THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES FIRST Free Lutheran Diet .^If^-AMERICA, PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 27-28, 1877. the'essays, debates PHILADELPHIA J. FREDERICK SMITH, PUBLISHER, 42 NORTH NINTH STREET. 1878. COPYRIGHT By J. FREDERICK SMITH, 1878. PRESS OP INQUIRER P. t P. CO. LANCASTER, PA. eo4-l PREFACE. After the adjournment of the Diet, the secretaries divided the work assigned between them, Dr. Baum undertaking to secure a H pubhsher, and the undersigned to collect the essays and remarks, and edit the book. The call (p. lo) specified as one of the rules *'^ of the Diet, that a synopsis of each speech in the discussion be ^ furnished for publication. It was only, however, by a great deal ot correspondence and delay, that the remarks here published were ^j secured, with a very few exceptions, from the speakers themselves. "in Considerable delay has resulted also from the reading of the proof cvj . ^ , . , > of each essay by its author. a; The book, as it now appears, we believe, will be found by those who were present at the Diet, to faithfully reproduce everything of o essential importance in its proceedings. We have endeavored, by ^ means of a full table of contents and indexes, to render its many Q items of value readily accessible. y In addition to Dr. Baum, speciial acknowledgments are due Drs. '^ Seiss, Krauth, Diehl and Valentine, for important services and suggestions connected with the editing of the volume. H. E. JACOBS. Gettysburg, March 2jd, 1878. 449651 OOISTTEE'TS. PAGE. Call for the Diet g Members of Diet 1 1 Opening Remarks I)y Dr. Morris 13 First Paper : '' The Augsburg Confession and the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church," by Rev. J. G. Morris, D. D., LL. D. . 15 Second Paper : " The Relations of the Lutheran Church to the Denom- inations around us," by Rev. C. P. Krauth, D. D., LL. D 27 Remarks of Rev. D. P. Rosenmiller 70 " " C. W. Schaeffer, D. D 70 F. W. Conrad, D. D 72 " " J. A. Brown, D. D 73 " " C. P. Krauth, D. D., LL. D 77 Third Paper : "The Four General Bodies of the Lutheran Church in the United States : Wherein they agree, and wherein they might harmoniously cooperate," by Rev. J. A. Brown, D. D 80 Remarks of Rev. D. P. Rosenmiller 96 " " W. J. Mann, D. D 96,98 " " Prof. V. L. Conrad 97, 99 F. W. Conrad, D.D 99 " " A. C. Wedekind, D. D loi " " R. A. Fink, D. D 102 " " W.S.Emery.. 103 « " J. A. Brown, D. D 104 Fourth Paper : " The History and Progress of the Lutheran Church in the United States," by Rev. H. E. Jacobs, D. D 107 Remarks of Rev. F. W. Conrad, D. D 137 " " J. A. Brown, D. D 139 C. P. Krauth, D. D., LL. D 141 " " D. P. Rosenmiller 144 Fifth Paper: " Education in the Lutheran Church in the United States," by Rev. M. Valentine, D.D 145 Remarks of Rev. C. A. Stork, D. D 160 " " J. F. Reinmund, D. D 163 A. Spaeth, D.D 163 Note from M. Valentine, D. D 164 Sixth Paper : " The interests of the Lutheran Church in America as af- fected by Diversities of Language," by D. Luther, M. D 165 (vii) Vlll CONTENTS. PAGE. Remarks of Rev. L. E. Albert, D. D 171 J. K. Plitt 172 " " J. B. Rath 172 " " J. Kohler 174 '^ " W. J. Mann, D. D 176 " " A. Spaeth, D. D 176 " " D. Luther, M.D 177 Seventh Paper : " Misunderstandings and Misrepresentations of the Lutheran Church," by Rev. J. A. Seiss, D. D 180 Remarks of Rev. C. W. Shaeffer, D. D 194 " " J. A. Brown, D. D 195 " C. P. Krauth, D. D., LL. D 199 " " J. A. Seiss, D. D 204 Eighth Paper : "The Characteristics of the Augsburg Confession," by Rev. F. W. Conrad, D. D 206 Remarks of Rev. C. P. Krauth, D. D., LL. D 233 " " J. A. Brow^n, D. D 237 Note of Rev. C. P. Krauth, D. D., LL. D 238 Ninth Paper: "True and False Spirituality in the Lutheran Church," by Rev. E. Green wald, D. D 243 Tenth Paper: "Liturgical Forms in Worship," by Rev. C. A. Stork, D.D. 257 Remarks of Rev. L. E. Albert, D. D 272 F. W. Conrad, D. D 272 " " J. A. Brown, D.D 274 Eleventh Paper : " Theses on the Lutheranism of the Fathers of the Church in this Country," by Rev. W. J. Mann, D. D 276 Remarks of Rev. J. G. Morris, D. D., LL. D 283, 284 W. J. Mann, D. D 284 '' J. A. Brown, D. D 284, 285 C. P. Krauth, D. D., LL. D 285,289 J. A. Seiss, D. D 286 C. F. Welden 288 Twelfth Paper : " The Divine and Human Factors in the Call to the Ministerial Office, according to the Older Lutheran Authorities, by Rev. G. Diehl, D. D 292 Remarks of Rev. N. M. Price 309 " " W. J. Morris, D. D 309,312 " " J. A. Brown, D. D 309, 312 " F. W. Conrad, D. D 310 Thirteenth Paper : " The Educational and Sacramental Ideas of the Lutheran Church.'in relation to Practical Piety," by Rev. A. C. Wedekind, D.D Closing Remarks of Rev. J. A. Seiss, D. D 331 Closing Resolutions 333 Closing Remarks of Rev. F. W. Conrad, D. D 334 Adjournment 335 PROCEEDINGS. T he following call had for some weeks been circulated through the Church papers: A LUTHERAN CHURCH DIET. A Free Diet of the Lutheran Church, to discuss living subjects of general worth and importance to all Lutherans, has been arranged to be held in St. Matthew's church (Dr. Baum's), in Philadelphia, beginning at lo A. M. on Thursday, December 27th, 1877, to be in session several days. The chief business of this Diet will be the reading of essays on given topics by men engaged for the purpose, and the free discussion of the subject of each essay after its presentation. The essayists engaged, and with whom is the re sponsibility for the calling and character of this Diet, are ; 1. Rev. J. G. Morris, D. D., LL. D., of Baltimore, Md. Subject : "The Augsburg Confession the Source of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, and incidentally of all other Protestant Confessions." 2. Rkv. Prof. C. P. Krauth, D. D., LL. D., of Philadelphia, Pa. Subject : " The Relations of the Lutheran Church to Denominations around us." 3. Rev. Prof. J. A. Brown, D. D., of Gettysburg, Pa. Subject: " The Four General Bodies of the Lutheran Church in the United States; wherein they agree, and wherein they might harmoniously co-operate." 4. Rev. Prof. H. E. Jacobs, D. D., of Gettysburg, Pa. Subject: "The History and Progress of the Lutheran Church in the United States." 5. Rev. Prof. M. Valentine, D. D., of Gettysburg, Pa. Subject : " Edu- cation, in the Lutheran Church in the United States." 6. Rev. Prof. S. A. Repass, D. D , of Salem, Va. Subject: "The Con- servatism of the Lutheran Church in the United States." 7. Rev. J. A. Seiss, D. D., of Philadelphia, Pa. Subject: "The Misun- derstandings and Misrepresentations of the Lutheran Church." 8. Rev. F. W. Conrad, D. D., of Philadelphia, Pa. Subject: The Charac- teristics of the Augsburg Confession." 9. Rev. E. Greenwald, D. D., of Lancaster, Pa. Subject: " False and True Spiritualism." (9) lO FREE LUTHERAN DIET. 10. Rev. C. A. Stork, D. D., of BUtimore, Md. Subject : " Liturgical Forms in Worship." 11. Rev. G. F. Krotet, D. D., of New York, N. Y. Subject : "Tlie Pol- ity of the Lutheran Church as declared in the Confessions." 12. Rev. a. C. Wedekind, D. D., of New York, N. Y. Subject : "The Educational and Sacramental Ideas of the Lutheran Church in Relation to Practical Piety." 13. Rev. Prof. W. J. Man.v, D. D., of Philadelphia, Pa. Subject : " Theses on the Lutheranism of the Fathers of our Church in this Country." 14. Rev. G. Diehl., D. D., of Frederick, Md. Subject: "The Divine and Human Factors in the Call to the Ministry, as viewed by Lutheran Theolo- gians." All Lutherans, clerical and lay, without respect to synodical connections, are invited to seats and membership in this Diet, with the privilege of partici- pation in the discussions. The Rev. Dr. Morris will preside, and the Rev. Drs. Jacobs and Baum will act as secretaries. No essay is to exceed forty-five minutes in length, and no speech in the gen- eral discussion shall exceed ten minutes, and the essayist shall always have the right to make the closing speech on the subject presented by him. No subjects will be discussed other than those of the essays ; and no vote will be taken on any of the subjects considered. No essay will be received which has already appeared in print, and the man- uscript of each essay is to be furnished for publication ; also a synopsis of each speech in the discussion. The peculiar difficulties of the situation, and the hazardous uncertainty of calling an unorganized promiscuous convention, have induced the determina- tion of all the arrangements in advance, as above given, and no proposed changes for this Diet will be entertained. If others should follow it, the method of procedure may be according to what is thought best after the experience in this case. Though all these things have been, as only they could be, privately arranged, here is every reason to believe that there will be a general interest in what is thus proposed, and that our ministers and laymen will heartily second what has been done, and favor the Diet with their presence and participation. In respon.se to this call, a number of members of the Lutheran church, assembled in St. Matthew's Evangelical Lutheran church, corner of Broad and Mount Vernon streets, Philadelphia, Rev. W. FREE LUTHERAN DIET, I I M. Baum, D. D., pastor, on Thursday, December 27th, 1877, at 10 o'clock A. M. Among those present during the sessions of the Diet were tlie following: MINISTERS. Rev. C. S. Albert, " L. E. Albert, D. D., " J. C. Bcaum, « W. M. Baum, D. U., " J. A. Baumann, " J. F. Bayer, " J. L. Becker, " F. P. Bender, " F. Benedict, " FI. M. Bickel, " T. C. Billheimer, " S. R. Boyer, " J. A. Brown, D. D., " E. S. Brownmiller, '* D. L. Coleman, " B. B. Collins, " H. S. Cook, " F. W. Conrad, D. D., " V. L. Conrad, " C. J. Cooper, '' John CroU, " G. Diehl, D. D., '' J. F. Diener, " J. R. Dimm, '' J. C. Dizinger, " T. W. Dosh, D. D., '• W. H. Dunbar, " O. F. Ebert, " W. S. Emery, " I. N. S. Erb, " W. P. Evans, " R. A. Fink, D. D., " S. A. K. Francis, " W. S. Freas, " G. W. Frederick, « W. K. Frick, " J. H. Fritz, " Z. H. Gable, " D. H. Geissinger, " H. Grahn, " J. R. Groff, Rev. L. Groh, " J. B. Haskell, " T. Ileilig, " L. M. Heilman, " S. S. Henry, " A. Ililler, " C. J. Hirzel, " E. Huber, " F. K. Huntzinger, " H. E. Jacobs, D. D., " F. A. Kaehler, " F. C. C. Kaehler, " C. L. Keedy, M. D., " D. K. Kepner, " F. Klinefelter, " C. Koerner, " J. Kohler, " C. P. Krauth, D. D., LL.D. " J. A. Kunkelman, " C. E. Lindberg, " W. J. Mann, D. D., " H. W. McKnight, " G. F. Miller, " M. R. Minnich, " J. G. Morris, D. D., LL. D. " F. A. Muhlenberg, D. D., " W. H. Myers, " George NefF, " J. Nickum, " S. Palmer, " J. K. Plitt, " N. M. Price, " J. B. Rath, " J. F. Reinmund, D. D., " J. S. Renninger, •' Prof. M. H. Richards, " D. P. Rosenmiller, " J. W. Rumple, " B. Sadtler, D. D., " C. W. Schaeffer, D. D., " O. Schroeder, 12 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. Rev. A. Schulthes, " M. Sheeleigh, " J. A. Seiss, D. D., " A. Spaeth, D.D., " W. H. Steck, " C. A. Stork, D. D., •' H. B. Strohdach, " A. Z. Thomas, " B. W. Tomlinson, " J.Q. Upp, STUDENTS OF THEOLOGY Rev. M. Valentine, D.D., " O. F. Waage, " A. C. Wedekind, D. D.; " A. J. Weddel, " R. F. Weidner, " C. F. Weldcn, " A. M. Whetstone, " F. Wischan, ♦' M. L. Young. J. W. Albiecht, H. G. Artnian, W. M. Baum, Jr., E. Cassidy, H. P. Clymer, O. H. Hemsath, J. H. Kline, J. S. Koiner, Charles Baum, M. D., F. V. Beisel, F. VV. Bennett, J. P. Berlin, H. S. Bonar, Prof. E. S. Breidenbaugh, Martin Buehler, F. Byerly, E. H. Delk, J. R. Eby, M. E. Eyler, E. J. Frank, H. E. Goodman, M. D., S. Gerhard, J. E. Graeff, D. K. Grim, J. E. Heyl, J. K. Heyl, Wm. E. Ileyl, L. L. Houpt, E. M. Heilig, N. Jacoby, J. P. Keller, M. D., P. P. Keller, W. ¥. Koiner, E. F. Lott, LAYMEN. E. G. Lund, F. P. Manhart, A. B. Markley, T. B. Roth, M. Schaible, C. F. Tiemann, H. B. Wile. D. Luther, M. D., G. W. Martin, J. W. Miller, R. B. Miller, T. J Miller, W. J. Miller, W. F. Muhlenberg,M. D., G. P. Ockershausen, J. F. Rau, Prof. S. P. Sadtler, Ph.D., F. Schaack, W. G. Schaeffer, P. M. Schiedt, M. D., E. G. Smyser, C. A. Snyder, W. H. Staake, Esq., W. E. Stahler, L. K. Stein, M. D., P. C. Stockhauser, C. P. Suesserott, E. B. Weaver, G. A. Weisel, Henry Wile, L. G. Wile, J. N. Wunderlich, J, B. Zimmerle. FREE LUTHERAN DIET. 1 3 The President, Rev. J. G. Morris, D. D., LL.D., of Baltimore, Md., opened the session with prayer. He then made certain statements concerning the purposes con- templated in the call, as follows: REMARKS OF DR. MORRIS AT THE OPENING OF THE DIET. We meet to-day, brethren, under unusual and very interesting circumstances; it is not as a Synod, nor an ecclesiastical board, nor a local Conference, in all of which we have all heretofore served, but as a free Diet for the first time in the history of our Church in this country. We are not the delegates of any Church Association, nor are we the selected representatives of any constituency. Every Lutheran minister and layman has equal rights here, and every one is at liberty to express his sentiments upon the papers that shall be read. It was thought that we who without presumption claim to be the mother church of Protestantism, should occasionally come together in large numbers and fraternally talk of the various distinguishing features of our Communion, not so much with the design of harmon- izing unessential differences upon disputed points ; not to ascertain the opinions of our learned divines on various doctrines, for those we already know ; not to disturb any existing associations by at- tempting to merge them into one, but to demonstrate our position as a people in the great family of churches around us — to exhibit the great basis of our Lutheran faith — to make known to others the scriptural foundation on which our venerable Church rests — to bring prominently before the public our history and the men who in past times have achieved great triumphs for us in the pulpit, the profes- sor's chair, and the author's study, and to incite our own ministers and people to the further investigation of these and allied sub- jects. I have no doubt that these and other good results, theological, literary, ecclesiastical and social, will flow from the proceedings upon which we enter this day. The difficulties of bringing this meeting into existence were many and formidable, but I am satisfied that if it had not been privately done, no Diet would have been held. If the time, the men, the place, the subjects, and other essential particulars, had been discussed in the Church papers, we never would have come to any harmonious de- 14 FREE LUTHERAN DIET, cision. If the invitation to submit essays had been general, the number offered would have been so great as to have protracted the meeting to an inconvenient length ; some of them might have been objectionable on various grounds. The necessity of a committee of inspection, which is usual in many bodies of this character, would have arisen and this work would have taken much time, and the re- sult would have given offence. For these and other reasons, it was thought best to make the arrangements privately, although we anti- cipated difficulty and censure, but yet we would thus avoid pro- tracted discussion at the opening of the meeting, the time consumed in the election of officers, the appointment of committees, and all the other time-wasting preliminaries of organizing an irresponsible assembly. I have the best reasons for knowing that some highly esteemed and even scholarly brethren are dissatisfied with our arrangements ; their friends also complain ; but with all due respect let'me say that we could not do otherwise— or rather we did not do otherwise. We are satisfied with what has been done, and I think that the results of this meeting will satisfy all reasonable men. Brethren, this Diet is now declared open ; you have heard the rules according to which it will be governedj and the first paper on the programme will now be read. It will, however, first be necessary for the Diet to determine the order in which the papers shall be read. On motion of Dr. C. W. Schaeffer, seconded by Dr. Conrad, it was resolved that the essays be read and discussed according to the published order. The first paper was accordingly read. THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION AND THE THIRTY- NINE ARTICLES OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. BY REV. JOHN G. MORRIS, D. D., LL.D., BALTIMORE, MD. I'^HE Augsburg Confession is tlie doctrinal magna charta of ail Protestantdom. Just as all free nations of the earth have drawn their principles of civil government from the English "Great Charter of Liberties," extorted from King John, in 1215, so all Protestant organizations have based their Formulas of Faith upon the greater "Bill of Rights," extorted from Charles V. in Augs- burg, 1530. An interesting and instructive analogy might be drawn between these two famous declarations of civil and religious principles. The Augsburg Confession was the first Confession of Faith adopted after the Reformation was begun, and the substance of it, and, in many instances, its precise language, have been incorporated into every similar Declaration adopted by other Communions since that day. It is the standard of pure Protestantism, and under this banner our triumphs have been achieved.^ It is our purpose, in this paper, to show to what extent the Thirty- 1 Its influence extends far beyond the Lutheran Church. It struck the key note to other evangelical Confessions and strengthened the cause of the Refor- mation everywhere. It is, to a certain extent also, the Confession of the Reformed and the so-called union churches in Germany, namely, with the explanations and modifications of the author himself, in the edition of 1540. In this qualified sense, either expressed or understood, the Augsburg Confes- sion was frequently signed by Reformed divines and princes, even by John Calvin while ministering to the Church in Strasburg, and as delegate to the Conference in Ratisbon, 1541 ; by Favel and Beza, at the Conference in Worms, 1557; by the Calvinists, at Bremen, 1562; by Frederick III. (Re- formed) Elector of the Palatinate, at the Convention of Princes in Nuremberg, 1561, and again at the Diet of Augsburg, 1566; by John Sigismund of Bran- denburg in 1614. — Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I., 235. (15) 1 6 FREE LUTHERAN DIET, Nine Articles of the Church of England, and indirectly all other Protestant Confessions, are indebted to the Augsburg Confession, as well as the influence which the Lutherans of Germany had upon the English divines of those days in forming their theological basis, not only in their Declaration of Faith, but also in the completion of their Liturgy and Homilies. The testimony shall be principally derived from eminent divines of the English Church, accompanied by that of other writers of established reputation. All these quotations are taken from the original sources. In the year 1804, Archbishop Laurence, a distinguished dignitary of the Church of England, preached eight sermons before the University of Oxford, on "An attempt to illustrate those articles of the Church of England which the Calvinists improperly considered Calvinistical." These sermons constitute a volume of the Bampton Lectures ; the new edition from which these quotations are made, is that of Oxford, 1820. The discourses are illustrated by learned and extensive notes. The nature of the sermons may be inferred from the themes which are here given: I. The General Principles of the Reformation om its commencement to the period when our Articles were com- posed, shewn to be of a Lutheran tendency. IL The same tendency pointed out in the Articles themselves, as deducible from the history of their composition. IIL On Original Sin, as maintained by the Scholastics, the Lutherans and our own Reformers. IV. On the tenet of the Schools repecting merit de congrteo, and that of the Lutherans in opposition to it. V. The Article of " Free Will " and of "Works before Sanctification," explained in connection with the preceding controversy. VI. On the Scholastical doctrine of Justification, the Lutheran and that of our own Church. VII. The outline of the Predestinarian system stated, as taught in the Schools, and as Christianized by Luther and Melanchthon. VIII. The Seventeenth Article considered in conformity with the sentiments of the latter, and elucidated by our baptismal service. Brief re- capitulation of the whole. We should like to give copious extracts from this learned work, but we are compelled to be brief: In Sermon L, p. 12, the Archbishop sa3's : "In this country, where the light of literature could not be con- DR. morris' address. I 7 cealed, nor the love of truth suppressed, Lutheranism found numer- ous i)roselytes, who were known by the appellation of 'The men of the new learning.' This was particularly the case after the rupture with the See of Rome." Henry VIII., at that time King of England, undertook to reform the doctrine of the English Church, and the more effectually to propagate the new principles in his dominions, and to accelerate the arduous task in which he was engaged, invited the ever memorable Melanchthon to come to his assistance. That he tlid not .solicit the co-operation of Luther on this occasion, should not, perhaps, be solely attributed to his personal dislike of the Reformer ; he well knew that the Protestant Princes themselves, at the most critical pe- riod, had manifested a greater partiality for Melanchthon, and hence he urged the latter to come and help him, but he refused. - Laurence proceeds to say : "Melanchthon * * * possessed every requisite to render truth alluring and reformation respectable, and hence upon him, in pre- ference, the Princes of Germany conferred the honor of compiling the public profession of their Faith. When Henry therefore ap- plied for the assistance of this favorite divine, by seeking the aid of one to whom Lutheranism had been indebted for her Creed, he placed beyond suspicion the nature of that change which he medi- tated. * * * Some popular instructions were either published (before this) or sanctioned by royal authority, which, with the exception of a few points only, breathed the spirit of Lutheran- ism. Of this, no one at all conversant with the subject can for a moment doubt, who examines with attention the contents of what were at that time denominated The Bishop's Book and The King's Book, the two most important publications of the day." — p. 195. 2 Note from Laurence. " After the commencement of our Reformation, Melanchthon was repeatedly pressed personally to assist in completing it, both in Henry's and Edward's reign. In a letter dated March, 1534, he says ' Ego jam alteris Uteris in Angliam vocor.' Ep. p. 717, and again October of the following year. " Ego rursus in Angliam non solum Uteris sed legationi- bus et vocor et exerceor." Ep. p. 732. Ed. Lond., 1642. The cause, how- ever, why he did not come then, as at first he intended (for the elector of Saxony had consented to his journey, and I^uther was anxious for it), he ex- plains in another letter to Camerarius : " Anglicct profectionis cura liberatus sum. Postquam enim tragici casus in Anglia acciderunt, magna consiliorum mutatio secuta est. Posterior regina (viz., Anne Boleyn), magis accusata quam convicta adulterii, ultimo supplicio affecta est." Epist., lib. IV , 187. In 1538 he was again solicited. During the short reign of Edward, solicitations of a similar nature appear to have been frequent." Laurence, pp. 195-99. 1 8 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. In speaking of a short code of doctrines, which^ had been drawn up long before the death of Henry, the Archbishop says : " Nor is complete originality even here to be met with : the sen- timent and many of the very expressions thus borrowed, being them- selves evidently derived from another source, The Confession of Augsburgy "The offices of our Church (after Edward had ascended the throne) were completely reformed (which before had been but ^SirUdiWy Oii\.emY>i&(y), after the temperate System of Luther, * * * nor were any alterations of importance, one point alone excepted, made at their subsequent revision. At the same period also, the first book of Homilies was composed, which, although equally Lutheran, * * * has remained without the slightest emenda- tion to the present day^ * * * Cranmer, who had never con- cealed the bias of his sentiments, now more openly and generally avowed them. He translated a Lutheran catechism (1547)* * * * dedicated it to the King and recommended it in the strongest terms. * * * The opinions of the Primate (Cranmer) were at that time perfectly Lutheran, and although he afterward changed them in one single point ; in other respects, they remained unaltered." — p. 17. "As little reason is there to question his ability, as his personal influence, his personal influence as his attachment to Lutheranism. This latter point seems beyond all controversy." — p. 2 4. "On the whole, therefore, the principles upon which our Refor- mation was conducted, ought not to remain in doubt. With these the mind of him to whom we are chiefly indebted for the salutary measure, was deeply impressed, and in conformity with them was our Liturgy drawn up and the first book of our Homilies, all that were at that time composed." "That our Articles were in general, /6'//;/r/(?(/ upon the same prin- ciples, I shall in the next place endeavor to prove." " Our Reformers, indeed, had they been so disposed, might have turned their attention to the novel establishment of Geneva, which Calvin had just succeeded in forming according to his wishes, might have imitated his singular institutions and inculcated its peculiar doctrines, but this they declined, viewing it perhaps as a faint 3 This was published in 1536, under the title of "Articles Devised by the King's Highest Majesty, to establish Christian Quietness and Unity among us, and to avoid Contentious Opinions, which Articles be also approved by the Consent and Determination of the whole Clergy of this Realm." For further information, see Collier, Eccles. Hist. II. 122 fol. Burnet, Hist. Ref. I. Add, N., Fuller, C. H. XVI. B. V. 93. 4 It was a Catechism which Justus Jonas had translated out of Dutchin to Latin, and which was taught at Nurnberg, and fust published in 1533. DR. morris' address. I9 luminary. * * * This they might have done, but tliey rather chose to give reputation to their oi)inions and stability to their sys- tem by adopting * * * Lutheran sentiments and expressing themselves in Lutheran language. '" — p. 25. The Archbishop begins his second sermon in these words : " On a former occasion I endeavored to prove that the estab- lished doctrines of our Church, from the commencement of the Reformation to the period when our Articles first appeared, were chiefly Ltttheran; to point out that the original plan was ultimately adhered to, and that in the composition of our national creed, a general conformity with the same principles was scrupulously ob- served, will be the object of the present lecture." — p. 29. "At the commencement of Edward's reign, it appears that Melanchthon was consulted upon this interesting subject. He was then alone at the head of the Lutherans, universally respected as the head of their much applauded Confession." — p. 36. There was some delay in the completion of the Thirty-Nine Articles, owing to various causes, and the Archbishop continues: "Among other reasons which may be assigned for this delay, is it not possible that one might have been the hope of obtaining the valuable assistance of Melanchthon, who was repeatedly, in Edward's as well as in Henry's reign, invited to fix his residence in this coun- try ?"_p. 39. "If it be too much to conjecture that the delay was not imputa- ble to the wish of submitting them to his personal inspection, and improving them by his consummate wisdom, the coincidence never- theless of the time, during which they were postponed, with that of his much hoped for arrival here, cannot altogether escape observa- tion."^ " Many of the argumentations upon points of doctrine at the same 5 In addition to the quotations from Melanchlhon's letters given above, we may add what he states to Camerarius, in September, 1535 : "Ab Anglis bis vocatus sum, sed expecto tertias literas." — Epist., p. 722. And again, in April i536 : " Et sic me Angli exercent, vix ut respirare liceat." Id., 7, 738. This was when he was holding almost daily conference with the English ambassadors in Wittenberg. For an account of his relations with the English, see Cardwell's Preface to the Liturgy of Edward VI., p. IV., note b. It is interesting to know that he earnestly exhorted Cranmer to attempt an extension of the benefit beyond the confines of the English Church, to form a creed adapted to the Christian world at large. The Confession which he had himself drawn up, would, he conceived, prove something of this description. See his correspondence with Cranmer in Notes on Sermon II. of Archb. Laurence. 20 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. time introduced, were not only of a Luthc7-an tendency, but couched in the very expressions of the Lutheran Creeds "Considering them, therefore, even in their rude outline, but more particularly in their perfect state, we discover, that, in various parts of their composition, Cranmer studiously kept in view that boast of Germany and pride of the Reformation, The Confession of Augsburg^ "If we, then, duly weigh the facts \vhich have been stated, and the consequences which seem to result from them, we shall not, per- haps, be at a loss to determine from what quarter we are likely to collect the best materials for illustrating the Articles of our Church. We perceive that in the first compilation, many prominent passages were taken from the Augsburg and in the second place from the Wurtemberg Confession.^ * * * These were the Creeds of the Lutherans." — p. 46. " It may then, perhaps, appear as well from internal as external evidence, whence Cranmer derived the principles of our national Creed. * * * It may appear, that /rt*;// M^Z?////^r«;«i-, who had been his masters in theology, he had learned * * * almost everything which he deemed great and good in reformation." — p. 52. With regard to the present Liturgy of the Church of England, the Archbishop says : "In the year 1543, Melanchthon and Bucer drew up a Re- formed Liturgy * * * fQj- |-|-,g ^se of the Archbishoprick of Co- logne. From this work the occasional services of our own Church, where they vary from the ancient forms, seejn principally to have been derived. It was not however, itself original, but in a great de- gree borrowed from a Liturgy established at Norimberg. * * * All our offices bear evident marks of having been partly taken from this work. * * * Xn our Baptismal service, the resemblance between the two productions is particularly striking." — p. 144. -Proctor, in his History of the Book of Comman Prayer, London, 1870, p. 41, thus speaks : " Of all the foreigners who were engaged in the work of Refor- mation, Melanchthon had the greatest influence both in the general reformation of the English Church, and in the composition of the 6 This Confessio Wurtembergica was drawn up by Brentius, in the name of his Prince, Duke Christopher, who had resolved to send delegates to the Council of Trent. The Emperor had invited the Protestant States to send dele- gates, promising them full protection. Brentius prepared the Confession for that Council as Melanchthon had drawn up the Confessio Saxonica for the same purpose. Brentius' was approved by a commission of ten Swabian divines and by the city of Strasburg. It was also approved at Wittenberg as agreeing with Melanchthon's. Schaff^s Creeds, etc., I., 341. DR. MORRIS ADDRESS. 21 English Book of Common Prayer, where it differed from the me- diaeval Service Books." " Melanchthon was repeatedly invited into England, and it seems probable that his opinion, supported by his character and learning, had great influence on Cranmer's mind. As early as March, 1534, he had been invited more than once ; so that the attention of Henry VIII. and Cranmer had been turned towards him before they pro- ceeded to any doctrinal reformation. The formularies of faith which were put forth in the reign of Henry, are supposed to have origin- ated in his advice. On the death of Bucer (Feb. 28, 155 1).. the professorship of Divinity at Cambridge was offered to Melanchthon, and after many letters he was at last formally appointed (May, 1553). It is, perhaps, needless to add that he never came to England." "The first book was largely indebted to Luther, who had com- posed a form of service in 1533, for the use of Brandenburg and Nurnberg. This was taken by Melanchthon and Bucer as their model, when they Avere invited (1543), by Hermann, Prince Arch- bishop of Cologne, to draw up a Scriptural form of doctrine and worship for his subjects. This book contained ' Directions for the public services and administration of the Sacraments, with forms of prayer and a litany.' * * * Xhe Litany presents many strik- ing affinities with the amended English Litany of 1544. The ex- hortations in the Communion Service and portions of the Baptismal Services, are mainly due to this hook, through which the influence of Luther may be traced in our Prayer Book. * * * "They (the Thirteen Articles of 1538) not only indicate the dis- position of our leading Reformers to acquiesce in the dogmatic state- ments which had been put forward in the Augsburg Confession, but have also a prospective bearing of still more importance, as in many ways, the groundwork of articles now in use. No one can deny that the compilers of the Forty- Two Articles in the reign of Edward VI. drew largely from the Lutheran formulary of 1530." — Lbid., 61.'* "In the first year of the new reign (1548), he (Cranmer) had 'set forth ' an English Catechism of a distinctly Lutheran stamp, indeed originally composed in German and translated into Latin, 7 For a fuller account of the negotiation with Melanchthon to go to Eng- land, see Hardwick's Articles of Religion, 1S59, p. 53, Stiype, Eccles. Mem., I., 225-98. 8 For a parallel between the Augsburg Confession and the XIII. Articles here spoken of, see Hardwick, pp. 62seq.;and for a parallel between the Augsburg Confession and the Forty-Two Articles of 1553, see Appendix III., Hardwick ; and for a parallel between the Augsburg Confession and the Thirty- Nine Articles, as finally agreed upon in 1 571, see Annotated Prayer Book. 22 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. by Justus Jonas, the Elder, one of Luther's bosom friends." — Ibid., 68. " With reference more particularly to the Sacrament of Baptism, the baptismal office of our own Reformers was derived in no small measure from Luther's Taufbiichlein, itself the offspring and reflex- ion of far older manuals." — Ibid., 95. Hardwick in Articles of Religion, Cambridge, 1859, p. 13, says : "That Confession (the Augsburg) is most intimately connected with the progress of the English Reformation ; and besides the in- fluence which it cannot fail to have exerted by its rapid circula- tion in our country, // contributed directly in a large degree, to the construction of the public formularies of Faith put forward by the Church of England. The XIIL Articles, drawn up, as we shall see, in 1538, were based almost entirely on the language of the great Germanic Confession, while a similar expression of respect is no less manifest in the Articles of Edward VL, and consequently in that series which is binding now upon the conscience of the Eng- lish Clergy." "A perception of this common basis in religious matters, aided by strong reasons of diplomacy, suggested the commencement of negotiations with the ' princes of the Augsburg Confession,' as early as the year 1535. The first English Envoy sent among them was Robert Barnes, the victim, only five years later, of his predilec- tion for the new opinions, etc." — Ibid., 53. " But while (King) Henry was thus faltering on the subject of communion with the German League, a conference had been opened on the spot between the English delegates and a committee of Lutheran theologians. Luther himself was a party to it from the first and Melanchthon came soon afterwards (January 15, 1536). The place of meeting was at Wittenberg in the house of Pontanus (Briick), the senior chancellor of Saxony, where Fox dilated on the Lutheran tendencies of England, and more especially of his royal master. ' ' '•' — Ibid. 5 5 . "Afterwards Henry begged the 'Princes of the Augsburg Confes- sion ' ' to send to England a legation of divines (including his peculiar favorite Melanchthon) to confer on the disputed points with a com- mittee of English theologians. * * The whole course of the discussion was apparently determined by the plan and order of the Augsburg Confession." — Ibid. 56-7. 9 See Seckendorf Comment, de Lutheranismo, Lib. Ill , § xxxix., for an ac- count of certain articles of religion which were drawn up by the mediating party in 1535 and '36. Of those, one article has reference to the Lord's Sup- per, and is merely an expanded version of the Augsburg Confession. DR. MORRIS ADDRESS. 