C14l£l 
 
 v^i To stTio v\ i m North Vs_A.rol »' n 
 
 R^A-Vocier 
 
 
C6e Ilibrarp 
 
 of tl>e 
 
 Ontoetgitp of iQortb Carolina 
 
 Collection of iI2ortfi Carolmiana 
 
 mm 
 
 -':."•—■ . 
 
 %m 
 
THE SITUATION 
 
 in 
 
 NORTH CAROLINA, 
 
 •BY- 
 
 4* 
 
 E. A. YODEE. 
 
 - NEWTON, N. C. : 
 
 ENTERPRISE JOB OFFICE, PRINT, 
 1894. 
 
THE SITUATION 
 
 ■IN 
 
 NORTH CAROLINA, 
 
 •BY- 
 
 E. A. YODER. 
 
 NEWTON, N. C: 
 
 EKThKPHISE JOB OFFICE, PRINT, 
 1804. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2013 . 
 
 http://archive.org/details/situatiohinnorthOOyode 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Truth is invincible, yet Christians are to contend for it. 
 We are to strive, to labor, and to do battle in the cause oi 
 the pure doctrine oi God's Word and the upbuilding' of His 
 holy Church. This pamphlet is written in the cause of truth, 
 with an eye single to the rights and b^st interests of the 
 Christian Church as represented by the Evangelical Luther- 
 an Tennessee Synod : therefore it needs no defense and makes 
 no apology for its appearance. 
 
 These pages are primarily addressed to the people of the 
 Tennessee Synod. To them the author is well known, and 
 needs no word of introduction or commendation. The 
 object in view is to give our people a oorreat and reliable 
 statement of the situation of school and church matters m 
 our Synod, especially in Catawba County, North Carolina, 
 so that they may advisedly act their part in the settlement 
 of the complications now existing among' us. The historical 
 matter embodied herein is of importance to the Synod, and 
 should be preserved. The doctrinal matter will be highly 
 prized by all who love the pure teachings of our Church and 
 Synod, since herein the author clearly sets forth and main- 
 tains the old Bible and confessional doctrine of election over 
 against the teachings of those who would foist a n^w doc- 
 trine tij on our Synod to the serious disturbance of its peace 
 and harmony. Herein too it plainly appears that self-inter- 
 est and error are the manifest causes of the troubles that now 
 yex the church here, and are unquestionably the occasion of 
 the gross irregularities, innovations, and interferences, of 
 which our people have such abundant reason to complain. 
 Error aud the fruits of error, misrepresentation and unwar- 
 ranted intermeddling;, have called forth this pamphlet. Much 
 more might have been written; but this is sufficient to make 
 clear to any fair minded reader the error, the spirit, and the 
 methods of those who have intefered in our work, and how 
 
iv The Situation in North Carolina, 
 
 they have been aided and abetted by some oi oar own pas- 
 tors in creating and fostering schism and confusion among 
 us. 
 
 The author has wisely established his doctrinal position 
 by allowing the Confessions to testify of the Lutheran 
 faith; and then very properly he has quoted some of the 
 great teachers and writers of our church to show how our 
 Confession has with great unanimity been understood and 
 interpreted since its first publication. The testimony from 
 these sources presented in these pages, as to the true Luthe- 
 ran doctrine of election, is overwhelming and incontrovert- 
 ible. 
 
 Our only purpose in sending forth this publication is to 
 contribute what we can toward the defense of the pure faith 
 of our church and toward the peace and harmony of our 
 Synod. 
 
 This work was prepared at the request of the undersigned 
 pastors and teachers. We have read the manuscript, and 
 give it our hearty endorsement. We cordially commend it 
 to our people, and ask for it a careful reading. We send it 
 forth on its mission with the sincere prayer that God's 
 blessing may accompany it, and make it an efficient instru- 
 ment for the maintainance of His truth and the good of His 
 Church. J. C, MOSEK, 
 
 Lenoir College, W. P. CLINE, 
 
 Hickory, N. C, J. P. MILLER, 
 
 July 16th, 1894. R. L. FRITZ. 
 
THE SITUATION IN NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 It is generally known among our Lutheran people of the 
 Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod, that there are pas- 
 tors of the Missouri Synod serving congregations in connec- 
 tion with the Tennessee Synod ; and that the school at Con- 
 over has by some means passed into the hands of the Eng- 
 lish Synod of Missouri. It may not be so clear to some of 
 our Tennessee Synod people, why these Missouriam tnv here, 
 or how they came into Tennessee congregations, or by 
 what means they secured control of Concordia College. And 
 furthermore, our people do not know who they are, or what 
 differences of doctrine and practice exist between the English 
 Synod of Miseouri and the Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee 
 Synod. To set some of these matters in their true light is 
 the object of this writing. It seems clear to the writer that 
 this writing is necessary, because some of the Tennessee con- 
 gregations are disturbed and divided by these Missouri pas- 
 tors — As St. John's in Catawba County and St. Martin's in 
 Iredell County. If these pastors held the same views that 
 the Tennessee Synod holds and would connect Themselves 
 with the Synod to which the congregations belong, there 
 would be no occasion for diyission, and the disturbance 
 would disappear. It would be well for our people prayerfully 
 to consider from what quarter they call pastors, and wheth- 
 er those they call teach the pure doctrine of the Bible and 
 the Confessions, which the old Tennessee Synod has always 
 held and defended. 
 
 In order to understand clearly the situation in our Synod 
 in North Carolina, and especially in and immediately around 
 Conover, it will be necessary to review the history of the 
 school question in the Tennessee Synod, 
 
 i 
 
 The School Question in the Tennessee Synod.— 
 
 Sometime during the autum of 1875, the question of estab- 
 lishing a school for the Tennessee Synod, at some point in 
 
6 The Situation in North Carolina. 
 
 Catawba County, North Carolina, was agitated. This agi- 
 tation grew out of, or at least immediately followed, a con- 
 troversy by the late Rev. P. C. Henkel, D. D. and Prof. F. A. 
 Schmidt, D. I)., then of St. Louis, Missouri, with Rev. Daniel 
 May, a Methodist minister. 
 
 A number of meetings were held at which the school ques- 
 tion w r as considered. Several were held at Newton, one at 
 Hickory, one at Conover, one at St. Paul's church, and one 
 at St. James' church. At the first meeting at which the 
 question of location was considered, which meeting was held 
 at Newton, it was decided by a majority to locate the school 
 in or near the town of Hickory, on property offered to our 
 people by Col. Walter W. Lenoir, provided the site was satis- 
 factory. A committee was appointed to go to Hickory, to 
 look at the site, interview Col. Lenoir, and report to the next 
 meeting, also held in Newton. 
 
 That committee, consisting of Moses Holt, Jacob Mostelier 
 and Darius Seitz, went to Hickory, viewed the site, were 
 well pleased with it, approved the location, secured a bond 
 for title, and submitted their* report to the next meeting. 
 Their report was received and adopted, and the school 
 located at Hickory by a large majority. 
 
 Those favoriug Conover for the location of the school were 
 not satisfied with the action at Newton, and called a meeting 
 at Conover, at which it was resolved 'that all former action 
 in reference to the location of the school be rescinded. This 
 resolution was introduced by F. L. Herman oi Hickory with 
 the hope of reconciling all parties, for he was himsell strong- 
 ly in favor of Hickory, for the location. Then delegates from 
 our congregations were asked to meet again in Newton, at 
 which meeting it was again decided by a large majority^to 
 locate the school at Hickory. But again that decision was 
 overruled at meetings at St. Paul's arid at St. James', and 
 the school was finally located at Conover against the wishes 
 of a majority of the people. Jt might be asked why it was 
 that if the people really decided at those, several different 
 meetings to locate the school at Hickory, that it was not 
 
The Situation in North Cmolinti. 7 
 
 done. We need only remember that; at that time, there was 
 but one Lutheran pastor. Rev. J. M. Smith, working in 
 Catawba County, who had charge of seven congregations 
 and was the pastor of 1,250 communicants, [see his report 
 in minutes of Tennessee Synod, 1875] to understand why it 
 was. And if we remember, too, that he lived within one mile 
 of the location and had several sons ready for school-; we 
 can see a powerful motive, why he would override the wishes 
 of the people and locate at Conover. [The facts stated 
 above with reference to the location of the school were learn- 
 ed from, M. L. Cline of Hickory; Silas Smyre of Newton; 
 Daniel W. Moose, Arndt; G. M. Yoder, Jacob's Fork : D. M. 
 Wyant, Henry; F. L. Herman, Hickory; Reuben Yoder, 
 Jacob's Fork; A. G. Corpening, Jacob's Fork: J. M. Rhodes, 
 Cherryville; and Noah Barringer, Newton. And if any one 
 should question the facts, let him refer to them; they are 
 yet living at the post office addresses given.] 
 
 In this arbitrary proceeding* a greats majority of our peo- 
 ple never acquiesced. And Kev. Dr. A. J. Fox, always object- 
 ed, and for this reason opposed the school as long as he 
 lived. He fought its being received into connection with the 
 Synod at every meeting at which the matter was considered. 
 Some of our people did lay aside their preferences in the 
 matter of location, for the sake of the peace of the church, 
 and aided in the erection of buildings at Conover, although 
 never satisfied with the location. And thus matters stood 
 from 1877, when the school was opened at Conover, until 
 1890, During these thirteen years, by persistent labor, 
 always having to contend with the opposition caused by 
 this highhanded method of location, — those who labored 
 there know full well — the school was carried on with varying 
 success. In 1889 the opposition to the school at Conover 
 had to some extent been allayed, because, in the meantime, 
 Synod had taken it under its care. This action was taken 
 at Conover in 1883, after four years of effort on the part of 
 the trustees of the school to have Synod accept the school, 
 [see minutes of 1879. 1880, 1881, 1882, and 1883.] In 1889 
 
rV The Situation in NoHh Carolina. 
 
 at a meeting of the Tennessee Synod held at Holly Grove it 
 was resolved that a committee of five, three ministers and 
 two laymen, be appointed to make an effort to raise 
 |10,000 for the puopose of erecting suitable College build- 
 ings at Conover. And when Rev. Prof. W. P. Cline, chairman 
 of this committee, had with a great deal of energy and sac- 
 rifice of time and money, proceeded to canvass the Synod in 
 part, and when in the midst of his work, having raised by 
 bonds and subscription, the amount of f 5,500, the Synod 
 met at Mi. Calvery, Page County, Virginia, October, 181)0. 
 
 During that meeting, Rev. Prof. A. L, Crouse, presented to 
 several of the pastors in a private meeting certain papers 
 and a proposition from Mr. J. G. Hall, of Hickory, trustee 
 of the school property of Col. Lenoir. This was the same 
 site which had been offered fifteen years before, with the addi- 
 tional gift of 27 lots, which had not been offered before. 
 The matter of considering the proposition of Mr. Hall pre- 
 sented by Rev. A. L. Crouse, was opposed by some of the 
 pastors who were of the opinion that the school matter had 
 better rest, others favored the consideration of the proposi- 
 tion. Rev. Crouse also presented the matter to some mem- 
 bers of the Board of Trustees, November 17th, 1800, and 
 the Board refused to entertain the proposition of Mr. Hall. 
 And at a meeting of the North Carolina Conference, of the 
 Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod at Friendship 
 church, Alexander County, North Carolina, November 27-30, 
 1890, it was again presented, and Conference asked the 
 President of Synod to call an extra session of the Tennessee 
 Synod, to meet at St. James' church, Catawba County, 
 North Carolina, December 26, 27,1890, for the purpose of 
 considering Mr. J. G. Hall's proposition. 
 
 Synod met at the call of the President, and after two days 
 of wrangling, and dilatory motions, and misrepresentations, 
 and previous questions, the Synod adjourned without ever 
 voting ujton the question for which it was nwiubled. 
 
 In'the evening of Saturday, the second day of the meeting, 
 a vote was forced by the Conover party, under "gag-law" 
 
The Situatioiginl North Carolina. 9 
 
 on a motion to locate the school permanently at Conover, 
 which was a substitute for the question before Synod. Again 
 the question of location was not satisfactorily settled, but 
 divided the Synod much more than it ever had been before. 
 Only five out of the seventeen pastors present voted to 
 locate permanently at Conover. After this meeting the fol- 
 lowing explanatory letter appeared, which explains itself: 
 
 ''An Explanatory Pastoral Letter." 
 
 "la order that we may be properly understood, and our motives not mis- 
 construed, the undersigned pastors and teachers of the Evangelical Luthe- 
 ran Tennessee Synod, desire to lay before all our brethren our reasons for 
 refusing to vote upon the question of the location of Concordia College. 
 
 We affirm that this we do humbly believing our right to do so, and 
 relying upon our purpose, by God's help, to promote the best interests of 
 our Synod. We assert that our course of action was based upon no person- 
 al consideration ; that, disclaiming all other intentions and purposes, we 
 simply desired to do all that we could for our educational interests; that we 
 refused to vote, because it was our purpose to increase our school property 
 and advantages by the acceptance of the offer of Mr. Hall, of Hickory, and 
 also that of the Board of Trustees of Concordia, College, in accordance with 
 the proposition submitted to the Synod, and discussed by Synod, during 
 its first day's session; that we labored to harmonize all elements, without 
 ignoring the interests of any ; that, on the second day's session, we propos- 
 ed to refer the consideration of the whole matter to a committee of five dis- 
 interested and unbiased men of our Church, to whom all advantages and ar- 
 guments of a proper character should be submitted ; that in the midst of the 
 discussion of this proposition a motion was made to locate Concordia College 
 permanently at Conover, N. C, without any reference whatever to the offer of 
 Mr. Hall, for the special consideration of which the Synod had been called to- 
 gether; that the discussion of this last question was carried on, as we believe 
 in an unfair manner, the time being largely consumed by a few individuals, 
 who presistently refused to entertain any proposition looking to the unity 
 of the Church and the fair treatment ot those who differed in judgment from 
 them ; that this discussion excluded the posibility of fairly investigating Mr. 
 Hall's proposition, the question properly before Synod; that when the friends 
 of Hickory desired and called for the further discussion of the question, mak- 
 ing a motion to adjourn until Monday, the yeas and nays, the previous 
 question, were called for and demanded, thus cutting off all possibility of 
 the further discussion of this whole matter ; that the vote to locate the Col- 
 lege at Conover was not rightly taken by voting for or against Conover, 
 but that the vote was take.i between Conover and Hickory, an idea not 
 
iYj* The Situation in North Carolina, 
 
 % 
 
 embodied in the motion ; that being thus pressed to vote, without a full and 
 &iir discussion of Mr\ Hall's proposition, we felt that we could not, with a 
 true sense of our responsibility as the servants of the Church and the digni- 
 ty of our high and holy office, take part in the casting of such vote, and 
 therefore we declined to vote. 
 
