Hist17: Chp 13a— Germany supplies, fights; Election Controversy concluded: “they laugh at us…, in danger"

      This continues from Part 16 (Table of Contents in Part 3), a series presenting an English translation of Pastor Christian Hochstetter's 1885 496-page book entitled (abbreviated) The History of the Missouri Synod, 1838-1884. It also follows an Excursus on a contrary judgment of Walther's theological skill. — The last chapter 13 is by far the longest one and is being split up.  This "13a" portion reports on German Lutheran missionaries who recognized, with Walther's help, the false doctrine in their missionary society regarding the inspiration of Holy Scripture. The most noteworthy member who came to Missouri was Carl Manthey Zorn, a prolific later author of CPH books and others (Find-A-Grave).  An excuse for unionism was put forward by the Leipzig Mission Society, that Martin Luther supposedly "tolerated" or "carried" Melanchthon, to which Walther wrote a definitive, powerful refutation in 1876 [LuW 22 (1876) p. 321-339, 353-373]. (A separate "Excursus" will follow on this.) — The Controversy on the doctrine of Election of Grace had to be finally disposed of and concluded.  To this day, this doctrine still is a watershed event in the Church History of the last 150 years for the (Old) Missouri Synod.

Some quotes from Chapter 13a: (410-437)
411: "formal institution for… training of ministerial students for North America… by Pastor Brunn at Steeden"
412: "the German Lutheran state churches … allowing the liberal spirit of the times, unionism"
414: "We believe that many dear Lutherans… are in Germany, but the organizations are no longer Lutheran"
415: Missouri and verbal inspiration: "they laugh at us as ignorant people who are behind the times"
416: "no longer… Inspiration,… no longer… a purely Lutheran church,… the foundation for it is missing."
416: Breslau: "When a people…falls for the second time…it can happen… as it happened to Jerusalem."
417: Walther: "we take away the sting of the Word… a generation that has become full and died twice!"
421: "G. Stoeckhardt… sentenced to eight months in prison... after he had already left Germany"

422: Brauer: "a divine, salvation-working truth… the preservation of which life and salvation depend"
422: Luthardt: "all Lutheran Christians were warned of the Missouri Synod,… the theories put forward by Professor Walther…  doctrine of transference and the doctrine that the Pope was the Antichrist"
425: Leipzig, German syncretists "appeal to Luther's supposed toleration of the errors of Melanchthon…Walther proves… the matter, thank God, is quite different"
431: Schwan: "we put the article of the Election of Grace on the candlestick again… reason knows nothing of grace… your faith is not your work, but mine [God's]"
433: "Our doctrine is none other than that of Scripture and our dear Lutheran Church at the time of the Reformation and the Formula of Concord.… [to] the two sole causes of Election, namely God's mercy and Christ's merit… they also add a third cause, namely, persevering faith."
435: 1881 Missouri on "in view of faith": "we should rather drop the expressions of the later dogmatists."
437: Inexperienced people: "it is better [than pure doctrine] to devote one's time and energy to missions"
Images of some men appearing in Chapter 13a: (410-437)

    Brunn    —————    Kahnis   ————   G. Fritschel   ———   O. Willkomm   ———   Stoeckhardt  —————  Zorn
                     Ruhland    ————    Luthardt  —————  Scheibel  —————  Wucherer  ————  von Hofmann  ————  Schwan

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

The following is an English translation of C. Hochstetter's Geschichte… by BackToLuther utilizing the DeepL Translator with minor assistance from Dr. Fred Kramer's translation.  All hyperlinks, highlighting and red text in square brackets [] are mine. All internal hyperlinks are active in this embedded window, external links should be opened in a new tab or window.

      Much is made of Wilhelm Loehe's contribution to the roster of pastors and leaders in the early Missouri Synod. Loehe is even called "as much responsible for establishing the LCMS as was Walther".  But perhaps the greater, but largely ignored, contributor of trained men for the ministry from Germany was Friedrich Brunn (pic). I was glad to see that Hochstetter reported his activities.   Pastor Brunn is so important that I am inserting another Excursus in the next post in honor of him. — After the break below the customary fine text version, then Part 18, Chapter 13b.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Full text of Chapter 13a (fine print)  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The History of the Missouri Synod, 1838-1884, Chapter 13a

By Christian Hochstetter

= = = = = = = = =

The origin and legitimacy of the Saxon Evangelical Lutheran Free Church. (410) [Pastor Brunn trains students in Steeden for Missouri (411); Free Church forms 1871, Pastor Brunn in Steeden (418)] — The withdrawal of the faithful Lutheran East India missionaries from the service of the Leipzig Mission and its consequences. [Germany warns, but Leipzig missionaries leave for Missouri (422); Break with Leipzig Mission Society (424);  Walther answers Leipzig claim that Luther tolerated Melanchthon (424-427); ]. — The position of the Missouri Synod as such in the Controversy on the Election of Grace. (428) [Schwan’s 1881 address on Election (428)] ● [1881 Synod: disputes, discusses, then adopts “13 Theses on Election” (433)]

At the beginning of the last decade [1871], a sister synod of the German Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and other States was established in Germany, namely the Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Free Church in Saxony and other States. Although the bond of faith that links these Saxon Lutherans with the members of the North American Missouri Synod is so close that they are often shamefully accused of being Missourians, this Saxon separated Lutheran synod has nevertheless grown up quite independently in its native homeland. Here, too, solemn protest against the accusation which has often been made, as if the North American Missouri Synod had sought to undermine the German Lutheran state church from over here, to agitate for separation from it and for the formation of a German-Missouri Free Church. In many cases it is just the other way round. After all, the Saxon Lutherans who emigrated in 1838 never claimed that Saxon Lutheranism had emigrated with them; after Stephan's unmasking, they decidedly renounced his narrow-minded sectarianism, as is reported in chapter 2 of this book. The public declaration of the emigrated Saxon Lutherans was kindly received in their old homeland and published in Saxon newspapers (mainly in the Pilgrims from Saxony [Pilger aus Sachsen]). Thus, in the first decades of the existence of the