23 "The result of the conference with the Germans was a 'boke' (book) which is manifestly founded on the Confession of Augsburg, often followed it very closely. * * * The article on the Lord's Supper is word for word the same." — Ibid. 60. Short, in History of the Church of England, London, 1869, p. 165, says: " He (Melanchthon") appears to have been consulted in 1535 con- cerning the Articles which were published during the next year ; and the definition of 7V/i'///fra//e bodies which exist on one principle and act on another, which lengthen out their lives by abandoning what they once con- sidered sacred, ignoring their history, concealing their confessed doctrines, or evading the necessary consequences of them, and who make their name and their very existence a fraud, — and whose in- tensest hatred is inflicted on those who remind them of their history, and of the doctrines which gave them their original being. II. HISTORY OF THE ORIGINATION OF THE QUESTION IN DISCUSSION. RISE OF DIVISIONS : DENOMINATIONALISM AND UNIONISM. It may help to shed light upon the question we are to discuss, to look at the way in which it has risen. What are the historical sources of the laxity which has become a characteristic of our time, and especially of our country, and with this the sources of the Union- ism which has attempted to cover over the laxity and glorify it? The common roots of both s' retch far and wide. So tremendous a movement as the Reformation was inevitably attended by various imperfections and distortions. The need of some sort of reform was universally admitted. Rome then admitted it, and now admits it. But the ultra-conservatism which was rep- resented in the reformatory part of the Romish Church which would not break with it, proposed little more than a superficial correction of some evils, while their real causes remained undisturbed. Antip- odal to this there was a radicalism which proposed to sweep away everything existent, and to make a new start from its own inter- pretation of the letter of the Bible, ignoring the centuries of the Church's history. There was fanaticism which proposed in new revelations to find what it imagined the old revelation had failed to furnish. The real heart of the Reformation was with that part of the movement which was conservative toward the good, radical to- ward the evil ; which, tenacious of the letter, was guided by it to the spirit; which recognized the Church as God's work, through the Word \ which over against Rome maintained the sole authority of the Word; over against Fanaticism, the sufficiency of the Word; over against Radicalism, the witness of the Church, whose pure text was to be reached by sifting the various readings of the ages. There came also into the history of the Reformation, as there comes into every DR. KRAUTH S ESSAY. 35 history, ignorant assumption, envy, ambition, love of novelty, and all the human passions which hover around the great battle-fields of the world, the host of camp-followers, the clouds of vultures. The test of every cause is its ability to endure its friends. The little finger of Carlstadt and Munzer was thicker than Tetzel and the Pope's loins. Nothing so endangers the great principle of the right of private judgment, as a misunderstanding of what the principle is, and a false application of it. The right to search the Scriptures is not to be confounded with the evidence that the Scriptures have been searched. The judicial responsibility of the conscience to God alone is not to be confounded witli that responsibility which every man must assume in the recognition of another man's views as truth ; a responsibility to which every man must submit his own views who wishes to make them a basis of recognition and fellowsliip. The right of private judgment is not a right to force fellowship in the re- sults of our private judgment on those whose private judgment is as- sured that we have abused ours. It is not their right to force them- selves on us. That was a private judgment of Peter's which was met by " Get thee behind me, Satan." The right of private judgment in the exercise of which a man becomes a Romanist is not the right to be accepted as a Protestant. There is no principle in nature or revelation which justifies the conscientiously wrong, in demanding assent or silence from the conscientiously correct. The right of private judgment is not the right of public recognition. The disturbing and radical element in the Reformation prepared the way for the later laxity and the Unionism which attended it. The tendency which was represented in Carlstadt and QCcolampa- dius, and most energetically and consistently in Zwingli, gave an early impulse in this direction. This it did, not simply in setting forth the great error which originated the divisions in the Protestant Reformation, but by the levity with which it regarded the whole matter of division. A division which meant the rending of the Re- formation, its confusion before its enemies, and the periling of its existence, was regarded as a something which must be held at every cost, and yet, whose guilt could be condoned by the shedding of a few tears, the offer of a hand. Luther and Zwingli at Marburg. At Marburg the whole question was epitomized, and Luther there ' 36 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. passed through a sorer struggle, a mightier temptation, and showed himself more matchless as a hero than at Worms — for what is harder ' than to reject the advances of seeming love, which pleads for our acknowledgment on the ground of devotion to a common cause. Luther saved the Reformation by withholding the hand, whose grasp would have meant the recognition of fundamental error — either as in unity with faith, or as too little a thing to be weighed. Not only Luther's personal qualities, but his religious and reformatory principles, were precisely the same as revealed against Rome and against the Zwinglian tendencies. There is no consistency in blam- ing him in his relation to the latter, while we praise him for his attitude to the former. It would have been a surrender of the vital principle by which the Reformation itself stands or falls — the au- thority and clearness of the Word. Concession at the point at which Zwingli demanded it would not have stopped there. Other conces- sions to other errors would have been demanded, with equal justice, on the same grounds. The political element was no small one in this early desire for Unionism, and the complexion it would have given would have brought a Capel, at which not Zwingli but the Refor- mation itself would have fallen. We know well that there are good people so blinded to the real character of the scene at Marburg that they regard Zwingli's course as the very embodiment of Chris- tian love, and Luther, they think of, as hurried away by the zealotry of partisanship. When Zwingli declared that he desired fellowship with no men so much as with the Wittenbergers, he pressed on them the hand of fraternity, he wept because they de- clined taking it. What a loving, large spirit is that ! men exclaim ; and how poor before it seems the narrowness of Luther and of Me- lanchthon, of whom the editor of Zwingli's works has said that "at that time he was almost Ixarsher than Luther himself."* But the men of Wittenberg had not forgotten how Zwingli, in 1524, had endorsed the book which Carlstadt had directed against Luther under the title : "Of the execrable abuse of the Eucharist." They had not forgotten that, in 1525, Zwingli had assailed Luther in his " Commentary of true and false Religion," had pronounced Luther's language on the Eucharist as "monstrous," and had said in the most sweeping way that " neither were those to be listened to who though they saw that the opinion cited" (Luther's) " was not *H. Zwingli's Werke : (Schuler u. SchuUhess) Vol. II. iii. 55. DR KRAUTIl S ESSAY. 37 only coarse, but impious and frivolous, yet said that we eat Christ's true body, but spiritually." The Wittenbergers had not forgotten that he had called those who hekl the doctrine of the true presence " Carnivori," " a stupid set of men," and had said that the doctrine was " impious, foolish, inhuman and worthy of anthropophagites." And these were the amenities of Zwingli at a period when Luther had not written a solitary word against him. The Wittenbergers had not forgotten that in that same year the book of Zwingli had been followed up by another, in which he characterizes the holders of Luther's view as " cannibals." They had not forgotten that in 1527 Zwingli had distinctly declared that his own view involved the fundamentals of faith, and had condemned Bucer for saying that "either view might be held without throwing faith overboard." On this Zwingli says : " I do not approve of his view. To believe that consciences are established by eating flesh, is conjoined with throw- ing faith overboard (cum fidei jactitra)} The Wittenbergers had not forgotten that in 1527 Zwingli had written a book against Luther, had dedicated it to the lilector of Saxony, and charged Luther to his own Elector with "error and great audacity," which he claims to have " exposed." All this the Wittenbergers could not forget, but all this they could have forgiven had it been sorrowed over and withdrawn; but all this remained unretracted, unexplained, unregretted. Zwingli himself being judge, there was not the fra- ternity of a common faith. The conflicting modes of interpreta- tion involved in fact the whole revelation of God. What Zwingli still held of the old faith would have gone down before his rational- istic method, just as surely as what he already rejected. All went down before it in aftertime. Luther uttered the warning, but Zwingli would not believe it. His course was the beginning of that effusive sentiment of compromise, which from the rill of 1529 has gathered to the torrent of 1877, and before which we are expected to allow, without a struggle, all fixed principle to be swept away. How fleeting the better mind of Zwingli was, is shown by the fact that on the margin of a copy of the Articles of Agreement at Mar- burg, he wrote annotations, which prove how hollow, superficial and untrustworthy the whole thing was on his part. The violence of Zwingli had been the more unpardonable because he had originally held the same view of the Lord's Supper as * Exegesis ad Lutherum. 449651 38 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. Luther, and must have known that it did not involve wliat he charges upon it. Even in 1526 he wrote to Billican and otliers who held Luther's doctrine : "You affirm that Christ's true body is eaten, but in a certain ineffable manner." Zwingli, indeed, con- fesses in so many words that he had rejected the literal and histori- cal interpretation of the words of the Lord's Supper, before he was able to assign even to his own mind a reason for it. He tells us that after he had made up his conviction without a reason, a dream sug- gested a reason. It was indeed a reason demonstratively irrelevant — an interpretation which his co-workers, Carlstadt and QEcolampadius, both rejected, and at which a fair scholar of any school would now laugh — but it was enough to begin the great schism whose miseries live and spread to this hour. The mode which unsettles the doc- trine of the true presence, unsettles every distinctive Evangelical doctrine — the method which explains it away, explains everything away. To give it up is in principle to give up everything. The \ division began at the doctrine of the Eucharist ; the union must begin at the point of division. The bone must be knit where it was broken, or the arm of the Church will continue to be distorted and y enfeebled. In a few months after the scenes at Marburg, without a vocation from God or man, Zwingli prepared a Confession, part of whose object was to condemn the views of our Church, and to mark his own separation from it. He attempted to thrust upon the Diet at Augsburg his rationalistic speculations, whose tendency was to throw contempt upon our Confession, to weaken and endanger our cause, to peril the liberty and lives of our confessors, and to haz- ard the cause of the entire Reformation. It was an uncalled-for parading of division in the presence of a ruthless enemy. In his Confession, he classes tlie Lutherans with the Papists, and speaks of them as " those who are looking back to the flesh-pots of Egypt." He characterizes our doctrine as an "error in conflict with God's Word," and says that " he will make this as clear as the sun to the emperor, and will attack the opponents with argimients like batter- "ing-rams." This is dated July 3d, 1530. Contrast it with the brief and gentle words, which on June 25th, had been presented in the Tenth Article of the Augsburg Confession : " Therefore, the \ opposite doctrine is rejected," "and they disapprove of those who teach in a contrary way." DR. KRAUTII S ESSAY. 39 History of Interdenominational Fellowship. The system of dcnominationalisni had hardly fairly been inaugu- rated l)y the writings and acts of Carlstadt and Zwingli, before the inconsistencies, miseries and disasters it involves began to manifest themselves. By the system of denominationalism, we mean the system which theoretically or practically rests on the supposition that two or more Christian bodies can, without imputation either of fun- damental error or schism on either part, have conflicting names, creeds, altars, pulpits, discipline — that they can oc- cupy and struggle for a common territory, and yet keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace — can have doctrines and sacraments so diverse as to necessitate the formation of distinct communions, and yet be in the unity of full Christian fraternity. Bucer aided the general tendency by his ambiguity, insisting that the differences were not real; abandoning Zwinglianism, yet insisting that it differed from Lutheranism only in terms; abandoned by Zwinglianism, yet trying still to render it tractable. Calvin at times pursued the same general line of movement toward the Lutherans. The Calvinists avoided an absolute condemnation of Lutheranism, largely but not exclusively for reasons of policy. They constantly took the ground that they were right, and that the Lutherans were wrong, but not so wrong as to prevent unity. But where Calvinism had no interest in being mild toward Lutheranism, it spake out with a severity indicative of its real feeling. Castellio, as the fore- runner of Arminianism, favored a general laxity, but did not find Calvin or his friends disposed to* indulge him in it. But the real consistent movement to a broad principle of comprehension began with the Socinians. In this respect, as in others, the matured Ar- miiiianism of the left wing, on the continent, showed a Socinianiz- ing tendency. The Friends helped to break down the authority of the written word, and the sense of the importance of creeds. The Broivnists, and later Independents , in England and in New England, were helpers to the same end, as soon as the rigidity of part}' ardor passed away. The unhistorical bodies generally have contributed to this tendency, among whom have been specially active the Meth- odists. Literature. There is a great body of irenical Unionistic literature. Every 40 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. great division of Western Christendom has furnished some distin- guished names in this department. Among nominal Roman Cath- olics are prominent the names of Erasmus, Wicel, Cassander, and Hontheim. In the Reformed Church we find the names of Duraeus, Francis Junius, the younger Turretin. The Arminians have been thus specially distinguished in their whole spirit, Grotius was most eminent among them in this, as in so many other departments. In the Lutheran Church Calixtus and his entire school defended Syncretistic views, not intercom.munion indeed, or exchange of pulpits, but general fraternity. Pfaff, and the irenical school of the Eighteenth Century, followed in the same general line of thinking. The Unionistic Controversy of recent times in Germany, looking to the blending of the Lutheran and German Reformed Churches, has drawn forth an immense number of works on both sides. Among the books which in this country have had an extraordin- ary influence in leading to the practice of Unionistic communion, the ablest and most influential has been the Plea of Dr. John M. Mason, for what, by a very bold begging of the question, he was pleased to call " Holy Communion on Catholic Principles." In August, 1810, the Associate Reformed Church in the city of New York, then recently formed under the ministry of Dr. Mason, was led to hold its assemblies in " the house belonging to the church under the pastoral care of Dr. John B. Romeyn, of the General As- sembly of the Presbyterian Church in North America." As the hours of service were different, the first effect of this arrangement was a partial amalgamation in the exercises of public worship ; the next an esteem of each otJier as "united in the same pre- cious faith;" and finally, after a very short time, invitations on both sides to join in the Lord's Supper. The bulk of the members of both churches, as well as some belonging to correlate churches, communed together. The Communion thus established has been perpetuated, and has extended itself to ministers and private Chris- tians of other churches. "Such an event," says Dr. Mason, "it is believed, had never before occurred in the United States." It was in part a reaction against the unscriptural form of close communion which existed between the Calvinistic Churches. The Associate Reformed Church was founded in the union of two branches of Secession in Scotland, and from the Reformed Presbytery. The posture of matters testified to five divisions, all Calvinistic — all DR. KRAUTH S ESSAY. 4I Presbyterian — but not only separate and exclusive, but hostile com- munions. It was a shameful confession of separatistic tendencies, but a mere commimion, with the cause of their separation, or want of cause, unconfessed, helped matters very little. The movement of Dr. Mason, however, was the expression of feelings widespread, strong, and growing. From the first quarter of the Nineteenth Century there has been a general breaking down of old landmarks in this country. Popular and influential forms of embodying Union sentiment have become more and more common. We have Sunday-School and Tract Unions, Union Re-'^ vivals, Union Prayer Meetings, the Evangelical Alliance, Young ; Men's Christian Associations, all involving compromise on the ' principles of individualism, and all tending to laxity and indiffer- entism. The world has been coming into the Church, with its easy-going policy. There has been a large influx of unworthy professors, a re- laxation of discipline, a spirit of social complaisance taking the place of principle. Under all these influences the Church has so lost her vitality that men of the world have begun not only to notice it, but to see something of its real causes. They tell us plainly that one of the greatest factors of the decline in church morals, has been the decline in fidelity to church doc- trine. Real morality must have its root in real faith. If the doc- trine of a Church be good, fidelity to it makes the doctrine a mightier force; if the doctrine be bad, personal inconsistency makes it worse. A consistent Protestant is better for his consistency, for it is the accord of a good life with a good faith. A consistent Romanist is better for his consistency, for the inconsistent Romanist is simply adding the lie of his life to the error of his judgment. The struggle of Indifferentism at first was against making the doctrines in which " the Evangelical denominations " differ, a test. But the struggle at this hour is against making any doctrines a test. Denominationalism with spread sails filling in the gale of Unionism, and without pilot or helmsman, is bearing full upon the rock of absolute individualism. When that rock is fairly struck, the vessel will go to the bottom. III. THE RELATION OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH, DE FACTO AND DE JURE, DEFINED. The question of the relation of the Lutheran Church in fact, to the denominations, must be a question involving what is in fact 4 42 FREE LUTHERAN DIET, called the Lutheran Church, whether it be rightly so called or not. The question of fact covers what exists in fact in the Lutheran Church, whether that existence keeps itself in harmony with right principle or not. It involves the de facto relations of what is de facto called the Lutheran Church. This is the preliminary part of the total question. When, however, we come to the real question — the heart of the whole question — the question of right relation, we consider the re- lation de jure, of what is called the Lutheran Church de jure, and Avith which relation the Lutheran Church de facto ought to coincide throughout. » I. The Relation de facto. To the question, what are in fact the relations of the nominally Lutheran Church to the denominations around us, the answer must be that they are of the most multifarious and conflicting character. There are indeed a few principles so generally accepted that we may consider them as covering as far as they go, a ground of prac- tical harmony. All our Lutheran Churches now would reject from their altars those who avow the errors which directly tend to the destruction of individual salvation — the damnable heresies in which men deny the Lord who bought them. There was a time when in parts of our Church, men suspected of the taint of So- cinian and Universalist views were not subjected to discipline — days of uncontrolled Latitudinarianism, Rationalism, Syncretism, and Lidifferentism. No conflict of views agitated the surface of the stagnant waters then. Those were the happy days, undisturbed by discussion, for which some now sigh as a golden age — not that they would have error, but that they would have truth without a bat- tle. But perfect peace and perfect purity never can go together on earth: "I came not to bring peace, but a sword." Peace with God, peace with our own consciences — these we may have ; but peace with Satan, peace with heresy, peace with persistent ignor- ance, error, and unreasonableness, we can never have — and these will rise as long as man is man. Our Church is very much of a mind furthermore in relation to those parts of Christendom which, though they accept the General Creeds, are yet involved in very dangerous errors, as for example the Roman Catholic and the Greek Churches, and certain extrava- gant "Churchmen" who are ashamed of Protestantism and of whom DR. KRAUTH S ESSAY. 43 Protestantism is ashamed. We desire no official relation to them, but if we did we could not have it. Rome and the Greek Church refuse communion with each other and with the "Churchmen," and refuse it with us. But while those who are confessedly heretics and fundamental errorists are excluded from our pulpits and are theoretically excluded from our altars, there are usages in parts of our Church which weaken our discipline, throw down the bar, and facilitate the approach to our altars even of the worst heretics and errorists, or of the most ignorant and deluded. History of Interdenominational Communion in the Lutheran Church in America. The history of this authorization of untested communion in our Church in America is very instructive. In the Agenda of the Evangelical Lutheran United Congregations in North America, 1786, the first published in this land; with the venerable names of the three Kurtzes, of Eager, Helmuth, Schmidt, Kunze, Heinrich Muhlenberg, Streit, Goring, and other worthies, with our old prince and patriarch, Heinrich Melchior Miihlenberg, Doctor of Theology and Senior of the Ministerium, at their head — the directions guarding the altar are very explicit. The Communion is to be announced from the pulpit at least eight, or if possible four- teen days before the administration, with a statement of the time when the people (die Leute) purposing to commune are to notify the pastor, and have their names recorded. The minister shall keep a register of communicants. In case the preacher discovers, by the notification of those designing to commune, that any one is living in enmity or in open scandal, and the pastor cannot himself adjust the difficulty, he shall call together the church council and determine who is guilty, that he may be called to account. On the day pre- ceeding the communion, all the communicants who have given this notification come together in the church. The practice is approved of reading from the pulpit, at this service, the names of those who have thus come together to confession. After the reading of the names, a verse is sung, and the minister, going before the altar, re- cords the names of those who for cogent (erheblichen) reasons have not been able previously to notify him of their desire to commune. Then follow the questions of the preparatory service. Should there yet be some who, early on the Sunday or festival, notify the pastor 44 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. of their desire to commune — persons who have been unable for weighty (wichtigen) causes to come to the confession — the pastor has confession for them before divine service, and announces to them the absolution. This defines the relation of our Church in America to the ques- tion of intercommunion with a clearness to which comment could add nothing ; nor was there anything in the original usage of our fathers in this country fairly answerable to what is now practiced under the name of exchange of pulpits. In I 795 the first authorized Liturgy of our Church in the English language was set forth by Dr. Kunze, Senior of the Lutheran Clergy in the State of New York. It professes to be, and is translated from - the German of the liturgical part of the Agenda of 1786. In 1797 appeared what called itself the Liturgy of the English Lutheran Church of New York, edited by George Strebeck, at the request of his congregation, and without any pretence of authority. The edition of the Liturgy of 1806 is Kunze's, with modifications by Ralph Williston, showing the tendency which ended in taking him into the Episcopal Church. The first Liturgy in our church in America which gave authority to an unguarded invitation to the Lord's Supper, is that published by order of the Synod of New York, in 181 4. At that time a negative avoidance of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity prevailed in that body ; and men suspected of doubt, if not actual disbelief of the doctrine of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the eternity of future punishments, were not only not subjected to discipline, but were leading men in it. In the Liturgy of 181 4 the minister uses the words : "In the name of Christ, our common and only Master, I say to all who own Him as their Saviour, and resolve to be His faithful subjects : ye are welcome to this feast of love." The Formula, left to the interpretation of those who heard it, would justify to all denominations, even the most heterodox, or indeed to those who are not members of the Church at all, an approach to our altar. In 1 81 8 appeared the German Liturgy of the Synod of Pennsylva- nia, in some respects, but alas ! not in others, a second edition of the Agenda of 1786. For the form of confession and preparation for the Lord's Supper, the same rubrics are in it as far as the end of the 2d part of the 4th paragraph. The reading from the pulpit of the I DR. krauth's essay. 45 names of those who desire to commune is no longer mentioned. The fifth paragraph now reads : " Should there be some who early on the Sunday or festival notify their desire to commune, who for weighty reasons have not been able to come to the confession, the preacher speaks heartily with them in private, and they may yet be admitted to the communion." There comes then a second formula, but under the same rubrics. For the Lord's Supper there are three formulas. The first has no invitation. The second has the invita- tion nearly word for word, which we have given from the New York liturgy of 1814. All of them have the Rationalistic, Union- istic form of distribution, and the noble service of 1786 is not even given as one of the optional forms. The same is true of the Ger- man Liturgy published in the name of the Synods of Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio, 1842. The New York Formula of 181 4 is given in the Liturgy published by order of the Synod of South Carolina, edited by Dr. Hazelius, 1 841. In the General Synod's Liturgy the invitation is made yet broader: " In the name of Jesus Christ, I say to all who sincerely love Him, ye are welcome to this feast of love." In the Liturgy recommended and published by order of the General Synod, 1847, the service for the Lord's Supper has four formulas. The first is without a general invitation. In the second the minister, in invit- ing the communicants to the altar, says : " This invitation is cordi- ally extended to all who are members in good standing of other Christian denominations. In the name of Jesus Christ, I say to all who sincerely love Him, ye are welcome to this feast of love." In the third formula the minister is authorized to use these words : "In the name of Jesus Christ, our common Lord, I say to all who have embraced Him as their Saviour and are resolved by His grace to live as becomes His true followers, ye are welcome to this feast of love." In the Liturgy published as part of the Book of Worship by the Evangelical Lutheran General Synod in North America, in the rubric of the Order of Confession, p. 79, it is said: "Those who intend to commune may report their names to the pastor after the notice has been given, and all who have failed to do this should be required to do it at the time of holding the preparatory service, that the pastor and council may know if any member neglects the Holy Communion. The names of the communicants shoukl be re- corded in the church book. Immediately after the names have 46 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. been taken down, the elders of the church shall examine the list, and if any suspended or expelled members shall have handed in their names, they shall be directed not to approach the sacred board until restored to their standing in the church." At the Supper, the minister giving the invitation says: "This invitation is cordially extended not only to all visiting disciples of our own communion, but also to all who are members in good standing of the Christian Church. In the name of Jesus Christ, I say to all who truly love Him, ye are welcome to this feast of love. We are all one in Christ." In the rubric of the Confession, and in this of the Supper, the irreconcilable systems and practices clash to- gether. The first is Lutheran, the second is not. Inferences. A study of these historical facts shows : 1. The original position of our Church in America was one of entire unity in theory and practice as regards intercommunion. It knows of none but Lutheran communicants at Lutheran altars, of none hav- ing the privileges of our Church without being subjected to its dis- cipline. 2. The changes and departure from early usage took place when the patriarchs were gone, and was the result of a response on the part of Rationalism and Unionism within our Church, to Rational- ism and Unionism outside of it. 3. The General Invitations of a later period are of such a char- acter as to destroy all the force and significance of the preparatory service. Those who hear the invitation being constituted judges in their own cases, members of heterodox churches, members of no church, expelled or suspended members of our own Church and of other churches, could come to the altar upon them. The general invitations mean chaos and contempt of the ordinance of the Lord. II. The Relations of the Lutheran Church de jure. The consideration of the history and state of our relations de facto, has prepared us for the yet weightier question, What is the relation de jure of the Lutheran Church, genuinely such, to the de- nominations around us ? To this question we answer : First ; The relations are such as involve and are in harmony with the principles on which the Lutheran Church vindicates her right to exist. She claims a right to exist because she is the Church DR. KRAUTH S ESSAY. 47 in which /a/M takes its true place, as the central bond to the central and supreme object, Jesus Christ — Christus Solus, Fides Sola. She is the Church of Faith, as knowledge, assent and trust, divinely given, wrought by the Holy Ghost through the Word and Sacra- ments, and justifying us as it lays hold of the merits of the all suf- ficient Saviour. She restored to the Church and taught to the nations that faith is a conviction which binds the conscience unre- servedly, and is not to be confounded with opinion. She claims a right to exist because she is a Biblical Church. Judging as she does of faith, our Church must emphasize the Rule of Faith, as the organ by which faith is generated. The Work of the Spirit, which is faith, and holiness through faith, will consummate itself by an organ adapted to its end. A sure faith must have a sure rule, a clear faith a clear rule. A faith to bind us must have a rule to bind it. If the faith is to be sufficient for shaping mind, heart and will, the rule must be sufficient to shape the faith. That is not a divine faith which is not shaped by a divine rule, and that is not a divine rule which does not produce a divine faith. It we are responsible for our faith to God, the rule by which he shapes it will be such as to demand and justify the responsibility. Hence our Church knows of no Rule of Faith from which we may depart, on a mere agreement to differ ; none which may yield to self-reliant reason ; none which may give way to fanatical revelations or fanat- ical interpretations ; none which a man may put aside passively on the ground that certainty cannot be reached, or is not worth the trouble it will give to reach it. She rests on the Word as clear, har- monious, self-interpreting, binding. Our Church claims the right to exist because of her confessional position. She clearly confesses the whole truth of God. In the ac- ceptance of the whole Word of God, this Confession, where the sense of that word is undisputed, is implicit. But wherever the sense of that Word is denied, obscured, perverted or ignored, her Confession is expressed ^iXvdi set forth in the Theses and Antitheses of her Sym- bols. Having a clear faith, resting on a clear rule, our Church can- not but emphasize a clear, unmistakable Confession of Faith — her witness to the true sense of God's Word, claiming derivative authority as the expression of that sense. Resting the obligation of the Con- fession on that ground, and her children being those who recognize the validity of that ground, she can do nothing, allow nothing, in con- 48 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. flict with this conviction. The Confession must be the test of her pul- pits, the guardian of her altars, or, she, on her own showing, forsakes the Word, abandons the faith, is disloyal to God. He who rejects her Confession of Faith rejects her Rule of Faith in its right teaching. The Confession of Unbelief makes the Rule of Faith a Rule of Un- belief. She claims a historical right to exist. Her history proves her divine origin and necessity ; and as our Church has been needed in the past, so is she needed in the present. She is needed not only for her motherhood to her own children, but for the great wants of Christendom and of the world. She is needed as a witness to that doctrine which is conceded in terras by the whole Protestant world, but which is invaded primarily or by necessary inference by every system which is at war with ours — the doctrine of Justification by Faith. Inadequate views of the person and work of Christ ; false views of election and reprobation ; of the means of grace, the Word and Sacraments ; the mode and subjects of Baptism ; the nature of the validity and efficacy of the ministry, — all are in conflict, covertly it may be, but really, with the true doctrine of Justification by Faith. Romanism and Ritualism directly assail it; Rationalism destroys it; Fanaticism, sometimes with an affectation of zealotry for it, confounds justification by faith with justification by sensation, and leads the penitent to rest, not on the old, eternal promise, but on a new personal revelation. No Church holds the doctrine of Justification by Faith in that consistent integrity and harmonious relation within itself and with all other doctrines, in which it is held and confessed in the Lutheran Church. With the principles on which she rests her claim to be of right a church, all the acts of our Church for which she is fairly responsi- ble have accorded. Her pidpits and altars have been meant for those only who have borne the tests which she imposes, as neces- sary to separate those who give credible evidence of fidelity to the obligations of her pulpits and altars, from those who have never been suljjected to these tests. Her name, her existence, her creeds, her Agenda, her standard divines of all schools, her whole history, up to this hour of anti-unionistic struggle against state-force in Europe and sect-craft in America, are witnesses to her position of fidelity. She can have no fellowship of pulpit and altar where there is no attested fellowship of faith ; the attestation of felloshwip of DR. KRAUTII S ESSAY. 