American Lutheranism Volume II Part 5

86. Dr. William Morton Reynolds.--Reynolds (1812 to 1875) graduated at Gettysburg Seminary; served as professor in Pennsylvania College from 1833 to 1850; with an interruption of the year 1835 to 1836, when he was pastor at Deerfield, N.J.; was president of Capital University, Columbus, 0., from 1850 to 1853, and of Illinois State University at Springfield from 1857 to 1860; joined the Episcopalians in 1863; translated and published Acrelius's _History of New Sweden_ in 1874. In 1842 Reynolds left the Ministerium of Pennsylvania and organized the East Pennsylvania Synod. In the interest of conservative Lutheranism, Reynolds, in 1849, founded the _Evangelical Review_, which B. Kurtz promptly condemned as "the most sectarian periodical he ever read." In 1850, when asked whether he intended to adhere to the doctrinal basis of the General Synod, Reynolds stated in the _Lutheran Observer_: "Well, I frankly confess and rejoice in being able to say that within the last two years I have changed my views with respect to several very important points. But this change has not cast me out of the Lutheran Church, but, moreover, led me into it," etc. Reynolds declared that he joyously adopted "old Lutheranism," "as plainly taught in the Augsburg Confession and Luther's Small Catechism." (_Lutheraner_, April 30, 1850.) In the _Lutheran Observer_ of January 25, 1856, Reynolds retracted his former endors.e.m.e.nt of Kurtz's _Why You Are a Lutheran_, a booklet in which Kurtz affirmed that the present Lutheran Church, with a few exceptions, believed concerning the Lord's Supper what had been held by those whom Luther termed "Sacramentarians." (_L. u. W._ 1870, 156.) Walther, in 1850, praised Reynolds as a man of substantial learning and a teacher true to the Lutheran Church and her confessions. (_Lutheraner_ 6, 139.) But Walther and other friends of true Lutheranism who staked great hopes on Reynolds, were sorely disappointed in their expectations. In spite of his retractions, Reynolds always was and remained a unionist. In 1857 Harkey gave the a.s.surance that Reynolds was not a symbolist, but stood on the doctrinal basis of the General Synod. When Dr. G. Diehl, in the _Observer_, designated Reynolds as a strict confessionalist, Reynolds, in the _Observer_ of October 2, 1857, protested that he was a General Synod man, whose primary object was not to divide, but to unite. (_L. u.

W._ 1857, 314.) In his Springfield inaugural address, 1858, Reynolds coordinated the evangelical denominations, and advocated extensive unionism, maintaining that they all base their doctrines on Holy Scripture. In order to justify his apostasy, Reynolds, in 1863, published the statement that, in part, he had been moved to unite with the Episcopalians on account of the bitter "sectarianism" of the Lutheran Church and the denunciations of the men of the _Observer_ party by the _Lutheran and Missionary_. (_L. u. W._ 1864, 25.) Later Reynolds was reported to have said that he left the Lutheran Church because he was without employment, and believed every door in the General Synod closed against himself. The _Observer_ of October 9, 1863, justified the propriety of Reynold's action by referring to the const.i.tution which provides for the honorable dismissal from District Synods and the admittance of ministers from other denominations. (_L. u. W._ 1863, 379.) In 1877 the _Observer_ published an article in which the writer states: "When a pastor who depends for his support on his office does not succeed in obtaining a position in our Church and must suffer on account of this, he may accept a call from another denomination....

Several of such cases have happened, and no liberal-minded man will censure persons who have left us for such reasons." (_L. u. W._ 1877, 186.)

87. Conservative Periodicals.--In 1849 the English Lutherans in New York declared that the _Lutheran Observer_ was opposed to the spirit and character of the Lutheran Church, and appointed a committee to bring about a radical change in the editorship, or, in case this should fail, to advocate the establishment of a new church-paper at the next General Synod. "Thus one funeral song after the other is chanted to our friend at Baltimore, and partly by his own former adherents," remarked the _Lutheraner_. (6, 47.) It was but another of the numerous symptoms of awakening confessionalism in the East, when, at New York, June 8, 1853, a conference of the New York Ministerium, in a resolution, declared that they were utterly dissatisfied with the unevangelical and unsymbolical position of the _Lutheran Observer_ as a church-paper, dissatisfied also with the miserable stuff which it contained, and that, in place of it, they recommend the _Lutheran Standard_. (_Lutheraner_ 9, 175.)--The first German paper within the General Synod which occasionally raised its voice against the apostasy of the _Observer_ was the _Lutherische Kirchenzeitung_ of Pittsburgh, published from 1838 to 1846 by Prof.

Schmidt of Lafayette College, Easton, Pa., at a great personal sacrifice. (_Kirchl. Mitt._ 1843, No. 10.) At Chambersburg, 1839, the General Synod resolved "that we continue to view the _Lutheran Observer_ published by Dr. Kurtz, at Baltimore, Md., and the _Lutherische Kirchenzeitung_, published by Prof. Schmidt, at Easton, Pa., as able advocates of the cause of evangelical religion in our Church, and that we recommend them to the cordial support of our people." (16.) But the German paper soon proved a thorn in the flesh of the liberals. In 1841 "a Lutheran of Ohio" wrote in the _Kirchenzeitung:_ "It is astounding that the Lutheran Church should support a paper like the _Observer_ and nurse an enemy in its midst; the editor [Kurtz] himself ought to be honest enough to leave the Church whose doctrines and customs he does not love, but regards as false." Because of this critical att.i.tude the Synod of the West, in the same year, declared that it was unable to recommend the _Kirchenzeitung_ to its members. The charges were that the _Kirchenzeitung_ was directly opposed to the _Lutheran Observer_; that it revealed an improper spirit with respect to revivals and charitable inst.i.tutions; that it had declared the _Lutheran Observer_ to be anti-Lutheran, and directed its influence against this excellent paper.

The Pennsylvania Synod, however, to which Pastor Schmidt submitted the resolution of the Synod of the West, decided in favor of the _Kirchenzeitung_. In 1849, the same year in which the _Mercersburg Review_ appeared, the _Evangelical Review_ was published at Gettysburg by W. M. Reynolds, whom Charles Philip Krauth succeeded as editor. Both Reynolds and Krauth were prominent among the leaders of the conservatives. What the _Evangelical Review_, however, really stood for was not unqualified Lutheranism, but unionism. (_L. u. W._ 1858, 272 f.) On principle the _Review_ opened its pages to both the advocates and the opponents of the Lutheran symbols and its doctrines. (_Lutheraner_ 1852, 136.) Walther's report in the _Lutheraner_ on his trip to Germany in the interest of an agreement with Loehe appeared English in the _Evangelical Review_ of 1853. (_L._ 9, 134.) The career of the _Evangelical Review_ was closed in 1870. It was succeeded by the _Lutheran Quarterly_, first edited by Drs. Brown and Valentine, both of whom were not essentially Lutheran, but unionistic and Reformed theologians.--In 1845, Dr. W. A.

