicants. These are com prised in 15 dis tricts scat- tered through out the country . Mis souri has done work in Brazil since 1870,

198 and lately also in Argen tine. In 1904 this dis trict formed a special South Ameri can orga ni za tion. NOTE 2. In Ger many (since 1876) there exists the “Evange- lisch=Lutherische Freikirche von Sachsen;” there is also a Mis souri Synod in Australia. But nei ther of them is organ i cally connected with the Mis souri Synod of Amer ica.

§ 23. Doc tri nal Con tro ver sies of Mis souri.

This section is a con tribu tion by the Rev. Prof. Geo. J. Fritschel. See our remarks in the preface of this book.

I. Mis souri And Buffalo.

In un dertak ing to describe the doctri nal po si tions and conse quent strug gles between the Buffalo and Mis souri Syn ods, we are confronted by a num ber of diffi cul ties. In or der to ar rive at a fair judg ment we must consider four impor tant facts: 1) that Grabau mod ified his views and re duced his claims; 2) that, while Grabau as “Senior Min is terii” had al most un lim ited influ ence and spoke in an author ita tive man ner, not every word he said is to be charged to the synod; 3) that a devel op ment has taken place within the Buf- falo Synod, as Dr. Stell horn has pointed out, so that today it is closely re- lated in its po si tions to other syn ods; 4) that many state ments, attrib uted to the dog matic po si tion of the Buffalo Synod, must be looked upon as contro- versial quibbles or in com plete quo ta tions. It is no easy task to portray a devel op ment of fifty years in a few statements. Re gardin g these doctri nal contro versies we can consider only the period when the Buffalo Synod held a prom inent place in the Ameri can Lutheran Church, that is. un til 1866. We have in mind the po si tion of Grabau as opposed by the Mis souri Synod. THE CAUSE of this strug gle was a “Pastoral Let ter,” writ ten by Grabau, in which pastor less congre ga tions were warned against itin er ant preach ers (of whom there were many at that time), since they were not “properly called.” This lett er, writ ten in 1840, five years before the orga ni za tion of the Mis- souri Synod, together with writ ings of a later date, explic itly expresses the views of Grabau concern ing the Church and the ministry . His ideas were as fol lows: By the grace of God we have come to this country as a part of the

199 true Church. It is es sential that a free Church should not degen er ate into a condi tion of eccle si as ti cal anar chy through a misin ter preta tion of the four- teenth ar ti cle of the Augs burg Con fes sion. It is re quired of a prop erly called minis ter that he should have suffi cient train ing for this office; that he have re ceived the Holy Spirit, so that he can success fully use his train ing; that he be ex am ined and rec om mended by wor thy and expe ri enced min is ters; that he be pub licly or dained and installed in the congre ga tions which he is to serve. The neces sity of a regu lar call is at tested by the words of the apostles, the exam ple of Christ, and the consid er ation that the Church should have ev idence of the wor thy char acter of the la borers in its ser vice. Men who ar bitrar ily pose as minis ters have no real call, and cannot properly ab- solve from sin; and when they admin is ter the Lord’s Sup per, they are merely dis tributing bread and wine, because Christ will rec og nize only his insti tu tion and not hu man perver sions of his estab lished or der. [1] THE DOC TRINE OF THE CHURCH. GRABAU’S DOC TRINE of the Church is pecu liar . He over-em phasizes its vis ibil ity . The only holy Chris tian Church spoken of in the Apos tle’s Creed is, ac cording to Grabau, the visi ble con grega tion of those who have the pure Word and Sacra ments. This can be said only of the Lutheran Church, which for that rea son is God’s true Church. Out side of it there are only mobs and sects, but no church. In these masses there are, no doubt, true believ ers who, accord ing to their inner life, belong to the Lutheran Church; but these would unite with the Lutheran Church, if they would come in contact with it. But none can be as sured of sal vation un less actu ally connec ted with the true Church. Says Grabau: “Our sym bols teach and confess that there will al ways be and re main on earth a holy Chris tian Church, consist ing of the vis ible congre ga tion of be- lievers, with whom the Word is preached in its pu rity and among whom the sacra ments are admin is tered accord ing to Christ’s insti tu tion.” 19 He re jects the doct rine that “even where the Word and the Sacra ments are not al together pure, a holy Church of the elect is gath ered, as long as the Word and Sacra ments, though ob scured, are not al together denied, but re main in essence.”20 His inter preta tion of the seventh ar ti cle of the Augs burg Con fes sion is as fol lows: “The Church is that (vis ible) congre ga tion of the saints (over against other congre ga tions) in which (over against other congre ga tions) the gospel is correctly taught,” etc. That the inter preta tion of the rel ative “in

200 which,” so es sential to Grabau’s the ory, is insuf fi cient appears in the am plifi cation of the ar ti cle as contained in the Apol ogy, in which the subor dinate clause is al together lack ing. There it is stated that the true Church consists of all those who truly believe the gospel and have re ceived the Holy Ghost.21 The rel a tive clause in question might be para phrased (as is done in the Latin rel ative sentence of Ar ti cle XII and in other places) as mean ing," and among whom (the saints) the gospel is cor rectly taught," etc. WALTHER, on the other hand, in sisted that the Church is essen tially invis i- ble, and consists of all the faith ful in whatso ever denom ina tion. Fel low ship with the Church invis ible is nec es sary to sal vation. The decla ra tion that the Word and Sacra ment are the sole cri te ria of the Church and do not per tain to the essence thereof, Walther aban doned during his collo quium with the Buf- falo pastors (1866). [2] THE DOC TRINE OF THE MIN IS TE RIAL OF FICE. As appears from the “Pastoral Let ter” just men tioned, GRABAU put great em phasis on being in accord with the old church rules of Prussia. Those who are not called accord ing to the rules of the Church, have nei ther right nor power to offi ci ate; the Lord’s Sup per, given by them, is mere bread and wine.22 Es sential to the minis te rial office is not only an exam ina tion, but a proper call (under the auspices, or, at least, with the consent of the clergy) by the congre ga tion, and fi nally, accord ing to the divine rule, an or dina tion, which can only be performed by the ministry . Wher ever there is willful oppo si tion to the minis ters, the le giti macy of the pastoral office becomes doubt ful. WALTHER’S VIEW. Walther orig inally shared Grabau’s views. But having seen their fa tal conse quences in the confu sion caused by Stephan, and having been convinced, es pecially by the lawyer Vehse, from Luther’s writ ings, that they were er ro neous, he defended his new po si tion against Grabau so much more em phat ically . He says: “Ev ery Chris tian as a priest of God has: a) the office of the Word, b) to baptize, c) to bless and conse crate the holy bread and wine, d) to re tain sins and to re mit them, e) to offer sacri fice, f) to pray for oth ers, g) to pass judg ment on doctrines. But as all Chris tians cannot si multa neou sly dis charge these offices, God has com manded that the many spir itual priests choose one among them as pastor , who, as a repre senta tive of the whole congre ga tion, performs the minis te rial rites. The minis- te rial office is there fore the spir itual priest hood of all members transferred to an indi vid ual. This transfer takes place in the call of the congre ga tion.

201 Or dina tion is merely an eccle si asti cal rite; it is al together a hu man insti tution, and serves only as a pub lic confir ma tion of the transfer ence by the congre ga tional call.”23 [3] OTHER DIF FER ENCES. Further dis agree ments between Grabau and Mis souri were the nat u ral out growth of this funda men tal differ ence. Ac cording to GRABAU, the con- grega tion has merely the right to exhort the sin ner; the pastor alone has author ity to excom mu nicate. Ac cord ing to MIS SOURI, the office of the keys belongs to the con grega tion as such, but is admin is tered by it through the pastor. GRABAU found the ideal form of the Church in the State Church, which means the inner most union and inter re la tion of both. In a Free Church he as signs ulti mate author ity, not to the congre ga tion, but to the synod. MIS- SOURI con sid ers the Free Church the ideal form and the congre ga tion the high est tri bunal and the fi nal jud icial author ity within the Church. The con- grega tion must exam ine the doctrine, and it alone must depo se a pastor whose life or doctrine is contrary to the Word of God. GRABAU holds that the congre ga tions must be obedi ent to the minis ters in all demands not contrary to the Word of God. MIS SOURI grants power to the minis ter only in matters directly demanded by the Word of God. All other things are adi- aphora, in which the pas tor can merely ad vise, but not demand.

II. Missouri, Loehe And The Iowa Synod.

The con tro versy between Mis souri and Loehe and the Iowa Synod extends through many years and pertain s to quite a num ber of questions more or less inter -re lated. Their chronolog ical or der was as fol lows: 1. the Church and the minis te rial office (Walther and Loehe); 2. Chil iasm and Anti-Christ; 3. the Con fes sions and “open ques tions;” 4. Sun day; 5. usury and uni versal jus ti fi cation; 6. fi nally, predes ti nation and conver sion. The prin ci pal differ - ence re gards the matter of the confes sions and “open questions”. Both Iowa and Mis souri have mod ified their views during this long strug gle; we shall point out these mod ifi cations at the proper places. We shall deal with the above-named top ics in the or der given.

1. At ti tude To ward the Scrip tures and the Confes sions. When the Iowa Synod was org anized, its po si tion was thus defined: “The synod accepts all the confes sions of the Evan gel ical Lutheran Church.” This

202 brief sentence contains in subst ance every thing which, later on, was stated in the confes sional para graph enumer at ing by name the differ ent confes- sional books. It contin ues: “It does so BE CAUSE it consid ers all the sym bol i- cal deci sions concern ing contro versies preced ing the time of the Refor ma- tion and coin ci dent with it as being in harmony with the Word of God.” With this must be com pared the form of obliga tion used from the very begin ning at or dina tion, both in the Mis souri Synod and in that of Iowa, and which was af ter wards substi tute d for the above phrase, viz.: “as the pure and adul ter ated decla ra tion and inter preta tion of the divine Word and will.” By this decla ra tion the am bigu ous “quatenus” was re jected and the “quia” was con fessed. The op po si tion to other synod s becomes evi dent in the next clause: “Since there are, however , vari ous ten dencies within the Lutheran Church, it takes its po si tion with that ten dency which strives for a greater perfec tion of the Lutheran Church on the way of the confes sions and guided by the Word of God.” By this decla ra tion the Iowa Synod, on the one hand, declared its op po si tion to the Gen eral Synod, in which at that time the un- Lutheran el emen ts had the up per hand. On the other hand, it also declared its op po si tion to Mis souri, which re jected an appeal from the confes sions to the Word of God. MIS SOURI had declared in an offi cial letter: “Luther ans as such must not inter pret the confe ssions in the light of the Bible, but must inter pret the Bible accord ing to the confes sions.”24 IOWA con sid ered the po sition of Mis souri as a “dogma tizing” ten dency, and declared that it repre- sented “the exeget ical ten dency” held by Loehe and other Eu ro pean scholars of the confes sional side. It was the inten tion to lay greater stress upon imme diate proof from the Scripture than was done by Mis souri. The char acter of the contro verted questions was the rea son why Iowa al ways appealed to the Bible, because the confe ssions contained no deci sion in re gard to these questions. MIS SOURI, on the other hand, tried to ascribe its views (which had been gleaned eclecti cally from the great teach ers of for mer ages) to the con fes sions. To this Iowa ob jected, claiming that the Con fessions must be un derstood in their his tor ical sense. Soon the dis cussion turned to the LIM ITS OF CON FES SIONAL AU THOR ITY. The po sition of Mis souri at that time is described very correctly by theolo gians of the Wis consin Synod in this way: “When Dr. Walther took charge of church affairs in America, it was of supreme impor tance that true Lutheranism should be defined against

203 ‘Amer ican Lutheranism’ and confes sional union ism. It was neces sary that as large a num ber of minis ters as possi ble be trained in true loy alty to the Lutheran confe ssions. Lutheran pastors and congre ga tions every where needed to be strength ened in their Lutheranism. This could be done in no other way than by proving with abso lute clearness from the writ ings of Lutheran dog mati cians, 1) what the true Lutheran doctrine is; 2) it is contained in our confes sions. To this task Walther devoted his whole genius, strength and la bor. This explain s why the old mag azines on every question are filled with proofs from the sources, and why the synod ical re ports are al most entirely made up of com pila tions of quo ta tions from the fa thers. Walther pursued this method (at that time the only prac ti cal one), but his pupils also adhered to it. It was consid ered the proper treat ment of a question, even af ter the fight against false Lutheranism had long been decided, to re fer to the decla ra tions of ancient schol ars. They stood, indeed, upon scriptural ground in repre sent ing this ‘dogmatic ten dency,’ into which they had drifted un der the stress of time. But it can be denied just as little that the Scrip ture proof was taken not directly from the source, but from the writings of the fa thers. Thus (with out being aware of it) they got into a rut; a kind of intel lec tual crys talliza tion devel oped, for such is al ways the conse- quence of tra dition al is tic dog matics. This does not neces sar ily mean intel- lec tual stag nation. Quite contra ri wise! But one could not toler ate it that a matter was presented in a way which in any re spect differed from the cus- tomary method. Those pursu ing orig inal methods were suspected of hereti- cal ten dencies. A num ber of forms, phrases, argu ments and methods were becom ing stereo typed. A cer tain le gal is tic type of or tho doxy was devel- oped, which very easily became un just over against op po nents. And there was an absence of that spirit of love and patience which consid ers only the matter , even if the form is not per fect. In this pecu liar spirit several gener a- tions grew up. But in the contro versy concern ing predes ti natio n Hoe necke and Stoeck hardt blazed a new trail. An”ex eget ical ten dency" as serted it self, which, while revering the fa thers of the Church, goes back directly to the Scrip tures. And this imme diate inves ti gation of the Scrip tures cre ates another, a milder, more char ita ble, more tol er ant spirit."25 Later on Mis souri indeed abando ned this line of at tack against Iowa, and declared that by the “open quest ions” the latter had transferred author ity belong ing to the Bible alone to the Church. Iowa vig or ously denied this charge.26

204 2. Alti tude To wards the Con fes sions.

GRABAU as serted in his dis cussions with Iowa that the confes sional obliga- tions covered every detail in the confes sions (in clud ing even et y mo log ical expla nations, e.g., that the word “God” is derived from “good”). WALTHER did not go that far. He declared that “all doctri nal devel op ments, contained in the confes sions, by their very inser tion into the confes sions, had become a part of the Church’s confes sion,” and that the confes sional obli gation included all doctri nes contained in any way in the sym bols, no matter whether they are as ser tions given EX PRO FESSO or casual ref er ences.27 Over against this theory IOWA made two claims: In the first place we must dis tinguish between that which is bind ing and that which is not bind ing in the Sym bol ical Books; in the second place, as the dog mati cians have al ready declared, only those state ments are bind ing which were meant to be of sym bol ical sig nif i- cance, and not those state ments which are merely intro duced to am plify, to prove or to inter pret. Here we find with Iowa, then, two widely differ ent fac tors: 1) The prin ci ple and the rule are laid down, THAT a dis tinction must be made between parts that are obliga tory and those that are not obliga tory; 2) a the ory (bor rowed from the or tho dox dog mati cians) is approved HOW this dis tinction is to be made. The dis tinction between the for mer prin ci ple and the latter the ory must be un derstood in or der to do jus tice to Iowa. In flu enced by opin ions ob tained by re quest from Eu ro pean Luther ans (es pecially those of Muenkel and Dor pat). the synod at its Toledo meet ing C1867) corrected the as ser tions in such a wav as still to maintain the dis- tinction in the symbols between that which is bind ing and that which is not. But it here expr essly re pu diated the the ory how this is to be done, on the ground that a synod has no business to propose the o ries. How ever, it was consid ered proper that the synod should pass judg ment, when ever a partic u- lar case was submit ted to it for ad judi ca tion, to declare whether this was an es sential or non-es sential part. At the col loquy held soon af ter wards at Mil- wau kee, an agree ment was reached whereby ALL DOC TRINES OF FAITH IN THE CON FES SIONS, but not the “the o logu mena” were declared obliga tory . In spite of this agree ment in prin ci ple, no unity was at tained, as the question remained un set tled into which class the con tro verted points had to be placed.

3. “Open Ques tions.”

IOWA, from the very begin ning, acted accord ing to the prin ci ple that in matters of faith it is es sential to agree in case church-fel low ship is to take place,

205 but that doctri nal points, which are not doctrines of faith, must not affect fel lowship of faith and church fel low ship. They must be consid ered “open questions.” By this not a the ory but a general prin ci ple concern ing the treatment of differ ences within the Church in re gard to church-fel low ship is laid down. MIS SOURI re jected this dis tinction, and demanded com plete agreement and unity concern ing ever y doctrine taken from the Scrip tures. Such unity was declared to be an abso lute prereq ui site for church-fellow ship. One and only one inter preta tion could be permit ted by the Church, lest she prove disloyal to the Word of God by toler at ing two inter preta tions at the same time. The prin ci ple that there are such “open questions” was described “as a most danger ous (because a most subtle and most dis guised) union is tic poi son, driv ing congre ga tions into the grasp of skepti cism and infi delity.” IOWA, howev er, insisted that this prin ci ple had al ways been a confes sional decla ra tion of the Lutheran Church,28 and that the Lutheran Church had always acted accord ing to this prin ci ple. Another prac tice would end in sectar ian ism, and would be un-Lutheran, since it was just as wrong to add to the con fes sions as it was to de tract from them.29 Since the op po nents tried to con nect ideas re jected by Iowa with the phrase “open ques tions,” Iowa declared at MIL WAU KEE: “By open ques tions we do not mean such doctrines as concern the founda tion of faith, or such as are plainly and un mistak ably taught in the Scrip tures, but such doctrines as are ei ther not taught at all or are not decided in a clear and un mistak able man ner in the Scrip tures and con cern ing which therefore no consen sus has devel oped within the Church. In case a dilT er ence of opin ions is found in re gard to the latter they do not inter fere with consis tent church man ship, as long as these differ ences do not affect the anal ogy of faith.” (See Dav enport The ses, 17-19.) Be cause Mis souri re jected Iowa’s dis tinction between bind ing and non- bind ing doctrines in the confes sions, and denied the exis tence of “open questions” (that is, questions not lead ing to schism), it is nat u ral that this differ ence became dom inant in the treat ment of the vari ous contro verted points at that time. We men tion the fol low ing:

4. The Church and the Ministry .

While Walther em phasized the invis ibil ity of the true Church, LOEHE maintained that, accord ing to the Augsbur g Con fes sion, the Church is the vis ible as sem bly of those who have the pure Word and Sacra ments, no dis tinction

206 being made there between the vis ible and invis ible Church. For this rea son the def ini tion of the Church should include the means of grace, so that the Church was de fined as the in vis ible fel low ship of faith made visi ble. Loehe was also un able to approve WALTHER’S “DOC TRINE OF TRANS FER- ENCE,”30 accord i ng to which the minist ry was MERELY THE EX ER CISE OF THE SPIR I TUAL PRIEST HOOD OF ALL BE LIEV ERS. He sided with Walther against Grabau in declaring that the office of the ministry was only to feed and lead with the Word and Sacra ments, and had no right to set up as or dinances things not expre ssly com manded in the Word of God. But, acco rd ing to his views, the minis te rial office had not been com mit ted to the spir itual priesthood of indi vid ual Chris tians, but to the Church as a whole. Not every indi- vid ual Chris tian can therefore transmit his personal share, but the church, as an entirety , must trans fer the oftice in stituted by Christ.31 The DIF FER ENCE between Walther and Loehe did not lie in the question: “Was the office of the ministry directly transmit ted to the Church?” but in the next question: “How does the Church possess this office, and in what way does she transfer it?” Loehe saw in the or dina tion more than merely a confir ma tion of the previ ous transfer ence through the call, viz., the his tor i- cally and liturgi cally prescribed form of transfer ence of the office. Since both par ties agreed concern ing the fact that the sa cred office had been given to the Church as a whole, Loehe (and with him the Iowa Synod) held that the differ ences might re main an “open question,” and not dis turb eccle si asti cal fel low ship. But Mis souri, on account of this differ ence, asked Loehe to dis continue his labors in Michi gan, denied him the fel low ship of faith, and shortly af ter wards ap plied these measures to the whole Iowa Synod. NOTE: It may be well to com pare the vari ous the o ries concern ing the minis te rial office: ROME: The office has been conferred by Christ upon his substi tute, the Pope, who in turn transfers it to the bish ops, by whom, in the inter est of in- divid ual com mu nicants, it is transferred to the priests. EPIS CO PAL: The office has been transferred by Christ upon the bish ops, the succes sors of the apostles, and by them is transferred to the pres byters in the in ter est of in divid ual com mu nicants. BUF FALO: The office has been conferred by Christ upon the whole Church through the ministry , and is passed on by the minis ters in the inter - est of the con grega tion by or dina tion.

207 LOEHE: The off ice has been conferred by Christ upon the Church as such, and is given to indi vid ual minis ters by the call of the congre ga tion and by the or dina tion, which is the liturgi cal form of its trans fer ence. WALTHER: The office has been conferred upon the Church in the spir itual priest hood of all the members, and is transferred upon an indi vid ual by the indi vid ual members; the or dina tion is merely the confir ma tion of the con- grega tional call. HOE FLING: The office is an insti tu tion of the Chris tian Church in the inter est of order li ness.

5. Chiliasm.

LOEHE had expressed himself as hold ing views in agree ment with the “Bib- li cal Chiliasts” (Hoff man and oth ers). In conse quence of this fact, the IOWA SYNOD, which re ceived its minis te rial supply from Neuen det telsau, at once was suspected of chilias tic views. In or der to re ply to such charges of Mis- souri, the pres id ent of the synod or dered an es say on these matters to be prepared for the synod ical meet ing of 1858, so that a clear view might be gained “as to the kind of chilias m repre sented by us.” This es say was published in the syn od ical minutes as an evi dence against false accu sa tions. The mere fact that a strong antichil iast (Rohrlack) was re ceived as a member of the Iowa Synod at that very meet ing should prove conclu sively that the synod did not wish to be iden ti fied with Chil iasm, but consid ered the issue as an “open question,” that is, one not produc tive of schism. But as the accu sa tion of teach ing gross Chil iasm was contin u ally made against it, the synod in 1864 adopted a se ries of decla ra tions, in which its po sition on this question is given in detail. 32 These decla ra tions express a more decided, more vit al and more funda men tal antithe sis to all chilias tic fa naticism than can be found in any other res o lu tions touch ing this question. Muenkel (one of Ger many’s strong est op po nents of Chil iasm) offers the fol low ing opinion: “These res o lutions are veri t able ar senic for chilias tic fa naticism of any kind, and no real Chiliast will ac cept them.”33 At the MIL WAU KEE COL LO QUIUM (1867) Iowa ex plained and mod ified some of the expres sions contained in this re port of 1858, and Walther dropped the asser tion that ev ery form of Chil iasm was contrary to the Scrip- tures and the Con fes sions. He declared that such a Chil iasm as had been submit ted to him was toler able, though he did not accept it. Later he is said

208 to have declared that the contro versy with Iowa had been prema turely inter - rupted. An AGREE MENT WAS PRE VENTED, howev er, by the differ ent inte r preta tions of Rev. 20:4, 5: “They lived and reigned with Christ a thou sand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again un til the thou sand years were fin ished. This is the first res ur rec tion.” WALTHER declared that whoever inter preted these words as re fer ring to a bod ily res ur rec tion thereby re jected the doctrine of the general res ur rec tion, and that a differ ence of views concern ing this point meant a divi sion in the Church. The repre senta tives of IOWA denied this by stat ing that belief in the res ur rec tion of the saints on Good Fri- day was not a denial of the gen eral res ur rec tion. They as serted that the ac- ceptance or re jec tion of such an exeget ical expla nation (pro vid ing there existed har mony in other things) should not cause a schism in the Church. The is sue was clas si fied by them, not as a doctrine of faith, but as an “open question,” The synod as such did not approve the one or the other exeget i- cal in ter preta tion.

6. The Anti-Christ.

Be ing strictly tra ditional in its po si tion, MIS SOURI placed great em phasis on the as ser tion of Luther and other dog mati cians that the Pope is the An- tichrist. Since Ar ti cle IV of the second part of the Smalcald Ar ti cles declares that the Ro man Pope is the Antichrist predicted in 2 Thess. 2, in whom all such prophecies find their ful fillment, this state ment was declared to be a doctrine from which no consis tent Lutheran can devi ate. Whoever re fused to confess this or denied it had abandoned the Lutheran con fes sions. IOWA’S SPOKES MEN replied to this as fol lows: 1) The views of Luther on this point must be consid ered together with his other es chato log ical ideas. He con fi dently expected the end of the world before the close of the six- teenth century . Such a view nat u rally involved the ful fillment of this prophecy in the person of the Pope.34 2) Neither Luther nor the Con fes sions declare that the Scriptures say: “The Pope is the An tichrist,” but state this as their per sonal in fer ence from the com pari son of his tory and prophecy.35 3) Luther has nowhere treated this question as a doctrine of faith.36 4) That arti cle does not dis cuss the question: “Who is the Antichrist?” but the question: “What is the papacy?” 5) The sentence passes judg ment on the anti- Chris tian nature of the papacy , and as serts that the papacy is through and through anti-Christian; but the es chato log ical state ment, viz., that the Pope

209 is the last Antichrist, cannot be proven from the Scrip tures; hence it is merely a hu man convic tion. It was fur ther argued that, accor d ing to the Bible, the Antichrist is to be an indi vid ual. To inter pret the prophecies in such a man ner as to expect the appear ance of a partic u lar person as the An- tichrist does not conflict with the confes sions, provid ing that which the confes sions say about the anti-Chris tian na ture of the papacy is retained. Both sides agreed in char acter iz ing the papacy as anti-Christian, but whether or not in the last days an inten si fi cation of the anti-Christian el e- ments shall be em bod ied in an indi vid ual was a point of diffe r ence. Iowa looked upon this differ ence as an “open question,” not neces si tating a cessa tion of ec cle si as ti cal fel low ship. Mis souri eventu ally , in fact, abandoned its po si tion. When Theodore Harms, in 1876, char acter ized it as “a whim of Mis souri,” Prof. Brauer and Pastor Koes ter ing demanded that the synod should suspend fel low ship with him. Dur ing a whole forenoon session at the meet ing of the West ern Dis- trict, Prof. F. A. Schmidt, who op posed this mo tion, was made a target of the “mud bat ter ies” (“Graeu pel wetter”) of his op po nents, who denounced his as ser tion that to view the Pope as the Antichrist was not an AR TIC U LUM FIDEI. Walther fi nally declared himself in fa vor of Schmidt, and thus a schism with Harms was avoided. Mis souri treated this differ ence as an “open ques tion.”

7. The Sunday Contro versy . The diff er ence between Iowa and Mis souri concern ing Sun day became all the more appar ent, because in re gard to the doctrine it self there was perfect and abso lute agree ment. This question had been strongly argued in Ger- many, but Mis souri and Iowa held exactly the same views. BOTH DE CLARED that, while the sev enth day had been set apart in the Old Tes ta ment, no such rule app lied to the New Tes ta ment, in which every day is cons idered holy. How ever, since the days of the apostles, and in connec tion with Easter and Whitsun day , the Church has made use of Sun day as a time for re li gious in- struction and devo tion. Thus Sun day has become a Chris tian Holy Day. GER HARD, on the other hand (and a num ber of oth ers), had gone a step further, and had taught that the Church had to set apart one day in seven, because God had rested one day in seven. This as ser tion was not pre sented as an expre ss doctr ine of the Scrip tures, but as an infer ence from the or der of cre ation. BOTH Iowa and Mis souri held to Luther’s view as against Ger-

210 hard’s, but they DIF FERED in their eccle si as ti cal treat ment of Ger hard’s er ror. Mis souri wanted the dis ci ples of Ger hard excluded from church-fel low ship; Iowa de clared that it could tol er ate them.

8. The Question of Usury. Dr. Walther, influ enced by Luther’s writ ings, had come to the conclu sion that the accep tance of any kind of inter est on money loaned consti tuted the usury which is for bid den in the Scrip tures. As usual, a large num ber of the pastors sided with him, and the synod was on the point of promu lgat ing this as a clear Bible doctrine. But the op po si tion of no small portion of the pastors and congre ga tions showed that such a step would precip ita te a tremen- dous rupture in the synod. Walther prevented the rupture by declaring (“Lutheraner ,” May 2, 1871, vol. 27, p. 131) that a dis tinction must be made between such doctrines of Scrip ture as are doctrines of faith, and such as are not, and that there was no inten tion of suspend ing church fel low ship on account of the latter . In do ing this Walther accepted the prin ci ple which he had so vig or ously op posed in his con tro versy with Iowa. Even today Mis souri treats the question of usury as an “open question,” but stead fastly re fuses to apply this prin ci ple to any other issue.

9. Other Dif fer ences. Be sides the diver gent views just men tioned, there were a num ber of differ - ences not so gener ally argued as the preced ing. The question as to whether a man might marry the sis ter of his dead wife was answered by Iowa in the affir ma tive, while Mis souri, on the basis of cer tain opin ions expressed by Luther, condemned such a re la tion as inces tu ous. In the early seven ties Prof. Got tfried Fritschel dis cussed the doctrine of “general jus ti fi cation” with the Nor we gians and Mis souri ans, forc ing his oppo nents to re turn to the true Lutheran po si tion. On the question of slav ery Walther’s sym pathies were with the South, and he per mit ted the rebel flag to be hoisted on the St. Louis Sem inary . This caused the sem inary to be closed for a time. The form of oath af ter the war was quite a problem for Walther (see Let ters, vol. I, p. 223 ff.). In the contro versy concern ing States rights and the prin ciple of slav ery the Nor we gians, too, were involved. Fire and life insur ance were consid ered for bid den in the Mis souri Synod, while Iowa declared them to be matte rs of indif fer ence (adi aphora). How ever, no se ri ous dis cus-

211 sions were caused by these differ ences; we men tion them merely to com- plete the record.

III. The Con troversy Concern ing Pre des ti na tion.

1. Its His tori cal De vel opment. It is an un decide d question just at what time Walther adopted the the ory of predes ti nation which he later pro pounded. But it is cer tain that he ar rived at his conc lusions, not through the study of the Scrip tures, but rather through the study of the old dog mati cians. This he himself admit ted later on. The matter was not presented pub licly un til in 1868, when, at the meet ing of the Wis consin Distr ict. Pastor Huegli set forth Walther’s doctrine. On that occa- sion Walther expressed himself much more strongly than is indi cated in the minutes of the synod. The slight ob jec tions re ferred to in the minutes were made by Prof. J. A. Schmidt, the Nor we gian profes sor, a col league of Walther at St. Louis. Prof. S. Fritschel, passing through the city, at tended the meet ing, and re ported the details of this doctri nal dis cus sion to his brother, who contin u ally ob served the devel op ment. In a note added to the ar ti cles touch ing the question of usury he warned against devi a tion from the Lutheran doctrine. “Lehre und Wehre” soon pub lished a se ries of ar ti cles, re it er at ing those selfsame teach ings. This caused PROF. GOT TFRIED FRITSCHEL to write those ar ti cles in “Brobst’s Monat shette,” of which his brother said that they (in 1872) contained every thing which in later dis cussio ns has been brought forth in argu ments. “Lehre und Wehre” and also “Brobst’s Monat- shefte” replied. Prof. F. W. Stell horn, at this time profes sor of Mis souri (sign ing himself “Inter pres”), in the “Monat shefte” at tacked the admis si bility of the term “Selb stentschei dung” (free deci sion) in a gentle manly manner. A Mis souri minis ter (Huegli) and a cer tain “Gottlieb Gnadenkind” (Walther?) also entered the lists. Walther, in “Lehre und Wehre,” expressly declared his agree ment with the old dog mati cians, and as serted the scriptural ness of their po si tion. He merely char acter ized as am bigu ous the term “in tuitu fidei” (Lehre und Wehre, May, 1872). Af ter this con cession of Walther, there fol lowed a period of quiet. But in 1877 at the meet ing of the West ern District Walther re it er ated his construc tion of the dogma. In vari- ous places doubts arose as to this new construc tion. One of the first to put his ob jec tions on record was the Nor we gian, Prof. As perheim, who had for some time questioned Mis souri’s po si tion, and suspected, in the re jec tion of

212 the phrase “in tuitu fidei,” an un-Lutheran ten dency (Kirch liche Zeitschrift, 1878). Be ing at tacked for his stand by his col league, Prof. F. A. Schmidt (at that time at Madi son, Wis.), he handed in his res igna tion. But Schmidt soon af ter wards re al ized from the minutes of 1877 that the devi a tio n from the tra ditional doctrine was more se ri ous than he had thought. Presi dent Strasen induced him person ally to appr oach his for mer col league (Jan u ary, 1879). Pri vate dis cussi ons of the subje ct took place in other parts of the synod. Schmidt, by re quest, summed up his views in a se ries of the ses. PAS TOR H. A. ALL WARDT, too, ad dressed Walther person ally. At the annual meet ing of the Syn od ical Con fer ence at Colum bus, Ohio, Schmidt and Walther argued pri vately with out reach ing any conclu sion. It was agreed that the dis cussions should be re sumed the fol low ing year, and that, mean while, Schmidt should not bring the differ ence to pub lic no tice. How ever, at the meet ing of the West ern District (1879) Walther pub licly at tacked “cer tain people” of his own synod who had not ap proved of his doctrines. He dis cussed their argu ments, and it soon became an open se cret that he re ferred to All wardt and Schmidt. Now Schmidt, too, broke si lence, and sounded an alarm by pub lishing a monthly, “ALTES UND NEUES,” Jan., 1880, for the express purpose of op posing Walther’s new construc tion. The sources made acces si ble by it are cer tainly of perma nent value.37 In stantly uni versal at ten tion was drawn to the contro versy between Schmidt and Walther. Within the Nor we- gian Synod, whose minis ters had been trained largely by Schmidt and Walther. a divi sion took place. In al most every Nor we gian congre ga tion the is sue was taken up and vig or ously debated. The pres ident of the Syn od ical Con fer ence re fused to call a meet ing, but or dered a confer ence of all the FAC UL TIES OF THE SYN OD I CAL CON FER ENCE AT MIL WAU KEE (Jan. 5-10, 1881), with out at taining any re sults. The Mis souri Synod held a GEN ERAL MIN IS TE- RIAL CON FER ENCE AT CHICAGO (Sept. 29- Oct. 5), and a second one during the fol low ing year at Fort Wayne, Ind. Walther here was chiefly op posed by All wardt and Stell horn (at that time Profes sor at Fort Wayne College). The Mis souri del egates (1881), af ter a brief dis cussion, adopted the thir teen theses of Walther, only five vot ing against them. This caused Walther’s op po- nents to call a meet ing at Blue Is land, Ill., where they orga nized a sepa rate confer ence and left the Mis souri Synod. They united with Ohio as the Northwest ern Dis trict. The MIN NE SOTA AND WIS CON SIN SYN ODS took sides with Mis souri, but lost several minis ters to Ohio. OHIO sep arated from Mis- souri at its next conven tion (1881), because the Mis souri del egates had re-

213 ceived in structions not to unite in a session with Stell horn and Loy. The Nor we gians meanwhile sent Prof. F. A. Schmidt as a del egate to the con- vention (Chicago, Oct.. 1882), but the Mis souri repre senta tives protested against his admi ssion at the orga niza tion, un less he would re pent for having partic i pated in meet ings of con grega tions which had left these synods. Scenes were enacted at this conf er ence over which the synod af ter wards expressed re gret, es pecially the behav ior of some of its del egat es. Schmidt was not admit ted, nor was he afforded any op portu nity to jus tify his po sition. The NOR WE GIAN SYNOD, hop ing to reach unity within its own circle, left the Syn od ical Con fer ence. But af ter a num ber of years Schmidt’s fol low ers with drew, start ing an inde pen dent orga ni za tion and es tab lishing their own sem inary . Af ter wards nego ti ations were entered into between differ ent Nor- we gian synods, which together formed the United Nor we gian Synod (see para graph re fer ring to the Nor we gians). Among the chief op po nents of the “new Mis souri doctrine,” besides Schmidt, were the REP RE SEN TA TIVES OF OHIO — Stell horn, Loy, All wardt and Ernst. At the conven tion at Wheel ing, W. Va., in 1881, this synod declared its alle giance to the old Lutheran doc trine of the “intu itu fidei,” and enter ing a protest against Mis souri’s heresy, with drew from the Syn od ical Con fer- ence. — Iowa also declared against Mis souri in the the ses of St. Se bald (1881, see first edi tion of Neve, p. 177-181) and in the res o lutions of Dubuque (1882). — The fac ulty of Phila del phia, too, al though with some hesi ta tion, took is sue with Mis souri. The fac ulty of Ro stock, having been re quested by the congre ga tion of Colum bus, Wis., to give an opin ion, expressed its dis approval of Walther’s the ory. This caused a con tro versy between Prof. A. Graeb ner and Dr. Dieckhof f. As was nat u ral, the peri od icals (1880-1890) pub lished a num ber of ar ti cles on this subject, and quite a lit er- ature in the form of brochures has also arisen. In the early nineties the bat tle some what subsided, but from 1903 to 1907 a se ries of IN TER-SYN OD I CAL CON FER ENCES (Water town, Milwau kee, De- troit, Fort Wayne) were ar ranged, and the is sue was re vived. The first phase of the contro versy centered in the question, “What is the Lutheran doctrine of pre desti nation?” The second period re volved around the question, “What do the Scrip tures teach concern ing predes ti nation?” Fi nally the Mis souri ans ter minated the dis cussion. Mean while the NOR WE GIANS in their dis cussion of the subject had ar rived at some re sults. They reached com mon ground, first concern ing con version and af ter wards concern ing predes ti nation, based

214 upon the cat echism of Pan top p idan which was revered by the laity al most as a sym bol. The Syn od ical Con fer ence warned the Nor we gian Synod against the adoption of the the ses. For this purpose Dr. F. Pieper pub lished a brochure on the subject, which was sent to every Lutheran minis ter of America. The Iowa Synod, on the other hand, in 1913 offered the synods, es pecially Mis souri and Wis consin, open and general confer ences for the dis cussion of their differ ences. This concludes the doctri nal contro versy in its histor ical aspect.