49 faith is by public confession. She cannot accept the teachers of the denominations as her teachers, nor acknowledge their members at her altars, as her children, or as in the full fraternity of an incor- rupt faith. The Comino7i Judgment of Christendom. Secondly: The relations of the Lutheran Church to the "evangel- ical denominations" around us are in accord with the common judg- ment of Christendom until the time of the decline of Faith and the rise of Unionism. They are relations justified by the official princi- ples and official acts especially of the evangelical denominations them- selves. We narrow this point to the "evangelical denominations;" for whatever may be the exceptional extreme of looseness, the only open question to the larger part of our Church in regard to pulpit and altar fellowship is limited to those denominations around us which are somewhat vaguely styled "evangelical." The term is so vague that we can perhaps only make it distinctive by enumerating the principal bodies or parts of bodies embraced in it. It usually covers the Reformed, German and Dutch; the Pres- byterians of all the divisions ; the Baptists; the Methodists; the Con- gregationalists; the Episcopalians (the Puseyistic portion excepted); the Moravians. There is a herd beside of small sects — small in every sense — who cover themselves with it, and who seem to think that the Evangelical element, like a homeopathic remedy, is poten- tiated by division. Their " wound is great because it is so small, And would be greater were it none at all " What ought to be the principles controlling the relations of the Lutheran Church to these denominations, the denominations them- selves, in their official character and expression, being the judges? We say "their official character and expression," by which we mean their Confessions, and the authorized exposition of them, and their Constitutions and Discipline, interpreted by their acts when they were yet confessedly faithful to their principles. For the official judgment of these denominations is not to be gathered from the lawless, careless, irresponsible usage of individuals, or even of a general usage which has crept in. Were there no other reason, we should have too much self-respect, and too much re- gard for law to avail ourselves of unauthorized invitations to take the pulpits or approach the altars which are opened to us by irre- 50 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. sponsible men, who in doing so violate their ordination vows, and treat with contempt the principles and order of the Church they pretend to serve. No minister of ours has a right to open his pulpit or altar without being able distinctly to show how he acquired that right — who gave it to him — and to prove that those who gave it to him had the right to give it ; and he has no right to give it ex- ^ cept on the principle on which he got it. So have we no right to ^ accept the invitation to pulpit or altar of others unless we know ^ that they have the right to offer it. In point of moral consistency, not one of these denominations has the right to invite us as Lutherans to its pulpits and altars. They have names which in their historical definition mean some- thing which implies that we are so far wrong that they are obliged to form or maintain communions distinct from ours. They have Confessions which they have no right to have, unless they believe before God that they contain the principles which alone can deter- mine what must be taught as the very truth of God in the pulpit, and which if it is the very truth of God must not be rejected at the table. They all have modes of testing without which their own members cannot be admitted to their pulpits, and which they cannot consistently remit in our case. They all have modes of testing and admitting their own members to communion, and they have no right to admit us without these tests, or if they should so admit us, they should so admit their own. And in point of fact, a number of these denominations do con- sistently exclude us and others. No Episcopalian admits us to pulpit or altar without defying the Canons and the Book of Common Prayer ; a number of the smaller Presbyterian bodies exclude us and all but their own ministers and members from pulpit and altar ; the Baptists sometimes inconsistently admit us and others to their pulpits, but the great body of them consistently with their convictions exclude us and others from their altars. Whatever may be the laxity of prac- tice which has grown up, all the historical Churches of Christen- dom coincide in their real principles, which regulate the relation of pulpit and altar, with the very strongest and extremest held in the theory, or carried out in the practice of the most consistent part of the Lutheran Church. These coincident principles are : I . That pure doctrine and pure sacraments are essential marks of the Church. DR. krauth's essay. 51 2. That a Church has no right to a being on its own showing ex- cept as it claims these marks. A Church which does not know that it has these marks does not know that it is a pure Church. A Church which does not believe that it has these marks has no right to be- lieve that it is a pure Church. 3. That Confessions are mainly designed as modes of stating what are the features of doctrine and sacrammts which the Churches which set them forth believe to be essential to the manifestation and maintenance of purity. 4. That Churches are to be judged by and treated in accordance with their Confessions and the official interpretation of them. 5. That communions opposed to the Confession of a pure Church are so far opposed to the truth itself, and so far not in fellowship with the pure Church itself. 6. That subjection to the tests and discipline of a Church are es- sential to the right to enjoy its privileges. 7. That avowed or implied rejection of the Confession, is in fact a rejection of the Church which accepts it, and should bar access to its pulpits and altars. lY. THE RELATION OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH TO THE DENOMINA- TIONS AROUND US VINDICATED. Objections to the Lutheran Position. We now propose to meet the most plausible objections which have been urged against the position of our Church. This we shall do in the form of negative definitions of our relation. In so doing we would say ; First : That it is not a relation which refuses to make discrimi- nation. It does indeed put all on a common level so far as untested admission to pulpit and altar is concerned. So do all associations, with their distinctive official rights and privileges. So does the State with hers. Any man who is not a citizen cannot vote, or be elected to an office. Any foreigner who is not naturalized is debar- red from the distinctive rights of citizenship. Any one under legal age is denied access to the polls. And yet how untrue it would be to say that there is no discrimination on the part of our government toward those not under it — none of feeling, none of desire or hope of closer relationship, of friendship and of affinity — that she does not discriminate between the English and German, on the one side, the $2 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. Chinese and the Hottentot on the otlier. With some nations she cultivates close amity, others she treats with caution, others she holds at a distance. So does our Church maintain distinct and different re- lations to the various denominations around us She discriminates with reference to their grades of error and their grades of truth — the degrees of responsibility for schism connected with their origin and principles. She distinguishes between Churches and individuals who are friendly, appreciative, just, and kind toward us, and those who are coarse, ignorant and unjust. These discriminations are marked in our Confessions, which attest our sympathy with all truth, and with all men so far as they hold it — they are marked by our personal re- gard, by our recognition in our literature, and books of worship, and by all kindly tokens, which involve no compromise of principle. We sympathize with the remnants of Evangelical life in the Roman Catholic Church over against its corruptions; with genuine Protest- antism, as against Popery; with historical conservatism, sobriety, culture and religious principle, in whatever denomination, over against radicalism, fanaticism, coarseness, and impulsive sensation- alism — wherever they may be — and we cast our weight as a Church agamst all the evil and for all the good around us. Our practice simply subjects to one and the same test those born in our Church and those not born in it. Fundamentals . Secon'd : The relations of our Church to the denominations around us, involve no rejection or ignoring of the just distinction between /undamenf aland non-fundamental Our quarrels with error are not on questions touching Tobit's dog, or as to the capacity of a legion of angels to dwell in the eye of a cambric needle or hover on its point. The doctrinal terms of communion in our Church involve fundamentals only — doctrines which directly or by necessary conse- quence involve the integrity of that distinctive truth which Revela- tion is given to teach, and which the Church is to defend and extend, the impairing of which begins with destroying her well-being and ends in the loss of her life. What is fundamental truth ? The practical answer to this question in the only shape in which it comes up here is, Truth which is rightly made a term of teaching and of communion by embodiment in the Confessional standards, and the permanent official acts of the Church. Either the denominations regard their Confessions as statements of fundamental truth in this DR. krauth's essay. 53 sense, or they do not. If they do, then we deal with them as, for ourselves, asserting that the Articles of our Standards are funda- mental in this sense, and that they hold that theirs are fundamental in the same way. If they do not, then they make what they confess to be unnecessary, non-fundamental things, terms of teaching and communion ; they are self-convicted of schism, and they render official church- fellowship with them, on our part, impossible. If they say, these may be necessary terms of permanent teaching and permanent communion, but not of occasional teaching and communion, they either assert, or their practice assumes, that what is wrong in principle as a constant thing, is right in principle as an occasional thing, which is as flagrantly illogical as to say that it is right to violate the moral law occasionally though it is wrong to do it constantly; or they must say that it is not a question of princi- ple but of expediency, into which the occasional may enter. In this case they acknowledge that their confessions and their denom- inational life with them are based not on immutable verities but on expediency, and again they proclaim themselves sects and make it impossible for us to have church-fellowship with them. There may be, and there are, denominations which, without vio- lence to their faith, may admit that our Church holds fundamental truth, and is involved in no fundamental error, in regard to whom we are constrained to say that they do not confess all fundamental truth, and that they are involved m fundamental trvox. From their definition of a doctrine, the error — our error, as they allege — may not he fundafnental ; while from our definition of the doctrine, the error — their error — may be fundamental ; for a fundamental error must be arrayed against a fundamental truth. There can no more be fundamental error without a fundamental truth, than a man can have heart disease in his little finger, though disease in a non- fundamental may result from or be a proof of disease in the funda- mental, or spread from it and affect the fundamental. The ques- tion, In what respects the doctrine of the Lord's Supper is funda- mental, can not be settled without reference to the question, What is the Lord's Supper? The determination involves a definition. On the theory that the Lord's Supper represents something, but conveys nothing, is a symbol of grace, but not one of its means — that whatever there is in it, it has in common with a number of other things — granting this theory, it is clear that the importance of the Lord's Supper is relatively little, 54 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. and that error in regard to it is comparatively innocuous. A truth or an error merely involving a figure of speech, a symbol, a single species of a genus, is not speculatively, nor practically, like a truth or error, involving a literal verity, a solemn reality, a something unique in its nature, design and blessings. A correct estimate or a mistake of the weight and value of an ounce of copper known to be such, is not like a right or wrong estimate about the weight and value of an ounce of gold. But it is a great mistake to think that a piece of copper is a piece of gold, or a piece of gold a piece of copper, or to confound skillful paste with pearls, or pearls with paste. When a dispute arises as to whether certain metal be cop- per or gold, certain jewels paste or pearls, he who is sure that the thing in dispute is copper or paste, cares comparatively little about the decision — it is non-fundamental to him. To him who is sure it is gold or pearl, the question is fundamental. It is no sacrifice to the one to risk his ignoble metal and counterfeit — but tO" the other to risk pure gold and a priceless pearl, is something from which he shrinks. A Zwinglian may admit that a Lutheran is not in fundamental error — a Lutheran cannot admit it in regard to a Zwinglian. To claim that what is but bread and wine really, is Christ's body and blood, may be a great absurdity — but it is the result of too absolute a trust in His word, it is the superstition of faith ; but to say that what He really tells us is His body and blood, is but bread and wine, implies lack of trust in His word — it is the superstition of unbelief. But the astonishing thing is that those who reproach us for treating the doctrine of the Lord's Supper as fundamental, do themselves treat it in the same way. They treat it dL^a fundamental by making it a part of their Confession, and in every one of the aspects in which our Confession considers it. It is in the XXXIX Articles, the Westminster Confession, and in every other great Protestant Confession, carefully stated, and guarded not only against Rome, but guarded against our Church. That is an official admission and claim that the doctrine is clearly revealed, that they hold it in its purity, that we are wrong in it, and that a clear confes- sion on the very points in which they are right and we are wrong is needful. Their own Confessions witness against them when they say that the Lutheran Church should not make her doctrine of the Lord's Supper a term of teaching and communion. They make their own doctrine such a term, and yet they have far less reason to do so than we. They have a metaphor to literalize; DR. KRAUTH S ESSAY. 5 5 we accept a verity deep as the incarnation itself, a verity involving the incarnation and involved in it. It has pleased them sometinnes to represent the whole matter as a dispute about mere phrases. We are agreed, they say, about the thing — but the contest is kept up about words. If this be so, and as we believe that our words are necessary to guard the thing, why will they not consent to our words ? To us it is no logomachy. If it be so to them, why do they not give up their "mere phrases?" And where did those, who attempt to make us odious for insisting on our faith in regard to the Lord's Supper, ever engage to be silent in re- gard to their own? The history of the controversy from the begin- ning .shows how eager and persistent the Zwinglians and Calvinists were in urging their own doctrine and assailing ours. The plea for liberality to be shown on our part meant freedom for themselves to hold and teach error, without wholesome moral correction from ; us. It means all through, We will rob you of your faith if we can, V and if we cannot, we will insist that you shall at least think it of lit- # tie account. But while our relations discriminate between fundamental and non-fundamental, they are not meant to lower the dignity and value of any truth. We exalt fundamentals over fionfundamentals, but we lift both as truth over all error. The Church is not to treat with indifference any false teaching. Infallibility. Third : The relations of our Church to the denominations around us rest on no claim to infallibility. Infallibility is incapability of failing, and belongs to nothing human as .such. The infallibility of the Church is the infallibility of the Church catholic or invisible; that is, this Church will always exist, and its very existence implies that it is infallibly secure from soul-destroying error,'' — there cannot be a total lapse of the entire body of true believers from those essen- tials of faith without which the soul of man cannot be savingly knit to the Redeemer. Not only is this so in fact, but it is so of divine necessity. "One holy Christian Church must be and abide for all time."" So much of the Church invisible as is within the Lutheran Church is so far infallible. But this is equally true of every part of * Gerhard Loci,, Loc, xxiii. Cap. ix. ^ Augsb. Confess., Art. vii. 56 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. the Church visible, and does not prove that there will always be such members within a communion bearing the name Lutheran, or in any of the communions bearing the names under which at present the Christian Church is classified. No particular Church is incapable of erring, of apostasy, decline and destruction. Many particular Churches have erred and perished, or have erred and still exist. "As the Churches of Hierusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of cere ronies, .but also in matters of faith."" The Lutheran Church, therefore, does not claim infallibility. She has not overthrown one Rome to set up another. She simply claims that in fact she has not erred in the Articles of Faith, and this free- dom from error she ascribes, not to herself in her human powers, but alone to the grace of God operating in His own appointed ways in accordance with His own immutable promises. The Church of Rome says : The Catholic Church is infallible ; the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church ; the Church of Rome is infallible. We say the entire Catholic Church, as entire, alone is infallible, and that simply in respect of all the fundamentals of per- sonal salvation. The Lutheran Church contains but a part of the Catholic Church, therefore she is not infallible. But our Church says also : Any part of the Church which seeks the truth in com- plete accordance with God's commands and promises will be kept from failing. The Lutheran Church has so sought the truth ; there- fore she has been kept from failing. It would be indeed a lamentable thing if the question of the claim of one thing, could be identified and confounded \vith the question of the/tz^/ of another thing. If to assert that in fact there has been no failure, is to assert in claim that there is infallibility, then it holds good of every individual, of every communion, and of the totality of communions. No man can claim not to have failed, for no man can claim infallibility. No man or Church can claim to have escaped failure in a single doctrine, for no man or Church is infalli- ble in a single doctrine. No Christian communion can maintain that its system as a whole or in any one part is free from error, for no particular Church is infallible, either in its total doctrine or in a single doctrine. Nor are all particular Christian Churches together infallible, even in the doctrine they hold in common or in any one T XXXIX Articles of Church of England. Art. xix. DR. KKAUTH S ESSAY. 57 article. You may multiply or divide the zero of fallibility any number of times, and it never makes infallibility. We end where we begari. No Church on earth, by this line of reasoning, nor all Churches on earth together, can claim to have reached unmixed truth in whole or in part, for they are each and all fallible. It is a principle of law that no man shall be arrested on a general warrant, or condemned on a general charge. A man is neither seized nor convicted on the general charge of being a thief. His warrant and conviction must distinctly state what he has stolen, and he must have been convicted on many particular charges before he is even watched as a professional thief No man has a right to treat our Church as the law would not permit him to treat a suspected thief. No man has a right to bring against our Church the general charge that she claims infallibility, without specifying when and where and how she claims it. The charge is wholly untrue. It is made gen- eral because an attempt to make it particular would at once reveal the falsehood. She does not claim infallibility. She distinctly repudiates it. But neither has any man the right to convict her on the general charge that she makes a groundless claim not to have failed. He is bound to specify in what she has failed. Put your finger on the doc- trine in which you pretend she has failed, and prove that she has done it, or grant her claim not to have failed. It is another sound principle of law that when testimony is con- formed to the proper demands of evidence, that where the witness cannot be shown to have deviated in any respect from the truth, no one has the right to attempt to set aside that specific testimony on the general ground that all men are liable to mistake. It must be shown in what he has made a mistake, or his evidence stands. In a court the power of testimony does not depend upon the assumption that it can be infallible, but on the evidence that in fact it can be so guarded as not to fail. Now to take up the particular points. We meet here as true Catholic Christians, so far as assent to the general creeds is con- cerned. It will not be necessary, therefore, to show that in reassert- ing the great doctrines of the General Creeds, our Church has not erred. We are here as Protestants. It will not therefore be neces- sary to argue that in what she asserts and denies over against dis- tinctive Romanism, our Church has not erred. We are here as 5 58 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. Lutherans in claim. Is it consistent with that name that we should think that our Church has erred in whole or in part over against any or all of the non-Lutheran Protestant systems ? We have supposed that their existence separate from us rested on the claim that they had not erred, where we have erred; and that on the other hand a Lutheran was one who held that we have not erred, where they have erred. They say that we have failed, and they have not. We say they have failed and we have not. They hold us responsible for our failures, as we hold them responsible for their own. But the whole attitude of all the Churches is really the same to the main question here. It is that they who rightly approach the Word of God, need not fail and will not fail ; that is, that in the nature of the case it is as really possible to avoid failure on the points of confessional difference as on the points of confessional agreement. The man who calls himself a Lutheran as a means of testifying his conviction that Lutheranism is wrong, is like a man who assumes the title of a Christian that all men may thereby know that he is a Jew. Nevertheless, there have been men on both sides the sea, who with- in our Church, accepting its privileges, the honor of its name, per- haps eating its bread, have met the challenge to specification. Some on the broad ground of Rationalism have said, The Lutheran Church has failed in the very fundamentals of rehgion — the doctrine of God, of Sin, of Salvation, and of the Saviour. She ought to have been Socinian and Universalist. There is no line possible if we accept individualism as the test. If a man can be a Lutheran who thinks our Church has failed, and whose guide to that in which she has failed is that he thinks so, where can you stop ? If Ave admit that it can be done with one article, who shall settle which one ? If with more than one, how many? If with some, why not with all? If with one set this year, why not with another set next year? And this is no log- ical imagining. This is the exact ground actually taken by the con- sistent men of the position of which we now speak. There is no firm ground between strict confessionalism, and no confessionalism. All between is hopeless inconsistency. We think that on every point on which our Church's faith has been challenged, it can be triumphantly sustained. But that is not the point here. Let us suppose the objector to say, "The Lutheran Church has failed on the person of Christ, on Baptism, and the Lord's Supper." He can only know she is wrong on these points by knowing DR. KRAUTH S ESSAY. 59 himself what is right — what is the right doctrine, where hers is wrong. He says, in effect, "The Lutheran Church is not infalHble, but I am" — or more modestly, " The Lutheran Church has failed, but I have not. The Lutheran Church is wrong, but I can set her right." The whole thing means, " She fails when she don't agree with me, and she is infallibly right when she does." It is the transparent self-conceit of individualism. It is very preposterous to say that our Church may without claim- ing infallibility justly claim not to have failed in ninety-nine points, and yet that to claim that she is right on the hundredth point is to claim infallibility. Especially is this the case if the hundredth point is reached by the same processes of interpretation by which the ninety-nine have been reached. If we may summarily dismiss the assertion of a doctrine of our Church, because our Church is not infallible, we can just as summarily dismiss the rejection of it by another Church, because that Church is not infallible. Infallibility . is just as much required for unchallenged rejection as for unchal- lenged acceptance. He who can infallibly know every part of the wrong of every question, can infallibly know the right of it — for truth and error are eternal antitheses — correlates, the knowledge of wMch is one. *^ Methods'' of Romanism. This whole style of dispensing with particular proof is exactly in the line and spirit of the so-called "Methods" of the Romish Po- lemics. One method was to reduce the whole question between Rome and Protestantism to the point of antiquity and novelty ; an- other was the method of challenging Protestants to proofs from the direct words of Scripture without inference ; another was the method involved in the question, Where was your Church before Luther ? another method was to assume that an inspired Rule was useless without an inspired interpreter ; another was the method of prescription and possession ; another was the method of urging the visible Church as the Catholic Church ; another was the method of safety — we Romanists deny that salvation is possible with you, you admit that it is possible with us ; there was also the method of au- thority, and the method of non-fundamental difference between Rome and Protestantism. These methods proposed to do away with all particular investigation, all proof from facts, by establishing or assuming some one theoretic, general principle. These methods 60 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. with all their variety, had the common feature that they proposed to argue without reason, and to reason without argument, and can be reduced to the common foundation that Rome was to be made judge in her own case. The One Method. Now over against all these methods, genuine Protestantism has but one method — the method of examination — honest, thorough in- vestigation. "Search" and "Try" are divine injunctions. But it is a Romish method to the core, in defiance of the funda- mental principle of Protestantism, to get rid of the claim which a Church makes of purity in every one of her doctrines, not by par- ticular proof that some of her doctrines are false, but by a general appeal to fallibility. Fallibility is not failure. To show a general possibility of it in the nature of the case, is very different from showing an actual result. Fallibility implies that we may fail or may not fail. Possibility involves that a result may be or its con- trary may be. To settle which has actually been reached requires particular evidence. Our Church therefore proposes — not like Rome, by a claim to infallibility, but by a particular proof in each case — to show that she has not failed. The only way to confute her, if she can be confuted, is to take up the alleged mistake and prove it to be such. ^^ Agnosticism.^^ Our Church does indeed rest her relations to the denominations around us on her conviction that her system is in all its parts divine, derived from the Word of God and in accordance with it. And there are those who object to this position, not that they charge any spe- cific error on our Church — they waive even the consideration of that question — but that in general they assume that we are not prepared to treat any system as throughout divine. A system, they say, may be divine, but we cannot know that it is. We see in part, we know in part. It is not probable that any one denomination has all the truth on the mooted questions. We think we are right. Others think they are right, and they are as much entitled to assert the possession of truth for themselves as we are for ourselves. The Church is still seeking : the Church of the unknown future may perhaps see things in their true light. This is bringing into theology what is a pet theory of the philoso- phy of our day under the title "Agnosticism" — which presses our DR. krauth's essay. 6i ignorance until it makes of it a sort of omniscience of negation. There are no such vices in the world as the affectations of virtue. Sanctimony apes sanctity, prudery modesty, masked egotism hu- mility — and on the basis of universal ignorance a man offers himself as a universal sage, and systematizes ignorance in many volumes. It is true that the Church on earth is imperfect, and that in her best life, and because of it, she ever grows. But she must have a complete life to have a constant growth. An acorn is not an oak, but the vital force in the acorn is that which makes the oak and abides in it. The question here is, Has the Church reached such a clear, binding faith on the great vital questions, not only of individual salvation but of her own highest efficiency and well-being, as justifies her in making them a term of communion and of public teaching ? The question is not whether she can reach more truth, or apply more widely the truth she has, but whether what she now holds is truth, and whether seeking more truth by the same methods she can be assured of finding it. The Old Testament has been teaching for thousands of years ; the New Testament has taught for two thousand years ; and yet it is pre- tended by those who profess to hold the clearness and sufficiency of Holy Scripture, that no part of the Church of Christ, not even that part which they declare they hold in highest esteem, has reached a witness which can commend itself to human trust, or can tell whether it has failed or not. Then there is not a man on earth who has any choice except as between systems either of certain or of possible error. He cannot build up unmixed truth anywhere. He cannot build up truth without building up error. He is sowing seed, and may be sowing tares. He is trying to pluck up weeds, and may be pulling up the grain. He cannot do the Lord's work without doing part of the devil's work. If the divine truth has no self-asserting power, sufficient to dispel doubt, how shall we reach any sure ground? Shall we say that all nominally Christian systems are alike in value, or that if they differ in this no one can find it out ? This on its face seems self-confuting, but if we had to confute it, we could only do so by showing that God's Word is clear on the points on which Churches differ. If we do not believe that we are scriptural over against Rome, we have no right to be separate from Rome. If the Churches divided from us do not believe that they are scriptural, they have no right to be divided from us ; and if we have no assured con- 62 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. viction that we have the truth, we have no right to exist. This Agnos- ticism is at heart unbehef, or despair, or indolence, or evasion of cogent argument. Romanizing Tendency. Of all Romanizing tendencies the most absolute is that which puts the dishonor on God's Word, and on the fundamental princi- ples of the Reformation, implied in this view. It may be safely as- serted that ecclesiastical bodies will not claim less for themselves than they are entitled to, and when it shall be said that no part of the churches of which the Reformation was the cause or occasion, even pretends to have an assurance of the whole faith it confesses, then will men regard Protestantism as self-convicted, and if they do not swing off to infidelity, will say : Rome at least claims to have the truth, and if truth is to be found on earth, it is more likely to be found with those who claim to have it, than with those who admit they have it not. To sum up, we say Rome is fallible, the Denominations are fallible, and the Lutheran Church is fallible : but the Romish Church has failed in Articles of Faith, so have the Denominations; the Lutheran Church has not. Donatism. Fourth : Our Church in her relations to the denominations around us occupies no Donatistic attitude. "They condemn the Donatists," says the Augsburg Confession and Apology, -"and others like them, who denied that it is lawful to use the ministry of evil men in the Church, and hold that the ministry of the evil is useless and inefficient," "and that men sin who receive the sacraments in the Church from unworthy, ungodly ministers." " Christ hath admonished us in his discourses of the Church, that we are not, be- cause we are offended at the private faults either of priests or people, to excite schisms or separation as the Donatists wickedly did." All this means that personal excellencies do not make official acts, nor do personal defects mar their validity. God's pure Word at the lips of a bad man remains God's Word ; error at the lips of a good man remains error still. The Word bears the power, the man does not. Pure gold in a polluted hand is pure gold still, and the brassy counterfeit, however clean and fair the hand which brings it, is brass still. In the proper sense of the word Donatism, to apply it to Lutheranism is not onlv unfounded but ridiculous. DR. KRAUTII'S ESSAY, 6$ Exchisiveness. That the Lutheran Church has no narrow segregative spirit like that of the Donatists, has x\o false exclusiveness, will be manifest to any one who knows her history, and her principles. We say a false exclusiveness, for there is a true exclusiveness which pertains to the nature of all truth, and most of all to Christianity, because it is the supreme truth. Because it is divine it is exclusive of all that is not divine. Those who separate themselves from us in our truth com- pel us to be separate from them in their error. "Exclusiveness," says D'Aubigne, " is a character of Lutheran- ism... This exclusiveness is necessary to unity. It must enter into the construction of the admirable machine prepared by the hand of the great Artificer three centuries ago. Exclusiveness is essential to the Church. Who was more exclusive than he who said, ' No one Cometh to the Father but by tne ; ' and again, ' Without me, ye can do nothing.' The Church ought to have a holy jealousy for the eternal truth of God ; for latitudinarianism is its death. The his- tory of all ages has demonstrated this fact, and nothing could demonstrate it more clearly than the history of our own. This ex- clusiveness was what was confided to the charge of Martin Luther... Luther believed that the corporeal presence was God's truth, and he went out of himself for that truth. Thou didst well, O great Luther ! . . .God gives us, what thou didst not understand, to treat with mildness those who differ from us in opinion. But God grant at the same time, as with thee, that the rights of the truth inspire us, and the zeal of God's house eat us up." And this is D'Aubigne's concession to the exclusiveness which he is attacking. The animus of Donatism, whether in its specific error or in its general narrowness of spirit, is not in the Lutheran Church, but in the fanatical sects, who confound the visible with the invisible, and by a coercive and legalistic discipline attempt and pretend to have a ministry and communion of none but saints. The pretences of a more rigid discipline have originated many of the sects, which, swelling at their first ardor till they burst the bulb, are found now on the ground frozen and fixed below zero. There is no body of Christians on earth more remote from all the pretences of Donatism, in its letter or its spirit, than the Lutheran Church. There is none which is so large and liberal in all things, which are really in the sphere of the liberty of the Church. Contrast 64 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. her largeness of view in things indifferent with the pitiful littleness of ultra Puritanism on the one side, of Romish and Puseyistic Ritual- ism on the other. Mark her scriptural candor in regard to special forms of Church government as one example of a spirit illustrated in manifold forms. Our Church is inflexible in nothing but in the pure Word and pure Sacraments, and in what they involve. " Close Communion.'''' Fifth : The relations of our Church to the denominations around us are not those of a communion which is close, in any sense in which God's Word enjoins that the communion shall be open. A Christian communion must in some sense be a close communion to be Christian at all — close from heresy, avowed and organized error ; close from refusal to receive the gospel with a teachable spirit ; close from those who reject the scriptural discipline and con- trol of the Church. The first communion was close communion. None were admitted to it but tested disciples — open confessors of Christ. No leaders or members of hostile or contesting organiza- tions were there. Judas was there, but Judas was a professor of discipleship; his profession was credible, his unworthiness unknown, except to the Searcher of hearts. It may be that our all-knowing Saviour would, in the very admission of Judas, teach us that we are to guide ourselves in discipline by what we know, and not by what we assume or conjecture the omniscient knows, whether of good or evil, in men. In the Apostolic Church all confessed rejectors of the Apostolic doctrine — all heretics, schismatists and fomenters of faction, or those who were joined with them, were cut off from the commun- ion of the Church. Heresy in the New Testament is whatever de- stroys the unity of the Church, and therefore by pre-eminence, false doctrine, which is its greatest divider. No Church received or retained communicants who were not subject to its discipline. As Apostolic pulpits were for Apostolic doctrine alone, so were Apostolic altars for those alone who were disciples of Apostolic doc- trine, and subject to Apostolic discipline. " Close Communion'" in the Ancient Church. The ancient Church of post-Apostolic times rigorously confined its pulpits and altars to these who were attested and approved as in the unity of the faith. "In the primitive Church," says Lord Chancellor DR. krauth's essay. 