Section 5, declares: "The General Synod may give advice or opinion when

complaints shall be brought before them by whole synods, or

congregations, or individual ministers concerning doctrine or

discipline. The General Synod shall, however, be extremely careful that

the consciences of the ministers be not burdened with human laws, and

that no one be oppressed by reason of differences of opinion on

non-fundamental doctrines." (1829, 52; 1839, 49.) The original reading

of this section, as adopted 1820, omits the clause "on non-fundamental

doctrines" found in the constitution published in the minutes of 1829,

thus granting absolute doctrinal freedom. (Graebner, 708.) For the words

"human laws" the amended constitution of 1835 substitutes "human

inventions, laws, or devices." (1839, 49.) Dr. Spaeth: "As the bulk of

the confessional writings of the Lutheran Church was classified by the

leaders [Schmucker, Kurtz, etc.] with 'human inventions, laws, and

devices' or, at the very best, with 'non-fundamental doctrines,' any

pastor or professor might feel perfectly safe in throwing overboard the

mass of these symbolical books and their contents without fear of having

to answer for it." (334.) Article III, Section 8, evidently intended to

satisfy the craving for a closer union with the Reformed and other

Evangelical bodies, reads as follows: "The General Synod shall . . . be

sedulously and incessantly regardful of the circumstances of the times,

and of every casual rise and progress of unity of sentiment among

Christians in general, in order that the blessed opportunities to

promote concord and unity and the interests of the Redeemer's Kingdom

may not pass by neglected and unavailing." (1839, 50; 1829, 53.)--

According to Article III, Section 2, quoted in the preceding paragraph,

the General Synod claimed the right to propose to the special synods not

only catechisms, forms of liturgy, and collections of hymns, but also a

confession of faith. Appealing to this section, S. S. Schmucker, in

1855, claimed that he was within his constitutional rights in urging the

General Synod to substitute the Definite Platform for the Augsburg

Confession. Spaeth: "It was, with a good show of justice, claimed by the

American Lutheran side in the General Synod that the very constitution

of the body entitled it to make a new revision even of the Augsburg

Confession!" (335.) It was in keeping with these principles as well as

the conditions then prevailing in the Lutheran synods that the

constitution adopted at Hagerstown contained no confessional basis

whatever, not even a mere reference to the Augsburg Confession. Shober,

probably in order to obviate the charges of the Tennessee Synod, made an

effort to have a recognition of the Augsburg Confession incorporated in

the constitution, but failed. That the omission was intentional is

apparent also from the fact that the General Synod maintained its

silence in spite of the vigorous protests of the Tennessee Synod and her

refusal to join the general body, especially for the reason that neither

the Bible nor the Augsburg Confession was mentioned in its Constitution.

"With this constitution before him," says Spaeth, "the editor of the

_Lutheran Observer_, Dr. Benjamin Kurtz, in Baltimore, was right in

stating the case after this manner (_Lutheran Observer_, April 16, 1852):

'We admit that the General Synod never formally or by express resolution

repudiated or abandoned the doctrinal basis (as laid down in the

Augsburg Confession and the Catechism of Luther).' But did it ever

either formally or tacitly profess belief in that basis? What necessity

is there for a body formally to repudiate or abandon what it never

received or adopted? It is a notorious fact that the symbolic basis had

been abandoned in the Church, to a very great extent, before the General

Synod was called into existence, and at its organisation special pains

were taken to guard against all possibility of its future imposition

upon the Church. In defining the doctrinal position of the General

Synod, the manifest intention was to give to each other, and to

establish for posterity, a pledge that the doctrinal basis should never

be allowed to interfere with their consciences." (335f.)

EVALUATION.

19. Serving, in a Way, the Lutheran Church.--Apart from the name there

was nothing of genuine Lutheranism in the constitution of the General

Synod. "The name," said Dr. Mann in 1855, "is the most important

characteristic of the General Synod." "Hatte man," he continues, "dem

Leib die Knochen und die Eingeweide und das Herz herausgenommen, so

konnte man in den leeren Balg hineinschieben, was man wollte, und der

Name Lutherisch blieb ja." In a letter dated April 15, 1857, he said of

the General Synod: "Wer kann dieses mark- und kraftlose Ding, dieses

verwaschene, um jeden individuellen Zug gekommene Gesicht der

lutherischen Kirche gerne sehen?" (Spaeth, _W. J. Mann_, 174. 180.) C.

P. Krauth declared in 1845: "It cannot be denied that the name Lutherans

in this country simply states an historical fact without giving in any

case a sure index to the views, feelings, or practises of those who bear

it." (Spaeth, _C. P. Krauth_, 1, 119.) Yet, even the mere name, the mere

empty skin of Luther, was not without some value. It served as a

constant reminder of the lost crown, and kept numerous Lutherans from

joining the sects. The union of Lutherans into a general body gave a

standing to the Lutheran Church among the denominations, and thus, in a

way, strengthened the Lutheran consciousness. It diminished the

threatening danger of a merger with the Reformed in Pennsylvania and

with the Episcopalians and Presbyterians in North Carolina. And by

inserting the confession of "Jesus Christ as the Son of God and ground

of our faith and hope" into its constitution, the General Synod may also

have acted as a check on the inroads of Socinianism. Furthermore, the

General Synod created a certain interest in the Lutheran Church of

America abroad, especially in Germany, and roused her energies at home.

In 1825 the General Synod established a theological seminary at

Gettysburg, Samuel S. Schmucker being its first professor, with a free

dwelling and a salary of $500 for the first year. In the same year it

was "resolved that an agent be sent to Europe without delay, in order

to receive contributions in moneys and in books for the use of the

Seminary; and that our beloved and honored colleague Mr. Benjamin Kurtz

be such agent." (8.) The minutes of 1827 report that Kurtz had collected

$12,000. (27.) In 1837 Schmucker made a similar tour in America,

collecting from Congregationalists and others $14,917 for the Seminary

Fund. Only if Gettysburg will nourish, said I. Oswald in the Seminary

Report of 1837, "we can expect that the Gospel-trumpet will be blown

from the Wittenberg in America with the result that the Germans who have

settled in the various States and are scattered in our extended

countries (some of whom are famishing for lack of knowledge, and by

reason of circumstances are outcasts of the church) will hear and come

to adore the Lord in His holy mountain." (1837, 61.) In every direction

the General Synod developed a lively activity. In 1842, the year of the

Muhlenberg centennial jubilee, the General Synod made strenuous efforts

to raise a fund of $150,000 for its charitable institutions. (1841, 53

ff.) "What is this sum," it was said, "for a church numbering 100,000

members and more than 25,000 families? It amounts to only $1.50 for each

member, and not even $10 for every family!" In 1857 the General Synod

resolved: "That the churches in connection with the General Synod be

recommended to observe our regular ecclesiastical festivals in

commemoration of the fundamental facts of our religion, _viz._:

Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Whitsunday, in the

hope and persuasion that by the divine blessing they will be found to

be, as they have often proved, occasions of reviving to our

congregations." (32.) In 1866 the resolution was added: "That it be

recommended to the ministers and churches in our connection to celebrate

the thirty-first of October in each year in commemoration of the

commencement of the Reformation." (42.) In 1879, the three hundred and

fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Luther's Catechism, the

General Synod resolved that we "reaffirm our appreciation of Luther's

Smaller Catechism as the best manual of instruction preparatory to

church-membership." (39.) In the same year the resolution was adopted:

"That in view of the fact that 1880 will be the semicentennial of the

Augsburg Confession, every pastor of the General Synod be requested to

preach on that subject on or near the twenty-fifth of June in that

year." (40.) The General Synod organized the "Parent Educational

Society" for assisting ministerial students; the "Central Missionary

Society" for domestic missions; the "Foreign Mission Society" for work

in India; and established a "Pastors' Fund," a book company, etc. The

General Synod was always on the alert to draw Lutherans in all parts of

the country into her circles. Thus, _e.g._, when, in 1839, the Saxons

had arrived in Missouri, the General Synod passed the resolutions: "1.

That a special committee be appointed to open a correspondence with the

companies of Lutherans recently arrived in the United States from

Germany, and represented by Dr. Charles Vehse and others, and the Rev.

Mr. Stephan; 2. that the committee write in the name of the General

Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States, giving a

sketch of the history and objects of this body, with any other

intelligence which they may think it important to communicate, and

requesting of Dr. Vehse and the Rev. Mr. Stephan and their respective

associates any information which they may think proper to make relative

to their own history, their present situation, and their future

prospects." (19.)

20. Exaggerated Estimates.--After what has already been said, the

following evaluations of the General Synod will be received with a grain

of salt. In the "Pastoral Letter" of the General Synod, written in 1831

by David F. Schaeffer, we read: "No church had to contend with so great

difficulties as we have overcome by the help of God. As the English

language is the language of our fortunate country, the untiring

endeavors of our fathers to retain the knowledge of the German language

among the youth were futile. Many who spoke German were not able to read

this language. The consequences of this state of affairs were pitiable.

The religious books of the parents were of no use, and in many cases

true piety was gradually lost as well as the love for our Zion. In the

mean time some Christian denominations who held their service in the

English language were ardently endeavoring to promote the interest of

religion and the growth of their churches. But the God of an Arndt,

Spener, Francke, and of many other renowned founders and benefactors of

our Church still lives. In this most critical moment, when our Church,

which is distinguished for the simplicity of its service, the purity of

its doctrines, and the excellency of its church-discipline, was about to

sink into oblivion, just at this important moment the General Synod was

brought into existence, and through this body the Theological Seminary

and College grew up which now are in efficient operation and in a

flourishing condition. Now our children may be instructed in all the

different branches of the sciences by pious and well-trained teachers of

our faith. Now, by our Seminary, the Church may be supplied with learned

and pious preachers, who are able to instruct their hearers in both

languages. And from this institute they will always go forth as

brethren, inspired by the same spirit and led by the same principles."