411 >

Missouri Synod, a bond of fraternal, intimate fellowship and assistance was formed between the emigrants and the Missouri Synod established by them and the Lutheran-minded people in their old Saxon homeland. The editors of the Pilgrims from Saxony, Pastors Meurer, Rühle, Böttcher, brought their readers news and messages from the area of the Missouri Synod in America and called for active support of them. It should be especially emphasized here, however, that following an appeal by the sainted Pastor Wyneken in 1840, the Dresden Association for Church Support of Germans in North America was formed, which from that time on sent a number of Lutheran pastors to America. Even though this association was not established in the beginning in exclusive connection with the Missouri Synod, it later entered into full church fellowship with the Missouri Synod, just as most of the sendlings of the association later joined the Missouri Synod, some of whom became outstanding members and leaders of the Missouri Synod themselves, to which not only the aforementioned Pastor Wyneken belonged, but also the still living and venerable Pastor Sihler in Fort Wayne, one of the first and oldest sendlings of the Dresden association. Unfortunately, the activities of this association seemed to cool down more and more, but they still existed until the beginning of the 1860s, when (1861) a formal institution for the collection and training of ministerial students for North America was established in Nassau by Pastor Brunn at Steeden, in close and exclusive connection with the Missouri Synod. Even now there was so little awareness of opposition to the Missouri Synod in Germany, so that Pastor Brunn's institution, when it first came into existence, was welcomed with joy and supported most eagerly in all German Lutheran churches, namely Saxony, Hanover, Mecklenburg, and Lauenburg. In particular, Pastor Brunn also met the then board of the Dresden Association for North America on several occasions during this time, and enjoyed the warmest brotherly love and hospitality of the sainted bookseller Justus

412 >

Naumann in Dresden, Pastor Siedel in Tharandt and others, as well as the full promise of participation and support. But especially on his annual collection trips, which Pastor Brunn made in almost all German Lutheran regional churches in the interest of his institution, he found the friendliest welcome everywhere, and was a welcome guest and speaker at many mission festivals; his institution was mainly maintained for the first 10-15 years of its existence with gifts from the state church as well as with students. At that time there was so little talk of a break or conflict between the Missouri Synod and the German Lutheran state churches. Rather, the Missouri-minded Lutherans on both sides of the world's oceans hoped that pure Lutheran doctrine would again and again come to dominate in the German state churches and that a real renewal and reformation of the German state church would take place.

Unfortunately things nevertheless turned out differently and certainly had to come out differently. And what was the main reason for this? Certainly not in a possible sectarian spirit or in the one-sided partiality of the Missouri-minded Lutherans for separation and free-churchism. No, indeed not. The contrast between the latter and the German Lutheran state church rather arose quite naturally and from within by the fact that in the Missouri SynBrobstd in America, as well as in its faithful friends and closest fellow believers in Germany, the faithful adherence to pure Lutheran confessional doctrine with all its consequences had won and kept the rule, while the German Lutheran state churches in their ecclesiastical and theological development, which had begun so hopefully, did not reach its goal but came to a standstill, allowing the liberal spirit of the times, unionism and the errors of modern theology to remain within them. Enslaved by the secular state governments of our time, whereby a real return

413 >

of the Lutheran state church to the pure Lutheran Confession revealed itself more and more as impossible.

It should not be denied here what powerful strengthening and foundation, especially in recognition of pure Lutheran doctrines and the truly Lutheran church principles based on them, the Missouri Synod in America has provided for our entire time, and how much this has not only bound its closest friends in Germany to it with intimate bonds of love and faith, but has also promoted their ecclesiastical endeavors. In such close fellowship with the Missouri Synod, the well-known “Association of Lutherans” (“Lutheranervereine”) in Dresden and Planitz in Saxony came into being in the early 1860s, at first without any thought of separation from the state church, but only out of the desire for support in faithful Lutheran church knowledge and attitude. But in their eager ecclesiastical striving for progress it soon became clear to these associations that the Saxon State Church and most of the pastors were not keeping pace with them: in the associations mentioned above, they clearly and decidedly held fast to purely Lutheran doctrine; in the State Church, on the other hand, they remained divided in their doctrine, unclear, undecided and tolerated various false doctrines; those associations pushed for Lutheran church discipline, the elimination of unionism especially at the altar, the establishment of Lutheran and closed communion, but the Saxon state church could not do justice to all these demands and requests, which these associations repeatedly addressed to the Saxon church government. The Ministry of Worship in Dresden rejected the petitions in question. Thus it came to the separation from the Saxon state church and formed the two separated congregations in Dresden, Zwickau and Planitz, which felt compelled to call the now sainted pastor Ruhland from America to be their pastor, since no Saxon pastor had joined them nor been willing to join them in the separation. The Missouri Synod in America as well as Pastor Brunn in Nassau, who himself stood in the 

414 >

closest connection with the Saxon Lutheran associations, were completely far from urging the latter to separate, but out of full conviction, founded on the Word of God, they had to welcome the Saxon separation as truly Lutheran and confessional with joy,  and so support and promote it to the best of their ability.

This is not the place to discuss in more detail today's German national or rather state church and the reasons for or against separation, which has happened in many other places. In order to be able to judge the position of the Missouri Synod, which it has currently taken on the same, we can only briefly mention the testimony it gave on the occasion of its jubilee celebration in 1872: “We believe that many dear Lutherans, many excellent men, are in Germany, but the organizations are no longer Lutheran; the Lutherans are in the midst of corrupt fellowships. We maintain that there is no longer a Lutheran Church in Germany as there was in the time of Luther and John Gerard, when the whole Bible was seriously considered to be the Word of God and the Concordia was considered to be the pure, clear and true exposition of the Word of God, where as soon as a preacher who deviated on one point from the Word of God and from the confession was agitated, he was put on trial.” As proof of this, p. 49 of the 15th Synodical Report [1872 Missouri] is cited earlier: The worst of all is that those who claim to be at the head of the renewed Lutheran Church do not believe or teach the doctrines of that Church itself. As an example is given in the same place: Dr. Kahnis, who teaches in the Arian way that the Son of God is inferior to and subordinate to the Father, thus denying the apparently admitted divinity of Christ, who further attributes to the natural, unconverted man a free will even in spiritual matters etc. Also Dr. Luthardt, although a learned man and one who is highly respected as editor of the Allgemeine Evangelisch-lutherische Kirchenzeitung (General Evangelical-Lutheran Church Newspaper), teaches completely in the spirit of the modern Lutheran theology that wants to be Lutheran: He does not believe that in conversion man is pure