6$ King, in his classical work, "the Unity of the Church Universal con- sisted in an Harmonious Assent to the Essential Articles of Religion, or in an Unanimous Agreement in the Fundamentals of Faith and Doctrine. The corruption of that doctrine was a breach of that unity, and whosoever so broke it, are said to divide and separate the unity of the Church, or which is all one, to be schismaticks. If we con- sider the word Church as denoting a collection of many particular churches, its unity may (be said to) have consisted in a brotherly correspondence with and affection toward each other, which they demonstrated by all outward expressions of Love and Concord, only receiving to Communion the members of each other. "^ The conces- sion that two conflicting Christian churches can, with co-ordinate right and Avithout the violation of fraternity, occupy the same locality^ was simply impossible to the early Christian mind. The separation of admission to privilege and of subjection to discipline would have been looked upon with horror. The discipline was strict — and ex- communication from one particular Church was confirmed all the world over. The inestimable right to communion in one Church in- volved a right to communion in all, on proper testing and authenti- cation. The cutting off from a communion in one was a cutting off from all. No Christian traveling was admitted to communion ih any Church in which he might be sojourning, unless he had written official evidence of his being in full communion with the Church at home. There could be no "interdenominational" communion, for there were no denominations. The ancient Church knew of nothing between the Church on the one side, and sect, schism, heresy on the other.* None were admitted to the Lord's Supper but those in full com- munion, and after the doors of the Church were carefully shut and watched, the deacon made a proclamation, describing the classes of persons who were not suffered to remain as communicants. These were the unbaptized, the catechumens, the ordinary hearers, unbe- lievers, and last of all, those of another faith, the heterodox, either reputed heretics or false teachers, separatists or those under discipline. Christian Love. Sixth : The relations of the Lutheran Church to the denomina- tions around it are not in conflict with true Christian love. On the 8 Primitive Church, ch. ix. » Baumgarten, Christlich. AlterthUmer (Bertram). Ilalle, 1768, 506-513. . 66 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. contrary they are in the highest harmony with it. She feels com- pelled indeed to contend for the truth, but it is in love. The wounds she gives are the faithful wounds of a friend. That is better than the deceitful kisses of an enemy. "Am I therefore become your enemy" says St. Paul, "because I tell you the truth?" "Have no fel- lowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." All error, heresy, schism, separatism, belong to the works of darkness Sectarianism is a work of darkness, though particular members of sects may be children of God.'° "Fo/icy." Seventh : The proper relations of the Lutheran Church to the denominations around us are not really impolitic, are not in conflict with her duty of self-preservation and of self-extension. Of a fleshly policy which courts worldly success by deviation from prin- ciple, I need not speak, because, a Christian man, I address Chris- tian men. The presentation of an argument for such policy would be impossible to me, intolerable to you. Let such policy go. Whether it be the policy of the Devil or of Caesar, and whether Caesar be a single tyrant, or a mob of tyrants, let us stand with Christ against both Devil and Caesar. There was but one apostle who pursued a policy by which he made earthly gain of his relation to Christ. Let us not stand with him. In this aspect the case is too plain. Even the presentation of an argument against such policy would be worse than useless. But the policy consistent with true wisdom, and pure motive, high ends, and lofty means, and indeed the embodiment of them, is not in conflict with that attitude of our Church which, we have tried to show, consistency demands. When the Lutheran Church acts in the spirit of the current denominationalism she abandons her own spirit. She is a house divided against itself. Some even then will stand firm, and with the choosing of new gods on the part of others there will be war in the gates. No seeming success could compensate our Church for the forsak- ing of the principles which gave her being, for the loss of internal peace, for the destruction of her proper dignity, for the lack of self- respect which would follow it. The Lutheran Church can never have real moral dignity, real self-respect, a real claim on the rever- ence and loyalty of her children, while she allows the fear of the de- 1? See Theses on the Galesburg Declaration. DR, KRAUTH's essay. 6^ nominations around her, or the desire of their approval, in any respect to shape her principles or control her actions. It is a fatal thing to ask, not, What is right ? What is consistent? — but, What will be thought of us ? How will the sectarian and secular papers talk about us? How will our neighbors of the different communions regard this or that course ? Better to die than to prolong a miser- able life by such compromise of all that gives life its value. This dangerous tendency has been fostered by some parts of our Church accepting pecuniary aid from denominational sources. They have been taking bribes, and selling a sort of control to those whose charity they accepted. Then comes naturally the next Scene in the Farce — the benefactors are implored not to impute to the mild, liberal part of our Church (which accepts sectarian alms) what is really the spirit only of a few bigots unworthy of the name of Lutheran. We have among us a sort of charity which not only does not begin at home, but never gets there. It is soaring and gaspmg for the Unity of Lutherans with all the rest of the world, but not with each other. It can forgive all the sects for assailing the truth, but has no mercy for the Lutherans who defend it. When there is official fellowship between those who hold the higher and positive position, and those who hold a lower and nega- tive one, the communion is always to the benefit of the lower at the expense of the higher. For however the holders of the higher view may protest as to their personal convictions, the act of communion is regarded as a concession that the convictions, if held at all, are not held as articles of faith, but only as opinions. If a SocinJan and a Trinitarian commune, each avowing his own opinion as not changed, nor involved, which cause is hurt and which benefited? It looks equal; but Socinianism, whose interest is laxity, is advant- aged, Trinitarianism is wounded. It gives fresh life to error, it stabs truth to the heart. Contact imparts disease, but does not impart health. We catch small-pox by contact with one who has it, but we do not catch recovery from one who is free from it. The process which tends to the pollution of the unpolluted will not tend to the purification of the evil. " If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread or pottage, or wine or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy ? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body, touch any 68 FREE LUTHERAN DIET of them, shall it be unclean ? And the priests answered, // shall be unclean^ When the transfer is made easy between zuealthy denominations and poor ones, many go out of the poor church into the rich one, few from the rich to the poor. The Lord chooses the poor of this world ; but many of his nominal disciples seem to think they can — so far at least— improve on their Master's example. When the transfer is made easy between churches of great social pretension and those of humbler claims in the world of fashion, the people who are feeling after social recognition go into the fashion- able church, the people of the fashionable church stay where they are. When churches which have the nationality , language, tradition, modes of feeling and of acting, of a country, are separated by low walls from churches of other nationalities, largely using another tongue, having another culture, the churches of the country absorb those that are foreign. To introduce the language of the country into the foreign churches reaches but a part of the difficulty, and brings in another. For back of the language, to those to whom it is native, are the whole history, and life, and literature it embodies ; while the foreign church must use the lip of one land for a soul and heart which are of another. Our Church may speak English. It is well. But if she stops with that, her new tongue will decoy her into a new life. All living tongues have living hearts back of them and carry us out into the current of their own life. Our church is not to become the handmaiden of the language, instead of making it her own handmaiden. It will in that case not be the old Church getting a new language, but the new language transforming her into a new Church — not the Church mastering the English, but the English mastering the Church. Even in their mistakes on the point of language, our fathers in America were not the absolute incapables it is now the fashion to consider them. It was the English life of the land, rather than the English tongue, which swept away thousands of our Church's children. When churches whose principles involve lax doctrinal obligations come in contact with those whose principles involve strict doctrinal obligations, but whose practice is at war with their principles, the lax with the lax practice overcome the churches which have strict theory conjoined with lax practice. For such churches are burdened with the odium of their strict theory without its advantages, and DR. KRAUTH's essay. 69 get the weakness of laxity without sharing its popularity. Men who aim at combining in a third view the strong points of conflict- ing systems, generally get the weakness of principle from the wrong, and the unpopularity of practice from the right. They think they can sit on the two stools — in fact they fall between them. But when a church has right principles and is steadfast to them, no matter what denominations are arrayed against it, it will have true success. It will be dear to God, precious to those who love Him, a safe guide of sinners to the Saviour, and will build up saints on their most holy faith. It will be a conservator of sound doc- trine, of right government, of healthy discipline. It may not be fashionable, rich, or popular, but it will be a blessing to the world and a nursery for heaven. Adjourned. SECOND SESSION. December 27th, 2:30 p. m. Prayer by President Sadtler, D. D., of Muhlenberg College. The Diet proceeded to the discussion of Dr. Krauth's paper. Rev. D. P. Rosenmiller (General Synod) said that the relation of the Lutheran Church to other denominations who hold the funda- mental doctrines of the Gospel, should be one of kindness and charity. They are the different branches of the same family of the living God. The name Lutheran, applied to our Church, was an accident, resulting partly from its enemies. The original name was Evangelical ; for it was no new organization, but the Church sepa- rated from the errors of the Papacy. Even the Augsburg Confes- sion came into existence accidentally. Had there been no indict- ment brought by the Papal Court, against the friends of evangelical religion, there would have been no occasion for the Confession. In that case, the Bible would have been our only Confession. For the main point with Luther was to give the Church the Word of God as her guide ; and hence all who hold it sincerely, without gross heterodoxy, should receive charity from us. REMARKS OF REV. C. W. SCHAEFFER, D. D. {General Council) The relations of Lutherans to the members of the denominations around, as far as these relations are personal or social, ought to be kindly, and controlled by Christian principles. But when these rela- tions enter into the sphere of the Church , and influence the Confes- sion of Christian doctrine, then the first and highest aim of Lutherans should be to maintain the pure doctrine of the Word, as expressed in the Confessions. The doctrine of the Sacraments comes up so often that I would if I could, avoid it now. But it affords such a good illustration of my meaning that I venture to introduce it. (70) III DISCUSSION. 71 The doctrine of the denominations around us is to the effect, that the chief element, the distinguishing characteristic of the Lord's Supper, is a mere human act, a devout exercise on the part of com- municants, in which they bring to the table a grateful remembrance of Christ, and by eating and drinking show forth His death. If this, which of course is true, were the whole truth, then the Luth- eran Church ought to, and without doubt, would, most heartily and devoutly, unite in the Holy Supper, with all evangelical denomi- nations, with all who love the Lord ; since in respect to a grateful remembrance of Christ and a devout showing forth of His death, there can be no difference between those who believe in Him and love Him. But the Lutheran Church receives from the divine Word, and re- peats in her Confessions, a very different doctrine, to the effect, that the Lord's Supper is first of all a divine act, that the Lord Himself is the chief actor, that its distinguishing characteristic con- sists of what the Lord gives us, and we only receive ; that what He gives us is, as He Himself says. His body and His blood for the forgiveness of our sins, and that what He thus gives us in the bread and wine, is not given and cannot be received in any other place or time or way, than at the Supper of the Lord, Now this is denied by the denominations around us. Some state their denial in one form, some in another. Yet though differing among themselves, they all agree in a decided and positive denial of the doctrine of the Lutheran Church. Supposing then that the Lutheran Church is bound to maintain not human opinions, but what it accepts as the doctrine of the divine Word, how can Lutherans unite, in celebrating the Lord's Supper, with denominations that ignore and deny what the divine Word de- clares is the distinguishing feature and controlling element of the Supper itself? Such an act would be an acknowledgment, on their part, that the nature and the doctrine of the Holy Supper is a mat- ter of no consequence, and that we reach the full measure of it when we observe it as a mere mnemonic act of our own. In de- 72 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. dining such communion, Lutherans do not deny or question the evangehcal character of denominations around them; they seek only to testify their fidehty to the doctrine of the Word. These low views of the denominations, tend strongly, and quite naturally, to reduce the Holy Supper from its rightful prominence in the Church's life, down to the common level of ordinary devotional exercises. I find in a theological work of a distinguished divine, of illustrious name, occupying an honorable position in a prominent Seminary of the Presbyterian Church, the following conclusion ar- rived at: — "It follows that in the same sense in which it is done at the Lord's Supper, believers do receive and feed upon the body and the blood of Christ, at other times without the use of the sacra- ment, and in the use of other means of grace, as prayer, meditation on the Word, etc., etc." With such views, of course, the Lutheran Church can have no sympathy or fellowship. REMARKS OF REV. F. W. CONRAD D. D. {General Syttod.) We shrink from engaging in this discussion in ten minutes, when six hours would be inadequate to do justice to it. We do not ex- pect ever to be "educated up" to the positions taken in the paper just read. The degree of unanimity of sentiment which it requires, is practically unattainable. The multiform character of revelation, and the diverse influences under which Christians have been reared and lived, renders absolute agreement on all points impossible. To each believer, the Bible is given, and he is directed to search it — to every disciple of Christ, the Holy Spirit is promised, and he is per- mitted to pray for His enlightening influences. Through these and other agencies and instrumentalities. Christians form their religious opinions. But while true believers may and do thus come to an agreement on fundamental doctrines, they will, in all probability, differ on non-essential points. This occurs in spite of their sin- cerity, in consequence of the deterioration of the human reason. Their religious mistakes must not, therefore, be regarded as willful errors, neither should they, on this account, be classed with heretics and excluded from Church fellowship. DISCUSSION. 73 Martin Luther maintained the supreme autliority of the Scriptures, and claimed the right of private judgment in interpreting them. He, accordingly, exercised the liberty conferred by Christ on every believer, and formed his religious opinions in independence of popes and councils. His coadjutors exercised the same right, and formed their own religious opinions. On all essential points they agreed ; on many non-essential ones they differed ; and yet they extended the hand of fellowship to each other. In the exercise of the same rights and the enjoyment of the same liberty, we, Lutherans in America, have formed our ecclesiastical opinions. On all undisputed fundamental doctrines we agree ; on manifestly non-fundamental ones we differ. Let us not, on account of our differences, withhold, but on account of our agreements, ex- tend fellowship to each other. Various denominations have arisen, in the providence of God, in different ages and lands. They constitute the pure parts of the one holy catholic Church. They are entitled to the prerogatives of true churches of Christ, because they adopt the (Ecumenical creeds, and they do not become heretics, unworthy of pulpit and altar fellowship, because their particular creeds differ in some points from ours. While, therefore, we can accept the positions taken by Dr. Krauth on Fellowship as a rule, we cannot accept his exclusive interpreta- tion of it. We, on the contrary, hold that it is right and proper to grant pulpit and altar fellowship to the ministers and members of orthodox Protestant churches, in exceptional cases, as a matter, not of right, but of privilege, and maintain that the extension of such fellowship is sustained by Christ's instructions, by apostolic example, by the practice of the primitive Church, and by the general judg- ment of the Christian world. REMARKS OF REV. J. A. BROWN, D. D. {General Synod.) I would not say anything on the paper read, did I not fear that my silence might be misconstrued into an endorsement of all that it contains. Whilst there is much with which I might agree, it con- 74 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. tains assumptions and looks to conclusions to which I can by no means yield my assent. By the very terms employed — though not in the subject as originally published — " the denominations around us,'' omitting '^ other,'' it is assumed that the Lutheran Church has claims as a Church of Jesus Christ, which cannot be accorded to these denominations. To set up such a claim, it seems to me, is to ignore God's providential dealings with His Church, and also to refuse to recognize the manifest tokens of His presence and favor. Might not God choose to reform the Church and restore the pure Gospel and ordinances, without necessarily employing the same human instruments, or giving to the work precisely the same form in every respect ? As He chose Luther and his co-laborers in Ger- many, may He not have chosen other instruments in England, Scotland and elsewhere ? and what right have we to sit in judgment on His and their work? Have we a right to say that other denom- inations (I use the word " other") are not part of the true Church of Jesus Christ, and to be treated by us as such ? It is not, and will not be, denied that in these other denomina- tions, there are thousands and tens of thousands of humble, devoted believers. It is not, and will not be, denied that these denomina- tions have furnished a full share of distinguished scholars and theo- logians, of self-denying pastors and missionaries, and of zealous and devoted laborers in every department of Christian activity. They sometimes put us to shame by their enlightened liberality and zeal in the cause of our divine Redeemer. In this country especially they have taken the lead and outstripped us, in the work of preach- ing the Gospel to the millions at home and abroad. Now I cannot see by what right, or on what ground we can refuse the fullest recognition to these denominations that are so manifestly owned of God, and whose labors are crowned with so much favor. If these Churches are true Evangelical Churches, and their members are true members of the body of Christ, who are we that we should undertake to legislate and prescribe the terms on which we will re- cognize those whom the Master owns, or set up arbitrary conditions of relationship among the Churches of Jesus Christ? DISCUSSION. ^ 75 There is something utterly incongruous and unscriptural In a true disciple of Christ, an acknowledged subject of Christ's kingdom, with the genuine ^^ marks of the Lord Jesus,'' being denied his rights and privileges in that kingdom. In the Apostolic Church a Christian was a Christian, and a subject of Christ's kingdom was recognized wherever he went among his fellow Christians. Even citizenship in the Roman empire carried with it all the rights and immunities of citizenship, wherever the Roman empire extended its •domain or asserted its authority. The simple utterance, " I am a Roman citizen," was enough to claim protection in the most sacred rights. Wherever the tread of the Roman legion was heard, or the banner bearing the Roman eagle floated, there were secured the rights of Roman citizens. The kingdom of Christ is more widely extended, and offers to its subjects privileges superior to those of imperial Rome. This kingdom is marked by no geographical boundaries ; it is confined to no country or clime or race ; in it " there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Can it be that subjects of this kingdom, whose dominion is from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth, have a more restricted exercise of their rights than the subjects of the smallest and most petty earthly power ? Must a Lutheran Christian be acknowledged only among Lutherans, and Reformed only among Reformed, and so this universal kingdom of Christ be dwarfed or divided until only ■ those are recognized who belong to our own particular party or sec- tion ? Shall we as Lutherans set up the absurd claim of being the peculiar chosen people, and treat the [other] denominations around us as aliens? I am not concerned just now with the question of responsibility for the divisions in the Christian Church. They exist as a matter of fact. They have existed for centuries. The great Head of the Church has not refused to acknowledge these different Churches or to bestow upon them His benediction. True, He has prayed that ^6 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. all might be one. And so has He prayed and taught us to pray, — '^Thy kingdom come." Shall we refuse full recognition to other denominations because not in all respects one with us, or deny His kingdom because it does not yet come in full power and glory ? It seems to me unfortunate that the discussion on this subject has taken so one-sided a turn, and that it has been mainly the discussion of ' 'pulpit ami allar fellowship.'' Indeed, it is narrowed down very much to the question of altar fellowship, or allowing others to com- mune with Lutherans, or Lutherans extending the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to those of other denominations. This is not the time nor the place for a full discussion of this subject. Individual congregations or denominations may adopt such regulations not in- consistent with the letter or spirit of the New Testament, as they may deem best calculated to secure the purity and promote the wel- fare of the Church. But they should be very careful not to exercise aright, with which their Lord has never invested them. The Apostle Peter has set us a good example in this respect, and announced a principle which may aid in settling a point which seems to sorely vex some. Averse as he was to recognizing any except Jews as pro- perly belonging to the Church, when he saw what the Lord was doing, he said : ' ' Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, ivhich have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ?' ' If the Holy Ghost is bestowed on others as well as on us, if they give proof of the presence and grace of the Spirit, as well as we, who can for- bid to them the use of the Sacraments? There is no authority in God's Word for this wide separation between what God has joined together in this Church — the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper — and throwing the one so widely open, that almost any bap- tism is recognized, Romish or Protestant, clerical or lay, and then hedging about the table of the Lord so that none but a Lutheran may approach a Lutheran altar. Against this spirit of exclusivism, we ask, in the language of Peter, ''Can any man forbid water?'' — or can any man forbid the administration of the Sacraments to those who " have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ?" DISCUSSION, "JJ Against the exclusivism of this paper, as well as against the sec- tarianism of this age, we must express our most decided objection. The discussion was participated in also by Revs. L. E Albert, D D., F. Klinefelter and S. R. Boyer. Their remarks have not been fur- nished for publication. The discussion was closed as follows: REMARKS OF REV. C. P. KRAUTII, D. D. LL. D. {General Council.) In the theme accepted by me, as stated to me — and properly stated — the Lutheran Church is not coordinated as one de- nomination with others. Her moral right to live turns upon the proof that she is a Church with the New Testament essentials — doctrine pure in every part, and right sacraments. Those who cut her off from them, or cut themselves off from her fellowship, and erect their hostile denominations, either reject the truths she holds, and in rejecting truth are heretics or errorists, or if they concede that our Church holds the divine system, are schismatists in contin- uing in voluntary sundering from her. If you once say sectarianism is venal, sects are good because there are good people in sects, where will you stop ? What lovely people there are in the Church of Rome ; what characters of ex- quisite beauty, to all human observation, there are among Socinians; what pathos of sweetness strikes us at times, even amid Pagan- ism ! The great world has men and women who put to shame false , or careless, or conventional. Christians. Is slavery to be compro- mised with because some of the best of men have held slaves? Could we as patriots officially recognize, because of their private excellencies, citizens of a government at war with ours? We recog- nize as cordially as any man, the personal virtues and achievements of Christians everywhere ; but if they feel bound in conscience to confess adversely to our Confession, to keep up denominations to build up that Confession, to withhold themselves from permanent communion with us; and to guard their pulpits against the constant preaching of the whole New Testament doctrine, — which is the doctrine of our Church — then do they bind us, on their own showing, to confine our pulpit to those who constantly preach what we are sure is the whole truth, and our altars to those who are the disciples, imperfect it may be, but willing, of that truth. W^e have common terms for all, and if we relin(|uish a system of tests and safeguards for others, we must relinquish them for ourselves. 78 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. This style of reasoning defies the universal judgment of historical Christendom, which with unbroken unanimity maintains that unity in confessed doctrine is an essential element of Church unity. For this we are asked to substitute a unity of good people, or people we conjecture to be good, without reference to their faith. It is the compendious method of the poet — " He can't be wrong, whose life is in the right." Throughout the argument we are meeting, there runs the fallacy of confounding the Church as invisible, with the Church as visible. Who form the Church invisible it is for Him, who alone sees the invisible, infallibly to judge. In the Church visible, we must have not wavering and individual surmises, but carefully considered and uniform principles of test and discipline, resting on what we can see and know. External profession of the pure faith, made credible by the acts of men, is the only test to which we can bring the claim of internal possession of it. The eloquent description of the Roman Empire has no applicability to the visible Church militant, either as it is in fact, or in the divine description of its state on earth. In the mouth of a Romanist, it would have consistency : in the mouth of a Protestant it has none. The Roman Kingdom was a kingdom which imposed the cross; the Kingdom of Christ is a kingdom which bears the cross, and will bear it till her King comes again. Yet even a Romanist would hardly fall into the confusion of the dead and the living, the nominal and the real, which gives plausibility to the illustration. The utterance, "I am a Roman citizen," made indeed a claim to Roman rights; but the rights were not conceded till the claim was tested by modes of uniform principle. Roman privi- lege were bound up with subjection to Roman law, fealty to Roman rules, and fidelity to Roman duty. What we are discussing is the privileges of Lutheran pulpits and of Lutheran altars. If it is secta- rian to have these we should abandon them ; but if it is sectarian to have others, the others should be abandoned. The Saviour and His Apostles, and the early Church, knew of but one communion. All outside of that was sect or schism. Christendom should be one communion with one faith, and one confession — its faith the faith of the Gospel — its confession the unmixed witness of that faith. This is the faith we believe our Church has. This is the faith she em- bodies in her Confession. This position allows of no compromise. If it is false we must abandon it, and let our Church go. If it is DISCUSSION. 79 true we must stand by it, and all who wish fellowship with us, must come to it. This is no egotism of Church vanity ; it is consistency with principle. It is no fault of ours that others have thrown forth sectarian ban- ners. We did not go out from them. They have gone away from us, or have followed those who abandoned us. Dr. Brown claims for them the right to forsake us, to repudiate our distinctive faith, and yet to have untested all the privileges of our own faithful chil- dren. He proposes to accept their claim as their proof — yet if their claim to be right is valid, ours cannot be. Contradictions cannot both be right. It is surprising, too, that he fails to see that in all the points here involved there is no parallel whatever between baptism and the Lord's Supper, to say nothing of the pulpit. The adult seeker of baptism from us is not a member of another communion. The child who seeks it through the parents is not of another church-household. Does any one pretend that the tests of fitness for baptism are throughout identical with those of fitness for the Supper ; or will any one say that consistency requires that we grant that every one whose baptism we acknowledge as valid, is thereby shown to be entitled to come to our communion ? When a protest is made at the close against sectarianism, the whole line of previous thought seems to imply that what is meant is not the sectarianism which makes sects, magnifies their virtues, veils their mischiefs, ignores their crimes, and treats the divisions they create as if they were not destructive of unity. It rather seems as if the sectarianism which the speaker had in view is the fidelity to prin- ciple which resists sects, and the sect-spirit, most of all when they come in the pretences of a spurious unionism, and shuts upon them the pulpit and altar. In such a construction of sectarianism the re- lations of our Lutheran communion to the denominations around us would be, not the relations of a Church to sects, but of a sect to Churches. The following paper was then read : ' THE FOUR GENERAL BODIES OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN THE UNFFED STATES: WHFiRE- IN THEY AGREE, AND WHEREIN THEY MIGHT HARMONIOUSLY CO- OFERATE." REV. J. A. BROWN, D. D., Professor of Doctrinal Theology in the Theological Seiuinaiy of the General Synod, Gcttysbttrg, Fa. The '^fai/r Bodies'" referred to are " The General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States f " The General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in North America f " The General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in North America f and " The Sy nodical Conference of North America.'''' THESE are separate and distinct bodies of Lutherans at present, some of them once united and still holding much in common, yet differing so far as to maintain each its own organization and in- dividual existence. Their separations are in part the result of local and temporary circumstances, and in part of deeper lying causes. Each one has a history of its own, and each is now aiming to work out its own mission. Between some of them there maybe a greater affinity than between others, yet among them all are family like- nesses and strong points of sympathy and resemblance. Some of them may possibly be so little acquainted with each other, and others so unhappily alienated, as not to care to trace the resemblance or to acknowledge the relationship, but the truth will reveal itself, and even their speech bewrayeth them. All these Lutherans talk Lutheran, and sometimes indulge in what seems to outsiders a little like boasting over the great Lutheran Church, to which they claim to belong, and of which they are quite willing to be considered a part. The subject for our discussion is one concerning which there will very naturally be great diversity of sentiment ; and no treatment of it or conclusions reached, will likely prove satisfactory to all or (80) DR. brown's essay. 