(_Proceedings_, 1831,22.) In 1857, Krauth, Jr., defending the General

Synod, said: "She is the offspring of a reviving Lutheranism, born in

the dawn that followed the night which fell upon our Church in this

land, when the patriarchal luminaries of her early history had set on

earth to rise in heaven. When the General Synod came into being,

Rationalism still was in the ascendant in Europe. The names of Gabler

and Bretschneider, of Wegscheider and Roehr, were names which had been

held high in honor in the Lutheran Church in Germany. That Church had

become what such men might have been expected to make her. Where their

influence prevailed, she had become rotten in doctrine, destitute not

only of the power of godliness, but even of the decencies of its forms,

and ready, at the command of a royal devotee of Dagon, for a conjunction

which she once would have regarded as the adding of a scaly tail and

fishy fin to the fair bust of woman; but the bust was as fishy as the

tail now, and they were frozen into happy conjunction. But this was not

the Lutheranism which the General Synod desired to plant and perpetuate

in the New World. When the Lutheran Church looked around her in her

adopted land, she saw ignorance of her principles and prejudices of

every hue prevailing against her. When she looked to her native land,

all was thick darkness there. What was there on this side of the

Atlantic or beyond it to inspire hope? Why not abandon the experiment as

a thing foregone, and yield to the process of absorption into

surrounding sects? It was at this crisis that the life of the Church

displayed itself in the formation of the General Synod. The formation

was a great act of faith, made, as the framers of her Constitution

sublimely express it, in reliance 'upon God our Father, in the name of

our Lord Jesus Christ, under the guidance and direction of the Holy

Spirit in the Word of God.' The framers of that Constitution should be

as dear to us as Lutherans as the framers of our Federal Constitution

are to us as Americans. When the General Synod became completely

organized by the acknowledgment of the doctrinal Articles of the

Augsburg Confession as a standard of faith, it was the only voluntary

body on earth pretending to embrace a nation as its territory, and

bearing a Lutheran name, in which the fundamental doctrines of

Lutheranism were the basis of union. The General Synod was a

declaration, on the part of the Lutheran Church in America, that she had

no intention of dying or moving, that she liked this Western World and

meant to live here. And she has lived and waxed stronger and stronger,

and the General Synod has been a mighty agent in sustaining and

extending her beneficent work, and is destined to see a future which

shall eclipse all her glory in the past. Heaven pity the fate of the man

who looks upon the General Synod as having been a curse to the Church,

or an inefficient worker in it--who imagines that Lutheranism would be

stronger if the General Synod were weaker, or that truth would be reared

upon the ruins of what she has been patiently laboring for nearly forty

years to build." (Spaeth, 1, 383.)

21. Spaeth, and Jacobs on the General Synod.--After referring to the

unionistic, rationalistic, and Socinian degeneration in the Pennsylvania

and New York Ministeriums prior to the organization of the General

Synod, A. Spaeth continues: "With this powerful influx of rationalism,

and with the tendency of the remaining positive elements of our Church

to assimilate and unite themselves with the surrounding 'Evangelical

Denominations,' there was evident danger for the Lutheran Church in

America of losing her historical connection with the fathers, and

surrendering the distinctive features for which they contended, and as a

religious society becoming simply a member of the Reformed family. At

this point of threatening disintegration and dilapidation, the first

steps were taken toward the establishment of the General Synod, which

was certainly an honest effort to improve the state of affairs, to

gather the scattered members of our Lutheran Church, and to preserve her

as such on this Western Continent. Viewed in this light, the formation

of the General Synod was 'an offspring of reviving Lutheranism,' as Dr.

Krauth called it. But the difficulty and danger arose from the fact that

two conflicting and irreconcilable elements tried to unite in it with a

sort of compromise, the one, latitudinarian, un-Lutheran, unwilling or

unable to prize the treasures of the Mother Church of the Reformation,

and overanxious to exchange them for Puritan legalism and Methodistic

'new measures'; the other, conservative, holding on to the inheritance

of the fathers, and hoping almost against hope to bring the Church back

to their good foundation. If the former element succeeded in keeping out

of the General Synod's original constitution any direct and outspoken

reference to the historic confession of the Lutheran Church, the latter

might have thought themselves secure in the provision which denied to

the General Synod the power 'to make or demand any alteration whatever

in the doctrines hitherto received by us.' But the first-named party, at

the outset, had the popular sympathy on its side; it was the 'American'

over against the 'foreigner'; it was aggressive, and had the advantage

of having able and determined leaders, and thus, during the first

twenty-five years of the General Synod's history, easily ruled the day,

while the Lutheran consciousness of the second party slowly awoke from

its slumbers, and those that were to be its leaders on the day of battle

were quietly maturing from boyhood into manhood." (1, 320.) H. E.

Jacobs, endeavoring to view the origin of the General Synod in its

historical context, writes: "The General Synod must be regarded as a

very important forward movement, and its influence as beneficial. It

necessarily was not without the weaknesses that characterized the

Lutheran Church in America at that time. One who ignores the entire

historical development will find much to criticize and condemn, when

examined from the standpoint of what is demanded by consistency with

accurate theological definitions and clear conceptions of church polity.

But he will find just as much that incurs the same judgment in the

proceedings of the synods that united to form it. The faults peculiar to

each synod were lost, while only the common faults of them all remained.

The General Synod was a protest against the Socinianizing tendency in

New York and the schemes of a union with the Reformed in Pennsylvania

and with the Episcopalians in North Carolina. It stood for the

independent existence of the Lutheran Church in America, and the clear

and unequivocal confession of a positive faith. It failed, as its

founders in the several synods had failed, in specifically determining

the contents of this faith. It was not ready yet, as these synods were

not ready, to return to the foundations laid by Muhlenberg and his

associates, and from which there had been a general recession from

twenty-five to thirty years before. Lament defects as we may, the

General Synod saved the Church, as it became anglicized, from the

calamity of the type of doctrine which within the New York Ministerium

had been introduced into the English language." (_History_, 361 f.)

DOCTRINAL BASIS.

22. First Statement on Doctrinal Position.--The "Address of the

General Synod to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States"

of 1823 contains the following reference to the doctrinal attitude of

the General Synod: "An acquaintance with the history of the Christian

Church in the past ages, as well as a knowledge of her present condition

throughout the world, establishes the fact that mankind are prone on

this subject to fall into contrary extremes; some maintaining that if

our external conduct be correct, it matters not what we believe, and

others contending that as long as our creed is sound, the Church has

little to do with private deportment. But the principle which the

General Synod conceive to be taught in Scripture, and which they would

recommend to the Church at large, is this, that we should view with

charity, and treat with forbearance, those who have fallen into an

aberration of non-fundamental importance either from the faith or the

practise of the Bible and the Augsburg Confession; and on the other

hand, that we are bound 'not to eat with a fornicator, or a covetous, or

an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner,' but to 'put

away from among us such wicked persons,' and that 'a man that is an

heretic,' who denies a fundamental doctrine, a doctrine essential to the

Christian scheme, we are in like manner bound 'after the first and

second admonition to reject.'" (14.) A fair analysis of this document

yields the propositions: The General Synod receives the Bible and the

Augsburg Confession. It distinguishes between fundamental and

non-fundamental doctrines and aberrations from both. It holds that some

of the doctrines of the Bible are not fundamental. It also holds that

some of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession are not fundamental. It

enumerates neither the doctrines of the Bible nor of the Augsburg

Confession regarded as non-fundamental. It defines fundamental doctrines

as doctrines essential to the Christian scheme, hence, non-fundamental

doctrines as not essential to the Christian scheme. Indirectly it admits

that a doctrine essential to the Lutheran scheme is not necessarily a

fundamental doctrine or a doctrine essential to the Christian scheme. It

admits the inference that not all of the doctrines of the Augsburg

Confession are essential to the Lutheran scheme. It denies that all the

doctrines of the Augsburg Confession are essential to the Christian

scheme. It holds that non-fundamental aberrations from the Christian

scheme are not subject to church discipline. It also teaches that denial

of some of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession is not a matter of

church discipline. In brief, the General Synod, according to the Address

of 1823, held that there are errors subject to discipline, while others

are not, but defined and enumerated neither the former nor the latter.

It failed to draw a line of demarcation between the doctrines which may,

and which may not, be denied with impunity. Indeed, the Constitution

adopted 1820 speaks of "Jesus Christ as the Son of God and ground of our

faith and hope." (Art. III, Sec. 2.) Possibly, however, the General

Synod was not ready in 1823 to enforce the ban on Socinianism. That the

sentiment against it was hardly as pronounced as is frequently assumed,

appears also from the fact that the General Synod, in 1825, appointed a

committee to prepare a hymn-book, liturgy, and a collection of prayers,

in the English language, "adhering particularly to the New York

Hymn-Book and German Liturgy of Pennsylvania as their guides." (11.) The

New York Hymn-Book referred to was Quitman's and the Pennsylvania

Liturgy the one of 1818, both tainted with rationalism. In the

resolutions, however, adopted in the same year with respect to the

Gettysburg Seminary, Jesus is confessed as "God over all, blessed

forever." (5.) And the Pastoral Letter of 1829 declares that the Church

is in need of a confession of faith in order to protect herself against

the Socinians. (17.)

23. Gettysburg Subscription Limited.--At the time of organization of

the General Synod, Samuel S. Schmucker and F. C. Schaeffer of New York

apparently occupied a relatively advanced confessional position.

According to a letter of Schmucker, dated Princeton, February 20, 1820,

they had promised each other to labor with all earnestness that the

Augsburg Confession should be raised again from the dust, and that every

one subscribe to its twenty-one articles, and declare before God, by his

subscription, that they agree with the Bible, not _quatenus_, but

_quia_. (Singmaster, _Dist. Doct._, 44.) In 1826 Schmucker wrote, in

defense of the Lutheran doctrine of the Person of Christ: "Only lack of

insight and of clearness of intellect can mislead an honest opponent to

impute a contradiction to the doctrine when it denies that the glorified

body of Christ has the properties and is subjected to the laws which we

call properties and laws of matter." (_Lutheraner_, April 12, 1852.)