 We herewith submit only a faint expression of our great grief and mortifi- 
 cation at this action of our Synod, unprecedented, so far as we know, in 
 any ecclesiastical body. We have sadly realized, for some time, that we 
 have not brought our whole strength to the educational work of our Synod 
 and it was our earnest purpose and ardent longing to compromise past 
 differences and present preferences, so as to marshal our whole force, and 
 to call out our full strength in our educational work. We declare our unwill- * 
 ingness to acquiesce in what, we believe, will be a futile effort to do even a 
 small part of our duty in the future. We assert our unwillingness to abide, 
 by such action as makes it impossible for us confidently to expect the bless- 
 ing of God to crown it with success. We do not believe that we should lose 
 any time in the important work of I raining ministers !\>r our Church, and in 
 the Christian education of our youth, by se^kiug to uphold the future of an 
 institution, whose permanent location has been secured in the unfair man- 
 ner herein set forth, and therefore we must emphatically dc-line to do so. 
 
 Signed: A. L. Grouse* M L. Little, -J\ C. Moser, R. A. Yoder, D. A. Good- 
 man, W. P. Cline, I). J, Setfclemyre, J. A. Rudisill, R. II. Cline, 1). I. Off man, 
 J. P. Miller, Jacob Wike, R, L. Fritz." 
 
 Thus, again, by the unfair aud unchristian methods of the 
 Couover pastors, Revs. J. M. Smith and C. H. Bernheim, the 
 occasion was given for the old dissatisfaction concerning the 
 location ol the school at Conover to arise with greater pro- 
 portions. And here another attempt was made to override 
 the wishes of the people, in the matter of locating the school. 
 On the 13th of January 1891, the Board oi Trustees of 
 Concordia College decided by a unanimous vote to submit 
 the question of the location of the school, as between Cono- 
 ver and Hickory, to a direct vote of the people in the congre- 
 . gations of the Tennessee Synod. This proposition was made 
 by Revs. Smith and Bernheim. and agreed to by that part 
 of the Board favoring Hickory, Revs. J. C. Moser, A. L. 
 Crouse, and J. A. Rudisill who were present at that meeting, 
 A committee was appointed to write up the advantages of 
 each place, and submit their paper to a meeting of the Board 
 on January 27th 1891. The committee was Rev. J. G. 
 Schaid for Conover, and Rev. A, L. Crouse for Hickory. At 
 
The Situation in Xorth C&rolinsb.' 11 
 
 that meeting of January 27th Revs. Smith and Bernheim 
 opposed their own proposition of two weeks before and re- 
 fused to submit the question to the votes of the people. 
 
 Thus under these circumstances, when it was perfectly clear 
 to those who favored Hickory, that the Conover party 
 would not submit to anything that was fair, honorable, and 
 christain, in the 'matter of deciding the location of the 
 school, a number of pastors of the Tennessee Synod, encour- 
 aged by those who signed the above quoted pastoral letter, 
 and urged by a great many of the laymen of the church, ac- 
 cepted Mr. Hall's proposition and began work at Hickory, 
 and thus secured this valuable property to the Lutheran 
 Church. This important work for the Church was under- 
 taken at a great personal sacrifice of those who engaged in 
 it. It was not undertaken to oppose the school at Conover 
 or the people of Conover, but in order to increase the school 
 facilities of the Tennessee Synod, which it was concientiously 
 believed could be better accomplished at Hickory than at 
 Conover. And the work at Hickory thus far proves that 
 that opinion was well founded. 
 
 After those who had been laboring at Conover in the 
 school, had gone to Hickory for the reasons, and under the 
 circumstances above given, the Board of Trustees of Con- 
 cordia College, Conover, North Carolina, entered into an 
 agreement with the Mission Board of the English Synod oi 
 Missouri, by which-the school at Conover passed under the 
 control of the Missouri Synod. What right had the mem- 
 bers of the Board of Concordia College, some of whom were 
 originally appointed by the association, and others after- 
 wards recommended by the Tennessee Synod to that posi- 
 tion, to give away to the Missouri Synod, property which 
 was not theirs to give away, but only to keep in trust? 
 What right had they to give to the Missouri Synod property 
 which vvas paid for by individuals and congregations of the 
 Tennessee Synod, for the benefit of the Tennessee Synod? 
 It is the conviction of many that these members of the 
 Board have betrayed a sacred trust; that they have given 
 
12 Tjhe Situation in Nortli Carolina. 
 
 away property committed to their keeping; and that they 
 have not only lost the property to the Tennessee Synod, but 
 have given it over to her enemies, and have thereby intro- 
 duced trouble into the Church in this part of the country. 
 Did the members of the association who subscribed and paid 
 money over into that board authorize this giving away? 
 Did the Synod, whose congregations were canvassed for 
 money, authorize this giving? Did Eev. J. M. Smith assume 
 to himself the prerogative of sole dictator in this matter of 
 giving away the property, as he did in the first movement 
 in 1875, in the matter of location? 
 
 And it may be a matter of interest to some to know that 
 this is not the only time that the giving away business has 
 been engaged in. An attempt was made just about one year 
 before it was given to the Missourri Synod, to give it to the 
 Concordia District of the Ohio Syuod. The following extract 
 will be interesting reading to those who are now told that 
 the Missouri Syuod was given control of the school because 
 she held the same doctrines as held by the Tennessee Synod, 
 and would carry out the original design of the school. The 
 following is quoted from a letter written by the Secretary of 
 the Board of Trustees of Concordia College, Rev. C. H. Bern- 
 heim, from Conover. North Carolina, November 30th, 1890, 
 to Rev. E. L. S. Tressel, Baltimore, Maryland. After ad- 
 dressing Rev. Tressel as " Dear Brother inChrist, v Rev. Bern- 
 heim says, after referring to the agitation of the school 
 question : 
 
 " would you entertain an offer of Concordia College as a donation., made to 
 you so by deed, to run it according' to the provisions of its charter This is 
 centrally located as to its Lutheran dement, and should you realize any 
 profit in the sale of your property in Hickory part of such proceeds might 
 be applied to the erection of other buildings if necessary, and he remainder 
 used as a nucleus for an endowment fund. If such an arrangement is forced 
 to be made (and it looks so now) and is accepted by you. i would give you 
 no inconsiderate following, strength and foothold here We hold you as 
 Christian brethren of the k same household of faith' marshalled under the 
 same battle flag with no Shibboleth to divide us." 
 
 [The letter from which the above is quoted, together with 
 
The Wtimtion in North C&i-oUnsb. 13 
 
 several others showing the same spirit, is now in posession 
 of Prof. W. P. Cline, and can be seen on application to him,] 
 From this quotation we see how little there is in the statement 
 that the school was given to Missouri because they were one 
 with the Tennessee Synod in doctrine, when we see here that 
 it was offered to the Ohio Synod by the Secretary of the 
 Board. Here we see that Rev. Bernheim agreed with Ohio 
 in 1890. and in 1892, in a statement before the North 
 Carolina Conference at Salem church, he said he agreed with 
 Missouri, and yet he never changed his views. Was the 
 school offered the Ohioans because they agreed with the Ten- 
 nessee Synod in doctrine? If so, then ifr is impossible for it 
 to have been given to Missouri for that reason, for it is well 
 known that those Synods seperated in 1881 on account of 
 their differences of views on the doctrine of election. 
 
 Or is it perhaps possible to hold the views of Ohio in 1890, 
 and the views of Missouri in 1892 and yet never change one's 
 views? This would appeal- so if the admissions and state- 
 ments ot Bev. J. M, Smith at the Free Conference at Conover 
 in January 1894, are to be reconciled. 
 
 Observe also that in this extract, Rev. Bernheim makes the 
 statement, "If such arrangement is forced to be made (and 
 it looks so now)." What, or who,, was forcing such arrange- 
 ment? Remember that this letter was written a month 
 before the called session of Synod met at St. James. There 
 is but one explanation for this statement and that is, that 
 it was then believed that Mr. Hall's proposition would be 
 accepted and the school moved to Hickory, and prepara- 
 tion was being made for that event; to give the school to 
 Ohio in order to oppose the school of the Tennessee Synod if 
 located in Hickory. This is the same spirit always shown by 
 the Conover pastors in their efforts to have the school at 
 Conover, even it they would have to give it over to the enemy 
 of the Tennessee Synod ; as they hnve done in the case of the 
 Missouri Alliance which they have formed. 
 
 That the people of the Tennesse Synod may understand 
 just what has been done by the Board of Trustees of Concor- 
 
14 The Situation in North Carolina. 
 
 dia College, in giving away the property in their trust; and 
 what claims Missouri has upon that property, the following 
 is quoted trom the Minutes of the English Synod of Missouri, 
 May 3—10, 1893. pages 43, 44: 
 
 "Concordia College, Conover, Catawba County, North Carolina." 
 
 " Pres. Kuegele, Rev. Dallmann and Rev. Prof. Dau gave Synod a. history 
 of the College. It is in short as follows: Concordia College is the property 
 of an association. It is not the property of any synod or church body, as 
 has been erroneously stated. The Tennessee Synod had the right of recom- 
 mending the theological professor at the institution, and formerly sent its 
 beneficiaries there. Difficulties arose and some of the teachers left, the Ten- 
 nessee Synod withdrew its 'fostering care' from the institution, and the 
 Board of Trustees applied to the Mission Board of the- German Missouri 
 Synod at St. Louis to supply the institution with professors. At the re- 
 quest of the Board for English Mission, Rev. Kuegele and Dallman went to 
 Conover in December, 1891, to inspect the territory. They met the profess- 
 ors who had left and gone to Hickory, N. C. They found that Concordia 
 was not in any sense an institution of the Tennessee Synod, but that the 
 Trustees of the College had a right to call whomsoever they pleased, since 
 the College was a private institution. 
 
 The following resolutions were then submitted and agreed to : 
 
 "Resolutions Between the Trustees of Concordia College and the 
 
 ' Missouri ans.' " . 
 
 Resolved, That we recommend (1) that a Piofessor be called to Concordia 
 College, €:nover ; N. C, from the Missourians, to be President of Concordia 
 College, LHerary Professor, and pa-stor of Concordia Congregation, to have 
 full liberty in the pulpit and at the altar according to his conscience bound 
 in God's Word. (2) That young men be enabled to receive a claesical edu 
 cation here at Concordia College with a view of graduating in theology at 
 St. Louis, Mo., ot Springfield, 111. (3) That provision be made for the 
 theological education of young men who cannot be required to take a full 
 classical course so that they may enter the miuistry after graduating at 
 Concordia College, Conover. N. C. 
 
 Carried unanimously by the whole Board, excepting two not in reach. 
 [Signed] F. Kuegele, 
 
 Wm. Dallmann, 
 
 C. H. Bernhelm, Sec. 
 
 Dec. 31 , 1 891. Board of Trustees of Concordia College." 
 
 "In accordance with these resolueions, Rev. W. H. T. Dau, of Memphis, 
 Tenn., was called and accepted the position of President and Professor at 
 Concordia College, and was installed there, May 29, 1892. July 31, 1892, 
 
The Situation in North Carolina, IB 
 
 Candidate G.. A. Romoser, a graduate of Concordia, Seminery, St. Louis, 
 was installed as professor at Concordia College. From all that Synod 
 heard, these men have labored faithfully and earnestly, receiving- very mea- 
 ger support. Yet their labor both in the College and as pastors apparently 
 has been blessed of God, and the prospects are such as to make the calling 
 of another professor imperative. 
 
 The following communication was received and presented to Synod : 
 
 Whereas, the Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod at its last conven 
 tion, assembled in Hickory, N. C, 1892, did withdraw her fostering care 
 from Concordia, College, located at Conover; and whereas, all church insti 
 tutions need the fostering care of some synod to rally to its support and 
 help ; and whereas, a number of the ministers of the Tennessee Synod are 
 antagonizing Concordia College, by reason of the Board of Trustees having 
 called- ministers of the English Synod of Missouri as President and Profess- 
 or of said College: 
 
 Therefore, resolved, first; that we do now offer and place Concordia Col- 
 lege under the control and fostering care of the English Lutheran Synod of 
 Missouri, and urge said Synod to accept this College as her institution. 
 
 Resolved, second, that we ask the Euglish Synod of Missouri to appoint 
 six (6) of her number as members of the Board of Trustees of Concordia 
 College, to co-operate with us in the management of said College. 
 
 Resolved, third, that we need at the opening of next term another pro- 
 fessor, and we ask the English Synod of Missouri to call him and 'we will 
 confirm their action. 
 
 Resolved, fourth, that inasmuch as our professors are not adequately 
 supported, the tuitionary revenue of the College being insufficient, we ask 
 your honorable bodv to supplement their salaries. 
 
 Resolved, fifth, should the above action of the Board of Trustees of Con- 
 cordia College not meet with the approval of your body, then we ask for 
 the appointment from you of a certain number of men fully commissioned 
 and authorized to negotiate with us for the legal transfer of Concordia 
 College to become the property of your honorable body, provided that it 
 does not vitiate the basis, constitution, and charter of said College. 
 
 Resolved, sixth, that the Secretary transmit to the President of the Eng- 
 lish Synod of Missouri a copy of this action. 
 
 Passed in the College, March 9th, 1898. 
 
 C. H. Beunheim, Secretary, 
 Board of Trustees, Concordia College." 
 
 " The entire matter was referred by Synod to a committee of five, who' 
 carefully investigated and discussed the entire' matter. The repori of the 
 committee was received and acted upon as follows: Synod ratified the 
 agreement between Revs. Kuegele, Dallmann, and the Board of Trustees of 
 Concordia College. Synod furthermore assumed control of the institution 
 and elected the following six gentlemen as Trustees of Concordia College: 
 Messrs. Elijah Coiner, Theodore Coyner, of Agusta Co., Virginia, J. Hirbh, 
 
16 The Situation in North Carolina. 
 
 Washington, D. C, Louis Briggemann, A. J. Hecker, Baltimore, Md., H. H. 
 Niemann, Pitsnurg, Pa." 
 
