CM1: Harrison's false claims of Walther on Church & Ministry: Harless's Kirche und Amt (Part 1 of 10)

     The doctrines of Church and Ministry are a major focus for the leaders and teachers of the LC-MS today.  Towards this, President Matthew Harrison put a massive effort into his 2012 re-translation of Walther's Kirche und Amt book, Church and Office, promoting the notion that his theology is the same as C. F. W. Walther's. (I have blogged before on this 4 years ago.) Harrison brought in his "sainted teacher, the Rev. Dr. Kurt Marquart" to support his own assertions. The scholarship that went into this book is striking, citing many sources and resources, giving much additional material from the 19th century. It may be noted that he cites numerous recent German theologians, especially in support of his assertions. 

      Others have written much to defend against President Harrison (and Prof. Marquart) on theological, scriptural grounds.  But is it true, that Walther not only did not defend against, but taught that the Synod was also the Church in the same sense as the congregation? This is the striking feature of both protagonists. Marquart states (The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry and Governance, xi)

"…some popular impressions of, say, Walther's actual position, are one-sided and even inaccu­rate."

Harrison goes into more detail regarding his assertion on page xi:

"…in the American context with its self-governing and largely autonomous congregations, the understanding of what it means to be church is pulled strongly toward the local congregation and away from being a broader fellowship, such as a synod or even the universal Church. We see this disconnect most clearly when we consider Walther's rendering and application of texts compared with Mueller's choice to translate Kirche as "congregation."

Harrison is here building his case for his assertion that culminates on page 65, where he states that 

…a synod is in fact "church" because it is a transcongregational expression of ecclesiastical unity.

Harrison is backed up by the 1981 CTCR report "The Ministry" which states "It is God’s call mediated through the church (as a single congregation or a group of congregations)" (p. 29) That corresponds to Harrison's term for a "synod" as "a transcongregational expression". — But did Walther really teach that "a synod is in fact 'church'" in the same sense as the congregation is "church"? Did Walther really teach against the later "popular impressions" and "[J. T.] Mueller's choice" of terms? Is Harrison's assertion against "Mueller's choice" of terms really true for Walther? To address this conundrum, we will respond in several ways. 

———————————————————

     The first response concerns the 19th century German theologian Gottlieb Christoph Adolf Harless. Harless held a high position in the German Church. Pres. Harrison states the following against him on the above doctrines (p. xv):

[Hoefling] "'denies the positive divine institution of the office [Amtes]. For him only the general office of the priesthood is divinely instituted, namely, the functions of Word and Sacrament.' Gottlieb Christoph Adolf von Harless… held similar views."

By this reference, Harrison condemns Dr. Harless on the "Ministry", charging him with a low view of the office of the Ministry (Marquart does not.). Harrison sides with those such as Loehe and Kliefoth, and a more recent German theologian Hellmut Lieberg. 

      But what was Walther's opinion of Harless? Did he condemn Harless as Harrison does? — 

      Just as Walther had done in 1852, Harless authored a book in 1853 on "Church and Ministry". After he read this, Walther jumped at the opportunity to give his comments on Harless's theology of Church and Ministry. While processing the volumes of Der Lutheraner for OCR text, I ran across Walther's 1854 review of Harless's Kirche und Amt. All of these writings are within a 2 year period, so Walther knew that his readers were familiar with his famous book from 1852. The following is from Der Lutheraner, vol. 10 (1854), pp. 170-172. Footnotes were re-positioned to be closer to their text. [Ggl Bks; DE docx; EN]:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Church and Ministry

according to Lutheran doctrine.

Compiled in fundamental propositions with Luther's testimonies by

Dr. G. Chr. Adolph Harless, 

Senior Consistorial President in Munich.

(Stuttgart by Liesching.)