When, in 1825, the statutes for the government of the Seminary at

Gettysburg were adopted, it was at the instance of Schmucker, the first

chairman of the faculty and for nearly forty years a teacher at the

Seminary, that the General Synod declared "that in this Seminary shall

be taught in the German and English languages, the fundamental doctrines

of the sacred Scriptures as contained in the Augsburg Confession of

Faith," and that any professor may be removed "on account of error

fundamental doctrines, immorality," etc. (5.) Article I, Section 2, of

the Constitution of the Seminary, drawn up Schmucker and adopted by

Synod, states that the Seminary is designed "to provide our churches

with pastors who sincerely believe, and cordially approve of, the

doctrines of the Holy Scriptures as they are fundamentally taught in the

Augsburg Confession." Another article requires every professor-elect to

publicly pronounce and subscribe the following declaration: "I believe

the Augsburg Confession and the Catechisms of Luther to be a summary and

just exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God." And

when Schmucker, September 5, 1826, was inducted into the "professorship

Christian theology," D. F. Schaeffer, who delivered the charge, said:

"As the Lord has signally favored our beloved Church, as her tenets are

Biblical, and her veriest enemies cannot point out an important error in

her articles of faith, no more than could the enemies of the truth at

the Diet of Worms prove the books of the immortal Reformer erroneous,

therefore the Church which entrusts you with the preparation and

formation of her pastors, demands of you (and in her behalf I solemnly

charge you) to establish all students confided to your care in that

faith which distinguishes our Church from others. If any should object

to such faith, or any part of it, or refuse to be convinced of the

excellence of our discipline, they have their choice to unite with such

of our Christian brethren whose particular views in matters of faith and

discipline may suit them better. I hold it, however, as indispensable

for the peace and welfare of a Church that unity of sentiment should

prevail upon all important matters of faith and discipline among its

pastors. Hence I charge you to exert yourself in convincing our students

that the Augsburg Confusion is a safe directory to determine upon

matters of faith declared in the Lamb's book." (Spaeth, 1, 336.)

Accordingly Dr. Jacobs interprets the Gettysburg pledge as follows: "It

was a pledge to a distinctively Lutheran position. Such an affirmation

could never have been enforced in the proposed Lutheran-Reformed

seminary which the ministerium [of Pennsylvania] had had in mind. It

could not have been exacted of those who believed the confession to be

in error on those points which divide the Lutherans from the Reformed.

In justice, however, to those who might seem to have been acting a false

part in making this affirmation while they believed the confession to

contain errors, it must be stated, on the other hand, that the full

force of the declaration was not so clearly apparent in a period

directly following one when, as we have seen, the greatest living

theologian of the Lutheran Church in America could distinguish no

difference between the Augsburg Confession and the formularies of the

Church of England." This interpretation appears to be in agreement with

the solemn charge of Schaeffer, according to which the pledge refers to

that faith which distinguishes our Church from others." However,

Schmucker and his successors viewed the phrase "fundamental doctrines of

the Word of God" as a restriction, limiting the subscription to the

doctrines confessed by all evangelical denominations, thus eliminating

from the pledge distinctive Lutheran doctrines. And the historical

correctness of this view has never been satisfactorily refuted.

Schmucker declared time and again: "The Augsburg Confession was not to

be followed unconditionally; its binding force was expressly limited to

the fundamentals. The professor's oath expressly limits our pledge to

the Augsburg Confession to the fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures."

He wrote: "After the abandonment of the General Synod, in 1823, by the

Synods of Pennsylvania and New York, that body was chiefly sustained by

the zeal and activity of younger men, in connection with a few beloved

fathers who remained with us. At the very next meeting of the General

Synod, in 1825, I had the pleasure, as well as honor, to introduce, for

the first time in the history of that body, the recognition of the

Augsburg Confession. At that time there were none amongst the friends of

the General Synod who did not reject several tenets of the Augsburg

Confession, such as private confession and absolution, as we all still

do. Accordingly, the assent to the Augsburg Confession, expressed in the

statutes for the Theological Seminary presented by me, was a _qualified_

one; it should and was intended to bind only to the _fundamentals_ of

the Scriptures as taught in the Augsburg Confession. The language was

well understood then, and was deemed clear and satisfactory; it has

always been interpreted in the same way since, except by some, of late,

whose predilections would incline them to find in it, if possible, some

support for their more rigidly symbolic views." (Spaeth, 1, 338.) In the

_Evangelical Review_, April, 1851, Schmucker declared: The General Synod

established her theological seminary "not for the purpose of teaching

the symbolic system of the sixteenth century,--for her leading members

had all relinquished some of its features,--but, as her Constitution,

adopted in 1825, explicitly declares, to prepare men to teach, not all

the doctrines or aspects of doctrine in the Augsburg Confession, but the

'_fundamental_ doctrines'; and not those aspects of doctrine which might

be considered fundamental peculiarities of that Confession, but 'the

fundamental doctrines _of the Scriptures_' those aspects of doctrine

which Christians generally regard as fundamental truths of the Word of

God. The symbolical books of the General Synod and the seminary at

Gettysburg are the Bible and the Augsburg Confession, as a substantially

correct exhibition of the fundamental truths of the Bible. To this the

professorial oath of office in the seminary adds a similar _fundamental_

assent to the two Catechisms of Luther. For the professors to inculcate

on their students the obsolete views of the old Lutherans contained in

the former symbols of the Church in some parts of Germany, such as

exorcism, the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the

Eucharist, private confession, baptismal regeneration, immersion in

baptism, as taught in Luther's Larger Catechism, etc., would be to

betray the confidence of those who elected them to office, and to defeat

the design of the institution." (Spaeth, 1, 338 f.)

24. Doctrinal Statements from 1829 to 1835.--The Pastoral Letter of

the convention of the General Synod in Hagerstown (Haegerstadt), 1829,

contains the following statements: The object of the General Synod is

not to introduce absolute uniformity also in non-essential doctrines;

such a unity did not exist in the early Christian congregations; it is

sufficient to adhere to the fundamental tenets of the Reformation; every

teacher and layman is entitled to use his Bible without being bound by

any human confessions; the General Synod merely demands acceptance of

the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel as taught in the Augsburg

Confession, and leaves everything else unlimited; but she does not agree

with those who absolutely reject all confessions of faith; the Church is

in need of a confession in order to protect herself against the

Socinians; most of the confessions, however, have lost themselves into

minute (_spitzfindige_) and doubtful dogmas, and thus encouraged the

spirit of superstition and schism, and naturally must continue to do so,

the longer, the more; in every one of the different orthodox

[evangelical] denominations, frequently, indeed, in the same

congregation, there are persons who differ as much in their opinions as

the confession of their Church differs from that of other Churches;

accordingly, there is no reason why synods bearing the name of Luther

should not unite with the General Synod, though differing in their views

as to non-fundamentals; the General Synod has no power to call members

of individual synods to account for aberrations in doctrine or life; the

most it can do is to admonish such a synod to investigate the matter;

however, a synod refusing to demand orthodoxy in fundamentals can be

expelled from the General Synod; in brief, the four synods now

constituting the General Body are so many independent ecclesiastical

jurisdictions, united only in order to promote brotherly love, and to

combine their forces in the execution of such things as are of general

benefit, and which no individual synod could perform. (16.) "The General

Synod therefore," says the letter of 1829, "only demands of those who

are connected with her that they hold the fundamental doctrines of the

Gospel as they are taught in the Augsburg Confession, and leaves all

other things unlimited." "Why, then," the letter continues, "should not

all those synods of our country that bear the name of our immortal

Luther, and have always yet retained the chief traits of this sublime

Reformer, be united by the tender bond of the General Synod,

notwithstanding the different opinions which they may entertain in; some

points which do not touch the foundation of the Augsburg Confession?"

(16.) It was in accordance with the sentiments expressed in this letter

when the General Synod at the same convention in Hagerstown adopted for

its district synods a constitution with a form of licensure and

ordination containing the questions: "Do you believe the Scriptures of

the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God and the only infallible

rule of faith and practise?" "Do you believe that the fundamental

doctrines of the Holy Scriptures are taught in a manner substantially

correct (wesentlich richtig) in the doctrinal articles of the Augsburg

Confession?" (43. 45.) Prior to 1864 the General Synod as such, however,

was not in any shape or manner committed to the Augsburg Confession

constitutionally. In 1835, when the Constitution was amended, Synod as

such remained non-committal. The doctrinal basis then adopted and

embodied in the Constitution does not mention the Augsburg Confession.

It reads as follows: "All regularly constituted Lutheran synods holding

the fundamental doctrines of the Bible as taught by our Church, not now

in connection with the General Synod, may at any time become associated

with it by adopting this Constitution and sending delegates to its

convention, according to the ratio specified in Art. II." (_Proceedings_

1839, 49.) Evidently this deliverance, though marking an advance over

the Constitution of 1820, intentionally omits a direct reference to the

Augustana. Till 1864, then, the exact constitutional basis of the

General Synod as such was not the Augsburg Confession, but the

indefinite phrase: "the fundamental doctrines of the Bible as taught by

our Church." All other confessional deliverances of the General Synod

till 1864 may be summarized as follows: The fundamental doctrines of the

Bible, _i.e._, the doctrines in which all evangelical (non-Socinian)

Christians agree, are taught in a manner substantially correct in the

doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession.

25. "A Solemn Farce."--The doctrinal basis of the General Synod, prior

to 1864, is limited in more than one way. It does not embrace all of the

Lutheran symbols. It includes only the twenty-one doctrinal articles of

the Augustana. It binds only to the fundamental articles of the Bible.

It presupposes that fundamental articles are such only as are agreed to

by all evangelical Churches. It leaves the question whether all of those

twenty-one articles of the Augsburg Confession are to be regarded as

"fundamental doctrines of the Bible" undecided. It adopts the articles

of the Augsburg Confession regarded as fundamental, not simply and

absolutely, but merely as substantially correct." On the question of the

ordination form of 1829 Krauth, Jr., commented in 1857 as follows:

"What, then, is that question? We reply, in general: First, that the

subject of her general affirmation is not the Book of Concord as a

whole, but simply and purely the Augsburg Confession. Secondly, that not

the entire Confession, but only the twenty-one articles of it which

treat of doctrine, are specified in the affirmation. Thirdly, that only

so far as these articles embrace _fundamental_ doctrines does she make

an affirmation. Fourthly, that of these she affirms that they teach the

doctrines in a correct manner, and defines the correctness as a

_substantial_ one." (Spaeth, 1, 386.) J. L. Neve explains: "They

[General Synod] considered what the Lutheran Church has in common with

the other churches, and looked upon this as the fundamentals of

Christianity, while the characteristic peculiarity of the Church of

Luther, her special inheritance, was set aside as non-fundamental and

unessential." (_Geschichte_, 90.) Accordingly, the General Synod, prior

to 1864, did not subscribe to the distinctive doctrines of the Lutheran

Church, but only to the doctrines held in common by the evangelical

churches of Protestantism. Charles Philip Krauth, who was styled a

Symbolist and Old Lutheran by the latitudinarians, declared in 1850, in

his address before the General Synod at Charleston: "The terms of the

subscription [to the Augustana] are such as to admit of the rejection

of any doctrine or doctrines which the subscriber may not receive. It

is subscribed or assented to as containing the doctrines of the Word of

God substantially; they are set forth in substance; the understanding

is that there are some doctrines in it not contained in the Word of

God, but there is no specification concerning them. Every one could

omit from his assent whatever he did not believe. The subscription did

not preclude this. It is at once evident that a creed thus presented is

no creed; that it is anything or nothing; that its subscription is a

solemn farce." (Spaeth, 1, 370.)

