92. Critique of So-called "Planentwurf."--The formation of a Lutheran
General Synod, warmly advocated by the Synods of Pennsylvania and North
Carolina, met with the earnest and zealous, though not in every respect
judicious, opposition of the Tennessee Synod. Her Report of 1820
contains a criticism of the _Planentwurf_, which in 1819 had been
proposed by the Pennsylvania Synod as a tentative constitution for the
projected General Synod. Among the objections enumerated are the
following: 1. Whosoever desired to be recognized as a pastor would be
compelled to pursue his studies at the proposed seminary of the General
Synod. 2. Of those entitled to cast a vote there were two pastors to
every lay delegate. "It would therefore be vain for a lay deputy to make
the journey, except he desired the honor of being a servant of two
masters." 3. The General Synod arrogated to itself the exclusive right
to introduce new books for public worship. 4. Luther's Catechism also
was to remain only _until_ the Synod would introduce other books. 5.
According to the _Planentwurf_, the General Synod could reject all
articles of faith or omit them entirely. 6. Neither the Augsburg
Confession nor the Bible was designated as the foundation of the General
Synod, nor even so much as mentioned in the _Planentwurf_. (52 f.) 7. The
General Synod was striving to establish a dominion over all Ministeriums,
as appeared from the statement: "Until the permission or approval of the
General Synod shall have been formally obtained, no newly established
body shall be regarded as a Ministerium, nor shall an ordination
conferred by them be considered valid." "Accordingly," they said, "one
had as much liberty as the rope permitted." (54 f.; 1822, 10.) 8. The
General Synod claimed the right to specify the "ranks universally valid
for the ministry." "Catechist," as the Report of 1820 has it,
"candidate, dean, and pastor will no longer suffice; who knows but
something higher will be required, such as bishop, archbishop, cardinal,
or even pope!" 9. Pastors were granted the right to appeal from the
decision of their synod to the General Synod. "Accordingly the case of a
pastor, be he ever so bad, may drag on for years; and if, owing to
extreme distances or other circumstances, the witnesses are not able to
attend, he may finally even win it. This provision renders the matter
similar to a temporal government, where appeals are commonly made from a
lower to a higher court." 10. "One cannot be sure that a spirit desiring
as much power as appears to be granted by this _Planentwurf_ will be
able to rest and not seek further power." 11. No one was able to
guarantee that this Lutheran General Synod would not later on unite with
the General Synods of the sects to form a National Synod, in which the
majority would then determine all articles of faith and all
church-customs. 12. Such a National Synod would be able also to change
the Constitution of the United States and compel every one to unite with
this National Synod, impose taxes, etc. (50 f.) By resolution of Synod
the reasons why some pastors in Ohio, influenced in their action by Paul
Henkel, rejected the _Planentwurf_ were also appended to the Report of
1820. Among them were: 1. The fear "of falling into the hands of a
strong hierarchy" by accepting this _Planentwurf_, since they knew from
church history that the Papacy had developed rapidly along similar
lines. (64.) 2. The General Synod would soon become English, whereas,
according to its ministerial order, the Ohio Synod "must remain a
German-speaking ministerium." (65.) 3. Every meeting of the General
Synod would mean for them a traveling expense of $168. 4. As the
_Planentwurf_ was subject to change, union with the General Synod would
be tantamount "'to buying the cat in the bag,' as the proverb has it."
These scruples reveal the fact that the Tennessee Synod viewed the
General Synod as a body which was hierarchical in its polity and
thoroughly un-Lutheran in its doctrinal position, an opinion well
founded, even though the objections advanced are not equally valid.
93. General Synod's Constitution Criticized.--The critique of the
_Planentwurf_ was not devoid of fruit in every respect. Due to the
testimony of the Henkels, its hierarchical features were toned down
considerably in the constitution finally adopted at Hagerstown, Md.,
1820. Thus, _e.g._, the odious passage regarding the establishment of
new ministeriums and the validity of their ordinations was omitted.