415 >

passive in behavior, i.e. that he is only the object to be converted, but not the one who brings it about. The fact that man cannot do anything about it is considered an abomination by modern theology. (Also the Iowa Synod’s vocal leader G. Fritschel, who wants to introduce the modern German theology here as it already came out during the Iowa Colloquy, puts in the Brobst’s Monatsheften the statement: “Whether man becomes saved or is lost, that is in the last resort based on man’s free decision for or against grace.” Whereas Dr. Walther, in Lehre und Wehre, of 1872, p. 193 ff., wrote the important essay: “Is it really Lutheran doctrine that the salvation of man is based in the last analysis on man's free decision for or against grace?”) Although Scripture clearly states: “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them.” [1 Cor. 2:14]  , they admit that this is what it says, but it is foolishness to them that the decision should not rest with man. — It is also almost universally accepted among these so-called orthodox theologians of Germany that the Lutheran doctrine of inspiration can no longer be believed. The professors without exception say: Not every word in the canonical writings of the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit; and because we still believe this, they laugh at us as ignorant people who are behind the times, even though the Savior says so clearly: “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”, Matt. 4:4. Add to this 1 Cor. 2:13: “the words which… the Holy Ghost teacheth”. That Word, of which Luther says: “It stands firm like a wall which no one can overturn, no matter how intelligent he may be”, this they have left behind. †) 

——————————————— 

†) Dr. Fred Kramer’s note: According to the German Hymnal prepared by Dr. Walther and used in the German services in the Missouri Synod throughout its history the quotation is not from Luther but from the hymn “Herr Jesu Christ, du hast bereit“ by Samuel Kinner or Koerner, No. 197, stanza 4. [Walther’s German Hymnal #197, stanza 3; TLH #306, “Lord Jesus Christ, Thou hast prepared”] 

———————————————

No one believes what the old Brenz says anymore, that if Paul has interpreted a passage of the Old Testament, he who pretends that this is not the interpretation of the Holy Spirit must be cursed. *)

——————————

*) It should be recalled here that the address of the Breslau supreme Church Consistory, published on June 15, 1884, among other things states:

416 >

But it is certain that where one no longer has the doctrine of Inspiration, there can no longer be talk of a purely Lutheran church, because the foundation for it is missing.

Following the above words taken from the synodical proceedings of the year 1872, a few sentences from Dr. Walther's synodical address of the year 1874 are attached here [BTL translation; Baseley translation here]:

“Over in the country of the foundation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, this church is manifestly approaching its dissolution more and more. After the unbelief that had already penetrated it at the end of the last century had already almost left it in the dust of death, it experienced a gracious visitation and awakening, but the Church of the Reformation has not risen again. — For what has happened? —

“Instead of returning to the faith ‘which was once delivered unto the saints’ [Jude 1:3], to the faith of the Apostolic Church, as Luther once did, it is precisely those who want to be considered pillars of the Church who have made science, further education, progress, perfection their watchword.

“Instead of preserving with holy faithfulness the precious heritage of pure doctrines and knowledge, which our fathers fought for in hot battles and temptations and left to us, their children, while Christianity as a whole is being defended with great learning, all individual doctrines of Christianity are now in the case of the one, now of another, in incomprehensible blindness treated as not yet finally answered questions [or ‘Open Questions’],

——————————

“The falsely famous art that the sainted Scheibel called the transformation of Christianity into innermost paganism is now once more being practiced at German universities, and the states as well as the state churches cannot ward off the evil …… When a people which had been graced by God as has the German people falls for the second time into the mire of rationalism — without permitting itself to be raised again by divine grace to the height and power of faith of the time of the Reformation — and this now, at a time of generally and internationally advanced human arrogance that has penetrated into the lowest circles, so this is more dangerous than the first time, and it can happen to them as it happened to Jerusalem."

417 >

made dubious and shaky, if they are not downright rejected, and thus themselves overturn what they have built. Under the broad shield of a so-called believing science, he who is supposed to be the servant of the Word (Luke 1:2) and wants to be called such, is now allowed to present himself as the lord and judge of the Word, to lead even the apostles and prophets to school, while those who assigned to scholarship, as the captured ‘riches of the Gentiles’ (Is. 61:6), to serve in the sanctuary of God instead of ruling, are branded as narrow-minded despisers of science. Now it is therefore even the so-called believers of whom David's lament is valid: ‘The foundations are destroyed’ Psalm 11:3 — — Instead of simply preaching repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, Acts 20:21, to both the learned and the unlearned, to both high and low, in an apostolic way, one is altering and mutilating the Gospel in order to lead the apostate generation back to the Gospel! — they take away the sting of the Word to bring back to life a generation that has become full and died twice! — Christianity is reduced to general and undefined religious principles and moods of the heart, in order to save it for a whole people who have long since in a conscious decision turned their backs on it.

“Instead of recognizing that a people who in their leading voices have fallen into disbelief, laughing at all hope of a hereafter and seeking their heaven only on earth, far from giving themselves over to the maternal education of the Church, rather reverse the relationship now and want only the church to submit to its majority of votes; instead of therefore separating from those who no longer want to be subject to Christ and His Word, indeed, loudly proclaim: ‘We do not want this one to rule over us’, ‘Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us!’ [Ps. 2:3] instead of, as the apostle commands, ‘purifying oneself of such people’ — the same people are kept in the church by all means still available, a

418 >

ballast which must necessarily pull the ship of the church into the abyss. — Instead of rallying in closed ranks around the old banner of the Confession of the orthodox church, and holding fast and defending it with confidence of faith, as did our fathers resting in God, all sorts of ambiguous formulas of commitment to this confession have been devised in order to reconcile even those who have long since left the foundation of it, to soothe their consciences and to give them space and authority in our church! Orthodox believers and manifest unbelievers, in short, friend and foe, now peacefully and fraternally share the pulpit, altar and pasture of the flock of Jesus Christ, sit together in synods, deliberate there together on the good of the Church and, in order not to endanger external peace, making ever new concessions to one another.…” (See C. F. W. Walther's Lutherische Brosamen p. 545 [From Baseley translation Our Master's Table, p. 255-256]).