Pa.s.savant began a small missionary periodical which grew into a large family weekly, the _Missionary_. Though one of its objects was to oppose the un-Lutheran tendency of the _Observer_, the _Missionary_ itself was free neither of unionism nor even of Reformedism. According to its issue of February 28, 1861, for instance, communicants at the Lord's Supper partake of Christ's body and blood by faith. The _Missionary_ was a champion also of the Reformed doctrine of the Sunday. (_L. u. W._ 1861, 123. 350.) In 1861 the _Missionary_ merged into the _Lutheran and Missionary_, with Drs. Krauth and Pa.s.savant as editors--a paper which took a decided stand in favor of a modified confessional Lutheranism. In 1861 the editors declared with respect to pulpit- and altar-fellowship: "We do not want to refuse the sweet bond of Christian fellowship to those who sincerely love our Lord Jesus Christ." (_L. u. W._ 1861, 379; 1862, 19 ff.) The _Lutheran World_, serving the cause of the conservatives till 1912, when it was merged into the _Lutheran Church Work_ (established 1911 as the official organ of the General Synod), always defended the unionistic practises of the General Synod, and violently attacked Missouri for disapproving of her fellowship with the sects. (_L. u. W._ 1901, 54; 1904, 564.) In 1901 the _Lutheran World_ wrote: "Perhaps we shall always have three great church bodies, lest any truth concerning the Trinity be lost. Perhaps there will always be Calvinists to emphasize the sovereignty of G.o.d, Arminians to emphasize the freedom of man and the work of the Holy Spirit, and Lutherans who place the emphasis on G.o.d in Christ and justification by faith in Him."

(_L. u. W._ 1901, 154.) In 1905 the _World_ defended the affiliation of the General Synod with the Federal Council, and attacked the _Lutheran_ for criticizing the Federal Council as unionistic. (_L. u. W._ 1906, 32.) Without a word of criticism the _World_, in 1903, published the news: "Rev. Eli Miller, of St. Mark's church, Allegheny, Pa., recently addressed the I. O. O. F. in his church on 'We be brethren'." (_L. u.

W._ 1903, 184.) In the same year the _World_ designated the doctrine that every word of the Bible was inspired as an orthodox exaggeration and an astonishing a.s.sertion, at the same time declaring that it was time to formulate a theory of inspiration, and that, in this matter, all eyes in America were directed on the Lutheran church. (_L. u. W._ 1904, 39; 1903, 307.) In 1901 the _Lutheran World_ wrote that one must not imagine that man cannot do anything toward his own salvation; that grace must not be viewed as such a supernatural operation which effects a change in the moral nature of man while his own exertions contribute nothing; that man must cooperate with G.o.d when the machinery is set into motion. (_L. u. W._ 1901, 234.) The _Lutherische Zionsbote_, the organ of the German Nebraska and the Wartburg Synods, as well as of the German congregations in other District Synods, was much more moderate and conservative than its predecessor, the _Lutherische Kirchenfreund_.

MISSOURI'S INFLUENCE.

88. Light Coming from the West.--In 1845, at the convention of the General Synod in Philadelphia, Wyneken, a delegate of the Synod of the West, made a bold, determined, and consistent stand for genuine Lutheranism against the prevailing unionistic and Reformed tendencies of the leaders of the General Synod. Wyneken, who, in his pamphlet _The Distress of the German Lutherans in North America_, had characterized the General Synod as Reformed in doctrine, Methodistic in practise, and Lutheran in name only, demanded at Philadelphia that Synod either renounce the name Lutheran, or reject as utterly un-Lutheran Schmucker's _Popular Theology, Appeal, Portraiture of Lutheranism_, etc., Kurtz's _On Infant Baptism, Why You Are a Lutheran_, and the _Lutheran Observer_, as well as the _Hirtenstimme_ of Weyl. But on floor of Synod not a single voice was heard that understood him, and was in sympathy with him. On the contrary, in _Lutherische Hirtenstimme_, July 1, 1845, Rev. Weyl began to decry Wyneken as a masked Romanist, an enemy of Lutheran doctrines, usages, books, and periodicals, and to ridicule his zeal for true Lutheranism at Philadelphia as a "ludicrous motion (_spa.s.shafte Motion_)" which the General Synod had tabled "good-naturedly." (_L._ 1845, 96; 3, 32; 7, 133. 153.) Wyneken was a strange figure on the floor of the General Synod--without predecessors, without successors. Down to the Merger in 1918 there was not found a single prominent General Synodist walking in his steps. In an address delivered March 10, 1846, Dr. Philip Schaff (Schaaf was his original name) declared that it was impossible to build a confessional Lutheran Church (not to speak of the exclusive Lutheranism of the Form of Concord) on the Reformed English soil of America. It would be easier to direct the course of the Mississippi to Bavaria and to convert the Chinese through German sermons. The emissaries from Germany would soon be convinced of the folly of their undertaking, etc.--This was the view also of the leaders of the General Synod. But, though fully aware of the difficulties ahead, nothing was able to daunt the courage of the men of the West, or shake their faith in the truth and final success of their cause. And their faith did not fail them. Throughout the United States and far beyond its bounds the fact of Missouri's powerful rise was felt as an encouragement and incentive to true Lutheranism everywhere.

Indeed, the confessional influence of the West on the East was much greater than is usually acknowledged. As early as 1846 Dr. Walther felt justified in stating in the _Lutheraner_ (Sept. 5): "No doubt but G.o.d has arisen in order to remove the rubbish under which our precious Evangelical Lutheran Church was buried for a long time, also here in America." (3, 1.) The _Observer_, reporting on the organization of the Missouri Synod in 1847, ridiculed: "This new Synod is composed of genuine Old Lutherans, the true, spotless orthodox ones, whose theology is as strong and straight as the symbolical books can make it, and whose religious usages are as stiff as such thoroughbred old-school men can wish them." (_L._ 4, 30.) But while B. Kurtz and his compeers indulged in mockery and ridicule, the men of Missouri were clear-sighted, serious, and determined. The consequence was that a decade later the hearts of the General Synod's anti-confessionalists were filled with fear and consternation. Schmucker's chief object in writing the Definite Platform, as appears from this doc.u.ment itself, was to stem the tide of the confessional wave coming from the West, and to make the General Synod immune against Misouri. [tr. note: sic!]

89. Cloud, like the Hand of a Man, in the West.--Admitting the tremendous influence of the Lutherans in the West, the _Observer_, February 19, 1864, wrote, in his usual subjective fashion: "There was a time when our Church had peace. From 1830 to 1840 she enjoyed a universal peace and flourished greatly. This flourishing condition extended far into the following decade. In these days, and already somewhat earlier, the transition from the German into English caused some friction. Nevertheless, it was a time of revivals and of great bloom. The number of our churches increased. Our seminary at Gettysburg was filled with students.... Between 1845 and 1850 a change took place with a part of our Church. A little cloud, like the hand of a man, appeared in the West. The Germans came in ever greater mult.i.tudes and in more rapid succession. They no longer joined the American Lutheran congregations generally. An Old Lutheran in Bavaria [Loehe] turned his eyes on this country, sending colonies of hyper-Lutherans. These opposed the revivals. Some of them were pious men, but their religious type differed from the American. They were surrounded by influences which hindered their amalgamation with American Christians. They had been imbued with mistrust against the General Synod. Their system was such as not to encourage spiritual life and progress.... These children of a foreign soil had been sent over with a bitter prejudice against the liberal Lutheranism of America. In the year 1845 there were probably no more than one or two dozen old-Lutheran congregations in this country.