Still Tennessee was far from being satisfied with the constitution as
amended. Moreover, a committee was appointed to draw up their remaining
objections, and the report submitted was appended to the minutes of 1821
and printed by order of Synod. It subjects the constitution to a severe
examination, and makes a number of important strictures. 1. The first
objection was raised against the words of the Preamble: "Whereas Jesus
Christ, the great Head of the Church, hath not given her any particular
prescriptions how church-government should be regulated, she therefore
enjoys the privilege in all her departments to make such regulations as
may appear best, agreeably to situation and circumstances." While
recognizing that Christ has given no prescriptions "for the regulation
of some things not essential to the Church," they objected to the
sweeping statement of the Preamble whereby the government of the Church
would be left to a majority of votes. Tennessee maintained that Matt. 18,
16 Christ prescribes to the Church how discipline is to be exercised;
that 1 Cor. 11, 4-11 sufficient rules with respect to public worship are
prescribed; that 1 Tim. 3, 1-3 the grades of ministers are described;
that 1 Tim. 5, 19-22 instructions are given how to receive an accusation
against an elder; and that 2 Tim. 2, 3-6 Paul shows that ministers
should not be entangled with the things of this world. "From these and
many more passages that might be quoted, it is evident that Christ and
His inspired apostles have given the Church sufficient prescriptions of
her government in all her various branches. They are general rules, and
yet applicable to every particular case that may occur, so that they are
also particular prescriptions. But that the constitution of the General
Synod saith, Christ has not left such particular prescriptions, appears
a strange, unwarranted, and arbitrary assertion." (14 f.) 2. The second
objection asserted that the General Synod was a yoke of commandments of
men, hence could not serve the purpose of true peace. According to the
constitution the purpose of the General Synod was "the exercise of
brotherly love, the furtherance of Christian harmony, and the
preservation of the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace." But the
Report maintained: "The attempt of the establishment of this General
Synod has not produced any brotherly love, nor harmony, nor peace; but
on the contrary, divisions, contentions, and confusion. This
establishment is nothing but self-invented rules and traditions of men,
and such as love Christian liberty cannot suffer themselves to be
brought into bondage; hence the confusion. O ye watchmen of Zion, pity
and spare the flock!" (17 f.) A "note" added by David Henkel, the "clerk
of the committee," explains: "That this institution of General Synod's
promotes unity in spirit is contrary to constant experience. The
Presbyterians, Methodists, and other churches are governed by General
Synods, and have many human rules and regulations; but yet from time to
time many disputes and factions have arisen among them, so that they are
split into many sects and parties. The Lutheran Church never heretofore
was governed by a General Synod, yet she never was divided until this
novel system was introduced. . . . The first Lutheran ministers
emigrated from Germany and Sweden. . . . Being few in number, no
particular synods were formed for many years; yet they were united. The
Augsburg Confession of Faith, containing the principal doctrines of the
Holy Scriptures, was their standard of union. It was unalterable; they
had no novel system, produced by a majority of votes, to expect. . . .
Each of these synods, before the General Constitution was formed, were
independent, and not amenable to any superior tribunal, except that of
Christ. Differences in local and temporary regulations, the formation of
new synods, etc., were not considered as divisions of the Church; their
standard of unity was far more noble, and exalted: the pure Scriptural
doctrines of the Augsburg Confession of Faith was their meridian sun,
which they viewed with united eyes; and anything less, such as local and
temporary regulations, never influenced their minds, even to think of
divisions. The Church proceeded peaceably, until the unhappy and fatal
period of 1819 arrived, when a meeting was called to Baltimore,
consisting of some of the Synod of Pennsylvania and an individual from
North Carolina, for the purpose of devising a plan for the establishment
of the General Synod, etc. (17 f.) Article III, Sec. V, which provided
that "the General Synod shall take good care not to burden the
consciences of ministers with human traditions," called forth the
following comment: "The General Synod shall not burden the consciences
of ministers with human traditions, yet at the same time the very
institution of the General Synod is nothing but human laws and
traditions! How vehemently our Savior upbraided the Pharisees for their
human laws and the traditions they imposed upon the common people! By
means of human laws and traditions popery was established.--Why are
preparations made now again to introduce that horrid beast? How careful
individual synods should be not to impose human traditions upon the
Church, but to remember that they do 'not assemble for the purpose of
making laws for the Church, but only to devise means to execute those
already made by Christ." (B. 1821, 26; R. 1821, 28. 29.) In an
additional "note" David Henkel remarks: "The unity of the Lutheran