Just as this synodical address describes, the year 1871 was the year in which things began to happen in the Kingdom of Saxony. In May of that year a so-called State Synod was held in Saxony for the first time, and after many a pious wish had been expressed there (which was finally subject to the free approval of the Royal Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Instruction), the so-called faithful and positive had to make such concessions that the oath on the symbolic books, which had rightly existed until then, was abolished and a vow was introduced for it, which even the worst rationalist could take. The unbelievers in Saxony rejoiced over this. But those who wanted in earnest to be Lutherans now realized that a time of decision had come. While the Saxon state church had now officially issued its confessional character, a number of Lutherans left the state church, as already mentioned, and the members of the above-mentioned “Lutheran Association” [p. 414] now became the stock of the Lutheran congregations, which now form the Evangelical Lutheran Free Church of Saxony and Other States. The first pastor called by the separated Lutheran 

419 >

congregations in Dresden and Planitz was Fr. Ruhland, until then the pastor in Pleasant Ridge, Ill. He was called from there to Saxony on Dr. Walther's recommendation. Since at that time it was believed in various quarters that Dr. Walther wanted to exercise an ecclesiastical act of governance in the German Free Churches, he declared already in the synod of St. Louis in 1872 that he had rendered this service of love to his Saxon co-religionists not as a synodical president but as a close friend, after repeated requests, which enabled them to constitute themselves as an independent Lutheran Free Church. Thus, in the face of the slanders that are widely spread and generally believed as if the “Missourians” had “invaded” Germany, it is to be noticed that the Evangelical Lutheran congregations which were created by separation, and are independent of the state, called in their freedom an orthodox pastor such as they could not find in Germany, from America, making use of the counsel of Dr. Walther, and had thereby demonstrated that, fully conscious of their rights a royal priests, they had nevertheless wanted to accord the holy ministry, where they saw that it was being rightly administered, its due honor and co-operation in exercising their right of calling. After a year, Pastor Ruhland found a brother in Pastor E. O. Lenk *), who had left the Saxon state church, who, while Ruhland took over the Planitz congregation, worked in the Dresden congregation until he was later called to America. From Saxony, Pastor Ruhland came into even closer contact with the separated Lutheran Pastor Fr. Brunn in Steeden, who had served the Missouri Synod faithfully, and Pastor Hein in Wiesbaden. **) Since Brunn's physical strength weakened,

——————

*) Cf. Lenk, Appeal to all Christians of the Saxon State Church. Dresden 1872.

**) Pastor Hein joined the small synod at the beginning, which he helped to found, but he took the side of our opponents in the Election of Grace controversy that broke out later and fell away from the synod.

420 >

C. Eikmeier took over the ministry at the Steeden congregation. In addition to the latter, the following pastors were also appointed: G. Stöckhardt in Planitz, C. Schneider in Frankenberg, H. Stallmann in Dresden (now in Mendorf — Kleinlinden), P. Kern in Chemnitz, W. Hübener in Dresden, W. Meyer in Crimmitschau, and C. Hempfing in Mendorf near Wetzlar joined the small synod, whose first president was F. Ruhland. Since his death (1879) Pastor O. Willkomm, who is in Planitz, has been administering the presidency. Soon after it was constituted, this synod founded its own organ, entitled The Evangelical Lutheran Free Church, a church newspaper, which can also be obtained from the Lutheran Concordia Publishing House in St. Louis, and which deserves an even wider circulation than it has achieved so far. Particularly valuable are the proceedings of the fifth annual convention of this synod in 1881, held in Dresden in connection with the Election of Grace controversy, which had as their subject the doctrine of free will and conversion. The same are printed in Zwickau in Saxony and are available, together with the other writings of the Saxon Free Church, to purchase from Heinrich J. Naumann in Dresden.

It is still clear at all times that the separated Lutheran Church, wherever it has always come to light in Germany, is a great blessing for its surroundings, both ecclesiastically and in civic affairs. Also the now immortalized editor of the Freimund for many years, the Bavarian Pastor Wucherer, wrote in 1875: “The separation is the watchful conscience for the state church”; if he admittedly adds that this (the state church) is the cement for the separated, it would be sad for the existence of the separated church, if this latter opinion were correct. Meanwhile, the Saxon Lutheran Free Church must apparently have a quite different cement to hold it together, otherwise its existence would have been lost long ago. The bond which holds this Free Church together is the unanimous confession to which it adheres on the basis of the divine Word in the unity of the Spirit. This

421 >

has been shown in the many hostilities, which she has not lacked either. After, for example, Pastor G. Stoeckhardt in Niederplanitz had not only left the state church where he was originally supposed to stand up against the separated Lutheran Pastor Ruhland, but had also given testimony against today's state church in the The Evangelical Lutheran Free Church, he was not only prosecuted in court, but also sentenced to eight months in prison in his absence, after he had already left Germany following a call to Holy Cross Evangelical Lutheran Church in St Louis. On the part of the state church professors, the Free Church has found a bitter opponent in the editor of the Allgemeine Evangelisch-lutherische Kirchenzeitung [General Evangelical-Lutheran Church Newspaper], the above-mentioned Dr. Luthardt, who is also Vice President of the Leipzig Mission Society. It is certain that the church newspaper mentioned above is not a mere local newspaper, but the main organ of the state churches calling themselves Lutheran. Since today's state churches have become a playground for the most varied spirits, this Leipzig church newspaper must also “do justice” to these different directions, as one can already read in the prospectus of this newspaper. It is indeed very nicely interwoven with “as far as they move on the common ground of the Lutheran Confession and submit to the standard of this Confession”, but of course one reserves for oneself in every respect free research and free scholarship and the necessary freedom for the further education of Christianity, where else would be the justification of Luthardt's Chiliasm and synergism, or the right of the trend of Kahnis to Arianism, or the trend of Schleiermacher, von Hofmann, etc. Only one direction is forbidden and frowned upon, that is the path taken by the Missouri Synod, which has remained faithful to the Lutheran Reformation, which admittedly does not follow the wishes of the modern, newer German theologians, but with the greatest possible faithfulness follows the opposite, urgent request of the Apostle Paul, who in1 Cor. 1:10-12