 We do not know from what source, Revs. Kuegele, Dall- 
 mann, and Dau Obtained the data from which they con- 
 structed their ''history of Concordia College," but 
 we do know that their history is badly at fault. They 
 say in their ''history :" "Difficulties arose, and some of the 
 teachers left, the Tennessee Synod withdrew its 'fostering 
 care' from the institution, and the Board of Trustees applied 
 to the Mission Board of the German Missouri Synod at St. 
 Louis to supply the institution with professors." 
 
 This is the history as they constructed it. The facts are 
 these: The application for proffessors was made by the 
 Board ot Trustees and Prof. Dau at work in Conover, six 
 months before the Tennessee Synod withdrew its "fostering 
 care." This application was made in 1891, for the agree- 
 ment between the Board of Trustees and the "Missourians" 
 is dated December 31, 1891 ; but the meeting of the Tennes- 
 see Synod at which it withdrew its fostering care, was held in 
 October 1892. And, futhermore, the reason the Tennessee 
 Synod withdrew its fostering care was this very fact that the 
 Board of Trustees had called men from the Missouri Synod, 
 and had filled vacancies, and that this action was not sub- 
 mitted to Synod, for its endorsement and ratification. We 
 quote the following action of the Tennessee Synod on the 
 matter of this withdrawal, page 23, minutes of 1892: 
 
 " Report of Committee on Literary Institutions." 
 
 *' We, the undersigned Committee on Literary Institutions, beg leave to 
 make the following report : 
 
 We have had placed in our hands Report of President of the Board of 
 Trusteess of Concordia College and the Report of the President of the Fac- 
 ulty. 
 
 Upon examination of the Report of the President of the Board of Trus- 
 tees, we find that no action of the trustees in filling vacancies in the Board 
 and Faculty (a ; appears irom the Report of the President of the Faculty) 
 in the interim of the session of Synod, has been submitted to this Synod 
 for ratification or endorsement; therefore, we recommend that the Synod 
 can now take no action in regard to the further fostering care of this insti- 
 tution. J. A. Rudisill, 
 
 R. H. Cline, 
 J. A. Cromer." 
 
The Situation in North Carolina. 17 
 
 Further, they say that they found "that Concordia was 
 not in any sense an institution of the Synod." Yet six 
 months later Prof. Dau, in his first Catalogue of Concordia 
 College, says it is the only school under the fostering care of 
 the Tennessee Synod. Why does he make that statement, 
 when, as he says it is not ir any sense an institution of the 
 Synod? Did he do it in order to deceive our people and 
 catch their patronage? Why does he parade that statement 
 when according to his "history" it was not in any sense an 
 institution of the synod? And, why is it that those who went 
 to Hickory and accepted Mr. Hall's proposition and went to 
 work there are charged by the Con over pastors, and the 
 Missourians, and by their sympathizers, with working 
 against "Synod's School," and with endeavoring to destroy 
 " Synod's School?" Why make all this noise about a few 
 men leaving a little "private" concern at Conover? These 
 statements were made to vary according to circumstances. 
 If the interests of Conover and the Missourians were better 
 served by saying it was a private school then that state- 
 ment was made; but if their interests were better served by 
 the other statement, then it was Synod's school. 
 
 The statement that they found the school, "not in any 
 sense an institution of the Tennessee Synod " is false. It 
 'was, in some sense, an institution of the Synod. The prop- 
 erty was not owned by the Synod, because the Synod not 
 being an incorporated body, can not own property. But 
 the sense in which it was an institution of the Tennessee 
 Synod is set forth in Standing Resolutions of the Synod, 
 Nos. 19 and 20, which we here quote: 
 
 "Resolved 10. That, with a view of establishing proper relations between 
 Concordia College, situated at Conover, N. C, and the Evangelical Luthe- 
 ran Tennessee Synod, we, in meeting assembled, agree, l. v that whenever a 
 vacancy, or vacancies, occur, either by death, resignation, or removal, in 
 the Board of Trustees or in the faculty, the said Synod shall have the right 
 as well as the privilege to recommend a suitable person, or persons, to fill 
 such vacancy or vacancies: 2. that the Synod shall have the right to ap- 
 point a Board of Visitors, whose duty it shall be annually to visit said 
 school, and make such report of the condition of the school to each session 
 of the Synod, as be deemed most advantageous; 3. that it shall bo the duty 
 of the President of the Faculty to make a report annually to the Synod, 
 relative to moral and literary condition of the school, which report shall 
 
\8 The Situation in North G&rolm&. 
 
 also be signed by the secretary of the faculty ; 4. that the President of the 
 Board of Trustees shall also make an annual report to Synod, in regard to 
 financial condition of the school, which report shall likewise be signed by 
 the secretary of the Board of Trustees; 5. that this school shall be continu- 
 ed and conducted as a church institution, under such rules and regulations, 
 as may be instituted by the Board of Trustees, in accordance with the char- 
 ter, and the Confessions of the Church as set forth in the Christian Book of 
 Concord, each teacher, instructor, or professor, taking an obligation not to 
 teach anything in said school that is contrary to said Confessions. 
 
 These stipulations or proposition shall be valid and in forcp. provided 
 the said Synod shall acquiesce and is disposed to lend said institution its 
 fosteriug care and encouragement, as well as its influence and moral force; 
 provided, that if the Synod shall fail, after notice, to recommend, in due 
 time, a suitable person or persons to. fill such vacancy or vacancies, the 
 proper authorities of said institution shall proceed to fill such vacancy or 
 vacancies. 
 
 Resolved 20. That we, as a Synod, accept the propositions made to us 
 by the Board of Trustees of Concordia College, and that in consideration of 
 the rights and privileges therein granted, we will lend to said institution 
 our fostering care, influence, and mora), support. — See Minutes of 1883, 
 page 18" 
 
 We find some very strange and remarkable statements 
 under "Resolutions between the Board of Trustees of Con- 
 cordia College and the 'Missourians.' " "Resolved that we rec- 
 ommend (1) that a professor be, called from the Missourians, 
 to be President of Concordia College and Pastor of Con- 
 cordia Congregation." To whom was this recommenda- 
 tion addressed? Who was advised in this recommenda- 
 tion? Not the Board of Trustees; for they were the ones 
 that were doing the resolving. Not Concordia Congrega- 
 tion for it could not call a professor. The only thing in 
 it is this, that we resolve to recommend to ourselves— i. e. 
 Board and "Missourians"— that we call a Missourian as 
 President and professor of Concordia College, and pastor ot 
 Concordia Congregation, Here we have the remarkable 
 statement that two Missourians, Revs. Kuegele and Dall- 
 mann together with the Board of a College, called a Missou- 
 rian pastor of a Tennessee Synod Congregation. The Luth- 
 eran idea is that the congregation call the pastor ; here we 
 see that the Board of Trustees and the "MissouHans" ar- 
 ranged this matter. It may be said that it was only a 
 recommendation— this is not true for it is the same action 
 that called a professor— and if it were true that it was only a 
 recommendation, what right or what business had two 
 
The Situation in North Carolina, , 19 
 
 Missourians here recommending a Tennessee Synod Congre- 
 gation to call a Missourian ? 
 
 Another remarkable statement we find under Resolutions 
 etc, is this: "Carried unanimously by the whole Board, ex- 
 cepting two not in reach" The writer knows of four mem- 
 bers of the Board, who were in reach that were not in that 
 meeting, viz. Silas Smyre, Revs. J. A. Rudisill, J. C. Moser, 
 and A. L. Grouse, and these were not informed of the meeting. 
 But had these four perhaps been expelled by Revs. Smith and 
 Bernheim and their places filled by men whom they could 
 manipulate for this purpose of calling a Missourian? 
 
 It is to such proceedings as these above given that we refer 
 when we say that that call was manipulated. We do not 
 know what action the congregation took in this mafter of 
 calling its Missouri pastor afterwards, if any was taken ; 
 nor would any action on its part afterwards change the fact 
 or its manipulation; for we see from their own published' 
 statement that the Board of Trustees and Missourians had 
 arranged the whole matter for a professor and a pastor in 
 one resolution — and that he be the same man and that he 
 be a Missourian. 
 
 We have thus far reviewed the history of the school ques- 
 tion in the Tennessee Synod, as an answer to the question, 
 How did Missouri get control of Concordia College? We will 
 again answer that question in a few words. There had been 
 some trouble in the Tennessee Synod on the location of 
 school for about sixteen years, brought about principally by 
 Rev. J. M. Smith's determination to have the school at Con- 
 over at all hazards and against the expressed wishes of a 
 majority of the people. This trouble was very greatly ex- 
 tended at the called session of the Tennessee Synod at St. 
 James in 1890, by this same spirit manifested by Revs. 
 Smith and Bernheim. The Missourians, taking advantage 
 of this disaffection in the Tennessee Synod, and aided by 
 members of the Board of Trustees, who played the part of 
 traitors to the Tennessee Synod, secured control of the 
 school. 
 
20 The Situation in North Carolina. 
 
 This is a true statement of the facts in the case, no matter 
 with what smooth-tongued flattery, or honeyed words, these 
 Missourians may come to our people of the Tennessee Synod, 
 and profess that their intention in coming into this part of 
 the country was, to endeavor to reconcile differences and to 
 heal divisions and to work for the advancement of the Ten- 
 nessee Synod. We give them credit for more common sense 
 and tact than they have displayed, it this latter were their 
 real design. If they came to harmonize discordant elements, 
 which Revs. Kuegele and Dallmann stated to Revs. J. C. 
 Moser and J. P. Miller at Hickory, December 31, 1891, was 
 their object, they have tailed most signally, lor the divis- 
 ion is greater to-day than.when they came; and, so far as it 
 appears, have not made a single effort to harmonize ele- 
 ments at variance. Their course among our people, so iar, 
 has only complicated matters and has rendered adjustment 
 much more difficult. 
 
 Such, Prof. Moser assured them would be the result should 
 they come into our Synod and ally themselves with the Con- 
 over faction. He further urged them that if they meant 
 peace, if they really wished to heal differences, and adjust 
 difficulties, they should stay away. They were not encour- 
 oged to come as was staled by Rev. Dallmann at Conover, 
 June 15, 1893, and has also been stated by others. If these 
 men were in any way encouraged, it was done privately and 
 not by Revs. Moser and Miller. 
 
 XI 
 
 Mow did the Missourians get into Tennessee 
 
 Synod Congregations? — The Lutheran idea is that the 
 pastor becomes such by virtue of his call from a congrega- 
 tion ; and the normal relation is that pastor and congrega- 
 tion belong to the same Synod. We have the abnormal con- 
 dition here in the Tennesse Synod, of Tennessee Synod con- 
 gregations having Missouri pastors; and the writer was in- 
 formed by the Rev. W. A. Lutz, during the Free Conference 
 at Hickory, October, 1893, that it was a principle of the 
 Missouri Synod, to take charge of all vacant congregations 
 
The Situ fit ion in North Carolina. 21 
 
 that they could get hold of without any reference to their 
 Synodical connection, and cited Knoxville, Term., as a recent 
 example, illustrating that principle. And we shall have oc- 
 casion as we proceed to give other examples illustrating the 
 same principle. This principle of course always either drags 
 the congregation into the Missouri Synod as a whole, or 
 divides the congregation ; generally the latter is the result. 
 We have already indicated how a Missourian became pastor 
 of Concordia Congregation. 
 
 In the minutes of the Tennessee Synod, October 1892, page 
 8, the President of Synod, Rev. J. Paul Stirewalt, in his re- 
 port makes this statement : "I understand that Rev. Prof. 
 Romoser, a member of the English Evangelical Lutheran 
 Synod of Missouri, has been installed pastor of Sharon and 
 St. Martin's Congregations. As these congregations are in 
 rather an abnormal condition, being served by a pastor not 
 at this time in connection with our Synod, [ would here sug- 
 gest that this matter be investigated." 
 
 No action w T as taken by Synod on this suggestion of the 
 President, though a private letter had been written by the 
 secretary of the congregation, St. Martin's, urging that 
 Synod take some action. Then this congregation sent a 
 petition to the North Carolina Conference of Tennessee Syn- 
 od in December 1892 urging some action ; and Conference 
 appointed a committee to go to St. Martin's. This com- 
 mittee went, but accomplished nothing. Conference in April 
 1893 appointed the second committee, Revs. A. L.Crouse and 
 J'. C. Moser, who went to St, Martin's Church on Tuesday, 
 July 25, 1893, investigated the matter, and reported to 
 Conference, that they found that the call was irregular. 
 Conference advised St. Martin's to call a pastor of the Ten- 
 nessee Synod. From the evidence taken by this committe? 
 and redd before Conference it appeared that Rev. Romoser 
 had been secured for St. Martin's by the manipulations of 
 Rev. C. H. Bernheim. 
 
 The following is the action of the Conference in this matter : 
 
 "REPORT OF COMMITTEE UPON TiJE DIFFICULTY AT ST. MARTIN'S (lREDEL.ll..)" 
 
 " We, your committee, upon this matter, report, that we visited that con 
 
22 The Situation in North Carolina* 
 
 gregation last Tuesday, and held a meeting for the purpose of obtaining 
 information. Nearly all the members were present, and we learned that the 
 disturbance has grown oat of dissatisfaction with the call, which was ex- 
 tended to Rev. Prof. G. A. Romoser, who has been preaching there several 
 months. This call, we learned, from statements made by all parties, was 
 irregular. 
 
 We therefore reccommend that Conference advise all the members of that 
 congregation to unite in calling for their pastor a minister from the Tennes- 
 see Synod, or one who will become a member of our Synod, believing from 
 what we learned that that will give satisfaction to the dissatisfied members 
 and restore peace and harmony in the congregation. 
 
 And that they be advised to call a congregalional meeting as soon as 
 possible and attend to this matter. » Respectfully, 
 
 A. L. Chouse, 
 J. C. Moser. 
 
 After this action oi Conference, Rev. Romoser withdrew 
 by request of a majority of St. Martin's Congregation. Since 
 bhen the congregation has been supplied by Prot. W. P. 
 Cline. But it is a matter of deep regret to state that there is 
 yet a division in that congregation, caused by this Missouri 
 interference in the work of the Tennesse Synod. 
 
