77. Charges Preferred by Tennessee Synod.--The report of the committee
which the Tennessee Synod appointed in 1824 to discuss the doctrinal
differences with the North Carolina Synod charged them with the
following statements of un-Lutheran doctrine which they quoted from
their writings: "1. 'Jesus says, without being baptized; and furthermore
He says: He that believeth not shall be damned--hence, baptized or not
baptized, faith saves us.' See the committee's appendix to the
proceedings of said North Carolina connection of the year 1822, p.4, §2.
The President of said connection [Stork] says in his _English Review_,
p.46, 'that none but idiots could believe that the body of Christ fills
all space.' See also their proceedings of 1820, p. 18." (_Tenn. Rep_.
1824, Appendix.) Accordingly the charges lodged by Tennessee against the
North Carolina Synod were that they rejected the distinctive doctrines
of Lutheranism. In keeping herewith Tennessee refused to acknowledge the
North Carolina Synod as Lutheran, and declined to grant her this title,
speaking of her as a connection "which _calls_ itself a Lutheran synod."
In 1825 the Tennessee Synod declared: "We must here observe that we
cannot consistently grant to the Synod of North Carolina this title
[Lutheran], because we maintain that they departed from the Lutheran
doctrine." (6.) The same convention headed a letter addressed to the
North Carolina Synod as follows: "To the Reverend Synod of North
Carolina, who assume the title Lutheran, but which we at this time, for
reason aforesaid, dispute. Well beloved in the Lord, according to your
persons!" etc. (7.) According to a letter of Ambrosius Henkel, March 24,
1824, Riemenschneider declared: "The North Carolina Synod must have
deviated not only from the Lutheran doctrine, but from the very words of
Christ as well, as I have lately, in one of their publications, read the
horrible words: Baptized or not baptized, faith saves us. What is that
except to declare Baptism unnecessary? One would think that these people
were crazy (man sollte denken, diese Menschen waeren verrueckt)." The
North Carolina Synod, however, in spite of their avowed unionistic and
essentially Reformed attitude, boldly insisted that they were the "true
Lutherans"--a bit of bravado imitated several decades later by
Benjamin Kurtz, one of the Reformed theologians of the General Synod,
over against Missouri and other synods loyal to the Lutheran Confessions.
78. "Lutheraner" on Division of North Carolina Synod.--The first
unbiased Lutheran estimate and, in all essential points, correct
presentation of the division in the North Carolina Synod is found in the
_Lutheraner_ of June 5, 1855. Here Theo. Brohm, who attended the
thirty-fourth convention of the Tennessee Synod in 1854 as the
representative of the Missouri Synod, writes as follows: "German
Lutheran congregations had been organized in the State of North Carolina
as early as the middle of the preceding century. About 1798 the first
attempts were made to unite these congregations by a regulated synodical
bond. However, the removal of a number of pastors resulted in the decay
of the church life in this field. After a number of years the
congregations increased again, and so the foundation for the Ev. Luth.
Synod of North Carolina was laid in 1803. Paul Henkel was among the
charter members. The beginning was weak, but the good cause progressed.
Gradually Lutheran congregations were organized also in Virginia, South
Carolina, and in Tennessee, uniting with this synod. As most of the
pastors had come from Pennsylvania, cordial unity obtained between the
Pennsylvania Synod and the Synod of North Carolina. In the course of
time, however, Satan succeeded in sowing tares among the wheat. Two
opposing parties sprang up in the synod. The one, to which the great
majority belonged, found its expression and embodiment in the General
Synod, and is too well known to our readers to require further
characterization at this place. The other was the staunch and truly
Lutheran party, to which, indeed, but a small minority adhered. The
majority, in agreement with a number of influential men in the
Pennsylvania Synod, proposed the idea of a General Synod, which,
according to their view, was to embody not only the various Lutheran
synods of this country, but, if possible, all other religious bodies as
well. While the true Lutherans could see nothing but mischief arising
from this General Synod, the majority entered upon this unhappy scheme
with great enthusiasm. And, in order to carry out their plan, without
the let or hindrance of the staunch Lutherans, the friends of the
General Synod convened a meeting of synod in 1819 at an unlawful time,
and also without notifying all pastors, especially those of Tennessee.
Delegates were elected to the convention of the Pennsylvania Synod in
Baltimore, where the plan for the General Synod was to be matured. In
order to destroy the influence of one of the most decided opponents, the
young David Henkel, he was suspended from office for a period of six
months, ostensibly because he was spreading Roman Catholic doctrines,
which in reality, however, were none but pure Lutheran doctrines,
especially those of the power of Baptism and of the presence of the true
body and blood in the Lord's Supper. When the Synod met at Lincolnton,
N. C., in the following year, those members of Synod who were
dissatisfied with the resolutions of the previous year demanded a
thorough investigation of the mooted questions. In answer reference was
made to the majority vote, which decision was to be final. Hostility to
the Augsburg Confession and especially to the doctrines of Baptism and
of the Lord's Supper, as well as the tendency to unite with all
religious bodies, became more and more apparent. And when the plan of
the General Synod met with the determined opposition of the staunch
Lutherans, the other party dissolved the meeting and made the beginning
of the General Synod. Those pastors who remained faithful to the
Lutheran Confessions, six in number, now united and organized the
so-called Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod." (11, 165.)