2. The Con troversy Itself. While the dis cussion started with the doctrine of predes ti nation, it soon devel oped into the question of conver sion. Nowa days it is gener ally conceded that, within the Lutheran Church, there are two modes or forms of presen tation. Mis souri at first denied, but later admit ted, this.38 So far there has not been a suffi ciently clear dis cus sion of these two modes of presen ta tion. Prof. Geo. J. Fritschel has given us a very explicit delin eation of them in his “Schriftlehre.” Accord ing to this view there is no real differ ence of doctrine between these two modes; the only differ ence between Luther and Calovius consists in a theo log ical construc tion and in the man ner of pre senta tion; hence the terms, “Lehrweisen,” “Tropen.” It is stated that: 1) The Formula of Con cord (for mu lating the first mode) presents the matter “a poste ri ori,” i.e., from the viewpoint of the believ ing Chris tians, while the dog mati cians treat it “a pri ori,” i.e., from the viewpoint of eternity . 2) The Formula of Con cord, in op po si tion to syner g ism, dis cusses the question, “Whence does my state of grace of which I am conscious, orig inate?” while the dog mati- cians an swer the question: “Who will with Christ enter Paradi se?” 3) The Formula of Con cord is merely concerned about the converted , while the dog mati cians speak of those who at the end of their lives are in the state of grace. 4) Both doctrines are presen ta tions of the same eternal di vine decree of grace, but they offer differ ent as pects of the subject, in one case consider ing the present re al iza tion of grace for the com fort of the converted; in the second, its com plete exe cu tion for the purpose of an apolo get ical refu ta tion of any con struction which would charge God with par ticu lar ism. Mis souri’s op po nents as sert (and the charge has never been dis proved) that Mis souri, un like Iowa and Ohio, having re fused to rec og nize these two as pects of the question, has construed out of both of them an entirely new doctrine — a fact which appears from the indis crim inate use of older and

215 newer dog mati cians.39 From this it can be read ily seen how the Nor we gians found no diffi culty in uniting on com mon ground, seeing no rea son why this doc trine should cause a schism as long as both Calvinis tic and Syn ergis tic extremes were avoided. To them the contro versy is an “open question.” The DOC TRINE OF CON VER SION soon became a part of the contro versy. This is nat u ral enough, when we consider that pre desti nation is the eter nal de cree concern ing, first, the prepa ra tion of sal vation, second, the impart ing of it, and, third, its com ple tion. Differ ences concern ing the eternal decree are thus bound to ap pear in the doc trine per taining to the impart ing of sal vation. All parti es agree in re gard to total deprav ity and in the re jec tion of Syn ergism. But they differ in re gard to the doctri nal construc tion. One of the main questions, ever extant, which re mains still un set tled is the fol low ing: Is conve r sion like a point in a line, a mo men tary event (Missouri), or is it a gradual process, consist ing of a num ber of mo ments as all the points that consti tute a line (Ohio and Iowa). Here again Mis souri construed its own doctrine, which, while based upon state ments of both the confes sions and the dog mati cians, does not coin cide with ei ther of them. Ac cording to the confes sions the word “conver sion” sig nifies the process of re pentance, com posed of con tri tion and faith; ac cording to the dog mati cians, conver sion means a change of personal at ti tude toward God (the last point of the line), preceded by contri tion and his tor ical faith. As this differ ence in prin ci ple is being evolved, other differ ences re sulting there from become ap parent. To il lus trate, we men tion a num ber of char acter is tic state ments is sued by Mis souri. They reveal the “a pri ori” view:

Predes ti na tion is the ac tual eternal sepa ra tion of cer tain in di vidual souls from the mul titude of those who, even before their exis tence, were not meant to be saved. When God created man, He foreknew that he would fall; that the devil would destroy his work. Then He consid ered what should be done in or der that the work of sal vation should not be ru ined. Well, he thought, to speak hu manly, the devil shall not do with this work as he has done with the work of cre ation. I shall see to it that a very large number of peo ple shall most cer tainly be saved. And this is elec tion.

First God therefore coun seled, then elected, then predes tined. Yes, God has cho sen some peo ple from eternity; He has decreed that these must and shall be saved; aye, as sure as God is God, these shall be saved, and none other; this is taught in the Bible, and is also our faith, our doc trine and our con fession. That some attain faith and others are hardened is the result of His free elec tion.

216 A tem po rary faith may be the result of the grace of the Word, but not of elec tion. Elec tion is only the cause of the faith of the elect. Yes ter day we heard it said: God demands many things of man which he does not do. But we say, if God proposes any thing to Himse lf, He sees that it is done in spite of all the dev ils in hell. The gen eral decree of sal vation may be un done by Sa tan, but not so elec tion. Not the gen eral decree of sal vation, but the special decree of elec tion is the cause of a persis tent faith. The fact that God has decreed to save a number of peo ple is the sole cause that they are saved; if that were not so, none would be saved, with the possi ble excep tion of lit tle chil dren. That which must forever remain for us an un fath omable mystery is the ques tion. Why did not God elect all men to be His chil dren, since He cer tainly had the power to remove even the most will ful resis tance of all sin ners, just as He ac tu ally does in the case of the elect?

Hu manly speaking, God thought thus: “I will decree from eternity: this one and that one shall be saved, and all the dev ils of hell shall not tear them out of my hand. Not only will I lead them to faith, but I will keep them in it, and in this way save them. I defy the crea ture that in tends to revolt against my decree.” Now this glori ous comfort modern theolo gians try to snatch away from us. The pure doc trine of predes ti na tion is such that rea son is horri- fied, and driven to the conclu sion that God is a terri ble tyrant.

NOTE: The verba ip sis sima, with sources, are given in the Ger man edition of this work. These sen timents repre sent a contrac tion of the quota tions in German.

§ 24. Its Work.

1. Ed u ca tional Insti tutions.

[a] COL LEGES. Con cordia College at FORT WAYNE, IND. In 1861 the clas si cal depart ment, which had been founded at Al tenburg, Perry Comity, Mo., in 1839, and transferred along with the the o log ical sem inary to St. Louis in 1849, was transferred to Fort Wayne; and the the o log ical sem inary , which had exis ted at Fort Wayne, was united with the clas si cal course of the sem i- nary at St. Louis. Num ber of profes sors, 10; of stu dents, 278. Con cordia College, at MIL WAU KEE, WIS., is an insti tu tion of the Mis souri Synod. Pro- fes sors, 8; stu dents, 232. Con cor dia College at ST. PAUL, MINN. — profes- sors, 8; stu dents, 178. Two pro-gymna sia, one at CON COR DIA, MO. — profes- sors, 7; stu dents, 140; the other at BRONXVILLE, N. Y. — profes sors, 7; students, 170. Also at WIN FIELD, KAN. — 6 profes sors and 72 stu dents; and at CONOVER, N. C. — 7 profes sors and 65 stu dents. All of these are synod ical insti tu tions. Be sides these, Mis souri has three pro-gymna sia connected with differ ent dis tricts: at Oak land, Cal., Port land, Ore., and New Or leans, La.; also a num ber of pri vate insti tutions: Walther College, St. Louis, Mo.;

217 Luther High School, Milwau kee, Wis.; Luther In stitute, Chicago; Bethany Ladies’ Col lege, Mankato, Minn., and Lutheran High School, Desh ler, Neb. [b] NOR MAL SCHOOLS. The largest one is at River Forest, a suburb of Chicago, having been transferred from Addi son, Ill., 7 profes sors and 192 stu dents. Also the school at Seward, Neb., 7 pro fes sors and 137 students. [c] THE O LOG I CAL SEM I NAR IES. The the o ret ica l Con cordia Sem inary at St. Louis, Mo. It was founded in 1839 in Perry County, Mo., and re moved in 1849 to St. Louis, where the prac ti cal sem inary of Fort Wayne was also united with it. At this sem inary Dr. Walther la bored as profes sor of Sys tematic The ology . With him the follow ing men labored at differ ent times: Dr. E. Preuss, who, together with Baum stark, became an apostate to Rome; Prof. F. A. Schmidt (see predes ti narian contro versy and his tory of the Nor- we gians); also Prof. M. Guen ther, author of the well known “Sym bo lik”; Dr. G. C. Stoeck hardt, noted as an exeget ical scholar, and Dr. A. L. Graeb- ner, auth or of a his tory of the Lutheran Church in America. Af ter the death of Walther, Dr. F. Pieper became his succes sor , and holds this po si tion at the present time. As soci ated with him is the fol low ing fac ulty: L. Fuerbringer , F. Bente, G. Met zger, W. H. T. Dau, E. A. W. Krauss, K. Pardieck, Theo. Graeb ner. The Practi cal Con cordia Sem inary at SPRING FIELD, ILL, orig inated from the prac ti cal depart ment of the sem inary at St. Louis, which, un der the direc tion of Prof. Craemer , was transferred to Spring field in 1875, occu py- ing the sem inary building (for merly called the State Uni versity of Illinois), which was purchased from the Northern Illinois Synod. Af ter the death of Craemer , Prof. R. Pieper becam e pres ident of the insti tu tion. At present Prof. R. D. Bie dermann is its pres ident. The fac ulty is repre sented by L. Wes sel, Fr. Streck fuss, O. Boeck ler, Theo. En gelder, E. Gross. As the sem i- nary has a two years’ prelim inary course, the entire course of study occu- pies five years. There are 6 profes sors and 230 stu dents. The Mis souri Synod also has a school at Porto Alegre, Brazil.

2. Mis sionary Op er a tions.

[a] The FOR EIGN MIS SION ARY WORK of the Mis souri Synod is car ried on among the Tamils of Fast In dia. It has 7 sta tions, 41 local ities, and 15 mission ar ies. Up to the present time there have been 675 converts. In 1913 the synod raised $38,750 for the sup port of this field.

218 [b] Since 1898 it has also maintained a mission among the Stockbridge IN DI ANS. [c] The mission among the NE GROES, which is very success ful, is car ried on in Ar kansas, Mis sis sippi, Lou isi ana, Ili nois, Virginia, and North Car- olina. It has 39 congre ga tions and preach ing sta tions, 50 mission ar ies and as sis tants, 2434 col ored Chris tians, and contri bu tions in 1913 amounting to $34,624. [d] Pas tor A. Reinke es tab lished in Chicago a mission for the DEAF AND DUMB, which com prises 8 congre ga tions and a number of preaching places. [3] An IM MI GRANT mission work is being done by the Mis souri Synod through the Lutheran Pilger hau s (Pastor O. H. Restin) in New York and through simi lar agencies in Phil adel phia and Balti more. [f] Among the Poles, Slovaks, Letts, Per sians, Es tho nians, etc. [g] The HOME MIS SION work, that is, the es tab lishment and support of new orga ni za tions, is car ried on by the dis trict synods, which place surplus funds needed for this work into the general mission treasury of the synod. From this fund those dis tricts which have more missions to sustain than the money they col lect from their own congre ga tions will enable them to support, re ceive as sis tance. The Mis souri Synod has re la tions with Ger many, support ing missi ons of the Sax ony Free Church. At Lon don, Eng land, it has a mis sion ary sta tion with which it is organ i cally connected. In 1913, $386,161 were raised for these pur poses. [h] IN STI TU TIONS OF MERCY un der the direc tion of the Mis souri Synod: Its OR PHAN AGES are located as fol lows: Addi s on, Ill., Bal ti more, Md., West Rox bury (Bosto n), Mass., College Point, N. Y., Des Peres, Mo. (St. Louis), In dianapo lis, Ind., War wood, Pa., New Or leans, La. It also has soci eties for the care of abandoned children. — HOMES FOR THE AGED at Ar lington Heights, Ill., Brook lyn, N. Y., Mon roe, Mich., St. Louis, Mo., Wauwatosa, Wis. — HOME FOR EPILEP TICS at Water town, Wis. — HOS PI TALS at Beat rice, Neb., Cleve land, O., East New York, N. Y., Fort Wayne. Tnd.. Sioux City, la., Spring field, Ill., St. Louis, Mo. — HOS PICES at Buffalo, N. Y., Chicago, Milwau kee, New York. — A SANA TO RIUM for consump tives at Den ver, Col. — An insti tu tion for the DEAF AND DUMB at De troit, Mich. — To tal re ceipts for this work in 1913, $99,803.

3. Pub lish ing In terests.

219 The CON COR DIA PUB LISH ING HOUSE at St. Louis, Mo., whose busi ness it is to pub lish works and pam phlets of a strictly Lutheran char acter , turns large prof its over to the synod ical treasury ($95,000 in 1913). The best known of the Mis souri PE RI OD I CALS are the “Luther aner” and “The Lutheran Wit ness” (papers for congre ga tional read ing) and the the o log ical mag azines, “Theo- log ical Quarterly ,” “Lehre und Wehre” and the “Homiletis che Maga zin” (in Ger man and Eng lish). All of these are edited by the the o log ical fac ulty of the Con cordia Semi nary at St. Louis.

Bi o graph ical Notes.

KARL FER DI NAND WIL HELM WALTHER, D. D. The his tory of the founder of the Mis souri Synod has been touched upon so fre quently in preced i ng chapters that we need to add only a few facts. It is es pecially impor tant to men tion his writ ings. Be sides the book al ready re ferred to (“Die Stimme der Kirche in der Frage von Kirche und Amt” (1852), he pub lished. “Die rechte Gestalt einer vom Staat un abhaengi gen evange lisch-lutherischcn Ortsge meinde 1863), a much-used vol ume on pastoral the ology (”Pas torale“); ser mons on the Gospels of the year (1871), and another vol ume of ser mons, enti- tled”Brosamen" (1876). Notewor thy, because char acter is tic of his the ology center ing in sola gratia, are the thirty-nine evening lec tures bef ore his students (steno graphi cally re ported), on the “Rechte Unter schei dung von Gesetz und Evan gelium” (publi shed af ter his death). In 1878 he re ceived his Doc tor of Di vin ity from Cap ital Uni versity , Colum bus, O. (Ohio Synod). At synod ical gath er ings Walther gener ally acted as es sayist. As a leader in debate he was un exce lled. His last lec tures were deli v ered at the meet ing of the West ern District of the Mis souri Synod at St. Louis, in 1886. Here Walther re al ized that his vi tality was ebbing out and that his days were num bered. He died May 7, 1887. Prof. L. Fuerbringer has just pub lished the first vol ume of Walther’s letters, which is to have two se quels. On page 99 of the first vol ume we read that the uni versity of Goettin gen inquired of Walther in 1855, if he would accept the degree of Doc tor of Di vin ity. Walther writes, “Very po litely, but most cer tainly, I re fused.” He suspected Goettin gen’ s Lutheranism. PAS TOR F. C. D. WYNEKEN, born May 13, 1810. We simply add to previ- ous state ments that he came to St. Louis in 1850, and was made presi dent of the Mis souri Synod. He became also offi cial vis itor to all congre ga tions. In

220 this latter po si tion his rare gifts as adviser of minis ters and con grega tions were very appar ent. In 1864 he was called to Cleve land, O., where he was active un til 1875, when he re tired. His death occurred in San Francisco, Cal., May 4, 1876. DR. W. SIH LER, born Novem ber 12, 1801, re ceived a clas si cal edu cation, chose a mil itary career , and in 1823 at tended the mil itary academy at Berlin, where he was a classmate of Von Moltke. Weary of the mil itary life, he enter ed the Uni versity of Berlin in 1826 to at tend lec ture courses on philol ogy, phi los o phy and the ology . Af ter occu py ing a num ber of po si tions as teacher, he expe ri enced genuine conver sion, which re sulted in his becom ing a thor ough stu dent of the Bible and the Con fes sions. Thus engaged, he was roused by Wyneken’s call for mission ar ies. He came un der the influ- ence of Loehe, who sent him to America. Ar riv ing in 1843, he took charge of the congre ga tion at Pomeroy, Ohio. In 1845 he was made succes sor to Wyneken at Fort Wayne, Ind., and re mained there un til his death, which occurred Octo ber 21, 1885. Dur ing the years of the founding of the Mis souri Synod he became a leader of the Loehe party. For fifteen years he served as profes sor in the the o log ical dep art ment of the col lege founded by Loehe at Fort Wayne. He was an able preacher and a prolific writer, havin g pub lished several vol umes of ser mons, an au tobi og ra phy, and numer ous ar ti cles. PROF. F. A. CRAE MER, born May 26, 1812, in Franco nia, stud ied the ology and phi los o phy at Erlan gen, bec ame tutor in Eng land, ar rived in America in 1845, and was pastor of a Michi gan congre ga tion founded by Loehe. He or- ganized the first Franco nian colony, which was called Frankenmuth. He was engaged in this work for five years, and was also active for a time among the In dians, and then was called to the profes sorship of the ology in the sem inary at Ft. Wayne. This po si tion he held un til his death, which took place May 3, 1891. He moved with the sem inary when it was transferred to St. Louis in 1861, and thence to Spring field, Ill., in 1875. PAS TOR O. FUER BRINGER was born June 3, 1810, at Gera (Reuss), stud ied the ology in company with Walther at Leipzig, and was also a mem ber of the fa mous Bible cir cle which has been men tioned. With Sa.xon em igrants he came to America in 1839, took part in the founding of Con cordia College in Perry County, Mo., and also of the Mis souri Synod itself. He served congre- gations at Elkhorn Prairie, Ill. (1840), at Freis tadt, Wis. (1851) and Frankenmuth, Mich. (1858). For twenty-five years he was pres ident of the Northern District of the Mis souri Synod, and, in the words of Graeb ner,

221 “was the profound est thinker among the fa thers of the Mis souri Synod.” He died in 1858. PROF. A. L. GRAEB NER, D. D., was born at Frankentrost, Mich., July 10, 1849, and stud ied in Con cordia College at Fort Wayne and the Con cordia Sem inary at St. Louis. From 1872 to 1875 he was teacher of the Lutheran High School at St. Louis; from 1875 to 1878 profes sor at the Northwest ern College of the Wis consin Synod at Water town, Wis.; from 1878 to 1887 the o log ical prof es sor at the sem inary of this synod in Milwa u kee, Wis.; from 1878 un til his death profes sor in the Con cordia Sem inary at St. Louis. He died De cem ber 7, 1904. His specialty was church his tory; his prin ci pal lit er ary product was a his tory of the Lutheran Church in Ameri ca up to the founding of the Gen eral Synod; he also pub lished a book on Mar tin Luther, a work on Doc tri nal The ology , the life of J. S. Bach, and many ar ti cles in vari ous mag azin es. Graeb ner was a profound scholar and a partic u larly gifted his torian. His early death, viewed from the hu man stand point, was a great loss to the Lutheran Church. PROF. G. C. STOECK HARDT, D. D., born in Chem nitz, Sax ony, Feb ru ary 17, 1842, was ed u cated at Meis sen (Fuer sten schule) from 1857 to 1862, and stud ied the ology at Erlan gen and Leipzig (1862-66). He was teacher in the girls’ school of Tha randt, Sax ony; as sis tant preacher of the Ger man Lutheran congre gation of Paris (1870); chaplain in the Franco-German war; li centi ate of Old and New Tes ta ment exe ge sis at Erlan gen (1871); re li gious instruc tor in the gym nasium of that city, and pastor at Plau nitz, Sax ony. In 1876 he left the State Church, and became pastor of the Free Church con- grega tion of Plau nitz. In 1878 he came to America, served as pastor in St. Louis from 1878 to 1887 and as lec turer on exe ge sis in the sem inary . In 1887 he was elected regu lar profes sor of exe ge sis. He died Janu ary 9, 1913. He was a mas ter of exe ge sis. His writ ings are: Commen taries on Ro mans, Eph esians, I. Pe ter, Isa iah (Chap ter I-XII), Bibli cal History of the Old and New Testa ments, Sermons on the Passion of our Lord and the Gospels for the Advent Sea son, and var ious contri bu tions to peri od icals. PROF. F. PIEPER, D. D., born at Carwitz, Pomera nia, June 27, 1852, was edu cated at the North western Uni versity at Water town, Wis., and Con cordia Sem inary , St. Louis. He was or dained in 1875. became pastor of a congre- gation at Mani towoc, Wis., and in 1878 was appointed the succes sor of Dr. Walther in the chair of Sys tematic The ology at St. Louis. From 1899 to 1911 he served as pres ident of the Mis souri Synod. He is the author of the

222 fol low ing books: Das Grund bekennt nis der Lutherischen Kirche, 1880; Lehre von der Recht fer ti gung, 1889; Die Evan gelisch Lutherische Kirche die wahre Sichtbare Kirche auf Erden, 1890; Distinc tive Doc trines of the Lutheran Church (1892); Das Geistliche Leben der Chris ten, 1893; Unsere Stellung in Lehre und Praxis, 1896; Lehrstel lung der Mis souri Syn ode, 1897; Christ’s Work, 1898; Das Wesen des Chris ten tums, 1903; Die Grund- differenz, 1904; Conver sion and Elec tion, 1913.

The Other Parts Of The Synod i cal Confer ence.

§ 25. The Gen eral Synod of Wiscon sin, Min nesota, Michi‐ gan and Other States

Con tributed by the Rev. O. Engel.

The Gen eral Synod of Wis consin, Min nesota, Michi gan and Other States was formed in 1892 for the pur pose of at taining prac ti cal re sults by means of con certed action. Its constitue nt parts are re lated to the general body like dis tricts to a synod, all rights (with the excep tion of those expressly conceded to the general orga ni za tion) being re tained by the dis tricts. In this re- spect the Gen eral Synod of Wis consin, Min nesota, Michi gan and Other States is un like Mis souri, Ohio and Iowa, which place juris dic tional powers upon the synod. It takes a middle ground between a synod and a synod ical union.40 In 1905 the Ne braska District Synod was re ceived into mem bership. Such a step is made contin gent on synchronal member ship in the Syn- od ical Con fer ence. The the o log ical sem inary at Wauwatosa, Wis., the gym- nasium at Water town, Wis., the teach ers’ insti tute at New Ulm, Minn., and the prepara tory school at Sag inaw , Mich., are being jointly supp orted. In the sum mer of 1915 a plan was car ried out accord ing to which the indi vid ual synods united into ONE synod by transfer ring their rights to the new Gen eral Synod, then in course of for ma tion, which in turn is divided into differ ent dis tricts. Lat est sta tistics: 453 pastors; 142 teach ers; 548 congre ga tions; 143 preach ing sta tions; 23,250 vot ers, and 104.100 com mu nicants.

I. The Wis con sin Synod.

[1] Its Ori gin and Con fes sional Char acter .

223 In the middle of the past century , when the stream of Ger man em igra tion was directed to America, Wis con sin was consid ered a Ger man El do rado.41 This State with its mighty forests, nu mer ous lakes and impos ing rivers, par- ticu larly inter ested the Northern Ger mans: Pomera nians, Meck len burg ers. Han novcri ans and West-Prussian s. Since the bulk of these immi grants were Luther ans, a won derful field was thus opened for Lutheran mis sion work. The BUF FALO SYNOD42 was the first on the ground to gather scat tered Luther ans into congre ga tions; trou ble in one of their Milwau kee churches gave MIS SOURI the op portu nity to gain a foothold on Wis consin ter ri tory. The Rev. C. Fricke, a Mis souri “vis ita tor” on the adjoin ing field of north ern Illinois, had been active there before. The FRANCK EAN SYNOD, too, supplied some preach ing sta tions west of Lake Michi gan prior to 1850.43 Soon, however, emis saries of mission ary soci eties from Ger many appeared on the scene and formed the nu cleus of the present Wis consin Synod. In 1836 a cer tain Ehrenfried Seebach of Oak wood, near Milwau kee, made appli ca tion to the LAN GEN BERG SO CI ETY for a minis te rial supply .44 A simi lar re quest came into the hands of Pastor F. W. Schmidt, West Ley don, N. Y., who meanwhile had met a candi date from the Rhen ish Mis sion House (J. Wein mann), and sent him on to the peti tioning congre ga tion at Kil bourn-Road. On June 27, 1848, the REV. J. MUEHLHAEUSER, a the o log ical candi date from the Barmen Mis sion and an emis sary of the Lan genber g So ci ety, arrived at Milwau kee, com ing from Rochester, N. Y., in behalf of the New York Tract So ci ety, and founded Trin ity Church (of mod er ate con fes sion al- ism), later known as Grace Church (Gnadenkirche). He was succeeded by W. Wrede, who had come to Amer ica together with Wein mann. Wrede took charge of the congre ga tion at Granville. Rec og niz ing the neces sity of synod ical coop er ation, the three emis saries of the Lan genber g So ci ety (Wein mann, Wrede, Muehlhaeuser) FORMED, together with Paul Meiss and C. Pluess (li censed candi dates), the Synod of Wis consin and Adjoin ing States, known at that time as the Ev. Luth. Min is- terium of Wis consin. 45 Muehlhaeuser was made pres id ent, Wein mann secre- tary, and Wrede treasurer . Be gin ning as a tiny seed, the synod ical plant soon expanded into a mighty tree whose fo liage is at present cover ing nine great states. In 1863 the num ber of pastors had been increased from 5 to 32, and that of the con grega tions from 18 to 59.

224 The first synod ical consti tu tion, mod elled by Presi dent Muchlhaeuser after that of the New York Min is terium, char acter ized its CON FES SIONAL PO SI- TION merely as being Evan gel ical Lutheran. But as early as 1863 we no tice a more explicit doctri nal state ment: “This body acknowl edges the entire canoni cal writ ings of the Old and New Tes ta ments as the sole stan dard of faith, and also the Sym bol ical Books as the proper inter preta tion of the Word of God.” Con grega tions desirous of uniting with this synod ical al- liance must accept “the pure con fes sions of the Ev. Luth. Church as the rule and stan dard of faith and life”. From a “mild and concil ia tory” at ti tude the Lutheranism of this synod has devel oped into one of un com promis ing fi- delity to the Lutheran confes sions. [2] Rela tions With Ger many. [a] Since Berlin and Lan genber g supplied the Wis consin Synod with minis ters, it was but nat u ral that an AM I CA BLE RE LA TION SHIP existed between them. On the occa sion of an El berfeld Mis sions fest (July 27. 1837) the Evan gel ical Al liance for the Protes tant Ger mans of North America was or- ganized by several devoted Chris tians, af ter its neces sity had been em phasized at the Gen eral Con vention of the Rhen ish Mis sion, June 7, 1837.46 While this al liance was a part of the Prussian Union, permit ting its pastors to decide for either the Re formed or Lutheran versions of faith, it announced as its sole purpose in sending mission ar ies to Americ a, “the protec tion against infi delity of broth ers and sis ters in dis tant lands, the guid ing into paths of truth of the erring, their instruc tion in the Word of Life and their orga ni za tio n into churches guarding the jewel of faith for fu ture gener - ations” 47 In 1852 the Lan genber g-El berfeld and the Berlin soci eties united for this for eign work, and in or der to encour age young men to enter the field they prevailed upon the gov ernment to permit mission ar ies, who had served in for eign fields for a period of five years, to re turn to the fa ther land and there to continue their min is te rial career . This deci sion has ma te ri ally aided the Wis consin Synod in se curing Ger man uni versity men for many of its parishes. [b] FUND RAIS ING TRIP OF PAS TOR BAD ING. Since the few minis ters sent from Ger many could not possi bly serve the ever increas ing num ber of im- migrants, it became neces sary that Ameri can sem inar ies should be founded for the train ing of pastors. To raise funds for such a purpose Presi dent Bad- ing was sent to Eu rope to inter est wealthy friends of the Lutheran cause in for eign lands. In June, 1863, while the Water town sem inary was in course

225 of const ruction, Bad ing started for Ger many, and af ter plead ing for funds in West phalia, Hanover, Pomera nia and parts of Rus sia, he started for the re- turn jour ney at Nishnij-Nov gorod, 60 miles east of Moscow , with a total fund of 3,500 silver rubels. Passing through Bremen. Berlin, Hambur g and places in Switzer land, he increased this sum to 11.721 Taler, which, af ter a trip of six months’ du ra tion, he placed at the dis posal of the building commit tee of the new sem inary . Con sid er ing that this contri bu tion was made during the Civil War, its im portance can hardly be over es ti mated. [c] The PRO-SEM I NARY. Believ ing that there was a decided ten dency among the young men of America toward ma te ri al is tic ideals, the lead ers of synod soon felt the need of a Ger man pro-semi nary where youth might be inspired by the call of the Gospel. They applied succes sively and vainly to Pastor Lohmann, Glowitz, Pomera nia, who could not com ply with their wishes on accou nt of com plica tions arising from the Dan ish-Prussian war; to Wich ern of the Rauhe Haus. Ham burg, who re fused for doctri nal reasons, and to Pol storff of Mecklen burg, who could not see his way clear. The Berlin Soci ety promised as sis tance, but though the work was be gun and two able the olo gians se cured as instr uctors, a hitch on account of doctri nal consid er ations prevented its success ful out come. The project was defi nitely abandoned, but the Wis consin Synod by this corre spondence at tained a posi tion of promi nence which in duced Ger many to supply the Water town sem inary with the o log ical stu dents. [d] WIS CON SIN AND THE PRUS SIAN UNION. As soon as Pastor A. HOE NECKE became a member of the sem inary fac ulty, a decided change toward conser - vative Lutheranism was felt through out the synod. It man ifested it self in the stand taken by the synod against the use of a (“union ized”) CAT E CHISM in vogue in the Prussian State-Church and the AD MIS SION TO LUTHERAN COM MU- NIONS of Re formed com mu nicants. Al though suspected of Prussian Union- ism on account of past nego ti ati ons, the synod did not hesi tate openly to DE- CLARE AGAINST UNION IS TIC PRIN CI PLES. As a re sult of this action, Lan genber g and Berlin not only re fused to co op er ate in the es tab lishment of a pro-semi- nary, but influ enced the Prussian Con sis tory to with draw the money (7,500 Taler) pledged toward the support of the synod. Two candi dates of the Prus- sian State-Church, being advised by the Con sis tory, left the Wis consin Synod, while oth ers severed their connec tion with the mother church abroad. This rupture between Ger many and the Wis consin Synod re sulted in

226 the desire on the part of Wis consin for closer RE LA TION SHIP WITH OTHER AMER I CAN SYN ODS. [3] RE LA TION WITH OTHER SYN ODS. [a] THE PENN SYL VA NIA SYNOD. For al most two decades the Penn syl vania Synod, through its Board of Dom es tic Mis sions, sent from $200 to $400 annu ally for the support of un derpaid pastors of the Wis consin Synod. All it re quired in re turn for this gener osity was an occa sional re port. When Wis- consin sent its first as pirant for the minis te rial office to be edu cated in a sem inary of the Penn syl vania Synod, he re ceived not only his tuition but his board, lodg ing and general expenses from that body. Wis consin eventu ally sepa rated from the Gen eral Coun cil (largely the cre ation of the Penn syl vania Synod), and these friendly re la tions ceased. [b] IOWA SYNOD. With the increas ing ten dency among indi vid ual synods toward union with general bod ies, Iowa and Wis consin got closer together . To effect a union SPE CIAL CON FER ENCES were ar ranged in 1866 by repre senta- tives of both synods. But their doctri nal differ ences were so marked that harmony seemed to be out of the question. The two Fritschels and In spector Gross mann appeared at a subse quent annual conven tion of the Wis consin Synod and argue d the matter of “OPEN QUES TIONS” on the basis of the Dor pat opin ion. But Prof. Hoe necke, equipped with fine the o log ical schol ar ship, ably dis puted the opin ion of the Dor pat fac ulty, and caused his synod to express it self against the Iowa the ory. Though at the forming of the Gen eral Coun cil Wis con sin sided with Iowa in re gards to the FOUR POINTS, a union of the two synods was not brought about. Wis consin, as a matter of fact, strove to unite with Mis souri. [c] MIN NE SOTA SYNOD. That Min nesota and Wis consin were not far apart appeared from the fact that they inter changed del egates at their synod ical meet ings. This pleas ant re la tionship was fur ther stim u lated by the call to Min nesota of PAS TOR J. H. SIEKER, who as pres ide nt of synod worked un- ceas ingly in the inter est of union, and by the mission trip (with the consent of his synod) of PRO FES SOR E. F. MOLD EHNKE through the Northeast ern part of that State for the bene fit of the Min nesota brethren. The Wis consin Synod was gradu ally sever ing its re la tion with East ern synods, and through Bad ing and Hoe necke approached the Min nesota Synod in re gard to a union. At the COL LO QUIUM at La Crosse, Wis., Sept. 25, 1869, it became evi- dent that their doctri nal po si tions were iden ti cal. But inas much as Min nesota was still organ i cally linked to the Gen eral Coun cil, a for mal union was

227 tempo rar ily given up. In 1871 Min nesota was permit ted to send stu dents to the Wis consin SEM I NARY, and also to make use of the “Gemeinde blatt” as the synod ical organ. Since both Wis consin and Min nesota are members of their Gen eral Synod and also of the Syn od ical Con fer ence, they are bound together with DOU BLE TIES. (See history of Min nesota Synod.) [d] THE MIS SOURI SYNOD. Af ter its fail ure to unite with synods in the East, Wis consin tried to get into fra ter nal re la tions with Mis souri. On the occa sion of a COL LO QUIUM, held at Milwau kee, Oct. 21 and 22, 1868, and partic i pated in by ten repre senta tives of both synods, it was found that doctri nal stan dards were iden ti cal. As a prac ti cal re sult of this fact an agreement was reached re garding ED U CA TIONAL CO OP ER A TION. Mis souri was to send an instruc tor to Water town, and Wis consin to supply a the o log ical Pro- fes sor for St. Louis and to aban don its own the o log ical insti tu tion. Af ter a period of eight years Wis consin, un able to com ply with this ar range ment, asked to have it set aside. Meanwhile the Syn od ical Con fer ence came into exis tence, uniting Mis souri and Wis consin as its chief con stituents. [4] PAR TIC I PA TION IN THE FORM ING OF LARGER BOD IES. [a] GEN ERAL COUN CIL. Wis consin was greatly inter ested in the orga ni zation of the Gen eral Coun cil. It real ized that the get ting together of Luther- ans would strengthen the faith ful and extend the sphere of Lutheran useful- ness; and so it cher ished the hope that union with East ern synods would arouse East ern enthu si asm for West ern missions and expe dite the use of a com mon hym nal and rit ual. For these rea sons the adoption of the Augs burg Con fes sion was declared a suffi cient basis of unity, and the Wis consin Synod through its Presi dent. W. Streissguth, and Profes sor A. Mar tin applied for member ship in the Gen eral Coun cil. At the synod ical meet ing of 1867 the doctri nal basis adopted at Read ing was dis cussed, and point 9 changed to convey that all the Lutheran confes sional writ ings were equally bind ing. At the conven tion of 1867, held at Fort Wayne, the matter of the FOUR POINTS appeared in the fore ground. These four points per taining to chiliasm, se cret soci eties, al tar fel low ship and exchange of pul pits had been re- ferred by the General Coun cil to the dis trict synods, and Wis consin felt bound to declare for a proper state ment of its po si tion. The ques tion of al tar fel lowship caused a vio lent debate which re sulted in the fol low ing res o lution: “This synod, together with the true Lutheran church, re jects as incom- pat ible with the prin ci ples of the church, every kind of fel low ship of al tar or pul pit with men of differ ent faith.” Since the Gen eral Coun cil would not

228 take a defi nite stand along these lines, the Wis consin Synod with drew from its orga ni za tion (see his tory of Gen. Coun., § 17, 3). [b] SYN OD I CAL CON FER ENCE. Wis consin maintained fra ter nal re la tions with Mis souri, and opened NE GO TI A TIONS for union which led to the founding of the Syn od ical Con fer ence. On Jan. ii, 1871, REP RE SEN TA TIVES of Mis- souri, Ohio, Wis consin and the Nor we gians met at Chicago to for mu late a consti tu tion on the basis of which all Lutheran synods of America might form an Ameri can Lutheran Church. In 1872 this Syn od ical Con fer ence held its FIRST OF FI CIAL CON VEN TION at St. John’s. Mil wau kee. Soon af ter wards Prof. A. Schmidt of the Nor we gian Synod advo cated the orga ni zation of all Luther ans re sid ing in a State into STATE SYN ODS. But the plan, having been submit ted to the Syn od ical Con fer ence at its conven tion at St. Paul (1876), was vig or ously op posed by the Wis consin Synod and eventu ally dropped. Be long ing to the Syn od ical Con fer ence, the Wis consin Synod took an active part in the famous con tro versy on PRE DES TI NA TION. When a fac tion in the Nor we gian Synod and Ohio char acter ized Walther’s doctrine (propounded in the synod ical re ports of the West ern District of the Mis souri Synod) as Calvinis tic, doctri nal dis cussions fol lowed which shook the very founda- tions of the Amer ican Lutheran church. A col loquium, held at the sem inary of the Wis consi n Synod and partic i pated in by the the o log ical fac ulties of all syno ds, led to a RUP TURE, and Ohio and a num ber of the Nor we gians with drew from the Syn od ical Con fer ence. At the annual conven tion at La Crosse, Wis. (1882) the Wis con sin Synod declared its po si tion in this matter, los ing thereby a num ber of pastors and congre ga tions. Dur ing the contro versy DR. HOE NECKE by gentle and concil ia tory speech took the sting out of Mis souri’s offen sive phrase ology , and accom plished much in the inter est of the peace of the church. [5] ED U CA TIONAL IN STI TU TIONS. [a] THE O LOG I CAL SEM I NARY. On account of the large influx of Ger man im- migra tion the synod grew so rapidly that it became neces sary to consider steps for the train ing of the o log ical stu dents within the bounds of the synod. This matter was agi tated as early as 1859. But a defi nite deci sion was not ar rived at un til 1863, when Pastor Mold ehnke was re called from his mission ary jour neys and made direc tor of a prospec tive insti tu tion, which began its activ ity in a building at WA TER TOWN, Wis., rented lor this purpose and at tended by two stu dents. MOLD EHNKE held his po si tion three years, and then accepted a call tu a congr ega tion in Ger many. Pastor Hoe necke was

229 chosen as his succes sor . With the as sis tance of the Berlin So ci ety and as a re sult of a special trip of Pastor G. Vor berg to Ger many, a num ber of young men from Ger many immi grated to this country and ar ranged for a the o log i- cal edu cation. Hav ing maintained (to gether with Mis souri) a GEN ERAL SEM I- NARY AT ST. LOUIS from 1870-1878, the synod re opened a SEM I NARY OF ITS OWN at Milwau kee with an enroll ment of 6 stu dents. On Sept. 17, 1893, a new insti tu tion was dedi cated at WAUWATOSA, a subur b of Milwau kee. It has a faculty of four: J. P. Koehler (1900), A. Pieper (1902), J. Schaller (1908), H. Meyer (1915). Num ber of students, 65. [b] NORTH WEST ERN COL LEGE. While the sem inary was opened in 1863, the col lege opening was post poned to 1865, when the new buildings were com- pleted.48 Prof. Mar tin, of Hartwick Sem inary , was made PRIN CI PAL. Dur ing the fol low ing year the num ber of stu dents increased from 8 to 66. When FUNDS RAN SHORT, Pastor Sieker sold schol ar ships, and thus helped to raise some $64,000 in a very short time. In the fall of 1869, af ter the transfer of the theo log ical depart ment to St. Louis, the prepara tory school was transformed into an UP-TO-DATE GYM NA SIUM mod elled af ter the Ger man ideal. In accor dance with cer tain agree ments the Mis souri Synod sent stu dents of the West ern Distric t to W^ater town, and engaged PROF. F. W. STELL HORN as their instruc tor . But the joint en ter prise did not prove sat is fac tory to Wis- consin, and by mu tual consent Stell horn and the Mis souri stu dents were transferred to Fort Wayne, his place at Water town having been filled by DR. F. W. A. NOTZ, of Muehlen berg College. DR. A. F. ERNST is at present pres ident of the insti tu tion, which is at tended by some 230 stu dents. [6] CON CERN ING MIS SIONS AND GEN ERAL STA TIS TICS. [a] HOME MIS SIONS. Dur ing one decade, 1850 to 1860, 915,667 Ger man immi grants ar rived in this coun try, 69% of whom set tled in Wis consin. To serve these scat tered people the Wis consin Synod decided to send ITIN ER ANT PREACH ERS. Pas tor G. Fachtmann trav eled from Horicon and Beaver Dam as far as Green Bay, and his succes sor. Pastor Mold ehnke, to the bound ary line of Iowa and Min nesota. Wher ever the latter went he ar ranged for Sun day- schools and lay ser vices. Person ally he served 22 preach ing sta tions. In 1867 Pastor Thiele was engaged for a brief period. Even today many con- grega tions bear wit ness to the blessed work done by these itin er ant minis- ters. At present the Wis consin Synod is do ing some work in Washing ton, Ore gon, Idaho and Ari zona. [b] FOR EIGN MIS SIONS.