 With reference to the Missouri proceedings at Sharon Con- 
 gregation, Iredell County, N. C, the following facts were 
 learned from Rev. D. J. Settlemyre, who will vouch for them. 
 The call which Rev. Romoser accepted was not regular. No 
 congregational meeting was held and no vote taken. Mr. 
 Henry Setzer requested Rev. Settlemyre to announce that 
 '' we have called Romoser.'' He declined the only call ever 
 extended and that required him to locate in Iredell. What 
 he did accept was not a call but an arrangement of several 
 men. And furthermore, the Constitution of Sharon Congre- 
 gation which was adopted without a dissenting voice on 
 December 24, 1890, required that the pastor belong to the 
 Tennessee Synod. In order that Rev. Romoser a Missourian 
 could be installed as pastor the Constitution of the congre- 
 gation had to be gotten rid of and so Romoser declared it 
 "not Sharon's Constitution," though unanimously adopted 
 by the congregation, and acknowledged by them, for at least 
 one year and a half, as their Constitution. Mr. Reuben Cline 
 who came with Rev. Romoser to Sharon a few days before 
 the installation of Romoser, and not finding the Constitu- 
 tion in the church, called on Rev. Settlemvre who lived near 
 
Tlit* Sitmition in North Carolina. 2$ 
 
 the church, for the Constitution of Sharon Congregation, 
 and Rev, Settlemy re delivered it to them. Mr. Cline knew 
 that it was Sharon's Constitution, asked for it and received 
 it, as such. 
 
 In reference to St. John's Church, Catawba County, N. C, 
 now served by Prof. Dau, a Missourian, the writer was in- 
 formed by Mr. Silas Wike, John H. Mouer and Win. A. Hoke, 
 Claremont, N. C, and Daniel L. Wike of Catawba, N. C, all 
 being members at St. John's, that the call was secured large- 
 ly through the interference of Revs. J. M. Smith and C. H. 
 Bernheim, that both were present when the call was extend- 
 ed and "electioneered" for a Missourian. 
 
 That this action of the congregation, calling a Missourian, 
 
 caused division in St John's, the following petition presented 
 
 to the last session of the Tennessee Synod, September, 1893, 
 
 clearly shows. In Minutes of Tennessee Synod, September, 
 
 1893, page 12, under Report of Committee on Letters and 
 
 Petitions, we find : 
 
 "No. 3 is a petition troin St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Congregation, 
 Catawba County, N. C, signed by thirty-seven of her members in which they 
 state, 'that a number of their members have called Kev. W. H. T. Dau, of 
 the Missouri Synod, as pastor. That the said W. H. T. Dau has not con- 
 nected himself with our Synod, and has served a congregation as its pastor 
 for about eighteen months, and will not promise to connect himself with the 
 Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee Synod, and even denounces our pastors as 
 un-Lutheran. We being loyal to the Tennessee Synod, the Syiwpd of our 
 fathers, can not, under the circumstances, conscientiously worship with the 
 said W. H. T. Dau, noi- regard him as our pastor. We therefore ask vou to 
 advise us what to do under these sad conditions.' " 
 
 This petition was answered by the following resolution : 
 
 l * Resolved, that a committee of three be appointed to investigate that 
 matter, and give the petitioners such advice as they may deem proper." 
 
 The committee was: Revs. J. C. Moser, R. A. Yoder, and J. 
 P, Miller. And this is the advice the committee gave the pe- 
 titioners. It was publicly read to them, or most of them, at 
 Wike's school house, November 4, 1893 : 
 
 "To the brethern of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of St. John's con- 
 gregation, Catawba County, North Carolina, who petitioned the Evangeli- 
 cal Lutheran Tennessee Synod for advice : 
 
 Dear Brethren:— The Synod after hearing your petition referud the mat- 
 ter of giving advice to us as a committee. We, therefore, advise: 
 
 That, whereas, you can not conscientiously worship at St. John's under 
 
24 The Situation in North Carolina. 
 
 its present pastor, who is a member of the Missouri Synod, who for doctrin- 
 al reasons will not connect himself with the Evangelical Lutheran Tennessee 
 Synod, and who on the subject of Election teaches a doctrine which is new 
 to the Lutheran Church, and which is generally regarded as, at least, Cal- 
 vinistic in its tendency ; you remain faithful and loyal to the Tennessee Syn- 
 od, that you organize yourselves into a congregation, and that you call a 
 pastor of the Tennessee Synod, or one who will connect himself with it." 
 
 With reference to these irregularities in our congregations, 
 the Tennessee Synod in 1893 passed the following, which is 
 iound on page 15, Tennessee Synod Minutes of 1893 : 
 
 " Whereas, some trouble and irregularities threaten some of the churches 
 connected with this Synod, because of preachers of other religious Societies, 
 
 Resolved, that we earnestly advise all congregations and people in con- 
 nection with this Synod, to avoid pastors not in connection with this Syn- 
 od, except such as are recommended by this Synod or by its President." 
 
 The writer was informed by Eev. J. A. Rudisill in October, 
 1893, that Rev. Dau was pastor at Glen Alpiue, upon the 
 condition that he become a member of the Tennessee Synod, 
 
 This information was given him by Mrs. Edward Sigmon 
 of the congregation in the presence of Mr. J. J. Sigmon, a 
 member of the Council, who assented to it. 
 
 That the Missourians are proselyters, and that their whole 
 effort here is a scheming one to extend the territorry of the 
 Missouri Synod into congregations of the Tennessee Synod, 
 and finally to absorb the Synod, and that they never had 
 any intention of connecting- themselves with the Tennessee 
 Synod, %e have believed and affirmed all the while since their 
 coming into North Carolina; and our opinion is based upon 
 the following: 
 
 1 . In the outset they dictated terms upon which they 
 would condescend to connect themselves with the Tennessee 
 Synod, such terms as would practically make the Tennessee 
 Synod Missourian — i. e. ''whenever the Tennessee Synod 
 would withdraw from the United Synod of the South, and 
 agree with them in doctrine and practice;" of course, they 
 w T ould connect themselves then—when the Tennessee Synod 
 would become Missourian. 
 
 2. They have now been in Tennessee Synod congregations 
 for about two years, and they have never made application 
 to be received into connection with our Svnod. 
 
The Situation in North ( nrolinn. 25 
 
 XXX 
 
 But wlio are these Missouriaiis, these disturbers 
 of the Church? What manner of men are they? 
 
 The German Missouri Synod is a very large arid influential 
 Synod in connection with the Sy nodical Conference. The 
 English Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri and other 
 states is a small Synod, and only about five years old. It is 
 also in connection with the K\ nodical Conference; and the 
 " Missourians" who are operating in this section belong to 
 this English Missouri Synod. We remark in passing that 
 Dr\ P. C. Henkel was never a member of the English Synod of 
 Missouri, he was not in its organization, when in the West, 
 as has been reported ; because it did not exist then. He was 
 in an organization called the Knglish Conference of the Mis- 
 souri Synod. When we speak of the Missouri Synod as to its 
 methods, spirit etc., we mean both the English and the Ger- 
 man Missouri Synods; because they are one as to methods, 
 principles, doctrine etc., have many things in common, and 
 both belong to the same general body— in a word, they 
 are genuinely Missourhin whether English or German. 
 
 Missouri is regarded as a disturbing and proselyting Syn- 
 od, not only here, but also at other places. She is regarded 
 as arrogant and egotistic, not only by pastors of the Ten- 
 nessee Synod, but also by many other Lutherans. Rev. J. 
 Nicum, in the Lutheran Church Review of April 1893, pages 
 178 and 180, in an article, "Professor Graebner's History," 
 says : 
 
 " Before entering upon a more detailed examination of the book it is nec- 
 essary to remark that the writer (Prof Graebner) is the editor and defender 
 of the publication of Rev. J. (irosse of Addison, Lis., entitled, 'Unterseheid- 
 ungslehren/ in which it is charged that all Lutherans outside the Synodical 
 Conference, and with the ex >eptiou of a few pastors and churches, in Ger- 
 many and Australia, are Romanish. Zwinglian, Syncretists, Unionists, Syn- 
 ergists, etc., — in short, errorists a,nd heterdox, and claimed that only the 
 less than half a million of Missourians in the world are the true Lutheran 
 Church. 
 
 Much as vve rejoice in the fact that this large division of our Church has at 
 last taken up the study of history, we must on the other hand regret that 
 the work has been undertake?) by a man whose judgment is biased and who 
 treats persons and events from the very narrow and exclusive standpoint of 
 Missouri. * * * * One of the impressions left upon the miurt of 
 the careful reader of this book is. that Prof, Graebner considers it a great 
 
26 Tlw Situation in North Carolina. 
 
 pity that Muhlenberg and men of his kind were the successful organizers of 
 the Lutheran Church in this Country, and that a professor of I he Gnesio — 
 Missouri stamp like Pieper or Graebner, would have accomplished this task 
 so much better. Alas for the Lutheran Church in this Country if it had 
 fallen (o the lot of these men to be its founders ! " 
 
 Dr. Grau, professor in the University of Koenigsberg, Ger- 
 many, in an article entitled. "The feril of Missouri," which 
 appeared in the Lutheran, November 26, 1885, says : 
 
 "The Missouri Propaganda in the German State Churches, we also cen- 
 sure as a course entirely un-Lutheran, but rather of a Reformed sectarian 
 character. Of such interferences in foreign spheres, Calvinists and Crypto- 
 Calvinists used to be, and Methodists and Baptists are at present still 
 guilty. The Lutheran practice is for one to maintain God's Word and let 
 its light shine in one's own place and office, and to commit the rest to God." 
 
 We quote the following from the Lutheran of April 6, 
 1893. 
 
 ''Some Light Upon the New Union in the Northwest." 
 
 {Translated from " Herald & i Zeitschrift," of April 1, 1893.) 
 
 " An article in Lnthardt's ' Kirchenzeitung,' about the new union of Syn- 
 ods in the Northwest,— which appeared in that paper about two months 
 ago, has evidently touched the Missouri papers very unpleasantly, so 
 that they cannot get to an end with their protests against it. 
 
 hi compliance with the wishes of some of our readers, who are anxious bo 
 read the article referred to, we herewith reproduce it without comment: 
 
 'The organization of the now general body composed of certain German 
 Lutheran Synods in the Northwest, to which brief reference was made in 
 this paper, recently, is an event of such jireat importance, that 'O-ur readers 
 must excuse us of refering to it again. We must bear in mind, that this is 
 an occurrence that has ta.ken place on the territory of the Synodical Con- 
 ference (Missouri). The three Synods which have united in the organiza- 
 tion of this general body, are members of the Synodical Conference, of which 
 body the Missouri Synod, and a very .small English Synod, are the only 
 other members. From this it is manifest, that a new general body has been 
 organized within the Synodical Conference, and that Missouri has been ex- 
 cluded from this new body ! * * '"' * * 
 
 It may well be asked, why has such a general body been organized — in the 
 bosom of the Synodical Conference? Why do the Synods of the Synodical 
 Conference form a bond of union, to the exclusion of Missouri? 
 
 The answer to this question is to "be sought in the assumptions of Mis- 
 souri. It is notorious, that Missouri does not only treat uncharitably 
 those Synods that do not belong fco the Synodical Conference — although — 
 as Missouri looks upon it, their very love for these people prompts them to 
 judge them severely, and to condemn them so unmercifully, — but that it 
 even, in many respects, conducts itself in a very unbrotherly way towards 
 the Synods that are connected with if: For instance, Missouri trespasses 
 upon the Home Mission work of the Wisconsin Synod, by esiablishing con- 
 gregations, where the Wisconsin Svnod first took hold of the work, and 
 thus drives out the men who are working in behalf of the Wisconsin Synod. 
 
Tlw Situation in North Carolina. 27 
 
 During the past y Pa r, the Missionary Superintendent of the latter, com- 
 plained to his Synod, of such interferences. The very same thing was done 
 ■ in the department of education. And in all these movfments, Missouri 
 seems to have had its eye upon the Wisconsin Synod, which is, next to it, 
 the strongest in the Synodical Conference. The organization of this general 
 body within the Synodical Conference, and the closer union of the three Syn- 
 ods with each other, is therefore to oe looked upon as a sort of league for 
 mutual protection against Missouri. And the final result will be— the disso- 
 lution of the Synodical Conference. Missouri, which, a few years ago, gath- 
 ered around itself the strongest Synods of the West, will, before very long, 
 stand alone. Owing to the controversy about Predestination it repelled 
 Ohio, and the large Norwegian Synod and now it is alienating even thos-e 
 Synods, which at one time were found willing to swallow the bitter Missou- 
 ri-Calvinistic pill.'" 
 
 The foregoing quotations, serve to show what trhese Mis- 
 sourians are, in the estimation of other people, who are cer- 
 tainly not prejudiced against them on account of the school 
 trouble here in North Carolina. 
 
 Bat what doctrinal views do these Missonrians 
 hold that differ from the Lutheran Church in- 
 cluding the Tennessee Synod, that make them 
 call all others, not of themselves. erroristsP 
 They hold a view on the doctrine of Election, or Predesti- 
 nation, which differs in a vital point from that which the 
 Lutheran Church has held and confessed for three hundred 
 years. They tell our people of the Tennessee Synod that 
 they hold nothing differing from the teachings of the Old Ten- 
 nessee Synod on that question. If that is so, and the Tennes- 
 see Synod holds the pure faith, in their opinion, then why are 
 they here doing Missionary work in congregations of the Ten- 
 nessee Synod? What is wrong with the Old Tennessee Synod 
 that the English Synod of Missouri sends men and mon- 
 ey info this section to aid a school in opposition to the Ten- 
 nessee Synod and to organize congregations in the borders 
 ot Tennesse Synod congregations and out of their material? 
 Is there .not destitution of Lutheranism enough in many 
 sections of our country, where these Missourians could more 
 profitably spend their money than here in a pure Lutheran 
 section? Upon what grounds can they justify their opera- 
 tions here except that : fhev have some different doctrines to 
 set forth and inculcate** \Y4iy not take virgin soil in which 
 
9 A 
 
 The Situation in ^oi-th Carolina. 
 
 to try the growth of their new doctrine? Because it is easier 
 proselyting Lutherans, than others, when the doctrine 
 comes under the name of Lutheran ; and because this process 
 is easier than converting the heathen. 
 
 We shall set forth the Missouri doctrine ot election ; and 
 then, the doctrine of the Bible and Confessions of the Luther- 
 an Church, and how the Church has interpreted the Confess- 
 ions, and what the Tennessee Synod has always held on this 
 subject. 
 
 What Missouri holds on this doctrine must be learned 
 from her own publications. Rev. Kuegele in his first thesis 
 on this doctrine says : 
 
 " The doctrine of the election of grace as tought and defended by Missou- 
 rians most be learned from Missouri's own publications." 
 