Now there are perhaps no less than 700 symbol-Lutheran congregations of the old school in the country, whose preachers--numbering almost 500-- are all symbol- and hyper-Lutherans who profess to believe that the real body and blood of Christ are orally received in the Lord's Supper, and that the unbelieving communicant as well as the believing partakes of the true body and blood of the Savior. They also believe in regeneration by Baptism, and some of them also in private confession, in exorcism, in beautifying the church with pictures and crucifixes; some of them also, in bright daylight, light wax candles at Communion.... This German, anti-Biblical, anti-American element could have been checked and absorbed by the American Church if another element had not been added.

But during the rise of the great revivals of the fourth decade of this century in our own Church unfortunately a cla.s.s of people arose who are far more dangerous and more powerful for mischief than the European preachers. These American preachers became disloyal to the basis of the General Synod, and began to raise a banner against the revivals and against a spiritual Lutheranism.... They began a systematic persecution of the most prominent men of the General Synod. In order to execute their plans, they began to curry favor with the German symbolists. They succeeded in adding tenfold bitterness to the prejudice and suspicion in the hearts of the foreigners, until finally an almost unsurmountable abyss seems to be fastened between the foreign high-church party and our General Synod.... Every Lutheran of this country should have endeavored to lead our foreign brethren to the General Synod, showing them that the pure spiritual Lutheranism of this land is so much better than the leather-bound symbolism of the Bavarian autocrat, as our political inst.i.tutions are better than those of the old Fatherland. But, instead of this work of love, our benighted symbolists have strengthened the prejudices of the foreigners in saying to them that the Lutheranism of the General Synod is a pseudo-Lutheranism."--The origin, then, of the confessional commotion within the Lutheran Church of America must be traced chiefly to such men as Wyneken, Sihler, and especially to Walther, who since 1839 had been zealous in unfurling the banner of true Lutheranism, seriously, determinately, aggressively, victoriously. If the confessional movement was wrong, Missouri, above all, must be condemned as the great disturber of the peace, but Lutheranism itself must go down with it. (_L. u. W._ 1864, 59.) The sincerity, seriousness, and determination of the men of Missouri in applying the principles of Lutheranism as they saw it, commanded the admiration even of an opponent like S.S. Schmucker, who wrote in the _Observer_, September 21, 1860: "Would it not reveal a lack of self-respect if the General Synod were to receive men who seem to believe that she has departed so far from the Lutheran doctrine that she could no further lay any just claim to the name Lutheran? The opposite way of the Missourians is much more honorable and has won the respect not only of the General Synod, but of the Church everywhere."(_L. u. W._ 1860, p. 353.)

90. Improved Conditions.--In the issue of the _Lutheraner_ dated August 31, 1852, Walther declared: "Since the last eight years, conditions have really improved in many respects, and to this end, according to many testimonies which have been made against us, G.o.d has used and blessed also our humble testimony." (9, 1.) The enmity which Missouri met everywhere was indeed a significant symptom of conditions changing for the better. It proved that the leaven of "foreign symbolism," as Schmucker pleased to style it, was doing its work. Foremost among the men that witnessed to the powerful influence of Missouri by testifying against her was B. Kurtz, who again and again denounced all confessionalists, especially those of the West, as "resurrectionists of elemental, undeveloped, halting, stumbling, and staggering humanity," as priests ready "to immolate bright meridian splendor on the altar of misty, musky dust," men bent on going backward, and consequently, of necessity, going downward! (Spaeth, 1, 344.) In 1859 the _Observer_ wrote: "It is true that there are some small factions who call themselves Lutherans, but they are not of us, and there is no hope that the Missourians, or Buffaloans, and other small communions will ever become wiser in their generation. But it is to be expected that their children and children's children will outgrow the prejudices of their fathers, and become sensible and useful Christians. As said before, we do not regard these factions as Lutherans; they have stolen a part of Luther's livery, but they lack his spirit, and would be disowned by the great Reformer if he were on earth now." (_L. u. W._ 1859, 227.) "The symbolists have forgotten that Luther had a soul, and that they are only quarreling over his old hat, coat, and boots," the _Observer_ declared in its issue of April 1, 1864. It was a great shame for them that they made the doctrine concerning the reception of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper also by the wicked an essential part of the Lutheran system. "The Lutheran Church of this country," the _Observer_ continued, "moving forward gloriously on the basis of the General Synod, had gradually forgotten everything pertaining to the old boots, coats, and hats, until this extreme party [Missouri] rose, gathered the old rags, tied them to a stick, and now calls upon all Lutherans to agree with them on pain of excommunication." (_Kirchl. Mitt._ 1864, 56.) In May of the following year Dr. Conrad wrote, in a similar strain: "The extreme symbolical standpoint, adopted anew in America and Europe and demanding an unconditional subscription to the whole [doctrinal] content of the Symbolical Books, is historically hyper-Lutheran, essentially schismatic, practically disastrous, and providentially condemned." (_L.

u. W._ 1865, 217.) Referring to Kurtz's tirade on "Luther's old boots,"

etc., the _Lutheran_ remarked: "Is there no one in the General Synod who will call to account such a blasphemous slanderer?" However, it was but the language of a foe who began to realize that defeat was imminent.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENTS.

91. Resolutions of 1895, 1901, and 1909.--Owing to the efforts of the conservatives in the interest of bringing about a closer union with the General Council and the United Synod in the South, the General Synod pa.s.sed a number of resolutions affecting its confessional basis: 1895 in Hagerstown, Md.; 1901 in Des Moines, Iowa; 1909 in Richmond, Ind.; 1911 in Washington, D.C.; and 1913 in Atchison, Kans. The resolution adopted at Hagerstown, June 15, 1895, defines the "Unaltered Augsburg Confession as throughout in perfect consistence" with the Word of G.o.d. It reads: "Resolved, That in order to remove all fear and misapprehension, this convention of the General Synod hereby expresses its entire satisfaction with the present form of doctrinal basis and confessional subscription, which is the Word of G.o.d, the infallible rule of faith and practise, and the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as throughout in perfect consistence with it--nothing more, nothing less." The resolution adopted June 6, 1901, at Des Moines objects to any distinction made between fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines in the Augustana. It reads: "Resolved, That, in these days of doctrinal unrest in many quarters, we rejoice to find ourselves unshaken in our spiritual and historic faith, and therefore reaffirm our unreserved allegiance to the present basis of the General Synod; and we hold that to make any distinction between fundamental and so-called non-fundamental doctrines in the Augsburg Confession is contrary to that basis as set forth in our formula of confessional subscription." Concerning the other symbols of the Book of Concord the convention at Richmond declared, June 8, 1909: "Resolved, That, inasmuch as the Augsburg Confession is the original, generic confession of the Lutheran Church, accepted by Luther and his coadjutors, and subscribed to by all Lutheran bodies the world over, we therefore deem it an adequate and sufficient standard of Lutheran doctrine. In making this statement, however, the General Synod in no wise means to imply that she ignores, rejects, repudiates, or antagonizes the Secondary Symbols of the Book of Concord, nor forbids any of her members from accepting or teaching all of them, in strict accordance with the Lutheran regulating principle of justifying faith.