BASIS INTERPRETED.

26. Authentic Explanation of Doctrinal Basis.--In his _Popular

Theology_, published for the first time in 1834, S. S. Schmucker wrote:

"The General Synod of the Lutheran Church has adopted only the

twenty-one doctrinal articles, omitting even the condemnatory clauses of

these, and also the entire catalog of Abuses corrected. No minister,

however, considers himself bound to believe every sentiment contained in

these twenty-one articles, but only the fundamental doctrines.

Accordingly, the pledge of adoption required at licensure and ordination

is couched in the following terms . . .: 'Do you believe that the

_fundamental_ doctrines of the Word of God are taught in a manner

_substantially_ correct in the doctrinal articles of the Augsburg

Confession?' The Lutheran divines of this country are not willing to

bind either themselves or others to anything more than the fundamental

doctrines of the Christian revelation, believing that an immense mass of

evil has resulted to the Church of God from the rigid requisition of

extensive and detailed creeds. . . . We can see no sufficient warrant

for any Christian Church to require as a term of admission or communion

greater conformity of view than is requisite to harmony of feeling and

successful cooperation in extending the kingdom of Christ. . . . Had the

early Protestants endeavored to select the principal and fundamental

doctrines of Christianity, required a belief of them from all applicants

for admission into their ranks, and agreed among themselves that

discrepance of views on matters of non-fundamental nature should neither

be a bar to ecclesiastical communion nor fraternal affection, they would

have saved the Church from the curse of those dissensions by which piety

was in a great degree destroyed and on several occasions the very

foundations of Protestantism shaken." (Edition of 1848, 50 ff.) In 1850,

attacking Reynolds in the _Lutheran Observer_ on account of his

defection from American Lutheranism, Schmucker stated: From the very

outset the General Synod had abandoned the distinctive Lutheran

doctrines, and nevertheless retained the Lutheran name; in spite of his

deviations from the Lutheran symbols he, with perfect right, could call

himself a faithful Lutheran. (_L._, 6, 139.) Schmucker, "the most

authentic interpreter of the Constitution of the General Synod and that

of its theological seminary," never identified the "fundamental

doctrines of the Bible" with the twenty-one articles of the Augsburg

Confession. According to him the fundamentals are obtained by striking

from the Augustana everything that is objectionable to any Evangelical

Church and retaining the remainder as the substance of Protestantism.

All of the fundamental doctrines, Schmucker declared, are contained in

the ecumenical creeds; everything else is trans-fundamental, not

required by the General Synod for Christian union and communion. In his

sermon at the convention in Winchester, 1853, Schmucker maintained that

the essential, fundamental doctrines in which the General Synod demands

agreement, are "the cardinal doctrines of the Reformation, the points of

agreement between the different creeds of the sixteenth century,"

distinctive doctrines being points of non-essential, non-fundamental

difference. According to Schmucker the General Synod's motto,

"Uniformity in fundamentals and charity or liberty in non-fundamentals,"

never meant anything else than uniformity in the doctrines in which the

evangelical denominations agree, and liberty with respect to distinctive

tenets, also those of Lutheranism. In his _Lutheran Manual_ of 1855

Schmucker wrote: "The founders of the General Synod were men of

enlarged, liberal, and Scriptural views of the kingdom of Christ.

Convinced of the gradual abandonment of the whole mass of symbolical

books in Germany, as well as from the personal examination of them, of

their want of adaptedness to the age, they regarded it as the grand

vocation of the American Church, released by Providence from civil

servitude, to reconstruct her framework, assuming a more friendly

attitude toward sister churches, and so organizing as to promote

Scriptural union among Protestants, and to bring up our

church-institutions to the increased light of Biblical study and

Providential development. This enlightened, this millennial attitude of

the founders of the General Synod, the writer can confidently affirm,

from personal knowledge, having been well acquainted with the greater

part of them, and having been present at Baltimore in 1819, when the

formation of the Synod was, after ample discussion, resolved on; and at

Hagerstown, in 1820, when the Constitution was formed. But the

Constitution speaks for itself; for it invested the General Synod with

power to form a new Confession of Faith, and new catechisms, suited to

the progress of Biblical light and the developed views of the Church.

Subsequently it was believed that the necessities of the case would be

best met by the retention of the Augsburg Confession, on account of its

importance as a link in the chain of historical Christianity, and by

prescribing its _qualified_ adoption, _viz_., as to the fundamental

aspects of Scripture doctrine. . . . It is an incontestable fact, which

can easily be established, that the original standpoint of the General

Synod, whilst controlled by the Pennsylvania Synod, was rejection of the

binding authority of the old confessions. This is undeniably proved by

their not even naming the Augsburg Confession in their Constitution, by

their declining even a qualified recognition of it, and by their

inserting a clause expressly giving authority to the General Synod to

form a confession of faith; yea, even going further, and giving the same

authority to each District Synod also. (See the original Constitution,

Article III, Section 2.) It seems to me no intelligent and unprejudiced

mind can resist this conclusion as to their doctrinal standpoint, whilst

I and others who were present know it to have been as above stated." In

his manuscript notes Schmucker says: "It is worthy of constant

remembrance that during the first four centuries, under the immediate

pupils of the inspired apostles and their successors, the voice of the

universal Church under the whole heaven was that nothing more than

fundamental agreement should be required for communion in the Christian

Church and Christian ministry. Not a single orthodox church practised

differently. All required assent only to the several ecumenical

confessions, the so-called Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds. . . . No,

the practise of binding the conscience of ministers and members to

extended creeds, containing minor points, on which men in all churches

and all ages have differed and ever will differ, and thus splitting up

the Body of Christ without His authority, is, and must be, highly

criminal. The fathers who founded the General Synod all considered the

recognition of fundamentals as sufficient, and here, in this free

country, determined to return to the practise of the earlier and purer

centuries of the Church. These fathers were Drs. J. G. Schmucker, George

Lochmann, C. Endress, F. W. Geissenhainer, Daniel Kurtz, H. A.

Muhlenberg, P. F. Mayer, H. Schaeffer, and D. F. Schaeffer, Rev. Gottl.

Shober, and Rev. Peter Schmucker, with their younger colaborers, Drs.

Benjamin Kurtz, S. S. Schmucker [Charles Philip Krauth?]. [tr. note: sic]

Holding this opinion, they did not introduce any recognition, even of

the Augsburg Confession, into their original Constitution in 1820. But

at the third meeting, in 1825, they adopted certain resolutions for the

foundation of the theological seminary and statutes for its government,

and bound its professors to the fundamental doctrines of Scripture as

taught in the Augsburg Confession. They thus returned to the principles

and practise of the earlier and purer centuries of the Church, when the

influence of the Savior and His inspired apostles was more sensibly felt

in the Church." (Spaeth, 1, 342. 337. 354.)

27. "Lutheran Observer" Interpreting Basis.--Apart from its coarseness

and fanaticism, especially during the thirty years' editorship of Dr. B.

Kurtz, the _Lutheran Observer_ has throughout its existence, from 1831

to 1916, always been an essentially correct exponent of the original

doctrinal and confessional attitude of the General Synod. Consistently a

General Synodist cannot disown the _Observer_ without renouncing the

General Synod itself. Now, according to the _Observer_, the General

Synod has always stood for unity in essentials, or fundamentals, and

liberty in non-fundamentals, understanding by fundamentals those

doctrines only in which Evangelical Christendom is agreed, and by

non-fundamentals distinctive tenets, also those of Lutheranism. Quoting

from Dr. S. Sprecher's inaugural address at Wittenberg College,

Springfield, O., the _Lutheran Observer_, October 26, 1849, declared

that Lutherans [of the General Synod], in adopting the confessions, "do

not bind their conscience to more than what all evangelical Christians

[denominations] regard as fundamental doctrines of the Bible. We are

bound to believe only that the sublime plan of the Gospel is taught in

the Augsburg Confession. This is the position held by the General Synod

and by the American Lutheran Church in general, and this seems to have

been the position also of the Church in the earlier and purer days of

the Reformation." (_L._, 6, 57.) In 1860 the _Observer_ declared that

the General Synod was organized on the basis of a compromise with

respect to doctrines of minor import, such as the doctrine of the Lord's

Supper, of the power of Baptism and of absolution. _Observer_, April 8,

1864: "We ought to be one in the doctrine of faith which embraces the

fundamental doctrines of Christianity, while we should practise love

with respect to other things. By fundamental doctrines we understand

such and such only as are necessary to make a man a true child of God.

. . . Who can be a Christian and deny the essence and existence of God,

Christ, and the Holy Spirit, the atonement, the doctrines of repentance

and faith in Christ, the necessity of justification before God and of

sanctification of the heart, or the moral law as the rule of life, the

doctrine of immortality and our future destination? These doctrines,

which are essential to faith and Christian life, are fundamental and

ought to be received by the heart and practised, while all other

doctrines may be necessary more or less in order to perfect the

Christian character and render it more symmetrical, but do not strike

the heart of true religion." (_L. u. W._, 1864, 154.) _Observer,_ March

12 and 19, 1869: "The doctrinal basis of the General Synod demands

adoption of the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God as taught in

the Augsburg Confession, but she has never determined which doctrines

she regards as fundamental and which not. Formerly she was satisfied

with the general judgment of the Protestant world with respect to the

fundamental articles of Christianity . . ., but during the last decade

the question was extensively discussed: What is fundamental? We see no

reason why the General Synod could not and should not supplement her

basis by a definition and enumeration of the fundamental doctrines. . .