8 1 probably to even a majority of those present. The very fact of the existence of four such bodies, impHes differences of some kind, and the question, ''Wherein they agree,'' imphes points in which they disagree; and so the other question: "-Wherein they might harmoniously co-operate,'' impHes difficulties in the way, or some things in which they are not able thus to co-operate. That such has been and still continues the case, all very well know. We do not at present harmoniously co-operate. But we are not now to search after the points of difference, or to see how much ground we can find for our separations. Our differ- ences have, no doubt, been magnified enough, so as to make our separation wider than need be — even wider than between us and those who do not bear the same family name. We are now to look after some of the points of agreement, and, I suppose, to see whether, after all our bickerings and separations, we do not all belong to the same " household of faith," and whether we might not live together in unity and peace, and " stand fast in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of the Gospel." Agreement between individuals and Churches in religious matters is relative and not absolute ; and it may be well to bear this in mind during this discussion. As God has made no two faces absolutely the same, nor any two souls absolutely alike, though all in His image and likeness, so no two Churches are absolutely alike, and no two members of any one of these four bodies are in perfect accord in thought, sentiment, feeling, purpose and action. It is not neces- sary nor desirable that it should be so. There may be absolute uni- formity or sameness in dead particles of matter, but genuine life is infinitely diversified. All that can be expected or desired is sub- stantial agreement, or such an agreement as will secure harniviny of views, feeling and co-operation — according to the divine Word, ''Keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace." When tlie apostle exhorts the Corinthians to "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment," he does not mean, as the words in the original do not, that they must all believe, and think and feel precisely alike — which would be practically impossible — but that there should be no such differences as would cause divisions and strife among them. It was a party spirit that he warned them against. If any are disposed to look for absolute agreement between all or any two of these bodies, as a condition of co-operation, they will look 82 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. for what they will not find within any one of them, and for what they will search in vain anywhere in the Church on earth. Each of these four bodies, if candid, will admit that it is not free from very con- siderable diversity of views on various points, even of doctrine, and that some of the meetings of these bodies are not the most harmo- nious, nor the co-operation the most cordial. We are simply stating what every one knows, and it is one of the commonplaces of Church history, that ecclesiastical bodies are not always distinguished for har- mony of views and action. They are chasing a phantom, who expect to find this ideal of unity and agreement here on earth, which belongs only to a state of perfection in heaven. Using the term "agree" in its popular and also in its Scriptural sense, we may find many points '■^wherein these four bodies agree,^' some of them of more significance than others, but none of them entirely destitute of meaning and force. To a disinterested observer we have no doubt that these points are such as to make our disagree- ments appear strange, if not worse than strange. I. POINTS WHEREIN THEY AGREE. In calling your attention to some of the points, "wherein they agree," we begin with: I. A common fia?ne — Lutheran. There is something in a name, little as we are disposed to make of it. A name is used to express some quality or property of an object. We recognize and distin- guish other Churches to some extent by their names. Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, Baptist, express severally distinct denomina- tions, and types of our Protestant Christianity. The name Lutheran serves the same general purpose. At first, the name was not a mat- ter of preference or voluntary choice, but applied as a term of re- proach; yet, like the name Christian, having been applied by ene- mies it was accepted, and no part of the Lutheran Church would now hastily abandon its use. We are not, as some imagine, followers of Martin Luther, but we are not unwilling to bear the name of that chosen instrument of God to restore to His Church doctrines which we hold dearer than all human names. We are Evangelical Luther- ans, because we accept the Gospel which Luther rescued from Rom- ish perversions and abuses. There have been and still are other discriminating and qualifying appellations along with Lutheran, some of them at times used to express invidious distinctions. Thus we have had German Lutheran, Swedish Lutheran, English Lutheran, DR. brown's essay. 83 American Lutheran, Missouri Lutheran, and divers other kinds, Ijut all bearing the generic name, Lutheran. As no one of these four bodies is inclined to abandon the name, so no one intends to allow any other a monopoly of its use or honors. Some, indeed, may regard themselves as more Lutheran than others, and better entitled to wear the ancestral name, but this is a matter open to discussion. Some may be less Lutheran than Luther was, and others may be more Lutheran than the reformer himself. The divergencies in this respect may indeed be con- siderable, and may vary with the same body at different times. There may be as much difference in the same body at different periods in its existence, as between two of these bodies at the same time, but still they do not surrender the title. In a family one son may be more like the father than another, but this does not deprive either of the right to wear the family name. And it not unfrequently happens that the likeness reappears most striking in a succeeding generation, where it had been least apparent in a former one. So it has happened again and again with Churches, which have still held on to the old family name. These bodies all mean to be known and recognized as Lutheran. The absurdity of any one of these bodies attempting to set up an exclusive right to the use of the name Lutheran is manifest from the fact, that no two of them would agree as to who should have the right to wear it. It must be admitted that if not Lutherans, then we are nothing at all : for none of us are Baptists, or Methodists, or Presbyterians, or Episcopalians, much less Romanists, or Ration- alists — and surely we are somebody. If not Lutherans, it is time we should know what we are, and that the world should know. We are called Lutherans. We are Lutherans — all Lutherans, bear- ing the name, and entitled to bear it. If any are disposed to dis- pute this point, or challenge the right of any one of these bodies to the Lutheran name, it may be added, that so far as the highest civil authorities can determine the point, they have decided that we shall be acknowledged and held in law as Lutherans, and entitled to the rights and privileges of Lutherans. 2. A common origin or descent. There is something in blood as well as in a name. Religion and Churches have been largely af- fected in their character by nationality or race. It is true that God " made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face 84 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. of the earth;" but it is also true that He has made use of them in different ways and for different purposes in accomplishing His own most holy will. This principle showed itself in the times of the Apostles, between the Jewish and Gentile portions of the Church ; and soon afterwards between the Eastern and Western Churches. Each had its special origin and mission. At the time of the Reformation some nationalities took more kindly to one form of Protestantism, and some to another. Luther himself was a German, not only by birth, but in soul and spirit, in heart and life, and his magnetic influence is felt among Germans and their descendants to the present day. And this extended itself to those peoples or nationalities most intimately connected by blood and language with the Germans. On the other hand, Scotland, Ireland, and England did not take so kindly to Lutheranism as did the Germans and some other nationalities. They accepted what is generally known as the Reformed faith, and they continue in that faith. These different phases of Protestantism have perpetuated themselves through these several nationalities from the Reformation to our own times. The prophet asks : " Hath a nation changed their gods ?" It is no small or easy thing for a people to change its religion, even where the change is only from one type of Pro- testantism to another. History records but i^w examples of a people or nation changing one form or type of a religion for another, even when these were closely allied, unless under some powerful movement, or by special divine interposition. Some may indeed hold that Lutheranism is Christianity, pure and unmixed, that any departure from it is a departure from true relig- ion, and that it is adapted to all nations, ages and climes. They may hold that all other forms of Protestantism are less pure, and that we should refuse to recognize other denominations as entitled to a like claim with ourselves to be parts of the true Church of Jesus Christ. It may be argued that as genuine Christianity, Lutheranism is bound to triumph everywhere. But still the stubborn fact remains, that our progress has been chiefly among the descenrlants of those who originally accepted the Lutheran form of the Reformation, and that we are making slow progress among those who from the begin- ning have accepted and practiced a somewhat different form of Protestantism. If it indeed be true that Lutheranism is Christianity and Christianity Lutheranism, then there is a poor showing for DR. BROWN S ESSAY. 55 Christianity throughout a considerable part of the Protestant world, including the larger part of our own professed Christian population, with nearly all our large cities and centres of Christian activity. It must be confessed that our chief progress thus far has been among those who claim a Lutheran ancestry ; and, whilst neither our labors nor our success should be limited to these, they have on us peculiar claims, and we have in them a fruitful field of labor. It might almost be said to require some mixture of German blood to make full-blooded Lutherans. These four bodies can claim a common origin or ancestry. Some of them may be a little further removed from their original tongue and characteristics than others, but all have something to say of the vaterland and the viulter-sprache. It is in the memory of those now living, when those portions of the Church at present most English in speech and customs, knew scarcely anything but Ger- man ; and in all of these bodies the great mass of the membership is either from the home of Lutheranism in the old world, or from their descendants in the new. In their veins there flows the same blood, and they have not only a common name, but are brethren according to the flesh. Alas, that difference of language or shades of belief, or diversities of any kind should have to any degree alienated those who are kindred of one family. 3. The acceptance pf the Augsburg Confession. This Confession is the oldest of modern Confessions. It is older than the decrees of the Council of Trent, or the Tridentine Catechism — the Confes- sion of the Catholic Church. It is older than the Orthodox Con- fession of the Greek Church, It justly claims a greater antiquity than any other Confession of any of the separate parts of Christen- dom. It moreover furnishes the basis of most of the other Confes- sions set forth by other Protestant denominations. It is indeed a grand old Confession, and any attempt to eulogize it would be as presumptuous as it would be unnecessary. The reception and profession of this Confession has for more than three hundred years been the acknowledged passport of gen- uine Lutheranism. Wherever the Lutheran Church has confessed her faith, in any quarter of the globe, she has done it by means of the Augsburg Confession. To this Confession, because of its evan- gelical character, no less than because of its historical renown, the Church clings as one of her chiefest glories. 86 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. In its reception and profession all these bodies are agreed. There may be and there is some difference in the terms in which this Con- fession is subscribed. Different forms of subscription have existed from the very beginning of Lutheranism. They have been common in the old world as well as in the new. No particular form of subscription has been established as essential to genuine Lutheran- ism. Whilst some have hesitated to adopt a form of subscription that binds to every jot and tittle of the Confession, others have not hesitated to go beyond the Confession, and bind to what is not re- quired by its letter or spirit. It is easy to make charges of un- Lutheran and hyper-Lutheran ways, but in such a controversy it is not so easy to convince each other of error. If the question were asked of any one of these bodies : IVhaf is your Confession of Faith ? the answer would be — the Augsburg Confession. If the additional question were asked — Nothing more, nothing less than this ? there would doubtless be explanations to be offered, and some differences of sentiment discovered, just as there would be in regard to the Apostles' Creed. But the fact still remains, that all agree in receiving and professing this venerable Confession. Moreover each body would doubtless be ready to de- fend its mode of receiving the Confession as the most consistent and most truly Lutheran. All that we deem important just now, and this we do deem important in this discussion is, that all agree in the one point of making the Augsburg Confession their Confes- sion of Faith. Time will not allow us to consider particular doctrines, but one or two have always been held by the Lutheran Church as so funda- mental to evangelical religion, and so broadly distinguishing the Lutheran from the Roman Catholic and from all Romanizing ten- dencies, that they may be briefly noticed. (i) The doctrine of Justification by Faith. It may be imagined that this doctrine is so common to all Protestant Churches, that it is folly to mention it as characterizing these bodies of Lutherans. But we claim that no other denomination has made it so prominent in its doctrinal system, and none have adhered to it with such un- compromising strictness. Other denominations have magnified some denominational peculiarity, so that they are chiefly known by such marks, but the Lutheran Church has kept central and most vital in her system this great doctrine of the Reformation. DR. brown's essay. 87 And this is true, we believe, to-day of all these bodies of Lutherans. It provokes a smile to hear the question from some other denomina- tions — as it has been heard — ''Do these Lutherans realiy believe in the doctrine of justification by faith?'" It might as well be asked, had Martin Luther really the courage to fight the pope and the devil ? Only ignorance could prompt either of these questions. Amid all the diversities in forms and ceremonies of Church polity and ecclesiastical regulations, there is agreement among us in hold- ing fast to the doctrine on which the Reformation hinged, the doc- trine transcending all others in importance to the salvation of souls and the purity of the Church — the doctrine for which the Reformers hazarded everything — salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone. It would betray an ignorance or prejudice provoking in others, but inexcusable in Lutherans, to question that any one of these bodies does maintain this common article of the Lutheran faith. (2) The priesthood of believers, and yet the divinely instituted office of the ministry. No righteousness before God but that of Christ, and no other priesthood than His, are twin doctrines. On the latter of these the Reformers insisted no less than on the former. The denial of these constituted the grand error of the papacy. So long as the doctrine of human merit and a human priesthood stands, there is a foundation for all the corruptions and abominations of the Romish Church. Remove these and the system must fall. But this leaves full room for the office of the Christian ministry — an office divinely instituted — to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments. This office is not the mere creature of the general body of believers, created or changed or abolished at its pleasure, but ex- ists by divine appointment, and is a necessary part of the divine economy for the establishment, perpetuity and extension of the Church of Christ on earth. In this general doctrine all Lutherans agree. There has been no little controversy in the Church on the subject of the ministry, and not a little diversity in practices that to the superficial observer might seem to indicate the widest difference of views. In some places and in some congregations there has been an amount of form and ceremony, a degree of ritualistic observances, that would satisfy the highest of high Churchmen, even of the Anglican or Romish order; whilst in others there has been a Puritanic plainness even to baldness, that might gratify the lovers of "meeting-houses." But 88 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. amid this diversity of outward forms and ceremonies, from the lowest to the highest style of Church order, there has been a substantial agree- ment in rejecting every Romish idea of the ministry as a priesthood, and holding fast to the New Testament idea of the Christian ministry. No Church has been more free from Romanizing tendencies, or fur- nished fewer recruits to the Church of Rome than the Evangelical Lutheran Church. In this it may be safely said that all these bodies agree. They are all Lutheran, and they are all Evangelical Lutheran. 4. The religious training of the young by means of catechetical in- struction, and the ratification of their covenant relation with the Church by confrntation. Luther's Catechism and Luther's practice of catechetical instruction are still prominent features of Lutheran- ism. Therj have been times in the history of the Church, in the old world as well as in the new, when this system of religious training was well nigh abandoned. New methods have been tried, and not by one part of the Church alone. There have been times when the ancient practice of confirmation was a " new measure" in the Lutheran Church, and that in the early home of Lutheranism. Neither Rationalism nor Radicalism is answerable for all the strange fire that has been kindred on Lutheran altars. But there is a growing conviction in favor of the good old ways, not to the exclusion, however, of the wisdom to be gathered from observation and experience under the teaching of the divine Word and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The old is not to be cherished simply because it is old, nor the new to be rejected simply because it is new. In all of these bodies, so far as we know, there is agreement in the importance and value of catechetical instruction, and of a care- ful indoctrination of the young and the old in the great truths of our most holy faith. Some may be more zealous and faithful in this duty than others, but all agree in the general practice. On this part of our subject, we only add : 5. The Lutheran love of liberty and agreement in diversity. If there were nothing else "wherein they agree," they surely agree in this — that the largest liberty is claimed and practiced, and that great diversity prevails among the Churches in all of these bodies. As a rule no two churches, even in the same place, have precisely the same service. They all have manuals of worship, and to a certain ex- tent the churches conform to the recommendations of their respect- DR. brown's essay. 89 ive bodies; but they also liave an invincible love of liberty, so char- acteristic of Lutherans and Germans, and refuse to be fettered by ecclesiastical regulations. For this good Lutheran authority might be cited. At the very outset the Reformers declared that in order " to the true unity of the Church, it is not reccssary that human traditions, rites or ceremonies instituted by men, should be everywhere alike," and even the Form of Concord, prepared in the interests of the strictest Lutheranism, teaches that "no Church should condemn another because one observes more or less than the other of those outward ceremonies which God has not commanded." If in anything Lutherans have always and everywhere manifested their adherence to the teaching of the Symbolical Books, it has been in this particular. On opposite sides of the same street, and in the same city or town, they are found using different forms of service, and worshiping in the beauty of almost infinite diversity. This is true, we are informed, in Europe, as we all know it to be in this country. It may be regarded as characteristic of Lutheranism. In this these four bodies agree. They differ among themselves as well as from each other, but they agree in this endless diversity. In the matter of wearing the gown, the use of a liturgy, the extent of liturgical services, the variations in the services on different oc- casions, the administration of ordinances — the use of the wafer or bread, etc., etc., almost every congregation is a law unto itself. And no one can well condemn another, seeing they all claim the same law of liberty. It may be well for us all to remember the •-words of the apostle : '■'Happy is he ihat condenuictli not himself in that thing which he allow eth." We have now briefly noticed a few of the points wherein these- four bodies agree. Others might be mentioned, and these dwelt upon at greater length, but a due regard to the time allowed and to the patience of our hearers, forbids a more extended discussion. Besides, it is quite sufficient to indicate, without enlargement, such points of agreement as may serve to furnish a comprehensive and intelligent judgment on the subject. If I have passed by the points of difference, or made no account of them, it will be understood that it is just because this is no part of the task assigned me, and I leave to others this duty. There- may possibly be opportunities enough during the meetings of this 7 90 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. Diet to show wherein we differ, and to make manifest some points of disagreement. It would be altogether gratuitous for me to antici- pate what others will have, if they choose, a better right to say and show. II. "WHEREIN THEY MIGHT HARMONIOUSLY CO-OPERATE." It is not likely that those who arranged the programme for this Diet, and in their selections assigned me this subject for discussion, had any special reference to our comfort, but it is a matter of some relief as well as satisfaction, that it has been put in the very form it is. Had the wording been, " Wherein can they harmoniously co-oper- ate," judging from past experience and present aspects, the answer would be, in nothing save possibly in holding such a free Diet, in which no one is responsible for anybody but himself, and that responsibility understood to be of a somewhat general character. Even the holding of a Diet has been ridiculed by some as visionary, and opposed by others as likely to result in all manner of evils to the Lutheran Church, and the serious detriment of those who par- ticipate in it. Perhaps few have been without grave suspicions as to the result. We must be frank enough to say that with these different organi zations existing as they are, with all the machinery necessary to their separate and distinct work, we do not see how they can harmoniously co-operate, if this means uniting energies and efforts in joint labors. If it means, as we suppose it does, something more than amicable relations, and non-interference with each other's interests, then co- operation seems to us difficult if not impossible, without the sur- render of principles which some or all of these bodies profess to hold of vital importance, and to which in some degree they owe their separate existence. But we are not asked to consider "Wherein they ^(3!« harmoniously co-operate," but "wherein they might." What we can do in certain circumstances, and what we might do with these circumstances largely at our control, are very different ques- tions. Nor are we required or expected to turn prophet, and forecast the future, telling how in the good time to come all divisions will be healed, all differences forgotten, and we present the picture of a perfectly united and harmonious Church. This maybe left to those whose "bright visions" extend to the dim future, and who can see DR. BROWNS ESSAY. 9I farther and clearer than common mortals. Such a time we may not only hope will come, but we might all fervently pray, Even so, let it come quickly. But we are now to consider "wherein these four bodies might harmoniously co-operate.^' This leads us to look at the reasonable probabilities of the case. Not what they can do, just now and as they are ; nor what they some day may or will do, but what they might do. This implies a change or modification of their policy and action in some respects, and implies that this is a thing of pos- sible accomplishment. It does not, however, imply the abandon- ment of these several distinct organizations. Indeed, the very con- trary is implied in the question, for it is how these bodies as separate bodies might thus co-operate. But it does imply the abandon- ment, to some extent at least, of separate and rival interests, and that these interests should be pursued in common and harmoniously by all these bodies. It does imply, we think, a mutual recognition of each other as Lutheran bodies, and a willingness to labor together in the service of a common Lord and Master. It would seem like sheer folly to talk of harmonious co-operation, and yet hesitate to recognize each other's character and labors as true and genuine Lutherans. And such a recognition might take place. The stern logic of events will probably sooner or later compel it. Churches as well as individuals are sometimes constrained to yield to enlightened public sentiment and the ongoings of Divine Providence. The deepest prejudices and the bitterest animosities have melted away under the softening influences of time, and the subduing power of the Spirit of God. Paul and Barnabas once separated, and after a "sharp con- tention," but we have good reason to believe that they became reconciled, and harmoniously co-operated in the cause of their Redeemer. Such things have often occurred in the history of the Church, and may occur again. \Vhat thus often occurs in the Church might take place even in the Lutheran Church, and among these four bodies. They might be led to see that it was their duty and interest to cease contending with one another, and in one spirit, with one mind, strive together for the faith of the Gospel ! Viewing this subject, then, in this light, as to what they w/^///" do in the direction indicated, instead of saying, "in nothing," we would rather incline to say they might co-operate in everything. We see g2 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. nothing "wherein" they might not co-operate — notliing of a gen- eral character and pertaining to the general welfare of the Church, They might co-operate in the preaching of the Gospel, in the build- ing of churches and the support of the ministry, in the work of Home and Foreign Missions, in Publication, in the establishment and support of Literary and Theological Institutions, in a word, in all the great work of the Church. Impracticable, utterly impracticable, perhaps it will be said, is such an idea. " Can two 7aalk together excep they he agreed T' Have we not heard this repeated a thousand times, and have we not found it to be true? Well, it may be impracticable. It may be that Lutherans are not yet cured of their folly, and cannot or will not co-operate. But remember, we are not considering what can be done with all our impracticabilities, but what might be done, if we were willing and disposed to do it. Perhaps it is expected that I should specify the particular depart- ments of labor, in which they might co operate — name the general interests, or mark out the common ground, where they might meet, forgetting differences, and unite in the common cause. It is no doubt imagined by some that it would be much easier to co-operate in some things than in others, and that a beginning thus made would gradually result in a more general co-operation. But I do not see where to draw this line. Some, perhaps many, would say, in the work of Foreign Missions at least. There, it may be said, if no- where else, we should forget our differences in laboring for the sal- vation of the heathen. This may be on the principle that the field of labor is so distant that the angle of vision cast by our differences vanishes before it reaches the place ; or possibly because our efforts in behalf of Foreign Missions have been so lamentably small, that it is not deemed worth while to contend with one another. But if we might co-operate in the work of Foreign Missions, why not in that of Home Missions, of Education, of Church Extension, and of all general Church work? Substantially the same difficulties meet us at every point, and what we inight do in one we might about as well do in all. We do not mean, however, that there could not be a practical co- operation in some things without a co-operation in all. F'or instance, we might agree to co-operate in the work of Missions, without abandoning our separate educational or publication interests; or DR. CROWN S ESSAY. 93 the very reverse, we might agree to co-operate in establishing a great Lutheran University, after the fashion of some in the old world, where different denominations even are represented, and yet maintain our separate interests in Missions and other objects. If we must co-operate only in part, and religiously cherish a horror of too much unionism even among Lutherans, then the particular part must be a matter of individual preference or voluntary choice. That such reasonable cooperation might take place, if the parties so desired, or that such a thing is not utterly impracticable, a few considerations will be offered to show. The differences existing between these four bodies are not really greater than those which have existed in other churches, or be- tween denominations, where such co-operation was practically main- tained. In the Episcopal Church there exists to-day as wide a diver- sity in faith and feeling as prevails among these four bodies of Lutherans, and yet there is co-operation, if not always so harmoni- ous, yet quite earnest and efficient. Except when they elect a bishop, or some other matter where party spirit displays itself, they merge their differences in the common cause. High and low Church- men, ritualists and anti-ritualists, all recognize each other as belong- ing to the same Church, and work together. Forty years ago the differences in doctrine and spirit and practice in the Presbyterian Church were deemed so material that a division took place, and two bodies were formed as distinct and antagonistic as any two of our Lutheran bodies. Accompanying this division were the severest criminations and recriminations, with litigations in court, and angry discussions in print. The cries of heresy were frecjuent and loud. Rival institutions of different characters were established by both parties, and for a period of thirty years a vigorous warfare carried on. Some nine or ten years ago a treaty of peace and concord was established, the two bodies became one again, and now there is not only co-operation, but organic union. And yet everybody knows that the same diversity of views and feelings prevails now as did during the thirty years of division and separation. These bodies have not deemed absolute agreement necessary to united and harmonious co-operation. Cases might be cited of de- nominations, bearing different names and with different confessions, co-operating in most important Church work, as that of education and missions. Lutherans themselves have united with other denom- 94 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. inations in the erection of churches, support of schools, and various interests belonging to the Church. To this there will be raised the cry of unionistic Lutheranism. Be it so. It is not quite certain that a unionistic si)irit is any worse than a separatistic one, or that needless divisions are any more pleasing to God or men than doubtful unions. The Lutheran Church may be in quite as much danger of sinning in the direction of exclusivism and separatism, as in the direction of too great a love for union. But we only cite the facts to show what has been done, and what might be done. It is repeated again and again by Protestants of almost every name, that the Roman Catholic Church is as much divided, or has existing within her as many divisions and as great diversities as are found in the Protestant Church. These diversities are on leading points of doctrine, and produce strong antagonisms, resulting some- times in violent controversies and bitter denunciations ; yet they co-operate earnestly, and, so far as their chief ends are concerned, harmoniously. In this respect, the wonderful organization and effective co-operation of that Church commands the admiration, and at times the serious apprehension, of states and empires, as well as that of the rest of the Christian world. Their union and co- operation in spite of all diversities and differences, make that Church a mighty power in the world. Can Lutherans learn nothing from examples such as these, and without imitating the errors of Rome, might not we at least learn the value of united co-operation? It may perhaps be still more in point to observe that diversities similar to those now existing in and between these four bodies have existed in the Lutheran Church from the very beginning, and with- out destroying her unity or forbidding co-operation. This may possibly be called in question, but our appeal is to the testimony of history. The two leading tendencies were exhibited in Luther and Melanchthon ; and have continued to show themselves in every suc- cessive period from that day until the present. Not now to speak of other and even wider diversities which have prevailed within the old historic Lutheran Church, these two diversities have always existed, and have not always compelled division or rendered co-operation impracticable. There have always been unyielding, uncompromis- ing spirits, who have sought to make such diversities a ground of controversy and separation, as they did between Luther and Me- DR. BROWN S ESSAY. 