On the contrary, she holds those Symbols in high esteem, regards them as a most valuable body of Lutheran belief, explaining and unfolding the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, and she hereby recommends that they be diligently and faithfully studied by our ministers and laymen."

With respect to the phrase in the Amendment of 1864, "the Word of G.o.d as contained in the canonical Scriptures," the Richmond convention resolved, "That we herewith declare our adherence to the satement, [tr.

note: sic!] 'The Bible is the Word of G.o.d,' and reject the error implied in the statement, 'The Bible contains the Word of G.o.d.'"

92. Objectionable Features of Resolutions.--Among the weak points of the resolutions of 1895 and 1901 are the following. First: It implied a contradiction when the General Synod in her new resolutions, which give an unqualified a.s.sent to the Augsburg Confession, at the same time declared herself fully satisfied with, reaffirmed and set its seal of approval on, the qualified basis of 1864. From the very outset the leaders of the new confessional movement dodged the open acknowledgment that the doctrinal basis of the General Synod, also that of 1864, was misleading and un-Lutheran. In the resolution of 1895, Synod expressed her "entire satisfaction" with the doctrinal basis of 1864. In the resolution of 1901 she reaffirmed her "unreserved allegiance" to this basis. In 1909 Synod declared: "We reiterate our firm belief that our confessional basis [of 1864] is adequate and satisfactory." (58.) Again: "The confessional resolutions referred to [of 1895 and 1901] are not alterations of the const.i.tution, and contemplate no alterations; they are simply explanations of the meaning of the General Synod's confessional basis. Therefore, it is not necessary to submit them to the District Synods of the General Synod" (for adoption). (58.) The Report of Dr. L.S. Keyser, delegate to the General Council in 1907, which was adopted by the Richmond convention, urged Synod to defend, vindicate, and maintain her doctrinal basis of 1864. Also the _Lutheran World_, the organ of the conservatives, maintained that the General Synod's resolutions of 1895 to 1909 were but "a restatement of its confessional basis in harmony with all its previous statements." (_L. u. W._ 1909, 370.) Secondly: When the resolution of 1901 declared it contrary to the basis of 1864 to make any distinction between fundamental and so-called non-fundamental doctrines in the Augsburg Confession, this, too, was an unwarranted a.s.sertion. The Richmond convention stated: "When the General Synod says, in her formula of confessional subscription, that she accepts 'the Augsburg Confession as a correct exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of the divine Word, and of the faith of our Church founded upon the Word,' she means precisely what she says, namely, that the fundamental doctrines of G.o.d's Word are correctly set forth in the Confession. She does not mean that some of the doctrines set forth in the Confession are non-fundamental, and, therefore, may be accepted or rejected; she means that they are all fundamental, and their exhibition in the Confession is to be accepted by those who subscribe to the Confession." This interpretation placed on the York Amendment by the resolution of 1901 was unknown to the General Synod and her theologians before as well as after its adoption in 1864. As shown above, the phrase "fundamental doctrines" of the York Amendment, historically interpreted, has but one meaning, _viz._, that some of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession are fundamental, while others are not. Besides, while it is certainly correct to regard all doctrines of the Augustana as Scriptural and binding, it is theologically false to declare all of them, _e.g._, the doctrine of the Sunday, fundamental doctrines.--Thirdly: The convention at Richmond adopted the statement: "While the General Synod's formula of confessional subscription mentions only the Augsburg Confession, without specifying the terms 'altered' or 'unaltered,' yet it is a historical fact that the General Synod has never subscribed to any edition of the Confession save the 'unaltered' form, and does not now subscribe to any other edition." (56.) If this means that the General Synod ever subscribed, _e.g._, to the rejection in the Tenth Article, an essential feature in the unaltered edition, but omitted in the edition of 1540, the statement is not borne out by the facts.

--Fourthly: The resolution of 1909, by stating that every member may accept the Secondary Symbols "in strict accordance with the Lutheran regulating principle of justifying faith" (60), insinuates that these symbols are in need of such an interpretation, thus placing them below par. The self-evident fact that the Secondary Symbols should be tried also according to the Augsburg Confession and the doctrine of justification did not justify a limitation, which could be interpreted as a justification, _e.g._, of the professors in Gettysburg Seminary, who, from Schmucker down to Richard, maintained that the Secondary Symbols were not in agreement with the Augsburg Confession.

RESTATEMENT OF BASIS.

93. Atchison Amendments.--The resolutions of 1891 to 1909 were not submitted to the District Synods for adoption, nor subsequently embodied in the const.i.tution of the General Synod. Instead, the convention at Richmond, 1909, instructed the Common Service Committee "to codify the several resolutions and statements explanatory of the Doctrinal Basis of the General Synod, adopted at York, Pa., in 1864; at Hagerstown, Md., in 1895; at Des Moines, Iowa, in 1901; and at the present session of the General Synod, and incorporate the substance of the same into one clear and definite statement of our Doctrinal Basis, and to report the same at the next meeting of the General Synod with a view to placing it in the Const.i.tution of the General Synod by amendment in the manner prescribed by the Const.i.tution itself, there being no intention in this action in any way to change our present Doctrinal Basis" of 1864. (115.) Accordingly, two new articles were presented to the a.s.sembly in Washington, D.C., 1911, which were subsequently referred to the District Synods for action. The articles submitted for approval read as follows: "Article II. Doctrinal Basis. With the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Fathers, the General Synod receives and holds the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the Word of G.o.d and the only infallible rule of faith and practise; and it receives and holds the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a correct exhibition of the faith and doctrine of our Church as founded upon the Word. Article III. The Secondary Symbols. While the General Synod regards the Augsburg Confession as a sufficient and altogether adequate doctrinal basis for the cooperation of Lutheran synods, it also recognizes the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Small Catechism of Luther, the Large Catechism of Luther, and the Formula of Concord as expositions of Lutheran doctrine of great historical and interpretative value, and especially commends the Small Catechism as a book of instruction." (_Proceedings_ 1913, 126.) Two years later, all District Synods having approved the articles, the convention at Atchison declared "that the said amendments have been adopted, and are parts of the Const.i.tution of this body." (_L. u. W._ 1916, 6.)