. According to the universal judgment of the Church the doctrinal

opinions in which the orthodox Protestant Churches differ are not

fundamental, but non-fundamental doctrines. Whether God's decree of

election is absolute or conditional; whether the corruption of the

fallen nature of Adam was propagated or only the guilt of his sin was

imputed to his descendants; whether the atonement is universal or

limited to the elect; whether justification occurs by the imputation of

the righteousness of Christ to believers or by the imputation of faith;

whether the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper is bodily or

spiritual; whether the receiving of body and blood is by faith or by the

mouth, is limited to believers or extends also to unbelievers; whether

the church government is participated in by laymen or limited to the

ministers; whether the Scriptural principles on this matter establish an

hierarchy or democracy--these and many other questions are differently

answered by different Protestant denominations, but without objectively

destroying the ground of faith or subjectively the essence of faith. .

. . In short, the doctrinal views which still separate the Protestant

churches are not fundamental." (_L. u. W._, 1869, 121.)

28. Krauth on "Fundamentals Substantially Correct."--The essential

correctness of Schmucker's and the _Observer's_ interpretation of the

General Synod's doctrinal basis was acknowledged also by Charles

Porterfield Krauth. "The very life," said he, "the very existence of the

General Synod depends upon the distinction between fundamentals, in

which agreement is required, and non-fundamentals, in which liberty is

granted." And while his father had condemned the confessional basis of

the General Synod as a "solemn farce," Krauth, Jr., in 1857, declared:

"Let the old Formula stand and let it be defined." In the _Missionary_,

April 30, 1857, Dr. Krauth explained: "The doctrinal basis of the

General Synod, then, was designed to be one on which, without sacrifice

of conscience, brethren differing in non-fundamentals might meet. It is

a basis which, on the one hand, neither by expression nor by implication

charges error upon any part of the doctrinal articles of the Confession,

but as far as it touches the question at all, expresses or implies the

very opposite; a basis, therefore, on which brethren who receive the

Confession without reservation can rest, but which, at the same time, on

the other hand, defines its position only as to what is fundamental,

leaving entirely untouched the questions whether non-fundamental

doctrines are taught in the Confession, and whether, if taught, they are

taught in a manner substantially correct. Furthermore, in using the word

'substantially' to qualify the term 'correct,' in the affirmation as to

fundamentals, the General Synod meant not to decide, but to leave

untouched the question whether, as to its very letter as well as in its

essentials, the Confession is a correct exhibition of Scripture

doctrine. The position, in effect, implied this: Brethren may differ as

to whether the non-fundamental doctrines as well as the fundamental

doctrines are correctly stated in the Confession. Let them differ. We

make no decision whatever as to that point. Both agree as to

_fundamentals_; therefore fundamentals only shall be the object in this

subscription. We affirm of them that they are taught correctly in the

Confession. Of the non-fundamentals we affirm nothing and deny nothing.

Neither their reception nor rejection has anything to do with this

basis. But brethren differ on another point. Some receive the very

letter of the Confession on all points of doctrine; others, who receive

it to the letter on most points, receive it only as to its main drift on

a few. Let, then, that which is apart from the substance be left out of

view, and be the subject neither of affirmation nor of denial. Let us

make the affirmation simply on the _substantial_ correctness of the

Confession, for on that all are agreed. Here, too, shall be the same

absolute freedom to _receive_ what is apart from the substance as to

_reject_ it." Dr. Krauth proceeds: "The basis of the General Synod,

then, does not imply that non-fundamentals are falsely taught, or that

the correctness of the Confession on fundamentals is _merely_

substantial. The questions which touch non-fundamentals, or matters

apart from the substance, are _simply waived_ and left undetermined.

Thus interpreted, the most devoted friend of the Confession, in all its

parts, as well as he who is compelled to make a reservation as to some

portions, can freely use the Formula. It was the best basis possible,

under all the circumstances, and we are therefore satisfied with it."

"If, when the General Synod affirmed that the _fundamentals_ were

correctly taught, she had declared or implied that the non-fundamentals

were incorrectly taught, no Lutheran who believed that the Augsburg

Confession is sound on _all_ the doctrinal points it touches, or who

believed that none but fundamental doctrines are set forth in the

Confession, could have received the Formula. She satisfied herself,

therefore, with an affirmative about fundamentals, making neither an

affirmation nor denial in regard to non-fundamentals. She left the

synods in absolute freedom in non-fundamentals, freedom to doubt, to

reject, or to receive them." "So also when she declared that the

fundamentals of Scripture-doctrine are taught in a manner

_substantially_ correct, she neither declared nor implied that they were

not taught in a manner absolutely correct, but ... as all who believe

that they are set forth in a manner _absolutely correct_, believe,

necessarily, that they are taught in a manner _substantially_ correct;

for that which is absolute embraces that which is substantial and

something more; she simply makes an affirmation, so far as two classes

(if thinkers are agreed, affirming nothing and denying nothing as

regards that in which they differ, but having absolute freedom to doubt,

reject, or receive that which goes beyond the substance, and embraces

the minutiae of the form. The man who has a quarrel with this position

of the General Synod has a quarrel not against something incidental to

her, but against her very life. For on this position, expressed or

implied, rested, and continues to rest, the ability of our General Synod

to have a being." (Spaeth, 1, 402. 399. 401. 395 f.) According to Krauth,

then, there was constitutional room in the General Synod for Schmucker

and Kurtz as well as for Walther and Wyneken; room for all who accept

the fundamental doctrines in which evangelical Christians agree, but

deny the distinctively Lutheran doctrines, and room also for men who

confess all doctrines of the Lutheran Symbols. As late as October 29,

1863, Krauth declared in the _Lutheran and Missionary_ that there was

nothing in the Basis of the General Synod to bar even the Missouri Synod

from entering it with the whole mass of confessions in her arms. (_L. u.

W._, 1863, 378.) Dr. Krauth overlooked the fact that a Lutheran who

adopts the symbols _ex animo_, and does not merely carry them in his

arms, is serious also with respect to the confessional damnamuses with

which a unionism and indifferentism, as required by the General Synod,

is absolutely incompatible. In 1901 the _Lutheran Quarterly_ said: "The

damnamuses at the conclusion of several of the articles of the Augsburg

Confession are inconsistencies . . . fundamental contradictions with the

positive sense of the Confession." (359.) The _Quarterly_ could have

said, and probably wanted to say, that these damnamuses are fundamental

contradictions with the doctrinal basis of the General Synod. In

complete agreement with Krauth, the _Observer_ wrote September 11, 1903:

"The General Synod affirms and emphasizes what is universal in

Lutheranism, and leaves the individual at liberty, within this generic

unity, to receive and hold for himself whatever particularities of

Lutheran statement may commend themselves to his acceptance. The only

liberty denied him is that of forcing the particular upon his brethren

who are content to rest in the full acceptance of what is universal in

Lutheranism. It allows the same liberty in practise." (_L. u. W._, 1903,

305.)

UNIONISM.

29. Early Attitude.--The unionism which prevailed in all Lutheran synods

since the days of Muhlenberg was freely indulged in also by the General

Synod during the whole course of her history, in various ways,

especially in the exchange of fraternal delegates and the fellowship of

pulpit and altar. In 1825 the General Synod published with great

satisfaction a letter received from Dr. Planck, of Goettingen, stating:

Though there was in Germany no hope for a union of Protestants and

Catholics, the sectarian hatred between the Lutherans and the Reformed

had abated, indeed, disappeared, inasmuch as a complete union of them

had been effected in Prussia, Hesse, Nassau, the Palatinate, Baden;

these "reunions" had been brought about under conditions which

guaranteed their permanence, since both parties had convinced themselves

that there was no difference of views among them with respect to the

foundation of faith, and had agreed that the difference which might

still exist with respect to some points of the Lord's Supper could no

longer be a hindrance to their unity of faith and spirit; this union,

inasmuch as the parties no longer regarded themselves as divided, really

existed in all Protestant states of Germany, even where, as yet, it had

not been acknowledged formally. (24 f.) According to the Proceedings of

1827 "the Synod was gratified by the deep interest evinced by this

letter [of Dr. Planck] in the affairs of our Church in the United

States, and received the good wishes of its distinguished author with

grateful feelings. The corresponding committee was directed to answer

this communication." (5.) It was in keeping with the spirit of Planck's

letter that the minutes of 1827 furthermore recorded: "The following

gentlemen were present and [were] admitted as advisory members . . .:

The Rev. Mr. Helfenstein, of Philadelphia, as delegate from the Bible

Society in that city; and Rev. Mr. van der Sloot, as delegate from the

General Synod of the German Reformed Church." (5.) "Resolved, That the

General Synod of the Ev. Lutheran Church in the United States regard

with deep interest the exertions of the American Tract Society, and

recommend the design of said society to the churches under their care;

to give it their aid by the formation of auxiliary societies, and such

other means as have been recommended by the parent institution." (7.)

"Rev. Mr. Hinsch appeared and presented to this body the minutes of

the German Reformed Synod, and received a seat as an advisory member,

whereupon it was resolved that an equal number of the minutes of this

Synod be sent to the Synod of the German Reformed Church." (8.) "The

subject of publishing a new hymn-book in the German language, adapted to

the joint use of Lutheran and Reformed Churches, was now taken into

consideration. After some discussion it was resolved that as the joint

hymn-book for the Lutheran and Reformed Churches now in use is

introduced in a large number of our congregations, as it is possessed of

considerable merit, and as the introduction of a new one would be

attended with much expense to our congregations and confusion in worship,

therefore the General Synod deem it inexpedient to publish or recommend

the introduction of a new one in the churches under their care." (11.)

"Rev. N. Sharrets was appointed as delegate to the Synod of Ohio, and

the Rev. B. Kurtz and Rev. J. Schmidt as delegates to the German

Reformed General Synod." (12.) _Proceedings_, October, 1829: "Resolved,

That a committee be appointed to report on the proceedings of the German

Reformed Synod." (6.) "The delegates of the German Reformed Synod, the

Revs. Brunner and Beecher, were cordially received as advisory members."

(4.) The constitution adopted 1829 for the District Synods provides:

"Ministers, regular members of other synods or of sister churches

[sectarian denominations], who may be present or appear as delegates of

such bodies, may be received as advisory members, but have no vote in

any decision of the Synod." (31.)

30. Exchanging Delegates, Pulpits, Ministers.--In 1847, in a letter to

Ph. Schaff, W. J. Mann describes the relation of the General Synod to

the Methodists and Presbyterians as a "concubinage" with the sects.

(Spaeth, _W. J. Mann_, 38.) The extent, nature, and anti-Lutheran

tendency of this unionism appears from the minutes of the General Synod.