95 lanchthon, but not always with success. Luther clung to Melanch- thon and Melanchthon to Luther, in spite of their diversities, and in spite of the efforts of those who sought to sow the seeds of discord and division. It has indeed been the boast of Lutherans that there are no Lutheran sects, that her system of doctrine and forms of worship are so catholic and liberal, that all truly Iwangelical Christians may find a home in her inclosure ; and that a wide diversity of views and tastes may not only be tolerated, but exist of right, according to her free and liberal spirit. If this boast has any true foundation, then it is utterly inconsistent with the spirit of Lutheranism to be exclusive or intolerant, or to refuse co-operation where it is practi' cable. Let it not be forgotten that the Lutheran Church has nourished a Melanchthon as well as a Luther, an Arndt, a Calixtus, a Spener, a Francke, and a Muhlenberg, as well as a Flacius, a Calovius, and others of that school. It is doubtful if any one of these divisions would care to disown men of whom the whole Christian world may be justly proud. But if there is room in this grand old Church for a Luther and a Melanchthon, a Calovius and a Calixtus, what hinders the co-operation of these four bodies of Lutherans ? Are there any greater diversities among them than have existed in the past, when there was co-operation? Spener was charged with hold- ing and teaching more deadly errors than are charged against all these bodies combined, and yet all now claim him. History records strange reversals of ecclesiastical judgments. Let us beware lest our judgments should be reversed in the years to come, if we decide against co-operation and in favor of continued opjiosition. I will not anticipate objections. If any are aml)itious to see the divisions in the Lutheran Church perpetuated, to see her strength frittered away in feeble and unpromising efforts, to see one part of the Church arrayed against another, whilst the hosts of darkness present a united front against our advance ; if they are satisfied to live and die, having achieved the glory of keeping alive controver- sies which centuries of debate and strife have done little or nothing to settle, let them make their own choice. I envy them not thejr following nor their glory. I shall be glad, if in this Diet I have said one word that may have any, the very least, weight on the side of union and co-operation among all Lutherans here and elsewhere 96 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. throughout the world — a union that would be orthodox enough and catholic enough, Lutheran enough and liberal enough, to embrace not only a Luther and a Melanchthon, but all th(5se who have the same spirit with those illustrious reformers, and who are willing ^^ to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds Ojf peace." REMARKS OF REV. D. P. ROSENMILLER. [General Synod.) The four ecclesiastical bodies of our Church agree in adopting the Bible as a supreme authority in Christian doctrine, and also in the acceptance of the Augsburg Confession as a declaration of the fundamental truths of the Bible. But there are some who go be- yond this, and enter upon ground not laid down in the Augsburg Confession. By laying aside all confessional writings except the Augsburg Confession, they could become a unit in faith, at the same time according to others the liberty which they claim for them- selves. They could then co-operate in the education of ministers, with feelings of kindness toward each other, and renewed interest in Home and Foreign Missions would exemplify the unity of the Church. REMARKS OF REV. W. J. MANN, D. D. [General Cotincil.) It is understood that silence here must not be misunderstood, otherwise I would feel completely vanquished. It is certain that the Augsburg Confession alone would not have made the Lutheran Church. Luther's Small Catechism has done much more for her practical life. Bro. Rosenmiller uses the Augsburg Confession as a cloak for unionistic indifferentism. The language of the Augsburg Confession is so short and concise, that it is often unfairly used for whatever perversions may be desired. It must, of course, be inter- preted in the sense in which the authors of the Confession themselves understood it. Anything else is a falsification. What the precise understanding of the Augsburg Confession is, is a point concerning which there can be no doubt. Luther's Catechism preceded the Augsburg Confession. In the sense of the Catechism the Confession DISCUSSION. 97 is to be understood ; otherwise Luther would contradict himself even in public documents. It is doing a great wrong toward him and the Lutheran reformers to place such a sense upon their words, as for instance in the doctrine of the Holy Supper, as they on every given occasion most strenuously rejected, and regarded as heretical. To use the Augsburg Confession as a bond of union for those who seriously differ in their interpretation of it, is consequently totally out of place. REMARKS BY PROF. V. L. CONRAD. {General Synod.) I do not wish to occupy the time of the Diet, but as others appear to hesitate, I have a word to say in reply to the remarks of Dr. Mann. He remarked that the doctrine of the Lord's Supper is one of the great distinctive and fundamental doctrines of the Lu- theran Church, and after explaining its relations, closed by ask- ing, " How can there be co-operation without agreement on this important and fundamental doctrine?" To this I reply : If the manne}- of our Saviour's presence in the Eucharist be made the great central, distinctive and fundamental doctrine of the Lutheran Church, instead of justifica- tion by faith, the supreme authority of the Word of God, the uni- versal priesthood of believers, and other doctrines. presented by Dr. Brown in his essay just read ; and if precise uniformity of view respecting the manner of that presence be made a necessary condi- tion of co-operation among Lutherans and Christians, then, of course, no such co-operation is practicable or possible, because diversities of view on that aspect of doctrine, and on others of equal importance, exist in the Lutheran Church, and have existed from the beginning. The doctrine of our Lord's presence in the Holy Supper is de- clared in the Augsburg Confession, and is accepted. But the m.m- ner of His presence, as set forth in the Form of Concord, is not declared in the Confession, it is not in Christ's words of the institu- 98 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. tion, and should not, therefore, be made confessional If the ex- planation in the Form of Concord be made a test to determine who are Christians and Lutherans, then Christ himself was not a Chris- tian, and Melanchthon, who wrote the Augsburg Confession, was not a Lutheran. REMARKS OF REV. W. J. MANN, D. D. {General Council.) No Lutheran has ever denied the salvation of any one who be- lieved penitently that Christ had died for His sins, and that His blood is the atoning sacrifice for us. But this is not the question before the Church in her opposition to others. The most import- ant question to her is : What is the truth ? She is set to teach the truth, the whole truth, and therefore to watch over it. She has no right to say that this or that truth is of no account. The time may come when even those apparently far-off points may be of the high- est practical value. The attack against any part of the fortification is an attack against the whole fortress. We have to guard them all, and to answer for them all. The responsibility of the Church is not identical with the possibility of the appropriation of salvation by the individual soul. It is, however, a great mistake to suppose that any point of doctrine has no fundamental bearing. As to the Lord's Supper, it is as clear as daylight that the teachings of the Roman Church have a decidedly Manichean and Docetic tinge, while the Reformed view is undeniably materialistic, rationalistic and Ebionistic, and that such views, if applied to the person of the God-man himself, will most certainly, when consistently carried out, destroy the idea of incarnation. Luther knew why he laid all the stress upon the "very God" and the "very man" in the person of Christ. If the finite and the infinite, man and God, cannot truly be united, then the person Jesus Christ was not the God-man. But if they were united by that personal union, called incarnation, then they can never be severed, as we would then have to fall back upon a theophany, or even the personation of a stage-actor. But since DISCUSSION. 99 they cannot be severed, as Christ gives to us Himself, the Lord's Supper can give us no less than divinity and humanity, conse- (^uently also His flesh and blood. He gives to the Church, what He gave for the Church. Considering the subject under these aspects, we are very far from thinking that the question about the Lord's Supper is a mere theological or scholastic squabble. There is much more behind it than most people suppose. REMARKS OF PROF. V. L. CONRAD. {Geueral Synod.) I accept the man Christ Jesus as Jehovah God, because that is clearly revealed in the Scriptures, and is also in the Augsburg Con- fession. But the manner in which he is present in the elements of the Holy Supper, is not clearly revealed in the Scriptures, and is not in the Confession. It is a matter of inference or deduction. It is supernatural, mystical, mysterious — difficult to define, explain or understand. Indeed, it is acknowledged to be inexplicable, and should not therefore be held as properly confessional, but free. Nor should it be magnified beyond measure into a fundamental doc- trine upon which to dogmatize and separate Lutheran Christians, and prevent them from co-operating in the work which Christ has given them to do. REMARKS OF REV. F. W. CONRAD, D. D. {General Synod.) The able papes before us discusses a subject of great practical in- terest. It presents the points on which the four general Lutheran bodies in this country agree and might co-operate. The fact of their separate existence recalls the times and the circumstances under which they became separated. The General Synod South was or- ganized in consequence of, and during the continuance of the late civil war. The admission of the Franckean Synod at York, and the decision of Dr. Sprecher at Fort Wayne, became the occasion of the organization of the General Council. Prior to iS6o, the Gen- eral Synod South, and prior to 1S64, the General Council, not I03 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. only co-operated, but were organically united with the General Synod North. The General Synod South is the foster-child of the General Synod North, and in their confessional standpoints and ecclesiastical prin- ciples and practices these two bodies are still identical. We can, therefore, discover no valid reason why they should not be able to co-operate. If the division between the General Synod North and the General Council had occurred ten years earlier, it might have been regarded as a product of the ecclesiastical tendencies of the age; but taking into consideration the time and circumstances under which it occurred, it seems to us, when contemplated from our standpoint, to have been unnecessary, and should have been avoided. While, under the overrulings of Providence, incidental benefits may have resulted from their organization and efforts as separate bodies, the direct and inevitable evils resulting therefrom, in our judgment, overbalance them. The question introduced by the topic of the paper, is not whether these bodies could at this time unite, but whether they m'ght not co-operate with each other in the prosecution of the work of evan- gelization at home and of missions abroad ? While their differences still prevent union, should not their agreements, which are more numerous and far more important, secure their co-operation ? Born of Lutheran parentage and tracing my ecclesiastical lineage to the Old Trappe Church, ministered to by Muhlenberg, I have conse- crated myself to the service of the Lutheran Church. To see her divisions healed, her scattered forces united, and her mighty ener- gies concentrated in the prosecution of her great mission in this western world — this has been the ecclesiastical idol of my life. In- terpreted by the sacerdotal prayer of Christ, that all His followers maybe one, this must be "a consummation devoutly to be wished ;" and stimulated by the hope of its realization, let us all continue to labor and pray. DISCUSSION. lOI REMARKS OF REV. A. C. WEDEKIND, D. D. {General Syuod.) I see no particular difficulty in the way, why these general bodies might not co-operate in the various enterprises of the Church. It surely cannot be supposed that absolute oneness is recjuired, on all the details of a theological system, for such co-operation. If that be the law, then there is scarcely a family in Christendom, where co-operation in its own affairs can be secured. I venture to say, sir, that there is as much general doctrinal and cultus assimilation, between three of these four general bodies, at least, as there is be- tween the various parts of each. I have just attended a special meeting of a very large and influential Synod, not in connection with the General Synod, which was to settle some difficulties ; and the diversities of views which obtain among these brethren, are certainly not less by any means than those which are supposed to exist among these general bodies. The discussions, adjourned from their rival papers to this extra session of Synod, for two long days, elicited a diversity of sentiment declared on all hands to be most vital, that was to me astonishing. If it was not exactly like Ephraim envying Judah, and Judah vexing Ephraim, it came very near to it. Yet with all these z^/A?/ differences, these brethren have hitherto co-operated and are still co-operating. Nor is the case very much different in the good old Synod which is the mother of us all. It needs only a glance at their periodicals and their official transactions to see the differences that prevail there. As far as we are now informed, these differences are irrecon- cilable. And it would certainly take a bold prophet to predict that these diversities would come to a speedy and harmonious oneness. If an armistice has been concluded, it is doubtless on the general principle of agreeing to disagree. And yet all these brethren co- operate in the great enterprises before them. These diversities do not interfere with their Christian activities. Their educational and mission operations, and their institutions of learning and piety, are 102 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. alike dear to them all, receiving their hearty and united sympathies and aid. And yet I hesitate not in saying, and take all the respon- sibility of the statement, that the differences of most of these general bodies are not a whit greater than these smaller family dif- ferences. Why then should it seem an unreasonable thing to suppose that such co-operation could be had among them ? It surely does not demand, as already stated, a oneness of sentiment in all the minii- tm of religious views. No sane man will demand that. Well, then, sir, it is absolutely certain, that these general bodies will never be of one mind on every little detail, any more than these sub- bodies. What then? Let them remain in eternal antagonism? No, sir ! If they cannot be of one mind, let them be, like the first Christians, of one heart and one soul ! Let charity ascend the throne, and trample prejudice — that devil's wasp — into the mire. Let but simple honesty be done to all, and Luther's explanation of the eighth commandment be carried out, and I have no fears of the consequences. That matchless allegorist, John Bunyan, says in his Holy War, that Mr. Prejudice fell and broke his leg ; and then adds: " I wish he had broken his neck." From my innermost soul I say, Ainen, to that devout wish ! REMARKS OF REV. R. A. FINK, D. D. {General Synod.) I have listened to the discussions in this Diet with deep interest from the beginning, and it seems to me that the chief cause of division in the Church, and difficulty in the way of general co-operation in matters of general interest, grow out of one thing ; that is, the manner of explaining or attempting to explain the mode or manner of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper. That He is present we all agree ; but as to the hotv, we differ. I think the surest way to bring about union and general co-operation in the Church would be to cease requiring a uniform explanation of the manner of the Lord's presence. In my acquaintance with Lutherans and Lutheran ministers, I know of very few, if any, who if asked, " Do you be- DISCUSSION. 103 lieve that the Lord is really present in the Holy Supper ?' would not unhesitatingly say, "Yes, I believe." " I believe Chrst meant what He said when He declared, ' This is my body,' etc. — t's a mys- tery — I can't explain it." For myself, I adopt unhesitaingly the very words of the Augsburg Confession, as I do the word of the in- stitution itself. I call it a sacramental presence. Several voices : In the bread ? Dr. Fink : Yes, in the bread. The difficulty, I repeat, arises from an attempt to expain the man- ner, and the viodus operandi of imparting the promsed blessing. This is the fruitful source of difference amongst us. Let us, then, not require any manner of explanation of the myster' of the Lord's presence in the Eucharist, as we require none of the .nystery of the Trinity in the formula of Holy Baptism. This difficulty out of the way, and the whole Church, it seems to me, could eisily be brought together, and could most harmoniously cooperrte in the great work of the spread of the gospel ; other differeices would soon vanish. REMARKS OF REV. W. S. EMERY {Gaieal Council.) I can well see why Dr. Brown refused to be stopped at the rap of your gavel when his time had expired. Theclosing sentences of his paper were the finest, the most beautiful md touching, in his entire essay. The paper was prepared with considerable are and research ; but unfortunately, it repeatedly used the phrase, "the four general bodies in our Church all agree substantially y This term " substan- tially" was used throughout the entire essa', without one word of definition. The undefined use of this pr')minent and equivocal word constitutes the great weakness of the issay. This is especially noticeable, as it comes historically on the heels of the formulary so much used for thirt} years in the reception of the Augsburg Confession. I refer to thot formulary which reads : 104 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. "We tlieve that the fundamental doctrh-ies of God's Word are taught i a manner substantially correct in the Augsburg Confes- sion," \iiich was formerly used as a means of evading the force of any articb in the noble Confession, that any one chose to reject. If Dr. Irown, however, mean literally what he says, Avith an unex- ceptionabt definition in its historical connection, then this historical substantiaiagreement must be received in the spirit, the life, the theology, fte entire doctrinal agreement, in the very words of our noble Confusion. The candid and clear belief of our great Con- fession, ana an upright confession of its doctrines everywhere, would form \ glorious bond of all Lutherans, in all languages and all lands. REMARIsk OF REV. J. A. BROWN, D. D. (General Synod.) I am not at all ambitious to occupy the time which belongs to me in closing tiis discussion. There is little that I desire to add. If I have failedto make myself understood in the forty-five minutes allowed me to rkd, it is not likely that I will improve the matter by ten minutes' ektemporaneous speaking. So little exceptLn has been taken to the essay that it might be inferred that we a\e all in favor of " harmoniously co operating." If this be so, it shaild be the cause of devout gratitude. About the only exception foriially taken, has been to the use of the word "substantially," or mat these bodies "agree substantially," without defining the term. V\s the word itself is a defining term, it seems ridiculous to ask thanit again be defined, for this would be to start on a process that has no end. We think most persons understand the iiieaning of the Mord subsia?itially ; and the fling at one of these four bodies in wiich the term is said to have been covertly used, is neither timely nor wise. That body is not here on trial, and if it were, it wouldvnot be wanting for cheerful and willing de- fenders. It would permps be wissr and better for any who are anxious for work of thisUdnd to look well to their own defences. DISCUSSION. 105 Should any, as a matter of taste, prefer any other term to express the same general idea, I certainly have no objections. For myself, I have no such difficulties as some are exercised with, about either substantial agreement, or harmonious co-operation. The platform on which I stand is broad enough, anfl I will venture to add firm enough, to receive all genuine Lutherans. I stand where I have stood for nearly a third of a century, and where I hope to continue standing as long as I am permitted to remain in the Church on earth. In this position I find no difficulty, on my part, in co-oparating with Lutherans of different tendencies, pro- viding only that they recognize me as I recognize them. On this broad catholic Lutheran basis I could fellowship and co operate with those who believe a great deal niDre than I do. I should not quarrel with any for receiving all the Symbolical Books, and believ- ing every word contained in them. But I ask the liberty of not making their capacity to receive and believe the rule for me, if I am not able to believe quite so much. I will respect their faith if they respect mine, and I will respect their Lutheranism if they re- spect mine. With this mutual respect for each other, we can agree to co-operate, and co-operate as Lutherans. But just here is the difficulty. Some are not willing to grant any such liberty, or to recognize any such differences in the Lutheran Church. Whilst I would be willing to acknowledge their Lutheranism, though prefer- ring my own, they are not willing to acknowledge mine. And if any think that this is a concession of their superior claims, I have only to say, so much the worse for them that they are thus unwill- ing. We are as well satisfied with our Lutheranism as they can be with theirs. Co-operation on our part is invited on terms alike scriptural and honorable to all, and if any will not, they are left to God and their own consciences. lean but reiterate the points " wherein we agree," and express the conviction that they are quite sufficient for harmonious co- operation. Other denominations around us have differences greater than ours, and yet co-operate. Similar differences exist in each 8 ' I06 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. one of these four bodies^ and yet they severally co-operate. I can see no good reason why Lutherans might not do the same. We are now a spectacle and a wonder to many round about us, who do not understand our differences, and the time may come when we will be a greater wonder to ourselves than we now are to others. But I have said all that I care at present to say, and will close with the expression of my most ardent wishes for unity of spirit, harmony and co-operation throughout the whole Lutheran Church. Adjourned. THIRD SESSION. December 27th, 7:30 v. m. After prayer by Rev. J. F. Reinmund, D. D., of Lebanon, Pa., the fourth paper was read. THE HISTORY AND PROGRESS OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. RY REV. H. E. JACOBS, D. D. Franklin Professor in Pennsylvania College, Gettysburg, Pa. ALTHOUGH the foundations of the Lutheran Church in Amer- ica are only now beginning to be really laid, yet the efforts of the present cannot be fully understood without a consideration of the lessons that our past history, as a Church on this continent, has taught us. It is a fortunate circumstance, that we possess such full contem- porary records of many of the earliest struggles of Lutheranism in America ;^ and that in later years, a number of our brethren have been so diligent in presenting to our English speaking people the story of the labors of their fathers, and in accumulating mater- ial for the future historian of our Church.' It is our purpose to 1 (rt) History of New Sweden, by Israel Acrelius, formerly Provost of the Swedish churches on the Delaware, Stockholm, 1759. Translated by W. M. Reynolds, D. D., Philadelphia, 1874. (/') Nachrichten von den vereinigten Deutschen Ev. Luth. Gemein. in Amer- ica, absonderlich in Pennsylvanien. Halle, 175S-87. (^) The Urlspergcr Reports from the Lutheran Salzburger pastors in Georgia. ''■ History of the American Lutheran Church, by E. L. Hazelius, D. D., Zanesville, 0., 1846. The American Lutheran Church, by S. S. Schmucker, D. D., Philadelphia, 1852. The Salzburgers and their Descendants, by Rev. P. A. Strobel, Baltimore, 1855. Early History of the Lutheran Church in America, by C. W. Schaeffer, D. D., Philadelphia, 1857. Memoir of the Life and Times of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, by M. L. Stoever, LL.D., Philadelphia, 1856. History of the German Settlements and of the Lutheran Church in North and South Carolina, by G. D. Bernheim, D. D. To these we may add the Reminiscences of Lutheran Ministers, by Dr. Stoever, in the (107) I08 FREE LUTHERAN DIET, condense into the limits allowed us, the leading facts scattered through these various sources. The Lutheran Church in America is probably over two hundred and fifty years old. The precise year of earliest origin, is involved somewhat in doubt ; yet we may consider it at least probable, that fifteen years before the Baptists, sixty-five before the Presbyterians, and one hundred and forty before the Methodists had made a be- ginning, and only a year or two after the landing of the Puritans on Plymouth Rock, there were faithful confessors of the Lutheran Church already on these shores; and that the land which, in 1523, gave our faith its first martyrs, gave it almost a century later its first witnesses in this western world, in fulfillment of Luther's pre- diction that the voices of those two youths who were burned in the Netherlands, would yet be heard proclaiming the testimony of Jesus to many nations.^ Worthy successors of their martyred coun- trymen, were the Dutch Lutherans of New Amsterdam. Few in number, among their countrymen of the Reformed faith, no per- suasion could induce them to enter into the communion of the Churches that subscribed to the decrees of the Synod of Dort, and persecution proved as unavailing as persuasion.* They were forced to meet in private houses; they were fined; ;^ioo was the penalty Evangelical Review, and his contributions to Sprague's Annals of the Amer- ican Lutheran Pulpit, and McCHntock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, and several articles by Dr. W. M. Reynolds, in the Evangelical Review (Swedish Churches on the Delaware, i : 161 ; Lutheran Church in Netherlands and New York, 6: 303; German Emigration to North America, 13: i; Scandinavians in the N. W., 3: 399, etc.). The Evangelisches Magazin of Dr. Helmuth, the Lutheran Intelligencer of Dr. D. F. Schaeffer, and the Ltdheran Magazine of Dr. G. A. Lintner, contain considerable historical material. We have been greatly aided in the preparation of this paper by the use of the Library of the Historical Society of the Lutheran Church, in the Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, which contains an almost complete set of the Minutes of Lutheran Synods in America, and much other rare and valuable material. 'We find Lutherans mentioned in the earliest classification of the inhabi- tants of the New Netherlands, according to their faith. See report of the Jesuit Father Jogue (1643), Documentary History of New York, IV. p. 19. Hence the inference that there were Lutherans in the colony from the begin- ning in 1622. The same paper notices the presence in New Amsterdam also of Roman Catholics, English Puritans and Anabaptists, called Mnists. *For details, see Brodhead's History of New York, L 582, 617, 634, 642. DR. JACOBS ESSAY. IO9 for preaching the Gospel ; £^2^ for attending a Lutheran service; they were imprisoned; their "conventicles" were broken up. Even the year after the West India Company had rebuked this in- tolerance of Gov. Peter Stuyvesant, Rev. John E. Goetwater, sent as a Lutheran pastor by the consistory of Amsterdam, was saved from immediate banishment upon reaching New Amsterdam, only by his ill health, which procured a stay of procedure for four months. In the published archives of the State of New York,'' there is an in- teresting letter from Megapolensis and Drisius, Reformed pastors, dated August 5th, 1657, recounting " the injuries that threaten this community by the encroachments of the heretical spirits," in which the following occurs : "It came to pass that a Lutheran preacher, named Joannes Ernestus Goetwater, arrived in the ship, the Mill, to the great joy of the Lutherans, and especial discontent and dis- appointment of the congregation of this place; yea, of the whole land, even of the English. * * We already have the snake in our bosom." * * In conclusion, these earnest champions of the Reformed faith, beg that "a stop be put to the work, which they seem to intend to push forward with a hard Lutheran pate, in de- spite and opposition of the regents " Our Dutch brethren do not seem to have been unwilling to attend the Reformed service, and to show proper respect to the religious convictions of their country- men ; but the controversy centered especially upon the administra- tion of Baptism, in which the effort was made to extort from them the promise to train up their children in the doctrines of the Synod of Dort. The conquest of the colony by the English, in 1664, gave the Lutherans religious liberty ; but nine years before this de- liverance, the same power that oppressed the Dutch Lutherans, when it prevailed in New Sweden, had banished two of the three Swedish Lutheran pastors. The third was allowed to remain, be- cause other troubles diverted the attention of the government, and "we had no Reformed preacher to establish there, or who under- stood their language. "•* A recent writer has brought to light the history of a colony of Dutch Lutherans on James' Island, S, C, as ^ Documentary History of New York, 3 : 103. ^ Ev. Review, i: 176, from O'Callaghan's History of the New Netherlands 2 : 289, 290, translation of letter of Dominie Megapolensis, by Rev. Dr. De Witt. I lO FREE LUTHERAN DIET. early as 1674, and the proscription wliich they suffered from the Church of England.'' Meanwhile, the Lutheran Church had gained another foothold in this country. Almost on the very territory on which this diet is to-day assembled, the colony of New Sweden was planted, two hun- dred and forty years ago. The first Lutheran Church edifice on this continent was erected within the walls of Fort Christina, now Wilmington, Del , probably in 1638 ; and the first Lutheran minis- ter was the Rev. Reorus Torkillus, who after eight years' service here, died in 1643.*^ Campanius, the second pastor, was the first Protestant missionary to the North American Indians, being several years earlier in this work than the distinguished John Eliot. He translated Luther's catechism into the Delaware language, and to his influence and that of his successors, belongs much of the credit for the success of the Indian policy of William Penn f as the In- dians with whom Penn had to do were those among whom these Swedish pastors had lived and labored. The first Lutheran Church in Pennsylvania was built in Delaware county, in 1646.'" Not long after, the present limits of this city were entered. An old block- house at Wicacoa served for awhile as a house of worship, and on its site, in 1700, Gloria Dei Church was dedicated." Altogether, there were at least six of these churches, ministered to for over a century and three-quarters, by a succession of thirty-five pastors, most of them men of strong faith and eminent devotion, the last of whom died in 1831.'- They were presided over by Provosts, of whom the most prominent were the historian Acrelius and Von Wrangel. Some of their ministers preached in English, German and Dutch, besides Swedish. Thus we find Rudman serving the Dutch Lutheran Church at Albany'^ in the beginning of the eigh- teenth century, Dylander organizing into congregations the Ger- mans of Lancaster and Germantown, and Von Wrangel preaching for the churches at Lancaster and York. " Three of their pastors in 1703, administered, in Gloria Dei Church, the first rite of Lu- 'Bernheim's History, 56. s^crelius, 85. 'Acrelius, 85, 366. Schaeffer's Early History, 21, Dr. Reynolds in Ev Review, I : 173. A copy of this catechism is in the library of the Lutheran His- torical Society at Gettysburg. 10 Acrelius, 43. n Acrelius, 203. ^2 Acrelius, 313, 344, 349. 13 Acrelius, 213. "^^Ev. Review, I : 142. DR. JACOBS ESSAY, 1 1 I theran ordination in America, the clergyman ordained being the Rev. Justus Falkner,'"' serving congregations in Montgomery county, and afterward pastor of the Dutch Lutheran Church in New York. In 1743, the year after tlie arrival of the patriarch Muhlen- berg, a union between the Germans and Swedes was proposed ; but was frustrated chiefly by the efforts of Nyberg, whose affiliations with the Moravians rendered him especially hostile to Muhlenberg, as the latter had just rescued the German Church in Philadelphia from Zinzendorf/" and whose erratic career subsequently occasioned the church at Lancaster so much trouble/" and resulted in his deposi- tion by the Swedish Archbishop.^^ At the organization of the Min- isterium of Pennsylvania in this city, in 1748, two of their pastors were present and took a prominent part in all the proceedings,'" and at succeeding meetings of the Ministerium, recorded in the Halle Reports, the Swedisli pastors were always represented, Provost Von Wrangel in his day being no less active on the floor of Synod than Dr. Muhlenberg himself. But unfortunately as the churches be- came anglicized,'^" neither the Swedish nor German ministers could supply them with sufficient English preaching, and English Lutheran ministers were not to be found. The Protestant Episcopal Church, in its weakness, had been nursed by the Swedish Lutheran pastors. When unable to worship in a house of their own, the Lutherans had permitted the Episcopalians to hold service regularly in their church ; and Lutheran ministers who had command of the English language, had repeatedly served them for considerable periods, both in the pulpit, and in pastoral ministration.-^ Occasionally an Episcopal minister would also fill a Swedish Lutheran pulpit, and they would even assist in the consecration of the churches of each other. ■■ The result, therefore, was almost inevitable, that, in their perplexity, iSAcrelius, 214. l6Acrelius, 245, 1" Hall. Nach., 67, 69, 230, 232, 673, 1354. 18 Acrelius, 336. 19 Especially in the ordination of Rev. William Kurtz, Hall. Nach., 2S4. 21 Divine service in English became necessary in the Swedish Churches as early as 1750. See Acrelius, 305, 342. The manner in which it was intro- duced, more fully given, p. 360. 21 Acrelius, 219, 220, 361. This service not only was rendered without com- pensation, but often, as Acrelius states, without any return to the Lutheran pastors of expenses incurred in this extra service. ^^ Acrelius, 361, 220. 112 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. they would turn to the Episcopal Church for help, and that they would be sure to find it. Episcopal ministers first became the as- sistants of the Lutheran pastors. The charters were first altered, so as to allow the services of either Lutheran or Episcopal pastors ;^^ and the Lutheran name at length disappeared altogether.'" The German emigration to American began about 1680,-'' although we find no record of a German Lutheran Church or pastor until the next century. 1703 is the date of Falkner's ordination, and his early labors in Montgomery county. ^*' 1708 notes the emigration of the Palatinate pastor Kocherthal,-' and his little colony, to the west bank of the Hudson, where on the present site of Newburgh, fifty acres were given each colonist, and a glebe of five hundred acres donated " for the maintenance of a Lutheran minister and his successors forever," but which unfortunately at last fell into the hands of the Episcopalians. In 17 10, other Lutheran Palatinates settled in the. neighborhood of Newbern, North Carolina.^** About the same time, another band, after a voyage of almost incredible hardship, reached New York, and with many sufferings, making their way through the wilderness, purchased land from the Indians, and formed the settlements at Schoharie. '■^^ Others found a home on both sides of the Hudson, a hundred miles north of New York,'^° and together with the Dutch Lutheran element previously settled, formed the basis for the twenty-two congregations, now in Columbia, Dutchess and Ulster counties. ^^ Others remained in New York, and added to the strength of the Dutch congregation f'^ while still others ''^^ Ev. Revieiv, i: 194. Hazelius' History, p. 23. 2* As late as 1873, the Church at Upper Merion, Montgomery co., still re- mained independent of the Episcopal Church, although ministered to by Epis- copal rectors. Reynolds' Acrelius, 350. 25 Hall. Nach., 665. =6 Supra. *^ The history of this colony is given with considerable fullness in the Docu- mentary History of New York, 3: 540-607. See especially the protest of Rev. Knoll against the transfer of the glebe to the English Church, p. 583. 28 Fullest account in Bernheim, p. 67 seq. See also Ev. Review, 13: 19. 29 For many cotemporary documents, see Doc. Hist, of N. Y., Vol. 3 ; also article of Ev. Review, above quoted; Schaefifer 72 seq.; Hazelius, 26. 