 Therefore, according to this thesis, what the Missouri pas- 
 tors operating in this section say in reference to Missouri's 
 doctrine is not reliable; because that doctrine must be learn- 
 ed from Missouri publications. And the statements oi their 
 doctrine, to our people, by these Missouri pastors, seem 
 abundantly to verify this thesis. It must have the stamp, 
 ex cathedra, upon it before it will be recognized as the genu- 
 ine article. Let us therefore proceed to examine some of the 
 stamped goods. 
 
 Here we give the genuine Missouri article. We quote first 
 from Missouri's ''Thirteen Theses on Election,"' adopted by 
 the Missouri Synod in 1881. Thesis 9 says: 
 
 " We believe, teach and confess : 1 . That election does not consist in the 
 mere fact that God foresaw which men will secure salvation : 2. That 
 election is also not the mere purpose of God to redeem and sa.ve men, .vhich 
 would make it universal and extend in general to all men; 8. That elec- 
 tion does not embrace those 'which believe for awhile' (Luke 8: 18); 4. 
 That election is not a mere decree of God to lead to bliss all those who 
 would believe unto their end. * * * " 
 
 No. 10 of the same Theses says • 
 
 " We believe, teach and confess, that the cause which moved God to elect", 
 is alone His grace and the meiit of Jesus Christ, and not anything good 
 foreseen by God in the elect, not even faith foreseen in them by God." 
 
 Again we quote from the Theses by Rev. Kuegele, prepared 
 for discussion at/ Free Conference at Conover, January 3, 
 1894: : ; '- . 
 
 "V. Election is not a result of the foreseen salvation of the elect, but 
 
The Situation in i\orth ( ''nvolinn. 2U 
 
 rather preceeds it and is a cause or" their Salvation ; yet not the only cause, 
 but a cause among other causes." 
 
 From the same : 
 
 "VII. By faith we know that we are ordained to eternal life, and in no 
 other way can we know it." 
 
 Now as comments upon these theses we shall quote from 
 their writers. But belore referring to them, we desire to call 
 attention to the fact that in Thesis No. 10, above quoted, 
 that "faith" is excluded, and that it is not included in 
 Thesis No. ¥. 
 
 Dr, Walther in a sermon on Predestination, translated by 
 
 August Crull, St. Louis, Missouri, 1883. on page 14 says: 
 
 "Behold, my dear hearers, God has not foreseen in His elect anything 
 good which he might have regarded and which therefore might have induc- 
 ed Hira io elect them ; on the contrary, he saw them lying in the blood of 
 their sins,. and then he said : ' Ye shall live ! ' Nor has God regarded that 
 they were already acceptable to Him, and elected them for that reason ; on 
 the contrary, as our text has it, 'He hath made them accepted in the be- 
 loved.' Nor has God regarded that by repentance and conversion they had 
 already turned away from the world, and elected them on that account; mi 
 the contrary, as Christ says to His disciples, He has 'chosen them out of 
 the avorld,' consequently out of the number of unbelievers, among whom 
 He saw them. God, therefore, has not regarded even faith itself nor elected 
 them on account of their faith ; on the contrary, because no man can acquire 
 faith bv his own efforts. He has determined from eternity to work faith in 
 them through the gospel and to preserve them in faith unto the end." 
 
 Prof. F. Pieper, writing for the Sv nodical Conference, in 
 
 "The Distinctive Doctrines and Usages of the General Bodies 
 
 of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Uninted States, says, 
 
 pages 158, 159: 
 
 "Relation of eternal election to the faith of the elect. In the decree of 
 eternal predestination the faith of the elect is not presupposed (as is as- 
 sumed by the theorv that predestination took place in foresight of faith.') 
 but included. For God did not first elect them to salvation absolutely and 
 after that decree to grant them faith as the means of obtaining salvation, 
 but when God elected them He at the same time and in the same decree de- 
 creed to grant them faith and perseverance in faith. As God in time unites 
 His children to himself by giving them.faith, so in eternity he united His 
 children to himself by decreeing to give them faith." 
 
 Again he says : 
 
 "If, therefore, the question be asked whether the faith that is found In 
 the elect in time, in the order of thought preceeds their eternal election as a 
 cause, condition, etc., or follows after it as a result, the latter must be 
 affirmed and the former denied." 
 
 In the Minutes of the Western District of the Missouri Syn- 
 od, 1877, page 24, it is said ; 
 
SO The Situation in North Carolina. 
 
 "Yes, God already from eternity has elected a certain number of men unto 
 salvation; He has decreed, these shall and must be saved ; and as surely 
 as God is God, so surely they will be saved, and no one except them." 
 
 In the same minutes, pa^e 42, we read : 
 
 "The decree of God to save a number of men is the cause of their salva- 
 tion ; but for this no man would be saved except perhaps the infants." 
 
 We obtain the following quotations of Missouri doctrine, 
 not from the original, because we do not have them on 
 hand, but they are correct and can be verified by reference 
 to the orignals: 
 
 "How can that be called election, when it is taught, that God has foreseen 
 that certain persons would remain iu the faith unto the end, and then after 
 having foreseen it, He had resolved : these shall be saved. If election is to 
 be nothing more, than that God abides by this decree that all they who be- 
 lieve unto the end shall be saved, then there is no election." Walth^rin 
 Ch. Prot. p. 50. 
 
 "Nothing, nothing at all did God foresee, in those whom He decreed to 
 save." Missouri in West. Dist. 1877, 
 
 "Gracious election is namely also an election unto vocation, unto right- 
 eousness, and unto glory. The first link in the chain of our salvation is 
 election, the second ordination, the third vocation, the fourth justification, 
 and the fifth glorification, which is whollv up in heaven." Missouri in West. 
 Dis't. 1877, p. 39. 
 
 "The Word of God testifies, that grace takes away natural resistance, yea 
 even also overcomes the most wilful opposition and resistance to it; again 
 daily experience testifies that this resistance is not removed, yea even yet 
 turns into contempt and obduracy, and that not all continue steadfast in 
 the faith This is a hidden mistery, known only to God, to be searched out 
 by no human mind, to be considered with awe and adored." Missouri in 
 Lehre und Wehre, vol. 19, p. 173. 
 
 ''Many a father is kindlier toward one child than toward another, because 
 it obeys him better and causes him more joy than the other; he also gives 
 food and drink to the latter, likewise prepares many a pleasure for it, but 
 unto the former he nevertheless shows this and that kindness more than to 
 the latter. Even so God acts toward us, only that He does not even ask 
 after it, whether we haye obeyed or not, but does just as He will." Missou- 
 ri in West- Dis't. 1879, p. 38. 
 
 "And what is now in the doctrine of election that hidden mystery? At 
 what point must we stand still? What question remains unanswered to 
 us? When we meditate at length upon the revealed truth, that God accord- 
 ing to the good pleasure of His will, of pure grace and mercy, for the sake of 
 the merits of Christ, before the foundation of the world, elected us, just us, 
 then arrises the thought, the question: yea, why hath God then elected just 
 us, who are by nature not a hair'better than others? To elect, to choose 
 (Auswa.ehlen, Erwaehlen), in the strictest sense of the word, is a relative 
 conception. Election means separation. God chooses some out of a mass 
 and separates them from the rest. Accordingly the question tends thence: 
 why hath God chosen we before others, who am also in like guilt with all 
 other children of men? Why hath God chosen me, not others? What God 
 however has done a.nd does by us in time, is certainly but the reflex, the ex- 
 ecution of his eternal counsel and decree. And thus the question obtains the 
 following form: 'Why did God eon vrrt and draw just me to Him? Why 
 does he not bring all meu to faith? Tbej are by nature in nothing worse 
 
Tlte Situation in North Carolina. 31 
 
 than I. And I am by nature no better than they. Why does God raise up 
 again the one, who has fallen from faith, and not the other? Why did lie 
 grant Peter repentance and not Judas? It certainly nil lies solely and 
 alone with his mercy.' ' The discretio personarum' (singling-out of persons) 
 that God in time and eternity, in conversion as well as election, sterns to 
 make a distinction among sinners who all lie in like condemnation, and 
 alike resist, is the proper mystery of election. Why God acts thus by one, 
 and thus by another, this we can not and shall not fathom. The rule, by 
 which God in eternity elected and separated is unknown to us.' " — Missouri 
 in Lehre and Wehre, Vol. 27, p. 367 . 
 
 Now we ask a careful comparison of the foregoing Missouri 
 statements of her doctrine of election with the following quo- 
 tations from the Canons of the Synod of Dort (Calvinistic), 
 and that the essential agreement be carefully observed. The 
 quotations are made from Schaff's Creeds of Christendom. 
 Vol. Ill, p. 583 : 
 
 ''Art. IX. This election was not founded upon foreseen faith, and the 
 obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in 
 man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition on which it depended , but men 
 are chosen to faith and to the obedience of taith, holiness, etc. Therefore el no- 
 tion is the fountain of every saving good ; from which proceeds faith, holi- 
 ness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its 
 fruits and effects, according to that of the Apostle. 'He hath chosen us 
 [not because we were but] that we should be holy and without blame be- 
 fore him in love.' (Eph.l:4)." 
 
 "Art.X. The good pleasure of God is the sole cause of this gracious election : 
 which doth not consist herein that God, foreseeing all possible qualities of 
 human actions, elected certain of these as a condition of salvation, but that, 
 he was pleased out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain 
 persons as a peculiar people to himself, as it is written, 'For the children 
 being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,' etc., 'it was said 
 [namely to Rebecca] the elder shall serve the yonder; as it is written, 'Jacob 
 have 1 loved, but E.-au have I hated' (Mom. IX, 11—18); and, 'as many as 
 were ordained to eternal life believed.' (Acts XIII, 48) ." 
 
 But ?nough of these quotationsfrom Missouri Publications 
 and from the Canons of the Synod of Dort. Let us leave 
 these cold and dreary speculations, and turn to the more 
 comforting and refreshing words of the Bible and the Con- 
 fessions of the Lutheran Church. 
 
 The book of Concord teaches that the whole plan of Salva- 
 tion must be comprised together when we speak of election. 
 It says, Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Chapter XI, 
 [Jacob's edition, page 652] paragraphs 13—24: 
 
 "Therefore, if we wish to think or speak correctly and profitably concern- 
 ing eternal election, or the predestination and foreordiuation of the children 
 of God to eternal life, we should accustom ourselves nob to speculate con- 
 cerning the mere, secret, concealed, inscrutable foreknowledge of God, but 
 
H^ The Sit mi ,t ion in North ( ''nrolinu. 
 
 how the council, purpose and ordination of God in Jesus Christ, who is the 
 true book of life, has been revealed to us through the Word, viz : that the 
 entire doctrine concerning the purpose, council, will and ordination of God 
 pertaining to our redemption, call, righteousness and salvation should 
 be taken together; as Paul has treated and explained this article (Rom. 
 8:29 sq. ; Eph. 1;4 sq.), as also Christ in the parable (Matt. 22- L sqq.), 
 namely, that in his purpose and council decreed : 
 
 1. That the human race should be truly redeemed and reconciled with 
 God through Christ, who, by his faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering 
 and death, has merited for us righteousness which avails betore God, and 
 eternal life. 
 
 2. That such merit and benefits of Christ should be offered, presented 
 and distributed to us through his Word and sacraments. 
 
 3. That he would be efficacious and active in us by his Holy Ghost, 
 through the Word, when it is preached, heard and pondered, to convert 
 hearts to true repentance aud preserve them in the true faith. 
 
 4. That all those who. in true repentance, receive Christ by a true faith 
 he would justify and receive into grace, adoption and inheritance of eternal 
 life. 
 
 5- That those also who are thus justified he would sanctify in love, as 
 St. Paul (Eph. 1:4) says. 
 
 6. That, in their great weakness, he also would defend them against the 
 d«vil, the world and the flesh, and would rule and lead them in his ways, 
 aud when they stumble would raise them again [piace his hand beneath 
 them], and under 1he cross and in temptation would comfort and preserve 
 them [for life]. 
 
 7. That the good work which he has begun in them he would strengthen, 
 increase and support to the end, if they observe God's Word, pray diligent- 
 ly , abide in God's goodness [grace] and faithfully use the gifts received. 
 
 8. That those whom he has elected called and justified, he would eter- 
 nally save and glorify in eternal life. 
 
 And that in his council, purpose and ordination he prepaid salvation 
 not only in general, but in grace considered and chose to salvation each 
 and every person of the elect, who shall be saved through Christ, and or- 
 dained that in the way just mentioned he would by his grace, gifts and effi- 
 cacy bring them thereto [make them participants of eternal salvation], and 
 aid, promote, strengthen and preserve them. 
 
 All this, according to the Scriptures, is comprised in the doctrine concern- 
 ing the eteriml election of Go.d to adoption and eternal salvation, and 
 should be comprised with it, and not omitted, when we speak of God's pur- 
 pose, predestination, election and ordination to salvation. And when, ac- 
 cording to the S. riptures, thoughts concerning this article are thus formed, 
 we can, by God's grace, simply [and correctly] adapt ourselves to it [and 
 advantageously treat of it]." 
 
 Also the Formula of Coucord, Epitome, pp, 52(5, 527, 
 Jacob's Edition, Paragraphs 11—13: 
 
 ''11. That, however, ' many are called, few are chosen,' does not mean 
 that God is unwilling that all should be saved, hut the reason is that they 
 either do not hear God's Word, but Wilfully despise it, close their ears mid 
 harden their hearts, and in this manner foreclosethe oidinary way to the 
 Holy Ghost,. so that he cannot effect his work in them, or, when it is heard, 
 they consider it of no account, and do not heed it. For (his [that they per- 
 ish] not Go,d or his election, but their wickedness, is responsible (2 Pet. 2;1 
 sqq.; Luke 11:49, 52; Heb. 12:25 sq.)." 
 