422 >

writes: “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, … but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” The pastor Brauer, standing in the Mecklenburg State Church, gives this testimony in Dargun of the Missouri Synod in the Mecklenburg Kirchen- und Zeitblatt of September 1876, where he laments that the dull shadows of the state churches no longer allow the purifying breeze of serious doctrinal discipline. The erroneous opinion of Luthardt, as if the church as such had to allow itself to be given contradictory directions in its midst (that order demands this!), Pastor Brauer counters with the assertion that precisely because the Church is not a (philosophical) school, but has a divine, salvation-working truth that is revealed from heaven, a truth that she has completely, on the preservation of which life and salvation depend, she must not tolerate that even in the most important doctrines of salvation the one teaches yes and the other no. He appeals to St. Paul's word: “For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” [Acts 20:27] It is a corrupting fraud of freedom, it is Chiliastic dreams of the flesh, to think that the Church, “the pillar and ground of the truth” [1 Tim. 3:15] of all truth of all time, is developing like the growing and passing things of this world from immaturity to maturity. (See the relevant reprint in Lehre und Wehre, 1876, p. 373).

In 1875, two articles appeared in the Leipzig Allgemeine evang.-lutherische Kirchenzeitung in which, in order to prevent the spread of separation in Saxony, all Lutheran Christians were warned of the Missouri Synod as being harsh people who condemned anyone who did not acknowledge every letter of the theories put forward by Professor Walther, in particular the so-called doctrine of transference and the doctrine that the Pope was the Antichrist. Already in chapter X of this book the most important points concerning these two matters are mentioned; Luthardt wisely refrains from the equally important testimony against

423 >

today's synergism and chiliasm. While the testimony of the Missouri Synod against the wrong direction of the modern university theology bore a blessed fruit back and forth, so that also in the area of the Leipzig Mission individual missionaries had been awakened to the right Lutheran insight, the above-mentioned articles, in which the gauntlet was thrown down to the Missouri Synod, had a different effect than one had thought in Leipzig. The missionaries A. Grubert, F. Zucker, C. M. Zorn and O. Willkomm *) felt compelled in their conscience to give public testimony and accordingly sent a “Declaration” to Pastor Brunn in Steeden for suitable publication. The same was published not only in the magazine Evang.-luth. Kirche und Mission, edited by Pastor Brunn, but also as a separate printing in the publishing house of Joh. Herrmann in Zwickau, and almost without exception the German circles connected with the Leipzig Mission judged the mentioned missionaries to be in danger. Although in this declaration there was not a single mention of the Mission, because what Pastor Brunn had said about the syncretistic state of the Leipzig Mission could not be blamed on the missionaries concerned, this action was nevertheless considered unforgivable. It became clear that the missionaries had acted rightly by taking steps to liberate the Leipzig Mission from the syncretism in which it lay, or, if this were not possible, at least to free themselves from this sin, according to 1 Timothy 5:22. The latter case occurred. The Director of Missions Hardeland himself rushed to the missionaries in the East Indies and, before any further negotiations, demanded that they should express their regret about the publication of the above-mentioned declaration. Since they could not do this for reasons of conscience, 

————————

*) The fifth, E. Schäffer, who was originally involved, resigned afterwards.

424 >

they had to leave the service of the Leipzig Mission.

Although St. Louis did not know anything about these events in the East Indies, but had only learned that the missionaries had taken steps to eliminate the syncretism prevailing in the Leipzig Mission, it was nevertheless possible to foresee what was in store for them. While they had been abandoned by the Missionary Society, Prof. Walther, in agreement with the St. Louis Conference, offered the missionaries in question the necessary funds, which they needed to travel from East India to Germany and from Germany to North America. The money was sent to them at their request after the bond with Leipzig had already been severed. Although it was natural that the Missourians took care of their fellow witnesses, some were not ashamed to make such an act a special reproach to Prof. Walther. He was even publicly accused of having acted arbitrarily in this matter; but in the end, all districts of the Missouri Synod confirmed everything that the men of St. Louis, particularly Prof. Walther, who was then the general president, had done and expended in this matter. At the same time, the Missouri Synod felt compelled, painful as it was, to sever the ties with Leipzig and to withdraw the support still given to the Leipzig Mission, since there was no longer any hope that the Mission would dismiss the syncretism in its midst. *)

In the course of these events it turned out that even those circles in Germany, whose confessional standpoint was still the best one could do, could not tolerate the testimony against the evils which were tolerated among them, and wanted little to think of doing away with these evils,

————————

*) About the course of events in the whole matter reported in detail: C. M. Zorn, Urgent Justification of the Resignation of the Missionaries F. Zucker, etc. from the Leipzig Mission. St. Louis, Mo. Dresden, Heinrich J. Naumann.

425 >

that they rather sought to defend these sad conditions. Some particularly liked to appeal to Luther's supposed toleration of the errors of Melanchthon and refers to them as if one could not be more orthodox than Luther once was. While also Hardeland had attacked the position of those missionaries in East India with this pretence, Prof. Walther took this as a reason to write the important article: “The ‘Toleration’ of Melanchthon on the part of Luther” in the November and  December issues 1876 of Lehre und Wehre. [German text here]— Since Director Hardeland wanted to reassure the missionaries by pretending that a man had to be taken for Lutheran for so long, that is, not to separate from him when he professed to be Lutheran, and since he also thought that Luther had followed precisely this principle toward the Melanchthon, Dr. Walther answered this question at the beginning of his essay: “If Melanchthon had really already become apparent in Luther's time as a stiff-necked false teacher, and if Luther had really let him be quietly allowed to do so during this time, one would have to admit, however, that those Lutherans who do not want to maintain fellowship with false teachers appearing in our church do not act in Luther's sense, at least not according to Luther's example. Except the matter, thank God, is quite different. Dr. Walther proves first of all that Melanchthon did not deviate from Luther's doctrine in any article until 1535, in which year doubts about the doctrines of the Holy Sacrament may have arisen in his heart, that he signed not only the Wittenberg Articles in 1536, but also afterwards the Smalcald Articles, which leave nothing to be desired in terms of decisiveness, that Melanchthon later, moreover, only secretly spoke out his departure from Luther's doctrines toward fellow-minded people, but disguised it from Luther as far as possible, so that Luther still behaved unsuspectingly toward him, while Melanchthon already carried himself with an evil conscience, and suspected that Luther might get angry with him. Furthermore Dr. Walther proves from several