[Review by C. F. W. Walther, Part 1]

 

At the end of last year [1853], the excellent and distinguished theologian Dr. Harless published a paper under this title, in which he gives his voice in the dispute over the doctrine of Church and Ministry just as briefly as it did clearly and decisively. In the foreword, he himself speaks as follows about the occasion that prompted the esteemed author to publish this pamphlet: 

"A special occasion gave rise to the pages published here. It was the request to give a kind of arbitral judgment in a dispute that had arisen in the German-Lutheran Church in North America. *) However, since it does not only seem to be a matter of principles, but also of the manner of their assertion in individual cases, I saw myself unable to render a judgment in arbitral form without hearing the disputing parties and without inspecting the files of both sides.  **) But the invitation was important enough for me to ask myself whether this was not a clear signal to break a long silence. For what is moving the minds there is ultimately nothing other than the dispute about Church and Ministry, which has arisen within the Lutheran Church in Germany for some time and has led to many a feud. So far, I have not been able to maintain a complete and undivided position with either the one [anti-hierarchial, Hoefling] or the other ["high church", Kliefoth-Loehe] of the disputing parties. It was partly due to the matter, partly to the way in which the arguments and evidence were presented."

----------------------

*) It is not said by whom this request was made. The Editor. [Walther]

**) Dr. Harleß is therefore not in agreement with the principles according to which the Leipzig Conference acted.  The Editor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in the next Part CM1a  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      Walther gleaned from Harless that he was not in agreement with a major German church conference. I suspect that the Leipzig Conference was leaning in favor of the Kliefoth-Loehe-Dieckhoff "high church" camp (instead of towards Hoefling) of giving more right to the public ministry by taking it away from the local congregation. In fact, we get a strong clue from Walther himself, in the next Part CM1b, which concludes Walther's review. Then Part CM1c will publish all 18 theses from Harless's pamphlet.

- - - - - - - - - - - -  Table of Contents  - - - - - - - - - - - -

CM1: Pres. Harrison's assertion: Walther supports me, Harless in error; beginning of Walther's review 

CM1b: Walther's review of Harless concluded: against Romanism (and Loehe and Kliefoth)

CM1c: Harless's propositions (with notes)

CM2: Pieper quotes Walther on "Church" (against Harrison)

CM3: Walther's "Antitheses" to his Church and Ministry (against Loehe & Harrison)

CM4a: Pieper follows Walther on Church & Ministry

CM4b: Preger: Loehe & Kliefoth vs. Justification (Pieper recommends)

CM5: Harrison "At Home" with Harrison?

CM6: Walther's 1879 Iowa essay: Synod duties (only advisory body)

CM7: Harrison's one-side teaching not Lutheran (Walther, Iowa 1879)

CM8: Walther's 1848 Synod: Synod is no "well oiled machine" 

CM9: Kliefoth- if only he learned from Walther (Free Church obituary)

CM10: Dr. Schurb vs Pres. Harrison (on Lieberg vs. Walther)

Did Melanchthon teach Luther the Gospel? Or vice versa?

      Sometimes one discovers something that previously stared them in the face, but went unrecognized. That was the case while re-reading my series "The 'Carrying' of Melanchthon on the Part of Luther" a year ago. In Part 3 of that series Walther quoted Melanchthon, saying that the quote came from "a particularly splendid confession of Melanchthon in the testament which he wrote in 1539 in a premonition of death." In the language of Melanchthon, Latin, he wrote in his Testimony: 

"Ago autem gratias Reverendo D. Doctori Martino Luthero, primum, quia ab ipso Evangelium didici. Deinde pro singulari erga me benevolentia, quam quidem plurimis beneficiis declaravit, eumque volo a meis non secus ac patrem coli. Ego quia vidi et comperi praeditum esse excellenti et heroica vi ingenii et multis magnis virtutibus ac pietate, doctrina praecipua, semper eum magnifeci, dilexi, et colendum esse sensi."

In English, per Google Translate, he said (Corp. Ref. III, 827, my emphasis):

"I thank the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther, first, because I learned the Gospel from him."

Again, this was stated on "a premonition of death", and so it was made in all seriousness.

       But the exact opposite assertion was made by Dr. Lowell Green († 2014), a noted teacher in the LC-MS now promoted by Drs. Scott Keith (Concordia-Irvine, CA, 1517.org) and John T. Pless (CTS-FW). Keith's "1517 Publishing" has re-published, in a new edition, Dr. Green's 1980 book in 2021. One need only quote the title to discover their assertion:

       “How Melanchthon Helped Luther Discover the Gospel”

Unfortunately for Drs. Green and Keith, Melanchthon disagrees with them!