94. A Stride Forward Officially.--Considered by themselves, no criticism will be offered by any Lutheran on the new articles embodied in the General Synod's const.i.tution. Even the blemishes still adhering to the resolutions of 1891 and 1909 have disappeared. Specific reference to the York basis of 1864 is omitted; likewise the limitation with reference to the adoption of the Secondary Symbols, etc. True, the new articles contain a confession of the Augustana only, while in our day, also in our country, it is certainly of special import for Lutherans to acknowledge all Lutheran symbols in order to show at the very outset that they occupy a correct position also with respect to the controversies after Luther's death, which, in part, have been revived in our own country. Indeed, the second of the new articles has been interpreted by some as involving a confession also of the Secondary Articles. But Dr. Singmaster is right in declaring with reference to the new formula: "The General Synod does not require subscription to the Secondary Symbols as a condition to membership in that body. Their formal acceptance is a matter of liberty with the individual synod."

However, since the confessional formula of 1913 contains neither a limitation as to the adoption of the Augustana, nor any criticism of the other Lutheran symbols, the present doctrinal basis of the General Synod, as stated in the new articles, must be viewed as satisfactory-- _caeteris paribus_. By adopting the Atchison Amendments, the General Synod in reality, at least formally and officially, did not merely reaffirm and reiterate, but corrected and changed its former qualified confessional basis. As it reads, the formula of 1913 is tantamount to a rejection of all former doctrinal deliverances of the General Synod, the resolutions of Synod and a.s.severations of her theologians to the contrary notwithstanding. Dr. Neve admits as much when he says: "Thus the General Synod took a great stride forward in the direction of confessional correctness. The express mention of the 'Unaltered'

Augsburg Confession const.i.tutes an outspoken confession against Melanchthonianism, that is, against the Definite Platform theology, or American Lutheranism. And the removal of the old formula concerning the fundamental doctrines means the removal of an expression which has done much harm in the General Synod." (158.) In part, this progress was a result of the testimony of Walther and the Missouri Synod, whose fidelity to the Lutheran Confessions had been stigmatized for decades by the theologians of the General Synod, even such men as Charles Porterfield Krauth (in 1857), as "rigid symbolism," "German Lutheranism," "deformities of a Pharisaic exclusiveness," etc. Dr. Neve remarks: "The close unity coupled with its size (for Missouri soon became by far the largest synod) exercised a powerful influence on those without, strengthening, especially in the Eastern synods, the already awakened confessional consciousness."

95. Remaining Contradictions.--Even apart from the actual conditions prevailing in the General Synod as to Lutheran doctrine and practise, one cannot maintain successfully that the General Synod, in adopting the new articles, fully and satisfactorily cleared the situation as to its doctrinal att.i.tude. For in more than one respect also the official confessional movement inaugurated in 1891 was contradictory of itself.

First: In a previous paragraph we have already referred to the contradiction contained in the fact that the General Synod, while adopting the new resolutions, at the same time reaffirmed and endorsed the York Amendment of 1864. This endors.e.m.e.nt, which practically invalidates the adoption of the new articles, was not withdrawn at the subsequent conventions in 1911 and 1913. The York Amendment still bears the official seal of the General Synod. Dr. Singmaster says in _Distinctive Doctrines_ of 1914: "The doctrinal basis, as amended in 1866 [1864], remained unchanged for nearly fifty years. Various deliverances made at the convention of the General Synod during this period repudiate false charges, and affirm the Lutheran character and confessional fidelity of the body.... The doctrinal basis as it now exists, means to the members of the General Synod exactly what it meant before its verbal amendment. For a generation it has been interpreted to mean an unequivocal subscription to the Augsburg Confession." (57.) Secondly: The so-called York Resolution, which, as shown above (No. 71), rejects the Lutheran doctrines of the real presence, absolution, and the Sunday, thus openly conflicting with the Atchison Amendments of 1913, which give an unqualified a.s.sent to the Augsburg Confession, was not rescinded by the General Synod. The report of the delegate to the General Council, adopted by the General Synod in 1909, states: "In our address before the General Council [1907] as your representative, we defended, with all the courtesy, clearness, and positiveness we could command, the confessional position of the General Synod. This we did by referring to our official declarations, namely, the York Resolution of 1864, our revised formula of confessional subscription of 1869 [1864], in which this body planted itself unequivocally on the Augustana, and our confessional resolutions of 1895 and 1901." (54.) At the same convention the General Synod declared: "Those official resolutions [of 1895 and 1901], together with the well-known York Resolution, adopted in 1864, bind the General Synod to the Augsburg Confession in its entirety." (57.) In keeping herewith the General Synod provided that, in all future editions of the Augsburg Confession published by the General Synod, the confessional declarations of the General Synod (the York Amendment and the resolutions of 1895, 1901, and 1909) "be inserted immediately after the York Resolution." (59.) Nor was the York Resolution disavowed at the convention at Washington, 1911, as appears from the following recommendation of the Common Service Committee adopted by Synod: "With these amendments [finally adopted at Atchison]

there remains only the York Resolution of 1864, concerning alleged errors, to be disposed of. As this is simply of an explanatory and apologetic character, it cannot well be incorporated in the const.i.tution. It seems to your committee that this resolution has served its purpose, and needs no further repet.i.tion, _especially as it remains on record for reference_. We believe that both the const.i.tution and the confession will appear more dignified, and will inspire greater confidence, unb.u.t.tressed by subsidiary statements." Accordingly, the York Resolution "remained on record for reference." (24.) Thirdly: The amendments of 1913 are in a hopeless conflict also with Art. IV, Sec. 8, of the General Synod's const.i.tution, reading as follows: "They [Synod]

shall, however, be extremely careful that the consciences of ministers of the Gospel be not burdened with human inventions, laws, or devices, and that no one be oppressed by reason of differences of opinion on non-fundamental doctrines." Accordingly, while the Atchison formula calls for an unqualified subscription to all doctrines of the Augustana, Art. IV, Sec. 8, of the same const.i.tution grants liberty in "non-fundamental doctrines," _i.e._, interpreted historically, liberty in the articles which distinguish the Lutheran Church from the Reformed and other Evangelical Churches.--The convention at Richmond, 1909, maintained: "It is only by her [General Synod's] official declarations that her doctrinal position is to be tested and judged." (58.) If this contention, though facts frequently speak louder and much more convincingly than formulas, be granted--according to which set of contradictory "official declarations" was one to test and judge the true att.i.tude of the General Synod?

ACTUAL CONDITIONS.

96. Long Stride from Formula to Fact.--Formal adoption of a correct Lutheran basis does not necessarily imply actual agreement with such basis. To pa.s.s a good resolution is easy. All Christian sects protest that they accept the Bible. But they say, and do not. "What you _are_,"

said Emerson, "speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you _say_." In a measure this also applies when the actual conditions prevailing in the General Synod before and after 1913 are compared with the doctrinal basis adopted in that year. In 1866, in a letter to Pastor Brunn, Walther wrote with reference to the synods then uniting to form the General Council: "As far as the latter are concerned, it is true that our testimony extending over a period of twenty years has by the grace of G.o.d cooperated in causing some synods to speak again of the Confession, and to base and pledge themselves upon it, at least formally; but it is a long stride from the formal acknowledgment of the symbols to a true knowledge of them, and a truly Lutheran spirit, and the consequent discipline of doctrine and life." (_Letters_, 2, 36.) Now, the General Synod did not adopt its present basis as a result of any doctrinal discussions of, and subsequent agreements in, the Lutheran doctrines. The confessional movement was a formal affair, without any special effort to arrive at a thorough understanding of, and true unity in, the doctrinal content of the Augustana. But what value is there in adopting a confession without a correct knowledge of, and agreement in, its doctrines? Furthermore, the Atchison Amendments were submitted to the District Synods for approval by majority vote, not to the individual ministers and congregations. Adoption, accordingly, did not mean unanimous acknowledgment. Moreover, the liberal party of the General Synod, as represented by the _Lutheran Observer_, openly denounced the new confessional resolutions. (_L. u. W._ 1916, 58.) Others who submitted to the new formula, no doubt felt justified, in accordance with the repeated approvals on the part of the General Synod of the basis of 1864, to interpret the former according to the latter.