230 AMONG THE IN DI ANS. Since 1893 the synod has been do ing mission ary work among the Apaches of the White Mountain Reserva tion (Ari zona), em ploy ing 4 mission ar ies, three inter preters and an instruc tress, all being engaged in work at Globe, San Carlos, Fort Apache and Cibecue, It has four mission schools in which din ner is served free. For this mission the synod raised $16,189 from 1911 to 1913. Pas tor G. Hard ers is super in ten dent. AMONG THE NE GROES: To gether with Mis souri, the Wis consin Synod since 1879 has been support ing a mission among negroes extend ing over Virginia, North Carolina. South Carolina, Mis sis sippi, Mis souri, llli nois and Ar kansas. In Greens boro, N. C, it helps to maintain a sem inary with 55 students and at New Orleans a col lege with 26 scholars. [c] STA TIS TICS. Ac cording to latest re ports (1914), Wis consin has 319 pastors, 365 congre ga tions, 85 preach ing sta tions, 153,521 com mu nicants, 118 teach ers, 80 women teach ers; 310 parish schools, 36,112 schol ars. In the higher insti tu tions of learnin g there are 300 stu dents and 15 teach ers. Its col lec tions for missions amounted to $48,187, for congre ga tional purposes $215,413. Its church property is worth $1,500,000. Sy nod ical peri od icals: “Gemein deblatt”. “Theol o gis che Ouar talschrift” and “Northwest ern Lutheran”. The Northwest ern Pub lishing House is located at Milwau kee, Wis.

Bi o graphi cal Notes.

PRES I DENT J. F. BAD ING was born Novem ber 24. 1824, at Rixdorf, near Berlin. As a youth he read the words of the divine com mand to preach and baptize inscribe d over the door of a house. This caused him to become a minis ter. Re ceived in Berlin as a stu dent of the Mis sion House, he later went to Her manns burg, Hanover, on account of revo lution ary condi tions in the capi tol. He came in contact with the Rhen ish Mis sion ary So ci ety, and was sent to America by the Lan genber g So ci ety. Wel comed by Presi dent Muehlhaeuser, he re ceived his or dina tion Oc tober 6, 1853. He raised the doctri nal stan dards of the synod, and became one of the founders of the Wa- ter town sem inar y in the inter est of which he started on a fund-raising trip through Eu rope. He was pastor at Calumet, Wis., 1853-1854; Theresa, Wis., 1854-1860; Wa ter town, Wis., 1860-1868; Milwau kee, Wis., 1868-1908; Presi dent of Wis consin Synod, 1860-1864 and 1866-1889; Presi dent of the Syn od ical Con fer ence, 1882-1912. He died May 24, 1913, aged 88.

231 PROF. A. HOE NECKE, D. D., son of a super in ten dent of a hospi tal at Bran- denbur g, Prussi a, was born Feb ru ary 25, 1835. At the sugge stion of an unchurchly mu sic mas ter, he stud ied the ology at Halle un der Tholuck, Mueller and Hupfeld, being eng aged at the same time as instruc tor in the Franckean In stitute. Af ter having passed his exam ina tion pro candi datura, he became pri vate tutor in the home of Von Wat ten wyl, near Bern in Switzer land. In Sep tember , 1862, he placed his ser vices at the dis posal of the Berlin Mis sion ary So ci ety, his at ten tion having been called to the spir i- tual needs of Luther ans in Amer ica. He was or dained in the Magdebur g Cathe dral, and left Eu rope Novem ber 18, 1862. In Wis consin he tempo rar- ily filled the place of Presi dent Bad ing, and accepted a call to Farm ing ton, Wis., in 1863. From 1866 to 1870 he was profes sor at the Water town Sem i- nary and af ter wards pastor of St. Matthew’s, Milwau kee. From 1878 un til his death (Jan u ary 3, 1908) he was profes sor of dog matics in the Wauwatosa Sem inary . On the 8th of Sep tember , 1903, he re ceived, on the occa sion of his 25th anniver sary as the o log ical profes sor, the D. D. degree. His main lit er ary work on Lutheran Dogma is being edited by his sons. He was no doubt the most em inent person al ity in the his tory of the Wis consin Synod.

II. The Min ne sota Synod.

[1] ORI GIN AND OR GA NI ZA TION. Af ter land val ues in Wis consin had increased with the grow ing influx of pop u la tion, the stream of Ger man and Scandi na vian immi gra tion, largely Lutheran, began to turn to Min nesota, the at tractive State of forests and lakes. It seemed nat u ral that the Wis consin Synod would take care of these people by es tab lishing a dis trict synod. But al though Pas tor MOLD EHNKE49 by his mis sion ary trips did a great deal toward re lieving the re li gious situ ation, the Wis consin Synod was handi capped in any orga nized effort by its many and press ing de mands at home.50 The at ten tion of East ern synod s was called to this promis ing field by DR. W. A. PAS SA VANT, who, jour neying from Chicago to St. Paul (1856) by way of La Crosse and Red Wing, aimed to es tab lish an Eng lish Lutheran Church.51 Find ing the Ger man Luther ans predom inant, he caused REV. C. F. HEYER (§ 12, 2; § 20, 3), in spite of his advanced years, to become pi o neer mission ary of Minne sota.

232 The latter ar rived in St. Paul July 25, 1855, as an emis sary of the Home Mis sion Board of the Gen eral Synod. In this city a Lutheran church (Trin- ity) had been previ ously founded (July 25, 1855) by F. W. Wier, a pupil of Goss ner. Heyer who had orga niz ing talents gath ered a num ber of clergy men (Thomp son, Malli son, Wier, Blumer, Brandt) and founded at St. Paul in the sum mer of 1860 the Synod of Minne sota. The largest minis te rial supply to this synod came from ST. CHRISCHONA near Basel, a pilgrims’ mission conducted by C. F. Spittler .52 [2] CON FES SIONAL PO SI TION. At first the synod adhered to the DOC TRI NAL LAX ITY OF THE GEN ERAL SYNOD, to which it belonged un til 1866. By a for mal recog nition of the Un- al tered Augsbur g Con fes sion, it claimed the name of the great Re former, while in re al ity it toler ated the widest possi ble incon sis tency between theory and prac tice. How ever, when Presi dent J. H. SIEKER53 was admit ted into the synod, the doctri nal stan dard was greatly improved. Discu ssions with Mis souri and a closer re la tionship with Wis consin helped to clear the atmos phere. At a pri vate confer ence, held at St. Paul, during which PROF. S. FRITSCHEL as sailed the doctri nal po si tion of the Gen eral Synod, Min neso ta changed its at ti tude. To day it is a member of the Syn od ical Con fer ence, in the found ing of which (1872) it took a promi nent part. [3] RE LA TION WITH THE GEN ERAL COUN CIL. When in 1866 the Penn syl vania Synod called all truly Lutheran synods to a confer ence at Read ing, Pa., the Min nesota Synod was one of those which helped to form the Gen eral Coun cil. But it soon learned, to its dis ap- pointment, that the Coun cil did not occupy a flawless doctri nal po si tion. This became appar ent, when Pres ident Sicker, upon the re quest of his synod, addressed some QUES TIONS TO THE COUN CIL which forced the latter to give an explicit account of the Pitts burg decla ra tion (1869-1870). In the name of the Min nesota Synod Sieker re quested, in view of dis agree ments within the Coun cil concern ing the Four Points, an expla nation of the fi nal deci sion ac cepted at Pitts burg. He wish to know:54

1. Whether heretics and funda men tal error ists can be admit ted to our altars as commu- ni cants and into our pul pits as teachers of congre ga tions.

233 2. Since the so-called distinc tive doc trines, by which doc trinal op po sition between the Lutheran Church and other denom i nations is expressed, are funda men tal, whether the General Coun cil (in No. III, 1, and No. IV, 1, 2 of the dec lara tions made at Pitts- burg) un der stood by “funda men tal error ists ” those who, with regard to these dis tinctive doc trines, are not in harmony with the pure doc trine of the Word of God as it is con fessed and taught in our Church.

The first question was answered in the affir ma tive, indi cat ing that those dis- sent ing from Lutheran teach ing were not to have fel low ship of al tar and pul pit. Regard ing the second question, however , the Coun cil, while admit- ting that the “dis tinctive doctrines” were of funda men tal value and that those not in accord with them were “funda men tal er ror ists,” made a dis tinction betw een ma li cious, persis tent and inten tional offend ers and oth ers who were erring un consciously and through weak ness.55 The Min nesota Synod, re al iz ing that this luke warm po si tion would eventu ally lead to union ism, severed its rela tion with the General Coun cil in 1871. [4] STATE SYN ODS. Rec og niz ing the dis advan tage of differ ent synods si multa neous ly work- ing in the same state (though they be synods of the same doctri nal po si tion), the question of state synods was un der dis cussion for seven years. While a part of the synod fa vored a change which would make it a dis trict synod of Mis souri, the ma jor ity, dis approv ing of a num ber of syn ods in one State, decided for State synods. Presi dent Sieker, al ways work ing toward Mis souri, was called to St. Matthew’s, New York, and Presi dent A. Kuhn, being of a differ ent opin ion, submit ted a proposi tion, worked out in conjunc tion with the Wis con sin Synod, which prevented a MERGER WITH MIS SOURI.56 Min nesota was permit ted to make use of the the o log ical sem inary maintained by the Synod of Wis consin, and the two syn ods FORMED THE GEN ERAL SYNOD. [5] CON CERN ING PRE DES TI NA TION. The contro versy concern ing predes ti nation, which shook the very foun- dations of Ameri can Lutheranism in the early eighties, also affected the Min nesota Synod. With the excep tion of three pastors and two congre gations, who with drew from the synod during the confer ence which was held with the Wis consin Synod at LA CROSSE in 1882, the minis terium decid ed that Ar ti cle XI of the For mula of Concord did not per tain to a pre desti nation in the larger, but in the narrower sense of the term. Like other synods, Min- nesota was strengthened in its doctri nal po si tion by this con tro versy. [6] DR. MAR TIN LUTHER COL LEGE.

234 When the project of a Gen eral Sem inary , closely al lied with the idea of State synods, was fi nally abando ned, the synod looked fa vorably toward the es tab lishment of its own edu cational insti tu tion. The name “Dr. Mar tin Luther College,” dedi cated Nov. 10, 1884. was given to the NEW ULM insti- tution, because the plan for its erection had been conceived on the 400th anniver sary of the birth of Luther. This insti tu tion, at first merely an academy and a pro-gymna sium, was later en larged by the ad dition of a practi cal the o- log ical sem inary . The the o log ical depart ment was abandoned, however , after the union of the synods of Minne sota and Wis consin. The col lege, which is now a teachers’ sem inary for the General Synod, has 9 profes sors and 111 schol ars. CON CLU SION. The Min nesota Synod consists of 104 pastors and profes- sors, 113 congre ga tions, 50 preach ing sta tions and 25.547 commu nicants.

III. The Michi gan Synod.

[1] PRE LIM I NARY HIS TORY. The set tlement of Wuertem berg immi grants 57 in 1831, not far from the present Ann Ar bor, meant the begin ning of Lutheranism in the State of Michi gan. Comply ing with a re quest addressed to them, the BASEL MIS SION sent a young man, Friedrich Schmid, a native of Wuertem berg, to minis ter to these people. Schmid, having ar rived in De troit af ter a jour ney of eight weeks, held the first Lutheran ser vice in Michi gan58 August 18, 1833. When later F. P. Schwabe and J. H. Mann ar rived, the first Michi gan synod, called the Mis sion Synod, was founded and orga nized. [2] LOEHE’S MIS SION AR IES. Some mission ar ies sent out by Loehe united with this synod. Neuen det- telsau justi fied such a step, because the Michi gan Synod had al ready planned to ex tend its work to the Indi ans. Con vinced that this was an oppor - tunity for com bin ing home and for eign missions, by having the Gospel preached to the heathen by congre ga tions surround ing them, Loehe placed his In dian mission, founded by F. A. Craemer , un der the control of the Michi gan Synod.59 But CON FES SIONAL CON TRO VER SIES soon dis turbed this re la- tion. While the Michi gan Synod rec og nized the Lutheran Sym bols,60 it permit ted com mon ser vices for Lutheran and Re formed congre ga tions, and did not ob ject to the com mu nion for mula of the Prussian Union, When Pastor Dumser, who re jected the Lutheran point of view, was made mission ary to

235 the In dians over the protest of Loehe’s dis ci ples. Pastors Hattstaedt, Crae- mer, Lochner and Traut mann, by a solemn docu men tary state ment,61 withdrew from the Michi gan Synod (June 25, 1846). which shortly af ter wards ceased to exist (cf. § 22, 3). [3] OR GA NI ZA TION AND CON FES SIONAL PO SI TION. With the growth of congre ga tions Schmid conceived the plan of a new orga ni za tion, and com mu nicated with In spector Josenhans of the Basel Mis sion rel ative to a synod of Michi gan mod eled af ter the doctri nal stan- dards of Wuertem berg. Thus on Dec. 10, 1860 the SEC OND MICHI GAN SYNOD was founded at De troit with eight pastors un der the pres idency of Schmid. Two emis saries from Basel, Stephan Kling mann and Chris tian L. Eberhardt, laid a solid DOC TRI NAL FOUN DA TION, the nature of which may be judged by the follow ing state ment: “The Ev. Luth. Synod of Michi gan ob li gates it self to all the canoni cal books of both the Old and New Tes ta ments, as the sole rule and stan dard of faith and life, and to all the books of our Ev. Luth. Church as the true in ter preta tion of Holy Scripture.” 62 [4] UNION WITH THE GEN ERAL COUN CIL. Hoping to se cure a bet ter minis te rial supply by joining some larger church orga ni za tion, the Michi gan Synod united with the Gen eral Coun cil in 1867. At that time there was no Ger man the o log ical sem inary within this body, and the Coun cil proposed to as sist Michi gan by encour ag ing the students from KROPP (§ 20, 1) to take up work in the Michi gan Synod.63 Michi- gan ob jected to the AKRON DEC LA RA TION (§ 18, 1) adopted by the Gen eral Coun cil, and pre ferred the simpler Galesbur g Rule.64 It re mained in this at titude of protest un til 1888, when the conven tion of the Gen eral Coun cil was held at Zion’s Church, MON ROE (a parish conn ected with the Michi gan Synod), where two of the Coun cil’s pastors occu pied Presby te rian pul pits. Since all protests proved fu tile, the re la tion of the two synods, which had extended over a pe riod of 20 years, was termi nated. [5] UNION WITH THE GEN ERAL SYNOD AND THE SYN OD I CAL CON FER ENCE. Af ter withdraw ing from the Gen eral Coun cil, the Michi gan Synod aimed to unite with the Syn od ical Con fer ence. This plan was car ried out in 1891, af ter Michi gan, together with Minne sota and Wis consin, had founded the Gen eral Synod. In 1891 Presi den t C. A. Led erer and Di rec tor F. Huber went to Min nesota in behalf of their synod to confer concern ing a prospec tive field for mission ary activ ity . On this occa sion they met offi cers of the Min- nesota Synod, who contem plated a new orga ni za tion for concen trated ef-

236 forts in the North ern field. Michi gan, desirous of strength ening its influ ence and feel ing the need of a more thor ough train ing of its minis ters, partic i- pated in the move ment. Dele ga tes were sent to a conven tion, held at Mil- wau kee, April 21, 1891, where pre lim inar ies were ar ranged for the prospec- tive orga ni za tion of the Gen eral Synod. Here it was agreed that before Michi gan should unite with Wis consin and Min nesota, it should first become a member of the Syn od ica l Con fer ence. This was done in the sum mer of 1892 at the reg u lar conven tio n of the Syn od ical Con fer ence. Dur ing the fol low ing fall the Gen eral Synod was founded and orga nized. [6] DI VI SION AND FOUND ING OF THE MICHI GAN DIS TRICT. In conse quence of this union with the Gen eral Synod, the sem inary at Sag inaw was transformed into a gym nasium. This caused a DI VI SION in the synod. The ma jor ity, fa voring the re ten tion as a the o log ical sem inary of the Sag inaw insti tu t ion, suspended the minor ity of 10 op posing them. The latter orga nized the dis trict-synod of Michigan and contin ued to ful fill their obli- gations to ward the Synod ical Con fer ence and the Gen eral Synod. [7] UNION WITH THE AUGS BURG SYNOD. Af ter with draw ing from the Syn od ical Con fer ence, the Michi gan Synod united with the Augs burg Synod in 1897. The latter was merely a Con fer- ence, ex tend ing over a num ber of States, of some inde pen dent congre gations. It was soon dis covered that the doctri nal po si tion of these two bod ies was alto gether in com pat ible, and in 1900 their re la tionship ceased. [8]. AD JUST MENT OF DIF FER ENCES AND PRESENT STA TUS. Thus iso lated, the Michi gan Synod consid ered a re turn to the Syn od ical Con fer ence, and, af ter having with drawn the suspen sion of the minor ity , decided for the RE UNION. The synod has at present 43 pastors and profes sors, 51 congre ga tions. 8,290 commu nicants and 2,670 vot ing mem bers.

IV. The District Synod Of Nebraska.

Eleven pastors of the Wis consin Synod, re sid ing in Ne braska, met at St. John’s Church, Firth, August 29, 1901, for the purpose of with draw ing from the mother synod and of forming an inde pen dent dis trict. To avoid misun derstand ings as to the power of the Presi dent rel ative to the new orga- niza tion, the daughter -synod was advised to unite as an inde pen dent body with the Wis consin, Min nesota and Michi gan Syn ods. Thus the Ger man Ev. Luth. District Synod of Ne braska was orga nized, Aug. 25, 1904. Dur ing the

237 fol low ing year it united with the Syn od ical Con fer ence. It is partic u larly active in its mission ary work, which extends to South Dakota. Ac cording to latest sta tistics it has 21 minis ters, 3 teach ers, 22 congre ga tions , 14 preaching sta tions, 800 vot ing members and 1,600 com mu nicants. Dur ing the past year it raised $40,210 for current expenses and $25,725 for synod ical purposes.

§ 26. The Slovak Synod.

This is a small body consist ing of 23 pastors, 59 congre ga tions and 8,000 com mu nicants. It was founded in 1906 by pastors who had ar rived from Hungary and oth ers who had been trained in Mis souri insti tu t ions or had come out of the Mis souri Synod. They served Slo vak congre ga tions, orga- nized a dis trict and united with the Syn od ical Con fer ence. Ad ditional minis- ters from Hunga ry ar rived later, some of them tak ing a the o log ical course in Mis souri sem inar ies. The ma jor ity of the pastors are being trained in the sem inary at Spring field, Ill., where for a time a Slo vak profes sor was a member of the fac ulty. NOTE: Here closes the con tri bu tion of the Rev. O. Engel.

§ 27. Prac tice of the Syn od i cal Confer ence.

[1] In the matter of CHURCH POLITY the loca l congre gation holds supreme author ity. The synod, being a hu man and not a divine insti tu tion, and exist ing merely for prac tical rea sons, is the vol un tary confer ence of con grega tional repre senta tives. En ti tled to vote are only pastors and lay men who speak for a con grega tion. Pastors emer iti, pro fes sors and synod ical offi cers have merely advi sory power. But even the synod, properly consti tuted by repre- senta tives of congre ga tions, is only an advi sory orga ni za tion. 65 “No synod i- cal decre e is bind ing… it becomes so only, af ter the indi vid ual con grega tion by a for mal res o lution has adopted and rat ified it. Should a con grega tion find a synod ical res o lution incom pat ible with the Word of God or contrary to the prin ci ples of expe di ency , it has a right to ignore or re ject it” (Grosse, Distinc tive Doc trines, p. 131). Again: “The synod has no pow.er to call minis ters or to depose them. This is properly the function of the congre gation. An indi vid ual congre ga tion may transfer its right to a synod ical pres i- dent or to a the o log ical faculty , in calling a pas tor or in the trial of min is ters,

238 but the deci sion of a possi ble depo si tion belongs to the juris diction of the local congre ga tion” (Grosse, p. 132). How ever, a congre ga tion, not re spect- ing a synod ical res o lution pertain ing to THE CON FES SION OF FAITH, would be excom mu nicated, because it is the cri te rion of the or tho dox church, “to exer cise rigid dis ci pline against those who in doctrine and life devi ate from the true faith” (Grosse, p. 126). Thus the inde pen dence of loca l congre gations includes only non-es sential points, such as cer emonies, man agement of property , offer ings, congre ga t ional customs, etc. The same ap plies to the trial of a minis ter whose life and teach ing do not harmo nize with the Word of God. Should the congre ga tion fail to act against him, both pastor and flock would be duly ex com mu nicated. [2] DOC TRI NAL DIS CI PLINE. Whoev er dis agrees with any doctri nal statement of the synod, whether per taining to fun damen tal or pe riph er ical is sues, will be ex cluded from synod ical fel low ship. [3] Equally consis tent is its at ti tude toward UNION ISM. Abso lute harmony in all matters of doctrine is re quired for organic coop er ation. “Open questions” (§ 23) are not rec og nized, un less they be questions like this: “Was the world cre ated on a Sun day or on a Monday?” Even apart from organic union, all pul pit and al tar fel low ship with those differ ing in the slight est detail, is not permi ssi ble. Be cause Loehe did not agree with Mis souri concern- ing the doctrine of the ministry , he was forced to sever his re la tionship. How rigidly consis tent Mis souri’s at ti tude is appears from the fact that during any doctri nal confer ences between Ohio and Mis souri, a com mon prayer is consid ered sin ful union ism, inas much as there are doctri nal differ - ences con cern ing pre desti nation and con version. [4] SE CRET SO CI ETIES. Against all lodges, and es pecially those with re li- gious pro fes sions, Mis souri takes an un com promis ing stand. Grosse (p. 55) gives the reasons for this at ti tude, no tably the fol low ing:

In the lodge it is re quired to frat ernize with Jews, heathen, in fi dels and athe ists.

It is a duty to bury all lodge mem bers as if they were saved. No Chris tian can join in lodge prayers oflFered during the meet ings or at fu neral services, because they are not add ressed to the tri une God nor to Jesus Christ, but rather to a fancied idol.

239 While the lodges are no reli gious soci etie s, they have reli gious tenden cies. They would make men better without Christ. Their prayers, con sti tu tions and speeches prove that they deny the to tal deprav ity of man. They only recog ni ize moral ity and their moral ity in no sense exceeds that of the pa gan.

There are lodge members in cer tain Mis souri congre ga tions, es pecially in larger cities, but when ever a con flict arises between them and other members of the con grega tion, they are invari ably ex com mu nicated. [5] It is a praisewor thy prac tice of the Syn od ical Con fer ence that it frowns on all WORLDLY AMUSE MENTS in connec tion with the church. It does not re sort to fairs, bazars, enter tainments and parties or other worldly means of rais ing church funds. It has no use for Santa Clans, nor any un devo tional perfor mances in the sanc tuary . [6] Care of PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS. Be ing convinced that the State has no busi ness to teach re li gion, not even to encour age prayers or Bible read ings in the schools and consid er ing the Sun day-school utterly inad e quate for reli gious instruc tio n, 1) because of the lim ited time, 2) because of incom petent teach ers, the Syn od ical Con fer ence maintains parochial schools, which are conducted by the pastors or by trained instruc tors. A congre ga tion in Chicago has nine regu larly em ployed teach ers and 929 schol ars. The morn- ing recitations are in Ger man, the af ter noon stud ies in Eng lish. The course provides for one hour daily of Bibli cal his tory and one hour of cate chism.

1. Ac cording to the sta tistics of 1914, it has 2,928 minis ters, 4,634 con- grega tions and preaching sta tions, and 765,598 commu nicants. ↩ 2. From 1888 to 1911 the Eng lish Mis souri Synod was a sepa rate unit of the Syn od ical Con fer ence, but has now been merged into the Mis souri Synod.↩ 3. In or der to un derstand how Walther had been able to join Stephan, it must be borne in mind that he, as well as the ma jor ity of the minis ters and candi dates, lived at so great a dis tance from Dres den that a just es- ti mate of Stephan was hardly to be expected of them. In Walther’s pres ence Stephan had al ways felt un com fortable. He called Walther his Judas. The fol low ing inci dent may be added as bear ing on the psy- choIoRv of the case. Rudel bach proposed to suggest Walther’s name for the po si tion of pri vate tutor , but made this offer condi tional on

240 Walther’s re nouncing Stephan. Walther replied: “Shall I desert a man who saved my soul?” Rudel bach re sponded: “No, dear Walther, you need not desert him; continue your as soci ation in the name of God; but guard against idoliz ing a man.”↩ 4. In this way the congre ga tion learned to know him, and thus, later on, called him as the succes sor of Haesbart. ↩ 5. It first appeared in the “Eri ai iger Zeitschrift fuer Protes tantismus,” and was af ter ward reprinted in pamphlet form.↩ 6. The substance of this pam phlet, which clearly re veals Wyneken’s mission ary zeal, is given by Fritschel, Vol. II, pp. 130-138. A num ber of char acter is tic anecdotes of Pastor Wyneken are re cited on pages 620- 630 of Dr. Morris’ s “Fifty Years in the Lutheran Ministry .”↩ 7. To Fritschcl helungs the credit of having clearly exhib ited, on the basis of the re ports which Loehe pub lished in “Kirch liche Mitteilun gen aus und ueb er Amerika” for the years 1843-1847, the impor tant part which Loehe took in the orga ni za tion of the strict Lutheran synods of Amer- ica, es pecially of the Mis souri Synod, which hail such an un exa mpled growth.↩ 8. Dr. Scha effer was also profes sor in the sem inary of the Gen eral Synod at Gettys burg, Pa., from 1857 to 1864, and in that of the Gen eral Coun cil at Phila del phia from 1864 to 1879.↩ 9. When Loehe founded the first of his colonies in Michi gan, hi.i purpose was to work among the In dians. This mission, begun by Craemer and contin ued by Baier lein, is admir ably described by the latter in his book enti tled, “Im Ur wald bci den Roten In dian ern;” also in Fritschcls “Die In dianer Mis sion in Michi gan,” a part of his Ger man “History of the Lutheran Church in America,” pp. 198-217.↩ 10. These last two names re call the rupture between the Mis souri Synod and Loehe (§ 28, 2), and the sub se quent found ing of the Iowa Synod (§ 29. 1).↩ 11. See § 27, 1, concern ing: the prin ci ples of this con stitu tion. ↩ 12. Stu dents from Neuen det telsau were contin u ally sent to Fort Wayne.↩ 13. Wyneken, Sih ler, Fick, Siev ers, Roebbe len, Craemer , Brohm. Buenger, Fuerbringer , Lochner, Kehl.↩ 14. We should men tion two other schools which, between 1860 and 1870, supplied stu dents for the Mis souri Synod. Prof. Fuerbringer says: “Walther, at his second visit to Ger many, conferred with Pastor Brunn

241 of Nas sau concern ing a Ger man pro-semi nary where stu dents might be prepared for Ameri can insti tu tio ns. Brunn agreed, and, though he had only lim ited means, produced as ton ish ing re sults. The insti tu tion was opened in 1861 and closed in 1878. Dur ing this brief time it fur nished our synod with 200 young men, who stud ied at Fort Wayne or at Addi- son or at the Practi cal Sem inary and became pastors and teachers. Brunn did not ter minate his activ ity along this line un til the need ceased to be press ing. Read his ‘Monthly’ and the notes from his life. Theodore Harms has also helped in this re spect. Since 1866 he has sent a number of young men who were ei ther com pletely trained in his Mis sion House or gradu ated to our Ameri can insti tu tions. On the other hand, help was sent from this coun try for the support of the Her manns- burg Mission. Harms helped differ ent synods for fifteen years. On account of dis agree ments, es pecially concern ing the doctrine of predes ti- nation, this re la tionship ceased. The three vol umes of Hac cius’ ’His- tory of Mis sions” give some facts bear ing on this cir cum stance, which, however , are not al ways re li able."↩ 15. Hauck, R. E. 14, 198↩ 16. Among these, C. Hochstel ter, who wrote a his tory of the Mis souri Synod.↩ 17. A mis sion among negroes is part of the prac ti cal work, un derta ken in com mon.↩ 18. An actual sepa ra tion did not take place un til 1887, when the op po nents of the Mis souri doctrine of predes ti nation founded a sem inary at Northfield, Minn., un der the lead er ship of Prof. F. A. Schmidt, the vig- or ous protag o nist of Dr. Walther.↩ 19. Syn od ical Re port, p. 17,↩ 20. Idem, p. 20.↩ 21. Mueller, p. 158, 28.↩ 22. Later on this state ment was expressly re pu diated by the Buffalo Synod.↩ 23. It is true, Luther, in writ ing to the Bo hemians, advises them to choose and or dain their own minis ters, conced ing to them this right on the basis of the spir itual priest hood. He availed himself of this priv ilege when he claimed the right of or dina tion hitherto vested only in the bish ops. But this method was neces si tated by the cir cum stances of the time (see Smalc ald Art., p. 341, 60-72, 79). That Luther’s letter to the

242 Bo hemians presents only one side of his views may be seen from what he writes at other places con cern ing self-appointed spiri tual ad vis ers.↩ 24. See “Luther aner,” Vol. X, p. 193: “If you fi nally demand from us that we should inter pret our no ble con fes sions accord ing to the Scrip tures, we cannot as good Luther ans com ply with such a demand: in fact, we are surprised that you as Luther ans should ask for such a thing: for as Luther ans we al ready possess in our confes sions the pure sense and unadul ter ated inter preta tion of the divine Word. And we would have to re fer to the Scrip tures only in case of argu ments with non-Lutherans, who still might doubt the abso lute scriptural ness of our confes sions, or in case that any inter preta tion of the confes sions were un intel li gible; but this is not the case.”↩ 25. This char acter is tic is found in the Wis consin “Quar talschrift,” in a se- ries of ar ti cles signed by Profes sors Koehler, Augus tus Pieper and Di- rec tor Schaller.↩ 26. “Nothing is to be treated as an open question which God has clearly answered in His Word. Whether a doctri nal question has been treated by the Sym bol ical Books is not deci sive, but whether the answer is clearly stated in the Scrip tures. Mat ters not contained in the Bible have no place in the Church.” (See Cen tral District, 13, p. 23; also Grosse, p. 24.) “It is a grave aber ra tion of Lutheran the olo gians to substi tute for the self-in ter preta tive Scrip tures the author ity of the Church… The demand made by the defend ers of open questions is sacri le gious; for it re ally means equal claims in the church for the contra dic tion of the heavenly truth as for the truth it self. Of doctrines, radi cally con tra dic- tory to each other, only one can be correct. The other must be false” (“Lehre und Wehre,” in Grosse, p 24).↩ 27. “No matter what po si tion any doctrine may hold in the doctri nal system of the Lutheran Church, no matter in what form it may be presented, whether treated ex professo or as a casual re mark, it is part of the obliga tion incurred by the subscriber; noth ing is exempted, noth ing can be excluded” (“Lutheraner ,” 1858, p. 201). Gross mann: “When you subs cribe to the confes sions, were you aware of the fact that they declared the perma nent virgin ity of Mary?” Walther: “Yes, I can say so in the pres ence of God.” Gross man: “Do you still believe this to be true doc trine?” Walther: “Yes, I can say so in the pres ence of God.” Gross mann: “What are your rea sons for consid er ing this a true presen-

243 ta tion?” Walther: “Pardon me, but you have no right to ask this question.” (Beyer, “Col loquium of Mil wau kee,” p. 43 sq.)↩ 28. Art. VII of the Augsbur g Con fession: “Satis est ad verani uni tatem eccle siae con sentire de doct rina evangelii,” etc. “It is enough for the true unity of the Church that the Word be preached accord ing to the true mean ing of the gospel,” etc.↩ 29. See “Kirch liche Zeitschrift,” I, 1, on the question, “What is neces sary for Church unity?”↩ 30. See Walther’s book on “Kirche und Amt,” Thesis 2.↩ 31. We might use this il lus tra tion: The church building belongs to the con- grega tion as a corpo ra tion, not to the indi vid ual com mu nicant. No one person can claim this partic u lar chair or pew, or the al tar. For a proper le gal transfer of the property the indi vid ual members do not sign away their inter ests, but the congre ga tion acts as a whole, as a unit, and in this man ner the matter is transa cted legally and accord ing to regu la- tion.↩ 32. Geo. J. Fritschel, Geschichte, pp. 288-290.↩ 33. Brobst, Monat shefte, 1868, p. 296.↩ 34. Got tfried Fritschel, “Luther und offene Fragen;” Rudel bach- Guer icke, Zeitschrift, 1867, 487.↩ 35. “For the Pope, together with the Turk, is the Antichrist, I have no doubt. You may think as you choose.” Erl. Ausg., 7, 184.↩ 36. See their trans la tion in Tres sel, “The Error of Mis souri.”↩ 37. These are trans lated in Tres sel, The Er ror of Mis souri.↩ 38. See Iowa, Dubuque, 1S82; Ohio, Wheel ing, ISf.l; Nor we gian The ses of Union; Pieper, Con cern ing Unity.↩ 39. Abundant ma te rial for a his tory of this dogma is found in Mees’s “Zur Dogmeneschichte der Lehre von der Gnaden wahl;” H. W. Harms, “Sammlun gen einiger Zeug nisse,” 7 brochures, 1892- 1914.↩ 40. Kraushaar, C. O. “Ver fass nungsfor men der Lutherischen Kirche Amerikas,” Gueter sloh, 1911, p. 479.↩ 41. Wolf, E. J.: “Luther ans in America,” Ger man edi tion by J. Nicum. pp. 391-400, “Die Wis consin Syn ode,” by Dr. A. Ernst.↩ 42. Everest, Kate A.: “Early Lutheran Im migra tion to Wis consin.” Trans- actions of the Wis consin Acad emy of Sci ences, Arts and Let ters, Vol. 8. pp. 289-298.↩

244 43. Van Al s tine. N.: “Histor ical Re view of the Franckean Synod of New York,” Phil adel phia. 1893. p. 10.↩ 44. Drit ter Beri clit der Evange lis chcn Gesellschaft fucr die protes tanis chen Deutschen in Nord-Anierika, Barmen, 1847, p. 19.↩ 45. “Gemein deblatt,” 1900, No. 11-13; Geschichte der Syn ode von Wis- consin, by Prof. J. P. Koehler.↩ 46. “Palmblaet ter.” Or ran fuer christliche Mitteilun gen. Unter Mitwirkung von Dr. F. W. Krummachcr , edited by Pastor F. Sander. El ber feld. 1847. p. 105.↩ 47. Dedekind, M.: “75 Jahre deutsch-evang clis cher Di as po raar belt in Nord und Sued Amerika,” Bar men, 1912, p. 6.↩ 48. Hoer mann, A.: “Unser North western Col lege,” Milwau kee, 1915.↩ 49. An at tractive descrip tion of this mission ary jour ney is found in a se ries of ar ti cles in “An siedler im Westen,” a monthly edited by the Berlin So ci ety for the propa ga tion of Ger man missions in North Amer ica, 1863. pp. 68. 79, 90. See also “Der Lutherische Herold,” 1868, No. 18, sq.; Nine Weeks in Min nesota. ↩ 50. Jahres bericht dder Berliner Gesellschaft fuer die deutsch-evan gelis che Mis sion in Amerika, 1865, p. 8.↩ 51. Ger berding, G. H.: “Life and Letters of W. A. Passa vant,” Greenville, 1906 pp. 361-369. Also Tra bert, G. H.: “Eng lish Lutheranism in the Northwest,” Phil adel phia, 1914, pp. 19-22.↩ 52. Mgebrof f, J.: “Geschichte der Ersten Deutschen Evan gelisch- Lutherischen Syn ode in Texas,” Chicago, 1902, pp. 12-22; C. F. Spit- tler und die Pil germis sion St. Chrischona.↩ 53. Roe sener, P.: “Ehren denkmal,” West Rox bury, 1905, p. 44.↩ 54. Ochsen ford, S. E.: “Doc u men tary History ,” pp. 334-336.↩ 55. Nicum, J.: “Geschichte des Min is teri ums von New York,” Read ing, 1888. p. 280.↩ 56. Kuhn, A.: “Geschichte der Min nesota Syn ode,” St. Louis, 1910, pp. 31-32.↩ 57. “Eikhoff, A.:”In der neuen Heimat," New York, 1884, p. 376-378; see Kohl, Reisen im Nord westen dcr Vere inigten Staaten, New York, 1857.↩ 58. Deutsch Amerikanis che Geschichtsblaet ter, heraus gegeben von der Deutsch-Amerikanis chen Historischen Gesellschaft von Illinois, Vol.

