102. Confession of Truth a Christian Duty.--It appears from the
procedure of the Tennessee Synod, as well as from the resolution of
1827, quoted in the preceding paragraph, that Tennessee felt justified
in demanding a showdown on the part of the American Lutheran synods,
which had persistently refused to reveal their colors. However, being
unionists, indifferentists, and masked or open Calvinists, these false
Lutherans resented such a demand as obtrusive, arrogant, and impudent.
Hence their contemptuous silence. However, also in this matter Tennessee
realized that they were only asking what, according to the Word of God,
it was their solemn duty to demand. For to confess the faith which is in
him is not only the privilege of a Christian, but also an obligation and
a debt which he owes his brethren. Accordingly, when, in 1827, the
committee reported how all efforts to induce the Carolina and
Pennsylvania Synods to reveal their colors and to give testimony of
their faith as to the doctrines of Baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc., had
been rebuked with silent contempt, Tennessee passed the resolutions
quoted in the preceding paragraph. They felt called upon publicly to
justify their procedure; and this all the more so because a member of
the North Carolina Synod had declared "that it was not only improper,
but also sinful to argue publicly on religious subjects." (R. 1827, 36.)
David Henkel, therefore, in a treatise appended to the Report of 1827,
endeavored to show the propriety and the Scriptural grounds for the
public debate proposed to the ministers of the North Carolina Synod. How
Tennessee justified her actions appears from the following quotations
culled from this treatise: "The members of the Lutheran Church," says
David Henkel, "are pledged by their confirmation vows to support and to
adhere to her doctrines and discipline. Now as it is not a matter of
little importance to break such vows, it is therefore highly interesting
for every member to know who of the ministers and which of the synods
have departed from the confession of faith they have vowed to maintain,
as a connection with such would be a partaking of their errors." (33.)
"Because all Lutherans are pledged to maintain the doctrines of their
confession of faith, it may therefore be legally required of any one to
stand an examination, if it be believed that he has deviated from the
same." (36.) "The members of the Lutheran Church at the time of their
confirmation declare that they believe the doctrines as held by the
same, and every minister is solemnly pledged to maintain the Augustan
Confession. Independently of Synods, the Augustan Confession of Faith is
the point of union of all Lutherans, and by which they are distinguished
from other denominations. As all bear the same name, and are pledged to
maintain the same creed, they are viewed as one body. Therefore one
member is accountable to another, and it is one minister's duty to watch
the other's official conduct, as the doctrines taught by one are
ascribed to the others, because they constitute one body. How does a man
become partaker of another's guilt but by being in connection with him,
and not reproving it? 1 Tim. 5, 22." (37.) "Now as one Lutheran
minister's doctrine is ascribed to another, why should the one not have
the right to bring the other to an account, provided he believes that he
deviates from the confession they are both pledged to maintain? The
ministers of the North Carolina Synod call themselves Lutherans, but as
we believe that they propagate doctrines contrary to the Augustan
Confession, we considered it necessary to require of them to stand an
examination. It is necessary to correct a wrong opinion, which is, that
Lutheran ministers are at liberty to deviate from the Augustan
Confession whereinsoever they conceive it as erroneous. Some ministers
have declared that they did not care what the Augustan Confession
teaches, that they simply taught the doctrines of the Scriptures;
further, that Luther was only a man, and was therefore liable to err. In
answer to this, I observe that Lutheran ministers have no right to
deviate from any article of this Confession because the whole of it is
viewed by the Lutheran community as true and Scriptural. Let them
remember their solemn vows! Such as think proper to deviate, infringe
upon the rights of the community. It must, however, be admitted that if
any one should discover that this confession is unscriptural, he would
be justifiable in renouncing it. By doing so no one would be deceived.
If there are errors in this confession, why should any man who has
discovered them yet pretend to preach under its covert? Such as believe
that this Confession contains errors practise a twofold fraud. The one
is, that they cause Lutherans to think that they hold the same doctrines
as they do themselves, when yet they do not. The other is (provided it
be true what they affirm), that they encourage the people in those
errors, because they pretend to support the very confession which
contains them. That the Bible is the proper rule of doctrine must be
confessed; yet the question is, Does the Augustan Confession contradict
it? That Luther was a man, and therefore liable to err, is not denied;
but that he did err with regard to the doctrines contained in the
Augustan Confession remains to be proven. But if he erred, why do such
as believe this call themselves Lutherans? Such practise a fraud by
being called Lutherans, when they affirm that Luther taught erroneous
doctrines; or else [they] must own that, by being called after him, they
sanction such errors." (37 f.)