RH14: Antichrist, Usury, Orthodoxy, Predestination, Regeneration, Sunday/Sabbath

      This concludes from Part 13 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Pastor's Hochstetter's critique of an 1881 German pamphlet on the Old Missouri Synod. — This completes a listing of the criticisms from Germany, starting with the major one on the Antichrist, against the Missourians by Pastor Rudolf Hoffmann. These are covered in Hoffmann pp. 28-29. What follows are quotes from Hoffmann, then my in-line critiques. The final grouping is under the umbrella of the theologians of "Lutheran Orthodoxy": 

Antichrist:

Hoffmann: “Just listen to this one thing: Because in the Smalcald Articles (Concordia ed. Müller 308, 10 [Trigl. 475, 10; web]) the pope is called the Antichrist, therefore he must not be a part of it, as the Apology says (papatus erit pars regni antichristi, Concordia 209, 18 [Trigl. 318, 18, web]), but the Antichrist; indeed, this is so much a main doctrine with them that Walther goes so far as to assert: as the Jews sinned by not recognizing Jesus as the Christ, so Christians sin if they do not recognize the Pope as the Antichrist (Lehre und Wehre 1880, p. 26), and further: Whoever does not consider the pope to be the Antichrist, we cannot consider him a Christian, let alone a Lutheran. (Lehre und Wehre 1869, p. 269)”

Hoffmann's reference to an essay in Lehre und Wehre is not correct, for it does not address the subject of the Papacy. And the charge is not correct either, for in the same volume, Lehre und Wehre 1869, p. 125, Walther says that these Christians have only “gone astray”. Walther did not say “we cannot consider him a Christian”, but he only taught that they were erring, i.e. going astray, from the Smalcald Articles.

Usury:  

Hoffmann: “It has become a new Missourian confession by Synod decision that any taking of interest is usury and therefore sin (Synod Report of 1869), incidentally one of the weakest arguments that can be read, where only with difficulty the relevant scriptural passages and Luther are forced into the Missourian view.” [See Hochstetter's writing on this in his later History here.]

Lutheran Orthodoxy:

Hoffmann: “Every error carries its judgment within itself. Where will these paths lead? That even the symbols will no longer suffice [!], and that even the best Lutheran dogmatists must ultimately become false teachers [!]. The direction has already been taken. ” [Hoffmann does not accept that all Holy Scripture is given by inspiration of God and presents divine doctrine, even where the Confessions may be silent. Then he falsely generalizes and attempts to say the the Missourians labeled the teachers from the period of Lutheran Orthodoxy as "false teachers".]

Predestination:

Hoffmann: “Johann Gerhard et al. are criticized for having sought to mediate between the general divine will of grace and the special individual election <page 29> in the fides praevisa or in the intuitius fidei, and for not simply agreeing to the harsh doctrine of predestination laid down by Luther in his de servo arbitrio [Bondage of the Will]” [Walther pointed out an error of John Gerhard on Predestination, but hardly called him a "false teacher" on this account. See Hochstetter, History p. 364 etc.]

Regeneration: 

Hoffmann: “Chemnitz himself no longer exists before Missouri's eyes, because he taught that regeneration is not a repeated one (in repentance and conversion), but a unique one in baptism (cf. Chemnitz exam. concil. trid. p. 273) [No reference is given to Missouri writings to judge by — his judgment may be similar to the above false one of Walther and the Antichrist.]” 

Sunday / Sabbath: 

Hoffmann: “Other dogmatists [?] become direct false teachers … in the doctrine of Sunday they do not rest exclusively on the 28th Art. of the Augustana [AC 28, 53], but have also emphasized the other ropes, according to which a commandment of God valid for all times [the Sabbath] is also the core here” [Augsburg Confession: "What, then, are we to think of the Sunday … not that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services." Hoffmann is not a confessional Lutheran. See Hochstetter's writing on this in his History here.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - -  End of series  - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      Pastor Hochstetter did indeed respond to these omitted doctrines a few years later in his History. And his writings are to be preferred to mine above. But I could not leave them without a response here.  They show that the errors of the Iowa and Ohio Synods mirror the errors emanating from the main German church, the Union, or United, Church. — Pastor Hoffmann's final judgment on the Old Missouri Synod?… Yes? or No?:

No!

May Hochstetter's instructive defense aid others as it has for me.  In Jesus name! Amen!