245 9, No. 4, pp. 122-130; Das Leben und Wirken von Pastor Schmid.↩ 59. Deindo er fer, J.: “Geschichte der Iowa Syn ode,” Chicago, 1897, p. 11- 12; See Mayer, C. A.: “Geschichte der St. Lorenz Gemeinde zu Frankenmuth, Mich.,” St. Louis, 1895, p. 10.↩ 60. Kirchliche Mitteilun gen aus und ueber Nor daraerika, 1845, Nos. 1 and 5.↩ 61. Hochstet ter, C.: “Geschichte der Mis souri Syn ode,” Dres den, 1885, pp. 138-142.↩ 62. “Geschichte der Michi gan Synode,” Sagi naw . 1910, p. 6.↩ 63. Fritschel, G. J.: “Geschichte der Lutherischen Kirche in Amerika,” Gueter sloh. 1897. Vol. II, p. 411.↩ 64. Ochsen ford: Doc u men tary History , p. 342.↩ 65. The Gen eral Synod, the Gen eral Coun cil and the United Synod of the South have made a simi lar decla ra tion, but it refers only to the Gen eral Body, not to the dis trict synod, while, accord ing to the Syn od ica l Con- fer ence, even the district synod has merely ad visory func tions.↩

246 8. In de pen dent Syn ods.

§ 28. The Joint Synod of Ohio.

I. Origin and Growth of the Ohio Synod.

The State of Ohio was admit ted into the Union in 1802, and as early as 1805 itin er ant preach ers of the Penn syl vania Synod (§ 5, 3) began to gather the nu mer ous Luther ans em igrat ing at that time from Penn syl va nia and Vir- ginia. The counties of Fair field, Terry, Pick away, Mont gomery, Stark, and Jeffer son es pec ially were thickly set tled with Ger mans. The first two preach ers in the held were George Forster and Johannes Stauch. In Oc tober 1818, the Ohio Con fer ence was re inforced by ten addi tional clergy men, of whom PAUL HENKEL, the great-grand son of Ger hard Henkel (§ 16), was the most emi nent. The Ohio Con fer ence, now a part of the Pennsyl vania Synod, met annu ally. But as it had no right to or dain minis ters, but merely to license them, and as the jour ney to the “Mother Synod” neces sary for or dina- tion was too long and expen sive, it asked for permis sion to found a minis- terium of its own. This re quest being granted, it OR GA NIZED IT SELF into a SYNOD SEPT. 14, 1818, AT SOM ER SET, OHIO, which at its eighth conven tion chose the name, “The Evan gel ical Lutheran Synod of Ohio and Adjoin ing States.” This synod adopted the “proposed plan” ( §§ 7. 12) in 1819, but when, in 1820, it learned that the New York Min is terium and the Synod of North Car olina had re fused to join in the move ment, it decide d to re main inde pen dent. It took the same stand in 1822. In the latter case its del egates to the Gen eral Synod, though elected, were not sent, be cause the Pennsyl vania Synod had an nounced its withdrawal. THE PAS TORS engaged in the mission ary held of Ohio were ei ther supplied by the Penn syl vania Synod or had re ceived their train ing un der minis ters in Ohio. Now and then a candi date ar rived from Ger many. As many Luther ans came from the East ern States, a ten dency toward a tran si tion to the Eng lish was soon dis cernible. Ev ery effort was made to re tain the Ger man by orga- niz ing Ger man-Eng lish and Eng lish congre ga tions. In 1828 plans were proposed for the founding of a THE O LOG I CAL SEM I NARY for Ohio. The lack of minis ters was keenly felt, and the task of supply ing vacant charges was

247 reach ing dimen sions beyond the possi bili ties of the small num ber of minis- ters. Dur ing this year Wil helm Schmidt, a candi date from Halle, was sent to Ohio by the Penn syl vania Synod. He declared himself willin g (1830) to start the new sem inary , and submit ted a course of stud ies which was approved. In the fall of 1830 the sem inary was founded un der his lead er ship in the parson age at Can ton, Ohio, and was at tended by two stu dents. In 1831 it was transferred to Colum bus. The same year the synod was divided into an East ern and a West ern dis trict, to which in 1836 an Eng lish dis trict was added. Af ter the death of Schmidt in 1839 (at the age of 33), Dr. Demme, of Phila del phia, was chosen as his succes sor . As Demme declined, Pastor C. F. SCHA EF FER (Hagerstown, Md.) took charge of the Eng lish depart ment and (in 1841) Pastor FRIED. WIN KLER (Newark, N. J.) of the Ger man depart ment. The latter , while vis it ing with Pastor Stohlmann, of New York, met two young men who had just ar rived from Ger many (Ernst and Burger), and prevailed on them to go with him to Colum bus. In this way a re la tionship was es tab lished with the Fa ther land and the mission ary enter prise of PAS TOR W. LOEHE. Al though in 1840 the Eng lish District of Ohio united with the Gen eral Synod, there still re mained in the synod a large num ber of Ger man and Eng lish-German congre ga tions. The influx of Ger man stu dents and candi dates increased the confes sional party of the Ohio clergy. DR. W. SIH- LER bec ame the leader of the conser vatives, who ob jected to the un- Lutheran method of li censing minis ters, to the union ized com mu nion service (“Christ says,” etc) imported from the Gen eral Synod, and the fact that not all the Lutheran confes sions were adopted. They demanded a change in these fea tures. Says Pastor Lehmann later on: “They were right in their posi tion; but we could have coop er ated with them ten years sooner, had they acted differ ently in their demands.” Their just demands were re fused, and they withdrew from the synod. This act ion, together with contin ued at tacks on the part of cham pions of the so-called “Amer ican Lutheranism,” caused the synod to place it self more and more un com promis ingly on a confes sional basis. Pastors LEHMANN AND LOY, who had grown up with the synod and were held in great es teem, took a lead ing part in this matter . An ever-in creas ing immi- gration from Ger many and the strong Lutheranism of its great ri val, the MIS SOURI SYNOD, also influ enced Ohio to declare, two years af ter the withdrawal of the Loehe party, its un condi tional adher ence to all the Lutheran

248 Sym bols (1847). With the grow ing useful ness of the sem inary , the influx of the o log ical cand idates from Ger many and the absorp tion of the lit tle In di- anapolis Synod, the Ohio Synod grew rapidly. In the early fifties (1855, 1856, 1857 and 1858) it held a num ber of confer ences with Mis souri, and thus the influ ence of Mis souri in creased. When in 1866 the “Mother Synod” invited all synods subscrib ing to the Lutheran Sym bols to form the GEN ERAL COUN CIL, Ohio approved of the projected consti tu tio n; but it charged its del egates not to unite with the new or- gani za tion, un less that body would declare its at ti tude concern ing the “FOUR POINTS,” namely, al tar fel low ship, pul pit fel low ship, se cret soci eties and Chil iasm. As the Gen eral Coun cil re fused to do this and as, more over, the ENG LISH OHIO DIS TRICT was admit ted to the new orga ni za tion, Ohio declined to unite with it. Mis souri mean while (1866) rec og nized Ohio as an or tho dox body, and planned the founding of the SYN OD I CAL CON FER ENCE in whose de- liber ations Ohio took part (1871). It is not diffi cult to trace Mis souri’s influ- ence in Ohio’s synod ical dis cussions. Ohio stood ready to sacri fice its identity and its sem inary to a general genuinely Lutheran synod. This FA VORITE PROJECT OF WALTHER might have succeeded, had it not been for the at ti tude of the Wis consin Synod. In 1877 Ohio instructed the board of its col lege to confer the degree of D. D. on Walther, and in 1880 called Frank, a Mis- sourian, in pref er ence to Prof. F. W. Stell horn, as succes sor to Lehman (suffer ing with cancer). When the contro versy concern ing PRE DES TI NA TION re- sulted in Loy’s sid ing with Prof. F. A. SCHMIDT, Frank re signed, and STELL- HORN, who had vig or ously op posed Walther at Chicago, was called in his place. At Wheel ing (1881) the synod took a stand against Mis souri, and with drew from the Syn od ical Con fer ence. Dur ing the fol low ing years OHIO GREW very rapidly, largely because the contro versy with Mis souri had opened for it the West ern and the North western ter ri tory, where some men and churches had with drawn from Mis souri and had joined the Ohio Synod as a new dis trict. Soon the prac ti cal depart- ment of the Columbus Sem inary was transferred to Afton (later to St. Paul). In the course of time, es pecially through neigh boring spheres of work, Ohio and IOWA came into touch with each other. As early as 1883 Prof. Got- tfried Fritschel ar ranged for a pri vate confer ence between the lead ers of these two synods, but appar ently with out re sult. In 1893 a col loquium took place in Michi gan City, Ind., where cer tain the ses were adopted rel ative to Iowa’s doctri nal po si tion. These the ses, however , did not fully sat isfy ei ther

249 Ohio and Iowa; they led to a second col loquium (1908). held in Toledo, Ohio, where the ses were adopted which proved accept able to all concerned. Ohio and Iowa maintain church fel low ship, al though Iowa’s re la tion to the Gen eral Coun cil is not al together to Ohio’s liking. [2] SYN OD I CAL CON TRO VER SIES. [a] AGAINST UNION ISM. The Ohio Synod, being a CHILD OF THE TIME, emerged only by a slow devel op ment from a luke warm Lutheranism to a rigid con fes sion al ism. It was a child of that time, and shared the doctri nal po si tion of the “Mother-Synod” (§ 8, 2), whence it re ceived its minis te rial supply . While it did not take part in the forming of the Gen eral Synod, it refrained from do ing so, not on account of the doctri nal scru ples which deterred Tennes see, but because it did not feel the need of a general orga ni zation. Al though the “proposed plan” was accept able to Ohio, it did not join the movement because it learned that not all synods would join the new body. In 1823 res o lutions were adopted in fa vor of such a union, but the matter was not con sum mated, because it was learned that the Pennsyl vania Synod was about to with draw. Ohio shared the am bigu ity of the time. As late as 1839 it was willing to unite with the Re formed. But the doctri nal STRUG GLE betw een “Amer ican Lutheranism,” advo cat ing the NEW MEA SURES, on the one hand, and a more pos itive wing, on the other, clari fied the at mos- phere for a healthier point of view. This conflict caused the WITH DRAWAL OF THE ENG LISH DIS TRICT (§ 9, 1) and its subse quent union with the Gen eral Synod. Thus the Eng lish work had to be re sumed by the conser vative el e- ment. This was diffi cult, because the Eng lish speaking clergy were gener - ally tainted with “Amer ican Lutheranism,” while the Ger man and the Ger- man-Eng lish con grega tions held to a more conser vative po si tion. The synod ical records bear wit ness to this strug gle which, in its confes sional ten- dencies, was re inforced by the influ ences of Loehe and his fol low ers. THE ENG LISH CLERGY WITH DREW AGAIN in 1855. and united with the Gen eral Synod as a sepa rate dis trict. This occurred a THIRD TIME, when the Eng lish District became a part of the Gen eral Coun cil. But these re peated with- drawals of the Eng lish ele ments STRENGTH ENED THE DOC TRI NAL PO SI TION of the Ohio Synod. In op po si tion to the Gen eral Synod, it declared in 1848 for alle giance to all the Sym bol ical Books. It drew inspi ra tion from confer ences with Mis souri (1854-1858). When the GEN ERAL COUN CIL was orga nized (1866). Ohio declared its appro val of the doctri nal platform adopted by it. but insis ted that the o ret ical correct ness should be fol lowed by a consis tent

250 prac tice (the “FOUR POINTS”). The General Coun cil’s un will ing ness to comply with this re quest caused Ohio to drift toward Mis souri, which synod rec og nized Ohio’s posi tion as or tho dox 1868). [b] The op po si tion of the Ohio Synod against SE CRET SO CI ETIES is all the more note wor thy because this synod, being largely com posed of members of East ern syno ds who had moved to the West, was confront ed with the problem of lodges much more se ri ously than synods deal ing with immi- grants from the old country . The matter was first dis cussed in 1852 by the confer ence of the West ern District, and since that has been re peat edly dealt with1 [c] Against MIS SOURI’S DOC TRINE OF PRE DES TI NA TION. As has been said, with con fes sion al ism in the Ohio Synod, came closer re la tions with Mis- souri. When the Syn od ical Con fer ence was orga nized in 1872, Ohio partic i- pated in the move ment, and was even willing to surren der its iden tity to this body in case other synods would do likewise. But ten years af ter wards it with drew from the Syn od ical Con fer ence (Wheeling, W. Va., 1881), because it ob jected to Walther’s theory of elec tion. 119 Ohio min is ters voted for and 19 against with drawal. While the ma jor ity of the latter joined Mis- souri, Ohio was strength ened by the op po nents of the Mis sourian doctrine in Minne sota, Wis consin and Mis souri.2 The differ ence between Mis souri and Ohio may be sum ma rized in the fol low ing FOUR POINTS: [1] Ohio teaches that God’s decr ee of elec tion is none other than the uni- versal coun sel of grace re vealed in the Gospel: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Mis souri, on the contrary , as serts that there are two entirely dis tinct decrees, between which an anal ogy is not even to be looked for. [2] Ohio teaches that the conver sion of men and their preser vation in the faith are the re sult of the general benevo lent will, and not of the decree of elec tion, if the latter word is taken in its narrow est sense; that elec tion, in the fore knowl edge of God, presup poses faith; and that God elected IN TU ITU FIDEI. Missouri, on the contrary , maintains that from the general benevo lent will there could at best re sult only a tempo rary faith; that a stead fast and re- ally sav ing faith can flow only from elec tion; and that God elects UNTO faith. [3] Mis souri fur ther maintains that the rea son why God has not elected all men, or why He has elected some and not oth ers, is an un fath omable mys tery; and that therefore it is impos si ble to harmo nize the doctrine of

251 predes ti nation with the uni versal prom ises of the Gospel. Ohio, on the other hand, main tains that we have here not a the o log ical, but an anth ro po log ical or psycho log ical mys tery; that the rea son why God has chosen only a few is re vealed, and is found in the fact that the ma jor ity of men willfully and persis tently re sist His Holy Spirit; but why among hu man beings who are all alike totally corrupt, some thus re sist and oth ers do not — this is some thing which we can not ex plain. [4] Missouri charges Ohio with hold ing a syn ergis tic view of con version, because the latter denies that God has decided by an abso lute decree who and how many “shall and must believe,” and thus leaves the deci sion, whether he will believe or not to man. Ohio strenu ously re pels the charge on the ground that it teaches that conver sion from begin ning to end is the work of the Holy Spirit, and that man can do noth ing to promote it, though he can hinder it. It claims that the contrary doctrine implies an ir re sistible grace in conver sion. It be came clear at the inter syno d ical confer ences (1903-4) that between the two parties there was a DIF FER ENCE OF VIEW WITH RE GARD TO THE ANAL OGY OF FAITH. Ohio as serted that we dare teach noth ing concern ing the decree of elec tion in the nar rower sense which would conflict with the general benev- o lent will of God; that is, which ould be contrary to the anal ogy of faith, and which would fail to harmo nize with the other passages of Scrip ture which treat of our sal vation. Mis souri as serted that there need not be between the differ ent doctrines of Scrip ture a harmony rec og niz able by the the olo gian, because the ar ti cles of faith are not some thing subjec tive, but some thing ob jec tive; and that, if the passages treat ing of the special decree of elec tion state some thing which we cannot harmo nize with those passages which treat of the general benevo lent will, we must take our rea son captive, accept the doctrine never the less, and say, “Speak, Lord, for Thy ser vant heareth.” The cri te rion for the cor rect inter preta tion of a Scrip ture passage treat ing of the special elec tion is not the harmony of Scrip ture as a whole, but only the passages which are the “sedes doctri nae” for the elec tion of partic u lar persons. The third confer ence in April, 1904, at De troit, Mich., also re sulted in a fail ure to reach any agree ment. Dr. Stell horn, in the name of the Ohio Synod and of the Iowa Synod declared: “The Chris tian doctrines form for the Chris tian, es pecially for the the olo gian, a rec og niz able harmo nious whole or system, which is com posed of doctrines drawn from perfectly clear passages of Holy Scrip ture. This organic whole is the high est

252 norm of Scrip tural inter preta tion, and stands above even the paral lelism or com pari son of the passages which treat of the same doctrine.” On the other hand. Dr. F. Pieper, as the repre senta tive of Mis souri, declared: “Ev ery doctrine which is not drawn solely from the Scrip ture passages which expressly treat of that doctrine is not a Scrip tural doctrine, but a hu man opin ion.” He as serted that it is mod ern the olog y to at tempt to bring together into a system doctrines (in this case those of the general and special benevo lent will of God) whose connec tion is not shown by the Word of God it self. To ward the re moval of this differ ence, which lies at the root of the oth ers, no progress was made. [3] CHAR AC TER IS TIC FEA TURES OF THE OHIO SYNOD. [a] It has overco me the LAN GUAGE diff iculty (see the exo dus of the Eng- lish District thrice re peated), and is now progress ing harmo niously. A third of its constituency is using the Eng lish lan guage and another third both languages. Its peri od icals are “Lutherische Kirchen zeitung” and “The Lutheran Stan dard;” the “Theol o gis che Zeitblaet ter,” are half Ger man and half Eng- lish. [b] In re gard to its THE O LOG I CAL PO SI TION, it diffe rs from Mis souri in the matter of ELEC TION AND CON VER SION. Rela tive to the doctrines of the ministry (Synod ical History , p. 192, 202), the Antichrist, Chil iasm and “Open questions,” its old synod ical res o lutions are in exis tence (origi nally for mu lated in op po si tion to Iowa); but at the confer ences at Michi gan City 0893) and Toledo (1908, 1912) Iowa and Ohio joined hands in the Toledo The ses, given in Ap pendix III. at the end of this book. [c] IN ITS PRAC TICE pertain i ng to doctri nal dis ci pline, union ism, se cret soci eties, worldly methods in the church, and parochial schools, it shares the at ti tude of Mis souri (§ 27), al though it may be some what less rigid (§ 27, 3) in indi vid ual cases. [4] ITS IN STI TU TIONS AND MIS SION ARY AC TIV I TIES. [i] ED U CA TIONAL IN STI TU- TIONS. [a] THE O LOG I CAL SEM I NAR IES. A. The sem inary at COLUM BUS, OHIO (the the o ret ical sem i nary of the synod) shares the buildings of Cap ital Uni versity of that city. Faculty: Dr. F. W. Stell horn, Dr. G. H. Schodde, Dr. K. Pfeiffer , Dr. Theo. Mees. Dr. R. C. H. Lenski. — B. The Practi cal Sem inary at ST. PAUL was orig inally connected with Colum bus, sepa rated from it in 1885, transferred to Afton, Minn., and then perma nently located at St. Paul in 1892. A pro-sem inary , offer ing a four years course, is connected with it.

253 This insti tu tion is un der the man agement of Prof. Dr. H. Ernst, as sisted by a fac ulty of five pro fes sors. [b] COL LEGES. A. CAP I TAL UNI VER SITY, Colum bus, was founded in 1850. The pro fes sors of the sem inary , together with seven other profes sors, con- stitute its fac ulty. Prof. Otto Mees is pres ident. A ma jor ity of the stu dents prepare for the ministry . This in stitu tion conferred the degree of Doc tor of Di vin ity on Dr. Walther at the sugges tion of the synod (1877), a few years before the contro versy with Mis souri concern ing elec tion arose. Af ter wards the same degree was conferred on Prof. F. A. Schmidt. — B. HE BRON ACAD- EMY, He bron, Neb., founded 1911. It is a co-ed u cational insti tu tion, with a fac ulty of three profes sors. — C. Melville Acad emy (founded in 1914), Melville, Saskatchewan, Canada, prepara tory to the pro-sem inary at St. Paul, has three teach ers, 35 students (H. Schmidt, Prin ci pal).

c. The Teachers’ Sem inary of the synod is located at Woodville, Ohio, and has six prof es sors. Prof. K. Hemming haus is pres ident. The Ohio Synod has 135 parochial schools, which are being served by specially prepared teach ers of both sexes.

[2] MIS SION ARY WORK. [a] HOME MIS SIONS. In this re spect Ohio has been very active. Af ter new congre ga tions had been founded with out any defi nite plan for several decades, a mission board of five members was orga nized in 1884, and was entrusted with the man agement of a fund contrib uted for this purpose. It consid ers appli c ations and aids wor thy enter prises. At its meet ings of the District Syn ods mission ar ies from differ ent fields present re ports of their work. These fur nish the basis for the pres ident’ s rec om men dations concern- ing poss ible as sis tance to be ren dered. Dur ing its exis tence of twenty-nine years the board has sent mission ar ies into half of the states of the Union. In 1914 it col lected $80,140 for this purpose. Be sides this fund, it maintains a fund man aged in the inter est of poor congre ga tions who borrow with out paying inter est for the building of new churches. NOTE: Spe cial men tion should be made of the work done by Ohio in the north western section of Canada — Mani toba, Saskatchewan, Al berta and British Co lumbia. Af ter an activ ity of ten years (see Al manac for 1915), it has a Cana dian Synod consist ing of 55 clergy men and 150 congre ga tions

254 and preach ing sta tions. The min is ters for this field come from the prac ti cal sem inary at St. Paul, Minn. [b] FOR EIGN MIS SIONS. Up to 1912 the Ohio Synod sent its mission ary contri bu tions to Her manns burg; but, af ter purchas ing from that soci ety a portion of its field and from the Lon don Mis sion ary Soci ety the ter ri tory adja cent to it, this body now car ries on its own work from the cen tral sta tion of Rajampt, India, with Pas tor Jesse P. Pflueger as its repre senta tive. [c] A mission among the NE GROES has been es tab lished at "Bal ti more, Md. [d] IN NER MIS SION work is being done by the con grega tions at Toledo, Pitts burgh and Columbus in these cities.

Bi o graph ical Notes.

PROF. W. F. LEHMANN was for many years influ ential in the synod. Af ter Dr. Win kler’s res igna tion, he was for thirty-four years the head of the Colum bus Sem i nary and also a member of the col lege fac ulty. In 1859 he became edi tor -in-chief of “Die Lutherische Kirchen zeitung,” which po si tion he held un til his death. He was not a polemi cal, but rather an irenic writer, cautious and delib er ate in his method. Born at Markkro nin gen, Wuertem- berg, in 1820, he came with his parents to Phila del phia as a mere lad of four. Pastor Demme took an in ter est in him, and sent him to Colum bus, where he stud ied the ology amid the pri vations of extreme poverty, living on 46 cents per week, sleep ing on sacks filled with straw, and subsist ing on corn-bread and pota toes. In 1840 he took charge of eight congre ga tions in Fair field County, Ohio, and later had a success ful pastorate at Som er set, Ohio. In 1847 he began his long and hon or able career as profes sor in the sem inary at Columbus. His death occurred in 1880. PROF. MATTHIAS LOY, D. D. Prob ably the strongest persona l influ ence in the set tlement of the doctri nal po si tions of the Joint Synod was that of Dr. Loy. Born in Penn syl vania March 17, 1828, of a Ro man Catholic fa ther and a Lutheran mother, and reared in lowly cir cum stances, he came as a young man to Ohio, gradu at ing from the Colum bus sem inary in 1849. The only pas torate he served was at Dela ware, Ohio. From 1866 un til he became Profes sor Emer itus ten years ago, he was contin u ously a profes sor in both the col lege and sem inary at Colum bus. He was al ways the expo nent of posi tive confes sion al ism, and in a prac ti cal way exer cised his influ ence

255 chiefly as the edi tor of “The Lutheran Stan dard” from 1864 to 1891 and of the “The o log ical Maga zine” from 1881 to 1888. He pub lished a se ries of useful books, among them, “Ser mons on the Gospels,” “Sermons on the Epis tles,” “An Es say on the Min istry,” “Chris tian Prayer,” “The Augs burg Con fes sion,” “The Doc trine of Justi fi cation.” The details of his career are re cited in a graphic man ner in his “Story of My Life” (1905). He died in 1915. PROF. FRED ER ICK WILLIAM STELL HORN, D.D. The subject of this sketch was born in Hanover Oc tober 2, 1841, and was edu cated at Fort Wayne and St. Louis, the chief insti tu tions of the Mis souri Synod. Af ter serv ing pastorates in St. Louis and In diana , he became profes sor in the col lege of the Wis consin Synod in 1869 and at Ft. Wayne in 1874. In 1881, as the result of the predes ti natio n contro versy, he severed his connec tion with the Mis souri Synod, and accepted a po si tion in the col lege and sem inary of the Ohio Synod at Colum bus. For a num ber of years he was edi tor of “Die Lutherische Kirchen zeitung,” and has been the sole edi tor of “Theol o gis che Zeitblaet ter” since it was es tab lished in 1881. He is preem inently the scholar of the Joint Synod, and has pub lished com men taries of the Gospels, the Acts, the Pastoral Epis tles, and Ro mans. He also wrote a “Dictio nary of N. T. Greek,” a “Com men tary on Bibli cal Proof passages in the Cat e- chism,” etc. He is profes sor of Dogmat ics, Ex ege sis and Ethics in the sem i- nary at Columbus. PAS TOR H. A. ALL WARDT, D. D., was born March 2, 1840, at Wachendorf, Mecklen burg-Schworin, and came to America in 1853. He stud ied in the prac ti cal sem inary of the Mis souri Synod (1858), the gym nasium at Ft. Wayne and the sem inary at St. Louis. He was pastor at Crystal Lake, Wis. (1865-1873), and at Lebanon, Wis. (1874-1910). He protested against Walther’s doctrine of predes ti na tion, at first pri vately (1878-79), then pub- licly, es pecially at the Chicago confer ence in 1880 and in “Altes und Neues” (1880), “Zeitblaet ter” and “Kirchen zeitung” (1885). He was suspended from synod ical fel low ship by the pres ident of his synod, which action was rat ified by the synod it self, af ter he had been warned that fra ter nal fel lowship with him would cease, should he fail to re tract his views. Then in Nove mber , 1881, All wardt and a num ber of insur gent Mis souri pastors founded their own confer ence. The Northwest ern District was formed in May, 1883, All wardt being its pres ident un til the divi sion of 1890. He was pres ident of the Wis consin Distr ict un til 1899. The degree of Doc tor of Di-

256 vin ity was confe rred upon him by Cap ital Uni versity in 1898. He was pres i- dent of the board of Ohio’s prac ti cal sem inary at Afton and St. Paul from 1884 to 1910. He contin ued his bat tle against Mis souri, es pecia lly at inter - synod ical confer ences (1903-1906) un til his death. Agree ing with Mis souri in ev erything but the doctrine of elec tion, he protested against the “Michi- gan The ses” (1893), which encour aged union with Iowa. He was one of the sign ers of the “Toledo The ses” of 1907. Con vinced of the truth of Lutheranism, he took a firm and fear less stand, which made him the ob ject alike of strong enmity and enthu si as tic admi ra tion. His death occurred in the midst of his labors April 9, 1910. PRES I DENT C. H. SCHUETTE, D. D., was born in Vor rel, Hanover, June 17, 1843. He em igrated to America in 1854, and re ceived his clas si cal and the- o log ical train ing at Cap ital Uni versity (1859-72). From 1872 to 1894 he was profes sor of mathe mat ics at this school, and became the o log ical profes- sor in the sem inary in 1881. Since that date he has been Gen eral Presi dent of the Ohio Synod. In this capac ity he has col lected more than $400,000 for edu cational work. He is the aut hor of the fol low ing books: “Church Mem- ber’s Man ual,” “State, Church and School,” “Be fore the Al tar” (a work on liturgies), and “Ex er cises unto Godli ness,” the last contain ing two brief sermons for each Sun day and Festi val Day of the Church Year and also daily morn ing and evening de vo tions. DR. GEORGE H. SCHODDE. Dr. Schodde was born in Pitts burg, Pa., April 15, 1854, and was edu cated at Columbus, Tuebin gen and Leipzig (Ph. D.). Since 1882 he has been profes sor of Greek in the col lege at Columbus and since 1895 also a member of the sem inary fac ulty. He has pub lished a number of transla tions and other books, and has contrib uted to many philolog i- cal and the o log ical jour nals. For twenty years he was one of the edi tors of “The Lutheran Stan dard,” and for ten years edited the Maga z ine. He is a trusted inter preter of the Scriptures.

§ 29. The Iowa Synod.

Con tributed by the Rev. Prof. Geo. J. Fritschel.

1. The Ori gin of the Iowa Synod.

257 The at ti tude of the pastors near Sag inaw , Mich., brought about a rupture between Loehe and the Mis souri Synod. At the instance of Pastor Cloeter, of Sag inaw , Presi d ent Wyneken in 1853 came to Sag inaw , and at a confer ence the two adher en ts of Loehe (In spector GEO. GROSS MANN, of Sag inaw , and JO HANNES DEIN DO ER FER, pastor at Frankenhilf) were given the al ter native either to dis contin ue the sem inary founded by Loehe, or to turn it over to the Mis souri Synod. Failure to do so, would cause the insti tu tion to be consid- ered “schis mati cal.” The same demand was for warded to Loehe in writ ing by Wyneken as pres ident of the synod. At the same confer ence Wyneken expressed the idea that, should the adher ents of Loehe em igrat e to a ter ri- tory not yet occ u pied by Mis souri (Iowa for instance), confli ct might be avoided. With the consent of Loehe, his adher ents, a lit tle party of 22, jour- neyed to Dubuque, Ia., in the fall of 1853 in or der to es tab lish a new mission in that state, which was just then being opened to immi gra tion. On account of lack of funds only a part of these people, un der the leader ship of Deindo er fer, went sixty miles far ther north west and founded the colony of “St. Se bald at the Spring.” Gross mann and the five stu dents who had accom panied him (the oth ers had become teach ers in the Mis souri Synod) found DUBUQUE a promising field for their activ ity . Shortly af ter wards Sig- mund Fritschel and M. Schueller ar rived from Neuen det telsau, and. in conjunc tion with Gross mann and Deindo er fer, orga nized the Iowa Synod at St. Se bald, Aug. 24. 1854. All persons who have described the begin ning of this synod agree that no synod was ever founded un der more dis courag ing cir cum stances. Deindo er fer lived at first in a small deserted log cabin, and af ter wards, to avoid freez ing, moved into the house of the first set tler in St. Se bald, whose solitary room was divided into two parts by a board parti- tion, so as to acc om mo date the two fam ilies. Re peat edly in the sem inary the last dol lar had been expended, and the last piece of bread eaten, while no one knew whence more was to be ob tained. At one time the fi nal payment of $1,000, toget her with inter est of $100, became due, and there was no money in sight when the payment had to be made. Loehe, who was to send this sum, could not raise it. But some how (from some un expected source) the ex act amount ar rived two days before the debt became due. Many had turned away from Loehe; the treat ment of the mission friends in Eu rope at the hands of Mis souri ALIEN ATED Ger many’s IN TER EST in the Ameri can field. More over, Loehe, by his strong confes sional at ti tude, had offended many within the State Church. Hence less money was placed at Loehe’s dis posal

258 with which to carry on the work. Re trenchment became imper a tive. The Dubuque Sem inary had to serve at the same time as a school, a church and the direc tor’s resi dence. Once it had to be tempo rar ily closed for lack of funds, and S. Fritschel took charge of a mission that had for merly been supplied from Dubuque.