30 Hall. Nach., 74. Ev. Reviezv, 13: 27. 31 U. S. Census for 1S70. ^'^ Ev. Revieiv, 13: 24. Quart. Review, 7: 272. DR. JACOBS ESSAY. I 1 3 settled in Pennsylvania along the Swatara andTulpehocken.'" The Dutch congregations in New York and Loonenburgh were diligent in caring for their German brethren ; but in Pennsylvania, notwith- standing the ministrations of the Swedish pastors, the spiritual desti- tution among the Germans was appalling, and the people were at the mercy of impostors. The deputation sent to Europe in 1 733 by the churches of Philadelphia, New Hanover and Providence, present in the Halle Reports a sad picture of the condition of our Church at that time "in a land full of sects and heresy, without ministers and teachers, schools, churches and books. "^* The result of this mission was the identification, with our succeeding history, of the names of Muhlenberg, Brunnholtz, Handschuh, Kurtz, Schaum, Schultze, Heintzleman, Helmuth, Schmidt and others, who were sent from Halle during the period from 1742 to 1769. We cannot dwell upon the almost superhuman labors of Muhlenberg and his associates, in contending with imposiors, organizing churches, founding schools, preaching the Gospel from house to house as well as in churches, and diligently supplying the long-neglected Wants of their countrymen. Meanwhile, in 1734, the Salzburgers, refugees from Romish per- secution, with their two ministers, Bolzius and Gronau, had settled at Ebenezer, Ga.;'*^ and before the middle of the eighteenth cen- tury, a church had been established as far north as Maine,'"' and important centres had been formed in Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas. At the beginning of the nineteenth contury, the prospect pre- sented to an observer would have been as follows : The IMinister- ium of Pennsylvania with its semi-centenniaP" already past, and 33 Hall. Nach., 976. Schaeffer, 76. »* Hall. Nach., 4. 35 Prof. Walker, late Superintendent of the U. S. census, has fallen into the same error as Bancroft, in his paper in the volume, " The First Century of the Republic," p. 232, by referring to the Salzburgers as Moravians. Strobel, IJern- heim, Hazelius, Schaeffer, Muhlenberg's Journal in Ev. Rci>ic7v, I : 390, 534; 2 : 113 ; 3 : 1 15, 418, 582 ; 4: 172, and Dr. Stoever's memoirs of Bolzius, and J. E. and C. F. Bergman, Ev. Review, 9: I, 13 ; 6: 553, give interesting de- tails. 36 For the history of this congregation, see article of Dr. Pohlman, in Ev. Revie-iv, 20: 440. 37 The date of organization was August 14th, 174S. Hall. Nach., 2S4. 114 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. the last of its foiinders^^ deceased for four years, embraced also Maryland and Virginia, and reported 53 ministers, 300 congrega- tions, and a population of 50,000 families.^" The Ministerium of New York, organized fifteen years before with fourteen ministers,*" had decreased to eight. "'^ At least six ministers were serving congre- gations in the Carolinas,*' gathered three years afterwards into the North Carolina Synod. Altogether, after the efforts of one hun- dred and seventy-five years, we numbered less than 70 pastors, where we now have 2900." Zion'S; the mother church in this city, of which Dr. Helmuth and Rev. Schmidt were the joint pastors, was strong, as may be inferred from the fact that in a year in which the mortality was not exceptional, 187 deaths are reported in the congregation.'** It supported four parochial schools, with Dr. C. F. Endress, then a young man of twenty-five, as superintendent, at- tended by 250 pupils.*^ Dr. Helmuth*" was also Professor in the University of Pennsylvania, in which he had succeeded his prede- cessor in the pastoral office, Dr. Kunze. Dr. F. D. Schaeffer was at Germantown j C. F. Wildbahn, after a pastorate of eighteen years, was still performing occasional ministerial acts at Reading ; Dr. Henry Ernst IMuhlenberg was at Lancaster ; Jacob Goering at York ; Henry Mueller at Harrisburg ; John Grob was organizing the church at Gettysburg; Dr. J. G. Schmucker was at Hagers- town ; Dr. Geo. Lochman, at Lebanon; Dr. F. W. Geissen- hainer, sr., in Montgomery county; Dr. J. D. Kurtz, in Balti- more; Christian Streit, at Winchester, and J. G. Butler, missionary of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, in West Virginia and Ten- nessee. In the New York Ministerium, Dr. Kunze was pastor in New York, and Professor in Columbia College, while his 3^The founders of the Ministerium were Dr. H. M. Muhlenberg, f 1787, the Swedish Provost Sandin, who died the same month that the Ministerium was organized, Handschuh,f 1764, Brunnholtz, f 1758, Schaurii,f 1778, J. N. Kurtz, f 1794, Hartwig, f 1796. Naesman, the second Swedish pastor, re- turned to Sweden a few years afterward, and the date of his death is uncertain. 39 Hazard's Register of Pennsylvania, 4 : 372. *° Hazelius, 109. 41 Hazard, as above. *' j)o. *3 Lutheran Almanac for 1878, 2905 ; Lutherische Kalender, 2914. ** Hazard's Register, 4: 373. ^^ Hazard, do.; £v. Review, 6: 23. *^For the most of these data, see Stoever's Reminiscences, in Evangelical Review, and Sprague's Annals of the American Lutheran Pulpit. DR. JACOBS ESSAY. I I 5 English assistant Strebeck was organizing a congregation, wliich afterwards went over bodily to the Episcopal Church, not however until their pastor had preceded them several years " Farther south C. A. G. Stork and Paul Henkel were laboring as yet harmoniously in North Carolina, both in that very year astonished and confused by some of the earlier revival movements of this country/* The venerable John N. Martin, for a quarter of a century pastor of the church at Charleston, S. C, had died only five years before; and the churches at Ebenezer and Savannah were still served by the elder Bergman. Dr. Kunze was acknowledged as among the first Oriental scholars in America,'*" J. F. Schmidt, of Philadelphia, was an accomplished astronomer, while Muhlenberg, of Lancaster, and Melsheimer, of Hanover, by their cultivation of special branches of Natural History, still hold an eminent place among naturalists. One of our ministers had been a Major-General in the Revolutionary army, and another, his brother, the first speaker of the National House of Representatives. Franklin College at Lancaster, under the joint control of Lutheran and Reformed, with Dr. H. E. Muh- lenberg as its first President, had been established thirteen years before.^" The L^niversity of Pennsylvania and Dickinson College both contained among their trustees representative men of our Church. '^1 Dr. Helmuth and Rev. Schmidt had for fifteen years already been conducting a private theological seminary in Phila- delphia, in which such men as J. G. Lochman, Endress, J. G. Schmucker, J. Miller, Baker, Butler, Goering, Baetes and others, were prepared for the ministry.^'' Two years after this, viz., in 1S02, the labors of Dr. Lochman, sr., in the same direction, began." The introduction of English preaching was already agitating the congregations. Dr. Kunze, at an early period, had insisted on its necessity. At successive elections from 1803-6 in the German church in this city, the opponents of English preaching prevailed by only a small majority. In tlie election of 1806, 1400 votes were polled, and as the result, a colony withdrew and founded St. John's, the first ex- clusively English Lutheran church in Pennsylvania. In 181 4, the " Qitarlerly Review, 7: 27S. ■'8 Beinheim, 350. ^"See the opinions of Dr. Samuel Miller, of Princeton, and J. \V. Francis. M. D., of New York, in Sprague's Annals, 55. ^^ Ev. Reviccv, 10: 534. ^^ Ev. Review, lO: 2SS, 290. S2 Ev. Review, lo: 555 ; 6: 5, " ^-^ Revieiv, 6: 21. Il6 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. desire for English preaching again became strong in the German congregation, and led in the course of time to the founding of the second English church, St. Matthew's, whose guests we are to-day.^* These were not isolated occurrences, but symptoms of a movement that was manifesting itself throughout the entire country. So strong was it, that in 1805 the Ministerium of Pennsylvania felt the neces- sity of passing the enactment that it must remain a German speak- ing body,^^ and, in 181 4, Drs. J. D. Kurtz and G. Lochman, in the name of the same Ministerium, published an address^® devoted mostly to the necessity of maintaining German schools and German divine service. We can fully sympathize with the regret of these worthy men, that with the loss of the German language, the religious in- struction of the young was neglected, German diligence and frugal- ity abandoned, and the precious hymns, and prayers, and books of devotion forgotten; yet that even adherence to the German would not necessarily preserve a congregation in the faith of our Church, was demonstrated by the sad history of the congregation of the ven- erable Dr. Kurtz himself. The anglicizing of the people was inevi • table ; and the call made upon the Church then, as now, was to so control this process that it would involve only a change of language, and not, at the same time, of faith. The New York Ministerium, owing perhaps to the presence of the Dutch element, ^^'^ the earlier German settlement, and the diminishing of the tide of German emi- gration to that State, was comparatively soon anglicized. As early 5* Hazard's Register, 4 : 372. 55 The resolutions are as follows : " i. The present Lutheran Ministerium in Pennsylvania and adjacent States must remain a German-speaking Ministerium, and no proposition can be entertained which would render necessary any other language than the German, in Synodical meetings and business transactions. 2. English-speaking Lutherans, who cannot understand the German service, may organize themselves into congregations of their own. 3, In case such English Lutheran congregations be established, the German Lutheran Ministe- rium will regard their members as brethren, and is willing to recognize their delegates, and also, after an examination, their ministers as members of Synod, provided they submit to its constitution, and attend the meeting of Synod." Passed at Germantown, June 12, 1S05, and published in the " Ministerial Ord- nung"of 1813, p. 19. 56 Address to " all the Germans of the United States, and especially the Ger- man inhabitants of Virginia." 56a jS;^. Rtvieiv, 6: 327. DR. JACOBS ESSAY. I I / as 1815, it was almost entirely English ; although, unfortunately, wanting in a clear confession of our faith, and hence unfit for the foundation of the work of our Church in the English language. Nor were the churches of that period deficient in missionary ac- tivity. In 1806, the Ministerium of Pennsylvania appointed three missionaries. One died. A second set out from New Market, Va., traveled southwest three hundred miles to the Great Kanawha; thence northwest sixty-six miles to Chillicothe ; thence southwest forty miles to Brush Creek ; thence seventy miles to Lebanon ; thence north thirty miles to Montgomery Co., O. The report states: "Our tongue cannot describe the triumphs won by his presence, or depict the impression made on many hearts." The third traveled thirteen hundred miles in one hundred and twenty- two days, and preached sixty-seven times. A similar report was made to Synod two years later. Our first regular theological school, Hart wick Seminary, New York, was established in 1816,°" with Rev. Dr. Hazelius as the first professor of theology. In 1818, against the advice of the mother Synod, the Synod of Ohio was formed by the missionaries of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, living west of the Alleghanies, and nine years afterwards numbered 25 ministers and 95 congrega- tions.^^ In 1820, the Synod of Maryland and Virginia was organ- ized, and the rupture occurred in the North Carolina Synod, that resulted in the formation of the Tennessee Synod. ^^ The same year witnessed the convention held at Hagerstown, by the delegates of the Ministeriums of Pennsylvania and New York, and the Synods of North Carolina, and Maryland and Virginia, to form the Gen- eral Synod.*^" At the first convention of that body, held the suc- ceeding year, the New York Ministerium failed to appear. In 1823 the Ministerium of Pennsylvania withdrew,"' and as a consequence, 5" The classical school at Harlwick was opened December 15th, 1815. Its charter as a theological seminary is dated August loth, 1S16. Hartwick Me- morial Volume, pp. 37, 38. 68 Hazelius, 155. *^Bernheim, 440; Hazelius, 14S ; Luih. Intelligencer, passim. ^"See the " Proposed Plan for a General Union of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States of America," adopted by the Ministerium of Pennsylvania at Baltimore, in 1S19. Ev. Revie-w, 12 : 590. 61 The withdrawal of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania was not because of Il8 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. the churches west of the Susquehanna left the Ministerium in 1825, and, under the title of the West Pennsylvania Synod, remained in the General Synod. "^ One year before this, the South Carolina Synod was organized. At the end of the first quarter of the pres- ent century, our church had grown to 164 ministers, 475 congrega- tions, and 45,000 communicants. Of the congregations reported, no less than 100 were without pastors. ^'^«. Three theological seminaries soon came into existence, and con- tributed largely to our further development, viz., m 1826, that of the General Synod at Gettysburg, and in 1830, that of the Ohio Synod at Columbus, and of the South Carolina Synod, first at New- berry, then at Lexington, then again at Newberry, and now trans- ferred to the General Synod of North America, and located at Salem, Va. The influence of a Lutheran press also began to make itself felt. As early as 181 1, the Ministerium of Pennsylvania started a synod- ical organ — in German — under the editorship of Dr. Helmuth and Rev. Schmidt, which ran its course in about three years. The Lu- theran Intelligencer, edited by Dr. D. F. Schaeffer, at Frederick, Md,, from 1826-31; the Lutheran Magazine, edited by Dr. Lintner, and published for three years at Schoharie, N. Y. ; the Lutheran Obseiver, founded in 1831, and whose first editor is the president of this Diet; the Lutheran Preacher, published by Dr. Eichel- berger, at Winchester, Va., in 1833-4; the Lutheran Standard, founded in 1842, whose first editor, Dr. Greenwald, we had hoped to find with us to-day ; the Missionary of Dr. Passavant, founded in 1848; the Evangelical Lutheran, the Oliv eB ranch, the Home dissatisfaction with the new organization, but because of the unreasonable fear prevalent in many of its congregations of an increase of ecclesiastical power. See the comparatively recent reference in " The Synod of Pennsylvania, and the late Convention at Ft. Wayne, Ind., 1866," p. 12 ; and the resolution on p. 16, Minutes of 1823: " Resolved, That the above resolutions shall remain in force, until such time in the future as the congregations themselves shall see their mistake of our true intention, and shall call for a reconsideration of these resolutions." 62 See manuscript record of the preliminary conference between Drs. J. G. and S. S. Schmucker and Rev. J. Herbst, in Library of Historical Society. 62» See Address to the congregations of the West Pennsylvania Synod by Revs. Dr. J. G. Schmucker, J. G. Graeber and J. Herbst, 25, p. 2. DR. JACOBS' ESSAY. I I9 Journal, the Ltttheran, the Lutheran and Missionary, tlie Lutheran Watchman, the Lutheran Visitor, Our Church Paper, the Church Messenger, the Evangelical Review, tlie Quarterly Review, not to mention any but EngHsh papers/'' or even to make their list exhaust- ive, all have performed an important part in the development of the interests of the Church. With all the defects that have marred many of their issues, the Church owes to-day a great debt of grati- tude to its press. At present, every tendency within the Church that would assert its claims, feels the need of an organ, and for every advance the Church has made, the press has heralded the way. The utterances of our Church press carry more weight with them than even the resolutions of Synods, which are easily passed, and unless vigorously supported by the press, as a rule are soon for- gotten. We cannot enter into the details of the last fifty years. There are venerable men in this Diet, who have been prominently identi- fied with the movements of our Church in that period, to whom we must look for a full record of the struggles through which we have gathered the strength of to-day. A few facts, however, must be noticed. Such are the increase in strength of the General Synod, by the return, under certain clearly defined conditions, ''*■''' of the ** The principal German periodicals have been Das Evangelische Alagazin of Helmuth and Schmidt, mentioned above; Das Evangclischc Magazin of Rev. Ilerbst and Drs. S. S. Schmucker and E. L. Hazelius, Gettysburg, 1829-33; the Ilirteiistimnie and Kii'chenbote of Rev. C. Weyl, Baltimore, of which the latter was afterwards edited at Gettysburg and Selinsgrove by Rev. Anstadt; the Lu- i/ierisc/ie Kirchenzeitung, edited by Rev. F. Schmidt at Easton, Pa., for several years after 1838; Wie yiigeii/i-cund; ihQ Ltitltcrische Zeitschri/i, and Theo-Moft' atshefte of Pastor S. K. Brobst ; the Lutherische Herold, published in New York ; the Lutherische Kirchenzeitung, published at Columbus, Ohio ; the Lekre und IVehre, Lutheraner, Magazin filr Ev. Luth. Homilclik, of the Mis- souri Synod: the Kirchenblatt and Kirchliche Zeitschrift, of the Iowa Synod ; the liiforinatorium and VVachcnJe Kirche, of the two sections of the Buffalo Synod ; the Gemeiiidcblatt, of the Wisconsin Synod ; the Kirchenblatt, of the Canada Synod ; the Kirchenfreumi, of the General Synod, etc. We enter upon 1878 with 60 periodicals, exclusive of Almanacs, viz., 27 Ger- man, 17 English, 4 Swedish, 12 Norwegian and Danish. In 1854, only 11 in all languages are reported. 63«Minutes of New York Ministerium for 1836, p. 19; of Min. of Pa., 1853, p. 18. I20 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. Ministerium of New York in 1837, and of Pennsylvania in 1S53, and the admission of numerous other Synods, a few of which were very small and soon became extinct, or were merged into others. These Synods were the Hartwick, admitted in 1831, the South Car- olina in 1835, t'""^ Virginia in 1839, ^^'^^ Synod of the West in 1841, the English, of Ohio,*'' the Alleghany, the Southwest Virginia, and East Pennsylvania in 1843, the Miami in 1845, the Illinois, South- west and Wittenberg in 1848, the Olive Branch in 1850, the Pitts- burgh, Texas and North Illinois in 1853, the Kentucky, English District of Ohio and Central Pennsylvania in 1855, the North Indi- ana, South Illinois and English Iowa in 1857, Melanchthon in 1859, New Jersey in 1862, Minnesota and Franckean in 1864, Susquehanna, New York, Central Illinois and (second) Pittsburgh®' in 1868, Kan- sas in 1869, Nebraska, Ansgari and German Maryland in 1875, Wartburg and Augsburg in 1877. The civil war caused a division in the General Synod, resulting in the withdrawal of the Synods of North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Southwest Virginia. A second division was occasioned by the admission of the Franckean 6* The student of the history of our Synods is liable to be confused among the English Synods of Ohio. The original English Synod of Ohio was a dis- trict of the Joint Synod. In 1840 it split, one division remaining in the Joint Synod, and the other leaving it, and both claiming the name of English Synod of Ohio. In 1857, the body which left the Joint Synod, and united with the General Synod, changed its name to Eastern Synod of Ohio. The other body in time left the Joint Synod, and following the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, united with the General Synod in 1855, left it in 1866, aided in the organiza- tion of the General Council, and was finally merged, in 1872, into the English District Synod of Ohio (No. 2) and Pittsburgh Synod. The English District Synod of Ohio (No. 2) was formed after the separation of its predecessor from Joint Synod, participated in the organization of the General Council, and in turn also left the Joint Synod. The English District Synod of Ohio (No. 3) was formed after the separation of No. 2 from the Joint Synod, and still main- tains its connection, as one of the district Synods of that body. 6aAt its Twenty-fourth Convention at Rochester, Pa., in 1866, the Pittslnirgh Synod, by a vote of 50 to 23, left the General Synod, and at the next meeting by a vote of 63 to 21, adopted the "Fundamental Principles of Faith and Church Polity" of the General Council. The most of the minority, viz., ten ministers and seven laymen, withdrew, claiming the name and corporate rights of the entire body, on the ground of an alleged violation of the consti- tution by the majority. The action of the General Synod in 1868 approved this claim, by recognizing the minority as though no resolution of withdrawal had ever been passed. DR. JACOBS ESSAY, 121 Synod in 1864, which led the delegates of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania to withdraw, in view of the fact that the Franckean Synod had not as yet received the Augsburg Confession as its con- fession of faith/'* Two years afterwards, the exclusion of the del- egates of the same Synod from the organization of the meeting at Ft. Wayne, resulted in the withdrawal of the Ministerium of New York, and ^the Synods of Pittsburgh, English Ohio, Minnesota and Texas, and the disbanding of the old Synod of Illinois. In the fall of i860, when the General Synod had reached its greatest numerical strength, it numbered 864 out of 13 13 ministers, and 164,000 out of 245,000 communicants, /. utheran Church," by George Lochman, A. M., Harrisburg, 1818, p. 151. DR. JACOBS ESSAY. 1 35 In all parts of the Church, the Church year was diligently observed.'" Its omission in some of our English churches has been a devia- tion of a comparatively modern period. The sermons of the earlier ministers were generally prepared by the writing out of a very full and well arranged scheme, which was thoroughly committed. Sev- eral manuscript volumes of such schemes by Dr. Kunze, are in the library of Pennsylvania College. Dr. Helmuth writes of his col- league, Schmidt, that whereas his Mss. contained dispositions on nearly all the texts in the Bible, yet that he left only two sermons that were written in full.''* However inconsistent with the rules the practice may have been, yet the Kirchen-Ordniing oi 17O3 forbids the filling of the pulpit in the pastor's stead, "by any preacher or student who has not been examined and regularly called and ordained, according to our Evangelical Church Constitution."^^ The value they placed upon the Sacrament of Holy Baptism is manifest from the care which our fathers took to have their children baptized at the earliest age.'-"* We have thus briefly traced a few of the features of our inner his- tory. The great problem before us now is to properly avail our- selves of this history in laying broad and deep the foundation for the promising future that is opening for our Church. The individualism which most of us have inherited from our German ancestors, must be 9*Acrelius and Hall. Nach., passion. See orders of service given above. The following from the constitution of the Church in Georgia is worthy of note: '• As h:\s been customary from the beginning, the three grand festivals, Christ- mas, Easter and Pentecost shall be celebrated two days ; also shall be cele- brated New Year's day, Epiphany, the anniversary of our fathers' arrival be- tween the glh and nth of March; Maundy Thursday (when the doctrine of the Lord's Supper shall be especially explained for edification), and Good Friday, every year. From Esto iMihi until Easter, in the afternoon service, the history of the sufferings of our Lord and Saviour shall be propounded and ex- plained, catechetically and paragraphically, either from an Evangelist or from a Harmony approved by our venerable fathers." Ev. Rcvitiv 3 : 424. All the older Church records show that they followed invariably the Churcli year. ^^Evatigelisches A/agasin, Vol. 2 (1813), p 7. "^ Hall. Nach., 963. ^o The earliest records of our churches in Adams county, served in the last century by Pastor Eager, give abundant testimony on this point. Here is one memorandum we have made : Out of 61 children baptized in the Benders' con- gregation, the age of 8 is not given, 23 were baptized under the age of one month, 23 between one and two months; the oldest baptized was between seven and ei;^ht months, while one was baptized when two days old, a second when 136 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. subordinated to the welfare of the whole. The progress of our one Lu- theran Church must be esteemed of more importance than that of any particular branch. Development on the third and fourth bases is to be rendered harmonious; not by the dominancy of either party, but by the careful study, and the humble submission of both to the unerring Word of God. German love of liberty, conscientiousness, cordiality, respect for antiquity, delight in research, steadfast courage and un- daunted perseverance; Swedish seriousness, devoutness and sub- jection to law ; Norwegian vigor and purity ; Danish caution, thoughtfulness and love of peace ; Icelandic simplicity, generosity and earnestness in religion ; Finnish affection and tenderness, are to unite with x\merican enterprise, energy and love of the practical, on the vast plane for development amidst varied elements almost in perpetual motion, opened for our Church on this continent. We have much to learn from one another. We lament our divisions, and all declare them to be wrong. Yet each of our general bodies has, perhaps, a special office in the present emergency to train the Church of the future for its high mission; and, on the one hand, to guard against Rationalism and Infidelity, and, on the other, to transmit the influences of our Lutheran faith to other communions. For as we believe that our Church teaches the gospel in its purest form, so also we hope and pray not only that all who bear our name, but also all Christian people in this land, may confess it as such. We are yet in a formative state. Our Church feels bewildered amidst its new surroundings, and confused by many of the entirely new issues that she encounters, and modes of adaptation necessary in this western world. She has learned some lessons by bitter ex- perience ; she is learning others by new trials. The age of experi- ments is gradually yielding to that of sober and mature manhood; and beneath all, there is the vigor and enthusiasm and perpetual youth of a strength derived from the possession of the truth, that must triumph finally over all obstacles, and result, after many strug- gles and apparent defeats, in a Church united upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone. four days old, a third when eight, and three when nine days old. The records at Arndstown, and those at Christ's church, Liltleslovvn, during the pastorate of Wildbahn (1763), show thai the practice there was the same. DISCUSSION. 1 37 REMARKS OF REV. F. W. CONRAD, D. D. {General Synod) Dr F. W. Conrad said : In referring to tlie history of the Gen- eral Council, the author of the instructive paper just read stated, that the Franckean Synod had been received by the General Synod without having adopted the Augsburg Confession. This statement, according to my recollection, I regard as, strictly si)eaking, incor- rect. The facts of the case are these : Dr. B. Kurtz, President of the General Synod, was requested by letter to inform the members of the Franckean Synod what they must do in order to be admitted into the General Synod. He re- plied, that nothing more was necessary than to adopt the Constitu- tion of the General Synod, and appoint the requisite number of delegates. The constitution of the General Synod was accordingly adopted by the Franckean Synod, and delegates appointed to the General Synod. The Constitution of the General Synod provided that any "regu- larly constituted Lutheran Synod, holding the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, as taught by our Church," might be received into con- nection with it. These doctrines are set forth, according to unani- mous consent, in the Augsburg Confession. Now, although the Franckean Synod had not directly adopted the Augsburg Confession, they had indirectly and really adopted it by adopting the Constitu- tion of the General Synod, and thereby declared that they held "the fundamental doctrines of the Bible as taught by our Church," in the Augsburg Confession. This was tantamount to its adoption by a formal resolution, and imposed the same confessional obligation. It pledged the synod to teach " the doctrines of our Church," as taught in the Augsburg Confession. The delegates of the Franckean Synod, accordingly, declared in writing that their Synod clearly understood that, in adopting the Constitution, it adoptetl the doctrinal basis of the General Synod, as expressed in its formula for subscrib- ing the Augsburg Confession contained in its Formula of Govern- 138 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. ment and Discipline. But, as the General Synod imposed upon the Franckean Synod, as a condition of full reception, the formal adoption of the Augsburg Confession, according to its Formula; and as it did not receive its delegates at Fort Wayne until after being certified that the imposed condition had been complied with, its reception at York was only conditional, and the Franckean Synod was not fully admitted into the General Synod until it had formally adopted the Augsburg Confession. The construction and confessional force which we have given to the adoption of its Constitution has been exemplified by the official acts of the General Synod. Neither the New York Ministerium, nor the Pittsburgh Synod, nor the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, had by express resolution adopted the xA.ugsburg Confession, prior to their applications for admission into the General Synod. But they had all adopted the Constitution of the General Synod, by which they declared that they held " the fundamental doctrines of the Bible as taught by our Church." This the General Synod construed as involving a real, although indirect, adoption of the Augsburg Con- fession, and constituted each one of them, as well as the Franckean Synod, " regularly constituted Lutheran Synods," in the sense of the Constitution. In the heat of the discussion the fact was overlooked that, as "no man can serve two masters," neither can a Synod be governed and characterized by two different confessions. As soon, therefore, as the Franckean Synod adopted the Constitution of the General Synod, it subjected itself to the Augsburg Confession, and became Lutheran. And by necessary consequence, it could no longer be held subject to its former confession, and ceased to be an isolated, separatistic body. It may not be amiss to recall and improve another occurrence at York. God is said to have the hearts of all men in His hand, and that He can turn them as He doth the rivers of water. He accord- ingly governs the Church, through the sincere convictions and con- scientious judgment of its ministers and members. When, therefore, DISCUSSION. 139 an important ecclesiastical question has been thoroughly discussed and a decision reached by an almost or quite unanimous vote, that judgment ought to be regarded as determining the question for the time being under existing circumstances. To disturb a decision thus attained immediately afterwards, without additional light and the most urgent necessity, must be hazardous, and its reversal often proves to have been ill-advised, unfortunate, and not unfrequently wrong. Such a case occurred at York. Differences of opinion prevailed in regard to the character and continued force of the Articles of Faith of the Franckean Synod, as well as its adoption of the Augs- burg Confession. The subject was discussed during an entire day and an almost unanimous decision reached at its close. This de- cision was reconsidered the next morning, and after a long and an exciting debate, reversed. A protest signed by members of ten Synods was presented, an answer followed, the delegates of the Pennsylvania Synod withdrew, the General Synod was rent in twain and the Lutheran Church again divided ! While, therefore, I maintain that the Franckean Synod had met the constitutional requirements of the General Synod, and cannot justify the grounds upon which the delegates of the Pennsylvania Synod withdrew from it, I am nevertheless compelled, in the light of the facts of this case, and all the consequences resulting therefrom, to regard the reversal of that decision as one belonging to the class of injudicious decisions just described. Some " things are lawful, but not" always "expedient." But He who can make even the wrath of man to praise Him, can and will overrule all things for the good of His Church. REMARKS OF REV. PROF. J. A. BROWN, D. D. {General Synod.) There will be but one opinion, I suppose, in regard to the value of the paper which has been read. It presents a very clear narrative of some of the most important events in our history, and is just what many will desire to possess. I will venture to make a few addi- 140 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. tional statements on the point raised by Dr. Conrad's speech. The General Synod was not hasty in its action. After long discussion, the General vSynod declined to receive the Franckean Synod on the ground of its not having adopted the Augsburg Confession. Sub- sequent to this action the delegation presented a paper, stating that in adopting the Formula of the General Synod, they understood they were adopting the Augsburg Confession as their confession of faith, and pledging themselves to comply with the requirement of the General Synod in this respect. The question of their reception was reconsidered, and they were received, but only provisionally ; that unless satisfactory evidence Avas furnished of their acceptance of the Augsburg Confession, they would not be considered in the General Synod. And accordingly at the next meeting, at Fort Wayne, these delegates were not received until after the organiza- tion, and the evidence furnished that they had fully complied with the conditions of their reception. The action of the General Synod was very cautious and conservative. This recalls another case which deserves to be mentioned. The Melanchthon Synod made application for admission into the General Synod under circumstances very similar to those of the Franckean Synod, and met with similar opposition. It was maintained that the Melanchthon Synod had not adopted the Augsburg Confession, or fairly complied with the conditions of admission. Its whole history was regarded as irregular and not very Lutheran. The opposition was very decided and persistent. Yet the General Synod received the Melanchthon Synod, without imposing conditions, but with a very humble request that it would conform its position to the require- ments of the General Synod. There were no withdrawals of dele- gates, nor divisions in the body. I hope I will not be deemed dis- courteous, when I remind the Diet that my friend, Dr. Krauth, was the champion at that time of the Melanchthon Synod, and of its ad- mission into the General Synod. Unless my memory is at fault, he drew up the resolutions for the admission of the Melanchthon Synod, I i I DISCUSSION. 