Church doth not consist in any external forms or ceremonies, or
government established by men. It is independent of any general head
except Christ. The Seventh Article of the Augsburg Confession of Faith
points out the true nature of her unity. . . . It is the same as if it
had said: the Church of Christ is but one united body, consisting of
innumerable members; but what unites them? All believers believe in one
invisible Lord, by whom they are governed, for He is their King; they
are anointed by the same Holy Ghost, for He is their Comforter and
Guide. This is an invisible, godlike union, not discerned by the carnal
eye, nor doth it imitate the unity of the kingdom of this world. Christ
is its polar star, the Bible its charter, ministers who proclaim sweet
words of peace, its heralds, Baptism and the Lord's Supper its seal,
bond, token, and security. This union is independent of all human
ceremonies, traditions, general synods, or anything of the kind, and has
existed ever since the promulgation of the Gospel in all realms and
climes. . . . A union which consists of human laws, ceremonies, and
discipline may be termed a political union--a union peculiar to civil
government of this world. Now, even were it the case that all who call
themselves Christians would be united in this manner, it would by no
means prove their spiritual unity. For many may conform to one external
rule, and yet be divided in heart, for they are not all Israelites that
are of Israel. It is evident, because the General Synod is but the
invention of men, that they make much more necessary to Christian unity
than the pure preaching of the Gospel and the proper administration of
the Sacraments, commanded by Christ. Thus, this establishment of the
General Synod must be contrary to the Seventh Article of our Confession
of Faith. True Christianity is thereby blended with human laws and
policy--the true lineaments of popery. . . . If no man is to judge
Christians in respect to meat and drink or of an holy day, or of the new
moon, or of the Sabbath-days, who, then, has a right to judge them in
respect of forming books for the public use in churches, or in respect
of meeting as a synod, without a formal permission, or in respect of
performing ordinations? The General Synod have arrogated this right of
judging and oppressing Christians in these respects. These are
prerogatives they claim, contrary to the doctrines of the apostle."
(R. 1821, 28.)
94. Criticism of Constitution Continued.--3. The third objection
maintained that the General Synod was Lutheran in name only. Says the
Report: "This body, indeed, may call itself Evangelical Lutheran, and
yet not be such. The constitution does nowhere say that the Augsburg
Confession of Faith, or Luther's Catechism, or the Bible shall be the
foundation of doctrine and discipline of the General Synod. It is well
known that they always have been the standard of the Lutheran Church.
Why does the constitution not once name them?" "Had the framers of this
constitution been zealous advocates of Lutheran doctrine, they would
have been careful to insert a clause to compel the General Synod always
to act according to our standard books. It is an easy thing to prove
that some of the founders of this General Synod have openly denied some
of the important doctrines of the Augsburg Confession of Faith and of
Luther's Catechism." (B. 1821, 18; R. 1821, 19.) 4. The fourth objection
was based on the proposed membership of the new body, which, according
to Article II, was to consist "of deputies of the different Evangelical
Synodical and Ministerial Connections in the United States." Tennessee
commented: "This body [General Synod] may consist of deputies from the
different evangelical connections. It is not said of the several
Evangelical _Lutheran_ connections. If this body may consist of the
different connections, then it is evident that it may be composed of
_all_ denominations, such as Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, etc.
These all denominate themselves Evangelical, and are even recognized as
such by some who call themselves Lutherans. Thus it is manifest that all
denominations who call themselves Evangelical may have seats and votes
in this body, forasmuch as there is nothing to prohibit them from it."
(R. 1821, 22.) The German version adds the following: "The constitution
has opened a door where all manner of sects and parties may creep into
the Lutheran Church and extirpate her doctrine." (B. 1821, 20.) These
apprehensions of Tennessee were no mere products of their own
imagination, for just such a union of all Evangelical denominations
Shober and his compeers had been ardently advocating in the North
Carolina Synod, especially since 1817. 5. The fifth objection was that
the General Synod proposed to curtail the exercise of Christian liberty
in regard to ceremonies. Article III, Section II, provided that no synod
or ministry in connection with the General Synod shall publish any new
catechism, liturgy, compilation of hymns, or confession of faith
"without having first handed a complete copy thereof to the General
Synod, and having received their sentiments, or admonitions, or advice."
The Tennessee Synod held this to be against the Seventh Article of the
Augsburg Confession and said: "Why shall individual societies be robbed
of the liberty to introduce such books us suit them best, when our
Confession of Faith grants every person liberty in this case?" (23.) 6.