103. Truth Always Seeks the Light.--In his justification of the
procedure of the Tennessee Synod, David Henkel continues as follows:
"The intention of the public debate which was offered to the ministers
of the North Carolina Synod was to afford them an opportunity of
manifesting the doctrines we teach, and to prove them as erroneous. The
same [opportunity] we would also had to have treated theirs in like
manner. The propositions which were made were calculated to have brought
all these things to light. They would not only have offered the hearers
who might have been present the opportunity of knowing the difference,
and arguments on each side, but the debates might also have been
committed to paper and published, and thus the whole Lutheran community
might have been judges in this controversy. When a doctrine is in
dispute between two parties, how shall the public decide when they never
heard the opposite arguments? Is it rational to condemn either party
without a trial? Whilst the deeds of men are to be concealed, there are
just grounds for believing that they are evil. Our blessed Savior says,
'For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the
light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth the truth
cometh to the light that his deeds may be made manifest that they are
wrought in God.' John 3, 20. 21. No man who is confident that he has the
truth on his side will ever evade coming to the light; for he is not
ashamed to profess and vindicate the truth; and though it should be
scrutinized to the utmost, yet he knows that thereby, like gold passing
through the fire, it shall become more brilliant. Even the man who is
diffident with respect to his doctrines, yet having an honest
disposition, never objects to be brought to the light; for he considers
that no greater favor could be shown him than that his errors be
overthrown, and he be led into the paths of truth. But the man who knows
that he cannot defend his doctrines upon Scriptural grounds, and yet
possesses too high an estimation of himself, hates to be brought to the
light, for he knows that his errors will be unmasked; 'for every one
that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his
deeds should be reproved.' Why do men make so many shifts to evade a
public trial of the doctrines, but a consciousness of being in an error
which their pride does not suffer to be publicly exposed? Many a man in
a hasty ill humor condemns a doctrine merely because the man whom he
considers his enemy vindicates it; and though he should afterwards be
clearly convinced, yet he believes it to be beneath his dignity to make
a recantation, and thus throughout all his days he is tormented with a
guilty conscience. In the days of the Reformation public debates were
highly conducive to manifest the errors of the papists. When Luther
confronted his opponents in the presence of multitudes, it was that many
souls got convinced of the truth, which before were kept in ignorance.
Had he refused to appear, especially before the Diet at Worms, what
would have been the result? Though he knew that his life was in danger,
if he appeared, yet he also knew that the cause he had espoused would
have suffered, provided he evaded a public test of his doctrines. The
Papists having been taught by experience that the public debates with
Luther proved injurious to their party, they avoided them as much as
they could and employed various stratagems to destroy him and his cause.
Luther says: 'The court of Rome most horribly fears, and shamefully
flees from, a Christian council.' Had this principle been uniformly
followed in the days of Luther that it is sinful to dispute on points of
doctrine, the errors of the Papish Church could have been impregnable;
and those who bear the name of Christian might perhaps yet groan under
papal superstition and tyranny. . . . Thousands have joined churches
with whose peculiar doctrines they are not acquainted, and even do not
know whether their government is republican, aristocratical, or
monarchical. They are satisfied with what they hear from their
ministers, without even examining their creeds or forms of government.
Such being ignorant, they are already prepared for a state of slavery.
They who so easily submit to an ecclesiastical slavery may also by
degrees, by the same means, be led to sacrifice their civil liberty. How
is it possible that people can with any degree of safety be in
connection with such ministers as are publicly impeached with erroneous
doctrines, and yet are not willing to be brought to light? Ought not
every person conclude: If such ministers believed that they had nothing
but the truth on their side, they would freely embrace every opportunity
of coming to the light, so that they might show that their works are
wrought in God, and refute their opponents' calumnies? That a public
debate would create animosity is no reason that it should be omitted.
Would it offend real Christians? By no means. It indeed might offend
false teachers and their votaries, who for the want of argument would
substitute the ebullitions of their anger. But what Christian can
imagine that no error should be exposed, lest the persons who are guilty
might be offended?" (38 ff.)