426 >

examples that Luther did not simply tolerate Melanchthon, but rebuked and threatened him himself, if it once became obvious to him despite Melanchthon's constant playing hide-and-seek, or if even the strongest suspicion was aroused in him that Melanchthon was falsifying the doctrine. After Dr. Walther closes this detailed report, taken from the sources, with the story which comes from the mouth of [George] Major, that Luther not only wrote down the words in Latin at the entrance of his study room: “Our professors are to be examined on the Lord's Supper,” but also, before he set out on his last journey to Eisleben, told Major, when questioned, “What you read and what the words are, so it is the opinion; and when you return home, and I too, an examination will have to be conducted,” and so on, he finally summarizes the result as follows. p. 372, 1876: “Finally, we ask: Can those who cultivate fellowship in the church with notorious false teachers, when these profess to the doctrines of our church on the whole, rightly call upon the fact that Luther also tolerated a Melanchthon? — We answer: Impossible!  It is true that if one goes a little deeper into the history of Melanchthon's behavior during the last ten years of Luther's life, the eye is presented with such a bleak picture of the former that one must ask oneself with astonishment how it was possible that there was no decisive break between the two men.  …  How much more would we have preferred” so Dr. Walther continues in view of his preceding historical account, “to be able to help that only the memory of Melanchthon is kept alive from the time of his faithfulness and blessed activity, but that the memory of him in the time of his fall would rather be erased and buried forever! May those who, instead of strengthening themselves in Melanchthon who once faithfully supported his teacher Luther, seek support for their syncretism in Melanchthon who was secretly engaging in machinations against Luther, while publicly confessing loyalty to him and his doctrine, 

427 >

they are responsible for forcing faithful disciples of Luther to draw to light what they would like to see covered up. … To say that Luther tolerated Melanchthon as a false teacher revealed before him is against all historical, actual truth and a horrible blasphemy against Luther, the faithful confessor of pure truth until his death and unbending fighter against any falsification of the same. To say of a man, like Melanchthon, who had done and continued to do everything to make Luther believe that he agreed with him in doctrine; of a man who Luther … had given a serious reproach, of a man who, as often as reproaches have been given to him, had yielded, of a man, who himself constantly complained in those days that he had to walk beside Luther as if under a threatening thunderstorm gathering over his head, who always feared that he might betray himself, that he would be called to account by Luther, and when Luther polemicized that it was himself being meant, and finally of a man who, even after Luther's death revealed to a Carlowitz what an unbearable, “almost disgraceful bondage” he had endured under Luther — to say of such a man that Luther had carried him as a manifestly false teacher — as an example for us “from the fundamental time of the Reformation” (as Hardeland said) would be downright ridiculous, if it were not so sad. But to ascribe to Luther, The Reformer, who was awakened and sealed by God, that though he boldly condemned all others who harbored Melanchthon's errors as false prophets, and therefore as ravening wolves, but in Melanchthon he had ‘tolerated’ and overlooked these same errors out of a special friendship, may God protect every Lutheran from this in grace; but to him who does this, may God grant sincere repentance.” [end of long quote from Walther essay]

As thorough as the historical evidence that Dr. Walther provides there concerning Melanchthon is, so  serious and insistent is the above final application. Although the Leipzigers could not refute such articles, they were nevertheless from that time on always ready to open the columns of the Allgemeine Kirchenzeitung to the

428 >

opponents of the Missouri Synod, and when some years later the controversy on Election of Grace broke out in this country, the German university theologians were found on the side of those who thought that now they had found food on the table for them. But while in Germany it is customary to treat doctrinal disputes only as a dispute for students, Dr. Luthardt also encountered the strange fact that he, who was otherwise sympathetic to synergism, published an essay in the “Sprechsaal” section of his Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben (“Journal for Church Science and Church Life”; volume 1880, p. 204, installment IV) which in fact presents a Calvinist particularism. Neither Luther, nor Tileman Hesshusius, nor any Missourian has ever denied the universal grace and love of God toward all people. But the above-mentioned Lutheran publication, together with Calvin, makes the statement that God wants everyone to be helped, and so on, to a few individuals who are to be found among all classes and estates. In view of this, one could rightly ask: Where do these people get the right to persecute on account of the doctrine of the Election of Grace those who are concerned only about the sole working of divine grace in those who are saved by faith?

The position of the Missouri Synod as such in the Controversy on the Election of Grace.

After the Election of Grace Controversy had already been disturbing the minds for two full years, the 18th convention of the General Synod of Missouri, Ohio and other States was opened on May 11, 1881 at Fort Wayne, Indiana. General President H. C. Schwan who was elected at the conclusion of the previous General Synod three years earlier, based his synodical address on the text: “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” [2 Cor. 12:9] — Let the following be taken from it:

“In response to the prayer of Paul three times, the Lord said: ‘My

429 >

grace is sufficient for thee!” That is: You have my mercy, Paul. You shall keep it too. That's enough. So let it be sufficient for you. My grace will give you what you need: strength to fight, patience to carry, good courage in sadness. Paul believed the words. He let is suffice for him. … So he was of good courage in weakness, shame and need. — This word also has something to say to us, especially in the present time.

We are not worthy of extraordinary revelations. We are not chosen instruments, as a Paul was. But the Lord Himself has revealed His Gospel to us; He has called us to be His instruments, has blessed our work above all we ask and understand, has lifted us out of the dust, given us space, made us high and great. So that we do not exalt ourselves, as we would certainly have done, He has also seen to it that we are not lacking a thorn in the flesh and a messenger of Satan. And especially in the most recent time blows have struck us as we never had to suffer them before, because they came from a quarter from which we should certainly not have expected them. Not the old enemies, … but those who stood with us in sacred brotherly bonds, who are the flesh of our flesh and the bone of our bone, have not only accused us of false doctrine, but have also branded us as apostates before the whole of Christendom, and have even sounded the alarm against us as falsifiers of the eternal Gospel.