The Situation in North Carolina. HS 
 
 "12. Moreover, a Christian should apply himself [in meditation] to the 
 
 article concerning the eternal election of God, so far as it has been revealed 
 in God's Word, which presents Christ to us as the Book of Life, which, by 
 the preaching of the holy Gospel, he opens and spreads out to us. as it is 
 written (Horn 8:30): ' Whom he did predestinate, them he also called.' 
 In him, therefore, we should seek the eternal election of the Father, who, in 
 his eternal divine counsel, determined that ho would save no one except 
 those who acknowledge his Son, Christy and truly believe on him. Other 
 thoughts are to be entirely banished [from the minds ot the godly], as they 
 proceed not from God, but from the suggestion of Satan, whereby lie at- 
 tempts to weaken or to entirely remove from us the glorious consolation 
 which we have in this salutary doctrine, viz. that we know [assuredly] that 
 out of pure grace, without any merit of our own, we have been elected in 
 Christ to eternal life, and that no one can pluck us out of his hand ; as he 
 has promised this gracious election not only with mere words, but has also 
 certified it with an oath, and sealed it with the holy sacraments, which we 
 can [ought to] call to mind in our most severe temptations, and from them 
 comfort ourselves, and thereby quench the fiery darts of the devil. 
 
 "13. Besides, we should endeavor with the greatest pains to live accord- 
 ing to the will of God, and, as St, Peter admonishes (2 Ep.-l : 10), 'make 
 our calling sure,' and especially adhere to [not recede a finger's breadth 
 from] the revealed Word, that can and will not fail us." 
 
 Again the Form. Con. Sol. Dec. pp. 660, 661, paragraphs 
 65—70 : 
 
 "Therefore this eternal election of God is to be considered in Christ, and 
 not beyond or without Christ. For 'in Christ,' testifies the apostle Paul 
 (Eph. 1:4 sq). 'he hath chosen us before the foundation ot the world ;' as it 
 is written : * He hath made us accepted in the Beloved.' But this election is 
 revealed from heaven through the preached Word when the Father says 
 (Matt, 17:5): 'This my beloved son in whom I am well pleased ; hear ye 
 him.' And Christ says (Matt. 1 1;28): ' Come unto me, all ye that labor and 
 a™ heavy laden, and 1 will give you rest.' And concerning the Holy Ghost 
 Christ says (John 16:14): ' He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, 
 and shall show it unto you.' Therefore the entire Holy Trinity, Father, 
 Son and Holy Ghost, direct all men to Christ, as to the Book of Life, in 
 which they should seek the eternal election of the Father. For it has betn 
 decided by the Father from eternity that whom he would save he would 
 save through Christ (John 14:6): ' No man cometh unto the Father but by 
 me.' And again (John 10:9): ' I am the door; by me, if any man enter in, 
 he shall be .saved.' 
 
 But Christ as the only begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the 
 Father, has published to us the will of the Father, and thus also our eternal 
 election to eternal life, viz, when he says (Mark 1:15): 'Ilepent ye, and be- 
 lieve the Gospel; the kingdom of God is at hand.' He also says (John 
 6:40): ' This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the 
 Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life.' And again (John 
 3:16): 'God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
 whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.' 
 
 This proclamation the Father wishes that all men should hear, and that 
 they should come to Christ. Those who come to Christ does not rtpel from 
 himself, as it is written (John 6:37): ' Him 1hat cometh to me I will in no 
 wise cast out.' 
 
 And in order that we may come to Christ, the Holy Ghost works, through 
 the hearing of the Word, true faith, as. the^ apostles testifies when he says 
 
34 The Situation in North Carolina,. 
 
 (Rom. 10:17). ' Faith cometh by hearing arid hearing by the Word of 
 God,' viz. when it is preached in its purity and without adulteration. 
 
 Therefore no one who would be saved should trouble or harrass himself 
 with thoughts concerning the secret counsel of (rod, as to whether he also is 
 elected and ordained to eternal life; for with these miserable Satan is accus- 
 tomed to attack and annoy godly hearts. But they should hear Christ 
 [and in him look upon the Book of Life in which is written the etf rnal elec- 
 tion], who is the Book of Life and of God's eternal election of all God's chil- 
 dren to eternal life; who testifies to a,ll men without distinction that it is 
 GocVs will that all men who labor and are heavy laden with sin should come 
 to him, in order that he may give them rest and save them (Matt. 11:28) ." 
 
 Having given copious quotations irom Oar Confessions, 
 we shall now quote irom the Theologians of the Lutheran 
 Church. But Missouri would hold up her hands in horror 
 
 and say : 
 
 We are not bound to the opinions of the Theologians, but only by the 
 Confessions. It is true that iohe Confessions only are binding upon us. But 
 the question is, what do the Confessions teach? It is on the question of 
 interpretation of the Confpssion^in which we differ. All the stuff quoted in 
 foregoing pages from Missouri's writings, is but her interpretations of the 
 Confessions. These quotations are to set forth what she bsiieves the Con- 
 fessions teach. 
 
 What the great theologians of the Lutheau Church wiih great unanimity, 
 for over three hundred years have said is the correct interpretation of our 
 Confessions on this subject, comes with much greater force to us, than this 
 new interpretation of Missouri, which was not heard of in the Lutheran 
 Church, until within the last eighteen or twenty years. In 11ms ignoring 
 the opinions of the theologians. Missouri arrogates to herself more wisdom, 
 and penetration and erudition as to what the Confessions teach, "than even 
 the i'ramers of the Confessions themselves, or than any theologian that has 
 lived since — yes, more than the whole Lutheran Church put together for 
 three hundred years. Such arrogance is contemptible to us. We prefer 
 the interpretation of the fathers to that of these latter-day Missouri Colons, 
 Luthers, and Reformers. If fathers are to be considered, let us consider 
 fathers. All these theologians teach '77; view of faith.' as the correct inter- 
 pretation of the Confessions. The first reference we shall give is to Hutter'3 
 Compend. And this book was recommended by the Tennesse Synod, as a 
 text book for her theological students. It stands in the list of books rec- 
 ommended for private students in Min. of 1886, p. 34. 
 
 We make the following quotation Irom this book, which 
 certainly teaches in view of faith, i. e., the merits of Christ 
 apprehended by faith : 
 "In Hutter's Compend, Art; 13, p. 120, question 27 it is asked: 
 'Do you therefore state that God has elected men with respect to foreseen 
 faith?' The answer follows: 'What else should I state, when the holy 
 Scriptures with such exceeding clearness declare this to be the truth? The 
 apostle certainly affirms, Eph. 1, 5. that God has predestinated us unto the 
 adoption of children. But now Christ gives the power to become sons of 
 God, not to those who have been born of blood, or of the will of ihe fleeh, or 
 of the will of raau, but of God, i. e., ao>.ording to the interpretation of John 
 
 thopQ wpg be]|ovo at\ ]} je i\mm, John T, ) 2> B(moe the SavioiVJiohn J 7, 
 89, toribing tte . „ ; Neither {iray I for these alone* but for ttmi 
 
The Situation in North C&roliiiu. -7.7 
 
 also which shall believe on me, through their word.' 2 These. 2, 13. 'God 
 hath from the. beginning chosen you to salvatiou through sanctification of 
 the Spirit, and belief oi the truth.' In 1 Tim. 1, 16, the apostle speaks of 
 
 the elect as those ' which should hereafter b.elieve on Christ to life everlast- 
 ing:.' James 2, 5, ' Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in 
 faith?' Hence the Epitome of the P. of C. correctly infers that God in His 
 eternal counsel has decreed to save none but those who confess His Son 
 Jesus Christ, an .truly believe ind Him. 5 (F. C. Sol. Dec. Art. 11, 67). " 
 
 Again quoting- from another theologian : 
 
 " In the forteenth chapter of his work running through eleven pages llun- 
 ni us treats of election. In paragraph .'506 he gives a definition of election 
 containing explicitly the doctrine in view of faith. This doctrine is fully ox- 
 plained and guarded ou all sides from error. After showing what God did 
 not look upon in election it is then shown what He did look upon. In par- 
 agraph 317 the question is asked : 
 
 'What, then did God look upon in the election of grace, and what moved 
 Him that He preferred one to an other, elected some and others not? Here 
 it is to be maintained, (1) In the election of grace, God beheld only and 
 alone Jesus Cnrist.' 
 
 This proposition is then established bv reference to Eph. 1, 4, 5, 6 ; 2 
 Tim. 1,9:2 Cor. 5. 19 ; St. John 1, 17 : Acts 4, 12. In paragraph 818, 2) 
 it says- 
 
 "God in the election of grace looked upon Christ, not in so far as life suf- 
 fered for all men and atoned for their sins. (For in this case all men are 
 alike and there is no difference, no election can occur among them, foras- 
 much as Christ has borne all sins as hereafter is to be shown.) But also 
 819 3) God looked upon Jesus Christ in election of grace as He is accepted 
 on the part of man. For to whom -God shows a peculiar grace in which He 
 permits His perfect love to be shown and certified, as He is of course reccon- 
 ciled to such person; the same has certainly received and appropriated the 
 Lord Jesus (who reconciled him and brought him 1o grace) through whom 
 he has not only been reconciled in so far as merit is aquired, but also in 
 fact. The election of grace is such a work of God in which He permits His 
 perfect love to be seen towards those whom He has elected and testifies to 
 them, that thej are truly reconciled to Him. It follows therefore, that they 
 whom God has elected have accepted and appropriated the Lord Jesus, the 
 throne of grace," 
 
 In paragraph 820 Hunnius proves that Jesus is accepted only by faith. 
 Then paragraph 321 says: 
 
 "Accordingly 4) In election of grace God has seen that in some men the 
 Lord Christ abides with His merit and acquired righteousness, and because 
 these are thereby perfectly reconciled to Him He has elected them to eternal 
 life. On the other hand He has seen that in some men there is no faith, 
 and that Christ is banished from them by unbelief, and that not being par- 
 takers of His righteousness and merits, they remain in their sin and the 
 wrath of (rod rests upon them; therefore He has found them outside of 
 Christ and has not elected them. 322. And this makes the difference be- 
 twixt them whom God has elected and whom He has not elected, because 
 some are in Christ, some are outside of Him, some believe, some do not be- 
 lieve; iust as this distinguishes those who are saved and those who are 
 damned, John 3, 18. 36." 
 
 "323. 5) In election of grace God looked upon the faith of mew, that is, 
 He elected believers and did riot elect unbelievers. Not as though faith in 
 itself gives a man suoh worthiness as moves God to this work of grace and 
 
 for tl»e mk9 of whioh He o\mU a -person, but in so fav m faith is tfeo means 
 
86 The Situation in NoHh Carolina. 
 
 through the Lord Christ is united with men and through which His inno- 
 cence, righteousness and merit are given and applied. (To which the view 
 is really directed in election of grace.) It is not different than as God justi- 
 fies and saves us through faith, where He does not justify and save any one 
 for the sake of faith and its worthiness, but through faith in so far as it ap- 
 propriates the merit and righteousness of the Lord Christ for whose sake it 
 justifies and saves." 
 
 "324 6) In the election of grace God looked upon the Lord Christ not 
 only as He dwells in the hearts of men by faith, but also as faith remains 
 and perseveres to their end and to the time of their departure. For as sal- 
 vation is promised to all those who steadfastly persevere in their faith to 
 the end, also has God ordained those to eternal life, of whom He foresaw 
 that they would steadfastly persevere until the end, according to the words 
 of Christ, Matt. 10, 22, he that endureth to the end shall be saved." 
 
 We quote from a translation by Edward Pfeiffer, of "Anti- 
 Calvinism," by Dr. August Pfeiffer. Page 174 he says : 
 
 "That God elected to eternal life the believers and those who are saved, 
 not by his absolute good pleasure without, regard to anything, but in con- 
 sideration of faith and the merits of Christ, we prove, in the first place, by 
 the words of St. Paul in Eph. 1:4—6: 'According as he hath chosen us in 
 him' (Christ) 'before the foundation of the world, that we should be holv 
 ancl without blame before him in love, having predestinated us unto 
 the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good 
 pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath 
 made us accepted in the beloved.' From this we draw the following infer- 
 ence: The election that was made in Christ and in the beloved took place 
 not by the mere will and good pleasure of God absolutely, but. in considera- 
 tion of faith in Christ Jesus. This proposition is doubtless clear to all. 
 There is certainly no need of extended explanation to show that the express- 
 ion in Christ used in the passage signifies as much as through, or on ac- 
 count of, his merit, which he acquired as the propitiation for all men ; 
 wherefore also St. Paul, inverse 7, says of Christ: 'In whom we have 
 redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the 
 riches of his grace.' It is evident, furthermore, that this merit of Christ, in 
 order to benefit a person, and be regarded in his eternal election, must be 
 apprehended by faith, since he that is without faith is not in Christ, but 
 outside of him. The same truth is clearly taught bv the words of St. Paul, 
 that God predestinated us, unto the adoption of children to himself. For 
 God's adoption of children rests, on true faith, as we read in John 1:12, that 
 'As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of 
 God, even to them that believe on His name.' The apostle continues to 
 show this in the subsequent verses of the passage,Eph. 1, by pointing outthe 
 fact that everything pertaining and leading to our salvation we enjoy sole- 
 Jy in Christ and by virtue of his saving merit. The same truth is expressed 
 also in the words, according to the good pleasure of His will. For this good 
 pleasure of God's will includes faith, since, as Christ himself tells us in John 
 6:40: ' This is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the 
 Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life.' We will not stop to 
 show that from the words in verse 3 of the first chapter to the Ephesians, 
 God, 'hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in 
 Christ,' we may infer that God from eternity elected us in him and iu consid- 
 eration of him in whom he hath blessed us in time. For God has elected us 
 in consideration of that through which he also actually saves us. There is 
 no need, therefore, of further proof to show that the election which was made 
 
The Situation in North Carolina. 87 
 
 in Christ took place not by mere good pleasure, but in consideration of 
 faith in Christ." 
 
 ''Section 12. Furthermore, our adversaries allege in regard to this pas- 
 sage that the expression 'in Christ' may be explained thus: God elected us 
 that we might be incorporated into Christ, become his members, and in him 
 and through his merit have eternal life. Accordingly it can not be said that 
 God in his election regarded the merit of Christ; but by his mere good pleas- 
 ure he elected his children to eternal life, which they consequenter et finalitvr 
 attained in Christ and his merit. But in order to have this sense, the words 
 en Christo would have to to be changed to eis Christon, into Christ. This 
 could then be no interpreted that the elect are to be one body in Christ and 
 in him to have life and every blessing. In the text, however, we find en 
 Christo, and St. Paul makes it plainer still by using the preposition dia, by, 
 through, in the fifth verse; so that the passage can he interpreted to mean 
 nothing else, than God elected us in consideration of the merit of Christ and 
 its appropriation by true faith." 
 