A further objection was raised against this article (III, 2) of the
constitution because its language permitted the introduction of a new
confession of faith. Tennessee remarked: "An opportunity is here given
to introduce a new confession of faith. This appears a conclusive proof
that the General Synod do not intend to be governed by (the Augsburg
Confession of Faith, nor vindicate the Lutheran doctrines contained
therein; for if they did, they would not by this clause have given
liberty to form other confessions of faith. Perhaps this may be one of
the reasons why they have nowhere promised in the constitution that
Luther's Catechism, the Augsburg Confession of Faith, nor the Bible
should be the guide of their body. They wish to have power to form a new
confession; perhaps more popular, and suited to the newfangled opinions
of this present age of infidelity. Were not the men such as Luther,
Melanchthon, etc., who formed the Augsburg Confession of Faith, as a
testimony against popery and other heresies, godly and enlightened men,
and to whose instrumentality we owe our light of the Gospel? Will any of
the votaries of the General Synod presume to say that this confession is
erroneous, heretical, and wicked? Can they form a better one? If they
answer in the affirmative, they are no Lutherans, as they call
themselves. If they answer in the negative, why, then, have they not
positively specified in the constitution that such should remain the
standard of the Church? Why have they given an opportunity to introduce
a new confession? It is known that all Lutheran ministers, when they are
ordained, are solemnly pledged as by an oath to maintain the doctrine of
the Augsburg Confession of Faith. But when there is an opportunity given
to propose and introduce other confessions, perhaps the very reverse,
what shall become of all the oaths made at the time of ordination?"
(24.) The German Report argues: "The Evangelical Lutheran Church already
has, for almost three hundred years, a confession of faith, to wit, the
Augsburg Confession. To this confession all Lutheran ministers are
pledged by an oath when they are ordained. Since the constitution
nowhere states that the Augsburg Confession shall be retained, and other
confessions of faith may be proposed, it is apparent that the General
Synod has the power to abrogate the Augsburg Confession entirely, and to
introduce a new and erroneous confession of faith, and consequently to
set aside the oath of ordination." (B. 1821, 22.) 7. A further objection
to the General Synod was based on Article III, Section V, which
provided, among other things, that the General Synod shall take good
care "not to oppress any person on account of differences in opinion."
After pointing out that this can only be understood as referring to
doctrinal differences, Tennessee made the following arraignment: "What
an opportunity is here given to introduce all manner of false doctrines!
If no person is to be afflicted in respect to difference in opinion,
then no person can be excommunicated for propagating any false or wicked
doctrine. One might deny the Holy Trinity, and encourage any system of
infidelity, and yet, agreeably to this constitution, no one could be
rebuked nor suspended. One might plead this article in defense, and say
the General Synod have no right to oppress me for my different opinion."
(R. 1821, 30; B. 1821, 25.) The German report concludes as follows:
"This is nourishment for the lukewarm spirit, where men are indifferent
whether true or false opinions are maintained." (27.) That also these
apprehensions were not purely imaginary appears from the fact that two
delegates of the Ministerium of New York, then identifying itself with
the rationalism of Quitman, were permitted to participate in the
organization of the General Synod. 8. Finally, Article III, Section
VIII, provided that the General Synod should "be sedulously and
incessantly regardful of the circumstances of the times, and of every
casual rise and progress of unity of opinions 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." In this, too, Tennessee saw but "another
opportunity to extirpate the Lutheran doctrine." "For," said they, "how
is it possible that the opinions of Lutherans can ever become agreed
with those of Calvinists and other parties so long as they do not deny
their teachings?" (B. 1821, 30.) The English Report merely states: "All
that we can understand from this [Section VIII] is a desire to unite
with all denominations." (34.) Thus the Tennessee Synod, with the utmost
candor, exposed and rebuked the un-Lutheran features of the constitution
of the General Synod, which substituted external organization and union
for true internal Christian unity in the Spirit. David Henkel remarked:
"Is the General Synod a plant which has been planted by the heavenly
Father? No. It was planted by a majority of votes. . . . It is too
lamentable a fact that among the most denominations human laws,
discipline, and ceremonies are made the rallying point of unity!" (R.
1821, 30; 1832, 17.) It was in the spirit of truth and conscientiousness
that Tennessee had made her objections to the constitution of the
General Synod. "We conclude," they say, "hoping that the friends of the
General Synod will not view us as enemies. We would freely join in with
them if we could do it with a good conscience . . .; it is much easier
to swim with than against the current." (34.)