2. Growth of the Synod.

The new synod, re al iz ing its lack of expe ri ence, did not at once at tempt to for mu late a CON STI TU TION. Instead of this, an ex plicit con stitu tion for con gre- gations gives expres sion to a clear con fes sional ba sis. Pastor GRABAU came to DUBUQUE in Sep tember , 1855, to confer with the members of the Iowa Synod. As Walther and Wyneken had gone to see Loehe, he had done likewise in 1853. Iowa (like Loehe) was willing to make common cause with both Mis souri and Buffalo. because the doctri nal differ ences (as they appeared at that time) did not seem to jus tify a schism. At Grabau’s re quest Iowa took charge of the congre ga tions (connected with Buffalo) around Madi son, Wis., which Grabau was un able to supply with minis ters. Thus Iowa gained MIS SION ARY TER RI TORY in southern Wis consin. But the synod’s growth was slow. The sem inary gradu ated one student in 1855 (C. Beckel). Loehe. having transferred his sem inary to Neuen det telsau, whence FRIEDRICH BAUER, who devoted all his time to the instruc tion of the fu ture mission ar ies, sent the fol low ing: Doer fler, 1855; J. J. Schmidt (In dian mission ary), 1856; Burk, 1856; Got tfried Fritschel and J. List, 1857. On account of the high cost of living in the city, the sem inary at Dubuque was transferred to St. Se bald, where a part of the provi sions could be raised on the sem inary farm. There Gross mann and some of the older stu dents erected a sim ple frame house, which, until 1871 accom mo dated the students and the fam ilies of two profes sors. Prof. S. Fritschel had taken charge of the Buffalo Synod congre ga tion at Detroit at the re quest of Grabau (1856), and Doer fler. un der simi lar cir cum stances, of the church at Toledo, O. (1857). But when the first num ber of the “Kirchen blatt” was is sued with the decla- ra tion of 1856 con cern ing the synod’s at ti tude toward the Con fes sions, and when (in 1858) Iowa took a stand against Mis souri’s at ti tude concern ing Chil iasm, BUF FALO, af ter some fruit less confer ences, joined the op po si tion AGAINST IOWA. The synod now re called S. Fritschel to the sem inary , where he re mained un til his death. Doer fler and his congre ga tion, havi ng been tyr-

259 annized by Rev. Hochstet ter of the Buffalo Synod, united with Iowa. The congre ga tions founded by Iowa in the vicinity of De troit by stu dents of Iowa remained loyal to it, thus secur ing for that synod an eastern terri tory. In spite of many ob sta cles and constant op po si tion on the part of Mis- souri, the synod grew, slowly at first, but eventu ally at a rapid pace. In 1875 it had more than a hun dred mini sters. Dur ing a boom the Dubuque property had risen in value, and it was gener ally supposed that its sale would fur nish substan tial initial payment for the purchase of a farm at St. Se bald. But one of those fi nancial crises, which re cur in this country with omin ous regu lar- ity, foiled all these cal cula tions. The house, in fact, could not be sold at all. Thus the synod was loaded with a debt of $6,000, which, on account of small revenues, increased to $7,000 in 1860. Profes sor S. FRITSCHEL was sent to Ger many to RAISE FUNDS. He was cordially re ceived, not only in Bavaria, but also in Hesse, Breslau, Pomera nia, Mecklen burg and partic u- larly at Dor pat, Riga, and St. Pe tersbur g. Here Frau von Helffre ich became a warm friend of Iowa’s mission work, and a lady of no bility , Fraeulein von Schwarz (“Aunt Augusta”), vol un teered to become ma tron of the Wart burg. When Fritschel re turned in Oc tober , 1861, the debt had been lifted, and there was a nu cleus on hand for an endow ment fund. Iowa had desired at all times to live harmo niously with Buffalo and Mis- souri. But both of these synods, repre sent ing the tra dition al is tic prin ci ple (§ 20, II, 1), contin ued to at tack Iowa’s doctri nal po si tion. Iowa, on the other hand, rec og nized Mis souri’s Lutheranism, merely ob ject ing to its narrow- ness of inter pret ation, which seemed incom pat ible with Ar ti cle VII of the Augs burg Con fes sion. Even tually some of Iowa’s pastors began to doubt the cor rectness of their synod’s po si tion. This caused Prof. S. Fritschel to be sent to Ger many, not only to repre sent the synod at the twenty-fifth anniver - sary of Neuen dettel sau, but to CON FER WITH GER MAN THE OLO GIANS, still recog nized by Mis souri, re garding the differ ences between the synods. The Uni versity of Ro stock re fused to pass an opin ion, but Chris tiani, Har less, Luthardt, Muenkel, Guer icke and the Uni versity of Dor pat expressed their views and advised the synod. In a general way they agreed with Iowa, but crit icized a few points. Their views were submit ted to the synod, meet ing at Toledo, Ohio, in 1866, together with a paper dis cussing the ques tion: “What is es sential to church unity?” See the the sis in Deindo er fer’s Geschichte, p. 127. The Chron icles of the Iowa Synod offer this com ment:

260 “Some of these opin ions, es peci ally those of Dr. Chris tiani, of Riga, and those of the Dor pat Uni versity , give an approv ing opin ion concern ing the confes sional po si tion of our synod; oth ers, like Har less and Muenkel, es pecially crit icized our method of mak ing dis tinctions between the obliga tory and nonobliga to ry doctrines of the Sym bols, by the for mal distinc tion of confes sional and condem natory decla ra tions and the o log ical am plifi cation and inter preta tion. The synod, having consid ered these crit icisms, decided to abandon this method, which was so likely to mislead and also to be mis- inter preted. Dr. Muenkel insisted that all es sential ar ti cles were to be consid ered obliga to ry; whatso ever is es sential re mains so, even though the Sym bols men tion it only casu all y. This re mark of Muenkel was found to be com ple mented by the opin ion of Dor pat that cer tain things, though not in- herently es sential in themselves , may become so by their connec tion with funda men tal doctrines. Thus advised, the synod corrected its po si tion in such a way that the for mal dis tinctions hitherto recorded were given up in the gene r al ity, while the prin ci ple that a dis tinction between things obliga- tory and nonobliga tory in the Sym bols must be made was retained.” In or der to reach a state of fra ter nal coop er ation, Iowa, at the same meeting, prop osed to hold a col loqu y with Mis souri. This was held at Milwau- kee, Wis., Nov. 13-18, 1867. Iowa was repre sented by Presi dent Gross man, G. and S. Fritschel and Mr. Becker. The Mis souri ans sent Prof. Walther, Pastors Sih ler, Huegli and Hochstet ter, and lay men Stutz, Wasser mann, Bier lein and Koch. Much time was spent in the dis cussion of the or der in which the top ics should be presented. Fi nally it was agreed to begin with the question of the SYM BOLS. Iowa denied that it occu pied the po si tion imputed to it by the Mis souri ans. When the question was reached whether every word of the Sym bols was obliga tory , Walther replied: “Ev erything pertain ing to doctrines.” His at tention was called to the dogma of Mary’s perpet ual virgin ity. S. Fritschel proved from his Toledo The ses3 that the old dog mati cians agreed with Iowa. Walther then agreed that there was a differ ence between funda men tal and periph er ical doc u ments. This brought the two sides closer together; and this agree ment was fur thered by his dis tinction between doctrines of faith and problems. The two parties reached an agree ment, by which both declared that all the obliga tory doctrines of faith contained in the confes sions must be consid ered.

261 Then the doctrine of the “LAST THINGS” came up for dis cussion. Iowa denied that it as a synod had es tab lished a defi nite doctrine concern ing Chil- iasm. The expres sion, “our Chil iasm,” had been used to desig n ate the theory held by indi vid u als concern ing Rev. 20, which the synod did not consider contrary to the anal ogy of faith. This the ory had been held by the major ity in 1858, but was now (1867) held by proba bly only a small num ber. Got tfried Fritschel, who had pre sented the paper on this subject in 1858, declared that he would with draw a num ber of argu ments which he had used at that time, and that he would con fine his views to the plain state ments of Rev. 19 and 20. In this Scrip ture, he maintained, merely the “that” was es- sential to him, and he did not ven ture to ex press any opinion in re gard to the “how.” Any inter preta tion which did not square with the anal ogy of faith must be re jected. For his part, he would not even as sert that Christ’s appear - ance for the pur pose of crush ing the Anti-christ was to be vis ible; but should any hold that it would be vis ible, like Paul’s vision near Damas cus, he would find no vi o la tion of the analogy of faith in that view. This sat is fied Walther, who declared that, while he consid ered the subtle Chil iasm of Spener, Brenz, etc., er ro neous, he would class it among things problem at i- cal. As long as the matter was submit ted “problem at ice,” the case was not neces sar ily hereti cal. Thus there was a general rapproche ment. But the inter preta tion of Rev. 20:4, 5 led them apart. They could not agree as to whether the res ur rec tion men tioned there was of a physi cal or spir itual nature. As the del egates of Iowa had to at tend the first conven tion of the Gen- eral Coun cil, the nego ti ations came to a close. Iowa had entered into friendly re la tions with the neigh boring synods of MIN NE SOTA, WIS CON SIN and ILLI NOIS. That these synods had gradu ally been re ceding from the union is tic basis to solid prin ci ples of Lutheranism was, to some ex tent, due to Iowa’s influ ence. But if even the pastors of the Iowa Synod were shaken in their con vic tions by the at tacks of Mis souri, it was only rea sonable that these synods should begin to view Iowa’s mod er ate posi tion as not “genuinely Lutheran,” and look for union with Mis souri, which offered bet ter advan tages than the poor Synod of Iowa. The Synod of Iowa had ob served with sat is fac tion the growth of Lutheran conscious ness in the dis tricts of the Gen eral Synod. Af ter the rupture of 1866, it had partic i pated in the dis cussions at Read ing, Pa., and at Ft. Wayne, Ind., approv ing, as did Ohio and Mis souri, the confes sional po si tion of the Gen eral Coun cil. It had even decided to join the Gen eral Coun cil; but

262 because that body re fused to draw the prac ti cal conclu sions by declaring itself rel a tive to the “Four Points,” it subse quently re versed its deci sion. How ever, Iowa contin ued to sustain friendly re la tions with the Coun cil, and re tained an advi sory voice in the delib er ations of that body. This re la tion has led to increa singly cordial feelings between the two synod s. Iowa, instead of pub lishing its own Hym nal, took part in the editing of the “Kirchen buch.” The two Fritschels contrib uted valu able ar ti cles on the problems of the day to the “Brob stsche Monat shefte.” In 1873 at Dav en port, the synod was divided into the East ern and West- ern Districts. At this meet ing the differ ences between Iowa and Mis souri were dis cussed, and Iowa for mu lated its po si tion in the Dav enport The ses (see App endix). The consti tu tio n was re vised,4 the ter minol ogy of the formula of or dina tion being substi tuted for the so-called “Stiftungspara graph” (see above). Passa vant’s sugges tion that the synod purchase the abandoned property of Mendota College for sem inary purposes was acted upon fa vorably. This caused the transfer of the WART BURG SEM I NARY to Illinois in 1874 and the subse quent opening of a new mission ary field. In the same year Iowa came to the MOST CRIT I CAL point in its devel op ment. While the older minis ters, who were largely trained at Neuen det telsau, wished to adhere to the doctrines of their teach ers in that insti tu tion, and suspected in the Dav- enport Theses a move ment toward Mis souri, the younger minis ters, desir ing harmony , were in fa vor of fol low ing Min nesota, Illinois and Wis consin into the Mis souri fold. The REV. J. KLIND WORTH, with out show ing his hand, succeeded in orga ni zing both parties, his aim being to dis place the lead ers. The Mis souri fac tion ( Schieferdecker) entered into nego ti ations with Walther. To aid this movement, the Nor we gian, Prof. F. A. Schmidt, then at St. Louis, pub lished a se ries of ar ti cles in “Der Luther aner,” in which he tried, on the basis of so-called “docu men tary proofs,” to prove the dis hon est char acter of Iowa’s pastors and congre ga tions. They were reprinted un der the ti tle. “Iowas Missverstaend nisse und Be maen telungen.” On the other hand, In spector Bauer sent a cir cular letter to the Neuen det telsau gradu ates, and add ressed a “Denkschrift” to the synod, plead ing for a re turn to the orig inal po si tion of Iowa. At the synod ical meet ing at Madi son, Wis., a lengthy dis cussi on dis closed the at ti tude of Klind worth. In the Madi son The ses5 the synod decl ared its adher ence to the synod’s orig inal po si tion, accord ing to which, as an orga ni za tion, it placed it self above all fac tions on the general Lutheran po si tion. The two Fritschels, who, actu ated by Chris-

263 tian for bear ance, had re fused to re ply to Schmidt’s personal method of at- tack, were instru cted to pub lish a docu men tary presen ta tion in “Kirch liche Zeitschrift,” the title to be “Iowa and Mis souri.” At the twenty-fifth anniver sary of the Iowa Synod (1879) In spector Joh. Deinzer (suc cessor to Bauer) was present, and af ter express ing his entire approval of Iowa’s fi nal at ti tude, promised contin ued support from Ger- many. This as surance was all the more welcome, because of the increas ing stream of immi g ra tion into Iowa’s ter ri tory. Help ar rived in the form of students ed u cated, or at least pre pared in part, at Neuendet telsau, Hesse (Pas tor Schedler of Dreihausen), Meck len burg (Gotteskasten), Hanover, and later by Pastor Janssen of Strack holt. Thus Iowa was able to look af ter the spir i- tual needs of western immi grants. Hav ing passed through this doctri nal cri- sis with the loss of twenty minis ters, who for the most part united with Wis- consin, 6 the synod’s growth was steady and rapid. There is lit tle to re port about Iowa’s move ments in re cent his tory. The synod was slightly affected by the contro versy concern ing predes ti nation, which ag itated Mis souri in 1880. In the the ses of St. Se bald (1881) and Dubuque (1882), Iowa declared against Walther’s construc tion. Many ar ticles in “Kirch liche Zeitschrift” il lumined the doctrine from var ious points of view. Af ter the Ohio Synod had with drawn from the Syn od ical Con fer ence, the Iowa Synod sought to es tab lish FRA TER NAL RE LA TIONS WITH THE OHIO brethren. Got tfried Fritschel ar ranged a confer ence of the synod ical lead ers, who met at Rich mond, Ind., and recorded their agree ment in the Rich mond The ses."7 But a union was not effected because of for mer prej u dices. Ohio proposed a col loquium in 1887, which, however , did not take place un til 1893 in Michi gan City, Ind. But Ohio’s for mer Mis souri ans, es pecially All- wardt and Klind worth, prevente d the adoption of the ar ti cles of agree ment that had been proposed. These were re vised in 1909 at Toledo. Ohio, and then adopted by both synods. (See Ap pendix.) In 1896 the Texas Synod,8 in the inter est of its mission ary work, became a dis trict of the Iowa Synod. At the fiftieth anniver sary of the Iowa Synod, meet ing at Dubuque. Ia., Deindo er fer only, among the founders was still living. Iowa’s ter ri tory extends from western Penn syl vania to the Rocky Moun- tains and from the north ern bound ary line of the United State down to Texas. Dur ing its exis tence of 60 years the synod has had but three pres i-

264 dents (Grossmann. Deindo er fer, Richter) and four secre taries. Since 1893 the pres ident re ceives an offi cial salary, and devotes his entire time to the affairs of the synod.

3. Charac teris tic Fea tures of the Iowa Synod.

[a] CON STI TU TION. In this re spect the synod is very explicit. The low est cir cle is formed by the CON GRE GA TION, which, in turn, is the high est tri bunal in all matters per taining to congre ga tional affairs. For the set tlement of contro versies which a congre ga tion is un able to adjust, the aid of synod ical offi cers may be solicited. The synod, however , has merely an advi sory voice in con- grega tional affairs, and has no power beyond the weight of its argu ments. An offen d ing congre ga tion, un will ing to re form, can be pun ished only by exclu sion from synod ical fel low ship. The differ ent congre ga tio ns, together with their pastors, consti tute the SYNOD, at whose gath er ings congre ga tions, actu ally connected, have a vote, while oth ers have merely the priv ilege of the floor. All pastors have a seat in the synod and also the right to vote. Its member ship being widely scat tered, the synod is divided into differ ent DIS- TRICTS, which decide their affairs so far as they per tain only to their terri tory. The whole synod meets tri-an nu ally (since 1888) as “A CON VEN TION OF DEL E- GATES,” at which time general matters, such as missions, exten sions, pub li- cations, insti tu ti ons, etc., are submit ted for dis cussion. Since its very begin- ning Iowa has ar ranged a syst em of vol un tary contri bu tions. On cer tain days all congre g ations re ceive offer ings for specific ob jects. Spe cial col lec- tions are taken only for ex tra or dinary pur poses. In CASE OF COM PLAINTS app eal may be made to the synod at large, but the deci sion is binding only if it re ceives the con sent of the parties. [b] Hav ing been founded by the liturgi cal genius of Loehe, the synod has, from the start, laid great em phasis on LITUR GI CAL FORMS of wor ship, pri- vate confes sion in addi tion to pub lic confes sion, and the exam ina tion of those apply ing for re ception into the congre ga tion (cate chu me nate). But in the case of many congre ga tions the effort of the synod in this direc tion met with lit tle appre ci ation, and, accord ing to the judg ment of Deindo er fer, too great in sis tence on these matters often hindered the synod’s growth. [c] Over sight of the doctrines and prac tices of pastors and congre ga tions was pro vided for from the begi n ning, by a quadren nial VIS I TA TION of every congre ga tion by the pres ident or some special offi cials of the synod. De tails

265 of this vis ita tion can be found in the “order of vis ita tion,” as given by Dein- do er fer, pp. 280-284. [d] From its very begin ning Iowa has taken a stand against SE CRET SO CI- ETIES that make re li gious preten sions. It demanded a simi lar at ti tude, at least in prin ciple, from the Gen eral Coun cil, declaring it self sat is fied with the Pitts burg Dec la ra tion (see “Four Points”). In the matter of prac tice it agrees with Mis souri and Ohio.

4. Ed u ca tional Insti tutions.

In a sense, the Iowa Synod is the out growth of the sem inary which was transferred from Sag inaw , Mich., to Dubuque, Iowa. Af ter its re moval to St. Sebald in 1857. it was known as “The Wart burg Sem inary .” It devel oped un der many hardships, being inad e quately supported by the congre ga tions and the subsi dies from Ger many and Rus sia. The es tab lishment of a sepa- rate col lege at Galena, Ill., previ ously the prepara tory depart ment, was some what prema ture. In 1874 the sem inary was re moved to Mendota, Ill., and fi nally re turned to Dubuque (1889), where at present, in com memo ration of the Ref or ma tion Jubilee (1917), an impos ing structu re is being erected. The first pres ident of the insti tu tion was In spector Gross mann, joined later by the two BROTH ERS FRITSCHEL. Af ter the transf er to Mendota, Gross mann devoted his time to the Teachers’ Train ing School at Waverly , Ia. The two Fritschels car ried on the sem inary work al most with out any assis tance for many years. Af ter their death (1889 and 1900) Wil helm Proehl and af ter wards Max Fritschel became pres idents. The insti tu tion was al together Ger man at first, but is gradu ally and increas ingly adding Eng lish depart ments. It has a prac ti cal and a the o ret ical course, each extend ing over a period of three years. The fac ulty consists of: Max Fritschel, pres ident; Dr. M. Reu; Geo. J. Fritschel; G. J. Zeilinger. A fifth profes sor is to be elected in 1916. WART BURG COL LEGE dates from the year 1868, when it started as an inde- pendent insti tu ti on at Galena, Ill. In conse quence of the Klind worth diffi- cul ties, it was re moved to Mendota in 1875, and conducted there as a prepara tory depart ment of the sem inary . In 1885 it was com bined with the Teachers’ Sem in ary at Waverly , Ia. Since 1894 it has been loca ted at Clin- ton, Ia. The TEACH ERS’ SEM I NARY at Waverly , Ia., founded in 1879, is conducted in connec tion with an academy and a pro-semi nary . In stitu tions of

266 differ ent DIS TRICTS are located at Ster ling, Neb., Eu reka, S. Dak., and Seguin, Tex.

5. Mis sionary Ac tiv ities.

The synod has at all times consid ered it of utmost impor tance and wor thy of strenu ous efforts to orga nize scat tered Luther ans into congre ga tions. Spe- cial funds for missions and the support of mission ar ies were for merly unknown, but since 1879 this matter has been defi nitely ar ranged. At first there was a GEN ERAL BOARD and later dis trict boards which conducted the work of missions. Loehe also encour aged the work of for eign missions in the Iowa Synod. An IN DIAN MIS SION was orga nized, the fi nancial support for which was re ceived from Ger many. But on account of In dian insur rec tions during the Civil War, this work had to be abandoned. (See Geo. J. Fritschel, History pp. 347-359). When the Gen eral Coun cil began its mission ary labors in In dia, Iowa took part in the enter prise. Later it coop er ated with Neuen det telsau in the mis sion of New Guinea. Some in divid ual gifts are being contrib uted to the Coun cil, to Leipzig and to Her manns burg. The Synod has OR PHANS’ HOMES at Waverly , Ia., Toledo, Ohio, and Musca tine, Ia. The or phans’ homes are con nected with HOMES FOR THE AGED.

6. Pub li ca tions.

Like other synods, Iowa has a num ber of pub li cations: “Kirchenblatt” (semi monthly); “Kirch liche Zeitschrift” (monthly); “Jugend blatt;” “Lutheran Her ald” (monthly); it has re cently devoted consid er able at ten tion to Sun day school lit er ature. The Wart burg Pub lishing House has its offices at Chicago and its press equipments and store house at Waverly , Ia.

Bi o graph ical Notes.

THE FRITSCHEL FAM ILY. The BROTH ERS FRITSCHEL, descend ing from an ancient fam ily of ar mor-mak ers of Nurember g (which can be traced back to 1632), were the first the olo gians of their fam ily. Their parents belonge d to the circle of be lievers in touch with Loehe. The two broth ers re ceived their train- ing un der Bauer and Loehe at Nurember g and Neuen det telsa u; Got tfried was sent to Erlan gen, where for a year he stud ied un der Hof mann, Thoma- sius and Har nack. In 1853 Sig mund em igrated to America, took part in the

267 orga ni za tion of the Iowa Synod and as sisted Gross mann in the work of the sem inary . Fi nanc ial support being mea ger, he took charge of a congre ga tion at Platte ville. Wis., whence he started success ful mission ary work. Later, at the urgent re quest of Grabau, he served the Buffalo Synod con grega tion at De troit and joined the Buffalo Synod. In 1857 the younger brother was called to the sem inary , and Sig mund re turned to it a year later. The two broth ers worked side by side most effec tively at St. Se bald, Iowa, and at Mendota, un til they were parted by death. Their influ ence extended far beyond the bounds of the synod whose lead er ship made them fa mous. Got- tfried died at Men dota, Ill., in 1889, and Sigmund at Dubuque in 1900. Both were prolific writ ers and regu lar contrib u tors to “Kirchen blatt,” “Brob- stsche Monat shefte” and “Kirch liche Zeitschrift.” Got tfried is the author of the “Passions betra chtun gen,” “History of In dian Mis sions in the 17th Cen- tury,” and a se ries of pam phlets. At the twenty-fifth anniver sary of the synod both re ceived the degree of D. D. from Muhlen berg College. Their sons, too, have become prom ine nt in the Iowa Synod. The two old est sons of Sigmund died soon af ter their or dina tion. John Fritschel has been profes- sor in the col lege since. 1888 and its direc tor since 1904. His brother Max has been profes sor in the sem inary since 1892 and its direc tor since 1906. Got tfried’s son, George J. Fritschel, having served congre ga tions at West Su perior , Wis., Galveston, Texas (caus ing the subse quent union of the Texas and Iowa Syn ods), Lo ganville and Fond du Lac, Wis., now occu pies his fa ther’s chair in Wart burg Sem inary , vacated by the death of Prof. Wm. Proehl. He is the author of a Ger man “History of the Lutheran Church in America” and of “Schriftlehre von der Gnad cn wahl.” His brother Her mann is the success ful man ager of Passa vant’s char ita ble insti tu tion ; Got tlob is pastor at New Hampton, Iowa, and Con rad a teacher at the col lege at Clin- ton, Iowa. GEORGE MAR TIN GROSS MANN, born in Hesse (1823), gradu ated from the Teachers’ Sem in ary of Fried berg at the age of 19 and served that insti tu tion as as sis tant teacher. Later he was instruc tor in the pri vate schools of Rot- theim and Lol lar. Here he was converted through the influ ence of Pastor Di- effen bach, and placed himself, though mar ried, at the dis posal of Loehe for the Amer ican ser vice. Af ter study ing the ology at Erlan gen. he went to Sag i- naw, Mich., as founder and inspec tor of the Teachers’ Sem inar y. Af ter the orga ni za tion of the Iowa Synod, he was pres ident of that body for thirty- nine years. He was pres ident of the sem inary un til 1875. when, on account

268 of his health, he re signed for a time, but, having re covered, started the Teachers’ Sem inary . From 1885 to 1895 he was also pres ident of Wart burg College at Waverly , Ia. He re tired in 1894, and died three years later on the forty-third an niver sary of the synod which he had served in many ways. JO HANNES DEIN DO ER FER, D. D. born, 1828. at Rosstall, near Neuen det telsau, re ceived his the o log ical edu cation at Nurember g and Neuen det telsau. On Septem ber 14, 1851, he was (like Gross man and S. Fritschel) or dained as “shipchap lain” by Pastor Meinel of Hambur g. He was pastor of a congre- gation (“Franken hilf”) near Sag inaw . To gether with Gross man, he em i- grated to Iowa in 1853, and became pastor of “St. Se bald at the Spring” (Iowa), serv ing there un til 1856; pastor at Madi son, Wis., un til 1860; at West Union, Iowa, un til 1865; Toledo, O., un til 1870; De fi ance, O., un til 1889; Ripon, Wis., un til 1894. As long as Gross mann was pres ident, Dein- do er fer served as vice pres ident, and succeeded him as the salaried pres i- dent. For si.xteen years he was also pres ident of a dis trict. His many talents and his able pen were devoted to the ser vice of the synod, whose dis tinctive fea tures he em phasized as a true dis ci ple of Loehe. Notewor thy among his books are his “Geschichte der Iowa Syn ode,” and also his three “Denkschriften,” 1864, 1879, 1904. F. RICHTER, D. D. (Gen eral Pres ident), born in 1852, is the son of a pastor in Sax ony. Pri vate tutor ing and a course in the gym nasium preceded his the- o log ical train ing, which he re ceived at St. Se bald (1870-1874). A visit of S. Fritschel at his fa ther’s house was the cause of his em igra tion. He at tended the uni versi ties of Erlan gen and Leipzig 1874-1876. Af ter his re turn to America, he became as sis tant teacher in the sem inary and col lege at Men- dota. He took charge of the congre ga tion in the city (1879-1894). From 1887 to 1904 he was pres ident of the South ern District. In 1894 he was elected pres iden t of Clinton College, hold ing that po si tion un til 1902, when he beca me edi tor of “Kirchen blatt.” Since the fiftieth anniver sary of the Synod in 1904 he has been the pres ident of the Iowa Synod, bei ng the third in this hon or able succes sion. In 1901 Thiel College conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Divin ity. PROF. JOHN MICHAEL REU, D. D., born at Diebach (near Roten burg), Bavaria, in 1869, re ceived his ed u cation in the Latin School of Oettin gen, through pri vate tutors and at the Mis sion School of Neuen det telsau. He came to America in 1889, was called to Rock falls, Ill., in 1890, and to the fac ulty of the Dubuque Sem inary in 1899. Among his lit er ary out put we

269 would men tion “Old Tes ta ment Peri copes,” 1901-6; “Kate chis musausle- gung,” 1904; “Wart burg Lehrmittel,” 8 small vol umes; “Cat echet ics and Ethics,” 1915, and es pecially “Quellen zur Geschichte des kirch lichen Un- ter richts zwis chen 1530 und 1600” (1904), four vol umes be ing pub lished up to the present. In recog nition of this book the Uni versity of Erlan gen (1910) conferred on him the ti tle of “Dr. Theol.” — a dis tinction not shared by any Ameri can since 1845 (Philip Schaff.). Be gin ning with the third vol ume, this great work by Dr. Reu is being fi nanced with the aid of the So ci ety of the History of the Refor ma tion and of the Berlin Kul tus minis terium. The first half of Volume V, com pris ing 500 pages, has been pub lished. A sixth volume will conclude the work. Since 1905 Dr. Reu has been the edi tor of “Kirch liche Zeit schrift,” which is the the o log ical monthly mag azine of the Iowa Synod. He is also a con trib u tor to the “Kate chetis che Zeitschrift,” “Archiv fuer Reior ma tions geschichte,” “Zeitschrift fuer Geschichte der Erziehung und des Un ter richtswesens in Deutschland,” etc.

§ 30. The Buffalo Synod.

Eight months af ter the depar ture of the Sax ons, PAS TOR J. A. GRABAU and his Erfurt congre ga tion em igrated to America (1839). Among the members of his flock was H. von Rohr, captain of the Prussian ar tillery. The ma jor ity of these “Prussia n Luther ans” set tled in the neigh borhood of Buffalo, N. Y. Grabau, having dis covered the spuri ous char acter of a union between Luther ans and Re formed, took offense at the royal decree which abol ished the old church books. Hav ing re quested the priv ilege of re taining the Lutheran for mula, he was suspended and impris oned, but re fused to yield. His congre ga tion urged em igra tion to America, where re li gious free dom seemed to be as sured. Grabau, still hop ing that Prussia would re cede from her at ti tude, re fused at first, but when a writ ten state ment was made by Freder ick William HI. to the effect that Lutheranism would be toler ated only within the bounds of the union, he left for America, and set tled at Buf- falo in the fall of 1839. Dur ing the time of his trou bles he had come into touch with the Luther- ans of the Uck er mark and of POMERA NIA, who were fol low ing the lead of Pastors Ehrentro em and Kin dermann. It was hoped that they might decide to em igrate. When the king died (June 7, 1840),9 his succes sor (Fred er ick William IV.), dis card ing his fa ther’s methods, conceded cer tain rights to the

270 Lutheran Church. This halted the em igra tion project of the Prus sian Luther- ans, es pecially as the Evan gel i cal Lutheran Church of Prussia (BRES LAU SYNOD) declared against em igra tion. Soon af ter wards the school question roused op po si tion, because Lutheran children were forced to at tend the schools of the Union, and Luther ans were not permit ted to em ploy their own teachers. While the Breslau people fi nally agreed to this rule and pri- vately instructed their chil dren in reli gion, Kin dermann’ s and Ehren stroem’s fol low ers saw in such a submis sion a denial of the faith. They insisted on em igra tion. Their faith in the Breslau author ities seemed to have been shaken when these conferred upon the el ders part of the pastoral care and the office of the keys, and es pecially when they claimed the right to depose minis ters. The warn ing against em igra tion was looked upon as a chilias tic heresy. While KIN DER MANN and EHREN STROEM bowed to these decrees, their congre ga tions re belled. This fi nally re sulted in a with drawal from the Bres- lau Synod and a subse quent deci sion to em igrate. The Breslau Church author ities re fused com mu nion to the insur gents, and tried to prevent em igra- tion by transfer ring Kin dermann from Pomera nia to Breslau. But the con- grega tions re mained firm. In 1842 TWO EM I GRANT OR GA NI ZA TIONS were formed. In several ships the Pomera nians left Stettin for New York, where they ar rived in Sep tember , while the Uck er mark people went by way of Hamhurg to Buffalo. Ehrenstroe m mean while was ar rested in Hambur g on account of his ser mons condem n ing the Union, and was turned over to Prussia; he fol lowed his flock in 1844.10 Kinder m ann and his people set tled in the forests near Milwau kee. Kin dermann died (at Kirchhain) in 1854. Pastor Krause was located at Freis tadt. Dur ing tur bu lent times like these the SYNOD OF BUF FALO came into being . Its first meet ing was held at Mil wau kee and Freis tadt, Wis., June 12-15, 1845. Four pastors were present: Grabau, Kin dermann, Krause and H. von Rohr. Pastor Brohm of New York was invited to at tend, but declined because his friends in and around St. Louis had not re ceived an invi ta tion. While the confer ence decided on the name, “Synod of Lutheran Em igrants from Prussia,” it was com monly known as the Buffalo Synod. The latter name it af ter wards adopted. As early as 1840 Pastor Grabau sent a PAS TORAL LET TER (written, not printed) to vacant congre ga tion s warn ing them against minis ters who had not been properly or dained (§ 23, I, 1). This letter , having been sent to St. Louis, caused the CON FLICT betw een Grabau and Walther, who scented in

271 it those hier ar chi cal ten dencies which he had expe ri enced amid bitter circum stances. In conse quence of this contro versy Mis souri op po si tion churches were es tab lished (“rab ble congre ga tions,” accord ing to Grabau) in the ter ri tory of the Buffalo Synod. The strife between the two fac tions became ex ceedingly caustic and personal. In 1853 Grabau vis ited Ger many for the purpose of win ning friends to his cause. Tem po rar ily he maintained PLEAS ANT RE LA TIONS with the IOWA SYNOD, transfer ring congre ga tions around Madi son to that synod, and call ing Fritschel and Doer fler to vacant Buffalo Synod churches. But in the contro versy between Iowa and Mis souri, Grabau sided with the latter . Ow ing to its many pecu liar ities and Grabau’s un yielding temp er, the Buffalo Synod did not grow rapidly, even though a the o log ical sem inary , with Grabau as instruc tor , had been es tab lished. In 1886 von Rohr and Grabau failed to agree. Two fac tions arose in the Buffalo Synod, each claiming to be the pure orig inal synod. A col loquium, HELD AT BUF FALO between the Mis souri ans and the nu mer ically supe rior fac- tion of von Rohr, re sulted in the admis sion of Hochstet ter and eleven oth ers into the Mis souri Synod, while the smaller portion of von Rohr’s party con- tinued to exist un til 1877. Af ter wards a part of it re turned to the Grabau fac- tion, while oth ers cast in their lot with vari ous other synods. Von Rohr’s son became in flu ential in the Wis consin Synod. Pat terned af ter the old Saxon and Pomera nian consti tu tions, the Min is- terium (min is ters only) chose a “senior minis terii” as their synod ical leader. This ti tle, however , was changed into “pres ident” at the meet ing in 1886. Buffalo declares , in op po si tion to Mis souri, that or dina tion is an es sential part of the “rite vo catus” of the Augs burg Con fes sion (Art. XIV) and that the Churih is essen tially visi ble and has in vis ible glory.11 Like its op po nent, the Mis sonri Synod, Buffalo is very rigid in doctrine and prac tice. Its pastors are pledged to all the books of the Con cordia. The eleventh ar ti cle of the Augus tan a is lit er ally inter preted; so that every con- grega tion has PRI VATE AB SO LU TION, pub lic abso lu tion not having been permit- ted un til 1891. Gross sins are pun ished by excom mu nica tion, and the offender can be re stored only af ter pub lic confes sion in the pres ence of the congre ga tion. No mem ber is al lowed to be long to a se cret order . A RE VI SION of Buffalo’ s synod ical CON STI TU TION in 1886 re sulted in a quiet setting aside of many of its pe culiar ities. The synod ex tends from New York to Min nesota, and has two confer ence meet ings bian nu ally. while the whole synod convenes once in three years.

272 1. See “Syn odalgeschichte.” by Peter and Schmidt, pp. 126. 128, 139, 144, 191. 264.↩ 2. A vivid descrip tion of the synod ical transac tions at Wheel ing, together with a re print of the res o lutions pertain ing to the viewpoint of Ohio, may be found in the vol ume of Pe ter and Schmidt, pp. 227-238,↩ 3. Pub lished in Brobst’s Monat shefte, 1S67.↩ 4. The differ ent forms of the con stitu tion are found in Kraushaar, pp. 373-89.↩ 5. They form an appen dix to the consti tu tion. ↩ 6. Also Klind worth, who had failed to es tab lish an “orig inal” Iowa Synod with the aid of the malcon tents. ↩ 7. Never printed, but partly found in the con clu sion of S. Fritschel’s “Dis- tinctive Doc trines.”↩ 8. Pastor Joh. Roehm, who stud ied on the Wart burg, caused Geo. T. Fritschel’s call to the col lege at Brenham through which contact with Iowa had been estab lished.↩ 9. On the same day when the church of the em igrants was being dedi- cated at Buffalo. ↩ 10. Soon he became a vic tim of strange hal luci nations, tried to perform mir acles and eventu ally lost his faith al together . He trav eled from Wis- consin to New York, thence to San Francisco and died in a poor house. By exco mmu nicat ing him, Grabau had deprived him of any kind of influ ence among the Prussians. ↩ 11. These state ment do not indi cate whether Buffalo consid ers the fea ture of in vis ibil ity es sential to the true church.↩

273 9. The Nor we gians And Danes.

§ 31. The Norwe gians.

I. Con di tion Of The Church In Nor way.

In or der to un der stand the devel op ment of the Nor we gian Lutheran Church in Amer ica, we should have some prior knowl edge of the condi tion of the Church in Norway . This we will pro ceed to give. At the be gin ning of the nineteenth cen tury a wave of ratio nal ism deluged the Church of Nor way, as it had other Eu ro pean countries, and put its mark on ev ery fea ture of that country’ s spir itual life. Then there came an AWAK EN- ING over the whole land through the earnest preach ing of a pious lay man, HANS NIELSEN HAUGE (1771-1844). He was converted in 1796, and soon began to preach the Word to the people. He trav eled all over the land, mostly on foot, and eve ry where he went his la bor bore rich fruitage. He also induced other Chris tian laymen to take up the work. He did not put himself directly in op po si tion to the clergy; but, while their ser mons were perme ated with ra tional is tic views, lead ing to re li gious indif fer ence, if not to open un god li ness, he preached the gospel in its pu rity and simplic ity , telling sin ners to re pent, find forgive ness in Jesus Christ, and live a new life. In the opin ion of many of the minis ters Hauge was a fa- natic, and so they put every possi ble ob struction in his way. By their influ- ence the gov ernment, in 1804, had him ar rested for preach ing in pub lic, which was for bid den to lay men by an old section of the law. On account of the exam ina tion of six hun dred wit nesses and other delays, his case dragged on for years. Meanwhile he was confined to jail. In all, he spent ten years in prison, and came out broken in health. Dur ing the last eight years of his life he resided on his farm, called Bredtvedt, near Chris tiania. Nor way, direct- ing from there the re li gious move ment be had inau gu rated. He died March 29, 1842, receiv ing honor at the last from both friend and foe. The pers ecu tion and death of Hauge did not slacken or quench the fire he had kindled. Oth ers took his place and contin ued the work. Less broad- minded than their great leader, they some times showed a more un friendly feeling toward the clergy than he did. but there was no sepa ra tion, for

274 Hauge was a faith ful Lutheran. and earnestly advised his friends not to leave the Church. Even tually the younger minis ters (as was the case in Ger many) felt the incom ing tide of the new life. Profes sor Stener Johannes Sten ersen (who taught in Upsala, 1814-35). Svend Ror ckmand Horsleb (1814-36). Rev. Wil helm Andreas Wexel. Prof. Karl Paul Cas pari (1847-92), and Gisle Johnsen (1849-94), all exerted a great and salu tary influ ence on the young the olo gians. They were STRICTLY CON SER VA TIVE LUTHER ANS, so that there should have been the greatest har mony between them and the Chris tian laymen; but un for tunately their very conser vatism was viewed as a hier ar chial ten dency by some of the friends of Hauge. To this may be added, that many of the clergy did not look with fa vor on the lay preach ing so dear to the Hau gians. The differ ence betwee n these two al lied wings became evi dent in its Amer ican devel op ment.