 With reference to this book from which this last is taken, 
 we would remark that it was highly endorsed by a number of 
 the ministers of the Tennessee Synod ; and extensively sold 
 by a number of them. Rev. M. L. Little was the general 
 agent for this work; and Dr. P.C. Henkelsold it in hiscongre- 
 gations. He sold a copy to Mr. Peter Little ol Oxford Ford. 
 He strongly endorsed the views herein expressed. He said to 
 Mr. Little that a copy of the book, Anti-Calvinism, should be 
 in every home. And he certainly would not have sold a book 
 to his people containing such statements as above quoted, if 
 he had held the doctrine which Missouri teaches, as some 
 people pretend to believe, and endeavor to make others 
 believe. He may have agreed with Missouri when he belong- 
 ed to the English Conference of the Missouri Synod while he 
 was in the West, for Missouri, itself, then held in view of faith. 
 This was unanswerably shown in several articles in the Luth- 
 eran Standard, in the earlier part of this year, by Rev. E. L. 
 S. Tressel. We give a quotation from the articles refered to, 
 of Lutheran Standard, March 17, 1894, Rev. Tressel says: 
 
 "In the beginning of 1855 the first number of Lehre and Wehre, a theo- 
 logical monthlv, made its appearance in the Missouri Synod with Dr. Wal- 
 ther as editor. In the first Volume, page 234, Dr. Sihier, one of the founders 
 of the Missouri Synod presented a series of theses on predestination, and as 
 he tells us in 1881, pag» 58 of the same monthly, in agreement with his col 
 legue, Prof. Craemer. We have therfore the testimony of Dr. \Vaither, the 
 editor, and the two professors named, that Missouri taught what the theses 
 present. * * * * " 
 
 Dr. Sihlers first thesis presents a deffinition of election. 
 Here it is : 
 
38 The Situation in North Carolina. 
 
 •' Election is an act of God in which He, before the foundation of the world 
 that is, from eternity, according- to the purpose of his will has resolved for 
 Chrises sake aud to the praise of His glorious grace, to eternally save all 
 those, whose preserving faith in Christ, He has foreseen. Eph. 1:4—6; 
 2 Tim. 1:9." 
 
 Also Dietrich's Catechism which they (Missouri) have used 
 for thirty years or more, and whose teaching on election, 
 they for a long time endorsed, but will not do so now, al- 
 though they continue to use it in their school and Catecheti- 
 cal Classes in this section, teaches this same "in view of 
 faith" doctrine. On page 132, question 321, of that Cate- 
 chism we find this question and answer: 
 
 "What thrn is the divine election of grace? It is that act of God by 
 which He, alone out of His grace and mercy in Christ, has resolved to save 
 all those who steadfastly believe in Christ, to the praise of His glorious 
 grace." 
 
 In reference to this question and answer in Dietrich's Cate- 
 chism, the question was repeatedly and emphatically put to 
 the Missouri pastors at the Free Conference at Conover in 
 January 1894, whether they would accept that deffinition 
 as their position, and they all with great unanimity, persist- 
 ently refused to answer. And Prof. Dau at Sardis Church, 
 during the last meeting of the North Carolina Conference, 
 April 1894, said to the writer, in presence of others, when 
 the same question was put to him; "I am not bound to 
 Dietrich." This is certainly very inconsistent, denying an 
 old friend and repudiating the teaching of the Catechism 
 which they use themselves. Dr. P. C. Henkle may have 
 agreed with them while in the West, but if he did they then 
 taught ''in view of faith" and not what they teach now. 
 
 Dr. Henkle returned to North Carolina, sometime in the 
 earlier part of 1877, and in November of that year reentered 
 the Tennessee Synod. Up to that time the question ofelec- 
 tion had not disturbed the Missouri Synod, nor the Synodi- 
 eal Conference. 
 
 While in the State of Missouri Dr. Henkle was in a Free 
 English Conference, held in the town of Gravelton, Wayne 
 County, Missouri, August 17—20, 1872. Dr. YValtherof the 
 Missouri Synod was also in that Conference, and; sq far as( 
 
 the minutes appear tbey agreed, 
 
The Situation in horth Carolina. -3') 
 
 But they did not discuss the Subject of Election, (see Min- 
 utes of that Conference). And moreover. Dr. F. A. Schmidt, 
 the avowed enemy, now, of Missouri was also in that Confer- 
 ence. And if that meeting proved that Dr. Henkel agreed 
 with Walther, it proves also that he agreed with Schmidt. 
 The fact is, it does not prove either so far as election is con- 
 cerned ; for that subject was not then agitated. And the Mis- 
 souri error has crept in since as the following extract from a 
 letter of Dr. P. C. Henkle, written from Conover, North Car- 
 olina,, July 8, 1881, to Dr. F. A, Schmidt, urging. him. to 
 come to Conover to take charge of the school there, will show : 
 
 "That burning question of Election is not as yet troubling us here, and if 
 you would have occasion to fight ifc in the future, you can do so from this 
 point as well as from any other. I am sorry that there is any occasion for 
 the Church to be troubled with that subject now. It has gotten into l he 
 Eug. Con. of Missouri and I am now corresponding with Rev. L. M. Wag- 
 ner, who is in my old Charge. He certainly has fallen into error on that 
 subject, but whether I shall be able to convince him or not remains to be 
 tested." 
 
 [If any one doubts the existence of this letter, let him call 
 on the writer of this paper, he has it.] These are the words 
 of Dr. Henkle in his own hand. They show very conclusively 
 to an unprejudiced mind where he stood on this election 
 question. He wanted and urged Dr. Schmidt to come and 
 head the school at Conover. A man who had gone from 
 Missouri on account of their error, as he believed, on this 
 very election question; and who was then publishing a paper, 
 or was at least its editor, w< Altes und Neues," whose sole pur- 
 pose was to fight this Missouri— Calvinism. Dr. Henkle 
 urges this man, to come to Conover and teach ; and says, 
 he can fight it (Missouri's error) from that point just as well 
 as from any other. And yet we are told by people who know 
 better, or ought to know better, at least, that Dr. Henkle 
 held the same views as Missouri does to-day ! 
 
 But in addition to the theologians, Hutter, Hunuius and 
 Pheiffer, already quoted as teaching L 'in view of faith" we 
 simply refer to yet others without quoting them; for the 
 quotations qu. this subject alone would fill Volumes, In. 
 
 Schmidt's Dogmatics, a- book in the list for theological itu« 
 
40 The Situation in ISorth Carolina. 
 
 dents, reccommended by the Tennessee Synod, with all the 
 theologians quoted therein we find nothing else than u in 
 view of faith/' We name Hollazius, Ch^traeus, Qnenstedt, 
 Gerhard, Baier, Masius, Dietrich, Chemnitz, Andrea. Selnecker, 
 who with a host of others, interpreted our confessions in this 
 same wav. 
 
 Rev. David Henkel, the father of Dr. P. C. Henkel, the 
 founder of the Tennessee Synod, in an article on Justification 
 appended to his "Answer to Joseph Moore, the Methodist," 
 on page 170 says : . 
 
 "It in erroneous to teach, that for whomsoever Christ died, must also 
 infallibly be saved ; yea that such are already saved , arid that faith is only 
 necessary for such to become sensible of their interest in him. Hence such 
 as believe an unconditional election, believe that Christ died for none but 
 for such as will be saved. Without faith it is impossible to please God. 
 Heb. 11:6. If we can not please God without faith, it is evident that by 
 faith we may please him : hence faith is not merely necessary to find out 
 that we please him, but by it we please him. When God has chosen a sinner 
 unto salvation, we are not to suppose that he is chosen without a foreseen 
 tenth in him. It is out of the question for God to elect a sinner unto Salva- 
 tion, unless he please him; and by faith only can he plea.se him; hence with- 
 out faith he can not be chosen. If the sinner bo elected froni eternity, he 
 must also have pleased God from eternity: by faith only can he please him ; 
 hence God from eternity must foresee this faith; otherwise there could be 
 no election. ***** ^he s acrec ] Scriptures indeed teach 
 an election, but not such as is without condition. When two things are 
 alike, neither the one nor the other can be chosen : for where there is no dif- 
 ference, there can be no preference. It is not disputed, but one, or the other 
 might be accepted through an indifferent chance; but not by a rational 
 choice: because there can be no choice without a difference in the objects. 
 All men are sinners alike by nature— there is no difference. Rom. 3:22. 23. 
 Now as there is no difference between sinners, what may be the reason, 
 that God chooses one in preference to another? There certainly must be 
 some condition; for the very idea of an election implies that the thing, or 
 person chosen, must either be more valuable in itself, or connected with 
 an object which makes it so, than that which is not chosen. It has al- 
 ready been shown that all men are siuuers alike by nature; hence God 
 can not choose one in preference to another, because of any superior moral 
 excellence. Jesus Christ is the Mediator between God and man, infinitely 
 valued by all the holy angels, the peculiar delight of his Father, hence 
 the sinner who by faith is connected with him, stands in so surperlative 
 a relation, that there is superabundant reason why the divine wisdom 
 chooses him as an hdr of salvation. St. Paul represents believers, as 
 being choson in Christ before the foundation of the world. Eph. 1:3, 4. 
 No man can be in Christ so as to be saved, unless he have faith; hence to be 
 chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world implies a. foreseen faith 
 from eternity, which is a sufficient ground of election. Now if the Calvinistic 
 doctrine of unconditional election were true, the sinner could not be chosen 
 in Christ before the foundation of the world; because this doctrine supposes 
 the sinner chosen unto faith, i. e., chosen not because of any forseen 
 faith, but chosen in order to be made a believer.'' 
 
The Sit licit ion in Sort h Carolina. 41 
 
 Here Rev. David Henkel, calls, "chosen unto faith,"," chos- 
 en not because ol any foreseen laith, but chosen in order to 
 be made a believer," Calvinism. And we believe he gave it 
 the right name : for that is the way the Calvinists explain 
 their doctrine of election— The watchword of Calvinism is, 
 " unto faith ;" of Lutheranism, "in view of faith." This has 
 been the teaching of the Tennessee Synod in all her history. 
 Rev. J. M. Smith said in a pastoral Conference, held in Con- 
 cordia College Chapel, July 8, 1890, that "in view of faith" 
 was what Dr, P. C. Henkel had taught him, and that it was 
 the Lutheran doctrine; and as further proof that that was 
 the Lutheran position, read the position taken by the Fac- 
 ulty in the Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, where his 
 son, P. B. Smith, was then in school. He also then wrote to 
 Dr. F. A. Schmidt, and received a thirteen page letter, and 
 showed it to the writer and others as a defence of "in view of 
 faith," and against "unto faith." Furthermore, Rev. J. M. 
 Smith during the earlier part of the year, 1890, while the 
 subject of election was discussed in the pastoral association 
 at Conover, borrowed the minutes of the Concordia English 
 District of the Ohio Synod, 1882, of Mr. Geo. A. Brady ot 
 Conover. When the minutes were loaned no marginal 
 writings were in them, when returned by Rev. J. M. Smith, 
 the following paragraph, on page 38, was marked in Rev. 
 Smith's hand, "Luth." The paragraph reads: 
 
 "The Lutheran Church teaches that God comes in His Word (sacraments 
 are also Word) to convert the world; aud there is no distinction made in 
 the lost world by any decree. God comes in the Law aud Gospel to convert 
 all. Some set themselves obstinately against God in his means and this is 
 why they are not converced. God has redeemed all, preaches the word to 
 all and selects those who believe. ' He that believeth and is baptised shall 
 be saved.' And btcause all things are before God, He does not need to wait 
 till the end of time to see who will be saved ; hence we say that the ordina- 
 tion to Salvation took place in view of faith." 
 
 The paragraph following this, is marked in Rev, Smith's 
 hand "Mo." and reads: 
 
 "Missouri says, God redeemed all and selects some; the Lutheran Church 
 teaches, God redeemed all and selects those that believe. Missouri says God 
 selects some yet in sin and ordains them to conversion, faith and salvation; 
 the Lutheran Church teaches that God selects only believers. Missouri puts 
 the act of election before preaching; the Lutheran Church puts the selection 
 after the result of the preached word. Thus all can see that our battle with 
 
42 The Situation in North Carolina,, 
 
 Missouri is not a logomachy, a battle about words or a personal affair, but 
 a contest for God's precious Word." 
 
 Here we see that more than four years ago Rev. J. M. 
 Smith, understood Missouri's position, and drew the con- 
 trast between the teaching of the Lutheran Church and the 
 teaching of Missouri, by marking these paragraphs as he did. 
 
 These minutes are in the possession of Mr. Brady and can 
 be seen on application to him, and the above statement 
 about the marginal writing verified. These many references 
 to Rev. J. M. Smith's position are made lor the reason that 
 he now says that he has not changed his views and that 
 these Missouriaus hold just what he has always believed. 
 
 In the light of all the facts above given about Missouri's 
 doctrine, and the doctrine as taught by the Lutheran Church 
 ever since the Form. Con., and especially by the writers and 
 pastors of the Tennessee Synod, several of us, pastors in 
 the Tennessee Synod, at the Free Conference at Conover, 
 1894, signed and read the following paper. This paper was 
 also signed by a number of pastors in connection with the 
 Concordia District of the Ohio Synod. The following is an 
 exact copy of the paper : 
 
 " We, the undersigned, express it as our conviction that the doctrine ex 
 pressed by the words, ' Intuitu Fidei,' i. e, in view of the merits of Christ 
 apprehended by faith, is in full accord with the Confessions of the Lutheran 
 Church and the Scriptures; and that those who reject the doctrine of ' Intu- 
 itu Fidei,' reject therewith the doctrine of the Bible and our Confessions: 
 H. K. G. Dcermann, W. P. ('line, R. A. Yoder, E. L. S. Tressel. R. L. Fritz, 
 W E. Tressel, J. P. Miller. Benj. L. Westenberger, J. H. Kexrode, C. D. 
 Besch, G. L. Hunt, J. C. Moser." 
 