97. Doctrinal Confusion.--The General Synod has always been a babel of doctrinal confusion. In it unity did not even prevail as to the doctrines which distinguish the Lutheran Church from the Reformed. From 1820 down to 1918 the General Synod, in its periodicals and by its representative men, and in part also as such and officially, defended and supported indifferentism, unionism, synergism, chiliasm, abstinence, the divine obligation of the Sabbath, and other un-Lutheran and distinctively Reformed doctrines. (_L. u. W._ 1917, 471; 1918, 43.) Doctrinal discipline never has had as much as a shadow of an existence within the General Synod. Nor did the Atchison Amendments effect any apparent and marked change in the spirit and att.i.tude of doctrinal indifferentism. Reformed errorists were tolerated after as well as before 1913. In its issue of September 12, 1918, the _Lutheran Church Work and Observer_ declared: "Our body breathes the free atmosphere of America, and is not so legalistic and Puritanical as to think that every person who offends must be brought before the judgment-bar of the church for discipline." After as well as before 1913 some of the General Synodists continued to indulge in dreams of a millennium and union of all Evangelical denominations in America. (_L. u. W._ 1918, 87; _Luth.

Wit._ 1918, 373.) The Sabbath-day was declared to be "of perpetual authority," and its observance as "binding on all by divine requirement." In 1918 the _Lutheran Church Work_ asked for state legislation to enforce the Sabbath, because the "Almighty Jehovah is 'the Lord of the Sabbath,' and has given us an indication of the importance which He places on His holy day by having put it even before the commandment in the Decalog which says: 'Honor thy father and thy mother.'" (_L. u. W._ 1918, 336; cf. 1915, 397; 1911, 510.) The same old Puritanical att.i.tude was maintained by the General Synod also with respect to the prohibition movement. (_Proceedings_ 1917, 140 ff.)

98. Tolerating Modern Liberalism.--The General Synod never did, nor intended to, exercise church-discipline with respect to Reformed aberrations. Nor is there a single case of church-discipline against any form of liberalism recorded. Yet practically from its very beginning the General Synod declared herself against Socinianism. And in 1909 the _Lutheran Quarterly_ stated that the General Synod, though not exercising church-discipline with respect to Reformed errors, does exclude Unitarians, Universalists, and Christian Scientists. (15.) In 1917 the _Lutheran_ a.s.serted: The Lutheran Church in America "stands as a unit in protest against the creed of Reason, known as the ever-variable 'New Theology,' and presents an unbroken front in loyalty to the Gospel." (_L. u. W._ 1917, 562.) But is this claim really borne out by the facts? The theory of evolution, which vitiates every Christian doctrine when applied to theology, has been defended again and again in the _Lutheran Observer_, the _Lutheran Quarterly_, the _Lutheran Church Work_, and other publications of the General Synod.

Endorsing the evolution doctrine, the _Observer_ wrote in 1909: "That a law of development runs through all nature, life, and history, is one of the ruling postulates in present-day investigations. That the continuity of nature, life, and history which this implies is not inconsistent with theistic and Christian belief is also clearly recognized, and consequently the impression of a panicky feeling which pervaded so much of the discussion of evolution which immediately followed the publication of the _Origin of Species_ [of Darwin], is to-day conspicuous by its absence." (_L. u. W._ 1909, 279.) In 1901: "Originally, all was soft and plastic. The granite foundations were mortar and ashes or cinders and water. Cosmic forces have since been crystallizing rocks out of the same elements which exist in the soil, or float in the streams and exhale in the atmosphere." (_L. u. W._ 1901, 185.) In 1917 the _Lutheran Quarterly_ declared that the doctrine of evolution can be accepted "in so far as it is descriptive of G.o.d's method with the world." (96.) Dr. L.S. Keyser, of Wittenberg Seminary, philosophizes: "G.o.d created the primordial material. Without losing His transcendence, He became immanent in His creation, developing it through secondary causes for, doubtless, long eras; at certain crucial steps, as was necessary, He added new creations and injected new forces; such epochs were the introduction of life, sentiency, and man. This world-view should be called 'creation and evolution,' with as marked an emphasis on the former as on the latter." (_Syst. of Nat. Theol._, 114.) Furthermore, in 1891 the _Lutheran Observer_ editorially defended Dr.

Briggs, whom the Presbyterians expelled because of his liberalism, as an innocently persecuted man. (_L. u. W._ 1901, 214.) In 1901 the _Lutheran Quarterly_ said of Harnack that in his _Essence of Christianity_ he a.s.signs a position to Christ "which must have made a deep impression on his hearers." (_L. u. W._ 1901, 370.) In 1909: "Even if we should in the end have to acknowledge that Jesus had a human father as well as a human mother, that would simply teach us what we are confessing and believing even now: Jesus is not alone true G.o.d, but likewise true man. His divinity would not be affected thereby." (_L. u. W._ 1909, 228.) In 1918 the _Lutheran Church Work and Observer_ recommended Dr. James Denney's book, _The Atonement and the Modern Mind_, in which Denney practically rejects the authority of the Scriptures and departs from the Christian doctrine of satisfaction made by Christ. (_L. u. W._ 1918, 482.) In the _Lutheran Church Work and Observer_, April 4, 1918, Rev. W.R. Goff maintained: "The writer cannot find one pa.s.sage in Scripture that definitely and positively a.s.serts a visible return of the Lord." (_L. u.

W._ 1918, 423.)