II. Orga ni za tion Of Norwe gian Synods.

In the year 1839 a young Nor we gian trav eler pub lished a book telling about his ob ser vations in America. This gave a new impulse to the em igra tion al- ready begun. Wis consin and Northern Illinois, at that time the wild North- west, seemed to be the most at tractive lo cal ities to the Nor we gians. Later on they also moved into the border states of Iowa and Min nesota. It is said that in 1847 there were 15,000 Nor we gians in Wis consin and 33,000 in Illinois. These fig ures may be too high, but the num ber cer tainly was not insignif i- cant. Among them were several “Friends of Hauge.” For mu tual edi fi cation they met in their log cabins, singing, praying, and read ing a ser mon or lis- ten ing to a lay preacher. One of the most prom inent of these was ELLING EIELSEN, who was born in Vos, Nor way, Sept. 19, 1804, and came to Amer- ica in 1839. He had been preach ing both in Nor way and Den mark, and con- tinued his work here. He held his first meet ing in the house of an Eng lish woman in Chicago, and went from there to Fox River, Illinois. where he found a large Nor we gian set tle ment. Here he built a house, and used the second floor for meet ings. On Oct. 3. 1843, he was or dained by Rev. Hoff- man, the Lutheran pastor at Dun can’s Grove,1 about twenty miles north of Chicago. Eielsen trav eled every where among the Nor we gian set tlements, and estab lished many preach ing sta tions.

275 THE FIRST SYNOD. The need of some kind of orga ni za tion was soon felt. The “friends from far and near” therefore met at Jeffer son Prairie, Rock County, Wis consin, April 13-14, 1846, and orga nized the “Evangel ical Lutheran Church of America,” a rather high-sound ing name. Eielsen was now as sisted by two young men, Ole Andrewsen and Paul And er sen. For a time they worked together harmo niously; but af ter a while dis cord arose over liturgi cal forms and cer tain doctrines, and in 1848 a sepa ra tion took place,2 leav ing Eielsen alone. THE SEC OND SYNOD. The mission work of the Ger man Luther ans evi- dently brought some of the young clergy in Nor way to think about the duty they owed to their brethren in the faith across the sea. A Nor we gian minis- ter writes to Pastor Loehe:3 Since my visit with you we, too, have taken an inter est in Ameri can affairs. You know, of course, that several thou sand Nor we gians have em igrated to Illinois and Wis consin, where they have lived un til now with out the ser vice of a minis ter of the gospel. Dur ing the last sum mer, however , a young Dane (C. L. Clausen), a truly pious and earnest man, with sound Lutheran convic tions, went over there, and has just been or dained. And this month Rev. J. C. W. Di et rich sen, a Nor we gian, who was with me in the greater part of my trav els in Ger many, will also go to help our beloved country men in North America. A Chris tian man here (Sorensen) has offered him 3,000 Gylden ($500) for that purpo se. It would be very desir able that Ger man and Nor we gian Luther ans should work hand in hand in Amer ica."4 From the Nor we gian Lutheran Church in Muskego, Racine County, Wis.,5 a del eg ation came to Rev. Krause, in Freystadt, asking him to or dain a young man, by the name of CLAUS LAU RIZ CLAUSEN, to the ministry of the gospel. He had been called as their pastor SEPT. 13, 1843, which is re garded as the BIRTH DAY OF THE NOR WE GIAN LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMER ICA. Spir itual work had been go ing on for some years, but this was the first time Nor we- gian Lutheran Chris tians came together to form a congre ga tion and have the ministry of the gospel es tab lished among them. Hav ing passed a cred itable exam ina tion, Clausen was or dained on the eigh teenth of Oc tober of the same year, in the pres ence of the Muskego congre ga tion. From that time or- dained pas tors ar rived from Nor way, among them the fol low ing: J. W. C. Di et ric, 1844; H. A. Stub, 1848; A. C. Preus, 1850; H. A. Preus, N. O. Brandt and G. F. Di et rich sen, 1851; J. A. Otte sen, 1852; and U. V. Koren,

276 1853. These men, wnth del egates from their congre ga tions, orga nized, in 1853, the Norwe gian Evan gel ical Lutheran Church of Amer ica. THE THIRD SYNOD. Revs. P. Ander sen and O. Andrewsen, who severed their connec tion with E. Eielsen (see above), united with oth ers in the Northern Illinoi s Synod, and. with the Swedish pastor Es b jorn, formed a Scandi na vian confer ence. In the fifties several other minis ters, both Nor wegians and Swedes, joined this synod, but in 1860 they all with drew and or- ganized the SCAN DI NA VIAN AU GUS TANA SYNOD. The meet ing was held in Rev. O. Andrew sen’s church at Jeffer son Prairie, Rock County, Wis consin. The two nation al ities worked in perfect unity, but, as the member ship increased, the Nor we gians asked per mission to form a synod of their own, to which the Swedes willingly gave their consent. Thus we see that the Nor we gian Luther ans in America were DI VIDED from THE VERY BE GIN NING, and. as we shall see, more di visions came later.

III. His tory Of In di vidual Norwe gian Synods.

[1] HAUGE’S SYNOD. In 1850 a young man with a good edu cation, P. A. Ras mussen, came to the Eielsen Church, and taught parochial school first at Nec nah, then at Jef- fer son Prairie. Wis consin, and fi nally at Fox River or Lis bon, Illinois. The congre ga tion here called him as their pastor in 1852. Be fore tak ing charge, he desired a bet ter the o log ical train ing, for which purpose he went to the Lutheran Sem in ary at Ft. Wayne, In diana. On Palm-Sunday , 1854, he was or dained by Prof. W. Sih ler and Prof. F. A. Craemer . He as sisted Eielsen, who had no orga niz ing talents and placed lit tle value on form and or der. But Ras mussen had a clearer view, and pointed out many things in the consti tution that needed improve ment. This offended Eielsen. He looked upon the young as sis tant with suspi cion at once, fear ing he might bring about new and danger ous changes. Their re la tion became more and more strained, and af ter a stormy meet ing at Primrose, Wis consin, in 1856, Ras mussen and his friends left Eielsen. In 1862 he joined the Nor we gian Synod. For the second time Eielsen stood alone; but he soon or dained some of his most capa ble lay preach ers, and in 1861 there were four or dained minis ters in his synod. The field also increa sed and the church grew; but, much to the annoy ance of Eielsen, the people contin ued to find fault with the consti tu ti on, and demanded a re vision. At the meet ing in 1874, it was decided that the minis ters

277 should meet at Min neap o lis in July, take the mat ter un der con sid er ation, and re port to the next annual conven tion. The re port contained both a draught for an entirely new consti tu tion and a re vision of the old one. For the sake of peace and harmony those who were in fa vor of a new instru ment withdrew their proposi tion, and declared themselves sat is fied with a re vision. But Eielsen thought they went too far, and therefore he held a pri vate consul ta tion with seven of his friends. They agreed to a few mi nor changes, and said the synod might add explana tory notes to ob scure para graphs. To prevent a schism, this was agreed upon. So amended, the consti tu tion was tempo rar ily adopted. The name was changed to Hauge’s Synod. Al though Eielsen and his friends had given their consent to the re vision, they held a meet ing in Jackson County, Min nesota, during the win ter of 1875, and decided to stand by the old consti tu tion as it was, thereby OR GA NIZ ING THEM- SELVES INTO A CHURCH BODY. They elected Eielsen as pres ident. By this time Eielsen was grow ing old, and so did not seem to re al ize the import of all that was tak ing place. He came to the next annual conven tion of Hauge’s Synod, look ing upon himself as a member of that body. It might have been just as well if the meet ing had rec og nized him as a member , harm less as he now was; but when they asked him about his connec tion with the Jackson party, they could get no sat is fac tory answer . A com mit tee which in ter viewed him three times pri vately succeeded no bet ter. Be fore his case was decided, he sent a letter to the Synod — proba bly written by others — accus ing it of harbor ing new and danger ous ten dencies toward hier - ar chy and church for mality . This indi cated his at ti tude. A res o lution was then passed by the Synod re gret ting the action of Eielsen and his fol low ers and declar ing that fel low ship with them must be looked upon as broken. A later at tempt to re store harmony also failed, because Eielsen insisted that synod must acknowl edge its sins, and come back to the old consti tu tion. This the synod could not do. Eielsen died in 1883, but his “old friends” still contin ued as a sep arate orga ni za tion. The year 1876 turns A NEW LEAF in the his tory of Hauge’s Synod. It then had twenty-three minis ters, and from that time made steady progress in all branches of activ ity . On the whole, a spirit of peace prevailed. But in the nineties a contro versy arose between H. H. Bergsland, Profes sor of Sys tematic The ology at the Red Wing Sem inary , and Rev. O. S. Meland, who also had been a pro fes sor at the same insti tu tion and was now pastor of the church which the sem inary people at tended. Rev. Meland accused the pro-

278 fes sor of false doctrine. For a time the dis cussion grew hot, and it looked as if there might be a dis ruption; but the synod found no heresy in Prof. Bergs- land’s teachings (1896), and the matter subsided. Bergsland contin ued as profes sor until his death (1907). The OF FI CIAL OR GAN of the synod, “Bud baeren” (“The Messen ger”), was founded as a monthly in 1863, with Revs. O. Hansen and O. A. Bergh as edi tors. For many years it has been pub lished as a weekly. The synod also pub lishes a Nor we gian Sun day-school paper , “Borneven nen” (“The Chil- dren’s Friend”), and, in conjunc tion with the United Church, also an Eng- lish Sunday-school paper , “The Children’ s Com panion.” Af ter vari ous fruit less at tempts a Church College and Sem inary were estab lished at Red Wing, Min nesota, in 1879. Up to the present time the sem i- nary has gradu ated 165 stu dents and the col lege 266 (27 with the A. B. degree). The sem inary fac ulty consists of Profes sors E. W. Schmidt, M. A., O. M. Wee, and G. M. Bruce, M. A., B. D. The sem inary offers a three years’ and the col lege a four years’ course, the latter cul minat ing in the A. B. degree. The acade my (four years) prepares for the col lege and the State Uni- versity . There is also a com mer cial course of two years. These insti tu tions were orig inally for boys and young men, but women are now admit ted to the col lege. A co-ed u cational school is located at Jew ell, Iowa, known as the Jewell Lutheran Col lege. The Synod maintains a MIS SION IN CHINA, which was started in 1891, with Fancheng as the center . In this city it has a high school, a hospi tal, a dis pen- sary, an or phans’ home and schools for boys and girls. Be sides Fancheng, there are the three main sta tions of Tszho, Taip ing tien and Sinyeh. From these centers the work extends to forty outer sta tions and a num ber of day schools. The the o log ical sem ina ry at Han kow is being jointly maintained by four Lutheran mission ary soci eties. Pastor O. R. Wold, of Hauge’s Synod, is pres ident. The synod has 17 mis sion ar ies, among whom are one physi cian, one nurse and five or dained pas tors. These are being aided by some 90 native work ers f Bible women and teach ers). It has 1,000 converts. HOME MIS- SIONS are being car ried on in Canada and the Northwest, 30 mission ar ies cover ing the ground. It supports an OR PHANS’ HOME with 60 children and a HOME FOR THE AGED at Beres ford. S. Dak., where 30 old men are being cared for. [2] THE NOR WE GIAN LUTHERAN SYNOD.

279 This synod was founded in 1853 by the coop er ation of Pasto rs C. L. Claussen (or dained by Pastor Krause). A. C. Preus, H. A. Stub. H. A. Preus, G. F. Di et rich sen. N. Brandt and J. A. Ot tensen. All of these were or dained in Nor way for the Ameri can tield. From the very start the synod has repre- sented RIGID LUTHERANISM. It susta ined re la tions with the faith ful in the Nor- we gian State Church. Soon it made COM MON CAUSE WITH THE GER MAN LUTHER ANS (a union hoped for at Di et richsen’ s depar ture; see letter to Loehe). At first no at tempt was made to start a sem inary . A com mission, in- vesti gat ing diffe r ent Lutheran insti tu tions, decided in FA VOR OF THE SEM I NARY OF THE MIS SOURI SYNOD. This was made the sem inary of the synod, and Laur. Lar son, in 1859, was called by its fac ulty as Nor we gian pro fes sor. But when, during the Civil War Walther’s sym pathies were with the South, the Nor we gians, op posing se cession and slav ery, took offense, with drew from St. Louis, and opened THEIR OWN SEM I NARY at Half way Creek, La Crosse County, Wis consin, with Larson and Schmidt as profes sors and an enroll- ment of eleven schol ars. In 1862 it was transferred to Dec o rah, Ia., where in 1864 the corner stone was laid for a building cost ing $100,000, which was dedi cated in Oc tober , 1865. In 1872 F. A. SCHMIDT was sent to St. Louis as Nor we gian profes sor. When the prac ti cal depart ment of St. Louis was transferred to Spring field, Pastor O. B. As perheim became a member of the faculty. But a year af ter wards the Sol diers’ Or phans’ Home of Madi son, Wis., became the home of this prac ti cal depart ment. Here Profes sor F. A. Schmidt was appointed second profes sor. H. G. Stub came to this sem ina ry as a suc- cessor to As perheim in 1878, and the the o ret ical depart ment of St. Louis, having been transferred, was united with the prac ti cal depart ment. In 1872 the synod took part in the form ing of the SYN OD I CAL CON FER ENCE, to which it belonged un til 1883. For a long time it was the largest Scan dina vian body in America. Rep re sent ing conser vative Lutheranism, it had to re sist vari ous doctri nal on slaughts. Profes sor As perheim in 1878 was accused of heresy by the Pastoral Con fer ence in Milwau kee, because he had crit icized Walther. As perheim re signed, took charge of a New York congre gation for a time, and eventu ally re turned to Norway . The most vio lent contro versy within the synod raged around the QUES- TION OF PRE DES TI NA TION (1880). Schmidt at tacked Walther’s the ory of election con tained in the synod ical records of 1877 and 1879. The synod was divided into two op posing camps. To prevent a divi sion, it LEFT THE SYN OD I- CAL CON FER ENCE in 1883. How ever, a schism occurred seven years later.

280 Schmidt and his fol low ers (a third of the synod) with drew and formed a “broth er hood.” In 1890 they united with other bod ies, forming the United Nor we gian Lutheran Church. Though greatly weak ened, the synod contin ued its work with much zeal and extended its ac tivi ties in many di rec tions. It has put great empha sis on re li gious train ing. Luther College, the old est Scandi na vian High School, located at Dec o rah, Ia., has an endo w ment fund of $250,000. LUTHER SEM I NARY (loc ated at first at Madi son, Wis., af ter wards at Rob bins dalc, Minn., and now at St. Paul, Minn.) has the fol low ing faculty: Revs. Prof. H. G. Stub, D. D., Joh. Ylvisaker, D. D., O. K. Brandt, B. A., and E. Hove, B. A. It has an aver age at ten dance of 50 schol ars The Lutheran TEACH ERS’ SEM I NARY, of Sioux Falls, S. Dak., has 10 profes sors and about 200 stu dents. The Girls’ Sem inary at Red Wing, Minn., and ten acade mies at vari ous places are being maintained by pri vate funds. The synod con ducts two homes for the aged and three or phans’ homes. A number of hos pitals are being sup ported by in divid ual members of the synod. It has FOR EIGN MIS SIONS in South Africa, China and Alaska, and an In dian mission not far from Wit ten berg, Wis. Home missions are being maintained in Utah, New York and Galvest on (im migrants), and seamen’ s missions in New York, Galveston and San Francisco. Its com bined prope rty is worth $1,000,000. [3] THE UNITED NOR WE GIAN LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMER ICA. Af ter withdraw ing from the Synod of Northern Illinois, the Scandi na- vians, in 1860, orga nized the SCAN DI NA VIAN AU GUS TANA SYNOD in a lit tle Nor we gian church at Jeffer son Prairie, Wis. Ten years af ter wards this synod met at the new Swedish church of Andover , Ill. At this time the num ber of Nor we gian minis ters had greatly increased, and they decided to orga nize a synod of their own. To this the Swedes gave their unani mous consent. The Nor we gian pasto rs and del egates then with drew to the old church nearby in or der to orga nize the new synod (§ 19, 5, 6). Rev. O. J. Hatlestad was elected chairma n and Rev. J. M. Eggen secre tary. A previ ousl y appointed com mit tee on consti tu tion re ported. Meanwhile only two para graphs were adopted, re lating to confes sion and name, the latter being “The Nor we gian Augus tana Synod.” The rest was laid aside un til a confer ence could be held with Rev. B. Gjel daker, of Silve r Lake, and Rev. C. L. Clausen, of St. Ans- gar, Iowa, who had left the Nor we gian Synod on account of that body’s at titude on the slav ery question. If these men, with their large con grega tions,

281 would join in the for ma tion of the new synod, it would be desir able to have them do so, and it was decided that they should have a chance to take part in the discus sion and adop tion of the consti tu tion. The confer ence was held at St. Ans gar, Iowa, in July of the same year (1870). Find ing no doc tri nal diffi cul ties. Rev. Hatlestad read the re port from Andover . and Rev. Clausen submit ted a new draught for the consti tu tion. This was fi nally adopted, the res o lutions from Andover re scinded, and a new soc iety was formed called “The Con fer ence for the Nor we gian Dan ish Evan gel ical Lutheran Church in Amer ica.” Clausen was elected pres ident. The out look now was bright for a time, but, sad to say, for only a short time. Be fore he left. Rev. Hatlestad handed in a protest against the re peal of the Andover res o lutions, and later on called the Nor we gian Augus tana Synod to meet at Jeffer son Prairie, Wis., the same fall. Here the res o lution adopted at St. Ans gar. re peal ing the adoption of the two para graphs of An- dover, was decla red null and void, and the meet ing re solved to com plete the Andover orga ni zation by adopt ing the rest of the proposed consti tu tion. Thus the year 1870 marks both a union and a dis union. The major ity followed Clausen and Gjel daker, while the minor ity orga nized the Nor we gian- Dan ish Augus tana Synod. Antag o nism between these two fac tions was strong at first, but later on a better feeling pre vailed. The ANTI-MIS SOURI ANS had mean while with drawn from the Nor we gian Synod. They effected a tempo rary orga ni za tion, hop ing for an eventual union with the two other synods. At a se ries of confer ences the conclu sion had been reached that there were no funda men tal differ ences between Hauge’s Synod, the Con fer ence and the Augus tana Synod. This caused the merg ing of the three currents (Nor we gian Con fer ence, Augus tana Synod, and Anti-Mis souri Broth er hood) and the forming of the UNITED NOR WE GIAN LUTHERAN CHURCH OF AMER ICA.6 The Con fer ence had 379 congre ga tions, the Broth er hood 231 and the Augu stana Synod 41 congre ga tions . Without a dis sent ing vote they decided for union. Such a united front seemed to pre clude any possi ble rupture. But when the AUGS BURG SEM I NARY, hitherto the property of the Con fer ence, was to be transferred (ac cording to agree ment) to the United Church, the trustees refused to accede to such a deman d. A subse quent trial, appealed from court to court, re sulted in the synod losing the building, but re taining the endow- ment. The real cause of the trou ble was dis sat is fac tion with Profs. Of tedal

282 and Sver drup, who re signed and founded the FREE CHURCH (1893). Since then peace has reigned in the bor ders of the United Church. Its the o log ical sem inary is located at St. Paul, and has the fol low ing faculty: Rev. F. A. Schmidt, D. D., Profes sor emeri tus; M. O. Bock man, D. D.; J. N. Kil dahl, D. D.; E. Kr. Johnsen, M. A.; C. M. Weswig, D. D.; M. J. Stolee, B. M. The col lege is located at Northfield, Minn., and has 32 teachers and 500 schol ars. It is one of the greatest church insti tu tions of the Mid- dle West. A Teachers’ Sem inary is located at Madi son, Minn. Schools for higher edu cation are located as fol lows: Pleas ant View Luther College, Ot- tawa, Ill.; Scandi navia Acad emy, Scandi navia, Wis.; Wal dorf College, For- est City, Ia.; Con cordia College, More head, Minn.; Spokane College, Spokane, Wash.; Co lumbia College, Ev erett, Wash.; Cam rose College, Cam rose, Al berta, Can. The last named insti tu tion is jointly owned with Hauge’s Synod. In all these insti tu tions the ENG LISH LAN GUAGE prevails, while the sem inary is largely NOR WE GIAN. The ser vices in the congre ga tions are con ducted mostly in the Nor we gian lan guage, but Eng lish is grow ing in fa vor. Some congre ga tions divid e their ser vices between the two lan guages. “LUTHER ANEREN” is the Nor we gian organ, “THE UNITED LUTHERAN” the Eng- lish organ of the synod. The Sun day-school papers appear in both languages. The United Synod is zeal ous in HOME and FOR EIGN MIS SION WORK. It has for eign missions in Madagas ca r and in the dis trict of Honan, China, and, besides, supports many others. Among the CHAR I TA BLE IN STI TU TIONS may be men tioned the Dea coness’ Moth er house in Chicago, a num ber of or phans’ homes and hos pitals in the Mid dle West, or phans’ homes at Wit ten berg, Wis., Be loit, Ia., and Lake Park, Minn., homes for the aged at Northw Dod. N. D., and at Wit ten berg, W^is. The synod has a pension fund for its pastors and profes sors. Its property is worth $2.000,000. [4] THE NOR WE GIAN LUTHERAN FREE CHURCH. This org ani za tion gath ers around Augs burg Sem inary as its center . The sem inary was opened at Mar shall, Wis., 1869, and is the old est the o log ical school among the Nor we gians in America. In 1872 it was transferred to Min neap o lis, Minn. Its first pres ident was Prof. A. Weenaas. Prof. George Sverdrup served as its pres ident from 1876 to his death in 1907. Dur ing a period of 44 years it has trained 367 pastors. En trance to the sem inary proper is preceded by a four years’ col lege course, in which Greek is the

283 prin ci pal lan guage, in accor danc e with the rules of the insti tu tion, re quir ing that the Word of God shall form the chief subject of study. In 1890 the Augsbur g Sem inary became the the o log ical school of the United Church, but in 1893 the annual meet ing decided to with draw its support, un less the sem inary or its control was turned over to the United Church. This brought the res ign ation of Profs. Sverdrup and Of tedal as profes sors in the United Church; but they contin ued their work in the sem inary . In this they were supported by about 50 minis ters and 60 con grega tions, who formed a sepa rate orga ni za tion. The Free Church differs from other Nor we gian Lutheran synods in this re spect: it has no consti tu t ion, and its annual meet ing is not a repre sen ta tive body of del egates elected by the con- grega tions, but a free gath er ing in which anyone who agrees to the Free Church prin ci ples can take part. Chris tian schools, missions, etc., are supported by the congre ga tions, but the control is in the hands of differ ent boards, as Boards of Trustees for Augs burg Sem inary , of Mis sions, etc. They have three schools for higher edu cation, Augs burg in Min neap o lis, Minn., a Ladies’ Sem inary in Fargo, N. D., and an Acad emy at Ev erett, Wash. In the line of mercy they have a Dea coness’ Home in Min neap o lis and two Or phans’ Homes at other places. Be side support ing the Jew ish and San thal mission , they have their own field in Madagas car and have of late decided to take up mis sion work in China. [5] THE CHURCH OF THE LUTHERAN BRETHREN. This body was orga nized in 1890, with Rev. K. O. Lun deber g as pres i- dent. He is an earnest Chris tian, and deplored the worldli ness of the churches. On a visit to Nor way he fell in with the prin ci ples of the Free Church there. They advo cated the Donatis tic idea of pure congre ga tions. Re turn ing to America, he began to preach and prac tice that doctrine, withdrew from the United Church and gath ered the “Brethren” into a sepa rate orga ni za tion. Be ing sin cere in his appli ca tion of the rule, he soon found that his the ory was only an ideal, a dream, acknowl edged that he had erred in his views and inter preta tion of the Word of God. and re turned to the United Church. Meanw hile Rev. K. M. Broen left the Free Church, because he did not think they prac ticed as they preached, and joined the “Brethren.” They have a Bible School in Wahpeton, N. D.. and their re port for 1914 shows 11 el ders and 20 congre ga tions, with about 1.000 members. They are very much inter ested in foreign missions, and have a field of their own in Central China.

284 IV. Prospec tive Union Of The Norwe gians.

The United Nor we gian Synod. having com pleted its orga ni za tion, ar ranged for a num ber of confer ences with the repre senta tives of the Nor we gian Synod. This move ment re ceived a new impe tus when Hauge’s Synod (1905), af ter some dis cussion, reached an agree ment with other synods concern ing abso lu tion and the work of lay men. In subse quent contro versies the doctrines of ELEC TION and CON VER SION (1907) and PRE DES TI NA TION (1911) came up for con sid er ation. While the last dogma presented some diffi cul ties and prevented a fi nal agree ment at the confer ences of 1908, 1909 and 1910 (five confer ences), the op posing parties approached com mon ground. With admirable patience — a splen did exam ple for all Luther ans — the pursuit of union was con tinued with the as sis tance of the laity. At the confer ence at Madi son, Wis. (Feb. 22, 1912), a num ber of concil ia tory res o lutions were adopted. They bright ened the prospects for an ulti mate union, which now seems all but as sured, in spite of the op po si tion of the Syn od ical Con fer- ence. We re print the Madison Theses be cause of their im portant char acter:

AGREE MENT.

1. The Synod and United Church Commit tees on Union ac knowl edge unan i mously and without reserva tion the doc trine of Predes ti nation which is stated in the Eleventh Ar- ticle of the Formula of Con cord (the so-called “first form of the doc trine”) and in Pontop p i dan’s Ex plana tion (“Sandhed til Gud frygtighed”), Ques tion 548 (the so- called “second form of the doctrine”)-

2. Whereas the con fer ring Church bod ies ac knowl edge that Art. XI of the Formula of Con cord presents the pure and correct doc trine of God’s Word and the Lutheran Church regard ing the Elec tion of the chil dren of God to sal vation, it is deemed un- nec es sary to Church union to con struct new and more exten sive theses con cern ing this arti cle of faith.

285 3. But since, in regard to the doc trine of Elec tion, it is well known that two forms of the doctrine have been used, both of which have been rec og nized as correct in the or thodox Lutheran Church, viz., that some, make the doc trine of Elec tion to com- prise the entire sal vation of the elect from the call ing to the glori fi ca tion, — cf. “Thor ough Ex plana tion,” Arti cle XI., 10-12 — and teach an Elec tion “to sal vation through sancti fi ca tion by the Spirit and faith in the truth;” while others (like Pontop p i dan, in con sonance with John Gerhard, Scriver, and other ac knowl edged doc trinal fa thers, defi ne Elec tion chiefly as the decree of fi nal glori fi ca tion, with the Spirit’s work of faith and perse verance as its nec es sary postu late, and teach that “God has or dained to eternal life all those who from eternity He foresaw would accept the proffered grace, believe in Christ, and remain stead fast in this faith unto the end;” and since neith er of those two forms of doc trine con tra dicts any doc trine revealed in the Word of God, but lets the or der of sal vation, as other wise presented in God’s Word and the Con fession of the Church, remain entirely in tact and fully acknowl edged, we find that this fact ought not be di vi sive of Church unity, nor ought it dis rupt that unity of spirit in the bond of peace which God wills should ob tain between us.

4. Since, how ever, during the doc trinal con tro versy among us, words and expres sions have been used — rightly or wrongly attrib uted to one party or the other — which seemed to the other side a denial of the Con fession of the Church, or to lead to such denial, we have agreed to reject all erro neous doc trines which seek to explain away the mystery of Elec tion (For mula of Con cord, Art. XI, 39-44) either in a syner gis tic manner or in a Calviniz ing way; in other words, we reject every doc trine which either, on the one hand, would rob God of His honor as the only Sav ior, or, on the other, would weaken man’s feeling of resp on sibil ity for the ac cep tance or rejec tion of God’s grace.

5. On the other hand, we re ject: a. The doc trine that God’s mercy and the most holy mer its of Christ are not the sole rea son for our elec tion, but that there is also in ourselves a rea son for such elec tion, for the sake of which God has or dained us to eternal life. b. The doc trine that in Elec tion God has been deter mined by, or has taken cog nizance of, or has been ac tu ated by, man’s good rela tion, or by any thing which man may do or not do, “as of him self or by his own nat u ral powers.” c. The doc trine that the faith in Christ which is in dis sol ubly con nected with Elec tion, is wholly or in part a product of, or depen dent upon, man’s own choosing, power or abil ity. d. Or that this faith is the result of a power and abil ity imparted to man by the call of grace and therefore now dwelling in, and belong ing to, the un regen erate man, to him self de ter mine to ac cept God’s grace.

286 6. On the other hand, we re ject:

a. The doc trine that in Election God acts arbi trar ily and without motive, and picks out and counts a cer tain arbi trary number of in dis crim i nate in di vidu als, and or dains these to con version and salva tion, while pass ing by all the others.

b. The doc trine that there are two differ ent kinds of will to sal vation in God, one revealed in the Scrip tures in the gen eral or der of sal vation, and another , differ ing from this, and un known to us, which relates only to the elect and imparts a deeper love, a more effec tive call from God and a larger measure of grace than are brought to him who re mains in un belief and con demna tion.

c. The doctrine that when the op po sition, which God in con version removes from those whom He saves, is not taken away in others who fi nally are lost, this differ ent result finds its reason in God and in a differ ing will of salva tion in His act of election.

d. The doctrine that a believer can and must have an abso lute as sur ance of his elec tion and sal vati on, in stead of an as sur ance of faith, built upon the prom ise of God, and joined with fear and trem bling and the possi bil ity of fall ing from grace, which, however, by the mercy of God he believes will not become a real ity to him.

e. In a sum mary, all views and doc trines rega rd ing Elec tion which di rectly or in di rectly come into con flict with the or der of sal vation and do not give to all a full and therefore equally great op portu nity to sal vation, or which in any manner would in vali date that Word of God which declares that “God will have all men to be saved and come unto the knowl edge of the truth” — in which gracious and mer ciful will of God all elec tion to eter nal life has its origin.

On the basis of the above Agreement the Commit tees on Union declared that the es sentia l unity concern ing these doctrines which was at tained was suffi cient to war rant Church union. The two bod ies will take these res o lutions un der consid er ation at their regu lar conven ti ons. We do not presume that an agree ment will be reached with out some diffi culty; but it is to be hoped that the synods, rec og niz ing their es sential doctri nal unity, will not rest contented un til the Nor we gians of this coun try are ral lied around a com mon stan dard, and thus will be thor- oughly orga nize d to accom plish the great mission as signed to them by the living God.

Bi o graph ical Notes.

287 Note: these, with the excep tion of the last two, have been writ ten by the Rev. J. A. Bergh.

REV. ELLING EIELSEN was born in Vos, Nor way, Sep tember 19, 1804. His parents belonge d to the friends of Hauge, and so from childhood Eielsen was un der Chris tian influ ence, but did not find peace with God un til he was about twenty-five years of age. From that time he felt it his duty to preach to oth ers, admon ish ing them to re pent of their sins and turn to God for pardon. Hav ing trav eled as a lay preacher over a large part of Nor way and part of Denmark, he landed in America in 1839. He preached his first ser mon in Chicago. Then he went from place to place preach ing to his widely scat- tered coun try men. In 1843 he was or dained (or li censed), and in 1864 he and his friends orga nized Hauge’s Synod. Eielsen was a strong char acter , and was very earnest in his work. He also loved the Lutheran Church as he knew it through his beloved Pon top p idan, whose expla nation of Luther’s Small Cat echism he went all the way to New York — mostly on foot — to get printed; but he came at times in col li sion with the clergy in Nor way, and had a great dis taste for every thi ng that had, in his opin ion, a taint of state- churchism, much of the liturgy included. He died at his home in Chicago in 1883. REV. CLAUS LAU RIZ CLAUSEN was born on the is land of Aeroe, Den mark, Novem ber 3, 1820. Al though a Dane by birth, the Nor we gians are inclined to count him one of their own, as he spent nearly all his life among them. Like his contem po rary, Eielsen, he came from the pietistic cir cles in Nor- way and Den mark. He had planned to go with Schroeder as a mission ary to Africa, but on re ceiv ing an earnest appeal from Nor we gian pio neers in the wilder ness of Wis consin, he fi nally decided to come to America . He ar rived at Muskego, Wis., in August, 1843, accepted a call as pastor to the Muskego church Sep tember 13th, and was or dained by a Ger man minis ter Oc tober 18th of the same year. Be ing bet ter edu cated and having a broader view than Eielsen, Clausen saw not only the impor tance of the sal vation of the indi vid ual, but also the nec es sity of the es tab lishment of a Chris tian church. As far as possi ble, he therefore gath ered Nor we gian Luther ans into orga nized congre ga tions, and worked most of his time as a set tled pastor . Preach ing the doctrine and usin g the rites of the Church of Denmark and Nor way, he transplanted the church of the Fa ther land as far as possi ble to the new soil of America. He has the honor of lay ing the first stone in the founda tion of the Nor we gian Lutheran Church of America. Clausen was not

288 rugged in health, yet for many years he took a prom inent part in the develop ment of the church. It was in his church at Luther Val ley, Rock County, Wis., that pastors and del egates met in 1851 to orga nize a synod; it was also here that the orga ni za tion of the Nor we gian Synod was com pleted in 1853, Clausen being elected Su perin te n dent in 1851 and Vice Presi dent in 1853. He was also the first pres ident of the “Kon fer ents” formed in his church at St. Ans gar, Iowa, in 1870. He was too fee ble to at tend the meet ing at Min- neap o lis, when the United Church was orga nized, but sent his greeting. He died two years later, 1892. REV. PEDER AN DREAS RAS MUSSEN was born in Sta vanger, Nor way, Janu- ary 9, 1829. He came to America in 1850. At first he taught parochial school, but in 1853 he received a call from the Lis bon Church, Fox Hill, Ill., to becom e their pastor . To fit him self bet ter for the work, he at tended the Ft. Wayne Sem inary for one year, and was or dained in 1854. Ras mussen was one of the most impres sive speak ers of the Nor we gian Lutheran Church in America in the last century , and took an active part in its work un til a short time before his death. What ever he did was done with his whole heart. He took a lead ing part in the contro versy between Eielsen’s friends and the Nor we gian Synod, between the Synod and the Konfer ents and between the Mis souri ans and the Anti-Mis souri ans. But the greatest ser vice he rendered his church was the prom inent part he took in the move ment that re sulted in the union of the Konfer ents, the Augus tana Synod and the Anti-Missourian Broth er hood in the Nor we gian Lutheran Church of America. In this impor - tant work Ras mussen was in the front rank, and proba bly exerted a greater influ ence than any other man. Be side being an elo quent speaker, he wielded a fluent pen. For fifteen years he edited his own paper , wrote several pam- phlets, translated and pub lished books like Arndt’s “True Chris tianity .” He was a warm hearted friend of for eign missions, his congre ga tion sending more money to the Mis sion So ciety of Nor way than any other. He died in 1898, leaving four sons in active ser vice as minis ters of the gospel in the United Church. REV. HER MAN AM BER PREUS was born in Chris tiansand, Nor way, June 16, 1825. He gradu ated from the theo log ical depart ment of the Uni versity of Chris tiania, and was or dained on a call from Spring Prairie, Co lumbia County, Wis. He came to America in 1851. In Nor way the ra tional ism of the first part of the last century was fol lowed by a strict or tho doxy. This wave reached its zenith, and wielded its greatest influ ence in the for ties. At

289 this time young Preus stud ied theol ogy at the Uni versity , and took up his work in America fully imbued with the or tho dox spirit of the Fa ther land. On his ar rival here he detected Gruntvi gian ism in an ar ti cle of faith in the consti tu tion of the Nor we gian Synod, just orga nized, and showed his ability by get ting the orga ni za tion dis solved and a new one re orga n ized with a truly or tho dox creed. He was one of the six minis ters who formed the Nor- we gian Synod in 1853, and was its pres ident from 1862 un til his death in 1894. He was a born leader. His no ble and sym metri cal physique, his fine abili ties and vari ous acqui si tions al ways com manded at ten tion and re spect. In dis po si tion he com bined gentle ness with res o luteness and inflex ibil ity . With Rev. Preus at the helm there was no danger that the Synod should veer ei ther to the right or the left. He had its desti nation clearly in view and its course well un der control. With his strong convic tions, he of ten clashed with people of other persua sion s. He strongly presented his views both on the floor of conven tions and in the press. For several years he was as soci- ated edi tor of the synod’s offi cial paper . His ser mons lacked some what in the emo tional fea ture, but were always clear and in structive. REV. UL RIK WIL HELM KO REN, D. D., was born in Bergen, Nor way, De- cem ber 22, 1826, gradu ated from the Uni versity of Chris tiania in 1852, and came to Americ a in 1853. He accepted a call from Washing ton Prairie, near Dec o rah, Iowa, and was for several years the only Nor we gian minis ter west of the Mis sis sippi River. He joined the Nor we gian Synod, which was orga- nized shortly before his ar rival and took an active part in its work. It was through his influ ence that Luther College was located at Dec o rah, and as the years went by he became more and more a power in the Synod un til finally, by com mon consent, he was the acknowl edged leader. From 1887, when the Anti-Mis souri ans with drew, he occu pied nearly the same po si tion in the Nor we gian Synod as Walther held in the Ger man Synod of Mis souri. His word was law. When Preus died, 1894, the pres idency fell upon his shoul ders. Kore n had all the qual ifi cations of a leader. He was a clear thinker, an elo quent speaker, a strong debater , a keen ob server and a fine diplomat. He knew when to praise and when to strike. Under his able leader ship the Mis souri ans in the Synod grew from a minor ity to a two-thirds ma jor ity. He has also the dis tinction of being the only Nor we gian pastor thus far who has served one congre ga tion for more than half a century . He died in 1910.