RH13: Appendix: exegesis, Revelation, confessionalism

      This continues from Part 12 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Pastor's Hochstetter's critique of an 1881 German pamphlet on the Old Missouri Synod. — This segment does not contain Hochstetter's critique because he did not cover these points. That could be because he spent so much space on the doctrine of the Church and Church Government.  Or it could be because he was not given enough space to fully address all the points made by Hoffmann. Whatever the reason, the following criticisms were leveled against the Missourians, and therefore call for a response. One will find these covered in Hoffmann pp. 27-29. What follows are quotes from Pastor Hoffmann, then my critique.

Exegesis and Holy Scripture:

Hoffmann: “Missourian theology is merely backward theology and as such is already insufficient; but there are many other things. The Missourians did almost nothing in the way of independent biblical research; it is extremely rare to find an exegetical work. … For the rest, the Missourians regard Holy Scripture only as a collection of dicta probantia [proof texts] for dogmatics; it is clear that the divine word is not given its due.”

The first charge, the lack of exegesis, is false for the Old Missouri Synod had an exegete of the first order in Prof. George Stoeckhardt. Also see below of Pastor Röbbelen on the Book of Revelation.

Prof. J. P. Koehler

This kind of charge had also come from one much closer to home, most notably from Prof. J. P. Koehler of the Wisconsin Synod. See his History of the Wisconsin Synod, p. 236 where he uses "exegesis" to attempt to show that "a synod is 'church'" in the same sense as the local congregation, which is mirrored exactly by the explicit teaching of Pres. Matthew Harrison of the LC-MS (see Part 8). — The second charge of "the divine word is not given its due" comes from an opponent of Verbal Inspiration, as practically all teachers of the German United Church were opponents. Many others have made these same charges against Walther and Pieper. The charge claims to be as a champion of Holy Scripture when it intends to strip it of its dogmatic nature. It originates from an aversion to dogmatics. 

Book of Revelation:

Hoffmann: “It sounds more than naive when a Pastor Röbbelen, who published an interpretation of the Apocalypse [Revelation] in Der Lutheraner, declared that he could not consider this book canonical because Luther did not consider it canonical either, and the enlightened man understood more about it than he [Luther] did. (Köstering p. 180 ff. [CHI/CPH 2022 p. 144])”

One may read the background of this from Missouri Synod Pastor Röbbelen himself in Der Lutheraner, volume 12 (April 22, 1856), p. 139 f.. While Hoffmann complimented Röbbelen, he wants to promote doctrinal freedom, particularly away from Martin Luther, with this comment. It represents a cavalier attitude towards the Reformer of the Church. (More will be forthcoming on this matter, watch for it soon.) — Hochstetter addresses the Book of Revelation in his History (search "Revelation" there).

quatenus Subscription and Confessionalism:

Hoffmann: “But what is taken away from it [Scripture] is given too much to the symbolic books, and thus what should at first be a testimony of doctrine becomes an essential source of doctrine. Here lies, however much their willing submission is to be acknowledged, the fundamental error of the Missourians. The <page 28> symbolic books in honor — would to God they were better known and more diligently studied among us — they are also a norm for us, and in accepting them we need not hide behind the reserve: quatenus verbo dei consentiunt, [in so far as they agree with the Word of God] but since they are also the work of men, we must also distinguish between the essential and the non-essential in them and must not forget that they can be norm and foundation, but not already the goal and end of theological knowledge. Missouri, however, turns the confessions, whose literal, unreserved acceptance she demands, into a code of law, into a paper pope, and so, against her will, her exaggerated Lutheranism turns into Romanism, whose bitterest opponents they otherwise are.”

Pastor Hoffmann admits that his Church, the Union Church, does not subscribe fully to the Lutheran Confessions — he holds to a "quia" subscription, a conditional one. That is the same as admitting that one is not actually Lutheran. Then he confirms this, saying that the "too much" that is given to the symbols was taken away from Scripture. Then he attempts to whitewash all of this by saying that the Confessions "are also a norm for us". All of this exposes just how un-Lutheran he is as he then calls the Confessions a "code of laws", "a paper pope". How much more un-Lutheran can one be? All of this was going on well before the devasting World Wars of the next century.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -  Conclusion in Part 14  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      Hoffmann was not the only German churchman to use Pastor Röbbelen's exposition of Revelation and its canonicity against the Old Missouri Synod. More will be said in a later blog series by C. F. W. Walther (GB4). — In the next Part 14, we conclude this series with Hoffmann's errors on the Antichrist and other doctrines.