Then many godly hearts, as once St. Paul sighed and cried out to the Lord, and still cry out day and night, that at least this bitter cup may pass away. What now? Have they perhaps cried in vain? Have we gone unheard? Satan and his own are certainly already rejoicing: at last these men must fall to the ground, who stir up the world; and when they lie down, they shall never rise again! But they are mistaken. The time will come when they will stop. This thorn may penetrate even deeper and make the breach even larger.

430 >

The unexpected blows of the fist to the neck may come even more. But we are heard! Because of the Word: ‘My grace is sufficient for thee’, we also have the Word. — — All the children of God among us, as they are certain that they themselves have done nothing to help themselves, so are they also certain that the Lord has truly opened their hearts to rejoice in His grace, to take comfort and put all their hope in it. Just as they know that if they had been left alone they would have fallen away long ago, that it is the Lord alone who has received them up to now, so divinely are they also certain that He will hold on to them until the end, and will keep their portion until the Last Day. Therefore, we have His grace. We are certain of it.

But we have not forfeited this grace through the present struggle. We have a clear conscience. We know, and He also knows, that the article of eternal Election was not brought into the plan out of arrogance, but out of necessity, for His glory, for certain comfort of His own. After all, the Election of Grace has been widely denied or set aside in modern Christianity, or made dependent on all sorts of things in the elect, which God should have looked at and foreknown, be it their own decision, or their acceptance, or at least their unwillingness to resist the gift of faith. The one who has eyes must have seen how the glory of God was thereby darkened and the children of God were deprived of the certainty of comfort. And whoever saw this was not allowed to remain silent. He had to witness and praise the unconditional nature of grace, in which the supreme glory of our God shines; he had to testify and praise the certainty of this grace, on which all the consolation of broken hearts depends, but on the other hand, everything that wants to rise up against it, wherever it is to be found, in us or in others, consciously or unconsciously, and however it may be concealed, adorned and made up, had to be knocked down and trampled into the dust. That had to happen and that and nothing else

431 >

was what we wanted when we put the article of the Election of Grace on the candlestick again. We know that, the Lord knows that!

… We are certain that we have not lost His grace through this controversy either. Therefore, His word is now also valid for us: My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.

But what does this word tell us in our present struggle? It calls to us: Do not be afraid! The mountains shall depart, and the hills shall fall; but my grace shall not depart from thee, and the covenant of my peace shall not fall. Remain only with me and the certain word of my grace, and you shall certainly abide!

If you are not able to grasp how I once chose you, since you were in the same, even greater guilt than others, let it be sufficient for you that you now certainly have my grace, and that this grace is eternal, as I myself am…  

If others seek to ponder, explain, and make acceptable to reason the mystery of Election, be content that it is an Election of Grace and that reason knows nothing of grace.

If others do not wish to hear of a election which does not rhyme with their concepts of justice and equity, and they therefore make a judicial decision in advance, let it remain an Election of Grace. My (God's) justice will remain pure when it is judged.

If others think that my election must necessarily have seen something in those to be chosen that makes them pleasant or at least acceptable, be content and be glad that I alone saw my mercy and merit. Otherwise you would certainly not have been chosen.

If others say, I have at least had to look at your faith: so be content that your faith is not your work, but mine – I determined to work that in you, just as I chose you.

432  >

If they cannot understand how to be sure of their election, since one should be assured of the present state of grace but not of his perseverance, let it be sufficient that both of these are made sure by my calling Word and that faith in this Word is also a miracle of my grace……… 

Feeling sorry for so many sincere hearts that are on your enemies’ side: What can be said? Entrust them to my mercy. I will let the sincere succeed. — To sum up, the Lord is calling us with these words: Hold fast to what my Word tells you, that Election is by grace alone for my sake, that only free grace is truly grace and certain grace, and that only certain grace can comfort. Remain with it, and keep it in your own chamber; confess it confidently before the world, and preach it from the housetops, and fear not. I am with you. Do not retreat, for I am your God. I strengthen you, I also help you, I receive you through the right hand of my righteousness.

This, this is what the Word of the Lord tells us in this fight. Are you saying we shouldn't trust that Word? Would we have cause to? He has mercifully redeemed us from six tribulations, should an evil move us in this seventh one? He has saved us through many a struggle, and through it He has blessed us, should He want to leave us in this last one, if we stand by him? Are there not already traces of His grace and help? The storm for which the alarm was sounded did not overthrow us, the wild waters that rushed against us did not drag us along. On the contrary, they had to show us that in this struggle we are also standing safe on the rock that the wind and waves break against. Yes, it almost looks as if the order had already gone out: So far, and no farther! For not a few of those who turned their backs on us in the first horror are already turning back to us.  If we have had to painfully

433 >

experience the separating power of truth, we have certainly been allowed to taste the sweet unifying power of it……………  As often as something in us wants to exalt itself, may the thorn and the messenger of Satan hold it down, as often we are tried to be timid, may this Word of the Lord always lift us up: My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Amen.” [end of Schwan’s address]

——————

After the presidential address had been made, the Synod proceeded to the discussions concerning the fierce dispute that had broken out within the Synodical Conference over the doctrine of the Election of Grace. It is a sad fact that even in the midst of the Missouri Synod, members belonging to the Synod are fighting each other. “To see such a thing in our midst (the Missouri Lutherans) is unusual,” It is high time to control and prevent the destruction caused in our midst by the spreading of doctrines to the contrary. “Our doctrine is none other than that of Scripture and our dear Lutheran Church at the time of the Reformation and the Formula of Concord. It is the doctrine of our Church that we have ever professed and continue to profess without reservation. It is true that even our opponents have attempted to base their doctrine on Article 11 of the Formula of Concord, but with what right they have done this anyone who knows can see that our opponents not only recognize as such the two sole causes of Election, namely God's mercy and Christ's merit, as exclusively invoked by the Formula of Concord, but that they also add a third cause, namely, persevering faith. — Now the one who has made these and other doctrines that go against God and our Confession his own and spreads them can no longer go hand in hand with us. We cannot and must not tolerate that even pastors within our 