99. A Second Edition of Quitman.--For quite a number of years Dr. E.H.

Delk, a prominent member of the General Synod, has been an ardent advocate of modern rationalism and evolutionism. He denies the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, rejects the Lutheran doctrine of the union of the divine and human natures in Christ, attacks the dogma that the death of Christ was a ransom and a subst.i.tutional sacrifice for the sins of the world, corrupts every Christian doctrine, and demands that all of them be restated in order to bring them into harmony with modern evolutionistic science and philosophy. "The Bible and our Confession do not ask man to throw away his reason in the reception of truth and in the _judgment_ of the theological problems," Delk declared in 1903. (_L. u. W._ 1903, 185.) A number of years ago, Dr. Delk was permitted to present his radical views to the students of Gettysburg Seminary; and the _Lutheran Quarterly_ published the lecture without a word of criticism. At Atchison, 1913, when resolutions were offered rejecting the doctrines of Delk, the General Synod refused to take definite action. The _Lutheran Observer_ boasted that Synod was not ready to sacrifice liberty of thought and speech. (_L. u. W._ 1901, 370; 1902, 136; 1903, 185; 1913, 145; 1916, 67.) In 1916 the _Lutheran Church Work and Observer_, the official organ of the General Synod, opened its columns to Delk and his theology. In 1917 Delk continued his propaganda by publishing his views in a booklet, _The Need of a Restatement of Theology_. In 1918 the _Lutheran Church Work and Observer_ endorsed and advertised the book. Identifying himself with some of the views of modern German liberalism on Luther and his theology, Delk wrote in the _Lutheran Church Work and Observer_ of November 1, 1917: "We see now in the light of a fuller history of the man [Luther] that he was a child of his age and carried over into his Protestant thinking traits of medieval thinking.... Luther was not the end, but the beginning of new advances in the political and religious ideals of the world.... We are separated by a millennium of thought from the critical thought-standpoint of Luther." (_L. u. W._ 1918, 43.) Also by Drs. Keyser and Voigt, Delk has been charged with subst.i.tuting the teachings of philosophy and science for Christianity, and with propagating heretical doctrine concerning the inspiration of the Bible and the deity and atonement of Christ. The advocacy of evolutionistic theology, as tolerated by the General Synod, however, cannot but be regarded as a return to the rationalism of Quitman and Velthusen.

UNLUTHERAN PRACTISE.

100. Unionism Unabated.--In 1917 Dr. Neve wrote in the _Lutheran Church Review_: "The different Protestant Churches, that is, the leading ones, are not arbitrary developments with no right to exist, but they represent the historical endeavors to bring to an expression within the Church of Christ the truth of Scripture." (167.) This view was at the bottom of the pulpit, altar, and church-work fellowship indulged in by the General Synod throughout the course of its history from 1820 down to its exit in 1918. This att.i.tude of indifferentism naturally led to the exchange of fraternal delegates with the Reformed and other Churches. It resulted in a cooperation of the General Synod with the Federal Council, the Home Missions Council, the Foreign Mission Conference, the International Sunday-school a.s.sociation, the Sunday-school Council of Evangelical Denominations, the Inter-Church Federation, the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A., the W.C.T.U., The Anti-Saloon League, etc. And the new confessional resolutions brought no change in this practise. With respect to the action of the Wartburg Synod, excluding other than Lutheran ministers from its pulpits and other than Lutherans from its altars, Dr. J.A. Singmaster, at the convention in Richmond, 1909, offered the resolution "that the General Synod, while allowing all congregations and individuals connected with it the fullest Christian liberty, does not approve of synodical enactments which in any way narrow its confessional basis or abridge intersynodical fellowship and transfers." (_Proceedings_ 1909, 128; Neve, _Gesch._, 73.) The _Lutheran Observer_ remained the same enthusiast for "interdenominational fraternal cooperation and work in the Federation of Churches," etc. (_L. u. W._ 1916, 63.) The ministers of the General Synod continued to exchange pulpits and to arrange for joint celebrations with sectarian preachers. (_Witness_ 1918, 404; 1919, 14.) Despite the new basis of 1913, the General Synod remained a member of the Federal Council, which Dr. Delk in 1912 extolled as the "Twentieth Century Ec.u.menical Council." In 1909 the report of the delegates to the Federal Council was adopted, stating: "We heartily endorse the work of the Council, and we welcome the opportunity of cooperating with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in promoting the work of His kingdom.... We recommend that nine delegates be sent, and that an annual contribution of $450 be paid out of the treasury of the General Synod for the support of the Federal Council." (115.) Again, in 1917, a report of the delegates to the Third Quadrennial Meeting of the Federal Council was adopted, which said, in part: "The Federal Council is mobilizing the forces of Protestantism against any and every foe of evangelical principles and practises. A committee has been appointed to arrange a Pan-Protestant Reformation celebration for 1917.... It was a great privilege to have partic.i.p.ated in this historic council. As the federation idea originated in the United States in the mind and heart of a learned and devout Lutheran, Dr. Samuel S. Schmucker, it was a great joy and satisfaction to see and partic.i.p.ate in this consummation of Dr.

Schmucker's hope of all Protestant bodies in council and cooperation in the one common task of propagating the kingdom of G.o.d in society and throughout the world." (27.) Dr. MacFarland, the General Secretary of the Federal Council, was introduced, and addressed the General Synod.

(131.) In the same year the General Synod appointed Dr. Delk, Dr.

Wolford, Rev. Russell, and three laymen as "delegates to the Federal Council," and Dr. Bell as "representative to General a.s.sembly of Presbyterian Church." (372.)

101. Fellowshiping [tr. note: sic] Jews and Unitarians.--Universally General Synodists, down to the Merger in 1918, have defended and practised church-fellowship with the Evangelical denominations. Regarding religious communion with Jews and Unitarians, however, Dr. Neve wrote in 1909: "Such is a rare occurrence and always would meet with the disapproval of nearly all members of the General Synod." (_Lutheran Quarterly_ 1909, 12. 19.) According to Neve, then, there are members of the General Synod who do approve of church-fellowship even with Jews and Unitarians. Commenting in the _Lutheran Church Work and Observer_, of October 31, 1918, on a Communion service in which Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Reformed, Unitarians, etc., united, Dr. L.E. Keyser declared: "Such a conglomeration of beliefs and creeds would be impossible in the Lutheran Church. To stand or kneel at the altar with people who even deny the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the need of atonement for sin, is impossible with Lutherans who are serious in their convictions." But what of the facts? In 1903 the _Lutheran Observer_ declared: "When, at the great Parliament of Religions in Chicago, men of all beliefs united in the Lord's Prayer, who shall say that they had no right to do it, even though it was not with full understanding of its meaning? G.o.d is the All-Father. All men are His children." (_L. u. W._ 1903, 184.) At the World's Fair in St.

Louis, 1904, Dr. Rhodes of the General Synod celebrated a union Thanksgiving Service in Festival Hall with Archbishop Glennon, Rabbi Harrison, etc. (_L. u. W._ 1904, 565.) In 1909 Dr. Delk indulged in religious fellowship with the Reformed Jews in a Jewish temple. (_L. u.

W._ 1909, 558 f.) On November 28, 1918, Rev. A. Homrighaus united in a Thanksgiving service, in which a Jewish rabbi and a Unitarian partic.i.p.ated, etc. (_Luth. Witness_ 1919, 14.)