290 REV. GJER MUND HOYME was born in Waldris, Nor way, Oc tober 8, 1848, and came to America with his parents in 1851. They set tled first at Port Washing ton, Wis., but moved, lour years later, to Springville, Iowa. On this jour ney of about 300 miles the fu ture “bishop” had to walk on his bare feet, driv ing a cow, the only property his parents had besides a yoke of oxen and a wagon. His fa ther soon died, and young Hoyme had to work his way through school. He stud ied at the Wis consin Uni versity , and gradu ated from Augs burg Sem in ary in the class of 1873. At first he supplied a pul pit in Du- luth, Minn., but went later to Menomonie and Eau Claire, Wis. In the United Church Hoyme was some times called “our bishop,” and there is proba bly no man who has won greater es teem among the Nor we gian Luther ans in this country . His no ble char acter , pleas ant appear ance, warm heart, and great elo quence won for him the admi ra tion of the people. As mod er ator he proved to be em inently fair in his deci sions on any question that came up for adjust ment. He was for years an active mem ber of the Konfer ents, and threw all the weight of his influ ence in fa vor of a union of this body with the Augus tana Synod (Nor we gian) and Anti-Mis souri ans. In 1890 this was accom plished, and Hoyme was unani mously elected Presi- dent of the United Church, a po si tion he held un til his death, which occurred in 1902. PROF. GEORGR SVER DRUP was born De cem ber 16. 1848, in Balestrand, Nor way, gradu ated from Chris tiania in 1871, stud ied in Ger many and France, and came to America in 1874, having been called by the Konfer ents to a chair in the fac ulty of Augs burg Sem inary . Sverdrup belon ged to a talented family . His grandfa ther was a prom inent member of the Ei dsvold As- sem bly, which gave Nor way its decla ra tion of inde pen dence in 1814. His fa ther was a well known clergy man, and his un cle for years the lead ing states man of Nor way, having the dis tinction of being called the “uncrowned king.” One brother died as bishop, and another is a profes sor of the ology in Chris tiania. The subject of our sketch was proba bly among the most gifted. He was a very able teacher, and al ways at tracted close at ten tion, when he took the floor in any meet ing. He had a pleasant ap pear ance, and was demo- cratic in his views, but, like every man born to rule, he had a strong will before which ever y thing had ei ther to bend or break. He was one of those force ful person al ities who have warm support ers, but also many op po nents. He could not adjust himself to the old ways of the Konfer ents, and events in the United Church did not turn out to his liking. He ten dered his res igna tion

291 twice, first to the Konfer ents, when he was re-elected, and later to the United Church, which accepted it. He contin ued, however , as profes sor at Augs burg Sem inary , his friends being in the ma jor ity on the board of trustees, and they started the Free Church move ment (1893). Sverdrup was a hard worker, and put the Church un der great obliga tion by giv ing it the full bene fit of his em inent talen t for orga ni za tion at the period of the amal- gama tion of the Konfer ents, the Augus tana Synod and the Anti-Mis souri ans into the United Church. He died at his home in Minne ap o lis in 1907. PROF. PE TER LAU RITZ LARSEN, D. D., was born in Chris liansand, Nor way, August 10, 1833. He gradu ated from the Uni versity at Chris tiania in 1855, and came to America in 1857. At first he served as a pastor , but in 1859 he was elected as the Nor we gian profes sor of the the o log ical fac ulty at Con- cordia Sem inary , St. Louis, Mo. When the Synod, in 1861, dis contin ued its connec tion with the St. Louis insti tu tion and es tab lished a school of its own, Larsen was elected Presi dent, a po si tion he held un til 1902. For many years he was on the ed ito rial staff of “Evan gelisk Luthersk Kirke ti dende,” the offi cial paper of the synod, and from 1902 to 1912 edi tor -in-chief. He was a no ble char acter , an ideal col lege pres ident and a hard worker. His la bor and life are woven into the his tory of the Nor we gian Synod as few oth ers are. He died in 1914. PROF. FRIEDRICH AU GUST SCHMIDT, D. D., born at Leuten berg, Ger many, Janu ary 3, 1837, came to Ameri ca in his youth and stud ied at the Con cordia Sem inary at St. Louis, Mo. He served congre ga tions at Eden, N. V. (1859), at Bal ti more, Md. (1959-61), and was profes sor at the Nor we gian Luther College at Dec o rah, Ia. (1861-72). From 1872 to 1876 he was a member of the fac ulty of the Con cordia Sem inary , St. Louis; 1876-86 of the Nor we gian Sem inary at Madi son, Wis.; 1886-90 of the Nor we gian Sem inary at North- field, Minn. Since 1890 he has been connected with the sem i nary of the United Nor we gian Church at Min neap o lis, Minn. He edited “The Lutheran Watch man” (1865- 66), “Altes und Neues” (1880-85), “Lutherske Vidnes- bred” (1882-88), and has writ ten a num ber of ar ti cles on predes ti nation, having been closely connected with the contro versy on this doc trine in the Mis souri and Nor we gian Syn ods. PROF. HANS GER HARD STUB, D. D., born at Muskego, Wis, Feb ru ary 23, 1849, was trained in the schools of the Mis souri Synod, and later at tended the Univer sity of Leipzig. Hav ing been or dained in 1872, he served a con- grega tion at Min neap o lis, Minn. (1872-78), and then became profes sor at

292 Luther Sem inary , Madi son, Wis. (1878-88), contin u ing in this po si tion af ter the school was transferred to Rob bins dale, near Min neap o lis (1888-1900). Since 1910 he has been pres ident of the Nor we gian Synod, and has resided at St. Paul, Minn. In the present contro versy concern ing predes ti nation he takes a lead ing part as a repre sen ta tive of the Nor we gian Synod, which for- merly be longed to Missouri.

§ 32. Dan ish Lutherans in Amer ica.

Note: Contrib uted by the Rev. Prof. P. S. Vig.

1. Danish em igra tion

Dan ish em igra ti on to America is, in one sense, very old. There were quite a num ber of Danes among the Dutch of New Nether land, and some of them were members of the Dutch Lutheran congre ga tions of New Ams ter dam, Manhat tan, etc. There were also some Danes among the Ger mans in Penn- syl vania and members of the Lutheran congre ga tions there. Among the older Ger man Lutheran pastors of Penn syl vania, Pe ter Brunnsholtz and J. D. Leps were Danes. Quite a num ber of Danes were members of the Mora- vian set tle ments in Penn syl vani a, and some of their most gifted preach ers were Danes, and had been Lutheran pastors in Den mark, among them, Otto C. Krogstrup, A. C. Langgaard, Jakob Friis, Jorgen Solle and others. Dan ish em igra ti on to the United States, in the real sense of the word, is, however , a fea ture of the NINE TEENTH CEN TURY. Be fore 1840 it consisted mostly of me chanics, sailors, hunters, and a few physi cians, and was re- stricted mostly to the At lantic States. Be tween the years 1840 and 1850 em- igra tion from the ru ral dis tricts of Den mark began and has contin ued to this day, so that the Danes in America now num ber about half a mil lion, about one-sev enth of all the Danes in the world. The Danes in the United States are SCAT TERED, and in more than one sense of the term. As a rule, they are not found in great num bers in any one place, with the excep tion of the great cities of New York, Chicago, Min ne- apo lis, Om aha, Racine, Wis., and San Francisco, Cal. The larger ru ral set- tlements of Danes in the United States are found in Michi gan, Illinois, Wis- consin, Min neso ta, Iowa, Ne braska, and the Dako tas. There are Danes in all the states of the Union and in most of the large cities.

293 In re gard to RE LI GIOUS AF FIL I A TIONS the Danes are, perhaps, even more scat tered. A great many of the Dan ish em igrants between 1850 and 1870 came to Americ a as Mormons, and their descen dants are now members of that body. Not a few who came here, car ing for no re li gion, became Methodists and Bap tists, Adven tists, etc. It would be diffi cult to find a re li- gious sect in Amer ica, among whose members there are not some Danes. But very few are Ro man Catholics, and most of those who are have become so through mar riage. Not a few of the older Dan ish em igrants who would not leave the Lutheran Church, because members of the Nor we gian and Swedish Lutheran churches in Illinois, Wis consin and Min nesota. But the great major ity of Danes who came to America in ear lier days wore mem bers of no church, and their descen dants today belong to the great un baptized multi- tudes of the coun try.

2. Lutheran mis sion work among the Danes

Lutheran mission work among the Danes in the United States lags far behind that car ried on among the Swedes and Nor we gians. The first Lutheran pastor among the Nor we gians in the United States was a young Dan ish lay preacher. CLAUS L. CLAUSEN (1820-1892), who came to America in 1843 and was or dained to the Lutheran ministry Oc tober 18, 1843. near Milwau- kee. Wis., by the Ger man pastor , L. F. R. Krause, from Silesia. Al though Clausen’s work was among the Nor we gians in Iowa, Wis consin and Min nesota, he did for his own countr y men what he could. He orga n ized several DAN ISH CON GRE GA TIONS, and through letters and vis its to Den mark spoke of the neces sity of sending mission ar ies to the re li giously desti tute Danes in America. Mainly through Clausen’s influ ence a “COM MIT TEE for the fur ther- ing of the preach ing of the gospel among Danes in America” was formed in Den mark in 1869. a vol un tary as soci ation of four clergy men and one layman. In 1871 this com mit tee sent THREE MEN TO AMER ICA, Pastor A. C. L. Grove-Ras mussen, of Gram in Schleswig — to survey the field of work and re port to the com mit tee on his re turn — and two lay men, Mr. A. S. Nielsen, who had worked as a lay preacher in Den mark for several years, and Mr. Ras mus And er sen, who had stud ied for the for eign mission field. In the same year, 1871, TWO DAN ISH MIS SION AR IES among the heathen, Rev. N. Thom sen from In dia, and A. Dan from Africa, came to America as pastors

294 for Dan ish congre ga tions in In dianapo lis, Ind., and Racine, Wis., re spec- tively. A. vS. Nielsen was called by a Dan ish congre ga tion at Cedar Falls, Iowa, and was or dained by C. L. Clausen, Novem ber 17, 1871, at St. Ans- gar, Iowa. R. An derson was or dained in 1872 by A. S. Nielsen as pas tor of a Dan ish con grega tion at Waupaca, Wis.

3. The First Or ga ni za tion.

Clausen, when he or dained Nielsen, was pres ident of the NOR WE GIAN DAN- ISH CON FER ENCE (founded in 1870), and he nat u rally expected that the Dan- ish pas tors would unite with that orga ni za tion. That hope, however , was not re al ized. Pastor Grove-Ras mussen, in his re port to the com mit tee in Den- mark on his re turn from America, had warned against union with the confer ence, it being, in his opin ion, TOO OR THO DOX. The truth is that Grove-Ras- mussen, as well as A. S. Nielsen and most of the members of the com mit tee in Den mark, were FOL LOW ERS OF N. F. S. GRUNDTVIG, and did not consider the Holy Scrip ture as the for mal prin ci ple of the Chris tian Church, but set the Apostles’ Creed above it — that, and not Scrip ture, being the Word of God and the founda tion of the Chris tian Church, connected, as it was and al ways has been, with baptism, the door into the Chris tian Church. Of the four Dan ish pastors in the United States in 1872, three united with some lay men un der the name, “THE MIS SION ARY AS SO CI A TION OF THE CHURCH” (Kirke lig Mis sions foren ing) and started a weekly church paper . “Kirke lig Sam ler,” Rev. A. Dan, edi tor , Af ter wards, in 1878. the name of the as soci a- tion was CHANGED to “The Dan ish Evan gel ical Lutheran Church of Amer- ica,” and a cons ti tution was adopted on Grundtvi gian lines — empha siz ing the fact that said church was the true daughter of the Dan ish Na tional Church. The church had no Theo log ical Sem inary: its candi dates for the ministry had to come from Denmark, and were edu cated mostly un der Grundtvi gian influ ence. Still SOME OF THE PAS TORS WERE NOT GRUNDTVI GIANS, but em phasized the Holy Scrip ture as the for mal princi ple of the church, and worked in accor - dance therewith in their congre ga tions. Deroga tory expres sions about Holy Scrip ture were pub lished in the church papers, and fi nally a heated contro- versy took place, last ing for sev eral years, between the ultra Grundtvi gians and the or tho dox Luther ans. In 1894 A RUP TURE occ urred in the church, the Grundtvi gians having adopted a new consti tu tion and decree ing that those

295 who did not subscribe to it before three months had elapsed would be consid ered non-mem bers of the church. Twenty-two minis ters and their congre- gations failed to sub scribe to said con stitu tion.

4. The Dan ish Evangel i cal Lutheran Church in North America.

In the fall of 1894 at Elk Horn, Iowa, the above named NON-SUB SCRIB ING minis ters, with del egates from some of their congre ga tions, met and orga- nized themselves un der the name, “The Dan ish Evan gel ical Lutheran Church of North America,” electing Rev. P. L. C. Hansen, Cedar Falls, Ia., Presi dent, Rev. N. L. J. So holm, Waupasa, Wis., Trea surer, Rev. H. J. Dahlstrom, Sec re tary. The new body pub lished a weekly church paper , “The Mis sion ary Mes senger;” edi tors: Rev. N. P. Si mon sen and Rev. PI. P. Jensen. The Dan ish high school at Elk Horn, Ia. (founded 1878), was purchased and used for a THE O LOG I CAL SEM I NARY. Rev. P. S. Vig was elected profes sor. The weekly paper , “Danskeren,” pub lished by Rev. J. N. Jer sild at Neenah, Wis., was also the organ of “The North Church,” the com mon name of the new body.

5. The Dan ish Evangel i cal Lutheran Church Asso ci a tion of Amer ica of 1884.

This church body consisted of Dan ish pastors who had been edu cated at AUGS BURG SEM I NARY, Min neap o lis, Minn., and served Dan ish congre ga tions in the Nor we gian Dan ish confer ence. In 1884 they, with the consent of the confer ence, OR GA NIZED themselves un der the above name and started a the o- log ical sem inary at Blair, Neb., “TRIN ITY SEM I NARY.” “Kirke bladet,” published since 1877, be came the organ of the new orga ni za tion.

6. The United Danish Evangel i cal Lutheran Church in Amer ica (1896).

Af ter consid er able dis cussion in the papers, and several meet ings, the two last named church bod ies AGREED TO UNITE. A com mit tee was appointed to prepare ar ti cles of agree ment, which were adopted by the annual meet ings of both parties, and in the fall of 1896 del egates from both met in Min neap- o lis, Minn., formed the United Dan ish Evan gel ical Lutheran Church of America, and elected offi cers. The united church HAD THEN 63 pastors, 8

296 mission ar ies, 127 congre ga tious and 63 preach ing sta tions. It now (1915) has 133 pastors and profes sors, about 300 congre ga tions and preach ing sta- tions, and a member ship of about 23,000. Trin ity Sem inary , Blair, Neb., 22 stu dents, 2 profes sors, P. S. Vig, pres ident. DANA COL LEGE, BLAIR, NEB., has 10 pro fes sors and about 160 students. High Schools at Ken mare, N. D., Racine, Wis., and Elk Horn, Ia. PUB LISH ING HOUSE, Blair, Neb., Mr. H. Skov-Nielsen, Mgr. Two Or phans’ Homes, Waupaca, Wis., and Elk Horn, Ia. Sanato rium for consump tives. Brush, Colo. Old Peo ples’ Home, Brush, Colo. FOR EIGN MIS SIONS: Japan — 5 mission ar ies; HOME MIS SIONS: Moodys, Okla. — 4 missi on ar ies; Mis sion in Utah. Rev. J. Th. Lund; IN NER MIS SIONS: Em igra tion Mis sions: Brooklyn, N. Y., Bos ton, Mass., and Seamans’ Mis- sion at San Fran cisco, Cal.

7. The Dan ish Evangel i cal Lutheran Church in Amer ica.

Af ter the rupture in 1894, the Grundtvi gians were sustained by help from Den mark. Sev eral candi dates came over from Den mark and served for some years in America. The Dan ish church now has 100 pastors and profes- sors, about 100 congre ga tions and a member ship of about 20,000. THE O LOG- I CAL SEM I NARY at Grand View, Des Moines, Ia. HIGH SCHOOLS at Nysted, Neb., Solvang, Cal, Tyler, Minn., and Ash land, Mich. OR PHANS’ HOMES: Chicago, Ill., Pertham boy, N. J., Tyler, Minn. OLD PEO PLE’S HOME: Des Moines, Ia.

1. This was the fa mous “Hans Buschbauer,” noted for his ar ti cles on agri- cul ture, contrib uted to the Milwau kee “Ger ma nia.” At one time he was vice gov er nor of Illi nois.↩ 2. These two as sis tants first joined the Franckean Synod, later the Synod of Illi nois, and, together with the Swedes, orga nized the Scandi na vian- Augus tana Synod in 1860.↩ 3. Kirchliche Mit teilmigen, No. 2. 1844.↩ 4. He man aged this fund so care fully as to be able to re turn $168 to the donor.↩ 5. Kirchliche Mit teilun gen, No. 4, 1845.↩ 6. The Hauges Synod did not take part.↩

297 10. Small Syn ods of Dif fer ent Lan guages.

§ 33. Small Synods of Differ ent Languages.

1. The Ice landic Lutheran Synod.

The first set tlement of Ice landers at Mani toba. Canada, and in Min nesota (1875) was fol lowed by an immi gra tion to North Dakota and to Northwest Canada. The Revs. Jon Bjor nason and Pall Thorlack son orga nized churches in Mani toba in 1877 and 1878. Thorlack son, af ter forming congre ga tions in North Dakota, died there in 1882. In 1885 two pastors (J. Bjor nason and H. B. Therg rimso) founded a synod which now has 50 congre ga tions, 15 pastors and two stu dents who serve as mission ar ies. Bjor nason was pres ident of this synod for 23 years. There are about 23,000 Ice landers in Canada and North America. Many have no church affil ia tion, and a num ber of congre- gations are with out min is te rial sup ply. The synod publishes a monthly pa per (“Sameiningin”). and has its own Sun day-school lit er ature, liturgy and hym nal. Its pastors are mostly gradu ates of the Chicago Sem inary (Gen eral Coun cil). It shares the the o log ical views of the Gen eral Coun cil, having no ten dency toward mod ern liber al ism. Two years ago it founded a high school at Winnipeg, Man., nam ing it af ter Jon Bjor nason, the wor thy pio neer of the synod. The school has 3 profes sors and 30 stu dents. Re cently the synod acquired a home for the aged.

2. The Suomi (Finnish) Synod.

The Finnish Ev. Luth. Synod in America, also called the Suomi Synod, was founded at Calumet, Mich., March 25, 1890. In the begin ning it had 5 pastors and 9 con grega tions. To day (1915) it consists of 35 minis ters, 85 church buildings, 132 congre ga tions and 30,000 com mu nicants. It maintains 47 parish schools and 50 teach ers. To tal val u ation of property , $369,924.00. For mission ary purposes it raised $4,000.00 in 1915. Its main enter prise is the Suomi College, connected with the the o log ical sem inary at Han cock, Mich. The school, opened in a rented house in the fall of 1896, acquired property of its own in 1900 and has today 10 profes sors and 140

298 schol ars. The Pres ident of the insti tu tion is Dr. J. K. Nikan der. The the o log i- cal depa rt ment has two profes sors and 9 stu dents. Con fes sion ally this synod is akin to the Swedish Augus tana Synod and the General Coun cil.

299 11. Con sti tu tional Forms of the Lutheran Church in Amer ica.

§ 34. Consti tu tional Forms of the Lutheran Church in America.

AN NO TA TION: This is merely a sym po sium of the excel lent ma te rial col lected by Prof. O. Kraushaar in his book: “Die Ver fas sungsfor men der Luth. Kirche Amerikas,” 1911. For a more detailed account the reader has to consult the vol ume of Prof. Kraushaar. As in his book, so also here, we are not able to consider the condi tion among the Scandi na vians. This cannot well be done un til the Scandi na vians themselves have given to the Lutheran Church of Amer ica a work like that of Prof. Kraushaar.

1. Congre ga tional Con sti tutions.

The consti tu tion al regu la tions of the Lutheran Church in America are the re sult of a gradual de vel op ment closely connected with the history of Amer- ican Lutheranism. This appear s from a care ful perusal of the preced ing chapters. When MUH LEN BERG, the first to un dertake the orga ni za tion of differ ent congre ga t ions, entered upon his work, “he found a num ber of orga- nized churches whose consti tu tional rules were strik ingly alike.”1 He dis- covered congre ga tions with el ders and council men. The lay men who had formed these orga ni za tions had no doubt got ten their ideas from Re formed congre ga tions surround ing them. Fabri cius car ried simi lar prin ci ples from New York to the Swedes in Penn syl vania. Ger mans immi grat ing to New York prob ably borrowed them from the Dutch Luther ans. These rules prevailed also un der W. C. Berken meyer and Joh. K. Sto ever, the latter being the chief orga nizer of con grega tions in Penn syl vania. Lutheran congre ga tions at Lon don and Am ster dam, which served as mod els for the Ameri can churches, had worked out some CON STI TU TIONS WHICH WERE USED AS IDEALS at the founding of new churches. MUH LEN BERG, having fa mil iar ized himself with these consti tu tions at Lon don, Ebenezer and New York, used them in 1750 in cre at ing a consti tu tion for the Augus- tus cong re gation of Trappe (New Provi dence), 2 and in 1762 in col lab o rat ing

300 with Wrangel to give a consti tu tion for St. Michael’s Church in Phila del- phia. This const itu tion conferred upon the CON GRE GA TIONS “supreme control of their own affairs, such as the choice of a clergy man, the elec tion of offi- cers, etc. It was a congre ga tional gov ernment, based upon the free will and consent of the members, thus guar antee ing an activ ity along Scrip tural and confes sional lines.” The gov ern ment, on the part of the congre ga tions, was not direct, but they elected pastors and offi cers, and these formed the COUN- CIL, which admin is tered the affairs. In case a pastor was to be called or deposed, SYN OD I CAL AD VICE was also provided for.3 This for mula of gov ernment was amended in 1791 to the effect that congre ga tions should call a pastor , elect offi cers, etc., with out the consent of the synod. Should the minis ter bec ome presi dent of the council, he would hold this office as a special priv ilege confer red upon him by the congre ga tion. All congre ga tional matters were being handled by the council which was expected to sub mit to the congre ga tions only busi ness of vital impor tance, such as fi nancial condi- tions, etc. The church council — consist ing of six el ders, six deacons and the pas tor — re ceived new members, dis missed them, exer cised church disci pline, even against the minis ters, offi cers and members, repre sented the congre ga tion in court, is sued or ders, adopted by-laws and, in short, AD MIN IS- TERED ALL MAT TERS pertain ing to the preser vation and regu la tion of the parish. This for mula of gov ernment was the model for the cong re gations through out New York and Penn syl vania. True, the synods of these states later com posed consti tu tions of their own (Pennsyl vania, 1872; New York, 1852), but these were based upon the orig inal consti tu tion of the patri arch. This consti tu tion of Muhlen berg was (1823) re constructed into the “FOR- MULA FOR THE GOV ERN MENT AND DIS CI PLINE OF EV. LUTH. CHURCH” (enlar ged in 1827 and 1864), AND IN THIS FORM IT WAS REC OM MENDED BY THE GEN ERAL SYNOD TO THE DIS TRICT SYN ODS. The changes made in the re vised edi tion gave larger author ity to the pastors and the synods. 4 The consti tu tion for the Lutheran Church in the South moved along the same line. The Joint Synod of Ohio and the Tennes see Synod based their consti tu tions on that of the Gen eral Synod (1833 sq.). Here, however , the church council and not the synod is the high est author ity. When re vised in 1853 the obliga tion to “the doctrine of the Sym bol ical Books of the Lutheran Church” was made un alter able. The old prac tice of pul pit exchange with the Re formed was elim i-

301 nated. In 1893 this old consti tu tion, which could be traced back to the work of Muhlen berg, was displaced by one of Mis sourian ori gin (1843). WEST ERN SYN ODS orga nized their congre ga tions AB SO LUTELY IN DE PEN DENT of con grega tiona l consti tu tions in the East. BUF FALO SYNOD had no consti tution made in America un til 1886. In flu enced by Grabau’s ideas of the ministry, the old consti tu tions of Sax ony and Pomera nia were re garded as suffi- cient. In 1886 a consti tu tion for the congre ga tion in Buffalo was cre ated, which then beca me the model for oth ers.5 Coun cilmen are elected for life. The pastor has many rights and priv ileges, not on account of the office he holds, but in the inter est of good order . In the spring of 1843 Walther com posed a consti tu tion of only 21 paragraphs for Trin ity Church, St. Louis.6 It dealt largely with questions of member ship, con tri bu tions and the congre ga tional bal lot, confer ring no priv ileges upon the council, but vest ing all author ity in the congre ga tion, which in its monthly meet ings decides concern ing the re ception of new members and all other matters pertain ing to the Church, This consti tu tion served as a model in the MIS SOURI SYNOD. The IOWA SYNOD adopted Loehe’s consti tu tion in the greatly simpli fied form given to it at a pastoral confer ence, held in April, 1855.7 A pecu liar ity of this consti tu ti on consists in this, that pastors and offi cers of the synod are given a part in calling the minis ters. The pres ident of the synod suggests a candi date, while the elec tion by congre ga tional vote takes place in the presence uf some clergy man, if it is at all possi ble. It is not clear where the author ity to depose an un wor thy minis ter rests. Can didates for member ship announce their in ten tion to the pas tor, and they “are re ceived among the cat- echu mens.” A re vision (1850) added some reg u la tions con cern ing se cret soci eties, dances, etc. This consti tu tion had as yet no rules about congre gational meet ings, property and offi cers. Here the churches were to be guided by the rules of the state in which they were located. An entirely new consti- tution was prese nted in 1877 (by Deindo er fer), and came into general use. Here those for mer pecu liar ities have dis appeared. The congre ga tion has supreme author ity, and, while in case of un set tled contro versies it may ask the ad vice of the synod, such ad vice ends with the force of its argu ments. All these consti tu tions, whether Presby te rian or Con grega tional in char- acter , rest on the PRIN CI PLE, expressed in the Formula of Con cord:8 “That the Church of God of every place and every time has. accord ing to its cir cum- stances, the author ity, power and right to change, to dimin ish and to in-

302 crease them (the cer emonies), with out thoughtless ness and offense, in an or derly and becom ing way, as at any time it may be re garded most prof- itable, most bene fi cial and the best for good or der. Chris tian dis ci pline, anrl the ed ifi cation of the Church.”

2. Syn od ical Consti tutions.

Muhlen berg took part in the com po si tion of the CON STI TU TION OF THE MIN IS- TERIUM OF PENN SYL VA NIA OF 1781. This docu ment, al though not recorded in the pro tocol un til 1781, was com pleted in 1778.9 It was re vised in 1792 and again in 1841. An al most entirely new consti tu tion, was adopted in 1867. The latter was re vised in 1886 and in 1906. The con stitu tion of 1792 became the model for the synod ical consti tutions of the NEW YORK MIN IS TERIUM of 1794 (re vised in 1816, 1870, 1883) and of the JOINT SYNOD OF OHIO (1824 and 1848). On this same consti tu tion (of 1792) is also based the consti tu tion which the GEN ERAL SYNOD rec om- mended to its districts and which has been the instru ment for the orga ni zation of all synods that were ever connected with that body. The SYN ODS OF THE SOUTH also used this con stitu tion. The Gen eral Synod adopted it in 1829 (cf. § 11, 1, a), revised it some what in 1835 and 1864 and more thor oughly in 1875. The con stitu tion of 1792 conferred upon lay del egates the right to vote (with cer tain lim ita tions), which in the consti tu tion of 1781 was given only to the pastors. Even tually the lay men re ceived the vot ing priv ilege un- re servedly. The MIS SOURI SYNOD PUR SUED A PATH OF ITS OWN. The con stitu tion which Walther suggest ed at the first meet ing was adopted as the basis for the founding of the Mis souri Synod (cf. § 22, 4). When the divi si on into districts took place (1854). this con stitu tion was re vised and is still valid.10 How ever, since 1914 a com mit tee has been autho rized to make new re visions. But such a re vision will have to be submit ted to every congre ga tion before it can be accepted. While Walther’s consti tu tion for the con grega tion is very brief, the one for the synod is exceed ingly lengthy, contain ing at first (1846) 90 and later (1854) 120 sections. It dis plays the dread of hier ar chy. The synod is composed of the lo cal congre ga tions which unite for com mon work. Con grega tions are repre sented by pastors and lay del egates. The vote is confined to pas tors of congre ga tions who have actu ally united with the synod. Pastors emeriti and profes sors are only advi sory members. Only

303 upon spe cial invi ta tion can the synod take part in the elec tion or the depo sition of a pastor . The consti tu tion contains a great deal which properly belongs to works on pastoral the ology , to church leg is la tion as a branch of science and to the minutes of synods. It can be changed only by the vote of all congre ga tions connected with the synods. There is, for instance, the proposi tion of changin g the mode of elect ing profes sors. Not even that could be done with out previ ously consult ing all the congre ga tions. Offi cers are elected for a pe riod of three years. THE BUF FALO SYNOD at first was gov erned by the rules on church gov ernment as they prevailed in Sax ony and Pomera nia, adding thereto in 1861. Not un til 1886 did it com pose its own consti tu tion, which by greatly al tering the orig inal hier ar chi cal fea tures, puts the Buffalo Synod practi cally on the same basis as other synods. The differ ence is largely one of phrase ology, and a res o lution re quir ing proper inter preta tion would re move the last rem nant of what this synod orig inally stood for (comp. § 23, 1). THE IOWA SYNOD had no real syn od ical consti tu tion un til 1864, but in place of it a num ber of res o lutions bear ing on the admin is tra tion of the synod. The consti tu tion of 1864,11 con taining only 31 brief para graphs, was re vised in 1869, 1873 (di vision into dis tricts), and added to in 1879 and 1888 (rep re senta tion of districts in a general body). In 1904 all sec tions sub- jected to al ter ations were put into a class by themselves, and thus the con sti- tution was greatly simpli fied. The lead ing idea is the central iza tion in the synod of all efforts for the com mon cause. The dis tricts (as in the Mis souri Synod) are merely ter ri torial subdi vi sions, ar ranging local matters, and serv ing as the instru ment of the general body for the guardianship over doctrine and prac tice of the indi vid ual pastors and congre ga tions. All minis ters who, though their congre ga tions are not connected with the synod, take a part in the general work, are en ti tled to vote, while, as to the laymen, this priv ilege is given only to del eg ates of congre ga tions which have actu ally united with the synod.

1. O. Kraushaar, p. 7.↩ 2. O. Kraushaar, pp. 18-25.↩ 3. O. Kraushaar, p. 26.↩ 4. O. Kraushaar, pp. 83-84.↩

304 5. O. Kraushaar, pp. 107-113.↩ 6. O. Kraushaar, pp. 126-129.↩ 7. The first form vainly sought by Prof. Kraushaar is found in the synod i- cal chroni cles, pp. 8-10; the alter ations of 1856 on p. 16.↩ 8. Ja cobs’ Book of Concord, p. 645, a.↩ 9. O. Kraushaar, pp. 234-244.↩ 10. Some de mand ing amrnd ments. ↩ 11. O. Kraushaar, pp. 373-376.↩

305 12. Gen eral Re view.

§ 35. A Dis cus sion of the Devel op ment of the Lutheran Church in America.

Through Muhlen berg the early Lutheran congre ga tions were placed upon the bas is of the Lutheran con fes sions. It is true that Muhlen berg’s Lutheranism lacked the clear vi sion that comes only as a re sult of conflict with op posing tenden cies. With the excep tion of the stand against the ad herents of Zinzen dorf, we do not no tice any partic u lar the o log ical op po si tion, on the part of Muhlen berg, to the vari ous Re formed influ ences which sur- rounded him. We may even dis cover some em bryonic prin ci ples which, in their ulti mate devel op ment, contrib uted towards produc ing a question able type of Lutheranism (of. § 9). But there was not much of this with Muhlen- berg, and it was un inten tional on his part. He would have re jected the de vel- op ment which ap peared later in “Ameri can Lutheranism.” Con nection with Ger many was in ter rupted for a time by the War of In de- pendence. For several years but few lay men and minis ters im migrated to this country . This at least brought the advan tage that the -Amer ican Church was not al together swamped with the Ra tional ism then dom inat ing Ger- many. On the other hand, however , we no tice that a ten dency to ward union- ism, which is ever char acter is tic of Pietism, made head way in that pe riod. The men who founded the Gen eral Synod were anxious to pres erve the iden tity of the Lutheran Church in this country . It was un for tu nate, however, that they had drifted away from the Lutheranism of Muhlen berg, and had un consciously inhaled the at mos phere of doctri nal indif fer entism, and thus could not appre ci ate the fact that the his toric Lutheran Church can exist only on a confes sional basis. A fur ther misfor tune was the withdrawal of the Minis terium of Penn syl vania (1823) and the lack of coop er ation on the part of the Joint Synod of Ohio and the Synod of Tennes see. Even if there were un-Lutheran ten dencies in these synods, es pecially in the Penn syl vania and Ohio, yet, because of their Ger man blood, these synods adhered with great tenac ity to the tra ditions of the past, and would have given an entirely differ ent char acter to later devel op ments, had they taken a part in the forming of the General Synod. Thus the Gen eral Synod as sumed an Eng lish

306 physiog nomy from the very begin ning, los ing the advan tage of Ger man influ ences, and this, too, at a time when Ger many, re act ing against Ra tional- ism and the Union, was expe ri encing a great re vival of Lutheran conscious- ness. Lay men and minis ters who ar rived from Ger many with a faith re- newed and strength ened, steered clear of the Gen eral Synod, and joined other syn ods, which thus acquired excel lent ma te rial for their congre gations, and es pecially a supe rior class of the o log ical schol ars. The confes- sional el ement in the Gen eral S3 mod re mained in the minor ity , its press and sem inary being controlled by leaders of “Amer ican Lutheranism.” With the influx of other synods (Hartwick, Frankean, East Ohio and Melanchthon synods), which, on account of their doctri nal lax ity, preferred the Gen eral Synod to other syn ods, the char acter of the Gen eral Synod beca me increas- ingly lukewarm, un til it reached the climax of Lib er al ism in the “Def inite The o log ical Platform.” A re acti on was bound to fol low. Under the lead er ship of the Penn syl vania Synod, which had re turned to the Gen eral Synod, and whose lead ers were men of strong Lutheran convic tions, a rupture took place at Fort Wayne, re sulting in the forming of the Gen eral Coun cil. The explicit com- ments on this move ment in preced ing pages (§§ 9 and 10) make repe ti tion un neces sary; yet we may raise the question: “Was this ruptu re un avoid- able?” Those who answer in the affir ma tive re fer to the devel op ment of the Gen eral Coun cil, which has, un hin dered by antag o nis tic influ ences, devel- oped into a body of faith ful ness to Lutheran stan dards and of adapt ability to the Amer ican people. Oth ers — good Luther ans, too — answ er ing in the nega tive, argue that, if the Gen eral Synod has grown more con ser vative in spite of the ex o dus of the Gen eral Coun cil, how much more rapid such a devel op ment would have been, had the with draw ing el ement re mained with the orga ni za tion (giv ing to it the bene fit of its views) instead of antag o niz- ing it by a schism! But since the sepa ra tion has taken place, we must deal with facts instead of phi los o phiz ing about possi bili ties. We simply re peat that the way which was not cho sen was not al together impass able. Had the two el ements re mained together , severe con flicts might have con tinued for a while, but the re sult would not have been doubt ful. Wher ever negations and affir ma tions clash, affir ma tions will conquer in the end, al though negations un der cer tain cir cum stances may make valu able contri bu tions to the develop ment of affir ma tions.