At Hagerstown, 1837, a Presbyterian, an Episcopalian, a Reformedist, and

a Methodist were received as advisory members. Two Lutheran ministers

preached in the Reformed church, two others in the Methodist church, and

Dr. Patton, of the American Education Society, in the Lutheran church.

At Baltimore, 1848, delegates of the General Assembly of the

Presbyterian Church and of the Dutch Reformed Church were received as

advisory members. (5.) The minutes of the German Reformed Synod were

received and submitted to the examination of a committee. (9.) Delegates

were appointed to the Presbyterian and the German Reformed Church. (11.)

At Charleston, 1850, delegates were appointed to the German Reformed,

the Presbyterian, the Cumberland Presbyterian, and the Congregational

Church. It was also resolved that "the minutes [of the General Synod] be

sent to the Congregational Association of New Hampshire, to the Assembly

of the Cumberland Presbyterians, to the Constitutional Assembly of the

Presbyterian Church, and to the Synod of the German Reformed Church."

(28.) At Dayton, O., 1855, sixteen sectarian ministers were seated as

advisory members. (7.) At Reading, 1857, the Committee on Ecclesiastical

Correspondence reported: "With the General Assembly of the Presbyterian

Church we have now been in correspondence for twelve years, and every

interchange of delegates only strengthens the conviction expressed at

its commencement, that it 'would draw more closely the bonds of

Christian union, and so level the mountains and elevate the valleys of

sectarianism as to prepare the way of the Lord in His coming to

millennial glory.' We rejoice to-day to greet a delegate from that large

and influential body of Christians, and tender to him our Christian

salutations and brotherly love." (41.) At Pittsburgh, 1859, where

fourteen sectarian ministers were invited to seats in the convention,

the same committee stated: "The most interesting point to which your

committee would call the attention of the General Synod is the prompt

and cordial response of the Northern Provincial Synod of the United

Brethren (Moravian) to the overture for correspondence made to them at

our last meeting in Reading. Like ourselves, they acknowledge the

Augsburg Confession as their common bond of union, and have, ever since

the commencement of the last century, sustained a peculiar and intimate

relation towards our Church. It is only by discipline and forms of

church-government that we are separated, and we trust that the step

which has now been taken will draw us still more closely together, and

tend to our mutual edification and progress in Christian activity as

well as in brotherly love." (30.) At Lancaster, Pa., 1862, the delegate

to the German Reformed Church reported "that he was most kindly received

by that body, and was charged by the same to return its cordial

salutations to this Synod, with the hope on the part of our German

Reformed brethren that the present fraternal correspondence between our

Churches, twin-sisters of the Reformation, may never be interrupted. The

President of that body was appointed as delegate to this Synod, and we

rejoice to see him present with us now and taking an active interest in

our proceedings." (64.) The delegate to the Moravian Church declared

that "he takes great pleasure in stating that the fraternal greetings

which he was charged to convey to the brethren with most cordially

reciprocated, and the earnest desire expressed that the correspondence,

so auspiciously begun between the two bodies, might be continued." (64.)

At Lancaster it was also recommended to the District Synods that with

respect to the Reformed, Presbyterian, and other Churches they adopt the

rule: "Ministers and members in good standing, desiring to pass from one

of these bodies to the other, shall, upon application to the proper

body, receive a certificate of their standing." (16.) In accordance with

this rule the _Lutheran Observer_, May 17, 1867, advised Lutherans

moving West to unite with sister denominations until a Lutheran

congregation should be established at the place. (_L. u. W._ 1867, 182.)

At York, Pa., 1864, where sermons were delivered by Lutheran ministers

in eight sectarian churches, S. S. Schmucker, delegate to the German

Reformed Church, reported that "an invitation was given him to address

the Synod, and that the feelings of Christian fellowship which he took

occasion to express were cordially and liberally responded to by the

presiding officer of the Synod." (31.) Dr. Sprecher, then President of

the General Synod, said in response to the address of the delegate from

the Presbyterian Church who had spoken of the unity of all Christians,

and assured the convention of the sympathy of his brethren with its

work, that he was happy to see that the time of exclusiveness of the

different denominations had passed by, and that the Church was becoming

more liberal in its views in granting greater liberty in nonfundamental

articles. (_L. u. W._ 1864, 220.)

31. Exchanging Delegates, etc., Continued.--At Fort Wayne, 1866, where

delegates were appointed to the German Reformed Synod, the Presbyterian

Church, the Moravian Church, and the Evangelical Church Union of the

West, S. Sprecher, delegate to the Presbyterian Church, reported that he

was most cordially received, that the fraternal greetings of this body

were most heartily responded to by the moderator of the Assembly, and

that "on your delegate's quoting, in his address, the Article of the

Constitution of this General Synod, inculcating the duty of Christian

union, as one of the earliest instances, if not the very first, of an

ecclesiastical body's formally expressing such sentiments on this

subject, he was pleasantly interrupted by a hearty expression of

applause." (36.) In the minutes of the convention held at Washington,

1869, we read: "Dr. Gordon, the delegate from the Reformed (Dutch)

Church, then addressed the Synod. The address was characterized by a

truly earnest and Christian spirit, and by assurance of a hearty purpose

to cooperate with us in every noble effort for the glory of God and the

salvation of men. His allusions to Romanism were especially timely and

truthful. The President responded in an address, happily conceived and

forcibly expressed. On motion it was resolved that the overtures of the

corresponding delegate of the Reformed Church concerning the proposed

convention for the formation of church union and cooperative agency

against a common foe be submitted to a committee to report during the

present sessions of Synod." (26.) The delegate of the Presbyterian

Church addressed the Synod "in a very pleasant and appropriate address.

His kind expressions of good will and sympathy and Christian love were

warmly responded to by the President." (27.) The delegate to the German

Reformed Church reported: "An opportunity was granted to your delegate

to present the Christian salutations of our General Synod, to which the

President of their body responded in a warm, fraternal, and most fitting

manner." Delegate to the Presbyterian General Assembly: "My intercourse

with the brethren of the General Assembly was peculiarly pleasant and

satisfactory." (13.) The delegate to the "Unitas Fratrum" (Moravians)

stated "that he was most cordially received by the brethren. There is

something of the simplicity and love of primitive Christianity about

them that renders their assemblages charmingly attractive. The spirit of

the Master was evinced in all their doings. Their discussions of some

points of church-practises, diverging from their accustomed order, were

spirited and thorough, but conducted in the scope of the Pauline

sentiment: 'Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love, in

honor preferring one another.'" (34.) The General Synod declared: "Our

principles not merely allow, but actually demand, fraternal relations

with all Evangelical Christians, and especially with other Lutheran

bodies in this country." (68.) At Canton, O., 1873, where Lutheran

ministers preached in ten sectarian churches, the following letter of

greeting from the United Brethren was read: "Our conference and Church

duly appreciate every mark of good feeling and regard of sister

denominations towards us, and admire the spirit which prompts it, which

says, 'We are brethren,' 'We are one.' We are glad to note that the

sharp corners of denominational antagonism are wearing away, that the

watchmen are seeing eye to eye, that Christians can labor side by side

in the common cause and in the same altars, and meet at the same

communion, and each rejoice in the other's success. We also remember,

with the utmost pleasure, the intimacy of some of the eminent men of

your connection with the fathers of our connection,--instance Dr. Kurtz

and W. Otterbein,--and trust that the sacred mantle of brotherly love

which the fathers possessed may fall upon the sons to many generations.

We rejoice in the marked tendency to fraternal union among the

evangelical churches of the United States, and are hopeful that we may

get near together in all the essentials of Christian oneness. We take

great pleasure in appointing a fraternal messenger to your general

meeting at Canton, O." (34.) At Carthage, Ill., 1877, delegates were

appointed to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, the

Reformed (Dutch) Church, the Reformed (German) Church, the National

Council of the Congregational Churches, the United Presbyterian Church,

the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, the Provincial Synod of the Moravian

Church, the United Brethren in Christ, and to the Evangelical Synod of

the West. (26.) At Altoona, Pa., 1881, the following letter was

received: "The Presbyterian Church greets, in the name of Christ, her

twin-sister, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, born in the throes of the

same spiritual reformation, sharing in common a glorious protesting

history, marked with glorious deeds and names dear alike to both, a

common glorious heritage, kindred symbols and polity, and a work for

Christ side by side. May grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and

the Lord Jesus Christ be with all your ministers and congregations."

(54.) At Omaha, Nebr., 1887, thirty ministers of the General Synod

preached in 18 sectarian churches, etc. Similar facts are recorded in

the minutes of the General Synod down to its last convention in 1917.

32. Altar-fellowship Practised and Encouraged.--At Hagerstown, 1837,

after a sermon delivered by Dr. Bachmann, "the brethren, united with

many followers of Christ, of our own as well as of sister-churches,

celebrated the Lord's Supper." (3.) At Philadelphia, 1845, the General

Synod "cordially approves of the practise, which has hitherto prevailed

in our churches, of inviting communicants in regular standing in either

church [Lutheran and Reformed] to partake of the Sacrament of the Lord's

Supper in the other, and of the dismission of church-members, at their

own request, from the churches of the one to those of the other

denominations." At York, 1864, and at Fort Wayne, 1866, the report of

the Liturgical Committee was adopted, which contained the resolution

"that on all subjects on which difference of doctrinal sentiment

exists" (_e.g._, the distribution formula in the Lord's Supper),

"Scripture-language, suited to either or both views, is to be employed

without comment." (1864,26; 1866,23.) The result was that the union

distribution formula was embodied in the Communion liturgy. The

_Observer_, July 21, 1865, calling upon all Lutherans to join the

General Synod, said: "And even if we, as Luther and the Reformed

ministers at Marburg, do not think alike on the presence of the Lord in

the Lord's Supper, let us have love to those who are in error, and pray

God that He would enlighten them. What an offense to see so many

thousands of intelligent and pious Lutherans live together like Jews and

Samaritans though they all confess [?] the doctrines of the immortal

Reformer and want to be disciples of Him who said: It will be one flock

and one Shepherd." In 1868 the _Observer_ reported that at Findlay, 0.,

Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists,

Weinbrennerians, and United Brethren celebrated the Lord's Supper in the

Presbyterian Church, and adds: "That was a celebration of the Lord's

Supper in the true spirit of the Gospel." (_L. u. W._ 1868,95.) In 1894

a conference of General Synod pastors in, and in the vicinity of,

Pittsburgh published, in substance, the declaration: "We have open

communion, and invite to it all members of the Evangelical Protestant

Churches." (_L. u. W._ 1895,58.) Till 1899 the Communion formula of the

"Ministerial Acts" of the General Synod contained a general invitation

to all members of other Churches in good standing or to all who love the

Lord Jesus. (_Luth. Quarterly_ 1909,33.) Though followed by a marked

decrease in the indiscriminate invitation to the Lord's Supper, the

omission of 1899 implied neither a criticism nor the abolishment of the

un-Lutheran practise. In 1900 Pastor Butler wrote in the _Evangelist_

that he agrees with the brethren who make the Lord's Supper a communion

with the Low and High-Church Episcopalians, the Methodists, Baptists,

Presbyterians, Congregationalists, etc. "It is men of Dr. Storr's type,"

says Butler, "who, of all others, commend Christianity to thoughtful

and devout people who care but little for the tweedledum and tweedledee

shadings of truth, which divide the religious world." (_L. u. W._ 1900,

246.) Dr. Valentine, in the _Lutheran Cyclopedia_ of 1905: The General

Synod "enacts no restrictive law against fellowship in pulpit or at

altar, but allows to both ministers and members the freedom of

conscience and love in this matter." (195.)