102. Encouraging Lodgery.--The General Synod has never taken a stand against Freemasonry or any other secret society. To join a lodge was always viewed as a purely private affair and of no concern to the Church. Neither laymen nor ministers were forbidden to unite with lodges. Indeed, for a minister to attain a higher degree in a lodge was occasionally referred to as a special honor and regarded as a recommendation. In 1902 the _Pennsylvania Freemason_ said of Dr. Stock, a pastor of the General Synod: "The Doctor is in possession of the highest honors of Freemasonry, and enjoys the love and respect of all his brothers. As indicating his good influence for Freemasonry we mention of his writings: _What Freemasonry Owes to Luther, The Knight Templar and the Holy Week_." Copying this, the _Lutheran Evangelist_ commented that everybody has a right to join a lodge as long as he gives the first place in his heart to the Church. (L. u. W. 1902, 115.) The _Observer_, March 14, 1902, reported with satisfaction that the prominent Lutheran Mr. Dewey had become Grand Master of the Freemasons in Kansas, and appointed his pastor, the Rev. Fuller Bergstresser, Grand Chaplain of the lodge. (_L. u. W._ 1902, 115.) Lodge-membership, said the _Observer_ of January 17, 1913, is a non-essential, permitted by the Augsburg Confession. Reviewing a sermon of Rev. Bowers in which he defended and recommended the lodges, the _Lutheran Observer_, in 1909, remarked: "It is a fair and unprejudiced presentation." (_L. u. W._ 1909, 227.) In the same year a committee of the General Synod declared with respect to a resolution of the Wartburg and Nebraska synods, forbidding their ministers to hold membership in lodges: "The General Synod as a body has never taken any action, so far as we know, upon the so-called lodge-question. We deem its position sound and wise, and especially in view of the fact that the Lutheran bodies in this country which have indulged in such legislation have by no means escaped trouble.... We deem it their [Wartburg and Nebraska synods'] synodical right so to judge and affirm so long as they do not ask other synods of this body to accept their judgment and affirm their action.... A synod has a right to voluntarily restrict itself if it so chooses, and impose upon itself such limitations as it may elect." (_Proceedings_ 1909, 126 f.) Also with respect to this att.i.tude of the General Synod toward the lodges the Atchison Amendments brought about no marked change whatever.

After as well as before 1913 prominent lodge-men, without protest, were elected to, or continued to hold, some of the most important offices of Synod. In 1917 Dr. George Tressler, a 32d degree Scotch Rite Mason and a Knight Templar, was chosen president of the General Synod. Prof. C.G.

Heckert, president of the Theological Seminary at Springfield, 0., is a Freemason. Mr. J.L. Zimmerman, president of the Lutheran Brotherhood of the General Synod, who took a leading part in the Lutheran Merger movement, also is, and was publicly declared to be, a Mason. Nor did the practise cease of arranging for special lodge-services and entertainments of lodges. September 17, 1918, the Masonic Lodge of Camp Hill, N.J., held its anniversary dinner at the General Synod church, the women of the church serving the dinner, etc. (_Luth. Witness_ 1918, 386.)

103. New Formula Dead Letter.--Though one will readily admit that the Atchison Amendments signified a stride forward officially and formally, the actual conditions prevailing within the General Synod till the Merger in 1918 (the official indifferentistic and unionistic att.i.tude of the General Synod as such, as well as the teaching and practise of District Synods, ministers, and congregations) were not in agreement, but in open conflict with the formula of 1913. In its issue of June 18, 1915, the _Observer_ stated: "The acceptance of this basis, they [the opponents of the new basis] further maintain, involves certain corollaries, such as the rule of 'Lutheran pulpits for Lutheran ministers only, and Lutheran altars for Lutheran communicants only'; the withdrawal of fellowship with other Christian bodies in general religious and moral movements, such as the Federation of the Churches, the International Sunday-school Lesson Series, and evangelistic campaigns, in which the congregations of a community unite their efforts to reach the mult.i.tudes of the unchurched and the unsaved. It includes also condemnation of secret orders, such as Masonry and Odd-Fellowship."

(_L. u. W._ 1916, 58.) Such, indeed, was the price of the new doctrinal basis. The General Synod as a whole, however, was evidently neither possessed of the power nor even of the earnest will to draw the consequences of her new articles practically. The fact certainly is, as shown in the preceding paragraphs, that neither the General Synod as such nor its const.i.tuency did make any serious effort at paying the price required by an unqualified subscription to the Augustana as professed at Atchison. However, as long as a religious body contents itself with having a correct Lutheran basis merely incorporated in the const.i.tution; as long as it shows no determination in reducing the principles of such basis to actual practise; as long as it objects to the discipline which this basis calls for; as long as it declines responsibility for contrary teaching and practise on the part of its ministers and congregations; as long as it adheres to the principle of agreeing to disagree on doctrines plainly taught in the Lutheran Confessions, and never to settle disputed points, but to omit them and declare them free,--just so long even the very best Lutheran basis embodied in a const.i.tution will remain, in more than one respect, a sc.r.a.p of paper and its formal recognition "a solemn farce and empty show."

The General Council

SYNODS COMPOSING THE COUNCIL.

104. Organization of New General Body.--After severing its connection with the General Synod at its convention at Lancaster in 1866, the Ministerium of Pennsylvania appointed a committee (Drs. Krotel, Krauth, Mann, C.W. Schaeffer, Seiss, B.M. Schmucker, Welden, Brobst, Laird, etc.) to issue a fraternal address to all Lutheran synods, ministers, and congregations in the United States and Canada which confess the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, inviting them to a conference for the purpose of forming a general body of Lutheran synods, in the interest, especially, of maintaining "the unity in the true faith of the Gospel and in the uncorrupted Sacraments." Accordingly, in December of the same year, representatives from thirteen synods met in Reading, Pa. The synods represented were the Pennsylvania Synod, the New York Ministerium, the Pittsburgh Synod, the Minnesota Synod, the English Synod of Ohio, the Joint Synod of Ohio, the English District Synod of Ohio, the Wisconsin Synod, the Michigan Synod, the Iowa Synod, the Canada Synod, the Norwegian Synod, and the Missouri Synod. After the Fundamental Principles of Faith and Church Polity and Articles on Ecclesiastical Power and Church Government, prepared and submitted by Dr. C.P. Krauth, and discussed from the 12th to the 14th of December, had been approved, the resolution was pa.s.sed that the first regular session of the new body, "The General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of North America," should be held, if the Fundamental Principles had been adopted by ten synods. At the first regular meeting in Fort Wayne, November 20, 1867, again representatives of thirteen synods were present, the Augustana and Illinois synods taking the place of the Missourians and Norwegians, who had withdrawn from the movement.

105. Synods Remaining with the Council.--Of the synods represented at Fort Wayne the following retained their connection with the General Council throughout its history: 1. The Ministerium of Pennsylvania, the so-called "Mother Synod" of the Lutheran Church in America. It was organized 1748 by Muhlenberg. In 1778, numbering 18 ministers, it adopted a const.i.tution which formally acknowledged all of the Lutheran symbols. The new const.i.tution of 1792 admitted lay delegates, but eliminated the confessional basis. In 1820 it was represented at the organization of the General Synod at Hagerstown. At the same time it planned a union seminary and organic union with the German Reformed Church. In 1823 it severed its connection with the General Synod, which was followed by a long period of indifferentism. In 1850 the Ministerium established official relations with the Gettysburg Seminary. In 1853 it returned officially to a confessional position, adopting "the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel as these are expressed in the confessional writings of our Evangelical Lutheran Church and especially in the Unaltered Augsburg Confession." In the same year, urging all other Lutheran bodies to follow the example,