 After the meeting of the Conference at the conclusion of 
 
 which the above quoted paper was read, it was falsely 
 
 and maliciously reported to our people, that those of us, 
 
 pastors of the Tennessee Synod, who had signed the above 
 
 paper, had, by signing it, left the Tennessee Synod and gone 
 
 to the Ohio Synod. In this paper we simply made a. public 
 
 Confession of our adherence to the doctrines of the Bible and 
 
 Confessions of the Lutheran Church, as they have been held 
 
 in all its history. What we say in this paper, "in view of 
 
 the merits of Christ apprehended by faith," has been said lor 
 
 three hundred years, or more, by the great theologians of 
 
The Situation in North Carolina, 48 
 
 our church. The writers and founders of the Tennessee Syn- 
 od have said the same. This position is no new departure, 
 and our signing and reading this paper was but an emphatic 
 reiteration of old and long tried principles. And the neces- 
 sity of our signing and publicly reading this paper grew out 
 of the fact, that at that Free Conference a large number of 
 people under our pastoral care were present and that Mis- 
 souri's real position was as much concealed as possible, by 
 Missouri pastors, not even admitting that the definition of 
 election in their own Catechism was their definition, and not 
 admitting that it was not. Men who are candid and truth- 
 ful do not evade plain questions. If i; the Conover Con- 
 ference blasted the last hope of long looked and pray- 
 ed for peace and unity with our opponents/' [Prof. 
 Dau in Luth. Witness, July 7, 1894], let him ask him- 
 self whether such evasion of his position, did not help 
 to bring about that result. Why did he not say yes, 
 or no, to that question? Did not have time? Why other 
 speakers proposed to give him their time in which to 
 answer. By such methods of pettifogging and dust-raising 
 our people were somewhat confused ■ and it was necessary, 
 in our judgment, to give a clear, definite, and .explicit state- 
 ment of our position. Why did those Missourians become so 
 offended when this paper, setting forth an old Lutheran po- 
 sition, was read, if they did not have a point to make on our 
 people by concealing their real doctrine? That there was 
 foolish madness was manifested to the writer immediately 
 after he had read this paper, by being attacked by very 
 harsh and severe language, and by personal assault. 
 
 We signed and read this paper because we claim that it 
 was not only our right and privilege, but also our duty to 
 do so under the circumstances. Have pastors of the Luth- 
 eran Church any right in free America to give expression to 
 their convictions on religious doctriues before their own peo- 
 ple? Have we reached such a state of affairs in our church 
 that pastors of the Tennessee Synod can not in a formal 
 way set forth their views— the same that their Synod has 
 
44 The Situation in North Carolina. 
 
 always held— before people also of the Tennessee Synod, 
 without being abused for it? It is a Jesuitical spirit that 
 would suppress free speech, and calumniate those who give 
 expression to their views. 
 
 By signing this paper with several pastors of the Ohio 
 Synod, we of the Tennessee Synod who signed it, are charged 
 with having gone to Ohio Synod. Have Revs. J. M. Smith 
 and C. H. Bernheim gone to the Missouri Synod ? Let us 
 see. They have united with the Missouri pastors in a Con- 
 ference, the Augustana Conference; they fellowship Missouri 
 pastors and have them preach in their pulpits to their peo- 
 ple; they are members of a Board of Trustees of a College, 
 owned and controlled, as is claimed, by the Missouri Synod 
 together with six Missourians on the same Board ; they re- 
 fuse to commune with pastors of the Tennessee Synod, be- 
 cause, as they said in a meeting of a Ministerium at the meet- 
 ing of Synod in Hickory, of an alliance they had formed with 
 Missouri; they, with two other pastors ol the Tennessee Syn- 
 on, refused to discuss questions of doctrine with us, and pro- 
 tested against this paper, which sets forth the doctrine of 
 the Tennessee Synod. And yet thay claim to be loyal sons 
 of the Old Tennessee Synod, and that they are working for 
 her interests ! Why does Rev. J. M. Smith not publish the 
 proceedings of the Augustana Conference of which he is a 
 member, in our Church Paper, that our people may see what 
 he is doing? If he is loyal to the Tennessee Synod, and 
 working for her interests, why does he sell the Lutheran Wit- 
 ness, a Missouri paper, to his people and displace Our Church 
 Paper? But we who signed a paper with some pastors of 
 the Ohio Synod, which is only an agreement of certain men 
 on this point, have gone to Ohio ! "Oh! consistency, thou 
 art a jewel." 
 
 Whenever these pastors of the Tennessee Synod who signed 
 this paper unite with the Ohio, or an t > other Synod, it will be 
 in the full light of doctrinal agreement. It will be after the doc- 
 trines of the church shall have been openly, frankly and can. 
 (lifHy discussed ; and our people informed of the matter, and 
 
The Situation in ISiovth Carolina. 4o 
 
 their voice heard. It will not be done in the clandestine, 
 sneaking and evasive methods of Missouri and those who are 
 forming alliances with her here in our midst and thereby con- 
 fusing their own people as to what Synodical connection 
 they really have. 
 
 In their destitution of argument, in the absence oi facts, 
 and in their abundance of littleness, with a determination to 
 carry their point and confuse our people and thus push their 
 encroachment of their new doctrine still further into Tennessee 
 congregations, some Missouri sympathizing pastors have 
 entrenched themselves behind the cry, " they make us here- 
 tics" "it was aimed at us," and " they condemn all who did 
 not sign that paper," etc, by the latter clause of this paper. 
 We say nothing of the kind. This latter clause is but the 
 negative statement of what is affirmatively stated in the 
 former clause. The latter clause reads : " and (it is our con- 
 viction) that those who reject the doctrine 'Intuitu Fidei' 
 reject therewith the doctrine of the Bible and the Confess- 
 ions.''" This latter clause is but an emphasis upon the form- 
 er. It is the Confessional method. Our Confessions almost 
 invariably, after making the affirmative thetical statement, 
 add the antithesis, or negative statement, by way of empha- 
 sis. Why make all this noise sbout the latter clause? We 
 meant to make a clear statement of our position, and then 
 to emphasize it. And again, to-day, this second time, we 
 reiterate and emphasize that position. We mean to meet 
 Missouri's pettifogging and studied garbling of the Confess- 
 ions, with clear, explicit and emphatic statements of the old, 
 true and tried doctrines of the Lutheran Church as held and 
 defended by the Tennessee Synod. We are set for the defence 
 of the Tennessee Synod against any encroachments upon her 
 congregations by others not of her faith. We shall oppose, 
 by the help of God, with all our power the introduction of 
 Calvinistic leaven into the pure doctrine of the Old Tennes- 
 see Synod. 
 
 With Rev. P. C. Henkel, D. D., we express our regret that, 
 
 ''THERE IS ANY OCCASION FOR THE CHURCH TO BE TROUBLED 
 WITH THAT SUBJECT (ELECTION) NOW.' 1 
 
 He already, in 1881, anticipated that the Church here 
 would at sometime be troubled with the Missouri doctrine; 
 
4G The Situation in North Carolina, 
 
 for he says in the letter to Dr. F. A. Schmidt, already quoted,. 
 " that burning question of election is not as jet troubling us 
 here." But most assuredly he did not anticipate that Mis- 
 souri doctrine would be brought here and hawked and ped- 
 dled around in his name; and that his endorsement would be 
 claimed for it, by any one teaching; it, and standing in his 
 old pupit and claiming that he stood in the footsteps of P. 
 C. H.mkel. For he says to Dr. Schmidt, in the letter quoted : 
 "If you should have occasion to fight it in the future, 
 you can do so from this point as well as any other." He 
 knew on which side Dr. Schmidt was fighting/ 
 
 We yet give a short summary of this election question. 
 Missouri says (Dr. Walther above quoted) that faith is not 
 considered in election. Article IX of the Canons of the 
 Synod of Dort (Calvinistic) says the same, viz :" election was 
 
 NOT FOUNDED UPON FORESEEN FAITH." Prof. Pieper (Mo.) 
 
 says: " Faith is not a condition in election." Dr. Walther 
 (Mo.) says: "Nothing, nothing at all did god foresee, in 
 those whom he decreed to save.". The Cannons of the Syn- 
 ods of Dort Art. X say ; " God was pleased out of the com- 
 mon mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a pe- 
 culiar people to himself." Dr. Walther says : " God chose the 
 elect out of the number of unbelievers, among whom he saw 
 them." Art. IX Canons of Synod of Dort, says: "election is 
 the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, 
 etc." Missouri says : " The first link in the chain of our sal- 
 vation is election." In Missouri's Thirteen Theses, 1881, 
 No. 9. faith is excluded in the decree of election. Art. X, 
 Synod of Dort says: "The good pleasure of God is the sole 
 cause of election." Missouri in West. Dist., 1879, p. 38: 
 "Even so God acts towards us, only that he does not even 
 
 ASK AFTER IT, WHETHER WE HAVE OBEYED OR NOT, BUT DOES 
 JUST AS HE WILL." 
 
 Here we see that the Missouri Synod, and the Synod of 
 Dort (Calvinistic) agree in the essential points on the doc- 
 trine of election. They both teach an absolute and uncondi- 
 tional election. This is Calvinism. Of course, Missouri de- 
 nies the charge of Calvinism, but the only argument we have 
 yet seen is, their very strong assertions that they, do not 
 teach it; and they really ask people to believe that they do 
 not hold Calvinism, notwithstanding these plain facts. They 
 say, indeed, that their election is not unconditional, but 
 that it is conditioned in Christ. Let us see how this is. The 
 causes of election are the Grace of God and the most holy 
 
Tk® Situation in North Carolina, 47 
 
 merit of Christ. Bat God's gb4.CE extends to all men: 
 "God so loved the world etc." (John 3:16). The merits of 
 Christ extend to all men, "Jesus should taste death for 
 every man " (Heb.2:9). And therefore as both of the only two 
 causes of election extend to all men, if no conditions were 
 introduced, election would be universal. As faith is the only 
 connection between the merits of Christ and man, therefore 
 faith conditions the election. " It is of faith that it might 
 by grace." (Rom. 4:16). Election can not be conditioned in 
 Christ, except through faith. And the Form, of Con. says it 
 isso conditioned, Epit. par. 13, page 3*2 7, Jacob's edition : fi In 
 him (Christ) therefore, we should seek the eternal election of 
 the I ather, who, in his eternal divine counsel, determin- 
 ed THAT HE WOULD SAVE NO ONE EXCEPT THOSE WHO ACKNOWL- 
 EDGE his Son, Christ, and truly believe on him." 
 
 David Henkel says election is so conditioned; page, 171 
 as above quoted : ' k No man can be in Christ so as to be saved, 
 unless he haa^e faith; hence to be ( hosen in christ before 
 the foundation of the world, implies a foreseen faith 
 from eternity, which is a sufficient ground of election." 
 
 Dr. P. C. Henkel in sermon notes on election (in possession 
 of Mr. J. T. Miller, Conover, N. C.) says: "Faith only the 
 condition in election." And all the standard Theologians 
 of the Lutheran Church for three hundred years say that 
 faith is the condition, the Bible says that faith is the con- 
 dition: John 3: 16: "whosoever believeth in him should 
 notperish;" John 1 : 12 ; Romans 4:16 ; 2 Thes. 2:13. Dr. 
 Walther, (Mo.), Prof. Pieper (Mo.), the Thirteen Theses of 
 Missouri, all Missouri publications and the Synod of Dort 
 (Calvinistic) say that faith is not the the condition in 
 election. On the other hand, the Form, of Con., David 
 Henkel, Dr. P. C. Henkel (Term. Synod,) all the standard 
 theologians of the Lutheran Church for three hundred years, 
 and, above all the Holy Scriptures say that faith is the 
 condition. 
 
 We quote the following from the Minutes of the Concordia 
 District of Ohio Synod. 1882, as a clear, concise statement 
 ot this whole matter. We quote from page 39 : 
 
 "The Missourians may confuse the lay-member by appealing to § 8, p. 
 G51, in support of their position, that men are chosen to conversion : 'But 
 the eternal election of God not only foresees- and foreknows the salvation of 
 the elect, but is also from the» gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ- 
 Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and promotes what pertains 
 thereto.' All that is necessary to understand this and to refute Missouri, is 
 to observe what the Confession means by election. 
 
 According to the Confession election has two parts, thus: 
 
48 
 
 The Situ fit ion in horth ( hvoVuih, 
 
 1. The decree establishing (1. Redemption, § 15, 652. 
 the way of Salvation, or X 2. Call through Word, § 17. 
 
 3. Efficaciousness of Word, § 17. 
 
 4. Justification, § 18. 
 
 5. Sanctification. 19, p. 653. 
 
 6. Preservation, § 20 and 21. 
 
 7. Glorification, § 22. 
 
 means of grace. 
 ELECTION: {2. The choice of the per- 
 sons in whom the means 
 have accomplished their 
 purpose, § 23. 
 
 When the Confession says election procures salvation and all that per- 
 tains to it, it must include the means of grace as the principal part of elec- 
 tion, as the Confession emphasizes the fact so often that no man is convert- 
 ed and saved except by the Word, Law and Gospel, and when they form ihe 
 first and chief part of election then it is a cause which procures our Salva- 
 tion and what pertains thereto. 
 In opposition to this notice what the Missourians mean by the term 
 
 1. The Call. 
 ( The choice of the persons 2. Conversion. 
 
 ELECTION :\ that shall and must be 1 3. Faith. 
 
 { saved, to— 4. Perseverance. 
 
 (5. Glorification. 
 If this be the conception of election, then the Confession ought to say that 
 election settles every man's destiny ; and it ought not dwell so earnestly 
 upon the preaching and hearing of the Word as God's only means to save a 
 ruined world." 
 
 It it were a question of name merely, Tennessee Synod, or 
 Missouri Synod, that is agitating the Church here now, we 
 would not raise our voice or lift a pen against these men 
 who come here from Missouri. Nor are we writing in the in- 
 terest of our school— the school question is rapidly adjusting 
 itself; but we write in opposition to an error, affecting a 
 
 VITAL POINT IN THE DOCTRINES OF OUR LUTHERAN CHURCH. We 
 
 write that our people may have the facts in the case, 
 that they may understand the situation. 
 
 The old Tennessee Synod, established by our fathers upon 
 the pure word of God— the first to publish the Book of Con- 
 cord in the English Language, the third oldest Luther n 
 Synod in the United States, is now being attacked by a 
 foreign element, aided and abetted by pastors in our own 
 connection : an effort is being made to introduce a doctrine 
 which the Tennesssee Synod never held ; and thus disturben- 
 ces are being caused in our Synod. My brethern, both lay 
 and clerical, let us look well to our position, let us firmly 
 hold fast to the Synod of our fathers; let us heed well the 
 admonition of our Savior : "Beware of false prophets which 
 come to you in sheep's clothing." In times like these the safe 
 position for us is to adhere strictly to the sound biblical 
 and confessional position of the Tennesssee Synod, which 
 she has maintained for three quarters of a century. For 
 her prosperity let us labor and pray. "Pray for the peace 
 of Jerusalem, they shall prosper that love thee."