33. Other Forms of Unionism.--In his pamphlet _The General Synod and Her

Assailants_ J. A. Brown writes: "The General Synod was to aim not only

at union among Lutheran synods, but to be 'regardful of the

circumstances of the times, and of every casual rise and progress of

unity of sentiment among Christians in general, in order that the

blessed opportunities to promote concord, and unity, and the interest of

the Redeemer's kingdom may not pass by neglected and unavailing.' This

she has done by entering into correspondence with other denominations,

and joining in general efforts to evangelize the world. She has

cooperated with the American Bible and Tract Societies, and

Sunday-school Union, and like agencies, and excited the contempt of her

enemies by these 'unionistic efforts.' But it is believed she thus

secured the approval of God and of His true Church, of whatever name."

(24.) At Frederick, 1831, the Sunday-school Society of the General Synod

appointed Dr. Hazelius and the treasurer of the society to publish

German Sunday-school books and tracts in connection with a committee of

the Reformed Sunday-school Society. (29.) At Baltimore, 1833, a

committee was appointed to report on the advantages or disadvantages of

a union between the Reformed and Lutheran Churches. At Hagerstown, 1837,

the General Synod adopted the report of their committee stating with

respect to the proceedings of the East Pennsylvania Synod: "The

proceedings contain a resolution to be concerned as much as possible

about a closer union with the Church of Christ, and that a complete

union of the Evangelical Lutheran and of the Evangelical Reformed

Churches would have the most blessed results." (10.) At the same

convention the "Foreign Mission Society of the Evangelical German

Churches in the United States" was founded, which, however, did not

prove a success, having a temporary existence only. According to its

constitution, the Society was to embrace all churches or individuals of

German descent agreeing with the constitution and making an annual

contribution. (39.) Moravians and Reformed were among its officers. The

letter addressed in the interest of this Society to the Reformed and

other German Churches, inviting them to cooperate, states: "It is our

ardent desire that the German Church as such be united in this matter....

Because union in this as well as in all other matters is desirable for

the sake of peace, of Christian fellowship, and of true piety,... we,

therefore, cordially invite you, dear brethren [of the Reformed Churches,

etc.] to cooperate. It matters not who leads the way, as long as he is

in the right way." (44.) Synod resolved "that the invitations [to join

the Foreign Mission Society] which had been extended to all German

Churches without exception, suggest an appropriate admonition that,

being convinced that we all are brethren in Christ, our sectarian

divisions should be forgotten, and that they offer an occasion for the

brotherly cooperation of two Churches which are so close to each other

by national descent, similarity of doctrine, geographic neighborhood,

and matrimonial relationship." (13.) Synod furthermore declared "that

according to the meaning of this Synod the plan which is adopted should

include a connection with the American Board of Commissioners for

Foreign Missions." (13.) At Chambersburg, 1839, B. Kurtz presented a

resolution in reference to some plan for a union of effort in the

Foreign Missionary field with "our brethren of the German Reformed

Church." (33.) At the same convention the Foreign Mission Society

proposed organic union with the German Reformed. At Philadelphia, 1845,

the General Synod approved of the Reformed publications of the American

Tract Society, as also of those of the American Sunday-school Union, and

of the extension of the former's operations to the German population. At

New York, 1848, the Evangelical (Union) Synod of the West was invited to

join the General Synod. The same convention resolved that they "regard

with great pleasure the successful operations of the American Tract

Society, among the destitute population of our land, and will cheerfully

cooperate with them as opportunity may offer." (23.) A similar

resolution was adopted in 1864, at York. (_L. u. W._ 1864,284.) At

Dayton, 0., 1855, the General Synod declared its undiminished confidence

in the American Sunday-school Union, and cordially commended it to the

support and hearty cooperation of all churches. (23.) In 1859 (March 23)

the _Olive Branch_, edited by Dr. S. W. Harkey, stated that many

congregations connected with the General Synod were still using the

union hymn-book. Throughout its history ministers of the General Synod

served both Lutheran and sectarian congregations. (_L. u. W._ 1880,190.)

In 1863 Harkey proposed a union of all Lutherans in America on the basis

of the fundamental Christian doctrines, _i. e._, the doctrines held in

common by all evangelical Protestants, including the doctrine of the

divine obligation of the Sabbath which the Augsburg Confession rejects.

(_L. u. W._ 1863,91.) Reporting Dr. Crosby's statement with respect to

the differences of the old and new-school Presbyterians, "We can agree

to disagree," the _Observer_ exclaimed: "Oh, that the intolerant

dogmatists of the Lutheran Church would have attained such a degree of

Christian love and common sense!" (July 12, 1872.) In 1857 the

arch-unionist Philip Schaff wrote in _Rudelbach-Guericke's Zeitschrift_:

"To us America seems to be destined to become the phenix grave of all

European churches and sects, of Protestantism and Romanism." The General

Synod was certainly not a slacker in contributing her bit to fulfil this

prophecy.

UNION LETTER OP 1845.

34. Overtly Renouncing Lutheranism.--In 1845, at Philadelphia, the

General Synod appointed a committee to address, in a letter, the

Evangelical Church in Germany, in order to defend herself against

alleged detractors of her Lutheranism. But the signers of this letter,

Schmucker, Kurtz, Pohlmann, Morris, and H. I. Schmidt (then professor

in Hartwick Seminary), while believing that they were serving this

purpose, in reality made an unreserved confession of the General Synod's

complete apostasy from the Lutheran faith and Church. The letter states:

The General Synod requires only essential agreement in doctrinal views,

strict conformity being impossible in America. Peace can be maintained

only by an eclecticism, which adheres to essentials and passes over

non-important matters. Accordingly, the position of the General Synod is

not that of the Old Lutherans, but of the Union Church in Germany. "Now,

as to our doctrinal views, we confess without disguise, indeed, confess

it loudly and openly, that the great majority of us are not Old

Lutherans in the sense of a small party [Breslauer], which in Germany

bears this name. We are convinced that, if the great Luther were still

living, he himself would not be one of them." "In most of our

church-principles we stand on common ground with the Union Church of

Germany. The distinctive views which separate the Old Lutherans and the

Reformed Church we do not consider essential; and the tendency of the

so-called old Lutheran party seems to us to be behind our age." "The

great Luther made progress throughout his life, and at the end of his

career considered his work unfinished." The General Synod, the letter

continues, agreeing with Luther and the symbols in all essential points,

was endeavoring to complete his work. "The peculiar view of Luther on

the bodily presence of the Lord in the Lord's Supper has long ago been

abandoned by the great majority of our ministers, though some few of the

older German teachers and laymen still adhere to it. Regarding the

nature and meaning of the presence of the Lord in the Supper, liberty is

allowed as in the Evangelical [Union] Church of Germany. The majority of

our preachers believe in a peculiar presence and in a peculiar blessing

of the Lord, but of a spiritual nature only." "Nevertheless, we are

Evangelical Lutheran.... We believe that we may, as honest men, still

call ourselves Lutherans." The letter continues: Instead of organizing a

separate Evangelical [Union] Church, as it exists in Germany, ministers

coming to America should unite with the General Synod. They must,

however, not come with the purpose of remodeling the American Lutheran

Church according to European standards, which would but lead to failure,

strife, and separations. Similar attempts had been made by German

brethren through the _Kirchenzeitung_ [in Pittsburgh] and in Columbus

Seminary, with the result that the paper was losing its support and the

seminary was now suspended. (_Lutheraner_ 1846,43 f. Spaeth, 1, 330-348.)

This blunderful letter was published in Germany in the _Zeitschrift fuer

Protestantismus und Kirche_, Vol. 11, No. 4, Schmucker, Kurtz, and Morris

being personally present in Germany to defend the letter. Loehe remarked:

"We hope that they will carry the conviction from Germany that a time has

arrived different from the one when Kurtz first preached and collected in

Germany." (_Kirchl. Mitteilungen_, 1846,48.) A consequence of the letter

was that, in 1846, four ministers (Kunz, Wier, Isensee, and Meissner, who

immediately organized the Indianapolis Synod, which, however, had a

temporary existence only) left the Synod of the West, declaring that they

could no longer continue their connection with the General Synod because

in her letter she had publicly confessed that she had abandoned a part of

the Lutheran doctrine long ago. (_Lutheraner_ 1846,11.)

35. Letter Never Disowned by Synod.--The letter of 1845 is a frank

confession and adequate expression of the spirit of unionism then

prevailing in the General Synod. Indeed, several years later (1852, 1856),

H. I. Schmidt, who had signed the letter, expressed his belief in the

Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and Dr. Morris declared the

letter "the greatest blunder" ever committed by the General Synod. The

General Synod as such, however, has never criticized, renounced, or

withdrawn the letter. Moreover, in 1848, at New York, the letter, in a

way, received official recognition by the General Synod. (19. 20. 50.)