RH12: Walther’s lament - don’t be another United Church; Iowa-Ohio shamed by German pastor

   This continues from Part 11 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Pastor's Hochstetter's critique of an 1881 German pamphlet on the Old Missouri Synod. — We saw in the last segment that Pastor Hoffmann was "grabbing at straws" by attempting to quote Walther against Walther. Hochstetter untangles that web of a misquote and uses it for the instruction of his readers. Then the focus turns to the Missouri Synod itself, and its still living teacher, C. F. W. Walther. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 28 (Feb. 1882), pp. 81-82 [EN]: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

How the Missouri Synod is Judged in Germany Today.

[A review of an 1881 pamphlet by Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann of Germany]

By Pastor Ch. Hochstetter, Stonebridge, Canada.

In this sense the tone of lamentation [p. 32-33] in the synodical address [by Walther] at the opening of the 1878 Delegate Synod [German text, English translation (DeepL)] is to be understood, which tone Hoffmann sees as a sign of the threatening decay of our Synod. Such warnings must sound, so that we do not arrive where the United Church has long been! Meanwhile, the Election of Grace controversy that erupted soon after that synodical session and is now drawing to a close has served to show that the Missouri Synod still holds fast to the true church unity described in Article VII of the Augsburg Confession. 

It is also clear from the respect with which Hoffmann writes of Missouri as a whole that the voice of the Missouri Synod has not yet faded away in Christendom. According to his writing, Hoffmann also knew about the present dispute, for he is surprised that we do not swear by the words of John Gerard in regard to the doctrine of the Election of Grace. Finally, however, he thinks that as long as the congregations bow to the Word of God, and "Walther's prudent hand" [p. 29] still holds the reins, the Missouri Synod may well remain, but it is understandable to say that the Missouri Synod sees only through two eyes, and if these close, Missouri will dissolve into general fragmentation. The latter fear is understandable in a man of the State Church, because such a man thinks that with the departure of that man another régime begins, in the manner of a change of ministers.  

On the whole, however, the writer of this, as often as Hoffmann's judgment on Walther confronts him (as it has already been mentioned earlier), thinks that the latest opponents (Ohioans, Iowans), who had just set their sights on Walther, should be somewhat ashamed by the testimony of this [German] foreign stranger [Hoffmann], who after his death still has to speak of the Missourian professor with such recognition.

It seemed as if a Catilinian conspiracy was about to break out in the midst of the Synodical Conference, while younger men [Profs. F. A. Schmidt of Norwegian Synod, F. W. Stellhorn of Ohio Synod], who already hold important chairs, fired their arrows against their old teacher [Walther]; but the arrows did not hit, it seemed as if mountains wanted to give birth, it was said that the command for this dispute was from God, but behold, this work was not from God… what finally became of it? A point of defiance for some malcontent pastors, America will perhaps be enriched by a small synod! — 

As far as Hoffmann's fear is concerned, we well know that the eyes of everyone, even of a dear teacher, will close once in death, until the Day of Resurrection. But the eyes of the Lord are always open and they look at the righteous! [Psalm 34:15] That is, to those who hold on to the pure Word and are not lax in the work of the LORD! The external <page 82> Missouri synodical association can dissolve what is visible, what is passing away; but the church of the Missourians cannot fall, for it is the church of which Luther said that it was founded on the Word of God, and will be renewed by the Word of God; therefore, it will be preserved by the Word of God even in this last time of sorrow. Even the gates of hell will not overpower it. 

“For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth for ever.” [1 Peter 1:24-25]

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 13  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Pastor Christian Hochstetter's history may be criticized by today's LC-MS teachers, yet this criticism is evidently from the same point of view as from the German Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann who defended a hierarchical (state-run) church government against a government of "Christocracy". — Hoffmann's reference to Walther's 1878 Synod Address above was also used by a much more well-known German theologian, Georg Buchwald, in a pamphlet of 1886. More on that in a future blog series.

      There are several doctrines brought out by Pastor Hoffmann that Pastor Hochstetter passed over and did not respond to: chiefly the Antichrist. We address those in the next Part 13.