307 The founding of the Gen eral Coun cil led nat u rally to the full ac ceptance of all the Lutheran confes sions. Dr. Krauth had al ready re al ized that the adoption of the Augs burg Con fes sion in its his tor ical sig nif icance was a matter of vital impor tance. A fur ther impe tus to this po si tion was given by the prospect of at tract ing synods of very conser vative views. That a defi nite and orga nic union among all con ser vative Luther ans failed, was due to the fact that the Gen eral Coun cil could not concede in matters of practice what was de manded by the West ern syn ods. Along side of the old synods of the East (Gen eral Synod, Gen eral Coun- cil, United Synod of the South), the synods of the West formed an inde pendent stream. We are thinking of the Syn ods of Mis souri, Buffalo, 1 Iowa, Wis consin, Min nesota, the Swedes and the Nor we gians. While Ohio belongs to the older synods, it has gradu ally adopted the at ti tude of the West- ern syno ds. Men like Walther, Loehe, Wyneken, Grabau, Loy devel oped a confes sional wing which not only accepts all the sym bols of the Lutheran Church, but insists on abso lute doctri nal unity, does its parochial work on the old Lutheran basis, and in its prac tice takes a bold po si tion against the Ameri can spirit (church fel low ship and se cret soci eties). The ma jor ity of these synods are united in the Synod ical Con fer ence.2 A medi tat ing po si tion, em body ing vital el ements of truth, is occu pied by Iowa. While Missouri and conge nial synods have, in their pursuit of “dog- mati cal-tra di tional” ideals, sev ered their connec tion with the Church in Ger- many, Iowa has adhered to a “his toric-ex eget ical” point of view both in the adoption of the confes sions and in the prin ci ple of “open questions.” Be ing in more or less accord with the posi tive the ology of Ger many, it is also closely re lated to the General Coun cil. The Gen eral Synod has grown more conser vative. For a long time the founding of the Gen eral Coun cil and the bitter ness re sulting there from, im- peded such a devel op ment. But af ter the smoke of bat tle had cleared away, the way was open for an impar tial consid er ation of the confes sional questions. The Con ser vatives constan tly gained in influ ence. The cul mina tion of this confes sional move ment was reached at the Rich mond conven tion (1909). See the res o lutions on pages 451-453. The confes sional po si tion as fi nally expressed was not exactly the po si tion of the Gen eral Coun cil. The Gen eral Synod did not put the Secondary Sym bols on the same level with the Augsbur g Con fes sion, but she declared that by accept ing the Augs burg Con fes sion she meant the In vari ata, and that she consid ered the Secondary

308 Sym bols to be of “great his tor ic al and inter preta tive value.” In the express adoption of the Unal tered Augs burg Con fes sion the Gen eral Synod once for all squared it self with his tor ical Lutheranism; for it means the ac ceptance of Luther’s the ology as contrasted with that of Melanchthon, partic u larly along the two his tor ically impor tant lines of Free Will and the Means of Grace.3 While the Gen eral Synod does not com mit herself to every view expressed in the Sec ondary Sym bols, yet, by adopted the Invari ata and rec og niz ing the his tor ical and inter preta tive value of the Secondary Sym bols, she has placed herself in the po si tion of rec og niz ing the le giti mate devel op ment of the Au- gustana, as that devel op ment has taken place in the Lutheran Church; that is, she accepts the Augus tana in the his tor ical sense. While the Coun cil was formed by Ger mans, the de vel op ment in the Gen- eral Synod was in the hands of the Eng lish el ement, supported by the Ger- mans. How ever, an es sential differ ence re mains between the Syn od ical Con fer- ence, Ohio, Buff alo, Iowa and the stricter Nor we gians, on the one hand, and the Coun cil, the Gen eral Synod and the United Synod of the South, on the other. The for mer group is being largely dom inated by the Ger man spirit. It adheres to Ger man ideals of disci pline and consis tency, express ing themselves in the appli ca tion of confes sional prin ci ples to congre ga tional practice; while the latter synods demand an increas ing adapta tion to the Ameri- can spirit. Here any defects in parochial affairs are to be overc ome, not by synod ical dis ci pline, but by a gradual edu cation. The prac ti cal views of the Ameri can take the place of German con sis tency of action. But in spite of such a differ ence, the prospects for the union of Ameri can Luther ans are brighter today than ever before. All agree in rec og niz ing the Bible as the sole source, rule and stan dard of faith, accept the Augs burg Con fes sion in its his tor ical sense, and are convinced that the Lutheran Church stands for the most perfect form of re li gion which has been re vealed to us by his tory. We may men tion as a symp tom of reap proach ment the mod er ate tone being ob served in doctri nal dis cussions, and also the re spect- ful treat ment mu tually ac corded by the organs of op posing syn ods.

§ 36. Review of the Ex ten sion of the Lutheran Church in America.

309 The Lutheran Church began as a tiny plant. Tt had small begin nings in two local ities: New York and Penn syl vania. Later we no tice scat tered set tlements along the At lantic Coast as far south as Georgia. Since immi gra tion was largely directed to Penn syl vania, this state has ever recorded the strongest growth of Lutheran churches. In the begin ning of the nine teenth century the stream of immi gra tion, cross ing the moun tains, flowed toward the West, and re sulted in strong Lutheran set tlements, es pecially in In dian a and Ohio, where the desce n dants of East ern Luther ans (New York. Penn syl vania, Vir- ginia) es tab lished them selves. The great immi gra tion of the nine teenth century flooded the country with Ger man set tlers. These filled the East ern church, which had been losing ground by the angli ciza tion of its members, formed new congre ga tions and even tually covered the whole West. Fi nally the stream of immi gra tion — then largely com posed of people who had set tled in the United States — was directed to ward New Eng land. Thus in course of time we find a strong Lutheran Church in America. Sta tistics, ever fluc tuat ing, have lit tle purpose. Suffice it to men tion th^ states in which the Lutheran Church com pares fa vorably with the denom i- nations: Min nesota, Wis consin, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Penn syl vania and Ne braska; or ar ranged accord ing to the nu mer ical strength of Luther ans: Penn syl vania, Wis consin, Min nesota, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Iowa, Michi gan. In diana, Ne braska, Mis souri, Mary land. Sta tistics of 1910 locate Luther ans in ev ery State of the Union.4 In Ger many and America, among friends and foes, it has become cus- tomary to com plain of the un happy divi sions of the Lutheran Church in America. Some one, re veal ing his own igno rance, has spoken of 60 kinds of Luther ans. There are, to be sure, four large orga ni za tions and 16 smaller synods. But none will se ri ously as sert that the Finns, the Ice landers, the Danes and the Nor we gians, though iso lated in their own spheres, repre sent differ ent types of Lutheranism. Nor can it be said that Iowa and Ohio, while maintain ing inde pen dent orga ni za tions, are differ ent kinds of Luther ans. There are, in fact, only three div isions of Luther ans in this coun try: one repre sent ing con fes sional indif f er entism; another a rigid confes sion al ism; and a third a con ser vative Lutheranism. But these are not al ways confined to syn od ical lim its. The his tory of the Lutheran Church in this country has been marked by vio lent contro versies. Look ing at these from the viewpoint of Chris tian

310 char ity, we do not doubt that much offense has been given. Men have mistaken their personal opin ions for the divine truth. Human ob stinacy may have been subst ituted for holy zeal. But, on the whole, it must be conceded that the un derly ing purpose has been loy alty to the Word of God. These contro versies prove that the Church has not lost its vital ity , and is still able to defy the new “science,” with its scorn of an in fal li ble Bible. We have called at ten tion to the diffi cul ties of Lutheran progress. The stage of tran si tion which marks the ris ing gener ation, linguis tic and national prej u dices, have of ten stood in the way. Again there has been a lack of com- petent men. But the Church has taken hold of these problems in an ener - getic spirit, prepar ing its minis ters and meet ing condi tions in America, where it now oc cupies the third place among the Protes tant churches. The impres sion is gain ing ground that this era of Ameri can Neo-Ra tio nal ism demands as its special anti dote the firm po si tion of the Lutheran Church. Preach ing Christ cruci fied, the jus ti fi cation by grace of the re pentant sin ner, it will give rest to the souls that starve un der mod ern pul pits. May the Lutheran Church ever treasure the teach ing of Holy Scrip ture concern ing sin and sal vatio n; for the preser vation of the old Gospel is her God-given mission in this age of chang ing con ditions and wa vering faith.

37. Ap pen dices.

I. The Daven port Theses. (§ §29; 23, 11.)

[1] The old est sub jects of contro versy between the Synod of Iowa and the Synod of Mis souri are the doctri nes of the Church and of the Min istry. Con- cern ing the doctrine of the Church we could not agree with the Synod of Mis souri when it declared that the Church in its nature is invis ible in the sense that all that belongs to its vis ibil ity must be excluded from the defi nition of its na ture. [2] On the other hand, we maint ained that the Church is, indeed , chiefly the com mu nion of the Holy Ghost and of faith in the heart, but that it is also the com mu nion of the Word and the Sacra ments, and that in this sense it is at once vis ible and in vis ible. [3] Since Mis souri in its col loqu ium with Buffalo has conceded that the com mu nion of the means of grace must be reck oned as a part of the nature

311 of the Church, we no longer re gard ourselves as hold ing views on this point in op po si tion to those of Mis souri. [4] On the doctr ine of the minist ry, we cannot concede that, acco rd ing to the con fes sion of our Church, the ministry orig inates through the transfer - ence of the rights of the spir itu al priest hood possessed by the indi vid ual Chris tian. [5] In op po si tion to this view, we maintain that the pub lic offi ce of the ministry is transmit ted by God through the congre ga tion of bel iev ers in its entirety and essence by means of the regu lar call, because the “man datum de con stituendis ministris” (i.e., the com mand to or dain preach ers) is not given to the in divid ual members, but to the Church as such. [6] In connec tio n with the cont ro versy concern ing the Church and the ministry , a differ ence of at ti tude towards the Church’s Sym bols became man ifest. While Mis souri exten ded the obliga tion of the sym bols to all the state ments contained in them with out excep tion, we lim ited the obliga tion to those state ments to which the sym bols intended to give sym bol ical fixed- ness; and accord ingly we dis tinguished between the theti cal and anti theti cal deci sions as the substance of the confes sions which is bind ing on the conscience, and the casual elab o ra tions, proofs, etc., as parts which do not possess im me diate and in depen dent sym bol ical au thor ity. [7] At the col lo quium at Milwau kee, Mis souri abandoned the as ser tion that each and every doctrine which occurs in any man ner in the sym bols is on that very acc ount bind ing; and we on our part abandoned the at tempts, by means of a dis tinction betwe en confes sional state ments and elab o ra tive or demon strative state ments, to define the bound ary between what is binding and what is not bind ing in the sym bols. An agree ment was reached, in accor dance with which both sides desig nated all the ar ti cles of faith contained in the sym bols as confes sion ally bind ing. [8] In the doctrine concern ing the Last Things, which formed another subject of contro versy between us and Mis souri, the first point to be mentioned is the doctrine of the An tichrist. Mis souri maintained that the An- tichrist, in the real sense of the word, is the pope alone and exclu sively: but with this asser tion we can not agree. [9] As re gards the pope, we accept all the decla ra tions of our Sym bol ical Books con cern ing his anti-Chris tian char acter , and acknowl edge that all the marks of Antichrist which they enumer ate agree with the pope’s king dom and mem bers.

312 [10] But while we hereby acknowl edge our accep tance of the state ments of our con fes sion concern ing the Antichrist as found by our fa thers in Dan. 11. and of the appli ca tion which they made of those marks to the papacy , we cann ot concede that the re spective passages in our Sym bol ical Books claim to exhaust the exeget ical inter preta tion of the prophecies cited, and we do not re gard it as being in conflict with our confes sion for anyone to hold that the person i fi cation of all these anti-Chris tian ele ments in a par ticu- lar in divid ual is foretold. [11] As re gards the so-called Chil iasm, we agree with our op po nents in re ject ing every doctrine of a thou sand years’ reign which would at any time rob the spir itual king dom of our Lord of its char acter as a spir itual king dom of grace and the cross, and conv ert it into an out ward, earthly and worldly king dom. [12] On the other hand, while we do not as a synod differ from our op po- nents by accept ing any form of Chil iasm, the belief that the reign of Christ and His saints for a thou sand years, as prophe sied in the 20th chapter of the Rev ela tion of St. John, is still a matter of ful fillment in the fu ture, is re- garded by us as an opin ion which the Church may toler ate, and not as an error ne cessi tating ex clu sion from our church-fellow ship. [13] Since Mis souri, on its part, has re tracted the as ser tion that each and every form of Chiliasm, even the subtle and most subtle, is not only er ro- neous, but consti tutes an er ror which neces si tates exclu sion from church fel lowship, and we on our part have, to the sat is fac tion of our op po nents, corrected the expres sions to which Mis souri ob jected, partic u larly with re- spect to a fu ture two-fold com ing of Christ, the differ ence between us on this point is substan tially confined to the doctrine of the first res ur rec tion in Rev. 20. [14] Mis souri not only most de cid edly re jects such an inter preta tion of this pass age as would apply it to a bod ily res ur rec tion from the dead, but as- serts that any ac ceptance of a par tial res ur rec tion before the general res ur- rec tion is in it self a denial of the gen eral res ur rec tion, and there fore a fun damen tal er ror, in con nection with which a chilias tic opin ion which might other wise be tol er ated be comes a schismat i cal heresy. [15] We, on the contrary , nei ther desire to deliver any offi cial synod ical opin ion as to whether this passage must be un derstood as re fer ring to a bod- ily or to a spir it ual res ur rec tion, nor can we see in the accep tance of a partial res ur rec tion preced ing the general res ur rec tion the shadow of a heresy,

313 since in Matt. 27, at least, such a partial previ ous res ur rec tion is taught beyond the possi bility of contra dic tion or doubt. And fi nally we can never concede that an oth er wise un ob jec tionable view of the so-called thou sand years’ reign can become an hereti cal er ror through the inter preta tion of Rev. 20:4 as a bod ily res ur rec tion, provided that no at tempt is made to spec- ify how and where this reign of the risen saints shall take place. [16] In the course of our eccle si as ti cal contro versies, the real funda mental differ ence between Mis souri and Iowa has been seen to be the recog nition of “open questions,” the ex is tence of which has on our part been acknowl edged and proved, but which has on the part of Mis souri been ener - get ically de nied. [17] By this expres sion we do not, of course, mean to say that the re- spective doctrine s are in themse lves doubt ful or un cer tain, nor yet that they may be ar bitrar il y accepted or re jected, but simply that they are not to be re- garded as involv ing sepa ra tion from church-fel low ship. In dis tinction from ar ti cles of faith, with re spect to which there must exist within an eccle si as tical body perfect unanim ity , we have al ways un derstood “open questions” to mean such doctrines as might be the subject of differ ence of views with out thereby destroy ing the brother hood of faith or eccle si as ti cal fel low ship. [18] Open quest ions in this sense cannot be such doctrines as are neces- sary to sal vation or to the exis tence of the Church, but only such as ei ther are not touched upon in God’s Word at all, or at least are not taught in perfectly clear passages of Scrip ture — doctrines concern ing which, therefore, no conse n sus has been reached in the Church, but with re spect to which differ ences of view have always been found among or tho dox teach ers. In ad dition to the points men tioned above, we include among these doctrines that concern ing Sun day, i.e.. that in the New Tes ta ment the ob ser vance of a par- ticu lar day rests for the Chris tians in no wise upon a divine com mand, but only upon an inner ne cessity . [19] Mis souri, on the other hand, re gards has union ism to speak of doctri nal opin ions which may be per mit ted to stand side by side in the Church, and at the col lo quium at Milwau kee declared that such a diffe r ence could be toler ated only when it re ferred to points concern ing which God’s Word contains no state ment at all, while in all doctrines drawn from the Scrip- tures, whether they bear upon faith or life, there must neces sar ily be only one opin ion.

314 [20] Re cently, however , Mis souri has been obliged, by the course of the contro versy on usury in her own midst, to abandon her prin ci ple and to adopt ours. [21] The partic u lar decla ra tion of our op po nents in which we find this acknowl edgment of the prin ci ples expressed is the fol low ing: "Know them, every one who desires to know, that we know how to dis tinguish between ar ti cles of faith and such doctri nes of Scrip ture as are not ar ti cles of faith. We do not, indee d, permit any doctrine of Scrip ture, whether it ap pear great or small, to be made an open ques tion; but while we re gard it neces sary to contend to the utter most for eve ry ar ti cle of faith as one on which our faith and hope depend , to condemn the op posing er ror, and to deny fel low ship to those who ob stinately contra dict, we by no means re gard it nece ssary un der all cir cum stances to go to the utmost extreme in contend ing for other doctrines of Scrip ture which are not ar ti cles of faith, much less to pass the sentence of condem nation upon the op posing er ror, though we re ject it, nor to deny to those who err on this point the fel low ship of faith. “If in any contro versy the question is one concern ing doctrines which do not belo ng to the ar ti cles of faith, then for us all depends on whether the oppo nents show that they gain say because they do not want to sub ject themselves to God’s Word, that is, whether, while they appar ently let the funda- men tal doctrine s of God’s Word stand, they overturn the foun dation on which all those doc trines rest, namely, God’s Word.”

II. The Thirteen Proposi tions Of Missouri Concern ing Election. (§ § 23, 111; 28, 2c; 29.)

Proposi tion 1. We belie ve, teach and confess that God loved the whole world from eternity, cre ated all men for sal vat ion, and none for damna tion, and that He earnestly wills the sal vation of all men. And we re ject and cond emn, therefore, with all our heart, the oppos ing Calvin is tic doc trine.

Proposi tion 2. We belie ve, teach and confess that the Son of God came into the world for all men, bore and atoned for the sins of all men, and re deemed all men without ex ception; and we re ject and condemn, therefore, with all our heart the op posing Calvin is tic doc trine.

315 Proposi tion 3. We belie ve, teach and confess that God through the means of grace calls men earnestly, that is, with the pur pose that through the call they shall come to re pentance and faith, continue in it also to the end, and thus fi nally ob tain sal vation; and that to this end God through the means of grace offers to them the sal vation acquired by Christ’s sat is fac tion, and the power to appre- hend it by faith: and we re ject and condemn, therefore, with all our heart, the op posing Calvin is tic doc trine.

Proposi tion 4. We believe, teach and confess that no man will be lost because God did not desire to save him and passed him by with His grace, nor becau se God did not offer to him also the grace of stead fastness or did not desire to bestow it upon him; but that all men who are lost, are lost through their own fault, namely, because of their un belief, and because they ob stinately re sist the Word and grace lo the end; and that the “cause for this despis ing of the Word is not God’s knowl edge (vel prae sci entia vel praes desti na tio), but the perverse will of man, who re jects or perverts the means and instru ment of the Holy Ghost which God offers him through the call, and re sists the Holy Ghost who wishes to be effi cacious and works through the Word; as Christ says: ‘How of ten would I have gath ered …and ye would not,’ Matt. 23, 27” (Book of Con cord, Müller 713, Ja cobs 656). We therefore re ject and condemn with all our heart the oppos ing Calvin is tic doc trine.

Proposi tion 5. We believe, teach and confess that the subjects of elec tion or predes ti nation are only the truly believ ing, who till the end or at the end of their life truly believe; we re ject and condemn, therefore, the er ror of Huber , that elec tion is not par ticu lar but gen eral and in cludes all men.

Proposi tion 6. We believe, teach and confess that the divine decree of elec tion is im- mutable, and that therefore no elect person can become repro bate and be lost, but that ev ery elect person cer tainly will be saved; and we re ject and condemn, there fore, with all our heart the oppos ing er ror of Huber .

Proposi tion 7.

316 We believe, teach and confess that it is fool ish and perilous to the soul and leads ei ther to car nal se curity or to despair , to seek by means of inquiry into the eter nal divine se cret decree to acquire a cer tain persua sion of our election or of our fi nal sal vation; and we re ject and condemn with all our heart the op posing doc trine as a perni cious fanati cism.

Proposi tion 8. We believe, teach and confess that a believ ing Chris tian should seek through God’s re vealed will to become cer tain of his elec tion: and we re ject and condemn, therefore, with all our heart the op posing papal er ror, that we can become cer tain of our elec tion or sal vation only through a new imme diate reve la tion.

Proposi tion 9. We belie ve, teach and confess: 1. That elec tion does not consist simply in the fact that God foreknew who would be saved; 2. that elec tion, fur ther, is not simply the deter mina tion of God to re deem and save men, and therefore a gen eral elec tion, includ ing all men; 3. that elec tion does not in clude those who bel ieve only for a while (Luke 8:13); 4. that elec tion is not simply a decree of God that all those who believe to the end shall be saved; we re ject and condemn, therefore, with all our heart the op posing er rors of Ra tional- ists, Hu berists and Armini ans.

Proposi tion 10. We belie ve, teach and confess that the cause which moved God to choose the elect is solely His grace and the merit of Je sus Christ, and not some good which God fore saw in the elect, not even the faith which God fore saw in them; and we re ject and con demn, therefore, the op posing doctrines of Pela gians, semi-pela gians and syner gists as blas phemous, dread ful er rors, which over turn the Gospel and with it the en tire Christian re li gion.

Proposi tion. 11. We beli eve, teach and confess that elec tion is not simply the divine pre- science or fore knowl edge of the sal vation of the elect, but that it is also a cause of their sal vation and of all that belongs to it; and we re ject and condemn, therefore, with all our heart the op posing doctrines of the Armini ans. Socinians and all syn ergists.

317 Proposi tion 12. We belie ve, teach and confess that, with re spect to the mys tery of elec tion, God has “still kept much un told and hid den, and re served solely for his own wisdom and knowl edge,” which no man can or should search out; and we condemn, therefore, the at tempt to search out these things which have not been re vealed, and to harmo nize with our rea son what appears to contra dict our rea son, whether this be done by Calvinis tic or by Pela gian-syner gis tic hu man doc trines.

Proposi tion 13. We believe, teach and confess that it is not only not useless and still less danger ous, but neces sary and salu tary to proclaim pub licly to the Chris tian people the mys teri ous doctrine of elec tion, in so far as it is clearly re vealed in God’s Word; and we do not agree with those, therefore, who think that this doc trine is one concern ing which we should keep si lence or which we should dis cuss only among the learned.

III. The Toledo Theses.

I. The sis. The Church. The Church, in the proper sense of the term, is the com mu nion of true be- lievers as it is begot ten through the means of grace and as by their use it ed- ifies itself. From this it follows: [a] Accord ing to its real essence the Church is, and re mains inv is ible on this earth. [b] Com mon partic i pa tion in the means of grace is the neces sary form of the Church’s appear ance and the infal li ble mark of its exis tence; and in so far the Church is vis ible.

II. Thesis. The Office of the Min istry. [a] The rights and du ties of the spir itual priest hood com prehend not only the gene ral com mand and call that believ ers re duce to prac tice their fel lowship in the Gospel and their right and ti tle to the means of grace, and ac- cordingly teach and admon ish one another in every man ner, but also that with out special call, they preach the Word to heathens and un believ ers, and in case of neces s ity, admin is ter the sacra ment of baptism; and then also, that

318 they es tab lish the ottUe of the ministry , inas much as this office has been orig inally and im me diately given by Christ to the whole Church. [b] The office of the ministry rests upon a special com mand of the Lord, valid through out all time, and con sists in the right and power conferred by special call, to ad minis ter the means of grace pub licly and by com mission of the congre ga tion. [c] The call (to the pastorate) is a right of the congre ga tion within whose bounds the minis ter is to dis charge the office. Or dina tion is a pub lic and solemn con firma tion of the call; and is not an apostolic churchly custom or or der.

III. The sis. Atti tude to the Con fes sions. [a] A bind ing sub scription to the Con fes sions (of the Church) pertains only to the doctrines of the faith therein set forth, and to these all with out any ex- ception. [b] Whereas the doctrine of Sun day as taught in the Con fes sions is a doctrine re vealed in God’s Word, it is not to be excluded from the body of obliga tory dog mas.

IV. Thesis. Open Ques tion. [a] All doctrines re vealed clearly and plainly in the Word of God are, by virtue of the divine author ity of said Word, dog mati cally fixed as true and bind ing upon the conscience, whether they have been sym bol ically set tled as such or not. [b] There is within the Church of God no author ity whatever of depart- ing from any truths clearly re vealed by the Scrip tures, be their con tents consid ered fun damen tal or non-fun damen tal, impor tant or appar ently unimpor - tant. [c] Full agree ment in all ar ti cles of faith consti tutes the ir re miss ible con- dition of church-fel low ship. Persis tent er ror in an ar ti cle of faith must un der all circum stances lead to sep ara tion. [d] Perf ect agreement in all non-fun damen tal doctrines, though not at- tainable on earth, is, never the less, an end desir able and one we should la bor to attain. [e] Those who knowingly , ob du rately and persis tently contra dict the divine Word in any of its utter ances whatso ever , thereby overth row the or-

319 ganic founda tio n (of the faith), and are therefore to be excluded from church fel low ship.

V. Thesis. Chil iasm. [a] Any Chiliasm which concei ves the king dom of Christ to be some thing exter nal, earthly and af ter the man ner of the king doms of the world, and which teaches a res ur rec tion of all believ ers before the day of judg ment shall come, is a doctrine directl y contrary to the anal ogy of faith, and is to be re jected as such. [b] The belief of some, to wit, that the reign of Christ and His saints re- ferred to in Rev. 20, is an event belong ing to the fu ture, as also that the res- ur rec tion there spoken of is to be un derstood as a bod ily res ur rec tion of some be lievers unto life ever last ing, is an opin ion which, though not incom- pat ible with the anal ogy of faith, cannot be strictly proven from Scrip ture, no more than the spir itual in ter preta tion of said pas sages can be shown to be the true one.

VI. The sis. Predes ti na tion and Conver sion. [a] The er ror of Mis souri on predes ti nation we find to consist in this, that thereby the uni versal gracious will of God and His decree of elec tion are so sepa rated as to exclude one another , and that thus two contra dic tory wills are affir med of God. This er ror renders un safe the founda tion upon which our sal vation is based, and stamps as funda men tally wrong other state ments which might oth er wise admit of an ac cept able in ter preta tion. [b] Con cern ing conver sion, drawn into contro versy in connec tion with the doct rine on predes ti nation, we confess that, viewed as the plac ing or planting of a new spir itual life, conver sion does not depend to any extent whatso ever on any coop er ation, self-de ter mina tion or good conduct on the part of man, nor consist therein, but that it is wholly and solely the work of the Holy Ghost, work ing the same by His gracious power in the means of grace. On the other hand, howev er, we deny that the Holy Ghost works con- version accord in g to a mere plea sure of His elec tive will, or despite the most willful re sis tance, for exam ple, in the case of the elect; but we hold that by such stub born re sis tance both conver sion and eternal elec tion are hin dered.

IV. Statements Rel a tive To The General Synod’s Doc tri nal Basis.

320 (Adopted by the General Synod in 1909, in response to the General Coun cil’s The ses calling at tention to certain ap parent am bi gu i ties in the General Synod’s posi tion. Only the most impor tant para graphs are here given.)

While the Gen eral Synod’s for mula of confes sional subscrip tion men tions only the Augs burg Con fes sion, with out speci fy ing the terms, “al tered” and “unal tered,” yet it is a his tor ical fact that the Gen eral Synod has never subscribed to any edi tion of the con fes sion save the “unal tered” form, and does not now subscribe to any other edi tion. This is known as the Edi tio Prin ceps of 153O-31. and is precisely the edi tion from which a transla tion was prepared by a joint com mit tee of the Gen eral Synod, the Gen eral Coun cil, the United Synod of the South, and the Joint Synod of Ohio, “as a com mon Stan dard of the Augs burg Con fes sion in Eng lish.” (See page 299 of the Gen eral Synod’s Book of Wor ship with Hymns and Tunes.) Therefore, the edi tion of the Augsbur g Con fes sion re ceived by the Gen eral Synod is iden- ti cal with that received by the Gen eral Coun cil. (Min utes of the Gen eral Synod for 1909, pp. 56, 57.) When the Gen eral Synod says, in her for mula of confes sional subscrip- tion, that she accepts “the Augs burg Con fes sion as a correct exhi bi tion of the funda men tal doctrines of the Di vine Word and of the faith of our Church founded upon that Word,” she means precisely what she says, namely, that the funda men tal doc trines of God’s Word are correctly set forth in the Con fes sion. She does not mean that some of the doctrines set forth in the Con fes sion are non-fun dam ental, and therefore may be accepted or re- jected; she means that they are all funda men tal, and their exhi b ition in the Con fes sion is to be accepted by those who accept the Con fes sion… The Gen eral Synod therefore as serts that the chief or founda tion doctrines of God’s Word are set forth in the Con fes sion, and that they are cor rectly set forth therein. (Min utes, ut supra, p. 57.) RE SOLVED, That, inas much as the Augs burg Con fes sion is the orig inal, generic Con fes sion of the Lutheran Church, accepted by Luther and his coadju tors, and subscribed to by all Lutheran bod ies the world over, we therefore deem it an ade quate and suffi cient stan dard of Lutheran doctrine. In making this state ment, however , the Gen eral Synod in no wise means to imply that she ignores, re jects, re pu diates or antag o nizes the Secondary Sym bols of the Book of Con cord, nor for bids any of her members from accept ing or teach ing all of them, in strict accor dance with the Lutheran regu- la tive prin ci ple of jus ti fy ing faith. On the contrary , she holds those Sym bols

321 in high es teem, re gards them as a most valu able body of Lutheran belief, explain ing and un fold ing the doc trines of the Augs burg Con fes sion, and she hereby rec om mends that they be dili gently and faith fully stud ied by our minis ters and lay men. (Min utes, ut supra, p. 60.) WHEREAS, The phrase, “the Word of God as contained in the Canon ical Scrip tures of the Old and New Tes ta ments,” occurs in our for mula of confes sional sub scription; and, WHEREAS, When our fa thers framed this lan guage, the the o log ical dis- tinction between the two state ments, “The Bible is the Word of God,” and, “The Bible contains the Word of God,” had not yet been made, or at least was not yet in vogue, and therefore there could have been no inten tion on their part of com mit ting the Gen eral Synod to lax or hereti cal views of the inspi ra tion of the Sa cred Scrip tures, but, on the contrary , a sin cere desire to plant her firmly on the true doc trine of Bibli cal in spi ra tion; and, WHEREAS, The Gen eral Synod has ever occu pied the same po si tion with ref er ence to the true and com plete inspi ra tion of the Canon ical Scrip tures; therefore, RE SOLVED, That we here with declare our adher ence to the state ment, “The Bible is the Word of God,” and re ject the er ror implied in the statement, “The Bible contains the Word of God.” (Min utes, ut supra, pp. 60, 61.) NOTE. If the reader will now turn to page 184 of this book, and read the para graphs headed “Ar ti cle II. Doc tri nal Ba sis” and “Ar ti cle III. The Sec- ondary Sym bols,” he will see that the General Synod has happily elimi nated all ambi gu ity from her confes sional basis and state ments. These para graphs give the present confes sional sta tus of the Gen eral Synod. (§§ 11, 1, f: 35. p. 435 sq.)

1. -The men tion of Buffalo in this connec tion should not be surpris ing, when we re member that this synod was well repre sented in Wis consin.↩ 2. The Swedes united with the Coun cil. The Ohio Synod with drew, also the Nor we gian Synod. Mis souri never agreed with Iowa, which leaned toward the Coun cil. Some Nor wegians are inde pen dent. A union of all Nor we gians is un der con sid er ation. ↩

322 3. It involves es pecially Ar ti cles II, XVIII, IV, and V of the Augs burg Con fes sion as op posed to Syn ergism, and Ar ti cles V, IX and X, on the means of grace, with corre spond ing ar ti cles on both subjects in the Secondary Sym bols.↩ 4. See Carr oll’s “The Re li gious Forces of the U. S.,” re vised and brought down to 1910.↩

323 Copyright Notice

This book was pub lished 2020 by The Lutheran Library Publish ing Min istry Lutheran Li- brary.org. Some (hope fully unob tru sive) up dates to spelling, punctu ation, and para graph divi sions may have been made. Unabridged. The “Sec ond Re vised and En larged Edi tion” was the source of this Lutheran Library edi tion. Origi nally pub lished 1916 by The German Lit erary Board, Burling ton, Iowa. Im age on im print page is Still Life With Bible by Vin cent Van Gogh. This Lutheran Li brary .org book is released un der the Cre ative Commons At tribu tion 4.0 In ter national (CC BY 4.0) license, which means you may freely use, share, copy, or trans- late it as long as you provide attri bu tion to Lutheran Li brary .org, and place on it no further restric tions. The text and art work within are believed to be in the U.S. public do main. 370 – v5 ISBN: 9798567219522 (paper back)

324 How Can You Find Peace With God?

The most impor tant thing to grasp is that no one is made right with God by the good things he or she might do. Justi fi cation is by faith only, and that faith resting on what Je sus Christ did. It is by believ ing and trust ing in His one-time substi tu tion ary death for your sins. Read your Bible steadily. God works His power in hu man beings through His Word. Where the Word is, God the Holy Spirit is al ways present. Sug gested Read ing: New Tes tament Con versions by Pastor George Ger- berding

Benedic tion

Now unto him that is able to keep you from fall ing, and to present you fault less befo re the presence of his glory with exceed ing joy, To the only wise God our Sav ior, be glory and majesty, do min ion and power, both now and ever. Amen. (Jude 1:24-25)

Ba sic Bib li cal Christian ity | Books to Download

325 The Small Cat echism of Mar tin Luther The essen tials of faith have re mained the same for 2000 years. They are sum ma rized in (1) The Ten Command ments, (2) The Lord’s Prayer, and (3) The Apos tles’ Creed. Fa mil iar ity with each offers great protec tion against fads and falsehoods. The Way Made Plain by Si mon Pe ter Long A se ries of lec tures by the beloved Twen ti eth Cen tury Ameri can pastor on the ba sis of faith. Bible Teachings by Joseph Stump A primer on the faith intended for new believ ers. Rich in Scrip ture. Chris tian basics explained from Scrip ture in clear and jargon-free language. Many ex cel lent Bible studies can be made from this book.

Full cat alog avail able at Luther anLi brary.org. Many paper back edi tions at Ama zon.

Essen tial Theol ogy | Books to Down load

The Augs burg Con fes sion: An In tro duction To Its Study And An Ex posi tion Of Its Con tents by Matthias Loy “Sin cere be lievers of the truth revealed in Christ for man’s sal vation have no rea son to be ashamed of Luther, whom God sent to bring again to His people the precious truth in Je sus and whose heroic contention for the faith once deliv ered o the saints led to the es tab lishment of the Church of the Augs burg Con fes sion, now gener ally called the Evan gel ical Lutheran Church.” The Doc trine of Justi fi cation by Matthias Loy “Hu man rea son and incli na tion are al ways in their nat u ral state averse to the doctrine of Justi fi cation by faith. Hence it is no wonder that earth and hell com bine in persis tent efforts to banish it from the Church and from the world.”

326 The Con fes sional Prin ci ple by Theodore Schmauk Theodore Schmauk’s explo ration and defense of the Chris tian faith consists of five parts: Histor ical In tro duction; Part 1: Are Con fes sions Nec es sary?; Part 2: Con fes sions in the Church; Part 3: Lutheran Con- fes sions; and Part 4: The Church in America. Summary of the Chris tian Faith by Henry Eyster Ja cobs A Summ ary of the Chris tian Faith has been appre ci ated by Chris- tians since its orig inal pub li cation for its easy to use question and answer for mat, its clear orga ni za tion, and its cover age of all the es sentials of the Christian faith. Two es says on elec tion and predes t ina tion are in cluded, includ ing Luther’s “Specu la tions Con cern ing Pred es ti nation”.

Full cat alog avail able at Luther anLi brary.org. Many paper back edi tions at Ama zon.

De vo tional Clas sics | Books to Down load

Sermons on the Gospels by Matthias Loy. and Sermons on the Epis tles by Matthias Loy_ “When you feel your burden of sin weighing heavily upon you, only go to Him… Only those who will not acknowl edge their sin and feel no need of a Sav ior — only these are re jected. And these are not re jected because the Lord has no pity on them and no desire to deliver them from their wretched ness, but only because they will not come to Him that they might have life. They re ject Him, and therefore stand re- jected. But those who come to Him, poor and needy and help less, but trust ing in His mercy, He will receive, to comfort and to save.” The Great Gospel by Si mon Pe ter Long and The Eter nal Epis tle by Si- mon Pe ter Long

327 “I want you to un derstand that I have never preached opin ions from this pul pit; it is not a question of opin ion; I have abso lutely no right to stand here and give you my opin ion, for it is not worth any more than yours; we do not come to church to get opin ions; I claim that I can back up every ser mon I have preached, with the Word of God, and it is not my opin ion nor yours, it is the eternal Word of God, and you will find it so on the Judgment day. I have noth ing to take back, and I never will; God does not want me to.” True Chris tianity by John Arndt The Sermons of Theophilus Stork: A De votional Treasur e “There are many of us who believe; we are convinced; but our souls do not take fire at contact with the truth. Happy he who not only believes, but believ es with fire… This ener gy of belief, this ar dor of convic tion, made the com mon places of the Gospel, the old, old story, seem in his [Stork’s] utter ance some thing fresh and ir re sistibly at tractive. Men listened to old truths from his lips as though they were a new reve la tion. They were new, for they came out of a heart that new coined them and stamped its own impress of vital ity upon them as they passed through its ex peri ence…” – From the In tro duction

Full cat alog avail able at Luther anLi brary.org. Many paper back edi tions at Ama zon.

328