In his _Denkschrift_ of 1875 Severinghaus explains: "Even if this letter

should have expressed the views of the great majority, it is,

nevertheless, only the testimony of a committee, which indeed was never

disavowed by the General Synod, but which can have no greater

significance than was given it by the authority of the committee of that

time." But Severinghaus continues: "Besides, it is _still_ true that the

majority among us are not old-Lutheran, and that, in general, we occupy

common ground with the Union Church of Germany in most of our

church-principles." The truth is that the leaders of the General Synod,

in 1845, did not occupy higher, on the contrary, even lower ground than

the Lutherans in the Prussian Union. They were not merely unionists,

but Calvinists, Puritans, and Methodists, openly defending Reformed

errors and practises. While the greater portion of the Prussian Union

retained the Lutheran doctrines and usages, the great majority of the

General Synod had sacrificed everything specifically Lutheran:

doctrines, liturgy, Scripture-lessons, church-festivals, customs, robes,

etc. Loehe declared in 1863 that the General Synod was a Union Church,

more so than any in Germany.

36. Actions in Keeping with Letter.--A number of subsequent actions of

the General Synod were in perfect agreement with the compromising letter

of 1845. At New York, 1848, the General Synod resolved "that Profs.

Reynolds, Schmidt, and Hay be a committee to correspond with the

Evangelical Synod of the West, for the purpose of establishing fraternal

intercourse between them and this Synod, and also with a view to the

union of all parts of the Evangelical Church in the great work of

preaching the Gospel to the German population of the West, and with a

reference to the organization of all parts of our Church in this country

upon a common basis." (23.) At Dayton, 0., 1855, the committee (W. J.

Mann and S. W. Harkey), appointed to open a correspondence with the

Evangelical Church Union of the West, report "that they addressed a

letter to the Synod named, which was favorably noticed in their

proceedings, and a delegate appointed by them to meet with us at this

time." Harkey was appointed as delegate to their next meeting. (15.) At

Pittsburgh, 1859, the delegate to the same body stated: "I wrote to that

body, expressing the very deep interest which we feel in their union.

The communication was very fraternally received and a delegate appointed

to meet us at this convention of General Synod, who is now present."

(32.) At the same convention the committee on Ecclesiastical

Correspondence remarked: "You were pleased to hear Mr. Dresel's

[delegate of the Evangelical Church Union of the West] statements by

which you are assured of the near relationship of the body which he

represents to the Lutheran Church generally. They, too, recognize the

Augsburg Confession as a part of their confessional basis, although they

have modified it by the admission of the Heidelberg Catechism and other

Reformed Confessions to equal authority, standing as they do upon the

basis of the United Evangelical Church of Prussia and other parts of

Germany. It is not our business here to criticize the action of the

State authorities in Germany by which that Union was established, or of

our brethren who found themselves in this country sympathizing with the

Church in which they had there been reared. It was enough for this body

to be assured that these brethren are of an evangelical character,

holding the great doctrines of Protestantism, and zealously laboring for

the diffusion of Christian knowledge and unfeigned piety among their

countrymen, especially in the great valley of the Mississippi. Although

distinct in doctrinal position and church organization, our relations to

them here are of the most interesting character, and you will be pleased

to hear of the progress which they are making in various departments of

Christian labor." (30.) At Washington, in 1869, the delegate to the

Evangelical Church Union of the West reported: "These brethren are

earnestly at work in the Master's cause, and in full sympathy with our

General Synod. Hoping that our fraternal relations may grow stronger

each revolving year," etc. (29.) In 1857 and 1859 the same cordial

attitude was assumed toward the Evangelical Church Diet (Kirchentag) in

Germany, a letter, in behalf of the Diet, having been received from

Bethmann-Hollweg, then Secretary of ecclesiastical affairs in Prussia.

(_Proceedings_ 1857,21.24; 1859,32.37.38.) In 1909 the General Synod

approved of the admission (in 1907) of the _Vereinslutheraner_ within

the Prussian Union into the "Allgemeine Evangelisch-Lutherische

Konferenz." (22.) Siding with the Evangelicals, the _Lutheran Observer_,

October 9, 1863, declared: "The Evangelical Union of the West forms a

wholesome balance against the old-Lutheran tendency of the Missouri

Synod." (_L. u. W._. 1863,379.) It was, therefore, not in dissonance

with the traditions of the General Synod, when, as late as 1909, the

_Lutheran Evangelist_ proposed a union of the General and Evangelical

Synods, maintaining that General Synodists and Evangelicals were

natural allies. (_L. u. W._ 1909,180. 421.)

CHRISTIAN UNION.

37. "Father" of Evangelical Alliance.--At Chambersburg, Pa., 1839, the

General Synod passed the resolution "that the thanks of this Synod be

presented to the American Society for the Promotion of Christian Union

_for this acceptable present_." The present received by the members of

Synod was Schmucker's "Appeal to the American Churches" or "New Plan of

Apostolic Protestant Union." The purpose of this book was to promote

union among the Protestant denominations on the basis of the ecumenical

confessions. It proved to be a powerful factor in the movement which

resulted in the organization of the Evangelical Alliance. Schmucker

himself, together with Kurtz and Morris, attended the "World's

Convention" at London in 1846, where they united with 800 ministers of

50 different denominations in founding the Alliance, which assumed the

motto: "_Unum corpus sumus in Christo_," Schmucker, in particular being

feted as the "Father" of this union. Naturally enough also the General

Synod took a lively interest in the Alliance, though it was not a union

of churches or of representatives of churches, but of individual

Christians who were in sympathy with its aims. In 1869, for example, the

General Synod "resolved that the delegates to the World's Evangelical

Alliance, appointed at Harrisburg, be continued with the addition of

Rev. S. Sprecher, D. D., and Rev. S. S. Schmucker, D. D." (64.) At the

international conferences of the Alliance the General Synod was

regularly represented, also at its last convention in 1914 at Basel. On

a local meeting of the Alliance in 1902, at Easton, Pa., the

_Lutherische Kirchenblatt_ (General Council) reported, in substance, as

follows: "More than 60 delegates were present: Baptists, Methodists,

Congregationalists, Evangelicals, Free Baptists, Lutherans (General

Synod and General Council), Mennonites, Moravians, Presbyterians,

Episcopalians, Reformed, Reformed Presbyterians, and United

Evangelicals. Resolutions formulated by a committee, of which Dr.

Alleman of the General Synod was a member, were unanimously adopted

according to which members of one congregation may be received by

another in a manner 'that no question of church-polity or doctrine need

ever arise.' It was furthermore resolved that in smaller cities and

country congregations union services be held throughout the state."

(_Observer_, Dec. 26, 1903.) The following nine articles, which

Schmucker viewed as a sufficient basis for every kind of Christian union

and cooperation, were adopted by the Alliance at London: "1. The divine

inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures. 2. The

right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of the Holy

Scripture. 3. The unity of the Godhead and the trinity of Persons

therein. 4. The utter depravity of human nature in consequence of the

fall. 5. The incarnation of the Son of God, His work of atonement for

sinners of mankind, and His mediatorial intercession and reign. 6. The

justification of the sinner by faith alone. 7. The work of the Holy

Spirit in the conversion and sanctification of the sinner. 8. The

immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the judgment of

the world by our Lord Jesus Christ, with the eternal blessedness of the

righteous and the eternal punishment of the wicked. 9. The divine

institution of Christian ministry, and the obligation and perpetuity of

the ordinance of Baptism and the Lord's Supper."

38. "Apostolic Protestant Union."--The plan of Christian Union hatched

by Schmucker and recommended by the General Synod is delineated in a

report presented 1848, at New York, by the Committee of Conference on

Christian Union appointed at the previous session of the General Synod,

as follows: "The kind of union to which this body was disposed to invite

the several evangelical denominations, and in which she felt it a duty

and a pleasure to lead the way in hope of virtually healing the 'Great

Schism' of Protestantism, is also definitely delineated by the following

portraiture: 'The design to be aimed at shall be not to amalgamate the

several denominations into one church, nor to impair in any degree the

independent control of each denomination over its own affairs and

interests, but to present to the world a more formal profession and

practical proof of our mutual recognition of each other as integral

parts of the visible Church of Christ on earth, as well as our

fundamental unity of faith and readiness to cooperate harmoniously in

the advancement of objects of common interest." (11.) "An article was

prepared in which, after a glance at the solemn injunction of the Savior

and His apostles to preserve unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,

the nature and extent of the union prevailing in the primitive churches

was delineated as consisting of the following features: a. unity of

name; b. unity in fundamental doctrines, whilst diversity in

nonessentials was concealed; c. mutual acknowledgment of each other's

acts of discipline; d. sacramental and ministerial intercommunion; e.

convention of the different churches of the land in synod or council

for mutual consultation or ecclesiastical regulation." (12.) "In

contrast with this picture of primitive union, the present deplorable

divided and conflicting state of the Church was delineated.... In hope

of removing the principal evils of these denominational divisions, your

committee projected a scheme of Christian union based (in the following

four preliminary principles for the guarantee of the rights of

individual conscience and denominational religious liberty: 1. This plan

must require of no one the renunciation of any doctrine or opinion

believed by him to be true, nor the profession of anything he regards as

erroneous; nor does the accession of any denomination to this union

imply any sanction of the peculiarities of any other. 2. It must concede

to every denomination the right to retain its own organization for

government, discipline, and worship. 3. It must not prevent the

discussion of the points of difference between the several associated

denominations, but only require that it be done in the spirit of love.

4. It must either in all or at least some of its features be applicable

to all evangelical, fundamentally orthodox [non-Unitarian] churches, and

each denomination may at option adopt any or all of its features." (12.)

The plan of union offered in accordance with these principles by

Schmucker and the committee embraces the following features: 1. Adoption

of the nine doctrinal articles of the Evangelical Alliance. 2. Regular

interchange of delegates between the supreme judicatories of the several

denominations. 3. Cooperation of the different associated churches in

voluntary societies, notably such as Bible, Tract, Sabbath-school and

Foreign Mission Societies. 4. The more extensive use of the Bible as a

textbook in theological, congregational, and Sunday-school institutions.

5. Occasional free sacramental communion by all whose views of duty

allow it. 6. A general, stated anniversary celebration and smaller state

celebrations, also representation at the ecumenical conventions of the

Evangelical Alliance. (12.) The report concludes: "This plan was sent by

your committee in the form of a proof-sheet to about fifty of the most

distinguished and influential divines of ten different denominations,

and these not only returned letters expressing their substantial

approbation of the plan, but nearly all of them united with your

committee in sending it out over their own signatures as an overture of

Christian union, submitted for the consideration of the Evangelical

denominations in the United States." (13.)