RH11: Irony of Hoffmann's United Church; Repristination theology?; Chiliasm

   This continues from Part 10 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting Pastor's Hochstetter's critique of an 1881 German pamphlet on the Old Missouri Synod. — Hochstetter lays bare the corrupted teaching within the United Church, and so encourages Christians to take their doctrine, what they are to believe, from Holy Scripture itself. When scholars give long-winded narratives with little reference to the Bible, that is a sure sign to beware, and go back to the proof texts to assure oneself of the Truth. — From Lehre und Wehre, vol. 28 (Feb. 1882), pp. 79-81 [EN]:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

How the Missouri Synod is Judged in Germany Today.

[A review of an 1881 pamphlet by Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann of Germany]

By Pastor Ch. Hochstetter, Stonebridge, Canada.

 

In view of the situation that Hoffmann himself complained about in his church [p. 19], that there are often two preachers in one and the same congregation, one of whom preaches the divinity of Christ in the morning and the other one denies the divinity of Christ in his lecture in the afternoon of the same day, Hoffmann should have refrained from the irony with which he enumerates a few things that the Missourians still consider an open question. He could have left such accusations to the Iowans, for from them one is accustomed to hear all the things he otherwise cites against Missouri. The answer has been given so often that we <page 80> mostly limit ourselves to the enumeration. 

The first accusation leveled at Missouri theology is that it is a pure repristination of Old Lutheran dogmatists. This reproach does not apply to us inasmuch as we always take reason and proof of our doctrine from God's Word itself, especially the dicta probantia [proof texts], in which the doctrine is dealt with ex professo, but the Missourians rejoice in the testimonies that are consistent with their doctrine and that delve into the doctrinal writings of the fathers. These testimonies serve to show that we teach nothing new in rebus et phrasibus. This is what we fear, for truth is but one, and the revealed Word of God is simple, not a thousandfold, which is what the Unionists want to make it; the Missourians do not want to make progress which leads to unbelief and apostasy. That is precisely why the serious accusation that the Missourians want to make new doctrine is not true. Many a unanimous testimony for the old scriptural truth, as already follows from the Seventh Commandment when the doctrine of usury comes into consideration [see p. 29], is cited by the Missourians, because we find the truth in God's Word, and this is also the normative norm according to our symbols! We always maintain that God's Word alone should make articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel from heaven [Gal. 1:8]; this word was once held by Luther against the Pope, we must again testify to today's neo-Lutherans, who want to wait until the Church speaks: “The Church cannot set anything new, nor has it ever done so!”

Hoffmann then takes the fact that chiliasm is not tolerated in the Missouri Synod as a reproach! But if he wants to use as evidence the proceedings that were once taken against an old pastor [Schieferdecker] who had long since recognized his error and returned to our midst, this example has been unfortunate. Whoever is not satisfied with the spiritual nature of the Kingdom of God, whoever, moreover, has before his eyes a sad confusion and vain dissension among the teachers (there will hardly be twelve pastors in the state churches who harmonize with one another), will gladly take refuge emotionally in the imagination of a future millennial kingdom! Therefore, if Hoffmann, according to the complaints he himself makes about the German situation, nevertheless thinks that an essential difference between the two sides is that [p. 33] 

“what we can tolerate in the solid structure of a church system that has been ordered for a long time cannot be tolerated by the Missourian Free Church, which is set on the basis of complete arbitrariness”, 

then this is poor consolation for the United Church members if they want to belong to church in another way. 

The Missouri Synod, which has unity of faith and doctrine as its foundation, certainly cannot bear such an internal disruption and doctrinal disunity, as it is privileged among the syncretistic [Prussian] Union! The Uniteds do not have a certain, firm doctrine to which <page 81> they can adhere; where there is no unity of spirit, there is nothing to adhere to as there is according to Ephesus. 4:3; but the Missourians are allowed make this memorial their own, which, according to the Missouri Synod, means: “Hold what you have!” [Rev. 3:11]

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 12  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      It is quite sad to read of the condition of the German Union Church, that within the same congregation with two different pastors, one could preach the divinity of Christ, the other deny it. This also sadly mirrors what is going on in today's LC-MS, where the moderate or progressive party are allowed to refrain from or even teach against what the Old Missouri Synod taught and would discipline. But on top of this, they will glory in their shame. — 

      In the next Part 12, Hochstetter unravels another charge by Hoffmann, then summarizes how the Missouri Synod was glorified through its struggles against false doctrines.