141 using such gentle terms, and withstood the opposition. Times have changed. Now I do not see on what grounds so much ado is made by some over the reception of the Franckean Synod, while the reception of the Melanchthon Synod is justified. It seems to me that the action of the General Synod was more cautious and more conservative at York than at Pittsburgh. I think the action of the General Synod at York can be consistently defended, and that that body is not respon- sible for the consequences. REMARKS OF REV. PROF. C. P. KRAUTII, D. D., LL. D. {^General Council.) Dr. Krauth spoke in terms of strong commendation of the paper read by Prof Jacobs. It shows great thoroughness of research, especially in directions where the difficulty of obtaining facts can only be estimated by one who has had occasion to attempt the same sort of work. It is clear, well arranged, presenting facts in just proportion, and with the most absolute fairness. The production of this paper alone would have repaid for the calling of this Diet. As the Franckean Synod had been brought into the discussion, he would take the opportunity of correcting a misapprehension in regard to the position of his venerated father on that question. His father was quoted as one who held the ruling at Ft. Wayne to be correct, and there his testimony was supposed to end. It was true he did so regard it, and looked upon the Pennsylvania Ministe- rium as having put itself out of the General Synod by the with- drawal of iti5 delegates at York. But he constantly added, with no reserve as of a thing spoken confidentially, as all who heard him speak of it can testify, that "the admission of the Franckean Synod was an outrage, fully justifying the Ministerium of Pennsylvania in withdrawing; and that the only matter of regret was that having with- drawn for so righteous a cause, it should have endeavored to return." The action at the close of the first day was of the gentlest and most 142 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. conciliatory kind. It completely harmonized the General Synod. The Franckean Synod itself was not dissatisfied — so reasonable and moderate was the action. The influences which disturbed the set- tled question were at work outside of the hours of meeting, and were partisan and mischievous. The Franckean Synod had not undergone any very radical change from the time when the General Synod had passed a resolution condemning its fanatical and disor- derly practices. The whole debate showed that it was completely un-Lutheran, and that there had been no intelligent conformity with the requirements of the Constitution. After its reception at York, many of the best men in the General Synod, some of whom are still among its most honored names, united in protest against the admis- sion. In reply to Dr. Brown, Dr. Krauth said that he had not been the champion of the Melanchthon Synod ; on the contrary, he had strongly opposed, on principle, its admission. But when the facts showed that the precedents established in the admission of a num- ber of other Synods, and the retention of various bodies which openly threw away the Augsburg Confession for the Definite Plat- form, had made it gross inconsistency and virtual self-destruction for the General Synod to reject the Melanchthon Synod, he had offered as the best thing the case allowed, that to the reception of the Melanchthon Synod should be attached a request that it should take action which would remove the causes of offence. This was all, in fact, the General Synod had left itself the power of doing. It was the thorough-going opposition which he had felt and shown to the admission of the Melanchthon Synod, which made him the proper person to offer this resolution. But there were very many respects in which the character of the Melanchthon Synod, and of its plea for admission, was free from that which made the Franckean Synod so totally unfit to be a member of any Lutheran Body. As to the implication of change, he had never waited to have his real change of views brought as a charge. He was the first to make DISCUSSION. 143 that change known by frank acknowledgment. There is no peril greater to a man's love of truth than a false pride of mechanical consistency. But his seeming inconsistencies were the long growth of ripening consistency. They were not the result of want of a fixed principle — the shifting from principle to principle — but the outgrowth of one great set of principles, maturing and bringing into more perfect harmony the conviction and the act — such as (to com- pare the very little with the very great) Luther himself passed through. From the hour that by God's grace, through many a sore struggle and conflict, he had begun to approach the firm ground, up to the present, he had moved in one line. His present convictions were connected by unbroken succession with those earliest ones. The law of growth is the law of life. The inconsistencies of the earnest seeker of truth are like the inconsistencies of the oak with its acorn. There are changes, but it is the one life which has conditioned them all. Dr. Conrad had spoken of the testimony as to alleged errors in the Augsburg Confession — the Testimony adopted by the General Synod at York — as identical with the one which had been prepared by Dr. Krauth, and adopted in the Pittsburgh Synod. But not only did the history of the two documents involve a difference in their meaning, where they coincided in words, but the language itself was in some respects materially changed. The two documents were related somewhat as the Invariata and the Variata, but with the changes made by other hands, against the will of the author. He disavowed, therefore, the Testimony of the General Synod as prop- erly his. Dr. Conrad's acknowledgment of the great mistake made in disturb- ing the original disposition of the Franckean Synod case, was worthy of his candor, and could not fail to do good. 144 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. REMARKS OF REV. D. P. ROSENMILLER. {General Synod.) For many years in the Constitution of the Synod of Pennsylvania, only the Augsburg Confession was mentioned. It has, in fact, been only about twelve years since it was altered, and the other symbol- ical books adopted in such a shape that the Augsburg Confession dare not speak in any other sense than they speak. In the Liturgy adopted by the Synod in early days, the word Lutheran did not occur in the services for Ordination, Adult Baptism and Confirmation. These first documents were drawn up by the patriarch ot our Church, and he evidently had the impression that the German Reformed and Lutheran would merge into one Evangelical Church. I have exam- ined the Church Constitutions, drawn up by him, in which he gives the right to ministers, during the week, by day or night, to hold meetings for edification and prayer. In this connection I would endeavor to throw some light on a document which had some connection with the unfortunate separa- tion which took place at Fort Wayne. After the delegates of the Pennsylvania Synod, two years previously at York, Pa., had pro- tested against the reception of the Franckean Synod, and reported to their own Synod, a committee of seven was appointed to report on their action. The report of that committee was, that the action of the delegates should be approved and sustained. But the chairman [Rev. Rosenmiller. — Ed.] explained before the Synod that this report did not decide that the action of the delegates was correct. But, as they acted according to their honest convictions, although their judgment may have been wrong, yet their action should be approved and sustained. And this approval was not considered as a separa- tion from the General Synod, on the part of the Synod of Pennsyl- vania. The fifth paper was then read : i I EDUCATION IN THFi LUTHERAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. BY REV. M. VALENTINE, D. D., PRESIDENT OF PENNSYLVANIA COLLEGE, GETTYSBURG, PA. IN calling attention to Education in the Lutheran Church in the United States, I am permitted to feel that the subject is one of intrinsic importance and wide bearings. It does not, indeed, ex- press anything belonging to the Church's divine foundation, but it concerns her great work. Without the importance that attaches to discussions settling the dogmas of the faith, it must, however, carry the interest that ever belongs to the chief means by which the mis- sion of Christianity and the work of the Church are to be accom- plished. The relation of means, it must be remembered, gives even to doctrine its high importance. Christianity, even as a whole, in all its grand truths and divine powers, is not for itself, but a means looking to the salvation of men and the redemption of the earth. Education looks to the same end for which God has given the sacred doctrines. It expresses one of the modes through which the power of salvation goes into effect and pushes on toward its goal. How directly, as if by normal action, this power moves to the accom- plishment of its mission through the -agency of education, is appar- ent from the rise of Christian schools among the first manifestations of the Church's life and activity. As if the earliest preaching of the gospel was the marshaling of the fit agencies for the grand work of conquest and progress, these schools quickly sprang up and stood in the front lines of the holy service. We see them at Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, Nisibis, and elsewhere. They held forth the word of life, uplifted high the standard of the cross, and became con- spicuous summits of the Church's power and defence in those early centuries. There can be no doubt that the life of the Church of Christ has been meant to enter into and ally with its own blessed ends all normal human powers and movements. Christianity is not a thing (M5) 146 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. to be, or capable of being, held as a thing by itself, apart from the offices and activities of life. It comes as a force to enter every other force that legitimately belongs to the constitution of the world, and to sanctify and claim all for God and righteousness. It may not usually, indeed, undertake the functions of other constitutions, but it is to permeate all with its supernatural truth and life, and make each department, in its own sphere, bear its proper part in the ag- gregate redemption of the earth. Education, however, is a func- tion that falls so immediately in the line of the Church's work, expresses so directly what is part of her essential office, that it may not only be pervaded by her sanctifying influence, like, for instance, the separate civil power, but be possessed and used as her rightful agency. The Church is instrumentally the light of the world. Her great office is to teach — to teach all nations. She holds the highest knowledge. This highest knowledge includes and appropriates all the rest, and so Christianity normally flows through learning into its best efficiency and appropriate victories. The Church can never admit that Christianity and science are an- tagonisms. She knows how utterly false is the impression, sometimes sought to be made, that these are in irreconcilable conflict, and religion is per se unscientific and science must be irreligious. She understands well that they are the readings of God's two great reve- lations, and if both are read correctly all the various colored facts blend and shine in the pure white light of God's full truth. With- out doubt Creation is an expression of God's thought, as Redemp- tion is of His love; and there can be conflict only by wresting the Bible or Nature and putting false speech into its lips. And as Re- demption, foreseen and provided for before all worlds, expresses the final cause, the ultimate end of all the frame-work and movement of the world, Nature stands necessarily as a subordinate factor in this aggregate movement, and can be rightly understood only in the light of the great fact of Redemption. This world's structure and history yield to us their true meanings only when viewed in the in- terpretative illumination of the cross of Christ and the eschatology of the New Testament. The Church, therefore, holds the true key to the solution of Nature. Christianity has thus the highest com- mission to lead the way through the fields of science. A sublime ordination to the work is given in the qualification to do it. To atheistic evolutionism, which denies all design, adaptation, and end DR. VALENTINES ESSAY. 147 in Nature, or to infidelity, which fails to see that end in th.c new earth of redemption, Nature is of course an insoluble mystery, and science fragmentary, disjointed, incoherent. The Church is the best teacher of the truth in these broad domains of culture. The children of light, with the torch of God's truth flashing every way and lighting up the world, are to lead men, especially the young, into the divine thoughts that lie fixed, like compactly written hiero- glyphics, in all the phenomena of the earth. Thus will come the right correlation between science and religion — revelation assisting and guiding reason to the highest and best conception of nature, and then, in turn, receiving the light of all scientific discovery thrown back on it, for still profounder and more perfect understand- ing of its own meaning. Science then — the term being used in the broadest sense, for all known truth in the higher ranges of learning — is a true handmaid of religion and falls rightly into the service of the Church of redemption. As among the mightiest agencies that bear on human welfare, mold civilizations and guide enterprise and progress, this is ever to be held by the Church, as pre-eminently her own, to be pervaded by her own light and power for conduct- ing the world's movement to the consummation to which Providence is holding the helm. In coming to these shores the Church seized a point of grandest power and success, in undertaking to give the country its higheraca- demic and collegiate education. In her various branches, she began the planting of schools and colleges, that the education of the young for all the higher spheres of life and influence might be conducted under Christian auspices. So our land has been made a land of ( -hris- tian education. Of the nine colleges established before the revolu- tion, eight were begun under Church auspices. Of the three hundred and forty-two colleges now reported in our national statistics of edu- cation, two hundred and eight six are in such general Christian rela- tion.^ The good thus accomplished, in Christianizing all the subordi- nate ranges of education, in sh.aping leading and regulative thought for tlie whole land, in elevating our common morality and securing a generally favorable attitude toward the Gospel, is simply incalculable. What the condition of our land or the state of the Church would be without this, or with the order reversetl, imagination may only faintly picture. If the higher education had been left by the Church lAit. Colleges, Kiddle and Schem's Cyclopedia of Education. 148 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. to merely secular control, with purely secular principles and secular ends — if skepticism and unbelief had been left in possession of the philosophy, science and culture of the schools, making, as they are wont, these great powers seem to contradict Christianity and dis- credit the verities of faith — if such godless higher education had then unchristianized our common-school education, as it would have done, for the millions of the masses — what floods of irreligion and sin would be sweeping over the land, endangering every holy thing in which we to-day rejoice ! Education in the Lutheran Church in the United States must be viewed as on the background of these general principles and facts. It is to be looked upon, at least so far as college education is con- cerned, as the part that belongs to us in this great work. What that part should be, and how it may be best accomplished, are the ques- tions that concern us in this discussion. I. The proper position and range of work for our Church in edu- cation should be held, it seems to me, as imperatively fixed for us, by a number of considerations. First. The fact that the Lutheran Church arose in living connec- tion with the agencies of higher learning. The restoration of Bib- lical Christianity took place among the fruits of study and the power of universities God made Luther climb up through all ranges to the summits of learning, before putting into his hand and deep in his soul, the commission to reform the Church. He seated him in a university chair. He gave him co-laborers in similar posi- tion. Providence wheeled these institutions into front line. From the lecture-desks of Wittenberg the Church of the Reformat ion did much of the grandest work of that grand century. She took organic form with this instrument of power in her hands. Secondly. The Lutheran Church has always been an educating Church, standing, with its great institutions and learned men, in the very first rank of Christian scholarship and culture. Through all her history she has been distinguished for her renowned universities and her erudite scholars. She has been the patron of learning, using its power for the defense and victory of the Gospel. She owes it, thus, to her historical characteristics to take no inferior or unworthy relation to the higher education in this country. At present, we speak only of academic or collegiate education. And we assert that, with no denomination of Christians in our land DR. VALENTINES ESSAY. 1 49 would indifference to education or an inferior standard in it l)e in greater degree a contradiction and denial of itself than with the Lutlieran Church. We feel, too, that we have a clear warrant to impose on ourselves the obligation of a full share in Christianizing the higher culture of the country, in the claim we make for our Church, that she is in an eminent degree the Church of the pure doctrine of the Gospel. If we believe that her confessional position and consequent Church life represent the best and truest onflow of genuine Christianity, we must believe that we have a commission, with a clear divine signature, to bring to the greatest degree possible the power of this education under the shaping influence of our Church. ^ It is not to be forgotten that there is, at the present time, the pres- sure of an increased obligation on all the Christian Churches of our land, to strengthen their educational work. As a result, on the one hand, of the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church toward common schools; and on the other, of the efforts of skepticism and unbelief, a strong tendency has set in toward a secularization of the whole educational system of our land. The idea of State universities, wholly dissevered from ecclesiastical influence, is strongly urged by many educators, backed by a large part of both the secular and rationalistic press; and the air is full of petty flings at what are called denominational or sectarian colleges. There is a constant clamor, too, on the part of every faction of anti-Christian scientism, for a separation of scientific inquiry from an alleged hindering influ- ence on free inquiry in these colleges. It is one of the great, far- reaching questions of our day, whether the Church is, in the interest of true science and of righteousness, to retain control of the higher education which it has given to our land. If the State is, through secular universities, to have charge of this education, fostered by taxation — a taxation urged by some even upon the property devoted to the work by the benevolence of the Churches — then we will have the principle pressed, as it is in relation to the common schools, that State impartiality as to religions must exclude the Pjible and Chris- tianity from being recognized as proper forces in this education. Of course, the classics of the old paganisms would remain in the cur- riculum. Vedic literature would cover the religions of the East. But the Text-Book of Christianity would come under ban of tliis fine secularism, which the Christian people of this land would be called 150 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. on to support through their taxes. So the higher education would be un-Christianized in this Gospel-created land. As the final struggle with this anti-Christian and anti-Church tendency comes on, it is needful that the Church not only hold that fast which she has, that no man take her crown, but strengthen her work, that her institutions shall be in the future, as they have been in the past, the most com - manding, the ruling centre of learning in the land. And the Lu- theran Church, if she wishes to be true to her historic character, or to her claim of representing the best type of revived or Protestant Christianity, cannot be content simply to let this work be done by others, or to take anything short of the fullest share that the Head of the Church has made possible to her. Thirdly. The proper training of young men for our minis- try — such a culture as will prepare them for their true position and efficiency — requires a high standard for our educational work. It would be an insult to any intelligent body of men to raise before them, at this date, the question of an educated ministry. It needs no word. But the question may well be raised whether our Church appreciates what grade of institutions she should furnish to supply the education now needed. The colleges and theological schools that can rightly serve the Church's true strength and victory are such as shall be able to set forth the young ministry abreast Avith the most advanced results in science, philosophy and theological inquiry. This is necessary to prevent them from becoming en- tangled in the misleading plausibilities and errors of the times, and to fit them to maintain the supremacy of God's truth in its incessant conflicts. Even aside from this ministerial education, our Church's prosperity is dependent, more than most persons think, on an ele- vated standard of collegiate education. -Other things being equal, it is almost self-evident, the Church that educates the most and best and controls the best institutions will outrank others, and do most for the cause of Christ. If these principles be true, it is easy to see what position our Church should occupy on the subject we are considering. What, now, are some of the chief facts that mark the educational work in our Church, and some of the features open to criticism, and needing revision ? Our Church was slow in beginning this work. Were we to count from the Swedish Lutheran settlement on the Delaware in 1637, a DR. VALENTINES ESSAY. I5I century and a half of her history in this country elapsed before any successful movement to take part in the higher education was made. But though there had been scattering immigration of Lutherans from that date onward, our Church can hardly be regarded as having been organized here before the coming of the Germans, at different dates from 1 7 f o to 1 742. We may justly count a half cen- tury of our Church's history here as passed when Franklin Col- lege, at Lancaster, the institution to which I refer, was founded in 17S7. And this institution was only one-third part under Lu- theran auspices, and failed to be permanent. ■ The prevalence of the German language in our Church was in the way of any early suc- cess in establishing a college that should rise to commanding posi- tion. German institutions could have only a limited prosperity ; and any other our Church was not prepared to found, until the Lutheran population became largely Anglicized. And when Penn- sylvania College, our oldest college, was organized in 1832, it lacked only a few years of being two centuries after colleges under other auspices had begun in their work and laid the foundations of a wide prosperity. As Hartwick Seminary, established in 1815, though highly useful, belongs to the category of academic and theological institutes, our college education, apart from our share in the insti- tution above named, has a history of only forty-five years. During this period the progress has been wonderfully rapid, testifying that whatever may be the wisdom that guides the work, it is urged for- ward by worthy and earnest interest. The latest statistics give us, besides twenty-two academic institutes, a list of eighteen colleges or institutions claiming to be such, under the axispices of our Church, located within a compass reaching from New York around by the Carolinas, Texas, Iowa and Wisconsin, representing four different languages, and cs many types of Lutheranism. Li these there are, as nearly as can be ascertained, 2,036 students under 127 professors. Nine of the colleges may be counted as English, with 72 professors and 988 students. Five are German, with 34 professors and about 687 students. Two are Swedish with 13 professors and 171 students. Two are Norwegian, with about 200 pupils under 8 professors. These facts, its seems to me, cannot but justify several criticisms: The first is that there has been a very unwise multiplication of institutions of this class. To whatever causes it may have been due, whether to the apparent necessities of language, the territorial con- 152 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. venience of location, the divisive action of theological partisanship, or the obstinate leading of ambitious individualism, the result is ap- parent, that the power of our Church in this branch of work, has been terribly sacrificed in this multitudinous planting of colleges. In this respect the college work in general, under all the Christian denominations, and other bodies that have established them, has been misguided and greatly damaged. Weakness rather than strength has come to it in this way. If it be claimed that this mul- tiplication, by planting colleges in close proximity in every section, bringing educational facilities to the doors of the people everywhere, draws out and educates more of the young than could otherwise be reached, it is evident, however, that the widening of the range has been purchased at the expense of its proper elevation. In its de- pression of the average grade the aggregate loss has been greater than the gain by numbers on the lower level. This principle more than holds as to the work in our own Church. The division of the pecuniary resources, and of the patronage, among so many institu- tions, prevents any of them from rising unto their true efficiency, prominence, and service to the Church. I assume that all the means, contributed from local, partisan, or personal considerations, should have been given under a wiser and better adjusted system. The nine hundred and eighty-eight students reported as in the nine English colleges could surely all be instructed mfour. If the endow- ment and patronage that now only keep these nine in straitened and hampered work, with professors loaded down with excessive labors and little pay, and some of the institutions almost in articulo mortis, were accumulated in four, the educational products would unquestion- ably be above the present grade of many of them, and our college work would stand out in more attractive prominence than now. Our institutions could be rightly built up, and developed into commanding position for the honor and power of our Church. It seems to me to require a microscopic eye to see, for instance, the wisdom of try- ing to carry on three colleges under our Church in three adjoining States of the South. Were the efforts thrown into one, it could be lifted into triumphant success and broad usefulness. This would be far better than the present divided enterprise, in which the struggle of some for existence is hindering the true efficiency of all. In our Middle States, neither the strength of the Church nor the compass of territory calls for more than the first one of our colleges. DR. VALENTINES ESSAY. 1 53 Two English colleges, at most, are sufficient to represent our Church and do its work in the West— one in the nearer and the other in the remoter West. Plainly it would be gain both as to vigor of educa- tional work and the harmony of the Church, if we had but a single Swedish college combining the funds and patronage of the present two. The same is evidently true as to the Norwegian education. Is there any just reason, indeed, why Swedish and Norwegian might not be united in the same institution, or better still, form depart- ments in one of the English institutions ? As to the German col- leges, four of them being in the West, it is hard to believe that the division of the efforts is not depriving the work of its true ease and efficient strength. The correctness of this opinion is not disproved by the admitted fact, that this rapid multiplication of our colleges has been inevita- ble from the divided condition of the Church. It does not better the matter that this weakness comes from another weakness, that this crippling of our work arises from our bad antagonisms, that the evil is simply the symptom of a deeper evil. It does not make this system wise, that it is the fruit and revelation of the folly that wastes our Church's life in alienations and strifes. It is no recom- mendation of it, that it has been shaped by one of the worst facts that mar the beauty and cut the sinews of our Lutheran strength. All the real advantage, by drawing out tlie young through numer- ous colleges easily accessible, supposed by some to justify this mul- tiplication, can be better attained through high grade, efficient academies in every community. These can be made almost as nu- merous as our pastoral charges, and can furnish, along with a prep- aration for college, the early inspiration to the advanced course. It is just this system of numerous local schools, that can best quicken our churches into more general education, and send the proper numbers on to fill our college halls and give our higher education its true encouragement and success. But a second thing — the facts furnished by our statistics of col- leges, suggest that there is prevalent among us, as a background of much of the evil I am criticising, a mistaken notion as to the true sphere and relations of the college. A careful examination of the list of eighteen cannot fail to reveal the fact that many of them stand for types of theological thought, or have been made to accept the rivalship of a neighboring new-born college because of being II 154 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. unwilling to be contracted into some such narrowness. It is plain that colleges have been looked on much in the light of simple in- struments for success in theological warfare. They have been sought chiefly as outposts to some special "school of prophets." Now, if I have rightly conceived the function and relation of the college, as the college under auspices of the Lutheran Church should stand in the great American system of Christian higher education, it is to occupy a much wider and more catholic position. The col- lege is not simply a small Church-school. It is not a theological seminary. It is not simply a feeder to any one, nor to all. It is for that broader work which shall give the higher education, in its best and fullest wealth of science, philosophy, and literature, under Christian auspices, for all the callings of life. The college is, in- deed, to educate for the theological seminary. It is a feature of perhaps more worth than any other, that it trains the young of the Church for the great service into which they pass through our theo- logical schools. And just because it is needed for this great service, as well as for other, the college must be conceded a higher and wider office. The young for the ministry in our day should enter the theological course with a discipline and culture in the broad range of scientific and philosophical thought, such as can be given only in institutions with a curriculum arranged after this full concep- tion of collegiate education. It is true the pulpit is not to preach science or philosophy. Its power to save men is not even through the philosophy of the gospel — but the gospel itself. But the pulpit, in this age of skeptical scientism and misleading speculation, will lose its proper hold on public confidence, if it is without masterful knowledge in these pretentious departments of inquiry. It must never be said that the ministry is -behind the age on the broad ground of general and thorough education. The Church's col- leges, to give this education, dare not be of inferior grade, or en- close their students' course within a range that stretches over only the ecclesiastical segment of the horizon of knowledge. The train- ing must be broad and efficient. Upon the foundation of such an education, a theological course can build up, in the Church's ever- lasting truth, true sons of Issachar, with understanding of the times and knowledge of what Israel ought to do. If it is thus indeed, as it seems to be, a mistake to hold our col- leges to serve simply as porches to particular schools of prophets ; DR. valentine's ESSAY. 1 55 if the true idea into which they should be molded is that of seats of highest Christian culture, affording the proper broad and thorough preparation for the various professional courses, for public life or business, the question is legitimately raised : What degree of organic connection and control ought the Church to hold in and over the colleges she builds up? How, without making them sectarian, or reducing them to the littleness of party schools, can they be made secure to the service and control of the Church, and safe from liability of perversion to secularism or infidelity ? The case of Harvard University, passing from control of the communion that dedicated it '^ Chris to et Ecclesice,'' to a management which has used it largely to discredit the faith it was built to promote, is known to all. Dickinson College, in this State, has passed from un- der Presbyterian auspices to Methodist Episcopal control. Meant for this Christian service under our Church, the surest possible safe- guards ought to be employed for the permanence of our colleges in this status. Important as it is to avoid confounding the office of the college with that of the theological seminary, and to maintain its proper Christian, or at least denominational catholicity, it is also of the highest moment to have it so guarded, that it cannot swing loose to any unchurchly perversion, or be wrested from the control of the Christian communion that founded it. No settled principle on this point has been adopted among us, and the Church's practice has been irregular and conflicting. The relation between the college and Church is varied through all grades of control, from the extremes of practical sy nodical oivnei-ship and management to a separateness in which there is no organic Church-relation whatever. If in some cases the partisan ecclesiastical grip has been so tight as to disallow the free life and growth essential for the right develop- ment of a Christian college, in its true ideal of wide and compre- hensive education, and has illustrated, in the sphere of education, the wisdom of a method that is employed in forming Chinese feet, some have so free a relation as, perhaps, to make additional guar- antees for the Church's permanent and best control of them desir- able. The relation which the Church should claim for itself, in order to assert, without transcending, the proper degree of control in its colleges and hold sufficient guarantees for the future, is a sub- ject that needs careful revision and settlement among us. It is an interesting fact, and strikingly illustrative of the connec- 156 FREE LUTHERAN DIET. tion between educational work and Church prosperity, that this period of the rapid enlargement of this work has been the period of our Church's most rapid development and progress. Since 1845, when the educational work through Hartwick Seminary, the Theo- logical Seminary and the College at Gettysburg, and other institu- tions, was beginning to produce its fuller results in the increase of the ministry and the quickening of the educational impulse which afterward founded so many other colleges and seminaries, the growth of the Church has been greatly accelerated, advancing from 843 to 5,905 congregations, and from 90,629 communicant mem- bers to the present 605,340. It may, indeed, be justly claimed that the enlargement of our educational enterprise is, in great degree, the effect of our Church's growth; but probably, in larger measure, it has been a cause and agency for that growth. As education has been fostered — and it is a gratifying fact to be recorded, that some of our colleges, despite the unwise multiplication of them, have done a noble work and risen to honorable distinction among the best institutions of their States — this education has given preparation to the ministry, without which, so enlarged in numbers, this pro- gress of our Church would have been impossible. At any rate, it is a fact to be remembered that the two things go together, and that the period of our Church -growth has been jomed with the period of our educational activity. II. In theological education we reach a department of our educa- tional work which is determined by different aims, and must be judged of by different standards. As a rule, I conceive, this be- gins properly only after the collegiate course, or its equivalent, has laid the proper cultural basis for it. The deviations from this rule ought to be more strictly exceptional than they have been among us, for the sake of both the theological course itself and the student and the Church. This brings up at once a fact that calls for a new departure. Whatever reasons may, in the past, have justified a large application of the principle of exceptions to the rule in question, the character of the times into which Ave have come, require, and the resources of the Church now admit, a more stringent enforce- ment of the higher standard for entrance into our theological schools. Honorable as has been the general culture of our minis- try, surely comparing favorably with that of the ministry of Churches around us, and blessed with divine power as have been the labors DR. VALENTINES ESSAY. 1 57 of many who have entered the service with only an inferior c