104. Arguments Continued.--David Henkel furthermore showed from Phil.
2, 15; 1 Pet. 2, 9; 1 Pet. 3, 15. 16, that it is the duty of Christians
to shine as lights in the world, to instruct the ignorant, to give an
answer to every man who asks them a reason of the hope that is in them,
and then proceeds to the following conclusion: "Now if it be every
Christian's duty to answer those who interrogate them respecting the
grounds of their faith, how contrary to the Word of God do such synods
and ministers act when they refuse answering some important theological
questions either by writing or public interview! Do they refuse because
they consider the persons who interrogate them too far beneath their
notice? Does not this (if it be the case) indicate that they are
possessed with the pride of the devil? What! poor sinful mortals, do
they exalt themselves above their fellowmen? Or are they ashamed to let
their sentiments be known? Are they sensible that they cannot
rationally defend their doctrines if they were scrutinized? Or, indeed,
have they the truth on their side, and yet fear to let it be known that
they believe it, lest they should become unpopular? Alas! there are too
many whose sentiments may be correct, yet through fear of getting the
ill will of some others will not answer the most important questions.
Let such men remember, that, whilst they wish to keep the truth in
darkness, with a view to please opposite parties, that they are vile
hypocrites; and let them tremble! St. Paul says: 'For if I yet pleased
men, I should not be the servant of Christ.' Gal. 1, 10. We have asked
the ministers of the North Carolina Synod for the reasons of the hope
that is in them, or properly, for the proofs of their doctrines; and,
agreeably to the last invitation given them, they might have had the
opportunity of showing the reasonableness of their doctrines. Now as
they have neglected to endeavor to convince us, why do they warn the
people against us, especially since they are not willing to confront us
in a public debate?" (42 f.) Henkel continues: "We, as it has been
already said, are represented by the ministers of the North Carolina
Synod as enemies of the promulgation of the Gospel. Particularly I am
charged with teaching the most dangerous heresies, as may be seen from
a scurrilous pamphlet written by their president, Mr. Shober. How is
such a dangerous man to be treated by Christian pastors? Is he to be at
liberty without reproof? Is he to be opposed behind his back, and
defeated by arguments, or rather invectives, to which he has no
opportunity of replying? No. For such treatment has rather a tendency to
strengthen him in his errors, and cause such as are led by him to
conclude that his doctrines are incontestable; otherwise the learned and
pious clergy would confront him in a public interview. St. Paul
describes the duty of a bishop in this respect: that he should 'hold
fast the faithful Word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by
sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.' He adds:
'For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially
they of the circumcision, whose mouth must be stopped, who subvert whole
houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.'
Titus 1, 9. 11. As these show that it is the duty of a bishop to exhort
and convince the gainsayer, and to stop his mouth, the question may be
asked, How is this to be done? It cannot be done otherwise than to
propose to the gainsayer an interview, and if he attend to it, to refute
his arguments. But if he refuses to attend, the bishop has discharged
his duty; for the gainsayer thereby shows that he is, already convinced,
and his mouth stopped, because, if he believed that he could not be
refuted, he would by no means avoid the light. Again, when the gainsayer
in a public debate is closely pursued by the truth, he uses invectives
instead of arguments, which is a plain indication of his mouth being
stopped. A false teacher is said to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, which
signifies to be under the covert of a servant of God. . . . Now, indeed
is it possible that the ministers of the North Carolina Synod represent
me as the most dangerous wolf, and yet can see me come among their
congregations, and gain a goodly number of their people, without even
being willing to confront me in a public debate, which would be
calculated to show me in mine originality. Why do they flee? Do they not
feel for their flocks? To pronounce them hirelings would seem
uncharitable. How could I otherwise acquit them of such a charge, unless
I would suppose that they in reality do not consider me as a false
teacher? Otherwise they would not flee, but stand public test. But that
they have called me a false teacher is perhaps owing to the violence of
the old man in them, whom they have not yet crucified through the
Spirit." (44 ff.) Finally, in defending the propriety of the procedure
of the Tennessee Synod, David Henkel refers to the example of Christ,
who "answered the questions of the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes, and
the devil. Now, as Christ debated with wicked men, yea, with the devil
himself, with what face can any man say, It is wrong to dispute on
doctrinal topics?" (45 f.) David Henkel concludes: "Whereas all
Lutherans are pledged to their creed by a solemn vow, it must be a
matter of great importance for every one to know the sentiments of the
ministers under whose care he may be; for whosoever supports such as are
inimical to the doctrines of the Church acts contrary to his vow. Every
Lutheran ought to be certain, and able to prove by texts of Scripture,
that his creed contains erroneous doctrine, before he adopts a contrary
one, lest he incur the crime of perjury. The ministry of the North
Carolina Synod are charged with denying the most important doctrine of
the Lutheran Church, and have been requested to come to a reciprocal
trial, which they have obstinately refused. Now, what is the duty of the
people under their care? Ought they not to urge them to come to a
reciprocal trial? How can they consider themselves safe under a ministry
who are not willing to come to the light!" (47.)