434 >

synod communion not only hide but also openly point to us as Calvinist seducers of souls. An end must be put to this state of affairs.……” We therefore have the duty, for many reasons, to make known to the Church and to the world without hesitation: this and only this teaching is the teaching of the Synod; we do not tolerate any other doctrine among ourselves. The general mood in our midst also urges us to decide. Already at the Pastoral Conference held in Chicago in the autumn of 1880, all those present, with the exception of a few, declared themselves convinced that only the doctrine presented and defended in our publications was in conformity with Scripture and Confession, and that therefore it alone should be valid among us. Those who raise the accusation of crypto-Calvinism against us should have long ago declared their withdrawal from the associations of our Synod. We do not want any kind of unionism. — — From this it was also explained that the fact that the Synod is now taking a firm stand on this doctrine, and that a vote is needed, is not connected with the opinion that it should first be decided by a vote among us which doctrine is right and which is wrong — which has long since been established from God's Word, and in accordance with it from our confessions. Rather, such a vote should only be our confession of right and pure doctrine, and make known to us who belongs to us and who does not. At the same time, it will also become clear which part of the synodical house must leave. Pure doctrine is better for us than the entire property of the Synod, and our faith is more dear to us than anything on earth. — After all the Synodical Presidents had been commissioned to draw up some contrasting Theses on the doctrine of the Election of Grace and to submit them to the Synod for further discussions, they reported the following day through their chairman that they could not draft new statements on the doctrine of Scripture and the Confession of the Election of Grace and considered it best not to provide anything of their own, but rather 

435 >

to recommend to the Synod that it should make those 13 Theses which are listed in Nos. 2-9 of Vol. 36 of Der Lutheraner be made an expression of their confession in the doctrine of the Election of Grace. These “Theses” contain the pure doctrine of the divine Word on the Election of Grace, as it has found expression in the Confession of our church. Briefly and succinctly, these  summarize everything that our Synod teaches on the Election of Grace. (See the 13 Theses in the previous chapter, p. 386.) The 13 Theses were then read out, and to those who feared that many members of the Synod might still want to associate a hidden meaning with them, it was expressly explained: “We do not associate with the 13 Theses at hand any other meaning than that which the wording of these Theses themselves give. The one who in reality takes these Theses as they are, is one with us in faith. We confess that in these Theses the sum total of all that we believe with regard to the eternal election of God is laid down. With this we say at the same time that we do not confess anything that is wrong with these Theses, and this is also to be found in our own publications. We know of no secret or hidden meaning in these Theses. We believe, teach and confess only what the Theses say according to their explicit wording. And this is because they contain the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures and, in accordance with them, the doctrines of our Confession. It is certainly true that we have also tolerated among us the expressions of later teachers of our church; we have therefore never declared them to be false teachers. But we have never concealed from ourselves the fact that we should rather drop the expressions of the later dogmatists, the so-called second form of teaching, and have now also dropped it, forced by painful experiences. — Anyone who reads these 13 Theses without bias must admit that they are true and nothing but the truth. This applies not only to the first Theses, but also to the latter, which contain the main part of everything that forms the concept of Election,

436 >

namely, that the eternal election of God is a cause of our salvation and everything that creates, works, helps and promotes it; thus, it is a cause of everything that serves an elect person here on earth for the final purpose of his unfailingly attaining salvation. —

After the Synod had answered yes to the question whether it was ready to vote on all sides, the question was put to the Synod:

Does the Synod recognize the doctrine of the Election of Grace, as presented in our publications, as far as it is summarized in the 13 Theses read aloud, as the doctrine of Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confession?

This question was answered by a vast majority with a joyful Yes! Only a very tiny minority (of about six votes) answered with No!

After the Synod had settled the doctrinal controversy within its area, it was emphasized that these 13 Theses were well known in the congregations and had been read many times. The members of the Synod who gathered on behalf of all the synodical congregations represent the entire synod. It is only fraud and deception if the small minority wants to pretend that they are the true Missouri Synod, but the other members as a whole are the new Missourians who are off course. After the Synod as such had made its confession, it was now up to the district president to act with the individual opponents, who now show themselves to be open enemies. As already reported in the previous section, the doctrine was again discussed in a general pastoral conference, which was held after the conclusion of this general synod; two of the previous opponents declared there that they were convinced that they were better off by agreeing with the doctrine of the Synod. Shortly before the opening of this Synod, Prof. Stellhorn had accepted a call as professor in Columbus, Ohio, and under his leadership a number of pastors 

437 >

left the Missouri Synod and went over to the Ohio Synod and formed the Northwestern District of the Ohio Synod. (See Chapter XI, p. 343.)

The Synodical Conference, which met in Chicago in October 1882 and consisted of representatives of the Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Norwegian Synods, adopted both the Declaration of the Wisconsin and Minnesota Synods, as well as the 13 Theses of the Missouri Synod as a Scriptural and symbolic confession of the doctrine of the Election of Grace, and the firm and measured attitude shown by the representatives of this doctrine both at the synodical assemblies and in their publications proved a blessing to many.

Inexperienced people could, in view of the Election of Grace Controversy [or Predestinarian Controversy], embrace the popular opinion in Germany that it is better to devote one's time and energy to missions and such good works! Even though the Missouri Lutherans have recently been portrayed in the Allgemeine Evangelisch-lutherische Kirchenzeitung as disturbers of the peace that hold back many a good thing, it is nevertheless certain that nobody can be diligent in a godly life who does not adhere with all seriousness to the pure teaching of the divine Word. Only those who know the pure Word of God and have experienced its saving power in their own hearts will be willing to participate in the building of the kingdom of God and to place themselves at the service of the Lord Jesus without compulsion. Such a cordial willingness was shown at the very same general Synod at which the Election of Grace Controversy was brought to a close by an almost unanimous confession. According to a passage in the report on the theological seminaries of the Missouri Synod “One might well think, in view of the fact that we are notorious by those who pretend to be genuinely Lutheran and quite Missouri, as people who, in the doctrine of the Election of Grace, ‘have become the old archenemies of pure Lutheran doctrine, the Calvinists,’ that our people would have gone astray from us. 

In the next Part 18, Chapter 13b.